GARVIDA

VS SALES, JR.
G.R. No. 124893, April 18, 1997
PUNO, J. :
Important Details:

• Petitioner – Lynette G. Garvida (born June 11, 1974)
• Respondents -
o Florencio G. Sales Jr. – rival candidate
o The Honorable Commission on Elections
o Dionisio F. Rios - Election Officer
o Noli Pipo- Provincial Election Supervisor

• SK (Sangguniang Kabataan) Election Date: May 06, 1996
• Place: Brgy San Lorenzo, Municipality of Bangui, Ilocos Norte
• MCTC – Municipal Circuit Trial Court
• Lesson: Article 13 of the Civil Code


Facts:

• Garvida seeks to annul and set aside the order of COMELEC, dated May 02, 1996, in suspending her
proclamation as the duly elected chairman of SK of Brgy San Lorenzo.
• March 16, 1996- Garvida applied for registration as member and voter of the Katipunan ng
Kabataan
• Garvida’s application, who was at the time of registration was 21 yrs old and 10 mos, was denied by
the Board of Election Tellers on the ground that she exceeded the age limit for membership as
indicated in Sec 3(b) of the COMELEC Resolution No. 2824
• April 2, 1996- Garvida filed for “Petition for Inclusion as Registered Kabataang Member and Voter”
with MCTC, Bangui-Pagudpud-Adams-Damalneg, Ilocos Norte. The court’s decision, dated April
18,1996, found that Garvida is qualified.
• The Board of Election Tellers appealed with the RTC, Bangui, Ilocos Norte. The presiding judge of
RTC, inhibited himself because of his close association with Garvida.
• April 23, 1996- Garvida filed her certificate of candidacy as SK Chairman. Election Officer Rios
disapproved her candidacy due to her age, as per adviced by Provincial Election Supervisor Pipo.
• Garvida appealed to COMELEC Regional Director Filemon A. Asperin, who allowed Garvida to run.
• May 02, 1996- Rios informed Garvida of her ineligibility and gave her 24 hrs to explain wy her
certificate should not be disapproved.
• Rival candidate Sales Jr., filed with COMELEC en banc a “Petition of Denial and/or Cancellation of
Certificate of Candidacy” against Garvida for falsely representing her age in her COC. Petition was
sent thru facsimile/ fax transmission, and through registered mail on April 29, 1996 to COMELEC
National Office, Manila.
• May 02, 1996, COMELEC en banc issued an order to suspend the proclamation of Garvida in the
event she won the election.
• Garvida won with 78 voted against Sales Jr. with 76 votes. But as per COMELEC en banc’s order,
Gavida was not proclaimed as winner. Hence petition for certiorari was filed on May 27, 1996
June 02, 1996, the Board of Election Tellers proclaimed Garvida as winner but was “without prejudice to
any further action by the Commission on Elections or any other interested party.”
July 05, 1996- Garvida run for Pambayang Pederasyon ng mga Sangguniang Kabataan for the municipality
of Bangui, Ilocos Norte. She won as Auditor and was proclaimed one of the elected officials of the
Pederasyon.



Issues:
(1) Whether or not Garvida is eligible to be a member of Katipunan ng Kabataan.
(2) Whether or not Garvida is eligible to run as SK Chairman.

Ruling:
(1) Yes. Section 428- a member may be more than 21 years of age on election day or on the day he
registers as member of the Katipunan ng Kabataan.

(2) No. Section 428 provides that the maximum age of an elective SK official is 21 years old "on the day
of his election." The addition of the phrase "on the day of his election" is an additional qualification.
The provision that an elective official of the SK should not be more than 21 years of age on the day of
his election is very clear. The Local Government Code speaks of years, not months nor days. When
the law speaks of years, it is understood that years are of 365 days each.[34] One born on the first day
of the year is consequently deemed to be one year old on the 365th day after his birth -- the last day
of the year. The phrase "not more than 21 years of age" means not over 21 years, not beyond 21
years. It means 21 365-day cycles. It does not mean 21 years and one or some days or a fraction of a
year because that would be more than 21 365-day cycles. "Not more than 21 years old" is not
equivalent to "less than 22 years old," contrary to petitioner's claims. The law does not state that the
candidate be less than 22 years on election day.

Petition is dismissed Garvida is declared ineligible for being over the age qualification for candidacy in the
May 6, 1996 elections of the Sangguniang Kabataan, and is ordered to vacate her position as Chairman of
the Sangguniang Kabataan of Barangay San Lorenzo, Bangui, Ilocos Norte. The Sangguniang Kabataan
member voted by simple majority by and from among the incumbent Sangguniang Kabataan members of
Barangay San Lorenzo, Bangui, Ilocos Norte shall assume the office of Sangguniang Kabataan Chairman of
Barangay San Lorenzo, Bangui, Ilocos Norte for the unexpired portion of the term.



 GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH VS CA, Et Al
G.R. No. 97336, February 13, 1993
DAVIDE, JR., J.:
Important Details:

• Petitioner – Gashem Shookat Baksh ( Iranian citizen residing at the Lozano Apartments, Guilig,
Dagupan City since September 1, 1987)
• Respondents :
o Court of Appeals
o Marilou T. Gonzales (employee at Mabuhay Luncheonette, Fernandez Avenue, Dagupan City
since July, 1986 and a high school graduate)
• Lesson: Article 21 of the Civil Code

** This is an appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to review and set aside
the Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 24256 which affirmed in toto the
16 October 1989 Decision of Branch 38 (Lingayen) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Pangasinan in Civil Case No. 16503. Presented is the issue of whether or not damages may be
recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines.**

Facts:

• The parties happened to know each other when the Manager of the Mabuhay Luncheonette, Johhny
Rabino introduced the Gashem to the Gonzales on August 3, 1986
• October 27, 1987, Gonzales(21) years old, single, Filipino and a pretty lass of good moral character
and reputation duly respected in her community), filed with the RTC a complaint for damages
against Gashem, a 29 yrs old, 2nd year medicine proper exchange student at the Lyceum
Northwestern Colleges in Dagupan City, for the alleged violation of their agreement to get married.
• Before August 20, 1987, Gashem courted and proposed to her; she accepted his love in the
condition that they would get married. They agreed to be married On October of that year, at the
end of the school semester. Gashem then visited the private respondent's parents in Bañaga,
Bugallon, Pangasinan to secure their approval to the marriage
• Sometime in August 20, 1987, Gashem forced her to live with him in the Lozano Apartments; she
was a virgin before she began living with him; in the early days of October, 1987, Gashem would tie
her hands and feet while he went to school, and he even gave her medicine at 4 o'clock in the
morning that made her sleep the whole day and night until the following day. As a result of this live-
in relationship, she became pregnant, but he gave her some medicine to abort the foetus. Still she
continued to live with him and kept reminding him of his promise to marry her until he told her
that he could not do so because he was already married to a girl in Bacolod City. That was the time
she left him, went home to her parents, and thereafter consulted a lawyer who accompanied her to
the barangay captain in Dagupan City. Gonzales, her lawyer, her godmother, and a barangay tanod
sent by the barangay captain went to talk to Gashem to still convince him to marry plaintiff, but hw
insisted that he could not do so because he was already married to a girl in Bacolod City, although
the truth, as stipulated by the parties at the pre-trial, is that he is still single
• Gonzales then prayed for judgment ordering Gashem to pay her damages in the amount of not less
than P45,000.00, reimbursement for actual expenses amounting to P600.00, attorney's fees and
costs, and granting her such other relief and remedies as may be just and equitable.
• In a counterclaim by Gashem, he admitted only the personal circumstances of the parties as
averred in the complaint and denied the rest of the allegations either for lack of knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof or because the true facts are those
alleged as his Special and Affirmative Defenses. He thus claimed that he never proposed marriage
 to or agreed to be married with the private respondent; he neither sought the consent and approval
of her parents nor forced her to live in his apartment; he did not maltreat her, but only told her to
stop coming to his place because he discovered that she had deceived him by stealing his money
and passport; and finally, no confrontation took place with a representative of the barangay
captain. Insisting, in his Counterclaim, that the complaint is baseless and unfounded and that as a
result thereof, he was unnecessarily dragged into court and compelled to incur expenses, and has
suffered mental anxiety and a besmirched reputation, he prayed for an award of P5,000.00 for
miscellaneous expenses and P25,000.00 as moral damages.
• The lower court, applying Article 21 of the Civil Code, rendered on October 16, 1989 a decision
favoring the Gonzales. Gashem was ordered to pay for moral damages(P20,000.00), attorney's
fees(P3,000.00), and litigation expenses and to pay the costs(P2,000.00)
• The decision is anchored on the trial court's findings and conclusions that (a) petitioner and private
respondent were lovers, (b) private respondent is not a woman of loose morals or questionable
virtue who readily submits to sexual advances, (c) petitioner, through machinations, deceit and
false pretenses, promised to marry private respondent, (d) because of his persuasive promise to
marry her, she allowed herself to be deflowered by him, (e) by reason of that deceitful promise,
private respondent and her parents -- in accordance with Filipino customs and traditions -- made
some preparations for the wedding that was to be held at the end of October 1987 by looking for
pigs and chickens, inviting friends and relatives and contracting sponsors, (f) petitioner did not
fulfill his promise to marry her and (g) such acts of the petitioner, who is a foreigner and who has
abused Philippine hospitality, have offended our sense of morality, good customs, culture and
traditions. The trial court gave full credit to the private respondent's testimony because, inter
alia, she would not have had the temerity and courage to come to court and expose her honor and
reputation to public scrutiny and ridicule if her claim was false.
• Gashem appealed the trial court's decision to the respondent Court of Appeals, he contended that
the trial court erred (a) in not dismissing the case for lack of factual and legal basis and (b) in
ordering him to pay moral damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and costs.
• On 18 February 1991, respondent Court promulgated the challenged decision affirming in toto(in
all) the trial court's ruling of October 16, 1989
• Unfazed by his second defeat, Gashem filed the instant petition on March 26, 1991; he raises
therein the single issue of whether or not Article 21 of the Civil Code applies to the case at bar. It is
petitioner's thesis that Article 21 is not applicable because he had not committed any moral wrong
or injury or violated any good custom or public policy; he has not professed love or proposed
marriage to the private respondent; and he has never maltreated her. He criticizes the trial court
for liberally invoking Filipino customs, traditions and culture, and ignoring the fact that since he is a
foreigner, he is not conversant with such Filipino customs, traditions and culture. As an Iranian
Moslem, he is not familiar with Catholic and Christian ways. He stresses that even if he had made a
promise to marry, the subsequent failure to fulfill the same is excusable or tolerable because of his
Moslem upbringing; he then alludes to the Muslim Code which purportedly allows a Muslim to take
four (4) wives and concludes that on the basis thereof, the trial court erred in ruling that he does
not possess good moral character. Moreover, his controversial "common law wife" is now his legal
wife as their marriage had been solemnized in civil ceremonies in the Iranian Embassy. As to his
unlawful cohabitation with the private respondent, petitioner claims that even if responsibility
could be pinned on him for the live-in relationship, the private respondent should also be faulted
for consenting to an illicit arrangement. Finally, he asseverates that even if it was to be assumed
arguendo that he had professed his love to the private respondent and had also promised to marry
her, such acts would not be actionable in view of the special circumstances of the case. The mere
breach of promise is not actionable.




Issues:
Whether or not damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis of Article 21 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines


Ruling: Yes.
Mere breach of marriage is not punishable by law. However, since the respondent was proved to have a
good moral character, and that she had just let her virginity be taken away by the petitioner since the latter
offered a promise of marriage, then she could ask for payment for damages. Furthermore, since she let her
lover, the petitioner, “deflowered” her since she believed that his promise to marry was true, and not due to
her carnal desire, then she could have her claims against the petitioner. Moreover, the father of the
respondent had already looked for pigs and chicken for the marriage reception and the sponsors for the
marriage, and then damages were caused by the petitioner against the respondents, which qualified the
claims of the respondent against the petitioner.


 COGEO-CUBAO OPERATORS
G.R. No. 100727, March 18, 1992
MEDIALDEA, J. :
Important Details:

• Petitioner – Cogeo-Cubao Operators and Drivers Association
• Respondents -
o Court of Appeals
o Lungsod Silangan Transport Services, Corp., Inc.

• SK (Sangguniang Kabataan) Election Date: May 06, 1996
• Place: Brgy San Lorenzo, Municipality of Bangui, Ilocos Norte
• MCTC – Municipal Circuit Trial Court
• Lesson: Article 13 of the Civil Code

** This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed with modification
the decision of the Regional Trial Court awarding damages in favor of respondent Lungsod Silangan Transport
Services Corp., Inc. (Lungsod Corp. for brevity).**



Facts:

• Garvida seeks to annul and set aside the order of COMELEC, dated May 02, 1996, in suspending her
proclamation as the duly elected chairman of SK of Brgy San Lorenzo.
• March 16, 1996- Garvida applied for registration as member and voter of the Katipunan ng
Kabataan
• Garvida’s application, who was at the time of registration was 21 yrs old and 10 mos, was denied by
the Board of Election Tellers on the ground that she exceeded the age limit for membership as
indicated in Sec 3(b) of the COMELEC Resolution No. 2824
• April 2, 1996- Garvida filed for “Petition for Inclusion as Registered Kabataang Member and Voter”
with MCTC, Bangui-Pagudpud-Adams-Damalneg, Ilocos Norte. The court’s decision, dated April
18,1996, found that Garvida is qualified.
• The Board of Election Tellers appealed with the RTC, Bangui, Ilocos Norte. The presiding judge of
RTC, inhibited himself because of his close association with Garvida.
• April 23, 1996- Garvida filed her certificate of candidacy as SK Chairman. Election Officer Rios
disapproved her candidacy due to her age, as per adviced by Provincial Election Supervisor Pipo.
• Garvida appealed to COMELEC Regional Director Filemon A. Asperin, who allowed Garvida to run.
• May 02, 1996- Rios informed Garvida of her ineligibility and gave her 24 hrs to explain wy her
certificate should not be disapproved.
• Rival candidate Sales Jr., filed with COMELEC en banc a “Petition of Denial and/or Cancellation of
Certificate of Candidacy” against Garvida for falsely representing her age in her COC. Petition was
sent thru facsimile/ fax transmission, and through registered mail on April 29, 1996 to COMELEC
National Office, Manila.
• May 02, 1996, COMELEC en banc issued an order to suspend the proclamation of Garvida in the
event she won the election.
• Garvida won with 78 voted against Sales Jr. with 76 votes. But as per COMELEC en banc’s order,
Gavida was not proclaimed as winner. Hence petition for certiorari was filed on May 27, 1996
June 02, 1996, the Board of Election Tellers proclaimed Garvida as winner but was “without prejudice to
any further action by the Commission on Elections or any other interested party.”
July 05, 1996- Garvida run for Pambayang Pederasyon ng mga Sangguniang Kabataan for the municipality
of Bangui, Ilocos Norte. She won as Auditor and was proclaimed one of the elected officials of the
Pederasyon.



Issues:
(1) Whether or not Garvida is eligible to be a member of Katipunan ng Kabataan.
(2) Whether or not Garvida is eligible to run as SK Chairman.

Ruling: