Tenchavez vs.

Escaño
G.R. No. L-19671. November 29, 1965
Reyes, J.B.L., J.:

Facts:

On February 24, 1948, Vicenta Escaño, 27 years of age, and a second year
student of commerce, in the University of San Carlos, Cebu City, exchanged
marriage vows with Pastor Tenchavez, 32 years of age, an engineer, ex-army
officer, and of undistinguished stock, without the knowledge of her parents, before a
Catholic chaplain the city. The marriage was duly registered with the local civil
register.
A few weeks before their secret marriage, their engagement was broken; Vicenta
returned the engagement ring and accepted another suitor, Joseling Lao. Her love
for Pastor beckoned; she pleaded for his return, and they reconciled. This time they
planned to get married and then elope.
The elopement did not materialize since her mother, who got wind of the intended
nuptials, was already waiting for her at the college. Vicenta was taken home where
she admitted that she had already married Pastor. Mamerto and Mena Escaño were
disgusted because of the great scandal that the clandestine marriage would
provoke. The following morning, the Escaño spouses sought the advice of Father
Reynes, and suggested that a recelebration to validate what he believed to be an
invalid marriage
The recelebration did not take place, because on 26 February 1948 Mamerto Escaño
was handed by a maid, whose name he claims he does not remember, a letter
purportedly coming from San Carlos college students and disclosing an amorous
relationship between Pastor Tenchavez and Pacita Noel; Vicenta translated the
letter to her father, and thereafter would not agree to a new marriage. Thereafter,
Vicenta continued living with her parents while Pastor returned to his job in Manila.
Although there were still communication between Vicenta and Pastor, letters
became less frequent as the days passed.
In June, 1948 Vicenta had gone to Jimenez, Misamis Occidental, to escape from the
scandal that her marriage stirred in Cebu society. There, a lawyer filed for her a
petition, drafted by then Senator Emmanuel Pelaez, to annul her marriage. She did
not sign the petition. The case was dismissed without prejudice because of her non-
appearance at the hearing.
On 24 June 1950, without informing her husband, she applied for a passport,
indicating in her application that she was single, that her purpose was to study, and
she was domiciled in Cebu City, and that she intended to return after two years. The
application was approved, and she left for the United States.
On 22 August 1950, she filed a verified complaint for divorce against the herein
plaintiff in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the
County of Washoe, on the ground of "extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character."
On 21 October 1950, a decree of divorce, "final and absolute", was issued in open
court by the said tribunal.
On 13 September 1954, Vicenta married an American, Russell Leo Moran, in
Nevada. She now lives with him in California, and, by him, has begotten children.
She acquired American citizenship on 8 August 1958.

Issue:

Whether or not a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens sought and decreed
after the effectivity of the present Civil Code, Rep. Act 386, is not entitled to
recognition as valid in this jurisdiction?

Held:

No, Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines expressly states, “Laws relating
to family rights and duties or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons
are binding upon the citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad”
The Civil Code of the Philippines, now in force, does not admit absolute divorce, and
in fact does not even use that term, to further emphasize its restrictive policy on the
matter, in contrast to the preceding legislation that admitted absolute divorce on
grounds of adultery of the wife or concubinage of the husband.
For the Philippine courts to recognize and give recognition or effect to a foreign
decree of absolute divorce between Filipino citizens could be a patent violation of
the declared public policy of the state, specially in view of the third paragraph of
Article 17 of the Civil Code.
Gashem Shookat vs. Court of Appeals
219 SCRA 15 February 19, 1993
Davide Jr.., J

Facts:

On October 27, 1987, private respondent, without the assistance of counsel, filed
with the aforesaid trial court a complaint for damages against the petitioner for the
alleged violation of their agreement to get married. She alleges in said complaint
that she is twenty two years old, single, Filipino and a pretty lass of good moral
character and reputation duly respected in her community.
Petitioner is an Iranian citizen residing at the Lozano Apartments Guilig, Dagupan
City and is an exchange student taking a medical course at the Lyceum
Northwestern Colleges in Dagupan City.
Before August 20, 1987, the petitioner courted and proposed to marry her; she
accepted his love on the condition that they would get married after the end of the
school semester. Petitioner even visited the parents of the respondent in Bugallon,
Pangasinan to secure their approval to the marriage. On August 20, 1987, petitioner
forced her to live with him in the Lozano Apartments. She was a virgin before she
began living with him. After then, the petitioner’s attitude towards her started to
change. He maltreated and threatened to kill her and as a result, she sustained
injuries.
During a confrontation with a representative of the barangay captain of Guilig,
petitioner repudiated their marriage agreement and asked her not to live with him
anymore and that he is already married to someone living in Bacolod City. Private
respondent then prayed for judgment ordering him to pay her damages.
In his answer, petitioner claimed that he never proposed marriage to, he neither
sought the consent an approval of her parents nor forced her to live with him in his
apartment, he did not maltreat her but only told her to stop coming to his place
because he discovered that she had deceived him by stealing his money and
passport.
The Regional Trial Court of Pangasinan and Court of Appeals rendered judgment
in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant.

Issue:
Whether or not damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on
the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

Held:
Yes. Where a man’s promise to marry is the proximate cause of giving of herself
unto him in a sexual congress, and in reality, he has no intention of marrying her,
Article 21 could justify the award of damages.. It is clear that petitioner harbors a
condescending regard for the private respondent on account of her ignoble birth,
inferior educational background, poverty and, as perceived by him, dishonorable
employment. It can be seen that from the beginning he was not at all moved by
good faith.

Petition Denied.

Tanada vs. Tuvera

No. L-63915 December 29, 1986
Ponente: Justice Cruz

Facts:
The petitioners sought the disclosure of a number of presidential decrees, which
they claimed had not been published as required by law. The government’s
contention that the phrase “otherwise provided” means that a decree will become
effective immediately after their approval. The trial court affirmed the decision of
having the necessity for the publication of the said decrees. The petitioners now
sought for the reconsideration or clarification of the said decision. The prayer
constitutes of ordering the respondents to publish in the Official Gazette all the
unpublished Presidential decrees of general application and unless published they
shall not be binding.
Issue:
Whether or not the clause “unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the date of
effectivity of laws or to the requirement of publication.

Held:
The clause “unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the date of effectivity and
not to the requirement of publication itself, which cannot be omitted. Publication is
indispensable in every case, but the legislature in its discretion provide that the
usual fifteen day period shall be shortened or extended. The omission of the said
publication would run against the due process clause and would deny the public
knowledge of the laws. The court held that all statutes, including those of local
application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity..
The publication must be in full since its purpose is to inform the public of the
contents of the law.
Petition granted.
DM Consunji, Inc. Vs CA
Facts: On May 9, 1991, private respondent Maria Juego filed in the Pasig Regional
Trial Court a complaint for damages against petitioner for the the death of her
husband Jose juego. Jose was employed by petitioner as a construction worker.
While working on November 2, 1990, Jose fell 14 floors from the Renaissance Tower
in Pasig. He died. Maria availed of the death benefits form the State Insurance Fund.
Petitioner is claiming that she can no longer recover damages under the Civil Code
because her prior availment of the benefits form the State Insurance Fund. The trial
court and CA decided in favour of maria.
Issue: Whether Maria’s availment of the death benefits provided under the Labor
Code amounts to a waiver of her rights to claim for damages from petition under
the Civil Code?
Held: No because maria was not only ignorant of the fact but of her rights as well.
Maria’s election of the death benefits does not bar any action inconsistent with the
elected remedy.
For a waiver to become valid, there must be an intentional relinquishment of a
known right. Where one lacks knowledge of a rights, there is no basis upon which
waiver of its can rest. Waiver requires a knowledge of the right waived with an
awareness of its consequences.. Thus ignorance of material fact negates waiver.
Pilapil VS. Ibay-Somera
G.R No. 80116
June 30, 1989
On September 7, 1979, petitioner Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipino citizen,
and private respondent Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a German national, were married
before the Registrar of Births, marriage and deaths in Friedensweiler in the Federal
Republic of Germany. The couple lived together for some time in Malate, Manila
where they had a daughter.
After three and a half years of disharmonic marriage, private respondent Geiling
initiated divorce proceedings against petitioner in his native Germany. He claimed
that there was failure of the marriage and they had been living apart since
1982.While petitioner filed an action for Legal separation, support and separation of
property before the Regional Trial Court in Manila.
On January 15, 1986, the Schoneberg local Court of Germany, promulgated a
decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses.
On June 27, 1986, five months after the issuance of the divorce decree, private
respondent filed two complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging
that during the marriage Pilapil had an affair with a certain William Chia and
another man named Jesus Chua.
After corresponding investigation, the assistant fiscal recommended the dismissal of
the cases on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. However upon review of the
respondent City fiscal a resolution was approved and the cases were raffled to two
branches of the RTC of Manila.
On March 14, 1987, petitioner filed a petition with the Secretary of Justice that
the cases be dismissed. The Secretary of justice, through the Chief State
Prosecutor, gave due course to both petitions and directed city fiscal to inform the
DOJ “if the accused have already been arraigned and if not, to move to defer further
proceedings” and to elevate the entire record of the cases to his office for review.
Pilapil filed a motion in both criminal cases to defer arraignment and to suspend
further proceedings. As a result, one of the criminal cases was suspended, while the
date of arraignment of the other was merely reset.
During the arraignment of the criminal case, the William Chia pleaded not guilty
while the petitioner refused not to be arraigned. The petitioner was then held in
contempt and was detained until she submitted herself for arraignment. She later
entered a plea of not guilty.
On October 27, 1987 petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari on the
ground that the court is without jurisdiction to decide and try the case.
On March 29, 1988, the Secretary of Justice issued a resolution directing the
respondent city fiscal to move for the dismissal of the complaints against the
petitioner.
Issue:
Whether or not the divorce decree is valid in the Philippines and if the private
respondet can file a complaint of adultery against the petitioner.

Ruling:
Yes, the divorce decree is valid in the Philippines. In the present case, the fact
that the private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his country is admitted. Said
divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines insofar as private
respondent is concern in view of the nationality principle on our civil law on the
matter of the status of persons.
Under this consideration, private respondent, being no longer the husband of the
petitioner, had no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the
imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed the suit.
 The allegations of the private respondent that he could not have brought this
case befor the decree of divorce for lack of knowledge even if true, is of no legal
significance or consequence in this case. The severance of the marital bond had the
effect of dissociating the former spouses from each other.

People vs. Que Po Lay

No. 6791, March 29, 1954
Montemayor, J.

FACTS:
Que Po Lay is accused of violating Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank requiring
those who are in possession of foreign currency to sell the same to the Central
Bank. Que Po Lay alleges that said circular was not published in the Official Gazette
before he committed the act and therefore, it had no force and effect.

ISSUE: Whether or not Central Bank Circular No. 20 has no force and effect

HELD:
Yes, the said Circular has no force and effect because it was not published. Article 2
of the new Civil Code provides that laws shall take effect after fifteen days following
their publication in the Official Gazette, unless otherwise provided. While Central
Bank Circular No. 20 is not of a statute or law but being issued for the
implementation of the law authorizing its issuance, it has the force and effect of law
according to settled jurisprudence. Rules and regulations which prescribe a penalty
for its violation should be published before becoming effective. The public cannot be
held liable for violations of laws or regulations unless they are informed of its
contents and penalties for violation.

Minciano vs. Brimo

50 Phil. 867, November 1, 1924
J. Romualdez

Facts: Joseph G. Brimo, a citizen of Turkey, died and left a partition of the estate.
Juan Miciano, the judicial administrator of the estate left filed a scheme of partition.
However, Andre Brimo, one of the brothers of the deceased, opposed it. Brimo’s
opposition is based on the fact that the partition in question puts into effect the
provisions of Joseph Brimo’s will which are not in accordance with the laws of his
Turkish nationality, for which reason they are void as being in violation of Article 10
of the Civil Code.

Issue: Whether or not the national law of the testator is the one to govern his
testamentary disposition.

Held: Joseph Brimo, a Turkish citizen, though he declared in his will that Philippine
laws must govern the disposition of his estate; however, it must not prejudice the
heir or legatee of the testator.
Therefore, the testator’s national law must govern in accordance with Article 10 of
the Civil Code.

Cui vs. Arellano University (2 SCRA 205)

Facts: Plaintiff Emeterio Cui, studying law, received scholarship grants for scholastic
merit at Arellano University. During his last semester of his fourth year, he left the
defendant university and enrolled at Abad Santos University, wherein he finished his
law degree. After graduating, he applied for the bar examinations. To secure to take
the bar examinations, he needed the transcript of records from the defendant
university. Defendant refused to give him a transcript until he paid back the tuition
that the university returned when he was granted scholarship. According to the
contract signed by the plaintiff, scholarships are good only if the student should
continue in the same school. This contract was followed from Memorandum No. 38
made by the Director of Private Schools.

Issue: Whether or not the contract between plaintiff and defendant, whereby the
former waived his right to transfer to another school without refunding to the latter
the equivalent of his scholarship in cash valid or not?

Held: The contract between plaintiff and defendant is not binding since the
memorandum made by the Director of Private Schools is not a law. The provisions
are only advisory and not mandatory in nature. Furthermore, the said officer had
not authority to issue such memorandum and that provisions were not published in
the Official Gazette.
Garcia v. Recio
G. R. No. 138322 Oct. 2, 2001
Panganiban, J.

FACTS

Rederick Recio, a Filipino, married an Australian citizen named Editha Samson in

1987. Two years later a decree of divorce was released by the Australian
government.

On June 26, 1992, Recio became an Australian citizen and married a certain Grace
Garcia in 1994 in Cabanatuan City with the former declaring that he was single and
Filipino.

Garcia filed a declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of bigamy alleging

that Recio had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married her and only had
knowledge of it in 1997.

Recio countered wife’s claim asserting that he disclosed the previous marriage to
her in 1993. Moreover, he contended that his first marriage had been validly
dissolved by a divorce decree obtained in Australia in 1989 making him legally
capacitated to marry.

ISSUE

Whether or not the trial court gravely erred in finding that the divorce decree
obtained in Australia by Recio ipso facto terminated his first marriage to Samson
thereby capacitating him to contract a second marriage with Garcia.

HELD

The Supreme Court ruled that 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 allowing
it.

Roehr vs. Garcia

GR No. 142820
June 20, 2003

Facts:
Petitioner Wolfgang Roehr, a German citizen, married a Filipina, Carmen
Rodriguez in Germany. The marriage was ratified in Tayasan, Negros Oriental.
Private respondent filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage before
the RTC of Makati. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss but was denied by the trial
court. The petitioner obtained a decree of divorce from the Cout of First Instance of
Hamburg-Blankenese and granting the custody of the children to the father.

Issue:
Whether or not the legal effects of a divorce obtained from a foreign country such
as support and custody of the children can be determined in our courts

Held:
Yes. In order to take effect, a foreign judgement must clearly show that the
opposing party has been given ample opportunity to do so under the Rules of Civel
Procedure. Accoringly, the respondent was not given the opportunity to challenge
the judgement of the German Court, therefore, legal effects of divorce must be
determined in our courts. The court held that the trial court has jurisdiction over the
issue between the parties as to who has parental costudy.