This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2015-03-11 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The competence of an expert witness is a matter for the trial court to decide upon in the exercise of its discretion. The test of qualification is necessarily a relative one, depending upon the subject matter of the investigation, and the fitness of the expert witness.[84] In our jurisdiction, the criterion remains to be the expert witness' special knowledge experience and practical training that qualify him/her to explain highly technical medical matters to the Court. | |||||
|
2008-03-28 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Anent petitioners' reliance on the presumption of marriage, this Court holds that the same finds no applicability to the case at bar. Essentially, when we speak of a presumption of marriage, it is with reference to the prima facie presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage.[49] Restated more explicitly, persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counter-presumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married.[50] The present case does not involve an apparent marriage to which the presumption still needs to be applied. There is no question that Jose and Felisa actually entered into a contract of marriage on 24 November 1986, hence, compelling Jose to institute a Complaint for Annulment and/or Declaration of Nullity of Marriage, which spawned the instant consolidated Petitions. | |||||
|
2008-02-13 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Anent the first issue, the Court holds that the trial court had jurisdiction to determine the validity of the marriage between petitioner and respondent. The validity of a void marriage may be collaterally attacked.[19] Thus, in Niñal v. Bayadog, we held:However, other than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but not limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. This is without prejudice to any issue that may arise in the case. When such need arises, a final judgment of declaration of nullity is necessary even if the purpose is other than to remarry. The clause "on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void" in Article 40 of the Family Code connotes that such final judgment need not be obtained only for purpose of remarriage.[20] Likewise, in Nicdao Cariño v. Yee Cariño,[21] the Court ruled that it is clothed with sufficient authority to pass upon the validity of two marriages despite the main case being a claim for death benefits. Reiterating Niñal, we held that the Court may pass upon the validity of a marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the validity of said marriage, so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. However, evidence must be adduced, testimonial or documentary, to prove the existence of grounds rendering such a marriage an absolute nullity.[22] | |||||
|
2006-07-31 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| "The basis of human society throughout the civilized world is x x x marriage. Marriage in this jurisdiction is not only a civil contract, but it is a new relation, an institution in the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested. Consequently, every intendment of the law leans toward legalizing matrimony. Persons dwelling together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counterpresumption or evidence special to the case, to be in fact married. The reason is that such is the common order of society, and if the parties were not what they thus hold themselves out as being, they would be living in the constant violation of decency and of law. A presumption established by our Code of Civil Procedure is `that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage." Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio " Always presume marriage."[30] | |||||
|
2001-10-23 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Before the contents of an original document may be proved by secondary evidence, there must first be satisfactory proof of the following: (1) execution or existence of the original; (2) loss and destruction of the original or its non-production in court; and (3) unavailability of the original is not due to bad faith on the part of the offeror.[27] Proof of the due execution of the document and its subsequent loss would constitute the foundation for the introduction of secondary evidence.[28] | |||||