civrev(additional cases)

8/9/2019 CivRev(Additional Cases)

1/29

TOPIC: Marriage Certifcate as Evidence

G.R. No. 17354 !an"ar# $$% $14

PEREGRIN& M&C'& ()&. )E &(ENI)O%Petitioner,

vs.

TEC*& +O,-I& &(ENI)O%Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PERE% J.:

This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.ofthe Rules of Court, assailin the !"

#uust $%%5 De&ision"of the Court of #ppeals 'C#( in C#)*.R. C+ No. -444, whi&h reversed the

$5 ar&h $%%! De&ision$of the Reional Trial Court 'RTC(, /ran&h 0 of Davao Cit1, in a &o2plaint

for De&laration of #3solute Nullit1 of arriae do&eted as Civil Case No. $6, -%0)-0.

The 7a&ts

This &ase involves a &ontest 3etween two wo2en 3oth &lai2in to have 3een validl1 2arried to

the sa2e 2an, now de&eased.

Respondent Te&la 8o13ia #venido 'Te&la( instituted on "" Nove23er "--0, a Co2plaint for

De&laration of Nullit1 of arriae aainst Pererina a&ua +da. de #venido 'Pererina( on the

round that she 'Te&la(, is the lawful wife of the de&eased Eusta9uio #venido 'Eusta9uio(. In her

&o2plaint, Te&la alleed that her 2arriae to Eusta9uio was sole2ni:ed on !% Septe23er "-4$

in Tali3on, /ohol in rites o;&iated 31 the Parish Priest of the said town. #&&ordin to her, the fa&t

of their 2arriae is eviden&ed 31 a arriae Certi


2/29

Te&la presented testi2onial and do&u2entar1 eviden&e &onsistin ofA

"( Testi2onies of #delina #venido)Ceno '#delina(, Cli2a&o #venido 'Cli2a&o( and Te&la

herself to su3stantiate her alleed prior e?istin and valid 2arriae with 'si&( Eusta9uioB

$( Do&u2entar1 eviden&e su&h as the followinA

a. Certi


3/29

$( #;davit of Eusta9uio e?e&uted on $$ ar&h "-05 de&larin hi2self as sinle when he

&ontra&ted 2arriae with the petitioner althouh he had a &o22on law relation with one

Te&la 8o13ia with who2 he had four '4( &hildren na2el1A Cli2a&o, Ti3ur&io, Editha and

Eusta9uio, r., all surna2ed #venidoB"0

!( =etter of #tt1. Edardo T. ata dated "5 #pril $%%$, addressed to the Civil Reistrar of

the uni&ipalit1 of #leria, Suriao del NorteB"-and

4( Certi


4/29

$. >hether or not se&ondar1 eviden&e 2a1 3e &onsidered andor taen &oni:an&e of,

without proof of the e?e&ution or e?isten&e and the &ause of the unavaila3ilit1 of the 3est

eviden&e, the oriinal do&u2entB

and

!. >hether or not a Certie uphold the reversal 31 the C# of the de&ision of the trial &ourt. Luite re&entl1, in #Monuevo v

Intestate Estate of Rodolfo *. alandoni,$0we said, &itin pre&edents, thatA
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_173540_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_173540_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_173540_2014.html#fnt28http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_173540_2014.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_173540_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_173540_2014.html#fnt28


5/29

>hile a 2arriae &erti


6/29

the 2arriae &ontra&t were &learl1 shown 31 the eviden&e presented, se&ondar1 eviden&e

testi2onial and do&u2entar12a1 3e ad2itted to prove the fa&t of 2arriae.!%

#s &orre&tl1 stated 31 the appellate &ourtA

In the &ase at 3en&h, the &ele3ration of 2arriae 3etween JTe&laK and EGST#LGIO was

esta3lished 31 the testi2onial eviden&e furnished 31 J#delinaK who appears to 3e present durin

the 2arriae &ere2on1, and 31 JTe&laK herself as a livin witness to the event. The loss was

shown 31 the &erti


7/29

>8ERE7ORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed De&ision of the Court of #ppeals in C#)*.R

C+ No. -444 is #77IRED. The 2arriae 3etween petitioner Pererina a&ua #venido and the

de&eased Eusta9uio #venido is here31 de&lared NG== and +OID. No pronoun&e2ent as to &osts.

SO ORDERED.


8/29

TOPIC: R& /$0$ &nti2(&C *a

G.R. No. 1771 !an"ar# $$% $14

R&*P+ P. T'&%Petitioner,

vs.

+ON. CE&R &. M&NGRO-&NG% Presiding !"dge% -ranc6 $$% Regiona Tria Co"rt% I8"s%

Cavite9 and RO&N& +ONR&)O2T'&%Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

PER&*T&% J.:

/efore us is a petition for review on &ertiorari whi&h sees to annul the De&ision"dated O&to3er

$0, $%%5 of the Court of #ppeals 'C#( issued in C#)*.R. SP No. 0--!-.

On a1 $%, $%%5, respondent Rossana 8onrado)Tua 'respondent( o2en and their Children #&t of

$%%4, aainst her hus3and, petitioner Ralph Tua. The &ase was do&eted as Civil Case No. %464)

%5 and raed)o to /ran&h $$. Respondent &lai2ed that she and her &hildren had suered fro2

petitioner@s a3usive &ondu&tB that petitioner had threatened to &ause her and the &hildren

ph1si&al har2 for the purpose of &ontrollin her a&tions or de&isionsB that she was a&tuall1

deprived of &ustod1 and a&&ess to her 2inor &hildrenB and, that she was threatened to 3e

deprived of her and her &hildren@s


9/29

7or the purpose of the i2ple2entation of the Te2porar1 Prote&tion Order, the respondent 'herein

petitioner Ralph( is here31 ordered toA

". EnFoin fro2 &o22ittin and threatenin to &o22it personall1 or throuh another,

ph1si&al, ver3al and e2otional har2 or a3use aainst the herein petitioner 'respondent(

and other fa2il1 and household 2e23ersB

$. Restrain fro2 harassin, anno1in, te?tin, telephonin, &onta&tin or otherwise

&o22uni&atin with the petitioner 'respondent( whether dire&tl1 or indire&tl1 or enaed

in an1 ps1&holoi&al for2 of harass2entB

+IO=#TION O7 T8IS ORDER IS PGNIS8#/=E / =#>.

The Sheri of this Court, the PNP I2us, Cavite, or an1 O;&ers of the =aw are here31 &o22anded

to ee&t this Order i22ediatel1 and to use ne&essar1 for&e and 2easures under the law to

i2ple2ent this Order.

=et the hearin for Per2anent Prote&tion Order 3e set on une -, $%%5 at $A%% o@&lo& in the

afternoon.

SO ORDERED.5

In his Co22ent6to respondents Petition with Grent otion to =ift TPO, petitioner denied

respondent@s alleations and alleed, a2on others, that he had 3een 2aintainin a separate

a3ode fro2 petitioner sin&e Nove23er $%%4B that it was respondent who ver3all1 a3used and

threatened hi2 whenever their &hildrens sta1 with hi2 was e?tendedB that respondent had 3een

sta1in with a &ertain Re3endor uMia despite the i2propriet1 and 2oral i2pli&ations of su&h

set)upB that despite their written aree2ent that their 2inor &hildren should sta1 in their

&onFual ho2e, the latter violated the sa2e when she surreptitiousl1 2oved out of their &onFual

dwellin with their 2inor &hildren and sta1ed with said uMiaB and, that respondent is 2entall1,

ps1&holoi&all1, spirituall1 and 2orall1 unithout awaitin for the resolution of his Co22ent on the petition and 2otion to lift TPO,

petitioner


10/29

>8ERE7ORE, 3ased on the foreoin pre2ises, the instant petition is here31 DENIED for la& of

2erit. #&&ordinl1, the assailed Te2porar1 Prote&tion Order dated a1 $!, $%%$ 'si&( issued 31

the Reional Trial Court of I2us, Cavite, /ran&h $$ in Civil Case No. %464)%5 is GP8E=D."%

In so rulin, the C# found that the petition


11/29

&onstitutionalit1 of R# -$6$ and its provisions, we e are not i2pressed.

Se&tion "5 of R# -$6$ providesA

SECTION "5. Te2porar1 Prote&tion Orders. Te2porar1 Prote&tion Orders 'TPOs( refers to the

prote&tion order issued 31 the &ourt on the date of


12/29

ne&essar1 to prote&t the vi&ti2 fro2 the i22ediate and i22inent daner of +#>C or to prevent

su&h violen&e, whi&h is a3out to re&ur.

There need not 3e an1 fear that the Fude 2a1 have no rational 3asis to issue an e? parte order.

The vi&ti2 is re9uired not onl1 to verif1 the alleations in the petition, 3ut also to atta&h her

witnesses a;davits to the petition.

The rant of a TPO e? parte &annot, therefore, 3e &hallened as violative of the riht to due

pro&ess. ust lie a writ of preli2inar1 atta&h2ent whi&h is issued without noti&e and hearin

3e&ause the ti2e in whi&h the hearin will tae &ould 3e enouh to ena3le the defendant to

a3s&ond or dispose of his propert1, in the sa2e wa1, the vi&ti2 of +#>C 2a1 alread1 have

suered harrowin e?perien&es in the hands of her tor2entor, and possi3l1 even death, if noti&e

and hearin were re9uired 3efore su&h a&ts &ould 3e prevented. It is a &onstitutiona

&o22onpla&e that the ordinar1 re9uire2ents of pro&edural due pro&ess 2ust 1ield to the

ne&essities of prote&tin vital pu3li& interests, a2on whi&h is prote&tion of wo2en and &hildren

fro2 violen&e and threats to their personal safet1 and se&urit1.

It should 3e pointed out that when the TPO is issued e? parte, the &ourt shall liewise order that

noti&e 3e i22ediatel1 iven to the respondent dire&tin hi2 to here no TPO is issued e? parte, the &ourt will nonetheless order the i22ediate issuan&e and

servi&e of the noti&e upon the respondent re9uirin hi2 to


13/29

involvin rihts that are enfor&ea3le and de2anda3le 3efore the &ourts of Fusti&e or the redress

of wrons for violations of su&h rihts."6

#s to the issuan&e of prote&tion order 31 the Punon /arana1, Se&tion "4 pertinentl1 providesA

SEC. "4. /arana1 Prote&tion Orders '/POs(B >ho a1 Issue and 8ow. /arana1 Prote&tion

Orders '/POs( refer to the prote&tion order issued 31 the Punon /arana1 orderin the

perpetrator to desist fro2 &o22ittin a&ts under Se&tion 5 'a( and '3( of this #&t. # Punon

/arana1 who re&eives appli&ations for a /PO shall issue the prote&tion order to the appli&ant on

the date of


14/29

Clearl1, the &ourt is authori:ed to issue a TPO on the date of the


15/29

'h( Enain in purposeful, nowin, or re&less &ondu&t, personall1 or throuh another

that alar2s or &auses su3stantial e2otional or ps1&holoi&al distress to the wo2an or her

&hild. This shall in&lude, 3ut not 3e li2ited to, the followin a&tsA

'"( Stalin or followin the wo2an or her &hild in pu3li& or private pla&esB

'$( Peerin in the window or linerin outside the residen&e of the wo2an or her

&hildB

'!( Enterin or re2ainin in the dwellin or on the propert1 of the wo2an or her

&hild aainst herhis willB

'4( Destro1in the propert1 and personal 3elonins or inQi&tin har2 to ani2als or

pets of the wo2an or her &hildB and

'5( Enain in an1 for2 of harass2ent or violen&eB

'i( Causin 2ental or e2otional anuish, pu3li& ridi&ule or hu2iliation to the wo2an or her

&hild, in&ludin, 3ut not li2ited to, repeated ver3al and e2otional a3use, and denial of


16/29


17/29

TOPIC: R"e 1% N"it# o; Marriage

G.R. No. 1/53 ?e@r"ar# 1% $14

REP'-*IC O? T+E P+I*IPPINE%Petitioner,

vs.

MER*IN)& *. O*&,-&R%Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PER&*T&% J.:

#ssailed in this petition for review on &ertiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court are the

Reional Trial Court"'RTC( De&ision$dated a1 5, $%%- and Order!dated #uust $5, $%%- in SP

Pro&. No. "65"-)CE/. The assailed de&ision ranted respondent erlinda =. Ola13ars petition for

&an&ellation of entries in the latters 2arriae &ontra&tB while the assailed order denied the

2otion for re&onsideration


18/29

>8ERE7ORE, Fud2ent is here31 rendered, the petition is ranted in favor of the petitioner,

erlinda =. Ola13ar. The =o&al Civil Reistrar of Ce3u Cit1 is dire&ted to &an&el all the entries in

the >I7E portion of the alleed 2arriae &ontra&t of the petitioner and respondent e Son Sune.

SO ORDERED.-

7indin that the sinature appearin in the su3Fe&t 2arriae &ontra&t was not that of respondent,

the &ourt found 3asis in rantin the latter@s pra1er to straihten her re&ord and re&tif1 the

terri3le 2istae."%

Petitioner, however, 2oved for the re&onsideration of the assailed De&ision on the rounds thatA

'"( there was no &leri&al spellin, t1poraphi&al and other inno&uous errors in the 2arriae

&ontra&t for it to fall within the provisions of Rule "%0 of the Rules of CourtB and '$( rantin the

&an&ellation of all the entries in the wife portion of the alleed 2arriae &ontra&t is, in ee&t,

de&larin the 2arriae void a3 initio.""

In an Order dated #uust $5, $%%-, the RTC denied petitioner@s 2otion for re&onsideration

&ou&hed in this wiseA

>8ERE7ORE, the &ourt here31 denies the otion for Re&onsideration 8EN T8ERE #RE ERRORS IN T8E

ENTRIES SOG*8T TO /E C#NCE==ED OR CORRECTED.

II.

*R#NTIN* T8E C#NCE==#TION O7 H#== T8E ENTRIES IN T8E >I7E PORTION O7 T8E #==E*ED

#RRI#*E CONTR#CT,H IS IN E77ECT DEC=#RIN* T8E #RRI#*E +OID #/ INITIO."4

Petitioner &lai2s that there are no errors in the entries souht to 3e &an&elled or &orre&ted,

3e&ause the entries 2ade in the &erti


19/29

&ir&u2stan&es."5In dire&tin the &an&ellation of the entries in the wife portion of the &erti


20/29

SEC. . Order. #fter hearin, the &ourt 2a1 either dis2iss the petition or issue an order

rantin the &an&ellation or &orre&tion pra1ed for. In either &ase, a &erti


21/29

hers and, therefore, was fored. Clearl1, it was esta3lished that, as she &lai2ed in her petition,

no su&h 2arriae was &ele3rated.

Indeed the Court 2ade a pronoun&e2ent in the re&ent &ase of inoru 7uFii v. aria Pa: *alela

arina1, Shini&hi aeara, =o&al Civil Reistrar of Lue:on Cit1, and the #d2inistrator and Civil

Reistrar *eneral of the National Statisti&s O;&e$4thatA

To 3e sure, a petition for &orre&tion or &an&ellation of an entr1 in the &ivil reistr1 &annot

su3stitute for an a&tion to invalidate a 2arriae. # dire&t a&tion is ne&essar1 to prevent

&ir&u2vention of the su3stantive and pro&edural safeuards of 2arriae under the 7a2il1 Code,

#.. No. %$)"")"%)SC and other related laws. #2on these safeuards are the re9uire2ent of

provin the li2ited rounds for the dissolution of 2arriae, support pendente lite of the spouses

and &hildren, the li9uidation, partition and distri3ution of the properties of the spouses and the

investiation of the pu3li& prose&utor to deter2ine &ollusion. # dire&t a&tion for de&laration of

nullit1 or annul2ent of 2arriae is also ne&essar1 to prevent &ir&u2vention of the Furisdi&tion of

the 7a2il1 Courts under the 7a2il1 Courts #&t of "-- 'Repu3li& #&t No. 0!6-(, as a petition for

&an&ellation or &orre&tion of entries in the &ivil reistr1 2a1 3e


22/29

TOPIC: ec 14 P) 15$/% ProAert# Registration )ecree

G.R. No. 1003/ ?e@r"ar# 5% $14

REP'-*IC O? T+E P+I*IPPINE%Petitioner,

vs.

EMM&N'E* C. CORTE%Respondent.

D E C I S I O N

RE,E% J.:

/efore this Court is a petition for review on &ertiorari"under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seein

to annul and set aside the De&ision$dated 7e3ruar1 ", $%%- of the Court of #ppeals 'C#( in C#)

*.R. C+ No. 05%5. The C# a;r2ed the De&ision!dated 7e3ruar1 , $%%6 of the Reional Trial

Court 'RTC( of Pasi Cit1, /ran&h 60, in =RC Case No. N)""4-6.

The 7a&ts

On 7e3ruar1 $0, $%%!, respondent E22anuel C. Corte: 'Corte:(


23/29

On 7e3ruar1 , $%%6, the RTC rendered a De&ision,5whi&h ranted Corte:@ appli&ation fo

reistration, vi:A

>8ERE7ORE,


24/29

It has 3een settled that properties &lassihile it is sini


25/29

Se&. "4. >ho 2a1 appl1. The followin persons 2a1


26/29

e?isten&e of a positive a&t of the overn2ent su&h as a presidential pro&la2ation or an e?e&utive

order, an ad2inistrative a&tion, investiation reports of /ureau of =ands investiators, and a

leislative a&t or statute. The appli&ant 2a1 also se&ure a &erti


27/29

possession. HIt is a rule that eneral state2ents that are 2ere &on&lusions of law and not fa&tual

proof of possession are unavailin and &annot su;&e. #n appli&ant in a land reistration &ase

&annot Fust harp on 2ere &on&lusions of law to e23ellish the appli&ation 3ut 2ust i2press

thereto the fa&ts and &ir&u2stan&es eviden&in the alleed ownership and possession of the

land.H"-

7urther, the earliest ta? de&laration presented 31 Corte: was onl1 in "-66. Corte: failed to

e?plain wh1, despite his &lai2 that he and his prede&essors)in)interest have 3een in possession

of the su3Fe&t propert1 sin&e ti2e i22e2orial, it was onl1 in "-66 that his prede&essors)in)

interest started to de&lare the sa2e for purposes of ta?ation.

That Corte: and his prede&essors)in)interest have 3een in possession of the su3Fe&t propert1 for


28/29

=et us now e?plore the ee&ts under the Civil Code of a de&laration 31 the President or an1 dul1

authori:ed overn2ent o;&er of aliena3ilit1 and disposa3ilit1 of lands of the pu3li& do2ain.

>ould su&h lands so de&lared aliena3le and disposa3le 3e &onverted, under the Civil Code, fro2

propert1 of the pu3li& do2inion into patri2onial propert1V #fter all, 31 &onnotative de


29/29

thereof. It is of no 2o2ent that Corte: and his prede&essors)in)interest have 3een in possession

of the su3Fe&t propert1 for 5 1ears at the ti2e he applied for the reistration of title thereto. HJlKt

is not the notorious, e?&lusive and uninterrupted possession and o&&upation of an aliena3le and

disposa3le pu3li& land for the 2andated periods that &onverts it to patri2onial. The

indispensa3ilit1 of an o;&ial de&laration that the propert1 is now held 31 the State in its private

&apa&it1 or pla&ed within the &o22er&e of 2an for pres&ription to have an1 ee&t aainst the

State &annot 3e overe2phasi:ed. H$

>8ERE7ORE, in &onsideration of the foreoin dis9uisitions, the instant petition is *R#NTED. The

De&ision dated 7e3ruar1 ", $%%- of the Court of #ppeals in C#)*.R. C+ No. 05%5, whi&h

a;r2ed the De&ision dated 7e3ruar1 , $%%6 of the Reional Trial Court of Pasi Cit1, /ran&h 60,

in =RC Case No. N)""4-6, is here31 RE+ERSED and SET #SIDE. The #ppli&ation for Reistration of

E22anuel C. Corte: in =RC Case No. N)""4-6 is DENIED for la& of 2erit.

SO ORDERED.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_186639_2014.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2014/feb2014/gr_186639_2014.html#fnt27

civrev(additional cases)

Documents