Group 5 - Persons

Case: Facts: Issue: Ratio:

[BRIONES] 1. Jose Juego, a Whether or not the claimant, NO.

construction worker of widowed Maria Juego, by her
DM Consunji vs. CA, G.R. No. D. M. Consunji, Inc., choice of remedy deemed to 1. The claimant, Maria
137873, April 20, 2001 fell 14 floors from the waive the other? Juego, who was not
Renaissance Tower, able to finish her
Pasig City to his death. Take note: elementary school
2. Jose Juegos widow, education, claims that
Maria, filed in the 1. Maria Juego did not she has no further
Regional Trial Court finish her elementary knowledge with regard
(RTC) of Pasig a educatio. to the election of
complaint for damages 2. That the petitioner waiver, as to what
against the deceaseds (DMCI) argues that Art. elected remedy she
employer, D.M. 3 of the Civil Code, should take.
Consunji, Inc. ignorance of the law 2. Waiver - is the
3. The employer raised, excuses no one from intentional
among other defenses, compliance therewith - relinquishment of a
the widows prior private respondent known right.
availment of the cannot claim ignorance 3. The choice of a party in
benefits from the State a. That the between inconsistent
Insurance Fund. argument has remedies results in a
Respondent claims no merit Waiver of election.
that, the widow can no because the 4. In order to arrive to a
longer seek the application of certain choice of
company for further Art 3 is limited remedy, the party must:
compensation for the to mandatory a. Understand
death of her husband. and prohibitory that
4. The decision of the CA laws - allowing presupposes
was affirmed, that the private that a party has
DMCI, shall respondent a knowledge of its
compensate the widow choice of rights, but
of Jose A. Juego for his remedies is chooses not to
death. neither assert them
mandatory or b. Ignorance of a
prohibitory. material fact
Accordingly her negates waiver,
ignorance and waiver
thereof cannot cannot be
be held against established by a
her. consent given
under a mistake
or
misapprehensio
n of fact;
c. Make a knowing
and intelligent
waiver when
that person
knows that a
right exists and
has adequate
knowledge
upon which to
make a n
intelligent
decision;
d. Waiver requires
a knowledge of
the facts basic
to the exercise
of the right
waived, with an
awareness of its
consequences;
e. That a waiver is
made knowingly
and intelligently

[CANTOLINO] Respondent Dolores Bans, an W/N the RTC decision to deny
heir of Bartolome Bans
Barcellano v Barza, GR 165287, owned a lot in Bacacay, Albay.
September 14, 2011
Adjoining the said lot is a
property owned by Vicente
Medina. In 1997, Medina
offered his lot for sale to the
owners of the adjoining lots.
The property was eventually
sold to Armando Barcellano.
The heirs of Bans contested
the sale, and conveyed their
intention to redeem the
property. However, according
to Medina, the deed of sale has
been executed. There was also
mention that the Bans heirs
failed to give the amount
required by medina for them to
redeem the lot. Action to
redeem the property was filed
before the RTC. It denied the
petition on the ground that the
Bans heirs failed to exercise
their right to redemption within
the period provided in article
1623 of NCC. On appeal, such
ruling was reversed.
the Bans heirs of their right of
legal redemption is valid.
must be
illustrated on
the record or by
the evidence.
The court denied the petition,
and affirmed the appellate
court decision granting the
Bans heirs the right to redeem
the subject property. The
decision was based on the
provisions of article 1623
NCC. A written notice must be
issued by the prospective
vendor. Nothing in the record
and pleadings submitted by the
parties showed that there was a
written notice sent to the
respondents. Without a written
notice, the period of 30 days
within which the right of legal
redemption may be exercised
does not exist.
In this case, the law
was clear. A written notice by
the vendor is mandatory.
[DE JESUS] - On 15 Feb 1996, Roldan
Mala, respondent,
Villagracia v Sharia, GR purchased a parcel of
188832, April 23, 2014 land located in Parang,
Maguindanao
- Roldan prayed to
respondent court, Fifth
Sharia District Court
(SDC) to order Vivencio
to vacate his property
- On 11 Jun 2008, SDC
ruled that Roldan had
better right to posses the
parcel of land
- On 13 Jan 2009, Vivencio
filed a petition from relief
of judgment arguing that
SDC had no jurisdiction to
take cognizance of
Roldans action
- Petitioner further argues
that SDCs may only hear
civil actions and
proceedings if both
parties are Muslims.
Petitioner is a non-
Muslim.
- Respondent court denied
petition ruling that it had
jurisdiction even if
Vivencio is a non-Muslim
since it decided the case
applying the provision of
the Civil Code
Whether or not Sharia District Held:
Court has jurisdiction over real - SC held that respondent
action where one of the parties is court had no jurisdiction to
not a Muslim - NO hear, try, and decide
Roldans action for recovery
of possession.
- Under Art. 143 of the
Muslim Code, Sharia
District Courts have
concurrent original
jurisdiction with existing
civil courts over real actions
not arising from customary
contracts wherein the
parties involved are
Muslims.
- If real action not arising
from customary contracts,
no reason for SDC to apply
Muslim law. In such real
action, SDC will apply the
laws of general application
which in this case is the Civil
Code regardless of the court
taking cognizance of the
action.
- However, this concurrent
jurisdiction arises only if the
parties involved are
Muslims.
- Thus, proceedings before
the court are void,
regardless of the fact that it
applied the provisions of
the Civil Code in resolving
the action.

[PASOMANERO] - The couple were - W/N the guidelines for
married in March 3,
Pesca vs. Pesca, G.R. No.
1975 with 4 children.
136921. April 17, 2001
- The petitioner claimed
that the respondent is
emotionally immature
and irresponsible.
Cruel and violent. Also
a habitual drinker.
- The petitioner also - W/N the case of Molina
claimed that the
respondent would beat,
slap and kick her.
There was also a time
when she was chased
by a loaded shotgun
and threatened to kill
her infront of their
children. The children
also experienced
physical violence from
the respondent.
- The respondent was
imprisoned for 11 days
for slight physical
injuries.
Disposition:
Petition granted. SDC decision set
aside.
- Yes. In the Molina
psychological case, guidelines were
incapacity in the case laid down by the
of Molina should be Supreme Court before
taken into a case that would fall
consideration in under the category of
deciding the case. (For psychological
Article 8 issue) incapacity to declare a
marriage null and void.
This decision has force
should be applied and effect of a law.
retroactively in deciding These guidelines are
for the case. (For mandatory in nature.
Article 4 issue) Hence, petition denied.
The doctrine of stare
decisis, ordained in Article 8
of the New Civil Code,
expresses the judicial
decisions applying or
interpreting the law shall form
part of the legal system of the
Philippines. The rule follows
the settled legal maxim - legis
interpretado legis vim obtinet -
that the interpretation placed
 - The petitioner sued the
respondent before the
RTC for declaration of
nullity of marriage
invoking psychological
incapacity. The RTC
rendered the decision
in favor of the
petitioner.
- It was reversed by the
CA. Hence, this petition
was filed.
[PORTA] -Around 11 months before his
death, Senator Tamano (Sen.
Llave vs Republic, GR 169766, Tamano) married Estrellita
March 30, 2011 Juliano-Llave (Estrellita) twice
-- initially under the Islamic
laws and traditions on 27 May
1993, and subsequently under
a civil ceremony on 2 June
1993. In their marriage
contracts, Sen. Tamanos civil
status was indicated as
divorced.
-On 23 November 1994, Haja
Putri Zorayda A. Tamano
(Zorayda), and her son Adib
Ahmad A. Tamano (Adib) filed
a complaint with the RTC of
Quezon City for the declaration
of nullity of marriage between
Sen. Tamano, and Estrellita for
upon the written law by a
competent court has the force
of law.
Whether or not the marriage -The Civil Code governs the
between Estrellita and the late marriage of Zorayda and the
Senator Tamano was late Sen. Tamano. Their
bigamous. marriage was never
invalidated by PD 1083.
-The marriage between the
late Sen. Tamano and Zorayda
was celebrated in 1958,
solemnized under civil, and
Muslim rites. The only law in
force governing marriage
relationships between
Muslims, and non-Muslims
alike was the Civil Code of
1950.
-Article 13(1) of PD 1083
cannot benefit Estrellita.
Firstly, the said article provides
that the law applies to
being bigamous.
-Zorayda alleged that Sen.
Tamano married her on 31
May 1958 under civil rites.
Furthermore, the former
alleged that Sen. Tamanos
status being declared as
divorced has no factual or
legal basis.
-Summons was then served on
Estrellita, but she filed for an
extension to file her answer
multiple times. However, after
being given multiple
extensions, and
postponements, she refused to
file an answer.
-Ultimately, the Supreme Court
ruled that Article 13 of PD
1083 (Muslim Code) does not
provide for a situation where
the parties were married both
in civil and Muslim rites.
marriage and divorce wherein
both parties are Muslims, or
wherein only the male party is
a Muslim and the marriage is
solemnized in accordance with
Muslim Law or this Code in
any part of the Philippines.
However, the court already
ruled that Article 13 of PD
1083 does not provide for a
situation where the parties
were married both in civil and
Muslim rites.
-Moreover, the Muslim Code
took effect only on 4 February
1977, and this law cannot
retroactively override the Civil
Code which already bestowed
certain rights on the marriage
of Sen. Tamano, and Zorayda.