1. Tañada vs.

Tuvera (PROC,) must be accompanied by a viable and

Facts: confirmed Export Program of Philippine Products.
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel
respondent public officials to publish in the Official Private respondents Remington and Firestone
Gazette of various presidential decrees, letters of individually applied for authority to import from PROC
instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive with the petitioner. They were granted such authority
orders, invoking the right to be informed on matters of after satisfying the requirements for importers.
public concern. Subsequently, for failing to comply with their
undertakings to submit export credits equivalent to the
Issue: value of their importations, further import applications
Whether or not the publication of presidential decrees, were withheld by petitioner PITC from private
letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations or respondents. As a result, the private respondents filed a
executive orders is necessary before its enforcement. Petition for Prohibition and Mandamus against the
PITC.
Ruling:
Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that “laws shall take The court ruled that declared the Administrative Order
effect after fifteen days following the completion of to be null and void, since the same was not published,
their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is contrary to Article 2 of the New Civil Code.
otherwise provided.” The Court has ruled that
publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in those Issue:
cases where the legislation itself does not provide for Whether the Administrative Order issued by PITC is null
its effectivity date. The publication of all presidential and void on the ground that it was not published in
issuances “of a public nature” or “of general accordance with Article 2 of the New Civil Code.
applicability” is mandated by law.
Ruling:
2. People vs. Que Po Lay Yes. The questioned Administrative Order, legally, until
Facts: it is published, is invalid within the context of Article 2
The appellant was in possession of foreign exchange of Civil Code, which reads:
amounting to about $7000 but failed to sell the same to
the Central Bank as required under Circular No. 20. Art. 2. Laws shall take effect fifteen days following the
completion of their publication in the Official Gazette,
Circular No. 20 was issued in the year 1949 but was unless it is otherwise provided.
published in the Official Gazette only on Nov. 1951
after the act or omission imputed to Que Po Lay. 4. Delgado vs. Alonso
Facts:
Que Po Lay appealed from the decision of the lower In November of the year 1917 Alonso purchased twelve
court finding him guilty of violating Central Bank parcels of land in the municipality of Goa. On February
Circular No. 20. 1, 1918, Alonso conveyed the same property to Luciano
Delgado.
Issue:
Whether or not publication of Circular 20 in the Official
Gazette is needed for it to become effective and subject Delgado contemporaneously executed a mortgage in
violators to corresponding penalties. favor of the defendant in order to secure the payment
of the purchase money.
Ruling:
It was held by the Supreme Court, in an en banc A simple calculation shows that the interest agreed to
decision, that as a rule, circular and regulations
be paid upon the purchase price of the land by Delgado
prescribing a penalty for its violation should be
published before becoming effective. was at a rate well above fifteen per centum per annum,
which therefore offends against the provisions of the
3. Phil. International Trading Corp. vs. Judge Usury Law that can ordinarily be secured by mortgage
Angeles upon real property to twelve per centum per annum
Facts: (Act No. 2655-2). Delgado filed a complaint against
The Petitioner (PITC) issued Administrative Order No. Alonso to recover the sum of P2,625 paid upon
SOCPEC 89-08-01 applications to the PITC for
February 1, 1919, by way of interest. To this complaint
importation from the People's Republic of China
the defendant answered with a general denial; and by
way of special defense he alleged that the contract in
question had been entered into by him innocently and A criminal complaint for violation of Batas Pambansa
in total ignorance on his part of the existence of the Bilang 22 was filed by the salvage company against
Albino Co which eventuated in Co's conviction of the
Usury Law.
crime charged.

Issue: He argued on appeal that at the time of the issuance of

Whether the defendant is justified in raising ignorance the check on September 1, 1983, some four (4) years
of the usury law as defense to escape its legal prior to the promulgation of the judgment in Que v.
consequences. People on September 21, 1987 was not considered a
punishable offense, an official pronouncement made in
a Circular of the Ministry of Justice.
Ruling:
No. The defendant cannot use ignorance as an excuse. Issue:
Ignorance of the provisions of the Usury Law does not Whether the decision issued by the Court be applied
relieve either from the legal consequences of the retroactively to the prejudice of the accused.
contract into which they voluntarily entered.
Ruling:
5. People vs. Bitdu Pursuant to Article 8 of the Civil Code "Judicial decisions
applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution
Facts: shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines."
Mora Bidtu was first married to Moro Halid in But while our decisions form part of the law of the land,
accordance with Mohammedan customs and about they are also subject to Article 4 of the Civil Code which
twelve years later, she got married to Moro Hajirol provides that "Laws shall have no retroactive effect
before a Hadji. Likewise, the second marriage was in unless the contrary is provided."
accordance with Mohammedan customs. The second
marriage contracted by her with Hajiro took place after The retroactive application of a law usually divests
she had been divorced from her first husband Halid, rights that have already become vested or impairs the
having taken place before Datu Cuevas of Isabela, obligations of contract and hence, is unconstitutional.
Basilan.
7. D.M. Consunji vs. Court of Appeals
Issue:
Whether or not the divorce is legal. Facts:
At around 1:30 p.m., November 2, 1990, Jose Juego, a
Ruling: construction worker of D. M. Consunji, Inc., fell 14
No. The defense presented no evidence to show that floors from the Renaissance Tower, Pasig City to his
the conditions prescribed by the Koran had been death. He was rushed to Rizal Medical Center in Pasig,
complied with by the parties when they obtained their Metro Manila where he was pronounced dead on
divorce before Datu Cuevas. arrival (DOA) at around 2:15 p.m. of the same date.

In the Philippine islands, we have a law (Act No. 2710) According to investigation, Jose Juego, together with his
enumerating the causes and the conditions under co-workers, Jessie and Delso, were performing their
which divorce may be secured and granted. A divorce work on board a platform at the elevator core of the
cannot be had except in that court upon which the 14th floor when the platform fell due to removal or
State has conferred jurisdiction. looseness of the pin. Jessie and Delso, on the other
hand, were able to jump to safety.
6. Co vs. Court of Appeals
Maria Juego, widow of Jose, filed a complaint on May 9,
Facts: 1991 for damages in the RTC and was rendered a
favorable decision to receive support from D.M. Consuji
Petitioner Albino Co delivered to the salvaging firm on Inc amounting to P 644, 000.00.
September 1, 1983 a check drawn against the
Associated Citizens' Bank, post-dated November 30, D.M. Consunji Inc. seeks reversal of the decision on the
1983 in the sum of P361,528.00. The check was defense that widow already availed of the benefits
deposited on January 3, 1984. It was dishonored two from the State Insurance Funds (SIF).
days later because the account was already closed.
 of the brothers of the deceased opposed the said
Issue: partition.
Whether or not Maria Juergo could still claim benefits
from D.M. Consuji Inc apart from that received from According to the scheme and its provision, that the
SIF. deceased requests that all his relatives respect his
wishes, otherwise those who opposed the same shall
Ruling: be cancelled in said disposition in favor of the
Yes, she can still receive benefits from D.M. Consunji oppositor.
Inc. She was unaware of the petitioner’s negligence
when she filed her claim for death benefits from SIF. The appellant in the case, who opposed the same,
The court’s ruling is based on Floresca VS Philex Mining based his opposition on the fact that the deceased was
Corporation where the claimant who has already been a Turkish citizen, that his disposition should be in
paid under the workmen’s compensation act may still accordance with the laws of his nationality.
sue for damages under the civil code on the basis of
supervening facts or developments occurring after he Issue:
opted for the first remedy. Whether or not the disposition shall be made in
accordance with Philippine Laws
8. Cui vs. Arellano Univesity
Whether or not there shall be cancellation of
Facts: disposition/s in favor of the appellant-oppositor.
The plaintiff, Emerito Cui, a law student and a scholar of
the defendant Arellano University, transfers to Abad Ruling:
Santos University on his final year in law school. No, although the disposition provides an express
provision that it shall be governed by Philippine Laws
After completing his studies in the latter, Cui requested and those who opposed the condition of the provisions
for his transcript from the defendant. Defendant then given shall be cancelled from the disposition, the fact is
said that before the release of his transcript of records, that the condition itself is void for being contrary to
the plaintiff must first pay a sum of P1,033.87 as the law.
sum of Cui’s tuition fees during his stay in the
defendant university. The defendant cited that this is Article 792 of the Civil Code provides:
under the scholarship contract signed by both parties “Impossible conditions and those contrary to law or
where the plaintiff waived his right to transfer schools good morals shall be considered as not imposed and
unless he pays the total tuition fee during his stay in the shall not prejudice the heir or legatee in any manner
institution. whatsoever, even should the testator otherwise
provide.”
Plaintiff paid the amount to be issued the transcript. In
May 30, 1961, Cui requested to be refunded the said 10. Barreto vs. Gonzales
amount from the school.
Facts:
Issue: The plaintiff & defendant were both citizens of the
Whether or Not the contract signed by both plaintiff Philippines, married & lived together from January 1919
and defendant is enough basis to waive the right of the until Spring of 1926. After which, they voluntarily
plaintiff to transfer to another school without paying separated & have not lived together as man & wife;
the cost of his education in former school. they had 4 minor children together.

Ruling: After negotiations, both parties mutually agreed to

No. The stipulation in question, asking previous allow Manuela Barreto (plaintiff) for her & her
students to pay back the scholarship grant if they children’s support of P500 (five hundred pesos)
transfer before graduation, is contrary to public policy, monthly and that the title of certain properties be put
sound policy, and good morals. It also undermines the in her name.
security of individual rights and hence, null and void.
Shortly after the agreement, Augusto Gonzales
9. Miciano vs. Brimo (defendant), went to Reno, Nevada & secured in that
jurisdiction an absolute divorce on the ground of
Facts: desertion dated November 28, 1927. On that same date
The judicial administrator of the estate of the deceased, he went through the forms of marriage with another
Joseph Brimo, filed a scheme of partition. However, one Filipino citizen as well & had 3 children with her.
When Gonzales left the Philippines, he reduced the The last part of Art 11 of the Old Civil Code, now in Art
amount he had agreed to pay monthly for the support 17 also states ...the prohibitive laws concerning
of Manuela Barreto & her children. persons, their acts & their property, and those intended
to promote public order & good morals, shall not be
Gonzales came back to the Philippines in August 1928 rendered without effect by any foreign laws or
and shortly after, Barreto brought an action at the judgements or by anything done or any agreements
Court of First Instance of Manila (CFI-Manila)(RTC) entered into in a foreign country.
requesting to confirm & ratify the decree of divorce
issued by the courts of Nevada & invoked sec 9 of Act 11. Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera
2710.
Facts:
They also prayed that the marriage existing between On September 7, 1979, Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a
Barreto & Gonzales be declared dissolved & Gonzales Filipina and the respondent to the case, and Erich
be ordered to pay Barreto P500 per month, counsel Geiling, a German national, were married at
fees of P5000 & all the expenses incurred in educating Friedenweiler in the Federal Republic of Germany. After
the 3 minor sons. The guardians of the children also about three and a half years of marriage, Geiling
filed as intervenors in the case. initiated a divorce proceeding against Pilapil in
Germany in January 1983 while Pilapil filed an action
After the hearing, the CFI-Manila granted the for legal separation, support and separation of property
judgement in favor of the plaintiff & intervenors, but before RTC of Manila in January 23, 1983. On January
reduced the attorney's fees to P3000 instead & also 15, 1986, the local Court of Germany promulgated a
granted the costs of the action against the defendant. divorce decree on the ground of failure of marriage of
the spouses. The custody of the child, Isabella Pilapil
Issue: Geiling, was granted to petitioner.
Whether or not any foreign divorce, relating to citizens
of the Philippine Islands, will be recognized in this On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed two
jurisdiction, except it be for a cause, and under complaints for adultery alleging that,while still married
conditions for which the courts of the Philippine Islands to respondent, petitioner had an affair with a certain
would grant a divorce. Hence, this appeal by Gonzales William Chia and Jesus Chua sometime in 1982 and
saying that the lower court erred in their decision. 1983 respectively. Thereafter, petitioner filed a motion
in both criminal cases to defer her arraignment and to
Ruling: suspend further proceedings thereon. On September 8,
No. The lower court erred in granting the relief as 1987, respondent judge denied the motion to quash
prayed for on granting the divorce, because: and also directed the arraignment of both accused.
The court said that securing the jurisdiction of the Petitioner refused to be arraigned and thus charged
courts to recognize & approve the divorce done in with direct contempt and fined.
Reno, Nevada cannot be done according to the public
policy in this jurisdiction on the question of divorce. Issue:
Whether or not the private respondent’s adultery
It’s clear in Act No. 2710 & court decisions on cases charges against the petitioner is still valid given the fact
such as Goitia VS. Campos Rueda that the entire that both had been divorced prior to the filing of
conduct of the parties from the time of their separation charges.
until the case was submitted praying the ratification of
the Reno Divorce was clearly a circumvention of the law Ruling:
regarding divorce & will be done under conditions not The law provides that in prosecutions for adultery and
authorized by our laws. concubinage the person who can legally file the
complaint should only be the offended spouse.
Art 9 & Art 11 of the Civil Code & The Divorce Law of According to Article 15 of the Civil Code, with relation
the Philippines does not allow such to be done. to the status of Filipino citizens both here and abroad,
since the legal separation of the petitioner and
Article 9 of the Old Civil Code, now in Art 15 says that respondent has been finalized through the courts in
Laws relating to family rights & duties or to status, Germany and the RTC in Manila, the marriage of the
condition, and legal capacity of persons, are binding couple were already finished, thus giving no merit to
upon Spaniards even though they reside in a foreign the charges the respondent filed against the petitioner.
country.
 12. Roehr vs. Rodriguez dissolution of their marriage. On March 3, 1998,
petitioner filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of
Facts: Marriage on the ground of bigamy. Responded
Petitioner Wolfgang O. Roehr, a German citizen, contended that his prior marriage had been validly
married private respondent Carmen Rodriguez, a dissolved by a decree of divorce obtained in Australia
Filipina, on December 11, 1980 in Germany. Their thus he is legally capacitated to marry petitioner.
marriage was subsequently ratified on February 14,
1981 in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. Out of their union Issue:
were born Carolynne and Alexandra Kristine. Carmen Whether or not the divorce obtained by respondent in
filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage Australia ipso facto capacitated him to remarry.
before the Makati RTC. Meanwhile, Wolfgang obtained
a decree of divorce from Germany. The decree provides Ruling:
that the parental custody of the children should be The Supreme Court remanded (return a case to a lower
vested to Wolfgang. court) the case to the court a quo for the purpose of
receiving evidence which conclusively show
Wolfgang filed a motion to dismiss the nullity case as a respondent's legal capacity to marry petitioner; and
divorce decree had already been promulgated, which failing in that, of declaring the parties' marriage void on
was granted by respondent Judge Salonga. Carmen filed the ground of bigamy. This is because based on the
a motion with a prayer that the case should proceed for records, the court cannot conclude if the respondent
the purpose of determining the issues of custody of who was then a naturalized Australian citizen was
children and the distribution of the properties between legally capacitated to marry petitioner. Neither can the
her and Wolfgang. Judge Salonga partially set aside her court grant petitioner’s prayer to declare her marriage
previous order for the purpose of tackling the issues of null and void on the ground of bigamy. After all it may
support and custody of their children. turn out that under Australian law he was really
capacitated to marry petitioner as result of the divorce
Issue: decree.
Whether or not the granting the motion to dismiss the
nullity case valid; it is valid to assume jurisdiction to 14. Bellis vs Bellis
tackle child custody and support.
Facts:
Ruling: Amos Bellis, born in Texas, was a citizen of the State of
A judge can order a partial reconsideration of a case Texas and of the United States. He had 5 legitimate
that has not yet attained finality. The court can modify children with his wife, Mary Mallen, whom he had
or alter a judgment even after the same has become divorced, 3 legitimate children with his 2nd wife, Violet
executory whenever circumstances transpire rendering Kennedy and finally, 3 illegitimate children.
its decision unjust and inequitable.
Prior to his death, Amos Bellis executed a will in the
Divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other Philippines in which his distributable estate should be
countries are recognized in our jurisdiction, but the divided in trust in the following order and manner:
legal effects thereof, such as custody must still be
determined by our courts. Before our courts can give a. $240,000 to his 1st wife Mary Mallen;
the effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment, it must b. P120,000 to his 3 illegitimate children at P40,000
be shown that the parties opposed to the judgment had each;
been given ample opportunity to do so. c. The remainder shall go to his surviving children by his
1st and 2nd wives, in equal shares.
13. Garcia vs. Recio
Subsequently, Amos Bellis died a resident of San
Facts: Antonio, Texas, USA. His will was admitted to probate
Rederick Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha in the Philippines. The People’s Bank and Trust
Samson an Australian citizen, on March 1, 1987. On Company, an executor of the will, paid the entire
May 18, 1989, a decree of divorce dissolving the bequest therein.
marriage was issued by the Australian Family Court. On
June 26, 1992, Mr. Recio, the defendant, became an Among the 3 illegitimate children, Mari Cristina and
Australian citizen. Subsequently, he entered into Miriam Palma Bellis filed their respective opposition to
marriage with a Filipina, the petitioner, on January 12, the project partition on the ground that they were
1994. Starting October 22, 1995, petitioner and deprived of their legitimates as illegitimate children.
respondent lived separately without prior judicial
The lower court denied their respective motions for 22 against private respondent was their failure to
reconsideration. collect the amount of P2,575.00 due on a bounced
check which they honestly believed was issued to them
Issue: by private respondent. Petitioners had conducted
Whether or not Texan Law of Philippine Law must inquiries regarding the origin of the check. Private
apply. respondent, however, did nothing to clarify the case of
mistaken identity at first hand. Instead, private
Ruling: respondent waited in ambush and thereafter pounced
It is not disputed that the decedent was both a national on the hapless petitioners at a time he thought was
of Texas and a domicile thereof at the time of his death. propitious by filing an action for damages.
So that even assuming Texan has a conflict of law rule
providing that the same would not result in a reference There is no proof or showing that petitioners acted
back (renvoi) to Philippine Law, but would still refer to maliciously or in bad faith in the filing of the case
Texas Law. against private respondent. Consequently, in the
absence of proof of fraud and bad faith committed by
The parties admit that the decedent, Amos Bellis, was a petitioners, they cannot be held liable for damages.
citizen of the State of Texas, USA and that under the
Laws of Texas, there are no forced heirs or legitimates. 16. Magbanua vs. Intermediate Appellate Court
Accordingly, since the intrinsic validity of the provision
of the will and the amount of successional rights has to Facts:
be determined under Texas Law, the Philippine Law on Magbanua and the other petitioners are share tenants
legitimates cannot be applied to the testate of Amos of an agricultural land owned by the private
Bellis. respondents. The petitioners alleged in the case they
filed in the trial court that the private respondents
15. Albenson Enterprises vs. Court of Appeals diverted the free flow of water from their landholdings
which dried up their farm and wilted their palay crops.
Facts: The trial court decided in favor of the petitioners. They
Petitioner Albenson Enterprises Corporation delivered were maintained as agricultural lessees and granted
to Guaranteed Industries, Inc. at Baltao Building mild each one of them the amount of P10,000 as moral &
steel plates which the latter ordered and as part of the exemplary damages and P5,000 for the attorney’s fees
payment, a bouncing check was issued by one “Eugenio to be paid by the private respondents. However, the
Baltao”. private respondents appealed the decision to the
Intermediate Appellate Court which affirmed the
Petitioner, in a sincere attempt to collect the sum of decision of the trial court but removed the award of
money due them, filed a criminal complaint against payment of damages and attorney’s fees granted to the
private respondent Eugenio S. Baltao after the latter petitioners.
refused to make good the amount of the bouncing
check despite demand. However, there was a mistake Issue:
of identity as there were two “Eugenio Baltaos” Whether or not the plaintiffs were entitled to moral
conducting business in the same building – Eugenio S. and exemplary damages and the attorney’s fees which
Baltao and his son, Eugenio Baltao III. had been awarded by the trial court.

It was found that the signature of the check was not of Ruling:
Eugenio S. Baltao and because of the alleged unjust Yes, plaintiffs were entitled to moral and exemplary
filing of a criminal case against him, respondent Baltao damages. The SC granted the reinstatement of the
filed a complaint for damages anchored on Articles 19, award of moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s
20, and 21 of the Civil Code against petitioners. fees, subject to modification of the amount. Art 2219,
Civil Code states that moral damages may be recovered
Issue: when a person willfully causes loss or injury to another
Whether or not the principle of abuse of rights (Article in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public
19) has been violated, resulting in damages under policy. Under Art 2232, Civil Code, “In contract and
Articles 20 and 21 or other applicable provision of law. quasi-contracts, the court may award exemplary
damages if the defendant acted in wanton, fraudulent,
Ruling: reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner.” Art 2208,
No, petitioners could not be said to have violated the Civil Code states that attorney’s fees can be recovered,
principle of abuse of rights. What prompted petitioners among others, when exemplary damages are awarded.
to file the case for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang The private respondents acted in an oppressive manner
in closing the free flow of water into the farm lots of
the petitioners in order to make the latter vacate their
landholdings.

17. Nikko Hotel vs. Reyes

Facts:
On the evening of 13 October 1994, Roberto Reyes
popularly known as Amay Bisaya alleged that while at
the lobby of Hotel Nikko, his friend of several years Dr.
Violeta Filart, approached and invited him to join her in
a party at the hotels penthouse. When Mr. Reyes lined-
up at the buffet table as soon as it was ready, he was
stopped by Ruby Lim, the Executive Secretary of Nikko
Hotel and told him to leave the party in a loud voice
and within the presence and hearing of the other
guests. Mr. Reyes tried to explain that he was invited by
Dr. Filart, who was within hearing distance, however,
completely ignored him. Not long after, a Makati
policeman approached and asked him to step out of the
hotel like a common criminal. Hence, Mr. Reyes asked
for moral and/or exemplary damages.

Ruby Lim denied the allegations of Mr. Reyes claiming

that she asked Mr. Reyes to leave the party but not
under the ignominious circumstance painted by the
latter.

After trial on the merits, the court rendered a decision

in favor of Ms. Lim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals
reversed the ruling and favored the testimony of Mr.
Reyes. Hence, this petition for review was filed.

Issue:
Whether or not petitioners acted abusively in asking
Mr. Reyes to leave the party.

Ruling:
No. The Supreme Court found the version of Lim more
credible. She has been employed by the hotel for more
than 20 years at that time. Her job requires her to be
polite at all times and very unlikely for her to make a
scene in the party she was managing. On the other
hand, Reyes brought whatever damage he incurred
upon himself. The injury he incurred is thus self-
inflicted. Evidence even shows that Dr. Filart herself
denied inviting Reyes into the party and that Reyes
simply gate-crashed. Since he brought injury upon
himself, neither Lim nor Nikko Hotel can be held liable
for damages.