Anaya vs.
Palaroan
- Non-disclosure of a husbands pre-marital
relationship is not one of those enumerated in Art. 45.
No other misrepresentation or deceit as to chastity
shall give a ground for action to annul a marriage.
Buccat vs. Buccat
- A man cannot claim lack of knowledge and allege
concealment of pregnancy as fraud if the woman is
already in an advanced pregnant condition.
Aquino vs. Delizo
- 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.
- Delizo was naturally plump.
Menciano vs. San Jose
- Impotency is the physical inability to have sexual
intercourse. The presumption is in favor of potency.
- The fact that the deceased was able to produce the
specimen as what was instructed by his doctor shows
that he was potent. The necessary conclusion is that
the child Faustino Neri, Jr., is conclusively presumed
to be the legitimate son of the deceased Faustino Neri
with Matilde Menciano in lawful wedlock.
Jimenez vs. Canizares
- The annulment cannot be decreed upon the sole
testimony of the husband who was expected to give
testimony which is aimed at securing the annulment
he seeks.
- Her refusal to be examined and failure to appear in
court show indifference on her part, yet presumption
arising out of the suppression of evidence could not
be inferred because women of this country are by
nature coy, bashful and shy and would not submit to
a physical examination unless compelled to by
competent authority.
- Impotency should not be presumed. The
presumption is always in favor of potency.
Sin vs. Sin
- 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.
Ocampo vs. Florenciano
- Collusion in legal separation means the agreement
between husband and wife as having committed, a
matrimonial offense or to suppress evidence of a valid
defense for the purpose of enabling the other to
obtain a divorce.
Lapuz vs. Eufemio
- Death of one party to the action of legal separation
causes the death of the action itself.
Gandionco vs. Penaranda
- A civil action for legal separation, based on
concubinage, may proceed ahead of, or
simultaneously with, a criminal action for
concubinage. A decree of legal separation, on the
ground of concubinage, may be issued upon proof by
preponderance of evidence in the action for legal
separation. No criminal proceeding or conviction is
necessary. (Walang prejudicial question, basically)
Bugayong vs. Ginez
- Condonation is the forgiveness of a marital offense
constituting a ground for legal separation or
conditional forgiveness or remission, by a husband
or wife of a matrimonial offense which the latter has
committed.
Pacete vs. Cariaga
- Art. 58 mandates that an action for legal separation
must in no case be tried before 6 months shall have
elapsed since the filing of the petition. Courts shall
take steps towards getting the parties to reconcile.
- The State is a party to the marriage cannot be left
alone for parties to dictate.
Macadangdang vs. Court of Appeals
- Upon finality, legal separation shall have the following
effects:
1. Spouses shall be entitled to live separately,
but the marriage bond shall be severed;
2. Conjugal properties shall be liquidated and
dissolved but the offending spouse shall have no right
to any share of the profits earned by the partnership
or community.
Ayala Investments vs. Court of Appeals
- The payment of personal debts by the husband or the
wife before or during the marriage shall not be
charged to the conjugal partnership except insofar as
they redounded to the benefit of the family.
- If the husband acted only as a surety or guarantor, that
contract cannot be categorized as falling within the
context of obligations for the benefit of the conjugal
partnership.
- Therefore, the spouses Chings conjugal properties
cannot be executed in favor of AIDC.
Agapay vs. Palang
- Article 148 of the Family Code provides that for cases
of cohabitation when parties are not capacitated to
marry each other, the properties acquired by both of
the parties through their actual joint contribution of
money, property or industry shall be owned by them
in common in proportion to their respective
contributions.
- Erlinda failed to prove that she actually contributed
money to buy the rice land.
Tamargo vs. CA
- Parental authority was still lodged with the natural
parents during the incident. Parental authority has not
been retroactively transferred to and vested on
adopting parents because it will impose a liability to
them when they had no actual custody of the child.
Libi vs. IAC
- Civil liability of parents for quasi-delict of their minor
children is primary. Responsibility shall cease if they
prove that they observed diligence of a good father of
a family to prevent damage.