1. Tañada vs.
Tuvera (PROC,) must be accompanied by a viable and
Facts:
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel
respondent public officials to publish in the Official
Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters of
instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive
orders, invoking the right to be informed on matters of
public concern.
Issue:
Whether or not the publication of presidential decrees,
letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations or
executive orders is necessary before its enforcement.
Ruling:
Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that “laws shall take
effect after fifteen days following the completion of
their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is
otherwise provided.” The Court has ruled that
publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in those
cases where the legislation itself does not provide for
its effectivity date. The publication of all presidential
issuances “of a public nature” or “of general
applicability” is mandated by law.
2. People vs. Que Po Lay
Facts:
The appellant was in possession of foreign exchange
amounting to about $7000 but failed to sell the same to
the Central Bank as required under Circular No. 20.
Circular No. 20 was issued in the year 1949 but was
published in the Official Gazette only on Nov. 1951
after the act or omission imputed to Que Po Lay.
Que Po Lay appealed from the decision of the lower
court finding him guilty of violating Central Bank
Circular No. 20.
Issue:
Whether or not publication of Circular 20 in the Official
Gazette is needed for it to become effective and subject
violators to corresponding penalties.
Ruling:
It was held by the Supreme Court, in an en banc
decision, that as a rule, circular and regulations
prescribing a penalty for its violation should be
published before becoming effective.
3. Phil. International Trading Corp. vs. Judge
Angeles
Facts:
The Petitioner (PITC) issued Administrative Order No.
SOCPEC 89-08-01 applications to the PITC for
importation from the People's Republic of China
confirmed Export Program of Philippine Products.
Private respondents Remington and Firestone
individually applied for authority to import from PROC
with the petitioner. They were granted such authority
after satisfying the requirements for importers.
Subsequently, for failing to comply with their
undertakings to submit export credits equivalent to the
value of their importations, further import applications
were withheld by petitioner PITC from private
respondents. As a result, the private respondents filed a
Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus against the
PITC.
The court ruled that declared the Administrative Order
to be null and void, since the same was not published,
contrary to Article 2 of the New Civil Code.
Issue:
Whether the Administrative Order issued by PITC is null
and void on the ground that it was not published in
accordance with Article 2 of the New Civil Code.
Ruling:
Yes. The questioned Administrative Order, legally, until
it is published, is invalid within the context of Article 2
of Civil Code, which reads:
Art. 2. Laws shall take effect fifteen days following the
completion of their publication in the Official Gazette,
unless it is otherwise provided.
4. Delgado vs. Alonso
Facts:
In November of the year 1917 Alonso purchased twelve
parcels of land in the municipality of Goa. On February
1, 1918, Alonso conveyed the same property to Luciano
Delgado.
Delgado contemporaneously executed a mortgage in
favor of the defendant in order to secure the payment
of the purchase money.
A simple calculation shows that the interest agreed to
be paid upon the purchase price of the land by Delgado
was at a rate well above fifteen per centum per annum,
which therefore offends against the provisions of the
Usury Law that can ordinarily be secured by mortgage
upon real property to twelve per centum per annum
(Act No. 2655-2). Delgado filed a complaint against
Alonso to recover the sum of P2,625 paid upon
February 1, 1919, by way of interest. To this complaint
the defendant answered with a general denial; and by
way of special defense he alleged that the contract in
question had been entered into by him innocently and
in total ignorance on his part of the existence of the
Usury Law.
Issue:
Whether the defendant is justified in raising ignorance
of the usury law as defense to escape its legal
consequences.
Ruling:
No. The defendant cannot use ignorance as an excuse.
Ignorance of the provisions of the Usury Law does not
relieve either from the legal consequences of the
contract into which they voluntarily entered.
5. People vs. Bitdu
Facts:
Mora Bidtu was first married to Moro Halid in
accordance with Mohammedan customs and about
twelve years later, she got married to Moro Hajirol
before a Hadji. Likewise, the second marriage was in
accordance with Mohammedan customs. The second
marriage contracted by her with Hajiro took place after
she had been divorced from her first husband Halid,
having taken place before Datu Cuevas of Isabela,
Basilan.
Issue:
Whether or not the divorce is legal.
Ruling:
No. The defense presented no evidence to show that
the conditions prescribed by the Koran had been
complied with by the parties when they obtained their
divorce before Datu Cuevas.
In the Philippine islands, we have a law (Act No. 2710)
enumerating the causes and the conditions under
which divorce may be secured and granted. A divorce
cannot be had except in that court upon which the
State has conferred jurisdiction.
6. Co vs. Court of Appeals
Facts:
Petitioner Albino Co delivered to the salvaging firm on
September 1, 1983 a check drawn against the
Associated Citizens' Bank, post-dated November 30,
1983 in the sum of P361,528.00. The check was
deposited on January 3, 1984. It was dishonored two
days later because the account was already closed.
A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa
Bilang 22 was filed by the salvage company against
Albino Co which eventuated in Co's conviction of the
crime charged.
He argued on appeal that at the time of the issuance of
the check on September 1, 1983, some four (4) years
prior to the promulgation of the judgment in Que v.
People on September 21, 1987 was not considered a
punishable offense, an official pronouncement made in
a Circular of the Ministry of Justice.
Issue:
Whether the decision issued by the Court be applied
retroactively to the prejudice of the accused.
Ruling:
Pursuant to Article 8 of the Civil Code "Judicial decisions
applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution
shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines."
But while our decisions form part of the law of the land,
they are also subject to Article 4 of the Civil Code which
provides that "Laws shall have no retroactive effect
unless the contrary is provided."
The retroactive application of a law usually divests
rights that have already become vested or impairs the
obligations of contract and hence, is unconstitutional.
7. D.M. Consunji vs. Court of Appeals
Facts:
At around 1:30 p.m., November 2, 1990, Jose Juego, a
construction worker of D. M. Consunji, Inc., fell 14
floors from the Renaissance Tower, Pasig City to his
death. He was rushed to Rizal Medical Center in Pasig,
Metro Manila where he was pronounced dead on
arrival (DOA) at around 2:15 p.m. of the same date.
According to investigation, Jose Juego, together with his
co-workers, Jessie and Delso, were performing their
work on board a platform at the elevator core of the
14th floor when the platform fell due to removal or
looseness of the pin. Jessie and Delso, on the other
hand, were able to jump to safety.
Maria Juego, widow of Jose, filed a complaint on May 9,
1991 for damages in the RTC and was rendered a
favorable decision to receive support from D.M. Consuji
Inc amounting to P 644, 000.00.
D.M. Consunji Inc. seeks reversal of the decision on the
defense that widow already availed of the benefits
from the State Insurance Funds (SIF).

Issue:
Whether or not Maria Juergo could still claim benefits
from D.M. Consuji Inc apart from that received from
SIF.
Ruling:
Yes, she can still receive benefits from D.M. Consunji
Inc. She was unaware of the petitioner’s negligence
when she filed her claim for death benefits from SIF.
The court’s ruling is based on Floresca VS Philex Mining
Corporation where the claimant who has already been
paid under the workmen’s compensation act may still
sue for damages under the civil code on the basis of
supervening facts or developments occurring after he
opted for the first remedy.
8. Cui vs. Arellano Univesity
Facts:
The plaintiff, Emerito Cui, a law student and a scholar of
the defendant Arellano University, transfers to Abad
Santos University on his final year in law school.
After completing his studies in the latter, Cui requested
for his transcript from the defendant. Defendant then
said that before the release of his transcript of records,
the plaintiff must first pay a sum of P1,033.87 as the
sum of Cui’s tuition fees during his stay in the
defendant university. The defendant cited that this is
under the scholarship contract signed by both parties
where the plaintiff waived his right to transfer schools
unless he pays the total tuition fee during his stay in the
institution.
Plaintiff paid the amount to be issued the transcript. In
May 30, 1961, Cui requested to be refunded the said
amount from the school.
Issue:
Whether or Not the contract signed by both plaintiff
and defendant is enough basis to waive the right of the
plaintiff to transfer to another school without paying
the cost of his education in former school.
Ruling:
No. The stipulation in question, asking previous
students to pay back the scholarship grant if they
transfer before graduation, is contrary to public policy,
sound policy, and good morals. It also undermines the
security of individual rights and hence, null and void.
9. Miciano vs. Brimo
Facts:
The judicial administrator of the estate of the deceased,
Joseph Brimo, filed a scheme of partition. However, one
of the brothers of the deceased opposed the said
partition.
According to the scheme and its provision, that the
deceased requests that all his relatives respect his
wishes, otherwise those who opposed the same shall
be cancelled in said disposition in favor of the
oppositor.
The appellant in the case, who opposed the same,
based his opposition on the fact that the deceased was
a Turkish citizen, that his disposition should be in
accordance with the laws of his nationality.
Issue:
Whether or not the disposition shall be made in
accordance with Philippine Laws
Whether or not there shall be cancellation of
disposition/s in favor of the appellant-oppositor.
Ruling:
No, although the disposition provides an express
provision that it shall be governed by Philippine Laws
and those who opposed the condition of the provisions
given shall be cancelled from the disposition, the fact is
that the condition itself is void for being contrary to
law.
Article 792 of the Civil Code provides:
“Impossible conditions and those contrary to law or
good morals shall be considered as not imposed and
shall not prejudice the heir or legatee in any manner
whatsoever, even should the testator otherwise
provide.”
10. Barreto vs. Gonzales
Facts:
The plaintiff & defendant were both citizens of the
Philippines, married & lived together from January 1919
until Spring of 1926. After which, they voluntarily
separated & have not lived together as man & wife;
they had 4 minor children together.
After negotiations, both parties mutually agreed to
allow Manuela Barreto (plaintiff) for her & her
children’s support of P500 (five hundred pesos)
monthly and that the title of certain properties be put
in her name.
Shortly after the agreement, Augusto Gonzales
(defendant), went to Reno, Nevada & secured in that
jurisdiction an absolute divorce on the ground of
desertion dated November 28, 1927. On that same date
he went through the forms of marriage with another
Filipino citizen as well & had 3 children with her.
When Gonzales left the Philippines, he reduced the
amount he had agreed to pay monthly for the support
of Manuela Barreto & her children.
Gonzales came back to the Philippines in August 1928
and shortly after, Barreto brought an action at the
Court of First Instance of Manila (CFI-Manila)(RTC)
requesting to confirm & ratify the decree of divorce
issued by the courts of Nevada & invoked sec 9 of Act
2710.
They also prayed that the marriage existing between
Barreto & Gonzales be declared dissolved & Gonzales
be ordered to pay Barreto P500 per month, counsel
fees of P5000 & all the expenses incurred in educating
the 3 minor sons. The guardians of the children also
filed as intervenors in the case.
After the hearing, the CFI-Manila granted the
judgement in favor of the plaintiff & intervenors, but
reduced the attorney's fees to P3000 instead & also
granted the costs of the action against the defendant.
Issue:
Whether or not any foreign divorce, relating to citizens
of the Philippine Islands, will be recognized in this
jurisdiction, except it be for a cause, and under
conditions for which the courts of the Philippine Islands
would grant a divorce. Hence, this appeal by Gonzales
saying that the lower court erred in their decision.
Ruling:
No. The lower court erred in granting the relief as
prayed for on granting the divorce, because:
The court said that securing the jurisdiction of the
courts to recognize & approve the divorce done in
Reno, Nevada cannot be done according to the public
policy in this jurisdiction on the question of divorce.
It’s clear in Act No. 2710 & court decisions on cases
such as Goitia VS. Campos Rueda that the entire
conduct of the parties from the time of their separation
until the case was submitted praying the ratification of
the Reno Divorce was clearly a circumvention of the law
regarding divorce & will be done under conditions not
authorized by our laws.
Art 9 & Art 11 of the Civil Code & The Divorce Law of
the Philippines does not allow such to be done.
Article 9 of the Old Civil Code, now in Art 15 says that
Laws relating to family rights & duties or to status,
condition, and legal capacity of persons, are binding
upon Spaniards even though they reside in a foreign
country.
The last part of Art 11 of the Old Civil Code, now in Art
17 also states ...the prohibitive laws concerning
persons, their acts & their property, and those intended
to promote public order & good morals, shall not be
rendered without effect by any foreign laws or
judgements or by anything done or any agreements
entered into in a foreign country.
11. Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera
Facts:
On September 7, 1979, Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a
Filipina and the respondent to the case, and Erich
Geiling, a German national, were married at
Friedenweiler in the Federal Republic of Germany. After
about three and a half years of marriage, Geiling
initiated a divorce proceeding against Pilapil in
Germany in January 1983 while Pilapil filed an action
for legal separation, support and separation of property
before RTC of Manila in January 23, 1983. On January
15, 1986, the local Court of Germany promulgated a
divorce decree on the ground of failure of marriage of
the spouses. The custody of the child, Isabella Pilapil
Geiling, was granted to petitioner.
On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed two
complaints for adultery alleging that,while still married
to respondent, petitioner had an affair with a certain
William Chia and Jesus Chua sometime in 1982 and
1983 respectively. Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion
in both criminal cases to defer her arraignment and to
suspend further proceedings thereon. On September 8,
1987, respondent judge denied the motion to quash
and also directed the arraignment of both accused.
Petitioner refused to be arraigned and thus charged
with direct contempt and fined.
Issue:
Whether or not the private respondent’s adultery
charges against the petitioner is still valid given the fact
that both had been divorced prior to the filing of
charges.
Ruling:
The law provides that in prosecutions for adultery and
concubinage the person who can legally file the
complaint should only be the offended spouse.
According to Article 15 of the Civil Code, with relation
to the status of Filipino citizens both here and abroad,
since the legal separation of the petitioner and
respondent has been finalized through the courts in
Germany and the RTC in Manila, the marriage of the
couple were already finished, thus giving no merit to
the charges the respondent filed against the petitioner.
 12. Roehr vs. Rodriguez
Facts:
Petitioner Wolfgang O. Roehr, a German citizen,
married private respondent Carmen Rodriguez, a
Filipina, on December 11, 1980 in Germany. Their
marriage was subsequently ratified on February 14,
1981 in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. Out of their union
were born Carolynne and Alexandra Kristine. Carmen
filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
before the Makati RTC. Meanwhile, Wolfgang obtained
a decree of divorce from Germany. The decree provides
that the parental custody of the children should be
vested to Wolfgang.
Wolfgang filed a motion to dismiss the nullity case as a
divorce decree had already been promulgated, which
was granted by respondent Judge Salonga. Carmen filed
a motion with a prayer that the case should proceed for
the purpose of determining the issues of custody of
children and the distribution of the properties between
her and Wolfgang. Judge Salonga partially set aside her
previous order for the purpose of tackling the issues of
support and custody of their children.
Issue:
Whether or not the granting the motion to dismiss the
nullity case valid; it is valid to assume jurisdiction to
tackle child custody and support.
Ruling:
A judge can order a partial reconsideration of a case
that has not yet attained finality. The court can modify
or alter a judgment even after the same has become
executory whenever circumstances transpire rendering
its decision unjust and inequitable.
Divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other
countries are recognized in our jurisdiction, but the
legal effects thereof, such as custody must still be
determined by our courts. Before our courts can give
the effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment, it must
be shown that the parties opposed to the judgment had
been given ample opportunity to do so.
13. Garcia vs. Recio
Facts:
Rederick Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha
Samson an Australian citizen, on March 1, 1987. On
May 18, 1989, a decree of divorce dissolving the
marriage was issued by the Australian Family Court. On
June 26, 1992, Mr. Recio, the defendant, became an
Australian citizen. Subsequently, he entered into
marriage with a Filipina, the petitioner, on January 12,
1994. Starting October 22, 1995, petitioner and
respondent lived separately without prior judicial
dissolution of their marriage. On March 3, 1998,
petitioner filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage on the ground of bigamy. Responded
contended that his prior marriage had been validly
dissolved by a decree of divorce obtained in Australia
thus he is legally capacitated to marry petitioner.
Issue:
Whether or not the divorce obtained by respondent in
Australia ipso facto capacitated him to remarry.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court remanded (return a case to a lower
court) the case to the court a quo for the purpose of
receiving evidence which conclusively show
respondent's legal capacity to marry petitioner; and
failing in that, of declaring the parties' marriage void on
the ground of bigamy. This is because based on the
records, the court cannot conclude if the respondent
who was then a naturalized Australian citizen was
legally capacitated to marry petitioner. Neither can the
court grant petitioner’s prayer to declare her marriage
null and void on the ground of bigamy. After all it may
turn out that under Australian law he was really
capacitated to marry petitioner as result of the divorce
decree.
14. Bellis vs Bellis
Facts:
Amos Bellis, born in Texas, was a citizen of the State of
Texas and of the United States. He had 5 legitimate
children with his wife, Mary Mallen, whom he had
divorced, 3 legitimate children with his 2nd wife, Violet
Kennedy and finally, 3 illegitimate children.
Prior to his death, Amos Bellis executed a will in the
Philippines in which his distributable estate should be
divided in trust in the following order and manner:
a. $240,000 to his 1st wife Mary Mallen;
b. P120,000 to his 3 illegitimate children at P40,000
each;
c. The remainder shall go to his surviving children by his
1st and 2nd wives, in equal shares.
Subsequently, Amos Bellis died a resident of San
Antonio, Texas, USA. His will was admitted to probate
in the Philippines. The People’s Bank and Trust
Company, an executor of the will, paid the entire
bequest therein.
Among the 3 illegitimate children, Mari Cristina and
Miriam Palma Bellis filed their respective opposition to
the project partition on the ground that they were
deprived of their legitimates as illegitimate children.
The lower court denied their respective motions for
reconsideration.
Issue:
Whether or not Texan Law of Philippine Law must
apply.
Ruling:
It is not disputed that the decedent was both a national
of Texas and a domicile thereof at the time of his death.
So that even assuming Texan has a conflict of law rule
providing that the same would not result in a reference
back (renvoi) to Philippine Law, but would still refer to
Texas Law.
The parties admit that the decedent, Amos Bellis, was a
citizen of the State of Texas, USA and that under the
Laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimates.
Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision
of the will and the amount of successional rights has to
be determined under Texas Law, the Philippine Law on
legitimates cannot be applied to the testate of Amos
Bellis.
15. Albenson Enterprises vs. Court of Appeals
Facts:
Petitioner Albenson Enterprises Corporation delivered
to Guaranteed Industries, Inc. at Baltao Building mild
steel plates which the latter ordered and as part of the
payment, a bouncing check was issued by one “Eugenio
Baltao”.
Petitioner, in a sincere attempt to collect the sum of
money due them, filed a criminal complaint against
private respondent Eugenio S. Baltao after the latter
refused to make good the amount of the bouncing
check despite demand. However, there was a mistake
of identity as there were two “Eugenio Baltaos”
conducting business in the same building – Eugenio S.
Baltao and his son, Eugenio Baltao III.
It was found that the signature of the check was not of
Eugenio S. Baltao and because of the alleged unjust
filing of a criminal case against him, respondent Baltao
filed a complaint for damages anchored on Articles 19,
20, and 21 of the Civil Code against petitioners.
Issue:
Whether or not the principle of abuse of rights (Article
19) has been violated, resulting in damages under
Articles 20 and 21 or other applicable provision of law.
Ruling:
No, petitioners could not be said to have violated the
principle of abuse of rights. What prompted petitioners
to file the case for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang
22 against private respondent was their failure to
collect the amount of P2,575.00 due on a bounced
check which they honestly believed was issued to them
by private respondent. Petitioners had conducted
inquiries regarding the origin of the check. Private
respondent, however, did nothing to clarify the case of
mistaken identity at first hand. Instead, private
respondent waited in ambush and thereafter pounced
on the hapless petitioners at a time he thought was
propitious by filing an action for damages.
There is no proof or showing that petitioners acted
maliciously or in bad faith in the filing of the case
against private respondent. Consequently, in the
absence of proof of fraud and bad faith committed by
petitioners, they cannot be held liable for damages.
16. Magbanua vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Facts:
Magbanua and the other petitioners are share tenants
of an agricultural land owned by the private
respondents. The petitioners alleged in the case they
filed in the trial court that the private respondents
diverted the free flow of water from their landholdings
which dried up their farm and wilted their palay crops.
The trial court decided in favor of the petitioners. They
were maintained as agricultural lessees and granted
each one of them the amount of P10,000 as moral &
exemplary damages and P5,000 for the attorney’s fees
to be paid by the private respondents. However, the
private respondents appealed the decision to the
Intermediate Appellate Court which affirmed the
decision of the trial court but removed the award of
payment of damages and attorney’s fees granted to the
petitioners.
Issue:
Whether or not the plaintiffs were entitled to moral
and exemplary damages and the attorney’s fees which
had been awarded by the trial court.
Ruling:
Yes, plaintiffs were entitled to moral and exemplary
damages. The SC granted the reinstatement of the
award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s
fees, subject to modification of the amount. Art 2219,
Civil Code states that moral damages may be recovered
when a person willfully causes loss or injury to another
in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public
policy. Under Art 2232, Civil Code, “In contract and
quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary
damages if the defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent,
reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.” Art 2208,
Civil Code states that attorney’s fees can be recovered,
among others, when exemplary damages are awarded.
The private respondents acted in an oppressive manner
in closing the free flow of water into the farm lots of
the petitioners in order to make the latter vacate their
landholdings.

17. Nikko Hotel vs. Reyes

Facts:
On the evening of 13 October 1994, Roberto Reyes
popularly known as Amay Bisaya alleged that while at
the lobby of Hotel Nikko, his friend of several years Dr.
Violeta Filart, approached and invited him to join her in
a party at the hotels penthouse. When Mr. Reyes lined-
up at the buffet table as soon as it was ready, he was
stopped by Ruby Lim, the Executive Secretary of Nikko
Hotel and told him to leave the party in a loud voice
and within the presence and hearing of the other
guests. Mr. Reyes tried to explain that he was invited by
Dr. Filart, who was within hearing distance, however,
completely ignored him. Not long after, a Makati
policeman approached and asked him to step out of the
hotel like a common criminal. Hence, Mr. Reyes asked
for moral and/or exemplary damages.

Ruby Lim denied the allegations of Mr. Reyes claiming

that she asked Mr. Reyes to leave the party but not
under the ignominious circumstance painted by the
latter.

After trial on the merits, the court rendered a decision

in favor of Ms. Lim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
reversed the ruling and favored the testimony of Mr.
Reyes. Hence, this petition for review was filed.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioners acted abusively in asking
Mr. Reyes to leave the party.

Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court found the version of Lim more
credible. She has been employed by the hotel for more
than 20 years at that time. Her job requires her to be
polite at all times and very unlikely for her to make a
scene in the party she was managing. On the other
hand, Reyes brought whatever damage he incurred
upon himself. The injury he incurred is thus self-
inflicted. Evidence even shows that Dr. Filart herself
denied inviting Reyes into the party and that Reyes
simply gate-crashed. Since he brought injury upon
himself, neither Lim nor Nikko Hotel can be held liable
for damages.