This case has been cited 5 times or more.
|
2014-10-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| This particular kind of co-ownership applies when a man and a woman, suffering no illegal impediment to marry each other, exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void marriage or without the benefit of marriage.[12] It is clear, therefore, that for Article 147 to operate, the man and the woman: (1) must be capacitated to marry each other; (2) live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and (3) their union is without the benefit of marriage or their marriage is void. Here, all these elements are present.[13] The term "capacitated" in the first paragraph of the provision pertains to the legal capacity of a party to contract marriage.[14] Any impediment to marry has not been shown to have existed on the part of either Nonato or Barrido. They lived exclusively with each other as husband and wife. However, their marriage was found to be void under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity.[15] | |||||
|
2011-01-19 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| The Court has ruled in Valdes v. RTC, Branch 102, Quezon City that in a void marriage, regardless of its cause, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed either by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code.[7] Article 147 of the Family Code applies to union of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless void,[8] such as petitioner and respondent in the case before the Court. | |||||
|
2007-03-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is the proper remedy when (1) any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction and (2) there is no appeal nor plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for the purpose of annulling or modifying the proceeding.[14] | |||||
|
2006-07-17 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Certiorari as a special civil action is proper when any tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or quasi- judicial functions has acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion, and there is no appeal nor any plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law. [5] The writ may be issued only where it is convincingly proved that the lower court committed grave abuse of discretion, or an act too patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a duty, or to a virtual refusal to perform the duty enjoined or act in contemplation of law, or that the trial court exercised its power in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion or personal hostility.[6] | |||||
|
2005-12-15 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Besides, the provisions of the Rules of Court, which are technical rules, may be relaxed in certain exceptional situations.[19] Where a rigid application of the rule that certiorari cannot be a substitute for appeal will result in a manifest failure or miscarriage of justice, it is within our power to suspend the rules or exempt a particular case from its operation.[20] | |||||