Manzano vs. Sanchez Petioner: Herminia Borja-Manzano Respondent: Judge Roque R.

Sanchez, MTC, Infanta, Pangasinan Fact: Herminia Borja-Manzano charges respondent Judge Roque R. Sanchez with ignorance of the law in a complaint affidavit filed with the Office of the Court Administrator on May 12, 1999. Manzano claims that she was lawfully married to David Manzano on May 21, 1966 in Caloocan City. On March 22, 1993 David Manzano contracted another marriage in the persona of Luzviminda Payao, where both of the declared that they were married to Herminia Borja and Domingo Relos, respectively. Since their respective marriages were full of quarrels, they had both decided to live their respective husband and wife and never cohabited or communicated with their respective spouses. On this note the respondent Judge Roque R. Sanchez agreed to solemnize the marriage in accordance to the Article 34 of the Family code. An evaluation of the Complaint and the Comment, the Court Administrator ordered that respondent Judge Roque R. Sanchez be found guilty of ignorance of the law and be ordered to pay a fine of P2,000 with a warning that repetition of the same act would be dealt severely. For the respondent part he reiterates his plea for the dismissal of the complaint and setting aside his comment. The respondent Judge alleges that the basis of his act to solemnize the marriage is the joint affidavit of Payao and Manzano in accordance of the Article 34 of the Familu Code. In which the Court Administrator find merit in the complain. Issues: Whether or Not the marriage of David Manzano and Luzviminda Payao valid? Whether or Not Judge Roque Sanchez commited gross ignorance of law? Held: No. Subsequent marriage without proper declaration of nullity of the previous marriage by the Court of Law is declared as null and void. The fact that both were living together as husband and wife for seven years but not legally separated with their respective spouses does not make a

subsequent marriage voidable. The parties must have no legal impediments with their previous marriage to declare their marriage valid and voidable. The respondent Judge Sanchez demonstrated gross ignorance of law when he solemnized a void and bigamous marriage since it is clearly stated on their joint affidavit of the parties that both were separated. Accordingly, the recommendation of the Court Administrator is hereby Adopted, with the modification that the amount of fine to be imposed upon the respondent Judge Roque R. Sanchez is increased to P20,000. Mariategui vs. Court of Appeals Petitioner: Maria Del Rosario Mariaregui Respondents: Court of Appeals, Jacinto Mariategui, Julian Mariategui, and Paulina Mariategui Facts: petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 24, 1980 reversing the judgment of the then Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch VIII at Pasig City. The death of Lupo Mariategui, left certain properties while his unmarried. These properties are described in the complaint as Lots Nos. 163, 66, 1346 and 156 of the Muntilupa Estate. During his lifetime he contracted three marriages. First, with Eusibia Montellano, who died on November 8, 1904 and begot four children namely: Baldomera, Maria, Gerardo, Urbana and Ireneo. Baldomero, dead and had children: Antero, Rufina, Cataleno, Gerardo, Virginia and Federico. Ireneo also passed away and had one son named Roperto. With his second wife, Flaviana Montellano. He begot a daughter named Cresenciana. Lupos third wife Felipa Velasco, which died in 1941, had three children, namely: Jacinto, Julian and Paulina. Upon the death of Lupo Mariategui the descendants by his first and second marriages namely, Maria Delo Rosario, Urbana, Ruperto, and Cresenciana all surnamed Mariategui and Antero, Rufina, Catalino, Maria, Gerardo, Virginia and Federico all surname Espina, executed a deed of extrajudicial partition dated December 2, 1967.

On April 23, 1973, Lupos children with his 3rd wife Felipa filed with the lower court an amended complaint claiming that Lot. No. 163 together with Lots Nos. 669, 1346 and 154 were owned by their common father Lupo Mariategui, were deprived of their respective shares in lots. Cresenciana together with Flaviana Mariategui and Isabel Santos were impleaded in the complaint as unwilling defendants as they would not like to join the suit of plaintiffs although they acknowdeged the status and rights of the plaintiffs and agreed to the partition of the parcels of land as well as the accounting of their fruits. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss in the grounds of lack of cause of action and prescription, the motion was eventually denied for lack of merit on August 14, 1974. On February 16, 1977 the complaints as well as the petitioners counterclaim were dismissed by the trial court due to the failure of evidence to sustain either premise, and it is clear that the action cannot be sustained. Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals on the ground that the court committed an error. On December 24, 1980 the Court of Appeals rendered a decision which give equal shares of the estate of Lupo to all of his children and descendants. The defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of said decision for lack of merit. Issue: Whether or not the children of Lupo to his 3rd wife Felipa Velasco entitled to have an equal share to the properties left by Lupo Mariategui Held: Yes. With respect to the validity of the marriage of Lupo Mariategui and Felipa Velasco their children are legitimate and entitled to have an equal share to the properties left by the deceased. Legitimate child may be established by the record of birth appearing on the civil register or a final judgment or by the open and continuous possession of the status of legitimate child. Wherefore, the petition is denied and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 24, 1980 is affirmed.

People vs. Aragon Petitioner: People of the Philippines Defendant: Proceso S. Aragon Facts: Appeal from a judgment of the court of first instance of Cebu finding appellant guilty of bigamy. The defendant Proceso Aragon, contracted marriages with Maria Gorrea dated September 28, 1925 in the Philippine Independent Church in Cebu City and to Maria Faicol on August 27, 1934 in the Santa Teresita Church in Iloilo City while Aragon has subsisting marriage with Gorrea. First wife, Maria Gorrea died in Cebu City on August 5, 1939. After Gorreas death, and seeing that the coast was clear in Cebu, the accused brought Maria Faicol to Cebu City, where she worked as a teacher-nurse. The accused and Faicol, did not live happy in Cebu City from 1949 to 1950. Maria Faicol was sent back to Iloilo for undergoing treatment for her eyesight, which was because of the maltreatment in the hands of the accused. During her absence, the accused contracted a third marriage with a certain Jesusa C. Maglasang on October 3, 1953 in Sibonga, Cebu. The accused tried to deny his second marriage with Maria Faicol, the court however, believes that the attempt to futile for the fact of the said second marriage was fully established not only on the marriage certificate but also the testimony of Maria Faicol and Eugilio Giroy, one of the sponsors of the wedding and the identification of the accused made by Maria Faicol. Issue: whether or not Proseso S. Aragon committed bigamous marriage Held: No. the marriage between Maria Faicol and the appellant was never renewed after the death of the first wife and before the third marriage was contracted. Hence the last marriage was a valid one and appellants prosecution for contracting the third marriage cannot prosper. For the foregoing considerations, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed and the defendant-appellant acquitted with costs de oficio, without the prejudice to his prosecution for having contracted the second bigamous marriage.

Lukban vs. Republic of the Philippines Petitioner: Lourdes G. Lukban Respondents: Republic of the Philippines Facts: a petition filed in the Court of First Instance of Rizal for declaration that petitioner is a widow of her husband Francisco Chuidian who is presumed to be dead and has no legal impediment to contract a subsequent marriage. The Solicitor General opposed the petition on the ground that the same is not authorized by law. The said marriage of the petitioner and Francisco Chuidian was contracted on December 10, 1933 at the Paco Catholic Church, Manila. On December 27, 1933, the spouse left the petitioner after a violent quarrel and since then he has not been heard from despite diligent search made by Lukban. After 20 years of missing the petitioner herein believes that Francisco Chuidian is dead and intends to marry again, she desires that her civil status be defined in order that she may be relieved of any liability under the law. It was held that a petition for judicial declaration that petitioners husband is presumed to be dead cannot be entertained because it is not authorized by law. Issue: Whether or not Lourdes Lukban is entitle the right to contract new marriage. Held: Yes. The law only requires that the former spouse has been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage, that the spouse present does not know his/her former spouse to be living, that each former spouse is generally reputed to be dead and the spouse present so believes that at the time of the celebration of the marriage. Hence, in the case at bar petitioners husband is missing for twenty consecutive years and is not necessary to have the former spouse judicially declared dead. The court decided that the appealed from is affirmed. Republic of the Philippines vs. CA, Alegro Petitioner: Republic of the Philippines Respondents: Court of Appeals and Alan B. Alegro Facts: On March 29, 2001, Allan ALegro filed a petition in the Regional Trial Court of Catbalogan, Samar, Branch 27, for the declaration of

presumptive death of his wife, Rosalia Lea A. Julaton, whose been missing since February 6, 1995, one month after their marriage. Sometime in June 1995, the Respondent decided to go back to Manila to look for Lea, but his mother asked him to leave after the town fiesta of Catbalogan, hoping that Lea may come home for the fiesta, Alan agreed. However, Lea did not show up. On August 27, 1995 Alan went back to Manila to continue searching for his wife and worked as part time taxi driver to look for Lea during his free time. He decided to return to Catbalogan in 1997 and again looked for his wife but failed. On June 20, 2001, the respondent reported his missing wife to the local police station. The police authorities issued an Alarm Notice on July 4, 2001. Alan also reported Leas disappearance to the National Bureau of Investigation on July 9, 2001. On the following year dated January 8, 2002 the court rendered judgment granting the petition. However, the Office of the Solicitor General appealed the decision to the Court of Appeal which rendered judgment on August 4, 2003 affirming the decision of the RTC. The OSG filed a petition for review on certiorari of the CAs decision alleging that the respondent Alan Alegro failed to prove that he had well founded beliefs that his wife was already dead. It averred that the respondent failed to exercise reasonable and diligent efforts to locate his wife and failed to make inquiries from his parents-in-law regarding his wifes whereabouts before filing in the RTC. Issue: whether the respondent has well founded belief that his wife was already dead Held: No. The respondent failed to prove that he had a well founded belief that his wife Rosalia Julaton is already dead and he exerted the required amount of diligence in searching for his missing wife and thus, he failed to show witnesses other than the Barangay Captain Juan Magat whom he allegedly made inquiries about his wife to corroborate his testimony. Furthermore, the respondent did not seek for help to the local police to locate lea after only the OSG filed its notice to dismiss his petition in the RTC. The court finds and holds that Alan Alegro failed to prove that he had well founded belief, before he filed petition in the RTC, that his wife Lea was already dead.

Calisterio vs. Calisterio Petitioner: Antonia Armas Y Calisterio Respondent: Marietta Calisterio Facts: a petition to appeal the decision of the court regarding the several parcels of land with an estimated value of P604,750.00 left by Teodorico Calisterio, brother of the petitioner Antonia Armas Y Calisterio. The deceased was the second husband of the respondent Marietta Calisterio who had been married to James William Bounds on January 13, 1946 at Caloocan City without a trace on February 11, 1957. Teodorico and Marietta were married after eleven years or on May 8, 1958, without the respondent have priorly secured a decision that his first husband is presumptively dead. On October 9, 1992, herein petitioner Antonia Armas Y Calisterio filed with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, branch 104, a petition filed entitled in the Matter of InestateEstate of the Deceased Teodorico Y Calisterio y Cacabelos, Antonia, Petitioner claiming to be inter alia, the sole surviving heir of the deceased, the marriage between the latter and the respondent being allegedly bigamous and thereby null and void. The respondent opposed the petition that her first marriage had been dissolved to the latters absence for more than eleven years before the marriage with Teodorico. Contending to be the surviving spouse, she sought priority in the administration of the estate. On February 5, 1993, the RTC issued an order appointing Sinfroniano Armas, son of the appellant and wife Marietta as the administrator and administratrix, respectively. However, on January 17, 1996 the lower court handed down its decision in favor of the petitioner. Due to the aforesaid decision the respondent filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals. On august 31, 1998, the appellate court, through Justice Vasquez, Jr., promulgated the decision appealed from is reversed and set aside. The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration dated November 23, 1998 to question the decision of the Court of Appeals. Issue: WON Marietta and Teodorico validly married, that in turn, would be determinative of her right as a surviving spouse

Held: Yes. The marriage between Teodorico and the respondent was solemnized on May 1958. The law in force at that time was the Civil Code, not the Family Code itself limited its retroactive governance only to case where it thereby would not preujudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws. Hence, It remain undisputed that Mariettas firs husband had been absent for more than eleven years before entering a new marriage with Teodorico. Thus, the death of the spouse, the property should rightly be divided in two equal portions- one portion going to the surviving spouse and the other portion to the estate of the deceased spouse.