CASES IN ART 40 FC and ABOVE

1.) Abunado vs People

Facts:
In 1967, Narcisa Arceo married Salvador Abunado. Later, Arceo left for Japan to work
there. She returned in 1992 but Abunado was nowhere to be found as he left the family
home. Arceo was able to locate Abunado but when she did, Abunado was already
cohabiting with somebody else. Further, Arceo also discovered that in 1989, Abunado
married a certain Zenaida Bias.
In January 1995, Abunado filed an annulment case against Arceo. In May 1995, Arceo
filed a bigamy case against Abunado. Both cases proceeded simultaneously and
independently in different courts.
In 1999, the marriage between Arceo and Abunado was annulled. In 2001, Abunado
was convicted by the trial court for bigamy.
Abunado now questions the judgment of conviction against him as he alleged that the
annulment case he filed against Arceo was a prejudicial question to the bigamy case
filed against him by Arceo. Hence, the proceedings in the bigamy case should have
been suspended during the pendency of the annulment case.
Issue: Is the resolution of the annulment case a requisite for the bigamy case to prosper?
Held: No. A prejudicial question has been defined as one based on a fact distinct and
separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it that it determines the guilt or
innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not
only that said case involves facts intimately related to those upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in
the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage was immaterial
because prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had already been consummated.
Under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until
declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding. In this case, even if Abunado eventually
obtained a declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio, the point is, both the first
and the second marriage were subsisting before the first marriage was annulled. In short,
all the elements of bigamy were present the nullity of the prior marriage is immaterial.

2.) Morigo vs People

Facts:

Appellant Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were boardmates at the house of Catalina
Tortor at Tagbilaran City, for a period of four years. After school year, Lucio Morigo and
Lucia Barrete lost contact with each other. In 1984, Lucio Morigo was surprised to receive
a card from Lucia Barrete from Singapore. The former replied and after an exchange of
letters, they became sweethearts. In 1986, Lucia returned to the Philippines but left again
for Canada to work there. While in Canada, they maintained constant communication. In
1990, Lucia came back to the Philippines and proposed to petition appellant to join her in
Canada. Both agreed to get married. Lucia reported back to her work in Canada leaving
appellant Lucio behind.

On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with the Ontario Court a petition for divorce against
appellant which was granted by the court. Appellant Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha
Lumbago at Tagbilaran City. Lucio filed a complaint for judicial declaration of nullity of
marriage in the Regional Trial Court of Bohol. The complaint seeks among others, the
declaration of nullity of Lucios marriage with Lucia, on the ground that no marriage
ceremony actually took place. Appellant was charged with Bigamy in information filed by
the City Prosecutor of Tagbilaran City, with the Regional Trial Court of Bohol. Lucio
Morigo moved for suspension of the arraignment on the ground that the civil case for
judicial nullification of his marriage with Lucia posed a prejudicial question in the bigamy
case. His motion was granted, but subsequently denied upon motion for reconsideration
by the prosecution. When arraigned in the bigamy case, Lucio pleaded not guilty to the
charge.

Issue: Whether or not Lucio Morigo committed bigamy even with his defense of good
faith.

Held: A judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a

subsequent one can be legally contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage
without first obtaining such judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. This principle applies
even if the earlier union is characterized by statutes as "void."

In the instant case, however, no marriage ceremony at all was performed by a duly
authorized solemnizing officer. Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete merely signed a marriage
contract on their own. The mere private act of signing a marriage contract bears no
semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no judicial declaration of nullity. Such act
alone, without more, cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid marriage for
which Lucio might be held liable for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial declaration
of nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage.

The law abhors an injustice and the Court is mandated to liberally construe a penal statute
in favor of an accused and weigh every circumstance in favor of the presumption of
innocence to ensure that justice is done. Under the circumstances of the present case,
Supreme Court held that petitioner has not committed bigamy and that it need not tarry
on the issue of the validity of his defense of good faith or lack of criminal intent, which is
now moot and academic.

3.) Weigel v. Sempio-Dy

Facts: Karl Heinz Wiegel before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Caloocan
City filed for the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Lilia Oliva Wiegel on the ground
of Lilias previously existing marriage to one Eduardo A. Maxion. Lilia, while admitting the
existence of the said prior subsisting marriage claimed that the said marriage was null
and void as she and first husband Eduardo Maxion was forced to enter the said marital
union. In the pre-trial that ensued, the issue agreed upon by both parties was the status
of the first marriage (whether the said prior marriage is void or merely voidable). Lilia
contested the validity of the pre trial order asking for respondent court for an opportunity
to present evidence.

Issue: Whether Karls marriage with Lilia is void.

Held: It was not necessary for Lilia to prove that her first marriage was vitiated with force
because it will not be void but merely voidable. Such marriage is valid until annulled. Since
no annulment has yet been made, it is clear that when she married Karl, she is still validly
married to her first husband. Consequently, her marriage to Karl is void. Likewise, there
is no need of introducing evidence on the prior marriage of Karl for then such marriage
though void still needs a judicial declaration before he can remarry. Accordingly, Karl and
Lilias marriage are regarded void under the law.

4.) Domingo vs CA

Facts: Delia Domingo, private respondent, filed a petition before RTC of Pasig for the
declaration of nullity of marriage and separation of property against Roberto Domingo,
petitioner. She alleged that they were married at Carmona, Cavite with evidences of
marriage certificate and marriage license, unknown to her, petitioner had a previous
marriage with Emerlina dela Paz which is still valid and existing. She came to know the
prior marriage when Emerlina sued them for bigamy. She prays that their marriage be
declared null and void and, as a consequence, to declare that she is the exclusive owner
of all properties she acquired during the marriage and to recover them from him. Roberto
moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the marriage being void ab initio, the
petition of declaration of nullity is unnecessary. It added that private respondent has no
property which in his possession.

Issue: Whether or not respondent may claim for the declaration of nullity of marriage and
separation of property against petitioner on the ground of bigamy.

Held: There is no question that the marriage of petitioner and private respondent
celebrated while the former's previous marriage with one Emerlina de la Paz was still
subsisting is bigamous. As such, it is from the beginning. Petitioner himself does not
dispute the absolute nullity of their marriage. The Court had ruled that no judicial decree
is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void, bigamous marriage.

The Family Code has clearly provided the effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage,
one of which is the separation of property according to the regime of property relations
governing them. It stands to reason that the lower court before whom the issue of nullity
of a first marriage is brought is likewise clothed with jurisdiction to decide the incidental
questions regarding the couple's properties.
5.) Valdes vs. RTC

Facts: Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez were married in 1971 and begotten 5
children. Valdez filed a petition in 1992 for a declaration of nullity of their marriage
pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code, which was granted hence, marriage is null and
void on the ground of their mutual psychological incapacity. Stella and Joaquin are placed
under the custody of their mother while the other 3 siblings are free to choose which they
prefer. Gomez sought a clarification of that portion in the decision regarding the procedure
for the liquidation of common property in unions without marriage. During the hearing
on the motion, the children filed a joint affidavit expressing desire to stay with their father.

Issue: Whether or not the property regime should be based on co-ownership.

Held: The Supreme Court ruled that in a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof,
the property relations of the parties are governed by the rules on co-ownership. Any
property acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained
through their joint efforts. A party who did not participate in the acquisition of the property
shall be considered as having contributed thereto jointly if said partys efforts consisted in
the care and maintenance of the family.

6.) People vs Aragon

Facts: Herein accused under the name Proceso Rosima contracted a marriage to one
Maria Gorrea in the Philippine Independent Church in Cebu while he is still married to
Maria Gorrea. Yet again, the accused now under the name of Proceso Aragon contracted
another a canonical marriage with Maria Faicol. This was put into possibility because the
accused was then a traveling sales man. When Maria Gorrea died, and seeing that the
coast was dear in Cebu, Aragon brought Faicol to Cebu from Iloilo, where she became a
teacher-nurse. Maria Faicol however, suffered injuries to her eyes because of physical
maltreatment brought to her by Aragon. Due to the injuries she was sent to Iloilo to
undergo treatment, in her absence the accused contracted a third marriage with a certain
Jesusa C. Maglasang. He then categorically denied in the court his marriage to Maria
Faicol but affirmed his marriage to Maglasang. The Court of First Instance of Cebu held
that even in the absence of an express provision in Act No. 3613 authorizing the filing of
an action for judicial declaration of nullity of a marriage void ab initio, defendant could not
legally contract marriage with Jesusa C. Maglasang without the dissolution of his
marriage to Maria Faicol, either by the death of the latter or by the judicial declaration of
the nullity of such marriage, at the instance of the latter.

Issue: Whether or not accused is guilty of bigamy?

Held: It is to be noted that the action was instituted upon complaint of the second wife,
whose marriage with the appellant was not renewed after the death of the first wife and
before the third marriage was entered into. Hence, the last marriage was a valid one and
appellant's prosecution for contracting this marriage cannot prosper. For the foregoing
considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the defendant-
appellant acquitted, with costs de oficio, without prejudice to his prosecution for having
contracted the second bigamous marriage. So ordered.

7.) Mercado vs Mercado

Facts: In April 1976, Dr. Vincent Mercado married Ma. Thelma Oliva. But in June 1991,
Mercado married a second time. He married a certain Consuelo Tan.
In October 1992, Tan filed a bigamy case against Mercado.
In November 1992, Mercado filed an action to have his first marriage with Oliva be
declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code (psychological incapacity).
In January 1993, the prosecutor filed a criminal information for bigamy against Mercado.
In May 1993, Mercados marriage with Oliva was declared void ab initio. Mercado now
sought the dismissal of the bigamy case filed against him. He contended that since his
first marriage was declared void ab initio, there was no first marriage to speak of, hence,
his second marriage with Tan was actually his first marriage.
Issue: Whether or not Mercado is correct.
Held: No. The elements of bigamy are as follows:
1. That the offender has been legally married;
2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent,
the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code;
3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage;
4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity
All the elements are present when Mercado married Tan. When he married Tan, his first
marriage was still subsisting and was not declared void. In fact, Mercado only filed an
action to declare his first marriage void after Tan filed the bigamy case. By then, the crime
of bigamy had already been consummated.
Under Article 40 of the Family Code, a judicial declaration of nullity of a void previous
marriage must be obtained before a person can marry for a subsequent time. Absent that
declaration a person who marries a second time shall be guilty of bigamy.

8.) Republic vs Nolasco

Facts: Nolasco, a seaman, first met Janet Monica Parker in a bar in England. After that,
she lived with him on his ship for 6 months. After his seaman's contract has expired, he
brought her to his hometown in San Jose, Antique. They got married in January 1982.
After the marriage celebration, he got another employment contract and left the province.
In January 1983, Nolasco received a letter from his mother that 15 days after Janet gave
birth to their son, she left. He cut short his contract to find Janet. He returned home in
November 1983. He did so by securing another contract which England is one of its port
calls. He wrote several letters to the bar where he and Janet first met, but all were returned
to him. He claimed that he inquired from his friends but they too had no news about Janet.
In 1988, Nolasco filed before the RTC of Antique a petition for the declaration of
presumptive death of his wife Janet. RTC granted the petition. The Republic through the
Solicitor-General, appealed to the CA, contending that the trial court erred in declaring
Janet presumptively dead because Nolasco had failed to show that there existed a well-
founded belief for such declaration. CA affirmed the trial court's decision.
Issue: Whether or not Nolasco has a well-founded belief that his wife is already dead.
Held: No. Nolasco failed to prove that he had complied with the third requirement under
the Article 41 of the Family Code, the existence of a "well-founded belief" that Janet is
already dead. Under Article 41, the time required for the presumption to arise has been
shortened to 4 years; however, there is a need for judicial declaration of presumptive
death to enable the spouse present to marry. However, Article 41 imposes a stricter
standard before declaring presumptive death of one spouse. It requires a "well-founded
belief" that the absentee is already dead before a petition for declaration of presumptive
death can be granted. In the case at bar, the Court found Nolasco's alleged attempt to
ascertain about Janet's whereabouts too sketchy to form the basis of a reasonable or
well-founded belief that she was already dead. Nolasco, after returning from his
employment, instead of seeking help of local authorities or of the British Embassy,
secured another contract to London. Janet's alleged refusal to give any information about
her was too convenient an excuse to justify his failure to locate her. He did not explain
why he took him 9 months to finally reached San Jose after he asked leave from his
captain. He refused to identify his friends whom he inquired from. When the Court asked
Nolasco about the returned letters, he said he had lost them. Moreover, while he was in
London, he did not even dare to solicit help of authorities to find his wife. The
circumstances of Janet's departure and Nolasco's subsequent behavior make it very
difficult to regard the claimed belief that Janet was dead a well-founded one.

9.) Lukban vs Republic

Facts: Lourdes Lukban and Francisco Chuidian got married in 1933 and after a violent
quarrel he left Lukban and has not been heard of since then. She diligently looked for him
asking the parents and friends but no one knew his whereabouts. She believes that
husband is already dead since he was absent for more than 20 years and because she
intends to marry again, she desires to have her civil status put in order to be relieved on
any liability under the law.
Issue: Whether Lukban needs to secure declaration of presumptive death before she can
remarry.
Held: The court ruled that Lukban does not need to secure declaration of presumptive
death of her husband because Civil Code prevails during their marriage in 1933. It
provides that for the purposes of the civil marriage law, it is not necessary to have the
former spouse judicially declared an absentee. The declaration of absence made in
accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code has for its sole purpose to enable the
taking of the necessary precautions for the administration of the estate of the absentee.
For the celebration of civil marriage, however, the law only requires that the former spouse
has been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage, that the
spouse present does not know his or her former spouse to be living, that each former
spouse is generally reputed to be dead and the spouse present so believes at the time of
the celebration of the marriage.

10.) Armas vs Calisterio

Facts: Teodorico Calistero died intestate, leaving several parcels of land. He

was survived by his wife, Marietta. Teodorico was the second husband of Marietta who
was previously married to William Bounds in January 1946. The latter disappeared
without a trace in February 1947. 11 years later from the disappearance of Bounds,
Marietta and Teodorico got married without Marietta securing a court declaration of
Bounds presumptive death.

Antonia Armas, surviving sister of Teodorico filed a petition claiming to be the sole
surviving heir of the latter and that the marriage between Marietta and her brother, being
allegedly bigamous is by itself null and void. She prayed that her son be appointed as
administrator of the estate of the decedent and inheritance be adjudicated to her.

Issue: WON Marietta and Teodoricos marriage was void due to the absence of
the declaration of presumptive death

Held: No. The marriage between the respondent and decedent was solemnized in 1958
where the law in force at the time was the Civil Code and not the Family Code. Article
256 of the Family Code limits its retroactive effect only to cases where it would not
prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code and other
laws. Since the Civil Code provides that declaration of presumptive death is not essential
before contracting marriage where at least 7 consecutive years of absence of the spouse
is enough to remarry, then Mariettas marriage with Teodorico is valid and therefore she
has a right to claim a portion of Teodoricos estate.

11.) Anaya vs Palaroan

Facts: Aurora Anaya and Fernando Palaroan were married in 1953. Palaroan filed an
action for annulment of the marriage in 1954 on the ground that his consent was obtained
through force and intimidation. The complaint was dismissed and upheld the validity of
the marriage and granting Auroras counterclaim. While the amount of counterclaim was
being negotiated, Fernando divulged to her that several months prior to their marriage,
he had pre-marital relationship with a close relative of his. According to her, the non-
divulgement to her of such pre-marital secret constituted fraud in obtaining her consent.
She prayed for the annulment of her marriage with Fernando on such ground.

Issue: Whether or not the concealment to a wife by her husband of his pre-marital
relationship with another woman is a ground for annulment of marriage.
Held: The concealment of a husbands pre-marital relationship with another woman was
not one of those enumerated that would constitute fraud as ground for annulment and it
is further excluded by the last paragraph providing that no other misrepresentation or
deceit as to.. chastity shall give ground for an action to annul a marriage. Hence, the
case at bar does not constitute fraud and therefore would not warrant an annulment of
marriage.

12.) Buccat vs Buccat

Facts: This issue has been raised to this superiority by the Court of First Instance of
Baguio, as only raises a question purely of law. The plaintiff met the defendant in March
1938, committed on Sept and got married on 26 November the same year. After living
together for 99 days ,Luisa gave birth to a child of nine months, in February 23, 1939.
Godofredo abandoned Luisa and did not return. In March 29, 1939 GODOFREDO
requests the annulment of marriage with Luisa Buccat Mangonon on the ground that he
was defrauded in consenting to the marriage with Luisa. She had assured him that she
was virgin but the circumstances of the birth of the child after only 99 days of cohabitation
speaks otherwise. Luisa failed to appear despite having been summoned which allowed
Godofredo to present evidence. The lower court decided in favor of Luisa in upholding
the marriage. Godofredo appealed.

Issue: Whether or not Godofredos ground is valid to be granted an annulment.

Held: The plaintiffs allegation of fraud is impossible after it has been proven that Luisa is
in advanced pregnant condition by the time they were married. It seems childish
considering that the applicant was a freshman in law. Marriage is a most sacred
institution. It is the foundation on which society rests. In this case no evidence has
satisfied the court to merit an annulment. All the intendment of the law leans towards the
validity of marriage.

13.) Aquino vs Delizo

Facts: Fernando Aquino filed a complaint in September 1955 on the ground of fraud
against Conchita Delizo that at the date of her marriage with the former on December
1954, concealed the fact that she was pregnant by another man and sometime in April
1955 or about 4 months after their marriage, gave birth to a child. During the trial,
Provincial Fiscal Jose Goco represent the state in the proceedings to prevent collusion.
Only Aquino testified and the only documentary evidence presented was the marriage
contract between the parties. Delizo did not appear nor presented any evidence. CFI-
Rizal dismissed petitioners complaint for annulment of marriage, which was affirmed by
CA thus a petition for certiorari to review the decisions.

Issue: Whether or not concealment of pregnancy as alleged by Aquino does not

constitute such fraud as would annul a marriage.
Held: The concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was
pregnant by a man other than her husband constitutes fraud and is a ground for
annulment of marriage. Delizo was allegedly to be only more than four months pregnant
at the time of her marriage. At this stage, it is hard to say that her pregnancy was readily
apparent especially since she was naturally plump or fat. It is only on the 6th month of
pregnancy that the enlargement of the womans abdomen reaches a height above the
umbilicus, making the roundness of the abdomen more general and apparent. In the
following circumstances, the court remanded the case for new trial and decision
complained is set aside.

14.) Menciano vs San Jose

Facts: Matilde Menciano filed a motion for declaration of heirs, alleging that she is the
widow of the deceased Faustino Neri San Jose, to whom she was married on September
28, 1944. Before the marriage they lived together as husband and wife, there having been
no impediment to their marriage. As a result of their cohabitation the child Carlo Magno
Neri was born, baptized and was legitimized by the subsequent matrimony of his parents.
The second child Faustino Neri, Jr., was born on April 24, 1945 is a legitimate child. Paz
Neri San Jose, then executrix of the estate of the deceased Faustino Neri San Jose, and
Rodolfo Pelaez, designated universal heir in the will of the deceased filed a motion to
question the declaration of heirs. They alleged that marriage between said deceased and
Matilde Menciano was in violation of the legal provisions and requisites, because he was
deprived of free will due to his age and sickness. Accordingly, Matilde Menciano took
advantage of his condition, by intrigue, deceit and threat of abandoning him, forced Neri
to marry her. The deceased was impotent and congenitally sterile, the same as his
brothers and sister Conchita, who had no children therefore it would have been
impossible for him to have fathered the children Defendants also filed a counterclaim for
the sum of P286, 000 in cash, and for jewels and certain properties, which, as alleged,
were retained and illegally disposed of by Matilde Menciano.

Issue: Was the marriage between the deceased Faustino Neri San Jose and Matilde
Menciano valid?

Held: The marriage of Matilde and Faustino was evidenced by a valid Marriage License
and Marriage Certificate both of which were signed by the parties and properly recorded
at the Office of the Civil Registrar. Being official and public documents, their validity can
be successfully assailed only by strong, clear, and convincing oral testimony. Faustinos
meticulous signature cannot be signed by one who is not of sound mind and of fair
physical condition. He may have been sick at that time, but not to such a degree as to
render him unconscious of what he was doing.

15.) Jimenez vs Canizares

Facts: Joel Jimenez, the petitioner, filed a petition for the annulment of his marriage with
Remedios Canizares on the ground that the orifice of her genitals or vagina was too small
to allow the penetration of a male organ for copulation. It has existed at the time of the
marriage and continues to exist that led him to leave the conjugal home two nights and
one day after the marriage. The court summoned and gave a copy to the wife but the
latter did not file any answer. The wife was ordered to submit herself to physical
examination and to file a medical certificate within 10 days. She was given another 5 days
to comply or else it will be deemed lack of interest on her part and therefore rendering
judgment in favor of the petitioner.

Issue: Whether or not the marriage can be annulled with only the testimony of the
husband.

Held: The wife who was claimed to be impotent by her husband did not avail of the
opportunity to defend herself and as such, claim cannot be convincingly be concluded. It
is a well-known fact that women in this country are shy and bashful and would not readily
and unhesitatingly submit to a physical examination unless compelled by competent
authority. Such physical examination in this case is not self-incriminating. She is not
charged with any offense and likewise is not compelled to be a witness against herself.
Impotence being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The case was
remanded to trial court.

16.) Sin vs Sin

Facts: Florence, the petitioner, was married with Philipp, a Portuguese citizen in January
1987. Florence filed in September 1994, a complaint for the declaration of nullity of their
marriage. Trial ensued and the parties presented their respective documentary and
testimonial evidence. In June 1995, trial court dismissed Florences petition and
throughout its trial, the State did not participate in the proceedings. While Fiscal Jabson
filed with the trial court a manifestation dated November 1994 stating that he found no
collusion between the parties, he did not actively participated therein. Other than having
appearance at certain hearings, nothing more was heard of him.

Issue: Whether the declaration of nullity may be declared even with the absence of the
participation of the State in the proceedings.

Held: Article 48 of the Family Code states that in all cases of annulment or declaration
of absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal
assigned to it to appear on behalf of the state to take steps to prevent collusion between
the parties and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. The trial court
should have ordered the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor-General to appear
as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General
issues a certification briefly stating his reasons for his agreement or opposition as the
case may be, to the petition. The records are bereft of an evidence that the State
participated in the prosecution of the case thus, the case is remanded for proper trial.

17.) De Ocampo vs Florenciano

Facts: Jose de Ocampo and Serafina Florenciano were married in 1938. They begot
several children who are not living with plaintiff. In March 1951, latter discovered on
several occasions that his wife was betraying his trust by maintaining illicit relations with
Jose Arcalas. Having found out, he sent the wife to Manila in June 1951 to study beauty
culture where she stayed for one year. Again plaintiff discovered that the wife was going
out with several other man other than Arcalas. In 1952, when the wife finished her studies,
she left plaintiff and since then they had lived separately. In June 1955, plaintiff surprised
his wife in the act of having illicit relations with Nelson Orzame. He signified his intention
of filing a petition for legal separation to which defendant manifested conformity provided
she is not charged with adultery in a criminal action. Accordingly, Ocampo filed a petition
for legal separation in 1955.

Issue: Whether the confession made by Florenciano constitutes the confession of

judgment disallowed by the Family Code.

Held: Florencianos admission to the investigating fiscal that she committed adultery, in
the existence of evidence of adultery other than such confession, is not the confession of
judgment disallowed by Article 48 of the Family Code. What is prohibited is a confession
of judgment, a confession done in court or through a pleading. Where there is evidence
of the adultery independent of the defendants statement agreeing to the legal separation,
the decree of separation should be granted since it would not be based on the confession
but upon the evidence presented by the plaintiff. What the law prohibits is a judgment
based exclusively on defendants confession. The petition should be granted based on
the second adultery, which has not yet prescribed.

18.) Lapuz vs Eufemio

Facts: Carmen Lapuz-Sy filed a petition for legal separation against Eufemio, married
civilly on September 21, 1934 and canonically on September 30, 1943. In 1943, her
husband abandoned her. Carmen discovered Eufemio cohabiting with a Chinese woman,
Go Hiok. Carmen prayed for the issuance of the decree of legal separation. Eufemio
amended answer to the petition and alleged affirmative. Before the trial could be
completed, petitioner died in a vehicular accident. With these respondent moved to
dismiss the petition for legal separation on two grounds; the petition was filed beyond 1-
year period and the death of petitioner abated the acted for legal separation.

Issue: Whether or not the death of plaintiff in action for legal separation before final
decree abated the action.

Held: An action for legal separation which involves nothing more than the bed-and-board
separation of the spouses is purely personal. The Civil Code of the Philippines recognizes
this in its Article 100, by allowing only the innocent spouse and no one else to claim legal
separation; and in its Article 108, by providing that the spouses can, by their reconciliation,
stop or abate the proceedings and even rescind a decree of legal separation already
rendered. Being personal in character, it follows that the death of one party to the action
causes the death of the action itself actio personalis moritur cum persona.
19.) Gandionco vs Pearanda

Facts: Teresita Gandionco, legal wife of the petitioner, Froilan Gandionco, filed with the
RTC of Misamis Oriental a complaint against petitioner for legal separation on the ground
of concubinage with a petition for support and payment of damages. Teresita also filed a
complaint for concubinage against petitioner with MTC of General Santos City. And again
for the application for the provisional remedy of support pendente lite. The respondent
Judge Pearanda ordered the payment of support pendente lite. Petitioner contends that
the civil action for legal separation and the incidents thereto should be suspended in view
of the criminal case for concubinage.

Issue: Whether or not the civil action for legal separation shall be suspended on the case
of concubinage.

Held: Petition is dismissed. A civil action for legal separation based on concubinage may
proceed ahead of or simultaneously with a criminal action for concubinage for the action
for legal separation is not to recover civil liability arising from the offense. Civil action is
not one to enforce the civil liability arising from the offense even if both the civil and
criminal actions arise from or are related to the same offense. Support pendente lite, as
a remedy, can be availed of in an action for legal separation and granted at the discretion
of the judge.

20.) Bugayong vs Ginez

Facts: Benjamin Bugayong, serviceman in the US Navy was married to defendant Leonila
Ginez in Pangasinan, while on furlough leave. After marriage, the couples live with the
sisters of the husband, before the latter left to report back to duty, the couple came to an
agreement that Leonila would stay with Benjamins sisters. Leonila left the dwelling of her
sisters-in-law which she informed her husband by letter that she had gone to reside with
her mother in Pangasinan. Early in July 1951, Benjamin receive letters from his sister
Valeriana Polangco that her wife informing him of alleged acts of infidelity. Benjamin went
to Pangasinan and sought for his wife whom he met in the house of Leonilas godmother.
They lived again as husband and wife and stayed in the house of Pedro Bugayong, cousin
of the plaintiff-husband. On the second day, he tried to verify from his wife the truth of the
information he received but instead of answering, Leonila packed up and left him which
Benjamin concluded as a confirmation of the acts of infidelity. After he tried to locate her
and upon failing he went to Ilocos Norte. Benjamin filed in CIF of Pangasinan a complaint
for legal separation against Leonila, who timely filed an answer vehemently denying the
averments of the complaint.

Issue: Whether or not the acts charged in line with the truth of allegations of the
commission of acts of infidelity amounting to adultery have been condoned by the plaintiff-
husband

Held: Granting that infidelities amounting to adultery were commited by the wife, the act
of the husband in persuading her to come along with him and the fact that she went with
him and together they slept as husband and wife deprives him as the alleged offended
spouse of any action for legal separation against the offending wife because his said
conduct comes within the restriction of Article 100 of Civil Code.

21.) Pacete vs Cariaga

Facts: Concepcion Alanis filed with the court below a complaint for the declaration of
nullity of the marriage between her erstwhile husband Enrico Pacete and one Clarita de
la Concepcion, as well as for legal separation (between Alanis and Pacete), accounting
and separation of property. In her complaint, she averred that she was married to Pacete
before the Justice of the Peace of Cotabato; that they had a child named Consuelo; that
Pacete subsequently contracted in 1948 a second marriage with Clarita de la Concepcion
in North Cotabato; that she learned of such marriage only on 1979; that during her
marriage to Pacete, the latter acquired vast property consisting of large tracts of land,
fishponds and several motor vehicles; that he fraudulently placed the several pieces of
property either in his name and Clarita or in the names of his children with Clarita and
other "dummies;" that Pacete ignored overtures for an amicable settlement; and that
reconciliation between her and Pacete was impossible since he evidently preferred to
continue living with Clarita.

Issue: Whether or not RTC of Cotabato City gravely abused its discretion in denying
petitioners' motion for extension of time to file their answer on the decree of legal
separation.

Held: Petition is granted. The special prescriptions on actions that can put the integrity of
marriage to possible jeopardy are impelled by no less than the State's interest in the
marriage relation and its avowed intention not to leave the matter within the exclusive
domain and the vagaries of the parties to alone dictate. It is clear that the petitioner did,
in fact, specifically pray for legal separation. That other remedy, whether principal or
incidental, have likewise been sought in the same action cannot dispense, nor excuse
compliance, with any of the statutory requirements aforequoted. An action for legal
separation must "in no case be tried before six months shall have elapsed since the filing
of the petition," obviously in order to provide the parties a "cooling-off" period. In this
interim, the court should take steps toward getting the parties to reconcile.

22.) Macadandang vs CA

Facts: Respondent Elizabeth Mejias is a married woman, her husband being Crispin
Anahaw. She allegedly had intercourse with petitioner Antonio Macadangdang sometime
in March, 1967. She also alleges that due to the affair, she and her husband separated
in 1967. She gave birth to a baby boy who was named Rolando Macadangdang in
baptismal rites. Respondent, then plaintiff, filed a complaint for recognition and support
against petitioner, then defendant, with the CIF of Davao. Defendant, now petitioner,
Macadangdang filed his answer, opposing plaintiff's claim and praying for its dismissal.
The lower court in a pre-trial conference, issued a Pre-trial Order formalizing certain
stipulations, admissions and factual issues on which both parties agreed.
Correspondingly, upon agreement of the parties, an amended complaint was filed by
plaintiff. In its decision rendered, the lower court dismissed the complaint. The decision
invoked positive provisions of the Civil Code and Rules of Court and authorities.

Issue: Whether or not the wife may institute an action that would bastardize her child
without giving her husband, the legally presumed father, an opportunity to be heard.

Held: SC find no merit in petitioners submission that the questioned decision had not
become final and executory since the law explicitly and clearly provides for the dissolution
and liquidation of the conjugal partnership as among the effects of the final decree of legal
separation. It also appears that her claim against petitioner is a disguised attempt to
evade the responsibility and consequence of her reckless behavior at the expense of her
husband, her illicit lover and above all her own son. For this Court to allow, much less
consent to, the bastardization of respondent's son would give rise to serious and far-
reaching consequences on society. This Court will not tolerate scheming married women
who would indulge in illicit affairs with married men and then exploit the children born
during such immoral relations by using them to collect from such moneyed paramours.
This would be the form of wrecking the stability of two families. This would be a severe
assault on morality.