Civil Review

8/9/2019 Civil Review

1/24

WOLFGANG O. ROEHR, petitioner, vs. MARIA CARMEN D.RODRIGUEZ, HON. JUDGE JOSEFINA GUEVARA-SALONGA, Presiding Judge of Makati RTC, Branch 149,respondents.G.R. o. 14!"!# $ June !#, !##% &!'(

)acts* 'ece+er 11, 19"# Petitioner, a citi-en and resident

of Ger+an, +arried private respondent, a )i/ipina, in0a+urg, Ger+an.

Their +arriage as suse2uent/ rati3ed on )eruar14, 19"1 in Taasan, egros rienta/.

5ugust !", 1996* Private respondent 3/ed a petitionfor dec/aration of nu//it of +arriage efore the RTCof Makati Cit. Petitioner7s MT', even on MR andcertiorari, as denied.

'ece+er 16, 1998* Petitioner otained a decree of divorce fro+ the Court of )irst nstance of 0a+urg:B/ankenese, ith the custod of their chi/drengranted to Petitioner

Ma !#, 1999* Petitioner 3/ed a ;econd MT' on theground that the tria/ court had no


2/24


3/24

$e%al &'ects of the Vali !ivorce Given the va/idit and eDcac of divorce secured

Reecca, the sa+e sha// e given a res


4/24

+arried to Lucia Barrete. Thus, there is no 3rst+arriage to speak of. Ender the princip/e of retroactivit of a +arriage eing dec/ared void ainitio, the to ere never +arried fro+ theeginning. The contract of +arriage is nu// it earsno /ega/ e?ect.

Taking this argu+ent to its /ogica/ conc/usion, for/ega/ purposes, petitioner as not +arried to Lucia atthe ti+e he contracted the +arriage ith Maria Jececha. The e@istence and the va/idit of the 3rst+arriage eing an essentia/ e/e+ent of the cri+e of iga+, it is ut /ogica/ that a conviction for said

o?ense cannot e sustained here there is no 3rst+arriage to speak of. The petitioner, +ust, perforcee ac2uitted of the instant charge.

=0KRK)RK, the instant petition is GR5TK'.

RE2ULIC OF 4HE 2HILI22INES, Petitioner, vs. CI2RIANOORECIDO III, Respondent.G.R. o. 14%"# $ ctoer , !## &1'(

)acts* Ma !4, 19"1* Cipriano recido +arried Lad

Mros M. i//anueva at the Enited Church of Christ inthe Phi/ippines in La+:an, -a+is Cit.

n 19"6, Cipriano7s ife /eft for the Enited ;tatesringing a/ong their son Aristo?er. 5 fe ears /ater,Cipriano discovered that his ife had een

natura/i-ed as an 5+erican citi-en. ;o+eti+e in !###, Cipriano /earned fro+ his son that

his ife had otained a divorce decree and then+arried a certain nnocent ;tan/e.

Cipriano thereafter 3/ed ith the tria/ court a petitionfor authorit to re+arr invoking Paragraph ! of 5rtic/e !6 of the )a+i/ Code. o opposition as3/ed. )inding +erit in the petition, the court grantedthe sa+e. The Repu/ic, herein petitioner, throughthe Dce of the ;o/icitor Genera/ &;G(, soughtreconsideration ut it as denied.

n this petition, the ;G contends that Paragraph ! of 5rtic/e !6 of the )a+i/ Code is not app/ica/e to theinstant case ecause it on/ app/ies to a va/id +i@ed+arriage that is, a +arriage ce/erated eteen a)i/ipino citi-en and an a/ien.

)or his part, respondent ad+its that 5rtic/e !6 is notdirect/ app/ica/e to his case ut insists that henhis natura/i-ed a/ien ife otained a divorce decreehich capacitated her to re+arr, he is /ikeisecapacitated operation of /a pursuant to ;ection1!, 5rtic/e of the Constitution.

ssue* => paragraph ! of 5rtic/e !6 of the )a+i/ Codeapp/ies to the case at ar

0e/d*

AR4. 6. 5// +arriages so/e+ni-ed outside the Phi/ippinesin accordance ith the /as in force in the countr herethe ere so/e+ni-ed, and va/id there as such, sha// a/soe va/id in this countr, e@cept those prohiited under

5rtic/es %&1(, &4(, &( and &6(, %6, %8 and %".

+here a marria%e between a ,ilipino citizen an aforei%ner is valily celebrate an a ivorce is thereafter valily obtaine abroa by the alien spouse capacitatin%him or her to remarry the ,ilipino spouse shall havecapacity to remarry uner Philippine law. &K+phasissupp/ied(

n its face, the foregoing provision does not appearto govern the situation presented the case athand. t see+s to app/ on/ to cases here at theti+e of the ce/eration of the +arriage, the partiesare a )i/ipino citi-en and a foreigner.

The instant case is one here at the ti+e the+arriage as so/e+ni-ed, the parties ere to)i/ipino citi-ens, ut /ater on, the ife as natura/i-edas an 5+erican citi-en and suse2uent/ otained adivorce granting her capacit to re+arr, and indeedshe re+arried an 5+erican citi-en hi/e residing inthe E.;.5.

Records of the proceedings of the )a+i/ Codede/ierations shoed that the intent of Paragraph !of 5rtic/e !6, according to Judge 5/icia ;e+pio:'i, a+e+er of the Civi/ Code Revision Co++ittee, is toavoid the asurd situation here the )i/ipino spouse

re+ains +arried to the a/ien spouse ho, afteotaining a divorce, is no /onger +arried to the)i/ipino spouse.

'oes the sa+e princip/e app/ to a case here at theti+e of the ce/eration of the +arriage, the partiesere )i/ipino citi-ens, ut /ater on, one of the+otains a foreign citi-enship natura/i-ation

o uita v. Court of Appeals" The parties ereas in this case, )i/ipino citi-ens hen thegot +arried. The ife eca+e a natura/i-ed5+erican citi-en in 194 and otained adivorce in the sa+e ear. The Court thereinhinted, a of oiter dictu+, that a)i/ipino divorced his natura/i-ed foreignspouse is no /onger +arried under Phi/ippine/a and can thus re+arr.

Thus, taking into consideration the /egis/ative intenand app/ing the ru/e of reason, e ho/d thaParagraph ! of 5rtic/e !6 shou/d e interpreted toinc/ude cases invo/ving parties ho, at the ti+e ofthe ce/eration of the +arriage ere )i/ipino citi-ensut /ater on, one of the+ eco+es natura/i-ed as aforeign citi-en and otains a divorce decree. The)i/ipino spouse shou/d /ikeise e a//oed to re+arras if the other part ere a foreigner at the ti+e ofthe so/e+ni-ation of the +arriage. To ru/e otheriseou/d e to sanction asurdit and in


5/24

present in this case. Thus Cipriano, the divorced)i/ipino spouse, shou/d e a//oed to re+arr.

0oever, e note that the records are ereft of co+petent evidence du/ su+itted respondentconcerning the divorce decree and the natura/i-ationof respondent7s ife. t is sett/ed ru/e that one hoa//eges a fact has the urden of proving it and +erea//egation is not evidence.

GERER4 R. COR2UZ, Petitioner, vs. DAIS3L3N 4IROLS4O. 4OMAS and 4+e SOLICI4OR GENERAL, Respondents.G.R. o. 1"681 $ 5ugust 11, !#1# &%'(

)acts* Petitioner Gerert R. Corpu- as a for+er )i/ipino

citi-en ho ac2uired Canadian citi-enship throughnatura/i-ation.

Gerert then +arried respondent 'ais/n T. ;to. To+as, a )i/ipina, in Pasig Cit.

'ue to ork and other professiona/ co++it+ents,Gerert /eft for Canada soon after the edding.

0e returned to the Phi/ippines so+eti+e in 5pri/ !##to surprise 'ais/n, ut as shocked to discoverthat his ife as having an a?air ith another +an.0urt and disappointed, Gerert returned to Canadaand 3/ed a petition for divorce, hich as granted.

'esirous of +arring his ne )i/ipina 3ancNe in thePhi/ippines, Gerert ent to the Pasig Cit Civi/

Registr Dce and registered the Canadian divorcedecree on his and 'ais/n7s +arriage certi3cate.'espite the registration of the divorce decree, anoDcia/ of the ationa/ ;tatistics Dce &;(infor+ed Gerert that the +arriage eteen hi+ and'ais/n sti// susists under Phi/ippine /a to eenforcea/e, the foreign divorce decree +ust 3rst e


6/24

to r/ando despite having een +arried to oneKuseio Bristo/ on 1! 'ece+er 199.

RTC ac2uitted petitioner of iga+.o The tria/ court ru/ed that since the deceased

as a divorced 5+erican citi-en, and sincethat divorce as not recogni-ed underPhi/ippine


7/24

disso/ved or annu//ed +arriage asso/e+ni-ed.

o ;ection ! of Ru/e 1#" provides that entriesin the civi/ registr re/ating to +arriages,


8/24

Sec.


9/24

At!c*e


10/24

These standards are the fo//oing*o to act ith


11/24

The petitioners are, thus, re+inded that everperson +ust, in the e@ercise of his right and in theperfor+ance of his dut, act ith


12/24

of petitioner as covered a Co//ective Bargaining5gree+ent &CB5( herein it as agreed that theco+pan sha// pa a +a@i+u+ disai/itco+pensation of up to E;U6#,###.## on/.

=hi/e on oard the vesse/, respondent su?eredCardiac 5rrest ;>P C' nsertation.

Respondent as repatriated to receive further+edica/ treat+ent and e@a+ination. Conse2uent/,the co+pan designated phsician assessed hiscondition to e 'isai/it Grade !.

ot satis3ed, respondent 3/ed a co+p/aint for fu//and per+anent disai/it co+pensation against

petitioner efore the Laor 5riter. L5* Petitioner as ordered to pa respondent

;U"#,###.## or its peso e2uiva/ent at the ti+e of pa+ent as per+anent disai/it co+pensation

LRC aDr+ed L57s decision. n appea/, C5 partia// granted the petition for

certiorari and +odi3ed the assai/ed reso/utions of theLRC, aarding on/ E;U6#,###.## pursuant to theCB5 eteen Ce/erit Cruise Lines and )edera-ioneta/ianaa Transporti C;L.

Petitioner then 3/ed its Manifestation ith Motion to5+end the 'ispositive Portion, su+itting to the C5the rit of e@ecution issued the L5 in support of its +otion. Petitioner contended that since it hada/read paid the tota/ a+ount of E;U"9,4!.##, itas entit/ed to the return of the e@cess pa+ent in

the a+ount of E;U!9,4!.##. C5 denied the +otion.

ssue* => C5 erred in ru/ing that petitioner is estopped inco//ecting the e@cess pa+ent it +ade to the respondentnotithstanding the receipt of


13/24

the a an educationa/ institution shou/drun its a?airs, particu/ar/ in discip/ining itsprofessors and teachers and ensuring theirco+p/iance ith the schoo/Is ru/es andorders. Being the part that hired the+, it isthe schoo/ that e@ercises genera/supervision and e@c/usive contro/ over theprofessors ith respect to the su+ission of reports invo/ving the studentsI standing.K@c/usive contro/ +eans that no otherperson or entit had an contro/ over theinstru+enta/it hich caused the da+age or

in


14/24

a reservation the petitioner of her right to /itigateseparate/ the civi/ action i+p/ied/ instituted iththe estafa cases, fo//oing 5rtic/e !9 of the Civi/Code.

0oever, a/though this civi/ action cou/d have een/itigated separate/ on account of the dis+issa/ of theestafa cases on reasona/e dout, the petitioner asdee+ed to have a/so e/ected that such civi/ action eprosecuted together ith the BP B/g. !! cases in /ightof the Rodrigue- v. Ponferrada ru/ing.

=ith the dis+issa/ of the BP B/g. !! cases for fai/ureto esta/ish the identit of the accused, the 2uestion

that arises is hether such dis+issa/ ou/d have thesa+e /ega/ e?ect as the dis+issed estafa cases. Putdi?erent/, +a petitioner7s action to recoverrespondents7 civi/ /iai/it e a/so a//oed to prosperseparate/ after the BP B/g. !! cases eredis+issed

;ection 1 &(, Ru/e 111 of the !### Revised Ru/es onCri+ina/ Procedure states O

Sect!o#


15/24

UNIVERSI43 OF 4HE 2HILI22INES, petitioner, vs. 2HILAINDUS4RIES, INC., respondent.G.R. o. 1!411 $ ;epte+er !9, !##4 &!'(

)acts* Petitioner decided to construct an integrated sste+

of research organi-ation knon as the ResearchCo+p/e@. 5s part of the pro the decree of nu//it of the 3rst +arriage isre2uired efore a suse2uent +arriage can e entered intova/id/

1


16/24

0e/d* Private respondent7s 3rst and second +arriages

contracted in 1988 and 1989, respective/, aregoverned the provisions of the Civi/ Code. Thepresent case di?ers signi3cant/ fro+ the recentcases of Bois v. Bois and Mercado v. Tan, othinvo/ving a cri+ina/ case for iga+ here theiga+ous +arriage as contracted during thee?ectivit of the )a+i/ Code, under hich a


17/24

Private respondent Gera/dine L. e/asco ase+p/oed ith petitioner P)YKR, C. as Professiona/0ea/th Care Representative.

n !6 June !##%, hi/e e/asco as on /eave for herhigh:risk pregnanc, P)YKR through its 5rea ;a/esManager, herein petitioner )erdinand Corte-,persona// served e/asco a ;ho:cause otice.5side fro+ +entioning aout an investigation on herpossi/e vio/ations of co+pan ork ru/es regardingunauthori-ed dea/s and>or discounts in +one orsa+p/es and unauthori-ed ithdraa/ and>or pu//:outof stocks and instructing her to su+it her

e@p/anation on the +atter ithin 4" hours fro+receipt of the sa+e, the notice a/so advised her thatshe as eing p/aced under preventive suspensionfor %# das and conse2uent/ ordered to surrenderthe fo//oing accountai/ities 1( Co+pan Car, !(;a+p/es and Pro+ats, %(CR)>KR>K0CLK>;5>P;5P>MP5 and other re/atedCo+pan )or+s, 4( Cash Card, ( Ca/te@ Card, and 6(MP5>TP5 Revo/ving Trave/ )und.

e/asco, through a /etter, denied the a//egations. ;hethen received a ;econd ;ho:cause oticeinfor+ing her of additiona/ deve/op+ents in theirinvestigation. That sa+e da, e/asco 3/ed aco+p/aint for i//ega/ suspension ith +one c/ai+sefore the Regiona/ 5ritration Branch.

e/asco received a Third ;ho:cause otice, ut

then )ina//, on !9 Ju/ !##%, P)YKR infor+ede/asco of its Manage+ent 'ecision ter+inatingher e+p/o+ent.

L5* 'is+issa/ of e/asco is i//ega/ and ordered herreinstate+ent ith ackages and further aarding+ora/ and e@e+p/ar da+ages ith attorne7s fees.

LRC denied Petitioner7s appea/. C5 uphe/d the va/idit of respondent7s dis+issa/ fro+

e+p/o+ent ut directed P)YKR to pa respondenther ages fro+ the date of the Laor 5riter7s'ecision dated 'ece+er , !##% up to the Court of 5ppea/s 'ecision dated ove+er !%, !##.

ssue* => C57s decision of ordering P3-er to pa e/ascoages fro+ the date of the Laor 5riter7s decision orderingher reinstate+ent unti/ the C5 decision dec/aring e/asco7s

dis+issa/ va/id constitutes un


18/24

right. The ru/ing is not consistent ith the 3nding of su


19/24

At!c*e 6. Kver person sha// respect the dignit,persona/it, privac and peace of +ind of his neighorsand other persons. The fo//oing and si+i/ar acts, thoughthe +a not constitute a cri+ina/ o?ense, sha// producea cause of action for da+ages, prevention and otherre/ief*

&1( Pring into the privac of another7s residence*&!( Medd/ing ith or disturing the private /ife or fa+i/re/ations o? sicS another&%( ntriguing to cause another to e a/ienated fro+ hisfriends&4( e@ing or hu+i/iating another on account of his e/iefs,/o/ station in /ife, p/ace of irth, phsica/ defect, orother persona/ condition.

The Co++ent of To/entino on hat constitute anause of rights under 5rtic/e 19 of the e Civi/ Codeis pertinent*

o Test of 5use of Right. O Modern


20/24

privac and hether the e@pectation has eenvio/ated.

n p/e v. Torres, e enunciated that thereasona/eness of a person7s e@pectation of privacdepends on a to:part test*

o hether, his conduct, the individua/ hase@hiited an e@pectation of privac and

o this e@pectation is one that societrecogni-es as reasona/e.

Custo+s, co++unit nor+s, and practices +a,therefore, /i+it or e@tend an individua/7s reasona/e

e@pectation of privac. 0ence, the reasona/eness of a person7s e@pectation of privac +ust edeter+ined on a case:to:case asis since it dependson the factua/ circu+stances surrounding the case.

The RTC considered that petitioners have areasona/e e@pectation of privac in their propert,hether the use it as a usiness oDce or as aresidence and that the insta//ation of videosurvei//ance ca+eras direct/ facing petitioners7propert or covering a signi3cant portion thereof,ithout their consent, is a c/ear vio/ation of theirright to privac. 5s e see then, the issuance of apre/i+inar in petitioner co++itted foru+ shopping in 3/ing thecivi/ case for speci3c perfor+ance and da+ages during thependenc of her appea/ on the civi/ aspect of the cri+inacase for estafa

0e/d* o ndependent civi/ /iai/ities are separate fro+ the

cri+ina/ action and +a e pursued independent/as provided in 5rtic/es %1 and %% of the Civi/ Codehich state that*

AR4.


21/24

. C!;!* 2e(o#)*!t? !t+? De)t+

Civil Coe Provisions

At!c*e 0. Birth deter+ines persona/it ut theconceived chi/d sha// e considered orn for a// purposesthat are favora/e to it, provided it e orn /ater ith theconditions speci3ed in the fo//oing artic/e.

At!c*e


22/24

At.


23/24

)irst, the issue of civi/ persona/it is not re/evantherein. 5rtic/es 4#, 41 and 4! of the Civi/ Code onnatura/ persons, +ust e app/ied in re/ation to 5rtic/e%8 of the sa+e Code, the ver 3rst of the genera/provisions on civi/ persona/it, hich reads*

Art. FG. C5 erred in not 3nding that respondent ;;05/acked the the /ega/ persona/it to sue

0e/d* Fes Ender ;ection 1, Ru/e % of the Revised Ru/es of Court,

on/ natura/ or


24/24

At!c*e 50. )or the e@ercise of civi/ rights and thefu/3//+ent of civi/ o/igations, the do+ici/e of natura/persons is the p/ace of their haitua/ residence.

At!c*e 5

Documents

Civil Review