For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON ATIENZA V. BRILLANTES [243 SCRA 32 (1995)] - F: This is an administrative complaint filed by Atienza for Gross Immorality and Appearance of Impropriety against J. Brillantes, Presiding Judge of MTC, Mla. It was alleged in the complaint that Brillantes has been cohabiting w/ Yolanda De Castro (w/ whom Atienza had 2 children) when he (Brillantes) was already married to one Zenaida Ongkiko w/ whom he has 5 children. xxx Resp. denies having been married to Ongkiko, although he admits having 5 children w/ her. He alleges that while he and Ongkiko went through a marriage ceremony, the same was not valid for lack of marriage license. The second marriage bet. the two also lacked the required license. He claims that when he married De Castro in LA, California, he believed, in all GF and for all legal intents and purposes, that he was single bec. his first marriage was solemnized w/o a license.
HELD: Under the FC, there must be a judicial decl. of the nullity of a previous marriage bef. a party thereto can enter into a 2nd marriage. (Art. 40.) Art. 40 is applicable to remarriages entered into after the effectivity of the FC regardless of the date of the first marriage. Said art. is given "retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance w/ the NCC or other laws." (Art. 256, FC.) This is particularly true w/ Art. 40 w/c is a rule of procedure. Resp. has not shown any vested right that was impaired by the application of Art. 40 to his case.
The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants' rights may not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. The retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected. The reason is that as a general rule no vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural laws.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
Showing posts with label supreme court case digest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label supreme court case digest. Show all posts
Thursday, November 11, 2010
CASE DIGEST ON DOMINGO V. CA
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON DOMINGO V. CA [226 SCRA 572 (1993)] - A spouse may petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage for a purpose other than her remarriage.
F: Delia Domingo filed a pet. for decl. of nullity of her marriage w/ Roberto Domingo, on the ground that, unknown to her, he was previously married at the time of their marriage. She prays that their marriage be declared null and void and, as a consequence, to declare that she is the exclusive owner of all properties she acquired during the marriage and to recover them from him.
Roberto moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the marriage being void ab initio, the petition for decl. of nullity is unnecessary citing Peo. v. Aragon and Peo. v. Mendoza. Roberto claims that decl of nullity is necessary under Art. 40, FC only for the purpose of remarriage. The lower court denied the motion. CA affirmed the denial.
HELD: The Declaration of nullity of a marriage under Art. 40 may be resorted to even for a purpose other than remarriage.
Crucial to the proper interpretation of Art. 40 is the position of the word "solely." xxx. As it is placed, it is meant to qualify "final judgment." Had the provision been stated as follows: "The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked solely for purposes of remarriage...," the word "solely" will qualify "for purposes of remarriage" and the husband would have been correct.
That Art. 40 as finally formulated included the significant clause denotes that such final judgment declaring the previous marriage void need not be obtained only for purposes of remarriage.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON DOMINGO V. CA [226 SCRA 572 (1993)] - A spouse may petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage for a purpose other than her remarriage.
F: Delia Domingo filed a pet. for decl. of nullity of her marriage w/ Roberto Domingo, on the ground that, unknown to her, he was previously married at the time of their marriage. She prays that their marriage be declared null and void and, as a consequence, to declare that she is the exclusive owner of all properties she acquired during the marriage and to recover them from him.
Roberto moved to dismiss the petition on the ground that the marriage being void ab initio, the petition for decl. of nullity is unnecessary citing Peo. v. Aragon and Peo. v. Mendoza. Roberto claims that decl of nullity is necessary under Art. 40, FC only for the purpose of remarriage. The lower court denied the motion. CA affirmed the denial.
HELD: The Declaration of nullity of a marriage under Art. 40 may be resorted to even for a purpose other than remarriage.
Crucial to the proper interpretation of Art. 40 is the position of the word "solely." xxx. As it is placed, it is meant to qualify "final judgment." Had the provision been stated as follows: "The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked solely for purposes of remarriage...," the word "solely" will qualify "for purposes of remarriage" and the husband would have been correct.
That Art. 40 as finally formulated included the significant clause denotes that such final judgment declaring the previous marriage void need not be obtained only for purposes of remarriage.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON MARTINEZ VS. TAN
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
Martinez v. Tan [12 P 731] -- F: Pltff. Rosalia Martinez commenced this action for the cancellation of the cert. of marriage and for damages. Pltff. claimed that what took place before the justice of the peace did not constitute a legal marriage under Gen. Orders No. 68, Sec. 6, "No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is required, but the parties must declare, in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage, that they take each other as husband and wife." CFI found for def.
HELD: The parties addressed a signed petition to the justice of the peace stating that they had agreed to marry, and asking the justice of the peace to marry them. Before the justice of the peace, they stated under oath that they ratified the contents of their petition and insisted on what they asked for. This statement was signed by them, in the presence of witnesses that they produced. A certificate was then made out by the justice of the peace, signed by him and the witnesses, stating the parties had been married by him. Both the parties knew the contents of the document w/c they signed. Under the circumstances, what took place before the justice of the peace amounted to a marriage.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
Martinez v. Tan [12 P 731] -- F: Pltff. Rosalia Martinez commenced this action for the cancellation of the cert. of marriage and for damages. Pltff. claimed that what took place before the justice of the peace did not constitute a legal marriage under Gen. Orders No. 68, Sec. 6, "No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is required, but the parties must declare, in the presence of the person solemnizing the marriage, that they take each other as husband and wife." CFI found for def.
HELD: The parties addressed a signed petition to the justice of the peace stating that they had agreed to marry, and asking the justice of the peace to marry them. Before the justice of the peace, they stated under oath that they ratified the contents of their petition and insisted on what they asked for. This statement was signed by them, in the presence of witnesses that they produced. A certificate was then made out by the justice of the peace, signed by him and the witnesses, stating the parties had been married by him. Both the parties knew the contents of the document w/c they signed. Under the circumstances, what took place before the justice of the peace amounted to a marriage.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON BARLIN V. RAMIREZ
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON BARLIN V. RAMIREZ [7 P 41] - F: The def., Ramirez, having been appointed by the pltff parish priest, took possession of the church on 7/5/01. He administered if as such under the orders of his superiors until 11/14/02. His successor having been then appointed, the latter made a demand on this def. for the delivery to him of the church, convent, and cemetery, and the sacred ornaments, books, jewels, money, and other prop. of the church. The def., by a written document of that date, refused to make such delivery, stating that "the town of Lagonoy, in conjunction w/ the parish priest of thereof, has seen fit to sever connection w/ the Pope at Rome and his representatives in these Islands, and to join the Filipino Church, the head of w/c is at Mla.
In 1/4, the pltff. brought this action against def., alleging in his amended complaint that the Roman Catholic Church was the owner of the church bldg, the convent, cemetery, the books, money, and other prop. belonging thereto, and asking that it be restored to the possession thereof and that the def. render an account of the prop. w/c he had received and w/c was retained by him, and for other relief. The CFI-Ambos Camarines ruled in favor of the pltff.
HELD: It is suggested by the appellant that the Roman Catholic Church has no legal personality in the Philippine Islands. This suggestion, made with reference to an institution w/c antedates by almost a thousand years any other personality in Europe, and w/c existed "when Grecian eloquence still flourished in Antioch, and when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca," does not require serious consideration.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON BARLIN V. RAMIREZ [7 P 41] - F: The def., Ramirez, having been appointed by the pltff parish priest, took possession of the church on 7/5/01. He administered if as such under the orders of his superiors until 11/14/02. His successor having been then appointed, the latter made a demand on this def. for the delivery to him of the church, convent, and cemetery, and the sacred ornaments, books, jewels, money, and other prop. of the church. The def., by a written document of that date, refused to make such delivery, stating that "the town of Lagonoy, in conjunction w/ the parish priest of thereof, has seen fit to sever connection w/ the Pope at Rome and his representatives in these Islands, and to join the Filipino Church, the head of w/c is at Mla.
In 1/4, the pltff. brought this action against def., alleging in his amended complaint that the Roman Catholic Church was the owner of the church bldg, the convent, cemetery, the books, money, and other prop. belonging thereto, and asking that it be restored to the possession thereof and that the def. render an account of the prop. w/c he had received and w/c was retained by him, and for other relief. The CFI-Ambos Camarines ruled in favor of the pltff.
HELD: It is suggested by the appellant that the Roman Catholic Church has no legal personality in the Philippine Islands. This suggestion, made with reference to an institution w/c antedates by almost a thousand years any other personality in Europe, and w/c existed "when Grecian eloquence still flourished in Antioch, and when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca," does not require serious consideration.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON GELUZ V. CA
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON GELUZ V. CA [2 S 801 (1961)] - F: Nita Villanueva came to know the defendant (Antonio Geluz) for the first time in 1948-- thru her aunt. In 1950, she became preganant by her present husband before they were legally married. During to conceal her pregnancy from her parent, she had herself aborted by def. After the marriage w/ the pltff., she again became pregnant. As she was employed in the COMELEC and her pregnancy proved to be inconvenient, she had herself aborted again by def. in Oct 1953. Less than 2 years later, she again became pregnant. On 2/21/55, she again repaired to the def's clinic. Nita was again aborted of a 2-month old foetus, in consideration of the sum of P50.
It is the third and last abortion that constitutes pltff's basis in filing this action and award of damages The CA and the trial court predicated the award of damages upon the provisions of the initial par. of Art. 2206 of the NCC.
RULING: This award, we believe, to be error for the said art., in fixing an award for the death of a person, does not cover the case of an unborn foetus that is not endowed w/ personality.
RATIO: Parents of unborn foetus cannot sue for damages on its behalf. A husband of a woman who voluntarily procured her abortion could not recover damages from the physician who caused the same. (1) Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of person¬al injury or death pertains primarily to the injured, no such right of action could deriva¬tively accrue to the parents or heirs of an unborn child. In fact, even if a cause of action did accrue on behalf of the unborn child, the same was extinguished by its pre-natal death, since no transmission to anyone can take place from one that lacked juridical personality (or juridical capacity, as distinguished from capacity to act). It is no answer to invoke the provisional personality of a conceived child (conceptus pro nato habetur) under Article 40 of the Civil Cod, because that same article expressly limits such provisional personality by imposing the condition that the child should be subsequently born alive: "provided it be born later with the condition specified in the following article." In the present case, there is no dispute that the child was dead when separated from its mother's womb.
(2) This is not to say that the parents are not entitled to collect any damages at all. But such damages must be those inflicted directly upon them, as distinguished from the injury or violation of the rights of the deceased, his right to life and physical integrity. Because the parents cannot expect either help, support or services from an unborn child, they would nor¬mally be limited to moral damages for the illegal arrest of the normal development of the spes hominis that was the foetus, i.e., on account of distress and anguish attendant to its loss, and the disappointment of their parental expectations (Art. 2217, CC), as well as to exemplary damages, if the circumstances should warrant them (Art. 2230, CC). But in this case, there is no basis for an award of moral damages, evidently because the husband's indifference to the previous abortions clearly indicates that he was unconcerned with the frustration of his parental hopes and affection.
Art. 41. For civil purposes, the foetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother's womb. However, if the foetus had an intrauterine life of less than seven months, it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb.
Tolentino: Separation from Mother.-- This is produced by the cutting of the umbilical cord, whether the removal takes place naturally or by surgical operation.
Alive at Birth.-- The duration of extra-uterine life is immaterial; for acquisition of juridical personality, it is enough that the child lives even for an instant.
Test of Life.-- The general opinion is that independent life required for juridical personality can be shown only by complete respiration. The cry of the child, although it is not a necessary sign of life, is evidence that it has acquired complete respiration. Another indication of complete respiration is the floating of the lungs when placed in water; this means that air has penetrated into the lungs by breathing.
Viability Not Required.-- Viability means that the child is capable of living, and this is determined by the extent of the development of its organs.
Premature Birth.-- In this case, if the child does not live 24 hours completely separated from the mother's womb, it does not acquire juridical personality. This is an absolute requirement for feotuses w/c have an intrauterine life of less than 7 mos. (Balane quoting Manresa and JBL.)
"The aborted creature does not reach the category of a natural person and consequently is not born in the contemplation of law." (Geluz v. CA, supra.)
This is so, even if the child is killed before the period lapses and it can be proved that it could have survived that period if it had not been prevented by the wilful act of another. On the other hand, juridical personality is acquired even if the survival for 24 hours is caused only by medical or scientific means w/o w/c the child would have died before the lapse of that period.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON GELUZ V. CA [2 S 801 (1961)] - F: Nita Villanueva came to know the defendant (Antonio Geluz) for the first time in 1948-- thru her aunt. In 1950, she became preganant by her present husband before they were legally married. During to conceal her pregnancy from her parent, she had herself aborted by def. After the marriage w/ the pltff., she again became pregnant. As she was employed in the COMELEC and her pregnancy proved to be inconvenient, she had herself aborted again by def. in Oct 1953. Less than 2 years later, she again became pregnant. On 2/21/55, she again repaired to the def's clinic. Nita was again aborted of a 2-month old foetus, in consideration of the sum of P50.
It is the third and last abortion that constitutes pltff's basis in filing this action and award of damages The CA and the trial court predicated the award of damages upon the provisions of the initial par. of Art. 2206 of the NCC.
RULING: This award, we believe, to be error for the said art., in fixing an award for the death of a person, does not cover the case of an unborn foetus that is not endowed w/ personality.
RATIO: Parents of unborn foetus cannot sue for damages on its behalf. A husband of a woman who voluntarily procured her abortion could not recover damages from the physician who caused the same. (1) Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of person¬al injury or death pertains primarily to the injured, no such right of action could deriva¬tively accrue to the parents or heirs of an unborn child. In fact, even if a cause of action did accrue on behalf of the unborn child, the same was extinguished by its pre-natal death, since no transmission to anyone can take place from one that lacked juridical personality (or juridical capacity, as distinguished from capacity to act). It is no answer to invoke the provisional personality of a conceived child (conceptus pro nato habetur) under Article 40 of the Civil Cod, because that same article expressly limits such provisional personality by imposing the condition that the child should be subsequently born alive: "provided it be born later with the condition specified in the following article." In the present case, there is no dispute that the child was dead when separated from its mother's womb.
(2) This is not to say that the parents are not entitled to collect any damages at all. But such damages must be those inflicted directly upon them, as distinguished from the injury or violation of the rights of the deceased, his right to life and physical integrity. Because the parents cannot expect either help, support or services from an unborn child, they would nor¬mally be limited to moral damages for the illegal arrest of the normal development of the spes hominis that was the foetus, i.e., on account of distress and anguish attendant to its loss, and the disappointment of their parental expectations (Art. 2217, CC), as well as to exemplary damages, if the circumstances should warrant them (Art. 2230, CC). But in this case, there is no basis for an award of moral damages, evidently because the husband's indifference to the previous abortions clearly indicates that he was unconcerned with the frustration of his parental hopes and affection.
Art. 41. For civil purposes, the foetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother's womb. However, if the foetus had an intrauterine life of less than seven months, it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb.
Tolentino: Separation from Mother.-- This is produced by the cutting of the umbilical cord, whether the removal takes place naturally or by surgical operation.
Alive at Birth.-- The duration of extra-uterine life is immaterial; for acquisition of juridical personality, it is enough that the child lives even for an instant.
Test of Life.-- The general opinion is that independent life required for juridical personality can be shown only by complete respiration. The cry of the child, although it is not a necessary sign of life, is evidence that it has acquired complete respiration. Another indication of complete respiration is the floating of the lungs when placed in water; this means that air has penetrated into the lungs by breathing.
Viability Not Required.-- Viability means that the child is capable of living, and this is determined by the extent of the development of its organs.
Premature Birth.-- In this case, if the child does not live 24 hours completely separated from the mother's womb, it does not acquire juridical personality. This is an absolute requirement for feotuses w/c have an intrauterine life of less than 7 mos. (Balane quoting Manresa and JBL.)
"The aborted creature does not reach the category of a natural person and consequently is not born in the contemplation of law." (Geluz v. CA, supra.)
This is so, even if the child is killed before the period lapses and it can be proved that it could have survived that period if it had not been prevented by the wilful act of another. On the other hand, juridical personality is acquired even if the survival for 24 hours is caused only by medical or scientific means w/o w/c the child would have died before the lapse of that period.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON JOAQUIN V. NAVARRO
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON JOAQUIN V. NAVARRO [93 P 257] - F: On 2/6/45, while the battle for the liberation of Mla. was raging, the spouses Joaquin Navarro, Sr. (JN, Sr.) and Angela Joaquin (AJ), together w/ their 3 daughters and their son Joaquin, Jr. (JN, Jr.) and the latter's wife, sought refuge in the ground floor of the building known as the German Club. During their stay, the bldg. was packed w/ refugees, shells were exploding around, and the Club was set on fire. Simultaneously, the Japanese started shooting at the people inside the bldg, especially those who were trying to escape. the 3 daughters were hit and fell on the ground near the entrance; and JN, Sr. and his son decided to abandon the premises to seek a safer haven. They could not convince AJ, who refused to join them, and so JN, Sr. and his son, JN, Jr. and the latter's wife dashed out of the burning edifice. As they came out, JN, Jr. was shot in the head by a Japanese soldier and immediately dropped. The others lay flat on the ground in front of the Club premises to avoid the bullets. Minutes later, the Club, already on fire, collapsed, trapping many people, presumably including AJ. JN, Sr., Mrs. JN, Jr. managed to reach an air raid shelter nearby and stayed there for about 3 days, until they were forced to leave bec. the shelling tore it open. They fled but unfortunately met Japanese patrols who fired at them, killing the two.
The trial court found the deaths to have occurred in this order: 1st. The Navarro girls; 2nd. JN, Jr.; 3rd. AJ; 4th. JN, Sr. The CA found that the deaths occurred in the following order: 1st. The Navarro girls; 2nd. AJ; 3rd. JN, Jr.; 4th JN, Sr.
HELD: Where there are facts, known or knowable, from w/c a rational conclusion can be made, the presumption (in the Rules of Court) does not step in, and the rules of preponderance of evidence controls.
Are there particular circumstances on record from w/c reasonable inference of survivorship bet. AJ and her son can be drawn? Is Francisco Lopez' (the sole witness) testimony competent and sufficient for the purpose?
It is our opinion that the testimony contains facts quite adequate to solve the problem of survivorship bet. AJ and JN, Jr. and keep the statutory presumption out of the case. It is believed that in the light of the conditions painted by Lopez, a fair and reasonable inference can be arrived at, namely: that JN, Jr. died before his mother.
While the possibility that the mother died before the son can not be ruled out, it must be noted that this possibility is entirely speculative and must yield to the more rational deduction from proven facts that it was the other way around. JN, Jr., was killed, while running, in front of, and 15 meters from the Club. Still in the prime of life, 30, he must have negotiated that distance in 5 seconds or less, and so died w/in that interval from the time he dashed out of the bldg. AJ could have perished w/in those 5 or fewer seconds, but the probabilities that she did seem very remote.
According to Lopez' testimony, the collapse of the club occurred about 40 minutes after JN, Jr. died, and it was the collapse that killed AJ. The CA said that the interval bet. JN, Jr.'s death and the breaking down of the edifice was "minutes." Even so, it was much longer than 5 seconds, long enough to warrant the inference that AJ was still alive when her son expired.
The CA mentioned several causes, besides the bldg's collapse, by which AJ could have been killed. All these causes are speculative. xxx Nor was AJ likely to have been killed by falling beams bec. the bldg. was made of concrete and its collapse, more likely than not, was sudden. As to fumes, these do not cause instantaneous death; certainly, not w/in the brief space of 5 seconds bet. her son's departure and his death.
It will be said that all this is indulging in inferences that are not conclusive. Sec. 69 (ii) of R 123 does not require that the inference necessary to exclude the presumption therein provided be certain. It is the "particular circumstances from w/c 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 it may be plain enough to justify a finding of fact."
In conclusion, the presumption that AJ died before her son is based purely on surmises, speculations, or conjectures w/o any sure foundation in evidence. The opposite theory is deduced from established facts w/c, weighed by common experience, engender the inference as a very strong probability. Gauged by the doctrine of preponderance of evidence by w/c civil cases are decided, this inference ought to prevail.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON JOAQUIN V. NAVARRO [93 P 257] - F: On 2/6/45, while the battle for the liberation of Mla. was raging, the spouses Joaquin Navarro, Sr. (JN, Sr.) and Angela Joaquin (AJ), together w/ their 3 daughters and their son Joaquin, Jr. (JN, Jr.) and the latter's wife, sought refuge in the ground floor of the building known as the German Club. During their stay, the bldg. was packed w/ refugees, shells were exploding around, and the Club was set on fire. Simultaneously, the Japanese started shooting at the people inside the bldg, especially those who were trying to escape. the 3 daughters were hit and fell on the ground near the entrance; and JN, Sr. and his son decided to abandon the premises to seek a safer haven. They could not convince AJ, who refused to join them, and so JN, Sr. and his son, JN, Jr. and the latter's wife dashed out of the burning edifice. As they came out, JN, Jr. was shot in the head by a Japanese soldier and immediately dropped. The others lay flat on the ground in front of the Club premises to avoid the bullets. Minutes later, the Club, already on fire, collapsed, trapping many people, presumably including AJ. JN, Sr., Mrs. JN, Jr. managed to reach an air raid shelter nearby and stayed there for about 3 days, until they were forced to leave bec. the shelling tore it open. They fled but unfortunately met Japanese patrols who fired at them, killing the two.
The trial court found the deaths to have occurred in this order: 1st. The Navarro girls; 2nd. JN, Jr.; 3rd. AJ; 4th. JN, Sr. The CA found that the deaths occurred in the following order: 1st. The Navarro girls; 2nd. AJ; 3rd. JN, Jr.; 4th JN, Sr.
HELD: Where there are facts, known or knowable, from w/c a rational conclusion can be made, the presumption (in the Rules of Court) does not step in, and the rules of preponderance of evidence controls.
Are there particular circumstances on record from w/c reasonable inference of survivorship bet. AJ and her son can be drawn? Is Francisco Lopez' (the sole witness) testimony competent and sufficient for the purpose?
It is our opinion that the testimony contains facts quite adequate to solve the problem of survivorship bet. AJ and JN, Jr. and keep the statutory presumption out of the case. It is believed that in the light of the conditions painted by Lopez, a fair and reasonable inference can be arrived at, namely: that JN, Jr. died before his mother.
While the possibility that the mother died before the son can not be ruled out, it must be noted that this possibility is entirely speculative and must yield to the more rational deduction from proven facts that it was the other way around. JN, Jr., was killed, while running, in front of, and 15 meters from the Club. Still in the prime of life, 30, he must have negotiated that distance in 5 seconds or less, and so died w/in that interval from the time he dashed out of the bldg. AJ could have perished w/in those 5 or fewer seconds, but the probabilities that she did seem very remote.
According to Lopez' testimony, the collapse of the club occurred about 40 minutes after JN, Jr. died, and it was the collapse that killed AJ. The CA said that the interval bet. JN, Jr.'s death and the breaking down of the edifice was "minutes." Even so, it was much longer than 5 seconds, long enough to warrant the inference that AJ was still alive when her son expired.
The CA mentioned several causes, besides the bldg's collapse, by which AJ could have been killed. All these causes are speculative. xxx Nor was AJ likely to have been killed by falling beams bec. the bldg. was made of concrete and its collapse, more likely than not, was sudden. As to fumes, these do not cause instantaneous death; certainly, not w/in the brief space of 5 seconds bet. her son's departure and his death.
It will be said that all this is indulging in inferences that are not conclusive. Sec. 69 (ii) of R 123 does not require that the inference necessary to exclude the presumption therein provided be certain. It is the "particular circumstances from w/c 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 it may be plain enough to justify a finding of fact."
In conclusion, the presumption that AJ died before her son is based purely on surmises, speculations, or conjectures w/o any sure foundation in evidence. The opposite theory is deduced from established facts w/c, weighed by common experience, engender the inference as a very strong probability. Gauged by the doctrine of preponderance of evidence by w/c civil cases are decided, this inference ought to prevail.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON LANDICHO V. RELOVA
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON LANDICHO V. RELOVA [22 S 731 (1968)] - Where the first wife filed a criminal action for bigamy against the husband, and later the second wife filed a civil case for annulment of the marriage on the ground of force and intimidation, and the husband later files a civil case for annulment of marriage against the first wife, the civil cases are not prejudicial questions in the determination of his criminal liability for bigamy, since his consent to the second marriage is not in issue.
"The mere fact that there are actions to annul the marriages entered into by accused in a bigamy case does not mean that "prejudicial questions" are automatically raised in civil actions as to warrant the suspension of the criminal case. In order that the case of annulment of marriage be considered a prejudicial question to the bigamy case against the accused, it must be shown that petitioner's consent to such marriage must be the one that was obtained by means of duress, force and intimidation to show that his act in the second marriage must be involuntary and cannot be the basis of his conviction for the crime of bigamy. The situation in the present case is markedly different. At the time the petitioner was indicted for bigamy, the fact that two marriage ceremo¬nies had been contracted appeared to be indisputable. And it was the second spouse, not the peti¬tioner who filed the action for nullity on the ground of force, threats and intimidation. And it was only later that petitioner as defendant in the civil action, filed a third party complaint against the first spouse alleging that his marriage with her should be declared null and void on the ground of force, threats and intimidation. Assuming the first marriage was null and void on the ground alleged by petitioner, that fact would not be material to the outcome of the criminal case. Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of a competent court and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration, the presumption is that the marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declara¬tion of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy."
PRESUMPTION OF SIMULTANEOUS DEATH
Art. 43. If there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time and there shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other.
Tolentino: Application of Article.-- This article applies only when the question of survivorship involves persons "who are called to succeed each other." Hence, it cannot apply to other cases w/c do not involve succession.
When the persons involved would succeed each other, however, then this article applies, whether the death be actual or merely presumed from absence or other circumstances.
Are Rules of Court Repealed?-- There is every indication that the Code Commission intended to repeal the presumptions on survivorship under the Rules of Court, because the presumptions laid down therein are sometimes absurd and mere guesswork. [I Tolentino 176]
Compare with Rule 131, Sec. 5 (jj), (kk)
PRESUMPTION OF PRIORITY OF DEATH (Survivorship Agreement)
Rule 131, Sec. 5 (jj). That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have survived;
2. If both were above the age of sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived;
3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to have survived;
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the male is deemed to have survived; if the sex be the same, the older;
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived.
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at the same time. (Rules of Court.)
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON LANDICHO V. RELOVA [22 S 731 (1968)] - Where the first wife filed a criminal action for bigamy against the husband, and later the second wife filed a civil case for annulment of the marriage on the ground of force and intimidation, and the husband later files a civil case for annulment of marriage against the first wife, the civil cases are not prejudicial questions in the determination of his criminal liability for bigamy, since his consent to the second marriage is not in issue.
"The mere fact that there are actions to annul the marriages entered into by accused in a bigamy case does not mean that "prejudicial questions" are automatically raised in civil actions as to warrant the suspension of the criminal case. In order that the case of annulment of marriage be considered a prejudicial question to the bigamy case against the accused, it must be shown that petitioner's consent to such marriage must be the one that was obtained by means of duress, force and intimidation to show that his act in the second marriage must be involuntary and cannot be the basis of his conviction for the crime of bigamy. The situation in the present case is markedly different. At the time the petitioner was indicted for bigamy, the fact that two marriage ceremo¬nies had been contracted appeared to be indisputable. And it was the second spouse, not the peti¬tioner who filed the action for nullity on the ground of force, threats and intimidation. And it was only later that petitioner as defendant in the civil action, filed a third party complaint against the first spouse alleging that his marriage with her should be declared null and void on the ground of force, threats and intimidation. Assuming the first marriage was null and void on the ground alleged by petitioner, that fact would not be material to the outcome of the criminal case. Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the judgment of a competent court and only when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration, the presumption is that the marriage exists. Therefore, he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial declara¬tion of nullity of the first marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy."
PRESUMPTION OF SIMULTANEOUS DEATH
Art. 43. If there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time and there shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other.
Tolentino: Application of Article.-- This article applies only when the question of survivorship involves persons "who are called to succeed each other." Hence, it cannot apply to other cases w/c do not involve succession.
When the persons involved would succeed each other, however, then this article applies, whether the death be actual or merely presumed from absence or other circumstances.
Are Rules of Court Repealed?-- There is every indication that the Code Commission intended to repeal the presumptions on survivorship under the Rules of Court, because the presumptions laid down therein are sometimes absurd and mere guesswork. [I Tolentino 176]
Compare with Rule 131, Sec. 5 (jj), (kk)
PRESUMPTION OF PRIORITY OF DEATH (Survivorship Agreement)
Rule 131, Sec. 5 (jj). That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be inferred, the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and age of the sexes, according to the following rules:
1. If both were under the age of fifteen years, the older is deemed to have survived;
2. If both were above the age of sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived;
3. If one is under fifteen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to have survived;
4. If both be over fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the male is deemed to have survived; if the sex be the same, the older;
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived.
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, they shall be considered to have died at the same time. (Rules of Court.)
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON MERCED V. DIAZ
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON MERCED V. DIAZ [109 P 156 (1960)] - Where the husband files a civil case for annulment of the second marriage on the ground of lack of consent, and the second wife subsequently files a criminal case for bigamy against him, the civil case for annulment is a prejudicial question to be determined before the criminal case can proceed. Consent is an essential element of a valid marriage. Without consent, the marriage is void. But the question of invalidity cannot ordinarily be decided in the criminal action for bigamy but in a civil action for annulment. Since the validity of the second marriage, subject of the action for bigamy, cannot be determined in the criminal case, and since prosecution for bigamy does not lie unless the elements of the second marriage appear to exist, it is necessary that a decision in a civil action to the effect that the second marriage contains all the essentials of a marriage must first be secured.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON MERCED V. DIAZ [109 P 156 (1960)] - Where the husband files a civil case for annulment of the second marriage on the ground of lack of consent, and the second wife subsequently files a criminal case for bigamy against him, the civil case for annulment is a prejudicial question to be determined before the criminal case can proceed. Consent is an essential element of a valid marriage. Without consent, the marriage is void. But the question of invalidity cannot ordinarily be decided in the criminal action for bigamy but in a civil action for annulment. Since the validity of the second marriage, subject of the action for bigamy, cannot be determined in the criminal case, and since prosecution for bigamy does not lie unless the elements of the second marriage appear to exist, it is necessary that a decision in a civil action to the effect that the second marriage contains all the essentials of a marriage must first be secured.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON ESCUETA V. FANDIALAN
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON ESCUETA V. FANDIALAN [61 S 278 (1974)] - Where the cause of action for physical injuries accrued in 1952, and a criminal action for Frustrated Homicide was filed in 1955 and a reservation of civil action was made, and a civil action for damages was filed in 1956 but was dismissed for lack of interest, when the civil action was refiled in 1968, the said civil action has already prescribed. Since there was a reservation of the civil action, the prescription period for an action based on tort applies, which is 4 years from cause of action [Art. 1146 (1)]. Furthermore, no reservation was even required since it is an independent civil action under Art. 33.
Had no reservation been made, the civil case would have been impliedly instituted with the criminal, and since accused was convicted in 1955, an action to enforce judgment would only expire after ten years from judgment [Art. 1144 (3)].
Thus, where the offended party reserves the right to file a separate action for damages arising from physical injuries, the cause of action prescribes in four years, not ten years.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON ESCUETA V. FANDIALAN [61 S 278 (1974)] - Where the cause of action for physical injuries accrued in 1952, and a criminal action for Frustrated Homicide was filed in 1955 and a reservation of civil action was made, and a civil action for damages was filed in 1956 but was dismissed for lack of interest, when the civil action was refiled in 1968, the said civil action has already prescribed. Since there was a reservation of the civil action, the prescription period for an action based on tort applies, which is 4 years from cause of action [Art. 1146 (1)]. Furthermore, no reservation was even required since it is an independent civil action under Art. 33.
Had no reservation been made, the civil case would have been impliedly instituted with the criminal, and since accused was convicted in 1955, an action to enforce judgment would only expire after ten years from judgment [Art. 1144 (3)].
Thus, where the offended party reserves the right to file a separate action for damages arising from physical injuries, the cause of action prescribes in four years, not ten years.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON ABELLANA V. MARAVE
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON ABELLANA V. MARAVE [57 S 106 (1974)] - Where accused appealed his conviction by the City Court of Physical injuries thru reckless imprudence to the CFI, and while the case was on appeal, the heirs of the victim filed an independent civil action against him and his employer in another branch, the civil action will prosper despite the lack of reservation. The restrictive interpretation of the Rules of Court provision on civil actions requiring reservation as to include the independent civil action under Art. 33 does not only result in the emasculation of the civil code provision but also gives rise to a serious constitutional question. Article 33 is quite clear. "The right to proceed independently of the criminal prosecution under Article 33 of the Civil Code is a SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT, not to be frittered away by a construction that could render it nugatory, if through oversight, the offended parties failed at the initial stage to seek recovery for damages in a civil suit. The grant of power to this Court, both in the present constitution and under the 1935 Charter, does not extend to any diminution, increase or modification of substantive right.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON ABELLANA V. MARAVE [57 S 106 (1974)] - Where accused appealed his conviction by the City Court of Physical injuries thru reckless imprudence to the CFI, and while the case was on appeal, the heirs of the victim filed an independent civil action against him and his employer in another branch, the civil action will prosper despite the lack of reservation. The restrictive interpretation of the Rules of Court provision on civil actions requiring reservation as to include the independent civil action under Art. 33 does not only result in the emasculation of the civil code provision but also gives rise to a serious constitutional question. Article 33 is quite clear. "The right to proceed independently of the criminal prosecution under Article 33 of the Civil Code is a SUBSTANTIVE RIGHT, not to be frittered away by a construction that could render it nugatory, if through oversight, the offended parties failed at the initial stage to seek recovery for damages in a civil suit. The grant of power to this Court, both in the present constitution and under the 1935 Charter, does not extend to any diminution, increase or modification of substantive right.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON PADILLA V. CA
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON PADILLA V. CA [129 S 558 (1990)] - Where in the complaint for Grave Coercion against the mayor and policemen, they were acquitted on the ground that their guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, such acquittal will not bar a civil case for damages arising from the demolition of petition¬er's market stalls. The acquittal on the ground that their guilt has not been proven beyond reasona¬ble doubt refers to the element of Grave Coercion and not to the fact of that the stalls were not demolished. Under the Rules of Court, the extinction of penal action carries with it the extinction of civil only if there is a declaration that facts from which civil may arise did not exist. Also, Art. 29 of the Civil Code does not state that civil liability can be recovered only in a separate civil action. The civil liability can be recovered either in the same or a separate action. The purpose of recovering in the same action is to dispense with the filing of another civil action where the same evidence is to be presented, and the unsettling implications of permitting reinsti¬tuttion of a separate civil action. However, a separate civil action is warranted when (1) addition¬al facts are to be established; (2) there is more evidence to be adduced; (3) there is full termina¬tion of the criminal case and a separate complaint would be more efficacious than a remand. Hence, CA did not err in awarding damages despite the acquittal.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON PADILLA V. CA [129 S 558 (1990)] - Where in the complaint for Grave Coercion against the mayor and policemen, they were acquitted on the ground that their guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, such acquittal will not bar a civil case for damages arising from the demolition of petition¬er's market stalls. The acquittal on the ground that their guilt has not been proven beyond reasona¬ble doubt refers to the element of Grave Coercion and not to the fact of that the stalls were not demolished. Under the Rules of Court, the extinction of penal action carries with it the extinction of civil only if there is a declaration that facts from which civil may arise did not exist. Also, Art. 29 of the Civil Code does not state that civil liability can be recovered only in a separate civil action. The civil liability can be recovered either in the same or a separate action. The purpose of recovering in the same action is to dispense with the filing of another civil action where the same evidence is to be presented, and the unsettling implications of permitting reinsti¬tuttion of a separate civil action. However, a separate civil action is warranted when (1) addition¬al facts are to be established; (2) there is more evidence to be adduced; (3) there is full termina¬tion of the criminal case and a separate complaint would be more efficacious than a remand. Hence, CA did not err in awarding damages despite the acquittal.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON MENDOZA V. ARRIETA
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON MENDOZA V. ARRIETA [91 S 113 (1979)] - Where in a multiple highway accident involving a truck which hit a jeep which then hit a Mercedes Benz coming from the opposite direction, two criminal actions for reckless imprudence was filed against the drivers of the truck and jeep, and the driver of the truck was found guilty and the driver of the jeep acquitted, a civil action for damages against the owner of the truck would prosper as there is no res judicata, the parties and causes of action being different. Furthermore, under Art. 31 of the Civil Code, When the civil action is based on an obli¬gation not arising from crime, the civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceed¬ings regardless of result of the latter. Citing Garcia v. Florido,
"As we have stated at the outset, the same negligent act causing damages may produce a civil liabil¬ity arising from crime or create an action for quasi-delict or culpa extra-contractual. The former is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a distinct and independent negligenc, having always had its own foundation and individuality. Some legal writers are of the view that in accord¬ance with Article 31, the civil action based upon quasi-delict may proced independently of the criminal proceeding for criminal negligence and regardless of the result of the latter. Hence, the proviso in Section 2 of Rule 111 (requiring reservation of civil actions) with reference to Articles 32, 33, and 34 of the Civil Code, is contrary to the letter and spirit of the said articles, for these articles were drafted and are intended to constitute as exceptions to the general rule stated in what is now Section 1 of Rule 111. The proviso, which is procedura, may also be regarded as an unauthorized amendment of substantive law, Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code, which do not provide for the reservation required in the proviso."
However, a civil action for damages against the owner-driver of the jeep would not prosper because civil liability arising from crime co-exists with criminal liability in criminal cases. Hence, the offended party had the option to prosecute on civil liability arising from crime or from quasi-delict. His active participation in the criminal case implies that he opted to recover the civil liability arising from crime. Hence, since the acquittal in the criminal case, which was not based on reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages can no longer be instituted.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON MENDOZA V. ARRIETA [91 S 113 (1979)] - Where in a multiple highway accident involving a truck which hit a jeep which then hit a Mercedes Benz coming from the opposite direction, two criminal actions for reckless imprudence was filed against the drivers of the truck and jeep, and the driver of the truck was found guilty and the driver of the jeep acquitted, a civil action for damages against the owner of the truck would prosper as there is no res judicata, the parties and causes of action being different. Furthermore, under Art. 31 of the Civil Code, When the civil action is based on an obli¬gation not arising from crime, the civil action may proceed independently of the criminal proceed¬ings regardless of result of the latter. Citing Garcia v. Florido,
"As we have stated at the outset, the same negligent act causing damages may produce a civil liabil¬ity arising from crime or create an action for quasi-delict or culpa extra-contractual. The former is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a distinct and independent negligenc, having always had its own foundation and individuality. Some legal writers are of the view that in accord¬ance with Article 31, the civil action based upon quasi-delict may proced independently of the criminal proceeding for criminal negligence and regardless of the result of the latter. Hence, the proviso in Section 2 of Rule 111 (requiring reservation of civil actions) with reference to Articles 32, 33, and 34 of the Civil Code, is contrary to the letter and spirit of the said articles, for these articles were drafted and are intended to constitute as exceptions to the general rule stated in what is now Section 1 of Rule 111. The proviso, which is procedura, may also be regarded as an unauthorized amendment of substantive law, Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code, which do not provide for the reservation required in the proviso."
However, a civil action for damages against the owner-driver of the jeep would not prosper because civil liability arising from crime co-exists with criminal liability in criminal cases. Hence, the offended party had the option to prosecute on civil liability arising from crime or from quasi-delict. His active participation in the criminal case implies that he opted to recover the civil liability arising from crime. Hence, since the acquittal in the criminal case, which was not based on reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages can no longer be instituted.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON BELLIS V. BELLIS
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON BELLIS V. BELLIS [20 S 358 (1967)] - Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and domiciled in Texas, the intrinsic validity of his will should be governed by his national law. Since Texas law does not require legitimes, then his will which deprived his illegitimate children of the legitimes is valid.
While Art. 17, par. 3 provides that prohibitive laws of our country concerning persons and their property shall not be rendered ineffective by contrary laws in a foreign country, this cannot be considered an exception to Art. 16 which categorically provides for the situations when the national law shall apply. Precisely, Congress deleted the phrase "notwithstanding the provisions of this and the next preceding article" when they incorporated Art. 11 of the Old Civil Code as Art. 17 of the New Civil Code, while reproducing without substantial change Art. 10 paragraph 2 of the Old Civil Code as Art. 16 of the New Civil Code. It must have been their purpose to make Art. 16, paragraph 2, a specific provision in itself which must be applied in testate and intestate succes¬sions.
Thus, in Miciano v. Brimo, a provision in a foreigner's will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters that Art. 10 - now Art. 16 - states said national law shall govern.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON BELLIS V. BELLIS [20 S 358 (1967)] - Where the testator was a citizen of Texas and domiciled in Texas, the intrinsic validity of his will should be governed by his national law. Since Texas law does not require legitimes, then his will which deprived his illegitimate children of the legitimes is valid.
While Art. 17, par. 3 provides that prohibitive laws of our country concerning persons and their property shall not be rendered ineffective by contrary laws in a foreign country, this cannot be considered an exception to Art. 16 which categorically provides for the situations when the national law shall apply. Precisely, Congress deleted the phrase "notwithstanding the provisions of this and the next preceding article" when they incorporated Art. 11 of the Old Civil Code as Art. 17 of the New Civil Code, while reproducing without substantial change Art. 10 paragraph 2 of the Old Civil Code as Art. 16 of the New Civil Code. It must have been their purpose to make Art. 16, paragraph 2, a specific provision in itself which must be applied in testate and intestate succes¬sions.
Thus, in Miciano v. Brimo, a provision in a foreigner's will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law, is illegal and void, for his national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters that Art. 10 - now Art. 16 - states said national law shall govern.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON AZNAR V. GARCIA
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON AZNAR V. GARCIA [61 O.G. No. 46 p. 7303 (1963)] - Where the testator was a citizen of California, and domiciled in the Philippines, the amount of successional rights should be governed by his na¬tional law. However, since the conflicts of law rules of California provides that in case of citi¬zens who are residents of another country, the law of the country of domicile should apply, then Philippine law on legitimes was applied. Hence, under Philippine laws, the acknowledged natural daughter cannot be deprived of her legitime.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON AZNAR V. GARCIA [61 O.G. No. 46 p. 7303 (1963)] - Where the testator was a citizen of California, and domiciled in the Philippines, the amount of successional rights should be governed by his na¬tional law. However, since the conflicts of law rules of California provides that in case of citi¬zens who are residents of another country, the law of the country of domicile should apply, then Philippine law on legitimes was applied. Hence, under Philippine laws, the acknowledged natural daughter cannot be deprived of her legitime.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON VAN DORN V. ROMILLO
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON VAN DORN V. ROMILLO [139 SCRA 139] - F: Petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn is a citizen of the Phils. while private resp. Richard Upton is a US citizen; they were married in HK in 1972; after the marriage, they established their residence in the Phils. and begot 2 children; the parties were divorced in Nevada, US, in 1982; and petitioner has remarried also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.
On 6/18/83, Upton filed a suit against petitioner in the RTC-Pasay, stating that petitioner's business in Ermita, Mla. (the Galleon Shop), is conjugal prop. and asking that petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of that business, and that Upton be declared as having the right to manage the conjugal prop.
Is it true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Art. 13, NCC, only Phil. nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, w/c may be recognized in the Phils., provided they are valid according to their national law.
In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private resps from the marriage from the stds of American law, under w/c divorce dissolves the marriage.
Thus, pursuant to his national law, Upton 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. xxx.
To maintain, as Upton does, that under our laws, petitioner has to be considered still married to him and still subject to a wife's obligations under the NCC cannot be just. Petitioner should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to private resp. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs w/ possible rights to conjugal
prop. She should not be discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are to be observed.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON VAN DORN V. ROMILLO [139 SCRA 139] - F: Petitioner Alice Reyes Van Dorn is a citizen of the Phils. while private resp. Richard Upton is a US citizen; they were married in HK in 1972; after the marriage, they established their residence in the Phils. and begot 2 children; the parties were divorced in Nevada, US, in 1982; and petitioner has remarried also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.
On 6/18/83, Upton filed a suit against petitioner in the RTC-Pasay, stating that petitioner's business in Ermita, Mla. (the Galleon Shop), is conjugal prop. and asking that petitioner be ordered to render an accounting of that business, and that Upton be declared as having the right to manage the conjugal prop.
Is it true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Art. 13, NCC, only Phil. nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, w/c may be recognized in the Phils., provided they are valid according to their national law.
In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private resps from the marriage from the stds of American law, under w/c divorce dissolves the marriage.
Thus, pursuant to his national law, Upton 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. xxx.
To maintain, as Upton does, that under our laws, petitioner has to be considered still married to him and still subject to a wife's obligations under the NCC cannot be just. Petitioner should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to private resp. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs w/ possible rights to conjugal
prop. She should not be discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are to be observed.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST OF TENCHAVEZ V. ESCANO
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST OF TENCHAVEZ V. ESCANO [15 SCRA 355] - F: Pastor Tenchavez (PT), 32, married Vicenta Escano (VE), 27 on Feb. 24, 1948, in Cebu City. As of June 1948, the newly-weds were already estranged. On 6/24/50, VE left for the US. On 8/22/50, she filed a verified complaint for divorce against the herein pltff. in the State of Nevada on the ground of "extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character."
On 10/21050, a decree of divorce was issued by the Nevada Court. On 9/13/54, VE married an American Russel Leo Moran IN Nevada. She now lives w/ him in California and by him, has begotten children. She acquired American citizenship on 8/8/58. On 7/30/55, PT filed a complaint for legal separation and damages against VE and her parents in the CFI-Cebu.
HELD: At the time the divorce decree was issued, VE like her husband, was still a Filipino citizen. She was then subject to Philippine law u nder Art. 15, NCC. Philippine law, under the NCC then now in force, does not admit absolute divorce but only provides for legal separation.
For Phil. courts to recognize foreign divorce decrees bet. Filipino citizens would be a patent violation of the declared policy of the State, especially in view of the 3rd par. of Art. 17, NCC. Moreover, recognition would give rise to scandalous discrimination in favor of wealthy citizens to the detriment of those members of our society whose means do not permit them to sojourn abroad and obtain absolute divorce outside the Phils.
Therefore, a foreign divorce bet. Filipino citizens, sought and decreed after the effectivity of the NCC, is not entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST OF TENCHAVEZ V. ESCANO [15 SCRA 355] - F: Pastor Tenchavez (PT), 32, married Vicenta Escano (VE), 27 on Feb. 24, 1948, in Cebu City. As of June 1948, the newly-weds were already estranged. On 6/24/50, VE left for the US. On 8/22/50, she filed a verified complaint for divorce against the herein pltff. in the State of Nevada on the ground of "extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character."
On 10/21050, a decree of divorce was issued by the Nevada Court. On 9/13/54, VE married an American Russel Leo Moran IN Nevada. She now lives w/ him in California and by him, has begotten children. She acquired American citizenship on 8/8/58. On 7/30/55, PT filed a complaint for legal separation and damages against VE and her parents in the CFI-Cebu.
HELD: At the time the divorce decree was issued, VE like her husband, was still a Filipino citizen. She was then subject to Philippine law u nder Art. 15, NCC. Philippine law, under the NCC then now in force, does not admit absolute divorce but only provides for legal separation.
For Phil. courts to recognize foreign divorce decrees bet. Filipino citizens would be a patent violation of the declared policy of the State, especially in view of the 3rd par. of Art. 17, NCC. Moreover, recognition would give rise to scandalous discrimination in favor of wealthy citizens to the detriment of those members of our society whose means do not permit them to sojourn abroad and obtain absolute divorce outside the Phils.
Therefore, a foreign divorce bet. Filipino citizens, sought and decreed after the effectivity of the NCC, is not entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
Case Digest on People vs. Pinuila
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON PEOPLE V. PINUILA [55 O.G. 23 p. 4228 (1958)] - Where accused who were charged with murder, filed a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, which the lower court granted, and the gov-ernment, following, the doctrine of People v. Salico which held that an appeal by the government does not place accused in double jeopardy, this interpretation, though later abandoned, must be held applicable to accused, and they cannot invoke the defense of double jeopardy.
People v. Salico has long become final and conclusive and has become the law of the case. It may be erroneous, judged by the law on double jeopardy as recently interpreted by the SC. Even so, it may not be disturbed and modified. The SC's recent interpretation of the law may be applied to new cases, but certainly not to an old one finally and conclusively determined.
"Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal. More specifical¬ly, it means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule of decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, WHETHER CORRECT ON GENERAL PRINCIPLES OR NOT, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court." [21 C.J.S. 330]
"It may be stated that as a rule of general application, where the evidence on a second or succeeding appeal is substantially the same as that on the first or preceding appeal, all matters, questions, points or issues adjudicated on the prior appeal are the law of the case on all subse¬quent appeals and will not be reconsidered or readjudicated therein."
The rule is founded on the policy of ending litigation, and to be necessary to enable an appel¬late court to perform its duties satisfactorily and effectively.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
CASE DIGEST ON PEOPLE V. PINUILA [55 O.G. 23 p. 4228 (1958)] - Where accused who were charged with murder, filed a motion to quash on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, which the lower court granted, and the gov-ernment, following, the doctrine of People v. Salico which held that an appeal by the government does not place accused in double jeopardy, this interpretation, though later abandoned, must be held applicable to accused, and they cannot invoke the defense of double jeopardy.
People v. Salico has long become final and conclusive and has become the law of the case. It may be erroneous, judged by the law on double jeopardy as recently interpreted by the SC. Even so, it may not be disturbed and modified. The SC's recent interpretation of the law may be applied to new cases, but certainly not to an old one finally and conclusively determined.
"Law of the case has been defined as the opinion delivered on a former appeal. More specifical¬ly, it means that whatever is once irrevocably established as the controlling legal rule of decision between the same parties in the same case continues to be the law of the case, WHETHER CORRECT ON GENERAL PRINCIPLES OR NOT, so long as the facts on which such decision was predicated continue to be the facts of the case before the court." [21 C.J.S. 330]
"It may be stated that as a rule of general application, where the evidence on a second or succeeding appeal is substantially the same as that on the first or preceding appeal, all matters, questions, points or issues adjudicated on the prior appeal are the law of the case on all subse¬quent appeals and will not be reconsidered or readjudicated therein."
The rule is founded on the policy of ending litigation, and to be necessary to enable an appel¬late court to perform its duties satisfactorily and effectively.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
Case Digest on People vs. Donato
PEOPLE V. DONATO [198 S 130 (1991)] - The doctrine of waiver extends to the rights and privileges of any character, and since the word "waiver" covers any conceivable right, it is the general rule that a person may waive any matter which affects his property, and any alienable right or privilege of which he is the owner or which belongs to him or to which he is legally entitled whether secured by contract, conferred
with statute, or guaranteed by constitution, provided such rights and privi¬leges do not infringe on the rights of others, and further provided the waiver of the right or privilege is not forbidden by law, and does not contravene public policy.
Rights guaranteed to one accused of a crime fall naturally into two classes: (a) Those in which the state, as well as the accused, is interested, and (b) those which are personal to the accused, which are in the nature of personal privileges. Those of the first class cannot be waived, those of the second may be. (Commonwealth v. Petrillo).
This Court has recognized waivers of constitutional rights such as the rights against unreason¬able searches and seizures, the right to counsel and to remain silent, and the right to be heard.
The right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can be waived. It is a right personal to the accused and whose waiver would not be contrary to law, public order, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
with statute, or guaranteed by constitution, provided such rights and privi¬leges do not infringe on the rights of others, and further provided the waiver of the right or privilege is not forbidden by law, and does not contravene public policy.
Rights guaranteed to one accused of a crime fall naturally into two classes: (a) Those in which the state, as well as the accused, is interested, and (b) those which are personal to the accused, which are in the nature of personal privileges. Those of the first class cannot be waived, those of the second may be. (Commonwealth v. Petrillo).
This Court has recognized waivers of constitutional rights such as the rights against unreason¬able searches and seizures, the right to counsel and to remain silent, and the right to be heard.
The right to bail is another of the constitutional rights which can be waived. It is a right personal to the accused and whose waiver would not be contrary to law, public order, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
Case Digest of Kasilag vs. Rodriguez
KASILAG V. RODRIGUEZ [ 69 P 217] - F: Responds, Rafaela Rodriguez, et al., children and heirs of the deceased Emiliana Ambrosio, commenced a civil case to recover from the petitioner the possession of the land and its improvements granted by way of homestead to Emiliana Ambrosio (EA).
The parties entered into a contract of mortgage of the improvements on the land acquired as homestead to secure the payment of the indebtedness for P1,000 plus interest. In clause V, the parties stipulated that EA was to pay, w/in 4 1/2 yrs, the debt w/ interest thereon, in w/c event the mortgage would not have any effect; in clause VI, the parties agreed that the tax on the land and its improvements, during the existence of the mortgage, should be paid by the owner of the land; in clause VII, it was covenanted that w/in 30 days from the date of the contract, the owner of the land would file a motion in the CFI of Bataan asking that cert. of title no. 325 be cancelled and that in lieu thereof another be issued under the provisions of RA 496; in clause VIII the parties agreed that should EA fail to redeem the mortgage w/in the stipulated period of 4 1/2 yrs, she would execute an absolute deed of sale of the land in favor of the mortgagee, the petitioner, for the same amount of the loan including unpaid interest; and in clause IX it was stipulated that in case the motion to be presented under clause VII should be disapproved by the CFI-Bataan, the contract of sale of sale would automatically become void and the mortgage would subsist in all its force.
One year after the execution of the mortgage deed, it came to pass that EA was unable to pay the stipulated interest as well as the tax on the land and its improvements. For this reason, she and the petitioner entered into another verbal contract whereby she conveyed to the latter the possession of the land on condition that the latter would not collect the interest on the loan, would attend to the payment of the land tax, would benefit by the fruits of the land, and would introduce improvements thereon.
HELD: The possession by the petitioner and his receipts of the fruits of the land, considered as integral elements of the contract of antichresis, are illegal and void agreements, bec. the such contract is a lien and as such is expressly prohibited by Sec 116 of Act No. 2874, as amended. The CA held that petitioner acted In BF in taking possession of the land bec. he knew that the contract he made w/ EA was an absolute sale, and further, that the latter could not sell the land bec. it is prohibited by Sec. 116 of Act 2874.
xxx [A] person is deemed a possessor in BF when he knows that there is a flaw in his title or in the manner of its acquisition, by w/c it is invalidated.
The question to be answered is w/n the petitioner should be deemed a possessor in GF bec. he was unaware of any flaw in his title or in the manner of its acquisition by w/c it is invalidated. Ignorance of the flaw is the keynote of the rule. From the facts as found by the CA, we can neither deduce nor presume that the petitioner was aware of a flaw in his title or in the manner of its acquisition, aside from the prohibition contained in Sec. 116. This being the case, the question is w/n GF may be premised upon ignorance of the laws.
Gross and inexcusable ignorance of the law may not be the basis of GF but excusable ignorance may be such basis (if it is based upon ignorance of a fact.) It is a fact that the petitioner is not conversant w/ the laws bec. he is not a lawyer. In accepting the mortgage of the improvements he proceeded on the well-grounded belief that he was not violating the prohibition regarding the alienation of the land. In taking possession thereof and in consenting to receive its fruits, he did not know, as clearly as a jurist does, that the possession and enjoyment of the fruits are attributes of the contract of antichresis and that the latter, as a lien, was prohibited by Sec. 116. Thus, as to the petitioner, his ignorance of the provisions of sec. 116 is excusable and may be the basis of GF.
The petitioners being in GF, the respondents may elect to have the improvements introduced by the petitioner by paying the latter the value thereof, P3,000, or to compel the petitioner to buy and have the land where the improvements or plants are found, by paying them its market value to be fixed by the court of origin, upon hearing the parties.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
The parties entered into a contract of mortgage of the improvements on the land acquired as homestead to secure the payment of the indebtedness for P1,000 plus interest. In clause V, the parties stipulated that EA was to pay, w/in 4 1/2 yrs, the debt w/ interest thereon, in w/c event the mortgage would not have any effect; in clause VI, the parties agreed that the tax on the land and its improvements, during the existence of the mortgage, should be paid by the owner of the land; in clause VII, it was covenanted that w/in 30 days from the date of the contract, the owner of the land would file a motion in the CFI of Bataan asking that cert. of title no. 325 be cancelled and that in lieu thereof another be issued under the provisions of RA 496; in clause VIII the parties agreed that should EA fail to redeem the mortgage w/in the stipulated period of 4 1/2 yrs, she would execute an absolute deed of sale of the land in favor of the mortgagee, the petitioner, for the same amount of the loan including unpaid interest; and in clause IX it was stipulated that in case the motion to be presented under clause VII should be disapproved by the CFI-Bataan, the contract of sale of sale would automatically become void and the mortgage would subsist in all its force.
One year after the execution of the mortgage deed, it came to pass that EA was unable to pay the stipulated interest as well as the tax on the land and its improvements. For this reason, she and the petitioner entered into another verbal contract whereby she conveyed to the latter the possession of the land on condition that the latter would not collect the interest on the loan, would attend to the payment of the land tax, would benefit by the fruits of the land, and would introduce improvements thereon.
HELD: The possession by the petitioner and his receipts of the fruits of the land, considered as integral elements of the contract of antichresis, are illegal and void agreements, bec. the such contract is a lien and as such is expressly prohibited by Sec 116 of Act No. 2874, as amended. The CA held that petitioner acted In BF in taking possession of the land bec. he knew that the contract he made w/ EA was an absolute sale, and further, that the latter could not sell the land bec. it is prohibited by Sec. 116 of Act 2874.
xxx [A] person is deemed a possessor in BF when he knows that there is a flaw in his title or in the manner of its acquisition, by w/c it is invalidated.
The question to be answered is w/n the petitioner should be deemed a possessor in GF bec. he was unaware of any flaw in his title or in the manner of its acquisition by w/c it is invalidated. Ignorance of the flaw is the keynote of the rule. From the facts as found by the CA, we can neither deduce nor presume that the petitioner was aware of a flaw in his title or in the manner of its acquisition, aside from the prohibition contained in Sec. 116. This being the case, the question is w/n GF may be premised upon ignorance of the laws.
Gross and inexcusable ignorance of the law may not be the basis of GF but excusable ignorance may be such basis (if it is based upon ignorance of a fact.) It is a fact that the petitioner is not conversant w/ the laws bec. he is not a lawyer. In accepting the mortgage of the improvements he proceeded on the well-grounded belief that he was not violating the prohibition regarding the alienation of the land. In taking possession thereof and in consenting to receive its fruits, he did not know, as clearly as a jurist does, that the possession and enjoyment of the fruits are attributes of the contract of antichresis and that the latter, as a lien, was prohibited by Sec. 116. Thus, as to the petitioner, his ignorance of the provisions of sec. 116 is excusable and may be the basis of GF.
The petitioners being in GF, the respondents may elect to have the improvements introduced by the petitioner by paying the latter the value thereof, P3,000, or to compel the petitioner to buy and have the land where the improvements or plants are found, by paying them its market value to be fixed by the court of origin, upon hearing the parties.
For more case digests visit http://www.pinaylawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
Case Digest of Tanada vs. Tuvera
TANADA V. TUVERA [136 S 27] - F: Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right recognized in the Constitution, as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the OG or otherwise effectively promulgated, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in the OG of various PDs, LOIs, general orders, proclamations, EOs, letters of implementation and administrative orders. Respondents contend, among others that publication in the OG is not a sine qua non requirement for the
effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. It is thus submitted that since the presidential issuances in question contain special provisions as to the date they are to take effect, publication in the OG is indispensable for their effectivity. The point stressed is anchored on Art. 2 of NCC.
HELD: The interpretation given by respondent is in accord w/ this Court's construction of said article. In a long line of decisions, this Court has ruled that publication in the OG is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date-- for then the date of publication is material for determining its date of effectivity, w/c is the 15th day following its publication-- but not when the law itself provides for the date when it goes into effect.
Respondent's argument, however, is logically correct only insofar as it equates the effectivity of laws w/ the fact of publication. Considered in the light of other statutes applicable to the issue at hand, the conclusion is easily reached that said Art. 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication in the OG, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity.
xxx The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by law. The clear object of the law is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws w/c are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. W/o such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of w/c he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one. It is needless to say that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents.
For more case digests visit www.PinayLawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. It is thus submitted that since the presidential issuances in question contain special provisions as to the date they are to take effect, publication in the OG is indispensable for their effectivity. The point stressed is anchored on Art. 2 of NCC.
HELD: The interpretation given by respondent is in accord w/ this Court's construction of said article. In a long line of decisions, this Court has ruled that publication in the OG is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date-- for then the date of publication is material for determining its date of effectivity, w/c is the 15th day following its publication-- but not when the law itself provides for the date when it goes into effect.
Respondent's argument, however, is logically correct only insofar as it equates the effectivity of laws w/ the fact of publication. Considered in the light of other statutes applicable to the issue at hand, the conclusion is easily reached that said Art. 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication in the OG, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity.
xxx The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by law. The clear object of the law is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws w/c are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. W/o such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of w/c he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one. It is needless to say that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents.
For more case digests visit www.PinayLawyer.com
case digest, case digests, supreme court case digests, supreme court case digest, pinaylawyer.com, www.pinaylawyer.com, case digest, case digest of, case digest on, supreme court case digest, supreme court case digests
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)