Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Escolin G.R. No. L-27860 March 29, 1974 Facts

ARTICLE 3
PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK vs. ESCOLIN

G.R. No. L-27860 March 29, 1974
Facts:
Linnie Jane Hodges, a married woman and a citizen of Texas, USA, was a domiciliary of the
Philippines at the moment of her death. With respect to the validity of certain testamentary provisions
she had made in favor of her husband, a question arose as to what exactly were the laws of Texas on
the matter at the precise moment of her death (for while one group contended that the Texan law
should result to renvoi, the other group contended that no renvoi was possible).
Issue:
Whether or not Texas Law should apply.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that for what the Texas law is on the matter, is a question of fact to
be resolved by the evidence that would be presented in the probate court. Texas law at the time of her
death (and not said law at any other time).
LAM vs. CHUA

G.R. No. 131286 March 18, 2004
Facts:
A petition for declaration of nullity of marriage by Adriana Chua against Jose Lam in the
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City (Branch 109). Adriana alleged in the petition that: she and Jose
were married on January 13, 1984; out of said marriage, they begot one son, John Paul Chua Lam;
Jose was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage but
said incapacity was not then apparent; such psychological incapacity of Jose became manifest only
after the celebration of the marriage when he frequently failed to go home, indulged in womanizing
and irresponsible activities, such as, mismanaging the conjugal partnership of gains; in order to save
what was left of the conjugal properties, she was forced to agree with Jose on the dissolution of their
conjugal partnership of gains and the separation of present and future properties; said agreement was
approved by the Regional Trial Court of Makati City (Branch 149) in a Decision dated February 28,
1994; they had long been separated in bed and board; they have agreed that the custody of their child
will be with her, subject to visitation rights of Jose. Adriana prayed that the marriage between her and
Jose be declared null and void but she failed to claim and pray for the support of their child, John
Paul.
Issue:
Should Jose give the corresponding support
Ruling:
The Pasay RTC should have been aware that in determining the amount of support to be
awarded, such amount should be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver and the
necessities of the recipient, pursuant to Articles 194, 201 and 202 of the Family Code. It is incumbent
upon the trial court to base its award of support on the evidence presented before it. The evidence
must prove the capacity or resources of both parents who are jointly obliged to support their children
as provided for under Article 195 of the Family Code; and the monthly expenses incurred for the
sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation of the child.
WHO IS ENTITLED TO SUPPORT
BRIONES vs. MIGUEL

G.R. No. 156343 October 18, 2004
Facts:
On March 5, 2002, petitioner Joey D. Briones filed a Petition for Habeas Corpus against
respondents Maricel Pineda Miguel and Francisca Pineda Miguel, to obtain custody of his minor child
Michael Kevin Pineda. On April 25, 2002, the petitioner filed an Amended Petition to include Loreta
P. Miguel, the mother of the minor, as one of the respondents.
A Writ of Habeas Corpus was issued by this Court on March 11, 2002 ordering the
respondents to produce before this Court the living body of the minor Michael Kevin Pineda on
March 21, 2002 at 2:00 o’clock in the afternoon.
The petitioner alleges that the minor Michael Kevin Pineda is his illegitimate son with
respondent Loreta P. Miguel. He was born in Japan on September 17, 1996 as evidenced by his Birth
Certificate. The respondent Loreta P. Miguel is now married to a Japanese national and is presently
residing in Japan. Respondent Loreta P. Miguel prays that the custody of her minor child be given to
her and invokes Article 213, Paragraph 2 of the Family Code and Article 363 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines
Issue:
Whether or not as the natural father, may be denied the custody and parental care of his own
child in the absence of the mother who is away.
Ruling:
Petitioner concedes that Respondent Loreta has preferential right over their minor child. He
insists, however, that custody should be awarded to him whenever she leaves for Japan and during the
period that she stays there. In other words, he wants joint custody over the minor, such that the
mother would have custody when she is in the country. But when she is abroad, he -- as the biological
father -- should have custody.

Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Escolin G.R. No. L-27860 March 29, 1974 Facts

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Escolin G.R. No. L-27860 March 29, 1974 Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank vs. Escolin G.R. No. L-27860 March 29, 1974 Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARTICLE 3

PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BANK vs. ESCOLIN

LAM vs. CHUA

BRIONES vs. MIGUEL

You might also like