Case-DIgest-2.docx

8/14/2019 Case-DIgest-2.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/case-digest-2docx 1/6

Tanada vs. TuveraNo. L-63915 December 29, 1986Ponente: Justice Cruz

Facts:The petitioners sought the disclosure of a number of presidential

decrees, which they claimed had not been published as required by law.The government’s contention that the phrase “otherwise provided”means that a decree will become effective immediately after theirapproval. The trial court affirmed the decision of having the necessity forthe publication of the said decrees. The petitioners now sought for thereconsideration or clarification of the said decision. The prayerconstitutes of ordering the respondents to publish in the Official Gazetteall the unpublished Presidential decrees of general application andunless published they shall not be binding.

Issue:Whether or not the clause “unless it is otherwise provided” refers to

the date of effectivity of laws or to the requirement of publication.

Held:The clause “unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the date of

effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot

be omitted. Publication is indispensable in every case, but thelegislature in its discretion provide that the usual fifteen day period shallbe shortened or extended. The omission of the said publication wouldrun against the due process clause and would deny the publicknowledge of the laws. The court held that all statutes, including thoseof local application and private laws, shall be published as a conditionfor their effectivity. The publication must be in full since its purpose is toinform the public of the contents of the law.

Petition granted.DM Consunji, Inc. Vs CA

Facts: On May 9, 1991, private respondent Maria Juego filed in thePasig Regional Trial Court a complaint for damages against petitionerfor the the death of her husband Jose juego. Jose was employed bypetitioner as a construction worker. While working on November 2,1990, Jose fell 14 floors from the Renaissance Tower in Pasig. He died.Maria availed of the death benefits form the State Insurance Fund.Petitioner is claiming that she can no longer recover damages under theCivil Code because her prior availment of the benefits form the StateInsurance Fund. The trial court and CA decided in favour of maria.Issue: Whether Maria’s availment of the death benefits provided under

the Labor Code amounts to a waiver of her rights to claim for damagesfrom petition under the Civil Code?



Held: No because maria was not only ignorant of the fact but of herrights as well. Maria’s election of the death benefits does not bar anyaction inconsistent with the elected remedy.For a waiver to become valid, there must be an intentionalrelinquishment of a known right. Where one lacks knowledge of a rights,there is no basis upon which waiver of its can rest. Waiver requires aknowledge of the right waived with an awareness of its consequences.Thus ignorance of material fact negates waiver.Pilapil VS. Ibay-SomeraG.R No. 80116June 30, 1989

On September 7, 1979, petitioner Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, aFilipino citizen, and private respondent Erich Ekkehard Geiling, aGerman national, were married before the Registrar of Births, marriageand deaths in Friedensweiler in the Federal Republic of Germany. Thecouple lived together for some time in Malate, Manila where they had adaughter.

After three and a half years of disharmonic marriage, privaterespondent Geiling initiated divorce proceedings against petitioner in hisnative Germany. He claimed that there was failure of the marriage andthey had been living apart since 1982.While petitioner filed an action forLegal separation, support and separation of property before theRegional Trial Court in Manila.

On January 15, 1986, the Schoneberg local Court of Germany,

promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage ofthe spouses.On June 27, 1986, five months after the issuance of the divorce

decree, private respondent filed two complaints for adultery before theCity Fiscal of Manila alleging that during the marriage Pilapil had anaffair with a certain William Chia and another man named Jesus Chua. After corresponding investigation, the assistant fiscal recommended thedismissal of the cases on the ground of insufficiency of evidence.However upon review of the respondent City fiscal a resolution wasapproved and the cases were raffled to two branches of the RTC of

Manila.On March 14, 1987, petitioner filed a petition with the Secretary ofJustice that the cases be dismissed. The Secretary of justice, throughthe Chief State Prosecutor, gave due course to both petitions anddirected city fiscal to inform the DOJ “if the accused have already beenarraigned and if not, to move to defer further proceedings” and toelevate the entire record of the cases to his office for review.Pilapil filed a motion in both criminal cases to defer arraignment and tosuspend further proceedings. As a result, one of the criminal cases wassuspended, while the date of arraignment of the other was merely reset.

During the arraignment of the criminal case, the William Chia pleadednot guilty while the petitioner refused not to be arraigned. The petitioner



effect after fifteen days following their publication in the Official Gazette,unless otherwise provided. While Central Bank Circular No. 20 is not ofa statute or law but being issued for the implementation of the lawauthorizing its issuance, it has the force and effect of law according tosettled jurisprudence. Rules and regulations which prescribe a penaltyfor its violation should be published before becoming effective. Thepublic cannot be held liable for violations of laws or regulations unlessthey are informed of its contents and penalties for violation.

Minciano vs. Brimo50 Phil. 867, November 1, 1924J. Romualdez

Facts: Joseph G. Brimo, a citizen of Turkey, died and left a partition ofthe estate. Juan Miciano, the judicial administrator of the estate leftfiled a scheme of partition. However, Andre Brimo, one of the brothersof the deceased, opposed it. Brimo’s opposition is based on the fact thatthe partition in question puts into effect the provisions of Joseph Brimo’swill which are not in accordance with the laws of his Turkish 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 his testamentary disposition.

Held: Joseph Brimo, a Turkish citizen, though he declared in his will thatPhilippine laws must govern the disposition of his estate; however, itmust not prejudice the heir or legatee of the testator.Therefore, the testator’s 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 grants

for scholastic merit at Arellano University. During his last semester ofhis fourth year, he left the defendant university and enrolled at AbadSantos University, wherein he finished his law degree. After graduating,he applied for the bar examinations. To secure to take the barexaminations, he needed the transcript of records from the defendantuniversity. Defendant refused to give him a transcript until he paid backthe tuition that the university returned when he was granted scholarship. According to the contract signed by the plaintiff, scholarships are goodonly if the student should continue in the same school. This contractwas followed from Memorandum No. 38 made by the Director of Private

Schools.



Issue: Whether or not the contract between plaintiff and defendant,whereby the former waived his right to transfer to another schoolwithout refunding to the latter the equivalent of his scholarship in cashvalid or not?

Held: The contract between plaintiff and defendant is not binding sincethe memorandum made by the Director of Private Schools is not a law.The provisions are only advisory and not mandatory in nature.Furthermore, the said officer had not authority to issue suchmemorandum and that provisions were not published in the OfficialGazette.Garcia v. RecioG. R. No. 138322 Oct. 2, 2001Panganiban, J.

FACTS

Rederick Recio, a Filipino, married an Australian citizen namedEditha Samson in 1987. Two years later a decree of divorce wasreleased by the Australian government.

On June 26, 1992, Recio became an Australian citizen and married acertain Grace Garcia in 1994 in Cabanatuan City with 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 knowledge of it in 1997.

Recio countered wife’s claim asserting that he disclosed the previousmarriage to her in 1993. Moreover, he contended that his first marriagehad been validly dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in Australia in1989 making him legally capacitated to marry.

ISSUE

Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in finding that the divorcedecree obtained in Australia by Recio ipso facto terminated his firstmarriage to Samson thereby capacitating him to contract a secondmarriage with Garcia.

HELD



The Supreme Court ruled that the divorce decree obtained by Reciodoes not ipso facto terminated his first marriage to Samson on theaccount that presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient. Article 15 and 17 of the Civil Code establish the rule that a marriagebetween two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtainedabroad. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino 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 alienspouse capacitating him or her to remarry.” A divorce obtained abroadby a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines,provided it is consistent with their respective national laws. The Court highlights that before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by ourcourts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact anddemonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowingit.

Roehr vs. GarciaGR No. 142820June 20, 2003

Facts:Petitioner Wolfgang Roehr, a German citizen, married a Filipina,

Carmen Rodriguez in Germany. The marriage was ratified in Tayasan,Negros Oriental.. Private respondent filed a petition for the declaration

of nullity of marriage before the RTC of Makati. Petitioner filed a motionto dismiss but was denied by the trial court. The petitioner obtained adecree of divorce from the Cout of First Instance of Hamburg-Blankenese and granting the custody of the children to the father.

Issue:Whether or not the legal effects of a divorce obtained from a foreign

country such as support and custody of the children can be determinedin our courts

Held:Yes. In order to take effect, a foreign judgement must clearly showthat the opposing party has been given ample opportunity to do sounder the Rules of Civel Procedure. Accoringly, the respondent was notgiven the opportunity to challenge the judgement of the German Court,therefore, legal effects of divorce must be determined in our courts. Thecourt held that the trial court has jurisdiction over the issue between theparties as to who has parental costudy

Case-DIgest-2.docx

Documents

Transcript of Case-DIgest-2.docx