Case Summary (G.R. No. 182894)
Key Dates
- Marriage of Atty. Adriano and Rosario: November 15, 1955
- Separation in fact: circa 1960s
- Decedent’s death: December 19, 1992 (U.S. time)
- RTC decision: October 1, 1998
- CA decision: October 2, 2006; Resolution: May 9, 2008
- Supreme Court decision: December 22, 2014
Applicable Law
- Civil Code, Arts. 305 and 308
- Family Code, Art. 199 (formerly Civil Code Art. 294a)
- Revised Administrative Code, Sec. 1103
- Civil Code, Art. 307 on expressed wishes of the deceased
Facts
Atty. Adriano and his wife, Rosario, were legally married and had six children. They lived separately in fact for over thirty years. During that period, Atty. Adriano cohabited with Valino, who managed his medical expenses and household needs. When Atty. Adriano died of acute emphysema in December 1992, Valino arranged and paid for his burial at her family mausoleum in Manila Memorial Park. Rosario and the children, then in the United States, requested a postponement of the interment but were declined and thus could not participate in funeral rites. Respondents later filed suit for damages and sought exhumation to transfer the remains to the Adriano family plot at Holy Cross Memorial Cemetery in Novaliches.
Regional Trial Court Decision
The RTC dismissed respondents’ complaint and Valino’s counterclaim. It found that Valino’s long relationship with Atty. Adriano entitled her to know and effectuate his burial wishes. The RTC concluded that exhumation would serve no useful purpose, since decedent had expressed a preference for interment at the Manila Memorial Park mausoleum.
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA reversed the RTC. Relying on Civil Code Art. 305 and Family Code Art. 199, it held that the surviving legal spouse has the primary right and duty to make funeral arrangements. Although it acknowledged Valino’s good faith, the appellate court ordered Valino to exhume the remains at respondents’ expense and directed respondents to rebury the decedent in the Holy Cross family plot. No damages were awarded to either party.
Issue
Which party—the legal wife or the common-law partner—has the lawful right and duty to custody and interment of the decedent’s remains?
Supreme Court Ruling
- Civil Code Art. 305, in relation to Family Code Art. 199, limits the right and duty to arrange a funeral to persons legally bound to support the deceased, with the surviving spouse first in order of preference. 2. Civil Code Art. 308 prohibits retention, interment, disposition or exhumation of remains without the consent of those entitled under Arts. 294 and 305. 3. Revised Administrative Code Sec. 1103 likewise places that duty upon the surviving spouse. 4. Civil Code Art. 307 recognizes the deceased’s expressed funeral wishes, but only as to funeral form; it cannot override the statutory priority granted to the legal spouse. 5. Common-law partners are excluded
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 182894)
Facts
- Atty. Lope Adriano was married to Rosario Adriano in November 1955; they had five biological children and one adopted daughter.
- The marriage broke down into a separation-in-fact; years later, Atty. Adriano began living with his client, Fe Floro Valino, as husband and wife.
- Despite cohabiting with Valino, Atty. Adriano continued to provide financial support to Rosario and their children.
- In December 1992, Atty. Adriano died of acute emphysema while Rosario was in the United States.
- Valino shouldered funeral and burial expenses and interred his remains in her family mausoleum at Manila Memorial Park without awaiting Rosario’s return.
- Respondents alleged they were deprived of viewing the remains and asserted burial at Manila Memorial Park contrary to Atty. Adriano’s wishes.
RTC Decision
- Respondents sought actual, moral, exemplary damages, attorney’s fees, and exhumation/transfer of remains to the Holy Cross Memorial Cemetery family plot.
- Valino counterclaimed for damages and attorney’s fees, citing her care for Atty. Adriano and his supposed wish to be buried in her family plot.
- The Regional Trial Court dismissed both the complaint and the counterclaim for lack of sufficient proof.
- The RTC found:
- Valino’s long cohabitation evidenced her knowledge of Adriano’s burial wishes.
- Rosario’s absence during his final illness demonstrated lack of care.
- Exhumation and transfer would serve no useful purpose and would violate Adriano’s presumed wish.
Court of Appeals Decision
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision.
- The CA held that Rosario, as the legal wife, had the exclusive right and duty to make funeral arrangements under Article 305 of the Civil Code and Article 199 of the Family Code.
- The CA ordered that:
- Valino must exhume the remains at respondents’ expense.
- Respondents must transfer and inter the remains at their own cost to the Adriano family plot at Holy Cross Memorial Park.
- T