Case Digest: So v. Republic (G.R. No. 170603)

So v. Republic | G.R. No. 170603 | 29 Jan 2007 | Callejo, Sr. J. | Art IV (Section 1, Par 4) | Petitioners: Edison So Respondents: Republic of the Philippines Recit Ready Summary Herein Petitioner So filed for a Petition for Naturalization under CA No. 473 aka the Revised Naturalization Law.He presented 2 witnesses à fam business lawyer Atty. Adasa & UST classmate Mark Salcedo. RTC granted So’s petition. Respondent Republic of the Phil through OSG said not so fast! Coz SolGen claims na the 2 witnesses So presented did not know him (So) well enough and that they only gave general statements upon being asked about the character and moral conduct of So. CA set aside RTC’s decision. Hence, this present petition. The issue is W/N So qualifies for Philippines Citizenship and the Court said NO. It was wrong for So to claim that that RA 9139 should apply to his case instead of CA No. 473. This is because the latter applied to ALL ALIENS regardless of class while the former applies to nati...
Post a Comment

Case Digest: Salgado v. Anson (G.R. No 204494)

Salgado v. Anson |  G.R. No 204494 | September 5, 2016 | Topic: Conjugal property |

FACTS

  • On September 5, 2003, Luis Anson filed a Complaint against Jo-Ann Diaz-Salgado and Gerard Salgado (Spouses Salgado) along with Maria Luisa Anson-Maya and Gaston Maya (Spouses Maya), seeking the annulment of three Unilateral Deeds of Sale and the Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate of the Deceased Severina De Asis. 
  • Luis claimed that he is the surviving spouse of the late Severina. He alleged they were married in a civil ceremony on December 1966. Prior to this, Severina gave birth to their daughter, Maria Luisa while Jo-Ann is Severina’s daughter from a previous relationship. During their marital union, they acquired real properties in San Juan, Manila. Luis claims that since there was no marriage settlement between them, and the properties pertain to their conjugal partnership. However, without his knowledge and consent, Severina executed Unilateral Deeds of Sale transferring the properties in favor of Jo-Ann. When Severina died, Maria Luisa executed a Deed of Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate of Severina, adjudicating herself as Severina’s sole heir. Luis claimed that because of this, he was divested of his share in the conjugal properties, and inheritance as a compulsory heir of Severina. 
  • Jo-Ann countered that she did not know about the marriage between her mother and Luis, and that all they had was a common-law relationship. This was terminated through a Partition Agreement executed in November 1980. Luis then already received the properties apportioned to him. Maria Luisa also claimed that she was not aware of any marriage. In the Partition Agreement, Luis and Severina were described as single and they acknowledged that they were living together as common-law spouses. 
  • Luis presented a marriage contract with Severina during trial. The Spouses Salgado disputed the validity of the marriage on the ground of lack of marriage license. Luis also admitted the existence and execution of the Partition Agreement. The RTC ruled in favor of Luis, upholding the validity of marriage despite the lack of the marriage license number. The CA affirmed this. 

ISSUES

Whether there was a valid marriage between Luis and Severina?

Whether Luis is entitled to properties from Severina’s estate under Articles 147 or 148?

RULING

The marriage of Luis and Severina was solemnized prior to the effectivity of the Family Code, hence the applicable law is the Old Civil Code. 

The reason cited by Luis as to why there was no marriage license is the exception under Article 77 of the Old Civil Code, stating that “In case two persons married n accordance with law desire to ratify their union in conformity with the regulations, rites, or practices of any church, sect, or religion, it shall no longer be necessary to comply with the requirements of Chapter 1 of this Title and any ratification made shall merely be considered as a purely religious ceremony.” However, it is clear that they were not married to each other prior to the civil ceremony, and this was affirmed by Luis in his testimony. 

On the issue of the co-ownership, the Court held that in a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148. As there is no showing that the parties were incapacitated to marry each other at the time of their cohabitation and considering that their marriage is void from the beginning for lack of a valid marriage license, Article 144 in relation to Article 147 of the Family Code are the pertinent provisions of law governing their property relations.

Under this property regime, property acquired by both spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership. And since Luis has admitted the existence, due execution and authenticity of the Partition Agreement, it remains uncontroverted that he already received his share as stipulated in the Partition Agreement. As such, the Court finds no reason to have the said agreement declared null and void or annulled, in the absence of any circumstance which renders such contract invalid or at least, voidable.

DISPOSITION: PETITION GRANTED without prejudice to any civil action which may be filed to claim civil liability arising from the contract


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Case Digest: Republic v. Sereno (G.R. No 237428) w/ Summary of Separate Opinions

Republic v. Sereno (including Summary of Separate Opinions) | G.R. No. 237428 | May 11, 2018 | Tijam, J. |  Topic: Art. VIII, Sec 5 (other topics included in the full digest) | SUMMARY:   A petition for quo warranto was filed by the OSG assailing the appointment of CJ Sereno as Chief Justice on the ground that she failed to prove her integrity during the nomination process as she failed to comply with the SALN requirements of the JBC. Several groups and individuals filed Motions for Leave to Intervene, among them Senators De Lima and Trillanes. CJ Sereno filed a Motion to Inhibit against six Justices. The Republic argues that (1) quo warranto is the proper remedy, as the Constitution does not make impeachment the exclusive mode of unseating an impeachable officer; (2) the petition is not time barred as prescription cannot run against the States; and, (3) that, at the time of her appointment, CJ Sereno was not of “proven integrity” she not having filed the required SALNs a...
Read more

Case Digest: Gloria Dy v. People (G.R. No 189081)

Gloria Dy v. People of the Philippines | G.R. No. 189081 | August 10, 2016 | Topic: Liability ex delicto / ex contractu FACTS: Dy, as the General Manager of Mandy Commodities Company, Inc. (MCCI) proposed to William Mandy (President of MCCI) to purchase a property for the company. To facilitate the purchase, the president obtained a loan from International China Bank of Commerce (bank), which was granted to the company in the amount of P20 million.   As security, MCCI executed a chattel mortgage over their warehouses. The president entrusted Dy to manage the payment of the loan. Later on, MCCI received a notice of foreclosure over the mortgaged property due to its default in paying.   In order to prevent the foreclosure, the president delivered to Dy, P21,706,281 worth of checks issued by MCCI, with the instruction that Dy shall use the checks to pay the loan. However, the president later discovered that the checks weren’t paid to the bank when the bank foreclosed the mortg...
Read more

Case Digest: Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (G.R. No. 180906)

Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo |  G.R. No. 180906 | October 7, 2008 |  Puno. C.J. Doctrine and Concepts: The Writ of Amparo offers a better remedy to extralegal killings and enforced disappearances and threats thereof due to the nature of swiftness required to resolve these cases The remedy provides rapid judicial relief as it partakes of a summary that requires only substantial evidence to make the appropriate reliefs available to the petitioner; it is not an action to determine criminal guilt requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt or liability for damages requiring preponderance of evidence or administrative responsibility requiring full and exhaustive proceedings. Facts The case at bar is an appeal via Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court in relation to Section 19 of the Rule on the Writ of Amparo , seeking to reverse and set aside , the Decision promulgated by Court of Appeals in C.A. G.R. AMPARO No. 00001. The original case was filed by ...
Read more