Case Digest (G.R. No. 164978) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
In Fe Floro Valino v. Rosario D. Adriano, petitioner Fe Floro Valino was the long-time partner of Atty. Lope Adriano, who, although still legally married to respondent Rosario D. Adriano since November 15, 1955, had lived separately from her for over 30 years. Atty. Adriano and Rosario had two sons and three daughters, plus one adopted daughter, all respondents in this case. After Atty. Adriano fell terminally ill in 1992, Rosario was in the United States and unavailable. Valino shouldered funeral and burial expenses and ordered interment at the Valino family mausoleum in Manila Memorial Park without delaying at Rosario’s request. Respondents filed suit in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 77, Quezon City, seeking exhumation, transfer of the remains to the Adriano family plot at Holy Cross Memorial Cemetery, and damages. Valino counterclaimed for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The RTC dismissed all claims, presuming it was Atty. Adriano’s wish to be buried at Ma... Case Digest (G.R. No. 164978) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Relationship and family background
- Atty. Lope Adriano married Rosario D. Adriano on November 15, 1955. They had two sons (Florante, Ruben), three daughters (Maria Teresa, Victoria, Rosario), and one adopted daughter (Leah Antonette).
- The spouses lived separately in fact for over 30 years. Atty. Adriano thereafter cohabited with Fe Floro Valino as his common-law partner and continued to support Rosario and the children financially.
- Death, burial arrangements, and suit
- In 1992, Atty. Adriano died of acute emphysema. Rosario was in the United States, and Valino paid for a funeral and buried him immediately in Valino’s family mausoleum at Manila Memorial Park. Respondents were unable to attend.
- Respondents sued Valino for actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees, and prayed that Adriano’s remains be exhumed and transferred to the Adriano family plot at Holy Cross Memorial Cemetery in Novaliches. Valino counterclaimed for damages.
- Procedural history
- RTC, Branch 77, Quezon City (Oct. 1, 1998): Dismissed respondents’ complaint and Valino’s counterclaim. It held that Valino, having lived long with the decedent and performed spousal duties, knew his wish to be buried at Manila Memorial Park.
- CA (Oct. 2, 2006; May 9, 2008): Reversed the RTC. It ordered Valino to exhume the remains at respondents’ expense and respondents to transfer them to the Adriano plot. It ruled that Rosario, as legal wife, had the exclusive right and duty under Civil Code Article 305 and Family Code Article 199. Damages were denied.
Issues:
- Main issue
- Which party is entitled to custody of Atty. Adriano’s remains—the surviving legal spouse (Rosario) or the common-law partner (Valino)?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)