Madridejo (plaintiff and appellee) v De Leon (defendants and appellants) Doctrines : Articles 121, 131,135 of the Civil Code

Issue: Did Pedro Madridejo acknowledge Melecio Madridejo as his son by compulsion? Whether the subsequent marriage of his parents legitimated him. Facts: In a case earlier filed and the court decided that the marriage between Pedro and Flaviana was valid, and that their marriage legitimated Melecio Madridejo as their son. An appeal was filed for the errors committed by the lower court. Eulogio de Leon and Flaviana Perez, had one child Domingo De Leon Eulogio de Leon died 1915.

Flaviana Perez lived with Pedro Madridejo and begot Melecio Madridejo

The Parish Priest of Siniloan, Laguna failed to send a copy of the marriage certificate to the municipal secretary when Pedro Madridejo and Flaviana Perez married.

HELD: Melecio Madridejo has not been voluntarily acknowledged by his father and his mother either before or after their marriage, although the birth certificate, though it lacks the requisites of the Law of Civil Registry and it has neither been executed or signed by P.M.

The mother supplied the data of birth in the baptismal certificate but constitutes the proof of baptism and not the kinship or parentage of the person baptized.

Melecio has not impleaded his parents to acknowledge him in order that the court might have the correct pronouncement on his being a natural child and the right to the estate of his brother Domingo De Leon.

Thus, the judgment is reversed, defendants absolved, with cost against the appellee and their marriage did not legitimate him. PEOPLE V BORROMEO Doctrine: Article 246 Revised Penal Code P.3 That Borromeo and the victim were not legally married, and that the crime committed is not parricide but homicide.
Issue:

FACTS: July 03, 1981, a 4yr old niece of Elias and Susana Borromeo reported to the mother of Susana that her daughter was shouting frantically and asking for help because Elias was killing her. They asked helped from Susanas brother and father and upon reaching the hut of Susana, they saw her lying lifeless. Her father reported immediately to the police and peace officers hurriedly went to their hut. They have seen Susan dead with the bolo beside her and her one month old child. Elias during the investigation was asked what his reason was in killing his wife, the latter told there was none. Elias also mentioned in the investigation that he is not legally married and it should be homicide not parricide as to the crime he committed.

HELD: The decision made by the court is AFFIRMED, RECLUSION PERPETUA.

That during the investigation Elias made mentioned in his testimony that his wife is Susana. There is no better proof of marriage than the admission of the accused of the existence of such marriage, Persons living together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counter presumption or evidence to the case, to be in fact married. The presumption in favor of matrimony is one of the strongest known in law. The law presumes morality and not immorality, marriage and not concubinage, legitimacy and not bastardy.

REPUBLIC v ORBECIDO III DOCTRINES : P2 of Article 26 of CC Issue : Given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizen, where one party is later naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a valid divorce decree capacitating him or her to remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise remarry under Philippine Law. FACTS: In a petition for review, the SG assails the decision dated May 15, 2002 of the RTC in Zamboanga del Sur denying the petition for Reconsideration that petitioner Orbecido is capacitated to remarry. May 24, 1981 Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Milagros Villanueva at the United Church of Christ in the Philippines. Was blessed with two children 1986 Ciprianos wife left for the US together with his son.

His wife was naturalized as an American citizen. Cipriano filed with the TC a petition to remarry inking P2. Of Article 26 of the Family Code.

HELD: The petition for the Republic of the Philippines is GRANTED. The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorced is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. At the outset of the case the petition for authority to remarry filed before the TC actually constituted a petition for declaratory relief. SECTION 1 RULE 63 of the RC provides that: DECLARATORY RELIEF AND SIMILAR REMEDIES Section 1 - WHO MAY FILE A PETITION any person interested under a deed, will, contract or written instrument or whose rights are affected by a statute, executive order or regulations, ordinance, or other governmental regulations may before breach or violation thereof, bring an action thereof, bring an action appropriate at the RTC to determine any question of construction or validity arising, and for a declaration of the rights of duties, thereunder. REQUISITES OF A PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF ARE:
1. There must be a judicial controversy 2. That the party seeking the relief has a legal interest in the controversy 3. That the controversy must be between persons whose interest are adverse

LESACA v LESACA Doctrines: Article 1401 CC, Article 1380 of the Old CC, Article 1430 CC of 1989 Article 188 of the new CC)

ISSUES: Whether money received after marriage as purchase of price of land sold a retrovendendo before such marriage to one of the consorts constitutes conjugal property or not. Whether allowances for support granted by the court to a minor heirs should or should not be subject to collation and deducted from their respective hereditary portions. Whether a standing crop of palay planted during coverture and harvested after death of one of the consorts, constitutes fruits and income , and one half of such crop should be delivered to the surviving spouse. FACTS:

Baldomero J. Lesaca died in the City of Manila on November 08, 1946. He was survived by his second wife (Juana Felix) with 2 minor children, another 2 minor children with his first wife, 3 acknowledged natural children by his 3 rd marriage. APPEAL 1 Petitioners said that the two minors be given a monthly allowance and money for their uniform and matriculation. Court ordered co-executrices to deposit allowance in arrears in which they refused to do so. MARCH 11, 1949 per Article 188 of the CC Court ordered that the amount of allowance for support of education and other expenses of the minor should be deducted from their hereditary portion and only in so far as they what they are entitled to as fruits or income and co-executrices deposit in court all allowances in arrears . APPEAL 2 From another appeal dated March 11, 1949 declaring the sum of 2500.00 received by them as repurchase of the land bought by the deceased before the marriage in conjugal property and directing that one half of the said sum be paid to the widow. In the case there is no showing that the sum paid to Garcia was earned by joint efforts of the deceased and his widow.

APPEAL 3 From an Appeal April 29, 1949 declaring 1,040 cavans of palay of 20,800 as rent on decedents land for agricultural year 1946-1947, though Lesaca did not cultivate the land personally but his land was rented and portion of the crop was the payment of the rent of the land. Article 1380 of the Old CC stated that Uncollected fruits or rents shall be divided pro rata between the surviving spouse and heirs of decease.

HELD: As per APPEAL 1 is AFFIRMED by the court

APPEAL 2 is REVERSED that the said sum is part of the estate of the deceased. APPEAL 3 is AFFIRMED.

YAO KEE v SY-GONZALES

Issue: Aida Sy- Gonzales , Manuel Sy, Teresita Sy- Bernabe and Rodolfo Sy filed a petition for the grant of letters of administration. That they are the children of the deceased SY KIAT with Asuncion Gillego. That Sy KIAT died INTESTATE That they do not acknowledge to YAO KEE nor the children of the latter to the deceased. They nominate Aida Sy Gonzales as the administratrix of the INTESTATE ESTATE of the deceased.