Tañada vs Tuvera
The publication of all presidential issuances "of a the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation
public nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by law.
Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for fines,
forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a
burden or. the people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall
within this category. Other presidential issuances which apply
only to particular persons or class of persons such as
administrative and executive orders need not be published on
the assumption that they have been circularized to all
concerned.
The Court therefore declares that presidential
issuances of general application, which have not been
published, shall have no force and effect.
Garcillano vs The house of Representatives
What constitutes publication is set forth in Article 2 of
the Civil Code, which provides that "[l]aws shall take effect
after 15 days following the completion of their publication either
in the Official Gazette, or in a newspaper of general circulation
in the Philippines.
Honasan II vs The Panel of Investigating Prosecutors
…15 days from receipt of the Court’s decision to file a
motion for reconsideration, i.e., until May 7, 2004, and
therefore, until that period, the decision dated April 13, 2004 is
not yet final and executory; he intends to file a motion for
reconsideration within the reglementary period…
Rep vs Miller
This Court has ruled that an alien qualified to adopt
under the Child and Youth Welfare Code, which was in force at
the time of the filing of the petition, acquired a vested right
which could not be affected by the subsequent enactment of a
new law disqualifying him.
As long as the petition for adoption was sufficient in
form and substance in accordance with the law in governance
at the time it was filed, the court acquires jurisdiction and
retains it until it fully disposes of the case.
The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the
statute in force at the time of the commencement of the action.
Manuel vs People
For the purpose of contracting the subsequent
marriage under the preceding paragraph, the spouse present
must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Court
for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee,
without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent
spouse. + FC Art 41
Phil Bank of Communications vs CIR
Art. 8 of the Civil Code 26 recognizes judicial
decisions, applying or interpreting statutes as part of the legal
system of the country. But administrative decisions do not
enjoy that level of recognition. A memorandum-circular of a
bureau head could not operate to vest a taxpayer with shield
against judicial action. For there are no vested rights to speak
of respecting a wrong construction of the law by the
administrative officials and such wrong interpretation could not
place the Government in estoppel to correct or overrule the
same.
Pesca vs Pesca
The- "doctrine of stare decisis," ordained in Article 8
of the Civil Code, expresses that judicial decisions applying or
interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system of the
Philippines. The rule follows the settled legal maxim - "legis
interpretado legis vim obtinet" - that the interpretation placed
upon the written law by a competent court has the force of
law.3
Ferrer vs Diaz
…future inheritance from parents, which cannot be
between the parties.
…the Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interest Over a
Real Property (Still Undivided) executed by person in favor of
another as not valid and that same cannot be the source of any
right or create any obligation between them for being violative
of the second paragraph of Article 1347 of the Civil Code.
Heirs of Reyes vs Calumpang
The Quitclaim (Waiver) is Valid… The waiver is clear.
The recent case of Valderama v. Macalde reiterated the three
(3) essential elements of a valid waiver, thus: "(a) existence of
a right; (b) the knowledge of the existence thereof; and, (c) an
intention to relinquish such right." 25 These elements are all
present in the case at bar.
Ining vs Vega
Under the Family Code, family relations, which is the
primary basis for succession, exclude relations by affinity.
Art. 150. Family relations include those:
(1) Between husband and wife;
(2) Between parents and children;
(3) Among other ascendants and descendants; and
(4) Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or
half blood.
In point of law, therefore, Lucimo Sr. is not a co-owner of the
property; Teodora is. Consequently, he cannot validly effect a
repudiation of the co-ownership, which he was never part of.
For this reason, prescription did not run adversely against
Leonardo, and his right to seek a partition of the property has
not been lost.
De Borja vs De Borja
And as a hereditary share in a decedent's estate is
transmitted or vested immediately from the moment of the
death of such causante or predecessor in interest (Civil Code
of the Philippines, Art. 777)  there is no legal bar to a successor
(with requisite contracting capacity) disposing of her or his
hereditary share immediately after such death, even if the
actual extent of such share is not determined until the
subsequent liquidation of the estate. 
Leal vs IAC – Right to Repurchase
Cui vs Arellano - The issue in this case is whether the above
quoted provision of the contract between plaintiff and the
defendant, whereby the former waived his right to transfer to
another school without refunding to the latter the equivalent of
his scholarships in cash, is valid or not.
In the Matter of Adoption of Stephany Nathy Astorga Garcia
May an illegitimate child, upon adoption by her natural
father, use the surname of her natural mother as her middle
name? Yes. Petition was granted.
As correctly submitted by both parties, there is no law
regulating the use of a middle name.
Art. 10 of the New Civil Code provides 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."
Rep vs Orbecido
Given a valid marriage between two Filipino citizens,
where one party is later naturalized as a foreign citizen and
obtains a valid divorce decree capacitating him or her to
remarry, can the Filipino spouse likewise remarry under
Philippine law? Yes. The Van Dorncase involved a marriage
between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner. The Court held
therein that a divorce decree validly obtained by the alien
spouse is valid in the Philippines, and consequently, the
Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry under Philippine law.
Does the same principle apply to a case where at the time of
the celebration of the marriage, the parties were Filipino
citizens, but later on, one of them obtains a foreign citizenship
by naturalization? The reckoning point is not the citizenship of
the parties at the time of the celebration of the marriage, but
their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained
abroad by the alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.
Van Dorn vs Romillo
Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent
is no longer the husband of petitioner. He would have no
standing to sue in the case below as petitioner's husband
entitled to exercise control over conjugal assets. 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 estopped by his own representation before
said Court from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal
property.
Llorente vs CA
True, foreign laws do not prove themselves in our
jurisdiction and our courts are not authorized to take judicial
notice of them. Like any other fact, they must be alleged and
proved.
Pilapil vs Ibay-Somera
..private respondent, being no longer the husband of
petitioner, had no legal standing to commence the adultery
case under the imposture that he was the offended spouse at
the time he filed suit.
It cannot be logically inferred therefrom that the
complaint can still be filed after the declaration of nullity
because such declaration that the marriage is void ab initio is
equivalent to stating that it never existed. There being no
marriage from the beginning, any complaint for adultery filed
after said declaration of nullity would no longer have a leg to
stand on.
Garcia
Garcia vs Recio
Compliance with the quoted articles (11, 13 and 52) of
the Family Code is not necessary; respondent was no longer
bound by Philippine personal laws after he acquired Australian
citizenship in 1992.
By becoming an Australian, respondent severed his
allegiance to the Philippines and the vinculum juris that had
tied him to Philippine personal laws.
Tenchavez vs Escano
That a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens,
sought and decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil
Code (Rep. Act 386), is not entitled to recognition as valid in
this jurisdiction; and neither is the marriage contracted with
another party by the divorced consort, subsequently to the
foreign decree of divorce, entitled to validity in the country;
Rep vs Iyoy
At the time she filed for divorce, Fely was still a
Filipino citizen, and pursuant to the nationality principle
embodied in Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, she
was still bound by Philippine laws on family rights and duties,
status, condition, and legal capacity, even when she was
already living abroad. Philippine laws, then and even until now,
do not allow and recognize divorce between Filipino spouses.
Thus, Fely could not have validly obtained a divorce from
respondent Crasus.
Bayot vs Bayot
Consequent to the dissolution of the marriage,
Vicente could no longer be subject to a husband's obligation
under the Civil Code. He cannot, for instance, be obliged to live
with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to
Rebecca.
Laurel vs Garcia
The respondents, for their part, refute the petitioner's
contention by saying that the subject property is not governed
by our Civil Code but by the laws of Japan where the property
is located.
Court - Considering the properties' importance and
value, the laws on conversion and disposition of property of
public dominion must be faithfully followed.
San Luis vs San Luis
Anent the issue of respondent Felicidad’s legal
personality to file the petition for letters of administration, we
must first resolve the issue of whether a Filipino who is
divorced by his alien spouse abroad may validly remarry under
the Civil Code, considering that Felicidad’s marriage to
Felicisimo was solemnized on June 20, 1974, or before the
Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988. In resolving this
issue, we need not retroactively apply the provisions of the
Family Code, particularly Art. 26, par. (2) considering that there
is sufficient jurisprudential basis allowing us to rule in the
affirmative.
De Catalan vs Catalan Lee
Ref *San LuisvsSan Luis*
Applying the above doctrine in the instant case, the
divorce decree allegedly obtained by Merry Lee which
absolutely allowed Felicisimo to remarry, would have vested
Felicidad with the legal personality to file the present petition
as Felicisimo's surviving spouse. However, the records show
that there is insufficient evidence to prove the validity of the
divorce obtained by Merry Lee as well as the marriage of
respondent and Felicisimo under the laws of the U.S.A.
Corpuz vs Sto. Tomas
WON the second paragraph of Article 26 of the
Family Code extends to aliens the right to petition a court of
this jurisdiction for the recognition of a foreign divorce decree?
The alien spouse can claim no right under the second
paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code as the substantive
right it establishes is in favor of the Filipino spouse
…No court in this jurisdiction, however, can make a
similar declaration for the alien spouse (other than that already
established by the decree), whose status and legal capacity
are generally governed by his national law.
Roehr vs Rodriguez
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 still be determined by our
courts.23 Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to
a foreign judgment, such as the award of custody to petitioner
by the German court, it must be shown that the parties
opposed to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to
do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39, Section 50 of the
Rules of Court (now Rule 39, Section 48, 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure),…
It is essential that there should be an opportunity to
challenge the foreign judgment, in order for the court in this
jurisdiction to properly determine its efficacy.