Persons and Family

Relations
Week 1
Tanada v Tuvera L-63915, April 24, as citizens. Without this, there would be no basis for Art
3 of the Civil Code “Ignorance of the law excuses no one
1985| 136 SCRA 27 from compliance therewith”.

FACTS: WHEREFORE, the Court hereby orders respondents to

publish in the Official Gazette all unpublished
Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus in compelling presidential issuances which are of general application,
respondent public officials to publish and/ or cause the and unless so published, they shall have no binding
publication in the Official Gazette of various presidential force and effect.
decrees, letter of instructions, general orders,
proclamations, executive orders, letter of implementation
and administrative orders.
People of the Phils v Que Po Lay 94
Phil 640 | GR No. 6791, March 29,
The general rule in seeking writ of mandamus is that it 1954
“would be granted to a private individual only in those
cases where he has some private or particular interest to
FACTS:
be subserved, or some particular right to be protected,
independent of that which he holds with the public at The appellant was in possession of foreign exchange
large," and "it is for the public officers exclusively to consisting of US dollars, US checks and US money
apply for the writ when public rights are to be orders amounting to about $7000 but failed to sell the
subserved”. same to the Central Bank as required under Circular No.
20.
The legal capacity of a private citizen was recognized by
court to make the said petition for the reason that the Circular No. 20 was issued in the year 1949 but was
right sought to be enforced by petitioners herein is a published in the Official Gazette only on Nov. 1951 after
public right recognized by no less than the fundamental the act or omission imputed to Que Po Lay.
law of the land.
Que Po Lay appealed from the decision of the lower
ISSUE: Whether publication in the Official Gazette is still court finding him guilty of violating Central Bank Circular
required considering the clause in Article 2 “unless No. 20 in connection with Sec 34 of RA 265 sentencing
otherwise provided”. him to suffer 6 months imprisonment, pay fine of P1,000
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and
HELD:
to pay the costs.
“Unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the date of
ISSUE: Whether or not publication of Circular 20 in the
effectivity and not with the publication requirement which
Official Gazette is needed for it to become effective and
cannot be omitted as public needs to be notified for the
subject violators to corresponding penalties.
law to become effective. The necessity for the
publication in the Official Gazette of all unpublished HELD:
presidential issuances which are of general application,
was affirmed by the court on April 24, 1985. This is It was held by the Supreme Court, in an en banc
necessary to provide the general public adequate notice decision, that as a rule, circular and regulations of the
of the various laws which regulate actions and conduct
1
Central Bank in question prescribing a penalty for its The said decree, being a foreign document was
violation should be published before becoming effective. inadmissible to court as evidence primarily because it
This is based on the theory that before the public is was not authenticated by the consul/ embassy of the
bound by its contents especially its penal provisions, a country where it will be used.
law, regulation or circular must first be published for the
people to be officially and specifically informed of such Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, a writing or
contents including its penalties. document may be proven as a public or official record of
a foreign country by either:
Thus, the Supreme Court reversed the decision
appealed from and acquit the appellant, with costs de (1) an official publication or
oficio.
(2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal
custody of the document. If the record is not kept in the
Grace J. Garcia-Recio v Rederick A.
Philippines, such copy must be:
Recio GR NO. 138322, Oct. 2, 2002 |
366 SCRA 437 (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper
diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign
FACTS: service stationed in the foreign country in which the
record is kept and
Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha
Samson, an Australian Citizen, in Malabon, Rizal on (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.
March 1, 1987. They lived as husband and wife in
Thus, the Supreme Court remands the case to the
Australia. However, an Australian family court issued
Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City to receive or
purportedly a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage
trial evidence that will conclusively prove respondent’s
of Rederick and Editha on May 18, 1989.
legal capacity to marry petitioner and thus free him on
On January 12, 1994, Rederick married Grace J. Garcia the ground of bigamy.
where it was solemnized at Our lady of Perpetual Help
Church, Cabanatuan City. Since October 22, 1995, the D.M. Consunji Inc. v Court of Appeals
couple lived separately without prior judicial dissolution and Maria J. Juego GR No. 137873,
of their marriage. As a matter of fact, while they were
still in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided on April 20, 2001 | 357 SCRA 249
May 16, 1996, in accordance with their Statutory
Declarations secured in Australia. FACTS:

Grace filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Around 1:30PM of November 2, 1990, Jose Juergo, a
Marriage on the ground of bigamy on March 3, 1998, construction worker of D.M. Consunji Inc. fell 14 floors
claiming that she learned only in November 1997, from the Renaissance Tower, Pasig City. He was
Rederick’s marriage with Editha Samson. immediately rushed to Rizal Medical Center in Pasig
City. The attending physician, Dr. Errol de Yzo,
ISSUE: Whether the decree of divorce submitted by pronounce Jose dead on arrival (DOA) at around
Rederick Recio is admissible as evidence to prove his 2:15PM.
legal capacity to marry petitioner and absolved him of
bigamy. Jose Juergo, together with Jessie Jaluag and Delso
Destajo, performing their work as carpenter at the
HELD: elevator core of the 14th floor of Tower D, Renaissance
Tower Building were on board a platform. Jose was
The nullity of Rederick’s marriage with Editha as shown crushed to death when the platform fell due to removal
by the divorce decree issued was valid and recognized or looseness of the pin, which was merely inserted to the
in the Philippines since the respondent is a naturalized connecting points of the chain block and platform but
Australian. However, there is absolutely no evidence without a safety lock. Luckily, Jessie and Delso jumped
that proves respondent’s legal capacity to marry out of safety.
petitioner though the former presented a divorce decree.
2
PO3 Rogelio Villanueva of the Eastern Police District On August 16, 1949, the Director of Private Schools
investigated the tragedy and filed report dated Nov. 25, issued Memorandum No. 38 addressing all heads of
1990. Maria Juergo, Jose’s widow filed a complaint on private schools, colleges and universities. Part of the
May 9, 1991 for damages in the RTC and was rendered memorandum states that “the amount in tuition and other
a favorable decision to receive support from DM fees corresponding to these scholarships should not be
Consunji amounting to P644,000. subsequently charged to the recipient students when
they decide to quit school or to transfer to another
DM Consunji seeks reversal of the CA decision. institution. Scholarships should not be offered merely to
attract and keep students in a school”.
ISSUE: Whether Maria Juergo can still claim damages
with D.M. Consunji apart from the death benefits she ISSUE: Whether or not Emetrio Cui can refund the
claimed in the State Insurance Fund. P1,033.97 payment for the scholarship grant provided by
Arellano University.
HELD:
HELD:
The respondent is not precluded from recovering
damages under the civil code. Maria Juergo was The memorandum of the Director of Private Schools is
unaware of petitioner’s negligence when she filed her not a law where the provision set therein was advisory
claim for death benefits from the State Insurance Fund. and not mandatory in nature. Moreover, the stipulation
She filed the civil complaint for damages after she in question, asking previous students to pay back the
received a copy of the police investigation report and the scholarship grant if they transfer before graduation, is
Prosecutor’s Memorandum dismissing the criminal contrary to public policy, sound policy and good morals
complaint against petitioner’s personnel. or tends clearly to undermine the security of individual
rights and hence, null and void.
Supreme Court remanded to the RTC of Pasig City to
determine whether the award decreed in its decision is The court sentenced the defendant to pay Cui the sum
more than that of the Employees Compensation of P1,033.87 with interest thereon at the legal rate from
Commission (ECC). Should the award decreed by the Sept.1, 1954, date of the institution of this case as well
trial court be greater than that awarded by the ECC, as the costs and dismissing defendant’s counterclaim.
payments already made to private respondent pursuant
to the Labor Code shall be deducted therefrom. Juan Miciano v Andre Brimo GR
Emetrio Cui v Arellano University GR No.22595, November 1, 1927| 50 Phil
NO. L15127, May 30, 1961 | 112 Phil 867
135 FACTS:

FACTS: Juan Miciano, judicial administrator of the estate in

question, filed a scheme of partition. Andre Brimo, one
Emetrio Cui took his preparatory law course at Arellano of the brothers of the deceased (Joseph Brimo) opposed
University. He then enrolled in its College of Law from Miciano’s participation in the inheritance. Joseph Brimo
first year (SY1948-1949) until first semester of his 4th is a Turkish citizen.
year. During these years, he was awarded scholarship
grants of the said university amounting to a total of ISSUE: Whether Turkish law or Philippine law will be the
P1,033.87. He then transferred and took his last basis on the distribution of Joseph Brimo’s estates.
semester as a law student at Abad Santos University.
To secure permission to take the bar, he needed his HELD:
transcript of records from Arellano University. The
defendant refused to issue the TOR until he had paid Though the last part of the second clause of the will
back the P1,033.87 scholarship grant which Emetrio expressly said that “it be made and disposed of in
refunded as he could not take the bar without Arellano’s accordance with the laws in force in the Philippine
issuance of his TOR. Island”, this condition, described as impossible
conditions, shall be considered as not imposed and shall
3
not prejudice the heir or legatee in any manner Republic of Germany, and said divorce and its legal
whatsoever, even should the testator otherwise provide. effects may be recognized in the Philippines in so far as
Impossible conditions are further defined as those he is concerned. Thus, under the same consideration
contrary to law or good morals. Thus, national law of the and rationale, private respondent is no longer the
testator shall govern in his testamentary dispositions. husband of petitioner and has no legal standing to
commence the adultery case under the imposture that
The court approved the scheme of partition submitted by he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.
the judicial administrator, in such manner as to include
Andre Brimo, as one of the legatees. [G.R. No. 88694. January 11, 1993.]

Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil v Hon. ALBENSON ENTERPRISES CORP.,

Corona Ibay-Somera GR No. 80116, JESSE YAP, AND BENJAMIN
June 30, 1989| 174 SCRA 653 MENDIONA, petitioners, vs. THE
COURT OF APPEALS AND EUGENIO
FACTS:
S. BALTAO, respondents.
Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married with
private respondent, Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German BIDIN, J:
national before the Registrar of Births, Marriages and
Deaths at Friedensweiler, Federal Republic of Germany. Facts:
They have a child who was born on April 20, 1980 and
named Isabella Pilapil Geiling. Conjugal disharmony In September, October, and November 1980, petitioner
eventuated in private respondent and he initiated a Albenson Enterprises Corporation (Albenson for short)
divorce proceeding against petitioner in Germany before delivered to Guaranteed Industries, Inc. (Guaranteed for
the Schoneberg Local Court in January 1983. The short) located at 3267 V. Mapa Street, Sta. Mesa,
petitioner then filed an action for legal separation, Manila, the mild steel plates which the latter ordered. As
support and separation of property before the RTC part payment thereof, Albenson was given Pacific
Manila on January 23, 1983. Banking Corporation Check No. 136361 in the amount of
P2,575.00 and drawn against the account of E.L.
The decree of divorce was promulgated on January 15, Woodworks. When presented for payment, the check
1986 on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses. was dishonored for the reason "Account Closed."
The custody of the child was granted to the petitioner.
Issue:
On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed 2 complaints
for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging that Whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has been
while still married to Imelda, latter “had an affair with violated, resulting in damages under Articles 20 and 21
William Chia as early as 1982 and another man named or other applicable provision of law
Jesus Chua sometime in 1983”.
Held:
ISSUE: Whether private respondent can prosecute
The elements of an abuse of right under Article 19 are
petitioner on the ground of adultery even though they are
the following: (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2) which
no longer husband and wife as decree of divorce was
is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of
already issued.
prejudicing or injuring another. Article 20 speaks of the
HELD: general sanction for all other provisions of law which do
not especially provide for their own sanction. Thus,
The law specifically provided that in prosecution for anyone who, whether willfully or negligently, in the
adultery and concubinage, the person who can legally exercise of his legal right or duty, causes damage to
file the complaint should be the offended spouse and another, shall indemnify his victim for injuries suffered
nobody else. Though in this case, it appeared that thereby. Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores,
private respondent is the offended spouse, the latter and has the following elements: 1) There is an act which
obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal is legal; 2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom,
4
public order, or public policy; 3) and it is done with intent In this case, the decree did not touch as to who the
to injure. offending spouse was. The trial court was correct in
setting the issue for hearing to determine the issue of
WOLFGANG O. ROEHR, petitioner, parental custody, care, support and education of the best
interests of the children. After all, the child’s welfare is
vs. MARIA CARMEN D. RODRIGUEZ, always the paramount consideration in all questions
HON. JUDGE JOSEFINA GUEVARA- concerning his care and custody.
SALONGA, Presiding Judge of Makati WHEREFORE, the orders of the Regional Trial Court of
RTC, Branch 149, respondents. G.R. Makati, Branch 149, issued on September 30, 1999 and
No. 142820 June 20, 2003 March 31, 2000 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION.
We hereby declare that the trial court has jurisdiction
Facts: over the issue between the parties as to who has
parental custody, including the care, support and
Petitioner Wolfgang, a German citizen and resident of education of the children, namely Carolyne and
Germany, married private respondent Carmen, a Alexandra Kristine Roehr. Let the records of this case be
Filipina, on 11 December 1980 in Hamburg, Gemany. remanded promptly to the trial court for continuation of
Early 1981, the marriage was ratified in Tayasan, Negros appropriate proceedings. No pronouncement as to costs.
Oriental. They had two daughters, Carolyne and
Alexandria Kristine. SO ORDERED.

Private respondent filed a petition for the declaration of Nikko Hotel Manila vs. Reyes GR No.
nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court of 154259, February 28, 2005
Makati on 28 August 1996. Petitioner filed a motion to
dismiss but was denied by trial court. A motion for
FACTS:
reconsideration was filed by private respondent but was
again denied by the trial court. Petitioners Nikko Hotel Manila and Ruby Lim assailed
the decision of the Court of Appeals in reversing the
In 1997, petitioner obtained a decree of divorce from the
decision of RTC of Quezon City. CA held petitioner
Court of First Instance of Hamburg-Blankenese and
liable for damages to Roberto Reyes aka “Amay Bisaya”,
granting the custody of the children to the father.
an entertainment artist.

It was June 14, 1999 when public respondent issued an

There are two versions of the story:
order granting the petitioner’s motion to dismiss, but was
partially set aside on September 1999 for the purpose of Mr. Reyes: On the eve of October 13, 1994, Mr. Reyes
tackling issues regarding property relations of the while having coffee at the lobby of Nikko Hotel was
spouses as well as support and custody of their children. approached by Dr. Violet Filart, a friend several years
Petitioner assailed for the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction, back. According to Mr. Reyes, Dr. Filart invited him to
and grave abuse of discretion on the part of the join a birthday party at the penthouse for the hotel’s
respondent judge. former General Manager, Mr. Tsuruoka. Plaintiff agreed
as Dr. Filart agreed to vouch for him and carried a
Issue:
basket of fruits, the latter’s gift. He He lined up at the
buffet table as soon as it was ready but to his great
Whether or not the Philippine courts can determine the
shock, shame and embarrassment, Ruby Lim, Hotel’s
legal effects of a decree of divorce from a foreign
Executive Secretary, asked him to leave in a loud voice
country.
enough to be heard by the people around them. He was
asked to leave the party and a Makati policeman
Held:
accompanied him to step-out the hotel. All these time,
Yes. Our courts can determine the legal effects of a Dr Filart ignored him adding to his shame and
divorce obtained from a foreign country such as those humiliation.
concerning with support and custody of the children.

5
Ms. Ruby Lim: She admitted asking Mr. Reyes to leave secretary who conveyed the information to the owners of
the party but not in the manner claimed by the plaintiff. the house. The inspectors advised that the meter be
Ms. Lim approached several people including Dr. Filart’s brought in their laboratory for further verifications. In the
sister, Ms. Zenaida Fruto, if Dr. Filart did invite him as event that the meter was indeed tampered, defendant
the captain waiter told Ms. Lim that Mr. Reyes was with had to temporarily disconnect the electric services of the
Dr. Filart’s group. She wasn’t able to ask it personally couple. After an hour, inspectors returned and informed
with Dr. Filart since the latter was talking over the phone the findings of the laboratory and asked the couple that
and doesn’t want to interrupt her. She asked Mr. Reyes unless they pay the amount of P178,875.01 representing
to leave because the celebrant specifically ordered that the differential bill their electric supply will be
the party should be intimate consisting only of those who disconnected. The plaintiff filed complaint for damages
part of the list. She even asked politely with the plaintiff with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
to finish his food then leave the party. injunction despite the immediate reconnection.

During the plaintiff’s cross-examination, he was asked ISSUE: Whether or not MERALCO acted maliciously
how close was Ms. Lim when she approached him at the and malevolent manner done without due process, lack
buffet table. Mr. Reyes answered “very close because of regard for QUISUMBING’s rights, feelings, social and
we nearly kissed each other”. Considering the close business reputation and therefore held them
proximity, it was Ms. Lim’s intention to relay the request accountable and plaintiff be entitled for damages.
only be heard by him. It was Mr. Reyes who made a
scene causing everybody to know what happened. HELD:

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners acted abusively in Supreme Court partly granted the petition and ordered
asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party. plaintiff to pay respondent the billing differential of
P193,332.96 while latter is ordered to pay petitioners
HELD: moral and exemplary damages including attorney’s fees.
Moral damages may be recovered when rights of
Supreme Court held that petitioners did not act abusively individuals including right against the deprivation of
in asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party. Plaintiff failed to property without due process of law are violated.
establish any proof of ill-motive on the part of Ms. Lim Exemplary damages on the other hand are imposed by
who did all the necessary precautions to ensure that Mr. way of example or correction for public. SC recognized
Reyes will not be humiliated in requesting him to leave the effort of MERALCO in preventing illegal use of
the party. Considering almost 20 years of experience in electricity. However, any action must be done in strict
the hotel industry, Ms. Lim is experienced enough to observance of the rights of the people. “Under the law,
know how to handle such matters. Hence, petitioners the Manila Electric Company (Meralco) may immediately
will not be held liable for damages brought under Article disconnect electric service on the ground of alleged
19 and 20 of the Civil Code. meter tampering, but only if the discovery of the cause is
personally witnessed and attested to by an officer of the
Sps. Quisumbing vs. MERALCO GR law or by a duly authorized representative of the Energy
Regulatory Board”. During the inspection, no
No. 142943, April 3, 2002 government official or ERB representative was present.

FACTS: Petitioner’s claim for actual damages was not granted for
failure to supply proof and was premised only upon
The plaintiff, spouses Antonio and Lorna Quisumbing are
Lorna’s testimony. These are compensation for an injury
the owners of a house located at #94 Greenmeadows
that will put the injure position where it was before it was
Avenue, Quezon City. Around 9AM on March 3, 1995,
injured.
defendant’s inspectors headed by Emmanuel C. Orlino
were assigned to conduct a routine on the spot
inspection of all single phase meters at the house and Gasheem Shookat Baksh vs. CA 219
observed as standard operating procedure to ask SCRA 115
permission and was granted by the plaintiff’s secretary.
After the inspection, it was found that the meter had FACTS:
been tampered with. The result was relayed to the
6
Private respondent, Marilou Gonzales, filed a complaint FACTS:
dated October 27, 1987 for damages against the
petitioner for the alleged breach of their agreement to Romeo Jader graduated at UE College of law from
get married. She met the petitioner in Dagupan where 1984-88. During his last year, 1st semester, he failed to
the latter was an Iranian medical exchange student who take the regular final examination in Practical Court
later courted her and proposed marriage. The petitioner 1where he was given an incomplete grade remarks. He
even went to Marilou’s house to secure approval of her filed an application for removal of the incomplete grade
parents. The petitioner then forced the respondent to given by Prof. Carlos Ortega on February 1, 1988 which
leave with him in his apartment. Marilou was a virgin was approved by Dean Celedonio Tiongson after the
before she lived with him. After a week, she filed a payment of required fees. He took the exam on March
complaint because the petitioner started maltreating and 28 and on May 30, the professor gave him a grade of 5.
threatening her. He even tied the respondent in the
apartment while he was in school and drugged her. The commencement exercise of UE College of law was
Marilou at one time became pregnant but the petitioner held April 16, 1988, 3PM. In the invitation, his name
administered a drug to abort the baby. appeared. In preparation for the bar exam, he took a
leave of absence from work from April 20- Sept 30,
Petitioner repudiated the marriage agreement and told 1988. He had his pre-bar class review in FEU. Upon
Marilou to not live with him since he is already married to learning of such deficiency, he dropped his review
someone in Bacolod. He claimed that he never classes and was not able to take the bar exam.
proposed marriage or agreed to be married neither
sought consent and approval of Marliou’s parents. He Jader sued UE for damages resulting to moral shock,
claimed that he asked Marilou to stay out of his mental anguish, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation,
apartment since the latter deceived him by stealing wounded feelings, sleepless nights due to UE’s
money and his passport. The private respondent prayed negligence.
for damages and reimbursements of actual expenses.
ISSUE: Whether UE should be held liable for misleading
ISSUE: Whether breach of promise to marry can give a student into believing JADER satisfied all the
rise to cause for damages. requirements for graduation when such is not the case.
Can he claim moral damages?
HELD:
HELD:
The existing rule is that breach of promise to marry per
se is not an actionable wrong. The court held that when SC held that petitioner was guilty of negligence and this
a man uses his promise of marriage to deceive a woman liable to respondent for the latter’s actual damages.
to consent to his malicious desires, he commits fraud Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform the
and willfully injures the woman. In that instance, the students of their academic status and not wait for the
court found that petitioner’s deceptive promise to marry latter to inquire from the former. However, respondent
led Marilou to surrender her virtue and womanhood. should not have been awarded moral damages though
JADER suffered shock, trauma, and pain when he was
Moral damages can be claimed when such promise to informed that he could not graduate and will not be
marry was a deceptive ploy to have carnal knowledge allowed to take the bar examinations as what CA held
with the woman and actual damages should be paid for because it’s also respondent’s duty to verify for himself
the wedding preparation expenses. Petitioner even whether he has completed all necessary requirements to
committed deplorable acts in disregard of the laws of the be eligible for the bar examinations. As a senior law
country. student, he should have been responsible in ensuring
that all his affairs specifically those in relation with his
Therefore, SC set aside the decision of CA awarding academic achievement are in order. Before taking the
damages to the respondent. bar examinations, it doesn’t only entail a mental
preparation on the subjects but there are other
University of the East vs. Jader GR prerequisites such as documentation and submission of
requirements which prospective examinee must meet.
No. 132344, February 7, 2000

7
WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of
Appeals is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION. Petitioner
is ORDERED to PAY respondent the sum of Thirty-five
Thousand Four Hundred Seventy Pesos (P35,470.00),
with legal interest of 6% per annum computed from the
date of filing of the complaint until fully paid; the amount
of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) as attorney's fees;
and the costs of the suit. The award of moral damages is
DELETED.