Transient hopping transport

8. Teachers must adhere to the exacting standards of morality and decency.

9. From the foregoing, it seems obvious that when a teacher engages in extra-marital relationship, especially when the parties are both married, such behaviour amounts to immorality, justifying his termination from employment

99. Jones vs. Hortiguela March 6, 1937 – J. Concepcion Facts:

1. In 1914, Marciana Escaño married Arthur W. Jones. They had a daughter, Angelita. Arthur went abroad, then nothing was ever heard of him.

2. 5 years after, proceedings were instituted to have her husband judicially declared an absentee. In the same year, the court issued an order declaring him an absentee from the Philippines. In 1921, the court issued another order for the taking effect of the declaration of absence, publication thereof having been made.

3. In 1927, Felix Hortiguela and Marciana Escaño were married before the justice of the peace of Malitbog, Leyte, and they signed the certificate of marriage.

4. As Marciana Escaño had died intestate, her widower Felix Hortiguela was appointed judicial administrator of her entire estate.

Angelita and Felix were declared her only heirs.

5. Angelita, who was a minor, was represented in the partition proceedings by her guardian Paz Escaño de Corominas. In 1933, the final account was approved, and the properties were turned over to the respective grantees.

6. In 1934, Angelita Jones, then married, filed a motion alleging that she was the only heir of her mother, that there never was a valid marriage between her mother and Felix Hortiguela or that had such marriage been celebrated, it was null and void; and even granting that it were valid, Felix Hortiguela was not entitled to a share in usufruct of one-third of the inheritance; that the petitioner was a minor and that during the hearing of the intestate proceedings she had not been assisted by counsel but was represented by the same attorney of Felix Hortiguela; that during said proceedings there had been committed many errors and inaccuracies which impaired her rights.

7. Among those that she prayed for was that her mother's alleged marriage to Felix Hortiguela be declared null and void. She

contends that the declaration of absence must be understood to have been made not in 1919, but in that of 1921, and that from 1921 to the date of the celebration of the marriage, only 6 years and 14 days elapsed.

Issue: Should the marriage of Marciana and Felix be declared null and void?

Held: NO.

Ruling:

1. For the celebration of civil marriage, the law only requires that the former spouse has been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage, that the spouse present does not know his or her former spouse to be living, that such former spouse is generally reputed to be dead and the spouse present so believe at the time of the celebration of the marriage.

2. The absence of Marciana Escaño's former husband should be counted from 1918, the year on which the last news concerning Arthur W. Jones was received, to May 6, 1927. More than nine years elapsed. Said marriage is, therefore, valid and lawful.

3. However, for some reason, the marriage contracted does not appear recorded in the marriage register of the municipality of Malitbog. But, the mere fact that the parish priest who married them failed to send a copy of the marriage certificate to the municipal secretary, does not invalidate said marriage.

4. According to section 334, No. 24, of the Code of Civil Procedure, a person not heard from in seven years is presumed to be dead.

5. Inasmuch as Felix Hortiguela was lawfully married to Marciana Escaño and was divorced from her at the time of her death there is no doubt that he is entitled to inherit in usufruct, not only in testate but also in intestate succession.

100. Republic v. Nolasco 1993 - Feliciano, J.:

Facts:

1. 1988- respondent Nolasco filed a petition for the declaration of presumptive death of his wife Janet Monica Parker. The petition prayed that respondent's wife be declared presumptively dead or, in the alternative, that the marriage be declared null and void.

2. Republic opposed the petition. It argued that Nolasco did not possess a "well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead"

3. Nolasco testified that he was a seaman and that he had first met Janet Monica Parker, a British subject, in a bar in England 4. in 1982, respondent married Janet Monica Parker in Antique

5. in 1983, while working overseas, Nolasco received a letter from his mother informing him that Janet Monica had given birth to his son. The same letter informed him that Janet Monica had left Antique.

6. Nolasco's efforts: he'd look for her himself whenever his ship docked in England, but it proved fruitless. He also stated that all the letters he had sent to his missing spouse were all returned to him. He also claimed that he inquired from among friends but they too had no news of Janet Monica.

Issue: Whether or not Nolasco has a well-founded belief that his wife is already dead?

Held: No Ruling:

1. Nolasco failed to conduct a search for his missing wife with such diligence as to give rise to a "well-founded belief" that she is dead (he did not explain the delay of nine (9) months from January 1983, when he allegedly asked leave from his captain, to November 1983 when be finally reached Antique)

2. instead of seeking the help of local authorities or of the British Embassy, he secured another seaman's contract and went to London, a vast city of many millions of inhabitants, to look for her there.

3. The Court also views respondent's claim that Janet Monica declined to give any information as to her personal background even after she had married respondent too convenient an excuse to justify his failure to locate her.

4. Neither can this Court give much credence to respondent's bare assertion that he had inquired from their friends of her whereabouts, considering that respondent did not identify those friends in his testimony.

5. The circumstances of Janet Monica's departure and respondent's subsequent behavior make it very difficult to regard the claimed belief that Janet Monica was dead a well-founded one

101. Bienvenido vs. Court of Appeals 24 Oct 1994 – J. Mendoza

Facts:

1. On 3 Oct 1942, Aurelio Camacho married Consejo Velasco.

2. Without getting his marriage being dissolved, he contracted another marriage to Luisita Camacho on 6 Feb 1962 and had one child, Chito. The marriage was solemnized in Tokyo where they had been living since 1958. Because of their quarrels, one or the other usually leaves the dwelling place for long periods of time.

3. In 1967, Aurelio met Nenita Bienvenido. From June 1968 to May 1988, they had lived together in 84 Scout Delgado St., QC.

Nenita’s daughter, Nanette, stayed with them as did Chito, who stayed for about a year in 1976.

4. On 30 Apr 1982, Aurelio bought the house in Scout Delgado. In the deed of sale, he described himself as single.

5. On 26 Nov 1984, Aurelio executed a deed of sale in favor of Nenita in consideration of 250,000 pesos.

6. On 28 May 1988, Aurelio died. Initially, the body was with Nenita. Having returned from the US upon being informed of his death, Luisita took the body of Aurelio.

7. Luisita was granted death benefits by the AFP as the spouse. She also claimed ownership of the house in Scout Delgado.

8. On 7 Sep 1988, Luisita and Chito brought a case in the QC RTC to seek the annulment of the sale of the house to Nenita.

9. On 29 Aug 1989, the RTC rendered a decision upholding the sale of the property to Nenita.

10. Upon appeal, the CA reversed the decision on 4 Jun 1993. It ruled that in the absence of proof to the contrary, Consejo must be presumed to have been absent for seven years without Aurelio having news of her being alive when he married Luisita. It declared the house as their conjugal property.

Issue: Was Aurelio’s marriage to Luisita valid?

Held: No. Aurelio’s second marriage was bigamous and therefore void.

Ruling:

1. The CA presumed the validity of Aurelio’s marriage to Luisita from Nenita’s failure to prove that at the time of the marriage, Consejo had been absent for at least seven years and that Aurelio did not know whether she was still alive.

2. It was the burden of Luisita to prove that at the time of their marriage, Consejo had been absent for at least seven years. She failed to discharge this burden.

3. The general rule (Article 83 of the Civil Code) is that any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse of such person with any person other than such spouse shall be illegal and void from its performance.

4. The first exception in Article 80 that the first marriage was annulled or dissolved refers to the subsequent marriage of the abandoned spouse and not the remarriage of the deserting spouse. In this case, it was Aurelio who deserted Consejo.

5. Since Aurelio still had a valid marriage with Consejo, his marriage to Luisita was bigamous and therefore void.

6. Therefore, there is no basis for holding that the property in question was the conjugal property of Aurelio and Luisita.

102. Armas vs. Calisterio April 6, 2000 - Vitug Facts:

1. Teodorico Calisterio died intestate (without a legal will) leaving several parcels of land.

2. Teodorico was survived by his wife Marietta (Respondent) 3. Teodorico is the second husband of Marietta ®

4. Marietta was originally married to James William Bounds on Jan 1946.

5. James disappeared without a trace on February 11, 1947.

6. Teodorico and Marietta were married 11 years later (May 8, 1958), without Marietta securing a court declaration that James was presumed dead.

7. Antonio Armas (P), a surviving sister of the deceased filed a case against Marietta ® claiming that her marriage with the deceased was bigamous and thus null and void.

8. Marietta claims that the marriage with James had been dissolved when his whereabouts were unknown for more than 11 years before she contracted her second marriage.

Issue: Was the marriage between Marietta and Teodorico valid?

Held: Yes Ruling:

1. The law in force at the time was the Civil Code, not the Family Code which took effect only on August 3 1988.

2. The applicable provision in this case is Article 83 of the New Civil Code (see below).

3. It is clear that because James has been absent for more than 11 years, the respondent's marriage with him is considered void and her latest marriage with Teodorico valid.

4. The property should be divided equally between the petitioner and the respondent.

Laws/ Concepts

1. Art 83 of the Civil Code- Any marriage subsequently contracted by any person during the lifetime of the first spouse of such person with any person other that such spouse shall be illegal and void unless...

a. The first spouse had been absent for 7 consecutive years at the time of the second marriage or if the absentee, though has been absent for less than 7 years is considered dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the time contracting such marriage...

2. For the subsequent marriage referred to in the three exceptional cases in Art 83 of the Civil Code to be valid, the spouse present (not the absentee spouse) so contracting the later marriage must have done so in good faith.

3. Judicial Declaration of Absence- not necessary as long as the prescribed period of absence is met. The burden of proof would be, in these cases, on the party assailing the second marriage.

103. Republic of the Philippines VS. Bermudez-Lorino January 19, 2005 – J. Garcia

Facts: