Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 29 views

    Casedigestno24 GR135216

    Uploaded by

    Eric Recomendable
    1) Petitioner Tomasa Vda de Jacob claimed to be the surviving spouse of deceased Alfredo E. Jacob and sought to settle his estate as his special administratix. Respondent Pedro Pilapil intervened, claiming to be Alfredo's adopted son and sole heir. 2) The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of respondent. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the marriage between Tomasa and Alfredo was valid based on secondary evidence presented, and a presumption of marriage exists when a man and woman live together as husband and wife. However, respondent failed to meet the burden of proving he was legally adopted by Alfredo, as evidence showed the alleged adoption

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Casedigestno24 GR135216

    Uploaded by

    Eric Recomendable
    29 views1 page
    1) Petitioner Tomasa Vda de Jacob claimed to be the surviving spouse of deceased Alfredo E. Jacob and sought to settle his estate as his special administratix. Respondent Pedro Pilapil intervened, claiming to be Alfredo's adopted son and sole heir. 2) The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of respondent. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the marriage between Tomasa and Alfredo was valid based on secondary evidence presented, and a presumption of marriage exists when a man and woman live together as husband and wife. However, respondent failed to meet the burden of proving he was legally adopted by Alfredo, as evidence showed the alleged adoption

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    CASEDIGESTNO24-GR135216.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Petitioner Tomasa Vda de Jacob claimed to be the surviving spouse of deceased Alfredo E. Jacob and sought to settle his estate as his special administratix. Respondent Pedro Pilapil intervened, claiming to be Alfredo's adopted son and sole heir. 2) The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of respondent. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the marriage between Tomasa and Alfredo was valid based on secondary evidence presented, and a presumption of marriage exists when a man and woman live together as husband and wife. However, respondent failed to meet the burden of proving he was legally adopted by Alfredo, as evidence showed the alleged adoption

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    29 views1 page

    Casedigestno24 GR135216

    Uploaded by

    Eric Recomendable
    1) Petitioner Tomasa Vda de Jacob claimed to be the surviving spouse of deceased Alfredo E. Jacob and sought to settle his estate as his special administratix. Respondent Pedro Pilapil intervened, claiming to be Alfredo's adopted son and sole heir. 2) The trial court and Court of Appeals ruled in favor of respondent. Petitioner appealed to the Supreme Court. 3) The Supreme Court ruled the marriage between Tomasa and Alfredo was valid based on secondary evidence presented, and a presumption of marriage exists when a man and woman live together as husband and wife. However, respondent failed to meet the burden of proving he was legally adopted by Alfredo, as evidence showed the alleged adoption

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    CASE DIGEST NO.

    24

    G.R. No. 135216


    August 19, 1999
    TOMASA VDA. DE JACOD, as Special Administratix of the Intestate Estate of Deceased Alfedo E. Jacob
    petitioner,
    vs
    COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO PILAPIL, THE REGISTER OF DEEDS for the Province of Camarines Sur and
    JUAN F. TRIVINO as publisher of “Balalong”, respondents.

    FACTS OF THE CASE:


    Petitioner Tomasa VDA de Jacob claimed to be the surviving spouse of the deceased Dr. Alfredo E. Jacob
    and that she is the appointed Special Administratix for various estates of the deceased by virtue of a
    reconstructed Marriage Contract between herself and the deceased. During the proceeding of the
    settlement of the estate, respondent Pedro Pilapil sought to intervened therein claiming his share of the
    deceased’s estate as Alfredo’s adopted son and as his sole surviving heir.
    Petitioner opposed the Motion for Intervention and filed a complaint for injuction with damages
    questioning respondent’s claim as the legal heir of Alfredo.
    During the trial, the court observed several irregularities in the execution of the reconstructed Marriage
    Contract. The trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the respondent. Disagreeing with the
    decisions, petitioner lodges her Petition for Review in the Supreme Court.
    ISSUE:
    1. Whether or not the marriage between petitioner Tomasa Vda. De Jacob and deceased Alfredo E.
    Jacob was valid; and
    2. Whether respondent Pedro Pilapil is the legally adopted son of Alfredo E. Jacob.
    RULING:
    Yes, the court finds the marriage between Tomasa and Alfredo valid. Under Article 6 of the
    Family Code of the Philippines, the primary evidence of a marriage must be the authentic copy of the
    marriage contract. If the authentic copy cannot produced, section 3 in relation to section 5 of Rule 130
    of the Revised Rules of Court provides; before the terms of transaction in reality may be established by
    secondary evidence, it is necessary that due execution of the document and subsequent loss of the
    original instrument evidencing the transaction be proved. In other words, the fact of marriage may be
    shown by extrinsic evidence other than the marriage contract itself.
    In the case at bar, due execution and the loss of the marriage contract were clearly shown by
    the evidence presented, secondary evidence – testimonial and documentary – may be admitted to
    prove the fact of marriage. These are relevant, competent, and admissible evidence. Moreover, a
    presumption established by our Code of Civil Procedure is “that a man and woman deporting
    themselves as husband and wife have entered into lawful contract of marriage”. Persons dwelling
    together in apparent matrimony are presumed, in the absence of any counterpresumption or evidence
    to the case, to be in fact married.
    As to the second issue, the burden of proof in establishing adoption is upon the person claiming
    such relationship, to which the respondent failed to do. Moreover, the evidence presented by the
    petitioner shows that the alleged adoption is a sham.

    Eric M. Recomendable
    Arellano University School of Law

    You might also like