Welcome to Scribd. Sign in or start your free trial to enjoy unlimited e-books, audiobooks & documents.Find out more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Law on Persons and Family Relations Case Digest

Law on Persons and Family Relations Case Digest

|Views: 398|Likes:
Compilation of Case Digests
Compilation of Case Digests

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Carolyn Mina Cabling on Nov 10, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





On September to November 1980, petitioner Albenson Enterprises delivered to GuaranteeIndustries, Inc located at Sta. Mesa, Manila, mild steel plates which they had ordered. Part of payment,Albenson was given a heck of PBC No. 136361 in the amount of P2,575 and drawn against E.L.Woodworks account. The checked bounced. Account closed. Albenson traced it from SEC records and
discovered that it was from “Eugenio S. Baltao”. E.L. Woodworks was regis
tered in the name of EugenioBaltao and the signature appearing was from him. AEC made an extrajudicial demand upon privaterespondent Eugenio S. Baltao, President of Guaranteed to replace/make good the dishonored check.Baltao, through counsel, denied the check and alleged that Guaranteed was a defunct entity. OnFebruary 14, 1983, Albenson filed a complaint for violation of BP Blg 22. Respondent Baltao has anamaesake, his son who manages a business, E.L. Woodworks on the ground floor of Baltao Bldg.Respondent filed motion for reinvestigation with the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal who reversed the Asst
Fiscal’s findings. Filed in RTC QC complaint for damages. AEC contended that it was one for malicious
prosecution and its acting was without malice.
Whether or not AEC is liable for damages under Art. 19, 20,21 of the Civil Code.
No, AEC could not be said to have violated the principle of abuse of rights. It has been concludedthat based on Art 19, 20, 21 of the CC which states that the abuse of right using a legal act with theintent to injure others shall compensate for the damage. Albenson et. al did not intend to injure thatrespondent for accusing Baltao of B.P. blg 22, Moreover, albenson just want to collect what was due tothem for they believe that the check was issued by Baltao based on their collected info. Eugenio didnothing to clarify the case of mistaken identity. AEC find the best possible means to collect the sum dueto it. AEC acted in good faith in filing the complaint. Therefore, in the absence of proof and bad faith,AEC cannot be held liable for damage. Damnum absque injuria. Petition is granted and decision of CA isreversed and set aside.
Case no. 01-02Llorente vs. SandiganbayanFacts:
The Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) was reorganized in 1981, causing resignation of hundredsof its employees, including Mr. Curio, Mrs. Perez, Mr. Azucena and Mrs. Javier. To acquire their gratituitybenefits, they should apply and secure a clearance from PCA. Their clearance would be approved only if they have no pending accountability. The officer from who they should get the first approval from isAtty. Llorente or by Col. Duefias, and then by Atty. Rodriguez, the corporate auditor. Despite unsettledobligations from different sources (which were deducted from their gratituity benefits), the clearances
of Mr. Perez, Mrs. Javier and Mr. Azucena were approved. Under Mrs. Javier’s pending accountabilities
was the amount of P92,000, which was handwritten. This was the disallowered portion of the cash
advances of Mr. Curio in connection with his duties as “super cargo” in the distribution of seed nuts
throughout the country. He received them through and in the name of Mrs. Javier, the latter beingprimarily liable for the disallowances. Other documents were submitted during the deductions, with an
affidavit by Mr. Curio. However, Mr. Curio’s application for a clearance was not approved by Atty.
Llorente in his capacity as Deputy Administrator, due to the grounds of the affidavit that Mr. Curioexecuted. He further justified his action as following the condition of the clearance (pendingaccountabilities). This made Mr. Curio bring the matter to the legal affairs department, which was alsounder Atty. Llorente as Deputy Administrator. But the same was not approved. In 1986 or 5 years later,his pending request for clearance was approved. However, in the course of 5 years he was not ableacquire gainful employment because of his failure to present his clearance from PCA. Thus, he filed acase against the petitioner for failure to act in his duty.
whether or not petitioner exercised an abuse of right and he is liable for damages against Mr.Curio in accordance with Article 19 of the Civil Code
Yes. Although petitioner Llorente he did not act with evident bad faith as he was following theprocedures in securing a clearance as one of the public officer tasked for it, the fact that he was able toapprove clearances to other 3 employees despite their pending accountabilities somehow show that heunjustly discriminated Mr. Curio. Thus, he is liable for damages under Article 19 of the Civil Code.
Case No. 01-03Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court of Appeals219 SCRA 115 (1993)FACTS:
The respondent, Marilou T. Gonzales 20 years old, single, Filipino and a pretty lass of good moralcharacter and reputation duly respected in her community; on the other hand petitioner, GashemShookat Baksh, is an Iranian citizen residing at Lozano Apartments, Guilig, Dagupan City, and is anexchange student taking a medical course at the Lyceum Northwestern Colleges in Dagupan City, beforeAugust 20, 1987 the latter courted and proposed to marry her, she accepted his love on the conditionthat they get married; they therefore agreed to get married. The petitioner forced her to live with him in
the Lozano apartments. She was a virgin at that time. A week before the filing of complaint, petitioner’s
attitude towards her started to change. He maltreated and threatened to kill her. At the confrontationbefore the representative of the barangay captain of Guilig, Petitioner repudiated their marriageagreement because he was already married to someone living in Bacolod. Respondent thus filed acomplaint for damages against petitioner.
Whether or not Article 21 of the Civil Code applies to the case at bar.
The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong.Notwithstanding, Article 21, which is designed to expand the concepts of torts and quasi-delicts in this jurisdiction by granting adequate legal remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which isimpossible for human foresight to specifically enumerate and punish in the statute books.In the light of the above laudable purpose of Article 21, the c
ourt held that where a man’s promise to
marry in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation tofulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in sexualcongress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only subtlescheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and obtain her consent to sexual actcould justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such breach of promise of marriage but because of the fraud and deceit behind it, and the willful injury to her honor andreputation which followed thereafter. It is essential however, that such injury should have beencommitted in a manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->