castro vs gregorio

8/17/2019 Castro vs Gregorio

1/8

3/30/2016 G.R. No. 188801, October 15, 2014 - ROSARIO MATA CASTRO AND JOANNE BENEDIC TA CHARISSIMA M. CASTRO, A.K.A. "MARIA SOCORR O

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=936

Tweet

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2014 > October 2014 Decisions > G.R. No. 188801, October 15,

2014 - ROSARIO MATA CASTRO AND JOANNE BENEDICTA CHARISSIMA M. CASTRO, A.K.A. "MARIA SOCORRO

M. CASTRO" AND "JAYROSE M. CASTRO," Petitioners, v. JOSE MARIA JED LEMUEL GREGORIO AND ANA MARIA

REGINA GREGORIO, Respondents.:

ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™

Search

Search

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

DebtKollect Company, Inc.

ChanRobles Intellectual PropertyDivision

G.R. No. 188801, October 15, 2014 - ROSARIO MATA CASTRO AND JOANNE BENEDICTA CHARISSIMAM. CASTRO, A.K.A. "MARIA SOCORRO M. CASTRO" AND "JAYROSE M. CASTRO," Petitioners, v. JOSEMARIA JED LEMUEL GREGORIO AND ANA MARIA REGINA GREGORIO, Respondents.

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 188801, October 15, 2014

ROSARIO MATA CASTRO AND JOANNE BENEDICTA CHARISSIMA M. CASTRO, A.K.A. "MARIASOCORRO M. CASTRO" AND "JAYROSE M. CASTRO," Petitioners, v. JOSE MARIA JED LEMUEL

GREGORIO AND ANA MARIA REGINA GREGORIO, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

LEONEN, J.:

The policy of the law is clear. In order to maintain harmony, there must be a showing of notice andconsent. This cannot be defeated by mere procedural devices. In all instances where it appears thata spouse attempts to adopt a child out of wedlock, the other spouse and other legitimate childrenmust be personally notified through personal service of summons. It is not enough that they bedeemed notified through constructive service.

This is a petition for review on certiorari 1 assailing the decision2 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.SP No. 101021, which denied the petition for annulment of judgment filed by petitioners. The petitionbefore the appellate court sought to annul the judgment of the trial court that granted respondents'

decree of adoption.3chanr obleslaw

The case originally stemmed from the adoption of Jose Maria Jed Lemuel Gregorio (Jéd) and AnaMaria Regina Gregorio (Regina) by Atty. Jose G. Castro (Jose). Jose is the estranged husband of Rosario Mata Castro (Rosario) and the father of Joanne Benedicta Charissima M. Castro (Joanne),also known by her baptismal name, "Maria Socorro M. Castro" and her nickname, "Jayrose."

Rosario alleged that she and Jose were married on August 5, 1962 in Laoag City. Their marriage hadallegedly been troubled. They had a child, Rose Marie, who was born in 1963, but succumbed tocongenital heart disease and only lived for nine days. Rosario allegedly left Jose after a couple of

months because of the incompatibilities between them. 4chanr obleslaw

Rosario and Jose, however, briefly reconciled in 1969. Rosario gave birth to Joanne a year later. Sheand Jose allegedly lived as husband and wife for about a year even if she lived in Manila and Josestayed in Laoag City. Jose would visit her in Manila during weekends. Afterwards, they separated

permanently because Rosario alleged that Jose had homosexual tendencies.5 She insisted, however,

that they "remained friends for fifteen (15) years despite their separation(.)" 6chanr obleslaw

On August 1, 2000, Jose filed a petition 7 for adoption before the Regional Trial Court of Batac, IlocosNorte. In the petition, he alleged that Jed and Regina were his illegitimate children with Lilibeth

Fernandez Gregorio (Lilibeth),8 whom Rosario alleged was his erstwhile housekeeper.9 At the time of

the filing of the petition, Jose was 70 years old. 10chanr obleslaw

According to the Home Study Report11 conducted by the Social Welfare Officer of the trial court, Josebelongs to a prominent and respected family, being one of the three children of former GovernorMauricio Castro.

He was also a well-known lawyer in Manila and Ilocos Norte. 12 The report mentioned that he was

once married to Rosario, but the marriage did not produce any children.13 It also stated that he metand fell in love with Lilibeth in 1985, and Lilibeth was able to bear him two children, Jed on August

1987, and Regina on March 1989.14 Under "Motivation for Adoption," the social welfare officernoted:chanRobles vir t u a lLawlibr ar y

Since, he has no child with his marriaged [sic] to Rosario Mata, he was not able to fulfillhis dreams to parent a child. However, with the presence of his 2 illegitimate childrenwill fulfill his dreams [sic] and it is his intention to legalize their relationship and

0Like

http://www.chanroblesbar.com/http://iplaw.chanrobles.com/http://www.debtkollect.com/http://www.chanroblesbar.com/http://www.chanrobles.com/index1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/index1.htmhttp://www.chanrobles.com/http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014decisions.php?id=10http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?original_referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chanrobles.com%2Fcralaw%2F2014octoberdecisions.php%3Fid%3D936&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&text=G.R.%20No.%20188801%2C%20October%2015%2C%202014%20-%20ROSARIO%20MATA%20CASTRO%20AND%20JOANNE%20BENEDICTA%20CHARISSIMA%20M.%20CASTRO%2C%20A.K.A.%20%22MARIA%20SOCORRO%20M.%20CASTRO%22%20AND%20%22JAYROSE%20M.%20CASTRO%2C%22%20Petitioners%2C%20v.%20JOSE%20MARIA%20JED%20LEMUEL%20GREGORIO%20AND%20ANA%20MARIA%20REGINA%20GREGORIO%2C%20Respondents.%20%3A%20OCTOBER%202014%20-%20PHILIPPINE%20SUPREME%20COURT%20JURISPRUDENCE%20-%20CHANROBLES%20VIRTUAL%20LAW%20LIBRARY%3A&tw_p=tweetbutton&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chanrobles.com%2Fcralaw%2F2014octoberdecisions.php%3Fid%3D936%23.VvvxEouWk3U.twitter


2/8



October-2014 Jurisprudence

A.M. No. RTJ-08-2140 (Formerly A.M. No. 00-2-86-RTC), October 07, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURTADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. EXECUTIVE JUDGEOWEN B. AMOR, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, DAET,CAMARINES NORTE, Respondent.

A.C. No. 7919, October 08, 2014 - DOMADODISOMIMBA SULTAN, Complainant, v. ATTY. CASANMACABANDING, Respondent .

A.M. No. P-14-3246 [Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 11-3580-P], October 15, 2014 - ATTY. RICO PAOLO R.QUICHO, REPRESENTING BANK OF COMMERCE,Complainant, v. BIENVENIDO S. REYES, JR. , SHERIFFIV, BRANCH 98, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, QUEZONCITY, Respondent.

G.R. No. 205821, October 01, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GARRY DELA CRUZ YDE GUZMAN, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 188753, October 01, 2014 - AM-PHIL FOODCONCEPTS, INC., Petitioner, v. PAOLO JESUS T.

PADILLA, Respo ndent.G.R. No. 198528, October 13, 2014 - MAGSAYSAY

MITSUI OSK MARINE, INC. AND/OR MOL TANKSHIPMANAGEMENT (ASIA) PTE LTD., Petitioners, v. JUANITOG. BENGSON,* Respondent.

A.M. No. P-14-3217 (Formerly OCA IPI NO. 14-4252-RTJ), October 08, 2014 - RE: ANONYMOUS LETTER,Complainant, v. JUDGE CORAZON D. SOLUREN,PRESIDING JUDGE, AND RABINDRANATH A. TUZON,LEGAL RESEARCHER II, BOTH OF BRANCH 91,REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BALER, AURORA,Respondents.

G.R. No. 196005, October 01, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. CHARLIE FIELDAD, RYANCORNISTA, AND EDGAR PIMENTEL, Appellants.

G.R. No. 189358, October 08, 2014 - CENTENNIALGUARANTEE ASSURANCE CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.UNIVERSAL MOTORS CORPORATION, RODRIGO T.JANEO, JR., GERARDO GELLE, NISSAN CAGAYAN DEORO DISTRIBUTORS, INC., JEFFERSON U. ROLIDA, AND

surname. . . .15

At the time of the report, Jose was said to be living with Jed and Regina temporarily in Batac, Ilocos

Norte.16 The children have allegedly been in his custody since Lilibeth's death in July 1995.17 chanr obleslaw

On October 16, 2000, the trial court approved the adoption,18 having ruled that "[n]o opposition hadbeen received by this Court from any person including the government which was represented by the

Office of the Solicitor General."19 A certificate of finality20 was issued on February 9, 2006.

Meanwhile, on July 3, 2006, Rosario, through her lawyer, Atty. Rene V. Saguisag, filed a complaint for

disbarment against Jose with the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.21 In her complaint, she alleged

that Jose had been remiss in providing support for their daughter, Joanne, for the past 36 years.22

She alleged that she single-handedly raised and provided financial support to Joanne while Jose hadbeen showering gifts to his driver and alleged lover, Larry R. Rentegrado (Larry), and even went tothe extent of adopting Larry's two children, Jed and Regina, without her and Joanne's knowledge and

consent.23 She also alleged that Jose made blatant lies to the trial court by alleging that Jed andRegina were his illegitimate children with Larry's wife, Lilibeth, to cover up for his homosexual

relationship with Larry.24chanr obleslaw

In his answer before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Jose denies being remiss in his fatherlyduties to Joanne during her minority. He alleged that he always offered help, but it was often

declined.25 He also alleged that he adopted Jed and Regina because they are his illegitimate children.He denied having committed any of the falsification alluded to by Rosario. He also stated that he hadsuffered a stroke in 1998 that left him paralyzed. He alleged that his income had been diminished

because several properties had to be sold to pay for medical treatments. 26 He then implored the

Integrated Bar of the Philippines to weigh on the case with "justice and equity." 27 chanr obleslaw

On October 8, 2006, Jose died in Laoag City, Ilocos Norte. 28chanr obleslaw

On October 18, 2007, Rosario and Joanne filed a petition for annulment of judgment under Rule 47 of the Rules of Civil Procedure with the Court of Appeals, seeking to annul the October 16, 2000 decision

of the trial court approving Jed and Regina's adoption. 29chanr obleslaw

In their petition, Rosario and Joanne allege that they learned of the adoption sometime in 2005. 30

They allege that Rosario's affidavit of consent, marked by the trial court as "Exh. K,"31 was

fraudulent.32 They also allege that Jed and Regina's birth certificates showed different sets of information, such as the age of their mother, Lilibeth, at the time she gave birth. They argue that oneset of birth certificates states the father to be Jose and in another set of National Statistic Office

certificates shows the father to be Larry, Jose's driver and alleged lover.33 It was further alleged thatJed and Regina are not actually Jose's illegitimate children but the legitimate children of Lilibeth and

Larry who were married at the time of their birth. 34 chanr obleslaw

On May 26, 2009, the Court of Appeals denied the petition.

While admittedly, no notice was given by the trial court to Rosario and Joanne of the adoption, theappellate court ruled that there is "no explicit provision in the rules that the spouse and legitimate

child of the adopter . . . should be personally notified of the hearing." 35chanr obleslaw

The appellate court "abhor[red] the mind baffling scheme employed by [Jose] in obtaining anadoption decree in favor of [his illegitimate children] to the prejudice of the interests of his legitimate

heirs"36 but stated that its hands were bound by the trial court decision that had already attained

"finality and immutability."37 chanr obleslaw

The appellate court also ruled that the alleged fraudulent information contained in the different sets of birth certificates required the determination of the identities of the persons stated therein and was,therefore, beyond the scope of the action for annulment of judgment. The alleged fraud was alsoperpetrated during the trial and could not be classified as extrinsic fraud, which is required in an

action for annulment of judgment.38chanr oblesl aw

When Rosario and Joanne's motion for reconsideration was denied on July 10, 2009, 39 they filed thispetition.

The issue before this court is whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition forannulment for failure of petitioners to (1) show that the trial court lacked jurisdiction and (2) show theexistence of extrinsic fraud.

In their petition, petitioners argue that the appellate court erred in its application of the law on

extrinsic fraud as ground to annul a judgment. 40 They argue that because of the fabricated consentobtained by Jose and the alleged false information shown in the birth certificates presented as

evidence before the trial court,41 they were not given the opportunity to oppose the petition since the

entire proceedings were concealed from them.42chanr oblesl aw

Petitioners also argue that the appellate court misunderstood and misapplied the law on jurisdiction

despite the denial of due process, notice, and non-inclusion of indispensable parties.43 They arguethat the adoption of illegitimate children requires the consent, not only of the spouse, but also thelegitimate children 10 years or over of the adopter, and such consent was never secured from

Joanne.44 chanr obleslaw

Respondents, however, argue in their comment that petitioners could not have been deprived of theirday in court since their interest was "amply protected by the participation and representation of the

Solicitor General through the deputized public prosecutor."45 chanr obleslaw

Respondents also argue that there was constructive notice through publication for three consecutiveweeks in a newspaper of general circulation, which constitutes not only notice to them but also notice

to the world of the adoption proceedings.46 They argue that since the alleged fraud was perpetratedduring the trial, it cannot be said to be extrinsic fraud but intrinsic fraud, which is not a ground for

annulment of judgment.47 They also argue that petitioners were not indispensable parties because

adoption is an action in rem and, as such, the only indispensable party is the state.48chanr obleslaw

The petition is granted.

Annulment of judgment under Rule 47of the Rules of Civil Procedure

Under Rule 47, Section 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may file an action with the Court of Appeals to annul judgments or final orders and resolutions in civil actions of Regional Trial Courts.This remedy will only be available if "the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or

https://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/click?xai=AKAOjsvDUKX4mCWH8xume01u0CvgfHo7uRlaCEcv5Suyb7_u-YBJD09jNkJRHjhf1j04ZocjISyNjdS-BET51vclfH5Q6EBp-dTyDo3n-q1wla0mAigFoxrkUvzPbA&sig=Cg0ArKJSzLA5Dq_cSd00&urlfix=1&adurl=https://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/aclk%3Fsa%3DL%26ai%3DC5IGOdR37Vry6DpWioAOc6oiYA-SHttwDrLrpiF_AjbcBEAEgAGDhlLqFkBqCARdjYS1wdWItMDUxMzE0ODA3NDQwNDEyMMgBCagDAaoEpgFP0CmPpB6SCMzORaVGCFRfEomESa-cj_HmUP98xSBNVpvKQwZv-CBF5Rh1Crk76MLZCbXcOyaLOSswtMaPKBfdSF3Ok6f7FX9Vh4G1QVXbSjRqDUH628Hz6N8lN1qtbprNCE8Nn5ACILGv_62kaCVYDslet_NZOshK06T-XjYUpFyVmL4TqK-GRRI2EbfxjXc6EfyrVXSFcGqiW6qlnDUEfSpYMnC-gAaJqPKJv-28mjSgBiHYBwA%26num%3D1%26sig%3DAOD64_0fhJoUkHwyM5qVIaVS8k2OGcm5tg%26client%3Dca-pub-0513148074404120%26adurl%3Dhttp://www.samsung.com/ph/consumer/mobile-devices/smartphones/galaxy-j/SM-J120HZDDXTChttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=802http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=801http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=800http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=799http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=798http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=797http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=796http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=795http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=794http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/index.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/usa/us_supremecourt/index.php


3/8



PETER YAP, Respondents.

G.R. No. 198636, October 08, 2014 - ESPERANZA C.CARINAN, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES GAVINO CUETO ANDCARMELITA CUETO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 183272, October 15, 2014 - SUN LIFE OFCANADA (PHILIPPINES), INC., Petitioner, v. SANDRATAN KIT AND THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASEDNORBERTO TAN KIT, Respondents.

G.R. No. 198878, October 15, 2014 - RESIDENTS OFLOWER ATAB & TEACHERS’ VILLAGE, STO. TOMASPROPER BARANGAY, BAGUIO CITY, REPRESENTED BYBEATRICE T. PULAS, CRISTINA A. LAPPAO. MICHAELMADIGUID, FLORENCIO MABUDYANG AND FERNANDODOSALIN, Petitioners, v. STA. MONICA INDUSTRIAL & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.

G.R. No. 185745, October 15, 2014 - SPOUSESDOMINADOR MARCOS AND GLORIA MARCOS,Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF ISIDRO BANGI AND GENOVEVADICCION, REPRESENTED BY NOLITO SABIANO,Respondents.

G.R. No. 193650, October 08, 2014 - GEORGE PHILIPP. PALILEO AND JOSE DE LA CRUZ, Petitioners, v.PLANTERS DEVELOPMENT BANK, Respondent.

G.R. No. 190161, October 13, 2014 - ANITA N.CANUEL, FOR HERSELF AND ON BEHALF OF HER MINOR CHILDREN, NAMELY: CHARMAINE, CHARLENE, ANDCHARL SMITH, ALL SURNAMED CANUEL, Petitioners, v.MAGSAYSAY MARITIME CORPORATION, EDUARDO U.MANESE, AND KOTANI SHIPMANAGEMENT LIMITED,Respondents.

G.R. No. 176492, October 20, 2014 - MARIETTA N.BARRIDO, Petitioner, v. LEONARDO V. NONATO,Respondent.

G.R. No. 197228, October 08, 2014 - DUTY FREEPHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. BUREAU OF INTERNALREVENUE, REPRESENTED BY HON. ANSELMO G.ADRIANO, ACTING REGIONAL DIRECTOR, REVENUEREGION NO. 8, MAKATI CITY, Respondent.

G.R. No. 197380, October 08, 2014 - ELIZA ZUÑIGA-SANTOS,* REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN FACT,NYMPHA Z. SALES, Petitioners, v. MARIA DIVINAGRACIA SANTOS-GRAN** AND REGISTER OF DEEDS OFMARIKINA CITY, Respondents.

G.R. No. 191225, October 13, 2014 - ZARSONAMEDICAL CLINIC, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE HEALTHINSURANCE CORPORATION, Respondent.

G.R. No. 203583, October 13, 2014 - LEONORA B.RIMANDO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES WINSTON ANDELENITA ALDABA AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondents.

G.R. No. 187240, October 15, 2014 - CARLOS A.LORIA, Petitioner, v. LUDOLFO P. MUÑOZ, JR.,Respondent.

G.R. No. 204800, October 14, 2014 - NATIONALTRANSMISSION CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ATTY. JOSEPHINE A. TILAN,REGIONAL CLUSTER DIRECTOR AND MR. ROBERTO G.PADILLA, STATE AUDITOR IV, Respondents.

G.R. No. 191838, October 20, 2014 - YKR CORPORATION, MA. TERESA J. YULO-GOMEZ, JOSEENRIQUE J. YULO, MA. ANTONIA J. YULO-LOYZAGA,JOSE MANUEL J. YULO, MA. CARMEN J. YULO AND JOSEMARIA J. YULO, Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE AGRI-BUSINESS CENTER CORPORATION, Respondent.; G.R.No. 191863 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AGRI-BUSINESS CENTER CORPORATION, Respondent.

G.R. No. 192518, October 15, 2014 - PHILIPPINELONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE COMPANY AND/OR ERNANI TUMIMBANG, Petitioners, v. HENRYESTRANERO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 194884, October 22, 2014 - IMASEN

PHILIPPINE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION,Petitioner, v. RAMONCHITO T. ALCON AND JOANN S.PAPA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 186223, October 01, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINEASSOCIATED SMELTING AND REFINING CORPORATION,Respondent.

G.R. No. 191101, October 01, 2014 - SPOUSES MARIOOCAMPO AND CARMELITA F. OCAMPO, Petitioners, v.HEIRS OF BERNARDINO U. DIONISIO, REPRESENTED BYARTEMIO SJ. DIONISIO, Respondents.

A.M. No. P-14-3271 [formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3640-P], October 22, 2014 - ATTY. ALAN A. TAN,Complainant, v. ELMER S. AZCUETA, PROCESS SERVER,REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 22, IMUS, CAVITE,Respondent.

G.R. No. 188066, October 22, 2014 - OFFICE OF THEOMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v. CYNTHIA E. CABEROY,Respondent.

other appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner." 49 chanr obleslaw

In Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v. Court of Appeals :50 chanr obleslaw

A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting, and only if the judgment,final order or final resolution sought, to be annulled was rendered by a court lacking

jurisdiction or through extrinsic fraud. Yet, the remedy, being exceptional in character,is not allowed to be so easily and readily abused by parties aggrieved by the final

judgments, orders or resolutions. The Court has thus instituted safeguards by limitingthe grounds for the annulment to lack of jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, and byprescribing in Section 1 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court that the petitioner should showthat the ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriateremedies are no longer available through no fault of the petitioner. A petition forannulment that ignores or disregards any of the safeguards cannot prosper.

The attitude of judicial reluctance towards the annulment of a judgment, final order orfinal resolution is understandable, for the remedy disregards the time-honored doctrineof immutability and unalterability of final judgments, a solid corner stone in thedispensation of justice by the courts. The doctrine of immutability and unalterabilityserves a two-fold purpose, namely: (a) to avoid delay in the administration of justiceand thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and (b) toput an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors, which is preciselywhy the courts exist. As to the first, a judgment that has acquired finality becomesimmutable and unalterable and is no longer to be modified in any respect even if themodification is meant to correct an erroneous conclusion of fact or of law, and whetherthe modification is made by the court that rendered the decision or by the highest courtof the land. As to the latter, controversies cannot drag on indefinitely becausefundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice demand that the rightsand obligations of every litigant must not hang in suspense for an indefinite period of

time.51 (Emphasis supplied )

Because of the exceptional nature of the remedy, there are only two grounds by which annulment of judgment may be availed of: extrinsic fraud, which must be brought four years from discove ry, and

lack of jurisdiction, which must be brought before it is barred by estoppel or laches. 52 chanr obleslaw

Lack of jurisdiction under this rule means lack of jurisdiction over the nature of the action or subjectmatter, or lack of jurisdiction over the parties.53 Extrinsic fraud, on the other hand, is "[that which]prevents a party from having a trial or from presenting his entire case to the court, or [that which]operates upon matters pertaining not to the judgment itself but to the manner in which it is

procured."54 chanr obleslaw

The grant of adoption over respondents should be annulled as the trial court did not validly acquire jurisdiction over the procee dings, and the favorable decision was obtained through extrinsic fraud.

Jurisdiction over adoption proceedingsvis-a-vis the law on adoption

Petitioners argue that they should have been given notice by the trial court of the adoption, asadoption laws require their consent as a requisite in the proceedings.

Petitioners are correct.

It is settled that "the jurisdiction of the court is determined by the statute in force at the time of the

commencement of the action."55 As Jose filed the petition for adoption on August 1, 2000, it is

Republic Act No. 855256 which applies over the proceedings. The law on adoption requires that theadoption by the father of a child born out of wedlock obtain not only the consent of his wife but also

the consent of his legitimate children.

Under Article III, Section 7 of Republic Act No. 8552, the husband must first obtain the consent of hiswife if he seeks to adopt his own children born out of wedlock: chanRobles vir t ualLawlib r a r y

ARTICLE IIIELIGIBILITY

SEC. 7. Who May Adopt. — The following may adopt:chanr obles vir t uallawlib r a r y

Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following cases :chanr obles vir t u a llawlibr ar y

(i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of the other; or

(ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate son/daughter: Provided,however, That the other spouse has signified, his/her consent thereto ; or

(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each other. . . (Emphasis supplied )

The provision is mandatory. As a general rule, the husband and wife must file a joint petition for

adoption. The rationale for this is stated in In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim :57chanr obleslaw

The use of the word "shall" in the above-quoted provision means that joint adoption bythe husband and the wife is mandatory. This is in consonance with the concept of jointparental authority over the child which is the ideal situation. As the child to be adoptedis elevated to the level of a legitimate child, it is but natural to require the spouses to

adopt jointly. The rule also insures harmony between the spouses.58

The law provides for several exceptions to the general rule, as in a situation where a spouse seeks toadopt his or her own children born out of wedlock. In this instance, joint adoption is not necessary.However, the spouse seeking to adopt must first obtain the consent of his or her spouse.

In the absence of any decree of legal separation or annulment, Jose and Rosario remained legallymarried despite their de facto separation. For Jose to be eligible to adopt Jed and Regina, Rosariomust first signify her consent to the adoption. Jose, however, did not validly obtain Rosario's consent.His submission of a fraudulent affidavit of consent in her name cannot be considered compliance of the requisites of the law. Had Rosario been given notice by the trial court of the proceedings, shewould have had a reasonable opportunity to contest the validity of the affidavit. Since her consentwas not obtained, Jose was ineligible to adopt.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=823http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=822http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=821http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=820http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=819http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=818http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=816http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=815http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=814http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=813http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=812http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=811http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=810http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=809http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=808http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=807http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=806http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=805http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=804http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=803http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=802


4/8



G.R. No. 192150, October 01, 2014 - FEDERICOSABAY, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent.

G.R. No. 195832, October 01, 2014 - FORMERLY INCSHIPMANAGEMENT, INCORPORATED (NOW INCNAVIGATION CO. PHILIPPINES, INC.), REYNALDO M.RAMIREZ AND/OR INTERORIENT NAVIGATION CO.,LTD./LIMASSOL, CYPRUS, Petitioners, v. BENJAMIN I.ROSALES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 191034, October 01, 2014 - AGILE MARITIMERESOURCES INC., ATTY. IMELDA LIM BARCELONA ANDPRONAV SHIP MANAGEMENT, INC., Petitioners, v.APOLINARIO N. SIADOR, Respondent.

A.M. NO. P-09-2691 (FORMERLY A.M. OCA IPI NO. 09-

3040-P), October 13, 2014 - IRENEO GARCIA, RECORDSOFFICER I, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OFTHE CLERK OF COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, Complainant,v. CLERK OF COURT IV ATTY. MONALISA A.BUENCAMINO, RECORDS OFFICER II JOVITA P. FLORESAND PROCESS SERVER SALVADOR F. TORIAGA, ALL OFMETROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THE CLERKOF COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, Respondents.; A.M. No. P-09-2687 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3093-P) -EXECUTIVE JUDGE MARIAM G. BIEN, METROPOLITANTRIAL COURT, BRANCH 53, CALOOCAN CITY,Complainant, v. IRENEO GARCIA, RECORDS OFFICER IAND SALVADOR F. TORIAGA, PROCESS SERVER, BOTHOF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THECLERK OF COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, Respondents.; A.M.NO. P-14-3247 (FORMERLY A.M. OCA IPI NO. 09-3238-P) - CLERK OF COURT IV ATTY. MONALISA A.BUENCAMINO, RECORDS OFFICER II JOVITA P.FLORES, AND PROCESS SERVER SALVADOR F. TORIAGAOF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, OFFICE OF THECLERK OF COURT, CALOOCAN CITY, Complainants, v.IRENEO GARCIA AND UTILITY WORKER I HONEYLEEVARGAS GATBUNTON-GUEVARRA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 192573, October 22, 2014 - RICARDO N.AZUELO, Petitioner, v. ZAMECO II ELECTRICCOOPERATIVE, INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 192026, October 01, 2014 - AUTOMATREALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LITOCECILIA AND LEONOR LIM, Petitioners, v. SPOUSESMARCIANO DELA CRUZ, SR. AND OFELIA DELA CRUZ,Respondents.

A.M. No. P-14-3252 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2960-P], October 14, 2014 - JUDGE JUAN GABRIEL H. ALANO,Complainant, v. PADMA L. SAHI, COURT INTERPRETER,MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, MALUSO, BASILAN,Respondent.

G.R. No. 172505, October 01, 2014 - ANTONIO M.GARCIA, Petitioner, v. FERRO CHEMICALS, INC.,Respondent.

G.R. No. 174938, October 01, 2014 - GERARDOLANUZA, JR. AND ANTONIO O. OLBES, Petitioners, v. BFCORPORATION, SHANGRI-LA PROPERTIES, INC.,

ALFREDO C. RAMOS, RUFO B. COLAYCO, MAXIMO G.LICAUCO III, AND BENJAMIN C. RAMOS, Respondents.

G.R. No. 206234, October 22, 2014 - HEIRS OF JULIOSOBREMONTE AND FELIPA LABAPIS SOBREMONTE,NAMELY, MARIA LOURDES SOBREMONTE DE NORBE,DIOSCORA SOBREMONTE DE BUSLON, NESTOR L.SOBREMONTE, AVELINA SOBREMONTE DE DELIGERO,HELEN SOBREMONTE DE CABASE, LAURA SOBREMONTEDE DAGOY AND RODULFO LABAPIS REPOLLO, ALLREPRESENTED BY AVELINA SOBREMONTE DELIGERO ASTHEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, Petitioners, v. COURT OFAPPEALS, HONORABLE VIRGILIO REYES, IN HISCAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OFAGRARIAN REFORM AND FELICIANO TAPIL, MARCELOBAYNO, VICENTE BAYNO, ROMUALDO DIAPANA,HILARIO RECTA, NEMESIA RECTA, POLICARPIO RECTA,AMPARO R. DIAPANA, BASILIO SAYSONBUENAVENTURA BAYNO AND BASILIO BAFLOR,Respondent.

G.R. No. 163654, October 08, 2014 - BPI EXPRESSCARD CORPORATION,* Petitioner, v. MA. ANTONIA R.

ARMOVIT, Respondent.

G.R. No. 164277, October 08, 2014 - FE U. QUIJANO,Petitioner, v. ATTY. DARYLL A. AMANTE, Respondent.

G.R. No. 183700, October 13, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. PABLITO ANDAYA YREANO, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 169568, October 22, 2014 - ROLANDOROBLES, REPRESENTED BY ATTY. CLARA C. ESPIRITU,Petitioner, v. FERNANDO FIDEL YAPCINCO,PATROCINIO B. YAPCINCO, MARIA CORAZON B.YAPCINCO, AND MARIA ASUNCION B. YAPCINCO-FRONDA, Respondents.

A.M. No. P-14-3278 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3222-P], October 21, 2014 - CONCERNED CITIZENS OFNAVAL, BILIRAN, Complainants, v. FLORANTE F.RALAR, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIALCOURT, BRANCH 37, CAIBIRAN, BILIRAN, Respondent.

G.R. No. 200857, October 22, 2014 - FVR SKILLS AND

The law also requires the written consent of the adopter's children if they are 10 years old or older.In Article III, Section 9 of Republic Act No. 8552: chanRobles vir t ualLawlib r a r y

SEC. 9. Whose Consent is Necessary to the Adoption. — After being properly counseledand informed of his/her right to give or withhold his/her approval of the adoption, thewritten consent of the following to the adoption is hereby required: chanr obles vir t u a llawlibr ar y

(c) The legitimate and adopted sons/daughters, ten (10) years of age or over, of theadopter(s) and adoptee, if any ; (Emphasis supplied )

The consent of the adopter's other children is necessary as it ensures harmony among theprospective siblings. It also sufficiently puts the other children on notice that they will have to sharetheir parent's love and care, as well as their future legitimes, with another person.

It is undisputed that Joanne was Jose and Rosario's legitimate child and that she was over 10 yearsold at the time of the adoption proceedings. Her written consent, therefore, was necessary for theadoption to be valid.

To circumvent this requirement, however, Jose manifested to the trial court that he and Rosario werechildless, thereby preventing Joanne from being notified of the proceedings. As her written consentwas never obtained, the adoption was not valid.

For the adoption to be valid, petitioners' consent was required by Republic Act No. 8552. Personalservice of summons should have been effected on the spouse and all legitimate children to ensurethat their substantive rights are protected. It is not enough to rely on constructive notice as in thiscase. Surreptitious use of procedural technicalities cannot be privileged over substantive statutoryrights.

Since the trial court failed to personally serve notice on Rosario and Joanne of the proceedings, itnever validly acquired jurisdiction.

There was extrinsic fraud

The appellate court, in denying the petition, ruled that while fraud may have been committed in thiscase, it was only intrinsic fraud, rather than extrinsic fraud. This is erroneous.

In People v. Court of Appeals and Socorro Florece :59chanr oblesl aw

Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in litigationcommitted outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated party is prevented from fully exhibiting his side of the case by fraud or deception practiced on himby his opponent, such as by keeping him away from court , by giving him a falsepromise of a compromise, or where the defendant never had the knowledge of the suit,being kept in ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff, or where an attorney fraudulently or

without authority connives at his defeat.60 (Emphasis supplied )

An action for annulment based on extrinsic fraud must be brought within four years from discovery.61

Petitioners alleged that they were made aware of the adoption only in 2005. The filing of this petitionon October 18, 2007 is within the period allowed by the rules.

The badges of fraud are present in this case.

First, the petition for adoption was filed in a place that had no relation to any of the parties. Jose was

a resident of Laoag City, llocos Norte.62 Larry and Lilibeth were residents of Barangay 6, Laoag

City.63 Jed and Regina were born in San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte.64 Rosario and Joanne were residents

of Parañaque City, Manila.65 The petition for adoption, however, was filed in the Regional Trial Court

of Batac, Ilocos Norte.66 The trial court gave due course to the petition on Jose's bare allegation in

his petition that he was a resident of Batac, 67 even though it is admitted in the Home Study Report

that he was a practicing lawyer in Laoag City.68 chanr obleslaw

Second, using the process of delayed registration,69 Jose was able to secure birth certificates for Jed

and Regina showing him to be the father and Larry as merely the informant.70 Worse still is that twodifferent sets of fraudulent certificates were procured: one showing that Jose and Lilibeth were

married on December 4, 1986 in Manila,71 and another wherein the portion for the mother's name

was not filled in at all.72 The birth certificates of Jed and Regina from the National Statistics Office,

however, show that their father was Larry R. Rentegrado. 73 These certificates are in clearcontradiction to the birth certificates submitted by Jose to the trial court in support of his petition foradoption.

Third, Jose blatantly lied to the trial court when he declared that his motivation for adoption was

because he and his wife, Rosario, were childless,74 to the prejudice of their daughter, Joanne. The

consent of Rosario to the adoption was also disputed by Rosario and alleged to be fraudulent. 75 chanr obleslaw

All these tactics were employed by Jose, not only to induce the trial court in approving his petition,

but also to prevent Rosario and Joanne from participating in the proceedings or opposing the petition.

The appellate court erroneously classified the fraud employed by Jose as intrinsic on the basis that

they were "forged instruments or perjured testimonies"76 presented during the trial. It failed tounderstand, however, that fraud is considered intrinsic when the other party was either present at thetrial or was a participant in the proceedings when such instrument or testimony was presented incourt, thus:chanRobles vir t ualLawlibr ar y

[I]ntrinsic fraud refers to the acts of a party at a trial that prevented a fair and justdetermination of the case, but the difference is that the acts or things, like falsificationand false testimony, could have been litigated and determined at the trial oradjudication of the case. In other words, intrinsic fraud does not deprive the petitioner of his day in court because he can guard against that kind of fraud through so many means, including a thorough trial preparation, a skillful, cross-examination, resorting tothe modes of discovery, and proper scientific or forensic applications. Indeed, forgeryof documents and evidence for use at the trial and perjury in court testimony havebeen regarded as not preventing the participation of any party in the proceedings, and

are not, therefore, constitutive of extrinsic fraud.77 (Emphasis supplied )

When fraud is employed by a party precisely to prevent the participation of any other interested

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=839http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=838http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=837http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=836http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=835http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=834http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=833http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=832http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=831http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=830http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=829http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=828http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=827http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=826http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=825http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=824


5/8



SERVICES EXPONENTS, INC. (SKILLEX), FULGENCIO V.RANA AND MONINA R. BURGOS, Petitioners, v. JOVERTSEVA, JOSUEL V. VALENCERINA, JANET ALCAZAR,ANGELITO AMPARO, BENJAMIN ANAEN, JR., JOHNHILBERT BARBA, BONIFACIO BATANG, JR., VALERIANOBINGCO, JR., RONALD CASTRO, MARLON CONSORTE,ROLANDO CORNELIO, EDITO CULDORA, RUEL DUNCIL,MERV1N FLORES, LORD GALISIM, SOTERO GARCIA, JR.,REY GONZALES, DANTE ISIP, RYAN ISMEN, JOEL JUNIO,CARLITO LATOJA, ZALDY MARRA, MICHAEL PANTANO,GLENN PILOTON, NORELDO QUIRANTE, ROEL RANCE,RENANTE ROSARIO AND LEONARDA TANAEL,Respondents.

A.M. No. P-09-2673 (A.M. OCA IPI No. 00-857-P),October 21, 2014 - FRUMENCIO E. PULGAR, Petitioner,v. PAUL M. RESURRECCION AND MARICAR M. EUGENIO,Respondents.

G.R. No. 166441, October 08, 2014 - NORBERTO CRUZY BARTOLOME, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, Respondent.

G.R. No. 175507, October 08, 2014 - RAMON CHINGAND PO WING PROPERTIES, INC., Petitioners, v.JOSEPH CHENG, JAIME CHENG, MERCEDES IGNE1 ANDLUCINA SANTOS, Respondents.

G.R. No. 183421, October 22, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. AICHI FORGINGCOMPANY OF ASIA, INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 208169, October 08, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWARD ADRIANO YSALES, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 204964, October 15, 2014 - REMIGIO D.ESPIRITU AND NOELAGUSTIN, Petitioners, v.LUTGARDA TORRES DEL ROSARIO REPRESENTED BYSYLVIA R. ASPERILLA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 190021, October 22, 2014 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Petitioner, v. BURMEISTER AND WAIN SCANDINAVIAN CONTRACTOR MINDANAO,INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 173988, October 08, 2014 - FELINAROSALDES, Petitioner, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent.

G.R. No. 200454, October 22, 2014 - HOLY TRINITYREALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v.VICTORIO DELA CRUZ, LORENZO MANALAYSAY,RICARDO MARCELO, JR. AND LEONCIO DE GUZMAN,Respondents.

G.R. No. 191090, October 13, 2014 -EXTRAORDINARY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,Petitioner, v. HERMINIA F. SAMSON-BICO AND ELY B.FLESTADO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 160107, October 22, 2014 - SPOUSES JAIMESEBASTIAN AND EVANGELINE SEBASTIAN, Petitioners,v. BPI FAMILY BANK, INC., CARMELITA ITAPO ANDBENJAMIN HAO, Respondents.

G.R. No. 187702, October 22, 2014 - SECURITIES ANDEXCHANGE COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. THEHONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, OMICOCORPORATION, EMILIO S. TENG AND TOMMY KIN HINGTIA, Respondents.; G.R. NO. 189014 - ASTRASECURITIES CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. OMICOCORPORATION, EMILIO S. TENG AND TOMMY KIN HINGTIA, Respondents.

G.R. No. 166414, October 22, 2014 - GODOFREDOENRILE AND DR. FREDERICK ENRILE, Petitioners, v.HON. DANILO A. MANALASTAS (AS PRESIDING JUDGE,REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MALOLOS BULACAN, BR.VII), HON. ERANIO G. CEDILLO, SR., (AS PRESIDINGJUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF MEYCAUAYAN,BULACAN, BR. 1) AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondents.

G.R. No. 187581, October 20, 2014 - PHILIPPINEBANK OF COMMUNICATIONS, Petitioner, v. BASICPOLYPRINTERS AND PACKAGING CORPORATION,Respondent.

G.R. No. 197442, October 22, 2014 - MAJESTICFINANCE AND INVESTMENT CO., INC., Petitioner, v.JOSE D. TITO, Respondent.; CORNELIO MENDOZA ANDPAULINA CRUZ, Petitioners-Intervenors, v. JOSE NAZALAND ROSITA NAZAL, Respondents-Intervenors.

G.R. No. 167225, October 22, 2014 - RADIOMINDANAO NETWORK, INC., Petitioner, v. MICHAELMAXIMO R. AMURAO III, Respondent.

G.R. No. 192912, October 03, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEMOCRITO PARAS,Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 205249, October 15, 2014 - SPOUSESBENEDICT AND SANDRA MANUEL, Pet itioners, v. RA MONONG, Respondent.

G.R. No. 208976, October 13, 2014 - THE HONORABLEOFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v.LEOVIGILDO DELOS REYES, JR. Respondent.

party, as in this case, then the fraud is extrinsic, regardless of whether the fraud was committedthrough the use of forged documents or perjured testimony during the trial.

Jose's actions prevented Rosario and Joanne from having a reasonable opportunity to contest theadoption. Had Rosario and Joanne been allowed to participate, the trial court would have hesitated togrant Jose's petition since he failed to fulfill the necessary requirements under the law. There can beno other conclusion than that because of Jose's acts, the trial court granted the decree of adoptionunder fraudulent circumstances.

The law itself provides for penal sanctions for those who violate its provisions. Under Article VII,Section 21 of Republic Act No. 8552:chanRobles vir t u a lLawlib r a r y

ARTICLE VIIVIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES

SEC. 21. Violations and Penalties. —

(a) The penalty of imprisonment ranging from six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve(12) years and/or a fine not less than Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000.00), but not more than Two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) at the discretion of thecourt shall be imposed on any person who shall commit any of the following acts:

(i) obtaining consent for an adoption through coercion, undue influence, fraud,improper material inducement, or other similar acts;

(ii) non-compliance with the procedures and safeguards provided by the law for adoption; or

(iii) subjecting or exposing the child to be adopted to danger, abuse, or exploitation.(b) Any person who shall cause the fictitious registration of the birth of a child under

the name(s) of a person(s) who is not his/her biological parent(s) shall be guilty of simulation of birth, and shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium period and a fine not exceeding Fifty thousand pesos (P50.000.00). (Emphasis supplied )

Unfortunately, Jose's death carried with it the extinguishment of any of his criminal liabilities.78

Republic Act No. 8552 also fails to provide any provision on the status of adoption decrees if theadoption is found to have been obtained fraudulently. Petitioners also cannot invoke Article VI,

Section 19 of Republic Act No. 855279 since rescission of adoption can only be availed of by theadoptee. Petitioners, therefore, are left with no other remedy in law other than the annulment of the

judgment.

The fraud employed in this case has been to Joanne's prejudice. There is reason to believe thatJoanne has grown up having never experienced the love and care of a father, her parents havingseparated a year after her birth. She has never even benefited from any monetary support from herfather. Despite all these adversities, Joanne was able to obtain a medical degree from the University

of the Philippines College of Medicine80 and is now working as a doctor in Canada.81 Theseaccomplishments, however, are poor substitutes if the injustice done upon her is allowed to continue.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision dated October 16, 2000 of the Regional TrialCourt of Batac, Ilocos Norte, Branch 17 in SP. Proc. No. 3445-17 is rendered NULL and VOID.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio, (Chairperson), Del Castillo, Mendoza, and Reyes,* JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

* Designated acting member per Special Order No. 1844 dated October 14, 2014.

1

Rollo, pp. 3-29.

2 Id. at 37-62. The decision was penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando (Chairperson) and concurred in by Associate 'Justices Rebecca De Guia-Salvador and Rosalinda Asuncion Vicente of the Special Former Seventh Division.

3 Id. at 37.

4 Id. at 38-39 and 48.

5 Id. at 39 and 48.

6 Id. at 49.

7 Id. at 109-110.

8 Id. at 109.

9 Id. at 52.

10 Id. at 79.

11 Id. at 79-82.

12 Id. at 80.

13 Id. at 79-80.

14 Id. at 80 and 83-84.

15 Id. at 80.

16 Id. at 81.

17 Id. at 80.

18 Id. at 87-90.

19 Id. at 87.

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=858http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=857http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=856http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=855http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=854http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=853http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=852http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=851http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=850http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=849http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=848http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=847http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=846http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=845http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=844http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=843http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=842http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=841http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=840http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=839


6/8



G.R. No. 207629, October 22, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ARNEL VILLALBA YDURAN AND RANDY VILLALBA Y SARCO, Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 181760, October 14, 2014 - ATTY. ANACLETOB. BUENA, JR., MNSA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS REGIONALDIRECTOR OF REGIONAL OFFICE NO. XVI, CIVILSERVICE COMMISSION, AUTONOMOUS REGION INMUSLIM MINDANAO, COTABATO CITY, Petitioner, v. DR.SANGCAD D. BENITO, Respondent.

G.R. No. 196315, October 22, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LEONARDOCATAYTAY Y SILVANO, Accused-Appellant.

G.R. No. 201565, October 13, 2014 - PEOPLE OF THEPHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EX-MAYOR CARLOS

ESTONILO, SR., MAYOR REINARIO “REY” ESTONILO,EDELBRANDO ESTONILO A.K.A. “EDEL ESTONILO,”EUTIQUIANO ITCOBANES A.K.A. “NONONGITCOBANES,” NONOY ESTONILO-AT LARGE, TITINGBOOC-AT LARGE, GALI ITCOBANES-AT LARGE,ORLANDO TAGALOG MATERDAM A.K.A. “NEGROMATERDAM,” AND CALVIN DELA CRUZ A.K.A. “BULLDOGDELA CRUZ,” Accused, - EX-MAYOR CARLOS ESTONILO,SR., MAYOR REINARIO “REY” ESTONILO, EDELBRANDOESTONILO A.K.A. “EDEL ESTONILO,” EUTIQUIANOITCOBANES A.K.A. “NONONG ITCOBANES,” ANDCALVIN DELA CRUZ A.K.A. “BULLDOG DELA CRUZ,”Accused-Appellants.

G.R. No. 187061, October 08, 2014 - CELERINA J.SANTOS, Petitioner, v. RICARDO T. SANTOS,Respondent.

G.R. No. 188801, October 15, 2014 - ROSARIO MATACASTRO AND JOANNE BENEDICTA CHARISSIMA M.CASTRO, A.K.A. "MARIA SOCORRO M. CASTRO" AND"JAYROSE M. CASTRO," Petitioners, v. JOSE MARIA JEDLEMUEL GREGORIO AND ANA MARIA REGINAGREGORIO, Respondents.

A.M. No. P-14-3237 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 09-3256-P], October 21, 2014 - JEAN PAUL V. GILLERA, SUZETTEP. GILLERA, ATTY. JILLINA M. GERODIAS, AND IBARRABARCEBAL, Complainants, v. MARIA CONSUELO JOIE A.LEONEN, AND FAJARDO, SHERIFF IV, REGIONAL TRIALCOURT, BRANCH 93, SAN PEDRO, LAGUNA, Respondent.

G.R. No. 177332, October 01, 2014 - NATIONALPOWER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. CITY OFCABANATUAN, REPRESENTED BY ITS CITY MAYOR,HON. HONORATO PEREZ, Respondents.

G.R. No. 188487, October 22, 2014 - VAN D. LUSPO,Petitioner, v, PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,Respondent.; G.R. No. 188541 - SUPT. ARTURO H.MONTANO AND MARGARITA B. TUGAOEN, Petitioners,v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent.; G.R. No.188556 - C/INSP. SALVADOR C. DURAN, SR., Petitioner,v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Resp ondent.

G.R. No. 203254, October 08, 2014 - DR. JOYMARGATE LEE, Petitioner, v. P/SUPT. NERI A. ILAGAN,

Respondent.

G.R. No. 164686, October 22, 2014 - FOREST HILLSGOLF AND COUNTRY CLUB, INC., Petitioner, v.GARDPRO, INC., Respondent.

G.R. No. 173548, October 15, 2014 - ONOFREANDRES, SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY:FERDINAND, ROSALINA, ERIBERTO, FROILAN, MA.CLEOFE, NELSON, GERMAN, GLORIA, ALEXANDER, MAY,ABRAHAM, AND AFRICA, ALL SURNAMED ANDRES,Petitioners, v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK,Respondents.

G.R. Nos. 176935-36, October 20, 2014 - ZAMBALESII ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ZAMECO II) BOARDOF DIRECTORS, NAMELY, JOSE S. DOMINGUEZ(PRESIDENT), ISAIAS Q. VIDUA (VICE-PRESIDENT),VICENTE M . BARRETO (SECRETARY), JOSE M.SANTIAGO (TREASURER), JOSE NASERIV C. DOLOJAN,JUAN D. FERNANDEZ AND HONORIO L. DILAG, JR.(MEMBERS), Petitioners, v. CASTILLEJOS CONSUMERSASSOCIATION, INC. (CASCONA), REPRESENTED BY

DOMINADOR GALLARDO, DAVID ESPOSO, CRISTITADORADO, EDWIN CORPUZ, E. ROGER DOROPAN,JOSEFINA RAMIREZ, FERNANDO BOGNOT, JR.,CARMELITA DE GUZMAN, MAXIMO DE LOS SANTOS,AURELIO FASTIDIO, BUENAVENTURA CELIS, ROBERTOLADRILLO, CORAZON ACAYAN, CARLITO CARREON,EDUARDO GARCIA, MARCIAL VILORIA, FILETO DE LEONAND MANUEL LEANDER, Respondents; ZAMBALES IIELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. (ZAMECO II) BOARD OFDIRECTORS, JOSE S. DOMINGUEZ (PRESIDENT), ISAIASQ. VIDUA (VICE-PRESIDENT), VICENTE M . BARRETO(SECRETARY), JOSE M. SANTIAGO (TREASURER), JOSENASERIV C. DOLOJAN, JUAN D. FERNANDEZ ANDHONORIO L. DILAG, JR. (MEMBERS), Petitioners, v.NATIONAL ELECTRIFICATION ADMINISTRATION (NEA)NEA-OFFICE OF THE ADMINISRATIVE COMMITTEE,ENGR. PAULINO T. LOPEZ AND CASTILLEJOSCONSUMERS ASSOCIATION, INC. (CASCONA),Respondents.

20 Id. at 91.

21 Id. at 168-173.

22 Id. at 168.

23 Id. at 169-170.

24 Id. at 171.

25 Id. at 174.

26 Id. at 175-176.

27 Id. at 176.

28 Id. at 122.

29 Id. at 38.

30 Id. at 9.

31 Id. at 14.

32 Id. at 40.

33 Id. at 153-158 and 226-227.

34 Id. at 41 and 136.

35 Id. at 59.

36 Id. at 59-60.

37 Id. at 60.

38 Id. at 60-61.

39 Id. at 98-99.

40 Id. at 13.

41 Id. at 14-15.

42 Id. at 18.

43 Id. at 22.

44 Id. at 26-27.

45 Id. at 306.

40 Id. at 307.

47 Id. at 311 and 313.

48 Id. at 313.

49 Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 47, sec. 1.

50 G.R. No. 161122, September 24, 2012, 681 SCRA580 [Per J. Bersamin, FirstDivision].

51 Id. at 586-587, citing People v. Bitanga, 552 Phil. 686, 693 (2007) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division]; Fraginal v. Heirs of Toribia Belmonte Paranal, 545 Phil. 425,432 (2007) [Per J. Austria- Martinez, Third Division]; Macalalag v. Ombudsman, 468Phil. 918, 923 (2004) [Per J. Vitug, Third Division]; Apo Fruits Corpor ation v. Court of

Appeals, 622 Phil. 215, 231 (2009) [Per J. Bersamin, En Bane]; Peña v. Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), 533 Phil. 670, 689-690 (2006) [Per J. Chico-Nazario,First Division]; Gallardo-Corro v. Gallardo, 403 Phil. 498, 511 (2001) [Per J. Bellosillo,Second Division].

52 RULES of Civil Procedure, Rule 47, sec. 2 and sec. 3.

53Barco v. Court of Appeals, 465 Phil. 39, 57 (2004) [Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

54Bulawan v. Aquende, G.R. No. 182819, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 585, 594 [Per J.Carpio, Second Division], citing Alaban v. Court of Appeals , 507 Phil. 682, 694 (2005)[Per J. Tinga, Second Division].

55 Republic v. Court of Appeals and Zenaida Bobiles, G.R. No. 92326, January 24, 1992,205 SCRA 356, 363 [Per J. Regalado, Second Division], citing Ramos, et al. v. Central Bank of the Philippines, 148-B Phil. 1047, 1066 (1971) [Per J. J.B.L. Reyes, En Bane].

56 Domestic Adoption Act of 1998.

57 606 Phil. 82 (2009) [Per J. Carpio, First Division].

58 Id. at 89-90, citing Republic v. Toledano, G.R. No. 94147, June 8, 1994, 233 SCRA 9,13 [Per J. Puno, Second Division].

59 G.R. No. 187409, November 16, 2011, 660 SCRA 323 [Per J. Reyes, SecondDivision].

60 Id. at 327, citing Amihan Bus Lines, Inc. v. Romars International Gases Corporation,G.R. No. 180819, July 5, 2010, 623 SCRA 406, 411 [Per J. Nachura, Second Division].

http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=1061http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=1060http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=995http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=994http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=939http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=938http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=937http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=936http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=935http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=880http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=879http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=878http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014octoberdecisions.php?id=877


7/8



61 RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, Rule 47, sec. 3.

62 Rollo, p. 139.

63 Id. at 138.

64 Id. at 88.

65 Id. at 4-5

66 Id. at 87-90.

67 Id. at 109

68 Id. at 80.

69 Id. at 155 and 158.

70 Id. at 153 and 156.

71 Id. at 154 and 157.

72 Id. at 153 and 156.

73 Id. at 226-227

74 Id. at 80.

75 Id. at 14. The allegedly fraudulent affidavit of consent was not attached in the rollo.

76 Id. at 61.

77 Pinausukan Seafood House v. Far East Bank and Trust, G.R. No. 159926, January 20,2014 [Per J. Bersamin, First Division], citing Ybañez v. Court of Appeals, 323 Phil. 643,656 (1996) [Per J. Francisco, Third Division] and Strait Times Inc. v. Court of Appeals,356 Phil. 217, 226 (1998) [Per J. Panganiban, First Division].

78 Rev. Pen. Code, art. 89.

79 Article VI of Rep. Act. No. 8552 provides:chanr obles vir t uallawlib r a r y

SEC. 19. Grounds for Rescission of Adoption. — Upon petition of the adoptee, with theassistance of the Department if a minor or if over eighteen (18) years of age but isincapacitated, as guardian/counsel, the adoption may be rescinded on any of thefollowing grounds committed by the adopter(s): (a) repeated physical and verbalmaltreatment by the adopter(s) despite having undergone counseling; (b) attempt onthe life of the adoptee; (c) sexual assault or violence; or (d) abandonment and failureto comply with parental obligations.

Adoption, being in the best interest of the child, shall not be subject to rescission by theadopter(s). However, the adopter(s) may disinherit the adoptee for causes provided inArticle 919 of the Civil Code.

80Rollo, p. 169.

81 Id. at 5.

Back to Home | Back to Main

QUICK SEARCH

1901 1902 1903 1904 1905 1906 1907 1908

1909 1910 1911 1912 1913 1914 1915 1916

1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924

1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 19321933 1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940

1941 1942 1943 1944 1945 1946 1947 1948

1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956

1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

2013 2014 2015 2016

► Family Law ► Law GR ► Castro ► Annulment Ads by Google

► Annulment ► Castro ► No GR ► VS GR Ads by Google

► Court Cases ► Court GR ► Case GR ► Joanne GR Ads by Google

https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-0513148074404120&output=html&h=15&slotname=4860573285&adk=3595057627&w=468&lmt=1459351829&flash=21.0.0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chanrobles.com%2Fcralaw%2F2014octoberdecisions.php%3Fid%3D936&wgl=1&dt=1459351828819&bpp=8&bdt=3995&fdt=996&idt=1000&shv=r20160322&cbv=r20151006&saldr=aa&prev_fmts=468x15_0ads_al&prev_slotnames=4860573285%2C4860573285&correlator=445225677507&frm=20&ga_vid=*&ga_sid=*&ga_hid=*&ga_fc=1&pv=1&iag=3&icsg=2&nhd=1&dssz=2&mdo=0&mso=0&u_tz=-420&u_his=16&u_java=0&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=24&u_nplug=5&u_nmime=7&dff=verdana&dfs=11&biw=1349&bih=667&eid=575144605&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.ph%2F&rx=0&eae=0&fc=208&pc=1&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C1366%2C0%2C1366%2C728%2C1366%2C667&vis=1&rsz=d%7C%7C%7Cn&abl=XS&ppjl=f&pfx=0&fu=16&bc=1&ifi=6&xpc=gTS3CPSeLI&p=http%3A//www.chanrobles.com&dtd=1024&rl_rc=true&adsense_enabled=true&ad_type=text&oe=utf8&height=15&width=468&format=fpkc_al_lp&kw_type=radlink&hl=en&kw0=Court+Cases&kw1=Court+GR&kw2=Case+GR&kw3=Joanne+GR&okw=Joanne+GR&rt=ChBW-x11AAcRJQq9E4vICGHqEglKb2FubmUgR1IaCJIYzb1or_eOKAEwA1ITCJfZ-LGT58sCFQ8RaAodV_8B9Qhttps://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-0513148074404120&output=html&h=15&slotname=4860573285&adk=3595057627&w=468&lmt=1459351829&flash=21.0.0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chanrobles.com%2Fcralaw%2F2014octoberdecisions.php%3Fid%3D936&wgl=1&dt=1459351828819&bpp=8&bdt=3995&fdt=996&idt=1000&shv=r20160322&cbv=r20151006&saldr=aa&prev_fmts=468x15_0ads_al&prev_slotnames=4860573285%2C4860573285&correlator=445225677507&frm=20&ga_vid=*&ga_sid=*&ga_hid=*&ga_fc=1&pv=1&iag=3&icsg=2&nhd=1&dssz=2&mdo=0&mso=0&u_tz=-420&u_his=16&u_java=0&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=24&u_nplug=5&u_nmime=7&dff=verdana&dfs=11&biw=1349&bih=667&eid=575144605&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.ph%2F&rx=0&eae=0&fc=208&pc=1&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C1366%2C0%2C1366%2C728%2C1366%2C667&vis=1&rsz=d%7C%7C%7Cn&abl=XS&ppjl=f&pfx=0&fu=16&bc=1&ifi=6&xpc=gTS3CPSeLI&p=http%3A//www.chanrobles.com&dtd=1024&rl_rc=true&adsense_enabled=true&ad_type=text&oe=utf8&height=15&width=468&format=fpkc_al_lp&kw_type=radlink&hl=en&kw0=Court+Cases&kw1=Court+GR&kw2=Case+GR&kw3=Joanne+GR&okw=Case+GR&rt=ChBW-x11AAcRIwq9E4vICGHqEgdDYXNlIEdSGgh2jlXySVfrCSgBMANSEwiX2fixk-fLAhUPEWgKHVf_AfUhttps://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-0513148074404120&output=html&h=15&slotname=4860573285&adk=3595057627&w=468&lmt=1459351829&flash=21.0.0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chanrobles.com%2Fcralaw%2F2014octoberdecisions.php%3Fid%3D936&wgl=1&dt=1459351828819&bpp=8&bdt=3995&fdt=996&idt=1000&shv=r20160322&cbv=r20151006&saldr=aa&prev_fmts=468x15_0ads_al&prev_slotnames=4860573285%2C4860573285&correlator=445225677507&frm=20&ga_vid=*&ga_sid=*&ga_hid=*&ga_fc=1&pv=1&iag=3&icsg=2&nhd=1&dssz=2&mdo=0&mso=0&u_tz=-420&u_his=16&u_java=0&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=24&u_nplug=5&u_nmime=7&dff=verdana&dfs=11&biw=1349&bih=667&eid=575144605&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.ph%2F&rx=0&eae=0&fc=208&pc=1&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C1366%2C0%2C1366%2C728%2C1366%2C667&vis=1&rsz=d%7C%7C%7Cn&abl=XS&ppjl=f&pfx=0&fu=16&bc=1&ifi=6&xpc=gTS3CPSeLI&p=http%3A//www.chanrobles.com&dtd=1024&rl_rc=true&adsense_enabled=true&ad_type=text&oe=utf8&height=15&width=468&format=fpkc_al_lp&kw_type=radlink&hl=en&kw0=Court+Cases&kw1=Court+GR&kw2=Case+GR&kw3=Joanne+GR&okw=Court+GR&rt=ChBW-x11AAcRIQq9E4vICGHqEghDb3VydCBHUhoILJKbMwpHVhEoATADUhMIl9n4sZPnywIVDxFoCh1X_wH1https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-0513148074404120&output=html&h=15&slotname=4860573285&adk=3595057627&w=468&lmt=1459351829&flash=21.0.0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chanrobles.com%2Fcralaw%2F2014octoberdecisions.php%3Fid%3D936&wgl=1&dt=1459351828819&bpp=8&bdt=3995&fdt=996&idt=1000&shv=r20160322&cbv=r20151006&saldr=aa&prev_fmts=468x15_0ads_al&prev_slotnames=4860573285%2C4860573285&correlator=445225677507&frm=20&ga_vid=*&ga_sid=*&ga_hid=*&ga_fc=1&pv=1&iag=3&icsg=2&nhd=1&dssz=2&mdo=0&mso=0&u_tz=-420&u_his=16&u_java=0&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=24&u_nplug=5&u_nmime=7&dff=verdana&dfs=11&biw=1349&bih=667&eid=575144605&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.ph%2F&rx=0&eae=0&fc=208&pc=1&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C1366%2C0%2C1366%2C728%2C1366%2C667&vis=1&rsz=d%7C%7C%7Cn&abl=XS&ppjl=f&pfx=0&fu=16&bc=1&ifi=6&xpc=gTS3CPSeLI&p=http%3A//www.chanrobles.com&dtd=1024&rl_rc=true&adsense_enabled=true&ad_type=text&oe=utf8&height=15&width=468&format=fpkc_al_lp&kw_type=radlink&hl=en&kw0=Court+Cases&kw1=Court+GR&kw2=Case+GR&kw3=Joanne+GR&okw=Court+Cases&rt=ChBW-x11AAcRFQq9E4vICGHqEgtDb3VydCBDYXNlcxoIUfJZrjQ2bMcoATADUhMIl9n4sZPnywIVDxFoCh1X_wH1https://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-0513148074404120&output=html&h=15&slotname=4860573285&adk=3595057627&w=468&lmt=1459351829&flash=21.0.0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chanrobles.com%2Fcralaw%2F2014octoberdecisions.php%3Fid%3D936&wgl=1&dt=1459351828803&bpp=16&bdt=3977&fdt=856&idt=860&shv=r20160322&cbv=r20151006&saldr=aa&prev_fmts=468x15_0ads_al&prev_slotnames=4860573285&correlator=445225677507&frm=20&ga_vid=*&ga_sid=*&ga_hid=*&ga_fc=1&pv=1&iag=3&icsg=2&nhd=1&dssz=2&mdo=0&mso=0&u_tz=-420&u_his=16&u_java=0&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=24&u_nplug=5&u_nmime=7&dff=verdana&dfs=11&biw=1349&bih=667&eid=575144605&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.ph%2F&rx=0&eae=0&fc=208&pc=1&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C1366%2C0%2C1366%2C728%2C1366%2C667&vis=1&rsz=d%7C%7C%7Cn&abl=XS&ppjl=t&pfx=0&fu=16&bc=1&ifi=5&xpc=M1JbV6Ljwy&p=http%3A//www.chanrobles.com&dtd=888&rl_rc=true&adsense_enabled=true&ad_type=text&oe=utf8&height=15&width=468&format=fpkc_al_lp&kw_type=radlink&hl=en&kw0=Annulment&kw1=Castro&kw2=No+GR&kw3=VS+GR&okw=VS+GR&rt=ChBW-x11AAcPXQq9jMeyArs0EgVWUyBHUhoIsXyXyr8-7t0oATACUhMIjNP4sZPnywIV1ZVoCh2m9AjNhttps://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-0513148074404120&output=html&h=15&slotname=4860573285&adk=3595057627&w=468&lmt=1459351829&flash=21.0.0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chanrobles.com%2Fcralaw%2F2014octoberdecisions.php%3Fid%3D936&wgl=1&dt=1459351828803&bpp=16&bdt=3977&fdt=856&idt=860&shv=r20160322&cbv=r20151006&saldr=aa&prev_fmts=468x15_0ads_al&prev_slotnames=4860573285&correlator=445225677507&frm=20&ga_vid=*&ga_sid=*&ga_hid=*&ga_fc=1&pv=1&iag=3&icsg=2&nhd=1&dssz=2&mdo=0&mso=0&u_tz=-420&u_his=16&u_java=0&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=24&u_nplug=5&u_nmime=7&dff=verdana&dfs=11&biw=1349&bih=667&eid=575144605&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.ph%2F&rx=0&eae=0&fc=208&pc=1&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C1366%2C0%2C1366%2C728%2C1366%2C667&vis=1&rsz=d%7C%7C%7Cn&abl=XS&ppjl=t&pfx=0&fu=16&bc=1&ifi=5&xpc=M1JbV6Ljwy&p=http%3A//www.chanrobles.com&dtd=888&rl_rc=true&adsense_enabled=true&ad_type=text&oe=utf8&height=15&width=468&format=fpkc_al_lp&kw_type=radlink&hl=en&kw0=Annulment&kw1=Castro&kw2=No+GR&kw3=VS+GR&okw=No+GR&rt=ChBW-x11AAcPWgq9jMeyArs0EgVObyBHUhoINUgZcIIMlisoATACUhMIjNP4sZPnywIV1ZVoCh2m9AjNhttps://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-0513148074404120&output=html&h=15&slotname=4860573285&adk=3595057627&w=468&lmt=1459351829&flash=21.0.0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chanrobles.com%2Fcralaw%2F2014octoberdecisions.php%3Fid%3D936&wgl=1&dt=1459351828803&bpp=16&bdt=3977&fdt=856&idt=860&shv=r20160322&cbv=r20151006&saldr=aa&prev_fmts=468x15_0ads_al&prev_slotnames=4860573285&correlator=445225677507&frm=20&ga_vid=*&ga_sid=*&ga_hid=*&ga_fc=1&pv=1&iag=3&icsg=2&nhd=1&dssz=2&mdo=0&mso=0&u_tz=-420&u_his=16&u_java=0&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=24&u_nplug=5&u_nmime=7&dff=verdana&dfs=11&biw=1349&bih=667&eid=575144605&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.ph%2F&rx=0&eae=0&fc=208&pc=1&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C1366%2C0%2C1366%2C728%2C1366%2C667&vis=1&rsz=d%7C%7C%7Cn&abl=XS&ppjl=t&pfx=0&fu=16&bc=1&ifi=5&xpc=M1JbV6Ljwy&p=http%3A//www.chanrobles.com&dtd=888&rl_rc=true&adsense_enabled=true&ad_type=text&oe=utf8&height=15&width=468&format=fpkc_al_lp&kw_type=radlink&hl=en&kw0=Annulment&kw1=Castro&kw2=No+GR&kw3=VS+GR&okw=Castro&rt=ChBW-x11AAcPVwq9jMeyArs0EgZDYXN0cm8aCL6vncmdV3TkKAEwAlITCIzT-LGT58sCFdWVaAodpvQIzQhttps://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-0513148074404120&output=html&h=15&slotname=4860573285&adk=3595057627&w=468&lmt=1459351829&flash=21.0.0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chanrobles.com%2Fcralaw%2F2014octoberdecisions.php%3Fid%3D936&wgl=1&dt=1459351828803&bpp=16&bdt=3977&fdt=856&idt=860&shv=r20160322&cbv=r20151006&saldr=aa&prev_fmts=468x15_0ads_al&prev_slotnames=4860573285&correlator=445225677507&frm=20&ga_vid=*&ga_sid=*&ga_hid=*&ga_fc=1&pv=1&iag=3&icsg=2&nhd=1&dssz=2&mdo=0&mso=0&u_tz=-420&u_his=16&u_java=0&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=24&u_nplug=5&u_nmime=7&dff=verdana&dfs=11&biw=1349&bih=667&eid=575144605&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.ph%2F&rx=0&eae=0&fc=208&pc=1&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C1366%2C0%2C1366%2C728%2C1366%2C667&vis=1&rsz=d%7C%7C%7Cn&abl=XS&ppjl=t&pfx=0&fu=16&bc=1&ifi=5&xpc=M1JbV6Ljwy&p=http%3A//www.chanrobles.com&dtd=888&rl_rc=true&adsense_enabled=true&ad_type=text&oe=utf8&height=15&width=468&format=fpkc_al_lp&kw_type=radlink&hl=en&kw0=Annulment&kw1=Castro&kw2=No+GR&kw3=VS+GR&okw=Annulment&rt=ChBW-x11AAcPRgq9jMeyArs0EglBbm51bG1lbnQaCBf6f-uXcalaKAEwAlITCIzT-LGT58sCFdWVaAodpvQIzQhttps://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-0513148074404120&output=html&h=15&slotname=4860573285&adk=3595057627&w=468&lmt=1459351829&flash=21.0.0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chanrobles.com%2Fcralaw%2F2014octoberdecisions.php%3Fid%3D936&wgl=1&dt=1459351828795&bpp=8&bdt=3972&fdt=732&idt=736&shv=r20160322&cbv=r20151006&saldr=aa&prev_fmts=468x15_0ads_al&correlator=445225677507&frm=20&ga_vid=*&ga_sid=*&ga_hid=*&ga_fc=1&pv=1&iag=3&icsg=2&nhd=1&dssz=2&mdo=0&mso=0&u_tz=-420&u_his=16&u_java=0&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=24&u_nplug=5&u_nmime=7&dff=verdana&dfs=11&biw=1349&bih=667&eid=575144605&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.ph%2F&rx=0&eae=0&fc=208&pc=1&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C1366%2C0%2C1366%2C728%2C1366%2C667&vis=1&rsz=d%7C%7C%7Cn&abl=XS&ppjl=t&pfx=0&fu=16&bc=1&ifi=4&xpc=A3FGxQhBrG&p=http%3A//www.chanrobles.com&dtd=760&rl_rc=true&adsense_enabled=true&ad_type=text&oe=utf8&height=15&width=468&format=fpkc_al_lp&kw_type=radlink&hl=en&kw0=Family+Law&kw1=Law+GR&kw2=Castro&kw3=Annulment&okw=Annulment&rt=ChBW-x11AAcEwgq9l9XAAK3sEglBbm51bG1lbnQaCADGHNO1WG1WKAFSEwiEw_ixk-fLAhUGoGgKHTZuDJIhttps://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-0513148074404120&output=html&h=15&slotname=4860573285&adk=3595057627&w=468&lmt=1459351829&flash=21.0.0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chanrobles.com%2Fcralaw%2F2014octoberdecisions.php%3Fid%3D936&wgl=1&dt=1459351828795&bpp=8&bdt=3972&fdt=732&idt=736&shv=r20160322&cbv=r20151006&saldr=aa&prev_fmts=468x15_0ads_al&correlator=445225677507&frm=20&ga_vid=*&ga_sid=*&ga_hid=*&ga_fc=1&pv=1&iag=3&icsg=2&nhd=1&dssz=2&mdo=0&mso=0&u_tz=-420&u_his=16&u_java=0&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=24&u_nplug=5&u_nmime=7&dff=verdana&dfs=11&biw=1349&bih=667&eid=575144605&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.ph%2F&rx=0&eae=0&fc=208&pc=1&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C1366%2C0%2C1366%2C728%2C1366%2C667&vis=1&rsz=d%7C%7C%7Cn&abl=XS&ppjl=t&pfx=0&fu=16&bc=1&ifi=4&xpc=A3FGxQhBrG&p=http%3A//www.chanrobles.com&dtd=760&rl_rc=true&adsense_enabled=true&ad_type=text&oe=utf8&height=15&width=468&format=fpkc_al_lp&kw_type=radlink&hl=en&kw0=Family+Law&kw1=Law+GR&kw2=Castro&kw3=Annulment&okw=Castro&rt=ChBW-x11AAcEwAq9l9XAAK3sEgZDYXN0cm8aCNdl-g0SQLnfKAFSEwiEw_ixk-fLAhUGoGgKHTZuDJIhttps://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-0513148074404120&output=html&h=15&slotname=4860573285&adk=3595057627&w=468&lmt=1459351829&flash=21.0.0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chanrobles.com%2Fcralaw%2F2014octoberdecisions.php%3Fid%3D936&wgl=1&dt=1459351828795&bpp=8&bdt=3972&fdt=732&idt=736&shv=r20160322&cbv=r20151006&saldr=aa&prev_fmts=468x15_0ads_al&correlator=445225677507&frm=20&ga_vid=*&ga_sid=*&ga_hid=*&ga_fc=1&pv=1&iag=3&icsg=2&nhd=1&dssz=2&mdo=0&mso=0&u_tz=-420&u_his=16&u_java=0&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=24&u_nplug=5&u_nmime=7&dff=verdana&dfs=11&biw=1349&bih=667&eid=575144605&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.ph%2F&rx=0&eae=0&fc=208&pc=1&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C1366%2C0%2C1366%2C728%2C1366%2C667&vis=1&rsz=d%7C%7C%7Cn&abl=XS&ppjl=t&pfx=0&fu=16&bc=1&ifi=4&xpc=A3FGxQhBrG&p=http%3A//www.chanrobles.com&dtd=760&rl_rc=true&adsense_enabled=true&ad_type=text&oe=utf8&height=15&width=468&format=fpkc_al_lp&kw_type=radlink&hl=en&kw0=Family+Law&kw1=Law+GR&kw2=Castro&kw3=Annulment&okw=Law+GR&rt=ChBW-x11AAcEvwq9l9XAAK3sEgZMYXcgR1IaCOdpY1FK7HbgKAFSEwiEw_ixk-fLAhUGoGgKHTZuDJIhttps://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/ads?client=ca-pub-0513148074404120&output=html&h=15&slotname=4860573285&adk=3595057627&w=468&lmt=1459351829&flash=21.0.0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.chanrobles.com%2Fcralaw%2F2014octoberdecisions.php%3Fid%3D936&wgl=1&dt=1459351828795&bpp=8&bdt=3972&fdt=732&idt=736&shv=r20160322&cbv=r20151006&saldr=aa&prev_fmts=468x15_0ads_al&correlator=445225677507&frm=20&ga_vid=*&ga_sid=*&ga_hid=*&ga_fc=1&pv=1&iag=3&icsg=2&nhd=1&dssz=2&mdo=0&mso=0&u_tz=-420&u_his=16&u_java=0&u_h=768&u_w=1366&u_ah=728&u_aw=1366&u_cd=24&u_nplug=5&u_nmime=7&dff=verdana&dfs=11&biw=1349&bih=667&eid=575144605&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com.ph%2F&rx=0&eae=0&fc=208&pc=1&brdim=0%2C0%2C0%2C0%2C1366%2C0%2C1366%2C728%2C1366%2C667&vis=1&rsz=d%7C%7C%7Cn&abl=XS&ppjl=t&pfx=0&fu=16&bc=1&ifi=4&xpc=A3FGxQhBrG&p=http%3A//www.chanrobles.com&dtd=760&rl_rc=true&adsense_enabled=true&ad_type=text&oe=utf8&height=15&width=468&format=fpkc_al_lp&kw_type=radlink&hl=en&kw0=Family+Law&kw1=Law+GR&kw2=Castro&kw3=Annulment&okw=Family+Law&rt=ChBW-x11AAcEtAq9l9XAAK3sEgpGYW1pbHkgTGF3Gghsx-rqluxZMSgBUhMIhMP4sZPnywIVBqBoCh02bgyShttps://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/pcs/click?xai=AKAOjst2-F63iJagP3nOkjSgU04nE7FKSnXL779ijx7GmQVD7DRUjcaRp-IYMDLz4IgOgfu4d3Ot9kF7edIeI66v0VEeTd4G45iMFbcL58yJtnPIT-3wFFxGRHjLRg&sig=Cg0ArKJSzCB1A8cnT-e1&urlfix=1&adurl=https://adclick.g.doubleclick.net/aclk%3Fsa%3DL%26ai%3DCIz0VdR37Vo_PDtjIoAPEupX4COSHttwDrLrpiF_AjbcBEAEgAGDhlLqFkBqCARdjYS1wdWItMDUxMzE0ODA3NDQwNDEyMMgBCagDAaoEpQFP0PzfAKIvPO2oyqjR7cuwM8owOohEFL0fHyGOwN6iE2YkIgiamnzkwycGIyASkMoKCvywevjbkW77sraLgiDqyr7OeaklYHuOEyN_MrZHsDRBxq_DnP81hrflGPJ0hz7f_jO4hqogUf85ffXLDk1qFqpy455EPY8yjDFRkEhv_Jn5y0ILNKVwAiFEpaAZH2ev8_mOA2vSKt6cjdWgcK5gizTGoNeABomo8om_7byaNKAGIdgHAA%26num%3D1%26sig%3DAOD64_3FZSFxWVzkhlc6QIb1b3J-ktIeqw%26client%3Dca-pub-0513148074404120%26adurl%3Dhttp://www.samsung.com/ph/consumer/mobile-devices/smartphones/galaxy-j/SM-J120HZDDXTChttps://www.googleadservices.com/pagead/aclk?sa=L&ai=Ce13JdR37Vt-2DtjGoAPdh6homPzukAagx9OvzQLwhoWeCxABIJ-m5BFg4ZS6hZAaoAGg7IbtA8gBA6kCJlxtTGQ6Vz6oAwHIA8EEqgSkAU_QiUpSEFIPopIF18gS1cCXNoMnDmvN2UVYu3d5iDVarzLLRv0XiWyK1cx2P4VDy2vHXDtPgkYN6m1FiPV4aH4jOkq1-woV2nCoQ1VoOjCNdgha3d24Ye0BUhctSyfWdxCubd8xUnuWtnMr5KdpYO5DaTyeTKu8uuO-cEB6VIEwvjeIKutaqiDEuUykqirphkGlYClD0X3oaCrGXudDaDEoJ5W8iAYBoAYDgAfIk_kSqAemvhvYBwE&num=1&cid=5GjNZ2iKs28VROx09MhzUIb1&sig=AOD64_1CPxi3HkSWX3NPemAcwzRkPtbNxQ&client=ca-pub-0513148074404120&adurl=https://mybusybee.nethttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2016.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2015.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2013.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2012.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2011.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2010.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2009.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2008.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2007.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2006.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2005.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2004.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2003.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2002.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2001.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2000.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1999.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1998.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1997.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1996.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1995.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1994.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1993.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1992.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1991.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1990.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1989.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1988.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1987.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1986.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1985.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1984.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1983.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1982.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1981.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1980.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1979.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1978.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1977.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1976.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1975.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1974.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1973.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1972.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1971.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1970.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1969.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1968.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1967.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1966.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1965.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1964.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1963.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1962.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1961.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1960.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1959.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1958.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1957.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1956.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1955.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1954.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1953.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1952.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1951.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1950.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1949.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1948.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1947.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1946.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1945.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1944.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1943.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1942.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1941.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1940.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1939.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1938.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1937.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1936.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1935.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1934.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1933.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1932.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1931.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1930.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1929.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1928.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1927.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1926.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1925.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1924.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1923.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1922.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1921.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1920.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1919.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1918.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1917.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1916.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1915.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1914.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1913.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1912.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1911.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1910.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1909.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1908.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1907.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1906.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1905.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1904.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1903.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1902.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/1901.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2014.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/


8/8



Main Indices of the Library ---> Go!

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 ChanRobles Publishing Company | Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library™ | chanrobles.com™ RED
http://www.chanrobles.com/emailrestriction.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/disclaimer.phphttp://www.chanrobles.com/copyrightnotice.phphttp://history.back%281%29/

castro vs gregorio

Documents