G.R. No.

159422 [March 28, 2008] – stare decisis doctrine

CHINESE YOUNG MEN’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION v. REMINGTON STEEL CORPORATION

Facts: Remington leased three units of YMCA. Unit 964 and 966 (ground floor) and unit 963 (second
floor). As Remington’s contract for 963 was terminated, it filed for a fixing of lease period and was given
a final lease extension of 5 years. In this time, Remington turned over units to 964 and 966 back to
YMCA but subsequently padlocked the two ground floor units and used them as a passageway to unit
963.

YMCA petitioned a case for unlawful detainer where Remington was ordered to vacate the premises.
Remington appealed, and both cases were dismissed. YMCA were denied their review to the case
because they failed to show a proof of authority when they applied for certification of non-forum
shopping. The rules of court required a valid petition to proceed.

Issue: Whether or not YMCA’s petition of review is valid.

Held: Yes. The stare decisis doctrine (let the decision stand) states that once the SC has laid down a
principle of law applicable to a certain amount of facts which are substantially the same, it will use this
application in all future cases.

G.R. Nos. 11987-88 [October 12, 1995] – “Dura lex sed lex” principle

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HON. LORENZO B. VENERACION, Presiding Judge RTC

Facts: A body of a deceased young girl was found with wounds around her face and lacerations on her
genitalia. It was proven that three conspiring men committed this crime of rape and homicide against
the girl. The presiding judge who decided their case gave them the sentence of reclusion perpetua.

Issue: Whether or not on the occasion of Rape, committed homicide, is the judge allowed any discretion
in imposing either the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua or Death?

Holding: No. According to the law at that time, it states that, “When by reason on the occasion of rape, a
homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.” (Sec. 11. Article 335) Thus, dura lex sed lex. (The law
may be harsh, but it is still the law.)

G.R. No. 148311 [March 31, 2005] – Interpretation/Application of Laws

IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF STEPHANIE NATHY ASTORGA GARCIA, HONORATO B. CATINDIG,
petitioner

Facts: Catandig filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child. The petition was granted but the
court was silent on the matter of Catandig’s child adopting her mother’s middle name. There are no
laws regulating the use of a middle name.

Issue: May an illegitimate child, upon the adoption by her natural father, use the surname of her natural
mother as her middle name?
Holding: Yes. Art. 10 of the New Civil Code states that. “In case of doubt in the interpretation or
application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.” It was
in the best interest of the adopted child to acquire the maiden name of her mother as her middle name.
1.) The daughter can assert hereditary rights from her mother 2.) It is vested that legitimate children
have the right to bear the surname of the father and mother.

G.R. No. 68470 [October 8, 1895] – Status (marriage)

ALICE REYES VAN DORN v. HON. MANUEL V. ROMILLO, JR. presiding judge [October 8, 1985]

Facts: The petitioner is a citizen of the PH while the respondent is a citizen of the US. The couple married
in 1972, established residency in the PH then consequently divorced in Nevada, USA, in 1982. Private
responded (ex-husband) claims conjugal rights to manage a business of the petitioner located in Manila.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent (ex-husband) has the right to claim conjugal ownership of the
petitioners business in the PH.

Held: No. Art. 15 defines status. Filipinos’ status are governed by PH law while foreigners by their own
national law. Only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy against absolute divorces. However,
aliens may have divorces abroad, which is recognized in the PH. Thus, since the respondent is bound by
the decision of his country’s Court, his status gives him no jurisdiction over his claims.

G.R. no. 80116 [June 30, 1989] – status (marriage)

IMELDA MANALAYSAY PILAPIL v. HON. CORONA IBAY-SOMERA, presiding judge

Facts: The petitioner (a Filipina citizen) and the respondent (a German national), were married in
Germany in 1979. The private respondent subsequently filed for divorce in Germany in 1983 and the
German court issued the divorce in 1986. Five months after the divorce was enforced, the respondent
filed complaints of adultery against the petitioner (ex-wife) in a Manila court. He alleged that the
petitioner (ex-wife) had affairs in 1982 and 1983.

Issue: Whether or not the respondents’ complaints of adultery against the petitioner are valid.

Holding: No. The law states that in the prosecution of adultery, the person who can legally file the
complaint is the offended spouse. The valid divorce between issued in Germany prior the filing of the
adultery cases proves the case that the respondent does not have status to actually insinuate these
claims.

G.R. no. 124371 [November 23, 2000] – status, succession

PAULA T. LLORENTE v. COURT OF APPEALS and ALICIA F. LLORENTE

Facts: Lorenzo (serviceman of the US navy) and Paula Llorente married in 1937. During WW2, Lorenzo
went to the US and subsequently acquired US citizenship in 1943 while his wife stayed in the PH. When
Lorenzo returned to the PH, his wife was “living in” and pregnant from a relationship with Lorenzo’s
brother. Lorenzo returned to the US in 1951 to file for divorce, and the divorce became final in 1952.

In due course, Lorenzo returned to the PH and married Alicia Llorente in 1958. They had three children
during their 25 year union. In 1981, Lorenzo drafted his Last will in testament in favor of his current wife
and three children. Lorenzo died in 1985 before the proceedings were terminated. Following this, Paula
(ex-wife) filed a petition to claim over Lorenzo’s estate in her favor.

Issue: Whether or not Paula has the right to claim the estate of her deceased ex-husband.

Holding: No. Art. 15 states that “Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and
legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.

Art. 16 – “Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is
situated. However, intestate and testamentary succession, in terms of succession order, amount of
rights and validity of provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is
under consideration, whatever the nature of the property, and wherever the property may be found.”

G.R. no. 138322 [October 2, 2001]

GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO v. REDERICK A. RECIO – status, legal capacity

Facts: Rederick Recio, a Filipino, married Editha Samson, an Australian citizen in the PH on March 1987.
The couple lived together in Australia, but in 1989 they divorced in front of an Australian court. In 1992,
the respondent (Rederick) became a naturalized Australian citizen.

The petitioner (Grace), a Filipina married the respondent in 1994 in the PH. In 1998, petitioner filed a
complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the grounds of bigamy.

Issue: Whether or not the respondent was legally capacitated to marry the petitioner in 1994.

Holding: No. Although, the legal capacity to contract marriage is determined by the national law of the
respondent. This decree of divorce has to be proven because PH courts do not take notice of foreign
laws. Since the respondent was not able to establish complete evidence on his capacity to marry, the
court decided to remand the case for the purpose of receiving evidence.

G.R. No. 142820 [June 20, 2003] – status, legal capacity

WOLFGANG O. ROEHR v. MARIA CARMEN D. RODRIGUEZ

Facts: Wolfgang Roehr, a German citizen, married Carmen Rodriguez, a Filipina, on December 1980 in
Germany and afterwards married in the PH in 1981. Out of the union were born two children born 1981
and 1987 respectively. In 1996, respondent (Rodriguez) filed for annulment in the PH. Meanwhile in
1997, the petitioner, (Roehr) obtained a decree of divorce in Germany that provided him the parental
custody of both of the children. Respondent appealed in a PH court more for the purpose of
determining the issues of custody of the children and distribution of property.
Issue: Whether or not Maria Rodriguez has the right to petition for the custody of her two children.

Holding: Yes. As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are
recognizable in our jurisdiction, but the legal effects thereof, e.g. on custody, care and support of the
children, must be determined by our courts. Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata in
foreign judgement (custody), it must be shown that offended parties have ample opportunity to
challenge it. (Rule 39, Sec. 48, 1997 rules of Civil Procedure)

G.R. NO. L-23678 [June 6, 1967]

TESTATE ESTATE OF AMOS G. BELLIS, deceased v. EDWARD A. BELLIS, ET AL. – exception to lex situs rule
(law of the place where the property is situated)

Facts: Amos G. Bellis, a citizen of the State of Texas and the US, had two wives (first divorced), 8
legitimate children (5 from first marriage [one deceased at birth], 3 from second marriage) and 3
illegitimate children. Bellis issued a will dividing his estate with a different value for his first wife, his 3
illegitimate children, and the remaining estate to be distributed to his remaining legitimate children.
Two of Bellis’ illegitimate children filed for opposition on the grounds that they were deprived of their
legitimes.

Issue: Whether or not the two illegitimate children of Amos G. Bellis have rights to their legitime.
(principle of legitime is governed by PH law)

Holding: No. Art. 16 of the Civil Code states that, “intestate and testamentary successions, both with the
respect of the order of succession, the amount of successional rights and the intrinsic value of the
testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the decedent.” Which in this case, is
Texas law.

G.R. no. 88694 [January 11, 1993]

ALBENSON ENTREPRISES CORP., JESSIE YAP AND BENJAMIN MENDIONA v. COURT OF APPEALS AND
EUGENIO S. BALTAO – principle of abuse of rights

Facts: Albenson Enterprises delivered Guaranteed Industries mild steel plates that the latter ordered. As
payment, Albenson was given a check drawn against the account of E.L. Woodworks. It turned out that
the check was dishonored (bouncing check). Albenson investigated and were able to prove that the
unpaid check came from a certain Eugenio Baltao.

Through counsel, Albenson made an extrajudicial demand upon Baltao to make good of the dishonored
check. Baltao denied that he issued the check. Subsequently, Albenson filed a complaint against Baltao.
It turned out that Baltao had a namesake, his son, who manages E.L. Woodworks. In the turn of events,
Baltao filed a case for damages against Albenson for the unjust filing of a criminal charges against him.
Albenson appealed stating that the case filed by Baltao was malicious persecution. Albenson asserted
that the absence of malice on their part absolved them from the liability.

Issue: Whether or not Albenson is liable for damages on the abuse of rights against Baltao.
Holding: No. What prompted Albenson to file a case against Baltao was because of the failure to receive
the payment due to the bouncing check. Albenson acted in good faith when they searched for the origin
of the check and in no way did they deliberately try to humiliate or maliciously prosecute Baltao. Art. 19
lays down the principle of the abuse of rights and standards that should be observed in the exercise of
one rights and duties. These are: to act with justice; to give everyone their due; and to observe honesty
and good faith. Therefore, Albenson cannot be liable for damages.

G.R. no. 174269 [May 8, 2009]

POLO S. PANTALEON v. AMERICAN EXPRESS INTERNATIONAL, INC. –moral damages

Facts: Polo Pantaleon and his family joined an escorted tour of Western Europe in 1991. While in
Amsterdam, Mr. Pantaleon’s wife decided to buy jewelry before departing for a bus tour of the city.
Pantaleon presented his Amex credit card for the purchase at 9:15 am, 15 minutes before the bus tour
was meant to depart. 45 minutes after the Amex card was presented, the transaction had still not
gotten through. The family ended up departing the store and anguished because of the delay caused by
the transaction.

The Pantaleon family then went to the US, where the plaintiff experienced two significant delays in
transactions using his Amex card. After returning to the PH, Pantaleon filed charges Amex, seeking moral
and exemplary damages for his detrimental experiences abroad.

Issue: Whether or not Pantaleon should be awarded moral damages by Amex.

Holding: Yes. The findings of the court show that the Manila credit authorizer did not properly address
the concerns of Amexco Netherlands during the transaction. He had not informed Pantaleon that the
transaction would take time even though he had to ability to do so. It is ample to say that this
established bad faith and unjustified neglect. Art. 21 states that any person who causes injury to another
contrary to morals shall compensate the latter for the damage. Thus, Pantaleon may be awarded moral
damages.

G.R. no. 160273

CEBU COUNTRY CLUB, INC., v. RICARDO F. ELIZAGAQUE – abuse of rights, moral damages

Facts: Ricardo F. Elizagaque (respondent), a high ranking manager of San Miguel Corporation was
designated as a non-proprietary member of CCCI in 1987. In 1996, the respondent purchased a share of
CCCI for P3 million and was consequently issued Proprietary Ownership. In 1997, the respondent was
informed by CCCI’s corporate secretary that his was application was disapproved by the board.
Respondent inquired three times asking the reason for the objection but with no reply.

Respondent filed a complaint for damages against petitioners. The petition was granted and all
counterclaims were dismissed for lack of merit. (CCCI required a unanimous vote to approve new
candidates; the voting process included secret balloting where votes were anonymous)
Issue: Whether or not CCCI’s disapproval on the respondent’s application made them liable for
damages.

Holding: Yes. Art. 19 states that every person must “act with justice and give everyone his due.” CCCI
based its decision on random choice, with no proper reasoning to why the respondent’s application was
disapproved. When a right is exercised in a manner that does not conform to Art. 19, this can result in
damages which the wrongdoer is liable for. Thus, CCCI is made liable for damages against the
respondent.

G.R. No. 97336 [February 19, 1993]

GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MARILOU T. GONZALES – moral damages

Facts: Marilou Gonzales filed for damages against Gashem Shookat Baksh for the alleged violation of
their agreement to get married. The petitioner, an Iranian medical exchange student, courted and later
proposed to Gonzales where agreed to get married by October 1987. Sometime in August, the
petitioner asked Gonzales to live in with him but started maltreating Gonzales then subsequently told
her to not stay with him anymore. The trial court ruled in favor of Gonzales and the court of appeals
affirmed the decision. Petitioner now assails the decisions of the courts.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner is liable for moral damages under Art. 21 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines.

Holding: Yes. The petitioner is liable for damages because he employed deceit and fraud in his proposal
to Gonzales. He seduced the respondent to do sexual acts with him. Baksh blatantly acted contrary to
good morals, good customs, and public policy.

G.R. No. 154259 [February 28, 2005]

NIKKO HOTEL MANILA GARDEN and RUBY LIM v. ROBERTO REYES – abuse of rights, moral damages

Facts: Mr. Reyes attended a personal party thrown for the hotel’s manager, Mr. Masakazu Tsuroka. On
the account of Mr. Reyes, Dr. Violeta Filart vouched for his attendance. While at the buffet table,
executive secretary of Hotel Nikko, allegedly told Mr. Reyes to leave the party in a loud voice. Reyes was
subsequently escorted out of the hotel by a policeman. Feeling embarrassed by the situation that
happened, he filed a case against Ruby Lim and Nikko Hotel. Petitioner, on the other hand claimed that
she asked the respondent to leave in a discreet manner.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner abused the rights of the respondent while telling him to leave the
party; does this entitle the respondent for compensation of damages? (Art. 19, Art. 21)

Holding: No. It is proven by fact that the petitioner did not violate the rights of Reyes because Reyes
admitted that she was close enough to kiss him while she was asking him to leave. This action shows the
absence of a motive on the party of the petitioner to humiliate Mr. Reyes as it would be very unlikely for
her to shout from a very close distance. It was held that RTC’s decision is affirmed and CA was reversed.
G.R. No. 81262 [August 25, 1989]

GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP., and HERBERT C. HENDRY v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS and RESTITUTO M. TOBIAS – abuse of rights, moral damages

Facts: Mr. Tobias was accused of making fictitious purchases and other fraudulent transactions while
working for his employer Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp in 1972. Manila police conducted
investigations on the matter and even conducted a lie detector test on Tobias but cleared him from
participation in the anomalies. Irregardless of this, petitioners filed five other criminal complaints
against Tobias and terminated his employment. Tobias filed a complaint for illegal dismissal and also a
civil case for damages on the alleged malicious and abusive acts of his past employers. RTC and CA ruled
in favor of Tobias thus review for certiorari was filed.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioners are liable for damages to the private respondent.

Holding: Yes. Because the right to initiate criminal prosecution cannot be exercised maliciously and in
bad faith. Petitioners filed a total of 6 criminal cases which were all dismissed for lack of evidence.
Petitioners still appealed these cases even though there were police reports showing that the respondent
was cleared of participation in the fraudulent activities. Petitioner was even dangling these cases during
the pendency of the respondent’s illegal dismissal case, causing even more reason that the petitioners
were motivated by malicious intent. Wherefore, the petition is DENIED and decision of CA is AFFIRMED.