Rights and Obligations of Unmarried Cohabitants by your amazing girlfriend, Veronika

Silva v Peralta (1960)

FACTS:
- Peralta lived with her sister [1941]
- Silva: American citizen and member of the army -> Married to a Prescilla Isabel
- Peralta and Silva met and fell in love and got married [1945] (no documentation of the said marriage
since they alleged that there was no printed copy for the purpose)
o They had a son
- Silva got wounded and returned to the US to be treated
- In his return to the US, he filed a divorce to Prescilla
- Silva married Elenita Ledesma [1948]
- When Silva returned to the PH, Peralta demanded him to give support to their child but he refused ->
she filed a suit in the CFI in Manila
- Petitioners filed a counter suit
o To enjoin her from using his surname
o For moral. Exemplary, nominal damages incurred from misrepresentation
o Attorneys fees
ISSUES:
WoN it is proper for the defendant to represent herself as the wife of Saturnino (Mrs. Silva).
- NO
- No evidence of their marriage: only her testimony and that of her counsel
- Some inconsistencies: she represented herself as single even after the said marriage
- Saturnino was still married to Prescilla
- By art 370 allowing wife to use husbands surname, it also prevents others from using the same
WoN plaintiff can claim for moral, nominal and exemplary damages allegedly suffered by reason of such
misrepresentation.
- NO
- No proof of humiliation and distress caused by the respondent
WoN defendant can claim for actual damages and fees due to harassment and moral damages caused by
the deceit of Saturnino, and his consequent refusal to acknowledge their child.
- YES
- Peralta would not have agreed to marry him and have a child if he did not conceal his previous
marriage
- Esther acted in good faith

Valdes v RTC (1996)

FACTS:
- Antonio Valdes and Consuelo Gomez married with 5 children [1971]
- Valdes sought the declaration of nullity of marriage (Art 36 of the Family Code)
- Marriage was declared null and void -> mutual psychological incapacity
- 3 children will decide which parent they will stay with, the other 2 will stay with the mother. Valdes will
have visitation rights
- Directed to start proceedings on liquidation of properties
o As defined in art 47, FC
o Comply w arts 50, 51, 52 within 30 days
ISSUE:
WON the property regime should be based on co-ownership.
- YES
- In void marriages, the property relations are governed by the rules of co-ownership Any property
acquired during the union is prima facie presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts.

Matabuena v Cervantes (1971)

FACTS:
- Brother (Felix Matabuena) of Cornella Matabuena donated a parcel of land to Petronila Cervantes
- Cornella wants to reverse the decision of the lower court to declare the donation void
- The donation of land to Cornella was made during the common-law relationship as husband and wife
between Felix and Cervantes
- Facts the parties agreed on
o Deceased felix owned the property
 o He executed a Deed of Donation inter vivos to her which she accepted 1956
o It was made during their common-law relationship
o Married later on March 28, 1962
o He died intestate sept 13 1962
o Cornella claims that being the only sister of Felix, being the nearest collateral relative and
paying estate and inheritance taxes that she owns the land -> Art. 133 of the Civil Code
- Petronila claims that the donation is valid because the donation was made before her marriage to
the donor

ISSUE:
WON the ban on a donation between the spouses during a marriage applies to common- law relationships.
- YES
- Exigent character and policy considerations require the prohibition to apply to common-law
relationships court cited Buenaventura v Bautista
- The disabilities attached to marriage should likewise attach to concubinage
- BUT
o Lack of validity to the donation does not necessarily result in the plaintiff having exclusive
right to the property
o She is entitled only to because the defendant is now his widow

Sumbad v CA (1999)

FACTS:
- Wife (Agata B. Tait) of George K. Tait died
- After death of wife, he was in common-law relationship with Maria F. Tait
- 1974 He donated a parcel of land to Maria
- 1977 When he died, Maria sold lots and the Sum-at property
- She died in 1988
- 1989 Daughters of George and Agata (Emilie Sumbad and Beatrice Tait) declared that the donation
is void because
o It was forged by their fathers ward, Raquel Tait
o Violated Art. 133 of CC, now Art. 87 of the Family Code
o Notarized by an unauthorized person
o They had no bar to bring present action since they only found out a yr before

ISSUES:
WON the donation executed by George Tait in favour of Maria Tait is valid and effective
- DONATION IS VALID
- Testimony of the witness of the forgery is incredible
o They appear to have been rehearsed
o Shouldve presented handwriting experts
- Art 749 requires a public instrument for the validity of donations of immovable property
o The person who notarized the donation was deputy clerk -> acted for and in the absence of
Clerk of court
- The petitioners never invoked that their common law relationship was also barred from
receiving/accepting donations like married spouses (Art 87)
o They cannot raise the issue for the first time on appeal

WON laches barred the claim of the plaintiffs.

- PETITIONERS ARE GUILTY OF LACHES FOR WAITING 12 YEARS BEFORE CLAIMING THEIR INHERITANCE
- It was impossible that they didnt notice the land being occupied by the defendants and their families
- They had waited for maria to die before assailing its a validity
o Failure or neglect for an unreasonable length of time to do that could or should have done
earlier by exerting due diligence

Ching v Goyanko (2006)

FACTS:
- Joseph Goyanko and Epifania dela Cruz married with children
- 1961 Parents acquired land in Cebu but since they were Chinese, it was registered to the aunt Sulpicia
Vetura
- 1993: Sulpicia executed a deed of sale to the father and then to his common-law wife Maria Ching
- 1996 father died
- Respondents discovered that the ownership was transferred but with forged signature
- They filed for nullification of deed of sale
 - Petitioner claimed that she is the rightful owner of the land because she was the one who provided
the purchase price
- RTC ruled in favor of petitioner because the signature was genuine
o It was only a temporary transaction on the part of Joseph
- CA ruled in reverse because the property was acquired during existence of valid marriage
o It belonged to the conjugal partnership
o No judicial decree of dissolution of marriage
o Because they merely have a common law relationship, Art 1352 says that contract of sale is
void for being contrary to morals and public policy

ISSUES:
WON proscription against sale of property between spouses applies even to common law relationships
- YES
- Art 1409 of Civil code
o Contracts whose object of purpose is contrary to morals, good customs, law, are void
- Art 1352
o Contracts w/o cause or w unlawful cause produces no effect
- Law prohibits spouses to sell or donate land to each other
o Designed to prevent exercise of undue influence of spouse against another

WON a judicial relation of trust between Joseph Goyanko and petitioner can validly exist between them
- DOES NOT PERSUADE
- Even if she provided the purchase price, she still cannot claim the land to be hers

Silva v CA and Gonzales (1997)

FACTS:
- Silva, married, and Gonzales, illicit rel, unmarried fell in love and bore two children
- When the relationship ended Silva filed for custody of the children but Gonzales claims that he
engaged in womanizing and gambling
- Silva was granted visitorial rights [RTC]
o Pending the appeal, Gonzales married a Dutch and moved to Holland with the kids
- Letting the children move from one home to another is not good for them [CA]

ISSUES:
WON the father is entitled to visitorial rights to his children?
- Yes - INHERENT AND NATURAL RIGHTS OF PARENTS OVER THEIR CHILDREN
- Art 209 220, FC
- It is the natural right of the parent to keep the children under their authority and keep them in their
company
- Fathers visitorial rights restored

Gotardo v Buling (2012)

- 1992 Divina Buling (resp) met Charles Gotardo (pet) at PHL Commercial and Industrial Bank
o Divina was a casual employee; Charles was accounting supervisor
- 1993 Became sweethearts and had Sexual relations in Rodolfos (Divinas uncle) Boarding house
- 1994 Divina got pregnant
o Charles was happy and started to make plans for a wedding
o Charles backed out subsequently
- Divina filed for damages for breach of promise to marry
- 1995 resp gave birth to Gliffze on March 1995 and demanded the pet to give support
o Pet did not answer demand
o Resp filed complaint for compulsory recognition and support pendente lite
- Pet testified:
o They first had sex during August 1994
o She couldnt have been pregnant for 12 weeks when he was informed of pregnancy on
Sept 1994
- During pendency, respondent was granted Php 2,000 a month

ISSUE: WoN petitioner should be ordered to recognize and provide legal support to Gliffze
HELD: YES
- In Herrera v. Alba, we stressed that there are four significant procedural aspects of a traditional
paternity action that parties have to face:
o a prima facie case,
 o affirmative defenses,
o presumption of legitimacy,
o and physical resemblance between the putative father and the child.
- Divina was able to establish a prima facie case
o She had sex with only one person at the time of conception
o Charles did not deny having sex with her (but he states they had sex only on a later date)
- After Divina provided evidence that she had sex with putative father, the burden of evidence shifts to
the putative father.
o Charles was unable to substantiate his allegations of infidelity and promiscuity
- Contradiction in Divinas testimony was due to misunderstanding
o She was confused as to sex and accepting his love.
o Her former legal counsel did nothing to correct the transcript
- The totality of Divinas testimony shows that she started sexual relations with Charles in September 1993
- Filiation is beyond question, so support follows as a matter of obligation
o A parent is obliged to support his child, whether legitimate or illegitimate
o Support consists of everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical
attendance, education and transportation
o Amount of support is variable, but must be in proportion to the resources of the giver and the
necessities of the recipient
o Support may be reduced or increased in proportion to the reduction or increase in
necessities of the recipient and resources of the supporter

Gan v Reyes (2012)

FACTS:
- Bernadette Pondevida filed a complaint (in behalf of her daughter) against petitioner for support w
support pendent lite
- Motion to dismiss by petitioner was denied and was ordered to recognize the child as his illegitimate
child and pay her support
- Resp moved for execution of judgment by granting writ of execution
- Petitioner argues that action of support cannot be granted right away because
o No good reason for immediate action
o Writ was invalid, done in violation of his right to notice and hearing
o His claim on repss adultery should be heard by the court bc such defense would lead to
denial of the claim of support
ISSUE:
WON support for the respondent can be immediately executed by the court
- YES
- Section 4, Rule 39 of the Rules of court
o Unless ordered by the TC, judgments in actions for support are immediately executory
- Interest and welfare of child are paramount concern to issues involving him
o U cannot withhold support from a child until final decision is handed out
o It may lead to lack of nutrition or missed payments in school
- Adultery cannot be alleged because they werent married

Tenchavez v Escao

FACTS:
- Pastor Tenchaves and Escao got married
- Mother of Escano learned about the marriage and restrained them from eloping
- Parents of Escano wanted to re-celebrate the marriage but it did not materialize because Tenchaves
has anither relationship with Pacita Noel
- Tenchavez and Escano eventually became estranged
- Escano filed for annulment but did not sign it and dismissed due to non-appearance
- Escano moved to the US and filed for a divorce on the grounds of cruelty
- Tenchavez charged the Escanos with having discouraged their daughter from joining him
- He asked for legal separation and one million pesos in damage

ISSUE
WON The divorce is valid and WON the Court may compel Escano to cohabit with Tenchavez
- NO
- A foreign divorce decree cannot be recognized in the Philippines

Narag v Narag
FACTS:
- Julieta Narag filed an administrative complaint for disbarment against husband, Atty. Dominador
Narag [1989]
o Canons 1 and 6, Rule 1.01 of the Code of Ethics of Lawyers
He abandoned their family to live w his former student
- Complaint was dismissed because allegations were fabricated
- Wife filed a complaint again and said she dropped previous complaint because of the threats made
by husband
- Atty prayed for the dismissal of complaint because he loves his family
- Upon the IBP hearing, resp alleges that
o He loved his fam and he gave support, good home, companionship
o He was abused by the complainant making their marriage a nightmare
o Wife had a propensity to file false charges against him
Listed down complaints she had filed against him and Espita (paramour)
- 1997 Investigating officer recommend an indefinite suspension from the practice of law
- She later on filed a disbarment case

ISSUE:
WON conduct of respondent warrants the imposition of the penalty of disbarment
- YES
o Complainant was able to prove, through witnesses, that Atty did abandon the family to live
w Gina Espita
o Brother of Espita testified and positively identified him
He said they had 2 kids
Respondent tried to dissuade him from testifying
- Respondent failed to prove and only denied the testimonies against him

Perez v Tuazon de Perez

FACTS:
- Antonio Perez filed a civil case against his wife, Angela Tuazon de Perez
o To be declared a prodigal she was squandering her estate on Jose Boloix
o Spending the conjugal partnership of gains
o Openly expressed her desire to marry Boloix to embarrass Antonio
- Def alleges that CFI had no jurisdiction and that case should belong to Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court
- CFI dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction

ISSUE:
WON trial court erred in holding that it has no jurisdiction over the causes of action filed by Antonio Perez
- NO
- All causes of action fall under exclusive jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court as
provided by Sec 38 A (b)(d) of RA 1401
o Prodigality
Sec 38(b) on cases involving guardianship
o CPG
Since the cause of action is predicated on the grants of guardianship, still JDRC
o Wanting to marry Jose
Sex 38 A (d) when spouse brings dishonor upon the other

RA 1401
SEC. 38AProvision of the Judiciary Act to the contrary notwithstanding, the court shall have exclusive original jurisdiction to hear
and decide the following cases after the effectivity of this Act:
(b) Cases involving custody, guardianship, adoption, paternity and acknowledgment;
(d) proceedings brought under the provisions of Articles one hundred sixteen, two hundred twenty-five, two hundred fifty, two
and three hundred thirty-one of the Civil Code.
Art. 116
When one of the spouses neglects his or her duties to the conjugal union or brings danger, dishonour or material injury upon the
other, the injured party may apply to the court for relief.
The court may counsel the offended party to comply with his or her duties, and take such measures as may be proper
De Guzman v Perez

FACTS:
- Roberto and Shirley had a child, Robby, but not married
- Roberto married another woman
- Never provided support for the child (expect for school twice and when he was seriously ill)
- Shirley became a factory worker and Roberto became rich
- She demanded support from Roberto but was ignored, she then filed a criminal case ->
Abandonment and neglect
- City prosecutor ruled in favor of Shirley -> Roberto owned 750k worth of corporate shares
- Roberto argued that the wealth was not his but his dads and neglect can only be done if one has
means but fails to provide

ISSUE:
WON Roberto has indeed neglected his son
- YES
- Roberto was financially capable

Arroyo v Vasquez de Arroyo

FACTS:
- Mariano Arroyo and Dolores Vasquez de Arroyo were married for 10 years until Dolores left the
conjugal home
- Mariano initiated an action to compel wife from leaving
- Dolores a cross complaint asking for separation, liquidation of conjugal partnership and counsel fees
o On the basis of cruelty
- Trial judge ruled against Mariano

ISSUES:
WON Dolores abandonment was with sufficient justification as to render her entitled to her prayers in the
cross complaint
- NO
- Accusations of cruelty was not sufficiently proven by Dolores
WON the husband is entitled to a permanent mandatory injunction to compel the wife to return to the
matrimonial home and live with him as his dutiful wife
- NO
- Di ko gets bakit lol

Domalagan v Bolifer

FACTS:
- Domalagan and Bolifer entered a verbal contract
o Domalagan would pay Bolifer 500Php upon the marriage of their children
- Domalagan payed 516Php to Bolifer for the future marriage of their children
- The daughter of Bolifer married someone else, therefore Domalagan demanded the 516Php to be
returned to him
- Lower court ruled in favor of Domalagan and demanded Bolifer to return the money with interest

ISSUE:
WoN contract was valid and effective despite being against the provision stated under paragraph 3, Section
335 of the Code of Procedure in Civil Action that a contract should be reduced to writing?
- YES
- Contracts are valid even if not written