ATIENZA v. HON.

BRILLANTES

FACTS:
Atienza filed a complaint for Gross Immoraility and appearance of imporpriety against respondnet
Judge Brilantes for cohabiting with De Catro, while allegedly still married to one Ongkiko, with
whome respondent has 5 children. Respondent denies such fact and that while he and Ongkiko went
through a marriage ceremenoy in 1965, the same was not valid for lack of marriage license. Morover,
respondent claims that when he married De Castro in civil rites in California, he believed in all good
faith and for all legal intents and he was single because of the somlenization of first marriage without
license.

ISSUE:
WON respondent' is guilty of the offense charged with.

RULING:
Yes. Under Family Code, there must be a judicial declaration of nullity of previous marriage before a
party thereto can enter into a second marriage. Moreover, respondent is the last person allowed to
invoke good faith. He passed the Bar exams in 1962 and was admitted to practice of law in 1963, and at
the time he went through marriage ceremonies with Ongkiko, he was already a lawyer.
It is evident that respondent faild to meet the standard of moral fitness for memmber in the legal
profession. Respondent was thus dimissed from service.

MARIATEGUI v. CA

FACTS:
Lupo Mariategui died intestate. During his lifetime, he contracted 3 marriages. He had 4 children with
his first wife, among whom is petitioner Maria. On the other hand, Lupo begot 3 children with his 3rd
wife Felipa, namely, Jacinto, julian and paulina, the private respondents herein. The descendants of
lupo in the 1st and 2nd marriage executed an extrajudicial partition of a certain property of the
deceased. The siblings in the 3rd marriage prayed for inclusion in the partition of the estate of the
deceased.
Lupo and Felipa was alleged to have been lawfully married.

ISSUE: WON the legal basis of private respondent's demand for partition of the estate of Lupo as their
legitimate children must be upheld.

RULING: Yes. The spouses deported themselves as husband and wife, and were known to the
community to be such. Although no marriage certificate was introduced to this effect, no evidence
likewise offered to controvert thse facts. Moreover, the mere fact that no record of the marriage exist
does not invalidate the marriage, provided all requisites for its validity are present.
Under these circumstances, a marriage may be prsumed to have taken place between Lupo and Felipa.
The laws presume that a man and woman, deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into
a lawful contract of marriage; that a child born in the lawful wedlockis legitimate.
NAVARRO v. DOMAGTOY

FACTS: Navaro filed an administrative case against respondent judge Domagtoy for gross misconduct
as well as inefficiency on office and ignorance of the law for slmenizing a marriage depite the
knowledge that the groom is merely separated from his wife and that he performed a marriage
ceremony outside his court's jurisdiction. On the first charge, Respondent Judge maintained that the
joint affidavit of the spouses is sufficient proof of the former wife's presumptive death, and ample
reason for him to proceed with marriage ceremony. On the 2nd charge, Respondent judge pits to Art. 8
of the FC and its exceptions.

ISSUE: WON respondent is guilty of the offense charged

RULING: Yes. On the first charge, it is expressly stated in the 2nd par. Of Art. 41 FC that for the
purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse present must
institute a summary proceeding as provided in FC for the decleration of presumptive death of the
absentee..” In the case at bar, the spouse concerned did not insitute a summary proceeding. On the
second charge, there is no pretense that either spouses was at the point of death or in a remote place, as
provided in the exceptions to Art. 8. Morever, the written request presented addressed to the respondent
judge was made by only one party.

PILAPIL v. HON. IBAY-SOMERA

FACTS: Petitioner and private repondent were married beforre Registrar of Births, Marriages, and
Deaths in the Federal Republic of Germany. The couple lived together for some time, however, marital
discord set in, and was followed by initiating a divorce proceeding by private respondent against
petitioner before a court in Germany. On January 1986, a decree of divorce was promulgated. Five
months thereafter, private respondent filed two complaints for adultery against petitioner alleging thatm
while still married to said respondent, petitioner had an affair with certain William Chia as early as
1982 and with another named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983. Petitioner filed special civil action for
certiorari and prohibition with TRO on the gournd that the court is without jurisdiction to try and
decide the charge of adultery, since the purported complaint, a foreigner, does not qualify as an
offended spouse having obtained a final divorce decree under his nation law pror to his filing the
criminal complaint.

ISSUE: WON the Petition is meritorius

RULING: Yes. In the present case, the fact that private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his
country is admitted. Said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as
private respondent is concerned. Under the same considerations and rationale, private respondent,
being no longer the husband of the petitioner, had no legal standing to commence the adultery case
under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at thte time he filed the suit. *Under RPC, crimes
against chastity cannot be prosecuted except upon swron written complaint filed by the OFFENDED
spouse.
SANTOS v. HON. CA

FACTS: Petitioner and private respondent exchanged vows beofre MTC Judge of Iloilo Citym and
followed shortly by a church wedding. The two begot a child. However, after sometime, the couple had
frequent quarrels until eventually, private respondent left for United States to work as a nurse despite
petitioner's pleas to dissuade her. Julia promised to return home expiration of her contract but she never
did. When Santos had the chage to visit US, he deperately tried to locate her but to no avail. Santos
then filed with the RTC a complaint for Voiding of Marriage Under Art. 36 of the Family Code. HE
argued that the failure of Julia to return home, or the very least to communicate with him for more than
five years are cicumstances that clearly show her being psychologically incapacitated to enter into
married life.

ISSUE: WON private respondent is psychologically incapacitated to enter into married life as to
constitute her marriage with petitioner void

RULING: No. Although the FC did not define the term “psychological incapacity”, the deliberations
during the sessions of the Family Code Revision Committee, which drafted the FC, can, however,
provide an insight on the import of the provision. However, the factual settings in the case at the bench,
in no measure at all, can come close to the standards required to decree a nullity of marriage.