7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
1/210
WARNING! DOUBLE CHECK IF THE CASES (CONTENTS) ARE CORRECT. :)
1. UMALI VS. ESTANISLAO 209 SCRA 446
Facts:
Congress enacted RA 7167 entitled An act adjusting the basic personal and
additional exeptions allo!able to indi"iduals #or incoe tax purposes to the
po"ert$ threshold le"el%& aending #or the purpose Sec'29 o# the ()RC' *he said act
!as signed and appro"ed b$ the +resident on ,ec'19& 1991 and published on -an'14&
1992 in .ala$a& a ne!spaper o# general circulation' Sec'/ o# the said act states
*his act shall tae e##ect upon its appro"al%& !hile Sec' states *hese
regulations shall tae e##ect on copensation incoe #ro -anuar$ 1& 1992'%
Iss:
3( RA 7167 too e##ect upon its appro"al b$ the president on ,ec'19& 1991 or on
-an'/0 1992& 1 da$s a#ter its publication5
H"#:
RA 7167 too e##ect on -anuar$ /0& 1992 a#ter 1 da$s o# its publication' *anada
"s *u"era *he clause 8unless it is other!ise pro"ided8 re#ers to the date o#
e##ecti"it$ and not to the reuireent o# publication itsel# !hich cannot in an$
e"ent be oitted' *his clause does not ean that the legislator a$ ae the la!
e##ecti"e iediatel$ upon appro"al& or on an$ other date !ithout its pre"ious
publication' +ublication is indispensable in e"er$ case& but the legislature a$ in
its discretion pro"ide that the usual #i#teen 1 da$ period shall be shortened or
extended'
$. %% VS. DONATO 19: SCRA 1/0
Facts:
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
2/210
+ri"ate respondent and his co;accused !ere charged o# rebellion on ctober 2& 19:6
#or acts coitted be#ore and a#ter
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
3/210
@e !as using the #alse nae 8.anuel .ercado Castro8 at the tie o# his arrest and
presented a ,ri"ers Bicense to substantiate his #alse identit$>
*he address he ga"e 8+anaitan& a!it& Ca"ite&8 turned out to be also a #alse
address>
@e and his copanions !ere on board a pri"ate "ehicle !ith a declared o!ner !hose
identit$ and address !ere also #ound to be #alse>
+ursuant to .inistr$ rder (o' 1;A dated 11 -anuar$ 19:2 & a re!ard o# +20&000'00
!as o##ered and paid #or his arrest'
*his ho!e"er !as denied' @ence the appeal'
Iss:
3hether or (ot the pri"ate respondent has the right to bail'
H"#:
Des' Eail in the instant case is a atter o# right' )t is absolute since the crie
is not a capital o##ense& there#ore prosecution has no right to present e"idence'
)t is onl$ !hen it is a capital o##ense that the right becoes discretionar$'
@o!e"er it !as !rong #or the -udge to change the aount o# bail #ro /0 to 0
!ithout hearing the prosecution'
Republic Act (o' 696: appro"ed on 24 ctober 1990& pro"iding a penalt$ o# reclusion
perpetua to the crie o# rebellion& is not applicable to the accused as it is not
#a"orable to hi'
Accused "alidl$ !ai"ed his right to bail in another casepetition #or habeascorpus' Agreeents !ere ade therein accused to reain under custod$& !hereas his
co;detainees -ose#ina CruF and -ose .ilo Concepcion !ill be released iediatel$&
!ith a condition that the$ !ill subit thesel"es in the jurisdiction o# the court'
Said petition #or @C !as disissed' Eail is the securit$ gi"en #or the release o# a
person in custod$ o# the la!' ?rgo& there !as a !ai"er' 3e hereb$ rule that the
right to bail is another o# the constitutional rights !hich can be !ai"ed' )t is a
right !hich is personal to the accused and !hose !ai"er !ould not be contrar$ to
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
4/210
la!& public order& public polic$& orals& or good custos& or prejudicial
to a
third
person
!ith
a
right
recogniFed
b$
la!'
&. %% VS. LICERA 6 SCRA 270
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
5/210
FACTS:
A criinal coplaint #or "iolation o# E+ 22 also no!n as the Eouncing Chec Ba!
!as #iled against the petitioner a#ter issuing a chec on Septeber 1& 19:2 !hich
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
6/210
!as dishonored on -anuar$ /& 19:4' Related regulations o# E+22 !ere released as
Circular (o' 4 dated ,eceber 1& 19:1& !hich !as eant to #ree the dra!er o# the
bouncing chec& an$ criinal liabilit$ !hen the issuance o# the chec is part o# an
agreeent to guarantee or secure pa$ent o# an obligation& and as Circular (o' 12
dated August :& 19:4& !hich !as eant to o"errule the #orer and contained express
andate #or prospecti"e application o# the regulation'
ISSUE: 3hether or not Circular (o' 12 is applicable to the case at bar'
HELD:
)t !as opined that the interpretation o# the Court constitutes a part o# the la! as
stated in Art : o# the (e! Ci"il Code& thus& the Circulars earning the po!er o# la!
resulted #ro the cogniFance o# the b$ the Court as ani#ested b$ the Court
decisions prior to the ruling o# the case at bar' *he Court #urther held that&
although the Circulars ha"e the po!er o# la!& Circular 12 can not be applied to the
case at bar as that !ould be tantaount to gi"ing retroacti"e e##ect !hich is in
direct "iolation o# the Circular itsel# and the Art 4 o# the (e! Ci"il Code
andating prospecti"e application o# the la!' *he Court resol"ed that the assailed
decisions o# the in#erior courts are re"ersed and set aside' Criinal prosecution
is disissed !ith costs de oficio'
. NATIONAL MARKETING COR%. VS. TECSON 29 SCRA 70
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
7/210
3hether or not the ter $ear as used in the article 1/ o# the ci"il code is liited
to /6 da$s'
@eld
*he ter $ear as used in the article 1/ o# the ci"il code is liited to /6 da$s'
@o!e"er& it is said to be unrealistic and i# public interest deands a re"ersion to
the polic$ ebodied in the re"ised adinistrati"e code& this a$ be done through
legislati"e process and not b$ judicial decree'
. *UI+ON VS. BALTA+AR 76 SCRA 60
*his is a petion #or certiorari and prohibition to declare null and "oid the orders
o# the .unicipal Court o# San
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
8/210
n .a$ 11& 1964& pri"ate respondent& Cecilia Sangalang& !ith the assistance o#
Assistant +ro"incial
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
9/210
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
10/210
196/ to .a$ 9&
da$s
1964 !ere'
*he prosecution opposed the otion to disiss b$ aing a coputation o# tie'
*hus& #ro (o"' 12& 196/ to .a$ 11& 1964 are 1:0 da$s pursuant to the pro"ision o#
the said Article 1/ contained in paragraph / !hich reads 8)n coputing a period&
the #irst da$ shall be excluded& and the last da$ included8'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
11/210
April
/0
da$s
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
12/210
Article 1/ o# the ne! Ci"il Code sa$s that 8!hen the la!s spea o# '''& onths&
'''& it shall be understood that ''' onth ''' o# thirt$ da$s each ''' )t sa$s
#urther that 8)# onths are designated b$ their nae& the$ shall be coputed b$ thenuber o# da$s !hich the$ respecti"el$ ha"e' Con#orabl$ to these legal pro"isions
and appl$ing the sae to the case at bar& the coputation gi"en b$ the public
prosecutor appears to be correct' *he onth o# (o"eber !as designated in the
coplaint so it !ill be gi"en the nuber o# da$s it has in the calendar !hich is /0
da$s'
@ence this present petition'
)SSJ? 3hether a onth entioned in Article 90 should be considered as the calendar
onth and not the /0;da$ onth'
@?B,
)n accordance !ith Article 1/ o# the ne! Ci"il Code the 8onth8 entioned in
Article 90 o# the Re"ised +enal Code should be one o# /0 da$s& and since the period
o# prescription coences to run #ro the da$ 8on !hich the crie is disco"ered b$
the o##ended part$&8 it is logical to presue& there#ore& that the Begislature in
enacting Article 91 o# the Re"ised +enal Code eant or intended to ean that in the
coputation o# the period pro"ided #or therein& the #irst da$ is to be excluded and
the last one included& in accord !ith existing la!s'
*he pertinent pro"isions o# Articles 90 and 91 o# the Re"ised +enal Code are as
#ollo!s
Art' 90' Prescription of crimes' K *he o##enses o# oral de#aation and slander b$deed shall prescribe in six onths' Bight o##enses prescribe in t!o onths'
Art' 91' Computation of prescription of offenses.K*he period o# prescription shall
coence to run #ro the da$ on !hich the crie is disco"ered b$ the o##ended
part$& the authorities or their agents& '''
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
13/210
Article 90 should be considered as the calendar onth and not the /0;da$ onth' )t
is to be noted that no pro"ision o# the Re"ised +enal Code de#ines the length o#
the .onth' Article 7 o# the old Ci"il Code pro"ided that a onth shall be
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
14/210
understood as containing /0 da$s> 3ith the appro"al o# the Ci"il Code o# the +hilippines
R'A' (o' /:6& the pro"isions o# the Spanish Ci"il Code in accordance !ith !hich a
onth is to be considered as the regular /0;da$ onth Article 1/'
@ence& !here the crie !as coitted on (o"eber 11& 196/& and the action !as #iled
exactl$ 1:0 da$s later& said action !as #iled on tie'
,. BELLIS VS. BELLIS GR' (' B;2/67:& -J(? 6& 1967
FACTS: Aos G' Eellis !as a citiFen and resident o# *exas at the tie o# his death'
Ee#ore he died& he ade t!o !ills& one disposing o# his *exas properties& the
other& disposing o# his +hilippine properties' )n both !ills& his recogniFed
illegitiate children !ere not gi"en an$thing' *exas has no con#licts rule rule o#
+ri"ate )nternational Ba! go"erning successional rights'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
15/210
/ *he contention that the national la! o# the deceased Art' 16& par' 2> Art'
10/9 should be disregarded because o# Art' 17& par' / !hich in e##ect states that
our prohibiti"e la!s should not be rendered nugator$ b$ #oreign la!s& is 3R(G&
#irstl$ because Art' 16& par' 2 and Art' 10/9 are special pro"isions& !hile Art'
17& par' / is erel$ a general pro"ision> and secondl$& because Congress deleted
the phrase not!ithstanding the pro"isions o# this and the next preceding articleLL
!hen it incorporated Art' 11 o# the old Ci"il Code as Art' 17 o# the ne! Ci"il
Code& !hile reproducing !ithout substantial change& the second paragraph o# Art' 10
o# the old Ci"il Code as Art'16 in the ne!' )t ust ha"e been its purpose to ae
the second paragraph o# Art' 16 a speci#ic pro"ision in itsel#& !hich ust be
applied in testate and intestate successions' As #urther indication o# this
legislati"e intent& Congress added a ne! pro"ision& underA-t. 10/-# 28 t4 at0a" "a5 09 t4 #c#t' )t
is there#ore e"ident that !hate"er public polic$ or good custos a$ be in"ol"ed in
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
16/210
our s$ste o# legities& Congress has not intended to extend the sae to the
succession o# #oreign nationals'
4 )t has been pointed out b$ the oppositor that the decedent executed t!o !ills K
one to go"ern his *exas estate and the other his +hilippine estate K arguing #ro
this that he intended +hilippine la! to go"ern his +hilippine estate' Assuing thatsuch !as the decedentLs intention in executing a separate +hilippine !ill& it !ill
(* AB*?R the la!& #or as this Court rules inMca0 /. B-70& 0 +hil' :67& :70&
a pro"ision in a #oreignerLs !ill to the e##ect that his properties shall be
distributed in accordance !ith the +hilippine la! and not !ith his national la!& is
illegal and "oid #or his national la!& in this regard& cannot be ignored'
?. GLOBE MCKA@ VS. CA
176 SCRA 77:
Facts
n (o"eber 10& 1972& pri"ate respondent
Restituto
*obias& a
purchasing agent and adinistrati"e assistant to the
engineering
operations
anager& disco"ered #ictitious purchases and other #raudulent transactions& !hich
caused Globe .aca$ Cable and Radio Corp loss o# se"eral thousands o# pesos' @e
reported it to his iediate superior ?duardo *'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
17/210
detector tests $ielded negati"e results> reports #ro .anila police in"estigators
and #ro the .etro .anila +olice Chie# ,ocuent ?xainer are in #a"or o# *obias'
+etitioners #iled !ith the hence& this petition #or re"ie! on certiorari'
Iss 3hether or not petitioners are liable #or daages to pri"ate respondent'
H"#
Des' )n the case at bar& SC in"oed Articles 19 and 21 o# the (e! Ci"il Code
pro"ided as #ollo!s
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
18/210
Art' 19' ?"er$ person ust& in the exercise o# his rights and in the per#orance o#
his duties& act !ith justice& gi"e e"er$one his due& and obser"e honest$ and good
#aith'
Art' 21' An$ person !ho !il#ull$ causes loss or injur$ to another in a anner that
is contrar$ to orals& good custos or public polic$ shall copensate the latter#or the daage'
3hile Article 19 la$s do!n a rule o# conduct #or the go"ernent o# huan relations
and #or the aintenance o# social order& Article 21 pro"ides #or the reed$ on the
action #or daages'
*he Court& a#ter exaining the record and considering certain signi#icant
circustances& #inds that all3tt0-s 4a/ ## a2s# t4 ->4t t4at t48
/0; cas> #a7a> t0 3-/at -s30#t a# 90- 54c4 t4 "att- 7st 05 2
#79# !hen @endr$ told *obias to just con#ess or else the copan$ !ould #ile
a hundred ore cases against hi until he landed in jail> his @endr$ scorn#ul
rears about t4 /st>at0s 09 T02as t-as>-ss t4 sta#a-#s
09 47a c0#ct st 90-t4 A-tc" 1= 09 t4 C/" C0# and b$ such& it gi"es
*obias the right to reco"er daages under Article 21 o# the Ci"il Code'
=. %NB VS. CA :/ SCRA 2/6
%-c3"s: Article 21 o# the (e! Ci"il Code& 8an$ person !ho !il#ull$ causes loss
or injur$ to another in a anner that is contrar$ to orals& good custos or public
polic$ shall copensate the latter #or the daage'8 *he a#ore;cited pro"isions on
huan relations !ere intended to expand the concept o# torts in this jurisdiction
b$ granting adeuate legal reed$ #or the untold nuber o# oral !rongs !hich is
ipossible #or huan #oresight to speci#icall$ pro"ide in the statutes'
FACTS: +hilagen executed a bond& !ith de#endant Rita Gueco *apnio in #a"our o# +(E
San
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
19/210
o# 12O per annu& plus attorne$s #ees in the aount o# 1 O o# the !hole aount
due in case o# court litigation'
)t is not disputed that de#endant !as indebted to +(E San
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
20/210
*his lease agreeent& according to her& !as !ith the no!ledge o# the ban' Eut the
Ean has placed obstacles to the consuation o# the lease& and the dela$ caused b$
said obstacles #orced (aFon to rescind the lease contract' *hus& Rita Gueco *apnio
#iled her third;part$ coplaint against the Ean to reco"er #ro the latter an$ and
all sus o# one$ !hich a$ be adjudged against her and in #a"or o# the plaiti##
plus oral daages& attorne$s #ees and costs'
At the tie o# the agreeent& .rs' *apnio !as indebted to the +hilippine (ational
Ean at San
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
21/210
b$ statistics based on the pre"ailing
rate'
*C ruled that the rescission o# the contract o# *uaFon !as due to the banLs
unjusti#ied re#usal to appro"e said contract' CA a##ired the decision o# the *C'
@ence this petition'
)SSJ? 3as the ban negligent5
@?B, D?S
)t has been clearl$ sho!n that !hen the Eranch .anager o# petitioner reuired the
parties to raise the consideration o# the lease #ro +2'0 to +2':0 per picul& or a
total o# +2&:00;00& the$ readil$ agreed' @ence& in his letter to the Eranch .anager
o# the Ean on August 10& 196& *uaFon in#ored hi that the iniu lease rental
o# +2':0 per picul !as acceptable to hi and that he e"en o##ered to use the loan
secured b$ hi #ro petitioner to pa$ in #ull the su o# +2&:00'00 !hich !as the
total consideration o# the lease' *his arrangeent !as not onl$ satis#actor$ to the
Eranch .anager but it !as also appro"es b$ Mice;+resident -' M' Euena"entura o# the
+(E' Jnder that arrangeent& Rita Gueco *apnio could ha"e realiFed the aount o#+2&:00'00& !hich !as ore than enough to pa$ the balance o# her indebtedness to the
Ean !hich !as secured b$ the bond o# +hilagen'
*here is no uestion that *apnios #ailure to utiliFe her sugar uota #or the crop
$ear 196;197 !as due to the disappro"al o# the lease b$ the Eoard o# ,irectors o#
petitioner' *he issue& there#ore& is !hether or not petitioner is liable #or the
daage caused'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
22/210
8*he #act that there !ere isolated transactions !herein the consideration #or the
lease !as +/'00 a picul8& according to the trial court& 8does not necessaril$ ean
that there are al!a$s read$ taers o# said price' 8 *he unreasonableness o# the
position adopted b$ the petitioners Eoard o# ,irectors is sho!n b$ the #act that
the di##erence bet!een the aount o# +2':0 per picul o##ered b$ *uaFon and the
+/'00 per picul deanded b$ the Eoard aounted onl$ to a total su o# +200'00'
Considering that all the accounts o# Rita Gueco *apnio !ith the Ean !ere secured
b$ chattel ortgage on standing crops& assignent o# leasehold rights and interests
on her properties& and suret$ bonds and that she had apparentl$ 8the eans to pa$
her obligation to the Ean& as sho!n b$ the #act that she has been granted se"eral
sugar crop loans o# the total "alue o# alost +:0&000'00 #or the agricultural $ears
#ro 192 to 1968& there !as no reasonable basis #or the Eoard o# ,irectors o#
petitioner to ha"e rejected the lease agreeent because o# a easl$ su o# +200'00'
3hile petitioner had the ultiate authorit$ o# appro"ing or disappro"ing the
proposed lease since the uota !as ortgaged to the Ean& the latter certainl$
cannot escape its responsibilit$ o# obser"ing& #or the protection o# the interest
o# pri"ate respondents& that degree o# care& precaution and "igilance !hich the
circustances justl$ deand in appro"ing or disappro"ing the lease o# said sugar
uota' *he la! aes it iperati"e that e"er$ person 8ust in the exercise o# his
rights and in the per#orance o# his duties& act !ith justice& gi"e e"er$one his
due& and obser"e honest$ and good #aith& *his petitioner #ailed to do'
Certainl$& it ne! that the agricultural $ear !as about to expire& that b$ its
disappro"al o# the lease pri"ate respondents !ould be unable to utiliFe the sugar
uota in uestion' )n #ailing to obser"e the reasonable degree o# care and
"igilance !hich the surrounding circustances reasonabl$ ipose& petitioner isconseuentl$ liable #or the daages caused on pri"ate respondents' Jnder Article 21
o# the (e! Ci"il Code& 8an$ person !ho !il#ull$ causes loss or injur$ to another in
a anner that is contrar$ to orals& good custos or public polic$ shall copensate
the latter #or the daage'8 *he a#ore;cited pro"isions on huan relations !ere
intended to expand the concept o# torts in this jurisdiction b$ granting adeuate
legal reed$ #or the untold nuber o# oral !rongs !hich is ipossible #or huan
#oresight to speci#icall$ pro"ide in the statutes'
A corporation is ci"ill$ liable in the sae anner as natural persons #or torts&
because 8generall$ speaing& the rules go"erning the liabilit$ o# a principal oraster #or a tort coitted b$ an agent or ser"ant are the sae !hether the
principal or aster be a natural person or a corporation& and !hether the ser"ant
or agent be a natural or arti#icial person' All o# the authorities agree that a
principal or aster is liable #or e"er$ tort !hich he expressl$ directs or
authoriFes& and this is just as true o# a corporation as o# a natural person& A
corporation is liable& there#ore& !hene"er a tortious act is coitted b$ an
o##icer or agent under express direction or authorit$ #ro the stocholders or
ebers acting as a bod$& or& generall$& #ro the directors as the go"erning bod$'8
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
23/210
,ecision o# CA is a##ired'
1
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
24/210
*he boo narrates the death o# .oises +adilla& a a$oralt$ canididate under
(acionalista +art$ Qa inorit$ part$ against Go" Ra#ael Bacson o# Biberal +art$&
he and his en !ere tried and con"icted in the +eople " Bacson& et al case' )n the
boo& .oises +adilla !as portra$ed a art$r'
Although the o"ie portra$ed the public li#e o# .osises +adilla& there !ere scenes!hich touch the pri"ate li#e o# .oises and the other GonFalesKa scene !ho
GonFales had relationship !ith Auring' +rior to the scheduled +reiere Sho!ing o#
the #il& the hal#;sister o# .oises called the petitioner expressing her objections
to soe scenes and called the o"ie as exploitation o# .oisesL li#e' )n !riting&
GonFales deanded that the #il be changed and soe scenes be deleted' Since
BagunFad had spent so uch #or the copletion o# the
#il&
he agreed to
enter into
a licensing agreeent !ith GonFales'
)n the agreeent& it !as stipulated that BaginFad
!ill
pa$ GonFales
+20&000'00
!hich !ill be paid in three instalents but +&000 !ill be ad"anced and 2 T O o#
the gross incoe as ro$alt$'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
25/210
ISSUE: 3( the #il "iolates Art 26 o# the (CC
HELD:
D?S' *he #il !as disrespect#ul to the dignit$ and pri"ac$ o# the de#endant'
(either do !e agree !ith petitioners subission that the Bicensing Agreeent is
null and "oid #or lac o#& or #or ha"ing an illegal cause
or
consideration'
3hile
it is true that petitioner had purchased the rights to
the
boo entitled
8*he
.oises +adilla Stor$&8 that did not dispense !ith the need #or prior consent and
authorit$ #ro the deceased heirs to portra$ publicl$ episodes in said deceaseds
li#e and in that o# his other and the ebers o# his #ail$' As held in Schuyler
v. Curtis&1'8a 3-/"> 7a8 2 >/ t4 s-//> -"at/s 09 a #cas# 3-s0
t0 3-0tct 4s 770-8; 2t t4 3-/"> sts 90- t4 29t 09 t4 "/>; t0
3-0tct t4- 9">s a# t0 3-/t a /0"at0 09 t4- 05 ->4ts t4
c4a-act- a# 770-8 09 t4 #cas#.
+etitioners a"erent that pri"ate respondent did not ha"e an$ propert$ right o"er
the li#e o# .oises +adilla since the latter !as a public #igure& is neither !elltaen' Eeing a public #igure ipso factodoes not autoaticall$ destro$ in toto a
persons right to pri"ac$' *he right to in"ade a persons pri"ac$ to disseinate
public in#oration does not extend to a #ictional or no"eliFed representation o# a
person&
no
atter ho! public
a #igure he or she a$ be' )n the case at bar& !hile
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
26/210
it is
true
that petitioner
exerted e##orts to present a true;to;li#e stor$ o#
.oises +adilla& petitioner adits that he included a little roance in the #il
because !ithout it& it !ould be a drab stor$ o# torture and brutalit$'
3e also #ind it di##icult to sustain petitioners posture that his consent to the
Bicensing Agreeent !as procured thru duress& intiidation and undue in#luence
exerted on hi b$ pri"ate respondent and her daughters at a tie !hen he had
exhausted his #inancial resources& the preiere sho!ing o# the picture !as
iinent& and 8tie !as o# the essence'
As held in Martinez vs. Hongkong Shanghai !ank& it is necessar$ to distinguish
bet!een real duress and the oti"e !hich is present !hen one gi"es his consent
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
27/210
reluctantl$' A contract is "alid e"en though one o# the parties entered into it
against his o!n !ish and desires& or e"en against his better judgent'
)n legal e##ect& there is no di##erence bet!een a contract !herein one o# the
contracting parties exchanges one condition #or another because he loos
#or
greater pro#it or gain b$ reason o# such change& and an agreeent !herein one
o#
the contracting parties agrees to accept the lesser o# t!o disad"antages' )n either
case& he aes a choice #ree and untraelled and ust accordingl$ abide b$ it' *heBicensing Agreeent has the #orce o# la! bet!een the contracting parties and since
its pro"isions are not contrar$ to la!& orals& good custos& public order or
public polic$ Art' 1/06& Ci"il Code& petitioner Should copl$ !ith it in good
#aith'
3here#ore& petition is denied' ,ecision o# *C and CA are a##ired'
11. A@ER %RODUCTION VS. CA%ULONG 160 SCRA :61
Facts:
+etitioner @al .c?lro$ an Australian #il aer& and his o"ie production copan$&
+etitioner A$er +roductions pt$ Btd' A$er +roductions& en"isioned #or coercial
"ie!ing and #or +hilippine and international release the histolic peace#ul struggle
o# the
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
28/210
+ri"ate respondent ?nrile replied to a letter asing #or perission to air the
o"ie that 8Qhe !ould not and !ill not appro"e o# the use& appropriation&
reproduction andUor exhibition o# his nae& or picture& or that o# an$ eber o#
his #ail$ in an$ cinea or tele"ision production& #il or other ediu #or
ad"ertising or coercial exploitation8 and #urther ad"ised petitioners that in
the production& airing& sho!ing& distribution or exhibition o# said or siilar
#il& no re#erence !hatsoe"er !hether !ritten& "erbal or "isual should not be
ade to Qhi or an$ eber o# his #ail$& uch less to an$ atter purel$ personal
to the'
)t appears that petitioners acceded to this deand and the nae o# pri"ate
respondent ?nrile !as deleted #ro the o"ie script& and petitioners proceeded to
#il the projected otion picture'
+ri"ate respondent #iled a Coplaint !ith application #or *eporar$ Restraining
rder seeing to enjoin petitioners #ro producing the o"ie 8*he
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
29/210
+etitioner A$er +roductions also #iled its o!n .otion to ,isiss alleging lac o#
cause o# action as the ini;series had not $et been copleted'
Respondent court issued a !rit o# +reliinar$ )njunction against the petitioners'
@ence this petition #or certiorari'
Iss:
3hether or not the production and #iling b$ petitioners o# the projected otion
picture 8*he :
N0; the production and #iling b$ petitioners o# the projected otion picture
8*he
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
30/210
Jnlie in BagunFad& !hich concerned the li#e stor$ o# .oises +adilla necessaril$
including at least his iediate #ail$& !hat !e ha"e here is not a #il biograph$&
ore or less #ictionaliFed& o# pri"ate respondent +once ?nrile' 8*he
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
31/210
or calling *hich gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings& his affairs&
and his character& has become a +public personage.+ He is& in other *ords& a
celebrity. ,bviously to be included in this category are those *ho have achieved
some degree of reputation by appearing before the public& as in the case o# an
actor& a pro#essional baseballpla$er& a pugilist& or an$ other entertainent'
Such public figures *ere held to have lost& to some e"tent at least& their tight to
privacy. *hree reasons !ere gi"en& ore or lessindiscriinatel$& in the decisions8
that the$ had sought publicit$ and consented to it& and so could not coplaint !hen
the$ recei"ed it> thattheir personalities and their affairs has already public&
and could no longer be regarded as their o*n private business- and that the press
had a privilege& under the Constitution& to inform the public about those *ho have
become legitimate matters of public interest. n one oranother o# these grounds&
and soeties all& it !as held that there
!as no liability *hen they *ere given additional publicity& as tomatterslegitimately *ithin the scope of the public interest they had aroused.
3hether the 8balancing o# interests test8 or the clear and present danger test8 be
applied in respect o# the instant +etitions& the Court belie"es that a di##erent
conclusion ust here be reached *he production and #iling b$ petitioners o# the
projected otion picture 8*he
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
32/210
3@?R?
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
33/210
charging the de#endant& .axio .' Alcala& !ith the crie o# estafapredicated upon
a receipt' *he court e"entuall$ acuitted Alcala o# the o##ense charged !ith the
#indings that prosecution has not pro"ed be$ond reasonable doubt that the de#endant
had in #act represented to Gaudencio *' .endoFa that he had 100 ca"ans o# pala$
stored in his sisters bodega& !hich he o##ered to sell #or +1&100'00'
*he Court cannot belie"e that Gaudencio *' .endoFa !ould pa$ to the de#endant the
su o# +1&100'00 on the ere representation o# the de#endant that the pala$ !as in
the bodega o# his sister& and on his reuest to pa$ hi #irst as he !as going to
.anila' )n the #irst place& there is no sho!ing !h$ the de#endant !as in urgent
need o# +1&100'00' ,e#endant also testi#ied that he had no pala$ and had no land
#ro !hich to raise that pala$& !hich atter should be no!n b$ .endoFa as the$ had
no!n each other #or a long tie and !ere e"en #riends'
@o!e"er& the Court does not expressl$ pass upon the de#ense that the receipt signed
b$ hi arose #ro a usurious loan& as there is su##icient e"idence to !arrant a#inding that there had been no deceit or isrepresentation and that the receipt is
not !hat it purports to be' An$ obligation !hich the de#endant a$ ha"e incurred in
#a"or o# Gaudencio *' .endoFa is purel$ ci"il in character and not criinal'
n ,eceber 16& 194& !hile said criinal case !as still pending& the plainti##
#iled in the -ustice o# the +eace Court o# San -ose& (ue"a ?cija& the coplaint b$
!hich this case !as initiated' *hat coplaint !as based on the "er$ sae receipt
upon !hich the criinal action !as predicated& and in it plainti##& a#ter alleging
"iolation o# the ters o# said receipt& ased #or judgent against the de#endant
#or the su o# +1&100'00& !ith legal interest #ro Septeber & 19/ until #ullpa$ent plus +0'00 #or daages& +/00'00 #or attorne$s #ees& and the costs o#
suit' ,e#endant in his ans!er contented that e##ect that the transaction
re#erred
to in the coplaint !as a usurious loan in
the su o# +00'00& and that
the sae
had alread$ been paid in #ull& and #iled #or
counterclai #or daages'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
34/210
)SSJ? 3hether or not the de#endant could still be prosecuted #or the collection o#
the aount stated in the said receipt a#ter he had been acuitted b$ the Court on a
charge o# estafabased on the said receipt'
RJB)(G D?S
*he pertinent pro"isions o# la! are Article 29 o# the ne! Ci"il Code and Rule 107&
Section 1& Subsection d o# the Rules o# Court' Article 29 o# the ne! Ci"il Code
pro"ides
Art' 29' 3hen the accused in a criinal prosecution is acuitted on the ground that
his guilt has not been pro"ed be$ond reasonable doubt& a ci"il action #or daages
#or the sae act or oission a$ be instituted' Jpon otion o# the de#endant& the
court a$ reuire the plainti## to #ile a bond to ans!er #or daages in case the
coplaint should be #ound to be alicious'
)# in a criinal case the judgent o# acuittal is based upon reasonable doubt& the
court shall so declare' )n the absence o# an$ declaration to that e##ect& it a$ be
in#erred #ro the text o# the decision !hether or not the acuittal is due to that
ground' A judgent o# acuittal does not constitute a bar to a subseuent ci"il
action in"ol"ing the sae subject atter& e"en in regard to a ci"il action brought
against the de#endant b$ the State& nor is it e"idence o# his innocence in such
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
35/210
action& and is not adissible in e"idence to pro"e that he !as not guilt$ o# the
crie !ith !hich he !as charged'
*he declaration in the decision in Criinal Case (o' /219 to the e##ect that 8an$
obligation !hich the de#endant a$ ha"e incurred in #a"or o# Gaudencio *' .endoFa
is purel$ ci"il in character& and not criinal&8 aounts to a reser"ation o# the
ci"il action in #a"or o# the
o##ended part$& +hilippine (ational Ean "s'
Catipon& supra& and the o##ense
charged in said criinal case being estafa& !hich
is #raud& the present action #alls under the exception to the general rule and it
can be #iled independentl$ o# the criinal action' Article //& ne! Ci"il Code>
,ianeta "s' .aasiar& 'G' 1027/> +eople "s' Ealagtas& 1 'G' 714'
1&. MENDO+A VS. ARRIETA 91 SCRA 11/
FACTS:n ctober 22& 1969& at about 400 ocloc in the a#ternoon& a three; !a$
"ehicular accident occurred along .ac;Arthur @igh!a$& .arilao& Eulacan& in"ol"ing a
.ercedes EenF o!ned and dri"en b$ petitioner> a pri"ate jeep o!ned and dri"en b$
respondent Rodol#o SalaFar> and a gra"el and sand truc o!ned b$ respondent
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
36/210
3hether or not the dri"er o# the jeepsalaFar shall be held liable on daages
ensued to the "ehicle o# the petitioner a#ter acuittal o# the dri"er on the
criinal charged upon hi'
H"#: -eepV!ner dri"er SalaFar !as acuitted in Criinal Case' Considering that
the collision bet!een the jeep dri"en b$ Rodol#o SalaFar and the car o!ned and
dri"en b$ ?dgardo .endoFa !as the result o# the hitting on the rear o# the jeep b$
the truc dri"en b$
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
37/210
1'. RE%UBLIC VS. BELLO 120 SCRA 20/
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
38/210
Ruling
(o' *he dispositi"e portion o# the decision in the criinal case did not state that
the #acts upon !hich his responsibilit$ as an accountable o##icer is based !ere non;
existent'
*he ci"il action barred b$ such a declaration is the ci"il liabilit$ arising #ro
the o##ense charged& !hich is the one ipliedl$ instituted !ith the criinal action'
Section 1& Rule 111& Rules o# Court' Such a declaration !ould not bar a ci"il
action #iled against an accused !ho had been acuitted in the criinal case i# the
criinal action is predicated on #actual or legal considerations other than the
coission o# the o##ense charged' A person a$ be acuitted o# al"ersation !here&
as in the case at bar& he could sho! that he did not isappropriate the public #unds
in his possession& but he could be rendered liable to restore said
#unds or at least to ae a proper accounting thereo# i# he
shall spend
the sae
#or purposes !hich are not authoriFed nor intended& and in a
anner not
peritted
b$ applicable rules and regulations'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
39/210
1(. %ADILLA VS. CA
129 SCRA :
(*?S *his case explains the pro"ision o# Article 29 ; !here the judgent o#acuittal extinguishes the liabilit$ o# the accused #or daages onl$ !hen it
includes a declaration that the #acts #ro !hich ci"il ight arise did not exist'
*hus& the ci"il liabilit$ is not extinguished b$ acuittal !here the acuittal is
based on reasonable doubt as onl$ preponderance o# e"idence is reuired in ci"il
cases& !here the court expressl$ declares that the ci"il liabilit$ o# the accused is
not criinal but onl$ ci"il in nature'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
40/210
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
41/210
A separate ci"il action a$ be !arranted !here additional #acts ha"e to be
established or ore e"idence ust be adduced or !here the criinal case has been
#ull$ terinated and a separate coplaint !ould be just as e##icacious or e"en ore
expedient than a tiel$ reand to the trial court !here the criinal action !as
decided #or #urther hearings on the ci"il aspects o# the case' *he o##ended part$
a$& o# course& choose to #ile a separate action' *hese do not exist in this case'
Considering oreo"er the dela$s su##ered b$ the case in the trial& appellate& andre"ie! stages& it !ould be unjust to the coplainants in this case to reuire at
this tie a separate ci"il action to be #iled'
1. MAIMO VS. GEROCHI 144 SCRA /26
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
42/210
obligation& it is sipl$ ci"il in nature that could be properl$ "entilated !ithin
the context o# ci"il la!'
+etitioner #iled a otion #or reconsideration pra$ing 8that the portion o# the decision
regarding the ci"il liabilit$ o# the accused be reconsidered'8
.R !as denied& 0t5t4sta#> a#7ss0 09 t4 accs# 09 4- 02">at0 t03a8 t4
s3c9c a70t t0 3tt0-' -udge said& 8this reco"er$ o# ci"il
liabilit$ is deeed included in the o##ense pro"ed& but the uestion is not
indubitable because the accused !as acuitted in all the #our 4 in#orations she
!as charged o#'8
@ence& this petition #or certiorariand mandamus'
)SSJ? 3hether or not ci"il liabilit$ o# the accused is deeed absol"ed upon his
acuittal in criinal case'
@?B, Bo!er court is !rong'
)# an accused is acuitted& it does not necessaril$ #ollo! that no ci"il liabilit$arising #ro the acts coplained o# a$ be a!arded in the sae judgent'
C0-t 7a8 act a accs# 0 -as0a2" #02t a# st"" 0-#- 3a87t 09 c/"
#a7a>s a"-a#8 3-0/# t4 sa7 cas 5t40t # 90- a s3a-at c/" act0.
;Padilla v. Court of )ppeals129 SCRA :
Rationale o# the rule *o reuire a separate ci"il action sipl$ because the
accused !as acuitted !ould ean needless clogging o# court docets and unnecessar$
duplication o# litigation !ith all its attendant less o# tie& e##ort& and one$ on
the part o# all concerned'
)rt. /0 of 1CC states& 23hen the accused in a criminal prosecution is ac'uitted on
the ground that his guilt has not proved beyond reasonable doubt& a civil action
for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted...24
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
43/210
1,. SA%IERA VS. CA /14 SCRA /70
Facts: n se"eral occasions& petitioner Sapiera& a sari;sari store o!ner& purchased
#ro .onnico .art certain grocer$ ites& ostl$ cigarettes& and paid #or the !ith
checs issued b$ one Arturo de GuFan' *hese checs !ere signed at the bac b$ the
petitioner'
3hen presented #or pa$ent& the checs !ere dishonored because the dra!erLs account
!as alread$ closed' +ri"ate respondent Roan Sua in#ored ,e GuFan and petitioner
about the dishonor but both #ailed to pa$ the "alue o# the checs' @ence& #our 4
charges o# esta#a !ere #iled against petitioner but conseuentl$ she !as acuitted
#or insu##icienc$ o# e"idence but the court a uo did not rule on !hether she could
be held ci"ill$ liable #or the checs she indorsed to pri"ate respondent' n
appeal& the respondent court ordered petitioner to pa$ pri"ate respondent the
reaining +210& +10' A#ter deducting the aount alread$ collected b$ the latter as
ci"il indenit$ in the criinal cases against ,e GuFan' @ence& this instantpetition'
Iss:
Can petitioner be
reuired to pa$ ci"il indenit$
to pri"ate
respondent
a#ter
trial
court
had
acuitted
her
o#
criinal
charges5
H"#: Des' )t is undisputed that the #our 4 checs issued b$ ,e GuFan !ere
signed b$ petitioner at the bac !ithout an$ indication as to ho! she should be
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
44/210
bound thereb$ and& there#ore& she is deeed to be an indorser thereo#' *he ()B
clearl$ pro"ides V Sec' 17' Construction !here instruent is abiguous' ;;; 3here
the language o# the instruent is abiguous& or there are adissions therein& the
#ollo!ing rules o# construction appl$ x x x # 3here a signature is
so
placed
upon
the instruent that it is not clear in !hat capacit$ the person
aing
the
sae
intended
to
sign&
he
is
deeed
an
indorser'
x
x
x
*he disissal o# the criinal cases against petitioner did not erase her ci"il
liabilit$ since the disissal !as due to insu##icienc$ o# e"idence and not #ro a
declaration #ro the court that the #act #ro !hich the ci"il action ight arise
did not exist' An accused acuitted o# esta#a a$ ne"ertheless be held ci"ill$
liable !here the #acts established b$ the e"idence so !arrant' *he accused should
be adjudged liable #or the unpaid "alue o# the checs signed b$ her in #a"or o# the
coplainant'
1?. ESCUETA VS. FANDIALAN 61 SCRA 27:
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
45/210
Facts: n se"eral occasions& petitioner Sapiera& a sari;sari store o!ner& purchased
#ro .onnico .art certain grocer$ ites& ostl$ cigarettes& and paid #or the !ith
checs issued b$ one Arturo de GuFan' *hese checs !ere signed at the bac b$ the
petitioner'
3hen presented #or pa$ent& the checs !ere dishonored because the dra!erLs account
!as alread$ closed' +ri"ate respondent Roan Sua in#ored ,e GuFan and petitioner
about the dishonor but both #ailed to pa$ the "alue o# the checs' @ence& #our 4
charges o# esta#a !ere #iled against petitioner but conseuentl$ she !as acuitted
#or insu##icienc$ o# e"idence but the court a uo did not rule on !hether she could
be held ci"ill$ liable #or the checs she indorsed to pri"ate respondent' n
appeal& the respondent court ordered petitioner to pa$ pri"ate respondent the
reaining +210& +10' A#ter deducting the aount alread$ collected b$ the latter as
ci"il indenit$ in the criinal cases against ,e GuFan' @ence& this instant
petition'
Iss:
Can petitioner be
reuired to pa$ ci"il indenit$
to pri"ate
respondent
a#ter
trial
court
had
acuitted
her
o#
criinal
charges5
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
46/210
H"#: Des' )t is undisputed that the #our 4 checs issued b$ ,e GuFan !ere
signed b$ petitioner at the bac !ithout an$ indication as to ho! she should be
bound thereb$ and& there#ore& she is deeed to be an indorser thereo#' *he ()B
clearl$ pro"ides V Sec' 17' Construction !here instruent is abiguous' ;;; 3here
the language o# the instruent is abiguous& or there are adissions therein& the
#ollo!ing rules o# construction appl$ x x x # 3here a signature is
so
placed
upon
the instruent that it is not clear in !hat capacit$ the person
aing
the
sae
intended
to
sign&
he
is
deeed
an
indorser'
x
x
x
*he disissal o# the criinal cases against petitioner did not erase her ci"il
liabilit$ since the disissal !as due to insu##icienc$ o# e"idence and not #ro a
declaration #ro the court that the #act #ro !hich the ci"il action ight arise
did not exist' An accused acuitted o# esta#a a$ ne"ertheless be held ci"ill$
liable !here the #acts established b$ the e"idence so !arrant' *he accused should
be adjudged liable #or the unpaid "alue o# the checs signed b$ her in #a"or o# the
coplainant'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
47/210
1=. MADEA VS. CARO 126 SCRA 29/
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
48/210
to institute it separatel$> and a#ter a criinal action
has
been
coenced& no
ci"il action arising #ro the sae o##ense can be prosecuted' *he present articles
creates an exception to this rule !hen the o##ense is de#aation& #raud& or
ph$sical injuries& )n these cases& a ci"il action a$ be #iled independentl$ o# the
criinal action& e"en i# there has been no reser"ation ade b$ the injured part$>
the la! itsel# in this article aes such reser"ation> but the claiant is not
gi"en the right to deterine !hether the ci"il action should be scheduled or
suspended until the criinal action has been terinated' *he result o# the ci"il
action is thus independent o# the result o# the ci"il action'8
$
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
49/210
!hether or not despite the absence o# reser"ation& pri"ate respondent a$
nonetheless bring an action #or daages against petitioner under the #ollo!ing
pro"isions o# the Ci"il Code Art' 2176' 3hoe"er b$ act or oission causes daage
to another& there being #ault or negligence& is obliged to pa$ #or the daage done'
Such #ault or negligence& i# there is no pre;existing contractual relation bet!een
the parties& is called a uasi;delict and is go"erned b$ the pro"isions o# this
Chapter' Art' 21:0' *he obligation iposed b$ Article 2176 is deandable not onl$
#or oneLs o!n acts or oissions& but also #or those o# persons #or !ho one is
responsible'
H"#:
(o' *he right to bring an action #or daages under the Ci"il Code ust be reser"ed
as reuired b$ Rule 111& Y 1& other!ise it should be disissed' *o begin !ith& Y1
uite clearl$ reuires that a reser"ation ust be ade to institute separatel$ all
ci"il actions #or the reco"er$ o# ci"il liabilit$& other!ise the$ !ill be deeed toha"e been instituted !ith the criinal case' Such ci"il actions are not liited to
those !hich arise #ro the o##ense charged'% )n other !ords the right o# the
injured part$ to sue separatel$ #or the reco"er$ o# the ci"il liabilit$ !hether
arising #ro cries ex delicto or #ro uasi delict under Art' 2176 o# the Ci"il
Code ust be reser"ed other!ise the$ !ill be deeed instituted !ith the criinal
action'
n the basis o# Rule 111& YY1;/& a ci"il action #or the reco"er$ o# ci"il liabilit$
is& as a general rule& ipliedl$ instituted !ith the criinal action& except onl$
1 !hen such action arising #ro the sae act or oission& !hich is the subject o#
the criinal action& is !ai"ed> 2 the right to bring it separatel$ is reser"ed or
/ such action has been instituted prior to the criinal action' ?"en i# an action
has not been reser"ed or it !as brought be#ore the institution o# the criinal
case& the acuittal o# the accused !ill not bar reco"er$ o# ci"il liabilit$ unless
the acuittal is based on a #inding that the act #ro !hich the ci"il liabilit$
ight arise did not exist because o# Art' 29 o# the Ci"il Code'
$1. RAFAEL RE@ES TRUCKING COR%. VS. %% /29 SCRA 600
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
50/210
A criinal charge o# Recless )prudence Resulting in ,ouble @oicide and daage to
propert$ !as charged against Roeo ,unca de *uol& in )sabela' *he accused;dri"er
o# Ra#ael Re$es *rucing Corp& carr$ing a load o# 2&000 cases o# ept$ bottles o#
beer grande& hit and buped a (issan +ic;up& along the (ational @igh!a$ o#
Earanga$ *agaran& causing daages to the heirs o#
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
51/210
)SSJ?
3hether or not petitioner as o!ner o# the truc in"ol"ed in the accident be held
subsidiaril$ liable #or the daages a!arded to the o##ended parties in the criinal
action against the truc dri"er despite the #iling o# a separate ci"il action b$
the o##ended parties against the eplo$er o# the truc dri"er'
3hether or not the Court a!ard daages to the o##ended parties in the criinal case
despite the #iling o# a ci"il action against the eplo$er o# the truc dri"er> and
in aounts exceeding that alleged in the in#oration #or recless iprudence
resulting in hoicide and daage to propert$'
RJB)(G
(' ('
)n negligence cases& the aggrie"ed part$ has the choice bet!een 1 an action to
en#orce ci"il liabilit$ arising #ro crie under Article 100 o# the Re"ised +enal
Code> and 2 a separate action #or 'uasi delictunder Article 2176 o# the Ci"il
Code o# the +hilippines' nce the choice is ade& the injured part$ can not a"ail
hisel# o# an$ other reed$ because he a$ not reco"er daages t!ice #or the sae
negligent act or oission o# the accused' *his is the rule against double reco"er$'
)n other !ords& 8the sae act or oission can create t!o inds o# liabilit$ on the
part o# the o##ender& that is& ci"il liabilit$ e" delicto& and ci"il
liabilit$ 'uasi delicto8 either o# !hich 8a$ be en#orced against the culprit&
subject to the ca"eat under Article 2177 o# the Ci"il Code that the o##ended part$
can not reco"er daages under both t$pes o# liabilit$'
)n the instant case& the o##ended parties elected to #ile a separate ci"il action
#or daages against petitioner as eplo$er o# the accused& based on 'uasi delict&
under Article 2176 o# the Ci"il Code o# the +hilippines' @ere& the liabilit$ o# the
eplo$er #or the negligent conduct o# the subordinate is direct and priar$&
subject to the de#ense o# due diligence in the selection and super"ision o# the
eplo$ee' *he en#orceent o# the judgent against the eplo$er in an action based
on Article 2176 does not reuire the eplo$ee to be insol"ent since the nature o#
the liabilit$ o# the eplo$er !ith that o# the eplo$ee& the t!o being statutoril$
considered joint tort#easors& is solidar$'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
52/210
*he second& predicated on Article 10/ o# the Re"ised +enal Code& pro"ides that an
eplo$er a$ be held subsidiaril$ ci"ill$ liable #or a #elon$ coitted b$ his
eplo$ee in the discharge o# his dut$' *his liabilit$ attaches !hen the eplo$ee is
con"icted o# a crie done in the per#orance o# his !or and is #ound to be
insol"ent that renders hi unable to properl$ respond to the ci"il liabilit$
adjudged'
)SSJ? (' 1 Ra#ael Re$es *rucing Corporation& as eplo$er o# the accused !ho has
been adjudged guilt$ in the criinal case #or recless iprudence& can not be held
subsidiaril$ liable because o# the #iling o# the separate ci"il action based
on 'uasi delictagainst it' )n "ie! o# the reser"ation to #ile& and the subseuent
#iling o# the ci"il action #or reco"er$ o# ci"il liabilit$& the sae !as not
instituted !ith the criinal action' Such separate ci"il action !as #or reco"er$ o#
daages under Article 2176 o# the Ci"il Code& arising #ro the sae act or oission
o# the accused'
)SSJ? (' 2 3ith regard to the second issue& the a!ard o# daages in the criinal
case !as iproper because the ci"il action #or the reco"er$ o# ci"il liabilit$ !as
!ai"ed in the criinal action b$ the #iling o# a separate ci"il action against the
eplo$er' As enunciated in 5amos vs. 6onong&8ci"il indenit$ is not part o# the
penalt$ #or the crie coitted'8 *he onl$ issue brought be#ore the trial court in
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
53/210
the criinal action is !hether accused Roeo ,unca $ de *uol is guilt$ o# recless
iprudence resulting in hoicide and daage to propert$' *he action #or reco"er$ o#
ci"il liabilit$ is not included therein& but is co"ered b$ the separate ci"il
action #iled against the petitioner as eplo$er o# the accused truc;dri"er'
$$. MERCED VS. HON. DIE+ 109 +@)B 1
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
54/210
does not lie unless the eleents o# the second arriage appear to exist& it is
necessar$ that a decision in a ci"il action to the e##ect that the second arriage
contains all the essentials o# a arriage ust #irst be secured'
*he uestion o# the "alidit$ o# the second arriage is& there#ore& a prejudicial
uestion& because deterination o# the "alidit$ o# the second arriage isdeterinable in the ci"il action and ust precede the criinal action #or biga$'
$&. LANDICHO VS. RELOVA 22 SCRA 7/1
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
55/210
Bandicho& o"ed to suspend the hearing o# the criinal case pending the decision on
the uestion o# the "alidit$ o# the t!o arriages in"ol"ed in the pending ci"il
suit& in !hich -udge Relo"a denied otion #or lac o# erit'
)SSJ?
3hether or not the existence o# a ci"il suit #or the annulent o# arriage at the
instance o# the second !i#e against petitioner& !ith the latter in turn #iling a
third part$ coplaint against the #irst spouse #or the annulent o# the #irst
arriage& constitutes a prejudicial uestion in a pending suit #or biga$ against
hi'
RJB)(G
('
*he situation in this case is aredl$ di##erent' At the tie the petitioner !as
indicted #or biga$ on
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
56/210
!as then eplo$ed in the Coission on ?lections and her pregnanc$ pro"ed to be
incon"enient& she had hersel# aborted again b$ the de#endant in ctober 19/' Bess
than t!o $ears later& she again becae pregnant' n
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
57/210
the one injured' *here could be no action #or such daages that can be instituted on
behal# o# the unborn child #or the injuries it recei"ed because it laced juridical
personalit$' *he daages !hich the parents o# an unborn child can reco"er are liited
to oral daages& in this case& #or the act o# the appellant GeluF to per#or the
abortion' @o!e"er& oral daages cannot also be reco"ered because the !i#e !illingl$
sought the abortion& and the husband did not #urther in"estigate on the causes o# the
abortion'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
58/210
3U(& the disissal o# criinal case against the accused !ipes out not onl$ the
eplo$eeLs priaril$ ci"il liabilit$ but also the eplo$erLs subsidiar$ liabilit$>
3U(& the petitioner can be condened to pa$ the daages !ithout the opportunit$ to
exaine the !itness>
RULING:
(o' *he death o# the accused during the pendenc$ o# his appeal or be#ore the judgent
o# con"iction54c4 2ca7 9a" a# ct0-8 ) t>s4# 4s c-7a""a2"t8
t0 s-/ t4 73-s07t 730s# a# 4s 3ca-8 "a2"t8 90- 9s&2t 0t 4s
c/" "a2"t8 s40"# t4 "a2"t8 0- 02">at0 a-se not #ro a crie& #orhere&
no crie !as coitted& the accused not ha"ing been con"icted b$ #inal judgent& and
there#ore still regarded as innocent2t 9-07 aquasi-delictSee Arts' 2176 and 217
Ci"il Code& as in this case'
T4 "a2"t8 09 t4 73"08- 4- 50"# 0t 2 s2s#a-8 2t solidary5t4 4s #-/
unless said eplo$er can pro"e there !as no negligence on his part at all& thatis&
he can pro"e due diligence in the selection and super"ision o# his dri"er'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
59/210
)nasuch as the eplo$er petitioner herein !as not a part$ in the criinal case& and
to grant hi his da$ in court #or the purpose o# cross;exaining the prosecution
!itnesses on their testionies on the dri"ers alleged negligence and the aount o#
daages to !hich the heirs o# the "icti are entitled& as !ell as to introduce an$
e"idence or !itnesses he a$ care to present in his de#ense& the hearing on the otion
to uash the subsidiar$ !rit o# execution ust be reopened precisel$ #or the purpose
ad"erted to hereinabo"e'
*he decision o# the appeallate court !as ho!e"er& S?* aside and the case !as reanded
to the trial court #or hearing'
$. %% VS. BA@OTAS 2/6 SCRA 2/9
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
60/210
3hether or not the death o# the accused pending appeal extinguishes his ci"il liabilit
Ruling
Des'
*he death o# Ea$otas extinguished his criinal and ci"il liabilities based solel$ on
the act coplained o#& i'e rape'
8*he death o# the accused prior to #inal judgent terinates his criinal liabilit$ an
onlythe ci"il liabilit$ directlyarising #ro and based solel$ on the o##ense
coitted& i'e'& ci"il liabilit$ e" delictoin sensostrictiore'8
*he clai #or ci"il liabilit$ sur"i"es noth!ithstanding the death o# the accused i# th
sae a$ also be predicated on a source o# obligations other than delict' Art' 117 o#
the CC enuerates these other sources
Ba!
Contracts
=uasi;Contractsa
PP'
=uasi;delicts
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
61/210
)n this case& the ci"il action a$ be pursued onl$ b$ #iling a separate ci"il
action against the estate o# the accused depending on the source'
$,. MANSION BISCUIT COR%. VS. CA 20 SCRA 19
FACTS:
Soetie in 19:1& *$ *ec Suan& as the president o# ?d!ard *$ Erothers Corporation
the Copan$& ordered nuerous cartons o# nutri;!a#er biscuits #ro .ansion
Eiscuit Corporation'
As pa$ent o# the orders& *$ *ec Suan issued to Ang Cho @ong&
president o# .ansion& #our 4 postdated checs as pa$ent #or the nutri;!a#er
biscuits be#ore its deli"er$'
*here !ere other #our 4 postdated checs in the aount o# +100&000'00 each&
issued b$ *$ *ec Suan !ith Si$ Gui as co;signor'
Subseuentl$& .ansion Eiscuit deli"ered the goods' @o!e"er& the #irst #our checs
!ere deposited& the sae !ere dishonored #or insu##icient #unds propting Ang Cho
to in#or *$ *ec o# the dishonor and reuested hi #or its replaceent'
*$ *ec #ailed to replace the dishonored checs& instead
deli"ered 1&10 sacs o# Australian #lour to .ansion plus cash& !hich !ere applied
to the aount o# the #irst postdated chec that bounced
Ang Cho then sent *$ *ec a #oral deand letter reuesting hi to ae good the
dishonored checs !ithin da$s'
*herea#ter& the second batch o# checs !as issued b$ *$ *ec and Si$ Gui& but
these !ere later on dishonored again'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
62/210
Z *his propted Ang Cho to send a #inal deand letter and upon #ailure to
copl$ !ith it& he !ill then #ile an action against *$ *ec'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
63/210
+ending appeal& *$ *ec died so his counsel #iled a otion to disiss but the CA
denied and ordered his substitution b$ his children'
*he CA rendered a decision disissing the appeal and held that the ci"il liab
ilit$ sought to be en#orced b$ Ang Cho !as not the personal obligation o# *$ *ec
but a contractual obligation o# the Copan$& hence& Ang Cho should #ile a separate
ci"il action against it'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
64/210
@ence& this appeal'
ISSUES:
3U( ci"il liabilit$ can be en#orced against *$ *ec #or non;pa$ent o# the goods
not!ithstanding the #act that the contract !as bet!een the Copan$& on behal# o# *$
*ec& and .ansion'
Ang ChoLs Arguent:3hen $y $eck issued the *orthless checks inducing Mansion to
deliver the goods& / civil liabilities arose& arising from crime )rt. 788& 5PC4and
from tort or 'uasi#delict.
*$ *ecLs Arguent $hey cannot be held liable for the Company9s contractualobligations and that )ng Cho should file a separate case against it.
HOLDING RATIO DECIDENDI
*D *?C A(, S)D GJ) AR? (* B)AEB?
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
65/210
obligation' *he cases cited b$ plainti##;appellant& to illustrate that the
existence o# a contract does not preclude an action on 'uasi#delict !here the act
that breas the contract constitutes a'uasi#delict& ha"e no application because
the acts coplained o# therein !ereper#ored to brea an existing contract&
!hereas the alleged #raud herein !as coitted at the tie o# the creation o# the
contractual relationship and as an incident thereo#'
o )n the case at bench& the acuittal o# *$ *ec Suan and Si$ Gui extinguished
both their criinal and ci"il liabilit$ as it is clear #ro the order acuitting
the that the issuance o# the checs in uestion did not constitute a "iolation o#
E'+' Elg' 22'Conseuentl$& no ci"il liabilit$ arising #ro the alleged delict a$
be a!arded
:udgment appealed from )FF;5M(< in toto.
$?. %% VS. SANTIAGO 1 +@)B 6:
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
66/210
abo"e stated& and the arriage cereon$ !as a ere ruse b$ !hich the appellant
hoped to escape #ro the criinal conseuences o# his act'
)ssue 3hether or not the arriage cereon$ !as "alid'
@eld
*he anner in !hich the appellant dealt !ith the girl a#ter the arriage& as !ell
as be#ore& sho!s that he had no bona #ide intention o# aing her his !i#e& and the
cereon$ cannot be considered binding on her because o# duress'
*he arriage !as there#ore "oid #or lac o# essential consent& and it supplies no
ipedient to the prosecution o# the !rongdoer'
A##ired'
$=. NAVARRO VS. DOMAGTO@ 29 SCRA 129
FACTS:
.unicipal .a$or o# ,apa& Surigao del (orte& Rodol#o G' (a"arro #iled a coplaint on
t!o speci#ic acts coitted b$ respondent .unicipal Circuit *rial Court -udge
@ernando ,oagto$ on the grounds o# gross isconduct& ine##ienc$ in o##ce and
ignorance o# the la!'
)t !as alleged that ,oagto$ soleniFed arriage o# Gaspar *agadan and Arl$n Eorja
on Septeber 27& 1994 despite the no!ledge
that the groo has a subsisting
arriage !ith )da +enaranda and that the$ are
erel$ separated' )t !as told that
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
67/210
)da le#t their conjugal hoe in Euidnon and has not returned and been heard #or
alost se"en $ears' *he said judge lie!ise soleniFe arriage o#
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
68/210
%% VS. DAVID 1/ CA R?+' 49
DE LORIA VS. FELI 104 SCRA 1 but death !as not to be
denied& and in -anuar$ 1946& she !as interred in +asa$& the sae
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
69/210
but it
reuires the priest to ae the a##ida"it and #ile it' Such a##ida"it contains the
data usuall$ reuired #or the issuance o# a arriage license' *he #irstpractically
substitutes the latter' (o! then& i# a arriage celebrated !ithout the license is
not "oidable under Act /61/ this arriage should not also be "oidable #or lac o#
such a##ida"it'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
70/210
)n the #irst place& the .arriage Ba! itsel#& in sections 2:& 29 and /0 enuerates
the causes #or annulent o# arriage'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
71/210
3hether or not the plainti## and the de#endant !ere arried on the 2th da$ o#
Septeber& 1907& be#ore the justice o# the peace
@eld
*he judgent o# the court belo! acuitting the de#endant o# the coplaint is
a##ired'
*he petition signed the plainti## and de#endant contained a positi"e stateent that
the$ had utuall$ agreed to be arried and the$ ased the justice o# the peace to
soleniFe the arriage' *he docuent signed b$ the plainti##& the de#endant& and
the justice o# the peace& stated that the$ rati#ied under oath& be#ore the justice&
the contents o# the petition and that !itnesses o# the arriage !ere produced' A
ortgage too place as sho!n b$ the certi#icate o# the justice o# the peace& signed
b$ both contracting parties& !hich certi#icates gi"es rise to the presuption that
the o##icer authoriFed the arriage in due #or& the parties be#ore the justice o#
the peace declaring that the$ too each other as husband and !i#e& unless the
contrar$ is pro"ed& such presuption being corroborated in this case b$ the
adission o# the !oan to the e##ect that she had contracted the arriage certi#ied
to in the docuent signed b$ her& !hich adission can onl$ ean the parties
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
72/210
utuall$ agreed to unite in arriage !hen the$ appeared and signed the said
docuent !hich so states be#ore the justice o# the peace !ho authoriFed the sae'
)t !as pro"en that both the plainti## and the de#endant !ere able to read and !rite
the Spanish language& and that the$ ne! the contents o# the docuent !hich the$
signed> and under the circustances in this particular case !ere satis#ied& and so
hold& that !hat too place be#ore the justice o# the peace on this occasion
aounted to a legal arriage'
&&. SANTOS VS. CA 240 SCRA 20
)rticle @A= Psychological ;ncapacity
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
73/210
tribunals !hich& although not binding on the ci"il courts& a$ be gi"en persuasi"e
e##ect since the pro"ision !as taen #ro Canon Ba!' *he ter ps$chological
incapacit$% de#ies an$ precise de#inition since ps$chological causes can be o# an
in#inite "ariet$'
Article /6 o# the
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
74/210
also notes that +) ust be characteriFed b$ (a) >-a/t8; (2) -#ca" atc#c;
a# (c) c-a2"t8. *he incapacit$ ust be gra"e or serious such that the part$
!ould be incapable o# carr$ing out the ordinar$ duties reuired in arriage> it
ust be rooted in the histor$ o# the part$ antedating the arriage& although the
o"ert ani#estations a$ eerge onl$ a#ter the arriage> and it ust be incurable
or& e"en i# it !ere other!ise& the cure !ould be be$ond the eans o# the part$
in"ol"ed'
)n the case at bar& although
Beouel stands aggrie"ed& his petition ust be
disissed because the alleged +)
o# his !i#e is not clearl$ sho!n b$ the #actual
settings
presented' *he #actual
settings do not coe close to to the standard
reuired
to decree a nullit$ o# arriage'
&'. GOME+ VS. LI%ANA // SCRA 61
FACTS: *he de#endant;appellant& -oauin +' Bipana&contracted t*oarriages the
#irst !ith .aria Boreto Ancino in 19/0 and the second !ith )sidra GoeF $ Auino in
19/' At the tie o# the second arriage the #irst !as still subsisting& !hich
#act& ho!e"er& Bipana concealed #ro the second !i#e'
*he *orrens title #or the propert$ *rans#er Certi#icate (o' 22:9 o# the Registero# ,eeds #or =ueFon Cit$ !as issued on
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
75/210
*he trial court& ruling that the second arriage !as "oid ab initioand that the
husband !as the one !ho ga"e cause #or its nullit$& applied the a#oreuoted
pro"ision and declared his interest in the disputed propert$ #or#eited in #a"or o#
the estate o# the deceased second !i#e'
)SSJ?S 3( the "alidit$ o# arriage can be attaced collaterall$
@?B, *he controlling statute is Act /61/ o# the +hilippine Begislature& the
.arriage Ba! !hich becae e##ecti"e on ,eceber 4& 1929 and !as in #orce !hen the
t!o arriages !ere celebrated' *he pertinent pro"isions are as #ollo!s
S?C' 29' ;llegal Marriages' K An$ arriage subseuentl$ contracted b$ an$ person
during the li#etie o# the #irst spouse o# such person !ith an$ person other than
such #irst spouse shall be illegal and "oid #ro its per#orance& unless>
*he #irst arriage !as annulled or dissol"ed>
*he #irst spouse had been absent #or se"en consecuti"e $ears at the tie o# the
second arriage !ithout the spouse present ha"ing ne!s o# the absentee being ali"e&
or the absentee being generall$ considered as dead and belie"ed to be so b$ the
spouse present at the tie o# contracting such subseuent arriage& the arriage socontracted being "alid in either case until declared null and "oid b$ a copetent
court'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
76/210
S?C' /0' Annullable arriages' K A arriage a$ be annulled #or an$ o# the
#ollo!ing causes& existing at the tie o# the arriage
xxx xxx xxx
b *hat the #orer husband or !i#e o# either !as li"ing and the arriage !ith such
#orer husband or !i#e !as then in #orce>
xxx xxx xxx
S?C' /1' *ie #or #iling action #or decree o# nullit$' K *he action to obtain a
decree o# nullit$ o# arriage& #or causes entioned in the preceding section& ust
be coenced !ithin the periods and b$ the parties as #ollo!s
xxx xxx xxx
b
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
77/210
person other than such #irst spouse shall be illegal and
"oid
#ro
its
per#orance'8 *his is the general rule& to !hich the onl$ exceptions are those
entioned in subsections a and b o# the sae pro"ision'
*here is no suggestion here that the de#endants 19/0 arriage to .aria Boreto
Ancino had been annulled or dissol"ed !hen he arried )sidra GoeF in 19/& and
there is no proo# that he did so under the conditions en"isioned in sub;section
b' *he burden is on the part$ in"oing the exception to pro"e that he coes under
it> and the de#endant has not discharged that burden at all& no e"idence !hatsoe"er
ha"ing been adduced b$ hi at the trial' )ndeed& he contracted the second arriage
less than se"en $ears a#ter the #irst& and he has not sho!n that his #irst !i#e !as
then generall$ considered dead or !as belie"ed b$ hi to be so'
&. RE%UBLIC VS. CA 26: SCRA 19:
Facts:
Roridel la"iano !as arried to Re$naldo .olina on 14 April 19: in .anila& and
ga"e birth to a son a $ear a#ter' Re$naldo sho!ed signs o# iaturit$ and
irresponsibilit$% on the earl$ stages o# the arriage& obser"ed #ro his tendenc$
to spend tie !ith his #riends and suandering his one$ !ith the& #ro his
dependenc$ #ro his parents& and his dishonest$ on atters in"ol"ing his #inances'
Re$naldo !as relie"ed o# his job in 19:6& Roridel becae the sole bread!inner
therea#ter' )n .arch 19:7& Roridel resigned #ro her job in .anila and proceeded to
Eaguio Cit$' Re$naldo le#t her and their child a !ee later' *he couple is
separated;in;#act #or ore than three $ears'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
78/210
n 16 August 1990& Roridel #iled a "eri#ied petition #or declaration o# nullit$ o#
her arriage to Re$naldo .olina' ?"idence #or Roridel consisted o# her o!n
testion$& that o# t!o o# her #riends& a social !orer& and a ps$chiatrist o# the
Eaguio General @ospital and .edical Center' Re$naldo did not present an$ e"idence
as he appeared onl$ during the pre;trial con#erence' n 14 .a$
1991& the trial
court rendered judgent declaring the arriage "oid' *he Solicitor
General appealed
to the Court o# Appeals' *he Court o# Appeals denied the appeals and a##ired in
toto the R*CLs decision' @ence& the present recourse'
Iss:
3hether opposing or con#licting personalities should be construed as ps$chological
incapacit$
H"#:
*he Court o# Appeals erred in its opinion the Ci"il Code Re"ision Coittee
intended to liberaliFe the application o# +hilippine ci"il la!s on personal and
#ail$ rights& and holding ps$chological incapacit$ as a broad range o# ental and
beha"ioral conduct on the part o# one spouse indicati"e o# ho! he or she regards
the arital union& his or her personal relationship !ith the other spouse& as !ell
as his or her conduct in the long haul #or the attainent o# the principal
objecti"es o# arriage> !here said conduct& obser"ed and considered as a !hole&
tends to cause the union to sel#;destruct because it de#eats the "er$ objecti"es o#
arriage& !arrants the dissolution o# the arriage'
*he Court reiterated its ruling in Santos "' Court o# Appeals& !here ps$chological
incapacit$ should re#er to no less than a ental not ph$sical incapacit$&
existing at the tie the arriage is celebrated& and that there is hardl$ an$ doubt
that the intendent o# the la! has been to con#ine the eaning o# [ps$chological
incapacit$L to the ost serious cases o# personalit$ disorders clearl$
deonstrati"e o# an utter insensiti"it$ or inabilit$ to gi"e eaning and
signi#icance to the arriage' +s$chological incapacit$ ust be characteriFed b$
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
79/210
gra"it$& juridical antecedence& and incurabilit$' )n the present case& there is no
clear sho!ing to us that the ps$chological de#ect spoen o# is an incapacit$> but
appears to be ore o# a di##icult$&% i# not outright re#usal% or neglect% in the
per#orance o# soe arital obligations' .ere sho!ing o# irreconcilable
di##erences% and con#licting personalities% in no !ise constitutes ps$chological
incapacit$'
*he Court& in this case& proulgated the guidelines in the interpretation and
application o# Article /6 o# the / *he incapacit$ ust be pro"en existing at
the tie o# the celebration o# arriage> 4 the incapacit$ ust be clinicall$ or
edicall$ peranent or incurable> such illness ust be gra"e enough> 6 the
essential arital obligation ust be ebraced b$ Articles 6: to 71 o# the 7 interpretation ade b$ the (ational
Appellate .atrionial *ribunal o# the Catholic Church& and : the trial ust order
the #iscal and the Solicitor;General to appeal as counsels #or the State'
*he Supree Court granted the petition& and re"ersed and set aside the assailed
decision> concluding that the arriage o# Roridel la"iano to Re$naldo .olina
subsists and reains "alid'
&. CHI MING TSOI VS. CA 266 SCRA /44
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
80/210
FACTS:
+ri"ate respondent Gina Bao and petitioner Chi .ing *soi !ere arried at the .anila
Cathedral on .a$ 22& 19::' Contrar$ to GinaLs expectations that the ne!l$!eds !ere
to enjo$ aing lo"e or ha"ing sexual intercourse !ith each other& the de#endant
just !ent to bed& slept on one side thereo#& then turned his bac and !ent to
sleep' (o sexual intercourse occurred during their #irst night& second& third and
#ourth night'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
81/210
HELD: Des\
)# a spouse& although ph$sicall$ capable but sipl$ re#uses to per#or his or her
essential arriage obligations& and the re#usal is senseless and constant& Catholic
arriage tribunals attribute the causes to ps$chological incapacit$ than to
stubborn re#usal' Senseless and protracted re#usal is eui"alent to ps$chologicalincapacit$' *hus& the prolonged re#usal o# a spouse to ha"e sexual intercourse !ith
his or her spouse is considered a sign o# ps$chological incapacit$'
?"identl$& one o# the essential arital obligations under the
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
82/210
3hile the la! pro"ides that the husband and the !i#e are obliged to li"e together&
obser"e utual lo"e& respect and #idelit$' Art' 6:&
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
83/210
)n 1991& petitioner Beni Choa initiated a case #or concubinage against her husband&
Al#onso Choa& in the .*CC& Eacolod Cit$& doceted as Criinal Case (' 49106'
)n .arch 1994& !hen the proulgation o# the decision !as about to tae place&
Al#onso #iled !ith the R*C& Eacolod Cit$& a coplaint #or annulent o# arriage
based on ps$chological incapacit$' *hus& Al#onso #iled !ith the .*CC a otion in anorder dated .arch 2/& 1994' @is otion #or reconsideration ha"ing been lie!ise
denied& on -une 22& 1994& he #iled !ith the R*C& Eacolod Cit$& a petition #or
certiorari !ith injunction against the trial court' n -ul$ 1/& 1994& the R*C
issued a restraining order& and denied Beni Choas otion #or inter"ention'
)) $aken from 6.5. 1o. 7E@@DA. 1ovember /A& /88/)
*he case !ent to trial !ith respondent husband presenting his e"idence in chie#'
A#ter his last !itness testi#ied& he subitted his
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
84/210
3hether or not it is proper to suspend the proulgation o# judgent in the
concubinage case due to a prejudicial uestion& annulent o# arriage'
)) $aken from 6.5. 1o. 7E@@DA. 1ovember /A& /88/)
3hether or not ps$chological incapacit$ o# the !i#e has been satis#actoril$
pro"en'
R">:
) For 6.5. 1o. 7/8B/. May 7D& 70004
Des& it is proper to suspend the proulgation o# judgent in the concubinage case
due to a prejudicial uestion& annulent o# arriage'
A prejudicial uestion coes into pla$ generall$ in a situation !here a ci"il
action and a criinal action are both pending and there exist in the #orer an
issue !hich ust be preepti"el$ resol"ed be#ore the criinal action a$ proceed&
because ho!soe"er the issue in the ci"il action resol"ed !ould be deterinati"e
juris et de jure o# the guilt innocence o# the accused in the criinal case'
*he prejudicial uestion is the issue raised in the ci"il case #or declaration o#
nullit$ o# arriage based on ps$chological incapacit$ under Article /6 o# the
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
85/210
)n the case at bar& the e"idence adduced b$ respondent erel$ sho!s that he and his
!i#e could not get along !ith each other' *here !as absolutel$ no sho!ing o# the
gra"it$ or juridical antecedence or incurabilit$ o# the probles besetting their
arital union'
Sorel$ lacing in respondentLs e"idence is proo# that the ps$chological incapacit$!as gra"e enough to bring about the disabilit$ o# a part$ to assue the essential
obligations o# arriage' )n Molina case& the Supree Court a##ired that
ild characterological peculiarities& ood changes and occasional eotional
outbursts cannot be accepted as root causeso# ps$chological incapacit$' *he
illness ust be sho!n as do!nright incapacit$ or inabilit$& not a re#usal& neglect
or di##icult$& uch less ill !ill' )n other !ords& there should be a natal or
super"ening disabling #actor in the person& an ad"erse integral eleent in the
personalit$ structure that e##ecti"el$ incapacitates the person #ro reall$
accepting and thereb$ copl$ing !ith the obligations essential to arriage'
RespondentLs pious peroration that petitioner laced the intention o# procreati"e
sexualit$% is easil$ belied b$ the #act that t!o children !ere born during their
union' .oreo"er& there is absolutel$ no sho!ing that the alleged de#ect% alread$
existed at the tie o# the celebration o# the arriage'
.ost telling is the insu##icienc$& i# not incopetenc$& o# the supposed expert
testion$ presented b$ respondent' @is !itness& ,r' Antonio .' GauFon& utterl$
#ailed to identi#$ and pro"e the root causeo# the alleged ps$chological
incapacit$' Speci#icall$& his testion$ did not sho! that the incapacit$& i# true&
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
86/210
!as edicall$ or clinicall$ peranent or incurable' (either did he testi#$ that it
!as gra"e enough to bring about the disabilit$ o# the part$ to assue the essential
obligations o# arriage' Hence demurrer to evidence *as proper. Petition for the
declaration of nullity of marriage based on alleged psychological incapacity is
denied.4
&?. DOMINGO VS. CA 226 SCRA 72
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
87/210
1 Des' A declaration o# the absolute nullit$ o# a arriage is no! explicitl$
reuired either as a cause o# action or a ground #or de#ense' 3here the absolute
nullit$ o# a pre"ious arriage is sought to be in"oed #or purposes o# contracting
a second arriage& the sole basis acceptable in la! #or said projected arriagebe
#ree #ro legal in#irit$ is a #inal judgent declaring the pre"ious arriage "oid'
*he ,eclaration o# nullit$ o# a arriage under Article 40 a$ be resorted to e"en
#or a purpose other than rearriage' Crucial to the proper interpretation o#
Article 40 is the position o# the !ord 8solel$'8 xxx' As it is placed& it is eant
to uali#$ 8#inal judgent'8 @ad the pro"ision been stated as #ollo!s 8*he
absolute nullit$ o# a pre"ious arriage a$ be in"oed solel$ #or purposes o#
rearriage'''&8 the !ord 8solel$8 !ill uali#$ 8#or purposes o# rearriage8 and the
husband !ould ha"e been correct' *he said article as #inall$ #orulated included
the signi#icant clause denotes that such #inal judgent declaring the pre"ious
arriage "oid need not be obtained onl$ #or purposes o# rearriage'
2 Des' 3hen a arriage is declared "oid ab initio& the la! states that the #inal
judgent therein shall pro"ide #or 8the liuidation& partition and distribution o#
the properties o# the spouses& the custod$ and support o# the coon children& and
the deli"er$ o# their presupti"e legities& unless such atters had been
adjudicated in pre"ious judicial proceedings'8 +ri"ate respondents ultiate pra$er
#or separation o# propert$ !ill sipl$ be one o# the necessar$ conseuences o# the
judicial declaration o# absolute nullit$ o# their arriage' *he
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
88/210
clearl$ pro"ided the e##ects o# the declaration o# nullit$ o# arriage& one o#
!hich is the separation o# propert$ according to the regie o# propert$ relations
go"erning the'
&=. A*UINO VS. DELI+O 109 +@)B 21
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
89/210
FACTS:
Aurora Ana$a and
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
90/210
ISSUE: 3hether or not the concealent to a !i#e b$ her husband o# his pre;arital
relationship !ith another !oan is a ground #or annulent o# arriage'
HELD:
*he concealent o# a husbandLs pre;arital relationship !ith another !oan !as not
one o# those enuerated that !ould constitute #raud as ground #or annulent and it
is #urther excluded b$ the last paragraph pro"iding that no other
isrepresentation or deceit as to'' chastit$% shall gi"e ground #or an action to
annul a arriage' @ence& the case at bar does not constitute #raud and there#ore
!ould not !arrant an annulent o# arriage'
'1. TOLENTINO VS. VILLANUEVA 6 SCRA 1
and that the$ did not
li"e as husband and !i#e as iediatel$ a#ter the arriage celebration'
7/24/2019 Consolidated Digests - Civil Law (Atty Dicdican)
91/210
,espite the #act that she !as ser"ed !ith suons and cop$ o# the coplaint& @elen
#ai