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 Frank MINOR STENOGRAPHER

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 AUSTRALIAN CITIZEN FILIPINO CITIZEN LEGAL CAPACITY TO REMARRY

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.