effect after fifteen days following their publication in the Official Gazette,un less otherwise provided.

While Central Ban Circular No. 20 is not of a statute or law but being issued for the implementation of the lawauthorizing its issuanc e, it has the force and effect of law according tosettled jurisprudence. Rules a nd regulations which prescribe a penaltyfor its violation should be published be fore becoming effective. Thepublic cannot be held liable for violations of laws or regulations unlessthey are informed of its contents and penalties for violati on.Minciano vs. Brimo50 Phil. 867, November 1, 1924J. RomualdezFacts: Joseph G. Brimo, a citizen of Tur ey, died and left a partition of the estate. Juan Mician o, the judicial administrator of the estate leftfiled a scheme of partition. How ever, Andre Brimo, one of the brothersof the deceased, opposed it. Brimos oppositi on is based on the fact thatthe partition in question puts into effect the provi sions of Joseph Brimoswill which are not in accordance with the laws of his Tur is h nationality,for which reason they are void as being in violation of Article 10 of theCivil Code.Issue: Whether or not the national law of the testator is the one togovern histestamentary disposition.Held: Joseph Brimo, a Tur ish citizen, though he declared in his will thatPhilippine laws must govern the disposition o f his estate; however, itmust not prejudice the heir or legatee of the testator. Therefore, the testators national law must govern in accordance with Article 10 of the Civil Code.Cui vs. Arellano University(2 SCRA 205)Facts: Plaintiff Emeterio Cui, studying law, received scholarship grantsfor scholastic merit at Arellano University. During his last semester of his fourth year, he left the defendant u niversity and enrolled at AbadSantos University, wherein he finished his law deg ree. After graduating,he applied for thebar examinations. To secure to ta e the bar examinations, he needed the transcript of records from the defendantuniversi ty. Defendant refused to give him a transcript until he paid bac the tuition tha t the university returned when he was granted scholarship. According to the cont ract signed by the plaintiff, scholarships are goodonly if the student should co ntinue in the same school. This contractwas followed fromMemorandumNo. 38 made b y the Director of PrivateSchools. Issue: Whether or not the contract between plaintiff and defendant,whereby the f ormer waived his right to transfer to another schoolwithout refunding to the lat ter the equivalent of his scholarship in cashvalid or not?Held: The contract bet ween plaintiff and defendant is not binding sincethe memorandum made by the Dire ctor of Private Schools is not a law.The provisions are only advisory and not ma ndatory in nature.Furthermore, the said officer had not authority to issue suchm emorandum and that provisions were not published in the OfficialGazette.Garcia v . RecioG. R. No. 138322 Oct. 2, 2001Panganiban, J.FACTSRederic Recio, a Filipin o, married an Australian citizen namedEditha Samson in 1987. Two years later a d ecree of divorce wasreleased by the Australian government.On June 26, 1992, Reci o became an Australian citizen and married acertain Grace Garcia in 1994 inCaban atuan Citywith the former declaring that he was single and Filipino.Garcia filed a declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of bigamyalleging that Recio had a prior subsisting marriage at the time hemarried her and only had nowledg e of it in 1997.Recio countered wifes claim asserting that he disclosed the previo usmarriage to her in 1993. Moreover, he contended that his first marriagehad bee n validly dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in Australia in1989 ma ing him legally capacitated to marry.ISSUEWhether or not the trial court gravely erred i n finding that the divorcedecree obtained in Australia by Recio ipso facto termi nated his firstmarriage to Samson thereby capacitating him to contract a secondm arriage with Garcia.HELDTheSupreme Courtruled that the divorce decree obtained b y Recio does not ipso facto terminated his first marriage to Samson on theaccount that p

resentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient. Article 15 and 17 of t he Civil Code establish the rule that a marriagebetween two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtainedabroad. Inmixed marriagesinvolving a Filipin o and a foreigner, Article26 of the Family Code allows the former to contract a subsequentmarriage in case the divorce is validly obtained abroad by the alienspou se capacitating him or her to remarry. A divorce obtained abroadby a couple, who a re both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines,provided it is consistent w ith their respective national laws.The Court highlights that before a foreign di vorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove t he divorce as a fact anddemonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowingit .Roehr vs. GarciaGR No. 142820June 20, 2003Facts:Petitioner Wolfgang Roehr, a Ge rman citizen, married a Filipina,Carmen Rodriguez in Germany. The marriage was r atified in Tayasan,Negros Oriental.. Private respondent filed a petition for the declarationof nullity of marriage before the RTC of Ma ati. Petitioner filed a motionto dismiss but was denied by the trial court. The petitioner obtained adec ree of divorce from the Cout of First Instance of Hamburg-Blan enese and grantin g the custody of the children to the father.Issue:Whether or not the legal effec ts of a divorce obtained from a foreigncountry such as support and custody of th e children can be determinedin our courtsHeld:Yes. In order to ta e effect, a fo reign judgement must clearly showthat the opposing party has been given ample op portunity to do sounder the Rules of Civel Procedure. Accoringly, the respondent was notgiven the opportunity to challenge the judgement of the German Court,the refore,legal effects of divorcemust be determined in our courts. Thecourt held t hat the trial court has jurisdiction over the issue between theparties as to who has parental costudy