Articles 1-18 Tanada vs.

Tuvera 146 SCRA 446 December 29, 1986 Ponente: Justice Cruz Facts: Invoking their rights to due process of law and to information that concerns public matter, the petitioners demanded the disclosure of a number of presidential decrees claiming that respondents failed to publish them as required by law. They are seeking a written order to compel the respondents to publish in the Official Gazette or other means of effective promulgation of various statutes concerning public interests including those that provide for their own date of effectivity as a requirement for its validity and effectivity. Issues: Whether or not the effectivity and enforceability of the laws shall only be valid following its publication in the Official Gazette regardless of the date of effectivity provided by the law itself? Held: Petition granted. The court ruled that the publication of laws in the official Gazette is relevant and necessary for said laws to have binding force and effect. Laws shall generally take effect 15 days following the date of completion, but not when the law itself provides its own date of effectivity. The objective of such ruling is in line with the right of the general public to be informed about laws put into effect and to give the people ample notice of when such laws will take effect whether or not they apply directly to individuals as long as said laws involve public concerns. The publication must be in full since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the law. In addition, the clause unless it is otherwise provided refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot be omitted. People vs. Que Po Lay 94 Phil 640 March 29, 1954 Ponente: Justice Montemayor Facts: The appellant who was in possession of foreign exchange consisting of U.S. dollars, U.S. checks and U.S. money orders amounting to about $7,000 failed to sell the same to the Central Bank through its agent within one day following the receipt of such foreign exchange as required by Circular No. 20. The Court of First Instance of Manila rule found the appellant guilty of said circular and sentenced him with the corresponding penalties. The appellant contests the ruling and claimed that at the time of commission of the offense imputed to him, Circular No. 20 had not yet been published in the Official Gazette; therefore, said circular had no force and effect. Circular No. 20 was already issued at the time of the commission of the offense although it had not yet been published in the Official Gazette during that point in time.

Issues: Whether or not the lack of publication of Circular No. 20 relieves the accused of the charges against him in accordance to Article 2 of the Civil Code pertaining to the necessity of publication in the Official Gazette for it to have binding effect? Held: Yes, the said Circular has no force and effect because it was not published. The courts ruling to reverse the decision rendered by the Court of First Instance and acquit the appellant of the charges regarding the charges held against him was based on the circumstances regarding the binding effect of said circular at the time of the commission of the offense. The basis of such reversal is Article 2 of the Civil code regarding the necessity of publication in the Official Gazette to have binding effect; therefore, the lack of binding force acquits the appellant of any liability at the time of commission of the charges held against him. Moreover, said circular may not be a statute or law as specified in Article 2 of the Civil Code, but it carries the force and effect of law based on the purpose of its issuance in accordance to settled jurisprudence due to its punitive nature which also serves as a reason for the necessity of its publication. Garcia vs. Recio G.R. No. 138322. October 2, 2001 Ponente: Justice Panganiban Facts: Rederick, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, in Malabon, Rizal on March 1, 1987. They lived together as husband and wife in Australia. On May 18, 1989, a decree of divorce purportedly dissolving the marriage was issued by an Australian Family Court. On 26 June 1992, respondent became an Australian citizen, as shown by a Certificate of Australian Citizenship issued by an Australian government. Subsequently, Recio-Garcia nuptial took place in Our Lady of Perpetual Help Church, Cabanatuan City on January 12, 1994. In their marriage application for marriage license, respondent was declared as single and Filipino. Since October 22, 1995 Garcia and Recio lived separately without prior dissolution of their marriage. While they were still in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided on May 1996, in accordance with their declaration secured in Australia.March 3, 1998, petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the trial court, on the ground of bigamyrespondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married her in 1994. She claimed that she only learned of Recios marriage to Samson in November 1997. In his answer, Recio averred that as of 1993, he had revealed to petitioner his prior marriage to an Australian citizen, that it had been validly dissolved by decree of divorce in 1989, making him legally capacitated to marry petitioner in 1994. Issue: Whether or not the legal effects of a divorce obtained from a foreign country such as support and custody of the children can be determined in our courts? Held:

Yes. The validity of the divorce is duly recognize and valid in our country although the legal arising from the divorce as a result of a foreign judgment must clearly show that the opposing party has been given ample opportunity to do so under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the respondent was not given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the German Court; therefore, legal effects of divorce must be determined in our courts. The court held that the Philippines has jurisdiction over the issue of parental custody between both parties in accordance with Article 15 of the Civil Code which refers to laws on family rights and duties binding upon Philippine citizens. D.M. Consunji vs. CA GR. No. 137873 April 20, 2001 Ponente: Justice Katipunan Facts: Maria Juego, the respondent, filed a complaint against petitioner in the Regional Trail Court on May 9, 1991. Her husband, Jose Juego, died in the employ of petitioner when he 14 floors from the Renaissance Tower in Pasig and respondent claimed it was due to petitioners negligence. Unaware of certain circumstances regarding her husbands death, Maria had availed of the death benefits from the State Insurance Fund. Petitioner is claiming that respondent can no longer recover damages under the Civil Code due to previous availment of benefits from the State Insurance Fund. Issues: Whether or not the availment of death benefits from the State Insurance Fund implies a waiver of Marias rights to claim for damages from petition under the Civil Code of the Philippines? Held: The court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals in favor of the respondent. The petition was dismissed because Maria was not aware of the facts regarding her husbands death, as well as her rights, at the time of availment of the death benefits. The claiming of the death benefits does not bar any action inconsistent with the remedy. For a waiver to become valid there must be intentional relinquishment of a known right. Waiving of ones rights requires knowledge of such right and awareness of the consequences that results from such act. Her ignorance of material facts negates waiver; therefore, she is entitled to claim damages from the petitioner regardless of previous availment of the death benefits. Cui vs. Arellano University 2 SCRA 205 May 30, 1961 Ponente: Justice Concepcion Facts: Plaintiff is appealing the decision of the Court of First Instance absolving the defendant from the complaint filed from plaintiffs complaint. Emeterio Cui, the plaintiff, was studying law at Arellano University, the defendant, under scholarship grants. During his last semester of fourth year at Arellano, he transferred and enrolled at Abad Santos University where he finished his law degree. After graduation, he applied for the bar examinations and he needed his transcript of records from Arellano in order to secure

his application for the bar examinations. Arellano University refused to give his transcripts until he paid back the tuition that was returned to him under the scholarship grant. Defendant claims that plaintiff had also signed a contract stating that scholarships are good only if the student continues to study in the same school. This contract was followed from Memorandum No. 38 which was made by the Director of Private Schools. Issues: Whether or not the contract that plaintiff signed with defendant stating that he waived his right to transfer to another school without receiving a refund equivalent to his scholarship grant is valid? Held: The appeal was granted in favor of the plaintiff. The contract between the plaintiff and defendant has no binding effect since it was based on a memorandum made by the Director of Private School which is merely advisory and not mandatory in nature. The provisions stated therein are not laws. In addition, the officer had no authority to issue the memorandum stating such provisions and the memorandum itself was not published in the Official Gazette. The court reversed the ruling of the Court of First Instance and ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff with interest at the legal rate starting from the date of institution of this case as well as costs. Miciano vs. Brimo 50 Phil 867 November 1, 1924 Ponente: Justice Romualdez Facts: Juan Miciano as the judicial administrator of the estate left by Joseph G. Brimo, who died and left a partition of the state, filed a scheme of partition. Andre Brimo, one of the brothers of the deceased, opposed it. The deceased left a will stating conditions regarding the distribution of his property and everything connected with it. Although he is a citizen of Turkey, which was conferred upon him by conquest and not by free choice, the deceased would like to have Philippine Laws govern the distribution of property and everything in connection as stated in his will. His brother, Andre Brimo, opposed such conditions based on the fact that the partition in question puts into effect the provisions of Joseph Brimos will which are not in accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality, for which reason they are void as being in violation of Article 16 of the Civil Code. Issues: Whether or not the national law of the deceased is the one that should govern the testamentary disposition? Held: The deceased had declared certain conditions to be followed during the disposition of his property in accordance with the will left behind. According to Article 15 of the Philippine Civil Code, the national law of the person whose succession under consideration shall govern over the testamentary provisions of its citizens. Therefore, Turkish Laws should govern the disposition of defendants case and as long as it does

not prejudice the heir or legatee of the deceased. Though the last part of the second clause of the will expressly said that it be made and disposed of in accordance with the laws in force in the Philippine Island, this condition, described as impossible conditions, shall be considered as not imposed. The court also approved the scheme of partition submitted by the judicial administrator since it is not contrary to the laws established in country governing the testamentary provisions of the succession although modified in such manner as to include Andre Brimo, as one of the legatees. Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera 174 SCRA 653 June 30, 1989 Ponente: Justice Regalado Facts: Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married to private respondent, Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national before the Registrar of Births in Germany. They have a child who was born on April 20, 1980 and named Isabella Pilapil Geiling. Geiling, the private respondent initiated a divorce proceeding against petitioner in Germany before the Schoneberg Local Court in January 1983. The decree of divorce was promulgated on January 15, 1986 on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. The custody of the child was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner, Pilapil, then filed an action for legal separation, support and separation of property before the RTC Manila on January 23, 1983. On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed 2 complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that while still married to Imelda, latter had an affair with William Chia as early as 1982 and another man named Jesus Chua sometime in 1983. Issue: Whether private respondent can prosecute petitioner on the ground of adultery even though they are no longer husband and wife as decree of divorce was already issued. Held: No. The law specifically provided that in prosecution for adultery and concubinage, the person who can legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse only. Though in this case, it appeared that private respondent is the offended spouse, the latter obtained a valid divorce in his country, Germany, and said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines in so far as he is concerned. Thus, under the same consideration and rationale, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner and has no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit. Roehr vs. Rodriguez GR No. 142820 June 20, 2003 Ponente: Justice Quisumbing Facts: Petitioner, a German citizen, married a Filipina, Carmen Rodriguez in Germany. The marriage was ratified in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. Private respondent, Carmen

Rodriguez, filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC of Makati and petitioner filed a motion to dismiss but was denied by the trial court. The petitioner filed for a decree of divorce from the Court of First Instance of Hamburg Blankenese in Germany and was granted the decree of divorce along with rights to parental custody of their children. The petitioner also filed another motion for dismissal stating that trial court no longer has jurisdiction since a decree of divorce has already been promulgated, the motion was granted. In response, private respondent filed for partial reconsideration although acknowledging the validity of the divorce, the proceedings of the case was for the determination of parental custody and settlement of properties between parties. Issue: Whether or not the legal effects of a divorce obtained from a foreign country such as support and custody of the children can be determined in our courts? Held: Yes. The court held that the Philippines has jurisdiction over the issue of parental custody between both parties in accordance with Article 15 of the Civil Code which refers to laws on family rights and duties binding upon Philippine citizens. The validity of the divorce is duly recognize and valid in our country although the legal arising from the divorce as a result of a foreign judgment must clearly show that the opposing party has been given ample opportunity to do so under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the respondent was not given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the German Court; therefore, legal effects of divorce must be determined in our courts. Garcia vs. Recio G.R. No. 138322. October 2, 2001 Ponente: Justice Panganiban Facts: Petitioner, a German citizen, married a Filipina, Carmen Rodriguez in Germany. The marriage was ratified in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. Private respondent, Carmen Rodriguez, filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC of Makati and petitioner filed a motion to dismiss but was denied by the trial court. The petitioner filed for a decree of divorce from the Court of First Instance in Germany and was granted the decree of divorce along with rights to parental custody of their children. The petitioner also filed another motion for dismissal stating that trial court no longer has jurisdiction since a decree of divorce has already been promulgated, the motion was granted. In response, private respondent filed for partial reconsideration although acknowledging the validity of the divorce, the proceedings of the case was for the determination of parental custody and settlement of properties between parties. Issue: Whether or not the legal effects of a divorce obtained from a foreign country such as support and custody of the children can be determined in our courts?

Held: Yes. The validity of the divorce is duly recognize and valid in our country although the legal arising from the divorce as a result of a foreign judgment must clearly show that the opposing party has been given ample opportunity to do so under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, the respondent was not given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the German Court; therefore, legal effects of divorce must be determined in our courts. The court held that the Philippines has jurisdiction over the issue of parental custody between both parties in accordance with Article 15 of the Civil Code which refers to laws on family rights and duties binding upon Philippine citizens.