Friday, November 23, 2012

Francisco vs. Tayao, March 4, 1927


Facts:
Juanaria Francisco, the plaintiff, and Lope Tayao, the defendant, contracted marriage in the City of Manila in 1912. They separated in 1917. The husband removed to Zamboanga. There he was later prosecuted for having committed adultery with a married woman 
On these facts, the action of Juanaria Francisco, the plaintiff, against Lope Tayao, the defendant, to have the bonds of matrimony between them dissolved was instituted in the Court of First Instance of Manila and was there denied by Judge of First Instance Revilla.
The trial judge based his decision principally on the point that the plaintiff was not an innocent spouse within the meaning of sections 1 and 3 of the Divorce Law. This findings, as well as the dismissal of the complaint, is challenged by the plaintiff on appeal.

Issue:
Whether or not the marriage be dissolved.

Held:
Divorce was not granted. The Philippine Divorce Law, Act No. 2710, is emphatically clear in this respect. Section 1 of the law reads: “A petition for divorce can only be filed for adultery on the part of the wife or concubinage on the part of the husband . . . .” Defendant was prosecuted for, and was convicted of, the crime of adultery and not the crime of concubinage. The criminal case was instituted on the complaint of the injured husband. It was not instituted by the injured wife which is essential for the proper initiation of a prosecution for concubinage. 




Juarez vs. Turon, March 19, 1928


Facts:
Nicolas Juarez married Ramona Turon on October 28, 1921 and begot a child. The former accused the latter of having committed adultery. He acquired knowledge of the adultery of the defendant at about August, 1924. After legal proceedings, Turon was convicted of adultery. Judgment has become final and was executed. On February 10, 1927, Juarez filed a complaint praying to be decreed a divorce and have judgment for costs. As evidence, he presented judgment rendered  in the aforesaid criminal case for adultery against the same defendant as evidence for the filed complaint.

Issue:
Whether or not divorce be decreed.

Held:
The plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence. The judgment of conviction rendered in the criminal case against the same defendant not being sufficient, since as evidence it has no effect in this action other than to show that the guilt of the defendant was proven in a final judgment rendered in a criminal case.
The law requires that the action for divorce be brought within one year from the date when the plaintiff acquired knowledge of the cause of action brought by him, but the herein complaint was filed on February 10, 1927, notwithstanding that according to plaintiff himself, he acquired knowledge of the adultery of the defendant about August, 1924.


People vs. Ramos, May 16, 1983


Facts:
Ernesto Ramos y Antonio, Eladio Caluya y Binuya and Eduardo Sublechero y Gabuat appealed for automatic review of the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XIV at Caloocan City, which rendered a sentence against them, to suffer the supreme penalty of death by electrocution, and to indemnify the heirs of Dr. Mariano Gana jointly and severally the sum of P12, 200.00, without subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency and to pay the costs. They were charged with robbery with homicide. Defendants professed innocence of the crime charged due to the exempting circumstance of irresistible force and uncontrollable fear.

Issue:
Whether or not the appellants were exempted from criminal liability.

:
The court laid that they had no reason to differ from the conclusions reached by the trial court in finding appellants guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime charged. The defense invoked by the appellants that they acted in view of the irresistible force and uncontrollable fear is devoid of merit. Basis of these two exempting circumstances is the complete absence of freedom.



Sia Suan and Gaw Chiao vs. Ramon Alcantara, March 4, 1950


Facts:
  • ·       On August 3, 1931, a deed of sale was executed by Rufino Alcantara and his sons Damaso Alcantara and Ramon Alcantara conveying to Sia Suan five parcels of land to petitioner Sia Suan
  • ·       On August 27, 1931, Gaw Chiao (husband of Sia Suan) received a letter from Francisco Alfonso, attorney of Ramon Alcantara, informing him that Ramon Alcantara was a minor and accordingly disavowing the contract.
  • ·       After Gaw Chiao responded to the letter, Ramon Alcantara went to the office of Gaw Chiao’s counsel ratifying the sale.
  • ·       Ramon Alcantara received from Gaw Chiao the sum of P500 as payment for the sold parcels of land.
  • ·       On August 8, 1940, an action was instituted by Ramon Alcantara in the Court of First Instance of Laguna for the annulment of the deed of sale on the ground of his minority at the time of sale. Action was denied  and Sia Suan, Gaw Chiao, Ramon’s father and brother, Nicolas and Antonio Azores were absolved
  • ·       Ramon brought the case to CA; CFI decision reversed.
  • ·       Sia Suan and Gaw Chiao filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court.

Issue:
·       Whether or not Ramon Alcantara’s execution of the deed of sale is valid despite being a minor at the time of its execution.

Held:
Ramon Alcantara in his minority may not be allowed to execute the deed of sale but his act of ratification, the contract was given a binding effect.

Mercado & Mercado vs. Espiritu; 37 Phil 215


Facts:
The plaintiffs alleged that they and their sisters Concepcion and Paz, all surnamed Mercado, were the children and sole heirs of Margarita Espiritu, a sister of the deceased Luis Espiritu; that Margarita Espiritu died in 1897, leaving as her paraphernal property a tract of land of 48 hectares. The defendant (Luis Espiritu) was accused to have induced, and fraudulently succeeded in getting the plaintiffs to sell their land for a sum of P400 as opposed to its original value.  The annulment of a deed of sale was sought by the plaintiffs. They asserted that two of the four parties were minors. These two minors (Domingo & Josefa Mercado) presented themselves to be of legal age upon signing it and they made a manifestation in front of the notary public. 

Issue:                                                 
Whether or not the deed of sale is valid when the minors presented themselves that they were of legal age.

Held:
The courts have laid down the rule that the sale of real estate, made by minors who pretend to be of legal age, when in fact they are not, is valid, and they will not be permitted to excuse themselves from the fulfillment of the obligations contracted by them, or to have them annulled.