CASES 15-17

Miciano v. Brimo TURKISH LAWS

Andre Brimo (brother of deceased Joseph
Brimo) opposed the appeal of the
administrator of the estate Miciano that the
deceased wished that the distribution of his
properties be in accordance with PH law.
But brother said it is against the law of his
Turkish nationality. Brother did not present
facts that said testamentary dispositions
are not in accordance with Turkish laws. No
evidence of Turkish laws. Thus, absence of
such, they are presumed to be the same as
those of the Philippines.
Van Dorn v. Romillo (presiding judge)
NEVADA DIVORCE, MANAGE CONJUGAL
PROPERTIES
Van Dorn is a citizen of the PH while her
husband (Upton) is a citizen of the United
States. They were married in Hongkong
and resided in PH. They subsequently
obtained a divorce in Nevada. Van Dorn
remarried in Nevada. Upton filed a case
against Van Dorn enforcing to have a right
to manage the conjugal property (business
The Galleon Shop) in Ermita, Manila. But he
is already estopped from laying claim
because of the representation he made in
the divorce before US court that they had
no conjugal property. Therefore he has no
legal standing to sue for entitlement to
have control over conjugal assets.
Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera (presiding judge)
ADULTERY GERMANY NO CAPACITY TO SUE
NO LONGER SPOUSE
Imelda M. Pilapil is a Filipino citizen and
married private respondent Erich Geilling a
German national in Germany. Due to
conjugal disharmony respondent was
prompted to initiate a divorce proceeding
against petitioner in Germany. Divorce was
promulgated on the ground of failure of
marriage of the spouse. Subsequently,
respondent filed 2 complaints for adultery
before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that
while they were still married he had an
affair with William Chia and Jesus Chua.
Petitioner submits that court has no
jurisdiction to try the case because a
foreigner does not qualify as an offended
spouse having obtained a divorce under
his national law. Ruling is that one who can
legally file for a case of adultery and
concubinage is an offended spouse. After a

divorce has been decreed, the innocent

spouse has no longer the right to institute
proceedings against the offenders because
they are no longer considered as spouses.
Barretto v. Gonzalez P500 SUPPORT AND
RENO NEVADA DIVORCE CIRCUMVENT
Both Barreto and Gonzales are citizens of
the Philippines residing in the City of
Manila. They voluntarily separated and had
an agreement that respondent will give
Barretto support of P500 monthly for her
and her children which would increase in
case of illness and necessity.
After the agreement, Gonzales went to
Reno, Nevada and after his departure he
had reduced the amount of support. In
Nevada he secured an absolute divorce on
the ground of desertion and was decreed.
On same date he also remarried with
another citizen of the PH. Reno divorce
declared that responded pay alimony to
Barretto but did not follow through.
Barretto requested at the Court of First
Instance that the divorce issued in Nevada
be confirmed and ratified. It was requested
that both parties deliver to the guardian ad
litem what was due to their children. They
also prayed that marriage be dissolved and
respondent to pay P500 monthly, and
attorneys fees. CFI ruled in favor of
Barretto hence Gonzales making an appeal
that lower court erred in its decision.
The judgment of CFI was reversed and
respondent was absolved against the
demands. The request for ratifying the
Reno divorce indicated a purpose to
circumvent PH laws. The court of Nevada
has no jurisdiction to dissolve their
marriage since they are citizens of PH.
Government v. George
STENOGRAPHER

Frank

MINOR

In the city of Chicago, State of Illinois in the

United States, George Frank through a
representative of the Insular Government
of the Philippines entered into a contract
for 2 years with the Government by which
the defendant will receive a salary of
$1200 dollars per year and will be paid in
advance the travel expenses and salary
during the period of travel. It is also stated
that in case of violation, respondent will
pay the government all the expenses
incurred by the latter. After almost a year,
responded left the services of the

government. Later, government filed a

case before CFI to recover from the
defendant the amount paid to the
respondent including the travel expenses
and salary. The respondent as his
defense claimed that he was a minor and
therefore the contract cannot be enforced
against him. But the defendant being fully
qualified to enter into the contract at the
place and time the contract was made, he
cannot plead infancy when he is considered
as an adult at the place where the contract
is being enforced. Under the laws of that
state, he had full authority to contract.
Barnuevo v. Fuster SPAIN, DECISION IS NO
LONGER CONTROLLING
Gabriel Fuster and Constanza Yaez are
both nationals of Spain and were joined by
a Catholic marriage. Fuster came to PH and
acquired real and personal properties, then
later on his wife followed and lived with
him in conjugal relations. On that year they
resolved to separate and live apart. Yaez
went back to Spain but then returned to
PH. Upon returning, she commenced a
divorce proceeding against her husband on
the ground of adultery. The respondent
however argued that both of them are not
residents of Manila and both are nationals
of Spain. Therefore there is a lack of
jurisdiction.
But
the
authority
of
jurisdictional power of courts to decree a
divorce is not comprised within the
personal status of the spouses. It is not a
matter of the private laws of the persons
but the public law of the nations, and
generally submitted to the territorial
principle.
RULE
IS
NO
LONGER
CONTROLLING.
Testate Estate of C.O. Bohonan v. Bohonan
NEVADA IS HIS CHOICE RESPECT THE WILL
6000 FOR EACH CHILD
The testator is a citizen of the United
States and the state of his particular choice
Nevada despite his long residence in the
Philippines. He selected Nevada as his
domicile and therefore at the time of his
death, he was a citizen of that state. In his
partition, the children were only able to get
a legacy of P6000 each, which was not in
compliance with what is stated in the Civil
Code of the Philippines. But in this case,
the testator was a citizen of Nevada. The
laws of the state allow the testator to
dispose his property according to his will.
Therefore his testamentary dispositions
depriving his wife and children of what

should be their legitimes under the laws of

the Philippines should be respected.
Bellis v. Bellis TEXAS LAW NO FORCED
HEIRS AND LEGITIMES MARIA MIRIAM AMOS
Amos Bellis is a citizen of Texas and
executed a will in the Philippines and in his
estate he directed that it will be divided in
trust to his first wife Mary and three
illegitimate children Amos Jr, Maria and
Miriam Palma and after the two items have
been satisfied, the remainder shall go to
his seven children by his first and second
wives in equal share. Maria and Miriam
filed their respective oppositions to the
partition of the estate claiming that they
were deprived of their legitimes as
illegitimate children. But under the laws of
Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimes
therefore the Philippine law on legitimes
shall not be enfored against the will of
Bellis.
Aznar v. Garcia RENVOI RULE CALIFORNIA
LAW: LAW OF DOMICILE WILL GOVERN
LUCY AND HELEN CHRISTIENSEN
Final accounts of Edward Christienses, a
national of California and domiciled in PH,
be delivered to Maria Lucy Christiensen her
legacy and declaring her entitled to the
residue of the property and one half of to
Mrs. Carrie Louise C. Borton in accordance
with his will. The will also provided that
Maria Helen Christiensen would receive an
amount of P3600. Helen opposed this
partition saying that this deprives her of
legitime as an acknowledged natural child
and that Philippine laws shall govern
distribution. State of California provides
two sets of law to its citizens: one for
residents, and another for those domiciled
in other country. For the latter, the conflicts
of law rule of California shall govern which
then states that the law of the domicile
(Philippines) shall govern. Civil Code of the
Philippines makes natural children legally
acknowledged forced heirs of parents
recognizing them.
Roehr v. Rodriguez GERMANY NEGROS
ORIENTAL
PARENTAL
CUSTODY
TWO
PETITIONS DENIED CUTE STORY HER WIFE
FILED DIVORCE HE WANTS TO DISMISS
Petitioner Wolfgang Roehr, a German
citizen and resident, married private
respondent Carmen Rodriguez in Hamburg,
Germany. Their marriage was subsequently
ratified in Negros Oriental. Respondent filed

a declaration of nullity of their marriage,

petitioner filed a motion to dismiss but it
was denied. He then filed a motion for
reconsideration
then
a
petition
for
certiorari but it was again denied. So
petitioner obtained a decree of divorce in
Hamburg-Blankenese and parental custody
was granted to him. Respondent filed a
motion asking that the case be set for
hearing for the purpose of determining
issues regarding parental custody and
distribution of properties. Judge Salonga
set aside her previous order for the
purpose of tackling the matter stated. It
has been ruled that divorce decrees
obtained by foreigners in other countries
are recognizable in our jurisdiction, but the
legal effects must still be determined by
our courts. The records of this case be
remanded promptly to the trial court for
continuation of appropriate proceedings
Garcia V. Recio
FILIPINO CITIZEN
REMARRY

AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN
LEGAL CAPACITY TO

Recio was married to Editha Samson, an

Australian citizen in Malabon, Rizal. But
after two years, a decree of divorce
dissolving the marriage was issued by an
Australian
family
court.
In
1992,
respondent became an Australian citizen,
as shown by a Certificate of Australian
Citizenship. The respondent married
Grace-Garcia the petitioner herein in
Cabanatuan City. He declared himself as a
Filipino citizen in the marriage license. The
two eventually separated prior judicial
dissolution and their conjugal properties
were divided in accordance with the
statutory declaration secured in Australia.
Petitioner filed a complaint for declaration
of nullity of marriage in RTC Cabanatuan on
the ground of bigamy because respondent
had a prior subsisting marriage in Australia.
Respondent averred that his first marriage
is already dissolved and prayed that the
complaint be dismissed because it stated
no cause of action. The SC ruled that
respondent is no longer bound by Family
Code of PH after he acquired Australian
citizenship.
THIS IS FOR ARTICLE 6
Did the divorce obtained by Recio in
Australia ipso facto capacitated him to
remarry?
Petitioner raises the issue of the validity of
divorce respondent had with Editha and his

legal capacity to marry. SC remanded the

case to the court a quo to receive more
evidence because no proof has been
presented on the legal effects of the
divorce decree obtained under Australian
laws. Because the Australian divorce
decree contains a restriction that the
divorce should have to become absolute
before one can remarry again. The
respondent has to prove his legal capacity
to marry the petitioner. Failing in that, then
the court a quo may declare a nullity of the
parties marriage on the ground of bigamy,
there being already in evidence two
existing marriage certificates, which were
both obtained in the Philippines.
Republic v. Obrecido HE LEARNED WIFE
REMARRIED FROM SON, HE CAN ALSO
REMARRY PH LAWS
Obrecido was married with Lady Myros
Villanueva in Ozamis City. They had 2
children. After a few years wife left for US
together with their children and later on
had been naturalized as an American
citizen and learned that his wife has filed a
decree of divorce and married again.
Respondent then filed a petition for
authority to remarry again under Par 2 Art
26 of Family Code. The courts decision in
holding Art 26 be interpreted as allowing a
Filipino citizen who has been divorced by a
spouse who had acquired a citizenship and
remarried, also remarry under Philippine
law.
Eugenio v. Velez RIGHT TO DEAD BODY
COMMON
LAW
SPOUSE
1103
RAC
SUBSISTING MARRIAGE
Vitalianas brothers and sisters filed a
petition of habeas corpus to have obtain
her body from herein petitioner Eugenio
who refuses to surrender the body to the
sheriff on the ground that a corpse cannot
be subjected to a habeas corpus
proceedings. The court ordered that the
body be delivered to a funeral parlor but
petition assailed the lack of jurisdiction of
the court. He also contends he is the
spouse but only in common law. However
Philippine laws does not recognize common
law marriages. More so, petitioner had a
subsisting marriage, thus making him
legally incapacitated to marry Vitaliana.
The court awarded the custody of the dead
body to Vitalianas brothers and sisters in
pursuant of Section 1103 of RAC..

Republic v. Iyoy STILL A FILIPINO CITIZEN

CANNOT FILE DIVORCE DECREE IN US
Crasus Iyoy and Fely were married in 1961
in Cebu City. Their marriage gave birth to
five children. Fely went to the US in the
same year she sent letters to Crasus asking
him to sign divorce papers. Crasus
eventually learned that Fely married
Micklus and had a child in 1985. Crasus
then filed a complaint for declaration of
nullity of marriage. RTC declared the
marriage between respondent and Fely null
and void in pursuant to Art. 26. CA affirmed
this decision. This court ruled in the
negative and reversed CAs decision.
Basing from the facts. Fely only became a
citizen in 1988 and acquired the divorce in
1984 marrying Micklus after a year. This
means that paragraph two of Article 26
cannot be applied in such a way that, Fely
is not yet considered an alien at the time
the divorce was acquired and therefore she
does not have the capacity to remarry and
the marriage is still considered as
subsisting. The Civil Code also provides
that Filipino Citizen, with regard to family
laws and status are governed by Philippine
laws regardless of where they are. Fely,
being a Filipino Citizen then, is not
permitted by our laws to acquire a divorce
decree since such is not recognized in the
Philippines.

People v. Lol-lo and Saraw PENAL CODE

ARE STILL IN FORCE MUNICIPAL LAWS NOT
REPEALED PIRACY IS MUNICIPAL IN
CHARACTER
Lol-lo and Saraw were two of the 24
marauders who have mercilessly attacked
some of the men and brutally violated two
women. When they returned to their home,
they were arrested in CFI for the crime of
piracy. A demurrer argues that the offense
charged was not within the jurisdiction of
the CFI nor in any Philippine courts, and it
was not a public offense under the laws of
PH. Demurer was overruled and 2
respondents were sentenced to life
imprisonment or cadena perpetua and
return all sacks of copras or indemnify the
plaintiff in the amount of 924 rupees and to
pay part of the cost of litigation. Arts 153
and 154 of the Penal code dealing with
piracy are still in force. When Spain ceded
PH to US government, the political law
changes but the municipal law remain in
force until altered by the new government.
The crime of piracy is still municipal in
character because it is designed to secure
good order and peace in the community. It
is also declared by US constitution that
Congress shall have power to define and
punish piracies committed on high seas
and offenses against the law of nations.