Civ Canonical Doctrines

U.
P LAW BOC FOR USE OF OFFICIAL BEDA BAROPS - MANILA ONLY CIVIL LAW
CIVIL LAW
CANONICAL DOCTRINES
IN GENERAL
When Law Takes Effect
CASE SUB-TOPIC SUMMARY HELD DOCTRINE
Tañada v. Publication Petitioners file writ of The Court held that The clause “unless it
Tuvera requirement mandamus to compel Article 2 does not is otherwise provided”
respondent public sanction the omission refers to the date of
G.R. No. officials to publish, of publication; effectivity and not to
63915 | April and/or cause the publication is the requirement of
24, 1985 publication in the mandatory. “Unless it publication itself,
Official Gazette of is otherwise provided” which cannot in any
various PDs, letters of refers to the date of event be omitted. This
instructions, general effectivity and not to clause does not mean
orders, the requirement of that the legislature
proclamations, publication itself, may make the law
Executive Orders, which in any event effective immediately
Letter of cannot be omitted. upon approval, or in
Implementation and Omission of any other date,
Administrative publication violates without its previous
Orders. They invoked due process and publication.
the right of the people denies public
to be informed on knowledge. Publication is
matters of public indispensable in every
concern as well as the case, but the
principle that the laws, legislature may in its
in order to be valid discretion provide that
and enforceable, must the usual 15-day
be published in the period shall be
Official Gazette. shortened or
extended.
“Law” refer to all laws

and not only to
general appropriation
since all laws refer to
people in general
Includes
1. presidential
decrees and
executive orders
2. charter of cities
Page 1 of 24
FOR USE OF OFFICIAL BEDA BAROPS - MANILA ONLY
U.P LAW BOC FOR USE OF OFFICIAL BEDA BAROPS - MANILA ONLY CIVIL LAW
Exceptions to the
publication
requirement:
1. Interpretative
regulations and
those which are
internal in nature
2. Letters of
instructions by
administrative
superiors to
subordinates
3. Minister of Social
welfare on
petitions for
adoption
Conflict of Laws
CASE SUMMARY HELD DOCTRINE
Hasegawa v. Petitioner Nippon entered The Court denied the Jurisdiction over the
Kitamura into an Independent petition, ruling that the subject matter in a judicial
Contractor Agreement issue in this case is proceeding is conferred by
G.R. No. (ICA) with respondent jurisdiction over subject- the sovereign authority
149177 | Kitamura, a Japanese matter, but the grounds which establishes and
November 23, national permanently asserted by the petitioners organizes the court. It is
2007 residing in the Philippines, lex loci celebrationis, lex given only by law and in the
wherein respondent was to contractus and state of the manner prescribed by law.
extend professional most significant It is further determined by
services to Nippon for a relationship rule are make the allegations of the
year and he was assigned reference to the law complaint irrespective of
as project manager of the applicable to a dispute, and whether the plaintiff is
STAR Project of the PH are rules proper for the entitled to all or some of the
Government. Nearly a year second phase, the choice claims asserted therein.
later, Hasegawa, the of law. Furthermore, they
general manager of have not yet pointed out In the judicial resolution of
Nippon, informed any conflict between the conflicts problems, three
respondent that his ICA will laws of Japan and ours. consecutive phases are
no longer be renewed. Accordingly, the RTC is involved: jurisdiction,
After failed negotiations, he vested by law with the choice of law, and
filed this complaint. The power to entertain and recognition and
petitioners moved to hear the civil case filed by enforcement of judgments.
dismiss the complaint for respondent and the Corresponding to these
lack of jurisdiction, grounds raised by phases are the following
contending that the ICA petitioners to assail that questions:
had been perfected in jurisdiction are 1. Where can or should
Japan and executed by inappropriate. litigation be initiated?
and between Japanese (Jurisdiction)
nationals. The RTC denied 2. Which law will the court
the MTD, and affirmed by apply? (Choice of
the CA. Law?
3. Where can the
resulting judgment be
enforced?
(Enforcement)
Page 2 of 24
Raytheon BMSI and respondent The Court held that the Under the doctrine of forum
International, Rouzie entered into a Court of Appeals did not err non conveniens, a court, in
Inc. v. contract where BMSI hired in dismissing the case. On conflicts-of-laws cases
Stockton respondent. Respondent jurisdiction over a conflicts- may refuse impositions on
Rouzie, Jr. filed a suit against BMSI of-laws problem where the its jurisdiction where it is
and RUST which was case is filed in PH and the not the most "convenient"
G.R. No. dismissed by the NLRC. court has jurisdiction over or available forum and the
120721 | Thus he instituted another the subject matter, parties, parties are not precluded
February 23, action for damages before and res, it may proceed to from seeking remedies
2005 the RTC against the same try the case even if the elsewhere.
parties including petitioner rules of conflict- of-laws or
Raytheon. Pettioner the convenience of the
averred that since the parties point to a foreign
contract executed had a forum. This is an exercise
valid choice of law clause of sovereign prerogative of
stipulating that the laws of the country where the case
Connecticut shall govern is filed.
the contract and that there
are foreign elements in the
dispute, the application of
the doctrine of forum non
conveniens is warranted.
Recto v. Esperanza Harden hired The Court ruled in favor of In this case, the Court
Harden the late Claro M. Recto as Recto, holding that the applied Article 15 of the
her counsel in the suit she purpose of the contract Civil Code in favor of
G.R. No. L- was contemplating to file was not to secure a divorce foreign nationals: in that,
6897 | against her husband. The decree but merely to foreigners' personal laws
November 29, suit was to secure an protect Mrs. Harden’s follow the Nationality
1956 increase in the amount of interest in the properties of Theory, in the same way
support she was receiving the conjugal partnership. that Art. 15 provides that
and preserve her rights in Besides, divorce is Philippine laws govern a
the conjugal partnership, in sanctioned by the personal Filipino's family rights and
contemplation of the laws of the Harden duties, status, condition,
divorce suit which she also spouses. Thus, the and legal capacity, whether
intended to file against him. contract is not contrary to in the Philippines or
Mrs. Harden agreed to pay law, morals, good customs, abroad.
Recto 20% of the value of public order and public
her share in the conjugal policy.
property after liquidation.
Thus, Recto instituted a
civil case against Mr.
Harden. The trial court
entered judgment in favor
of Mrs. Harden but this was
appealed. However,
pending appeal, the
Hardens mutually released
each other from all actions,
debts and claims to the
conjugal partnership. Mrs.
Harden instructed Recto to
discontinue the
proceedings. Recto filed a
motion in the Supreme
Page 3 of 24
Court to establish his

attorney's charging lien.
The Hardens opposed the
motion on the ground that
the contract between
Recto and Mrs. Harden
was invalid because it was
to secure a divorce decree
which is in violation of PH
laws.
Human Relations
Wassmer v. Breach of Beatriz Wassmer and The Court held that a There is no provision
Velez promise to Francisco Velez were breach of promise to of the Civil Code
marry scheduled to marry on marry is not an authorizing an action
G.R. No. September 4, 1954. actionable wrong, for breach of promise
63915 | April Two days before the however, Velez is to marry. A mere
24, 1985 wedding, the groom, liable for damages "breach of a promise
Velez, left for under Art. 21. to marry" is not an
Cagayan de Oro, actionable wrong. But
saying in a note that to formally set a
he “[w]ill have to wedding and go
postpone wedding— through all the
My mother opposes preparation and
it.” The next day, he publicity, only to walk
sent her a telegram out of it when the
saying, “nothing matrimony is about to
changed rest assured be solemnized, is
returning very soon.” quite different. This is
But he didn’t come palpably and
back and never unjustifiably contrary
showed up ever. to good customs for
Wassmer filed a case which defendant must
against Velez for be held answerable in
damages, as they had damages in
all the preparations accordance with
ready for a wedding. Article 21. Defendant
must pay for the
damages.
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

Persons
Mercado v. Capacity to Underaged siblings Minority was not As a rule, minors
Espiritu Act; Effect of actively proven, and cannot give consent
minority on misrepresented their document which to contracts but those
G.R. No. L- contracts age in a notarized declares that they made by minors who
11872 | contract selling were "of legal age" pretend to be of legal
December 1, parcels of land. The was duly notarized. age, when in fact, they
1917 buyers of said land Estoppel works are not, are valid due
had no knowledge of against minors who to the principle of
Page 4 of 24
the misrepresentation misrepresent their estoppel. (Art. 1327,

nor of the real age of ages in a contract and NCC)
the siblings. are compelled to
comply with its terms.
Bambalan y Capacity to No misrepresentation Contract of sale was The following
Prado v. Act; Effect of of minority in the annulled. The doctrine contracts are voidable
Maramba minority on contract. Buyers of laid down in the case or annullable, even
contracts land knew the sellers of Mercado vs. though there may
G.R. No. were minors and still Espiritu is not have been no damage
27710 | entered into the applicable to this to the contracting
January 30, transaction. case, because the parties: (2) Those
1928 plaintiff did not where the consent is
pretend to be of age, vitiated by mistake,
and the defendant violence, intimidation,
knew him as a minor. undue influence or
fraud. (Art. 1390,
NCC)
Braganza v. Capacity to Woman and her two The Court held that An action to annul a
De Villa Act; Effect of minor sons obtained a the two minors only contract by reason of
Abrille minority on mickey mouse money have to pay back the minority must be filed
contracts loan which they failed amount by which they w/in 4 years after the
G.R. No. L- to pay. However, the were enriched. minor has reached
12741 | April ages of the sons were majority age. The
13, 1959 never disclosed, there contract to pay back
being a passive the loan is not
misrepresentation. enforceable towards
the minors, but they
must pay to the extent
to which they were
enriched. (Art. 1301 &
1340, NCC)
Marriage
Silverio v. Requisites: Petitioner Rommel Court ultimately Under the Civil
Republic Man and Jacinto Dantes denied the petition. Register Law, a birth
Woman Silverio is a male The Court ruled that a certificate is a
G.R. No. transsexual who person’s first name historical record of the
174689 | underwent sex cannot be changed on facts as they existed
October 19, reassignment the ground of sex at the time of birth.
2007 surgery. He filed a reassignment. There Thus, the sex of a
petition for change of are also no law that person is determined
his first name and sex allows the change of at birth, visually done
in his birth certificate entry in the birth by the birth attendant
before the RTC. He certificate as to sex on (the physician or
sought to have his the ground of sex midwife) by examining
name changed from reassignment. Lastly, the genitals of the
“Rommel Jacinto” to neither may entries in infant. Considering
“Mely” and his sex the birth certificate as that there is no law
from “male” to to first name or sex be legally recognizing
“female”. TC ruled in changed on the sex reassignment, the
favor of petitioner but ground of equity. determination of a
CA reversed. Hence, person’s sex made at
the present petition. the time of his or her
Page 5 of 24
birth, if not attended

by error, is
immutable.
Words “male” and

“female” in everyday
understanding do not
include persons who
have undergone sex
reassignment.
Republic v. Requisites: Case is a petition for The Court ruled in Where the person is
Cagandahan Man and review seeking a favor of Cagandahan, biologically or
Woman reversal of the stating that the naturally intersex, the
G.R. No. decision of the RTC respondent is an determining factor in
166676 | which granted intersex whose sex their gender
September Jennifer Cagandahan chromosomes, classification would
12, 2008 to change his name to genitalia, and/or be what the individual,
Jeff Cagandahan and secondary sex like respondent,
his sex from female to characteristics are having reached the
male. Cagandahan neither exclusively age of majority, with
was diagnosed with male or female. good reason thinks of
Congenital Adrenal Respondent allowed their sex. Unlike in the
Hyperplasia (CAH) nature to take its case of individuals
wherein genetically, course and the court who underwent
respondent is female is not controlled by sexual reassignment,
but because her body mere appearances respondent here has
secretes male when nature itself simply let nature take
hormones, her female fundamentally its course and has not
organs did not negates such rigid taken unnatural steps
develop normally and classification between to arrest or interfere
she now had 2 sex male and female. with what they were
organs. Respondent Court will not force the born with.
has thus adjusted to respondent to
the role of a male. The undergo treatment
OSG argues that and to take
Rules 103 and 108 do medication in order to
not allow for the fit the mold of a female
change of sex or – this is a personal
gender in one’s birth right and only he can
cert. and that the decide what courses
medical condition of of action to take. It is
the respondent does evident that the
not make her male. respondent has
clearly chosen his
gender.
Republic v. Foreign Manalo, a Filipina, The Court held that In this case, the Court
Manalo Divorce was married to because Manalo was extends the effects of
Minoro, a Japanese. unable to prove the Art. 26, par. 2 to
G.R. No. Manalo filed for Japanese law instances wherein it is
221029 | divorce in Japan, the involved as a fact, the the Filipino spouse
April 24, decree for which was divorce is not to be who obtains the
2018 issued in 2011. She recognized. However, foreign divorce.
filed a petition for the Court held that the Whether the Filipino
cancellation of entry effects of Article 26, spouse initiated the
Page 6 of 24
of marriage in the Civil par. 2, would also be foreign divorce

Registry by virtue of applicable even if it proceeding or not, a
judgment of divorce were the Filipino favorable decree
rendered by the spouse, not the alien dissolving the
Japanese Court. OSG spouse, who obtains a marriage bond and
questioned this saying foreign divorce. capacitating his or her
the proper action foreign spouse to
should be petition for remarry will have the
recognition and same result: The
enforcement of a Filipino spouse will
foreign judgment, thus effectively be without
Manalo Amended the a husband or wife.
petition. Trial court Therefore, no
denied the petition distinction should be
saying that Art 15 of made. Blind
the Civil Code does adherence to Art 15
not allow Filipinos to would result to unjust
file for divorce even discrimination.
when living abroad,
unless they are
citizens of another
country. CA
overturned and held
that Art 26 of the
Family Code is
applicable regardless
of which spouse
(whether Filipino or
foreign) filed for
divorce. Hence, this
petition.
Santos v. First Lieutenant The Court held that Psychological
Bedia- Leouel met Julia in there is no indication incapacity must be
Santos Iloilo and got married of psychological characterized by:
on September 20, incapacity. No exact 1. Gravity - must be
310 Phil. 20 1986 a son was born definition from Art 36 grave or serious
(1995) a year after. The bliss but can be such that the
of marriage, however, ascertained from the party would be
did not last. In 1988, deliberations of the incapable of
Julia left for the US, Family Code Revision carrying out the
contacting Leouel Committee. ordinary duties
only after 7 months Psychological required in
have passed. Despite incapacity is not the marriage
promising to return same as insanity, the 2. Judicial
home, she never did. latter having lucid antecedence -
In 1990, Leouel tried intervals. It does not must be rooted in
to get in touch with her refer to physical the history of the
but failed. Leouel incapacities or mental part antedating
argues that the failure facilities and has the marriage,
of Julia to return home nothing to do/not a although the overt
and communicate vice of consent. manifestations
with him for 5 years, Rather it refers to lack may emerge only
shows her being of understanding of after the marriage
psychologically the essential
Page 7 of 24
incapacitated to enter obligations attendant 3. Incurability -

into married life. to marriage. even if otherwise,
the cure would be
beyond the
means of the
party involved
Republic of Void Roridel and Reynaldo The Court held that Guidelines in the
the Marriages: were married in San there is no clear interpretation and
Philippines Psycholo- Agustin Church, indication of application of Art. 36
v. CA and gical Manila and psychological FC:
Molina incapacity subsequently, had a incapacity/defect. 1. Burden of proof to
son. After a year of What is present is not show nullity of
G.R. No. marriage, Reynaldo the inability to fulfill marriage belongs to
108763 | “showed signs of marital obligations plaintiff.
February 13, immaturity and due to psychological
1997 irresponsibility”: illness but the refusal 2. The root cause of
squandering his or neglect to do so. the psychological
money, never honest Mere showing of incapacity must be:
with his wife regarding “irreconcilable a. Medically or
finances, financially differences” and clinically identified
dependent on his “conflicting b. Alleged in the
parents, relieved from personalities” in no complaint
his job, and leaving wise constitutes c. Sufficiently
Roridel as the sole psychological proven by experts
breadwinner. incapacity d. Clearly explained
Reynaldo eventually in the decision
abandons Roridel and
their child, prompting 3. Must be
Roridel to file a psychological – not
petition for declaration physical, although its
of nullity of marriage manifestations and/or
on the basis of Art. 36 symptoms may be
(psychological physical
incapacity).
4. Incapacity must be
proven to be existing
at “the time of
celebration” of the
marriage
5. Incapacity must be
shown to be medically
and clinically
permanent or
incurable.
6. Illness must be
grave enough to bring
about the disability of
the party to assume
the essential
obligations of
marriage. Essential
marital obligations
Page 8 of 24
must be those
embraced by:
• Article 68 up to 71
FC – husband
and wife
• Articles 220, 221,
and 225 FC –
parents and
children
Non-complied marital
obligation(s) must
also be stated in the
petition, proven by
evidence, and
included in the text of
the decision.
7. Interpretations
given by the National
Appellate Matrimonial
Tribunal of the
Catholic Church in the
Philippines, while not
controlling or decisive,
should be given great
respect by our courts.
Te v. Te Void 3 months after The Court held that It may have been
Marriages: meeting, Rowena the marriage of the inappropriate for
G.R. No. Psycholo- asked Edward to parties is null and void Court, in the Molina
161793 | gical elope with her. After on ground of both case, to impose a rigid
February 3, incapacity being threatened by parties’ psychological set of rules in
2009 Rowena of her incapacity. resolving all cases of
suicide, Edward went psychological
to stay with her at her incapacity. However,
uncle’s house. When the Court here is not
Edward was 25 and suggesting
Rowena was 20, both abandonment, but
were taken by uncle to rather, the need to
court to get married, emphasize other
signed a marriage perspectives to
contract. Threatened govern disposition,
with guns and treated i.e., that the
like a prisoner, particularities of each
Edward was not case be taken into
allowed to leave account in deciding.
Rowena nor her
uncle’s house.
Eventually, he
escaped and was kept
by his family from
Rowena, and
subsequently filed
petition to annul
marriage on the basis
Page 9 of 24
of psychological
incapacity.
Void Note: On May 11, 2021, in a ponencia penned by Justice Marvic Leonen,
Marriages: the Supreme Court in Tan-Andal v. Andal [GR No. 196359]
Psycholo- unanimously modified the interpretation of the requirements of
gical psychological incapacity as a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage
incapacity found in Article 36 of the Family Code. The Court pronounced that
psychological incapacity is not a medical but a legal concept. It refers to
a personal condition which prevents a spouse from complying with
fundamental marital obligations only in relation to a specific partner that
may exist at the time of marriage but may have revealed through
behavior subsequent to the ceremonies. In this case, the Court stated
that it need not be a permanent and incurable disorder (effectively
overturning previous jurisprudence on the matter). Therefore, the
testimony of a psychologist or psychiatrist is not mandatory in all cases.
The totality of evidence must show clear and convincing evidence to
cause the declaration of nullity of marriage.
SUCCESSION
In General
Estate of Succession Luzon Surety had filed The Court held that While in our
K.H. occurs at the against the estate a the estate is liable successional system
Hemady v. moment of contingent claim on since the obligation is the responsibility of
Luzon death the 20 different not personal, and the heirs for the debts
Surety Co., indemnity agreements hence, passed to the of their decedent
Inc. where deceased K.H. heirs. The nature of cannot exceed the
Hemady is a surety. the obligation of the value of the
G.R. No. L- The lower court surety or guarantor inheritance they
8437 | dismissed the claims does not warrant the receive from him, the
November of Luzon Surety on conclusion that his principle remains
28, 1956 the grounds that peculiar individual intact that these heirs
whatever losses may qualities are succeed not only to
occur after Hemady’s contemplated as a the rights of the
death, are not principal inducement deceased but also to
chargeable to his for the contract. his obligations. As
estate, because upon provided in Art. 1311
his death he ceased of the Civil Code,
to be guarantor. The contracts take effect
administratrix of the only as between the
estate alleged, among parties, their assigns
others, that the estate and heirs, except in
is not liable, because the case where the
the obligation as a rights and obligations
surety, being a arising from the
personal obligation, contract are not
did not pass to the transmissible by their
heirs upon the death nature, or by
of Hemady. stipulation or by
provision of law.
Page 10 of 24
Testamentary Succession
Payad v. Wills; Leoncia Tolentino It is NOT necessary In this case, the Court
Tolentino Thumbmarks executed a will one that the attestation allowed the
as signature day before her death. clause should state thumbmark to be the
G.R. No. of testator The evidence on that the testatrix "testator's mark" as
42258 | record establishes the requested Atty. contemplated by the
January 15, fact that Leoncia, Almario to sign her law.
1936 assisted by Atty. name because the
Almario placed her testatrix signed the
thumbmark on each will in accordance
and every page of the with law. Atty. Almario
will and the Atty. did not sign for the
Merely wrote her testatrix. She
name to indicate the personally signed it by
place where she placing her
placed her thumbmark on each
thumbmark. and every page. In de
Gala v. Gonzales and
Ona, the Court said
that a statute
requiring a will to be
signed is satisfied if
the signature is made
by the testator’s mark.
Cruz v. Wills; Three Of the three The Court held that To allow the notary
Villasor attesting instrumental there needs to be public to act as third
witnesses witnesses to the will, three witnesses, witness, or one of the
G.R. No. L- one of them is at the excluding the notary attesting and
32213 | same time the Notary public. acknowledging
November 26, Public before whom witnesses, would
1973 the will was supposed have the effect of
to have been having only two
acknowledged. As the attesting witnesses to
third witness is the the will which would
notary public himself, be in contravention of
petitioner argues that the provisions of
the result is that only Article 805 requiring
two witnesses at least three credible
appeared before the witnesses to act as
notary public to such and of Article
acknowledge the will. 806 which requires
On the other hand, that the testator and
private respondent- the required number
appellee maintains of witnesses must
that there is appear before the
substantial notary public to
compliance with the acknowledge the will.
legal requirement of The result would be,
having at least three as has been said, that
attesting witnesses only two witnesses
even if the notary appeared before the
public acted as one of notary public for that
them. purpose. In the
Page 11 of 24
circumstances, the
law would not be duly
observed.
Alvarado v. Wills; Art. The testator Brigido The Court held that Art. 808 applies not
Gaviola 808 also Alvaro executed a (1) the testator was only to blind testators
covers those notarial will (Huling blind within the but also to those who,
G.R. No. with poor Habilin) where he meaning of Art. 808, for one reason or
74695 | eyesight disinherited petitioner and that (2) although another, are
September Cesar Alvarado. the requirements of incapable of reading
14, 1993 During the execution Art. 808 was not their wills. Since the
of the will, the testator strictly complied with, testator was
did not read the final there was still incapable of reading
draft of the will substantial the final drafts of his
himself. Instead, compliance. will and codicil on the
respondent Atty. separate occasions of
Bayani Rino, as the their execution due to
lawyer who drafted his “poor,” “defective,”
the document, read or “blurred” vision,
the same aloud in the there can be no other
presence of the course for us but to
testator, the three conclude that the
instrumental testator comes within
witnesses and the the scope of the term
notary public. After “blind” as it is used in
which the testator Art. 808.
affirmed, upon being
asked, that the
contents read Substantial
corresponded with his compliance is
instructions. A codicil acceptable where the
was later executed in purpose of the law
the same manner. has been satisfied,
When the testator the reason being that
died, petitioner the solemnities
opposed the probate surrounding the
of the will saying that execution of wills are
the testator was blind intended to protect
within the meaning of the testator from all
Art. 808, and since kinds of fraud and
the reading required trickery but are never
by such provision was intended to be so rigid
not complied with, the and inflexible as to
probate of the will destroy the
should be denied. testamentary
privilege.
Caneda v. Wills; Caballero executed a The Court held that The substantial
Court of Substantial will. While the will following the compliance rule
Appeals compliance contained the requirements from under Art. 809 applies
rule attestation clause Art. 805, it can be only when the defect
G.R. No. which was subscribed seen that the said in the will involves
103554 at the end thereof and clause fails to merely the form of the
the left margin of each specifically state the will or the language
page by three fact that the attesting used therein, and that
attesting witnesses, it witnesses signed the the said defect can be
Page 12 of 24
did not contain will and every page remedied by intrinsic

information stating thereof in the evidence supplied by
that the witnesses presence of the the will itself.
affixed their testator and of one
signatures in the another. Art. 809
presence of the cannot apply where,
testator and of each as in the present
other. case, the attestation
clause totally omits
the fact that the
attesting witnesses
signed each and
every page of the will
in the presence of the
testator and of each
other.
Labrador v. Wills; Melecio died leaving The Court reversed The law does not
Court of Holographic behind a parcel of the ruling of the CA, specify a particular
Appeals wills must be land to his heirs which holding that the location where the
dated was partitioned holographic will is date should be placed
G.R. No. among his 9 heirs dated as provided for in the will. The only
83843-44 | through a holographic in Article 810 of the requirements are that
April 5, 1990 will. However, during New Civil Code. The the date be in the will
probate proceedings, will has been dated by itself and executed in
Jesus and Gaudencio Melecio, the testator, the hand of the
filed an opposition on himself in perfect testator.
the ground that the compliance with
will has been Article 810. The first
extinguished by paragraph of the
implication of law, second page of the
alleging that before holographic will is
Melecio’s death, the quoted as follows:
land was sold to them "And this is the day in
evidenced by TCT which we agreed that
No. 21178. Jesus we are making the
eventually sold it to partitioning and
Navat. The trial court assigning the
admitted the will to respective
probate and declared assignment of the
the TCT null and void. said fishpond, and
However, the CA, on this being in the
appeal, denied the month of March 17th
probate on the ground day, in the year
that the holographic 1968, and this
will was undated. decision and or
instruction of mine is
the matter to be
followed. And the one
who made this writing
is no other than
MELECIO
LABRADOR, their
father."
Page 13 of 24
In re: Roxas Wills; The holographic will The Court held that As a general rule, the
v. De Jesus, Holographic of the decedent was seeing as there is no "date" in a
Jr. wills must be merely dated appearance of fraud, holographic Will
dated "FEB./61", i.e. an bad faith, undue should include the
G.R. No. incomplete date. The influence and day, month, and year
38338 | issue is whether or pressure and the of its execution.
January 28, not this should be authenticity of the Will However, in the
1985 allowed or not. is established and the absence of fraud, bad
only issue is whether faith, undue influence,
or not the date substantial
"FEB./61" appearing compliance may be
on the holographic applied to allow the
Will is a valid probate of the will.
compliance with
Article 810 of the Civil
Code, probate of the
holographic Will
should be allowed
under the principle of
substantial
compliance.
Nepomuceno Wills; Martin had been The Court held that As a general rule, the
v. CA Probate estranged from his the CA rightfully probate of a will deals
lawful wife and 2 decided on the only with its extrinsic
G.R. No. L- children since 1952. intrinsic validity of the validity. However, it
62952 | Martin married Sofia will. In his Will, the can also deal with
October 9, and had been living testator admits that intrinsic validities if
1985 with her as husband Rufina was the legal such intrinsic defects
and wife until his wife, and that are obvious on the
death. Martin left a will Carmelita and Oscar face of the will.
where he devised to were his legitimate
his forced heirs children. He also
(Rufina and the two admits to living as
children) his entire man and wife with
estate and left the free Sofia despite their
portion to Sofia. Sofia marriage not being
filed a petition for the sanctioned by law.
probate of his will. These are obvious on
Rufina and the the face of the will.
children opposed. CFI Given exceptional
denied the probate of circumstances, the
the will since the probate court is not
invalidity of its intrinsic powerless to do what
provisions were the situation
evident. The CA held constrains it to do and
that the will is valid but pass upon certain
the devise in favor of provisions of the Will.
Sofia is null and void.
Sofia filed a petition to
the SC arguing that
the CA erred in
passing upon the
intrinsic validity of the
Page 14 of 24
will despite holding

that the will was valid.
OBLIGATIONS
Nature and Effect of Obligations
Tan v. Court Breaches of Appellee alleged that The Court held that Rescission will not be
of Appeals Obligations; she gave appellants there was only casual permitted for a slight
Distinction spouses P200,000.00 breach, not enough or casual breach of
G.R. No. between upon their assurances ground to give the the contract but only
80479 | July substantial that they could appellee the right to for such breaches as
28, 1989 and casual transfer to her the rescission. While it is are so substantial and
breach house and lot she was true that as of June fundamental as to
buying from them free 25, 1984, the date set defeat the object of
from any liens and for the execution of the parties in making
encumbrances, the final deed of sale, the agreement. The
including the the mortgage lien in determination of
furnishings thereof favor of DBP "substantial" breach is
and the adjacent lot annotated in the title addressed to the
being used as has not yet been sound discretion of
driveway, on June 25, cancelled, it was the court, taking into
1984, but that day had because it took DBP account the attendant
come and passed some time in circumstances.
without appellants processing the papers
being able to make relative thereto.
good their promise, However, just a few
because she days after, or on July
"discovered to her 12, 1984, the
shock and dismay cancellation of the
that she had been DBP mortgage was
dealt with in bad faith entered by the
by defendants" as the Register of Deeds
mortgage on the and duly noted on the
property was not title. Time not being of
released or cancelled the essence in the
and the driveway was agreement, a slight
still public land and delay on the part of
could not be validly the private
transferred to her as respondents in the
any disposition performance of their
thereof would yet obligation, is not
require approval by sufficient ground for
the Secretary of the resolution of the
Agriculture and agreement more so
Natural Resources. when the delay was
Hence, the suit not totally attributable
against appellants to the appellant-
spouses for recovery spouses.
of the P200,000.00
earnest money which
is, in essence and
concept, one for
Page 15 of 24
rescission with
damages.
Tankeh v. Breaches of Older brother Tankeh The Court held that There are two types of
DBP Obligations; alleges that his while there, indeed, frauds contemplated
Fraud younger brother was fraud in the in the performance of
G.R. No. Ruperto lied to him in contract, it was with contracts:
171428 | order to get him to the performance not 1. Dolo incidente
November come on board the with the obtaining of • not serious in
11, 2013 Sterling vessel Tankeh’s consent. character;
company and to sign Ruperto unjustly • other party would
a promissory note in excluded his older still have entered
favor of DBP. Tankeh brother from the into the contract;
alleges that he was operations of the • refers only to
promised a high- contract and he did some particular or
ranking position as not notify the latter of accident of the
well as a position for subsequent board obligation
his son in the meetings, amongst • Effect: damages
company, amongst other acts. Hence, the
others. fraud involved was 2. Dolo causante
merely dolo incidente • Serious in
and thus, does not character
warrant the voidability • Other party would
of the contract. not have entered
into the contract
were it not for this
fraud
• Effect: nullity of
contract and
damages
To constitute fraud
that provides basis to
annul contracts, it
must fulfill two
conditions: (a) must
be dolo causante and
(b) fraud must be
proven by clear and
convincing evidence
Araneta v. Breaches of Arrieta won a public The Court held that The phrase “in any
NARIC Obligations; bidding held by appellant's failure to manner contravenes
Contravention NARIC regarding the open immediately the the tenor” (Art. 1170)
G.R. No. L- of Tenor delivery of 20,000 letter of credit in of the obligation
15645 | metric tons of dispute amounted to a includes any illicit act
January 31, Burmese Rice. breach of the which impairs…or any
1964 However, while contract. In this case, kind of defective
Arrieta was able to it is clear upon the performance.
contact her supplier in records that the sole
Burma, NARIC failed and principal reason
to open a letter of for the cancellation of
credit with PNB which the allocation
will be used to pay contracted by the
Arrieta—thereby appellee herein in
causing Arrieta to Rangoon, Burma,
Page 16 of 24
cancel her contract was the failure of the

with her supplier in letter of credit to be
Burma in which she opened with the
has already deposited contemplated period.
a downpayment, and This failure must,
miss out on an therefore, be taken as
opportunity to profit. the immediate cause
Arrieta now files for for the consequent
damages. damage which
resulted.
TORTS
Principles
St. Martin Elements of LWV Construction In this case, the courts As explained by
Polyclinic, a Delict alleged that St. Martin a quo erroneously Associate Justice
Inc. v. LWV based on Polyclinic was anchored their Marvic M.V.F.
Construc- Jurispru- reckless in issuing a respective rulings on Leonen (Justice
tion Corp. dence; medical certificate the provisions of Leonen) in his
Distinction stating that a Articles 19, 20, and 21 opinion in Alano v.
G.R. No. between Art. prospective applicant of the Civil Code. This Magud-Logmao
217426 | 20 and Art. was "fit for is because (Alano), "Article 2176
December 4, 2176 employment", when respondent did not is not an all-
2017 subsequent medical proffer (nor have encompassing
examinations these courts enumeration of all
revealed that the mentioned) any law actionable wrongs
applicant was positive as basis for which which can give rise to
with the hepatitis C damages may be the liability for
virus. The recovered due to damages. Under the
construction company petitioner's alleged Civil Code, acts done
alleged that it relied negligent act. In its in violation of Articles
on petitioner's amended complaint, 19, 20, and 21 will
declaration and respondent mainly also give rise to
incurred expenses as avers that had damages."
a consequence. petitioner not issue a
"fit for employment" Thus, with respect to
Medical Report to negligent acts or
Raguindin, omissions, it should
respondent would not therefore be
have processed his discerned that Article
documents, deployed 20 of the Civil Code
him to Saudi Arabia, concerns "violations
and later on — in view of existing law as
of the subsequent basis for an injury,"
findings that whereas Article 2176
Raguindin was applies when the
positive for HCV and negligent act causing
hence, unfit to work — damage to another
suffered actual does not constitute "a
damages in the breach of an existing
amount of law or a pre-existing
P84,373.41. Thus, as
Page 17 of 24
the claimed negligent contractual

act of petitioner was obligation."
not premised on the
breach of any law,
and not to mention the
incontestable fact that
no pre-existing
contractual relation
was averred to exist
between the parties,
Article 2176 —
instead of Articles 19,
20 and 21 — of the
Civil Code should
govern.
Barredo v. Distingui- A head-on collision SC held otherwise, Crimes v. Quasi-
Garcia shing delict happened between a stating that while the Delict
from quasi- taxi and a carretela. terms of article 1902
G.R. No. delict The passenger of the of the Civil Code Crimes:
48006 | July taxi died. His parents seem to be broad 1. affect public
8, 1942 instituted a criminal enough to cover the interest
case against the driver's negligence in 2. employer is
driver of the taxi the instant case, subsidiarily liable
(where the latter was nevertheless article 3. laws governing
convicted), and a civil 1093 limits cuasi- crimes punish or
case against the delitos to acts or correct the
employer for omissions "not criminal act
damages (where CFI punishable by law." 4. punishable only if
granted award). there is a clear
Employer Barredo But inasmuch as penal law
argued that his liability article 365 of the RPC covering them
is subsidiary and not punishes not only 5. requires proof of
principal, and since no reckless but even guilt beyond
civil action was simple imprudence or reasonable
instituted against the negligence, the fault doubts
driver, he cannot be or negligence under
held liable. article 1902 of the CC Quasi-Delict
has apparently been 1. only of private
crowded out. concern
2. employer is
There is a distinction principally liable
between the civil 3. laws govern in
liability arising from a order to indemnify
crime and the or repair
responsibility for damages
cuasi-delitos or culpa 4. includes all acts
extra-contractual. which "any kind of
fault or
The same negligent negligence
act causing damages intervenes,"
may produce civil provided they are
liability arising from a not punished by
crime under article law
100 of the RPC, or
Page 18 of 24
create an action for 5. Requires only

cuasi-delito or culpa preponderance of
extra-contractual evidence
under articles 1902-
1910 of the CC. HOWEVER, not all
violations of the penal
law produce civil
responsibility, such as
begging in
contravention of
ordinances, violation
of the game laws,
infraction of the rules
of traffic when nobody
is hurt.
Elcano v. Quasi-delicts Reginald Hill, a minor The Court held that Although Art. 2176
Hill and delicts but legally married, even if civil liability refers to “fault or
as two and his father, were arising from crime is negligence,” it also
G.R. No. L- independent acquitted from a extinguished, the covers not only acts
24803 | May sources of previous criminal case petitioners may still “not punishable by
26, 1977 obligations for the killing of the recover damages due law” but also acts
for civil son of petitioners to the civil liability for criminal in character,
liability Elcano. Petitioners the same act whether intentional
thereafter filed for considered as a and voluntary or
recovery of damages quasi-delict and not negligent as this is
against the Hills but as a crime. The same “more congruent with
said complaint was act can be a proper the spirit of law, equity
dismissed due to subject-matter either and justice, and more
acquittal from the of a criminal action in harmony with
criminal case. with its consequent modern progress”
civil liability arising
from a crime or of an Under Article 2177 of
entirely separate and the new code,
independent civil acquittal from an
action for liability accusation of criminal
arising from quasi- negligence, whether
delict. on reasonable doubt
or not, shall not be a
bar to a subsequent
civil action, not for civil
liability arising from
criminal negligence,
but for damages due
to a quasi-delict or
‘culpa aquiliana. But
said article forestalls a
double recovery.
In other words, the

extinction of civil
liability refers
exclusively to civil
liability founded on
Article 100 of the
Page 19 of 24
Revised Penal Code,

whereas the civil
liability for the same
act considered as a
quasi-delict only and
not as a crime is not
extinguished even by
a declaration in the
criminal case that the
criminal act charged
has not happened or
has not been
committed by the
accused.
The Tortfeasor
Far Eastern Joint When the ship was The Court held that When the concurrent
Shipping tortfeasors close to the pier, generally, a or successive
Co. v. Court Gavino ordered the shipowner (FESC) is negligent acts or
of Appeals engine to be stopped not liable for injuries omissions of two or
and the left anchor inflicted exclusively by more persons,
G.R. Nos. dropped. However, the negligence of a although acting
130068 & the anchor did not pilot (Gavino) independently, are
130150 | take hold as expected accepted by a vessel together the direct
October 1, and PAV continued to compulsorily. The and proximate cause
1998 apraoch the peir at exemption from of a single injury to a
speed There was a liability for such third person, and it is
commotion within the negligence shall apply impossible to
crew therefore if the pilot is actually in determine in what
Kavankov held and a charge and solely in proportion each
brief conference with fault. However, in the contributed to the
them. When Gavino case at bar, FESC injury and either of
inquired what was all can be held liable them is responsible
the commotion about, since there is for the whole injury.
Kavankov assured concurrent negligence Where their
Gavino that there was on the part of their concurring negligence
nothing wrong. The hired master resulted in injury or
ship ended up (Kavankov) and the damage to a third
colliding with the pier, compulsory pilot party, they become
resulting in more than (Gavino). joint tortfeasors and
P1M of damages. are solidarily liable for
the resulting damage.
Proximate Cause
Bataclan v. Concept While running, one of The Court held that it "Proximate cause" is
Medina the front tires of a bus was the overturning of that cause, which, in
fell into a canal and the bus and not the natural and
G.R. No. L- turned turtle. Calls for fire, which was the continuous sequence,
10126 | help were made. proximate cause of unbroken by any
October 22, Several men, one of the death of the efficient intervening
1957 them carrying a victims. cause, produces the
Page 20 of 24
lighted torch, came to injury, and without

help. Almost which the result would
immediately, a fire not have occurred.
started and consumed
both the bus and the The proximate legal
four passengers cause is that acting
trapped inside. It first and producing the
would appear that as injury, either
the bus overturned, immediately or by
gasoline began to setting other events in
leak. motion, all constituting
a natural and
continuous chain of
events, each having a
close causal
connection with its
immediate
predecessor, the final
event in the chain
immediately effecting
the injury as a natural
and probable result of
the cause which first
acted, under such
circumstances that
the person
responsible for the
first event should, as
an ordinarily prudent
and intelligent person,
have reasonable
ground to expect at
the moment of his act
or default that an
injury to some person
might probably result
therefrom.
Negligence
Borromeo v. Res ipsa The wife of the Court ruled that res Res ipsa loquitur is
Family Care loquitur petitioner, after ipsa loquitur does not not applicable in
Hospital, versus expert undergoing an apply, stating that the cases such as the
Inc. testimony in appendix-removal petitioner failed to present one where the
medical operation, died due to present sufficient defendant’s alleged
G.R. No. negligence internal bleeding. An convincing evidence failure to observe due
191018 | cases autopsy was to establish: care is not
January 25, conducted on her (1) the standard of immediately apparent
2016 body, with the care expected of the to a layman. These
examiner opining that respondent and instances require
the bleeding could (2) the fact that Dr. expert opinion to
have been avoided if Inso fell short of this establish the
the site was repaired expected standard. culpability of the
with double suturing Considering further defendant doctor. It
Page 21 of 24
instead of the single that the respondents is also not applicable

continuous suture established that the to cases where the
repair that he found. cause of Lilian’s actual cause of the
With this, the husband uncontrollable injury had been
sued the doctor who bleeding (and, identified or
performed the ultimately, her death) established.
appendix-removal was a medical
operation and the disorder –
hospital (the Disseminated
respondents). The Intravascular
husband invoked the Coagulation – we find
doctrine of res ipsa no reversible errors in
loquitur to shift the the CA’s dismissal of
burden of evidence the complaint on
onto the respondent. appeal.
Layugan v. Evidence; While repairing the The Court held that The doctrine of res
Intermediate Effect of tire of their cargo the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not
Appellate direct truck, Layugan was hit ipsa loquitur can be apply where the
Court evidence by Isidro’s truck, invoked when and plaintiff has
driven recklessly by only when, under the knowledge and
G.R. No. Daniel Serrano. circumstances testifies or presents
73998 | Layugan got injured involved, direct evidence as to the
November and was hospitalized evidence is absent specific act of
14, 1988 so he filed an action and not readily negligence which is
for damages. Isidro available. In the the cause of the injury
claimed that Layugan present case, the complained of or
was merely a evidence on record where there is direct
bystander, not a truck discloses that three or evidence as to the
helper. The former four meters from the precise cause of the
also said that the truck rear of the parked accident and all the
allegedly being truck, a lighted facts and
repaired was kerosene lamp was circumstances
occupying almost half placed. Moreover, attendant on the
of the right lane. He there is the admission occurrence clearly
was alleging that the of respondent Isidro's appear. Once the
proximate cause of driver, Daniel actual cause of injury
the incident was the Serrano, that despite is established beyond
failure of the driver of the warning which we controversy, whether
the parked truck in rule as sufficient, the by the plaintiff or by
installing the early Isuzu truck driven by the defendant, no
warning device. The him, still bumped the presumptions will be
trial court ruled in rear of the parked involved and the
favor of Layugan, cargo truck. doctrine becomes
which was in turn inapplicable when the
reversed by the CFI, circumstances have
finding the petitioner been so completely
negligent by virtue of elucidated that no
res ipsa loquitor. inference of
defendant's liability
can reasonably be
made, whatever the
source of the
evidence, as in this
case.
Page 22 of 24
Special Liability in Particular Activities

Spouses Possessors A defective gun was The Court held A higher degree of
Pacis v. of dangerous brought to Topgun Morales liable for the care is required of
Morales instrumen- gun store for repair. death of Alfred. someone who has in
talities Morales had a his possession or
G.R. No. business trip to Manila under his control an
169467 | and left such gun in instrumentality
February 25, the drawer. He locked extremely dangerous
2010 it but left the keys to in character, such as
his sales agents. dangerous weapons
Morales’ sales agents or substances. Such
Matibag and person in possession
Herbolario where left or control of
in the gun store to look dangerous
after it while instrumentalities has
defendant Morales the duty to take
was away. It appears exceptional
that Matibag and precautions to prevent
Herbolario later any injury being done
brought out the gun thereby. Unlike the
from the drawer and ordinary affairs of life
placed it on top of the or business which
table. Attracted by the involve little or no risk,
sight of the gun, the a business dealing
young Alfred Dennis with dangerous
Pacis got hold of the weapons requires the
same. Matibag asked exercise of a higher
Alfred Dennis Pacis to degree of care.
return the gun. The
latter followed and
handed the gun to
Matibag. It went off,
the bullet hitting the
young Alfred in the
head.
Mercury Pharmacists De Leon consulted Dr. The Court held The drugstore
Drug Charles Milla about Mercury Drug liable, business is affected
Corporation his irritated left eye. stating that Mercury by public interest.
v. De Leon The latter prescribed Drug and Ganzon Petitioner should have
the drugs Cortisporin cannot exculpate exerted utmost
G.R. No. Opthalmic and Ceftin themselves from any diligence in the
165622 | to relieve his eye liability. As active selection and
October 17, problems. players in the field of supervision of its
2008 De Leon went to the dispensing medicines employees. On the
Betterliving, to the public, the part of the employee
Parañaque, branch of highest degree of care concerned, she
Mercury Drug Store and diligence is should have been
Corporation to buy the expected of them. extremely cautious in
prescribed medicines. dispensing
He showed his pharmaceutical
prescription to products. Due to the
petitioner Aurmela sensitive nature of its
Page 23 of 24
Ganzon, a pharmacist business, petitioner

assistant. must at all times
Subsequently, he paid maintain a high level
for and took the of meticulousness.
medicine handed over
by Ganzon. Instead of
relieving his irritation,
respondent felt
searing pain. He
immediately rinsed
the affected eye with
water, but the pain did
not subside. Only then
did he discover that
he was given the
wrong medicine.
Our Lady of Medical In this case, the Both courts found that The Court has
Lourdes professionals records show that there was a delay in previously
Hospital v. Mrs. Capanzana the administration of emphasized that a
Spouses complained of oxygen to the patient. higher degree of
Capanzana difficulty in breathing The nurses committed caution and an
before eventually a breach of their duty exacting standard of
G.R. No. turning blue to respond diligence in patient
189218 | (cyanosis). It was thus immediately to management and
March 22, the duty of the nurses Regina’s needs. health care are
2017 to intervene There was also required of a hospital
immediately by negligent delay in staff, since they deal
informing the resident referring Mrs. with patients who
doctor. If they did so, Capanzana to seek urgent medical
proper oxygenation physicians. In fact, the assistance.
could have been nurses were even
resorted to and other chided by a member
interventions could of the medical staff for
have been performed not immediately
without wasting referring the patient’s
valuable time. condition to the
physicians.
Page 24 of 24

Civ Canonical Doctrines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civ Canonical Doctrines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.

“Law” refer to all laws

Court to establish his

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

the misrepresentation misrepresent their estoppel. (Art. 1327,

birth, if not attended

Words “male” and

of marriage in the Civil par. 2, would also be foreign divorce

incapacitated to enter obligations attendant 3. Incurability -

did not contain will and every page remedied by intrinsic

will despite holding

cancel her contract was the failure of the

the claimed negligent contractual

create an action for 5. Requires only

In other words, the

Revised Penal Code,

lighted torch, came to injury, and without

instead of the single that the respondents is also not applicable

Special Liability in Particular Activities

Ganzon, a pharmacist business, petitioner

You might also like