DOCTRINES OF CIVIL LAW CASES DECIDED BY J.

LEONEN
(YEAR 2018-2019)

JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF FOREIGN DIVORCE

Article 26 of the Family Code states that a divorce between a foreigner and a Filipino may be
recognized in the Philippines as long as it was validly obtained according to the foreign spouse’s
national law, thus:

“Article 26- All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the
laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall
also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and
(6), 36, 37 and 38.

(2) Where a marriage between a Filipino Citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and
a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her
to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. “

The Court established the principle that before a foreign divorce decree is recognized in this
jurisdiction, a separate action must first be instituted for that purpose because the Courts do not
take judicial notice of foreign laws and foreign judgments; thus, our laws require that the divorce
decree and the national law of the foreign spouse must be pleaded and proved like any other fact
before the trial courts. Mere presentation of the divorce decree before the trial court is
insufficient. (G.R. No.199515, June 25, 2018 – Rhodora Ilumin Racho, A.K.A. “Rhodora Racho
Tanaka,” Petitioner, v. Seiichi Tanaka, Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas, and the Administrator
and Civil Registrar General of the National Statistics Office).

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS AND LAWS

Philippine courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws. They must be proven
as fact under our rules on evidence. A divorce decree obtained abroad is deemed a foreign
judgment, hence the indispensable need to have it pleaded and proved before its legal effects
may be extended to the Filipino spouse.

Settled is the rule that in action involving the recognition of a foreign divorce judgment, it is
indispensable that the petitioner prove not only the foreign judgment granting the divorce, but
also the alien spouse’s national law. This rule is rooted in the fundamental theory that Philippine
courts do not take judicial notice of foreign judgments and laws.
UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF VOID MARRIAGE

A person cannot unilaterally declare his marriage void. The law provides that a judicial
declaration of nullity is indispensable for the purposes of remarriage.

A declaration of the absolute nullity of a marriage is now explicitly required either as a cause of
action or a ground for defense. Where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be
invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law for said
projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous
marriage void. (G.R. No. 224742, August 7, 2019, Prudencio De Guzman Y Jumaquio,
Petitioner, v. People of the Philippines, Respondent)

UNILATERAL DISPOSITION OF CONJUGAL PROPERTY

This Court, xxxx ruled in a number of cases that the sale of conjugal property by a spouse
without the other's consent is void. All subsequent transferees of the conjugal property acquire no
rights whatsoever from the conjugal property's unauthorized sale.

A contract conveying conjugal properties entered into by the husband without the wife's consent
may be annulled entirely. As the statute now stands, the right of the wife is directed at "the
annulment of any contract," referring to real property of the conjugal partnership entered into by
the husband "without her consent." (G. R. No. 187225, March 06, 2019, Melinda M. Malabanan,
Petitioner, v. Francisco Malabanan, Jr., Spouses Ramon and Prescila Malabanan, and Spouses
Dominador III and Guia Montano, Respondents)

Collateral Attack in Petition for Correction of Entries in Certificate of Live Birth;

Legitimacy and Filiation of Children

The legitimacy and filiation of children cannot be collaterally attacked in a petition for correction
of entries in certificate of live birth.

...the summary procedure for correction of entries in the civil registry under Article 12 of the
Civil Code and Rule 108 of the Rules of Court is confined to “innocuous or clerical errors, such
as misspellings and the like, errors that are visible to the eyes or obvious to the understanding” or
corrections that are not controversial and are supported by indubitable evidence.

…what petitioner seeks is not a mere clerical change. It is not a simple matter of correcting a
single letter in private respondent’s surname due to a misspelling. Rather, private respondent’s
filiation will be gravely affected, as changing her surname xxx will also change her status. This
will affect not only her identity, but her successional rights as well. Certainly, this change is
substantial.
Legitimacy and filiation can be questioned only in a direct action seasonably filed by the proper
party, and not through collateral attack. Moreover, impugning the legitimacy of a child is
governed by Article 171 of the Family Code, not Rule 108 of Rules of Court. (G.R. No. 200344,
August 28, 2019, Glenn M. Miller, substituted by his surviving legal heirs, namely: Evelyn L.
Miller, et al. Vs. Joan Miller y Espenida a.k.a. Johnlyn Miller y Espenida and the Local Civil
Registrar of Gubat Sorsogon)

REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS WHEN ALLOWED

Reformation of an instrument is a remedy in equity where a valid existing contract is allowed by

law to be revised to express the true intentions of the contracting parties. The rationale is that it
would be unjust to enforce a written instrument which does not truly reflect the real agreement of
the parties. In reforming an instrument no new contract is created for the parties, rather, the
reformed instrument establishes the real agreement between the parties as intended, but for some
reason, was not embodied in the original instrument.

For an action for reformation of instrument to prosper: (1) there must have been a meeting of the
minds of the parties to the contract; (2) the instrument does not express the true intention of the
parties; and (3) the failure of the instrument to express the true intention of the parties is due to
mistake fraud, inequitable conduct or accident.

The burden of proof then rests upon the party asking for the reformation of the instrument to
overturn the presumption that a written instrument already sets out the true intentions of the
contracting parties. (G.R. No. 18550, April 18, 2018, Makati Tuscany Condominium
Corporation, Petitioner, v. Multi-Realty development Corporation, Respondents)

COMMON CARRIERS; EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE

Common carriers are obligated to exercise extraordinary diligence over the goods entrusted to
their care. This is due to the nature of their business, with the public policy behind it geared
toward achieving allocative efficiency and minimizing the inherently inequitable dynamics
between the parties to the transaction.

The Civil Code outlines the degree of diligence required of common carriers in Articles 1733,
1755, and 1756:

“ARTICLE 1733. Common carriers, from the nature of their business and for reasons of
public policy, are bound to observe extraordinary diligence in the vigilance over the
goods and for the safety of the passengers transported by them, according to all the
circumstances of each case.
 ARTICLE 1755. A common carrier is bound to carry the passengers safely as far as
human care and foresight can provide, using the utmost diligence of very cautious
persons, with a due regard for all the circumstances.

ARTICLE 1756. In case of death of or injuries to passengers, common carriers are

presumed to have been at fault or to have acted negligently, unless they prove that they
observed extraordinary diligence as prescribed in articles 1733 and 1755.”

Common carriers are mandated to internalize or shoulder the costs under the contracts of
carriage. This is so because a contract of carriage is structured in such a way that passengers or
shippers surrender total control over their persons or goods to common carriers, fully trusting
that the latter will safely and timely deliver them to their destination. In light of this inherently
inequitable dynamics— and the potential harm that might befall passengers or shippers if
common carriers exercise less than extraordinary diligence— the law is constrained to intervene
and impose sanctions on common carriers for the parties to achieve allocative efficiency. (G.R.
No. 220400, March 20, 2019, Annie Tan, Petitioner, v. Great Harvest Enterprises, Inc.,
Respondent)