G.R. No. 132529. February 2, 2001.*

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

FACTS:

SPO4 Santiago S. Cariño, contracted two marriages, the first was on June 20, 1969, with petitioner Susan Nicdao Cariño , with whom he had two offspring and the second was on November 10, 1992, with respondent Susan Yee Cariño, with whom he had no children in their almost ten year cohabitation starting way back in 1982.

In 1992,Santiago died under the care of Susan Yee, who spent for his medical and burial expenses. Both petitioner and respondent filed claims for monetary benefits and financial assistance pertaining to the deceased from various government agencies. The first wife, petitioner was able to collect a total of P146,000.00 while respondent Susan Yee received a total of P21,000.00. Respondent Susan Yee filed the instant case for collection of sum of money against petitioner be ordered to return to her at least one-half of the “death benefits” which she received.

G.R. No. 122749. July 31, 1996.*

FACTS:

Antonio Valdes and Consuelo Gomez were married and begotten five children. Valdes sought the declaration of nullity of the marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code which was granted. The judgment rendered includes the custody of children and liquidation of  their common properties as defined by Article 147 of the Family Code, and to comply with the provisions of Articles 50, 51 and 52. Consuelo Gomez sought a clarification and asserted that the Family Code contained no provisions on the procedure for the liquidation of common property in “unions without marriage.”

No. L-20379. June 22, 1965.

CONCEPCION, J.:

FACTS:

In 1962, an Agreement for Dissolution of Conjugal Partnership and Separation of Property was jointly executed by petitioners states that they are and have been legally married since December 24, 1932, that they have two children and during their marriage  have acquired twelve (12) parcels of land and two (2) buildings. Petitioners have mutually agreed to dissolve their conjugal partnership, and to the establishment of a separation of properties in the manner specified in the contract to prevent friction, dissension and confusion among their respective heirs in the future, particularly because petitioner Jose Bermas, Sr. has two (2) sets of children, one by a former marriage, and another by his present wife, the other petitioner. After publication and hearing, the court rendered the appealed decision, denying the petition upon the ground that, under Article 192 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. Consequently, said children by first marriage of petitioner Jose Bermas, Sr. do not appear to have been notified personally of the filing of the petition and of the date of the hearing thereof, although the danger of substantial injury to their rights would seem to be remote.

No. L-68470, October 8, 1985.*

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner, Alicia, is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent is a citizen of the United States; that they were married in Hongkong in 1972; that, after the marriage, they established their residence in the Philippines; that they begot two children; that the parties were divorced in Nevada, United States, in 1982; and that petitioner has re-married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.