MICIANO vs.
BRIMO
50 PHIL 867
FACTS:
A will of an American testator provided that his estate should be disposed of in
accordance with the Philippine law. The testator further provided that whoever
would oppose his wishes that his estate should be distributed in accordance with
Philippine laws would forfeit their inheritance.
ISSUE:
Will there be forfeiture as stated in the will of the testator?
HELD:
A testator’s wishes must be given paramount importance, however, if the wishes
of the testator contravene a specific provision of law, then that provision in a will
should not be given effect. A person’s will is merely an instrument which is
PERMITTED, so his right is not absolute. It should be subject to the provisions of
the Philippine laws.
The case at bar falls under the Lex Rei Sitae doctrine; where the estate of a
decedent shall be distributed in accordance with his national law. He cannot
provide otherwise.
The Supreme Court held that those who opposed would not forfeit their
inheritance because that provision is not legal.
PILAPIL vs. IBAY-SOMERA
174 SCRA 653
30 June 1989|
FACTS:
Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married in Germany to private
respondent, Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national. They have a child who
was born on April 20, 1980 and named Isabella Pilapil Geiling. Private
respondent Erich Ekkehard Geiling initiated a divorce proceeding against
petitioner in Germany on January 1983.The divorce decree was promulgated on
January 15, 1986 on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. The
custody of the child was granted to the petitioner.
Six months after the divorce was granted private respondent filed 2 complaints
for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that while still married to
Imelda, latter “had an affair with William Chia as early as 1982 and another man
named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983”.
ISSUE:
Whether a person could still be prosecuted of bigamy after a divorce decree was
already issued?
HELD:
The law specifically provides that in prosecution for adultery and concubinage,
the person who can legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse and
nobody else. Though in this case, it appeared that private respondent is the
offended spouse, the latter obtained a valid divorce in his country and said
divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines.
In the same consideration and rationale, private respondent is no longer the
husband of petitioner and has no legal standing to commence the adultery case
under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.
ROEHR vs. RODRIGUEZ
G.R. No. 142820, 20 June 2003
FACTS:
Petitioner Wolfgang O. Roehr, a German citizen, married private respondent
Carmen Rodriguez, a Filipina, on December 11, 1980 in Germany. Their marriage
was subsequently ratified on February 14, 1981 in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. Out
of their union were born Carolynne and Alexandra Kristine.
Carmen filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Makati
RTC. Meanwhile, Wolfgang obtained a decree of divorce from Germany. The
decree provides that the parental custody of the children should be vested to
Wolfgang. Wolfgang filed a motion to dismiss the nullity case as a divorce decree
had already been promulgated, which was granted by respondent Judge Salonga.
Carmen filed a motion with a prayer that the case should proceed for the purpose
of determining the issues of custody of children and the distribution of the
properties between her and Wolfgang. Judge Salonga partially set aside her
previous order for the purpose of tackling the issues of support and custody of
their children.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the granting the motion to dismiss the nullity case valid ; it is
valid to assume jurisdiction to tackle child custody and support.
HELD:
A judge can order a partial reconsideration of a case that has not yet attained
finality. The court can modify or alter a judgment even after the same has become
executory whenever circumstances transpire rendering its decision unjust and
inequitable. Where certain facts and circumstances justifying or requiring such
modification or alteration transpired after the judgment has become final and
executory and when it becomes imperative in the higher interest of justice or
when supervening events warrant it.
Divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are recognized in our
jurisdiction, but the legal effects thereof, such as custody must still be determined
by our courts. Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a foreign
judgment, it must be shown that the parties opposed to the judgment had been
given ample opportunity to do so. In the present case, it cannot be said that
private respondent was given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the
German court. The trial court was correct in setting the issue for hearing to
determine the issue of parental custody, care, support and education mindful of
the best interests of the children.
