Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
This brings us to a consideration of what rate of exchange should At the arraignment on September 11, 1964, the accused entered a
apply in the conversion here decreed. Should it be at the time of the plea of not guilty, after which trial was accordingly held.
breach, at the time the obligation was incurred or at the rate of
exchange prevailing on the promulgation of this decision.
The accused admitted that on September 5, 1964, he was in
possession of the revolver and the ammunition described in the
In the case of Engel v. Velasco & Co., 47 Phil. 115, We ruled that in an complaint, without the requisite license or permit. He, however,
action for recovery of damages for breach of contract, even if the claimed to be entitled to exoneration because, although he had no
obligation assumed by the defendant was to pay the plaintiff a sum of license or permit, he had an appointment as Secret Agent from the
money expressed in American currency, the indemnity to be allowed Provincial Governor of Batangas and an appointment as Confidential
should be expressed in Philippine currency at the rate of exchange at Agent from the PC Provincial Commander, and the said appointments
the time of the judgment rather than at the rate of exchange prevailing expressly carried with them the authority to possess and carry the
on the date of defendant's breach. This ruling, however, can neither be firearm in question.
applied nor extended to the case at bar for the same was laid down
when there was no law against stipulating foreign currencies in
Philippine contracts. But now we have Republic Act No. 529 which Indeed, the accused had appointments from the above-mentioned
expressly declares such stipulations as contrary to public policy, void officials as claimed by him. His appointment from Governor Feliciano
and of no effect. And, as We already pronounced in the case Leviste, dated December 10, 1962, reads:
of Eastboard Navigation, Ltd. v. Juan Ysmael & Co., Inc., G.R. No. L-
9090, September 10, 1957, if there is any agreement to pay an Reposing special trust and confidence in your civic spirit, and trusting
obligation in a currency other than Philippine legal tender, the same is that you will be an effective agent in the detection of crimes and in the
null and void as contrary to public policy (Republic Act 529), and the preservation of peace and order in the province of Batangas,
most that could be demanded is to pay said obligation in Philippine especially with respect to the suppression of trafficking in explosives,
currency "to be measured in the prevailing rate of exchange at the jueteng, illegal cockfighting, cattle rustling, robbery and the detection
time the obligation was incurred (Sec. 1, idem)." of unlicensed firearms, you are hereby appointed a SECRET
AGENT of the undersigned, the appointment to take effect
UPON ALL THE FOREGOING, the decision appealed from is hereby immediately, or as soon as you have qualified for the position. As such
affirmed, with the sole modification that the award should be converted Secret Agent, your duties shall be those generally of a peace officer
into the Philippine peso at the rate of exchange prevailing at the time and particularly to help in the preservation of peace and order in this
the obligation was incurred or on July 1, 1952 when the contract was province and to make reports thereon to me once or twice a month. It
executed. The appellee insurance company, in the light of this should be clearly understood that any abuse of authority on your part
judgment, is relieved of any liability under this suit. No pronouncement shall be considered sufficient ground for the automatic cancellation of
as to costs. your appointment and immediate separation from the service. In
accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-
12088 dated December 23, 1959, you will have the right to bear a
Republic of the Philippines firearm, particularly described below, for use in connection with the
SUPREME COURT performance of your duties.
Manila
By virtue hereof, you may qualify and enter upon the performance of
SECOND DIVISION your duties by taking your oath of office and filing the original thereof
with us.
G.R. No. L-30061 February 27, 1974
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) FELICIANO LEVISTE the Philippine Constabulary, guards in the employment of the Bureau
Provincial Governor of Prisons, municipal police, provincial governors, lieutenant
governors, provincial treasurers, municipal treasurers, municipal
mayors, and guards of provincial prisoners and jails," are not covered
FIREARM AUTHORIZED TO CARRY:
"when such firearms are in possession of such officials and public
servants for use in the performance of their official duties." (Sec. 879,
Kind: — ROHM-Revolver Revised Administrative Code.)
Make: — German The law cannot be any clearer. No provision is made for a secret
agent. As such he is not exempt. ... .
SN: — 64
It will be noted that when appellant was appointed Secret Agent by the
Provincial Government in 1962, and Confidential Agent by the
Cal:— .22 Provincial Commander in 1964, the prevailing doctrine on the matter
was that laid down by Us in People v. Macarandang (1959)
On March 15, 1964, the accused was also appointed by the PC and People v. Lucero (1958). Our decision in People v.
Provincial Commander of Batangas as Confidential Agent with duties Mapa reversing the aforesaid doctrine came only in 1967. The sole
to furnish information regarding smuggling activities, wanted persons, question in this appeal is: Should appellant be acquitted on the basis
loose firearms, subversives and other similar subjects that might affect of Our rulings in Macarandang and Lucero, or should his conviction
the peace and order condition in Batangas province, and in connection stand in view of the complete reversal of
with these duties he was temporarily authorized to possess a ROHM the Macarandang and Lucero doctrine in Mapa? The Solicitor General
revolver, Cal. .22 RG-8 SN-64, for his personal protection while in the is of the first view, and he accordingly recommends reversal of the
performance of his duties. appealed judgment.
The accused contended before the court a quo that in view of his Decisions of this Court, although in themselves not laws, are
above-mentioned appointments as Secret Agent and Confidential nevertheless evidence of what the laws mean, and this is the reason
Agent, with authority to possess the firearm subject matter of the why under Article 8 of the New Civil Code "Judicial decisions applying
prosecution, he was entitled to acquittal on the basis of the Supreme or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal
Court's decision in People vs. Macarandang2 and People vs. system ... ." The interpretation upon a law by this Court constitutes, in
Lucero.3 The trial court, while conceding on the basis of the evidence a way, a part of the law as of the date that law originally passed, since
of record the accused had really been appointed Secret Agent and this Court's construction merely establishes the contemporaneous
Confidential Agent by the Provincial Governor and the PC Provincial legislative intent that law thus construed intends to effectuate. The
Commander of Batangas, respectively, with authority to possess and settled rule supported by numerous authorities is a restatement of
carry the firearm described in the complaint, nevertheless held the legal maxim "legis interpretatio legis vim obtinet" — the interpretation
accused in its decision dated December 27, 1968, criminally liable for placed upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law.
illegal possession of a firearm and ammunition on the ground that the The doctrine laid down in Lucero and Macarandang was part of the
rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases jurisprudence, hence of the law, of the land, at the time appellant was
of Macarandang and Lucero were reversed and abandoned in People found in possession of the firearm in question and when he arraigned
vs. Mapa, supra. The court considered as mitigating circumstances the by the trial court. It is true that the doctrine was overruled in
appointments of the accused as Secret Agent and Confidential Agent. the Mapa case in 1967, but when a doctrine of this Court is overruled
and a different view is adopted, the new doctrine should be applied
prospectively, and should not apply to parties who had relied on the
Let us advert to Our decisions in People v. Macarandang, supra, old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof. This is especially true in the
People v. Lucero, supra, and People v. Mapa, supra. In Macarandang, construction and application of criminal laws, where it is necessary that
We reversed the trial court's judgment of conviction against the the punishability of an act be reasonably foreseen for the guidance of
accused because it was shown that at the time he was found to society.
possess a certain firearm and ammunition without license or permit, he
had an appointment from the Provincial Governor as Secret Agent to
assist in the maintenance of peace and order and in the detection of It follows, therefore, that considering that appellant conferred his
crimes, with authority to hold and carry the said firearm and appointments as Secret Agent and Confidential Agent and authorized
ammunition. We therefore held that while it is true that the Governor to possess a firearm pursuant to the prevailing doctrine enunciated
has no authority to issue any firearm license or permit, nevertheless, in Macarandang and Lucero, under which no criminal liability would
section 879 of the Revised Administrative Code provides that "peace attach to his possession of said firearm in spite of the absence of a
officers" are exempted from the requirements relating to the issuance license and permit therefor, appellant must be absolved. Certainly,
of license to possess firearms; and Macarandang's appointment as appellant may not be punished for an act which at the time it was done
Secret Agent to assist in the maintenance of peace and order and was held not to be punishable.
detection of crimes, sufficiently placed him in the category of a "peace
officer" equivalent even to a member of the municipal police who
WHEREFORE, the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed, and
under section 879 of the Revised Administrative Code are exempted appellant is acquitted, with costs de oficio.
from the requirements relating to the issuance of license to possess
firearms. In Lucero, We held that under the circumstances of the case,
the granting of the temporary use of the firearm to the accused was a Republic of the Philippines
necessary means to carry out the lawful purpose of the batallion SUPREME COURT
commander to effect the capture of a Huk leader. In Mapa, expressly Manila
abandoning the doctrine in Macarandang, and by implication, that
in Lucero, We sustained the judgment of conviction on the following
FIRST DIVISION
ground:
The antecedents facts of this case are as follows: Since the assigned errors are interrelated, this Court shall discuss
them jointly. The main issue raised by the petitioner is whether or not
the petitioner usurped the property right of the respondent which shall
It appears that a certificate of public convenience to operate a jeepney
entitle the latter to the award of nominal damages.
service was ordered to be issued in favor of Lungsod Silangan to ply
the Cogeo-Cubao route sometime in 1983 on the justification that
public necessity and convenience will best be served, and in the Petitioner contends that the association was formed not to complete
absence of existing authorized operators on the lined apply for . . . On with the respondent corporation in the latter's operation as a common
the other hand, defendant-Association was registered as a non-stock, carrier; that the same was organized for the common protection of
non-profit organization with the Securities and Exchange Commission drivers from abusive traffic officers who extort money from them, and
on October 30, 1985 . . . with the main purpose of representing for the elimination of the practice of respondent corporation of
plaintiff-appellee for whatever contract and/or agreement it will have requiring jeepney owners to execute deed of sale in favor of the
regarding the ownership of units, and the like, of the members of the corporation to show that the latter is the owner of the jeeps under its
Association . . . certificate of public convenience. Petitioner also argues that in
organizing the association, the members thereof are merely exercising
their freedom or right to redress their grievances.
Perturbed by plaintiffs' Board Resolution No. 9 . . . adopting a Bandera'
System under which a member of the cooperative is permitted to
queue for passenger at the disputed pathway in exchange for the We find the petition devoid of merit.
ticket worth twenty pesos, the proceeds of which shall be utilized for
Christmas programs of the drivers and other benefits, and on the
Under the Public Service Law, a certificate of public convenience is an
strength of defendants' registration as a collective body with the
authorization issued by the Public Service Commission for the
Securities and Exchange Commission, defendants-appellants, led by
operation of public services for which no franchise is required by law.
Romeo Oliva decided to form a human barricade on November 11,
In the instant case, a certificate of public convenience was issued to
1985 and assumed the dispatching of passenger jeepneys . . . This
respondent corporation on January 24, 1983 to operate a public utility
development as initiated by defendants-appellants gave rise to the suit
jeepney service on the Cogeo-Cubao route. As found by the trial court,
for damages.
the certificate was issued pursuant to a decision passed by the Board
of Transportation in BOT Case No. 82-565.
Defendant-Association's Answer contained vehement denials to the
insinuation of take over and at the same time raised as a defense the
A certification of public convenience is included in the term "property"
circumstance that the organization was formed not to compete with
in the broad sense of the term. Under the Public Service Law, a
plaintiff-cooperative. It, however, admitted that it is not authorized to
certificate of public convenience can be sold by the holder thereof
transport passengers . . . (pp. 15-16, Rollo)
because it has considerable material value and is considered as
valuable asset (Raymundo v. Luneta Motor Co., et al., 58 Phil. 889).
On July 31, 1989, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of Although there is no doubt that it is private property, it is affected with
respondent Lungsod Corp., the dispositive portion of which states: a public interest and must be submitted to the control of the
government for the common good (Pangasinan Transportation Co. v.
PSC, 70 Phil 221). Hence, insofar as the interest of the State is
WHEREFORE FROM THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATION, the
involved, a certificate of public convenience does not confer upon the
Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the
holder any proprietary right or interest or franchise in the route covered
defendants as follows:
thereby and in the public highways (Lugue v. Villegas, L-22545, Nov .
28, 1969, 30 SCRA 409). However, with respect to other persons and
1. Ordering defendants to pay plaintiff the amount of P50,000.00 as other public utilities, a certificate of public convenience as property,
actual damages; which represents the right and authority to operate its facilities for
public service, cannot be taken or interfered with without due process
of law. Appropriate actions may be maintained in courts by the holder
2. Ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiffs the amount of of the certificate against those who have not been authorized to
P10,000.00 as attorney's fees. operate in competition with the former and those who invade the rights
which the former has pursuant to the authority granted by the Public
SO ORDERED. (P. 39, Rollo) Service Commission (A.L. Ammen Transportation Co. v. Golingco. 43
Phil. 280).
Not satisfied with the decision, petitioner Association appealed with the
Court of Appeals. On May 27, 1991, respondent appellate court In the case at bar, the trial court found that petitioner association
rendered its decision affirming the findings of the trial court except with forcibly took over the operation of the jeepney service in the Cogeo-
regard to the award of actual damages in the amount of P50,000.00 Cubao route without any authorization from the Public Service
and attorney's fees in the amount of P10,000.00. The Court of Appeals Commission and in violation of the right of respondent corporation to
however, awarded nominal damages to petitioner in the amount of operate its services in the said route under its certificate of public
P10,000.00. convenience. These were its findings which were affirmed by the
appellate court:
Hence, this petition was filed with the petitioner assigning the following
errors of the appellate court: The Court from the testimony of plaintiff's witnesses as well as the
documentary evidences presented is convinced that the actions taken
by defendant herein though it admit that it did not have the authority to
I. THE RESPONDENT COURT ERRED IN MERELY MODIFYING transport passenger did in fact assume the role as a common carrier
THE JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT. engaged in the transport of passengers within that span of ten days
beginning November 11, 1985 when it unilaterally took upon itself the
operation and dispatching of jeepneys at St. Mary's St. The president
of the defendant corporation. Romeo Oliva himself in his testimony
confirmed that there was indeed a takeover of the operations at St. The facts of this case as summarized by the petitioner in her
Mary's St. . . . (p. 36, Rollo) Memorandum are as follows:
The findings of the trial court especially if affirmed by the appellate Petitioner is the owner-lessor of an apartment building located at 800-
court bear great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal before this 802 Remedios Street, Malate, Manila. Two (2) units of said apartment
Court. Although there is no question that petitioner can exercise their building were leased (now being unlawfully occupied) to private
constitutional right to redress their grievances with respondent respondent at monthly rates of P3,450.00 for the unit/apartment
Lungsod Corp., the manner by which this constitutional right is to be, located at 800 Remedios Street, Malate, Manila and P2,300.00 for the
exercised should not undermine public peace and order nor should it unit/apartment located at 802 Remedios Street, Malate, Manila,
violate the legal rights of other persons. Article 21 of the Civil Code respectively. . . .
provides that any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another
in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy
Said lease was originally covered by written contracts of lease both
shall compensate the latter for the damage. The provision covers a
dated December 10, 1984 and except for the rates and duration, the
situation where a person has a legal right which was violated by
terms and conditions of said contracts were impliedly renewed on a
another in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
"month-to-month" basis pursuant to Article 1670 of the Civil Code.
It presupposes loss or injury, material or otherwise, which one may
suffer as a result of such violation. It is clear form the facts of this case
that petitioner formed a barricade and forcibly took over the motor One of the terms and conditions of the said Contract of Lease, that of
units and personnel of the respondent corporation. This paralyzed the monthly rental payments, was violated by private respondent and that
usual activities and earnings of the latter during the period of ten days as of October 31, 1988, said private respondent has incurred arrears
and violated the right of respondent Lungsod Corp. To conduct its for both units in the total sum of P14,039.00 for which letters of
operations thru its authorized officers. demand were sent to, and received by, private respondent.
As to the propriety of damages in favor of respondent Lungsod Corp., Upon failure of private respondent to honor the demand letters,
the respondent appellate court stated: petitioner referred the matter to the Barangay for conciliation which
eventually issued a certification to file action. Petitioner was assisted
by her son, Raymond U. Ledesma, (who is not a lawyer) during the
. . . it does not necessarily follow that plaintiff-appellee is entitled
barangay proceeding as she was suffering from recurring
to actual damages and attorney's fees. While there may have been
psychological and emotional ailment as can be seen from the receipts
allegations from plaintiff-cooperative showing that it did in fact suffer
and prescriptions issued by her psychiatrist, copies of which are
some from of injury . . . it is legally unprecise to order the payment of
attached as Annexes "E-E10" of the said Petition.
P50,000.00 as actual damages for lack of concrete proof therefor.
There is, however, no denying of the act of usurpation by defendants-
appellants which constituted an invasion of plaintiffs'-appellees' Due to the stubborn refusal of the private respondent to vacate the
property right. For this, nominal damages in the amount of P10,000.00 premises, petitioner was constrained to retain the services of counsel
may be granted. (Article 2221, Civil Code). (p. 18, Rollo) to initiate this ejectment proceeding. 3
No compelling reason exists to justify the reversal of the ruling of the The Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 10, Manila, rendered a decision
respondent appellate court in the case at bar. Article 2222 of the Civil on June 21, 1989 ordering private respondent to vacate the premises,
Code states that the court may award nominal damages in every to pay rentals falling due after May 1989 and to pay attorney's fees in
obligation arising from any source enumerated in Article 1157, or in the amount of P2,500.00. 4 The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
every case where any property right has been invaded. Considering IX, on appeal, affirmed the MTC ruling except for the award of
the circumstances of the case, the respondent corporation is entitled to attorney's fees which it reduced to P1,000.00. 5
the award of nominal damages.
Private respondent, however, found favor with the respondent Court of
ACCORDINGLY, the petition is DENIED and the assailed decision of Appeals when he elevated the case in a Petition for Review, when it
the respondent appellate court dated May 27, 1991 is AFFIRMED. ruled, thus:
SO ORDERED. IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Decision dated October 13, 1989 of the RTC
of Manila, Br. IX in Civil Case No. 89-49672 is reversed and set aside
and the Complaint for Ejectment against petitioner is dismissed for
Republic of the Philippines
lack of cause of action. No costs. 6
SUPREME COURT
Manila
Thus, this appeal, raising several assignments of error, namely, that
the Court of Appeals erred —
SECOND DIVISION
xxx xxx xxx . . . a personal confrontation between the parties without the
intervention of a counsel or representative would generate spontaneity
4. Answering defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 8, the and a favorable disposition to amicable settlement on the part of the
truth of the matter being that he was not duly summoned nor disputants. In other words, the said procedure is deemed conducive to
subpoenaed by the Barangay Chairman, who issued the alluded the successful resolution of the dispute at the barangay level. 14
certification, to appear for hearing. 9
Petitioner tries to show that her failure to personally appear before the
xxx xxx xxx barangay Chairman was because of her recurring psychological
ailments. But for the entire year of 1988 15 — specifically September to
December 6 — there is no indication at all that petitioner went to see
7. Plaintiff has no cause of action against answering defendant. her psychiatrist for consultation. The only conclusion is that 1988 was
a lucid interval for petitioner. There was, therefore, no excuse then for
8. The certification to file action (annex D of the complaint) was her non-appearance at the Lupon Chairman's office.
improperly or irregularly issued as the defendant was never
summoned nor subpoenaed by the Barangay Chairman to appear for Petitioner, not having shown that she is incompetent, cannot be
hearing in connection with the alleged complaint of the plaintiff. In represented by counsel or even by attorney-in-fact who is next of
effect the mandatory provision of P.D. 1508 was not complied with kin. 16
warranting the dismissal of the instant complaint.
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil The claim of complainant Province of Pangasinan for the civil liability
action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the criminal survived Sendaydiego because his death occurred after final judgment
action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall was rendered by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan, which
proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require convicted him of three complex crimes of malversation through
only a preponderance of evidence. falsification and ordered him to indemnify the Province in the total sum
of P61,048.23 (should be P57,048.23).
Assuming that for lack of express reservation, Belamala's civil action
for damages was to be considered instituted together with the criminal The civil action for the civil liability is deemed impliedly instituted with
action still, since both proceedings were terminated without final the criminal action in the absence of express waiver or its reservation
adjudication, the civil action of the offended party under Article 33 may in a separate action (Sec. 1, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court). The civil
yet be enforced separately. action for the civil liability is separate and distinct from the criminal
action (People and Manuel vs. Coloma, 105 Phil. 1287; Roa vs. De la
In Torrijos, the Supreme Court held that: Cruz, 107 Phil. 8).
xxx xxx xxx When the action is for the recovery of money and the defendant dies
before final judgment in the Court of First Instance, it shall be
It should be stressed that the extinction of civil liability follows the dismissed to be prosecuted in the manner especially provided in Rule
extinction of the criminal liability under Article 89, only when the civil 87 of the Rules of Court (Sec. 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court).
liability arises from the criminal act as its only basis. Stated differently,
where the civil liability does not exist independently of the criminal The implication is that, if the defendant dies after a money judgment
responsibility, the extinction of the latter by death, ipso facto had been rendered against him by the Court of First Instance, the
extinguishes the former, provided, of course, that death supervenes
action survives him. It may be continued on appeal (Torrijos vs. Court proceedings had been filed but merely a separate civil action. This had
of Appeals, L-40336, October 24, 1975; 67 SCRA 394). the effect of converting such claims from one which is dependent on
the outcome of the criminal action to an entirely new and separate
The accountable public officer may still be civilly liable for the funds one, the prosecution of which does not even necessitate the filing of
improperly disbursed although he has no criminal liability (U.S. vs. criminal proceedings. 12 One would be hard put to pinpoint the
Elvina, 24 Phil. 230; Philippine National Bank vs. Tugab, 66 Phil. 583). statutory authority for such a transformation. It is to be borne in mind
that in recovering civil liability ex delicto, the same has perforce to be
In view of the foregoing, notwithstanding the dismissal of the appeal of determined in the criminal action, rooted as it is in the court's
the deceased Sendaydiego insofar as his criminal liability is pronouncement of the guilt or innocence of the accused. This is but to
concerned, the Court Resolved to continue exercising appellate render fealty to the intendment of Article 100 of the Revised Penal
jurisdiction over his possible civil liability for the money claims of the Code which provides that "every person criminally liable for a felony is
Province of Pangasinan arising from the alleged criminal acts also civilly liable." In such cases, extinction of the criminal action due
complained of, as if no criminal case had been instituted against him, to death of the accused pending appeal inevitably signifies the
thus making applicable, in determining his civil liability, Article 30 of the concomitant extinction of the civil liability. Mors Omnia Solvi. Death
Civil Code . . . and, for that purpose, his counsel is directed to inform dissolves all things.
this Court within ten (10) days of the names and addresses of the
decedent's heirs or whether or not his estate is under administration In sum, in pursuing recovery of civil liability arising from crime, the final
and has a duly appointed judicial administrator. Said heirs or determination of the criminal liability is a condition precedent to the
administrator will be substituted for the deceased insofar as the civil prosecution of the civil action, such that when the criminal action is
action for the civil liability is concerned (Secs. 16 and 17, Rule 3, Rules extinguished by the demise of accused-appellant pending appeal
of Court). thereof, said civil action cannot survive. The claim for civil liability
springs out of and is dependent upon facts which, if true, would
Succeeding cases 11 raising the identical issue have maintained constitute a crime. Such civil liability is an inevitable consequence of
adherence to our ruling in Sendaydiego; in other words, they were a the criminal liability and is to be declared and enforced in the criminal
reaffirmance of our abandonment of the settled rule that a civil liability proceeding. This is to be distinguished from that which is contemplated
solely anchored on the criminal (civil liability ex delicto) is extinguished under Article 30 of the Civil Code which refers to the institution of a
upon dismissal of the entire appeal due to the demise of the accused. separate civil action that does not draw its life from a criminal
proceeding. The Sendaydiego resolution of July 8, 1977, however,
But was it judicious to have abandoned this old ruling? A re- failed to take note of this fundamental distinction when it allowed the
examination of our decision in Sendaydiego impels us to revert to the survival of the civil action for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto by
old ruling. treating the same as a separate civil action referred to under Article
30. Surely, it will take more than just a summary judicial
To restate our resolution of July 8, 1977 in Sendaydiego: The pronouncement to authorize the conversion of said civil action to an
resolution of the civil action impliedly instituted in the criminal action independent one such as that contemplated under Article 30.
can proceed irrespective of the latter's extinction due to death of the
accused pending appeal of his conviction, pursuant to Article 30 of the Ironically however, the main decision in Sendaydiego did not apply
Civil Code and Section 21, Rule 3 of the Revised Rules of Court. Article 30, the resolution of July 8, 1977 notwithstanding. Thus, it was
held in the main decision:
Article 30 of the Civil Code provides:
Sendaydiego's appeal will be resolved only for the purpose of showing
When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising his criminal liability which is the basis of the civil liability for which his
from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted estate would be liable. 13
during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence
shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of. In other words, the Court, in resolving the issue of his civil liability,
concomitantly made a determination on whether Sendaydiego, on the
Clearly, the text of Article 30 could not possibly lend support to the basis of evidenced adduced, was indeed guilty beyond reasonable
ruling in Sendaydiego. Nowhere in its text is there a grant of authority doubt of committing the offense charged. Thus, it upheld
to continue exercising appellate jurisdiction over the accused's civil Sendaydiego's conviction and pronounced the same as the source of
liability ex delicto when his death supervenes during appeal. What his civil liability. Consequently, although Article 30 was not applied in
Article 30 recognizes is an alternative and separate civil action which the final determination of Sendaydiego's civil liability, there was a
may be brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense reopening of the criminal action already extinguished which served as
independently of any criminal action. In the event that no criminal basis for Sendaydiego's civil liability. We reiterate: Upon death of the
proceedings are instituted during the pendency of said civil case, the accused pending appeal of his conviction, the criminal action is
quantum of evidence needed to prove the criminal act will have to be extinguished inasmuch as there is no longer a defendant to stand as
that which is compatible with civil liability and that is, preponderance of the accused; the civil action instituted therein for recovery of civil
evidence and not proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Citing or liability ex delicto is ipso facto extinguished, grounded as it is on the
invoking Article 30 to justify the survival of the civil action despite criminal.
extinction of the criminal would in effect merely beg the question of
whether civil liability ex delicto survives upon extinction of the criminal Section 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court was also invoked to serve as
action due to death of the accused during appeal of his conviction. another basis for the Sendaydiego resolution of July 8, 1977. In citing
This is because whether asserted in Sec. 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court, the Court made the inference
the criminal action or in a separate civil action, civil liability ex delicto is that civil actions of the type involved in Sendaydiego consist of money
extinguished by the death of the accused while his conviction is on claims, the recovery of which may be continued on appeal if defendant
appeal. Article 89 of the Revised Penal Code is clear on this matter: dies pending appeal of his conviction by holding his estate liable
therefor. Hence, the Court's conclusion:
Art. 89. How criminal liability is totally extinguished. — Criminal liability
is totally extinguished: "When the action is for the recovery of money" "and the defendant dies
before final judgment in the court of First Instance, it shall be
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal penalties; and as to dismissed to be prosecuted in the manner especially provided" in Rule
pecuniary penalties, liability therefor is extinguished only when the 87 of the Rules of Court (Sec. 21, Rule 3 of the Rules of Court).
death of the offender occurs before final judgment;
The implication is that, if the defendant dies after a money judgment
xxx xxx xxx had been rendered against him by the Court of First Instance, the
action survives him. It may be continued on appeal.
However, the ruling in Sendaydiego deviated from the expressed
intent of Article 89. It allowed claims for civil liability ex delicto to Sadly, reliance on this provision of law is misplaced. From the
survive by ipso facto treating the civil action impliedly instituted with standpoint of procedural law, this course taken in Sendaydiego cannot
the criminal, as one filed under Article 30, as though no criminal be sanctioned. As correctly observed by Justice Regalado:
we stressed, refers only to purely personal obligations other than those
xxx xxx xxx which have their source in delict or tort.
I do not, however, agree with the justification advanced in both Torrijos Conversely, if the same act or omission complained of also arises from
and Sendaydiego which, relying on the provisions of Section 21, Rule contract, the separate civil action must be filed against the estate of
3 of the Rules of Court, drew the strained implication therefrom that the accused, pursuant to Sec. 5, Rule 86 of the Rules of Court.
where the civil liability instituted together with the criminal liabilities had
already passed beyond the judgment of the then Court of First From this lengthy disquisition, we summarize our ruling herein:
Instance (now the Regional Trial Court), the Court of Appeals can
continue to exercise appellate jurisdiction thereover despite the 1. Death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes
extinguishment of the component criminal liability of the deceased. his criminal liability as well as the civil liability based solely thereon. As
This pronouncement, which has been followed in the Court's opined by Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the accused
judgments subsequent and consonant to Torrijos and Sendaydiego, prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and only the civil
should be set aside and abandoned as being clearly erroneous and liability directly arising from and based solely on the offense
unjustifiable. committed, i.e., civil liability ex delicto in senso strictiore."
Said Section 21 of Rule 3 is a rule of civil procedure in ordinary civil 2. Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the
actions. There is neither authority nor justification for its application in death of accused, if the same may also be predicated on a source of
criminal procedure to civil actions instituted together with and as part obligation other than delict. 19 Article 1157 of the Civil Code
of criminal actions. Nor is there any authority in law for the summary enumerates these other sources of obligation from which the civil
conversion from the latter category of an ordinary civil action upon the liability may arise as a result of the same act or omission:
death of the offender. . . .
a) Law 20
Moreover, the civil action impliedly instituted in a criminal proceeding
for recovery of civil liability ex delicto can hardly be categorized as an b) Contracts
ordinary money claim such as that referred to in Sec. 21, Rule 3
enforceable before the estate of the deceased accused. c) Quasi-contracts
THE FACTS
Accused Santiago submits that it is her marriage to her co-accused
that is null and void as it was celebrated without a valid marriage
Four months after the solemnization of their marriage on 29 July license x x x. In advancing that theory, accused wants this court to
1997, 3 Leonila G. Santiago and Nicanor F. Santos faced an pass judgment on the validity of her marriage to accused Santos,
Information 4 for bigamy. Petitioner pleaded "not guilty," while her something this court cannot do. The best support to her argument
putative husband escaped the criminal suit. 5 would have been the submission of a judicial decree of annulment of
their marriage. Absent such proof, this court cannot declare their
marriage null and void in these proceedings.
The prosecution adduced evidence that Santos, who had been
married to Estela Galang since 2 June 1974, 6 asked petitioner to
marry him. Petitioner, who 'was a 43-year-old widow then, married THE CA RULING
Santos on 29 July 1997 despite the advice of her brother-in-law and
parents-in-law that if she wanted to remarry, she should choose
On appeal before the CA, petitioner claimed that her conviction was
someone who was "without responsibility." 7
not based on proof beyond reasonable doubt. She attacked the
credibility of Galang and insisted that the former had not known of the
Petitioner asserted her affirmative defense that she could not be previous marriage of Santos.
included as an accused in the crime of bigamy, because she had been
under the belief that Santos was still single when they got married.
Similar to the RTC, the CA gave more weight to the prosecution
She also averred that for there to be a conviction for bigamy, his
witnesses' narration. It likewise disbelieved the testimony of Santos.
second marriage to her should be proven valid by the prosecution; but
Anent the lack of a marriage license, the appellate court simply stated
in this case, she argued that their marriage was void due to the lack of
that the claim was a vain attempt to put the validity of her marriage to
a marriage license.
Santos in question. Consequently, the CA affirmed her conviction for
bigamy. 12
Eleven years after the inception of this criminal case, the first wife,
Estela Galang, testified for the prosecution.1âwphi1 She alleged that
THE ISSUES
she had met petitioner as early as March and April 1997, on which
occasions the former introduced herself as the legal wife of Santos.
Petitioner denied this allegation and averred that she met Galang only Before this Court, petitioner reiterates that she cannot be a co-accused
in August and September 1997, or after she had already married in the instant case, because she was not aware of Santos's previous
Santos. marriage. But in the main, she argues that for there to be a conviction
for bigamy, a valid second marriage must be proven by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
THE RTC RULING
In the crime of bigamy, both the first and second spouses may be the On the basis that the lower courts have manifestly overlooked certain
offended parties depending on the circumstances, as when the second issues and facts, 29 and given that an appeal in a criminal case throws
spouse married the accused without being aware of his previous the whole case open for review, 30 this Court now resolves to correct
marriage. Only if the second spouse had knowledge of the previous the error of the courts a quo.
undissolved marriage of the accused could she be included in the
information as a co-accused. (Emphasis supplied)
After a perusal of the records, it is clear that the marriage between
petitioner and Santos took place without a marriage license. The
Therefore, the lower courts correctly ascertained petitioner's absence of this requirement is purportedly explained in their Certificate
knowledge of Santos's marriage to Galang. Both courts consistently of Marriage, which reveals that their union was celebrated under
found that she knew of the first marriage as shown by the totality of the Article 34 of the Family Code. The provision reads as follows:
following circumstances: 19 (1) when Santos was courting and visiting
petitioner in the house of her in-laws, they openly showed their
No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman
disapproval of him; (2) it was incredible for a learned person like
who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years
petitioner to not know of his true civil status; and (3) Galang, who was
and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting
the more credible witness compared with petitioner who had various
parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person
inconsistent testimonies, straightforwardly testified that she had
authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall
already told petitioner on two occasions that the former was the legal
also state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the
wife of Santos.
contracting parties are found no legal impediment to the marriage. 31
For review is the decision1 dated May 21, 1996 of the Court of Appeals
Furthermore, it is a basic concept of justice that no court will "lend its
in CA-G.R. CV No. 44144, which affirmed the decision2 of the Regional
aid to x x x one who has consciously and voluntarily become a party to
Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, denying the petition 3 for
an illegal act upon which the cause of action is founded." 41 If the
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage of the spouses Filipina Sy
cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa or that which involves a
and Fernando Sy.
transgression of positive law, parties shall be left unassisted by the
courts. 42 As a result, litigants shall be denied relief on the ground that
their conduct has been inequitable, unfair and dishonest or fraudulent, Petitioner Filipina Y. Sy and private respondent Fernando Sy
or deceitful as to the controversy in issue. 43 contracted marriage on November 15, 1973 at the Church of Our Lady
of Lourdes in Quezon City. 4 Both were then 22 years old. Their union
was blessed with two children, Frederick and Farrah Sheryll who were
Here, the cause of action of petitioner, meaning her affirmative
born on July 8, 1975 and February 14, 1978, respectively. 5
defense in this criminal case of bigamy, is that her marriage with
Santos was void for having been secured without a marriage license.
But as elucidated earlier, they themselves perpetrated a false The spouses first established their residence in Singalong, Manila,
Certificate of Marriage by misrepresenting that they were exempted then in Apalit, Pampanga, and later at San Matias, Sto. Tomas,
from the license requirement based on their fabricated claim that they Pampanga. They operated a lumber and hardware business in Sto.
had already cohabited as husband and wife for at least five years prior Tomas, Pampanga.6
their marriage. In violation of our law against illegal
marriages,44 petitioner married Santos while knowing full well that they
had not yet complied with the five-year cohabitation requirement under On September 15, 1983, Fernando left their conjugal dwelling. Since
Article 34 of the Family Code. Consequently, it will be the height of then, the spouses lived separately, and their two children were in the
custody of their mother. However, their son Frederick transferred to his
absurdity for this Court to allow petitioner to use her illegal act to
father's residence at Masangkay, Tondo, Manila on May 15, 1988, and
escape criminal conviction.
from then on, lived with his father.7
November 15, 1973, also appears as the date of marriage of the The issue for resolution in the case at bar hinges on the validity of the
parents in both their son's and daughter's birth certificates, which are two marriages contracted by the deceased SPO4 Santiago S. Cariño,
also attached as Annexes "B" and "C" in the petition for declaration of whose “death benefits” is now the subject of the controversy between
absolute nullity of marriage before the trial court, and thereafter the two Susans whom he married. 1âwphi1.nêt
marked as Exhibits "B" and "C" in the course of the trial. 29 These
pieces of evidence on record plainly and indubitably show that on the
day of the marriage ceremony, there was no marriage license. A Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to set
aside the decision 1 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51263,
marriage license is a formal requirement; its absence renders the
which affirmed in toto the decision 2 of the Regional Trial Court of
marriage void ab initio. In addition, the marriage contract shows that
the marriage license, numbered 6237519, was issued in Carmona, Quezon City, Branch 87, in Civil Case No. Q-93-18632.
Cavite, yet, neither petitioner nor private respondent ever resided in
Carmona. 30 During the lifetime of the late SPO4 Santiago S. Cariño, he contracted
two marriages, the first was on June 20, 1969, with petitioner Susan
Nicdao Cariño (hereafter referred to as Susan Nicdao), with whom he
Carefully reviewing the documents and the pleadings on record, we
had two offsprings, namely, Sahlee and Sandee Cariño; and the
find that indeed petitioner did not expressly state in her petition before
the trial court that there was incongruity between the date of the actual second was on November 10, 1992, with respondent Susan Yee
Cariño (hereafter referred to as Susan Yee), with whom he had no
celebration of their marriage and the date of the issuance of their
children in their almost ten year cohabitation starting way back in
marriage license. From the documents she presented, the marriage
license was issued on September 17, 1974, almost one year after the 1982.
ceremony took place on November 15, 1973. The ineluctable
conclusion is that the marriage was indeed contracted without a In 1988, SPO4 Santiago S. Cariño became ill and bedridden due to
marriage license. Nowhere do we find private respondent denying diabetes complicated by pulmonary tuberculosis. He passed away on
these dates on record. Article 80 of the Civil Code 31 is clearly November 23, 1992, under the care of Susan Yee, who spent for his
applicable in this case. There being no claim of an exceptional medical and burial expenses. Both petitioner and respondent filed
character, the purported marriage between petitioner and private claims for monetary benefits and financial assistance pertaining to the
respondent could not be classified among those enumerated in deceased from various government agencies. Petitioner Susan Nicdao
Articles 72-79 32 of the Civil Code. We thus conclude that under Article was able to collect a total of P146,000.00 from “MBAI, PCCUI,
80 of the Civil Code, the marriage between petitioner and private Commutation, NAPOLCOM, [and] Pag-ibig,” 3 while respondent Susan
respondent is void from the beginning. Yee received a total of P21,000.00 from “GSIS Life, Burial (GSIS) and
burial (SSS).” 4
We note that their marriage certificate and marriage license are only
photocopies. So are the birth certificates of their son Frederick and On December 14, 1993, respondent Susan Yee filed the instant case
daughter Farrah Sheryll. Nevertheless, these documents were marked for collection of sum of money against petitioner Susan Nicdao
as Exhibits during the course of the trial below, which shows that these praying, inter alia, that petitioner be ordered to return to her at least
have been examined and admitted by the trial court, with no objections one-half of the one hundred forty-six thousand pesos (P146,000.00)
having been made as to their authenticity and due execution. Likewise, collectively denominated as “death benefits” which she (petitioner)
no objection was interposed to petitioner's testimony in open court received from “MBAI, PCCUI, Commutation, NAPOLCOM, [and] Pag-
when she affirmed that the date of the actual celebration of their ibig.” Despite service of summons, petitioner failed to file her answer,
marriage was on November 15, 1973. We are of the view, therefore, prompting the trial court to declare her in default.
that having been admitted in evidence, with the adverse party failing to
timely object thereto, these documents are deemed sufficient proof of
the facts contained therein. 33 Respondent Susan Yee admitted that her marriage to the deceased
took place during the subsistence of, and without first obtaining a
judicial declaration of nullity of, the marriage between petitioner and
The remaining issue on the psychological incapacity of private the deceased. She, however, claimed that she had no knowledge of
respondent need no longer detain us. It is mooted by our conclusion the previous marriage and that she became aware of it only at the
that the marriage of petitioner to respondent is void ab initio for lack of funeral of the deceased, where she met petitioner who introduced
a marriage license at the time their marriage was solemnized. herself as the wife of the deceased. To bolster her action for collection
of sum of money, respondent contended that the marriage of petitioner
and the deceased is void ab initio because the same was solemnized
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, dated December 9, without the required marriage license. In support thereof, respondent
presented: 1) the marriage certificate of the deceased and the
1993 as well as the Decision promulgated on May 21, 1996 by the
petitioner which bears no marriage license number; 5 and 2) a
Court of Appeals and its Resolution dated November 21, 1996 in CA-
G.R. No. 44144 are set aside. The marriage celebrated on November certification dated March 9, 1994, from the Local Civil Registrar of San
Juan, Metro Manila, which reads –
15, 1973 between petitioner Filipina Yap and private respondent
Fernando Sy is hereby declared void ab initio for lack of a marriage
license at the time of celebration. No pronouncement as to costs. This is to certify that this Office has no record of marriage license of
the spouses SANTIAGO CARINO (sic) and SUSAN NICDAO, who are
married in this municipality on June 20, 1969. Hence, we cannot issue
SO ORDERED.
as requested a true copy or transcription of Marriage License number thereof, subject to certain exceptions, 13 renders the marriage void ab
from the records of this archives. initio. 14
This certification is issued upon the request of Mrs. Susan Yee Cariño In the case at bar, there is no question that the marriage of petitioner
for whatever legal purpose it may serve. 6 and the deceased does not fall within the marriages exempt from the
license requirement. A marriage license, therefore, was indispensable
to the validity of their marriage. This notwithstanding, the records
On August 28, 1995, the trial court ruled in favor of respondent, Susan
reveal that the marriage contract of petitioner and the deceased bears
Yee, holding as follows:
no marriage license number and, as certified by the Local Civil
Registrar of San Juan, Metro Manila, their office has no record of such
WHEREFORE, the defendant is hereby ordered to pay the plaintiff the marriage license. In Republic v. Court of Appeals, 15 the Court held that
sum of P73,000.00, half of the amount which was paid to her in the such a certification is adequate to prove the non-issuance of a
form of death benefits arising from the death of SPO4 Santiago S. marriage license. Absent any circumstance of suspicion, as in the
Cariño, plus attorney’s fees in the amount of P5,000.00, and costs of present case, the certification issued by the local civil registrar enjoys
suit. probative value, he being the officer charged under the law to keep a
record of all data relative to the issuance of a marriage license.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 7
Such being the case, the presumed validity of the marriage of
petitioner and the deceased has been sufficiently overcome. It then
On appeal by petitioner to the Court of Appeals, the latter affirmed in became the burden of petitioner to prove that their marriage is valid
toto the decision of the trial court. Hence, the instant petition,
and that they secured the required marriage license. Although she was
contending that:
declared in default before the trial court, petitioner could have squarely
met the issue and explained the absence of a marriage license in her
I. pleadings before the Court of Appeals and this Court. But petitioner
conveniently avoided the issue and chose to refrain from pursuing an
argument that will put her case in jeopardy. Hence, the presumed
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN validity of their marriage cannot stand.
AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER COURT THAT VDA.
DE CONSUEGRA VS. GSIS IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE AT
BAR. It is beyond cavil, therefore, that the marriage between petitioner
Susan Nicdao and the deceased, having been solemnized without the
necessary marriage license, and not being one of the marriages
II. exempt from the marriage license requirement, is undoubtedly void ab
initio.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
APPLYING EQUITY IN THE INSTANT CASE INSTEAD OF THE It does not follow from the foregoing disquisition, however, that since
CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL MANDATE OF THE FAMILY CODE. the marriage of petitioner and the deceased is declared void ab initio,
the “death benefits” under scrutiny would now be awarded to
III. respondent Susan Yee. To reiterate, under Article 40 of the Family
Code, for purposes of remarriage, there must first be a prior judicial
declaration of the nullity of a previous marriage, though void, before a
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT party can enter into a second marriage, otherwise, the second
FINDING THE CASE OF VDA. DE CONSUEGRA VS GSIS TO HAVE marriage would also be void.
BEEN MODIFIED, AMENDED AND EVEN ABANDONED BY THE
ENACTMENT OF THE FAMILY CODE. 8
Accordingly, the declaration in the instant case of nullity of the
previous marriage of the deceased and petitioner Susan Nicdao does
Under Article 40 of the Family Code, the absolute nullity of a previous not validate the second marriage of the deceased with respondent
marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis Susan Yee. The fact remains that their marriage was solemnized
solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. without first obtaining a judicial decree declaring the marriage of
Meaning, where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to petitioner Susan Nicdao and the deceased void. Hence, the marriage
be invoked for purposes of contracting a second marriage, the sole of respondent Susan Yee and the deceased is, likewise, void ab initio.
basis acceptable in law, for said projected marriage to be free from
legal infirmity, is a final judgment declaring the previous marriage
void. 9 However, for purposes other than remarriage, no judicial action One of the effects of the declaration of nullity of marriage is the
is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other separation of the property of the spouses according to the applicable
purposes, such as but not limited to the determination of heirship, property regime. 16 Considering that the two marriages are void ab
legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of initio, the applicable property regime would not be absolute community
property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the court may pass or conjugal partnership of property, but rather, be governed by the
upon the validity of marriage even after the death of the parties provisions of Articles 147 and 148 of the Family Code on “Property
thereto, and even in a suit not directly instituted to question the validity Regime of Unions Without Marriage.”
of said marriage, so long as it is essential to the determination of the
case. 10 In such instances, evidence must be adduced, testimonial or Under Article 148 of the Family Code, which refers to the property
documentary, to prove the existence of grounds rendering such a regime of bigamous marriages, adulterous relationships, relationships
previous marriage an absolute nullity. These need not be limited solely in a state of concubine, relationships where both man and woman are
to an earlier final judgment of a court declaring such previous marriage married to other persons, multiple alliances of the same married
void. 11 man, 17 -
It is clear therefore that the Court is clothed with sufficient authority to “... [O]nly the properties acquired by both of the parties through their
pass upon the validity of the two marriages in this case, as the same is actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned
essential to the determination of who is rightfully entitled to the subject by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions ...”
“death benefits” of the deceased.
Respondent again raised in her appeal the issue on petitioner's QUISUMBING, J.:
citizenship; 17 it did not merit enlightenment however from
petitioner. 18 In the present proceeding, petitioner's citizenship is For review on certiorari is the decision1 of the Court of Appeals dated
brought anew to the fore by private respondent. She even April 22, 1993, in CA-G.R. CY No. 34378, which affirmed the decision
furnishes the Court with the transcript of stenographic notes of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City in Civil Case No. 380-0-90
taken on 5 May 1995 during the hearing for the reconstitution of declaring the marriage of Erlinda Matias Dagdag and Avelino Dagdag
the original of a certain transfer certificate title as well as the void under Article 36 of the Family Code.
issuance of new owner's duplicate copy thereof before another
trial court. When asked whether she was an American citizen
petitioner answered that she was since 1954. 19 Significantly, the On September 7, 1975, Erlinda Matias, 16 years old, married Avelino
decree of divorce of petitioner and Arturo was obtained in the Parangan Dagdag, 20 years old, at the Iglesia Filipina Independent
same year. Petitioner however did not bother to file a reply Church in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija.2 The marriage certificate was issued
memorandum to erase the uncertainty about her citizenship at by the Office of the Local Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Cuyapo,
the time of their divorce, a factual issue requiring hearings to be Nueva Ecija, on October 20, 1988.
conducted by the trial court. Consequently, respondent appellate
court did not err in ordering the case returned to the trial court for Erlinda and Avelino begot two children, namely: Avelyn M. Dagdag,
further proceedings. born on January 16, 1978; and Eden M. Dagdag, born on April 21,
1982.3 Their birth certificates were issued by the Office of the Local
We emphasize however that the question to be determined by the Civil Registrar of the Municipality of Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija, also on
trial court should be limited only to the right of petitioner to October 20, 1988.
inherit from Arturo as his surviving spouse. Private respondent's
claim to heirship was already resolved by the trial court. She and Erlinda and Avelino lived in a house in District 8, Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija,
Arturo were married on 22 April 1947 while the prior marriage of located at the back of the house of their in-laws.4 A week after the
petitioner and Arturo was subsisting thereby resulting in a wedding, Avelino started leaving his family without explanation. He
bigamous marriage considered void from the beginning under would disappear for months, suddenly reappear for a few months, then
Arts. 80 and 83 of the Civil Code. Consequently, she is not a disappear again. During the times when he was with his family, he
surviving spouse that can inherit from him as this status indulged in drinking sprees with friends and would return home drunk.
presupposes a legitimate relationship. 20 He would force his wife to submit to sexual intercourse and if she
refused, he would inflict physical injuries on her. 5
As regards the motion of private respondent for petitioner and a
her counsel to be declared in contempt of court and that the On October 1993, he left his family again and that was the last they
present petition be dismissed for forum shopping, 21 the same heard from him. Erlinda was constrained to look for a job in Olongapo
lacks merit. For forum shopping to exist the actions must involve City as a manicurist to support herself and her children. Finally, Erlinda
the same transactions and same essential facts and learned that Avelino was imprisoned for some crime, 6 and that he
circumstances. There must also be identical causes of action, escaped from jail on October 22, 1985.7 A certification therefor dated
subject matter and issue. 22 The present petition deals with February 14, 1990, was issued by Jail Warden Orlando S. Limon.
declaration of heirship while the subsequent petitions filed before Avelino remains at-large to date.
the three (3) trial courts concern the issuance of new owner's
duplicate copies of titles of certain properties belonging to the
estate of Arturo. Obviously, there is no reason to declare the On July 3, 1990, Erlinda filed with the Regional Trial Court of
existence of forum shopping. Olongapo City a petition for judicial declaration of nullity of marriage on
the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family
Code.8 Since Avelino could not be located, summons was served by
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The decision of respondent publication in the Olongapo News, a newspaper of general circulation,
Court of Appeals ordering the remand of the case to the court of on September 3, 10, and 17, 1990.9 Subsequently, a hearing was
origin for further proceedings and declaring null and void its conducted to establish jurisdictional facts. Thereafter, on December
decision holding petitioner Fe D. Quita and Ruperto T. Padlan as 17, 1990, the date set for presentation of evidence, only Erlinda and
intestate heirs is AFFIRMED. The order of the appellate court her counsel appeared. Erlinda testified and presented her sister-in-law,
modifying its previous decision by granting one-half (1/2) of the Virginia Dagdag, as her only witness.
net hereditary estate to the Padlan children, namely, Claro,
Ricardo, Emmanuel, Zenaida and Yolanda, with the exception of
Alexis, all surnamed Padlan, instead of Arturo's brother Ruperto Virginia testified that she is married to the brother of Avelino. She and
Padlan, is likewise AFFIRMED. The Court however emphasizes her husband live in Olongapo City but they spend their vacations at the
house of Avelino's parents in Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija. She testified that WHEREFORE, and the foregoing considered, the motion for
Erlinda and Avelino always quarrelled, and that Avelino never stayed Reconsideration aforecited is DENIED for lack of merit.
for long at the couple's house. She knew that Avelino had been gone
for a long time now, and that she pitied Erlinda and the children. 10
SO ORDERED"
Thereafter, Erlinda rested her case. The trial court issued an Order
The Solicitor General appealed to the Court of Appeals, raising the
giving the investigating prosecutor until January 2, 1991, to manifest in
sole assignment of error that:
writing whether or not he would present controverting evidence, and
stating that should he fail to file said manifestation, the case would be
deemed submitted for decision. THE LOWER COURT ERRED IN DECLARING APPELLEE'S
MARRIAGE TO A VELINO DAGDAG NULL AND VOID ON THE
GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY OF THE LATTER,
In compliance with the Order, the investigating prosecutor conducted
PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE, THE
an investigation and found that there was no collusion between the
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY OF THE NATURE
parties. However, he intended to intervene in the case to avoid
CONTEMPLATED BY THE LAW NOT HAVING BEEN PROVEN TO
fabrication of evidence.11
EXIST.14
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of
the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild
characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional Republic of the Philippines
outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be SUPREME COURT
shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or Manila
difficulty, much less in will. In other words, there is a natal or
supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral
element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the THIRD DIVISION
person from really accepting and thereby complying with the
obligations essential to marriage. G.R. No. 94053 March 17, 1993
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner,
Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code20 as regards the husband and vs.
wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code21 in regard GREGORIO NOLASCO, respondent.
to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s)
must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in
the text of the decision. The Solicitor General for plaintiff-appellee.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal Warloo G. Cardenal for respondent.
of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or
decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. x x x RESOLUTION
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall FELICIANO, J.:
be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification,
which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons
for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. On 5 August 1988, respondent Gregorio Nolasco filed before the
The Solicitor-General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit Regional Trial Court of Antique, Branch 10, a petition for the
to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the declaration of presumptive death of his wife Janet Monica Parker,
case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor- invoking Article 41 of the Family Code. The petition prayed that
General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor respondent's wife be declared presumptively dead or, in the
vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095." 22 alternative, that the marriage be declared null and void. 1
Taking into consideration these guidelines, it is evident that Erlinda The Republic of the Philippines opposed the petition through the
failed to comply with the above-mentioned evidentiary requirements. Provincial Prosecutor of Antique who had been deputized to assist the
Erlinda failed to comply with guideline No. 2 which requires that Solicitor-General in the instant case. The Republic argued, first, that
the root cause of psychological incapacity must be medically or Nolasco did not possess a "well-founded belief that the absent spouse
was already dead,"2 and second, Nolasco's attempt to have his 1. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's finding that
marriage annulled in the same proceeding was a "cunning attempt" to there existed a well-founded belief on the part of Nolasco that Janet
circumvent the law on marriage.3 Monica Parker was already dead; and
During trial, respondent Nolasco testified that he was a seaman and 2. The Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial Court's declaration
that he had first met Janet Monica Parker, a British subject, in a bar in that the petition was a proper case of the declaration of presumptive
England during one of his ship's port calls. From that chance meeting death under Article 41, Family Code.5
onwards, Janet Monica Parker lived with respondent Nolasco on his
ship for six (6) months until they returned to respondent's hometown of
The issue before this Court, as formulated by petitioner is "[w]hether or
San Jose, Antique on 19 November 1980 after his seaman's contract
not Nolasco has a well-founded belief that his wife is already dead." 6
expired. On 15 January 1982, respondent married Janet Monica
Parker in San Jose, Antique, in Catholic rites officiated by Fr. Henry
van Tilborg in the Cathedral of San Jose. The present case was filed before the trial court pursuant to Article 41
of the Family Code which provides that:
Respondent Nolasco further testified that after the marriage
celebration, he obtained another employment contract as a seaman Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of
and left his wife with his parents in San Jose, Antique. Sometime in a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the
January 1983, while working overseas, respondent received a letter celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been
from his mother informing him that Janet Monica had given birth to his absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a well-
son. The same letter informed him that Janet Monica had left Antique. founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of
Respondent claimed he then immediately asked permission to leave disappearance where there is danger of death under the
his ship to return home. He arrived in Antique in November 1983. circumstances set forth in the provision of Article 391 of the Civil Code,
an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.
Respondent further testified that his efforts to look for her himself
whenever his ship docked in England proved fruitless. He also stated For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the
that all the letters he had sent to his missing spouse at No. 38 Ravena preceding paragraph, the spouse present must institute a summary
Road, Allerton, Liverpool, England, the address of the bar where he proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive
and Janet Monica first met, were all returned to him. He also claimed death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance
that he inquired from among friends but they too had no news of Janet of the absent spouse. (Emphasis supplied).
Monica.
When Article 41 is compared with the old provision of the Civil Code,
On cross-examination, respondent stated that he had lived with and which it superseded,7 the following crucial differences emerge. Under
later married Janet Monica Parker despite his lack of knowledge as to Article 41, the time required for the presumption to arise has been
her family background. He insisted that his wife continued to refuse to shortened to four (4) years; however, there is need for a judicial
give him such information even after they were married. He also declaration of presumptive death to enable the spouse present to
testified that he did not report the matter of Janet Monica's remarry.8 Also, Article 41 of the Family Code imposes a stricter
disappearance to the Philippine government authorities. standard than the Civil Code: Article 83 of the Civil Code merely
requires either that there be no news that such absentee is still alive;
or the absentee is generally considered to be dead and believed to be
Respondent Nolasco presented his mother, Alicia Nolasco, as his
so by the spouse present, or is presumed dead under Article 390 and
witness. She testified that her daughter-in-law Janet Monica had
391 of the Civil Code.9 The Family Code, upon the other hand,
expressed a desire to return to England even before she had given
prescribes as "well founded belief" that the absentee is already
birth to Gerry Nolasco on 7 December 1982. When asked why her
dead before a petition for declaration of presumptive death can be
daughter-in-law might have wished to leave Antique, respondent's
granted.
mother replied that Janet Monica never got used to the rural way of life
in San Jose, Antique. Alicia Nolasco also said that she had tried to
dissuade Janet Monica from leaving as she had given birth to her son As pointed out by the Solicitor-General, there are four (4) requisites for
just fifteen days before, but when she (Alicia) failed to do so, she gave the declaration of presumptive death under Article 41 of the Family
Janet Monica P22,000.00 for her expenses before she left on 22 Code:
December 1982 for England. She further claimed that she had no
information as to the missing person's present whereabouts.
1. That the absent spouse has been missing for four consecutive
years, or two consecutive years if the disappearance occurred where
The trial court granted Nolasco's petition in a Judgment dated 12 there is danger of death under the circumstances laid down in Article
October 1988 the dispositive portion of which reads: 391, Civil Code;
Wherefore, under Article 41, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the 2. That the present spouse wishes to remarry;
Philippines (Executive Order No. 209, July 6, 1987, as amended by
Executive Order No. 227, July 17, 1987) this Court hereby declares as
presumptively dead Janet Monica Parker Nolasco, without prejudice to 3. That the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee
her reappearance.4 is dead; and
The Republic appealed to the Court of Appeals contending that the 4. That the present spouse files a summary proceeding for the
trial court erred in declaring Janet Monica Parker presumptively dead declaration of presumptive death of the absentee. 10
because respondent Nolasco had failed to show that there existed a
well founded belief for such declaration. Respondent naturally asserts that he had complied with all these
requirements.11
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that
respondent had sufficiently established a basis to form a belief that his Petitioner's argument, upon the other hand, boils down to this: that
absent spouse had already died. respondent failed to prove that he had complied with the third
requirement, i.e., the existence of a "well-founded belief" that the
absent spouse is already dead.
The Republic, through the Solicitor-General, is now before this Court
on a Petition for Review where the following allegations are made:
The Court believes that respondent Nolasco failed to conduct a search Neither can this Court give much credence to respondent's bare
for his missing wife with such diligence as to give rise to a "well- assertion that he had inquired from their friends of her whereabouts,
founded belief" that she is dead. considering that respondent did not identify those friends in his
testimony. The Court of Appeals ruled that since the prosecutor failed
to rebut this evidence during trial, it is good evidence. But this kind of
United States v. Biasbas, 12 is instructive as to degree of diligence
evidence cannot, by its nature, be rebutted. In any case, admissibility
required in searching for a missing spouse. In that case, defendant
is not synonymous with credibility. 18 As noted before, there are
Macario Biasbas was charged with the crime of bigamy. He set-up the
serious doubts to respondent's credibility. Moreover, even if admitted
defense of a good faith belief that his first wife had already died. The
as evidence, said testimony merely tended to show that the missing
Court held that defendant had not exercised due diligence to ascertain
spouse had chosen not to communicate with their common
the whereabouts of his first wife, noting that:
acquaintances, and not that she was dead.
A I secured another contract with the ship and we had a trip to London In In Re Szatraw, 22 the Court warned against such collusion between
and I went to London to look for her I could not find
the parties when they find it impossible to dissolve the marital bonds
her (sic). 15 (Emphasis supplied)
through existing legal means.
VITUG, J.:
(2) . . .
Parents have the natural right, as well as the moral and legal duty, to
(3) . . .
care for their children, see to their proper upbringing and safeguard
their best interest and welfare. This authority and responsibility may
not be unduly denied the parents; neither may it be renounced by (4) . . .
them. Even when the parents are estranged and their affection for
each other is lost, the attachment and feeling for their offsprings
(5) Every child has the right to be brought up in an atmosphere of
invariably remain unchanged. Neither the law nor the courts allow this
morality and rectitude for the enrichment and the strengthening of his
affinity to suffer absent, of course, any real, grave and imminent threat
character.
to the well-being of the child.
(6) . . .
The petition bears upon this concern.
(7) . . .
Carlitos E. Silva, a married businessman, and Suzanne T. Gonzales,
an unmarried local actress, cohabited without the benefit of marriage.
The union saw the birth of two children: Ramon Carlos and Rica (8) Every child has the right to protection against exploitation, improper
Natalia. Not very long after, a rift in their relationship surfaced. It influences, hazards and other conditions or circumstances prejudicial
began, according to Silva, when Gonzales decided to resume her to his physical, mental emotional social and moral development.
acting career over his vigorous objections. The assertion was quickly
refuted by Gonzales who claimed that she, in fact, had never stopped
xxx xxx xxx
working throughout their relationship. At any rate, the two eventually
parted ways.
With Articles 3 and 8 of PD 603, in mind, We find it to the best interest
of the minor children, to deny visitorial and/or temporary custodial
The instant controversy was spawned, in February 1986, by the
rights to the father, even at the expense of hurting said parent. After
refusal of Gonzales to allow Silva, in apparent contravention of a
previous understanding, to have the children in his company on all, if indeed his love for the children is genuine and more divine than
the love for himself, a little self-sacrifice and self-denial may bring
weekends. Silva filed a petition for custodial rights over the children
more benefit to the children. While petitioner-appellee, as father, may
before the Regional Trial Court ("RTC"), Branch 78, of Quezon City.
The petition was opposed by Gonzales who averred that Silva often not intentionally prejudice the children by improper influence, what the
engaged in "gambling and womanizing" which she feared could affect children may witness and hear while in their father's house may not be
in keeping with the atmosphere of morality and rectitude where they
the moral and social values of the children.
should be brought up.
The children concerned are still in their early formative years of life. seen it fit to understandably provide this precautionary measure, i.e.,
The molding of the character of the child starts at home. A home with "in no case (can petitioner) take out the children without the written
only one parent is more normal than two separate houses — (one consent of the mother."
house where one parent lives and another house where the other
parent with another woman/man lives). After all, under Article 176 of
WHEREFORE, the decision of the trial court is REINSTATED,
the Family Code, illegitimate children are supposed to use the
reversing thereby the judgment of the appellate court which is hereby
surname of and shall be under the parental authority of their mother.
SET ASIDE. No costs.
The child is one of the most important assets of the nation. It is thus
SO ORDERED.
important we be careful in rearing the children especially so if they are
illegitimates, as in this case.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby
Manila
rendered giving due course to the appeal. The Order of the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City dated April 7, 1989 is hereby reversed.
Petitioner-appellee's petition for visitorial rights is hereby denied. FIRST DIVISION
There is, despite a dearth of specific legal provisions, enough CRUZ, J.:
recognition on the inherent and natural right of parents over their
children. Article 150 of the Family Code expresses that "(f)amily The subject of this petition is the preliminary injunction issued by the
relations include those . . . (2) (b)etween parents and children; . . . ." respondent court pending resolution of a case on appeal. We deal only
Article 209, in relation to Article 220, of the Code states that it is with this matter and not the merits of the case.
the natural right and duty of parents and those exercising parental
authority to, among other things, keep children in their company and to
give them love and affection, advice and counsel, companionship and As a member of our diplomatic service assigned to different countries
understanding. The Constitution itself speaks in terms of the "natural during his successive tours of duties, petitioner Samson T. Sabalones
and primary rights" of parents in the rearing of the youth.4 There is left to his wife, herein respondent Remedios Gaviola-Sabalones, the
nothing conclusive to indicate that these provisions are meant to solely administration of some of their conjugal, properties for fifteen years.
address themselves to legitimate relationships. Indeed, although in
varying degrees, the laws on support and successional rights, by way Sabalones retired as ambassador in 1985 and came back to the
of examples, clearly go beyond the legitimate members of the family Philippines but not to his wife and their children. Four years later, he
and so explicitly encompass illegitimate relationships as well. 5 Then, filed an action for judicial authorization to sell a building and lot located
too, and most importantly, in the declaration of nullity of marriages, a at
situation that presupposes a void or inexistent marriage, Article 49 of #17 Eisenhower St., Greenhills, San Juan, Metro Manila, belonging to
the Family Code provides for appropriate visitation rights to parents the conjugal partnership. He claimed that he was sixty-eight years old,
who are not given custody of their children. very sick and living alone without any income, and that his share of the
proceeds of the sale to defray the prohibitive cost of his hospitalization
There is no doubt that in all cases involving a child, his interest and and medical treatment.
welfare is always the paramount consideration. The Court shares the
view of the Solicitor General, who has recommended due course to In her answer, the private respondent opposed the authorization and
the petition, that a few hours spent by petitioner with the children, filed a counterclaim for legal separation. She alleged that the house in
however, could not all be that detrimental to the children. Similarly, Greenhills was being occupied by her and their six children and that
what the trial court has observed is not entirely without merit; thus: they were depending for their support on the rentals from another
conjugal property, a building and lot in Forbes Park which was on
The allegations of respondent against the character of petitioner, even lease to Nobumichi Izumi. She also informed the court that despite her
assuming as true, cannot be taken as sufficient basis to render husband's retirement, he had not returned to his legitimate family and
petitioner an unfit father. The fears expressed by respondent to the was instead maintaining a separate residence in Don Antonio Heights,
effect that petitioner shall be able to corrupt and degrade their children Fairview, Quezon City, with Thelma Cumareng and their three
once allowed to even temporarily associate with petitioner is but the children.
product of respondent's unfounded imagination, for no man, bereft of
all moral persuasions and goodness, would ever take the trouble and In her prayer, she asked the court to grant the decree of legal
expense in instituting a legal action for the purpose of seeing his separation and order the liquidation of their conjugal properties, with
illegitimate children. It can just be imagined the deep sorrows of a forfeiture of her husband's share therein because of his adultery. She
father who is deprived of his children of tender ages. 6 also prayed that it enjoin the petitioner and his agents from a)
disturbing the occupants of the Forbes Park property and b) disposing
The Court appreciates the apprehensions of private respondent and of or encumbering any of the conjugal properties.
their well-meant concern for the children; nevertheless, it seems
unlikely that petitioner would have ulterior motives or undue designs After trial, Judge Mariano M. Umali, found that the petitioner had
more than a parent's natural desire to be able to call on, even if it were indeed contracted a bigamous marriage on October 5, 1981, with
only on brief visits, his own children. The trial court, in any case, has Thelma Cumareng, to whom he had returned upon his retirement in
1985 at a separate residence. The court thus decreed the legal after a petition for legal separation has been filed, the trial court shall,
separation of the spouses and the forfeiture of the petitioner's share in in the absence of a written agreement between the couple, appoint
the conjugal properties, declaring as well that he was not entitled to either one of the spouses or a third person to act as the administrator.
support from his respondent wife.1
While it is true that no formal designation of the administrator has been
This decision was appealed to the respondent court. Pendente lite, the made, such designation was implicit in the decision of the trial court
respondent wife filed a motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary denying the petitioner any share in the conjugal properties (and thus
injunction to enjoin the petitioner from interfering with the also disqualifying him as administrator thereof). That designation was
administration of their properties in Greenhills and Forbes Park. She in effect approved by the Court of Appeals when it issued in favor of
alleged inter alia that he had harassed the tenant of the Forbes Park the respondent wife the preliminary injunction now under challenge.
property by informing him that his lease would not be renewed. She
also complained that the petitioner had disposed of one of their
The primary purpose of the provisional remedy of injunction is to
valuable conjugal properties in the United States in favor of his
preserve the status quo of the things subject of the action or the
paramour, to the prejudice of his legitimate wife and children.
relations between the parties and thus protect the rights of the plaintiff
respecting these matters during the pendency of the suit. Otherwise,
The petitioner opposed this motion and filed his own motion to prevent the defendant may, before final judgment, do or continue doing the act
his wife from entering into a new contract of lease over the Forbes which the plaintiff asks the court to restrain and thus make ineffectual
Park property with its present tenant, or with future tenants, without his the final judgment that may be rendered afterwards in favor of the
consent. plaintiff.3
After hearing, the Court of Appeals, in an order dated April 7, 1992, As observed by Francisco, "Injunction is primarily a preventive
granted the preliminary injunction prayed for by his wife. 2 remedy. Its province is to afford relief against future acts which are
against equity and good conscience and to keep and preserve the
thing in the status quo, rather than to remedy what is past or to punish
The petitioner now assails this order, arguing that since the law
for wrongful acts already committed. It may issue to prevent future
provides for a joint administration of the conjugal properties by the
wrongs although no right has yet been violated."4
husband and wife, no injunctive relief can be issued against one or the
other because no right will be violated. In support of this contention, he
cites Art. 124 of the Family Code, reading as follows: The Court notes that the wife has been administering the subject
properties for almost nineteen years now, apparently without complaint
on the part of the petitioner. He has not alleged, much less shown, that
Art. 124. The administration and enjoyment of the conjugal partnership
her administration has caused prejudice to the conjugal partnership.
property shall belong to both spouses jointly. In case of disagreement,
What he merely suggests is that the lease of the Forbes Park property
the husband's decision shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court by
could be renewed on better terms, or he should at least be given his
the wife for proper remedy, which must be availed of within five years
share of the rentals.
from the date of the contract implementing such decision.
a ruling reiterated in the decision of 2 April 1941 when the Court ruled:
RELOVA, J.:
El concepto de la causa ilicita, tal como la desenvuelve y aplica con
gran amplitud y flexibilidad la doctrina moderna, permite cobijar, no Petition for review on certiorari of the decision rendered by the then
solo las convenciones ilicitas por razon de su objeto o de su motivo ... Court of First Instance of Manila in Civil Case No. 67713, sustaining
sino tambien multiples convenciones que no encerrando en si ningun the money claims of plaintiff-appellee, The Imperial Insurance, Inc.
elemento de directa antijuricidad son ilicitas por el matiz immoral que against defendant-appellant Emilia T. David, based on three (3)
reviste la operation en su conjunto x x x . different causes of action in the complaint.
Unfortunately for herein appellant, in contracts invalidated by illegal The first two causes of action involve the indemnity agreements which
subject matter or illegal causa, Articles 1305 and 1306 of the Civil defendant-appellant and her deceased husband, Felicisimo V. Reyes,
Code then in force apply rigorously the rule in pari delicto non oritur jointly and severally, executed in favor of herein appellee, for and in
action, denying all recovery to the guilty parties inter se. And appellant consideration of two (2) surety bonds underwritten by it to lift the lift the
is clearly as guilty as her husband in the attempt to evade the legal writs of attachment in Civil Case No. 5213 of the Rizal Court of First
interdiction of Article 1334 of the Code, already cited. Wherefore, her Instance for the amount of P60,000.00, and in Civil Case No. Q-5214,
present action to reivindicate the, conveyed properties was correctly also with the same court for the amount of P40,000.00
repulsed by the Court below.
The third cause of action involves accrued premiums and documentary
Art. 1306. If the act which constitutes the illicit consideration is neither stamps for four (4) years with legal interest therein from the filing of the
a crime nor a misdemeanor, the following rules shall be observed: complaint also underwritten by appellee.
1. When both parties are guilty, neither of them can recover what he Records show that Felicisimo V. Reyes and his wife, herein appellant,
may have given by virtue of the contract, or enforce the performance executed two (2) indemnity agreements in favor of appellee jointly and
of the undertaking of the other party; severally to assure indemnification of the latter for whatever liability it
may incur in connection with its posting the security bonds to lift the
attachments in Civil Case No. Q-5213 for the amount of P60,000.00,
xxx xxx xxx
and in Civil Case No. Q-5214 for the amount of P40,000.00, for the
benefit of Felicisimo V. Reyes.
That Article 1306 applies to cases where the nullity arises from the
illegality of the consideration or the purpose of the contract was
Later, Felicisimo V. Reyes and his wife, jointly and severally, executed
expressly recognized by this Supreme Court in Gustilo vs. Maravilla,
another indemnity agreement in favor of appellee to assure
48 Phil. 449-450.2
indemnification of the latter under a homestead bond for the sum of
P7,500.00 it had executed jointly and severally with them in favor of
Finally, it cannot be denied that plaintiff-appellant had knowledge of the Development Bank of the Philippines. On the same date,
the nullity of the contract for the transfer of her properties in 1934, Felicisimo V. Reyes and his wife paid to appellee the sum of P153.33
because she was even a party thereto. And yet, her present action covering the premium and other expenses for the homestead bond on
was filed only on May 28, 1962 and after the breaking up of friendly the first year.
Felicisimo V.Reyes died and Special Proceedings No. 12948 of the We find no merit in this appeal. Under the law and well settled
then Court of First Instance of Bulacan, entitled "In the Matter of the jurisprudence, when the obligation is a solidary one, the creditor may
Instestate of Felicisimo V. Reyes," was commenced. His wife, herein bring his action in toto against any of the debtors obligated in solidum.
appellant, qualified and took her oath of office as the administratrix of Thus, if husband and wife bound themselves jointly and severally, in
said intestate estate. Corresponding notices to creditors were issued case of his death her liability is independent of and separate from her
and published for three (3) consecutive weeks in the "Manila husband s; she may be sued for the whole debt and it would be error
Chronicle" and were duly posted in the required places. to hold that the claim against her as well as the claim against her
husband should be made in the decedent's estate. (Agcaoili vs. Vda.
de Agcaoili, 90 Phil. 97)
Meanwhile, judgment was rendered in the aforesaid two cases (Civil
Cases Nos. Q-5213 and Q-5214) against the spouses Felicisimo V.
Reyes and appellant Emilia T. David which has become final and In the case at bar, appellant signed a joint and several obligation with
executory. Writs of execution of the decision on the said cases were her husband in favor of herein appellee; as a consequence, the latter
returned unsatisfied. As a consequence, judgment was rendered may demand from either of them the whole obligation. As
against the surety bonds for the sum of P60,000.00 in Civil Case No. distinguished from a joint obligation where each of the debtor is liable
Q-5213 and for the sum of P40,000.00 in Civil Case No. Q-5214. only for a proportionate part of the debt and the creditor is entitled only
to a proportionate part of the credit, in a solidary obligation the creditor
may enforce the entire obligation against one of the debtors.
Appellee made demands on Emilia T. David to pay the amounts of
P60,000.00 and P40,000.00 under the surety bonds and arrears in
premiums thereon. When appellant David failed to make payments, Where the obligation assumed by several persons is joint and several,
appellee filed Civil Case No. 67713 in the then Court of First Instance each of the debtors is answerable for the whole obligation with the
of Manila, Branch 1, for collection of sums of money under three (3) right to seek contribution from his co-debtors. (Philippine International
different causes of action. Surety Co., Inc. vs. Gonzales, 3 SCRA 391)
A motion to dismiss was filed by herein appellant on the following And, in Manila Surety and Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Villarama, et al., 107
grounds. to wit: (1) the court has no jurisdiction over the nature of the Phil. 891, this Court ruled that the Rules of Court provide the
action or suit; (2) the complaint states no cause of action; and (3) the procedure should the creditor desire to go against the. deceased
plaintiff's causes of action, if there be any, have been barred for its debtor, "but there is noting in the aid provision making compliance with
failure to file its claims against the estate of the deceased Felicisimo V. such procedure a condition precedent an ordinary action against the
Reyes in due time. solidary debtors. should the creditor choose to demand payment from
the latter, could be entertained to the extent that failure to observe the
same would deprive the court jurisdiction to make cognizance of the
The lower court denied the motion for lack of merit. Thereafter,
action against the surviving debtors. Upon lie other hand, the Civil
appellant, as defendant in said Civil Case No. 67713, filed her answer.
Code expressly allows the creditor to proceed against any one of the
solidary debtors or some or all of them simultaneously. Hence, there is
After trial, the court rendered judgment ordering defendant Emilia T. nothing improper in the creditor's filing of an action against the
David (herein appellant) surviving solidary debtors alone, instead of instituting a proceeding for
the settlement of the estate of the deceased debtor wherein his claim
could be filed.
1. to pay the plaintiff under the first cause of action, the amount of
P60,000.00 with interest at legal rate from the filing of the complaint
until fun payment shall be effected; and a further sum of P1,522.50 ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the court a quo is hereby
annually from June 20, 1961 until termination of this case, said amount AFFIRMED in toto with costs against appellant.
representing premiums and documentary stamps in the surety bond,
Exh. "B", with interest at legal rate from the filing of the complaint until
SO ORDERED.
full payment is made;
2. to pay the plaintiff under the second cause of action, the amount of
P40,000.00 with interest at the legal rate from the filing of the
complaint until full payment shag be made; and a further sum of
P1,105.00 annually from June 20, 1961 until termination of this case,
said amount representing premiums and documentary stamps on the
surety bond Exh. "B", with interest at the legal rate from the filing of the
complaint until full payment is made;
3. to pay the plaintiff under the third cause of action the amount of
P153.33 annually for a period of 4 years from June 29, 1962
representing premiums and documentary stamps on the Homestead
Bond Exh. "C-1" with interest at the legal rate from the filing of the
complaint until full payment is made;