This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-07-29 |
MENDOZA, J. |
||||
| On August 13, 2010, the OSG filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC in finding that Edna had a well-founded belief that Romeo, her absent spouse, was dead. It argued that the conclusions reached by the RTC were in direct opposition to established jurisprudence, as ruled by the Court in Republic v. Nolasco[8] (Nolasco) and U.S. v. Biasbas[9] On October 18, 2013, the CA dismissed the petition, holding that the RTC acted within its jurisdiction in issuing the assailed decision having been expressly clothed with the power to determine the case.[10] It also cited Article 247 of the Family Code[11] which provided for the final and immediate executory character of the decision of the RTC, acting as a family court, thus, rendering the issue of whether or not Edna had sufficiently established a well-founded belief to warrant the decree of presumptive death of her absent spouse, as moot and academic. | |||||
|
2013-12-10 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The application of this stricter standard becomes even more imperative if we consider the State's policy to protect and strengthen the institution of marriage.[24] Since marriage serves as the family's foundation[25] and since it is the state's policy to protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution,[26] marriage should not be permitted to be dissolved at the whim of the parties. In interpreting and applying Article 41, this is the underlying rationale to uphold the sanctity of marriage. Arroyo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals[27] reflected this sentiment when we stressed:[The] protection of the basic social institutions of marriage and the family in the preservation of which the State has the strongest interest; the public policy here involved is of the most fundamental kind. In Article II, Section 12 of the Constitution there is set forth the following basic state policy: | |||||
|
2012-06-13 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner also assails the RTC's grant of the Petition for Declaration of Presumptive Death of the absent spouse of respondent on the ground that she had not adduced the evidence required to establish a well-founded belief that her absent spouse was already dead, as expressly required by Article 41 of the Family Code. Petitioner cites Republic v. Nolasco,[10] United States v. Biasbas[11] and Republic v. Court of Appeals and Alegro[12] as authorities on the subject. | |||||
|
2005-12-09 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| SO ORDERED.[20] The OSG appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA) which rendered judgment on August 4, 2003, affirming the decision of the RTC.[21] The CA cited the ruling of this Court in Republic v. Nolasco.[22] | |||||
|
2005-11-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) averred that Eduardo's defense of good faith and reliance on the Court's ruling in United States v. Enriquez[13] were misplaced; what is applicable is Article 41 of the Family Code, which amended Article 390 of the Civil Code. Citing the ruling of this Court in Republic v. Nolasco,[14] the OSG further posited that as provided in Article 41 of the Family Code, there is a need for a judicial declaration of presumptive death of the absent spouse to enable the present spouse to marry. Even assuming that the first marriage was void, the parties thereto should not be permitted to judge for themselves the nullity of the marriage; the matter should be submitted to the proper court for resolution. Moreover, the OSG maintained, the private complainant's knowledge of the first marriage would not afford any relief since bigamy is an offense against the State and not just against the private complainant. | |||||