Baksh v.

CA Facts: petitioner Baksh was an Iranian citizen, exchange student taking a medical course in Dagupan City, who courted private respondent Marilou Gonzales, and promised to marry her. On the condition that they would get married, she reciprocated his love. They then set the marriage after the end of the school semester. He visited Marilou’s parents to secure their approval of marriage. In August 1987, he forced her to live with him, which she did. However, his attitude towards her changed, he maltreatreated her and even threatened to kill her, from which she sustained injuries. During the confrontation with the barangay captain, Baksh repudiated their marriage agreement, saying that he was already married to someone living in Bacolod. Marilou then filed for damages before the RTC. Baksh denied the allegations. The RTC ruled in favor of Marilou. The CA affirmed the RTC decision. Issue: WON damages may be recovered for a breach of promise to marry on the basis of Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines. WON Marilou is in pari delicto with the petitioner. Held: No. The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong, Article 21 may be applied in a breach of promise to marry where the woman is a victim of criminal or moral seduction. The SC is of the opinion, and so hold, that where a man’s promise to marry is in fact the proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and his representation to fulfill that promise thereafter becomes the proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive device to entice or inveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages pursuant to Article 21 not because of such promise to marry but because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to her honor and reputation which followed thereafter. It is essential however, that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. In the instant case, respondent Court found that it was the petitioner’s “fraudulent and deceptive protestations of love for and promise to marry plaintiff that made her surrender her virtue and womanhood to him and to live with him on the honest and sincere belief that he would keep said promise, and it was likewise these fraud and deception on appellant’s part that made plaintiff’s parents agree to their daughter’s living-in with him preparatory to their supposed marriage.” In short, private respondent surrendered her virginity, the cherished possession of every single Filipina, not because of lust but because of moral seduction. The pari delicto rule does not apply in this case for while indeed, the private respondent may not have been impelled by the purest of intentions, she eventually submitted to the petitioner in sexual congress not out of lust, but because of moral seduction. In fact, it is apparent that she had qualms of conscience about the entire episode for as soon as she found out that the petitioner was not going to marry her after all, she left him. WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the challenged decision, the instant petition is hereby DENIED, with costs against the petitioner. Bellis v. Bellis

compulsory heirs of the deceased. was a citizen of the State of Texas. under Art. paragraph three. Congress deleted the phrase. 16. and Art.. The parties admit that the decedent. As further indication of this legislative intent. This is not correct. to the decedent's national law. Assuming that such was the decedent's intention in executing a separate Philippine will. 16 in the new. in intestate or testamentary successions. Appellants would also point out that the decedent executed two wills — one to govern his Texas estate and the other his Philippine estate — arguing from this that he intended Philippine law to govern his Philippine estate. Bellis. public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated. Congress added a new provision. 1039 of the Civil Code. for his national law cannot be ignored in regard to those matters that Article 10 — now Article 16 — of the Civil Code states said national law should govern. their acts or property. and (d) the capacity to succeed. which decrees that capacity to succeed is to be governed by the national law of the decedent. Appellants would however counter that Art. Two of Amos’ illegitimate children filed their respective oppositions to the project of partition on the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children and. (b) the amount of successional rights. par. or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. stating that — Prohibitive laws concerning persons. Specific provisions must prevail over general ones. Their respective motions for reconsideration were denied. of the Civil Code. It must have been their purpose to make the second paragraph of Art. the amount of successional rights. Issues: Which law must apply —Texas law or Philippine law. 2. for it has been held in one case that a provision in a foreigner's will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law. After his death. inter alia. since the intrinsic validity of the provision of the will and the amount of . Amos G. Held: The Texas law should apply.A. The lower court issued an order overruling the oppositions and approving the executor's final account. In the project of partition. 1039. with regard to four items: (a) the order of succession. therefore. died a resident of Texas. report and administration and project of partition. there are no forced heirs or legitimes. Bellis. 10 of the old Civil Code as Art. prevails as the exception to Art. Amos Bellis executed a will in which he directed that a certain amount be given to his first wife and three illegitimate children the remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives. The Congress specifically chosen to leave. "notwithstanding the provisions of this and the next preceding article" when they incorporated Art. Accordingly.Facts: Amos G. is illegal and void. it would not alter the law. 2 of the Civil Code afore-quoted. and that under the laws of Texas. render applicable the national law of the decedent.S. 16 a specific provision in itself which must be applied in testate and intestate succession. U. (e) the intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will. Before his death. the executor divided the residuary estate into seven equal portions for the benefit of the testator's seven legitimate children by his first and second marriages. 17 of the new Civil Code. while reproducing without substantial change the second paragraph of Art. 17. Article 16. the executor of the will satisfied the respective legacies of his first wife and the 3 illegitimate children with the amounts indicated in the will. a citizen of the State of Texas. Precisely. 11 of the old Civil Code as Art. par. and those which have for their object public order.

A motion for reconsideration was filed by Alicia to the CA but it was denied for lack of merit. to visit his wife and he visited the Philippines. Lorenzo refused to forgive Paula and live with her. Llorente from his first wife Paula was valid and recognized in this jurisdiction citing the landmark case of Van Dorn v. Bellis. Lorenzo was granted an accrued leave by the U. Jr. Lorenzo executed a will wherein he bequeathed all his property to Alicia and their three children. encroaching on her legitime and 1/2 share in the conjugal property. The fact that the late Lorenzo N. Lorenzo filed with the RTC a petition for the probate and allowance of his last will and testament wherein Lorenzo moved that Alicia be appointed Special Administratrix of his estate. At first it was denied but the will was later admitted for probate finding that it was duly executed. Upon the liberation of the Philippines. Llorente? Held: The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Trial Court for ruling on the intrinsic validity of the will of the deceased. He discovered that his wife Paula was pregnant and was “living in” and having an adulterous relationship with his brother. this petition. Navy. (3) that Lorenzo’s will disposed of all his property in favor of Alicia and her children. Llorente became an American citizen long before and at the time of: (1) his divorce from Paula. as a rule. issues arising from these incidents are necessarily governed by foreign law as provided by the nationality principle embodied in Section 15 of the Civil Code which states that: . Hence.successional rights are to be determined under Texas law. CA Facts: Lorenzo N. Before the proceedings could be terminated. with costs against appellants. Romillo. Paula filed with the same court a petition for letters of administration over Lorenzo’s estate in her favor contending (1) that she was Lorenzo’s surviving spouse. Lorenzo died. Alicia filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. Lorenzo returned to the United States and obtained a divorce which later on became final. They lived together for 25 years as husband and wife and had 3 children. S. Wherefore. the Philippine law on legitimes cannot be applied to the testacy of Amos G. Llorente was an enlisted serviceman of the United States Navy. Issues: Who are entitled to inherit from the late Lorenzo N. The trial court gave due course to Paula’s petition. Lorenzo departed for the United States and was granted United States citizenship. Llorente v. (3) execution of his will. the order of the probate court is hereby affirmed in toto. admitted and undisputed. Thus. So ordered. Lorenzo returned to the Philippines and married Alicia. (2) that the various property were acquired during their marriage. He later on married Paula. (2) marriage to Alicia. The SC ruled that the divorce obtained by Lorenzo H. She then appealed to the CA which affirmed the decision of RTC with modifications declaring Alicia as co-owner of whatever properties she and the deceased may have acquired during the twenty-five (25) years of cohabitation. and (4) death. is duly established. Before the outbreak of the Pacific War. Alicia filed in the testate proceeding a petition for the issuance of letters testamentary.

These issues are best proved by foreign law which must be pleaded and proved. . intestate and testamentary succession. or to the status. condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines . whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. Since the will was probated as duly executed in accordance with the formalities of Philippine law the only questions left are whether the will is intrinsically valid and who shall inherit from Lorenzo. shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration . Art. 15. both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions.Art. Laws relating to family rights and duties. 16 of the same Code also provides that xxx However. even though living abroad.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times