(6)

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ORBECIDO

GR No. 154380
October 5, 2005

FACTS:

On May 24, 1981, Cipriano Orbecido III married Lady Myros M. Villanueva at the
United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Lam-an, Ozamis City. Their marriage was blessed
with a son and a daughter, Kristoffer Simbortriz V. Orbecido and Lady Kimberly V. Orbecido.
In 1986, Ciprianos wife left for the United States bringing along their son Kristoffer. A
few years later, Cipriano discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen.
Sometime in 2000, Cipriano learned from his son that his wife had obtained a divorce
decree and then married a certain Innocent Stanley. She, Stanley and her child by him currently
live at 5566 A. Walnut Grove Avenue, San Gabriel, California.
Cipriano thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code. No opposition was filed. Finding merit in the
petition, the court granted the same. The Republic, herein petitioner, through the Office of the
Solicitor General (OSG), sought reconsideration but it was denied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondent may remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.

HELD:

The Court held that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code should be interpreted to
allow a Filipino citizen, who has been divorced by a spouse who had acquired foreign citizenship
and remarried, also to remarry.
HOWEVER, considering that in the present petition there is no sufficient evidence
submitted and on record, we are unable to declare, based on respondents bare allegations that his
wife, who was naturalized as an American citizen, had obtained a divorce decree and had
remarried an American, that respondent is now capacitated to remarry. Such declaration could
only be made properly upon respondents submission of the aforecited evidence in his favor.
 (7)

BELLIS v. BELLIS
20 SCRA 358
June 6, 1967

FACTS:

Amos G. Bellis was a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States. He had five
legitimate children with his first wife (whom he divorced), three legitimate children with his
second wife (who survived him) and, finally, three illegitimate children.
6 years prior Amos Bellis death, he executed two (2) wills, apportioning the remainder of
his estate and properties to his seven surviving children. The appellants filed their oppositions to
the project of partition claiming that they have been deprived of their legitimes to which they
were entitled according to the Philippine law. Appellants argued that the deceased wanted his
Philippine estate to be governed by the Philippine law, thus the creation of two separate wills.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Philippine law be applied in the case in the determination of the
illegitimate childrens successional rights.

HELD:
Court ruled that provision in a foreigners 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 view of those matters that Article 10 now Article 16
of the Civil Code states said national law should govern.
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.
The Supreme Court held that the illegitimate children are not entitled to the legitimes
under the Texas law, which is the national law of the deceased.
 (8)

ALBENSON ENTERPRISES CORP v. CA

217 SCRA 16
January 11, 1993

FACTS:

Albenson Ent. delivered mild steel plates to Guaranteed Industries Inc. A Pacific Banking
Corporation Check was paid and drawn against the account of EL Woodworks. Check was later
dishonored for the reason Account Closed. Company traced source of check and later
discovered that the signature belonged to one Eugenio Baltao. Albenson made an extrajudical
demand upon Baltao but latter denied that he issued the check or that the signature was his.
Company filed a complaint against Baltao for violation of BP 22. It was later discovered that
private respondent had son: Eugene Baltao III, who manages the business establishment, EL
Woodworks. No effort from the father to inform Albenson of such information. Rather the father
filed complaint for damages against Albenson.

ISSUE:

Whether or not there is indeed cause for the damages against Albenson Enterprise.

HELD:

Based on Art 19, 20, 21 of the civil code, petitioners didnt have the intent to cause
damage to the respondent or enrich themselves but just to collect what was due to them. There
was no abuse of right on the part of Albenson on accusing Baltao of BP 22. Albenson Corp.
honestly believed that it was private respondent who issued check based on ff inquiries: SEC
records showed that president to Guaranteed was Eugene Baltao Bank said signature belonged to
Baltao and did not do his part in clarifying that there were in fact 3 Eugene Baltao, Jr., Sr. and the
III.
There was no malicious prosecution on the part of Albenson: there must be proof that: the
prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex and humiliate a person and that damages
was initiated deliberately by defendant knowing that his charges were false and groundless
A person who has not been paid an obligation owed to him will naturally seek ways to compel
the debtor to pay him. It was normal for petitioners to find means to make the issuer of the check
pay the amount thereof. In the absence of a wrongful act or omission or of fraud or bad faith,
moral damages cannot be awarded and that the adverse result of an action does not per se make
the action wrongful and subject the actor to the payment of damages, for the law could not have
meant to impose a penalty on the right to litigate.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the decision of the Court of Appeals in
C.A. G.R. C.V. No. 14948 dated May 13, 1989, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Costs
against respondent Baltao.
 (9)

OBAA v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

135 SCRA 557
March 29, 1985

FACTS:

November 21, 1964, Chan Lin offered to buy 170 cavans of rice from
SandovalatP37.25/sack (P6332.50). Sandoval agreed so from Rosales, Pangasinan, Chan Lin accompanied
Sandovals driver to have the rice be delivered to San Fernando, La Union. Upon arriving, the sacks of rice
were unloaded but when Sandovals driver tried to collect the payment, Chan Lin was nowhere to be
found. The driver then tried to collect from Aniano, who was the storeowner where they unloaded the rice. But
Aniano refused to pay, saying that he made the payment to Chan Lin for P33/cavan and that he will not return the
sacks of rice to Sandoval as they were paid already. Apparently, Aniano and Chan Lin had an earlier agreement
that Chan Lin will sell him 170 cavans of rice for P33 each. Aniano said Chan Lin swindled
Sandoval. Sandoval filed for replevin.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner is bound to return the 170 cavans of rice.

HELD:

Technically, therefore, he should return the rice to Chan Lin, but since even the latter,
again from petitioner-defendant's own testimony above-quoted, was ready to return the rice to
SANDOVAL, and the latter's driver denies that the rice had been returned by petitioner-
defendant cannot be allowed to unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another by holding on
to property no longer belonging to him. 7 In law and in equity, therefore, SANDOVAL is entitled
to recover the rice or the value thereof since he was not paid the price there for.

(10)
 ONDE v. OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRATION OF LAS PIAS
GR No. 197174
September 10, 2014

FACTS:

Francler P. Onde, filed a petition for correction of entries in his certificate of live birth
before the R TC and named respondent Office of the Local Civil Registrar of Las Pias City as
sole respondent. Petitioner alleged that he is the illegitimate child of his parents Guillermo A.
Onde and Matilde DC Pakingan, but his birth certificate stated that his parents were married. His
birth certificate also stated that his mother's first name is Tely and that his first name is Franc Ler.
He prayed that the entries in his birth certificate be corrected. The RTC dismissed the case filed
by petitioner Francler P. Onde for correction of entries in his certificate of live birth.

ISSUES:

1.) Whether or not the RTC erred in ruling that the correction on the first name of
petitioner and his mother can be done by the city civil registrar under R.A. No. 9048;
2.) Whether or not the RTC erred in ruling that correcting the entry on petitioners birth
certificate that his parents were married on December 23, 1983 in Bicol to "not
married" is substantial in nature requiring adversarial proceedings;
3.) Whether or not the RTC erred in dismissing the petition for correction of entries; and
erred in ruling that there is no proof that petitioners parents were not married on
December 23, 1983.

HELD:

1.) The RTC that the first name of petitioner and his mother as appearing in his birth
certificate can be corrected by the city civil registrar under R.A. No. 9048.
2.) The RTC in ruling that correcting the entry on petitioners birth certificate that his parents
were married on December 23, 1983 in Bicol to "not married" is a substantial correction
requiring adversarial proceedings. Said correction is substantial as it will affect his
legitimacy and convert him from a legitimate child to an illegitimate one.
3.) The Court likewise affirm the RTC in dismissing the petition for correction of entries. As
mentioned, petitioner no longer contested the RTC ruling that the correction he sought on
his and his mothers first name can be done by the city civil registrar. Under the
circumstances, The Court is constrained to deny his prayer that the petition for correction
of entries before the RTC be reinstated since the same petition includes the correction he
sought on his and his mothers first name.