Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1K views

    Vda de Jacob Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    django69
    (1) Tomasa Vda. De Jacob claimed to be the surviving spouse of Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob based on a reconstructed marriage contract. Pedro Pilapil intervened claiming to be the legally adopted son and sole heir of Alfredo. The lower courts invalidated the marriage and upheld Pedro's adoption claim. (2) The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding that: (a) Tomasa and Alfredo had a valid marriage under Article 76 of the Civil Code since they lived together for 5 years; and (b) Pedro failed to prove he was legally adopted as the deposition of the alleged adopting judge stated he did not recall granting the adoption.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Vda de Jacob Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    django69
    1K views2 pages
    (1) Tomasa Vda. De Jacob claimed to be the surviving spouse of Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob based on a reconstructed marriage contract. Pedro Pilapil intervened claiming to be the legally adopted son and sole heir of Alfredo. The lower courts invalidated the marriage and upheld Pedro's adoption claim. (2) The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding that: (a) Tomasa and Alfredo had a valid marriage under Article 76 of the Civil Code since they lived together for 5 years; and (b) Pedro failed to prove he was legally adopted as the deposition of the alleged adopting judge stated he did not recall granting the adoption.

    Original Title

    Vda de Jacob vs CA

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    (1) Tomasa Vda. De Jacob claimed to be the surviving spouse of Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob based on a reconstructed marriage contract. Pedro Pilapil intervened claiming to be the legally adopted son and sole heir of Alfredo. The lower courts invalidated the marriage and upheld Pedro's adoption claim. (2) The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding that: (a) Tomasa and Alfredo had a valid marriage under Article 76 of the Civil Code since they lived together for 5 years; and (b) Pedro failed to prove he was legally adopted as the deposition of the alleged adopting judge stated he did not recall granting the adoption.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    1K views2 pages

    Vda de Jacob Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    django69
    (1) Tomasa Vda. De Jacob claimed to be the surviving spouse of Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob based on a reconstructed marriage contract. Pedro Pilapil intervened claiming to be the legally adopted son and sole heir of Alfredo. The lower courts invalidated the marriage and upheld Pedro's adoption claim. (2) The Supreme Court granted the petition, finding that: (a) Tomasa and Alfredo had a valid marriage under Article 76 of the Civil Code since they lived together for 5 years; and (b) Pedro failed to prove he was legally adopted as the deposition of the alleged adopting judge stated he did not recall granting the adoption.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Vda.

    de Jacob v Court of Appeals


    312 SCRA 772

    PLAINTIFF / PETITIONER: Tomasa Vda. De Jacob


    DEFENDANT / RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals, Pedro Pilapil, and Juan F. Trivino

    NATURE: Petition for review on certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals

    PONENTE: Panganiban, J.

    FACTS:
    Tomasa Vda. De Jacob, alleged surviving spouse of deceased Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob, has been
    appointed Special Administratrix of the various estates of her late husband by virtue of a
    reconstructed marriage contract between her and the deceased. Defendant Pilapil intervened,
    claiming to be the legally adopted son of Alfredo and demanding his share of the deceased’s
    estate, being the sole surviving heir. In so doing, Pilapil also questions the validity of the
    Tomasa-Alfredo marriage. The trial court declared the reconstructed marriage contract false
    while it sustained the defendant’s claim of being the legally adopted son and sole surviving heir
    of Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob. The Court of Appeals ruled in the same manner and affirmed the trial
    court’s decision. It is from this decision that the petition filed a petition for review before the
    Supreme Court.

    ISSUE:
    (1) Whether the marriage between plaintiff Tomasa Vda. De Jacob and deceased Dr.
    Alfredo E. Jacob was valid; and
    (2) Whether defendant Pedro Pilapil is the legally adopted son of Alfredo E. Jacob.

    HELD:
    (1) Yes; (2) No. Petition granted; decision reversed.

    RATIO:
    (1) a. Alfredo Jacob and Tomasa had lived together as husband and wife for 5 years. Under
    Article 76 of the Civil Code, this qualifies the marriage as exceptional and a marriage
    license is not deemed necessary. The Civil Code takes precedence over the Family
    Code in this case since the marriage in issue occurred before the FC took effect.

    Art 76. No marriage license shall be necessary when a man and a woman, who have
    attained the age of majority and who, being unmarried, have lived together as husband
    and wife for at least five years, desire to marry each other. The contracting parties shall
    state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law or
    administer oath. The official, priest or minister who solemnized the marriage shall also
    state in an affidavit that he took steps to ascertain the ages and other qualifications of
    the contracting parties and that he found no legal impediment to the marriage.

    b. Evidence regarding the due execution and loss of the marriage contract have been
    presented, but these were erroneously excluded by the trial court and the Court of
    Appeal:
    1. testimony of Adelia Pilapil, a witness to the marriage ceremony
    2. testimony of the petitioner herself as a party to the event
    3. testimony and affidavit of the officiating priest, Msr. Yllana
    Following such rejection, secondary evidence such as photographs of the wedding
    ceremony and documentary evidence as to the loss of the marriage certificate were also
    unfairly disregarded.

    In doing so, the lower courts confused the aforementioned evidence to show due
    execution and loss as secondary evidence of the marriage.

    (2) The desposition of Judge Jose L. Moya himself, who allegedly granted the petition for
    adoption, clearly and positively declares that he could not recall issuing such petition,
    and that the signature over his name was not his.

    The burden of proof in establishing adoption is upon the person claiming such
    relationship, in this case, Pedro Pilapil. Having failed to produce such evidence, the
    alleged adoption is concluded to be a sham.

    *****

    You might also like