Professional Documents
Culture Documents
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valino vs. Adriano
recognizesthathumancompassion,moreoftenthannot,opensthe
door to mercy and forgiveness once a family member joins his
Creator. Notably, it is an undisputed fact that the respondents
wasted no time in making frantic pleas to Valino for the delay of
the interment for a few days so they could attend the service and
view the remains of the deceased. As soon as they came to know
about Atty. Adrianos death in the morning of December 19, 1992
(December 20, 1992 in the Philippines), the respondents
immediately contacted Valino and the Arlington Memorial Chapel
to express their request, but to no avail.
Same; Same; Same; Considering the ambiguity as to the true
wishes of the deceased, it is the law that supplies the presumption
as to his intent. No presumption can be said to have been created in
3
VOL.723,APRIL22,2014
deceased.Intheabsenceofsuchexpression,hisreligiousbeliefsor
affiliationshalldeterminethe funeral rites.Incaseofdoubt,the
formofthe
4
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valino vs. Adriano
LEONEN,J.,Dissenting Opinion:
Civil Law; Persons and Family Relations; Funerals; View that
Article 305 of the Civil Code should only be considered when, first,
the deceased left no explicit instructions on how he wishes to be
interred, and second, when none among the deceaseds surviving
relations are willing to make the funeral arrangements and a
conflict
5
VOL.723,APRIL22,2014
Valino vs. Adriano
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valino vs. Adriano
wishes of his estranged family rather than give the deceased his
finalrequest.Partoflifeistheabilitytocontrolhowonewishesto
be memorialized, and such right should remain with the deceased.
It is only when the deceased has not left any express instructions
thattherightisgiventothepersonsspecifiedunderthelaw.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Pizarras & Associates Law Officeforpetitioner.
Ching, Mendoza, Quilas and Associates Law Firm for
respondents.
MENDOZA,J.:
Challenged in this petition is the October 2, 2006
Decision[1]andtheMay9,2008Resolution[2]oftheCourtof
Appeals(CA) inC.A.G.R.CVNo.61613,whichreversedthe
October 1, 1998 Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch77,QuezonCity(RTC) whichruledthatpetitioner
FeFloroValino(Valino)wasentitledtotheremainsofthe
decedent.
The Facts
Atty. Adriano Adriano (Atty. Adriano), a partner in the
Pelaez Adriano and Gregorio Law Office, married
respondent Rosario Adriano (Rosario) on November 15,
1955. The couple had two (2) sons, Florante and Ruben
Adriano; three (3) daughters, Rosario, Victoria and Maria
Teresa;andone(1)adopteddaughter,LeahAntonette.
_______________
VOL.723,APRIL22,2014
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valino vs. Adriano
wasAtty.Adrianoslastwishthathisremainsbeinterredin
theValinofamilymausoleumattheManilaMemorialPark.
Valinofurtherclaimedthatshehadsuffereddamagesas
resultofthesuitbroughtbyrespondents.Thus,sheprayed
that she be awarded moral and exemplary damages and
attorneysfees.
Decision of the RTC
TheRTCdismissedthecomplaintofrespondentsforlack
ofmeritaswellasthecounterclaimofValinoafteritfound
themtohavenotbeensufficientlyproven.
The RTC opined that because Valino lived with Atty.
Adrianoforaverylongtime,sheknewverywellthatitwas
hiswishtobeburiedattheManilaMemorialPark.Taking
into consideration the fact that Rosario left for the United
Statesatthetimethathewasfightinghisillness,thetrial
courtconcludedthatRosariodidnotshowloveandcarefor
him.ConsideringalsothatitwasValinowhoperformedall
thedutiesandresponsibilitiesofawife,theRTCwrotethat
itcouldbereasonablypresumedthathewishedtobeburied
intheValinofamilymausoleum.[4]
In disposing of the case, the RTC noted that the
exhumationandthetransferofthebodyofAtty.Adrianoto
the Adriano family plot at the Holy Cross Memorial
CemeteryinNovaliches,QuezonCity,wouldnotserveany
usefulpurposeandsoheshouldbesparedandrespected.[5]
Decision of the CA
On appeal, the CA reversed and set aside the RTC
decision and directed Valino to have the remains of Atty.
Adrianoexhumedattheexpenseofrespondents.Itlikewise
directed
_______________
[4]Id.,atpp.129130.
[5]Id.,atp.131.
VOL.723,APRIL22,2014
10
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valino vs. Adriano
dance with the order established for support, under Article 294. In
case of descendants of the same degree, or of brothers and sisters,
the oldest shall be preferred. In case of ascendants, the paternal
shallhaveabetterright.[Emphasessupplied]
Art.199.Whenever two or more persons are obliged to give
support,theliabilityshalldevolveuponthefollowingpersonsinthe
orderhereinprovided:
(1)The spouse;
(2)Thedescendantsinthenearestdegree;
(3)Theascendantsinthenearestdegree;and
(4)Thebrothersandsisters.(294a)
[Emphasissupplied]
Further,Article308oftheCivilCodeprovides:
Art.308.No human remains shall be retained, interred,
disposed of or exhumed without the consent of the persons
mentionedinArticles294and305.[Emphasessupplied]
In this connection, Section 1103 of the Revised Administrative
Codeprovides:
Section1103.Persons charged with the duty of burial.The
immediate duty of burying the body of a deceased person,
regardless of the ultimate liability for the expense thereof, shall
devolveuponthepersonshereinbelowspecified:
(a)If the deceased was a married
man or woman, the duty of the burial
shall devolve upon the surviving spouse
if he or she possesses sufficient means to
pay the necessary expenses;
xxxx.[Emphasessupplied]
11
VOL.723,APRIL22,2014
11
_______________
[7]263Phil.1149;185SCRA425(1990).
12
12
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valino vs. Adriano
Asappliedtothiscase,itisclearthatthelawgivesthe
right and duty to make funeral arrangements to Rosario,
shebeingthesurvivinglegalwifeofAtty.Adriano.Thefact
thatshewaslivingseparatelyfromherhusbandandwasin
the United States when he died has no controlling
significance. To say that Rosario had, in effect, waived or
renounced, expressly or impliedly, her right and duty to
makearrangementsforthefuneralofherdeceasedhusband
is baseless. The right and duty to make funeral
arrangements, like any other right, will not be
considered as having been waived or renounced,
except upon clear and satisfactory proof of conduct
indicative of a free and voluntary
_______________
[8]Id.,atpp.11581159;p.435.
13
VOL.723,APRIL22,2014
13
delay of the interment for a few days so they could attend the
service and view the remains of the deceased. As soon as they
came to know about Atty. Adrianos death in the morning of
December 19, 1992 (December 20, 1992 in the Philippines),
the respondents immediately contacted Valino and the
Arlington Memorial Chapel to express their request, but to
no avail.
Valinoinsiststhattheexpressedwishesofthedeceased
should nevertheless prevail pursuant to Article 307 of the
Civil Code. Valinos own testimony that it was Atty.
Adrianos wish to be buried in their family plot is being
relieduponheavily.Itshouldbenoted,however,thatother
thanValinosclaimthatAtty.Adrianowishedtobeburied
at the Manila Memorial Park, no other evidence was
presented to corroborate such claim. Considering that
Rosario equally claims that Atty. Adriano wished to be
buriedintheAdrianofamilyplotinNovaliches,itbecomes
apparentthatthesupposedburialwishofAtty.Adrianowas
unclear and undefinite. Considering this ambiguity as to
the true wishes of the deceased, it is the law that supplies
the presumption as to his intent. No presumption can be
saidtohavebeencreatedinValinos
_______________
[9] See Marawi Marantao General Hospital, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,
402 Phil. 356, 369; 349 SCRA 321, 330331 (2001). See also Thomson v.
Court of Appeals, 358 Phil. 761, 778; 298 SCRA 280, 294 (1998);
Gatchalian v. Delim, G.R. No. 56487, October 21, 1991, 203 SCRA 126,
132;Yepes v. Samar Express Transit,123Phil.948,949;17SCRA91,93
(1966); Andres v. The Crown Life Insurance Co., 102 Phil. 919, 924
(1958); Lang v. Acting Provincial Sheriff of Surigao, 93 Phil. 661, 669
(1953);andFernandez v. Sebido,70Phil.151,159(1940).
14
14
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valino vs. Adriano
VOL.723,APRIL22,2014
15
Inthiscase,thewishesofthedeceasedwithrespectto
hisfuneralarelimited by Article 305oftheCivilCodein
relation to Article 199 of the Family Code, and subject
thesametothosechargedwiththerightanddutytomake
theproper
_______________
[10] TOLENTINO , CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Vol. I, p. 657,
citing Sheeban v. Commercial Travelers, 283 Mass. 543, 186 N.E.
627;Lindh v. Great Northern,99Minn.408,109N.W.823;Kyles v.
Southern Ry Co.,147N.C.394,61S.E.278.
[11] TOLENTINO , CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Vol. I, p. 657,
citingSacred Heart of Jesus v. Soklowski,159Minn.331,199N.W.
81;Wilson v. Read,74N.H.322,68Atl.37;Pettigrew v. Pettigrew,
20Pa.313,56Atl.878.
16
16
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valino vs. Adriano
17
VOL.723,APRIL22,2014
17
OF THE
Enneccerus,Kipp&Wolff548fn;1Valverde239240fn.
18
18
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valino vs. Adriano
19
VOL.723,APRIL22,2014
19
LEONEN,J.:
We will all die. But what may matter to many of us is
howweliveandhowourlifeiskeptinthememoriesofthose
weleavebehind.Thiscaseisnotaboutwhetheracommon
law wife has more rights over the corpse of the husband
thanthelattersestrangedlegalspouse.Thiscaseisabout
whichbetweenthemknowshiswishes.
Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the ponencia in
denyingthispetition.
I vote to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals
dated October 2, 2006 in C.A.G.R. CV No. 61613, which
directs petitioner Fe to have the remains of Atty. Lope
Adriano exhumed, and orders respondents to transfer,
transport, and inter, at their expense, the remains of the
decedent from Manila Memorial Park to the family plot in
Holy Cross Memorial Park in Novaliches, Quezon City. I
vote to sustain the decision dated October 1, 1998, of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 77 in Civil
CaseNo.Q9315288,dismissingrespondentscomplaintfor
damages.
Idisagreewiththepositionthatinthedeterminationof
howAtty.Adrianoshouldbeburied,thelawgivestheright
and duty to make funeral arrangements to Rosario, she
being the surviving legal wife of Atty. Adriano,[1] in
accordancewithArticle305[2]oftheCivilCodeinrelation
toArticle199[3]oftheFamilyCode.
[1]Ponencia,p.12.
[2] Article305.The duty and the right to make
arrangements for the funeral of a relative shall be in
accordancewiththeorder
_______________
[1]Ponencia,p.12.
[2] Article305.The duty and the right to make arrangements for
thefuneralofarelativeshallbeinaccordancewiththeorder
20
20
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valino vs. Adriano
support, the liability shall devolve upon the following persons in the
orderhereinprovided:
(1)Thespouse;
(2)Thedescendantsinthenearestdegree;
(3)Theascendantsinthenearestdegree;and
(4)Thebrothersandsisters.(294a)
21
VOL.723,APRIL22,2014
Valino vs. Adriano
21
tomeanthattherighttodetermineonesfuneral,including
the right to determine how and where one wishes to be
buried, remains with the deceased, and it is only in the
absence of his express wishes, or in the absence of his
religiousbeliefsandaffiliations,orifthereisdoubtastohis
wishes, that other persons may assume the right to decide
thefuneralarrangements.
This right, like other rights pointed out by the
ponencia,[4] must not be considered waived or renounced
except upon clear and satisfactory proof of conduct
indicativeofafreeandvoluntaryintenttothatend.There
is neither indication nor have there been any allegations
thatAtty.Adrianodidnotfreelyandvoluntarilyrelayhis
last wishes to his commonlaw wife, petitioner Fe. Atty.
Adriano, therefore, did not waive his right to determine
whereheshouldbeburied,infavorofthepersonsindicated
inArticle305inrelationtoArticle199.
Accordingly, it was improper to cite in the ponencia
Tomas Eugenio, Sr. v. Judge Velez.[5] In Eugenio, Tomas
Eugenio,Sr.claimedtherighttoburyhiscommonlawwife,
arguing that he should be considered a spouse under
Article305inrelationtoArticle199.Theassertionledthis
court to expound on the interpretation of Article 305 in
relationtoArticle199andconcludethat:
x x x. Indeed, Philippine Law does not recognize common law
marriages. A man and woman not legally married who cohabit for
manyyearsashusbandandwife,whorepresentthemselvestothe
public as husband and wife, and who are reputed to be husband
and wife in the community where they live may be considered
legally married in common law jurisdictions but not in the
Philippines.
Whileitistruethatourlawsdonotjustbrushasidethefactthat
suchrelationshipsarepresentinour
_______________
[4]Ponencia,pp.1213.
[5]263Phil.1149;185SCRA425(1990)[PerJ.Padilla,EnBanc].
22
22
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valino vs. Adriano
23
VOL.723,APRIL22,2014
23
24
24
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Valino vs. Adriano
VOL.723,APRIL22,2014
Valino vs. Adriano
25