AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
PRELIMINARY TITLE (ART.1-18)
Tanada vs Tuvera, GR No. 63915
Facts:
Invoking the people's right to
informed on matters of public concern
as well as the principle that laws to be
valid and enforceable must be published
in the Official Gazette 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
Respondents contend that publication
in the Official Gazette is not a sine qua
non requirement for the effectivity of
laws where the laws themselves provide
for their own effectivity dates. It is thus
submitted that since the presidential
issuances in question contain special
provisions as to the date they are to take
effect, publication in the Official Gazette
is not indispensable for their effectivity.
ACAC CLOSAS DAMING
Issue:
(1) Whether or not all laws shall be
published in the official gazette.
(2) Whether or not publication in the
official gazette must be in full.
be Ruling:
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 effectivity. Thus, Section 1
of Commonwealth Act 638 provides as
follows:
Section 1. There shall be published in
the Official Gazette [1] all important
legisiative acts and resolutions of a
public nature of the, Congress of the
Philippines; [2] all executive and
administrative orders and
proclamations, except such as have no
general applicability; [3] decisions or
abstracts of decisions of the Supreme
Court and the Court of Appeals as may
be deemed by said courts of sufficient
importance to be so published; [4] such
documents or classes of documents as
may be required so to be published by
law; and [5] such documents or classes
of documents as the President of the
Philippines shall determine from time to
MAANDIG
AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
time to have general applicability and administrative and executive orders
legal effect, or which he may authorize need not be published on the
so to be published. assumption that they have been
The clear object of the above-quoted circularized to all concerned.
provision is to give the general public It is needless to add that the publication
adequate notice of the various laws of presidential issuances "of a public
which are to regulate their actions and nature" or "of general applicability" is a
conduct as citizens. Without such notice requirement of due process. It is a rule
and publication, there would be no basis of law that before a person may be
for the application of the maxim bound by law, he must first be officially
"ignorantia legis non excusat." It would and specifically informed of its contents.
be the height of injustice to punish or The publication must be full or no
otherwise burden a citizen for the publication at all since its purpose is to
transgression of a law of which he had inform the public of the content of the
no notice whatsoever, not even a laws.
constructive one.
The law itself makes a list of what should Garcillano vs House of
be published in the Official Gazette. Representatives Committee on
Such listing, to our mind, leaves Public Information, GR 170338
respondents with no discretion Facts:
whatsoever as to what must be included The tapes, notoriously referred to as the
or excluded from such publication. "Hello Garci" tapes surfaced and it
The publication of all presidential allegedly contained the Presidents
issuances "of a public nature" or "of instructions to COMELEC
general applicability" is mandated by Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano to
law. Obviously, presidential decrees that manipulate in her favor results of the
provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties 2004 presidential elections.
for their violation or otherwise impose a HR Minority Floor Leader Francis G.
burden o. the people, such as tax and Escudero delivered a privilege speech
revenue measures, fall within this and set in motion a congressional
category. Other presidential issuances investigation jointly. During the inquiry,
which apply only to particular persons several versions of the wiretapped
or class of persons such as conversation emerged. Eventually, the

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
respondent House Committees decided bar the Senate from conducting its
to suspend the hearings indefinitely. scheduled legislative inquiry. They
Nevertheless, they decided to prepare argued in the main that the intended
committee reports based on the said legislative inquiry violates R.A. No. 4200
recordings and the testimonies of the and Section 3, Article III of the
resource persons. Constitution.
Alarmed by these developments, As the Court did not issue an injunctive
petitioner Garcillano filed with this writ, the Senate proceeded with its
Court a Petition for Prohibition and public hearings on the "Hello Garci"
Injunction, with Prayer for TRO. He tapes on September 7, 17 and October
prayed that the House Committees be 1, 2007.
restrained from using these tape On this occasion, Maj. Lindsay Rex
recordings of the "illegally obtained" Sagge, a member of the ISAFP and one
wiretapped conversations in their of the resource persons summoned by
committee reports and for any other the Senate to appear and testify at its
purpose. Without reaching its hearings, moved to intervene as
completion, the House discussion and petitioner in G.R. No. 179275.
debates on the "Garci tapes" abruptly Intervenor Sagge alleges violation of his
stopped. right to due process considering that he
After more than two years, Senator is summoned to attend the Senate
Panfilo Lacson made a privilege and hearings without being apprised not
promised to provide the public the truth only of his rights therein through the
and sought an inquiry into the perceived publication of the Senate Rules of
willingness of telecommunications Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of
providers to participate in wiretapping Legislation, but also of the intended
activities. legislation which underpins the
Petitioners Santiago Ranada and investigation.
Oswaldo Agcaoili, retired justices of the The respondents in G.R. No. 179275
Court of Appeals, filed before this Court admit in their pleadings and even on oral
a Petition for Prohibition with Prayer for argument that the Senate Rules of
the Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of
Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Legislation had been published in
Injunction (GR No. 179275) seeking to newspapers of general circulation only

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
in 1995 and in 2006. With respect to the of legislation in accordance with its duly
present Senate of the 14th Congress, published rules of procedure."
however, of which the term of half of its The requisite of publication of the
members commenced on June 30, 2007, rules is intended to satisfy the basic
no effort was undertaken for the requirements of due process.
publication of these rules when they first Publication is indeed imperative, for it
opened their session. will be the height of injustice to punish
Respondents justify their non- or otherwise burden a citizen for the
observance of the constitutionally transgression of a law or rule of which
mandated publication by arguing that he had no notice whatsoever, not even a
the rules have never been amended constructive one.
since 1995 and, despite that, they are What constitutes publication is set forth
published in booklet form available to in Article 2 of the Civil Code, which
anyone for free, and accessible to the provides that "[l]aws shall take effect
public at the Senates internet web page. after 15 days following the completion of
Issue: their publication either in the Official
Whether or not publication of the Rules Gazette, or in a newspaper of general
of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid circulation in the Philippines."
of Legislation through the Senates In a recent jurisprudence, the phrase
website, satisfies the due process "duly published rules of procedure"
requirement of law. requires
Ruling: The Senate of every
The Senate cannot be allowed to Congress to publish its
continue with the conduct of the rules of procedure
questioned legislative inquiry without governing inquiries in aid
duly published rules of procedure, in of legislation
clear derogation of the constitutional Reason: Every Senate is
requirement. distinct from the one
Section 21, Article VI of the 1987 before it or after it. Since
Constitution explicitly provides that Senatorial elections are
"[t]he Senate or the House of held every three (3) years
Representatives, or any of its respective for one-half of the Senates
committees may conduct inquiries in aid membership, the

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
composition of the Senate SEC. 123. Unfinished business at the
also changes by the end of end of the session shall be taken up at
each term. the next session in the same status.
Each Senate may thus All pending matters and proceedings
enact a different set of shall terminate upon the expiration of
rules as it may deem fit. one (1) Congress, but may be taken by
Not having published the succeeding Congress as if present
its Rules of Procedure, for the first time.
the subject hearings in It is incumbent upon the Senate to
aid of legislation publish the rules for its legislative
conducted by the inquiries in each Congress or otherwise
14th Senate, are make the published rules clearly state
therefore, procedurally that the same shall be effective in
infirm. subsequent Congresses or until they are
amended or repealed to sufficiently put
On the nature of the Senate as a public on notice.
"continuing body," this Court sees fit to If it was the intention of the Senate for
issue a clarification. Certainly, there is its present rules on legislative inquiries
no debate that the Senate as an to be effective even in the next Congress,
institution is "continuing," as it is not it could have easily adopted the same
dissolved as an entity with each national language it had used in its main rules
election or change in the composition of regarding effectivity.
its members. Furthermore, the absence of any
However, in the conduct of its day-to- amendment to the rules cannot justify
day business the Senate of each the Senates defiance of the clear and
Congress acts separately and unambiguous language of Section 21,
independently of the Senate of the Article VI of the Constitution. The
Congress before it. The Rules of the organic law instructs, without more,
Senate itself confirms this when it that the Senate or its committees may
states: conduct inquiries in aid of
legislation only in accordance with duly
RULE XLIV published rules of procedure, and does
UNFINISHED BUSINESS not make any distinction whether or not

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
these rules have undergone amendments electronic data message or an electronic
or revision. The constitutional mandate document as the functional equivalent of
to publish the said rules prevails over a written document only for evidentiary
any custom, practice or tradition purposes.
followed by the Senate. Given this discussion, the respondent
The publication of the Rules of Senate Committees, therefore, could
Procedure in the website of the Senate, not, in violation of the Constitution, use
or in pamphlet form available at the its unpublished rules in the legislative
Senate, is not sufficient under inquiry subject of these consolidated
the Taada v. Tuvera ruling which cases. The conduct of inquiries in aid of
requires publication either in the Official legislation by the Senate has to be
Gazette or in a newspaper of general deferred until it shall have caused the
circulation. publication of the rules, because it can
The Rules of Procedure even provide that do so only "in accordance with its duly
the rules published rules of procedure."
"shall take effect seven (7) days
after publication in two (2) newspapers SEC vs GMA Network Inc., GR No.
of general circulation," precluding any 164026
other form of publication. Facts:
Publication in accordance Petitioner GMA a domestic corporation,
with Taada is mandatory to comply filed an application for collective
with the due process requirement approval of various amendments to its
Reason: the Rules of Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws
Procedure put a persons liberty at risk. with the respondent SEC. The
A person who violates the Rules of amendments applied for include:
Procedure could be arrested and the change in the corporate name
detained by the Senate. of petitioner from "Republic
Broadcasting System, Inc." to "GMA
The invocation by the respondents of the Network, Inc."
Electronic Commerce Act of 2000, to the extension of the corporate
support their claim of valid publication term for another fifty (50) years from and
through the internet is all the more after June 16, 2000.
incorrect. R.A. 8792 considers an

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
Upon filing, the petitioner had been Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of
assessed by the SECs Corporate and 1994).
Legal Department a separate filing fee CA agreed with the SECs submission
for the application for extension of that an extension of the corporate term
corporate term equivalent to 1/10 of 1% is a grant of a fresh license for a
of its authorized capital stock plus 20% corporation. As such, it is not an
thereof or an amount of P1,212,200.00. ordinary amendment. However, the CA
The petitioner formally protested the ruled that the Memorandum Circular is
assessment. On the other hand, the SEC invalid and ineffective for not having
approved the other amendments to the been published in accordance with law.
petitioners Articles of Incorporation, SEC argues that it issued the questioned
specifically (1) the changing of name and memorandum circular:
(2) the principal purpose for which it was In the exercise of its delegated
formed. legislative power to fix fees and
The petitioner requested for an official charges
opinion/ruling from the SEC on the The filing fees required by it are
validity and propriety of the assessment allegedly uniformly imposed on
for application for extension of its the transacting public
corporate term. Consequently, the Essential to its supervisory and
respondent SEC, through Associate regulatory functions
Commissioner Fe Eloisa C. Gloria issued The fees are not a form of penalty
its ruling upholding the validity of the or sanction and, therefore,
questioned assessment. On appeal in require no publication.
SEC En Banc it is was dismissed for lack GMA points out in its Memorandum:
of merit. The questioned circular, refers
It then filed an appeal with CA. GMA only to filing fees for articles of
argued that its application for the incorporation.
extension of its corporate term is akin to Thus, GMA argues that the
an amendment and not to a filing of new former circular, being the one
articles of incorporation. It further that specifically treats of
averred that the basis for the applications for the extension of
assessment is not valid. (SEC corporate term, should apply to
its case.

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
Assuming that Memorandum memorandum circular is invalid as it
Circular No. 2is applicable, it did does not appear from the records that it
not take effect and cannot be the has been published in the Official
basis for the imposition of the fees Gazette or in a newspaper of general
stated therein for the reasons that circulation. Executive Order No. 200,
it was neither filed with the which repealed Art. 2 of the Civil Code,
University of the Philippines Law provides that "laws shall take effect after
Center nor published either in the fifteen days following the completion of
Official Gazette or in a newspaper their publication either in the Official
of general circulation as required Gazette or in a newspaper of general
under existing laws. circulation in the Philippines, unless it
Issue: is otherwise provided."
Whether or not the Memorandum Covered by this rule are the following:
Circular (MC) is valid. Statutes of local application
Ruling: Private Laws
As clearly provided for in R.A. 3531, the Presidential decrees and
SEC shall be entitled to collect and executive orders promulgated by
receive the same fees it assesses and the President in the exercise of
collects both for the filing of articles of legislative powers whenever the
incorporation and the filing of an same are validly delegated by the
amended articles of incorporation for legislature, or, at present, directly
purposes of extending the term of conferred by the Constitution.
corporate existence. Administrative rules and
R.A. No. 3531 provides a standard which regulations must also be
should guide the SEC in fixing and published if their purpose is to
imposing its rates and fees. If such enforce or implement existing law
mandate were the only consideration, pursuant also to a valid
the Court would have been inclined to delegation.
rule that the SEC was correct in Not included:
imposing the filing fees as outlined in the Interpretative regulations and
questioned Memorandum Circular. those merely internal in nature,
However, we agree with the Court of that is, regulating only the
Appeals that the questioned

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
personnel of the administrative 1960 but was not paid. The petitioner
agency and not the public. asked for a 3-month extension, or up to
Letters of instructions issued by April 30, 1960. On March 17, 1960, the
administrative superiors parties executed another loan document
concerning the rules or guidelines for the payment of P10, 000.00 extended
to be followed by their up to April 30, 1960 but the obligation
subordinates in the performance was increased by P6,000.00 to answer
of their duties. for the attorneys fees, legal interest, and
The questioned memorandum circular, other cost incident thereto. The
furthermore, has not been filed with the petitioner again failed to pay their
Office of the National Administrative obligation by April 30, 1960. On
Register of the University of the September 23, 1957, the respondent
Philippines Law Center as required in instituted a collection case. The
the Administrative Code of 1987. petitioner admitted the P10, 000.00
This administrative issuance is an principal obligation but claimed that the
implementation of the mandate of R.A. additional P6, 000.00 constituted
No. 3531 and indubitably regulates usurious interest.
and affects the public at large. It The CFI of Bulacan ruled in favor of Liam
cannot, therefore, be considered a mere Law. Defendants (Olympic and Chi)
internal rule or regulation, nor an appealed decision. The appeal was
interpretation of the law, but a rule originally taken to the then Court of
which must be declared ineffective as it Appeals, which endorsed it to this
was neither published nor filed with the instance stating that the issue involved
Office of the National Administrative was one of law.
Register. Issue:
Whether or not the additional P6,000.00
Liam Law vs Olympic Sawmill Co. constituted was usurious interest.
and Elino Lee Chi, L-30771 Ruling:
Facts: No. Usury has been legally non-
On or about September 7, 1957, the existent. Interest can now be charged as
petitioner loaned P10,000.00, without lender and borrower may agree
interest, to the respondent. The loan upon. The Rules of Court in regards to
became ultimately due on January 31, allegations of usury, procedural in

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
nature, should be considered repealed
with retroactive effect.
Also -- Article 1354. Although the cause
is not stated in the contract, it is
presumed that it exists and is lawful,
unless the debtor proves the contrary.
The defendants had not proven that the
P6,000 obligation was illegal. Hence, it is
presumed that the agreement of the
parties relative to the P6,000 exists and
is lawful.
Additional Notes:
Usury Law (Act 2655) SEC. 9. The
person or corporation sued shall file its
answer in writing under oath to any
complaint brought or filed against said
person or corporation before a weakened wall but the former failed to
competent court to recover the money or
other personal or real property, seeds or
agricultural products, charged or
received in violation of the provisions of
this Act. The lack of taking an oath to an
answer to a complaint will mean the
admission of the facts contained in the
latter.
The foregoing provision envisages a
complaint filed against an entity which
has committed usury, for the recovery of
the usurious interest paid. In that case,
if the entity sued shall not file its answer
under oath denying the allegation of
usury, the defendant shall be deemed to
ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG
have admitted the usury. The provision
does not apply to a case, as in the
present, where it is the defendant, not
the plaintiff, who is alleging usury.
De Roy vs. CA, GR No.80781
Facts:
The firewall of a burned-out building
owned by petitioners collapsed and
destroyed the tailoring shop occupied by
the family of private respondents,
resulting in injuries to private
respondents and the death of Marissa
Bernal, a daughter. Private respondents
had been warned by petitioners to vacate
their shop in view of its proximity to the
do so.
The Regional Trial Court, rendered
judgment finding petitioners guilty of
gross negligence and awarding damages
to private respondents. On appeal, the
decision of the trial court was affirmed
in toto by the Court of Appeals.
On 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.
An MR is also denied.
AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
Issue:
WON CA did not commit a grave abuse
of discretion when it denied petitioners'
motion for extension of time to file a
motion for reconsideration.
Ruling:
on June 30, 1986. Hence, it is no longer
within the coverage of the grace period.
Considering the length of time from the
expiration of the grace period to the
promulgation of the decision of the
Court of Appeals on August 25, 1987,
petitioners cannot seek refuge in the
ignorance of their counsel regarding said

No. CA correctly applied the rule laid rule for their failure to file a motion for

down in Habaluyas Enterprises, Inc. v. reconsideration within the reglementary

Japzon, that the fifteen-day period for period.

appealing or for filing a motion for

Petitioners contend that the rule
reconsideration cannot be extended.
enunciated in the Habaluyas case
This Court en banc restated and clarified
should not be made to apply to the case
the rule, to wit:
at bar owing to the non-publication of

Beginning one month after the the Habaluyas decision in the Official

promulgation of this Resolution, the rule Gazette as of the time the subject

shall be strictly enforced that no motion decision of the Court of Appeals was

for extension of time to file a motion for promulgated.

reconsideration may be filed with the

Contrary to petitioners' view, there is no
Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Courts,
law requiring the publication of
the Regional Trial Courts, and the
Supreme Court decisions in the Official
Intermediate Appellate Court. Such a
Gazette before they can be binding and
motion may be filed only in cases
as a condition to their becoming
pending with the Supreme Court as the
effective. It is the bounden duty of
court of last resort, which may in its
counsel as lawyer in active law practice
sound discretion either grant or deny the
to keep abreast of decisions of the
extension requested.
Supreme Court particularly where

In the instant case, however, petitioners' issues have been clarified, consistently

motion for extension of time was filed on reiterated, and published in the advance

September 9, 1987, more than a year reports of Supreme Court decisions (G.

after the expiration of the grace period R. s) and in such publications as the

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
Supreme Court Reports Annotated Respondents filed a motion to dismiss
(SCRA) and law journals. on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
On July 16, 1979 the trial court
This Court likewise finds that the Court dismissed the complaint (judge
of Appeals committed no grave abuse of Boncaros).
discretion in affirming the trial court's Counsel for petitioners received copy of
decision holding petitioner liable under the decision on July 17, 1989. A motion
Article 2190 of the Civil Code, which for reconsideration was filed on August
provides that "the proprietor of a 17, 1979.
building or structure is responsible for Trial court denied the MR because it was
the damage resulting from its total or filed beyond the 30-day reglementary
partial collapse, if it should be due to the period (1 day late). Respondents seek to
lack of necessary repairs. raise the case by Notice of Appeal to the
CA but was unfortunately denied for the
Quiqui vs Boncaros, GR No. L-518141 same reason that the filling of the of the
MR was beyond the allowed
Facts: reglamentary period.
Private respondents (Amolo and Thus the case was raised in the SC.
company) obtained a free patent over a Petitioners anchor on of their arguments
parcel of land in Negros Oriental. On the on the case of Delas Alas v CA which
other hand Petitioners (Quiqui and ruled that:
Company) contest this alleging that the WE find that a one-day delay
land belongs to them because their late does not justify the dismissal of the
father purchased the same and that they appeal under the circumstances
continuously and actually possessed it obtaining in this case. The real purpose
for more than 50 years. behind the limitation of the period of
Petitioners filed a case for "reconveyance appeal is to forestall or avoid an
and/or annulment of Title with unreasonable delay in the
damages" against the private administration of justice and to put an
respondents in the CFI of Negros on the end to controversies
ground that the patent was obtained Issue:
through fraud. Answer was filed, pre Whether MR was filed beyond the
trial commenced but no amicable reglementary period?
settlement until trial was set.

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
Ruling:
YES. The rules of Court provide that the
Appeal may be taken within 30 days
from notice of the judgment or order of
the trial court. In the event that the
party aggrieved by the judgment or order
of the trial court files a Motion to set
aside the judgment or order, i. e a Motion
for Reconsideration, the time during
which such Motion is pending resolution
shall, as a rule, be deducted from the 30-
day period. In relation thereto, the New
Civil Code states that in computing a
period, the first day shall be excluded
and the last day included.
In the case at bar petitioners admit that
they received their copy of the Order of
dismissal of their Complaint on July 17,
1979. Under Section 3, Rule 41, they
had 30 days within which to appeal their
case or to file a Motion
Reconsideration of the judgment or
order of the trial court.
In computing the 30-day period, July
17, 1979 (the first day) is excluded,
pursuant to Article 13 of the New Civil
Code. Counting 30 days thereafter,
beginning on July 18, 1979,
petitioners had up to August 16, 1979 to
file their Motion for Reconsideration.
Their Motion for Reconsideration,
although dated August 16, 1979, was
filed with the trial court on August 17,
ACAC CLOSAS DAMING
1979 or one day beyond the 30-day
reglementary period prescribed by
Section 3 of Rule 41.
The Notice of Appeal, therefore, was
properly denied by the CA. Perfection of
an appeal in the manner and within the
period laid down by law is not only
mandatory but also jurisdictional and
failure to perfect an appeal as required
by the rules has the effect of rendering
the judgment final and executory. A
strict observance of the reglementary
period within which to exercise the
statutory right of appeal has been
considered as absolutely indispensable
to the prevention of needless delays.
On the case of De Las Alas the SC
ruled that it shall not be applicable
based on the following reasons:
for a. Unlike the situation faced by the
herein petitioners(Quiqui Case),
there is no showing that the
petitioners in the De Las
Alas case failed to file their
Motion for Reconsideration as
well as their Record on Appeal
the within the reglementary period
b. a doubtful and controversial
question of law confronted the
parties in the De Las
Alas case, i.e., the matter of
computing the reglementary
MAANDIG
AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
period for filing an Appeal. The even offer any reasonable
respondent court found petitioner explanation for their delay
had only two (2) days left to
perfect the appeal after the denial Paula Llorente vs Court of Appeals
of the motion for reconsideration and Alicia Llorente GR No. 124371
while this Court held petitioners
had three (3) days left deducting Facts:
the period within which the In 1927, Lorenzo Llorente, then a
motion for reconsideration has Filipino, was enlisted in the U.S. Navy.
been pending, excluding the first In 1937, he and Paula Llorente got
day in the computation of the married in Camarines Sur. In 1943,
period, but since the last day falls Lorenzo became an American citizen.
on a Sunday the period of appeal In 1943, Lorenzo was granted US
is ipso jure extended to the first citizenship.
working day immediately In 1945, Lorenzo returned to the
following. In the case at bar, Philippines for a vacation. He discovered
however, there is no such that Paula was already living illicitly
doubtful or controversial with Ceferino Llorente (brother of
question of law submitted for Our Lorenzo). Ceferino and Paula even had a
resolution son. Lorenzo wanted to cut ties with
c. For the petitioners to seek Paula. Eventually, Lorenzo and Paula
exception for their failure to agreed in writing Lorenzo shall not
comply strictly with the criminally charge Paula if the latter
requirements for perfecting their agrees to waive all monetary support
Appeal, strong compelling from Lorenzo. Later, Lorenzo returned to
reasons, like the prevention of a the United States.
grave miscarriage of justice, must In 1951, Lorenzo filed a divorce
be shown to exist in order to proceeding against Paula in California.
warrant this Court to suspend the Paula was represented by an American
Rules. No such reasons have counsel. The divorce was granted and in
been shown to exist in this case. 1952, the divorce became final.
In fact, the petitioners did not

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
Lorenzo returned to the Philippines. In
1958, Lorenzo married Alicia Fortuno.
They had three children.
In 1981, Lorenzo executed his last will
and testament where he left all his estate
to Alicia and their children (nothing for
Paula). In 1983, he went to court for the
wills probate and to have Alicia as the
administratrix of his property. In 1985,
before the probate proceeding can be
terminated, Lorenzo died. Later, Paula
filed a petition for letters
administration over Lorenzos estate.
The trial court ruled that Lorenzos
marriage with Alicia is void because the
divorce he obtained abroad is void. The
trial court ratiocinated that Lorenzo is a
Filipino hence divorce is not applicable
to him. The Court of Appeals affirmed
the trial court.
Issues:
Whether or not Lorenzos divorce abroad
should be recognized.
Ruling:
Yes. It is undisputed by Paula Llorente
that Lorenzo became an
citizen in 1943. Hence,
obtained the divorce decree in 1952, he
is already an American citizen. Article 15
of the Civil Code provides:
Laws relating to family rights and
duties, or to the status, condition
and legal capacity of persons are
ACAC CLOSAS DAMING
binding upon citizens of the
Philippines, even though living
abroad.
Since Lorenzo was no longer a Filipino,
Philippine laws relating to family rights,
duties, or status are no longer applicable
to him. Therefore, the divorce decree he
obtained abroad must be respected. The
rule is: aliens may obtain divorces
abroad, provided they are valid
according to their national law.
of However, this case was still remanded to
the lower court so as for the latter to
determine the effects of the divorce as to
the successional rights of Lorenzo and
his heirs.
Anent the issue on Lorenzos last will
and testament, it must be respected. He
is an alien and is not covered by our laws
on succession. However, since the will
was submitted to our courts for probate,
then the case was remanded to the lower
court where the foreign law must be
alleged in order to prove the validity of
the will.
American
when he HUMAN RELATION (Art. 19-36)
De Tavera vs Phil. Tuberculosis
Society GR. No. L-48928
Facts:
Appellant was Executive Secretary of the
Philippine Tuberculosis Society (Society
MAANDIG
AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
for short) until the past Board of
Directors declared her position vacant
on May 29, 1974, and seven of the
directors appointed Alberto Romulo to
the position. More than one year after
her removal, appellant filed a complaint
with the trial court against the said
appointing directors, the Society, the
new Board of Directors, and Alberto
Romulo, questioning the legality of her
summary cutter from her office and
seeking reinstatement thereto;
contending That the action of the past
Board was a nullity since four of the
directors were not qualified to be
elevated to the position because they
were not members of the Society; and
claiming that the removal was in
violation of her rights under the By-Laws
of the Society, the New Civil Code, and
the New Constitution, which thereby
rendered the individuals responsible
therefor, countable for damages. The
trial court rendered a decision holding
that the suit was one for quo warranto
and has thus prescribed; that,
nevertheless, appellant had not been
illegally removed because she was
holding an appointment at the pleasure
of the Board, temporary in nature, and
terminable at any time; and, that the
qualifications of the members of the
Board could not be attacked collaterally.
Appellant appealed to the Court of
Appeals, but the same was certified to
the Supreme Court as only questions of
law were involved.
The Supreme Court held, that even if the
complaint questions appellants removal
from her position and seeks her
reinstatement thereto, the suit is not
necessarily one of quo warranto since
the allegations in the complaint
constituting her cause of action show
that the case is for damages and the
defendants-appellees, except one, are
not actually holding the office in
question; that appellant is not entitled to
damages because she has not been
illegally ousted since pursuant to the
Societys Code of By-Laws, the Executive
Secretary holds office at the pleasure of
the Board of Directors unless the term of
employment has been fixed in the
contract of employment, which in the
case of appellant has not been so fixed;
and that appellants right to her office,
being specifically limited by the Societys
By-Laws, she may not invoke in relation
thereto the general provisions of the New
Civil Code on Human Relations and the
fundamental principles of the New
Constitution on preservation of human
dignity which are merely guides for
human conduct in the absence of

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
specific legal provisions and definite
contractual stipulations.
Appealed decision affirmed.
Plaintiff is a doctor of Medicine by
profession and a recognized specialist in
the treatment of tuberculosis. She is a
member of the Board of Directors of the
defendant Society, in representation of
the PCSO. She was duly appointed as
Executive Secretary of the Society. On
May 29, 1974, the past Board of
Directors removed her summarily from
her position, the lawful cause of which
she was not informed, through the
simple expedient of declaring her
position vacant. Defendant Romulo was
appointed to the position and
defendants Pardo, Nubla, Garcia and
Adil, not being members of defendant
Society were elevated as members of the
Board of Directors. Not being qualified,
petitioner alleged said acts to be null
and void. The court a quo rendered a
decision holding that the present suit
being one for quo warranto it should be
filed within one year from plaintiff's
ouster from office; that nevertheless,
plaintiff was not illegally removed from
her position as Executive Secretary in
The Society since plaintiff was holding
an appointment at the pleasure of the
ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG
appointing power and hence temporary.
Issue:
WON petitioner was illegally removed
and thus entitled to damages.
Ruling:
Decision affirmed. The action is
primarily against the Society and the
past members of the Board who are
responsible for her removal. Where the
respondents, except for Romulo, are not
actually holding the office in question,
the suit could not be one for quo
warranto.
The absence of a fixed term in the letter
addressed to petitioner informing her of
her appointment as Executive Secretary
is very significant. This could have no
other implication than that petitioner
held an appointment at the pleasure of
the appointing power.
Petitioner cannot likewise seek relief
from the general provisions of the New
Civil Code on Human Relations nor from
the fundamental principles of the New
Constitution on preservation of human
dignity. While these provisions present
some basic principles that are to be
observed for the rightful relationship
between human beings and the stability
of social order, these are merely guides
for human conduct in the absence of
specific legal provisions and definite
contractual stipulations. In the case at
AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
bar, the Code of By-Laws of the Society issuance of the rule violated its
contains a specific provision governing constitutional right against deprivation
the term of office of petitioner. The same of property without due process of law
necessarily limits her rights under the and the right to equal protection of the
New Civil Code and the New laws.
Constitution upon acceptance of the For her part, Liwayway contended in her
appointment. motion to dismiss that respondent has
no cause of action against her because
Liwayway Vinzons-Chato vs. Fortune she issued RMC 37-93 in the
Tobacco, Corp. G.R. No. 141309 performance of her official function and
within the scope of her authority. She
Facts: claimed that she acted merely as an
This is a case for damages under Article agent of the Republic and therefore the
32 of the Civil Code filed by Fortune latter is the one responsible for her acts.
against Liwayway as CIR. She also contended that the complaint
On June 10, 1993, the legislature states no cause of action for lack of
enacted RA 7654, which provided that allegation of malice or bad faith.
locally manufactured cigarettes which The order denying the motion to dismiss
are currently classified and taxed at 55% was elevated to the CA, who dismissed
shall be charged an ad valorem tax of the case on the ground that under
55% provided that the maximum tax Article 32, liability may arise even if the
shall not be less than Five Pesos per defendant did not act with malice or bad
pack. Prior to effectivity of RA 7654, faith. Hence this appeal.
Liwayway issued a rule, reclassifying
Champion, Hope, and More (all Issues:
manufactured by Fortune) as locally Whether or not a public officer may be
manufactured cigarettes bearing foreign validly sued in his/her private capacity
brand subject to the 55% ad valorem for acts done in connection with the
tax. Thus, when RA 7654 was passed, discharge of the functions of his/her
these cigarette brands were already office.
covered. Whether or not Article 32, NCC, should
In a case filed against Liwayway with the be applied instead of Sec. 38, Book I.
RTC, Fortune contended that the Administrative Code.

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
Ruling:
a) The general rule is that a public
officer is not liable for damages which a
person may suffer arising from the just
performance of his official duties and
within the scope of his assigned tasks.
An officer who acts within his authority
to administer the affairs of the office
which he/she heads is not liable for
damages that may have been caused to
another, as it would virtually be a charge
against the Republic, which is not
amenable to judgment for monetary
claims without its consent. However, a
public officer is by law not immune from
damages in his/her personal capacity
for acts done in bad faith which, being
outside the scope of his authority, are no
longer protected by the mantle of
immunity for official actions.
Specifically, under Sec. 38, Book I,
Administrative Code, civil liability may
arise where there is bad faith, malice, or
gross negligence on the part of a
superior public officer. And, under Sec.
39 of the same Book, civil liability may
arise where the subordinate public
officers act is characterized by
willfulness or negligence. In Cojuangco,
Jr. V. CA, a public officer who directly or
indirectly violates the constitutional
rights of another, may be validly sued for
ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG
damages under Article 32 of the Civil
Code even if his acts were not so tainted
with malice or bad faith.
Thus, the rule in this jurisdiction is that
a public officer may be validly sued in
his/her private capacity for acts done in
the course of the performance of the
functions of the office, where said public
officer: (1) acted with malice, bad faith,
or negligence; or (2) where the public
officer violated a constitutional right of
the plaintiff.
b) SC ruled that the decisive provision is
Article 32, it being a special law, which
prevails over a general law (the
Administrative Code).
Article 32 was patterned after the tort
in American law. A tort is a wrong, a
tortious act which has been defined as
the commission or omission of an act by
one, without right, whereby another
receives some injury, directly or
indirectly, in person, property or
reputation. There are cases in which it
has been stated that civil liability in tort
is determined by the conduct and not by
the mental state of the tortfeasor, and
there are circumstances under which
the motive of the defendant has been
rendered immaterial.
The reason sometimes given for the rule
is that otherwise, the mental attitude of
the alleged wrongdoer, and not the act
AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
itself, would determine whether the act agreement, prompting private
was wrongful. Presence of good motive, complainant to file a motion for
or rather, the absence of an evil motive, execution. Private complainant received
does not render lawful an act which is all her benefits only in the year 1994.
otherwise an invasion of anothers legal While admitting delay in the payment of
right; that is, liability in tort in not complainants claim, petitioner raised
precluded by the fact that defendant the defense of good faith -- that the
acted without evil intent. withholding of payment was due to 1)
her failure to submit a required
Llorente v. Sandiganbayan, clearance from her former assignment in
GR 122166 a different municipality and 2) the
Facts: Sangguniang Bayans delayed
Llorente was the municipal mayor of enactment of a supplemental budget to
Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte and cover the claims.
was charged with violation of RA 3019, SB ruled that Llorente was guilty. The
in particular for allegedly refusing to Sandiganbayan held that the delay or
sign and approve the payrolls and withholding of complainants salaries
vouchers of Leticia Fuertes (respondent), and emoluments was unreasonable and
duly appointed Assistant Municipal caused her undue injury. Respondent
Treasurer, without valid cause and due court denied the MR for lack of merit,
process of law, causing injury to the hence this petition.
latter. Llorente did not answer to the Issues:
complaint but instead he negotiated for
an amicable settlement of the case. (a) Did Mrs. Fuertes suffer undue

The amicable settlement provides that injury?

the mayor will sign and/or approve all

(b) Did petitioner act in bad faith in
voucher and/or payrolls for unpaid
refusing to immediately sign the
salaries, RATA, cash gifts, 13 month
vouchers?
pay, clothing allowance, salary
Ruling:
differentials and other emoluments
(a) No. To hold a public official liable
which the petitioner is entitled as Asst.
under Sec. 3[e] of RA 3019, the
Mun. Treasurer. However, accused
concurrence of the following elements
failed to comply with the compromise

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
must be established beyond reasonable the long period of time that her
doubt: emoluments were withheld.
(1) that the accused is a public officer or
This inconvenience, however, is not
a private person charged in conspiracy
constitutive of undue
with the former;
injury. In Jacinto, this Court held that
(2) that said public officer commits the
the injury suffered by the complaining
prohibited acts during the performance
witness, whose salary was eventually
of his or her official duties or in relation
released and whose position was
to his or her public positions;
restored in the plantilla, was negligible;
(3) that he or she causes undue injury to
undue injury entails damages that are
any party, whether the government or a
more than necessary or are excessive,
private party; and
improper or illegal. In Alejandro, the
(4) that the public officer has acted with
Court held that the hospital employees
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or
were not caused undue injury, as they
gross inexcusable negligence
were in fact paid their salaries

Undue Injury cannot be presumed even

(b) No. For her own failure to submit
after a wrong or a violation of a right has
the required clearance, complainant is
been established. Thus, it is required
not entirely blameless for the delay in
that the undue injury be specified,
the approval of her claims.
quantified and proven to the point of
moral certainty. Damages must not only Also, given the lack of corresponding

be capable of proof, but must be actually appropriation ordinance and

proven with a reasonable degree of certification of availability of funds for

certainty. such purpose, petitioner had the duty

not to sign the vouchers. As chief
Other than the amount of the withheld
executive of the municipality Llorente
salaries and allowances which were
could not have approved the voucher for
eventually received, the prosecution
the payment of complainants salaries
failed to specify and to prove any other
the Local Government Code of 1991.
loss or damage sustained by the
Also, Appropriation Ordinance No.
complainant. Respondent Court insists
020 adding a supplemental budget for
that complainant suffered by reason of
calendar year 1990 was approved on
April 10, 1989, or almost a year before

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
complainant was transferred back to plaintiff-appellant to a motel or hotel
Sindangan. Hence, she could not have where they had sexual intercourse. Later
been included therein. SB Resolution that evening, said defendant-appellant
No. 202 and Appropriation Ordinance brought plaintiff-appellant to the house
No. 035, which fixed the municipal of his grandmother Juana de Leon in
budget for calendar year 1991, was Pamplona, Las Pias, Metro Manila,
passed only on May 21, 1990, or almost where they lived together as husband
another year after the transfer took and wife for 21 days, or until September
effect. The petitioners failure to approve 29, 1973. On September 10, 1973,
the complainants vouchers was defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr. and
therefore due to some legal obstacles, plaintiff-appellant filed their respective
and not entirely without reason. Thus, applications for a marriage license with
evident bad faith cannot be completely the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of
imputed to him. Bacoor, Cavite. On October 1, 1973,
after leaving plaintiff-appellant,
Bad faith does not simply connote bad defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr. filed an
judgment or negligence; it imputes a affidavit withdrawing his application for
dishonest purpose or some moral a marriage license.
obliquity and conscious doing of a Plaintiff-appellant contends that on the
wrong; a breach of sworn duty through afternoon of September 8, 1973,
some motive or intent or ill will; it defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr.,
partakes of the nature of fraud. It together with an unidentified male
contemplates a state of mind companion, abducted her in the vicinity
affirmatively operating with furtive of the San Juan de Dios Hospital in
design or some motive of self interest or Pasay City and brought her to a motel
ill will for ulterior purposes. Evident bad where she was raped.
faith connotes a manifest deliberate RTC ordered Bunag to pay moral,
intent on the part of the accused to do exemplary, temperate damages and
wrong or cause damage. attorneys fees. CA affirmed decision.
Thus, this petition.
Bunag v. CA G.R. No. 101749 Issue:
Facts: Whether or not the trial court erred in
On the afternoon of September 8, 1973, awarding damages.
defendant-appellant Bunag, Jr. brought

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
Ruling: abused, referred to in No. 3 of
Generally, a breach of promise to this article, may also recover
marry per se is not actionable, except moral damages. The spouse,
where the plaintiff has actually incurred descendants, ascendants, and
expenses for the wedding and the brothers and sisters may bring
necessary incidents thereof. the action mentioned in No. 9 of
However, the award of moral damages is this article, in the order named.
allowed in cases specified in or
analogous to those provided in Article Correlatively, under Article 21 of said
2219 of the Civil Code. Code, in relation to paragraph 10 of said
Art. 2219. Moral damages may Article 2219, any person who willfully
be recovered in the following causes loss or injury to another in a
and analogous cases: manner that is contrary to morals, good
(1) A criminal offense resulting customs or public policy shall
in physical injuries; compensate the latter for moral
(2) Quasi-delicts causing damages. Article 21 was adopted to
physical injuries; remedy the countless gaps in the
(3) Seduction, abduction, rape, statutes which leave so many victims of
or other lascivious acts; moral wrongs helpless even though they
(4) Adultery or concubinage; have actually suffered material and
(5) Illegal or arbitrary detention moral injury, and is intended to
or arrest; vouchsafe adequate legal remedy for
(6) Illegal search; that untold number of moral wrongs
(7) Libel, slander or any other which is impossible for human foresight
form of defamation; to specifically provide for in the statutes.
(8) Malicious prosecution; Under the circumstances obtaining in
(9) Acts mentioned in Article the case at bar, the acts of petitioner in
309; forcibly abducting private respondent
(10) Acts and actions referred to and having carnal knowledge with her
in Articles 21, 26, 27, 28, 29, against her will, and thereafter
30, 32, 34, and 35. promising to marry her in order to
The parents of the female escape criminal liability, only to
seduced, abducted, raped, or thereafter renege on such promise after

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
cohabiting with her for twenty-one days,
irremissibly constitute acts contrary to
morals and good customs. These are
grossly insensate and reprehensible
transgressions which indisputably
warrant and abundantly justify the
award of moral and exemplary damages,
pursuant to Article 21 in relation to
paragraphs 3 and 10, Article 2219, and
Article 2229 and 2234 of Civil Code.
Extra Notes:
Petitioner would, however, belabor the
fact that said damages were awarded by
the trial court on the basis of a finding
that he is guilty of forcible abduction
with rape, despite the prior dismissal of
the complaint therefor filed by private
respondent with the Pasay City Fiscal's
Office.
Generally, the basis of civil liability from
crime is the fundamental postulate of
our law that every person criminally
liable for a felony is also civilly liable. In
other words, criminal liability will give
rise to civil liability ex delicto only if the
same felonious act or omission results in
damage or injury to another and is the
direct and proximate cause
thereof. Hence, extinction of the penal
action does not carry with it the
extinction of civil liability unless the
extinction proceeds from a declaration in
ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG
a final judgment that the fact from which
the civil might arise did not exist.
In the instant case, the dismissal of the
complaint for forcible abduction with
rape was by mere resolution of the fiscal
at the preliminary investigation stage.
There is no declaration in a final
judgment that the fact from which the
civil case might arise did not exist.
Consequently, the dismissal did not in
any way affect the right of herein private
respondent to institute a civil action
arising from the offense because such
preliminary dismissal of the penal action
did not carry with it the extinction of the
civil action.
Gashem Shookat Baksh vs Court of
Appeals G.R. No. 97336
Facts:
In August 1986, while working as a
waitress in Dagupan City, Pangasinan,
Marilou Gonzales, then 21 years old,
met Gashem Shookat Baksh, a 29 year
old exchange student from Iran who was
studying medicine in Dagupan. The two
got really close and intimate. On
Marilous account, she said that
Gashem later offered to marry her at the
end of the semester. Marilou then
introduced Gashem to her parents
where they expressed their intention to
AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
get married. Marilous parents then
started inviting sponsors and relatives to
the wedding. They even started looking
for animals to slaughter for the occasion.
Meanwhile, Marilou started living with
Gashem in his apartment where they
had sexual intercourse. But in no time,
their relationship went sour as Gashem
began maltreating Marilou. Gashem
eventually revoked his promise
marrying Marilou and he told her that he
is already married to someone
Bacolod City. So Marilou went home and
later sued Gashem for damages.
The trial court ruled in favor of Marilou
and awarded her P20k in moral
damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed
the decision of the trial court.
On appeal, Gashem averred that he
never proposed marriage to Marilou and
that he cannot be adjudged to have
violated Filipino customs and traditions
since he, being an Iranian, was not
familiar with Filipino customs
traditions.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent could
claim payment for the damages incurred
by the petitioner.
Ruling:
Yes. Gashem is liable to pay for damages
in favor of Marilou not really because of
his breach of promise to marry her but
ACAC CLOSAS DAMING
based on Article 21 of the Civil Code
which provides:
Any person who wilfully causes loss or
injury to another in a manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy shall compensate the latter
for the damage.
Breach of promise to marry is not an
actionable wrong per se. In this case, it
of is the deceit and fraud employed by
Gashem that constitutes a violation of
in Article 21 of the Civil Code. His promise
of marrying Marilou was a deceitful
scheme to lure her into sexual congress.
As found by the trial court, Marilou was
not a woman of loose morals. She was a
virgin before she met Gashem. She
would not have surrendered herself to
Gashem had Gashem not promised to
marry her. Gashems blatant disregard
of Filipino traditions on marriage and on
the reputation of Filipinas is contrary to
morals, good customs, and public
and policy. As a foreigner who is enjoying the
hospitality of our country and even
taking advantage of the opportunity to
study here he is expected to respect our
traditions. Any act contrary will render
him liable under Article 21 of the Civil
Code.
The Supreme Court also elucidated that
Article 21 was meant to expand the
concepts of torts and quasi delict. It is
MAANDIG
AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
meant to cover situations such as this After due notice, PAL dismissed
case where the breach complained of is petitioners for transgressing the PAL
not strictly covered by existing laws. It Code of Discipline, prompting them to
was meant as a legal remedy for the file a complaint for illegal dismissal and
untold number of moral wrongs which is damages which was resolved by the
impossible for human foresight to Labor Arbiter in their favor, thus
specifically enumerate and punish in the ordering PAL to, inter alia, immediately
statute books such as the absence of a comply with the reinstatement aspect of
law penalizing a the breach of promise to the decision.
marry. Subsequently, the Labor Arbiter issued
The Supreme Court however agreed with a Writ of Execution respecting the
legal luminaries that if the promise to reinstatement decision and issued a
marry was made and there was carnal Notice of Garnishment.
knowledge because of it, then moral Respondent elevated the matter to the
damages may be recovered (presence of appellate court which issued the herein
moral or criminal seduction), Except if challenged Decision and Resolution
there was mutual lust; or if expenses nullifying the NLRC Resolutions on two
were made because of the promise grounds, essentially espousing that:
(expenses for the wedding), then actual (1) a subsequent finding of a valid
damages may be recovered. dismissal removes the basis for
implementing the reinstatement aspect
Garcia vs Philippine Airlines GR No. of a labor arbiters decision; and
164856 (2) the impossibility to comply with the
Facts: reinstatement order due to corporate
The case stemmed from the rehabilitation provides a reasonable
administrative charge filed by Philippine justification for the failure to exercise
Airlines (PAL) against its employees- the options under Article 223 of the
herein petitioners after they were Labor Code (the second ground).
allegedly caught in the act of sniffing HENCE, this Petition.
shabu when a team of company security Ruling:
personnel and law enforcers raided the Amplification of the First Ground:
PAL Technical Centers Toolroom
Section on July 24, 1995.

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
The Court reaffirms the prevailing
principle that even if the order of
reinstatement of the Labor Arbiter is
reversed on appeal, it is obligatory on
the part of the employer to reinstate and
pay the wages of the dismissed employee
during the period of appeal until reversal
by the higher court.
It settles the view that the Labor
Arbiters order of reinstatement is
immediately executory and the employer
has to either re-admit them to work
under the same terms and conditions
prevailing prior to their dismissal, or to
reinstate them in the payroll, and that
failing to exercise the options in the
alternative, employer must pay the
employees salaries.
Amplification of the Second Ground
The Court sustains the appellate courts
finding that the peculiar predicament of
a corporate rehabilitation rendered it
impossible for respondent to exercise its
option under the circumstances.
The test is two-fold: (1) there must be
actual delay or the fact that the order of
reinstatement pending appeal was not
executed prior to its reversal; and (2) the
delay must not be due to the employers
unjustified act or omission. If the delay
is due to the employers unjustified
ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG
refusal, the employer may still be
required to pay the salaries
notwithstanding the reversal of the
Labor Arbiters decision.
There are legal effects arising from a
judicial order placing a corporation
under rehabilitation. Respondent was,
during the period material to the case,
effectively deprived of the alternative
choices under Article 223 of the Labor
Code, not only by virtue of the statutory
injunction but also in view of the interim
relinquishment of management control
to give way to the full exercise of the
powers of the rehabilitation
receiver. Had there been no need to
rehabilitate, respondent may have opted
for actual physical reinstatement
pending appeal to optimize the
utilization of resources. Then again,
though the management may think this
wise, the rehabilitation receiver may
decide otherwise, not to mention the
subsistence of the injunction on claims.
In sum, the obligation to pay the
employees salaries upon the employers
failure to exercise the alternative options
under Article 223 of the Labor Code is
not a hard and fast rule, considering the
inherent constraints of corporate
rehabilitation.
AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
Aberca v. Ver GR L-69866 motion to dismiss, claimed that (1) the
Facts: writ of habeas corpus was suspended,
Sometime in the early 1980s, various thus giving credence to petitioners
Intelligence units of the AFP known as detention; (2) respondents were immune
Task Force Makabansa (TFM) were from liability for acts done in the
ordered by respondents then Maj. Gen. performance of their official duties, and
Fabian Ver to conduct pre-emptive that (3) the complaint did not state a
strikes against known communist- cause of action against respondents.
terrorist (CT) underground houses in On November 8, 1983, the RTC granted
view of increasing reports about CT the motion to dismiss the case. A
plans to sow disturbances in Metro motion to set aside the order dismissing
Manila. In compliance thereof, the TFM the complaint, and a supplemental
raided several places, employing in most motion for reconsideration were filed by
cases defectively issued judicial search petitioners. On May 11, 1984, the trial
warrants. During these raids, certain court, without acting on the motion to
members of the raiding TFM confiscated set aside the Order of Nov. 8, 1983,
a number of purely personal items declared the finality of said Order
belonging to the 20 against petitioners. After their motion
petitioners. Petitioners were arrested for reconsideration was denied by the
without proper arrest warrants issued RTC, petitioners then filed the instant
by the courts. For some period after petition for certiorari, on March 15,
their arrest, they were arrested without 1985, seeking to annul and set aside the
denied visits of relatives and lawyers; respondent courts resolutions and
interrogated in violation of their rights to order.
silence and counsel, through threats, Issues:
torture and other forms of violence in (1) Whether or not the suspension of
order to obtain incriminatory the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
information or confessions and in order bars a civil action for damages for illegal
to punish them. searches conducted by military
Plaintiffs then filed an action for personnel and other violations of rights
damages before the RTC of Quezon City and liberties guaranteed under the
against respondents-officers of the AFP Constitution;
headed by Ver. Respondents, in their

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
(2) Whether or not respondents may
invoke state immunity from suit for acts
done in the performance of official duties
and functions;
(3) Whether or not a superior officer,
under the notion of respondeat superior,
be answerable for damages jointly and
severally with his subordinates, to the
person whose constitutional rights and
liberties have been violated.
Ruling:
(1) The suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus (PWHC) does not
destroy petitioners right and cause of
action for damages for illegal arrest and
detention and other violations of their
constitutional rights. The suspension
does not render valid an otherwise illegal
arrest or detention. What is suspended
is merely the right of the individual to
seek release from detention through the
writ of habeas corpus as a speedy means
of obtaining his liberty.
Moreover, as pointed out by petitioners,
their right and cause of action for
damages are explicitly recognized in PD
1755 which amended Art. 1146 of the
Civil Code by adding the following
text: However, when the action (for injury
to the rights of the plaintiff or for quasi-
delict) arises from or out of any act,
activity or conduct of any public officer
involving the exercise of powers or
ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG
authority arising from martial law
including the arrest, detention and/or
trial of the plaintiff, the same must be
brought within one year.
Even assuming that the suspension of
the PWHC suspends petitioners right of
action for damages for illegal arrest and
detention, it does not and cannot
suspend their rights and causes of
action for injuries suffered because of
respondents confiscation of their private
belongings, the violation of their right to
remain silent and to counsel and their
right to protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures and against
torture and other cruel and inhuman
treatment.
The question became moot and
academic since the suspension of the
PWHC had been lifted with the issuance
of then Pres. Corazon Aquino of
Proclamation No. 2 on March 25, 1986.
(2) It may be that the respondents, as
members of the AFP, were merely
responding to their duties, as they claim,
to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
insurrection, rebellion and subversion
in accordance with Proclamation No.
2054 of Pres. Marcos, despite the lifting
of Martial Law on January 27, 1981, and
in pursuance of such objective, to
launch pre-emptive strikes against
alleged CT underground houses. But
AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
this cannot be construed as a blanket vital as the struggle of arms. The
license or roving commission linchpin in that psychological struggle is
untrammeled by any constitutional faith in the rule of law. Once that faith
restraint, to disregard or transgress is lost or compromised, the struggle may
upon the rights and liberties of the well be abandoned.
individual citizen enshrined and (3) The doctrine of respondeat superior
protected by the Constitution. is not applicable in this case. It has been
Article 32 of the Civil Code, which generally limited in its application to
renders any public officer or employees, principal and agent or to master and
or any private individual, liable in servant relationships. No such
damages for violating the constitutional relationship exists superiors of the
rights and liberties of another, does not military and their
exempt the respondents from subordinates. However, the decisive
responsibility. Only judges are excluded factor in this case is the language of Art.
from liability under the said article, 32, Civil Code; the law speaks of an
provided their acts or omissions do not officer or employee or person directly
constitute a violation of the Revised or indirectly responsible for the
Penal Code or other penal statute. violation of the constitutional rights and
This is not say that military authorities liberties of another. Thus, it is not the
are restrained from pursuing their actor alone who must answer for
assigned task or carrying out their damages under Art. 32; the person
mission with vigor, to protect the indirectly responsible has also to answer
Philippines from its enemies, whether of for the damages or injury caused to the
the left or of the right, or from within or aggrieved party. Art. 32 makes the
without, seeking to destroy or subvert persons who are directly as well as
our democratic institutions and imperil indirectly responsible for the
their very existence. What is meant is transgression joint tortfeasors.
that in carrying out their task and
mission, constitutional and legal Tabuena vs Sandiganbayan GR
safeguards must be observed; otherwise, 103501-03
the very fabric of our faith will start to Facts:
unravel. In the battle of competing Then President Marcos instructed Luis
ideologies, the struggle of mind is just as Tabuena over the phone to pay directly

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
to the presidents office and in cash what Mrs. Gimenez. Mrs. Gimenez did not
the Manila International Airport issue any receipt for the money received.
Authority (MIAA) owes the Philippine Similar circumstances surrounded the
National Construction Corporation second withdrawal/encashment and
(PNCC), pursuant to the 7 January 1985 delivery of another P25 Million, made on
memorandum of then Minister Trade 16 January 1986. The third and last
and Industry Roberto Ongpin. Tabuena withdrawal was made on 31 January
agreed. About a week later, Tabuena 1986 for P5 Million. Peralta was
received from Mrs. Fe Roa-Gimenez, Tabuenas co-signatory to the letter-
then private secretary of Marcos, a request for a managers check for this
Presidential Memorandum dated 8 amount. Peralta accompanied Tabuena
January 1986 reiterating in black and to the PNB Villamor branch as Tabuena
white such verbal instruction. In requested him to do the counting of the
obedience to President Marcos verbal P5 Million.
instruction and memorandum, After the counting, the money was
Tabuena, with the help of Gerardo G. loaded in the trunk of Tabuenas car.
Dabao and Adolfo Peralta, caused the Peralta did not go with Tabuena to
release of P55 Million of MIAA funds by deliver the money to Mrs. Gimenez
means of three (3) withdrawals. office. It was only upon delivery of the P5
On 10 January 1986, the first Million that Mrs. Gimenez issued a
withdrawal was made for P25 Million, receipt for all the amounts she received
following a letter of even date signed by from Tabuena. The receipt was dated
Tabuena and Dabao requesting the PNB January 30,1986. Tabuena and Peralta
extension office at the MIAA the were charged for malversation of funds,
depository branch of MIAA funds, to while Dabao remained at large. One of
issue a managers check for said amount the justices of the Sandiganbayan
payable to Tabuena. The check was actively took part in the questioning of a
encashed, however, at the PNB Villamor defense witness and of the accused
Branch. Dabao and the cashier of the themselves; the volume of the questions
PNB Villamor branch counted the money asked were more the combined
after which, Tabuena took delivery questions of the counsels. On 12
thereof. The P25 Million in cash was October 1990, they were found guilty
delivered on the same day to the office of beyond reasonable doubt. Tabuena and

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
Peralta filed separate petitions for such matter as additional basis for a
review, appealing the Sandiganbayan reversal since the settled doctrine is that
decision dated 12 October 19990 and an appeal throws the whole case open to
the Resolution of 20 December 1991. review, and it becomes the duty of the
Issue: appellate court to correct such errors as
Whether or not petitioners are guilty of may be found in the judgment appealed
the crime of malversation. from whether they are made the subject
Ruling: of assignments of error or not.
Luis Tabuena and Adolfo Peralta are
acquitted of the crime of malversation. Abunado vs People of the Philippines
Tabuena acted in strict compliance with
the MARCOS Memorandum. The order Facts:
emanated from the Office of the In 1967, Narcisa Arceo married
President and bears the signature of the Salvador Abunado. Later, Arceo left for
Japan to work there. She returned in
President himself, the highest official of 1992 but Abunado was nowhere to be
the land. It carries with it the found as he left the family home. Arceo
was able to locate Abunado but when
presumption that it was regularly she did, Abunado was already
issued. And on its face, the cohabiting with somebody else.
Further, Arceo also discovered that in
memorandum is patently lawful for no 1989, Abunado married a certain
law makes the payment of an obligation Zenaida Bias.

illegal. This fact, coupled with the urgent
tenor for its execution constrains one to
act swiftly without question. Records
show that the Sandiganbayan actively
took part in the questioning of a defense
witness and of the accused themselves.
The questions of the court were in the
nature of cross examinations
characteristic of confrontation, probing
and insinuation. Tabuena and Peralta
may not have raised the issue as an
error, there is nevertheless
impediment for the court to consider
In January 1995, Abunado filed an
annulment case against Arceo. In May
1995, Arceo filed a bigamy case against
Abunado. Both cases proceeded
simultaneously and independently in
different courts.
In 1999, the marriage between Arceo
and Abunado was annulled. In 2001,
Abunado was convicted by the trial court
for bigamy.
Abunado now questions the judgment of
conviction against him as he alleged that
the annulment case he filed
against Arceo was a prejudicial
question to the bigamy case filed against
him by Arceo. Hence, the proceedings
no in the bigamy case should have been
suspended during the pendency of the
annulment case.

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG

AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
Issue:
Whether or not Abunado is correct.
Ruling:
No. A prejudicial question has been
defined as one based on a fact distinct
and separate from the crime but so
intimately connected with it that it
determines the guilt or innocence of the
accused, and for it to suspend the
criminal action, it must appear not only
that said case involves facts intimately
related to those upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based but also
that in the resolution of the issue or
issues raised in the civil case, the guilt
or innocence of the accused would
necessarily be determined.
The subsequent judicial declaration of
the nullity of the first marriage was
immaterial because prior to the
declaration of nullity, the crime had
already been consummated.
Under the law, a marriage, even one
which is void or voidable, shall be
deemed valid until declared otherwise in
a judicial proceeding. In this case, even
if Abunado eventually obtained a
declaration that his first marriage was
void ab initio, the point is, both the first
and the second marriage were
subsisting before the first marriage was
annulled. In short, all the elements of
bigamy were present the nullity of the
prior marriage is immaterial.
Van Dorn vs Romillo Jr.
G.R. No. L-68470
FACTS: This is a Petition for certiorari
and Prohibition, wherein petitioner Alice
Reyes Van Dorn seeks to set aside the
Orders issued by respondent Judge,
which denied her Motion to Dismiss, and
ACAC CLOSAS DAMING
her Motion for Reconsideration of the
Dismissal Order, respectively.
Alice is a citizen of the Philippines while
Richard is a citizen of the United States.
They were married in Hongkong in 1972.
After the marriage, they established
their residence in the Philippines. They
begot two children born. The parties
were divorced in Nevada, United States,
in 1982. Alice has re-married also in
Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.
Richard filed suit against petitioner in
the Regional Trial Court, Branch CXV, in
Pasay City, stating that Alices business
is conjugal property of the parties, and
asking for an accounting of that
business, and that Richard be declared
with right to manage the conjugal
property. Alice 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 the Nevada
divorce decree is binding to the
petitioner
RULING: Yes. The divorce in Nevada
released private respondent from the
MAANDIG
AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
marriage from the standards of
American law, under which divorce
dissolves the marriage.
Pursuant to his national law, private
respondent is no longer the husband
of petitioner. He would have no
standing to sue in the case below as
petitioners husband entitled to exercise
control over conjugal assets. As he is
bound by the Decision of his own
countrys Court, which validly exercised
jurisdiction over him, and whose
decision he does not repudiate, he is
estopped by his own representation
before said Court from asserting his
right over the alleged conjugal property.
The latter should not continue to be
one of her heirs with possible rights
to conjugal property. To maintain, as
private respondent does, that, under our
laws, petitioner has to be considered still
married to private respondent and still
subject to a wifes obligations under
Article 109, et. seq. of the Civil Code
cannot be just. Petitioner should not be
obliged to live together with, observe
respect and fidelity, and render support
to private respondent. The latter should
not continue to be one of her heirs with
possible rights to conjugal property. She
should not be discriminated against in
her own country if the ends of justice are
to be served.
Van Dorn vs Romillo Jr.
G.R. No. L-68470
Facts:
This is a Petition for certiorari and
Prohibition, wherein petitioner Alice
Reyes Van Dorn seeks to set aside the
ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG
Orders issued by respondent Judge,
which denied her Motion to Dismiss, and
her Motion for Reconsideration of the
Dismissal Order, respectively.
Alice is a citizen of the Philippines while
Richard is a citizen of the United States.
They were married in Hongkong in 1972.
After the marriage, they established
their residence in the Philippines. They
begot two children born. The parties
were divorced in Nevada, United States,
in 1982. Alice has re-married also in
Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.
Richard filed suit against petitioner in
the Regional Trial Court, Branch CXV, in
Pasay City, stating that Alices business
is conjugal property of the parties, and
asking for an accounting of that
business, and that Richard be declared
with right to manage the conjugal
property. Alice 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 the Nevada divorce
decree is binding to the petitioner
AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
Ruling:
Yes. The divorce in Nevada released
private respondent from the marriage
from the standards of American law,
under which divorce dissolves the
marriage.
Pursuant to his national law, private
respondent is no longer the husband
of petitioner. He would have no
standing to sue in the case below as
petitioners husband entitled to exercise
control over conjugal assets. As he is
bound by the Decision of his own
countrys Court, which validly exercised
jurisdiction over him, and whose
decision he does not repudiate, he is
estopped by his own representation
before said Court from asserting his
right over the alleged conjugal property.
The latter should not continue to be
one of her heirs with possible rights
to conjugal property. To maintain, as
private respondent does, that, under our
laws, petitioner has to be considered still
married to private respondent and still
subject to a wifes obligations under
Article 109, et. seq. of the Civil Code
cannot be just. Petitioner should not be
obliged to live together with, observe
respect and fidelity, and render support
to private respondent. The latter should
not continue to be one of her heirs with
possible rights to conjugal property. She
should not be discriminated against in
ACAC CLOSAS DAMING
her own country if the ends of justice are
to be served.
Quita vs Court of Appeals
Facts:
Fe D. Quita, the petitioner, and Arturo
T. Padlan, both Filipinos, were married
in the Philippines on May 18, 1941. They
got divorce in San Francisco on July 23,
1954.Both of them remarried another
person. Arturo remarried Bladina
Dandan, the respondent herewith. They
were blessed with six children.
On April 16, 1972, when Arturo died, the
trial court was set to declared as to who
will be the intestate heirs. The trial court
invoking Tenchavez vs Escano case held
that the divorce acquired by the
petitioner is not recognized in our
country. Private respondent stressed
that the citizenship of petitioner was
relevant in the light of the ruling in Van
Dorn v. Rommillo Jr that aliens who
obtain divorce abroad are recognized in
the Philippines provided they are valid
according to their national law. The
petitioner herself answered that she was
an American citizen since 1954.
Through the hearing she also stated that
Arturo was a Filipino at the time she
obtained the divorce. Implying the she
was no longer a Filipino citizen.
MAANDIG
AT HIS BEST, MAN IS THE NOBLEST OF ALL ANIMALS; SEPERATED FROM LAW AND
JUSTICE HE IS THE WORST
CIVIL LAW REVIEW CASES
The Trial court disregarded the obtained divorce, and such is valid in
respondents statement. The net their countrys national law.
hereditary estate was ordered in favor Thus, Fe D. Quita is no longer
the Fe D. Quita and Ruperto, the brother recognized as a wife of Arturo. She
of Arturo. Blandina and the Padlan cannot be the primary beneficiary or will
children moved for reconsideration. On be recognized as surviving spouse of
February 15, 1988 partial Arturo
reconsideration was granted declaring
the Padlan children, with the exception Note: Actually, the case was remanded
of Alexis, entitled to one-half of the to the trial court as it was not clear what
estate to the exclusion of Ruperto the citizenship of Quita was when she
Padlan, and the other half to Fe Quita. divorced Arturo. If she is found to not be
Private respondent was not declared an a Filipino citizen then ruling above will
heir for her marriage to Arturo was apply.
declared void since it was celebrated
during the existence of his previous
marriage to petitioner. Blandina and her
children appeal to the Court of Appeals
that the case was decided without a
hearing in violation of the Rules of
Court.
Issue:
(1) Whether or not Blandinas marriage
to Arturo void ab initio.
(2) Whether or not Fe D. Quita be
declared the primary beneficiary as
surviving spouse of Arturo.
Ruling:
No. The marriage of Blandina and Arturo
is not void. The citizenship of Fe D. Quita
at the time of their divorce is relevant to
this case. The divorce is valid here since
she was already an alien at the time she

ACAC CLOSAS DAMING MAANDIG