SEPTEMBER 11
AU: A & B were married here in the Ph. A is a foreigner, B a Filipino.
Thereafter they went to the US and a divorce decree was obtained in the
US. Thereafter, they went back to the PH. Here in PH, A filed an action to
compel B to render account as to what he claims is the conjugal properties
of the spouses. Do you think the action will prosper?
Van Dorn v. Romillo
For resolution is the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their
alleged conjugal property in the Philippines.
The Nevada District Court, which decreed the divorce, had obtained
jurisdiction over petitioner who appeared in person before the Court
during the trial of the case. It also obtained jurisdiction over private
respondent who, giving his address as No. 381 Bush Street, San
Francisco, California, authorized his attorneys in the divorce case, Karp
& Gradt Ltd., to agree to the divorce on the ground of incompatibility in
the understanding that there were neither community property nor
community obligations.
It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of
the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy
against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our
concept of public police and morality. However, aliens may obtain
divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided
they are valid according to their national law. In this case, the divorce in
Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the
standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage.
Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the
husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case
below as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal
assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country's Court, which
validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not
repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court
from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.
AU: In the case of Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera,
Under Article 344 of the RPC, the crime of adultery cannot be prosecuted
except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended spouse.
Since, private respondent already obtained a valid divorce decree
abroad, he is no longer the husband of petitioner and has no legal
standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he
was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.
Adultery is a private crime. Kaya ang issue ay kung asawa pa siya at the time
the complaint was filed. The complaint did not prosper because he was no longer
the husband when the complaint was filed.
AU: In an action for damages, if the defendant merely exercise the right,
he cannot be liable for damages, correct?
No. Article 19 – Ever person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith.
Ardiente v. Spouses Pastorfide
The principle of abuse of rights as enshrined in Article 19 of the Civil
Code provides that every person must, in the exercise of his rights and
in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due,
and observe honesty and good faith.
Facts: A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court seeking to set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals which affirmed the then decision of the RTC regarding its
judgment sums of money for moral damages, exemplary damages and
attorney’s fees. The decision being contested sprouted from the cutting
off of water supply of Pastorfide by the Cagayan de Oro Water District
as requested by Ardiente. In this case, Ardiente owned a piece of
property, which was subsequently sold and conveyed to Pastorfide,
however, the connection of water supply as well as other utilities
remained in the name of Ardiente which was never questioned, until
such time that Pastorfide became delinquent in paying the water bill.
Issue: Whether or not it was proper for Ardiente together with Cagayan
De Oro Water district to cut off the water supply of Pastorfide owing to
the fact that Ardiente has already conveyed ownership of property to
Pastorfide.
Ruling: No, it was not proper. Petitioner's acts which violated the
abovementioned provisions of law is her unjustifiable act of having the
respondent spouses' water supply disconnected, coupled with her
failure to warn or at least notify respondent spouses of such intention.
The principle of abuse of Rights in the enshrined Article 19 of the civil
Code provides that every person must, in the exercise of his rights and
in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due,
and observe honesty and good faith. It recognizes a primordial limitation
on all rights; that in their exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth
in Article 19 must be observed. A right, though by itself legal because
recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the
source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in a manner which
does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in
damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the
wrongdoer must be held responsible.
AU: X died survived by his spouse. 5 months thereafter, the widow gave
birth to A. 5 mins later, A died. 5 days after the death of A, the widow died.
Surviving X his parents, surviving the spouse is her parents. Net estate of
X is 10M. Who is entitled to his estate?
Determine if A acquired personality. Regardless if A acquired personality, the
parents of X and the parents of Y are entitled to the estate.
AU: In the case of Geluz v. CA, what action was filed?
Unborn foetus without personality; Award for death of a person does not
cover unborn foetus.— The minimum award for the death of a person
does not cover the case of an unborn foetus that is not endowed with
personality and incapable of having rights and obligations.
Parents of unborn foetus cannot sue for damages on its behalf.—Since
an action for pecuniary damages on account of personal injury or death
pertains primarily to the injured, no such right of action could
derivatively accrue to the parents or heirs of an unborn child.
Nature of damages recoverable by parents of unborn child.—The
damages which the parents of an unborn child can recover are limited
to the moral damages for the illegal arrest of the normal development of
the foetus, i.e., on account of distress and anguish attendant to its loss,
and the disappointment of their parental expectations, as well as to
exemplary damages, if the circumstances should warrant them (Art.
2230, New Civil Code).
The action did not prosper. According to the plaintiff he is entitled to damages
because…
If indemnity, walang namatay, walang cause of action. If expectancy, pwede. In
other words, tinawag siya ng SC na mercenary. Kung talagang enraged, dapat
kinasuhan ng criminal, administrative para mawalan ng license. Dapat ganun.
Kung civil action, pera pera lang, mukhang hindi ka masyadong enrage.
AU: If the applicant died, can the application prosper (license)?
Limjoco v. Estate of Fragante
The heirs were formerly considered as the continuation of the decedent's
personality simply by legal fiction, for they might not have been flesh
and blood — the reason was one in the nature of a legal exigency derived
from the principle that the heirs succeeded to the rights and obligations
of the decedent. Under the present legal system, such rights and
obligations as survive after death have to be exercised and fulfilled only
by the estate of the deceased. And if the same legal fiction were not
indulged, there would be no juridical basis for the estate, represented
by the executor or administrator, to exercise those rights and to fulfill
those obligations of the deceased. the underlying reason for the legal
fiction by which, for certain purposes, the estate of the deceased person
is considered a "person" is the avoidance of injustice or prejudice
resulting from the impossibility of exercising such legal rights and
fulfilling such legal obligations of the decedent as survived after his
death unless the fiction is indulged.
The estate of the deceased is an extended artificial personality of the deceased.
AU: A was married to B. B is the child of X. A and B have 2 children--C
and D. X wanted to take her grandchildren to have vacation in Cebu. Kaya
sumakay sila ng barko. The ship sank and the grandmother who was already
62 years old died in that incident. C was 14 and D was 16. In this scenario,
what would be the question?
Who died first? The answer, you don’t need to check 43 or survivorship rule. Ang
pinaka unang sagot dito ay it depends on the proof presented. In the absence of
proof, it depends on the issue—if succession (43) or insurance (survivorship
rule). Saan pa kaya, saan possible issue and rule 131 na hindi succession at
hindi insurance? Hanapin niyo kung ano yan ah.
Duon sa RoC, ano ang sagot doon? Who survived? X died first then C then D.
AU: In the case of Joaquin v. Navarro, was the presumption applied?
No.
It is the "particular circumstances from which it (survivorship) can be
inferred" that are required to be certain as tested by the rules of
evidence. In speaking of inference the rule can not mean beyond doubt,
for "inference is never certainty, but if may be plain enough to justify a
finding of fact."
Here, the question is who between the mother and the child died first.
AU: If one of the parties to a contract was (minor) at the time it was
entered into. An action for annulment was filed. Will the action prosper?
It depends. It doesn’t mean that if one of the parties in the contract is a minor
the action will prosper. This is the principle of estoppel.
AU: The autonomy of contracts principle, is this applicable to marriage?
No. Article 1306 – The contracting parties may establish such stipulations,
clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are
not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy. This is
not true in marriage. The governing law in a marriage is the law (The Family
Code) and the marriage settlement in connection with property.
Cabague v. Auxillo
The understanding between the plaintiffs on one side and the
defendants on the other, really involves two kinds of agreement. One,
the agreement between Felipe Cabague and the defendants in
consideration of the marriage of Socorro and Geronimo. Another, the
agreement between the two lovers, as "a mutual promise to marry". For
breach of that mutual promise to marry, Geronimo may sue Socorro for
damages. This is such action, and evidence of such mutual promise is
admissible. However Felipe Cabague's action may not prosper, because
it is to enforce an agreement in consideration of marriage. Evidently as
to Felipe Cabague and Matias Auxilio this action could not be maintained
on the theory of "mutual promise to marry". Neither may it be regarded
as action by Felipe against Socorro "on a mutual promise to marry."
Hermosisima v. CA
Action for breach of promise to marry has no standing apart from right
to recover money or property advanced upon faith of such promise.
Damages can be claim if seduction was involved though, in this case the
dude being 10 years younger than the girl, seduction could not have
been present says the SC.
The action is for acknowledgement, support, and damages. The defendant
admitted the paternity of the child. He also agreed to support the child. The only
issue in this case is damages. The claim for damages was denied because there
is no damage as to breach of promise to marry. The claim for damages was based
on seduction. It did not prosper because the SC considered a lot of
circumstances. The woman was 10 years older than the man and the woman
was a teacher. Thus the SC concluded that she could not have been seduced.
Breach of promise to marry
GR: A breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. There is no
provision in the NCC authorizing an action for breach of promise to marry.
XPN: When the act is not a mere breach of promise to marry but constitutes one
where damages pursuant to Art. 21 of the NCC may be recovered, such as:
1. Where the woman is a victim of moral seduction (Gashem Shookat Baksh v.
CA, G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993).
2. Where one formally sets a wedding and go through and spend for all the
preparations and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony was about
to be solemnized (Wassmer v. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964).
3. Where the woman is a victim of abduction and rape, and thereafter the
accused promised to marry her to avoid criminal liability but later reneged on
his promise. These are grossly insensate and reprehensible transgressions which
indisputably warrant and abundantly justify the award of moral and exemplary
damages, pursuant to Art. 21 (Buñag, Jr. v. CA, G.R. No. 101749, July 10, 1992).
Tanjanco v. CA
In an action by the woman, the enticement, persuasion or deception is
the essence of the injury; and a mere proof of intercourse is insufficient
to warrant a recover.
The child was unborn. The woman is claiming support for herself. Do you think
the case will prosper? No! no cause of action because hindi sila kasal! Kaya siya
nag clclaim for moral damages dahil nagkaroon daw ng seduction. Otherwise
kung pinakasalan siya hindi naman siya mag fifile ng damages for moral
seduction.
Panganiban v. Borromeo
Although RPC allowed the offended party to give pardon to his or her
offender spouse, this doesn’t mean that the purpose of the legislature is
to legalize adultery and concubinage. A notarized contract that permits
concubinage and adultery is not judicially recognizable. Although the
consent of a party is a bar to the prosecution of the said crimes, the acts
are still contrary to customs, good morals and against the sanctity of
marriage which is constitutionally provided for.
