Vda. De Haberer vs. Court of Appeals G.R. Nos.

L-42699 to L-42709; May 26, 1981 FACTS: The lower court dismissed 11 complaints for recovery of parcel of land. Plaintiff dies pending appeal. Counsel notifies the court of appellant’s death, and prayed for suspension of the period for filing an appellant’s brief pending appointment of an executor. The Court of Appeals denies extension and dismisses the appeal. ISSUE: Whether or not the death of one of the parties in a pending case is a proper recourse in dismissing the same. RULING: The Rules of Court requires appearance of the deceased legal representatives instead of dismissing the case. Dismissal of an appeal on the ground of failure to file appellant’s brief must be in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play. The extension should have been granted.


Whether or not the respondent could claim payment for the damages incurred by the petitioner. RULING: Mere breach of marriage is not punishable by law. However, since the respondent was proved to have a good moral character, and that she had just let her virginity be taken away by the petitioner since the latter offered a promise of marriage, then she could ask for payment for damages. Furthermore, since she let her lover, the petitioner, “deflowered” her since she believed that his promise to marry was true, and not due to her carnal desire, then she could have her claims against the petitioner. Moreover, the father of the respondent had already looked for pigs and chicken for the marriage reception and the sponsors for the marriage, and then damages were caused by the petitioner against the respondents, which qualified the claims of the respondent against the petitioner.

Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court of Appeals GR No. 97336 - February 19, 1993 FACTS: Petitioner was a medicine student at Lyceum Northwestern Colleges at Dagupan City. He was an Iranian exchange student and was 29 years old. Respondent was a former waitress on a luncheonette, and was 22 years old. Petitioner was allegedly the lover of the respondent, and was said to promise marriage to the latter, which convinced her to live with him in his apartment. It was even alleged that the petitioner went to the house of the respondent to inform her family about the marriage on the end of the semester. However, the marriage did not materialize, with several beatings and maltreatment experienced by the respondent from the petitioner. The case was filed in the RTC of Pangasinan, and the decision was held in favor of the respondent. However, the petitioner claimed that the judgment of the RTC was an error, for the claims of the respondent are not true, and that he did not know about the custom of the Filipinos; his acts were in accordance of his custom. The decision of the RTC was affirmed in toto by the Court of Appeals. Hence, the petitioner filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. FACTS:

University of the East vs. Jader GR No. 132344 - February 17, 2000 Romeo Jader, a law student of the University of the East, failed to take his regular examination in Practice Court I in his first semester of his last school year. However, he was able to remove the incomplete mark when the Dean of his college approved his application to take a removal examination. In the 2nd semester, his name appeared in the tentative list of candidates for graduation for the Decree of Bachelor of Laws and in the invitation for the 35th Investiture and Commencement Ceremonies, the plaintiff’s name appeared. Thus, he attended the investiture ceremonies and graduated. On April to September 1998, he took a leave of absence from his work and enrolled at the pre-bar review class in Far Eastern University. To his dismay upon knowing that he incurred a deficiency, he dropped his review class and was not able to take the bar examinations. He then filed a suit against UE praying for moral and exemplary damages arising from the latter’s negligence. The trial court ruled in his favor and was granted for actual damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision with modification. The CA awarded moral damages. On account of

The lower court acquitted Ucol on the ground that her guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt. upon respondent’s motion issued a resolution increasing the support pendants like to P20. Ucol. She was also alleged to have made remarks that Ruiz instigated the complaint and fabricated the charges. Petitioner motion for reconsideration was denied. No.G. ISSUE: Whether or not Jader may validly claim for damages. Along this vein. serious anxiety. . hence this petition. On appeal.000 monthly. Instead of appealing. Nos. Nos. The RTC in its decision. When the administrative case was dismissed. August 7. the provisions of article 50 in relation to articles 41. declared the marriage entered into between petitioner and respondent null and violation ordered the liquidation of the assets of the conjugal partnership property. Ucol filed a motion to dismiss stating that the action had prescribed and that the cause of action was barred by the decision in the criminal case for libel. 1987 FACTS: The laundrywoman for plaintiff-appellant Ruiz filed an administrative charge against defendant-appellee Ucol. 42 and 43 of the Family Code. Jesus B. as the case maybe. Ruiz filed a separate complaint for damages based on the same facts upon which the libel case was founded. subject to modification as the necessity arises. trauma. to have been acquired during the union of the parties. It cannot believe that he suffered shock. Since the properties ordered to be distributed by the court a quo were found. Court of Appeals G. the CA. March 31. providing for the dissolution of the absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains.R. Petitioner appealed before the CA. 000.R.suffering moral shock.R. the appellate court certified the case to the Supreme Court. While the appeal was pending. in her answer. the petitioner filed his own criminal complaint for libel against Ucol based on the alleged libelous portion of Ucol's answer. 127358 . RULING: Since the present case does not involve the annulment of a bigamous marriage. RULING: In view of the foregoing issue. Ruiz vs. the same would be covered by the co-ownership. The CA dismissal petitioner appeal for lack of merit and affirmed in to the RTC decision. 127449. While the Court held the University of the East negligent and therefore liable for actual damages in favor of Jader. mental anguish. Encarnacion Ucol G. besmirched reputation. Rather the general rule applies. It opined that as a student. especially those appertaining to his academics. are in order. he should have been responsible enough to ensure that all his affairs. alleged that Tagaca was merely used as a tool by Ruiz who wanted to get back at the Ucol's because of a case filed by respondent’s husband against Ruiz. the Supreme Court held Jader negligent. the Supreme Court emphatically enunciated that moral damages cannot be awarded to Romeo Jader. and pain. and awarded the care and custody of the minor to his mother. the latter was also held liable for negligence thereby no moral damages can be awarded in his favor. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on the ground of res judicata. ISSUE: Whether or not co-ownership is applicable to valid marriage. 2005 FACTS: Noel Buenaventura filed a position for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that both he and his wife were psychologically incapacitated. The trial court as to the civil liability of the accused made no pronouncement. wounded feelings and sleepless nights and ultimately for not having to take the bar exam. the property regime applicable to be liquidated. do not apply. The decision was affirmed with modification. L-45404. both by the RTC and the CA. ordered petitioner a regular support in favor of his son in the amount of 15. he brought this upon himself by not verifying if he has satisfied all the requirements. No fruits of a separate property of one of the parties appear to have been included or involved in said distribution. Noel Buenaventura vs. partitioned and distributed is that of equal co-ownership. If respondent was indeed humiliated by his failure to take the bar. which is in case a marriage is declared void ab initio. ISSUE: Whether or not the civil action for damages was already barred by the criminal case of libel.

or discredit to the complainant. ISSUE: Whether or not such illegitimate children of Bellis be entitled to successional rights. or other vessels. the recognized illegitimate children were not given any share. who was the master of a vessel transporting cattle. a civil suit for the recovery of damages arising therefrom may be brought by the injured party. No. honesty.R. RULING: The said illegitimate children are not entitled to their legitimes. 275 of the Philippine Commission. will govern the properties for succession even if it is stated in his testate that it shall be governed by the Philippine law. one disposing his Texas properties. failed to provide suitable means for securing the animals while they are in transit. Texas has no conflict rule (Rule of Private International Law) governing successional rights. Under Texas law. upon the vessels carrying such animals. Bellis G. unjustified and libelous attack against her honor. his national law. carrying or transporting cattle. character and reputation. with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency. the defendant was found guilty. independently of a criminal action for defamation. which she did in her answer. Bellis vs. Whether or not the Philippines has jurisdiction over this US vs. the vessel is within the territorial waters and thus. Even if the other will was executed in the Philippines. which causes dishonor. and sentenced to pay a fine of two hundred and fifty pesos. to protect her honesty and integrity and the very job upon which her family depend for their livelihood. Bayotas G. She was the victim of an unprovoked. No. or from any foreign port to any port within the Philippine Islands. he made two wills. ISSUE: case. Furthermore. sailing. or other animals. sheep. the other disposing his Philippine properties. No. swine. from one port in the Philippine Islands to another. carabao and other animals from Formosa to Manila. there are no legitimes. In both wills. 102007 (236 SCRA 239) FACTS: . still.RULING: The contentions of the petitioner have no merit. Bellis was a citizen and resident of Texas at the time of his death. A crime committed on board a Norwegian merchant vessel sailing to the Philippines is within the jurisdiction of the courts of the Philippines if the illegal conditions existed during the time the ship was within the territorial waters – regardless of the fact that the same conditions existed when the ship sailed from the foreign port and while it was on the high seas. there are no compulsory heirs. shall carry with them.” Bull contends that the Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over his offense. 33 of the Civil Code. Art. Before he died. sufficient forage and fresh water to provide for the suitable sustenance of such animals during the ordinary period occupied by the vessel in passage from the port of shipment to the port of debarkation. Bull 15 PHIL 7 FACTS: People vs. the laws of the Philippines shall apply. Such neglect was a violation of Act. L-23678 FACTS: Amos G. which reads: “The owners or masters of steam. The Supreme Court did not find any defamatory imputation.R. and shall cause such animals to be provided with adequate forage and fresh water at least once in every twenty-four hours from the time that the animals are embarked to the time of their final debarkation. The civil liability arising from the crime charged may still be determined in the criminal proceedings if the offended party does not waive to have it adjudged.N Bull. under Texas law. she has a right to selfdefense. In light of the above restriction. and to pay the costs. H. or does not reserve his right to institute a separate civil action against the defendant. RULING: When a vessel comes within 3 miles from the headlines which embrace the entrance of Manila Bay.

intimidation and violence allegedly employed against him by respondent only sometime later cannot be considered relevant. such as law. Rule 11 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure as amended. who claim to be her closest surviving relatives. contract. This separate civil action may be enforced either against the executor/administrator or the estate of the accused depending on the source of obligation upon which the same is based. RULING: Yes. The private respondent filed a civil action for declaration of nullity of her . the spouses Felipe and Concepcion Rigonan. an action for recovery may be pursued but only by way of filing a separate civil action and subject to Section 1. he cited in support and invoked the ruling of the Court of Appeals in People v. Crispin Mangabat and Samuel Capalungan.Rogelio Bayotas was charged with rape and eventually convicted on June 19. The petitioners stated that the Donato vs. No.R. Where civil liability survives. ISSUE: Whether or not the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his civil liability.R. In his comment. The petitioners Eugenio Domingo. it required the Solicitor-General to comment with regard to Bayotas’ civil liability arising from his commission of the offense charged. intimidation and undue influence were employed by respondent. marriage with petitioner. if the same may also be predicated from another source of obligation other than delict.00. ISSUES: Whether or not the issue raised in the civil case is a prejudicial question which must be determined before the criminal case can proceed. While the appeal was pending. No. Eugenio Domingo vs. violence. 127540 . and whether or not the petitioner lacked the legal capacity to contract the second marriage. violence and undue influence in order to establish that his act in the subsequent marriage was done involuntarily. quasi-contract or quasi-delict. In the petitioner’s argument that the second marriage should have been declared null and void on the ground of force. She allegedly sold them to private respondents. filed information for bigamy against Leonila Donato with the Court of First Instance. the claim for civil liability survives notwithstanding the death of the accused. Petitioner filed a motion to suspend the proceedings of the criminal case contending that the civil case seeking the annulment of the second marriage raise a prejudicial question which must be determined or decided before the criminal case can proceed. The respondent filed a complaint for reinvindicacion against petitioners. This comment was opposed by the counsel of accused-appellant. the Solicitor-General expressed his view that the death of accused-appellant did not extinguish his civil liability as a result of his commission of the offense charged. force and intimidation. Court of Appeals G. the death of the accused pending appeal of his conviction extinguishes his civil liability because tire liability is based solely on the criminal act committed. The Supreme Court dismissed the criminal aspect of the appeal. Hon. Luna G. L-54598. arguing that the death of the accused while judgment of the conviction is pending appeal extinguishes both criminal and civil penalties. and refused to vacate the same. the City Fiscal of Manila acting thru Assistant City Fiscal Amado Cantor. 2001 FACTS: Paulina Rigonan owned three parcels of land including the house and warehouse on one parcel. however. April 15. Donato interposed in her answer the defense that his second marriage was void and since it was solemnized without a marriage license and that force. 1988 FACTS: On January 23. allegedly took possession of the properties by means of stealth. Respondent had no previous knowledge of petitioner’s existing marriage to Rosalinda Maluping. which was held that the civil obligation in a criminal case takes root in the criminal responsibility and therefore civil liability is extinguished if accused should die before final judgment is rendered. 1991. 1979. RULING: Donato cannot apply the rule on prejudicial question because a case for annulment of marriage can only be considered as a prejudicial question on the condition that it must be proven that the petitioner’s consent to the marriage was obtained through intimidation. Bayotas died. who claim to be her relatives amounting to P850. Castillo. Corollarily.October 17.

. She could have not consented to the sale by merely imprinting her thumbmark on the deed. however.sale was spurious and they are the legitimate owner of the land being the nearest kin of Paulina. RULING: The Supreme Court reinstated the decision of the trial court. On appeal. The respondents shown a carbon copy of the deed of sale not bearing the signature of Paulina only allege thumb mark of the latter and the deed was tainted with alterations. She narrated that Paulina played with her waste and urinated in bed. when such age or infirmities have impaired the mental faculties so as to prevent the person from properly. The general rule is that a person is not incompetent to contract merely because of advanced years or by reason of physical infirmities. the petitioners asserted that there was abundant evidence at the time of the execution of the sale. However. Paulina was already incapacitated physically and mentally. The unrebutted testimony of Zosima Domingo shows that at the time of the alleged execution of the deed. and firmly protecting her property rights then she is undeniably incapacitated. defects and irregularities. the deceased was already senile. ISSUE: Whether or not the vendor has the capacity to act on the alleged sale of her property. She died an octogenarian barely over a year when the deed was allegedly executed but before copies of the deed were entered in the registry. The time of the execution of the alleged contract. There is a serious doubt that the seller consented to the sale of and the price for her parcels of land. Paulina Rigonan was already of advanced age and senile. intelligently. reversed the decision and declared the respondents the owner of the properties. The trial court found the deed “fake” and rendered judgment in favor of the petitioners. The appellate court.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful