6 June 2013 on Civil Law

8/13/2019 6 June 2013 on Civil Law

1/23

June 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Civil Law

Posted on July 15, 2013 Posted in Civil Law, Philippines - Cases,

Philippines - Law

Here are select June 2013 rulins o! the "upre#e Court o! the

Philippines on civil law$

Civil Code

Contract% contract o! carriae% de!inition% co##on carrier% de!inition%

&reach o! contract o! carriae% entitle#ent to da#aes% contract o!

services% standard o! care re'uired% da#aes% when recovera&le% 'uasi-

delict% solidary lia&ility o! (oint tort!easors) * contract o! carriae isde!ined as one where&y a certain person or association o! persons

o&liate the#selves to transport persons, thins, or news !ro# one place

to another !or a !i+ed price) n its !ace, the airplane ticet is a valid

written contract o! carriae) .his Court has held that when an airline

issues a ticet to a passener con!ir#ed on a particular !liht, on a

certain date, a contract o! carriae arises, and the passener has every

riht to e+pect that he would !ly on that !liht and on that date) /! he

does not, then the carrier opens itsel! to a suit !or &reach o! contract o!carriae)

nder *rticle 132 o! the Civil Code, this persons, corporations, !ir#s,

or associations enaed in the &usiness o! carryin or transportin

passeners or oods or &oth, &y land, water, or air, !or co#pensation,

o!!erin their services to the pu&lic is called a co##on carrier)

/n contrast, the contractual relation &etween "a#pauita .ravel and

respondents is a contract !or services) 4 "ince the contract &etween theparties is an ordinary one or services, the standard o! care re'uired o!

respondent is that o! a ood !ather o! a !a#ily under *rticle 113 o! the

Civil Code) .his connotes reasona&le care consistent with that which an

ordinarily prudent person would have o&served when con!ronted with a

si#ilar situation) .he test to deter#ine whether nelience attended the
http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/june-2013-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-civil-law/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/civil-law/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/philippines-cases/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/philippines-law/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/civil-law/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/philippines-cases/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/category/philippines-law/http://lexoterica.wordpress.com/2013/07/15/june-2013-philippine-supreme-court-decisions-on-civil-law/


2/23

per!or#ance o! an o&liation is$ did the de!endant in doin the alleed

nelient act use that reasona&le care and caution which an ordinarily

prudent person would have used in the sa#e situation /! not, then he is

uilty o! nelience)

6or one to &e entitled to actual da#aes, it is necessary to prove the

actual a#ount o! loss with a reasona&le deree o! certainty, pre#ised

upon co#petent proo! and the &est evidence o&taina&le &y the in(ured

party) .o (usti!y an award o! actual da#aes, there #ust &e co#petent

proo! o! the actual a#ount o! loss) Credence can &e iven only to clai#s

which are duly supported &y receipts)

nder *rticle 2220 o! the Civil Code o! the Philippines, an award o!#oral da#aes, in &reaches o! contract, is in order upon a showin that

the de!endant acted !raudulently or in &ad !aith) 7hat the law considers

as &ad !aith which #ay !urnish the round !or an award o! #oral

da#aes would &e &ad !aith in securin the contract and in the e+ecution

thereo!, as well as in the en!orce#ent o! its ter#s, or any other ind o!

deceit) /n the sa#e vein, to warrant the award o! e+e#plary da#aes,

de!endant #ust have acted in wanton, !raudulent, recless, oppressive,

or #alevolent #anner)

8o#inal da#aes are recovera&le where a leal riht is technically

violated and #ust &e vindicated aainst an invasion that has produced no

actual present loss o! any ind or where there has &een a &reach o!

contract and no su&stantial in(ury or actual da#aes whatsoever have

&een or can &e shown) nder *rticle 2221 o! the Civil Code, no#inal

da#aes #ay &e awarded to a plainti!! whose riht has &een violated or

invaded &y the de!endant, !or the purpose o! vindicatin or reconi9in

that riht, not !or inde#ni!yin the plainti!! !or any loss su!!ered)

.he a#ount to &e awarded as no#inal da#aes shall &e e'ual or at least

co##ensurate to the in(ury sustained &y respondents considerin the

concept and purpose o! such da#aes) .he a#ount o! no#inal da#aes

to &e awarded #ay also depend on certain special reasons e+tant in the


3/23

case) .he a#ount o! such da#aes is addressed to the sound discretion

o! the court and tain into account the relevant circu#stances, such as

the !ailure o! so#e respondents to &oard the !liht on schedule and the

sliht &reach in the leal o&liations o! the airline co#pany to co#ply

with the ter#s o! the contract, i.e), the airplane ticet and o! the travelaency to #ae the correct &ooins)

Cathay Paci!ic and "a#pauita .ravel acted toether in creatin the

con!usion in the &ooins which led to the erroneous cancellation o!

respondents: &ooins) .heir nelience is the pro+i#ate cause o! the

technical in(ury sustained &y respondents) .here!ore, they have &eco#e

(oint tort!easors, whose responsi&ility !or quasi-delict, under *rticle

21;< o! the Civil Code, is solidary) Cathay Pacific Airways v. JuanitaReyes, et al),=)>) 8o) 1?5?;1, June 2@, 2013

Contract% contract o! sale% disputa&le presu#ptions% !ailure to pay the

price% e!!ect o!% dou&le sale% e!!ect% reistration in ood !aith% &uyer in

ood !aith% duty o! a &uyer when a piece o! land is in the actual

possession o! third persons) nder "ection 3, >ule 131 o! the >ules o!

Court, the !ollowin are disputa&le presu#ptions$ A1B private

transactions have &een !air and reular% A2B the ordinary course o!

&usiness has &een !ollowed% and A3B there was sufficient considerationfor a contract) .hese presu#ptions operate aainst an adversary who has

not introduced proo! to re&ut the#) .hey create the necessity o!

presentin evidence to re&ut theprima facie case they created, and

which, i! no proo! to the contrary is presented and o!!ered, will prevail)

.he &urden o! proo! re#ains where it is &ut, &y the presu#ption, the one

who has that &urden is relieved !or the ti#e &ein !ro# introducin

evidence in support o! the aver#ent, &ecause the presu#ption stands in

the place o! evidence unless re&utted)

=rantin that there was no delivery o! the consideration, the seller would

have no riht to sell aain what he no loner owned) His re#edy would

&e to rescind the sale !or !ailure on the part o! the &uyer to per!or# his

part o! their o&liation pursuant to *rticle 11;1 o! the 8ew Civil Code)
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/185891.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/185891.pdf


4/23

/n the case o! Clara M. Balatat v. Court !f Appeals and "pouses Jose

Repuyan and Aurora Repuyan, it was written$

.he failure of the buyer to mae !ood the price does not" in law"

cause the ownership to revest to the seller unless the &ilateral contracto! sale is !irst rescinded or resolved pursuant to *rticle 11;1 o! the 8ew

Civil Code) #on$payment only creates a ri!ht to demand the

fulfillment of the obli!ation or to rescind the contract% D#phases

suppliedE

Ewnership o! an i##ova&le property which is the su&(ect o! a dou&le

sale shall &e trans!erred$ A1B to the person ac'uirin it who in ood !aith

!irst recorded it in the >eistry o! Property% A2B in de!ault thereo!, to theperson who in ood !aith was !irst in possession% and A3B in de!ault

thereo!, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is

ood !aith) .he re'uire#ent o! the law then is two-!old$ ac'uisition in

ood !aith and reistration in ood !aith) =ood !aith #ust concur with

the reistration) /! it would &e shown that a &uyer was in &ad !aith, the

alleed reistration they have #ade a#ounted to no reistration at all)

7hen a piece o! land is in the actual possession o! persons other than the

seller, the &uyer #ust &e wary and should investiate the rihts o! thosein possession) #ithout ma$in% such inquiry, one cannot claim that he is

a uyer in %ood faith. 7hen a #an proposes to &uy or deal with realty,

his duty is to read the pu&lic #anuscript, that is, to loo and see who is

there upon it and what his rihts are) * want o! caution and dilience,

which an honest #an o! ordinary prudence is accusto#ed to e+ercise in

#ain purchases, is in conte#plation o! law, a want o! ood !aith) .he

&uyer who has !ailed to now or discover that the land sold to hi# is in

adverse possession o! another is a &uyer in &ad !aith)

/E! a vendee in a dou&le sale reisters the sale a!ter he has ac'uired

nowlede o! a previous sale, the reistration constitutes a reistration in

&ad !aith and does not con!er upon hi# any riht) /! the reistration is

done in &ad !aith, it is as i! there is no reistration at all, and the &uyer


5/23

who has !irst taen possession o! the property in ood !aith shall &e

pre!erred)&ospicio '. Rosaroso, et al. v. (ucila (aorte "oria, et al.,

=)>) 8o) 1;


6/23

sale) * contract o! sale is a consensual contract and what is re'uired is

the #eetin o! the #inds on the o&(ect and the price !or its per!ection

and validity) /n this case, the contract was per!ected the #o#ent the

petitioner and the respondent areed on the o&(ect o! the sale G the two-

hectare parcel o! land, and the price G .hree .housand PesosAP3,000)00B) 8on-pay#ent o! the purchase price #erely ave rise to a

riht in !avor o! the petitioner to either de#and speci!ic per!or#ance or

rescission o! the contract o! sale)

Laches has &een de!ined as the !ailure or nelect, !or an unreasona&le

and une+plained lenth o! ti#e, to do that which, &y e+ercisin due

dilience could or should have &een done earlier) /t should &e stressed

that laches is not concerned only with the #ere lapse o! ti#e) *s aeneral rule, an action to recover reistered land covered &y the .orrens

"yste# #ay not &e &arred &y laches) 8either can laches &e set up to

resist the en!orce#ent o! an i#prescripti&le leal riht) /n e+ceptional

cases, however, the Court allowed laches as a &ar to recover a titled

property) .hus, inRomero v. )atividad, the Court ruled that laches will

&ar recovery o! the property even i! the #ode o! trans!er was invalid)

Liewise, in *da. de Carera v. CA, the Court ruled$

/n our (urisdiction, it is an enshrined rule that even re!istered owners ofproperty may be barred from recoverin! possession of property by

virtue of laches% nder the Land >eistration *ct Anow the Property

>eistration ecreeB, no title to reistered land in deroation to that o!

the reistered owner shall &e ac'uired &y prescription or adverse

possession) .he sa#e is not true with reard to laches)

Iore particularly, laches will &ar recovery o! a property, even i! the

#ode o! trans!er used &y an alleed #e#&er o! a cultural #inority lacse+ecutive approval) .hus, in&eirs of 'icman v. Cari+o, the Court

upheld the eed o! Conveyance o! Part >ihts and /nterests in

*ricultural Land e+ecuted &y .in-el ic#an in !avor o! "ioco Cario

despite lac o! e+ecutive approval) .he Court stated that despite the

(udicial pronounce#ent that the sale o! real property &y illiterate ethnic


7/23

#inorities is null and void !or lac o! approval o! co#petent authorities,

the riht to recover possession has nonetheless &een &arred throuh the

operation o! the e'uita&le doctrine o! laches)Ali A$an% v. Municipality

of sulan, "ultan udarat Province,=)>) 8o) [email protected] to &e a valid and &indin

contract &etween the parties)

&liations arisin !ro# contracts, a!ter all, have the !orce o! law

&etween the contractin parties who are e+pected to a&ide in ood !aith

with their contractual co##it#ents, not weasel out o! the#) Ioreover,

when the ter#s o! the contract are clear and leave no dou&t as to the


8/23

intention o! the contractin parties, the rule is settled that the literal

#eanin o! its stipulations should overn) /n such cases, courts have no

authority to alter a contract &y construction or to #ae a new contract

!or the parties) "ince their duty is con!ined to the interpretation o! the

one which the parties have #ade !or the#selves without reard to itswisdo# or !olly, it has &een ruled that courts cannot supply #aterial

stipulations or read into the contract words it does not contain) /ndeed,

courts will not relieve a party !ro# the adverse e!!ects o! an unwise or

un!avora&le contract !reely entered into)

*n accessory undertain to assu#e reater lia&ility on the part o! the

o&lior in case o! &reach o! an o&liation, the !oreoin stipulation is a

penal clause which serves to strenthen the coercive !orce o! theo&liation and provides !or li'uidated da#aes !or such &reach) .he

o&lior would then &e &ound to pay the stipulated inde#nity without the

necessity o! proo! o! the e+istence and the #easure o! da#aes caused

&y the &reach)

/n o&liations with a penal clause, the penalty enerally su&stitutes the

inde#nity !or da#aes and the pay#ent o! interests in case o! non-

co#pliance) sually incorporated to create an e!!ective deterrent aainst

&reach o! the o&liation &y #ain the conse'uences o! such &reach asonerous as it #ay &e possi&le, the rule is settled that a penal clause is not

li#ited to actual and co#pensatory da#aes)&eirs of Manuel y /$

(ion% v. Mauricia Meer Castillo, &eirs of Buenaflor C. mali,

represented y )ancy mali, et al.,=)>) 8o) 1@


9/23

/t is a eneral rule that one who contracts to co#plete certain wor

within a certain ti#e is lia&le !or the da#ae !or not co#pletin it within

such ti#e, unless the delay is e+cused or waived)

/n this (urisdiction, the !ollowin re'uisites #ust &e present in order thatthe de&tor #ay &e in de!ault$ A1B that the o&liation &e de#anda&le and

already li'uidated% A2B that the de&tor delays per!or#ance% and A3B that

the creditor re'uires the per!or#ance (udicially or e+tra(udicially)

Lia&ility !or li'uidated da#aes is overned &y *rticles 222@ to 222? o!

the Civil Code) * stipulation !or li'uidated da#aes is attached to an

o&liation in order to ensure per!or#ance and has a dou&le !unction$ A1B

to provide !or li'uidated da#aes, and A2B to strenthen the coercive!orce o! the o&liation &y the threat o! reater responsi&ility in the event

o! &reach) .he a#ount areed upon answers !or da#aes su!!ered &y the

owner due to delays in the co#pletion o! the pro(ect) *s a precondition

to such award, however, there #ust &e proo! o! the !act o! delay in the

per!or#ance o! the o&liation)

* penalty clause, e+pressly reconi9ed &y law, is an accessory

undertain to assu#e reater lia&ility on the part o! the o&lior in case

o! &reach o! an o&liation) /t !unctions to strenthen the coercive !orceo! o&liation and to provide, in e!!ect, !or what could &e the li'uidated

da#aes resultin !ro# such a &reach) .he o&lior would then &e &ound

to pay the stipulated inde#nity without the necessity o! proo! on the

e+istence and on the #easure o! da#aes caused &y the &reach) /t is

well-settled that so lon as such stipulation does not contravene law,

#orals, or pu&lic order, it is strictly &indin upon the o&lior)J Plus

Asia 'evelopment Corporation v. tility Assurance Corporation,=)>)

8o) 1;;@50, June 2@, 2013

Contract% rescission under *rticle 11;1% #utual restitution% contracts%

de!inition) Iutual restitution is re'uired in cases involvin rescission

under *rticle 11;1 o! the Civil Code% such restitution is necessary to
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/199650.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/199650.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/199650.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/199650.pdf


10/23

&rin &ac the parties to their oriinal situation prior to the inception o!

the contract)

*s a eneral rule, a contract is a #eetin o! #inds &etween two persons)

.he Civil Code upholds the spirit over the !or#% thus, it dee#s anaree#ent to e+ist, provided the essential re'uisites are present) *

contract is upheld as lon as there is proo! o! consent, su&(ect #atter and

cause) Ioreover, it is enerally o&liatory in whatever !or# it #ay have

&een entered into) 6ro# the #o#ent there is a #eetin o! #inds &etween

the parties, the contractE is per!ected)0il-/state 1old and 'evelopment,

nc., et al. v. *erte2 "ales and 3radin%, nc), =)>) 8o) 2020;, June 10,

2013)

Contract% void contracts% e!!ect)* void contract is e'uivalent to nothin%

it produces no civil e!!ect% and it does not create, #odi!y or e+tinuish a

(uridical relation)Joselito C. Borromeo v. Juan 3. Mina,=)>) 8o)

1;3


11/23

only in ninth place in the order o! pre!erence) n the other hand, i! the

F/>:s contention that a ta+ clearance &e secured !irst &e!ore the pro(ect

o! distri&ution o! the assets o! a &an under li'uidation #ay &e

approved, then the ta+ lia&ilities will &e iven a&solute pre!erence in all

instances, includin those that do not !all under *rticles 22


12/23

riht to litiate) .hey are not to &e awarded every ti#e a party wins a

suit)

.he power o! the court to award attorney:s !ees under *rticle 220?

de#ands !actual, leal, and e'uita&le (usti!ication) Dven when a clai#antis co#pelled to litiate with third persons or to incur e+penses to protect

his rihts, still attorney:s !ees #ay not &e awarded where no su!!icient

showin o! &ad !aith could &e re!lected in a party:s persistence in a case

other than an erroneous conviction o! the rihteousness o! his cause)

7e have consistently held that an award o! attorney:s !ees under *rticle

220? de#ands !actual, leal, and e'uita&le (usti!ication to avoid

speculation and con(ecture surroundin the rant thereo!) ue to thespecial nature o! the award o! attorney:s !ees, a riid standard is i#posed

on the courts &e!ore these !ees could &e ranted) Hence, it is i#perative

that they clearly and distinctly set !orth in their decisions the &asis !or

the award thereo!) /t is not enouh that they #erely state the a#ount o!

the rant in the dispositive portion o! their decisions) /t &ears reiteration

that the award o! attorney:s !ees is an e+ception rather than the eneral

rule% thus, there #ust &e co#pellin leal reason to &rin the case within

the e+ceptions provided under *rticle 220? o! the Civil Code to (usti!y

the award)Philippine )ational Construction Corporation v. ApacMar$etin% Corporation, represented y Cesar M. !n%, Jr.,=)>) 8o)

1;0;5, June 5, 2013)

a#aes% no#inal da#aes% when warranted in la&or cases) 7Ehile

Kan oorn has a (ust and valid cause to ter#inate the respondents:

e#ploy#ent, it !ailed to #eet the re'uisite procedural sa!euards

provided under *rticle 2?3 o! the La&or Code) /n the ter#ination o!

e#ploy#ent under *rticle 2?3, Kan oorn, as the e#ployer, is re'uiredto serve a written notice to the respondents and to the LD o! the

intended ter#ination o! e#ploy#ent at least one #onth prior to the

cessation o! its !ishin operations) Poseidon could have easily !iled this

notice, in the way it represented Kan oorn in its dealins in the

Philippines) 7hile this o#ission does not a!!ect the validity o! the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/190957.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/190957.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/190957.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/190957.pdf


13/23

ter#ination o! e#ploy#ent, it su&(ects the e#ployer to the pay#ent o!

inde#nity in the !or# o! no#inal da#aes)Poseidon nternational

Maritime "ervices, nc. v. 3ito R. 3amala, et al.,=)>) 8o) 1?@) 8o)

1;??;, June 3, 2013)

/nterest rates% a stipulated interest o! 2


14/23

Fased on the a&ove (urisprudence, the Court !inds that the 2


15/23

a dou&le recovery) /n Iitchell v) Haldar, the collateral source rule was

rationali9ed &y the "upre#e Court o! elaware$

.he collateral source rule is Mpredicated on the theory that a tort!easor

has no interest in, and there!ore no riht to &ene!it !ro# #onies received&y the in(ured person !ro# sources unconnected with the de!endant:)

*ccordin to the collateral source rule, Ma tort!easor has no riht to any

#itiation o! da#aes &ecause o! pay#ents or co#pensation received

&y the in(ured person !ro# an independent source): .he rationale !or the

collateral source rule is &ased upon the 'uasi-punitive nature o! tort law

lia&ility) /t has &een e+plained as !ollows$

.he collateral source rule is desined to strie a &alance &etween twoco#petin principles o! tort law$ A1B a plainti!! is entitled to

co#pensation su!!icient to #ae hi# whole, &ut no #ore% and A2B a

de!endant is lia&le !or all da#aes that pro+i#ately result !ro# his

wron) * plainti!! who receives a dou&le recovery !or a sinle tort

en(oys a wind!all% a de!endant who escapes, in whole or in part, lia&ility

!or his wron en(oys a wind!all) Fecause the law #ust sanction one

wind!all and deny the other, it !avors the victi# o! the wron rather than

the wrondoer)

.hus, the tort!easor is re'uired to &ear the cost !or the !ull value o! his or

her nelient conduct even i! it results in a wind!all !or the innocent

plainti!!) ACitations o#ittedB

*s seen, the collateral source rule applies in order to place the

responsi&ility !or losses on the party causin the#) /ts application is

(usti!ied so that Mthe wrondoer should not &ene!it !ro# the

e+penditures #ade &y the in(ured party or tae advantae o! contracts orother relations that #ay e+ist &etween the in(ured party and third

persons) .hus, it !inds no application to cases involvin no-!ault

insurances under which the insured is inde#ni!ied !or losses &y

insurance co#panies, reardless o! who was at !ault in the incident

eneratin the losses)


16/23

.o constitute un(ust enrich#ent, it #ust &e shown that a party was

un(ustly enriched in the sense that the ter# un(ustly could #ean illeally

or unlaw!ully) * clai# !or un(ust enrich#ent !ails when the person who

will &ene!it has a valid clai# to such &ene!it)Mitsuishi Motors

Philippines "alaried /mployees nion v. Mitsuishi Motors PhilippinesCorporation,=)>) 8o) 153, June 1, 2013)

n(ust enrich#ent% de!inition% ele#ents) n(ust enrich#ent is a ter#

used to depict result or e!!ect o! !ailure to #ae re#uneration o! or !or

property or &ene!its received under circu#stances that ive rise to leal

or e'uita&le o&liation to account !or the#) .o &e entitled to

re#uneration, one #ust con!er &ene!it &y #istae, !raud, coercion, or

re'uest) n(ust enrich#ent is not itsel! a theory o! reconveyance) >ather,it is a prere'uisite !or the en!orce#ent o! the doctrine o! restitution)

.here is un(ust enrich#ent when$

1) * person is un(ustly &ene!ited% and

2) "uch &ene!it is derived at the e+pense o! or with da#aes to another)

Philippine 3ransmarine Carriers, nc. v. (eandro (e%aspi, =)>) 8o)

202;1, June 10, 2013)

Special Laws

6a#ily Code% support% in proportion to the resources or #eans o! the

iver and to the needs o! the recipient% supportpendente lite in cases o!

leal separation and petitions !or declaration o! nullity or annul#ent o!

#arriae% (udicial deter#ination is uided &y the >ule on Provisional

rders% support in arrears% deductions !ro# accrued supportpendente

lite6(ud#ent !or support does not &eco#e !inal) *s a #atter o! law, the

a#ount o! support which those related &y #arriae and !a#ily

relationship is enerally o&lied to ive each other shall &e in proportion

to the resources or #eans o! the iver and to the needs o! the recipient)

"uch support co#prises everythin indispensa&le !or sustenance,


17/23

dwellin, clothin, #edical attendance, education and transportation, in

eepin with the !inancial capacity o! the !a#ily)

pon receipt o! a veri!ied petition !or declaration o! a&solute nullity o!

void #arriae or !or annul#ent o! voida&le #arriae, or !or lealseparation, and at any ti#e durin the proceedin, the court, motu

proprio or upon veri!ied application o! any o! the parties, uardian or

desinated custodian, #ay te#porarily rant supportpendente liteprior

to the rendition o! (ud#ent or !inal order) Fecause o! its provisional

nature, a court does not need to delve !ully into the #erits o! the case

&e!ore it can settle an application !or this relie!) *ll that a court is tased

to do is deter#ine the ind and a#ount o! evidence which #ay su!!ice to

ena&le it to (ustly resolve the application) /t is enouh that the !acts &eesta&lished &y a!!idavits or other docu#entary evidence appearin in the

record)

Judicial deter#ination o! supportpendente lite in cases o! leal

separation and petitions !or declaration o! nullity or annul#ent o!

#arriae are uided &y the provisions o! the >ule on Provisional rders)

n the issue o! creditin o! #oney pay#ents or e+penses aainst

accrued support, we !ind as relevant the !ollowin rulins &y " courts)

/nBradford v. 0utrell, appellant souht review o! the decision o! the

Circuit Court which !ound hi# in arrears with his child support

pay#ents and entered a decree in !avor o! appellee wi!e) He co#plained

that in deter#inin the arrearae !iure, he should have &een allowed

!ull credit !or all #oney and ite#s o! personal property iven &y hi# to

the children the#selves, even thouh he re!erred to the# as i!ts) .he

Court o! *ppeals o! Iaryland ruled that in the suit to deter#ine a#ounto! arrears due the divorced wi!e under decree !or support o! #inor

children, the hus&and AappellantB was not entitled to credit !or checs

which he had clearly desinated as i!ts, nor was he entitled to credit !or

an auto#o&ile iven to the oldest son or a television set iven to the

children) .hus, i! the children re#ain in the custody o! the #other, the


18/23

!ather is not entitled to credit !or #oney paid directly to the children i!

such was paid without any relation to the decree)

/nMartin, Jr. v. Martin, the "upre#e Court o! 7ashinton held that a

!ather, who is re'uired &y a divorce decree to #ae child supportpay#ents directly to the #other, cannot clai# credit !or pay#ents

voluntarily #ade directly to the children) However, special

considerations o! an e'uita&le nature #ay (usti!y a court in creditin

such pay#ents on his inde&tedness to the #other, when such can &e

done without in(ustice to her)

"u!!ice it to state that the #atter o! increase or reduction o! support

should &e suitted to the trial court in which the action !or declaration!or nullity o! #arriae was !iled, as this Court is not a trier o! !acts) .he

a#ount o! support #ay &e reduced or increased proportionately

accordin to the reduction or increase o! the necessities o! the recipient

and the resources or #eans o! the person o&lied to support) *s we held

inAdvincula v. Advincula7

Jud#ent !or support does not &eco#e !inal) .he riht to support is o!

such nature that its allowance is essentially provisional% !or durin the

entire period that a needy party is entitled to support, his or her ali#ony#ay &e #odi!ied or altered, in accordance with his increased or

decreased needs, and with the #eans o! the iver) /t cannot &e rearded

as su&(ect to !inal deter#ination)

"usan (im-(ua v. 'anilo 8. (ua,=)>) 8os) 152;-?0, June 5, 2013)

6a#ily Code% >ule on eclaration o! *&solute 8ullity o! Koid

Iarriaes and *nnul#ent o! Koida&le Iarriaes% not applica&le in an

action !or reconition o! !orein (ud#ent% !orein (ud#ent relatin to

the #arital status o! a person% special proceedin !or cancellation or

correction o! entries in the civil reistry under >ule 10? o! the >ules o!

Court% the !irst hus&and has a riht to !ile the petition% e!!ect o! a !orein

divorce decree to a 6ilipino spouse% *rticle 2@ o! the 6a#ily Code) .he
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/175279-80.pdfhttp://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2013/june2013/175279-80.pdf


19/23

>ule on eclaration o! *&solute 8ullity o! Koid Iarriaes and

*nnul#ent o! Koida&le Iarriaes A*)I) 8o) 02-11-10-"CB does not

apply in a petition to reconi9e a !orein (ud#ent relatin to the status

o! a #arriae where one o! the parties is a citi9en o! a !orein country)

Ioreover, inJuliano-(lave v. Repulic, this Court held that the rule in*)I) 8o) 02-11-10-"C that only the hus&and or wi!e can !ile a

declaration o! nullity or annul#ent o! #arriae does not apply i! the

reason &ehind the petition is &ia#y)

* !orein (ud#ent relatin to the status o! a #arriae a!!ects the civil

status, condition and leal capacity o! its parties) However, the e!!ect o!

a !orein (ud#ent is not auto#atic) .o e+tend the e!!ect o! a !orein

(ud#ent in the Philippines, Philippine courts #ust deter#ine i! the!orein (ud#ent is consistent with do#estic pu&lic policy and other

#andatory laws) *rticle 15 o! the Civil Code provides that lEaws

relatin to !a#ily rihts and duties, or to the status, condition and leal

capacity o! persons are &indin upon citi9ens o! the Philippines, even

thouh livin a&road) .his is the rule o! le2 nationalii in private

international law) .hus, the Philippine "tate #ay re'uire, !or e!!ectivity

in the Philippines, reconition &y Philippine courts o! a !orein

(ud#ent a!!ectin its citi9en, over who# it e+ercises personal

(urisdiction relatin to the status, condition and leal capacity o! such

citi9en)

* petition to reconi9e a !orein (ud#ent declarin a #arriae void

does not re'uire relitiation under a Philippine court o! the case as i! it

were a new petition !or declaration o! nullity o! #arriae) Philippine

courts cannot presu#e to now the !orein laws under which the !orein

(ud#ent was rendered) .hey cannot su&stitute their (ud#ent on the

status, condition and leal capacity o! the !orein citi9en who is underthe (urisdiction o! another state) .hus, Philippine courts can only

reconi9e the !orein (ud#ent as a fact accordin to the rules o!

evidence)


20/23

"ince the reconition o! a !orein (ud#ent only re'uires proo! o! !act

o! the (ud#ent, it #ay &e #ade in a special proceedin !or cancellation

or correction o! entries in the civil reistry under >ule 10? o! the >ules

o! Court) >ule 1, "ection 3 o! the >ules o! Court provides that aE

special proceedin is a re#edy &y which a party sees to esta&lish astatus, a riht, or a particular !act) >ule 10? creates a re#edy to recti!y

!acts o! a person:s li!e which are recorded &y the "tate pursuant to the

Civil >eister Law or *ct 8o) 353) .hese are !acts o! pu&lic

conse'uence such as &irth, death or #arriae, which the "tate has an

interest in recordin) .here is no dou&t that the prior spouse has a

personal and #aterial interest in #aintainin the interity o! the

#arriae he contracted and the property relations arisin !ro# it) .here

is also no dou&t that he is interested in the cancellation o! an entry o! a&ia#ous #arriae in the civil reistry, which co#pro#ises the pu&lic

record o! his #arriae) .he interest derives !ro# the su&stantive riht o!

the spouse not only to preserve Aor dissolve, in li#ited instancesB his

#ost inti#ate hu#an relation, &ut also to protect his property interests

that arise &y operation o! law the #o#ent he contracts #arriae) .hese

property interests in #arriae include the riht to &e supported in

eepin with the !inancial capacity o! the !a#ily and preservin the

property rei#e o! the #arriae)

"ection 2AaB o! *)I) 8o) 02-11-10-"C does not preclude a spouse o! a

su&sistin #arriae to 'uestion the validity o! a su&se'uent #arriae on

the round o! &ia#y) n the contrary, when "ection 2AaB states that aE

petition !or declaration o! a&solute nullity o! void #arriae #ay &e !iled

solely by the husband or the wife Nit re!ers to the hus&and or the

wi!e o! the su&sistin #arriae) nder *rticle 35A


21/23

*E 6ilipino citi9en cannot dissolve his #arriae &y the #ere e+pedient

o! chanin his entry o! #arriae in the civil reistry) However, this

does not apply in a petition !or correction or cancellation o! a civil

reistry entry &ased on the reconition o! a !orein (ud#ent annullin a

#arriae where one o! the parties is a citi9en o! the !orein country).here is neither circu#vention o! the su&stantive and procedural

sa!euards o! #arriae under Philippine law, nor o! the (urisdiction o!

6a#ily Courts under >)*) 8o) ?3@;) * reconition o! a !orein

(ud#ent is not an action to nulli!y a #arriae) /t is an action !or

Philippine courts to reconi9e the e!!ectivity o! a !orein (ud#ent,

which presupposes a case which was already tried and decided

under forei!n law% .he procedure in *)I) 8o) 02-11-10-"C does not

apply in a petition to reconi9e a !orein (ud#ent annullin a &ia#ous#arriae where one o! the parties is a citi9en o! the !orein country)

8either can >)*) 8o) ?3@; de!ine the (urisdiction o! the !orein court)

*rticle 2@ o! the 6a#ily Code con!ers (urisdiction on Philippine courts

to e+tend the e!!ect o! a !orein divorce decree to a 6ilipino spouse

without underoin trial to deter#ine the validity o! the dissolution o!

the #arriae) .he second pararaph o! *rticle 2@ o! the 6a#ily Code

provides that wEhere a #arriae &etween a 6ilipino citi9en and a

!oreiner is validly cele&rated and a divorce is therea!ter validly

o&tained a&road &y the alien spouse capacitatin hi# or her to re#arry,

the 6ilipino spouse shall have capacity to re#arry under Philippine law)

.he second pararaph o! *rticle 2@ o! the 6a#ily Code only authori9es

Philippine courts to adopt the e!!ects o! a !orein divorce decree

precisely &ecause the Philippines does not allow divorce) Philippine

courts cannot try the case on the #erits &ecause it is tanta#ount to tryin

a case !or divorce)Minoru 0u9i$i v. Maria Pa5 1alela Marinay, et al.,

1.R. )o. :;;,June 2@, 2013)

6a#ily Courts *ct o! 1;;% Kiolence *ainst 7o#en and Children *ct

o! 200.C% >.Cs desinated as !a#ily courts re#ain possessed o! authority as

courts o! eneral oriinal (urisdiction) *t the outset, it #ust &e stressed


22/23

that 6a#ily Courts are special courts, o! the sa#e level as >eional .rial

Courts) nder >)*) ?3@;, otherwise nown as the 6a#ily Courts *ct o!

1;;, !a#ily courts have e+clusive oriinal (urisdiction to hear and

decide cases o! do#estic violence aainst wo#en and children) /n

accordance with said law, the "upre#e Court desinated !ro# a#onthe &ranches o! the >eional .rial Courts at least one 6a#ily Court in

each o! several ey cities identi!ied) .o achieve har#ony with the !irst

#entioned law, "ection o! >)*) ;2@2 now provides that >eional .rial

Courts desinated as 6a#ily Courts shall have oriinal and e+clusive

(urisdiction over cases o! K*7C de!ined under the latter law)

/nspite o! its desination as a !a#ily court, the >.C o! Facolod City

re#ains possessed o! authority as a court o! eneral oriinal (urisdictionto pass upon all inds o! cases whether civil, cri#inal, special

proceedins, land reistration, uardianship, naturali9ation, ad#iralty or

insolvency) /t is settled that >.Cs have (urisdiction to resolve the

constitutionality o! a statute, this authority &ein e#&raced in the

eneral de!inition o! the (udicial power to deter#ine what are the valid

and &indin laws &y the criterion o! their con!or#ity to the !unda#ental

law) .he Constitution vests the power o! (udicial review or the power to

declare the constitutionality or validity o! a law, treaty, international or

e+ecutive aree#ent, presidential decree, order, instruction, ordinance,

or reulation not only in this Court, &ut in all >.Cs)Jesus C. 1arcia v.

3he &on. Ray Alan 3. 'rilon, et al.,=)>) 8o) 1;2@, June 25, 2013

.orrens syste#% purpose) .orrens title% enerally conclusive evidence o!

the ownership o! the land% not su&(ect to collateral attac% Land

>eistration *uthority% !unctions) .he real purpose o! the .orrens

syste# is to 'uiet title to land and to stop !orever any 'uestion as to its

leality) nce a title is reistered, the owner #ay rest secure, without thenecessity o! waitin in the portals o! the court, or sittin on the mirador

su casa, to avoid the possi&ility o! losin his land) * .orrens title is

enerally a conclusive evidence o! the ownership o! the land re!erred to

therein) * stron presu#ption e+ists that .orrens titles are reularly

issued and that they are valid)


23/23

"ection

Documents

6 June 2013 on Civil Law