conflix case digest midterm

8/12/2019 Conflix Case Digest Midterm

1/14

DJUMANTAN VS. DOMINGO

Facts: Bernard Banez, the husband of Marina Cabael, went to

Indonesia as a contract worker. On April 3, !"#, he e$braced

and was con%erted to Isla$. On Ma& ", !"#, he $arried

petitioner in accordance with Isla$ic rites. 'e returned to the

(hilippines in )anuar& !"!. On )anuar& 3, !"!, petitioner

and her two children with Banez, arri%ed in Manila as the

*+uests* of Banez. he latter $ade it appear that he was -ust a

friend of the fa$il& of petitioner and was $erel& repa&in+ the

hospitabilit& etended to hi$ durin+ his sta& in Indonesia./hen petitioner and her two children arri%ed at the 0ino&

A1uino International Airport on )anuar& 3, !"!, Banez,

to+ether with Marina Cabael, $et the$.As *+uests,* petitioner

and her two children li%ed in the house of Banez. (etitioner

and her children were ad$itted to the (hilippines as te$porar&

%isitors under 2ection !a4 of the I$$i+ration Act of !#5.

In !6, Marina Cabael disco%ered the true relationship of her

husband and petitioner. On March 78, !67, the i$$i+ration

status of petitioner was chan+ed fro$ te$porar& %isitor to that

of per$anent resident under 2ection 3a4 of the sa$e law. On

April #, !67, petitioner was issued an alien certificate of

re+istration.

0ot acceptin+ the set9back, Banez eldest son, ;eonardo, filed

a letter co$plaint with the O$buds$an, who subse1uentl&

referred the letter to the CIo%ernor of ;e&te,

Ben-a$in *oko&* ?o$ualdez, and nephew of the then First

;ad& I$elda Marcos. 2o$eti$e in the earl& part of !65, the

petitioner, in consonance with his decision to establish his le+al

residence at Baran+a& Malbo+, olosa, ;e&te, caused the

construction of his residential house therein. 'e soon

thereafter also ser%ed as Baran+a& Captain of the place where

he %oted. After the people power, petitioner left the countr& and

fled to A$erica for as&lu$. /hen ?o$ualdez arri%ed in the

(hilippines in


2/14

his residence at Malbo+, olosa, ;e&te. ? 8!#,

2epte$ber ", 7557H

(osted b& (ius Morados on 0o%e$ber @, 75

Municipal Corporation, Dualifications ?esidence4

Facts: (etitioner Co1uilla was born of Filipino parents in Oras,

Eastern 2a$ar, where he +rew up and resided.

In !@8, he -oined the 2 0a%& and subse1uentl& naturalized

as a 2 citizen.

On October 8, !!6, petitioner ca$e to the (hilippines and

took out a residence certificate, albeit continued $akin+

se%eral trips to the 2.

On 0o%e$ber 5, 7555, he took his oath as a citizen of the

(hilippines subse1uentl& after his application for repatriation

was appro%ed.

On 0o%e$ber 7, 7555, he applied for re+istration as a %oter

of Butun+a, Oras, Eastern 2a$ar.

On Februar& 7", 755, he filed his COC statin+ therein that he

has been a resident of Oras, Eastern 2a$ar for 7 &ears.

On March 8, 755, respondent incu$bent $a&or of Oras who

was runnin+ for re9election, sou+ht the cancellation of

petitionerJs COC on the +round that the latter had resided in

Oras for onl& about @ $onths since when he took his oath as a

citizen of the (hilippines.

On Ma& #, 755, petitioner +arnered the hi+hest nu$ber of

%otes and was subse1uentl& proclai$ed $a&or of Oras.

Issue: /O0 petitioner satisfied the residenc& re1uire$ent for

the position of $a&or.

'eld: 0o. (ar. 3!, Chapter , itle 7 of the ;ocal >o%ern$ent

Code ?A "@54 pro%ides that an electi%e official $ust be a KL

resident therein baran+a&, $unicipalit&, cit& or pro%ince4 for at

least &ear i$$ediatel& preceedin+ the da& of the electionL

he ter$ Kresidence is to be understood not in its co$$on

acceptation as referrin+ to Kdwellin+ or Khabitation, but rather

to Kdo$icile or le+al residence, that is, Kthe place where apart& actuall& or constructi%el& has his per$anent ho$e, where

he, no $atter where he $a& be found at an& +i%en ti$e,

e%entuall& intends to return and re$ain ani$us $anendi4. A

do$icile of ori+in is ac1uired b& e%er& person at birth. It is

usuall& the place where the childJs parents reside and

continues until the sa$e is abandoned b& ac1uisition of a new

do$icile do$icile of choice4.

In the case at bar, petitioner lost his do$icile of ori+in in Oras

b& beco$in+ a 2 citizen after enlistin+ in the 2 0a%& in

!@8. Fro$ then on and until 0o%e$ber 5, 7555, when he

reac1uired (hilippine citizenship, he was an alien.

2unta& %s. 2unta& >? 0o. 3787#

(etitioner Federico is the oppositor to respondent IsabelJs

(etition for ;etters of Ad$inistrationo%er the estate of Cristina

A. 2unta& who had died without lea%in+ a will. he decedent is

the wife of Federico and the +rand$other of Isabel. IsabelJs

father E$ilio, had predeceased his $other Cristina.he

$arria+e of IsabelJs parents had pre%iousl& been decalred b&

the CFI as Knull and %oid.Federico anchors his oppostion on

this fact, alle+in+ based on Art. !!7 of the CC, that Isabel

hasno ri+ht to succeed b& ri+ht of representation as she is anille+iti$ate child. he trial court haddenied FedericoJs Motion to


3/14

ha%e taken place at all. he effects of %oid $arria+es, with

respect to propert&relations of the spouses are pro%ided for

under Article ## of the Ci%il Code. Children born of such

$arria+es who are called natural children b& le+al fiction ha%e

the sa$e status, ri+hts andobli+ations as acknowled+ed

natural children under Article 6! irrespecti%e of whether or not

theparties to the %oid $arria+e are in +ood faith or in bad

faith.On the other hand, a %oidable $arria+e, is considered

%alid and produces all its ci%il effects, untilit is set aside b& final

-ud+$ent of a co$petent court in an action for annul$ent.)uridicall&, theannul$ent of a $arria+e dissol%es the special

contract as if it had ne%er been entered into but thelaw $akes

epress pro%isions to pre%ent the effects of the $arria+e fro$

bein+ totall& wiped out.he status of children born in %oidable

$arria+es is +o%erned b& the second para+raph of Article6!

which pro%ides that:Children concei%ed of %oidable $arria+es

before the decree of annul$ent shall be consideredle+iti$ate

and children concei%ed thereafter shall ha%e the sa$e status,

ri+hts and obli+ations asacknowled+ed natural children, and

are also called natural children b& le+al fiction.In %iew thereof,

the status of Isabel would be co%ered b& the second para+raph

of Article 6! of the Ci%il Code which pro%ides that K children

concei%ed of %oidable $arria+es before the decreeofannul$ent shall be considered le+iti$ate.

?epublic %s Orbecido

?epublic %s. Orbecido

>? 0O. 8#365, October 8, 7558

FAC2:

Cipriano Orbecido III was $arried with ;ad& M&ros illanue%a

on Ma& 7#, !6 at the nited Church of Christ in the

(hilippines in Oza$is Cit&. he& had a son and a dau+hterna$ed ristoffer and i$berl&, respecti%el&. In !6@, the wife

left for 2 brin+in+ alon+ their son ristoffer. A few &ears later,

Orbecido disco%ered that his wife had been naturalized as an

A$erican citizen and learned fro$ his son that his wife

so$eti$e in 7555 had obtained a di%orce decree and $arried

a certain 2tanle&. 'e thereafter filed with the trial court a

petition for authorit& to re$arr& in%okin+ (ara+raph 7 of Article

7@ of the Fa$il& Code.

I22E: /hether or not Orbecido can re$arr& under Article 7@

of the Fa$il& Code.

'E;? 0o. 65@, )une 35, !6! "# 2C?A @83

FAC2:

I$elda M. (ilapil, a Filipino citizen, was $arried with pri%ate

respondent, Erich Ekkehard >eilin+, a >er$an national before

the ?e+istrar of Births, Marria+es and er$an&. he& ha%e a

child who was born on April 75, !65 and na$ed Isabella

(ilapil >eilin+. Con-u+al dishar$on& e%entuated in pri%aterespondent and he initiated a di%orce proceedin+ a+ainst

petitioner in >er$an& before the 2choneber+ ;ocal Court in

)anuar& !63. he petitioner then filed an action for le+al

separation, support and separation of propert& before the ?C

Manila on )anuar& 73, !63.

he decree of di%orce was pro$ul+ated on )anuar& 8, !6@

on the +round of failure of $arria+e of the spouses. he

custod& of the child was +ranted to the petitioner.

On )une 7", !6@, pri%ate respondent filed 7 co$plaints for

adulter& before the Cit& Fiscal of Manila alle+in+ that while still

$arried to I$elda, latter Khad an affair with /illia$ Chia as

earl& as !67 and another $an na$ed )esus Chua so$eti$ein !63.

I22E: /hether pri%ate respondent can prosecute petitioner

on the +round of adulter& e%en thou+h the& are no lon+er

husband and wife as decree of di%orce was alread& issued.

'E;er$an&, and said di%orce and its le+al

effects $a& be reco+nized in the (hilippines in so far as he is

concerned. hus, under the sa$e consideration and rationale,

pri%ate respondent is no lon+er the husband of petitioner and

has no le+al standin+ to co$$ence the adulter& case under

the i$posture that he was the offended spouse at the ti$e he

filed suit.

QUITA vs. CA

FAC2:Fe


4/14

durin+ the eistence of his pre%ious $arria+e to

petitioner.Blandina and her children appeal to the Court of

Appeals thatthe case was decidedwithout a hearin+ in %iolation

of the ?ules of Court.

I22E:

4 /hether or not BlandinaJs $arria+e to Arturo %oid ab initio.

74 /hetheror not Fe


5/14

A petition to declare the nullit& of $arria+e, like an& other

actions, $ust be prosecuted or defended in the na$e of the

real part& in interest and $ust be based on a cause of action.

A petition for declaration of absolute nullit& of %oid $arria+e

$a& be filed solel& b& the husband or the wife. (etitionerJs

personalit& to file the petition to declare the nullit& of $arria+e

cannot be ascertained because of the absence of the di%orce

decree and the forei+n law allowin+ it. After all, she $a& ha%e

the personalit& to file the petition if the di%orce decree obtained

was a li$ited di%orce or a mensa et thoroor the forei+n law

$a& restrict re$arria+e e%en after the di%orce decree beco$es

absolute. /e note that it was the petitioner who alle+ed in her

co$plaint that the& ac1uired A$erican citizenship and that

respondent Orlando obtained a -udicial di%orce decree. It is

settled rule that one who alle+es a fact has the burden of

pro%in+ it and $ere alle+ation is not e%idence

'ence, a re$and of the case to the trial court for reception of

additional e%idence is necessar& to deter$ine whether

respondent Orlando was +ranted a di%orce decree and

whether the forei+n law which +ranted the sa$e allows or

restricts re$arria+e. If it is pro%ed that a %alid di%orce decree

was obtained and the sa$e did not allow respondent OrlandoJs

re$arria+e, then the trial court should declare respondentsJ

$arria+e as bi+a$ous and %oid ab initio.

O! !E !OW VS REPUBLIC

$s9

(etitioner Oh 'ek 'ow ha%in+ been +ranted naturalizationthrou+h his petition filed a $otion alle+in+ that he had co$plied

with the re1uire$ents of ?epublic Act 0o. 835 and pra&in+ thathe be allowed to take his oath of alle+iance as such citizen andissued the correspondin+ certificate of naturalization. heCourt of First Instance of Pa$boan+a del 0orte issuedforthwith an order authorizin+ the takin+ of said oath. On thatsa$e date, petitioner took it and the certificate of naturalization

was issued to hi$. he >o%ern$ent seasonabl& +a%e notice ofits intention to appeal fro$ said order of Februar&!, !@@ andfiled its record on appeal a$on+ the +rounds that the oath wastaken prior to -ud+$ent ha%in+ been final and eecutor&.

Iss#9

9 Is the oath %alid

9 /hether or not a per$ission to renounce citizenship isnecessar& fro$ the Minister of the Interior of 0ationalist China.

!#:*9

First issue:

he order of Februar& !, !@@ oath9takin+4 had not Q and upto the present has not beco$e final and eecutor&in %iew ofthe appeal dul& taken b& the >o%ern$ent.

7ndIssue:

It is ar+ued that the per$ission is not re1uired b& our laws andthat the naturalization of an alien, as a cit izen ofthe (hilippines, is +o%erned eclusi%el& b& such laws andcannot be controlled b& an& forei+n law.

'owe%er, the 1uestion of how a Chinese citizen $a& striphi$self of that status is necessaril& +o%erned Qpursuant toArticles 8 and @ of our Ci%il Code Q b& the laws of China,not b& those of the (hilippines. As a conse1uence, a Chinesenational cannot be naturalized as a citizen of the (hilippines,unless he has co$plied with the laws of 0ationalist Chinare1uirin+ pre%ious per$ission of its Minister of the Interior forthe renunciation of nationalit&.

2ection 7 of Co$$onwealth Act 0o.#"3 pro%ides, howe%er,

that before the naturalization certificate is issued, the petitionershall *sole$nl& swear,* interalia, that he renounces *absolutel&and fore%er all alle+iance and fidelit& to an& forei+n prince,potentate* and particularl& to the state *of which* he is *asub-ect or citizen.* he ob%ious purpose of this re1uire$ent isto di%est hi$ of his for$er nationalit&, before ac1uirin+(hilippine citizenship, because, otherwise, he would ha%e twonationalities and owe alle+iance to two 74 distinctso%erei+nties, which our laws do not per$it, ecept that,pursuant to ?epublic Act 0o. 7@3!, *the ac1uisition ofcitizenship b& a natural9born Filipino citizen fro$ one of theIberian and an& friendl& de$ocratic Ibero9A$erican countriesshall not produce loss or forfeiture of his (hilippine citizenship,if the law of that countr& +rants the sa$e pri%ile+e to itscitizens and such had been a+reed upon b& treat& between the(hilippines and the forei+n countr& fro$ which citizenship isac1uired.*

MO; ;A LIM ;AO VS COMMISSIONER O IMMIGRATION

(osted b& ka&e lee on :#5 (M

>? R ;9776!, October #, !" G0aturalization 9 Dualification

and


6/14

natural9born citizen of the (hilippines, stated his na$e to be

*Fernando )r.,* or *?onald Allan* (oe, his date of birth to be 75

Au+ust !3! and his place of birth to be Manila.

(etitioner Fornier filed before the COME;EC a petition to

dis1ualif& F() and cancel his certificate of candidac& b&

clai$in+ that F() is not a natural9born Filipino citizen, his

parents were forei+ners: his $other, Bessie elle& (oe, was

an A$erican, and his father, Allan (oe, was a 2panish

national, bein+ the son of ;orenzo (ou, a 2panish sub-ect.

he COME;EC dis$issed the petition for lack of $erit.

I22E:

/hether or not F() is a natural9born citizen of the (hilippines.

'E;


7/14

fou+ht a+ainst the Bolshe%iks until !77 when the latter force

defeated the for$er. ?efusin+ to -oin the Bolshe%ik re+i$e, he

fled b& sea to2han+hai, and e%entuall& went to Manila as part

of the +roup of /hite ?ussians under Ad$iral 2tark in March

!73. 'e finall& per$anentl& resided in Iri+a, Ca$arines 2ur

ecept durin+ his stint in the +uerrilla force in Cara$oan fro$

!#7 to )ul& !#8. helower court also $ade findin+s of the

establish$ent of his fa$il&, e$plo&$ent, social life,his abilit& to

speak and write En+lish and Bicol, his +ood $oral character,

adherence to theunderl&in+ principles of the (hilippineConstitution, and bein+ a stateless refu+eebelon+in+ to no

2tate.

I22E2:/S0 4 appellee9petitionerJs declaration of intention

to beco$e a Filipino citizen was %alidand sufficient basis for his

petit ion for naturalization, 74 appellee9petit ioner

sufficientl&established le+al residence in the (hilippines and

could speak and write an& of theprincipal (hilippine lan+ua+es,

and 34 appellee9petitioner was stateless refu+ee.

'E;


8/14

K8. It is hereb& understood that this contract includes theser%ices of Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto in connection with thesecurin+ of the li1uidation of the properties and assets of thecon-u+al partnership of $&self and Fred M. 'arden, upondissolution of said partnership or for an& other cause$entioned in (ara+raph 34 hereof.

I0 /I0E22 /'E?EOF, I ha%e si+ned these presents in theCit& UUUUU of Manila, (hilippines this UUUUUUU da& of )ul&,!#.

sS Esperanza (. de 'arden

tS E2(E?A0PA (.


9/14

rendition of this -ud+$ent, which Fred M. 'arden or the hereinrecei%er is ordered to pa& within a period of fifteen 84 da&safter this decision has beco$e final chanrobles%irtualawlibrar&and

Ki4 he writ of preli$inar& in-unction of )ul& 7, !#, ishereb& declared per$anent and the order of recei%ership of0o%e$ber 75, !#@, is hereb& $aintained, but said auiliar&re$edies will be auto$aticall& lifted upon the conclusion of theannotation of the con-u+al lien and the eecution of the deed oftrust abo%e $entioned. /ithout costs.

KI I2 SO ORDERED.

he Defendantsappealed fro$ said decision to this Court,where the case was docketed as case 0o. ;93@6". /hile theappeal was thus pendin+ before us, hereinAppelleefiled a$anifestation and a $otion, both dated Februar& 75, !87. Insaid K$anifestation,Appelleestated that Mrs. 'arden hadinstructed hi$, b& letter, to Kdiscontinue all proceedin+s relati%eto said case, K%acate all orders and -ud+$ents renderedtherein, and abandon and nullif& all her clai$s to the con-u+alpartnership eistin+ between her and Mr. 'arden, inaccordance with se%eral instru$ents dated )anuar& 7!, !87,and eecuted without the knowled+e, ad%ise and consent ofsaidAppellee, as counsel for Mrs. 'arden,

whereb&:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& 4 Mr. and Mrs. 'arden

had purportedl& a+reed to settle their differences inconsideration of the su$ of V8,555 paid b& Mr. 'arden to Mrs.'arden, and a $onthl& pension of (855 to be paid b& hi$ toher chan robles%irtualawlibrar&74 Mr. 'arden had created atrust fund of V75,555 fro$ which said $onthl& pension of V855

would be taken chan robles%irtualawlibrar&and 34 Mr. andMrs. 'arden had $utuall& released and fore%er dischar+edeach other fro$ all actions, debts, duties, accounts, de$andsand clai$s to the con-u+al partnership, in consideration of thesu$ of V. It was further asserted, inAppelleeJsK$anifestation, that the purpose of the said instru$ents,eecuted b& Mr. and Mrs. 'arden, was to defeat the clai$ ofthe for$er for attorne&Js fees, for which reason, he pra&ed, inhis afore$entioned $otion, that

Ka4 (endin+ the resolution of this $otion, the recei%erappointed herein be authorized to continue holdin+ theproperties abo%e $entioned in his custod& in order not todefeat the undersi+nedJs inchoate lien on the$

Kb4 A da& set aside to recei%e the e%idence of the undersi+nedand those of the Plaintiffand the DefendantFred M. 'arden, inorder to deter$ine the a$ount of fees due to the undersi+ned,b& the appoint$ent of a referee or co$$issioner for thereception of such

Kc4 After due hearin+, the undersi+ned be declared entitled tothe su$ of (#55,555.55 as his fees for ser%ices rendered inbehalf of the Plaintiffin this case, under para+raph 3 of thecontract, Anne WAJ, and to that end a char+in+ lien thereforebe established upon the properties abo%e9$entioned

Kd4 And the recei%er be ordered to pa& to the undersi+ned thefull a$ount of the fees to which the latter is found to beentitled.

Counsel for the Defendants9Appellants, in turn, $o%ed for thedis$issal of the case, to whichAppelleeob-ected. Actin+ uponthe issues raised in such $otion for dis$issal and inAppelleeJs$otion to establish and enforce his char+in+ lien, as counselfor Mrs. 'arden, this Court issued on )ul& 77, !87, aresolution the pertinent part of whichreads:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar&

KIt will be seen fro$ the abo%e that the Defendants9Appellantspra& for the co$plete dis$issal of the abo%eentitled case without pre-udice to the annotation of the

contin+ent clai$ of Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto on the propert&under recei%ership, other than the 3@6,883 shares of theBalatoc Minin+ Co$pan& which belon+ to Fred M. 'arden. Onthe other hand, Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto a+rees to the liftin+ ofthe writ of preli$inar& in-unction, the orders of conte$pt andco$$it$ent, and all other interlocutor& orders which wereissued in the course of this case, with the eception of therecei%ership, but ob-ects to the dis$issal of the case on the+round that, since recei%ership is $erel& an auiliar& re$ed&,the present case should be allowed to re$ain pendin+ for thepurpose of $aintainin+ the recei%ership to safe+uard his ri+htto collect the fees that $a& be due hi$.

KAttorne& Claro M. ?ecto pra&s that a co$$issioner or refereebe i$$ediatel& appointed b& this Court to recei%e e%idence insupport of his alle+ations as to his attorne&Js lien and itsenforce$ent. Counsel for the Defendants9Appellantsdoes notob-ect to this proceedin+ pro%ided that the restrictions set forthb& hi$ be obser%ed. 'owe%er, this Court does not ha%e theproper facilities for recei%in+ e%idence in order to deter$ine thea$ount of the fees clai$ed b& Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto, and itis dee$ed ad%isable that this $atter be deter$ined b& theCourt of First Instance. his is speciall& so considerin+ theopposition to the clai$ of Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto filed b&

Attorne& ). /. Ferrier, 2r. in behalf of Esperanza (. de'arden.

KIn %iew of the fore+oin+, the abo%e entitled case is hereb&re$anded to the court of ori+in in order to deter$ine thea$ount of fees clai$ed b& Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto in his$otion dated Februar& 75, !87.

KIt is understood that, after said fees had been finall&deter$ined and paid, this case will be co$pletel& dis$issed aspra&ed for b& the Defendants9Appellants, without pre-udice toconsiderin+ the clai$ of the recei%er for co$pensation asstated in his ur+ent $otion dated )ul& 7, !87. K(endin+ thedeter$ination of the a$ount of fees clai$ed b& Attorne& ClaroM. ?ecto, the writ of preli$inar& in-unction, the orders ofconte$pt and co$$it$ent, and all interlocutor& orders which

were issued in the course of this case, are hereb& lifted and%acated, and with re+ard to the recei%ership, the sa$e ishereb& dissol%ed, onl& with respect to the 3@6,883 shares ofthe Balatoc Minin+ Co$pan&. As to the rest of the properties,the recei%ership shall be $aintained.

In co$pliance with said resolution, the records of this casewere re$anded to the lower court, which, on 2epte$ber 7,!87, desi+nated a co$$issioner to recei%e e%idence on thea$ount of the fees collectible b& hereinAppelleeand to reportthereon. After due hearin+, said co$$issioner sub$itted, onFebruar& @, !83, a report of about one hundred 554 pa+esof the printed record on appeal, settin+ forth, in detail, thee%idence introduced b& both parties, and his findin+s of fact,

with the followin+ conclusion and

reco$$endation:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar&

Kakin+ into consideration the %alue of the properties in%ol%edin this liti+ation, the len+th of ti$e in which clai$ant hadhandled the sa$e for Esperanza 'arden, the %olu$e and1ualit& of the work perfor$ed, the co$plicated le+al 1uestionsin%ol%ed, the responsibilit& assu$ed b& the clai$ant ascounsel, his reputation in the bar, the difficulties encounteredb& hi$ while handlin+ the sa$e in which he had to work harde%er& inch of the wa& because of the stiff oppositions filed b&ad%erse counsel, the dili+ence he e$plo&ed not onl& in thepreser%ation of the records in his possession durin+ the da&sof ene$& occupation but also in the protection of the interestsof Esperanza 'arden, his successful handlin+ of said case andthose cases +rowin+ out of it which reached the 2upre$e

Court, and the etra ser%ices he rendered in her behalf in theta and other court cases, the undersi+ned Co$$issionerconcludes that clai$ant is entitled to the full a$ount of 75T ofEsperanza 'ardenJs share of the con-u+al properties, aspro%ided in para+raph 3 of the Contract of (rofessional2er%ices, Ehibit )JJ.

K/'E?EFO?E, the undersi+ned Co$$issioner respectfull&reco$$ends that Att&. Claro M. ?ecto be paid the e1ui%alenta$ount of 75T of Esperanza (. de 'ardenJs share of thecon-u+al properties or the su$ of (3@!,#5.5# as hiscontin+ent fee for ser%ices rendered in her behalf.

After appropriate proceedin+s, the lower court rendered adecision dated April 35, !83, adoptin+ substantiall& saidreport of the co$$issioner, but increasin+ the contin+ent fee

ofAppelleeherein fro$ (3@!,#5.5#, the su$ reco$$ended inthe report, to (36#,5.!". 'ence, this appeal taken b& Mr.and Mrs. 'arden.

he first 1uestion for deter$ination therein is the %alidit& of theabo%e91uoted contract of ser%ices, which theAppellantsassailas %oid, $ainl&, upon the+round:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& 4 that Mrs. 'arden cannotbind the con-u+al partnership without her husbandJsconsent chan robles%irtualawlibrar&74 that Article #! of theCi%il Code of the (hilippines in effect prohibits contin+entfees chan robles%irtualawlibrar&34 that the contract in1uestion has for its purpose to secure a decree of di%orce,alle+edl& in %iolation of Articles 358, 387 and #5! of the


10/14

Ci%il Code of the (hilippines chan robles%irtualawlibrar&and#4 that the ter$s of said contract are harsh, ine1uitable andoppressi%e.

he first ob-ection has no foundation in fact, for the contract indispute does not seek to bind the con-u+al partnership. B&%irtue of said contract, Mrs. 'arden $erel& bound herself Q orassu$ed the personal obli+ation Q to pa&, b& wa& ofcontin+ent fees, 75T of her share in said partnership. hecontract neither +i%es, nor purports to +i%e, to theAppelleean&ri+ht whatsoe%er, personal or real, in and to her aforesaid

share. he a$ount thereof is si$pl& a basis for theco$putation of said fees.

For the sa$e reason, the second ob-ection is, likewise,untenable. Moreo%er, it has alread& been held that contin+entfees are not prohibited in the (hilippines and are i$pliedl&sanctioned b& our Cannons 0o. 34 of (rofessional Ethics.see, also, landa& %s. Manila ?ailroad Co., #8 (hil., 8#5,88#.4 2uch is, likewise, the rule in the nited 2tates ;e+alEthics b& 'enr& 2. . ?. 0o. ;96@ ofthis Court a+ainst 'on. E$ilio (eYa, as )ud+e of the Court ofFirst Instance of Manila, and Mrs. 'arden. In the petitiontherein filed, Mr. 'arden applied for a writ of certiorari annullin+said orders of )ud+e (eYa of October " and 0o%e$ber 3,!#", and pra&ed that, pendin+ disposition of the case, a writof preli$inar& in-unction be issued restrainin+theRespondentstherein fro$ enforcin+ said orders, particularl&throu+h conte$pt proceedin+s. 'ence, the lower courtdeferred action on the afore$entioned $otion of 0o%e$ber 7",!#". After due hearin+, this Court, in a resolution datedFebruar& 7, !#6, refused to issue the writ of preli$inar&


11/14

in-unction pra&ed for. 2ubse1uentl&, or on 0o%e$ber 7, !85,decision was rendered den&in+ the petition for a writ ofcertiorari.

". 2oon after the issuance of our resolution in said case >. ?.0o. 6@, dated Februar& 7, !#6, or to be eact on March7", !#6, the lower court issued an order directin+ Mr. 'ardento co$pl&, within fi%e 84 da&s fro$ notice, with the order ofOctober ", !#". On April @, !#6,Appelleefiled with the lowercourt the correspondin+ for$al char+es a+ainst Mr. 'arden forconte$pt of court. After due hearin+, Mr. 'arden was, b& an

order of April 76, !#6, found +uilt& as char+ed and orderedconfined Kuntil he co$plies with the afore$entioned orders ofOctober ", !#" and March 7", !#6. On $otion of Mr.'arden, said order of April 76, !#6 was suspended until Ma, !#6, on which date he was arrested and placed inconfine$ent at the 0ew Bilibid (rison, in Muntin+lupa, ?izal.On )ul& 5, !#6, he filed with this Court a petition for a writ ofhabeas corpus a+ainst the . ?. 0o. ;973#!, entitled KFred M. 'arden %s. he .?. 0o. ;9 3@6"4, wherein he collected thesu$ of ("@,555.55 for all such le+al ser%ices.

2aid decision, howe%er, states clearl& that the afore$entionedsu$ of ("8,555 represents litis epensae, and the contractbetween theAppelleeand Mrs. 'arden eplicitl& declares thatsaid litis epensae shall be Kin addition toAppelleeJs share of78T of the increase in the allowance of Mrs. 'arden and hisattorne&Js fees of 75T of her share in the con-u+al partnership.he second assi+n$ent of error is, therefore, de%oid of $erit.

Appellants, further contend, that:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar&

3. he lower court erred in holdin+ that the inchoate share ofthe wife, Esperanza (. de 'arden, in the undissol%ed and

unli1uidated con-u+al partnership properties of the 'ardenspouses, is capable of certain %aluation before such dissolutionand li1uidation, and su$$aril& assessin+ the %alue of Mrs.'ardenJs share in such con-u+al properties without propere%idence.

#. Khe lower court erred in awardin+ 75T of such inchoateshare to Attorne& Claro M. ?ecto fro$ Mrs. 'ardenJs interestsin the 'arden con-u+al properties, su$$aril& assessin+ such75T inchoate share as of a %alue of (36#,5.!", andorderin+ the pa&$ent of said su$ to Attorne& ?ecto inpursuance of the pro%isions of para+raph 3 of the Contract of(rofessional 2er%ices.

AppellantsJ ar+u$ents in support thereof $a& be su$$arizedas follows:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& he contract of ser%ices

in 1uestion pro%ides thatAppelleeJs contin+ent fees shall be75T of the share of Mrs. 'arden in the con-u+al partnership.(ursuant to law, the share of Mrs. 'arden shall be deter$inedupon the li1uidation of said partnership, which has not takenplace, as &et. /hat is $ore, it cannot be effected until thedissolution of the $arria+e relation between Mr. and Mrs.'arden. Inas$uch as this relation subsists, it follows that thea$ount of attorne&Js fees due toAppelleeherein should notha%e been deter$ined in the decision appealed fro$.

his line of ar+u$ent o%erlooks the fact that said contract ofser%ices was $ade, principall&, in conte$plation of a suit fordi%orce that, accordin+ to Mrs. 'arden, she intended to filebefore a co$petent court in California, Kand of the li1uidation ofthe con-u+al partnership between her and Mr. 'arden. 'ad

she filed said action for di%orce and secured a decree ofdi%orce, said con-u+al partnership would ha%e been dissol%edand then li1uidated, and the share of Mrs. 'arden therein

would ha%e been fied. 'owe%er, this cannot take place, eithernow, or in the foreseeable future, owin+ to the afore$entioneda+ree$ents between Mr. and Mrs. 'arden, which were $adefor the e%ident purpose of defeatin+AppelleeJs clai$ forattorne&Js fees. In other words, the occurrence, within the ti$econte$plated b& the parties Q bearin+ in $ind the nature of,and the circu$stances under which the& entered into, saidcontract of ser%ices Q of the e%ent upon which the a$ount ofsaid fees depended, was rendered i$possible b& Mrs. 'arden.'ence, whether such e%ent be re+arded as a condition or as aperiod, she $a& not insist upon its occurrence, prior to theenforce$ent of the ri+hts of the hereinAppellee, for Kthe

condition shall be dee$ed fulfilled when the obli+or %oluntaril&pre%ents its fulfill$ent Art. 6@, Ci%il Code4 and Kthe debtorshall lose e%er& ri+ht to $ake use of the period when heK%iolates an& undertakin+, in consideration of which the creditora+reed to the period. Art. !6, Ci%il Code.4

It should be noted, also, that the co$pensation a+reed uponforAppelleeJs ser%ices, consists of three 34 parts,na$el&:chanrobles%irtuallawlibrar& a4 78T of the increase inthe allowance of Mrs. 'arden chan robles%irtualawlibrar&b4litis epensae chan robles%irtualawlibrar&and c4 75T of hershare in the con-u+al partnership. he first part was dealt within the first para+raph of their contract of ser%ices. he secondand third parts were the ob-ect of the second and third


12/14

para+raphs, respecti%el&. he first para+raph li$ited the ri+htsofAppelleethereunder to two 74 &ears, in the e%ent ofter$ination of the case or a$icable settle$ent thereof withintwo 74 &ears fro$ the filin+ of the co$plaint. 0o such li$itationappears in the second and third para+raphs of said contract.'ence, the sa$e were intended b& the parties to be full&operati%e under an& and all conditions.

It $a& not be a$iss to add that the %alue of the propertiesin%ol%ed has been assessed, not su$$aril&, but after duenotice and full dress hearin+, in the course of which both

parties introduced testi$onial and docu$entar&e%idence.Appellantspresented Ehibits to 86, whereasthose of theAppelleewere so nu$erous that, ha%in+ be+un

with Ehibit A, his last piece of docu$entar& e%idence was$arked Ehibit 7@ =Js. he transcript of the hearin+, whichlasted ten 54 da&s, co%ers o%er 775 pa+es.

he other assi+n$ents of error $ade b&Appellantsherein are$ere corollaries of those alread& disposed of, and, hence, nofurther discussion thereof is necessar&.

In conclusion, it appears that the assets of the con-u+alpartnership between Mr. and Mrs. 'arden are reasonabl&%alued at (3,6#,5!."5. One9half S74 thereof, representin+the share of Mrs. 'arden, is therefore, worth (,!75,88#.68.went& percentu$ 75T4 of this su$ is (36#,5.!", which is

the contin+ent fee due to theAppellee, apart fro$ the litisepensae alread& paid to hi$. Inas$uch as theAppelleehascollected, also, the su$ of (65,555.55, on account of saidcontin+ent fees, there results in his fa%or a balance of(35#,5.!".

2ub-ect to this 1ualification, the decision appealed fro$ ishereb& affir$ed, therefore, with costs a+ainsttheAppellants. SO ORDERED.

M( , 2003

V::#s vs. COMELEC

G.R. N&. 5000, A+. 3, 2000

P(%'%":# &- s s'+%'%s

!& P1%:%""%'# %$%#'s1%" %s %(#*

E--#$ &- -%:%'+ #($%-%$# &- '*%*79 #


13/14

As intended, the sub-ect propert& beca$e the site of the

(hilippine E$bass& until the latter was transferred to

0a$peidai on )ul& 77, !"@.


14/14

Moreo%er, (resident A1uinoJs appro%al of the reco$$endation

b& the in%esti+atin+ co$$ittee to sell the ?oppon+i propert&

was pre$ature or, at the %er& least, conditioned on a %alid

chan+e in the public character of the ?oppon+i propert&. It

does not ha%e the force and effect of law since the (resident

alread& lost her le+islati%e powers. he Con+ress had alread&

con%ened for $ore than a &ear. Assu$in+ that the ?oppon+i

propert& is no lon+er of public do$inion, there is another

obstacle to its sale b& the respondents. here is no law

authorizin+ its con%e&ance, and thus, the Court sees no

co$pellin+ reason to tackle the constitutional issue raised b&

petitioner O-eda.

conflix case digest midterm

Documents