Case Digest: Roehr v.

Rodriguez
WOLFGANG O. ROEHR, petitioner, vs. MARIA CARMEN D. RODRIGUEZ, HON.
JUDGE JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA, Presiding Judge of Makati RTC,
Branch 149, respondents.
G.R. No. 142820, June 20, 2003

QUISUMBING, J.:
Petitioner Wolfgang O. Roehr, a German citizen, married private
respondent Carmen Rodriguez, a Filipina, on December 11, 1980 in
Germany. Their marriage was subsequently ratified on February 14, 1981
in Tayasan, Negros Oriental. Out of their union were born Carolynne and
Alexandra Kristine.
Carmen filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the
Makati Regional Trial Court (RTC). Wolfgang filed a motion to dismiss, but
it was denied.
Meanwhile, Wolfgang obtained a decree of divorce from the Court of First
Instance of Hamburg-Blankenese. Said decree also provides that the
parental custody of the children should be vested to Wolfgang.
Wolfgang filed another motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction as a
divorce decree had already been promulgated, and said motion was
granted by Public Respondent RTC Judge Salonga.
Carmen filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, with a prayer that the
case proceed for the purpose of determining the issues of custody of
children and the distribution of the properties between her and Wolfgang.
Judge Salonga partially set aside her previous order for the purpose of
tackling the issues of support and custody of their children.
1st Issue: W/N Judge Salonga was correct in granting a partial motion for
reconsideration.
Ruling: Yes.
A judge can order a partial reconsideration of a case that has not yet
attained finality, as in the case at bar.
The Supreme Court goes further to say that the court can modify or alter a
judgment even after the same has become executory whenever
circumstances transpire rendering its decision unjust and inequitable, as

where certain facts and circumstances justifying or requiring such

modification or alteration transpired after the judgment has become final
and executory and when it becomes imperative in the higher interest of
justice or when supervening events warrant it.
2nd issue: W/N Judge Salonga's act was valid when she assumed and
retained jurisdiction as regards child custody and support.
Ruling: Yes.
As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other
countries are recognizable in our jurisdiction. But the legal effects thereof,
e.g. on custody, care and support of the children, must still be determined
by our courts.
Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment,
such as the award of custody to Wolfgang by the German court, it must be
shown that the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample
opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39, Section 50 of the
Rules of Court (now Rule 39, Section 48, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
In the present case, it cannot be said that private respondent was given
the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the German court so that
there is basis for declaring that judgment as res judicata with regard to
the rights of Wolfgang to have parental custody of their two children. The
proceedings in the German court were summary. As to what was the
extent of Carmens participation in the proceedings in the German court,
the records remain unclear.
Absent any finding that private respondent is unfit to obtain custody of
the children, the trial court was correct in setting the issue for hearing to
determine the issue of parental custody, care, support and education
mindful of the best interests of the children.

TITLE: Grace J. Garcia-Recio v Rederick A. Recio

CITATION: GR NO. 138322, Oct. 2, 2002 | 366 SCRA 437

FACTS:

Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian Citizen, in

Malabon, Rizal on March 1, 1987. They lived as husband and wife in Australia.
However, an Australian family court issued purportedly a decree of divorce,
dissolving the marriage of Rederick and Editha on May 18, 1989.

On January 12, 1994, Rederick married Grace J. Garcia where it was solemnized at
Our lady of Perpetual Help Church, Cabanatuan City. Since October 22, 1995, the
couple lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage. As a
matter of fact, while they were still in Australia, their conjugal assets were divided
on May 16, 1996, in accordance with their Statutory Declarations secured in
Australia.

Grace filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of

bigamy on March 3, 1998, claiming that she learned only in November 1997,
Redericks marriage with Editha Samson.

ISSUE: Whether the decree of divorce submitted by Rederick Recio is admissible as

evidence to prove his legal capacity to marry petitioner and absolved him of
bigamy.

HELD: No. The divorce decree obtained by Recio does not ipso facto
terminated his first marriage to Samson on the account that presentation
solely of the divorce decree is insufficient. Article 15 and 17 of the Civil
Code establish the rule that a marriage between two Filipinos cannot be
dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad. In mixed marriages involving
a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 of the Family Code allows the former
to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is validly obtained
abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry. A divorce
obtained abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in
the Philippines, provided it is consistent with their respective national
laws. The Court highlights that before a foreign divorce decree can be
recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as
a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowingit.

Nikko Hotel vs. Reyes

TITLE: Nikko Hotel Manila vs. Reyes
CITATION: GR No. 154259, February 28, 2005

FACTS:

Petitioners Nikko Hotel Manila and Ruby Lim assailed the decision of the
Court of Appeals in reversing the decision of RTC of Quezon City. CA held
petitioner liable for damages to Roberto Reyes aka Amang Bisaya, an
entertainment artist.

There are two versions of the story:

Mr. Reyes: On the eve of October 13, 1994, Mr. Reyes while having coffee
at the lobby of Nikko Hotel was approached by Dr. Violet Filart, a friend
several years back. According to Mr. Reyes, Dr. Filart invited him to join a
birthday party at the penthouse for the hotels former General Manager,
Mr. Tsuruoka. Plaintiff agreed as Dr. Filart agreed to vouch for him and
carried a basket of fruits, the latters gift. He He lined up at the buffet
table as soon as it was ready but to his great shock, shame and
embarrassment, Ruby Lim, Hotels Executive Secretary, asked him to leave
in a loud voice enough to be heard by the people around them. He was
asked to leave the party and a Makati policeman accompanied him to

step-out the hotel. All these time, Dr Filart ignored him adding to his
shame and humiliation.

Ms. Ruby Lim: She admitted asking Mr. Reyes to leave the party but not in
the manner claimed by the plaintiff. Ms. Lim approached several people
including Dr. Filarts sister, Ms. Zenaida Fruto, if Dr. Filart did invite him as
the captain waiter told Ms. Lim that Mr. Reyes was with Dr. Filarts group.
She wasnt able to ask it personally with Dr. Filart since the latter was
talking over the phone and doesnt want to interrupt her. She asked Mr.
Reyes to leave because the celebrant specifically ordered that the party
should be intimate consisting only of those who part of the list. She even
asked politely with the plaintiff to finish his food then leave the party.

During the plaintiffs cross-examination, he was asked how close was Ms.
Lim when she approached him at the buffet table. Mr. Reyes answered
very close because we nearly kissed each other. Considering the close
proximity, it was Ms. Lims intention to relay the request only be heard by
him. It was Mr. Reyes who made a scene causing everybody to know what
happened.

ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners acted abusively in asking Mr. Reyes to

leave the party.

HELD:

Supreme Court held that petitioners did not act abusively in asking Mr.
Reyes to leave the party. Plaintiff failed to establish any proof of illmotive on the part of Ms. Lim who did all the necessary precautions to
ensure that Mr. Reyes will not be humiliated in requesting him to leave the
party. Considering almost 20 years of experience in the hotel industry,
Ms. Lim is experienced enough to know how to handle such matters.
Hence, petitioners will not be held liable for damages brought under
Article 19 and 20 of the Civil Code.

Quisumbing vs MERALCO
TITLE: Sps. Quisumbing vs. MERALCO
CITATION: GR No. 142943, April 3, 2002

FACTS:

The plaintiff, spouses Antonio and Lorna Quisumbing are the owners of a
house located at #94 Greenmeadows Avenue, Quezon City. Around 9AM
on March 3, 1995, defendants inspectors headed by Emmanuel C. Orlino
were assigned to conduct a routine on the spot inspection of all single
phase meters at the house and observed as standard operating procedure
to ask permission and was granted by the plaintiffs secretary. After the
inspection, it was found that the meter had been tampered with. The
result was relayed to the secretary who conveyed the information to the
owners of the house. The inspectors advised that the meter be brought in
their laboratory for further verifications. In the event that the meter was
indeed tampered, defendant had to temporarily disconnect the electric
services of the couple. After an hour, inspectors returned and informed
the findings of the laboratory and asked the couple that unless they pay
the amount of P178,875.01 representing the differential bill their electric
supply will be disconnected. The plaintiff filed complaint for damages with
a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction despite the
immediate reconnection.

ISSUE: Whether or not MERALCO acted maliciously and malevolent manner

done without due process, lack of regard for QUISUMBINGs rights,
feelings, social and business reputation and therefore held them
accountable and plaintiff be entitled for damages.

HELD:

Supreme Court partly granted the petition and ordered plaintiff to pay
respondent the billing differential of P193,332.96 while latter is ordered to
pay petitioners moral and exemplary damages including attorneys fees.

Moral damages may be recovered when rights of individuals including

right against the deprivation of property without due process of law are
violated. Exemplary damages on the other hand are imposed by way of
example or correction for public. SC recognized the effort of MERALCO in
preventing illegal use of electricity. However, any action must be done in
strict observance of the rights of the people. Under the law, the Manila
Electric Company (Meralco) may immediately disconnect electric service
on the ground of alleged meter tampering, but only if the discovery of the
cause is personally witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law or by
a duly authorized representative of the Energy Regulatory Board. During
the inspection, no government official or ERB representative was present.

Gasheem Shookat Baksh vs CA

TITLE: Gasheem Shookat Baksh vs. CA
CITATION: 219 SCRA 115

FACTS:
Private respondent, Marilou Gonzales, filed a complaint dated October 27,
1987 for damages against the petitioner for the alleged breach of their
agreement to get married. She met the petitioner in Dagupan where the
latter was an Iranian medical exchange student who later courted her and
proposed marriage. The petitioner even went to Marilous house to secure
approval of her parents. The petitioner then forced the respondent to
leave with him in his apartment. Marilou was a virgin before she lived
with him. After a week, she filed a complaint because the petitioner
started maltreating and threatening her. He even tied the respondent in
the apartment while he was in school and drugged her. Marilou at one
time became pregnant but the petitioner administered a drug to abort the
baby.

Petitioner repudiated the marriage agreement and told Marilou to not live
with him since he is already married to someone in Bacolod. He claimed
that he never proposed marriage or agreed to be married neither sought
consent and approval of Marlious parents. He claimed that he asked
Marilou to stay out of his apartment since the latter deceived him by
stealing money and his passport. The private respondent prayed for
damages and reimbursements of actual expenses.

ISSUE: Whether breach of promise to marry can give rise to cause for
damages.

HELD:

The existing rule is that breach of promise to marry per se is not an

actionable wrong. The court held that when a man uses his promise of
marriage to deceive a woman to consent to his malicious desires, he
commits fraud and willfully injures the woman. In that instance, the court
found that petitioners deceptive promise to marry led Marilou to
surrender her virtue and womanhood.

Moral damages can be claimed when such promise to marry was a

deceptive ploy to have carnal knowledge with the woman and actual
damages should be paid for the wedding preparation expenses. Petitioner
even committed deplorable acts in disregard of the laws of the country.

Therefore, SC set aside the decision of CA awarding damages to the

respondent.