Tanada vs Tuvera

Facts: On matters regarding public concern and the right of the people to be informed of such,
the petitioners sought a writ of mandamus to compel the respondent public officials to publish in
the official gazette or newspapers of genral circulation of the presidential decrees, letters of
instructions, proclamations, executive orders, and administrative orders as recognized by the
1973 constitution.

Issue: Whether or not publication in the Official Gazatte is an indispensable requirement for the
effectivity of the Presidential Decrees, general orders, Executive Orders, etc. where laws
themselves provide for their own effectivity dates.
Held: Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that laws shall take effect after fifteen days
following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise
provided The Court has ruled that publication in the Official Gazette is necessary in those cases
where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date-for then the date of
publication is material for determining its date of effectivity, which is the fifteenth day following
its publication-but not when the law itself provides for the date when it goes into effect. Article 2
does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself
provides for the date of its effectivity.
People vs Que Po Lay
FACTS: The appellant was in possession of foreign exchange consisting of US dollars, US
checks and US money orders amounting to about $7000 but did not sell the same to the Central
Bank as required under Circular No. 20 which was issued in the year 1949 but was published in
the Official Gazette only on Nov. 1951. Appellant appealed from the decision of the lower court
finding him guilty of violating Central Bank Circular No. 20 in connection with Sec 34 of RA
265 sentencing him to suffer 6 months imprisonment, and to pay the fine of P1,000 with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency, and to pay the costs.
ISSUE: Whether or not publication of Circular 20 in the Official Gazette is needed for it to
become effective
HELD: It was held by the Supreme Court, in an en banc decision, that as a rule, circular and
regulations of the Central Bank in question prescribing a penalty for its violation should be
published before becoming effective. This is based on the theory that before the public is bound
by its contents especially its penal provisions, a law, regulation or circular must first be
published for the people to be officially and specifically informed of such contents including its
penalties.
Thus, the Supreme Court reversed the decision appealed from and acquit the appellant, with
costs de oficio.

Article 3

Grace J. Garcia-Recio v Rederick A. Recio

FACTS: Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian Citizen, on
March 1, 1987. They lived together as husband and wife in Australia. But, an Australian family
court issued a decree of divorce, which dissolved the marriage of Rederick and Editha.
On January 12, 1994, Rederick married Grace J. Garcia. Since October 22, 1995, the couple
lived separately without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage. While they were still in
Australia, their conjugal assets were divided on May 16, 1996.
Grace filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on the ground of bigamy on
March 3, 1998, claiming that she learned only in November 1997, Redericks marriage with
Editha Samson.
ISSUE: Whether or not the divorce decree sought by Recio is and admissible evidence to prove
is capacity to remarry.
HELD: The nullity of Redericks marriage with Editha as shown by the divorce decree issued
was valid and recognized in the Philippines since the respondent is a naturalized Australian.
However, there is absolutely no evidence that proves respondents legal capacity to marry
petitioner though the former presented a divorce decree. The said decree, being a foreign
document was inadmissible to court as evidence primarily because it was not authenticated by
the consul/embassy of the country where it will be used.

Thus, the Supreme Court remands the case to the Regional Trial Court of Cabanatuan City to
receive or trial evidence that will conclusively prove respondents legal capacity to marry
petitioner and thus free him on the ground of bigamy.
Article 6
D.M. Consunji Inc. v Court of Appeals and Maria J. Juego
FACTS: At around 1:30PM, Jose Juergo, a construction worker of D.M. Consunji Inc. fell 14
floors from the Renaissance Tower, Pasig City. He was immediately rushed to Rizal Medical
Center in Pasig City. The attending physician, declared Jose dead on arrival at around 2:15PM at
the same day.Due to removal or looseness of the pin Juergo fell and was crush to death. PO3
Rogelio Villanueva of the Eastern Police District investigated the tragedy and filed report dated
Nov. 25, 1990. Maria Juergo, Joses widow filed a complaint on May 9, 1991 for damages in the
RTC and was rendered a favorable decision to receive support from DM Consunji amounting to
P644,000.

ISSUE: Whether Maria Juergo can still claim damages with D.M. Consunji apart from the death
benefits she claimed in the State Insurance Fund.
HELD:
The respondent is not precluded from recovering damages under the civil code. Maria Juergo
was unaware of petitioners negligence when she filed her claim for death benefits from the State
Insurance Fund. She filed the civil complaint for damages after she received a copy of the police
investigation report and the Prosecutors Memorandum dismissing the criminal complaint
against petitioners personnel.
Supreme Court remanded to the RTC of Pasig City to determine whether the award decreed in its
decision is more than that of the Employees Compensation Commission (ECC). Should the
award decreed by the trial court be greater than that awarded by the ECC, payments already
made to private respondent pursuant to the Labor Code shall be deducted therefrom.

Cui vs Arellano University

FACTS: Emetrio Cui took his preparatory law course at Arellano University. He then enrolled
in its College of Law from first year (SY1948-1949) until first semester of his 4th year. During
these years, he was awarded scholarship grants of the said university amounting to a total of
P1,033.87. He then transferred and took his last semester as a law student at Abad Santos
University. But the defendant refused to issue the transcript of records until he had paid back the
P1,033.87 scholarship grant.

ISSUE: Whether or not Emetrio Cui can refund the P1,033.97 payment for the scholarship grant
provided by Arellano University.

HELD:The memorandum of the Director of Private Schools is not a law where the provision set
therein was advisory and not mandatory in nature. Moreover, the stipulation in question, asking
previous students to pay back the scholarship grant if they transfer before graduation, is contrary
to public policy, sound policy and good morals or tends clearly to undermine the security of
individual rights and hence, null and void.

The court sentenced the defendant to pay Cui the sum of P1,033.87 with interest thereon at the
legal rate from Sept.1, 1954, date of the institution of this case as well as the costs and
dismissing defendants counterclaim.

Article 15-16
Juan Miciano v Andre Brimo
FACTS: Juan Miciano, judicial administrator of the estate, filed a scheme of partition. Andre
Brimo, one of the brothers of the deceased (Joseph Brimo) opposed Micianos inheritance.
Joseph Brimo is a Turkish citizen.
ISSUE: Whether Turkish law or Philippine law will be the basis on the distribution of Joseph
Brimos estates.
HELD:Though the last part of the second clause of the will expressly said that it be made and
disposed of in accordance with the laws in force in the Philippine Island, this condition,
described as impossible conditions, shall be considered as not imposed and shall not prejudice
the heir or legatee in any manner whatsoever, even should the testator otherwise provide.
Impossible conditions are further defined as those contrary to law or good morals. Thus,
national law of the testator shall govern in his testamentary dispositions.
The court approved the scheme of partition submitted by the judicial administrator, in such
manner as to include Andre Brimo, as one of the legatees.

Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil v Hon. Corona Ibay-Somera

FACTS: Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married with Erich Ekkehard Geiling, a
German national. They have a child who was born on April 20, 1980 and named Isabella Pilapil
Geiling. Conjugal disharmonies happen, then private respondent initiated a divorce proceeding
against petitioner in Germany. The petitioner then filed an action for legal separation, support
and separation of property before the RTC Manila on January 23, 1983.
The decree of divorce was promulgated on January 15, 1986 on the ground of failure of marriage
of the spouses. The custody of the child was granted to the petitioner.
On June 27, 1986, private respondent filed 2 complaints for adultery alleging that while still
married to Imelda, had an affair with William Chia as early as 1982 and another man named
Jesus Chua sometime in 1983.
ISSUE: Whether private respondent can prosecute petitioner on the ground of adultery even
though they are no longer husband and wife as decree of divorce was already issued.
HELD: The law specifically provided that in prosecution for adultery and concubinage, the
person who can legally file the complaint should be the offended spouse and nobody else.
Though in this case, it appeared that private respondent is the offended spouse, the latter
obtained a valid divorce in his country, the Federal Republic of Germany, and said divorce and
its legal effects may be recognized in the Philippines in so far as he is concerned. Thus, under
the same consideration and rationale, private respondent is no longer the husband of petitioner

and has no legal standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the
offended spouse at the time he filed suit.