Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Adoption
1.
Tamargo V. CA
Retroactivity of parental
liability.
adopted child.
committed.
actual custody of the child during such trial period. In the instant
reached above.
case, the trial custody period either had not yet begun or bad
already been completed at the time of the air rifle shooting; in
any case, actual custody of Adelberto was then with his natural
parents, not the adopting parents.
2.
Lahom V. Sibulo
Retroactivity of rules on
action to rescind.
Art. 192. The adopters may petition the court for the judicial
still be revoked or
rescinded by an adopter
(2) When the adopted has abandoned the home of the adopters
during minority for at least one year, or, by some other acts, has
granted in 1972.
SEC. 5. (2) The adopter must also file the petition to set aside the
adoption within five (5) years from the time the cause or causes
place.
Persons Cases
(definition: consequence
of the constitutional
guaranty of due
only enforcement of a
action. The petition to adopt Jason, having been filed with the
court at the time when P.D. No. 603 was still in effect, the right
vested).
Landingin V.
Republic
adoption.
adoption be granted
biological mother.
witness.
Persons Cases
4.
Adoption of
following cases:
Michelle and
remarried.
other.
husband
Consent.
Consent of American in an
Effects of Adoption
age of majority.
Persons Cases
(3)
(ii)
Castro V. Gregorio
by the father of a child born out of wedlock obtain not only the
children.
exceptions:
(i)
(ii)
Persons Cases
the proceedings.
After
6.
Bartolome V. SSS
When the adoptive parent died less than three (3) years after the
adoption decree, John was still a minor, at about four (4) years of
age.
that the adoptee, who is still a minor, is not left to fend for
dependent parents.
provision is Art. 984 of the New Civil Code: In case of the death of
an adopted child, leaving no children or descendants, his
parents and relatives by consanguinity and not by adoption,
shall be his legal heirs.
Persons Cases
2.
3.
Support
1.
De Asis V. CA
the vinculum that gives the minor, Glen Camil, the right to claim
compromise.
Persons Cases
Gan V. Reyes
Sec 4, Rule 39, of the Rules of Court clearly states that, unless
ordered by the trial court, judgments in actions for support are
immediately executory
disputed.
In all cases involving a child, his interest and welfare are always
refuse him support until the decision of the trial court attains
funds.
3.
Mangonon V. CA
Mangonon.
Art. 199. Whenever two or more persons are obliged to give support, the liability
shall devolve upon the following persons in the order herein provided:
(1) The Spouse; (2) The descendants in the nearest degree; (3) The ascendants in
the nearest degree; and (4) The brus and bras.
Other provisions used:
Art. 174. Legitimate children shall have the right:
(1) To bear the surnames of the father and the mother, in conformity with the
provisions of the Civil Code on Surnames;
(2) To receive support from their parents, their ascendants, and in proper cases,
their brothers and sisters, in conformity with the provisions of this
Code on Support; and
(3) To be entitled to the legitime and other successional rights granted to them by
the Civil Code.
Persons Cases
Quirk:
4.
Lim V. Lim
Only grandchildren, as
199.
included.
5.
Dolina V.
Dolina evidently filed the wrong action to obtain support for her
Vallecera
the grant of legal support for the wife and the child, this
invoking RA 9262.
Contrary to her claim, neither she nor her child ever lived with
Persons Cases
resolved.
6.
Lim-Lua V. Lua
500k a month.
accumulated support in
Only the medical and dental expenses of Sally and their son,
Romy.
deductions.
Controversy arose when Romy
In this case, the monthly support was intended primarily for
and their
children.
However, the CA agreed with all the
items to deducted from the total
arrears of the support pendent lite,
including also the following: medical
and dental expenses, travel expenses,
credit card purchases and salon
Persons Cases