making the roundness of the abdomen more general

Aquino v. Delizo and apparent.

G.R. No. L-15853, 27 July 1960

Sarao vs. Guevarra, G.R. No. 47063, 40 OG 263 (CA)
FACTS:
SARAO VS GUEVARRA 40 OG 15 SUPPL 263
The trial court dismissed the complaint for Aquino did
not show any birth certificate to show the child was FACTS:
born within 180 days after the marriage between the Plaintiff and defendant were married and on
parties. Later on Aquino presented evidence to show the same day, plaintiff tried to have carnal knowledge
proof of the child’s birth but still his petition was of defendant. The later showed reluctance and begged
denied. The CA denied Aquino’s appeal on the theory him to wait until evening. Although he found the orifice
that it was not impossible for the parties to have sex of her vagina sufficiently large for his organ, she
during their engagement so that the child could be complained of pains in her private part later that night.
their own and finding it absurd for Aquino not to notice
Plaintiff also noticed oozing of some purulent matter
or suspect that Delizo was pregnant when he married
her. In a motion for reconsideration filed by Aquino, offensive to the smell coming from defendant’s vagina.
Delizo and her counsel did not file an answer thus the Every attempt to have carnal access to his wife
motion for reconsideration was denied. proved to be futile because she always complained of
pains in her genital organs.
ISSUE: Upon the advice of the physician, defendant’s
uterus and ovaries were, with consent of the plaintiff
Whether or not the dismissal of Aquino’s complaint is removed due to the presence of a tumor. The removal
correct. of said organs rendered defendant incapable of
procreation.
RULING: Plaintiff declared that from the time he
witnessed the operation, he lost all desire to have
No. The dismissal is not correct. Under the new Civil access with his wife and thus filed this complaint for
Code, concealment by the wife of the fact that at the annulment of marriage on the ground of impotency.
time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man
other than her husband constitutes fraud and is ISSUE:
ground for annulment of marriage. WON their marriage can be annulled on the ground of
physical impotency.
Concealment of the wife the fact that at the time of the
marriage she was pregnant by a man other than his HELD:
husband constitutes fraud and is a ground for
No. Judgment of the Court of First Instance affirmed.
annulment of marriage.
RD:
Here the defendant wife was alleged to be only more
than four months pregnant at the time of her marriage Plaintiff wants to construe the phrase
to plaintiff. At that stage, we are not prepared to say ‘physically incapable of entering into the married state’
that her pregnancy was readily apparent, especially as with the capacity to procreate. Impotency is not the
since she was “naturally plump” or fat as alleged by ability to procreate but the ability to copulate. Defect
plaintiff. must be one of copulation and not of reproduction.
Bareness will not invalidate the marriage.
According to medical authorities, even on the 5th The removal of the organs rendered her sterile
month of pregnancy, the enlargement of a woman’s but it by no means made her unfit for sexual
abdomen is still below the umbilicus, that is to say, the intercourse. It would appear that it was the memory of
enlargement is limited to the lower part of the this first unpleasant experience with her that made him
abdomen so that it is hardly noticeable and may, if
gave up the idea of having carnal knowledge of her.
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 Defendant was not impotent at the time she
abdomen reaches a height above the umbilicus, married the plaintiff for the existence of tumor did not
necessarily render her incapable of copulation.
 Plaintiff also contends that his consent of the a party has another remedy available to him, which
marriage was procured through fraud in that the may be either a motion for new trial or appeal from an
defendant did not reveal to him that she was afflicted adverse decision of the trial court, and he was not
with a disease in her sex organs. According to the Court, prevented by fraud, accident, mistake or excusable
negligence from filing such motion or taking such
this contention in untenable since fraud is not alleged in
appeal, he cannot avail himself of this petition.
the complaint and has not been proved at the trial. Indeed, relief will not be granted to a party who seeks
avoidance from the effects of the judgment when the
loss of the remedy at law was due to his own
negligence; otherwise the petition for relief can be
used to revive the right to appeal which had been lost
Tuason v. Court of Appeals thru inexcusable negligence.

Petitioner also insists that he has a valid and

G.R. No. 116607, 10 April 1996 meritorious defense. He cites the Family Code which
provides that in actions for annulment of marriage or
FACTS: legal separation, the prosecuting officer should
intervene for the state because the law looks with
On June 1972, respondent Victoria Lopez Tuazon disfavor upon the haphazard declaration of annulment
married petitioner Emilio Tuazon. Due to the series of of marriages by default. He contends that when he
physical abuse against the respondent, the petitioner failed to appear at the scheduled hearings, the trial
use of prohibited drugs, cohabitating with three court should have ordered the prosecuting officer to
women, leaving the conjugal home and giving minimal intervene for the state and inquire as to the reason for
child support, abuse of conjugal property use and his non-appearance.
incurring of bank debts without the respondent
consent, respondent filed a petition for annulment of Articles 48 and 60 of the Family Code read as follows:
marriage in 1989 on the ground of psychological
incapacity and prayed for powers of administration to Art. 48. In all cases of annulment or declaration of
save the conjugal properties from further dissipation. absolute nullity of marriage, the Court shall order the
prosecution attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear
Petitioner filed his Opposition in April 1990 and was on behalf of the State to take steps to prevent
scheduled to present his evidence. Counsel for collusion between the parties and to take care that
petitioner moved for a postponement, however, evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.
petitioner failed to appear. The trial court rendered
judgment declaring the nullity of marriage and Art. 60. No decree of legal separation shall be based
awarding the custody of common children to upon a stipulation of facts or a confession of
respondent. No appeal was taken. judgment.

Thereafter, respondent filed Motion for Dissolution of The facts in the case at bar do not call for the strict
Conjugal Partnership of Gains and Adjudication to application of Articles 48 and 60 of the Family Code.
Plaintiff of the Conjugal Properties which was For one, petitioner was not declared in default by the
opposed by petitioner. Petitioner filed a Petitioner trial court for failure to answer. Petitioner filed his
from Relief of Judgment on the held decision. The trial answer to the complaint and contested the cause of
court denied the petition which was affirmed by the action alleged by private respondent. He actively
CA. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari. participated in the proceedings below by filing several
pleadings and cross-examining the witnesses of
ISSUE: private respondent. It is crystal clear that every stage
of the litigation was characterized by a no-holds
Whether or not in the absence of petitioner in the barred contest and not by collusion.
hearing, the court should have ordered a prosecuting
officer to intervene. The role of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal in
annulment of marriage and legal separation
RULING: proceedings is to determine whether collusion exists
between the parties and to take care that the
evidence is not suppressed or fabricated. Petitioner’s
A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable vehement opposition to the annulment proceedings
remedy; it is allowed only in exceptional cases where negates the conclusion that collusion existed between
there is no other available or adequate remedy. When the parties. There is no allegation by the petitioner
that evidence was suppressed or fabricated by any of In questions on the care, custody, education and
the parties. Under these circumstances, we are property of children, the latter’s welfare shall be
convinced that the non-intervention of a prosecuting paramount, and that for compelling reasons, even a
attorney to assure lack of collusion between the
contending parties is not fatal to the validity of the
child under seven may be ordered separated from
proceedings in the trial court. the mother.
The judgment was rendered at the time the 2
children were both over 7 years of age. The choice
of the child to whom she preferred to stay must be
considered. It is evident in the records and expert
testimonies submitted that Rosalind chose to stay
Reynaldo Espiritu et al v C. A. et al. with his father or aunt. She was found suffering
from emotional shock caused by her mother’s
G.R. No. 115640, March 15, 1995 infidelity. Furthermore, there was nothing in the
records to show that Reynaldo is unfit well in fact
he has been trying his best to give the children the
MELO, J.: kind of attention and care which their mother is not
Facts: in the position to extend. On the other hand, the
mother’s conviction for the crime of bigamy and her
The petitioner Reynaldo Espiritu and the private illicit relationship had already caused emotional
respondent Teresita Masauding met each other in disturbances and personality conflicts at least with
1976 at Iligan City. Teresita went abroad and soon the daughter.
enough Reynaldo followed, the two cohabited with
each other and in 1986 they had their first child
Rosalind Therese. Sometime in 1987, they got
married in the Philippines and after going back to
the US they had their second child, Reginald Vince Hence, petition was granted. Custody of the minors
in 1988. was reinstated to their father
The marriage became sour and they separated
Teresita left her family and went to California in
1990. Reynaldo went back to the Philippines with
the children, however, due to his job he had to leave
the children with her sister the co-petitioner
Guillerma Layug and went back to the US. SUSAN LIM-LUA, Petitioner, vs. DANILO Y.
Teresita went back to the Philippines on 1992 and LUA, Respondent.
filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus. in 1993 G.R. Nos. 175279-80 June 5, 2013
the trial court dismissed the aforesaid petition SUMMARY
awarding the custody of the children to the Mother of two seeks spousal and child support
petitioner Reynaldo. from rich husband.
In 1994 the Court of Appeals per Justice Isnani, FACTS
with Justices de Pano and Ibay-Somera concurring, On September 3, 2003, petitioner Susan Lim-
reversed the trial court’s decision. It gave custody to Lua filed an action for the declaration of nullity
Teresita and visitation rights on weekends to of her marriage with respondent Danilo Y. Lua,
Reynaldo. to the RTC. In her prayer for support pendente
Reynaldo assailed the aforementioned decision and lite for herself and her two children, petitioner
brought the matter to the Supreme Court. sought the amount of P500,000.00 as monthly
Issue: support, citing respondent’s huge earnings from
salaries and dividends in several companies
and businesses here and abroad. After due
Whether or not the custody of the two children hearing, RTC cited Art. 203 of the Family Code,
should be awarded to the mother stating that support is demandable from the time
Held: plaintiff needed the said support but is payable
only from the date of judicial demand, and thus
also granted support pendente lite of by a divorce decree to pay to the mother money
P250,000.00 (x 7 corresponding to the 7 months for the support of their dependent children and
that lapsed). Respondent filed an MFR the unpaid and accrued installments become
asserting that petitioner is not entitled to spousal judgments in her favor, he cannot, as a matter
support considering that she does not maintain of law, claim credit on account of payments
for herself a separate dwelling from their voluntarily made directly to the children. Here,
children and respondent has continued to the CA should not have allowed all the expenses
support the family for their sustenance and well- incurred by respondent to be credited against
being in accordance with family’s social and the accrued support pendente lite. The amounts
financial standing. As to the P250,000.00 already extended to the two (2) children, being
granted by the trial court as monthly support a commendable act of petitioner, should be
pendente lite, as well as the P1,750,000.00 continued by him considering the vast financial
retroactive support, respondent found it resources at his disposal.
unconscionable and beyond the intendment of
the law for not having considered the needs of
the respondent. The MFR was denied. His
second MFR also having been denied,
respondent filed a petition for certiorari in the Mangonan v. Court of
CA. CA nullified RTC’s ruling and changed the
amount to P115,000.00. The appellate court Appeals
said that the trial court should not have
completely disregarded the expenses incurred G.R. No. 125041, 30 June 2006
by respondent consisting of the purchase and
maintenance of the two cars, payment of tuition FACTS:
fees, travel expenses, and the credit card
purchases involving groceries, dry goods and On 17 March 1994, Ma. Belen B. Mangonon filed, in
books, which certainly inured to the benefit not behalf of her then minor children Rica and Rina, a
only of the two children, but their mother Petition for Declaration of Legitimacy and Support,
(petitioner) as well, and thus ordered the with application for support pendente lite with the RTC
deduction of the amount of PhP3,428,813.80 Makati. In said petition, it was alleged that on 16
February 1975, petitioner and respondent Federico
from the current total support in arrears of Danilo Delgado were civilly married by then City Court Judge
to his wife, Susan Lim Lua and their two Eleuterio Agudo in Legaspi City, Albay. At that time,
children. It also noted the lack of contribution petitioner was only 21 years old while respondent
from the petitioner in the joint obligation of Federico was only 19 years old. As the marriage was
spouses to support their children. Petitioner solemnized without the required consent per Article
appealed. 85 of the New Civil Code, it was annulled on 11
ISSUE August 1975 by the Quezon City Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court. On 25 March 1976, or
W/N the CA erred in deducting said amount within seven months after the annulment of their
from the current total support in arrears marriage, petitioner gave birth to twins Rica and Rina.
DECISION According to petitioner, she, with the assistance of her
The SC declared that the petition is PARTLY second husband Danny Mangonon, raised her twin
GRANTED. As a matter of law, the amount of daughters as private respondents had totally
support which those related by marriage and abandoned them. At the time of the institution of the
family relationship is generally obliged to give petition, Rica and Rina were about to enter college in
the United States of America (USA) where petitioner,
each other shall be in proportion to the together with her daughters and second husband, had
resources or means of the giver and to the moved to and finally settled in. Rica was admitted to
needs of the recipient. Such support comprises the University of Massachusetts (Amherst) while Rina
everything indispensable for sustenance, was accepted by the Long Island University and
dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, Western New England College. Despite their
education and transportation, in keeping with admissions to said universities, Rica and Rina were,
the financial capacity of the family. The general however, financially incapable of pursuing collegiate
education.
rule is to the effect that when a father is required
ISSUE: Rica and Rina moving back to the Philippines in the
company of those who have disowned them.
1. Whether Francisco is obliged to support Rica and
Rina.

2. Whether Francisco can avail of the option under

Article 204 anent his obligation.

RULING:
Domingo v. Court of
1. Yes. Francisco is obliged to support his
granddaughters Rica and Rina in default of the father. Appeals
Pursuant to Article 199 of the Family Code, whenever
GR No. 104818, 17 September 1993
two or more persons are obliged to give support, the
liability shall devolve upon the following persons in the
order herein provided: FACTS:

(1) The spouse; Soledad Domingo, married with Roberto Domingo in

1976, filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of
marriage and separation of property. She did not
(2) The descendants in the nearest degree;
know that Domingo had been previously married to
Emerlinda dela Paz in 1969. She came to know the
(3) The ascendants in the nearest degree; and previous marriage when the latter filed a suit of
bigamy against her. Furthermore, when she came
(4) The brothers and sisters. home from Saudi during her one-month leave from
work, she discovered that Roberto cohabited with
There being prima facie evidence showing that another woman and had been disposing some of her
petitioner and respondent Federico are the parents of properties which is administered by Roberto. The
Rica and Rina, petitioner and respondent Federico latter claims that because their marriage was void ab
are primarily charged to support their children’s initio, the declaration of such voidance is unnecessary
college education. In view however of their and superfluous. On the other hand, Soledad insists
incapacities, the obligation to furnish said support the declaration of the nullity of marriage not for the
should be borne by respondent Francisco as the next purpose of remarriage, but in order to provide a basis
immediate relative of Rica and Rina. for the separation and distribution of properties
acquired during the marriage.
2. No. Francisco cannot avail of the option under
Article 204 anent his obligation. ISSUE:

Article 204 of the Family Code provides that the Whether or not a petition for judicial declaration
person obliged to give support shall have the option to should only be filed for purposes of remarriage.
fulfill the obligation either by paying the allowance
fixed, or by receiving and maintaining in the family RULING:
dwelling the person who has a right to receive
support. The latter alternative cannot be availed of in The declaration of the nullity of marriage is indeed
case there is a moral or legal obstacle thereto. required for purposed of remarriage. However, it is
also necessary for the protection of the subsequent
In this case, this Court believes that respondent spouse who believed in good faith that his or her
Francisco could not avail himself of the second option. partner was not lawfully married marries the same.
With the filing of this case, and the allegations hurled With this, the said person is freed from being charged
at one another by the parties, the relationships among with bigamy.
the parties had certainly been affected. Particularly
difficult for Rica and Rina must be the fact that those When a marriage is declared void ab initio, law states
who they had considered and claimed as family that final judgment shall provide for the liquidation,
denied having any familial relationship with them. partition and distribution of the properties of the
Given the moral obstacle, the Court could not see spouses, the custody and support of the common
children and the delivery of their presumptive
legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated
in previous judicial proceedings. Other specific effects
flowing therefrom, in proper cases, are the following:

Art. 43. xxx xxx xxx

(2) The absolute community of property or the

conjugal partnership, as the case may be, shall be
dissolved and liquidated, but if either spouse
contracted said marriage in bad faith, his or her share
of the net profits of the community property or
conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in
favor of the common children or, if there are none, the
children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage
or, in default of children, the innocent spouse;

(3) Donations by reason of marriage shall remain

valid, except that if the donee contracted the marriage
in bad faith, such donations made to said donee are
revoked by operation of law;

(4) The innocent spouse may revoke the designation

of the other spouse who acted in bad faith as a
beneficiary in any insurance policy, even if such
designation be stipulated as irrevocable; and

(5) The spouse who contracted the subsequent

marriage in bad faith shall be disqualified to inherit
from the innocent spouse by testate and intestate
succession. (n)

Art. 44. If both spouses of the subsequent marriage

acted in bad faith, said marriage shall be void ab initio
and all donations by reason of marriage and
testamentary disposition made by one in favor of the
other are revoked by operation of law.

Soledad’s prayer for separation of property will simply

be the necessary consequence of the judicial
declaration of absolute nullity of their marriage.
Hence, the petitioner’s suggestion that for their
properties be separated, an ordinary civil action has to
be instituted for that purpose is baseless. The Family
Code has clearly provided the effects of the
declaration of nullity of marriage, one of which is the
separation of property according to the regime of
property relations governing them.