Hofi Notes: Persons Case Doctrines.

Note, Some parts were taken from our case digest

group.


I. Civil Code of The PH- Prelim Title (Art 1-18)

Tanada vs Tuvera (Art 2, CC)
Laws must be published in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation for the
people to be informed. Otherwise, Art 3 is Useless. Effectively is after 15 days from day of
publication unless otherwise provided.

Consunji vs Court of Appeals (Art 6,CC)

To allow a party to set up as a valid defense that he has no knowledge of a law will sow disorder
in the society. However this only applies (Art 3) to mandatory or prohibitory laws. Ignorance of
a material fact or the right negates the waiver and cannot be given stand based on mistake of fact

Gongon vs Court of Appeals (Art 6,CC)

Waivers cannot be made if they are contrary to law, public order, public policy or morals or good
customs or prejudicial to a third person. Preferential right to tenants to a purchase of public land
cannot be waived due to public policy ( he was landless, while the actual owner was landed).

Garvida vs Sales( Art 13,CC)

A person turns 21 years old on the 365th day of his 21st 365th day cycle. On his 21st birthday,
he has completed his entire span of 21 365 day cycles. The day after the birthday is the 1st day of
the 22nd 365 day year cycle. Not more that 21 years is not equal to less than 22.

National marketing Corp vs Tecson (Art 13,CC)

1 year is 365 days. Leap years are 366 days. Must be deducted. 10 years is 3650 days.


Bellis vs Bellis (Art 16 cc)

Intestate and testamentary succession follow the law of the national. NOT where the property is
situated. Ergo if person was domiciled and citizen of USA, his properties in PH follow the laws
of the USA not PH. In USA law, there are no forced heirs or legitimes.

Dole Phil vs Maritime Co. (18,CC)

Not all deficiency in the Carraige of Goods by Sea act can be supplied by the Civil Code
especially if it unnecessarily extend the period and permit delays in the settlement of questions
affecting transportation, contrary to the clear intent and purpose of the law.


B. Human Relations (Arts 19-36)

Gashem Baksh vs Court of Appeals (19-21,CC)

Breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong but to scheme and plot to get a girl into a
sexual congress under the false pretense of marriage is a cause for damage. Under the fact that
the Girl is a virtuous woman and would have not given up her virginity were it not for the
promise to marry. (Not in pari delicto, because the woman was tricked). Injury was contrary to
morals, good customs and public policy.

Pacific Merchandising v Consolacion Insurance ( 33, CC)

The receiver must pay the company which made improvements on the land that he was to
administer due to unjust enrichment.

Republic vs Ballocanag ( 33,CC)

Government is not exempt from the principle of Unjust Enrichment and must repay planter in
good faith for all the trees he planted in the public domain.

De Lima vs Laguna Tayabas Co. (24,CC)


Court must be vigilant in dealing with indigents. Denial of substantial justice due to legal
technicalities are to be avoided.

Mendoza vs Alcala

Liwayway Chato vs Fortune Tobacco (32,CC)

Duties to the public and individuals. The lack of evidence that one suffered a specific and
particular injury, one cannot claim damages from a public officer. Act of a tax officer.

Aberca vs Ver (32,CC)

Conducted seizures without a warrant. Only judges are excused from the liability but the soliders
as well as those who participated directly and indirectly are liable, not just the actor alone.
suitcases of money, things seized not in warrant.

Lim vs Ponce De Leon ( 32,CC)

Good faith and without malice in seizing a stolen boat is not defense if not warrant was issued,
held the fiscal liable. But not the commander because he believed that the order was legal.
Motor boat stolen.



II. Persons- Civil Personality

Quimiging v Icao (40,41,CC)

Chiled can receive support and donations even while in womb provided that it is favorable to it
and that it be born later in fulfillment of Art 41. And married man forced a woman to have sex
with him is liable for damages (contrary to morals). A child in the womb may be given
personality. Support for child, nabuntis ng hindi asawa.

Geluz v Court of Appeals (40,41,CC)

However provisional personality cannot be invoked by parents of a child who got aborted. Since
the conditions in 40 and 41 were not meant. Parents cannot claim damages for abortion because
they consented to it. 4 abortions

People vs Tirol (42,CC)

Criminal liability is extinguished by death, Issuance of death certificate not invalidated because
of a health worker not being able to inspect the body when there are witnesses to the crime. 6
people massacre family.

Joaquin v Navarro (43,CC)

Proof of death can never be established from mere inference arising from another inference or
from presumptions and assumption. WWII Japanese Occupation.

Municipality of San Fernando vs Judge Firme (44,46,CC)

Municipality cannot be held liable for torts committed by its employee while discharging
governmental functions. Dumptruck got hit by a jeepney.

Cease v Coart of appeals (44,46, CC)

Distinct personality of the Corpo can be pierced if it is against public policy, convenience or be
used as a channel for lies and deceit. Cease Corporation is now one and the same as his estate.


------

Family Code of the Philippines

Zulueta v Court of Appeals (1996) (1)

Marriage communication is privilege in nature. Couples have marital privacy and personal
privacy. Marriage does not give one's spouse to intrude to the private life of the other. I.e. getting
documents from his drawer.

Silverio vs Republic (2007) (2)

Gender is determined during birth by looking at the genitals. Marriage is a union between a man
and a woman. Rommel to Mely . Surgery cannot change the gender.


Republic v Cagandahan. (2008) (2)

Court allowed girl to be a man because of his disease, CAH, it was ruled that it was the work of
nature and that by not allowing him to have a choice will bring about injustice.

Abbas v Abbas (2013)

Failed to prove a valid marriage license. Even after requesting from the civil registrar a copy.
The LCR replied that it cannot locate it despite diligent search. Marraige is void for lack of a
formal requirement.

Go-Bangayan v Go-Bangayan. (2013)

Certification from the LCR is adequate to prove the non-issuance of a mar. license and absent
any suspicious circumstances, the certificate enjoys much value. Since no valid marr. properties
governed by rules of co-ownership. TCT's stating that "him Married to her" are not adequate
proof of marriage.

See Yao Kee v Sy Gonzales (1988)


The burden of proving otherwise rests on the petitioners. In the absence of proof re a foreign law
on marriage, the presumption is that it is the same as Philippine laws. Hence, since there is a) no
solemnizing officer (as per Yao Kees testimony) and b) no marriage certificate or contract), it
cannot be held that Philippine jurisdiction recognizes the Yao Kee marriage

Board of Commissioners vs Dela Rosa

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, foreign laws on a particular subject are presumed to
be the same as those of the Philippines (Processual Presumption). In the case at bar, there being
no proof of Chinese law relating to marriage, there arises the presumption that it is the same as
that of Philippine law. "In case of doubt, all presumptions favor the solidarity of the family.
Thus, every intendment of law or facts leans toward the validity of marriage, the indissolubility
of the marriage bonds, the legitimacy of children, the community of property during marriage,
the authority of parents over their children, and the validity of defense for any member of the
family in case of unlawful aggression." The doctrine of res judicata does not apply to questions
of citizenship.

Tenchavez vs Escano

the filing of Vicenta for divorce in another state (Nevada, US) is not recognized by the
Philippines as stated in Article 15 of the Civil Code. And cohabitation with Moran is technically,
intercourse with a person not her husband, therefore the plaintiff is entitled, under the
Philippines law to a decree of legal separation under our law, on the basis of adultery.

Van Dorn vs Romillo


The decree is binding on private respondent as an American citizen. On the other hand, the
petitioner is covered under Phil Law for only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy
against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public police and
morality. Pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner.
He would have no standing to sue in the case as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control
over conjugal assets.

Bayot vs Court of Appeals

being an American citizen, Rebecca was bound by the national laws of the United States of
America, a country which allows divorce., the foreign divorce secured by Rebecca was valid. It
is essential that there should be an opportunity to challenge the foreign judgment, in order for the
court in this jurisdiction to properly determine its efficacy. Rebecca now cannot file for support
from her former husband.

Alcantara vs Alcantara.

Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio (The presumption is always in favor of the validity of
the marriage)Issuance of a marriage license in a city or municipality, not the residence of either
of the contracting parties, and issuance of a marriage license despite the absence of
publication or prior to the completion of the 10-day period for publication are considered
mere irregularities that do not affect the validity of the marriage. An irregularity in any of the
formal requisites of marriage does not affect its validity but the party or parties responsible for
the irregularity are civilly, criminally and administratively liable.

Corpuz v Sto. Thomas
the alien spouse can claim no right under the second paragraph of Art. 26 of the Family
Code as the substantive right it establishes is in favor of the Filipino Spouse. If the court finds
that the decree capacitate the alien spouse to remarry, the courts can declare that a Filipino
spouse is likewise capacitated to contract another marriage. No court in this jurisdiction,
however, can make a similar declaration for the alien spouse (other than that already established
by the decree,) whose status and legal capacity are generally governed by his national law.

III. Void and Voidable Marraiges


Fujiki vs Marinay (2013)

For the Philippines to recognize a foreign judgment relating to a status of a marriage when one of
the parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the petitioner only needs to prove the foreign
judgment as a fact under the Rules of Court.The effect of a foreign judgment is not automatic
.There is no reason to disallow Fujiki to simply prove as a fact the Japanese Family Court
judgment nullifying the marriage between Marinay & Maekara on the ground of bigamy. While
the Philippines has no Divorce Law, the Japanese Family Court judgment is fully consistent with
Philippine public policy, as bigamous marriages are declared void from the beginning under
Article 35(4) of the Family Code .Bigamy is a public crime, thus, anyone can initiate prosecution
for bigamy because any citizen has an interest in the prosecution and prevention of
crimes. Petitioner may prove the Japanese Family Court judgment through (1) an official
publication (2) a certification or copy attested by the officer who has custody of the judgment

Mercado v Mercado (2000)

Yes. In Domingo v. CA, it was ruled that Art. 40 of the FC stresses that a final judgment
declaring such marriage void was necessary before one can contract a second marriage. Absent
that declaration, one may be charged with bigamy. Following this, although Mercado obtained a
judicial declaration of nullity of marriage of his first marriage under Art. 36 of the FC, the
declaration came only after the information for bigamy had been filed. Hence, by then, the crime
had already been consummated and he is guilty. It is now cast in statutory that A judicial
declaration of nullity of a previous marriage is necessary before a subsequent one can be
legally contracted. One who enters into a subsequent marriage without first obtaining such
judicial declaration is guilty of bigamy. This principle applies even if the earlier union is
characterized as void.

Morigo v People (2004) ---In this case, no marriage was performed.

Morigos marriage with Barrete is void ab initio considering that there was no actual marriage
ceremony performed between them by a solemnizing officer instead they just merely signed a
marriage contract. The petitioner does not need to file a declaration of the nullity of his marriage
when he contracted his second marriage with Lumabago. There was no marriage transpired in
front of the solemnizing officer in the first marriage. Hence, theres no marriage to be nullified.
The existence and validity of the first marriage being an essential element of the crime bigamiy,
it is but logical that a conviction for said offense cannot be sustained where there is no first
marriage to speak of.

Antone vs Beronilla (2010)

Judicial declaration of nullity of marriage as a requisite for remarriage
Elements of Bigamy:
1. That the offender has been legally married
2. That the first marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is
absent, the absent spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code
3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage
4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity

De-Castro vs Assidao-De castro (2008)

The marriage can be collaterally attacked to determine whether support should be given or not.
There is also the absence of a formal requisite, which renders the marriage void ab initio. No
need for separate case for judicial declaration of nullity. Can be collaterally attacked.

Santos vs Court of Appeals

psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability.

the use of the phrase "psychological incapacity" under Article 36 of the Code has not been meant
to comprehend all such possible cases of psychoses. It is the intent of the law to confine the
meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance
to the marriage
They stated that the facts presented in the case does not result from PI. I believe that they fear
that if they allow the petition, it will open the floodgates to mass of annulment cases. They
looked at the intent of the legislature and concluded that PI should only refer to grave cases and
not to a mere disappearance of the woman. The court was very careful in upholding the sanctity
of married life as defined by our constitution. Julia finally left for the United Sates of America to
work as a nurse, 7 months Later she called him and promised to return. This never happened.

Antonio vs Reyes (2006)

Girl is Pathological Liar (BlackGold Records). State has duty to preserve the marriage but they
also need to protect the parties, Art 36 is part of such mandate. .

Republic vs Molina (1997)

Guidelines in Notes

Republic vs Galang (2011)

Molina is a straight jacket. Expert testimony considered and given weight but PI must be based
on totality of the evidence.

Aurelio vs Aurelio (2011)

Expert advice and National Matrimonal Tribunal's opinion must be given weight. Both were PI,
marriage is now void.

IV.

Domingo v Court of Appeals (1993)

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 be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring the previous
marriage void

People vs Cobar (1997)

Need for a judicial declaration of nullity before contracting a second marriage.

Mercado vs Tan (2000)

One who enters a 2nd mar. before getting a JD is guilty of bigamy.

Carino vs Carino (2002)
the marriage of the respondent, Susan Yee and the deceased is also void as there is no
declaration of nullity of the previous marriage of the petitioner and the deceased which under
Art. 40 of the Family Code, for purposes of remarriage, there must first be a prior judicial
declaration of the nullity of the previous marriage, though void, before a party can enter into a
second marriage, otherwise, the second marriage would also be void. Considering that the two
marriages are void ab initio the applicable regime would not be community or conjugal
partnership of property, is governed by the provisions of articles 147 and 148 of the Family
Code, wherein, the properties acquired by the parties through their actual joint contribution shall
belong to the co-ownership.


Morigo vs People (2004)

No Jd because there was no marriage in the first place.


Antone vs Beronilla (2010)

JD of the nullity of the 1st marriage is immaterial in bigamy because the crime has already been
consummated.

Republic vs Granada (2012)

One needs to have a well-founded belief of the death of a spouse. Yolanda did not initiate a
diligent search to locate her absent spouse. Did not even seek information from the Taiwanese
Consular Office.

Maquilan vs Maquilan (2007)

Compromise agreement with the division of conjugal partnership and not dealing with the
validity of the marriage is valid despite the absence of the Fiscal. It does not deal with collusion.
Mistake of lawyer is the Mistake of Client. Fiscal only insure the interest of the state that the
evidence is not fabricated.

Cardenas vs Cardenas Rinen (1927 ish)

Judgment be based on stipulation of facts and evidence. Never only upon stipulation of facts.
There is small possibility of collusion since there are 2 conflicting interests of the wives. ( 2
marriage licenses were attached)

Eric Yu vs Caroline Yu (2011)

Consistent with sections 19 and 21 of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, the court finds that it is indeed more prudent
to rule first on the petitioners petition and respondents counter petition for declaration of nullity
of marriage in the ground of each others psychological incapacity to perform their respective
marital obligations. If this prior case proves to be merituous, then the parties shall proceed to Art
50 and 51 of the Family Code before the final decree of nullity be issued.
Liquidation and distribution of the properties shall be governed by the final judgment.

Silva vs Court of Appeals

Denial of custody of child does not deny that parent visitation rights unless the court for some
compelling reason deprives him of his right. It can also be reinstated. It is the inherent and
natural right of the parents.

V.

Dela Cruz vs Dela Cruz [ Working in Manila ]

If there is only physical separation between the spouses (and nothing more), engendered by the
husband's leaving the conjugal abode, but the husband continues to manage the conjugal
properties with the same zeal, industry, and efficiency as he did prior to the separation, and
religiously gives support to his wife and children, as in the case at bar, we are not disposed to
grant the wife's petition for separation of property

Ocampo vs Florenciano (1960) [2 shota]

Committing the same offense revives the original action even after condoning it. It merely
prohibits a decree of separation upon a confession of judgment. Confession of judgment usually
happens when the defendant appears in court and confesses the right of plaintiff to judgment or
files a pleading expressly agreeing to the plaintiff's demand. Yet, even if the statement of the
defendant constituted practically a confession of judgment, there is also evidence of the adultery
in such statement.

Almacen v Baltazar (1923~ish)

subsequent reconciliation between the offender and the offended person deprives the latter of the
right to disinherit, aid renders ineffectual any disinheritance that may have been
made. defendant gave money to the petitioner as shown in the case and it is stated by the courts
that the giving of the money was sufficient to establish forgiveness amounting to condonation.
Pardon/forgiveness may be implied or expressed

Bad faith + Bad faith = Good faith. In pari delicto.


People vs Shcneckenburger (1941)

consent is given prior to the commission of the act. However, there is no logical difference
between a consent given prior and subsequent to the act because both means that the offended
party has chosen to. compromise with his/her dishonor, and thus, cannot go to court to institute
vindication for the same act. (But this does not mean that the SC is legalizing agreements to do
illicit acts!) Remember: Letter of agreement that they will not "make paki-alam"


Ong vs Ong (2006)

It is true that a decree of legal separation should not be granted when both parties have given
ground for legal separation (Art 56 (4) FC). However, the abandonment referred to in the Family
Code is abandonment without justifiable cause for more than one year. Also, it was established
that Lucita left William due to his abusive conduct which does not constitute the abandonment
contemplated in
the said provision.

Tuazon vs Court of Appeals (1996)

the non-intervention of a prosecuting attorney to assure lack of collusion between the contending
parties is not fatal to the validity of the proceedings in the trial court. The facts in the case at bar
do not call for the strict application of Articles 48 and 60 of the Family Code. The role of the
prosecuting attorney or fiscal in annulment of marriage and legal separation proceedings is to
determine whether collusion exists between the parties and to take care that the evidence is not
suppressed or fabricated.

Somosa v Vamenta (1972)

The 6 month cooling off period is not a bar for a hearing on preliminary mandatory injunction.
The 6 month period is only for legal separation to give way for the spouses to contemplate. The
court may hear other matters such as support, custody within the 6 month period.

Pacete v Pacete (1994)

Remember: suspend ng suspend

NO default in a annulment or legal separation case. The court must give way for 6 month cool-
off period. IF the court does not follow these rules, then its judgment is nullified.

Sabalones v Court of Appeals

remember: ambassador for 19 years.

The court can appoint either spouse as an administrator. The court chose the wife and not the
ambassador because it is evident that the husband just wanted to take hold of the property to
finance his mistress. It was also granted because it satisfied the twin requirements for an
injunction (to maintain status quo) : a. existence of a right b. actual or threatened violation of the
right. Wife also managed the properties for 19 years without complaint.

Lapuz vs Eufemio

The case of legal separation is purely personal, the death of the party follows the death of the
action. The right of the Legal Separation are vested in the person. Property rights are also
extinguished since the source is the decree of legal separation, it cannot be transferred to her
father.

Macadangdang vs Court of Appeals

-----

Lacson v San Jose Lacson

the children, they were all below 7 years of age at the time of the agreement and so the CA
was correct in awarding the custody to the mother. (Tender Age Doctrine) .
Compromise agreement was valid
conformable to law but only as far as the separation of property of spouses and the
dissolution of the conjugal partnership which was in accordance with Article 191 of the
Civil Code.

No mother shall be separated from her children (7 below). Only in compelling reasons. As for
adultery it is enough that she gets prison and relative support, her moral dereliction cannot be
comprehended by the children

Lilius v Manila Rail Road


the spouses must be faithful to assist and support each other. Husband protect wife and wife
obey and live with husband. Under this, husband has rights to count on his wife's assistance.
Before it is obligation of wife to manage household and perform household duties and take care
of children. Today women are almost outside of the house because of work or profession, so the
husband must prove that there was loss in his part because of the loss of this domestic service in
order to claim damages. Furthermore inasmuch as wife domestic assistance and conjugal
partnership are purely personal and voluntary acts so he must prove that wife did it before and is
willing to do it again to claim damages




Romualdez Marcos v Comelec
It is the fact if residence, not a statement in a certificate of candidacy which out to be decisive in
determining whether or not an individual has satisfied the constitutions residency qualification
requirement (as intended by the framers of the constitution.). Marcos Acquired the residency of
her parents in Leyte when she moved there when she was a minor. For election purpose,
residence is equal to domicile.


Ayala Investment vs Court of Appeals

Philippine blooming mills got loan of 50m from ayala and evp is alfredo and executed
agreements which made him jointly and severally liable to pbms indebtedness. Pet say that
husband as the head of the family and administrator of the conjugal partnership is presumed to
have contracted obligations for the benefit of the conjugal partnership. Debts contracted by
husband during mar in the exercise of his duty and profession are not his personal debts but that
of the conjugal.

However it was ruled that paraphernal property are subject to debts and expenses of the spouses
but not to the payment of personal obligations (guaranty agreements) of the husband unless it be
proven that such obligations benefit the family. When no show that agreement redounded to the
benefit of his family, the undertaking is not conjugal but an obligation personal to him.

Go vs Court of Appeals

Alex complain that he is jointly and severally liable for the contract entered into by Nancy for
her own interest. Court find merit, the wife may exercise any profession without the consent of
the husband. In case, it was only Nancy who entered into the contract and was solely liable to
private resps for damages done.

Narag vs Narag

Remember: Law prof


resp provided for family and is a successful lawyer but not sufficient to show that he has moral
fitness to be a lawyer. Parents have duties to support children and give them love and
companionship and as husband he is obliged to live with his wife, observe mutual love, respect,
and fidelity and render help and support.

Goitia vs Campos Rueda

to grant support to an independent suit is equivalent to granting divorce or separation, but court
lack power to grant divorce so it also lacks power to grant support. But the SC say that the mere
act of marriage creates an obligation on part of the husband to support the wife and this
obligation is found on the natural and legal duty of the husband and is vital to the interest of the
state and the state WILL NOT ALLOW HIM TO TERMINATE SUPPORT because she left
because of his indulgences. The pro tanto separation resulting from a decree of separate support
is a strong policy over-ruling a weaker one. Husband ordered to pay support