Ralph Joshua P.

Mapula BSED- Social Studies 3E

LAW RELATED STUDIES CASE DIGEST

CRIMINAL CODE
Robbery with Homicide Case
Case Title:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. RONNIE RALLA Y
BULAQUIÑA, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 252859. March 15, 2023
LEONEN, SAJ.

Facts:
 On May 24, 2017, Ronnie Ralla y Bulaquiña (Ralla) was involved in a violent
incident at the residence of Simeon Faustino Herrera in Valenzuela City.
 Ralla, a stay-in employee at the Herreras' beverage store, attacked family
members with a hammer.
 Victims included 17-year-old Katrina Herrera, Jesusa Reyes Herrera, and
Josefina Dela Cruz Reyes, all of whom sustained severe injuries.
 Simeon Herrera suffered fatal head injuries and later died.
 Ralla was charged with frustrated murder, attempted murder, robbery with
homicide, and attempted homicide.
 The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Ralla guilty on all charges, sentencing him
to various penalties, including reclusion perpetua for robbery with homicide.
 Ralla appealed, citing inconsistencies in witness testimonies and questioning his
identification as the perpetrator.
 The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision but modified the penalties
and damages awarded.

Issues:
 Whether Ralla's convictions for separate crimes (attempted homicide, attempted
murder, and frustrated murder) were appropriate given the context of the robbery.
 Whether the felonies committed against the victims during the robbery were
absorbed by the offense of robbery with homicide.

Ruling:
  The Supreme Court affirmed Ralla's conviction for robbery with homicide but
modified the nomenclature of the crime, absorbing other felonies committed on
the occasion of the robbery. The Supreme Court held that all felonies committed
by reason or on the occasion of the robbery are integrated into the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide. The intent to rob must precede the
taking of human life, and homicide may occur before, during, or after the robbery.
 The Supreme Court found sufficient circumstantial evidence to support Ralla's
conviction, including the violent unlawful taking of personal property and the fatal
injuries inflicted on Simeon.

Murder Case
Case Title:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ROLANDO LAS PIÑAS,
JIMMY DELIZO AND MERWIN LAS PIÑAS, ACCUSED-APPELLANTS.
G.R. No. 191723. July 23, 2014
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Facts:
 The incident took place on May 2, 2001, at a fishpen in Castilla, Sorsogon,
Philippines.
 The accused faced one count of frustrated murder and three counts of murder.
 The violent shooting resulted in the deaths of Edgardo and Benjamin Aringo, and
their cousin Carlito Lasala; Roger Aringo survived with serious injuries.
 The public prosecutor filed the Information on July 25, 2001.
 Eyewitness testimony from Roger Aringo identified the assailants and
characterized the attack as treacherous and conspiratorial.
 The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the accused guilty based on evidence,
including medical reports and witness testimonies.
 The defense presented an alibi, which the RTC deemed unconvincing.
 The accused appealed to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the RTC's decision,
leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether the eyewitness testimony was credible enough to support the convictions.

Ruling:
  The Court upheld the convictions of the accused-appellants for three counts of
murder and one count of frustrated murder. The Court found Roger's testimony
credible despite attempts by the defense to discredit it based on his alleged
inability to observe due to injuries sustained during the attack. Medical testimony
confirmed that Roger's right eye was unimpaired, supporting his account.
 The Supreme Court affirmed that the circumstances surrounding the attacks
qualified them as murders, particularly highlighting the presence of treachery in
the killings of Edgardo, Benjamin, and Carlito. This led to penalties under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code, which prescribes reclusion perpetua for murder.
 The Supreme Court ruled that Roger's injuries amounted to frustrated murder
due to their severity and potential lethality if left untreated, rejecting defense
arguments for downgrading the charge.

Rape Case
Case Title:
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. SALVADOR TULAGAN,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
G.R. No. 227363. March 12, 2019
PERALTA, J.

Facts:
 In the case of People vs. Salvador Tulagan, the accused faced charges for
sexual assault and statutory rape.
 The incidents occurred in San Carlos City during September and October of
2011.
 The victim, AAA, was a minor aged 9 years.
 In the first incident, Tulagan allegedly forced AAA onto a cemented pavement
and inserted his finger into her vagina.
 In the second incident, Tulagan allegedly engaged in sexual intercourse with AAA
against her will.
 The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found Tulagan guilty of both charges, sentencing
him to reclusion perpetua for statutory rape and an indeterminate penalty for
sexual assault.
 The Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the RTC's decision with some modifications.
 Tulagan appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that AAA's testimony was
inconsistent and that his guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues:
  Whether the testimonies provided, particularly that of AAA, were credible enough
to support a conviction.
 Whether Tulagan's defenses of denial and alibi were sufficient to overturn his
conviction.
 Whether the penalties and damages imposed were appropriate under the law.

Ruling:
 The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts, affirming Tulagan's
conviction on both charges.
 The Supreme Court emphasized that AAA's testimony was consistent,
straightforward, and credible, which is critical in cases involving child victims. It
highlighted that minor inconsistencies do not undermine overall credibility if the
core elements are consistently recounted.
 Tulagan's defenses of denial and alibi were found insufficient. The Supreme
Court noted that mere denial is not enough to counter positive identification by a
credible witness.
 While affirming the convictions, the Supreme Court modified some aspects
regarding the nomenclature of crimes and adjusted penalties and damages
awarded to reflect current legal standards and ensure adequate protection for
child victims under Republic Act No. 7610.

Reckless Imprudence Case

Case Title:
JASON IVLER Y AGUILAR, PETITIONER, VS. HON. MARIA ROWENA MODESTO-
SAN PEDRO, JUDGE OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 71, PASIG
CITY, AND EVANGELINE PONCE, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 172716. November 17, 2010
CARPIO, J.

Facts:
 Petitioner Jason Ivler was involved in a vehicular collision in August 2004.
 Two charges were filed against him before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of
Pasig City, Branch 71:
1) Criminal Case No. 82367: Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight
Physical Injuries, filed by Evangeline L. Ponce.
 2) Criminal Case No. 82366: Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Homicide and Damage to Property, concerning the death of Nestor
C. Ponce and damage to their vehicle.
 Ivler posted bail for both cases.
 On September 7, 2004, Ivler pleaded guilty to the first charge and was penalized
with public censure.
 Ivler moved to quash the second charge, arguing double jeopardy, but the MeTC
denied the motion.
 Ivler's petition for certiorari to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City,
Branch 157, was dismissed on procedural grounds due to his non-appearance at
the arraignment for the second charge.
 Ivler contested this dismissal, leading to the present petition.

Issues:
Whether Ivler forfeit his standing to maintain his petition due to non-appearance at the
arraignment.
Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause protect Ivler from prosecution in Criminal Case
No. 82366 after his conviction in Criminal Case No. 82367.

Ruling:
 Ivler did not forfeit his standing to maintain the petition in S.C.A. No. 2803 due to
his non-appearance at the arraignment. The Supreme Court held that Ivler's non-
appearance at the arraignment did not divest him of his standing to maintain the
petition in S.C.A. No. 2803. Dismissals of appeals based on the appellant's
escape or bail violation apply to post-trial appeals of convictions, not to pre-trial
relief actions like Ivler's petition.
 On double jeopardy, the Court emphasized that reckless imprudence under
Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code is a single quasi-offense, and its
consequences are only material for determining the penalty. Once convicted or
acquitted of a specific act of reckless imprudence, the accused cannot be
prosecuted again for the same act, regardless of the resulting consequences.
This principle is rooted in consistent jurisprudence starting with People v. Diaz
and reaffirmed in subsequent cases.

Illegal Arrest
Case Title:
JOEY M. PESTILOS, DWIGHT MACAPANAS, MIGUEL GACES, JERRY FERNANDEZ
AND RONALD MUNOZ, VS. MORENO GENEROSO AND PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 182601. November 10, 2014
BRION, J.

Facts:
 Petitioners Joey M. Pestilos, Dwight Macapanas, Miguel Gaces, Jerry
Fernandez, and Ronald Muñoz were involved in an altercation with Atty. Moreno
Generoso on February 20, 2005, at around 3:15 a.m. on Kasiyahan Street,
Barangay Holy Spirit, Quezon City.
 Atty. Generoso reported the incident to the Central Police District, Station 6.
 Desk Officer SPO1 Primitivo Monsalve dispatched SPO2 Dominador Javier to
the scene, who arrived with Airforce personnel less than an hour later.
 Atty. Generoso was found badly beaten and identified the petitioners as his
assailants.
 The police officers "invited" the petitioners to the Batasan Hills Police Station for
investigation.
 During the inquest proceeding, the City Prosecutor of Quezon City charged the
petitioners with attempted murder.
 The petitioners filed an Urgent Motion for Regular Preliminary Investigation,
arguing that their warrantless arrest was invalid as the police officers had no
personal knowledge of the crime.
 The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied their motion, and the Court of Appeals
(CA) affirmed the RTC's decision.
 The petitioners then brought the case to the Supreme Court.

Issues:
 Whether the petitioners are validly arrested without a warrant.
 Whether the petitioners lawfully arrested when they were merely invited to the
police precinct.
 Whether the order denying the motion for preliminary investigation void due to
insufficient factual basis.

Ruling:
 The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the RTC's order, confirming
that the warrantless arrest of the petitioners was valid and that criminal
proceedings should continue against them.
  The Supreme Court's ruling emphasized that a warrantless arrest is valid under
Section 5(b), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure if an offense
has just been committed and if there is probable cause based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances indicating that the person to be arrested is
guilty. In this case, Police officers arrived shortly after the alleged crime and
observed Atty. Generoso's injuries. Additionally, Atty. Generoso identified the
petitioners as his assailants. Importantly, the petitioners did not deny their
involvement when confronted by law enforcement.
 Those abovementioned factors provided sufficient probable cause for a
warrantless arrest. Additionally, the term "invited" in police documentation was
interpreted as an authoritative command, signifying an intent to arrest rather than
a mere invitation. The RTC's decision regarding the denial of preliminary
investigation was also deemed appropriate as it adequately stated its reasoning
for denial.

LABOR CODE
Case #1
Case Title:
PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC., PETITIONER, VS. ISAGANI DAWAL, LORNA
CONCEPCION, AND BONIFACIO SINOBAGO RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 173921. February 24, 2016
LEONEN, J.

Facts:
 The case involves the illegal dismissal of employees by Philippine Airlines, Inc.
(PAL) due to alleged retrenchment.
 Respondents Isagani Dawal, Lorna Concepcion, and Bonifacio Sinobago were
regular rank-and-file employees and members of the Philippine Airlines
Employees' Association (PALEA).
  On September 1, 2000, PAL terminated their employment, citing the spin-off of its
Maintenance and Engineering Department to Lufthansa Technik Philippines, Inc.
as the reason.
 PAL claimed that the Asian Financial Crisis and a strike by the Airline Pilots
Association of the Philippines had severely impacted its financial condition,
necessitating the retrenchment.
 The employees were given separation packages and some were offered new
employment either with Lufthansa or in lower positions at PAL.
 The employees filed a complaint for unfair labor practices and illegal dismissal
before the Labor Arbiter, who ruled in their favor.
 The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) reversed this decision, but the
Court of Appeals reinstated the Labor Arbiter's decision with modifications,
finding that PAL failed to prove substantial losses and did not follow proper
consultation procedures with PALEA.
 The case was then brought to the Supreme Court.

Issues:
 Whether the termination of the employees constituted illegal dismissal.
 Whether Philippine Airlines provided sufficient evidence to support its claim of
abandonment.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court upheld the NLRC's decision, ruling that the terminations were
indeed illegal. The Court emphasized that PAL failed to prove that the employees had
abandoned their jobs, noting that abandonment requires a clear intention to sever the
employer-employee relationship, which was not established in this case. The Court also
highlighted that the employees had not received proper notice or a chance to respond to
the allegations against them.

Case #2
Case Title:
SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION EMPLOYEES UNION—PHILIPPINE TRANSPORT AND
GENERAL WORKERS ORGANIZATION (SMCEU—PTGWO), PETITIONER, VS. SAN
MIGUEL PACKAGING PRODUCTS EMPLOYEES UNION—PAMBANSANG DIWA NG
MANGGAGAWANG PILIPINO (SMPPEU—PDMP), RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 171153. September 12, 2007
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Facts:
 The case involves a labor dispute between two unions: San Miguel Corporation
Employees Union-Philippine Transport and General Workers Organization
(SMCEU-PTGWO) and San Miguel Packaging Products Employees Union-
Pambansang Diwa ng Manggagawang Pilipino (SMPPEU-PDMP).
 SMCEU-PTGWO was the certified bargaining agent for San Miguel Corporation
(SMC) employees from 1987 to 1997.
 SMPPEU-PDMP was registered as a chapter of Pambansang Diwa ng
Manggagawang Pilipino (PDMP) and received a Charter Certificate on June 15,
1999.
 SMPPEU-PDMP submitted documents to the Bureau of Labor Relations (BLR)
and was issued a Certificate of Creation of Local or Chapter on July 6, 1999.
 SMPPEU-PDMP's petitions for certification elections were dismissed for
fragmenting a single bargaining unit.
 On August 17, 1999, SMCEU-PTGWO sought the cancellation of SMPPEU-
PDMP's registration, alleging fraud, falsification, and non-compliance with
registration requirements.
 The DOLE-NCR Regional Director dismissed the fraud allegations but found non-
compliance with the 20% membership requirement, leading to the cancellation of
SMPPEU-PDMP's registration.
 The BLR reversed this decision, stating that a chartered local union is not
required to meet the 20% membership requirement.
 The Court of Appeals affirmed the BLR's decision, leading to the present petition
for certiorari under Rule 45.
Issue:
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that SMPPEU-PDMP was not required to
submit evidence showing that it had at least 20% of employees in the bargaining unit to
acquire legitimacy.

Ruling:
 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of SMCEU-PTGWO, emphasizing that if
certain entities are specified in law, others may be intentionally excluded from its
operation. The ruling clarified that while PDMP is recognized as a legitimate labor
organization, it lacks the authority to directly create a local or chapter since it is
classified as a trade union center. This limitation arises from legislative intent,
which does not extend chartering powers to trade union centers. Consequently,
SMPPEU-PDMP was deemed not to have met the requirements necessary for it
to operate as a legitimate labor organization under existing laws.
  The decision underscored the importance of compliance with membership
requirements and reinforced the specific legal boundaries within which labor
organizations must operate. The ruling ultimately affirmed that SMPPEU-PDMP
could not claim legitimacy without fulfilling these stipulated conditions.

Case #3
Case Title:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES REPRESENTED BY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
AND EMPLOYMENT (DOLE), PETITIONER, VS. KAWASHIMA TEXTILE MFG.,
PHILIPPINES, INC., RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 160352. July 23, 2008
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

Facts:
 On January 24, 2000, the Kawashima Free Workers Union-PTGWO Local
Chapter No. 803 (KFWU) filed a Petition for Certification Election with DOLE
Regional Office No. IV.
 KFWU sought to represent 145 rank-and-file employees of Kawashima Textile
Manufacturing, Inc.
 The petition included a Certificate of Creation of Local/Chapter issued by DOLE,
indicating KFWU's affiliation with the national federation Phil. Transport &
General Workers Organization (PTGWO).
 Kawashima Textile Manufacturing, Inc. filed a Motion to Dismiss the petition,
arguing that KFWU's mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory
employees violated Article 245 of the Labor Code and that KFWU failed to submit
its books of account.
 Med-Arbiter Anastacio L. Bactin dismissed the petition on May 17, 2000, citing
the inclusion of supervisory employees in KFWU's membership.
 KFWU appealed to the DOLE, which reversed the Med-Arbiter's decision on
August 18, 2000, and ordered the conduct of a certification election.
 Kawashima Textile Manufacturing, Inc. appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA),
which reinstated the Med-Arbiter's dismissal on December 13, 2002.
 The CA also denied KFWU's motion for reconsideration on October 7, 2003.
 The Republic of the Philippines then filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with
the Supreme Court.

Issues:
  Whether a mixed membership of rank-and-file and supervisory employees in a
union sufficient ground for dismissing a petition for certification election.
 Whether an employer like Kawashima Textile Manufacturing collaterally attack
the legitimacy of a labor organization in a certification election petition.
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of KFWU, stating that the mixed membership
did not constitute grounds for dismissal of the petition for certification election. It
clarified that while Article 245 prohibits supervisory employees from joining rank-
and-file unions, this does not affect the union's legitimacy unless there is
evidence of misrepresentation or fraud under Article 239 of the Labor Code. The
Court emphasized that once a labor organization is registered, it possesses all
rights and privileges associated with legitimate unions14.
 Additionally, the Court highlighted that under Section 12 of Republic Act No.
9481, employers do not have the standing to oppose certification elections filed
by legitimate labor organizations, reinforcing that their role is merely as
bystanders during such proceedings34. Thus, the Supreme Court reinstated
DOLE's order for a certification election to be conducted among KFWU
members.

Case #4
Case Title:
PHILCOM EMPLOYEES UNION, PETITIONER, VS. PHILIPPINE GLOBAL
COMMUNICATIONS AND PHILCOM CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
G.R. NO. 144315. July 17, 2006
CARPIO, J.

Facts:
 The case involves a labor dispute between the Philcom Employees Union (PEU)
and Philippine Global Communications, Inc. (Philcom, Inc.).
 The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between PEU and Philcom expired
on June 30, 1997.
 Negotiations for renewal of the CBA began in July 1997.
 On October 21, 1997, PEU filed a Notice of Strike alleging unfair labor practices
by Philcom, which halted negotiations.
 PEU filed another Notice of Strike on November 4, 1997, citing a bargaining
deadlock.
  Despite agreeing to maintain the status quo during conciliation, PEU went on
strike on November 17, 1997, and blocked company premises.
 Philcom requested the Secretary of Labor and Employment to assume
jurisdiction over the dispute.
 Acting Labor Secretary Cresenciano B. Trajano issued an order on November
19, 1997, assuming jurisdiction, enjoining the strike, and directing workers to
return within 24 hours.
 The strike continued, resulting in additional orders and motions.
 The Secretary dismissed the union's unfair labor practice charges and directed
the striking workers to return to work.
 Both parties' motions for reconsideration were denied.
 The case was elevated to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the Secretary's
orders.
 PEU filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court.

Issues:
 Whether the Secretary of Labor had the authority to address the legality of the
strike.
 Whether PGC committed unfair labor practices against the PHILCOM Employees
Union.

Ruling:
 The Supreme Court ruled that the Secretary of Labor had the authority to
address the legality of the strike. The Supreme Court stated that the Secretary of
Labor's jurisdiction over the labor dispute included all related questions and
controversies, including the strike's legality. The Secretary's authority under
Article 263(g) of the Labor Code is comprehensive and discretionary, aiming to
promote public good and resolve labor disputes effectively. The Secretary
assumed jurisdiction due to the industry's critical nature and the significant
disruption caused by the strike.
 The Supreme Court affirmed that Philcom's actions did not constitute unfair labor
practices under Article 248 of the Labor Code. The Court found that the acts
committed by Philcom, as claimed by PEU, did not constitute unfair labor
practices under Article 248 of the Labor Code. The issues raised were related to
the CBA's economic provisions.

Case #5
Case Title:
CHARLITO PEÑARANDA, PETITIONER, VS. BAGANGA PLYWOOD CORPORATION
AND HUDSON CHUA, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. NO. 159577. May 03, 2006
PANGANIBAN, CJ

Facts:
 Charlito Peñaranda was employed by Baganga Plywood Corporation (BPC) in
June 1999.
 His roles included Foreman, Boiler Head, and Shift Engineer, focusing on steam
plant boiler operations and maintenance.
 Peñaranda claimed unlawful termination of employment on December 19, 2000,
citing lack of due process and valid grounds.
 In May 2001, he filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and money claims against
BPC and its general manager, Hudson Chua, with the National Labor Relations
Commission (NLRC).
 The labor arbiter directed both parties to submit position papers, with Peñaranda
seeking various monetary claims, including overtime pay and damages.
 BPC argued that Peñaranda's separation was justified under Article 283 of the
Labor Code due to temporary closure for repairs and claimed he was a
managerial employee.
 The labor arbiter initially ruled in favor of Peñaranda, but the NLRC later reversed
this decision, classifying him as a managerial employee.
 The Court of Appeals upheld the NLRC's ruling, leading Peñaranda to file a
petition for review with the Supreme Court.

Issue:
 Whether the dismissal of Peñaranda was invalid and unjustified.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled against Peñaranda, stating the petition lacked merit. The
Supreme Court's rationale centered on Peñaranda's classification as a managerial
employee. Under Article 82 of the Labor Code, managerial employees are exempt from
labor standards, including overtime and premium pay.

FAMILY CODE
Case #1
Case Title:
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER, VS. MARIA FE ESPINOSA
CANTOR, RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 184621. December 10, 2013
BRION, J.

Facts:
 In Republic of the Philippines v. Cantor (G.R. No. 184621), Maria Fe Espinosa
Cantor and Jerry F. Cantor were married on September 20, 1997.
 They lived in their conjugal home in Agan Homes, Koronadal City, South
Cotabato.
 In January 1998, after a violent quarrel over Maria Fe's inability to reach sexual
climax and Jerry's animosity towards her father, Jerry left their home and was
never seen or heard from again.
 On May 21, 2002, more than four years after Jerry's disappearance, Maria Fe
filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Koronadal City, South
Cotabato, seeking a declaration of presumptive death for her husband under
Article 41 of the Family Code.
 She claimed to have made diligent efforts to locate Jerry by inquiring from his
family, neighbors, and friends, and by checking hospital directories during her
visits.
 The RTC granted her petition on December 15, 2006, declaring Jerry
presumptively dead.
 The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision on August 27, 2008.
 The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General
(OSG), filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that Maria Fe did not have a well-
founded belief that Jerry was dead and that certiorari was a proper remedy to
challenge the RTC's decision.
Issues:
 Whether certiorari can be used to challenge decisions regarding the declaration
of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family Code.
 Whether Maria Fe had a well-founded belief that Jerry was already dead.
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Republic of the Philippines, reversing
the lower courts' decisions that had declared Jerry presumptively dead. The
Court emphasized that Article 41 imposes a stricter standard requiring a "well-
founded belief" in the absentee's death before such a declaration can be granted.
The burden of proof lies with the present spouse to demonstrate diligent efforts to
locate the absent spouse.
  The Supreme Court found that Maria Fe's inquiries did not meet the required
standard of diligence as outlined in Article 41. It highlighted that mere inquiries
were insufficient; there must be substantial evidence of active efforts to locate the
absentee. The Court noted that while Maria Fe claimed to have made inquiries,
she failed to present concrete evidence or witnesses to substantiate her claims.

Case #2
Case Title:
RICHELLE BUSQUE ORDOÑA, PETITIONER, VS. THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR
OF PASIG CITY AND ALLAN D. FULGUERAS, RESPONDENTS.
G.R. No. 215370
INTING, J.

Facts:
 Richelle Busque Ordoña married Ariel O. Libut on October 10, 2000, in Las Piñas
City.
 In December 2005, Richelle went to Qatar for work and discovered in 2008 that
Ariel had an illicit relationship.
 Richelle returned to the Philippines and separated from Ariel but did not file for
annulment.
 In April 2008, Richelle went to Abu Dhabi, UAE, and met Allan D. Fulgueras, a
former colleague from Qatar.
 Richelle and Allan engaged in an intimate relationship, resulting in her
pregnancy.
 She returned to the Philippines in September 2009 and gave birth to Alrich Paul
Ordoña Fulgueras on January 26, 2010, in Pasig City.
 The child's birth certificate listed Allan as the father.
 On September 7, 2011, Richelle filed a Rule 108 petition before the RTC to
change Alrich Paul's last name from "Fulgueras" to "Ordoña" and delete the
paternal information, alleging Allan did not sign the Affidavit of
Acknowledgment/Admission of Paternity.
 The RTC denied the petition, ruling that Alrich Paul is an illegitimate child and
that the Affidavit of Acknowledgment was valid.
 The CA affirmed the RTC's decision, emphasizing the presumption of legitimacy
under Article 164 of the Family Code and stating that only the husband or his
heirs could contest the legitimacy of a child.
 The CA directed the Civil Registrar to change Alrich Paul's surname to "Libut"
and list Ariel as the father.
  Richelle filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

Issue:
Whether a mother can impugn the legitimacy of her child born during her marriage.

Ruling:
The Supreme Court ruled that the mother cannot contest the legitimacy of a child born
within a valid marriage. The Supreme Court emphasized that under Article 164 of the
Family Code, children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are
presumed legitimate. Article 167 mandates that the child shall be considered legitimate
even if the mother declares against its legitimacy or is sentenced as an adulteress. The
Court reiterated that only the husband or, in exceptional cases, his heirs, have the right
to contest the legitimacy of a child.