8/10/2019 Para Sulat

1/9

8/10/2019 Para Sulat

2/9

FACTS: Francisco Velez and Beatriz, following their promise to love, decided to get married. Two days before their marriage Francisco wrote Beatriz telling her thattheir marriage had to be postponed as his mother opposes it. A day before his marriage he sent a telegram informing her nothing changed rest assured returning soon .Francisco was never heard from again. Beatriz sued for damages for breach of promise to marry.

ISSUE: !s breach of promise to marry an actionable wrong"

HELD: The e#tent to which acts not contrary to law may be perpetrated with impunity, is not limitless for Article $% of the &ivil &ode provides that any person whowillfully causes loss or in'ury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damages.

This is not a case of mere breach to marry. As stated, mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the preparation and publicity, only to wal( out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is )uite different. This is palpably and un'ustifiably contrary to goodcustoms for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article $% of the &ivil &ode.

*hen a breach to marry is act ionable under Article $% of the &ivil &ode, moral damages may be awarded under Article $$%+ %- of the said &ode. /#emplary damagesmay also be awarded under Article $$0$ of said &ode where it is proven that the defendant clearly acted in a wanton, rec(less and oppressive manner.

Alcantara v. Alcantara (G.R. No. 1-77 -, #"g"st 8, DD7)

#' ; Restit"to iled a !etition or ann"lment o marriage against Rosita alleging that on 8 @ec 198 he and Rosita, +itho"t sec"ring the re2"iredmarriage license, +ent to the Manila 'it* 0all or the !"r!ose o loo6ing or a i=er +ho co"ld arrange a marriage or them be ore a certain Re .Na arro. he* got married on the same da*. Restit"to and Rosita +ent thro"gh another marriage ceremon* in ondo, Manila, on - March 1983. hemarriage +as again celebrated +itho"t the !arties sec"ring a marriage license. he alleged marriage license, !roc"red in 'armona, 'a ite, a!!earingon the marriage contract, is a sham, as neither !art* +as a resident o 'armona, and the* ne er +ent to 'armona to a!!l* or a license +ith the localci il registrar o the said !lace. n 1988, the* !arted +a*s and li ed se!arate li es. etitioner !ra*ed that a ter d"e hearing, A"dgment be iss"ed

declaring their marriage oid and ordering the 'i il Registrar to cancel the corres!onding marriage contract and its entr* on ile. Rosita ho+e er asserts the alidit* o their marriage and maintains that there +as a marriage license iss"ed as e idenced b* a certi ication rom the : ice o the 'i ilRegistr* o 'armona, 'a ite. Restit"to has a mistress +ith +hom he has three children. Restit"to onl* iled the ann"lment o their marriage to e ade!rosec"tion or conc"binage. Rosita, in act, has iled a case or conc"binage against Restit"to.

ISSUE:

8/10/2019 Para Sulat

3/9

#rticle #im $an%u v. &amolete (-- ;'R# 5)

FACTS: ri ate res!ondent an "t alleged that she is the +ido+ o ee 0oon $im o 'h"an, +ho +as a !artner and !racticall* the o+ner +ho hascontrolling interest o Glor* 'ommercial 'om!an* and a 'hinese 'iti4en "ntil his death. @e endant #ntonio $im anh" and #l onso $eonardo Ng ;"a+ere !artners in name b"t the* +ere mere em!lo*ees o o 'h"an and +ere nat"rali4ed ili!ino 'iti4ens. an "t iled com!laint against s!o"ses/!etitoner $im anh" and @* :cha* incl"ding their son ech 'h"an and the other s!o"ses/!etitoner Ng ;"a and 'o :*o incl"ding also their son ?ng'hong $eonardo, that thro"gh ra"d and machination too6 act"al and acti e management o the !artnershi! and that she alleged entitlement to sharenot onl* in the ca!ital and !ro its o the !artnershi! b"t also in the other assets, both real and !ersonal, ac2"ired b* the !artnershi! +ith "nds o thelatter d"ring its l i etime.E

@e endants inter!ose that an "t 6ne+ and +as are that she +as merel* the common/la+ +i e o ee 0oon. an "t and ee 0oon +ere childless b"tthe ormer had a oster child, #ntonio N"ne4.

ISSUE:

8/10/2019 Para Sulat

4/9

HELD: he n"llit* o Rederic6&s marriage +ith ?ditha as sho+n b* the di orce decree iss"ed +as alid and recogni4ed in the hili!!ines since theres!ondent is a nat"rali4ed #"stralian. 0o+e er, there is absol"tel* no e idence that !ro es res!ondent&s legal ca!acit* to marr* !etitioner tho"gh the

ormer !resented a di orce decree. he said decree, being a oreign doc"ment +as inadmissible to co"rt as e idence !rimaril* beca"se it +as nota"thenticated b* the cons"lF embass* o the co"ntr* +here it +ill be "sed.

ila!il . ba*/;omera (17 ;'R# -53)

FACTS: melda M. ila!il, a ili!ino citi4en, +as married +ith !ri ate res!ondent, ?rich ?66ehard Geiling, a German national be ore the Registrar o Births, Marriages and @eaths at riedens+eiler, ederal Re!"blic o German*. he* ha e a child +ho +as born on #!ril D, 198D and named sabella

ila!il Geiling. 'onA"gal disharmon* e ent"ated in !ri ate res!ondent and he initiated a di orce !roceeding against !etitioner in German* be ore the;choneberg $ocal 'o"rt in an"ar* 1983. he !etitioner then iled an action or legal se!aration, s"!!ort and se!aration o !ro!ert* be ore the R 'Manila on an"ar* 3, 1983.

he decree o di orce +as !rom"lgated on an"ar* 15, 198- on the gro"nd o ail"re o marriage o the s!o"ses. he c"stod* o the child +as grantedto the !etitioner.

:n "ne 7, 198-, !ri ate res!ondent iled com!laints or ad"lter* be ore the 'it* iscal o Manila alleging that +hile still married to melda, latter hadan a air +ith

8/10/2019 Para Sulat

5/9

&epublic v. "rbeci!o (G.R. No. 15 38D, 5 :ctober DD5)FACTS: 'i!riano :rbecido +as married +ith $ad* M*ros Cillan"e a on Ma* , 1981 at the %nited 'h"rch o 'hrist in the hili!!ines in :4amis 'it*.

he* had a son and a da"ghter named risto er and imberl*, res!ecti el*. n 198-, the +i e le t or %; bringing along their son risto er. # e+ *earslater, :rbecido disco ered that his +i e had been nat"rali4ed as an #merican citi4en and learned rom his son that his +i e sometime in DDD hadobtained a di orce decree and married a certain ;tanle*. 0e therea ter iled +ith the trial co"rt a !etition or a"thorit* to remarr* in o6ing aragra!h o

#rticle - o the amil* 'ode.

ISSUE:

8/10/2019 Para Sulat

6/9

he +as still a bachelor. 0e had children +ith his irst +i e ?"sebia Montellano, +ho died in 19D namel* Baldomera, Maria del Rosario, %rbano andreneo. Baldomera had 7 children namel* #ntero, R" ina, 'atalino, Maria, Gerardo, Cirginia and ederico, all s"rnamed ?s!ina. reneo on the other

hand had a son named R"!erto. :n the other hand, $"!o&s second +i e is la iana Montellano +here the* had a da"ghter named 'resenciana. $"!ogot married or the third time in 193D +ith eli!a Celasco and had 3 children namel* acinto, "lian and a"lina. acinto testi ied that his !arents gotmarried be ore a "stice o the eace o ag"ig Ri4al. he s!o"ses de!orted themsel es as h"sband and +i e, and +ere 6no+n in the comm"nit* to bes"ch.

ISSUE: 8 3hether or not the se$ond marriage of %e ito was voidA

H>+D8(he marriage of %e ito and orma is void for absen$e of the marriage li$ense' (hey $annot be e4em ted even though they

instituted an a davit and $laimed that they $ohabit for at least 5 years be$ause from the time of %e ito s ?rst marriage was

dissolved to the time of his marriage with orma, only about 2C months had ela sed' #lbeit, %e ito and his ?rst wife had se arated in

8/10/2019 Para Sulat

7/9

fa$t, and thereafter both %e ito and orma had started living with ea$h other that has already lasted for ?ve years, the fa$t remains

that their ?ve-year eriod $ohabitation was not the $ohabitation $ontem lated by law' Hen$e, his marriage to orma is still void'

#rticle 3-Re!"blic . Molina (G.R. No. 1D87-3, 13 ebr"ar* 1997)FACTS: he case at bar challenges the decision o '# a irming the marriage o the res!ondent Roridel Molina to Re*naldo Molina oid in the gro"nd o!s*chological inca!acit*. he co"!le got married in 1985, a ter a *ear, Re*naldo mani ested signs o immat"rit* and irres!onsibilit* both as h"sbandand a ather !re erring to s!end more time +ith riends +hom he s2"andered his mone*, de!ends on his !arents or aid and assistance and +as ne erhonest +ith his +i e in regard to their inances. n 198-, the co"!le had an intense 2"arrel and as a res"lt their relationshi! +as estranged. Roridel 2"ither +or6 and +ent to li e +ith her !arents in Bag"io 'it* in 1987 and a e+ +ee6s later, Re*naldo le t her and their child. ;ince then he abandoned

them.

ISSUE:

8/10/2019 Para Sulat

8/9

#l onso claimed that $eni charged him +ith !erA"r*, conc"binage and de!ortation +hich sho+s latter&s !s*chological inca!acit* beca"se according tohim it clearl* sho+ed that his +i e not onl* +anted him behind bars b"t also to banish o"tside the co"ntr*.

ISSUE:

8/10/2019 Para Sulat

9/9

can be !art o his amil* "!bringing ;he stated that there +as a histor* o Bri=&s !arents ha ing di ic"lties in their relationshi!/ this is o co"rseinconcl"si e or s"ch has no direct bearing to the case at bar.