TING vs TING
Nature: Psychological Incapacity; Article 36 CC
Keywords: medschool, cebu city, velez hospital
FACTS:
Benjamin and Carmen wed on July 26, 1975
6 children, 18 years marriage
Carmen filed declaration of nullity of marriage
on the ground of P.I.
Carmens Arguments:
1. Psychological Incapacity must exist
at the time of celebration of marriage which
will manifest thereafter;
2. Prior to their marriage, she was
already aware that Benjamin suffers from P.I.
due to:
a. Alcoholism
b. Violent nature
c. compulsive gambling
d. irresponsible and immature
Benjamins
1. Denied P.I
2. Active in social and athletic clubs
3. Carmen would collect his fees and
spend it lavishly
Dr. Oates- found Benjamin P.I. based on
disposition
Dr. Obra- refuted, no P.I.
RTC: declared marriage null and void pursuant
to Article 36 of CC, gave credence to Dr. Oates
findings of P.I, excessive drinker, compulsive
gambler, violent tendencies
CA: reversed RTCs ruling; no proof that B was
P.I. at the time he married Carmen;
That Dr. Oates findings were based only on
theories and not on established fact contrary to
the guidelines in Santos and Molina rulings.
Issue:
1. Whether CA violated rule on stare decisis
2. Whether the requirements for PI has been
liberalized
3. Whether the declaration of marriage null and
void was proper
HELD: No on all
STARE DECISIS (adherence to precedence)-
is a principle adhered to by lower courts
that once a question of law has been
examined and decided, it should be deemed
settled and closed to further argument.
(Article 8, Civil Code)
- It is a bar to any attempt to
relitigate the same issues
necessary for economy and
stability
- Stare decisis et non quieta
movere- stand by the thing and do
not disturb the calm
- Vertical SD- duty of the lower
courts to apply the decisions of the
higher courts involving the same
facts
- Horizontal SD- higher courts must
follow its own precedence
o Constitutional SD-
involves judicial
interpretations of the
Consti
o Statutory SD- involves
interpretations of
statutes
- Exceptions to application of SD:
o Its application
perpetuates illegitimate
and unconsti holdings
o It cannot accommodate
changing social and
political understanding
o It leaves power to
overturn bad consti law
solely in the hands of
Congress
o Activist udges can dictate
policy for future courts
Carmen argues that doctrinal guidelines in
Molina and Santos cannot have retroactive
effect for being contrary to SD. But when a
decision has been overruled and a new decision
has been adopted, the same shall be used
prospectively in favor of the parties who have
relied to previous ruling in good faith
2. Reuired proof for declaration of nullity under
36 has not been liberalized. Expert opinions
while highly advisable, are not conditions sine
qua non in granting such petitions.
Totality of evidence if sufficient, experts may
not be resorted to. Hence, the need for
examination of parties to a psychiatrist shall
now be determined by the court during pre
trial.
3. Totality of evidence insufficient to prove PI.
The intendment of the law is to confine the
application of Article 36 to the most serious
cases of personality disorders clearly
demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or
inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage. The PI must have inflicted a party at
the inception of marriage which should be a
malady so grave and permanent as to deprive
one of the awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of marriage.
Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio-
presumption is always in favor of marriage
------------------------------------------------
Antonio Locsin II vs Mekeni Foods Corp
Nature: Labor/ Employment
Keywords: Car Plan agreement; employer
employee; car used in service of business; car
loan vs car benefit package
Facts:
- Mekeni Foods Corp offered Locsin the
position of Regional Sales Manager for NCR
- In addition to benefitscar plan under which
is to be paid by the company and to be paid
from the Locsins salary 5,000/month starting
2004
- CAR used Honda Civic 280,000
- in 2006 he resigned, total of 112k has been
deducted, he returned the car but offered to
purchase the vehicle
- filed monetary claims for unpaid salary, and
other benefits
Labor Arbiter: directed respondents to turn
over vehicle upon the said payment
NLRC: reversed LA. Ordered Mekeni to pay
claims.
Claims that Locsin must be reimbursed
otherwise UNJUST ENRISHMENT would result
as the vehicle remained in the possession of the
company.
CA: deleted reimbursement. Treated payment
of Locsin on the car as rentals for the use of the
car, should not be returned since not
unconscionable.
ISSUE: Whether Locsin is entitled to refund on
all amounts paid by him under the car plan
Petitioners arguments:
1. CA erred in holding that 112k was rentals
2. that the car plan was part of economic
package benefit part of his employment hence
a car plan benefit and not a car loan
3. absence of documentary evidence on the
terms and conditions cannot justify reliance
that full terms only applied to employees
worked 5 years
Respondents arguments
1. car loan paid through monthly salary
deductions
HELD: YES
1. only term is the payment of 50/50
2. ABSENCE of express stipulation as to other
termsrentals, employment, etc
3. car plan was necessary to the business and
benefitted the companys mission and
objectives and operations
4. any benefit or privilege enjoyed by Locsin
was merely incidental, vehicle was under
control and supervision of Mekeni
5. ARTICLE 22 of the Civil Code on UNJUST
ENRICHMENT
- Every person who through an act
or performance of another, or any other
means, acquires or comes into possession of
something at the expense of the latter
without just or legal groud shall return the
same to him.
- form of quasi contracts. Here it was formed
in absence of express stipulation
6. hence it cannot refuse refund
THERE IS UNJUST ENRICHMENT when a
person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of
another, or when a person retains money or
property of another against the fundamental
principles of justice, equity, and good
conscience.
Objective: to prevent one from enriching
himself at the expense of another.
-----
SUNTAY vs SUNTAY
Nature: letters of administration, illegitimacy;
effects of declaration of nullity of marriage
Keywords: Married, then marriage annulled
Facts:
In 1958Emilio Aguinaldo Suntay and Isabel
Cojuangco Suntay, married3 childrenone
of them was Isabel
Isabel filed a criminal complaint. Emilio filed a
complaint for legal separation. Marriage was
annulled under Article 85 CC (unsound mind
that after coming to reason freely cohabioted
with the other) Since 1955 Emilio was suffering
from schizophrenia.
In 1979,Emilio predeceased his mother
Crisitina. Later Cristina died. Then Isabel, as
granddauther of Cristina petitioned that letter
of administration be issued to her by her right
of representation alleging that she is one of the
LEGITIMATE granddaughter of deceased.
Frederico Sunta surviving spouse of Cristina
opposed alleging that Isabel was illegitimate
hence cannot invoke right of representation to
the legitimate relative of her father or mother.
Alleged that as a consequence of the nullity of
marriage, she became illegitimate hence no
right to9 the estate.
Issue: whether Isabel is legitimate
Held. YES.
Marriage was annulled under Article 85, hence
the marriage was voidable. Being conceived
and born of a voisable marriage before the
decree of annulment, she is considered
legitimate.
DISTINCTION between VOID AND VOIDABLE
MARRIAGE;
Void marriage is deemed never to have taken
place at all. Effects: natural children have the
same rights as acknowledged natural children
Voidable marriage- considered valid and
produces all its civil effects until set aside by
final judgment in an action for annulment.
Children born before decree are legitimate, if
after, acknowledged natural children.
ANNUL- to reduce to nothing, to make void or
of no effect, annihilate
VOID- does not exist from the very beginning
PEOPLE vs SY JUCO
Nature: Search Warrant
Keywords: art metal filing cabinet, invalid
search
FACTS:
BIR through agent filed a petition for issuance
of search warrant to search the building owned
by Santiago Sy Juco. This was based on an
information relayed to Narciso Mendiola whom
he considers as reliable.
In the search an art metal filing cabinet was
seized allegedly owned by Atty Remo and
Salakan Lumber Co. Atty Remo stated that the
documents belong to his clients and are
protected under the atty client privilege rule.
He seeks that BIR be prohibited from opening
the cabinet as this was illegally seized.
ISSUE: Whether the seizure was valid
HEL: No
2 reqs for Search Warrant to be valid:
1. It must be made udner oath
2. It must particularly describe the things,
place, person to be searched and seized
3. there must be probable cause
Conditions not met hence that search as against
the art metal filing cabinet was illegal.
----
PEOPLE vs OFIZA
Nature: treachery, murder
Keywords:
FACTS:
Suspect Redello Llobera
Victim Cristituto Briones
- Shot with an improvised shotgun
with intent to kill and evident
premeditation
Witnesses: relatives of victim who identified
the suspect
Allegation: around 11:00Pm, there was a
commotion outside in front of their house as
certain persons were throwing stones at each
other. They went outside, then the victim was
shot. She identifies suspect as barangaymate
Rosebert, cousin, identified suspect since the
place was illuminated by the moon, lights from
neightbors house and gasera.
Defense: they were at the house in another
barangay reachable by 1 and half rhours from
crime scene. Relatives misidentified him
RTC: guilty iof murder; reasoned that his denial
and alibi cannot prevail over positive
identification of relatives
CA: affirmed RTC
Elements of Murder:
1. person was killed
2. accused killed him
3. killing was attended by any of the qualifying
circusmstances in Article 248;
4. killing is not parricide or infanticide
All elements are present
Alibi to prosper:
1. he must prove that he is present in another
place;
2. physical impossibility to be at the scene of
the crime
Treachery
1. employment of means of executive gave no
opportunity to defend himself or retaliate
2. means was deliberately and consciously
adopted
ESTRADA VS. ESCRITOR
Keywords: Jehovas witness
Facts:
Soledad Escritor- court interpreter
Estrada complained Escritor of gross immpral
conduct for living with Luciano Quilaio, a man
not her husband, with child. Escritors husband
also lived with another woman before he died.
Conjugal arrangement was in conformity with
their religious beliefs. They executed
DECLARATION OF PLEDGING FAITHFULNESS-
which is effective when legal impediments
render it impossibl for a couple to legalize their
union
ISSUE: whether Escritor is guilty of gross
immoral conduct
HELD:
Case remanded
The court could not prohibit and punish her
conduct where the Free Exercise Clause
protects it since this would be unconstitutional
encroachment of her right to religious freedom
(ARTICLE 3 SECTION 5) . But it must also apply
the COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TEST.
- Mandate of preserving religious
liberty to the fullest extent
possible in a pluralistic society.
Free exercise is a fundamental
right and laws burdening it must
be subject to strict scrutiny.
-
- States interest in the preservation
of the integrity of the judiciary by
maintaining amoing its ranks a
high standard of morality and
decency.
SILVERIO vs REPUBLIC

Keywords: Rommel to Mely, transgirl, seeks to
change sex in birth certificate
Facts: Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a
petition for change of name and sex in his BC
- Claims he is transsexual-
anatomically male but feels,
thinks, and acts as female
- Underwent sex reassignment
surgery
- Rommel to Mely; Male to Female
RTC;
Granted sinceit is more in consonance with the
principles of justice and equity; misfortune to
be trapped in a males body.
CA: reversed. No law allowing the change of
name or sex in BC by reason of sex
reassignment surgery
Issue: should his petition be allowed.
Held: NO.
RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law)
Clerical or Typo errors can be changed by
municipal or city registrars. Otherwise it needs
judicial order
Requirements for change of name:
1. name is ridiculous
2. new name has been habitually and
continuously used
3. change will avoid confusion
STATUS- ciscumstances affecting the legal
situation of a person in view of his age,
nationality, and his family membership.
VIRAY vs PEOPLE
Keyword: Robbery/ Qualified Theft/ Simple
Theft
Facts:
Viray was hired as helper of Zenaida Vedua. On
19 October 2006, several jewelries and
cellphone, etc was stolen inside the house of
Zenaida.
Viray pleaded not guilty.
Zenaida says, she locks the doors of her house,
Viray was not allowed to enter the house
Then she notices jewelry was stolen, and the
main doors were destroyed
Witnesses saw Viray inside the house with a
male companion.
VIRAYs defense:
1. He did not report to work since he was down
with flu
RTC: Robbery as there was actual breaking, use
of force upon things and since he was not a
domestic servant but a laborer paid on a daily
basis
CA: Qualified Theft as there was grave abuse of
confidence
Elements
1. Taking of personal property
2. Property belongs to aniother
3. done with intent to gain
4. Without owners consent
5. no force upon thisngs ( SINCE IT WAS NOT
ALLEGED IN COMPLAINT)
6. grave abuse of confidence
ISSUE: whether he is guilty of QT
HELD. NO. ONLY SIMPLE THEFT
There was no force upon things, but there was
also no grave abuse of confidence hence simple
theft only!
Breaking of door negates the presence of such
confidence; employer never gave him machines
involved in the case
The fact he is a laborer does not create the
relation of confidence required or qualified
theft.
Also since force upon things was not alleged, it
cannot also be considered. Hence simple theft.
CAYETANO v MONSOD
Keywords: Comelec
Facts:
Christian Monsod was appointed as the
Chairman of the Commission on Elections and
was affirmed thereafter. Renato Cayetano
opposed on the ground that he does not qualify
for he failed to meet the Constitutional
requirement of practice of law for at least 10
years
ISSUE: whether he met the 10 year practice of
law requirement
HELD. SC said Yes his past work experiences as
lawyer economist, lawyer manager, and
entrepreneur etc satisfied such requirement
PRACTICE OF LAW:
Practice of law means any activity, in or
out of court, which requires the application
of law, legal procedure, knowledge, training
and experience. To engage in the practice of
law is to perform those acts which are
characteristics of the profession. Generally,
to practice law is to give notice or render
any kind of service, which device or service
requires the use in any degree of legal
knowledge or skill. (111 ALR 23) (at p. 214)
ORCEO vs COMELEC
Firearms include airsoft guns and replicas in
their coverage of gun ban
Section 2b of Resolution No. 8714 the term
firearm includes airsoft guns and their replicas
and imitations in whatever for that can cause
any ordinary person to believe they are real

Claims possibility of direct injury for liability on

election ban since he has been in the sport for a
long time

Petitioner alleges that there is no law that

covers airsoft guns, and the resolution
criminalizes the sport since mere possession is
already an election offense.

Issue: whether comelec gravely abused its

discretion in including airsoft guns in its
resolution

Held NO
Where a rule or regulation has a provision not
expressly stated or contained in the statute
being implemented, that provision does not
necessarily contradict the statute. sxx All that is
required is that the regulation should be
germane to the objects and purposes of the
law.xxx

Comelec had authority to promulgate

resolution 8714

The law which regulates airsoft guns is PNP

Circular no 11. (use restricted only in sports) to
which license is not a right but a mere personal
privilege.

Resolution is a reasonable restriction in the

holding of a Free Orderly Honest Peaceful and
Credible elections