Fe Floro Valino Vs Rosario D Adriano

Valino vs Adriano (2014)
Summary Cases:
● Fe Floro Valino Vs. Rosario D. Adriano
Subject:
Property Right over Corpse, Right and Duty to Make Funeral Arrangements
Facts:
Atty. Adriano married Rosario Adriano in 1955 and the union bore children. However, the marriage
turned sour and they were eventually separated-in-fact. Years later, Atty. Adriano courted Fe Valino, one
of his clients, until they decided to live together as husband and wife. Despite such arrangement, he
continued to provide financial support to Rosario and their children.
In 1992, Atty. Adriano died of acute emphysema. At that time, Rosario was in the United States spending
Christmas with her children. As none of the family members was around, Valino took care of the funeral
and burial expenses for Atty. Adriano. When Rosario learned about the death of her husband, she called
Valino and requested that she delay the interment for a few days but her request was not heeded. The
remains of Atty. Adriano were then interred at the mausoleum of the family of Valino at the Manila
Memorial Park. Rosario and her children were not able to attend the interment.
Rosario and the children commenced suit against Valino for damages and praying that the remains of
Atty. Adriano be exhumed and transferred to the family plot at the Holy Cross Memorial Cemetery in
Novaliches, Quezon City
The sole legal issue in this petition is who between Rosario and Valino is entitled to the remains of Atty.
Adriano.
Held:
Property Right over Corpse
| Page 1 of 4
1. It is generally recognized that the corpse of an individual is outside the commerce of man. However,
the law recognizes that a certain right of possession over the corpse exists, for the purpose of a decent
burial, and for the exclusion of the intrusion by third persons who have no legitimate interest in it. This
quasi-property right, arising out of the duty of those obligated by law to bury their dead, also authorizes
them to take possession of the dead body for purposes of burial to have it remain in its final resting place,
or to even transfer it to a proper place where the memory of the dead may receive the respect of the
living. This is a family right. There can be no doubt that persons having this right may recover the
corpse from third persons.
Duty and Right to Make Funeral Arrangements
2. Article 305 and Article 308 of the Civil Code, in relation to Article 199 of the Family Code (formerly Art
294, CC), specifies the persons who have the right and duty to make funeral arrangements for the
deceased.
Art. 305. The duty and the right to make arrangements for the funeral of a relative shall be in
accordance 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 shall have a better right. [Emphases supplied]
Art. 308. No human remains shall be retained, interred, disposed of or exhumed without the
consent of the persons mentioned in Articles 294 and 305.
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 brothers and sisters
3. Further, Section 1103 of the Revised Administrative Code specifies the persons charged with the
duty of burial.
| Page 2 of 4
Section 1103. 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 devolve
upon the persons herein below specified:
(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;
4. The law simply confines the right and duty to make funeral arrangements to the members of the family
to the exclusion of one’s common law partner.
5. Philippine Law does not recognize common law marriages. The provisions of the Civil Code, unless
expressly providing to the contrary as in Article 144, when referring to a "spouse" contemplate a
lawfully wedded spouse (not common-law spouses).
6. The law gives the right and duty to make funeral arrangements to Rosario, she being the surviving
legal wife of Atty. Adriano. The fact that she was living separately from her husband and was in the
United States when he died has no controlling significance.
7. To say that Rosario had, in effect, waived or renounced, expressly or impliedly, her right and duty to
make arrangements for the funeral of her deceased husband 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 intent to that end.
Intent of the Deceased
8. Valino insists that the expressed wishes of the deceased should prevail pursuant to Article 307 of the
Civil Code. However, other than Valino’s claim that Atty. Adriano wished to be buried 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 buried in the Adriano family plot in Novaliches, it becomes
apparent that the supposed burial wish of Atty. Adriano was 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.
9. Furthermore, Article 307 of the Civil Code provides:
| Page 3 of 4
Art. 307. The funeral shall be in accordance with the expressed wishes of the deceased. In the
absence of such expression, his religious beliefs or affiliation shall determine the funeral rites. In
case of doubt, the form of the funeral shall be decided upon by the person obliged to make
arrangements for the same, after consulting the other members of the family.
10. Article 307 simply seeks to prescribe the “form of the funeral rites” that should govern in the burial
of the deceased. However, the right and duty to make funeral arrangements still reside in the persons
specified in Article 305 in relation to Article 199 of the Family Code.
11. Even if Article 307 were to be interpreted to include the place of burial among those on which the
wishes of the deceased shall be followed, Article 307 provides that the wishes of the deceased must be
expressly provided. As It cannot be inferred lightly, such as from the circumstance that Atty. Adriano
spent his last remaining days with Valino.
12. At any rate, the wishes of the decedent with respect to his funeral are not absolute. According to Dr.
Arturo Tolentino, an authority in civil law, the dispositions or wishes of the deceased in relation to his
funeral, must not be contrary to law. The testimony of Valino that it was the oral wish of Atty. Adriano
Adriano that he be interred at the Floro family’s mausoleum at the Manila Memorial Park, must bend to
the provisions of the law.
| Page 4 of 4

Fe Floro Valino Vs Rosario D Adriano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fe Floro Valino Vs Rosario D Adriano

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fe Floro Valino Vs Rosario D Adriano

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Valino vs Adriano (2014)

● Fe Floro Valino Vs. Rosario D. Adriano

Property Right over Corpse

Duty and Right to Make Funeral Arrangements

(1) The spouse;

(2) The descendants in the nearest degree;

(3) The ascendants in the nearest degree; and

(4) The brothers and sisters

Intent of the Deceased

9. Furthermore, Article 307 of the Civil Code provides:

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.