Crim Notes 3

Download as txt, pdf, or txt
Download as txt, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3

republic vs iyoy

*ci married fi
*fi sent a divorce request
*ci alleges fi psychological incapacity in annulment
*requisites in psychological incapacity:
*gravity - must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of
carrying out ordinary duties required in a marriage
*juridical antecedence - rooted in the history of the party antedating the
marriage, although manifestation emerge only after marriage
*incurability - beyond cure
fi filed divorce on '84, she only became american citizen on '88

republic vs orbecido
*co married villanueva
*villanueva left for us; became us citizen
*villanueva obtained divorce
*twin requirement to remarry under section 26:
valid marriage celebrated between filipino and foreigner
valid divorce obtained abroad
*when villanueva naturalized (1) was satisfied; (2) upon obtaining divorce
*however divorce and foreign law must be proved in court .

corpuz vs sto. tomas


*corpuz canadian marry sto. tomas filipina
*went back abroad; return to ph. finds sto. tomas affair
*went abroad again. return to find another filipina.
*when he registered divorce decree in ph, he was told judicial notice before court
required
*court does not grant corpuz judicial recognition; only filipino spouse can avail
remedy.
*nevertheless, it does not strip corpuz of legil interest to petition the rtc for
recognition of foreign divorce decree. court holds that being subject of a foreign
judgment is sufficient to clothe a party with the required interest to institute an
action before our courts for the recognition of the foreign judgment.
*however, corpuz failed to attach copy of the canadian law on divorce. case should
be remanded
also, registration of divorce decree in civil registry must be cancelled in a court
proceeding. recognition of foreign divorce may be instituted in the same proceeding
as well.

fujiki vs marinay
*fujiki married marinay; parents of fujiki, they never met again
*marinay married another japanese in ph. and went to japan
*maekara was abusing marinay; marinay finds fujiki again
*family court in japan nullify marriage of marinay and maekara; fujiki sought to
correct registry in ph and nullify bigamous marriage
*rtc dismiss, arguing am regarding absolute nullity may only be filed by husband
and wife.
*court rules am no. does not apply in petition to recognize a foreign judgment. to
recognize am no. would mean to relitigate foreign judgment.
*am no. that provides that nullity may only be filed by husband and wife means
husband and wife in the subsisting marriage, not the bigamous one nullifying a
bigamous marriage is without prejudice to prosecute bigamy

koike vs koike
*doreen and michiyuki marry in philippines
*they eventually obtain divorce in japan
*doreen sought to have judicial notice of the divorce (with authentication and
seal), and english translation of the 2 civil codes of japan (no authentication and
seal)
*court ruled she failed to prove national law of her husband since the photocopies
presented were not duly authenticated. no presentation of a qualified expert
witness who had working knowledge of the laws of japan.
*case is referred to ca for further receipt of evidence

republic vs manalo
*halos same with koike but the filipino spouse initiated divorce decree abroad
*manalo married yoshino minoro and separated
*It is whimsical to easily attribute any illegal, irregular or immoral conduct on
the part of a Filipino just because he or she opted to marry a foreigner instead of
a fellow Filipino. It is presumed that interracial unions are entered into out of
genuine love and affection, rather than prompted by pure lust or profit.
*case remanded to prove japanese law

republic vs cote
*florie grace rhomel, pinoys marry; eventually divorce when rhomel became us
citizen
*republic argue that am 02-11-11-sc covers foreign divorce
*court held that it only covers void and voidable marriages specifically cited and
enumerated in the family code.
*florie proceeding based no rule 108, appeal must be made through sec. 3, rule 41
(ordinary appeal), not by the am no.

morisono vs morisono
*luzviminda marries ryuji. lived in japan, divorced after over a year
*rtc argued that since she was the one who obtained divorce, it cannot be.
*there are real, material and substantial differences between pinoy-pinoy, pinoy-
foreigner
but no real and substantial difference between pinoy initiating divorce to foreign
spouse obtaining divorce
*marriage, being mutual and shared commitment between two parties, cannot possibly
be productive of any good to the society where one is considered released from the
marital bond while the other remains bound to it
*nevertheless, she needs to prove by fact the divorce and prevailing japanese laws

ninal vs bayadog
*pepito ninal married teodulfa bellones. thereafter, pepito decided to live
separately
*pepito then was cohabiting with bayadog. subsequently, pepito kills teodulfa.
20 months after bellones' death, pepito marries bayadog without marriage license
*pepito dies. petitioner, the children sought to nullify marriage of their father
to bayadog
*rtc ruled no marriage license needed since bayadog cohabited with pepito for five
consecutive years
*sc ruled that the five-year continuous period should be counted from when parties
are already capacitated to marry each other without legal impediment
*also action for nullity of void marriages is imprescriptable.
*void - void ab initio; can never be ratified; can be questioned even after death
of eaither party; any proper interested party can attack a void marriage; have no
legal effects except those declared by law concerning properties of alleged
spouses, regarding co-ownership or ownership through actual joint contribution; and
effect on children
*voidable - can be ratified or confirmed by free cohabitation or prescription; can
only be questioned during the lifetime of the parties; only the parties to the
marriage can assail it; property regime generally conjugal; children conceived
before annulment are legitimate
*no judicial action necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullty; may pass
upon validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted.
manzano vs sanchez
*petitioner is lawful wife of david manzano. they are separated.
*david cohabits with payao for seven years, then marries her. marriage solemnized
by judge sanchez
*court ruled that even if david and payao have been living apart from their
respective spouses for a long time already, it is imaterial. Family Code allows
spouses to legally separate, but marriage bonds are not severed; this does not
authorize parties to remarry.
*it was even clear in the affidavits that in their marriage contract, they
indicated separated

de castro vs de castro
*annabelle and reinel were sweethearts. planned to get married, applied for
license. had sexual encounters already. returned three years later that marriage
license obviously expired.
*they decided to create a fake affidavit of cohabiting for five consecutive years.
*after marriage, the went back to their respective homes and not live as husband
and wife
*annabelle pregnant with reianna, files for petition for support. reinel argues
that reianna is not his daughter to demand support. he also argues he should not
support annabelle since she is not his wife
*annabelle argue that reinel cannot attack collaterally the legitimacy of their
marriage in a petition for support but through a direct petition for judicial
declaration of nullity
*court ruled that in void marriages, its validity may be collaterally attacked
*falsity of affidavit is not mere irregularity to the formal requisites of
marriage. law dispenses the marriage license requirement to those who cohabit
exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a continuous period of at least
five years before the marriage to avoid exposing the parties to humiliation outside
concomitant with the scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage
due to publication of every applicant's name for a marriage license
*nevertheless reianna is an illegitimate child of reinel entitled for support

dayot vs dayot
*jose and felisa married each other
*five months lang cohabitation
*republic argued that since a marriage license wrongfully obtained does not
invalidate a marriage; by analogy, so must be a fabricated statement regarding
cohabitation.
*court ruled contrast is flagrant, former is merely irregularity of marriage
license, the latter there is no supposed marriage license at all

santiago vs people
*santiago contracted a bigamous marriage with nicanor santos. furthermore, they
sent an erroneous affidavit claiming that they have cohabited continuously for five
years.
*now legal wife of santos charges both with bigamy
*santiago raised second marriage is not valid, because affidavit was erroneous;
thus an element of bigamy is absent
* court held that it was the accused who perpetrated the false certificate. it will
be the height of absurdity to allow petitioner to use her illegal act to escape
conviction.
* as to de lara case, the accused did not cause the falsification of public
documents in order to contract a second marriage.

You might also like