LIMJOCO V ESTATE OF FRAGANTE (1948) Fragantes application for certificate of public convenience was granted after he died .

Said certificate was issued to the Intestate Estate of the deceased. DOCTRINE: The legal personality of a deceased person can be extended to his surviving estate. Instead of the heirs, it is the estate or mass of property, rights and assets left by the deceased that becomes vested and charged with his rights and obligations which survived after his death. PERTINENT PROVISION: (in the New Civil Code) Art. 42. Civil personality is extinguished by death. The effect of death upon the rights and obligations of the deceased is determined by law, by contract and by will. TOLENTINO V PARAS (1983) Amado Tolentino contracted a bigamous marriage with Maria Clemente. When he died, death certificate indicated Clemente as surviving spouse. Serafia Tolentino (first wife) sought the rectification of deceased husbands death certificate to place her as surviving spouse. DOCTRINE: Bigamous marriage is a marriage void ab initio. There is no need for a judicial declaration of nullity for the second marriage considering that it is had no force and effect. PERTINENT PROVISION: Art. 40 (FC). The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. YU V YU (2006) Battle of custody between parents while annulment case is being decided. Father (Eric Jonathan Yu) filed annulment case in Pasig RTC; hence, Pasig RTC acquired jurisdiction over all the incidents of the case. DOCTRINE: Incidents of a pending decree shall also be specified by the court wherein the declaration for nullity was filed. PERTINENT PROVISION: Art. 49 (FC). During the pendency of the action and in the absence of adequate provisions in a written agreement between the spouses, the Court shall provide for the support of the spouses and the custody of their common children. The Court shall give paramount consideration to the moral and material welfare of said children and their choice of the parent with whom they wish to remain as provided for in Title IX. It shall also provide for appropriate visitation rights of the other parent. TENCHAVEZ V ESCAO (1966) Not long after they got married, wife left for the US, secured divorce, and remarried thereafter. Husband petitioned for legal separation as well as for award of damages due to her evident denial of cohabitation, refusal to render consortium and her desertion of him right after their wedding. DOCTRINE: It is not within the province of the courts to attempt to compel one of the spouses to cohabit with, and render conjugal rights to the other. But a spouse who deserts the conjugal abode for unjustifiable reasons can be denied support.

PERTINENT PROVISION: Art. 21 (CC). Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the same. Art. 68 (FC). The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. Art. 69 (FC). The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide. The Court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family.