Family Code

Void and Voidable Marriages
Void Marriages
— RA 386, Arts. 80-83
— E.O. 227, July 17, 1987, Sec. 2
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 4, par. 1; Arts. 35-42; Art. 44; Art. 50 & Art. 53
— A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment
of Voidable Marriages, March 4, 2003
— Victoria S. Jarillo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 164435, June 29, 2010
— Lolita D. Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps. Eulogio and Trinidad Medinaceli, G.R. No. 173614, September
28, 2007
— Orlando Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 132955, October 27, 2006
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Crasus L. Iyoy, G.R. No. 152577, September 21, 2005
— Herminia Borja-Manzano vs. Roque R Sanchez, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329, March 8, 2001
— Susan Nicdao Cariño vs. Susan Yee Cariño, G.R. No. 132529, February 2, 2001
— Ty vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127406, November 27, 2000
— Beltran vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 137567, June 20, 2000
— Sy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127263, April 12, 2000
— Armas vs. Calisterio, G.R. No. 136467, April 6, 2000
— Niñal vs. Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000
— Mariscal vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123926, July 22, 1999
— Suntay vs. Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No. 132524, December 29, 1998
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997
— Apiag vs. Cantero, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1070, February 12, 1997
— Valdes vs. RTC, Branch 102, Quezon City, G.R. No. 122749, July 31, 1996
— Santos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995
— Bienvenido vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111717, October 24, 1994
— Domingo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104818, September 17, 1993
— Cojuangco vs. Romillo, Jr, G.R. No. L-69550, November 24, 1988
— Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy, G.R. No. L-53703, August 19, 1986
— Gomez vs. Lipana, G.R. No. L-23214, June 30, 1970
— Landicho vs. Relova, G.R. No. L-22579, February 23, 1968
— Manila Surety & Fidelity Company, Inc. vs. Teodoro, G.R. No. L-20530, June 29, 1967
— Zapanta vs. Montesa, G.R. No. L-14534, February 28, 1962
— People of the Phil. vs. Aragon, G.R. No. L-10016, February 28, 1957
— Cortez vs. Brownell, Jr., G.R. No. L-7554, August 31, 1955
— People of the Phil. vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. L-5877, September 28, 1954
— In Re: Roman Ozaeta vs. Rosa Gonzales vda. de Palanca, G.R. No. L-5585, September 16, 1954
— Francisco vs. Jason, G.R. No. 39871, August 30, 1934
— Engle vs. Doe, G.R. No. 23317, August 7, 1925
— Carratala vs. Samson, G.R. No. L-18697, September 12, 1922
— Lim La vs. Quintero, G.R. No. 9063, September 18, 1915
— United States vs. Mata, G.R. No. 6300, March 2, 1911
— Sy Joc Lieng vs. Encarnacion, G.R. No. 4718, March 19, 1910
— Garcia vs. Montague, G.R. No. 4810, January 13, 1909
— Natividad Aguilar vs. Placido Lazaro, G.R. No. 1850, September 6, 1905
— DOJ Opinion No. 146, s. 1991
Absentee Spouse
— R.A. 386, Art. 83 (2) & Art. 391
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 41-44

— Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 159614, December 9, 2005
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals (Twentieth Division), et al., G.R. No. 163604, May 6,
2005
— Republic of the Philippines vs. Gloria Bermudez-Lorino, G.R. No. 160258, January 19, 2005
— Amado N. Ubongen vs. Virginia S. Ubongen, A.M. No. P-04-1780, February 18, 2004
— Navarro vs. Domagtoy, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088, July 19, 1996
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Nolasco, G.R. No. 94053, March 17, 1993
— Gue vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-14058, March 24, 1960
— In re: Lourdes G. Lukban vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-8492, February 29, 1956
Declaration of Presumptive Death of Spouse
— Santos v. Santos, G.R. No. 187061, October 8, 2014
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Robert P. Narceda, G.R. No. 182760, April 10, 2013
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Yolanda Cadacio Granada, G.R. No. 187512, June 13, 2012
— Angelita Valdez vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. 180863, September 8, 2009
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Ferventino U. Tango, G.R. No. 161062, July 31, 2009
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
— R.A. 8533
— E.O. 227, July 17, 1987, Sec. 3
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 13; Arts. 39-40; Arts. 48-54; Art. 198 & Art. 237
— A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment
of Voidable Marriages, March 4, 2003
— Yasuo Iwasawa vs. Felisa Custodio Gangan, et al., G.R. No. 204169, September 11, 2013
— Chan v. Chan, G.R. No. 179786, July 24, 2013
— Ma. Carminia C. Calderon vs. Jose Antonio F. Roxas, et al., G.R. No. 185595, January 9, 2013
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Cesar Encelan, G.R. No. 170022, January 9, 2013
— OCA vs. Liberty O. Castañeda, et al., A.M. No. RTJ-12-2316, October 9, 2012
— Office of the Court Administrator vs. Cader P. Indar, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232, April 10, 2012
— Aida R. Campos, et al. vs. Eliseo M. Campos, A.M. No. MTJ-10-1761, February 8, 2012
— Isidro Ablaza vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. 158298, August 11, 2010
— Ma. Lourdes C. de Castro vs. Crispino de Castro, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 172198, June 16, 2009
— Juan de Dios Carlos vs. Felicidad Sandoval, et al., G.R. No. 179922, December 16, 2008
— Desiree L. Page-Tenorio vs. Wilfredo C. Tenorio, et al., G.R. No. 138490, November 24, 2004
— Juanita Carating-Siayngco vs. Manuel Siayngco, G.R. No. 158896, October 27, 2004
— Restituta Leonardo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 125485, September 13, 2004
— Margie Macias Corpus vs. Wilfredo G. Ochotorena, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1861, July 30, 2004
— Alberto Lopez vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 148510, July 21, 2004
— Marietta B. Ancheta vs. Rodolfo S. Ancheta, G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004
— Republic of the Phil. vs Matias Dagdag, G.R. No. 109975, February 9, 2001
— Nicdao Cariño vs. Yee Cariño, G.R. No. 132529, February 2, 2001
— Te vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126746, November 29, 2000
— Ty vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127406, November 27, 2000
— Marcos vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000
— Cano-Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 138584, October 2, 2000
— Mercado vs. Tan, G.R. No. 137110, August 1, 2000
— Marbella-Bobis vs. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509, July 31, 2000
— Beltran vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 137567, June 20, 2000
— Sy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127263, April 12, 2000
— Niñal vs. Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000
— Suntay vs. Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No. 132524, December 29, 1998
— Tamano vs. Ortiz, G.R. No. 126603, June 29, 1998
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997
— Apiag vs. Cantero, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1070, February 12, 1997
— Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997
— Valdes vs. RTC, Branch 102, Quezon City, G.R. No. 122749, July 31, 1996
— Santos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103047, September 2, 1994
— Pacete vs. Carriaga, G.R. No. L-53880, March 17, 1994
— Domingo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104818, September 17, 1993
— Cojuangco vs. Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. L-69550, November 24, 1988
— Donato vs. Luna, G.R. No. L-53642, April 15, 1988
— Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy, G.R. No. L-53703, August 19, 1986
— Lapuz Sy vs. Eufemio, G.R. No. L-30977, January 31, 1972
— Enriquez vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 9351, January 6, 1915
— Aguilar vs. Lazaro, G.R. No. 1850, September 6, 1905
Effects of Termination of Marriage
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 43 & Arts. 50-54
— Elmer F. Cervantes vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 166755, November 18, 2005
Legal Separation
Concept
— Selanova vs. Mendoza, A.M. No. 804-CJ, May 19, 1975
Grounds
— R.A. 386, Art. 97
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 55
— Ong Eng Kiam vs. Lucita G. Ong, G.R. No. 153206, October 23, 2006
— Hernandez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126010, December 8, 1999
— Ruiz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-39257, July 23, 1976
— Tenchavez vs. Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671, July 26, 1966
— Tenchavez vs. Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671, November 29, 1965
— De Ocampo vs. Florenciano, G.R. No. L-13553, February 23, 1960
Procedure
— R.A. 7691, Sec. 1

— R.A. 1401, Sec. 1
— R.A. 386, Arts. 98-103; Art. 2035 (2) & (3)
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 57-60
— Rules of Court, Rule 18, Sec. 6; Rule 19, Sec. 1; Rule 21, Sec. 2 (b) & (c); & Rule 108, Sec. 2 (d)
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 9, Sec. 3 (e); Rule 34, Sec. 1; Rule 108, Sec. 2 (d) & Rule 141, Sec. 7
(f)
— A.M. No. 02-11-11-SC, March 4, 2003
— Rodolfo A. Espinosa, et al. vs. Julieta A. Omaña, A.C. No. 9081, October 12, 2011
— Philip S. Yu vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 154115, November 29, 2005
— Tuason vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116607, April 10, 1996
— Gandionco vs. Peñaranda, G.R. No. 79284, November 27, 1987
— Madrigal-Vasquez vs. Agrava, G.R. No. L-32219, February 25, 1982
— Somosa-Ramos vs. Vamenta Jr., G.R. No. L-34132, July 29, 1972
— Contreras vs. Macaraig, G.R. No. L-29138, May 29, 1970
— Matubis vs. Praxedes, G.R. No. L-11766, October 25, 1960
— Brown vs. Yambao, G.R. No. L-10699, October 18, 1957
— Araneta vs. Concepcion, G.R. No. L-9667, July 31, 1956
— Cabahug-Mendoza vs. Varela, G.R. No. L-5099, April 29, 1953
Defenses
— R.A. 386, Art. 100
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 56
— Matubis vs. Praxedes, G.R. No. L-11766, October 25, 1960
— Bugayong vs. Ginez, G.R. No. L-10033, December 28, 1956
Liquidation
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 63 (2)
— Aida P. Bañez vs. Gabriel B. Bañez, G.R. Nos. 132592 & 133628, January 23, 2002
Effects of Legal Separation pendente lite
— R.A. 386, Arts. 104-105
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 61-62 & Art. 198
— Lerma vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-33352, December 20, 1974
Effects of Decree of Legal Separation
— R.A. 386, Arts. 106-107; Art. 113 (1) & Art. 132 (5)
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 63-64; Art. 86 (4); Art. 99 (2); Art. 126 (2) & Art. 198
— Ledesma vs. Intestate Estate of Cipriano Pedrosa, G.R. No. 102126, March 12, 1993
— Macadangdang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-38287, October 23, 1981
— Laperal vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-18008, October 30, 1962
— Pelayo vs. Lavin Aedo, G.R. No. 15953, November 15, 1919
Effects of Reconciliation
— R.A. 386, Art. 108 & Art. 2268
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 65-67
Property Relations Between Husband and Wife
General
— R.A. 386, Arts. 118-125 & Art. 1490
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 74-81
— Edilberto U. Ventura vs. Sps. Paulino and Evangeline Abuda, G.R. No. 202932, October 23, 2013
— Juan Sevilla Salas, Jr. vs. Eden Villena Aguila, G.R. No. 202370, September 23, 2013
— Estrella Aduan Orpiano vs. Sps. Antonio and Myrna Tomas, G.R. No. 178611, January 14, 2013
— Willem Beumer vs. Avelina Amores, G.R. No. 195670, December 3, 2012
— Merope Enriquez Vda. De Catalan vs. Louella A. Catalan-Lee, G.R. No. 183622, February 8, 2012
— Lupo Atienza vs. Yolanda de Castro, G.R. No. 169698, November 29, 2006
— Josefa Bautista Ferrer vs. Sps. Manuel & Virginia Ferrer, et al., G.R. No. 166496, November 29,
2006
— Security Bank and Trust Co. vs. Mar Tierra Corp., et al., G.R. No. 143382, November 29, 2006
— Maria B. Ching vs. Joseph C. Goyanko, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 165879, November 10, 2006
Marriage Settlements
— R.A. 386, Arts. 119-125; Art. 1403 (2) (c) & Art. 1490
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 75-81 & Art. 22 (7)
— Lavadia v. Heirs of Luna, G.R. No. 171914, July 23, 2014
— Toda, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 78583-84, March 26, 1990
— Garcia vs. Manzano, G.R. No. L-8190, May 28, 1958
— Mirasol vs. Lim, G.R. No. 39389, March 16, 1934
Donations by Reason of Marriage
— R.A. 386, Arts. 126-134
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 44 & Arts. 81-87
— Romana Locquiao Valencia, et al. vs. Benito A. Locquiao, et al., G.R. No. 122134, October 3, 2003
— Cirila Arcaba vs. Erlinda Tabancura vda. de Batocael , et al., G.R. No. 146683, November 22, 2001
— Heirs of Segunda Maningding vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121157, July 31, 1997
— Navera vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-56838, April 26, 1990
— Mateo vs. Lagua, G.R. No. L-26270, October 30, 1969
— Fontanilla Pacio vs. Pacio Billo, G.R. No. L-15088, January 31, 1961
— Serrano vs. Solomon, G.R. No. L-12093, June 29, 1959
— Espique vs. Espique, G.R. No. L-8029, June 28, 1956
— Bas vs. De los Reyes vda. de Bas, G.R. No. L-2150, July 20, 1950
— Adapon vs. Maralit, G.R. No. 48144, July 31, 1943
— Garcia vs. Sañgil, G.R. No. 29593, December 29, 1928
— Solis vs. Barroso, G.R. No. 27939, October 30, 1928
— Gonzalez vs. Gonzalez Mondragon, G.R. No. 8883, October 20, 1916
— Torres de Villanueva vs. Standard Oil Company of New York, G.R. No. 9919, March 24, 1916
— Tiamson vs. Tiamson, G.R. No. 9692, October 21, 1915

— Velasquez vs. Biala, G.R. No. L-5140, January 7, 1911
Absolute Community
General
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 88-90 & Art. 84
What Constitutes Absolute Community
— R.A. 386, Art. 199 & Art. 201
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 91-93 & Art. 156
— Sps. Erlando and Joena Abrenica vs. Law Firm of Abrenica, Tungol and Tibayan, et al., G.R. No.
180572, June 18, 2012
Charges Upon and Obligations of the Absolute Community
— R.A. No. 10572, May 24, 2013
— R.A. 386, Arts. 202-205 & Art. 2238
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 94-95; Arts. 70; Art. 137, par. 2 & Arts. 197-198
— Sps. Roberto and Venus Buado vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 145222, April 24, 2009
— Lilibeth Sunga-Chan, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 164401, June 25, 2008
Ownership, Administration, Enjoyment and Disposition
— R.A. 386, Arts. 206-207
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 96-98 & Art. 61, par. 2
Dissolution
— R.A. 386, Art. 208 & Art. 210
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 63 (2); Arts. 99-101; Art. 136; Art. 138 & Art. 141 (7)
— Barrido v. Nonato, G.R. No. 176492, October 20, 2014
Liquidation
— R.A. 386, Art. 211
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 50; Art. 61, par. 2; Art. 63 (2); Arts. 102-104 & Art. 137
Conjugal Partnership of Gains
— Lim v. Equitable PCI Bank, G.R. No. 183918, January 15, 2014
— Efren Pana vs. Heirs of Jose Juanite, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 164201, December 10, 2012
— Brigido B. Quiao vs. Rita C. Quiao, et al., G.R. No. 176556, July 4, 2012
— Walter Villanueva, et al. vs. Florentino Chiong, et al., G.R. No. 159889, June 5, 2008
— Sps. Onesiforo and Rosario Alinas vs. Sps. Victor and Elena Alinas, G.R. No. 158040, April 14,
2008
— Lorea de Ugalde vs. Jon de Ysasi, G.R. No. 130623, February 29, 2008
— Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. vs. Nelson Pascual, G.R. No. 163744, February 29, 2008
— Sps. Charlito Coja vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 151153, December 10, 2007
2006
— Edgar Y. Teves, et al. vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 154182, December 17, 2004
— Pedro Bongalon vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 142441, November 10, 2004
— Josefina L. Valdez, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 140715, September 24, 2004
— Lydia Sumipat, et al. vs. Brigido Banga, et al., G.R. No. 155810, August 13, 2004
— Speed Distributing Corp., et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 149351, March 17, 2004
— Arturo R. Abalos vs. Galicano S. Macatangay, Jr., G.R. No. 155043, September 30, 2004
— Sps. Antonio and Lucy Vera Cruz vs. Lucy Calderon, G.R. No. 160748, July 14, 2004
— GSIS vs. Milagros O. Montesclaros, G.R. No. 146494, July 14, 2004
— Milagros Joaquino vs. Lourdes Reyes, et al., G.R. No. 154645, July 13, 2004
General Provisions
— R.A. 386, Arts. 142-147 & Art. 2049
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 105-108 & Art. 156
Exclusive Property of Each Spouse
— R.A. No. 10572, May 24, 2013
— R.A. 386, Arts. 148-152
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 109-115 & Art. 156
— Elenita M. Dewara vs. Sps. Ronnie and Gina Lamela, et al., G.R. No. 179010, April 11, 2011
— Sps. Felix Rio and Lita Tarrosa vs. Anita B. de Leon, et al., G.R. No. 185063, July 23, 2009
— Sps. Josephine & Henry Go vs. Leonardo Yamane, G.R. No. 160762, May 3, 2006
— Dolores Pintiano-Anno vs. Albert Ano, et al., G.R. No. 163743, January 27, 2006
— Saturnino Salera vs. A-1 Investors, G.R. No. 141238, February 15, 2002
— Diancin vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119991, November 20, 2000
— Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102330, November 25, 1998
— Villanueva vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74577, December 4, 1990
— Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Suter, G.R. No. L-25532, February 28, 1969
— Unnumbered DOJ Opinion, November 21, 1946
Conjugal Partnership Property
— R.A. 386, Arts. 153-160
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 116-120
— Tan v. Andrade, G.R. Nos. 171904 & 172017, August 7, 2013
— Leo C. Romero, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 188921, April 18, 2012
— Sps. Joe and Estrella Ros vs. PNB-Laoag Branch, G.R. No. 170166, April 6, 2011
— Ma. Darlene Dimayuga-Laurena vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 159220, September 22,
2008
2006
— Leonardo Acabal, et al. vs. Villaner Acabal, et al., G.R. No. 148376, March 31, 2005
— Rosalino P. Acance, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 159699, March 16, 2005
— Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank vs. Miguela C. Dailo, G.R. No. 153802, March 11, 2005
— J.L.T. Agro, Inc. vs. Antonio Balansag, et al., G.R. No. 141882, March 11, 2005
— Josefina C. Francisco vs. Master Iron Works & Const. Corp., et al., G.R. No. 151967, February 16,
2005
— Procopio Villanueva, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 143286, April 14, 2004
— Vicente G. Villaranda vs. Sps. Honorio and Ana Maria Y. Villaranda, et al., G.R. No. 153447,
February 23, 2004
— Alfredo Ching, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124642, February 23, 2004
— Flordeliza Calpatura Flora, et al. vs. Roberto Prado, et al., G.R. No. 156879, January 20, 2004
— Ignacia Aguilar-Reyes vs. Sps. Cipriano and Florentina Mijares, G.R. No. 143826, August 28, 2003
— Milagros Manongsong vs. Felomena Jumaquio Estimo, et al., G.R. No. 136773, June 25, 2003
— Sps. Godofredo and Carmen Alfredo vs. Sps. Armando and Adelia Borras, G.R. No. 144225, June
17, 2003
— Margarita Romualdez-Licaros vs. Abelardo B. Licaros, G.R. No. 150656, April 29, 2003
— Corazon G. Ruiz vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 146942, April 22, 2003
— Sps. Virgilio and Michelle Castro vs. Romeo V. Miat, G.R. No. 143297, February 11, 2003
— Thelma A. Jader-Manalo vs. Norma Fernandez C. Camaisa and Edilberto Camaisa, G.R. No.
147978, January 23, 2002
— Diancin vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119991, November 20, 2000
— Adriano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124118, March 27, 2000
— Cruz vs. Leis, G.R. No. 125233, March 9, 2000
— Pisueña vs. Unating, G.R. No. 132803, August 31, 1999
— Tan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120594, June 10, 1997
— Estonina vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111547, January 27, 1997
— Salvador vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109910, April 5, 1995
— Embrado vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 51457, June 27, 1994
— Belcodero vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89667, October 20, 1993
— Jovellanos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100728, June 18, 1992
— Wong vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70082, August 19, 1991
— Jocson vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-55322, February 16, 1989
— Cuenca vs. Cuenca, G.R. No. 72321, December 8, 1988
— Ascalon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 34313, March 11, 1988
— Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-57757, August 31, 1987
— Tan Queto vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-35648, February 27, 1987
— Magallon vs. Montejo, G.R. No. 73733, December 16, 1986
— Calimlim-Canullas vs. Fortun, G.R. No. 57499, June 22, 1984

— Ponce Berciles vs. GSIS, G.R. No. 57257 & A.M. Nos. 1337-Ret & 10468-CFI, March 5, 1984
— Mendoza vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-31618, August 17, 1983
— Montesa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-33632, October 23, 1982
— De Ocampo vda. de Delizo vs. Delizo, G.R. Nos. L-32820-21, January 30, 1976
— Laluan vs. Malpaya, G.R. No. L-21231, July 30, 1975
— Tangco vs. Vda. de de Borja, G.R. No. L-28040, August 18, 1972
— Balicudiong vs. Balicudiong, G.R. No. L-29603, June 7, 1971
— Ponce de Leon vs. Rehabilitation Finance Corporation, G.R. No. L-24571, December 18, 1970
— Yaptinchay vs. Torres, G.R. No. L-26462, June 9, 1969
— Associated Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. vs. Banzon, G.R. No. L-23971, November 29, 1968
— Castillo, Jr. vs. Pasco, G.R. No. L-16857, May 29, 1964
— Laperal, Jr. vs. Katigbak, G.R. No. L-16991, March 31, 1964
— Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-18148, February 28, 1963
— Vda. de Padilla vs. Paterno, G.R. No. L-8748, December 26, 1961
— Cui vs. Cui, G.R. No. L-7041, February 21, 1957
— Litam vs. Espiritu, G.R. No. L-7644-45, November 27, 1956
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Oasan vda de Fernandez, G.R. No. L-9141, September 25, 1956
— Joaquin vs. Navarro, G.R. No. L-7544, May 31, 1956
— In Re: Hofer Borromeo vs. Borromeo, G.R. No. L-6363, September 15, 1955
— Ramos Silos vs. Ramos, G.R. No. L-7546, June 30, 1955
— De Guinoo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-5541, June 25, 1955
— Rosete vs. Provincial Sheriff of Zambales, G.R. No. L-6335, July 31, 1954
— Flores vs. Escudero, G.R. No. L-5302, March 11, 1953
— Vitug vs. Montemayor, G.R. No. L-4156, May 15, 1952
— Lesaca vs. Felix vda. de Lesaca, G.R. No. L-3605, April 21, 1952
— Coingco vs. Flores, G.R. Nos. L-2147 & 2148, December 9, 1948
— Cuyugan vs. Dizon, G.R. No. L-208, August 29, 1947
— Gibbs vs. Gov't. of the Phil. Islands, G.R. No. 35694, December 23, 1933
— La Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Marcelino, G.R. No. 36806, March 1, 1933
— Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Posadas, G.R. No. 34583, October 22, 1931
— Agapito vs. Molo, G.R. No. 27120, September 28, 1927
— Dominado vs. Derayunan, G.R. No. 25594, October 18, 1926
— PNB vs. Quintos, G.R. No. L-22383, October 6, 1924
— Uy Coque vs. Sioca, G.R. No. 20392, November 20, 1923
— Staples-Howe Printing Co. vs. Manila Building and Loan Association, G.R. No. 11994, March 14,
1917
— Gefes vs. Salvio, G.R. No. 11387, February 7, 1917
— Javier vs. Osmeña, G.R. No. 9984, March 23, 1916
— Casiano vs. Samaniego, G.R. No. 8919, March 19, 1915
— Viloria vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 8938, October 24, 1914
— Tabotabo vs. Molero, G.R. No. 6886, March 29, 1912
— Rojas vs. Singson Tongson, G.R. No. L-5521, December 10, 1910
— Marigsa vs. Macabuntoc, G.R. No. L-4883, September 27, 1910
— Palanca vs. Smith, G.R. No. L-3695, October 16, 1907
— Lim vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-2904, January 11, 1907
— Alfonso vs. Natividad, G.R. No. 2518, April 30, 1906
Charges Upon and Obligations of the Conjugal Partnership
— R.A. No. 10572, May 24, 2013
— R.A. 386, Arts. 111 & Arts. 161-164
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 121-123; Art. 137 & Arts. 197-198
— Pua v. Spouses Lo Bun Tiong, G.R. No. 198660, October 23, 2013
— Cleodia U. Francisco, et al. vs. Sps. Jorge and Purificacion Gonzales, et al., G.R. No. 177667,
September 17, 2008
— Rodolfo de Leon vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 138884, June 10, 2002
— Honorio L. Carlos vs. Manuel T. Abelardo, G.R. No. 146504, April 9, 2002
— Naguit vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137675, December 5, 2000
— Purita Alipio vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 134100, September 29, 2000
— Ayala Investment & Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118305, February 12,
1998
— Phil. Bank of Communications vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106858, September 5, 1997
— Johnson & Johnson (Phils.) vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102692, September 23, 1996
— Wong vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70082, August 19, 1991
— Ting vs. Villarin, G.R. No. 61754, August 17, 1989
— Mariano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 51283, June 7, 1989
— Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Adil, G.R. No. L-48889, May 11, 1989
— Marmont Resort Hotel vs. Guiang, G.R. No. 79734, December 8, 1988
— BA Finance Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-61464, May 28, 1988
— G-Tractors, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 57402, February 28, 1985
— Vda. de Sta. Romana vs. Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank, G.R. No. L-56479, November
15, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Lagrimas, G.R. No. L-25355, August 28, 1969
— Garcia vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-25790, September 27, 1968
— Cobb-Perez vs. Lantin, G.R. No. L-22320, May 22, 1968
— Lacson vs. Diaz, G.R. No. L-19346, May 31, 1965
— Laperal, Jr. vs. Katigbak, G.R. No. L-11418, December 27, 1958
— Philippine Bank of Commerce vs. Santos, G.R. No. L-8315, March 18, 1957
— In re: Recto vs. De Harden, G.R. No. L-6897, November 29, 1956
— In re: Vda. de Padilla vs. Vda. de Padilla, G.R. No. 48137, October 4, 1943
— Calma vs. Tañedo, G.R. No. 44602, November 28, 1938
— Fidelity and Surety Co. of the Phil. vs. Ansaldo, G.R. No. 44774, November 26, 1938
— Peoples Bank & Trust Co. vs. Olondriz, G.R. No. 45046, November 23, 1938
— Abella de Diaz vs. Erlanger & Galinger, Inc., G.R. No. 38052, December 23, 1933
— Sinforoso vs. De Gala, G.R. No. 37756, November 28, 1933
— La Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas vs. Marcelino, G.R. No. 36806, March 1, 1933
— Saavedra vs. Ybañez Estrada, G.R. No. 33795, September 4, 1931
— Rosales de Echaus vs. Gan, G.R. No. 32906, December 29, 1930
— Romero de Pratts vs. Menzi & Co., G.R. No. 30020, March 23, 1929
— Sumulong vs. Cembrano, G.R. No. 27879, March 15, 1928
— PNB vs. Quintos, G.R. No. L-22383, October 6, 1924
— Santos vs. Bartolome, G.R. No. 18032, November 23, 1922
— Madrigal vs. Rafferty, G.R. No. 12287, August 7, 1918
— Staples-Howe Printing Company vs. Manila Building and Loan Association, G.R. No. 11994,
March 14, 1917
— Nable Jose vs. Nable Jose, G.R. No. 7397, December 11, 1916
— Javier vs. Osmeña, G.R. No. 9984, March 23, 1916
— Macke vs. Rubert, G.R. No. 4532, October 22, 1908
— Joaquin vs. Avellana, G.R. No. 4585, September 8, 1908
Administration
— R.A. 386, Arts. 165-174 & Art. 2238
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 124-125 & Art. 61, par. 2
— Arturo Sarte Flores vs. Sps. Enrico, Jr. and Edna Lindo, G.R. No. 183984, April 13, 2011
— Mario Siochi vs. Alfredo Gozon, et al., G.R. Nos. 169900 & 169977, March 18, 2010
— Sps. Renato and Florinda dela Cruz vs. Sps. Gil and Leonila Segovia, G.R. No. 149801, June 26,
2008
— Imelda Relucio vs. Angelina Mejia Lopez, G.R. No. 138497, January 16, 2002
— Antonio Docena, et al. vs. Ricardo P. Lapesura, et al., G.R. No. 140153, March 28, 2001
— Rosa Yap Paras, et al. vs. Ismael O. Baldado, G.R. No. 140713, March 8, 2001
— Uy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109557, November 29, 2000
— Ayuste vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118784, September 2, 1999
— Guiang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125172, June 26, 1998
— Sabalones vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106169, February 14, 1994
— Opena vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96227, February 1, 1993
— Roxas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92245, June 26, 1991
— Philippine National Bank vs. Devaras, G.R. No. L-69269, March 14, 1990
— Costuna vs. Domondon, G.R. No. 82753, December 19, 1989
— Ting vs. Villarin, G.R. No. 61754, August 17, 1989
— Development Bank of the Philippines vs. Adil, G.R. No. L-48889, May 11, 1989
— Felipe vs. Heirs of Maximo Aldon, G.R. No. L-60174, February 16, 1983
— Tinitigan vs. Tinitigan Sr., G.R. No. L-45418, October 30, 1980
— Cabaliw vs. Sadorra, G.R. No. L-25650, June 11, 1975
— Villocino vs. Doyon, G.R. No. L-28871, April 25, 1975
— Yturralde vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-31586, February 28, 1972
— Ysasi vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-28593, June 25, 1968
— Cobb-Perez vs. Lantin, G.R. No. L-22320, May 22, 1968
— Bucoy vs. Paulino, G.R. No. L-25775, April 26, 1968
— Cuison vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. L-11764, January 31, 1959
— Atilano vs. Chua Ching Beng, G.R. No. L-11086, March 29, 1958
— Liguez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-11240, December 18, 1957
— Tabunan vs. Marigmen, G.R. No. L-9727, April 29, 1957
— Corpuz vs. Geronimo, G.R. No. L-6786, March 21, 1956
— Hofer Borromeo vs. Borromeo, G.R. No. L-7548, February 27, 1956
— Tang Ho vs. Board of Tax Appeals, G.R. No. L-5949, November 19, 1955
— Corpuz vs. Corpuz, G.R. No. L-7495, September 30, 1955
— Ramos Silos vs. Ramos, G.R. No. L-7546, June 30, 1955
— Madamba vda. de Adiarte vs. Tumaneng, G.R. No. L-3031, March 15, 1951
— Peyer vs. Martinez, G.R. No. L-3500, January 12, 1951
— Harden vs. Peña, G.R. No. L-1499, November 21, 1950
— Anteojo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-2306, October 14, 1950
— Paz vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 49013, October 1, 1943

— De Luna vs. Linatoc, G.R. No. 48403, October 28, 1942
— Pamittan vs. Lasam, G.R. No. 41056, November 14, 1934
— Philippine Trust Co. vs. Macuan, G.R. No. 32280, March 24, 1930
— Baello vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 30873, January 13, 1930
— Aenlle vs. Bertrand Rheims, G.R. No. 29168, December 29, 1928
— Pelaez vs. Butao, G.R. No. 29506, December 11, 1928
— Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co. vs. Poizat, G.R. No. 23352, December 31, 1926
— Prades vs. Tecson, G.R. No. 25279, August 19, 1926
— Prado vs. Natividad, G.R. No. 23235, August 27, 1925
— Lim Liin Uan vs. Laag, G.R. No. 22538, November 8, 1924
— Borja vs. Addison, G.R. No. 18010, June 21, 1922
— De la Viña vs. Villareal, G.R. No. 13982, July 31, 1920
— Manuel vs. Losano, G.R. No. 12065, July 2, 1918
— Coronel vs. Ona, G.R. No. 10280, February 7, 1916
— Falcon vs. Manzano, G.R. No. 5054, March 15, 1910
— Gavieres vs. Administrators of Luis Pena, G.R. No. 4992, April 2, 1909
— In re: Manuela Amancio Tomas vs. Pardo, G.R. No. 5008, March 25, 1909
— Roco vs. Villar, G.R. No. 2260, January 19, 1906
Dissolution
— R.A. 386, Arts. 175-178
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 63 (2); Arts. 126-128; Art. 136; Art. 138 & Art. 141 (7)
— Amparo Robles Cabreza vs. Ceferino S. Cabreza, Jr. et al., G.R. No. 171260, September 11, 2009
— Marywin Albano-Sales vs. Reynolan T. Sales, et al., G.R. No. 174803, July 13, 2009
— Aida P. Bañez vs. Gabriel B. Bañez, G.R. Nos. 132592 & 133628, January 23, 2002
— Cristina C. Quinsay vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127058, August 31, 2000
— Ventura vs. Militante, G.R. No. 63145, October 5, 1999
— Partosa-Jo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82606, December 18, 1992
— Lichauco de Leon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80965, June 6, 1990
— Garcia vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 48184, March 12, 1990
— Dael vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68873, March 31, 1989
— Reyes van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985
— Albano vs. Gapusan, A.M. No. 1022-MJ, May 7, 1976
— In re: Jose Bermas, Sr., G.R. No. L-20379, June 22, 1965
— Porciuncula vs. Adamos, G.R. Nos. L-11519 & L-11520, April 30, 1958
— Hofer Borromeo vs. Borromeo, G.R. No. L-7548, February 27, 1956
— Ocampo vs. Potenciano, G.R. No. L-2263, May 30, 1951
— Commonwealth of the Phil. vs. Sandiko, G.R. No. 47686, June 10, 1941
— Dolar vs. Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro, G.R. No. 46521, October 14, 1939
— Reynoso vs. Tolentino, G.R. No. 46078, May 25, 1939
— Del Rosario vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 45761, April 28, 1939
— De Gala vs. De Gala, G.R. No. 40322, August 10, 1934
— Caragay vs. Urquiza, G.R. No. 30074, March 25, 1929
— Cruz vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. 30491, March 2, 1929
— Mendoza vs. Paruñgao, G.R. No. 26231, August 27, 1926
— Patricio vs. Patricio, G.R. No. 24314, February 19, 1926
— Fermin vs. Pase Carlos, G.R. No. 24125, December 5, 1925
— Flores vs. Flores, G.R. No. 24173, November 24, 1925
— Guinguing vs. Abuton, G.R. No. 23035, October 13, 1925
— Rodriguez vs. Borromeo, G.R. No. L-17772, June 9, 1922
— Molera vs. Molera, G.R. No. 14369, December 9, 1919
— Coronel vs. Ona, G.R. No. 10280, February 7, 1916
— Zaide vs. Concepcion, G.R. No. 10860, December 3, 1915
— Sochayseng vs. Trujillo, G.R. No. 8926, July 24, 1915
— Sison vs. Ambalada, G.R. No. 9943, March 18, 1915
— Benedicto de la Rama vs. De la Rama, G.R. No. 7476, October 9, 1913
— Sarita vs. Candia, G.R. No. 7768, November 14, 1912
— Fulgencio vs. Gatchalian, G.R. No. 5772, January 23, 1912
— Marigsa vs. Macabuntoc, G.R. No. L-4883, September 27, 1910
— Montemayor vs. Cunanan, G.R. No. 5503, November 16, 1909
— In re: Manuela Amancio Tomas vs. Pardo, G.R. No. 5008, March 25, 1909
— Prado vs. Lagera, G.R. No. L-3216, January 26, 1907
Liquidation
— R.A. 386, Arts. 179-189
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 50, par. 3; Art. 63 (2); Arts. 129-133 & Art. 137
— Pacific Ace Finance Ltd. (PAFIN) vs. Eiji Yanagisawa, G.R. No. 175303, April 11, 2012
— Antonia R. dela Peña, et al. vs. Gemma Remilyn C. Avila, et al., G.R. No. 187490, February 8,
2012
— Ceferino S. Cabreza, Jr., et al. vs. Amparo Robles Cabreza, G.R. No. 181962, January 16, 2012
— Heirs of Sps. Protacio, Sr. and Marta Go vs. Ester L. Servacio, et al., G.R. No. 157537, September
7, 2011
— Cristina C. Quinsay vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127058, August 31, 2000
— Pagkatipunan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70722, July 3, 1991
— Garcia vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 48184, March 12, 1990
— Garcia vs. Orozco, G.R. No. L-35213, August 31, 1978
— Villocino vs. Doyon, G.R. No. L-28871, April 25, 1975
— Porciuncula vs. Adamos, G.R. Nos. L-11519 & L-11520, April 30, 1958
— Ocampo vs. Potenciano, G.R. No. L-2263, May 30, 1951
— Commonwealth of the Phil. vs. Sandiko, G.R. No. 47686, June 10, 1941
— Dolar vs. Roman Catholic Bishop of Jaro, G.R. No. 46521, October 14, 1939
— Del Rosario vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 45761, April 28, 1939
— De Gala vs. De Gala, G.R. No. 40322, August 10, 1934
— Caragay vs. Urquiza, G.R. No. 30074, March 25, 1929
— Cruz vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. 30491, March 2, 1929
— Prades vs. Tecson, G.R. No. 25279, August 19, 1926
— Patricio vs. Patricio, G.R. No. 24314, February 19, 1926
— Fermin vs. Pase Carlos, G.R. No. 24125, December 5, 1925
— Flores vs. Flores, G.R. No. 24173, November 24, 1925

— Prado vs. Natividad, G.R. No. 23235, August 27, 1925
— Rodriguez vs. Borromeo, G.R. No. L-17772, June 9, 1922
— Molera vs. Molera, G.R. No. 14369, December 9, 1919
— Zaide vs. Concepcion, G.R. No. 10860, December 3, 1915
— Sochayseng vs. Trujillo, G.R. No. 8926, July 24, 1915
— Sison vs. Ambalada, G.R. No. 9943, March 18, 1915
— Benedicto de la Rama vs. De la Rama, G.R. No. 7476, October 9, 1913
— Sarita vs. Candia, G.R. No. 7768, November 14, 1912
— Rojas vs. Singson Tongson, G.R. No. L-5521, December 10, 1910
— Enriquez vs. Victoria, G.R. No. L-3502, January 25, 1908
— Prado vs. Lagera, G.R. No. L-3216, January 26, 1907
Separation of Property of the Spouses and Administration of Common Property by One Spouse During
the Marriage
— R.A. 386, Arts. 190-197
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 134-142; Art. 89; Art. 99 (4) & Art. 126 (4)
— Agapay vs. Palang, G.R. No. 116668, July 28, 1997
— Lichauco de Leon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80965, June 6, 1990
— Lacson vs. San Jose-Lacson, G.R. No. L-23482, August 30, 1968
— De la Cruz vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No. L-19565, January 30, 1968
— Atienza vs. N. Almeda Lopez, G.R. No. L-18327, August 24, 1962
— Cabahug-Mendoza vs. Varela, G.R. No. L-5099, April 29, 1953
— De Luna vs. Linatoc, G.R. No. 48403, October 28, 1942
— Hartske vs. Frankel, G.R. No. 31287, December 27, 1929
— Palomar Baldovi vs. Sarte, G.R. No. 11767, March 27, 1917
— Quintana vs. Lerma, G.R. No. 7426, February 5, 1913
Regime of Separation of Property
— R.A. 386, Arts. 212-215; Art. 1490 & Art. 113 (3)
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 143-146
— Noveras v. Noveras, G.R. No. 188289, August 20, 2014
— Virgilio Maquilan vs. Dita Maquilan, G.R. No. 155409, June 8, 2007
— Lincoln L. Yao vs. Norma C. Perello, et al., G.R. No. 153828, October 24, 2003
Property Regime of Unions Without Marriage
— R.A. 386, Art. 144
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 147-148
— Sally Go-Bangayan vs. Benjamin Bangayan, Jr., G.R. No. 201061, July 3, 2013
— Alain M. Diño vs. Ma. Caridad L. Diño, G.R. No. 178044, January 19, 2011
— Beatriz Acre, et al. vs. Evangeline Yuttikki, G.R. No. 153029, September 27, 2007
— Lupo Atienza vs. Yolanda de Castro, G.R. No. 169698, November 29, 2006
— John Abing vs. Juliet Waeyan, G.R. No. 146294, July 31, 2006
— Mary Grace M. Veneracion, et al. vs. Charlie Mancilla, et al., G.R. No. 158238, July 20, 2006
— Francisco L. Gonzales vs. Erminda F. Gonzales, G.R. No. 159521, December 16, 2005
— Zenaida F. Dapar vs. Gloria Lozano Biascan, et al., G.R. No. 141880, September 27, 2004
— Jacinto Saguid vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 150611, June 10, 2003
— Nicdao Cariño vs. Yee Cariño, G.R. No. 132529, February 2, 2001
— Mallilin vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 136803, June 16, 2000
— Tumlos vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 137650, April 12, 2000
— Adriano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124118, March 27, 2000
— Cruz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120122, November 6, 1997
— Uy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102726, May 27, 1994
— Belcodero vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89667, October 20, 1993
— Maxey vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45870, May 11, 1984
— Juaniza vs. Jose, G.R. Nos. L-50127-28, March 30, 1979
— Matabuena vs. Cervantes, G.R. No. L-28771, March 31, 1971
— Yaptinchay vs. Torres, G.R. No. L-26462, June 9, 1969
— Manila Surety & Fidelity Company, Inc. vs. Teodoro, G.R. No. L-20530, June 29, 1967
— Novino vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-21098, May 31, 1963
— In re: Edward E. Christensen vs. Christensen Garcia, G.R. Nos. L-11483-84, February 14, 1958
— Maloping vs. Coba, G.R. No. L-9484, October 31, 1956
— Joaquin vs. Navarro, G.R. No. L-7544, May 31, 1956
— De Leon vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 27738, March 13, 1928
Paraphernal Property (Under the Civil Code)
— R.A. 386, Art. 111; Art. 113 (6); Arts. 135-141; Art. 159 & Art. 1647
— Concerned Employee vs. Glenda Espiritu Mayor, A.M. No. P-02-1564, November 23, 2004
— Pedro Bongalon vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 142441, November 10, 2004
— Pisueña vs. Unating, G.R. No. 132803, August 31, 1999
— Almendra vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 75111, November 21, 1991
— Maramba vs. De Lozano, G.R. No. L-21533, June 29, 1967
— Alvarez vs. Espiritu, G.R. No. L-18833, August 14, 1965
— Plata vs. Yatco, G.R. No. L-20825, December 28, 1964
— Castillo, Jr. vs. Pasco, G.R. No. L-16857, May 29, 1964
— Peñara vs. Register of Deeds of Rizal, G.R. No. L-18976, February 29, 1964
— Mata de Stuart vs. Yatco, G.R. No. L-16467, April 27, 1962
— Laperal, Jr. vs. Katigbak, G.R. No. L-16951, February 28, 1962
— Vda. de Padilla vs. Paterno, G.R. No. L-8748, December 26, 1961
— Caltex (Phil.) Inc. vs. Felias, G.R. No. L-14309, June 30, 1960
— Saclolo vs. Court of Agrarian Relations, G.R. No. L-13274, January 30, 1960
— Laperal, Jr. vs. Katigbak, G.R. No. L-11418, December 27, 1958
— Jose de Villabona vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-10799, April 28, 1958
— Rosete vs. Provincial Sheriff of Zambales, G.R. No. L-6335, July 31, 1954
— De Padilla vs. Paterno, G.R. No. L-4130, September 30, 1953
— De Mora vs. La Insular Cigar and Cigarette Factory, Inc., G.R. No. L-5021, July 31, 1953
— People Bank and Trust Co. vs. Register of Deeds for the City of Manila, G.R. No. 41278, May 5,
1934
— Mirasol vs. Lim, G.R. No. 39389, March 16, 1934
— Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Posadas, G.R. No. 34583, October 22, 1931
— Papa vs. Montenegro, G.R. No. 31384, January 30, 1930
— Ossorio vs. Posadas, G.R. No. 31088, December 3, 1929
— Samson vs. Carratala, G.R. No. 27143, September 10, 1927

— Philippine Sugar Estates Development Co. vs. Poizat, G.R. No. 23352, December 31, 1926
— Carratala vs. Samson, G.R. No. L-18697, September 12, 1922
— Mercado vs. Tan-Lingco, G.R. No. 10374, August 18, 1916
— Jacinto vs. Salvador, G.R. No. 6651, March 28, 1912
— Fulgencio vs. Gatchalian, G.R. No. 5772, January 23, 1912
— Castillo vs. Castillo, G.R. No. L-5648, December 17, 1910
— Quison vs. Salud, G.R. No. 4314, November 21, 1908
— Alvaran vs. Marquez, G.R. No. 4465, September 10, 1908
— Casalla vs. Enage, G.R. No. 2420, September 24, 1906
Rights and Obligations Between Husband and Wife
— R.A. 386, Art. 15; Arts. 109-117; Art. 753 & Art. 2035 (4)
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 68-73; Art. 101; Art. 128 & Art. 198
— Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, November 7, 1967, Art. 6 (2)
(b)
— International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 16, 1966, Art. 23 (4)
— People v. Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014
— Ilusorio vs. Bildner, G.R. Nos. 139789 & 139808, May 12, 2000
— Republic vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997
— Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997
— Canonizado vs. Ordonez Benitez, G.R. Nos. L-49315 and 60966, February 20, 1984
— Gumba vs. Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Camarines Sur, G.R. No. L-54097,
September 30, 1981
— Reyes vs. Ines-Luciano, G.R. No. L-48219, February 28, 1978
— Wainright Versoza vs. Versoza, G.R. No. L-25609, November 27, 1968
— Velayo vs. Velayo, G.R. No. L-23538, July 21, 1967
— Ramirez-Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno, G.R. No. L-20043, November 28, 1964

— Atienza vs. N. Almeda Lopez, G.R. No. L-18327, August 24, 1962
— De la Cruz de Beronilla vs. Martinez, G.R. No. L-8753, July 24, 1956
— Veloso de Olayvar vs. Olayvar, G.R. No. L-8088, November 29, 1955
— Javier vs. Lucero, G.R. No. L-6706, March 29, 1954
— Ching Huat vs. Co Heong, G.R. No. L-1211, January 30, 1947
— Fanlo de Peyer vs. Peyer, G.R. No. L-145, September 7, 1946
— Dadivas de Villanueva vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 29959, December 3, 1929
— Garcia vs. Santiago, G.R. No. 28904, December 29, 1928
— Afife Abdo Cheyban Gorayeb vs. Nadjib Tannus Hashim, G.R. No. 22125, December 22, 1924
— Hashim vs. Concepcion, G.R. No. 18381, January 12, 1922
— Arroyo vs. Vazquez de Arroyo, G.R. No. 17014, August 11, 1921
— Goitia vs. Campos Rueda, G.R. No. 11263, November 2, 1916
— Soto vs. Ong, G.R. No. 10121, February 3, 1916
— United States vs. Serrano, G.R. No. 9772, October 16, 1914
— Yañez de Barnuevo vs. Fuster, G.R. No. 7487, December 29, 1913
— Pelayo vs. Lauron, G.R. No. 4089, January 12, 1909
— Lanzuela Santos vs. Sweeney, G.R. No. 1806, April 22, 1904
— Yangco vs. Rohde, G.R. No. 996, October 13, 1902
Summary Judicial Proceedings in the Family Law
Separation in Fact Between Husband and Wife
— R.A. 386, Art. 113 (2)
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 238-248; Art. 100; Art. 127 & Art. 135 (6)
— Rules of Court, Rule 3, Sec. 4 (b)
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Robert P. Narceda, G.R. No. 182760, April 10, 2013

— Garcia vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-25790, September 27, 1968
— Salazar vs. Ortizano, G.R. No. L-20480, April 29, 1966
— Dadivas de Villanueva vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 29959, December 3, 1929
— Garcia vs. Santiago, G.R. No. 28904, December 29, 1928
— Arroyo vs. Vazquez de Arroyo, G.R. No. 17014, August 11, 1921
Other Actions Relating to Marriage
Bigamy/Subsequent Marriage/Illegal Marriage
— Act 3815, Arts. 349-352 & Art. 171, last par.
— Vda. de Avenido v. Avenido, G.R. No. 173540, January 22, 2014
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo V. Odtuhan, G.R. No. 191566, July 17, 2013
— James Walter P. Capili vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013
— Merlinda Cipriano Montañez vs. Lourdes Tajolosa Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, October 22, 2012
— Manuel G. Villatuya vs. Bede S. Tabalingcos. A.C. No. 6622, July 10, 2012
— Benjamin B. Bangayan, Jr. vs. Sally Go Bangayan, G.R. Nos. 172777 & 172792, October 19, 2011
— Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 191425, September 7, 2011
— Cenon R. Teves vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 188775, August 24, 2011
— Myrna P. Antone vs. Leo R. Beronilla, G.R. No. 183824, December 8, 2010
— Ma. Christina Torrres Braza, et al. vs. City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, et al., G.R. No.
181174, December 4, 2009
— Eduardo P. Manuel vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 165842, November 29, 2005
— Felipe L. Melchor vs. Gerty R. Gironella, G.R. No. 151138, February 16, 2005
— Eduardo P. Diego vs. Silverio Q. Castillo, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1673, August 11, 2004
— Giorgio Ratti vs. Lucila Mendoza-de Castro, A.M. No. P-04-1844, July 23, 2004
— Salvador S. Abunado, et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 159218, March 30, 2004
— Florence Teves Macarrubo vs. Edmundo L. Macarrubo, A.C. No. 6148, February 27, 2004
— Jovita Bustamante-Alejandro vs. Warfredo Tomas Alejandro, et al., A.C. No. 4256, February 13,
2004
— Lucio C. Morigo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 145226, February 6, 2004
— Alejandro Estrada vs. Soledad S. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003
— Alfred Fritz Frenzel vs. Ederlina P. Catito, G.R. No. 143958, July 11, 2003
— Willy Tan vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 148194, April 12, 2002
— Te vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126746, November 29, 2000
— Abrajano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120787, October 13, 2000
— Mercado vs. Tan, G.R. No. 137110, August 1, 2000
— Imelda Marbella-Bobis vs. Isagani D. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509, July 31, 2000
— Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119063, January 27, 1997
— Sermonia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109454, June 14, 1994
— Agulto vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 52728, January 17, 1990
— Donato vs. Luna, G.R. No. L-53642, April 15, 1988
— De la Cruz vs. Ejercito, G.R. No. L-40895, November 6, 1975
— People of the Phil. vs. Nepomuceno, G.R. No. L-40624, June 27, 1975
— Ganchero vs. Bellosillo, G.R. No. L-26340, June 30, 1969
— Zapanta vs. Montesa, G.R. No. L-14534, February 28, 1962
— People of the Phil. vs. Archilla, G.R. No. L-15632, February 28, 1961
— Merced vs. Diez, G.R. No. L-15315, August 26, 1960
— People of the Phil. vs. Bustamante, G.R. No. 11598, January 27, 1959
— People of the Phil. vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. L-5877, September 28, 1954
— People of the Phil. vs. Schneckenburger, G.R. No. 48183, November 10, 1941
— People of the Phil. vs. Concepcion, G.R. No. 34539, December 20, 1930
— People of the Phil. vs. Santiago, G.R. No. 27972, October 31, 1927
— People of the Phil. vs. Rosal, G.R. No. 25706, November 2, 1926
— United States vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 12718, July 28, 1917
— United States vs. Gimenez, G.R. No. 11262, March 2, 1916
— United States vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 10533, November 11, 1915
— United States vs. Evangelista, G.R. No. 9841, January 9, 1915
— United States vs. De Vera, G.R. No. 9754, September 29, 1914
— United States vs. Joanino, G.R. No. 9762, August 3, 1914
— United States vs. Ramos Calubaquib, G.R. No. 8973, December 11, 1913
— United States vs. San Juan, G.R. No. 8502, October 10, 1913
— United States vs. Biasbas, G.R. No. 8381, August 14, 1913
— United States vs. Lomongsod, G.R. No. 6858, February 15, 1912
— United States vs. Gaoiran, G.R. No. L-5982, November 28, 1910
— United States vs. San Jose, G.R. No. 4980, January 10, 1910
— United States vs. Ibañez, G.R. No. 5184, August 17, 1909
— United States vs. Arceo, G.R. No. 4539, October 28, 1908
— United States vs. Sunga, G.R. No. 4438, March 7, 1908
— United States vs. San Luis, G.R. No. L-4139, February 18, 1908
— United States vs. Macleod, G.R. No. 1601, March 28, 1904
— United States vs. De los Reyes, G.R. No. 504, September 16, 1902
— United States vs. Isla, G.R. No. 589, August 20, 1902
— United States vs. Peñalosa, et al., G.R. No. 424, January 27, 1902
— Unnumbered DOJ Opinion, August 18, 1967
Simulation of Marriage
— United States vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. 9405, December 24, 1914
Violations of Marriage Law

— People of the Phil. vs. Fabillar, G.R. Nos. 46553-46555, September 27, 1939
Breach of Promise to Marry
— R.A. 386, Art. 1403 (2) (c)
— Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993
— Bunag, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101749, July 10, 1992
— In re: Almirez vs. Lopez, Adm. Case No. 481, February 28, 1969
— Tanjanco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-18630, December 17, 1966
— Galang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-17248, January 29, 1962
— Estopa vs. Piansay, Jr., G.R. No. L-14733, September 30, 1960
— Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-14628, September 30, 1960
— Cabague vs. Auxilio, G.R. No. L-5028, November 26, 1952
— Atienza vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 47966, Junio 28, 1941
— Domalagan vs. Bolifer, G.R. No. 8166, February 8, 1916
— Garcia vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 7798, January 14, 1916
— Dalistan vs. Armas, G.R. No. 9362, December 24, 1915
— Inson vs. Belzunce, G.R. No. 8873, November 29, 1915
— United States vs. Limcangco, G.R. No. L-3766, October 18, 1907
— Batarra vs. Marcos, G.R. No. L-2929, December 7, 1906
— Fidelino vs. Legarda, G.R. No. 1770, March 16, 1905
Divorce
Divorce (Act 2710)
— Act No. 2710
— Felicitas Amor-Catalan vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 167109, February 6, 2007
— Edgar San Luis vs. Felicidad San Luis, G.R. Nos. 133743 & 134029, February 6, 2007
— Arca vs. Javier, G.R. No. L-6768, July 31, 1954
— Sikat vs. Canson, G.R. No. 45152, April 10, 1939
— Juarez vs. Turon, G.R. No. 28643, March 19, 1928
— Francisco vs. Tayao, G.R. No. 26435, March 4, 1927

— Gercio vs. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada, G.R. No. 23703, September 28, 1925
— People of the Phil. vs. Pitoc, G.R. No. 18513, September 18, 1922
— Chereau vs. Fuentebella, G.R. No. L-17866, March 20, 1922
— Garcia Valdez vs. Tuason, G.R. No. 14957, March 16, 1920
Divorce (Relative)
— E.O. No. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 26, par. 2
— Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem, G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014
— Raymundo vs. Peñas, G.R. No. L-6705, December 23, 1954
— Rustia vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 24396, November 24, 1925
— United States vs. Ortega, G.R. No. L-12260, October 20, 1917
— De Jesus vs. Palma, G.R. No. 10902, March 28, 1916
— Del Prado vs. De la Fuente, G.R. No. 9274, September 14, 1914
— United States vs. Joanino, G.R. No. 9762, August 3, 1914
— De la Rama vs. De la Rama, G.R. No. 7476, October 9, 1913
— Benedicto de la Rama vs. De la Rama, G.R. No. L-1056, March 13, 1907
— Ibañez vs. Ortiz, G.R. No. 2125, November 15, 1905
— Benedicto vs. De la Rama, G.R. No. 1056, December 8, 1903
Divorce (Under Japanese Period)
— Tolentino vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41427, June 10, 1988
— Astudillo vs. Astudillo, G.R. No. L-4669, September 22, 1953

— Peña de Luz vs. Court of First Instance of Tacloban, Leyte, G.R. No. L-600, November 29, 1946
— Peña de Luz vs. Court of First Instance of Leyte, G.R. No. L-600, October 1, 1946
— Baptista vs. Castañeda, A.C. No. 12, April 6, 1946
— Unnumbered DOJ Opinion, January 26, 1946
Effects of Foreign Divorce
— Minoru Fujiki vs. Maria Paz Galela Marinay, et al., G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013
— Merope Enriquez Vda. De Catalan vs. Louella A. Catalan-Lee, G.R. No. 183622, February 8, 2012
— Gerbert R. Corpuz vs. Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas, et al., G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010
— Maria Rebecca Makapugay Bayot vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. 155635 & 163979,
November 7, 2008
— Elmar O. Perez vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 162580, January 27, 2006
— Quita vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124862, December 22, 1998
— Manalaysay Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera, G.R. No. 80116, June 30, 1989
— Reyes van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr, G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985
— Tenchavez vs. Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671, November 29, 1965
— Barretto Gonzalez vs. Gonzalez, Jr., G.R. No. 37048, March 7, 1933
— Cousins Hix vs. A. W. Fluemer, G.R. No. 34259, March 21, 1931
— Afife Abdo Cheyban Gorayeb vs. Nadjib Tannus Hashim, G.R. No. 25577, March 3, 1927
— In re: Ramirez vs. Gmur, G.R. No. 11796, August 5, 1918
— Unnumbered DOJ Opinion, December 1, 1965

Adultery
— Act 3815, Art. 333
— R.A. 386, Art. 739 (1) & Art. 2219 (4)
— Rules of Court, January 1, 1964, Rule 110, Sec. 4, par. 2
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sec. 5, par. 2
— People of the Phil. vs. Castro-Bartolome, G.R. No. 45037, November 21, 1991
— Arroyo, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96602, November 19, 1991
— Manalaysay Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera, G.R. No. 80116, June 30, 1989
— Ligtas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47498, May 7, 1987
— Donio-Teves vs. Vamenta, Jr., G.R. No. L-38308, December 26, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Ilarde, G.R. No. L-58595, October 10, 1983
— Mondragon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-35978 & L-36069, December 26, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Oplado, G.R. No. L-20146, September 30, 1964
— Bugayong vs. Ginez, G.R. No. L-10033, December 28, 1956
— People of the Phil. vs. Zapata, G.R. No. L-3047, May 16, 1951
— People of the Phil. vs. Guinucud, G.R. No. 38672, October 27, 1933
— People of the Phil. vs. Sensano, G.R. No. 37720, March 7, 1933
— People of the Phil. vs. Infante, G.R. No. 36270, August 31, 1932
— Francisco vs. Tayao, G.R. No. 26435, March 4, 1927
— Villaflor vs. Summers, G.R. No. 16444, September 8, 1920

— Garcia Valdez vs. Soteraña Tuason, G.R. No. 14957, March 16, 1920
— United States vs. Gallegos, G.R. No. L-12739, December 8, 1917
— United States vs. Ortega, G.R. No. L-12260, October 20, 1917
— United States vs. Feliciano, G.R. No. 12724, August 10, 1917
— United States vs. Topiño, G.R. No. 11895, December 20, 1916
— United States vs. Memoracion, G.R. No. 11371, August 1, 1916
— De Jesus vs. Palma, G.R. No. 10902, March 28, 1916
— United States vs. Manzano, G.R. No. 11043, November 26, 1915
— United States vs. Nebrida, G.R. No. 9963, November 5, 1915
— United States vs. Ibañez, G.R. No. 10672, October 26, 1915
— United States vs. Noriega, G.R. No. 10690, August 17, 1915
— United States vs. Guarin, G.R. No. 9900, March 15, 1915
— United States vs. Serrano, G.R. No. 9772, October 16, 1914
— United States vs. De la Torre, G.R. No. 8144, August 6, 1913
— United States vs. Destrito, G.R. No. 6984, August 19, 1912
— United States vs. Asuncion, G.R. No. 7124, March 25, 1912
— Quilatan vs. Caruncho, G.R. No. 7516, February 1, 1912
— United States vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 6821, October 19, 1911
— United States vs. Ortiz, G.R. No. L-6008, March 23, 1911
— United States vs. Mata, G.R. No. L-6300, March 2, 1911
— United States vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. 5256, December 21, 1909
— United States vs. Samaniego, G.R. No. 5115, November 29, 1909
— United States vs. Bacas, G.R. No. 5297, October 19, 1909
— United States vs. Legaspi, G.R. No. 5110, August 19, 1909
— United States vs. Lampano, G.R. No. 4705, March 31, 1909
— United States vs. Gomez, G.R. No. 4630, December 19, 1908
— United States vs. Borjal, G.R. No. L-3633, October 30, 1907

— Mortiga vs. Serra, G.R. No. 2045, September 20, 1905
— United States vs. Villafuerte, et al., G.R. No. 1181, July 1, 1905
— United States vs. Villafuerte, G.R. No. 1181, April 27, 1905
— United States vs. Caday, G.R. No. 2170, April 18, 1905
— Benedicto vs. De la Rama, G.R. No. 1056, December 8, 1903
— Gali vs. Sahagun, G.R. No. 1229, August 19, 1903
Concubinage
— Act 3815, Art. 334
— R.A. 386, Art. 739 (1) & Art. 2219 (4)
— Rules of Court, January 1, 1964, Rule 110, Sec. 4, par. 2
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sec. 5, par. 2
— Alfredo Romulo A. Busuego vs. Office of the Ombudsman, et al., G.R. No. 196842, October 9,
2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduarte, G.R. No. 88232, February 26, 1990
— Castro, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-22159, July 31, 1968
— Nicolas vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. L-8371, June 30, 1955
— Raymundo vs. Peñas, G.R. No. L-6705, December 23, 1954
— People of the Phil. vs. Schneckenburger, G.R. No. 48183, November 10, 1941
— Ocampo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 47756, June 10, 1941
— People of the Phil. vs. Schneckenburger, G.R. No. 45474, June 13, 1938
— People of the Phil. vs. Cornejo, G.R. No. 40393, October 25, 1934
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco, G.R. No. 32663, December 15, 1930
— Maulit vs. Samonte, G.R. No. 34484, December 13, 1930
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco, G.R. No. 29531, December 29, 1928
— People of the Phil. vs. Pitoc, G.R. No. 18513, September 18, 1922
— United States vs. Campos Rueda, G.R. No. 11549, October 12, 1916
— United States vs. Macababbag, G.R. No. 10564, August 6, 1915
— Del Prado vs. De la Fuente, G.R. No. 9274, September 14, 1914
— United States vs. Rivera, G.R. No. 9540, September 10, 1914
— United States vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 9307, March 19, 1914
— United States vs. Casipong, G.R. No. 6608, September 5, 1911
— United States vs. Mercado, G.R. No. 3228, August 3, 1909
Parricide
— Act 3815, Art. 246 & Art. 250
— R.A. 7659, Sec. 5
— People v. San Gaspar, G.R. No. 180496, April 2, 2014
— Joselito R. Pimentel vs. Maria Chrysantine L. Pimentel, et al., G.R. No. 172060, September 13,
2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Honorio D. Tibon, G.R. No. 188320, June 29, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Conrado Ayuman, G.R. No. 133436, April 14, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Baño, G.R. No. 148710, January 15, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Marivic Genosa, G.R. No. 135981, January 15, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Juan, G.R. No. 152289, January 14, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Armando C. Dalag, G.R. No. 129895, April 30, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie A. Mactal, G.R. No. 141187, April 28, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Arnante Y Dacpano, G.R. No. 148724, October 15, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Sergio Cañete, G.R. No. 138400, July 11, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnel Alcalde, G.R. Nos. 139225-28, May 29, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Robiños, G.R. No. 138453, May 29, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Matyaong, G.R. No. 140206, June 21, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Hilarion Teves, G.R. No. 141767, April 2, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Cornelio Cabug, G.R. No. 123149, March 27, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Marietta Patungan, et al., G.R. No. 138045, March 14, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Oyanib, G.R. Nos. 130634-35, March 12, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Velasco, G.R. No. 128089, February 13, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, May 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Suelto, G.R. No. 103515, October 7, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Cayago, G.R. No. 128827, August 18, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Javier, G.R. No. 130654, July 28, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Nepomuceno, G.R. No. 130800, June 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 109279-80, January 18, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Mantes, G.R. Nos. 117166-67, December 3, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Nepomuceno, Jr., G.R. No. 127818, November 11, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Talisic, G.R. No. 97961, September 5, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No. 116726, July 28, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Lagao, Jr., G.R. No. 118457, April 8, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio, G.R. No. 107801, March 26, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Malabago, G.R. No. 115686, December 2, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. De Vera, G.R. No. 113116, October 30, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Arcilla, G.R. No. 116237, May 15, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 113791, February 22, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 95851, March 1, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 110107, January 26, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Peralta, G.R. No. 94570, September 28, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Cabalhin, G.R. No. 100204, March 28, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Desalisa, G.R. No. 95262, January 4, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Catanyag, G.R. No. 103974, September 10, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Takbobo, G.R. No. 102984, June 30, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Gelaver, G.R. No. 95357, June 9, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Libungan, G.R. No. 102351, March 22, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Carpio vda. de Quijano, G.R. No. 102045, March 17, 1993
— People fo the Phil. vs. Danao, G.R. No. 96832, November 19, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Estraña, JR., G.R. No. 104906, October 27, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Sicat, G.R. No. 89278, September 4, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Caranzo, G.R. No. 76743, May 22, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Carcedo, G.R. No. 48085, June 26, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Matos-Viduya, G.R. No. 60025, September 11, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Salangoste, G.R. No. 39447, August 8, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Gonzales, Jr., G.R. No. L-44409, February 21, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Agong, G.R. No. 77088, January 29, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Bragat vda. de Cabangahan, G.R. No. 70037, July 7, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Trigo, G.R. No. 74515, June 14, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Wagas, G.R. No. 61704, March 8, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Retubado, G.R. No. L-58585, June 20, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Ulep, G.R. No. L-36858, June 20, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Salufrania, G.R. No. L-50884, March 30, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Dimacali, G.R. No. L-68036, August 31, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Lasac, G.R. No. L-64508, March 19, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Abano, G.R. Nos. L-57184-85, November 14, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Sto. Tomas, G.R. Nos. L-40367-69, August 22, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Tomotorgo, G.R. No. L-47941, April 30, 1985
— Prado vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. L-37652, December 26, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Borromeo, G.R. No. 61873, October 31, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Mawallil, G.R. No. 63154, June 19, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Pamintuan, G.R. No. L-39563, February 29, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Calma Mabansag, G.R. No. L-46293, January 30, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Plata-Luzon, G.R. No. L-35016, August 12, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Arroyo, G.R. Nos. L-35584-85, February 13, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Magallano, G.R. No. L-32978, October 30, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Ambal, G.R. No. L-52688, October 17, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Aling, G.R. No. L-38833, March 12, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Galapia, G.R. Nos. L-39303-05, August 1, 1978
— People of the Phil. vs. Talingdan, G.R. No. L-32126, July 6, 1978
— People of the Phil. vs. Monleon, G.R. No. L-36282, December 10, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Salazar Padiernos, G.R. No. L-37284, February 27, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Boholst-Caballero, G.R. No. L-23249, November 25, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Alviar, G.R. No. L-32276, September 12, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Britos Aglibut, G.R. No. L-23694, October 30, 1969
— People of the Phil. vs. Damaso, G.R. No. L-22553, November 24, 1966
— People of the Phil. vs. Samson, G.R. No. L-14110, March 29, 1963
— People of the Phil. vs. Mangahas, G.R. No. L-13982, January 28, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Cruz, G.R. Nos. L-13219-20, August 31, 1960
— People of the Phil. vs. Demiar, G.R. No. L-15130, May 31, 1960
— People of the Phil. vs. Del Rosario Murray, G.R. No. L-4467, April 30, 1959
— People of the Phil. vs. Belarmino, G.R. No. L-4429, April 18, 1952
— People of the Phil. vs. De Castro, G.R. No. L-3950, August 30, 1951
— People of the Phil. vs. Martin, G.R. No. L-3002, May 23, 1951
— People of the Phil. vs. Go, G.R. No. L-1527, February 27, 1951
— People of the Phil. vs. Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, November 29, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Canja, G.R. No. L-2800, May 30, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. De los Santos, G.R. No. L-2405, March 31, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Rabandaban, G.R. No. L-2228, February 28, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Subano, G.R. No. 48143, September 30, 1942
— People of the Phil. vs. Cruz, G.R. No. 47795, August 24, 1942
— People of the Phil. vs. Tarok, G.R. No. 47453, October 9, 1941
— People of the Phil. vs. Orpiano, G.R. No. 47423, November 14, 1940
— People of the Phil. vs. Berang, G.R. Nos. 46526 & 46527, October 31, 1939
— People of the Phil. vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. L-46310, October 31, 1939
— People of the Phil. vs. Rabao, G.R. No. 46530, April 10, 1939
— People of the Phil. vs. Relador, G.R. No. 40900, September 14, 1934
— People of the Phil. vs. Matondo, G.R. No. 36833, October 11, 1933
— People of the Phil. vs. Taneo, G.R. No. 37673, March 31, 1933
— People of the Phil. vs. Embalido, G.R. No. 37379, March 18, 1933
— People of the Phil. vs. Avelino de Linao, G.R. No. 37765, March 14, 1933
— People of the Phil. vs. Rosil, G.R. No. 35867, March 31, 1932
— People of the Phil. vs. Tambaroso, G.R. No. 35866, March 23, 1932
— People of the Phil. vs. Gimena, G.R. No. 33877, February 6, 1931
— People of the Phil. vs. Marquez, G.R. No. 31268, July 31, 1929
— People of the Phil. vs. Ayaya, G.R. No. 29396, November 9, 1928
— People of the Phil. vs. Quinta, G.R. Nos. 29373-29376, August 4, 1928
— People of the Phil. vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 28201, February 8, 1928
— People of the Phil. vs. Bingaan, G.R. No. 24937, March 20, 1926
— People of the Phil. vs. Patricio, G.R. No. L-20651, October 25, 1923
— People of the Phil. vs. Capacia, G.R. No. 18240, March 18, 1922
— People of the Phil. vs. Bucsit, G.R. No. L-17865, March 15, 1922
— United States vs. Agatea, G.R. No. 15177, December 18, 1919
— United States vs. Ortencio, G.R. No. 13427, July 15, 1918
— United States vs. Lustrada, G.R. No. 9511, March 25, 1915
— United States vs. Guevara, G.R. No. 9265, August 22, 1914
— United States vs. Vaquilar, G.R. Nos. 9471 & 9472, March 13, 1914
— United States vs. Cunanan, G.R. No. 9291, March 2, 1914
— United States vs. Brioso, G.R. No. L-6177, March 11, 1911
— United States vs. Consuelo, G.R. No. 5190, July 28, 1909
— United States vs. Ablana, G.R. No. 4979, March 5, 1909
— United States vs. Idon, G.R. No. 4519, August 7, 1908
— United States vs. Guevara, G.R. No. L-4153, January 25, 1908
— United States vs. Odicta, G.R. No. 1749, March 21, 1905
— United States vs. Bailon, G.R. No. 2246, January 12, 1905
— United States vs. Ayao, G.R. No. 1290, January 5, 1905
— United States vs. De la Torre, G.R. No. 1655, March 29, 1904
— United States vs.Villanueva, G.R. No. 1017, March 21, 1903
— United States vs. Barbosa, G.R. No. 980, February 20, 1903

Death Under Exceptional Circumstances
— Act 3815, Art. 247
— People of the Phil. vs. Talisic, G.R. No. 97961, September 5, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Gelaver, G.R. No. 95357, June 9, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Sabilul, G.R. No. L-5520, July 31, 1953
— People of the Phil. vs. Coricor, G.R. No. 48768, December 4, 1947
— People of the Phil. vs. Dumon, G.R. No. 47315, April 25, 1941
— People of the Phil. vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. L-46310, October 31, 1939
— People of the Phil. vs. Bituanan, G.R. No. 34510, August 31, 1931
— People of the Phil. vs. Solindayao, G.R. No. 19921, July 30, 1923
— United States vs. Redion, G.R. No. 1998, April 29, 1905
— United States vs. Melchor, G.R. No. 1201, October 19, 1903
Marital Rape
— R.A. 8353
Muslim Marriages
Marriages Before the Muslim Code
Requisites
— R.A. 386, Arts. 78-79
— In Re: of Mora Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee, G.R. No. L-18081, March 3, 1922
Subsequent Marriage

— Estrellita Juliano-Llave vs. Republic of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 169766, March 30, 2011
Divorce
— R.A. 394
— Neng "Kagui Kadiguia" Malang vs. Corocoy Moson, et al., G.R. No. 119064, August 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Bitdu, G.R. No. 38230, November 21, 1933
Property Relations
— Neng "Kagui Kadiguia" Malang vs. Corocoy Moson, et al., G.R. No. 119064, August 22, 2000
Marriages Under the Muslim Code (PD 1083)
— A.M. No. 99-4-06-SC, June 8, 1999
Application
— P.D. 1083, Art. 13
— Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 191425, September 7, 2011
Nature
— P.D. 1083, Art. 14
Requisites
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 33
— P.D. 1083, Art. 15-22
Prohibited Marriages
— P.D. 1083, Art. 23-26
Subsequent Marriage
— P.D. 1083, Arts. 27-29
— Tamano vs. Ortiz, G.R. No. 126603, June 29, 1998

Marriage After Three Talaq
— P.D. 1083, Art. 30
Batil and Fasid Marriage
— P.D. 1083, Arts. 31-32
Validation of Irregular Marriage
— P.D. 1083, Art. 33
Rights and Obligations of Spouses
— P.D. 1083, Arts. 34-36
Property Relations
— P.D. 1083, Arts. 37-44
Divorce
— P.D. 1083, Arts. 45-57
— Marietta D. Zamoranos vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. Nos. 193902, 193908 & 194075, June
1, 2011
— Fouziy Ali Bondagjy vs. Sabrina Artadi, G.R. No. 170406, August 11, 2008
— Abubakar vs. Abubakar, G.R. No. 134622, October 22, 1999
— Yasin vs. Shari'a District Court, G.R. No. 94986, February 23, 1995
Civil Registry
— P.D. 1083, Arts. 81-87
— Rosemarie Salma Aragoncillo-Molok vs. Sity Aisa Barangai Molok, G.R. No. 169627, April 6, 2011
Marriages Involving Indigenous Peoples
— R.A. 386, Arts. 78-79
— R.A. 8371
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 33
— People of the Phil. vs. Berang, G.R. Nos. 46526 & 46527, October 31, 1939
— People of the Phil. vs. Rosil, G.R. No. 35867, March 31, 1932
— United States vs. Tubban, G.R. No. 9577, February 10, 1915

— NCIP Administrative Order No. 01-98, June 9, 1998, Rule VI, Sec. 8
Procedure
Civil Procedure
— R.A. 8369, Sec. 5 (d)
— R.A. 2613, Sec. 10
— R.A. 1401
— Rules of Court, January 1, 1964, Rule 3, Sec. 4; Rule 18, Sec. 6; Rule 19; Rule 21, Sec. 2 (b); Rule
73, Sec. 2; Rule 78, Sec. 3; Rule 99, Sec. 6 & Rule 108, Sec. 2
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 3, Sec. 4; Rule 9, Sec. 3 (e); Rule 34, Sec. 1; Rule 73, Sec. 2; Rule 78,
Sec. 3; Rule 99, Sec. 6 & Rule 108, Sec. 2
— Republic v. Olaybar, G.R. No. 189538, February 10, 2014
— People of the Phil. vs. Operaña, Jr., G.R. No. 120546, October 13, 2000
— Cano-Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 138584, October 2, 2000
— Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-23102, April 24, 1967
Criminal Procedure
— Act 1773
— A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, October 3, 2000, Rule 110, Sec. 5, 2nd par.
— Rules of Court, January 1, 1964, Rule 117, Sec. 4
— Paras vs. Paras, A.C. No. 5333, October 18, 2000
Evidence
— Rules of Court, January 1, 1964, Rule 130, Sec. 20 (b), Sec. 21 (a) & Sec. 35; Rule 131, Sec. 4 (c) &
Sec. 5 (x), (bb) & (dd)
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 22, Sec. 24 (a) & Sec. 41; Rule 131, Sec. 3 (w) (4), (aa),
(bb), (cc) & (dd)
— Ui vs. Bonifacio, A.C. No. 3319, June 8, 2000
— Vda. de Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135216, August 19, 1999
— Sarmiento vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96740, March 25, 1999
— Trinidad vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118904, April 20, 1998
— Antonietta Garcia vda. de Chua vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116835, March 5, 1998
— Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124099, October 30, 1997
— Delgado vda. de dela Rosa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103028, October 10, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio, G.R. No. 107801, March 26, 1997
— Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83598, March 7, 1997
— Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996
— Fernandez Krohn vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108854, June 14, 1994
— Del Rosario Mariategui vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 57062, January 24, 1992
— Rivera vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. Nos. 75005-06, February 15, 1990
— Yao Kee vs. Sy-Gonzales, G.R. No. L-55960, November 24, 1988
— Alavado vs. City Government of Tacloban, G.R. No. L-49084, October 10, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Borromeo, G.R. No. 61873, October 31, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Mawallil, G.R. No. 63154, June 19, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Opeña, G.R. No. L-34954, February 20, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Castañeda, JR., G.R. No. L-46306, February 27, 1979
— Corpus vs. Corpus, G.R. No. L-22469, October 23, 1978
— Suarnaba vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-42337, October 9, 1978
— People of the Phil. vs. Talingdan, G.R. No. L-32126, July 6, 1978
— Cabinta vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-42639, July 30, 1976
— Lim Tanhu vs. Ramolete, G.R. No. L-40098, August 29, 1975
— Perido vs. Perido, G.R. No. L-28248, March 12, 1975
— Ordoño vs. Daquigan, G.R. No. L-39012, January 31, 1975
— Lim vs. Antonio, Adm. Case No. 848, September 30, 1971
— In re: Florencio Mallare, A.C. No. 533, April 29, 1968
— Manangol Bartolome vs. Bartolome, G.R. No. L-23661, December 20, 1967
— Wong Woo Yiu vs. Vivo, G.R. No. L-21076, March 31, 1965
— Pugeda vs. Trias, G.R. No. L-16925, March 31, 1962
— Ledesma Silva vs. Peralta, G.R. No. L-13114, November 25, 1960
— Testate Estate of Guillermo Puatu vs. Puatu, G.R. No. L-10071, October 31, 1957
— In Re: Dy Tam vs. Espiritu, G.R. No. L-6297, August 26, 1954
— In Re: Nicolai Szatraw vs. Sors, G.R. No. L-1780, August 31, 1948
— Atienza vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 47966, Junio 28, 1941
— De Leon vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 27738, March 13, 1928
— In Re: of Mora Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee, G.R. No. L-18081, March 3, 1922
— United States vs. Antipolo, G.R. No. L-13109, March 6, 1918
— United States vs. Memoracion, G.R. No. 11371, August 1, 1916
— United States vs. Concepcion, G.R. No. 10396, July 29, 1915
— United States vs. De Vera, G.R. No. 9754, September 29, 1914
— Son Cui vs. Guepangco, G.R. No. 6163, March 14, 1912
— Enriquez vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. L-3474, September 20, 1907
— United States vs. Villafuerte, G.R. No. 1181, July 1, 1905
— United States vs. Villafuerte, G.R. No. 1181, April 27, 1905
— United States vs. Melchor, G.R. No. 1201, October 19, 1903

Family
Concept
— 1973 Constitution, Art II, Sec. 4, Sec. 12; Art. X, Sec. 18 & Art. XV, Secs. 1-4
— R.A. 386, Art. 216 & Art. 220
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 149
— Proc. 624, April 30, 2004
— United Nations Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency (The Riyadh Guidelines),
December 14, 1990, IV (A)
— Arroyo, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 96602, November 19, 1991
— DILG M.C. 58-94
Family Relations
— 1987 Constitution, Art. X, Sec. 20 (4)
— Act 3815, Art. 11 (2); Art. 13 (5); Art. 15, 2nd par.; Art. 20; Art. 290, last par. & Art. 332
— R.A. 8369
— R.A. 6766, Art. X, Secs. 1-7
— R.A. 386, Arts. 217-222; Arts. 919-921; Art. 1337; Art. 2180; Art. 2268 & Art. 2266 (1)
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 149-151
— Proc. 338, March 10, 2003
— Proc. 318, January 15, 2003
— Proc. 60, September 28, 1992
— Rules of Court, Rule 16, Sec. 1 (j); Rule 130, Sec. 20 (b) & (c), Sec. 21 (a), Sec. 33 & Sec. 34
— D.O. 18, Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. 7658, May 12, 1994, Sec. 2 (d)
— Paras vs. Paras, A.C. No. 5333, October 18, 2000

— Navarro vs. Navarro, et al., A.M. No. O.C.A.-00-01, September 6, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Villarez, G.R. No. 133795, July 27, 2000
— Marquez vs.Clores-Ramos, A.M. No. P-96-1182, July 19, 2000
— Esquivias vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119714, May 29, 1997
— Gonzales vs. Lopez, G.R. No. L-48068, April 15, 1988
— Villanueva vs. Florendo, G.R. No. L-33158, October 17, 1985
— Basa vs. Aguilar, G.R. No. L-30994, September 30, 1982
— Mendez vs. Bionson, G.R. No. L-32159, October 28, 1977
— Lachenal vs. Salas, G.R. No. L-42257, June 14, 1976
— De Midgely vs. Ferandos, G.R. No. L-34314, May 13, 1975
— Somosa-Ramos vs Vamenta Jr., G.R. No. L-34132, July 29, 1972
— Zulueta vs. Pan American World Airways, Inc., G.R. No. L-28589, February 29, 1972
— Gayon vs. Gayon, G.R. No. L-28394, November 26, 1970
— Jimenez vs. Jimenez, G.R. No. L-26797, May 27, 1968
Paternity and Filiation
General
— P.D. 1083, February 4, 1977, Art. 143 (a)
— Rules of Court, Rule 108, Sec. 2 (m)
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 108 Sec. 2 (m)
— Antonio Perla vs. Mirasol Baring, et al., G.R. No. 172471, November 12, 2012
— Charles Gotardo vs. Divina Buling, G.R. No. 165166, August 15, 2012
— Camelo Cabatania vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124814, October 21, 2004
— Maria Jeanette C. Tecson, et al. vs. Comelec, et al., G.R. Nos. 161434, 161634 & 161824, March
3, 2004
Legitimate Children
— R.A. 386, Arts. 255-264; & Art. 887 (1) & (2)
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 163-171
— P.D. 1083, February 4, 1977, Art. 59 & Art. 62
— Rules of Court, January 1, 1964, Rule 131, Sec. 4, Sec. 5 (cc) & (dd)
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 131, Sec. 3 (dd) & Sec. 4
— People v. Abat y Cometa, G.R. No. 202704, April 2, 2014
— Heirs of Teofilo Gabatan vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 150206, March 13, 2009
— Michael C. Guy vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 163707, September 15, 2006
— Mercedes Cristobal Cruz, et al. vs. Eufrosina Cristobal, et al., G.R. No. 140422, August 7, 2006
— Babiera vs. Catotal, G.R. No. 138493, June 15, 2000
— Dezoller Tison vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121027, July 31, 1997
— Benitez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105625, January 24, 1994
— Bariñan Tan vs. Trocio, A.C. No. 2115, November 27, 1990
— Cabatbat Lim vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-69679, October 18, 1988
— Diaz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-42007, June 22, 1984
— Macadangdang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49542, September 12, 1980
— Andal vs. Macaraig, G.R. No. L-2474, May 30, 1951
— Jimoga-on vs. Belmonte, G.R. No. L-1605, September 13, 1949
Proof of Filiation
— R.A. 386, Arts. 265-268; Art. 2260 & Art. 2266 (3)
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 172-174
— Sps. Edgardo and Natividad Fidel vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 168263, July 21, 2008
— Elino Rivera, et al. vs. Heirs of Romualdo Villanueva, G.R. No. 141501, July 21, 2006
— Ida C. Labagala vs. Nicolasa T. Santiago , G.R. No. 132305, December 4, 2001
— Marcelo Lee vs. Court of Appeals and Hon. Lorenzo B. Veneracion and Hon. Jaime T. Hamoy, G.R.
No. 118387, October 11, 2001
— Edgardo A. Tijing, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 125901, March 8, 2001
— Heirs of Ignacio Conti vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118464, December 21, 1998
— Trinidad vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118904, April 20, 1998
— Jison vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124853, February 24, 1998
— Dezoller Tison vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121027, July 31, 1997
— Campos Ong vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95386, May 29, 1997
— Pe Lim vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112229, March 18, 1997
— Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83598, March 7, 1997
— Aruego, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112193, March 13, 1996
— Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85723, June 19, 1995
— Gono-Javier vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111994, December 29, 1994
— Gaspay, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102372, November 15, 1994
— Marquino vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72078, June 27, 1994
— Alberto vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86639, June 2, 1994
— Ilano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104376, February 23, 1994
— Fernandez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108366, February 16, 1994
— Ocampo Tayag vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95229, June 9, 1992
— Constantino vs. Mendez, G.R. No. 57227, May 14, 1992
— Palmes Hernaez, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 73864, May 7, 1992
— Sayson vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 89224-25, January 23, 1992
— Banaag vs. Bartolome, G.R. No. 76245, December 20, 1991
— Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86302, September 24, 1991
— Board of Commissioners (CID) vs. Dela Rosa, G.R. Nos. 95122-23 & 95612-13, May 31, 1991
— Leuterio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84647, May 23, 1991
— Ayco vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 84770, March 18, 1991
— Bariñan Tan vs. Trocio, A.C. No. 2115, November 27, 1990
— Baluyut vs. Baluyut, G.R. No. 33659, June 14, 1990
— Paterno vs. Paterno, G.R. No. 63680, March 23, 1990
— Gapusan-Chua vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 46746, March 15, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Rafanan, G.R. No. 48362, February 28, 1990
— Rivera vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. Nos. 75005-06, February 15, 1990
— De la Puerta vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77867, February 6, 1990
— Uyguangco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76873, October 26, 1989
— Castro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-50974-75, May 31, 1989
— Del Rosario vda. de Alberto vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 29759, May 18, 1989
— Amurao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83942, December 29, 1988
— Yao Kee vs. Sy-Gonzales, G.R. No. L-55960, November 24, 1988
— Jao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49162, July 28, 1987
— Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 39537, March 19, 1985
— Colorado vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-39948, February 28, 1985
— Heirs of Raymundo C. Bañas vs. Heirs of Bibiano Bañas, G.R. No. L-25715, January 31, 1985
— Moscoso vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-46439, April 24, 1984
— Cruz vda. de Sy-Quia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62283, November 25, 1983
— Tongoy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45645, June 28, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Velasquez, G.R. No. L-35241, February 28, 1983
— Reyes vs. Minister of Labor, G.R. No. 50180, December 19, 1981
— Arde vs. Anicoche, A.M. No. P-272, February 28, 1978
— Divinagracia vs. Rovira, G.R. No. L-42615, August 10, 1976
— Cabinta vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-42639, July 30, 1976
— Lim vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-39381, July 18, 1975
— Galeon vs. Galeon, G.R. No. L-30380, February 28, 1973

— Velasquez vs. Asignar, G.R. No. L-22133, May 31, 1971
— Uriarte vs. CFI of Negros Occidental, G.R. Nos. L-21938-39, May 29, 1970
— Tan Pong vs. Republic of the Phil, G.R. No. L-21010, November 28, 1969
— People of the Phil. vs. Sia, G.R. No. L-28884, July 25, 1969
— Cruz vs. Castillo, G.R. No. L-27232, June 30, 1969
— Ongsiaco vda. de Clemeña vs. Engracio Clemeña, G.R. No. L-24739, May 22, 1969
— Ongsiaco vda. de Clemeña vs. Engracio Clemeña, G.R. No. L-24845, August 22, 1968
— Cid vs. Burnaman, G.R. No. L-24414, July 31, 1968
— Gonzaga vs. Vivo, G.R. No. L-27030, March 6, 1968
— Bartolome vs. Bartolome, G.R. No. L-23661, December 20, 1967
— Tan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-22793, May 16, 1967
— Noble vs. Noble, G.R. No. L-17742, December 17, 1966
— Mendoza vs. Mella, G.R. No. L-18752, July 30, 1966
— Navarro vs. Bacalla, G.R. No. L-20607, October 14, 1965
— Montilla vs. Montilla, G.R. No. L-14462, June 30, 1961
— In re: Local Civil Registrar of Mla. Joaquin P. Roces vs. the Local Civil Registrar of Mla., G.R. No. L-
10598, February 14, 1958
— Litam vs. Espiritu, G.R. No. L-7644-45, November 27, 1956
— Reyes vs. Ysip, G.R. No. L-7516, May 12, 1955
— Varela vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-3052, June 29, 1954
— Pareja vs. Pareja, G.R. No. L-5824, May 31, 1954
— Crisolo vs. Macadaeg, G.R. No. L-7071, April 29, 1954
— Vidaurrazaga vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-3943, June 24, 1952
— Escoval vs. Escoval, G.R. No. L-2712, October 25, 1950
— Malonda vs. Infante vda. de Malonda, G.R. No. 49081, May 28, 1948
— People of the Phil. vs. Bautista, A.C. No. 226, February 25, 1946
— Apacible vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 49041, March 20, 1944
— Javelona vs. Monteclaro, G.R. No. 48464, October 4, 1943
— Jayme vs. Gamboa, G.R. No. 47820, November 28, 1942

— De Jesus vs. Syquia, G.R. No. 39110, November 28, 1933
— Allarde vs. Abaya, G.R. No. 36654, February 27, 1933
— Bancosta vs. Doe, G.R. No. L-20996, September 20, 1923
— In re: Larena vs. Rubio Viuda de Larena, G.R. No. L-16215, February 6, 1922
— Borres vs. Municipality of Panay, G.R. No. 15851, January 11, 1922
— Dusepec vs. Torres, G.R. No. 13670, March 25, 1919
— Concepcion vs. Untaran, G.R. No. 9958, October 7, 1918
— Osorio vs. Osorio, G.R. No. 10474, March 29, 1916
— Adriano vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. 6169, November 5, 1912
— Ferrer vs. De Inchausti, G.R. No. 12993, October 28, 1918
— Tengco vs. Sanz, G.R. No. 4529, August 27, 1908
— Basa vs. Arquiza, G.R. No. 1207, November 2, 1905
Illegitimate Children
— Act 3753, November 26, 1930, Sec. 5, 4th par.
— R.A. 386, Arts. 276-289; Art. 834; Art. 887 (4) & (5); Art. 2260 & Art. 2264
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 175 & 176
— Grande v. Antonio, G.R. No. 206248, February 18, 2014
— Narciso Salas vs. Annabelle Matusalem, G.R. No. 180284, September 11, 2013
— Victoria S. Jarillo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 164435, September 29, 2009
— Joanie Surposa Uy vs. Jose Ngo Chua, G.R. No. 183965, September 18, 2009
— Dolores Montefalcon, et al. vs. Ronnie S. Vasquez, G.R. No. 165016, June 17, 2008
— Teofisto I. Verceles vs. Maria Clarissa Posada, et al., G.R. No. 159785, April 27, 2007
— Rosalina P. Eceta vs. Ma. Theresa Vell Lagura Eceta, G.R. No. 157037, May 20, 2004
— Milagros M. Barco vs. Court of Appeals, Et Al, G.R. No. 120587, January 20, 2004
— Joey D. Briones vs. Maricel P. Miguel, et al., G.R. No. 156343, October 18, 2004
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Chule Y. Lim, G.R. No. 153883, January 13, 2004
— Ann Brigitt Leonardo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 125329, September 10, 2003
— Norgene Potenciano, et al. vs. Dwight "Ike" B. Reynoso, et al., G.R. No. 140707, April 22, 2003
— Voltaire Arbolario, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 129163, April 22, 2003
— Augustus Caezar R. Gan vs. Hon. Antonio C. Reyes, G.R. No. 145527, May 28, 2002
— William Liyao vs. Juanita Tanhoti-Liyao, et al., G.R. No. 138961, March 7, 2002
— Ma. Lourdes Barrientos Eleosida vs. Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, et al., G.R. No. 130277,
May 9, 2002
— Dinah B. Tonog vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 122906, February 7, 2002
— Ernestina Bernabe vs. Carolina Alejo, G.R. No. 140500, January 21, 2002
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Abadilla, G.R. No. 133054, January 28, 1999
— Campos Ong vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95386, May 29, 1997
— Pe Lim vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112229, March 18, 1997
— De Santos vs. Angeles, G.R. No. 105619, December 12, 1995
— Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85723, June 19, 1995
— Gaspay, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102372, November 15, 1994
— Alberto vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86639, June 2, 1994
— Ocampo Tayag vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95229, June 9, 1992
— Banaag vs. Bartolome, G.R. No. 76245, December 20, 1991
— Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86302, September 24, 1991
— Leuterio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84647, May 23, 1991
— Ayco vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 84770, March 18, 1991
— Padilla Mangulabnan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 71994, May 31, 1990
— Dempsey vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch LXXV, G.R. Nos. 77737-38, August 15, 1988
— Mendoza vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-63132, July 30, 1987
— Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 39537, March 19, 1985
— Heirs of Raymundo C. Bañas vs. Heirs of Bibiano Bañas, G.R. No. L-25715, January 31, 1985
— Dimayuga vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-48433, April 30, 1984
— Cruz vda. de Sy-Quia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62283, November 25, 1983
— Tongoy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45645, June 28, 1983
— Divinagracia vs. Rovira, G.R. No. L-42615, August 10, 1976
— Galeon vs. Galeon, G.R. No. L-30380, February 28, 1973
— Uriarte vs. CFI of Negros Occidental, G.R. Nos. L-21938-39, May 29, 1970
— Manangol Bartolome vs. Bartolome, G.R. No. L-23661, December 20, 1967
— Paa vs. Chan, G.R. No. L-25945, October 31, 1967
— Paterno vs. Paterno, G.R. No. L-23060, June 30, 1967
— Sumaljag Bongal vs. Vda. de Bongal, G.R. No. L-17463, May 16, 1967
— Sotto vs. Sotto, G.R. No. L-20921, May 24, 1966
— Navarro vs. Bacalla, G.R. No. L-20607, October 14, 1965
— Gustilo vs. Gustilo, G.R. No. L-18038, May 31, 1965
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Workmen's Compensation Comm., G.R. No. L-19946, February 26, 1965
— Zaldarriaga vs. Mariño, G.R. No. L-19566, May 25, 1964
— Mejia vs. De Mejia, G.R. No. L-18882, November 29, 1963
— Falcon vs. Arca, G.R. No. L-18135, July 31, 1963

— In re: Bulos vs. Tecson, G.R. No. L-18285, October 31, 1962
— Tabotabo vs. Tabotabo, G.R. No. L-10909, April 30, 1962
— Catalan Paulino vs. Paulino, G.R. No. L-15091, December 28, 1961
— In re: Manuel vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-15811, June 30, 1961
— Montilla vs. Montilla, G.R. No. L-14462, June 30, 1961
— Barles vs. Ponce Enrile, G.R. No. L-12894, January 28, 1961
— Guariña vs. Guariña-Casas, G.R. No. L-15707, October 31, 1960
— Barles vs. Ponce Enrile, G.R. No. L-12894, September 30, 1960
— Pactor vs Pestaño, G.R. No. L-12410, April 27, 1960
— In Re: Christensen vs. Christensen Garcia, G.R. Nos. L-11483-84, February 14, 1958
— Intestate Estate of Antonio Zuzuarregui vs. Zuzuarregui, G.R. No. L-10010, October 31, 1957
— Durang-Parang Jimenez vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-9911, May 22, 1957
— Olivete vs. Mata, G.R. No. L-8606, December 27, 1956
— Obispo vs. Obispo, G.R. No. L-7210, September 26, 1956
— Edades vs. Edades, G.R. No. L-8964, July 31, 1956
— In re: Prasnik vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-8639, March 23, 1956
— In re: Rodriguez vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-7760, September 30, 1955
— Magallanes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-6851, September 16, 1954
— Mise vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-6087, July 14, 1954
— Lagrimas vs. Lagrimas, G.R. No. L-6462, May 28, 1954
— Oyao vs. Oyao, G.R. No. L-6340, December 29, 1953
— Garcia vs. Pongan, G.R. No. L-4362, August 31, 1951
— Escoval vs. Escoval, G.R. No. L-2712, October 25, 1950
— Diaz vs. Estrera, G.R. No. L-1155, Junio 30, 1947
— Apacible vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 49041, March 20, 1944

— Jayme vs. Gamboa, G.R. No. 47820, November 28, 1942
— De Jesus vs. Syquia, G.R. No. 39110, November 28, 1933
— Allarde vs. Abaya, G.R. No. 36654, February 27, 1933
— Gaas vs. Fortich, G.R. No. 31454, December 28, 1929
— Barrios vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 29789, December 22, 1928
— Suarez vs. Suarez, G.R. No. 18415, October 7, 1922
— Briz vs. Briz, G.R. No. 18413, September 20, 1922
— De Gala vs. De Gala, G.R. No. 15756, February 15, 1922
— In re: Larena vs. Rubio vda. de Larena, G.R. No. L-16215, February 6, 1922
— Borres vs. Municipality of Panay, G.R. No. 15851, January 11, 1922
— In Re: Jose Gregorio Rocha vs. Tuason, G.R. No. 14254, August 5, 1919
— In Re: Ramirez vs. Gmur, G.R. No. 11796, August 5, 1918
— Osorio vs. Osorio, G.R. No. 10474, March 29, 1916
— Legare vs. Cuerques, G.R. No. 8135, March 13, 1916
— Tiamson vs. Tiamson, G.R. No. 9692, October 21, 1915
— Conde vs. Abaya, G.R. No. 4275, March 23, 1909
— Llorente vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-3339, March 26, 1908
— Capistrano vs. Gabino, G.R. No. L-3257, March 23, 1907
— Siguiong vs. Siguiong, G.R. No. L-1921, March 14, 1907
— Buenaventura vs. Urbano, G.R. No. 2205, September 7, 1905
— Benedicto vs. De la Rama, G.R. No. 2078, September 7, 1905
— Infante vs. Figueras, G.R. No. 1884, September 7, 1905
— Mendoza vs. Ibañez, G.R. No. 1772, August 17, 1905
— Mijares vs. Nery, G.R. No. 1380, January 18, 1904
Surname
— R.A. 9255
— Grande v. Antonio, G.R. No. 206248, February 18, 2014
— Jenie San Juan dela Cruz, et al. vs. Ronald Paul S. Gracia, G.R. No. 177728, July 31, 2009
— CSC A.O. 01-04, Rules and Regulations Governing the Implementation of Republic Act No. 9255,
May 14, 2004
Support
— Cherryl B. Dolina vs. Glenn D. Vallecera, G.R. No. 182367, December 15, 2010
— Ben-Hur Nepomuceno vs. Arhbencel Ann Lopez, G.R. No. 181258, March 18, 2010
— Wilson Sy vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124518, December 27, 2007
— Ronilo Olvida, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. 141166-67, October 15, 2007
— Augustus Caezar R. Gan vs. Hon. Antonio C. Reyes, G.R. No. 145527, May 28, 2002
— Crispina M. Campilan vs. Fernando C. Campilan, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-96-1100, April 24, 2002
— Alex Ong vs. Elpidio D. Unto, A.C. No. 2417, February 6, 2002
— Imelda Relucio vs. Angelina Mejia Lopez, G.R. No. 138497, January 16, 2002
Legitimated Children
— Act 3753, November 26, 1930, Sec. 8
— R.A. 9858
— R.A. 386, Arts. 269-275
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 177-182
— De Santos vs. Angeles, G.R. No. 105619, December 12, 1995
— Abadilla vs. Tabiliran, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-92-716, October 25, 1995
— Paa vs. Chan, G.R. No. L-25945, October 31, 1967
— In re: Asensi vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-18047, December 26, 1963
— Obispo vs. Obispo, G.R. No. L-7210, September 26, 1956
— In re: Rodriguez vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-7760, September 30, 1955
— Santos vs. Luciano, G.R. No. 40958, August 11, 1934
— Madridejo vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 32473, October 6, 1930
— In Re: Rabalo vs. Rabalo, G.R. No. 9665, February 29, 1916
— De Torres vs. De Torres, G.R. No. 9234, September 19, 1914
— Cosio vs. Antonino, G.R. No. L-3720, February 3, 1908
— DOJ Opinion No. 4-A, s. 1987
Adoption
— R.A. 386, Art. 760 (3); Art. 761 & Art. 762
— S.C. Circular 12, October 2, 1986
— DSWD A.O. 12, July 18, 2011 (Guidelines on the Issuance of DSWD Certification Declaring a Child
Legally Available for Adoption)
— Eleuterio Rivera vs. Robert Ramirez, et al., G.R. No. 189697, June 27, 2012
Local
— R.A. 9523
— R.A. 8369, Sec. 5 (c)

— R.A. 644
— R.A. 386, Arts. 334-348
— Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9523, June 1, 2009
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 38 (4), (5), (6), (7) & (8); Art. 163; Arts. 183-193 & Art. 229 (1)
— P.D. 1083, February 4, 1977, Art. 64
— P.D. 603, December 10, 1974, Arts. 26-42 & Art. 162
— Rules of Court, January 1, 1964, Rule 72, Sec. 1 (e) & (f); Rule 99, Secs. 1-8 & Rule 100, Secs. 1-5
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 72, Sec. 1 (e) & (f); Rule 99, Secs. 1-8 & Rule 100, Secs. 1-5
— Declaration on Social and Legal Principles Relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children,
With Special Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally, December 3,
1986
— Rules and Regulations to Implement the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, December 8, 1998
— In re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, G.R. Nos. 168992-93, May 21, 2009
— Ana Joyce S. Reyes vs. Cesar M. Sotero, et al., G.R. No. 167405, February 16, 2006
— Isabelita S. Lahom vs. Jose Melvin Sibulo, G.R. No. 143989, July 14, 2003
— Maria Elena Rodriguez Pedrosa vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 118680, March 5, 2001
— Vda. de Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135216, August 19, 1999
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Miller, G.R. No. 125932, April 21, 1999
— Cang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105308, September 25, 1998
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Alarcon Vergara, G.R. No. 95551, March 20, 1997
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103695, March 15, 1996
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. 117209, February 9, 1996
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Toledano, G.R. No. 94147, June 8, 1994
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100835, October 26, 1993
— Office of the Court Administrator vs. Gines, A.M. No. RTJ-92-802, July 5, 1993
— Tamargo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97906, May 21, 1992
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 92326, January 24, 1992
— Sayson vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 89224-25, January 23, 1992
— Republic of the Philippines vs. Elepano, G.R. No. 92542, October 15, 1991
— Monserrate vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 78339, September 29, 1989
— Nelson L. Cervantes vs. Gina C. Fajardo, G.R. No. 79955, January 27, 1989
— Pardo de Tavera vs. Cacdac, Jr., G.R. No. 76290, November 23, 1988
— Daoang vs. Municipal Judge, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, G.R. No. L-34568, March 28, 1988
— Bobanovic vs. Montes, G.R. No. 71370, January 31, 1987
— Bobanovic vs. Montes, G.R. No. 71370, July 7, 1986
— Nieto vs. Magat, G.R. No. L-62465, May 24, 1985
— Santos vs. Aranzanso, G.R. No. L-26940, August 21, 1982
— Lazatin vs. Campos, Jr., G.R. No. L-43955-56, July 30, 1979
— Duncan vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal, G.R. No. L-30576, February 10, 1976
— In re: Malkinson vs. Agrava, G.R. No. L-36309, November 26, 1973
— In re: Adoption of Millendez, G.R. No. L-28195, June 10, 1971
— In re: Paulino vs. Belen, G.R. No. L-28863, January 30, 1971
— In Re: Hofileña vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-26476, August 31, 1970
— Austria vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-23079, February 27, 1970
— Ramirez Marcaida vs. Aglubat, G.R. No. L-24006, November 25, 1967
— In re: Villa, Jr. vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-22523, September 29, 1967
— Sumaljag Bongal vs. Vda. de Bongal, G.R. No. L-17463, May 16, 1967
— In re: Rivera vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-22170, September 23, 1966
— In re: Cruz vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-20927, July 26, 1966
— Santos vs. Aranzanso, G.R. No. L-23828, February 28, 1966
— In re: Tan Suarez vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-20914 December 24, 1965
— Teotico vs. Del Val Chan, G.R. No. L-18753, March 26, 1965
— In re: Therkelse vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-21951, November 27, 1964
— De la Cruz vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No. L-19391, September 29, 1964
— In re: Brehm vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-18566, September 30, 1963
— In re: Georgiana vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-18284, April 30, 1963
— In re: Ellis vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-16922, April 30, 1963
— In re: Katancik vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-15472, June 30, 1962
— In re: Caraballo vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-15080, April 25, 1962
— Ragudo vs. Pasno, G.R. No. L-16642, April 18, 1962
— Durang-Parang Jimenez vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-9911, May 22, 1957
— In re: Prasnik vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-8639, March 23, 1956
— In re: Eusebio vs. Valmores, G.R. No. L-7019, May 31, 1955
— Santos-Yñigo vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-6294, June 28, 1954
— Mcgee vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-5387, April 29, 1954
— Ball vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-5272, December 21, 1953
— Celis vs. Cafuir, G.R. No. L-3352, June 12, 1950
— Joaquin vs. Navarro, G.R. No. L-576, August 4, 1948
— Gil vs. Toledo III, G.R. No. L-254, April 30, 1948
— In re: Emiliano Guzman, G.R. No. 47790, June 30, 1941
— DSWD A.O. 18-05, Turn-Around Period of Local and Intercountry Adoption, September 5, 2005
— DSWD Circular 2-95, Operational Procedures for Interregional Adoptive Placement of Children,
April 17, 1995
— DSWD Order 2-96, Guidelines for the Implementation of Local Adoption and Other Alternative
Family Care for Abandoned and Neglected Children, February 21, 1996
Intercountry Adoption
— R.A. 8552, Sec. 2 (c) (vi)
— R.A. 8043
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 184, last par.
— Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, Art. 21
1986, Arts. 17, 18, 20, 21, 22 & 23
— Rules and Regulations on Intercountry Adoption, December 26, 1995
— The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of

Intercountry Adoption, May 29, 1993
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Claude A. Miller, et al., G.R. No. 125932, April 21, 1999
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Alarcon Vergara, G.R. No. 95551, March 20, 1997
— DSWD A.O. 9-06, Terms of Reference on the Relationship of the Inter-Country Adoption Board
and DSWD, October 18, 2006
Support
— Act 3815, December 8, 1930, Art. 80 & Art. 345
— R.A. 8552, February 25, 1998, Sec. 17
— R.A. 8369, November 28, 1997, Sec. 5 (e) & Sec. 7

— R.A. 6591, September 30, 1974, Sec. 1 (c)
— R.A. 6586, September 30, 1972, Sec. 1 (c)
— R.A. 6512, July 21, 1972, Sec. 1 (c)
— R.A. 4836, June 6, 1918, Sec. 1
— R.A. 4834, June 18, 1966, Sec. 1 (c)
— R.A. 386, Art. 750; Art. 2035 (4); Art. 2166; Art. 2206 (2); Art. 2244 (5) & (6) & Arts. 290-304
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 43; Art. 49; Art. 50; Art. 62; Art. 68; Art. 70; Art. 94 (1) and (9); Art.
100 (3); Art. 121 (1); Art. 122; Art. 127 (3); Art. 133; Art. 137; Art. 174 (2); Arts. 194-208; Art. 220 (1); Art.
224; Art. 226 & Art. 248
— P.D. 1083, February 4, 1977, Art. 34; Art. 52; Art. 54 (e); Art. 62 (b); Title IV; Art. 74 (a) & Art. 155
(2)
— P.D. 603, December 10, 1974, Art. 46 (8); Art. 63; Art. 64; Art. 65; Art. 148; Art. 152; Art. 161 &
Art. 194
— Rules of Court, January 1, 1964, Rule 21, Sec. 2 (d); Rule 39, Sec. 12 (d) & (i); Rule 61; Rule 83,
Sec. 2; Rule 99, Sec. 6 & Sec. 7; Rule 106, Sec. 1 & Rule 141, Sec. 7 (f)
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 39, Sec. 4, Sec. 13 (i) & (l); Rule 99, Sec. 6 & Sec. 7; Rule 106, Sec. 1
& Rule 141, Sec. 7 (f)
— Katarungang Pambarangay Implementing Rules and Regulations, No date supplied, Rule II (f);
Rule VII, Sec. 7 (i) & (l) & Rule VIII (b) (3)
— Rules and Regulations on the Apprehension, Investigation, Prosecution and Rehabilitation of

Youth Offenders, No date supplied, Sec. 23
— A.M. No. 02-11-12-SC (Rule on Provisional Orders), March 4, 2003
— Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem, G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014
— Valino v. Adriano, G.R. No. 182894, April 22, 2014
— Susan Lim-Lua vs. Danilo Y. Lua, G.R. Nos. 175279-80, June 5, 2013
— Edward V. Lacson vs. Maowee Daban Lacson, et al., G.R. No. 150644, August 28, 2006
— Ma. Carminia C. Roxas vs. Court Of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 139337, August 15, 2001
— Tumlos vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 137650, April 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Arlee, G.R. No. 113518, January 25, 2000
— Abubakar vs. Abubakar, G.R. No. 134622, October 22, 1999
— De Asis vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127578, February 15, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Malapo, G.R. No. 123115, August 25, 1998
— Ruiz vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 118671, January 29, 1996
— David vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111180, November 16, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Subingsubing, G.R. Nos. 104942-43, November 25, 1993
— Baluyut vs. Baluyut, G.R. No. 33659, June 14, 1990
— Padilla Mangulabnan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 71994, May 31, 1990
— Eugenio, Sr. vs. Velez, G.R. Nos. 85140 & 86470, May 17, 1990
— Maglalang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85692, July 31, 1989
— Amurao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83942, December 29, 1988
— Santero vs. Court of First Instance of Cavite, G.R. Nos. L-61700-03, September 14, 1987
— Canonizado vs. Ordonez Benitez, G.R. Nos. L-49315 and 60966, February 20, 1984
— San Juan vs. Valenzuela, G.R. No. L-59906, October 23, 1982
— Vda. de Bogacki vs. Inserto, G.R. No. L-39187, January 30, 1982
— Gumba vs. Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Camarines Sur, G.R. No. L-54097,
September 30, 1981
— Reyes vs. Ines-Luciano, G.R. No. L-48219, July 25, 1979
— Vasco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-46763, February 28, 1978
— Lerma vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-33352, December 20, 1974
— Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-31897, June 30, 1972
— People of the Phil. vs. Sia, G.R. No. L-28884, July 25, 1969
— Vinluan vs. Justices of the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-25029, August 28, 1968
— De la Cruz vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No. L-19565, January 30, 1968
— Velayo vs. Velayo, G.R. No. L-23538, July 21, 1967

— Gurrea vs. Ruiz vda. de Gurrea, G.R. No. L-21917, November 29, 1966
— Baltazar vs. Serfino, G.R. No. L-17315, July 31, 1965
— Avendaño vs. Alikpala, G.R. No. L-21189, November 28, 1964
— Ramirez-Cuaderno vs. Cuaderno, G.R. No. L-20043, November 28, 1964
— Mejia vs. De Mejia, G.R. No. L-18882, November 29, 1963
— Atienza vs. Almeda Lopez, G.R. No. L-18327, August 24, 1962
— Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-14758, March 30, 1962
— Silpao vs. Paglomotan, G.R. No. L-16460, January 31, 1962
— Capa vs. Ceniza, G.R. No. L-16648, November 30, 1961
— Lerio vs. Alvarez, G.R. No. L-16582, November 29, 1961
— Oria vs. Maravilla, Jr., G.R. No. L-16308, November 29, 1961
— Ledesma Silva vs. Peralta, G.R. No. L-13114, August 29, 1961
— Samson vs. Yatco, G.R. No. L-15952, April 28, 1961
— Porcuna vs. United States Veterans Administration, G.R. No. L-11563, May 29, 1959
— Jocson vs. Empire Insurance Company, G.R. No. L-10792, April 30, 1958
— Intestate Estate of Antonio Zuzuarregui vs. Enrique Zuzuarregui, G.R. No. L-10010, October 31,
1957
— Torres vs. Teodoro, G.R. Nos. L-10093 & L-10356, April 30, 1957
— Co Tao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-9194, April 25, 1957
— De la Cruz de Beronilla vs. Martinez, G.R. No. L-8753, July 24, 1956
— People's Bank & Trust Co. vs. San Jose, G.R. No. L-7692, April 29, 1955
— Jove Lagrimas vs. Lagrimas, G.R. No. L-6462, May 28, 1954
— Duran Embate vs. Penolio, G.R. No. L-4942, September 23, 1953
— Astudillo vs. Astudillo, G.R. No. L-4669, September 22, 1953

— Mangoma vs. Macadaeg, G.R. No. L-5153, December 10, 1951
— Florendo vs. Organo, G.R. No. L-4037, November 29, 1951
— Coquia vs. Baltazar, et al., G.R. No. L-2942, December 29, 1949
— De Gonzalez vs. Gonzalez, G.R. No. L-2057, October 29, 1949
— Del Rio vs. Palanca Tanguinlay, G.R. No. L-1271, May 31, 1949
— People of the Phil. vs. Velo., G.R. No. L-868, March 13, 1948
— Abedin vs. Natividad, G.R. No. 48491, October 28, 1942
— Malabana vs. Abeto, G.R. No. 48283, October 28, 1942
— Sanchez vs. Zulueta, G.R. No. 45616, May 16, 1939
— Ri Wing vs. Vera, G.R. No. 46102, August 29, 1938
— Francisco vs. Zandueta, G.R. No. 43794, August 9, 1935
— Moore & Sons Mercantile Co. vs. Wagner, G.R. No. 25842, March 18, 1927
— Afife Abdo Cheyban Gorayeb vs. Nadjib Tannus, G.R. No. 25577, March 3, 1927
— Ramirez vs. Redfern, G.R. No. 26062, December 31, 1926
— Babao vs. Villavicencio, G.R. No. 18140, September 1, 1922
— Pelayo vs. Lauron, G.R. No. 4089, January 12, 1909
— United States vs. Alvir, G.R. No. L-3981, January 14, 1908
— Lerma vs. Mamaril, G.R. No. L-3761, October 24, 1907
— Mendoza vs. Ibañez, G.R. No. 1772, August 17, 1905
— Benedicto vs. De la Rama, G.R. No. 1056, May 16, 1903
— Yangco vs. Rohde, G.R. No. 996, October 13, 1902
— NCIP A.O. 1-98, June 9, 1998, Part III, Sec. 1
Parental Authority
General
— R.A. 386, Arts. 311-315; Art. 357 (2) & Art. 358
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 176 & Arts. 209-215
— P.D. 1083, February 4, 1977, Art. 13 (3); Arts. 71-73 & Art. 76
— P.D. 603, December 10, 1974, Arts. 17-26
— Department Order No. 018-94, Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. 7658, May 12, 1994,
Sec. 2 (b)
— Geoffrey Beckett vs. Olegario R. Sarmiento, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-12-2326, January 30, 2013
— Sagala-Eslao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116773, January 16, 1997
— Perez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118870, March 29, 1996
— Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113054, March 16, 1995
— Libi vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70890, September 18, 1992
— Luna vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-68374, June 18, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Mariano, G.R. No. L-47437, September 29, 1983
— Banzon vs. Alviar, G.R. No. L-8806, May 25, 1955

— Unnumbered DOJ Opinion, April 21, 1969
Substitute and Special
— R.A. 386, Arts. 349-355 & Art. 358
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 216-219
— St. Mary's Academy vs. William Carpitanos, et al., G.R. No. 143363, February 6, 2002
— Panlilio vs. Salonga, G.R. No. 113087, June 27, 1994
— Amadora vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988
— Palisoc vs. Brillantes, G.R. No. L-29025, October 4, 1971
— Macazo vs. Nuñez, G.R. No. L-12772, January 24, 1959
— Murdock Sr. vs. Chuidian, G.R. No. L-10544, August 30, 1956
— Flores vs. De Leon vda. de Esteban, G.R. No. L-8768, August 26, 1955
Effect
— R.A. 386, Arts. 316-319
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 220-224
— P.D. 1083, February 4, 1977, Art. 74
— P.D. 603, December 10, 1974, Art. 58
— Collector of Internal Revenue vs. Calsado, G.R. No. L-10293, February 27, 1959
Effect Upon Property
— R.A. 386, Arts. 320-326
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 135 (3) & Arts. 225-227
— P.D. 1083, February 4, 1977, Art. 75
— Nelson Cabales, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 162421, August 31, 2007
— Lindain vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95305, August 20, 1992
— Maneclang vs. Baun, G.R. No. 27876, April 22, 1992
— Badillo vs. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-51369, July 29, 1987
— Vda. de Bogacki vs. Inserto, G.R. No. L-39187, January 30, 1982
— Frias vs. Esquivel, G.R. No. L-24679, October 30, 1975
— Cabanas vs. Pilapil, G.R. No. L-25843, July 25, 1974
— Juson vs. Ponce Ignacio, G.R. No. 8791, December 6, 1915
— Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp. vs. Aldecoa & Co., G.R. No. 8437, March 23, 1915
— Ibañez de Aldecoa y Palet vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp, G.R. No. 6889, March 23,
1915
— Salunga vs. Evangelista, G.R. No. 5314, October 2, 1911
Suspension or Termination
— Act 3815, December 8, 1930, Art. 34 & Art. 278 (4)
— R.A. 8552, February 25, 1998, Sec. 2 (c) (i) & (iii); Sec. 3 (b), (c) & (d); & Sec. 16
— R.A. 8369, November 28, 1997, Sec. 5 (g)
— R.A. 7610, June 17, 1992, Sec. 10 (c)
— R.A. 6809, December 13, 1989, Sec. 3
— R.A. 386, Arts. 327-333; Art. 397 (3) & Art. 399
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 135 (3); Art. 141 (5); Art. 189 (2); Arts. 228-233 & Art. 236
— P.D. 603, December 10, 1974, Art. 156
— Rules and Regulations to Implement the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, December 8, 1998, Sec.
3 (d), (f) & (i) & Sec. 4 (1) (1.2)
— Sombong vs. Court of AppealS, G.R. No. 111876, January 31, 1996
— Espiritu vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115640, March 15, 1995
— Bagajo vs. Marave, G.R. No. L-33345, November 20, 1978
— Elcano vs. Hill, G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977

— In re: Chua vs. Cabangbang, G.R. No. L-23253, March 28, 1969
— In re: Cruz vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-8622, August 15, 1956
— Salvaña vs. Gaela, G.R. No. 34115, February 21, 1931
— Cortes vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 16903, March 18, 1921
— Palet y de Yebra vs. Aldecoa & Co., G.R. No. 4320, February 10, 1910
— Abiera vs. Orin, G.R. No. L-3236, March 27, 1907
Adoption
— R.A. 8552, February 25, 1998, Sec. 7, last par. & Sec. 12, first par.
— R.A. 386, Art. 336
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 186 & Art. 189 (2)
— P.D. 603, December 10, 1974, Art. 29; Art. 35; Art. 42 & Art. 65
3 (d), (f) & (i) & Sec. 4 (1) (1.2); Sec. 7 (c) & Sec. 37 (1)
— Diwata Ramos Landingin vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. 164948, June 27, 2006
Restoration
— R.A. 8552, February 25, 1998, Sec. 20
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 141 (5); Art. 193 & Art. 237
— P.D. 603, December 10, 1974, Art. 163 & Art. 164
37
Care and Education of Children
— 1987 Constitution, Art. XIV
— Act 3815, Art. 277
— B.P. 408, June 10, 1983
— R.A. 8980
— R.A. 8552
— R.A. 8044
— R.A. 7610
— R.A. 7323
— R.A. 6972
— R.A. 6655
— R.A. 6591
— R.A. 6586
— R.A. 6512
— R.A. 4881
— R.A. 4836
— R.A. 4834
— R.A. 3801
— R.A. 1401
— R.A. 679, Sec. 6
— R.A. 386, Arts. 356-363
— E.O. 275, September 14, 1995
— E.O. 56, November 6, 1986
— P.D. 1631, August 10, 1979
— P.D. 1563, June 11, 1978
— P.D. 603, December 10, 1974
— Proc. 759, March 6, 1996
— Proc. 731, February 5, 1996

— Proc. 429, July 27, 1994
— Proc. 13, June 3, 1986
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 99, Secs. 6-7
— Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989
— Declaration of the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1959
1986
— International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Art. 10 (1) & (3)
— Philippines: National Monograph on Child Labor, "DSWD's Street School for Street Children,
September 4, 1987
— Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 25 (2) & Art. 26
December 14, 1990
— Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr., et al. vs. Paquito N. Ochoa, et al., G.R. No. 195770, July 17, 2012
— Roberto P. de Guzman vs. Hernando B. Perez, et al., G.R. No. 156013, July 25, 2006
— Jarco Marketing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129792, December 21, 1999
— Tan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97238, July 15, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 67610, July 31, 1989
— Ylarde vs. Aquino, G.R. No. L-33722, July 29, 1988
— Santero vs Court of First Instance of Cavite, G.R. Nos. L-61700-03, September 14, 1987
— Bobanovic vs. Montes, G.R. No. 71370, July 7, 1986
— Hontiveros, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-64982, October 23, 1984
— In re: Sheryl Lim vs. Soa Pin Lim, G.R. No. L-41405, October 22, 1975
— Medina vs. Makabali, G.R. No. L-26953, March 28, 1969
— In re: Chua vs. Cabangbang, G.R. No. L-23253, March 28, 1969
— Vinluan vs. Justices of the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-25029, August 28, 1968
— In re: Anglo vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-5104, April 29, 1953
— Sideco vs. Aznar, G.R. No. L-4831, April 24, 1953
— In re: Pangilinan vda. de Bautista vs. Bustos, G.R. No. L-4155, December 17, 1952
— In re: Chua Pieng vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-4032, October 25, 1952
— Sy Kiap vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-4404, August 21, 1952
— Hidalgo Enterprises vs. Balandan, G.R. No. L-3422, June 13, 1952
— Ang Yeekoe Sengkee vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-3863, December 27, 1951
— Chan Su Hok vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-3470, November 27, 1951
— In re: Tan Hi vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-3354, January 25, 1951
— Lian Chu vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-3265, November 29, 1950
— Querubin vs. Querubin, G.R. No. L-3693, Julio 29, 1950
— Tan vs. Republic of the PhiL., G.R. No. L-1551, October 31, 1949
— Del Rio vs. Palanca Tanguinlay, G.R. No. L-1271, May 31, 1949
— In re: Yee Bo Mann vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-1606, May 28, 1949
— Roa Yrostorza vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-1394, May 27, 1949
— In re: Pritchard vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-1715, July 17, 1948
— Adan vs. Casili, C.A. No. 299, March 18, 1946
— Lunasco vs. Veterans Administration, G.R. No. 45400, April 14, 1939
— Slade Perkins vs. Perkins, G.R. No. 35698, September 12, 1932
— Ortiz vs. Del Villar, G.R. No. 37785, August 1, 1932
— Santos vs. Supt. of the "Phil. Training School for Girls, G.R. No. 34334, November 28, 1930
— People of the Phil. vs. Makaraig, G.R. No. 32931, September 11, 1930
— Sanchez de Strong vs. Beishir, G.R. No. 30366, August 15, 1929
— Ramirez vs. Redfern, G.R. No. 26062, December 31, 1926
— Bactoso vs. Provincial Governor of Cebu, G.R. No. 24046, September 25, 1925
— Babao vs. Villavicencio, G.R. No. 18140, September 1, 1922
— Lozano vs. Martinez, G.R. No. 12834, October 10, 1917
— Tamayo vs. Gsell, G.R. No. 10765, December 22, 1916
— Juson vs. Ponce Ignacio, G.R. No. 8791, December 6, 1915
— Ibañez de Aldecoa vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., G.R. No. 6889, March 23, 1915
— United States vs. Tandiana, G.R. No. 8174, August 12, 1913
— Rosario vs. Manila Railroad Company, G.R. No. 6472, March 7, 1912
— Palet vs. Aldecoa & Co., G.R. No. 4320, February 10, 1910
— Dizon vs. Ullmann, G.R. No. 4899, March 2, 1909
— Reyes vs. Alvarez, G.R. No. L-3957, October 3, 1907
— United States vs. Payog, G.R. No. 534, April 1, 1902

— Unnumbered DOJ Opinion, December 4,1968

— DSWD A.O. 71-03, December 30, 2003
— DSWD A.O. 56-03, April 22, 2003
— DSWD Order 10-99, May 10, 1999
— DSWD Order 18-97, June 3, 1997
— DSWD Order 12-97, April 28, 1997
— DSWD Order 5-92, March 13, 1992
— DepEd Order No. 023-11, March 16, 2011
— DECS Memo 373-98, March 13, 1992
— DILG M.C. 55-99, April 6, 1999
— DILG M.C. 4-99, January 7, 1999
— DILG M.C. 75-98, April 2, 1998
— DILG M.C. 12-96, January 17, 1996
— DILG M.C. 85-95, June 9, 1995
— DILG M.C. 69-95, March 15, 1995
— DILG M.C. 155-94, September 8, 1994
— DILG M.C. 103-94, June 22, 1994
— DILG M.C. 107-93, July 27, 1993
— DILG M.C. 95-93, July 23, 1993
— NCIP A.O. 1-98, June 9, 1998, Rule V, Sec. 7
— PhilHealth Board Res. 324-00, April 26, 2000, Title 1, Sec. 1
Custody and Guardianship
— R.A. 8552
— R.A. 8369, Sec. 5 (b)
— R.A. 386, Art. 1398, par. 2; Art. 1391, last par.; Art. 1407; Art. 1491 (1) & Art. 2262
— E.O. 209, Art. 43 (1); Art. 49; Art. 50, 2nd par.; Art. 62 & Art. 225
— P.D. 1083, February 4, 1977, Art. 13 (3); Art. 54 (c); Art. 77 (2); Arts. 78-80 & Art. 143 (a)
— P.D. 603, December 10, 1974, Art. 8; Arts. 23-25 & Arts. 35-36
— Rules of Court, January 1, 1964, Rule 72, Sec. 1 (c); Rule 92, Secs. 1-3; Rule 93, Secs. 1-8; Rule 94,
Secs. 1-3; Rule 95, Secs. 1-5; Rule 96, Secs. 1-8; Rule 97, Secs. 1-5 & Rule 99, Secs. 1-8
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 72, Sec. 1 (c); Rule 92, Secs. 1-3; Rule 93, Secs. 1-8; Rule 94, Secs. 1-
3; Rule 95, Secs. 1-5; Rule 96, Secs. 1-8; Rule 97, Secs. 1-5 & Rule 99, Secs. 1-8
— A.M. No. 03-02-05-SC (Rule on Guardianship of Minors), April 1, 2003
— Herald Black Dacasin vs. Sharon del Mundo Dacasin, G.R. No. 168785, February 5, 2010
— Noel P. Bagtas vs. Ruth C. Santos, et al., G.R. No. 166682, November 27, 2009
— Lorena P. Ong vs. Oscar E. Dinopol, RTJ-07-2052, March 30, 2009
— Felipe N. Madriñan vs. Francisca R. Madriñan, G.R. No. 159374, July 12, 2007
— Agnes Gamboa-Hirsch vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 174485, July 11, 2007
— Ivy Joan P. Reyes-Tabujara vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 172813, July 20, 2006
— Eric Jonathan Yu vs. Caroline T. Yu, G.R. No. 164915, March 10, 2006
— Joey D. Briones vs. Maricel P. Miguel, et al., G.R. No. 156343, October 18, 2004
— Edna Maris Socorro C. Bruan vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 149428, June 4, 2004
— Reymond B. Laxamana vs. Ma. Lourdes D. Laxamana, G.R. No. 144763, September 3, 2002
— Bonifacia P. Vancil vs. Helen G. Belmes, G.R. No. 132223, June 19, 2001
— Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123206, March 22, 2000
— Balagtas vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109073, October 20, 1999
— Garcia vda. de Chua vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116835, March 5, 1998
— Cañiza vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110427, February 24, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Ty, G.R. No. 121519, October 30, 1996
— Sombong vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111876, January 31, 1996
— Espiritu. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115640, March 15, 1995
— Office of the Court Administrator vs. Gines, A.M. No. RTJ-92-802, July 5, 1993
— Suarez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83251, January 23, 1991
— Gonzalez. vs. Ordoñez-Benitez, G.R. No. 42514, January 25, 1990
— Salvosa vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-70458, October 5, 1988
— Rulona-al Awadhi vs. Astih, G.R. No. 81969, September 26, 1988
— Amadora vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988
— Hontiveros, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-64982, October 23, 1984
— Paciente vs. Dacuycuy, G.R. No. L-58319, June 29, 1982
— In re: Lavides vs. City Court of Lucena, G.R. No. L-50261, May 31, 1982
— Parco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-33152, January 30, 1982
— Yuson de Pua vs. San Agustin, G.R. No. L-27402, July 25, 1981
— Unson III vs. Navarro, G.R. No. L-52242, November 17, 1980
— Roa-Magsaysay vs. Magsaysay, G.R. No. L-49847, July 17, 1980
— Ypil vs. Salas, G.R. Nos. L-49311-12, March 27, 1979
— Santos vs. Dichoso, A.C. No. 1825, August 22, 1978
— Lopez vda. de Baluyut vs. Ines Luciano, G.R. No. L-42215, July 13, 1976
— In re: Sheryl Lim vs. Soa Pin Lim, G.R. No. L-41405, October 22, 1975
— Nery vs. Lorenzo, G.R. No. L-23096, April 27, 1972
— Palisoc vs. Brillantes, G.R. No. L-29025, October 4, 1971
— Suga Sotto Yuvienco vs.Canonoy, G.R. No. L-23352, June 30, 1971
— PNB vs. Cabugsa, G.R. No. L-29406, January 28, 1971
— In re: Angela Tuazon de Perez, G.R. No. L-28114, October 30, 1970
— De Guzman vs. Aquino, G.R. No. L-29134, July 31, 1970

— Zafra-Sarte vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-23976, March 30, 1970
— In re: Pacita Chua vs. Cabangbang, G.R. No. L-23253, March 28, 1969
— Medina vs. Makabali, G.R. No. L-26953, March 28, 1969
— In re: Gomez vs. Imperial, G.R. No. L-26981, October 30, 1968
— Guardianship of the Incompetent Federico Garlit vs. Garlit, G.R. No. L-22504, October 14, 1968
— Perez vs. Araneta, G.R. No. L-18414, July 15, 1968
— Sotto Pahang vs. Sotto, G.R. No. L-21175, July 15, 1968
— Reganon vs. Imperial, G.R. No. L-24434, January 17, 1968
— Salas-Gatlin vs. Agrava, G.R. No. L-20827, September 29, 1967
— Nario vs. Philippine American Life Insurance Company, G.R. No. L-22796, June 26, 1967
— Reyes vs. Barretto Datu, G.R. No. L-17818, January 20, 1967
— Salazar. vs. Ortizano, G.R. No. L-20480, April 29, 1966
— Revilla de Lagdameo vs. La'o, G.R. No. L-19953, December 24, 1964
— Carpio vs. Agrava, G.R. No. L-20403, November 28, 1964
— Espiritu vs. Rivera, G.R. No. L-17092, September 30, 1963
— Tan Delgado vs. Gamboa, G.R. No. L-14326, February 28, 1962
— In re: Padilla vda. de Bengson vs. Phil. Nat'l. Bank, G.R. No. L-17066, December 28, 1961
— Santos vs. Almeda Lopez, G.R. No. L-16422, April 29, 1961
— Perez vs. Tuason de Perez, G.R. No. L-14874, September 30, 1960
— Senen vs. De Pichay, G.R. No. L-14391, May 30, 1960
— Fernandez vs. Bello, G.R. No. L-14277, April 30, 1960
— Luzon Stevedoring Company vs. De Leon, G.R. No. L-9521, November 28, 1959
— Porcuna vs. United States Veterans Administration, G.R. No. L-11563, May 29, 1959
— Susana Macazo, et al. vs. Benildo Nuñez, G.R. No. L-12772, January 24, 1959
— Diaz vs. Perez, G.R. No. L-12053, May 30, 1958
— Jocson vs. Empire Insurance Company, G.R. No. L-10792, April 30, 1958
— In re: Ebreo vs. Ebreo de Borromeo, G.R. No. L-9979, March 28, 1958
— Guardianship of James E. Stegner vs. Stegner, G.R. No. L-8532, October 11, 1957
— In re: Dato vs. PNB, G.R. No. L-10295, August 30, 1957
— In re: Viloria vs. Administrator of Veterans Affairs, G.R. No. L-9620, June 28, 1957
— Baga vs. PNB, G.R. No. L-9695, September 10, 1956
— Murdock Sr. vs. Chuidian, G.R. No. L-10544, August 30, 1956
— In Re: Cruz vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-8622, August 15, 1956
— Philippine Trust Co. vs. Roldan, G.R. No. L-8477, May 31, 1956
— Matute vs. Macadaeg, G.R. No. L-9325, May 30, 1956
— Pardo de Tavera vs. El Hogar Filipino, G.R. No. L-5893, February 28, 1956
— Flores vs. De Leon vda. de Esteban, G.R. No. L-8768, August 26, 1955
— Banzon vs. Alviar, G.R. No. L-8806, May 25, 1955
— Tabor vs. Baltazar, G.R. No. L-5468, February 11, 1953
— In re: Pangilinan vda. de Bautista vs. Bustos, G.R. No. L-4155, December 17, 1952
— Cui vs. Piccio, G.R. No. L-5131, July 31, 1952
— Fernando vs. Crisostomo, G.R. Nos. L-2963-4, December 27, 1951
— Soriano vs. Latoño, G.R. No. L-3408, December 23, 1950
— Querubin vs. Querubin, G.R. No. L-3693, Julio 29, 1950
— Lopez vs. Teodoro, G.R. No. L-3071, May 29, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Garcia, G.R. No. L-2873, February 28, 1950
— Margolari vs. Tancinco, G.R. No. L-3311, October 31, 1949
— Ching Juat vs. Ysip, G.R. No. L-920, January 27, 1947
— In re: Carbonell vda. de Ribaya vs. Vda. de Ribaya, G.R. No. 48895, July 16, 1943
— Garchitorena vs. Sotelo, G.R. No. 47867, November 13, 1942
— Junquera vs. Vaño, G.R. No. 47863, Junio 10, 1941

— Gamboa vs. Gamboa, G.R. No. 45121, May 31, 1939
— Ballesteros vs. Veterans Administration, G.R. No. 45340, April 15, 1939
— Rotea vs. Delupio, G.R. No. 45310, April 14, 1939
— Cruz vs. Jugo, G.R. No. 46050, August 12, 1938
— Crisostomo vs. Endencia, G.R. No. 45623, June 30, 1938
— Castillo vs. Bustamante, G.R. No. 44466, September 30, 1937
— Slade Perkins vs. Perkins, G.R. No. 35698, September 12, 1932
— Ortiz vs. Del Villar, G.R. No. 37785, August 1, 1932
— Santos vs. Supt. of the Phil. Training School for Girls, G.R. No. 34334, November 28, 1930
— Hermanos vs. Castro, G.R. No. 32944, November 4, 1930
— People of the Phil. vs. Makaraig, G.R. No. 32931, September 11, 1930
— Philippine Trust Co. vs. Macuan, G.R. No. 32280, March 24, 1930
— Lim Chu Lan vs. Lim Chu Kun, G.R. No. 31316, December 28, 1929
— Sanchez de Strong vs. Beishir, G.R. No. 30366, August 15, 1929
— Velayo vs. Patricio, G.R. No. 26593, March 24, 1927
— Sanz vs. Fanlo, G.R. No. 26203, February 21, 1927
— Tan Pho vs. Nable Jose, G.R. No. 24930, December 31, 1926
— Gayondato vs. Treasurer of the Phil. Islands, G.R. No. 24597, August 25, 1926
— Torres vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 24569, February 26, 1926
— Bactoso vs. Provincial Governor of Cebu, G.R. No. 24046, September 25, 1925
— Lichauco vs. Tan Pho, G.R. No. 19512, November 21, 1923
— Cortes vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 16903, March 18, 1921
— In re: Rico vda. de Inchausti vs. Soler, G.R. No. 15119, January 19, 1920
— In re: Rico vda. de Inchausti vs. De Inchausti, G.R. No. 14383, November 29, 1919
— Lozano vs. Martinez, G.R. No. 12834, October 10, 1917
— In re: Felipe Tamboco, G.R. No. 10900, October 8, 1917

— Arroyo vs. Jungsay, G.R. No. 10168, July 22, 1916
— Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp. vs. Aldecoa & Co., G.R. No. 8437, March 23, 1915
— Ullman vs. Hernaez, G.R. No. 9816, March 10, 1915
— Palet vs. Aldecoa & Co., G.R. No. 4320, February 10, 1910
— Tria vs. Ortiz, G.R. No. 5244, December 2, 1909
— Unnumbered DOJ Opinion, October 15, 1964
— DSWD A.O. 7-05, Roles and Responsibilities of Social Workers in Handling Cases on Annulment,
Nullity of Marriage, and Custody of Children, May 11, 2005
Solo Parents
— Julie Ann C. dela Cueva vs. Selima B. Omaga, A.M. No. P-08-2590, July 5, 2010
— Registration of Solo Parents, BIR Memorandum, March 11, 2010
— P.D. 603, December 10, 1974, Arts. 64-66
— R.A. 8972
— Implementing Guidelines for the Operationalization of the SRA Convergence, Sec. 4, 4.2.1 (8)
— Philippine Development Plan for Women (1989-1992), Chapter 10, 4.1.8
— Philippine Plan for Gender-Responsive Development (1995-2025), Chapter 6 & Chapter 20,
4.2.11
— CSC Res. 040284, Guidelines on the Grant of Parental Leave to Solo Parents in the Government
Service, March 22, 2004
— DSWD A.O. 86-03, December 5, 2003
— DSWD A.O. 40-03, February 6, 2003

— DSWD A.O. 38-03, February 6, 2003
— DSWD Order 11-97 (II), (B) (1)
— DSWD Order, October 2, 1996
Family Home
— R.A. 8369, Sec. 5 (h)
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 152-162
— P.D. 1083, February 4, 1977, Art. 143 (2) (a)
— Rules of Court, January 1, 1964, Rule 39, Sec. 12 (a); Rule 72, Sec. 1 (l) & Rule 106, Secs. 1-6
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 39, Sec. 13 (a); Rule 72, Sec. 1 (l) & Rule 106, Secs. 1-6
— Katarungang Pambarangay Implementing Rules, Rule VII, Sec. 7 (a)
— Sps. Charlie and Ofelia Fortaleza vs. Sps. Raul and Rona Lapitan, G.R. No. 178288, August 15,
2012
— Sps. Ernesto and Araceli de Mesa vs. Sps. Claudio, Jr. and Ma. Rufina Acero, et al., G.R. No.
185064, January 16, 2012
— Juanita Trinidad Ramos, et al. vs. Danilo Pangilinan, et al., G.R. No. 185920, July 20, 2010
— Simeon Cabang, et al. vs. Guillermo Basay, et al., G.R. No. 180587, March 20, 2009
— Albino Josef vs. Otelio Santos, G.R. No. 165060, November 27, 2008
— Sps. Auther, Jr. and Doris Kelley vs. Planters Products, Inc., et al., G.R. No. 172263, July 9, 2008
— Vilma G. Arriola, et al. vs. John Nabor C. Arriola, G.R. No. 177703, January 28, 2008
— Perla G. Patricio vs. Marcelino G. Dario III, et al., G.R. No. 170829, November 20, 2006
— Sps. Eduardo and Elsa Versola vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 164740, July 31, 2006
— Rodolfo Alarilla, Sr., et al. vs. Reynaldo C. Ocampo, G.R. No. 144697, December 10, 2003
— First Global Realty and Dev't. Corp. vs. Christopher San Agustin, G.R. No. 144499, February 19,
2002
— Saturnino Salera vs. A-1 Investors, G.R. No. 141238, February 15, 2002
— Union Bank of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 134068, June 25, 2001
— Taneo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108532, March 9, 1999
— Benguet Electric Cooperative vs. Flores, A.C. No. 4058, March 12, 1998
— Manacop vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97898, August 11, 1997
— Esquivias vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119714, May 29, 1997
— Romualdez-Marcos vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995
— Manacop vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104875, November 13, 1992
— Modequillo vs. Breva, G.R. No. 86355, May 31, 1990
— Testate Estate of de Guzman vs. De Guzman-Carillo, G.R. No. L-29276, May 18, 1978
— People of the Phil. vs. Chaves, G.R. No. L-19521, October 30, 1964
— Siari Valley Estates, Inc. vs. Lucasan, G.R. No. L-13281, August 31, 1960
— Montoya vs. Ignacio, G.R. No. L-10518, November 29, 1957
— Unnumbered DOJ Opinion, July 17, 1969
Use of Surnames
— Act 3815, Art. 178
— Act 1386, September 1, 1905
— R.A. 386, Arts. 370-373
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 176; Art. 189 (1) & Art. 193, last par.
— P.D. 603, December 10, 1974, Art. 39 (3) & Art. 42, last par.
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 99, Sec. 5
— Maria Virginia V. Remo vs. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, G.R. No. 169202, March 5, 2010
— Ma. Lourdes Barrientos Eleosida vs. Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City, et al., G.R. No. 130277,
May 9, 2002
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Abadilla, G.R. No. 133054, January 28, 1999
— Mossesgeld vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111455, December 23, 1998
— Republic of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88202, December 14, 1998
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Hernandez, G.R. No. 117209, February 9, 1996
— Yasin vs. Shari'a District Court, G.R. No. 94986, February 23, 1995
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97906, May 21, 1992
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Marcos, G.R. No. L-31065, February 15, 1990
— Tolentino vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41427, June 10, 1988
— Ibarra Sison vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-58087, December 27, 1982
— Batbatan. vs. Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Pagadian, G.R. No. L-33724, November 29,
1982
— In re: Dionesio Divinagracia, Jr., G.R. No. L-55538, March 15, 1982
— In re:Alfon vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-51201, May 29, 1980
— In re: Jose Sotto Beltran, G.R. No. X79_1, September 9, 1977
— In re: Llerena Telmo vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-28549, September 23, 1976
— In re: Pabellar vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-27298, March 4, 1976
— Llaneta vs. Agrava, G.R. No. L-32054, May 15, 1974
— In re: Secan Kok vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-27621, August 30, 1973
— In re: Cesar Un vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-26198, October 16, 1970
— Ang Chay. vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-28507, July 31, 1970
— Tan Pong vs. Republic of the Phil, G.R. No. L-21010, November 28, 1969
— In re: Republic of the Phil. vs. Lee Wai Lam, G.R. No. L-22607, July 30, 1969
— Villegas vs. Fernando, G.R. No. L-27347, April 28, 1969
— In re: Yap Ek Siu vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-25437, April 28, 1969
— Sotto Pahang vs. Sotto, G.R. No. L-21175, July 15, 1968
— In re: Ong Huan Tin vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-20997, April 27, 1967
— In re: Adolfo Calderon vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-18127, April 5, 1967
— In re: Oshita vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-21180, March 31, 1967
— In re: Cruz vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-20927, July 26, 1966
— In re: Yu vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-20874, May 25, 1966
— Grant, Jr. vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-23609, March 31, 1966
— In re: Tan Suarez vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-20914, December 24, 1965
— In re: Malicdem vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-19141, October 31, 1964
— Moore vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-18407, June 26, 1963
— In re: Georgiana vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-18284, April 30, 1963
— Laperal vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-18008, October 30, 1962
— Koa Gui vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-13717, July 31, 1962
— Lerma Garcia vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-16085, November 29, 1961
— In re: Manuel vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-15811, June 30, 1961
— In re: Manuel vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-15811, March 27, 1961
— Ledesma Silva vs. Peralta, G.R. No. L-13114, November 25, 1960
— Osmeña de Valencia vs. Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-1261, August 2, 1949
Absence
— R.A. 386, Art. 83 (2) & Arts. 381-392

— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 41-44
— P.D. 1083, February 4, 1977, Art. 11 (2); Art. 98 & Art. 143 (c)
— Rules of Court, January 1, 1964, Rule 72, Sec. 1 (m); Rule 73, Sec. 4; Rule 107, Secs. 1-8 & Rule
131, Sec. 5 (x)
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 72, Sec. 1 (m); Rule 73, Sec. 4; Rule 107, Secs. 1-8 & Rule 131, Sec. 3
(w)
— Joshua S. Alfelor, et al. vs. Josefina M. Halasan, et al., G.R. No. 165987, March 31, 2006
— SSS vs. Teresita Jarque vda. de Bailon, G.R. No. 165545, March 24, 2006
— Navarro vs. Domagtoy, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088, July 19, 1996
— Abadilla vs. Tabiliran, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-92-716, October 25, 1995
— Tol-Noquera vs. Villamor, G.R. No. 84250, July 20, 1992
— Tan vs. City of Davao, G.R. No. L-44347, September 29, 1988
— In re: Reyes vs. Alejandro, G.R. No. L-32026, January 16, 1986
— Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Lucero, G.R. No. L-60101, August 31, 1983
— Mendoza vs. Mella, G.R. No. L-18752, July 30, 1966
— Gue vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-14058, March 24, 1960
— In re: Lukban vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-8492, February 29, 1956
— In re: Szatraw vs. Sors, G.R. No. L-1780, August 31, 1948
— Que Quay vs. Insular Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 10992, January 6, 1916
— United States vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 10533, November 11, 1915
— United States vs. Biasbas, G.R. No. 8381, August 14, 1913
— Ablang vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 7399, August 6, 1913
— United States vs. San Luis, G.R. No. L-4139, February 18, 1908

Emancipation and Age of Majority
— R.A. 6809
— R.A. 386, Arts. 397-406
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 234-237 & Art. 228 (3)
— P.D. 1083, February 4, 1977, Art. 77 (1)
— Nunga vs. Viray, Adm. Case No. 4758, April 30, 1999
— Gapusan-Chua vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 46746, March 15, 1990
— Dy Cueco vs. Sec. of Justice, G.R. No. L-18069, May 26, 1962
— Villahermosa vs. Comm. of Immigration, G.R. No. L-1663, March 31, 1948
— Ching Juat vs. Ysip, G.R. No. L-920, January 27, 1947
— United States vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 13946, February 5, 1920
— Ibañez de Aldecoa vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., G.R. No. 6889, August 26, 1915
Funerals
— Act 1956, May 20, 1909, Sec. 50 (a)
— Act 3815, Art. 85 & Art. 153, last par.
— R.A. 8291, May 30, 1997, Sec. 23
— R.A. 8282, May 1, 1997, Sec. 13 (B)
— R.A. 1161, June 18, 1954, Sec. 13 (b)
— R.A. 386, Arts. 305-310; Art. 2165; Art. 2219 (9) & Art. 2244 (1)
— Rules on Employees' Compensation, June 28, 1978, Rule XIV, Sec. 1
— Amended Rules on Employees' Compensation, July 21, 1987, Rule XIV, Sec. 1
— Guidebook for SSS Members
— Valino v. Adriano, G.R. No. 182894, April 22, 2014
— People of the Phil. vs. Luvendino, G.R. No. 69971, July 3, 1992
— Baritua vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82233, March 22, 1990
— Concepcion vs. Jose, G.R. No. L-19417, March 27, 1923
— Smith, Bell & Co. vs. Maronilla, G.R. No. 8769, February 5, 1916
Wills and Succession
Definition and Concept
— NCC, Arts. 774, 712, 1311 & 1178
— Eugenia D. Polido vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 170632, July 10, 2007
— Alvarez vs. IAC, G.R. No. 68053, May 7, 1990
— Bonilla vs. Barcena, G.R. No. L-41715, June 18, 1976
— De Borja vs. Vda. de Borja, G.R. No. L-28040, August 18, 1972
— Butte vs. Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc, G.R. No. L-15499, February 28, 1962
— Estate of Hemady vs. Luzon Surety, G.R. No. L-8437, November 28, 1956
— Uson vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. L-4963, January 29, 1953
Subjects of Succession
— R.A. 386, Arts. 775 & 782
Object of Succession
— Act 3815, RPC, Art. 108
— R.A. 386, NCC, Arts. 776, 781, 1311 & 1429
— Rules of Court, Rule 86, Sec. 5

Opening of Succession
— R.A. 386, Civil Code, Arts. 130, 132, 390, 391, 533, 777, 1347, 1461, 2253 & 2263
— E.O. 209, Family Code, Arts. 84 & 86
— Ong vs. CA, G.R. No. L-75884, September 24, 1987
— Herrera vs. Borromeo, G.R. No. L-41171, July 23, 1987
— Bonilla vs. Barcena, G.R. No. L-41715, June 18, 1976
— Ramirez vs. Baltazar, G.R. No. L-25049, August 30, 1968
— Reganon vs. Imperial, G.R. No. L-24434, January 17, 1968
— Salvador vs. Sta. Maria, G.R. No. L-25952, June 30, 1967
— Butte vs. Manuel and Sons, G.R. No. L-15499, February 28, 1962
— De Borja vs. De Borja, G.R. No. L-14851, August 31, 1961
— Mondoñido vs. Alaura, G.R. No. L-5561, January 26, 1954
Kinds of Succession
1. Testamentary (Art. 779)
3. Legal or intestate (Art. 960)
5. Mixed (Art. 780)
7. Contractual (Arts. 130, 1347 & 752)
After-Acquired Properties
— Blas vs. Santos, G.R. No. L-14070, March 29, 1961
— Pacio vs. Billo, G.R. No. L-15088, January 31, 1961
Wills
a. Wills in General (Arts. 783-795)
1. Definition (Art. 783)
— Vitug vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82027, March 29, 1990
— Riera vs. Palmaroli, G.R. No. 14851, September 13, 1919
2. Characteristics of a Will
— R.A. 386, Arts. 777, 783, 839 (3) & (4), 828, 784-787, 796-798 & 818
— Balanay vs. Martinez, G.R. No. L-39247, June 27, 1975
— Castañeda vs. Alemany, G.R. No. 1439, March 19, 1904
3. Interpretation of Wills
— R.A. 386, Arts. 788-794 & 930
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 9 & Sec. 23
— Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon, G.R. No. L-24561, June 30, 1970
— Vda. de Villaflor vs. Juico, G.R. No. L-15737, February 28, 1962
— Solla vs. Ascueta, G.R. No. 24955, September 4, 1926
b. Testamentary Capacity and Intent (Arts. 796-803)
— E.O. 209, Family Code, Art. 97
— Leticia Valmonte Ortega vs. Josefina C. Valmonte, G.R. No. 157451, December 16, 2005
— Cayetano vs. Leonidas, G.R. No. L-54919, May 30, 1984
— Bellis vs. Bellis, G.R. No. L-23678, June 6, 1967
— In re: Edward Christensen vs. Christensen-Garcia, G.R. No. L-11483-84, February 14, 1958
c. Forms of Wills (Arts. 804- 819)
c.1. Notarial Will
c.1.1. General Requirements (Art. 804)
— Suroza vs. Honrado, A.M. No. 2026, December 19, 1981
— Reyes vs. Zuñiga vda. de Vidal, G.R. No. L-2862, April 21, 1952
— Lopez vs. Liboro, G.R. No. L-1787, August 27, 1948
— Acop vs. Piraso, G.R. No. 28946, January 16, 1929
— Abangan vs. Abangan, G.R. No. 13431, November 12, 1919
c.1.2. Specific Requirements (Arts. 805-806)
— Calde vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93980, June 27, 1994
— Caneda vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103554, May 28, 1993
— In re: Labrador vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 83843-44, April 5, 1990
— Rivera vs. IAC, G.R. Nos. 75005-06, February 15, 1990
— In re: De Jesus vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. L-38338, January 28, 1985
— Kalaw vs. Relova, G.R. No. L-40207, September 28, 1984

— Rodelas vs. Aranza, G.R. No. L-58509, December 7, 1982
— In re: Taboada vs. Rosal, G.R. No. L-36033, November 5, 1982
— Gabucan vs. Manta, G.R. No. L-51546, January 28, 1980
— Gonzales vs. CA, G.R. No. L-37453, May 25, 1979
— Vda. de Ramos vs. CA, G.R. No. L-40804, January 31, 1978
— Cruz vs. Villasor, G.R. No. L-32213, November 26, 1973
— Garcia vs. Gatchalian, G.R. No. L-20357, November 25, 1967
— De la Cerna vs. Rebaca-Potot, G.R. No. L-20234, December 23, 1964
— Icasiano vs. Icasiano, G.R. No. L-18979, June 30, 1964
— Balonan vs. Abellana, G.R. No. L-15153, August 31, 1960
— Azaola vs. Singson, G.R. No. L-14003, August 5, 1960
— Gan vs. Yap, G.R. No. L-12190, August 30, 1958
— Javellana vs. Ledesma, G.R. No. L-7179, June 30, 1955
— Cagro vs. Cagro, G.R. No. L-5826, April 29, 1953
— Reyes vs. Vda. de Vidal, G.R. No. L-2862, April 21, 1952
— Garcia vs. Lacuesta, G.R. No. L-4067, November 29, 1951
— Gonzales vs. Carungcong, G.R. Nos. L-3272-73, November 29, 1951
— Cuevas vs. Achacoso, G.R. No. L-3497, May 18, 1951
— Gil vs. Murciano, G.R. No. L-3362, March 1, 1951
— Lopez vs. Liboro, G.R. No. L-1787, August 27, 1948
— In re: Mendoza vs. Pilapil, G.R. No. 47931, Junio 27, 1941
— Martir vs. Martir, G.R. No. 46995, June 21, 1940
— Payad vs. Tolentino, G.R. No. 42258, January 15, 1936
— Sebastian vs. Pañganiban, G.R. No. 39797, March 12, 1934
— Andalis vs. Pulgueras, G.R. No. 39209, March 10, 1934
— Dichoso vs. De Gorostiza, G.R. No. 35586, October 31, 1932
— Rey vs. Cartagena, G.R. No. 34288, November 10, 1931
— Rodriguez vs. Alcala, G.R. No. 32672, November 5, 1930
— Quinto vs. Morata, 31732, February 19, 1930

— Villaflor vs. Tobias, G.R. No. 27440, December 24, 1927
— Gabriel vs. Mateo, G.R. No. 26545, December 16, 1927
— Gumban vs. Gorecho, G.R. No. 26135, March 3, 1927
— Saño vs. Quintana, G.R. No. 24566, December 18, 1925
— Jacinto vs. Mercado, G.R. No. 23392, March 18, 1925
— Nayve vs. Mojal, G.R. No. 21755, December 29, 1924
— Antonio vs. Antonio, G.R. No. 22399, December 12, 1924
— In re: Estate of Neumark, G.R. No. L-20366, August 30, 1923
— Uy Coque vs. Sioca, G.R. No. L-17430, May 31, 1922
— Aldaba vs. Roque, G.R. No. 17304, May 22, 1922
— In re: Will of Prieto, G.R. No. L-17761, April 28, 1922
— Avera vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 15566, September 14, 1921
— In re: Estate of Saguinsin, G.R. No. 15025, March 15, 1920
— Abangan vs. Abangan, G.R. No. 13431, November 12, 1919
— In re: Estate of Nepomuceno, G.R. No. 9677, December 15, 1914
— Yap Tua vs. Yap Ka Kuan, G.R. No. 6845, September 1, 1914
— Caluya vs. Domingo, G.R. No. 7647, March 27, 1914
— Barut vs. Cabacungan, G.R. No. 6285, February 15, 1912
— Nera vs. Rimando, G.R. No. L-5971, February 27, 1911
— Macapinlac vs. Alimurong, G.R. No. 5149, March 22, 1910
— Ex parte Ondevilla, G.R. No. 4454, April 12, 1909
— Gillesania vs. Menasalvas, G.R. No. 4202, March 9, 1909
— In re: Will of Siason, G.R. No. L-4132, March 23, 1908
— Abaya vs. Zalamero, G.R. No. L-3907, March 12, 1908
— Araujo vs. Celis, G.R. No. 2308, April 30, 1906
— Guison vs. Concepcion, G.R. No. 2586, January 19, 1906
— Jaboneta vs. Gustilo, G.R. No. 1641, January 19, 1906
c.1.3. Special Requirements (Arts. 807-808)
— Alvarado vs. Gaviola, G.R. No. 74695, September 14, 1993

— Precilla vs. Narciso, G.R. No. L-27200, August 18, 1972
— Garcia vs. Vasquez, G.R. No. L-26615, L-26884 & L-27200, April 30, 1970
c.1.4. Substantial Compliance (Art. 809)
— Caneda vs. CA, G.R. No. 103554, May 28, 1993
— Roxas vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. L-38338, January 28, 1985
— In re: Taboada vs. Rosal, G.R. No. L-36033, November 5, 1982
— Alcala vs. De Villa, G.R. No. 47351, Abril 18, 1941
— Sabado vs. Fernandez, G.R. No. 47731, June 27, 1940
— Sebastian vs. Panganiban, G.R. No. 39797, March 12, 1934
— Rey vs. Cartagena, G.R. No. 34288, November 10, 1931
— De Gala vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 30289, March 26, 1929
— Fernandez vs. Vergel de Dios, G.R. No. L-21151, February 25, 1924
— Pecson vs. Coronel, G.R. No. 20374, October 11, 1923
c.2. Holographic Wills (Art. 810)
c.2.1. General Requirements (Art. 804)
— Codoy vs. Calugay, G.R. No. 123486, August 12, 1999
c.2.2. Specific Requirements (Arts. 810- 813)
— Labrador vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 83843-44, April 5, 1990
— Roxas vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. 38338, January 28, 1985
c.2.3. Requirement for Probate (Art. 811)
— Rivera vs. IAC, G.R. Nos. 75005-06, February 15, 1990
— Azaola vs. Singson, G.R. No. L-14003, August 5, 1960
— Gan vs. Yap, G.R. No. L-12190, August 30, 1958
c.2.4. Art. 814
— Ajero vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106720, September 15, 1994
d. Witnesses to Wills (Arts. 820-824)

— Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-37453, May 25, 1979
— Cruz vs. Villasor, G.R. No. L-32213, November 26, 1973
e. Codicils and Incorporation by Reference (Arts. 825 to 827)
— Unson vs. Abella, G.R. No. 17857, June 12, 1922
f. Revocation of Wills and Testamentary Dispositions (Arts. 828 to 834)
— Casiano Ampoloquio vs. CA, G.R. Nos. L-46800-01, April 29, 1994
— Maloto vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76464, February 29, 1988
— Molo vs. Molo, G.R. No. L-2538, September 21, 1951
— Lipana vs. CFI, G.R. No. 47174, June 28, 1940
— Gago vs. Mamuyac, G.R. No. 26317, January 29, 1927
— Diaz vs. De Leon, G.R. No. L-17714, May 31, 1922
— Samson vs. Naval, G.R. No. 11823, February 11, 1918
— Timbol vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 2696, May 5, 1906
g. Republication and Revival of Wills (Arts. 835 to 837)
h. Allowance and Disallowance of Wills (Arts. 838 to 839)
— Vizconde vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118449, February 11, 1998
— Jimenez vs. IAC, G.R. No. 75773, April 17, 1990
— Leviste vs. CA, G.R. No. 29184, January 30, 1989
— De Guzman vs. Angeles, G.R. No. L-78590, June 20, 1988
— In re: Ayllon vs. Sevilla, G.R. No. L-79244, December 10, 1987
— Acain vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-72706, October 27, 1987
— Ortega vs. CA, G.R. No. L-43155, August 14, 1987
— Valera vs. Inserto, G.R. Nos. L-56504 & L-59867-68, May 7, 1987
— Mang-oy vs. CA, G.R. No. L-27421, September 12, 1986
— Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-62952, October 9, 1985
— Cuizon vs. Ramolete, G.R. No. L-51291, May 29, 1984
— Roberts vs. Leonidas, G.R. No. 55509, April 27, 1984
— Pastor vs. Court Appeals, G.R. No. L-56340, June 24, 1983

— Maninang vs. CA, G.R. No. L-57848, June 19, 1982
— Gallanosa vs. Arcangel, G.R. No. L-29300, June 21, 1978
— Balanay vs. Martinez, G.R. No. L-39247, June 27, 1975
— Cuenco vs. CA, G.R. No. L-24742, October 26, 1973
— Tangco vs. De Borja, G.R. No. L-28040, August 18, 1972
— In Re: Maravilla vs. Maravilla, G.R. No. L-23225, February 27, 1971
— Pascual vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No. L-24819, May 30, 1969
— Teotico vs. Del Val, G.R. No. L-18753, March 26, 1965
— De la Cerna vs. Rebaca-Potot, G.R. No. L-20234, December 23, 1964
— Santos vs. Sto. Domingo, G.R. No. 47398, Abril 14, 1941
— Cuyugan vs. Baron, G.R. No. 45804, Febrero 7, 1940
— Mercado vs. Santos, G.R. No. 45629, September 22, 1938
— Macam vs. Gatmaitan, G.R. No. 40445, August 17, 1934
— Sancho vs. Abella, G.R. No. 39033, November 13, 1933
— Manahan vs. Manahan, G.R. No. 38050, September 22, 1933
— Tolentino vs. Francisco, G.R. No. 35993, December 19, 1932
— Asinas vs. CFI, G.R. No. 29038, March 10, 1928
— Fernandez vs. Tantoco, G.R. No. 25489, September 8, 1926
— Manalo vs. Paredes, G.R. No. 24168, September 22, 1925
— Limpin vs. Yalung, G.R. No. 19077, January 23, 1923
— Coso vs. Fernandez Deza, G.R. No. 16763, December 22, 1921
— Avera vs. Garcia, G.R. No. 15566, September 14, 1921
— Paras vs. Narciso, 10959, November 2, 1916
— Austria vs. Ventenilla, G.R. No. 6620, January 11, 1912
— Montanaño vs. Suesa, G.R. No. 4724, December 24, 1909
— Chiong Joc-Soy vs. Vaño, G.R. No. L-3459, March 22, 1907
— Sahagun vs. Gorostiza, G.R. No. L-3059, January 22, 1907

— Valera vs. Purugganan, G.R. No. 1888, September 2, 1905
— Castaneda vs. Alemany, G.R. No. 1439, March 19, 1904
Institution of Heirs (Arts. 840-856 )
— Austria vs. Reyes, G.R. No. L-23079, February 27, 1970
— Resurreccion vs. Javier, G.R. No. 42539, October 23, 1936
— Gutierrez vs. Calderon, G.R. No. 39796, March 9, 1934
— Batiquin vs. Batiquin, G.R. No. 21164, March 18, 1924
— Nable Jose vs. Uson, G.R. No. 8927, March 10, 1914
— Escuin vs. Escuin, G.R. No. 4359, September 24, 1908
— Del Rosario vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 1027, May 19, 1903
a. Preterition (Arts. 854, 906, 855 & 918)
— J.L.T. Agro, Inc. vs. Antonio Balansag, et al., G.R. No. 141882, March 11, 2005
— Acain vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-72706, October 27, 1987
— Solano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-41971, November 29, 1983
— In Re: Balanay vs. Martinez, G.R. No. L-39247, June 27, 1975
— Reyes vs. Barretto-Datu, G.R. No. L-17818, January 20, 1967
— Aznar vs. Duncan, G.R. No. L-24365, June 30, 1966
— Nuguid vs. Nuguid, G.R. No. L-23445, June 23, 1966
— Neri vs. Akutin, G.R. No. 47799, May 21, 1943
— Eleazar vs. Eleazar, G.R. No. 45978, April 24, 1939
— Escuin vs. Escuin, G.R. No. 4359, September 24, 1908
Substitution of Heirs (Arts. 857-870)
— Baritua vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 82233, March 22, 1990
— De la Puerta vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 77867, February 6, 1990
— Vda. de Mapa vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-38972, September 28, 1987
— Rosales vs. Rosales, G.R. No. L-40789, February 27, 1987
— Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985
— Ramirez vs. Vda. de Ramirez, G.R. No. L-27952, February 15, 1982
— PCIB vs. Escolin, G.R. Nos. L-27860, 27896, 27936, & 27937, March 29, 1974
— Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-28734, March 28, 1969
— Crisologo vs. Singson, G.R. No. L-13876, February 28, 1962
a. Fideicommissary Substitution
— De la Puerta vs. CA, G.R. No. 77867, February 6, 1990
— Vda. de Mapa vs. CA, G.R. No. L-38972, September 28, 1987
— Rodriguez vs. CA, G.R. No. L-28734, March 28, 1969
— Crisologo vs. Singson, G.R. No. L-13876, February 28, 1962
— Perez vs. Garchitorena, G.R. No. 31703, February 13, 1930
— Barreto vs. Tuason, G.R. No. 23923, March 23, 1926
Conditional Testamentary Dispositions and Testamentary Dispositions With A Term (Arts. 871-885)
— Vda. de Kilayko vs. Tengco, G.R. No. L-45425, March 27, 1992
— Macrohon Ong Ham vs. Saavedra, G.R. No. 27531, December 24, 1927
— Miciano vs. Brimo, G.R. No. 22595, November 1, 1924
— Natividad vs. Gabino, G.R. No. 11386, March 31, 1917
— Morente vs. De la Santa, G.R. No. L-3891, December 19, 1907
— Chiong Joc-soy vs. Vaño, G.R. No. L-3459, March 22, 1907
Legitime (Arts. 886-914)
— Locsin vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89783, February 19, 1992
— Baritua vs. CA, G.R. No. 82233, March 22, 1990
— Solivio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83484, February 12, 1990
— Madarcos vs. De la Merced, G.R. No. 39975, June 30, 1989
— Lapuz vs. Eufemio, G.R. No. L-30977, January 31, 1972
— Lacerna vs. Vda. de Corcino, G.R. No. L-14603, April 29, 1961
— Sienes vs. Esparcia, G.R. No. L-12957, March 24, 1961
— Osorio vs. Osorio, G.R. No. L-1965, December 29, 1949

— Pisalbon vs. Bejec, G.R. No. 48430, January 30, 1943
— Ramirez vs. Gmur, G.R. No. 11796, August 5, 1918
— Del Val vs. Del Val, G.R. No. 9374, February 16, 1915
— Edroso vs. Sablan, G.R. No. 6878, September 13, 1913
— Chingen vs. Arguelles, G.R. No. L-3314, January 3, 1907
— Mijares vs. Nery, G.R. No. 1380, January 18, 1904
a. Amount of Legitime
— Van Dorn vs. Romillo, G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985
b. Computation
— Locsin vs. CA, G.R. No. 89783, February 19, 1992
— Vda. de Tupas vs. CFI, G.R. No. L-65800, October 3, 1986
— Mateo vs. Lagua, G.R. No. L-26270, October 30, 1969
c. Reserva Troncal (Art. 891)
— Sumaya vs. IAC, G.R. Nos. 68843-44, September 2, 1991
— Solivio vs. CA, G.R. No. 83484, February 12, 1990
— De Papa vs. Camacho, G.R. No. L-28032, September 24, 1986
— Gonzales vs. Court of First Instance, G.R. No. L-34395, May 19, 1981
— Chua vs. CFI, G.R. No. L-29901, August 31, 1977
— Carrillo, et al. vs. De Paz, G.R. No. L-22601, October 28, 1966
— Gueco vs. Lacson, G.R. No. L-16928, September 30, 1963
— Sienes vs. Esparcia, G.R. No. L-12957, March 24, 1961
— Cano vs. Dir. of Lands, G.R. No. L-10701, January 16, 1959
— Jardin vs. Villamayor, G.R. No. 47889, Junio 17, 1941
— Dimaliwat vs. Asuncion, G.R. No. 38069, January 20, 1934
— Tuazon vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 25039, March 2, 1926
— Riosa vs. Rocha, G.R. No. 23770, February 18, 1926

— Dizon vs. Galang, G.R. No. 23144, January 14, 1926
— Maghirang vs. Balcita, G.R. No. L-22066, December 2, 1924
— Cabardo vs. Villanueva, G.R. No. 19003, December 13, 1922
— Nieva vs. Alcala, G.R. No. 13386, October 27, 1920
— Florentino vs. Florentino, G.R. No. 14856, November 15, 1919
— De los Reyes vs. Paterno, G.R. No. 10580, March 27, 1916
— Edroso vs. Sablan, G.R. No. 6878, September 13, 1913
d. Reserva Adoptiva (Art. 39, Family Code; PD 603)
— Banawa vs. Mirano, G.R. No. L-24750, May 16, 1980
Disinheritance (Arts. 915-923)
— Family Code on Loss of Parental Authority, Arts. 228- 232
— RA 386, Art. 920 (6) and E.O. 209, Family Code, Art. 55 on grounds for Legal Separation in
connection with RA 386, Art. 921 (4)
— Pecson vs. Mediavillo, G.R. No. 7890, September 29, 1914
— Suiliong & Co. vs. Chio-Taysan, G.R. No. 4777, November 11, 1908
Legacies and Devises (Arts. 924 to 959)
— Fernandez vs. Dimagiba, G.R. No. L-23638 & L-23662, October 12, 1967
— Belen vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. L-14474, October 31, 1960
— Singson vs. Lim, G.R. No. 48627, February 19, 1943
— Santos vs. Manarang, G.R. No. 8235, March 19, 1914
Insurance Proceeds
— Heirs of Loreto C. Maramag vs. Eva Verna de Guzman Maramag, et al., G.R. No. 181132, June 5,
2009
General Provisions of Legal or Intestate Succession (Arts. 960-962)
— De los Santos vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No. L-29192, February 22, 1971
— Rodriguez vs. Borja, G.R. No. L-21993, June 21, 1966

— Macrohon vs. Saavedra, G.R. No. 27531, December 24, 1927
a. Relationship (Arts. 963-969)
— Bartolome v. SSS, G.R. No. 192531, November 12, 2014
b. Right of Representation (Arts. 970-977, 982, 902, 992 & 1005-1008)
— Diaz vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-66574, June 17, 1987
— Salao vs. Salao, G.R. No. L-26699, March 16, 1976
— Abellana de Bacayo vs. Ferraris-Borromeo, G.R. No. L-19382, August 31, 1965
— Linart vs. Ugarte, G.R. No. 2599, October 27, 1905
Order of Intestate Succession
— Heirs of Uriarte vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116775, January 22, 1998
a. Descending Direct Line
— Sayson vs. CA, G.R. No. 89224-25, January 23, 1992
b. Ascending Direct Line (Arts. 985-987)
— Portea vs. Pabellon, G.R. No. L-1367, August 16, 1949
c. Illegitimate Children (Arts. 988-994)
— Alonzo Q. Ancheta vs. Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon, G.R. No. 139868, June 8, 2006
— Josefa Delgado, et al., vs. Heirs of Marciana Rustia, G.R. No. 155733, January 27, 2006
— Manuel vs. Ferrer, G.R. No. 117246, August 21, 1995
— Diaz vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-66574, June 17, 1987
— Vda. de Crisologo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-44051, June 27, 1985
— Leonardo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-51263, February 28, 1983
— Carillo vs. De Paz, G.R. No. L-22601, October 28, 1966
— Del Prado vs. Santos, G.R. No. L-20946, September 23, 1966
— Cacho vs. Udan, G.R. No. L-19996, April 30, 1965
— Grey vs. Fabie, G.R. No. 45160, May 23, 1939

— Centeno vs. Centeno, G.R. No. 28265, November 5, 1928
— De Guzman vs. Sevilla, G.R. No. 21570, August 30, 1924
d. Surviving Spouse (Arts. 995-1002)
— In re: Rosales vs. Rosales, G.R. No. L-31712, September 28, 1984
— Berciles vs. GSIS, G.R. No. L-57257 & A.M. No. 1337-RET. & 10468-CFE, March 5, 1984
— In re: Satillon vs. Miranda, G.R. No. L-19281, June 30, 1965
e. Collateral Relatives (Arts. 1003-1010)
— Erlinda Pilapil, et al. vs. Heirs of Maximo R. Briones, et al., G.R. No. 150175, March 10, 2006
— Bicomong vs. Almanza, G.R. No. L-37365, November 29, 1977
— Bacayo vs. Borromeo, G.R. No. L-19382, August 31, 1965
f. The State (Arts. 1011-1014)
— Divino vs. Hilario, G.R. No. 44658, January 24, 1936
— City of Manila vs. Archbishop of Manila, G.R. No. 10033, August 30, 1917
— In re Estate of Lao Sayco, G.R. No. 4824, February 13, 1912
Right of Accretion (Arts. 1015-1023)
— Torres vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 25966, November 1, 1926
Capacity to Succeed by Will or by Intestacy (Arts. 1024-1040)
— Nepomuceno vs. CA, G.R. No. L-62952, October 9, 1985
— Cayetano vs. Leonidas, G.R. No. L-54919, May 30, 1984
— Parish Priest of Victoria vs. Rigor, G.R. No. L-22036, April 30, 1979
— Quion vs. Claridad, G.R. No. 48541, January 30, 1943
— Villavicencio vs. Quinio, G.R. No. 45248, April 18, 1939
— Resurreccion vs. Javier, G.R. No. 42539, October 23, 1936
— Torres, et al. vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 25966, November 1, 1926
— Ramirez vs. Gmur, G.R. No. 11796, August 5, 1918
— Torres vs. Javier, G.R. No. 10560, March 24, 1916
— Pimentel vs. Palanca, G.R. No. 2108, December 19, 1905
Acceptance and Repudiation of the Inheritance (Arts. 1041-1057)

— Leviste vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 29184, January 30, 1989
— Borromeo-Herrera vs. Borromeo, G.R. No. L-41171, July 23, 1987
Executors and Administrators (Arts. 1058-1060)
— Intestate Estate of Cristina Aguinaldo-Suntay, et al. vs. Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No.
183053, June 16, 2010
— Heirs of Belinda Dahlia A. Castillo vs. Dolores Lacuata-Gabriel, G.R. No. 162934, November 11,
2005
Collation (Arts. 1061- 1077)
— Lauro Vizconde vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118449, February 11, 1998
— Locsin vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89783, February 19, 1992
— De Roma vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-46903, July 23, 1987
— Vda. de Tupas vs. RTC, G.R. No. L-65800, October 3, 1986
— Dizon-Rivera vs. Dizon, G.R. No. L-24561, June 30, 1970
— Lesaca vs. Vda. de Lesaca, G.R. No. L-3605, April 21, 1952
— Tordilla vs. Tordilla, G.R. No. 39547, May 3, 1934
— Guerrero vs. De la Cuesta, G.R. No. 39696, February 8, 1934
Partition and Distribution of the Estate
a. Partition (Arts. 1078-1090)
— Mariano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101522, May 28, 1993
— Favor vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80821, February 21, 1991
— Chavez vs. IAC, G.R. No. 68282, November 8, 1990
— Ralla vs. Untalan, G.R. Nos. 63253-54, April 27, 1989
— Garcia vs. Calaliman, G.R. No. 26855, April 17, 1989
— Bautista vs. Griño-Aquino, G.R. No. L-79958, October 28, 1988
— Alonzo vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-72873, May 28, 1987
— Mang-oy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-27421, September 12, 1986
— Alsua Betts vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-46430-31, July 30, 1979
— Doromal vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-36083, September 5, 1975
— In Re: Balanay vs. Martinez, G.R. No. L-39247, June 27, 1975
— Barcelona vs. Barcelona, G.R. No. L-9014, October 31, 1956
— Borja vs. Encarnacion, G.R. No. L-4681, July 31, 1951
— Berceño vs. Ocampo & Sotelo, G.R. No. 48936, June 22, 1943
— Marcelino vs. Antonio, G.R. No. 46847, Junio 29, 1940
— Recto Dia vs. Castillo, G.R. No. 46569, Febrero 8, 1940
— Santos vs. Mendoza, G.R. No. 46520, November 9, 1939
— Santiesteban vs. Santiesteban, G.R. No. 45217, June 30, 1939
— Guidote vs. Bank of P.I., G.R. No. 45803, April 18, 1939
— Javelosa vs. Barrios, G.R. No. 46096, August 12, 1938
— Cu-Unjieng vs. Tiaoqui, G.R. No. 43748, July 31, 1937
— Camia de Reyes vs. Reyes de Ilano, G.R. No. 42092, October 28, 1936
— Fajardo vs. Fajardo, G.R. No. 32195, August 19, 1930
— Legasto vs. Verzosa, G.R. No. 32344, March 31, 1930
— Wenceslao vs. Calimon, G.R. No. L-20950, December 20, 1923
— De los Santos vs. Santa Teresa, G.R. No. 12252, January 8, 1918
— Hernaez vs. Hernaez, G.R. No. 10027, November 13, 1915
— Beltran vs. Doriano, G.R. No. 9969, October 26, 1915
— Del Val vs. Del Val, 9374, February 16, 1915
— Broce vs. De la Viña, G.R. No. 6677, October 24, 1911
— Belen vs. Belen, G.R. No. 5002, March 18, 1909
b. Effects of Partition
— Guilas vs. Judge, G.R. No. L-26695, January 31, 1972
— Agustines vs. CFI, G.R. No. L-612, April 3, 1948
— Jakosalem vs. Rafols, G.R. No. 48372, July 24, 1942

— Alforque vs. Veloso, G.R. No. 43607, February 16, 1938
— Gonzaga vs. Martinez, G.R. No. L-3196, January 6, 1908
c. Rescission and Nullity of Partition (Arts. 1097-1105)
— Estate of Tarcila vda. de Villegas vs. Jesus R. Gaboya, et al., G.R. No. 143006, July 14, 2006
— Bautista vs. Griño-Aquino, G.R. No. L-79958, October 28, 1988
— Reyes vs. Barretto, G.R. No. L-17818, January 20, 1967
— Aguirre vs. Atienza, G.R. No. L-10665, August 30, 1958
— Torres vs. Encarnacion, G.R. No. L-4681, July 31, 1951
— Alforque vs. Veloso, G.R. No. 43607, February 16, 1938
— Sanson vs. Araneta, G.R. No. 39697, April 5, 1934
— Centeno vs. Centeno, G.R. No. 28265, November 5, 1928
— De Torres vs. De Torres, G.R. No. 9234, September 19, 1914
— Africa vs. Africa, G.R. No. 15031, March 15, 1912
Civil Register
— Act No. 3753, November 26, 1930
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 170 & Art. 172 (1)
— R.A. 10172, August 9, 2012
— R.A. 8552, Sec. 14
— P.D. 651, January 31, 1975
— P.D. 603, December 10, 1974, Art. 37 & Art. 42, last par.
— Proc. 437, August 9, 1994
— Rules of Court, January 1, 1964, Rule 72, Sec. 1 (n); Rule 93, Sec. 8; Rule 97, Sec. 5; Rule 99, Sec.
8; Rule 100, Sec. 4; Rule 103, Sec. 6; Rule 105, Sec. 6 & Rule 108, Secs. 1-7
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 72, Sec. 1 (n); Rule 93, Sec. 8; Rule 97, Sec. 5; Rule 99, Sec. 8; Rule
100, Sec. 4; Rule 103, Sec. 6; Rule 105, Sec. 6 & Rule 108, Secs. 1-7
— NSO A.O. 1-93, Implementing Rules and Regulations of Act No. 3753 and Other Laws on Civil
Registration, December 18, 1992
3 (h); Secs. 30-31; Sec. 37 (3) & Sec. 42
— ARMM Executive Order No. 21-12, July 3, 2012
— Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. 174689, October 19, 2007
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Labrador, G.R. No. 132980, March 25, 1999
— Mossesgeld vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111455, December 23, 1998
— Leonor vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112597, April 2, 1996
— Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-53417, December 8, 1988
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Bautista, G.R. No. L-35316, October 26, 1987
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Valencia, G.R. No. L-32181, March 5, 1986
— Republic of the Phils. vs. Macli-ing, G.R. No. 57211, March 18, 1985
— Ibarra Sison, vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-58087, December 27, 1982
— Batbatan. vs. Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Pagadian, G.R. No. L-33724, November 29,
1982
— Republic of the Phil. vs. De la Cruz, G.R. No. L-34079, November 2, 1982
— In re: Pabellar vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-27298, March 4, 1976
— Republic of the Phil vs. Amores, G.R. No. L-35232, January 31, 1973
— Uy vs. Local Civil Registrar of the City of Cebu, G.R. No. L-24442, July 27, 1972
— Go vs. Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Malabon, Rizal, G.R. No. L-29544, May 31, 1971
— Chua Wee vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-27731, April 21, 1971
— In re: Cesar Un vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-26198, October 16, 1970
— Dy En Siu Co vs. Local Civil Registrar of the City of Manila, G.R. No. L-20794, July 29, 1968
— De Dios Ramirez Marcaida vs. Aglubat, G.R. No. L-24006, November 25, 1967
— David vs. Republic of the Phil, G.R. No. L-21316, November 29, 1965
— Alisoso vs. Lastimoso, G.R. No. L-19659, May 31, 1965

— In re: Malicdem vs. Republic of the Phil. G.R. No. L-19141, October 31, 1964
— Lui Lin vs. Nuño, G.R. No. L-18213, December 24, 1963
— In re: San Luis de Castro vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-17431, April 30, 1963
— Barillo vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-14823, December 28, 1961
— In re: Manuel vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-15811, March 27, 1961
— In re: Local Civil Registrar of Mla. Joaquin P. Roces vs. The Local Civil Registrar of Mla., G.R. No. L-
10598, February 14, 1958
— Ansaldo vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-10226, February 14, 1958
— Brown vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-9526, August 30, 1956
— Madridejo vs. De Leon, G.R. No. 32473, October 6, 1930
— Samson vs. Corrales Tan, G.R. No. 23729, December 5, 1925
Suit Between Members of the Family
— Heirs of Favis, Sr. v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 185922, January 15, 2014
— Emilio A.M. Suntay III vs. Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No. 183053, October 10, 2012
— Hiyas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. vs. Edmundo T. Acuña, et al., G.R. No. 154132, August 31,
2006
— Edwin N. Tribiana vs. Lourdes M. Tribiana, G.R. No. 137359, September 13, 2004
— Sps. Manuel and Rosemarie Wee vs. Rosario D. Galvez, G.R. No. 147394, August 11, 2004
— Sps. Elanio C. Ong vs. Court of Appeals and Emma A. Garamay Ong, G.R. No. 144581, July 5,
2002

— Unnumbered DOJ Opinion, September 18, 1970
— Unnumbered DOJ Opinion, May 27, 1970
Social Security and Other Benefits
— 1973 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 7; Art. XV, Sec. 4 & Art. XVI, Sec. 7
— Act 2456, February 3, 1915
— R.A. 9257, February 26, 2004
— R.A. 9241, February 10, 2004
— R.A. 8425, December 11, 1997
— R.A. 8371, October 29, 1997, Sec. 25
— R.A. 8291, May 30, 1997
— R.A. 8282, May 1, 1997
— R.A. 8187, June 11, 1996
— R.A. 7875, February 14, 1995
— R.A. 7696, April 9, 1994
— R.A. 7432, April 23, 1992
— R.A. 7305, March 26, 1992, Sec. 33
— R.A. 6938, March 10, 1990, Art. 89 (5)
— R.A. 6948
— R.A. 6111
— R.A. 1161, June 18, 1954
— R.A. 1136
— R.A. 577
— R.A. 390
— R.A. 340
— R.A. 242, Sec. 38
— R.A. 65
— A.O. 277-A, June 25, 1996
— A.O. 277, June 25, 1996
— E.O. 452, July 30, 2005
— E.O. 241, June 9, 1995
— E.O. 501, December 27, 1991
— E.O. 500, December 27, 1991
— E.O. 402, April 27, 1990
— E.O. 400, April 26, 1990
— E.O. 102, December 24, 1986
— E.O. 28, July 16, 1986
— E.O. 1037, July 4, 1985
— P.D. 1906, February 29, 1983
— P.D. 1855, December 26, 1982
— P.D. 1636, September 7, 1979
— P.D. 1519, June 11, 1978
— P.D. 1202, September 27, 1977
— P.D. 1146, May 31, 1977
— P.D. 1013, September 22, 1976
— P.D. 735, June 27, 1975
— P.D. 612, December 18, 1974
— P.D. 347, December 21, 1973
— P.D. 273, August 14, 1973
— P.D. 220, June 20, 1973
— P.D. 177, April 23, 1973

— Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, December 18,
1979, Art. 11 (1) (e)
— Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, Art. 26 (1)
— Declaration of the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1959, Principle 4
— DSWD M.C. No. 015-12 (Guidelines on the Pilot Implementation of Modified Conditional Cash
Transfer Program for Families in Need of Special Protection (FNSP)), August 14, 2012
— DSWD M.C. No. 005-12 ('Family-Decision' in Selecting Household-Members to be Monitored for

Education), March 30, 2012
— ILO Convention on Women No. 118, April 25, 1964
— ILO Recommendation on Women No. 165, June 23, 1981
— International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, December 16, 1966, Art. 9
— International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members
of their Families, No date supplied, Art. 27 (1)
— Rules of Pleading, Practice and Procedure of the Social Security Commission, July 17, 1990
— The Medicare Primer, No date supplied
— Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 22
— SSS vs. Teresita Jarque vda. de Bailon, G.R. No. 165545, March 24, 2006
— Sonia Maceda, et al. vs. Encarnacion de Guzman vda. de Macatangcay, G.R. No. 164947, January
31, 2006
— Animos vs. Philippine Veterans Affairs Office, G.R. No. 79156, June 22, 1989
— Decena vs. The Administrator, Phil. Veterans Affairs Office, G.R. No. L-44993, May 29, 1987
— Español vs. Board, Philippine Veterans Administration, G.R. No. L-44616, June 29, 1985
— Philippine Veterans Affairs Office vs. Añover, G.R. No. L-39835, October 27, 1983
— Board of Administrators vs. Bautista, G.R. No. L-37867, February 22, 1982
— Board of Administrators vs. Agcaoili, G.R. No. L-38129, July 23, 1974
— Del Mar, vs. The Phil. Veterans Administration, G.R. No. L-27299, June 27, 1973
— Teoxon vs. Members of the Board of Administrators, G.R. No. L-25619, June 30, 1970
— Alabat vs. Tandog vda. de Alabat, G.R. No. L-22169, December 29, 1967
— Merced vs. Vda. de Merced, G.R. No. L-20445, February 25, 1967
— Social Security System vs. Davac, G.R. No. L-21642, July 30, 1966
— Tecson vs. Social Security System, G.R. No. L-15798, December 28, 1961
— Valenzuela vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 45666, April 24, 1939
— Ballesteros vs. Veterans Administration, G.R. No. 45340, April 15, 1939
— Lunasco vs. Veterans Administration, G.R. No. 45400, April 14, 1939
— Unnumbered DOJ Opinion, October 27, 1967

— DILG M.C. 63-95
— DSWD A.O. 2-08, (Guidelines on the Transfer of DSWD Residents to other Social Work Agencies
(SWAs), February 26, 2008
— DSWD A.O. 11-07, (Revised Standards on Residential Care Service), July 31, 2007
— DSWD A.O. 16-05, (Standards for Center-Based Services), August 25, 2005
— DSWD A.O. 104-90
— DSWD Order 23-99

— DSWD Order 2-98
— SSS Circular No. 36-V, February 20, 1998
— SSS Circular No. 36-V-97, May 24, 1997
— SSS Circular No. 24-V-96, April 23, 1996
— SSS Circular No. 93-T, No date supplied
Family Planning
— R.A. 10354, December 21, 2012
— R.A. 7160, October 10, 1991, Sec. 17, b (2) (iv)
— R.A. 6365, August 16, 1971
— R.A. 4729, June 18, 1966
— E.O. 307, February 28, 1996
— E.O. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (b)
— E.O. 119, January 30, 1987, Sec. 11 (c)
— P.D. 1204, September 29, 1977
— P.D. 965, July 20, 1976
— P.D. 495, June 28, 1974
— P.D. 442, May 1, 1974, Art. 134
— P.D. 79, December 8, 1972
— Proc. 429, July 27, 1994
— LOI No. 436, July 20, 1976
— LOI No. 435, July 20, 1976
1979, Art. 10 (h); Art. 12 (1) & Art. 14 (2) (b)
— Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, Art. 24 (2) (f)
— Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 10354, March 15, 2013

— Implementing Guidelines for the Operationalization of the SRA Convergence, Sec. 4 (4.2) (4.2.1)
(6) & (7)
— Implementing Rules and Regulations of Program I of the Revised Phil. Medical Care Act, August
27, 1987, Rule III, Sec. 2 (e)
— Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Medical Care Program for FOCWS, November 14,
1994, Rule III, Sec. 2 (c) (3) (e)
— Labor Laws/Standards Specifically Relating to Women and Young Workers, No date supplied,
Art. 134
— Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, May 27, 1989, Rule XII, Sec. 11
— Philippine Development Plan for Women (1989-1992), Chapter 7; Chapter 9 (4) (4.4) & Chapter
13 (4) (4.3) (4.3.1)
— Philippine Plan for Gender-Responsive Development (PPGD) (1995-2025), Chapter 4 & Chapter
20
— Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991, February 21, 1992,
Art. 25
— Rules and Regulations to Govern the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees, No date
supplied, Rule VIII, Sec. 2 (i)
— The Medicare Primer, No date supplied, L (VII)
— The Social Reform Agenda, II (A) (6) (c)
— Spouses Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. Nos. 204819, 204934, etc., April 8, 2014
— Seguisabal vs. Cabrera, A.M. No. 2209-CTJ, August 27, 1981
— DOH Circular 132-89
— DILG M.C. 212-94
— DOLE Order 56-03

— POEA M.C. 070-94, IV (C) (3) (e)
Summary Judicial Proceedings in Family Law
— E.O. 209, Family Code, July 6, 1987, Arts. 238 & 249-252
Effectivity and Retroactivity of the Family Code/Repeal and Amendment
— E.O. 209, Family Code, July 6, 1987, Arts. 254-257
— R.A. 7192, Sec. 12
— R.A. 6809, December 13, 1989
— M.C. 85, Office of the President, November 7, 1988
— Jovellanos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100728, June 18, 1992
Provisions under the Muslim Code (PD 1083)
Paternity and Filiation
— P.D. 1083, February 4, 1977, Arts. 58-64,
Support
— P.D. 1083, February 4, 1977, Arts. 65-70
Parental Authority
— P.D. 1083, February 4, 1977, Arts. 71-77
Custody and Guardianship
— P.D. 1083, February 4, 1977, Arts. 78-80
Civil Registry
— P.D. 1083, February 4, 1977, Title VI
— Pandagaranao A. Ilupa vs. Macalinog S. Abdullah, A.M. No. SCC-11-16-P, June 1, 2011
Partition of Property
— Macapanton B. Batugan vs. Rasad G. Balindong, et al., G.R. No. 181384, March 13, 2009
— Luisa Kho Montañer, et al. vs. Shari'a District Court, et al., G.R. No. 174975, January 20, 2009
Procedure
Civil Procedure
— Rules of Court, January 1, 1964, Rule 14, Secs. 10 & 11; Rule 16, Sec. 1 (j); Rule 21, Sec. 2 (d);
Rule 39, Sec. 12 (a), (i) & (l); & Sec. 42; Rule 61, Secs. 1-6; Rule 72, Sec. 1 (c), (e), (f), (k), (l) (m) & (n); Rule
83, Secs. 2 & 3; Rule 86, Sec. 5; Rule 90, Sec. 1; Rule 92, Secs. 1-3; Rule 93, Secs. 1-8; Rule 94, Secs. 1-3;
Rule 95, Secs. 1-5; Rule 96, Secs. 1-8; Rule 97, Secs. 1-5; Rule 99, Secs. 1-8; Rule 100, Secs. 1-5; Rule 105,
Secs. 1-6; Rule 106, Secs. 1-6; Rule 107, Secs. 1-8 & Rule 108, Secs.1-7
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 39, Sec. 4 & Sec. 13 (a), (i) & (l); Rule 61, Secs. 1-7; Rule 72, Sec. 1
(c), (e), (f), (k), (l), (m) & (n); Rule 83, Secs. 1-3; Rule 86, Sec. 5; Rule 90, Sec. 1; Rule 92, Secs. 1-3; Rule
93, Secs. 1-8; Rule 94, Secs. 1-3; Rule 95, Secs. 1-5; Rule 96, Secs. 1-8; Rule 97, Secs. 1-5; Rule 99, Secs. 1-
8; Rule 100, Secs. 1-5; Rule 105, Secs. 1-6; Rule 106, Secs. 1-6; Rule 107, Secs. 1-8 & Rule 108, Secs. 1-7
Evidence
— Rules of Court, January 1, 1964, Rule 130, Sec. 20 (c); Secs. 33 & 34; Rule 131, Secs. 4, 6 & Sec. 5
(cc), (dd) & (x)
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 25, Secs. 39 & 40; Rule 131, Sec. 3 (w) & (dd) & Sec. 4
Other Procedural Laws
— Act 1386
— R.A. 8552, Art. IV
— R.A. 8369
— R.A. 8043, Art. III
— P.D. 1083, Art. 143 (a)
— SC Resolution No. 11-9-177-RTC, October 4, 2011 (Re: Request for Designation of an Additional
Family Court in the RTC, Antipolo City, Rizal
— People of the Phil. vs. Ma. Theresa L. dela Torre-Yadao, et al., G.R. Nos. 162144-54, November
13, 2012
— Estrella Taglay vs. Marivic Trabajo Daray, et al., G.R. No. 164258, August 22, 2012
Children
Definition of a Child
Definition
— B.P. 408, Sec. 3, par. 2
— R.A. 8552, Sec. 3, par. a

— R.A. 8370, Sec. 3, par. a
— R.A. 8043, Art. I, Sec. 3, par. b
— R.A. 7610, Art. 1, Sec. 3, par. a
— R.A. 6809, Sec. 1
— R.A. 2714, Sec. 1, par. 2
— R.A. 386, Arts. 40-41
— P.D. 603, Art. 1 & Art. 2
— ILO Maritime Convention No. 130, Art. 1, par. g
— Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, June 17, 1999, Art. 2
Right to Life
— 1987 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 12 & Art. III, Sec. 1
— 1973 Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 1
— 1935 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1
— Act 3815, Art. 255-259
— Act 3753, Sec. 5, par. 5
— R.A. 7659, Sec. 7
— R.A. 386, Art. 40
— P.D. 603, Art. 3, par. 1 & Arts. 5-6
— Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, Preamble, par. 10 & Art. 6
— International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 16, 1966, Part III, Art. 6
— Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 1948, Art. 3
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Solis, G.R. No. 138936, January 30, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Ponce Hermoso, G.R. No. 130590, October 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Alarcon, et al., G.R. Nos. 133191-93, July 11, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Henry Lagarto, et al., G.R. Nos. 118828 & 119371, February 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Eulogio Ignacio, G.R. No. 134568, February 10, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Dizon, G.R. No. 129893, December 10, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Quisay, G.R. No. 106833, December 10, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Delfin Rondero, G.R. No. 125687, December 9, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Ralph Velez Diaz, G.R. No. 130210, December 8, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Benito Bravo, G.R. No. 135562, November 22, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Ava Ma. Victoria Cariquez, G.R. No. 129304, September 27, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Elizalde Faco, G.R. No. 115215, September 16, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Gonzales, G.R. No. 130507, July 28, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Aquino y Calot, et al., G.R. Nos. 123550-51, July 19, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Mangat y Palomata, G.R. No. 131618, July 6, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernardino Domantay, G.R. No. 130612, May 11, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Paulino Sevilleno, G.R. No. 129058, March 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Renante Robles, G.R. No. 124300, March 25, 1999
— MMTC, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. 116617 & 126395, November 16, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Isidro Mijares, G.R. No. 126042, October 8, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Reyes, G.R. No. 125518, July 20, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Caparas Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. 121811-12, May 14, 1998
— Hubert Webb, et al. vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 127262, July 24, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Coloma Tabag, et al., G.R. No. 116511, February 12, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Robert Cloud, G.R. No. 119359, December 10, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Magana, G.R. No. 105673, July 26, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Roland Danao, G.R. No. 116058, February 1, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnel B. Alicando, G.R. No. 117487, December 12, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Lorenzo B. Veneracion, G.R. Nos. 119987-88, October 12, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Roland Tacipit, G.R. No. 109140, March 8, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Manolo Villanueva, G.R. No. 95851, March 1, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose S. Flores, et al., G.R. Nos. 111009-12, December 8, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Villaruel, G.R. Nos. 110803-04, November 25, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Felicisimo D. Merza, G.R. No. 112238, November 22, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Abelo Albarico, G.R. Nos. 108596-97, November 17, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo L. dela Cruz, G.R. No. 108180, February 8, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Magtuloy, G.R. No. 105671, June 30, 1993
— Cresencio Libi, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 70890, September 18,
1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Abuyen, G.R. No. 77285, September 4, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Havana, G.R. No. 68033, July 31, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Yagong, G.R. No. 77088, January 29, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Buenaflor, G.R. No. 62805, January 22, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Diosdado Pedrosa, G.R. No. 56457, January 27, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Leticia V. Capitin, G.R. No. L-49118, August 30, 1988
— People of the Phils. vs. Antonio Irenea, G.R. Nos. L-44410-11, August 5, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Floremar Retubado, G.R. No. L-58585, June 20, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Enciso, et al., G.R. No. L-77685, April 15, 1988
— Jose S. Amadora, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-47745, April 15, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Diapar Quima, G.R. No. L-74669, April 14, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno Salufrania, G.R. No. L-50884, March 30, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador G. Gavarra, et al., G.R. No. L-37673, October 30, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Crisanto F. Ausan, G.R. No. L-49728, July 15, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Senen Ola, G.R. No. L-47147, July 3, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Rojas, et al., G.R. Nos. L-46960-62, January 8, 1987
— Pacifico de Sagun vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. L-53196, July 31, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Martin C. Magtira, G.R. No. L-28255, November 25, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel A. Morales, G.R. No. L-44096, April 20, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Zurbito, G.R. No. L-35950, July 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio Magbanua, G.R. Nos. L-34527-28, July 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Luis Gabierrez, Jr., G.R. No. L-33427, March 29, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Lucila V. Valero, G.R. Nos. L-45283-84, March 19, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Valerio, G.R. No. L-4116, February 25, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Sofronio Amoto, G.R. No. L-28273, January 18, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio V. Viduya, G.R. No. L-36510, May 17, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Adelando Ramos, G.R. No. L-34355, July 30, 1979
— People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio B. Galapia, G.R. Nos. L-39303-05, August 1, 1978
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus D. Nazareno, G.R. No. L-45533, November 29, 1977
— Teodoro C. Umali vs. Angel Bacani, G.R. No. L-40570, January 30, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Basuel, G.R. No. L-28215, October 13, 1972
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan Francisco, G.R. No. L-30763, June 29, 1972
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Gongora, et al., G.R. Nos. L-14030-31, July 31, 1963
— People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Parayno, et al., G.R. No. L-24804 July 5, 1968
— Antonio Geluz vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-16439, July 20, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Crispin Genoves, G.R. No. 42819, April 15, 1935
— United States vs. Genoveva Aquino, G.R. No. 11653, August 19, 1916
— United States vs. D. B. Jeffrey, G.R. No. 5597, March 5, 1910
— United States vs. Mariano Boston, G.R. No. 4795, November 23, 1908
— United States vs. Victoria Vedra, G.R. No. 4779, November 20, 1908
Name and Identity of a Child
Names
— Act 3753, Sec. 5
— R.A. 386, Art. 364-380 & Art. 407
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 176
— Declaration of the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1959, Principle 1 & Principle 3
— International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 16, 1966, Art. 24 (2)
of their Families, Art. 29
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Norma S. Lugsanay Uy, G.R. No. 198010, August 12, 2013
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Julian Edward Emerson Coseteng-Magpayo, G.R. No. 189476, February
2, 2011
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Nisaida Sumera Nishina, G.R. No. 186053, November 15, 2010
— Emma K. Lee vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 177861, July 13, 2010
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Jennifer B. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Trinidad R.A. Capote, G.R. No. 157043, February 2, 2007
— Rosendo Alba, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 164041, July 29, 2005
— In Re: Petition for Change of Name and/or Correction/Cancellation of Entry in Civil Registry of
Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, G.R. No. 159966, March 30, 2005
— In Re: Teresita Chan, et al. vs. Local Civil Registrar of Manila, G.R. No. L-27159, September 17,
1969
— Republic vs. Lee Wai Lam, G.R. No. L-22607, July 30, 1969
— In Re: Joselito Yu vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-20874, May 25, 1966
— In Re: Gregorio Go vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-20160, November 29, 1965
— Felicisima Oria, et al. vs. Basilio Maravilla, Jr., G.R. No. L-16308, November 29, 1961
— Amada Lourdes Lerma Garcia, etc. vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-16085, November 29,
1961
— In Re: Juan Manuel, et al. vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-15811, June 30, 1961
— In Re: Juan Manuel, et al. vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-15811, March 27, 1961
— DOJ Opinion No. 034, May 31, 2012
— DOJ Opinion No. 010, January 20, 1999
— NCIP A.O. 1-98, June 9, 1998, Rule VI, Sec. 9
Legitimate (see also Paternity & Filiation under FAMILY)
— R.A. 386, Art. 220 & Art. 364
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 164; Art. 167; Art. 54; Art. 43 (1); Art. 174; Arts. 177 & 178 & Art. 190
(1)
— P.D. 1083, Art. 59; Art. 62 & Art. 64
— Rules of Court, Rule 108, Sec. 2 & Rule 131, Section 5 (cc)
— Marissa Benitez vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 105625, January 24, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 51385-86, January 22, 1993
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Belmonte, G.R. No. L-32600, February 26, 1988
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Leonor Valencia, et al., G.R. No. L-32181, March 5, 1986
— In Re: Cesar Yu vs. Civil Registrar of Manila, G.R. No. L-36478, April 29, 1983
— Danilo Ibarra Sison, et al. vs. Republic of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. L-58087, December 27, 1982
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Delia P. Medina, G.R. No. L-45030, December 15, 1982
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Rafael de la Cruz, et al., G.R. No. L-34079, November 2, 1982
— Naldoza vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-55538, March 15, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Giberson, G.R. No. L-54131, January 30, 1982
— Macadangdang vs. Mejias, G.R. No. L-49542, September 12, 1980
— Asuncion T. Cabinta, et al. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al., G.R. No. L-42639,
July 30, 1976
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Santiago O. Tañada, G.R. No. L-31664, August 30, 1974
— In Re: Secan Kok vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-27621, August 30, 1973
— Republic of the Phil., et al. vs. Augusto M. Amores, et al., G.R. No. L-35232, January 31, 1973
— Chua Wee, et al. vs. Republic of the Phil, G.R. No. L-27731, April 21, 1971
— In Re: Cesar Un vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-26198, October 16, 1970
— In Re: Felimon Tse, et al. vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-20708, August 31, 1967
— In Re: Antonina B. Oshita vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-21180, March 31, 1967
— In Re: Juan Malicdem vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-19141, October 31, 1964
— Elaine A. Moore vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-18407, June 26, 1963
— Catalina Osmeña de Valencia, et al. vs. Emilia Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. L-1261, August 2, 1949
— Pia Basa vs. Jose Claro Arquiza, et al., G.R. No. 1207, November 2, 1905

Illegitimate (see also Paternity & Filiation under FAMILY)
— Act 3753, Section 5, par. 4
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 165; Art. 175-176; Art. 172 & 175; Art. 190 (1) & Art. 190 (3) & (4)
— R.A. 386, Art. 283 & Art. 368
— P.D. 1083, Art. 95
— Rules of Court, Rule 108, Sec. 2 & Rule 131, Sec. 6
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Gladys C. Labrador, G.R. No. 132980, March 25, 1999
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Gerson R. Abadilla, et al., G.R. No. 133054, January 28, 1999
— Marissa A. Mossesgeld vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 111455, December 23, 1998
— Republic of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 88202, December 14, 1998
— Francisco L. Jison vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124853, February 24, 1998
— Miguela Campos Ong vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 95386, May 29, 1997
— Raymond Pe Lim vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 112229, March 18, 1997
— Bienvenido Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 85723, June 19, 1995
— Ma. Theresa R. Alberto vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 86639, June 2, 1994
— Artemio G. Ilano vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 104376, February 23, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. De Guzman, G.R. No. 51385-86, January 22, 1993
— Corito Ocampo Tayag vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 95229, June 9, 1992
— Teodoro Palmes Hernaez, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 73864, May 7,
1992
— Jacoba T. Paterno, et al. vs. Beatriz Paterno, et al., G.R. No. 63680, March 23, 1990
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Pio R. Marcos, et al., G.R. No. L-31065, February 15, 1990
— Dorotea Uyguangco vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 76873, October 26, 1989
— Juan Castro, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. L-50974-75, May 31, 1989
— Emperatriz Labayo-Rowe vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-53417, December 8, 1988
— Dempsey vs. RTC, G.R. No. 77737-38, August 15, 1988

— Heirs of Raymundo C. Bañas, et al. vs. Heirs of Bibiano Bañas, et al.,G.R. No. L-25715, January 31,
1985
— Eligia Batbatan. vs. Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Pagadian, et al., G.R. No. L-33724,
November 29, 1982
— In Re: Dionesio Divinagracia, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-55538, March 15, 1982
— In Re: Eduardo Tan, et al. vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-27713, February 10, 1981
— In Re: Mario Pabellar vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-27298, March 4, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Alexander Sacabin, G.R. No. L-36638, June 28, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Danieto S. Garcines, G.R. No. L-32321, June 28, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Savellano, G.R. No. L-31227, May 31, 1974
— Gregoria V. Bondoc vs. Jose de Guzman, A.C. No. 279-J, May 30, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Domiciano Baylon, G.R. No. L-35785, May 29, 1974
— Teresita Llaneta vs. Corazon Juliano Agrava, G.R. No. L-32054, May 15, 1974
— Emma B. Velez, et al. vs. Roberto Velez, et al., G.R. No. L-28873, July 31, 1973
— Leonardo Galeon vs. Marcial Galeon, et al., G.R. No. L-30380, February 28, 1973
— Luis T. Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-31897, June 30, 1972
— Laureana Velasquez, et al. vs. Filidoro Asignar, G.R. No. L-22133, May 31, 1971
— Carmen Quimiguing, et al. vs. Felix Icao, G.R. No. L-26795, July 31, 1970
— Tan Pong, et al. vs. Republic of the Phil., et al, G.R. No. L-21010, November 28, 1969
— Belen Cruz vs. Exequiel Castillo, G.R. No. L-27232, June 30, 1969
— Board of Immigration Commissioners vs. Go Callano, et al., G.R. No. L-24530, October 31, 1968
— Pascuala Sotto Pahang vs. Filemon Sotto, G.R. No. L-21175, July 15, 1968
— Carmelita Tan, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-22793, May 16, 1967
— Teodoro Sumaljag Bongal, et al. vs. Barbara P. vda. de Bongal, G.R. No. L-17463, May 16, 1967
— In Re: Corazon Adolfo Calderon vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-18127, April 5, 1967
— Catalina Mendoza, et al. vs. Temistocles C. Mella, G.R. No. L-18752, July 30, 1966
— Marcelo Sotto vs. Filemon Sotto, et al., G.R. No. L-20921, May 24, 1966
— Theodore Grant, Jr. vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-23609, March 31, 1966
— Ceferina V. David vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-21316, November 29, 1965
— Benjamin Navarro vs. Victoriano Bacalla, G.R. No. L-20607, October 14, 1965
— Dr. Policarpio C. Alisoso vs. Tarcela Lastimoso, et al., G.R. No. L-19659, May 31, 1965
— Rosa Gustilo vs. Augusto Gustilo, et al., G.R. No. L-18038, May 31, 1965
— Remela Zaldarriaga, et al. vs. Enrique F. Mariño, G.R. No. L-19566, May 25, 1964
— Adela Silpao vs. Lope Paglomotan, G.R. No. L-16460, January 31, 1962
— Genoveva Catalan Paulino, et al. vs. Paz H. Paulino, et al, G.R. No. L-15091, December 28, 1961
— Loreta Lerio vs. Conrado Alvarez, G.R. No. L-16582, November 29, 1961
— Amada Lourdes Lerma Garcia, etc. vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-16085, November 29,
1961
— Elenita Ledesma Silva, et al. vs. Esther Peralta, G.R. No. L-13114, August 29, 1961
— Consolacion Rosete, et al. vs. Pablo Rosete, G.R. No. L-15055, July 21, 1961
— In Re: Juan Manuel, et al. vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-15811, June 30, 1961
— In Re: Juan Manuel vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-15811, March 27, 1961
— Lilia Juana Barles, et al. vs. Don Alfonso Ponce Enrile, G.R. No. L-12894, January 28, 1961
— Jesus Guariña vs. Agueda Guariña-Casas, G.R. No. L-15707, October 31, 1960
— Lilia Juana Barles, et al. vs. Don Alfonso Ponce Enrile, G.R. No. L-12894, September 30, 1960
— Dolores Narag vs. Salvador Cecilio, et al., G.R. No. L-13353, August 31, 1960
— In Re: Edward E. Christensen vs. Maria Helen Christensen Garcia, G.R. Nos. L-11483-84, February
14, 1958
— Olimpia Obispo, et al. vs. Remedios Obispo, et al., G.R. No. L-7210, September 26, 1956
— Neil S. Murdock Sr., et al. vs. Horacio Chuidian, G.R. No. L-10544, August 30, 1956
— William H. Brown vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-9526, August 30, 1956
— Josefa Mendoza vs. Teodora Cayas, G.R. Nos. L-8562-8563, December 17, 1955
— Paz Pareja vs. Julio Pareja, G.R. No. L-5824, May 31, 1954
— Belen Jove Lagrimas vs. Tito Lagrimas, G.R. No. L-6462, May 28, 1954
— Pedro Crisolo vs. Higino B. Macadaeg, et al., G.R. No. L-7071, April 29, 1954
— Primitiva Canales vs. Filoteo Arrogante, G.R. No. L-3821, March 17, 1952
— Maximino A. Garcia vs. Patrocinio Pongan, G.R. No. L-4362, August 31, 1951
— Mariano Andal vs. Eduvigis Macaraig, G.R. No. L-2474, May 30, 1951
— Saturnino Escoval, et al. vs. Lorenzo Escoval, et al., G.R. No. L-2712, October 25, 1950
— Catalina Osmeña de Valencia, et al. vs. Emilia Rodriguez, et al., G.R. No. L-1261, August 2, 1949
— Concha C. Apacible, et al. vs. Maria Castillo, G.R. No. 49041, March 20, 1944
— Consolacion Javelona, et al. vs. Agustin Monteclaro, et al., G.R. No. 48464, October 4, 1943
— Maria Villalon vs. Manuel Villalon, G.R. No. 47116, December 17, 1940
— Mike Gitt vs. Kathleen Grace Git, G.R. No. 45829, July 15, 1939
— Josefa Castelltort vs. Balbina Pasion, G.R. No. 45264, May 26, 1939
— Canuto Joaquin, et al. vs. Roberta Joaquin, et al., G.R. No. 41045, August 25, 1934
— Antonia L. de Jesus, et al. vs. Cesar Syquia, G.R. No. 39110, November 28, 1933
— Jose A. Vallarta vs. Esperanza Aliwalas, et al., G.R. No. 32051, February 25, 1930
— Francisco Barrios vs. Eduarda Enriquez, et al., G.R. No. 29789, December 22, 1928
— Flaviana Samson vs. Vicente Corrales Tan, et al., G.R. No. 23729, December 5, 1925
— Gloria Suarez vs. Felix Suarez, et al., G.R. No. 18415, October 7, 1922
— Gertrudis Briz vs. Vivencia Briz, et al., G.R. No. 18413, September 20, 1922
— Sinforoso de Gala vs. Pedro de Gala, et al., G.R. No. 15756, February 15, 1922
— In Re: Demetrio Larena vs. Josefina Rubio Viuda de Larena, G.R. No. L-16215, February 6, 1922
— Micaela Borres, et al. vs. Municipality of Panay, G.R. No. 15851, January 11, 1922
— Rafael J. Ferrer vs. Joaquin J. de Inchausti, et al., G.R. No. 12993, October 28, 1918
— Leonarda Concepcion vs. Julian Untaran, G.R. No. 9958, October 7, 1918
— In Re: Ana M. Ramirez vs. Otto Gmur, G.R. No. 11796, August 5, 1918
— Francisco Osorio y Garcia vs. Soledad Osorio, G.R. No. 10474, March 29, 1916
— Tomasa Dalistan, et al. vs. Emiliano Armas, G.R. No. 9362, December 24, 1915
— Aurea Enriquez, et al. vs. Rafael Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 9351, January 6, 1915
— Juana Dizon vs. Edmundo Ullmann, G.R. No. 4899, March 2, 1909
— Luisa Tengco vs. Vicente Sanz, G.R. No. 4529, August 27, 1908
— Rufo Masecampo vs. Pablo Masecampo, G.R. No. 3386, July 18, 1908
— Rosa Llorente vs. Ceferino Rodriguez, G.R. No. L-3339, March 26, 1908
— Capistrano, et al. vs. Josefa Gabino, G.R. No. L-3257, March 23, 1907
— Alejandra Siguiong vs. Manuel Siguiong, et al., G.R. No. L-1921, March 14, 1907
— Emilio Buenaventura vs. Juana Urbano, et al., G.R. No. 2205, September 7, 1905
— Vicente Benedicto vs. Esteban de la Rama, et al., G.R. No. 2078, September 7, 1905
— Presentacion Infante vs. Manuel T. Figueras, G.R. No. 1884, September 7, 1905
— Maria Mendoza, et al. vs. Pedro Ibañez, G.R. No. 1772, August 17, 1905
— Consolacion Mijares vs. Delfina Nery, et al., G.R. No. 1380, January 18, 1904
Legitimated (see also Paternity & Filiation under FAMILY)
— Act 3753, Sec. 8
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 177-182
— R.A. 386, Art. 364 & Art. 408
— Olimpia Obispo, et al. vs. Remedios Obispo, et al., G.R. No. L-7210, September 26, 1956
— Jose Santos vs. Maria Luciano, G.R. No. 40958, August 11, 1934
— Melecio Madridejo vs. Gonzalo de Leon, G.R. No. 32473, October 6, 1930
— In re: Ambrosio Rabalo vs. Gabina Rabalo, G.R. No. 9665, February 29, 1916
— Valentina de Torres vs. Narciso de Torres, et al, G.R. No. 9234, September 19, 1914

Adopted (see also Adoption under FAMILY)
— R.A. 386, Art. 365
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 183; Arts. 187-188; Art. 190 & Arts. 191-193
— P.D. 1083, Art. 64
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 103695, March 15, 1996
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Jose R. Hernandez, et al., G.R. No. 117209, February 9, 1996
— Republic vs. CA, G.R. No. 97906, May 21, 1992
— In Re: Rosalina E. Cruz vs. Republic of the Phil.,G.R. No. L-20927, July 26, 1966
— In Re: Dintoy Tan Suarez vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-20914, December 24, 1965
— In Re: Trinidad R. Asensi vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-18047, December 26, 1963
— In Re: Ana Isabel Henriette Antonia Concepcion Georgiana vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-
18284, April 30, 1963
Nationality
— 1987 Constitution, Art. IV, Secs. 1 & 2
— Act 3448
— Act 2927
— C.A. 625
— C.A. 473, Sec. 6 & Secs. 15-16
— R.A. 530
— R.A. 386, Art. 48
— P.D. 1379
— P.D. 1220
— P.D. 1055
— P.D. 836
— E.O. 240, May 4, 2000
— International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 24 (3)
of their Families, Art. 29
— Gatchalian vs. Board of Commissioners, G.R. Nos. 95612-13, May 31, 1991
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Glicerio V. Carriaga, Jr., G.R. No. L-54159, March 18, 1988
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Pedro JL. Bautista, et al., G.R. No. L-35316, October 26, 1987
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Leonor Valencia, et al., G.R. No. L-32181, March 5, 1986
— Local Civil Registrar of Cebu City vs. Rafael T. Mendoza, G.R. No. L-59611, July 20, 1983
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Rafael de la Cruz, et al., G.R. No. L-34079, November 2, 1982
— Mariano Wong vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-29376, July 30, 1982
— Vivo vs. Puno, G.R. No. L-25180, August 29, 1969
— Board of Immigration Commissioners vs. Go Callano, et al., G.R. No. L-24530, October 31, 1968
— Ong Ching Guan vs. Republic, G.R. No. L-15691, March 27, 1961
— Go Julian vs. Government of the Phil., G.R. No. 20809, October 22, 1923
— United States vs. Lim Bin, G.R. No. 12690, September 27, 1917
— United States vs. Ong Tianse, G.R. No. 9539, January 26, 1915
— Victorino Lim Teco vs. Insular Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 7071, January 15, 1913
— United States vs. Yu Kiao, G.R. No. 6419, October 2, 1911
— Eugenio Pascual Lorenzo vs. H. B. Mccoy, G.R. No. 5525, March 21, 1910
— Lo Po vs. H.B. McCoy, G.R. No. L-4002, August 8, 1907


Identity
— Act 3815, Art. 347
— Act 1386
— R.A. 386, Arts. 407 & 408 & Art. 411

— P.D. 651
— P.D. 603, Art. 5 & Art. 7
— 1997 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 108, Sec. 2
— International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 24 (1)
41
— Teofista Babiera vs. Presentacion B. Catotal, G.R. No. 138493, June 15, 2000
— Jasmin Maguad, et al. vs. Nicolas de Guzman, et al., A.M. No. P-94-1015, March 29, 1999
— In Re: Remedio San Luis de Castro vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-17431, April 30, 1963
— Anacleta Barillo vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-14823, December 28, 1961
— In Re: Local Civil Registrar of Mla. Joaquin P. Roces vs. The Local Civil Registrar of Mla., G.R. No.
L-10598, February 14, 1958
— Virginia Ansaldo vs. Rep. of the Phil., G.R. No. L-10226, February 14, 1958
— United States vs. Saturnino Capillo, et al., G.R. No. 9279, March 25, 1915
— Florentino Adriano vs. Hipolito de Jesus, et al., G.R. No. 6169, November 5, 1912
— DILG M.C. 176-94
— DILG M.C. 154-94
Parental Care and Support
— 1987 Constitution, Art. XV, Sec. 3 (2)
— 1973 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 4

— Act 3815, Art. 275 (3); Art. 276 & Art. 278
— R.A. 8980
— R.A. 7696, Sec. 5
— R.A. 7610, Art. VIII, Sec. 12 (1)
— R.A. 6948, Sec. 12
— R.A. 779
— R.A. 390
— R.A. 386, Arts. 356-363; Art. 2035 (4); Art. 2166 & Art. 2206 (2)
— R.A. 296, Sec. 88
— R.A. 21
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 194-208; Title IX, Chap. 1 & Art. 195 (3) & (4)
— P.D. 1083, Arts. 65-70; Arts. 71, 73-77 & Arts. 78-80
— P.D. 603, Art. 3 (2); Arts. 64-66; Art. 59 (2); Arts. 20-26; Arts. 43-66; Art. 139; Chap. III, Art. 46 &
Art. 141 (4) (b)
— 1997 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 61; Rule 69, Sec. 9 & Rule 93, Sec. 7
— Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, Art. 5; Art. 9 & Art. 18
— Declaration of the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1959, Principle 6 & Principle 7, par. 2 &
Principles 8
— Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons (RA 7277), Rule V,
Sec. 1 (H)
— International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, December 16, 1966, Art. 13 (3)
— Universal Declaration of Human Rights, December 1948, Art. 25 (2) & Art. 26 (3)
— Ma. Carminia C. Calderon vs. Jose Antonio F. Roxas, et al., G.R. No. 185595, January 9, 2013
— Charles Gotardo vs. Divina Buling, G.R. No. 165166, August 15, 2012
— Gerardo B. Concepcion vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 123450, August 31, 2005
— Eduardo Balagtas vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 109073, October 20, 1999
— Manuel de Asis vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 127578, February 15, 1999
— Francisco L. Jison vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124853, February 24, 1998
— Miguela Campos Ong vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 95386, May 29, 1997
— Raymond Pe Lim vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 112229, March 18, 1997
— Teresita Sagala-Eslao vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 116773, January 16, 1997
— Nerissa Z. Perez vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 118870, March 29, 1996
— Johanna Sombong vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111876, January 31, 1996
— Daisie T. David vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 111180, November 16, 1995
— Leouel Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 113054, March 16, 1995
— Reynaldo Espiritu, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 115640, March 15, 1995
— Rebecco Panlilio, et al. vs. Josefina G. Salonga, et al., G.R. No. 113087, June 27, 1994
— Artemio G. Ilano vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 104376, February 23, 1994
— Priscilla Imbing vs. Benjamin C. Tiongson, A.M. No. MTJ-91-595, February 7, 1994
— Cresencio Libi, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 70890, September 18,
1992
— Elena Lindain, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 95305, August 20, 1992
— Corito Ocampo Tayag vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 95229, June 9, 1992
— Macario Tamargo, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 85044, June 3, 1992
— Amelita Constantino vs. Ivan Mendez, G.R. No. 57227, May 14, 1992
— Teodoro Palmes Hernaez, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 73864, May 7,
1992
— Loth R. Ayco vs. Lourdes S. Fernandez, G.R. No. 84770, March 18, 1991
— Edna Padilla Mangulabnan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 71994, May 31,
1990
— Perla Y. Laguitan vs. Salvador F. Tinio, A.C. No. 3049, December 4, 1989
— Angelito F. Maglalang vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 85692, July 31, 1989
— Romeo S. Amurao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83942, December 29, 1988
— Benjamin Salvosa, et al. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. L-70458, October 5,
1988
— Jocelyn Rulona-Al Awadhi vs. Abdulmajid J. Astih, G.R. No. 81969, September 26, 1988
— Christina Marie Dempsey vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch LXXV, G.R. Nos. 77737-38, August 15,
1988
— Federico Ylarde, et al. vs. Edgardo Aquino, et al., G.R. No. L-33722, July 29, 1988
— Republic of the Philippines vs. Glicerio V. Carriaga, Jr., G.R. No. L-54159, March 18, 1988
— Oscar Honorio vs. Gabriel Dunuan, G.R. No. L-38999, March 9, 1988
— Froilan C. Gandionco vs. Senen C. Peñaranda, et al., G.R. No. 79284, November 27, 1987
— Princesita Santero vs. Court of First Instance of Cavite, G.R. Nos. L-61700-03, September 14,
1987
— Janice Marie Jao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-49162, July 28, 1987
— Bernarda S. Canonizado vs. Regina Ordoñez Benitez, et al., G.R. No. 72746, May 7, 1987
— Horacio Luna vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-68374, June 18, 1985
— Alejandro B. Hontiveros, Jr. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, Et Al., G.R. No. L-64982, October
23, 1984
— Bernarda S. Canonizado vs. Regina G. Ordonez, Benitez, et al., G.R. Nos. L-49315 and 60966,
February 20, 1984
— Patricia Paciente vs. Auxencio C. Dacuycuy, et al., G.R. No. L-58319, June 29, 1982
— Mercedes Abadiano vs. Government Service Insurance System, et al., G.R. No. 52254, January
30, 1982
— Romeo N. Gumba vs. Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Camarines Sur, et al., G.R. No. L-
54097, September 30, 1981
— Miguel R. Unson III vs. Pedro C. Navarro, et al., G.R. No. L-52242, November 17, 1980
— Antonio Macadangdang vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-49542, September 12, 1980
— Bruno B. Pacoli vs. Republic of the Phil., et al. G.R. No. L-44625, July 30, 1979
— Marcela M. Bagajo vs. Geronimo R. Marave, G.R. No. L-33345, November 20, 1978
— Romeo Ferrer, et al. vs. Vicente G. Ericta, et al., G.R. No. L-41767, August 23, 1978
— Francisco Virtouso, Jr. vs. Municipal Judge of Mariveles, Bataan, et al., G.R. No. L-47841, March
21, 1978
— Flora Taboada vs. Jose Cabrera, A.M. No. 980-CTJ, August 16, 1977
— Pedro Elcano, et al. vs. Reginald Hill, et al., G.R. No. L-24803, May 26, 1977
— Edmond M. Ruiz vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-39257, July 23, 1976
— In Re: Sheryl Lim vs. Soa Pin Lim, et al., G.R. No. L-41405, October 22, 1975
— Purisima Barba vs. Hector S. Pedro, A.C. No. 545-SBC, December 26, 1974
— Soledad Morado vs. Hernando Aguilar, A.M. No. 746-MJ, August 29, 1974
— Juanito Madarang vs. Reynaldo B. Honrado, G.R. No. L-38871, July 31, 1974
— Luis T. Ramos vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-31897, June 30, 1972
— Moises P. Palisoc, et al. vs. Antonio C. Brillantes, et al., G.R. No. L-29025, October 4, 1971
— Linday Paleyan, et al. vs. Carlos Bangkili, et al., G.R. No. L-22253, July 30, 1971
— Laureana Velasquez, et al. vs. Filidoro Asignar, G.R. No. L-22133, May 31, 1971
— Maria Teresa Y. Cuadra vs. Alfonso Monfort, G.R. No. L-24101, September 30, 1970
— Lorenzo de Guzman vs. Florendo Aquino, et al, G.R. No. L-29134, July 31, 1970
— Carmen Quimiguing, et al. vs. Felix Icao, G.R. No. L-26795, July 31, 1970
— Vda. de Macabenta vs. Davao Stevedore Terminal Company, G.R. No. L-27489, April 30, 1970
— Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr., et al. vs. Juanita Bautista, et al, G.R. No. L-25024, March, 30, 1970
— Benigno T. Perez, et al. vs. J. Antonio Araneta, G.R. No. L-23159, July 28, 1969
— People of the Phil. vs. Noly Sia, G.R. No. L-28884, July 25, 1969
— Belen Cruz vs. Exequiel Castillo, G.R. No. L-27232, June 30, 1969
— Zenaida Medina vs. Venancia L. Makabali, G.R. No. L-26953, March 28, 1969
— In Re: Pacita Chua vs. Bartolome Cabangbang, et al., G.R. No. L-23253, March 28, 1969
— Alfonso Lacson vs. Carmen San Jose-Lacson, et al., G.R. No. L-23482, August 30, 1968
— Adela C. Salas-Gatlin vs. Corazon Agrava, G.R. No. L-20827, September 29, 1967
— Delfin Nario, et al. vs. Philippine American Life Insurance Company, G.R. No. L-22796, June 26,
1967
— Olympia Baltazar vs. Sergio Serfino, G.R. No. L-17315, July 31, 1965
— Pilar Revilla de Lagdameo vs. Juan La'o, G.R. No. L-19953, December 24, 1964
— Maria Lourdes Prianes vs. Fermin Henson, G.R. No. L-14250, November 28, 1964
— Basilio S. Falcon vs. Francisco Arca, G.R. No. L-18135, July 31, 1963
— Benigno T. Perez, et al. vs. J. Antonio Araneta, G.R. No. L-16708, October 31, 1962
— Aquilina Largado vs. Lupo A. Masaganda, etc., et al., G.R. No. L-17624, June 30, 1962
— Benigno T. Perez, et al. vs. Antonio M. Perez, G.R. Nos. L-16185-86, May 31, 1962
— Laureano Garcia vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-14758, March 30, 1962
— Basilisa Tan Delgado vs. Esteban Gamboa, et al., G.R. No. L-14326, February 28, 1962
— Benigno T. Perez vs. J. Antonio Araneta, G.R. No. L-16962, February 27, 1962
— Adela Silpao vs. Lope Paglomotan, G.R. No. L-16460, January 31, 1962
— Loreta Lerio vs. Conrado Alvarez, G.R. No. L-16582, November 29, 1961
— Leon de Jesus etc., et al. vs. Eusebia de Jesus, et al., G.R. No. L-16553, November 29, 1961
— Felicisima Oria, et al vs. Basilio Maravilla, Jr., G.R. No. L-16308, November 29, 1961
— Agapito Fuellas vs. Elpidio Cadano, et al., G.R. No. L-14409, October 31, 1961
— Elenita Ledesma Silva, et al. vs. Esther Peralta, G.R. No. L-13114, August 29, 1961
— Consolacion Rosete, et al. vs. Pablo Rosete, G.R. No. L-15055, July 21, 1961
— Angelina Araneta vda. de Liboon vs. Luzon Stevedoring Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-14893, May 31, 1961
— Gilbert Rillon vs. Filemon Rillon, G.R. No. L-13172, April 28, 1960
— Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera vs. Jose Balce, G.R. No. L-14414, April 27, 1960
— Luzon Stevedoring Company vs. Cesareo de Leon, G.R. No. L-9521, November 28, 1959
— Rosita H. Porcuna vs. United States Veterans Administration, G.R. No. L-11563, May 29, 1959
— Enrique T. Jocson, et al. vs. Empire Insurance Company, G.R. No. L-10792, April 30, 1958
— In Re: Severo Viloria vs. Administrator of Veterans Affairs, G.R. No. L-9620, June 28, 1957
— Carlos J. Torres vs. Hon. Jose Teodoro, et al., G.R. Nos. L-10093 & L-10356, April 30, 1957
— Benito Cosa vs. Juan Barotillo, G.R. No. L-8752, April 29, 1957
— Pascual Romano, et al. vs. Crisostomo Parinas, et al, G.R. No. L-10129, April 22, 1957
— Petronila Baga vs. PNB, G.R. No. L-9695, September 10, 1956
— In Re: Asuncion F. Cruz vs. Felisa V. Cruz, G.R. No. L-8622, August 15, 1956
— Rosario Matute vs. Hon. Higinio B. Macadaeg, et al., G.R. No. L-9325, May 30, 1956
— Eduardo S. Flores vs. Maria de Leon vda. de Esteban, G.R. No. L-8768, August 26, 1955
— Maria N. Banzon vs. Pedro Alviar, G.R. No. L-8806, May 25, 1955
— Belen Jove Lagrimas vs. Tito Lagrimas, G.R. No. L-6462, May 28, 1954
— Pedro Crisolo vs. Higino B. Macadaeg, et al., G.R. No. L-7071, April 29, 1954
— Benjamin Astudillo, et al. vs. Antonio Astudillo, G.R. No. L-4669, September 22, 1953
— Flor Villasor vs. Agapito Villasor, G.R. No. L-4647, April 20, 1953
— In Re: Felisa Pangilinan vda. de Bautista, et al. vs. Adela Bustos, G.R. No. L-4155, December 17,
1952
— Hidalgo Enterprises vs. Guillermo Balandan, et al., G.R. No. L-3422, June 13, 1952
— Maximino A. Garcia vs. Patrocinio Pongan, G.R. No. L-4362, August 31, 1951
— Jose Soriano, et al. vs. Dalmacio Latoño, et al., G.R. No. L-3408, December 23, 1950
— Ileana A. Celis, et al. vs. Soledad Cafuir, et al., G.R. No. L-3352, June 12, 1950
— Benigno del Rio vs. Carlos Palanca Tanguinlay, G.R. No. L-1271, May 31, 1949
— Marcelo E. Inton, et al. vs. Daniel Quintana, G.R. No. L-1236, May 26, 1948
— In Re: Adela Carbonell vda. de Ribaya vs. Agustina R. vda. de Ribaya, G.R. No. 48895, July 16,
1943
— Feliciano Sanchez vs. Francisco Zulueta, G.R. No. 45616, May 16, 1939
— Marciana Lunasco vs. Veterans Administration, G.R. No. 45400, April 14, 1939
— Jose Empemano, et al. vs. Gregorio Cabuniag, et al., G.R. No. 45097, December 1, 1938
— Luis Francisco vs. Francisco Zandueta, G.R. No. 43794, August 9, 1935
— People of the Phil. vs. Licerio (Alias Felix Toanquin), G.R. No. 41966, April 4, 1935
— Antonia L. de Jesus, et al. vs. Cesar Syquia, G.R. No. 39110, November 28, 1933
— Aleida Saavedra vs. Rafael Martinez, et al., G.R. No. 37854, November 17, 1933
— Idonah Slade Perkins vs. Eugene Arthur Perkins, G.R. No. 35698, September 12, 1932
— Consorcia Ortiz vs. Gonzalo del Villar, G.R. No. 37785, August 1, 1932
— Narciso Gutierrez vs. Bonifacio Gutierrez, G.R. No. 34840, September 23, 1931
— Francisco Salvaña vs. Leopoldo Gaela, G.R. No. 34115, February 21, 1931
— Socorro Sanchez de Strong vs. William Beishir, G.R. No. 30366, August 15, 1929
— Francisco Sanz vs. Candido Fanlo, G.R. No. 26203, February 21, 1927
— Maria Bancosta vs. John Doe, G.R. No. L-20996, September 20, 1923
— Maria Babao vs. Antonia G. Villavicencio, G.R. No. 18140, September 1, 1922
— Di Siock Jian vs. Sy Lioc Suy et al., G.R. No. L-17783, June 22, 1922
— Clemente Manotoc vs. Flora Smith, G.R. No. L-17257, April 15, 1922
— Mabia Cortes vs. Candida Castillo, et al., R. No. 16903, March 18, 1921
— Antonino Pelayo vs. Aurora Lavin Aedo, G.R. No. 15953, November 15, 1919
— Leonarda Concepcion vs. Julian Untaran, G.R. No. 9958, October 7, 1918
— Sisenando Palarca vs. Catalino Baguisi, G.R. No. 12381, April 4, 1918
— Sebastian Lozano vs. Carmen Martinez, et al., G.R. No. 12834, October 10, 1917
— Cayetano Lim vs. Insular Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 11759, March 16, 1917
— Fred J. Legare et al. vs. Antonia Cuerques, G.R. No. 8135, March 13, 1916
— Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp. vs. Aldecoa & Co., et al.,G.R. No. 8437, March 23, 1915
— Joaquin Ibañez de Aldecoa y Palet, et al. vs. Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Corp., et al, G.R. No.
6889, March 23, 1915
— Pascuala Denzon, et al. vs. Corazon Ch. Veloso, G.R. No. 9154, February 20, 1914
— Manuela Rosario, et al. vs. Manila Railroad Company, G.R. No. 6472, March 7, 1912
— Non-Christian Gulib et al. vs. Non-Christian Bucquio et al., G.R. No. 5477, August 12, 1910
— Francisca Palet y de Yebra vs. Aldecoa & Co., G.R. No. 4320, February 10, 1910
— Severino Villarruz vs. Isidro Azarraga, G.R. No. 4913, January 27, 1910
— Rafael Linsangan vs. Simeon Linsangan, G.R. No. 4833, October 27, 1908
— Luisa Tengco vs. Vicente Sanz, G.R. No. 4529, August 27, 1908
— United States, et al. vs. Gaspar Alvir, G.R. No. L-3981, January 14, 1908
— Domingo Reyes, et al. vs. Sor Efigenia Alvarez, G.R. No. L-3957, October 3, 1907
— Jose E. Alemany et al. vs. John C. Sweeney, G.R. No. 1403, March 19, 1904
— Ildelfonso Doronila vs. Jose Lopez, G.R. No. 1293, February 23, 1904
— Jose E. Alemany, et al. vs. Juana Moreno, G.R. No. 1403, October 27, 1905
— Maria Mendoza, et al. vs. Pedro Ibañez, G.R. No. 1772, August 17, 1905

— DSWD Circular 6-91
— DSWD M.C. 1-97
— DSWD M.C. 2-91
Health, Standard of Living and Social Security
— The Social Reform Agenda
— Proc. 852, June 3, 2005
— Proc. 259, March 23, 2000
— Manila Ordinance No. 8182, An Ordinance Providing for Comprehensive Welfare for the
Children of the City of Manila, and for Other Purposes, March 13, 2009
— DILG M.C. 35-08, Celebration of the Girl Child Week, March 10, 2008
— DILG M.C. 143-06
— DILG M.C. 86-06
— DILG M.C. 19-06
— DSWD A.O. 015-11, August 24, 2011
— DSWD Circular No. 6-91
— DSWD M.C. 1-97

Health, Safety and Nutrition
— 1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 11 & Art. XV, Sec. 3 (2)
— Act 2456
— R.A. 10152, Mandatory Infants and Children Health Immunization Act of 2011
— R.A. 10028, Expanded Breastfeeding Promotion Act of 2009
— R.A. 9709, Universal Newborn Hearing Screening and Intervention Act of 2009
— R.A. 9288, Newborn Screening Act of 2004, April 7, 2004
— R.A. 8750, Sec. 5
— R.A. 8425, Sec. 2 (1)
— R.A. 8423
— R.A. 7600, Sec. 2
— R.A. 7277, Title II, Chap. III
— R.A. 6972, Sec. 3 (f)
— R.A. 4881, Sec. 1 & Sec. 5
— E.O. 369, October 5, 2004
— E.O. 307, February 28, 1996
— E.O. 139, November 28, 1993, Sec. 4.1 (f)
— E.O. 51, October 20, 1986
— P.D. 1543
— P.D. 1631, Sec. 3

— P.D. 603, Art. 3 (4); Art. 3 (9); Art. 11; Arts. 17-20; Art. 62; Art. 87 (5); Art. 106 (3); Arts. 127-130
& Arts. 133-134
— Proc. 1079, May 31, 2006
— Proc. 429, July 27, 1994
— Proc. 6, April 3, 1986
— Adolescent Sexuality, No date supplied
— Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, Arts. 24 & 25
— Implementing Guidelines for the Operationalization of the SRA Convergence, Secs. 4.1-4.4
— Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons (RA 7277), Rule IV,
Sec. 6, par. C, subpar. 1.4 & subpar. 2.3
— International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, December 16, 1966, Article 12
(2) (a)
— Kabataan 2000 Program
— Kabataan 2000
— United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty, December 14,
1990, IV (H)
— DSWD A.O. No. 018-12 (Guidelines for the Accreditation of Supervised Neighborhood Play),
December 27, 2012
— DSWD A.O. No. 008-12 (Omnibus Guidelines in the Implementation of the Supplementary
Feeding Program), June 13, 2012
— DSWD A.O. No. 001-12 (Terms of Reference for the One-Month Feeding in Maguindanao)
— Emmanuel Jarcia, Jr., et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 187926, February 15, 2012
— Child Learning Center, Inc., et al. vs. Timothy Tagario, et al., G.R. No. 150920, November 25,
2005
— DILG M.C. 46-00
— DILG M.C. 26-00
— DILG M.C. 231-99
— DILG M.C. 217-99
— DILG M.C. 197-99

— DILG M.C. 182-99
— DILG M.C. 161-99
— DILG M.C. 58-99
— DILG M.C. 55-99
— DILG M.C. 138-98
— DILG M.C. 99-98
— DILG M.C. 67-98
— DILG M.C. 49-98
— DILG M.C. 299-97
— DILG M.C. 279-97
— DILG M.C. 202-97
— DILG M.C. 231-96
— DILG M.C. 182-96
— DILG M.C. 11-96
— DILG M.C. 85-95
— DILG M.C. 11-95
— DILG M.C. 134-94
— DILG M.C. 104-93
— DILG M.C. 95-93
— DOH A.O. 14-11, September 15, 2011
— DOH A.O. 11-11, July 25, 2011
— DOH A.O. 23-10, July 13, 2010
— DOH A.O. 20-10, June 28, 2010
— DOH A.O. 15-10, June 8, 2010
— DOH A.O. 14-10, May 14, 2010
— DOH A.O. 29-08, September 9, 2008
— DOH A.O. 11-08, May 21 2008
— DOH A.O. 28-07
— DOH A.O. 26-07

— DOH A.O. 16-06
— DOH A.O. 15-06
— DOH A.O. 12-06
— DOH A.O. 178-04
— DOH A.O. 5-92
— DOH A.O. 342-78
— DOH A.O. 14-66
— DOH Circular 333-04, Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9288 Otherwise
Known as the "Newborn Screening Act of 2004", October 22, 2004
— DSWD A.O. 014-11, August 12, 2011
— DSWD A.O. 19-05, December 7, 2005
— DSWD A.O. 159-02, July 15, 2002
— ILO Convention No. 77, October 9, 1946
— PhilHealth Board Res. 324-00, April 26, 2000
— POEA M.C. 70-94, III (2) & (3)
— Infanta Municipal Ordinance No. 008-11, January 10, 2011
Standard of Living
— 1987 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 9 & Art. XV, Sec. 3 (2)
— 1973 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 5 & Sec. 7
— R.A. 8425, Sec. 3 (b)
— R.A. 8044, Sec. 2 (a)
— E.O. 307, February 28, 1996

— P.D. 603, Art. 3 (10)
— Rules and Regulations Implementing Social Reform and Poverty Alleviation Act of 1998,
December 23, 1998
— Special Program for Employment of Students (Coverage)
— Kabataan 2000
— SPES, R.A. 7323
— Special Program for Employment of Students (What is SPES)
— Bureau of Women and Young Workers (1)
— Sps. Abelardo and Rosita Borbe vs. Violeta Calalo, G.R. No. 152572, October 5, 2007
— DepEd Order 63-03, August 4, 2003
— DepEd Order 5-03, January 30, 2003
— DILG M.C. 063-12
— DILG M.C. 54-00
— DILG M.C. 149-99
— DILG M.C. 154-98
— DILG M.C. 172-96
— DILG M.C. 99-95
— DILG M.C. 99-94
— DOLE Order 3-97
— DOLE Order 8-96
— DOLE Order 6-91
— DOLE Order 5-90
— DOLE Order 7-89

— DOLE Order 4-73
— 1999 DOLE Programs and Projects, II (2)
— DSWD Order 10-99, May 10, 1999
— PhilHealth Circular No. 18, November 4, 2011 (Diagnosis of Tubercolosis (TB) in Children Aged
Zero to Nine Years Old)
Social Security Benefits
— Act 2456
— R.A. 8425, Sec. 3 (b)
— R.A. 8291, Sec. 1 [(Sec. 2) (f)] & [(Sec. 21)(b) (2) & (3)]
— R.A. 8282, Sec. 12-A; Sec. 8 (e) (2) & par. k
— R.A. 6948
— R.A. 6111
— R.A. 5416, Sec. 3 & Sec. 7 (b)
— R.A. 1161, Sec. 8 (k)
— R.A. 779
— R.A. 577
— R.A. 340, Sec. 2
— R.A. 65, Sec. 9 & Sec. 10
— R.A. 21
— A.O. 277-A, June 25, 1996
— A.O. 277, June 25, 1996
— E.O. 310, November 3, 2000
— E.O. 301, October 16, 2000
— E.O. 294, August 26, 2000
— E.O. 293, August 26, 2000
— E.O. 484, June 8, 1998
— E.O. 233, July 22, 1987

— M.O. 57, August 2, 2013
— P.D. 1146, Sec. 2 (f)
— P.D. 850, Sec. 15
— P.D. 177, Sec. 1
— Death Benefit
— Disability Benefit
— Operating Guidelines for the Sugar Workers Death Benefit Program, Sec. 3 (b)
— Retirement Benefit
— Rules and Regulations of R.A. 6982, November 22, 1991, Rule IX, Sec. 3 (c) (1.2)
— The Medicare Primer
— Benguet Electric Cooperative vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 127326, December 23, 1999
— NFD International Manning Agents, et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 116629, January 16, 1998
— Luz Pineda, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 105562, September 27, 1993
— Rosalinda Godizano vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, G.R. No. L-62354, May 9, 1985
— Iluminada Ponce Berciles, et al. vs. GSIS, et al., G.R. No. 57257 & A.M. Nos. 1337-Ret & 10468-
CFI, March 5, 1984
— Philippine Veterans Affairs Office vs. Lino L. Añover, et al., G.R. No. L-39835, October 27, 1983
— Board of Administrators, et al. vs. Jose G. Bautista, et al., G.R. No. L-37867, February 22, 1982
— Francisca Rico Reyes vs. Minister of Labor, G.R. No. 50180, December 19, 1981
— Milagros B. La O vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al., G.R. No. L-50918, May 17,
1980
— Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company vs. Leonora B. Rosal, et al., G.R. No. L-39566,
February 21, 1980
— Leon Jesalva vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al., G.R. No. L-43007, January 28,
1980
— Great Pacific Life Assurance Company vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-31845, April 30, 1979
— In Re: Mario V. Chanliongco, et al., A.M. No. 190-RET., October 18, 1977
— Antonio Pepito, et al. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al., G.R. No. L-43212, July
27, 1977
— Aurora C. vda. de Leorna, et al. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al., G.R. No. L-
42543, September 30, 1976
— Asuncion T. Cabinta, et al. vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al., G.R. No. L-42639,
July 30, 1976
— Melchora Cabanas vs. Francisco Pilapil, G.R. No. L-25843, July 25, 1974
— Board of Administrators, et al. vs. Mariano V. Agcaoili, G.R. No. L-38129, July 23, 1974
— Quirico del Mar vs. The Phil. Veterans Administration, G.R. No. L-27299, June 27, 1973
— Leonora Tantoy vda. de Macabenta, et al. vs. Davao Stevedore Terminal Company, G.R. No. L-
27489, April 30, 1970
— Luzon Stevedoring Company vs. Cesareo de Leon, G.R. No. L-9521, November 28, 1959
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos S. Tan, G.R. No. 27637, November 17, 1927

— DILG M.C. 40-06, April 25, 2006
— DILG M.C. 19-06, February 24, 2006
— PhilHealth Board Res. 324-00, April 26, 2000, Title II, Sec. 3 (i) (2)
— POEA M.C. 70-94, III (2) & (3)
— SSS Circular No. 93-T
Education and Information
— 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 7 & Sec. 12 (1); Art. XIV, Sec. 5 (5), Sec. 1, Sec. 2 (2) & (5), Sec. 5
(2) & (3), & Sec. 3
— 1973 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 5 & Art. IV, Sec. 6
— 1935 Constitution, Art. XIV, Sec. 5
— Act 3815, Art. 277
— R.A. No. 10157, Kindergarten Education Act, January 20, 2012
— R.A. 8759, Sec. 6 (d)
— R.A. 8504, Sec. 4
— R.A. 8438, Art. X, Sec. 3
— R.A. 8371, Sec. 28 & Sec. 30
— R.A. 8370
— R.A. 8296, Sec. 2
— R.A. 8044, Sec. 2 (a) & (b)
— R.A. 7624
— R.A. 7610, Art. VIII, Sec. 12 (1) & Sec. 13
— R.A. 7323
— R.A. 7277, Chap. II
— R.A. 6655
— R.A. 6054
— R.A. 5250
— R.A. 4881, Sec. 1 & Sec. 5
— R.A. 3801
— R.A. 577
— R.A. 386, Art. 1691
— E.O. 685, January 10, 2008
— E.O. 356, September 13, 2004
— E.O. 307, April 10, 2004
— E.O. 286, February 23, 2004
— E.O. 484, June 8, 1998
— E.O. 139, November 28, 1993, Sec. 4.1 (c) & (d)
— E.O. 24, September 18, 1998
— P.D. 932
— P.D. 603, Art. 3 (6) & (8); Art. 12; Art. 51; Art. 59 (4), (5) & (6); Arts. 71-78; Art. 80; Art. 81; Art.
83; Art. 87 (1); Art. 88; Art. 95; Art. 106 (3); Art. 110; Art. 113; Art. 114; Art. 116 & Art. 137
— P.D. 442, Art. 146
— Convention Against Discrimination in Education, December 14, 1960
— Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, Art. 17; Art. 28 & Art. 29
— Declaration on the Promotion Among Youth of the Ideals of Peace, Mutual Respect and
Understanding Between Peoples, December 7, 1965
— Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 10157 (The Kindergarten Education Act), 2012
— Implementing Guidelines for the Operationalization of the SRA Convergence, Sec. 4.7
of their Families, No date supplied, Art. 30
— Kabataan 2000
— Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, May 27, 1989, Book III, Rule XIII, Sec. 11
— Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. 7160, February 21, 1992, Art. 207
— Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7277, No date supplied, Rule III
— Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7323, March 5, 1993
— TESDA Equipping the Citizen Worker for Global Competitiveness
— Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 26 (3)
— Working Youth Center (1)
1990, IV (E)
— Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, June 17, 1999, Art. 7 (2)
— Sps. Eugene and Angelita Go, et al. vs. Colegio De San Juan De Letran, et al., G.R. No. 169391,
October 10, 2012
— Bloomfield Academy, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 99042, September 26, 1994
— Tan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97238, July 15, 1991
— Benito Rosales, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-47821, September 15, 1988
— Jose B. Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-54598, April 15, 1988
— Guzman vs. National University, G.R. No. L-68288, July 11, 1986
— Tangonan vs. Paño, G.R. No. L-45157, June 27, 1985
— Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr., et al. vs. Juanita Bautista, et al., G.R. No. L-25024, March 30, 1970
— People of the Phil. vs. Cuello, G.R. No. L-14307, March 27, 1961
— CSC M.C. 24-97

— DSWD M.C. 25, Policies on the Standard Reporting on Day Care Centers and Day Care Workers,
June 4, 2004
— DepEd Order No. 40-12, May 14, 2012
— DepEd Order No. 21-12, March 20, 2012
— DECS Memo. 373-98
— DECS Memo. 289-98
— DECS Order 43-01, August 14, 2001
— DECS Order 8-01, February 23, 2001
— DILG M.C. 150-06
— DILG M.C. 91-06
— DILG M.C. 54-00
— DILG M.C. 53-00
— DILG M.C. 50-00
— DILG M.C. 49-00
— DILG M.C. 46-00
— DILG M.C. 37-00
— DILG M.C. 31-00
— DILG M.C. 231-99
— DILG M.C. 217-99
— DILG M.C. 149-99
— DILG M.C. 147-99
— DILG M.C. 127-99
— DILG M.C. 118-99

— DILG M.C. 86-99
— DILG M.C. 58-99
— DILG M.C. 13-99
— DILG M.C. 172-98
— DILG M.C. 154-98
— DILG M.C. 150-98
— DILG M.C. 139-98
— DILG M.C. 127-98
— DILG M.C. 323-97
— DILG M.C. 284-97
— DILG M.C. 233-97
— DILG M.C. 204-97
— DILG M.C. 197-97
— DILG M.C. 187-97
— DILG M.C. 172-97
— DILG M.C. 67-97
— DILG M.C. 7-97
— DILG M.C. 251-96
— DILG M.C. 205-96
— DILG M.C. 172-96
— DILG M.C. 149-96
— DILG M.C. 12-96
— DILG M.C. 11-96
— DILG M.C. 194-95
— DILG M.C. 185-95
— DILG M.C. 125-95
— DILG M.C. 99-95
— DILG M.C. 89-95
— DILG M.C. 69-95

— DILG M.C. 63-95
— DILG M.C. 211-94
— DILG M.C. 189-94
— DILG M.C. 172-94
— DILG M.C. 122-94
— DILG M.C. 76-94
— DILG M.C. 28-B-94
— DILG M.C. 28-A-94
— DILG M.C. 172-93
— DILG M.C. 144-93
— DILG M.C. 107-93
— DILG M.C. 59-93
— DILG M.C. 58-93
— DILG M.C. 11-93
— DOH A.O. 14-66
— NCIP A.O. 1-98, June 9, 1998, Rule V, Sec. 8 & Rule VI, Sec. 6
— OWWA Memorandum of Instructions 1-00
Abuse and Maltreatment of Children
— P.D. 603, Art. 3 (8) & (9)
— Rules and Regulations on the Reporting & Investigation of Child Abuse Cases pursuant to RA
7610, October 1993
— Supreme Court A.C. No. 23-95, October 11, 1995
— Adoracion G. Angeles vs. Ma. Merceditas N. Gutierrez, et al., G.R. Nos. 189161 & 189173, March
21, 2012
— DILG M.C. 118-98

— DSWD A.O. 119-90
Abuse and Maltreatment
— Act 3815, Art. 275 (3) & Arts. 276 & 278
— R.A. 8049
— R.A. 7610, Sec. 2 & Sec. 3
— R.A. 5416, Sec. 3 & Sec. 7 (b)
— E.O. 275, September 14, 1995
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 217 & Art. 231
— E.O. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (e)
— P.D. 1563, Sec. 4 & Sec. 5
— P.D. 603, Art. 3 (4) & (8); Art. 59 (2), (7), (8) & (9); Art. 61; Art. 87 (3); Art. 116 (4) & Arts. 166-
167
— Proc. 1107, July 20, 2006
— Proc. 759, March 6, 1996
— Proc. 13, June 3, 1986
— A.M. No. 04-10-11-SC, Rule on Violence against Women and their Children, October 19, 2004
— Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, Art. 19 & Art. 39
— Implementing Guidelines for the Operationalization of the SRA Convergence, Sec. 4.8 (3)
— Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, May 27, 1989, Book III, Rule XIII, Sec. 12 & Sec. 14
— People of the Phil. vs. Noel T. Sales, G.R. No. 177218, October 3, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando R. Jakosalem, G.R. No. 130506, February 28, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Emelito Sitchon, G.R. No. 134362, February 27, 2002
— Michael T. Vistan vs. Adoracion G. Angeles, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1672 January 30, 2002
— Rolando A. Sulla vs. Rodolfo C. Ramos, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1319, September 27, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnulfo Astorga, G.R. No. 110097, December 22, 1997
— Eliza Ratilla de la Cruz, et al. vs. Crisanto C. Concepcion, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1062, August 25, 1994
— Christina Marie Dempsey vs. Regional Trial Court, Branch LXXV, G.R. Nos. 77737-38, August 15,
1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Dick Ocapan, G.R. No. 78492, May 29, 1987
— In Re: Pacita Chua vs. Bartolome Cabangbang, et al., G.R. No. L-23253, March 28, 1969
— Paulina Santos, et al. vs. Gregoria Aranzanso, et al., G.R. No. L-23828, February 28, 1966
— Josefina Mortel vs. Anacleto F. Aspiras, A.C. No. 145, December 28, 1956
— United States vs. Ramon Insierto, G.R. No. 5606, March 2, 1910
— United States vs. Custodio Payog, et al., G.R. No. 534, April 1, 1902
— CSC Res. 990354
— DILG M.C. 49-97
Physical Abuse
— Adoracion G. Angeles, vs. Manuel B. Gaite, et al., G.R. No. 165276. November 25, 2009
— Julius Amanquiton vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 186080, August 14, 2009
— Leonilo Sanchez vs. People of the Phil. et al., G.R. No. 179090, June 5, 2009
Sexual Abuse and Exploitation of Children
— R.A. 9775 (Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009)
— Proposed United Nations Convention Against Sexual Exploitation, January 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo M. de Jesus, G.R. No. 190622, October 7, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto T. Gani, G.R. No. 195523, June 5, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Felix Morante, G.R. No. 187732, November 28, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio A. Osma, Jr., G.R. No. 187734, August 29, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Roger Tejero, G.R. No. 187744, June 20, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Jover Matias, G.R. No. 186469, June 13, 2012
— Victor Rondina vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 179059, June 13, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Edmundo O. Villaflores, G.R. No. 184926, April 11, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Julius B. Taguilid, G.R. No. 181544, April 11, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Melecio de los Santos, Jr., G.R. No. 186499, March 21, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo N. Navarette, Jr., G.R. No. 191365, February 22, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Paterno S. Samandre, G.R. No. 181497, February 22, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Julieto Sanchez, G.R. No. 197815, February 8, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Ortega, G.R. No. 186235, January 25, 2012
— DILG Memorandum Circular No. 025-12, February 6, 2012
— DILG M.C. 24-08, Observance of National Awareness Week for the Prevention of Child Sexual
Abuse and Exploitation, February 11, 2008
— DILG M.C. 8-06, January 31, 2006
— DSWD A.O. 69-03, July 25, 2003
— DSWD A.O. 67-03, July 15, 2003
— DSWD M.C. 5-06, Delineation of Responsibilities in the Fight Against the Occurrence and
Proliferation of Cyber Pornography/Cyber Prostitution, March 8, 2006
Sexual Abuse
— Act 3815, Art. 278; Art. 335; Art. 336; Art. 337 & Art. 338
— Act 1773
— B.P. 186, March 16, 1982
— B.P. 92, December 24, 1980
— R A 8505
— R.A. 8353, Sec. 2
— R.A. 7659, Sec. 11
— R.A. 7610, Art. I, Sec. 3 (b) & Articles II-III
— R.A. 5416, Sec. 3 & Sec. 7 (b)
— R.A. 4111
— R.A. 2632
— R.A. 386, Art. 2219 (3)
— E.O. 275, September 14, 1995

— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 217
— E.O. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (e)
— E.O. 56, November 6, 1986
— P.D. 603, Arts. 166-167 & Art. 3 (8)
— Proc. 759, March 6, 1996
— Proc. 13, June 3, 1986
— Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, Art. 19 & Art. 34, (a)
— A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, October 3, 2000, Rule 110, Sec. 5, 4th par.
— People v. Solano, Jr. y Gecita, G.R. No. 199871, June 2, 2014
— People v. Barcela, G.R. No. 208760, April 23, 2014
— People v. Delen y Escobilla, G.R. No. 194446, April 21, 2014
— People v. Lujeco y Macanoquit, G.R. No. 198059, April 7, 2014
— People v. Gutierez y Robles, G.R. No. 208007, April 2, 2014
— People v. Hallarte y Mendoza, G.R. No. 205382, April 2, 2014
— People v. Abat y Cometa, G.R. No. 202704, April 2, 2014
— People v. Santiago, G.R. No. 196970, April 2, 2014
— People v. Dioquino y Garbin, G.R. No. 191390, April 2, 2014
— People v. Burce, G.R. No. 201732, March 26, 2014
— People v. Obogne, G.R. No. 199740, March 24, 2014
— People v. Cadano, Jr., G.R. No. 207819, March 12, 2014
— People v. Ventura, Sr., G.R. No. 205230, March 12, 2014
— People v. Gahi, G.R. No. 202976, February 19, 2014
— Raga y Casikat v. People, G.R. No. 200597, February 19, 2014
— People v. Castillo y Valencia, G.R. No. 193666, February 19, 2014
— People v. Crisostomo y Malliar, G.R. No. 196435, January 29, 2014
— People v. Pareja y Cruz, G.R. No. 202122, January 15, 2014
— People v. Vergara y Clavero, G.R. No. 199226, January 15, 2014
— People of the Phil. vs. Ferdinand Banzuela, G.R. No. 202060, December 11, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Lino Paldo, G.R. No. 200515, December 11, 2013
— People v. Laurian, Jr. y Pugsot, G.R. No. 199868, December 11, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto P. Garcia, G.R. No. 206095, November 25, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Doney T. Gaduyon, G.R. No. 181473, November 11, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Marciano L. Cial, G.R. No. 191362, October 9, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Jade R. Cuaycong, G.R. No. 196051, October 2, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Espenilla, G.R. No. 192253, September 18, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Apolinario J. Manalili, G.R. No. 191253, August 28, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Victorino Reyes, G.R. No. 173307, July 17, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Roman S. Zafra, G.R. No. 197363, June 26, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo S. Pamintuan, G.R. No. 192239, June 5, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Piosang, G.R. No. 200329, June 5, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel C. Tolentino, G.R. No. 187740, April 10, 2013
— Mike Alvin R. Pielago vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 202020, March 13, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Tomas A. Teodoro, G.R. No. 175876, February 20, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Patricio Rayon, Sr., G.R. No. 194236, January 30, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Rey M. Monticalvo, G.R. No. 193507, January 30, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Anastacio B. Amistoso, G.R. No. 201447, January 9, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro C. Buado, Jr., G.R. No. 170634, January 8, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Padigos, G.R. No. 181202, December 5, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Batula, G.R. No. 181699, November 28, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor Lansangan, G.R. No. 201587, November 14, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin G. Soria, G.R. No. 179031, November 14, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro A. Viojela, G.R. No. 177140, October 17, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Dina P. Dulay, G.R. No. 193854, September 24, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Juanito G. Garcia, G.R. No. 200529, September 19, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo F. Lupac, G.R. No. 182230, September 19, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Christopher V. Pareja, G.R. No. 188979, September 5, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Baraoil, G.R. No. 194608, July 9, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Mirasol Agustin, G.R. No. 194581, July 2, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Henry J. Arpon, G.R. No. 183563, December 14, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnel Manjares, G.R. No. 185844, November 23, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Avelino M. Subesa, G.R. No. 193660, November 16, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernabe C. Pangilinan, G.R. No. 183090, November 14, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Dollano, Jr., G.R. No. 188851, October 19, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Delfin Caliso, G.R. No. 183830, October 19, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Aniceto Bulagao, G.R. No. 184757, October 5, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Apattad, G.R. No. 193188, August 10, 2011
— Jojit Garingarao vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 192760, July 20, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Noel Dion, G.R. No. 181035, July 4, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Lucresio Espina, G.R. No. 183564, June 29, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlo R. Dumadag, G.R. No. 176740, June 22, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Jonie Dominguez, G.R. No. 191065, June 13, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Ito Pinic, G.R. No. 186395, June 8, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin U. Padilla, G.R. No. 182917, June 8, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Mercado, G.R. No. 189847, May 30, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo O. Ogarte, G.R. No. 182690, May 30, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente A. Publico, G.R. No. 183569, April 13, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Florante Relanes, G.R. No. 175831, April 12, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Ronaldo Saludo, G.R. No. 178406, April 6, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo L. Banan, G.R. No. 193664, March 23, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonipersonso Otos, G.R. No. 189821, March 23, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruel Velarde, G.R. No. 182550, March 23, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Sixto F. Padua, G.R. No. 192821, March 21, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Armando P. Chingh, G.R. No. 178323, March 16, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Alverio, G.R. No. 194259, March 16, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Romy L. Fallones, G.R. No. 190341, March 16, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Hermie M. Jacinto, G.R. No. 182239, March 16, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Nilo Rocabo, G.R. No. 193482, March 2, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Alex G. Condes, G.R. No. 187077, February 23, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Porferio P. Masagca, Jr., G.R. No. 184922, February 23, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Fabian G. Romero, G.R. No. 181041, February 23, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto A. Fragante, G.R. No. 182521, February 9, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Joey Toriaga, G.R. No. 177145, February 9, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Renato C. Dadulla, G.R. No. 172321, February 9, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente T. Bongat, G.R. No. 184170, February 2, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Avelino Felan, G.R. No. 176631, February 2, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Andres C. Fontillas, G.R. No. 184177, December 15, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe O. Nachor, G.R. No. 177779, December 14, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Montano P. Flores, G.R. No. 177355, December 15, 2010
— Dante Hernandez Datu vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 169718, December 13, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruel P. Tamano, G.R. No. 188855, December 8, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Eminiano M. Barcela, G.R. No. 179948, December 8, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Pojo, G.R. No. 183709, December 6, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnel N. Macafe, G.R. No. 185616, November 24, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Dominguez, Jr., G.R. No. 180914, November 24, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Wenceslao B. Deri, G.R. No. 166566, November 23, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Salazar, G.R. No. 181900, October 20, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Miguelito L. Malana, G.R. No. 185716, September 29, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Elpidio Parohinog Alejandro, G.R. No. 186232, September 27, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Olimba, G.R. No. 185008, September 22, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Roy M. Alcazar, G.R. No. 186494, September 15, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Bringas D. Bunay, G.R. No. 171268, September 14, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Paterno Lasanas, G.R. No. 183829, September 6, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolly De Guzman, G.R. No. 188352, September 1, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Jessie A. Bustillo, G.R. No. 187540, September 1, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Saturnino Villanueva, G.R. No. 181829, September 1, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Isidro L. Flores, G.R. No. 188315, August 25, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Aguilar, G.R. No. 185206, August 25, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo U. Degay, G.R. No. 182526, August 25, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Efren Alfonso, G.R. No. 182094, August 18, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Michael V. Lindo, G.R. No. 189818, August 9, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Melvin Lolos, G.R. No. 189092, August 9, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonito Amatorio, G.R. No. 175837, August 9, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Norlito N. Sambahon, G.R. No. 182789, August 3, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Rustico A. Bartolini, G.R. No. 179498, August 3, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro T. Rellota, G.R. No. 168103, August 3, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Nelson B. Balunsat, G.R. No. 176743, July 28, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Teddy Magayon, G.R. No. 175595, July 28, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcos S. Quiros, G.R. No. 188600, July 13, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Garbida, G.R. No. 188569, July 13, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Alarcon, G.R. No. 177219, July 9, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Republo, G.R. No. 172962, July 8, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Adriano D. Leonardo, G.R. No. 181036, July 6, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Basilio Cadap, G.R. No. 190633, July 5, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Jessie M. Dacallos, G.R. No. 189807, July 5, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo B. Bodoso, G.R. No. 188129, July 5, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Severiano Ogan, G.R. No. 186461, July 5, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Paler, G.R. No. 186411, July 5, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Pastor B. Llanas, Jr., G.R. No. 190616, June 29, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Joseph R. Amper, G.R. No. 172708, May 5, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Edwin P. Dalipe, G.R. No. 187154, April 23, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Crizaldo V. Pacheco, G.R. No. 187742, April 20, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio L. Asis, G.R. No. 179935, April 19, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Paniterce, G.R. No. 186382, April 5, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Tirso M. Sace, G.R. No. 178063, April 5, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Romulo M. Garcia, G.R. No. 177740, April 5, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo M. Miranda, G.R. No. 176634, April 5, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Anthony R. Rante, G.R. No. 184809, March 29, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio P. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010
— Erpascual P. Diega vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. 173510 & 174099, March 15, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Anacito Dimanawa, G.R. No. 184600, March 9, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Paculba, G.R. No. 183453, March 9, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor M. Villarino, G.R. No. 185012, March 5, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Aurelio Matunhay, G.R. No. 178274, March 5, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando B. Iroy, G.R. No. 187743, March 3, 2010
— Salvador A. Flordeliz vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 186441, March 3, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso B. Mendoza, G.R. No. 188669, February 16, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Poras, G.R. No. 177747, February 16, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Ofemiano, G.R. No. 187155, February 1, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Hilario Escoton, G.R. No. 183577, February 1, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Joel Guillermo, G.R. No. 177138, January 26, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Herminigildo Salle Sobusa, G.R. No. 181083, January 21, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe P. Ayade, G.R. No. 188561, January 15, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Estrada, G.R. No. 178318, January 15, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Bagos, G.R. No. 177152, January 6, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Felix Palgan, G.R. No. 186234, December 21, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Albalate, Jr., G.R. No. 174480, December 18, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Romar V. Teodoro, G.R. No. 172372, December 4, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Gualberto S. Cinco, G.R. No. 186460, December 4, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio D. Dalisay, G.R. No. 188106, November 25, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Elmer H. Peralta, G.R. No. 187531, October 16, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Felix Casa Perez, G.R. No. 189303, October 13, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs . Salvino Sumingwa, G.R. No. 183619, October 13, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Pabol, G.R. No. 187084, October 12, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Robert S. Remiendo, G.R. No. 184874, October 9, 2009
— People of the Philippines, vs. Alberto Buban, G.R. No. 172710, October 9, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Cristino Cañada, G.R. No. 175317, October 5, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Roy Bacus, G.R. No. 181744, October 2, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Lopez, G.R. No. 179714, October 2, 2009
— Benito Sombilon, Jr. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 175528, September 30, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Armando N. Padilla, G.R. No. 167955, September 30, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Lorenzo R. Oliva, G.R. No. 187043, September 18, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Elizardo Cabiles, G.R. No. 181629, September 18, 2009
— Allan A. Dizon vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 170342, September 18, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Araojo, G.R. No. 185203, September 17, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Roldan Arcosiba, G.R. No. 181081, September 4, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernardo B. Rimando, Jr., G.R. No. 180921, August 27, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Dante P. Gragasin, G.R. No. 186496, August 25, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Armando Ferasol, G.R. No. 185004, August 25, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Sanz Laboa, G.R. No. 185711, August 24, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido Lazaro, G.R. No. 186379, August 19, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgar M. Trayco, G.R. No. 171313, August 16, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Paragas Cruz, G.R. No. 186129, August 4, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Mejia, G.R. No. 185723, August 4, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Lilio U. Achas, G.R. No. 185712, August 4, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Jessie M. Maliao, G.R. No. 178058, July 31, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Warlito Martinez, G.R. No. 182687, July 23, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Felix Wasit, G.R. No. 182454, July 23, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Willy Mardo Ganoy, G.R. No. 174370, July 23, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Claro L. Jampas, G.R. No. 177766, July 17, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Renato P. Talusan, G.R. No. 179187, July 14, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjie Resurreccion, G.R. No. 185389, July 7, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Obero, G.R. No. 169878, July 7, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Julio Manalili, G.R. No. 184598, June 23, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Bartolome Tampus, et al., G.R. No. 181084, June 16, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Adelado R. Anguac, G.R. No. 176744, June 5, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Lorenzo Layco, Sr., G.R. No. 182191, May 8, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Salomon D. Dioneda, G.R. No. 180923, April 30, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Bandin, G.R. No. 176531, April 24, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Cadag Jimenez, G.R. No. 170235, April 24, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Fabito, G.R. No. 179933, April 16, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio T. Cabudbod, et al., G.R. No. 176348, April 16, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Aboganda, G.R. No. 183565, April 8, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Heracleo F. Abello, G.R. No. 151952, March 25, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Remeias G. Begino, G.R. No. 181246, March 20, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Malibiran, G.R. No. 173471, March 17, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel T. Brioso, G.R. No. 182517, March 13, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Henry A. Guerrero, G.R. No. 170360, March 12, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo B. Sia, G.R. No. 174059, February 27, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto T. Abay, G.R. No. 177752, February 24, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Felix O. Ortoa, G.R. No. 174484, February 23, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolly A. Canares, G.R. No. 174065, February 18, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Richard G. Sulima, G.R. No. 183702, February 10, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Elister G. Basmayor, G.R. No. 182791, February 10, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Restituto C. Valenzuela, G.R. No. 182057, February 6, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruben S. Corpuz, G.R. No. 175836, January 30, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Sergio Lagarde, G.R. No. 182549, January 20, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto L. Mahinay, G.R. No. 179190, January 20, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Elpidio Antonio, G.R. No. 174372, January 20, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose D. Perez, G.R. No. 182924, December 24, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Roger Mendoza, G.R. No. 180501, December 24, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Michael F. Muro, G.R. No. 176263, December 24, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Regino Tormis, G.R. No. 183456, December 18, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Joselito A. Lopit, G.R. No. 177742, December 17, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Castro, G.R. No. 172874, December 17, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio B. Pelagio, G.R. No. 173052, December 16, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Catalino D. Mingming, G.R. No. 174195, December 10, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio L. Isang, G.R. No. 183087, December 4, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Nasario Castel, G.R. No. 171164, November 28, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Veluz, G.R. No. 167755, November 28, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolly L. Montesa, G.R. No. 181899, November 27, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Larry Erguiza, G.R. No. 171348, November 26, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Nido Garte, G.R. No. 176152, November 25, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo D. Talan, G.R. No. 177354, November 14, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Conrado Diocado, G.R. No. 170567, November 14, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Fidel Canete, G.R. No. 182193, November 7, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Arraz, G.R. No. 183696, October 24, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Santos, G.R. No. 171452, October 17, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Pascual, G.R. No. 171089, October 17, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Diosdado Balobalo, G.R. No. 177563, October 10, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Salvador C. Daco, G.R. No. 168166, October 10, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo dela Torre, G.R. No. 176637, October 6, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Luis Aycardo, G.R. No. 168299, October 6, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Norberto D. Mateo, G.R. No. 170569, September 30, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Roger Ugo, G.R. No. 181633, September 12, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo P. Teczon, G.R. No. 174098, September 12, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Claudio Zulueta, Sr. G.R. No. 177297, September 12, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Medardo C. Crespo, G.R. No. 180500, September 11, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime del Castillo, G.R. No. 180925, August 20, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Luisito M. Baun, G.R. No. 167503, August 20, 2008
— Felix Rait vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 180425, July 31, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Natan, G.R. No. 181086, July 23, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Diosdado P. Codilan, G.R. No. 177144, July 23, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido S. Payot, Jr., G.R. No. 175479, July 23, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Abraham S. Bunagan, G.R. No. 177161, June 30, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Arturo G. Domingo, G.R. No. 177136, June 30, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Efren C. Maglente, G.R. No. 179712, June 27, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Remon S. Coja, G.R. No. 179277, June 18, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Hilario T. Opong, G.R. No. 177822, June 17, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Wenceslao S. Espino, Jr., G.R. No. 176742, June 17, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Ramos, G.R. No. 179030, June 12, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose M. Magbanua, G.R. No. 176265, April 30, 2008
— Dioscoro F. Bacsin vs. Eduardo O. Wahiman, G.R. No. 146053, April 30, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonel P. Palac, et al., G.R. No. 175600, April 23, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Ramon F. Arivan, G.R. No. 176065, April 22, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Nazareno, G.R. No. 167756, April 9, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Sammy D. Ramos, G.R. No. 172470, April 8, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Moises Oliva Orbita, G.R. No. 172091, March 31, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Henry N. Robles, G.R. No. 177770, March 28, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Z. Antonio, G.R. No. 180920, March 27, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Aguilar, G.R. No. 172868, March 14, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Conchito Agustin, G.R. No. 175325, February 27, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo A. Resuma, G.R. No. 179189, February 26, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Juanito R. de la Cruz, G.R. No. 177572, February 26, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Soriano, Sr., G.R. No. 178325, February 22, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Joseph de la Paz, G.R. No. 177294, February 19, 2008
— Emilio Campos vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 175275, February 19, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Mark Jason A. Javier, G.R. No. 172970, February 19, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Nelson N. Abon, G.R. No. 169245, February 15, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Zamaraga, G.R. No. 178066, February 6, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. John Montinola, G.R. No. 178061, January 31, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario S. Martin, G.R. No. 172069, January 30, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Malicsi, G.R. No. 175833, January 29, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Elmer S. Glivano, G.R. No. 177565, January 28, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Jacinto Lantano, G.R. No. 176734, January 28, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Elmer P. Ceredon, G.R. No. 167179, January 28, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Carmelito Laurente Capwa, G.R. No. 174058, December 27, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Florante Ela, G.R. No. 172368, December 27, 2007
— Edwin Cabila vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173491, November 23, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. William Ching, G.R. No. 177150, November 22, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Rufino Umanito, G.R. No. 172607, October 26, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Tuazon, G.R. No. 168650, October 26, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Edison Mira, G.R. No. 175324, October 10, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnulfo Fernandez, G.R. No. 176060, October 5, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Moriel Sancho, G.R. No. 176528, September 27, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo M. Villanueva, G.R. No. 172697, September 25, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Oligario Balonzo, G.R. No. 176153, September 21, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Sonny V. Rentoria, G.R. No. 175333, September 21, 2007
— Michael John Z. Malto vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Enrique C. Ceballos, Jr., G.R. No. 169642, September 14, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto L. Gingos, et al., G.R. No. 176632, September 11, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo W. Biyoc, G.R. No. 167670, September 7, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Armando San Antonio, Jr., G.R. No. 176633, September 5, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Lamberto Rafon, G.R. No. 169059, September 5, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Alvin S. Abulon, G.R. No. 174473, August 17, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio P. Castro, G.R. No. 172691, August 10, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Felix O. Ortoa, G.R. No. 176266, August 8, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio D. Miranda, G.R. No. 176064, August 7, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Mangubat, G.R. No. 172068, August 7, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Elmerato F. dela Cruz, G.R. No. 166723, August 2, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Ramon C. Rayles, G.R. No. 169874, July 27, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Ardel Canuto, G.R. No. 166544, July 27, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Orlando A. Ubiña, G.R. No. 176349, July 10, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Hermocilla, G.R. No. 175830, July 10, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Roque Abellano, G.R. No. 169061, June 8, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Norberto D. Astrologo, G.R. No. 169873, June 8, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Edward L. Cornelio, G.R. No. 170475, June 7, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Leodegario G. Gregorio, Jr., G.R. No. 174474, May 25, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Zaldy Ibañez, G.R. No. 174656, May 11, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Filomino Lizano, G.R. No. 174470, April 27, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo P. Noveras, G.R. No. 171349, April 27, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Sonny Mayao, G.R. No. 170636, April 27, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Guillermo, G.R. No. 173787, April 23, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Ac-Mad D. Pandapatan, G.R. No. 173050, April 13, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Filomino L. Villanueva, G.R. No. 169643, April 13, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Reyes, G.R. No. 168174, April 13, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Patricio Pioquinto, G.R. No. 168326, April 11, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Herminigildo Senieres, G.R. No. 172226, March 23, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Pangilinan, G.R. No. 171020, March 14, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Alarcon, G.R. No. 174199, March 7, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Moran, Jr., G.R. No. 170849, March 7, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Paterno Oliquino, G.R. No. 171314, March 6, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Simplicio Delantar, G.R. No. 169143, February 2, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Raymond Batiancila, G.R. No. 174280, January 30, 2007
— Renato Baleros vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 138033, January 30, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Judy Salidaga, G.R. No. 172323, January 29, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Buban, G.R. No. 166895, January 24, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Reyes, G.R. No. 167180, January 25, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico Arnaiz, G.R. No. 171447, November 29, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Carpio, G.R. No. 170840, November 29, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Henry Bidoc, G.R. No. 169430, October 31, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor Keith Fitzgerald, G.R. No. 149723, October 27, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernie Teodoro, G.R. No. 170473, October 12, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Junior Bang-ayan, G.R. No. 172870, September 22, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Alexander Mangitngit, G.R. No. 171270, September 20, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Cabalquinto, G.R. No. 167693, September 19, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Rene Santos, G.R. No. 172322, September 8, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Arango, G.R. No. 168442, August 30, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Bon, G.R. No. 166401, October 30, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Quiachon, G.R. No. 170236, August 31, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Nicanor Salome, G.R. No. 169077, August 31, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Ardel Canuto, G.R. No. 169083, August 7, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Alex Candaza y Calvadores, G.R. No. 170474, June 16, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Calongui, G.R. No. 170566, March 3, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Corpuz, G.R. No. 168101, February 13, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Isidro Flores, G.R. No. 170565, January 31, 2006
— Sps. Platon and Librada Ceruila vs. Rosilyn Delantar, G.R. No. 140305, December 9, 2005
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Dimaano, G.R. No. 168168, September 14, 2005
— People of the Phil. vs. Genaro Cayabyab, G.R. No. 167147, August 3, 2005
— Isidro Olivarez vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 163866, July 29, 2005
— Alvin Amployo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 157718, April 26, 2005
— People of the Phil vs. Wilson Suarez, et al., G.R. Nos. 153573-76, April 15, 2005
— Glenn Caballes vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 163108, February 23, 2005
— People of the Phil vs. Antonio Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 152589 & 152758, January 31, 2005
— In Re: The Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa, G.R. No. 158802, November 17, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Nicodemo Minon, G.R. Nos. 148397-400, July 7, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Efren G. Mateo, G.R. Nos. 147678-87, July 7, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Perlito tonyacao, G.R. Nos. 134531-32, July 7, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio Alberio, G.R. No. 152584, July 6, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Mantis, G.R. Nos. 150613-14, June 29, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Avelino B. Mabonga, G.R. No. 134773, June 29, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico Ortizuela, G.R. No. 135675, June 23, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Charlie Espinosa, G.R. No. 138742, June 15, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Florentino O. Ramirez, Jr., G.R. Nos. 150079-80, June 10, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose C. Oga, G.R. No. 152302, June 8, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Lino Clores, Jr., G.R. No. 130488, June 8, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime M. Antonio, G.R. No. 157269, June 3, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Geronimo M. Boromeo, G.R. No. 150501, June 3, 2004
— Geronimo Ordinario vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 155415, May 20, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Larry Cachapero, G.R. No. 153008, May 20, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Joel Yatar, G.R. No. 150224, May 19, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Henry Jusayan, G.R. No. 149785, April 28, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Oden, G.R. Nos. 155511-22, April 14, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Glorioso Lagronio Padilla, G.R. No. 142899, March 31, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Andres Paas Islabra, G.R. Nos. 152586-87, March 30, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Toribio Galido, G.R. Nos. 148689-92, March 30, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Roger Gulpe, et al., G.R. No. 126280, March 30, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Santos, G.R. Nos. 137828-33, March 23, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Ryan Torres, G.R. No. 149557, March 16, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Joel Alibuyog, G.R. No. 144976, March 11, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Malones, G.R. Nos. 124388-90, March 11, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Dante D. Gaufo, G.R. No. 132146, March 10, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Dindo Mojello, G.R. No. 145566, March 9, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Pacheco, G.R. No. 142887, March 2, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Ariel Macarang, G.R. Nos. 151249-50, February 26, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolendo Gaudia , G.R. No. 146111, February 23, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Warlito L. Tolentino, G.R. No. 139351, February 23, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano T. Ulit, G.R. Nos. 131799-801, February 23, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricky Ramos, G.R. Nos. 155292-93, February 13, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Jouriel Dimacuha, G.R. Nos. 152592-93, February 13, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Fausto Fucio, G.R. Nos. 151186-95, February 13, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Gusmo, G.R. No. 144974, February 13, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Luceriano, G.R. No. 145223, February 11, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Levi Sumarago, G.R. Nos. 140873-77, February 6, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Andales, G.R. Nos. 152624-25, February 5, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Silveno Estado, G.R. No. 150867, February 5, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro A. Intong, G.R. Nos. 145034-35, February 5, 2004
— Capistrano Obedencio vs. Joaquin M. Murillo, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1753, February 5, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodel Antivola, G.R. No. 139236, February 3, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Blancaflor, G.R. No. 130586, January 29, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Noel Darilay, G.R. Nos. 139751-52, January 26, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Guambor, G.R. No. 152183, January 22, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Sonny Canon, G.R. No. 141519, January 22, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Franco Ballester, G.R. No. 152279, January 20, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Raul A. Obrique, G.R. No. 146859, January 20, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Limos, G.R. Nos. 122114-17, January 20, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Clementino Lou , G.R. No. 146803, January 14, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Butchoy de la Torre, et al., G.R. Nos. 121213 and 121216-23, January 13,
2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio Rote, G.R. No. 146188, December 11, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Rata, G.R. Nos. 145523-24, December 11, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Avelino Latag, G.R. Nos. 140411-13, December 11, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto M. Escalante, G.R. Nos. 151111-12, December 1, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Raul S. Pulanco, G.R. No. 141186, November 27, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Pancho, G.R. Nos. 136592-93, November 27, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Exequiel Mahinay, G.R. No. 139609, November 24, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Talavera, G.R. Nos. 150983-84, November 21, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Veno Esperas, G.R. No. 128109, November 19, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Felix Montes, G.R. Nos. 148743-45, November 18, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Reginald M. Guillermo, G.R. No. 148401, November 18, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Roger Ospig, G.R. No. 141766, November 18, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Alvarez, G.R. Nos. 140388-91, November 11, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Satioquia, G.R. No. 125689, October 23, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonito Lorenzo, G.R. Nos. 133759-60, October 17, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Opeliña, et al., G.R. No. 142751, September 30, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Martin Alejo, G.R. No. 149370, September 23, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Andres T. Daño, G.R. Nos. 146786-88, September 23, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonito Herevese, G.R. No. 145407, September 11, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Mauricio Watiwat, G.R. No. 139400, September 3, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Crispin T. Ruales, G.R. No. 149810, August 28, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Negosa, G.R. No. 142856-57, August 25, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Fontanilla, G.R. Nos. 147662-63, August 15, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo B. Zabala, G.R. Nos. 140034-35, August 14, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernandino M. Alajay, G.R. Nos. 133796-97, August 12, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo P. Balleno, G.R. No. 149075, August 7, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto A. Tampos, G.R. No. 142740, August 6, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruben H. Dalisay, G.R. No. 133926, August 6, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Nazario B. Buates, G.R. Nos. 140868-69, August 5, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Crisanto D. Manahan, G.R. No. 138924, August 5, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Teofilo I. Madronio, G.R. Nos. 137587 & 138329, July 29, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Anthony E. Sandig, G.R. No. 143124, July 25, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Mauro M. de Jesus, G.R. No. 127878, July 25, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Navarro, G.R. No. 132218, July 24, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Ferrer, G.R. No. 148821, July 18, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo G. Operario, G.R. No. 146590, July 17, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Hipolito Pascua, G.R. Nos. 128159-62, July 14, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto I. Dizon, G.R. No. 133237, July 11, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Nicanor Roa, G.R. Nos. 138195-96, July 10, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. George Buenaflor, G.R. No. 148134, July 8, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Onofre M. Galang, G.R. Nos. 150523-25, July 2, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Albert Sayana, G.R. Nos. 142553-54, July 1, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Esperanza, G.R. Nos. 139217-24, June 27, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo P. Evina, G.R. Nos. 124830-31, June 27, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Redante C. Santos, G.R. No. 145305, June 26, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Noli A. Novio, G.R. No. 139332, June 20, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin P. Medina, Sr., G.R. Nos. 127756-58, June 18, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio Jackson, G.R. No. 131842, June 10, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernabe G. Gutierrez, G.R. Nos. 147656-58, May 9, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin M. Hilet, G.R. Nos. 146685-86, April 30, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Sinoro, G.R. Nos. 138650-58, April 22, 2003
— People of the Phil vs. Terencio L. Funesto, G.R. No. 143432, April 9, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Flores, G.R. Nos. 145309-10, April 4, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Joel Janson, et al., G.R. No. 125938, April 4, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Rabago, G.R. No. 149893, April 2, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Torellos, G.R. No. 143084, April 1, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Alex Manallo, G.R. No. 143704, March 28, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Kakingcio Cañete, G.R. No. 142930, March 28, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Rey Sunga, et al., G.R. No. 126029, March 27, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Ferdinand Antonio, G.R. No. 145726, March 26, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Saturnino J. Iluis, G.R. No. 145995, March 20, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio Cultura, G.R. No. 133831, February 14, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Perez y Sebunga, G.R. No. 142556, February 5, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Jovito Manalo, G.R. Nos. 144989-90, January 31, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Nemesio Bon, G.R. No. 149199, January 28, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Silverio Montemayor alias "Beriong", G.R. No. 124474, & 139972-78,
January 28, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlito M. Marahay, G.R. Nos. 120625-29, January 28, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Freddie Lizada @ Fredie Lizada, G.R. Nos. 143468-71, January 24, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Rosendo Layoso Sendong, G.R. Nos. 141773-76, January 22, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Placido Luna y delos Reyes, G.R. No. 135241, January 22, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Sarazan @ Marlon Jara, G.R. Nos. 123269-72 & 131243, January
22, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Esteban Cantila, G.R. No. 139458, December 27, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Josephere Tajada, G.R. No. 147200, December 17, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Bitancor alias "Boy", G.R. No. 147968, December 4, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Laurito S. Arriola, G.R. Nos. 140779-80, December 3, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy S. Plurad, G.R. Nos. 138361-63, December 3, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Renante Mendez, et al., G.R. No. 147671, November 21, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Atanacio Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 143844-46, November 19, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Jerry D. Cantuba, G.R. No. 137454, November 18, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Aspuria, G.R. Nos. 139240-43, November 12, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Francis Gavina Y Quebec, G.R. No. 143237, October 28, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Benigno V. Villanueva, G.R. No. 137341, October 28, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Rizaldo y Gardose Alias Totong, G.R. No. 140638, October 14, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Pruna, et al., G.R. No. 138471, October 10, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio L. del Ayre, G.R. Nos. 139788 & 139827, October 3, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor Lopez y Maning, G.R. No. 138648, October 3, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando (Ferdinand) Monje Y Rosario @ Fernan, et al., G.R. No. 146689,
September 27, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Melchor P. Esteves, G.R. No. 140392, September 27, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Segovia, G.R. No. 138974, September 19, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Nexiel Ortega @ "Rex Ortega, G.R. No. 137824, September 17, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor Balili, G.R. No. 125908, September 5, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Johnny dela Concha, G.R. No. 140205, September 3, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Ferrer, G.R. No. 139695, August 26, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Ylanan, G.R. No. 131812, August 22, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Julie Ballesterol, G.R. No. 145503, August 20, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Nathaniel Surio, G.R. No. 139235, August 7, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Gannaban, G.R. No. 135054, August 7, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodelio R. Aquino, G.R. Nos. 144340-42, August 6, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Sotero Serado, G.R. No. 138664, August 6, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio F. de la Cruz, G.R. No. 136158, August 6, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Cañaveral, G.R. No. 133790, August 1, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Orani, G.R. No. 144429, July 30, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Roldan A. Ochate, G.R. No. 127154, July 30, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Crispin Velarde, G.R. No. 139333, July 18, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Gerry Lining, G.R. No. 138401, July 11, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido dela Cruz, G.R. No. 135022, July 11, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Jonel Manio, G.R. No. 140384, July 4, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Adriano Ponsica, G.R. Nos. 137661-63, July 4, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Castor Julian, Jr., G.R. No. 142774, July 3, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Soriano, G.R. No. 135027, July 3, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Agulbi Pascual, G.R. No. 132663, July 2, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 132923-24, June 10, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Moises Manrique, G.R. No. 139314, June 7, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernie Baro, G.R. Nos. 146327-29, June 5, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Henry Barela, G.R. Nos. 145163-65, June 5, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Sonny Buendia, G.R. Nos. 145318-19, May 29, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Amado Isla, Jr., G.R. Nos. 140211-13, May 29, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Aldrico Caluza, G.R. No. 131810, May 29, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Mascariñas, G.R. No. 144034, May 28, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Lito Egan, G.R. No. 139338, May 28, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Ocomen, G.R. No. 135049, May 28, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Gerrico Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656, May 9, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Benito Lachica, G.R. No. 143677, May 9, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Padrigone, G.R. No. 137664, May 9, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Hernando Quinson Garcia, G.R. No. 139753, May 7, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Bertulfo, G.R. No. 143790, May 7, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Principe, G.R. No. 135862, May 2, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Silvano, G.R. No. 144886, April 29, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Lima, G.R. No. 128289, April 23, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Esmeraldo Cana, G.R. No. 139229, April 22, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Baylen, G.R. No. 135242, April 19, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Lopez, G.R. No. 134774, April 19, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Faustino Dulay @ "Faus", G.R. No. 144082-83, April 18, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodelio Aquino, G.R. Nos. 144340-42, April 17, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Desuyo, G.R. No. 140406, April 17, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Joey dela Cuesta, G.R. Nos. 138545-46, April 16, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Samson Bartolome, G.R. No. 138365, April 16, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Baloloy, G.R. No. 140740, April 12, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Gerry Libeta, G.R. No. 139231, April 12, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Santos, G.R. No. 137993, April 11, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo dela Torre, G.R. Nos. 137953-58, April 11, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Corfin, G.R. No. 131478, April 11, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Benny Conde, G.R. Nos. 138445-50, April 3, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando C. Felixminia, G.R. No. 125333, March 20, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Palana, G.R. No. 124053, March 20, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Armando Alvarado, G.R. No. 145730, March 19, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo Esuela, G.R. Nos. 138720-21, March 19, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido Valindo, G.R. No. 140027, March 18, 2002
— Leticia R. Merciales vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124171, March 18, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Tablon, G.R. No. 137280, March 14, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo S. Pascual, G.R. Nos. 144495-96, March 12, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Portugal, G.R. No. 143030, March 12, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Capili Sebastian, G.R. No. 142747, March 12, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Elpidio Pastor, G.R. No. 140208, March 12, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Hermanes, G.R. No. 139416, March 12, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Felicito Silvano, G.R. Nos. 141105-11, March 8, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Sailito Perez., G.R. Nos. 141647-51, March 6, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Nicomedes D. Platilla, G.R. No. 140723, March 6, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Chris Parocha, G.R. No. 138866, March 6, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Villaruel, G.R. No. 135401, March 6, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Galvez, G.R. No. 135053, March 6, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Marianito Monteron, G.R. No. 130709, March 6, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Aldrin Licayan, G.R. No. 144422, February 28, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Pajarillo, G.R. Nos. 143755-58, February 20, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo D. Matugas, G.R. Nos. 139698-726, February 20, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolly Espejon, G.R. No. 134767, February 20, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Bernas, G.R. Nos. 133583-85, February 20, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Iñego Las Piñas, Jr., G.R. No. 133444, February 20, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Floriano Amaquin, G.R. No. 124975, February 20, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Velasquez, G.R. Nos. 142561-62, February 15, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Quarre, G.R. Nos. 140729-30, February 15, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Tagun, G.R. No. 137745, February 15, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Somodio, G.R. Nos. 134139-40, February 15, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Castillo, et al., G.R. No. 131200, February 15, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Escaño, G.R. Nos. 140218-23, February 13, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Deorito Porio, G.R. No. 117202, February 13, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Rodriguez, G.R. No. 138987, February 6, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Caiñgat, G.R. No. 137963, February 6, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Marcellana, G.R. Nos. 137401-03, February 6, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Rodavia, G.R. Nos. 133008-24, February 6, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Edward Ollamina, G.R. No. 133185, February 6, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Camacho Torreja, G.R. No. 132339, February 4, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Bautista, G.R. No. 123557, February 4, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Eddie S. Fernandez, G.R. No. 140203, January 31, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Sanchez, G.R. No. 124393, January 31, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Armando Tagud, Sr., G.R. No. 140733, January 30, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Emmanuel Quezada, G.R. Nos. 135557-58, January 30, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Medrillo Rodriguez, G.R. No. 133984, January 30, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Parcia, G.R. No. 141136, January 28, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Valentin Baring, G.R. No. 137933, January 28, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Doroteo Abaño, G.R. No. 142728, January 23, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Dulindo Esureña, G.R. No. 142727, January 23, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodito Daganio, G.R. No. 137385, January 23, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Salustiano Callos, G.R. No. 133478, January 16, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Gonzales Jr., G.R. Nos. 143143-44, January 15, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Estomaca, G.R. Nos. 134288-89, January 15, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Awing, G.R. No. 133919-20, February 19, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Macaya, G.R. No. 137185-86, February 15, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Ybañez, G.R. No. 136257, February 14, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Deolito Optana, G.R. No. 133922, February 12, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Pacifico Rondilla, G.R. No. 134368, February 8, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Asterio Cordero, G.R. No. 136894-96, February 7, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Velez Rayos, G.R. No. 133823, February 7, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Mauricio Loyola, G.R. No. 126026, February 6, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Fernandez, G.R. No. 137647, February 1, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo de Villa, G.R. No. 124639, February 1, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Elpedes, G.R. No. 137106-07, January 31, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Rene Delamar, G.R. No. 136102, January 31, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Sernadilla, G.R. No. 137696, January 24, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Torres, G.R. No. 136147, January 24, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio San Agustin, G.R. Nos. 135560-61, January 24, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Gonyeto Francisco, G.R. Nos. 134566-67, January 22, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo de Guzman, G.R. No. 134844, January 17, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Osing, G.R. No. 138959, January 16, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Santos Mirafuentes, G.R. No. 135850-52, January 16, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Garcia, G.R. No. 117406, January 16, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Bisco, G.R. Nos. 136138-40, December 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Boras, G.R. No. 127495, December 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Pajo, G.R. No. 135109, December 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Sandoval, G.R. Nos. 132625-31, December 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Bantayan, G.R. No. 137693, December 14, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Pecayo, Sr., G.R. No. 132047, December 14, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Marquez, G.R. Nos. 137408-10, December 8, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Dagpin, G.R. No. 136254, December 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Navida, G.R. Nos. 132239-40, December 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Salazar, G.R. No. 122479, December 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Lopez, G.R. Nos. 135671-72, November 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Mayorga, G.R. No. 135405, November 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Gopio, G.R. No. 133925, November 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Pine, G.R. No. 133441, November 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Segui, G.R. Nos. 131532-34, November 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Velasquez, G.R. Nos. 137383-84, November 23, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Sale, G.R. Nos. 137978-79, November 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Liban, G.R. Nos. 136247 & 138330, November 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Desamparado, G.R. No. 130651, November 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Tagaylo, G.R. Nos. 137108-09, November 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Digma, G.R. Nos. 127750-52, November 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Mariano, G.R. Nos. 135511-13, November 17, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Mariano, G.R. No. 134309, November 17, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Balmoria, G.R. No. 134539, November 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Oling Madraga, G.R. No. 129299, November 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Laguerta, G.R. No. 132783, October 30, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 134768, October 25, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Cabigting, G.R. No. 131806, October 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco, G.R. No. 136252, October 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Clado, G.R. No. 135699-700 & 139103, October 19, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Dimapilis, G.R. No. 129573, October 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Brondial, G.R. No. 135517, October 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Teves, G.R. No. 121994, October 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Santos, G.R. No. 127846, October 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Adajio, G.R. No. 136003-04, October 17, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Baltazar, G.R. No. 130610, October 16, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Arves, G.R. Nos. 134628-30, October 13, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Tundag, G.R. Nos. 135695-96, October 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Dayuha, G.R. No. 120897, October 11, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Vedra, G.R. No. 108615, October 9, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Cutamora, G.R. Nos. 133448-53, October 6, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Catubig, Jr., G.R. Nos. 134143-47, October 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Dela Cuesta, G.R. No. 133904, October 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Bawang, G.R. No. 131942, October 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Magtrayo, G.R. Nos. 134480-82, October 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Garcia, G.R. Nos. 137379-81, September 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Armando Quilatan, G.R. No. 132725, September 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Nogar, G.R. No. 133946, September 27, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Elmedio Cajara, G.R. No. 122498, September 27, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Uldarico Honra, Jr., G.R. Nos. 136012-16, September 26, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Neil Dumaguing, G.R. No. 135516, September 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Faustino Campos, G.R. Nos. 133373-77, September 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Gianan, G.R. No. 135288-93, September 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Melencio Bali-Balita, G.R. No. 134266, September 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Aloro, G.R. No. 129208, September 14, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Lito Rosales, G.R. No. 126402, September 13, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Baniguid, G.R. No. 137714, September 8, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Villaraza, G.R. Nos. 131848-50, September 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Paul Lapiz, G.R. No. 129239, September 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Camilo Villanueva, G.R. No. 135330, August 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Melendres, G.R. Nos. 133999-4001, August 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Joey R. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 132772, August 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Segundo Cano, G.R. No. 130631, August 30, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Renato Puzon, G.R. Nos. 123156-59, August 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Banihit, G.R. No. 132045, August 25, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Toquero, G.R. No. 127650, August 25, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Felizardo Gonzales, G.R. No. 133859, August 24, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ian Contreras, G.R. Nos. 137123-24, August 23, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Nelson dela Cruz, G.R. No. 131167-68, August 23, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Gabiana, G.R. No. 123543, August 23, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Andrew Pacina, G.R. No. 123150, August 16, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Agravante, G.R. No. 119955, August 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodegelio Turco, G.R. No. 137757, August 14, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Potenciano Arco, G.R. No. 132062, August 14, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Delano Mendiola, G.R. No. 134846, August 8, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Crispin Canonigo, G.R. No. 133649, August 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ramwell Lomibao, G.R. No. 135855, August 3, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Villanos, G.R. No. 126648, August 1, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Balacano, G.R. No. 127156, July 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico Campaner, G.R. Nos. 130500, & 143834, July 26, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Surilla, G.R. No. 129164, July 24, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Antonio, et al., G.R. No. 128149, July 24, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Baybado, G.R. No. 132136, July 14, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Alarcon, et al., G.R. Nos. 133191-93, July 11, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico Ulgasan, G.R. Nos. 131824-26, July 11, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Leoncio Aliviano, G.R. No. 133985, July 10, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Diasanta, G.R. No. 128108, July 6, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rosendo Mendez, G.R. No. 132546, July 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Petronillo Castillo, G.R. No. 130205, July 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Benido Alcartado, et al., G.R. Nos. 132379-82, June 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Pacito Ordoño, et al., G.R. No. 132154, June 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto M. Santos, G.R. Nos. 131103 and 143472, June 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Austria, G.R. No. 123539, June 27, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Hofileña, G.R. No. 134772, June 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Arillas, G.R. No. 130593, June 19, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo Nava, Jr., G.R. Nos. 130509-12, June 19, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Historillo, G.R. No. 130408, June 16, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Cambi, G.R. No. 127131, June 8, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Henry de Guzman, G.R. No. 124368, June 8, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Arteche P. Antonio, G.R. No. 122473, June 8, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Johnny dela Cruz, G.R. No. 133921, June 1, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Efren Jabien, G.R. Nos. 133068-69, May 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Andres P. Lubong, G.R. No. 132295, May 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Edwin R. Decena, G.R. No. 131843, May 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Modesto Mamac, G.R. No. 130332, May 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Eusebio Traya, G.R. No. 129052, May 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Armando D. Alicante, G.R. Nos. 127026-27, May 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Emil Babera, G.R. No. 130609, May 30, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Dequito, G.R. No. 132544, May 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Arthur de Leon, G.R. Nos. 124338-41, May 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Conrado Cabana, G.R. No. 127124, May 9, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominico Licanda, G.R. No. 134084, May 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Guiwan, G.R. No. 117324, April 27, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Felixberto Fraga, G.R. Nos. 134130-33, April 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Garchitorena, G.R. No. 131357, April 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Veloso, G.R. No. 130333, April 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Razonable, G.R. Nos. 128085-87, April 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Lacanieta, et al., G.R. No. 124299, April 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Nicolas Ramos, G.R. No. 120280, April 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico Lustre, G.R. No. 134562, April 6, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Durango, G.R. Nos. 135438-39, April 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Eliseo Alvero, G.R. Nos. 134536-38, April 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Ferolino, G.R. Nos. 131730-31, April 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Armando Regala, G.R. No. 130508, April 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Delos Santos, G.R. No. 121906, April 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Joey Amigable, G.R. No. 133857, March 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Expedito Abapo, G.R. Nos. 133387-423, March 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Tayag, G.R. No. 132053, March 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Salonga, G.R. No. 128647, March 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Abalde, G.R. No. 123113, March 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Joselito Baltazar Y Estacio @ "Joey", G.R. No. 115990, March 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Zosimo Barredo, G.R. No. 133832, March 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Cula, et al., G.R. No. 133146, March 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Tipay, G.R. No. 131472, March 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Enrique Cabingas, et al., G.R. No. 79679, March 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilson Mitra, G.R. No. 130669, March 27, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Dedace, G.R. No. 132551, March 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Noel Sapinoso,et al., G.R. No. 122540, March 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernabe E. Adila, G.R. No. 133434, March 21, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Romulo San Diego, G.R. No. 129297, March 17, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Arizapa, G.R. No. 131814, March 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Pambid, G.R. No. 124453, March 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Lodrigo Bayya, G.R. No. 127845, March 10, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ben Gajo, G.R. No. 127749, March 9, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rene Siao, G.R. No. 126021, March 3, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnel Ferdinand A. Omar, G.R. No. 120656, March 3, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso Bayona, G.R. Nos. 133343-44, March 2, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Loreto Amban, G.R. No. 134286, March 1, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruben de los Reyes, G.R. No. 124895, March 1, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Atienza, G.R. No. 131820, February 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto San Juan, G.R. No. 130969, February 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Henry Lagarto, et al., G.R. Nos. 118828 & 119371, February 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Roderick Loriega, et al., G.R. Nos. 116009-10, February 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Lomerio, G.R. No. 129074, February 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Gonzalo Penaso, G.R. No. 121980, February 23, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Torejos, G.R. No. 132217, February 18, 2000
— Nicanor Dulla vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 123164, February 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Radel Gallarde, G.R. No. 133025, February 17, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Bato, G.R. No. 134939, February 16, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Abundio Mangila, G.R. Nos. 130203-04, February 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rommel Baltar, G.R. No. 130341, February 10, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Arafiles, G.R. No. 128814, February 9, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Joey Barcelona, G.R. No. 125341, February 9, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Pepito Alama Magdato, G.R. Nos. 134122-27, February 7, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Melandro Nicolas, G.R. Nos. 125125-27, February 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernabe Sancha, G.R. Nos. 131818-19, February 3, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Elegio Nadera, G.R. Nos. 131384-87, February 2, 2000
— Manolet O. Lavides vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. 129670, February 1, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Lerio, G.R. No. 116729, January 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Bartolome, G.R. No. 133987, January 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Llamo, G.R. No. 132138, January 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Bacule, G.R. No. 127568, January 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Tanail, G.R. No. 125279, January 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Brigildo, G.R. No. 124129, January 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Balgos, G.R. No. 126115, January 26, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Cortes, G.R. No. 129693, January 24, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Valla, G.R. No. 111285, January 24, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Rafales, G.R. No. 133477, January 21, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Docena, G.R. Nos. 131894-98, January 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor Pailanco, G.R. No. 130986, January 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Gabriel Flores, G.R. No. 130713, January 20, 2000
— Romulo SJ Tolentino vs. Policarpio S. Camano, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1522, January 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Donato Bernaldez, G.R. Nos. 132779-82, January 19, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Villar, G.R. No. 127572, January 19, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Miguel S. Lucban, G.R. No. 119217, January 19, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Albert Ernest Wilson, G.R. No. 135915, December 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Apolinario Geromo, G.R. No. 126169, December 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Leoncio Santocildes, Jr., G.R. No. 109149, December 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Constancio Merino, et. al., G.R. No. 132329, December 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Cabalida, G.R. No. 131828, December 15, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Renato Ramon, G.R. No. 130407, December 15, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Macosta, G.R. No. 126954, December 14, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Flores, G.R. No. 123599, December 13, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Quisay, G.R. No. 106833, December 10, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Delfin Rondero, G.R. No. 125687, December 9, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Anthony Apostol, G.R. Nos. 123267-68, December 9, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Erwin Agresor, G.R. Nos. 119837-39, December 9, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Ralph Velez Diaz, G.R. No. 130210, December 8, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Sevilla, G.R. No. 126199, December 8, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Ladrillo, G.R. No. 124342, December 8, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Edmundo de Leon, G.R. No. 130985, December 3, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Gerry Perez, G.R. No. 129213, December 2, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Mauro Suba, G.R. Nos. 119350-51, November 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Capillo, G.R. No. 123059, November 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Saban, et al., G.R. No. 110559, November 24, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Benito Bravo, G.R. No. 135562, November 22, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Eulalio Padil, G.R. No. 127566, November 22, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Lito Baygar, G.R. No. 132238, November 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rustico Rivera, G.R. No. 130607, November 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Lasola, G.R. No. 123152, November 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Tizon, et al., G.R. No. 126955, October 28, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilson Batoon, G.R. No. 134194, October 26, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Sotero Garigadi, G.R. No. 110111, October 26, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolly Paranzo, G.R. No. 107800, October 26, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Tabion, G.R. No. 132715, October 20, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Motos, G.R. No. 130187, October 20, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 130784, October 13, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Bello, G.R. Nos. 130411-14, October 13, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Emmanuel Panique, G.R. No. 125763, October 13, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Caratay, G.R. Nos. 119418 & 119436-37, October 5, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Efren Narido, G.R. No. 132058, October 1, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Tundagui Gayomma, G.R. No. 128129, September 30, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Alex de los Santos, G.R. No. 120235, September 30, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Quinagoran, G.R. No. 105327, September 30, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Manahan, G.R. No. 128157, September 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Gallo, G.R. No. 124736, September 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Pagpaguitan, et al., G.R. No. 116599, September 27, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Samson B. Bragas, G.R. No. 128874, September 24, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Carmelito S. Abella, G.R. No. 131847, September 22, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Hivela, G.R. No. 132061, September 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Procopio Tresballes, G.R. No. 126118, September 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Celestino Juntilla, G.R. No. 130604, September 16, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Macapanton Salimbago, G.R. No. 121365, September 14, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Rosales, G.R. No. 124920, September 8, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Mosqueda, G.R. Nos. 131830-34, September 3, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin B. Lim, G.R. Nos. 131861-63, August 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Sacapaño, G.R. No. 130525, September 3, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Avelino Dizon, G.R. No. 128889, August 20, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin B. Lim, G.R. Nos. 131861-63, August 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Winefred Accion, G.R. Nos. 122550-51, August 11, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Augusto Cesar Ramos, G.R. Nos. 131261-62, August 10, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Cresente Napiot, G.R. No. 119956, August 5, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Loven Daganta, G.R. No. 122339, August 4, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Raul Berana, G.R. No. 123544, July 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Noel Yabut, G.R. No. 133186, July 28, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Hipolito Diaz y de Guzman, G.R. Nos. 131149-50, July 28, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Poñado, G.R. No. 130334, July 28, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Ludigario Candelario, et al., G.R. No. 125550, July 28, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Pineda, G.R. Nos. 118312-13, July 28, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Patalin, et al., G.R. No. 125539, July 27, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Flores, G.R. No. 130546, July 26, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Brandares, G.R. No. 130092, July 26, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Amado Sandrias Javier, G.R. No. 126096, July 26, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Mijano, G.R. No. 129112, July 23, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Godofredo Teves, G.R. No. 128839, July 20, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Sugano, G.R. No. 127574, July 20, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Jovito Losano, G.R. No. 127122, July 20, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Ramilla, G.R. No. 127485, July 19, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Aquino y Calot, et al., G.R. Nos. 123550-51, July 19, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Mangat Y. Palomata, G.R. No. 131618, July 6, 1999
— Jasper Agbay vs. Deputy Ombudsman for the Military, et al., G.R. No. 134503, July 2, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Nonoy Dizon, G.R. Nos. 126044-45, July 2, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Remegio Ruiz, G.R. No. 132369, June 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Sahor Bañago, G.R. No. 128384, June 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. David Silvano, G.R. No. 127356, June 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Alitagtag, G.R. Nos. 124449-51, June 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Larena, G.R. Nos. 121205-09, June 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Ablog, G.R. No. 124005, June 28, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Shareff Ali El Akhtar, G.R. No. 130640, June 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rizalino P. Rebose, G.R. No. 131104 , June 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Abundio Tolentino, G.R. No. 130514, June 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Palma, G.R. Nos. 130206-08, June 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano U. Sagaysay, G.R. No. 128818, June 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio S. Monfero, G.R. No. 126367, June 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Bonghanoy, G.R. No. 124097, June 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso Puertollano, G.R. No. 122423, June 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor Reñola, G.R. Nos. 122909-12, June 10, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Celestino D. Payot, G.R. No. 119359, June 8, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Romano Vidal et al., G.R. No. 90419, June 1, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Renato Caparanga Jose, G.R. No. 128789, May 24, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Acala, G.R. Nos. 127023-25, May 19, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Perez, G.R. Nos. 124366-67, May 19, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Hernani Sandico, G.R. No. 128104, May 18, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernardino Domantay, G.R. No. 130612, May 11, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Quiñanola, et al., G.R. No. 126148, May 5, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Bea, Jr., G.R. No. 109618, May 5, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Pedres, G.R. No. 129533, April 30, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Eriberto Maglente, G.R. Nos. 124559-66, April 30, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Baliao Empante, G.R. Nos. 130665 and 137996-97, April 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan Manggasin, G.R. Nos. 130599-600, April 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Lorenzo Andaya, G.R. No. 126545, April 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rufino Mirandilla Bermas, G.R. No. 120420, April 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Onabia, G.R. No. 128288, April 20, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Alba, G.R. Nos. 131858-59, April 14, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Cantos, G.R. No. 129298, April 14, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Delfin Ayo, G.R. No. 123540, March 30, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Mengote, G.R. No. 130491, March 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Judito Alquizalas, G.R. No. 128386, March 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Nolino Bacong Managaytay, G.R. No. 126916, March 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Renante Robles, G.R. No. 124300, March 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Bation, G.R. No. 123160, March 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgar S. Alojado, G.R. Nos. 122966-67, March 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Montefalcon, G.R. Nos. 116741-43, March 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Ronaldo Almaden, G.R. No. 112088, March 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Marcelo, G.R. No. 126714, March 22, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Roger Vaynaco, et al., G.R. No. 126286, March 22, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Lakindanum, G.R. No. 127123, March 10, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Joven de la Cuesta, G.R. No. 126134, March 2, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Melanio Bolatete, G.R. No. 127570, February 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Ambray, G.R. No. 127177, February 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Tabarangao, G.R. Nos. 116535-36, February 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio M. Villaluna, G.R. No. 117666, February 23, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Romy Sagun, G.R. No. 110554, February 19, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Cabral, et al., G.R. No. 131909, February 18, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Solema Lopez, G.R. No. 129397, February 8, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Larry Mahinay, G.R. No. 122485, February 1, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Zaldy P. Padilla, G.R. No. 126124, January 20, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Calayca, G.R. No. 121212, January 20, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricky Banela, G.R. No. 124973, January 18, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Tirona, G.R. No. 128907, December 22, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Dimapilis, G.R. Nos. 128619-21, December 17, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Masalihit, G.R. No. 124329, December 14, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Omar Medina, G.R. No. 126575, December 11, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodelio Bugayong, G.R. No. 126518, December 2, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Cabanela, G.R. No. 127657, November 24, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio dela Paz, Jr., G.R. No. 118316, November 24, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Honesto Manuel, G.R. No. 121539, October 21, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Abangin, G.R. Nos. 125939-40, October 12, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Larin, G.R. No. 128777, October 7, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Villamor, G.R. No. 124441, October 7, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Ferdinand Emocling, G.R. No. 119592, October 7, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Ilao, G.R. No. 129529, September 29, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Alex Bartolome, G.R. No. 129054, September 29, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodel Fuertes, G.R. No. 126285, September 29, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Ramos, G.R. No. 129439, September 25, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Gerald Tayaban, G.R. No. 128481, September 25, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Perez, G.R. No. 122764, September 24, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Calma, G.R. No. 127126, September 17, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe de los Santos, G.R. No. 121906, September 17, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Moreno, G.R. No. 126921, August 28, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Nixon Malapo, G.R. No. 123115, August 25, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Alvin Ignacio, G.R. No. 114849, August 24, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Dante Alfeche, et al., G.R. No. 124213, August 17, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Bernaldez, G.R. No. 109780, August 17, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Pagupat, G.R. Nos. 125313-16, July 31, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Senen Prades, G.R. No. 127569, July 30, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Esteban Victor, G.R. No. 127903, July 9, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Escala, G.R. No. 120281, July 8, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Joeral Galleno, G.R. No. 123546, July 2, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Endriquito Reynaldo, G.R. No. 116305, July 2, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Rizalino Fundano, G.R. No. 124737, June 26, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Banguis, et al., G.R. No. 121626, June 26, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Sta. Ana, G.R. Nos. 115657-59, June 26, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Fermin Igat, G.R. No. 122097, June 22, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Efren Cabebe, G.R. No. 125910, May 21, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Sumampong, et al., G.R. No. 121378, May 21, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Ulysis Clopino, G.R. No. 117322, May 21, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Pulusan, et. al., G.R. No. 110037, May 21, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Manhuyod, Jr., G.R. No. 124676, May 20, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Caparas Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. 121811-12, May 14, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Bersabe, G.R. No. 122768, April 27, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Gaorana, G.R. Nos. 109138-39, April 27, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Deleverio, G.R. Nos. 118937-38, April 24, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Dacoba, G.R. Nos. 121995-96, April 20, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Auxtero, G.R. No. 118314, April 15, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Cornelio Villamin, G.R. Nos. 120916-17 & 120919, April 1, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Garcia, G.R. Nos. 120387-88, March 31, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonides Ranido, G.R. Nos. 116450-51, March 31, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Winston de Guzman, G.R. No. 122740, March 30, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Bobby Lusa, G.R. No. 122246, March 27, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Cirilo Balmoria, G.R. Nos. 120620-21, March 20, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Maguad, et al., G.R. No. 116514, March 13, 1998
— Bayani M. Alonte vs. Maximo A. Savellano, et al., G.R. Nos. 131652 & 131728, March 9, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Molas, G.R. Nos. 88006-08, March 2, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Rustum Luzorata, G.R. No. 122478, February 24, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Candelario Ibalang, G.R. No. 109763, February 24, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Atop, G.R. Nos. 124303-05, February 10, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Sabino Gementiza, G.R. No. 123151, January 29, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Robinson Estrera, G.R. No. 106233, January 29, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio Tabugoca, G.R. No. 125334, January 28, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Gallo, G.R. No. 124736, January 22, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Pacistol, G.R. Nos. 119074-75, January 22, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Tumala, Jr., G.R. No. 122100, January 20, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Agbayani, G.R. No. 122770, January 16, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Panfilo Cabiles, G.R. No. 112035, January 16, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Teotimo Magpantay, G.R. Nos. 113250-52, January 14, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Abuan, G.R. No. 111710, January 7, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Ariel Oliva, G.R. No. 108505, December 5, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Joel Cabel, G.R. No. 121508, December 4, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Taton, G.R. Nos. 122757-61, November 28, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Ariston Pardillo, Jr., G.R. No. 119543, November 28, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Joel Buena, G.R. Nos. 121095-97, November 18, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Samuel Mahusay, et al., G.R. No. 91483, November 18, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Roger Evangelista, G.R. No. 121627, November 17, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Permonette Joy Fortich, et al., G.R. Nos. 80399-404, November 13, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Jenelito Escober, G.R. Nos. 122980-81, November 6, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. David Garcia, G.R. No. 120093, November 6, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Russell Fuensalida, G.R. No. 119963, November 6, 1997
— Joel Almeron, et al. vs. Agustin T. Sardido, A.M. No. MTJ-97-1142, November 6, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor Abrecinoz, G.R. Nos. 122474-76, October 17, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Lo-ar, G.R. No. 118935, October 6, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Sergio Betonio, G.R. No. 119165, September 26, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Antido, G.R. No. 121098, September 4, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Gabayron, G.R. No. 102018, August 21, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Zenaida Isla, G.R. No. 96176, August 21, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Erardo, G.R. No. 119368, August 18, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Clemente de la Peña, G.R. No. 116060, July 31, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Sangil, Sr., G.R. No. 113689, July 31, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Rochel Travero, G.R. No. 110823, July 28, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricky dela Cruz, G.R. No. 118458, July 24, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino A. Bugarin, G.R. Nos. 110817-22, June 13, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo O. Rabosa, G.R. Nos. 119362 & 120269, June 9, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Lito S. Soriano, G.R. No. 114901, May 29, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Jacinto Salazar, G.R. No. 114291, May 14, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Anselmo O. Butron, G.R. No. 112986, May 7, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Roncal, G.R. No. 94705, May 6, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Anastacio Malabago, G.R. No. 108613, April 18, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Irvin Tadulan, G.R. No. 117407, April 15, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Remus F. Busa, Jr., G.R. No. 116808, April 11, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Rene C. Henson, G.R. No. 116732, April 2, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Perez, G.R. No. 118332, March 26, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Randolf B. Montealto, G.R. No. 121765, March 14, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Devilleres, G.R. No. 114387, March 14, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Lorenzo Topaguen, G.R. Nos. 116596-98, March 13, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico A. Burce, G.R. Nos. 108604-10, March 7, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Joel Corea, G.R. No. 114383, March 3, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Abad, G.R. No. 114144, February 13, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Leo Echegaray, G.R. No. 117472, February 7, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Sagaral, G.R. Nos. 112714-15, February 7, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Borja, G.R. No. 114183, February 3, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Clodualdo Cabillan, G.R. No. 117684, January 30, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Quitoriano, G.R. No. 118852, January 20, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Enrique Ramirez, G.R. No. 97920, January 20, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Nemecio B. Cervantes, G.R. No. 117737, December 27, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Conrado Pajaro, G.R. Nos. 93026-27, December 17, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Lino Catoltol, Sr., G.R. No. 122359, November 28, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Ferdinand Balisnomo, G.R. No. 118990, November 28, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Gerry Gumahob, G.R. No. 116740, November 28, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo S. Leoterio, G.R. Nos. 119405-06, November 21, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Philip C. Tan, G.R. Nos. 103134-40, November 20, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Henry Apilo, G.R. Nos. 101213-14, October 28, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Agustin Diaz, G.R. No. 117323, October 4, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Moreno Bayani, G.R. No. 120894, October 3, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo F. Ligotan, G.R. No. 119219, September 30, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio F. Gaban, G.R. Nos. 116716-18, September 30, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Sulpicio R. Capinig, G.R. No. 119325, September 26, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo G. Miranda, G.R. No. 97425, September 24, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Victorino del Mundo, G.R. Nos. 119964-69, September 20, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Narciso Barera, G.R. No. 99867, September 19, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Magencio Pada, G.R. No. 117641, September 16, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Villaruel, et al., G.R. No. 105006, September 4, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar A. Ponayo, G.R. Nos. 116749-50, August 26, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Caguioa, Sr., G.R. Nos. 105690-91, July 26, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Magana, G.R. No. 105673, July 26, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodelio S. Cruz, G.R. No. 116728, July 17, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo S. Oarga, G.R. Nos. 109396-97, July 17, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro G. Gabris, G.R. No. 116221, July 11, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto B. Abordo, G.R. Nos. 80437-38, July 11, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Caballero, G.R. No. 104312, July 9, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Excija, G.R. No. 119069, July 5, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo R. Salazar, G.R. Nos. 98121-22, July 5, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Alimon, G.R. No. 87758, June 28, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Vargas, G.R. No. 116513, June 26, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Leo P. Echegaray, G.R. No. 117472, June 25, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Esguerra, G.R. No. 117482, May 8, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Victoriano Papa Talaboc, G.R. No. 103290, April 23, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Melchor G. Estomaca, G.R. Nos. 117485-86, April 22, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Clemente Ulpindo, G.R. No. 115983, April 12, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Cartuano, Jr., G.R. Nos. 112457-58, March 29, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Diaz, G.R. No. 119073, March 13, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnaldo B. Dones, G.R. No. 108743, March 13, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Solomon O. Villanueva, G.R. Nos. 112164-65, February 28, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Felix Esquila, G.R. No. 116727, February 27, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Carmelo G. Faigano, G.R. No. 113483, February 22, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Romy Andres, G.R. No. 114936, February 20, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Florencio del Prado, G.R. No. 111708, February 20, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Albino S. Galimba, G.R. Nos. 111563-64, February 20, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo G. Gagto, G.R. No. 113345, February 9, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio V. Melivo, G.R. No. 113029, February 8, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Santos Cañada, G.R. No. 112176, February 6, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Anagario Y. Subido, G.R. No. 115004, February 5, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Roland Danao, G.R. No. 116058, February 1, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnel B. Alicando, G.R. No. 117487, December 12, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco dela Cruz, G.R. No. 105720, December 8, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Danny Godoy, G.R. Nos. 115908-09, December 6, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente L. Jimenez, G.R. No. 97222, November 28, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio O. Digno, Jr., G.R. No. 108958, November 23, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Manzana, G.R. No. 94363, November 17, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Orlando L. Lutao, et al., G.R. No. 107798, November 16, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Ponciano L. Sanchez, G.R. Nos. 98402-04, November 16, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Padre-e, G.R. Nos. 112969-70, October 24, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Berto Bantisil, et al, G.R. No. 116062, October 18, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Lorenzo B. Veneracion, G.R. Nos. 119987-88, October 12, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Pacifico R. Lazaro, G.R. No. 99263, October 12, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario C. Lao, G.R. No. 117092, October 6, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Laroa, G.R. No. 98428, September 18, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Aurelio U. Delovino, G.R. No. 116132-33, August 23, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Abner Malunes, G.R. No. 114692, August 14, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Manolito D. Espinoza, G.R. Nos. 113521-31, August 3, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Tiburcio E. Baculi, G.R. No. 110591, July 26, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Teves, G.R. No. 97435, July 14, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Salvador R. Erni, G.R. No. 114186, July 12, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Pagcu, Jr., G.R. Nos. 112973-76, July 6, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Sapurco, G.R. No. 107748, July 3, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Paulino O. Rivera, G.R. No. 87187, June 29, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Vitor, G.R. No. 113690, June 27, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Quinones, G.R. No. 102719, June 16, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Sta. Agata, G.R. No. 101309, June 1, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico Dado, G.R. No. 87775, June 1, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Quinevista, Jr., G.R. No. 110808, May 31, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan F. Remoto, G.R. Nos. 113057-58, May 29, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnel M. Soberano, G.R. No. 108123, May 29, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Mandap, G.R. Nos. 106385-88, May 29, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Roque Cabresos, G.R. No. 109776, May 26, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo B. Magalong, et al., G.R. No. 100125, May 12, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo "Eddie" Tami, G.R. Nos. 101801-03, May 2, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Alexander B. Soan, G.R. No. 112087, April 21, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo G. Montefalcon, G.R. Nos. 111944-47, April 21, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Plaza, G.R. No. 87235, March 27, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Armando V. Padilla, G.R. Nos. 111956 & 111958-61, March 23, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Guerrero, G.R. No. 95031, March 23, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo T. Abendaño, G.R. Nos. 105536-37, March 21, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Redentor E. Umali, G.R. No. 76530, March 1, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Rizaldy Guamos, G.R. No. 109662, February 21, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Pablo B. Balsacao, G.R. No. 112027, February 13, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Nicasio V. Casil, G.R. No. 110836, February 13, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Rex Tabao, G.R. No. 111290, January 30, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Augusto Ching, G.R. No. 103800, January 19, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Cura, et al., G.R. No. 112529, January 18, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Nescio, G.R. No. 102008, December 28, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Petronilo Abapo, G.R. No. 108584, December 22, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Fabro Y. Arquiza, G.R. No. 104954, December 18, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. William Malagar, G.R. Nos. 98169-73, December 1, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Sabellina, G.R. Nos. 93514-15, December 1, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Villaruel, G.R. Nos. 110803-04, November 25, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Bahuyan, G.R. No. 105842, November 24, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Felicisimo D. Merza, G.R. No. 112238, November 22, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Allan Junio Y. Cortez, G.R. No. 110990, October 28, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Rejano, G.R. Nos. 105669-70, October 18, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Repollo, G.R. No. 108872, October 7, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Pamor, G.R. No. 108599, October 7, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo G. Manuel, G.R. Nos. 107732-32, September 19, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Arvel Saballe, G.R. No. 98704, September 8, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Buyok, G.R. No. 109771, August 25, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Tayco, G.R. No. 100283, August 25, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Moreno L. Tumimpad, G.R. No. 109144, August 19, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo T. Pinca, G.R. No. 110553, August 3, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert P. dela Peña, G.R. No. 104947, June 30, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Loreto Salangga, et al., G.R. No. 100910, July 25, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo V. Benitez, G.R. No. 108771, June 21, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose S. Antonio, G.R. No. 107950, June 17, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Christian Sandagon, G.R. No. 106897, June 13, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Sarellana, G.R. Nos. 102056-57, June 8, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo M. Ibay, G.R. No. 101631, June 8, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Rudy C. Ignacio, G.R. Nos. 106644-45, June 7, 1994
— Apolinario Gonzales vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 108811, May 31, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Frago, G.R. Nos. 104492-93, May 31, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo R. Casipit, G.R. No. 88229, May 31, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Conrado B. Lucas, G.R. Nos. 108172-73, May 25, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Aniano Almendral, G.R. No. 100412, May 25, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio N. Sulte, G.R. No. 109881, May 18, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Benito S. Salinas, G.R. No. 107204, May 6, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Galve, G.R. No. 107912, April 28, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Fredo Matamorosa, et al., G.R. Nos. 104996-98, March 28, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Opiniado Dolar, et al., G.R. No. 100805, March 24, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Emmanuel Espino, et al., G.R. No. 104948, March 7, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Fulgencio G. Montes, G.R. No. 97137, March 4, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Donato Lagrosa, Jr., G.R. Nos. 105956-57, February 23, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo L. dela Cruz, G.R. No. 108180, February 8, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Querido, G.R. No. 95319, February 7, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Davatos, et al., G.R. No. 93322, February 4, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Julionito Obejas, et al., G.R. No. 102336, January 27, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Palicte, G.R. No. 101088, January 27, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Escoto, G.R. No. 106390, January 21, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Salomon, et al., G.R. No. 96848, January 21, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Errojo, G.R. No. 102077, January 4, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Abella, G.R. No. 98124, December 21, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio C. Ramos, G.R. No. 68209, December 21, 1993
— Efren Anciro vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 107819, December 17, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo M. Nito, G.R. No. 70305, December 15, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Napoleon Subingsubing, G.R. Nos. 104942-43, November 25, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Dindo Liquiran, G.R. Nos. 105693-96, November 19, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Cristituto B. Alegado, G.R. No. 80532, November 8, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Farhad A. Hatani, G.R. Nos. 78813-14, November 8, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Lactao, G.R. No. 56768, October 29, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Saturnino R. Remollo, G.R. No. 104498, October 22, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Cruz, G.R. No. 103633, October 13, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Bobby Sencil, et al., G.R. Nos. 105959-60, October 12, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Edwin S. Tayag, G.R. No. 105803, October 12, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Sofio G. Mohado, G.R. No. 98433, October 5, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel B. Dusohan, G.R. No. 97307, October 5, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo C. Joya, G.R. No. 79090, October 1, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Henry Padero, G.R. No. 106274, September 28, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio "Jimmer" Bolado, et al., G.R. No. 105375, September 28, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Tamayo, et al., G.R. No. 86162, September 17, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Edmund M. Empleo, G.R. No. 96009, September 15, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Rene M. Saluna, G.R. No. 94336, September 15, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando M. Domingo, et al., G.R. No. 97921, September 8, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin C. Magpayo, G.R. Nos. 92961-64, September 1, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando C. Ocampo, G.R. No. 80262, September 1, 1993
— Patricio T. Junio vs. Pedro C. Rivera, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-91-565, August 30, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Villamor Aczon, G.R. No. 93029, August 10, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricky Sueta, G.R. No. 94549, August 9, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Necemio Joaquin, G.R. Nos. 98007-08, August 5, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Ismael N. Relorcasa, G.R. No. 102725, August 3, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Balajadia, G.R. No. 96988, August 2, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Lucio B. Garcia, G.R. No. 92269, July 30, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Walter Abordo, et al., G.R. No. 101187, July 23, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Leo Perez, et al., G.R. No. 95893, July 6, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos de la Cruz, G.R. Nos. 91865-66 & G.R. Nos. 92439-40, July 6, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Hugo C. Ylarde, G.R. No. 100521, July 5, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Codilla, et al., G.R. Nos. 100720-23, June 30, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Julito U. Arnan, G.R. No. 72608, June 30, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Agustin G. Fortes, G.R. No. 90643, June 25, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Godofredo Sayat, G.R. Nos. 102773-77, June 8, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto G. Corpuz, G.R. No. 101005, May 31, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Oliquino, G.R. No. 94703, May 31, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Alib, G.R. No. 100232, May 24, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor R. Angeles, G.R. Nos. 104285-86, May 21, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Agustin Abiera, G.R. No. 93947, May 21, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Cervantes, G.R. No. 90257, May 21, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Enrique A. Coloma, G.R. No. 95755, May 18, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Precioso, et al., G.R. No. 95890, May 12, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Daniel C. Navarro, G.R. No. 96251, May 11, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Generoso E. Sujetado, G.R. No. 103967, April 7, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Joel B. Sartagoda, et al., G.R. No. 97525, April 7, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente R. Miñano, G.R. No. 97609, March 31, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor Bormeo, G.R. No. 91734, March 30, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Martin Casao, G.R. No. 100913, March 23, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Lucio Martinez, G.R. No. 95849, March 4, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Anacleto Colcol, Jr., G.R. No. 94554, February 19, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Julian Rostata, Jr, G.R. No. 91482, February 9, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Rosauro San Pedro, G.R. No. 94128, February 3, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Modesto F. Cabuang, et al., G.R. No. 103292, January 27, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Adlawan, Jr., G.R. Nos. 100917-18, January 25, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Damaso de Guzman, G.R. Nos. 51385-86, January 22, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo B. Morre, G.R. No. 102978, January 18, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Dulay, G.R. Nos. 95156-94, January 18, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Isabelo Guibao, G.R. No. 93517, January 15, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe de Guzman, G.R. Nos. 102409-10, December 21, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Batis, G.R. Nos. 94188-89, December 17, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Biendo, G.R. No. 84731, December 16, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Boyet L. Pomentel, G.R. No. 87781, December 11, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Camilo D. Abarquez, G.R. No. 85186, December 1, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor F. Olivar, G.R. No. 101577, November 13, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Honorio G. Mabunga, G.R. No. 96441, November 13, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel P. Matrimonio, G.R. Nos. 82223-24, November 13, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Casinillo, G.R. No. 97441, September 11, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo S. Alvarez, G.R. No. 73071, September 11, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Masalim Casim, G.R. No. 93634, September 2, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Talento, G.R. No. 97611, August 10, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcos U. Abuyan, Jr., G.R. Nos. 95254-55, July 21, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Pizarro, G.R. No. 49282, July 6, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto C. Luvendino, G.R. No. 69971, July 3, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Charlie Villorente, et al., G.R. No. 100198, July 1, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Arcadio Cabilao, G.R. No. 62999, June 25, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Dacquel, G.R. No. 97917, June 22, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Florencio Telio, G.R. Nos. 72786-88, June 22, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Rene Paciente, G.R. No. 94309, June 18, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Johnpet C. Macalino, G.R. No. 88402, June 15, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando C. Cabodac, G.R. Nos. 93929-31, May 8, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe V. Sangil, G.R. No. 91158, May 8, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Cruz, G.R. No. 83811, May 5, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Develles, G.R. No. 97434, April 10, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Nestor dela Cruz, G.R. Nos. 92442-43, March 23, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Buenaventura, et al., G.R. No. 86744, March 11, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Samson Samillano, G.R. No. 62088, March 6, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgar B. Fernandez, G.R. No. 94008, February 21, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose T. Ocampo, G.R. Nos. 90247-49, February 13, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Elpidio Magaluna, G.R. No. 66755, January 23, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo G. Soronio, G.R. No. 94362, December 10, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Rael, G.R. No. 64415, December 10, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Carson, G.R. No. 93732, November 21, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Policarpio Rafanan, Jr., G.R. No. 54135, November 21, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Torrevillas, G.R. Nos. 93847-48, November 14, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Jessie Mayoral, G.R. Nos. 96094-95, November 13, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Vinas, G.R. Nos. 91363-73, October 15, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando M. Miscala, Jr., G.R. No. 91016, September 27, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Rio, G.R. No. 90294, September 24, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Hangdaan, et al., G.R. No. 90035, September 13, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo D. Alegado, G.R. Nos. 93030-31, August 21, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo M. Jimenez, G.R. Nos. 92457-58, August 12, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Nguyen Dinh Nhan, G.R. No. 93433, August 5, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Permison, G.R. No. 89664, July 26, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Dioscoro O. Villamayor, G.R. Nos. 97475-76, July 18, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Cipriano Caballes, G.R. Nos. 93437-45, July 12, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Camilo Manuel, G.R. No. 92503, July 8, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio J. Raptus, G.R. Nos. 92169-70, June 19, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. John Lloyd S. Sarol, G.R. No. 75506, June 19, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Frankie Arenas, et al., G.R. No. 92068, June 5, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando C. Teodosio, G.R. No. 97496, June 3, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Castillo, G.R. No. 84310, May 29, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Ramos, G.R. Nos. 92626-29, May 27, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Mateo Patilan, G.R. Nos. 78772-73, May 23, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Alexander E. Corro, et al., G.R. No. 62673, May 15, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime C. Bacdad, G.R. Nos. 71719-20, May 8, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Base, et al., G.R. No. 92124, May 6, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Delfin L. Castro, G.R. No. 91490, May 6, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Lope Andaya, G.R. No. 86364, May 6, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Matias F. Graza, G.R. No. 87928, April 30, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo L. Puedan, G.R. No. 92586, April 26, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Atento, G.R. No. 84728, April 26, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Moises M. Indaya, G.R. No. 90296, April 25, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Heinrich S. Ritter, G.R. No. 88582, March 5, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Rey Francis Yap Tongson, G.R. No. 91261, February 19, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Soliao, G.R. No. 91131, February 19, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Yambao, G.R. No. 77778, February 6, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Natan, G.R. No. 86640, January 25, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Geronimo Goles, G.R. No. 91513, December 21, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Herico, G.R. Nos. 89682-83, December 21, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Salvador V. Lutañez, G.R. No. 78854, December 21, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Beringuel, et al., G.R. Nos. 63753-54, December 21, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Montante, G.R. Nos. 86492-94, December 20, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Aspili, et al., G.R. Nos. 89418-19, November 21, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Warlito Fabro, G.R. No. 79673, November 15, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodante Felipe, G.R. No. 90390, October 31, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Gideon D. Barcelona, G.R. No. 82589, October 31, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Camasis, G.R. No. 87083, September 14, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Romenaldo Murallon, G.R. No. 85734, September 13, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Munda, Sr., G.R. No. 71625, September 12, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos V. dela Cruz , G.R. No. 75267, September 10, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Rafael A. Ortiz, G.R. Nos. 85053-60, August 30, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Dolores, G.R. No. 76468, August 20, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Narciso Isip, Jr., G.R. No. 70568, August 20, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto R. Barro, Jr., G.R. No. 86385, August 2, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Tumalad, G.R. No. 84835, July 31, 1990
— Vicente C. Buenavista, Jr. vs. Marcelo G. Garcia, A.M. No. RTJ-88-246, July 19, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando N. Garcia, G.R. No. 80993, July 17, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Michael Charles B. Herrick, G.R. No. 85137, July 12, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Flores, G.R. No. 58170, June 6, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Paulino Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 84913-15, June 5, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose S. de Guia, G.R. No. 49825, May 14, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Loreto Malbago, G.R. No. 37679, May 14, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Ronilo Alburo, et al., G.R. No. 85822, April 26, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Ceilito Orita, G.R. No. 88724, April 3, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Melquiades Fernandez, et al., G.R. No. 62116, March 22, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Emeterio Dinola, G.R. No. 54567, March 22, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Santos, G.R. No. 77912, March 6, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Uriel Tablizo, G.R. No. 88190, February 26, 1990
— Deocrecio David vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 79434, February 26, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Semion L. Mangalino, G.R. No. 79011, February 15, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Gorgonio Capilitan, G.R. No. 73382, February 15, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Rosell, G.R. No. 86383, January 30, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Bacani, G.R. No. 77854, January 24, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Jovencio Lucas, G.R. No. 80102, January 22, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Pasco, et al., G.R. No. 68520, January 22, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Buenaflor, G.R. No. 62805, January 22, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Arturo B. Cruz, G.R. No. 82121, December 29, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Restituto B. Bravo, G.R. No. 68422, December 29, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Pascua, G.R. No. 82303, December 21, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Hizon, G.R. No. 51449, December 20, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo L. Llarena, G.R. No. 74182, December 19, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo B. Salita, G.R. No. 76531, November 15, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Martin Bruca, G.R. Nos. 76019-20, November 6, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Levy Fred Jamandron, et al., G.R. Nos. 80226-27, October 13, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Niebres, G.R. No. 69190, September 29, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio Hortillano, G.R. No. 71116, September 19, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan P. David, G.R. Nos. 72355-59, September 15, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Bartolome Barranco, G.R. No. L-58847, August 31, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Tagle, G.R. No. 73996, August 28, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernard Aldana, G.R. No. 81817, July 27, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Perez, G.R. No. 84362, July 7, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Mancilla, G.R. No. L-47628, May 15, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Nunag, et al., G.R. No. 54445, May 12, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Ison, G.R. No. 62806, May 5, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Anecito L. Estebal, G.R. No. 82768, May 5, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Concordio Sarda, G.R. No. 74479, April 24, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Rebancos, G.R. No. 72783, April 18, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Lualhati, G.R. No. 66038, March 16, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Abaya, et al., G.R. No. 77980, February 27, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Robles, G.R. No. 53569, February 23, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Ceferino Somera, G.R. No. L-47275, February 21, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Andres Bugtong, G.R. No. 75853, January 31, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Pailano, G.R. No. 43602, January 31, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso L. Abonada, G.R. No. 50041, January 27, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Metodio S. Basiga, G.R. No. 47425, January 13, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Beda Derpo, G.R. No. L-41040 & 43908-10, December 14, 1988
— Eleuterio C. Perez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80838, November 29, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor Mejias, G.R. No. 79677, November 28, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Benito Ramos, G.R. No. L-64656, November 18, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar S. Cariño, Sr., G.R. Nos. 74297 & 74351, November 11, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Sixto Tabago, G.R. No. L-69778, November 8, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Alexander A. Quidilla, G.R. Nos. L-79369-70, October 28, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Faustino Pacnis, G.R. No. L-68992, September 26, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Ramos, G.R. Nos. L-48728-29, September 19, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Fernandez, G.R. No. 80228, September 12, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Avero, G.R. No. 76483, August 30, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Desuyo, G.R. No. L-71173, August 9, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose San Buenaventura, G.R. No. L-50386, August 8, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Estrebella, G.R. No. 71464, August 4, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Alvarez, G.R. No. L-70831, July 29, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico Mendoza, G.R. No. L-74653, July 26, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel C. Cui, Jr., G.R. No. L-48084, June 20, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Valentin Atutubo, G.R. No. L-57145, May 24, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Ganduma, G.R. No. L-64507, April 25, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Diapar Quima, G.R. No. L-74669, April 14, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico Rosario, G.R. No. L-73534, March 25, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo B. Mustacisa, G.R. No. L-51777, March 25, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Avelino B. Isaac, G.R. No. L-36136, March 16, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Fabian Quilo, G.R. No. L-47148, March 16, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Martin Cayago, et al., G.R. No. L-47398, March 14, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos de la Cruz, G.R. No. 78470, March 11, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Primitivo Avanzado, Sr, G.R. No. 73116, February 29, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio S. Sonico, G.R. No. L-70308, December 14, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Managbanag, G.R. No. L-66550, November 27, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador G. Gavarra, et al., G.R. No. L-37673, October 30, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernido Detuya, et al., G.R. No. L-39300, September 30, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo M. Marquez, G.R. No. L-48834, September 14, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Renato Alfonso, G.R. No. 72573, August 31, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus V. Ramos, G.R. No. L-49218, August 27, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Crisanto M. Baderes, G.R. No. L-38413, August 27, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Siegfred Fajardo, G.R. No. 75029, June 30, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Peña, Jr, G.R. No. 72354, June 30, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Teodorico Silfavan, G.R. No. 71510, June 30, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cruz, Sr., G.R. No. 71462, June 30, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Eulogio Manaay, G.R. No. L-47489, June 18, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Felomino Garciano, G.R. No. L-46998, June 17, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Dante D. de la Cruz, G.R. No. 78582, June 10, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Dick Ocapan, G.R. No. 78492, May 29, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo M. Valdez, G.R. No. L-51034, May 29, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Murphy Banzales, G.R. No. L-63260, March 20, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Faustino Hortelano, G.R. No. L-37009, March 16, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Claudio Veloso, G.R. Nos. L-38551-53, February 27, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Venancio S. Ramilo, G.R. No. L-52230, December 15, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Bañares, G.R. No. L-68298, November 25, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Humberto Tempongko, Jr, G.R. No. L-69668, October 2, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Parilla, G.R. No. L-67347, September 25, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Molero, G.R. No. L-67842, September 24, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Palma, G.R. No. L-69152, September 23, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Y. Ibal, G.R. Nos. L-66010-12, July 31, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Sancho A. Budol, et al., G.R. No. L-48010, July 31, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Mansueto Lamberte, G.R. No. L-65153, July 11, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo D. Ng, G.R. No. 71117, July 10, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Doroteo Baao, G.R. No. L-68574, July 7, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Patola, et al., G.R. No. L-41265, February 27, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio D. Lopez, G.R. No. L-47299, February 19, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Calubag, G.R. No. L-38692, February 19, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Nicomedes Tolentino, G.R. No. L-40236, December 19, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Inocencio E. Soterol, G.R. No. L-53498, December 16, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfrando Manligas, G.R. No. L-61571, November 13, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto C. Santos, G.R. No. L-44973, November 4, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Aragona, G.R. No. L-43752, September 19, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Rudelino Lao, G.R. Nos. L-48930-40, July 15, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Dadaeg, G.R. No. L-37798, July 15, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Anastacio Mendoza, G.R. No. L-31464, July 15, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Eufemio Egas, G.R. No. L-65676, June 24, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Fred Pelias Jones, G.R. No. L-61165, June 24, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Baraca, G.R. No. L-48360, June 24, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Angel Sunga, G.R. No. L-45083, June 24, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Avelino Reyes, G.R. No. L-62387, June 19, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Ramirez, G.R. No. 70744, May 31, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Deus, G.R. No. L-63729, May 31, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodelio Gozum, G.R. No. 66970, February 28, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Alcid, G.R. Nos. 66387-88, February 28, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Asturias, G.R. No. 61126, January 31, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Anselmo Germino, et al., G.R. No. 65424, December 26, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Belarmino, G.R. No. L-46204, November 29, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Armando Daing, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-40574, November 29, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Malabad, G.R. No. 63219, November 28, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Resano, G.R. No. L-57738, October 23, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Seculles, G.R. No. L-52348, October 23, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Proceso Q. Aballe, G.R. No. L-45087, October 23, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Basas, et al., G.R. Nos. L-48019-22, June 29, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Diosdado Egot, G.R. No. L-35775, June 29, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Gil Bihasa, G.R. No. L-63452, June 25, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Alamo, et al., G.R. No. L-38401, June 25, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Rosario James P. Tumaliuan, G.R. No. 58818, June 22, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Espiritu, G.R. No. 63451, May 31, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Talaro, G.R. No. L-40436, May 25, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Gorospe, et al., G.R. No. 51513, May 15, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Ervas, G.R. Nos. 51549-51, May 11, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Egot, G.R. No. L-42962, April 30, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Buenaventura Baylon, G.R. No. 56877, April 27, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo Balbuena, et al., G.R. Nos. L-44859-60, April 27, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Faustino L. Martinez, G.R. No. 64499, March 6, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan Crisola, G.R. No. L-32422, March 2, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcialito Barcenilla, G.R. No. L-61716, January 31, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Erardo, G.R. No. L-32861, January 31, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Villegas, Jr, G.R. No. L-60386, January 30, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo B. Vidal, et al., G.R. Nos. L-48876-78, January 30, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Carmelito Lintag, G.R. No. L-62324, December 29, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Perfecto C. Alcantara, et al., G.R. Nos. L-49693-94, December 29, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Copro, G.R. No. L-37599, December 29, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Torio, et al., G.R. No. L-48731, December 21, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Godofredo S. Quintal, G.R. No. L-49656, November 25, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime V. Sambangan, G.R. No. L-44412, November 25, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Martin C. Magtira, G.R. No. L-28255, November 25, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Calimquim, G.R. No. L-61255, October 28, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Sison, G.R. No. L-45857, October 27, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Ponciano Oydoc, G.R. No. L-61679, October 26, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Cirilo Flores, G.R. No. L-60665, October 26, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Torres, G.R. No. L-44429, October 26, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Amando Simbulan, G.R. No. L-50476, September 30, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Sebastian Jervoso, G.R. No. L-36530, September 29, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Nenito C. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-60073, September 23, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnulfo Fernandez, G.R. No. 49601, August 30, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Sergio Paras, G.R. No. L-38119, August 30, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Galicia, G.R. No. L-39235, July 25, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Vega, G.R. No. L-38002, June 29, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Eustaquio Lampitao, G.R. No. L-33305, June 28, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Maala, G.R. No. L-37792, June 24, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Emerito Mendez, G.R. No. L-35491, May 27, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Tony Montes, G.R. No. L-34051, May 26, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio L. de la Cruz, G.R. No. L-35664, May 19, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo D. Paras, G.R. No. L-57195, April 28, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Richard Camarce, G.R. No. L-47806, March 25, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Servillano Velasquez, G.R. No. L-35241, February 28, 1983
— Eusebio Babanto vs. Mariano A. Zosa, G.R. No. L-32895, February 28, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Domen, G.R. Nos. L-47675-76, January 31, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Castillo, G.R. No. L-39152, January 28, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Manzano, G.R. No. L-38449, November 25, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Syquioco, G.R. No. L-37712, November 19, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo L. Reglos, et al., G.R. No. L-61663, November 15, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Lisondra, G.R. No. L-45553, October 25, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Joseph D. Leones, G.R. No. L-48727, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Pon-an, G.R. No. L-45436, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Sambili, G.R. No. L-44408, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico B. Beso, Jr., G.R. No. 44033, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. William Bokingkito Terano, G.R. No. L-43783, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Henry Gasendo, G.R. No. L-41052, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Berto Simbra, et al., G.R. No. L-39401, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Renato Marquez, et al. G.R. No. L-32860, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Malate, G.R. No. L-40791, September 11, 1982
— Juliet T. Dioquino vs. Nicanor J. Cruz, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-38579, September 9, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Arsenio Olmedillo, G.R. No. L-42660, August 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricarte Sibayan, G.R. No. L-41700, August 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Aquilino Padunan, G.R. No. L-40621, August 21, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo M. Umali, G.R. No. L-35705, August 21, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Burgos, G.R. No. L-40494, July 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Vizcarra, G.R. No. L-38859, July 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Reino P. Roll, G.R. No. L-42963, July 20, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino T. Gabilan, G.R. No. L-45245, July 2, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Florencio "Boy" Palapal, G.R. No. L-42646, June 29, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Abing, G.R. No. L-49858, March 15, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Emiterio D. Pascual, Jr., G.R. No. L-53403, November 12, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcos Clarin, G.R. No. L-47200, October 30, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruperto Tapao, G.R. No. L-41704, October 23, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Tejada, G.R. No. L-55028, August 31, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Claudio Bulaong, et al., G.R. No. L-37836, July 31, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Dimalanes Buissan, G.R. No. L-54419, July 15, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Ponciano Roque, G.R. No. L-53470, June 26, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Felix Garcia, et al., G.R. Nos. L-45280-81, June 11, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Coderes., et al., G.R. No. L-32509, April 27, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Adulfo Terrobias, G.R. No. L-48944, February 26, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Entes, G.R. No. L-50632, February 24, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Aleman, et al., G.R. No. L-39776, February 20, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Herminigildo Muñoz, G.R. No. L-45517, December 19, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Sotero Navarrete, G.R. No. L-43833, November 28, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio G. Reyes, G.R. No. L-33767, October 30, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Quirico Egasta Albarico, G.R. Nos. L-38339, L-38340 & L-38341, October
10, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Adelino Bardaje, G.R. No. L-29271, August 29, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Willy Lat, G.R. No. L-50086, August 21, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Victorio S. Laguisma, G.R. No. L-46297, June 19, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Edmundo Babasa, G.R. No. L-38072, May 17, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Ramos, G.R. No. L-47627, March 31, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Ytac, G.R. No. L-47568, January 28, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor D. Garcia, G.R. No. L-44364, April 27, 1979
— Pedro Barba vs. People of the Phil., G.R. Nos. L-32267-70, March 26, 1979
— People of the Phil. vs. Winston P. Manlapaz, G.R. No. L-41819, February 28, 1979
— People of the Phil. vs. Remigio A. Conchada, G.R. Nos. L-39367-69, February 28, 1979
— People of the Phil. vs. Gavino Tampus, G.R. No. L-42608, February 6, 1979
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin F. Lacuna, et al., G.R. No. L-38463, December 29, 1978
— People of the Phil. vs. Amado Daniel, G.R. No. L-40330, November 20, 1978
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario A. Mariano, G.R. No. L-45966, November 10, 1978
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo B. Santos, G.R. No. L-41525, October 23, 1978
— People of the Phil. vs. Angelito de Jesus, G.R. No. L-38309, October 23, 1978
— People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido Paragsa, G.R. No. L-44060, July 20, 1978
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Lopez, G.R. No. L-41974, November 29, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo A. Velasco, G.R. No. L-31922, October 29, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Jovenal Elizaga, G.R. No. L-38272, October 26, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Telesforo B. Hondolero, G.R. No. L-40633, August 25, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Mauricio Sarile, G.R. No. L-37148, June 30, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Rustico Abay, G.R. No. L-37678, April 30, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Cawili, G.R. No. L-30543, July 15, 1975
— People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Joven, G.R. No. L-36022, May 22, 1975
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Andal, et al., G.R. No. L-39763, March 8, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonarda Legones, G.R. No. L-30245, January 30, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe C. Ramirez, G.R. Nos. L-30635-6, January 29, 1976
— Remedios I. Jugueta vs. Alejandro R. Boncaros, A.M. No. 440-CFI, September 30, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio Ignacio, G.R. No. L-35494, September 18, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Wendelino Amores, G.R. No. L-32996, August 21, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Castro, G.R. No. L-33175, August 19, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Gonzales, G.R. No. L-33926, July 31, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Garcines, G.R. No. L-32321, June 28, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Desiderio Francisquite, G.R. No. L-27980, April 30, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Conrado Samillano, G.R. No. L-31375, April 22, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Ceferino de la Cruz, G.R. No. L-28810, March 27, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Nicanor Alvarez, G.R. No. L-34644, January 17, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Molina, G.R. No. L-30191, October 27, 1973
— People of the Phil. vs. Camsa Otto, et al., G.R. No. L-29631, January 31, 1973
— People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio Olden, et al., G.R. Nos. L-27570 & L-27571, September 20, 1972
— People of the Phil. vs. Joaquinito Gan, G.R. No. L-33446, August 18, 1972
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan Francisco, G.R. No. L-30763, June 29, 1972
— People of the Phil. vs. Charles Angcap, G.R. No. L-28748, February 29, 1972
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Pastores, et al., G.R. No. L-29800, August 31, 1971
— People of the Phil. vs. Lucio O. Amiscua, G.R. No. L-31238, February 27, 1971
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Amit, et al., G.R. No. L-30102, February 27, 1971
— People of the Phil. vs. Eustaquio Modelo, G.R. No. L-29144, October 30, 1970
— People of the Phil. vs. Bermillo Soriano, G.R. No. L-29057, October 30, 1970
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Celis, G.R. No. L-26977, September 30, 1970
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo Amit, G.R. No. L-29066, March 25, 1970
— In Re: Tessie Astero vs. Chief of Police of Dagupan City, G.R. No. L-26741, July 31, 1969
— People of the Phil. vs. Odoncio Tarrayo, et al, G.R. No. L-26489, April 21, 1969
— Jovencio Luansing vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. L-23289, February 28, 1969
— People of the Phil. vs. Willy Obsania, G.R. No. L-24447, June 29, 1968
— People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Fontanilla, G.R. No. L-25354, June 28, 1968
— People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Yap, Jr., G.R. No. L-25176, February 27, 1968
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruperto Asi, et al., G.R. No. L-17410, June 30, 1962
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernardo Z. Obaldo, G.R. No. L-13976, April 29, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Josefino G. Selfaison, et al., G.R. No. L-14732, January 28, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Yu, G.R. No. L-13780, January 28, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Romualdo Lopez, G.R. No. L-14347, April 29, 1960
— People of the Phil. vs. Basilio Caisip, et al., G.R. No. L-8798, July 30, 1959
— People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Bacsa, G.R. No. L-11485, July 11, 1958
— People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Quitan, et al., G.R. No. L-8227, May 25, 1956
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Bangalao, et al., G.R. No. L-5610, February 17, 1954
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Jore, G.R. No. L-5366, October 29, 1953
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Belandres, et al., G.R. No. L-2801, March 31, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Servando Maniego, G.R. No. L-2253, May 31, 1949
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Canastre, G..R. No. L-2055, December 24, 1948
— People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Repillion y de la Cruz, G.R. No. L-1025, October 30, 1947
— People of the Phil. vs. Claro Feliciano, et al., G.R. No. L-337, October 25, 1946
— Vicente Tolentino vs. Sixto de la Costa, G.R. No. 46038, August 10, 1938
— People of the Phil. vs. Sotero Delfinado, G.R. No. 43292, August 3, 1935
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe de Asis, et al., G.R. No. 42868, April 17, 1935
— People of the Phil. vs. Faustino Francisco, G.R. No. 42652, February 25, 1935
— People of the Phil. vs. Sebastian G. Segura, G.R. No. 41669, November 22, 1934
— People of the Phil. vs. Andres Santos, G.R. No. 40905, August 30, 1934
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino R. Acosta, G.R. No. 40903, April 28, 1934
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Arsenio de la Cruz, G.R. No. 39882, February 20, 1934
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Jesus Tolentino, G.R. No. 38298, December 9, 1933
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Matela, G.R. No. 37736, November 13, 1933
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Pineda, G.R. No. 35753, March 26, 1932
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Santiago, G.R. No. 34892, August 27, 1931
— People of the Phil. vs. Arcadio Lomibao, G.R. No. 33788, February 12, 1931
— People of the Phil. vs. Telesforo Apiado, G.R. No. 31075, August 12, 1929
— People of the Phil. vs. Elpidio Corcino, G.R. No. 30715, July 27, 1929
— People of the Phil. vs. Fidel Sasota, G.R. No. 29564, October 25, 1928
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Fausto, G.R. No. 29191, August 14, 1928
— People of the Phil. vs. Gabino Alqueza, G.R. No. 28995, August 4, 1928
— People of the Phil. vs. Macario Manguiat, et al., G.R. No. 28377, January 24, 1928
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan de Guzman, G.R. No. 27633, December 2, 1927
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Santiago, G.R. No. 27972, October 31, 1927
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose de Leon, G.R. No. 26867, August 10, 1927
— People of the Phil. vs. Julian Eriñia Y Vinolla, G.R. No. 26298, January 20, 1927
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Teodoro Luchico, G.R. No. 26170, December 6, 1926
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Eligio Amante, et al., G.R. No. 25604, December 6, 1926
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Domingo Hernandez, G.R. No. 23916, October 14, 1926
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Inocentes Bretaña, et al., G.R. No. 25905, October 8, 1926
— People of the Phil. vs. Catalino Oscar, G.R. No. 24055, December 28, 1925
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan Cariaso, G.R. No. 22631, November 29, 1924
— People of the Phil. vs. Ramon de Loyola, G.R. No. 21418, March 17, 1924
— People of the Phil. vs. Anselmo Blance, G.R. No. 20063, August 27, 1923
— United States vs. Tomas Bautista, G.R. No. 13946, February 5, 1920
— United States vs. Cirilo Tumbaga, G.R. No. 15520, January 26, 1920
— United States vs. Martin Huertas, G.R. No. 13866, December 20, 1918
— United States vs. Eustaquio Gamilla, G.R. No. 13981, December 6, 1918
— United States vs. Julian Santiago, G.R. No. 11374, March 14, 1917
— United States vs. Pantaleon Ramos, G.R. No. 10832, December 11, 1916
— United States vs. Toribio Andaya, G.R. No. 11477, August 8, 1916
— United States vs. Jose Claro, G.R. No. 10819, December 4, 1915
— United States vs. Nicolas Javier, et al., G.R. No. 10379, August 5, 1915
— United States vs. Florencio Gomez, G.R. No. 10341, March 3, 1915
— United States vs. Adel Hernandez, et al., G.R. No. 9405, December 24, 1914
— United States vs. Eliseo Reyes, G.R. No. 9745, November 7, 1914
— United States vs. Valeriano, G.R. No. 9479, July 28, 1914
— United States vs. Buenaventura Sarmiento, G.R. No. 9059, March 14, 1914
— United States vs. Pablo Suan, G.R. No. 9201, March 3, 1914
— United States vs. Cornelio Flores, G.R. No. 9014, December 11, 1913
— United States vs. Felino Santiago, G.R. No. 9118, November 26, 1913
— United States vs. Urbano Gariboso, G.R. No. 8130, August 30, 1913
— United States vs. Tomas Tria, G.R. No. 8285, August 15, 1913
— United States vs. Miguel Estrada, G.R. No. 8091, March 6, 1913
— United States vs. Andres Jayme, G.R. No. 7802, January 16, 1913
— United States vs. Tan Teng, G.R. No. 7081, September 7, 1912
— United States vs. Damian Santa Ana, et al., G.R. No. 7020, March 15, 1912
— United States vs. Victorino de los Santos, G.R. No. 6539, February 2, 1912
— United States vs. Roque Flores, G.R. No. 6727, January 2, 1912
— United States vs. Severo de Ungria, G.R. No. 6201, August 12, 1911
— United States vs. Tomas Cruz, G.R. No. L-6409, March 10, 1911
— United States, et al. vs. Leodegario Hocbo, G.R. No. 4434, December 21, 1908
— United States vs. Marcos Rojo, G.R. No. 4341, March 12, 1908
— United States vs. Pascual Dulay, G.R. No. L-4026, March 7, 1908
— United States vs. Juan Salud, G.R. No. L-3937, February 24, 1908
— United States vs. Rufo Reyes, G.R. No. L-4005, February 3, 1908
— United States, et al. vs. Felix Arlante, G.R. No. L-3859, January 15, 1908
— United States vs. Ponciano Limcangco, G.R. No. L-3766, October 18, 1907
— United States vs. Nicomedes de Dios, G.R. No. L-3574, August 2, 1907
— United States vs. Urbana Nacion, G.R. No. L-3496, July 31, 1907
— United States vs. Mariano Anastasio, G.R. No. 2821, August 30, 1906
— Matilde Ballester vs. Gonzalo Legaspi, G.R. No. 2452, March 15, 1906
— United States vs. Feliciano Villarosa, G.R. No. 1661, April 19, 1905
— United States vs. Eusebio Versosa, G.R. No. 1315, March 24, 1904
— United States vs. Antonio Fernandez, G.R. No. 1482, February 29, 1904
— United States vs. Ambrosio de la Cruz, G.R. No. 1446, February 17, 1904
— United States vs. Norberto Obregon, G.R. No. 1399, February 12, 1904
— United States vs. Manuel Banzon et al., G.R. No. 946, October 22, 1902
— United States vs. Adriano Solar, G.R. No. 886, September 9, 1902
— DILG M.C. 11-09, Observance of National Awareness Week for the Prevention of Child Sexual
Abuse and Exploitation 2009, February 3, 2009
— DILG M.C. 164-99
— DILG M.C. 49-97
— NCIP A.O. 1-98, June 9, 1998, Rule XI, Part I, Sec. 2 (e)
Child Prostitution
— Act 3815, Art. 202; Art. 278; Art. 340 & Art. 341
— Act 519
— B.P. 92, December 24, 1980
— R.A. 7610, Art. I, Sec. 3 (d) & Arts. II-III
— E.O. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (e)
— E.O. 56, November 6, 1986

— P.D. 603, Art. 166
— Proc. 759, March 6, 1996
— Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, Art. 34 (b)
— Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the
Prostitution of Others, December 2, 1949
— People of the Phil. vs. Felino O. Llanita, G.R. No. 134101, September 5, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. George J. Alay-Ay, G.R. Nos. 137199-230, August 23, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Alvero, G.R. No. 132364, May 23, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Felimon Alipayo., et al., G.R. No. 122979, February 2, 2000
— Manolet O. Lavides vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 129670, February 1, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Anthony M. Belgar, G.R. No. 92155, March 11, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Heinrich S. Ritter, G.R. No. 88582, March 5, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Manalo, G.R. No. L-49810, October 13, 1986
— Simplicio Cruz vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. L-67228, October 9, 1986
— Francisca Alimagno vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. L-36458, February 21, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Mirabien, G.R. No. 26391, July 28, 1921
— United States vs. Manuel Javier, et al., G.R. No. 6881, October 12, 1911
— United States vs. Urbana Nacion, G.R. No. L-3496, July 31, 1907
— United States vs. Chu Chang, G.R. No. 2307, April 9, 1906
— DILG M.C. 164-99
— DILG M.C. 49-97
Child Pornography
— Act 3815, Art. 201
— R.A. 7610, Art. I, Sec. 3 (d); Arts. II-III & Art. V
— P.D. 603, Art. 95 & Art. 103
— Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, Art. 34 (c)
Rape with Homicide
— Arnel B. Alicando vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 181119, July 31, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Gerald Soriano, G.R. No. 191271, March 13, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Gumimba, et al., G.R. No. 174056, February 27, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Christopher Padua, et al., G.R. No. 169075, February 23, 2007
Dangerous Drugs
— Act 3815, Art. 190; Art. 191 & Art. 193
— R.A. 7659, Sec. 15
— R.A. 7624
— R.A. 6425, Sec. 30 & Sec. 32
— E.O. No. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 15 (g)
— Supreme Court A.C. 20-03, March 19, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Francis G. de Guzman, G.R. No. L-68951, June 16, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Allan L. Sarmiento, et al., G.R. No. 72141, January 12, 1987
— People vs. Beralde, G.R. No. L-68482, October 23, 1985
— In Re: Regina Paz Lopez, et al. vs. Bob Garon, et al., G.R. No. L-38850, November 28, 1975
— People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido Villarin, G.R. No. L-19795, July 30, 1964
— DILG M.C. 185-95
— DILG M.C. 194-95
Other Forms of Exploitation
— Act 3815, Art. 278
— R.A. 7610, Art. VI

— R.A. 5416, Sec. 3 & Sec. 7 (b)
— R.A. 18, Sec. 5
— E.O. 275, September 14, 1995
— E.O. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (e)
— P.D. 1563, Sec. 4 & Sec. 5
— P.D. 603, Art. 59 & Art. 166
— George Bongalon vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 169533, March 20, 2013
— Cyril Calpito Qui vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 196161, September 26, 2012
— United States vs. Tomas Cabanag, G.R. No. L-3241, March 16, 1907
— DILG M.C. 49-97
— DepEd Order No. 40-12, May 14, 2012
Child Abduction, Sale, Trafficking and Illicit Transfer
— R.A. 10364 (Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012), February 6, 2013
Abduction
— Act 3815, Art. 342 & Art. 343
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Tayag, G.R. No. 132053, March 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Shareff Ali El Akhtar, G.R. No. 130640, June 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Lo-ar, G.R. No. 118935, October 6, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Sapurco, G.R. No. 107748, July 3, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Paulino O. Rivera, G.R. No. 87187, June 29, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo T. Pinca, G.R. No. 110553, August 3, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Fredo Matamorosa, et al., G.R. Nos. 104996-98, March 28, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin C. Magpayo, G.R. Nos. 92961-64, September 1, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Fernandez, G.R. No. 80228, September 12, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico Mendoza, G.R. No. L-74653, July 26, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Calubag, G.R. No. L-38692, February 19, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Gorospe, et al., G.R. No. 51513, May 15, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Copro, G.R. No. L-37599, December 29, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Sison, G.R. No. L-45857, October 27, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo D. Paras, G.R. No. L-57195, April 28, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Claudio Bulaong, et al., G.R. No. L-37836, July 31, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Adelino Bardaje, G.R. No. L-29271, August 29, 1980
— Maximino Valdepenas vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. L-20687, April 30, 1966
— People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Quitan, et al., G.R. No. L-8227, May 25, 1956
— Leodegario Benga-Oras vs. Jose Evangelista, et al, G.R. No. L-8558, September 28, 1955
— People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Formento, et al., G.R. No. 41532, August 29, 1934
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Arsenio de la Cruz, G.R. No. 39881, February 20, 1934
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Pineda, G.R. No. 35753, March 26, 1932
— People of the Phil. vs. Macario Manguiat, et al., G.R. No. 28377, January 24, 1928
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan de Guzman, G.R. No. 27633, December 2, 1927
— People of the Phil. vs. Hipolito Undiana, G.R. Nos. 26853-26855, September 10, 1927
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Eligio Amante, et al., G.R. No. 25604, December 6, 1926
— People of the Phil. vs. Gerundio Amerela, G.R. No. 24839, January 15, 1926
— People of the Phil. vs. Celedonio de la Cruz, G.R. No. 24507, December 28, 1925
— People of the Phil. vs. Cornelio Tisbe, et al., G.R. No. 23180, September 23, 1926
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Bonifacio M. Manalili, G.R. No. L-20819, December 3, 1923
— People of the Phil. vs. Ramon de Loyola, G.R. No. 21418, March 17, 1924
— People of the Phil. vs. Eustaquio Calalas, G.R. No. 21059, January 21, 1924
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Pedro Mirasol, G.R. No. L-18925, September 28, 1922
— United States vs. Isabelo Reynaldo, G.R. No. 14454, March 21, 1919
— United States vs. Licerio Casten, G.R. No. 11488, August 19, 1916
— United States vs. Eustaquio Yumul, G.R. No. 11196, March 8, 1916
— United States vs. Lazaro Evangelista, et al., G.R. No. 10093, November 24, 1915
— United States vs. Esteban Asuncion, G.R. No. 10340, October 2, 1915
— United States vs. Carlos Garcia, G.R. No. 9874, March 13, 1915
— United States vs. Paulino Santiago, G.R. No. 9893, January 29, 1915
— United States vs. Jose Tandiana, G.R. No. 8174, August 12, 1913
— Tranquilino Roa vs. Insular Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 7011, October 30, 1912
— United States vs. Jacinto Borromeo, et al., G.R. No. 7150, October 16, 1912
— The United States vs. Valentin Bernabe, G.R. No. 6923, September 12, 1912
— United States vs. Francisco Reyes, G.R. No. 6758, November 27, 1911
— United States vs. Pedro Banila, G.R. No. 6624, March 20, 1911
— United States vs. Daniel Lopez, G.R. No. 5217, December 13, 1909
— United States vs. Prudencio Soto, G.R. No. 5424, October 27, 1909
— United States vs. Serapio Poquis, Et Al, G.R. No. 5423, October 9, 1909
— United States vs. Benito Meneses, G.R. No. 5185, September 15, 1909
— United States vs. Vicente Sotto, G.R. No. L-3774 November 20, 1907
— United States vs. Leon Narvasa, et al, G.R. No. L-3460, August 22, 1907
— United States vs. Domingo Cecilio, G.R. No. L-3167, March 14, 1907
— United States vs. Domingo Ysip, G.R. No. 2695, March 26, 1906
— United States vs. Juan Luna, G.R. No. 892, March 14, 1905
— United States vs. Inocencio Mendoza, et al., G.R. No. 1198, August 21, 1903
— United States vs. Basilio Tagle, G.R. No. 930, January 10, 1903
— United States vs. Benigno de Vera, G.R. No. 887, September 25, 1902
— United States vs. Juan Luna, G.R. No. 892, September 11, 1902
— United States vs. Pedro Alvarez, G.R. No. 881, August 30, 1902
— United States vs. Enrique Rodriguez, G.R. No. 430, January 27, 1902
Kidnapping
— Act 3815, Art. 270; Arts. 267-268 & Art. 271
— R.A. 7659, Sec. 8
— R.A. 18, Sec. 4
— People of the Phil. vs. Marites T. Valerio, G.R. No. 186123, February 27, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Yusop Tadah, G.R. No. 186226, February 1, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Jerry G. Jacalne, G.R. No. 168552, October 3, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Joel N. Baluya, G.R. No. 181822, April 13, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto R. Uyboco, G.R. No. 178039, January 19, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Siongco, et al., G.R. No. 186472, July 5, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Raga Sarapida Mamantak, et al., G.R. No. 174659, July 28, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Elmer de la Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 173308, June 25, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Raul Cenahonon, G.R. No. 169962, July 12, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Judith Jatulan, G.R. No. 171653, April 24, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Roque G. Garalde, G.R. No. 173055, April 13, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Darius Rodrigo, et al., G.R. No. 173022, January 23, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Suriaga, G.R. No. 123779, April 17, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Teresa Bernardo, G.R. No. 144316, March 11, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Entila, G.R. No. 135368, February 9, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Zoilo Borromeo, G.R. No. 130843, January 27, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rafael "Lito" Baldevieso, et al., G.R. No. 127315, September 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Noel S. Diaz, G.R. No. 130652, June 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Romano Vidal et al., G.R. No. 90419, June 1, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Isagani Luartes, G.R. No. 127452, June 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Mercy Santos, G.R. No. 117873, December 22, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Efren L. Hernandez, et al., G.R. No. 117624, December 4, 1997
— Francisco Juan Larranaga vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 130644, October 27, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Zenaida Isla, G.R. No. 96176, August 21, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Rosemarie N. de la Cruz, G.R. No. 120988, August 11, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo P. Cayetano, G.R. Nos. 112429-30, July 23, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Ty, et al., G.R. No. 121519, October 30, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Delia C. Reyes, G.R. No. 107462, August 30, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Imelda P. Villanueva, G.R. No. 116311, February 1, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Danny Godoy, G.R. Nos. 115908-09, December 6, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Conte, G.R. Nos. 113513-14, August 23, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Cherry L. Bondoc, G.R. No. 98400, May 23, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Lilia F. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 81020, May 28, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Carmen Lim, G.R. No. 86454, October 18, 1990
— Vicente C. Buenavista, Jr. vs. Marcelo G. Garcia, A.M. No. RTJ-88-246, July 19, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio O. Gonzales, Jr., G.R. No. L-44409, February 21, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Angelina R. Mendoza, G.R. No. 67610, July 31, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico Espina, G.R. No. L-70999, April 15, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Moises R. Marcos, G.R. No. L-65048, January 9, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Generoso Jo, et al., G.R. No. L-69236, August 19, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Giberson, Jr., G.R. No. L-54131, January 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonarda Legones, G.R. No. L-30245, January 30, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Ulpiano Manzanero, Jr., G.R. No. L-33698, December 20, 1973
— Restituto Binabay vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. L-31008, January 30, 1971
— People of the Phil. vs. Orador S. Pingol, et al., G.R. No. L-26931, May 28, 1970
— People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio C. Cabral, et al., G.R. No. L-14045, October 28, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Apolinar Acosta and Consolacion Bravo, G.R. No. L-11954, March 24, 1960
— People of the Phil. vs. Carmen Licop, G.R. No. L-6061, April 29, 1954
— United States vs. Gregoria Herrera, et al., G.R. No. 1660, March 28, 1904
— United States vs. Julio Mendoza, et al., G.R. No. 1297, March 28, 1904
Sale and Trafficking of Children
— Act 3815, Art. 272
— C.A. 613, Sec. 29 (12)
— R.A. 8043
— R.A. 7610, Art. IV
— P.D. 603, Art. 59 (3)
— E.O. 220, March 23, 2000
— E.O. 275, September 14, 1995
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 217
— E.O. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (e)
— Proc. 759, March 6, 1996
— Proc. 13, June 3, 1986
— Declaration of the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1959, Principle 9, par. 1
— Rules and Regulations on the Trafficking of Children, January 24, 1994
— OCA Circular 36-07, April 18, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Gumimba, et al., G.R. No. 174056, February 27, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Christopher Padua, et al., G.R. No. 169075, February 23, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Angelina R. Mendoza, G.R. No. 67610, July 31, 1989
— United States vs. Tomas Cabanag, G.R. No. L-3241, March 16, 1907

— DOLE Department Circular No. 02-12, Manual of Procedures in Handling Complaints on
Trafficking in Persons, Illegal Recruitment and Child Labor, May 7, 2012
— DILG M.C. 49-97
— DSWD A.O. 2-06, Amendment to Omnibus Guidelines for Minors Traveling Abroad, March 31,
2006
— DSWD A.O. 14-05, Omnibus Guidelines for Minors Travelling Abroad, July 29, 2005
— DSWD A.O. 73-03, September 4, 2003
— DSWD Order 03-01, April 6, 2001
Children in Especially Difficult Circumstances
— E.O. 633, July 16, 2007
— DSWD A.O. 119-90
— DSWD Order 8-95
Children Deprived of Family Environment
— Act 3815, Art. 275 (3) & Art. 276 & Art. 278
— R.A. 7610, Sec. 2
— R.A. 5416, Sec. 3
— P.D. 603, Art. 3 (3) & Art. 140
— E.O. 275, September 14, 1995
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 217
— E.O. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (e)
— Proc. 13, June 3, 1986
— DILG M.C. 118-98
— DILG M.C. 49-97
— DSWD M.C. 1-97

— DSWD M.C. 2-91
Special Categories
— Act No. 3203
— R.A. 5416, Sec. 3 & Sec. 7 (b)
— P.D. 1563, Sec. 4
— P.D. 603, Arts. 141-167 & Art. 21
— E.O. 275, September 14, 1995
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 217
— E.O. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (e)
— A.M. No. 00-4-07-SC, Proposed Rule on Examination of a Child Witness, January 31, 2012
— DILG M.C. 49-97
— DILG M.C. 154-94
— DOH A.O. 1-A-81
— DOH A.O. 97-A-80
— DOH A.O. 77-80
— DSWD Order 2-96
Child Witness
— People v. Ibañez y Albante, G.R. No. 197813, September 25, 2013
Street Children
— Act 519
— R.A. 5416, Sec. 3

— E.O. 275, September 14, 1995
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 217
— E.O. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (e) & Sec. 15 (b)
— P.D. 1563, Sec. 4 & Sec. 5
— DILG M.C. 4-99
— DILG M.C. 49-97
— DSWD Order 5-92
Alternative Care and Foster Placement
— B.P. 408, Sec. 3; Sec. 4 & Secs. 14-18
— Republic Act No. 10165, Foster Care Act of 2012, June 11, 2012
— R.A. 8980
— R.A. 5416, Sec. 3 & Sec. 7 (b)
— R.A. 3801, Secs. 12-15
— E.O. 778, Transforming the Council for the Welfare of Children into the Early Childhood Care and
Development Council, January 13, 2009
— E.O. 275, September 14, 1995
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 217
— E.O. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (e)
— P.D. 603, Art. 21; Art. 142; Art. 143; Arts. 149-154; Art. 156; Arts. 22-24 & Arts. 67-70
— 1997 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 105
— A.M. No. 02-1-19-SC, RE: Proposed Rule on Commitment of Children, February 28, 2002
— DILG Memorandum Circular No. 010-13, IRR of the Foster Care Act of 2012 (RA 10165), February
13, 2013
— DILG M.C. 53-98
— DSWD A.O. 17-05, Standards for Group Home for Unattached Persons, August 25, 2005
— DSWD M.C. 1-97
— DSWD M.C. 2-91
— DSWD M.C. 24-04, Procedures for the Selection of Residential Care Centers of Excellence, June
4, 2004
— DSWD M.C. 22-04, Policy Paper on De-institutionalization of Children, June 2, 2004
Adoption
Local
— B.P. 408, Sec. 3; Sec. 4 & Secs. 14-18
— R.A. 8552
— R.A. 6591, Sec. 1 (2) (b)
— R.A. 6586, Sec. 1 (2) (b)
— R.A. 3753, Sec. 10
— R.A. 644
— E.O. 275, September 14, 1995
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 183-193 & Art. 229 (1)
— P.D. 1083, Art. 64
— P.D. 603, Arts. 27-42
— 1997 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 99 & Rule 100
1986
— DILG M.C. 53-98
— DSWD Order 2-96

— DOJ Opinion No. 006, s. 2011, March 1, 2011
— DOJ Opinion No. 004, s. 2011, February 9, 2011
— Herbert Cang vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 105308, September 25, 1998
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 103695, March 15, 1996
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Jose R. Hernandez, et al., G.R. No. 117209, February 9, 1996
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 92326, January 24, 1992
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Zenaida Elepano, et al., G.R. No. 92542, October 15, 1991
— Wenceslao D. Monserrate, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 78339, September 29, 1989
— Mamita Pardo de Tavera, et al. vs. Bonifacio A. Cacdac, Jr., G.R. No. 76290, November 23, 1988
— Roderick Daoang vs. Municipal Judge, San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte, G.R. No. L-34568, March 28,
1988
— Ernesto S. Nieto vs. Romeo D. Magat, G.R. No. L-62465, May 24, 1985
— Paulina Santos, et al. vs. Gregoria Aranzanso, et al., G.R. No. L-26940, August 21, 1982
— Benita A. Agbayani vs. Jaime V. Agtang, A.C. No. 1445, October 5, 1976
— Robin Francis Radley Duncan vs. Court of First Instance of Rizal, G.R. No. L-30576, February 10,
1976
— In Re: Frederick William Malkinson vs. Corazon Juliano Agrava, et al., G.R. No. L-36309,
November 26, 1973
— In Re: Adoption of Millendez, G.R. No. L-28195, June 10, 1971
— In Re: Socorro S. Paulino vs. Nicasio A. Belen, et al., G.R. No. L-28863, January 30, 1971
— In Re: Dr. Fernando P. Hofileña, et al. vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-26476, August 31, 1970
— In Re: Edwin M. Villa, Jr. vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-22523, September 29, 1967
— Teodoro Sumaljag Bongal, et al. vs. Barbara P. vda. de Bongal, G.R. No. L-17463, May 16, 1967
— In Re: Bertha Ann Rivera, et al. vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-22170, September 23, 1966
— In Re: Rosalina E. Cruz vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-20927, July 26, 1966
— Paulina Santos, et al. vs. Gregoria Aranzanso, et al., G.R. No. L-23828, February 28, 1966
— Cecilio de la Cruz vs. Manuel Jesus de la Cruz, G.R. No. L-19391, September 29, 1964
— In Re: Dintoy Tan Suarez vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-20914, December 24, 1965
— In Re: Uggi Lindamand Therkelse vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-21951, November 27, 1964
— In Re: Gilbert R. Brehm, et al. vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-18566, September 30, 1963
— In Re: Ana Isabel Henriette Antonia Concepcion Georgiana vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-
18284, April 30, 1963
— In Re: Rose C. Ellis vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-16922, April 30, 1963
— In Re: K. Katancik vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-15472, June 30, 1962
— In Re: Ricardo R. Caraballo vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-15080, April 25, 1962
— Antonio Ragudo, et al. vs. Emelita R. Pasno, G.R. No. L-16642, April 18, 1962
— Priscila Durang-Parang Jimenez vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-9911, May 22, 1957
— In Re: Leopoldo Prasnik vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-8639, March 23, 1956
— Luis Santos-Yñigo, et al. vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-6294, June 28, 1954
— Clyde E. McGee vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. L-5387, April 29, 1954
— Ramon Joaquin vs. Antonio Navarro y Castro, G.R. No. L-576, August 4, 1948
Inter-Country
— R.A. 8043
— R.A. 6591, Sec. 1 (2) (b)
— R.A. 6586, Sec. 1 (2) (b)
— R.A. 6512, Sec. 1 (2) (b)
— E.O. 275, September 14, 1995
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 229 (1)
— P.D. 1083, Art. 64

— 1997 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 99 & Rule 100
— S.C. Circular 12, October 2, 1986
— Amended Implementing Rules and Regulations on Inter-Country Adoption
1986
— Rules and Regulations on Intercountry Adoption, December 26, 1995
— The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of

Intercountry Adoption, May 29, 1993
— In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, G.R. No. 148311, March 31,
2005
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Concepcion S. Alarcon Vergara, et al., G.R. No. 95551, March 20, 1997
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Toledano, G.R. No. 94147, June 8, 1994
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 100835, October 26, 1993
— Bobanovic vs. Montes, G.R. No. 71370, January 31, 1987
— Slobodan Bobanovic, et al. vs. Sylvia P. Montes, G.R. No. 71370, July 7, 1986
— Nieto vs. Magat, G.R. No. L-62465, May 24, 1985
— Duncan vs. CFI of Rizal, G.R. No. L-30576, February 10, 1976
— Malkinson vs. Agrava, G.R. No. L-36309, November 26, 1973
— DILG M.C. 53-98

— DOLE Order 65-04, Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9231 Amending R.A.
7610, as Amended
Children in Conflict with the Law (Juvenile Justice)
— Act 4117, December 7, 1933
— Act 3203, December 3, 1924
— C.A. 99, October 27, 1936
— R.A. 9344, Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006, April 28, 2006
— R.A. 386, Art. 2180 & Art. 2182
— R.A. 47
— E.O. 138, August 2, 2013
— E.O. 633, July 16, 2007
— E.O. 275, September 14, 1995
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 217
— E.O. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (e) & Sec. 15 (d)
— M.O. 203, January 30, 2006
— P.D. 1210
— P.D. 1179, August 15, 1977
— P.D. 603, Arts. 189-204
— OCA Circular 168, December 2, 2011 (Non-Commitment of the Children in Conflict with the Law
(CICL) at the Center for Restorative Activities and Development Learning Experiences (CRADLE))
— Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, Art 37 & Art. 40
— International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 16, 1966
December 14, 1990
1990
— People v. Gambao y Esmail, G.R. No. 172707, October 1, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Urban Salcedo, et al., G.R. No. 186523, June 22, 2011
— Salvador Atizado, et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173822, October 13, 2010
— Rennie Declarador vs. Salvador S. Gubaton, et al., G.R. No. 159208, August 18, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Juan Larrañaga, et al., G.R. Nos. 138874-75, January 31, 2006
— DILG Memorandum Circular No. 062-12, March 28, 2012
— DILG M.C. 59-09, General Guidelines and Procedures in Handling Children at Risk (CAR) and
Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL) by the Barangay Council for the Protection of Children (BCPC),
May 12, 2009
— DILG M.C. 104-06, August 23, 2006
— DILG M.C. 54-06, June 1, 2006
— DSWD A.O. 7-08, Guidelines in the Conduct of Diversion for Children in Conflict with the Law,
April 3, 2008
— DSWD M.C. 28-04, Delineation of Agencies' Roles on the Management of Court-Related Cases,
July 16, 2004
— OCA Circular 113, August 20, 2009
— Manila City Ordinance No. 8231, April 7, 2011
Age of Responsibility
— Act 4117
— Act 3815, Art. 12 (2) & (3); Art. 13 (2); Art. 80 & Art. 101, pars. 2 & 3
— C.A. 99
— R.A. 6809
— R.A. 47
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 228 (3) & Art. 234
— P.D. 1179
— P.D. 603, Art. 189
— People of the Phil. vs. Noel Sapinoso,et al., G.R. No. 122540, March 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Danny Paredes, et. al., G.R. No. 115217, November 21, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricky A. Galit, et al., G.R. No. 97432, March 1, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Adolfo Narvas Pascual, G.R. No. 95029, March 24, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Alex V. Regalado, et al., G.R. No. 101451, March 23, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Crispulo de los Reyes, et al., G.R. No. L-44112, October 22, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcos T. Manalang, G.R. No. 67662, February 9, 1989
— John Philip Guevarra vs. Ignacio Almodovar, G.R. No. 75256, January 26, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Verano, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-45589, July 28, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Usman A. Hassan, G.R. No. L-68969, January 22, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Auditor, G.R. No. L-69542, July 31, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Limosnero, G.R. No. L-47738, January 12, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Henry Parba, G.R. No. L-63409, May 30, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Beralde, G.R. No. L-68482, October 23, 1985
— Jojo Pastor Bravo, Jr. vs. Melecio B. Borja, et al., G.R. No. L-65228, February 18, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Ludovice, et al., G.R. No. L-34986, March 23, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Michael J. Butler, G.R. No. L-50276, January 27, 1983
— Venancio Villanueva vs. CFI of Oriental Mindoro, et al., G.R. No. L-45798, December 15, 1982
— Ernesto D. Co vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-52200, August 21, 1980
— Benjamin J. Soto vs. Ruben B. Lacre, A.C. No. 1019, June 30, 1977
— People of the Phil. vs. Mericia B. Palma, et al., G.R. No. L-44113, March 31, 1977
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Jose, et al.G.R. No. L-28397, June 17, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Victorino B. Sumayo, et al., G.R. No. L-30713, April 30, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Brahim Alamada, G.R. Nos. L-34594-95, July 13, 1973
— Fe Recido, et al. vs. Alfonso T. Refaso, et al., G.R. No. L-16641, June 24, 1965
— People of the Phil. vs. Mardonio Surbida, G.R. No. L-15865, October 30, 1961
— Rosario L. de Braganza vs. Fernando F. de Villa Abrille, G.R. No. L-12471, April 13, 1959
— Fernando Hermosa vs. Alfonso Zobel Y Roxas, G.R. No. L-11835, October 30, 1958
— Benito Cosa vs. Juan Barotillo, G.R. No. L-8752, April 29, 1957
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto V. Roque, et al., G.R. No. L-3513, September 29, 1951
— People of the Phil. vs. Lee Kiat, G.R. No. L-3409, June 29, 1951
— Sia Suan, et al. vs. Ramon Alcantara, G.R. No. L-1720, March 4, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio Y. Garcia, G.R. No. L-2873, February 28, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Servillano Faltado, et al., G.R. Nos. L-1604, L-1712 & L-1713, June 27, 1949
— People of the Phil. vs. Vivencio Celespara, G.R. No. L-1908, December 17, 1948
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Villa, et al., G.R. No. L-591, June 30, 1948
— People of the Phil. vs. Aguedo Sardoma, G.R. No. L-673, November 28, 1947
— Ching Juat vs. Bonifacio Ysip, G.R. No. L-920, January 27, 1947
— Eladia Magtibay, et al. vs. Rowel Tiangco, G.R. No. 49053, February 28, 1944
— People of the Phil. vs. Ong Ta, G.R. No. 47289, November 18, 1940
— People of the Phil. vs. Valentin Doqueña, G.R. No. 46539, September 27, 1939
— People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Valdez, G.R. No. 45589, October 25, 1937
— People of the Phil. vs. Primitivo Esquilona, et al., G.R. No. 37378, July 29, 1933
— People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Makaraig y Buenaseda, G.R. No. 32931, September 11, 1930
— Jose Bactoso vs. Provincial Governor of Cebu, G.R. No. 24046, September 25, 1925
— Julian Siman vs. Saturnino Leus, et al., G.R. No. L-12900, March 27, 1918
— United States vs. Estaban Agadas, et al., G.R. No. 11632, February 12, 1917
— United States vs. Maximo Maralit, G.R. No. 11979, January 25, 1917
— United States vs. Dionisio Lomongsod, et al., G.R. No. 6858, February 15, 1912
— United States vs. Valeriana Deuda, et al, G.R. No. 5344, December 14, 1909
— United States vs. Pedro Barbicho, G.R. No. 5109, July 31, 1909
— United States vs. Gelasio Castellon, et al, G.R. No. 4797, December 1, 1908
— Natividad Aguilar vs. Placido Lazaro, G.R. No. 1850, September 6, 1905
— United States vs. Marcosa Peñalosa, et al., G.R. No. 424, January 27, 1902
Criminal and Civil Liability
— Act 4117
— Act 3815, Art. 12 (2) & (3); Art. 13 (2); Art. 14 (20); Art. 68; Art. 80 & Art. 101, pars. 2 & 3
— Act 3203
— C.A. 99
— R.A. 386, Art. 2180, pars. 2, 3 & 7 & Art. 2182
— R.A. 47
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 219 & 221
— P.D. 603, Art. 189 & Art. 201
— International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, Art. 14 (4)
— Francisco Juan Larranaga vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 130644, March 13, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Ondo, G.R. No. 101361, November 8, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Villagracia, G.R. No. 94311, September 14, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Levy Fred Jamandron, et al., G.R. Nos. 80226-27, October 13, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcos T. Manalang, G.R. No. 67662, February 9, 1989
— John Philip Guevarra vs. Ignacio Almodovar, G.R. No. 75256, January 26, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Allan L. Sarmiento, et al., G.R. No. 72141, January 12, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Q. de Jesus, G.R. No. L-39087, April 27, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Benito Marbebe, et al., G.R. No. L-35309, April 2, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Mendez and Bolioc, G.R. No. L-48131, May 30, 1983
— Virtouso, Jr. vs. Municipal Judge of Mariveles, Bataan, G.R. No. L-47841, March 21, 1978
— Benjamin J. Soto vs. Ruben B. Lacre, A.C. No. 1019, June 30, 1977
— Agapito Fuellas vs. Elpidio Cadano, et al., G.R. No. L-14409, October 31, 1961
— Severino Salen and Elena Salbanera vs. Jose Balce, G.R. No. L-14414, April 27, 1960
— Rosario L. de Braganza vs. Fernando F. de Villa Abrille, G.R. No. L-12471, April 13, 1959
— Araneta vs. Areglado, G.R. No. L-11394, September 9, 1958
— La Mallorca Taxi vs. Roman Guanlao, G.R. No. L-8613, January 30, 1957
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto V. Roque, et al., G.R. No. L-3513, September 29, 1951
— Sia Suan, et al. vs. Ramon Alcantara, G.R. No. L-1720, March 4, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Valentin Doqueña, G.R. No. 46539, September 27, 1939
— People of the Phil. vs. Remedios de la Cruz, G.R. No. 41674, March 30, 1935
— Narciso Gutierrez vs. Bonifacio Gutierrez, G.R. No. 34840, September 23, 1931
— United States vs. Esteban Agadas, et al., G.R. No. 11632, February 12, 1917
— United States vs. Maximo Maralit, G.R. No. 11979, January 25, 1917
— United States vs. Genoveva Apego, G.R. No. 7929, November 8, 1912
— United States vs. Dionisio Lomongsod, et al., G.R. No. 6858, February 15, 1912
— United States vs. Valeriana Deuda, et al., G.R. No. 5344, December 14, 1909
— United States vs. Pedro Barbicho, G.R. No. 5109, July 31, 1909
— United States vs. Gelasio Castellon, et al., G.R. No. 4797, December 1, 1908
— DILG M.C. 127-93
— DSWD Order 5-92
Criminal/Civil Procedures
— 1987 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 12 (1), (2) & (3) & Secs. 13-22
— 1935 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1 (15-21)

— Act 4117
— Act 3815, Arts. 67-68; Art. 80 & Art. 101, pars. 2 & 3
— Act 3203
— C.A. 99
— R.A. 8369, Sec. 5 & Secs. 8-14
— R.A. 7610, Secs. 28-30
— R.A. 6591, Sec. 3
— R.A. 6586, Sec. 3
— R.A. 6512, Sec. 3
— R.A. 6425, Sec. 32
— R.A. 5416, Sec. 3 & Sec. 7 (b)
— R.A. 1401, Sec. 1
— R.A. 47
— E.O. No. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (e)
— P.D. 1210
— P.D. 1179, Sec. 2, par. 4
— P.D. 603, Art. 135 & Art. 190
— 1997 Revised Rules of Court, Rule 3, Sec. 5; Rule 69, Sec. 9; Rule 92, Sec. 1; Rule 93, Secs. 1 & 7;
Rule 99 & Rule 100
— Rules and Regulations on the Apprehension, Investigation, Prosecution and Rehabilitation of

Youth Offenders, February 20, 1995
— A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, Re: Proposed Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law, February 28, 2002
— Robert C. Sierra vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 182941, July 3, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Ondo, G.R. No. 101361, November 8, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Villagracia, G.R. No. 94311, September 14, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Alex V. Regalado, et al., G.R. No. 101451, March 23, 1993
— Cora Legados, et al. vs. Doroteo de Guzman, et al., G.R. No. 35825, February 20, 1989
— Guevarra vs. Almodovar, G.R. No. 75256, January 26, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Mendez and Bolioc, G.R. No. L-48131, May 30, 1983
— Virtouso, Jr. vs. Municipal Judge of Mariveles, Bataan, G.R. No. L-47841, March 21, 1978
— Balbino Sequito, et al. vs. Anatalio Letrondo, G.R. No. L-11588, July 20, 1959
— Araneta vs. Areglado, G.R. No. L-11394, September 9, 1958
— People of the Phil. vs. Doqueña, G.R. No. 46539, September 27, 1939
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe de Asis, et al., G.R. No. 42868, April 17, 1935
— People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Formento, et al., G.R. No. 41532, August 29, 1934
— DILG M.C. 127-93
Child Labor
— Act 3815, Art. 273
— R.A. 7942, Sec. 64

— R.A. 7658
— R.A. 7655
— R.A. 7610, Art. VIII
— R.A. 7323
— R.A. 6237, Secs. 1-3
— R.A. 5416, Sec. 3
— R.A. 1131, Sec. 1
— R.A. 679
— R.A. 386, Art. 1691
— E.O. 275, September 14, 1995
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 217
— E.O. 139, Sec. 4 (4.1) (a), (b), (c), (d) & (g)
— E.O. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (e)
— Memorandum Order No. 71, September 2, 2002
— P.D. 850, Secs. 12-13
— P.D. 603, Art. 106 (1) & (2); Arts. 107-116 & Arts. 111-115
— P.D. 442, Art. 59; Art. 60; Art 62; Arts. 139-140 & Art. 146
— P.D. 148, Sec. 1, Sec. 2 & Sec. 4
— Proc. 13, June 3, 1986
— 1995 Annual Report
— 1999 DOLE Programs and Projects, II (2)
— A Message from Juan Somavia
— A New Tool to Combat the Worst Forms of Child Labor
— A Primer on the Rights of Women and Young Workers
— Combat Child Labour
— Implementing Guidelines for the Operationalization of the SRA Convergence, Sec. 4.8
— Kabataan 2000
— Labor Laws/Standards Specifically Relating to Women and Young Workers
— National Program Against Child Labor
— Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, May 27, 1989, Book III, Rule XII, Sec. 2 & Sec. 3;
Rule XIII, Sec. 3 & Sec. 10
— Philippines: National Monograph on Child Labor
— Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. 7658, May 12, 1994
— Rules and Regulations Implementing R.A. 7323, March 5, 1993
— Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7277, No date supplied, Rule II, Sec. 3
— SPES, R.A. 7323
— Special Program for Employment of Students
— Special Program for Employment of Students (What is SPES)
— Terms and Conditions of Employment of Women and Young Workers, July 1998
— The ILO and Child Labour
— The New ILO Convention and Recommendation
— Worst Forms of Child Labour Convention, June 17, 1999
— DILG M.C. 118-98
— DILG M.C. 75-98
— DILG M.C. 49-97
— DILG M.C. 108-93
— DILG M.C. 48-93
— DILG M.C. 34-92

— DOLE Department Circular No. 02-12, Manual of Procedures in Handling Complaints on
Trafficking in Persons, Illegal Recruitment and Child Labor, May 7, 2012
— DOLE Memorandum, Special Program for Employment of Students (SPES) Advisory, April 16,
2012
— DOLE Department Circular No. 02-10, January 25, 2010
— DOLE Advisory 2-08, Strengthening the Livelihood Formation and Enhancement Services for
Women, Youth and Child Laborers' Parents and Older Siblings, August 14, 2008
— DOLE Advisory 1-08, Employment of Youth Aged 15 to Less than 18 Years, June 10, 2008
— DOLE Order 4-99
— DOLE Order 3-97
— DOLE Order 8-96
— DOLE Order 18-94, May 12, 1994, Secs. 3-5
— DOLE Order 6-91
— DOLE Order 5-90
— DOLE Order 7-89
— DOLE Order 4-73
— DSWD A.O. 70-03, December 30, 2003
— ILO Convention 77-46, October 9, 1946
— ILO Convention 59-37, June 22, 1937
— ILO Maritime Convention 58-39, April 11, 1939
— ILO Maritime Convention 16-22, November 20, 1922
— ILO Maritime Convention 138
— NCIP A.O. 1-98, June 9, 1998, Rule XI, Part I, Sec. 2 (d)
— OWWA Memo of Instructions 11-98
Indigenous Children
— 1987 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 22; Art. XIV, Sec. 17; Art. XVI, Sec. 12 & Art. XV, Sec. 3 (2)
— R.A. 8371, Sec. 27, Sec. 28, & Sec. 30
— R.A. 7610, Art. IX
— E.O. 275, September 14, 1995
— Proc. 13, June 3, 1986
— DILG M.C. 118-98
— NCIP A.O. 1-98, June 9, 1998
Children in Emergency Situations
— Act 3815, Art. 275 (3) & Art. 276
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 217
— DILG M.C. 118-98
— DILG M.C. 49-97
Armed Conflict
— R.A. 7610, Art. X
— R.A. 5416, Sec. 3
— E.O. 284, November 11, 1995
— E.O. 275, September 14, 1995
— Proc. 13, June 3, 1986
— Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict,
December 14, 1974
— Rules and Regulations on Children of Indigenous Cultural Communities, January 24, 1993
— Rules and Regulations on Children in Situations of Armed Conflict, January 21, 1994
— NCIP A.O. 1-98, June 9, 1998, Rule V, Sec. 2
Refugee Children
— R.A. 7610, Art. X, Secs. 22-24
— E.O. 554, August 21, 1979
— E.O. 332, August 12, 1988
— E.O. 275, September 14, 1995
— E.O. 240, May 4, 2000
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 217
December 14, 1974
Children with Disabilities
— 1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 11
— B.P. 344
— R.A. 7277
— R.A. 6759
— R.A. 5416, Sec. 3 & Sec. 7 (b)
— R.A. 5250
— R.A. 3562
— E.O. 385, December 9, 1996
— E.O. 292, July 25, 1987, Title XVI, Chap. I, Sec. 2
— E.O. 232, July 22, 1987
— E.O. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (e) & Sec. 15 (a) & (c)
— P.D. 603, Art. 3 ( 3), pars. 3 & 4 & Chap. II, Arts. 168-188
— Declaration of the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1959, Principle 5 & Art. 23
— Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, December 9, 1975
— Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 7277, No date supplied
Sec. 6 (C) (2.3) & Rule V, Sec. 1 (H)
— People of the Phil. vs. Lito Rosales, G.R. No. 126402, September 13, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Agravante, G.R. No. 119955, August 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Enrique Cabingas, et al., G.R. No. 79679, March 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Roderick Loriega, et al., G.R. Nos. 116009-10, February 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Roger Vaynaco, et al., G.R. No. 126286, March 22, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Zaldy P. Padilla, G.R. No. 126124, January 20, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio dela Paz, Jr., G.R. No. 118316, November 24, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonides Ranido, G.R. Nos. 116450-51, March 31, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Sabino Gementiza, G.R. No. 123151, January 29, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Erardo, G.R. No. 119368, August 18, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco dela Cruz, G.R. No. 105720, December 8, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Guerrero, G.R. No. 95031, March 23, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo T. Abendaño, G.R. Nos. 105536-37, March 21, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Moreno L. Tumimpad, G.R. No. 109144, August 19, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose S. Antonio, G.R. No. 107950, June 17, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Fredo Matamorosa , et al., G.R. Nos. 104996-98, March 28, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Martin Casao, G.R. No. 100913, March 23, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Race, Jr., G.R. No. 93143, August 4, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Cruz, G.R. No. 83811, May 5, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime C. Bacdad, G.R. Nos. 71719-20, May 8, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Restituto B. Bravo, G.R. No. 68422, December 29, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Hizon, G.R. No. 51449, December 20, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Esquillo, G.R. No. 71311, March 31, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Andres Bugtong, G.R. No. 75853, January 31, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Estrebella, G.R. No. 71464, August 4, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Asturias, G.R. No. 61126, January 31, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Burgos, G.R. No. L-40494, July 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Reino P. Roll, G.R. No. L-42963, July 20, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Winston P. Manlapaz, G.R. No. L-41819, February 28, 1979
— DILG M.C. 37-09, Support for Community-Based Program for Children with Disabilities (CWDs),
March 20, 2009
— DILG M.C. 11-06, February 15, 2006
— DOH A.O. 14-66
— DSWD A.O. 5-05, Guidelines in the Implementation of the Enriched Training Curriculum of
Vocational Rehabilitation Centers, February 2, 2005
— DSWD A.O. 85-03, December 15, 2003
Other Rights of Children
— C.A. 473, Sec. 16
— R.A. 386, Art. 741
— A.O. 370, December 10, 1997
— M.O. 335, January 26, 1996
— P.D. 603, Art. 3; Art. 9 & Arts. 13-16
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Pamor, G.R. No. 108599, October 7, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Nguyen Dinh Nhan, G.R. No. 93433, August 5, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Atento, G.R. No. 84728, April 26, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Anthony M. Belgar, G.R. No. 92155, March 11, 1991
— DILG M.C. 139-98
— DILG M.C. 280-97
— DILG M.C. 204-97
— DILG M.C. 147-97
— DILG M.C. 151-93
— DILG Opinion 81-97
Rights of the Unborn
— Act 3753, Sec. 5, par. 5
— R.A. 386, Arts. 40-41; Art. 742 & Art. 1025, par. 2
Right to Opinion
— B.P. 881, Sec. 26
— B.P. 697, Sec. 4
— R.A. 8425, Section 6, par. 3 (m)
— R.A. 7160, Secs. 423-428
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 213 & Art. 223
— P.D. 603, Art. 47 & Arts. 56-57
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 3, Section 5; Rule 130, Secs. 20-21 & Sec. 25
— A.M. No. 00-4-07-SC, November 21, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ceferino Guillermo, G.R. No. 113787, January 28, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Romulo Carullo, et al., G.R. No. 82351, April 24, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Abitona, G.R. Nos. 96943-45, January 20, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Tanduyan, G.R. No. 108784, September 13, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Alib, G.R. No. 100232, May 24, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Bormeo, G.R. No. 91734, March 30, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Magallanes, G.R. No. 89036, January 29, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. De Guzman, G.R. Nos. 102409-10, December 21, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Perez, G.R. No. 84362, July 7, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Gil Caccam, G.R. No. 80435, June 20, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Irenea, G.R. Nos. L-44410-11, August 5, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Generoso Jo, et al., G.R. No. L-69236, August 19, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Egot, G.R. No. L-35775, June 29, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Amoncio, G.R. No. L-49069, June 22, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Domen, G.R. Nos. L-47675-76, January 31, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Alvis Jr., G.R. No. L-46125, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Emiterio D. Pascual, Jr., G.R. No. L-53403, November 12, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Conchada, G.R. Nos. L-39367-69, February 28, 1979
— People of the Phil. vs. Nemesio Talingdan, et al., G.R. No. L-32126, July 6, 1978
— Martin Nery, et al. vs. Rosario Lorenzo, et al., G.R. No. L-23096, April 27, 1972
— Teodoro C. Santiago, Jr., et al. vs. Juanita Bautista, et al, G.R. No. L-25024, March 30, 1970
— People of the Phil. vs. Lorenzo Mana-Ay, et al., G.R. No. L-26192, July 31, 1968
— People of the Phil. vs. Jacinto Ricaplaza, G.R. No. L-25856, April 29, 1968
— People of the Phil. vs. Urbano Damaso, G.R. No. L-22553, November 24, 1966
— People of the Phil. vs. Doroteo Bollena, et al., G.R. No. L-13415, December 30, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Guzman, G.R. No. L-13340, April 30, 1960
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan Alambra, G.R. No. 33526, January 22, 1931
— United States vs. Ramon Buncad, G.R. No. 7638, October 14, 1913
— DILG M.C. 31-00
— DILG M.C. 231-99
— DILG M.C. 228-98
— DILG M.C. 213-98
— DILG M.C. 178-98
— DILG M.C. 35-94
— NCIP A.O. 1-98, June 9, 1998, Rule VI, Sec. 12
Freedom of Expression
— 1935 Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 1 (8)
— R.A. 7160, Secs. 423-438
— P.D. 603, Art. 47
Understanding Between Peoples, December 7, 1965, Principle V, par. 3
— Arreza vs. Gregorio Araneta University Foundation, G.R. No. L-62297, June 19, 1985
— CSC M.C. 24-97
— DILG M.C. 150-98
— DILG M.C. 172-97
— DILG M.C. 149-96
— DILG M.C. 125-95
Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion

— R.A. 8371, Sec. 33
— R.A. 386, Art. 32
— P.D. 603, Arts. 79-81 & Art. 131
— United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty, December 14,
1990, IV (G)
— Ebralinag, et al. vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu, G.R. No. 95770, March 1,
1993
Freedom of Association
— B.P. 337, Secs. 116-117 & Sec. 130
— R.A. 7160, Book III, Title I, Chap. VIII
— R.A. 8049
— P.D. 603, Art. 52; Art 89; Art. 90; Art. 94; Art. 99; Art. 100; Art. 101 & Art. 111
Understanding Between Peoples, December 7, 1965, Principle V
— Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7160, February 21, 1992, Arts. 202-204
— Lynette G. Garvida vs. Florencio G. Sales, et al., G.R. No. 124893, April 18, 1997
— Malabanan vs. Ramento, G.R. No. 62270, May 21, 1984
— DILG M.C. 49-00

— DILG M.C. 46-99
— DILG M.C. 99-98
Right to Privacy
— R.A. 7610, Sec. 29 & Sec. 30
— R.A. 4200
— R.A. 386, Art. 26
— P.D. 603, Art. 7; Art. 38 & Art. 200
— Rules and Regulations on the Reporting & Investigation of Child Abuse Cases pursuant to RA
7610, Sec. 20, Sec. 22 & Sec. 23
Right to Leisure, Recreation/Cultural Activities
— 1987 Constitution, Art. XIV, Secs. 14-15 & Sec. 19, pars. 1 & 2
— R.A. 8370
— E.O. 203, May 5, 2003
— P.D. 603, Art. 3 (7); Art. 50; Art. 53; Art. 85 (4); Art. 87 (6), (7) & (8); Art. 95 & Art. 103
Understanding Between Peoples, December 7, 1965, Principle IV
— Rules and Regulations Implementing RA 7160, February 21, 1992, Arts. 208-209
1990, IV (F)
— Carlos Balacuit, et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Agusan del Norte., et al., G.R. No. L-38429,
June 30, 1988
— CSC M.C. 24-97
— DILG M.C. 217-99
— DILG M.C. 147-99

— DILG M.C. 220-98
— DILG M.C. 284-97
— DILG M.C. 197-97
— DILG M.C. 211-94
Responsibilities of the Child
— R.A. 386, Art. 38; Art. 1327 (1); Art. 1389, par. 2; Art. 1390 (1); Art. 1391, last par.; Art. 1407;
Arts. 1426-1427 & Art. 1489, par. 2
— P.D. 603, Art. 4
— P.D. 2003
— Kabataan 2000
Understanding Between Peoples, December 7, 1965, Principle VI, par. 2
— DILG M.C. 48-00
— DILG M.C. 58-99
— DILG M.C. 67-97
— DILG M.C. 7-97
— DILG M.C. 251-96
— DILG M.C. 108-95
— DILG M.C. 132-94
— DILG M.C. 76-94
— DILG M.C. 172-93
— DILG M.C. 144-93
International Instruments
Rights of Children
— Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989
— Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict
— Statement of Geneva, September 26, 1924
Children and Armed Conflict
December 14, 1974
— Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in
Armed Conflict, December 17, 1999
Abuse and Maltreatment of Children
— Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation and Prostitution
of Others, December 2, 1949
— Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Sale of Children, Child
Prostitution and Child Pornography, December 17, 1999
— United Nations Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and
Institutions of Practices Similar to Slavery, Seprember 7, 1956
Adoption
— Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Adoption Nationally and
Internationally, December 3, 1986
Child Labor
— ILO Convention 77-46, October 9, 1946
— ILO Maritime Convention 58-39, April 11, 1939
— ILO Maritime Convention 16-22, November 20, 1922
— ILO Maritime Convention 7-21, September 27, 1921
— ILO Maritime Convention 138, No date supplied
— Forced Labour Convention, 1930
Juvenile Justice
— UN Guidelines for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, December 14, 1990
— UN Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of Their Liberty, December 14, 1990
— UN Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (Beijing Rules),
November 29, 1985
Women
Women and Development
General
— 1987 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 14 & Art. XIII, Sec. 11 & Sec. 14
— Act 4112, December 7, 1933
— R.A. 7192
— R.A. 386, Art. 39, par. 2
— E.O. 425, May 10, 2005
— E.O. 348, February 17, 1989
— M.O. 101, May 15, 2000
— LOI 974, January 5, 1980
— Proc. 622, April 29, 2004
— Proc. 227, March 17, 1988
— Gender-Responsive Governance At Work, 2004
— Guidelines for Developing and Implementing Gender-Responsive Projects and Programs,, No

date supplied
— More Alike Than Different, No date supplied
— NCRFW Memo. from the President (Implementation of R.A. 7192 or the Women in Development
and Nation-Building Act), March 15, 1994
— Transforming Women's Lives, June 2000
— Hatima C. Yasin vs. Shari'a District Court, G.R. No. 94986, February 23, 1995
— DILG Joint M.C. 1-13 (Guidelines on the Localization of the Magna Carta of Women), 2013
— DILG M.C. 42-08 (Regional Enhancement Training of the Local Councils of Women), March 18,
2008
— DILG M.C. 37-08 (Women to Women Mentoring or W2W/WoMentoring), March 12, 2008
— DILG M.C. 18-06, February 24, 2006

— DSWD A.O. No. 012-12 (Reconstitution of the Field Office GAD Technical Working Group (TWG)
as an Addendum to AO No. 15 "DSWD Guidelines on Gender and Development (GAD) Mainstreaming"),
August 24, 2012
— DSWD A.O. No. 005-12 (DSWD Guidelines on Gender and Development (GAD) Mainstreaming),
May 14, 2012
Public Participation
— 1987 Constitution, Art. VI, Sec. 5 (2)
— R.A. 7688
— R.A. 7192, Sec. 6
— R.A. 7160, Sec. 41 (c); Sec. 50 (b) (1); Sec. 446 (b); Sec. 457 (b) & Sec. 467 (b)
— A.O. 401, June 2, 1998
— A.O. 111, February 8, 1994, Sec. 1
— A.O. 82, September 14, 1993, Sec. 1
— A.O. 79, September 8, 1993, Sec. 1
— LOI 1066, September 18, 1980
— Proc. 1105, October 10, 1997
— Towards a Gender-Sensitive Community-Based Forest Management Program, No date supplied
— Republic of the Phil. vs. Azucena S. Batuigas, G.R. No. 183110, October 7, 2013
— Antonio J. Villegas vs. Abelardo Subido, G.R. No. L-27714, November 5, 1981
— DILG Memorandum Circular No. 105-12, Women Non-Government Organization (NGO)

Representation in the Local Development Council (LDC), June 6, 2012
— DILG Memorandum Circular No. 064-12, Regional Seminars on Women, Children and the
Millennium Development Goals, March 28, 2012
— DILG M.C. 1-05, January 4, 2005
— DILG M.C. 136-04, October 7, 2004
— DILG M.C. 167-02, October 10, 2002
— DILG M.C. 108-02, July 11, 2002
— DILG M.C. 46-02, April 1, 2002

— DILG M.C. 151-00, October 24, 2000
— DILG M.C. 58-98, March 23, 1998
— NCRFW Memorandum from the President (Women Nominees to the Commission on Human
Rights), October 10, 1994
— NCRFW Memorandum from the President (Designation as Additional NCRFW Champion to the
Cabinet), October 10, 1994
— NCRFW Memorandum from the President (Enhancement of Women's Participation in

Environmental Management and Ecology Programs and Projects of Government), March 7, 1994
— PCW Memorandum Circular No. 01-11, Guidelines for Creation, Strengthening and
Institutionalization of Gender and Development (GAD) Focal Point System, October 21, 2011
Politics and Government
— R.A. 7941
— R.A. 180
— A.O. 180, March 20, 1995
— E.O. 368, September 5, 1996
— P.D. 1910
— P.D. 1187, Sec. 23
— P.D. 1184, Sec. 16
— Convention on the Political Rights of Women, December 20, 1952
— Imelda Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995
— Quintos-Deles, et al. vs. Commission on Constitutional Commissions, et al., G.R. No. 83216,
September 4, 1989
— DILG M.C. 230-99
— ILO Convention on Women 2613, March 31, 1953
Economy and Employment
— M.O. 101, May 15, 2000
— Making Financing Projects Work for Women, October 29, 1998
— CSC M.C. 12-05, March 31, 2005

— CSC Res. 050433, March 30, 2005
— DILG M.C. 36-09, 2009 Womenomics Expo, March 20, 2009
— DILG M.C. 113-05, October 7, 2005
Discrimination
— R.A. 8551, Sec. 59
— R.A. 8438, Sec. 24
— R.A. 8371, Sec. 21 & Sec. 23
— R.A. 6766, Art. II, Sec. 23
— R.A. 6734, Art. XVI, Sec. 6
— R.A. 6725
— A.O. No. 370, December 10, 1997, 4th par.
— LOI 974, January 5, 1980
— P.D. 442, Art. 135
— P.D. 148
— Implementing Rules & Regulations of RA 8425 (AO 11-98), Rule II, Sec. 2 par. b
1979
— Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, November 7, 1967
— Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, December 20, 1993
— DOLE Rules Implementing RA 6725
— Guidelines for Developing and Implementing Gender-Responsive Projects and Programs, No

date supplied
— More Alike Than Different, No date supplied
— Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women,

October 6, 1999
— Towards a Gender-Sensitive Workplace, No date supplied
— Phil. Telegraph and Telephone Co. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 118978, May 23, 1997
— Imelda Romualdez-Marcos vs. Commission on Elections, et al., G.R. No. 119976, September 18,
1995
— Phil. Assn. of Service Exporters, Inc. vs. Franklin M. Drilon, et al., G.R. No. L-81958, June 30, 1988
— CSC M.C. 8-99
— CSC Res. 684-99
— DILG M.C. 45-98
— ILO Convention on Women 156, August 11, 1983
— ILO Recommendation on Women 165, June 23, 1981
Wages
— R.A. 679, Sec. 8
— P.D. 442, Art. 133
— Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Rule XII, Sec. 7
— Equal Remuneration Convention, 1951
— Victoria Ablaza vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al., G.R. No. L-33906, December 21, 1983
— ILO Convention on Women 100, May 23, 1953
Conditions of Employment
— R.A. 10361 (Domestic Workers Act or Batas Kasambahay), January 18, 2013
— R.A. 10151
— R.A. 8438, Sec. 24
— R.A. 8371, Sec. 21, Sec. 23 & Sec. 25
— R.A. 7192, Sec. 4
— R.A. 6766, Art. II, Sec. 23
— R.A. 6725
— R.A. 6237, Sec. 4
— R.A. 2714, Sec. 2 (b)
— R.A. 679, Sec. 7
— E.O. 292, July 25, 1987, Title VII, Chap. 4, Sec. 18
— E.O. 126, January 31, 1987, Sec. 5 (f)

— E.O. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (d)
— Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 10361, May 9, 2013
— LOI 1066, September 18, 1980
— P.D. 850, Sec. 11
— P.D. 442, Arts. 130-138
— P.D. 148
— Omnibus Rules Implementing The Labor Code, Rule XII, Secs. 4-10 & Secs. 13-14
— Rules and Regulations Implementing RA No. 7323, Rule VI, Sec. 2 (e)
— Women Workers Employment and Entrepreneurship Development, No date supplied
— A Primer on the Rights of Women and Young Workers
— Phil. Telegraph And Telephone Co. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 118978, May 23, 1997
— JMM Promotion & Management, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 120095, August 5,
1996
— Crispulo Garol vs. ECC, G.R. No. L-55233, November 29, 1988
— Lupo S. Cabajal vs. GSIS, G.R. No. L-46654, August 9, 1988
— Luciano Escosura, et al. vs. San Miguel Brewery, Inc., G.R. Nos. L-16696 and L-16702, January 31,
1962
— DOLE Department Order No. 119-12, Rules Implementing Republic Act No. 10151 (Employment
of Night Workers), January 20, 2012
— DOLE Department Order No. 112-A-12, May 22, 2012
— DOLE Advisory 4-10, November 25, 2010
— DOLE Order 5-92, Sec. 10
— ILO Convention on Women No. 149, July 11, 1979

— ILO Convention on Women No. 110, June 24, 1958
— ILO Convention on Women No. 41, November 22, 1936
— ILO Recommendation on Women No. 157, June 21, 1977
— NCIP A.O. 01-98, Rule V, Sec. 4 (a) (9)
— POEA M.C. 48-95, August 14, 1995
— MMDA Memorandum Circular No. 002-11, January 13, 2011
Social Security and Other Benefits
— C.A. 647
— R.A. 8291
— R.A. 8187, Secs. 2-3
— R.A. 1564
— P.D. 1906, Sec. 1
— P.D. 1855, Sec. 1
— P.D. 1636
— P.D. 1202
— Protect the Future: Maternity, Paternity and Work, 2010
— Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code dated, May 27, 1989, Rule XII, Secs. 7 & 9
— Rules of Pleading, Practice and Procedure of the Social Security Commission, July 17, 1990
— Study on Maternity/Paternity Leave Benefits, April 30, 1990
— The National Health Insurance Law and the Civil Service Code, No date supplied
— Ramon Corporal vs. Employees' Compensation Commission, et al., G.R. No. 86020, August 5,
1994
— Veronica B. Reyes vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 78997, August 31, 1989
— Shoemart, Inc., et al. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 74229, August 11, 1989
— Armando Locsin vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 34710, February 10, 1989
— Ireneo Francisco vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al., G.R. No. L-43696, April 22,
1977
— Valleson, Inc. vs. Bessie C. Tiburcio, G.R. No. L-18185, September 28, 1962
— Luciano Escosura, et al. vs. San Miguel Brewery, Inc., G.R. Nos. L-16696 and L-16702, January 31,
1962
— Phil. Education Co. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-5679, November 28, 1953
— CSC M.C. 15-99
— CSC M.C. 14-99

— DOLE Order No. 112-11, March 11, 2011
— DOLE Order 6-71
— HDMF Circular 104-92
— ILO Convention on Women No. 103, September 7, 1955, Art. 3
— ILO Convention on Women No. 110, June 24, 1958, Art. 47
— SSS Circular 103-T, No date supplied
— SSS Circular 15-V-92, April 28, 1992
— SSS Circular 22-V-95, July 21, 1995
Livelihood
— R.A. 8425
— R.A. 8289
— R.A. 7882
— R.A. 7394
— R.A. 1564
— Towards a Gender-Sensitive Community-Based Forest Management Program, No date supplied
— DILG M.C. 24-09, 2009 National Women's Month Celebration, February 25, 2009
— DILG M.C. 23-09, Go Negosyo: Babae, Yaman Ka ng Bayan! Women Entrepreneurship Summit,
February 25, 2009
— DILG M.C. 33-08, Workshops on Womenomics, March 10, 2008
— DILG M.C. 98-06
— NCRFW Memo. from the President, Enhancing Access of Small and Medium Scale Women
Entrepreneurs to Livelihood Programs, March 8, 1993
Migrant Workers
— R.A. 8042, Sec. 2 (b) & (d); Sec. 3 (b) & Sec. 34
— A.O. 370, December 10, 1997, 4th par.
— E.O. 231, March 20, 1995, Sec. 3

— M.O. 335, January 26, 1996, 2nd par.
of their Families, No date supplied
— Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act
of 1995, February 29, 1996
— Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act of 1995,
October 5, 1995
— DOLE Order 25-02, August 19, 2002
— DOLE Order 1-88, February 10, 1988
— POEA Governing Board Res. 3-01, May 18, 2001
— POEA Governing Board Res. 27-88, October 29, 1988
— POEA M.C. 48-95, August 14, 1995
Sexual Harassment in the Workplace
— R.A. 7877
— R.A. 8551, Sec. 57 & Sec. 59
— R.A. 8371, Sec. 23
— A.O. 250, June 21, 1995
— M.O. 376, June 6, 1996
— DOLE Rules and Regulations Governing Disposition of Cases on Sexual Harassment, March 25,
1992
— Labor Advisory, June 22, 1998
— Office of the Ombudsman A.O. 18-04, Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No.
7877
— Ernesto S. Caballero vs. Phil. Coast Guard Efficiency and Separation Board, et al., G.R. No.
174312, September 22, 2008
— Nace Sue P. Buan vs. Francisco T. Matugas, G.R. No. 161179, August 7, 2007
— Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Leo J. Palma, A.C. No. 2474, September 15, 2004
— Jocelyn T. Briones vs. Francisco A. Ante, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1411, April 11, 2002
— Susan M. Aquino vs. Ernesto D. Acosta, A.M. No. CTA-01-1, April 2, 2002
— Rico S. Jacutin vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 140604, March 6, 2002
— Phil. Aeolus Auto-Motive United Corp. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 124617, April 28, 2000
— Romulo G. Madredijo, et al. vs. Leandro T. Loyao, Jr, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1424, October 13, 1999
— Carlos G. Libres vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 123737, May 28, 1999
— Floride Dawa, et al. vs. Armando C. de Asa, A.M. Nos. MTJ-98-1144 & MTJ-98-1148, July 22,
1998
— Rolinda B. Pono vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 118860, July 17, 1997
— Delfin G. Villarama vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 106341, September 2, 1994
— CSC M.C. 30-95
— CSC M.C. 19-94
— DOLE A.O. 68-92
— NCIP Administrative Order No. 01-98, Rule V, Sec. 4 (a) (9) and Rule XI, Part I, Sec. 2 (e)
Land Ownership
— R.A. 7192, Sec. 5 (2)
— R.A. 6657, Chap. X, Sec. 40 (5)
— Honesto Alvarez, et al. vs. Pedro K. Espiritu, G.R. No. L-18833, August 14, 1965
— People Bank and Trust Co. vs. Register of Deeds for the City of Manila, G.R. No. 41278, May 5,
1934
— Allison D. Gibbs vs. Gov't. of the Phil. Islands, G.R. No. 35694, December 23, 1933
— Antonio Consunji vs. Maria D. Tison, G.R. No. 5504, January 24, 1910
— DAR A.O. 1-01, January 9, 2001
Violence Against Women
— Proc. 1172, November 17, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Conrado R. Laog, G.R. No. 178321, October 5, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Venancio A. Roxas, G.R. No. 172604, August 17, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo I. Pascual, G.R. No. 172326, January 19, 2009
— Genevieve C. Pobre vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 141805, July 8, 2005
— DILG Memorandum Circular No. 061-12, Guidelines on the Establishment and Management of a
Referral System on Violence Against Women at the LGU Level, March 28, 2012
— DILG M.C. 155-06, November 16, 2006
— DILG M.C. 155-04, November 11, 2004

— NCRFW Memo. from the President, Establishment of Women's Desk in Priority Areas, March 8,
1993
— Jesus C. Garcia vs. Ray Alan T. Drilon, et al., G.R. No. 179267, June 25, 2013
— Rustan P. Ang vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Michael A. Hipona, G.R. No. 185709, February 18, 2010
Domestic Violence
— Act 3815, Art. 83; Art. 255; Art. 256; Art. 258; Arts. 246-250; Art. 263-266; Art. 267 (4) & Art.
267, last par.
— R.A. 9262, Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004, March 8, 2004
— R.A. 8369, Sec. 5 (k) (1)
— R.A. 7659, Sec. 25
— The Economic Costs of Violence Against Women, No date supplied
— Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9262
— Rule on Violence against Women and their Children, October 19, 2004
— DSWD A.O. No. 014-12 (Guidelines on the Institutionalization of Gender Responsive Case
Management (GRCM) as a Practice Model in Handling Violence Against Women (VAW) Cases),
November 12, 2012
— Karlo Angelo Dabalos vs. RTC, Branch 59, Angeles City (Pampanga), et al., G.R. No. 193960,
January 7, 2013
— Heirs of Jane Honrales vs. Jonathan Honrales, G.R. Nos. 182651 & 182657, August 25, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Porferio R. Angus, Jr., G.R. No. 178778, August 3, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio V. Calonge, G.R. No. 182793, July 5, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Renato Español, G.R. No. 175603, February 13, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Luis Antonio Garchitorena, G.R. No. 184172, May 8, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo M. Papa, G.R. No. 184182, October 17, 2008
— Sharica Mari L. Go-Tan vs. Sps. Perfecto and Juanita Tan, G.R. No. 168852, September 30, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Paycana, Jr., G.R. No. 179035, April 16, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnel Alcalde, G.R. Nos. 139225-28, May 29, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Robiños, G.R. No. 138453, May 29, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Arcillas, G.R. No. 126817, December 27, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Seranilla, G.R. Nos. 113022-24, December 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Samontañez , G.R. No. 134530, December 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Tuangco, G.R. No. 130331, November 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Lopez, G.R. No. 136861, November 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Roldan Bohol, G.R. No. 130587, July 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Pacito Ordoño, et al., G.R. No. 132154, June 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Madarang, G.R. No. 132319, May 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Lacanieta, et al., G.R. No. 124299, April 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Nestor O. Juachon, G.R. No. 111630, December 6, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Jeronico M. Lobino, G.R. No. 123071, October 28, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Suelto Y Cordeta, G.R. No. 103515, October 7, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Godofredo Tahop, G.R. No. 125330, September 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Hermie Bantilan, G.R. No. 129286, September 14, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rene Tapales, G.R. No. 125808, September 3, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando R. Cayago, G.R. No. 128827, August 18, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Basin Javier, G.R. No. 130654, July 28, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Mangat, G.R. No. 131618, July 6, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Nepomuceno, G.R. No. 130800, June 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo R. Muleta, G.R. No. 130189, June 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo K. Joyno, G.R. No. 123982, March 15, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio L. Sanchez, et al., G.R. Nos. 121039-45, January 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Octavio Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 109279-80, January 18, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Randy Mantes, et al., G.R. Nos. 117166-67, December 3, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Nepomuceno, Jr., G.R. No. 127818, November 11, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Marilyn Rafael Villamar, G.R. No. 121175, November 4, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Benedicto Ramos, G.R. No. 118570, October 12, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Ponciano Rivera, G.R. No. 117471, September 3, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Samuel Borce, G.R. No. 124131, April 22, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Celerino Castromero, G.R. No. 118992, October 9, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Jurry Andal, et al., G.R. No. 124933, September 25, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Talisic, G.R. No. 97961, September 5, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo P. de la Cruz, G.R. No. 116726, July 28, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Christopher Espanola, et al., G.R. No. 119308, April 18, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Fidel Lagao, Jr., G.R. No. 118457, April 8, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Rosaria V. Ignacio, G.R. No. 107801, March 26, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Andan, G.R. No. 116437, March 3, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro V. Malabago, G.R. No. 115686, December 2, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Ronald de Vera, G.R. No. 113116, October 30, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Alcartado, G.R. No. 119070, August 30, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Fe C. Arcilla, G.R. No. 116237, May 15, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Mendoza, G.R. No. 113791, February 22, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Rey M. Deniega, et al., G.R. No. 103499, December 29, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Claudio Teehankee, Jr., G.R. Nos. 111206-08, October 6, 1995
— Hubert J. P. Webb vs. Raul E. de Leon, G.R. No. 121234, August 23, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Zaldy A. Cristobal, G.R. No. 100912, July 6, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Dolores C. Lorenzo, G.R. No. 110107, January 26, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Domiciano Peralta, G.R. No. 94570, September 28, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Aurelio D. Cabalhin, G.R. No. 100204, March 28, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Emmanuel Desalisa, G.R. No. 95262, January 4, 1994
— Antonio L. Sanchez vs. Harriet O. Demetriou, et al., G.R. Nos. 111771-77, November 9, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Henry S. Alvarez, et al., G.R. No. 103464, September 23, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Ariel S. Catanyag, G.R. No. 103974, September 10, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie D. Cortes, et al., G.R. No. 105010, September 3, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Primo Peligro, et al., G.R. No. 103233, August 3, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos de la Cruz, G.R. Nos. 91865-66 & 92439-40, July 6, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Takbobo, G.R. No. 102984, June 30, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Gelaver, G.R. No. 95357, June 9, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario S. Libungan, G.R. No. 102351, March 22, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Luz Carpio vda. de Quijano, et al., G.R. No. 102045, March 17, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Pacalso K. Mat-An, G.R. No. 91115, December 29, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Teotimo Danao, G.R. No. 96832, November 19, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Baltazar Estraña, Jr., G.R. No. 104906, October 27, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernandito S. Sicat, G.R. No. 89278, September 4, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo Almenario, G.R. No. 91491, August 12, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime C. Caranzo, G.R. No. 76743, May 22, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro C. Carcedo, G.R. No. 48085, June 26, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Flores, G.R. No. 71980, March 18, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Julio Tenebro, G.R. Nos. 87760-61, November 12, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Virginia G. Matos-Viduya, G.R. No. 60025, September 11, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Anthony P. Kidagan, et al., G.R. Nos. 88753-54, August 20, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Valentin Salangoste, G.R. No. 39447, August 8, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Gabriel Dawandawan, G.R. No. 87203, April 6, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Biago, G.R. No. L-54411, February 21, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio O. Gonzales, Jr., G.R. No. L-44409, February 21, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Yagong, G.R. No. 77088, January 29, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Candido Robante, et al., G.R. No. 69307, October 16, 1989
— Gregorio Genobiagon vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 40452, October 12, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Gole Cruz, G.R. No. 69251, September 13, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Pantaleon Berbal, et al., G.R. No. 71527, August 10, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Teofista Bragat vda. de Cabangahan, G.R. No. 70037, July 7, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Sixto S. Bayocot, G.R. No. 55285, June 28, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Bertito Trigo, G.R. No. 74515, June 14, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Anicio Masongsong, G.R. No. 63609, June 6, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Cristoto Lapaz, et al., G.R. No. 68898, March 31, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Nuepe M. Wagas, G.R. No. 61704, March 8, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Adriano Malmis, et al., G.R. No. L-56464, November 7, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Domingo, et al., G.R. No. L-68993, September 26, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Mauricio Nolasco, G.R. No. L-55483, July 28, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Albior, et al., G.R. No. L-75034, June 30, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Macario A. Ulep, G.R. No. L-36858, June 20, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Guarnes, G.R. No. L-65175, April 15, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Remy Diño, G.R. No. L-41462, April 15, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnulfo Aquino, et al., G.R. No. L-49808, February 26, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Benigno D. Pineda, et al., G.R. No. L-72400, January 15, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogaciano Taduyo, G.R. No. L-37928-29, September 29, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Rosa D. Dimacali, G.R. No. L-68036, August 31, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Miguel Lasac, G.R. No. L-64508, March 19, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Rojas, et al., G.R. Nos. L-46960-62, January 8, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Cristina E. Magallanes, G.R. No. L-63936, January 7, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Eugenia Abano, et al., G.R. Nos. L-57184-85, November 14, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo M. Aguirre, G.R. No. 70742, August 19, 1986
— Pacifico de Sagun vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. L-53196, July 31, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Ambrocio S. Bautista, G.R. No. L-48606, July 11, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Lucio Lumayok, G.R. No. L-54016, October 1, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio O. Naz, G.R. No. L-56355, September 5, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Pacito Sto. Tomas, G.R. Nos. L-40367-69, August 22, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime A. Tomotorgo, G.R. No. L-47941, April 30, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Elias Borromeo, G.R. No. 61873, October 31, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Sukarno K. Mawallil, G.R. No. 63154, June 19, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnel Damo, G.R. No. 60370, April 17, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo D. Pamintuan, G.R. No. L-39563, February 29, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Milagros Calma Mabansag, et al., G.R. No. L-46293, January 30, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Alexander M. de la Fuente, G.R. Nos. L-63251-52, December 29, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Purificacion Plata-Luzon, G.R. No. L-35016, August 12, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Efreniano Balane, G.R. No. L-48319, July 25, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Verdad, G.R. No. L-51797, May 16, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Cristuto Ursal, G.R. No. L-33768, April 20, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Narciso Villaver, G.R. No. L-32104, March 25, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Clemente Ganado, G.R. No. L-37935, August 31, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo M. Umali, G.R. No. L-35705, August 21, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Vizcarra, G.R. No. L-38859, July 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo D. Arroyo, G.R. Nos. L-35584-85, February 13, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Rufo Patinga, et al., G.R. No. L-37912, January 18, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Sofronio Amoto, G.R. No. L-28273, January 18, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Severino Duero, G.R. No. L-52016, May 13, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Gajetas, G.R. No. L-38325, February 24, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Gomez Saligan, G.R. No. L-39712, November 21, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Andres Magallano, G.R. No. L-32978, October 30, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Honorato Ambal, G.R. No. L-52688, October 17, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Airol M. Aling, G.R. No. L-38833, March 12, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Agripino Carzano, et al. G.R. No. L-29571, January 22, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio B. Galapia, G.R. Nos. L-39303-05, August 1, 1978
— People of the Phil. vs. Nemesio Talingdan, et al. G.R. No. L-32126, July 6, 1978
— People of the Phil. vs. William Page, G.R. No. L-37507, June 7, 1977
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Omega, G.R. No. L-29091, April 14, 1977
— People of the Phil. vs. Cosme Monleon, G.R. No. L-36282, December 10, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Nona Salazar Padiernos, G.R. No. L-37284, February 27, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Cunigunda Boholst-Caballero, G.R. No. L-23249, November 25, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Arsenio Baluarte, et al., G.R. Nos. L-31180-81, October 30, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Alviar Y. Tuazon, G.R. No. L-32276, September 12, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruperto Aquino, G.R. No. L-27184, May 21, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Basuel, G.R. No. L-28215, October 13, 1972
— People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Corpin, G.R. No. L-28356, January 30, 1970
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Agdeppa, et al., G.R. No. L-17489, December 24, 1969
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe C. Fastidio, G.R. No. L-25534, November 22, 1969
— People of the Phil. vs. Dolores Britos Aglibut, G.R. No. L-23694, October 30, 1969
— People of the Phil. vs. Odoncio Tarrayo, et al., G.R. No. L-26489, April 21, 1969
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe T. Villas, G.R. No. L-20953, April 21, 1969
— People of the Phil. vs. Monico Reyes, G.R. No. L-21445, May 30, 1967
— People of the Phil. vs. Urbano Damaso, G.R. No. L-22553, November 24, 1966
— People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Bello, G.R. No. L-18792, February 28, 1964
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Gongora, et al., G.R. Nos. L-14030-31, July 31, 1963
— People of the Phil. vs. Josefina N. Samson, G.R. No. L-14110, March 29, 1963
— People of the Phil. vs. Catalino Orteza, G.R. No. L-16033, September 29, 1962
— People of the Phil. vs. Doroteo Bollena, et al., G.R. No. L-13415, December 30, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Sixto Arioja, et al., G.R. No. L-14863, May 31, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernardo Z. Obaldo, G.R. No. L-13976, April 29, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Estanislao Mangahas, G.R. No. L-13982, January 28, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Yu, G.R. No. L-13780, January 28, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Gallardo, G.R. No. L-12080, January 28, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Rosario Lao, et al., G.R. No. L-10473, January 28, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Remigio Cruz, G.R. Nos. L-13219-20, August 31, 1960
— People of the Phil. vs. Climaco Demiar, G.R. No. L-15130, May 31, 1960
— People of the Phil. vs. Rufelino Zapata, G.R. No. L-11074, February 27, 1960
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Salazar, G.R. No. L-11601, June 30, 1959
— People of the Phil. vs. Ester del Rosario Murray, G.R. No. L-4467, April 30, 1959
— People of the Phil. vs. Carmen Licop, G.R. No. L-6061, April 29, 1954
— People of the Phil. vs. Moro Sabilul, G.R. No. L-5520, July 31, 1953
— People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Beleno, G.R. Nos. L-5853-54, March 27, 1953
— People of the Phil. vs. Benito Ramos, G.R. No. L-3989, July 30, 1952
— People of the Phil. vs. Paulino Belarmino, G.R. No. L-4429, April 18, 1952
— People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Jaula, G.R. No. L-3835, November 15, 1951
— People of the Phil. vs. Araceli de Castro, G.R. No. L-3950, August 30, 1951
— People of the Phil. vs. Aniceto Martin, G.R. No. L-3002, May 23, 1951
— People of the Phil. vs. Emiliana Go, et al., G.R. No. L-1527, February 27, 1951
— People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo Formigones, G.R. No. L-3246, November 29, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Teopista Canja, G.R. No. L-2800, May 30, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Gabriel Gaspar, G.R. No. L-2798, May 19, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Otadora, et al., G.R. No. L-2154, April 26, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Fausto Lacaya, G.R. No. L-2438, April 17, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan de los Santos, G.R. No. L-2405, March 31, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Fructuoso Rabandaban, G.R. No. L-2228, February 28, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Y. Carillo, et al., G.R. No. L-2043, February 28, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan Francisco, G.R. No. L-568, July 16, 1947
— People of the Phil. vs. Nicolas Jaurigue, et al., A.M. No. 384, February 21, 1946
— People of the Phil. vs. Pilus Subano, G.R. No. 48143, September 30, 1942
— People of the Phil. vs. Paciano Cruz, G.R. No. 47795, August 24, 1942
— People of the Phil. vs. Ponciano Tarok, G.R. No. 47453, October 9, 1941
— People of the Phil. vs. Martina Orpiano, G.R. No. 47423, November 14, 1940
— People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Gonzales, G.R. No. L-46310, October 31, 1939
— People of the Phil. vs. Catalino Rabao, G.R. No. 46530, April 10, 1939
— People of the Phil. vs. Remedios de la Cruz, G.R. No. 41674, March 30, 1935
— People of the Phil. vs. Luis Mandia, G.R. No. 41313, August 24, 1934
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Corazon de Cortez, G.R. No. 39461, February 24, 1934
— People of the Phil. vs. Elena Matondo, et al., G.R. No. 36833, October 11, 1933
— People of the Phil. vs. Potenciano Taneo, G.R. No. 37673, March 31, 1933
— People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Embalido, G.R. No. 37379, March 18, 1933
— People of the Phil. vs. Remedios Avelino de Linao, G.R. No. 37765, March 14, 1933
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Rosil, G.R. No. 35867, March 31, 1932
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan N. Gimena, G.R. No. 33877, February 6, 1931
— People of the Phil. vs. Guardiano Marquez, G.R. No. 31268, July 31, 1929
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan Alanguilang, G.R. No. 30125, January 21, 1929
— People of the Phil. vs. Praxedes Ayaya, G.R. No. 29396, November 9, 1928
— People of the Phil. vs. Moro Quinta, G.R. Nos. 29373-29376, August 4, 1928
— People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Villanueva, G.R. No. 28201, February 8, 1928
— People of the Phil. vs. Gregoria Bingaan, G.R. No. 24937, March 20, 1926
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Antonia Patricio, G.R. No. L-20651, October 25, 1923
— People of the Phil. vs. Blas Solindayao, G.R. No. 19921, July 30, 1923
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Engracia Capacia, G.R. No. 18240, March 18, 1922
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Cipriana Bucsit, et al., G.R. No. L-17865, March 15, 1922
— United States vs. Alejandro Agatea, G.R. No. 15177, December 18, 1919
— United States vs. Catalino Merced, G.R. No. 14170, November 23, 1918
— United States vs. Victor Ortencio, G.R. No. 13427, July 15, 1918
— United States vs. Moro Jamad, G.R. No. L-12678, December 15, 1917
— United States vs. Bonifacia Salamat, G.R. No. 12701, September 6, 1917
— United States vs. Pedro Verzola, G.R. No. 10759, January 25, 1916
— United States vs. Felix Lustrada, G.R. No. 9511, March 25, 1915
— United States vs. Tubban, G.R. No. 9577, February 10, 1915
— United States vs. Jose Guevara, G.R. No. 9265, August 22, 1914
— United States vs. Evaristo Vaquilar, G.R. Nos. 9471 & 9472, March 13, 1914
— United States vs. Adriana de los Santos, G.R. No. 6947, February 15, 1913
— United States vs. Genoveva Apego, G.R. No. 7929, November 8, 1912
— United States vs. Hilario de la Cruz, G.R. No. 7094, March 29, 1912
— United States vs. Juliana Brioso, G.R. No. L-6177, March 11, 1911
— United States vs. Jose Consuelo, G.R. No. 5190, July 28, 1909
— United States vs. Chester A. Davis, G.R. No. 4340, August 15, 1908
— United States vs. Lorenzo Idon, G.R. No. 4519, August 7, 1908
— United States vs. Pablo Guevara, G.R. No. L-4153, January 25, 1908
— United States vs. Domingo Baltazar, G.R. No. L-3669, September 24, 1907
— United States vs. Candido Ulat, G.R. No. L-3255, February 27, 1907
— United States vs. Anastasio Redion, G.R. No. 1998, April 29, 1905
— United States vs. Fortunato Odicta, G.R. No. 1749, March 21, 1905
— United States vs. Pedro Bailon, G.R. No. 2246, January 12, 1905
— United States vs. Regino Ayao, et al., G.R. No. 1290, January 5, 1905
— United States vs. Leon de la Torre, G.R. No. 1655, March 29, 1904
— United States vs. Juan Melchor, G.R. No. 1201, October 19, 1903
— United States vs. Mamerto Vargas, et al., G.R. No. 1053, May 7, 1903
— United States vs. Guillermo Villanueva, G.R. No. 1017, March 21, 1903
— United States vs. Eugenio Barbosa, G.R. No. 980, February 20, 1903
— NCRFW Memorandum (Call to Action Against Domestic Violence), February 5, 1997
— OWWA Memorandum of Instructions No. 7-95
— POEA Governing Board Res. 1-88
Rape
— Act 3815, RPC, Art. 123 (3); Art. 335 & Arts. 344-345
— B.P. 697, Sec. 67, par. (2)
— B.P. 881, Sec. 266, par. (2)
— R.A. 8505
— R.A. 8353
— R.A. 8049, Sec. 4 (a)
— R.A. 7659, Sec. 3, Sec. 9 & Sec. 11
— R.A. 7309, Sec. 3 (d)
— R.A. 6235, Sec. 2 (3)
— R.A. 4111
— R.A. 2632
— R.A. 516, Sec. 12
— R.A. 386, Art. 283 (1) & Art. 2219 (3)
— R.A. 242, Sec. 29
— R.A. 18, Sec. 6, 2nd par.
— P.D. 767
— P.D. 532, Sec. 3

— Rules of Court, January 1, 1964, Rule 110, Sec. 4, 3rd par.
— Revised Rules of Court, Rule 110, Sec. 5, 3rd par.
— SDC Res. 1-02, Approving The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of Republic Act (RA)
8505, Providing Assistance and Protection for Rape Victims, Establishing for the Purpose, A Rape Crisis
Center in Every Province and City, February 7, 2000
— S.C.A.C. 6-A-92
— S.C.A.C. 6-92
— People v. Jastiva, G.R. No. 199268, February 12, 2014
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Velasco, G.R. No. 190318, November 27, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Natalio L. Hilarion, G.R. No. 201105, November 25, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Jonas A. Guillen, G.R. No. 191756, November 25, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo M. Vidaña, G.R. No. 199210, October 23, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Galagar, Jr., G.R. No. 202842, October 9, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Michael C. Espera, G.R. No. 202868, October 2, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy P. Cedenio, G.R. No. 201103, September 25, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Joey Bacatan, G.R. No. 203315, September 18, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Ryan G. Frias, G.R. No. 203068, September 18, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Marvin Cayanan, G.R. No. 200080, September 18, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Christopher R. Rivera, G.R. No. 200508, September 4, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Jojie Suansing, G.R. No. 189822, August 28, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Ninoy E. Rosales, G.R. No. 197537, July 24, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Marvin Cruz, G.R. No. 201728, July 17, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Candellada, G.R. No. 189293, July 10, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernesto de la Cruz, G.R. No. 183091, June 19, 2013
— Iris Kristine Balois Alberto, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 182130, June 19, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Abel Diaz, G.R. No. 200882, June 13, 2013
— Christian Caballo vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 198732, June 10, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Moises Caoile, G.R. No. 203041, June 5, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo A. Bustamante, G.R. No. 189836, June 5, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Guillermo Lomaque, G.R. No. 189297, June 5, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto B. Deligero, G.R. No. 189280, April 17, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Edmundo Vitero, G.R. No. 175327, April 3, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert F. Penilla, G.R. No. 189324, March 20, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Jonathan R. Veloso, G.R. No. 188849, February 13, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio A. Basallo, G.R. No. 182457, January 30, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Cabungan, G.R. No. 189355, January 23, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Radby M. Estoya, G.R. No. 200531, December 5, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Abrencillo, G.R. No. 183100, November 28, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Neil B. Colorado, G.R. No. 200792, November 14, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. William Mangune, G.R. No. 186463, November 14, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Enerio O. Ending, G.R. No. 183827, November 12, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Noel T. Laurino, G.R. No. 199264, October 24, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Val delos Reyes, G.R. No. 177357, October 17, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonino Venturina, G.R. No. 183097, September 12, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Banig, G.R. No. 177137, August 23, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Balquedra, G.R. No. 191192, August 22, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Alsher L. Bermejo, G.R. No. 195307, August 6, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Henry Arcillas, G.R. No. 181491, July 30, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo D. Bosi, G.R. No. 193665, June 25, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcial B. Bayrante, G.R. No. 188978, June 13, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Nelson S. Bayot, G.R. No. 200030, April 18, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Delabajan, G.R. No. 192180, March 21, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Erland B. Sabadlab, G.R. No. 175924, March 14, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Ben A. Rubio, G.R. No. 195239, March 7, 2012
— Arnel E. Sison vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 187229, February 22, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Paterno S. Samandre, G.R. No. 181497, February 22, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Diosdado V. Tubat, G.R. No. 183093, February 1, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Jojo T. Dela Paz, G.R. No. 182412, November 28, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Charlie Butiong, G.R. No. 168932, October 19, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo Perez, G.R. No. 191265, September 14, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Joselito B. Orje, G.R. No. 189579, September 12, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejo T. Taroy, G.R. No. 192466, September 7, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Evangelio, G.R. No. 181902, August 31, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Terencio L. Funesto, G.R. No. 182237, August 3, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Mirandilla, Jr., G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano "Saysot" Cias, G.R. No. 194379, June 1, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo A. Olesco, G.R. No. 174861, April 11, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Luisito A. Lalican, G.R. No. 191389, March 7, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Jenny T. Tumambing, G.R. No. 191261, March 2, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico Lucero, G.R. No. 188705, March 2, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert A. Castro, G.R. No. 188901, December 15, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricky N. Alfredo, G.R. No. 188560, December 15, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Rene Celocelo, G.R. No. 173798, December 15, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Romy Atadero, G.R. No. 183455, October 20, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto C. Narzabal, Jr., G.R. No. 174066, October 12, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Juanito A. Cabigquez, G.R. No. 185708, September 29, 2010
— Jaren C. Tibong vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 191000, September 15, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Efren Castillo, G.R. No. 186533, August 9, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Rommel Belo, G.R. No. 187075, July 5, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Lito E. Macapanas, G.R. No. 187049, May 4, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Ronie de Guzman, G.R. No. 185843, March 3, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Christopher de Jesus, G.R. No. 181591, January 21, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Barsaga Abella, G.R. No. 177295, January 6, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Pili, G.R. No. 181255, October 16, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Paul Alipio, G.R. No. 185285, October 2, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Elegio An, G.R. No. 169870, August 4, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Paul Alipio, G.R. No. 185285, October 5, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Yoon Chang Wook, G.R. No. 178199, October 5, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Leodegario A. Bascugin, G.R. No. 184704, June 30, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Jessie C. Malate, G.R. No. 185724, June 5, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Joven Jumawid, G.R. No. 184756, June 5, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Illustre Llagas, G.R. No. 178873, April 24, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Nogpo, Jr., G.R. No. 184791, April 16, 2009
— People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert T. Mallari, G.R. No. 179051, March 28, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Salvador C. Nieto, G.R. No. 177756, March 3, 2008
— People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Tabio, G.R. No. 179477, February 6, 2008
— Office of the Court Administrator vs. Zenaida L. Galvez, et al., A.M. No. MTJ-03-1472, October
17, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Soriano, G.R. No. 172373, September 25, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Randy D. Alabado, G.R. No. 176267, September 3, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo J. Hapin, G.R. No. 175782, August 24, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Daniel B. Perez, G.R. No. 172875, August 15, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Harold Wally Cabierte, G.R. No. 170477, August 7, 2007
— Ernesto Garces vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 173858, July 17, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Joven Ocampo, et al., G.R. No. 171731, August 11, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Suyu, et al., G.R. No. 170191, August 16, 2006
— Renato Baleros, Jr. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 138033, February 22, 2006
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Juan Larrañaga, et al., G.R. Nos. 138874-75, July 21, 2005
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Macapal, Jr., G.R. No. 155335, July 14, 2005
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Cabalse, G.R. No. 146274, August 17, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Sonido, G.R. No. 148815, July 7, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Rey B. Apatay, G.R. No. 147965, July 7, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Sonny L. Bautista, G.R. No. 140278, June 3, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Orlando Limio, G.R. Nos. 148804-06, May 27, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Emiliano Capareda, G.R. No. 128363, May 27, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Bascugin, G.R. No. 144195, May 25, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Sabardan, G.R. No. 132135, May 21, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Florencio Cadampog, G.R. No. 148144, April 30, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Avelino Relox, G.R. No. 149395, April 28, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Alvin Caparas, G.R. No. 134633, April 14, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Golimlim, G.R. No. 145225, April 2, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Ronie Gabelinio, G.R. Nos. 132127-29, March 31, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Godofredo Acero, G.R. Nos. 146690-91, March 17, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Jeanbo Muros, G.R. No. 142511, February 16, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Manambay, G.R. No. 130684, February 5, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Oliver Arevalo Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. 150542-87, February 3, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Juan Larrañaga, et al., G.R. Nos. 138874-75, February 3, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Balatazo, G.R. No. 118027, January 29, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruben Lumibao, et al., G.R. Nos. 144080-81, January 26, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Nuguid, G.R. No. 148991, January 21, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Elpedio Torres, G.R. No. 134766, January 16, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Ilao, G.R. Nos. 152683-84, December 11, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Caraang, G.R. Nos. 148424-27, December 11, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Dizon, G.R. No. 144053, December 11, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Crispin Payopay, G.R. No. 141140, December 10, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Andres Masapol, G.R. No. 121997, December 10, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgar P. Molleda, G.R. No. 153219, December 1, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Joselito T. Pascua, G.R. No. 151858, November 27, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Mole, G.R. No. 137366, November 27, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Darwin David, G.R. Nos. 121731-33, November 12, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Dagami, G.R. No. 136397, November 11, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Joel Ayuda, G.R. No. 128882, October 2, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Basite, G.R. No. 150382, October 2, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Zoilo Magallanes, G.R. No. 136299, August 29, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Baroy, et al., G.R. Nos. 137520-22, August 15, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Roel C. Mendigurin, G.R. No. 127128, August 15, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Roger B. Federico, G.R. No. 146956, July 25, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Ramirez, G.R. No. 149531, July 22, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo M. Fabian, G.R. Nos. 148368-70, July 8, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio B. Guihama, G.R. No. 126113, June 25, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricky L. Sodsod, et al., G.R. Nos. 141280-81, June 16, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Zaldy P. Labiano, G.R. No. 145338, June 9, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Roger Eliarda, G.R. Nos. 148394-96, April 30, 2003
— Dario P. Belonghilot vs. RTC of Zamboanga del Norte, G.R. Nos. 128512 & 128963, April 30, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Grefaldia, G.R. No. 121637, April 30, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Roneto Degamo, G.R. No. 121211, April 30, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Dante Clidoro, et al., G.R. No. 143004, April 9, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Lawrence Macapanpan, et al., G.R. No. 133003, April 9, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Ferdinand Francisco, G.R. No. 141631, April 4, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Joel Janson, et al., G.R. No. 125938, April 4, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Bacaling, G.R. Nos. 133994-95, March 14, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno Avergonzado, G.R. No. 127152, February 12, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Sorongon, G.R. No. 142416, February 11, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo F. Paradeza, G.R. No. 144590, February 7, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Lawrence Macapanpan, G.R. No. 133003, February 3, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Esperida, G.R. Nos. 139637-38, January 22, 2003
— Virgilio Santos vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 147615, January 20, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor T. Taperla, G.R. No. 142860, January 16, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Moralde, G.R. No. 131860, January 16, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Bryan Ferdinand Dy, et al., G.R. Nos. 115236-37, January 16, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Cenon C. Pagsanjan, G.R. No. 139694, December 27, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Donel Go and Val de los Reyes, G.R. Nos. 130714 and 139634, December
27, 2002
— Joan M. Flores vs. Francisco C. Joven, et al., G.R. No. 129874, December 27, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rico B. Bagaua, G.R. No. 147943, December 12, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Cosme L. Pastorete, G.R. No. 133827, November 27, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio C. Durohom, G.R. No. 146276, November 21, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Renato C. Bacus, G.R. No. 140216, November 18, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro D. Divina, G.R. No. 146423, November 12, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Ventura A. Peligro, G.R. No. 148899, October 28, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Joel M. Orquina, G.R. No. 143383, October 8, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Teddy Anggit, et al., G.R. No. 133582, September 27, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Verceles, et al., G.R. No. 130650, September 10, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Biane Bontuan, G.R. Nos. 142993-94, September 5, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Allan Castro, G.R. Nos. 146297-304, August 22, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto O. Nicolas, G.R. No. 135877, August 22, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Dumanlang, G.R. Nos. 132393-94, August 7, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo B. Magtibay, G.R. No. 142985, August 6, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose B. Canicula, G.R. No. 131807, August 6, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Nelson Tamayo, G.R. No. 137586, July 30, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Godofredo L. Tizon, Jr., et al., G.R. Nos. 133228-31, July 30, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Jolito Oranza, G.R. No. 127748, July 25, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico Orbita, G.R. No. 136591, July 11, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rene Almanzor, G.R. No. 124916, July 11, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Boy Domingo, G.R. No. 143660, June 5, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Norman Palarca, G.R. No. 146020, May 29, 2002
— Adelmo Perez vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 143838, May 9, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Daramay Jr., G.R. Nos. 140235 & 142748, May 9, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Baroy, et al., G.R. Nos. 137520-22, May 9, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor Ugang, G.R. No. 144036, May 7, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Hector Baldosa, G.R. No. 138614, May 7, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Pagurayan, Jr., G.R. No. 143658, April 17, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Arman Arofo, et al., G.R. No. 139433, April 11, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Ponciano Baluya, G.R. No. 133005, April 11, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Obquia, G.R. No. 143716, April 5, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Cristobal, G.R. No. 144161, March 12, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Jemreich Matignas, et al., G.R. No. 126146, March 12, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Jeffrey Garcia, et al., G.R. No. 141125, February 28, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Dennis Edem, G.R. No. 130970, February 27, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Tito Lavador, G.R. Nos. 139112-13, February 20, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Bryan Ferdinand Dy, et al., G.R. Nos. 115236-37, January 29, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Pepito Flores, G.R. Nos. 134488-89, January 25, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio R. Moreno, G.R. No. 140033, January 25, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Atilano Gilbero, G.R. No. 142005, January 23, 2002
— Donato Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 127703, January 18, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Anthony Escordial, G.R. Nos. 138934-35, January 16, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Josue dela Torre, G.R. No. 98431, January 15, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Lope B. Liwanag, et al., G.R. No. 120468, August 15, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Gener B. Agoncillo, G.R. No. 138983, May 23, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Felixberto Aballe, G.R. No. 133997, May 17, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Decoroso Aca-Ac, G.R. No. 142500, April 20, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Legaspi, G.R. Nos. 136164-65, April 20, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Domended, G.R. No. 137564, March 30, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Efren Valez, G.R. No. 136738, March 12, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Magabo, G.R. No. 139471, January 23, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruel Baway, G.R. No. 130406, January 22, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Belga, G.R. No. 129769, January 19, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Adriano Seguis, et al., G.R. No. 135034, January 18, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Emiliano Duranan, G.R. No. 134074-75, January 16, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Arcillas , G.R. No. 126817, December 27, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Bisco, G.R. Nos. 136138-40, December 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Boras, G.R. No. 127495, December 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Pajo, G.R. No. 135109, December 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Sandoval, G.R. Nos. 132625-31, December 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Dumanon, G.R. No. 123096, December 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Seranilla, G.R. Nos. 113022-24, December 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Bantayan, G.R. No. 137693, December 14, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Pecayo, Sr., G.R. No. 132047, December 14, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Marquez, G.R. Nos. 137408-10, December 8, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Paburada, G.R. No. 137118, December 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Dagpin, G.R. No. 136254, December 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Samontañez , G.R. No. 134530, December 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Navida, G.R. Nos. 132239-40, December 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Bumidang, G.R. No. 130630, December 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Diopita, G.R. No. 130601, December 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Alacura, G.R. No. 129365, December 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Salazar, G.R. No. 122479, December 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Lopez, G.R. Nos. 135671-72, November 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Mayorga, G.R. No. 135405, November 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Gopio, G.R. No. 133925, November 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Pine, G.R. No. 133441, November 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Segui, G.R. Nos. 131532-34, November 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Velasquez, G.R. Nos. 137383-84, November 23, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 136398, November 23, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Sale, G.R. Nos. 137978-79, November 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Liban, G.R. Nos. 136247 & 138330, November 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Desamparado, G.R. No. 130651, November 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Tuangco, G.R. No. 130331, November 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Vitancur, G.R. No. 128872, November 22, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Tagaylo, G.R. Nos. 137108-09, November 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Mariano, G.R. Nos. 135511-13, November 17, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Mariano, G.R. No. 134309, November 17, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Balmoria, G.R. No. 134539, November 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Oling Madraga, G.R. No. 129299, November 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Laguerta, G.R. No. 132783, October 30, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Capinpin, G.R. No. 118608, October 30, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 134581, October 26, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 134768, October 25, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Talo, G.R. No. 125542, October 25, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Tianson, G.R. No. 125692, October 24, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Cabigting, G.R. No. 131806, October 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco, G.R. No. 136252, October 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Clado, G.R. Nos. 135699-700 & 139103, October 19, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Dimapilis, G.R. No. 129573, October 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Brondial, G.R. No. 135517, October 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Teves, G.R. No. 121994, October 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Itdang, G.R. No. 136393, October 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Santos, G.R. No. 127846, October 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Arellano, G.R. No. 131518, October 17, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Adajio, G.R. No. 136003-04, October 17, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Baltazar, G.R. No. 130610, October 16, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Arves, G.R. Nos. 134628-30, October 13, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Baldino, G.R. No. 137269, October 13, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Malbog, G.R. No. 106634, October 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Tundag, G.R. Nos. 135695-96, October 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Dayuha, G.R. No. 120897, October 11, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Vedra, G.R. No. 108615, October 9, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Cutamora, G.R. Nos. 133448-53, October 6, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Catubig, Jr., G.R. Nos. 134143-47, October 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Dela Cuesta, G.R. No. 133904, October 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Bawang, G.R. No. 131942, October 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Magtrayo, G.R. Nos. 134480-82, October 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Trelles, G.R. No. 137659, September 19, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Armando Juarez, et al., G.R. No. 128158, September 7, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Restoles, et al., G.R. No. 112692, August 25, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Ducta, G.R. No. 134608, August 16, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Watimar, G.R. No. 121651-52, August 16, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernaldo Docdoc, G.R. No. 134679, August 8, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Eric Baid, G.R. No. 129667, July 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino San Juan, G.R. Nos. 112449-50, July 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Elmer Yprraguire, G.R. No. 124391, July 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Ratunil, G.R. No. 137270, June 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando de Lara, et al., G.R. No. 124703, June 27, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilson Dreu, G.R. No. 126282, June 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Balora, G.R. No. 124976, May 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Alexander Taño, G.R. No. 133872, May 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Sultan, G.R. No. 132470, April 27, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Antolin, G.R. No. 133880, April 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Andy Rojas, G.R. No. 125292, April 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Locsin Fabon, G.R. No. 133226, March 16, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Claudio, G.R. No. 133694, February 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Liberato Mendiona, et al., G.R. No. 129056, February 21, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Elranie Martinez, G.R. No. 130606, February 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Dante Cepeda, G.R. No. 124832, February 1, 2000
— Cristino G. Calub vs. Abraham Suller, A.C. No. 1474, January 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Pacito Garces, Jr., G.R. No. 132368, January 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Quirino Quijada, G.R. No. 114262, December 22, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnold Dizon, G.R. No. 129893, December 10, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Alfanta, G.R. No. 125633, December 9, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Nestor O. Juachon, G.R. No. 111630, December 6, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Santiago, G.R. No. 129339, December 2, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Quirino Quijada, G.R. No. 114262, November 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Egmedio Lampaza, G.R. No. 138876, November 24, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Patriarca, G.R. No. 132748, November 24, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Espiritu, G.R. No. 128870, October 27, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Roque Celis, G.R. Nos. 125307-09, October 20, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Bobby Agunos, G.R. No. 130961, October 13, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Luis Erick Clemente, G.R. No. 130202, October 13, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Yamasito Vergel, et al., G.R. No. 128813, October 4, 1999
— People of the Phil vs. Vergilio Reyes, G.R. No. 113781, September 30, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Godofredo Tahop, G.R. No. 125330, September 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Efren Buendia, G.R. Nos. 133949-51, September 16, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Roman, G.R. No. 130947, September 14, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Hermie Bantilan, G.R. No. 129286, September 14, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Ablaneda, G.R. No. 128075, September 14, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Bayron, G.R. No. 122732, September 7, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rene Tapales, G.R. No. 125808, September 3, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Ibay, G.R. No. 132690, August 10, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Henry Reyes, G.R. No. 122453, July 28, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Patalin, et al., G.R. No. 125539, July 27, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo R. Muleta, G.R. No. 130189, June 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Pepito Tejero, G.R. No. 128892, June 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Manolito Monsayac, G.R. No. 126787, May 24, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Roteldo Torion, G.R. No. 120469, May 18, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Sixto Limon, et al., G.R. No. 121899, April 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Cristobal, et al., G.R. No. 119218, April 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Gastador, G.R. No. 123727, April 14, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Domogoy, et al., G.R. No. 116738, March 22, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Maglantay, G.R. No. 125537, March 8, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Lapinoso, G.R. No. 122507, February 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Arnel Almacin, G.R. No. 113253, February 19, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Romy Sagun, G.R. No. 110554, February 19, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Cabral, et al., G.R. No. 131909, February 18, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Crisanto Oliver, G.R. No. 123099, February 11, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Nestor Jimenez, G.R. No. 128364, February 4, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio L. Sanchez, et al., G.R. Nos. 121039-45, January 25, 1999
— Jocelyn Labaro vs. Vincent Eden C. Panay, et al., G.R. No. 129567, December 4, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Belo, G.R. No. 109148, December 4, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Joel Lamarroza, G.R. No. 126121, November 24, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Temestocles Lozano, G.R. No. 125080, September 25, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Robert Mostrales, G.R. No. 125937, August 28, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Eric Mendoza, et al., G.R. No. 123186, July 9, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Dagangan, G.R. No. 117951, June 18, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Ronald Sumampong, et al., G.R. No. 121378, May 21, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Pulusan, et al., G.R. No. 110037, May 21, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Inoferio Venerable, G.R. No. 110110, May 13, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Samuel Borce, G.R. No. 124131, April 22, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Pili, G.R. No. 124739, April 15, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Garcia, G.R. Nos. 120387-88, March 31, 1998
— Bayani M. Alonte vs. Maximo A. Savellano, et al., G.R. Nos. 131652 & 131728, March 9, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Samuel Ulzoron, G.R. No. 121919, March 2, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Jerusalem Medel, G.R. No. 123803, February 26, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Robinson Estrera, G.R. No. 106233, January 29, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Barrientos, G.R. No. 119835, January 28, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Jacob Quitorio, et al., G.R. No. 116765, January 28, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Panfilo Cabiles, G.R. No. 112035, January 16, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Hector Estares, G.R. No. 121878, December 5, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Ariston Pardillo, Jr., G.R. No. 119543, November 28, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Samuel Mahusay, et al., G.R. No. 91483, November 18, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Roger Evangelista, G.R. No. 121627, November 17, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Medel Mamalayan, et al., G.R. No. 115282, October 16, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Galera, G.R. No. 115938, October 10, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Celerino Castromero, G.R. No. 118992, October 9, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Anton Burgos, G.R. No. 117451, September 29, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Gomez, G.R. No. 112074, September 29, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Jurry Andal, et al., G.R. No. 124933, September 25, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Silvino Salarza, Jr., G.R. No. 117682, August 18, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose O. Tabalesma, G.R. No. 101832, August 18, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Rizal Sagucio, G.R. No. 121210, August 11, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Fidel Ragay, et al., G.R. No. 108234, August 11, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Peñero, G.R. No. 116292, July 31, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Armando Romua, G.R. No. 126175, May 29, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico dela Torre, et al., G.R. No. 83326, May 27, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Marlon Parazo, G.R. No. 121176, May 14, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Roncal, G.R. No. 94705, May 6, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Igdanes, G.R. No. 105804, May 5, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Edualino, G.R. No. 119072, April 11, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Julian, G.R. Nos. 113692-93, April 4, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo San Juan, G.R. No. 105556, April 4, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Randolf B. Montealto, G.R. No. 121765, March 14, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Pablito Andan, G.R. No. 116437, March 3, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Alipio Quiamco, et al., G.R. No. 96249, February 19, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Quitoriano, G.R. No. 118852, January 20, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Gener S. de Guzman, G.R. No. 117217, December 2, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Gerry Gumahob, G.R. No. 116740, November 28, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlito Rosare, G.R. No. 118823, November 19, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Angelito Talledo, G.R. No. 118918, September 27, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo L. Bawar, G.R. No. 119957, September 23, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Gavino L. Pasayan, G.R. No. 91619, September 9, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Villaruel, et al., G.R. No. 105006, September 4, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Atuel, G.R. No. 106962, September 3, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo G. Abutin, G.R. No. 119225, July 26, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Aquilio Acabo, G.R. No. 106977, July 17, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Zaldy B. Francisco, G.R. No. 114058, July 10, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin S. Espanol, G.R. No. 105676, April 10, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Percival O. Gecomo, G.R. Nos. 115035-36, February 23, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Carmelo G. Faigano, G.R. No. 113483, February 22, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Roger Laray, et al., G.R. No. 101809, February 20, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Cayetano Obar, Jr., G.R. No. 105688, February 7, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Rizaldy C. Conde, G.R. No. 112034, January 31, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Cristobal, G.R. No. 116279, January 29, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando S. Castaneda, G.R. No. 114972, January 24, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Rey M. Deniega, et al., G.R. No. 103499, December 29, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Enrico Peralta, et al., G.R. No. 83812, December 7, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Laurence "Larry" Cajilo, et al., G.R. No. 108873, December 4, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Orlando L. Lutao, et al., G.R. No. 107798, November 16, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Sinatao, G.R. Nos. 110815-16, October 25, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario C. Lao, G.R. No. 117092, October 6, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Bulaybulay, G.R. No. 104275, September 28, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. David H. Manzano, et al., G.R. No. 108293, September 15, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Conte, G.R. Nos. 113513-14, August 23, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Tortillano Namayan, G.R. No. 106539, July 18, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Mahinay, G.R. No. 109613, July 17, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Teves, G.R. No. 97435, July 14, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Weding, G.R. No. 106769, July 13, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Delfin L. Reyes, et al., G.R. No. 79896, July 12, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Zaldy A. Cristobal, G.R. No. 100912, July 6, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Renato Canturia, et al., G.R. No. 108490, June 22, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Richard Vallena, G.R. No. 106283, June 1, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Roque Cabresos, G.R. No. 109776, May 26, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Menandro Trimor, G.R. Nos. 106541-42, March 31, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Gapasan, G.R. No. 110812, March 29, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto B. Abarri, et al., G.R. No. 90185, March 1, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio L. Rivera, et al., G.R. Nos. 88298-99, March 1, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Redentor E. Umali, G.R. No. 76530, March 1, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Fabro Y Arquiza, G.R. No. 104954, December 18, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. William Malagar, G.R. Nos. 98169-73, December 1, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Angelito Bautista, G.R. No. 89967, September 1, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Canillo, et al., G.R. No. 106579, August 30, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Ariel Limbauan, et al., G.R. No. 99868, August 19, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Apawan, G.R. No. 85329, August 16, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Teodoro Miranda, et al., G.R. No. 92369, August 10, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgar Sadang, et al., G.R. No. 105378, June 27, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo V. Benitez, G.R. No. 108771, June 21, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Sarellana, G.R. No. 102056-57, June 8, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Aniano Almendral, G.R. No. 100412, May 25, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Gervacio Saguban, G.R. No. 96287, April 25, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Opiniado Dolar, et al., G.R. No. 100805, March 24, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Ladislao A. Abo, G.R. No. 107235, March 2, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Ferdinand C. Florendo, G.R. No. 106100-01, March 2, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberni Dupali, G.R. No. 97474, February 14, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Salomon, et al., G.R. No. 96848, January 21, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto D. Jaca, G.R. No. 104628, January 18, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Segundo, G.R. No. 88751, December 21, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo M. Nito, G.R. No. 70305, December 15, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Olarte, G.R. No. 101793, December 7, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Lactao, G.R. No. 56768, October 29, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto B. Arce, G.R. Nos. 101833-34, October 26, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio T. Madridano, G.R. No. 93435, October 22, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Henry S. Alvarez, et al., G.R. No. 103464, September 23, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Tamayo, et al., G.R. No. 86162, September 17, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Edmund M. Empleo, G.R. No. 96009, September 15, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Villagracia, et al., G.R. No. 94311, September 14, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto B. Dio, G.R. No. 106493, September 8, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando M. Domingo, et al., G.R. No. 97921, September 8, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie D. Cortes, et al., G.R. No. 105010, September 3, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Ulili, G.R. No. 103403, August 24, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Villamor Aczon, G.R. No. 93029, August 10, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Primo Peligro, et al., G.R. No. 103233, August 3, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Balajadia, G.R. No. 96988, August 2, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Doroteo S. Mejorada, G.R. No. 102705, July 30, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Walter Abordo, et al., G.R. No. 101187, July 23, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Cervando V. Patong, G.R. No. 96370, July 14, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Leo Perez, et al., G.R. No. 95893, July 6, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Julito U. Arnan, G.R. No. 72608, June 30, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto G. Corpuz, G.R. No. 101005, May 31, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Oliquino, G.R. No. 94703, May 31, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Alib, G.R. No. 100232, May 24, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor R. Angeles, G.R. Nos. 104285-86, May 21, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Welli Quiñones, G.R. No. 92504, May 18, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Bondoy, G.R. No. 79089, May 18, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Precioso, et al., G.R. No. 95890, May 12, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Joel B. Sartagoda, et al., G.R. No. 97525, April 7, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan U. Moreno, et al., G.R. No. 92049, March 22, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Villarin, G.R. No. 96950, January 29, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Elmer L. Danguilan, G.R. No. 88821, January 29, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Adlawan, Jr., G.R. Nos. 100917-18, January 25, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo B. Morre, G.R. No. 102978, January 18, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Dulay, G.R. Nos. 95156-94, January 18, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Dindo Castillon, et al., G.R. No. 100586, January 15, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Dante Dabon, G.R. No. 102004, December 16, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Boyet L. Pomentel, G.R. No. 87781, December 11, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Domnino G. Grefiel, G.R. No. 77228, November 13, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Casinillo, G.R. No. 97441, September 11, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Tiwaken, G.R. No. 92988, September 9, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Estanislao Generalao, Jr. G.R. No. 93141, September 2, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo Almenario, G.R. No. 91491, August 12, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Talento, G.R. No. 97611, August 10, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Diaz, G.R. No. 100752, August 4, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Maximo R. Race, Jr. G.R. No. 93143, August 4, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Villanueva, G.R. No. 96712, July 20, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Laroy T. Buenaflor, G.R. No. 93752, July 15, 1992
— Conrado Bunag, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101749, July 10, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Gilbert Pizarro, G.R. No. 49282, July 6, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Henry R. Tomentos, G.R. No. 101208, July 3, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Nemesio Bacalso, G.R. Nos. 94531-32, June 22, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Rene Paciente, G.R. No. 94309, June 18, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Rabanes, G.R. No. 93709, May 8, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Julito Naguita, G.R. No. 76002, April 22, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Nuñez, G.R. No. 79316, April 10, 1992
— Sotero Collado vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, et al., G.R. No. 72780, February 13, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruben O. Lim, G.R. No. 95753, February 12, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Deberto, et al., G.R. No. 78358, January 23, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Elpidio Magaluna, G.R. No. 66755, January 23, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo G. Soronio, G.R. No. 94362, December 10, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Salustiano Tismo, G.R. No. 44773, December 4, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Tiad, G.R. No. 91013, November 21, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Bayani de los Reyes, G.R. No. 85771, November 19, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Benedicto Cruz, G.R. No. 101844, November 18, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Torrevillas, G.R. Nos. 93847-48, November 14, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Saldivia, G.R. No. 55346, November 13, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Ngo, G.R. No. 95680, October 4, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Mauricio Plaga, G.R. No. 73462, September 30, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Pido, G.R. No. 92427, August 2, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Jun Aquino, G.R. No. 83214, May 28, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Santiago, G.R. No. 46132, May 28, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Godines, G.R. No. 93410, May 7, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Base, et al., G.R. No. 92124, May 6, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Noble Bacalzo, G.R. No. 89811, March 22, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Dante Banayo, G.R. No. 86938, March 22, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Flores, G.R. No. 71980, March 18, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos P. Cuarteros, G.R. No. 68764, March 18, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Roger Feliciano, G.R. No. 62712, March 11, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. David Cinco, et al., G.R. No. 79497, February 27, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Modesto Belon, G.R. No. 87759, February 26, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Soliao, G.R. No. 91131, February 19, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Tereso, G.R. No. 84354, February 18, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan Estolano, G.R. No. 57737, January 28, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Natan, G.R. No. 86640, January 25, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedring Calixtro, et al., G.R. No. 92355, January 24, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Gerones, G.R. No. 91116, January 24, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Geronimo Goles, G.R. No. 91513, December 21, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Ed Fernandez Avila, G.R. No. 84918, December 21, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Beringuel, et al., G.R. Nos. 63753-54, December 21, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Melvin S. Giron, G.R. No. 44749, December 10, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Gerry V. Mañago, G.R. No. 90669, November 21, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Aspili, et al., G.R. Nos. 89418-19, November 21, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Warlito Fabro, G.R. No. 79673, November 15, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Enemecio L. Borja, G.R. No. 85821, October 31, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Joselito R. Mercado, G.R. No. 72726, October 15, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Camasis, G.R. No. 87083, September 14, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Paringit, G.R. No. 83947, September 13, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgar A. Timbang, G.R. No. 88403, August 30, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo R. Rizo, G.R. No. 86743, August 30, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Marapao, et al., G.R. Nos. 68265-66, August 2, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Nestor J. Tan, G.R. No. 89316, July 12, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo de Dios, G.R. No. 58174, July 6, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido Leoparte, G.R. No. 85328, July 4, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Paulino Aquino, et al., G.R. Nos. 84913-15, June 5, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Pio Japitana, Jr., G.R. No. 34232, May 25, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Gabriel Dawandawan, G.R. No. 87203, April 6, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruby Ronquillo, G.R. No. 76213, April 6, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Ceilito Orita, G.R. No. 88724, April 3, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Emeterio Dinola, G.R. No. 54567, March 22, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Berly Dalinog, G.R. No. 74952, March 12, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Florencio Sarra, G.R. No. 78530, March 6, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Rafanan, G.R. No. 48362, February 28, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo A. Corrales, G.R. No. 76922, February 21, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Eclarinal, et al., G.R. No. 83308, February 12, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Felicisimo Arengo, et al., G.R. No. 85251, January 22, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Joel Tripoli, G.R. Nos. 74062-63, January 22, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Ando, Jr., G.R. No. 81403, December 20, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo L. Llarena, G.R. No. 74182, December 19, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Sabino Veronas, et al., G.R. No. 64414, November 15, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Niebres, G.R. No. 69190, September 29, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Gole Cruz, G.R. No. 69251, September 13, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Tagle, G.R. No. 73996, August 28, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolly Villaflores, G.R. No. 66039, June 8, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Elpidio Cabading, G.R. No. 74352, June 6, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Anicio Masongsong, G.R. No. 63609, June 6, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Nicanor de los Santos, G.R. No. 55082, April 19, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Almenario, G.R. No. 66420, April 17, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Esquillo, G.R. No. 71311, March 31, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso L. Abonada, G.R. No. 50041, January 27, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Graciano E. Geneveza, G.R. No. 74047, January 13, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Robert Poculan, G.R. Nos. 70565-67, November 9, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Sixto Tabago, G.R. No. L-69778, November 8, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Paragoso, G.R. No. L-50872, October 18, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Santiago O. Tañada, G.R. No. L-32215, October 17, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Joaquinito Hacbang, G.R. No. L-75293, August 17, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Mauro del Pilar, G.R. No. L-75852, August 11, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Viray, G.R. No. L-41085, August 8, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Aragon, G.R. No. L-51736, August 4, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Muñoz, G.R. No. L-61152, July 29, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio M. Co, G.R. No. L-38052, July 14, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Silvestre Sunpongco, et al., G.R. No. L-42665, June 30, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Villanueva, G.R. No. L-50299, June 20, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel C. Cui, Jr., G.R. No. L-48084, June 20, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Ceferino Lungayan, G.R. No. L-64556, June 10, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Conrado L. Mercado, G.R. No. L-61223, May 28, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo V. Antonio, G.R. No. L-53984, May 5, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Guarnes, G.R. No. L-65175, April 15, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Bulosan, G.R. No. L-58404, April 15, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Arcito Magdaraog, G.R. No. L-40988, April 15, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Martin Cayago, et al., G.R. No. L-47398, March 14, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Rouben H. Corral, G.R. No. L-73604, January 29, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Partulan, G.R. No. L-75294, December 14, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Eleanor Dejucos, G.R. No. L-73326, December 14, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Carmelo Paton-Og, G.R. No. L-70574, November 27, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernido Detuya, et al., G.R. No. L-39300, September 30, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogaciano Taduyo, G.R. No. L-37928-29, September 29, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Peña, Jr. G.R. No. 72354, June 30, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cruz, Sr. G.R. No. 71462, June 30, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Eulogio Manaay, G.R. No. L-47489, June 18, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Inot, G.R. No. L-36790, May 29, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Nemesio Tuando, G.R. No. L-47720, May 20, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Rondina, G.R. No. L-47895, April 8, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Murphy Banzales, G.R. No. L-63260, March 20, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Loreto Pilapil, G.R. No. 72307, January 30, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Venancio S. Ramilo, G.R. No. L-52230, December 15, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Pepito Gapasin, et al., G.R. No. L-52017, October 27, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Humberto Tempongko, Jr., G.R. No. L-69668, October 2, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo M. Aguirre, G.R. No. 70742, August 19, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto R. Ocampo, G.R. No. L-47335, August 13, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando C. Monteverde, G.R. No. L-60962, July 11, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Ambrocio S. Bautista, G.R. No. L-48606, July 11, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Patola, et al., G.R. No. L-41265, February 27, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Demetrio Pielago, et al., G.R. No. L-42256, December 19, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfrando Manligas, G.R. No. L-61571, November 13, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus D. Canturia, G.R. No. L-67598, October 11, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Lucio Lumayok, G.R. No. L-54016, October 1, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Angel Sunga, G.R. No. L-45083, June 24, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Tirso Canoy, G.R. No. L-40422, June 24, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Avelino Reyes, G.R. No. L-62387, June 19, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Florencio V. Hinsoy, G.R. No. L-68032, May 31, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Millarpe, G.R. No. L-69281, February 25, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlito F. Dunca, G.R. No. 51084, December 26, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Prudente, et al., G.R. No. L-45292, December 26, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Malabad, G.R. No. 63219, November 28, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Loreto H. Torres, G.R. No. 61705, November 20, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Basas, et al., G.R. Nos. L-48019-22, June 29, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Saylan, G.R. No. L-36941, June 29, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Gil Bihasa, G.R. No. L-63452, June 25, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Alamo, et al. G.R. No. L-38401, June 25, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Rosario James P. Tumaliuan, G.R. No. 58818, June 22, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Abelardo Balbuena, et al., G.R. Nos. L-44859-60, April 27, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Benito Marbebe, et al., G.R. No. L-35309, April 2, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Modesto Mesias, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-40318-20, February 28, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Perfecto C. Alcantara, et al., G.R. Nos. L-49693-94, December 29, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco See, G.R. No. L-36347, December 21, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Andres Grefiel, G.R. No. L-60706, October 15, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Amando Simbulan, G.R. No. L-50476, September 30, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Mostoles, Jr. G.R. No. L-38644, September 30, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Gamelo O. Mariano, G.R. No. L-47437, September 29, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Sebastian Jervoso, G.R. No. L-36530, September 29, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Isagani Ibanga, G.R. No. L-39502, September 24, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Nenito C. Ferrer, G.R. No. L-60073, September 23, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Gamez, G.R. Nos. L-36428-29, August 30, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Efreniano Balane, G.R. No. L-48319, July 25, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Diosdado Alvarado, Jr. G.R. No. L-29230, July 25, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico B. Belmonte, G.R. No. L-58199, July 5, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Vega, G.R. No. L-38002, June 29, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Librado Carias, G.R. No. L-35853, June 24, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Soriano, G.R. No. L-32244, June 24, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Emerito Mendez, G.R. No. L-35491, May 27, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Solomon Balbino, G.R. No. L-42647, March 28, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Isaac Senon, Jr. G.R. No. L-36606, March 25, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Disney, G.R. No. L-41336, February 18, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Pastor Pasco, G.R. No. L-41909, February 14, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Tamayao, G.R. No. L-56699, January 28, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Castillo, G.R. No. L-39152, January 28, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Manzano, G.R. No. L-38449, November 25, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Samuel Pimentel, G.R. No. L-38423, November 25, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo L. Reglos, et al., G.R. No. L-61663, November 15, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Constantino D. Peralta, G.R. No. L-61870, November 5, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Crispiniano Mauro, G.R. No. L-37323, October 23, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Salustiano Lood, G.R. No. L-52061, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Malate, G.R. No. L-49307, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Joseph D. Leones, G.R. No. L-48727, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Leon Alvis, Jr. G.R. No. L-46125, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Mendoza, G.R. No. L-45679, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Sambili, G.R. No. L-44408, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico B. Beso, Jr., G.R. No. 44033, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo D. Gabiana, G.R. No. L-39716, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Renato Marquez, et al., G.R. No. L-32860, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Clemente Ganado, G.R. No. L-37935, August 31, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Necesio Imbo, G.R. No. L-36759, August 31, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Camilo Ramirez, G.R. No. L-39007, August 21, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Felipe, G.R. No. L-40432, July 19, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Adolfo Manlabao, G.R. No. L-43888, June 29, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Florencio "Boy" Palapal, G.R. No. L-42646, June 29, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Telesforo Macatangay, G.R. No. L-40726, June 29, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Apat, G.R. No. L-28323, June 29, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Amado Monsalud, G.R. No. L-35136, May 31, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio F. Arizala, et al., G.R. No. 59713, March 15, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Arthur Mendoza, G.R. No. L-50882, January 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Perello, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-33064, January 27, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Maximo A. Pizarras, G.R. No. L-35915, October 30, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Ewaldo Cabatlao, G.R. No. L-42149, October 23, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Cañizares, et al., G.R. No. L-32515, September 10, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Coderes., et al., G.R. No. L-32509, April 27, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Boado, G.R. No. L-44725, March 31, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Bartolome Bawit, G.R. No. L-48116, February 20, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Aleman, et al., G.R. No. L-39776, February 20, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Loreto Aquiapas, G.R. No. L-49910, November 28, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Gomez Saligan, G.R. No. L-39712, November 21, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Daniel Hayag, G.R. No. L-38635, November 17, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto M. Perez, G.R. No. L-38719, October 10, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Paulino L. Mabag, G.R. No. L-38548, July 24, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Adriano Arciaga, et al., G.R. No. L-38179, June 16, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Rufo Advincula, G.R. No. L-44643, March 31, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Tiburcio Relacion, G.R. No. L-46521, January 22, 1980
— Domingo M. Lopez vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. L-47469, December 29, 1978
— People of the Phil. vs. Severino Cueto, G.R. No. L-46697, August 25, 1978
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcial Gargoles, G.R. No. L-40885, May 18, 1978
— People of the Phil. vs. Enrique Eguac, G.R. No. L-36082, December 29, 1977
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando C. Peña, G.R. No. L-36435, December 20, 1977
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo C. Rapada, G.R. Nos. L-31243-44, October 28, 1977
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente C. Villamala, et al., G.R. No. L-41312, July 29, 1977
— People of the Phil. vs. Josan Poblador, G.R. No. L-44129, April 29, 1977
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo M. Godoy, G.R. No. L-31177, July 15, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Jose, et al., G.R. No. L-28397, June 17, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Perfecto A. Ordonio, G.R. No. L-33829, December 19, 1975
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Royeras, G.R. No. L-31886, April 29, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Dalmacio Barbo, G.R. No. L-30988, March 29, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Ben Dayag, G.R. No. L-30619, March 29, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Molina, G.R. No. L-30191, October 27, 1973
— People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Carandang, et al., G.R. No. L-31012, August 15, 1973
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico Silvestre, G.R. No. L-33821, June 22, 1973
— People of the Phil. vs. Camsa Otto, et al., G.R. No. L-29631, January 31, 1973
— People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio Olden, et al., G.R. Nos. L-27570 & L-27571, September 20, 1972
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Cañete, G.R. No. L-30491, January 21, 1972
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Pastores, et al., G.R. No. L-29800, August 31, 1971
— People of the Phil. vs. Remegio Estebia, G.R. No. L-26868, July 29, 1971
— People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Obtinalia, et al., G.R. No. L-30190, April 30, 1971
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime G. Jose, et al., G.R. No. L-28232, February 6, 1971
— People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Corpin, G.R. No. L-28356, January 30, 1970
— People of the Phil. vs. Noly Sia, G.R. No. L-28884, July 25, 1969
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe T. Villas, G.R. No. L-20953, April 21, 1969
— People of the Phil. vs. Diego Malillos, G.R. No. L-26568, July 29, 1968
— People of the Phil. vs. Mariano Fontanilla, G.R. No. L-25354, June 28, 1968
— People of the Phil. vs. Wenceslao Flores, et al., G.R. No. L-17077, April 29, 1968
— People of the Phil. vs. Liberato Gagui, G.R. No. L-20200, October 28, 1966
— People of the Phil. vs. Hipolito Messias, G.R. No. L-19250, August 30, 1963
— Josefina Royong vs. Ariston Oblena, A.C. No. 376, April 30, 1963
— People of the Phil. vs. Catalino Orteza, G.R. No. L-16033, September 29, 1962
— Medelina L. Viojan vs. Restituto M. Duran, A.C. No. 248, February 26, 1962
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Baniaga, et al., G.R. No. L-14905, January 28, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Josefino G. Selfaison, et al., G.R. No. L-14732, January 28, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Fausto Linde, et al., G.R. No. L-10358, January 28, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Hernani Acanto, et al., G.R. No. L-14362, October 31, 1960
— People of the Phil. vs. Porfirio Taño, et al., G.R. No. L-11991, October 31, 1960
— People of the Phil. vs. Anatalio Prado, G.R. No. L-12403, June 30, 1960
— Gilbert Rillon vs. Filemon Rillon, G.R. No. L-13172, April 28, 1960
— People of the Phil. vs. Salvador I. Ponelas, et al., G.R. No. L-10853, May 18, 1959
— People of the Phil. vs. Fortunato Ortiz, et al., G.R. No. L-12287, May 29, 1958
— People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Buama, et al., G.R. No. L-7254, July 26, 1954
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Jore, G.R. No. L-5366, October 29, 1953
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Abalos, et al., G.R. No. L-3369, October 26, 1951
— People of the Phil. vs. Emilio Gazmin, et al., G.R. No. L-3591, September 29, 1951
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonilo Ganal, et al., G.R. No. L-1990, March 15, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Y. Carillo, et al., G.R. No. L-2043, February 28, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Juanito Napili, G.R. No. L-2406, February 22, 1950
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo L. Ramos, G.R. No. L-1029, August 23, 1949
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose L. Demetrio, et al., G.R. No. L-2443, June 30, 1949
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose de Castro, G.R. No. L-547, June 28, 1949
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Castillo, et al., G.R. No. L-1703, December 21, 1948
— People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Silerio, et al., G.R. No. L-1228, May 28, 1948
— People of the Phil. vs. Catalino Velo, et al., G.R. No. L-868, March 13, 1948
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Luneta, et al., G.R. No. L-840, January 12, 1948
— People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Repillion G.R. No. L-1025, October 30, 1947
— People of the Phil. vs. Claro Feliciano, et al., G.R. No. L-337, October 25, 1946
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Caballero, G.R. No. 43436, August 31, 1935
— People of the Phil. vs. Licerio (Alias Felix Toanquin), G.R. No. 41966, April 4, 1935
— People of the Phil. vs. Dalmacio Mañgon, et al., G.R. No. 41430, November 1, 1934
— People of the Phil. vs. Luis Mandia, G.R. No. 41313, August 24, 1934
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Jesus Tolentino, G.R. No. 38298, December 9, 1933
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Manaba, G.R. No. 38725, October 31, 1933
— People of the Phil. vs. Eugenio Momo, G.R. No. 35235, September 10, 1931
— People of the Phil. vs. Elpidio Corcino, G.R. No. 30715, July 27, 1929
— People of the Phil. vs. Lazaro Rabadan, et al., G.R. No. 27856, December 16, 1927
— People of the Phil. vs. Amando Dayo, G.R. No. 27859, December 1, 1927
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Mariano, G.R. No. 28144, August 26, 1927
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Damaso Padernal, G.R. No. 24667, February 23, 1926
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Inocentes Bretaña, et al., G.R. No. 25905, October 8, 1926
— People of the Phil. vs. Matias Ebol, G.R. No. 24857, January 23, 1926
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Gerardo Solon, et al., G.R. No. 22942, February 7, 1925
— United States vs. Cirilo Tumbaga, G.R. No. 15520, January 26, 1920
— United States vs. Blas Yamballa, G.R. No. 14607, February 25, 1919
— United States vs. Rufo Tiongco, et al., G.R. No. L-12270, March 26, 1918
— United States vs. Pantaleon Ramos, G.R. No. 10832, December 11, 1916
— United States vs. Jose Claro, G.R. No. 10819, December 4, 1915
— United States vs. Lucas Doroja, G.R. No. 10715, September 25, 1915
— United States vs. Cornelio Flores, G.R. No. 9014, December 11, 1913
— United States vs. Miguel Estrada, G.R. No. 8091, March 6, 1913
— United States vs. Primo Samonte, G.R. No. 6740, September 1, 1911
— United States vs. Filemon Mendez, G.R. No. L-6483, March 11, 1911
— United States vs. Tomas Cruz, G.R. No. L-6409, March 10, 1911
— United States vs. Candido Estacio, G.R. No. L-5739, February 24, 1911
— United States vs. Eligio C. Garcia, G.R. No. L-3570, December 23, 1907
— United States vs. Escolastico de la Cruz, G.R. No. L-3702, November 29, 1907
— United States vs. Epifanio Mamintud, G.R. No. 2891, August 16, 1906
— United States vs. Pedro Santos, G.R. No. 2164, May 1, 1905
— United States vs. Feliciano Villarosa, G.R. No. 1661, April 19, 1905
— Tomasa Fidelino vs. Benito Legarda, G.R. No. 1770, March 16, 1905
— United States vs. Jose Yambao, G.R. No. 1662, February 13, 1905
— United States vs. Hilarion Guzman, G.R. No. 1157, February 6, 1905
— United States vs. Eusebio Versosa, G.R. No. 1315, March 24, 1904
— United States vs. Norberto Obregon, G.R. No. 1399, February 12, 1904
— United States vs. Andres Salvador, G.R. No. 1328, September 29, 1903
— United States vs. Manuel Banzon, et al., G.R. No. 946, October 22, 1902
— United States vs. Adriano Solar, G.R. No. 886, September 9, 1902
— United States vs. Doroteo Ramos, et al., G.R. No. 126, December 26, 1901
— DSWD A.O. 69-03, July 25, 2003
— DSWD A.O. 67-03
Incest
— R.A. 8353
— R.A. 7610
— R.A. 386, Civil Code, Art. 80 (5); Art. 81 & Art. 91 (5)
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 37
— People of the Phil. vs. Patricio Taguibuya, G.R. No. 180497, October 5, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Delima, Jr., G.R. No. 169869, July 12, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Isaias C. Castillo, G.R. No. 172695, June 29, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Gerry H. Ebio, G.R. No. 147750, September 29, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Bobby Orense, G.R. No. 152969, July 7, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Orillosa, G.R. Nos. 148716-18, July 7, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Celio B. Glodo, G.R. No. 136085, July 7, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Joselito A. Almendral, G.R. No. 126025, July 6, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Hector Alviz, G.R. Nos. 144551-55, June 29, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Christian Gonzales, G.R. No. 141599, June 29, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Maximo P. Ibarrientos, G.R. Nos. 148063-64, June 17, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando A. Leonor, G.R. No. 132124, June 8, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Santiago A. Agsaoay, Jr., G.R. Nos. 132125-26, June 3, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Pascual Balbarona, G.R. No. 146854, April 28, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Layugan, G.R. Nos. 130493-98, April 28, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Joseph Orilla, G.R. Nos. 148939-40, February 13, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Valdez, G.R. Nos. 133194-95 and 141539, January 29, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Rafael Cea, G.R. Nos. 146462-63, January 14, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Dionisio Ancheta, G.R. No. 142431, January 14, 2004
— People of the Phil. vs. Remario Palma, G.R. Nos. 148869-74, December 11, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Iluis, G.R. Nos. 135844-45, November 24, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto A. Madera, G.R. Nos. 138662-63, November 4, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 152589 and 152758, October 24, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Hermenio Canoy, G.R. Nos. 148139-43, October 15, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Villanuava, G.R. No. 138364, October 15, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose de Castro, G.R. Nos. 148056-61, October 8, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo H. Lambid, G.R. Nos. 133066-67, October 1, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Pillas, G.R. Nos. 138716-19, September 23, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Junas, G.R. Nos. 144972-73, September 12, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan Carañaga, G.R. Nos. 146097-98, August 26, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Eclera, Sr., G.R. No. 144402, August 14, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Dante Ilagan, G.R. No. 144595, August 6, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Juan M. Rosario, G.R. No. 144428, August 6, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Rufino V. Ernas, G.R. Nos. 137256-58, August 6, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 146693-94, July 31, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Jenis Pateño, G.R. No. 145349, July 29, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Charmie G. Servano, G.R. Nos. 143002-03, July 17, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo B. Manluctao, G.R. Nos. 143760-63, June 23, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Felix Hermosa, G.R. Nos. 140439-40, June 18, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Quijano Sr., G.R. Nos. 144523-26, June 10, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Diosdado R. Corial, G.R. No. 143125, June 10, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Oscar A. Calamlam, G.R. Nos. 137414-15, May 29, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Metin, G.R. No. 140781, May 8, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Solomon Purazo, G.R. No. 133189, May 5, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario Umayam, G.R. No. 147033, April 30, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Gaudencio D. Umbaña, G.R. Nos. 146862-64, April 30, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Genaro Biong, G.R. Nos. 144445-47, April 30, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Viajedor, G.R. No. 148138, April 11, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Melchor Rabago, G.R. No. 149893, April 2, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Flores, G.R. Nos. 145309-10, April 4, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernardo C. Gavino, G.R. No. 142749, March 18, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Frivaldo L. Besmonte, et al. G.R. Nos. 137278-79, February 17, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Gorgonio Villarama alias "Baby", G.R. No. 139211, February 12, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Tacio Emilio y Inte, G.R. Nos. 144305-07, February 6, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Lilo, G.R. Nos. 140736-39, February 4, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilson G. Salvador, G.R. Nos. 136870-72, January 28, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlito M. Marahay, G.R. Nos. 120625-29, January 28, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Capt. Marcial L. Llanto, G.R. No. 146458, January 20, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Lucilo P. Untalan, G.R. Nos. 149392-94, January 16, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Mirante Sr., G.R. No. 147606, January 14, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Bobby Galigao, G.R. Nos. 140961-63, January 14, 2003
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruperto Ramos, G.R. No. 142577, December 27, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Zainudin Dalandas, G.R. No. 140209, December 27, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Flores, G.R. No. 128823-24, December 27, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Aurelio R. Cruz, G.R. No. 144634, December 18, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Villanueva, Jr., G.R. No. 146106, December 16, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Artemio D. Ochea, G.R. Nos. 146452-53, December 10, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Zosimo T. Cantomayor, G.R. No. 145522, December 5, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Esteban Victor y Penis, G.R. No. 127904, December 5, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Calderon, G.R. Nos. 145343-46, December 3, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Ronilo Ferrera, G.R. No. 145727, November 27, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Solmoro, G.R. Nos. 139187-94 (140427-34), November 27, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Iladio Caralipio, G.R. Nos. 137766-67, November 27, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Arthur Mendoza and Dave Mendoza, G.R. Nos. 145339-42, November 26,
2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Absolon Yonto Y Utom, G.R. Nos. 148917-18, November 21, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Angel Amante, G.R. Nos. 149414-15, November 18, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Mario O. Terrible, G.R. No. 140635, November 18, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Victorio C. Nebria, G.R. Nos. 140004-05, November 18, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Villanueva, G.R. Nos. 146464-67, November 15, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Nardito Alemania, G.R. Nos. 146521-22, November 13, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Roque Abellano, G.R. No. 146468, November 13, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Vinson A. Briones, G.R. No. 140640, October 15, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandre R. de los Santos, G.R. No. 137047, October 15, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Gerry H. Ebio, G.R. No. 147750, October 14, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo Caliso, G.R. Nos. 131475-76, October 14, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Chito P. Ucab, G.R. No. 133227, October 10, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto dela Cerna, G.R. Nos. 136899-904, October 9, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. C. Domingo Tupaz, G.R. No. 136141, October 9, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Delfin dela Cruz, G.R. No. 137405, September 27, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Emmanuel Aaron, G.R. Nos. 136300-02, September 24, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico S. Benavidez, G.R. Nos. 142372-74, September 17, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Randolph Jaquilmac, G.R. No. 139787, September 17, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Renato Tamsi, G.R. Nos. 142928-29, September 11, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto P. Padao, G.R. Nos. 140734-35, September 11, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Benigno Elona, G.R. Nos. 146352-56, September 10, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Matias Lagramada, G.R. Nos. 146357 & 148170, August 29, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Camilo Soriano, G.R. Nos. 142779-95, August 29, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Jovito Sitao, G.R. No. 146790, August 22, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Ramil Sajolga, G.R. No. 146684, August 21, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Roque, G.R. Nos. 130659 & 144002, August 14, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Miranda, G.R. No. 142566, August 8, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo T. Ocampo, G.R. Nos. 145303-04, August 7, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Cristituto Guardian, G.R. No. 142900, August 7, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Reyes, G.R. Nos. 140642-46, August 7, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Eloy Miclat, Jr., G.R. No. 137024, August 7, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Baltazar Cesista, G.R. Nos. 131589-90, August 6, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio Romero, G.R. Nos. 137037-38, August 5, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Celso Morfi, G.R. Nos. 145449-50, August 1, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Richard R. Deauna, G.R. Nos. 143200-01, August 1, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime P. Gonzales, G.R. No. 140676, July 31, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Laureano Sistoso, G.R. Nos. 131867-68, July 31, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Fernandez, G.R. Nos. 139341-45, July 25, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Leonardo Fabre, G.R. No. 146697, July 23, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Severino Gondaway Dulay, G.R. Nos. 144344-68, July 23, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Manlod, G.R. No. 142901-02, July 23, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo D. Patanayan, Jr., G.R. Nos. 141189-141202, July 23, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Nicomedes Canon, G.R. No. 141123, July 23, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Geron, G.R. No. 140758, July 23, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Aparejado, G.R. No. 139447, July 23, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Abala, G.R. Nos. 135858-61, July 23, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Cipriano Radam, Jr., G.R. Nos. 138395-99, July 18, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Candido Solomon, G.R. Nos. 130517-21, July 16, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Maximo Salvador, G.R. No. 142873, July 9, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Olicia, G.R. No. 134775, July 9, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Padilla, G.R. No. 145460, July 3, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio C. Barrozo, G.R. Nos. 138726-27, July 3, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Jerome Gallate, G.R. Nos. 144395-98, June 26, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo de la Cruz, G.R. Nos. 135554-56, June 21, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Ventura Belen, G.R. Nos. 137991-92, June 10, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Ombreso, G.R. No. 142861, December 19, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Prudencio V. Villaflores, G.R. Nos. 135063-64, December 5, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Oscar M. Dante, G.R. No. 127652, December 5, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo M. Dogaojo, G.R. Nos. 137834-40, December 3, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Tadeo, G.R. Nos. 128884-85, December 3, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose V. Musa, G.R. No. 143703, November 29, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Renato T. Ramirez, G.R. No. 136848, November 29, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. William C. Alpe, G.R. No. 132133, November 29, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Josue B. Dumlao, G.R. Nos. 130409-10, November 27, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Yaoto, G.R. Nos. 136317-18, November 22, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Vlrgilio Lorica, G.R. No. 135863, November 22, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Paulino Leonar, G.R. No. 130628, November 22, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Virgilio R. Bernabe, G.R. No. 141881, November 21, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodelio Marcelo, G.R. Nos. 126538-39, November 20, 2001
— People of the Phil vs. Faustino Gabon, G.R. No. 127003, November 16, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose D. Virrey, G.R. No. 133910, November 14, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Honesto Llandelar, G.R. Nos. 123138-39, November 8, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandre delos Santos, G.R. No. 137968, November 6, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro P. Hernandez, G.R. Nos. 134449-50, October 25, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador C. Gomez, G.R. Nos. 132673-75, October 17, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Callos, G.R. Nos. 123913-14, October 11, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio @ Tony Evangelista y Binay, G.R. No. 132044, October 5, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Amorsolo G. Torres, G.R. Nos. 135522-23, October 2, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Renato Lalingjaman, G.R. No. 132714, September 6, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Remudo, G.R. No. 127905, August 30, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio Puerta, G.R. No. 131609, August 27, 2001
— People of the Phil vs. Rafael Salalima, G.R. Nos. 137969-71, August 15, 2001
— People of the Phil vs. Benjamin Fabia, G.R. No. 134764, June 26, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Fidel Alborida, G.R. No. 136382, June 25, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Gonzales, G.R. Nos. 139445-46, June 20, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Valdesancho, G.R. Nos. 137051-52, May 30, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Castro Geraban, G.R. No. 137048, May 24, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Ben Libo-on, G.R. No. 136737, May 23, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Palero, G.R. No. 138235, May 10, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Amadore, G.R. Nos. 140669-75 & 140691, April 20, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Enrique Labayne, G.R. No. 132170, April 20, 2001
— People of the Phil vs. Apsalon Dizon, G.R. Nos. 134522-24 and 139508-09, April 3, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos L. Alcantara, G.R. No. 137660, March 28, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Bares, G.R. Nos. 137762-65, March 27, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo delos Santos, G.R. No. 137889, March 26, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Nilo Ardon, G.R. Nos. 137753-56, March 16, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Alipar, G.R. No. 137282, March 16, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Anselmo Baring, G.R. Nos. 130515 & 147090, March 14, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Guntang, G.R. Nos. 135234-38, March 8, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Nardo, G.R. No. 133888, March 1, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Filomeno Serrano, G.R. No. 137480, February 28, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Blesie Velasco, G.R. Nos. 135231-33, February 28, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Gonyeto Francisco , G.R. Nos. 134566-67, January 22, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Awing, G.R. No. 133919-20, February 19, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Macaya, G.R. No. 137185-86, February 15, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Ybañez, G.R. No. 136257, February 14, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Deolito Optana, G.R. No. 133922, February 12, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo de Villa, G.R. No. 124639, February 1, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Elpedes, G.R. No. 137106-07, January 31, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Rene Delamar, G.R. No. 136102, January 31, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Ronnie Torres, G.R. No. 136147, January 24, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Bonifacio San Agustin, G.R. Nos. 135560-61, January 24, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Gonyeto Francisco, G.R. No. 134566-67, January 22, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo de Guzman, G.R. No. 134844, January 17, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Garcia, G.R. No. 117406, January 16, 2001
— People vs. Digma, G.R. Nos. 127750-52, November 20, 2000
— People vs. Del Rosario, G.R. No. 134581, October 26, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Garcia, G.R. Nos. 137379-81, September 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Armando Quilatan, G.R. No. 132725, September 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Nogar, G.R. No. 133946, September 27, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Elmedio Cajara, G.R. No. 122498, September 27, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Neil Dumaguing, G.R. No. 135516, September 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Amadeo Trelles, G.R. No. 137659, September 19, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Gianan, G.R. Nos. 135288-93, September 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Melencio Bali-Balita, G.R. No. 134266, September 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo Aloro, G.R. No. 129208, September 14, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Baniguid, G.R. No. 137714, September 8, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Villaraza, G.R. Nos. 131848-50, September 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Paul Lapiz, G.R. No. 129239, September 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Camilo Villanueva, G.R. No. 135330, August 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Melendres, G.R. Nos. 133999-4001, August 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Joey R. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 132772, August 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Segundo Cano, G.R. No. 130631, August 30, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Renato Puzon, G.R. No. 123156-59, August 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Banihit, G.R. No. 132045, August 25, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo Toquero, G.R. No. 127650, August 25, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Felizardo Gonzales, G.R. No. 133859, August 24, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ian Contreras, G.R. Nos. 137123-24, August 23, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Nelson dela Cruz, G.R. Nos. 131167-68, August 23, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Gabiana, G.R. No. 123543, August 23, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Watimar, G.R. Nos. 121651-52, August 16, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodegelio Turco, G.R. No. 137757, August 14, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Delano Mendiola, G.R. No. 134846, August 8, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ramwell Lomibao, G.R. No. 135855, August 3, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Jaime Balacano, G.R. No. 127156, July 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico Campaner, G.R. No. 130500 & 143834, July 26, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Surilla, G.R. No. 129164, July 24, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Baybado, G.R. No. 132136, July 14, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico Ulgasan, G.R. Nos. 131824-26, July 11, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Diasanta, G.R. No. 128108, July 6, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rosendo Mendez, G.R. No. 132546, July 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Petronillo Castillo, G.R. No. 130205, July 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Benido Alcartado, et al., G.R. No. 132379-82, June 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto M. Santos, G.R. Nos. 131103 and 143472, June 29, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Arillas, G.R. No. 130593, June 19, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelo Nava, Jr., G.R. Nos. 130509-12, June 19, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Historillo, G.R. No. 130408, June 16, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Arteche P. Antonio, G.R. No. 122473, June 8, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Johnny dela Cruz, G.R. No. 133921, June 1, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Efren Jabien, G.R. Nos. 133068-69, May 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Edwin R. Decena, G.R. No. 131843, May 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Modesto Mamac, G.R. No. 130332, May 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Magat, G.R. No. 130026, May 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Eusebio Traya, G.R. No. 129052, May 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Armando D. Alicante, G.R. Nos. 127026-27, May 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Emil Babera, G.R. No. 130609, May 30, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Dequito, G.R. No. 132544, May 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Sabredo, G.R. No. 126114, May 11, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Conrado Cabana, G.R. No. 127124, May 9, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominico Licanda, G.R. No. 134084, May 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rogelio Guiwan, G.R. No. 117324, April 27, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Felixberto Fraga, G.R. Nos. 134130-33, April 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Garchitorena, G.R. No. 131357, April 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Razonable, G.R. Nos. 128085-87, April 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Nicolas Ramos, G.R. No. 120280, April 12, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico Lustre, G.R. No. 134562, April 6, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Eliseo Alvero, G.R. Nos. 134536-38, April 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Ferolino, G.R. Nos. 131730-31, April 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Delos Santos, G.R. No. 121906, April 5, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Expedito Abapo, G.R. Nos. 133387-423, March 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Abalde, G.R. No. 123113, March 31, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Zosimo Barredo, G.R. No. 133832, March 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Tipay, G.R. No. 131472, March 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernabe E. Adila, G.R. No. 133434, March 21, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Arizapa, G.R. No. 131814, March 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Lodrigo Bayya, G.R. No. 127845, March 10, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ben Gajo, G.R. No. 127749, March 9, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso Bayona, G.R. Nos. 133343-44, March 2, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Loreto Amban, G.R. No. 134286, March 1, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruben de los Reyes, G.R. No. 124895, March 1, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo B. Sampior, G.R. No. 117691, March 1, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Lomerio, G.R. No. 129074, February 28, 2000
— Nicanor Dulla vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 123164, February 18, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Abundio Mangila, G.R. Nos. 130203-04, February 15, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Arafiles, G.R. No. 128814, February 9, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Pepito Alama Magdato, G.R. Nos. 134122-27, February 7, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Melandro Nicolas, G.R. Nos. 125125-27, February 4, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernabe Sancha, G.R. Nos. 131818-19, February 3, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Elegio Nadera, G.R. Nos. 131384-87, February 2, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Johnny Bartolome, G.R. No. 133987, January 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Llamo, G.R. No. 132138, January 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Bacule, G.R. No. 127568, January 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Domingo Brigildo, G.R. No. 124129, January 28, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Rudy Cortes, G.R. No. 129693, January 24, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Patricio Gozano, G.R. No. 125965, January 21, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Docena, G.R. Nos. 131894-98, January 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor Pailanco, G.R. No. 130986, January 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Gabriel Flores, G.R. No. 130713, January 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Donato Bernaldez, G.R. Nos. 132779-82, January 19, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Salvador Villar, G.R. No. 127572, January 19, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Miguel S. Lucban, G.R. No. 119217, January 19, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Lolito Moreno, G.R. No. 115191, December 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Renato Ramon, G.R. No. 130407, December 15, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Agapito Flores, G.R. No. 123599, December 13, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgardo de Leon, G.R. No. 128436, December 10, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Ladrillo, G.R. No. 124342, December 8, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Sevilla, G.R. No. 126199, December 8, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Edmundo de Leon, G.R. No. 130985, December 3, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Charito Isug Magbanua, G.R. No. 128888, December 3, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Eulalio Padil, G.R. No. 127566, November 22, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rustico Rivera, G.R. No. 130607, November 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Carmelo Lacaba, G.R. No. 130591, November 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Lasola, G.R. No. 123152, November 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilson Batoon, G.R. No. 134194, October 26, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Tabion, G.R. No. 132715, October 20, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Aguinaldo, G.R. No. 130784, October 13, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Bello, G.R. Nos. 130411-14, October 13, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Emmanuel Panique, G.R. No. 125763, October 13, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Efren Narido, G.R. No. 132058, October 1, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Carmelito S. Abella, G.R. No. 131847, September 22, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Melecio Hivela, G.R. No. 132061, September 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Procopio Tresballes, G.R. No. 126118, September 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Celestino Juntilla, G.R. No. 130604, September 16, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Jimmy Mosqueda, G.R. Nos. 131830-34, September 3, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Sacapaño, G.R. No. 130525, September 3, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Augusto Cesar Ramos, G.R. Nos. 131261-62, August 10, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Hipolito Diaz y de Guzman, G.R. Nos. 131149-50, July 28, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfonso Pineda, G.R. Nos. 118312-13, July 28, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Flores, G.R. No. 130546, July 26, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Brandares, G.R. No. 130092, July 26, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Amado Sandrias Javier, G.R. No. 126096, July 26, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Godofredo Teves, G.R. No. 128839, July 20, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Wilfredo Sugano, G.R. No. 127574, July 20, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Jovito Losano, G.R. No. 127122, July 20, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. David Silvano, G.R. No. 127356, June 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel Alitagtag, G.R. Nos. 124449-51, June 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Larena, G.R. Nos. 121205-09, June 29, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Bonghanoy, G.R. No. 124097, June 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Ildefonso Puertollano, G.R. No. 122423, June 17, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Victor Reñola, G.R. Nos. 122909-12, June 10, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Acala, G.R. Nos. 127023-25, May 19, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Hernani Sandico, G.R. No. 128104, May 18, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Pedres, G.R. No. 129533, April 30, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Eriberto Maglente, G.R. Nos. 124559-66, April 30, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Baliao Empante, G.R. Nos. 130665 and 137996-97, April 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Rufino Mirandilla Bermas, G.R. No. 120420, April 21, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Alfredo Alba, G.R. Nos. 131858-59, April 14, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Delfin Ayo, G.R. No. 123540, March 30, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Mengote, G.R. No. 130491, March 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos Bation, G.R. No. 123160, March 25, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Norberto Solema Lopez, G.R. No. 129397, February 8, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Artemio Calayca, G.R. No. 121212, January 20, 1999
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar Masalihit, G.R. No. 124329, December 14, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Cabanela, G.R. No. 127657, November 24, 1998
— People of the Phil vs. Leopoldo Ilao, G.R. No. 129529, September 29, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Calma, G.R. No. 127126, September 17, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe de los Santos, G.R. No. 121906, September 17, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Bernaldez, G.R. No. 109780, August 17, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Oscar Escala, G.R. No. 120281, July 8, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Fermin Igat, G.R. No. 122097, June 22, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Restituto Manhuyod, Jr. G.R. No. 124676, May 20, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Bobby Lusa, G.R. No. 122246, March 27, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Cirilo Balmoria, G.R. Nos. 120620-21, March 20, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Gerardo Molas, G.R. Nos. 88006-08, March 2, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Cresencio Tabugoca, G.R. No. 125334, January 28, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Romeo Gallo, G.R. No. 124736, January 22, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo Agbayani, G.R. No. 122770, January 16, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Teofilo Taneo, G.R. No. 117683, January 16, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Teotimo Magpantay, G.R. Nos. 113250-52, January 14, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Jenelito Escober, G.R. Nos. 122980-81, November 6, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Russell Fuensalida, G.R. No. 119963, November 6, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Sergio Betonio, G.R. No. 119165, September 26, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Jerry Gabayron, G.R. No. 102018, August 21, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Sangil, Sr. G.R. No. 113689, July 31, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo O. Rabosa, G.R. Nos. 119362 & 120269, June 9, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Perez, G.R. No. 118332, March 26, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Devilleres, G.R. No. 114387, March 14, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico A. Burce, G.R. Nos. 108604-10, March 7, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Florentino Abad, G.R. No. 114144, February 13, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Leo Echegaray, G.R. No. 117472, February 7, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio F. Gaban, G.R. Nos. 116716-18, September 30, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Victorino del Mundo, G.R. Nos. 119964-69, September 20, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar A. Ponayo, G.R. Nos. 116749-50, August 26, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Caguioa, Sr. G.R. Nos. 105690-91, July 26, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodelio S. Cruz, G.R. No. 116728, July 17, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Alimon, G.R. No. 87758, June 28, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Melchor G. Estomaca, G.R. Nos. 117485-86, April 22, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Diaz, G.R. No. 119073, March 13, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Solomon O. Villanueva, G.R. Nos. 112164-65, February 28, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Apolonio V. Melivo, G.R. No. 113029, February 8, 1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Tiburcio E. Baculi, G.R. No. 110591, July 26, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Nilo B. Ramos, G.R. No. 115656, June 27, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Sta. Agata, G.R. No. 101309, June 1, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Alejandro Mandap, G.R. Nos. 106385-88, May 29, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Pablo B. Balsacao, G.R. No. 112027, February 13, 1995
— People of the Phil. vs. Conrado B. Lucas, G.R. Nos. 108172-73, May 25, 1994
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel B. Dusohan, G.R. No. 97307, October 5, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Enrique A. Coloma, G.R. No. 95755, May 18, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Honorio G. Mabunga, G.R. No. 96441, November 13, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Manuel P. Matrimonio, G.R. No. 82223-24, November 13, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Porferio Ignacio, G.R. No. 90318, July 24, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Florencio Telio, G.R. Nos. 72786-88, June 22, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe V. Sangil, G.R. No. 91158, May 8, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Vinas, G.R. Nos. 91363-73, October 15, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Benjamin Herico, G.R. Nos. 89682-83, December 21, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Leopoldo Montante, G.R. Nos. 86492-94, December 20, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Enemecio L. Borja, G.R. No. 85821, October 31, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Munda, Sr.,G.R. No. 71625, September 12, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Carlos V. dela Cruz, G.R. No. 75267, September 10, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Edgar A. Timbang, G.R. No. 88403, August 30, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto R. Barro, Jr., G.R. No. 86385, August 2, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Tumalad, G.R. No. 84835, July 31, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Paulino Aquino, et al., G.R. No. 84913-15, June 5, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Berly Dalinog, G.R. No. 74952, March 12, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Uriel Tablizo, G.R. No. 88190, February 26, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynaldo Rosell, G.R. No. 86383, January 30, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Jovencio Lucas, G.R. No. 80102, January 22, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodrigo Pascua, G.R. No. 82303, December 21, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Martin Bruca, G.R. Nos. 76019-20, November 6, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Anecito L. Estebal, G.R. No. 82768, May 5, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Danilo Ison, G.R. No. 62806, May 5, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Concordio Sarda, G.R. No. 74479, April 24, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco Rebancos, G.R. No. 72783, April 18, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Lualhati, G.R. No. 66038, March 16, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto M. Ymana, G.R. Nos. 54161-62, March 9, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Felipe Robles, G.R. No. 53569, February 23, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Benito Ramos, G.R. No. L-64656, November 18, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar S. Cariño, Sr., G.R. Nos. 74297 & 74351, November 11, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Paragoso, G.R. No. L-50872, October 18, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Ramos, G.R. Nos. L-48728-29, September 19, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose San Buenaventura, G.R. No. L-50386, August 8, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Bulosan, G.R. No. L-58404, April 15, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Federico Rosario, G.R. No. L-73534, March 25, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Eleanor Dejucos, G.R. No. L-73326, December 14, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio S. Sonico, G.R. No. L-70308, December 14, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Renato Alfonso, G.R. No. 72573, August 31, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Crisanto F. Ausan, G.R. No. L-49728, July 15, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cruz, Sr., G.R. No. 71462, June 30, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Molero, G.R. No. L-67842, September 24, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto R. Ocampo, G.R. No. L-47335, August 13, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio Y. Ibal, G.R. Nos. L-66010-12, July 31, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Mansueto Lamberte,G.R. No. L-65153, July 11, 1986
— People of the Phil. vs. Inocencio E. Soterol, G.R. No. L-53498, December 16, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Anastacio Mendoza, G.R. No. L-31464, July 15, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Fred Pelias Jones, G.R. No. L-61165, June 24, 1985
— People of the Phil. vs. Ignacio Seculles, G.R. No. L-52348, October 23, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto Espiritu, G.R. No. 63451, May 31, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Arturo Talaro, G.R. No. L-40436, May 25, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Egot, G.R. No. L-42962, April 30, 1984
— People of the Phil. vs. Ponciano Oydoc, G.R. No. L-61679, October 26, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Eleuterio Torres, G.R. No. L-44429, October 26, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Candido de Castro, G.R. No. L-62945, September 30, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Eustaquio Lampitao, G.R. No. L-33305, June 28, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Marciano Domen, G.R. No. L-47675-76, January 31, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Samuel Pimentel, G.R. No. L-38423, November 25, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Leon Alvis, Jr., G.R. No. L-46125, September 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Fernando Felipe, G.R. No. L-40432, July 19, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Ricardo L. Franco, G.R. No. L-40183, June 29, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Abing, G.R. No. L-49858, March 15, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcos Clarin, G.R. No. L-47200, October 30, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Ruperto Tapao, G.R. No. L-41704, October 23, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Bartolome Bawit, G.R. No. L-48116, February 20, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Operiano Opeña, G.R. No. L-34954, February 20, 1981
— People of the Phil. vs. Sotero Navarrete, G.R. No. L-43833, November 28, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Quirico Egasta Albarico, G.R. Nos. L-38339, L-38340 & L-38341, October
10, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Ytac, G.R. No. L-47568, January 28, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Jovenal Elizaga, G.R. No. L-38272, October 26, 1976
— People of the Phil. vs. Mauricio Sarile, G.R. No. L-37148, June 30, 1976
— Avelino Ordoño vs. Angel Daquigan, et al., G.R. No. L-39012, January 31, 1975
— People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Castro, G.R. No. L-33175, August 19, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Pedro Gonzales, G.R. No. L-33926, July 31, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Conrado Samillano, G.R. No. L-31375, April 22, 1974
— People of the Phil. vs. Eustaquio Modelo, G.R. No. L-29144, October 30, 1970
— People of the Phil. vs. Dominador Celis, G.R. No. L-26977, September 30, 1970
— Josefina Royong vs. Ariston Oblena, A.C. No. 376, April 30, 1963
— People of the Phil. vs. Sotero Delfinado, G.R. No. 43292, August 3, 1935
— People of the Phil. vs. Faustino Francisco, G.R. No. 42652, February 25, 1935
— People of the Phil. vs. Sebastian G. Segura, G.R. No. 41669, November 22, 1934
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Matela, G.R. No. 37736, November 13, 1933
— People of the Phil. vs. Pablo Porras, G.R. No. 38107, October 16, 1933
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Domingo Hernandez, G.R. No. 23916, October 14, 1926
— People of the Phil. vs. Matias Ebol, G.R. No. 24857, January 23, 1926
— United States vs. Barbara Capistrano, G.R. No. 15001, March 16, 1920
— United States vs. Blas Yamballa, G.R. No. 14607, February 25, 1919
— United States vs. Antonio Javier Dichao, G.R. No. 8781, March 30, 1914
— United States vs. Epifanio Mamintud, G.R. No. 2891, August 16, 1906
Sexual Harassment
— Act 3815, Art. 245
— R.A. 8551, Sec. 57 & Sec. 59
— R.A. 8371, Sec. 23
— R.A. 7877
— A.O. 250, June 21, 1995
— M.O. 376, June 6, 1996

— 1995 Annual Report
— Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, December 20, 1993
— Implementing Rules And Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 7877 or The Anti-Sexual Harassment Act
of 1995, for the Philippine Science High School System (PSHS System), February 6, 2002
— Inter-American Convention on the Prevention, Punishment and Eradication of Violence Against

Women "Convention of Belen Do Para", June 1, 1994
— Labor Advisory, June 22, 1998
— Labor Laws/Standards Specifically Relating to Women and Young Workers
— Philippine Development Plan for Women (1989-1992)
— Philippine Plan for Gender-Responsive Development [PPGD] (1995-2025)
— Rules and Regulations Governing Disposition of Cases on Sexual Harassment (Implementing AO.
No. 68, s. 1992)
— Jocelyn de Leon vs. Tyrone Pedreña, A.C. No. 9401, October 22, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose Abadies, G.R. Nos. 139346-50, July 11, 2002
— Arnold P. Mollaneda vs. Leonida C. Umacob, G.R. No. 140128, June 6, 2001
— Lucita E. Biboso vs. Osmundo M. Villanueva , A.M. No. MTJ-01-1356, April 16, 2001
— Merilo-Bedural vs. Edroso, A.M. No. 00-1395, October 12, 2000
— Yolanda Floralde vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 123048, August 8, 2000
— Phil. Aeolus Auto-Motive United Corp. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 124617, April 28, 2000
— Romulo G. Madredijo, et al. vs. Leandro T. Loyao, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-98-1424, October 13, 1999
— Ana May M. Simbajon vs. Rogelio M. Esteban, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1162, August 11, 1999
— Carlos G. Libres vs. NLRC, et al.,G.R. No. 123737, May 28, 1999
1998
— Delfin G. Villarama vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 106341, September 2,
1994
— CSC M.C. 17-01, July 23, 2001
— CSC Res. 354-99
— DILG M.C. 223-97
— DOLE A.O. 68-92
— NCIP A.O. 1-98, Rule V, Sec. 4 (a) (9) & Rule XI, Sec. 2 (e)
Other Sexual Assaults
— Act 3815, RPC, Art. 336; Arts. 337-339; Arts. 342-343 & Arts. 344-345
— A.M. No. 00-5-03-SC, October 3, 2000, Rule 110, Sec. 5, 3rd par.
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodel Singson, G.R. No. 194719, September 21, 2011
— Esmael Orquinaza vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 165596, November 17, 2005
— People of the Phil. vs. Lamberto Velasquez, G.R. Nos. 132635 & 143872-75, February 21, 2001
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando de Lara, et al., G.R. No. 124703, June 27, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Tomas Claudio, G.R. No. 133694, February 29, 2000
— Victoria R. Nabhan vs. Eric Calderon, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1164, February 4, 2000
1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Roberto Lising, et al., G.R. Nos. 106210-11, January 30, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Anton Burgos, G.R. No. 117451, September 29, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Jose O. Tabalesma, G.R. No. 101832, August 18, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Edwin Julian, G.R. Nos. 113692-93, April 4, 1997
— People of the Phil. vs. Bobby Sencil, et al., G.R. Nos. 105959-60, October 12, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Doroteo S. Mejorada, G.R. No. 102705, July 30, 1993
— People of the Phil. vs. Domnino G. Grefiel, G.R. No. 77228, November 13, 1992
— People of the Phil. vs. Rodolfo Ngo, G.R. No. 95680, October 4, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando Godines, G.R. No. 93410, May 7, 1991
— People of the Phil. vs. Melvin S. Giron, G.R. No. 44749, December 10, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Eduardo de Dios, G.R. No. 58174, July 6, 1990
— People of the Phil. vs. Bienvenido Leoparte, G.R. No. 85328, July 4, 1990
— Orlando Primero vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. 48468-69, November 22, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Gil Caccam, G.R. No. 80435, June 20, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Ernesto M. Ymana, G.R. Nos. 54161-62, March 9, 1989
— People of the Phil. vs. Cesar R. Maravilla, et al., G.R. No. L-47646, September 19, 1988
— People of the Phils. vs. Rolando Aragon, G.R. No. L-51736, August 4, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Silvestre Sunpongco, et al., G.R. No. L-42665, June 30, 1988
— People of the Phil. vs. Arcito Magdaraog, G.R. No. L-40988, April 15, 1988
— Christofer Tejones vs. Leopoldo B. Gironella, G.R. No. L-35506, March 21, 1988
— Teodulo M. Palma, Sr. vs. Carlos O. Fortich, et al., G.R. No. L-59679, January 29, 1987
— People of the Phil. vs. Vicente Mostoles, Jr., G.R. No. L-38644, September 30, 1983
— People of the Phil. vs. Eddie Gamez, G.R. Nos. L-36428-29, August 30, 1983
— Benjamin A. G. Vega, et al. vs. Domingo D. Panis, et al., G.R. No. L-40842, September 30, 1982
— Sandra Dugger Vasquez vs. Emmanuel Flores, A.M. No. 770-MJ, August 29, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Adriano Arciaga, et al., G.R. No. L-38179, June 16, 1980
— People of the Phil. vs. Rolando C. Peña, G.R. No. L-36435, December 20, 1977
— People of the Phil. vs. Remegio Estebia, G.R. No. L-26868, July 29, 1971
— People of the Phil. vs. Tiburcio Balbar, G.R. Nos. L-20216 & L-20217, November 29, 1967
— Romana Campita vs. Aquilino L. Villanueva, G.R. No. L-20228, November 28, 1964
— People of the Phil. vs. Percival Gilo, G.R. No. L-18202, April 30, 1964
— Jose Domingding, et al. vs. Trinidad Ng, et al., G.R. No. L-10872, February 28, 1958
— People of the Phil. vs. Francisco C. Buenafe, G.R. No. L-8056, May 30, 1956
— People of the Phil. vs. Alberto Cosare, G.R. No. L-6544, August 25, 1954
— People of the Phil. vs. Serafin Castillo, et al., G.R. No. L-125, July 26, 1946
— Vicente Tolentino vs. Sixto de la Costa, G.R. No. 46038, August 10, 1938
— People of the Phil. vs. Dalmacio Mañgon, et al., G.R. No. 41430, November 1, 1934
— People of the Phil. vs. Marcelino Collado, G.R. No. 41248, September 14, 1934
— People of the Phil. vs. Felicisimo Bustos, et al., G.R. No. 32563, September 6, 1930
— People of the Phil. vs. Lazaro Rabadan, et al., G.R. No. 27856, December 16, 1927
— People of the Phil. vs. Ramon Cosca, et al., G.R. No. 29487, November 10, 1928
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Felipe Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 25350, July 26, 1926
— People of the Phil. Islands vs. Leoncio Columna, et al., G.R. No. 18942, December 1, 1922
— United States vs. Juan Oxiles, et al., G.R. No. 9999, February 23, 1915
— United States vs. Braulio de Vivar, G.R. No. 9298, February 11, 1915
— United States vs. Catalino de la Cruz, et al., G.R. No. L-3620, March 25, 1907
— United States vs. Baldomero Ramos, et al., G.R. No. 2339, May 5, 1905
— United States vs. Pedro Alvarez, G.R. No. 881, August 30, 1902
Sexual Abuse
— People of the Phil. vs. Reynante M. Salino, G.R. No. 188854, August 22, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Ireneo Ganzan, G.R. No. 193509, April 11, 2012
— Isabelita C. Vinuya, et al. vs. Alberto G. Romulo, et al., G.R. No. 162230, April 28, 2010
— AAA vs. Antonio A. Carbonell, et al., G.R. No. 171465, June 8, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Warlito C. Fernandez, G.R. No. 172118, April 24, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Roger Durano, G.R. No. 175316, March 28, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Raymundo Dadulla, G.R. No. 175946, March 23, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Simeon Suyat, G.R. No. 173484, March 20, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Samuel Diunsay-Jalandoni, G.R. No. 174277, February 8, 2007
Trafficking of Women
— Act 3815, RPC, Art. 341
— B.P. 186, March 16, 1982
— C.A. 613, August 8, 1940, Sec. 29 (4)
— R.A. 7610, Art. VI, Sec. 10
— E.O. 220, March 23, 2000
— E.O. 434, August 20, 1997, Sec. 2
— E.O. 3, July 7, 1992, Sec. 4 (a)
— OCA Circular 36-07, April 18, 2007
1979, Art. 6
— Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, November 7, 1967, Art. 8

Women "Convention of Belen Do Para", June 1, 1994, Art. 2
of their Families
— Philippine Development Plan for Women (1989-1992), Chap. 10 (1.2.11) & Chap. 12 (1.4) (f)
— Philippine Plan for Gender-Responsive Development [PPGD] (1995-2025), Chap. 9 (4.3.7); Chap.
17 (1.3.2.6) & (3.4.3); Chap. 19 (1.4.13) & (1.7.2.5)
— Inter-Agency Council Res. 1-03, Approving and Adopting the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of R.A. No. 9208, September 17, 2003
— R.A. 10364 (Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2012), February 6, 2013
— People of the Phil. vs. Hadja Jarma P. Lalli, et al., G.R. No. 195419, October 12, 2011
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Nuevas, G.R. No. L-154, March 18, 1946

— DSWD A.O. 73-03, September 4, 2003
— POEA M.C. 48-95
— POEA M.C. 18-94
— POEA M.C. 6-94
— POEA M.C. 53-93
Mail Order Bride
— R.A. 6955
— Omnibus Rules and Regulations Implementing the Migrant Workers and Overseas Filipinos Act
of 1995, Sec. 74 (a)
— Proposed United Nations Convention Against Sexual Exploitation, January 1995, Art. 3
— Philippine Development Plan for Women (1989-1992), Chap. 10 (1.1.2), (1.2.11), (1.2.14), (2.2)
(f) & (4.2)
— Philippine Plan for Gender-Responsive Development [PPGD] (1995-2025), Chap. 17, (1.3.2.6) &
(3.4.1)
Prostitution
— Act 3815, RPC, Art. 202; Art. 247, 4th par. & Arts. 340-341
— Act 519, Vagrancy Law
— B.P. 337, Sec. 149 (z) (ff) & Sec. 177 (x)
— B.P. 186, Sec. 1
— C.A. 613, Sec. 37 (5)
— Republic Act No. 10158 dated March 27, 2012
— R.A. 7160, Sec. 447 (1) (v); Sec. 458 (1) (v) & Sec. 468 (1) (v)
— E.O. 123, June 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (d)
— E.O. 3, July 7, 1992
1979, Art. 6
— Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, November 7, 1967, Art. 8
— Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women, December 20, 1993, Art. 2 (b)

Women "Convention of Belen Do Para", June 1, 1994, Art. 2 (1)
— Rules and Regulations Governing Overseas Employment, May 31, 1991, Rule VII, Sec. 2 (j)
— People of the Phil. vs. Bernadette Pansacala, G.R. No. 194255, June 13, 2012
— JMM Promotion & Management, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 120095, August 5,
1996
— People of the Phil. vs. Antonio A. Orcullo, et al., G.R. No. L-57103, January 30, 1982
— People of the Phil. vs. Jesus Nuevas, G.R. No. L-154, March 18, 1946
— People of the Phil. vs. Joaquin Mirabien, G.R. No. 26391, July 28, 1921
— Kenryu Azuma vs. Insular Collector of Customs, G.R. No. 14724, March 6, 1920
— Zacarias Villavicencio, et al. vs. Justo Lukban, G.R. No. 14639, March 25, 1919
— United States vs. Martina Bacas, G.R. No. 5297, October 19, 1909
— United States vs. Neta Shiyokishi, G.R. No. 2236, January 4, 1906
— United States vs. Choa Chi Co, G.R. No. 1574, April 13, 1904
— POEA M.C. 48-95
— POEA M.C. 18-94
— POEA M.C. 6-94
— POEA M.C. 53-93
— POEA M.C. 4-83, Sec. 2 (k)
Abortion
— Act 3815, Arts. 256-259
— R.A. 7392, Sec. 25
— R.A. 7322, Sec. 1
— R.A. 7309, Sec. 3 (d)
— R.A. 6972, Sec. 3 (f)
— R.A. 1161, Social Security Act of 1954, Sec. 14-A
— P.D. 1636, Sec. 11
— P.D. 1202, Sec. 7
— P.D. 603, Art. 6
— P.D. 495
— P.D. 442, Art. 133
— P.D. 148, Sec. 5
— Handbook on Workers' Statutory Monetary Benefits, XI
— Interpretative Bulletin on Sugar Workers Welfare Programs, July 25, 1995
— Maternity Benefit
— Mga Tanong at Sagot Tungkol sa Maternity Leave Benefits
— Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, Rule XII, Sec. 7
— Philippine Development Plan for Women (1989-1992), Chap. 4 (1.3.2.1); Chap. 7 (1.1.1.3); Chap.
19 (1.4.4) & (1.7.1) (j)
— Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 6982, Rule IX, Sec. 2
— Study on Maternity/Paternity Leave Benefits, April 30, 1990
— The Social Amelioration Program
— People of the Phil. vs. Digma, G.R. Nos. 127750-52, November 20, 2000
— People of the Phil. vs. Feliciano Ramos, G.R. No. 129439, September 25, 1998
— People of the Phil. vs. Emmanuel Desalisa, G.R. No. 95262, January 4, 1994
— Rosario Delos Reyes vs. Jose B. Aznar, A.C. No. 1334, November 28, 1989
— Lupo S. Cabajal vs. Government Service Insurance System, G.R. No. L-46654, August 9, 1988
— In Re: Virginia C. Almirez vs. Arturo P. Lopez, A.C. No. 481, February 28, 1969
— Antonio Geluz vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. L-16439, July 20, 1961
— People of the Phil. vs. Aniceto Martin, G.R. No. L-3002, May 23, 1951
— United States vs. Mariano Boston, G.R. No. 4795, November 23, 1908
— BRW M.C., November 7, 1995
— DOH A.O. 45-B-2000
— DOLE M.C. 2-94
— DOLE Order 2-00
— DOLE Order 6-71
— SSS Circular 36-V, February 20, 1998
— SSS Circular 36-V-97
— SSS Circular 15-V-92
— SSS Circular 103-T
Health and Social Welfare
— E.O. 443, September 24, 1997
— DepEd Order No. 80-12, October 23, 2012

— DOH Circular 150-A-89
— DPWH Department Order No. 48-11, August 25, 2011
— NCRFW Memo. from the President (Protection of Women Overseas Contract Workers), March 8,
1993
Reproductive Health
— Act 3815, RPC, Arts. 256-259
— R.A. 8504, Sec. 3 (k)
— R.A. 8282, Sec. 1
— R.A. 7322, Sec. 1
— R.A. 1161, Sec. 14-A (a) & (g)
— R.A. 1131, Sec. 1
— R.A. 679, Sec. 8 & Sec. 12
— P.D. 1636, Sec. 11
— P.D. 1202, Sec. 7
— P.D. 1083, Art. 61
— P.D. 1013
— P.D. 442, Art. 133 & Art. 137
— P.D. 148, Sec. 5
— The Social Reform Agenda, II (6) (c)
— Philippine Development Plan for Women (1989-1992), Chap. 7 (2) (b) (4.1) & (4.4)
— Philippine Plan for Gender-Responsive Development [PPGD] (1995-2025), Chap. 1 (1.7); Chap. 2
(2.6) & (4.3); Chap. 4 (1.1), (1.2.2) (c) & (1.3.2.3)
— Women and Population, No date supplied
— DOH A.O. 35-06
— DOLE Department Order No. 112-A-12, May 22, 2012
— DSWD Order 11-97, II (A) (10.6)

Maternal and Child Care
— R.A. 8438, Art. XI, Sec. 10
— R.A. 8371, The Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997, Chap. V, Sec. 26
— R.A. 7883
— R.A. 7600
— R.A. 7160, Local Government Code of 1991, Chap. 2, Sec. 17 (2) (iii)
— R.A. 6972
— R.A. 6766, Art. XVI, Sec. 10
— E.O. 51, October 20, 1986
— Implementing Guidelines for the Operationalization of the SRA Convergence, Sec. 4 (4.1.1.1)
— Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons (RA 7277), Rule IV
(A) (1.4) & Sec. 3 (A) (1.4)
— Philippine Plan for Gender-Responsive Development
— Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991, February 21, 1992,
Art. 25, Municipality, (c) (1)
— Sps. Abelardo and Rosita Borbe vs. Violeta Calalo, G.R. No. 152572, October 5, 2007
— CSC M.C. 22-02, October 23, 2002
— DOLE M.C. 2-94, June 22, 1994
— DSWD Order 5-92, III (A) (2) (c)
— DSWD Order, October 2, 1996, Annex V (D) (2), par. 2
— DSWD Order 11-97, II (A) (10.6)
— DSWD Order 16-99, Attachment B (I) (3.4)
— Quezon City Ordinance No. SP-2076-11, June 27, 2011
Family Planning
— R.A. 8504, Art. I, Sec. 4

— R.A. 7392, Philippine Midwifery Act of 1992, Art. III, Sec. 12 (l)
— R.A. 7160, Local Government Code of 1991, Chap. 2, Sec. 17 (b) (2) (iv)
— E.O. 307, February 28, 1996
— E.O. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (b)
— E.O. 119, January 30, 1987, Sec. 11 (c)
— P.D. 1204, Sec. 1
— P.D. 495, 3rd par.
— P.D. 442, Art. 134
— P.D. 148, Sec. 5
— P.D. 79, Sec. 4 (f) & (i) & Sec. 5 (a)
— LOI 435, July 20, 1976
— LOI 436
— Proc. 429, July 27, 1994
— Bureau of Women and Young Workers
Sec. 3 (A) (1.4)
— Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, May 27, 1989, Rule XII, Sec. 11
— Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991, Art. 25, Municipality
(d) (5)
— Rules and Regulations to Govern the Exercise of the Right of Government Employees, Rule VIII,
Sec. 2 (i)
— The Medicare Primer, L(VII)
1979, Art. 10 (h); Art. 12 (1) & Art. 14 (b)
— The Social Reform Agenda, II (A) (6) (c)
— Philippine Development Plan for Women (1989-1992), Part Three & Chap. 7
— Philippine Plan for Gender-Responsive Development [PPGD] (1995-2025), Chap. 2 (4.3), par. 3;
Chap. 4, (1.2.1), pars. 3 & 4, (1.2.2), par. 5 (a), (1.2.3.2), par. 5, (1.3.2.1), (1.3.2.7), (3.4), (3.13), (4.2.1) (a);
Chap. 20, par. 2 & (4.2.9);
— Spouses Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. Nos. 204819, 204934, etc., April 8, 2014
— Abdon Seguisabal vs. Jose R. Cabrera, A.M. No. 2209-CTJ, August 27, 1981
— DILG M.C. 212-94
— DOH AO 8-06
— POEA M.C. 70-94, IV (C) (3) (e)
Health Workers
— R.A. 8504, Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of 1998, Art. I, Sec. 3 (n), Sec. 5 & Art. VI,
Sec. 31 (b)
— R.A. 8438, Art. XI, Sec. 4 (d)
— R.A. 8423, Traditional and Alternative Medicine Act (TAMA) of 1997, Art. III, Sec. 6 (d)
— R.A. 7883
— R.A. 7875, National Health Insurance Act of 1995, Art. V, Sec. 23 (p)
— R.A. 7600, Rooming-in and Breastfeeding Act of 1992, Chap. 3, Sec. 11
— R.A. 7305
— R.A. 7164
— R.A. 6766, Art. XVI, Sec. 4 (d)
— R.A. 1136, Sec. 2 (g)
— E.O. 51, October 20, 1986, Sec. 7 (a) & (e); & Sec. 8
— Philippine Development Plan for Women (1989-1992), Chap. 7 (1.1.3) & (4.2); & Chap. 10 (1.2.2)
— Philippine Plan for Gender-Responsive Development [PPGD] (1995-2025), Chap. 4 (1.2.2), par. 4,
(1.3.1), (1.3.2.12) & (4.2.2) (b)
Health Insurance and Benefits
— R.A. 9241, February 10, 2004

— R.A. 7875
— R.A. 7688
— R.A. 6111, Secs. 23-24
— A.O. 277-A, June 25, 1996
— A.O. 277, June 25, 1996
— E.O. 501, December 27, 1991
— E.O. 500, December 27, 1991
— E.O. 441, December 21, 1990
— E.O. 402, April 27, 1990
— E.O. 365, July 28, 1989
— E.O. 269, July 25, 1987, Sec. 8
— P.D. 1519, Secs. 17-19
— P.D. 1146, Revised Government Service Insurance Act of 1977, Sec. 28
— P.D. 612, Sec. 20
— P.D. 273
— Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Medical Care Program for FOCWS, November 14,
1994, Rule VI
— Implementing Rules and Regulations of Program I of The Revised Philippine Medical Care Act,
August 27, 1987, Rule X, Sec. 15 (d) & Rule VI, Sec. 1
— Philippine AIDS Prevention and Control Act of 1998, Art. 4, Sec. 26
— Revised Philippine Medical Care Act, Secs. 17-19
— The Medicare Primer
— The National Health Insurance Law and the Civil Service Code, No date supplied
— Luz Pineda, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 105562, September 27, 1993
— PhilHealth Board Res. 324-00
Marriage and Family

— 1987 Constitution, Art. XV
— 1973 Constitution, Art. II, Sec. 4 & Sec. 12
— Act 3815, The Revised Penal Code, Arts. 349-352
— Act 3753
— Act 3613
— Act 3448
— Act 2927
— C.A. 473
— R.A. 8438, Sec. 9 & Sec. 10
— R.A. 8369
— R.A. 8171
— R.A.7610, Special Protection of Children Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Act, June 17, 1992, Sec. 24
— R.A. 7192, Women in Development and Nation Building Act, Sec. 8
— R.A. 6809
— R.A. 6766, Art. X
— R.A. 5416, Social Welfare Act of 1968, Sec. 7
— R.A. 3835, Sec. 5
— R.A. 738
— R.A. 386, Art. 2049 & Art. 2259
— E.O. 241, June 9, 1995
— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987
— E.O. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 13 (b)
— P.D. 1910
— P.D. 1083, Code of Muslim Personal Laws of the Philippines, Title II, Chap. 1 & Chap. 2
— P.D. 603, December 10, 1974, Arts. 64-66
— Proc. 847, August 12, 1996
— Rules of Court, January 1, 1964, Rule 78, Sec. 3 & Rule 83

— Amended Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 8171, August 5, 1999
— Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages,
November 7, 1962
1979, Art. 9; Art. 11 (2) & Art. 16
— Convention on the Nationality of Married Women, January 29, 1957
— Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, November 7, 1967, Art. 5; Art.
6 (1) (a) & (2); & Art. 10 (2)
— Implementing Guidelines for the Operationalization of the SRA Convergence, Sec. 4 (4.2.1) (8)
— International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 16, 1966, Art. 23
— Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code, May 27, 1989, Rule XII, Sec. 13 (e)
— Philippine Development Plan for Women (1989-1992), Chap. 10 (4.1.8) & (4.2)
— Philippine Plan for Gender-Responsive Development (1995-2025), Chap. 6; Chap. 20 (4.2.11) &
(4.2)
— Proc. 624, April 30, 2004
— Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 16
— DILG M.C. 115-99
— DILG M.C. 3-99
— DILG M.C. 173-98
— DILG M.C. 106-98
— DILG M.C. 303-97
— DILG M.C. 148-96
— DILG M.C. 122-95
— DILG M.C. 102-95
— DILG M.C. 189-94
— DILG M.C. 108-94
— DILG M.C. 58-94

— Unnumbered DOJ Opinion, March 23, 1970





— DOJ Opinion No. 173-A, s. 1950
— DSWD Order 16-99, A (I) (4.1) & B (I) (4)
— DSWD Order 11-97, II (A) (1) & (B) (1)

— DSWD Order, October 2, 1996, V (A) & V (D) (3) (g)
— DSWD Order 5-92, III (A) (2) (b)
— ILO Convention on Women No. 156
— ILO Recommendation on Women No. 165
— SSS Circular No. 93-T
Girl Child
— Act 3815, The Revised Penal Code, Art. 278 (1)
— R.A. 8296
— R.A. 7658
— R.A. 7610, Local Government Code of 1991, Sec. 439 (b)
— P.D. 603
— Proc. 759, March 6, 1996
— Philippines: National Monograph on Child Labor, September 4, 1987
— Philippine Plan for Gender-Responsive Development [PPGD] (1995-2025), Chap. 4 (4) (4.7)
(4.7.2)
— Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government Code of 1991, Art. 208 (b)
[Note: For supreme court cases involving girl children, please see CHILDREN outline, supra.]
— DILG M.C. 46-99
— DILG M.C. 172-93
Institutional Mechanisms
— R.A. 3835
— R.A. 2714
— E.O. 368, September 5, 1996
— E.O. 329, May 7, 1996
— E.O. 273, September 8, 1995
— E.O. 268, August 4, 1995

— E.O. 208, October 10, 1994
— E.O. 348, February 17, 1989
— Proc. 227, March 17, 1988
— Proc. 224, March 1, 1988
— Philippine Development Plan for Women (PDPW)/The Philippine Plan for Gender-Responsive
Development (PPGD)
— CSC M.C. 3-04, February 9, 2004
— CSC M.C. 5-02, February 4, 2002
— CSC M.C. 18-00, October 16, 2000
— DBM-NEDA-NCRFW Joint Circular 1-04, April 5, 2004
— DBM-NEDA-NCRFW Joint Circular 1-01, August 15, 2001
— DILG M.C. 23-05, March 8, 2005
— DILG M.C. 20-04, February 18, 2004
— DILG M.C. 28-03, February 21, 2003
— DOTC Order No. 5-12, March 23, 2012
— NCRFW Memorandum from the President, Protection of Women Overseas Contract Workers,
March 8, 1993
— NCRFW Memorandum from the President, Enhancement of the Image of Women in Media,
March 7, 1994
— NCRFW Memorandum from the President, Preparation and Finalization of the Guidelines to
Include Women's Budget Needs in the 1996 Budget Call, May 19, 1993
— NCRFW Memorandum from the President, Possible Representation of the NCRFW in the 81st
Session of the International Labor Organization, May 19, 1994
— NCRFW Memorandum from the President, Invitation of NCRFW as Observers in Cabinet Cluster
Meetings, May 19, 1994
— NCRFW Memorandum from the President, Expanding the Social Reform Agenda to Cover the
Beijing Platform of Action on Women, October 11, 1995
— NCRFW Memorandum from the President, Gender-Responsive Policies and Programs on Family,
March 7, 1994
General Purpose
— P.D. 633
— R.A. 8371, Sec. 21, Sec. 23, Sec. 25, Sec. 26 & Sec. 50
— R.A. 7688
— R.A. 7432
— R.A. 7277
— R.A. 7192
— R.A. 6949
— R.A. 6725
— P.D. 1043
— Proc. 1105, October 10, 1997
— Bureau of Women and Young Workers
— Philippine National Police Reform and Reorganization Act of 1998, Title VII
— CSC M.C. 8-99
International Instruments
General
— Universal Declaration of Human Rights
— International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
— International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
— Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Civil and Political Rights
Rights of Women
— R.A. 9710 (The Magna Carta of Women)
— Convention on the Political Rights of Women (1952)
— Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1967)
— Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women (1993)
— Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict

Women "Convention of Belen Do Para" (1994)
— Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women

Prevention of Discrimination
— Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979)
— Convention against Discrimination in Education (1960)
— Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention (1958)
— Equal Remuneration Convention (1951)
— Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (1967)
— Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (1999)
— ILO Convention on Women No. 156-83
Slavery, Servitude, Forced Labor and Similar Practices
Prostitution of Others

Women "Convention of Belen Do Para" (1994)
— Proposed United Nations Convention Against Sexual Exploitation (1995)
Employment
— ILO Convention 111 (Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation)
— ILO Convention on Women No. 89-51 (Night Work of Women Employed in Industry)
Marriage and Family
— Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages
— Recommendation on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of

Marriages
Social Welfare, Progress and Development
— Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons (1975)
of their Families
— ILO Maritime Convention No. 130
Nationality
— Convention on the Nationality of Married Women (1957)
Women Against the Law
— People of the Phil. vs. Cecilia P. Lagman, G.R. No. 197807, April 16, 2012
— People of the Phil. vs. Susan C. Latosa, G.R. No. 186128, June 23, 2010
— People of the Phil. vs. Beverly Tibo-Tan, et al., G.R. No. 178301, April 24, 2009
Women with Disabilities
— DILG M.C. 38-09, 6th Women with Disabilities Day Celebration, March 20, 2009
Elderly
— 1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 11; Art. XV, Sec. 4
— Act 3815, Art. 13 (2); Art. 47 & Art. 83
— B.P. 408, Sec. 14
— B.P. 337, Sec. 149 (y); Sec. 177 (z) (ff) & Sec. 208 (s)
— R.A. 9994
— R.A. 9257 (Expanded Senior Citizens' Act of 2003)

— R.A. 8291, Sec. 1 (Sec. 13) & [Sec. 2 (o)]
— R.A. 8282, Sec. 1 (Sec. 2)
— R.A. 7941, Sec. 5
— R.A. 7876
— R.A. 7875, Art. I, Sec. 2
— R.A. 7696
— R.A. 7659, Sec. 25
— R.A. 7432
— R.A. 7160, Sec. 17 (b) (2) (iv); Sec. 447, 5 (xiv) & (xvii); Sec. 468, 4 (vi) & (ix); & Sec. 483, 3 (iv)
— R.A. 7077, Art. V, Sec. 12 & Sec. 13 (3)
— R.A. 6948
— R.A. 5416, Sec. 3 (3)
— R.A. 1161, Sec. 4 (j) & Sec. 26 (d)
— A.O. 111, February 8, 1994
— A.O. 79, September 8, 1993, Sec. 1 (d)
— E.O. 105, May 16, 2002
— E.O. 266, July 17, 2000
— E.O. 208, October 10, 1994, Sec. 1 (1.3)
— E.O. 123, January 30, 1987, Sec. 15 (e)
— E.O. 102, December 24, 1986, Sec. 11 [Sec. 26 (d)]
— P.D. 735, Sec. 8 (Sec. 12-B)
— Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Gov't Code of 1991, Art. 98 (4) (iv); Art. 99 (5)
(xiv) & Art. 100 (5) (xiv)
— Rules and Regulations in the Implementation of RA 7432, April 3, 1993
— Rules and Regulations Implementing E.O. 105, October 10, 2003
— Manila Memorial Park, Inc., et al. vs. Sec. of the DSWD, et al., G.R. No. 175356, December 3,
2013
— Carlos Superdrug Corp., et al. vs. DSWD, et al., G.R. No. 166494, June 29, 2007
— People of the Phil. vs. Norman Palarca, G.R. No. 146020, May 29, 2002
— People of the Phil. vs. Edralin Taboga, G.R. Nos. 144086-87, February 6, 2002
— BSP Circular No. 805, Senior Citizens Priority Lane in BSP Supervised Financial Institutions,
August 8, 2013
— CAB Res. 24-05, Guidelines on the Grant of 20% Discount on Air Fares for Senior Citizens, May
12, 2005
— DA A.O. 37-05
— DFA Department Order No. 09-12, Establishment of a Family and Retirees Service Unit, April 12,
2012
— DILG M.C. 088-11, June 21, 2011
— DILG M.C. 124-06
— DILG M.C. 77-06
— DILG M.C. 21-06, February 24, 2006
— DILG M.C. 192-99
— DILG M.C. 139-99
— DILG M.C. 22-99
— DILG M.C. 180-98
— DILG M.C. 102-98
— DILG M.C. 249-97
— DILG M.C. 186-97
— DILG M.C. 193-96
— DILG M.C. 191-96
— DILG M.C. 156-95
— DOH A.O. 18, November 2, 2011 (Implementing Guidelines on Influenza and Pneumococcal
Immunization for Indigent Senior Citizens)
— DOTC D.O. 22-08, Ensuring the Enjoyment by the Senior Citizens of the Benefits Granted to them
by R.A. No. 9257 Otherwise Known as the "Expanded Senior Citizens' Act", May 19, 2008
— DSWD A.O. 003-11, Operational Procedure in Line with Administrative Order (AO) 15 Series of
2010 on the Implementation of the Social Pension for Indigent Senior Citizens, February 17, 2011
— DSWD A.O. 4-10, Guidelines on the Home Care Support Services for Senior Citizens, January 25,
2010
— DSWD A.O. 8-05, Guidelines for the Operation of the National and Regional Coordinating and
Monitoring Boards of RA 9257 "Expanded Senior Citizens Act of 2003", May 25, 2005
— DSWD A.O. 2-05, Enriched Guidelines in the Operation of Group Home for Neglected,
Abandoned, Abused, Unattached and Poor Older Persons and Persons with Disabilities, January 19, 2005
— DSWD Order 16-99, B. II, 2 (2.2)
— DSWD Resolution, Rules and Regulations Implementing Republic Act No. 9257 (Expanded Senior
Citizens Act of 2003), May 28, 2004
— DTI A.O. 03-05
— DTI-DA Joint Administrative Order No. 02-12, August 24, 2012
— MARINA Advisory No. 10-12, April 19, 2012
— PhilHealth Board Res. 324-00, Sec. 1
— PhilHealth Board Res. 324-00, Sec. 3 (i) (4)
— Revenue Memorandum Circular No. 038, August 3, 2012
— TESDA Circular 11-05, March 30, 2005
Case Doctrines on Family Code
Executive Order No. 209 - Family Code
Article 1 - Marriage
Article 1 - Marriage
Marriage is a special contract regulated and controlled by the state, not by the will of the parties
Stipulations undermining marriage are contrary to law, morals and good customs
Marriage demands respect and dignity.
A married person still enjoys the right to privacy of communication and correspondence
Persons living together as husband and wife are presumed to be married.
A man and a woman living as husband and wife are presumed to be married.
Marriage is not an adventure but a lifetime commitment.
Doubts in the validity of a marriage should be resolved in its favor
Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract
Marriage is immutable.
Marriage is a special contract regulated and controlled by the state, not by the will of the parties
a) It is something more than a mere contract. It is a new relation, the rights, duties, and obligations
of which rest not upon the agreement of the parties but upon the general law which defines and
prescribes those rights, duties, and obligations. Marriage is an institution, in the maintenance of which
in its purity the public is deeply interested. It is a relation for life and the parties cannot terminate it at
any shorter period by virtue of any contract they may make. The reciprocal rights arising from this
relation, so long as it continues, are such as the law determines from time to time, and none other.
When the legal existence of the parties is merged into one by marriage, the new relation is regulated
and controlled by the state or government upon principles of public policy for the benefit of society as
well as the parties.
Eloisa Goitia vs. Jose Campos Rueda, G.R. No. 11263, November 2, 1916
b) Marriage in this country is an institution in which the community is deeply interested. The state
has surrounded it with safeguards to maintain its purity, continuity and permanence. The security and
stability of the state are largely dependent upon it. It is the interest and duty of each and every member
of the community to prevent the bringing about of a condition that would shake its foundation and
ultimately lead to its destruction. The incidents of the status are governed by law, not by will of the
parties. The law specifically enumerates the legal grounds, that must be proved to exist by indubitable
evidence, to annul a marriage.
Joel Jimenez vs. Remedios Cañizares, G.R. No. L-12790, Aug. 31, 1960
c) 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.
Enrico L. Pacete vs. Glicerio V. Carriaga, Jr., G.R. No. L-53880, March 17, 1994
Stipulations undermining marriage are contrary to law, morals and good customs
a) Between spouses
There is no question that the covenants contained in the said separation agreement are contrary to law,
morals and good customs. Those stipulations undermine the institutions of marriage and the family.
Leonardo S. Biton vs. Andres Momongan, G.R. No. L-2555, September 3, 1935
The spouses should not be allowed, by the simple expedient of agreeing that one of them leave the
conjugal abode and never to return again, to circumvent the policy of the laws on marriage.
William H. Brown vs. Juanita Yambao, G.R. No. L-10699, October 18, 1957
Rep. of the Phils. vs. Gregorio Nolasco, G.R. No. 94053, March 17, 1993
The Kasunduan had absolutely no force and effect on the validity of the marriage between complainant
and his wife. Article 1 of the Family Code provides that marriage is "an inviolable social institution whose
nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation." It is an
institution of public order or policy, governed by rules established by law which cannot be made
inoperative by the stipulation of the parties.
Edwin A. Acebedo vs. Eddie P. Arquero, A.M. No. P-94-1054, March 11, 2003
Conjugal arrangement between members of Jehovah’s Witnesses sect in light of "compelling state
interest" doctrine
In applying the "compelling state interest" test, the first inquiry is whether respondent's right to
religious freedom has been burdened. The second step is to ascertain respondent's sincerity in her
religious belief. plpecdtai
Alejandro Estrada vs. Soledad S. Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003
b) Between employer and employee
The danger of just such a policy against marriage followed by petitioner PT&T is that it strikes at the very
essence, ideals and purpose of marriage as an inviolable social institution and, ultimately, of the family
as the foundation of the nation. Hence, while it is true that the parties to a contract may establish any
agreements, terms, and conditions that they may deem convenient, the same should not be contrary to
law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. Carried to its logical consequences, it may
even be said that petitioner's policy against legitimate marital bonds would encourage illicit or common-
law relations and subvert the sacrament of marriage.
PT&T vs. NLRC and Grace de Guzman, G.R. No. 118978, May 23, 1997
Marriage demands respect and dignity.
Marriage is a sacred institution demanding respect and dignity.
Josefina Mortel vs. Anacleto F. Aspiras, Adm. Case No. 145, December 28, 1956
Lilian F. Villasanta vs. Hilarion M. Peralta, G.R. AC-UNAV, April 30, 1957
Santa Pangan vs. Dionisio Ramos, A.C. No. 1053, August 31, 1981
A married person still enjoys the right to privacy of communication and correspondence
A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual
and the constitutional protection [the privacy of communication and correspondence] is ever available
to him or to her.
Cecilia Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107383, February 20, 1996
Persons living together as husband and wife are presumed to be married.
Persons living together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counter
presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The reason is that such is the
common order of society, and if the parties were not what they thus hold themselves out as being, they
would be living in constant violation of decency and law. The presumption in favor of matrimony is one
of the strongest known in law. The law presumes morality, and not immorality: marriage, and not
concubinage, legitimacy, and not bastardy. There is the presumption that persons living together as
husband and wife are married to each other.
People of the Phils. vs. Elias Borromeo, G.R. No. 61873, October 31, 1984
A man and a woman living as husband and wife are presumed to be married.
Courts look upon the presumption of marriage with great favor as it is founded on the following
rationale: "The basis of human society throughout the civilized world is that of marriage. Marriage in this
jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but it is a new relation, an institution in the maintenance of which
the public is deeply interested. Consequently, every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing
matrimony. Persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any
counter-presumption or evidence special to that case, to be in fact married. The reason is that such is
the common order of society and if the parties were not what they thus hold themselves out as being,
they would be living in the constant violation of decency and of law . . . ."
Mora Adong vs. Cheong Seng Gee, G.R. No. L-18081, March 3, 1922
Matilde Alavado vs. City Government of Tacloban, G.R. No. L-49084, October 10, 1985
Maria del Rosario Mariategui vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 57062, January 24, 1992
Marriage is not an adventure but a lifetime commitment.
This interest proceeds from the constitutional mandate that the State recognizes the sanctity of family
life and of affording protection to the family as a basic "autonomous social institution" Specifically, the
Constitution considers marriage as an "inviolable social institution," and is the foundation of family life
which shall be protected by the State. This is why the Family Code considers marriage as "a special
contract of permanent union" and case law considers it not just an adventure but a lifetime
commitment."
Engrace Niñal vs. Norma Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000
Leouel Santos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995
Doubts in the validity of a marriage should be resolved in its favor

The Court is mindful of the policy of the 1987 Constitution to protect and strengthen the family as the
basic autonomous social institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. Thus, any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage.
Rep. of the Phils. vs. Lolita Quintero-Hamano, G.R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004
It remains settled that the State has a high stake in the preservation of marriage rooted in its recognition
of the sanctity of married life and its mission to protect and strengthen the family as a basic
autonomous social institution. Hence, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. Presumption is always in favor of the
validity of marriage. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio.
Veronica Cabacungan Alcazar vs. Rey C. Alcazar, G.R. No. 174451, October 13, 2009
Our family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract
Our constitution is committed to the policy of strengthening the family as a basic social institution. Our
family law is based on the policy that marriage is not a mere contract, but a social institution in which
the State is vitally interested. The State can find no stronger anchor than on good, solid and happy
families. The break-up of families weakens our social and moral fabric; hence, their preservation is not
the concern of the family members alone. Whether or not a marriage should continue to exist or a
family should stay together must not depend on the whims and caprices of only one party, who claims
that the other suffers psychological imbalance, incapacitating such party to fulfill his or her marital
duties and obligations.
Marietta B. Ancheta vs. Rodolfo S. Ancheta, G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004
Marriage is immutable.
The Family Code emphasizes the permanent nature of marriage, hailing it as the foundation of the
family. It is this inviolability which is central to our traditional and religious concepts of morality and
provides the very bedrock on which our society finds stability. Marriage is immutable and when both
spouses give their consent to enter it, their consent becomes irrevocable, unchanged even by their
independent wills.
Florence Malcampo-Sin vs. Philipp T. Sin, G.R. No. 137590, March 26, 2001
Art. 3 (3) - Marriage ceremony
Art. 3 (3) - Marriage ceremony
Exchange of vows is presumed to have been made based on testimonies that a wedding took place.
An exchange of vows can be presumed to have been made from the testimonies of the witnesses who
state that a wedding took place, since the very purpose for having a wedding is to exchange vows of
marital commitment. It would indeed be unusual to have a wedding without an exchange of vows and
quite unnatural for people not to notice its absence. The law favors the validity of marriage, because the
State is interested in the preservation of the family and the sanctity of the family is a matter of
constitutional concern.
Leoncia Balogbog and Gaudioso Balogbog vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 83598, March 7, 1997
While the petitioner may view this merely as a "blessing," the presence of the requirements of the law
constitutive of a marriage ceremony qualified this "blessing" into a "marriage ceremony" as
contemplated by Article 3 (3) of the Family Code and Article 352 of the RPC, as amended.
Ronulo v. People, G.R. No. 182438, July 2, 2014
Under Article 3 (3) of the Family Code, one of the essential requisites of marriage is the presence of a
valid marriage certificate. In the present case, the petitioner admitted that he knew that the couple had
no marriage license, yet he conducted the "blessing" of their relationship.
Undoubtedly, the petitioner conducted the marriage ceremony despite knowledge that the essential
and formal requirements of marriage set by law were lacking. The marriage ceremony, therefore, was
illegal. The petitioner's knowledge of the absence of these requirements negates his defense of good
faith.
[T]he lack of a marriage certificate negates his criminal liability in the present case. For purposes of
determining if a marriage ceremony has been conducted, a marriage certificate is not included in the
requirements provided by Article 3 (3) of the Family Code, as discussed above.
Art. 3 (2) - Marriage license
Art. 3 (2) - Marriage license
A marriage license is indispensable to the validity of marriage.
Requirement of a marriage license is the State’s demonstration of its involvement in every marriage.
Lack of marriage license number in marriage contract does not prove non-issuance of license.
A marriage license wrongfully obtained does not invalidate marriage.
Absence of marriage certificate is merely an irregularity in complying with the formal requirement for
procuring a marriage license.
Civil registrar’s certification of "due search and inability to find" a record showing that a marriage license
number has been issued, is adequate to prove its non-issuance.
Marriages exceptional in character do not require a marriage license.
Rationale for not requiring a marriage license in marriages exceptional in character.
Use of same marriage license in church wedding ratified and fortified the earlier civil ceremony.
It is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a marriage.
A marriage license is indispensable to the validity of marriage.

Since there is no question that the marriage of petitioner and the deceased does not fall within the
marriages exempt from the license requirement, a marriage license, therefore, was indispensable to the
validity of their marriage. The records reveal that the marriage contract bears no marriage license
number and as certified by the Local Civil Registrar, their office has no record of such marriage license.
This certification issued by the local civil registrar enjoys probative value, he being the officer charged
under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage. The marriage between
petitioner and the deceased, having been solemnized without the necessary marriage license, and not
being one of the marriages exempt from the marriage license requirement, is undoubtedly void ab
initio.
Susan Nicdao Cariño vs. Susan Yee Cariño, G.R. No. 132529, February 2, 2001
Requirement of a marriage license is the State’s demonstration of its involvement in every marriage.
A valid marriage license is a requisite of marriage under Article 53 of the Civil Code, the absence of
which renders the marriage void ab initio pursuant to Article 80(3) in relation to Article 58. The
requirement and issuance of marriage license is the State's demonstration of its involvement and
participation in every marriage, in the maintenance of which the general public is interested. This
interest proceeds from the constitutional mandate that the State recognizes the sanctity of family life
and of affording protection to the family as a basic "autonomous social institution" Specifically, the
Constitution considers marriage as an "inviolable social institution," and is the foundation of family life
which shall be protected by the State. This is why the Family Code considers marriage as "a special
contract of permanent union" and case law considers it not just an adventure but a lifetime
commitment.
Lack of marriage license number in marriage contract does not prove non-issuance of license.
The contention that there was no marriage license obtained by the spouses because the copies of the
marriage contract presented did not state the marriage license number, is flawed. At most, the evidence
adduced could only serve to prove the non-recording of the marriage license number but certainly not
the non-issuance of the license itself.
Ireneo G. Geronimo vs. CA and Antonio Esman, G.R. No. 105540, July 5, 1993
A marriage license wrongfully obtained does not invalidate marriage
A marriage under a license is not invalidated by the fact that the license was wrongfully obtained. This
must be so, for the local civil registrar who issues the marriage license is not required to inquire into the
authority of the officer administering the oath, and neither is the person solemnizing the marriage
required to investigate as to whether or not a marriage license, which appears to have been issued by a
competent official, was legally obtained. What the law declares as null and void are marriages
solemnized without a marriage license.
Eduardo Eigenman vs. Marydeen Guerra and Froilan Guerra, 61 O.G. (31) 4722
A duly authenticated and admitted certificate is prima facie evidence of legal capacity to marry on the
part of the alien applicant for a marriage license. The absence of the said certificate is merely an
irregularity in complying with the formal requirement for procuring a marriage license. Under Article 4
of the Family Code, an irregularity will not affect the validity of a marriage celebrated on the basis of a
marriage license issued without that certificate.
Grace J. Garcia vs. Rederick A. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001
Civil registrar’s certification of "due search and inability to find" a record showing that a marriage license
number has been issued, is adequate to prove its non-issuance.
The certification of the local civil registrar of due search and inability to find a record or entry to the
effect that a marriage license number was issued to the parties is adequate to prove its non-issuance.
The certification of "due search and inability to find" issued by the civil registrar enjoys probative value,
he being the officer charged under the law to keep a record of all data relative to the issuance of a
marriage license. Unaccompanied by any circumstance of suspicion and pursuant to Section 29, Rule 132
of the Rules of Court, a certificate of "due search and inability to find" sufficiently proved that his office
did not issue marriage license no. 3196182 to the contracting parties.
Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals and Angelina M. Castro, G.R. No. 103047, September 2, 1994
Marriages exceptional in character do not require a marriage license.
The argument that the marriage was void because the parties had no marriage license, is misplaced
because it has been established that Dr. Jacob and petitioner lived together as husband and wife for at
least five years. An affidavit to this effect was executed by Dr. Jacob and petitioner. Clearly then, the
marriage was exceptional in character and did not require a marriage license under Article 76 of the Civil
Code. The Civil Code governs this case, because the questioned marriage and the assailed adoption took
place prior the effectivity of the Family Code.
Tomasa vda. de Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135216, August 19, 1999
Rationale for not requiring a marriage license in marriages exceptional in character.
However there are several instances recognized by the Civil Code wherein a marriage license is
dispensed with, one of which is that provided in Article 76, referring to the marriage of a man and a
woman who have lived together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a continuous
and unbroken period of at least five years before the marriage. The rationale why no license is required
in such case is to avoid exposing the parties to humiliation, shame and embarrassment concomitant
with the scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage due to the publication of every
applicant's name for a marriage license. The publicity attending the marriage license may discourage
such persons from legitimizing their status. To preserve peace in the family, avoid the peeping and
suspicious eye of public exposure and contain the source of gossip arising from the publication of their
names, the law deemed it wise to preserve their privacy and exempt them from that requirement.
Use of same marriage license in church wedding ratified and fortified the earlier civil ceremony.
The couple had complied with all the essential and formal requisites for a valid marriage, including the
requirement of a valid license in the first of the two ceremonies. That this license was used legally in the
celebration of the civil ceremony does not detract from the ceremonial use thereof in the church
wedding of the same parties to the marriage, for the latter rites served not only to ratify but also to
fortify the first.
Ofelia P. Ty vs. Court of Appeals and Edgardo M. Reyes, G.R. No. 127406, November 27, 2000
It has been held that a marriage which preceded the issuance of the marriage license is void, and that
the subsequent issuance of such license cannot render valid or even add an iota of validity to the
marriage. Except in cases provided by law, it is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the
authority to solemnize a marriage. Respondent judge did not possess such authority when he
solemnized the marriage of petitioner.
Mercedita Mata Arañes vs. Judge Salvador M. Occiano, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1390, April 11, 2002
The Court does not accept the arguments of the respondent judges that the ascertainment of the
validity of the marriage license is beyond the scope of the duty of a solemnizing officer especially when
there are glaring pieces of evidence that point to the contrary. As correctly observed by the OCA, the
presumption of regularity accorded to a marriage license disappears the moment the marriage
documents do not appear regular on its face.
OCA vs. Anatalio S. Necessario, et al., A.M. No. MTJ-07-1691, April 2, 2013
Art. 6 - Form of solemnization of marriage
Art. 6 - Form of solemnization of marriage
While Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, does not specifically define a "marriage ceremony" and what
constitutes its "illegal" performance, Articles 3 (3) and 6 of the Family Code are clear on these matters.
These provisions were taken from Article 55 of the New Civil Code which, in turn, was copied from
Section 3 of the Marriage Law with no substantial amendments.
Article 6 of the Family Code provides that "[n]o prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of
the marriage is required. It shall be necessary, however, for the contracting parties to appear personally
before the solemnizing officer and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age
that they take each other as husband and wife."
Pertinently, Article 3 (3) mirrors Article 6 of the Family Code and particularly defines a marriage
ceremony as that which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the
solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the
presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.

Even prior to the date of the enactment of Article 352 of the RPC, as amended, the rule was clear that
no prescribed form of religious rite for the solemnization of the marriage is required. However, as
correctly found by the CA, the law sets the minimum requirements constituting a marriage ceremony:
first, there should be the personal appearance of the contracting parties before a solemnizing officer;
and second, their declaration in the presence of not less than two witnesses that they take each other as
husband and wife.
Art. 7 - Who may solemnize a marriage
Art. 7 - Who may solemnize a marriage
Good faith and Christian motives cannot be made as an excuse to solemnize marriage without license.
Solemnizing marriage out of human compassion may not amount to gross ignorance of the law.
Jurisdiction of priests, justices and judges.
A judge is not authorized to solemnize marriages outside of his jurisdiction.
Judge who solemnized marriage without marriage license acted in gross ignorance of the law.
Illegal solemnization of marriage by a judge constitutes misconduct
Good faith and Christian motives cannot be made as an excuse to solemnize marriage without license.
For solemnizing marriage without the required marriage license, respondent has dismally failed to live
up to his commitment to be the “embodiment of competence, integrity and independence” and to his
promise to be “faithful to the law.” He cannot hide behind his claim of good faith and Christian motives
which, at most, would serve only to mitigate his liability and could never justify violation of the law.
Marilou Nama Moreno vs. Jose C. Bernabe, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-963, July 14, 1995
Solemnizing marriage out of human compassion may not amount to gross ignorance of the law.
The judge’s act of solemnizing a marriage without the requisite marriage license is contrary to law and
subjects him to administrative liability. His act may not amount to gross ignorance of the law for he
allegedly solemnized the marriage out of human compassion but nonetheless, he cannot avoid liability
for violating the law on marriage.
Jurisdiction of priests, justices and judges.
A priest who is commissioned and allowed by his local ordinary to marry the faithful is authorized to do
so only within the area of the diocese or place allowed by his Bishop. An appellate court Justice or a
Justice of the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the entire Philippines to solemnize marriages,
regardless of the venue, as long as the requisites of the law are complied with. However, judges who are
appointed to specific jurisdictions, may officiate in weddings only within said areas and not beyond.
Where a judge solemnizes a marriage outside his court's jurisdiction, there is a resultant irregularity in
the formal requisite laid down in Article 3 of the Family Code, which while it may not affect the validity
of the marriage, may subject the officiating person to administrative liability.
Rodolfo G. Navarro vs. Hernando C. Domagtoy, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1088, July 19, 1996
A judge is not authorized to solemnize marriages outside of his jurisdiction.
Considering that respondent Judge's jurisdiction covers the municipality of Sta. Margarita-Tarangan-
Pagsanjan, Samar only, he was not clothed with authority to solemnize a marriage in the City of
Calbayog.
Zenaida S. Beso vs. Juan Daguman, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1211, January 28, 2000
Judge who solemnized marriage without marriage license acted in gross ignorance of the law.
Respondent judge should also be faulted for solemnizing a marriage without the requisite marriage
license. In People vs. Lara, we held that a marriage which preceded the issuance of the marriage license
is void, and that the subsequent issuance of such license cannot render valid or even add an iota of
validity to the marriage. Except in cases provided by law, it is the marriage license that gives the
solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a marriage. Respondent judge did not possess such
authority when he solemnized the marriage of petitioner. In this respect, respondent judge acted in
gross ignorance of the law.
Illegal solemnization of marriage by a judge constitutes misconduct
The judge’s acts of solemnizing marriage without a license, failure to affix his signature in the marriage
contract and violation of requirements under Art. 23 of the Family Code, indicate that he had not taken
to heart, but actually trifled with, the law's concern for the institution of marriage and the legal effects
flowing from civil status.
Juvy N. Cosca vs. Hon. Lucio P. Palaypayon, Jr., Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-721, September 30, 1994
Art. 8 - Venue of marriage ceremony
Art. 8 - Venue of marriage ceremony
Non-compliance with Article 8 of the Family Code will not invalidate marriage.
Instances when marriage can be held outside the judge's chambers or courtroom.
Non-compliance with Article 8 of the Family Code will not invalidate marriage.
Article 8 of the Family Code, which is a directory provision, refers only to the venue of the marriage
ceremony and does not alter or qualify the authority of the solemnizing officer. Non-compliance will not
invalidate the marriage.
Instances when marriage can be held outside the judge's chambers or courtroom.
A marriage can be held outside the judge's chambers or courtroom only in the following instances:
1. at the point of death;
2. in remote places in accordance with Article 29, or
3. upon the request of both parties in writing in a sworn statement to this effect.
Art. 21 - Certificate of legal capacity
Art. 21 - Certificate of legal capacity
Certificate of legal capacity is prima facie evidence of alien's legal capacity to marry.
A duly authenticated and admitted certificate is prima facie evidence of the legal capacity of an alien
applicant for a marriage license.
Art. 22 - Marriage certificate/contract
Art. 22 - Marriage certificate/contract
Marriage certificate is prima facie evidence that all legal formalities have been complied with.
Marriage certificate is best evidence of marriage.
Certified copy of marriage contract is the best evidence of its contents.
Marriage certificate proves only the administration of the sacrament, not the veracity of statements
therein on kinsfolk and/or citizenship.
Marriage certificate constitutes prima facie proof of its contents.
Marriage certificate is not indispensable to establish the fact of marriage.
Failure to sign marriage contract does not render the marriage a nullity.
Mere private act of signing a marriage contract does not constitute a valid marriage.
Failure to present marriage contract is not proof that no marriage took place.
Failure of solemnizing officer to send copy of marriage certificate to municipal secretary does not
invalidate marriage.
Truth or falsehood of the declaration of one's religion in the marriage certificate is not an essential
requirement for marriage.
Marriage certificate is prima facie evidence that all legal formalities have been complied with.
The marriage certificate attesting that a marriage ceremony was performed by a minister gives rise to
the presumption that all legal formalities required by law had been complied with and fulfilled. If the
minister was not authorized to perform such marriage ceremony it was incumbent upon the defendants
to show such lack of authority on the part of the minister.
Eulogia Bigornia de Cardenas vs. Leoncio Cardenas, G.R. No. L-8218, December 15, 1955
Marriage certificate is best evidence of marriage.
The best evidence is the marriage certificate itself absent any showing that it was lost or destroyed.
People of the Phils. vs. Antonio Evangelista, G.R. No. 132044, October 5, 2001
Certified copy of marriage contract is the best evidence of its contents.
The certified copy of the marriage contract, issued by a public officer in custody thereof, was admissible
as the best evidence of its contents. The marriage contract plainly indicating that a marriage was
celebrated should be accorded the full faith and credence given to public documents. This should be
given greater credence than documents testifying merely as to absence of any record of the marriage,
especially considering that there is absolutely no requirement in the law that a marriage contract needs
to be submitted to the civil registrar as a condition precedent for the validity of a marriage. The mere
fact that no record of a marriage exists does not invalidate the marriage, provided all requisites for its
validity are present.
Veronico Tenebro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150758, February 18, 2004
Marriage certificate proves only the administration of the sacrament, not the veracity of statements
therein on kinsfolk and/or citizenship.
While baptismal and marriage certificates may be considered documents, they are evidence only to
prove the administration of the sacraments on the dates therein specified which in this case were the
baptism and marriage, respectively, of Leoncio Chan — but not the veracity of the statements or
declarations made therein with respect to his kinsfolk and/or citizenship."
Norberto Paa vs. Quintin Chan, G.R. No. L-25945, Oct. 31, 1967
Marriage certificate constitutes prima facie proof of its contents.
Being a public document, the marriage certificate constitutes prima facie proof of its contents. The
trustworthiness of public documents and the value given to the entries made therein could be grounded
on 1) the sense of official duty in the preparation of the statement made, 2) the penalty which is usually
affixed to a breach of that duty, 3) the routine and disinterested origin of most such statements, and 4)
the publicity of record which makes more likely the prior exposure of such errors as might have
occurred.
Maria Jeanette C. Tecson vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004
Marriage certificate is not indispensable to establish the fact of marriage.
A marriage certificate is not indispensable to establish the fact of marriage in order to charge a wife of
parricide because the presumption that two persons are married subsists by reason of the fact that they
had been living together for about thirteen years as evidenced by the birth of their eldest child and that
they had other children thereafter.
People of the Philippines vs. Nemesio Talingdan, G.R. No. L-32126, July 6, 1978
A duly authenticated and admitted certificate is prima facie evidence of legal capacity to marry on the
part of the alien applicant for a marriage license. The absence of the said certificate is merely an
irregularity in complying with the formal requirement for procuring a marriage license. Under Article 4
of the Family Code, an irregularity will not affect the validity of a marriage celebrated on the basis of a
marriage license issued without that certificate.
Failure to sign marriage contract does not render the marriage a nullity.
Bearing in mind that the "essential requisites for marriage are the legal capacity of the contracting
parties and their consent", the latter being manifested by the declaration of "the parties" "in the
presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and of two witnesses of legal age that they take each
other as husband and wife" — which in this case actually occurred, We think the signing of the marriage
contract or certificate was required by the statute simply for the purpose of evidencing the act. No
statutory provision or court ruling has been cited making it an essential requisite — not the formal
requirement of evidentiary value, which we believe it is. The fact of marriage is one thing; the proof by
which it may be established is quite another. Signing of the marriage contract is a formal requirement of
evidentiary value, the omission of which does not render the marriage a nullity.
Arsenio and Ricarda de Loria vs. Felipe Apelan Felix, G.R. No. L-9005, June 20, 1958
Mere private act of signing a marriage contract does not constitute a valid marriage.
The mere private act of signing a marriage contract (no marriage ceremony at all was performed by a
duly authorized solemnizing officer), 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 the husband might be held liable for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial
declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage.
Lucio Morigo vs. People of the Phils., G.R. No. 145226, February 6, 2004
Failure to present marriage contract is not proof that no marriage took place.
Although a marriage contract is considered primary evidence of marriage, the failure to present it is not
a proof that no marriage took place. Other evidence may be presented to prove marriage.
Leoncia Balogbog and Gaudioso Balogbog vs. CA, G.R. No. 83598, March 7, 1997
The mere fact that the parish priest who married the plaintiff's natural father and mother, while the
latter was in articulo mortis, failed to send a copy of the marriage certificate to the municipal secretary,
does not invalidate said marriage, since it does not appear that in the celebration thereof all requisites
for its validity were not present, the forwarding of a copy of the marriage certificate not being one of
the requisites."
Angelita Jones vs. Felix Hortiguela, G.R. No. 43701, March 6, 1937
Truth or falsehood of the declaration of one's religion in the marriage certificate is not an essential
requirement for marriage.
Although the truth or falsehood of the declaration of one's religion in the marriage certificate is not an
essential requirement for marriage, such omissions are sufficient proofs of [one's] liability for bigamy.
Atilano O. Nollora, Jr. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 191425, September 7, 2011
Art. 23 - Duties of solemnizing officer
Art. 23 - Duties of solemnizing officer
A judge must ensure that the marriage is properly documented.
A judge must ensure that the marriage is properly documented.
From the nature of marriage, aside from the mandate that a judge should exercise extra care in the
exercise of his authority and the performance of his duties in its solemnization, he is likewise
commanded to observe extra precautions to ensure that the event is properly documented in
accordance with Article 23 of the Family Code. A judge is charged with exercising extra care in ensuring
that the records of the cases and official documents in his custody are intact. There is no justification for
missing records save fortuitous events.
a) The mere fact that the parish priest who married the plaintiff's natural father and mother, while
the latter was in articulo mortis, failed to send a copy of the marriage certificate to the municipal
secretary, does not invalidate said marriage, since it does not appear that in the celebration thereof all
requisites for its validity were not present, the forwarding of a copy of the marriage certificate not being
one of the requisites."
Angelita Jones vs. Felix Hortiguela, G.R. No. 43701, March 6, 1937
b) The law, imposing on the priest the duty to furnish to the parties copies of such marriage
certificate and punishing him for its omission implies his obligation to see that such "certificate" is
executed accordingly. Hence, it would not be fair to visit upon the wedded couple in the form of
annulment, the priest’s omission, if any, which apparently had been caused by the prevailing disorder
during the liberation of Manila and its environs.
Arsenio de Loria and Ricarda de Loria vs. Felipe Apelan Felix, G.R. No. L-9005, June 20, 1958
It has been held that a marriage which preceded the issuance of the marriage license is void, and that
the subsequent issuance of such license cannot render valid or even add an iota of validity to the
marriage. Except in cases provided by law, it is the marriage license that gives the solemnizing officer the
authority to solemnize a marriage. Respondent judge did not possess such authority when he
solemnized the marriage of petitioner.
Art. 26 - Divorce
Art. 26 - Divorce
Basic legal principles on divorce.
Severance of the marital bond dissociates the former spouses from each other.
The marriage tie, when severed as to one party, ceases to bind the other.
The legal effects of a divorce obtained abroad must still be determined by Philippine courts.
Divorces obtained by aliens abroad are recognized in the Philippines if valid according to their national
law.
Divorce is valid if obtained by husband at the time he ceased to be a Filipino citizen.
The divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven according to Philippine
law on evidence.
The power of judicial notice with respect to foreign marital laws must be exercised with caution
Requisites before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts.
Article 26, par. 2, allows a Filipino citizen divorced by a spouse to also remarry.
Basic legal principles on divorce.
The following basic legal principles are laid at the outset: Philippine law does not provide for absolute
divorce; hence, our courts cannot grant it. A marriage between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even
by a divorce obtained abroad, because of Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code. In mixed marriages
involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 of the Family Code allows the former to contract a
subsequent marriage in case the divorce is "validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him
or her to remarry." A divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in
the Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective national laws.
The non-recognition of absolute divorce between Filipinos has remained even under the Family Code,
even if either or both of the spouses are residing abroad. Indeed, the only two types of defective marital
unions under our laws have been the void and the voidable marriages. As such, the remedies against
such defective marriages have been limited to the declaration of nullity of the marriage and the
annulment of the marriage.
Lavadia v. Heirs of Luna, G.R. No. 171914, July 23, 2014
Divorce between Filipinos is void and ineffectual under the nationality rule adopted by Philippine law.
Hence, any settlement of property between the parties of the first marriage involving Filipinos
submitted as an incident of a divorce obtained in a foreign country lacks competent judicial approval,
and cannot be enforceable against the assets of the husband who contracts a subsequent marriage.
The non-recognition of absolute divorce in the Philippines is a manifestation of the respect for the
sanctity of the marital union especially among Filipino citizens. It affirms that the extinguishment of a
valid marriage must be grounded only upon the death of either spouse, or upon a ground expressly
provided by law. For as long as this public policy on marriage between Filipinos exists, no divorce decree
dissolving the marriage between them can ever be given legal or judicial recognition and enforcement in
this jurisdiction.
Severance of the marital bond dissociates the former spouses from each other.
The divorce obtained by an alien husband in his country and its legal effects may be recognized in the
Philippines insofar as he is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the matter of
status of persons. Thus, he had no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture
that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit because at that time, there would no longer be
a family nor marriage vows to protect once a dissolution of the marriage is decreed. Neither would there
be a danger of introducing spurious heirs into the family, which is said to be one of the reasons for the
particular formulation of our law on adultery, since there would thenceforth be no spousal relationship
to speak of. The severance of the marital bond had the effect of dissociating the former spouses from
each other, hence the actuations of one would not affect or cast obloquy on the other.
Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil vs. Hon. Corona Ibay-Somera, G.R. No. 80116, June 30, 1989
The marriage tie, when severed as to one party, ceases to bind the other.
The purpose and effect of a decree of divorce from the bond of matrimony by a court of competent
jurisdiction are to change the existing status or domestic relation of husband and wife, and to free them
both from the bond. The marriage tie, when thus severed as to one party, ceases to bind either. A
husband without a wife, or a wife without a husband, is unknown to the law. When the law provides, in
the nature of a penalty, that the guilty party shall not marry again, that party, as well as the other, is still
absolutely freed from the bond of the former marriage.
Alice Reyes Van Dorn vs. Hon. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985
The legal effects of a divorce obtained abroad must still be determined by Philippine courts.
A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is
valid according to the national law of the foreigner. However, the legal effects thereof, e.g. on custody,
care and support of the children, must still be determined by our courts. Before our courts can give the
effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment, such as the award of custody to petitioner by the German
court, it must be shown that the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to
do so on grounds allowed under the Rules.
Wolfgang O. Roehr vs. Maria Carmen D. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 142820, June 20, 2003
Divorces obtained by aliens abroad are recognized in the Philippines if valid according to their national
law.
It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine
nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces, the same being considered contrary to our
concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be
recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law.
Alice Reyes Van Dorn vs. Hon. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985
Paula T. Llorente vs. Court of Appeals and Alicia F. Llorente, G.R. No. 124371, November 23, 2000
Divorce is valid if obtained by husband at the time he ceased to be a Filipino citizen.
The ruling in the case of Tenchavez v. Escano (122 Phil. 752 [1965] ) that provides that “a foreign divorce
between Filipino citizens sought and decreed after the effectivity of the present civil code is not entitled
to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction” is NOT applicable when the husband was no longer a Filipino
citizen when he obtained the divorce.
Paula T. Llorente vs. Court of Appeals and Alicia F. Llorente, G.R. No. 124371, November 23, 2000
The divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven according to Philippine
law on evidence.
A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is
valid according to the national law of the foreigner. However, the divorce decree and the governing
personal law of the alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven. Our courts do not take
judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments; hence, like any other facts, both the divorce decree and
the national law of the alien must be alleged and proven according to our law on evidence.
The power of judicial notice with respect to foreign marital laws must be exercised with caution
It is well-settled in our jurisdiction that our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any
other facts, they must be alleged and proved. Australian marital laws are not among those matters that
judges are supposed to know by reason of their judicial function. The power of judicial notice must be
exercised with caution, and every reasonable doubt upon the subject should be resolved in the negative.
Requisites before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts.
Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our own courts, the party pleading it must prove
the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Such foreign law
must also be proved as our courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws. Like any other fact, such
laws must be alleged and proved. Furthermore, respondent must also show that the divorce decree
allows his former wife to remarry as specifically required in Article 26. Otherwise, there would be no
evidence sufficient to declare that he is capacitated to enter into another marriage.
Republic of the Phil. vs. Cipriano Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005
Article 26, par. 2, allows a Filipino citizen divorced by a spouse to also remarry.
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code (E.O. No. 209, as amended by E.O. No. 227), should be
interpreted to allow a Filipino citizen, who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign
citizenship and remarried, also to remarry.
Art. 26 (2) - Divorce
Art. 26 (2) - Divorce
In Republic v. Orbecido III, we spelled out the twin elements for the applicability of the second
paragraph of Art. 26, thus:
1. There is a valid marriage that has been celebrated between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner; and
2. A valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry.
The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage,
but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the
latter to remarry.
Maria Rebecca Makapugay Bayot vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. 155635 & 163979, November 7,
2008
The intent of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains
married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.
Edgar San Luis vs. Felicidad San Luis, G.R. Nos. 133743 & 134029, February 6, 2007
Alice Reyes Van Dorn vs. Manuel V. Romillo, Jr., et al., G.R. No. L-68470, October 8, 1985
Through the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, EO 227 effectively incorporated into the
law this Court's holding in Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. and Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera. In both cases, the Court
refused to acknowledge the alien spouse's assertion of marital rights after a foreign court's divorce
decree between the alien and the Filipino. The Court, thus, recognized that the foreign divorce had
already severed the marital bond between the spouses. The legislative intent is for the benefit of the
Filipino spouse, by clarifying his or her marital status, settling the doubts created by the divorce decree.
Essentially, the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code provided the Filipino spouse a
substantive right to have his or her marriage to the alien spouse considered as dissolved, capacitating
him or her to remarry.
Gerbert R. Corpuz vs. Daisylyn Tirol Sto. Tomas, et al., G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010
Without the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, the judicial recognition of the foreign
decree of divorce, whether in a proceeding instituted precisely for that purpose or as a related issue in
another proceeding, would be of no significance to the Filipino spouse since our laws do not recognize
divorce as a mode of severing the marital bond; Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that the policy
against absolute divorces cannot be subverted by judgments promulgated in a foreign country. The
inclusion of the second paragraph in Article 26 of the Family Code provides the direct exception to this
rule and serves as basis for recognizing the dissolution of the marriage between the Filipino spouse and
his or her alien spouse.
An action based on the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code is not limited to the
recognition of the foreign divorce decree. If the court finds that the decree capacitated the alien spouse
to remarry, the courts can declare that the Filipino spouse is likewise capacitated to contract another
marriage. No court in this jurisdiction, however, can make a similar declaration for the alien spouse
(other than that already established by the decree), whose status and legal capacity are generally
governed by his national law.
Given the rationale and intent behind the enactment, and the purpose of the second paragraph of
Article 26 of the Family Code, the RTC was correct in limiting the applicability of the provision for the
benefit of the Filipino spouse. In other words, only the Filipino spouse can invoke the second paragraph
of Article 26 of the Family Code; the alien spouse can claim no right under this provision.
Art. 33 - Muslim and ethnic marriages
Art. 33 - Muslim and ethnic marriages

Provision governing marriages between non-Christians does not apply to marriage between a Protestant
and a Catholic.
Shari’a courts do not have original and exclusive jurisdiction over marriages celebrated under both civil
and Muslim laws.
Wives in marriages celebrated subsequent to a valid marriage are not precluded from proving that
property acquired during their cohabitation with their Muslim husband, is their exclusive property
Family Code determines fitness of a mother, who is no longer a Muslim, to take custody of her children.
Provision governing marriages between non-Christians does not apply to marriage between a Protestant
and a Catholic.
Article 78 of the Civil Code, the governing law at that time, provided that marriages between
Mohammedans or pagans who live in the non-Christian provinces may be performed in accordance with
their customs, rites or practices. Therefore, the marriage between complainant and respondent cannot
be validated because the records show that the former is a Protestant while the latter is a Catholic.
Estrellita J. Tamano vs. Rodolfo A. Ortiz, G.R. No. 126603, June 29, 1998
Shari’a courts do not have original and exclusive jurisdiction over marriages celebrated under both civil
and Muslim laws.
The shari'a courts are not vested with original and exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to marriages
celebrated under both civil and Muslim laws. Consequently, the Regional Trial Courts are not divested of
their general original jurisdiction under Sec. 19, par. (6) of BP Blg. 129
Estrellita J. Tamano vs. Rodolfo A. Ortiz, G.R. No. 126603, June 29, 1998
property acquired during their cohabitation with their Muslim husband, is their exclusive property
Co-ownership provided in Article 144 of the Civil Code requires that the man and woman living together
as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage must not in any way be
incapacitated to marry. Therefore, the co-ownership contemplated in this provision cannot apply to
Hadji Abdula's marriages celebrated subsequent to a valid and legally existing marriage, since from the
point of view of the Civil Code Hadji Abdula is not capacitated to marry. However, the wives in such
marriages are not precluded from proving that property acquired during their cohabitation with Hadji
Abdula is their exclusive property, respectively. Absent such proof, however, the presumption is that
property acquired during the subsistence of a valid marriage — and in the Civil Code, there can only be
one validly-existing marriage at any given time — is conjugal property of such subsisting marriage.
Neng "Kagui Kadiguia" Malang vs. Corocoy Moson, G.R. No. 119064, August 22, 2000
The standard in the determination of sufficiency of proof is not restricted to Muslim laws. The Family
Code shall be taken into consideration in deciding whether a non-Muslim woman is worthy to have
custody of her children. What determines her capacity is the standard laid down by the Family Code
now that she is not a Muslim. Indeed, what determines the fitness of any parent is the ability to see to
the physical, educational, social and moral welfare of the children, and the ability to give them a healthy
environment as well as physical and financial support taking into consideration the respective resources
and social and moral situations of the parents.
Sabrina Artadi Bondagjy vs. Fouzi Ali Bondagjy, G.R. No. 140817, December 7, 2001
If both parties are Muslims, there is a presumption that the Muslim Code or Muslim law is complied
with. If together with it or in addition to it, the marriage is likewise solemnized in accordance with the
Civil Code of the Philippines, in a so-called combined Muslim-Civil marriage rites whichever comes first is
the validating rite and the second rite is merely ceremonial one. But, in this case, as long as both parties
are Muslims, this Muslim Code will apply. In effect, two situations will arise, in the application of this
Muslim Code or Muslim law, that is, when both parties are Muslims and when the male party is a
Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with Muslim Code or Muslim law. A third situation
occur[s] when the Civil Code of the Philippines will govern the marriage and divorce of the parties, if the
male party is a Muslim and the marriage is solemnized in accordance with the Civil Code.
Marietta D. Zamoranos vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. Nos. 193902, 193908 & 194075, June 1, 2011,
citing Justice Rasul and Dr. Ghazali's Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Muslim Code of the
Philippines
One of the effects of irrevocable talaq, as well as other kinds of divorce, refers to severance of
matrimonial bond, entitling one to remarry.
Marietta D. Zamoranos vs. People of the Phil., et al., G.R. Nos. 193902, 193908 & 194075, June 1, 2011
Art. 34 - Marriage license not necessary when parties have cohabited for 5 years
Art. 34 - Marriage license not necessary when parties have cohabited for 5 years
Rationale for dispensing with marriage license.
Requisites for application of legal ratification of marital cohabitation.
The 5-year cohabitation period must be exclusive and continuous.
Parties cannot invoke failure to comply with requisites of marriage as ground to nullify the same.
Cohabitation with another person for at least five years does not sever the tie of a subsisting previous
marriage
Rationale for dispensing with marriage license.
There are several instances recognized by the Civil Code wherein a marriage license is dispensed with,
one of which is that provided in Article 76, referring to the marriage of a man and a woman who have
lived together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a continuous and unbroken
period of at least five years before the marriage. The rationale why no license is required in such case is
to avoid exposing the parties to humiliation, shame and embarrassment concomitant with the
scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage due to the publication of every applicant's
name for a marriage license. The publicity attending the marriage license may discourage such persons
from legitimizing their status. To preserve peace in the family, avoid the peeping and suspicious eye of
public exposure and contain the source of gossip arising from the publication of their names, the law
deemed it wise to preserve their privacy and exempt them from that requirement.
Requisites for application of legal ratification of marital cohabitation.
For this provision on legal ratification of marital cohabitation to apply, the following requisites must
concur:
1. The man and woman must have been living together as husband and wife for at least five years
before the marriage;
2. The parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other;
3. The fact of absence of legal impediment between the parties must be present at the time of
marriage;
4. The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together for at least five years
[and are without legal impediment to marry each other]; and
5. The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement that he had ascertained the
qualifications of the parties and that he had found no legal impediment to their marriage.
Herminia Borja-Manzano vs. Judge Roque R Sanchez, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329, March 8, 2001
Marriages of exceptional character such as those made under Article 34 are, doubtless, the exceptions
to the rule on the indispensability of the formal requisite of a marriage license. Under the rules of
statutory construction, exceptions as a general rule should be strictly but reasonably construed. The
affidavits of cohabitation should not be issued and accepted pro forma particularly in view of the settled
rulings of the Court on this matter. The five-year period of cohabitation should be one of a perfect union
valid under the law but rendered imperfect only by the absence of the marriage contract. The parties
should have been capacitated to marry each other during the entire period and not only at the time of
the marriage.
The 5-year cohabitation period must be exclusive and continuous.
The five-year common-law cohabitation period should be computed on the basis of a cohabitation as
"husband and wife" where the only missing factor is the special contract of marriage to validate the
union. It should be a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage. This 5-year
period, counted back from the date of celebration of marriage, should be the years immediately before
the day of the marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity —
meaning no third party was involved at any time within the 5 years and continuity — that is, unbroken.
Otherwise, if that continuous 5-year cohabitation is computed without any distinction as to whether the
parties were capacitated to marry each other during the entire five years, then the law would be
sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties to have common-law relationships and placing them on
the same footing with those who lived faithfully with their spouse.
If the contracting parties have cohabited as husband and wife for at least five years and have no legal
impediment to marry, they are exempt from the marriage license requirement. Instead, the parties must
present an affidavit of cohabitation sworn to before any person authorized by law to administer oaths.
The judge, as solemnizing officer, must personally examine the affidavit of cohabitation as to the parties
having lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and the absence of any legal
impediment to marry each other. The judge must also execute a sworn statement that he personally
ascertained the parties' qualifications to marry and found no legal impediment to the marriage.
Tupal v. Rojo, A.M. No. MTJ-14-1842, February 24, 2014
Based on law and the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the Judiciary, the
person who notarizes the contracting parties' affidavit of cohabitation cannot be the judge who will
solemnize the parties' marriage. As a solemnizing officer, the judge's only duty involving the affidavit of
cohabitation is to examine whether the parties have indeed lived together for at least five years without
legal impediment to marry. The Guidelines does not state that the judge can notarize the parties'
affidavit of cohabitation.
Thus, affidavits of cohabitation are documents not connected with the judge's official function and duty
to solemnize marriages. Notarizing affidavits of cohabitation is inconsistent with the duty to examine the
parties' requirements for marriage. If the solemnizing officer notarized the affidavit of cohabitation, he
cannot objectively examine and review the affidavit's statements before performing the marriage
ceremony. Should there be any irregularity or false statements in the affidavit of cohabitation he
notarized, he cannot be expected to admit that he solemnized the marriage despite the irregularity or
false allegation.
Thus, judges cannot notarize the affidavits of cohabitation of the parties whose marriage they will
solemnize. Affidavits of cohabitation are documents not connected with their official function and duty
to solemnize marriages.
Parties cannot invoke failure to comply with requisites of marriage as ground to nullify the same.
Marriage being a special relationship must be respected as such and its requirements must be strictly
observed. The presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife is
based on the approximation of the requirements of the law. The parties should not be afforded any
excuse to not comply with every single requirement and later use the same missing element as a pre-
conceived escape ground to nullify their marriage. There should be no exemption from securing a
marriage license unless the circumstances clearly fall within the ambit of the exception. It should be
noted that a license is required in order to notify the public that two persons are about to be united in
matrimony and that anyone who is aware or has knowledge of any impediment to the union of the two
shall make it known to the local civil registrar.
Cohabitation with another person for at least five years does not sever the tie of a subsisting previous
marriage
Just like separation, free and voluntary cohabitation with another person for at least five years does not
severe the tie of a subsisting previous marriage. Marital cohabitation for a long period of time between
two individuals who are legally capacitated to marry each other is merely a ground for exemption from
marriage license. It could not serve as a justification for a judge to solemnize a subsequent marriage
vitiated by the impediment of a prior existing marriage.
Herminia Borja-Manzano vs. Judge Roque R Sanchez, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329, March 8, 2001
Purpose of Provision
The law dispenses with the marriage license requirement for a man and a woman who have lived
together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a continuous and unbroken period of
at least five years before the marriage. The aim of this provision is to avoid exposing the parties to
humiliation, shame and embarrassment concomitant with the scandalous cohabitation of persons
outside a valid marriage due to the publication of every applicant's name for a marriage license.
Reinel Anthony B. De Castro vs. Annabelle Assidao-De Castro, G.R. No. 160172, February 13, 2008
Art. 35 (3) - Marriages solemnized without a marriage license
Art. 35 (3) - Marriages solemnized without a marriage license
A marriage solemnized without a marriage license is void and the subsequent issuance of the license
cannot render valid or add even an iota of validity to the marriage. It is the marriage license that gives
the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a marriage and the act of solemnizing the marriage
without a license constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
[T]hat a wedding ceremony was conducted and a marriage contract was signed does not operate to cure
the absence of a valid marriage license. Article 4 of the Family Code is clear when it says, "The absence
of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in
Article 35 (2)." Article 35 (3) of the Family Code also provides that a marriage solemnized without a
license is void from the beginning, except those exempt from the license requirement under Articles 27
to 34, Chapter 2, Title I of the same Code. Again, this marriage cannot be characterized as among the
exemptions, and thus, having been solemnized without a marriage license, is void ab initio.
As to the motive of [petitioner] in seeking to annul his marriage to [respondent], it may well be that his
motives are less than pure, that he seeks to evade a bigamy suit. Be that as it may, the same does not
make up for the failure of the respondent to prove that they had a valid marriage license, given the
weight of evidence presented by petitioner. The lack of a valid marriage license cannot be attributed to
him, as it was [respondent] who took steps to procure the same. The law must be applied. As the
marriage license, a formal requisite, is clearly absent, the marriage of [petitioner] and [respondent] is
void ab initio.
Syed Azhar Abbas vs. Gloria Goo Abbas, G.R. No. 183896, January 30, 2013
Art. 36 - Psychological incapacity
Art. 36 - Psychological incapacity
Article 36 must be read with Articles 35, 37, 38, 41, 45 or 55 to determine the import of "psychological
incapacity."
Misrepresentations point to one's own inadequacy to cope with marital obligations, kindred to
psychological incapacity.
Psychological incapacity refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the
marriage.
The provision on psychological incapacity should be interpreted on a case-to-case basis.
Guidelines in interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code.
Guideline No. 2 requires testimony of psychiatrist or medical doctor to prove psychological incapacity.
Examination by physician or psychologist is not a prerequisite for declaration of psychological incapacity.
An expert witness would have strengthened the claim of psychological incapacity.
Petition need not allege root cause of psychological incapacity.
Petition alleging physical manifestations indicative of psychological incapacity complies with the
requirement of the new Rules.
Psychological incapacity refers to a mental, not physical, incapacity.
Senseless and protracted refusal of a spouse to fulfill marital obligation of procreation is equivalent to
Habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment do not by themselves constitute
"Irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities" do not constitute psychological incapacity.
Sexual infidelity, per se, does not constitute psychological incapacity.
Sexual infidelity is not sufficient proof of psychological incapacity.
Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility cannot be equated with psychological incapacity.

Wife's lack of attention to children, immaturity and lack of “intention of procreative sexuality” do not
constitute psychological incapacity.
Immaturity, sexual promiscuity and abandonment do not by themselves constitute psychological

incapacity.
Psychological defect cannot be presumed from the mere fact of abandonment.
Article 36 is not to be equated with legal separation.
Norms for determining psychological incapacity should apply to any person regardless of nationality.
Psychological incapacity justifies judicial declaration freeing the parties from consequences stemming
from the marriage.
An inveterate pathological liar is unable to commit to the basic tenets of relationship between spouses.
Psychological conditions that hamper performance of marital obligations do not mean that the husband
and wife suffer from psychological incapacity.
Psychological incapacity is confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders.
Disagreements on money matters is not a ground to declare a marriage null and void.
Article 36 is not to be confused with a divorce law.
"Psychological incapacity" is not meant to comprehend all possible cases of psychoses.
Art. 36 does not contemplate mere refusal, neglect, difficulty or ill will on the part of the errant spouse.
An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage.
Manifestations of psychological incapacity.
Mismanagement of family finances does not constitute psychological incapacity.
Sexual infidelity per se does not constitute psychological incapacity.
Jocelyn M. Suazo vs. Angelito Suazo, et al., G.R. No. 164493, March 12, 2010
Susie Chan-Tan vs. Jesse C. Tan, G.R. No. 167139, February 25, 2010
Jordan Chan Paz vs. Jeanice Pavon Paz, G.R. No. 166579, February 18, 2010
Edward N. Lim vs. Ma. Cheryl Sta. Cruz-Lim, G.R. No. 176464, February 4, 2010
Article 36 must be read with Articles 35, 37, 38, 41, 45 or 55 to determine the import of "psychological
incapacity."
[I]n determining the import of "psychological incapacity" under Article 36, it must be read in conjunction
with, although to be taken as distinct from Articles 35, 37, 38, and 41 that would likewise, but for
different reasons, render the marriage void ab initio, or Article 45 that would make the marriage merely
voidable, or Article 55 that could justify a petition for legal separation. Care must be observed so that
these various circumstances are not applied so indiscriminately as if the law were indifferent on the
matter. Article 36 should not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time
the causes therefor manifest themselves. Neither it is to be equated with legal separation, in which the
grounds need not be rooted in psychological incapacity but on physical violence, moral pressure, moral
corruption, civil interdiction, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity, abandonment and the
like.
Ma. Armida Perez-Ferraris vs. Brix Ferraris, G.R. No. 162368, July 17, 2006
Republic of the Phil. vs. Lynnette Cabantug-Baguio, G.R. No. 171042, June 30, 2008
Misrepresentations point to one's own inadequacy to cope with marital obligations, kindred to
Article 45(3) of the Family Code which states that a marriage may be annulled if the consent of either
party was obtained by fraud, and Article 46 which enumerates the circumstances constituting fraud
under the previous article, clarifies that "no other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health,
rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of
marriage." It would be improper to draw linkages between misrepresentations made by respondent and
the misrepresentations under Articles 45 (3) and 46. The fraud under Article 45(3) vitiates the consent of
the spouse who is lied to, and does not allude to vitiated consent of the lying spouse. In this case, the
misrepresentations of respondent point to her own inadequacy to cope with her marital obligations,
kindred to psychological incapacity under Article 36.
Leonilo Antonio vs. Marie Ivonne F. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006
Psychological incapacity refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the
marriage.
The psychological incapacity must exist at the time of the celebration of the marriage. The burden of
proving the nullity of marriage is on the petitioner.
Renne Enrique Bier vs. Ma. Lourdes A. Bier, G.R. No. 173294, February 27, 2008
Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the
time the causes therefor manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party
even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one
of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.
Brenda B. Marcos vs. Wilson G. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000
The term "psychological incapacity" to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the
marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of the awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. As all people may have certain quirks
and idiosyncrasies, or isolated characteristics associated with certain personality disorders, there is
hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological
incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. It is for this reason that the
Court relies heavily on psychological experts for its understanding of the human personality. However,
the root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature must be fully
explained[.]
Ma. Armida Perez-Ferraris v. Brix Ferraris, G.R. No. 162368, July 17, 2006
Republic of the Phil. vs. Laila Tanyag-San Jose, et al., G.R. No. 168328, February 28, 2007
Article 36 contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and assume the basic
marital obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant
spouse. As this Court repeatedly declares, Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be confused with a
divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes thereof manifest themselves. It refers to a
serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady
so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the
matrimonial bond one is about to assume. These marital obligations are those provided under Articles
68 to 71, 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code. Neither should Article 36 be equated with legal
separation, in which the grounds need not be rooted in psychological incapacity but on physical
violence, moral pressure, moral corruption, civil interdiction, drug addiction, sexual infidelity, and
abandonment, and the like. At best the evidence presented by petitioner refers only to grounds for legal
separation, not for declaring a marriage void.
Rosa Yap Paras vs. Justo J. Paras, G.R. No. 147824, August 2, 2007
Psychological incapacity, in order to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of
marriage. It is a malady that is so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. As all people may have certain quirks
and idiosyncrasies, or isolated traits associated with certain personality disorders, there is hardly any
doubt that the intention of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the
most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to
give meaning and significance to the marriage.
Nilda V. Navales vs. Reynaldo Navales, G.R. No. 167523, June 27, 2008
Indeed, to be declared clinically or medically incurable is one thing; to refuse or be reluctant to perform
one's duties is another. To hark back to what has been earlier discussed, psychological incapacity refers
only to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or
inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
Republic v. De Gracia, G.R. No. 171557, February 12, 2014
The provision on psychological incapacity should be interpreted on a case-to-case basis.
The Civil Code Revision Committee did not give any examples of psychological incapacity for fear that
the giving of examples would limit the applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem
generis. Rather, the Committee would like the judge to interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis,
guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by
decisions of church tribunals which, although not binding on the civil courts, may be given persuasive
effect since the provision was taken from Canon Law.
Joselita Salita vs. Hon. Delilah Magtolis, G.R. No. 106429, June 13, 1994
Guidelines in interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code.
The following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code are handed
down for the guidance of the bench and the bar:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt
should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution
and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of
marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family,
recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby
protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be
"protected" by the state.
The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and emphasizes their
permanence, inviolability and solidarity.
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b)
alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.
Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological — not physical,
although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the court
that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could
not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid
assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the
application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must
be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may
be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage.
The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their "I do's." The
manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have
attached at such moment, or prior thereto.
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such
incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily
absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the
assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of
a profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of
children and prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be psychologically capacitated to procreate,
bear and raise his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional
emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright
incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a
natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality
structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the
obligations essential to marriage.
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family
Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to
parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition,
proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. It is clear
that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of
Canon Law, which became effective in 1983 and which provides:
"The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who are unable to assume the essential
obligations of marriage due to causes of psychological nature."
Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to harmonize our civil laws with the
religious faith of our people, it stands to reason that to achieve such harmonization, great persuasive
weight should be given to decisions of such appellate tribunal. Ideally — subject to our law on evidence
— what is decreed as canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void.
This is one instance where, in view of the evident source and purpose of the Family Code provision,
contemporaneous religious interpretation is to be given persuasive effect. Here, the State and the
Church — while remaining independent, separate and apart from each other — shall walk together in
synodal cadence towards the same goal of protecting and cherishing marriage and the family as the
inviolable base of the nation.
(8) The trial court must order 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, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or
opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting
attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is
deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent
function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.
Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals and Roridel Olaviano Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13,
1997
Republic of the Phil. vs. Crasus L. Iyoy, G.R. No. 152577, September 21, 2005
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity; (b) judicial antecedence; and (c)
incurability. It should refer to "no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be
truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by
the parties to the marriage." It must be confined to "the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage." Finally, the "psychologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated." The
Court explained:
(a) Gravity — It must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out
the ordinary duties required in a marriage;
(b) Judicial Antecedence — It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage,
although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and
(c) Incurability — It must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the
means of the party involved.
Ma. Darlene Dimayuga-Laurena vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 159220, September 22, 2008
Guideline No. 2 requires testimony of psychiatrist or medical doctor to prove psychological incapacity.
The wife failed to comply with guideline No. 2 which requires that the root cause of psychological
incapacity must be medically or clinically identified and sufficiently proven by experts, since no
psychiatrist or medical doctor testified as to the alleged psychological incapacity of her husband.
Republic of the Phil. vs. Erlinda Matias Dagdag, G.R. No. 109975, February 9, 2001
Examination by physician or psychologist is not a prerequisite for declaration of psychological incapacity.
Psychological incapacity, as a ground for declaring the nullity of a marriage, may be established by the
totality of evidence presented. There is no requirement, however, that the respondent should be
examined by a physician or a psychologist as a conditio sine qua non for such declaration.
[E]ven if the expert opinions of psychologists are not conditions sine qua non in the granting of petitions
for declaration of nullity of marriage, the actual medical examination of [the husband] was to be
dispensed with only if the totality of evidence presented was enough to support a finding of his
psychological incapacity. This did not mean that the presentation of any form of medical or
psychological evidence to show the psychological incapacity would have automatically ensured the
granting of the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. What was essential, we should emphasize
herein, was the "presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party's psychological
condition," as the Court said in Marcos. But where, like here, the parties had the full opportunity to
present the professional and expert opinions of psychiatrists tracing the root cause, gravity and
incurability of the alleged psychological incapacity, then the opinions should be presented and be
weighed by the trial courts in order to determine and decide whether or not to declare the nullity of the
marriages. It bears repeating that the trial courts, as in all the other cases they try, must always base
their judgments not solely on the expert opinions presented by the parties but on the totality of
evidence adduced in the course of their proceedings.
Arabelle J. Mendoza vs. Republic of the Phil., et al., G.R. No. 157649, November 12, 2012
An expert witness would have strengthened the claim of psychological incapacity.

[I]n order that the allegation of psychological incapacity may not be considered a mere fabrication,
evidence other than [the wife's] lone testimony should have been adduced. While an actual medical,
psychiatric or psychological examination is not a conditio sine qua non to a finding of psychological
incapacity, an expert witness would have strengthened [the wife's] claim of [the husband's] alleged
psychological incapacity. [Her] omission to present one is fatal to her position. There can be no
conclusion of psychological incapacity where there is absolutely no showing that the "defects" were
already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable.
Republic of the Phil. vs. Norma Cuison-Melgar, et al., G.R. No. 139676, March 31, 2006
Petition need not allege root cause of psychological incapacity.
Procedural rules apply to actions pending and unresolved at the time of their passage. The obvious
effect of the new Rules providing that "expert opinion need not be alleged" in the petition is that there
is also no need to allege the root cause of the psychological incapacity. Only experts in the fields of
neurological and behavioral sciences are competent to determine the root cause of psychological
incapacity. Since the new Rules do not require the petition to allege expert opinion on the psychological
incapacity, it follows that there is also no need to allege in the petition the root cause of the
Diana M. Barcelona vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130087, September 24, 2003
Petition alleging physical manifestations indicative of psychological incapacity complies with the
requirement of the new Rules.
Science continues to explore, examine and explain how our brains work, respond to and control the
human body. Scientists still do not understand everything there is to know about the root causes of
psychological disorders. The root causes of many psychological disorders are still unknown to science
even as their outward, physical manifestations are evident. Hence, what the new Rules require the
petition to allege are the physical manifestations indicative of psychological incapacity.
Diana M. Barcelona vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 130087, September 24, 2003
Psychological incapacity refers to a mental, not physical, incapacity.
Correlated with existing precepts in our law on marriage, "psychological incapacity" should refer to no
less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital
covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage which
include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and
support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
"psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an
utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychological
condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated. The law does not evidently envision, upon
the other hand, an inability of the spouse to have sexual relations with the other. This conclusion is
implicit under Article 54 of the Family Code which considers children conceived prior to the judicial
declaration of nullity of the void marriage to be "legitimate." plpecdtai
We have time and again held that psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental, not
physical, incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that must
concomitantly be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage that, as so expressed by Article
68 of the Family Code, include their mutual obligations to live together, to observe love, respect and
fidelity, and to render help and support. We have also held that the intendment of the law has been to
confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage. To qualify as psychological incapacity as a ground for nullification of marriage, a person's
psychological affliction must be grave and serious as to indicate an utter incapacity to comprehend and
comply with the essential objects of marriage, including the rights and obligations between husband and
wife. The affliction must be shown to exist at the time of marriage, and must be incurable.
"Psychological incapacity," as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, should
refer to no less than a mental — not merely physical — incapacity that causes a party to be truly
incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the
parties to the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68 of the Family Code, among others, include
their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity and render help and support.
There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of
"psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an
utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
Republic v. De Gracia, G.R. No. 171557, February 12, 2014
Senseless and protracted refusal of a spouse to fulfill marital obligation of procreation is equivalent to
Evidently, one of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is "to procreate children based
on the universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of
marriage." Constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of
the marriage. Thus, the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the above marital
obligation is equivalent to psychological incapacity.
Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997
grounds for finding that he is suffering from a psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the
Family Code. It must be shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which
make private respondent completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state,
and not merely due to private respondent’s youth and self-conscious feeling of being handsome.
Lucita Estrella Hernandez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126010, December 8, 1999
"Irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities" do not constitute psychological incapacity.

This case is of a husband who is constantly embarrassed by his wife's outbursts and overbearing ways,
who finds his wife's obsession with cleanliness and the tight reign on his wallet "irritants" and who is
wounded by her lack of support and respect for his person and his position as a Judge. However, these
inadequacies do not amount to psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations.
The totality of the evidence shows simple case of a married couple drifting apart, becoming strangers to
each other, with the husband consequently falling out of love and wanting a way out. An unsatisfactory
marriage, however, is not a null and void marriage. Mere showing of "irreconcilable differences" and
"conflicting personalities" in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity.
Juanita Carating-Siayngco vs. Manuel Siayngco, G.R. No. 158896, October 27, 2004
Sexual infidelity, per se, does not constitute psychological incapacity.
The only essential marital obligation which the husband was not able to fulfill, if any, is the obligation of
fidelity. Sexual infidelity, per se, however, does not constitute psychological incapacity within the
contemplation of the Family Code. It must be shown that his unfaithfulness is a manifestation of a
disordered personality which makes him completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the
marital state and not merely due to his ardent wish to have a child of his own flesh and blood.
Juanita Carating-Siayngco vs. Manuel Siayngco, G.R. No. 158896, October 27, 2004
Sexual infidelity and abandonment of the conjugal dwelling, even if true, do not necessarily constitute
psychological incapacity; these are simply grounds for legal separation. To constitute psychological
incapacity, it must be shown that the unfaithfulness and abandonment are manifestations of a
disordered personality that completely prevented the erring spouse from discharging the essential
marital obligations.
Republic of the Phil. vs. Cesar Encelan, G.R. No. 170022, January 9, 2013
Sexual infidelity is not sufficient proof of psychological incapacity.
Sexual infidelity, by itself, is not sufficient proof that petitioner is suffering from psychological incapacity.
It must be shown that the acts of unfaithfulness are manifestations of a disordered personality which
make petitioner completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.
Jaime F. Villalon vs. Ma. Corazon N. Villalon, G.R. No. 167206, November 18, 2005
Sexual infidelity, per se, however, does not constitute psychological incapacity within the contemplation
of the Family Code. Again, petitioner must be able to establish that respondent's unfaithfulness is a
manifestation of a disordered personality, which makes him completely unable to discharge the
essential obligations of the marital state.
Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility cannot be equated with psychological incapacity.
Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility cannot be equated with psychological incapacity. Marriage is
an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family that the State cherishes and protects.
While the Supreme Court commiserates with the wife in her unhappy marital relationship with her
husband, totally terminating that relationship, however, may not necessarily be the fitting denouement
to it. In these cases, the law has not quite given up, neither should the Court.
Lorna Guillen Pesca vs. Zosimo A. Pesca, G.R. No. 136921, April 17, 2001
The medical report failed to show that [the husband's] actions indicated a psychological affliction of
such a grave or serious nature that it was medically or clinically rooted. His alleged immaturity,
deceitfulness and lack of remorse for his dishonesty and lack of affection did not necessarily constitute
psychological incapacity. His inability to share or to take responsibility or to feel remorse over his
misbehavior or to share his earnings with family members, albeit indicative of immaturity, was not
necessarily a medically rooted psychological affliction that was incurable. Emotional immaturity and
irresponsibility did not equate with psychological incapacity. Nor were his supposed sexual infidelity and
criminal offenses manifestations of psychological incapacity. If at all, they would constitute a ground
only for an action for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code.
To be tired and give up on one's situation and on one's spouse are not signs of psychological illness.
To be tired and give up on one's situation and on one's spouse are not necessarily signs of psychological
illness; neither can falling out of love be so labeled. When these happen, the remedy for some is to cut
the marital knot to allow the parties to go their separate ways. This simple remedy, however, is not
available to us under our laws. Ours is a limited remedy that addresses only a very specific situation — a
relationship where no marriage could have validly been concluded because the parties; or where one of
them, by reason of a grave and incurable psychological illness existing when the marriage was
celebrated, did not appreciate the obligations of marital life and, thus, could not have validly entered
into a marriage.
Renato Reyes So v. Valera, G.R. No. 150677, 5 June 2009
Wife's lack of attention to children, immaturity and lack of "intention of procreative sexuality" do not
constitute psychological incapacity.
Even if taken as true, the husband's testimony basically complains about three aspects of the wife's
personality; namely, her alleged (1) lack of attention to their children, (2) immaturity and (3) lack of an
"intention of procreative sexuality." None of these three, singly or collectively, constitutes
"psychological incapacity."
Leni O. Choa vs. Alfonso C. Choa, G.R. No. 143376, November 26, 2002
Immaturity, sexual promiscuity and abandonment do not by themselves constitute psychological

incapacity.
The wife’s sexual infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not by themselves constitute
psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. Neither could her emotional
immaturity and irresponsibility be equated with psychological incapacity. It must be shown that these
acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which make respondent completely unable to
discharge the essential obligations of the marital state, not merely due to her youth, immaturity or
sexual promiscuity. At best, the circumstances relied upon by petitioner are grounds for legal
separation.
David B. Dedel vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 151867, January 29, 2004
[The wife’s] immaturity alone did not constitute psychological incapacity. To rule that such immaturity
amounted to psychological incapacity, it must be shown that the immature acts were manifestations of
a disordered personality that made the spouse completely unable to discharge the essential obligations
of the marital state, which inability was merely due to her youth or immaturity.
Republic of the Phil. vs. CA (Ninth Division), et al., G.R. No. 159594, November 12, 2012
Psychological defect cannot be presumed from the mere fact of abandonment.
The husband’s act of abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven to
be due to some kind of psychological illness. This could have been done through an expert witness.
Psychological defect cannot be presumed from the mere fact that he abandoned his family immediately
after the celebration of the marriage. As ruled in Molina, it is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to
meet his responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential that he must be shown to be
incapable of doing so due to some psychological, not physical, illness. There was no proof of a natal or
supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that
effectively incapacitates a person from accepting and complying with the obligations essential to
marriage.
Republic of the Phil. vs. Lolita Quintero-Hamano, G.R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004
[A]bandonment [of the conjugal home to live with another man] was not one of the grounds for the
nullity of marriage under the Family Code. It did not also constitute psychological incapacity, it being
instead a ground for legal separation under Article 55 (10) of the Family Code. On the other hand, [the
wife’s] sexual infidelity was not a valid ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family
Code, considering that there should be a showing that such marital infidelity was a manifestation of a
disordered personality that made her completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of
marriage.
Article 36 is not to be equated with legal separation and divorce
Neither is Article 36 to be equated with legal separation, in which the grounds need not be rooted in
psychological incapacity but on physical violence, moral pressure, moral corruption, civil interdiction,
drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity, abandonment and the like.
Article 36 should not be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes
therefor manifest themselves, nor with legal separation in which the grounds need not be rooted in
psychological incapacity but on physical violence, moral pressure, moral corruption, civil interdiction,
drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity, abandonment, and the like.
Norms for determining psychological incapacity should apply to any person regardless of nationality.
In proving psychological incapacity, we find no distinction between an alien spouse and a Filipino
spouse. We cannot be lenient in the application of the rules merely because the spouse alleged to be
psychologically incapacitated happens to be a foreign national. The medical and clinical rules to
determine psychological incapacity were formulated on the basis of studies of human behavior in
general. Hence, the norms used for determining psychological incapacity should apply to any person
regardless of nationality.
Republic of the Phil. vs. Lolita Quintero-Hamano, G.R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004
Psychological incapacity justifies judicial declaration freeing the parties from consequences stemming
from the marriage.
The inviolability of marriage depends on whether the marriage exists and is valid. If it is void ab initio,
the "permanence" of the union becomes irrelevant, and the Court can step in to declare it so. Article 36
of the Family Code is the justification. Where it applies and is duly proven, a judicial declaration can free
the parties from the rights, obligations, burdens and consequences stemming from their marriage.
An inveterate pathological liar is unable to commit to the basic tenets of relationship between spouses.
Respondent is evidently unable to comply with the essential marital obligations as embraced by Articles
68 to 71 of the Family Code. Article 68, in particular, enjoins the spouses to live together, observe
mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. [I]t is difficult to see how an
inveterate pathological liar would be able to commit to the basic tenets of relationship between spouses
based on love, trust and respect.
Leonilo Antonio vs. Marie Ivonne F. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006
Psychological conditions that hamper performance of marital obligations do not mean that the husband
and wife suffer from psychological incapacity.
We cannot see how their personality disorder would render the husband and wife unaware of the
essential marital obligations or to be incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must
be assumed and discharged by the parties to a marriage. The fact that these psychological conditions
will hamper their performance of their marital obligations does not mean that they suffer from
psychological incapacity as contemplated under Article 36 of the Family Code. Mere difficulty is not
synonymous to incapacity.
Rodolfo A. Aspillaga vs. Aurora A. Aspillaga, G.R. No. 170925, October 26, 2009
Psychological incapacity is confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders.
Psychological incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty", "refusal" or "neglect" in the performance
of some marital obligations. The intention of the law is to confine the meaning of "psychological
incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
[T]he expert evidence presented in cases of declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological
incapacity presupposes a thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist or expert
to make a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of psychological incapacity.
Disagreements on money matters is not a ground to declare a marriage null and void.
While disagreements on money matters would, no doubt, affect the other aspects of one's marriage as
to make the wedlock unsatisfactory, this is not a ground to declare a marriage null and void. In fact, the
Court takes judicial notice of the fact that disagreements regarding money matters is a common, and
even normal, occurrence between husbands and wives.
Article 36 is not to be confused with a divorce law.
Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the
time the causes thereof manifest themselves. Article 36 refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting
a party even before the celebration of the marriage. The malady must be so grave and so permanent as
to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to
assume.
"Psychological incapacity" is not meant to comprehend all possible cases of psychoses.
"Psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Family Code is not meant to comprehend all possible
cases of psychoses. It should refer, rather, to no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes
a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and
discharged by the parties to the marriage. Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity,
(b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability
Art. 36 does not contemplate mere refusal, neglect, difficulty or ill will on the part of the errant spouse.
The remedy for a marriage that has failed and appears to be without hope of reconciliation, is not
always to have it declared void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity. We stress that Article
36 of the Family Code contemplates downright incapacity or inability to assume and fulfill the basic
marital obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less, ill will, on the part of the errant
spouse. It is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the grounds for
divorce manifest themselves. The State, fortunately or unfortunately, has not seen it fit to decree that
divorce should be available in this country. Neither should an Article 36 declaration of nullity be equated
with legal separation, in which the grounds need not be rooted in psychological incapacity but on
physical violence, moral pressure, moral corruption, civil interdiction, drug addiction, sexual infidelity,
abandonment, and the like. Unless the evidence presented clearly reveals a situation where the parties
or one of them, by reason of a grave and incurable psychological illness existing at the time the marriage
was celebrated, was incapacitated to fulfill the obligations of marital life (and thus could not then have
validly entered into a marriage), then we are compelled to uphold the indissolubility of the marital tie.
Enrique A. Agraviador vs. Erlinda Amparo-Agraviador, et al., G.R. No. 170729, December 8, 2010
An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage.
Psychological incapacity must be more than just a "difficulty," a "refusal," or a "neglect" in the
performance of some marital obligations. An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage.
Noel B. Baccay vs. Maribel C. Baccay, et al., G.R. No. 173138, December 1, 2010
Manifestations of psychological incapacity.
The husband's pattern of behavior manifests an inability, nay, a psychological incapacity to perform the
essential marital obligations as shown by his: (1) sporadic financial support; (2) extra-marital affairs; (3)
substance abuse; (4) failed business attempts; (5) unpaid money obligations; (6) inability to keep a job
that is not connected with the family businesses; and (7) criminal charges of estafa.
Ma. Socorro Camacho-Reyes vs. Ramon Reyes-Reyes, G.R. No. 185286, August 18, 2010
Mismanagement of family finances does not constitute psychological incapacity.
Irresponsibility in managing the family's finances does not rise to the level of a psychological incapacity
required under Article 36 of the Family Code. At most, the wife's mismanagement of the family's
finances merely constituted difficulty, refusal or neglect, during the marriage, in the handling of funds
intended for the family's financial support.
Ricardo P. Toring vs. Teresita M. Toring, et al., G.R. No. 165321, August 3, 2010
Sexual infidelity per se does not constitute psychological incapacity.
In order for sexual infidelity to constitute as psychological incapacity, the respondent's unfaithfulness
must be established as a manifestation of a disordered personality, completely preventing the
respondent from discharging the essential obligations of the marital state; there must be proof of a
natal or supervening disabling factor that effectively incapacitated her from complying with the
obligation to be faithful to her spouse.
Ricardo P. Toring vs. Teresita M. Toring, et al., G.R. No. 165321, August 3, 2010
Art. 40 - Absolute nullity of a previous marriage
Art. 40 - Absolute nullity of a previous marriage
Article 40 applies to remarriages after effectivity of Family Code regardless of the date of first marriage.
Declaration of absolute nullity of marriage is necessary for purposes of remarriage.
However, no judicial decree of nullity is needed when marriage took place and all children were born
before Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy and before effectivity of Family Code.
No judicial declaration of absolute nullity is necessary for purposes other than remarriage.
Issuance of marriage license after marriage ceremony gives rise to the conclusion that the marriage was
contracted without a license.
Pendency of case for declaration of nullity is not a prejudicial question to concubinage case.
Only competent courts, not parties themselves, are authorized to judge nullity of marriage.
Parties to marriage are not permitted to judge for themselves its nullity.
No matter how obvious the absence of an element, intervention of courts must be resorted to.
Legality of marriage is a matter of law and every person is presumed to know the law.
Pendency of annulment case does not give rise to a prejudicial question.
No declaration of nullity of marriage is necessary for purposes other than remarriage.
Declaration of nullity of previous marriage does not validate second marriage.
When crime of bigamy had been consummated, declaration of nullity of second marriage on ground of
psychological incapacity is of no moment.
Without a judicial declaration of nullity of void marriage, one may be convicted of bigamy.
Outcome of annulment case had no bearing upon the criminal case for bigamy.
Among legal consequences of void marriages is incurring criminal liability for bigamy.
Subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of first marriage is immaterial if bigamy had been
consummated.
No judicial declaration of nullity is needed when parties merely signed a marriage contract on their own.
Re: Complaint of Mrs. Corazon S. Salvador Against Spouses Noel and Amelia Serafico, A.M. No. 2008-20-
SC, March 15, 2010
Article 40 applies to remarriages after effectivity of Family Code regardless of the date of first marriage.
Article 40 is applicable to remarriages entered into after the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3,
1988 regardless of the date of the first marriage. Besides, under Article 256 of the Family Code, said
Article is given "retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance with the Civil Code or other laws." This is particularly true with Article 40, which is a rule of
procedure.
Lupo Almodiel Atienza vs. Judge Francisco F. Brillantes, Jr., Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92706, March 29, 1995
Maria Apiag vs. Esmeraldo G. Cantero, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1070, February 12, 1997
[A]rticle 40, which is a rule of procedure, should be applied retroactively because Article 256 of the
Family Code itself provides that said "Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice
or impair vested or acquired rights." . . . The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the
litigants' rights may not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. The retroactive
application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely
affected. The reason is that as a general rule, no vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural
laws.
Merlinda Cipriano Montañez vs. Lourdes Tajolosa Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, October 22, 2012 citing
Jarillo vs. People, G.R. No. 164435, June 29, 2010
Declaration of absolute nullity of marriage is necessary for purposes of remarriage.
The Family Code settled once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence on whether or not a judicial
declaration of a void marriage is necessary for purposes of remarriage. A declaration of absolute nullity
of marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a ground for defense. Where the
absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting a second
marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity is a
final judgment declaring the previous marriage void.
Roberto Domingo vs. Court of Appeals and Delia Soledad Avera, G.R. No. 104818, September 17, 1993
The requirement of securing a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage prior to contracting a

subsequent marriage is found in Article 40 of the Family Code . . . The reason for the provision was aptly
discussed in Teves v. People:
. . . The Family Code has settled once and for all the conflicting jurisprudence on the matter. A
declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of action or a
ground for defense. Where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for
purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law for said projected marriage
to be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage void.
The Family Law Revision Committee and the Civil Code Revision Committee which drafted what is now
the Family Code of the Philippines took the position that parties to a marriage should not be allowed to
assume that their marriage is void even if such be the fact but must first secure a judicial declaration of
the nullity of their marriage before they can be allowed to marry again.
In fact, the requirement for a declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage is also for the protection of
the spouse who, believing that his or her marriage is illegal and void, marries again. With the judicial
declaration of the nullity of his or her marriage, the person who marries again cannot be charged with
bigamy.
In numerous cases, this Court has consistently held that a judicial declaration of nullity is required
before a valid subsequent marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a bigamous marriage,
reprehensible and immoral.
If petitioner's contention would be allowed, a person who commits bigamy can simply evade
prosecution by immediately filing a petition for the declaration of nullity of his earlier marriage and
hope that a favorable decision is rendered therein before anyone institutes a complaint against him. We
note that in petitioner's case the complaint was filed before the first marriage was declared a nullity. It
was only the filing of the Information that was overtaken by the declaration of nullity of his first
marriage. Following petitioner's argument, even assuming that a complaint has been instituted, such as
in this case, the offender can still escape liability provided that a decision nullifying his earlier marriage
precedes the filing of the Information in court. Such cannot be allowed. To do so would make the crime
of bigamy dependent upon the ability or inability of the Office of the Public Prosecutor to immediately
act on complaints and eventually file Informations in court. Plainly, petitioner's strained reading of the
law is against its simple letter.
Lasanas v. People, G.R. No. 159031, June 23, 2014, citing Teves v. People, G.R. No. 188775, August 24,
2011
However, no judicial decree of nullity is needed when marriage took place and all children were born
before Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy and before effectivity of Family Code.
A marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration of such fact before any party thereto can marry
again; otherwise, the second marriage will also be void. This was expressly provided under Article 40 of
the Family Code. However, if the marriage took place and all the children were born before the
promulgation of Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy (August 19, 1986) and before the effectivity of the Family Code,
the doctrine in Odayat vs. Amante (June 2, 1977), that no judicial decree is necessary to establish the
invalidity of void marriages, applies.
Maria Apiag vs. Esmeraldo G. Cantero, Adm. Matter No. MTJ-95-1070, February 12, 1997
No judicial declaration of absolute nullity is necessary for purposes other than remarriage.
Other than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute
nullity. For other purposes, such as but not limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or
illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that
matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question
the same so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. This is without prejudice to any issue
that may arise in the case. When such need arises, a final judgment of declaration of nullity is necessary
even if the purpose is other than to remarry. The clause "on the basis of a final judgment declaring such
previous marriage void" in Article 40 of the Family Code connotes that such final judgment need not be
obtained only for purpose of remarriage.
Issuance of marriage license after marriage ceremony gives rise to the conclusion that the marriage was
contracted without a license.
Petitioner did not expressly state in her petition before the trial court that there was incongruity
between the date of the actual celebration of their marriage and the date of the issuance of their
marriage license. From the documents she presented, the marriage license was issued on September 17,
1974, almost one year after the ceremony took place on November 15, 1973. The ineluctable conclusion
is that the marriage was indeed contracted without a marriage license.
Filipina Y. Sy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127263, April 12, 2000
Pendency of case for declaration of nullity is not a prejudicial question to concubinage case.
The pendency of the case for declaration of nullity of petitioner's marriage is not a prejudicial question
to the concubinage case. For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action as to cause the
suspension of the latter pending the final determination of the civil case, it must appear not only that
the said civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal prosecution would be based, but also
that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the aforesaid civil action, the guilt or innocence of
the accused would necessarily be determined.
Meynardo L. Beltran vs. People of the Phils., G.R. No. 137567, June 20, 2000
Only competent courts, not parties themselves, are authorized to judge nullity of marriage.
Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, only competent courts
having such authority. Prior to such declaration of nullity, the validity of the first marriage is beyond
question. A party who contracts a second marriage then assumes the risk of being prosecuted for
bigamy.
Rolando Landicho vs. Hon. Lorenzo Relova, G.R. No. L-22579, Feb. 23, 1968
Parties to marriage are not permitted to judge for themselves its nullity.
Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be
submitted to the judgment of the competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so
declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the
marriage exists for all intents and purposes. Therefore, he who cohabits with a woman not his wife
before the judicial declaration of nullity of the marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for
concubinage.
Meynardo L. Beltran vs. People of the Phils., G.R. No. 137567, June 20, 2000
Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be
submitted to the judgment of competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared
can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that the marriage
exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declaration of nullity of the
first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy.
Merlinda Cipriano Montañez vs. Lourdes Tajolosa Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, October 22, 2012
No matter how obvious the absence of an element, intervention of courts must be resorted to.
Article 40 of the Family Code requires a prior judicial declaration of nullity of a previous marriage before
a party may remarry. The clear implication of this is that it is not for the parties to determine the validity
or invalidity of the marriage. Whether or not the first marriage was void for lack of a license is a matter
of defense because there is still no judicial declaration of its nullity at the time the second marriage was
contracted. No matter how obvious, manifest or patent the absence of an element is, the intervention
of the courts must always be resorted to. That is why Article 40 of the Family Code requires a "final
judgment," which only the courts can render.
Imelda Marbella-Bobis vs. Isagani D. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509, July 31, 2000
Legality of marriage is a matter of law and every person is presumed to know the law.
Ignorance of the existence of Article 40 of the Family Code cannot even be successfully invoked as an
excuse. The contracting of a marriage knowing that the requirements of the law have not been complied
with or that the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment is an act penalized by the Revised Penal
Code. The legality of a marriage is a matter of law and every person is presumed to know the law.
Imelda Marbella-Bobis vs. Isagani D. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509, July 31, 2000
Pendency of annulment case does not give rise to a prejudicial question.
Parties to a marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for this must be
submitted to the judgment of competent courts and only when the nullity of a marriage is so declared
can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration the presumption of marriage exists.
The pendency of the civil case for annulment did not give rise to a prejudicial question which warranted
the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case for bigamy since at the time of the alleged
commission of the crime, the marriage was, under the law, still valid and subsisting.
Arthur Te vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126746, November 29, 2000
No declaration of nullity of marriage is necessary for purposes other than remarriage.
However, for purposes other than remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an
absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but not limited to the determination of heirship, legitimacy
or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that
matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even after the death of the parties thereto, and
even in a suit not directly instituted to question the validity of said marriage, so long as it is essential to
the determination of the case. In such instances, evidence must be adduced, testimonial or
documentary, to prove the existence of grounds rendering such a previous marriage an absolute nullity.
These need not be limited solely to an earlier final judgment of a court declaring such previous marriage
void.
Declaration of nullity of previous marriage does not validate second marriage.
It does not follow that since the marriage of petitioner and the deceased is declared void ab initio, the
"death benefits" would now be awarded to respondent Susan Yee. To reiterate, under Article 40 of the
Family Code, for purposes of remarriage, there must first be a prior judicial declaration of the nullity of a
previous marriage, though void, before a party can enter into a second marriage, otherwise, the second
marriage would also be void. Accordingly, the declaration in the instant case of nullity of the previous
marriage of the deceased and petitioner Susan Nicdao does not validate the second marriage of the
deceased with respondent Susan Yee. The fact remains that their marriage was solemnized without first
obtaining a judicial decree declaring the marriage of petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased void.
Hence, the marriage of respondent Susan Yee and the deceased is, likewise, void ab initio.
When crime of bigamy had been consummated, declaration of nullity of second marriage on ground of
psychological incapacity is of no moment.
A declaration of the nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is of
absolutely no moment insofar as the State's penal laws are concerned. Article 349 of the Revised Penal
Code penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or a subsequent marriage during the subsistence of
a valid marriage. Thus, as soon as the second marriage was celebrated during the subsistence of the
valid first marriage, the crime of bigamy had already been consummated. There is no cogent reason for
distinguishing between a subsequent marriage that is null and void purely because it is a second or
subsequent marriage, and a subsequent marriage that is null and void on the ground of psychological
incapacity, at least insofar as criminal liability for bigamy is concerned. The State's penal laws protecting
the institution of marriage are in recognition of the sacrosanct character of this special contract
between spouses, and punish an individual's deliberate disregard of the permanent character of the
special bond between spouses.
Without a judicial declaration of nullity of void marriage, one may be convicted of bigamy.
A judicial declaration of nullity of a void marriage is now necessary before one can contract a second
marriage. Absent that declaration, one may be charged with, and convicted of, bigamy.
Vincent Paul G. Mercado vs. Consuelo Tan, G.R. No. 137110, August 1, 2000
This Court has consistently held that a judicial declaration of nullity is required before a valid subsequent
marriage can be contracted; or else, what transpires is a bigamous marriage, which is void from the
beginning as provided in Article 35 (4) of the Family Code of the Philippines.
Iwasawa v. Gangan, G.R. No. 204169, September 11, 2013
[R]espondent's clear intent is to obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage and thereafter
to invoke that very same judgment to prevent his prosecution for bigamy. He cannot have his cake and
eat it too. Otherwise, all that an adventurous bigamist has to do is disregard Article 40 of the Family
Code, contract a subsequent marriage and escape a bigamy charge by simply claiming that the first
marriage is void and that the subsequent marriage is equally void for lack of a prior judicial declaration
of nullity of the first. A party may even enter into a marriage aware of the absence of a requisite —
usually the marriage license — and thereafter contract a subsequent marriage without obtaining a
declaration of nullity of the first on the assumption that the first marriage is void. Such scenario would
render nugatory the provision on bigamy.
Merlinda Cipriano Montañez vs. Lourdes Tajolosa Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, October 22, 2012 citing
Jarillo vs. People, G.R. No. 164435, June 29, 2010
Outcome of annulment case had no bearing upon the criminal case for bigamy.
The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioner's marriage to private respondent had no
bearing upon the determination of petitioner's innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy,
because all that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at
the time the second marriage is contracted. Under the law, a marriage, even one which is void or
voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding.
Among legal consequences of void marriages is incurring criminal liability for bigamy.
Although the judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity
retroacts to the date of the celebration of the marriage insofar as the vinculum between the spouses is
concerned, it is significant to note that said marriage is not without legal effects. Among these effects is
that children conceived or born before the judgment of absolute nullity of the marriage shall be
considered legitimate. There is therefore a recognition written into the law itself that such a marriage,
although void ab initio, may still produce legal consequences. Among these legal consequences is
incurring criminal liability for bigamy. To hold otherwise would render the State's penal laws on bigamy
completely nugatory, and allow individuals to deliberately ensure that each marital contract be flawed
in some manner, and to thus escape the consequences of contracting multiple marriages, while
beguiling throngs of hapless women with the promise of futurity and commitment.
Subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of first marriage is immaterial if bigamy had 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. Thus, even if the husband 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. 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. Moreover, the husband’s assertion would only delay the prosecution of bigamy cases
considering that an accused could simply file a petition to declare his previous marriage void and invoke
the pendency of that action as a prejudicial question in the criminal case. The outcome of the civil case
for annulment of petitioner’s marriage to his first wife had no bearing upon the determination of his
innocence or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, because all that is required for the charge of bigamy
to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted.
Salvador S. Abunado vs. People of the Phils., G.R. No. 159218, March 30, 2004
No judicial declaration of nullity is needed when parties merely signed a marriage contract on their own.
The mere private act of signing a marriage contract, without a marriage ceremony performed by a duly
authorized solemnizing officer, bears no semblance to a valid marriage. Thus, it needs no judicial
declaration of nullity. Such act alone, without more, cannot be deemed to constitute an ostensibly valid
marriage for which petitioner might be held liable for bigamy unless he first secures a judicial
declaration of nullity before he contracts a subsequent marriage.
Lucio C. Morigo vs. People of the Phils., G.R. No. 145226, February 6, 2004
Art. 41 - Subsequent marriage of absentee's spouse
Art. 41 - Subsequent marriage of absentee's spouse
Remarriage of abandoned spouse, not of deserting spouse, is contemplated under Art. 83 (a) of Civil
Code.
Declaration of presumptive death is necessary for validity of subsequent marriage.

Judicial declaration of absence is not necessary when prescribed period of absence is met.
Conditions before a subsequent bigamous marriage may be deemed valid.
Belief of the present spouse must be the result of proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts.
A judgment of the presumptive death of the absent spouse is required for the benefit of the spouse
present and of the State.
Only with a declaration by a competent court of the presumptive death of an absent spouse can
marriage be treated as so dissolved as to permit second marriages.
Remarriage of abandoned spouse, not of deserting spouse, is contemplated under Art. 83 (a) of Civil
Code.
The first exception (when the absent spouse has not been heard from for seven consecutive years and
the present spouse has no news that he/she is alive) under Art. 83 of the Civil Code on illegality of
subsequent marriages, refers to the subsequent marriage of the abandoned spouse and not the
remarriage of the deserting spouse, after the period of seven years has lapsed.
Nenita Bienvenido vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111717, October 24, 1994
Declaration of presumptive death is necessary for validity of subsequent marriage.
Even if the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead, a
summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death is necessary in order to contract a
subsequent marriage, a mandatory requirement which has been precisely incorporated into the Family
Code to discourage subsequent marriages where it is not proven that the previous marriage has been
dissolved or a missing spouse is factually or presumptively dead, in accordance with pertinent provisions
of law.
Republic of the Phil. vs. Robert P. Narceda, G.R. No. 182760, April 10, 2013
Judicial declaration of absence is not necessary when prescribed period of absence is met.
A judicial declaration of absence of the absentee spouse is not necessary as long as the prescribed
period of absence is met. It is equally noteworthy that the marriage in these exceptional cases are, by
the explicit mandate of Article 83 of the Civil Code, to be deemed valid "until declared null and void by a
competent court."
Antonia Armas vs. Marietta Calisterio, G.R. No. 136467, April 6, 2000
Conditions before a subsequent bigamous marriage may be deemed valid.
Under the 1988 Family Code, in order that a subsequent bigamous marriage may exceptionally be
considered valid, the following conditions must concur; viz.: (a) The prior spouse of the contracting party
must have been absent for four consecutive years, or two years where there is danger of death under
the circumstances stated in Article 391 of the Civil Code at the time of disappearance; (b) the spouse
present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead; and (c) there is, unlike the old
rule, a judicial declaration of presumptive death of the absentee for which purpose the spouse present
can institute a summary proceeding in court to ask for that declaration. The last condition is consistent
and in consonance with the requirement of judicial intervention in subsequent marriages as so provided
in Article 41, in relation to Article 40, of the Family Code.
Antonia Armas vs. Marietta Calisterio, G.R. No. 136467, April 6, 2000
Belief of the present spouse must be the result of proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and efforts.
The belief of the present spouse must be the result of proper and honest to goodness inquiries and
efforts to ascertain the whereabouts of the absent spouse and whether the absent spouse is still alive or
is already dead. Whether or not the spouse present acted on a well-founded belief of death of the
absent spouse depends upon the inquiries to be drawn from a great many circumstances occurring
before and after the disappearance of the absent spouse and the nature and extent of the inquiries
made by present spouse.
Republic of the Phil. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 159614, December 9, 2005
A judgment of the presumptive death of the absent spouse is required for the benefit of the spouse
present and of the State.
The requirement for a judgment of the presumptive death of the absent spouse is for the benefit of the
spouse present, as protection from the pains and the consequences of a second marriage, precisely
because he/she could be charged and convicted of bigamy if the defense of good faith based on mere
testimony is found incredible. The requirement of judicial declaration is also for the benefit of the State.
Under Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution, the "State shall protect and strengthen the family as a
basic autonomous social institution." Marriage is a social institution of the highest importance. Public
policy, good morals and the interest of society require that the marital relation should be surrounded
with every safeguard and its severance only in the manner prescribed and the causes specified by law.
The laws regulating civil marriages are necessary to serve the interest, safety, good order, comfort or
general welfare of the community and the parties can waive nothing essential to the validity of the
proceedings. A civil marriage anchors an ordered society by encouraging stable relationships over
transient ones; it enhances the welfare of the community.
Eduardo P. Manuel vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 165842, November 29, 2005
Only with a declaration by a competent court of the presumptive death of an absent spouse can
The consequences of an invalid marriage to the parties, to innocent parties and to society, are so serious
that the law may well take means calculated to ensure the procurement of the most positive evidence
of death of the first spouse or of the presumptive death of the absent spouse after the lapse of the
period provided for under the law. One such means is the requirement of the declaration by a
competent court of the presumptive death of an absent spouse as proof that the present spouse
contracts a subsequent marriage on a well-grounded belief of the death of the first spouse. Indeed,
"men readily believe what they wish to be true," is a maxim of the old jurists. To sustain a second
marriage and to vacate a first because one of the parties believed the other to be dead would make the
existence of the marital relation determinable, not by certain extrinsic facts, easily capable of forensic
ascertainment and proof, but by the subjective condition of individuals. Only with such proof can
Eduardo P. Manuel vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 165842, November 29, 2005
[A] petition for declaration of presumptive death of an absent spouse for the purpose of contracting a
subsequent marriage under Article 41 of the Family Code is a summary proceeding "as provided for"
under the Family Code. . . . Taken together, Articles 41, 238, 247 and 253 of the Family Code provide
that since a petition for declaration of presumptive death is a summary proceeding, the judgment of the
court therein shall be immediately final and executory. . . . In sum, under Article 41 of the Family Code,
the losing party in a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death may file a petition
for certiorari with the CA on the ground that, in rendering judgment thereon, the trial court committed
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction. From the decision of the CA, the aggrieved
party may elevate the matter to this Court via a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court.
Republic of the Phil. vs. Yolanda Cadacio Granada, G.R. No. 187512, June 13, 2012
The Family Code provides that it is the proof of absence of a spouse for four consecutive years, coupled
with a well-founded belief by the present spouse that the absent spouse is already dead, that
constitutes a justification for a second marriage during the subsistence of another marriage.
Santos v. Santos, G.R. No. 187061, October 8, 2014
A second marriage is bigamous while the first subsists. However, a bigamous subsequent marriage may
be considered valid when the following are present:
1) The prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years;
2) The spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead;
3) There must be a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the absent
spouse; and
4) There is a court declaration of presumptive death of the absent spouse.
A subsequent marriage contracted in bad faith, even if it was contracted after a court declaration of
presumptive death, lacks the requirement of a well-founded belief that the spouse is already dead. The
first marriage will not be considered as validly terminated. Marriages contracted prior to the valid
termination of a subsisting marriage are generally considered bigamous and void. Only a subsequent
marriage contracted in good faith is protected by law. Therefore, the party who contracted the
subsequent marriage in bad faith is also not immune from an action to declare his subsequent marriage
void for being bigamous. The prohibition against marriage during the subsistence of another marriage
still applies.
If . . . [the husband] was in bad faith when he filed his petition to declare her presumptively dead and
when he contracted the subsequent marriage, such marriage would be considered void for being
bigamous under Article 35 (4) of the Family Code. This is because the circumstances lack the element of
"well-founded belief" under Article 41 of the Family Code, which is essential for the exception to the
rule against bigamous marriages to apply.
Art. 42 - Affidavit of reappearance of absent spouse
Art. 42 - Affidavit of reappearance of absent spouse
The termination of the subsequent marriage by affidavit provided by [Article 42] of the Family Code
does not preclude the filing of an action in court to prove the reappearance of the absentee and obtain
a declaration of dissolution or termination of the subsequent marriage.
SSS vs. Teresita Jarque Vda. de Bailon, G.R. No. 165545, March 24, 2006
The Family Code also provides that the second marriage is in danger of being terminated by the
presumptively dead spouse when he or she reappears. . . . In other words, the Family Code provides the
presumptively dead spouse with the remedy of terminating the subsequent marriage by mere
reappearance. The filing of an affidavit of reappearance is an admission on the part of the first spouse
that his or her marriage to the present spouse was terminated when he or she was declared absent or
presumptively dead.
[A] close reading of the entire Article 42 reveals that the termination of the subsequent marriage by
reappearance is subject to several conditions: (1) the non-existence of a judgment annulling the
previous marriage or declaring it void ab initio; (2) recording in the civil registry of the residence of the
parties to the subsequent marriage of the sworn statement of fact and circumstances of reappearance;
(3) due notice to the spouses of the subsequent marriage of the fact of reappearance; and (4) the fact of
reappearance must either be undisputed or judicially determined.
The existence of these conditions means that reappearance does not always immediately cause the
subsequent marriage's termination. Reappearance of the absent or presumptively dead spouse will
cause the termination of the subsequent marriage only when all the conditions enumerated in the
Family Code are present.
Hence, the subsequent marriage may still subsist despite the absent or presumptively dead spouse's
reappearance (1) if the first marriage has already been annulled or has been declared a nullity; (2) if the
sworn statement of the reappearance is not recorded in the civil registry of the subsequent spouses'
residence; (3) if there is no notice to the subsequent spouses; or (4) if the fact of reappearance is
disputed in the proper courts of law, and no judgment is yet rendered confirming such fact of
reappearance.

When subsequent marriages are contracted after a judicial declaration of presumptive death, a
presumption arises that the first spouse is already dead and that the second marriage is legal. This
presumption should prevail over the continuance of the marital relations with the first spouse. The
second marriage, as with all marriages, is presumed valid. The burden of proof to show that the first
marriage was not properly dissolved rests on the person assailing the validity of the second marriage.
[M]ere reappearance will not terminate the subsequent marriage even if the parties to the subsequent
marriage were notified if there was "no step . . . taken to terminate the subsequent marriage, either by
[filing an] affidavit [of reappearance] or by court action[.]" "Since the second marriage has been
contracted because of a presumption that the former spouse is dead, such presumption continues
inspite of the spouse's physical reappearance, and by fiction of law, he or she must still be regarded as
legally an absentee until the subsequent marriage is terminated as provided by law."
Santos v. Santos, G.R. No. 187061, October 8, 2014, citing Social Security System v. Vda. de Bailon, 520
Phil. 249 (2006)
The provision on reappearance in the Family Code as a remedy to effect the termination of the
subsequent marriage does not preclude the spouse who was declared presumptively dead from availing
other remedies existing in law. This court had, in fact, recognized that a subsequent marriage may also
be terminated by filing "an action in court to prove the reappearance of the absentee and obtain a
declaration of dissolution or termination of the subsequent marriage."
Since an undisturbed subsequent marriage under Article 42 of the Family Code is valid until terminated,
the "children of such marriage shall be considered legitimate, and the property relations of the
spouse[s] in such marriage will be the same as in valid marriages." If it is terminated by mere
reappearance, the children of the subsequent marriage conceived before the termination shall still be
considered legitimate. Moreover, a judgment declaring presumptive death is a defense against
prosecution for bigamy.
It is true that in most cases, an action to declare the nullity of the subsequent marriage may nullify the
effects of the subsequent marriage, specifically, in relation to the status of children and the prospect of
prosecuting a respondent for bigamy. However, "a Petition for Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages may be filed solely by the husband or wife." This means that even if [the absent spouse] is a
real party in interest who stands to be benefited or injured by the outcome of an action to nullify the
second marriage, this remedy is not available to her. Therefore, for the purpose of not only terminating
the subsequent marriage but also of nullifying the effects of the declaration of presumptive death and
the subsequent marriage, mere filing of an affidavit of reappearance would not suffice. [The absent
spouse]'s choice to file an action for annulment of judgment will, therefore, lie.

Art. 45 - Annulment of marriage
Art. 45 - Annulment of marriage
Distinction between "annul' and "null and void".
Annulment of marriage cannot destroy its juridical consequences.
Lawyer's act of advertising himself as "Annulment of Marriage Specialist" erodes sanctity of marriage
Non-disclosure of premarital relationship is not one of grounds for annulment.
Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant (4 months) by a
man other than her husband constitutes fraud and is ground for annulment of marriage.
There is no fraud when the wife was already in the 7th month of pregnancy at the time of marriage.
A voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally.
Distinction between "annul" and "null and void".
The terms "annul" and "null and void" have different legal connotations and implications. Annul means
to reduce to nothing; annihilate; obliterate; to make void or of no effect; to nullify; to abolish; to do
away with, whereas null and void is something that does not exist from the beginning. A marriage that is
annulled presupposes that it subsists but later ceases to have legal effect when it is terminated through
a court action. But in nullifying a marriage, the court simply declares a status or condition which already
exists from the very beginning.
Federico C. Suntay vs. Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No. 132524, December 29, 1998
Annulment of marriage cannot destroy its juridical consequences.
The annulment of the marriage by the court abolishes the legal character of the society formed by the
putative spouses, but it cannot destroy the juridical consequences which the marital union produced
during its continuance.
Sy Joc Lieng vs. Petronila Encarnacion, G.R. No. 4718, March 19, 1910
Lawyer's act of advertising himself as “Annulment of Marriage Specialist” erodes sanctity of marriage
In advertising himself as a self-styled "Annulment of Marriage Specialist," he erodes and undermines not
only the stability but also the sanctity of an institution still considered sacrosanct despite the
contemporary climate of permissiveness in our society. Indeed, in assuring prospective clients that an
annulment may be obtained in four to six months from the time of the filing of the case, he in fact
encourages people, who might have otherwise been disinclined and would have refrained from
dissolving their marriage bonds, to do so.
Ismael G. Khan vs. Rizalino T. Simbillo, A.C. No. 5299, August 19, 2003
Non-disclosure of premarital relationship is not one of grounds for annulment.
Non-disclosure of a husband's pre-marital relationship with another woman is not one of the
enumerated circumstances that would constitute a ground for annulment; and it is further excluded by
the last paragraph of the article, providing that "no other misrepresentation or deceit as to . . . chastity"
shall give ground for an action to annul a marriage. While a woman may detest such non-disclosure of
premarital lewdness or feel having been thereby cheated into giving her consent to the marriage,
nevertheless the law does not assuage her grief after her consent was solemnly given, for upon marriage
she entered into an institution in which society, and not herself alone, is interested.
Aurora A. Anaya vs. Fernando O. Palaroan, G.R. No. L-27930, November 26, 1970
Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant (4 months) by a
man other than her husband constitutes fraud and is ground for annulment of marriage.
The wife was alleged to be only more than four months pregnant at the time of her marriage. According
to medical authorities, even on the 5th month of pregnancy, the enlargement of a woman's abdomen is
still below the umbilicus, that is to say, the enlargement is limited to the lower part of the abdomen so
that it is hardly noticeable and may, if noticed, be attributed only to fat formation on the lower part of
the abdomen. It is only on the 6th month of pregnancy that the enlargement of the woman's abdomen
reaches a height above the umbilicus, making the roundness of the abdomen more general and
apparent. If, as claimed by husband, the wife is "naturally plump", he could hardly be expected to know,
merely by looking, whether or not she was pregnant at the time of their marriage, more so because she
must have attempted to conceal the true state of affairs.
Fernando Aquino vs. Conchita Delizo, G.R. No. L-15853, July 27, 1960
There is no fraud when the wife was already in the 7th month of pregnancy at the time of marriage.
In an action for the annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud, the husband's claim that he did not
even suspect the pregnancy of the defendant was held to be unbelievable, it having been proven that
the latter was already in an advanced stage of pregnancy (7th month) at the time of their marriage.
Godofredo Buccat vs. Luida Mangonon de Buccat, G.R. No. 47101, April 25, 1941
A voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally.
[A] voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally except in a direct proceeding. Consequently, such
marriages can be assailed only during the lifetime of the parties and not after the death of either, in
which case the parties and their offspring will be left as if the marriage had been perfectly valid. Upon
the death of either, the marriage cannot be impeached, and is made good ab initio.
SSS vs. Teresita Jarque Vda. de Bailon, G.R. No. 165545, March 24, 2006
Article 45 (5) of the Family Code refers to lack of power to copulate.
Article 45 (5) of the Family Code refers to lack of power to copulate. Incapacity to consummate denotes
the permanent inability on the part of the spouses to perform the complete act of sexual intercourse.
Non-consummation of a marriage may be on the part of the husband or of the wife and may be caused
by a physical or structural defect in the anatomy of one of the parties or it may be due to chronic illness
and inhibitions or fears arising in whole or in part from psychophysical conditions. It may be caused by
psychogenic causes, where such mental block or disturbance has the result of making the spouse
physically incapable of performing the marriage act.
Art. 45 (5) - Physical incapability of consummating the marriage
Art. 45 (5) - Physical incapability of consummating the marriage
Lone testimony of husband that his wife is physically incapable of sexual intercourse is insufficient.
Although the wife's refusal to be examined or failure to appear in court show indifference on her part,
yet from such attitude the presumption arising out of the suppression of evidence could not arise or 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. This the court may do, without doing
violence to and infringing upon her constitutional right. A physical examination in this case is not self-
incrimination. She is not charged with any offense. She is not being compelled to be a witness against
herself. Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The presumption is in favor of
potency. The lone testimony of the husband that his wife is physically incapable of sexual intercourse is
insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have bound them together as husband and wife.
Joel Jimenez vs. Remedios Cañizares, G.R. No. L-12790, August 31, 1960
Art. 46 - Voidable marriage
Art. 46 - Voidable marriage
A voidable marriage is deemed valid until set aside by final judgment.
Other forms of psychoses merely render marriage contract voidable.
A voidable marriage may be assailed only in a direct proceeding.
Free cohabitation or prescription ratifies a voidable marriage.
A voidable marriage can be assailed only during lifetime of the parties.
A voidable marriage can be assailed only by its parties.
Conjugal partnership governs property relationship in a voidable marriage.
A voidable marriage is not a defense in a charge of bigamy.
A voidable marriage is deemed valid until set aside by final judgment.
A voidable marriage is considered valid and produces all its civil effects, until it is set aside by final
judgment of a competent court in an action for annulment. Juridically, the annulment of a marriage
dissolves the special contract as if it had never been entered into but the law makes express provisions
to prevent the effects of the marriage from being totally wiped out.
Federico C. Suntay vs. Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No. 132524, December 29, 1998
Salvador S. Abunado vs. People of the Phils., G.R. No. 159218, March 30, 2004
Mercado vs. Tan, G.R. No. 137110, August 1, 2000
Bobis vs. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509, July 31, 2000
Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy, G.R. No. L-53703, August 19, 1986
Other forms of psychoses merely render marriage contract voidable.
The other forms of psychoses, if existing at the inception of marriage, like the state of a party being of
unsound mind or concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism,
merely renders the marriage contract voidable pursuant to Article 46, Family Code.
A voidable marriage may be assailed only in a direct proceeding.
Doctrinally, a void marriage may be subjected to collateral attack, while a voidable one may be assailed
only in a direct proceeding.
Tomasa vda. de Jacob vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135216, August 19, 1999
Free cohabitation or prescription ratifies a voidable marriage.
A voidable marriage can be generally ratified or confirmed by free cohabitation or prescription.
A voidable marriage can be assailed only during lifetime of the parties.
Voidable marriages can be assailed only during the lifetime of the parties and not after death of either,
in which case the parties and their offspring will be left as if the marriage had been perfectly valid.
A voidable marriage can be assailed only by its parties.
Only the parties to a voidable marriage can assail it
Conjugal partnership governs property relationship in a voidable marriage.
The property regime governing voidable marriages is generally conjugal partnership and the children
conceived before its annulment are legitimate.
A voidable marriage is not a defense in a charge of bigamy.

In contrast to a voidable marriage which legally exists until judicially annulled (and, therefore, not a
defense in a bigamy charge if the second marriage were contracted prior to the decree of annulment),
the complete nullity, however, of a previously contracted marriage, being void ab initio and legally
inexistent, can outrightly be a defense in an indictment for bigamy.
Art. 47 - Persons authorized to file action for annulment
Art. 47 - Persons authorized to file action for annulment
The Family Code is silent as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of a marriage.
A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or wife;
Exceptions.
Only the party who can demonstrate a "proper interest" can file an action to declare the absolute nullity
of a marriage.
The Family Code is silent as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of a marriage.
Article 47 of the Family Code cannot be applied even by analogy to petitions for declaration of nullity of
marriage. The second ground for annulment of marriage relied upon by the trial court, which allows "the
sane spouse" to file an annulment suit "at any time before the death of either party" is inapplicable.
Article 47 pertains to the grounds, periods and persons who can file an annulment suit, not a suit for
declaration of nullity of marriage. The Code is silent as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of
a marriage.
A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or wife;
Exceptions.
Section 2, paragraph (a), of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages) explicitly provides the limitation that a petition for
declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or wife. Such
limitation demarcates a line to distinguish between marriages covered by the Family Code and those
solemnized under the regime of the Civil Code. Specifically, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC extends only to
marriages covered by the Family Code, which took effect on August 3, 1988, but, being a procedural rule
that is prospective in application, is confined only to proceedings commenced after March 15, 2003. The
following actions for declaration of absolute nullity of a marriage are excepted from the limitation, to
wit:
1. Those commenced before March 15, 2003, the effectivity date of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC; and
2. Those filed vis-à-vis marriages celebrated during the effectivity of the Civil Code and, those
celebrated under the regime of the Family Code prior to March 15, 2003.
Isidro Ablaza vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. 158298, August 11, 2010, citing Carlos v. Sandoval, G.R.
No. 179922, December 16, 2008
The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages
(A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the
status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country. Moreover, in Juliano-Llave
v. Republic (G.R. No. 169766, March 30, 2011), this Court held that the rule in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC that
only the husband or wife can file a declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage "does not apply if the
reason behind the petition is bigamy. . . .
To hold that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies to a petition for recognition of foreign judgment would mean
that the trial court and the parties should follow its provisions, including the form and contents of the
petition, the service of summons, the investigation of the public prosecutor, the setting of pre-trial, the
trial and the judgment of the trial court. This is absurd because it will litigate the case anew. It will
defeat the purpose of recognizing foreign judgments, which is "to limit repetitive litigation on claims and
issues."
Minoru Fujiki vs. Maria Paz Galela Marinay, et al., G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013
Only the party who can demonstrate a "proper interest" can file an action to declare the absolute nullity
of a marriage.
The old and new Civil Codes contain no provision on who can file a petition to declare the nullity of a
marriage, and when. It is clarified, however, that the absence of a provision in the old and new Civil
Codes cannot be construed as giving a license to just any person to bring an action to declare the
absolute nullity of a marriage. The plaintiff must still be the party who stands to be benefited by the suit,
or the party entitled to the avails of the suit, for it is basic in procedural law that every action must be
prosecuted and defended in the name of the real party in interest. Thus, only the party who can
demonstrate a "proper interest" can file the action. The omission to implead the wife and daughter was
not immediately fatal to the present action, however, considering that Section 11, Rule 3, Rules of Court,
states that neither misjoinder nor non-joinder of parties is a ground for the dismissal of an action. The
petitioner can still amend his initiatory pleading in order to implead her, for under the same rule, such
amendment to implead an indispensable party may be made "on motion of any party or on (the trial
court's) own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just."
Isidro Ablaza vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. 158298, August 11, 2010, citing Carlos v. Sandoval, G.R.
No. 179922, December 16, 2008
Art. 48 - Collusion
Art. 48 - Collusion
A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation by default is fraught with the danger of collusion
The State is mandated to actively intervene in the procedure for declaration of nullity of marriage.
Non-intervention of prosecuting attorney is not fatal where husband vehemently opposed annulment
proceedings.
Earnest efforts towards a compromise need not be looked into when the complaint for legal separation
has been withdrawn.
In a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, the Solicitor General shall issue a certification before a
decision is handed down.
Lack of participation of the State was not cured by the lower court's dismissal of the petition.
The Solicitor General's intervention in the proceedings for annulment or declaration of nullity of
marriages ensures that the interest of the State is represented.
A grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation by default is fraught with the danger of collusion
The task of protecting marriage as an inviolable social institution requires vigilant and zealous
participation and not mere pro-forma compliance. The protection of marriage as a sacred institution
requires not just the defense of a true and genuine union but the exposure of an invalid one as well. A
grant of annulment of marriage or legal separation by default is fraught with the danger of collusion.
Hence, in all cases for annulment, declaration of nullity of marriage and legal separation, the
prosecuting attorney or fiscal is ordered to appear on behalf of the State for the purpose of preventing
any collusion between the parties and to take care that their evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. If
the defendant-spouse fails to answer the complaint, the court cannot declare him or her in default but
instead, should order the prosecuting attorney to determine if collusion exists between the parties. The
prosecuting attorney or fiscal may oppose the application for legal separation or annulment through the
presentation of his own evidence, if in his opinion, the proof adduced is dubious and fabricated.
Marietta B. Ancheta vs. Rodolfo S. Ancheta, G.R. No. 145370, March 4, 2004
The State is mandated to actively intervene in the procedure for declaration of nullity of marriage.
A declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code requires the application of
procedural and substantive guidelines. While compliance with these requirements mostly devolves upon
the wife, the State is likewise mandated to actively intervene in the procedure. Should there be non-
compliance by the State with its statutory duty, there is a need to remand the case to the lower court
for proper trial.
Non-intervention of prosecuting attorney is not fatal where husband vehemently opposed annulment
proceedings.
The husband's vehement opposition to the annulment proceedings negates the conclusion that
collusion existed between the parties. Thus, the non-intervention of a prosecuting attorney to assure
lack of collusion between the contending parties is not fatal to the validity of the proceedings in the trial
court.
Emilio Tuason vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116607, April 10, 1996
Earnest efforts towards a compromise need not be looked into when the complaint for legal separation
has been withdrawn.
The husband’s filing of notice of withdrawal of his complaint for legal separation rendered the case
moot and academic. Thus, it is not necessary to resolve the controversial issue of whether in an action
by the husband for legal separation against the wife, it should be alleged that earnest efforts towards a
compromise had been made.
Consuelo Madrigal-Vasquez vs. Judge Corazon J. Agrava, G.R. No. L-32219, February 25, 1982
In a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, the Solicitor General shall issue a certification before a
decision is handed down.
The trial court must order 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, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or
opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting
attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is
deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent
function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.
Republic of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals and Roridel Olaviano Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13,
1997
Lack of participation of the State was not cured by the lower court's dismissal of the petition.
While the fiscal filed with the trial court a manifestation stating that he found no collusion between the
parties, he did not actively participate therein. Other than entering his appearance at certain hearings of
the case, nothing more was heard from him. Neither did the presiding Judge take any step to encourage
the fiscal to contribute to the proceedings. It can be argued that since the lower court dismissed the
petition, the evil sought to be prevented (i.e., dissolution of the marriage) did not come about, hence,
the lack of participation of the State was cured. Not so. The task of protecting marriage as an inviolable
social institution requires vigilant and zealous participation and not mere pro-forma compliance. The
protection of marriage as a sacred institution requires not just the defense of a true and genuine union
but the exposure of an invalid one as well.
The Solicitor General's intervention in the proceedings for annulment or declaration of nullity of
marriages ensures that the interest of the State is represented.
That Article 48 does not expressly mention the Solicitor General does not bar him or his Office from
intervening in proceedings for annulment or declaration of nullity of marriages. . . The intent of Article
48 of the Family Code of the Philippines is to ensure that the interest of the State is represented and
protected in proceedings for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages by preventing collusion
between the parties, or the fabrication or suppression of evidence; and, bearing in mind that the
Solicitor General is the principal law officer and legal defender of the land, then his intervention in such
proceedings could only serve and contribute to the realization of such intent, rather than thwart it.
Republic of the Phil. vs. Crasus L. Iyoy, G.R. No. 152577, September 21, 2005
Failure of the RTC to require the appearance of the Public Prosecutor or Solicitor General in proceedings
for annulment and declaration of nullity of marriages does not nullify the Compromise Agreement.
The purpose of the active participation of the Public Prosecutor or the Solicitor General is to ensure that
the interest of the State is represented and protected in proceedings for annulment and declaration of
nullity of marriages by preventing collusion between the parties, or the fabrication or suppression of
evidence. While the appearances of the Solicitor General and/or the Public Prosecutor are mandatory,
the failure of the RTC to require their appearance does not per se nullify the Compromise Agreement.
Virgilio Maquilan vs. Dita Maquilan, G.R. No. 155409, June 8, 2007
Art. 55 - Legal separation
Art. 55 - Legal separation
Drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality as grounds for legal separation.
Petition for legal separation is independent from the counterclaim to declare nullity of same marriage.
Death of one party to an action for legal separation causes the death of the action itself.
Action for legal separation is abated by death of the plaintiff even if property rights are involved.
Dissolution and liquidation of property regime are necessary consequences of the final decree of legal
separation.
Allegation that earnest efforts towards a compromise had been made is deemed unnecessary as notice
of dismissal rendered the legal separation case moot and academic.
Decree of legal separation on the ground of concubinage may be issued upon proof by preponderance
of evidence.
Conviction for concubinage need not be first secured before action for legal separation can prosper.
The RTC, designated as Family Court, has the exclusive original jurisdiction over cases relating to marital
status and property relations of couples.
Drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality as grounds for legal separation.
If drug addiction, habitual alcholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only during the marriage,
they become mere grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. These provisions of
the Code, however, do not necessarily preclude the possibility of these various circumstances being
themselves, depending on the degree and severity of the disorder, indicia of psychological incapacity.
Leouel Santos vs. CA and Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995
Petition for legal separation is independent from the counterclaim to declare nullity of same marriage.
The petition for legal separation and the counterclaim to declare the nullity of the same marriage can
stand independent and separate adjudication. They are not inseparable nor was the action for legal
separation converted into one for a declaration of nullity by the counterclaim, for legal separation
presupposes a valid marriage, while the petition for nullity has a voidable marriage as a precondition.
Carmen Lapuz Sy vs. Eufemio S. Eufemio, G.R. No. L-30977, January 31, 1972
Death of one party to an action for legal separation causes the death of the action itself.
An action for legal separation which involves nothing more than the bed-and-board separation of the
spouses (there being no absolute divorce in this jurisdiction) 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.
Action for legal separation is abated by death of the plaintiff even if property rights are involved.
A further reason why an action for legal separation is abated by the death of the plaintiff, even if
property rights are involved, is that these rights are mere effects of a decree of separation, their source
being the decree itself; without the decree such rights do not come into existence, so that before the
finality of a decree, these claims are merely rights in expectation. If death supervenes during the
pendency of the action, no decree can be forthcoming, death producing a more radical and definitive
separation; and the expected consequential rights and claims would necessarily remain unborn.
Dissolution and liquidation of property regime are necessary consequences of the final decree of legal
separation.
Article 106 of the Civil Code mandates the dissolution and liquidation of the property regime of the
spouses upon finality of the decree of legal separation. Such dissolution and liquidation are necessary
consequences of the final decree. This legal effect of the decree of legal separation ipso facto or
automatically follows, as an inevitable incident of, the judgment decreeing legal separation — for the
purpose of determining the share of each spouse in the conjugal assets. The clear mandate of this
provision is that the decision of the trial court decreeing the legal separation between the spouses had
long become final and executory and the division of the conjugal property in a "supplemental decision"
is a mere incident of the decree of legal separation.
Antonio Macadangdang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-38287, October 23, 1981
Allegation that earnest efforts towards a compromise had been made is deemed unnecessary as notice
of dismissal rendered the legal separation case moot and academic.
Notice of dismissal of complaint rendered the legal separation case moot and academic and that it is not
necessary to resolve the controversial issue of whether in an action by the husband for legal separation
against the wife, it should be alleged that earnest efforts towards a compromise had been made, as
supposedly required in Article 222 of the Civil Code and Section 1 (j), Rule 16 of the Rules of Court.
Because of that notice of dismissal, the wife obtained the relief which she had sought by means of her
motion to dismiss.
Consuelo Madrigal-Vasquez vs. Judge Corazon J. Agrava, G.R. No. L-32219, February 25, 1982
Decree of legal separation on the ground of concubinage may be issued upon proof by preponderance
of evidence.
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. To this end, the doctrine in Francisco vs. Tayao has been modified, as that case was decided
under Act. No. 2710, when absolute divorce was then allowed and had for its grounds the same grounds
for legal separation under the New Civil Code, with the requirement, under such former law, that the
guilt of defendant spouses had to be established by final judgment in a criminal action. That
requirement has not been reproduced or adopted by the framers of the present Civil Code, and the
omission has been uniformly accepted as a modification of the stringent rule in Francisco v. Tayao.
Froilan C. Gandionco vs. Hon. Senen C. Peñaranda, G.R. No. 79284, November 27, 1987
Conviction for concubinage need not be first secured before action for legal separation can prosper.
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.
The RTC, designated as Family Court, has the exclusive original jurisdiction over cases relating to marital
status and property relations of couples.
Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8369 confers upon an RTC, designated as the Family Court of a city, the exclusive
original jurisdiction to hear and decide, among others, complaints or petitions relating to marital status
and property relations of the husband and wife or those living together. The Rule on Legal Separation
provides that "the petition [for legal separation] shall be filed in the Family Court of the province or city
where the petitioner or the respondent has been residing for at least six months prior to the date of
filing or in the case of a non-resident respondent, where he may be found in the Philippines, at the
election of the petitioner."
Brigido B. Quiao vs. Rita C. Quiao, et al., G.R. No. 176556, July 4, 2012
Art. 55 (10) - Abandonment
Art. 55 (10) - Abandonment
Meaning of "abandon".
Meaning of "abandonment".
Physical separation of parties and husband's refusal to give support sufficed to constitute abandonment.
Physical separation, without financial and moral desertion, is not abandonment.
Meaning of 'abandon".
The word "abandon", in its ordinary sense, means to forsake entirely; to forsake or renounce utterly.
The dictionaries trace this word to the root idea of "putting under a ban." The emphasis is on the finality
and the publicity with which some thing or body is thus put in the control of another, and hence the
meaning of giving up absolutely, with intent never again to resume or claim one's rights or interests.
When referring to desertion of a wife by a husband, the word has been defined as "the act of a husband
in voluntarily leaving his wife with intention to forsake her entirely, never to return to her, and never to
resume his marital duties towards her, or to claim his marital rights; such neglect as either leaves the
wife destitute of the common necessaries of life, or would leave her destitute but for the charity of
others."
Estrella de la Cruz vs. Severino de la Cruz, G.R. No. L-19565, January 30, 1968
Meaning of "abandonment".
a) Abandonment implies a departure by one spouse with the avowed intent never to return,
followed by prolonged absence without just cause, and without in the meantime providing in the least
for one's family although able to do so. There must be absolute cessation of marital relations, duties and
rights, with the intention of perpetual separation. This idea is clearly expressed in the provision, which
states that "a spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when he or she has left the conjugal
dwelling without any intention of returning."
Prima Partosa-Jo vs. Court of Appeals and Ho Hang, G.R. No. 82606, December 18, 1992
b) The word "abandonment," when referring to the act of one consort of leaving the other, is "the
act of the husband or the wife who leaves his or her consort willfully, and with an intention of causing
perpetual separation." Thus, to constitute abandonment of the wife by the husband, there must be
absolute cessation of marital relations and duties and rights, with the intention of perpetual separation.
Physical separation of parties and husband's refusal to give support sufficed to constitute abandonment.
The physical separation of the parties, coupled with the refusal by the husband to give support to the
wife, sufficed to constitute abandonment as a ground for the judicial separation of their conjugal
property.
Prima Partosa-Jo vs. Court of Appeals and Ho Hang, G.R. No. 82606, December 18, 1992
Physical separation, without financial and moral desertion, is not abandonment.
To entitle the wife to any of the extraordinary remedies as a result of abandonment, the abandonment
must not only be physical estrangement but also amount to financial and moral desertion. Although an
all-embracing definition of the term "abandonment" is yet to be spelled out in explicit words, its
meaning can be determined from the context of the law well as from its ordinary usage. The concept of
abandonment may be established in relation to the alternative remedies granted to the wife when she
has been abandoned by the husband, namely, receivership, administration by her, or separation of
property, all of which are designed to protect the conjugal assets from waste and dissipation rendered
imminent by the husband's continued absence from the conjugal abode, and to assure the wife of a
ready and steady source of support. Therefore, physical separation alone is not the full meaning of the
term "abandonment", if the husband, despite his voluntary departure from the society of his spouse,
neither neglects the management of the conjugal partnership nor ceases to give support to his wife.
Art. 56 (1) - Condonation
Art. 56 (1) - Condonation
Condonation, defined.
A single voluntary marital intercourse is sufficient to constitute condonation.
Husband's failure to search for his wife does not constitute condonation.
When condonation of wife’s offense does not entitle her to a divorce.
Condonation, defined.
Condonation is the forgiveness of a marital offense constituting a ground for legal separation or, the
conditional forgiveness or remission, by a husband or wife of a matrimonial offense which the latter has
committed.
Benjamin Bugayong vs. Leonila Ginez, G.R. No. L-10033, December 28, 1956
A single voluntary marital intercourse is sufficient to constitute condonation.
Any cohabitation with the guilty party, after the commission of the offense, and with the knowledge or
belief on the part of the injured party of its commission, will amount to conclusive evidence of
condonation; but this presumption may be rebutted by evidence. Single voluntary act of marital
intercourse between the parties ordinarily is sufficient to constitute condonation, and where the parties
live in the same house, it is presumed that they live on terms of matrimonial cohabitation.
Benjamin Bugayong vs. Leonila Ginez, G.R. No. L-10033, December 28, 1956
Husband's failure to search for his wife does not constitute condonation.
The husband's failure actively to search for his wife and take her home after the latter had left him does
not constitute condonation or consent to her adulterous relations. She "left" him after having sinned
and after he had discovered her dates with other men. Consequently, it was not his duty to search for
her to bring her home. Hers was the obligation to return.
Jose de Ocampo vs. Serafina Florenciano, G.R. No. L-13553, February 23, 1960
When condonation of wife’s offense does not entitle her to a divorce.

The wife can defeat the husband's suit for a divorce by proof that he has pardoned her, but the effect of
such condonation of the wife's offense is not to entitle her to a divorce from her husband by reason of
adultery committed by him, notwithstanding her own condoned act of adultery.
Agueda Benedicto vs. Esteban de la Rama, G.R. No. 1056, December 8, 1903
Art. 56 (2) - Consent
Art. 56 (2) - Consent
Failure of husband to file case for adultery is not proof of his consent.
The mere fact that the injured husband allowed seven months to pass without instituting criminal
proceedings against his wife and her paramour is not sufficient proof of his consent.
Francisco Gali vs. Faustino Sahagun, G.R. No. 1229, August 19, 1903
Adriano Mortiga vs. Vicente Serra and Maria Obleno, G.R. No. 2045, September 20, 1905
Art. 56 (5) - Collusion
Art. 56 (5) - Collusion
Collusion, defined.
Rationale for state intervention in uncontested proceedings for legal separation or annulment of
marriage.
Collusion, defined.
a) Collusion in divorce or legal separation means the agreement between husband and wife for
one of them to commit, or to appear to commit, or to be represented in court 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. This agreement, if not express, may be implied from the acts of the parties. It is a
ground for denying the divorce. There would be collusion if the parties had arranged to make it appear
that a matrimonial offense had been committed although it was not, or if the parties had connived to
bring about a legal separation even in the absence of grounds therefor.
Jose de Ocampo vs. Serafina Florenciano, G.R. No. L-13553, February 23, 1960
b) Collusion in matrimonial cases is "the act of married persons in procuring a divorce by mutual
consent, whether by preconcerted commission by one of a matrimonial offense, or by failure, in
pursuance of agreement to defend divorce proceedings"
Rationale for state intervention in uncontested proceedings for legal separation or annulment of
marriage.
a) The policy calling for the intervention of the state attorneys in case of uncontested proceedings
for legal separation (and of annulment of marriages), is to emphasize that marriage is more than a mere
contract; that it is a social institution in which the state is vitally interested, so that its continuation or
interruption can not be made to depend upon the parties themselves .It is consonant with this policy
that the inquiry by the Fiscal should be allowed to focus upon any relevant matter that may indicate
whether the proceedings for separation or annulment are fully justified or not.
b) The prohibition expressed in the laws and rules is predicated on the fact that the institutions of
marriage and of the family are sacred and therefore are as much the concern of the State as of the
spouses; because the State and the public have vital interest in the maintenance and preservation of
these social institutions against desecration by collusion between the parties or by fabricated evidence.
The prohibition against annulling a marriage based on the stipulation of facts or by confession of
judgment or by non-appearance of the defendant stresses the fact that marriage is more than a mere
contract between the parties; and for this reason, when the defendant fails to appear, the law enjoins
the court to direct the prosecuting officer to intervene for the State in order to preserve the integrity
and sanctity of the marital bonds.
Romulo Tolentino vs. Helen Villanueva, G.R. No. L-23264, March 15, 1974
Art. 63 (2) - Forfeiture of the share of the offending spouse in the net profits
Art. 63 (2) - Forfeiture of the share of the offending spouse in the net profits
[S]ince it was already established by the trial court that the spouses have no separate properties, there
is nothing to return to any of them. The listed properties . . . are considered part of the conjugal
partnership. Thus, ordinarily, what remains in the . . . listed properties should be divided equally
between the spouses and/or their respective heirs. However, since the trial court found the petitioner
the guilty party, his share from the net profits of the conjugal partnership is forfeited in favor of the
common children, pursuant to Article 63 (2) of the Family Code. Again, lest we be confused, like in the
absolute community regime, nothing will be returned to the guilty party in the conjugal partnership
regime, because there is no separate property which may be accounted for in the guilty party's favor.
Brigido B. Quiao vs. Rita C. Quiao, et al., G.R. No. 176556, July 4, 2012 citing Abalos vs. Macatangay, Jr.,
482 Phil. 877-894 (2004)
Art. 68 - Duties of husband and wife
Art. 68 - Duties of husband and wife
Duty to live together can only be fulfilled if the husband and wife are physically together
Right of parties to cohabitation is sanctioned by mutual affection, not court order.
The wife is not entitled to support if she establishes her residence apart from the husband.
Wife may acquire residence separate from her husband if the latter has given cause for divorce.
Courts cannot compel the restitution of the purely personal right of consortium
Procreation is one of the essential marital obligations.
Duty to live together can only be fulfilled if the husband and wife are physically together
The duty to live together can only be fulfilled if the husband and wife are physically together. This takes
into account the situations where the couple has many residences. If the husband has to stay in or
transfer to any one of their residences, the wife should necessarily be with him in order that they may
"live together."
Imelda Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995
It is true that the Family Code, obligates the spouses to love one another but this rule sanctions
affection and sexual intimacy, as expressions of love, that are both spontaneous and mutual and not the
kind which is unilaterally exacted by force or coercion.
Further, the delicate and reverent nature of sexual intimacy between a husband and wife excludes
cruelty and coercion. Sexual intimacy brings spouses wholeness and oneness. It is a gift and a
participation in the mystery of creation. It is a deep sense of spiritual communion. It is a function which
enlivens the hope of procreation and ensures the continuation of family relations. It is an expressive
interest in each other's feelings at a time it is needed by the other and it can go a long way in deepening
marital relationship. When it is egoistically utilized to despoil marital union in order to advance a
felonious urge for coitus by force, violence or intimidation, the Court will step in to protect its lofty
purpose, vindicate justice and protect our laws and State policies. Besides, a husband who feels
aggrieved by his indifferent or uninterested wife's absolute refusal to engage in sexual intimacy may
legally seek the court's intervention to declare her psychologically incapacitated to fulfill an essential
marital obligation. But he cannot and should not demand sexual intimacy from her coercively or
violently.
People v. Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495, April 21, 2014
Right of parties to cohabitation is sanctioned by mutual affection, not court order.
It would be unrealistic for the courts to compel or urge married couples to live together when they are
speaking of impossibility of cohabitation. For while marriage entitles both parties to cohabitation or
consortium, the sanction therefor is the spontaneous, mutual affection between husband and wife and
not any legal mandate or court order. This is due to the inherent characteristic and nature of marriage in
this jurisdiction.
Lourdes Ramirez-Cuaderno vs. Angel Cuaderno, G.R. No. L-20043, November 28, 1964
Although the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual respect and fidelity and
render mutual help and assistance and that the wife is entitled to be supported, our laws contain no
provision compelling the wife to live with her husband where even without legal justification she
establishes her residence apart from that provided for by the former. In such event, there is no plausible
reason why she should be allowed any support from the husband.
Pilar Atilano vs. Chua Ching Beng, G.R. No. L-11086, March 29, 1958
Wife may acquire residence separate from her husband if the latter has given cause for divorce.
If the wife can acquire a separate residence when her husband consents or acquiesces, there is no
reason why the law will not allow her to do so when the husband unlawfully ejects her from the
conjugal home in order that he may freely indulge in his illicit relations with another woman. Under no
other circumstance could a wife be more justified in establishing a separate residence from that of her
husband. For her to continue living with him, even if he had permitted it, would have been a
condonation of his flagrant breach of fidelity and marital duty. Furthermore, in this case no longer was
there an "identity of persons and of interest between the husband and the wife." It is clear, therefore,
that a married woman may acquire a residence or domicile separate from that of her husband, during
the existence of the marriage, where the husband has given cause for divorce.
Diego de la Viña vs. Antonio Villareal, G.R. No. 13982, July 31, 1920
Courts cannot compel the restitution of the purely personal right of consortium
It is not within the province of the courts of this country to attempt to compel one of the spouses to
cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to, the other. Of course where the property-rights of one of the
pair are invaded, an action for restitution of such rights can be maintained. But the Court disinclined to
sanction the doctrine that an order, enforceable by process of contempt, may be entered to compel the
restitution of the purely personal right of consortium. At best such an order can be effective for no other
purpose than to compel the spouses to live under the same roof.
Mariano B. Arroyo vs. Dolores C. Vazquez de Arroyo, G.R. No. 17014, August 11, 1921
Alfonso Lacson vs. Carmen San Jose-Lacson and the CA, G.R. No. L-23482, August 30, 1968
Procreation is one of the essential marital obligations.
One of the essential marital obligations under the Family Code is "To procreate children based on the
universal principle that procreation of children through sexual cooperation is the basic end of marriage."
Constant non-fulfillment of this obligation will finally destroy the integrity or wholeness of the marriage.
While the law provides that the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love
respect and fidelity the sanction therefor is actually the "spontaneous, mutual affection between
husband and wife and not any legal mandate of court order" Love is useless unless it is shared with
another. Indeed, no man is an island, the cruelest act of a partner in marriage is to say "I could not have
cared less." This is so because an ungiven self is an unfulfilled self. The egoist has nothing but himself. In
the natural order, it is sexual intimacy which brings spouses wholeness and oneness. Sexual intimacy is a
gift and a participation in the mystery of creation. It is a function which enlivens the hope of procreation
and ensures the continuation of family relations.
Chi Ming Tsoi vs. CA and Gina Lao-Tsoi, G.R. No. 119190, January 16, 1997
Husbands are once again reminded that marriage is not a license to forcibly rape their wives. A husband
does not own his wife's body by reason of marriage. By marrying, she does not divest herself of the
human right to an exclusive autonomy over her own body and thus, she can lawfully opt to give or
withhold her consent to marital coitus. A husband aggrieved by his wife's unremitting refusal to engage
in sexual intercourse cannot resort to felonious force or coercion to make her yield. He can seek succor
before the Family Courts that can determine whether her refusal constitutes psychological incapacity
justifying an annulment of the marriage.
Sexual intimacy is an integral part of marriage because it is the spiritual and biological communion that
achieves the marital purpose of procreation. It entails mutual love and self-giving and as such it
contemplates only mutual sexual cooperation and never sexual coercion or imposition.
Art. 73 - Either spouse may exercise legitimate profession and business
Art. 73 - Either spouse may exercise legitimate profession and business
Wife who enters into contract is solely liable for damages awarded.
Under Article 117 of the Civil Code (now Article 73 of the Family Code), the wife may exercise any
profession, occupation or engage in business without the consent of the husband. Thus, since it was
only the wife who entered into the contract, she is solely liable for the damages awarded, pursuant to
the principle that contracts produce effect only as between the parties who execute them.
Nancy Go, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114791, May 29, 1997
Under R.A. No. 9262, the provision of spousal and child support specifically address one form of violence
committed against women — economic abuse.
D. "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to make a woman financially dependent
which includes, but is not limited to the following:
1. Withdrawal of financial support or preventing the victim from engaging in any legitimate
profession, occupation, business or activity, except in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects
on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the Family Code; . . .
Republic v. Yahon, G.R. No. 201043, June 16, 2014
Art. 76 - Modifications in the marriage settlement
Art. 76 - Modifications in the marriage settlement
The Family Code itself provides in Article 76 that marriage settlements cannot be modified except prior
to marriage. . . . Post-marriage modification of such settlements can take place only where: (a) the
absolute community or conjugal partnership was dissolved and liquidated upon a decree of legal
separation; (b) the spouses who were legally separated reconciled and agreed to revive their former
property regime; (c) judicial separation of property had been had on the ground that a spouse abandons
the other without just cause or fails to comply with his obligations to the family; (d) there was judicial
separation of property under Article 135; (e) the spouses jointly filed a petition for the voluntary
dissolution of their absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains.
Efren Pana vs. Heirs of Jose Juanite, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 164201, December 10, 2012
Art. 87 - Donations between husband and wife
Art. 87 - Donations between husband and wife
Prohibition against donations between spouses likewise applies to donations between persons living
together in illicit relations.
The purchase and subsequent registration of the realty in the paramour's name was tantamount to a
donation by the husband to her. Such donation was void, because it was "made between persons who
were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation." The prohibition against donations
between spouses must likewise apply to donations between persons living together in illicit relations;
otherwise, the latter would be better situated than the former.
Milagros Joaquino vs. Lourdes Reyes, G.R. No. 154645, July 13, 2004
Erlinda A. Agapay vs. Carlina V. Palang, G.R. No. 116668, July 28, 1997
Cirila Arcaba vs. Erlinda Tabancura vda. de Batocael, G.R. No. 146683, November 22, 2001
Art. 91 - What constitutes community property
Art. 91 - What constitutes community property
When a couple enters into a regime of absolute community, the husband and the wife becomes joint
owners of all the properties of the marriage. Whatever property each spouse brings into the marriage,
and those acquired during the marriage (except those excluded under Article 92 of the Family Code)
form the common mass of the couple's properties. And when the couple's marriage or community is
dissolved, that common mass is divided between the spouses, or their respective heirs, equally or in the
proportion the parties have established, irrespective of the value each one may have originally owned.
Brigido B. Quiao vs. Rita C. Quiao, et al., G.R. No. 176556, July 4, 2012 citing Abalos v. Macatangay, Jr.,
482 Phil. 877-894 (2004)
Art. 94 - Liabilities of absolute community of property
Art. 94 - Liabilities of absolute community of property
Lilibeth Sunga-Chan, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 164401, June 25, 2008
Art. 96 - Administration of community property
Art. 96 - Administration of community property
Husband's management of conjugal property is a mere privilege given him by law.
The husband's management of the conjugal estate is not a natural right like his right to do as he pleases
with his private affairs. It is a mere privilege or preference given him by law on the assumption that he is
better able to handle the administration. It results that when his supposed superiority over the woman
in this regard; when indeed, as in this case, his ability as manager totally disappears, the raison d' etre of
the privilege vanishes, and it is only just and proper that his co-partner should take control.
Robert C. Peyer vs. Felix Martinez, G.R. No. L-3500, January 12, 1951
Article 124 of the Family Code which applies to conjugal partnership property, is a reproduction of
Article 96 of the Family Code which applies to community property. Both Article 96 and Article 127 of
the Family Code provide that the powers do not include disposition or encumbrance without the written
consent of the other spouse. Any disposition or encumbrance without the written consent shall be void.
However, both provisions also state that "the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the
part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon
the acceptance by the other spouse . . . before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors." . . .
The execution of the SPA is the acceptance by the other spouse that perfected the continuing offer as a
binding contract between the parties, making the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage a valid contract.
Arturo Sarte Flores vs. Sps. Enrico, Jr. and Edna Lindo, G.R. No. 183984, April 13, 2011
Art. 102 - Dissolution of the absolute community regime
Art. 102 - Dissolution of the absolute community regime
Article 129 of the Family Code applies as to the property relations of the parties. In other words, the
computation and the succession of events will follow the provisions under Article 129 of the said Code.
Moreover, as to the definition of "net profits," we cannot but refer to Article 102 (4) of the Family Code,
since it expressly provides that for purposes of computing the net profits subject to forfeiture under
Article 43, No. (2) and Article 63, No. (2), Article 102 (4) applies. In this provision, net profits "shall be the
increase in value between the market value of the community property at the time of the celebration of
the marriage and the market value at the time of its dissolution." Thus, without any iota of doubt, Article
102 (4) applies to both the dissolution of the absolute community regime under Article 102 of the Family
Code, and to the dissolution of the conjugal partnership regime under Article 129 of the Family Code.
Where lies the difference? . . . [T]he difference lies in the processes used under the dissolution of the
absolute community regime under Article 102 of the Family Code, and in the processes used under the
dissolution of the conjugal partnership regime under Article 129 of the Family Code.
482 Phil. 877-894 (2004)
Under Article 102 of the Family Code, upon dissolution of marriage, an inventory is prepared, listing
separately all the properties of the absolute community and the exclusive properties of each; then the
debts and obligations of the absolute community are paid out of the absolute community's assets and if
the community's properties are insufficient, the separate properties of each of the couple will be
solidarily liable for the unpaid balance. Whatever is left of the separate properties will be delivered to
each of them. The net remainder of the absolute community is its net assets, which shall be divided
between the husband and the wife; and for purposes of computing the net profits subject to forfeiture,
said profits shall be the increase in value between the market value of the community property at the
time of the celebration of the marriage and the market value at the time of its dissolution.
Applying Article 102 of the Family Code, the "net profits" requires that we first find the market value of
the properties at the time of the community's dissolution. From the totality of the market value of all
the properties, we subtract the debts and obligations of the absolute community and this result to the
net assets or net remainder of the properties of the absolute community, from which we deduct the
market value of the properties at the time of marriage, which then results to the net profits.
482 Phil. 877-894 (2004)
Art. 102 (4) - Dissolution of the absolute community regime: Computation of net profits
Art. 102 (4) - Dissolution of the absolute community regime: Computation of net profits
[A]mong the effects of the decree of legal separation is that the conjugal partnership is dissolved and
liquidated and the offending spouse would have no right to any share of the net profits earned by the
conjugal partnership. It is only [the father]'s share in the net profits which is forfeited in favor of [the
child]. Article 102 (4) of the Family Code provides that "[f]or purposes of computing the net profits
subject to forfeiture in accordance with Article 43, No. (2) and 63, No. (2), the said profits shall be the
increase in value between the market value of the community property at the time of the celebration of
the marriage and the market value at the time of its dissolution." Clearly, what is forfeited in favor of
[the child]is not [the father]'s share in the conjugal partnership property but merely in the net profits of
the conjugal partnership property.
Mario Siochi vs. Alfredo Gozon, et al., G.R. Nos. 169900 & 169977, March 18, 2010
Article 130 is to be read in consonance with Article 105 of the Family Code. . . . It is clear that conjugal
partnership of gains established before and after the effectivity of the Family Code are governed by the
rules found in Chapter 4 (Conjugal Partnership of Gains) of Title IV (Property Relations Between Husband
and Wife) of the Family Code. Hence, any disposition of the conjugal property after the dissolution of
the conjugal partnership must be made only after the liquidation; otherwise, the disposition is void.
Heirs of Sps. Protacio, Sr. and Marta Go vs. Ester L. Servacio, et al., G.R. No. 157537, September 7, 2011
Art. 105 - Conjugal partnership of gains: General provisions
Art. 105 - Conjugal partnership of gains: General provisions

Art. 109 - Exclusive property of each spouse
Art. 109 - Exclusive property of each spouse
Character of paraphernal property cannot be changed by subsequent declarations.
Paraphernal property of the wife may not be attached or levied upon for the obligation of her husband.
Cadastral court's finding prevails over presumption that properties acquired during marriage are
conjugal.
Property acquired by the spouses during the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership
of gains, regardless of in whose name the same is registered.
The phrase “married to” is merely descriptive of wife’s civil status and not construed to mean that her
husband is also a registered owner.
Property whose title is in the name of the wife alone is paraphernal.
Paraphernal property cannot be attached by reason of a debt contracted by the husband.
Husband cannot lawfully dispose of wife's paraphernal property.
Offspring of animals which are paraphernal property are considered community property.
Increase in value of paraphernal property due to nature and time is not partnership property.
Husband is not authorized to alienate property belonging exclusively to his wife.
Damages awarded for personal injury suffered by one of the spouses is exclusive property.
Character of paraphernal property cannot be changed by subsequent declarations.
Where the husband has been a party to an act of purchase of immovable property in the name of his
wife which recited that the purchase was made with paraphernal funds, and that the property was to be
and remain paraphernal property, neither he nor his heirs can be permitted to go behind the deed and
contest the wife's title to the property by claiming that it is conjugal. Since the property is the
paraphernal property of the wife, the same having been acquired by her prior to her marriage and
having been purchased with her exclusive or private funds, any declaration to the contrary made by her,
as well as that of her child, cannot prevail nor change the character of the property in question.
Pacifico C. del Mundo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-25788, April 30, 1980
Paraphernal property of the wife may not be attached or levied upon for the obligation of her husband.
The levy by the sheriff on property by virtue of a writ of execution may be considered as made under
authority of the court only when the property levied upon unquestionably belongs to the judgment
debtor. If he should attach any property other than those of said debtor, he acts beyond the limits of his
authority. Stated otherwise, the court issuing a writ of execution is supposed to enforce its authority
only over properties of the judgment debtor, and should a third party appear to claim the property
levied upon by the sheriff, the procedure laid down by the rules is that such claim should be the subject
of a separate and independent action. A money judgment is enforceable only against property
unquestionably belonging to the judgment debtor. One man's goods shall not be sold for another man's
debts.
Sps. Julian and Rosa Sy vs. Hon. Jaime D. Discaya, G.R. No. 86301, January 23, 1990
Novernia P. Naguit vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137675, December 5, 2000
Cadastral court's finding prevails over presumption that properties acquired during marriage are
conjugal.
Properties acquired during the marriage are presumed to be conjugal. However, this prima facie
presumption cannot prevail over the cadastral court's specific finding, reached in adversarial
proceedings, that the property was inherited by the wife from her mother.
Jessie V. Pisueña vs. Heirs of Petra Unating and Aquilino Villar, G.R. No. 132803, August 31, 1999
Property acquired by the spouses during the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership
of gains, regardless of in whose name the same is registered.
As a general rule, all property acquired by the spouses, regardless of in whose name the same is
registered, during the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership of gains, unless it is
proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. The fact that the grant was solely in the
name of the wife did not make the property paraphernal property. What was material was the time the
fishpond lease right was acquired by the grantee, and that was during the lawful existence of the
marriage.
Olimpia Diancin vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119991, November 20, 2000
The phrase “married to” is merely descriptive of wife’s civil status and not construed to mean that her
husband is also a registered owner.
Title is registered in the name of the wife alone because the phrase "married to Rogelio Ruiz" is merely
descriptive of her civil status and should not be construed to mean that her husband is also a registered
owner. Furthermore, registration of the property in the name of "Corazon G. Ruiz, of legal age, married
to Rogelio Ruiz" is not proof that such property was acquired during the marriage, and thus, is presumed
to be conjugal. The property could have been acquired by the wife while she was still single, and
registered only after her marriage. Acquisition of title and registration thereof are two different acts.
Corazon G. Ruiz vs. Court of Appeals and Consuelo Torres, G.R. No. 146942, April 22, 2003

Proof of acquisition during the marriage is a condition sine qua non for the operation of the
presumption in favor of conjugal ownership. On the basis alone of the certificate of title, it cannot be
presumed that said property was acquired during the marriage and that it is conjugal property. Since
there is no showing as to when the property in question was acquired, the fact that the title is in the
name of the wife alone is determinative of its nature as paraphernal, i.e., belonging exclusively to said
spouse.
Corazon G. Ruiz vs. Court of Appeals and Consuelo Torres, G.R. No. 146942, April 22, 2003
Paraphernal property cannot be attached by reason of a debt contracted by the husband.
An estate partaking of the nature of paraphernal property belonging to the wife can not be attached by
reason of a debt contracted by the husband, at the request of a creditor of the latter, nor sold and
adjudged to him there being no legal reason whereby the wife should be bound to make any payment or
loan to the said creditor; therefore, the proceedings by virtue of which the woman who owned the
estate was deprived of the property for the payment of a debt for which she was in no way responsible,
are entirely null and void.
Marcela Alvaran vs. Bernardo Marquez, G.R. No. 4465, September 10, 1908
Husband cannot lawfully dispose of wife's paraphernal property.
Whatever may have been agreed in a conciliatory action between a third person and the husband of the
lawful owner of a property can not deprive the latter, as a wife, of her interest in said property to which
such third person pretends to have acquired certain rights without the intervention of the wife and
without her consent to such action; the husband could not lawfully dispose of said estate which is
paraphernal property, nor could he assign the same to a third person to the prejudice of his wife who
was the owner.
Ildefonsa Vargas vs. Agatona Egamino, G.R. No. 2994, November 18, 1908
Offspring of animals which are paraphernal property are considered community property.
The marriage having lasted for more than thirty years, and some of the carabaos being the offspring of
others which were purchased during the marriage, such animals are not paraphernal property of the
widow for even such offspring is considered as community property nor were they the private property
of the deceased husband.
Narciso Marigsa vs. Ildefonsa Macabuntoc, G.R. No. L-4883, September 27, 1910
Increase in value of paraphernal property due to nature and time is not partnership property.
The sum representing the difference between the original assessed value of the paraphernal property
and before the improvements thereon and the assessed value of the same with the improvements
thereon, at the time of the dissolution of the conjugal partnership, cannot be considered partnership
property because such improvements were not due to industry and labor of the surviving spouse.
Furthermore, the land as well as the coconut trees are, by nature and time, susceptible to increase in
value: the land, through the development of the town, of commerce and of industry; the coconut
groves, through the growth of the coconut trees from the time they are planted until they bear, and also
through the development of commerce and of the coconut oil industry. This increase in value due to
nature and time is not considered partnership property under the law on the ground that it is neither
produced with funds from the conjugal partnership nor with the work or industry of any of the spouse.
Sinforoso Ona vs. Serapia De Gala, G.R. No. 37756, November 28, 1933
Husband is not authorized to alienate property belonging exclusively to his wife.
If the property acquired during the marriage with money belonging exclusively to the wife is considered
as her own, it is unquestionable that it does not belong to the class of community property. Therefore
the husband is not authorized to alienate, encumber, or make contracts in regard thereto, without the
knowledge and consent of its lawful owner, and a sale or conveyance thereof by the husband, who is
not its owner, is null and void.
Asuncion Gefes vs. Silvestre Salvio, G.R. No. 11387, February 7, 1917
Damages awarded for personal injury suffered by one of the spouses is exclusive property.
Damages awarded for personal injury suffered by the wife is considered paraphernal property.
Aleko E. Lilius vs. Manila Railroad Company, G.R. No. 42551, September 4, 1935
Art. 116 - Conjugal partnership
Art. 116 - Conjugal partnership
All property of the marriage is presumed conjugal.
A phrase in the title descriptive of the civil status of one spouse should not be construed to mean that
the other spouse is also a registered owner.
Constructive trust is deemed created when conjugal property is titled in the name of common-law wife.
presumption in favor of conjugal ownership.
Alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property without wife's consent before effectivity of Family Code
is voidable.
Survivorship pension of spouse who contracted marriage to a GSIS member within 3 years before the
latter’s retirement or death is no longer automatically forfeited.
Consent of both spouses needed in the sale of conjugal property.
All property of the marriage is presumed conjugal.
All property of the marriage is presumed to be conjugal. However, for this presumption to apply, the
party who invokes it must first prove that the property was acquired during the marriage. Proof of
acquisition during the coverture is a condition sine qua non to the operation of the presumption in favor
of the conjugal partnership. Thus, the time when the property was acquired is material.
Evangeline D. Imani vs. Metrobank, G.R. No. 187023, November 17, 2010
[O]n the basis alone of the certificate of title, it cannot be presumed that said property was acquired
during the marriage and that it is conjugal property. Since there is no showing as to when the property
in question was acquired, the fact that the title is in the name of the wife alone is determinative of its
nature as paraphernal, i.e., belonging exclusively to said spouse. The only import of the title is that
Corazon is the owner of said property, the same having been registered in her name alone, and that she
is married to Rogelio Ruiz.
Corazon G. Ruiz vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 146942, April 22, 2003
A phrase in the title descriptive of the civil status of one spouse should not be construed to mean that
the other spouse is also a registered owner.
The property subject of the mortgage is registered in the name of "Corazon G. Ruiz, of legal age, married
to Rogelio Ruiz, Filipinos." Thus, title is registered in the name of Corazon alone because the phrase
"married to Rogelio Ruiz" is merely descriptive of the civil status of Corazon and should not be construed
to mean that her husband is also a registered owner. Furthermore, registration of the property in the
name of "Corazon G. Ruiz, of legal age, married to Rogelio Ruiz" is not proof that such property was
acquired during the marriage, and thus, is presumed to be conjugal. The property could have been
acquired by Corazon while she was still single, and registered only after her marriage to Rogelio Ruiz.
Acquisition of title and registration thereof are two different acts.
The statement in the title that the property is "registered in accordance with the provisions of Section
103 of the Property Registration Decree in the name of JOSE B. TAN, of legal age, married to Eliza Go
Tan" does not prove or indicate that the property is conjugal.
Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, et al. vs. Sps. Jose B. Tan, et al., G.R. No. 163712, November 30,
2006
Constructive trust is deemed created when conjugal property is titled in the name of common-law wife.
Property acquired by a man while living with a common-law wife during the subsistence of his marriage
is conjugal property, even when the property was titled in the name of the common-law wife. In such
cases, a constructive trust is deemed to have been created by operation of Article 1456 of the Civil Code
over the property which lawfully pertains to the conjugal partnership of the subsisting marriage. It was
at the time that the adjudication of ownership was made following the husband's demise (not when he
merely allowed the property to be titled in his paramour's name) that a constructive trust was deemed
to have been created.
Josephine B. Belcodero vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89667, October 20, 1993
Marino Adriano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124118, March 27, 2000
presumption in favor of conjugal ownership.
Before [the presumption under Article 116 of the Family Code that properties acquired during the
marriage are presumed to be conjugal] can apply, it must first be established that the property was in
fact acquired during the marriage. In other words, proof of acquisition during the marriage is a condition
sine qua non for the operation of the presumption in favor of conjugal ownership.
Alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property without wife's consent before effectivity of Family Code
is voidable.
Without the wife's consent, the husband's alienation or encumbrance of conjugal property prior to the
effectivity of the Family Code is not void, but merely voidable.
Vicente G. Villaranda vs. Sps. Honorio and Ana Maria Y. Villaranda, G.R. No. 153447, February 23, 2004
Survivorship pension of spouse who contracted marriage to a GSIS member within 3 years before the
latter's retirement or death is no longer automatically forfeited.
The present GSIS law (R.A. No. 8291) does not presume that marriages contracted within three years
before retirement or death of a member are sham marriages contracted to avail of survivorship
benefits. It does not automatically forfeit the survivorship pension of the surviving spouse who
contracted marriage to a GSIS member within three years before the member's retirement or death.
The law acknowledges that whether the surviving spouse contracted the marriage mainly to receive
survivorship benefits is a matter of evidence. The law no longer prescribes a sweeping classification that
unduly prejudices the legitimate surviving spouse and defeats the purpose for which Congress enacted
the social legislation.
GSIS vs. Milagros O. Montesclaros, G.R. No. 146494, July 14, 2004
Consent of both spouses needed in the sale of conjugal property.
Since the property was undoubtedly part of the conjugal partnership, the sale to [petitioner] required
the consent of both spouses. Article 165 of the Civil Code expressly provides that "the husband is the
administrator of the conjugal partnership". Likewise, Article 172 of the Civil Code ordains that "(t)he wife
cannot bind the conjugal partnership without the husband's consent, except in cases provided by law".
Titan Construction Corp. vs. Manuel A. David, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 169548, March 15, 2010
All property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that
it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. Registration in the name of the husband or the wife
alone does not destroy this presumption. The separation-in-fact between the husband and the wife
without judicial approval shall not affect the conjugal partnership. The lot retains its conjugal nature.
Moreover, the presumption of conjugal ownership applies even when the manner in which the property
was acquired does not appear. The use of the conjugal funds is not an essential requirement for the
presumption to arise.
Elenita M. Dewara vs. Sps. Ronnie and Gina Lamela, et al., G.R. No. 179010, April 11, 2011
Art. 120 - Ownership of improvements made on separate property of a spouse

Art. 120 - Ownership of improvements made on separate property of a spouse
Article 120 of the Family Code, which supersedes Article 158 of the Civil Code, provides the solution in
determining the ownership of the improvements that are made on the separate property of the
spouses, at the expense of the partnership or through the acts or efforts of either or both spouses.
Under this provision, when the cost of the improvement and any resulting increase in value are more
than the value of the property at the time of the improvement, the entire property of one of the
spouses shall belong to the conjugal partnership, subject to reimbursement of the value of the property
of the owner-spouse at the time of the improvement; otherwise, said property shall be retained in
ownership by the owner-spouse, likewise subject to reimbursement of the cost of the improvement.
Francisco Muñoz, Jr. vs. Erlinda Ramirez, et al., G.R. No. 156125, August 25, 2010
Art. 121 - Liabilities of conjugal partnership
Art. 121 - Liabilities of conjugal partnership
Obligations contracted by husband on behalf of family business are presumed to redound to the benefit
of conjugal partnership
Contract of surety or accommodation agreement entered into by husband requires proof to establish
benefit redounding to the conjugal partnership
Property registered in the name of the wife is deemed paraphernal property in the absence of proof
that the same was acquired during the marriage
presumption in favor of conjugal ownership
All property acquired by the spouses during the marriage, regardless in whose name the property is
registered, is presumed conjugal unless proved otherwise
Conjugal partnership bears the indebtedness and losses incurred by husband in the legitimate pursuit of
his career or profession
Property acquired with salaries of husband belong to conjugal partnership even if registered in
paramour's name
Conjugal property is determined by law and not by will of one of the spouses.
Obligations contracted by husband on behalf of the family business is presumed to redound to the
benefit of the conjugal partnership
Obligations contracted by husband on behalf of family business are presumed to redound to the benefit
of conjugal partnership
If the husband himself is the principal obligor in the contract, i.e., he directly received the money and
services to be used in or for his own business or his own profession, that contract falls within the term ".
. . obligations for the benefit of the conjugal partnership." No actual benefit may be proved. It is enough
that the benefit to the family is apparent at the time of the signing of the contract. From the very nature
of the contract of loan or services, the family stands to benefit from the loan facility or services to be
rendered to the business or profession of the husband. It is immaterial, if in the end, his business or
profession fails or does not succeed.
Ayala Investment & Devt. Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118305, February 12, 1998
Contract of surety or accommodation agreement entered into by husband requires proof to establish
benefit redounding to the conjugal partnership
If the money or services are given to another person or entity, and the husband acted only as a surety or
guarantor, that contract cannot, by itself, alone be categorized as falling within the context of
"obligations for the benefit of the conjugal partnership." The contract of loan or services is clearly for
the benefit of the principal debtor and not for the surety or his family. No presumption can be inferred
that, when a husband enters into a contract of surety or accommodation agreement, it is "for the
benefit of the conjugal partnership." Proof must be presented to establish benefit redounding to the
conjugal partnership.
Ayala Investment & Devt. Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118305, February 12, 1998
That the shares of stocks of the petitioner-husband and his family would appreciate if the PBMCI could
be rehabilitated through the loans obtained and that the petitioner-husband's career would be
enhanced should PBMCI survive because of the infusion of fresh capital cannot be argued because these
are not the benefits contemplated by Article 161 of the New Civil Code. The benefits must be those
directly resulting from the loan. They cannot merely be a by-product or a spin-off of the loan itself.
Alfredo Ching vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124642, February 23, 2004
Property registered in the name of the wife is deemed paraphernal property in the absence of proof
that the same was acquired during the marriage
The property subject of the mortgage is registered in the name of "Corazon G. Ruiz, of legal age, married
to Rogelio Ruiz, Filipinos." Thus, title is registered in the name of Corazon alone because the phrase
"married to Rogelio Ruiz" is merely descriptive of the civil status of Corazon and should not be construed
to mean that her husband is also a registered owner. Since there is no showing as to when the property
in question was acquired, the fact that the title is in the name of the wife alone is determinative of its
nature as paraphernal, i.e., belonging exclusively to said spouse. The only import of the title is that
Corazon is the owner of said property, the same having been registered in her name alone, and that she
is married to Rogelio Ruiz.
Corazon G. Ruiz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146942, April 22, 2003
presumption in favor of conjugal ownership
Registration of the property in the name of "Corazon G. Ruiz, of legal age, married to Rogelio Ruiz" is not
proof that such property was acquired during the marriage, and thus, is presumed to be conjugal. The
property could have been acquired by Corazon while she was still single, and registered only after her
marriage to Rogelio Ruiz. Acquisition of title and registration thereof are two different acts. The
presumption under Article 116 of the Family Code that properties acquired during the marriage are
presumed to be conjugal cannot apply in the instant case. Before such presumption can apply, it must
first be established that the property was in fact acquired during the marriage. In other words, proof of
acquisition during the marriage is a condition sine qua non for the operation of the presumption in favor
of conjugal ownership. Thus, on the basis alone of the certificate of title, it cannot be presumed that said
property was acquired during the marriage and that it is conjugal property.
Corazon G. Ruiz vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146942, April 22, 2003
All property acquired by the spouses during the marriage, regardless in whose name the property is
registered, is presumed conjugal unless proved otherwise
Tax declarations are not sufficient proof to overcome the presumption under Article 116 of the Family
Code. All property acquired by the spouses during the marriage, regardless in whose name the property
is registered, is presumed conjugal unless proved otherwise. The presumption is not rebutted by the
mere fact that the certificate of title of the property or the tax declaration is in the name of one of the
spouses only. Article 116 of the Family Code expressly provides that the presumption remains even if
the property is "registered in the name of one or both of the spouses." Whether a property is conjugal
or not is determined by law and not by the will of one of the spouses. No unilateral declaration by one
spouse can change the character of conjugal property.
Procopio Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143286, April 14, 2004
Conjugal partnership bears the indebtedness and losses incurred by husband in the legitimate pursuit of
his career or profession
The husband is the administrator of the conjugal partnership and as long as he believes he is doing right
to his family, he should not be made to suffer and answer alone. So that, if he incurs an indebtedness in
the legitimate pursuit of his career or profession or suffers losses in a legitimate business, the conjugal
partnership must equally bear the indebtedness and the losses, unless he deliberately acted to the
prejudice of his family.
G-Tractors, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Sps. Luis and Josefina Narciso, G.R. No. 57402, February 28,
1985
Debts contracted by the husband for and in the exercise of the industry or profession by which he
contributes to the support of the family cannot be deemed to be his exclusive and private debts.
Sps. Joe and Estrella Ros vs. PNB-Laoag Branch, G.R. No. 170166, April 6, 2011
The obligation was contracted by the husband in the purchase of leather used in his shoe manufacturing
business. It is well settled that the debts contracted by the husband for and in the exercise of the
industry or profession by which he contributes to the support of the family cannot be deemed to be his
exclusive and private debts.
Mercedes Ruth Cobb-Perez and Damaso P. Perez vs. Hon. Gregorio Lantin, G.R. No. L-22320, May 22,
1968
Property acquired with salaries of husband belong to conjugal partnership even if registered in
paramour's name
Though registered in the paramour's name, property acquired with the salaries and earnings of a
husband belongs to his conjugal partnership with the legal spouse. The registration of the property in
petitioner's name was clearly designed to deprive the legal spouse and compulsory heirs of ownership.
By operation of law, the paramour is deemed to hold the property in trust for them. Therefore, she
cannot rely on the registration in repudiation of the trust, for this case is a well-known exception to the
principle of conclusiveness of a certificate of title.
Conjugal property is determined by law and not by will of one of the spouses.
Whether a property is conjugal or not is determined by law and not by the will of one of the spouses. No
unilateral declaration by one spouse can change the character of conjugal property. The clear intent of
the husband in placing his status as single is to exclude his wife from her lawful share in the conjugal
property. The law does not allow this.
According to Article 166 of the Civil Code, the husband cannot alienate or encumber any real property of
the conjugal partnership without the wife's consent. This provision, however, must be read in
conjunction with Article 173 of the same Code. The latter states that an action to annul an alienation or
encumbrance may be instituted by the wife during the marriage and within ten years from the
transaction questioned. Videlicet, the lack of consent on her part will not make the husband's alienation
or encumbrance of real property of the conjugal partnership void, but merely voidable.
Vicente G. Villaranda vs. Sps. Honorio and Ana Maria Villaranda, G.R. No. 153447, February 23, 2004
Obligations contracted by husband on behalf of the family business is presumed to redound to the
benefit of the conjugal partnership
If the husband himself is the principal obligor in the contract, i.e., he directly received the money and
services to be used in or for his own business or his own profession, that contract falls within the term ".
. . obligations for the benefit of the conjugal partnership." Here, no actual benefit may be proved. It is
enough that the benefit to the family is apparent at the signing of the contract. From the very nature of
the contract of loan or services, the family stands to benefit from the loan facility or services to be
rendered to the business or profession of the husband. It is immaterial, if in the end, his business or
profession fails or does not succeed. Simply stated, where the husband contracts obligations on behalf
of the family business, the law presumes, and rightly so, that such obligation will redound to the benefit
of the conjugal partnership.
Sps. Joe and Estrella Ros vs. PNB-Laoag Branch, G.R. No. 170166, April 6, 2011, citing Ayala Investment &
Development Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118305, February 12, 1998
The civil indemnity that the decision in the murder case imposed on [the wife] may be enforced against
their conjugal assets after the responsibilities enumerated in Article 121 of the Family Code have been
covered. . . . Article 121 . . . allows payment of the criminal indemnities imposed on his wife . . . out of
the partnership assets even before these are liquidated. Indeed, it states that such indemnities "may be
enforced against the partnership assets after the responsibilities enumerated in the preceding article
have been covered." No prior liquidation of those assets is required. This is not altogether unfair since
Article 122 states that "at the time of liquidation of the partnership, such [offending] spouse shall be
charged for what has been paid for the purposes above-mentioned."
Art. 124 - Administration of conjugal partnership property
Art. 124 - Administration of conjugal partnership property
Disposition of conjugal property by husband requires written consent of wife.
Court authorization is warranted if the spouse who does not give consent is incapacitated.
Joint management or administration does not require that the husband and wife always act together
Rules on judicial guardianship proceedings, not summary judicial proceedings, apply where non-
consenting spouse is incapacitated or incompetent to give consent.
Husband’s management of conjugal property is a mere privilege given him by law.
Sale with assumption of mortgage executed by husband without wife's consent must be annulled in its
entirety.
Sale of conjugal property by husband without consent of his wife is voidable.
Disposition of conjugal property by husband requires written consent of wife.
The law requires that the disposition of a conjugal property by the husband as administrator in
appropriate cases requires the written consent of the wife, otherwise, the disposition is void. For the
contracts to sell to be effective, the consent of both husband and wife must concur. Mere awareness of
a transaction by the wife is not consent.
Thelma A. Jader-Manalo vs. Norma Fernandez C. Camaisa, G.R. No. 147978, January 23, 2002
Court authorization is warranted if the spouse who does not give consent is incapacitated.
If the written consent of the other spouse cannot be obtained or is being withheld, the matter may be
brought to court which will give such authority if the same is warranted by the circumstances. However,
court authorization under Art. 124 is only resorted to in cases where the spouse who does not give
consent is incapacitated.
Thelma A. Jader-Manalo vs. Norma Fernandez C. Camaisa, G.R. No. 147978, January 23, 2002
Joint management or administration does not require that the husband and wife always act together
The administration of the conjugal property belongs to the husband and the wife jointly. However,
unlike an act of alienation or encumbrance where the consent of both spouses is required, joint
management or administration does not require that the husband and wife always act together. Each
spouse may validly exercise full power of management alone, subject to the intervention of the court in
proper cases as provided under Article 124 of the Family Code. Hence, the husband alone could have
filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition to contest the writs of demolition issued against the
conjugal property without being joined by his wife. The signing of the certificate of non-forum shopping
only by the husband is not a fatal defect. A rigid application of the rules on forum shopping that would
disauthorize a husband's signing the certification in his behalf and that of his wife is too harsh and is
clearly uncalled for.
Sps. Antonio and Alfreda Docena vs. Hon. Ricardo P. Lapesura, G.R. No. 140153, March 28, 2001
Rules on judicial guardianship proceedings, not summary judicial proceedings, apply where non-
consenting spouse is incapacitated or incompetent to give consent.
The rules on summary judicial proceedings under the Family Code govern the proceedings under Article
124 of the Family Code. The situation contemplated is one where the spouse is absent, or separated in
fact or has abandoned the other or consent is withheld or cannot be obtained. Such rules do not apply
to cases where the non-consenting spouse is incapacitated or incompetent to give consent. In such case,
the proper remedy is a judicial guardianship proceedings under Rule 93 of the 1964 Revised Rules of
Court.
Jose Uy vs. Court of Appeals and Teodoro L. Jardeleza, G.R. No. 109557, November 29, 2000
Husband’s management of conjugal property is a mere privilege given him by law.
The husband's management of the conjugal estate is not a natural right like his right to do as he pleases
with his private affairs. It is a mere privilege or preference given him by law on the assumption that he is
better able to handle the administration. It results that when his supposed superiority over the woman
in this regard; when indeed, as in this case, his ability as manager totally disappears, the raison d' etre of
the privilege vanishes, and it is only just and proper that his co-partner should take control.
Robert C. Peyer vs. Felix Martinez, G.R. No. L-3500, January 12, 1951
Sale with assumption of mortgage executed by husband without wife's consent must be annulled in its
entirety.
In the annulment of sale with assumption of mortgages executed by the husband without the consent of
the wife, the alienation or encumbrance must be annulled in its entirety and not only insofar as the
share of the wife in the conjugal property is concerned. The rationale for the annulment of the whole
transaction is the same thus — the plain meaning attached to the plain language of the law is that the
contract, in its entirety, executed by the husband without the wife's consent, may be annulled by the
wife. Had Congress intended to limit such annulment in so far as the contract shall "prejudice" the wife,
such limitation should have been spelled out in the statute. It is not the legitimate concern of this Court
to recast the law.
Tomasita Bucoy vs. Reynaldo Paulino, G.R. No. L-25775, April 26, 1968
Sale of conjugal property by husband without consent of his wife is voidable.
There is no ambiguity in the wording of the law. A sale of real property of the conjugal partnership made
by the husband without the consent of his wife is voidable. The action for annulment must be brought
during the marriage and within ten years from the questioned transaction by the wife. Where the law
speaks in clear and categorical language, there is no room for interpretation — there is room only for
application.
Heirs of Christina Ayuste vs. Court of Appeals and Viena Malabonga, G.R. No. 118784, September 2,
1999
Heirs of Ignacia Aguilar-Reyes vs. Sps. Cipriano and Florentina Mijares, G.R. No. 143826, August 28, 2003
The sale of a conjugal property requires the consent of both the husband and wife. In applying Article
124 of the Family Code, this Court declared that the absence of the consent of one renders the entire
sale null and void, including the portion of the conjugal property pertaining to the husband who
contracted the sale.
Sps. Onesiforo and Rosario Alinas vs. Sps. Victor and Elena Alinas, G.R. No. 158040, April 14, 2008
Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank vs. Miguela C. Dailo, G.R. No. 153802, March 11, 2005
Sps. Antonio and Luzviminda Guiang vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125172, June 26, 1998
Significantly, a sale or encumbrance of conjugal property concluded after the effectivity of the Family
Code on August 3, 1988, is governed by Article 124 of the same Code that now treats such a disposition
to be void if done (a) without the consent of both the husband and the wife, or (b) in case of one
spouse's inability, the authority of the court.
Sps. Wilfredo and Patrocinia Ravina vs. Mary Ann P. Villa Abrille, et al., G.R. No. 160708, October 16,
2009
In this case, [the husband] was the sole administrator of the property because [the wife], with whom
[the husband] was separated in fact, was unable to participate in the administration of the conjugal
property. However, as sole administrator of the property, [the husband] still cannot sell the property
without the written consent of [the wife] or the authority of the court. Without such consent or
authority, the sale is void. The absence of the consent of one of the spouse renders the entire sale void,
including the portion of the conjugal property pertaining to the spouse who contracted the sale. Even if
the other spouse actively participated in negotiating for the sale of the property, that other spouse's
written consent to the sale is still required by law for its validity.
[A]rticle 124 of the Family Code requires that any disposition or encumbrance of conjugal property must
have the written consent of the other spouse, otherwise, such disposition is void.
Titan Construction Corp. vs. Manuel A. David, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 169548, March 15, 2010
Art. 125 - Any spouse may not donate a conjugal property without the consent of the other
Art. 125 -Any spouse may not donate a conjugal property without the consent of the other
[Under] Article 125 of the Family Code, a conjugal property cannot be donated by one spouse without
the consent of the other spouse.
Art. 127 - The separation in fact between husband and wife shall not affect the regime of conjugal
partnership; exceptions
Art. 127 - The separation in fact between husband and wife shall not affect the regime of conjugal
partnership; exceptions
Art. 129 - Procedure for dissolution of conjugal partnership
Art. 129 - Procedure for dissolution of conjugal partnership

[P]rior to the liquidation of the conjugal partnership, the interest of each spouse in the conjugal assets is
inchoate, a mere expectancy, which constitutes neither a legal nor an equitable estate, and does not
ripen into title until it appears that there are assets in the community as a result of the liquidation and
settlement. The interest of each spouse is limited to the net remainder or "remanente liquido" (haber
ganancial) resulting from the liquidation of the affairs of the partnership after its dissolution. Thus, the
right of the husband or wife to one-half of the conjugal assets does not vest until the dissolution and
liquidation of the conjugal partnership, or after dissolution of the marriage, when it is finally determined
that, after settlement of conjugal obligations, there are net assets left which can be divided between the
spouses or their respective heirs.
482 Phil. 877-894 (2004)
Article 129 of the [Family] Code applies in the liquidation of the couple's properties in the event that the
conjugal partnership of gains is dissolved . . .
In the normal course of events, the following are the steps in the liquidation of the properties of the
spouses:
(a) An inventory of all the actual properties shall be made, separately listing the couple's conjugal
properties and their separate properties. . . .
(b) Ordinarily, the benefit received by a spouse from the conjugal partnership during the marriage is
returned in equal amount to the assets of the conjugal partnership; and if the community is enriched at
the expense of the separate properties of either spouse, a restitution of the value of such properties to
their respective owners shall be made.
(c) Subsequently, the couple's conjugal partnership shall pay the debts of the conjugal partnership;
while the debts and obligation of each of the spouses shall be paid from their respective separate
properties. But if the conjugal partnership is not sufficient to pay all its debts and obligations, the
spouses with their separate properties shall be solidarily liable.
(d) Now, what remains of the separate or exclusive properties of the husband and of the wife shall
be returned to each of them.
482 Phil. 877-894 (2004)
Although Article 129 provides for the procedure in case of dissolution of the conjugal partnership
regime, Article 147 specifically covers the effects of void marriages on the spouses' property relations.
Barrido v. Nonato, G.R. No. 176492, October 20, 2014
Art. 130 - Liquidation of conjugal partnership property upon death of a spouse
Art. 130 - Liquidation of conjugal partnership property upon death of a spouse
Art. 135 - Causes for judicial separation of property
Art. 135 - Causes for judicial separation of property
As a general rule, any modification in the marriage settlements must be made before the celebration of
marriage. An exception to this rule is allowed provided that the modification is judicially approved and
refers only to the instances provided in Articles 66, 67, 128, 135 and 136 of the Family Code.
Noveras v. Noveras, G.R. No. 188289, August 20, 2014
Art. 142 - Transfer of administration of exclusive property by one spouse to the other
Art. 142 - Transfer of administration of exclusive property by one spouse to the other
What is more, under the conjugal partnership of gains established by Article 142 of the Civil Code, the
husband and the wife place only the fruits of their separate property and incomes from their work or
industry in the common fund. . . . This means that they continue under such property regime to enjoy
rights of ownership over their separate properties. Consequently, to automatically change the marriage
settlements of couples who got married under the Civil Code into absolute community of property in
1988 when the Family Code took effect would be to impair their acquired or vested rights to such
separate properties.
Art. 143 - Separation of property in marriage settlements
Art. 143 - Separation of property in marriage settlements
Voluntary separation of property is subject to the rights of creditors of the conjugal partnership of gains.
Under Article 143 of the Family Code, separation of property may be effected voluntarily or for sufficient
cause, subject to judicial approval. . . However, the Court must stress that this voluntary separation of
property is subject to the rights of all creditors of the conjugal partnership of gains and other persons
with pecuniary interest pursuant to Article 136 of the Family Code.
Virgilio Maquilan vs. Dita Maquilan, G.R. No. 155409, June 8, 2007
Art. 147 - Co-ownership in unions without marriage

Art. 147 - Co-ownership in unions without marriage
Requisites for co-ownership under Article 147
When no legal impediment to marry exists between common-law spouses, co-ownership applies.
When a legal impediment to marry exists, only actual contributions shall be owned in common.
Art. 147 or 148 govern property relations of parties in a void marriage.
A constructive trust is deemed created when property is titled in the name of common-law wife during
subsistence of a pre-existing marriage.
Paramour named in certificate of title is not deemed owner where lawful heirs stand to be deprived.
Even if it is only the man who works, the property acquired during the man-and-wife relationship
belongs to the two of them through a fifty-fifty sharing.
Common-law wife must show that she really contributed to the acquisition of the property during
cohabitation.
A woman's "real contribution" refers to her contribution to the family’s material and spiritual goods.
The woman traditionally holds the family purse even if she does not contribute to filling that purse with
funds.
There must be evidence that the woman actually contributed to the acquisition of property.
Common-law couple with legal impediment to marry, own proportionately the property acquired by
them in common.
property acquired during their cohabitation with their Muslim husband, is their exclusive property,
respectively.
Requisites for co-ownership under Article 147
For Article 147 to operate, the man and the woman: (1) must be capacitated to marry each other; (2)
live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and (3) their union is without the benefit of
marriage or their marriage is void. Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code relate only to voidable
marriages and exceptionally to void marriages under Article 40 of the Family Code.
Elna Mercado-Fehr vs. Bruno Fehr, G.R. No. 152716, October 23, 2003
When no legal impediment to marry exists between common-law spouses, co-ownership applies.
This peculiar kind of co-ownership applies when a man and a woman, suffering no legal impediment to
marry each other, so exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without the
benefit of marriage. The term "capacitated" refers to the legal capacity of a party to contract marriage,
i.e., any "male or female of the age of eighteen years or upwards not under any of the impediments
mentioned in Articles 37 and 38 of the Family Code.
Antonio A.S. Valdes vs. RTC, Branch 102, QC, G.R. No. 122749, July 31, 1996
When a legal impediment to marry exists, only actual contributions shall be owned in common.
When the common-law spouses suffer from a legal impediment to marry or when they do not live
exclusively with each other (as husband and wife), only the property acquired by both of them through
their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned in common and in
proportion to their respective contributions.
Art. 147 or 148 govern property relations of parties in a void marriage.
In a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties during the
period of cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148, such as the case may
be, of the Family Code. Article 147 is a remake of Article 144 of the Civil Code as interpreted and so
applied in previous cases.
Article 147 of the Family Code applies to the union of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred
by any impediment to contract marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless declared void under Article
36 of the Family Code. . . . Under this property regime, property acquired during the marriage is prima
facie presumed to have been obtained through the couple's joint efforts and governed by the rules on
co-ownership.
Salas, Jr. v. Aguila, G.R. No. 202370, September 23, 2013
A constructive trust is deemed created when property is titled in the name of common-law wife during
subsistence of a pre-existing marriage.
Property acquired by a man while living with a common-law wife during the subsistence of his marriage
is conjugal property, even when the property was titled in the name of the common-law wife. In such
cases, a constructive trust is deemed to have been created by operation of Article 1456 of the Civil Code
over the property which lawfully pertains to the conjugal partnership of the subsisting marriage. It was
at the time that the adjudication of ownership was made following the husband's demise (not when he
merely allowed the property to be titled in his paramour's name) that a constructive trust was deemed
to have been created.
Josephine B. Belcodero vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89667, October 20, 1993
Paramour named in certificate of title is not deemed owner where lawful heirs stand to be deprived.
The paramour cannot be deemed owner to half of the property just because its title was registered in
her name and that of the husband because the heirs of the lawful pre-existing marriage stand to be
deprived. A certificate of title under the Torrens system is aimed to protect dominion, and should
certainly not be turned into an instrument for deprivation of ownership.
Even if it is only the man who works, the property acquired during the man-and-wife relationship
belongs to the two of them through a fifty-fifty sharing.
The formation of an informal civil partnership between a man and wife not legally married and their
corresponding right to an equal share in properties acquired through their joint efforts and industry
during cohabitation was recognized through decisions of the Supreme Court. With the enactment of the
new Civil Code, Article 144 codified the law established through judicial precedents but with the
modification that the property governed by the rules on co-ownership may be acquired by either or
both of them through their work or industry. Even if it is only the man who works, the property acquired
during the man-and-wife relationship belongs through a fifty-fifty sharing to the two of them. This
provision recognizes that it would be unjust and abnormal if a woman who is a wife in all aspects of the
relationship except for the requirement of a valid marriage must abandon her home and children,
neglect her traditional household duties, and go out to earn a living or engage in business before the
rules on co-ownership would apply.
Margaret Maxey vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-45870, May 11, 1984
Common-law wife must show that she really contributed to the acquisition of the property during
cohabitation.
The creation of the civil relationship envisaged in Article 144 is circumscribed by conditions, the
existence of which must first be shown before rights provided thereunder may be deemed to accrue.
One such condition is that there must be a clear showing that the common-law wife had, during
cohabitation, really contributed to the acquisition of the property involved.
Teresita C. Yaptinchay vs. Hon. Guillermo E. Torres, G.R. No. L-26462, June 9, 1969
A woman’s “real contribution” refers to her contribution to the family’s material and spiritual goods.
"Real contribution" to the acquisition of property must include not only the earnings of a woman from a
profession, occupation, or business but also her contribution to the family's material and spiritual goods
through caring for the children, administering the household, husbanding scarce resources, freeing her
husband from household tasks, and otherwise performing the traditional duties of a housewife.
The woman traditionally holds the family purse even if she does not contribute to filling that purse with
funds.
The provisions of the Civil Code are premised on the traditional and existing, the normal and customary
gender roles of Filipino men and women. No matter how large the income of a working wife compared
to that of her husband, the major, if not the full responsibility of running the household remains with
the woman. She is the administrator of the household. Even if the couple was not legally married, such
fact does not change the nature of their respective roles. It is the woman who traditionally holds the
family purse even if she does not contribute to filling that purse with funds.
There must be evidence that the woman actually contributed to the acquisition of property.
Although in cases of common-law relations where an impediment to marry exists, equity would dictate
that property acquired by the man and woman through their joint endeavor should be allocated to each
of them in proportion to their respective efforts, there must be evidence that the woman actually
contributed to the acquisition of the property in question.
Common-law couple with legal impediment to marry, own proportionately the property acquired by
them in common.
When a common-law couple have a legal impediment to marriage, only the property acquired by them
— through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry — shall be owned by them in
common and in proportion to their respective contributions.
property acquired during their cohabitation with their Muslim husband, is their exclusive property,
respectively.
Co-ownership provided in Article 144 of the Civil Code requires that the man and woman living together
as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage must not in any way be
incapacitated to marry. Therefore, the co-ownership contemplated in this provision cannot apply to
Hadji Abdula's marriages celebrated subsequent to a valid and legally existing marriage, since from the
point of view of the Civil Code Hadji Abdula is not capacitated to marry. However, the wives in such
marriages are not precluded from proving that property acquired during their cohabitation with Hadji
Abdula is their exclusive property, respectively. Absent such proof, however, the presumption is that
property acquired during the subsistence of a valid marriage — and in the Civil Code, there can only be
one validly-existing marriage at any given time — is conjugal property of such subsisting marriage.
Neng "Kagui Kadiguia" Malang vs. Corocoy Moson, G.R. No. 119064, August 22, 2000
Although Article 129 provides for the procedure in case of dissolution of the conjugal partnership
regime, Article 147 specifically covers the effects of void marriages on the spouses' property relations.
This particular kind of co-ownership applies when a man and a woman, suffering no illegal impediment
to marry each other, exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without the
benefit of marriage. It is clear, therefore, that for Article 147 to operate, the man and the woman: (1)
must be capacitated to marry each other; (2) live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and
(3) their union is without the benefit of marriage or their marriage is void. . . . The term "capacitated" in
the first paragraph of the provision pertains to the legal capacity of a party to contract marriage.
Under this property regime, property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be
governed by the rules on equal 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 to the same jointly if said party's
efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family household. Efforts in the care and
maintenance of the family and household are regarded as contributions to the acquisition of common
property by one who has no salary or income or work or industry.
The rules which are set up to govern the liquidation of either the absolute community or the conjugal
partnership of gains, the property regimes recognized for valid and voidable marriages, are irrelevant to
the liquidation of the co-ownership that exists between common-law spouses or spouses of void
marriages.
Art. 148 - Cohabitation
Art. 148 - Cohabitation
Cohabitation means more than sexual intercourse.
Art. 148 applies to cohabitation amounting to adultery or concubinage.
Administration of property during cohabitation does not amount to contribution in its acquisition.
Co-ownership exists even if the couple are not capacitated to marry each other.
However, a foreigner cannot recover real properties purchased in the name of his Filipina partner.
Wages and contributions in the form of care of the home and children are excluded in this regime.
No co-ownership exists if actual contribution of a party is not proved.
Co-ownership is up to the extent of the proven actual contribution of money, property or industry.
Art. 148 governs even if cohabitation or acquisition of property occurred before effectivity of Family
Code.
Cohabitation, no matter how long, does not sever the tie of a subsisting previous marriage.
Paramour is deemed to hold property in trust for the legal spouse and compulsory heirs.
Cohabitation means more than sexual intercourse.
The term "cohabitation" or "living together as husband and wife" means not only residing under one
roof, but also having repeated sexual intercourse. Cohabitation, of course, means more than sexual
intercourse, especially when one of the parties is already old and may no longer be interested in sex. At
the very least, cohabitation is the public assumption by a man and a woman of the marital relation, and
dwelling together as man and wife, thereby holding themselves out to the public as such. Secret
meetings or nights clandestinely spent together, even if often repeated, do not constitute such kind of
cohabitation; they are merely meretricious. In this jurisdiction, this Court has considered as sufficient
proof of common-law relationship the stipulations between the parties, a conviction of concubinage, or
the existence of illegitimate children.
Cirila Arcaba vs. Erlinda Tabancura vda. de Batocael, G.R. No. 146683, November 22, 2001
Art. 148 applies to cohabitation amounting to adultery or concubinage.
The Family Code has filled the hiatus in Article 144 of the Civil Code by expressly regulating in its Article
148 the property relations of couples living in a state of adultery or concubinage.
Guillerma Tumlos vs. Mario Fernandez, G.R. No. 137650, April 12, 2000
Administration of property during cohabitation does not amount to contribution in its acquisition.
Nothing in Article 148 of the Family Code provides that the administration of the property amounts to a
contribution in its acquisition.
Guillerma Tumlos vs. Mario Fernandez, G.R. No. 137650, April 12, 2000
Co-ownership exists even if the couple are not capacitated to marry each other.
It was error for the trial court to rule that, because the parties in this case were not capacitated to marry
each other at the time that they were alleged to have been living together, they could not have owned
properties in common. The Family Code, in addition to providing that a co-ownership exists between a
man and a woman who live together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, likewise
provides that, if the parties are incapacitated to marry each other, properties acquired by them through
their joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion
to their contributions which, in the absence of proof to the contrary, is presumed to be equal. There is
thus co-ownership even though the couple are not capacitated to marry each other.
Eustaquio Mallilin vs. Ma. Elvira Castillo, G.R. No. 136803, June 16, 2000
Article 148 of the Family Code refers to the property regime of bigamous marriages, adulterous
relationships, relationships in a state of concubinage, relationships where both man and woman are
married to other persons and to multiple alliances of the same married man.
However, a foreigner cannot recover real properties purchased in the name of his Filipina partner.
Even if it is assumed gratia arguendi that the respondent and the petitioner were capacitated to marry,
the petitioner, a German citizen, is still disqualified to own the properties in tandem with the
respondent. The sale of parcels of land in favor of a foreigner is illegal per se. The transactions are void
ab initio because they were entered into in violation of the Constitution. Thus, to allow the petitioner to
recover the properties or the money used in the purchase of the parcels of land would be subversive of
public policy.
Alfred Fritz Frenzel vs. Ederlina P. Catito, G.R. No. 143958, July 11, 2003
Wages and contributions in the form of care of the home and children are excluded in this regime.
In this property regime, the properties acquired by the parties through their actual joint contribution
shall belong to the co-ownership. Wages and salaries earned by each party belong to him or her
exclusively. Then too, contributions in the form of care of the home, children and household, or spiritual
or moral inspiration, are excluded in this regime. plpecdtai
No co-ownership exists if actual contribution of a party is not proved.
a) Actual contribution is required by this provision, in contrast to Article 147 which states that
efforts in the care and maintenance of the family and household are regarded as contributions to the
acquisition of common property by one who has no salary or income or work or industry. If the actual
contribution of the party is not proved, there will be no co-ownership and no presumption of equal
shares.
Erlinda A. Agapay vs. Carlina V. Palang, G.R. No. 116668, July 28, 1997
b) A reading of Article 148 readily shows that there must be proof of "actual joint contribution" by
both the live-in partners before the property becomes co-owned by them in proportion to their
contribution. The presumption of equality of contribution arises only in the absence of proof of their
proportionate contributions, subject to the condition that actual joint contribution is proven first. Simply
put, proof of actual contribution by both parties is required, otherwise there is no co-ownership and no
presumption of equal sharing.
Co-ownership is up to the extent of the proven actual contribution of money, property or industry.
a) The regime of limited co-ownership of property governing the union of parties who are not
legally capacitated to marry each other, but who nonetheless live together as husband and wife, applies
to properties acquired during said cohabitation in proportion to their respective contributions. Co-
ownership will only be up to the extent of the proven actual contribution of money, property or
industry. Absent proof of the extent thereof, their contributions and corresponding shares shall be
presumed to be equal.
Jacinto Saguid vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150611, June 10, 2003
b) When a common-law couple have a legal impediment to marriage, only the property acquired
by them — through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry — shall be owned by
them in common and in proportion to their respective contributions.
Art. 148 governs even if cohabitation or acquisition of property occurred before effectivity of Family
Code.
Although the adulterous cohabitation of the parties commenced in 1987, which is before the date of the
effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1998, Article 148 thereof applies because this provision was
intended precisely to fill up the hiatus in Article 144 of the Civil Code. Before Article 148 of the Family
Code was enacted, there was no provision governing property relations of couples living in a state of
adultery or concubinage. Hence, even if the cohabitation or the acquisition of the property occurred
before the Family Code took effect, Article 148 governs.
Jacinto Saguid vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150611, June 10, 2003
Lupo Atienza vs. Yolanda de Castro, G.R. No. 169698, November 29, 2006
Cohabitation, no matter how long, does not sever the tie of a subsisting previous marriage.
The cohabitation of a spouse with another person, even for a long period, does not sever the tie of a
subsisting previous marriage; otherwise, the law would be giving a stamp of approval to an act that is
both illegal and immoral.. Hence, all property acquired from the date of the previous marriage, until the
date of the other spouse’s death, are still presumed conjugal.
Paramour is deemed to hold property in trust for the legal spouse and compulsory heirs.
The registration of the property in paramour's name was clearly designed to deprive the husband's legal
spouse and compulsory heirs of ownership. By operation of law, the paramour is deemed to hold the
property in trust for them. Therefore, she cannot rely on the registration in repudiation of the trust, for
this case is a well-known exception to the principle of conclusiveness of a certificate of title.
Art. 151 - Suit between family members
Art. 151 - Suit between family members
When a stranger becomes a party to the suit, the law no longer requires earnest efforts towards a
compromise.
Conditions precedent may be generally averred in the pleadings.
A barangay certification complies with the condition precedent established in Art. 151.
Trial court should order amendment of complaint if there is failure to comply with condition precedent.
Barangay conciliation is not required where there is deprivation of liberty.
When a stranger becomes a party to the suit, the law no longer requires earnest efforts towards a
compromise.
[O]nce a stranger becomes a party to a suit involving members of the same family, the law no longer
makes it a condition precedent that earnest efforts be made towards a compromise before the action
can prosper.
Hiyas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. vs. Edmundo T. cuña, et al., G.R. No. 154132, August 31, 2006
Conditions precedent may be generally averred in the pleadings.
The attempt to compromise as well as its failure or inability to succeed is a condition precedent to the
filing of a suit between members of the same family. Rule 8, Section 3 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure provides that conditions precedent may be generally averred in the pleadings. While it is true
that the lead sentence which reads "Earnest efforts towards have been made but the same have failed"
may be incomplete or even grammatically incorrect as there might be a missing word or phrase, a
lacking word like "compromise" could be supplied by the rest of the paragraph.
Sps. Manuel and Rosemarie Wee vs. Rosario D. Galvez, G.R. No. 147394, August 11, 2004
A barangay certification complies with the condition precedent established in Art. 151.
Although the petition for habeas corpus failed to allege that compromise proceedings were resorted to,
the attachment of a Barangay Certification effectively established that the parties tried to compromise
but were unsuccessful in their efforts. Evidently, the condition precedent under Article 151 of the Family
Code has been complied with. A dismissal under Section 1(j) of Rule 16 is warranted only if there is a
failure to comply with a condition precedent. Given that the alleged defect is a mere failure to allege
compliance with a condition precedent, the proper solution is not an outright dismissal of the action,
but an amendment under Section 1 of Rule 10 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
Edwin N. Tribiana vs. Lourdes M. Tribiana, G.R. No. 137359, September 13, 2004
Trial court should order amendment of complaint if there is failure to comply with condition precedent.
Failure of a party to comply with a condition precedent is not a jurisdictional defect. Such defect does
not place the controversy beyond the court’s power to resolve. If a party fails to raise such defect in a
motion to dismiss, such defect is deemed waived. Such defect is curable by amendment as a matter of
right without leave of court, if made before the filing of a responsive pleading. A motion to dismiss is not
a responsive pleading. More importantly, an amendment alleging compliance with a condition
precedent is not a jurisdictional matter. Neither does it alter the cause of action of a petition for habeas
corpus. We have held that in cases where the defect consists of the failure to state compliance with a
condition precedent, the trial court should order the amendment of the complaint. Courts should be
liberal in allowing amendments to pleadings to avoid multiplicity of suits and to present the real
controversies between the parties.
Barangay conciliation is not required where there is deprivation of liberty.
The barangay conciliation requirement in Section 412 of the Local Government Code does not apply to
habeas corpus proceedings where a person is "deprived of personal liberty." In such a case, Section 412
expressly authorizes the parties "to go directly to court" without need of any conciliation proceedings.
There is deprivation of personal liberty warranting a petition for habeas corpus where the "rightful
custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled thereto."
[A] failure to allege earnest but failed efforts at a compromise in a complaint among members of the
same family, is not a jurisdictional defect but merely a defect in the statement of a cause of action.
Heirs of Favis, Sr. v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 185922, January 15, 2014
Indeed, even if we go by the reason behind Article 151 of the Family Code, which provision as then
Article 222 of the New Civil Code was described as "having been given more teeth" by Section 1 (j), Rule
16 of the Rule of Court, it is safe to say that the purpose of making sure that there is no longer any
possibility of a compromise, has been served. As cited in commentaries on Article 151 of the Family
Code —
This rule is introduced because it is difficult to imagine a sudden and more tragic spectacle than a
litigation between members of the same family. It is necessary that every effort should be made
towards a compromise before a litigation is allowed to breed hate and passion in the family. It is known
that a lawsuit between close relatives generates deeper bitterness than between strangers.
Heirs of Favis, Sr. v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 185922, January 15, 2014
Art. 152 - Family home
Art. 152 - Family home
Provisions on "family home" remain effective regardless of couple's property regime.
There is no more need to constitute a family home judicially or extrajudicially.
However, Article 152 of the Family Code has no retroactive effect
When family home not exempt from execution of money judgment.
"Actual" occupancy by owner or beneficiaries excludes maids and overseer.
Provisions on "family home" remain effective regardless of couple's property regime.
The provisions of the Family Code on the "family home," i.e., the provisions found in Title V, Chapter 2,
of the Family Code, remain in force and effect regardless of the property regime of the spouses.
Antonio A.S. Valdes vs. RTC, Br. 102, Quezon City, G.R. No. 122749, July 31, 1996
There is no more need to constitute a family home judicially or extrajudicially.
Under the Family Code, a family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is
occupied as a family residence. There is no need to constitute the same judicially or extrajudicially as
required in the Civil Code. In the present case, the residential house and lot of petitioner was not
constituted as a family home whether judicially or extrajudicially under the Civil Code. It became a
family home by operation of law only under Article 153 of the Family Code. It is deemed constituted as a
family home upon the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988 not August 4, one year after its
publication in the Manila Chronicle on August 4, 1987 (1988 being a leap year)
Jose Modequillo vs. Hon. Augusto V. Breva, G.R. No. 86355, May 31, 1990
Two sets of rules are applicable for family homes to be exempted from execution.
For the family home to be exempt from execution, distinction must be made as to what law applies
based on when it was constituted and what requirements must be complied with by the judgment
debtor or his successors claiming such privilege. Hence, two sets of rules are applicable.
If the family home was constructed before the effectivity of the Family Code or before August 3, 1988,
then it must have been constituted either judicially or extra-judicially as provided under Articles 225,
229-231 and 233 of the Civil Code. Judicial constitution of the family home requires the filing of a
verified petition before the courts and the registration of the court's order with the Registry of Deeds of
the area where the property is located. Meanwhile, extrajudicial constitution is governed by Articles 240
to 242 of the Civil Code and involves the execution of a public instrument which must also be registered
with the Registry of Property. Failure to comply with either one of these two modes of constitution will
bar a judgment debtor from availing of the privilege.
For family homes constructed after the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988, there is no
need to constitute extrajudicially or judicially, and the exemption is effective from the time it was
constituted and lasts as long as any of its beneficiaries under Art. 154 actually resides therein. Moreover,
the family home should belong to the absolute community or conjugal partnership, or if exclusively by
one spouse, its constitution must have been with consent of the other, and its value must not exceed
certain amounts depending upon the area where it is located. Further, the debts incurred for which the
exemption does not apply as provided under Art. 155 for which the family home is made answerable
must have been incurred after August 3, 1988.
And in both cases, whether under the Civil Code or the Family Code, it is not sufficient that the person
claiming exemption merely alleges that such property is a family home. This claim for exemption must
be set up and proved.
Juanita Trinidad Ramos, et al. vs. Danilo Pangilinan, et al., G.R. No. 185920, July 20, 2010
The . . . rules on constitution of family homes, for purposes of exemption from execution, could be
summarized as follows:
First, family residences constructed before the effectivity of the Family Code or before August 3, 1988
must be constituted as a family home either judicially or extrajudicially in accordance with the
provisions of the Civil Code in order to be exempt from execution;
Second, family residences constructed after the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988 are
automatically deemed to be family homes and thus exempt from execution from the time it was
constituted and lasts as long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein;
Third, family residences which were not judicially or extrajudicially constituted as a family home prior to
the effectivity of the Family Code, but were existing thereafter, are considered as family homes by
operation of law and are prospectively entitled to the benefits accorded to a family home under the
Family Code.
Sps. Ernesto and Araceli de Mesa vs. Sps. Claudio, Jr. and Ma. Rufina Acero, et al., G.R. No. 185064,
January 16, 2012
However, Article 152 of the Family Code has no retroactive effect
A family residence cannot be considered a family home from the time it was occupied in 1969. Article
162 of the Family Code does not mean that Articles 152 and 153 of said Code have a retroactive effect
such that all existing family residences are deemed to have been constituted as family homes at the
time of their occupation prior to the effectivity of the Family Code and are exempt from execution for
the payment of obligations incurred before the effectivity of the Family Code. Article 162 simply means
that all existing family residences at the time of the effectivity of the Family Code, are considered family
homes and are prospectively entitled to the benefits accorded to a family home under the Family Code.
Article 162 does not state that the provisions of Chapter 2, Title V have a retroactive effect
Florante F. Manacop vs. Court of Appeals and E & L Mercantile, Inc., G.R. No. 97898. August 11, 1997
Pablito Taneo, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals and Abdon Gilig, G.R. No. 108532, March 9, 1999
When family home not exempt from execution of money judgment.
A family home is not exempt from execution of money judgment where the debt or liability which was
the basis of the judgment arose or was incurred, and the money judgment arising therefrom, preceded
the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988. This case does not fall under the exemptions from
execution provided in the Family Code.
Florante F. Manacop vs. Court of Appeals & F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc., G.R. No. 104875, November 13, 1992
"Actual" occupancy by owner or beneficiaries excludes maids and overseers.
The law explicitly provides that occupancy of the family home either by the owner thereof or by "any of
its beneficiaries" must be actual. That which is "actual" is something real, or actually existing, as
opposed to something merely possible, or to something which is presumptive or constructible. Actual
occupancy, however, need not be by the owner of the house specifically. Rather, the property may be
occupied by the beneficiaries" enumerated by Article 154 of the Family Code. This enumeration may
include the in-laws where the family home is constituted jointly by the husband and wife. But the law
definitely excludes maids and overseers. They are not the beneficiaries contemplated by the Code.
Florante F. Manacop vs. Court of Appeals and E & L Mercantile, Inc., G.R. No. 97898. August 11, 1997
Perla G. Patricio vs. Marcelino G. Dario III, et al., G.R. No. 170829, November 20, 2006
Art. 153 - Advantages of family home
Art. 153 - Advantages of family home
Claim for exemption from execution or forced sale must be set up and proved to the Sheriff before
public auction sale.
While it is true that the family home is constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a
family residence and is exempt from execution or forced sale under Article 153 of the Family Code, such
claim for exemption should be set up and proved to the Sheriff before the sale of the property at public
auction. Failure to do so would estop the party from later claiming the exemption.
Jose E. Honrado vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 166333, November 25, 2005
Indeed, the family home is a sacred symbol of family love and is the repository of cherished memories
that last during one's lifetime. It is likewise without dispute that the family home, from the time of its
constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein, is generally exempt from
execution, forced sale or attachment. The family home is a real right, which is gratuitous, inalienable and
free from attachment. It cannot be seized by creditors except in certain special cases. However, this
right can be waived or be barred by laches by the failure to set up and prove the status of the property
as a family home at the time of the levy or a reasonable time thereafter.
January 16, 2012
While it is true that the family home is constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a
family residence and is exempt from execution or forced sale under Article 153 of the Family Code, such
claim for exemption should be set up and proved to the Sheriff before the sale of the property at public
auction. Failure to do so would estop the party from later claiming the exemption.
Sps. Charlie and Ofelia Fortaleza vs. Sps. Raul and Rona Lapitan, G.R. No. 178288, August 15, 2012 citing
Honrado vs. Court of Appeals, 512 Phil. 657 (2005)
The settled rule is that the right to exemption or forced sale under Article 153 of the Family Code is a
personal privilege granted to the judgment debtor and as such, it must be claimed not by the sheriff, but
by the debtor himself before the sale of the property at public auction. It is not sufficient that the
person claiming exemption merely alleges that such property is a family home. This claim for exemption
must be set up and proved to the Sheriff. . .
January 16, 2012 citing Spouses Versola vs. Court of Appeals, 529 Phil. 377 (2006)
Art. 154 - Beneficiaries of family home
Art. 154 - Beneficiaries of family home
Three requisites must concur to be a beneficiary of the family home.
To be a beneficiary of the family home, three requisites must concur: (1) they must be among the
relationships enumerated in Art. 154 of the Family Code; (2) they live in the family home; and (3) they
are dependent for legal support upon the head of the family.
Art. 155 - Liabilities of family home
Art. 155 - Liabilities of family home
Family home answers for debts incurred prior to its constitution.

Under Article 155 of the Family Code, the family home shall be exempt from execution, forced sale, or
attachment except for, among other things, debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home.
In the case at bar, the house and lot of was not constituted as a family home, whether judicially or
extrajudicially, at the time the debts were incurred. Under prevailing jurisprudence, it is deemed
constituted as such only upon the effectivity of the Family Code on 03 August 1988, thus, the debts were
incurred before the constitution of the family home.
Mary Josephine Gomez, et al. vs. Roel Sta. Ines, et al., G.R. No. 132537, October 14, 2005
Rules have been laid down relative to the levy on execution over the family home.
Kelley, Jr. v. Planters Products, Inc. lays down the rules relative to the levy on execution over the family
home, viz.:
No doubt, a family home is generally exempt from execution provided it was duly constituted as such.
There must be proof that the alleged family home was constituted jointly by the husband and wife or by
an unmarried head of a family. It must be the house where they and their family actually reside and the
lot on which it is situated. The family home must be part of the properties of the absolute community or
the conjugal partnership, or of the exclusive properties of either spouse with the latter's consent, or on
the property of the unmarried head of the family. The actual value of the family home shall not exceed,
at the time of its constitution, the amount of P300,000 in urban areas and P200,000 in rural areas.
Under the Family Code, there is no need to constitute the family home judicially or extrajudicially. All
family homes constructed after the effectivity of the Family Code (August 3, 1988) are constituted as
such by operation of law. All existing family residences as of August 3, 1988 are considered family homes
and are prospectively entitled to the benefits accorded to a family home under the Family Code.
The exemption is effective from the time of the constitution of the family home as such and lasts as long
as any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein. Moreover, the debts for which the family home is
made answerable must have been incurred after August 3, 1988. Otherwise (that is, if it was incurred
prior to August 3, 1988), the alleged family home must be shown to have been constituted either
judicially or extrajudicially pursuant to the Civil Code.
Juanita Trinidad Ramos, et al. vs. Danilo Pangilinan, et al., G.R. No. 185920, July 20, 2010, citing Kelley,
Jr. v. Planters Products, Inc., G.R. No. 172263, July 9, 2008
As a rule, the family home is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment. However, Article 155
(3) of the Family Code explicitly allows the forced sale of a family home "for debts secured by mortgages
on the premises before or after such constitution." . . . While it is true that the family home is
constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a family residence and is exempt from
execution or forced sale under Article 153 of the Family Code, such claim for exemption should be set up
and proved to the Sheriff before the sale of the property at public auction. Failure to do so would estop
the party from later claiming the exemption.
Sps. Charlie and Ofelia Fortaleza vs. Sps. Raul and Rona Lapitan, G.R. No. 178288, August 15, 2012 citing
Honrado vs. Court of Appeals, 512 Phil. 657 (2005)
Art. 159 - Minor beneficiaries of family home
Art. 159 - Minor beneficiaries of family home
Three requisites must concur before a minor becomes beneficiary of family home.
Three requisites must concur before a minor beneficiary is entitled to the benefits of Art. 159: (1) the
relationship enumerated in Art. 154 of the Family Code; (2) they live in the family home, and (3) they are
dependent for legal support upon the head of the family.
Purpose of provision
The purpose of Article 159 is to avert the disintegration of the family unit following the death of its
head. To this end, it preserves the family home as the physical symbol of family love, security and unity
by imposing the following restrictions on its partition: first, that the heirs cannot extra-judicially partition
it for a period of 10 years from the death of one or both spouses or of the unmarried head of the family,
or for a longer period, if there is still a minor beneficiary residing therein; and second, that the heirs
cannot judicially partition it during the aforesaid periods unless the court finds compelling reasons
therefor. No compelling reason has been alleged by the parties; nor has the RTC found any compelling
reason to order the partition of the family home, either by physical segregation or assignment to any of
the heirs or through auction sale as suggested by the parties.
More importantly, Article 159 imposes the proscription against the immediate partition of the family
home regardless of its ownership. This signifies that even if the family home has passed by succession to
the co-ownership of the heirs, or has been willed to any one of them, this fact alone cannot transform
the family home into an ordinary property, much less dispel the protection cast upon it by the law. The
rights of the individual co-owner or owner of the family home cannot subjugate the rights granted under
Article 159 to the beneficiaries of the family home.
Vilma G. Arriola, et al. vs. John Nabor C. Arriola, G.R. No. 177703, January 28, 2008
Art. 164 - Presumption of legitimacy of child
Art. 164 - Presumption of legitimacy of child
Presumption of legitimacy may be refuted only by evidence of physical impossibility of access between
husband and wife during conception.
The presumption that the child is the legitimate son of the couple becomes conclusive in the absence of
proof that there was physical impossibility of access between the spouses in the first 120 days of the
300 which preceded the birth of the child. This presumption is actually quasi-conclusive and may be
rebutted or refuted by only one evidence — the physical impossibility of access between husband and
wife within the first 120 days of the 300 which preceded the birth of the child. This presumption of
legitimacy is based on the assumption that there is sexual union in marriage, particularly during the
period of conception. Hence, proof of the physical impossibility of such sexual union prevents the
application of the presumption.
Antonio Macadangdang vs. Court of Appeals and Elizabeth Mejias, G.R. No. L-49542, September 12,
1980
Children born in wedlock are presumed legitimate.
There is perhaps no presumption of the law more firmly established and founded on sounder morality
and more convincing reason than the presumption that children born in wedlock are legitimate. This
presumption indeed becomes conclusive in the absence of proof that there is physical impossibility of
access between the spouses during the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately precedes the
birth of the child due to (a) the physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his
wife; (b) the fact that the husband and wife are living separately in such way that sexual intercourse is
not possible; or (c) serious illness of the husband, which absolutely prevents sexual intercourse. Quite
remarkably, upon the expiration of the periods set forth in Article 170, and in proper cases Article 171,
of the Family Code (which took effect on 03 August 1988), the action to impugn the legitimacy of the
child would no longer be legally feasible and the status conferred by the presumption becomes fixed
and unassailable.
Jinkie Christie A. De Jesus, et al. vs. Estate of Decedent Juan Gamboa Dizon, G.R. No. 142877, October 2,
2001
A legitimate child implies a valid marriage.
The term legitimate merely addresses the dependent child's status in relation to his/her parents. In
Angeles v. Maglaya, (G.R. No. 153798, 2 September 2005) we have expounded on who is a legitimate
child, viz.:
A legitimate child is a product of, and, therefore, implies a valid and lawful marriage. Remove the
element of lawful union and there is strictly no legitimate filiation between parents and child. Article
164 of the Family Code cannot be more emphatic on the matter: "Children conceived or born during the
marriage of the parents are legitimate".
Continental Steel Mfg. Corp. vs. Allan S. Montaño, et al., G.R. No. 182836, October 13, 2009
Art. 166 - Grounds for impugning legitimacy of child
Art. 166 - Grounds for impugning legitimacy of child
Sexual intercourse is presumed where personal access is not disproved.
There must be physical impossibility of access by the husband to the wife to defeat the presumption of
legitimacy.
Impotency is not synonymous with sterility
Advanced tuberculosis does not prevent carnal intercourse.
Person who never became the husband of the child's mother never acquired any right to impugn the
child's legitimacy.
Presumption of legitimacy may be overthrown by proof that there was no access that could have
enabled the husband to father the child.
Presumption of legitimacy is grounded on the policy to protect the innocent offspring from the odium of
illegitimacy.
The modern rule is that, in order to overthrow the presumption of legitimacy, it must be shown beyond
reasonable doubt that there was no access as could have enabled the husband to be the father of the
child. Sexual intercourse is to be presumed where personal access is not disproved, unless such
presumption is rebutted by evidence to the contrary; where sexual intercourse is presumed or proved,
the husband must be taken be the father of the child.
1980
legitimacy.
To defeat the presumption of legitimacy, therefore, there must be physical impossibility of access by the
husband to the wife during the period of conception. The law expressly refers to physical impossibility.
Hence, a circumstance which makes sexual relations improbable, cannot defeat the presumption of
legitimacy; but it may be proved as a circumstance to corroborate proof of physical impossibility of
access.
1980
Impotency is not synonymous with sterility
Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The fact that the deceased was able
to produce a specimen of his semen by means of a rubber sac, commonly called "condom" and a
woman, shows conclusively that he was potent. Impotency is not synonymous with sterility. Impotency
is the physical inability to have sexual intercourse; it is different from sterility. However, even
considering the evidence as to sterility, according to medical jurisprudence, a man may not have
spermatozoa at a certain time, but may have had it previously or may have it subsequently to the
examination.
Probate of the will of the late Faustino Neri San Jose, G.R. No. L-1967, May 28, 1951
Advanced tuberculosis does not prevent carnal intercourse.
Although the husband was already suffering from tuberculosis and his condition then was so serious
that he could hardly move and get up from his bed, his feet were swollen and his voice hoarse, yet that
is no evidence of impotency, nor does it prevent carnal intercourse. There are cases where persons
suffering from this sickness can do the carnal act even in the most crucial stage because they are more
inclined to sexual intercourse. As an author has said, "the reputation of the tuberculous towards
eroticism (sexual propensity) is probably dependent more upon confinement to bed than the
consequences of the disease."
Mariano Andal vs. Eduvigis Macaraig, G.R. No. L-2474, May 30, 1951
Person who never became the husband of the child's mother never acquired any right to impugn the
child's legitimacy.
Impugning the legitimacy of a child is a strictly personal right of the husband or, in exceptional cases, his
heirs. Since the marriage of petitioner and private respondent was void from the very beginning, he
never became her husband and thus never acquired any right to impugn the legitimacy of her child.
Gerardo B. Concepcion vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 123450, August 31, 2005
Presumption of legitimacy may be overthrown by proof that there was no access that could have
enabled the husband to father the child.
The presumption of legitimacy proceeds from the sexual union in marriage, particularly during the
period of conception. To overthrow this presumption on the basis of Article 166 (1)(b) of the Family
Code, it must be shown beyond reasonable doubt that there was no access that could have enabled the
husband to father the child. Sexual intercourse is to be presumed where personal access is not
disproved, unless such presumption is rebutted by evidence to the contrary. The presumption is quasi-
conclusive and may be refuted only by the evidence of physical impossibility of coitus between husband
and wife within the first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth of the child. To
rebut the presumption, the separation between the spouses must be such as to make marital intimacy
impossible. This may take place, for instance, when they reside in different countries or provinces and
they were never together during the period of conception. Or, the husband was in prison during the
period of conception, unless it appears that sexual union took place through the violation of prison
regulations.
Gerardo B. Concepcion vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 123450, August 31, 2005
Presumption of legitimacy is grounded on the policy to protect the innocent offspring from the odium of
illegitimacy.
The presumption of legitimacy does not only flow out of a declaration in the statute but is based on the
broad principles of natural justice and the supposed virtue of the mother. It is grounded on the policy to
protect the innocent offspring from the odium of illegitimacy.
Camelo Cabatania vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 124814, October 21, 2004
In Herrera v. Alba, (499 Phil. 185, 191 (2005)) we stressed that there are four significant procedural
aspects of a traditional paternity action that parties have to face: a prima facie case, affirmative
defenses, presumption of legitimacy, and physical resemblance between the putative father and the
child. We explained that a prima facie case exists if a woman declares — supported by corroborative
proof — that she had sexual relations with the putative father; at this point, the burden of evidence
shifts to the putative father. We explained further that the two affirmative defenses available to the
putative father are: (1) incapability of sexual relations with the mother due to either physical absence or
impotency, or (2) that the mother had sexual relations with other men at the time of conception.
Charles Gotardo vs. Divina Buling, G.R. No. 165166, August 15, 2012
Art. 167 - Declaration of mother against child's legitimacy
Art. 167 - Declaration of mother against child's legitimacy
Reasons for presumption of legitimacy of child despite mother's declaration against legitimacy.
The law which provides that the child is presumed legitimate although the mother may have declared
against its legitimacy or may have been sentenced as an adulteress has been adopted for two solid
reasons. First, in a fit of anger or to arouse jealousy in the husband, the wife may have made this
declaration. Second, the article is established as a guaranty in favor of the children whose condition
should not be under the mercy of the passions of their parents. The husband whose honor if offended,
that is, being aware of his wife's adultery, may obtain from the guilty spouse by means of coercion, a
confession against the legitimacy of the child which may really be only a confession of her guilt. Or the
wife, out of vengeance and spite, may declare the child as not her husband's although the statement be
false. But there is another reason which is more powerful, demanding the exclusion of proof of
confession or adultery, and it is, that at the moment of conception, it cannot be determined when a
woman cohabits during the same period with two men, by whom the child was begotten, it being
possible that it be the husband himself.
1980
It is stressed that Felicidad's declaration against the legitimate status of Teofilo II is the very act that is
proscribed by Article 167 of the Family Code. The language of the law is unmistakable. An assertion by
the mother against the legitimacy of her child cannot affect the legitimacy of a child born or conceived
within a valid marriage.
Juan De Dios Carlos vs. Felicidad Sandoval, et al., G.R. No. 179922, December 16, 2008
Art. 171 - Heirs of husband may impugn legitimacy of child
Art. 171 - Heirs of husband may impugn legitimacy of child
Art. 171 applies where a husband denies as his own, a child of his wife.
Art. 171 applies only when the child is the undisputed offspring of the mother.
Legitimacy of a child can be impugned only in a direct action.
There is no presumption of legitimacy in favor of children born out of husband's cohabitation with
another woman.
legitimacy.
Only the husband can contest the legitimacy of a child born to his wife
The heirs of the husband may also repudiate the filiation of a child.
The husband’s heirs are allowed to contest a child’s legitimacy only in exceptional cases.
Art. 171 applies where a husband denies as his own, a child of his wife.
Articles 164, 166, 170 and 171 of the Family Code govern a situation where a husband (or his heirs)
denies as his own, a child of his wife. It is inapplicable to a case which is not an action to impugn the
legitimacy of a child, but an action to claim inheritance as legal heirs of private respondents’ childless
deceased aunt.
Marissa Benitez-Badua vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105625, January 24, 1994
Art. 171 applies only when the child is the undisputed offspring of the mother.
Article 171 of the Family Code applies only to instances in which the father impugns the legitimacy of his
wife's child. It, however, presupposes that the child was the undisputed offspring of the mother.
Teofista Babiera vs. Presentacion B. Catotal, G.R. No. 138493, June 15, 2000
Legitimacy of a child can be impugned only in a direct action.
It is settled that the legitimacy of the child can be impugned only in a direct action brought for that
purpose, by the proper parties and within the period limited by law.
William Liyao, Jr. vs. Juanita Tanhoti-Liyao, G.R. No. 138961, March 7, 2002
There is no presumption of legitimacy in favor of children born out of husband's cohabitation with
another woman.
Once a valid marriage is established, it is deemed to continue until proof that it has been legally ended is
presented. Thus, the mere cohabitation of the husband with another woman will not give rise to a
presumption of legitimacy in favor of the children born of the second union, until and unless there be
convincing proof that the first marriage had been lawfully terminated; and the second, lawfully entered
into.
Voltaire Arbolario vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129163, April 22, 2003
The modern rule is that, in order to overthrow the presumption of legitimacy, it must be shown beyond
reasonable doubt that there was no access as could have enabled the husband to be the father of the
child. Sexual intercourse is to be presumed where personal access is not disproved, unless such
presumption is rebutted by evidence to the contrary; where sexual intercourse is presumed or proved,
the husband must be taken be the father of the child.
1980
legitimacy.
To defeat the presumption of legitimacy, therefore, there must be physical impossibility of access by the
husband to the wife during the period of conception. The law expressly refers to physical impossibility.
Hence, a circumstance which makes sexual relations improbable, cannot defeat the presumption of
legitimacy; but it may be proved as a circumstance to corroborate proof of physical impossibility of
access.
1980
Only the husband can contest the legitimacy of a child born to his wife
Only the husband can contest the legitimacy of a child born to his wife. He is the one directly confronted
with the scandal and ridicule which the infidelity of his wife produces; and he should decide whether to
conceal that infidelity or expose it, in view of the moral or economic interest involved.
1980
The heirs of the husband may also repudiate the filiation of a child.
The right to repudiate or contest the legitimacy of a child born in wedlock belongs only to the alleged
father, who is the husband of the mother and can be exercised only by him or his heirs, within a fixed
time, and in certain cases, and only in a direct suit brought for the purpose.
1980
The husband’s heirs are allowed to contest a child’s legitimacy only in exceptional cases.
Impugning the legitimacy of the child is a strictly personal right of the husband, or in exceptional cases,
his heirs for the simple reason that he is the one directly confronted with the scandal and ridicule which
the infidelity of his wife produces and he should be the one to decide whether to conceal that infidelity
or expose it in view of the moral and economic interest involved. It is only in exceptional cases that his
heirs are allowed to contest such legitimacy. Outside of these cases, none — even his heirs — can
impugn legitimacy; that would amount to an insult to his memory.
Art. 172 - Proof of filiation of legitimate children
Art. 172 - Proof of filiation of legitimate children
Unmistakable acts of recognition tending to prove filiation.
Illegitimate filiation may be established in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate
children.
Filiation may be proved by other means allowed under the Rules of Court and special laws.
Requisites to establish “open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child.”
An illegitimate child may establish filiation through act or declaration about pedigree.
Evidence of filiation is admissible only if presented during alleged father's lifetime.
Mere cohabitation of husband with another will not give rise to presumption of legitimacy in favor of
children born of the second union.
Courts should not hesitate to rule on admissibility of DNA evidence.
Proof of filiation to determine citizenship should be independent from proof for civil law purposes.
Recognition of illegitimate children has been increasingly liberalized in favor of child's greater interest
and welfare.
Filiation must be settled in special proceedings, not in an action for recovery of property.
A child cannot choose his own filiation.
Legitimate filiation of a child cannot depend on the declaration of the attending physician, midwife or
mother.
Unmistakable acts of recognition tending to prove filiation.
During his lifetime, the father acted in such a manner as to evince his intent to recognize Ma. Theresa
Alberto as his flesh and blood, first, by allowing her from birth to use his family name; second, by giving
her and her mother sums of money by way of support and lastly, by openly introducing her to members
of his family, relatives and friends as his daughter. Supplementing such unmistakable acts of recognition
were those of his kin and gangmates manifesting open acceptance of such relationship. Taken
altogether, the claimed filiation would be hard to disprove.
Ma. Theresa R. Alberto vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86639, June 2, 1994
Illegitimate filiation may be established in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate
children.
Articles 276, 277, 278, 279 and 280 of the Civil Code of the Philippines were repealed by the Family
Code, which now allows the establishment of illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same
evidence as legitimate children (Art. 175). Of interest is that Article 172 of the Family Code adopts the
rule in Article 283 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, that filiation may be proven by "any evidence or
proof that the defendant is his father."
Bienvenido Rodriguez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85723, June 19, 1995
Filiation may be proved by other means allowed under the Rules of Court and special laws.
Although a baptismal certificate is indeed not a conclusive proof of filiation, it is one of "the other means
allowed under the Rules of Court and special laws" to show pedigree. An illegitimate child is allowed to
establish his claimed filiation by 'any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws,'
according to the Civil Code, or 'by evidence of proof in his favor that the defendant is her father,'
according to the Family Code. Such evidence may consist of his baptismal certificate, a judicial
admission, a family Bible in which his name has been entered, common reputation respecting his
pedigree, admission by silence, the testimony of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
Arturio Trinidad vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118904, April 20, 1998
Requisites to establish “open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child.”
a) To establish "the open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child," it is
necessary to comply with certain jurisprudential requirements. "Continuous" does not mean that the
concession of status shall continue forever but only that it shall not be of an intermittent character while
it continues. The possession of such status means that the father has treated the child as his own,
directly and not through others, spontaneously and without concealment though without publicity
(since the relation is illegitimate). There must be a showing of the permanent intention of the supposed
father to consider the child as his own, by continuous and clear manifestation of paternal affection and
care.
Casimiro Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals and Teopista Toring Tuñacao, G.R. No. 86302, September 24,
1991
b) To prove open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, there must be
evidence of the manifestation of the permanent intention of the supposed father to consider the child
as his, by continuous and clear manifestations of parental affection and care, which cannot be attributed
to pure charity. Such acts must be of such a nature that they reveal not only the conviction of paternity,
but also the apparent desire to have and treat the child as such in all relations in society and in life, not
accidentally, but continuously. This standard of proof is founded on the principle that an order for
recognition and support may create an unwholesome atmosphere or may be an irritant in the family or
lives of the parties, so that it must be issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and
convincing evidence.
Francisco L. Jison vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124853, February 24, 1998
An illegitimate child may establish filiation through act or declaration about pedigree.
An illegitimate child is allowed to establish his claimed filiation by "any other means allowed by the
Rules of Court and special laws," according to the Civil Code, or "by evidence or proof in his favor that
the defendant is her father," according to the Family Code. In light of Rule 130, Section 39 of the Rules
of Court, the following requisites have to be complied with before the act or declaration regarding
pedigree may be admitted in evidence:
1. The declarant is dead or unable to testify.
2. The pedigree must be in issue.
3. The declarant must be a relative of the person whose pedigree is in issue.
4. The declaration must be made before the controversy arose.
5. The relationship between the declarant and the person whose pedigree is in question must be
shown by evidence other than such declaration.
1991
Evidence of filiation is admissible only if presented during alleged father's lifetime.

Private respondent can no longer be allowed at this time to introduce evidence of his open and
continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child or prove his alleged filiation through any of
the means allowed by the Rules of Court or special laws. The simple reason is that the alleged father is
already dead and can no longer be heard on the claim of his alleged son's illegitimate filiation.
Dorotea Uyguangco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76873, October 26, 1989
Mere cohabitation of husband with another will not give rise to presumption of legitimacy in favor of
children born of the second union.
Paternity or filiation, or the lack of it, is a relationship that must be judicially established. It stands to
reason that children born within wedlock are legitimate. Failure to prove the fact or presumption of
marriage between parents cannot give rise to a presumption of legitimacy in favor of the children. Once
a valid marriage is established, it is deemed to continue until proof that it has been legally ended is
presented. Thus, the mere cohabitation of the husband with another woman will not give rise to a
presumption of legitimacy in favor of the children born of the second union, until and unless there be
convincing proof that the first marriage had been lawfully terminated; and the second, lawfully entered
into.
Voltaire Arbolario vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129163, April 22, 2003
Courts should not hesitate to rule on admissibility of DNA evidence.
a) Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless we adopt the modern and
scientific ways available. Fortunately, we have now the facility and expertise in using DNA test for
identification and parentage testing. The University of the Philippines Natural Science Research Institute
(UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the capability to conduct DNA typing using short tandem
repeat (STR) analysis. The analysis is based on the fact that the DNA of a child/person has two (2) copies,
one copy from the mother and the other from the father. The DNA from the mother, the alleged father
and the child are analyzed to establish parentage. Of course, being a novel scientific technique, the use
of DNA test as evidence is still open to challenge. Eventually, as the appropriate case comes, courts
should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was said, that courts should apply
the results of science when completely obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said result
is to deny progress."
Edgardo and Bienvenida Tijing vs. Court of Appeals and Angelita Diamante, G.R. No. 125901, March 8,
2001
b) In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactory establish or would be

difficult to obtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the
illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to. A positive match
would clear up filiation or paternity.
Proof of filiation to determine citizenship should be independent from proof for civil law purposes.
The proof of filiation or paternity for purposes of determining citizenship status should be deemed
independent from and not inextricably tied up with that prescribed for civil law purposes. The Civil Code
or Family Code provisions on proof of filiation or paternity, although good law, do not have preclusive
effects on matters alien to personal and family relations.
Recognition of illegitimate children has been increasingly liberalized in favor of child's greater interest
and welfare.
The growing trend to liberalize the acknowledgment or recognition of illegitimate children is an attempt
to break away from the traditional idea of keeping well apart legitimate and non-legitimate relationships
within the family in favor of the greater interest and welfare of the child. The provisions are intended to
merely govern the private and personal affairs of the family. There is little, if any, to indicate that the
legitimate or illegitimate civil status of the individual would also affect his political rights or, in general,
his relationship to the State. While, indeed, provisions on "citizenship" could be found in the Civil Code,
such provisions must be taken in the context of private relations, the domain of civil law.
Filiation must be settled in special proceedings, not in an action for recovery of property.
The filiation of the paramour's children must be settled in a probate or special proceeding instituted for
the purpose, not in an action for recovery of property. Matters relating to the rights of filiation and
heirship must be ventilated in the proper probate court in a special proceeding instituted precisely for
the purpose of determining such rights. The status of an illegitimate child who claimed to be an heir to a
decedent's estate could not be adjudicated in an ordinary civil action which, as in this case, was for the
recovery of property.
A child cannot choose his own filiation.
The child himself cannot choose his own filiation. If the husband, presumed to be the father does not
impugn the legitimacy of the child, then the status of the child is fixed, and the latter cannot choose to
be the child of his mother's alleged paramour. On the other hand, if the presumption of legitimacy is
overthrown, the child cannot elect the paternity of the husband who successfully defeated the
presumption.
Legitimate filiation of a child cannot depend on the declaration of the attending physician, midwife or
mother.
The legitimate filiation of a child is a matter fixed by law itself. It cannot be made dependent on the
declaration of the attending physician or midwife, or that of the mother of the newborn child. For then,
an unwed mother, with or without the participation of a doctor or midwife, could veritably invest
legitimate status to her offspring through the simple expedient of writing the putative father's name in
the appropriate space in the birth certificate.
Belen Sagad Angeles vs. Aleli "Corazon" Angeles Maglaya, G.R. No. 153798, September 2, 2005
One can prove filiation, either legitimate or illegitimate, through the record of birth appearing in the civil
register or a final judgment, an admission of filiation in a public document or a private handwritten
instrument and signed by the parent concerned, or the open and continuous possession of the status of
a legitimate or illegitimate child, or any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. We
have held that such other proof of one's filiation may be a "baptismal certificate, a judicial admission, a
family bible in which [his] name has been entered, common reputation respecting [his] pedigree,
admission by silence, the [testimonies] of witnesses, and other kinds of proof [admissible] under Rule
130 of the Rules of Court."
Art. 174 - Surname of legitimate children
Art. 174 - Surname of legitimate children
Children conceived before decree of annulment shall use surname of father.
To discard father's surname is to create the impression that the children are illegitimate.
Legitimate children may not adopt the surname of their mother's second husband.
Child born out of lawful wedlock cannot bear surname of mother's second husband.
The child should be the one to apply for a change of surname.
Change of surname discretionary on part of children when they reach adulthood.
Children conceived before decree of annulment shall use surname of father.
Our laws do not authorize a legitimate child to use the surname of a person who is not his father. Article
364 of the Civil Code specifically provides that legitimate children shall principally use the surname of
their father, and Article 369 of the same Code provides that in case of annulment of a voidable marriage
the children conceived before the annulment shall principally use the surname of the father, and
considering by analogy the effect of a decree of divorce, it is correctly concluded that the children who
are conceived before such a decree should also be understood as carrying the surname of the real
father.
Elaine A. Moore vs. Republic of the Phils., G.R. No. L-18407, June 26, 1963
To discard father's surname is to create the impression that the children are illegitimate.
To allow minor children, who are presumably legitimate, at their mother's behest, to bear only their
mother's surname (which they are entitled to use together with their father's surname) and to discard
altogether their father's surname, thus removing the prima facie evidence of their paternal provenance
or ancestry, is a serious matter in which, ordinarily, the minors and their father should be consulted. To
allow the change of surname would cause confusion as to the minors' parentage and might create the
impression that the minors are illegitimate since they would carry the maternal surname only. That
would be inconsistent with their legitimate status as indicated in their birth records
In re: Dionesio Divinagracia, Jr. and Bombi Roberto Divinagracia, G.R. No. L-55538, March 15, 1982
Legitimate children may not adopt the surname of their mother's second husband.
Our laws do not authorize legitimate children to adopt the surname of a person who is not their father.
To allow said minors to adopt the surname of their mother's second husband, who is not their father,
could result in confusion in their paternity. It could also create the suspicion that said minors, who were
born during the coverture of their mother with her first husband, were in fact sired by her second
husband, thus bringing their legitimate status into discredit.
In re: Dolores Gemora Padilla vs. Republic of the Phils., G.R. No. L-28274, April 30, 1982
Child born out of lawful wedlock cannot bear surname of mother's second husband.
If a child born out of a lawful wedlock be allowed to bear the surname of the second husband of the
mother, should the first husband die or be separated by a decree of divorce, there may result a
confusion as to his real paternity. In the long run the change may redound to the prejudice of the child
in the community. While the purpose which may have animated petitioner, the minor's mother, is
plausible and may run along the feeling of cordiality and spiritual relationship that pervades among the
members of the family of her second husband, there is a legal barrier which cannot at present be
overlooked or brushed aside
Elaine A. Moore vs. Republic of the Phils., G.R. No. L-18407, June 26, 1963
The child should be the one to apply for a change of surname.
The child should, and in the course of time must, know of his parentage. If, when he fully appreciates
the circumstances and is capable of selecting a name for himself, he wants to use his mother's surname
only and to avoid using his father's surname, then he should be the one to apply for a change of
surname
In re: Dionesio Divinagracia, Jr. and Bombi Roberto Divinagracia, G.R. No. L-55538, March 15, 1982
Change of surname discretionary on part of children when they reach adulthood.
The petition for change of name filed by the mother in behalf of her minor children is premature.
Indeed, the matter of change of their surname should better be left to the judgment and discretion of
the children themselves when they reach the age of maturity. If in their adulthood they want to change
their surname, then they themselves or any of them may take such appropriate action as the law may
permit.
In re: Dolores Gemora Padilla vs. Republic of the Phils., G.R. No. L-28274, April 30, 1982
Art. 174 (1) - Wife's use of husband's surname
Art. 174 (1) - Wife's use of husband's surname
Use of former husband’s name by a widow or divorcee is not obligatory.
Use of former husband’s name by a divorcee is not a crime.

Use of husband's surname, when not intended to mislead or deceive the public, does not constitute
material representation warranting cancellation of certificate of candidacy.
Elements of usurpation of name under Art. 377 of Civil Code.
Woman cannot use the surname of a man to whom she has never been married.
Husband, not wife, should initiate change in spelling of his surname.
Wife shall continue using her husband's surname even after decree of legal separation.
Woman who used the name of the man she is living with to claim benefits for their son cannot be
criminally liable.
Wife cannot appropriate the initials or nickname of her husband.
Use of former husband’s name by a widow or divorcee is not obligatory.
When the marriage ties or vinculum no longer exists as in the case of death of the husband or divorce as
authorized by the Muslim Code, the widow or divorcee need not seek judicial confirmation of the
change in her civil status in order to revert to her maiden name as the use of her former husband's
name is optional and not obligatory to her. Thus, a petition to resume the use of maiden name is a
superfluity and an unnecessary proceeding since the law requires her to do so as her former husband is
already married to another woman after obtaining a decree of divorce from her in accordance with
Muslim laws.
Hatima C. Yasin vs. Shari’a District Court, G.R. No. 94986, February 23, 1995
Use of former husband’s name by a divorcee is not a crime.
The use of a surname by a divorced wife for a purpose not criminal in nature is certainly not a crime. The
contention that every use of the husband’s surname constitutes a new crime cannot be countenanced.
The effect of divorce is more akin to the death of the spouse where the deceased woman continues to
be referred to as the Mrs. of her husband even if the latter has remarried rather than to annulment
since in the latter case, it is as if there had been no marriage at all.
Constancia C. Tolentino vs. Court of Appeals and Consuelo David, G.R. No. L-41427, June 10, 1988
Use of husband's surname, when not intended to mislead or deceive the public, does not constitute
material representation warranting cancellation of certificate of candidacy.
Aside from the requirement of materiality, a false representation under Sec. 78 of the Omnibus Election
Code must be made with an intention to deceive the electorate as to one’s qualifications for public
office. The use of a surname, when not intended to mislead or deceive the public as to one’s identity is
not within the scope of the provision. The material misrepresentation contemplated by said provision
refer to qualifications for elective office. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the
consequences imposed upon a candidate guilty of having made a false representation in his certificate
of candidacy are grave — to prevent the candidate from running or, if elected, from serving, or to
prosecute him for violation of the election laws. It could not have been the intention of the law to
deprive a person of such a basic and substantive political right to be voted for a public office upon just
any innocuous mistake.
Victorino Salcedo II vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 135886, August 16, 1999
Elements of usurpation of name under Art. 377 of Civil Code.
The usurpation of name under Article 377 of the Civil Code implies some injury to the interests of the
owner of the name. It consists in the possibility of confusion of identity between the owner and the
usurper, and exists when a person designates himself by another name. The elements are as follows: (1)
there is an actual use of another’s name by the defendant; (2) the use is unauthorized; and (3) the use of
another’s name is to designate personality or identify a person.
Zenaida F. Dapar vs. Gloria Lozano Biascan, G.R. No. 141880, September 27, 2004
Constancia C. Tolentino vs. Court of Appeals and Consuelo David, G.R. No. L-41427, June 10, 1988
Woman cannot use the surname of a man to whom she has never been married.
It is not proper for a woman to continue representing herself as the wife of a man in view of the non-
existence of the former’s marriage with him and the latter’s actual marriage to another. Article 370 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines authorizes a married woman to use the surname of her husband;
impliedly, it also excludes others from doing likewise.
Elenita Ledesma Silva vs. Esther Peralta, G.R. No. L-13114, November 25, 1960
Husband, not wife, should initiate change in spelling of his surname.
A married woman may use her husband's surname under Art. 370 of the Civil Code. It is axiomatic that if
she desires judicial authorization to change the spelling of his surname, her husband should initiate the
proceeding.
In re: Milagros Llerena Telmo vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-28549, September 23, 1976
Wife shall continue using her husband's surname even after decree of legal separation.
The language of Article 372 of the New Civil Code is mandatory that the wife, even after the legal
separation has been decreed, shall continue using her name and surname employed before the legal
separation. This is so because her married status is unaffected by the separation, there being no
severance of the vinculum. It seems to be the policy of the law that the wife should continue to use the
name indicative of her unchanged status for the benefit of all concerned.
Elisea Laperal vs. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-18008, October 30, 1962
Woman who used the name of the man she is living with to claim benefits for their son cannot be
criminally liable .
It is not uncommon in Philippine society for a woman to represent herself as the wife and use the name
of the man she is living with despite the fact that the man is married to another woman. The practice, to
be sure, is not encouraged but neither is it unduly frowned upon. A number of women can be identified
who are living with men prominent in political, business and social circles. The woman publicly holds
herself out as the man's wife and uses his family name blithely ignoring the fact that he is not her
husband. And yet none of the women has been charged of violating the C.A. No. 142 because ours is not
a bigoted but a tolerant and understanding society. It is in the light of our cultural environment that the
law must be construed.
Corazon Legamia y Rivera vs. IAC and People of the Phils., G.R. No. L-63817, August 28, 1984
Wife cannot appropriate the initials or nickname of her husband.
Bad faith or malice on the part of a candidate was evident when, in her certificate of candidacy and
campaign materials, she appropriated the initials or nickname of her husband, the incumbent
Representative of the district in question whom she wanted to succeed in office. Article 370 of the Civil
Code, which she invokes, provides no relief. The article enumerates the names which a married woman
may use. One of them is "her husband's full name but prefixing a word indicating that she is his wife,
such as Mrs." If for expediency and convenience she would use the initials of her husband, then her
name, in initials would be "MRS. JTV."
Ma. Amelita C. Villarosa vs. HRET and Ricardo V. Quintos, G.R. No. 143351, September 14, 2000
Art. 175 - Establishment of illegitimate filiation
Art. 175 - Establishment of illegitimate filiation
Judicial pronouncement is unnecessary if illegitimate child is voluntarily recognized.
Change in entries in the record of birth is an audacious indirect attempt to establish filiation.
Death of putative father bars illegitimate child from establishing filiation.
Lack or insufficiency of judicial approval is a defect available to the minor, not to the recognizing parent.
Even if action for recognition/establishment of filiation is filed after death of putative parent, status of
illegitimate children may be confirmed.
Whether an action for establishment of illegitimate filiation is filed under the Civil Code or the Family
Code, the result will be the same.
Whether the action may be brought during the lifetime of the child or of the alleged parent depends on
the basis of the action.
Article 171 of Family Code presupposes that the child is the undisputed offspring of the mother.
How “open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child” is proved.
What constitutes “open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child”.
“Authentic writing” for purposes of voluntary recognition, defined.
The acknowledgment or recognition of illegitimate children is increasingly liberalized.
How filiation of illegitimate children is established.
When judicial action within the applicable statute of limitations is essential in order to establish the
child's acknowledgment.
Judicially approved compromise agreement by parents may constitute a statement by which a child may
be voluntarily acknowledged.
A judicial order to compel a person to submit to DNA paternity testing does not violate his right against
self-incrimination.
Judicial pronouncement is unnecessary if illegitimate child is voluntarily recognized.
The illegitimate child having been voluntarily recognized by her father through the record of birth, there
was no need for any judicial pronouncement. There can be no dispute then that the child enjoyed the
open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child and that her action in defending
her status is similar to an "action to claim legitimacy" brought during her lifetime.
Juan Castro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. Nos. L-50974-75, May 31, 1989
Change in entries in the record of birth is an audacious indirect attempt to establish filiation.
A change in the entry from "Domingo Patawaran" to "Dominador P. Dizon", and the alteration of the
word "Unknown" after the column "Name of Father" to "Policarpio Dizon", do not only partake of the
nature of a change of name, but also principally involve the issue of paternity and filiation. Obviously,
the purpose in this proceeding for correction of entries filed after about 65 years is an audacious indirect
attempt to establish filiation with the late putative father through the simple expedient of changing the
entries in the record of birth in the civil registry and his right to inherit.
Republic of the Phils. vs. Hon. Fernando Bartolome, G.R. No. L-38109, September 6, 1985
Death of putative father bars illegitimate child from establishing filiation.
Under the Family Code, the illegitimate child is now also allowed to establish his claimed filiation by "any
other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws," like his baptismal certificate, a judicial
admission, a family Bible in which his name has been entered, common reputation respecting his
pedigree, admission by silence, the testimonies of witnesses, and other kinds of proof admissible under
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court. However, claimant can no longer be allowed at this time to introduce
evidence of open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child or prove filiation
through any of the means allowed by the Rules of Court or special laws because the alleged father is
already dead and can no longer be heard on the claim of his alleged son's illegitimate filiation.
Dorotea Uyguangco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76873, October 26, 1989
Lack or insufficiency of judicial approval is a defect available to the minor, not to the recognizing parent.
The requirement of judicial approval imposed by Article 281 of the Civil Code is clearly intended for the
benefit of the minor. The lack of judicial approval cannot impede the effectivity of the acknowledgment
made. The judicial approval is for the protection of the minor against any acknowledgment made to his
prejudice. Therefore, the lack or insufficiency of such approval is NOT a defect available to the
recognizing parent but one which the minor may raise or waive. If after reaching majority the minor
consents to the acknowledgment, the lack of judicial approval should make no difference. Implied
consent to the acknowledgment may be shown by such acts as keeping, even after reaching the age of
majority, the acknowledgment papers and the use of the parent's surname.
Ligaya Gapusan-Chua vs. Court of Appeals and Prospero Parcon, G.R. No. 46746, March 15, 1990
Even if action for recognition/establishment of filiation is filed after death of putative parent, status of
illegitimate children may be confirmed.
The action for recognition (or to establish filiation) is timely filed — having been instituted after the
demise of the putative parent and before the attainment of the age of majority of the children
concerned — and the ground invoked therefor having been satisfactorily proven.
Jacoba T. Paterno vs. Beatriz Paterno, G.R. No. 63680, March 23, 1990
Whether an action for establishment of illegitimate filiation is filed under the Civil Code or the Family
Code, the result will be the same.
Under Article 283 (2) of the Civil Code, a father is obliged to recognize the child as his natural child
"when the child is in continuous possession of the status of a child of the alleged father by the direct
acts of the latter or that of his family." Under Art. 175 in relation to Article 172 of the Family Code,
illegitimate filiation shall be proved by "the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate
child." Thus, whether the case is decided under the Civil Code or the Family Code, the result will be the
same.
Loth R. Ayco vs. Lourdes S. Fernandez, G.R. No. 84770, March 18, 1991
Whether the action may be brought during the lifetime of the child or of the alleged parent depends on
the basis of the action.
If the action is based on the record of birth of the child, a final judgment, or an admission by the parent
of the child's filiation in a public document or in a private handwritten signed instrument, then the
action may be brought during the lifetime of the child. However, if the action is based on the open and
continuous possession by the child of the status of an illegitimate child, or on other evidence allowed by
the Rules of Court and special laws, the view has been expressed that the action must be brought during
the lifetime of the alleged parent.
Corito Ocampo Tayag vs. Court of Appeals and Emilie Dayrit Cuyugan, G.R. No. 95229, June 9, 1992
Article 171 of Family Code presupposes that the child is the undisputed offspring of the mother.
Article 171 of the Family Code applies only to instances in which the father impugns the legitimacy of his
wife's child. The provision, however, presupposes that the child was the undisputed offspring of the
mother.
Teofista Babiera vs. Presentacion B. Catotal, G.R. No. 138493, June 15, 2000
How “open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child” is proved.
To prove open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child, there must be evidence
of the manifestation of the permanent intention of the supposed father to consider the child as his, by
continuous and clear manifestations of parental affection and care, which cannot be attributed to pure
charity. Such acts must be of such a nature that they reveal not only the conviction of paternity, but also
the apparent desire to have and treat the child as such in all relations in society and in life, not
accidentally, but continuously. By "continuous" is meant uninterrupted and consistent, but does not
require any particular length of time. The foregoing standard of proof required to establish one's
filiation is founded on the principle that an order for recognition and support may create an
unwholesome atmosphere or may be an irritant in the family or lives of the parties, so that it must be
issued only if paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence.
Francisco L. Jison vs. Court of Appeals and Monina Jison, G.R. No. 124853. February 24, 1998
What constitutes “open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child”.
To establish "the open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child," it is necessary to
comply with certain jurisprudential requirements. "Continuous" does not mean that the concession of
status shall continue forever but only that it shall not be of an intermittent character while it continues.
The possession of such status means that the father has treated the child as his own, directly and not
through others, spontaneously and without concealment though without publicity (since the relation is
illegitimate). There must be a showing of the permanent intention of the supposed father to consider
the child as his own, by continuous and clear manifestation of paternal affection and care.
1991
“Authentic writing” for purposes of voluntary recognition, defined.
"Authentic writing," so as to be an authentic writing for purposes of voluntary recognition, simply as

being a genuine or indubitable writing of the father. The term would include a public instrument (one
duly acknowledged before a notary public or other competent official) or a private writing admitted by
the father to be his.
The acknowledgment or recognition of illegitimate children is increasingly liberalized.
The growing trend to liberalize the acknowledgment or recognition of illegitimate children is an attempt
to break away from the traditional idea of keeping well apart legitimate and non-legitimate relationships
within the family in favor of the greater interest and welfare of the child. The provisions are intended to
merely govern the private and personal affairs of the family. There is little, if any, to indicate that the
legitimate or illegitimate civil status of the individual would also affect his political rights or, in general,
his relationship to the State. While, indeed, provisions on "citizenship" could be found in the Civil Code,
such provisions must be taken in the context or private relations, the domain of civil law
How filiation of illegitimate children is established.
The filiation of illegitimate children, like legitimate children, is established by (1) the record of birth
appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or (2) an admission of legitimate filiation in a public
document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned. In the absence
thereof, filiation shall be proved by (1) the open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate
child; or (2) any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.
Jinkie Christie A. de Jesus vs. The Estate of Decedent Juan Gamboa Dizon, G.R. No. 142877, October 2,
2001
When judicial action within the applicable statute of limitations is essential in order to establish the
child's acknowledgment.
The due recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of
record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the child, and
no further court action is required. In fact, any authentic writing is treated not just a ground for
compulsory recognition; it is in itself a voluntary recognition that does not require a separate action for
judicial approval. Where, instead, a claim for recognition is predicated on other evidence merely tending
to prove paternity, i.e., outside of a record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record or an
authentic writing, judicial action within the applicable statute of limitations is essential in order to
establish the child's acknowledgment.
Jinkie Christie A. de Jesus vs. The Estate of Decedent Juan Gamboa Dizon, G.R. No. 142877, October 2,
2001
Judicially approved compromise agreement by parents may constitute a statement by which a child may
be voluntarily acknowledged.
A compromise agreement entered into by parents acknowledging their five (5) natural children and
providing for their support approved by the court, constitutes a statement before a court of record by
which a child may be voluntarily acknowledged.
Yao Kee vs. Aida Sy-Gonzales, G.R. No. L-55960, November 24, 1988
A judicial order to compel a person to submit to DNA paternity testing does not violate his right against
self-incrimination.
The proposed DNA paternity testing does not violate his right against self-incrimination because the
right applies only to testimonial compulsion. PLPE05
Rosendo Herrera vs. Rosendo Alba, et al., G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005
Art. 176 - Surname of illegitimate children
Art. 176 - Surname of illegitimate children
Illegitimate children should bear the surname of their mother.
If alleged father did not intervene in the birth certificate, inscription of his name therein is null and void.
Changing of surname to that of stepfather's will invite confusion as to child's paternity.
Illegitimate children should bear the surname of their mother.
Thus, as illegitimate children, Emerson and Rafael should bear the surname of their mother, Luzviminda
Celestino. Resultingly, with the correction of the entries in their birth certificates which deleted the
entry in the date and place of marriage of parents, the corresponding correction with respect to their
surname should have also been made and changed to Celestino, their mother's surname.
Republic of the Phils. vs. Gerson R. Abadilla, G.R. No. 133054, January 28, 1999
If alleged father did not intervene in the birth certificate, inscription of his name therein is null and void.
It is settled that a certificate of live birth purportedly identifying the putative father is not competent
evidence as to the issue of paternity, when there is no showing that the putative father had a hand in
the preparation of said certificates, and the Local Civil Registrar is devoid of authority to record the
paternity of an illegitimate child upon the information of a third person. Simply put, if the alleged father
did not intervene in the birth certificate, e. g., supplying the information himself, the inscription of his
name by the mother or doctor or registrar is null and void; the mere certificate by the registrar without
the signature of the father is not proof of voluntary acknowledgment on the latter's part.
Francisco L. Jison vs. Court of Appeals and Monina Jison, G.R. No. 124853, February 24, 1998
Changing of surname to that of stepfather's will invite confusion as to child's paternity.
The reason alleged by Andrew Barretto (because it is the surname of his step-father) is not compelling
enough to warrant the change of name prayed for. The surname "Barretto" is his mother's surname. He
is the illegitimate child of Lucy Barretto. But he is not a natural child of Magin V. Velez. The
circumstances of his illegitimate filiation are not known. Magin V. Velez had children of his own before
he married the applicant's mother. Magin V. Velez and Lucy Barretto also have their own children. To
warrant the change of name sought will necessary invite confusion as to paternity, to the prejudice of
Magin V. Velez, the applicant's mother, as well as their common and separate offsprings.
Republic of the Phils. vs. Hon. Judge of Branch III of CFI-Cebu, G.R. No. L-35605, October 11, 1984
This provision [Art. 176 of the Family Code] was later amended on March 19, 2004 by RA 9255 which
now reads:
Art. 176. — Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their
mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. However, illegitimate children
may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by their father
through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or
private handwritten instrument is made by the father. Provided, the father has the right to institute an
action before the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime. The legitime of each
illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child.
Grande v. Antonio, G.R. No. 206248, February 18, 2014
[T]he general rule is that an illegitimate child shall use the surname of his or her mother. The exception
provided by RA 9255 is, in case his or her filiation is expressly recognized by the father through the
record of birth appearing in the civil register or when an admission in a public document or private
handwritten instrument is made by the father. In such a situation, the illegitimate child may use the
surname of the father.

Parental authority over minor children is lodged by Art. 176 on the mother; hence, respondent's prayer
has no legal mooring. Since parental authority is given to the mother, then custody over the minor
children also goes to the mother, unless she is shown to be unfit.
Art. 177 - Legitimated children
Art. 177 - Legitimated children
Legitimation does not include children born of adulterous relations.
Legitimation is a privilege available only to natural children.
To effect legitimation, the parents should be married to each other.
Legitimated child enjoys all rights and privileges associated with legitimacy.
Legitimation does not include children born of adulterous relations.
Legitimation is limited to natural children and cannot include those born of adulterous relations.
Ma. Blyth B. Abadilla vs. Jose C. Tabiliran, Jr., Adm. Matter No. MTJ-92-716, October 25, 1995
Legitimation is a privilege available only to natural children.
Legitimation is not a "right" which is demandable by a child. It is a privilege, available only to natural
children proper, as defined under Art. 269. Although natural children by legal fiction have the same
rights as acknowledged natural children, it is a quantum leap in the syllogism to conclude that,
therefore, they likewise have the right to be legitimated, which is not necessarily so, especially, as in this
case, when the legally existing marriage between the children's father and his estranged first wife
effectively barred a "subsequent marriage" between their parents.
Maria Rosario de Santos vs. Adoracion G. Angeles, G.R. No. 105619, December 12, 1995
To effect legitimation, the parents should be married to each other.
The parents should be married to each other in order to effect the legitimation of their acknowledged
natural children. And once legitimated, the child becomes legitimate child. Since the parents marry each
other, the acknowledgment of the natural children need no judicial approval.
Alfonso Colorado vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-39948, February 28, 1985
Legitimated child enjoys all rights and privileges associated with legitimacy.
The status of a marriage determines in large part the filiation of its resultant issue. Thus, a child born
within a valid marriage is legitimate, while one born outside of wedlock is illegitimate. If, however, the
latter's parents were, at the time of the child's conception, not legally barred from marrying each other
and subsequently do so, the child's filiation improves as he becomes legitimized and the "legitimated"
child eventually enjoys all the privileges and rights associated with legitimacy.
Maria Rosario de Santos vs. Hon. Adoracion G. Angeles, G.R. No. 105619, December 12, 1995
Art. 183 - Who may adopt
Art. 183 - Who may adopt
Adoption creates a status closely assimilated to legitimate paternity and filiation.
The issue of abandonment by the oppositor natural parent is a preliminary issue that an adoption court
must first confront.
Adopted child has sole right to sever legal ties created by adoption.
The interests and welfare of the child are of primary and paramount consideration in determining
whether or not to set aside a decree of adoption.
Adoption laws should be construed so as to give all the chances for human life to exist.
Written consent of the natural parent is indispensable for the validity of the decree of adoption.
However, written consent of natural parent can be dispensed with if said parent has abandoned the
child.
Deprivation of parental authority is one of the effects of an adoption decree.
Adoption creates a status closely assimilated to legitimate paternity and filiation.
Adoption creates a status that is closely assimilated to legitimate paternity and filiation with
corresponding rights and duties that necessarily flow from adoption, such as, but not necessarily
confined to, the exercise of parental authority, use of surname of the adopter by the adopted, as well as
support and successional rights.
Republic of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals and Sps. James Anthony and Lenita Hughes, G.R. No. 100835,
October 26, 1993
The issue of abandonment by the oppositor natural parent is a preliminary issue that an adoption court
must first confront.
The allegations of abandonment in the petition for adoption, even absent the written consent of the
father, sufficiently vested the lower court with jurisdiction since abandonment of the child by his natural
parents is one of the circumstances under which our statutes and jurisprudence dispense with the
requirement of written consent to the adoption of their minor children. However, in cases where the
father opposes the adoption primarily because his consent thereto was not sought, the matter of
whether he had abandoned his child becomes a proper issue for determination. The issue of
abandonment by the oppositor natural parent is a preliminary issue that an adoption court must first
confront. Only upon failure of the oppositor natural father to prove to the satisfaction of the court that
he did not abandon his child may the petition for adoption be considered on its merits.
Herbert Cang vs. Court of Appeals and Sps. Ronald and Ma. Clara Clavano, G.R. No. 105308, September
25, 1998
Adopted child has sole right to sever legal ties created by adoption.
R.A. No. 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act of 1998) affirmed the legitimate status of the adopted child, not
only in his new family but also in the society as well. The new law withdrew the right of an adopter to
rescind the adoption decree and gave to the adopted child the sole right to sever the legal ties created
by adoption. It is still noteworthy, however, that an adopter, while barred from severing the legal ties of
adoption, can always for valid reasons cause the forfeiture of certain benefits otherwise accruing to an
undeserving child.
Isabelita S. Lahom vs. Jose Melvin Sibulo, G.R. No. 143989, July 14, 2003
The interests and welfare of the child are of primary and paramount consideration in determining
whether or not to set aside a decree of adoption.
a) The welfare of a child is of paramount consideration in proceedings involving its custody and the
propriety of its adoption by another, and the courts to which the application for adoption is made is
charged with the duty of protecting the child and its interests and, to bring those interests fully before it,
it has authority to make rules to accomplish that end. Ordinarily, the approval of the adoption rests in
the sound discretion of the court. This discretion should be exercised in accordance with the best
interests of the child, as long as the natural rights of the parents over the child are not disregarded.
Rep. of the Phils. vs. Court of Appeals and Zenaida C. Bobiles, G.R. No. 92326, January 24, 1992
b) Adoption statutes, being humane and salutary, hold the interest and welfare of the child to be
of paramount consideration and are designed to provide homes, parental care and education for
unfortunate, needy or orphaned children and give them the protection of society and family in the
person of the adopter as well as to allow childless couples or persons to experience the joys of
parenthood and give them legally a child in the person of the adopted for the manifestation of their
natural parental instincts. Every reasonable intendment should be sustained to promote and fulfill these
noble and compassionate objectives of the law.
In re: Frederick William Malkinson vs. Corazon Juliano Agrava, G.R. No. L-36309, November 26, 1973
c) The philosophy behind adoption statutes is to promote the welfare of the child. Accordingly, the
modern trend is to encourage adoption and every reasonable intendment should be sustained to
promote that objective.
Paulina Santos vs. Gregoria Aranzanso, G.R. No. L-23828, February 28, 1966
Adoption laws should be construed so as to give all the chances for human life to exist.
The rule of "dura lex sed lex" should be softened so as to apply the law with less severity and with
compassion and humane understanding, for adoption is more for the benefit of unfortunate children,
particularly those born out of wedlock — than for those born with a silver spoon in their mouths. All
efforts or acts designed to provide homes, love, and care and education for unfortunate children should
be given the widest latitude of sympathy, encouragement and assistance. The law is not, and should not
be made an instrument to impede the achievement of a salutary humane policy. As often as is legally
and lawfully possible, their texts and intendments should be construed so as to give all the chances for
human life to exist.
Robin Francis Radley Duncan and Maria Lucy Christensen vs. CFI of Rizal, G.R. No. L-30576, February 10,
1976
Slobodan Bobanovic and Dianne Elizabeth Cunningham Bobanovic vs. Hon. Sylvia P. Montes, G.R. No.
71370, July 7, 1986
Written consent of the natural parent is indispensable for the validity of the decree of adoption.
Notwithstanding the amendments introduced by the Family Code to the Child and Youth Welfare Code
on adoption, the written consent of the natural parent to the adoption has remained a requisite for its
validity.
25, 1998
However, written consent of natural parent can be dispensed with if said parent has abandoned the
child.
Nevertheless, the requirement of written consent can be dispensed with if the parent has abandoned
the child or that such parent is "insane or hopelessly intemperate." The court may acquire jurisdiction
over the case even without the written consent of the parents or one of the parents provided that the
petition for adoption alleges facts sufficient to warrant exemption from compliance therewith. This is in
consonance with the liberality with which this Court treats the procedural aspect of adoption.
25, 1998
Deprivation of parental authority is one of the effects of an adoption decree.
Deprivation of parental authority is one of the effects of a decree of adoption. But there cannot be a
valid decree of adoption when the findings of the trial court on the issue of the husband's abandonment
of his family was based on a misappreciation that was tantamount to non-appreciation, of facts on
record.
25, 1998
Art. 190 - Rules on legal or intestate succession to estate of adopted
Art. 190 - Rules on legal or intestate succession to estate of adopted
[E]ven though parental authority is severed by virtue of adoption, the ties between the adoptee and the
biological parents are not entirely eliminated. To demonstrate, the biological parents, in some instances,
are able to inherit from the adopted, as can be gleaned from Art. 190 of the Family Code. . .
Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem, G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014
Art. 194 - Support

Art. 194 - Support
Characteristics of legal support.
Mere act of marriage creates an obligation on the part of husband to support his wife.
An unborn child has a right to support from its progenitors.
Rationale for entitling illegitimate children to support and successional rights.
Right to support presupposes existence of a justifiable cause on the part of the claimant spouse.
Adultery on the part of the wife is a valid defense against an action for support
Husband's repeated illicit relations with women justify separate maintenance for the wife.
A claim for future support cannot be subject of a valid compromise.
Characteristics of legal support.
Legal support has the following characteristics: (1) It is personal, based on family ties which bind the
obligor and the obligee; (2) It is intransmissible; (3) It cannot be renounced; (4) It cannot be
compromised; (5) It is free from attachment or execution; (6) It is reciprocal; (7) It is variable in amount.
Mere act of marriage creates an obligation on the part of husband to support his wife.
The mere act of marriage creates an obligation on the part of the husband to support his wife. This
obligation is founded not so much on the express or implied terms of the contract of marriage as on the
natural and legal duty of the husband; an obligation, the enforcement of which is of such vital concern
to the state itself that the law will not permit him to terminate it by his own wrongful acts in driving his
wife to seek protection in the parental home.
Eloisa Goitia y de la Camara vs. Jose Campos Rueda, G.R. No. 11263, November 2, 1916
An unborn child has a right to support from its progenitors.
A conceived child, although as yet unborn, is given by law a provisional personality of its own for all
purposes favorable to it. The unborn child, therefore, has a right to support from its progenitors, even if
the said child is only "en ventre de sa mere;" just as a conceived child, even if as yet unborn, may receive
donations as prescribed by law.
Carmen Quimiguing vs. Felix Icao, G.R. No. L-26795, July 31, 1970
Rationale for entitling illegitimate children to support and successional rights.
Illegitimate children are entitled to support and successional rights because the transgressions of social
conventions committed by the parents should not be visited upon them. They were born with a social
handicap and the law should help them to surmount the disadvantages facing them through the
misdeeds of their parents.
Artemio G. Ilano vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104376, February 23, 1994
Right to support presupposes existence of a justifiable cause on the part of the claimant spouse.
The right to separate support or maintenance, even from the conjugal partnership property,
presupposes the existence of a justifiable cause for the spouse claiming such right to live separately. A
petition in bad faith, such as that filed by one who is himself or herself guilty of an act which constitutes
a ground for legal separation at the instance of the other spouse, cannot be considered as within the
intendment of the law granting separate support.
Teodoro E. Lerma vs. Court of Appeals and Concepcion Diaz, G.R. No. L-33352, December 20, 1974
Adultery on the part of the wife is a valid defense against an action for support
Adultery on the part of the wife is a valid defense against an action for support. Consequently, as to the
child, it is also a defense that it is the fruit of such adulterous relations, for in that case, it would not be
the child of the husband; hence, would not be entitled to support as such.
Feliciano Sanchez vs. Francisco Zulueta, G.R. No. 45616, May 16, 1939
Maria Quintana vs. Gelasio Lerma, G.R. No. 7426, February 5, 1913
Although the husband and the wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual respect and fidelity and
render mutual help and assistance and that the wife is entitled to be supported, our laws contain no
provision compelling the wife to live with her husband where even without legal justification she
establishes her residence apart from that provided for by the former. In such event, there is no plausible
reason why she should be allowed any support from the husband.
Pilar Atilano vs. Chua Ching Beng, G.R. No. L-11086, March 29, 1958
Husband's repeated illicit relations with women justify separate maintenance for the wife.
In order to entitle a wife to maintain a separate home and to require separate maintenance from her
husband, it is not necessary that the husband should bring a concubine into the marital domicile.
Repeated illicit relations with women outside of the marital establishment are enough. The law is not so
unreasonable as to require a wife to live in marital relations with a husband whose propensity towards
other women makes common habitation with him unbearable.
Aurelia Dadivas de Villanueva vs. Rafael Villanueva, G.R. No. 29959, December 3, 1929
A claim for future support cannot be subject of a valid compromise.
No valid compromise is possible on the issue of future support. Hence, a showing of previous efforts to
compromise required under Art. 222 of the Civil Code would be superfluous.
Cecilio Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals and Luisa de la Rosa Mendoza, G.R. No. L-23102, April 24, 1967
Since filiation is beyond question, support follows as a matter of obligation; a parent is obliged to
support his child, whether legitimate or illegitimate. Support consists of everything indispensable for
sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the
financial capacity of the family. Thus, the amount of support is variable and, for this reason, no final
judgment on the amount of support is made as the amount shall be in proportion to the resources or
means of the giver and the necessities of the recipient. It may be reduced or increased proportionately
according to the reduction or increase of the necessities of the recipient and the resources or means of
the person obliged to support.
Art. 195 (3) - Who are obliged to support each other: Parents and their legitimate children
Art. 195 (3) - Who are obliged to support each other: Parents and their legitimate children
[P]etitioner cannot rely on Article 195 of the [Family] Code in demanding support from respondent, who
is a foreign citizen, since Article 15 of the New Civil Code stresses the principle of nationality. In other
words, insofar as Philippine laws are concerned, specifically the provisions of the Family Code on
support, the same only applies to Filipino citizens. By analogy, the same principle applies to foreigners
such that they are governed by their national law with respect to family rights and duties. . . . This does
not, however, mean that respondent is not obliged to support petitioner's son altogether.
In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the
burden of proving the foreign law. . . . It is incumbent upon respondent to plead and prove that the
national law of the Netherlands does not impose upon the parents the obligation to support their child
(either before, during or after the issuance of a divorce decree) . . . . In view of respondent's failure to
prove the national law of the Netherlands in his favor, the doctrine of processual presumption shall
govern. Under this doctrine, if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts
will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law. Thus, since the law
of the Netherlands as regards the obligation to support has not been properly pleaded and proved in the
instant case, it is presumed to be the same with Philippine law, which enforces the obligation of parents
to support their children and penalizing the non-compliance therewith.
Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem, G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014
Art. 195 (4) - Who are obliged to support each other: Parents and their illegitimate children
Art. 195 (4) - Who are obliged to support each other: Parents and their illegitimate children
[Respondent]'s demand for support, being based on her claim of filiation to petitioner as his illegitimate
daughter, falls under Article 195 (4). As such, her entitlement to support from petitioner is dependent
on the determination of her filiation.
Ben-Hur Nepomuceno vs. Arhbencel Ann Lopez, G.R. No. 181258, March 18, 2010
Filiation must be duly proved before illegitimate children are entitled to support.
To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action, first establish the filiation of the child,
if the same is not admitted or acknowledged. Since petitioner's demand for support for her son is based
on her claim that he is respondent's illegitimate child, the latter is not entitled to such support if he had
not acknowledged him, until petitioner shall have proved his relation to him. The child's remedy is to file
through her mother a judicial action against respondent for compulsory recognition. If filiation is beyond
question, support follows as matter of obligation. In short, illegitimate children are entitled to support
and successional rights but their filiation must be duly proved.
Cherryl B. Dolina vs. Glenn D. Vallecera, G.R. No. 182367, December 15, 2010
Art. 199 - Order of persons obliged to give support
Art. 199 - Order of persons obliged to give support
Article 305 of the Civil Code, in relation to what is now Article 199 of the Family Code, specifies the
persons who have the right and duty to make funeral arrangements for the deceased.
Valino v. Adriano, G.R. No. 182894, April 22, 2014
From the aforecited provisions [Articles 305 and 308 of the Civil Code, Art. 199 of the Family Code, Sec.
1103 of the Revised Administrative Code], it is undeniable that the law simply confines the right and
duty to make funeral arrangements to the members of the family to the exclusion of one's common law
partner.
The right and duty to make funeral arrangements, like any other right, will not be considered as having
been waived or renounced, except upon clear and satisfactory proof of conduct indicative of a free and
voluntary intent to that end. While there was disaffection between Atty. Adriano and Rosario and their
children when he was still alive, the Court also recognizes that human compassion, more often than not,
opens the door to mercy and forgiveness once a family member joins his Creator.
Verily, in the same vein that the right and duty to make funeral arrangements will not be considered as
having been waived or renounced, the right to deprive a legitimate spouse of her legal right to bury the
remains of her deceased husband should not be readily presumed to have been exercised, except upon
clear and satisfactory proof of conduct indicative of a free and voluntary intent of the deceased to that
end. Should there be any doubt as to the true intent of the deceased, the law favors the legitimate
family.
From its terms, it is apparent that Article 307 simply seeks to prescribe the "form of the funeral rites"
that should govern in the burial of the deceased. As thoroughly explained earlier, the right and duty to
make funeral arrangements reside in the persons specified in Article 305 in relation to Article 199 of the
Family Code. Even if Article 307 were to be interpreted to include the place of burial among those on
which the wishes of the deceased shall be followed, Dr. Arturo M. Tolentino (Dr. Tolentino), an eminent
authority on civil law, commented that it is generally recognized that any inferences as to the wishes of
the deceased should be established by some form of testamentary disposition. As Article 307 itself
provides, the wishes of the deceased must be expressly provided. It cannot be inferred lightly . . .
[T]he wishes of the decedent with respect to his funeral are not absolute. As Dr. Tolentino further
wrote:
The dispositions or wishes of the deceased in relation to his funeral, must not be contrary to law. They
must not violate the legal and reglementary provisions concerning funerals and the disposition of the
remains, whether as regards the time and manner of disposition, or the place of burial, or the ceremony
to be observed.
In this case, the wishes of the deceased with respect to his funeral are limited by Article 305 of the Civil
Code in relation to Article 199 of the Family Code, and subject the same to those charged with the right
and duty to make the proper arrangements to bury the remains of their loved-one.
It is generally recognized that the corpse of an individual is outside the commerce of man. However, the
law recognizes that a certain right of possession over the corpse exists, for the purpose of a decent
burial, and for the exclusion of the intrusion by third persons who have no legitimate interest in it. This
quasi-property right, arising out of the duty of those obligated by law to bury their dead, also authorizes
them to take possession of the dead body for purposes of burial to have it remain in its final resting
place, or to even transfer it to a proper place where the memory of the dead may receive the respect of
the living. This is a family right. There can be no doubt that persons having this right may recover the
corpse from third persons.
Art. 201 - Amount of support
Art. 201 - Amount of support
The capacity or resources of both parents and the child's monthly expenses must be proved to justify
award of support.
The allowance for support is provisional.
Judgment for support is never final.
The capacity or resources of both parents and the child's monthly expenses must be proved to justify
award of support.
It is incumbent upon the trial court to base its award of support on the evidence presented before it.
The evidence must prove the capacity or resources of both parents who are jointly obliged to support
their children as provided for under Article 195 of the Family Code; and the monthly expenses incurred
for the sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation of the child.
Jose Lam vs. Adriana Chua, G.R. No. 131286, March 18, 2004
The allowance for support is provisional.

Judgment for support does not become final. The right to support is of such nature that its allowance is
essentially provisional; for during the entire period that a needy party is entitled to support, his or her
alimony may be modified or altered, in accordance with his increased or decreased needs, and with the
means of the giver. It cannot be regarded as subject to final determination.
Manuela Advincula vs. Manuel Advincula, G.R. No. L-19065, January 31, 1964
Judgment for support is never final.
Under Article 195 (4) of the Family Code, a parent is obliged to support his illegitimate child. The amount
is variable. There is no final judgment thereof as it shall be in proportion to the resources or means of
the giver and the necessities of the recipient. It may be reduced or increased proportionately according
to the reduction or increase of the necessities of the recipient and the resources or means of the person
obliged to support. Support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing,
medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.
Under the premises, the award of P5,000 monthly support to Laurence is reasonable, and not excessive
nor exorbitant.
Dolores Montefalcon, et al. vs. Ronnie S. Vasquez, G.R. No. 165016, June 17, 2008
A judgment for support is never final in the sense that not only can its amount be subject to increase or
decrease but its demandability may also be suspended or re-enforced when appropriate circumstances
exist.
Bernarda S. Canonizado vs. Judge Regina G. Ordonez Benitez, G.R. Nos. L-49315 and 60966, February 20,
1984
Art. 203 - Support pendente lite
Art. 203, par. 2 - Support pendente lite
Support pendente lite can be availed of in an action for legal separation.
Court order fixing the amount of support pendente lite is not final.
Complaint may be filed in court without passing the Lupon Tagapayapa where the issues of support
pendente lite and delivery of personal properties are essentially involved.
Support pendente lite can be availed of in an action for legal separation.
Support pendente lite, as a remedy, can be availed of in an action for legal separation, and granted at
the discretion of the judge. If the amount of support pendente lite ordered is found to be too onerous, a
motion to modify or reduce the same can always be filed.
Court order fixing the amount of support pendente lite is not final.
The order fixing the amount of support pendente lite is not final in character in the sense that it can be
the subject of modification, depending on the changing conditions affecting the ability of the obligor to
pay the amount fixed for support.
Buenaventura San Juan vs. Hon. Manuel E. Valenzuela, G.R. No. L-59906, October 23, 1982
Complaint may be filed in court without passing the Lupon Tagapayapa where the issues of support
pendente lite and delivery of personal properties are essentially involved.
A complaint may be filed directly in a competent court without passing the Lupon Tagapayapa in actions
coupled with provisional remedies such as support pendente lite. The issues of support pendente lite
and delivery of personal properties belonging to the conjugal partnership, although not ‘coupled’ in the
strict sense of the word with the Petition for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership, are essentially involved
in this petition because of the minority of the daughter, and because the resolution or decision of this
court on the pending petition would be incomplete without a clear-cut disposition on the partition of
the personal and real properties of the conjugal partnership and consequent delivery thereof to the
proper parties.
Mauro Blardony, Jr. vs. Hon. Jose L. Coscolluela, Jr., G.R. No. 70261, February 28, 1990
Provisional remedies are writs and processes available during the pendency of the action which may be
resorted to by a litigant to preserve and protect certain rights and interests therein pending rendition,
and for purposes of the ultimate effects, of a final judgment in the case. They are provisional because
they constitute temporary measures availed of during the pendency of the action, and they are ancillary
because they are mere incidents in and are dependent upon the result of the main action. The subject
orders on the matter of support pendente lite are but an incident to the main action for declaration of
nullity of marriage.
Ma. Carminia C. Calderon vs. Jose Antonio F. Roxas, et al., G.R. No. 185595, January 9, 2013
Art. 207 - Parental support
Art. 207 - Parental support
A quasi-contract exists between the person obliged to give support and the third person who furnished
support.
[C]ontextually, the resulting juridical relationship between the [the person obliged to give support] and
[the third person who furnished support] is a quasi-contract, an equitable principle enjoining one from
unjustly enriching himself at the expense of another.
Edward V. Lacson vs. Maowee Daban Lacson et al., G.R. No. 150644, August 28, 2006
Art. 209 - Parental authority
Art. 209 - Parental authority

Definition of “parental authority”.
Joint parental authority is vested by law on the father and mother.
As far as joint parental authority is concerned, there is no more distinction between legitimate or
adopted children and acknowledged illegitimate children.
Inability to provide material comfort is not sufficient to deprive a personal of parental authority.
A “bad” husband does not necessarily make a “bad” father.
Parental authority may not be transferred or renounced.
Parental authority may be waived or be subject to a compromise.
“Best interest” rule should not be implemented in derogation of the primary right of the parents to
exercise parental authority.
Definition of “parental authority”.
Parental authority or patria potestas in Roman Law is the juridical institution whereby parents rightfully
assume control and protection of their unemancipated children to the extent required by the latter's
needs. It is a mass of rights and obligations which the law grants to parents for the purpose of the
children's physical preservation and development, as well as the cultivation of their intellect and the
education of their heart and senses. As regards parental authority, "there is no power, but a task; no
complex of rights, but a sum of duties; no sovereignty but a sacred trust for the welfare of the minor."
Leouel Santos, Sr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 113054, March 16, 1995
Joint parental authority is vested by law on the father and mother.
The law vests on the father and mother joint parental authority over the persons of their common
children. In case of absence or death of either parent, the parent present shall continue exercising
parental authority. Only in case of the parents' death, absence or unsuitability may substitute parental
authority be exercised by the surviving grandparent.
As far as joint parental authority is concerned, there is no more distinction between legitimate or
adopted children and acknowledged illegitimate children.
The new Family Code erases any distinction between legitimate or adopted children on one hand and
acknowledged illegitimate children on the other, insofar as joint parental authority is concerned. Article
211 of the Family Code merely formalizes into statute the practice on parental authority.
Christina Marie Dempsey vs. RTC Branch LXXV, Olongapo City and Joel Dempsey, G.R. Nos. 77737-38,
August 15, 1988
Indeed, it would be against the spirit of the law if financial consideration were to be the paramount
consideration in deciding whether to deprive a person of parental authority over his children. There
should be a holistic approach to the matter, taking into account the physical, emotional, psychological,
mental, social and spiritual needs of the child. The conclusion that the husband abandoned his family
needs more evidentiary support other than his inability to provide them the material comfort that his
admittedly affluent in-laws could provide. There should be proof that he had so emotionally abandoned
them that his children would not miss his guidance and counsel if they were given to adopting parents.
25, 1998
A “bad” husband does not necessarily make a “bad” father.
The actuality that the father carried on an affair with a paramour cannot be taken as sufficient basis for
the conclusion that he was necessarily an unfit father. Conventional wisdom and common human
experience show that a "bad" husband does not necessarily make a "bad" father. That a husband is not
exactly an upright man is not, strictly speaking, a sufficient ground to deprive him as a father of his
inherent right to parental authority over the children.
25, 1998
Parental authority may not be transferred or renounced.
Parental authority and responsibility are inalienable and may not be transferred or renounced except in
cases authorized by law. The right attached to parental authority, being purely personal, the law allows
a waiver of parental authority only in cases of adoption, guardianship and surrender to a children's
home or an orphan institution. When a parent entrusts the custody of a minor to another, such as a
friend or godfather, even in a document, what is given is merely temporary custody and it does not
constitute a renunciation of parental authority. Even if a definite renunciation is manifest, the law still
disallows the same.
Parental authority may be waived or be subject to a compromise.
The husband may not be deemed as having been completely deprived of parental authority,
notwithstanding the award of custody to his wife in the legal separation case. To reiterate, that award
was arrived at by the lower court on the basis of the agreement of the spouses. While parental authority
may be waived, as in law it may be subject to a compromise, there was no factual finding in the legal
separation case that the husband was such an irresponsible person that he should be deprived of
custody of his children or that there are grounds under the law that could deprive him of parental
authority.
25, 1998
Underlying the policies and precepts in international conventions and the domestic statutes with
respect to children is the overriding principle that all actuations should be in the best interests of the
child. This is not, however, to be implemented in derogation of the primary right of the parent or
parents to exercise parental authority over him. The rights of parents vis-a-vis that of their children are
not antithetical to each other, as in fact, they must be respected and harmonized to the fullest extent
possible.
25, 1998
Equally deplorable is the debarment of parental consent in cases where the minor, who will be
undergoing a procedure, is already a parent or has had a miscarriage. . . . There can be no other
interpretation of this provision [Section 7 of the RH law] except that when a minor is already a parent or
has had a miscarriage, the parents are excluded from the decision-making process of the minor with
regard to family planning. Even if she is not yet emancipated, the parental authority is already cut off
just because there is a need to tame population growth.
It is precisely in such situations when a minor parent needs the comfort, care, advice, and guidance of
her own parents. The State cannot replace her natural mother and father when it comes to providing
her needs and comfort. To say that their consent is no longer relevant is clearly anti-family. It does not
promote unity in the family. It is an affront to the constitutional mandate to protect and strengthen the
family as an inviolable social institution.
Spouses Imbong v. Ochoa, Jr., G.R. Nos. 204819, 204934, etc., April 8, 2014
To insist on a rule that interferes with the right of parents to exercise parental control over their minor
child or the right of the spouses to mutually decide on matters which very well affect the very purpose
of marriage, that is, the establishment of conjugal and family life, would result in the violation of one's
privacy with respect to his family. It would be dismissive of the unique and strongly-held Filipino
tradition of maintaining close family ties and violative of the recognition that the State affords couples
entering into the special contract of marriage to as one unit in forming the foundation of the family and
society.
The State cannot, without a compelling state interest, take over the role of parents in the care and
custody of a minor child, whether or not the latter is already a parent or has had a miscarriage. Only a
compelling state interest can justify a state substitution of their parental authority.
Art. 213 - Custody of children
Art. 213 - Custody of children
Article 213 does not disallow a father from seeing or visiting his child under seven years of age.
The "tender-age presumption" may be overcome only by compelling evidence of the mother's unfitness.
The sole and foremost consideration in controversies regarding custody of minors is the physical,
education, social and moral welfare of the child.
In custody cases, the foremost consideration is always the welfare and best interest of the child.
Right of parents to custody of minor children is a constitutional and natural right.
Right of parents to custody of their children is but ancillary to the proper discharge of parental duties.
Even if estranged, mother and father may be granted joint custody of common children.
If child is under seven years of age, law presumes that the mother is the best custodian.
If child is over seven, his choice is paramount.
However, the court may find the chosen parent unfit.
The right of the child to choose the parent he wishes to live with may be invoked only if the parents are
married to each other but are separated.
Moral dereliction is not a ground to deprive mother of custody of child below 7 years old.
Lesbianism is not a ground to deprive mother of custody pendente lite of her child who is less than 7
years old.
The mother has sole parental authority over an illegitimate child.
Recognition of an illegitimate child by the father is not a ground for awarding him custody of said child.
Parental authority is inalienable and may not be transferred or renounced.
Custody of child may be awarded to the father to free her from her mother's immoral influence.
A parent’s love outweighs that of the grandparents’.
Grounds for depriving a mother of custody and parental authority.
Adopting parents have the right to custody of the adopted child.
Decisions on the custody of minor children are always open to adjustment.
Father’s use of trickery to take his son away from in-laws is not a ground to deprive him of custody.
The welfare of the child, not the suffering, pride, and other feelings of either parent, is the paramount
consideration.
Contending parents stand on equal footing in custody cases of minor children.
Every child's rights should not be dependent solely on the whims and caprices of his parents.
Article 213 does not disallow a father from seeing or visiting his child under seven years of age.
Article 213 of the Family Code deals with the judicial adjudication of custody and serves as a guideline
for the proper award of custody by the court. [The mother] can raise it as a counter argument for [the
father's] petition for custody. But it is not a basis for preventing the father to see his own child. Nothing
in the said provision disallows a father from seeing or visiting his child under seven years of age.
Marie Antonette Abigail C. Salientes, et al. vs. Loran S.D. Abanilla, et al., G.R. No. 162734, August 29,
2006
The "tender-age presumption" may be overcome only by compelling evidence of the mother's unfitness.
The so-called "tender-age presumption" under Article 213 of the Family Code may be overcome only by
compelling evidence of the mother's unfitness. The mother is declared unsuitable to have custody of her
children in one or more of the following instances: neglect, abandonment, unemployment, immorality,
habitual drunkenness, drug addiction, maltreatment of the child, insanity, or affliction with a
communicable disease.
Agnes Gamboa-Hirsch vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 174485, July 11, 2007
The sole and foremost consideration in controversies regarding custody of minors is the physical,
education, social and moral welfare of the child.
In all cases involving the custody, care, education and property of children, the latter's welfare is
paramount. The foremost consideration is the moral, physical and social welfare of the child concerned,
taking into account the resources and moral as well as social standing of the contending parents. Never
has this Court deviated from this criterion.
In re: Angelie Anne C. Cervantes vs. Gina Carreon Fajardo, G.R. No. 79955, Jan. 27, 1989
In custody cases, the foremost consideration is always the welfare and best interest of the child.
It has long been settled that in custody cases, the foremost consideration is always the welfare and best
interest of the child. In fact, no less than an international instrument, the Convention on the Rights of
the Child provides: "In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social
welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of
the child shall be a primary consideration."
Nerissa Z. Perez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118870, March 29, 1996
In disputes concerning post-separation custody over a minor, the well-settled rule is that no child under
seven (7) years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless the court finds compelling reasons to
order otherwise. And if already over 7 years of age, the child's choice as to which of his parents he
prefers to be under custody shall be respected, unless the parent chosen proves to be unfit. Finally, in
Perez v. Court of Appeals [G.R. No. 118870, March 29, 1996], We held that in custody cases, the
foremost consideration is always the welfare and best interest of the child, as reflected in no less than
the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child which provides that "[i]n all actions concerning children,
whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative
authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."
Geoffrey Beckett vs. Olegario R. Sarmiento, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-12-2326, January 30, 2013
Right of parents to custody of minor children is a constitutional and natural right.
The right of parents to the custody of their minor children is one of the natural rights incident to
parenthood, a right supported by law and sound public policy. The right is an inherent one, which is not
created by the estate of decisions of the courts, but derives from the nature of the parent relationship.
Teresita Sagala-Eslao vs. CA and Maria Paz Cordero-Ouye, G.R. No. 116773, January 16, 1997
Right of parents to custody of their children is but ancillary to the proper discharge of parental duties.
While our law recognizes the right of a parent to the custody of her child, courts must not lose sight of
the basic principle that "in all questions of the care, custody, education and property of children, the
latter's welfare shall be paramount", and that for compelling reasons, even a child under seven may be
ordered separated from the mother. This is as it should be, for in the continual evolution of legal
institutions, the patria potestas has been transformed from the jus vitae ac necis (right of life and death)
of the Roman law, under which the offspring was virtually a chattel of his parents, into a radically
different institution, due to the influence of Christian faith and doctrines. The obligational aspect is now
supreme. As pointed out by Puig Peña, now "there is no power, but a task; no complex of rights (of
parents) but a sum of duties; no sovereignty, but a sacred trust for the welfare of the minor." As a result,
the right of parents to the company and custody of their children is but ancillary to the proper discharge
of parental duties to provide the children with adequate support, education, moral, intellectual and civic
training and development.
Zenaida Medina vs. Dra. Venancia L. Makabali, G.R. No. L-26953, March 28, 1969
Even if estranged, mother and father may be granted joint custody of common children.
a) Parents have the natural right, as well as the moral and legal duty, to care for their children, see
to their upbringing and safeguard their best interest and welfare. This authority and responsibility may
not be unduly denied the parents; neither may it be renounced by them. Even when the parents are
estranged and their affection for each other is lost, the attachment and feeling for their offspring
invariably remain unchanged. Neither the law nor the courts allow this affinity to suffer absent, of
course, any real, grave and imminent threat to the well-being of the child.
Carlitos E. Silva vs. CA and Suzanne T. Gonzales, G.R. No. 114742, July 17, 1997
b) The visitorial right of an illegitimate father over his children is sustained in view of the
constitutionally protected inherent and natural right of parents over their children. Even when the
parents are estranged and their affection for each other is lost, their attachment to and feeling for their
offspring remain unchanged. Neither the law nor the courts allow this affinity to suffer, absent any real,
grave or imminent threat to the well-being of the child.
If child is under seven years of age, law presumes that the mother is the best custodian.
In ascertaining the welfare and best interests of the child, courts are mandated by the Family Code to
take into account all relevant considerations. If a child is under seven years of age, the law presumes
that the mother is the best custodian. The presumption is strong but it is not conclusive: It can be
overcome by "compelling reasons".
Reynaldo Espiritu vs. CA, G.R. No. 115640, March 15, 1995
[U]pon separation of the spouses, the mother takes sole custody under the law if the child is below
seven years old and any agreement to the contrary is void. Thus, the law suspends the joint custody
regime for (1) children under seven of (2) separated or divorced spouses. Simply put, for a child within
this age bracket (and for commonsensical reasons), the law decides for the separated or divorced
parents how best to take care of the child and that is to give custody to the separated mother. Indeed,
the separated parents cannot contract away the provision in the Family Code on the maternal custody
of children below seven years anymore than they can privately agree that a mother who is unemployed,
immoral, habitually drunk, drug addict, insane or afflicted with a communicable disease will have sole
custody of a child under seven as these are reasons deemed compelling to preclude the application of
the exclusive maternal custody regime under the second paragraph of Article 213.
Herald Black Dacasin vs. Sharon Del Mundo Dacasin, G.R. No. 168785, February 5, 2010
It will not do to argue that the second paragraph of Article 213 of the Family Code applies only to judicial
custodial agreements based on its text that "No child under seven years of age shall be separated from
the mother, unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise." To limit this provision's
enforceability to court-sanctioned agreements while placing private agreements beyond its reach is to
sanction a double standard in custody regulation of children under seven years old of separated parents.
This effectively empowers separated parents, by the simple expedient of avoiding the courts, to subvert
a legislative policy vesting to the separated mother sole custody of her children under seven years of
age "to avoid a tragedy where a mother has seen her baby torn away from her." This ignores the
legislative basis that "[n]o man can sound the deep sorrows of a mother who is deprived of her child of
tender age."
It could very well be that Article 213's bias favoring one separated parent (mother) over the other
(father) encourages paternal neglect, presumes incapacity for joint parental custody, robs the parents of
custodial options, or hijacks decision-making between the separated parents. However, these are
objections which question the law's wisdom not its validity or uniform enforceability. The forum to air
and remedy these grievances is the legislature, not this Court. At any rate, the rule's seeming harshness
or undesirability is tempered by ancillary agreements the separated parents may wish to enter such as
granting the father visitation and other privileges. These arrangements are not inconsistent with the
regime of sole maternal custody under the second paragraph of Article 213 which merely grants to the
mother final authority on the care and custody of the minor under seven years of age, in case of
disagreements.
Further, the imposed custodial regime under the second paragraph of Article 213 is limited in duration,
lasting only until the child's seventh year. From the eighth year until the child's emancipation, the law
gives the separated parents freedom, subject to the usual contractual limitations, to agree on custody
regimes they see fit to adopt. Lastly, even supposing that petitioner and respondent are not barred from
entering into the Agreement for the joint custody of [the child], respondent repudiated the Agreement
by asserting sole custody over [her]. Respondent's act effectively brought the parties back to ambit of
the default custodial regime in the second paragraph of Article 213 of the Family Code vesting on
respondent sole custody of [the child].
If child is over seven, his choice is paramount.
The mother and her children may not be enjoying a life of affluence that the father promises if the child
lives with him. It is enough, however, that she is earning a decent living and is able to support her
children according to her means. Even now that the child is over seven years of age the mother's
custody over him will have to be upheld because the child categorically expressed preference to live
with his mother.
Daisie T. David vs. CA and Ramon R. Villar, G.R. No. 111180, November 16, 1995
However, the court may find the chosen parent unfit.
If a child is over seven, the law allows him to make a choice. Once the choice has been made, the burden
lies on the court to investigate if the parent thus chosen is unfit to assume parental authority and
custodial responsibility. The child’s choice is paramount but the court is not bound by that choice. In its
discretion, the court may find the chosen parent unfit and award custody to the other parent, or even to
a third party as it deems fit under the circumstances.
The right of the child to choose the parent he wishes to live with may be invoked only if the parents are
married to each other but are separated.
Section 6 of Rule 99 of the Rules of Court contemplates a situation in which the parents of the minor are
married to each other, but are separated either by virtue of a decree of legal separation or because they
are living separately de facto.
Joey D. Briones vs. Maricel P. Miguel, G.R. No. 156343, October 18, 2004
Moral dereliction is not a ground to deprive mother of custody of child below 7 years old.
The rationale for awarding the custody of children younger than seven years of age to their mother was
explained by the Code Commission: "The general rule is recommended in order to avoid many a tragedy
where a mother has seen her baby torn away from her. No man can sound the deep sorrows of a
mother who is deprived of her child of tender age. The exception allowed by the rule has to be for
'compelling reasons' for the good of the child; those cases must indeed be rare, if the mother's heart is
not to be unduly hurt. If she has erred, as in cases of adultery, the penalty of imprisonment and the
divorce decree (relative divorce) will ordinarily be sufficient punishment for her. Moreover, moral
dereliction will not have any effect upon the baby who is as yet unable to understand her situation."
PLPE05
Nerissa Z. Perez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118870, March 29, 1996
Lesbianism is not a ground to deprive mother of custody pendente lite of her child who is less than 7
years old.
It is not enough for the husband to show merely that the wife was a lesbian. He must also demonstrate
that she carried on her purported relationship with a person of the same sex in the presence of their son
or under circumstances not conducive to the child's proper moral development. PLPE05
Joycelyn Pablo-Gualberto vs. Crisanto Rafaelito Gualberto V, G.R. No. 154994, June 28, 2005
The mother has sole parental authority over an illegitimate child.
An illegitimate child is under the sole parental authority of the mother. In the exercise of that authority,
she is entitled to keep the child in her company. The Court will not deprive her of custody, absent any
imperative cause showing her unfitness to exercise such authority and care.
Recognition of an illegitimate child by the father is not a ground for awarding him custody of said child.
Recognition of an illegitimate child by the father could be a ground for ordering the latter to give
support to, but not custody of, the child. The law explicitly confers to the mother sole parental authority
over an illegitimate child. It is only if she defaults can the father assume custody and authority over the
minor.
Daisie T. David vs. CA and Ramon R. Villar, G.R. No. 111180, November 16, 1995
Parental authority is inalienable and may not be transferred or renounced.
a) Parental authority and responsibility are inalienable and may not be transferred or renounced
except in cases authorized by law. The right attached to parental authority, being purely personal, the
law allows a waiver of parental authority only in cases of adoption, guardianship and surrender to a
children's home or an orphan institution. When a parent entrusts the custody of a minor to another,
such as a friend or godfather, even in a document, what is given is merely temporary custody and it does
not constitute a renunciation of parental authority. Even if a definite renunciation is manifest, the law
still disallows the same.
Leouel Santos, Sr. vs. CA, G.R. No. 113054, March 16, 1995
b) When the mother entrusted the custody of her minor child to the latter’s paternal grandmother,
what she gave to the latter was merely temporary custody and it did not constitute abandonment or
renunciation of parental authority. For the right attached to parental authority, being purely personal,
the law allows a waiver of parental authority only in cases of adoption, guardianship and surrender to a
children's home or an orphan institution
Custody of child may be awarded to the father to free her from her mother's immoral influence.
It is in the best interest of the child to be freed from the obviously unwholesome, not to say immoral,
influence that the situation in which the mother has placed herself, might create in the moral and social
outlook of her daughter who is now in her formative and most impressionable stage in her life. The fact
that the father might have been tolerant about her stay with her mother in the past when she was still
too young to distinguish between right and wrong and have her own correct impressions or notions
about the unusual and peculiar relationship of her mother with her own uncle-in-law, the husband of
her sister's mother, is hardly of any consequence now that she has reached a perilous stage in her life. In
all controversies regarding the custody of minors, the sole and foremost consideration is the physical,
education, social and moral welfare of the child concerned, taking into account the respective resources
and social and moral situations of the contending parents.
Miguel R. Unson III vs. Hon. Pedro C. Navarro and Edita N. Araneta, G.R. No. L-52242, November 17,
1980
A parent’s love outweighs that of the grandparents’.
The law considers the natural love of a parent to outweigh that of the grandparents, such that only
when the parent present is shown to be unfit or unsuitable may the grandparents exercise substitute
parental authority.
Grounds for depriving a mother of custody and parental authority.
Only the most compelling of reasons, such as the mother's unfitness to exercise sole parental authority,
shall justify her deprivation of parental authority and the award of custody to someone else. In the past,
the following grounds have been considered ample justification to deprive a mother of custody and
parental authority: neglect or abandonment, unemployment, immorality, habitual drunkenness, drug
addiction, maltreatment of the child, insanity, and affliction with a communicable disease.
Dinah B. Tonog vs. CA and Edgar V. Daguimol, G.R. No. 122906, February 7, 2002
Adopting parents have the right to custody of the adopted child.
The minor has been legally adopted by petitioners with the full knowledge and consent of respondents.
A decree of adoption has the effect, among others, of dissolving the authority vested in natural parents
over the adopted child, except where the adopting parent is the spouse of the natural parent of the
adopted, in which case, parental authority over the adopted shall be exercised jointly by both spouses.
The adopting parents have the right to the care and custody of the adopted child and exercise parental
authority and responsibility over him.
In re: Angelie Anne C. Cervantes vs. Gina Carreon Fajardo, G.R. No. 79955, Jan. 27, 1989
Decisions on the custody of minor children are always open to adjustment.
Decisions even of the Supreme Court on the custody of minor children are always open to adjustment as
the circumstances relevant to the matter may demand in the light of the inflexible criterion
Miguel R. Unson III vs. Hon. Pedro C. Navarro and Edita N. Araneta, G.R. No. L-52242, November 17,
1980
Underlying the policies and precepts in international conventions and the domestic statutes with
respect to children is the overriding principle that all actuations should be in the best interests of the
child. This is not, however, to be implemented in derogation of the primary right of the parent or
parents to exercise parental authority over him. The rights of parents vis-a-vis that of their children are
not antithetical to each other, as in fact, they must be respected and harmonized to the fullest extent
possible.
Herbert Cang vs. CA and Sps. Ronald and Ma. Clara Clavano, G.R. No. 105308, September 25, 1998
The standard in the determination of sufficiency of proof is not restricted to Muslim laws. The Family
Code shall be taken into consideration in deciding whether a non-Muslim woman is worthy to have
custody of her children. What determines her capacity is the standard laid down by the Family Code
now that she is not a Muslim. Indeed, what determines the fitness of any parent is the ability to see to
the physical, educational, social and moral welfare of the children, and the ability to give them a healthy
environment as well as physical and financial support taking into consideration the respective resources
and social and moral situations of the parents.
Father’s use of trickery to take his son away from in-laws is not a ground to deprive him of custody.
The father’s employment of trickery in spiriting away his boy from his in-laws, though unjustifiable, is
not a ground to wrest custody from him.
The welfare of the child, not the suffering, pride, and other feelings of either parent, is the paramount
consideration.
The law or jurisprudence does not intend to downplay a father's sense of loss when he is separated from
his child: While the bonds between a mother and her small child are special in nature, either parent,
whether father or mother, is bound to suffer agony and pain if deprived of custody. One cannot say that
his or her suffering is greater than that of the other parent. It is not so much the suffering, pride, and
other feelings of either parent but the welfare of the child which is the paramount consideration.
Dinah B. Tonog vs. CA and Edgar V. Daguimol, G.R. No. 122906, February 7, 2002
Contending parents stand on equal footing in custody cases of minor children.
In controversies involving the care, custody and control of their minor children, the contending parents
stand on equal footing before the court who shall make the selection according to the best interest of
the child. The child if over seven years of age may be permitted to choose which parent he/she prefers
to live with, but the court is not bound by such choice if the parent so chosen is unfit. In all cases, the
sole and foremost consideration is the physical, educational, social and moral welfare of the child
concerned, taking into account the respective resources as well as social and moral situations of the
opposing parents.
Reymond B. Laxamana vs. Ma. Lourdes D. Laxamana, G.R. No. 144763, September 3, 2002
Every child's rights should not be dependent solely on the whims and caprices of his parents.
Legal provisions grant to every child rights which are not and should not be dependent solely on the
wishes, much less the whims and caprices, of his parents. His welfare should not be subject to the
parents' say-so or mutual agreement alone. Where the parents are already separated in fact, the courts
must step in to determine in whose custody the child can better be assured the rights granted to him by
law.
Alfonso Lacson vs. Carmen San Jose-Lacson and CA, G.R. No. L-23482, August 30, 1968
Art. 220 - Rights and duties of persons exercising parental authority
Art. 220 - Rights and duties of persons exercising parental authority
Right of parents to the custody of their children is but ancillary to the proper discharge of parental
duties.
Adoption creates a status closely assimilated to legitimate paternity and filiation with corresponding
rights and duties.
Right of parents to custody of minor children is an inherent one.
Parents’ right to impose discipline on their children does not authorize them to invade the latter's
honor.
Right of parents to the custody of their children is but ancillary to the proper discharge of parental
duties.
In the continual evolution of legal institutions, the patria potestas has been transformed from the jus
vitae ac necis (right of life and death) of the Roman law, under which the offspring was virtually a chattel
of his parent, into a radically different institution, due to the influence of Christian faith and doctrines.
The obligational aspect is now supreme. As pointed out by Puig Pena, now "there is no power, but a
task; no complex of rights (of parents) but a sum of duties; no sovereignty, but a sacred trust for the
welfare of the minor." As a result, the right of parents to the company and custody of their children is
but ancillary to the proper discharge of parental duties to provide the children with adequate support.
education, moral, intellectual and civic training and development
Zenaida Medina vs. Dra. Venancia L. Makabali, G.R. No. L-26953, March 28, 1969
Adoption creates a status closely assimilated to legitimate paternity and filiation with corresponding
rights and duties.
Adoption creates a status that is closely assimilated to legitimate paternity and filiation with
corresponding rights and duties that necessarily flow from adoption, such as, but not necessarily
confined to, the exercise of parental authority, use of surname of the adopter by the adopted, as well as
support and successional rights.
Republic of the Phil. vs. CA and Sps. James Anthony and Lenita Hughes, G.R. No. 100835, October 26,
1993
Right of parents to custody of minor children is an inherent one.
The right of parents to the custody of their minor children is one of the natural rights incident to
parenthood, a right supported by law and sound public policy. The right is an inherent one, which is not
created by the state or decisions of the courts, but derives from the nature of the parental relationship.
Parents’ right to impose discipline on their children does not authorize them to invade the latter's
honor.
Although the Family Code recognizes the parents' rights and duties to "impose discipline" on their
unemancipated children; "supervise their activities, recreation and association with others . . .; and
prevent them from acquiring habits detrimental to their . . . morals", it does not authorize them to force
their offspring to copulate with them under the mask of discipline, or invade their honor and violate
their dignity nor does it give them the license to ravish the product of their marital union.
People of the Phils. vs. David Silvano, G.R. No. 127356, June 29, 1999
Art. 229 (3) - Abandonment of child
Art. 229 (3) - Abandonment of child
Abandonment, defined.
Physical absence, without financial and moral desertion, is not tantamount to abandonment.
Abandonment, defined.
In its ordinary sense, the word "abandon" means to forsake entirely, to forsake or renounce utterly. The
dictionaries trace this word to the root idea of "putting under a ban." The emphasis is on the finality and
publicity with which a thing or body is thus put in the control of another, hence, the meaning of giving
up absolutely, with intent never to resume or claim one's rights or interests. In reference to
abandonment of a child by his parent, the act of abandonment imports "any conduct of the parent
which evinces a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental claims to the
child." It means "neglect or refusal to perform the natural and legal obligations of care and support
which parents owe their children."
Physical absence, without financial and moral desertion, is not tantamount to abandonment.
Physical estrangement alone, without financial and moral desertion, is not tantamount to
abandonment. While admittedly, the father was physically absent as he was then in the United States,
he was not remiss in his natural and legal obligations of love, care and support for his children. His
conduct did not manifest a settled purpose to forego all parental duties and relinquish all parental
claims over his children as to constitute abandonment.
Indeed, it would be against the spirit of the law if financial consideration were to be the paramount
consideration in deciding whether to deprive a person of parental authority over his children. There
should be a holistic approach to the matter, taking into account the physical, emotional, psychological,
mental, social and spiritual needs of the child. The conclusion that the husband abandoned his family
needs more evidentiary support other than his inability to provide them the material comfort that his
admittedly affluent in-laws could provide. There should be proof that he had so emotionally abandoned
them that his children would not miss his guidance and counsel if they were given to adopting parents.
Art. 247 - Judgment of the court
Art. 247 - Judgment of the court
No right to appeal is granted to any party, including the State, in judgments rendered in summary
judicial proceedings.
An appellate court acquires no jurisdiction to review a judgment which, by express provision of law, is
immediately final and executory. As had been ruled, the right to appeal is not a natural right nor is it a
part of due process, for it is merely a statutory privilege. Since, by express mandate of Article 247 of the
Family Code, all judgments rendered in summary judicial proceedings in Family Law are "immediately
final and executory", the right to appeal was not granted to any of the parties therein. The Republic of
the Philippines, as oppositor in the petition for declaration of presumptive death, should not be treated
differently. It had no right to appeal the RTC decision. PLPE05
Republic of the Phil. vs. Gloria Bermudez-Lorino, G.R. No. 160258, January 19, 2005
In Summary Judicial Proceedings under the Family Code, there is no reglementary period within which
to perfect an appeal, precisely because judgments rendered thereunder, by express provision of Section
247, Family Code, supra, are "immediately final and executory." It was erroneous, therefore, on the part
of the RTC to give due course to the Republic's appeal and order the transmittal of the entire records of
the case to the Court of Appeals.
Republic of the Phil. vs. Gloria Bermudez-Lorino, G.R. No. 160258, January 19, 2005
Art. 256 - Retroactive effect

Art. 256 - Retroactive effect
While it is true that the personal stakes of each spouse in their conjugal assets are inchoate or unclear
prior to the liquidation of the conjugal partnership of gains and, therefore, none of them can be said to
have acquired vested rights in specific assets, it is evident that Article 256 of the Family Code does not
intend to reach back and automatically convert into absolute community of property relation all
conjugal partnerships of gains that existed before 1988 excepting only those with prenuptial
agreements.
[T]he petitioner's claim of vested right [by virtue of Article 256 of the Family Code which prohibits
retroactive application of the Family Code when it will prejudice a person's vested right] is not one
which is written on stone. A vested right is one whose existence, effectivity and extent do not depend
upon events foreign to the will of the holder, or to the exercise of which no obstacle exists, and which is
immediate and perfect in itself and not dependent upon a contingency. The term "vested right"
expresses the concept of present fixed interest which, in right reason and natural justice, should be
protected against arbitrary State action, or an innately just and imperative right which enlightened free
society, sensitive to inherent and irrefragable individual rights, cannot deny. To be vested, a right must
have become a title — legal or equitable — to the present or future enjoyment of property. The concept
of "vested right" is a consequence of the constitutional guaranty of due process that expresses a present
fixed interest which in right reason and natural justice is protected against arbitrary state action; it
includes not only legal or equitable title to the enforcement of a demand but also exemptions from new
obligations created after the right has become vested. Rights are considered vested when the right to
enjoyment is a present interest, absolute, unconditional, and perfect or fixed and irrefutable.
Brigido B. Quiao vs. Rita C. Quiao, et al., G.R. No. 176556, July 4, 2012 citing Go, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 172027, July 29, 2010
[W]hile one may not be deprived of his "vested right," he may lose the same if there is due process and
such deprivation is founded in law and jurisprudence. . . . [T]he alleged deprivation of the petitioner's
"vested right" is one founded, not only in the provisions of the Family Code, but in Article 176 of the Civil
Code. This provision is like Articles 63 and 129 of the Family Code on the forfeiture of the guilty spouse's
share in the conjugal partnership profits. . . . [T]he petitioner's claim of a vested right has no basis
considering that even under Article 176 of the Civil Code, his share of the conjugal partnership profits
may be forfeited if he is the guilty party in a legal separation case. Thus, after trial and after the
petitioner was given the chance to present his evidence, the petitioner's vested right claim may in fact
be set aside under the Civil Code since the trial court found him the guilty party.
Brigido B. Quiao vs. Rita C. Quiao, et al., G.R. No. 176556, July 4, 2012 citing ABAKADA Guro Party List
Officer Samson S. Alcantara, et al. vs. The Hon. Executive Secretary Eduardo R. Ermita, G.R. No. 168056,
October 18, 2005

Family Code

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Family Code

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Void and Voidable Marriages

— RA 386, Arts. 80-83

— E.O. 227, July 17, 1987, Sec. 2

— Ty vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127406, November 27, 2000

— Sy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127263, April 12, 2000

— Armas vs. Calisterio, G.R. No. 136467, April 6, 2000

— Niñal vs. Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000

— Suntay vs. Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No. 132524, December 29, 1998

— Santos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995

— Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy, G.R. No. L-53703, August 19, 1986

— Gomez vs. Lipana, G.R. No. L-23214, June 30, 1970

— Landicho vs. Relova, G.R. No. L-22579, February 23, 1968

— Zapanta vs. Montesa, G.R. No. L-14534, February 28, 1962

— Francisco vs. Jason, G.R. No. 39871, August 30, 1934

— Engle vs. Doe, G.R. No. 23317, August 7, 1925

— Carratala vs. Samson, G.R. No. L-18697, September 12, 1922

— Lim La vs. Quintero, G.R. No. 9063, September 18, 1915

— United States vs. Mata, G.R. No. 6300, March 2, 1911

— Garcia vs. Montague, G.R. No. 4810, January 13, 1909

— DOJ Opinion No. 146, s. 1991

— DOJ Opinion No. 50, s. 1991

— DOJ Opinion No. 108, s. 1980

— DOJ Opinion No. 66, s. 1975

— DOJ Opinion No. 187, s. 1974

— DOJ Opinion No. 242, s. 1956

— R.A. 386, Art. 83 (2) & Art. 391

— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Arts. 41-44

— Armas vs. Calisterio, G.R. No. 136467, April 6, 2000

— Navarro vs. Domagtoy, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088, July 19, 1996

— DOJ Opinion No. 2, s. 1987

Declaration of Presumptive Death of Spouse

— Santos v. Santos, G.R. No. 187061, October 8, 2014

Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

— E.O. 227, July 17, 1987, Sec. 3

— Chan v. Chan, G.R. No. 179786, July 24, 2013

— Te vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126746, November 29, 2000

— Ty vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127406, November 27, 2000

— Marcos vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000

— Cano-Gutierrez vs. Gutierrez, G.R. No. 138584, October 2, 2000

— Mercado vs. Tan, G.R. No. 137110, August 1, 2000

— Marbella-Bobis vs. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509, July 31, 2000

— Sy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127263, April 12, 2000

— Niñal vs. Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000

— Suntay vs. Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No. 132524, December 29, 1998

— Tamano vs. Ortiz, G.R. No. 126603, June 29, 1998

— Santos vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995

— Donato vs. Luna, G.R. No. L-53642, April 15, 1988

— Wiegel vs. Sempio-Diy, G.R. No. L-53703, August 19, 1986

— Lapuz Sy vs. Eufemio, G.R. No. L-30977, January 31, 1972

— Gomez vs. Lipana, G.R. No. L-23214, June 30, 1970

— Landicho vs. Relova, G.R. No. L-22579, February 23, 1968

— Enriquez vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 9351, January 6, 1915

— Aguilar vs. Lazaro, G.R. No. 1850, September 6, 1905

— DOJ Opinion No. 152, s. 1974

Effects of Termination of Marriage

— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 43 & Arts. 50-54

— Pacete vs. Carriaga, G.R. No. L-53880, March 17, 1994

— Selanova vs. Mendoza, A.M. No. 804-CJ, May 19, 1975

— R.A. 386, Art. 97

— E.O. 209, July 6, 1987, Art. 55

— Hernandez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126010, December 8, 1999

— Tenchavez vs. Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671, July 26, 1966

— Tenchavez vs. Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671, November 29, 1965

— De Ocampo vs. Florenciano, G.R. No. L-13553, February 23, 1960