Civil Law Review Case Doctrines - Part I

Upon my reaching the 4th year of law school, I am enthralled at the quick passage of time. Four years ago, I was only a freshman with budding desires to become a lawyer. Now, I am just a stone throw away from graduating, and hopefully, taking the bar.

But being a senior comes with it great responsibilities. And foremost is the huge amount of paper works and cases that one has to read, aside from the volumes of books to review and codal provisions to re-familiarize or as one has candidly placed it, memorize it na talaga.

As part of my social service to those who would be in the same vein as I am today in the future, I am starting a new segment of this blog. I shall try to condense the cases I read into the primary doctrines it has pronounced. Just a forewarning, this is not a supplement to your own reading of the cases. Read it from the original. I did. The reason - I WANT TO BE A LAWYER. So if you want to be, READ THE ORIGINAL.

This is the First Part of the Case Doctrines under Civil Law Review 1 under the current Associate Dean of the Far Eastern University - Institute of Law, Atty. VMP.

PRELIMINARY CHAPTER

1. Tanada v. Tuvera (1985) - The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by law. Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden or. the people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall within this category. Other presidential issuances which apply only to particular persons or class of persons such as administrative and executive orders need not be published on the assumption that they have been circularized to all concerned.

2. Tanada v. Tuvera (1986) - We hold therefore that all statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. x x x However, no publication is required of the instructions issued by, say, the Minister of Social Welfare on the case studies to be made in petitions for adoption or the rules laid down by the head of a government agency on the assignments or workload of his personnel or the wearing of office uniforms.

3. Philsa v. SOLE - Considering that POEA Administrative Circular No. 2 was never filed with the National Administrative Register, the same cannot be used as basis for the imposition of administrative sanctions against petitioner. x x x Administrative rules and regulations must be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation., The only exceptions are interpretative regulations, those merely internal in nature, or those so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules and guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties.

4. Unciano Paramedical v. CA - The ruling in the Non case should not be given a retroactive effect to cases that arose before its promulgation on May 20, 1990, as in this case, which was filed on April 16, 1990. If it were otherwise, it would result in oppression to petitioners and other schools similarly situated who relied on the ruling in the Alcuaz case, promulgated on May 2, 1988, which recognized the termination of contract theory. x x x In the present case, the contract between the parties was validly terminated upon the end of the first semester of school year 1989-1990, or in October, 1989. This is the status quo. The trial court gravely abused its discretion in issuing the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction which ordered petitioners to allow private respondents "to enroll for the first semester of school year 1990-1190." Guided by the Capitol case, certainly, this writ will not restore the status quo but will go a step backward, then restore the condition preceding the status quo. Private respondents do not possess any clear legal right to re-enroll, corollarily, petitioners are not obliged legally to re-admit them.

5. Cui v. Arellano University – In order to declare a contract void as against public policy, a court must find that the contract as to consideration or the thing to be done, contravenes some established interest of society, or is inconsistent with sound policy and good morals or tends clearly to undermine the security of individual rights.

6. People v. Jabinal - The doctrine laid down in Lucero and Macarandang was part of the jurisprudence, hence of the law, of the land, at the time appellant was found in possession of the firearm in question and when he arraigned by the trial court. It is true that the doctrine was overruled in the Mapa case in 1967, but when a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a different view is adopted, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively, and should not apply to parties who had relied on the old doctrine and acted on the faith thereof. This is especially true in the construction and application of criminal laws, where it is necessary that the punishability of an act be reasonably foreseen for the guidance of society.

7. Van Dorn v. Romillo - It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our concept of public police and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage. x x x Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case below as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country's Court, which validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.

8. Quita v. CA - . We deduce that the finding on their citizenship pertained solely to the time of their marriage as the trial court was not supplied with a basis to determine petitioner's citizenship at the time of their divorce. The doubt persisted as to whether she was still a Filipino citizen when their divorce was decreed. The trial court must have overlooked the materiality of this aspect. Once proved that she was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of their divorce, Van Dorn would become applicable and petitioner could very well lose her right to inherit from Arturo.

9. Catalan v. Braganza - In fine, petitioner’s personality to file the petition to declare the nullity of marriage cannot be ascertained because of the absence of the divorce decree and the foreign law allowing it. Hence, a remand of the case to the trial court for reception of additional evidence is necessary to determine whether respondent Orlando was granted a divorce decree and whether the foreign law which granted the same allows or restricts remarriage.

10. San Luis v. San Luis – Petitioners cite Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code in stating that the divorce is void under Philippine law insofar as Filipinos are concerned. However, in light of this Court’s rulings in the cases discussed above, the Filipino spouse should not be discriminated against in his own country if the ends of justice are to be served. x x x Applying the above doctrine in the instant case, the divorce decree allegedly obtained by Merry Lee which absolutely allowed Felicisimo to remarry, would have vested Felicidad with the legal personality to file the present petition as Felicisimo’s surviving spouse. However, the records show that there is insufficient evidence to prove the validity of the divorce obtained by Merry Lee as well as the marriage of respondent and Felicisimo under the laws of the U.S.A.

11. Aznar v. Garcia - Appellees argue that what Article 16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines pointed out as the national law is the internal law of California. But as above explained the laws of California have prescribed two sets of laws for its citizens, one for residents therein and another for those domiciled in other jurisdictions. Reason demands that We should enforce the California internal law prescribed for its citizens residing therein, and enforce the conflict of laws rules for the citizens domiciled abroad. If we must enforce the law of California as in comity we are bound to go, as so declared in Article 16 of our Civil Code, then we must enforce the law of California in accordance with the express mandate thereof and as above explained, i.e., apply the internal law for residents therein, and its conflict-of-laws rule for those domiciled abroad. x x x We therefore find that as the domicile of the deceased Christensen, a citizen of California, is the Philippines, the validity of the provisions of his will depriving his acknowledged natural child, the appellant, should be governed by the Philippine Law, the domicile, pursuant to Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California, not by the internal law of California.

12. Testate Estate of Bohanan v. Bohanan – In the proceedings for the probate of the will, it was found out and it was decided that the testator was a citizen of the State of Nevada because he had selected this as his domicile and his permanent residence. (See Decision dated April 24, 1950, supra). So the question at issue is whether the testamentary dispositions, especially those for the children which are short of the legitime given them by the Civil Code of the Philippines, are valid. It is not disputed that the laws of Nevada allow a testator to dispose of all his properties by will (Sec. 9905, Complied Nevada Laws of 1925, supra). It does not appear that at time of the hearing of the project of partition, the above-quoted provision was introduced in evidence, as it was the executor's duly to do. The law of Nevada, being a foreign law can only be proved in our courts in the form and manner provided for by our Rules. x x x We have, however, consulted the records of the case in the court below and we have found that during the hearing on October 4, 1954 x x x the foreign law, especially Section 9905, Compiled Nevada Laws. was introduced in evidence by appellant's (herein) counsel as Exhibits "2". x x x Again said laws presented by the counsel for the executor and admitted by the Court as Exhibit "B" during the hearing of the case on January 23, 1950 before Judge Rafael Amparo. x x x In addition, the other appellants, children of the testator, do not dispute the above-quoted provision of the laws of the State of Nevada. Under all the above circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the pertinent law of Nevada, especially Section 9905 of the Compiled Nevada Laws of 1925, can be taken judicial notice of by us, without proof of such law having been offered at the hearing of the project of partition.

13. Bellis v. Bellis – 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 Article 10 — now Article 16 — of the Civil Code states said national law should govern.