VAN DORN V.
ROMILLO fact in this case is the Nevada divorce of the
ART 15
FACTS:
 Pet, Alice Reyes Van Dorn is a PH citizen
while the respondent is US Citizen, they
were married in HK 1972, then lived in PH
and begot two children, respectively, they
were divorce in Nevada US and where also
Alice Van Dorn got remarried to Theodore
Van Dorn
 Priv Res, filed suit against the petitioner
stating that the petitioner’s business in
Ermita isconjugal property and asking the
petitioner be ordered to render an account
of that business where he claim that he has
the right to manage the business because it
is conjugal property.
 Pet, moved to dismiss the case on the
ground that the action is barred by previous
judgement in the divorce proceedings in
the Nevada Court, where the res
acknowledge that he and pet had no
community property.
 Court denied to the motion to dismiss on
the ground that the property is located in
PH in where the divorce decree has no
bearing in the case.
 Pet, also contends that the business was not
established by conjugal funds
 Respondent avers that Divorce Decree
issued in Nevada cannot prevail over
prohibitive laws of the PH and declared
national policy
 It is not necessary to determine whether the
property relations between petitioner and
res, after the marriage were upon absolute
or relative community property. The pivotal
parties
ISSUE: Whether or not the foreign divorce
between the petitioner and private
respondent in Nevada is binding in the
Philippines where petitioner is a Filipino
citizen.
 HELD:
 As to Richard Upton, the divorce is
binding on him as an American Citizen.
 Owing to the nationality principle
embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code,
only Philippine nationals are covered by
the policy against absolute divorces the
same being considered contrary to our
concept of public policy and morality.
 However, aliens may obtain divorces
abroad, which may be recognized in the
Philippines, provided they are valid
according to their national law. The
divorce is likewise valid as to the
petitioner.
 As such, pursuant to his national law,
private respondent Richard Upton is no
longer the husband of petitioner.
 He would have no standing to sue Alice
Van Dorn to exercise control over
conjugal assets.
 He was bound by the Decision of his
own country’s Court, which validly
exercised jurisdiction over him, and
whose decision he did not repudiate, he
 is estopped by his own representation
before said Court from asserting his
right over the alleged conjugal property.
BELLIS VS. BELLIS
 Amos Belis born in Texas, a citizen of the
state of Texas and of the US., first wife,
Mary E. Mallen;
- 5 Legitimate Child ;
1. Henry
2. Edward
3. George – pre deceased in infancy
4. Anna
5. Alexander
Second wife, Violet Kennedy;
- 3 legitimate child
1. Edwin
2. Walter
3. Dorothy
and 3 ILLEGITIMATE child to Amos Bellis;
Maria Cristina and Miriam Palma Amos
Bellis Jr,
 Amos Bellis died in San Antonio Texas
USA, and his will admitted to probate in
the CFI of Manila
 Amos G. Bellis executed a will in PH
where it state that his 1st wife: 240,000 ,
second wife will receive 120,000 and to
his 3 illegitimate children will get 40,000
each
 All the remainder shall go to his 7
legitimate child in equal shares
 People's Bank and Trust Company as
executor of the will did as the will
directed
 Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma
Bellis filed their respective oppositions
on the ground that they were deprived
of their legitimes as illegitimate children
 Probate Court: Relying upon Art. 16 of
the Civil Code, it applied the national
law of the decedent, which in this case is
Texas law, which did not provide for
legitimes.
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT TEXAS LAWS OR
NATIONAL LAW OF AMOS SHOULD
GOVERN THE VALIDITY OF THE WILL
 HELD: Doctrine of Processual
Presumption:
 The foreign law, whenever applicable,
should be proved by the proponent
thereof, otherwise, such law shall be
presumed to be exactly the same as the
law of the forum.
 In the absence of proof as to the conflict
of law rule of Texas, it should not be
presumed different from ours. Apply
Philippine laws.
 Article 16, par. 2, and Art. 1039 of the
Civil Code, render applicable the
national law of the decedent, in intestate
or testamentary successions, with regard
to four items: (a) the order of succession;
(b) the amount of successional rights; (e)
the intrinsic validity of the provisions of
the will; and (d) the capacity to succeed.
They provide that —
 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
successions, both with respect to the
order of succession and to the amount
 of successional rights and to the intrinsic
validity of testamentary provisions, shall
be regulated by the national law of the
person whose succession is under
consideration, whatever may he the
nature of the property and regardless of
the country wherein said property may
be found.
 ART. 1039. Capacity to succeed is
governed by the law of the nation of the
decedent.
 The parties admit that the decedent,
Amos G. Bellis, was a citizen of the State
of Texas, U.S.A., and that under the laws
of Texas, there are no forced heirs or
legitimes. Accordingly, since the intrinsic
validity of the provision of the will and
the amount of successional rights are to
be determined under Texas law, the
Philippine law on legitimes cannot be
applied to the testacy of Amos G. Bellis.
*RENVOI DOCTRINE - takes place when the
conflicts rule of the forum makes a reference to
a foreign law, but the foreign law is found to
contain a conflict rule that returns or refers the
matter back to the law of the forum
(Remission)
HASEGAWA V. NIKAMURA
 Nippon Engineering Consultants,
petitioner is a Japanese Consultancy firm
ISSUE:Whether or not the subject matter
which provides technical and
jurisdiction of Philippine courts in civil cases for
management suppor in the
specific performance and damages involving
infrastracture project of Foreign
contracts executed outside the country by
Governments.
 Pet, entered to a ICA or Independent
Contractors Agreement with the
Respondent, KITAMURA, japanese
nations residing in PH.
 Kitamura were assigned as Proj Manager
of STAR Project in 1991
 2000 he was informed by the Petitiones
that it will no longer renew the ICA and
will be retained till the expiration
 Consequently, Kitamura filed a
complaint for specific performance and
damages with the Regional Trial Court
Lipa
 Petitioners contended that the ICA had
been perfected in Japan and executed
by and between Japanese nationals,
moved to dismiss the complaint for lack
of jurisdiction.
 They asserted that the claim for
improper pre-termination of
respondent’s ICA could only be heard
and ventilated in the proper courts of
Japan following the principles of lex loci
celebrationis and lex contractus.
 The RTC, denied the motion to dismiss.
 Petitioners on certiorari invoked the
defense of forum non conveniens. On
petition for review before this Court,
petitioners dropped their other
arguments, maintained the forum non
conveniens defense, and introduced
their new argument that the applicable
principle is the [state of the] most
significant relationship rule.
foreign nationals may be assailed on the  Lex loci celebrationis relates to the “law
principles of lex loci celebrationis, lex of the place of the ceremony” or the law
contractus, the “state of the most significant of the place where a contract is made.
relationship rule,” or forum non conveniens The doctrine of lex contractus or lex loci
contractus means the “law of the place
 HELD: No. To elucidate, in the judicial
where a contract is executed or to be
resolution of conflicts problems, three
performed.”
consecutive phases are involved:
 Accordingly, since the RTC is vested by
jurisdiction, choice of law, and
law with the power to entertain and hear
recognition and enforcement of
the civil case filed by respondent and
judgments.
the grounds raised by petitioners to
 Jurisdiction and choice of law are two
assail that jurisdiction are inappropriate,
distinct concepts. Jurisdiction considers
the trial and appellate courts correctly
whether it is fair to cause a defendant to
denied the petitioners’ motion to
travel to this state; choice of law asks the
dismiss
further question whether the application
of a substantive law which will
CUSTODIO VS. CA
determine the merits of the case is fair
 Respondent Mabasa owns a parcel of
to both parties. The power to exercise
land with a two door aparment erected
jurisdiction does not automatically give
thereon situated at the Interior P. Burgos
a state constitutional authority to apply
St. Palingon, Tipas, Taguig Metro Manila.
forum law.
 the said property purchased by Mabasa,
 To succeed in its motion for the
have tenants occupying the remises and
dismissal of an action for lack of
were acknowledge by Mabasa as
jurisdiction over the subject matter of
tenants
the claim, the movant must show that
 However sometime in Feb 1962, one the
the court or tribunal cannot act on the
tenant built an adobe fence in the first
matter submitted to it because no law
passageway making it narrower in width
grants it the power to adjudicate the
 constructed by Petitioners Santoses
claims.
along their property which is also along
 In the instant case, petitioners, in their
the first passageway. Defendant Morato
motion to dismiss, do not claim that the
constructed her adobe fence and even
trial court is not properly vested by law
extended said fence in such a way that
with jurisdiction to hear the subject
the entire passageway was enclosed.
controversy for, indeed, Civil Case No.
 Petitioners claim that they built the wall
00-0264 for specific performance and
in order to protect their persons and
damages is one not capable of
their property from their intrusive
pecuniary estimation and is properly
neighbors.
cognizable by the RTC of Lipa City.
  Trial Court nonetheless ordered that an
easement be created.
 Mabasa not satisfied, went to the Court
of Appeals which modified the decision
of the trial court by awarding actual
damages (p65,000.00), moral damages
(p30,000.00) and exemplary damages
(p10,000.00).
 Hence this petition. Damages were
based on the fact of loss in the form of
unrealized rentals on the property due
to the adobe wall restricting acces
ISSUE: WON THE AWARD OF DAMAGES IS IN
ORDER
RULING:
 Yes. The Court of Appeals erred, the
award for damages has no legal basis.
The mere fact of loss does not give rise
to a right to recover damages. There
must be both a right of action for a legal
wrong inflicted by defendant and a
damage to the plaintiff resulting
therefrom. Damages are merely a part
of the remedy allowed for the injury
caused by a breach or wrong.
 An injury is an illegal invasion of a legal
right, any loss, hurt and harm resulting
from the injury is damage.
 Damages are the recompense or
compensation awarded for the damage
suffered. In this case, the petitioners
merely constructed an adobe wall which
was in keeping with and is a valid
exercise of their rights as the owner of
their respective properties—i.e. there
was no abuse of right as
 provided for in Article 21 of the New
Civil Code and where the following
requisites must concur: (1) defendant
acted in a manner contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy; (2) The
acts should be willful and; (3) There was
damage or injury to the plaintiff. None
of these requisites was present in this
case.
 The loss was therefore not a result of a
violation of a legal duty. Instances where
the damage was not a result of an injury
is called damnum absque injuria and the
plaintiff is not normally given an award
for damages.
 In other words, in order that the law will
give redress for an act causing damage,
that act must be not only hurtful, but
wrongful. There must be damnum et
injuria.
DOCTRINE:
The mere fact that the plaintiff suffered
losses does not give rise to a right to
recover damages. To warrant the recovery
of damages, there must be both a right of
action for a legal wrong inflicted by the
defendant, and damage resulting to the
plaintiff therefrom. Wrong without damage,
or damage without wrong, does not
constitute a cause of action, since damages
are merely part of the remedy allowed for
the injury caused by a breach or wrong.
**** Damnum absque injuria – There is a
material distinction between damages and
injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal
right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm
which results from the injury; and damages
 are the recompense or compensation eventually fell in love with each other
awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, and conducted clandestine trysts and
there can be damage without injury in those exchanged love notes
instances in which the loss or harm was not  The rumors about their love affairs
the result of a violation of a legal duty. reached Lolita's parents sometime, in
These situations are often called damnum 1955, and since then defendant was
absque injuria. forbidden from going to their house and
from further seeing Lolita. The plaintiffs
Article 21 – Article 21 of the New Civil Code
even filed deportation proceedings
provides the basis for the principle of abuse
against defendant.
of rights. For there to be an abuse of rights,
 The affair between defendant and Lolita
the following requisites must concur: (1)
continued nonetheless.On April 14,
defendant acted in a manner contrary to
1957, Lolita disappeared from their
morals, good customs or public policy; (2)
house but her brothers and sisters found
The acts should be willful and; (3) There was
a note written by the defendant.
damage or injury to the plaintiff. *****
ISSUE: WON the defendant is liable
MBTC VS WONG
according to Art 21 of CC
PE VS PE
 HELD: Defendant won Lolita's
affection through an ingenious
scheme or trickery and seduced her
 Plaintiffs are the parents, brothers and
to the extent of making her fall in
sisters of one Lolita Pe. At the time of
love with him. The wrong that
her disappearance on April 14, 1957,
defendant has caused Lolita and her
Lolita was 24 years old and unmarried.
family is indeed immeasurable
Defendant is a married man and works
considering the fact that he is a
as agent of the La Perla Cigar and
married man. Verily, he has
Cigarette Factory.
committed an injury to Lolita's family
 Defendant was an adopted son of a
in a manner contrary to morals,
Chinaman named Pe Beco, a collateral
good customs, and public policy as
relative of Lolita's father. Because of
contemplated in Article 21 of the
such fact and the similarity in their
New Civil Code.
family name, defendant became close to
 ARTICLE 21, NEW CIVIL CODE OF
the plaintiffs who regarded him as a
THE PHILIPPINES
member of their family.
 "Any person who wilfully causes loss
 Sometime in 1952, defendant
or injury to another in a manner
frequented the house of Lolita on the
which is contrary to morals, good
pretext that he wanted her to teach him
customs, or public policy shall
how to pray the rosary. The two
 compensate the latter for the
damage."
 - P5,000.00 as damages
 - P2,000.00 as attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation
 - costs against appellee
BAKSH VS CA
 Petitioner Gashem Shookat 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 toward her
changed after a while; he would maltreat
and even threatened to kill her, from
which she sustained injuries.
 Upon confrontation with the barangay
captain, he 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 accusations but
asserted that he told her not to go to his
place since he discovered her stealing
his money and passport.
 The RTC ruled in favor of Gonzales. The
CA affirmed the RTC decision.
ISSUE:
 Whether or not breach of promise to
marry is an actionable wrong.
 Whether or not Art. 21 of the Civil Code
applies to this case.
 Whether or not pari delicto applies in
this case
 HELD: The existing rule is that a breach
of promise to marry per se is not an
actionable wrong.
 This, notwithstanding, Art. 21 is
designed to expand the concept of torts
or quasi-delict in this jurisdictions by
granting adequate legal remedy for the
untold number of moral wrongs which is
impossible for human foresight to
specifically enumerate and punish in the
statute books.
 Art. 21 defines quasi-delict:
Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or
negligence is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence,
if there is no pre-existing contractual
relation between the parties, is called
quasi-delict and is governed by the (Civil
Code).
 It is clear that petitioner harbors a
condescending if not sarcastic regard for
the private respondent on account of
the latter’s ignoble birth, inferior
educational background, poverty and, as
perceived by him, dishonorable
employment. From the beginning,
obviously, he was not at all moved by
good faith and an honest motive. Thus,
his profession of love and promise to
marry were empty words directly
intended to fool, dupe, entice, beguile
and deceive the poor woman into
believing that indeed, he loved her and
 would want her to be his life partner.
His was nothing but pure lust which he
wanted satisfied by a Filipina who
honestly believed that by accepting his
proffer of love and proposal of marriage,
she would be able to enjoy a life of ease
and security. Petitioner clearly violated
the Filipino concept of morality and so
brazenly defied the traditional respect
Filipinos have for their women. It can
even be said that the petitioner
committed such deplorable acts in
blatant disregard of Article 19 of the
Civil Code which directs every person to
act with justice, give everyone his due,
and observe honesty and good faith in
the exercise of his right and in the
performance of his obligations.
 No foreigner must be allowed to make
ISSUE : WON Santos can claim damages and if
a mockery of our laws, customs and
the acts of Tanjanco constitutes seduction.
traditions.
 She is not in pari delicto with the
petitioner. Pari delicto means in equal
fault. At most, it could be conceded that
she is merely in delicto.
 Equity often interfered for the relief of
the less guilty of the parties, where his
transgression has been brought about
by the imposition of undue influence of
the party on whom the burden of the
original wrong principally rests, or where
his consent to the transaction was itself
procured by fraud.
TANJANCO VS CA
 Apolonio Tanjanco courted Araceli
Santos both are of legal age.
 Tanjanco expressed his undying love
and affection for Santos who in due time
reciprocated the tender feelings.
 Santos consented and acceded to
Tanjanco's pleas for carnal knowledge
because off his promise to marriage.
Santos then conceived a child as a
consequence and to avoid
embarrassment and humiliation she had
to resign her job as a secretary in IBM
Inc.,.
 She was unable to support herself and
the baby.
 She also suffered moral shock and
humiliation because Tanjanco refused to
marry her.
 She prayed that Tanjanco would be
liable for damages
 HELD:
 No case can be made since the plaintiff
Araceli was a woman of adult age,
maintained intimate sexual relations
with appellant with repeated acts of
intercourse. Such is not compatible to
the idea of seduction.
 Plainly, there is voluntariness and mutual
passion; for had the appellant been
deceived she would not have again
yielded to his embraces much less for
one year without exacting fulfillment of
the alleged promises of marriage and
she would have cut all relationship upon
finding that the defendant did not
intend to fulfill his promises.
 One cannot be held liable for a breach
of promise to marry.
  In its decision, Court of Appeals relied
upon the memorandum submitted by
the Code Commission to the Legislature
in 1949 to support the original draft of
the Civil Code. In the example set forth
by the memorandum, Court of Appeals
failed to recognize that it refers to a tort
upon a minor
HERMOSISIMA VS CA
 Complainant Soledad Cagigas, was then
a teacher in the in Cebu, and petitioner,
who was almost 10 years younger than
she, used to go around together and
were regarded as engaged, although he
had made no promise of marriage prior
Issue: Whether moral damages are recoverable,
thereto.
under our laws, for breach of promise to marry.
 Petitioner admitted the paternity of child
and expressed willingness to support
the later, but denied having ever
promised to marry the complainant.
 The court ordered petitioner, on
October 27, 1954, to pay, by way of
alimony pendente lite, P50 a month,
which was, on February 16 1955,
reduced to P30 a month. Sentencing
defendant to pay to plaintiff the sum of
P4,500 for actual and compensatory
damages; the sum of P5,000 as moral
damages; and the further sum of P500
as attorney's fees
 CA affirmed this decision.

HELD:
 One evening, in 1953, when after
 NO. Court ruled in De Jesus vs. Syquia
coming from the movies, they had
(58 Phil., 866), that "the action for breach
sexual intercourse in his cabin on board
of promise to marry has no standing in
M/V "Escaño," to which he was then
the civil law, apart from the right to
attached as apprentice pilot. In February,
recover money or property advanced * *
1954, Soledad advised petitioner that
* upon the faith of such promise".
she was in the family way, whereupon he
promised to marry her. Their child, Chris
Hermosisima, was born on June 17,
 The history of breach of promise suits in
1954, in a private maternity and clinic.
the United States and in England has
However, subsequently, or on July 24,
shown that no other action lends itself
1954, defendant married one Romanita
more readily to abuse by designing
Perez.
women and unscrupulous men. It is this
 On October 4, 1954, Soledad Cagigas
experience which has led to the
filed with said court of first instance a
abolition of rights of action in the so-
complaint for the acknowledgment of
called Balm suits in many of the
her child, Chris Hermosisima, as natural
American States.
child of said petitioner, as well as for
support of said child and moral
damages for alleged breach of promise.