1.

Ilusorio vs Bildner illegal restraint of liberty must be actual and effective not merely nominal or
moral.
Ilusorio vs. Bildner
GR No. 139789, May 12, 2000 Evidence showed that there was no actual and effective detention or
deprivation of Potenciano’s liberty that would justify issuance of the
FACTS: writ. The fact that the latter was 86 years of age and under medication does
not necessarily render him mentally incapacitated. He still has the capacity
Potenciano Ilusorio, a lawyer, 86 year old of age, possessed extensive to discern his actions. With his full mental capacity having the right of choice,
property valued at millions of pesos. For many year, he was the Chairman of he may not be the subject of visitation rights against his free
the Board and President of Baguio Country Club. He was married with choice. Otherwise, he will be deprived of his right to privacy.
Erlinda Ilusorio, herein petitioner, for 30 years and begotten 6 children
namely Ramon, Lin Illusorio-Bildner (defendant), Maximo, Sylvia, Marietta The case at bar does not involve the right of a parent to visit a minor
and Shereen. They separated from bed and board in 1972. Potenciano lived child but the right of a wife to visit a husband. In any event, that the
at Makati every time he was in Manila and at Illusorio Penthouse, Baguio husband refuses to see his wife for private reasons, he is at liberty to do
Country Club when he was in Baguio City. On the other hand, the petitioner so without threat or any penalty attached to the exercise of his
lived in Antipolo City. right. Coverture, is a matter beyond judicial authority and cannot be
enforced by compulsion of a writ of habeas corpus carried out by the
In 1997, upon Potenciano’s arrival from US, he stayed with her wife for about sheriffs or by any other process.
5 months in Antipolo city. The children, Sylvia and Lin, alleged that during
this time their mother overdose Potenciano which caused the latter’s health
to deteriorate. In February 1998, Erlinda filed with RTC petition for
guardianship over the person and property of Potenciano due to the latter’s
advanced age, frail health, poor eyesight and impaired judgment. In May
1998, after attending a corporate meeting in Baguio, Potenciano did not
return to Antipolo instead lived at Cleveland Condominium in Makati. In
March 1999, petitioner filed with CA petition for habeas corpus to have the
custody of his husband alleging that the respondents refused her demands to
see and visit her husband and prohibited Potenciano from returning to
Antipolo.

ISSUE: Whether or not the petitioned writ of habeas corpus should be issued.

HELD:

A writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement or

detention, or by which the rightful custody of a person is withheld from the
one entitled thereto. To justify the grant for such petition, the restraint of
liberty must an illegal and involuntary deprivation of freedom of action. The
 Accused raised the defense of denial and alleged that KKK merely fabricated the
2. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs.
rape charges as her revenge because he took over the control and management of their
EDGAR JUMAWAN, Accused-Appellant.
G.R. No. 187495 April 21, 2014 businesses, and to cover up her extra-marital affairs.

ISSUE:
PONENTE: Reyes Whether or not there can be a marital rape.
TOPIC: Marital rape
HELD:
FACTS: YES. The Supreme Court held that husbands do not have property rights over
Accused-appellant and his wife, KKK, were married and have four children. their wives’ bodies. Sexual intercourse, albeit within the realm of marriage, if not
On February 19, 1999, KKK executed a Complaint-Affidavit, alleging that her consensual, is rape.
husband, the accused-appellant, raped her at 3 :00 a.m. of December 3, 1998 at their
Violation of equal protection clause
residence in Cagayan de Oro City, and that on December 12, 1998, the accused-appellant
The Court ruled that to treat marital rape cases differently from non-marital rape
boxed her shoulder for refusing to have sex with him.
cases in terms of the elements that constitute the crime and in the rules for their proof,
As to the charge of rape according to KKK, conjugal intimacy did not really cause
infringes on the equal protection clause.
marital problems between her and the accused-appellant. It was, in fact, both frequent and
fulfilling. He treated her well and she, of course, responded with equal degree of
The Court found that there is no rational basis for distinguishing between marital
enthusiasm. However, in 1997, he started to be brutal in bed. He would immediately
rape and non-marital rape. The various rationales which have been asserted in defense of
remove her panties and, sans any foreplay, insert her penis in her vagina. His abridged
the exemption are either based upon archaic notions about the consent and property rights
method of lovemaking was physically painful for her so she would resist his sexual ambush
incident to marriage or are simply unable to withstand even the slightest scrutiny.
but he would threaten her into submission.
The Court declared the marital exemption for rape in the New York statute to be
One night, in the spouse’s bedroom, KKK changed into a daster and fixed the
unconstitutional.
matrimonial bed but she did not lie thereon with the accused-appellant and instead, rested
Said exemption states that a husband was endowed with absolute immunity from
separately in a cot near the bed. Her reclusive behavior prompted him to ask angrily: “Why
prosecution for the rape of his wife. The privilege was personal and pertained to him alone.
are you lying on the cot?”, and to instantaneously order: “You transfer here to our bed.”
He had the marital right to rape his wife but he will be liable when he aids or abets another
KKK insisted to stay on the cot and explained that she had headache and
person in raping her.
abdominal pain due to her forthcoming menstruation. Her reasons did not appease him and
Moreover, Section 1 of RA 8353 penalizes the crime without regard to the rapist’s
he got angrier. He rose from the bed, lifted the cot and threw it against the wall causing KKK
legal relationship with his victim.
to fall on the floor. Terrified, KKK stood up from where she fell, took her pillow and
transferred to the bed. Implied consent theory untenable
The accused-appellant then lay beside KKK and not before long, expressed his The Court also ruled against the application of implied consent theory which was
desire to copulate with her by tapping his fingers on her lap. She politely declined by raised by the accused. The accused argued that consent to copulation is presumed between
warding off his hand and reiterating that she was not feeling well. cohabiting husband and wife unless the contrary is proved.
The accused-appellant again asserted his sexual yearning and when KKK tried to According to the Court, it is now acknowledged that rape, as a form of sexual
resist by holding on to her panties, he pulled them down so forcefully they tore on the violence, exists within marriage. A man who penetrates her wife without her consent or
sides. KKK stayed defiant by refusing to bend her legs. against her will commits sexual violence upon her, and the Philippines, as a State Party to
The accused-appellant then raised KKK’s daster,41 stretched her legs apart and the CEDAW and its accompanying Declaration, defines and penalizes the act as rape under
rested his own legs on them. She tried to wrestle him away but he held her hands and R.A. No. 8353.
succeeded in penetrating her. As he was carrying out his carnal desires, KKK continued to
protest by desperately shouting: “Don ‘t do that to me because I’m not feeling well.”
 “The duty and the right to make arrangements for the funeral of a relative shall be in accordance with the
3. VALINO V. ADRIANO CASE DIGEST - order established for support, under Article 294. In case of descendants of the same degree, or of brothers
and sisters, the oldest shall be preferred. In case of ascendants, the paternal shall have a better right. ”
CIVIL LAW
VALINO VS. ADRIANO G.R. No. 182894 April 22, 2014 Art. 199. Also provides that whenever 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;
Atty. Adriano married Rosario Adriano, herein respondent, on November 15, 1955. The two begot 2 (2) The descendants in the nearest degree;
sons, 3 daughters, and adopted one child. Their marriage failed. Thus, the two lived separately. A year (3) The ascendants in the nearest degree; and
later, Atty. Adriano found a new love life, one of his former clients, named Fe Valino, herein petitioner, (4) The brothers and sisters. (294a)
where they live together as common law partners. Despite such situation, Atty. Adriano continued to
provide financial support to Rosario and their children. Further, Article 308 of the Civil Code provides:
“No human remains shall be retained, interred, disposed of or exhumed without the consent
The husband died due to acute emphysema, a lung disease. At the time of husband’s death, the first of the persons mentioned in Articles 294 and 305.”
wife and children were having their Christmas vacation in the US. Due to this, the common law wife,
Valino, facilitated the funeral of Atty. Adriano. The legal wife requested the common law wife to delay In this connection, Section 1103 of the Revised Administrative Code provides:
the internment for them to pay their last respect to his dead husband. However, her request was not
heeded. They buried Adriano at the mausoleum of the family of Valino at the Manila Section 1103. Persons charged with the duty of burial. – The immediate duty of burying the
Memorial Park. Respondents were not able to attend the interment. body of a deceased person, regardless of the ultimate liability for the expense thereof, shall
devolve upon the persons herein below specified:
The legal family, having been deprived of the last chance to view the remains of Atty. Adriano,
filed a suit against the common law wife. In their claim that the deceased did not wished to (a) If the deceased was a married man or woman, the duty of the burial shall devolve upon
be buried in Manila Memorial Park. the surviving spouse if he or she possesses sufficient means to pay the necessary expenses.
In her defense, the common law wife countered that she and the deceased were living
together for more than 20 years, and claims that she has the better right to make decisions The fact that she was living separately from her husband and was in the United States when
concerning the burial of Atty. Adriano. he died has no controlling significance. To say that Rosario had, in effect, waived or
renounced, expressly or impliedly, her right and duty to make arrangements for the funeral
RTC dismissed respondents (legal wife) petition. On the ground that it would not serve any of her deceased husband is baseless. The right and duty to make funeral arrangements, like
useful purpose and so he (Atty. Adriano) should be spared and respected. 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.
CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision and directed Valino to have the remains of Atty.
While there was disaffection between Atty. Adriano and Rosario and their children when he
Adriano exhumed at the expense of respondents.
was still alive, the Court also recognizes that human compassion, more often than not, opens
Hence, the common law wife appealed to the SC. the door to mercy and forgiveness once a family member joins his Creator. Notably, it is an
undisputed fact that the respondents wasted no time in making frantic pleas to Valino for
ISSUE: the delay of the interment for a few days so they could attend the service and view the
remains of the deceased. As soon as they came to know about Atty. Adriano’s death in the
Who between Rosario and Valino is entitled to the remains of Atty. Adriano. morning of December 19, 1992 (December 20, 1992 in the Philippines), the respondents
immediately contacted Valino and the Arlington Memorial Chapel to express their request,
RULING: but to no avail.

Under the law, the right and duty to make funeral arrangements is the surviving legal wife.
Article 30 provides:
 It ruled:... that the death of Zenaida did not extinguish the relationship by affinity
4. INTESTATE ESTATE OF MANOLITA GONZALES VDA. DE between her husband, private respondent Sato, and her mother Manolita, and
CARUNGCONG v. PEOPLE, GR No. 181409, 2010-02-11 does not bar the application of the exempting circumstance under Article
Facts: 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code in favor of private respondent Sato.
it is clear that the exemption from criminal liability for the crime of swindling
Mediatrix G. Carungcong, in her capacity as the duly appointed administratrix... of (estafa) under Article 315... of the Revised Penal Code applies to private respondent
petitioner intestate estate of her deceased mother Manolita Gonzales vda. de Sato, as son-in-law of Manolita, they being "relatives by affinity in the same line"
Carungcong, filed a complaint-affidavit... for estafa against her... brother-in-law, under Article 332(1) of the same Code... while the death of Zenaida extinguished
William Sato, a Japanese national... ato moved for the quashal of the Information, her marriage with Sato, it did not dissolve the son-in-law and... mother-in-law
claiming that under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, his relationship to the relationship between Sato and Zenaida's mother, Manolita.
person allegedly defrauded, the deceased Manolita who was his mother-in-law, Sato is covered by the exemption from criminal liability provided under Article 332.
was an exempting circumstance. Nothing in the law and jurisprudence supports petitioner's claim that Zenaida's
Issues: death dissolved the relationship by affinity between Sato and
Manolita... the criminal case against Sato created havoc among the members of the
Petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals erred in not reversing the orders of Carungcong and Sato families, a situation sought to be particularly avoided by
the trial court... if the accused may not be held criminally liable for simple estafa by Article 332's provision exempting a family member committing theft, estafa or
virtue of the absolutory cause under Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code, should malicious mischief from criminal... liability and reducing his/her liability to the civil
he not be absolved also from criminal liability for the complex crime of estafa aspect only
through... falsification of public documents? Article 332 provides for an absolutory cause... in the crimes of theft, estafa (or
No. swindling) and malicious mischief. It limits the responsibility of the offender to civil
Ruling: liability and frees him from criminal liability by virtue of his relationship to the...
the trial court granted Sato's motion and ordered the dismissal of the criminal case: offended party.
Article 332 of the Revised Penal Code convinces this Court of the correctness of the it has been held that included in the exemptions are parents-in-law, stepparents
contention of the [d]efense. While it is true that the death of Zenaida Carungcong- and adopted children.
Sato has extinguished the marriage of accused with her, it does not... erase the fact By virtue thereof, no criminal liability is incurred by the stepfather who commits...
that accused and Zenaida's mother, herein complainant, are still son[-in-law] and malicious mischief against his stepson... by the stepmother who commits theft
mother-in-law and they remained son[-in-law] and mother-in-law even beyond the against her stepson;[19] by the stepfather who steals something from his
death of Zenaida. stepson;[20] by the grandson who steals from his... grandfather;[21] by the accused
Article 332(1) of the Revised Penal Code, is very explicit and states no proviso. "No who swindles his sister-in-law living with him;[22] and by the son who steals a ring
criminal, but only civil liability[,] shall result from the commission of the crime of from his mother.[23]
theft, swindling or malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by xxx 1) Affinity is the relation that one spouse has to the blood relatives of the other
spouses,... ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line." spouse. It is a relationship by marriage or a familial relation resulting from
WHEREFORE, finding the Motion to Quash Original Information meritorious, the marriage.[24] It is a fictive kinship, a fiction created by law in connection with the...
same is GRANTED and, as prayed for, case is hereby DISMISSED. institution of marriage and family relations.
Mediatrix, filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals[12] which, however,
in a decision[13] dated August 9, 2007, dismissed it. TOPIC: Suit between family members; requisite of earnest efforts toward
compromise
 5. HIYAS SAVINGS and LOAN BANK, INC. Petitioner, vs. petitioner failed to advance a satisfactory explanation as to its failure to comply
HON. EDMUNDO T. ACUÑA, in his capacity as Pairing Judge of Regional Trial with the principle of judicial hierarchy. Article 151 of the Family Code provides as
Court, Branch 122, Caloocan City, and ALBERTO MORENO, Respondent. follows:
G.R. NO. 154132 August 31, 2006 No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear
from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise
FACTS : Alberto Moreno , respondent ( filed with the RTC of Caloocan a complaint have been made, but that the same have failed. If it is shown that no such efforts
against Hiyas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc his wife Remedios, the spouses Felipe and were in fact made, the case must be dismissed.
Maria Owe and the Register of Deeds of Caloocan City for cancellation of mortgage. This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of compromise
He contended that he did not secure/ sign any loan from petitioner, or execute any under the Civil Code. Hence ,once a stranger becomes a party to a suit involving
contract of mortgage in its favor; and his his wife was acting in conspiracy with members of the same family, the law no longer makes it a condition precedent that
Hiyas and the spouses Owe, (who were benefited from the loan), made it appear earnest efforts be made towards a compromise before the action can prosper. The
that he signed the contract of mortgage and he could not have executed the Court finds no specific, unique, or special circumstance that would make the ruling
contract because he was working abroad. Hiyas filed a Motion to Dismiss on the in Magbaleta as well as in the abovementioned cases inapplicable to suits involving
ground that private respondent failed to comply with a husband and his wife, as in the present case. In the first place, Article 151 of the
Article 151 of FC where it is provided that no suit between members of the same Family Code and Article 222 of the Civil Code are clear that the provisions apply to
family shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition suits involving "members of the same family" under Article150 of the FC:
that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have ART. 150
failed. . Family relations include those: (1) Between husband and wife; (2) Between
Petitioner contends that since the complaint does not contain any fact or averment parents and children;(3) Among other ascendants and descendants; and (4) Among
that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made prior to its institution, brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood.and Article 217 of the Civil
then the complaint should be dismissed for lack of cause of action. Moreno Code:
allegedly argues that in cases where one of the parties is not a member of the same ART. 217
family as contemplated under Art. 150 of FC failure to allege in the complaint that . Family relations shall include those: (1) Between husband and wife, (2) Between
earnest efforts toward a compromise had been made by the plaintiff before filing parent and child;(3) Among other ascendants and their descendants, (4) Among
the complaint is not a ground for amotion to dismiss. Alberto asserts that since brothers and sisters. Suffice it to say that since the Court has ruled that the
three of the party-defendants are not members of his family the ground relied requirement under Article 151 of the Family Code is applicable only in cases which
upon by Hiyas in its Motion to Dismiss is inapplicable RTC denied motion to dismiss. are exclusively between or among members of the same family, it necessarily
Court agreed with plaintiff(Moreno). Petitioner filed a motion for partial follows that the same may be invoked only by a party who is a member of that
reconsideration. RTC again denied motion of partial reconsideration ruling that same family
failure to allege in complaint that earnest effort towards a compromise were made
by plaintiff is not a ground for motion to dismiss.

ISSUE: WON lack of earnest efforts toward a compromise is a ground for a motion
to dismiss in suits between husband and wife when other parties who are strangers
to the family are involved in the suit.

RULING
YES. instant petition should be dismissed.
 complaint/petition that no earnest efforts were made between party-litigants who are members of
6. JOSE Z. MORENO, petitioner,vs. the same family. 25 The CA likewise agreed with the RTC's finding that Jose's main cause of action was
RENE M. KAHN, CONSUELO MORENO KAHN-HAIRE, RENE LUIS PIERRE KAHN, PHILIPPE KAHN, against his full-blooded sister, Consuelo, and as such, the fact that his nephews and nieces were
MA.CLAUDINE KAHN MCMAHON, and THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MUNTINLUPA CITY, impleaded as co-defendants does not take their situation beyond the ambit of Article 151. 26 Finally,
respondents.[G.R. No. 217744. July 30, 2018.] the CA opined that the barangay conciliation proceedings cannot be deemed as substantial
compliance with the earnest efforts requirement of the law as the participants therein were only Jose
Doctrine: Noncompliance with the earnest effort requirement under Article 151 of the Family Code is and Rene, and without the other defendants.
not a jurisdictional defect which would authorize the courts to dismiss suits filed before them motu
proprio. Rather, it merely partakes of a condition precedent such that the non-compliance therewith Issue: 1. Whether or not Article 151 is applicable to this case. [NO]
constitutes a ground for dismissal of a suit should the same be invoked by the opposing party at the
earliest opportunity, as in a motion to dismiss or in the answer. Held :1. Article 151 of the Family Code reads: Article 151. No suit between members of the same
family shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts
Facts: toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed. If itis shown that no such
1. Jose alleged that since May 1998 and in their capacity as lessees, he and his family have been efforts were in fact made, the case must be dismissed. This rule shall not apply to cases which may not
occupying two (2)parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. 181516 and 181517 be the subject of compromise under the Civil Code.2. The Court held in Heirs of Favis, Sr. v. Gonzales
6 (subject lands) co-owned by his full-blooded sister, respondent Consuelo Moreno Kahn-Haire that noncompliance with the earnest effort requirement under Article 151 of the Family Code is not a
(Consuelo) and his nephews and nieces(Consuelo's children), respondents Rene M. Kahn (Rene), Rene jurisdictional defect which would authorize the courts to dismiss suits filed before them motu proprio.
Luis Pierre Kahn (Luis), Philippe Kahn (Philippe),and Ma. Claudine Kahn-McMahon (Claudine; Rather, it merely partakes of a condition precedent such that the non-compliance therewith
collectively, respondents).2. Around April or May 2003, through numerous electronic mails (emails) constitutes a ground for dismissal of a suit should the same be invoked by the opposing party at the
and letters, respondents offered to sell to Jose the subject lands for the amount of US$200,000.00 earliest opportunity, as in a motion to dismiss or in the answer.3. In this case, a plain reading of the
(US$120,000.00 to be received by Consuelo andUS$20,000.00 each to be received by her children), 8 records shows that the RTC ordered the dismissal of Jose's complaint against respondents for his
which Jose accepted. Notably, the agreement was made verbally and was not immediately reduced alleged failure to comply with Article 151 of the Family Code
into writing, but the parties had the intention to eventually memorialize the same via a written —
document. Over the next few years, Jose made partial payments to respondents by paying off the even before respondents have filed a motion or a responsive pleading invoking such non-compliance.
shares of Rene, Luis, Philippe, and Claudine, leaving a remaining balance of US$120,000.00 payable As such ground is not a jurisdictional defect but is a mere condition precedent, the courts a quo
toConsuelo.3. However, in July 2010, Consuelo decided to "cancel" their agreement, and thereafter, clearly erred in finding that a motu proprio dismissal was warranted under the given circumstances.4.
informed Jose of her intent to convert the earlier partial payments as rental payments instead. In Even assuming arguendo that respondents invoked the foregoing ground at the earliest opportunity,
response, Jose expressed his disapproval to Consuelo's plan and demanded that respondents proceed the Court nevertheless finds Article 151 of the Family Code inapplicable to this case. For Article 151 of
with the sale, which the latter ignored. 10 He then claimed that on July 26, 2011, without his consent, the Family Code to apply, the suit must be exclusively between or among "members of the same
Consuelo, Luis, Philippe, and Claudine sold 11 their shares over the subject lands to Rene, thereby family." Once a stranger becomes a party to such suit, the earnest effort requirement is no longer a
consolidating full ownership of the subject lands to him. Consequently, TCT Nos.181516 and 181517 condition precedent before the action can prosper.5. In this light, case law states that Article 151 of
were cancelled and new TCTs, i.e., TCT Nos. 148026 and 148027, 12 were issued in Rene'sname.4. the Family Code must be construed strictly, it being an exception to the general rule. Hence, any
Upon learning of such sale, Jose sent a demand letter to Rene, and later on to Consuelo, Luis, Philippe, person having a collateral familial relation with the plaintiff other than what is enumerated in Article
and Claudine, 14 asserting his right to the subject lands under the previous sale agreed upon. As his 150 of the Family Code is considered a stranger who, if included in a suit between and among family
demands went unheeded, Jose brought the matter to the barangay lupon for conciliation proceedings members, would render unnecessary the earnest efforts requirement under Article 151. Expressio
between him and Rene only, since Consuelo, Luis, Philippe, and Claudine are all living abroad. As no unius est exclusio alterius. The express mention of one person, thing, act, or consequence excludes all
settlement was agreed upon, 15 Jose was constrained to file the subject complaint for specific others.6. In this instance, it is undisputed that: (a) Jose and Consuelo are full-blooded siblings; and (b)
performance and cancellation of titles with damages and application for temporary restraining order Consuelo is the mother of Rene, Luis, Philippe, and Claudine, which make them nephews and niece of
and writ of preliminary injunction, docketed as Civil Case No. 12-0045. their uncle, Jose. It then follows that Rene, Luis, Philippe, and Claudine are considered "strangers" to
RTC Jose insofar as Article 151 of the Family Code is concerned. In this relation, it is apt to clarify that while
: Denied Jose’s motion, ruling, it was the disagreement between Jose and Consuelo that directly resulted in the filing of the suit, the
Article 151 of the Family Code applies, despite the fact that Consuelo had other co-defendants (i.e., fact remains that Rene, Luis, Philippe, and Claudine were rightfully impleaded as co-defendants in
her children)in the suit, as the dispute, which led to the filing of the case, was mainly due to the Jose's complaint as they are co-owners of the subject lands in dispute. In view of the inclusion of
disagreement between full-blooded siblings, Jose and Consuelo. "strangers" to the suit between Jose and Consuelo who are full blooded siblings, the Court concludes
that the suit is beyond the ambit of Article 151 of the Family Code. Perforce, the courts a quo gravely
: Affirmed the ruling of the RTC: It held that the motu proprio dismissal of Jose's complaint was proper erred in dismissing Jose's complaint due to non-compliance with the earnest effort requirement
in light of Article 151 of the Family Code which mandates such dismissal if it appears from the therein.
 Three requisites must concur before a minor beneficiary is entitled to the benefits
7. PERLA G. PATRICIO, Petitioner, vs. of Art. 159: (1) the relationship enumerated in Art. 154 of the Family Code; (2) they
MARCELINO G. DARIO III and THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, Second live in the family home, and (3) they are dependent for legal support upon the head
Division, Respondents. of the family.
G.R. No. 170829, November 20, 2006
In this case, Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV is dependent on legal support not from
FACTS: his grandmother, but from his father.
Marcelino V. Dario died intestate. He was survived by his wife, petitioner Perla G.
Patricio and their two sons, Marcelino Marc Dario and private respondent Thus, despite residing in the family home and his being a descendant of Marcelino
Marcelino G. Dario III. Among the properties he left was a parcel of land with a V. Dario, Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV cannot be considered as beneficiary
residential house and a pre-school building built thereon. contemplated under Article 154 because he did not fulfill the third requisite of
being dependent on his grandmother for legal support. It is his father whom he is
On August 10, 1987, petitioner, Marcelino Marc and private respondent, dependent on legal support, and who must now establish his own family home
extrajudicially settled the estate of Marcelino V. Dario. Thereafter, petitioner and separate and distinct from that of his parents, being of legal age.
Marcelino Marc formally advised private respondent of their intention to partition
the subject property and terminate the co-ownership. Private respondent refused
to partition the property claiming that the subject property, which is the family
home duly constituted by spouses Marcelino and Perla Dario, cannot be partitioned
while a minor beneficiary is still living therein namely, his 12-year-old son, who is
the grandson of the decedent.

ISSUES: Whether or not partition of the family home is proper where one of the co-
owners refuse to accede to such partition on the ground that a minor beneficiary
still resides in the said home.

Whether or not Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV, the minor son of private respondent,
can be considered as a beneficiary under Article 154 of the Family Code

RULING:
1. No. From the time of its constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries
actually resides therein, the family home continues to be such and is exempt from
execution, forced sale or attachment except as hereinafter provided and to the
extent of the value allowed by law.

2. No, Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV can’t be considered as a beneficiary.

 Heirs of Nivera. There is no dispute that this ruling of the RTC had become final and executory.
8. FELICITAS L. SALAZAR v. REMEDIOS FELIAS, GR No. 213972, 2018-02- Pursuant thereto, the lower court issued a Writ of Execution and Demolition.
05
Additionally, as an heir of the original defendants in the action for recovery of ownership, Felicitas is
Facts: bound by the decision rendered against her predecessors-in-interest. Thus, there is nothing that
exempts her from the enforcement of the Writ ofExecution.In another attempt to thwart the
On February 28, 1990, private respondent Remedios Felias, representing the heirs of Catalino Nivera execution of the RTC's final and executory judgment, Felicitas claims that the execution cannot
(Heirs of Nivera) filed a Complaint for Recovery of Ownership, Possession and Damages against the proceed, as the subject property is her family home and is therefore exempt from execution.Indeed,
Spouses Romualdo Lastimosa (Romualdo) and Felisa Lastimosa (Fe1isa). The former sought to recover the family home is a real right which is gratuitous, inalienable and free from attachment, constituted
from the latter four parcels of land located in Baruan, Agno, Pangasinan (subject property). over the dwelling place and the land on which it is situated. It confers upon a particular family the
right to enjoy such properties.[34] It cannot be seized by creditors except in certain special cases
On March 3, 1997, during the trial of the case, Romualdo died.
However, the claim that the property is exempt from execution for being the movant's family home is
Consequently, on July 6, 1998, a Motion for Substitution... was filed by the decedent's wife, Felisa, and not a magic wand that will freeze the court's hand and forestall the execution of a final and executory
their children Flordeliza Sagun, Reynaldo Lastimosa, Recto Lastimosa (Recto), Rizalina Ramirez ruling. It must be noted that it is not sufficient for the claimant to merely allege that such property is a
(Rizalina), Lily Lastimosa, and Avelino Lastimosa (Heirs ofLastimosa). family home. Whether the claim is premised under the Old Civil Code or the Family Code, the claim
for exemption must be set up and proved.
On March 16, 2004, the RTC Branch 55 rendered a Decision,... declaring the Heirs of Nivera as the
absolute owners of the parcels of land in question, and thereby ordering the Heirs of Lastimosa to In addition, residence in the family home must be actual. The law explicitly mandates that the
vacate the lands and to surrender possession thereof. occupancy of the family home, either by the owner thereof, or by any of its beneficiaries must be
actual. This occupancy must be real, or actually existing, as opposed to something merely possible, or
The Heirs of Lastimosa did not file an appeal against the trial court's ruling. that which is merely presumptive or constructive

The CA refused to give credence to the contention that the Heirs of Nivera are at fault for failing to Guided by the foregoing jurisprudential tenets, it becomes all too apparent that Felicitas cannot
implead Felicitas as a party defendant in the action for recovery of ownership. Rather, the failure to conveniently claim that the subject property is her family home, sans sufficient evidence proving her
include Felicitas in the proceedings was due to the fault of the Heirs of Lastimosa, who neglected to allegation. It bears emphasis that it is imperative that her claim must be backed with evidence
include her (Felicitas) in their Motion to Substitute. The CA further ratiocinated that since the RTC showing that the home was indeed (i) duly constituted as a family home, (ii) constituted jointly by the
acquired jurisdiction over the person of the original defendants Romualdo and Felisa, the outcome of husband and wife or by an unmarried head of a family, (iii) resided in by the family (or any of the
the case is binding on all their heirs or any such persons claiming rights under them family home's beneficiaries), (iv) forms 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
Issues: whether the CA erred in ordering the execution of the Decision dated March 16, 2004. property of the unmarried head of the family, and (v) has an actual value of Php 300,000.00 in urban
areas, and Php 200,000.00 in rural areas.
Ruling: The petition is bereft of merit.
A perusal of the petition, however, shows that aside from her bare allegation, Felicitas adduced no
Nothing is more settled than the rule that a judgment that is final and executory is immutable and proof to substantiate her claim that the property sought to be executed is indeed her family home.
unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, except when the judgment is void, or to
correct clerical errors or to make nunc pro tunc entries. In the same vein, the decision that has Undoubtedly, Felicitas' argument that the property subject of the writ of execution is a family home, is
attained finality becomes the law of the case, regardless of any claim that it is erroneous. Any an unsubstantiated allegation that cannot defeat the binding nature of a final and executory
amendment or alteration which substantially affects a final and executory judgment is null and void judgment. Thus, the Writ of Execution and Demolition issued by the RTC Branch 55 must perforce be
for lack of jurisdiction, including the entire proceedings held for that purpose. given effect.

Accordingly, the court cannot refuse to issue a writ of execution upon a final and executory judgment, Principles:
or quash it, or stay its implementation
The movant's claim that his/her property is exempt from execution for being the family home is not a
In the case at bar, there is no dispute that in as early as March 16, 2004, the RTC Branch 55 of magic wand that will freeze the court's hand and forestall the execution of a final and executory
Alaminos, Pangasinan rendered a Decision in the case for Recovery of Ownership, Possession and ruling. It is imperative that the claim for exemption must be set up and proven.
Damages, ordering the Heirs of Lastimosa to vacate the subject properties and surrender them to the
9. RAMOS V. PANGILINAN et. Al RATIO:
G.R. No. 185920, [July 20, 2010] The general rule is that the family home is a real right which is gratuitous,
DOCTRINE: inalienable and free from attachment, constituted over the dwelling place and the
For the family home to be exempt from execution, distinction must be made as to land on which it is situated, which confers upon a particular family the right to
what law applies based on when it was constituted and what requirements must be enjoy such properties, which must remain with the person constituting it and his
complied with by the judgment debtor or his successors claiming such privilege and heirs. It cannot be seized by creditors except in certain special cases.
on both instances, the exemption must be proved. For the family home to be exempt from execution, distinction must be made as to
FACTS: what law applies based on when it was constituted and what requirements must be
Respondents filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against E.M. Ramos Electric, Inc., complied with by the judgment debtor or his successors claiming such privilege.
a company owned by Ernesto M. Ramos (Ramos), the patriarch of herein Hence, two sets of rules are applicable.
petitioners. The labor arbiter ordered Ramos and the company to pay the If the family home was constructed before the effectivity of the Family Code or
respondents’ back-wages, separation pay, 13th month pay & service incentive leave before August 3, 1988, then it must have been constituted either judicially or extra-
pay. The decision became final and executory so a writ of execution was issued judicially as provided under Articles 225, 229-231 and 233 of the Civil Code.
which the Deputy Sheriff of the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) Meanwhile, extrajudicial constitution is governed by Articles 240 to 242..
implemented by levying a property in Ramos’ name situated in Pandacan. On the other hand, for family homes constructed after the effectivity of the Family
Alleging that the Pandacan property was the family home, hence, exempt from Code on August 3, 1988, there is no need to constitute extra judicially or judicially,
execution to satisfy the judgment award, Ramos and the company moved to quash and the exemption is effective from the time it was constituted and lasts as long as
the writ of execution. Respondents argued that it is not the family home there any of its beneficiaries under Art. 154 actually resides therein. Moreover, the family
being another one in Antipolo and that the Pandacan address is actually the home should belong to the absolute community or conjugal partnership, or if
business address. The motion was denied and the appeal was likewise denied by exclusively by one spouse, its constitution must have been with consent of the
the NLRC. Ramos and the company appealed to the Court of Appeals during the other, and its value must not exceed certain amounts depending upon the area
pendency of which Ramos died and was substituted by herein petitioners. where it is located. Further, the debts incurred for which the exemption does not
The appellate court, in denying petitioners’ appeal, held that the Pandacan apply as provided under Art. 155 for which the family home is made answerable
property was not exempted from execution, for while “Article 153 of the Family must have been incurred after August 3, 1988. In both instances, the claim for
Code provides that the family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from exemption must be proved.
the time it is occupied as a family residence, it did not mean that the article has a In the present case, since petitioners claim that the family home was constituted
retroactive effect such that all existing family residences are deemed to have been prior to August 3, 1988, or as early as 1944, they must comply with the procedure
constituted as family homes at the time of their occupation prior to the effectivity mandated by the Civil Code. There being absolutely no proof that the Pandacan
of the Family Code.” property was judicially or extra judicially constituted as the Ramos’ family home,
the law protecting the family home cannot apply thereby making the levy upon the
ISSUE: Pandacan property valid.
Whether or not the levy upon the Pandacan property was valid

HELD:
YES.
10. SPS. EDUARDO AND ELSA VERSOLA v. CA, GR NO. 164740, 2006-07-31 petitioners filed with the sheriff an "Objection/Exception to the Sheriff's Sale of Defendant Sps.
Eduardo and Elsa Versola's Family Home Pending
Facts: Court Order or Clearance." Despite petitioners" objections, however, the property was still sold at
This case has its genesis from a loan transaction entered into by private respondent Dr. Victoria T. Ong public auction on 19 September 2000 and was awarded to private respondent at the bid price of
Oh and a certain Dolores Ledesma, wherein the former granted a P1,000,000.00 loan to the latter. As P2,835,000.00.
a security for said loan, Ledesma issued to private respondent a check for... the same amount dated For failure of petitioners to redeem the property during the redemption period, a Sheriff's Final Deed
10 February 1993 and promised to execute a deed of real estate mortgage over her house and lot of Sale was issued in favor of private respondent on 19 March 2002.
located at Tandang Sora, Quezon City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-51142. The
execution of the deed of real estate mortgage did not... materialize, but Ledesma delivered the Issues:
owner's duplicate copy of the TCT No. RT-51142 to private respondent. The issue in the main is whether or not petitioners timely raised and proved that their property is
Thereafter, Ledesma sold the said house and lot to petitioners for P2,500,000.00. Petitioners paid exempt from execution.
Ledesma P1,000,000.00 as downpayment, with the remaining balance of P1,500,000.00 to be paid in
monthly installments of P75,000.00 Ruling:
Even before the monthly installments became due, Ledesma already asked petitioners to pay the The records of the case, however, do not disclose that petitioners in the said motion set up and
remaining balance of P1,500,000.00. Petitioners, however, were only able to pay the amount of proved that the property to be sold was their family home. In any event,... said motion was treated by
P50,000.00 to Ledesma. To raise the full amount that Ledesma demanded, petitioners applied... for a the trial court as a mere scrap of paper presumably on the ground that such motion did not contain a
loan with Asiatrust Bank, Inc. (Asiatrust) in the amount of P2,000,000.00. notice of hearing.
petitioners, private respondent, and Ledesma convened with Asiatrust to arrive at a scheme to settle On the day immediately prior to the scheduled sale of the subject property, petitioners filed with the
the obligation of Ledesma to private respondent... and the obligation of petitioners to Ledesma. After sheriff an Objection/Exception to Sheriff's Sale of Defendant Sps. Eduardo and Elsa Versola's Family
the meeting, the following agreement[3] was arrived at: (1) private respondent would grant Ledesma Home. Petitioners simply alleged there that the property subject of the... intended auction sale was
an additional loan of P450,000.00, making the latter's loan from the former amount to P1,450,000.00 their family home. Instead of substantiating their claim, petitioners languidly presupposed that the
(the... amount of P1,450,000.00 would then be credited to petitioners as full settlement of the sheriff had prior knowledge that the said property was constituted by them as their family home
purchase price of the property); (2) Ledesma would execute a Deed of Sale transferring ownership It was only after almost two years from the time of the execution sale and after the "Sheriff's Final
over her house and lot, covered by TCT No. RT-51142, to petitioners; (3) private respondent... would Deed of Sale" was issued did petitioners rigorously claim in their Opposition to private respondent's
then deliver the duplicate copy of TCT No. RT-51142 to Asiatrust; (4) once petitioners had secured a Ex-parte Motion for Issuance of Confirmation of Judicial Sale of Real
title to the said house and lot in their names, they would execute a real estate mortgage over it in Property of Sps. Eduardo and Elsa Versola that the property in question is exempt from execution.
favor of Asiatrust to secure their loan of P2,000,000.00; and (5) Even then, there was no showing that petitioners adduced evidence to prove that it is indeed a family
Asiatrust would then grant a loan of P2,000,000.00 to petitioners with a written guarantee that the home.
P1,500,000.00 would be given directly by Asiatrust to private respondent after the mortgage lien of In view of the facts obtaining in this case, and taking into consideration the applicable jurisprudence
Asiatrust would have been annotated on the title of the said property. on the matter, the Court finds that petitioners' assertion for exemption is a mere afterthought, a sheer
siatrust approved the loan application of petitioners, after which the latter... issued a check in the artifice to deprive private respondent of the fruits of the verdict of... her case.
amount of P1,500,000.00 to private respondent. However, when Asiatrust tried to register the Real
Estate Mortgage covering the subject property executed in its favor by petitioners, it discovered a Principles:
notice of levy on execution was annotated on the title in... connection with Ledesma's obligation to a The settled rule is that the right to exemption or forced sale under Article 153 of the Family Code is a
certain Miladay's Jewels, Inc., in the amount of P214,284.00. Because of this annotated encumbrance, personal privilege granted to the judgment debtor and as such, it must be claimed not by the sheriff,
Asiatrust did not register said Real Estate Mortgage and refused to release the P2,000,000.00 loan of but by the debtor himself before the sale of the property at public... auction.[8] It is not sufficient that
petitioners. the person claiming exemption merely alleges that such property is a family home. This claim for
private respondent filed a Complaint for Sum of Money against Ledesma, petitioners, and Asiatrust exemption must be set up and proved to the Sheriff.[9] Failure to do so would estop the party from...
before the RTC, Branch 217, Quezon City later claiming the exception.[10]
After trial, the RTC, in a Decision dated 31 May 1996, rendered a verdict in favor of private respondent
and against petitioner
, private respondent filed a Motion for Execution with the trial court, the latter granted the same in an
Order dated 14 April 2000. On 23 June 2000, the property covered by TCT No. 83104, in the names of
petitioners, was levied upon. The sheriff set the sale of... the property at public auction on 19
September 2000. Petitioners were served a copy of the notice of the sale. On 18 September 2000,
11. JOCSON VS EMPIRE Ruling:

INSURANCE CO.
In the present case, it does not appear that support for the minors, be it only for
their education and clothing, was ever... demanded from their father and the need
for it duly established. The need for support, as already stated, cannot be
presumed, and especially must this be true in the present case where it appears
ENRIQUE T. JOCSON v. EMPIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, GR No. L-10792, 1958-04-30 that the minors had means of their own. In the circumstances, the disbursements...
made by the deceased guardian Jocson, with the approval of the court, for the
Facts: education and clothing of the appellant minors cannot be said to be illegal, so that
the lower court did not err in holding the guardian's bond not liable for the same.
It appears that in Special Proceedings No. 734 of the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, Furthermore, the claim for... support should he enforced in a separate action and
Agustin A. Jocson was, on October 3, 1950, appointed guardian of the persons and not in these guardianship proceedings.
properties of his then minor children, Carlos, Rodolfo, Perla, Enrique and Jesus, and
as such guardian, he... had a bond filed with the Empire Insurance Co. as surety. In view of the foregoing, the order appealed from is affirmed, but without costs
since this is a paupers' appeal.
Jocson died on February 12, 1954, and to succeed him, Perla, who together with
her brothers Carlos and Rodolfo, had already attained majority, was appointed
guardian of the remaining minors Enrique and Jesus. On September 29 of that year,
Perla filed a petition in the... guardianship proceedings to have the accounts of the
deceased guardian, Jocson, reopened, claiming that the disbursements made from
the guardianship funds for the education and clothing of the minors Enrique and
Jesus were illegal. Upon coming of age, Enrique and Jesus adopted... the petition as
their own and then moved that the disbursements in question be declared illegal
and that Jocson's bond as guardian to be made to answer therefor.

The motion was opposed by the Empire Insurance Co., the surety on the bond, as
well as by the administratrix of the intestate estate of Jocson, and the court, after
considering the written arguments submitted by the parties, rendered an order
denying it and declaring the bond... cancelled and the guardianship terminated.

Issues:

It is appellants' contention that the expenses for their education and clothing
during their minority were part of the support they were entitled to receive from
their father, so that when the latter paid those expenses from the guardianship
funds, he made illegal disbursements... therefrom for which his bond as guardian
should be made to answer.
12. MONTEFALCON vs. VASQUEZ first paragraph of Article 172, there is no further need to file any action for
acknowledgment because any of said modes is by itself a consummated act. As
filiation is beyond question, support follows as matter of obligation. Petitioners
G.R. No. 165016, June 17, 2008 were able to prove that.
FACTS:
In 1999, petitioner Dolores P. Montefalcon filed a Complaint for acknowledgment
and support against respondent Ronnie S. Vasquez before the RTC of Naga City.
Alleging that her son Laurence is the illegitimate child of Vasquez, she prayed that
Vasquez be obliged to give support to co-petitioner Laurence Montefalcon, whose
certificate of live birth he signed as father. According to petitioners, Vasquez only
gave a total of P19,000 as support for Laurence since Laurence was born
in1993.Vasquez allegedly also refused to give him regular school allowance despite
repeated demands. Petitioner Dolores added that she and Vasquez are not legally
married, and that Vasquez has his own family. Vasquez was declared in default for
failure to answer the service of summons (substituted).The court ordered Vasquez
to acknowledge Laurence and to pay P 5000 monthly. In the same year, Vasquez
surfaced. He filed notice of appeal to which petitioners opposed. Appeal was
granted by the court. Before the appellate court, he argued that the trial court
erred in trying and deciding the case as it "never" acquired jurisdiction over his
person, as well as in awarding P5,000-per-month support,
which was allegedly “excessive and exorbitant." The appellate court granted
Vasquez’s contention.

ISSUE:
Whether he is obliged to give support to co-petitioner Laurence.
HELD:
YES. Article 175 of the Family Code of the Philippines mandates that illegitimate
filiation may be established in the same way and on the same evidence as
legitimate children. Under Article 172, appearing in the civil register or a final
order; or (2) by admission of filiation in a public document or private handwritten
instrument and signed by the parent concerned; or in default of these two, by open
and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child or by any other means
allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. Laurence's record of birth is an
authentic, relevant and admissible piece of evidence to prove paternity and
filiation. Vasquez did not deny that Laurence is his child with Dolores. He signed as
father in Laurence’s certificate of live birth, a public document. He supplied the
data entered in it. Thus, it is a competent evidence of filiation as he had a hand in
its preparation. In fact, if the child had been recognized by any of the modes in the
15. De Asis vs CA
GR No. 127578, February 15, 1999

FACTS:

Vircel Andres as legal guardian of Glen Camil Andres de Asis, filed an action in 1988
for maintenance and support against the alleged father Manuel De Asis who failed
to provide support and maintenance despite repeated demands. Vircel later on
withdrew the complaint in 1989 for the reason that Manuel denied paternity of the
said minor and due to such denial, it seems useless to pursue the said action. They
mutually agreed to move for the dismissal of the complaint with the condition that
Manuel will not pursue his counter claim. However in 1995, Vircel filed a similar
complaint against the alleged father, this time as the minor’s legal
guardian/mother. Manuel interposed maxim of res judicata for the dismissal of the
case. He maintained that since the obligation to give support is based on existence
of paternity between the child and putative parent, lack thereof negates the right
to claim support.

ISSUE: WON the minor is barred from action for support.

HELD:

The right to give support cannot be renounced nor can it be transmitted to a third
person. The original agreement between the parties to dismiss the initial complaint
was in the nature of a compromise regarding future support which is prohibited by
law. With respect to Manuel’s contention for the lack of filial relationship between
him and the child and agreement of Vircel in not pursuing the original claim, the
Court held that existence of lack thereof of any filial relationship between parties
was not a matter which the parties must decide but should be decided by the Court
itself. While it is true that in order to claim support, filiation or paternity must be
first shown between the parties, but the presence or lack thereof must be judicially
established and declaration is vested in the Court. It cannot be left to the will or
agreement of the parties. Hence, the first dismissal cannot bar the filing of another
action asking for the same relief (no force and effect). Furthermore, the defense of
res judicata claimed by Manuel was untenable since future support cannot be the
subject of any compromise or waiver.
16. ESTEBAN DONATO REYES v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G.R. No. 232678, JULY RULING:
Yes. Under Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, the complaint or information is sufficient if it
3, 2019, Third Division (Peralta, J.)
states the names of the accused; the designation of the offense given by the statute; the acts or
omissions complained of as constituting the offense; the name of the offended party; the approximate
DOCTRINE: date of the commission of the offense; and the place where the offense was committed. Since the
Under the Test of Sufficiency, the fundamental test in determining the sufficiency of the averments in Prosecution has the duty to prove the each and every element of the crime, they must be alleged in
a complaint or information is whether the facts alleged therein, if hypothetically admitted, constitute the Information to warrant a finding of guilt beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. To prove
the elements of the offense. the sufficiency of the allegations, the fundamental test is the Test of Sufficiency. This answers the
question that, if the facts alleged therein are to be hypothetically admitted, would constitute the
FACTS: elements of the crime? In the case of Dinamling v. People, the Court enumerated the elements of
An information was filed against Esteban Donato Reyes before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for violation of Section 5(i) of R.A. No. 9262 as follows:(1) The offended party is a woman and/or her
violating Section 5 (e), paragraph 2 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. (9262), otherwise known as the Anti- child or children;(2) The woman is either the wife or former wife of the offender, or is a woman
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004 (VAWC). with whom the offender has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or is a woman with whom such
offender has a common child. As for the woman's child or children, they may be legitimate or
AAA is married to Reyes on May 15, 1969 and had four children, three of whom are still alive andare illegitimate, or living within or without the family abode;(3) The offender causes on the woman and/or
of legal age. During their marriage, Reyes is seldom home because he served as a military pilot for the child mental or emotional anguish; and(4) The anguish is caused through acts of public ridicule or
Philippine Airforce and later on as a commercial pilot to Philippine Airlines. At the time the VAWC case humiliation, repeated verbal and emotional abuse, denial of financial support or custody of minor
was filed against Reyes, he was serving in Angola Africa. AAA only found out in 2005 that Reyes got children or access to the children or similar acts or omissions. Hence, AAA, being the wife of Reyes;
married to one Marilou Osias Ramboanga who bore him four children and at the present, living with who suffered emotional and mental anguish; due to Reyes’ act of unlawfully and deliberately denying
him. During their marriage, AAA said that Reyes used to give her and their children monthly financial AAA of financial support.
support ranging from P10,000 to P20,000. After he ceased giving them support, she also suffered
various illnesses and as a result, she had undergone regular consultation and medical check-up. Lastly, contrary to Reyes’ contention that sine they are not lawfully married, he cannot be
According to AAA, she filed the case for violation of RA 9262 against Reyes for his failure to give her chargedwith a violation of RA 9262 because RA 9262 penalizes acts committed against women and
support to provide monthly financial allowance which he stopped sometime in July 2005.For his part, their children committed by the woman’s husband, former husband, or any person against whom she
Reyes said that he never really got married to AAA. The signature appearing on their marriage has had a sexual or dating relationship with, or with whom the woman has a common child, or against
certificate was forged. They are only living in a common-law relationship. He admitted having stopped her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which will likely result
giving support to her because of the bigamy case that was file against him because he treated it as an in economic abuse or physical harm or suffering. In their case, t is evident that AAA and Reyes had
act of her ingratitude to him. On June 11, 2009, he filed a Motion to Quash the Information on the four children borne out of their relationship. Therefore, the Information that was filed against Reyes is
ground that the allegations raised by AAA do not constitute a crime for violation of Section 5 (e), par. sufficient enough to convict him for his violation of Section 5 (i), par. 2, of R.A. 9262
2, of R.A. 9262. He said that “abandoning without financial support is different from “deprivation or
denial of financial support, which is not criminalized under RA 9262. Since it does not charge any
offense against him, it should be quashed, otherwise, his right to constitutional due process and right
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, would be infringed. Upon
amendment of the information changing the charge for violation of Section 5 (e), par. 2, of R.A. 9262
to violation of Section 5 (i), par. 2, of R.A. 9262, the RTC convicted Reyes for the crime charged against
him saying that the testimony of AAA, her attending physician, and their daughter are credible and
sufficient to adequately establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the crime
charged against him. On appeal to the Court of Appeals (CA), it dismissed the appeal for lack of merit
and affirmed the decision of the trial court that due to Reyes’ act of suddenly giving support to AAA,
he committed psychological violence against her which caused her emotional and mental anguish.

ISSUE:
Was there a sufficient compliance of Section 6, Rule 110 of the Rules of Court, in filing the information
against Reyes?
18. BBB v AAA CASE DIGEST [G.R. No. 193225, February 9, 2015, REYES, J.] HELD: YES. All told, the Court finds no merit in BBB’s petition, but there exists a
necessity to remand the case for the RTC to resolve matters relative to who shall be
Topic: Parental Authority & Custody of Children: Who May Exercise granted custody over the three children, how the spouses shall exercise visitation
rights, and the amount and manner of providing financial support. The RTC and the
Doctrine: The SC affirms the CA’s order to remand the case for the RTC to resolve CA found substantial evidence and did not commit reversible errors when they
the question of custody. Since the children are now all older than seven years of issued the PPO against BBB. Events, which took place after the issuance of the PPO,
age, they can choose for themselves whom they want to stay with. do not erase the fact that psychological, emotional and economic abuses were
committed by BBB against AAA. Hence, BBB’s claim that he now has actual sole
FACTS: BBB and AAA allege that they started to date seriously only in 1996. AAA care of DDD and EEE does not necessarily call for this Court’s revocation of the PPO
was then a medical student and was raising her first child borne from a previous and the award to him of custody over the children.
relationship, named CCC, a boy. During their relationship, AAA bore two more This Court, thus, affirms the CA’s order to remand the case for the RTC to resolve
children namely, DDD (born on December 11, 1997) and EEE (born on October 19, the question of custody. Since the children are now all older than seven years of
2000). BBB and AAA married in civil rights to legalize their relationship. The birth age, they can choose for themselves whom they want to stay with. If all the three
certificates of the children, including CCC’s, was amended to change their civil children would manifest to the RTC their choice to stay with AAA, then the PPO
status to legitimated by virtue of the said marriage. Later on, their relationship turn issued by RTC shall continue to be executed in its entirety. However, if any of the
sour and they decided to live separately. Citing economic and psychological abuse, three children would choose to be under BBB’s care, necessarily, the PPO issued
AAA filed an application for the issuance of a Temporary Protection Order with a against BBB relative to them is to be modified. The PPO, in its entirety, would
request to make the same permanent after due hearing, before the RTC. Finding remain effective only as to AAA and any of the children who opt to stay with her.
good ground in AAA’s application, the RTC issued a TPO. The TPO was thereafter, Consequently, the RTC may accordingly alter the manner and amount of financial
made permanent by virtue of a Decision of the RTC dated August 14, 2007. support BBB should give depending on who shall finally be awarded custody
BBB appealed before the CA. CA affirmed RTC’s decision but ordered the remand of over the children.
the case for the latter to determine in the proper proceedings to determine who Pursuant to Articles 201 and 202 of the Family Code, BBB’s resources and means
shall be awarded custody of the children. The CA found that under the provisions of and the necessities of AAA and the children are the essential factors in determining
RA9262, BBB had subjected AAA and their children to psychological, emotional and the amount of support, and the same can be reduced or increased proportionately.
economic abuses. BBB displayed acts of marital infidelity which exposed AAA to The RTC is reminded to be circumspect in resolving the matter of support, which is
public ridicule causing her emotional and psychological distress. While BBB alleged a mutual responsibility of the spouses. The parties do not dispute that AAA is now
that FFF was only a professional colleague, he continued to have public employed as well, thus, the RTC should consider the same with the end in mind of
appearances with her which did not help to dispel AAA’s accusation that the two promoting the best interests of the children.
had an extra-marital relation. BBB filed a Manifestation and Motion to Render
Judgment Based on a MOA alleging that he and AAA had entered into
a compromise regarding the custody, exercise of parental authority over, and
support of DDD and EEE: that BBB shall have the custody over both children.

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC should determine who shall be awarded custody
over the children.
19. CARMEN QUIMIGUING, Suing through her parents, ANTONIO QUIMIGUING that nowhere appears in the text of Article 291. It is true that Article 40 prescribing
and JACOBA CABILIN, plaintiffs-appellants, that “the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are
vs. favorable to it” adds further “provided it be born later with the conditions specified
FELIX ICAO, defendant-appellee. in the following article” (i.e., that the foetus be alive at the time it is completely
G.R. No. L-26795 delivered from the mother’s womb). This proviso, however, is not a condition
July 31, 1970 precedent to the right of the conceived child;; for if it were, the first part of Article
40 would become entirely useless and ineffective.
FACTS: A second reason for reversing the orders appealed from is that for a married man
Carmen Quimiguing’s family and Felix Icao were neighbors and had close and to force a woman not his wife to yield to his lust (as averred in the original
confidential relations. Despite being married, Icao succeeded in having carnal complaint in this case) constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his victim that
intercourse with Carmen several times by force and intimidation, and without her entitles her to claim compensation for the damage caused. Thus, independently of
consent. Despite efforts and drugs supplied by Isao, Carmen became pregnant and the right to Support of the child she was carrying, plaintiff herself had a cause of
had to stop studying. Hence, she filed for support at P120.00 per month, damages action for damages under the terms of the complaint;; and the order dismissing it
and attorney’s fees. for failure to state a cause of action was doubly in error.
Icao moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action since the complaint did not allege
that the child had been born. The trial judge sustained Icao’s motion and dismissed
the complaint. Thereafter, Carmen moved to amend the complaint to allege that as
a result of the intercourse, she had later given birth to a baby girl. However, the
court ruled that no amendment was allowable since the original complaint averred
no cause of action. Wherefore, the plaintiff appealed directly to this Court.

ISSUE:
May an action for support be filed for an unborn child?

HELD:
YES. A conceived child, although as yet unborn, is given by law a provisional
personality of its own for all purposes favorable to it, as explicitly provided in Article
40 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. The unborn child, therefore, has a right to
support from its progenitors, particularly of Ilao(whose paternity is deemed
admitted for the purpose of the motion to dismiss), 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 Article 742 of the same Code, and its being ignored by
the parent in his testament may result in preterition of a forced heir that annuls the
institution of the testamentary heir, even if such child should be born after the
death of the testator (Article 854, Civil Code).
The lower court’s theory that Article 291 of the Civil Code declaring that support is
an obligation of parents and illegitimate children “does not contemplate support to
children as yet unborn,” violates Article 40 aforesaid, besides imposing a condition
20. CASE DIGEST: CHERRYL B. DOLINA, PETITIONER, VS. GLENN D. VALLECERA, To be entitled to legal support, petitioner must, in proper action, first establish the
RESPONDENT. (G.R. No. 182367; December 15, 2010) filiation of the child, if the same is not admitted or acknowledged. Since Dolina’s
demand for support for her son is based on her claim that he is Vallecera’s
SUMMARY: The filiation of the child to the parent must first be established before illegitimate child, the latter is not entitled to such support if he had not
support from said parent can be granted by the court acknowledged him, until Dolina shall have proved his relation to him. (Art. 195,
FACTS OF THE CASE: Antonia Perla filed a petition with prayer for the issuance of a Family Code). The child’s remedy is to file through her mother a judicial action for
temporary protection order against the respondent for alleged woman and child compulsory recognition. If filiation is beyond question, support follows as matter of
abuse under RA 9262 and asked for financial support. obligation.. In short, illegitimate children are entitled to support and successional
rights but their filiation must be duly proved.
She alleged that respondent is the father of her child. The man, however, made a
denial of the claim of his being the father of the child and that the signature
appearing in the child Certificate of Live Birth is not his signature. The RTC
dismissed the petition on the ground that there is no prior judgment establishing
the filiation of the child hence, there is no basis to order support.

ISSUE: Whether or not the RTC made error in judgment in dismissing the case and
in requiring the petitioner to first prove filiation before support is granted

RULING: No, the RTC made no error in so doing.

Dolina evidently filed the wrong action to obtain support for her child. The object
of RA 9262 under which she filed the case is the protection and safety of women
and children who are victims of abuse or violence. Although the issuance of a
protection order against the respondent in the case can include the grant of legal
support for the wife and the child, this assumes that both are entitled to a
protection order and to legal support.

Dolina’s remedy is to file for the benefit of her child an action against Vallecera for
compulsory recognition in order to establish filiation and then demand support.
Alternatively, she may directly file an action for support, where the issue of
compulsory recognition may be integrated and resolved.

What is the proper remedy?

[1] Action for Compulsory Recognition to Establish Filiation. Afterwards, she can
demand support; or
[1] Action for Support, where one of the issues is filiation.
21. ABELLA v. CABANERO (CASE DIGEST) evidence to establish their cause of action—inclusive of their underlying claim of
G.R. No. 206647, August 09, 2017 paternal relations—against respondent.
RATIO: To establish filiation, an action for compulsory recognition may be filed
against the putative father ahead of an action for support. In the alternative, an In an earlier cases, the SC held that an action for compulsory recognition may be
action for support may be directly filed, where the matter of filiation shall be filed ahead of an action for support, the direct filing of an action for support, where
integrated and resolved. the issue of compulsory recognition may be integrated and resolved.

FACTS: Although the instant case deals with support rather than inheritance, as in Tayag,
In a Complaint for Support, petitioner Richelle P. Abella alleged that while she was the basis for integrating them remains the same. Whether or not respondent
still a minor, she was repeatedly sexually abused by respondent Cabañero. As a Martin is entitled to support depends completely on the determination of filiation.
result, she became pregnant and gave birth to a child, Marl Jhorylle Abella. Richelle A separate action will only result in a multiplicity of suits, given how intimately
added that she initiated a criminal case for rape against Cabañero, which was related the main issues in both cases are. An integrated determination of filiation is
dismissed. Later, she initiated another criminal case, this time for child abuse, but entirely appropriate to the action for support filed by petitioner Richelle for her
was also dismissed. Richelle prayed for the child’s monthly allowance in the child. An action for support may very well resolve that ineluctable issue of paternity
amount of P3,000.00. Richelle insisted on her certainty that Cabañero was the if it involves the same parties, is brought before a court with the proper jurisdiction,
father of the child as she supposedly had no sexual relations with any other man. prays to impel recognition of paternal relations, and invokes judicial intervention to
Cabañero, meanwhile, denied sexually abusing Richelle, or otherwise having any do so.
sexual relations with her. Thus, he asserted that he could not have been the father
of Richelle’s child. The Petition is GRANTED.

The RTC dismissed Richelle’s complaint. Richelle filed a petition for certiorari and
mandamus before the CA. The CA sustained the dismissal of the Complaint, finding
that the filiation and paternity of the child had not been previously established. The
CA also denied petitioner’s MR. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that filiation proceedings should have
first been separately instituted to ascertain the minor child’s paternity and that
without these proceedings having first been resolved in favor of the child’s
paternity claim, petitioner Richelle P. Abella’s action for support could not prosper.

RULING:
While it is true that the grant of support was contingent on ascertaining paternal
relations between respondent and petitioner’s daughter, Jhorylle, it was
unnecessary for petitioner’s action for support to have been dismissed and
terminated by the Court of Appeals in the manner that it did. Instead of dismissing
the case, the Court of Appeals should have remanded the case to the Regional Trial
Court. There, petitioner and her daughter should have been enabled to present
22. NORMA DEL SOCORRO V. WILSEM CASE RULING:

DIGEST - CIVIL LAW

DEL SOCORRO VS. WILSEM G.R. No. 193707 December 1. YES. While it is true that Respondent Ernst is a citizen of Holland or the
10, 2014 Netherlands, we agree with the RTC that he is subject to the laws of his country, not
to Philippine law, as to whether he is obliged to give support to his child, as well as
the consequences of his failure to do so. This does not, however, mean that Ernst is
FACTS: not obliged to support Norma’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. In the present case, Ernst hastily concludes that being a national of
Norma A. Del Socorro and Ernst Van Wilsem contracted marriage in Holland. They the Netherlands, he is governed by such laws on the matter of provision of and
were blessed with a son named Roderigo Norjo Van Wilsem. Unfortunately, their capacity to support. While Ernst pleaded the laws of the Netherlands in advancing
marriage bond ended by virtue of a Divorce Decree issued by the appropriate Court his position that he is not obliged to support his son, he never proved the same. It is
of Holland. Thereafter, Norma and her son came home to the Philippines. According incumbent upon Ernst to plead and prove that the national law of the Netherlands
to Norma, Ernst made a promise to provide monthly support to their son. However, does not impose upon the parents the obligation to support their child. Foreign laws
since the arrival of petitioner and her son in the Philippines, Ernst never gave support do not prove themselves in our jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take
to Roderigo. Respondent remarried again a Filipina and resides again the Philippines judicial notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and proved.
particulary in Cebu where the petitioner also resides. Norma filed a complaint Moreover, foreign law should not be applied when its application would work
against Ernst for violation of R.A. No. 9262 for the latter’s unjust refusal to support undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the forum. To give justice is the
his minor child with petitioner. The trial court dismissed the complaint since the facts most important function of law; hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is
charged in the information do not constitute an offense with respect to the accused, obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of Conflict of Laws. Applying the
he being an alien foregoing, even if the laws of the Netherlands neither enforce a parent’s obligation
to support his child nor penalize the non-compliance therewith, such obligation is
still duly enforceable in the Philippines because it would be of great injustice to the
ISSUES: child to be denied of financial support when the latter is entitled thereto.

1. Does a foreign national have an obligation to support his minor child under the 2. YES. The court has jurisdiction over the offense (R.A 9262) because the foreigner
Philippine law? is living here in the Philippines and committed the offense here.
2. Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable under R.A. No. 9262
for his unjustified failure to support his minor child.
23. MA. BELEN B. MANGONON v. VS. CA, GR NO. 125041, 2006-06-30 Rica and Rina when the twins introduced themselves to him seventeen years later.
Facts: In order not to antagonize the two, respondent Federico claimed he did not tell
On 17 March 1994, petitioner Ma. Belen B. Mangonon filed, in behalf of her then them that he could not be their father. Even assuming that Rica and Rina are,
minor children Rica and Rina, a Petition for Declaration of Legitimacy and Support... indeed, his daughters, he alleged that... he could not give them the support they
petitioner and respondent Federico Delgado were civilly married by then City Court were demanding as he was only making P40,000.00 a month.
Judge Eleuterio Agudo In the meantime,... petitioner filed an Urgent Motion to Set Application for Support
At that time, petitioner was only 21 years old while respondent Federico was only Pendente Lite for Hearing because Rica and Rina both badly needed immediate
19 years old. As... the marriage was solemnized without the required consent per financial resources for their education.
Article 85 of the New Civil Code,[4] it was annulled... within seven months after the the trial court resolved the motion... respondents are hereby directed to provide a
annulment of their marriage, petitioner gave birth to twins Rica and Rina. monthly support
According to petitioner, she, with the assistance of her second husband Danny Unsatisfied with the Order of the trial court, petitioner brought the case to the
Mangonon, raised her twin daughters as private respondents had totally... Court of Appeals via Petition for Certiorari. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
abandoned them. holding of the trial court
Petitioner likewise averred that demands[7] were made upon Federico and the Issues:
latter's father, Francisco,[8] for general support and for the payment of the required filiation of her twin daughters to private respondents and the twins' entitlement to
college education of Rica and Rina. support pendente... lite.
Considering the impending deadline for... admission to college and the opening of who should be made liable for said award.
classes, petitioner and her then minor children had no choice but to file the Ruling:
petition before the trial court. The petition is meritorious.
Petitioner also alleged that Rica and Rina are her legitimate daughters by Rule 61
respondent Federico since the twin sisters were born within seven months from the SUPPORT 'PENDENTE LITE'
date of the annulment of her marriage to respondent Federico. SECTION 1. Application.- At the commencement of the proper action or
In his Answer,[15] respondent Francisco stated that as the birth certificates of Rica proceeding... a verified application for support pendente lite may be filed by any
and Rina do not bear the signature of respondent Federico, it is essential that their party stating the grounds for the claim and the... financial conditions of both
legitimacy be first established as "there is no basis to claim support until a final... parties, and accompanied by affidavits, depositions or other authentic documents
and executory judicial declaration has been made as to the civil status of the in support thereof.
children." SEC. 4. Order.- The court shall determine provisionally the pertinent facts, and shall
He, likewise, averred that... the order of liability for support under Article 199 of render such orders as justice and equity may require, having due regard to the
the Family Code is not concurrent such that the obligation must be borne by those probable outcome of the case and such other circumstances as may aid in the
more closely related to the recipient. proper resolution of the... question involved.
In this case, he maintained that responsibility should rest on the shoulders of If the application is granted, the court shall fix the amount of money to be
petitioner and her... second husband, the latter having voluntarily assumed the provisionally paid or such other forms of support as should be provided,... Under
duties and responsibilities of a natural father. this provision, a court may temporarily grant support pendente lite prior to the
respondent Federico... claimed that... petitioner had no cause of action against rendition of judgment or final order. Because of its provisional nature, a court does
him. According to him, he left for abroad and stayed there for a long time "[w]ithin not need to delve fully into the merits of the case before it can settle an application
the first one hundred twenty (120) days of the three hundred days immediately for... this relief. All that a court is tasked to do is determine the kind and amount of
preceding March 25, 1976" and that he only came to know about the birth of evidence which may suffice to enable it to justly resolve the application. It is
enough that the facts be established by affidavits or other documentary evidence Under the abovecited provision, the obligor is given the choice as to how he could
appearing in the record. dispense his obligation to give support. Thus, he may give the determined amount
the status of the twins as children of Federico cannot be denied. They had of support to the claimant or he may allow the latter to stay in the family dwelling.
maintained constant communication with their grandfather Francisco. The second option cannot be... availed of in case there are circumstances, legal or
Indeed, respondents, by their actuations, have shown beyond doubt that the twins moral, which should be considered.
are the children of Federico. In this case, this Court believes that respondent Francisco could not avail himself of
The pertinent provision of the Family Code on this subject states: the second option.
ART. 199. Whenever two or more persons are obliged to give support, the liability With the filing of this case, and the allegations hurled at one another by the parties,
shall devolve upon the following persons in the order herein provided: the relationships among the parties had certainly been affected. Particularly
(1) The spouse; difficult for Rica and Rina must... be the fact that those who they had considered
(2) The descendants in the nearest degree; and claimed as family denied having any familial relationship with them. Given all
(3) The ascendants in the nearest degree; and these, we could not see Rica and Rina moving back here in the Philippines in the
(4) The brothers and sisters. company of those who have disowned them.
the obligation to give support rests principally on those more closely related to the Finally, as to the amount of support pendente lite, we take our bearings from the
recipient. However, the more remote relatives may be held to shoulder the provision of the law mandating the amount of support to be proportionate to the
responsibility should the claimant prove that those who are called upon... to resources or means of the giver and to the necessities of the recipient.[42]
provide support do not have the means to do so. Guided by this principle, we hold respondent Francisco liable for half of the amount
The trial court gave full credence to respondent Federico's allegation in his of school expenses incurred by Rica and Rina as support pendente lite.
Answer[36] and his testimony[37] as to the amount of his income. We have, Considering, however, that the twin sisters may have already been done with their
however, reviewed the records of this case and found them bereft of evidence to... education by the time of the promulgation of this decision, we deem it proper to
support his assertions regarding his employment and his earning. award support pendente lite in arrears[43] to be computed from the time they...
There being prima facie evidence showing that petitioner and respondent Federico entered college until they had finished their respective studies.
are the parents of Rica and Rina, petitioner and respondent Federico are primarily The issue of the applicability of Article 15 of the Civil Code on petitioner and her
charged to support their children's college education. In view however of their twin daughters raised by respondent Francisco is best left for the resolution of the
incapacities, the... obligation to furnish said support should be borne by trial court. After all, in case it would be resolved that Rica and Rina are not entitled
respondent Francisco. to support... pendente lite, the court shall then order the return of the amounts
Under Article 199 of the Family Code, respondent Francisco, as the next immediate already paid with legal interest from the dates of actual payment.
relative of Rica and Rina, is tasked to give support to his granddaughters in default WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED.
of their parents.
It having been established that respondent Francisco has the financial means to...
support his granddaughters' education, he, in lieu of petitioner and respondent
Federico, should be held liable for support pendente lite.
The applicable provision of the Family Code on this subject provides:
Art. 204. The person obliged to give support shall have the option to fulfill the
obligation either by paying the allowance fixed, or by receiving and maintaining in
the family dwelling the person who has a right to receive support. The latter
alternative cannot be... availed of in case there is a moral or legal obstacle thereto.
23. MA. BELEN B. MANGONON vs. COURT OF APPEALS dente lite thus the next question is who should be ma
G.R. No. 125041, June 30, 2006, 494 SCRA 1 de liable for said award.

FACTS; Anent respondents Francisco and Federico’s claim that they

Belen and Federico were married. But the same was later have the option under the law as to how they could
annulled because it was solemnized without the required co perform their obligation to support the twins. Art. 204 pro
nsent per Article 85 of the New Civil Code. Seven (7) vides that “the person obliged to give support shall have th
months after said annulment, petitioner gave birth to twin e option to fulfill the obligation either by paying the allo
daughters which she later raised in the U.S. with the hel wance fixed, or by receiving and maintaining in the family d
p of her second husband. A petition for declaration of legiti welling the person who has a right to receive support. The
macy and support, with application for support pendente lite w latter alternative cannot be availed of in case there is a
as filed by petitioner against Federico since they were no l moral or legal obstacle thereto.” Under the said provision,
onger capable of paying the college education of the twins. Francisco could not avail for himself of the second option.

Because the parents are no longer capable of providing su

pport, petitioner alleges that the twins’ grandfather should be
ordered to provide the support. On the other hand, respon
dent Francisco avers that the order of liability for support
under Art. 199 is not concurrent such that the obligation
must be borne by those related to the recipient and in
this case petitioner and her second husband. He also alle
ges that even if he is responsible for said support, he
could not be made to answer beyond what petitioner and
the father could afford.

ISSUE:
Whether the obligation to give support devolves on the gra
ndfather in default of the financial capacity of twin daughter
s’ parents.

HELD;
YES. Respondent Francisco is liable for half of the amount
of school expenses incurred by twin daughters as support
pendente lite. The petitioner was able to establish, by prima
facie proof, the filiation of her twin daughters to priv
ate respondents and the twins’ entitlement to support pen
24. Patricio VS. Dario must now establish his own family home separate and distinct from that of his
G.R. NO. 170829 parents, being of legal age.
FACTS:
On July 5, 1987, Marcelino V. Dario died intestate. He was survived by his wife,
petitioner Perla G. Patricio and their two sons, Marcelino Marc Dario and private
respondent Marcelino G. Dario III. Among the properties he left was a parcel of
land with a residential house and a pre-school building.

Thereafter, petitioner and Marcelino Marc formally advised private respondent of

their intention to partition the subject property and terminate the co-
ownership. Private respondent refused to partition the property hence petitioner
and Marcelino Marc instituted an action for partition before the Regional Trial
Court of Quezon City which was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-01-44038 and raffled
to Branch 78.
Advertisements
REPORT THIS AD

Private respondent claims that the subject property which is the family home duly
constituted by spouses Marcelino and Perla Dario cannot be partitioned while a
minor beneficiary is still living therein namely, his 12-year-old son, who is the
grandson of the decedent.

ISSUE:
W/N the family home cannot be partitioned on the grounds that a minor-
beneficiary is still residing therein.

HELD:
No. 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.
Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV satisfied the first two requisites. However, on the
third requisite, Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV cannot demand support from his
paternal grandmother. Thus, the obligation to support under Art. 199 which
outlines the order of liability for support is imposed first upon the shoulders of the
closer relatives and only in their default is the obligation moved to the next nearer
relatives and so on. It is his father whom he is dependent on legal support, and who
25. Lim v. Lim, G.R. No. 163209, October 30, 2009. only upon default of parental authority, conceivably either by its termination or
[CARPIO, J.:] suspension during the childrens minority. Because at the time respondents sued for
support, Cheryl and Edward exercised parental authority over their
FACTS: children, petitioners submit that the obligation to support the latters offspring ends
In 1979, respondent Cheryl S. Lim (Cheryl) married Edward Lim (Edward), son of with them.
petitioners. Cheryl bore Edward three children, respondents Lester Edward, Here, there is no question that Cheryl is unable to discharge her obligation to
Candice Grace and Mariano III. Cheryl, Edward and their children resided at the provide sufficient legal support to her children, then all school-bound. It is also
house of petitioners in Forbes Park, Makati City, together with Edwards. Edwards undisputed that the amount of support Edward is able to give to
family business, which provided him with a monthly salary of P6,000, shouldered the respondents, P6,000 a month, is insufficient to meet respondents basic needs. This
family expenses. Cheryl had no steady source of income. inability of Edward and Cheryl to sufficiently provide for their children shifts a portion
In 1990, Cheryl abandoned the Forbes Park residence, bringing the children with of their obligation to the ascendants in the nearest degree, both in the paternal
her (then all minors), after a violent confrontation with Edward whom she caught (petitioners) and maternal lines, following the ordering in Article 199. To hold
with the in-house midwife of his grandmother in what the trial court described a very otherwise, and thus subscribe to petitioners theory, is to sanction the anomalous
compromising situation. Cheryl, for herself and her children, sued petitioners, scenario of tolerating extreme material deprivation of children because of parental
Edward, Chua Giak and Mariano (defendants) in the Regional Trial Court of Makati inability to give adequate support even if ascendants one degree removed are more
City, Branch 140 (trial court) for support. The trial court ordered Edward to provide than able to fill the void.
monthly support of P6,000 pendente lite. However, petitioners partial concurrent obligation extends only to
In 1996, the trial court rendered judgment ordering Edward and petitioners to jointly their descendants as this word is commonly understood to refer to relatives, by
provide P40,000 monthly support to respondents, with Edward shouldering P6,000 blood of lower degree. As petitioners grandchildren by blood, only
and petitioners the balance of P34,000 subject to Chua Giaks subsidiary liability. respondents Lester Edward, Candice Grace and Mariano III belong to this category.
The defendants sought reconsideration, questioning their liability. The trial court, Indeed, Cheryl’s right to receive support from the Lim family extends only to her
while denying reconsideration, clarified that petitioners and Chua Giak were held husband Edward, arising from their marital bond. Unfortunately, Cheryl’s share from
jointly liable with Edward because of the latters inability x x x to give sufficient the amount of monthly support the trial court awarded cannot be determined from
support x x x. Petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals assailing, among others, the records. Thus, we are constrained to remand the case to the trial court for this
their liability to support respondents. Petitioners argued that while Edwards income limited purpose.
is insufficient, the law itself sanctions its effects by providing that legal support
should be in keeping with the financial capacity of the family under Article 194 of the
Civil Code, as amended by Executive Order No. 209 (The Family Code of the
Philippines).
In 2003, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ordering petitioners Prudencio
and Filomena Lim (petitioners) to provide legal support to
respondents Cheryl, Lester Edward, Candice Grace and Mariano III, all surnamed
Lim (respondents).

ISSUE:
Whether petitioners are concurrently liable with Edward to provide support to
respondents.

HELD: YES.
By statutory and jurisprudential mandate, the liability of ascendants to provide legal
support to their descendants is beyond cavil. Petitioners themselves admit as much
they limit their petition to the narrow question of when their liability is triggered,
not if they are liable. Relying on provisions found in Title IX of the Civil Code, as
amended, on Parental Authority, petitioners theorize that their liability is activated
26. SUSAN LIM-LUA V. DANILO LUA CASE DIGEST - CIVIL LAW CA ruled in favor of the husband that the expenses incurred by the husband be
SUSAN LIM-LUA VS. DANILO LUA considered advances which may be properly deducted from the support in arrears
G.R. Nos. 175279-80 June 5, 2013 due to the petitioner and the two children.

Thus ordered the deduction of the amount of PhP3,428,813.80 from the current
FACTS: total support in arrears of Danilo to his wife, Susan Lim Lua and their two children.

Susan Lim-Lua filed a petition against Danilo Lua for a declaration of nullity of ISSUE:
marriage with a prayer for support pendente lite for herself and her two
children amounting to P500,000.00 per month. Citing respondent’s huge earnings Whether certain expenses already incurred by the respondent may be deducted
from salaries and dividends in several companies and businesses here and abroad. from the total support in arrears owing to the petitioner and her children.

After due hearing, RTC cited Art. 203 of the Family Code, stating that support is RULING.
demandable from the time plaintiff needed the said support but is payable only
from the date of judicial demand, and thus also granted support pendente lite of The SC partly granted CA’s decision. First, is to resume payment of his monthly
P250,000.00. support of PhP115,000.00 pesos starting from the time payment of this amount
was deferred by him. Second, that only the amount of Php 648,102.29 may be
The husband filed for Motion for Reconsideration asserting that petitioner is not allowed as deductions from the accrued support pendente lite for petitioner and
entitled to spousal support considering that she does not maintain for herself a her children and not PhP3,428,813.80 (rendered by the CA).
separate dwelling from their children and respondent has continued to support the
family for their sustenance and well- being in accordance with family’s social and
financial standing.

The husband also assert that the P250,000 monthly support and the 1,750,000.00
retroactive support is unconscionable and beyond the intendment of the law for
not having considered the needs of the respondent

MR denied thus he appealed to the CA wherein it reduced the monthly support

to P115,000.00 which ruling was no longer questioned by both parties.

The controversy between the parties resurfaced when respondent’s compliance

with the final CA decision indicated that he deducted from the total amount in
arrears (P2,645,000.00) the sum of P2,482,348.16, representing the value of the
two cars for the children, their cost of maintenance and advances are given to the
petitioner and his children.
 WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the PGMC and against the
27. Pension & Gratuity Mgt. Center v. AAA, AAA by way of the following:1) Ordering the issuance of a Permanent Protection
Order decreeing the AAA to support the PGMC and the minor child CCC consisting
G.R. No. 201292, Aug. 1, 2018 of 50% of his monthly pension to be withheld regularly by the Pension Gratuity
Management Center of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, General Headquarters,
Petitioners : PENSION AND GRATUITY MANAGEMENT CENTER (PGMC), GHQ, AFP, Fort Bonifacio, Taguig City, to be remitted by the latter by check directly to the
CAMP AGUINALDO, QUEZON CITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS CURRENT CHIEF PGMC;2) Ordering the AAA to pay the PGMC support in arrears in the amount of
Respondents : AAA (CA-G.R. SP NO. 04359- MIN) P130,000.00,representing monthly support of P5,000.00 commencing from
January, 2008.SO ORDERED
Ponente: DEL CASTILLO (First Division)
PGMC filed a Manifestation (with Motion) questioning the trial court's directive for
Topic: Civil Law; Remedial Law it to withhold half ofBBB's pension for direct remittance to AAA. In an April 23,
2011 Order, the trial court denied PGMC's Manifestation (with Motion) for lack of
SUMMARY : SC ruled that PGMC may be directed to to withhold half of BBB's merit. CA affirmed.
pension for direct remittance to AAA in an action for a Permanent Protection Order
under the Anti-VAWC law. ISSUES
WON PGMC may be validly ordered by the court to withhold half of BBB's pension
DOCTRINE: In Republic v. Yahon, the Court held that PGMC may be ordered to for direct remittance to AAA
automatically deduct a portion from the retirement benefits of its member-
recipients for direct remittance to the latter's legal Spouse as and by way of support HELD: YES. The SC cited Republic vs. Yahon (see Doctrine).
in compliance with a protection order issued by the trial court, pursuant to the
provisions of Republic Act No. 9262 (RA 9262) or the Anti-Violence Against Women NOTES: Petition DENIED. The case is REMANDED to the court of origin for
and Their Children Act of 2004. The Court declared therein that RA 9262 - which is execution, and if necessary, evaluation and determination of what is correctly due
a special law; a later enactment; a support enforcement legislation; and one that to respondent AAA by way of support in arrears and interest, if any, considering the
addresses one form of violence, which is economic abuse against women and period of time that elapsed since the case was decided by the trial court.
children - should be construed as laying down an exception to the general rule that
retirement benefits are exempt from execution. The Court therein noted that
RA9262 itself explicitly authorizes the courts to order the withholding of a
percentage of the income or salary of the defendant or respondent by the
employer, which shall be remitted directly to the plaintiff or complainant - other
laws to the contrary notwithstanding.

FACTS
: AAA filed an action for support against her husband, BBB -
a retired military person, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Isabela, Basilan.
The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 921-259and assigned to RTC Branch 1.On
February 12, 2010, the trial court issued its Judgment, the dispositive portion of
which reads: