Personal Notes - New Civil Code Provision and Case Highlights (Art.1 - 41)

Personal Notes - New Civil Code Provision and Case Highlights (Art.1 - 41) Yveza June Romero Gementiza

1

New Civil Code Provision/ Principle/Doctrine Jurisprudence Supreme Court Ruling

Article 1. This Act shall be known as the “ Civil

Code of the Philippines.” Took effect on August 30, 1950

Art. 2: Laws shall take effect 15 days following the completion of their publication

- EO 200 was issued by President Aquino on June 1987 which provided that pursuant to the ruling in Tañada v. Tuvera publication need not be made in the Official Gazette, considering its erratic release and limited readership.

- Newspapers for general circulation could better perform the function of communicating the laws to the people—more available, wider circulation, comes out regularly.

- If a statute does not provide for its effectivity, it will only take effect 15days after the completion of its publication. (No one shall be charged under the statute until the completion of the publication.)

Statutes may provide for another number of days for publication. The statement “unless otherwise provided” refers only to the 15 days (which can be changed to a different number) and not the requirement of publication. —Publication is indispensable. Covered Under this Rule:

- Presidential decrees and executive orders by the president in exercise of his legislative powers.

- Administrative rules and regulations if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation.

- City charter must be published even if it is only applicable to a portion of national territory

* Interpretative regulation and those internal in nature need not be published.

G.R. No. L-63915 April 24, 1986 TanadaVsTuvera THE CASE:

petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders. ISSUE:

Whether or not laws that expressly state their effectivity need not be published pursuant to Art. 2 of the new Civil Code. NO

G.R. No. 80718 January 29, 1988 De Roy V CA FACTS:

On appeal, the decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals in a decision promulgated on August 17, 1987, a copy of which was received by petitioners on August 25, 1987. On September 9, 1987, the last day of the fifteen-day

period to file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration, which was eventually denied by the appellate court in the Resolution of September 30, 1987. Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration on September 24, 1987 but this was denied in the Resolution of

The interpretation given by respondent is in accord with this Court's construction of said article. In a long line of decisions,

4 this Court has ruled that publication in the

Official Gazette is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date-for then the date of publication is material for determining its date of affectivity, which is the fifteenth day following its publication-but not when the law itself provides for the date when it goes into effect. Respondents' argument, however, is logically correct only insofar as it equates the affectivity of laws with the fact of publication. Considered in the light of other statutes applicable to the issue at hand, the conclusion is easily reached that said Article 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its affectivity. - The Court therefore declares that presidential issuances of general application, which have not been published, shall have no force and effect. Court hereby orders respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and unless so published, they shall have no binding force and effect.

There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court decisions in the Official Gazette before they can be binding and as a condition to their becoming effective. It is the bounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court particularly where issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated, and published in the advance reports of Supreme Court decisions (G. R. s) and in such publications as the Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and law journals.


2

October 27, 1987. Basically the petitioner are contending that the ruling of the court in the Habaluyas case regarding 15 day period to file for an appeal cannot be made applicable to the case at bar being that the decision in the Habaluyas case was not published pursuant to Art. 2 of the New Civil Code. ISSUE: Wherein the rule enunciated in the Habaluyas case

should not be made to apply to the case at bar owing to the non-publication of the Habaluyas decision in the Official Gazette as of

the time the subject decision of the Court of Appeals was promulgated. NO

Art. 3: Ignorance of the law excuses no one - It is the presumption that every person

knows the law. - Ignorance cannot be put up as a defense

because it can always be used causing disorder in society

This is the reason why publication is an essential element, so that no one can excuse himself or herself for not knowing.

MANZANO vs. SANCHEZ354 SCRA 1 FATCS:

21 May 1966 : Complainant lawfully married he late David Manzano.

22 March 1993: David Manzano contracted another marriage with one LuzvimindaPayao

Respondent judge solemnized the said marriage

Alledgedly respondent Judge knew or ought to know that the marriage of David Manzano and LuzvimindaPayao was void and bigamous, as the marriage contract clearly stated that both contracting parties were "separated."

Respondent judge defended: claims in his Comment that when he officiated the marriage between Manzano and Payao he did not know that Manzano was legally married. What he knew was that the two had been living together as husband and wife for seven years already without the benefit of marriage, as manifested in their joint affidavit.ahd he known that both were married he would have not solemnized and should have advised Manzano not to marry as he would be charged of bigamy.

Respondent judge plea for dismissal bringing in two separate affidavits

5 of the late Manzano and of Payao, which were

allegedly unearthed by a member of his staff upon his instruction. In those affidavits, both David Manzano and LuzvimindaPayao expressly stated that they were married to HerminiaBorja and Domingo Relos, respectively; and that since their respective marriages had been marked by constant quarrels, they had both left their families and had never cohabited or communicated with their spouses anymore. Respondent Judge alleges that on the basis of those affidavits, he agreed to solemnize the marriage in

The provision of the Article 34 of the Family code stating that --“No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other” – is very

clear. Given that both parties expressed in their affidavit that they were both been married though separated and were already living with each other, the judge clearly acted very ignorant. Although both were separated with their spouses, they are still legally married that will constitute legal impediment. The maxim ignorance of the law excuses no one has special application to judges. And, when the law transgressed is simple and elementary, the failure to know it constitute gross ignorance of the law.


3

question in accordance with Article 34 of the Family Code. ISSUE: Whether respondent judge is ignorant of Article 34 of the Family Code that there can be no marriage between both or either one party that were previously been married considering that there were affidavits executed before him expressly stating that both were already been married. YES

Art. 4: Laws shall not be retroactive unless provided

- Statutes are to be construed as having prospective or future operation only it is not meant to be applicable to the past unless it is expressly provided for or is clearly and necessarily implied from the law.

Cases when the law may be given retroactive effect:

1. The law expressly provides 2. When the law is curative or remedial –

meant to cure defects in order to enforce existing obligations. To enable people to carry into effect what they intended in the obligation but could not due to some statute. Not meant to impair obligation or affect vested rights.

3. When the law is procedural – when it deals with procedure it applies to all actions, which have accrued, or pending and future actions.

Ex. When the legislature provides that all bills should under go 4 readings instead of 3. This affects all bills that have been created and even those already undergoing readings. When the law is penal in character and is favorable to the accused

ATIENZA VS BRILLANTES, JR. 243 SCRA 32

Brillantes’ prior marriage was celebrated in 1965 without the requisite license so when he married de Castro in Los Angeles, California in 1991, he believed in good faith that he was capacitated to marry. Accordingly, Art. 40 does not apply as his prior marriage was governed by the New Civil Code which does not require any court decree of nullity if void ab initio. Issue: Whether article 40 of the family code does not apply to the respondent’s case being his first marriage to Ongkiko took place in 1965 and the Family code took effect on Aug 3, 1988. NO

AND CAPITULO VS LAROYA August 25, 2002 Facts: Petitioner Casupan – Driver of Capitulo’s vehicle Criminal case filed by Laroya reckless imprudence resulting to damage of property -Quasi dilect filed to Laroya Petitioner Captulo- owner of vehicle - Quasi dilect filed to Laroya Respondent Laroya- Drives own car filed case of reckless imprudence resulting to damage of property to casupan MCTC: Civil case of Quasi delict against respondent dismissed (mar. 26, 1999) Grounds: forum shopping

SC held: Article 40 of the Family Code applies to remarriages entered into after the effectivity of the Family Code regardless of the date of the first marriage. Besides Article256 of the same Code is given retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice vested rights. Article 40 is a rule of procedure and Brillantes has not shown any vested right that was impaired by the application of Art. 40. Article 40 is applicable to remarriages entered into after the effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988 regardless of the date of the first marriage. Besides, under Article 256 of the Family Code, said Article is given "retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws." This is particularly true with Article 40, which is a rule of procedure. Respondent has not shown any vested right that was impaired by the application of Article 40 to his case. The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants' rights may not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. The retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected (Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, 26 SCRA 229 [1968]). The reason is that as a general rule no vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural laws (Billones v. Court of Industrial Relations, 14 SCRA 674 [1965]).

: Moreover, paragraph 6, Section 1, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure ("2000 Rules" for brevity) expressly requires the accused to litigate his counterclaim in a separate civil action, to wit:

"SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. - (a) x xx.No counterclaim, cross-claim or third-party complaint may be filed by the accused in the criminal case, but any


4

Motion for reconsideration , denied as well ( may 7, 1999) RTC: Pitition for certiorari – dismissed Motion for reconsideration on the same- dismissed aug 24, 2000 Issue: whether or not the revised rule on criminal procedure can be applied retroactively. YES

Carlos V Sadoval Dec. 16, 2008 Facts: Spouses Felix B. Carlos and FelipaElemia died intestate. They left six parcels of land to their compulsory heirs, Teofilo Carlos and petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos. During the lifetime of Felix Carlos, he agreed to transfer his estate to Teofilo. The agreement was made in order to avoid the payment of inheritance taxes. Teofilo, in turn, undertook to deliver and turn over the share of the other legal heir, petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos. On May 13, 1992, Teofilo died intestate. He was survived by respondents Felicidad and their son, Teofilo Carlos II (Teofilo II). Properties left in the name of Felicidad and Teofilo Carlos II. In August 1995, petitioner commenced an action against respondents before the court a quo with the following causes of action: (a) declaration of nullity of marriage; (b) status of a child; (c) recovery of property; (d) reconveyance; and (e) sum of money and damages. Petitioner asserted that the marriage between his late brother Teofilo and respondent Felicidad was a nullity in view of the absence of the required marriage license. , A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC took effect on March 15. 2003 provides that only husband and wife may bring action to nullify marriages Whether or not A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC can be applied retroactive

considering that it is procedural. NO

G.R. No. 174238 July 7, 2009

Cheng V Sy

cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action."Since the present Rules require the accused in a criminal action to file his counterclaim in a separate civil action, there can be no forum-shopping if the accused files such separate civil action.

Laws cited:The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure must be given retroactive effect considering the well-settled rule that - "x xx statutes regulating the procedure of the court will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent.

A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or wife. Exceptions: (1) Nullity of marriage cases commenced before the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC; and (2) Marriages celebrated during the effectivity of the Civil Code.

Under the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages,

the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may not be filed by any party outside of the marriage. The Rule made it exclusively a right of the spouses by stating:

SEC. 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. -(a) Who may file. - A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife.

It is emphasized, however, that the Rule does not apply to cases already commenced before March 15, 2003 although the marriage involved is within the coverage of the Family Code. This is so, as the new Rule which


5

Facts: Petitioner Anita Cheng filed two (2) estafa cases before the RTC, Branch 7, Manila against respondent spouses William and Tessie Sy for issuing to her Philippine Bank of Commerce (PBC) Check Nos. 171762 and 71860 for P300,000.00 each, in payment of their loan, both of which were dishonored upon presentment for having been drawn against a closed account.

Meanwhile, based on the same facts, petitioner, on January 20, 1999, filed against respondents two (2) cases for violation of Batas PambansaBilang (BP Blg.) 22 before the Metropolitan Trial Court

On March 16, 2004, the RTC, Branch 7, Manila dismissed the estafa cases for failure of the prosecution to prove the elements of the crime.

Later, the MeTC, Branch 25, Manila, dismissed, on demurrer, the BP Blg. 22 cases in its Order

5 dated February 7, 2005 on account

of the failure of petitioner to identify the accused respondents in open court.

On April 26, 2005, petitioner lodged against respondents before the RTC, Branch 18, Manila, a complaint

6 for collection of a sum

of money with damages based on the same loaned amount of P600,000.00.

However, the civil action to collect the amount of P600,000.00 with damages was already impliedly instituted in the BP Blg. 22 which was already dismissed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Section 1 of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure and Supreme Court Circular No. 57-97 on the Rules and Guidelines in the filing and prosecution of criminal cases under BP Blg. 22 are applicable to the present case where the nature of the order dismissing the cases for bouncing checks against the respondents was [based] on the failure of the prosecution to identify both the accused. NO

became effective on March 15, 200320

is prospective in its application. Thus, the Court held in Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli,

21 viz.:As has been emphasized, A.M. No. 02-

11-10-SC covers marriages under the Family Code of the Philippines, and is prospective in its application.

Petitioner is in error when she insists that the 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure should not apply because she filed her BP Blg. 22 complaints in 1999. It is now settled that rules of procedure apply even to cases already pending at the time of their promulgation. The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants’ rights does not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. It is axiomatic that the retroactive application of procedural laws does not violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected, nor is it constitutionally objectionable. The reason for this is that, as a general rule, no vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural laws.

While it’s true that procedural law shall be given retroactive application, when there was a mistake by the prosecutor to apply remedy as for the petitioner to assert her right. Then it should be considered by this court not to prejudice any ones right thus an exception shall be deemed necessary.

Art. 5: Acts committed against mandatory and prohibitory laws shall be void.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_174238_2009.html#fnt5

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_174238_2009.html#fnt6

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt20

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/dec2008/gr_179922_2008.html#fnt21


6

MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF LAWS: If one fails to commit certain acts that are mandatory in the law, it renders the proceeding or acts to which it relates as illegal or void. Ex. The law provides “ The action to revoke the donation under this article must be brought within 5 years from the time the decree of legal separation has become final.” (Article 64, Family Code) PROHIBITORY LAWS: Those that one is not supposed to do. Couched in negative terms. Ex. The law provides that “ No legal separation may be decreed unless the court has taken steps towards reconciliation.” (Article 59, Family Code)

Art. 6: Waiver of Rights - Rights may be waived unless it is

contrary to law, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.

- The right must exist at the time of the waiver.

Requirements of a valid waiver: 1. The waiving party must actually have the right he is renouncing or it must be in existence at the time of the waiver; 2. He must have the full capacity to make the waiver; 3. The waiver must be clear and unequivocal; 4. the waiver must not be contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a 3

rdperson with a right recognized

by law; and 5. When formalities are required for its validity such as an express condonation of a debt the formalities must be complied with. - Rights provided for in statutes can generally be waived unless the object of the statute is to protect or promote public interest Examples of what cannot be waived:

1. Waiver against the right to purchase land.

2. Waive an action against future fraud

Guy V CA 502 SCRA 151 Facts: On June 13, 1997, private respondent-minors Karen Oanes Wei and KamilleOanes Wei, represented by their mother RemediosOanes (Remedios), filed a petition for letters of administration

5 before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City,

Branch 138. Private respondents alleged that they are the duly acknowledged illegitimate children of Sima Wei, who died intestate in Makati City on October 29, 1992, leaving an estate valued at P10,000,000.00 consisting of real and personal properties. His known heirs are his surviving spouse Shirley Guy and children, Emy, Jeanne, Cristina, George and Michael, all surnamed Guy. Private respondents prayed for the appointment of a regular administrator for the orderly settlement of Sima Wei's estate. They likewise prayed that, in the meantime, petitioner Michael C. Guy, son of the decedent, be appointed as Special Administrator of the estate. Attached to private respondents' petition was a Certification Against Forum Shopping

6 signed by their counsel, Atty. Sedfrey

A. Ordoñez. June 7, 1993- Remedios mother of respondents who are minor signed a Release and Waiver of Claim stating that in exchange

for the financial and educational assistance received from petitioner, Remedios and her minor children discharge the estate of Sima Wei from any and all liabilities. Issue: whether the Release and Waiver of Claim precludes private respondents from claiming their successional rights. NO

As regards Remedios' Release and Waiver of Claim, the same does not bar private respondents from claiming successional rights. To be valid and effective, a waiver must be couched in clear and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of a party to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him. A waiver may not be attributed to a person when its terms do not explicitly and clearly evince an intent to abandon a right.

14

Furthermore, it must be emphasized that waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right. Where one lacks knowledge of a right, there is no basis upon which waiver of it can rest. Ignorance of a material fact negates waiver, and waiver cannot be established by a consent given under a mistake or misapprehension of fact.

17

Moreover, even assuming that Remedios truly waived the hereditary rights of private respondents, such waiver will not bar the latter's claim. Article 1044 of the Civil Code, provides:

ART. 1044. Any person having the free disposal of his property may accept or repudiate an inheritance.

Any inheritance left to minors or incapacitated persons may be accepted by their parents or guardians. Parents or guardians may repudiate the inheritance left to their wards only by judicial

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/sep2006/gr_163707_2006.html#fnt5





7

Waive right to receive less than the compensation a worker is to receive under the law.

authorization.

The right to accept an inheritance left to the poor shall belong to the persons designated by the testator to determine the beneficiaries and distribute the property, or in their default, to those mentioned in Article 1030.

Parents and guardians may not therefore repudiate the inheritance of their wards without judicial approval. This is because repudiation amounts to an alienation of property

16 which must pass the court's scrutiny in order to

protect the interest of the ward. Not having been judicially authorized, the Release and Waiver of Claim in the instant case is void and will not bar private respondents from asserting their rights as heirs of the deceased.

Furthermore, it must be emphasized that waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right. Where one lacks knowledge of a right, there is no basis upon which waiver of it can rest. Ignorance of a material fact negates waiver, and waiver cannot be established by a consent given under a mistake or misapprehension of fact.

Art. 7: Repealed Laws - Laws are repealed only by subsequent

ones - Between a law and the Constitution, the

latter prevails - Administrative or executive acts are valid

only when they are not contrary to laws or the Constitution

REPEAL: legislative act of abolishing a previous statute through a new law

- Where a portion of a statute is rendered unconstitutional and part is valid the arts may be separated if they can stand independently of one another.

Art. 8: Judicial decisions form case laws

- Judicial decisions, applying and interpreting laws and the Constitution, assume the same authority as laws.

Art. 9: Responsibility of the courts No judge shall decline to render judgment. Applies only civil cases not to criminal proceedings

SILVERIO vs. REPUBLIC537 SCRA 373 (October 19, 2007) Facts:

Silverio successfully underwent sex reassignment surgery and

It is true that Article 9 of the Civil Code mandates that “no judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the law. “However, it is not a license for courts to engage in judicial



8

because of the principle that “there is no crime when there is no law punishing it (nullumcrimen, nulla sine poenalege). - Judges must not evade performance of their responsibility because of an apparent non-existence or vagueness of a law governing a particular legal dispute.

petitioned the court that his name be changed from Rommel Jacinto to Mely and that his sex shall also be changed from male to female to reflect the result of said surgery. The Republic opposed the same alleging that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate by reason of sex alteration. Issue: May the trial court apply Article 9 of the Civil Code on the ground of equity? NO

legislation. The duty of the courts is to apply or interpret the law, not to make or amend it.

In our system of government, it is for the legislature, should it choose to do so, to determine what guidelines should govern the recognition of the effects of sex reassignment. The need for legislative guidelines becomes particularly important in this case where the claims asserted are statute-based.

It might be theoretically possible for this Court to write a protocol on when a person may be recognized as having successfully changed his sex. However, this Court has no authority to fashion a law on that matter, or on anything else. The Court cannot enact a law where no law exists. It can only apply or interpret the written word of its co-equal branch of government, Congress.

Art. 10: It is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail

- The court must first apply the law, only when there is ambiguity in its application should there be any kind of interpretation.

The interpretation should be in line with the intent of the legislature or the end sought to be attained.

Art. 11: Customs Art. 12: Customs must be proved accdg. to the rules of evidence. CUSTOM: a rule of conduct formed by repetition of acts, uniformly observed as a social rule, which is legally binding and has obligatory force. JURIDICAL CUSTOM: Can be a supplement/addition to a statutory law unlike a social custom, which cannot do so.

Art. 13: Years, days, months Years: 365 days each Months: 30 days – if designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of days that they respectively have Hour: 24 hours Nights: Sunset to sunrise - In computing a period first day exclude last day included

Art. 14: Penal laws - All citizens or foreigners who sojourn are


9

subject to all penal laws and laws meant for public security and safety.

Exception: Foreigners who are immune from suit and thus cannot be charged (diplomatic agents)

Art. 15: Nationality rule Regardless of where a citizen of the Philippines might be he or she will still be governed by Philippine laws when it comes to family rights, duties, or to his or her legal status and legal capacity, Thus a Filipino cannot get a divorce even if he or she goes abroad, since divorce is not recognized in the Philippines

RENVOI DOCTRINE– where the conflict rules of the forum (ex. Philippines)refer to a foreign law (ex.USA), and the latter refers it back to the internal law, the law of the forum (Philippine law) shall apply (Aznar vs. Garcia, 7 SCRA 95).

TRANSMISSION THEORY– if the foreign law refers to a 3

rdcountry, the laws of said

country should govern; this situation is a variety of the renvoidoctrine(ex. If B, a nationality of Canada who is a resident of the Philippines and has properties in Switzerland dies, his estate shall be governed by the laws of Canada based on Article 15 but if the laws of Canada states that it is the law of the place where the property is situated that will be applied then the laws of the 3

rdcountry will

govern in the distribution of his estate.)

VAN DORN VS. ROMILLO, JR .39 SCRA 139 Facts:

The basic background facts are that petitioner 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 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.

Dated June 8, 1983, private respondent filed suit against petitioner, stating that petitioner's business in Ermita, Manila, is conjugal property of the parties, and asking that petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of that business, and that private respondent be declared with right to manage the conjugal property. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner had "no community property" as of June 11, 1982. The Court below denied the Motion to Dismiss in the mentioned case on the ground that the property involved is located in the Philippines so that the Divorce Decree has no bearing in the case. The denial is now the subject of this certiorari proceeding.

Issue: Whether or not valid divorce obtained by an alien in his Country is recognized in the Philippines. YES

PILAPIL VS. IBAY-SOMERA 174 SCRA 653 -Reiterated the Van Dorn decision. -In the present case, the fact that private respondent

obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany, is admitted. Said divorce and its legal effects may be

Owing to the nationality principle embodied in Art. 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces, the same being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines provided they are valid according to their national law (Cf. Art. 26 (2)Family Code).


10

recognized in the Philippines insofar as private respondent is concerned in view of the nationality principle in our civil law in the matter of status of persons.

GARCIA A.K.A. GRACE GARCIA- RECIO VS. RECIO October 2, 2001 FACTS: - Recio a Filipino married Editha Samson an Australian citizn on Mar. 1, 1987. They got divorced in May 18, 1989. -June 26, 1992 – Recio became an Australian citizen -Jan 12, 1994- Recio married Grace Garcia a Filipina. In their marriage license Recio declared that he is single and a Filipio -Mar 3, 1998- Garcia filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy. Garcia stated that she just recently learned of Recio’s previous marriage. Recio however denied, stating that Garcia was full aware of his previous marriage and subsequent divorce with Editha. -July 7 , 1998 – While case for nullity was pending Recio got a divorce decree in Australia dissolving his marriage to the petitioner -RTC rules to dissolve the marriage between Garcia and Recio on the ground of divorce issued in Australia not on the respondent’s alleged lack of legal capacity to marry for not declaring in the marriage license his previous divorce to Editha. - Petitioner argues that the certificate of legal capacity required by Article 21 of the Family Code was not submitted together with the application for a marriage license. According to her, its absence is proof that respondent did not have legal capacity to remarry.

Issue: Whether or not valid divorce obtained by an alien in his Country is recognized in the Philippines. YES

QUITA VS. CA 300 SCRA 406 FACTS: 18 May 1941 = FE D. QUITA and Arturo T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married in the Philippines, no children 22 april 1947 = Arturo married BlandinaPadlan

respondent 23 July 1954 = final judgment of divorced between Fe and Arturo

We clarify. To repeat, the legal capacity to contract marriage is determined by the national law of the party concerned.

-But a divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective national laws. Therefore, before our courts can recognize a foreign divorce decree, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient. Under Rule 132 Sections 24 and 25, a writing or document may be proven as public record of a foreign country by either (1) official publication of the writing or document or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document.

The SC remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether the second marriage of the spouse during the subsistence of the first marriage was contracted before or after her changed of citizenship. Once proved that she was no longer a Filipino citizen atthe time of her 1stdivorce, Van Dorn would become applicable and Fe could very well loseher right to inherit from


11

3 weeks later = Fe married Felix Tupaz which also ended in divorce 3rd marriage of Fe is to a certain Wernimont.

16 April 1972 = Arturo died, no will 31 August 1972Lino Javier Inciong filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City for issuance of letters of administration concerning the estate of Arturo in favor of the Philippine Trust Company

ISSUES: Whether or not the petitioner’s divorced obtain in the USA should be recognized here in the Philippines in order to recognize the rightful heir to the estate of Arturo.

PEREZ vs. CA Jan. 27, 2006 Facts: May 16, 1968 =1

st marriage = respondent Tristan A. Catindig

married Lily Gomez Catindig with 4 children, 2nd

marriage subsequent April 27, 1984= Tristan and Lily executed a Special Power of Attorney addressed to the Judge of the First Civil Court of San Cristobal, Dominican Republic, appointing an attorney-in-fact to institute a divorce action under its laws. April 30, 1984=filed a joint petition for dissolution of conjugal partnership with the Regional Trial Court of Makati June 12, 1984=civil court in the Dominican Republic ratified the divorce by mutual consent of Tristan and Lily June 23, 1984= complete separation of properties between Tristan and Lily. July 14, 1984= Tristan married petitioner Elmar O. Perez in the State of Virginia in the United States with 1 child

= petitioner found out that the divorce obtain in dominican republic is not recognized in the Philippines therefore void August 13, 2001= Tristan filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of his marriage to Lily with the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City September 30, 2002= trial court grantedMotion for Leave to File Interventionclaiming that she has a legal interest in the matter in litigation because she knows certain information which might aid the trial court at a truthful, fair and just adjudication of the annulment case

Arturo. (Re: Aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may berecognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law).

-Legal interest, which entitles a person to intervene, must be in the matter inlitigation and of such direct and immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by direct legal operation and effect of judgment. Such interest must be actual, direct and material, and not simply contingent and expectant.

-The claim of petitioner, that her status as the wife and companion of Tristan for 17years vests her the requisite legal interest, lacks merit. Under the law, she was never the legal wife of Tristan hence her claim of legal interest has no basis. When they got married in 1984, Tristan was still lawfully married to Lily. The divorce decree obtained by Tristan and Lily from the Dominican Republic never dissolved the marriage bond between them. It's basic that laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.Hence, if a Filipino regardless of whether he/she was married here or abroad


12

Issue: Does Elmar have a legal interest in the annulment case between Tristan and Lily?

initiates a petition abroad to obtain an absolute divorce from spouse and eventually becomessuccessful in getting an absolute divorce decree, the Philippines will not recognize suchabsolute divorce. -When Tristan and Lily got married in 1968, their marriage was governed by the provisions of the Civil Code which took effect on August 30, 1950.

SAN LUIS VS SAN LUIS -Felicisimo San Luis was first married to Virginia Sulit in 1942 with whom he had 6 children. Virginia died. He contracted a second marriage in 1968 with Merry Lee Corwin an American citizen with whom he had one child. They secured a divorce which was granted in 1973. Then he lived with Felicidad for 18 years since 1974 until his death. -Felicidad sought dissolution of conjugal partnership assets alleging that she is the widow and prayed that letters of administration be issued to her. -Petitioner Rodolfo San Luis, son of Felicisimo a motion to dismiss on the grounds that respondent has no legal personality as she was allegedly only a mistress and the deceased was still “legally” married to Merry Lee -Felicidad presented the decree of absolute divorce between Felicisimo and Merry Lee -Case was reshuffled to another judge who ruled in favor of the petitioners. CA reversed trial court’s decision. ISSUE: Whether the respondent has the legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters of administration

Case remanded to trial court for further proceedings. The law requires that the Court shall not take judicial notice of foreign laws unless they are proved. The respondents only submitted photocopies of the marriage certificate and annotated text of the Family Law Act of California. The documents as required by the Rules of Court must be an official publication and a copy attested by officer of legal custody of the document. If in case the divorce will not be proven, the respondent can still acquire shares in proportion to her contribution to the property.

AMOR CATALAN vs CA -Petitioner Felicitas Amor-Catalan married Orlando in 1950 in Pangasinan. They migrated in US and became natural citizens thereof. After 38 years of marriage they divorced in 1988. 2 months after, Orlando married Merope in Pangasinan. Petitioner filed a petition for nullity of marriage contending that said marriage is bigamous since Merope had a prior marriage with Eusebio Bristol. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of lack of cause of action as petitioner was not a real party in interest -RTC ruled in favor of petitioner. CA reversed RTC decision. ISSUE: Whether petitioner has the personality to file a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage of the respondents on the

Case remanded to trial court for its proper disposition. SC notes that records lack competent evidence to prove naturalization and divorce. Only if it is proven that they are not yet naturalized American citizens at the time the divorce decree was issued or if the decree restrict remarriage will the RTC would be correct in deciding that petitioner has the personality to file the petition.


13

ground of bigamy

Renvoi Doctrine-literally means “referring back” which arises where our law refers a case to another country for solution but the law of that country refers it back to our country for determination -Art 16, Pat 1: property shall be governed by the law of the place where it is situated -Art 16, Par 2: Intestate and testamentary provisions are governed by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration

AZNAR VS GARCIA -This is a case of an executor finalizing accounts of the testator Edward Christensen, a US citizen who executed his will in Manila, declaring bequeathal of properties to his “only child” Mary Lucy Christensen. Helen Christensen Garcia opposed to the approval of the project of partition, in so far as it deprived her of her legitime as an acknowledged natural child declared by the SC. She alleged that not the internal law of California alone but the entire law thereof must be involved considering that the forum is the Phil and California Civil Code requires that the domicile of the decedent should apply. -Trial court ruled in favor of testator that his will be governed by the law of California. ISSUE: Should the law of the domicile or the internal law of the nation of which the testator is a Citizen of govern in this case

The court of California referred the case back to Philippines. The court of the domicile (Philippines) cannot or should not refer the case back to California otherwise, the case will not be resolved. Philippine court will apply its own law which makes natural citizens legally acknowledged forced heirs of a parent.

-Art 17, Par 1: follows principle of lex loci celebrationis in so far as extrinsic validity (forms and solemnities) is concerned -Lex loci celebrationis-execution, interpretation and validity of contract are determined by law of the country where contract is made Art 17, Par 3: prohibitive laws of the country are not rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated in a foreign country

TENCHAVEZ VS ESCANO -In 1948, VicentaEscano married Pastor Tenchavez without the knowledge of her parents. There was supposed to be a recelebration but it did not push through. In a few months time, the newlyweds were already estranged. Vicenta secured a decree of divorce which became final and absolute in 1950.. She then married an American citizen in 1954 and became an American citizen in 1958. Meanwhile, Tenchavez filed for legal separation in 1955. ISSUE: Whether the Philippines recognizes the divorce decree she secured abroad

No. For the Philippine courts to recognize a foreign decree of absolute divorce between Filipino citizens is a violation of the declared public policy of the state especially in view of Art 17, Par 3. Wherefore, her second marriage is technically an “intercourse with a person not her husband” from the standpoint of Phil law, and entitles Tenchavez to a decree of legal separation under our law.

Art 19: Principle of abuse of rights UE VS JADER -Plaintiff, then a fourth year student of UE College of Law took his removal of the incomplete grade in one his subjects. He attended the graduation rites and thereafter prepared for the bar exam. Having learned of the deficiency, he dropped his review class and was not able to take the bar exams. He sued the school for damages alleging that he suffered moral shock, besmirched reputation for not being able to take the car exams. -RTC and CA ruled in favor of plaintiff. ISSUE: Whether the respondent/plaintiff is entitled to claim damages

While petitioner was guilty of negligence and thus liable to respondent for the latter’s actual damages, SC holds that respondent/plaintiff should not have been awarded damages. The respondent/plaintiff should have verified whether he has complied all necessary requirements to be legible for the bar exams.

FAR EAST BANK VS PACILAN JR -Respondent Pacilan opened a current account with petitioner bank’s Bacolod Branch on March 23, 1980. His current account was closed on the ground that it was improperly handled.

No. Whatever damages the respondent may have suffered as a consequence was due to his repeated improper handling of his account. -In reference to Art 19, the elements of abuse of rights


14

Sometime in 1988, the respondent issued a check with amount of P680, and upon its presentment on the issued date on April 4, 1988, it was dishonored by petitioner bank. The next day, the respondent deposited P800. Upon inquiry on the dishonored check, he discovered that his account was closed. There have been several instances when the account was overdrawn due to the issuance of checks against insufficient funds. ISSUE: Whether the petitioner bank is liable for damages for closing his account

are: (1) existence of a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing another. Evidence shows that there is no bad faith on the part of the bank. It reserves the right to close an account if the depositor frequently draws checks against insufficient funds.

DBP VS SPOUSES DOYON In early 1990s, respondents Jesus and Anacorita Doyon obtained loans amounting to 10 million pesos from petitioner DBP. As security for the loans, respondents mortgaged their real estate properties as well as the motor vehicles of JD Bus Lines. Due to their inability to fully pay their obligations upon maturity, petitioner restructured past due loans but still the former was not able to pay. Petitioner filed an application for extra-judicial foreclosure of respondents’ real and chattel mortgages with the DBP special sheriff in Makati. To this respondent filed a complaint for damages. ISSUE: Whether the foreclosure of the real and chattel mortgages by the petitioner bank entitles respondents to damages

No. In reference to Art 19, for an action for damages under this provision to prosper, complainant must prove that (1) defendant has a legal right or duty; (2) he exercised his right or performed his duty with bad faith; (3) complainant was prejudiced as a result of said act of the defendant. Bad faith on the part of petitioner was not proven.

CEBU COUNTRY CLUB VS ELIZAGAQUE Petitioner Cebu Country Club Inc is a domestic corporation operating as a non-profit and non-stock private membership club. Ricardo Elizagaque was applying for propriety membership. He was soon informed that the Board disapproved his application. He wrote letter of reconsideration but did not receive a reply. Respondent filed with RTC a complaint for damages against petitioners. ISSUE: Whether in disapproving respondent’s application and non-reply , petitioners are liable for damages

Yes. Although a right (to disapprove application) is by itself legal, it may nevertheless become the source of some illegality when it does not conform with what is enshrined in Art 19. It is thus clear that the respondent was left groping in the dark wondering why his application was disapproved. Petitioners, by not replying to Respondent’s letters, have apparently ignored him, he should have been treated with courtesy and civility.

CALATAGAN GOLF CLUB VS CLEMENTE JR In May 2, 1990, Clemente was issued a Certificate of Stock after purchasing a share. Calatagan charges monthly dues on its members. At one point, Clemente has stopped paying the dues. He has been constantly sent a demand letter to his address but it turned out that his postal box was already closed. In 1993, his shares were sold. He only learned about it in 1997. He filed a claim with SEC seeking restoration of his shareholding with damages. ISSUE: Whether Clemente was entitled for damages

Based on Art 19, every person must in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. Calatagan had failed to duly observe both the spirit and letter of its own by-laws. Clemente very well knew that Clemente’s postal box had already been closed yet it persisted in sending the letters there. What for? In fact, one telephone call to Clemente’s phone numbers would have alerted him of his impending loss.


15

Art 21: Damages are recovered even though no positive law has been violated, but there is loss or injury

BUNAG VS CA After plaintiff was raped by defendant, the latter told her they will get married. But after cohabiting with her for days, left her and never returned. ISSUE: Whether or not the trial court erred in awarding damages to plaintiff though the guilt of defendant has not yet been proven

Yes. Acts committed by petitioner are contrary to morals and good customs. Although his guilt has not been proven, the fact that the act complained of caused damage to plaintiff, entitles her to damages.

WASSMER VS VELEZ Two days before the marriage defendant informed plaintiff that their wedding should be postponed since his mother disagrees to it. After that, he never appeared again. ISSUE: Whether plaintiff is entitled to damages

Yes. Although breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong, to formally set a wedding and go through all the preparations and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized is a different thing. This is contrary to good customs for which the defendant must he held answerable for damages including actual damages.

TANJANCO VS CA Defendant promised marriage to complainant but did not fulfill it even as he already got her impregnated. ISSUE: Whether complainant is liable for damages

No. Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. There would have been a cause of action for damage if there was an element of seduction—to constitute seduction, there must be in all cases sufficient promise of inducement and the woman must yield because of it. The SC explained that considering the fact that there was carnal knowledge for a period of time, which means she consents to it, there must be a mutual desire to commit the act, hence, there is no seduction. No case is made under Art 21 of the Civil Code.

BAKSH VS CA Defendant, an Iranian, promised marriage to plaintiff. However, after taking her virginity and cohabiting with her, he started to maltreating her. Soon, he asked her not to live with him anymore and told her that he was already married. ISSUE: Whether plaintiff is entitled for damages

Yes under Article 21. There was moral seduction—sufficient promise of inducement which the plaintiff yielded to. When the petitioner said during the investigation that she was only interested in him because he was a doctor and that she is of ignoble birth, inferior educational background and of dishonorable employment, it was confirmed that the petitioner was not moved by good faith and honest motive.

BUENAVENTURA VS CA A complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage was filed by the husband to the wife on the ground of psychological incapacity. Wife argued that it was in fact his husband who was psychologically incapacitated. RTC declared marriage void ab initio. Wife was awarded damages. Husband filed petition to SC. ISSUE: Whether the wife was entitled to damages for allegedly being deceived by the husband of his condition

No, there was no “willfull and free” act causing loss or injury because the petitioner could not have deceived respondent that he really had such condition at the time of their marriage.

Art 22: No man ought to be enriched at the expense of another -Elements: (1) Defendant has been enriched (2) Petitioner suffered loss

REPUBLIC VS LACAP After accomplishing a construction project, Carwin Construction and Construction Supply did not receive payment from the responsible government agency on the ground that the contractor’s license already expired, in spite DPWH Legal

Yes. The law does not declare as void a contract when a contractor’s license is expired. Contractor must be paid for the work he performed. No man ought to be made rich out of another’s injury.


16

(3) Enrichment has no just or legal ground Department already clarifying that an expired license does not

make the contract void. ISSUE: Whether CA erred in finding that respondent contractor should have exhausted all the administrative remedies first and that it is the COA that has primary jurisdiction for money claims

Art 26: Acts that may produce a cause of action for damages:

(1) Prying into privacy of another’s residence

(2) Meddling with or disturbing another’s private life and family relations

(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends

(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defects and other personal circumstances

CASTRO VS PEOPLE Castro, Assistant headmaster of Reedley International School, told parent, Ching, to be careful when talking to Albert Tan, a parent who once complained against the school for dismissing his son. He also told Ching that he was “dangerous.” Ching relayed it to Tan which led to the filing of the complaint. RTC downgraded the offense ruled by MeTC from grave oral defamation to slight oral defamation. Upon petition of the OSG at the CA assailing the decision of RTC, CA reinstated MeTC decision and reversed RTC decision. To this, Castro filed petition alleging that CA erred in taking cognizance of the case when it was already final and unappealable. ISSUE: Whether CA erred in taking cognizance of the case

Yes. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. SC ruled that most, the petitioner could have been liable for damages under Art 26 (3). “Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief: (3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends”

Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be found to be malicious. If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground. Art. 30. When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of. Art. 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another with the same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law, but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon

the defendant's motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.

PADILLA VS CA Petitioners were acquitted on the ground of reasonable doubt in the crime of grave coercion but were ordered by the court to pay for actual damages. Petitioners contend that by acquitting them of the offense charged, they should no longer be liable for damages. ISSUE: Whether civil indemnity may be charged to petitioners in spite being acquitted from the criminal charge

Yes. Although they may not be found guilty of the crime for which they have been accused of, the fact that the act committed which gave rise to the criminal complaint had caused actual damages, they are civilly liable even without being criminally liable.

PEOPLE VS BAYOTAS Accused Rogelio Bayotas y Cordova convicted of the crime of rape pending appeal of his conviction died of cardiac arrest. ISSUE: Whether the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes civil liability

Death of accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes criminal liability and civil liability based solely thereon. However, a claim for civil liability survives if it is based on other sources of obligation.

CHENG VS SY BP Blg 22 cases against SpousesSy were dismissed. However, the civil action is deemed instituted in the criminal case and the reglementary period for filing an appeal already elapsed. ISSUE: Whether Cheng may still recover the amount of the checks from the respondents

Supposedly, her failure to file an appeal within the reglementary period was tantamount to a waiver altogether of the remedy to recover the civil liability. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, the SC made considerations on the ground that respondents cannot conveniently evade payment of their obligation by mere technicality on the part of the petitioner.


17

If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings.

Art 31, 32, 33, 34 Art. 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter. Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages: In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a preponderance of evidence. The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated. The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute. Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.

CANCIO VS ISIP Three cases of estafa filed by Cancio were dismissed. However, Cancio filed for collection of sum of money. ISSUE: Whether the dismissal of the estafa cases operates as a bar for a civil action for collection of the values of checks to be instituted

No. An independent civil action arising from contracts (contractual obligation to make good the value of the checks) may be filed separately and prosecuted independently even without reservation. A ruling on the culpability of the offender will have no bearing on said independent civil action based on an entirely different cause of action.

SANTOS VS PIZARRO DionisioSibayan was charged with Reckless Imprudence resulting to multiple homicide and multiple physical injuries in connection with a vehicle collision in 1994. Sibayan was convicted in Dec 17, 1998. There was a reservation made to file a separate civil action. More than 4 years after, at a time when civil action for quasi delict already prescribed, petitioners filed for civil liability ex delicto or the civil action that arises from the crime. ISSUE: Whether the prescription of actions based on quasi delict bars petitioners from filing for civil action for ex delict

No. 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure: When a criminal action is instituted, the civil liability arising from the offense is implied except : (1) injured party expressly waives the right to recover damages; (2) reserves the right to have civil damages determined in a separate action; (3) instituting civil action prior to filing of criminal action. At the time of the filing of complaint for damages in this case, the cause of action quasi delict had already prescribed. Nonetheless, petitioners can pursue the remaining avenue opened to them by their reservation.

FRIAS VS SAN DIEGO -Pursuant to the MOA agreed upon by petitioner Frias and respondent San Diego-Sison, petitioner, received from respondent 2 million pesos in cash and a post-dated check worth 1 million pesos as an indication of intention to purchase the house and lot owned by petitioner. The petitioner then gave to respondent the TCT No. However, the respondent decided not to purchase the property and reminded the petitioner that pursuant to their MIA, the latter must return the amount as a loan payable within six months. Petitioner failed to pay the amount. -Respondent filed a complaint for collection of sum of money against petitioner and alleged that the latter tried to deprive her of the security of the loan by making a false report of the loss of her own copy of TCT No. ISSUE: Whether action for collection of sum of money with damages may be filed against petitioner even if she was already acquitted in the case of perjury charged against her by respondent

Yes. Art 31 of NCC provides that when the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter. Petitioner’s act of trying to deprive respondent of the security of her loan by executing an affidavit of loss of title and instituting a petition for issuance of a new owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No., even if she was acquitted in the case for perjury, still entitles respondent to damages.

MHP GARMENTS VS CA Items being sold by private respondents were seized by the Phil

Yes. Even if petitioners contend that it was the Phil Constabulary that conducted the raid, they are indirectly


18

Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.

Constabulary accompanied by the representative of petitioner MHP Garments Inc. because the latter has been given by the Boy Scouts of the Philippines the exclusive franchise to sell and distribute those items. ISSUE: Whether petitioners acted illegally by conducting a seizure without any warrant

involved in transgressing the right of private respondents. Art 32 (9) of NCC provides: Any public officer or employee or any private individual, who directly or indirectly violates any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable for damages: (9) right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures

CASUPANAN VS LAROYA Vehicles driven by petitioner Casupanan and respondent Laroya figured in an accident. Laroya filed a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in damage of property while Casupanan filed for a civil case for quasi-delict. Laroya filed for the dismissal of the civil case on the ground of forum-shopping. ISSUE: Whether an accussed in a pending case may file for a separate civil case for quasi-delict against the complainant in the criminal case

Yes. The 2000 Rules of Court expressly allow the filing of a separate civil action which can proceed independently of the criminal action. Also, Art 31 provides that when the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the felony complained of in a criminal action, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings.

Article 36 Pre-judicial questions which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed, shall be governed by rules of court which the Supreme Court shall promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this Code. Two elements of prejudicial question:

A. a civil action involves similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal action

B. The resolution of such issue in the civil action determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.

Invoking Prejudicial Question:

- Can be invoked either during preliminary investigation or any time before the prosecution has rested its case

- It is the defendant who can invoke or seek the suspension of criminal case

- Prosecution cannot raise the issue of Prejudicial Question because suspension of the criminal action would violate the right to speedy trial of the accused

- Independent civil actions are not

UMALI VS IAC The petitioners issued for checks as payment for the lot they purchased from spouses Edano; the total value of the lot is 1,036500.00 payable for four instalments. The 1

st check was honoured by the bank but the 2

nd and

replacement checks were dishonoured upon presentment for lack of funds. As a consequence the spouses filed an estafa case against petitioner. Weeks after the petitioners filed a civil case for the annulment/ rescission of the contract of sale executed between OROSEA and the Edano spouses. The court appealed to CA; CA resolved the petition and ruled that civil case and the criminal case are completely different from each other; that the issue in the civil case was not a prejudicial question vis-à-vis the issue of the criminal case. ISSUE: Whether the civil case involves a prejudicial question in relation to the criminal case so as to require suspension of proceedings to the criminal case.

No. The court agreed with the ruling of the respondent Court of Appeals that the resolution of the issues in civil case is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the petitioners-accused. Hence no prejudicial question is involved between two cases. The checks issued by the petitioners was dishonoured for lack of funds upon due presentment to the bank. Undeniably, petitioners’ obligation to pay private respondents continued to subsist, therefore petitioners are answerable under the law for the consequence of their said acts.

YAP VS PARAS Paras sold to Yap his share in the intestate estate of the parents for 30O; with a private document as an evidence of sale. 19 years later, Paras sold the same property to Santiago for 5000, evidenced by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale. When Yap learned of the second sale, she filed a complaint for estafa

No. The order of dismissing the criminal action without a motion for suspension in accordance with Rule 111, Sec 6 of the 1985 Rules in Criminal Procedure as amended, and even without the accused indicating his

defense in the civil case for the annulment of the second sale, suggests not only ignorance of the law but also bias


19

prejudicial actions

Instances where prejudicial question was not considered:

- Where 1 case is administrative and the other is civil case

- When the question could be used as a defense in the criminal case

- When the action is an independent civil action (Art 32,33,34,2177)

against Paras and Santiago. On the same date, she filed a complaint for the nullification of the said sale with the RTC of GenSan. Before the arraignment of the accused in estafa, the trial judge moto proprio issued an order dismissing the the criminal case (that there is prejudicial question to a civil action). Petitioner’s contention: where there is a prejudicial question in a civil case, the criminal action may not be done motu propio by the judge trying the criminal case but only upon petition of the defendant in accordance with the rules of court. ISSUE: Whether the decision of the respondent judge to dismiss the criminal case proper.

on the part of the respondent judge.

TUANDA VS SANDIGANBAYAN The private respondents were designated as sectoral representative for industrial labor and agricultural labor sectors in the SB of Jimalalud, Negros Oriental. Petitioner Mayor filed a civil action against Secretary of DILG, with the RTC, to declare null and void the designation of the private respondents as sectoral representatives. A criminal case was filed in Sandiganbayan by the private respondents against the petitioner Mayor, et. al for violation of Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (GRAFT and CORRUPTION), assailing that they refused pay despite the demand the amount of 93,350.00 and 108,900.00 representing respectively per diems, salaries, and other privileges and benefits, and undue injury to the private respondents. Petitioner filed a motion to Sandiganbayan for the suspension of the proceedings in criminal case on the ground of prejudicial question exist in civil case pending before the RTC Dumaguete City. ISSUE: Whether the legality or validity of the private respondent’s designation as sectoral reps which is pending in civil case in RTC is a prejudicial question for the suspension of the proceedings in the criminal case against petitioners.

Yes. There is a valid prejudicial question to warrant the suspension of the arraignment and further proceedings in the criminal case. All elements of prejudicial question are present in the case at bar; the issues in two cases are closely related. The resolution of the civil case will determine if there will still be a reason to proceed with the criminal action.

BOBIS VS BOBIS No. the civil action filed by the respondent may not be


20

Respondent Isagani was married thrice. 1st wife Maria Dulce on

1985; 2nd

wife petitioner Imelda on 1996; and 3rd

wife Julia. Petitioner filed a bigamy case against respondent. Respondent initiated a civil action for judicial declaration of absolute nullity of his 1

st marriage. Then he filed motion to suspend proceeding in

the criminal case invoking prejudicial question.

ISSUE: Whether the civil action for declaration of nullity of 1

st

marriage constitutes a prejudicial question.

used as a prejudicial question to obtain the suspension of the criminal action. The respondent can be prosecuted for bigamy, the fact that he entered into two marriage ceremonies. It was only after he was sued for bigamy that he thought of seeking a judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage. The obvious intent, therefore, is that respondent merely resorted to the civil action as a potential prejudicial question for the purpose of frustrating or delaying his criminal prosecution.

BELTRAN VS PEOPLE Petitioner Meynardo Beltran is married to Charmaine E. Felix. After 24 years of marriage and four children, the petitioner filed a petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. A criminal complaint for concubinage against the petitioner was filed by his wife, alleging that it was the petitioner who abandoned their conjugal home and lived with Milagros Saltang. To prevent the issuance of warrant of his arrest, the petitioner filed a motion to defer proceedings; he argued that the pendency of the civil case for declaration of nullity of marriage posed a prejudicial question to the determination of the criminal case. He also contends that there is a possibility that two conflicting decisions might result from the civil case and from the criminal case. However, his petition was denied. ISSUE: Whether the civil case on nullification of marriage poses a prejudicial question to the determination of the criminal case on concubinage.

No. The pendency of the case for declaration of nullity of marriage is not a prejudicial question to the concubinage case. The accused in a concubinage case need not to present a final judgment declaring his marriage void from the beginning. It must be held that the parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity; it must be submitted to competent courts for proper decision. Therefore, he who cohabits with a woman not his wife before the judicial declaration of nullity of the marriage assumes risk of being prosecuted for concubinage.

PHIL AGILA SATELLITE VS LICHAUCO The petitioner secured two orbital slots (161 E and 153 E) from DOTC. In preparation for their launching, operation and management, PASI obtained loans, increased its capital and conducted negotiation with business partners. The respondent Usec Lichauco informed PASI that only one orbital slot can be made available to them for their launching. Afterwards, Usec Lichauco issued a Notice of Offer for several orbital slots including 153 E, which was then won in bid by another company whose identity had not been disclosed. Upon learning about this, PASI filed a complaint in RTC against Usec Lichauco and unknown awardee, for injunction to enjoin the award

No. Criminal complainant on the account of prejudicial question may only be suspended, not dismissed. The dismissal would sanction the extinguishment of criminal liability.


21

of orbital slot 153 E, declare its nullity, and for damages. PASI also filed a complaint before the Office of the Ombudsman against Lichauco, with gross violation of section 3 (e) of RA 3019. The Evaluation and Preliminary Investigation Bureau (EPIB) of OMB, by evaluation recommended for the dismissal of the case because of the existence of a prejudicial question considering the civil case filed in the RTC. OMB dismissed the complaint. PASI’s motion for reconsideration on the dismissal of complaint was also denied. ISSUE: Whether the dismissal of the complaint due to prejudicial question is in order.

OMICTIN VS CA Feb 26, 1999 Petitioner Vincent Omictin filed 2 counts of estafa against private respondent Geaorge Lagos for his refusal to return the two company vehicles entrusted to him. Private respondent filed a motion to suspend proceeding on the basis of a prejudicial question because of pending petition with the SEC involving the same parties. The said SEC case was filed by the private respondent on Jan 7, 1999 for the dissolution of SAAG Phils and declaration of nullity of the respective appointments of Omictin and Alex Y. Tan in SAAG Phils., Inc. ISSUE: Whether the SEC case (intracorporate controversy) posed a prejudicial question to the estafa case.

Yes. The resolution of the intra-corporate controversy is determinative of the guilt or innocence of the private respondent. The determination/ resolution of the issues raised by the private respondent particularly on the status of SAAG Phil, as well as the authority of the petitioner to make a demand in behalf of the company will have bearing on the criminal case.

MAGESTRADO VS PEOPLE Private respondent Elena Librojo filed a criminal case for perjury against the petitioner Magestrado. It was alleged that petitioner executed an affidavit of loss before a notary republic stating the owners duplicate copy of TCT when in truth the said title was surrendered by Magestrado to Librojo as security for a loan. Subsequently, Magestrado filed a motion for suspension of proceedings based on a prejudicial question because he alleged that cases for cancellation of mortgage, delivery of title and damages and recovery of a sum of money, must be resolved first before the criminal case may proceed since the issues in the said civil cases are similar or intimately related to the issues raised in

No. The court held that the civil cases and the criminal case can proceed independently of each other. Regardless of the outcome of the 2 civil cases, it will not establish the innocence or guilt of the petitioner in the criminal case for perjury. The purchase by Magestrado of the land or his execution of a real estate mortgage will have no bearing whatsoever on whether petitioner knowingly and fraudulently executed a false affidavit of loss.


22

the criminal action. Issue: Whether there is a prejudicial question that would warrant the suspension of the perjury case.

COCA BOTTLERS VS SSC The petitioner and the private respondent entered into a Retainer Agreement. No employee- employer relationship shall exist between the petitioner Company and the respondent Doctor while the contract is in effect. Dr. Climaco filed complaint before the NLRC to seek recognition as a regular employee of the company and demanded payment of his 13

th month pay, allowances and benefits.

While NLRC cases were pending, Dr. Climaco filed with SSC for compulsory social security coverage. Issue: Whether the NLRC cases posed prejudicial question to the SSC complaint.

No. The court held that no prejudicial question exists because there is no pending criminal case. The consolidated NLRC cases cannot be considered as “previously instituted civil action”. The doctrine of prejudicial question cannot be applied in the pending cases by analogy. The issues in NLRC cases are not determinative of whether or not the SSC should proceed.

YAP VS CABALES Petitioner purchased several real properties from a certain Evelyn Te. In consideration of the said purchases, petitioner issued several BPI postdated checks to Evelyn. Spouses Mirabueno and Dimalanta rediscounted the checks from Evelyn. The first few checks were honored by the bank but the remaining checks were dishonored for the reason that the account was closed. Despite the spouses demand, the petitioner failed to pay the amounts represented by the said checks. Spouses Mirabueno filed a civil action for the collection of sum money, damages and atty’s fee with issuance of writ of preliminary attachment against the petitioner. Subsequently, the Office of the Prosecutor of GenSan filed a criminal action against the petitioner for violating BP 22. Petitioner filed motions to suspend the proceedings in the criminal action on account of the existence of prejudicial question and motion to exclude the private prosecutor from participating in the proceedings. ISSUE: Whether a prejudicial question exists in the criminal case

No. The court found that there is no prejudicial question, thus, resolve to deny the petition. The court held that the issue raised in the civil action is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case against him. And even if the petitioner is declared not liable for payment of the value of checks and damages, the petitioner cannot be adjudge free from criminal liability for violation of BP 22. The mere issuance of the checks with knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to support the checks is in itself an offense.


23

based on BP 22 and civil case for collection of sum money that necessitates the suspension of the proceedings in MCTC.

DREAMWORK VS JANIOLA Petitioner filed a criminal case for violation of BP Blg. 22 against respondent Cleofe Janiola before MTC. Private respondent, joined by her husband, instituted a civil complaint for the rescission of an alleged construction agreement between the parties, as well as for damages. The checks, subject of the criminal case before the MTC, were issued in consideration of the construction agreement. Private respondent filed a motion to suspend proceedings in criminal case, claiming that the civil case posed a prejudicial question as against the criminal case. ISSUE: Whether the resolution of the civil case is determinative of the prosecution of the criminal action.

No. The resolution of the civil case is not determinative of the prosecution of the criminal case because the 2

nd

element required for the existence of a prejudicial question is absent in the case at bar. Thus, no prejudicial question exists and the rules on it are inapplicable to the case at bar.

LANDBANK VS RAMON JACINTO FWCC under a credit line agreement obtained a 400 million loan from the petitioner Bank. As security for the loan, respondent Ramon Jacinto, President of FWCC, issued 9 postdated checks amounting to 465 million, in favor of the petitioner Bank. Before the checks matured, petitioner and respondent executed a Restructuring Agreement, under this the terms of payment have changed or modified. All the checks were dishonored or refused payment for the reason of payment stopped or drawn against insufficient funds. Respondent failed to make good the checks despite demands. Petitioner bank filed against respondent violation of BP 22. Respondent denied the charges and that the complaint was baseless as the said loan obligation has been extinguished by payment and novation by virtue of the Restructuring Agreement. Respondent also invoked the proscription of the RTC of Makati for involuntary insolvency which forbade FWCC from paying any of its debts. ISSUE: Whether the novation of the Credit Line Agreement is determinative for respondent to be prosecuted for violation of the BP 22.

No. The Court held that there was no express stipulation in the Restructuring Agreement that respondent is released from his liability. In letter of agreements between the FWCC and Lank Bank expressly provide that respondent’s JSS (Joint and Several Signature) continue to secure loan obligation and the postdated checks issued continue to guaranty the obligation. The respondent is not exempt from prosecution for violation of BP 22 for the dishonored checks.


24

PIMENTEL VS PIMENTEL On October 2004, the private respondent, Maria Chrysantine Pimentel, filed an action for frustrated parricide against the petitioner Joselito Pimentel, before the trial court of Quezon City. Private respondent also instituted a civil case for declaration of nullity of her marriage with the petitioner on the ground of psychological incapacity. On February 11, 2005, petitioner filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceeding before the RTC Quezon City on the ground of the existence of prejudicial question. Petitioner asserted that since relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in parricide, the outcome of civil case will have a bearing in the criminal case filed against him. The trial court and appellate court ruled that there was no prejudicial question in the civil case that would warrant the suspension of the criminal case. Petitioner assailed the CA decision, thus, he filed a petition for review before the SC. ISSUE: Whether the resolution of the action for annulment of marriage is a prejudicial question to suspend the criminal case for frustrated parricide against petitioner.

No. Annulment of marriage is not a prejudicial question that warrants the suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide because the issue in the annulment of marriage is not similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case of parricide. Further, the relationship between the offender and the victim is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused. Civil action must be instituted first before criminal action.

Article 37 Juridical capacity

Art. 38 Minority, insanity or imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, prodigality and civil interdiction are mere restrictions on capacity to act, and do not exempt the incapacitated person from certain obligations, as when the latter arise from his acts or from property relations, such as easements. (32a) Art. 39. The following circumstances, among others, modify or limit capacity to act: age, insanity, imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, penalty, prodigality, family relations, alienage, absence, insolvency and trusteeship. The consequences of these circumstances are governed in this Code, other codes, the Rules of Court, and in special laws. Capacity to act is


25

not limited on account of religious belief or political opinion. A married woman, twenty-one years of age or over, is qualified for all acts of civil life, except in cases specified by law.

Art. 40 Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the following article. Art. 41. For civil purposes, the fetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother's womb. However, if the fetus had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months, it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb.

Quimiging vs Icao Appellant, Carmen, got pregnant from her close and confidential relationship w/ the defendant Felix Icao (married man). She filed complaint for support at 120.00 per month, damages and attorney’s fees. Defendant Icao moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action since the complainant did not allege the the child had been born. Appellant moved to amend the complaint and alleged that she had given birth to a baby girl but the court ruled that no amendment was allowed, since the original complaint averred no cause. ISSUE: Whether the conceived child has the right to be supported by his alleged father.

Yes. A conceived child is given by law a provisional personality of its own for all purposes favorable to it. The unborn child has a right to support from defendant- appellee.

Continental Steel vs. Montano Hortillano (employee of Continental Steel and a member of Union) filed a claim for paternity leave, bereavement leave, and Death and Accidental Insurance for dependent, pursuant to the CBA. The claim was based on the death of Hortillano’s unborn child. Continental Steel granted Hortilano’s claim for paternity leave but denied his other claims. Seeking for the reversal of denial of Hortillano’s claims the Union resulted to the grievance machinery provided in CBA. ISSUE: Whether the death of the unborn child entitles Hortillano for the claims sought.

Yes. The court held that unborn child can be considered a dependent under the CBA. The CBA did not provide for a qualification for the child dependent; without qualifications, the chill shall be understood in mere general sense, which includes the unborn fetus in mother’s womb. CBA provisions on bereavement and other death benefits should be interpreted liberally to give life to the intentions thereof. The Labor code enunciates that in case of doubt in the interpretation of any law or provision affecting labor, such should be interpreted in favor of labor. In the same way, the CBA and CBA provisions should be interpreted in favor of labor.

Date post:	13-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	yvezajuneromerogementiza
View:	7 times
Download:	0 times

Personal Notes - New Civil Code Provision and Case Highlights (Art.1 - 41)

Documents