FE FLORO VALINO, Petitioner,
vs.
ROSARIO D. ADRIANO, FLORANTE D. ADRIANO, RUBEN D. ADRIANO, MARIA TERESA ADRIANO
ONGOCO, VICTORIA ADRIANO BAYONA, and LEAH ANTONETTE D. ADRIANO, Respondents.
MENDOZA, J.:
FACTS:
1. Atty. Adriano Adriano married Rosario Adriano in 1955. couple had two (2) sons Florante and Ruben Adriano; three (3) daughters, Rosario, Victoria and Maria Teresa; and one (1) adopted daughter, Leah Antonette. However, their marriage failed and they were separated-in-fact. Years later, Atty. Adriano then courted Fe Floro Valino who then became his live-in partner. Despite such arrangement, he still provided support to the respondents.
2. In 1992, Atty. Adriano died of acute emphysemia and since his immediate family was in the United States, Valino took care of the funeral and burial expenses. When Rosario learned about her husband's death, she immediately called Valino to delay the interment but it was not heeded. His remains were buried at the Manila Memorial Park.
3. Rosario and her children were not able to pay respect before he was buried. Thus, respondents filed a suit against Valino seeking for indemnity for actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney's fee. They also pray that his remains be transferred to the family plot at the Holy Cross Memorial Cemetery in Novaliches.
4. RTC dismissed the suit for lack of merit. It opined that since Valino lived with Atty. Adriano for a long time, she knew his wishes really well. It was also noted that the respondents didn't even pay a visit when Atty. Adriano was battling with his sickness and it was Valino who cared for him. The Court also stated that the transfer of Atty. Adriano's remains would not serve any useful purpose and that he should be spared and respected.
5. CA reversed the ruling stating that under the Family Code, only the legitimate relatives of a dead person can exercise that right and that no steps should be taken without the legitimate family's consent. Since the Philippines do not recognize common law marriages, Valino didn't have the legal right to do that.
6. Valino then brought the case to SC for the reversal of CA's ruling.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Atty. Adriano's common-law wife, Valino, had the right to make his funeral arrangements since he had been separated-in-fact for 20 years from Rosario, his legal wife.
(Re: J. Leonen's dissent.)
Whether or not love and commitment be honored over formal status?
RULING:
NO. Despite the circumstances, Valino, as a common law wife of the deceased, didn't have the right to carry out his funeral rites. It was clearly stated in Art. 305 in relation to Art. 199 of the Family Code that the spouse is the first on the list of legitimate persons to make arrangements for the funeral of a relative. Art. 308 of the same code further states that no exhumation of a deceased shall take place without the consent of relatives listed under Art. 199. On the other hand, claims for damages were dismissed since it was clear that Valino didn't mean any harm. Therefore, Valino didn't have the right to carry out Atty. Adriano's burial. Petition is denied and CA's ruling is affirmed.
NO. Philippine laws are not to be relaxed and must be adhered to. Even assuming that the deceased expressly stated his burial wishes to his common-law wife, the law should still be followed. Although touchy circumstances revolve around the case, the law should still be followed.
Comments
Post a Comment