REYES VS.
LIM SILVERIO VS REPUBLIC of the PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 134231 August 11, 2013
FACTS: On March 1995, petitioner David Reyes filed before the trial court a complaint
for annulment of contract and damages against respondent Jose Lim. The complaint
involves a contract to sell a parcel of land between Reyes as a seller and Lim as a
buyer where in the latter has paid an earnest money amounting to ten million
(P10,000,000.00) upon the signing of the contract.
Reyes alleges that Lim and the lessee of the land connived in order to defraud him
and hold him liable for penalties should the lessee not vacate within the specified
date as stated in the contract. Lim denied this and even stated that he was ready and
willing to pay for the balance of the purchase price.
Prior to the consummation of the sale, however, Lim learned that Reyes have already
sold the land to another buyer as evidenced in the Register of Deeds. Lim thus filed
an action for specific performance and a nullification of sale as well as damages
against Reyes on November 1995 which was granted by the court. On March 6, 1997,
Lim requested before an open court that the P10 million down payment be deposited
with the cashier of the RTC and was granted the same.
Reyes filed for a Motion to Set Aside the Order and Motion for Reconsideration but
was denied in the Court’s orders dated July 3, 1997 and October 3, 1997. In addition,
the trial court directed Reyes to deposit the P10 million on or before October 30,
1997.
Reyes filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA and prayed that the above-mentioned
Orders by the RTC be set aside for having been issued with a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack of jurisdiction. The CA dismissed the petition for lack of merit
hence this petition for review.
ISSUE: Whether or not the equity jurisdiction is applicable on the matter at hand?
HELD: Yes. The SC held that this is a case where in there is a hiatus in the law and in
the Rules of Court. If left unattended, the hiatus will result to the unjust enrichment
of Reyes at the expense of Lim. Article 9 expressly mandates that the court render a
ruling despite the “silence, obscurity, or insufficiency of laws”; as such, this calls for
the application of equity, which “fills the open spaces in the law”. The purpose of the
exercise of equity jurisdiction in this case is to prevent unjust enrichment and to
ensure restitution. In this case, it was just, equitable and proper for the trial court to
order the deposit of the P10 million down payment to prevent unjust enrichment by
Reyes at the expense of Lim.
G.R. No. 174689 October 22, 2007
FACTS: Petitioner Romel Jacinto Dantes filed before the RTC of Manila to change his
registered name to “Mely” and his registered sex to “female” in his birth certificate
under the allegation that he is a male transsexual, that is, "anatomically male but
feels, thinks and acts as a female", and has even undergone a sex reassignment.
The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner that the Petitioner filed the present
petition not to evade any law or judgment or any infraction thereof or for any
unlawful motive but solely for the purpose of making his birth records compatible
with his present sex. The court believed that granting the petition would be more in
consonance with the principles of justice and equity and that there is no harm, injury
or prejudice will be caused to anybody or the community in granting the petition.
The Republic of the Philippines (Republic) filed a petition for certiorari with the CA
alleging that that there is no law allowing the change of entries in the birth certificate
by reason of sex alteration. The CA ruled in favor of the Republic and stated that the
trial court’s decision lacked legal basis. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was
denied. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not Romel’s first name and sex can be changed on the grounds of
sex reassignment and on the grounds of equity?
HELD: No. The State has an interest in the names borne by individuals and entities
for purposes of identification. A change of name is a privilege, not a right.
RA 9048 also provides the grounds for change of first name or nickname which the
petitioner failed to qualified for. RA 9048 does not sanction a change of first name
on the ground of sex reassignment. Rather than avoiding confusion, changing
petitioner’s first name for his declared purpose may only create grave complications
in the civil registry and the public interest. More importantly, the petition had no
merit since the use of his true and official name does not prejudice him at all.
Further, the court held that the petition cannot be granted on the grounds of equity
(in contrast to trial court’s belief) stating that the changes sought by petitioner will
have serious and wide-ranging legal and public policy consequences. This specifically
pertains to marriage which is defined as a special contract of permanent union
between a man and a woman. To grant the changes sought by petitioner will
substantially reconfigure and greatly alter the laws on marriage and family relations.
Moreover, there are laws (Labor Code and RPC, Rules of Court, etc.) that underscore
the public policy in relation to women which could be substantially affected if
petitioner’s petition were to be granted.
OCAMPO VS. ENRIQUEZ
G.R. No. 225973 August 8, 2017

FACTS: Secretary of National Defense Delfin N. Lorenzana issued a memorandum to

the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), General Ricardo R.
Visaya, the interment of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos at the Libingan ng
Mga Bayani (LNMB), pursuant to the verbal order of President. Subsequently, AFP
Rear Admiral Ernesto C. Enriquez issued the corresponding directives to the
Philippine Army Commanding General.

Many parties, displeased with the aforementioned issuance, filed several petitions
for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, principally arguing that the decision to
have the remains of former President Marcos interred at the LNMB is not valid since
it violated various laws and that the Marcos family has already waived such burial.

In particular, petitioner Rosales et. al argued that that the Court should apply equity
and extend equitable protection to the Human Rights Violations Victims because
Marcos' burial at the LNMB would cause them irreparable injury as it re-inflicts their
trauma and grief while the Marcos' heirs have not shown any injury that they would
sustain by its denial.

ISSUE: Whether or not equitable consideration is applicable to the interment of the

former President Marcos?

HELD: No. The SC held that the argument is untenable. Justice is done according to
law. As a rule, equity follows the law. There may be a moral obligation, often
regarded as an equitable consideration (meaning compassion), but if there is no
enforceable legal duty, the action must fail although the disadvantaged party
deserves commiseration or sympathy.

Equity is "justice outside legality," It is applied only in the absence of and never
against statutory law or, as in this case, appropriate AFP regulations. In this case,
while it is true that there is no provision of the Constitution, law, or jurisprudence
expressly allowing or disallowing Marcos' burial at the LNMB, there is a rule,
particularly AFP Regulations G 161-375, that is valid and existing which has the force
and effect of law because it was duly issued pursuant to the rule-making power of
the President. Accordingly, it is the sole authority in determining who may or may
not be buried at the LNMB.