Case Doctrines On Persons and Family Relations

CASE DOCTRINES ON PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
AS ENUNCIATED BY THE SUPREME COURT ON DECIDED CASES

Prepared By: Clyde Maglinte Elarcosa
Bachelor of Laws
VALIDITY OF WAIVERS AND QUITCLAIMS:
ROBERTO FAMANILIA VS COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 150429
If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a
reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not
later be disowned simply because of change of mind.
MICHAEL GUY VS COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 163707
A waiver may not be attributed to a person when its terms do
not explicitly and clearly evince an intent to abandon a right.
ABUSE OF RIGHTS PRINCIPLE (ARTICLE 19 21, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES)

NIKKO HOTEL MANILA VS ROBERTO REYES
G.R. No. 154259
Mere rudeness or lack of consideration of one person, which
calls not only protection of human dignity but respect of such
dignity without proof of any ill-motive cannot amount to
abusive conduct.
CAPACITY TO ACT IN VIEW OF INSANITY (ARTICLE 38 39, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES)
CORAZON CATALAN VS JOSE BASA
G.R. No. 159567
A person suffering from schizophrenia does not necessarily
lose his competence to intelligently dispose his property.
NATURE OF THE FAMILY HOME (ARTICLE 159, FAMILY CODE)

VILMA ARRIOLA VS JOHN NABOR ARRIOLA
G.R. No. 177703
Even if the family home has passed by succession to the co-
ownership of the heirs, or has been willed to any one of
them, this fact alone cannot transform the family home into
an ordinary property, much less dispel the protection cast
upon it by the law. The rights of the individual co-owner or
owner of the family home cannot subjugate the rights
granted under Article 159 to the beneficiaries of the family
home.
NATURE OF THE FAMILY HOME (ARTICLES 152,153 and 162, FAMILY CODE)
JOSE MODEQUILLO VS HON.AUGUSTO BREVA
G.R. No. 86355
Although Articles 152 and 153 has retroactive effect pertaining to homes constituted
as family home before the effectivity of the Family Code, it does not mean that
Articles 152 and 153 of said Code have a retroactive effect such that all existing family
residences are deemed to have been constituted as family homes at the time of their
occupation prior to the effectivity of the Family Code and are exempt from execution
for the payment of obligations incurred before the effectivity of the Family Code.
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY (ARTICLE 36, FAMILY CODE)
CHI MING TSOI VS COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 119190
The senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to a sexual intercourse is
equivalent to psychological incapacity.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS COURT OF APPEALS AND RORIDEL MOLINA

G.R. No. 108763
Mere showing of irreconciliable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes
psychological incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their
responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to
be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (nor physical) illness.
The following guidelines in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code are
hereby handed down for the guidance of the bench and the bar:
1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b)
alleged in the complaint, (c)sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision.
3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage.
4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such
incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily
absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the
assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the
exercise of a profession or employment in a job.
5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage.
6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family
Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in
regard to parents and their children.
7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in
the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts.
8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear
as counsel for the state.
BRENDA MARCOS VS WILSON MARCOS

G.R. No. 136490
Personal medical or psychological examination of respondent is not a requirement for a
declaration of psychological incapacity.
JOEL JIMENEZ VS REMEDIOS CAIZARES

G.R. No. L-12790
Impotency being an abnormal condition should not be presumed. The presumption is in favor of
potency. The lone testimony of the husband that his wife is physically incapable of sexual
intercourse is insufficient to tear asunder the ties that have bound them together as husband and
wife.
REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE (ARTICLES 2 3, FAMILY CODE)
FABIAN PUGEDA VS RAFAEL TRIAS

G.R. No. L-16925
The mere fact that no record of the marriage exists in the registry of
marriage does not invalidate said marriage, as long as in the celebration
thereof, all requisites for its validity are present. The forwarding of a copy
of the marriage certificate to the registry is not one of said requisites.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ELIAS BORROMEO

G.R. No. L-61873
Person living together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the
absence of any counter presumption or evidence special to the case, to
be in fact married.
MARRIAGES EXEMPT FROM MARRIAGE LICENSE (ARTICLE 34, FAMILY CODE): REASONS AND REQUISITES
ENGRACE NINAL VS NORMA BAYADOG

G.R. No. 133778
The rationale why no license is required in such case is to avoid
exposing the parties to humiliation, shame and embarrassment
concomitant with the scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a
valid marriage due to the publication of every applicants name for a
marriage license. The publicity attending the marriage license may
discourage such persons from legitimizing their status.
The five-year common-law cohabitation period, which is counted back
from the date of celebration of marriage, should be a period of legal
union had it not been for the absence of the marriage. This 5-year
period should be the years immediately before the day of the
marriage and it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by
exclusivity meaning no third party was involved at any time within the
5 years and continuity that is unbroken.
REMARRIAGE (ARTICLE 26, FAMILY CODE)
REPUBLIC VS CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III

G.R. No. 154380
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code (E.O. No. 209, as
amended by E.O. No. 227), should be interpreted to allow a Filipino
citizen, who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign
citizenship and remarried, also to remarry.

Case Doctrines On Persons and Family Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Doctrines On Persons and Family Relations

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Doctrines On Persons and Family Relations

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CASE DOCTRINES ON PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

AS ENUNCIATED BY THE SUPREME COURT ON DECIDED CASES

MICHAEL GUY VS COURT OF APPEALS

ABUSE OF RIGHTS PRINCIPLE (ARTICLE 19 21, CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES)

NATURE OF THE FAMILY HOME (ARTICLE 159, FAMILY CODE)

CHI MING TSOI VS COURT OF APPEALS

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES VS COURT OF APPEALS AND RORIDEL MOLINA

BRENDA MARCOS VS WILSON MARCOS

JOEL JIMENEZ VS REMEDIOS CAIZARES

FABIAN PUGEDA VS RAFAEL TRIAS

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ELIAS BORROMEO

ENGRACE NINAL VS NORMA BAYADOG

REMARRIAGE (ARTICLE 26, FAMILY CODE)

REPUBLIC VS CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III

You might also like