Certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or administrative agency.

Article 6. Rights may be waived unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, moral or
good custom, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
Right- is something that gives someone a moral or legal claim or entitlement.
Waiver- is the intentional relinquishment of a known right.
Elements of a valid waiver
1. Waiver must be capacitated to create waiver.
2. Waiving party should have the right he or she is renouncing.
3. Waiver should be clear and unequivocal.
4. It should not be contrary to law, public order, public policy, moral or good custom, or prejudicial to a
third person with a right recognized by law.
5. If there are formalities needed, it should be complied.

Article 11. Customs which are contrary to law, public order or public policy shall not be
countenanced.
The court is duty-bound to resolve cases applying laws and rights that exists during the pertinent civil act
took place and supplant or replace or supersede law with custom.
Article 12. A custom must be proven as a fact, according to the rules of evidence.
Custom- rule of conduct formed by repetition of acts unfirmly observed as a social rule, legally binding and
obligatory.
Usage- repetition of acts
A usage is a repetition of acts whereas custom is the law or general rule that arises from such repetition.
There is usage without custom, but no custom without usage.
Kinds of custom:
General custom- prevails throughout a country, become law, and existence is to be determined by the court.
Is followed in all cases by all persons in the same business or territory which has long established.
Local custom- prevail only in some particular district or locality, or cities or municipalities.
Particular customs- in effect only to inhabitants of some particular idstricts.
Customs cannot justify what is illegal.
It can be used as guidance on the resolution of a case only when art 9 is applicable. It cannot prevail over
existing law or if it is against public order or public policy.
Requisites to make a custom an obligatory rule
1. When the acts have been repeatedly done
2. General practiced by the great mass of the social group.
3. Practice has been going on for a long period of time.
4. Community accepts it as proper way of acting and is obligatory to all.

There is no judicial notice of custom. Its existence must be proved by evidence by testimony or documents
recognizing its existence and observance for a long period of time EXCEPT when there is already a decision
rendered by the same court recognizing the custom, especially if decision had already been affirmed and
final and executory.
Article 13. When the laws speak of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood that years
are of 365 days, months of 30 days, days of 24 hours, and nights from sunset to sunrise.
If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of days which they
respectively have.
In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded and the last day included.

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS REVIEWR | Baysa 2019

Weeks- either seven successive days regardless of when the week shall begin or it shall begin on Sunday
and Monday.
Why exclude the first and include the last? Because if it not excluded, that first day will be less 24 hours
and will run in conflict with the law which provides that a day has 24 hours.
Article 14. Penal laws and those of public security and public safety shall be obligatory upon all who
live or sojourn in Philippine territ
ory, subject to the principles of public international law and treaty of stipulation. (Principle of
Territoriality)
Aliens are governed by their own national law; however penal laws equally apply to the aliens who live or
sojourn in the Philippines.
Any offense committed by anyone within the territory of the country is an offense against the State, which
has the power to prosecute and punish offender.
Exceptions:
1. Under the principles of public international law enjoying diplomatic immunity (head of states and
diplomat) Foreign Army. Consuls do not have immunities. He is subject to the laws and regulations
of the country he is accredited.
2. Those expressly excluded due to treaty of stipulations.
Immunity from suit may be granted to international agency by treat of stipulation.
Article 1 of the Constitution of the Philippines defines the boundaries of the Philippines ( National
Territory)
For the enforcement of Revised Penal Code, the Philippines has jurisdiction over certain cases committed
outside of its territory:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship. (are extension of Philippine
territory)
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippines or obligations or securities
issued by Philippines.
3. Acts connected with the introduction into these Islands of the obligations and securities.
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of their
functions.
5. Should commit any crime against national security and the law of nations
Extraterritorial jurisdiction- juridical power extending beyond the physical limits of a state.
Crimes committed on board of vessels of foreign registry but within the 3-mile limit of Philippine territory
are triable in the Philippine courts under the English rule.
Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the statuses, condition and legal capacity
of a persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad.
Family rights and duties- provided in the Family Code and other special laws relating to family law.
Marriage, its annulment or nullification, consequences, legal separation, property relations, support,
adoption, filiation, recognition, succession, emancipation, parental authority are governed exclusively by
Philippine law when citizens are involved wherever they may be.
Status- term used to designate the circumstances affecting legal situation (sum total of capacities and
incapacities) of a person in view of his age, nation, and family membership (civil status).
Private International Law
Status- includes both condition and legal capacity—capacity to have rights, to engage in legal transactions,
protection of personal interests and family relation (husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward),
transaction of family law (marriage, divorce, adoption, legitimation and emancipation, succession of testate
and intestate movables.
Condition- rank or status

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS REVIEWR | Baysa 2019

Legal Capacity- legal power to enter into binding obligations or to enjoy the privileges of a legal status.
Testamentary capacity- make a legally effective will.
Contractual capacity- enter into a legally binding contract.
Marital capacity- enter into valid marriage.
A person’s sex is an essential factor in marriage and family relations- part of legal capacity and civil status.
Article 15 determined by general assent and common agreement among civilized nations that the laws
relating to family rights and obligations, and status, condition, and legal capacity of persons are bound to
follow the laws of his native land wherever he moves because such laws are more suited to his personal
affairs.
A Filipino couple married in the Philippines divorced in abroad is not valid.
Filipino is freed from marriage bond if it is the foreign spouse who obtained validly the divorce abroad
(Article 26, Family Code). A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction,
provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner.
A Filipino who has undergone sexual reassignment and married a person of similar sex abroad will find the
marriage void in the Philippines.
Article 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is
situated.
Nationality or Citizenship theory- national law of the person applied in matters of personal relations.

Van Dorn pet vs Romillo (Upton res)

Facts:
Van Dorn is a Filipino and Upton is a citizen of US and were married in Hongkong in 1972. They
established their residence in the Philippines and had kids. Parties were divorced in Nevada and Alice
remarried Theodore Van Dorn also in Nevada.
Upton filed a suit against Van Dorn stating that petitioner’s business, the Galleon Shop in Manila, is a
conjugal property. He wants Van Dorn to be ordered to render an accounting of the business and Upton to
have the right to manage the conjugal property. Van Dorn moved to dismiss the case because the action is
barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings in Nevada where Upton acknowledged that he and
Van Dorn had no community property.
(The denial of a Motion to Dismiss in a civil case is interlocutory and is not subject to appeal. certiorari and
Prohibition are neither the remedies to question the propriety of an interlocutory order of the trial Court.
However, when a grave abuse of discretion was patently committed, or the lower Court acted capriciously
and whimsically, then it devolves upon this Court in a certiorari proceeding to exercise its supervisory
authority and to correct the error committed which, in such a case, is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. We
consider the petition filed in this case within the exception, and we have given it due course)
Van Dorn contends that respondent is estopped from laying claim on the alleged conjugal property because
of the representation he made in the divorce proceedings before the American Court that they had no
community of property; that the Galleon Shop was not established through conjugal funds, and that
respondent's claim is barred by prior judgment.
Upton avers that the Divorce Decree issued by the Nevada Court cannot prevail over the prohibitive laws
of the Philippines and its declared national policy; that the acts and declaration of a foreign Court cannot,
especially if the same is contrary to public policy, divest Philippine Courts of jurisdiction to entertain
matters within its jurisdiction.

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS REVIEWR | Baysa 2019

Issue: is their divorce valid in the Philippines?
The Nevada District Court obtained jurisdiction over Van Dorn and Upton to agree to the divorce on the
ground of incompatibility in the understanding that there were neither community property not community
obligations.
Aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid
according to their national law. The divorce in Nevada released Upton from the marriage from the standards
of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage. Thus, pursuant to his national law, Upton is
no longer the husband of petitioner. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country's Court, which
validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not repudiate, he is barred from
asserting his right over alleged conjugal property.
Van Dorn should not be obliged to live together with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to
private respondent. She is granted to dismiss complaint from her.
Pilapil pet vs. Ibay- Somera (Geiling res)
Pilapil and Geiling was married in Germany and had a child in the Philippines. They were divorced in
Germany in 1986. More than 5 months after the issuance of the decree, Geiling filed 2 complaints of
adultery because of the affairs Pilapil had at 1982 and 1983. Pilapil filed a petition with the Secretary of
Justice asking that the aforesaid resolution of respondent fiscal be set aside and the cases against her be
dismissed.
Issue: Does Geiling has legal capacity to file those criminal cases?
Under Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, 17 the crime of adultery, as well as four other crimes against
chastity, cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint filed by the offended spouse.
Thus, the person who initiates the adultery case must be an offended spouse, and by this is meant that he is
still married to the accused spouse, at the time of the filing of the complaint.
In the present case, the fact that private respondent obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal
Republic of Germany, is admitted. Said divorce and its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines
insofar as private respondent is concerned 23 in view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the
matter of status of persons.
The questioned order denying petitioner's motion to quash is SET ASIDE and another one entered
DISMISSING the complaint in Criminal Case No. 87-52435 for lack of jurisdiction.
Garcia-Recio vs Recio
Garcia-Recio filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy learning
his marriage with Editha Samson.
(On June 26, 1992, respondent became an Australian citizen, as shown by a "Certificate of Australian
Citizenship" issued by the Australian government.) Garcia and Recio were married in the Philippines in
1994. In 1995, they lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of marriage. Conjugal assets were
divided on 1996 in Australia with their Statutory Declaration secured in Australia.

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS REVIEWR | Baysa 2019

Recio contended that his firs marriage had been validly dissolved by a divorce decree in Australia. Recio
prayed for the complaint to be dismissed.
Issue: (1) whether the divorce between respondent and Editha Samson was proven, and (2) whether
respondent was proven to be legally capacitated to marry petitioner.
Garcia-Recio argues that Recio failed to establish proof of the existence of (1) the foreign law allowing
absolute divorce and (2) the alleged divorce decree itself. She adds that respondent miserably failed to
establish these elements.
Therefore, before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove
the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Presentation solely of
the divorce decree is insufficient.
A writing or document may be proven as a public or official record of a foreign country by either (1) an
official publication or (2) a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document. If the
record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the
proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in
which the record is kept and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.
The divorce decree between respondent and Editha Samson appears to be an authentic one issued by an
Australian family court and was valid because he acquired an Australian Citizenship.
The party who alleges the existence of a fact or thing necessary in the prosecution or defense of an action.
Australian divorce decree contains a restriction that reads:
"1. A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree becomes absolute (unless the other party has
died) commits the offence of bigamy." It did not absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry according
to his national law.
The most judicious course is to remand this case to the trial court to receive evidence, if any, which show
petitioner's legal capacity to marry petitioner. Failing in that, then the court a quo may declare a nullity of
the parties' marriage on the ground of bigamy, there being already in evidence two existing marriage
certificates, which were both obtained in the Philippines
Quita pet vs CA (Blandina Dandan res)
Fe and Arturo were married in 1941. After the relationship turned sour Fe went to the US and in 1954
obtained a decree of absolute divorce. Fe got married thrice.
In 1972, Arturo died intestate. Fe is now claiming her right over the estate of the deceased spouse.
The trial court invoking Tenchavez v. Escaño 1 which held that "a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens
sought and decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil Code (Rep. Act 386) was not entitled to
recognition as valid in this jurisdiction," disregarded the divorce between petitioner and Arturo. Fe and the
brother of Arturo were half of the properties of Arturo. On motion for consideration, all the kids of Blandina
The SC remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether the second marriage of the spouse during
the subsistence of the first marriage was contracted before or after her changed of citizenship. Once proved
that she was no longer a Filipino citizen at the time of her 1st divorce, Van Dorn would become applicable
and Fe could very well lose her right to inherit from Arturo.

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS REVIEWR | Baysa 2019

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS REVIEWR | Baysa 2019