CIVIL CODE PRELIMINARY TITLE (ARTICLES 1-18)

ARTICLE 2
Tanada vs. Tuvera
No. L-63915 December 29, 1986
Ponente: Justice Cruz
Facts:
The petitioners sought the disclosure of a number of presidential decrees, which they
claimed had not been published as required by law. The governments contention that the phrase
otherwise provided means that a decree will become effective immediately after their approval.
The trial court affirmed the decision of having the necessity for the publication of the said
decrees. The petitioners now sought for the reconsideration or clarification of the said decision.
The prayer constitutes of ordering the respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all the
unpublished Presidential decrees of general application and unless published they shall not be
binding
.Issue:
Whether or not the clause unless it is otherwise provided refers to the date of effectivity
of laws or to the requirement of publication?
Held:
The clause unless it is otherwise provided refers to the date of effectivity and not to the
requirement of publication itself, which cannot be omitted. Publication is indispensable in every
case, but the legislature in its discretion provides that the usual fifteen day period shall be
shortened or extended. The omission of the said publication would run against the due process
clause and would deny the public knowledge of the laws. The court held that all statutes,
including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for
their effectivity. The publication must be in full since its purpose is to inform the public of the
contents of the law. Petition granted.

People vs. Que Po Lay

No. 6791, March 29, 1954
Montemayor, J.
FACTS:
Que Po Lay is accused of violating Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank requiring those
who are in possession of foreign currency to sell the same to the Central Bank. Que Po Lay
alleges that said circular was not published in the Official Gazette before he committed the act
and therefore, it had no force and effect.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Central Bank Circular No. 20 has no force and effect
HELD:
Yes, the said Circular has no force and effect because it was not published. Article 2 of
the new Civil Code provides that laws shall take effect after fifteen days following
their publication in the Official Gazette, unless otherwise provided. While Central Bank
Circular No. 20 is not of a statute or law but being issued for the implementation of the law
authorizing its issuance, it has the force and effect of law according to settled jurisprudence.
Rules and regulations which prescribe a penalty for its violation should be published before
becoming effective. The public cannot be held liable for violations of laws or regulations unless
they are informed of its contents and penalties for violation.

ARTICLE 3
Garcia v. Recio
G. R. No. 138322 Oct. 2, 2001
Panganiban, J.
FACTS
Rederick Recio, a Filipino, married an Australian citizen named Editha Samson in
1987.Two years later a decree of divorce was released by the Australian government. On June
26, 1992, Recio became an Australian citizen and married a certain Grace Garcia in1994 in
Cabanatuan City with the former declaring that he was single and Filipino. Garcia filed a
declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of bigamy alleging that Recio had a prior
subsisting marriage at the time he married her and only had knowledge of it in1997.Recio
countered wifes claim asserting that he disclosed the previous marriage to her in
1993.Moreover, he contended that his first marriage had been validly dissolved by a divorce
decree obtained in Australia in 1989 making him legally capacitated to marry.
ISSUE
Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in finding that the divorce decree obtained in
Australia by Recio ipso facto terminated his first marriage to Samson thereby capacitating him to
contract a second marriage with Garcia
HELD
The Supreme Court ruled that the divorce decree obtained by Recio does not ipso facto
terminate his first marriage to Samson on the account that presentation solely of the divorce
decree is insufficient. Article 15 and 17 of the Civil Code establish the rule that a
marriage between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad. In mixed
marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 of the Family Code allows the former
to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. 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. The Court highlights that before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our
courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to
the foreign law allowing it.

ARTICLE 6
DM Consunji, Inc. Vs CA
Facts:
On May 9, 1991, private respondent Maria Juego filed in the Pasig Regional Trial Court
a complaint for damages against petitioner for the death of her husband Jose juego. Jose was
employed by petitioner as a construction worker. While working on November 2, 1990, Jose fell
14 floors from the Renaissance Tower in Pasig. He died. Maria availed of the death benefits form
the State Insurance Fund. Petitioner is claiming that she can no longer recover damages under the
Civil Code because her prior availment of the benefits forms the State Insurance Fund. The trial
court and CA decided in favor of Maria.
Issue:
Whether Marias availment of the death benefits provided under the Labor Code amounts
to a waiver of her rights to claim for damages from petition under the Civil Code?
Held:
No because Maria was not only ignorant of the fact but of her rights as well. Marias
election of the death benefits does not bar any action inconsistent with the elected remedy. For a
waiver to become valid there must be an intentional relinquishment of a known right. Where one
lacks knowledge of a rights, there is no basis upon which waiver of its can rest. Waiver requires
knowledge of the right waived with an awareness of its consequences. Thus ignorance of
material fact negates waiver.

Cui vs. Arellano University (2 SCRA 205)

Facts:
Plaintiff Emeterio Cui, studying law, received scholarship grants for scholastic merit at
Arellano University. During his last semester of his fourth year, he left the defendant university
and enrolled at Abad Santos University, wherein he finished his law degree. After graduating, he
applied for the bar examinations. To secure to take the bar examinations, he needed the transcript
of records from the defendant university. Defendant refused to give him a transcript until he paid
back the tuition that the university returned when he was granted scholarship. According to the
contract signed by the plaintiff, scholarships are good only if the student should continue in the
same school. This contract was followed from Memorandum No. 38 made by the Director of
Private Schools.
Issue:
Whether or not the contract between plaintiff and defendant, whereby the former waived
his right to transfer to another school without refunding to the latter the equivalent of his
scholarship in cash valid or not?
Held:
The contract between plaintiff and defendant is not binding since the memorandum made
by the Director of Private Schools is not a law. The provisions are only advisory and not
mandatory in nature. Furthermore, the said officer had not authority to issue such memorandum
and that provisions were not published in the Official Gazette.

ARTICLE 15-16
Minciano vs. Brimo
50 Phil. 867, November 1, 1924
J. Romualdez
Facts:
Joseph G. Brimo, a citizen of Turkey, died and left a partition of the estate. Juan Miciano,
the judicial administrator of the estate left filed a scheme of partition. However, Andre Brimo,
one of the brothers of the deceased, opposed it. Brimos opposition is based on the fact that the
partition in question puts into effect the provisions of Joseph Brimos will which are not in
accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality, for which reason they are void as being in
violation of Article 10 of the Civil Code.
Issue:
Whether or not the national law of the testator is the one to govern his testamentary
disposition?
Held:
Joseph Brimo, a Turkish citizen, though he declared in his will that Philippine laws must
govern the disposition of his estate; however, it must not prejudice the heir or legatee of the
testator. Therefore, the testators national law must govern in accordance with Article 10 of the
Civil Code.