Aida Banez V Gabriel Banez
opposed he wanted to be the administrator, the court denied because
Decisions: RTC: Affirmed the decree of Legal Searation
CA Set aside
SC
-the court sees no urgency to award damages considering that the (w)
had more while (h) doesnt have they also contend that
Facts:
On the grounds infidelity by the (H) , the (w) seeks to be legally
separated from his husband and the dissolution of their conjugal
property relations, the division of net conjugal assets and the
forfeiture of the (H) share in the net conjugal assets in favor of the
common children, the payment of 100,000 for attorneys fees ,
surrender of a motor vehicle and the husbands vacation pertinent to a
small property. She also filed for damages
RTC granted (w) exept for damages
-Atty Gica was appointed special administrator
-the petitioner was compelled to post a bond of 1,500,000.00 for all
damages the respondent may suffer arising from the issuance of the
said writ of execution and to further answer to all the advances that
the petitioner may have received the special administrator.
CA dismissed the motion to withraw her own appeal due to legality
(she didnt pay the bond.
(w) posted a 1.5M bond to the supreme court for the damages (h)
might suffer and prayed 100,000 be granted in advance for attys fee .
she also suggested that she be required to post additional bond ,
agreed to submit an accounting and advance attys fees be charged
under her share of net conjugal assets.
She filed an urgent ex parte motion to modify the said decision while
(H) filed an appeal.
Issue: Whether there was a jutification with regard to the decision of
the CA?
Whether mutiple appeals are allowed in the course of action pertinent
to legal sep?
Ruling: Two cases were cited to explain the Issue
Accourding to (Echaus V CA) the execution pending appeal is allowed
when supertior circumstances demanding urgency overweigh the
damages that may result from the issuance of the writ otherwise
instead of being an instrument of solitude and justice, the writ may well
become a tool of oppression and equity .
In the case at bar the court deemed that there is no urgency in the
awarding of damages , considering that the wife has ample resources
while (h) has none Merely putting up a bond is not sufficient reason to
justify her plea for execution pending her appeal to do so would make
an execution routinary to the rule rather than exeption
Accourding to Archbishop v CA the rational behind the multiple
appeals is to enable the rest of the case to proceed in the event that a
separate and distinct issues is resolved by the court and held final.-this
cant be applied because splitting the appeals in this case would only
be a violative rule of multiple appeals.
In the case at bar legal separation the court contended that legal
separation should not be subject to multiple appeals.
On the first issue it was denied for lack of merit , the court of appeals is
hereby directed to give due course with regard to the action.
Macadangdang V CA
Facts: Filomena and Antionio got married on Mrch 1967
-Both had extramarital relationships
-1965 they separated for good
1971- Wife files for legal separation
Jan 4 1973- Legal Spearation was granted but no complete list of
conjugal properties were divided, P 10000 support until court can
appoint the administrator.
Aug 25 , 1973- filed motion for appointed administrator husband
legal sparation was final
Issue
1.Whether the Petitioners death on Nov 30 1979 render the case moot
and academic?
2. Whether the Courts decision on Jan 1973 become final and
executory
Decision:
LC Legal Sepration is final
CA Affirmed
SC Affirmed
Rationale Legal Problems do not extinguish simply because of the
death of one part; the same might come out again in another case.
Yes, law explicitly and clearly provides for dissolution and liquidation of
the CPG (art 106) dissolution and liquidation are the consequences of
the final decree.
Nature : Petition for Certiorari, prohibition and injunction to review the
resolution of the CA
Facts:
-Prayer for TRO
-1946: respondent Filomena and Antonio, contracted marriage
-lived together for 2 years and 6 children with 3 minors
-Established a business from humble roots
-both accused each other for extramarital relationships, they separated
on 1965, when private left for cebu for good
-1971 when she returned from Davao she learned about her husbands
extra marital relationship , she then decided to take initial action
-April 28 1971, (W) filed for legal separation in CFI of Davao Br 8 of
Tagum
-Feb 8, 1972 (W) filed a petition for appointment of administrator with
regard to their conjugal partnership pending the termination of the
case
-(H) opposed the petitiom
RTC: Jan 4 1973 Order for Legal Separation
- dissolution of Conjugal Property , (d) ordered to pay 10000
for her support (disposing properties and mortgaging them
with out (w) knowledge) under the circumstances the court
can appoint an administrator who will manage the conjugal
estate and act as guardian to the minors , to protect the said
properties from dissipation and who will submit the inventory
of properties for liquidation.
- Aug 25, private respondent filed for another motion for
appointment of an administrator
- Sept 20 respondent judge issued order directing plaintiff to
submit 3 names for appointment
- Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, with prayer that
he be allowed to continue to administer the conjugal
properties, the request was denied
- Private respondent submitted nominees for administrator
- Respondent judge denied the motion for reconsideration
filed by petitioner declaring legal sep is already final.
CA: Affirmed
- (H) died the civil case was declared moot and academic
Issue: 1. Did the CA gravely erred in holding that respondent
judges incomplete decision of Jan 4 1973 had become final and
executory?
2)Did petitioners death render the case moot and academic?
Rationale Legal Problems do not extinguish simply because of the
death of one part; the same might come out again in another case.
Yes, law explicitly and clearly provides for dissolution and liquidation of
the CPG (art 106) dissolution and liquidation are the consequences of
the final decree.
Rights and Obligations between Husband and Wife
Relief [Article 72] Gotia vs. Campos Rueda
Nature of the Case:
Appeal from a judgement of the Court of First Instance of Manila.
Facts of the Case:
1. The wife, Eloisa Goitia Y de la Camara, plaintiff and
appellant filed an action against her husband for support
outside of the conjugal domicile.
2. The parties were legally married in Manila. The pertinent
allegations of the complaint are as follows:
- After one month of their marriage, the defendant or the
husband demanded the plaintiff, the wife, to perform
unchaste and lascivious acts on his genital organs; the
plaintiff rejected the obscene demands of the defendant
and refused to perform any act other than legal and
valid cohabitation.
- Because of the refusal of the plaintiff to the demands of
the defendant, the latter maltreated her by word and
deed and inflicted injuries upon her lips, her face and
different parts of her body. As the plaintiff was unable
by any means to induce the defendant to desist from
his repugnant desires and cease from maltreating her,
she was obliged to leave the conjugal abode and take
refuge in the home of her parents.
3. The lower court sustained the objection of the defendant
upon the ground that the facts alleged in the complaint do
not state a cause of action. It dismissed the case after the
plaintiff declined to amend, the latter (defendant) appealed.
4. Reason of the dismissal of the case: According to the lower
court (CFI of Manila) the defendant cannot be compelled to
support the plaintiff, except in his own house, unless it be by
virtue of a judicial decree granting her a divorce or
separation from the defendant.
Issue/s:
1. Whether the husband, on account of his conduct toward his
wife be compelled to pay the pension.
2. Whether the rule established by Article 149 of the Civil Code
is absolute.
Alternative: )
1. Whether Goitia can compel her husband to support her
outside the conjugal home.
(Source: hyperjetsetter.blogspot.com)
Rationale:
Article 149 grants the person, obliged to furnish subsistence,
between paying the person fixed or receiving and keeping in his
own house the party who is entitled to the same, is not so
absolute as to prevent cases being considered wherein, either
because this right or because of the existence of some justifiable
cause morally opposed to the removal of the party enjoying the
maintenance, the right of selection must be understood as being
thereby restricted. (Supreme Court of Spain Ruling)
The husband cannot terminate his obligation to support his wife if
the latter was driven away from the conjugal home because of the
physical assault of the husband, she can therefore claim for
support from the husband even outside the conjugal home. The
law will not permit him to terminate it by his own wrongful acts in
driving his wife to seek protection in the parental home. A
judgement for separate maintenance is not due and payable
either as damages or as neither a penalty; nor it is a debt in the
strict legal sense of that term, but rather a judgement calling for
the performance of a duty made specific by the mandate of the
sovereign.
Ruling:
The Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff-appellant.
OFELIA P. TY, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, and
EDGARDO M. REYES, respondents.
Case Digest (by jamic)
Nature of the case:
This appeal seeks the reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals
which affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig
declaring the marriage contract between private respondent Edgardo
M. Reyes and petitioner Ofelia P. Ty null and void ab initio. It also
ordered private respondent to pay P15,000.00 as monthly support for
their children Faye Eloise Reyes and Rachel Anne Reyes.
Facts:
- Edgardo Reyes and a certain Anna Maria Regina
Villanueva have been wed both in a civil and a church
ceremony
-August 4, 1980 the Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Court of Quezon City declared their marriage null
and void ab initio for lack of a valid marriage license. The
church wedding was also declared null and void ab initio for
lack of consent of the parties.
Before the decree of nullifying their marriage was given,
Edgardo married Ofelia P. Ty.
January 3,1991 Edgardo filed a pretition for declaration of
nullity of marriage to Ofelia on the grounds that there was no
marriage license and a declaration of nullity of his first
marriage was issued after the 2nd marriage.
Ofelia in defense of her marriage submitted to the court their
marriage license and the declaration of nullity of the first
marriage to which the respondent made no defense.
RTC declared the marriage of Ofelia and Edgardo as null
and void ab initio.
CA affirmed and added P15,000 per month as support for
children
The motion for reconsideration was filed but was denied by
CA
Issue: WON the decree of nullity of the first marriage is required before
a subsequent marriage can be entered into validly?
Held: The previous marriages happened before the enactment of the
Family Code therefore it must be decided based upod the New Civil
Code Art 83.
Art. 83. Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during
the lifetime of the first spouse of such person with any person other
than such first spouse shall be illegal and void from its performance,
unless:
(1) The first marriage was annulled or dissolved; or
(2) The first spouse had been absent for seven consecutive years at
the time of the second marriage without the spouse present having
news of the absentee being alive, or if the absentee, though he has
been absent for less than seven years, is generally considered as
dead and before any person believed to be so by the spouse present
at the time of contracting such subsequent marriage, or if the absentee
is presumed dead according to articles 390 and 391. The marriage so
contracted shall be valid in any of the three cases until declared null
and void by a competent court.
As to whether a judicial declaration of nullity of a void marriage is
necessary, the Civil Code contains no express provision to that
effect. Jurisprudence on the matter, however, appears to be
conflicting.
Originally, in People v. Mendoza,]and People v. Aragon, this
Court held that no judicial decree is necessary to establish the nullity of
a void marriage
But in Odayat v. Amante, The Court held that no judicial decree
is necessary to establish the invalidity of void marriages. This ruling
was affirmed in Tolentino v. Paras.
Yet again in Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy (1986),[17] the Court held that
there is a need for a judicial declaration of nullity of a void marriage.
Although the family code Art 40 now requires a judicial
declaration, we find that the provisions of the Family Code cannot be
retroactively applied to the present case, for to do so would prejudice
the vested rights of petitioner and of her children. As held in Jison v.
Court of Appeals,[25] the Family Code has retroactive
effect unless there be impairment of vested rights.
 Moreover, the marriage between the parties happened in
1979, before Wiegel.
The first marriage of private respondent being void for lack
of license and consent, there was no need for judicial
declaration of its nullity before he could contract a second
marriage. In this case, therefore, we conclude that private
respondents second marriage to petitioner is valid.
Damages against respondent was denied Sc stated we
would have a situation where the husband pays the wife
damages from conjugal or common funds. To do so, would
make the application of the law absurd. Moreover, our laws
do not comprehend an action for damages between husband
and wife merely because of breach of a marital
obligation.[27] There are other remedies.[28]
Disposition: petition is GRANTED.marriage DECLARED VALID AND
SUBSISTING; and the award of the amount of P15,000.00 is
RATIFIED and MAINTAINED.
Aleko Lilius et al, plaintiffs-appellants, vs The Manila Railroad
Company, defendant-appellant. (indi ko gets nga-a ara sa under
relief ky kn lantawon torts san a.belong..dw contracts..i think its bcoz
ga-ask for damages ang husband from defendant alleging that his wife
could not perform her wifely duties anymore due to the accident
caused by negligence of the company)
Nature: Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila
Facts:
This case involves two appeals, one by the defendant the
Manila Railroad Company, and the other by the plaintiffs
Aleko E. Lilius et al.
-At about 7 o'clock on the morning of May 10, 1931, the
plaintiff, his wife Sonja Maria Lilius, and his 4 -year old
daughter Brita Marianne Lilius, left Manila for the municipality of
Pagsanjan, Province of Laguna, on a sight-seeing trip.
-Plaintiff had taken all the necessary precautions and care while driving
for Pagsanjan via Dayap for he was entirely unacquainted with the
conditions of the road at said points and had no knowledge of the existence of a
railroad crossing at Dayap. There were m any houses, shrubs and
trees along the road making it impossible to see an approaching train.
There had been neither notice nor sign of the existence of the
crossing, nor was there anybody to warn the public of approaching
trains. The flagman or switchman has always being absent from his
post at the crossing upon the arrival of a train.
-Because he was busy eyeing the people from an autotruck near the
railroad, plaintiff did not see the train coming but only heard two
whistles. Immediately afterwards, the locomotive No.173 struck
the plaintiff's car right in the center dragging the said car a
distance of about ten meters, then throwing it upon a siding. The force
of the impact was so great that the plaintiff's wife and daughter were
thrown from the car, both seriously hurt and unconscious.
-The plaintiff Sonja Maria Lilius suffered from fractures of the pelvic
bone, the tibia and fibula of the right leg, below the knee, and received
a large lacerated wound on the forehead. She underwent two surgical
operations on the left leg for the purpose of joining the fractured
bones but said operations notwithstanding, the leg in question still
continues deformed and will be perm anent in character causing
some difficulty in walking. The child Brita Marianne Lilius had to fight
between life and death. She also received two lacerated wounds which
will permanently disfigure her face, in addition to fractures of both
legs above and below the knees which will cause some
difficulty in walking.
Issue: 1. Whether there was negligence and civil liability on the part of
Manila Railroad.
Held:
1. Yes. Defendant-appellant company is liable for the accident by
reason of its own negligence and that of its
e m p l o y e e s for not having employed the diligence of a good father
of a family in the supervision of the said employees in the discharge of
their duties on that occasion. There wasnt any semaphore at the
crossing at Dayap to serve as a warning to passers-by of its
existence; and, on the part of its employees, the flagman
and switchman have not remained at his post at the crossing in
question to warn passers-by of the approaching train; the
stationmaster failed to send the said flagman and switchman to his
post on time; and the engineer have not taken the necessary
precautions to avoid an accident, in view of the absence of said flagman
and switchman, by slackening his speed and continuously ringing the bell
and blowing the whistle before arriving at the crossing. The diligence of
a good father of a family, which the law requires in order to avoid
damage, is not confined to the careful and prudent selection of
subordinates or employees but includes inspection of their work and
supervision of the discharge of their duties.
*CFI of Manila ruled that judgment is rendered ordering the defendant
company to pay to the plaintiffs, for the purposes above stated, the
total amount of P30,865, with the costs of the suit. And although the
suit brought by the plaintiffs has the nature of a joint action, it must be
understood that of the amount adjudicated to the said plaintiffs in this
judgment, the sum of P10,000 personally belongs to the plaintiff Sonja
Maria Lilius; the sum of P5,000, to the plaintiff Brita Marianne Lilius;
the sum of P250, to Dr. Marfori of the Calauan Hospital, Province of
Laguna, and the balance to the plaintiff Aleko E. Lilius.
* SC ruled (1) That a railroad company which has not installed a
semaphore at a crossing an does not see to it that its flagman
and switchm an faithful ly complies with his duty of remaining at the
crossing when a train arrives, is guilty of negligence and is civilly liable for
damages suffered by a motorist and his family who cross its line
without negligence on their part; (2) that an indemnity of P10,000
for a permanent deformity on the face and on the left leg, suffered by a young and
beautiful society woman, is not excessive; (3) that an indemnity of
P5,000 for a permanent deformity on the face and legs of a four-year
old girl belonging to a well-to-do family, is not excessive; and (4) that
in order that a husb and may recover damages for
deprivation of his wife's assistance during her illness from
an accident, it is necessary for him to prove the existence of such
assistance and his wife's willingness to continue rendering it had she not
been prevented from so doing by her illness. The plaintiffs-appellants are
entitled to interest of 6 percent per annum on the amount of the
indemnities adjudicated to them, from the date of the appealed
judgment until this judgment becomes final, in accordance with
the provisions of section 510 of Act No. 190.
**Additional info (FEELING KO BI AMO NI YA ANG RELATED SA TOPIC TA):
*Plaintiff-appellant seeks to recover P2,500 for the loss of consortium
of his wife. Arts. 44-48 of the provisions of Civil Marriage Law of 1870
includes one of the husband's rights which is to coun t on his
wife's assist ance. This assist ance comprises the
management of the home and the performance of household duties,
including the care and education of the children and attention to the
husband upon whom primarily devolves the duty of supporting the
family of which he is the head. But, where wife is working marriage
has ceased to create the presumption that a woman complies
with the duties to her husband and children, which the law imposes
upon her, and he who seeks to collect indemnity for damages resulting
from deprivation of her domestic services must prove such services. In
the case at bar, apart from the services of his wife Sonja Maria Lilius
as translator and secretary, the value of which has not been proven,
the plaintiff Alek o E. Lilius has not presented any evid ence
showing the existence of domestic services and their
nature, rendered by her prior to the accident, in order that it may
serve as a basis in estimating their value.
Inasmuch as a wife's domestic assistance and conjugal
companionship are purely personal and voluntary acts which neither of
the spouses may be compelled to render (Arroyo vs. Vazquez de
Arroyo, 42 Phil.,54), it is necessary for the party claiming
indem nity for the loss of such services to prove that the person
obliged to render them had done so before he was injured and that he
would be willing to continue rendering them had he not been prevented
from so doing.
CASE: DADIVAS DE VILLANUEVA VS. VILLANUEVA. 54 Phil. 92.
GR No. L-29959. December 3, 1929
PLAINTIFF: Aurelia Dadivas de Villanueva (Wife)
DEFENDANT: Rafael Villanueva (Husband)
NATURE OF THE CASE:
The case at bar is an APPEAL from a judgment of the
Court of First Instance of Manila.

Plaintiff filed a case against the Defendant on May 27, 1927
for the purpose of obtaining separate maintenance and custody of two
younger minor children. As well as a proper allowance for professional
legal services rendered by the Plaintiffs attorney.
Upon hearing the cause the trial court absolved the
defendant from the complaint and abrogated a prior order of the court
for maintenance pendent lite, with costs against the plaintiff. From this
judgment, the plaintiff appealed.
NATURE OF THE CASE:
The case at bar is an APPEAL from a judgment
of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment
of the Court of First Instance of Nueva Ecija dismissing the
complaint.
FACTS:

FACTS: 1. April 8, 1910- alleged date of marriage between the plaintiff,

Cipriana Garcia and the defendant, Isabelo Santiago.
1. July 16, 1905- Plaintiff and Defendant were married. 2. February 3, 1925- the date when the plaintiff was compelled to
2. Manila- place of marriage and residence of the couple. leave her conjugal dwelling due to continued family
3. Children: Antonio- 18 yrs. dissensions.
Guillermo- 10 yrs., minor 3. Alejo Santiago (Defendant No. 2)
Sergio- 9 yrs., minor -Son of Isabelo Santiago (Defendant No. 1)
4. Infidelity and cruelty- grounds on which separate -allegedly seduced Prisca Aurelio
maintenance is sought 4. Prisca Aurelio
5. Proof of infidelity daughter of Cipriana Garcia (the Plaintiff)
-ten years prior to the institution of the action, the -gave birth to a child that was allegedly Alejo Santiagos child
defendant was guilty of repeated acts of infidelity with four 5. Isabelo Santiago
different women. -failed to see the vindication of the honor of Prisca Aurelio, the
6. Incorrigible nature of the defendant in relations with other plaintiffs daughter by requiring his son to marry her.
women and brutality towards the plaintiff caused the - refused to get involved with the matter, thus seemingly
plaintiff to establish a separate abode for herself and two countenancing the illicit relations between his son and the
minor children. plaintiffs daughter
7. April 20, 1927 -has allegedly conveyed/been conveying their conjugal
-occurrence of final separation of wife (plaintiff) and properties to Alejo to foster latters whims & caprices and thus,
husband (defendant). damaging & prejudicing her rights. Some of these properties
-the month before the plaintiff filed an appeal to obtain include lands acquired during the plaintiffs and the defendants
separate maintenance. marriage with money belonging to the conjugal partnership.
8. Proof to the charge of cruelty -publicly maintained illicit relationship with Geronima Yap
-does not establish a case for separate maintenance 6. February 3, 1925
-unproved and insufficient -separation of the plaintiff and defendant.
9. Repeated acts of conjugal infidelity (by the -the separation was necessary to avoid personal violence
husband/defendant)
-proved 7. Isabelo Santiago
-recurrent -continually refused to provide for the plaintiffs support
-gives wife (plaintiff) an undeniable right to relief 8. Cipriana Garcia (the plaintiff)
-could not live in their conjugal dwelling because of the illicit
ISSUE: Whether the wife has an undeniable right to relief relationship between her daughter, Prisca Aurelio and Alejo
Santiago, countenanced by the other defendant, Isabelo
Santiago.
HELD: -demanded that she is entitled to P500.00 pendente lite
monthly pension from conjugal partnership
The decision/judgment of the lower court was -claimed that her husband, Isabelo Santiago (Defendant No. 1)
reversed in favor of the wife/plaintiff and against the p. 2,000 has shown himself unfit to administer the property of conjugal
for attorneys fees, Php. 720 for expenses partnership and the court should therefore order its
husband/defendant. It was ordered that the plaintiff have and administration to be placed in her hands.
recover of the defendant the sum of Ph of procuring
transcript and Php. 500 per month, beginning April 1, 1928. ISSUE/RATIONALE:

The defendant was ordered to pay the plaintiff by
way of maintenance on or before the 10th day of each month,
the sum of Php. 500.
RATIONALE:
In order to entitle a wife to maintain a separate home and to
require separate maintenance from her husband, it is not necessary
that the husband should bring a concubine into the marital domicile.
Repeated illicit relations with women outside of the marital
establishment are enough. The law is not so unreasonable as to
require a wife to live in marital relations with a husband whose
propensity towards other women makes common habitation with him
unbearable.
CASE: GARCIA VS. SANTIAGO AND SANTIAGO. 53 Phil. 952. GR
No. L-28904. December 29, 1928
PLAINTIFF: Cipriana Garcia
DEFENDANT: Isabelo Santiago and Alejo Santiago
1. Whether their separation is unjustified
NO. They were having a stormy life prior to the separation due to
the frequent fights.Isabelo ordered her to leave the house &
threatened to ill-treat her if she returned.Priscas situation is
embarrassing for her mother. Highly possible that Alejo
causedPriscas pregnancy. Compelling them to cohabit could lead
to further quarrels.
2. Whether transfers of property from Isabelo to Alejo are illegal
NO. Failed to prove that property was community property.
Documentary evidence
even show that it was acquired by Isabelo before their marriage.
3.Whether Cipriana is entitled to P500.00 monthly maintenance
NO. Thats too much. P50.00 would be enough.
4. Whether Isabelo is unfit to administer their conjugal property
NO. No sufficient reason found to deprive him of this right.
5. Whether Cipriana is entitled to an allowance of attorneys fees
NO.
HELD:
That the judgment appealed from is therefore modified. Separation
is allowed. Isabelo is ordered to provide Cipriana with a P50.00
monthly allowance to be paid within the first 10 days of the month.
No costs allowed.