Sometimes lawyering is not only to help clients who are in need of legal assistance. There are instances that you have to render advise more fitting under a given situation outside of the legalistic approach.
Here is a case of an unhappy, helpless and battered wife whose marriage life she tried to keep come hell or high water despite the psychological incapacity of her husband.
Due to sweet talks and charm, Cristy was convinced by Mark to engaged in pre-marital relationship. Immediately upon reaching the age of majority, they got married. Even in the beginning, Mark already unveiled his other side of personality. He showed his being self-centered and a total womanizer. Aside from not being a good provider, he even subjected his wife to physical harm. During this worst marriage, they begot 4 children. Cristy survived all her ordeals if only to keep and maintain their family as she believed on the sanctity of marriage life.
Due to the help of Cristy's family, Mark was able to work abroad. In the beginning, he was able to send and support the financial needs of his family. However, Mark suddenly stop from sending his family their monies for unknown reason leaving Cristy to solely shouldered their family needs. Through Cristy's effort, they were able to acquire several properties.
Eventually Mark re-appeared and brought Cristy and their children to Canada where he was granted resident status. Hoping that living in Canada with her husband would save their marriage, Cristy acceded only to find out that Mark already has another wife thereat. Because of this discovery Cristy left Mark and brought with her their children and moved to another house compelling her and the chidlren to merely depend on the support and graces of the Canadian Government and their relatives in the Philippines.
In order to prevent Mark from insisting upon a continuous sexual relationship, Cristy decided to file a no-fault divorce, which Mark opposed and threatened Cristy that the granting of divorce will lead to a denial of her own application for Canadian citizenship. Mark even compelled Cristy for the liquidation of their properties in the Philippines in which he demanded half of the proceeds thereof.
Cristy now ask what would be her options to save her application and that of her children for Canadian citizenship and the interest of their children over the conjugal properties which Mark wanted to dispose.
It may be true that Canadian law may deny her application should she divorced her husband in whose grant of citizenship do principally depends her application as such.But certainly, it will not affect the application for the same of their children.
However, her misfotune requires weighing whether or not she prefers to become Canadian citizen or to have her independence from her husband who is not only psychologically incapacitated to perfrom the essential marital obligation but moreso a psychologically imbalance person.
Considering that Cristy remained a filipino citizen, her divorce in Canada even if granted will not, under Philippine law, sever her marital tie and would not perfect her true independence. Cristy must file the appropriate petition for the nullification of her marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity of Mark in the Philippines.
The granting of such decree will likewise result to the dissolution of their absolute community property relationship with one another after the delivery of the would-be legitime (inheritance) of their common children. In doing so, Cristy would eventually frustrate the ill-motive of Mark to gain half of their properties and will protect the welfare of their common children.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Kotseng Binenta Napurnada
Here is the case were the previous owner of a registered vehicle was made liable even after he sold it.
Facts:
Angel is the registered owner of a nissan terrano. She sold it to Robin and turned over to him the Certificate of Registration (CR) as well its Official Receipt (OR) with the understanding that Robin would be the one to cause the transfer of the registration.
Thereafter, the vehicle was figured in an accident whereby a passersby was bumped and run over by this nissan terrano, which at the time of the accident was driven by Robin's friend Bamby. Bamby had since absconded and disappeared. Records showed that the nissan terrano remained registered in Angel's name. The family of the victim sued Robin and Angel for damages.
In his defense, Angel argued that when the accident happpened, he was no longer the owner of the vehicle for he had sold it to Robin.
Question:
Can the victim of motor vehicle accident run after its registered owner even after it was sold to another?
Answer:
Yes, victims of reckless imprudence can run after the registered owner of a motor vehicle even though it was sold already to another person so long that he remained to be its registered owner.
In Cadiente v. Macas, The Supreme Coourt had the occasion to reiterate its ruling in PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. UCPB holding that the registered owner of any vehicle, even if he had already sold it to someone else, is primarily responsible to the public for whatever damage or injury. It explained that:
" were a registered owner allowed to evade responsibility by proving who the supposed transferee or owner is, it would be easy for him, by collusion with others or otherwise, to escape said responsibility and transfer the same to an indefinite person or to one who possess no property with which to respond financially for the damage or injury done. A victim of recklessness on the public highways is usually wihtout means to discover or identify the person actually causing the injury or damage. He has no means other than recourse to the registration in the Motor Vehicle Office to determine who is the owner. The protection that the law aims to extend to him would become illusory were the registered owner given the opportunity to escape liability by disproving his ownership." (Cadiente vs. Macas, G.R. No. 161946, Nov. 14, 2008; citing PCI case, G.R. No. 162267,July 4, 2008)
Facts:
Angel is the registered owner of a nissan terrano. She sold it to Robin and turned over to him the Certificate of Registration (CR) as well its Official Receipt (OR) with the understanding that Robin would be the one to cause the transfer of the registration.
Thereafter, the vehicle was figured in an accident whereby a passersby was bumped and run over by this nissan terrano, which at the time of the accident was driven by Robin's friend Bamby. Bamby had since absconded and disappeared. Records showed that the nissan terrano remained registered in Angel's name. The family of the victim sued Robin and Angel for damages.
In his defense, Angel argued that when the accident happpened, he was no longer the owner of the vehicle for he had sold it to Robin.
Question:
Can the victim of motor vehicle accident run after its registered owner even after it was sold to another?
Answer:
Yes, victims of reckless imprudence can run after the registered owner of a motor vehicle even though it was sold already to another person so long that he remained to be its registered owner.
In Cadiente v. Macas, The Supreme Coourt had the occasion to reiterate its ruling in PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc. vs. UCPB holding that the registered owner of any vehicle, even if he had already sold it to someone else, is primarily responsible to the public for whatever damage or injury. It explained that:
" were a registered owner allowed to evade responsibility by proving who the supposed transferee or owner is, it would be easy for him, by collusion with others or otherwise, to escape said responsibility and transfer the same to an indefinite person or to one who possess no property with which to respond financially for the damage or injury done. A victim of recklessness on the public highways is usually wihtout means to discover or identify the person actually causing the injury or damage. He has no means other than recourse to the registration in the Motor Vehicle Office to determine who is the owner. The protection that the law aims to extend to him would become illusory were the registered owner given the opportunity to escape liability by disproving his ownership." (Cadiente vs. Macas, G.R. No. 161946, Nov. 14, 2008; citing PCI case, G.R. No. 162267,July 4, 2008)
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Diborsiyo ng Pinoy Noon Hindi Na Ngayon
This case involves recent development in our law on marriage where both spouses were Filipino citizens at the time of their marriage but later on one of them became naturalized as foreign citizen and then obtained a divorce decree abroad.
Facts:
Jess and Marie are husband and wife and who are both Filipino citizens at the time of their marriage. For the betterment of their family, Jess decided to work in Canada. For several years of working thereat, he was naturalized as Canadian citizen entitling him to bring in the country his wife and children, which he did. Their life thereat however became miserable as Jess turned out to be addicted to drugs and maintains an illicit relationship with another Filipina nurse. Their family life became unbearable that eventually led Jess to obtain a divorce decree and thereafter married the Filipina nurse who likewise turned out to be his budding pal in drug addiction.
Questions:
1. Will the divorce decree obtained by Jess be valid capacitating Marie to remarry?
2. Will it make any difference if it was Marie who filed the divorce against Jess?
3. Supposed that at the time the divorce was filed and the decree was obtained, both Jess and Marie were already both naturalized Canadian citizens and thereafter Marie returned in the Philippines and wish to marry her new Filipino boyfriend, can she now marry her new boyfriend?
Answers:
As a rule, absolute divorce obtained abroad is not recognized in the Philippines because our laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition and legal capacity of a person are binding upon all citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
With respect however to marriage between a foreign spouse and a Filipino spouse, under Art. 26 of our Family Code, a valid divorce obtained by a foreign spouse legally married to a Philippine citizen that capacitates that foreign spouse to remarry, will likewise capacitates the Filipino spouse. The reason for this is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining of a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.
It is important to understand however that this exception applies only when the one who obtained the divorce is the alien spouse and not the Filipino spouse. Early jurisprudence even held that this exception does not apply to a divorce obtained by a former Filipino who had been naturalized in another country and/or possessing dual citizenship.
In a recent pronouncement however, the Supreme Court had the occasion to depart from this interpretation and held that “Art. 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party was foreigner at the time of the marriage.” In short, in determining whether or not the divorce would come within the above exception, “the reckoning point is the citizenship of the parties at the time a valid divorce is obtained.”(Republic v. Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, Oct. 5, 2005; 472 SCRA 114)
Going now to question no.1- With this recent development on our law on marriage, the divorce decree obtained by Jess who is a former Filipino is therefore valid and will capacitate Marie to remarry. All that needs to be done is to file a petition in Philippine court for judicial recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment (referring to the divorce decree).
With regard to question no. 2- It must be stressed that both in the former and new rulings, it is imperative that the divorce decree was procured by the foreign spouse and not by the Filipino spouse. It does not matter if the foreign spouse was a foreigner at the time of the celebration of their marriage; or a former Filipino who became naturalized citizen at the time the divorce is obtained; or possessing dual citizenship. Accordingly, a divorce decree obtained by Marie who remained to be Filipino citizen is not valid in the Philippines and will not capacitate her to remarry.
Anent the last question- As held in Orbecido Case, “the reckoning point is the citizenship of the parties at the time a valid divorce is obtained.” It is therefore with much more reason that a divorce decree obtained by spouses who were both former Filipinos and after they were already naturalized citizens of that other country where such divorce is valid and allowed are likewise valid here in the Philippines.
Facts:
Jess and Marie are husband and wife and who are both Filipino citizens at the time of their marriage. For the betterment of their family, Jess decided to work in Canada. For several years of working thereat, he was naturalized as Canadian citizen entitling him to bring in the country his wife and children, which he did. Their life thereat however became miserable as Jess turned out to be addicted to drugs and maintains an illicit relationship with another Filipina nurse. Their family life became unbearable that eventually led Jess to obtain a divorce decree and thereafter married the Filipina nurse who likewise turned out to be his budding pal in drug addiction.
Questions:
1. Will the divorce decree obtained by Jess be valid capacitating Marie to remarry?
2. Will it make any difference if it was Marie who filed the divorce against Jess?
3. Supposed that at the time the divorce was filed and the decree was obtained, both Jess and Marie were already both naturalized Canadian citizens and thereafter Marie returned in the Philippines and wish to marry her new Filipino boyfriend, can she now marry her new boyfriend?
Answers:
As a rule, absolute divorce obtained abroad is not recognized in the Philippines because our laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status, condition and legal capacity of a person are binding upon all citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
With respect however to marriage between a foreign spouse and a Filipino spouse, under Art. 26 of our Family Code, a valid divorce obtained by a foreign spouse legally married to a Philippine citizen that capacitates that foreign spouse to remarry, will likewise capacitates the Filipino spouse. The reason for this is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married to the alien spouse who, after obtaining of a divorce, is no longer married to the Filipino spouse.
It is important to understand however that this exception applies only when the one who obtained the divorce is the alien spouse and not the Filipino spouse. Early jurisprudence even held that this exception does not apply to a divorce obtained by a former Filipino who had been naturalized in another country and/or possessing dual citizenship.
In a recent pronouncement however, the Supreme Court had the occasion to depart from this interpretation and held that “Art. 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party was foreigner at the time of the marriage.” In short, in determining whether or not the divorce would come within the above exception, “the reckoning point is the citizenship of the parties at the time a valid divorce is obtained.”(Republic v. Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, Oct. 5, 2005; 472 SCRA 114)
Going now to question no.1- With this recent development on our law on marriage, the divorce decree obtained by Jess who is a former Filipino is therefore valid and will capacitate Marie to remarry. All that needs to be done is to file a petition in Philippine court for judicial recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment (referring to the divorce decree).
With regard to question no. 2- It must be stressed that both in the former and new rulings, it is imperative that the divorce decree was procured by the foreign spouse and not by the Filipino spouse. It does not matter if the foreign spouse was a foreigner at the time of the celebration of their marriage; or a former Filipino who became naturalized citizen at the time the divorce is obtained; or possessing dual citizenship. Accordingly, a divorce decree obtained by Marie who remained to be Filipino citizen is not valid in the Philippines and will not capacitate her to remarry.
Anent the last question- As held in Orbecido Case, “the reckoning point is the citizenship of the parties at the time a valid divorce is obtained.” It is therefore with much more reason that a divorce decree obtained by spouses who were both former Filipinos and after they were already naturalized citizens of that other country where such divorce is valid and allowed are likewise valid here in the Philippines.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Ako Legal Wife
Here is a case involving a deceased husband with two families and their dispute on how to distirbute his estate.
Richard and Maya both Filipinos were married and lived in Manila. They begot two children Nimfa and Danny and after some years of marriage Richard being a physician went to Canada. After staying there for three years, Richard got attached to a Filipina nurse named Amy. He got a quick divorce on the ground of desertion and then married the Filipina nurse with whom he also begot two children Dennis and Thessa. Richard while imprisoned in Canada for malpractice died leaving valuable properties in the Philippines. How would Maya, Nimfa, Danny, Amy, Dennis, and Thessa share in the estate of Richard?
Answer:
Only Maya, Nimfa, Danny, Dennis and Thessa shall inherit based on their successional rights whereby Maya, Nimfa and Danny will be entitled to ¼ share each; while Dennis and Thessa shall be entitled to 1/8 share each.
The subsequent marriage of Ricahrd to Amy is not valid in the Philippines because divorce secured against Maya in Canada is not recognize in our country consistent with Art. 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines providing that “Laws relating to family rights and duties or status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.” Therefore, Angelica shall not inherit from Robert.
With respect to Dennis and Thessa, they are considered illegitimate children consistent with Art. 16 of the same Civil Code, which provides that “intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.”
Richard and Maya both Filipinos were married and lived in Manila. They begot two children Nimfa and Danny and after some years of marriage Richard being a physician went to Canada. After staying there for three years, Richard got attached to a Filipina nurse named Amy. He got a quick divorce on the ground of desertion and then married the Filipina nurse with whom he also begot two children Dennis and Thessa. Richard while imprisoned in Canada for malpractice died leaving valuable properties in the Philippines. How would Maya, Nimfa, Danny, Amy, Dennis, and Thessa share in the estate of Richard?
Answer:
Only Maya, Nimfa, Danny, Dennis and Thessa shall inherit based on their successional rights whereby Maya, Nimfa and Danny will be entitled to ¼ share each; while Dennis and Thessa shall be entitled to 1/8 share each.
The subsequent marriage of Ricahrd to Amy is not valid in the Philippines because divorce secured against Maya in Canada is not recognize in our country consistent with Art. 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines providing that “Laws relating to family rights and duties or status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.” Therefore, Angelica shall not inherit from Robert.
With respect to Dennis and Thessa, they are considered illegitimate children consistent with Art. 16 of the same Civil Code, which provides that “intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.”
Monday, October 25, 2010
MMDA confiscating driver's license
Here is the question of whether or not the Metro Manila Development Authority (MMDA) can confiscate, suspend, or revoke the driver's license of one who was found to have been violating the traffic law.
Answer:
No, MMDA can neither confiscate nor suspend, much less revoke any driver's license for violation of any traffic law.
Under our Local Government Code of 1991, our Congress delegated police power to the local government units. A local government unit is a "political subdivision of a nation or state," which is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs. Local government units are the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays, which exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies.
Clearly, the MMDA is not a political unit of the government. All its functions are adminsitrative in nature. (MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Ass., G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000)
With this in mind, Filipino readers may now realize that MMDA has no power much less authority to confiscate your driver's license.
It is different however with respect to local traffic enforcers (like the yellow boys or the blue boys); for they are exercising the delegated power vested to them by the local government unit concerned.
Answer:
No, MMDA can neither confiscate nor suspend, much less revoke any driver's license for violation of any traffic law.
Under our Local Government Code of 1991, our Congress delegated police power to the local government units. A local government unit is a "political subdivision of a nation or state," which is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs. Local government units are the provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays, which exercise police power through their respective legislative bodies.
Clearly, the MMDA is not a political unit of the government. All its functions are adminsitrative in nature. (MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Ass., G.R. No. 135962, March 27, 2000)
With this in mind, Filipino readers may now realize that MMDA has no power much less authority to confiscate your driver's license.
It is different however with respect to local traffic enforcers (like the yellow boys or the blue boys); for they are exercising the delegated power vested to them by the local government unit concerned.
Pervert husband as heir
Allow us to share to you the follwing little legal knowledge....
Facts:
Angie and Howard are husband and wife with four legitimate daughters. Time passed bye and Howard showed his sexual perversity wherein he usually enjoyed watching pornographic videos at several internet porn sites even in the presence of their still minor children. For fear on the sexual perversion of her husband, Angie decided to left Howard and brought with her all their children. Thereafter, Angie became rich and executed a will containing only her belief that since Howard might sexually abuse her children and therefore dispose to deprive her husband absolute parental authority over them. Angie died without executing any other will.
a. Is the will valid and can be given effect?
b. How will you distribute the estate of Angie?
ANSWERS:
a. The will is not valid and therefore cannot be given effect. The only proper objects of a will are property, rights and obligations of the decedent which are not extinguished by her death. Parental authority of a person is purely personal to him and may be lost only as determined by law through a proper court proceeding. A decedent therefore has no right to deprive another of his parental authority, which is not considered part of the former’s estate.
b. Considering that the will is void in accordance with Art. 960 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the estate of Angie shall be distributed to her husband Howard and her four children in equal shares through intestate succession.
Facts:
Angie and Howard are husband and wife with four legitimate daughters. Time passed bye and Howard showed his sexual perversity wherein he usually enjoyed watching pornographic videos at several internet porn sites even in the presence of their still minor children. For fear on the sexual perversion of her husband, Angie decided to left Howard and brought with her all their children. Thereafter, Angie became rich and executed a will containing only her belief that since Howard might sexually abuse her children and therefore dispose to deprive her husband absolute parental authority over them. Angie died without executing any other will.
a. Is the will valid and can be given effect?
b. How will you distribute the estate of Angie?
ANSWERS:
a. The will is not valid and therefore cannot be given effect. The only proper objects of a will are property, rights and obligations of the decedent which are not extinguished by her death. Parental authority of a person is purely personal to him and may be lost only as determined by law through a proper court proceeding. A decedent therefore has no right to deprive another of his parental authority, which is not considered part of the former’s estate.
b. Considering that the will is void in accordance with Art. 960 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the estate of Angie shall be distributed to her husband Howard and her four children in equal shares through intestate succession.
welcome to our blogspot on little law each day
To all whom it may concern,
Good day to all of you. Please be advised that on this site, our law firm will attempt to share to you some practical Philippine laws, case digests and commentaries on legal profession, politics, publlic awareness and the like. We will appreciate if in our own little way, you may be guided by some practical approaches after reading our short contributions on the matter.
We will try our best to educate our readers about our subject matter. This is all for now and we will post our first issue soon. Thanks a lot.
Good day to all of you. Please be advised that on this site, our law firm will attempt to share to you some practical Philippine laws, case digests and commentaries on legal profession, politics, publlic awareness and the like. We will appreciate if in our own little way, you may be guided by some practical approaches after reading our short contributions on the matter.
We will try our best to educate our readers about our subject matter. This is all for now and we will post our first issue soon. Thanks a lot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)