Case Summary (G.R. No. 182894)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Decedent’s death: 1992. RTC decision: October 1, 1998 (dismissing respondents’ complaint and denying Valino’s counterclaims). CA decision: October 2, 2006 (reversing RTC; directed exhumation and transfer to Adriano family plot at respondents’ expense). Supreme Court decision: December 22, 2014 (En Banc) — petition denied, affirming that the legal wife has the right and duty to make funeral arrangements; dissent by Justice Leonen.
Applicable Law and Constitutional Basis
Primary statutory provisions applied: Article 305 of the Civil Code (duty and right to make funeral arrangements in accordance with support order), Article 307 of the Civil Code (funeral in accordance with expressed wishes of the deceased), Article 308 of the Civil Code (no disposition or exhumation without consent of persons mentioned in Articles 294 and 305), and Article 199 of the Family Code (order of persons obliged to give support: spouse, descendants, ascendants, brothers and sisters). Administrative law: Section 1103 of the Revised Administrative Code (duty of burial devolves upon surviving spouse if financially able). The decision was rendered post-1990 and thus decided under the 1987 Philippine Constitution.
Facts Found by the Courts
Atty. Adriano and Rosario married in 1955 and were separated in fact for decades. Atty. Adriano later lived with Valino, who provided care and introduced him as her husband to associates, while he continued to financially support Rosario and their children. When he died in 1992 and Rosario was in the United States, Valino paid for and arranged the burial at Valino’s family mausoleum in Manila Memorial Park. Respondents alleged they were deprived of the opportunity to view the remains and that burial location was contrary to decedent’s wishes, seeking indemnification and exhumation/transfer to the family plot at Holy Cross Memorial Cemetery.
RTC and CA Holdings
RTC (1998): Dismissed respondents’ complaint for lack of merit and dismissed Valino’s counterclaim; found Valino’s testimony and conduct established that decedent wished burial at Manila Memorial and emphasized Valino’s caregiving, concluding exhumation would serve no useful purpose. CA (2006): Reversed RTC; held that Rosario, as legal wife, had the statutory right and duty to make funeral arrangements and thus ordered Valino to allow exhumation and respondents to bear transfer/interment costs. CA declined to award damages given Valino’s good faith.
Legal Issue Presented
Who was legally entitled to custody and disposition of Atty. Adriano’s remains — the surviving legal spouse (Rosario) or the long-time cohabiting partner who arranged and bore the funeral expenses (Valino)?
Majority Reasoning and Application of Law
The Court applied Article 305 of the Civil Code in relation to Article 199 of the Family Code and Section 1103 of the Revised Administrative Code to conclude that the law confines the right and duty to make funeral arrangements to specified family members, placing the surviving legal spouse first in order. The majority held that the legal wife’s right is not defeated by long separation-in-fact or by the fact that a non-spouse performed caregiving or paid funeral expenses. The Court emphasized that the right and duty to arrange a funeral are not presumed waived absent clear and satisfactory proof of voluntary renunciation. Where there was ambiguity and conflicting testimony as to decedent’s expressed wishes (Valino’s uncorroborated claim that the decedent wished burial at Manila Memorial versus Rosario’s claim of Adriano family plot), the law supplies a presumption favoring the legitimate family. Article 307’s provision that funerals should follow the expressed wishes of the deceased was interpreted as subordinated to Article 305/Article 199 when the decedent’s wishes are unclear or not satisfactorily proven; moreover, such wishes are ideally evidenced by testamentary disposition or clear proof, which was lacking here.
Treatment of Evidence Concerning Decedent’s Expressed Wishes
The majority found Valino’s testimony that the decedent orally wished burial at Manila Memorial uncorroborated by other evidence. Rosario and the children immediately sought delay upon learning of death to view the remains, which the Court took as evidence of the family’s ongoing interest. Given the conflicting and unclear evidence of the decedent’s wishes and the lack of corroboration, the Court applied statutory presumptions in favor of the surviving legal spouse and family.
Damages, Attorney’s Fees, and Equitable Considerations
Both the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court declined to award actual, moral, exemplary damages, or attorney’s fees against Valino. The CA and the Supreme Court recognized Valino’s good faith and commendable care for the decedent; damages require proof of injury or factual basis and causal connection, which respondents failed to establish. The Supreme Court reiterated that attorney’s fees are exceptional and require factual, legal and equitable justification, which was absent here.
Majority Holding and Relief
The Supreme Court denied the petition and upheld the view that Rosario, as the surviving legal spouse, had the legal right and duty to make funeral arrangements, authorizing exhumation and transfer of the remains to the Adriano family plot. The petition to overturn the CA decision was denied, thereby sustaining the CA’s direction that respondents effect exhumation and transfer at their expense. Concurring and majority Justices listed; Justice
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 182894)
Procedural History
- Petition for review to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 182894, April 22, 2014) challenges the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated October 2, 2006 and Resolution dated May 9, 2008 in CA-G.R. CV No. 61613.
- The CA had reversed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 77, Quezon City, October 1, 1998 Decision (Civil Case No. Q-93-15288) that ruled in favor of petitioner Fe Floro Valino.
- The Supreme Court issued an En Banc decision reported at 733 Phil. 616; 110 OG No. 51, 7797 (December 22, 2014), denying the petition.
- Justice Mendoza authored the ponencia; Chief Justice Sereno and Justices Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-De Castro, Brion, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Reyes, and Perlas-Bernabe concurred.
- Justice Abad joined Justice Leonen’s dissent; Justice Leonen filed a separate dissenting opinion.
Factual Background
- Atty. Lope Adriano (referred to as “Atty. Adriano”), partner in Pelaez Adriano and Gregorio Law Office, married Rosario Adriano on November 15, 1955.
- The marriage produced two sons (Florante and Ruben), three daughters (Rosario, Victoria and Maria Teresa) and one adopted daughter (Leah Antonette).
- Atty. Adriano and Rosario lived separated-in-fact for many years; subsequently, Atty. Adriano courted and lived with petitioner Fe Floro Valino as husband and wife while continuing to provide financial support to Rosario and their children.
- Atty. Adriano died in 1992 of acute emphysema. At the time of his death, Rosario was in the United States; the date of death was December 19, 1992 (December 20, 1992 in the Philippines).
- With family members absent, Valino paid for funeral and burial expenses and arranged interment at the Valino family mausoleum at Manila Memorial Park.
- Rosario and the children learned of the death, asked Valino to delay interment to permit their attendance and viewing, but Valino did not delay; respondents were unable to attend the interment.
- Respondents alleged they were deprived of the chance to view the remains and that burial at Manila Memorial Park contravened the decedent’s wishes; they sued for exhumation and transfer of remains to the Adriano family plot at Holy Cross Memorial Cemetery in Novaliches, and for actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
- Valino defended on the ground of long cohabitation with Atty. Adriano, her performance of spousal duties and payment of medical expenses, and asserted that it was Atty. Adriano’s last wish to be interred at the Valino family mausoleum; she also asserted damages resulting from the suit.
Claims and Relief Sought by Parties
- Respondents (Rosario and children): prayed for indemnification for actual, moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees; prayed for exhumation and transfer of Atty. Adriano’s remains to the Adriano family plot in Novaliches.
- Petitioner Valino: defended burial decision as consistent with decedent’s wishes and her role as long-time companion who cared for him; counterclaimed for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees for the suit filed against her.
RTC Decision (October 1, 1998)
- The RTC dismissed respondents’ complaint for lack of merit and dismissed Valino’s counterclaim for lack of sufficient proof.
- RTC findings and rationale:
- Valino lived with Atty. Adriano for a very long time and knew his wish to be buried at Manila Memorial Park.
- Rosario’s leaving for the United States while Atty. Adriano was ill demonstrated lack of love and care; by contrast, Valino took duties and responsibilities of a wife, paid medical expenses, and performed funeral arrangements.
- It was reasonably presumed from these facts that Atty. Adriano wished burial in the Valino family mausoleum.
- Exhumation and transfer to the Adriano family plot would not serve any useful purpose and would not be respectful to the decedent given the circumstances.
CA Decision (October 2, 2006)
- The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC.
- CA orders:
- Directed Valino to have Atty. Adriano’s remains exhumed at respondents’ expense.
- Directed respondents, at their expense, to transfer, transport and inter the remains in the Adriano family plot at Holy Cross Memorial Park in Novaliches.
- CA reasoning:
- Cited Article 305 of the New Civil Code in relation to Article 199 of the Family Code to hold that the surviving legal wife (Rosario) is entitled to custody of the remains and has the right and duty to make funeral arrangements.
- Held that the subsisting legal marriage prevailed notwithstanding a 30-year separation in fact.
- Denied damages to respondents given Valino’s good intentions in providing burial when family was absent; other claims for damages were dismissed.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
- The sole legal issue: Who between the surviving legal wife Rosario and the long-time common-law partner Valino is entitled to the remains of Atty. Adriano?
Relevant Statutes and Administrative Provision Cited
- Article 305, New Civil Code:
- Duty and right to make funeral arrangements follow the order established for support (Article 294); oldest preferred among descendants of same degree; paternal ascendants preferred among ascendants.
- Article 199, Family Code (formerly Article 294a, New Civil Code):
- Order of liability for support: (1) spouse; (2) descendants nearest degree; (3) ascendants nearest degree; (4) brothers and sisters.
- Article 308, New Civil Code:
- No human remains shall be retained, interred, disposed of or exhumed without the consent of persons mentioned in Ar