De Roy v.

CA and Bernal
G.R. No. 80718;; January 29, 1988 CORTES, J.:

FACTS: Petitioner Feliza De Roy was the respondent in a civil case for damages filed by Luis Bernal.

In the civil case, the RTC found De Roy grossly negligent and awarded damages to Bernal for the injuries
he sustained and for the death of his daughter caused by the collapse of a burned- out building’s firewall
owned by De Roy. The CA affirmed the RTC’s decision. On the last day of the 15-day period to file an
appeal, petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration. The CA denied
the motion by applying the rule laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises v. Japzon that said period cannot be
extended.

Petitioners contend that the rule enunciated in the Habaluyas case should not be made to apply to the
case at bar owing to the non-publication of the decision in the Official Gazette when the CA decision was
promulgated.

ISSUE: Is publication in the Official Gazette required before SC decisions can become binding and
effective?

HELD: No, publication is not required.

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

In this case, petitioner’s contention that the SC decision was not binding and effective because it lacks
publication is without merit.

Since publication is not required, the SC decision is binding and effective even without being published in
the Official Gazette.

Wassmer vs. Velez, 12 SCRA 648

Facts:

Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer, following their mutual promise of love decided to get
married on September 4, 1954. On the day of the supposed marriage, Velez left a note for his bride-to-be
that day to postpone their wedding because his mother opposes it. Therefore, Velez did not appear and
was not heard from again.

Beatriz sued Velez for damages and Velez failed to answer and was declared in default.
Judgement was rendered ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff P2.000 as actual damages P25,000 as
moral and exemplary damages, P2,500 as attorney’s fees.

Later, an attempt by the Court for amicable settlement was given chance but failed, thereby
rendered judgment hence this appeal.
Issue: Whether or not breach of promise to marry is an actionable wrong in this case.

Held:

Ordinarily, a mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But formally set a
wedding and go through all the necessary preparations and publicity and only to walk out of it when
matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpable and unjustifiable to good customs
which holds liability in accordance with Art. 21 on the New Civil Code.

When a breach of promise to marry is actionable under the same, moral and exemplary
damages may not be awarded when it is proven that the defendant clearly acted in wanton, reckless and
oppressive manner.

REPUBLIC VS. CA 236 SCRA 257

FACTS:
Respondent Angelina M. Castro and Edwin F. Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony performed by a
City Court Judge of Pasig City and was celebrated without the knowledge of Castro's parents.Defendant
Cardenas personally attended the procuring of the documents required for the celebration of the
marriage, including the procurement of the marriage license.

The couple did not immediately live together as husband and wife since the marriage was unknown to
Castro's parents. They decided to live together when Castro discovered she was pregnant. The
cohabitation lasted only for four months. Thereafter, the couple parted ways. Desiring to follow her
daughter in the U.S, Castro wanted to put in order he marital status before leaving for the U.S. She then
discovered that there was no marriage license issued to Cardenas prior to the celebration of their
marriage as certified by the Civil Registrar of Pasig, Metro Manila.

Respondent then filed a petition with the RTC of Quezon City seeking for the judicial declaration of nullity
of her marriage claiming that no marriage license was ever issued to them prior to the solemnization of
their marriage.

The trial court denied the petition holding that the certification was inadequate to establish the alleged
non-issuance of a marriage license prior to the celebration of the marriage between the parties. It ruled
that the "inability of the certifying official to locate the marriage license is not conclusive to show that there
was no marriage license issued. On appeal, the decision of the trial court was reversed.

ISSUE:
Is the marriage valid? Is there such a thing as a "secret marriage"?

HELD:
At the time of the subject marriage was solemnized on June 24, 1970, the law governing marital relations
was the New Civil Code. The law provides that no marriage license shall be solemnized without a
marriage license first issued by the local civil registrar. Being one of the essential requisites of a valid
marriage, absence of a license would render the marriage void ab initio.

It will be remembered that the subject marriage was a civil ceremony performed by a judge of a city court.
The subject marriage is one of those commonly known as a "secret marriage" - a legally non-existent
phrase but ordinarily used to refer to a civil marriage celebrated without the knowledge of the relatives
and/or friends of either or both of the contracting parties. The records show that the marriage between
Castro and Cardenas as initially unknown to the parents of the former.

Tolentino v. Paras 122 SCRA 525; May 30,1983

TOLENTINO v. PARAS
Topic: Void Marriages; Bigamous and Polygamous Marriages
Nature of the Case: Petition for Review on Certiorari; reversal of respondent Court's Order, dismissing petitioner's
suit for her "declaration . . . as the lawful surviving spouse of deceased Amado Tolentino and the correction of the
death certificate of the same"

Doctrine: There is no better proof of marriage than the admission by the accused of the existence of such marriage.
The second marriage that he contracted with private respondent during the lifetime of his first spouse is null and void
from the beginning and of no force and effect. No judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void
marriage

Facts: Amado Tolentino had contracted a second marriage with private respondent herein, Maria Clemente, at
Paombong, Bulacan, on November 1, 1948, while his marriage with petitioner, Serafia G. Tolentino, celebrated on
July 31, 1943, was still subsisting.

Petitioner charged Amado with Bigamy. Amado pleaded guilty and after he had served the prison sentence imposed
on him, he continued to live with respondent until his death on July 25, 1974. His death certificate carried the entry
"Name of Surviving Spouse—Maria Clemente."

Petitioner sought to correct the name of the surviving spouse in the death certificate from "Maria Clemente" to
"Serafia G. Tolentino", her name in in a special proceeding for correction of entry. The lower Court dismissed the
petition "for lack of the proper requisites under the law" and indicated the need for a more detailed proceeding.

Petitioner filed a case against private respondent and the Local Civil Registrar of Paombong, Bulacan, for her
declaration as the lawful surviving spouse, and the correction of the death certificate of Amado. In an Order, dated
October 21, 1975, respondent Court, upon private respondent's instance, dismissed the case, stating: (1) the
correction of the entry in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar is not the proper remedy because the issue involved is
marital relationship; (2) the Court has not acquired proper jurisdiction because as prescribed under Art. 108, read
together with Art. 412 of the Civil Code—publication is needed in a case like this, and up to now, there has been no
such publication; and (3) in a sense, the subject matter of this case has been aptly discussed in Special Proceeding
which this Court has already dismissed, also for lack of the proper requisites under the law.

Issue/s:
WON the petitioner may validly rectify the erroneous entry in the records of the Local Civil Registrar

Ruling:
YES
Although petitioner's ultimate objective is the correction of entry contemplated in Article 412 of the Civil Code and
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, she initially seeks a judicial declaration that she is the lawful surviving spouse of the
deceased, Amado, in order to lay the basis for the correction of the entry in the death certificate of said deceased.
The suit below is a proper remedy. It is of an adversary character as contrasted to a mere summary proceeding. A
claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. Private respondent, as the individual most
affected, is a party defendant, and has appeared to contest the petition and defend her interests. The Local Civil
Registrar is also a party defendant. The publication required by the Court below pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court is not absolutely necessary for no other parties are involved.

Considering that Amado, upon his own plea, was convicted for Bigamy, that sentence furnishes the necessary proof
of the marital status of petitioner and the deceased. There is no better proof of marriage than the admission by the
accused of the existence of such marriage. The second marriage that he contracted with private respondent during
the lifetime of his first spouse is null and void from the beginning and of no force and effect. No judicial decree is
necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage. It can be safely concluded, then, without need of further proof
nor remand to the Court below, that private respondent is not the surviving spouse of the deceased Amado, but
petitioner. Rectification of the erroneous entry in the records of the Local Civil Registrar may, therefore, be validly
made.
Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the Order, dated October 21, 1975, of respondent Court is hereby set aside and
petitioner, Serafia G. Tolentino, hereby declared the surviving spouse of the deceased Amado Tolentino. Let the
corresponding correction be made in the latter's death certificate in the records of the Local Civil Registrar of
Paombong, Bulacan.

Tolentino v. Paras 122 SCRA 525; May 30,1983

TOLENTINO v. PARAS
Topic: Void Marriages; Bigamous and Polygamous Marriages
Nature of the Case: Petition for Review on Certiorari; reversal of respondent Court's Order, dismissing petitioner's
suit for her "declaration . . . as the lawful surviving spouse of deceased Amado Tolentino and the correction of the
death certificate of the same"

Doctrine: There is no better proof of marriage than the admission by the accused of the existence of such marriage.
The second marriage that he contracted with private respondent during the lifetime of his first spouse is null and void
from the beginning and of no force and effect. No judicial decree is necessary to establish the invalidity of a void
marriage

Facts: Amado Tolentino had contracted a second marriage with private respondent herein, Maria Clemente, at
Paombong, Bulacan, on November 1, 1948, while his marriage with petitioner, Serafia G. Tolentino, celebrated on
July 31, 1943, was still subsisting.

Petitioner charged Amado with Bigamy. Amado pleaded guilty and after he had served the prison sentence imposed
on him, he continued to live with respondent until his death on July 25, 1974. His death certificate carried the entry
"Name of Surviving Spouse—Maria Clemente."

Petitioner sought to correct the name of the surviving spouse in the death certificate from "Maria Clemente" to
"Serafia G. Tolentino", her name in in a special proceeding for correction of entry. The lower Court dismissed the
petition "for lack of the proper requisites under the law" and indicated the need for a more detailed proceeding.

Petitioner filed a case against private respondent and the Local Civil Registrar of Paombong, Bulacan, for her
declaration as the lawful surviving spouse, and the correction of the death certificate of Amado. In an Order, dated
October 21, 1975, respondent Court, upon private respondent's instance, dismissed the case, stating: (1) the
correction of the entry in the Office of the Local Civil Registrar is not the proper remedy because the issue involved is
marital relationship; (2) the Court has not acquired proper jurisdiction because as prescribed under Art. 108, read
together with Art. 412 of the Civil Code—publication is needed in a case like this, and up to now, there has been no
such publication; and (3) in a sense, the subject matter of this case has been aptly discussed in Special Proceeding
which this Court has already dismissed, also for lack of the proper requisites under the law.

Issue/s:
WON the petitioner may validly rectify the erroneous entry in the records of the Local Civil Registrar

Ruling:
YES
Although petitioner's ultimate objective is the correction of entry contemplated in Article 412 of the Civil Code and
Rule 108 of the Rules of Court, she initially seeks a judicial declaration that she is the lawful surviving spouse of the
deceased, Amado, in order to lay the basis for the correction of the entry in the death certificate of said deceased.
The suit below is a proper remedy. It is of an adversary character as contrasted to a mere summary proceeding. A
claim of right is asserted against one who has an interest in contesting it. Private respondent, as the individual most
affected, is a party defendant, and has appeared to contest the petition and defend her interests. The Local Civil
Registrar is also a party defendant. The publication required by the Court below pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules of
Court is not absolutely necessary for no other parties are involved.

Considering that Amado, upon his own plea, was convicted for Bigamy, that sentence furnishes the necessary proof
of the marital status of petitioner and the deceased. There is no better proof of marriage than the admission by the
accused of the existence of such marriage. The second marriage that he contracted with private respondent during
the lifetime of his first spouse is null and void from the beginning and of no force and effect. No judicial decree is
necessary to establish the invalidity of a void marriage. It can be safely concluded, then, without need of further proof
nor remand to the Court below, that private respondent is not the surviving spouse of the deceased Amado, but
petitioner. Rectification of the erroneous entry in the records of the Local Civil Registrar may, therefore, be validly
made.

Dispositive: WHEREFORE, the Order, dated October 21, 1975, of respondent Court is hereby set aside and
petitioner, Serafia G. Tolentino, hereby declared the surviving spouse of the deceased Amado Tolentino. Let the
corresponding correction be made in the latter's death certificate in the records of the Local Civil Registrar of
Paombong, Bulacan.

VAN DORN vs. ROMILLO

139 SCRA 139

FACTS:
Alice Reyes Van Dorn, a Filipino married Richard Upton, a U.S. citizen in Hongkong in
1972. They had two children. They got divorced in Nevada U.S.A in 1982 and both certified
that they do not have any community property to divide. Alice remarried to Theodore Van
Dorn.

Upton filed a suit in June 1983 stating that Reyes’ business in Manila is conjugal property.
He demands to render an accounting to the business and declare his right to manage the
business. Reyes moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the action is barred by the
previous judgment in Nevada divorce wherein they both acknowledged having no
community property as of June 11, 1982.

Reyes’ motion was denied by the lower court stating that the property is located in the
Philippines so that the divorce decree has no bearing.

ISSUE:
What is the effect of the foreign divorce of the parties to their property in the Philippines?

HELD:
Pursuant to his national law, Upton is no longer the husband of the petitioner. He has no
standing to sue in the case where the husband is entitled to control over conjugal assets.

 The divorce obtained abroad being valid in his country’s court may be recognized in the
Philippines. The divorce decree granted in Nevada released Reyes from the marriage for the
marriage had been severed by one party ceases to bind either.
 Getting a divorce decree in the US court and contending that it is not valid and binding in the
Philippines being contrary to local law and public policy estopped Upton’s declaration.