main digest- preliminary title

8/9/2019 MAIN DIGEST- Preliminary Title

1/17

Preliminary Title

LORENZO M. TAÑADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYSFOR BROTHERHOOD, INTERITY AND NATIONALISM, IN!. [MABINI], petitioners, vs.HON. "#AN !. T#VERA, in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President, HON. "OA$#INVEN#S, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President ,MEL$#IADES P. DE LA

!R#Z, in his capacity as Director, and FLORENDO S. PABLO, in his capacity as Director,respondents..R. N%. L&'()*+ Aril -, *)/+ *(' S!RA -0

Fa1t23 In obtaining the enorce!ent o pub"ic duty and invo#ing the peop"e$s right to be inor!edon !atters o pub"ic concern, a right recogni%ed in the &onstitution, as 'e"" as the princip"e that"a's to be va"id and enorceab"e !ust be pub"ished in the (icia" )a%ette or other'ise eective"ypro!u"gated, a petition 'as sought by *a+ada, ar!iento, and the Move!ent o Attorneys orBrotherhood Integrity and Nationa"is!, Inc -MABINI see#ing a 'rit o !anda!us to co!pe"respondent pub"ic oicia"s to pub"ish, and or cause the pub"ication in the (icia" )a%ette o variouspresidentia" decrees, "etters o instructions, genera" orders, proc"a!ations, executive orders, "ettero i!p"e!entation and ad!inistrative orders.

*he o"icitor )enera", representing the respondents, !oved or the dis!issa" o the case, onthe ground that petitioners have no "ega" persona"ity to bring this petition since there is no sho'ingthat petitioners are persona""y and direct"y aected or pre/udiced by the a""eged non0pub"ication othe presidentia" issuances in 1uestion. *hey !aintain that the petitioners are 'ithout the re1uisite"ega" persona"ity to institute this !anda!us proceeding, they are not being 2aggrieved parties3'ithin the !eaning o ection 4, 5u"e 67 o the 5u"es o &ourt. Petitioners, ho'ever, !aintain thatsince the sub/ect o the petition concerns a pub"ic right and its ob/ect is to co!pe" pub"ic duty, theyneed not sho' any speciic interest.

5espondents urther contend that pub"ication in the (icia" )a%ette is not a sine 1ua nonre1uire!ent or the eectivity o "a's 'here the "a's the!se"ves provide or their o'n eectivitydates. It is thus sub!itted that since the presidentia" issuances in 1uestion contain specia"provisions as to the date they are to ta#e eect, pub"ication in the (icia" )a%ette is not

indispensab"e or their eectivity.

I224e3 8hether or not pub"ication in the (icia" )a%ette is an indispensab"e re1uire!ent or theeectivity o the "a's or statutes even i the "a'9statute itse" provides or the date o its eectivity

Hel53 *he upre!e &ourt he"d that the interpretation given by respondent is in accord 'ith theirconstruction o Artic"e : o &ivi" &ode. *he court has ru"ed that pub"ication in the (icia" )a%ette isnecessary in those cases 'here the "egis"ation itse" does not provide or its eectivity date or thedate o pub"ication is !ateria" or deter!ining its date o eectivity, 'hich is the ;7th day o""o'ingits pub"ication, but not 'hen the "a' itse" provides or the date 'hen it goes into eect.

*he pub"ication o presidentia" issuances 2o pub"ic nature3 or 2o genera" app"icabi"ity3 is are1uire!ent o due process pri!ari"y to protect the constitutiona" right o the peop"e. *he c"ear

ob/ect o the "a' is to give the genera" pub"ic ade1uate notice o the various "a's '9c are toregu"ate their actions and conduct as citi%ens. 8ithout such notice and pub"ication, there 'ou"d beno basis or the app"ication o Art 4 o the &ivi" &ode 2Ignorance o the "a' excuses no one ro!co!p"iance there'ith3. It 'ou"d be the height o in/ustice to punish or other'ise burden a citi%enor the transgression o a "a' 'hich he had no notice 'hatsoever, not even a constructive one. It isneed"ess to say that the pub"ication o presidentia" issuances


2/17

Preliminary Title

app"ication, 'hich have not been pub"ished, sha"" have no orce and eect. And so, the respondents'ere ordered to pub"ish in the (icia" )a%ette a"" unpub"ished presidentia" issuances o genera"app"ication.

LORENZO M. TAÑADA, ABRAHAM F. SARMIENTO, and MOVEMENT OF ATTORNEYSFOR BROTHERHOOD, INTERITY AND NATIONALISM, IN!. [MABINI], petitioners,vs. HON. "#AN !. T#VERA, in his capacity as Executive Assistant to the President, HON."OA$#IN VEN#S, in his capacity as Deputy Executive Assistant to the President ,MEL$#IADES P.DE LA !R#Z, in his capacity as Director, respondents..R. N%. L&'()*+ De1em6er -), *)/' *' S!RA '

Fa1t23 Petitioners invo#ed due process in de!anding the disc"osure o a nu!ber o Presidentia"Issuances 'hich they c"ai!ed had not been pub"ished as re1uired by "a'. 5espondents argued that'hi"e pub"ication 'as necessary as a ru"e, it 'as not so 'hen it 'as 2other'ise provided3 as 'henthe presidentia" issuances the!se"ves dec"ared that they 'ere to beco!e eective i!!ediate"y

upon their approva". *he court decided on Apri" :>,;?@7 in air!ing the necessity or pub"ication osaid unpub"ished presidentia" issuances 'hich are o genera" app"ication, and un"ess so pub"ished,they sha"" have no binding orce and eect. *hus, the court ordered the respondents to pub"ish inthe oicia" ga%ette a"" unpub"ished Presidentia" Issuances 'hich are o genera" orce and eect.8ith the upre!e &ourts decision that ordered *uvera et a" to pub"ish in the (icia" )a%ette theunpub"ished presidentia" issuances, *anada et a" no' sought or the reconsideration or c"ariicationo the said decision. *he petitioners suggest that there shou"d be no distinction bet'een "a's ogenera" app"icabi"ity and those 'hich are not. *hey urther added that the pub"ication !eansco!p"ete pub"ication, and that pub"ication !ust be !ade in the oicia" ga%ette.In a co!!ent re1uired by the so"icitor genera", he c"ai!ed irst that the !otion 'as a re1uest oran advisory opinion and thereore be dis!issed. And on the c"ause un"ess other'ise providedC inArtic"e : o the Ne' &ivi" &ode !eant that the pub"ication re1uired herein 'as not a"'aysi!perative, that the pub"ication 'hen necessary, did not have to be !ade in the oicia" ga%ette.

I224e23;.8hether or not the c"ause 2un"ess it is other'ise provided3 reers to the date o eectivity o"a's or to the re1uire!ent o pub"ication.:.8hether or not pub"ication in the (icia" )a%ette !ust be in u"".

Hel53 *he upre!e &ourt he"d that 2the c"ause un"ess it is other'ise provided reers to the dateo eectivity and not to the re1uire!ent o pub"ication itse", 'hich cannot be o!itted. *his c"ausedoes not !ean that the "egis"ature !ay !a#e the "a' eective i!!ediate"y upon approva", or onany other date, 'ithout its previous pub"ication. Pub"ication is indispensab"e in every case, but the"egis"ature in its discretion provides that the usua" iteen day period sha"" be shortened orextended. An exa!p"e is the &ivi" &ode 'hich did not beco!e eective ater ;7 days ro! its

pub"ication in the (icia" )a%ette but one year ater such pub"ication. *he genera" ru"e did notapp"y because it 'as 2other'ise provided3. *he o!ission o the said pub"ication 'ou"d run againstthe due process c"ause and 'ou"d deny the pub"ic #no'"edge o the "a's that are supposed togovern it.

*he court a"so he"d that a"" "a's, inc"uding those o "oca" app"ication and private "a's, sha""be pub"ished as a condition or their eectivity 'hich sha"" begin ;7 days ater pub"ication un"ess adierent eectivity date is ixed by the "egis"ature. 8hen 'e spea# o 2"a's3, it shou"d reer to a"""a's and not on"y to those o genera" app"ication, or strict"y spea#ing, a"" "a's re"ate to the peop"e

Persons and =a!i"y 5e"ations &ase Digest 0 B"oc# &


3/17

Preliminary Title

in genera" a"beit there are so!e that do not app"y to the! direct"y. *o be va"id, the "a' !ustinvariab"y aect the pub"ic interest even i it !ight be direct"y app"icab"e on"y to one individua", orso!e o the peop"e on"y, and not to the pub"ic as a 'ho"e. *he court urther added that 2pub"ication!ust be in u"" or it is no pub"ication at a"" since its purpose is to inor! the pub"ic o the contentso the "a's.3 *hus, the &ourt upho"d that dec"ared that a"" "a's sha"" i!!ediate"y upon their

approva", or as soon thereater as possib"e, be pub"ished in u"" in the (icia" )a%ette, to beco!eeective on"y ater iteen days ro! their pub"ication, or on another date speciied by the"egis"ature, in accordance 'ith Artic"e : o the &ivi" &ode.

PHILIPPINE ASSO!IATION OFSERVI!E E7PORTERS, In1., petitioner , vs.R#BENTORRES, in his capacity as D(E ecretary, respondent ..R. N%. *8*-0) A4942t ', *))- -*- S!RA -))

Fa1t23 *he Phi"ippine Association ( ervice Exporters, Inc. -PAIE is the "argest nationa"organi%ation o private e!p"oy!ent and recruit!ent agency du"y "icensed and authori%ed by the

P(EA to engage in the business o obtaining overseas e!p"oy!ent or =i"ipino "and0based 'or#ers,inc"uding do!estic he"pers.

(n une, ;??;, as a resu"t o pub"ished stories regarding the abuses suered by =i"ipinohouse!aids e!p"oyed in Fong Gong, Depart!ent o abor and E!p"oy!ent -D(E ecretary5uben *orres issued Depart!ent (rder No. ;6, eries o ;??;, te!porari"y suspending therecruit!ent by private e!p"oy!ent agencies o =i"ipino do!estic he"pers going to Fong Gong. *heD(E itse", through the P(EA too# over the business o dep"oying such Fong Gong0bound 'or#ers.Pursuant to the Depart!ent (rder circu"ar, the P(EA issued Me!orandu! &ircu"ar No. 4H, eries o;??;, providing guide"ines on the govern!ent processing and dep"oy!ent o =i"ipino do!estiche"pers to Fong Gong and the accreditation o Fong Gong recruit!ent agencies intending to hire=i"ipino do!estic he"pers. Pursuant to the previous issuances, the P(EA Ad!inistrator a"so issuedMe!orandu! &ircu"ar No. 4, eries o ;??;, providing or the guide"ines on the processing o

e!p"oy!ent contracts o do!estic 'or#ers or Fong Gong.

I224e3 8hether or not the assai"ed D(E and P(EA circu"ars are inva"id, deective andunenorceab"e or "ac# o proper pub"ication as re1uired in Artic"e : o the &ivi" &ode.

Hel53 *he upre!e &ourt he"d that the circu"ars are "ega""y inva"id, deective and unenorceab"e or"ac# o proper pub"ication and i"ing in the (ice o the Nationa" Ad!inistrative 5egister as re1uiredunder Artic"e : o the &ivi" &ode, Artic"e 7 o the abor &ode, and ection 4 -; and >, &hapter :,Boo# JII o the Ad!inistrative &ode o ;?@.

*he &ourt stated that a"" statutes, inc"uding those o "oca" app"ication and private "a's, sha""be pub"ished as a condition or their eectivity, 'hich sha"" begin ater iteen days ater pub"icationun"ess a dierent eectivity date is ixed by the "egis"ature. &overed by this ru"e are ad!inistrative

ru"es and regu"ations 'hich !ust a"so be pub"ished i their purpose is to enorce or i!p"e!entexisting "a' pursuant to a va"id de"egation. *he circu"ars issued by the P(EA and D(E !ust bepub"ished since the concern the ru"es or guide"ines to be o""o'ed by the pub"ic. *he &ourt urtheradded that the assai"ed circu"ars do not prohibit the petitioner ro! engaging in the recruit!entand dep"oy!ent o =i"ipino "and0based 'or#ers or overseas e!p"oy!ent. *he po'er to restrict andregu"ate conerred by Artic"e 46 o the abor &ode invo"ves a grant o po"ice po'er. *he 1uestionedcircu"ars are thereore va"id exercise o the po"ice po'er as de"egated to the executive branch othe govern!ent.



4/17

Preliminary Title

RODOLFO S. DE "ES#S, EDEL:INA DE PAR#NAO, VEN#S M. POZON and othersi!i"ar"y situated personne" o the (&A 8A*E5 K*II*IE ADMINI*5A*I(N -8KA, petitioners, vs.

!OMMISSION ON A#DIT AND LEONARDO L. "AMORALIN in his capacity as &(A08KA&orporate Auditor, respondents..R. N%. *8)8-( A4942t *-, *))/ -) S!RA *+-

Fa1t23 *he petitioners are e!p"oyees o the oca" 8ater Kti"ities Ad!inistration -8KA 'ho 'erereceiving honoraria as designated !e!bers o the 8KA Board ecretariat and the Pre0Lua"iication, Bids and A'ards &o!!ittee prior to u"y ;, ;?@?.(n u"y ;, ;?@?, 5epub"ic Act No.67@ -5A 67@, entit"ed


5/17

Preliminary Title

pub"ication o sub/ect circu"ar in the (icia" )a%ette or in a ne'spaper o genera" circu"ation in thePhi"ippines to the end that they be given a!p"est opportunity to voice out 'hatever oppositionthey !ay have, and to venti"ate their stance on the !atter. *his approach is !ore in #eeping 'ithde!ocratic precepts and rudi!ents o airness and transparency.

PHILIPPINE VETERANS BAN; EMPLOYEES #NION and PERFE!TO V. FERNANDEZ, petitioners, vs. HONORABLE BEN"AMIN VEA, presiding /udge o Branch 4? o the 5egiona" *ria"&ourt o Mani"a, T


6/17

Preliminary Title

FELIZA P. DE ROY and VIRILIO RAMOS, petitioners, vs. !O#RT OF APPEALS and L#ISBERNAL, SR ., LENIA BERNAL, L#IS BERNAL, "R., HEIRS OF MARISSA BERNAL,na!e"y

, LI!ERIA DELA !R#Z BERNAL and L#IS BERNAL, SR., respondents.

.R. N%. /80*/ "an4ary -), *)// *+0 S!RA +0+

Fa1t23 *he ire'a"" o a burned out bui"ding o'ned by de 5oy and 5a!os, petitioners, co""apsedand destroyed the tai"oring shop occupied by the Berna" a!i"y, private respondents, resu"ting inin/uries to private respondents and the death o Marissa Berna", a daughter. *he Berna" a!i"y hadbeen 'arned by de 5oy and 5a!os to vacate their shop in vie' o its proxi!ity to the 'ea#ened'a"" but the or!er ai"ed to do. *he 5*& ound the petitioners gui"ty o gross neg"igence. (nappea", the decision o the tria" court 'as air!ed in toto by the &ourt o Appea"s. (n the "ast dayo the ;7 days period to i"e an appea", petitioners i"ed a !otion or extension o ti!e to i"e a!otion or reconsideration, 'hich 'as eventua""y denied by the appe""ate court contending that the;70day period or appea"ing or or i"ing a Motion or 5econsideration cannot be extended. *he court

app"ied the ru"e "aid do'n in Habaluyas Enterprises Inc., vs. Japzon, 136 SCR !6. Petitioners contendthat the ru"e enunciated in the said case shou"d not be !ade to app"y to the! because o the non0pub"ication o the Faba"uyas decision in the (icia" )a%ette as o the ti!e the sub/ect decision othe &A 'as pro!u"gated.

I224e3 8hether or not upre!e &ourt decisions !ust be pub"ished in the (icia" )a%ette beorethey can be binding.

Hel53 *he upre!e &ourt did not agree 'ith the petitioners contention. *he court he"d that thereis no "a' re1uiring the pub"ication o upre!e &ourt decision in the (icia" )a%ette beore they canbe binding and as a condition to their beco!ing eective. It is the bounden duty o counse" as"a'yer in active "a' practice to #eep abreast o decisions o the upre!e &ourt particu"ar"y 'hereissues have been c"ariied, consistent"y reiterated and pub"ished in the advance reports o upre!e&ourt decisions -).5.s and in such pub"ications as the upre!e &ourts 5eports Annotated -&5Aand "a' /ourna"s.

*hus, the &ourt denied the petition or "ac# o !erit.

#N!IANO PARAMEDI!AL !OLLEE, IN!.-no' KN&IAN( &(E)E O )ENE5A F(PI*A,IN&.MIRANDO !. #N!IANO, SR ., DOMINADOR SANTOS and EDITHA MORA,

petitioners, vs.THE !O#RT OF APPEALS, Fonorab"e LO#RDES ;. TAYAO&"A#ROS, in hercapacity as Presiding udge, 5egiona" *ria" &ourt, Branch :;, Mani"a ELENA VILLEAS thruVI!TORIA VILLEAS and TED MAALLANES thru "A!INTA MAALLANES, respondents..R. N%. *88((+ Aril 0, *))( --* S!RA -/+



7/17

Preliminary Title

Fa1t23 (n Apri" ;6, ;??H, private respondents E"ena Ji""egas and *ed Maga""anes, thru their!others, Jictoria Ji""egas and acinta Maga""anes, respective"y, i"ed beore the 5egiona" *ria" &ourt,a petition or in/unction and da!ages 'ith prayer or a 'rit o pre"i!inary !andatory in/unctionagainst petitioners a""eging that on u"y ;?@?, the above0na!ed students initiated a petitionproposing to the schoo" authorities the organi%ation o a student counci" in the schoo". *hey

so"icited support o their petition ro! the studentry by as#ing the students to endorse the sa!e'ith their signatures. *hey 'ere ab"e to get at "east ;@H signatures. *hen, on August ;@, ;?@?, thestudents 'ere su!!oned to the (ice o Dean o Discip"ine and 'ere ad!onished not to proceed'ith the proposa" because, according to her, the schoo" does not a""o' and had never a""o'ed suchan organi%ation. ater, on (ctober :@, ;?@?, in co!p"iance 'ith an announce!ent to see the Deano Nursing, the above0na!ed students !et 'ith Dean Jitug and Dr. Mora" 'ho inor!ed the! thatthey 'ou"d be barred ro! enro""!ent or the second se!ester because the schoo" does not a""o'their students to put up a student counci". Dr. Mora" advised the! to get their Fonorab"e Dis!issa".

(n Nove!ber 6, ;?@?, the students again approached Dr. Mora" 'ho inor!ed the! thatthey 'ere no "onger a""o'ed to enro"" because they are a""eged"y !e!bers o the Nationa" Knion otudents o the Phi"ippines -NKP and the eague o =i"ipino tudents -=, oicers o the

student organi%ation they organi%ed, and, !oreover $drug addicts.$ *he students as#ed or proo othese accusations but 'ere not given any. oon ater that sa!e !onth, the students 'ereinor!ed that the President o the &o""ege had uni"atera""y reused to a""o' the! to enro"" and it'as up to their parents to re1uest or appea" to the schoo" oicia"s to change their decision. (n ;;Dece!ber ;?@?, the students 'ere inor!ed that the Board o *rustees had reused to grant theparents$ re1uest. *he tria" court issued a te!porary restraining order eective May ;,;??H,en/oining petitioner ro! not enro""ing private respondents in its &o""ege o Nursing. *hepetitioners i"ed an opposition but the 5*& sti"" ordered the schoo" to a""o' the students to enro"".*he petitioners e"evated the !atter to the &ourt o Appea"s. Fo'ever, their petition or certiorariand prohibition 'ith pre"i!inary in/unction, 'as dis!issed on =ebruary , ;??; or "ac# o !erit.(n une 4, ;??;, the petitioners !otion or reconsideration 'as denied, again, or "ac# o !erit.&ourt o Appea"s uphe"d the ru"ing o the 5*&.

I224e3 8hether or not the non doctrine shou"d be app"ied retroactive"y to govern and inva"idatethe "ega" eects o incidents that too# p"ace prior to its adoption and 'hich incidents 'ere properand va"id under the A"cua% Doctrine prevai"ing at the ti!e said incidents too# p"ace.

Hel53 *he upre!e &ourt ru"ed that the non doctrine shou"d not be app"ied to the instant case yet.*he court agreed 'ith the argu!ents o the petitioners that under the then prevai"ing A"cua%Doctrine 'hich 'as pro!u"gated on May :, ;?@@, the contract bet'een the! and privaterespondents 'as va"id"y ter!inated upon the end o the irst se!ester o schoo" year ;?@?0;??H.ett"ed is the ru"e that 'hen a doctrine o this &ourt is overru"ed and a dierent vie' is adopted,the ne' doctrine is app"ied prospective"y, and shou"d not app"y to parties 'ho re"ied on the o"ddoctrine and acted on the aith thereo. *hus, the 'rit o pre"i!inary !andatory in/unction 'asissued by the tria" court 'ith grave abuse o discretion.

*he court stated that the ru"ing in the non0case shou"d not be given a retroactive eect tocases that arose beore its pro!u"gation on May :H, ;??H, as in this case, 'hich 'as i"ed on Apri";6, ;??H. I it 'ere other'ise, it 'ou"d resu"t in oppression to petitioners and other schoo"ssi!i"ar"y situated 'ho re"ied on the ru"ing in the A"cua% case, pro!u"gated on May :, ;?@@, 'hichrecogni%ed the ter!ination o contract theory. Private respondents do not possess any c"ear "ega"right to re0enro"" petitioners are not ob"iged "ega""y to re0ad!it the!.



8/17

Preliminary Title

!ARLOS ALONZO and !ASIMIRA ALONZO, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE!O#RT, respondent .

.R. N%. 0-/0( May -/, *)/0 *+8 S!RA -+)

Fa1t2Q =ive brothers and sisters inherited in e1ua" a parce" o "and ro! their deceased parents.*'o o the sib"ings so"d their share, &e"estino and Eusta1uia Padua, or the price o 77H and >>Hpesos, and in the dates ;?64 and ;?6> respective"y. By virtue o such sa"e the petitioners occupiedthe area and enc"osed it 'ith a ence. In ;?7 their son Eduardo bui"t a house on the c"osed area.(n ;?6 one o the co0heirs, Maria Padua, sought to redee! the area so"d to the petitioners but'as dis!issed as she is an A!erican citi%en. Another petition or the sa!e, invo#ing the right orede!ption, 'as i"ed by *ec"a Padua, another co0heir but 'as dis!issed on the ground that theright had a"ready e"apsed, not having been exercised 'ithin thirty days ro! the notice o the sa"esin ;?64 and ;?6>.

A"though there 'as no 'ritten notice, it 'as he"d that actua" #no'"edge o the sa"essatisied the re1uire!ent o "a' as to the act that *ec"a 'as "iving on the sa!e "ot 'ith Eusta1uia

and it 'as i!possib"e o her not to #no' especia""y that there 'as an erection o a se!i0concretestructure 'ithout ob/ection on her part or o the other co0heirs.I224e3 8hether or not any o the co0heirs can invo#e their right o rede!ption 'ithout havingbeen inor!ed through 'ritten notice and ater ;4 years has e"apsed ater the sa"e

Hel53 *he court he"d that even 'ithout the notice, the #no'"edge o the inor!ation that the "and'as a"ready so"d to the A"on%os starts the count o the 4H0day period. It is i!probab"e or the co0heirs to not #no' that the "and 'as being !ortgaged as the A"on%os had a"ready erected a houseon their "and and considering they 'ere c"osed riends. 8hen the irst co!p"aint or rede!ption'as i"ed, the other co0heirs 'ere actua""y inor!ed o the sa"e and that thereater the 4H0dayperiod has started running and u"ti!ate"y expired. *his cou"d have happened any ti!e during thethirteen years, 'hen none o the co0heirs !ade a !ove to redee! the properties so"d. By ;?, in

other 'ords, 'hen *ec"a i"ed her co!p"aint, the right o rede!ption had a"ready been extinguishedbecause the period or its exercise had a"ready expired.Interpreting and app"ying Artic"e ;H@@ o the &ivi" &ode !ust be in har!ony 'ith being /ust.

a' and /ustice are inseparab"e and 'e !ust #eep the! so. As stated by ustice Fo"!es, 2&ourtsare apt to err by stic#ing too c"ose"y to the 'ords o a "a'3. Knder Artic"e ;H o &ivi" &ode, itprovides that in case o doubt in the interpretation and app"ication o "a's, it is presu!ed that the"a'!a#ing body intended right and /ustice to prevai". In case at bar, the said provision c"ear"yair!s that the right o rede!ption has "apsed.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plainti""#appellees, vs. "OSE "ABINAL Y!ARMEN, de"endant#appellant .

.R. N%. L&(88'* Fe6r4ary -0, *)0 ++ S!RA '80

Fa1t23 (n epte!ber 7, ;?6@, ?p! in the evening, in the city o Batangas, the accused 'ascarrying a revo"ver and a!!unition 'ithout the re1uisite "icense or per!it. Fis contention 'as thathe had an appoint!ent as a secret agent ro! the Provincia" )overnor o Batangas and anappoint!ent as conidentia" agent ro! the Provincia" &o!!ander and that the said appoint!entcarried 'ith the! the authority to possess and carry the irear! in 1uestion.



9/17

Preliminary Title

*he accused a"so contended that he shou"d be ac1uitted on the basis o the upre!e&ourts decision on $eople vs. %acarandan& and $eople vs. 'ucero. Fo'ever, the tria" court oundthe accused cri!ina""y "iab"e or i""ega" possession o irear! and a!!unition on the ground thatthe ru"ings in %acarandan& and in 'ucero 'ere reversed and abandoned in $eople vs. %apa. *he

case 'as e"evated to the upre!e &ourt. *he court considered his appoint!ent as a !itigatingcircu!stance.

I224e3; 8hether or not he shou"d be ac1uitted by virtue o the Macarandang and ucero Doctrine.: 8hether or not the above !entioned doctrine or! part o the "ega" syste! o the

Phi"ippines

Hel53 *he decisions o the court, a"though in the!se"ves not "a's, are neverthe"ess evidence o'hat the "a's !ean, and this is the reason 'hy under Artic"e @ o the Ne' &ivi" &ode, 2/udicia"decisions app"ying or interpreting the "a' sha"" or! a part o the "ega" syste!3. *he interpretationupon a "a' by this court constitutes, in a 'ay, a part o the "a' as o the date that "a' 'as

origina""y passed, since this courts construction !ere"y estab"ishes the conte!poraneous "egis"ativeintent that the "a' thus construed intends to eectuate. *he sett"ed ru"e supported by nu!erousauthorities is a restate!ent o the "ega" !axi! le&is interpretation le&is vin obtinet . *he doctrine "aiddo'n in the case o Lucero and Macarandang 'as part o the /urisprudence at the ti!e appe""ant'as ound in possession o the irear! in 1uestion and 'hen he 'as arraigned by the tria" court.

EMETERIO !#I, plainti""#appellant , vs. ARELLANO #NIVERSITY, de"endant#appellee.N%. L& *+*-0 May (8, *)'* - S!RA -8+

Fa1t23 Beore the schoo" year ;?>@0;?>?, P"ainti &ui enro""ed in the &o""ege o "a' o Are""anoKniversity and too# up preparatory "a' course in the deendant schoo" and thereater enro""ed in

the co""ege o a' in the sa!e schoo". Fe inished the course unti" the irst se!ester i his ourthyear. During the said years he had a scho"arship grant ro! the schoo", beneitting hi! throughrei!burse!ent o his tuition ater the end o each se!ester, but upon enro""!ent or the "astse!ester his unc"e the or!er dean o the deendant university accepted another deanship andchance""orship in Abad antos Kniversity causing hi! to ai" in paying the tuition o the p"ainti,pro!pting the "atter to enro"" in Abad antos Kniversity and "ater graduating in it. Fisrei!burse!ent a!ounted to ;H44.@ pesos. Kpon graduating in the university p"ainti returned tohis or!er schoo" to get his transcript o records or the app"ication in the bar exa!s, but thedeendant reused stating that the p"ainti shou"d pay bac# the rei!burse!ent given to hi! butthe schoo". *he p"ainti returned the su! bac# 'ith protest, thus the i"ing o the petition to ta#ebac# the rei!burse!ent.I224eQ 8hether or not contract !ade bet'een p"ainti and deendant is va"id

Hel53 *he stipu"ation in a contract, bet'een a p"ainti and deendant, that the student scho"arshipis good on"y i he continues on the sa!e schoo", and that he 'aives his right to transer to anotherschoo" 'ithout reunding the e1uiva"ent o his scho"arship in cash, is contrary to pub"ic po"icy and,hence nu"" and void because scho"arship are a'arded in recognition o !erit.

ILL#H ASAALI, HATIB ABD#RASID, IN;OH BANTALA, an5 BASO;IN;IN, petitioners, vs.THE !OMMISSIONER OF !#STOMS, respondent ..R. N%. L&-*08 De1em6er *', *)'/ -' S!RA (/-



10/17

Preliminary Title

Fa1t2Q (n epte!ber ;H, ;?7H at about noon, a custo!s patro" boat intercepted 7 sai"ing vesse"sin 1uestion on the high seas, bet'een North Borneo and u"u 'hi"e they 'ere heading to'ard*a'i0*a'i, u"u. Ater ordering the vesse"s to stop the tea! headed on board the ship and ound;@; cases o 2Fera"d3 cigarettes and ? cases 2&a!e"3 cigarettes. *hey 'ere a"so ound to not have

any per!it to possess and to engage in the i!portation o the !erchandise ro! the &o!!issiono &usto!s, to the port o u"u. *he vesse"s and its cargo 'as sei%ed and oreited.I224eQ Is the sei%ure outside the territoria" 'aters inva"id in connection 'ith the right o the stateto protect itse" and its revenues extends to the high seas.Hel5Q *heir course announced "oud"y their intention not !ere"y to s#irt a"ong the territoria"boundary o the Phi"ippines but to co!e 'ithin our "i!its and "ands so!e'here a"ong *a'i0*a'ito'ards 'hich their pro's 'ere pointed. As a !atter o act, they 'ere about to cross our a1uaticboundary but or the intervention o a custo!s patro" 'hich, ro! a"" appearances, 'as !ore thaneager to acco!p"ish its !ission.

ALI!E VAN DORN, petitioner , vs. HONORABLE MAN#EL RANILLO, "r.., and RI!HARD#PTON, respondents.N%. L& '/08 O1t%6er /, *)/) *() S!RA *()

FA!TS3 Petitioner A"ice 5eyes is a citi%en o the Phi"ippines 'hi"e private respondent is a citi%en othe Knited tates. *hey 'ere !arried in Fong#ong in ;?: and ater the !arriage, theyestab"ished their residence in the Phi"ippines and begot t'o chi"dren, ho'ever, the parties 'ere a"sodivorced in Nevada, Knited tates. Eventua""y, petitioner re0!arried to *heodore Jan Dorn inNevada, Knited tates.

(n une @, ;?@4, private respondent i"ed suit against petitioner, stating that petitioners businessin Mani"a is the con/uga" property o the parties and as#ing that petitioner be ordered to renderaccounting o the business be dec"ared 'ith right to !anage the con/uga" property. Fo'ever,petitioner !oved to dis!iss the case contending that the cause o action is barred by the previous /udg!ent in the divorce proceedings beore the Nevada &ourt. But the court denied the !otion todis!iss on the ground that the divorce decree has no bearing on this case because the propertyinvo"ved is "ocated in the Phi"ippines

I224e3 8hether or not the divorce is binding and va"id in the Phi"ippines that the Nevada court has /urisdiction over their divorce.

Held: It is true that o'ing to the nationa"ity princip"e e!bodied in Artic"e ;7 o the &ivi" &ode, on"yPhi"ippine nationa"s are covered by the po"icy against abso"ute divorces the sa!e being consideredcontrary to our concept o pub"ic po"icy and !ora"ity. Fo'ever, a"iens !ay obtain divorces abroad,

'hich !ay be recogni%ed in the Phi"ippines, provided they are va"id according to their nationa" "a'.In this case, the divorce in Nevada re"eased private respondent ro! the !arriage ro! thestandards o A!erican a', under 'hich divorce disso"ves the !arriage.

*hus, pursuant to his nationa" "a', private respondent is no "onger the husband petitioner.Fe 'ou"d have no standing to sue in the case be"o' as petitioners husband entit"ed to exercisecontro" over con/uga" assets. As he is bound by the decision o his o'n countrys court, 'hichva"id"y exercised /urisdiction over hi!, and 'hose decision he does not repudiate, he is stopped byhis o'n representation beore said court ro! asserting his right over the a""eged con/uga"property. *o !aintain, as private respondent does, that, under our "a's, petitioner has to be



11/17

Preliminary Title

considered sti"" !arried to private respondent and sti"" sub/ect to a 'ies ob"igations under Art.;H?, et.se1. o the &ivi" &ode cannot be /ust. Petitioner shou"d not be ob"iged to "ive together 'ith,observe !utua" respect and ide"ity, and render support to private respondent. *he "atter shou"dnot continue to be one o her heirs 'ith possib"e rights to con/uga" property.

IMELDA MANALAYSAY PILAPIL, petitioner , vs. HON. !ORONA IBAY&SOMERA, in hercapacity as Presiding udge o the 5egiona" *ria" &ourt o Mani"a, Branch JI HON. L#IS !.

VI!TOR, in his capacity as the &ity =isca" o Mani"a an5 ERI!H E;;EHARDEILIN, respondents..R. N%. /8**' "4ne (8, *)/) *0 S!RA '+

Fa1t23 (n epte!ber , ;??, I!e"d Pi"api", a =i"ipina and Erich )ei"ing, a )er!an nationa", 'ere!arried at =rieden'ei"er in the =edera" 5epub"ic o )er!any. Ater about three and a ha" years o!arriage, )ei"ing initiated a divorce proceeding against Pi"api" in )er!any in anuary ;?@4 'hi"ePi"api" i"ed an action or "ega" separation, support and separation o property beore 5*& o Mani"ain anuary :4, ;?@4 'here it is sti"" pending as a civi" case. (n anuary ;7, ;?@6, the "oca" &ourt o )er!any pro!u"gated a divorce decree on the ground o ai"ure o !arriage o the spouses. *hecustody o the chi"d, Isabe""a Pi"api" )ei"ing, 'as granted to petitioner.

(n une :, ;?@6, private respondent i"ed t'o co!p"aints or adu"tery a""eging that, 'hi"e

sti"" !arried to respondent, petitioner had an aair 'ith a certain 8i""ia! &hia and esus &huaso!eti!e in ;?@: and ;?@4 respective"y. *he respondent city isca" approved a reso"ution directingthe i"ing o t'o co!p"aints or adu"tery against petitioner. *hereater, petitioner i"ed a !otion inboth cri!ina" cases to deer her arraign!ent and to suspend urther proceedings thereon.5espondent /udge !ere"y reset the date o the arraign!ent but beore such schedu"ed date,petitioner !oved or the suspension o proceedings. (n epte!ber @, ;?@, respondent /udgedenied the !otion to 1uash and a"so directed the arraign!ent o both accused. Petitioner reusedto be arraigned and thus charged 'ith direct conte!pt and ined.

I224e3 8hether private respondent can prosecute petitioner on the ground o adu"tery even thoughthey are no "onger husband and 'ie as decree o divorce 'as a"ready issued.

Hel5Q In the present case, the act that private respondent obtained a va"id divorce in his country,the =edera" 5epub"ic o )er!any, is ad!itted. aid divorce and its "ega" eects !ay be recogni%edin the Phi"ippines insoar as private respondent is concerned in vie' o the nationa"ity princip"e inour civi" "a' on the !atter o status o persons. Private respondent, being no "onger the husband opetitioner, had no "ega" standing to co!!ence adu"tery case under the i!posture that he 'as theoended spouse at the ti!e he i"ed the suit.

*he a""egation o private respondent that he cou"d not have brought this case beore thedecree o divorce or "ac# o #no'"edge, even i true, is o no "ega" conidence or conse1uence in



12/17

Preliminary Title

this case. 8hen said respondent initiated the divorce proceeding, he obvious"y #ne' that there'ou"d no "onger be a a!i"y nor !arriage vo's to protect once a disso"ution o the !arriage isdecreed. Neither 'ou"d there be a danger o introducing spurious heirs into the a!i"y, 'hich is saidto be one o the reasons or the particu"ar or!u"ation o our "a' on adu"tery, since there 'ou"dthenceorth be no spousa" re"ationship to spea# o. *he severance o the !arita" bond had the

eect o dissociating the or!er spouses ro! each other, hence the dissociating the or!erspouses ro! each other hence the actuations o one 'ou"d not aect or cast ob"o1uy on theother.

PA#LA T. LLORENTE, petitioner , vs. !O#RT OF APPEALS and ALI!IA F. LLORENTE,

respondents..R. N%. *-(0* N%=em6er -(, -888 (+ S!RA +)-Fa1t23 *he deceased oren%o N. "orente 'as an en"isted service!an o the Knited tates Navyro! March ;H, ;?: to epte!ber 4H, ;?7. oren%o and petitioner Pau"a "orente 'as !arriedbeore a parish priest in =ebruary ::, ;?4. Beore the outbrea# o 'ar, oren%o departed or theKnited tates and Pau"a 'as "et at the con/uga" ho!e. oren%o 'as natura"i%ed by the Knitedtate. Ater the "iberation o the Phi"ippines he 'ent ho!e and visited his 'ie to 'hich hediscovered that his 'ie 'as pregnant and 'as having an adu"terous re"ationship. oren%o returnedto the K and i"ed or divorce. *herater, oren%o !arried A"icia orente and they "ived togetheror :7 years and begot 4 chi"dren. oren%o on his "ast 'i"" and testa!ent be1ueathed a"" hisproperty to A"icia and their 4 chi"dren. Pau"a i"ed a petition or "etters ad!inistration over oren%osestate. *he 5*& ru"ed in avor o Pau"a. (n appea", the decision 'as !odiied dec"aring A"icia as co0o'ner o 'hatever properties they have ac1uired. Fence, this petition to the upre!e &ourt.

I224e23 8hether or not the divorce obtained by oren%o capacitated hi! to re!arry.

Hel5Q ('ing to the nationa"ity princip"e e!bodied in Artic"e ;7 o the &ivi" &ode, on"y Phi"ippinenationa"s are covered by the po"icy against abso"ute divorces, the sa!e being considered contraryto our concept o pub"ic po"icy and !ora"ity. In the sa!e case, the &ourt ru"ed that a"iens !ayobtain divorces abroad, provided they are va"id according to their nationa" "a'. *he upre!e &ourthe"d that the divorce obtained by oren%o ro! his irst 'ie Pau"a 'as va"id and recogni%ed in this /urisdiction as a !atter o co!ity. *hus, the deceased is not covered by our "a's on 2a!i"y rightsand duties, status, condition and "ega" capacity.3 8hether the 'i"" is intrinsica""y va"id and 'ho sha""inherit ro! oren%o are issues best proved by oreign "a' 'hich !ust be p"eaded and proved.8hether the 'i"" 'as executed in accordance 'ith the or!a"ities re1uired is ans'ered by reerring

to Phi"ippine "a'. In act, the 'i"" 'as du"y probated.

:OLFAN O. ROEHR, petitioner , vs. MARIA !ARMEN D. RODRI#EZ, HON. "#DE"OSEFINA #EVARA&SALONA, Presiding udge o Ma#ati 5*&, Branch ;>?, respondents..R. N%. *-/-8 "4ne -8, -88( 8 S!RA )+Fa1t2Q Petitioner 5oehr, a )er!an citi%en and resident o )er!any, !arried private respondent&ar!en, a =i"ipina, on ;; Dece!ber ;?@H in Fa!burg, )e!any. Ear"y ;?@;, the !arriage 'as



13/17

Preliminary Title

ratiied in *ayasan, Negros (rienta". *hey had t'o daughters, &aro"yne and A"exandria Gristine.*hereater, private respondent i"ed a petition or the dec"aration o nu""ity o !arriage beore the5egiona" *ria" &ourt o Ma#ati on :@ August ;??6. Petitioner i"ed a !otion to dis!iss but 'asdenied by tria" court. A !otion or reconsideration 'as i"ed by private respondent but 'as againdenied by the tria" court.

In ;??, petitioner obtained a decree o divorce ro! the &ourt o =irst Instance oFa!burg0B"an#enese and granting the custody o the chi"dren to the ather. It 'as une ;>, ;???'hen pub"ic respondent issued an order granting the petitioners !otion to dis!iss, but 'aspartia""y set aside on epte!ber ;??? or the purpose o tac#"ing issues regarding propertyre"ations o the spouses as 'e"" as support and custody o their chi"dren. Petitioner assai"ed or thetria" courts "ac# o /urisdiction, and grave abuse o discretion on the part o the respondent /udge.

I224eQ 8hether or not the Phi"ippine courts can deter!ine the "ega" eects o a decree o divorcero! a oreign country.

Hel53 *he Phi"ippine courts has the /urisdiction to deter!ine the "ega" eects o a divorce obtained

ro! a oreign country such as those concerning 'ith support and custody. As a genera" ru"e,divorce decrees obtained by oreigners in other countries are recogni%ab"e in our /urisdiction, butthe "ega" eects thereo such as the custody, care, and support o the chi"dren !ust sti"" bedeter!ined by our courts. Beore our courts can give the eect o res (udicata to a oreign /udg!ent, such as the a'ard o custody to petitioner by the )er!an court, it !ust be sho'n thatthe parties opposed to the /udg!ent had been given a!p"e opportunity to do so on groundsa""o'ed under 5u"e 4?, ec 7H o the 5u"es o &ourt.

It is essentia" that there shou"d be an opportunity to cha""enge the oreign /udg!ent, inorder or the court in this /urisdiction to proper"y deter!ine its eicacy. In this /urisdiction, our5u"es o &ourt c"ear"y provide that 'ith respect to actions in persona), as distinguished ro!actions in re), a oreign /udg!ent !ere"y constitutes pri)a "acie evidence o the /ustness o the

c"ai! o a party and, as such, is sub/ect to proo to the contrary. In the present case, it cannot besaid that private respondent 'as given the opportunity to cha""enge the /udg!ent o the )er!ancourt so that there is basis or dec"aring that /udg!ent as res (udicata 'ith regard to the rights opetitioner to have parenta" custody o their t'o chi"dren. *he proceedings in the )er!an court'ere su!!ary. As to 'hat 'as the extent o private respondents participation in the proceedingsin the )er!an court, the records re!ain unc"ear. *he decree did not touch on the issue as to 'hothe oending spouse 'as. Absent any inding that private respondent is unit to obtain custody othe chi"dren, the tria" court 'as correct in setting the issue or hearing to deter!ine the issue oparenta" custody, care, support and education !indu" o the best interests o the chi"dren. *his isin consonance 'ith the provision in the &hi"d and Routh 8e"are &ode that the chi"ds 'e"are isa"'ays the para!ount consideration in a"" 1uestions concerning his care and custody.

IN THE MATTER OF THE TESTATE ESTATE OF ED:ARD E. !HRISTENSEN,Deceased. ADOLFO !. AZNAR, Executor an5 L#!Y !HRISTENSEN, Feir o thedeceased, e*ecutor and +eir#appellees , vs. HELEN !HRISTENSEN AR!IA, oppositor#appellant .N%. L&*'0) "an.(*, *)'( 0 S!RA )+

Fa1t2Q Ed'ard &hristensen, the deceased, is a citi%en o the K and o the tate o &a"iornia butdo!ici"ed in the Phi"ippines at the ti!e o his death, "et a 'i"" instituting appe""ee Maria ucy&hristensen as his so"e heir, to 'ho! he be1ueathed a"" his properties. Fe a"so !ade a provision



14/17

Preliminary Title

be1ueathing an a!ount o !oney to appe""ant Maria Fe"en &hristensen0)arcia. In accordance 'iththe 'i"" o the deceased, the executor in his ina" account and pro/ect o partition ratiied the saida!ount to Fe"en and proposed that the residue o the estate be transerred to ucy.

(pposition to the approva" o the pro/ect o partition 'as i"ed by Fe"en, insoar as it

deprives her o her "egiti!e as an ac#no'"edged natura" chi"d. Fe"en a""eged that the "a' thatshou"d govern the estate o the deceased &hristensen shou"d not be the interna" "a' o &a"iorniaa"one, but the entire "a' thereo because severa" oreign e"e!ents are invo"ved, that the oru! isthe Phi"ippines and even i the case 'ere decided in &a"iornia, ection ?>6 o the &a"iornia &ivi"&ode, 'hich re1uires that the do!ici"e o the decedent shou"d app"y, shou"d be app"icab"e. *he &=Iru"ed that the successiona" rights and intrinsic va"idity o the deceased 'i"" be governed by theinterna" "a' o &a"iornia, 'hich provides that a testator has the right to dispose o his property inthe 'ay he desires. Fe"en i"ed various !otions or reconsideration, but these 'ere denied.Fence,this appea".

I224e3 8hether or not the Phi"ippine "a' shou"d govern the 'i"" o the deceased.

Hel53 *he court he"d that the Phi"ippine "a' shou"d govern the 'i"" o the deceased, particu"ar"y,Artic"e ;6 o the &ivi" &ode in accordance 'ith the doctrine o renvoi. *here is no sing"e A!erican"a' governing the va"idity o testa!entary provisions in the Knited tates, each state o the Knionhaving its o'n private "a' app"icab"e to its citi%ens on"y and in orce on"y 'ithin the state. *henationa" "a' indicated in the Artic"e ;6 o the &ivi" &ode cannot possib"y !ean or app"y to anygenera" A!erican "a'. o it can reer to no other than the private "a' o the tate o &a"iornia.

*he decision o the court be"o', sustains the contention o the executor0appe""ee that underthe &a"iornia Probate &ode, a testator !ay dispose o his property by 'i"" in the or! and !annerhe desires. But appe""ant invo#es the provisions o Artic"e ?>6 o the &ivi" &ode o &a"iornia, 'hichis as o""o'sQI there is no "a' to the contrary, in the p"ace 'here persona" property is situated, it is dee!ed too""o' the person o its o'ner, and is governed by the "a' o his do!ici"e. *he doctrine o renvoi

!ay be invo#ed 'hen a /ura" !atter is presented, 'hich the con"ict0o0"a's ru"e o the oru!reers to a oreign "a', the con"ict0o0"a's ru"e o 'hich, in turn, reers the !atter bac# again tothe "a' o the oru!.

*he &ourt noted that Artic"e ?>6 o the &a"iornia &ivi" &ode is its con"ict o "a's ru"e, 'hi"ethe ru"e invo#ed by the appe""ees, its interna" "a'. I the "a' on succession and the con"ict o "a'sru"es o &a"iornia are to be enorced /oint"y, each in its o'n intended and appropriate sphere, theinterna" "a' shou"d app"y to citi%ens "iving in the tate, but Artic"e ?>6 shou"d app"y to such o itsciti%ens as are not do!ici"ed in &a"iornia but in other /urisdictions. *he ru"e "aid do'n o resortingto the "a' o the do!ici"e in the deter!ination o !atters 'ith oreign e"e!ent invo"ved is in accord'ith the genera" princip"e o A!erican "a' that the do!ici"iary "a' shou"d govern in !ost !attersor rights 'hich o""o' the person o the o'ner.

*he "a's o &a"iornia have prescribed t'o sets o "a's or its citi%ens, one or residentstherein and another or those do!ici"ed in other /urisdictions. 5eason de!ands that the &ourtshou"d enorce the &a"iornia interna" "a' prescribed or its citi%ens residing therein, and enorcethe con"ict o "a's ru"es or the citi%ens do!ici"ed abroad. I the &ourt !ust enorce the "a' o&a"iornia as in co!ity the &ourt is bound to go, as so dec"ared in Artic"e ;6 o the Phi"ippine &ivi"&ode, then the &ourt !ust enorce the "a' o &a"iornia in accordance 'ith the express !andatethereo and as above exp"ained, i.e., app"y the interna" "a' or residents therein, and its con"ict0o0"a's ru"e or those do!ici"ed abroad.



15/17

Preliminary Title

TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS . BELLIS, deceased., PEOPLE>S BAN; an5 TR#ST!OMPANY, e*ecutor , MARIA !RISTINA BELLIS and MIRIAM PALMA BELLIS, ppositors#appellants, vs. ED:ARD A. BELLIS, ET AL., +eirs# appellees..R. N%. L&-('0/ "4ne ', *)'0 -8 S!RA (+/

Fa1t2Q A!os Be""is 'as a citi%en o the tate o *exas, and o the Knited tates. By hisirst 'ie 'ho! he divorced he had ive "egiti!ate chi"dren, by his second 'ie, 'ho survived hi!,he had three "egiti!ate chi"dren, and three i""egiti!ate chi"dren. Beore he died, he !ade t'o 'i""s,one disposing o his *exas properties and the other disposing his Phi"ippine properties. Inboth 'i""s, his i""egiti!ate chi"dren 'ere not given anything. *he i""egiti!ate chi"dren opposed the'i"" on the ground that they have been deprived o their "egiti!es to 'hich they shou"d be entit"ed,i Phi"ippine "a' 'ere to be app"ied.

I224e3 8hether or not the nationa" "a' o the deceased shou"d deter!ine the successiona" rights othe i""egiti!ate chi"dren

Hel53 *he upre!e &ourt he"d that the said chi"dren are not entit"ed to their "egiti!es underthe *exas a', being the nationa" "a' o the deceased, there are no "egiti!es.

In this regard, the parties do not sub!it the case on, nor even discuss, the doctrine orenvoi, app"ied by this &ourt in znar v. C+ristensen -arcia, 0;6>?, anuary 4;, ;?64. aiddoctrine is usua""y pertinent 'here the decedent is a nationa" o one country, and a do!ici"e oanother. In the present case, it is not disputed that the decedent 'as both a nationa" o *exas anda do!ici"e thereo at the ti!e o his death. o that even assu!ing *exas has a con"ict o "a' ru"eproviding that the do!ici"iary syste! -"a' o the do!ici"e shou"d govern, the sa!e 'ou"d notresu"t in a reerence bac# -renvoi to Phi"ippine "a', but 'ou"d sti"" reer to *exas "a'. Nonethe"ess,i *exas has a con"icts ru"e adopting the situs theory -"ex rei sitae ca""ing or the app"ication o the"a' o the p"ace 'here the properties are situated, renvoi 'ou"d arise, since the properties hereinvo"ved are ound in the Phi"ippines. In the absence, ho'ever, o proo as to the con"ict o "a' ru"eo *exas, it shou"d not be presu!ed dierent ro! ours. Appe""ants$ position is thereore not restedon the doctrine o renvoi. As stated, they never invo#ed nor even !entioned it in their argu!ents.5ather, they argue that their case a""s under the circu!stances !entioned in the third paragrapho Artic"e ; in re"ation to Artic"e ;6 o the &ivi" &ode.

Artic"e ;6, par. :, and Art. ;H4? o the &ivi" &ode, render app"icab"e the nationa" "a' o thedecedent, in intestate or testa!entary successions, 'ith regard to our ite!sQ -a the order osuccession -b the a!ount o successiona" rights -e the intrinsic va"idity o the provisions o the'i"" and -d the capacity to succeed.

A5*. ;6. 5ea" property as 'e"" as persona" property is sub/ect to the "a' o the country 'here it issituated.

Fo'ever, intestate and testa!entary successions, both 'ith respect to the order osuccession and to the a!ount o successiona" rights and to the intrinsic va"idity o

testa!entary provisions, sha"" be regu"ated by the nationa" "a' o the person 'hosesuccession is under consideration, 'hatever !ay he the nature o the property andregard"ess o the country 'herein said property !ay be ound.

A5*. ;H4?. &apacity to succeed is governed by the "a' o the nation o the decedent.

Appe""ants 'ou"d ho'ever counter that Art. ;, paragraph three, o the &ivi" &ode, stating that



16/17

Preliminary Title

Prohibitive "a's concerning persons, their acts or property, and those 'hich have ortheir ob/ect pub"ic order, pub"ic po"icy and good custo!s sha"" not be renderedineective by "a's or /udg!ents pro!u"gated, or by deter!inations or conventionsagreed upon in a oreign country.

prevai"s as the exception to Art. ;6, par. : o the &ivi" &ode aore01uoted. *his is not correct.Precise"y, &ongress deleted the phrase,


17/17

Preliminary Title

and as it has been decided and it is not disputed that the nationa" "a' o the testator is that o thetate o Nevada 'hich a""o's a testator to dispose o a"" his property according to his 'i"". In caseat bar, the order o the court approving the pro/ect o partition !ade in.


main digest- preliminary title

Documents