CIVIL LAW SC: Phrase unless otherwise provided not to the
requirement of publication but the effectivity of the
Saturday: Research new cases 2022
Output at the end of the semester before the
submission of the grades.
We will not take it by article and article but take the
most important ones.
Serious about – reading
Wait for the case list – marami – more than 300
cases
*Tan-Andal Case
*Love affair with codals
*Start browsing and preparing the syllabus
*Round of reading of the text book
*Kasalanan mo nay un if hindi ka nag prepare
Take note of the article that we are going to take
up.
I cannot allow, in my conscience, to allow students
to pass the bar.
Every moment counts from today until the
moment you take the bar.
Next week assignment: Article 36 of Civil Code +
Cases
Read Cases as story and not the assignment. Pick
only the relevant facts. We are after doctrines and
know the facts of the cases.
Don’t have kilometric answers.
Last case: Pahang v Metrobank
August 23, 2015
PRELIMINARY
Article 2 – publication of laws
Tanada v Tuvera (1985)
“Unless otherwise provided” then publication can
be dispensed with.
period.
Publication is indispensable in any case.
Eg. Shall take effect – valid; 5 days after
publication – valid.
Tanada v Tuvera (1986)
Where shall it be published because Official
Gazette is interval.
SC: All laws need to be published as a condition of
their effectivity as compliance of the due process of
the Constitution.
This is related to Article 3 of the NCC.
So long as it is published, regardless of whether it
was read or not, it is enforceable.
Published in series – reckoning shall begin from the
release of the last of the series.
Article 2 amended by EO 200 (06.17.1987). –
newspaper of general circulation
 Will better serve the purpose of the
publication.
“Every administrative agency to furnish the UP law
center where national registry is located…”
PHILSA v SOLE
Based on the circular, the maximum is P2.5k but
they were charged more than that (6K and 4K).
They were repatriated to the Philippines. They filed
illegal exaction. Violation of POEA Mem Circ no. 2.
Not published and not on file of UP Law Center.
Garcillano v HOR
Can laws be published in the internet?
No.
Manipulate in favor results of the 2004 presidential
elections.
Zaira Awat - 1
Argued that the rules are available in the internet
and thus, be published.
SC: Invocation of e-commerce are ineffective. We
must follow article 2 of the NCC.
GR: Laws are to be given prospective application.
XPN: TINCREEP
1. Tax
2. Interpretative
3. Creating new substantive rights
4. Curative
5. Remedial/ procedural
6. Emergency
7. Expressly provided
Apply the doctrine prospectively.
Judicial decisions – decisions of the highest
court.
You cannot cite decisions of the Court of Appeals.
Unciano v CA
1989 - They were denied enrollment. They filed
cases for their children to be readmitted to the
school.
ALCUAZ – entire semester
After the case was decided, trial court ruled in favor
of the school. While the case was pending, SC
reversed the decision in Alcuaz applying the
doctrine of Non.
1990 – Arien Non – one sem contract
Whether or not the Non doctrine be applied? No.
SC: The new doctrine cannot be applied
retroactively. Cannot be used to compel the
schools to accept the students.
People v Jabinal
Charged with illegal possession of firearms in 1967.
Macarandang and Lucero (1967, 1958)
People v Mapa (1959)
The new doctrine was applied in convicting Jabinal.
He argued that the new doctrine cannot be applied
to him.
Is he entitled to acquittal? Yes.
When a doctrine is overruled and abandoned, such
should be applied prospectively.
Cui v Arellano University
He was granted an academic scholarship. He was
then made to sign a waiver. Such contains that if he
transfers to another school, he will refund the said
amounts.
The school refused to give the transcript unless he
paid the said amounts.
SC: Waiver is not valid for being contrary to public
policy. Such scholarship is based on his
academics.
Nationality Theory
Article 15 of the NCC.
Husband argues that there is no divorce in the PH.
SC: Even if divorce is not allowed but the first
husband, divorce in valid. His own law does not
consider him as the husband.
Filipina should not be discriminated in his own
country.
Ando v DFA
Married Japanese – divorce then married another
Japanese.
Wanted to change the name in her passport. DFA
denied because of failure to secure the foreign
divorce.
She should have appealed the decision of the DFA
Sec to the Office of the President. If there is an
adverse decision, then go to court to question the
decision of DFA.
Or file a petition for recognition of divorce.
Wherever a Filipino might be, Filipino laws applies
to that stated in Article 15.
Lex Rei Sitae
Zaira Awat - 2
1039: distribution of the property be governed by
the nationality of the deceased.

Llorente v CA

Contending that in PH, divorce is not allowed. Court

said that the Llorente is no longer a Filipino.

SC: Not being a Filipino, the estate (AOI) be

decided in his national law.

Bellis v Bellis

When he died, they stated that Ph law governs.

They are no forced heirs and legitimes.

Aznar v Garcia

Foreigner but domiciliary of the PH.

PH law was applied to resolved the case of Aznar.
Apply renvoi if there is a referring back (if there is a
foreign element).

Ancheta v Dalaygon

Questioning the project of partition which gave a

portion of the Forbes park to the adopted daughter
because that was not stated in the will.

SC: Entire Forbes park property to the second wife.

Zaira Awat - 3