OHOMA v. OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF AGUINALDO, IFUGAO G.R. No. 239584

OHOMA v. OFFICE OF THE MUNICIPAL LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF AGUINALDO, IFUGAO G.R. No. 239584 June 17, 2019

Art. 412. No entry in a civil register shall be changed or corrected, without a judicial order. (n)

FACTS:

Matron M. Ohoma filed a petition for cancellation of his Certificate of Live Birth before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Alfonso Lista, Ifugao. Ohoma averred that his birth was belatedly recorded on February 8, 2000 with the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) of Aguinaldo, but unknown to him, his birth had already been previously registered on June 13, 1986, also with the LCR of Aguinaldo. It is this first Certificate of Live Birth that he seeks to cancel because, according to Ohoma, it contains the following erroneous entries: (1) His first name is recorded as “Matron” instead of “Matiorico”, and (2) His last name is recorded as “Ohoma”, instead of “Ohomna.” He further averred that he has been using the name “Matiorico Ohomna”, and has been known by such name both in his public and private transactions, thus, it is his second birth certificate that correctly reflects these entries. The RTC granted Ohoma’s petition, and ordered the LCR of Aguinaldo to cancel Ohoma’s first birth certificate, as the same contains errors that caused confusion as to the identity of Ohoma. The Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA granted the appeal, and annulled and set aside the RTC Decision, holding that there can be no valid late registration of Ohoma’s birth, considering that the same had already been lawfully registered with the LCR of Aguinaldo within 30 days from the time of his birth, thus, the RTC should have cancelled his second birth certificate, not the first one. It further held that Ohoma’s proper remedy was to file a petition for correction of entries in his first birth certificate pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of Court. Aggrieved, Ohoma filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the CA committed reversible error when it annulled and set aside the RTC Decision ordering the cancellation of Ohoma’s first birth certificate

RULING:

No, the CA did not reversible error when it annulled and set aside the RTC Decision ordering the cancellation of Ohoma’s first birth certificate. While there is no need to re-file a petition for correction in order to to effect the changes sought by Ohoma, he nevertheless failed to sufficiently establish that his father’s last name was “Ohomna”, and not “Ohoma”, through competent evidence.Nevertheless, while there is no need to re-file a petition for correction in order to to effect the changes sought by Ohoma, the Court finds that Ohoma failed to sufficiently establish that his father’s last name was “Ohomna”, and not “Ohoma”, through competent evidence. Thus, the correction of this entry in his birth certificate must be denied, as the last name to which a child is entitled is fixed by law, and the real name of a person is that given him in the Civil Register, not the name by which he was baptized in his Church or by which he was known in the community, or which he has adopted. DISPOSITIVE PORTION WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED.

AGAPITO FUELLAS, vs. ELPIDIO CADANO, ET AL. G.R. No. L-14409

 AGAPITO FUELLAS, vs. ELPIDIO CADANO, ET AL. G.R. No. L-14409 October 31, 1961

Art. 221. Parents and other persons exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their company and under their parental authority subject to the appropriate defenses provided by law. (2180(2)a and (4)a )

FACTS:

Pepito Cadano and Rico Fuellas, son of defendant-appellant Agapito Fuellas, were both 13 years old and classmates at St. Mary’s High School, Dansalan City. While Pepito was studying his lessons in the classroom, Rico took the pencil of one Ernesto Cabanok and surreptitiously placed it inside the pocket of Pepito. When Ernesto asked Rico to return the pencil, it was Pepito who returned the same, an act which angered Rico, who held the neck of Pepito and pushed him to the floor. Villamira, a teacher, separated Rico and Pepito and told them to go home. Rico went ahead, with Pepito following. When Pepito had just gone down of the schoolhouse, he was met by Rico, still in an angry mood. Angelito Aba, a classmate, told the two to shake hands. Pepito extended his hand to Rico, but the latter instead held the former by the neck and with his leg, placed Pepito out of balance and pushed him to the ground. 

Pepito fell on his right side with his right arm under his body, whereupon, Rico rode on his left side. While Rico was in such position, Pepito suddenly cried out “My arm is broken.” Rico then got up and went away. Pepito was helped by others to go home. That same evening Pepito was brought to the Lanao General Hospital for treatment and the results of the x-ray revealed that there was a complete fracture of the radius and ulna of the right forearm which necessitated plaster casting. As a result, a civil case for damages was filed against Agapito Fuellas, father of the minor Rico.

ISSUE:

Wherher Agapito Fuellas may be held liable for damages for the deliberate criminal act of his minor son.

HELD:

YES. Under Article 2180 of the Civil Code, the father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the damages caused by the minor children who live in their company. This civil liability of the father or the mother, as the case may be, is a necessary consequence of the parental authority they exercise over them and the only way by which they can relieve themselves of this liability is if they prove that they exercised all the diligence of a good father of a family to prevent the damage. Since children and wards do not yet have the capacity to govern themselves, the law imposes upon the parents and guardians the duty of exercising special vigilance over the acts of their children and wards in order that damages to third persons due to the ignorance, lack of foresight or discernment of such children and wards may be avoided. If the parents and guardians fail to comply with this duty, they should suffer the consequences of their abandonment or negligence by repairing the damage caused”.

REYNALDO ESPIRITU and GUILLERMA LAYUG vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 115460

REYNALDO ESPIRITU and GUILLERMA LAYUG vs. COURT OF APPEALS and TERESITA MASAUDING G.R. No. 115460 March 15, 1995

Art. 213. In case of separation of the parents, parental authority shall be exercised by the parent designated by the Court. The Court shall take into account all relevant considerations, especially the choice of the child over seven years of age, unless the parent chosen is unfit. (n)

FACTS: 

Reynaldo Espiritu and Teresita Masauding first met in Iligan City.  Teresita left for Los Angeles to work as a nurse where she was able to acquire immigrant status sometime later.  Reynaldo was sent by his employer to Pittsburgh as its liaison officer.  Reynaldo and Teresita began to maintain a common-law relationship of husband and wife where a child was born, Rosalind Therese.  During their vacation in the Philippines, Reynaldo and Teresita got married and by the time they returned to the United States, Reginald Vince was born.  The relationship soon deteriorated and Teresita left her family to go back to California.  Because his assignment is not yet completed, Reynaldo had to leave his children with his sister, Guillerma Layug, in the Philippines.

Results of child psychology tests on Rosalind when she was five years old show that the child experiences great anxiety at the thought of having to go back to the U.S. to live with her mother.  She even stated in one of these tests that she saw her mother kissing a “bad” man who worked for her father.  Both children are now over seven years of age and prefer to stay with their father and aunt.

ISSUE: 

Whether or not custody of the children should be awarded to the mother.

RULING:

NO, as both children are now over seven years of age, their choice of parent should be given respect by the court.

The rule that a child below seven years of age should not be separated from the mother, unless there are compelling reasons is not applicable in this case anymore.  As the children can now ascertain what is right and moral, the court should give due respect to their decision to stay with their father and aunt in the Philippines.  Furthermore, a mother’s constant flirtations from one man to another is considered by the court as a compelling reason not to award the children’s custody to her, for said behaviour forms an immoral environment especially to a growing child.  From all indications, Reynaldo is a fit person, thus meeting two requirements found in Article 213(1) of the Family Code.

AAA vs. BBB, G.R. No. 212448

 AAA vs. BBB, G.R. No. 212448 January 11, 2018

Art. 177. Only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be legitimated. (269a)

FACTS: 

AAA and BBB were married on August 1, 2006 in Quezon City. In May 2007, BBB started working in Singapore as a chef. AAA claimed that BBB sent little to no financial support, and only sporadically. There were also allegations of virtual abandonment, mistreatment of her and their CCC, and physical and sexual violence. The motion to quash was granted on ground of lack of jurisdiction (acts complained of had occurred in Singapore), and the case was archived.

On November 6, 2013, an Entry of Appearance as Counsel for the Accused with Omnibus Motion to Revive Case, Quash Information, Lift Hold Departure Order and Warrant of Arrest was filed on behalf of BBB. In the main, AAA argues that mental and emotional anguish is an essential element of the offense charged against BBB, which is experienced by her wherever she goes, and not only in Singapore where the affair takes place.

ISSUES:

1. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT SHOULD ENTERTAIN THE PETITION FILED BY AAA INSTEAD OF THE OSG AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PEOPLE ON PURE QUESTION OF LAW

2. WHETHER OR NOT THE RTC HAS JURISDICTION OVER PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE UNDER R.A. 9262 WHEN COMMITTED THROUGH MARITAL INFIDELITY AND THE ALLEGED ILLICIT RELATIONSHIP TOOK PLACE OUTSIDE THE PHILIPPINES

RULING:

1. AAA’s motion for extension to file the petition was timely filed. Thus, considering its timeliness, she was granted an additional period to file a petition for review. In her motion for extension of time, it was mentioned that she was awaiting the OSG’s response to her Letter, requesting for representation. Since, the OSG was unresponsive to her plea for assistance in filing the intended petition, AAA filed the present petition in her own name before the lapse of the extension given her by this Court.

2. The Court found that under the circumstances, the ends of substantial justice will be better served by entertaining the petition if only to resolve the question of law lodged before this Court. In Morillo v. People of the Philippines, et al., where the Court entertained a Rule 45 petition which raised only a question of law filed by the private offended party in the absence of the OSG’s participation, the Court allowed it in the interest of substantial justice.

ESALYN CHAVEZ v. HON. EDNA BONTO-PEREZ, G.R. No. 109808

 G.R. No. 109808 March 1, 1995

ESALYN CHAVEZ v. HON. EDNA BONTO-PEREZ, 

Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: 

(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or 

(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.

In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be  proved by: 

(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or 

(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. (265a, 266a, 267a)

FACTS: 

Esalyn Chavez is a dancer who was contracted by Centrum Placement & Promotions Corporation to perform in Japan for 6 months. The contract was for $1.5k a month, which was approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. After the approval of said contract, Chavez entered into a side contract reducing her salary with her Japanese employer through her local manager-agency (Jaz Talents Promotion). The salary was reduced to $500 and $750 was to go to Jaz Talents. In February 1991 (two years after the expiration of her contract), Chavez sued Centrum Placement and Jaz Talents for underpayment of wages before the POEA.

The POEA ruled against her. POEA stated that the side agreement entered into by Chavez with her Japanese employer superseded the Standard Employment Contract; that POEA had no knowledge of such side agreement being entered into; that Chavez is barred by laches for sleeping on her right for two years. Chavez elevated the issue to the National Labor Relations Commission but the latter, chaired by Edna Bonto-Perez, affirmed the POEA.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Chavez is entitled to relief.

RULING:

Yes. The SC ruled that the managerial commission agreement executed by Chavez to authorize her Japanese Employer to deduct her salary is void because it is against our existing laws, morals and public policy. It cannot supersede the standard employment contract approved by the POEA with the following stipulation appended thereto:

It is understood that the terms and conditions stated in this Employment Contract are in conformance with the Standard Employment Contract for Entertainers prescribed by the POEA under Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1986. Any alterations or changes made in any part of this contract without prior approval by the POEA shall be null and void;

The side agreement which reduced Chavez’s basic wage is void for violating the POEA’s minimum employment standards, and for not having been approved by the POEA. Here, both Centrum Placement and Jaz Talents are solidarily liable.

Laches does not apply in the case at bar. In this case, Chavez filed her claim well within the three-year prescriptive period for the filing of money claims set forth in Article 291 of the Labor Code.  For this reason, laches did not set in.

Gono-Javier vs. CA- - Marianne Aquino G.R. No. 111994

 Gono-Javier vs. CA- Marianne Aquino G.R. No. 111994 December 29, 1994

Art. 172. The filiation of legitimate children is established by any of the following: 

(1) The record of birth appearing in the civil register or a final judgment; or 

(2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.

In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be 

proved by: 

(1) The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or 

(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws. (265a, 266a, 267a)

FACTS: 

The petitioners are Gono's deceased children. Five land plots right granted by their paternal grandfather Casocot following his passing in 1964 are allegedly theirs. The nephews and nieces of the late Casocot are against them. Gono was the natural child of Casocot and his common-lawspouse, but the petitioners claimed that Casocot recognized Catalino as their biological child on the basis of a statement in a deed of donation of one of the disputed lands in favor of Gonzales, Gono's widow, to the effect that one of the reasons for the donation was that the donee is the surviving spouse of my son with my common-law wife. The donation was given in 1954, which was roughly 11 years after Gono's passing.

ISSUE: 

Whether petitioners are entitled by intestate succession to the lands left by their natural grandfather in lieu of the alleged "acknowledgment" through the donation?

RULING:

No. Since this case came about in 1954, the New Civil Code was applicable.

Under Art. 278 of the NCC: " Recognition shall be made in the record of birth, a will, a statement before a court of record, or in any authentic writing."

In the case at bar, the statement made in the deed of donation, a public document, is considered as a valid recognition by virtue of the doctrine of incidental recognition. Unfortunately, the recognition was too late as this was made after the death of Catalino.

Sayson v. CA GR 892224-25

 Sayson v. CA GR 892224-25, January 23, 1992

Art. 164. Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate. 
Children conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the wife with the sperm of the husband or that of a donor or both are likewise legitimate children of the husband and his wife, provided, that both of them authorized or ratified such insemination in a written instrument executed and signed by them before the birth of the child. The instrument shall be recorded in the civil registry together with the birth certificate of the child. (55a, 258a)

FACTS:

Eleno and Rafaela Sayson begot 5 children: Mauricio, Rosario, Basilisa, Remedios and Teodoro. Teodoro married Isabel. Upon the death of Teodoro and Isabela, their properties were in the possession of Delia, Edmundo and Doribel, their children. The plaintiffs filed for partition of the intestate estate of Teodoro and Isabela. It was opposed by of Delia, Edmundo and Doribel alleging their successional rights to the estate as the lawful descendants. Subsequently, of Delia, Edmundo and Doribel filed for partition of intestate estate of Eleno and Rafaela as they are titled to inherit Teodoro’s share in his parents’ estate by right of representation because of Delia and Edmundo are adopted children and of Doribel was legitimate daughter.

The RTC found the defendants qualified to inherit from E and R by right of representation. The CA found De and E disqualified from inheriting from E and R.

ISSUE:

Whether or not of Delia, Edmundo and Doribel may inherit from the estate of Eleno and Rafaela by right of representation

RULING:

As to Doribel, YES, for she was a legitimate daughter of T and thus granddaughter of E and R. She has right to represent her deceased father in the distribution of intestate estate of her grandparents. She is entitled to the share her father would have directly inherited had he survived, which shall be equal to the shares of her grandparents’ other children.

As to of Delia and Edmundo, to whom the grandparents were total strangers, cannot inherit by representation. While it is true that the adopted child shall be deemed to be a legitimate child and have the same right as the latter, these rights do not include right of representation. The relationship created by the adoption is between the adopting parents and the adopted child and does not extend to the blood relative of either party.