CASE #1 Quizon vs.

Baltazar
On May 11, 1964 Private respondent Cecilia Sangalang filed two complaints of oral defamation
against petitioners Federico Qi!on and Profitisa Qi!on w"ic" was committed on #ovem$er 11, 1964%
Petitioners arged t"at $y e&press provision of 'rticle 9( of t"e )evised Penal Code, t"e offense of
Oral *efamation prescri$es in si& mont"s and according to t"e case of People vs% *el )osario, t"e
comptation starts from #ov% 1+ to ,( w"ic" is 19 days- pls t"e nm$er of days in t"e mont" of
*ecem$er 196, and .anary 1964 w"ic" "as ,1 days eac"- pls t"e nm$er of days in Fe$rary 1964
w"ic" is +9 days- pls t"e nm$er of days in Marc" 1964- pls t"e nm$er of days in 'pril 1964- pls
t"e nm$er of days from May 1 to 9, May 9 w"ic" is t"e time of t"e filing of t"e complaint% Please
refer to t"e ta$le for t"e comptation/
#ov% 1+ to ,( 0 19 days
*ec% 196, 1 ,1 days
.an% 1964 1 ,1 days
Fe$% 196, 1 +9 days
Mar% 196, 1 ,1 days
'pr% 196, 1 ,( days
From May 1 to 9 0 9 days
2 13( days or 6 mont"s
4t t"e respondents alleged t"at t"e comptation s"old $e in accordance wit" 'rticle 1, of t"e #ew
Civil Code w"ic" says t"at 5w"en t"e laws spea6 of mont"s, it s"all $e nderstood t"at mont" of t"irty
days eac"% 7t says frt"er t"at 5if mont"s are designated $y t"eir name, t"ey s"all $e compted $y t"e
nm$er of days w"ic" t"ey respectively "ave% So t"e comptation s"old $e- from #ovem$er 1+ to ,(
196, t"ere are 19 days- pls ,( days eac" from t"e mont"s of *ecem$er to 'pril- pls May 1 to 11,
1964% Please refer to t"e ta$le/
#ov% 1+ to ,(, 196, 0 19 days
*ec% 0 ,( days
.an% 0 ,( days
Fe$ 0 ,( days
Mar% 0 ,( days
'pr% 0 ,( days
From May 1 0 11, 1964 is 11 days
2 13( days or 6 mont"s
8iven t"e foregoing since t"e complaint is filed on May 11, 1964 t"en t"e crime "as not yet prescri$ed
as t"e crime wold prescri$e on t"e 1+
t"
of May%
Issue:
9O# t"e comptation made $y t"e respondent is correct
Held:
:es% 7f t"e formla for comptation of t"e defense ;petitioner< is to $e followed, 'rticle 1, in so far as a
mont" is designated $y its name, will $e rendered ngartory for t"e simple reason t"at t"ere are mont"s
t"at "ave ,1 days in t"e calendar to $e rec6oned wit" as t"ey will $e wit"in t"e prescriptive period% ="e
$asic nit of comptation sed $y t"e defense is $y t"e day and not $y t"e mont" of ,(1day dration as
provided in 'rticle 9( of t"e )evised Penal Code, t"e conting of w"ic" is to $e made in relation to
'rticle 1, of t"e #ew Civil Code%
CASE #2 Tenchavez vs. Escano
Facts/
>icenta ?scano missed "er afternoon class on Fe$rary +4, 1943 in t"e @niversity of San Carlos
to e&c"ange marriage vows wit" Pastor =enc"ave!, 3+, pon t"e 6nowledge of "er parents,
recele$ration was planned to validate w"at t"ey $elieved to $e an invalid marriage, from t"e standpoint
of t"e c"rc"% ="e recele$ration, "owever, did not ta6e place $ecase of t"e letter disclosing an
acnocos relations"ip $etween Pastor =enc"ave! and vicentaAs parents% >icenta contined living wit"
"er parents%
' petition was later drafted to annl marriage $t t"e case was dismissed wit"ot preBdice
$ecase of "er non1appearance at t"e "earing% >ecenta left for t"e @nited states and on 'gst +(,
19C(% S"e filed a virified complaint of divorce against Pastor on t"e grond 5e&treme crelty, entirely
mental in c"aracterD% ' decree of divorce, final and a$solte was t"en issed in poen cort $y t"e
second .dicial *istrict Cort of t"e state of #evada%
On Septem$er +9, 19C4, >icenta married an 'merican, )ssell Eeo Moran, in #evada% S"e
now lives in California wit" "er $egotten c"ildren% S"e acFired 'merican citi!ens"ip on 'gst 3,
19C3% On .ly ,(, 19CC, Pastor =enc"ave! initiated t"e proceedings at $ar $y complaint in t"e cort of
first 7nstance of Ce$ against >icenta and "er parents w"om "e c"arged wit" "aving dissaded and
discoraged >icenta from Boining "er "s$and and alienating "er affections% Ge as6ed for legal
separation and P1M damages%
>icenta claimed a voalid divorce and eFally valid marriage to "er present "s$and )sell Eeo
Moranw"ile "er parents denied t"e allegations and conter claimed for moral damages%
7SS@?/
May t"e P"ilippine cort recogni!e a divorce decree o$tained a$road $y sposes w"o are Filipino
citi!ensH
G?E*/
#o% it is eFally from t"e record t"at t"e valid marriage $etween Pastor =enc"ave! and >icenta
?scano remained s$sisting and ndissolved nder P"ilippine Eaw, notwit"standing t"e decree of
a$solte divorce t"at t"e wife sog"t and o$tained on +1 Octo$er 19C( from t"e Second .dcial *istrict
Cort of was"oe conty, State of #evada, on gorynd 5 e&treme crelty, entirely mental in c"aracterD%
't t"e time t"e dvorce decree was issed vicenta ?scano li6e "er "s$and, was still a Filipino citi!en%
S"e was t"en s$Bect P"ilippine law, and 'rticle 1C of t"e Civil Code of t"e P"ilippines%
For t"e P"ilippines corts to recogni!e and give recognition or effect to a foreign decree of a$solte
divorce $etween Filipino citi!en cold $e a patent violation of a declare p$lic policy of t"e stare,
especially in view of t"e t"ird paragrap" of 'rticle 1I of t"e civil Code t"at prescri$es t"e following/
5 pro"i$itive laws concerning persons, t"eir acts or property, and t"ose w"ic"
"ave for t"eir o$Bect, p$lic order, policy and good cstoms, s"all not $e rendered
ineffective $y laws or Bdgments promlgated, or $y determination or conventions
agreed pon in a foreign contry%D 'rticle 1I ;,<
form C"e preceding facts and considerations, t"is flows a necessary conseFence t"at in, t"e
Brisdiction >icenta ?scanoAs divorce and second marriage are not entitled to recognition as said for "er
previos nion to plaintiff =enc"ave! mst $e declared to $e e&istent and ndissolved%
CaseJ 4'K#') vs% 8')C7' 8%)% #o% E116I49 .anary ,1, 196,
FACTS/
?*9')* C"ristensen died testate% ="e estate was distri$ted $y ?&ectioner '!nar according
to t"e will, w"ic" provides t"at/ P"p ,,6(( $e given to G?E?# C"ristensen as "er legacy, and t"e rest
of "is estate to "is dag"ter E@C: C"ristensen, as prononced $y CF7 *avao%
Opposition to t"e approval of t"e proBect of partition was filed $y Gelen, insofar as it deprives
"er of "er legitime as an ac6nowledged natral c"ild, s"e "aving $een declared $y @s an ac6nowledged
natral c"ild of t"e deceased ?dward in an earlier case%
's to "is citi!ens"ip, we find t"at t"e citi!ens"ip t"at "e acFired in California w"en "e resided
in Sacramento from 19(4 to 191,, was never lost $y "is stay in t"e P"ilippines, and t"e deceased
appears to "ave considered "imself as a citi!en of California $y t"e fact t"at w"en "e e&ected "is will
"e declared t"at "e was a citi!en of t"at State- so t"at "e appears never to "ave intended to a$andon "is
California citi!ens"ip $y acFiring anot"er% 4t at t"e time of "is deat", "e was domiciled in t"e
P"ilippines%
ISSE/ w"at law on sccession s"old apply, t"e P"ilippine law or t"e California lawH
HE!"/
9G?)?FO)?, t"e decision appealed from is "ere$y reversed and t"e case retrned to t"e
lower cort wit" instrctions t"at t"e partition $e made as t"e P"ilippine law on sccession provides%
="e law t"at governs t"e validity of "is testamentary dispositions is defined in 'rticle 16 of t"e Civil
Code of t"e P"ilippines, w"ic" is as follows/
')=% 16% )eal property as well as personal property is s$Bect to t"e law of t"e contry w"ere it is
sitated%
Gowever, intestate and testamentary sccessions, $ot" wit" respect to t"e order of sccession
and to t"e amont of sccessional rig"ts and to t"e intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, s"all $e
reglated $y t"e national law of t"e person w"ose sccession is nder consideration, w"atever may $e
t"e natre of t"e property and regardless of t"e contry w"ere said property may $e fond%
="e application of t"is article in t"e case at $ar reFires t"e determination of t"e meaning of t"e term
5national lawD is sed t"erein%
="e ne&t Festion is/ 9"at is t"e law in California governing t"e disposition of personal propertyH
="e decision of CF7 *avao, sstains t"e contention of t"e e&ector1appellee t"at nder t"e California
Pro$ate Code, a testator may dispose of "is property $y will in t"e form and manner "e desires% 4t
G?E?# invo6es t"e provisions of 'rticle 946 of t"e Civil Code of California, w"ic" is as follows/
7f t"ere is no law to t"e contrary, in t"e place w"ere personal property is sitated, it is deemed to follow
t"e person of its owner, and is governed $y t"e law of "is domicile%
7t is arged on e&ectorAs $e"alf t"at as t"e deceased C"ristensen was a citi!en of t"e State of
California, t"e internal law t"ereof, w"ic" is t"at given in t"e Lafman case, s"old govern t"e
determination of t"e validity of t"e testamentary provisions of C"ristensenAs will, sc" law $eing in
force in t"e State of California of w"ic" C"ristensen was a citi!en% 'ppellant, on t"e ot"er "and, insists
t"at 'rticle 946 s"old $e applica$le, and in accordance t"erewit" and following t"e doctrine of t"e
renvoi, t"e Festion of t"e validity of t"e testamentary provision in Festion s"old $e referred $ac6 to
t"e law of t"e decedentAs domicile, w"ic" is t"e P"ilippines%
9e note t"at 'rticle 946 of t"e California Civil Code is its conflict of laws rle, w"ile t"e rle
applied in 7n re Lafman, its internal law% 7f t"e law on scc ession and t"e conflict of laws rles of
California are to $e enforced Bointly, eac" in its own intended and appropriate sp"ere, t"e principle
cited 7n re Lafman s"old apply to citi!ens living in t"e State, $t 'rticle 946 s"old apply to sc" of
its citi!ens as are not domiciled in California $t in ot"er Brisdictions% ="e rle laid down of resorting
to t"e law of t"e domicile in t"e determination of matters wit" foreign element involved is in accord
wit" t"e general principle of 'merican law t"at t"e domiciliary law s"old govern in most matters or
rig"ts w"ic" follow t"e person of t"e owner%
'ppellees arge t"at w"at 'rticle 16 of t"e Civil Code of t"e P"ilippines pointed ot as t"e national
law is t"e internal law of California% 4t as a$ove e&plained t"e laws of California "ave prescri$ed two
sets of laws for its citi!ens, one for residents t"erein and anot"er for t"ose domiciled in ot"er
Brisdictions%
7t is arged on appelleesA ;'!nar and E@C:< $e"alf t"at t"e clase 5if t"ere is no law to t"e contrary in
t"e place w"ere t"e property is sitatedD in Sec% 946 of t"e California Civil Code refers to 'rticle 16 of
t"e Civil Code of t"e P"ilippines and t"at t"e law to t"e contrary in t"e P"ilippines is t"e provision in
said 'rticle 16 t"at t"e national law of t"e deceased s"old govern% ="is contention can not $e
sstained%
's e&plained in t"e varios at"orities cited a$ove, t"e national law mentioned in 'rticle 16 of
or Civil Code is t"e law on conflict of laws in t"e California Civil Code, i%e%, 'rticle 946, w"ic"
at"ori!es t"e reference or retrn of t"e Festion to t"e law of t"e testatorAs domicile% ="e conflict of
laws rle in California, 'rticle 946, Civil Code, precisely refers $ac6 t"e case, w"en a decedent is not
domiciled in California, to t"e law of "is domicile, t"e P"ilippines in t"e case at $ar% ="e cort of t"e
domicile can not and s"old not refer t"e case $ac6 to California- sc" action wold leave t"e isse
incapa$le of determination $ecase t"e case will t"en $e li6e a foot$all, tossed $ac6 and fort" $etween
t"e two states, $etween t"e contry of w"ic" t"e decedent was a citi!en and t"e contry of "is domicile%
="e P"ilippine cort mst apply its own law as directed in t"e conflict of laws rle of t"e state of t"e
decedent, if t"e Festion "as to $e decided, especially as t"e application of t"e internal law of
California provides no legitimacy for c"ildren w"ile t"e P"ilippine law, 'rts% 33I;4< and 394, Civil
Code of t"e P"ilippines, ma6es natral c"ildren legally ac6nowledged forced "eirs of t"e parent
recogni!ing t"em%
9e t"erefore find t"at as t"e domicile of t"e deceased ?dward, a citi!en of California, is t"e
P"ilippines, t"e validity of t"e provisions of "is will depriving "is ac6nowledged natral c"ild, t"e
appellant G?E?#, s"old $e governed $y t"e P"ilippine Eaw, t"e domicile, prsant to 'rt% 946 of t"e
Civil Code of California, not $y t"e internal law of California%%
#$TES: ="ere is no single 'merican law governing t"e validity of testamentary provisions in t"e
@nited States, eac" state of t"e @nion "aving its own private law applica$le to its citi!ens only and in
force only wit"in t"e state% ="e 5national lawD indicated in 'rticle 16 of t"e Civil Code a$ove Foted
cannot, t"erefore, possi$ly mean or apply to any general 'merican law% So it can refer to no ot"er t"an
t"e private law of t"e State of California%
Case#% Bellis vs. Bellis 20 SCRA 358
FACTS:
'mos 4ellis, a @S citi!en, died a resident of =e&as% On 'gst C, 19C+, 'mos 8% 4ellis
e&ected a will in t"e P"ilippines, in w"ic" "e directed t"at after all ta&es, o$ligations, and e&penses of
administration are paid for, "is distri$ta$le estate s"old $e divided% Ge left two wills 11 one devising a
certain amont of money to "is first wife and t"ree illegitimate c"ildren and anot"er, leaving t"e rest of
"is estate to "is seven legitimate c"ildren% .ly 3, 19C3, 'mos 8% 4ellis died a resident of San 'ntonio,
=e&as, @%S%'% Gis will was admitted to pro$ate in t"e Cort of First 7nstance of Manila on Septem$er
1C, 19C3% On .anary 3, 1964, preparatory to closing its administration, t"e e&ector s$mitted and
filed its M?&ectorNs Final 'ccont, )eport of 'dministration and ProBect of PartitionM w"erein it
reported, inter alia, t"e satisfaction of t"e legacy of Mary ?% Mallen $y t"e delivery to "er of s"ares of
stoc6 amonting to O+4(,(((%((, and t"e legacies of 'mos 4ellis, .r%, Maria Cristina 4ellis and Miriam
Palma 4ellis in t"e amont of P4(,(((%(( eac" or a total of P1+(,(((%((% 7n t"e proBect of partition, t"e
e&ector P prsant to t"e M=welft"M clase of t"e testatorNs East 9ill and =estament P divided t"e
residary estate into seven eFal portions for t"e $enefit of t"e testatorNs seven legitimate c"ildren $y
"is first and second marriages% ="e illegitimate c"ildren w"o are Filipinos opposed on t"e grond t"at
t"ey are deprived of t"eir legitimes%
ISSE:
9"et"er t"e applica$le law is =e&as law or P"ilippines%
HE!":
=e&asA Eaw, 'rticle 16, par% +, and 'rt% 1(,9 of t"e Civil Code, render applica$le t"e national
law of t"e decedent, in intestate or testamentary sccessions, wit" regard to for items/ ;a< t"e order of
sccession- ;$< t"e amont of sccessional rig"ts- ;e< t"e intrinsic validity of t"e provisions of t"e will-
and ;d< t"e capacity to scceed% ="ey provide t"at P ')=% 16% )eal property as well as personal
property is s$Bect to t"e law of t"e contry w"ere it is sitated% Gowever, intestate and testamentary
sccessions, $ot" wit" respect to t"e order of sccession and to t"e amont of sccessional rig"ts and to
t"e intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, s"all $e reglated $y t"e national law of t"e person
w"ose sccession is nder consideration, w"atever may $e t"e natre of t"e property and regardless of
t"e contry w"erein said property may $e fond% ')=% 1(,9% Capacity to scceed is governed $y t"e
law of t"e nation of t"e decedent% 'ppellants wold "owever conter t"at 'rt% 1I, paragrap" t"ree, of
t"e Civil Code, stating t"at P Pro"i$itive laws concerning persons, t"eir acts or property, and t"ose
w"ic" "ave for t"eir o$Bect p$lic order, p$lic policy and good cstoms s"all not $e rendered
ineffective $y laws or Bdgments promlgated, or $y determinations or conventions agreed pon in a
foreign contry% 7t is t"erefore evident t"at w"atever p$lic policy or good cstoms may $e involved in
or System of legitimes, Congress "as not intended to e&tend t"e same to t"e sccession of foreign
nationals% For it "as specifically c"osen to leave, inter alia, t"e amont of sccessional rig"ts, to t"e
decedentNs national law% Specific provisions mst prevail over general ones%
Case#&
'!$BE (AC)A* CAB!E A#" +A"I$ C$+,.- and HE+BE+T C. HE#"+* vs THE
H$#$+AB!E C$+T $F A,,EA!S and +ESTITT$ (. T$BIAS
1I6 SC)' II3
'gst +C, 1939
Facts/
1( #ovem$er 19I+, "erein private respondent )estitto =o$ias, a prc"asing agent and administrative
assistant to t"e engineering operations manager, discovered fictitios prc"ases and ot"er fradlent
transactions, w"ic" cased 8lo$e Mac6ay Ca$le and )adio Corp loss of several t"osands of pesos% Ge
reported it to "is immediate sperior ?dardo =% Ferraren and to t"e ?&ective >ice President and
8eneral Manager Ger$ert Gendry% ' day after t"e report, Gendry told =o$ias t"at "e was nm$er one
sspect and ordered "im one wee6 forced leave% 9"en =o$ias retrned to wor6 after said leave, Gendry
called "im a 5croo6D and a 5swindlerD, ordered "im to ta6e a lie detector test, and to s$mit specimen
of "is "andwriting, signatre and initials for police investigation% Moreover, petitioners "ired a private
investigator% Private investigation was still incomplete- t"e lie detector tests yielded negative reslts-
reports from Manila police investigators and from t"e Metro Manila Police C"ief *ocment ?&aminer
are in favor of =o$ias% Petitioners filed wit" t"e FiscalAs Office of Manila a total of si& ;6< criminal
cases against private respondent =o$ias, $t were dismissed%
=o$ias received a notice of termination of "is employment from petitioners in .anary 19I,, effective
*ecem$er 19I+% Ge sog"t employment wit" t"e )ep$lic =elep"one Company ;)?=?ECO<- $t
Gendry wrote a letter to )?=?ECO stating t"at =o$ias was dismissed $y 8lo$e Mac6ay de to
dis"onesty% =o$ias, t"en, filed a civil case for damages anc"ored on alleged nlawfl, malicios,
oppressive, and a$sive acts of petitioners% ="e )egional =rial Cort of Manila, 4ranc" 7Q, t"rog"
.dge Manel =% )eyes rendered Bdgment in favor of private respondent, ordering petitioners to pay
"im eig"ty t"osand pesos ;P3(,(((%((< as actal damages, two "ndred t"osand pesos ;P+((,(((%((<
as moral damages, twenty t"osand pesos ;P+(,(((%((< as e&emplary damages, t"irty t"osand pesos
;P,(,(((%((< as attorneyNs fees, and costs- "ence, t"is petition for review on certiorari%
7sse/ 9"et"er or not petitioners are lia$le for damages to private respondent%
Geld/
:es% ="e Cort, after e&amining t"e record and considering certain significant circmstances, finds t"at
all petitioners "ave indeed a$sed t"e rig"t t"at t"ey invo6e, casing damage to private respondent and
for w"ic" t"e latter mst now $e indemnified/ w"en Gendry told =o$ias to Bst confess or else t"e
company wold file a "ndred more cases against "im ntil "e landed in Bail- "is ;Gendry< scornfl
remar6s a$ot Filipinos ;M:o Filipinos cannot $e trsted%D< as well as against =o$ias ;5croo6D, and
5swindlerD<- t"e writing of a letter to )?=?ECO stating t"at =o$ias was dismissed $y 8lo$e Mac6ay
de to dis"onesty- and t"e filing of si& criminal cases $y petitioners against private respondent% 'll
t"ese reveal t"at petitioners are motivated $y malicios and nlawfl intent to "arass, oppress, and
case damage to private respondent% ="e imptation of gilt wit"ot $asis and t"e pattern of
"arassment dring t"e investigations of =o$ias transgress t"e standards of "man condct set fort" in
'rticle 19 of t"e Civil Code%
9G?)?FO)?, t"e petition is *?#7?* and t"e decision of t"e Cort of 'ppeals in C'18%)% C> #o%
(9(CC is 'FF7)M?*%
Case#.
/0 SC+A 20. 1 ,#B 2S. CA
)ita =apnio owes P#4 an amont of P+,(((%((% ="e amont is secred $y "er sgar crops a$ot
to $e "arvested inclding "er e&port Fota allocation wort" 1,((( picls% ="e said e&port Fota was
later dealt $y =apnio to a certain .aco$o =a!on at P+%C( per picl or a total of P+,C((% Since t"e
s$Bect of t"e deal is mortgaged wit" P#4, t"e latter "as to approve it% ="e $ranc" manager of P#4
recommended t"at t"e price s"old $e at P+%3( per picl w"ic" was t"e prevailing minimm amont
allowa$le% =apnio and =a!on agreed to t"e said amont% 'nd so t"e $an6 manager recommended t"e
agreement to t"e vice president of P#4% ="e vice president in trn recommended it to t"e $oard of
directors of P#4%
Gowever, t"e 4oard of *irectors wanted to raise t"e price to P,%(( per picl% ="is =a!on does
not want "ence "e $ac6ed ot from t"e agreement% ="is reslted to =apnio not $eing a$le to reali!e
profit and at t"e same time rendered "er na$le to pay "er P+,(((%(( crop loan w"ic" wold "ave $een
covered $y "er agreement wit" =a!on%
?ventally, =apnio was sed $y "er ot"er creditors and =apnio filed a t"ird party complaint
against P#4 w"ere s"e alleged t"at "er failre to pay "er de$ts was $ecase of P#4As negligence and
nreasona$leness%
P#4 filed a certiorari to review t"e decision of t"e Cort of 'ppeals w"ic" affirmed t"e Bdgment of
t"e Cort of First 7nstance ordering t"e petitioner to pay t"e t"ird party plaintiff%
7SS@?/ 9"et"er or not P#4 is lia$le%
G?E*/
:es% 7n t"is type of transaction, time is of t"e essence considering t"at =apnioAs sgar Fota for
said year needs to $e tili!ed 'S'P ot"erwise "er allotment may $e assigned to someone else, and if
s"e canAt se it, s"e wonAt $e a$le to e&port "er crops% 7t is nreasona$le for P#4As $oard of directors to
disallow t"e agreement $etween =apnio and =a!on $ecase of t"e mere difference of (%+( in t"e
agreed price rate% 9"at ma6es it more nreasona$le is t"e fact t"at t"e P+%3( was recommended $ot"
$y t"e $an6 manager and P#4As >P yet it was disapproved $y t"e $oard% Frt"er, t"e P+%3( per picl
rate is t"e minimm allowa$le rate prsant to prevailing mar6et trends t"at time% ="is nreasona$le
stand reflects P#4As lac6 of t"e reasona$le degree of care and vigilance in attending to t"e matter% P#4
is t"erefore negligent%
' corporation is civilly lia$le in t"e same manner as natral persons for torts, $ecase
5generally spea6ing, t"e rles governing t"e lia$ility of a principal or master for a tort committed $y an
agent or servant are t"e same w"et"er t"e principal or master $e a natral person or a corporation, and
w"et"er t"e servant or agent $e a natral or artificial person% 'll of t"e at"orities agree t"at a principal
or master is lia$le for every tort w"ic" it e&pressly directs or at"ori!es, and t"is is Bst as tre of a
corporation as of a natral person, a corporation is lia$le, t"erefore, w"enever a tortios act is
committed $y an officer or agent nder e&press direction or at"ority from t"e stoc6"olders or
mem$ers acting as a $ody, or, generally, from t"e directors as t"e governing $ody%D
case 34'E'#? >% :@ CG7'#8 RC4 O%8% #o% ,, p% 63I ;19CI<S 0
9"ere a man $y virte of a notari!ed agreement, convinced t"e 191year old dag"ter of petitioner, to
live wit" "im, and later on left "er w"en s"e got pregnant, "e can $e made to recogni!e "is c"ild and is
lia$le for damages nder 'rt% +1 of t"e Civil Code for indcing t"e dag"ter to live wit" "im in a
manner contrary to morals and good cstoms%
@nder t"e #ew Civil Code, it is not necessary t"at t"ere $e a $reac" of promise of marriage in order
t"at t"e plaintiff in an action for ac6nowledgment of natral c"ild and spport may recover damages%
="e reason given $y t"e Code Commission is t"at in case a girl is already of age and was sedced, no
action for Sedction nder t"e )PC wold lie, "owever, t"e girl and "er family wold "ave sffered
incalcla$le damages, w"ic" mst $e compensated%
'rt% ++% ?very person w"o t"rog" an act of performance $y anot"er, or any ot"er means, acFires or
comes into possession of somet"ing at t"e e&pense of t"e latter wit"ot Bst or legal grond, s"all retrn
t"e same to "im%
'rt% +,% ?ven w"en an act or event casing damage to anot"erNs property was not de to t"e falt or
negligence of t"e defendant, t"e latter s"all $e lia$le for indemnity if t"rog" t"e act or event "e was
$enefitted%
'rt% +4% 7n all contractal, property or ot"er relations, w"en one of t"e parties is at a disadvantage on
accont of "is moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental wea6ness, tender age or ot"er "andicap,
t"e corts mst $e vigilant for "is protection%
'rt% +C% ="og"tless e&travagance in e&penses for pleasre or display dring a period of acte p$lic
want or emergency may $e stopped $y order of t"e corts at t"e instance of any government or private
c"arita$le instittion%
'rt% +6% ?very person s"all respect t"e dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of "is neig"$ors
and ot"er persons% ="e following and similar acts, t"og" t"ey may not constitte a criminal offense,
s"all prodce a case of action for damages, prevention and ot"er relief/
;1< Prying into t"e privacy of anot"erNs residence-
;+< Meddling wit" or distr$ing t"e private life or family relations of anot"er-
;,< 7ntriging to case anot"er to $e alienated from "is friends-
;4< >e&ing or "miliating anot"er on accont of "is religios $eliefs, lowly station in life, place of
$irt", p"ysical defect, or ot"er personal condition%
Case J 9
9+ scra 4I6
Eagn!ad >s% Soto >da% *e 8on!ales
Facts/
Manel Eag!ad $egan a prodction of a movie 5="e moises padilla storyD $ased on t"e rig"ts
t"at "e prc"ased from a $oo6 at"or% =lt"og" t"e emp"asis of t"e movie was on t"e p$lic life of
Padilla, t"ere were portions w"ic" dealt wit" "is private and family life, wife and one 5'ringD as "is
girlfriend% ="e family of Padilla o$Bected t"e filming of t"e movie and t"e e&ploitation of "is life% ="ey
demanded certain c"anges, corrections and deletions of parts%
7sse/
9"et"er or not Eagn!ad "ad t"e rig"t to film t"e p$lic life of a p$lic figre in fringed pon
t"e constittional rig"t to privacy%
)ling/
:es% ="e interests o$serva$le are t"e rig"t to privacy asserted $y 8on!ales and t"e rig"t of
freedom of e&pression invo6ed $y Eagn!ad% ="e limit of freedom of e&pression is reac"ed w"en
e&pression toc"es pon matters essentially of private concern% 4eing a p$lic figre does not
atomatically destroy a personNs rig"t to privacy% ="e rig"t to invade a personAs privacy to disseminate
information does not e&tend to a fictional or noveli!ed representation of a person no matter "ow a
p$lic figre "e mig"t $e% Eagn!ad admits t"at "e inclded a little romance in t"e film $ecase
wit"ot it, it wold $e dra$ story of tortre and $rtality%
CaseJ9
'.+. #o. /20/3 A4ril 25- 15//
A*E+ ,+$"CTI$#S ,T*. !T". and (cE!+$* 6 (cE!+$* FI!( ,+$"CTI$#S- petitioners,
vs%
H$#.I'#ACI$ (. CA,!$#' and 7A# ,$#CE E#+I!E- respondents%
'.+. #o. /205/ A4ril 25- 15//
HA! (CE!+$* petitioner,
vs%
H$#. I'#ACI$ (. CA,!$#'- in his ca4acit8 as ,residin9 7ud9e o: the +e9ional Trial Court o: (a;ati- Branch
10< and 7A# ,$#CE E#+I!E- respondents%
Facts: Petitioner envisioned t"e filming for commercial viewing t"e peacefl strggle of t"e Filipinos
at ?*S' ;?pifanio de los Santos 'vene< to ost t"en President Ferdinand Marcos% ="ey conslted
wit" 8eneral Fidel >% )amos and Senator .an Ponce ?nrile, w"o played maBor roles in t"e events%
9"ile 8eneral )amos signified "is approval, Senator ?nrile did not% ="e film prodcer deleted t"e
name of Senator ?nrile in t"e script and proceeded to film t"e motion pictre% )espondent t"en filed a
Complaint wit" application for a 9rit of Preliminary 7nBnction wit" t"e )egional =rial Cort of
Ma6ati, see6ing to enBoin Mc?lroy and 'yer Prodctions from prodcing t"e movie% )espondent
alleged t"at t"e prodction of t"e film wit"ot "is consent and over "is o$Bection constittes a violation
of "is rig"t of privacy% ="e trial cort issed a writ of preliminary inBnction, to desist from filming t"e
movie% Petitioners Festioned t"e trial cort decision in a petition for certiorari $efore t"e Spreme
Cort, claiming t"eir rig"t of freedom of speec" and e&pression%
Issue: 9T# t"e motion pictre is garanteed nder t"e rig"t to free speec"
+ulin9: :es, t"e motion pictre is garanteed nder t"e right to free speech% Freedom of speec" and
e&pression incldes t"e freedom to film, prodce and e&"i$it motion pictres% ="e freedom of speec"
and e&pression incldes t"e freedom to film and prodce motion pictres and to e&"i$it sc" motion
pictres in t"eaters or t"rog" television%
)espondent cannot o$Bect "is inclsion in t"e movie $y invo6ing "is right to privacy. Privacy of a
Mp$lic figreM necessarily narrower t"an t"at of ordinary citi!ens% ' limited intrsion into a personNs
privacy is permissi$le w"ere t"at person is a p$lic figre and t"e information sog"t to $e elicited
from "im or to $e p$lis"ed a$ot "im constitte matters of a p$lic c"aracter% ="e s$Bect matter of
t"e movie relates to t"e non1$loody c"ange of government t"at too6 place in Fe$rary 1936% Sc"
s$Bect matter is one of p$lic interest and concern as it relates to a "ig"ly critical stage in or "istory%
7t "as passed into t"e p$lic domain and as an appropriate s$Bect for speec" and e&pression and
coverage $y any form of mass media%
CaseJ1( wala
case#11
'+ #$ !=1<03%
25 Au9ust 15&1
'audencio t. (endoza- 4lainti::=a44ellant vs. (a>i?o (. Alcala- de:endant=a44ellee
F'C=S/
'ppellant filed in t"e Cort of First 7nstance c"arging t"e defendant of estafa%
*efendant made transaction wit" t"e appellant selling 1(( cavans of palay, C6 6ilos per cavan for P
1,1((%(( and promised to deliver it $efore Septem$er C, 19C,% 'ppellant paid "im t"e amont $t t"e
defendant didnAt deliver% Eater on, t"e defendant was acFitted on t"e grond t"at t"e prosection failed
in proving "is gilt $eyond reasona$le do$t%
On *ecem$er 16, 19C4, w"ile t"e case was pending, t"e plaintiff filed in t"e .stice of t"e Peace Cort
of San .ose as6ing for Bdgment against defendant w"ic" was granted% ="e defendant filed an appeal to
t"e Cort of First 7nstance, granting "is appeal%
7SS@?S/
9"et"er or not a separate civil case can $e filed w"en t"e accsed in criminal prosection is acFitted
on t"e grond t"at "is gilt was not proven $eyond reasona$le do$t%
G?E*/
:es% @nder 'rt% +9 of t"e Civil Code t"e conclsion t"at "is gilt "as not $een proven $eyond
reasona$le do$t is eFivalent to one of reasona$le do$t% ="s, a civil action may prosper% @nder t"e
)les of Cort, t"e e&tinction of t"e penal action does not carry wit" it t"e e&tinction of t"e civil nless
t"ere is declaration t"at fact from w"ic" civil is $ased did not e&ist% 'lt"og" no reservation was made,
t"e declaration in t"e criminal case t"at t"e o$ligation is prely civil amonts to a reservation of t"e
civil action in favor of t"e offended party% Frt"ermore, since estafa involves frad, an independent
civil action may prosper nder 'rt% ,, of t"e Civil Code%
caseJ1+
Mendo!a vs% 'rrieta%
.ne +9, 19I9
?*8')*O ?% M?#*OK', petitioner vs% GO#% '4@#*7O K% '))7?=', Presiding .dge of 4ranc"
>777,Cort of First 7nstance of Manila, F?E7#O =7M4OE, and )O*OEFO S'E'K'),respondents
F'C=S/
1% On Octo$er ++,1969, at arond 4 oNcloc6 in t"e afternoon an accident "appened along Mac1'rt"r
Gig"wayn,Marilao,4lacan, involving t"ree ve"icles%
+% ' sand and gravel trc6 owned $y Felipino =im$ol and driven $y Freddie Montoya $mped t"e rig"t
rear portion of t"e Beep driven $y )odolfo Sala!ar%
,% 's a case of t"e collision stated a$ove, t"e Beep $mped into a Mercedes 4en! on t"e ot"er lane
driven $y petitioner ?dgardo Mendo!a%
4% Petitioner filed c"arges reFesting )odolfo Sala!ar to pay damages to "is car%
7SS@?/ 9T# )odolfo Sala!ar is lia$le for damages to t"e Mercedes 4en! of ?dgardo Mendo!a%
G?E*/ #o% @nder t"e facts of t"e case, Beep1owner1driver Sala!ar cannot $e "eld lia$le for t"e
damages sstained $y petitionerNs car% ="e fact from w"ic" t"e civil mig"t arise did not e&ist% ="erefore,
respondent is dismissed from any c"arges and responsi$ilities%
Case#10
THE +E,B!IC $F THE ,HI!I,,I#ES@ CA,IA A'+IC!T+A! A#" FISHE+*
SCH$$! SCH$$!B ,ETITI$#E+-2S. H$#. SI!2EST+E B+. BE!!$- ,+ESI"I#' 7"'E
$F B+A#CH II- C$+T $F FI+ST I#STA#CE $F CA,IA A#" +$(E$ A+CEC$-
+ES,$#"E#TS.
F'C=S/ P)7>'=? )?SPO#*?#= ')C?UO 9'S CG')8?* 7# C)7M7#'E C'S? FO)
M'E>?)S'=7O# OF P@4E7C F@#*S 7# =G? 'MO@#= OF P6,619%,4 9G7CG G?
S@PPOS?*E: F'7E?* =O P)O*@C? O) =O M'L? P)OP?) 'CCO@#=7#8 'F=?)
)?P?'=?* *?M'#*S% 'F=?) *@? =)7'E, =G? )?SPO#*?#= CO@)= )?#*?)?* '
*?C7S7O# 'CQ@7==7#8 ')C?UO FO) E'CL OF C)7M7#'E 7#=?#= O# 'CC@S?* P')=%
'F=?) =G? 'CQ@7=='E, =G? P)O>7#C7'E F7SC'E F7E?* ' C7>7E C'S? #O% >1,,9 FO)
=G? )?CO>?): OF =G? =O='E S@M OF P1,,I9(%I1 9G7CG )?P)?S?#=?* =G?
'CCO@#='47E7=: OF ')C?UO *@? =O G7S F'7E@)? =O 7SS@? '# OFF7C7'E )?C?7P=
'#* SP?#= =G? S'7* F@#*S 97=GO@= COMPE:7#8 97=G =G? )?Q@7)?M?#=S
'PPE7C'4E? =O *7S4@)S?M?#= OF F@#*S 97=G 7#=?#= =O *?F)'@* =G?
8O>?)#M?#=%')C?UO F7E?* ' MO=7O# =O *7SM7SS 4@= 9'S *?#7?*%
7SS@?/ 9T# =G? 'CQ@7=='E OF ')C?UO 7# =G? C)7M7#'E C'S? 4')S =G? F7E7#8 OF
C7>7E 'C=7O# '8'7#S= G7%
)@E?/ #O%=G? 'CC@S?* P)'C=7C'EE: 4)@SG?* 'S7*? '#* 78#O)?* 'EE
8@7*?E7#?S ?#@#C7'=?* 4: =G? 8?#?)'E '@*7=7#8 OFF7C? )?8')*7#8
*7S4@)S?M?#= OF 8O>?)#M?#= F@#*S%=G? 'CC@S?* >7OE'=?* =G? )?P@4E7C
'C= 99+ S?C%1I
caseJ13Escueta vs. Fandialan
'+ #o. !=05&.%- &1 SC+A 2./
#ove?Der 25- 15.<
Facts: Plaintiff filed Ron July 5, 1968S a complaint in t"e Cort of First 7nstance of Eagna ;Civil Case
#o% SP1IC6< against defendant for damages, praying t"at t"e latter $e ordered to pay "im t"e sms of
;1< PI,((( as actal or compensatory damages, ;+< P+(,((( as moral damages, ;,< PC,((( as e&emplary
damages and ;4< P4,((( as attorneyNs fees, pls costs of sit%
="e complaint alleged t"at on July 2, 1952, defendant inflicted several p"ysical inBries on t"e person
of plaintiff for w"ic" "e was c"arged wit" t"e crime of frstrated "omicide $t was convicted of slight
physical injuries $y t"e CF7 of Eagna, w"ic" Bdgment was affirmed $y t"e Cort of 'ppeals on
'gst ,1, 19CC ;'nne& '<- t"at on .ne +(, 19C6, plaintiff, "aving reserved "is rig"t to institte a
separate civil action, filed wit" t"e CF7 a complaint to enforce defendantNs civil lia$ility nder 'rticle
1(( of t"e )evised Penal Code $t t"e same was dismissed wit"ot preBdice and costs on Octo$er ,1,
196+, for lack of interest- and t"at despite t"e lapse of several years and t"e attempt on plaintiffNs part to
enforce t"e said civil lia$ility, defendant failed to settle t"e same, t"s compelling plaintiff to refile t"e
case on .ly C, 1963%
On defendantNs motion, t"e cort dismissed t"e complaint on t"e grond of prescription, t"at is, Mt"e
instant action "as $een $arred $y t"e Statte of Eimitations $ecase t"e crime of physical
injuries was committed $y defendant on July 2, 1952 and t"is case was filed on July 5, 1968, or after
t"e lapse of 16 years, t"e period of prescription applica$le $eing years according to 'rt% 1146 ;1< of
t"e Civil Code%
Issue: 9"et"er or not t"e lower cortNs dismissal of t"e complaint filed after t"e lapse of 16 years on
t"e grond t"at t"e action is $arred $y prescription is correct%
)ling/ ="e date of accral of case of action, t"e Cort finds t"at t"e lower cort correctly sstained
defendantNs contention t"at plaintiffNs case of action for damages accred on July 2, 1952 w"en t"e
p"ysical inBries were inflicted as against plaintiffNs contention t"at "is case of action accred t"ree
years later on 'gst ,1, 19CC w"en t"e Bdgment of conviction for p"ysical inBries against defendant
as accsed in t"e criminal case $ecame final%
Gere, plaintiffNs ;offended party< civil action for recovery of civil lia$ility and damages from defendant
;accsed< wold "ave $een implicitly institted wit" t"e criminal action, $t plaintiff e&pressly
reserved "is rig"t to institte t"e civil action separately% @nder 'rticle ,, of t"e Civil Code,
2
even
wit"ot sc" reservation, "e cold prosecte "is civil action for damages from t"e physical
injuries separately and independently of t"e criminal action and wold reFire only a preponderance of
evidence to spport "is action% Sc" separate and independent civil action nder t"e cited codal article
proceeds to trial and final Bdgment irrespective of t"e reslt of t"e criminal action%
0
Manifestly, t"en, plaintiffNs civil action for damages does not fall nder t"at category of civil actions
$ased pon a criminal offense w"ic" are sspended to await t"e otcome of t"e criminal case nder
)le 111, section , of t"e )les of Cort% 4eing a case of p"ysical inBries nder 'rticle ,, of t"e Civil
Code, plaintiffs civil action for damages did not arise from nor depend pon t"e reslt of t"e criminal
action $t from defendantNs act of infliction of p"ysical inBries% Gence, plaintiffNs case of action
clearly accred from .ly +, 19C+ t"e date t"at t"e p"ysical inBries were inflicted on "im% 's of t"at
date, "e "ad t"e rig"t to file and maintain "is civil action for damages and t"e period of prescription
started to rn%
PlaintiffNs case of action was entirely independent of t"e reslt and otcome of t"e criminal action%
7ndeed, plaintiff derived no enforcea$le rig"t from t"e Bdgment of conviction w"ic" $ecame final on
'gst ,1, 19CC, since no adBdication was t"erein made as to defendantNs civil lia$ility $y virte of
plaintiffNs e&press reservation of t"e filing of a separate civil sit%
'CCO)*7#8E:, t"e appealed order of dismissal is "ere$y affirmed, wit" costs against plaintiff1
appellant%
Case#21 !A#"ICH$ 2S +E!$2A
Facts: ?lvira Ma6atangay was married to )olando Eandic"o ;Petitioner<% Petitioner t"en contracted a
+nd marriage to Fe Pasia wTo dissolving "is 1st marriage% Petitioner was c"arged wT 4igamy $y "is 1st
wife ?lvira Fe t"en sog"t to declare "er marriage to petitioner% void de to alleged t"reats V force%
Petitioner t"en sog"t to declare "is 1st marriage void on t"e grond t"at "e contracted it nder dress%
Petitioner moved to sspend "is criminal case for $igamy pending t"e reslt on t"e validity of "is
marriage on t"e gronds t"at t"e validity of "is marriage was a preBdicial Festion%
Issue: 9"et"er or not t"e validity of "is marriage is a preBdicial Festion to warrant a sspension of
PetitionerNs 4igamy c"arge%
+ulin9: 9"ere t"e first wife filed a criminal action for $igamy against t"e "s$and, and later
t"e second wife filed a civil case for annlment of t"e marriage on t"e grond of force and
intimidation, and t"e "s$and later files a civil case for annlment of marriage against t"e first wife, t"e
civil cases are not preBdicial Festions in t"e determination of "is criminal lia$ility for $igamy, since
"is consent to t"e second marriage is not in isse% M="e mere fact t"at t"ere are actions to annl t"e
marriages entered into $y accsed in a $igamy case does not mean t"at MpreBdicial FestionsM are
atomatically raised in civil actions as to warrant t"e sspension of t"e criminal case% 7n order t"at t"e
case of annlment of marriage $e considered a preBdicial Festion to t"e $igamy case against t"e
accsed, it mst $e s"own t"at petitionerNs consent to sc" marriage mst $e t"e one t"at was o$tained
$y means of dress, force and intimidation to s"ow t"at "is act in t"e second marriage mst $e
involntary and cannot $e t"e $asis of "is conviction for t"e crime of $igamy%
="e sitation in t"e present case is mar6edly different% 't t"e time t"e petitioner was indicted
for $igamy, t"e fact t"at two marriage ceremonies "ad $een contracted appeared to $e indispta$le%
'nd it was t"e second spose, not t"e petitioner w"o filed t"e action for nllity on t"e grond of force,
t"reats and intimidation% 'nd it was only later t"at petitioner as defendant in t"e civil action, filed a
t"ird party complaint against t"e first spose alleging t"at "is marriage wit" "er s"old $e declared nll
and void on t"e grond of force, t"reats and intimidation% 'ssming t"e first marriage was nll and
void on t"e grond alleged $y petitioner, t"at fact wold not $e material to t"e otcome of t"e criminal
case% Parties to t"e marriage s"old not $e permitted to Bdge for t"emselves its nllity, for t"e same
mst $e s$mitted to t"e Bdgment of a competent cort and only w"en t"e nllity of t"e marriage is so
declared can it $e "eld as void, and so long as t"ere is no sc" declaration, t"e presmption is t"at t"e
marriage e&ists%
="erefore, "e w"o contracts a second marriage $efore t"e Bdicial declaration of nllity of t"e
first marriage assmes t"e ris6 of $eing prosected for $igamy%M