BARRETO GONZALES vs GONZALES by JAYE

March 7, 1933
FACTS:

• The plaintiff & defendant were both citizens of the Philippines, married & lived together from
January 1919 until Spring of 1926. After which they voluntary separated & have not lived together
as man & wife, they had 4 minor children together.
• After negotiations, both parties mutually agreed to allow Manuela Barreto (plaintiff) for her & her
children’s support of P500 (five hundred pesos) monthly which to be increased in cases of
necessity & illness, and that the title of certain properties be put in her name.
• Shortly after the agreement, Augusto Gonzales (defendant), when to Reno, Nevada & secured in
that jurisdiction an absolute divorce on the ground of desertion dated November 28, 1927. On
that same date he went through the forms of marriage with another Filipino citizen as well & had 3
children with her.
• When Gonzales left the Philippines, he reduced the amount he had agreed to pay monthly for the
support of Manuela Barreto & her children & has not made the payments fixed in the Reno
divorce as alimony.
• Gonzales came back to the Philippines in August 1928 and shortly after, Barreto brought an
action at the CFI-Manila requesting to confirm & ratify the decree of divorce issued by the courts
of Nevada & invoked sec 9 of Act 2710. Such is requested to be enforced, and deliver to the
Guardian ad litem the equivalent of what would have been due to their children as their legal
portion from respective estates had their parents died intestate on November 28, 1927, they also
prayed that the marriage existing between Barreto & Gonzales be declared dissolved & Gonzales
be ordered to pay Barreto P500 per month, counsel fees of P5000 & all the expenses incurred in
educating the 3 minor sons. The guardians of the children also filed as intervenors in the case.
• After the hearing, the CFI-Manila granted the judgement in favor of the plaintiff & intervenors, but
reduced the attorney’s fees to P3000 instead & also granted the costs of the action against the
defendant, Hence, this appeal by Gonzales saying that the lower court erred in their decision.

ISSUE:

 WON any foreign divorce, relating to citizens of the Philippine Islands, will be recognized in this
jurisdiction, except it be for a cause, and under conditions for which the courts of the Philippine
Islands would grant a divorce.

NO. The lower court erred in granting the relief as prayed for on granting the divorce, because:

• The court said that securing the jurisdiction of the courts to recognize & approve the divorce
done in Reno, Nevada cannot be done according to the public policy in this jurisdiction on the
question of divorce.
• It’s clear in Act No. 2710 & court decisions on cases such as Goitia VS. Campos Rueda that the
entire conduct of the parties from the time of their separation until the case was submitted praying
the ratification of the Reno Divorce was clearly a circumvention of the law regarding divorce & will
be done under conditions not authorized by our laws.
• The matrimonial domicile of the couple had always been the Philippines & the residence acquired
by the husband in Reno, Nevada was a bona fide residence & did not confer jurisdiction upon the
court of that state to dissolve the matrimonial bonds in which he had entered in 1919.
• Art 9 & Art 11 of the Civil Code & The Divorce Law of the Philippines does not allow such to be
done, the effect of foreign divorce in the Philippines says that litigants cannot compel the
courts to approve of their own actions or permit the personal relations of the Citizens of
the Philippines to be affected by decrees of divorce of foreign courts in manner which out
government believes is contrary to public order & good morals.
SC RULING:
The decision of CFI-Manila was REVERSED & Defendant is absolved from the demands made
against him in this action.

CONNECTION TO PERSONS, FAMILY RELATION / CIVIL CODE:

• Article 9 of the Old Civil Code, now in Art 15 says that “Laws relating to family rights & duties
or to status, condition, and legal capacity of persons, are binding upon Spaniards even though they
reside in a foreign country”

• The last part of Art 11 of the Old Civil Code, now in Art 17 also states “...the prohibitive laws
concerning persons, their acts & their property, and those intended to promote public order & good
morals, shall not be rendered without effect by any foreign laws or judgements or by anything done or any
agreements entered into in a foreign country.”

Divorce Laws of the Philippines—The hardships of existing divorce laws of the Philippine Islands are
well known to the members of the Legislature. It is the duty of the courts to enforce the laws of divorce as
written by the Legislature if they constitutional. Courts have no right to say such laws are too strict or too
liberal.

• At the time this decision was rendered there was still absolute divorce in the Philippines on the
ground of Adultery on the part of the wife, and Concubinage on the part of the husband; the
divorce, however, could be granted only upon showing that the defendant had been convicted by
final judgement for the adultery or concubinage as the case maybe. The new Civil Code has
abolished absolute divorce, leaving only legal separation, which is equivalent to relative divorce.

EUGENIO vs VELEZ by JAYE

May 17, 1990
FACTS:

• Unaware of the death on 28 August 1988 of Vitaliana Vargas, her full blood brothers and sisters
—The Vargases (defendants in this case), filed a petition for habeas corpus before the RTC of
Misamis Oriental alleging that Vitaliana was forcibly taken from her residence sometime in 1987
and confined by Tomas Eugenio in his palacial residence in Jasaan, Misamis Oriental.
• Despite her desire to escape, Vitaliana was allegedly deprived of her liberty without any legal
authority. At the time the petition was filed, it was alleged that Vitaliana was 25 years of age,
single, and living with petitioner, Eugenio.
• Petitioner refused to surrender the body of Vitaliana (who had died on 28 August 1988) to the
respondent sheriff. He said that he had already secured a burial permit & that a writ of Habeas
corpus cannot be invoked to dead persons. Also, as her common law husband, Eugenio claimed
legal custody of her body.
• The Vargases alleged that Tomas Eugenio, who is not in any way related to Vitaliana was
wrongfully interfering with their duty to bury their sister.
• Invoking Arts. 305 and 308 of the Civil Code, the Vargases contended that, as the next of kin in
the Philippines, they are the legal custodians of the dead body of their sister Vitaliana.
• An exchange of pleadings followed. Eugenio claims he is the spouse contemplated under Art.
294 of the Civil Code, the term spouse used therein not being preceded by any qualification;
Hence, in the absence of such qualification, he is the rightful custodian of Vitaliana's body. The
Vargases’—Vitaliana's brothers and sisters contend otherwise.
ISSUE:
 WON Tomas Eugenio can be considered as a spouse of Vitaliana Vargas, entitled to the custody
of her dead body as well as her burial & internment.

NO. Even though, under Art 332 of the Revised Penal Code, the term “spouse” embraces common law
relation for purposes of exemption from criminal liability in cases of theft, swindling and malicious mischief
committed or caused mutually by spouses and that the Penal Code makes no distinction between a
couple whose cohabitation is sanctioned by a sacrament or legal tie and another who are husband and
wife “de facto”, such cannot be applied to the case because:

• The court held that the provisions of the Civil Code, unless expressly providing to the contrary as
in Article 144, when referring to a “spouse” contemplate a lawfully wedded spouse. Both of them
were not lawfully wedded spouses, in fact Eugenio was not legally capacitated to marry Vitaliana
in her lifetime. The court was correct when it awarded the custody of the dead body of Vitaliana to
the Vargases.

• The court used the order of preference to give support under Article 294, as basis. Since there
was no surviving spouse, ascendants, or descendants, the brothers and sisters were preferred
over Eugenio who was merely a common-law spouse, the latter being himself legally married to
another woman.

SC RULING: Decision appealed from is AFFFIRMED. Both Petitions are DISMISSED.

CONNECTION with PERSONS, FAMILY RELATIONS / CIVIL CODE: (im not sure parang ang layo)

Article 144 of the Civil Code provides:

When a man and a woman live together as husband and wife, but they are not married, or their
marriage is void from the beginning, the property acquired by either or both of them through their work or
industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

The Family Code provides that:

The requirement of marriage ceremony prevents the recognition in the Philippines of what are
known as “Common Law Marriages” Philippine law does not recognize common law marriages. Persons
representing themselves as husbands and wives and has been living together for such a long period of
time without marriage are considered “married” in common law jurisdiction but not in the Philippines.