LEYTE COLLEGESTacloban City, Leyte

Persons

Pierre Seth Dela Cruz

Law 1-B

Student name

SectionTable of Contents:

Dela Cruz vs. Gracia--------------------------2

Quita vs. CA

--------------------------4

Republic vs. Orbecido III--------------------------6DELA CRUZ vs. GRACIAG.R. No. 177728Facts:

For several months in 2005, then 21-year old petitioner Jenie San Juan Dela Cruz (Jenie) and then 19-year old Christian Dominique Sto. Tomas Aquino (Dominique) lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage.

On September 4, 2005, Dominique died. After almost two months, or on November 2, 2005, Jenie, who continued to live with Dominiques parents, gave birth to her herein co-petitioner minor child Christian Dela Cruz Aquino.

Jenie applied for registration of the childs birth, using Dominiques surname Aquino, with the Office of the City Civil Registrar, Antipolo City. She submitted the following documents: Certificate of Live Birth

Affidavit to Use the Surname of the Father (AUSF)

Affidavit of Acknowledgement

Dominiquess Autobiography that he himself wrote in his own handwriting during his lifetime. The pertinent portions of which read:AQUINO, CHRISTIAN DOMINIQUE S.T.

AUTOBIOGRAPHY

IM CHRISTIAN DOMINIQUE STO. TOMAS AQUINO, 19 YEARS OF AGE TURNING 20 THIS COMING OCTOBER 31, 2005.I RESIDE A T PULANG-LUPA STREET BRGY . DULUMBAYAN, TERESA, RIZAL. I AM THE YOUNGEST IN OUR FAMILY. I HAVE ONE BROTHER NAMED JOSEPH BUTCH STO. TOMAS AQUINO. MY FATHERS NAME IS DOMINGO BUTCH AQUINO AND MY MOTHERS NAME IS RAQUEL STO. TOMAS AQUINO. x x x.

x x x x

AS OF NOW I HA VE MY WIFE NAMED JENIE DELA CRUZ . WE MET EACH OTHER IN OUR HOMETOWN, TEREZA RIZAL. AT FIRST WE BECAME GOOD FRIENDS, THEN WE FELL IN LOVE WITH EACH OTHER, THEN WE BECAME GOOD COUPLES .AND AS OF NOW SHE IS PREGNANT AND FOR THAT WE LIVE TOGETHER IN OUR HOUSE NOW. THATS ALL.

The City Civil Registrar of Antipolo City, Ronald Paul S. Gracia (respondent), denied Jenies application for registration of the childs name on the basis of Rule 7 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2004 (Implementing Rules and Regulations of Republic Act No. 9255 [An Act Allowing Illegitimate Children to Use the Surname of their Father, Amending for the Purpose, Article 176 of Executive Order No. 209, otherwise Known as the Family Code of the Philippines]), providing the requirements for the child to use the surname of the father. In summary, the child cannot use the surname of his father because he was born out of wedlock and the father unfortunately died prior to his birth and has no more capacity to acknowledge his paternity to the child.

Jenie and the child promptly filed a complaint for injunction/registration of name against respondent before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City. The complaint alleged that the denial of registration of the childs name is a violation of his right to use the surname of his deceased father under Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by R.A. 9255. They maintained that the Autobiography executed by Dominique constitutes an admission of paternity in a private handwritten instrument within the contemplation of the above-quoted provision of law.

The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action as the autobiography was unsigned, citing paragraph 2.2, Rule 2 of A.O. No. 1, series of 2004 (IRR of RA 9255).Issue:

Whether or not the unsigned handwritten statement of the deceased father of minor Christian Dela Cruz can be considered as a recognition of paternity in a Private Handwritten Instrument within the contemplation of Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by R.A. 9255, which entitles the said minor to use his fathers surname.Ruling:

The petition was granted. The City Civil Registrar of Antipolo City is DIRECTED to immediately enter the surname of the late Christian Dominique Sto. Tomas Aquino as the surname of petitioner minor Christian dela Cruz in his Certificate of Live Birth, and record the same in the Register of Births.QUITA vs. CA

[ G .R. No. 124862. December 22, 1998]Facts:

Fe D. Quita and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in the Philippines on 18 May 1941. They were not however blessed with children. Somewhere along the way their relationship soured. Eventually Fe sued Arturo for divorce in San Francisco, California, U.S.A. She submitted in the divorce proceedings a private writing dated 19 July 1950 evidencing their agreement to live separately from each other and a settlement of their conjugal properties. On 23 July 1954 she obtained a final judgement of divorce.

On 16 April 1972 Arturo died and left no will. Respondent Blandina Dandan (also referred to as Blandina Padlan) was claiming to be the surviving spouse of Arturo and that they have six (6) children namely, Claro, Alexis, Ricardo, Emmanuel, Zenaida and Yolanda. Arturo and Blandina were married on 22 April 1947.

Later, a certain Ruperto T. Padlan claimed to be the sole surviving brother of Arturo. The trial court found that he was indeed as claimed.The trial court, invoking the decision in Tenchavez v. Escano, disregarded the divorce between Fe and Arturo. Consequently, it expressed the view that their marriage subsisted until the death of Arturo in 1972. Thus, the marriage between Blandina and Arturo was clearly void since it was celebrated during the existence of Arturos previous marriage to Fe. Blandina was not declared as an heir. Partial reconsideration was granted declaring the Padlan children entitled to one-half of the estate to the exclusion of Ruperto Padlan, and petitioner to the other half.Blandina appealed to the CA stating that the trial court erred in deciding on the case without a hearing, in violation of Sec. 1, Rule 90, of the Rules of Court, which provides that if there is a controversy before the court as to who are the lawful heirs of the deceased person or as to the distributive shares to which each person is entitled under the law, the controversy shall be heard and decided as in ordinary cases. She further stressed that the citizenship of Fe at the time when she obtained the divorce decree was relevant and critical in resolving the issue as to who is the lawful heir as the surviving spouse.CA found this ground alone sufficient to sustain the appeal; hence, on 11 September 1995 it declared the decision of the trial court dated 27 November 1987 and 15 February 1988. CA directed the remand of the case to the trial court for further proceedings.Fe insists that there is no need to remand the case to the trial court for further proceedingsIssue:

Whether or not the case should be remanded to the trial court for further proceeding?

Between Fe and Blandina, who is the lawful heir as the surviving spouse of Arturo?Ruling:

The decision of the respondent CA ordering the remand of the case to the court of origin for further proceedings and declaring null and void its decision holding petitioner Fe D. Quita and Ruperto T. Padlan as intestate heirs is AFFIRMED.

The order of the appellate court modifying its previous decision by granting one-half (1/2) of the net hereditary estate to the Padlan children is likewise affirmed.

REPUBLIC vs. ORBECIDO III

G.R. No. 154380Facts:

On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis Ci ty . Their marriage was blessed with a son and a daughter, Kristoffer and Lady Kimberly V. Orbecido.

In 1986, Ciprianos wife left for the United States bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years later, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen.

Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce decree and then married a certain Innocent Stanley. She, Stanley and her child by him currently live at 5566 A. Walnut Grove Avenue, San Gabriel , California.

Cipriano thereafter filed with the tri al court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. No opposition was filed. Finding merit in the petition, the court granted the same.

The Republic , herein petitioner ,through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), sought reconsideration but it was denied.The OSG contends that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code is not applicable to the instant case because it only applies to a valid mixed marriage; that is , a marriage celebrated between a Filipino citizen and an alien. The proper remedy ,according to the OSG, is to file a petition for annulment or for legal separation. Furthermore, the OSG argues there is no law that governs respondents situation. The OSG posits that this is a matter of legislation and not of judicial determination.Issue:

Whether or not respondent can remarry under article 26 of the family code.

Ruling:

The petition of the Republic of the Philippines is GRANTED. The decision of the trial court was set aside. Though the SC is unanimous in holding that Art 26 is indeed applicable to the respondent but it is settled rule that one who alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and mere allegation is not evidence.7 | Page