consolidated digests - civil law (atty dicdican)

7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)

1/210

WARNING! DOUBLE CHECK IF THE CASES (CONTENTS) ARE CORRECT. :)

1. UMALI VS. ESTANISLAO 209 SCRA 446

Facts:

Congress enacted RA 7167 entitled An act adjusting the basic personal and

additional exeptions allo!able to indi"iduals #or incoe tax purposes to the

po"ert$ threshold le"el%& aending #or the purpose Sec'29 o# the ()RC' *he said act

!as signed and appro"ed b$ the +resident on ,ec'19& 1991 and published on -an'14&

1992 in .ala$a& a ne!spaper o# general circulation' Sec'/ o# the said act states

*his act shall tae e##ect upon its appro"al%& !hile Sec' states *hese

regulations shall tae e##ect on copensation incoe #ro -anuar$ 1& 1992'%

Iss:

3( RA 7167 too e##ect upon its appro"al b$ the president on ,ec'19& 1991 or on

-an'/0 1992& 1 da$s a#ter its publication5

H"#:

RA 7167 too e##ect on -anuar$ /0& 1992 a#ter 1 da$s o# its publication' *anada

"s *u"era *he clause 8unless it is other!ise pro"ided8 re#ers to the date o#

e##ecti"it$ and not to the reuireent o# publication itsel# !hich cannot in an$

e"ent be oitted' *his clause does not ean that the legislator a$ ae the la!

e##ecti"e iediatel$ upon appro"al& or on an$ other date !ithout its pre"ious

publication' +ublication is indispensable in e"er$ case& but the legislature a$ in

its discretion pro"ide that the usual #i#teen 1 da$ period shall be shortened or

extended'

$. %% VS. DONATO 19: SCRA 1/0

Facts:


2/210

+ri"ate respondent and his co;accused !ere charged o# rebellion on ctober 2& 19:6

#or acts coitted be#ore and a#ter


3/210

@e !as using the #alse nae 8.anuel .ercado Castro8 at the tie o# his arrest and

presented a ,ri"ers Bicense to substantiate his #alse identit$>

*he address he ga"e 8+anaitan& a!it& Ca"ite&8 turned out to be also a #alse

address>

@e and his copanions !ere on board a pri"ate "ehicle !ith a declared o!ner !hose

identit$ and address !ere also #ound to be #alse>

+ursuant to .inistr$ rder (o' 1;A dated 11 -anuar$ 19:2 & a re!ard o# +20&000'00

!as o##ered and paid #or his arrest'

*his ho!e"er !as denied' @ence the appeal'

Iss:

3hether or (ot the pri"ate respondent has the right to bail'

H"#:

Des' Eail in the instant case is a atter o# right' )t is absolute since the crie

is not a capital o##ense& there#ore prosecution has no right to present e"idence'

)t is onl$ !hen it is a capital o##ense that the right becoes discretionar$'

@o!e"er it !as !rong #or the -udge to change the aount o# bail #ro /0 to 0

!ithout hearing the prosecution'

Republic Act (o' 696: appro"ed on 24 ctober 1990& pro"iding a penalt$ o# reclusion

perpetua to the crie o# rebellion& is not applicable to the accused as it is not

#a"orable to hi'

Accused "alidl$ !ai"ed his right to bail in another casepetition #or habeascorpus' Agreeents !ere ade therein accused to reain under custod$& !hereas his

co;detainees -ose#ina CruF and -ose .ilo Concepcion !ill be released iediatel$&

!ith a condition that the$ !ill subit thesel"es in the jurisdiction o# the court'

Said petition #or @C !as disissed' Eail is the securit$ gi"en #or the release o# a

person in custod$ o# the la!' ?rgo& there !as a !ai"er' 3e hereb$ rule that the

right to bail is another o# the constitutional rights !hich can be !ai"ed' )t is a

right !hich is personal to the accused and !hose !ai"er !ould not be contrar$ to


4/210

la!& public order& public polic$& orals& or good custos& or prejudicial

to a

third

person

!ith

a

right

recogniFed

b$

la!'

&. %% VS. LICERA 6 SCRA 270


5/210

FACTS:

A criinal coplaint #or "iolation o# E+ 22 also no!n as the Eouncing Chec Ba!

!as #iled against the petitioner a#ter issuing a chec on Septeber 1& 19:2 !hich


6/210

!as dishonored on -anuar$ /& 19:4' Related regulations o# E+22 !ere released as

Circular (o' 4 dated ,eceber 1& 19:1& !hich !as eant to #ree the dra!er o# the

bouncing chec& an$ criinal liabilit$ !hen the issuance o# the chec is part o# an

agreeent to guarantee or secure pa$ent o# an obligation& and as Circular (o' 12

dated August :& 19:4& !hich !as eant to o"errule the #orer and contained express

andate #or prospecti"e application o# the regulation'

ISSUE: 3hether or not Circular (o' 12 is applicable to the case at bar'

HELD:

)t !as opined that the interpretation o# the Court constitutes a part o# the la! as

stated in Art : o# the (e! Ci"il Code& thus& the Circulars earning the po!er o# la!

resulted #ro the cogniFance o# the b$ the Court as ani#ested b$ the Court

decisions prior to the ruling o# the case at bar' *he Court #urther held that&

although the Circulars ha"e the po!er o# la!& Circular 12 can not be applied to the

case at bar as that !ould be tantaount to gi"ing retroacti"e e##ect !hich is in

direct "iolation o# the Circular itsel# and the Art 4 o# the (e! Ci"il Code

andating prospecti"e application o# the la!' *he Court resol"ed that the assailed

decisions o# the in#erior courts are re"ersed and set aside' Criinal prosecution

is disissed !ith costs de oficio'

. NATIONAL MARKETING COR%. VS. TECSON 29 SCRA 70


7/210

3hether or not the ter $ear as used in the article 1/ o# the ci"il code is liited

to /6 da$s'

@eld

*he ter $ear as used in the article 1/ o# the ci"il code is liited to /6 da$s'

@o!e"er& it is said to be unrealistic and i# public interest deands a re"ersion to

the polic$ ebodied in the re"ised adinistrati"e code& this a$ be done through

legislati"e process and not b$ judicial decree'

. *UI+ON VS. BALTA+AR 76 SCRA 60

*his is a petion #or certiorari and prohibition to declare null and "oid the orders

o# the .unicipal Court o# San


8/210

n .a$ 11& 1964& pri"ate respondent& Cecilia Sangalang& !ith the assistance o#

Assistant +ro"incial


9/210


10/210

196/ to .a$ 9&

da$s

1964 !ere'

*he prosecution opposed the otion to disiss b$ aing a coputation o# tie'

*hus& #ro (o"' 12& 196/ to .a$ 11& 1964 are 1:0 da$s pursuant to the pro"ision o#

the said Article 1/ contained in paragraph / !hich reads 8)n coputing a period&

the #irst da$ shall be excluded& and the last da$ included8'


11/210

April

/0

da$s


12/210

Article 1/ o# the ne! Ci"il Code sa$s that 8!hen the la!s spea o# '''& onths&

'''& it shall be understood that ''' onth ''' o# thirt$ da$s each ''' )t sa$s

#urther that 8)# onths are designated b$ their nae& the$ shall be coputed b$ thenuber o# da$s !hich the$ respecti"el$ ha"e' Con#orabl$ to these legal pro"isions

and appl$ing the sae to the case at bar& the coputation gi"en b$ the public

prosecutor appears to be correct' *he onth o# (o"eber !as designated in the

coplaint so it !ill be gi"en the nuber o# da$s it has in the calendar !hich is /0

da$s'

@ence this present petition'

)SSJ? 3hether a onth entioned in Article 90 should be considered as the calendar

onth and not the /0;da$ onth'

@?B,

)n accordance !ith Article 1/ o# the ne! Ci"il Code the 8onth8 entioned in

Article 90 o# the Re"ised +enal Code should be one o# /0 da$s& and since the period

o# prescription coences to run #ro the da$ 8on !hich the crie is disco"ered b$

the o##ended part$&8 it is logical to presue& there#ore& that the Begislature in

enacting Article 91 o# the Re"ised +enal Code eant or intended to ean that in the

coputation o# the period pro"ided #or therein& the #irst da$ is to be excluded and

the last one included& in accord !ith existing la!s'

*he pertinent pro"isions o# Articles 90 and 91 o# the Re"ised +enal Code are as

#ollo!s

Art' 90' Prescription of crimes' K *he o##enses o# oral de#aation and slander b$deed shall prescribe in six onths' Bight o##enses prescribe in t!o onths'

Art' 91' Computation of prescription of offenses.K*he period o# prescription shall

coence to run #ro the da$ on !hich the crie is disco"ered b$ the o##ended

part$& the authorities or their agents& '''


13/210

Article 90 should be considered as the calendar onth and not the /0;da$ onth' )t

is to be noted that no pro"ision o# the Re"ised +enal Code de#ines the length o#

the .onth' Article 7 o# the old Ci"il Code pro"ided that a onth shall be


14/210

understood as containing /0 da$s> 3ith the appro"al o# the Ci"il Code o# the +hilippines

R'A' (o' /:6& the pro"isions o# the Spanish Ci"il Code in accordance !ith !hich a

onth is to be considered as the regular /0;da$ onth Article 1/'

@ence& !here the crie !as coitted on (o"eber 11& 196/& and the action !as #iled

exactl$ 1:0 da$s later& said action !as #iled on tie'

,. BELLIS VS. BELLIS GR' (' B;2/67:& -J(? 6& 1967

FACTS: Aos G' Eellis !as a citiFen and resident o# *exas at the tie o# his death'

Ee#ore he died& he ade t!o !ills& one disposing o# his *exas properties& the

other& disposing o# his +hilippine properties' )n both !ills& his recogniFed

illegitiate children !ere not gi"en an$thing' *exas has no con#licts rule rule o#

+ri"ate )nternational Ba! go"erning successional rights'


15/210

/ *he contention that the national la! o# the deceased Art' 16& par' 2> Art'

10/9 should be disregarded because o# Art' 17& par' / !hich in e##ect states that

our prohibiti"e la!s should not be rendered nugator$ b$ #oreign la!s& is 3R(G&

#irstl$ because Art' 16& par' 2 and Art' 10/9 are special pro"isions& !hile Art'

17& par' / is erel$ a general pro"ision> and secondl$& because Congress deleted

the phrase not!ithstanding the pro"isions o# this and the next preceding articleLL

!hen it incorporated Art' 11 o# the old Ci"il Code as Art' 17 o# the ne! Ci"il

Code& !hile reproducing !ithout substantial change& the second paragraph o# Art' 10

o# the old Ci"il Code as Art'16 in the ne!' )t ust ha"e been its purpose to ae

the second paragraph o# Art' 16 a speci#ic pro"ision in itsel#& !hich ust be

applied in testate and intestate successions' As #urther indication o# this

legislati"e intent& Congress added a ne! pro"ision& underA-t. 10/-# 28 t4 at0a" "a5 09 t4 #c#t' )t

is there#ore e"ident that !hate"er public polic$ or good custos a$ be in"ol"ed in


16/210

our s$ste o# legities& Congress has not intended to extend the sae to the

succession o# #oreign nationals'

4 )t has been pointed out b$ the oppositor that the decedent executed t!o !ills K

one to go"ern his *exas estate and the other his +hilippine estate K arguing #ro

this that he intended +hilippine la! to go"ern his +hilippine estate' Assuing thatsuch !as the decedentLs intention in executing a separate +hilippine !ill& it !ill

(* AB*?R the la!& #or as this Court rules inMca0 /. B-70& 0 +hil' :67& :70&

a pro"ision in a #oreignerLs !ill to the e##ect that his properties shall be

distributed in accordance !ith the +hilippine la! and not !ith his national la!& is

illegal and "oid #or his national la!& in this regard& cannot be ignored'

?. GLOBE MCKA@ VS. CA

176 SCRA 77:

Facts

n (o"eber 10& 1972& pri"ate respondent

Restituto

*obias& a

purchasing agent and adinistrati"e assistant to the

engineering

operations

anager& disco"ered #ictitious purchases and other #raudulent transactions& !hich

caused Globe .aca$ Cable and Radio Corp loss o# se"eral thousands o# pesos' @e

reported it to his iediate superior ?duardo *'


17/210

detector tests $ielded negati"e results> reports #ro .anila police in"estigators

and #ro the .etro .anila +olice Chie# ,ocuent ?xainer are in #a"or o# *obias'

+etitioners #iled !ith the hence& this petition #or re"ie! on certiorari'

Iss 3hether or not petitioners are liable #or daages to pri"ate respondent'

H"#

Des' )n the case at bar& SC in"oed Articles 19 and 21 o# the (e! Ci"il Code

pro"ided as #ollo!s


18/210

Art' 19' ?"er$ person ust& in the exercise o# his rights and in the per#orance o#

his duties& act !ith justice& gi"e e"er$one his due& and obser"e honest$ and good

#aith'

Art' 21' An$ person !ho !il#ull$ causes loss or injur$ to another in a anner that

is contrar$ to orals& good custos or public polic$ shall copensate the latter#or the daage'

3hile Article 19 la$s do!n a rule o# conduct #or the go"ernent o# huan relations

and #or the aintenance o# social order& Article 21 pro"ides #or the reed$ on the

action #or daages'

*he Court& a#ter exaining the record and considering certain signi#icant

circustances& #inds that all3tt0-s 4a/ ## a2s# t4 ->4t t4at t48

/0; cas> #a7a> t0 3-/at -s30#t a# 90- 54c4 t4 "att- 7st 05 2

#79# !hen @endr$ told *obias to just con#ess or else the copan$ !ould #ile

a hundred ore cases against hi until he landed in jail> his @endr$ scorn#ul

rears about t4 /st>at0s 09 T02as t-as>-ss t4 sta#a-#s

09 47a c0#ct st 90-t4 A-tc" 1= 09 t4 C/" C0# and b$ such& it gi"es

*obias the right to reco"er daages under Article 21 o# the Ci"il Code'

=. %NB VS. CA :/ SCRA 2/6

%-c3"s: Article 21 o# the (e! Ci"il Code& 8an$ person !ho !il#ull$ causes loss

or injur$ to another in a anner that is contrar$ to orals& good custos or public

polic$ shall copensate the latter #or the daage'8 *he a#ore;cited pro"isions on

huan relations !ere intended to expand the concept o# torts in this jurisdiction

b$ granting adeuate legal reed$ #or the untold nuber o# oral !rongs !hich is

ipossible #or huan #oresight to speci#icall$ pro"ide in the statutes'

FACTS: +hilagen executed a bond& !ith de#endant Rita Gueco *apnio in #a"our o# +(E

San


19/210

o# 12O per annu& plus attorne$s #ees in the aount o# 1 O o# the !hole aount

due in case o# court litigation'

)t is not disputed that de#endant !as indebted to +(E San


20/210

*his lease agreeent& according to her& !as !ith the no!ledge o# the ban' Eut the

Ean has placed obstacles to the consuation o# the lease& and the dela$ caused b$

said obstacles #orced (aFon to rescind the lease contract' *hus& Rita Gueco *apnio

#iled her third;part$ coplaint against the Ean to reco"er #ro the latter an$ and

all sus o# one$ !hich a$ be adjudged against her and in #a"or o# the plaiti##

plus oral daages& attorne$s #ees and costs'

At the tie o# the agreeent& .rs' *apnio !as indebted to the +hilippine (ational

Ean at San


21/210

b$ statistics based on the pre"ailing

rate'

*C ruled that the rescission o# the contract o# *uaFon !as due to the banLs

unjusti#ied re#usal to appro"e said contract' CA a##ired the decision o# the *C'

@ence this petition'

)SSJ? 3as the ban negligent5

@?B, D?S

)t has been clearl$ sho!n that !hen the Eranch .anager o# petitioner reuired the

parties to raise the consideration o# the lease #ro +2'0 to +2':0 per picul& or a

total o# +2&:00;00& the$ readil$ agreed' @ence& in his letter to the Eranch .anager

o# the Ean on August 10& 196& *uaFon in#ored hi that the iniu lease rental

o# +2':0 per picul !as acceptable to hi and that he e"en o##ered to use the loan

secured b$ hi #ro petitioner to pa$ in #ull the su o# +2&:00'00 !hich !as the

total consideration o# the lease' *his arrangeent !as not onl$ satis#actor$ to the

Eranch .anager but it !as also appro"es b$ Mice;+resident -' M' Euena"entura o# the

+(E' Jnder that arrangeent& Rita Gueco *apnio could ha"e realiFed the aount o#+2&:00'00& !hich !as ore than enough to pa$ the balance o# her indebtedness to the

Ean !hich !as secured b$ the bond o# +hilagen'

*here is no uestion that *apnios #ailure to utiliFe her sugar uota #or the crop

$ear 196;197 !as due to the disappro"al o# the lease b$ the Eoard o# ,irectors o#

petitioner' *he issue& there#ore& is !hether or not petitioner is liable #or the

daage caused'


22/210

8*he #act that there !ere isolated transactions !herein the consideration #or the

lease !as +/'00 a picul8& according to the trial court& 8does not necessaril$ ean

that there are al!a$s read$ taers o# said price' 8 *he unreasonableness o# the

position adopted b$ the petitioners Eoard o# ,irectors is sho!n b$ the #act that

the di##erence bet!een the aount o# +2':0 per picul o##ered b$ *uaFon and the

+/'00 per picul deanded b$ the Eoard aounted onl$ to a total su o# +200'00'

Considering that all the accounts o# Rita Gueco *apnio !ith the Ean !ere secured

b$ chattel ortgage on standing crops& assignent o# leasehold rights and interests

on her properties& and suret$ bonds and that she had apparentl$ 8the eans to pa$

her obligation to the Ean& as sho!n b$ the #act that she has been granted se"eral

sugar crop loans o# the total "alue o# alost +:0&000'00 #or the agricultural $ears

#ro 192 to 1968& there !as no reasonable basis #or the Eoard o# ,irectors o#

petitioner to ha"e rejected the lease agreeent because o# a easl$ su o# +200'00'

3hile petitioner had the ultiate authorit$ o# appro"ing or disappro"ing the

proposed lease since the uota !as ortgaged to the Ean& the latter certainl$

cannot escape its responsibilit$ o# obser"ing& #or the protection o# the interest

o# pri"ate respondents& that degree o# care& precaution and "igilance !hich the

circustances justl$ deand in appro"ing or disappro"ing the lease o# said sugar

uota' *he la! aes it iperati"e that e"er$ person 8ust in the exercise o# his

rights and in the per#orance o# his duties& act !ith justice& gi"e e"er$one his

due& and obser"e honest$ and good #aith& *his petitioner #ailed to do'

Certainl$& it ne! that the agricultural $ear !as about to expire& that b$ its

disappro"al o# the lease pri"ate respondents !ould be unable to utiliFe the sugar

uota in uestion' )n #ailing to obser"e the reasonable degree o# care and

"igilance !hich the surrounding circustances reasonabl$ ipose& petitioner isconseuentl$ liable #or the daages caused on pri"ate respondents' Jnder Article 21

o# the (e! Ci"il Code& 8an$ person !ho !il#ull$ causes loss or injur$ to another in

a anner that is contrar$ to orals& good custos or public polic$ shall copensate

the latter #or the daage'8 *he a#ore;cited pro"isions on huan relations !ere

intended to expand the concept o# torts in this jurisdiction b$ granting adeuate

legal reed$ #or the untold nuber o# oral !rongs !hich is ipossible #or huan

#oresight to speci#icall$ pro"ide in the statutes'

A corporation is ci"ill$ liable in the sae anner as natural persons #or torts&

because 8generall$ speaing& the rules go"erning the liabilit$ o# a principal oraster #or a tort coitted b$ an agent or ser"ant are the sae !hether the

principal or aster be a natural person or a corporation& and !hether the ser"ant

or agent be a natural or arti#icial person' All o# the authorities agree that a

principal or aster is liable #or e"er$ tort !hich he expressl$ directs or

authoriFes& and this is just as true o# a corporation as o# a natural person& A

corporation is liable& there#ore& !hene"er a tortious act is coitted b$ an

o##icer or agent under express direction or authorit$ #ro the stocholders or

ebers acting as a bod$& or& generall$& #ro the directors as the go"erning bod$'8


23/210

,ecision o# CA is a##ired'

1


24/210

*he boo narrates the death o# .oises +adilla& a a$oralt$ canididate under

(acionalista +art$ Qa inorit$ part$ against Go" Ra#ael Bacson o# Biberal +art$&

he and his en !ere tried and con"icted in the +eople " Bacson& et al case' )n the

boo& .oises +adilla !as portra$ed a art$r'

Although the o"ie portra$ed the public li#e o# .osises +adilla& there !ere scenes!hich touch the pri"ate li#e o# .oises and the other GonFalesKa scene !ho

GonFales had relationship !ith Auring' +rior to the scheduled +reiere Sho!ing o#

the #il& the hal#;sister o# .oises called the petitioner expressing her objections

to soe scenes and called the o"ie as exploitation o# .oisesL li#e' )n !riting&

GonFales deanded that the #il be changed and soe scenes be deleted' Since

BagunFad had spent so uch #or the copletion o# the

#il&

he agreed to

enter into

a licensing agreeent !ith GonFales'

)n the agreeent& it !as stipulated that BaginFad

!ill

pa$ GonFales

+20&000'00

!hich !ill be paid in three instalents but +&000 !ill be ad"anced and 2 T O o#

the gross incoe as ro$alt$'


25/210

ISSUE: 3( the #il "iolates Art 26 o# the (CC

HELD:

D?S' *he #il !as disrespect#ul to the dignit$ and pri"ac$ o# the de#endant'

(either do !e agree !ith petitioners subission that the Bicensing Agreeent is

null and "oid #or lac o#& or #or ha"ing an illegal cause

or

consideration'

3hile

it is true that petitioner had purchased the rights to

the

boo entitled

8*he

.oises +adilla Stor$&8 that did not dispense !ith the need #or prior consent and

authorit$ #ro the deceased heirs to portra$ publicl$ episodes in said deceaseds

li#e and in that o# his other and the ebers o# his #ail$' As held in Schuyler

v. Curtis&1'8a 3-/"> 7a8 2 >/ t4 s-//> -"at/s 09 a #cas# 3-s0

t0 3-0tct 4s 770-8; 2t t4 3-/"> sts 90- t4 29t 09 t4 "/>; t0

3-0tct t4- 9">s a# t0 3-/t a /0"at0 09 t4- 05 ->4ts t4

c4a-act- a# 770-8 09 t4 #cas#.

+etitioners a"erent that pri"ate respondent did not ha"e an$ propert$ right o"er

the li#e o# .oises +adilla since the latter !as a public #igure& is neither !elltaen' Eeing a public #igure ipso factodoes not autoaticall$ destro$ in toto a

persons right to pri"ac$' *he right to in"ade a persons pri"ac$ to disseinate

public in#oration does not extend to a #ictional or no"eliFed representation o# a

person&

no

atter ho! public

a #igure he or she a$ be' )n the case at bar& !hile


26/210

it is

true

that petitioner

exerted e##orts to present a true;to;li#e stor$ o#

.oises +adilla& petitioner adits that he included a little roance in the #il

because !ithout it& it !ould be a drab stor$ o# torture and brutalit$'

3e also #ind it di##icult to sustain petitioners posture that his consent to the

Bicensing Agreeent !as procured thru duress& intiidation and undue in#luence

exerted on hi b$ pri"ate respondent and her daughters at a tie !hen he had

exhausted his #inancial resources& the preiere sho!ing o# the picture !as

iinent& and 8tie !as o# the essence'

As held in Martinez vs. Hongkong Shanghai !ank& it is necessar$ to distinguish

bet!een real duress and the oti"e !hich is present !hen one gi"es his consent


27/210

reluctantl$' A contract is "alid e"en though one o# the parties entered into it

against his o!n !ish and desires& or e"en against his better judgent'

)n legal e##ect& there is no di##erence bet!een a contract !herein one o# the

contracting parties exchanges one condition #or another because he loos

#or

greater pro#it or gain b$ reason o# such change& and an agreeent !herein one

o#

the contracting parties agrees to accept the lesser o# t!o disad"antages' )n either

case& he aes a choice #ree and untraelled and ust accordingl$ abide b$ it' *heBicensing Agreeent has the #orce o# la! bet!een the contracting parties and since

its pro"isions are not contrar$ to la!& orals& good custos& public order or

public polic$ Art' 1/06& Ci"il Code& petitioner Should copl$ !ith it in good

#aith'

3here#ore& petition is denied' ,ecision o# *C and CA are a##ired'

11. A@ER %RODUCTION VS. CA%ULONG 160 SCRA :61

Facts:

+etitioner @al .c?lro$ an Australian #il aer& and his o"ie production copan$&

+etitioner A$er +roductions pt$ Btd' A$er +roductions& en"isioned #or coercial

"ie!ing and #or +hilippine and international release the histolic peace#ul struggle

o# the


28/210

+ri"ate respondent ?nrile replied to a letter asing #or perission to air the

o"ie that 8Qhe !ould not and !ill not appro"e o# the use& appropriation&

reproduction andUor exhibition o# his nae& or picture& or that o# an$ eber o#

his #ail$ in an$ cinea or tele"ision production& #il or other ediu #or

ad"ertising or coercial exploitation8 and #urther ad"ised petitioners that in

the production& airing& sho!ing& distribution or exhibition o# said or siilar

#il& no re#erence !hatsoe"er !hether !ritten& "erbal or "isual should not be

ade to Qhi or an$ eber o# his #ail$& uch less to an$ atter purel$ personal

to the'

)t appears that petitioners acceded to this deand and the nae o# pri"ate

respondent ?nrile !as deleted #ro the o"ie script& and petitioners proceeded to

#il the projected otion picture'

+ri"ate respondent #iled a Coplaint !ith application #or *eporar$ Restraining

rder seeing to enjoin petitioners #ro producing the o"ie 8*he


29/210

+etitioner A$er +roductions also #iled its o!n .otion to ,isiss alleging lac o#

cause o# action as the ini;series had not $et been copleted'

Respondent court issued a !rit o# +reliinar$ )njunction against the petitioners'

@ence this petition #or certiorari'

Iss:

3hether or not the production and #iling b$ petitioners o# the projected otion

picture 8*he :

N0; the production and #iling b$ petitioners o# the projected otion picture

8*he


30/210

Jnlie in BagunFad& !hich concerned the li#e stor$ o# .oises +adilla necessaril$

including at least his iediate #ail$& !hat !e ha"e here is not a #il biograph$&

ore or less #ictionaliFed& o# pri"ate respondent +once ?nrile' 8*he


31/210

or calling *hich gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings& his affairs&

and his character& has become a +public personage.+ He is& in other *ords& a

celebrity. ,bviously to be included in this category are those *ho have achieved

some degree of reputation by appearing before the public& as in the case o# an

actor& a pro#essional baseballpla$er& a pugilist& or an$ other entertainent'

Such public figures *ere held to have lost& to some e"tent at least& their tight to

privacy. *hree reasons !ere gi"en& ore or lessindiscriinatel$& in the decisions8

that the$ had sought publicit$ and consented to it& and so could not coplaint !hen

the$ recei"ed it> thattheir personalities and their affairs has already public&

and could no longer be regarded as their o*n private business- and that the press

had a privilege& under the Constitution& to inform the public about those *ho have

become legitimate matters of public interest. n one oranother o# these grounds&

and soeties all& it !as held that there

!as no liability *hen they *ere given additional publicity& as tomatterslegitimately *ithin the scope of the public interest they had aroused.

3hether the 8balancing o# interests test8 or the clear and present danger test8 be

applied in respect o# the instant +etitions& the Court belie"es that a di##erent

conclusion ust here be reached *he production and #iling b$ petitioners o# the

projected otion picture 8*he


32/210

3@?R?


33/210

charging the de#endant& .axio .' Alcala& !ith the crie o# estafapredicated upon

a receipt' *he court e"entuall$ acuitted Alcala o# the o##ense charged !ith the

#indings that prosecution has not pro"ed be$ond reasonable doubt that the de#endant

had in #act represented to Gaudencio *' .endoFa that he had 100 ca"ans o# pala$

stored in his sisters bodega& !hich he o##ered to sell #or +1&100'00'

*he Court cannot belie"e that Gaudencio *' .endoFa !ould pa$ to the de#endant the

su o# +1&100'00 on the ere representation o# the de#endant that the pala$ !as in

the bodega o# his sister& and on his reuest to pa$ hi #irst as he !as going to

.anila' )n the #irst place& there is no sho!ing !h$ the de#endant !as in urgent

need o# +1&100'00' ,e#endant also testi#ied that he had no pala$ and had no land

#ro !hich to raise that pala$& !hich atter should be no!n b$ .endoFa as the$ had

no!n each other #or a long tie and !ere e"en #riends'

@o!e"er& the Court does not expressl$ pass upon the de#ense that the receipt signed

b$ hi arose #ro a usurious loan& as there is su##icient e"idence to !arrant a#inding that there had been no deceit or isrepresentation and that the receipt is

not !hat it purports to be' An$ obligation !hich the de#endant a$ ha"e incurred in

#a"or o# Gaudencio *' .endoFa is purel$ ci"il in character and not criinal'

n ,eceber 16& 194& !hile said criinal case !as still pending& the plainti##

#iled in the -ustice o# the +eace Court o# San -ose& (ue"a ?cija& the coplaint b$

!hich this case !as initiated' *hat coplaint !as based on the "er$ sae receipt

upon !hich the criinal action !as predicated& and in it plainti##& a#ter alleging

"iolation o# the ters o# said receipt& ased #or judgent against the de#endant

#or the su o# +1&100'00& !ith legal interest #ro Septeber & 19/ until #ullpa$ent plus +0'00 #or daages& +/00'00 #or attorne$s #ees& and the costs o#

suit' ,e#endant in his ans!er contented that e##ect that the transaction

re#erred

to in the coplaint !as a usurious loan in

the su o# +00'00& and that

the sae

had alread$ been paid in #ull& and #iled #or

counterclai #or daages'


34/210

)SSJ? 3hether or not the de#endant could still be prosecuted #or the collection o#

the aount stated in the said receipt a#ter he had been acuitted b$ the Court on a

charge o# estafabased on the said receipt'

RJB)(G D?S

*he pertinent pro"isions o# la! are Article 29 o# the ne! Ci"il Code and Rule 107&

Section 1& Subsection d o# the Rules o# Court' Article 29 o# the ne! Ci"il Code

pro"ides

Art' 29' 3hen the accused in a criinal prosecution is acuitted on the ground that

his guilt has not been pro"ed be$ond reasonable doubt& a ci"il action #or daages

#or the sae act or oission a$ be instituted' Jpon otion o# the de#endant& the

court a$ reuire the plainti## to #ile a bond to ans!er #or daages in case the

coplaint should be #ound to be alicious'

)# in a criinal case the judgent o# acuittal is based upon reasonable doubt& the

court shall so declare' )n the absence o# an$ declaration to that e##ect& it a$ be

in#erred #ro the text o# the decision !hether or not the acuittal is due to that

ground' A judgent o# acuittal does not constitute a bar to a subseuent ci"il

action in"ol"ing the sae subject atter& e"en in regard to a ci"il action brought

against the de#endant b$ the State& nor is it e"idence o# his innocence in such


35/210

action& and is not adissible in e"idence to pro"e that he !as not guilt$ o# the

crie !ith !hich he !as charged'

*he declaration in the decision in Criinal Case (o' /219 to the e##ect that 8an$

obligation !hich the de#endant a$ ha"e incurred in #a"or o# Gaudencio *' .endoFa

is purel$ ci"il in character& and not criinal&8 aounts to a reser"ation o# the

ci"il action in #a"or o# the

o##ended part$& +hilippine (ational Ean "s'

Catipon& supra& and the o##ense

charged in said criinal case being estafa& !hich

is #raud& the present action #alls under the exception to the general rule and it

can be #iled independentl$ o# the criinal action' Article //& ne! Ci"il Code>

,ianeta "s' .aasiar& 'G' 1027/> +eople "s' Ealagtas& 1 'G' 714'

1&. MENDO+A VS. ARRIETA 91 SCRA 11/

FACTS:n ctober 22& 1969& at about 400 ocloc in the a#ternoon& a three; !a$

"ehicular accident occurred along .ac;Arthur @igh!a$& .arilao& Eulacan& in"ol"ing a

.ercedes EenF o!ned and dri"en b$ petitioner> a pri"ate jeep o!ned and dri"en b$

respondent Rodol#o SalaFar> and a gra"el and sand truc o!ned b$ respondent


36/210

3hether or not the dri"er o# the jeepsalaFar shall be held liable on daages

ensued to the "ehicle o# the petitioner a#ter acuittal o# the dri"er on the

criinal charged upon hi'

H"#: -eepV!ner dri"er SalaFar !as acuitted in Criinal Case' Considering that

the collision bet!een the jeep dri"en b$ Rodol#o SalaFar and the car o!ned and

dri"en b$ ?dgardo .endoFa !as the result o# the hitting on the rear o# the jeep b$

the truc dri"en b$


37/210

1'. RE%UBLIC VS. BELLO 120 SCRA 20/


38/210

Ruling

(o' *he dispositi"e portion o# the decision in the criinal case did not state that

the #acts upon !hich his responsibilit$ as an accountable o##icer is based !ere non;

existent'

*he ci"il action barred b$ such a declaration is the ci"il liabilit$ arising #ro

the o##ense charged& !hich is the one ipliedl$ instituted !ith the criinal action'

Section 1& Rule 111& Rules o# Court' Such a declaration !ould not bar a ci"il

action #iled against an accused !ho had been acuitted in the criinal case i# the

criinal action is predicated on #actual or legal considerations other than the

coission o# the o##ense charged' A person a$ be acuitted o# al"ersation !here&

as in the case at bar& he could sho! that he did not isappropriate the public #unds

in his possession& but he could be rendered liable to restore said

#unds or at least to ae a proper accounting thereo# i# he

shall spend

the sae

#or purposes !hich are not authoriFed nor intended& and in a

anner not

peritted

b$ applicable rules and regulations'


39/210

1(. %ADILLA VS. CA

129 SCRA :

(*?S *his case explains the pro"ision o# Article 29 ; !here the judgent o#acuittal extinguishes the liabilit$ o# the accused #or daages onl$ !hen it

includes a declaration that the #acts #ro !hich ci"il ight arise did not exist'

*hus& the ci"il liabilit$ is not extinguished b$ acuittal !here the acuittal is

based on reasonable doubt as onl$ preponderance o# e"idence is reuired in ci"il

cases& !here the court expressl$ declares that the ci"il liabilit$ o# the accused is

not criinal but onl$ ci"il in nature'


40/210


41/210

A separate ci"il action a$ be !arranted !here additional #acts ha"e to be

established or ore e"idence ust be adduced or !here the criinal case has been

#ull$ terinated and a separate coplaint !ould be just as e##icacious or e"en ore

expedient than a tiel$ reand to the trial court !here the criinal action !as

decided #or #urther hearings on the ci"il aspects o# the case' *he o##ended part$

a$& o# course& choose to #ile a separate action' *hese do not exist in this case'

Considering oreo"er the dela$s su##ered b$ the case in the trial& appellate& andre"ie! stages& it !ould be unjust to the coplainants in this case to reuire at

this tie a separate ci"il action to be #iled'

1. MAIMO VS. GEROCHI 144 SCRA /26


42/210

obligation& it is sipl$ ci"il in nature that could be properl$ "entilated !ithin

the context o# ci"il la!'

+etitioner #iled a otion #or reconsideration pra$ing 8that the portion o# the decision

regarding the ci"il liabilit$ o# the accused be reconsidered'8

.R !as denied& 0t5t4sta#> a#7ss0 09 t4 accs# 09 4- 02">at0 t03a8 t4

s3c9c a70t t0 3tt0-' -udge said& 8this reco"er$ o# ci"il

liabilit$ is deeed included in the o##ense pro"ed& but the uestion is not

indubitable because the accused !as acuitted in all the #our 4 in#orations she

!as charged o#'8

@ence& this petition #or certiorariand mandamus'

)SSJ? 3hether or not ci"il liabilit$ o# the accused is deeed absol"ed upon his

acuittal in criinal case'

@?B, Bo!er court is !rong'

)# an accused is acuitted& it does not necessaril$ #ollo! that no ci"il liabilit$arising #ro the acts coplained o# a$ be a!arded in the sae judgent'

C0-t 7a8 act a accs# 0 -as0a2" #02t a# st"" 0-#- 3a87t 09 c/"

#a7a>s a"-a#8 3-0/# t4 sa7 cas 5t40t # 90- a s3a-at c/" act0.

;Padilla v. Court of )ppeals129 SCRA :

Rationale o# the rule *o reuire a separate ci"il action sipl$ because the

accused !as acuitted !ould ean needless clogging o# court docets and unnecessar$

duplication o# litigation !ith all its attendant less o# tie& e##ort& and one$ on

the part o# all concerned'

)rt. /0 of 1CC states& 23hen the accused in a criminal prosecution is ac'uitted on

the ground that his guilt has not proved beyond reasonable doubt& a civil action

for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted...24


43/210

1,. SA%IERA VS. CA /14 SCRA /70

Facts: n se"eral occasions& petitioner Sapiera& a sari;sari store o!ner& purchased

#ro .onnico .art certain grocer$ ites& ostl$ cigarettes& and paid #or the !ith

checs issued b$ one Arturo de GuFan' *hese checs !ere signed at the bac b$ the

petitioner'

3hen presented #or pa$ent& the checs !ere dishonored because the dra!erLs account

!as alread$ closed' +ri"ate respondent Roan Sua in#ored ,e GuFan and petitioner

about the dishonor but both #ailed to pa$ the "alue o# the checs' @ence& #our 4

charges o# esta#a !ere #iled against petitioner but conseuentl$ she !as acuitted

#or insu##icienc$ o# e"idence but the court a uo did not rule on !hether she could

be held ci"ill$ liable #or the checs she indorsed to pri"ate respondent' n

appeal& the respondent court ordered petitioner to pa$ pri"ate respondent the

reaining +210& +10' A#ter deducting the aount alread$ collected b$ the latter as

ci"il indenit$ in the criinal cases against ,e GuFan' @ence& this instantpetition'

Iss:

Can petitioner be

reuired to pa$ ci"il indenit$

to pri"ate

respondent

a#ter

trial

court

had

acuitted

her

o#

criinal

charges5

H"#: Des' )t is undisputed that the #our 4 checs issued b$ ,e GuFan !ere

signed b$ petitioner at the bac !ithout an$ indication as to ho! she should be


44/210

bound thereb$ and& there#ore& she is deeed to be an indorser thereo#' *he ()B

clearl$ pro"ides V Sec' 17' Construction !here instruent is abiguous' ;;; 3here

the language o# the instruent is abiguous& or there are adissions therein& the

#ollo!ing rules o# construction appl$ x x x # 3here a signature is

so

placed

upon

the instruent that it is not clear in !hat capacit$ the person

aing

the

sae

intended

to

sign&

he

is

deeed

an

indorser'

x

x

x

*he disissal o# the criinal cases against petitioner did not erase her ci"il

liabilit$ since the disissal !as due to insu##icienc$ o# e"idence and not #ro a

declaration #ro the court that the #act #ro !hich the ci"il action ight arise

did not exist' An accused acuitted o# esta#a a$ ne"ertheless be held ci"ill$

liable !here the #acts established b$ the e"idence so !arrant' *he accused should

be adjudged liable #or the unpaid "alue o# the checs signed b$ her in #a"or o# the

coplainant'

1?. ESCUETA VS. FANDIALAN 61 SCRA 27:


45/210

Facts: n se"eral occasions& petitioner Sapiera& a sari;sari store o!ner& purchased

#ro .onnico .art certain grocer$ ites& ostl$ cigarettes& and paid #or the !ith

checs issued b$ one Arturo de GuFan' *hese checs !ere signed at the bac b$ the

petitioner'

3hen presented #or pa$ent& the checs !ere dishonored because the dra!erLs account

!as alread$ closed' +ri"ate respondent Roan Sua in#ored ,e GuFan and petitioner

about the dishonor but both #ailed to pa$ the "alue o# the checs' @ence& #our 4

charges o# esta#a !ere #iled against petitioner but conseuentl$ she !as acuitted

#or insu##icienc$ o# e"idence but the court a uo did not rule on !hether she could

be held ci"ill$ liable #or the checs she indorsed to pri"ate respondent' n

appeal& the respondent court ordered petitioner to pa$ pri"ate respondent the

reaining +210& +10' A#ter deducting the aount alread$ collected b$ the latter as

ci"il indenit$ in the criinal cases against ,e GuFan' @ence& this instant

petition'

Iss:

Can petitioner be

reuired to pa$ ci"il indenit$

to pri"ate

respondent

a#ter

trial

court

had

acuitted

her

o#

criinal

charges5


46/210

H"#: Des' )t is undisputed that the #our 4 checs issued b$ ,e GuFan !ere

signed b$ petitioner at the bac !ithout an$ indication as to ho! she should be

bound thereb$ and& there#ore& she is deeed to be an indorser thereo#' *he ()B

clearl$ pro"ides V Sec' 17' Construction !here instruent is abiguous' ;;; 3here

the language o# the instruent is abiguous& or there are adissions therein& the

#ollo!ing rules o# construction appl$ x x x # 3here a signature is

so

placed

upon

the instruent that it is not clear in !hat capacit$ the person

aing

the

sae

intended

to

sign&

he

is

deeed

an

indorser'

x

x

x

*he disissal o# the criinal cases against petitioner did not erase her ci"il

liabilit$ since the disissal !as due to insu##icienc$ o# e"idence and not #ro a

declaration #ro the court that the #act #ro !hich the ci"il action ight arise

did not exist' An accused acuitted o# esta#a a$ ne"ertheless be held ci"ill$

liable !here the #acts established b$ the e"idence so !arrant' *he accused should

be adjudged liable #or the unpaid "alue o# the checs signed b$ her in #a"or o# the

coplainant'


47/210

1=. MADEA VS. CARO 126 SCRA 29/


48/210

to institute it separatel$> and a#ter a criinal action

has

been

coenced& no

ci"il action arising #ro the sae o##ense can be prosecuted' *he present articles

creates an exception to this rule !hen the o##ense is de#aation& #raud& or

ph$sical injuries& )n these cases& a ci"il action a$ be #iled independentl$ o# the

criinal action& e"en i# there has been no reser"ation ade b$ the injured part$>

the la! itsel# in this article aes such reser"ation> but the claiant is not

gi"en the right to deterine !hether the ci"il action should be scheduled or

suspended until the criinal action has been terinated' *he result o# the ci"il

action is thus independent o# the result o# the ci"il action'8

$


49/210

!hether or not despite the absence o# reser"ation& pri"ate respondent a$

nonetheless bring an action #or daages against petitioner under the #ollo!ing

pro"isions o# the Ci"il Code Art' 2176' 3hoe"er b$ act or oission causes daage

to another& there being #ault or negligence& is obliged to pa$ #or the daage done'

Such #ault or negligence& i# there is no pre;existing contractual relation bet!een

the parties& is called a uasi;delict and is go"erned b$ the pro"isions o# this

Chapter' Art' 21:0' *he obligation iposed b$ Article 2176 is deandable not onl$

#or oneLs o!n acts or oissions& but also #or those o# persons #or !ho one is

responsible'

H"#:

(o' *he right to bring an action #or daages under the Ci"il Code ust be reser"ed

as reuired b$ Rule 111& Y 1& other!ise it should be disissed' *o begin !ith& Y1

uite clearl$ reuires that a reser"ation ust be ade to institute separatel$ all

ci"il actions #or the reco"er$ o# ci"il liabilit$& other!ise the$ !ill be deeed toha"e been instituted !ith the criinal case' Such ci"il actions are not liited to

those !hich arise #ro the o##ense charged'% )n other !ords the right o# the

injured part$ to sue separatel$ #or the reco"er$ o# the ci"il liabilit$ !hether

arising #ro cries ex delicto or #ro uasi delict under Art' 2176 o# the Ci"il

Code ust be reser"ed other!ise the$ !ill be deeed instituted !ith the criinal

action'

n the basis o# Rule 111& YY1;/& a ci"il action #or the reco"er$ o# ci"il liabilit$

is& as a general rule& ipliedl$ instituted !ith the criinal action& except onl$

1 !hen such action arising #ro the sae act or oission& !hich is the subject o#

the criinal action& is !ai"ed> 2 the right to bring it separatel$ is reser"ed or

/ such action has been instituted prior to the criinal action' ?"en i# an action

has not been reser"ed or it !as brought be#ore the institution o# the criinal

case& the acuittal o# the accused !ill not bar reco"er$ o# ci"il liabilit$ unless

the acuittal is based on a #inding that the act #ro !hich the ci"il liabilit$

ight arise did not exist because o# Art' 29 o# the Ci"il Code'

$1. RAFAEL RE@ES TRUCKING COR%. VS. %% /29 SCRA 600


50/210

A criinal charge o# Recless )prudence Resulting in ,ouble @oicide and daage to

propert$ !as charged against Roeo ,unca de *uol& in )sabela' *he accused;dri"er

o# Ra#ael Re$es *rucing Corp& carr$ing a load o# 2&000 cases o# ept$ bottles o#

beer grande& hit and buped a (issan +ic;up& along the (ational @igh!a$ o#

Earanga$ *agaran& causing daages to the heirs o#


51/210

)SSJ?

3hether or not petitioner as o!ner o# the truc in"ol"ed in the accident be held

subsidiaril$ liable #or the daages a!arded to the o##ended parties in the criinal

action against the truc dri"er despite the #iling o# a separate ci"il action b$

the o##ended parties against the eplo$er o# the truc dri"er'

3hether or not the Court a!ard daages to the o##ended parties in the criinal case

despite the #iling o# a ci"il action against the eplo$er o# the truc dri"er> and

in aounts exceeding that alleged in the in#oration #or recless iprudence

resulting in hoicide and daage to propert$'

RJB)(G

(' ('

)n negligence cases& the aggrie"ed part$ has the choice bet!een 1 an action to

en#orce ci"il liabilit$ arising #ro crie under Article 100 o# the Re"ised +enal

Code> and 2 a separate action #or 'uasi delictunder Article 2176 o# the Ci"il

Code o# the +hilippines' nce the choice is ade& the injured part$ can not a"ail

hisel# o# an$ other reed$ because he a$ not reco"er daages t!ice #or the sae

negligent act or oission o# the accused' *his is the rule against double reco"er$'

)n other !ords& 8the sae act or oission can create t!o inds o# liabilit$ on the

part o# the o##ender& that is& ci"il liabilit$ e" delicto& and ci"il

liabilit$ 'uasi delicto8 either o# !hich 8a$ be en#orced against the culprit&

subject to the ca"eat under Article 2177 o# the Ci"il Code that the o##ended part$

can not reco"er daages under both t$pes o# liabilit$'

)n the instant case& the o##ended parties elected to #ile a separate ci"il action

#or daages against petitioner as eplo$er o# the accused& based on 'uasi delict&

under Article 2176 o# the Ci"il Code o# the +hilippines' @ere& the liabilit$ o# the

eplo$er #or the negligent conduct o# the subordinate is direct and priar$&

subject to the de#ense o# due diligence in the selection and super"ision o# the

eplo$ee' *he en#orceent o# the judgent against the eplo$er in an action based

on Article 2176 does not reuire the eplo$ee to be insol"ent since the nature o#

the liabilit$ o# the eplo$er !ith that o# the eplo$ee& the t!o being statutoril$

considered joint tort#easors& is solidar$'


52/210

*he second& predicated on Article 10/ o# the Re"ised +enal Code& pro"ides that an

eplo$er a$ be held subsidiaril$ ci"ill$ liable #or a #elon$ coitted b$ his

eplo$ee in the discharge o# his dut$' *his liabilit$ attaches !hen the eplo$ee is

con"icted o# a crie done in the per#orance o# his !or and is #ound to be

insol"ent that renders hi unable to properl$ respond to the ci"il liabilit$

adjudged'

)SSJ? (' 1 Ra#ael Re$es *rucing Corporation& as eplo$er o# the accused !ho has

been adjudged guilt$ in the criinal case #or recless iprudence& can not be held

subsidiaril$ liable because o# the #iling o# the separate ci"il action based

on 'uasi delictagainst it' )n "ie! o# the reser"ation to #ile& and the subseuent

#iling o# the ci"il action #or reco"er$ o# ci"il liabilit$& the sae !as not

instituted !ith the criinal action' Such separate ci"il action !as #or reco"er$ o#

daages under Article 2176 o# the Ci"il Code& arising #ro the sae act or oission

o# the accused'

)SSJ? (' 2 3ith regard to the second issue& the a!ard o# daages in the criinal

case !as iproper because the ci"il action #or the reco"er$ o# ci"il liabilit$ !as

!ai"ed in the criinal action b$ the #iling o# a separate ci"il action against the

eplo$er' As enunciated in 5amos vs. 6onong&8ci"il indenit$ is not part o# the

penalt$ #or the crie coitted'8 *he onl$ issue brought be#ore the trial court in


53/210

the criinal action is !hether accused Roeo ,unca $ de *uol is guilt$ o# recless

iprudence resulting in hoicide and daage to propert$' *he action #or reco"er$ o#

ci"il liabilit$ is not included therein& but is co"ered b$ the separate ci"il

action #iled against the petitioner as eplo$er o# the accused truc;dri"er'

$$. MERCED VS. HON. DIE+ 109 +@)B 1


54/210

does not lie unless the eleents o# the second arriage appear to exist& it is

necessar$ that a decision in a ci"il action to the e##ect that the second arriage

contains all the essentials o# a arriage ust #irst be secured'

*he uestion o# the "alidit$ o# the second arriage is& there#ore& a prejudicial

uestion& because deterination o# the "alidit$ o# the second arriage isdeterinable in the ci"il action and ust precede the criinal action #or biga$'

$&. LANDICHO VS. RELOVA 22 SCRA 7/1


55/210

Bandicho& o"ed to suspend the hearing o# the criinal case pending the decision on

the uestion o# the "alidit$ o# the t!o arriages in"ol"ed in the pending ci"il

suit& in !hich -udge Relo"a denied otion #or lac o# erit'

)SSJ?

3hether or not the existence o# a ci"il suit #or the annulent o# arriage at the

instance o# the second !i#e against petitioner& !ith the latter in turn #iling a

third part$ coplaint against the #irst spouse #or the annulent o# the #irst

arriage& constitutes a prejudicial uestion in a pending suit #or biga$ against

hi'

RJB)(G

('

*he situation in this case is aredl$ di##erent' At the tie the petitioner !as

indicted #or biga$ on


56/210

!as then eplo$ed in the Coission on ?lections and her pregnanc$ pro"ed to be

incon"enient& she had hersel# aborted again b$ the de#endant in ctober 19/' Bess

than t!o $ears later& she again becae pregnant' n


57/210

the one injured' *here could be no action #or such daages that can be instituted on

behal# o# the unborn child #or the injuries it recei"ed because it laced juridical

personalit$' *he daages !hich the parents o# an unborn child can reco"er are liited

to oral daages& in this case& #or the act o# the appellant GeluF to per#or the

abortion' @o!e"er& oral daages cannot also be reco"ered because the !i#e !illingl$

sought the abortion& and the husband did not #urther in"estigate on the causes o# the

abortion'


58/210

3U(& the disissal o# criinal case against the accused !ipes out not onl$ the

eplo$eeLs priaril$ ci"il liabilit$ but also the eplo$erLs subsidiar$ liabilit$>

3U(& the petitioner can be condened to pa$ the daages !ithout the opportunit$ to

exaine the !itness>

RULING:

(o' *he death o# the accused during the pendenc$ o# his appeal or be#ore the judgent

o# con"iction54c4 2ca7 9a" a# ct0-8 ) t>s4# 4s c-7a""a2"t8

t0 s-/ t4 73-s07t 730s# a# 4s 3ca-8 "a2"t8 90- 9s&2t 0t 4s

c/" "a2"t8 s40"# t4 "a2"t8 0- 02">at0 a-se not #ro a crie& #orhere&

no crie !as coitted& the accused not ha"ing been con"icted b$ #inal judgent& and

there#ore still regarded as innocent2t 9-07 aquasi-delictSee Arts' 2176 and 217

Ci"il Code& as in this case'

T4 "a2"t8 09 t4 73"08- 4- 50"# 0t 2 s2s#a-8 2t solidary5t4 4s #-/

unless said eplo$er can pro"e there !as no negligence on his part at all& thatis&

he can pro"e due diligence in the selection and super"ision o# his dri"er'


59/210

)nasuch as the eplo$er petitioner herein !as not a part$ in the criinal case& and

to grant hi his da$ in court #or the purpose o# cross;exaining the prosecution

!itnesses on their testionies on the dri"ers alleged negligence and the aount o#

daages to !hich the heirs o# the "icti are entitled& as !ell as to introduce an$

e"idence or !itnesses he a$ care to present in his de#ense& the hearing on the otion

to uash the subsidiar$ !rit o# execution ust be reopened precisel$ #or the purpose

ad"erted to hereinabo"e'

*he decision o# the appeallate court !as ho!e"er& S?* aside and the case !as reanded

to the trial court #or hearing'

$. %% VS. BA@OTAS 2/6 SCRA 2/9


60/210

3hether or not the death o# the accused pending appeal extinguishes his ci"il liabilit

Ruling

Des'

*he death o# Ea$otas extinguished his criinal and ci"il liabilities based solel$ on

the act coplained o#& i'e rape'

8*he death o# the accused prior to #inal judgent terinates his criinal liabilit$ an

onlythe ci"il liabilit$ directlyarising #ro and based solel$ on the o##ense

coitted& i'e'& ci"il liabilit$ e" delictoin sensostrictiore'8

*he clai #or ci"il liabilit$ sur"i"es noth!ithstanding the death o# the accused i# th

sae a$ also be predicated on a source o# obligations other than delict' Art' 117 o#

the CC enuerates these other sources

Ba!

Contracts

=uasi;Contractsa

PP'

=uasi;delicts


61/210

)n this case& the ci"il action a$ be pursued onl$ b$ #iling a separate ci"il

action against the estate o# the accused depending on the source'

$,. MANSION BISCUIT COR%. VS. CA 20 SCRA 19

FACTS:

Soetie in 19:1& *$ *ec Suan& as the president o# ?d!ard *$ Erothers Corporation

the Copan$& ordered nuerous cartons o# nutri;!a#er biscuits #ro .ansion

Eiscuit Corporation'

As pa$ent o# the orders& *$ *ec Suan issued to Ang Cho @ong&

president o# .ansion& #our 4 postdated checs as pa$ent #or the nutri;!a#er

biscuits be#ore its deli"er$'

*here !ere other #our 4 postdated checs in the aount o# +100&000'00 each&

issued b$ *$ *ec Suan !ith Si$ Gui as co;signor'

Subseuentl$& .ansion Eiscuit deli"ered the goods' @o!e"er& the #irst #our checs

!ere deposited& the sae !ere dishonored #or insu##icient #unds propting Ang Cho

to in#or *$ *ec o# the dishonor and reuested hi #or its replaceent'

*$ *ec #ailed to replace the dishonored checs& instead

deli"ered 1&10 sacs o# Australian #lour to .ansion plus cash& !hich !ere applied

to the aount o# the #irst postdated chec that bounced

Ang Cho then sent *$ *ec a #oral deand letter reuesting hi to ae good the

dishonored checs !ithin da$s'

*herea#ter& the second batch o# checs !as issued b$ *$ *ec and Si$ Gui& but

these !ere later on dishonored again'


62/210

Z *his propted Ang Cho to send a #inal deand letter and upon #ailure to

copl$ !ith it& he !ill then #ile an action against *$ *ec'


63/210

+ending appeal& *$ *ec died so his counsel #iled a otion to disiss but the CA

denied and ordered his substitution b$ his children'

*he CA rendered a decision disissing the appeal and held that the ci"il liab

ilit$ sought to be en#orced b$ Ang Cho !as not the personal obligation o# *$ *ec

but a contractual obligation o# the Copan$& hence& Ang Cho should #ile a separate

ci"il action against it'


64/210

@ence& this appeal'

ISSUES:

3U( ci"il liabilit$ can be en#orced against *$ *ec #or non;pa$ent o# the goods

not!ithstanding the #act that the contract !as bet!een the Copan$& on behal# o# *$

*ec& and .ansion'

Ang ChoLs Arguent:3hen $y $eck issued the *orthless checks inducing Mansion to

deliver the goods& / civil liabilities arose& arising from crime )rt. 788& 5PC4and

from tort or 'uasi#delict.

*$ *ecLs Arguent $hey cannot be held liable for the Company9s contractualobligations and that )ng Cho should file a separate case against it.

HOLDING RATIO DECIDENDI

*D *?C A(, S)D GJ) AR? (* B)AEB?


65/210

obligation' *he cases cited b$ plainti##;appellant& to illustrate that the

existence o# a contract does not preclude an action on 'uasi#delict !here the act

that breas the contract constitutes a'uasi#delict& ha"e no application because

the acts coplained o# therein !ereper#ored to brea an existing contract&

!hereas the alleged #raud herein !as coitted at the tie o# the creation o# the

contractual relationship and as an incident thereo#'

o )n the case at bench& the acuittal o# *$ *ec Suan and Si$ Gui extinguished

both their criinal and ci"il liabilit$ as it is clear #ro the order acuitting

the that the issuance o# the checs in uestion did not constitute a "iolation o#

E'+' Elg' 22'Conseuentl$& no ci"il liabilit$ arising #ro the alleged delict a$

be a!arded

:udgment appealed from )FF;5M(< in toto.

$?. %% VS. SANTIAGO 1 +@)B 6:


66/210

abo"e stated& and the arriage cereon$ !as a ere ruse b$ !hich the appellant

hoped to escape #ro the criinal conseuences o# his act'

)ssue 3hether or not the arriage cereon$ !as "alid'

@eld

*he anner in !hich the appellant dealt !ith the girl a#ter the arriage& as !ell

as be#ore& sho!s that he had no bona #ide intention o# aing her his !i#e& and the

cereon$ cannot be considered binding on her because o# duress'

*he arriage !as there#ore "oid #or lac o# essential consent& and it supplies no

ipedient to the prosecution o# the !rongdoer'

A##ired'

$=. NAVARRO VS. DOMAGTO@ 29 SCRA 129

FACTS:

.unicipal .a$or o# ,apa& Surigao del (orte& Rodol#o G' (a"arro #iled a coplaint on

t!o speci#ic acts coitted b$ respondent .unicipal Circuit *rial Court -udge

@ernando ,oagto$ on the grounds o# gross isconduct& ine##ienc$ in o##ce and

ignorance o# the la!'

)t !as alleged that ,oagto$ soleniFed arriage o# Gaspar *agadan and Arl$n Eorja

on Septeber 27& 1994 despite the no!ledge

that the groo has a subsisting

arriage !ith )da +enaranda and that the$ are

erel$ separated' )t !as told that


67/210

)da le#t their conjugal hoe in Euidnon and has not returned and been heard #or

alost se"en $ears' *he said judge lie!ise soleniFe arriage o#


68/210

%% VS. DAVID 1/ CA R?+' 49

DE LORIA VS. FELI 104 SCRA 1 but death !as not to be

denied& and in -anuar$ 1946& she !as interred in +asa$& the sae


69/210

but it

reuires the priest to ae the a##ida"it and #ile it' Such a##ida"it contains the

data usuall$ reuired #or the issuance o# a arriage license' *he #irstpractically

substitutes the latter' (o! then& i# a arriage celebrated !ithout the license is

not "oidable under Act /61/ this arriage should not also be "oidable #or lac o#

such a##ida"it'


70/210

)n the #irst place& the .arriage Ba! itsel#& in sections 2:& 29 and /0 enuerates

the causes #or annulent o# arriage'


71/210

3hether or not the plainti## and the de#endant !ere arried on the 2th da$ o#

Septeber& 1907& be#ore the justice o# the peace

@eld

*he judgent o# the court belo! acuitting the de#endant o# the coplaint is

a##ired'

*he petition signed the plainti## and de#endant contained a positi"e stateent that

the$ had utuall$ agreed to be arried and the$ ased the justice o# the peace to

soleniFe the arriage' *he docuent signed b$ the plainti##& the de#endant& and

the justice o# the peace& stated that the$ rati#ied under oath& be#ore the justice&

the contents o# the petition and that !itnesses o# the arriage !ere produced' A

ortgage too place as sho!n b$ the certi#icate o# the justice o# the peace& signed

b$ both contracting parties& !hich certi#icates gi"es rise to the presuption that

the o##icer authoriFed the arriage in due #or& the parties be#ore the justice o#

the peace declaring that the$ too each other as husband and !i#e& unless the

contrar$ is pro"ed& such presuption being corroborated in this case b$ the

adission o# the !oan to the e##ect that she had contracted the arriage certi#ied

to in the docuent signed b$ her& !hich adission can onl$ ean the parties


72/210

utuall$ agreed to unite in arriage !hen the$ appeared and signed the said

docuent !hich so states be#ore the justice o# the peace !ho authoriFed the sae'

)t !as pro"en that both the plainti## and the de#endant !ere able to read and !rite

the Spanish language& and that the$ ne! the contents o# the docuent !hich the$

signed> and under the circustances in this particular case !ere satis#ied& and so

hold& that !hat too place be#ore the justice o# the peace on this occasion

aounted to a legal arriage'

&&. SANTOS VS. CA 240 SCRA 20

)rticle @A= Psychological ;ncapacity


73/210

tribunals !hich& although not binding on the ci"il courts& a$ be gi"en persuasi"e

e##ect since the pro"ision !as taen #ro Canon Ba!' *he ter ps$chological

incapacit$% de#ies an$ precise de#inition since ps$chological causes can be o# an

in#inite "ariet$'

Article /6 o# the


74/210

also notes that +) ust be characteriFed b$ (a) >-a/t8; (2) -#ca" atc#c;

a# (c) c-a2"t8. *he incapacit$ ust be gra"e or serious such that the part$

!ould be incapable o# carr$ing out the ordinar$ duties reuired in arriage> it

ust be rooted in the histor$ o# the part$ antedating the arriage& although the

o"ert ani#estations a$ eerge onl$ a#ter the arriage> and it ust be incurable

or& e"en i# it !ere other!ise& the cure !ould be be$ond the eans o# the part$

in"ol"ed'

)n the case at bar& although

Beouel stands aggrie"ed& his petition ust be

disissed because the alleged +)

o# his !i#e is not clearl$ sho!n b$ the #actual

settings

presented' *he #actual

settings do not coe close to to the standard

reuired

to decree a nullit$ o# arriage'

&'. GOME+ VS. LI%ANA // SCRA 61

FACTS: *he de#endant;appellant& -oauin +' Bipana&contracted t*oarriages the

#irst !ith .aria Boreto Ancino in 19/0 and the second !ith )sidra GoeF $ Auino in

19/' At the tie o# the second arriage the #irst !as still subsisting& !hich

#act& ho!e"er& Bipana concealed #ro the second !i#e'

*he *orrens title #or the propert$ *rans#er Certi#icate (o' 22:9 o# the Registero# ,eeds #or =ueFon Cit$ !as issued on


75/210

*he trial court& ruling that the second arriage !as "oid ab initioand that the

husband !as the one !ho ga"e cause #or its nullit$& applied the a#oreuoted

pro"ision and declared his interest in the disputed propert$ #or#eited in #a"or o#

the estate o# the deceased second !i#e'

)SSJ?S 3( the "alidit$ o# arriage can be attaced collaterall$

@?B, *he controlling statute is Act /61/ o# the +hilippine Begislature& the

.arriage Ba! !hich becae e##ecti"e on ,eceber 4& 1929 and !as in #orce !hen the

t!o arriages !ere celebrated' *he pertinent pro"isions are as #ollo!s

S?C' 29' ;llegal Marriages' K An$ arriage subseuentl$ contracted b$ an$ person

during the li#etie o# the #irst spouse o# such person !ith an$ person other than

such #irst spouse shall be illegal and "oid #ro its per#orance& unless>

*he #irst arriage !as annulled or dissol"ed>

*he #irst spouse had been absent #or se"en consecuti"e $ears at the tie o# the

second arriage !ithout the spouse present ha"ing ne!s o# the absentee being ali"e&

or the absentee being generall$ considered as dead and belie"ed to be so b$ the

spouse present at the tie o# contracting such subseuent arriage& the arriage socontracted being "alid in either case until declared null and "oid b$ a copetent

court'


76/210

S?C' /0' Annullable arriages' K A arriage a$ be annulled #or an$ o# the

#ollo!ing causes& existing at the tie o# the arriage

xxx xxx xxx

b *hat the #orer husband or !i#e o# either !as li"ing and the arriage !ith such

#orer husband or !i#e !as then in #orce>

xxx xxx xxx

S?C' /1' *ie #or #iling action #or decree o# nullit$' K *he action to obtain a

decree o# nullit$ o# arriage& #or causes entioned in the preceding section& ust

be coenced !ithin the periods and b$ the parties as #ollo!s

xxx xxx xxx

b


77/210

person other than such #irst spouse shall be illegal and

"oid

#ro

its

per#orance'8 *his is the general rule& to !hich the onl$ exceptions are those

entioned in subsections a and b o# the sae pro"ision'

*here is no suggestion here that the de#endants 19/0 arriage to .aria Boreto

Ancino had been annulled or dissol"ed !hen he arried )sidra GoeF in 19/& and

there is no proo# that he did so under the conditions en"isioned in sub;section

b' *he burden is on the part$ in"oing the exception to pro"e that he coes under

it> and the de#endant has not discharged that burden at all& no e"idence !hatsoe"er

ha"ing been adduced b$ hi at the trial' )ndeed& he contracted the second arriage

less than se"en $ears a#ter the #irst& and he has not sho!n that his #irst !i#e !as

then generall$ considered dead or !as belie"ed b$ hi to be so'

&. RE%UBLIC VS. CA 26: SCRA 19:

Facts:

Roridel la"iano !as arried to Re$naldo .olina on 14 April 19: in .anila& and

ga"e birth to a son a $ear a#ter' Re$naldo sho!ed signs o# iaturit$ and

irresponsibilit$% on the earl$ stages o# the arriage& obser"ed #ro his tendenc$

to spend tie !ith his #riends and suandering his one$ !ith the& #ro his

dependenc$ #ro his parents& and his dishonest$ on atters in"ol"ing his #inances'

Re$naldo !as relie"ed o# his job in 19:6& Roridel becae the sole bread!inner

therea#ter' )n .arch 19:7& Roridel resigned #ro her job in .anila and proceeded to

Eaguio Cit$' Re$naldo le#t her and their child a !ee later' *he couple is

separated;in;#act #or ore than three $ears'


78/210

n 16 August 1990& Roridel #iled a "eri#ied petition #or declaration o# nullit$ o#

her arriage to Re$naldo .olina' ?"idence #or Roridel consisted o# her o!n

testion$& that o# t!o o# her #riends& a social !orer& and a ps$chiatrist o# the

Eaguio General @ospital and .edical Center' Re$naldo did not present an$ e"idence

as he appeared onl$ during the pre;trial con#erence' n 14 .a$

1991& the trial

court rendered judgent declaring the arriage "oid' *he Solicitor

General appealed

to the Court o# Appeals' *he Court o# Appeals denied the appeals and a##ired in

toto the R*CLs decision' @ence& the present recourse'

Iss:

3hether opposing or con#licting personalities should be construed as ps$chological

incapacit$

H"#:

*he Court o# Appeals erred in its opinion the Ci"il Code Re"ision Coittee

intended to liberaliFe the application o# +hilippine ci"il la!s on personal and

#ail$ rights& and holding ps$chological incapacit$ as a broad range o# ental and

beha"ioral conduct on the part o# one spouse indicati"e o# ho! he or she regards

the arital union& his or her personal relationship !ith the other spouse& as !ell

as his or her conduct in the long haul #or the attainent o# the principal

objecti"es o# arriage> !here said conduct& obser"ed and considered as a !hole&

tends to cause the union to sel#;destruct because it de#eats the "er$ objecti"es o#

arriage& !arrants the dissolution o# the arriage'

*he Court reiterated its ruling in Santos "' Court o# Appeals& !here ps$chological

incapacit$ should re#er to no less than a ental not ph$sical incapacit$&

existing at the tie the arriage is celebrated& and that there is hardl$ an$ doubt

that the intendent o# the la! has been to con#ine the eaning o# [ps$chological

incapacit$L to the ost serious cases o# personalit$ disorders clearl$

deonstrati"e o# an utter insensiti"it$ or inabilit$ to gi"e eaning and

signi#icance to the arriage' +s$chological incapacit$ ust be characteriFed b$


79/210

gra"it$& juridical antecedence& and incurabilit$' )n the present case& there is no

clear sho!ing to us that the ps$chological de#ect spoen o# is an incapacit$> but

appears to be ore o# a di##icult$&% i# not outright re#usal% or neglect% in the

per#orance o# soe arital obligations' .ere sho!ing o# irreconcilable

di##erences% and con#licting personalities% in no !ise constitutes ps$chological

incapacit$'

*he Court& in this case& proulgated the guidelines in the interpretation and

application o# Article /6 o# the / *he incapacit$ ust be pro"en existing at

the tie o# the celebration o# arriage> 4 the incapacit$ ust be clinicall$ or

edicall$ peranent or incurable> such illness ust be gra"e enough> 6 the

essential arital obligation ust be ebraced b$ Articles 6: to 71 o# the 7 interpretation ade b$ the (ational

Appellate .atrionial *ribunal o# the Catholic Church& and : the trial ust order

the #iscal and the Solicitor;General to appeal as counsels #or the State'

*he Supree Court granted the petition& and re"ersed and set aside the assailed

decision> concluding that the arriage o# Roridel la"iano to Re$naldo .olina

subsists and reains "alid'

&. CHI MING TSOI VS. CA 266 SCRA /44


80/210

FACTS:

+ri"ate respondent Gina Bao and petitioner Chi .ing *soi !ere arried at the .anila

Cathedral on .a$ 22& 19::' Contrar$ to GinaLs expectations that the ne!l$!eds !ere

to enjo$ aing lo"e or ha"ing sexual intercourse !ith each other& the de#endant

just !ent to bed& slept on one side thereo#& then turned his bac and !ent to

sleep' (o sexual intercourse occurred during their #irst night& second& third and

#ourth night'


81/210

HELD: Des\

)# a spouse& although ph$sicall$ capable but sipl$ re#uses to per#or his or her

essential arriage obligations& and the re#usal is senseless and constant& Catholic

arriage tribunals attribute the causes to ps$chological incapacit$ than to

stubborn re#usal' Senseless and protracted re#usal is eui"alent to ps$chologicalincapacit$' *hus& the prolonged re#usal o# a spouse to ha"e sexual intercourse !ith

his or her spouse is considered a sign o# ps$chological incapacit$'

?"identl$& one o# the essential arital obligations under the


82/210

3hile the la! pro"ides that the husband and the !i#e are obliged to li"e together&

obser"e utual lo"e& respect and #idelit$' Art' 6:&


83/210

)n 1991& petitioner Beni Choa initiated a case #or concubinage against her husband&

Al#onso Choa& in the .*CC& Eacolod Cit$& doceted as Criinal Case (' 49106'

)n .arch 1994& !hen the proulgation o# the decision !as about to tae place&

Al#onso #iled !ith the R*C& Eacolod Cit$& a coplaint #or annulent o# arriage

based on ps$chological incapacit$' *hus& Al#onso #iled !ith the .*CC a otion in anorder dated .arch 2/& 1994' @is otion #or reconsideration ha"ing been lie!ise

denied& on -une 22& 1994& he #iled !ith the R*C& Eacolod Cit$& a petition #or

certiorari !ith injunction against the trial court' n -ul$ 1/& 1994& the R*C

issued a restraining order& and denied Beni Choas otion #or inter"ention'

)) $aken from 6.5. 1o. 7E@@DA. 1ovember /A& /88/)

*he case !ent to trial !ith respondent husband presenting his e"idence in chie#'

A#ter his last !itness testi#ied& he subitted his


84/210

3hether or not it is proper to suspend the proulgation o# judgent in the

concubinage case due to a prejudicial uestion& annulent o# arriage'

)) $aken from 6.5. 1o. 7E@@DA. 1ovember /A& /88/)

3hether or not ps$chological incapacit$ o# the !i#e has been satis#actoril$

pro"en'

R">:

) For 6.5. 1o. 7/8B/. May 7D& 70004

Des& it is proper to suspend the proulgation o# judgent in the concubinage case

due to a prejudicial uestion& annulent o# arriage'

A prejudicial uestion coes into pla$ generall$ in a situation !here a ci"il

action and a criinal action are both pending and there exist in the #orer an

issue !hich ust be preepti"el$ resol"ed be#ore the criinal action a$ proceed&

because ho!soe"er the issue in the ci"il action resol"ed !ould be deterinati"e

juris et de jure o# the guilt innocence o# the accused in the criinal case'

*he prejudicial uestion is the issue raised in the ci"il case #or declaration o#

nullit$ o# arriage based on ps$chological incapacit$ under Article /6 o# the


85/210

)n the case at bar& the e"idence adduced b$ respondent erel$ sho!s that he and his

!i#e could not get along !ith each other' *here !as absolutel$ no sho!ing o# the

gra"it$ or juridical antecedence or incurabilit$ o# the probles besetting their

arital union'

Sorel$ lacing in respondentLs e"idence is proo# that the ps$chological incapacit$!as gra"e enough to bring about the disabilit$ o# a part$ to assue the essential

obligations o# arriage' )n Molina case& the Supree Court a##ired that

ild characterological peculiarities& ood changes and occasional eotional

outbursts cannot be accepted as root causeso# ps$chological incapacit$' *he

illness ust be sho!n as do!nright incapacit$ or inabilit$& not a re#usal& neglect

or di##icult$& uch less ill !ill' )n other !ords& there should be a natal or

super"ening disabling #actor in the person& an ad"erse integral eleent in the

personalit$ structure that e##ecti"el$ incapacitates the person #ro reall$

accepting and thereb$ copl$ing !ith the obligations essential to arriage'

RespondentLs pious peroration that petitioner laced the intention o# procreati"e

sexualit$% is easil$ belied b$ the #act that t!o children !ere born during their

union' .oreo"er& there is absolutel$ no sho!ing that the alleged de#ect% alread$

existed at the tie o# the celebration o# the arriage'

.ost telling is the insu##icienc$& i# not incopetenc$& o# the supposed expert

testion$ presented b$ respondent' @is !itness& ,r' Antonio .' GauFon& utterl$

#ailed to identi#$ and pro"e the root causeo# the alleged ps$chological

incapacit$' Speci#icall$& his testion$ did not sho! that the incapacit$& i# true&


86/210

!as edicall$ or clinicall$ peranent or incurable' (either did he testi#$ that it

!as gra"e enough to bring about the disabilit$ o# the part$ to assue the essential

obligations o# arriage' Hence demurrer to evidence *as proper. Petition for the

declaration of nullity of marriage based on alleged psychological incapacity is

denied.4

&?. DOMINGO VS. CA 226 SCRA 72


87/210

1 Des' A declaration o# the absolute nullit$ o# a arriage is no! explicitl$

reuired either as a cause o# action or a ground #or de#ense' 3here the absolute

nullit$ o# a pre"ious arriage is sought to be in"oed #or purposes o# contracting

a second arriage& the sole basis acceptable in la! #or said projected arriagebe

#ree #ro legal in#irit$ is a #inal judgent declaring the pre"ious arriage "oid'

*he ,eclaration o# nullit$ o# a arriage under Article 40 a$ be resorted to e"en

#or a purpose other than rearriage' Crucial to the proper interpretation o#

Article 40 is the position o# the !ord 8solel$'8 xxx' As it is placed& it is eant

to uali#$ 8#inal judgent'8 @ad the pro"ision been stated as #ollo!s 8*he

absolute nullit$ o# a pre"ious arriage a$ be in"oed solel$ #or purposes o#

rearriage'''&8 the !ord 8solel$8 !ill uali#$ 8#or purposes o# rearriage8 and the

husband !ould ha"e been correct' *he said article as #inall$ #orulated included

the signi#icant clause denotes that such #inal judgent declaring the pre"ious

arriage "oid need not be obtained onl$ #or purposes o# rearriage'

2 Des' 3hen a arriage is declared "oid ab initio& the la! states that the #inal

judgent therein shall pro"ide #or 8the liuidation& partition and distribution o#

the properties o# the spouses& the custod$ and support o# the coon children& and

the deli"er$ o# their presupti"e legities& unless such atters had been

adjudicated in pre"ious judicial proceedings'8 +ri"ate respondents ultiate pra$er

#or separation o# propert$ !ill sipl$ be one o# the necessar$ conseuences o# the

judicial declaration o# absolute nullit$ o# their arriage' *he


88/210

clearl$ pro"ided the e##ects o# the declaration o# nullit$ o# arriage& one o#

!hich is the separation o# propert$ according to the regie o# propert$ relations

go"erning the'

&=. A*UINO VS. DELI+O 109 +@)B 21


89/210

FACTS:

Aurora Ana$a and


90/210

ISSUE: 3hether or not the concealent to a !i#e b$ her husband o# his pre;arital

relationship !ith another !oan is a ground #or annulent o# arriage'

HELD:

*he concealent o# a husbandLs pre;arital relationship !ith another !oan !as not

one o# those enuerated that !ould constitute #raud as ground #or annulent and it

is #urther excluded b$ the last paragraph pro"iding that no other

isrepresentation or deceit as to'' chastit$% shall gi"e ground #or an action to

annul a arriage' @ence& the case at bar does not constitute #raud and there#ore

!ould not !arrant an annulent o# arriage'

'1. TOLENTINO VS. VILLANUEVA 6 SCRA 1

and that the$ did not

li"e as husband and !i#e as iediatel$ a#ter the arriage celebration'


91/210

,espite the #act that she !as ser"ed !ith suons and cop$ o# the coplaint& @elen

#ai

consolidated digests - civil law (atty dicdican)

Documents