View full case

FE FLORO VALINO v. ROSARIO D. ADRIANO

FACTS:

Atty. Adriano Adriano, a partner in a law office, married Rosario Adriano in 1955. They had children together but eventually separated. Atty. Adriano later entered into a relationship with Valino and they lived together as husband and wife. Atty. Adriano continued to support Rosario and their children financially. In 1992, Atty. Adriano passed away and Valino took responsibility for his funeral and burial expenses. Rosario, who was in the United States at the time, requested that Valino delay the interment but her request was not granted. Atty. Adriano's remains were interred at the Valino family mausoleum. Respondents, the children of Atty. Adriano and Rosario, filed a suit against Valino seeking damages and the exhumation and transfer of Atty. Adriano's remains to the family plot. Valino argued that she had been in a relationship with Atty. Adriano and fulfilled the role of his wife. The RTC ruled in favor of Valino, but the CA reversed the decision and ordered the exhumation and transfer of the remains to the family plot, recognizing Rosario as the legal wife entitled to the custody of the remains.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the common-law partner of a deceased has the right and duty to make funeral arrangements.

  2. Whether a common-law partner can be considered a "spouse" for the purpose of making funeral arrangements.

  3. Whether the expressed wishes of the deceased should prevail in determining the place of burial.

  4. Whether the right of the legitimate spouse to bury the remains of the deceased can be waived or renounced.

  5. Whether the quasi-property right over the corpse of an individual authorizes the person who had taken care of the deceased during his final moments to take possession of the dead body for purposes of burial.

  6. Whether the person who had taken care of the deceased during his final moments and gave him a proper burial is entitled to actual or moral damages.

  7. Whether the person who had taken care of the deceased during his final moments is entitled to attorney's fees.

RULING:

  1. The law only confers the right and duty to make funeral arrangements to family members, to the exclusion of common-law partners.

  2. Philippine law does not recognize common-law marriages, and the term "spouse" for the purpose of making funeral arrangements refers to a lawfully wedded spouse. A common-law partner cannot be considered a "spouse" in this context.

  3. The expressed wishes of the deceased do not prevail in determining the place of burial. In the absence of an express wish from the deceased, the law supplies the presumption as to the intent. No presumption can be created solely based on a long-time relationship with the deceased. The law favors the legitimate family in case of doubt as to the true intent of the deceased.

  4. The right of the legitimate spouse to bury the remains of the deceased cannot be easily presumed as having been waived or renounced. Clear and satisfactory proof of conduct indicative of a free and voluntary intent of the deceased is required. The law does not readily assume the exercise of the right to deprive the legitimate spouse of her legal right to bury the remains of her deceased husband, except upon clear and satisfactory proof.

  5. Yes, the quasi-property right over the corpse of an individual authorizes the person who had taken care of the deceased during his final moments to take possession of the dead body for purposes of burial.

  6. No, the person who had taken care of the deceased during his final moments and gave him a proper burial is not entitled to actual or moral damages. There was no evidence presented to justify the award of actual damages, and no injury was caused to the plaintiffs nor was any intended by anyone in the case.

  7. No, the person who had taken care of the deceased during his final moments is not entitled to attorney's fees. The award of attorney's fees requires factual, legal, and equitable justification, which was not adequately established in this case.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The right and duty to make funeral arrangements for a deceased person is specified in the Civil Code and the Family Code, which give priority to family members in a specific order.

  • Philippine law does not recognize common-law marriages, and the term "spouse" for specific legal purposes refers to a lawfully wedded spouse.

  • The right and duty to make funeral arrangements will not be considered as waived or renounced unless there is clear and satisfactory proof of conduct indicative of a free and voluntary intent to that end.

  • The right and duty to make funeral arrangements reside in the persons specified in the law. (Article 305 of the Civil Code in relation to Article 199 of the Family Code)

  • The wishes of the deceased with respect to his funeral are not absolute and must not violate legal and regulatory provisions concerning funerals and the disposition of remains. (Dr. Tolentino)

  • The law favors the legitimate family in case of doubt as to the true intent of the deceased.

  • The right of the legitimate spouse to bury the remains of the deceased cannot be easily waived or renounced without clear and satisfactory proof of the deceased's intent.

  • The corpse of an individual is outside the commerce of man. However, 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.

  • The quasi-property right over the corpse of an individual arises out of the duty of those obligated by law to bury their dead and authorizes them to take possession of the dead body for purposes of burial.

  • Actual damages are those awarded in satisfaction of, or in recompense for, loss or injury sustained and must be proven with a reasonable degree of certainty to be recoverable.

  • Moral damages may be recovered if the plaintiff is able to satisfactorily prove the existence of the factual basis for the damages and its causal connection with the acts complained of.

  • Exemplary damages may only be awarded if claimant is able to establish his right to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages.

  • The award of attorney's fees as an item of damages is the exception rather than the rule and requires factual, legal, and equitable justification.