TANADA v TUVERA

(G.R. No. L-63915 ,April 24. 1985)

J. ESCOLIN

FACTS:
Invoking the people’s right to be informed on matters of public concern, petitioners asked
that presidential decrees, letters of instruction, general orders, proclamations, executive orders,
letter of implementation and administrative orders be published in the Official Gazette or otherwise
effectively promulgated. Petitioners seek a writ of Mandamus to compel respondent public official
to publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette. However, respondent’s defense was
that petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition. the absence of
any showing that petitioners are personally and directly affected or prejudiced by the non-
publication of presidential decrees in question.

ISSUE: WON publication is necessary for presidential decrees to be effective and binding

RULING:

Yes. The court held that presidential decrees of general application, which have not been
published, shall have no force and effect. According to Article 2 of the Civil Code, “Law shall take
effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it
is otherwise provided. The word “shall” used therein imposes upon respondent officials an
imperative duty. That duty must be enforced if the constitutional rights of the people to be informed
on matters of public concern is to be given substance and reality. The clear object of the above-
quoted provision is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws which are to be
regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice and publication, there would be
no basis for the application of the legal maxim “ignorantia legis non excusant”. The It would be the
height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law which he
had no notice whatsoever, not even constructive one. The court ordered the respondents to publish
in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances which are of general application, and
unless so published, they shall have no binding effect.
 VAN DORN v ROMILLO, JR.
(G.R. No. L-68470, October 8. 1985)
J. MELENCIO-HERRERA

FACTS:
Petitioner Alice Reyes (Filipino) married Richard Upton (American) in Hongkong in 1972. The
married couple established their residence in the Philippines ; that they begot two children born on
April 4, 1973 and December 8, 1975, respectively. They were divorced in Nevada, United States of
America, in 1982; and that petitioner re-married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn.

Dated June 8, 1983, private respondent filed a suit against petitioner in the Regional Trial
Court, Branch CXV, in Pasay City, stating that the petitioner’s business in Ermita, Manila is conjugal
property of the parties and asking that the petitioner be order to render an accounting of the
business, and that the private respondent declared with right to manage the conjugal property.
Petitioner moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous
judgment in the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court. Petitioner contended that
respondent is stopped from laying claim on the alleged conjugal property because of the
representation he made in the divorce proceedings before the American Court that they had no
community of property and that the Galleon shop was not established through conjugal funds.
Respondent argued that the Divorce Decree issued by the Nevada Court cannot prevail over
Philippine Jurisprudence.

ISSUE: WON the Nevada Divorce Decree of the parties is valid in Philippine Jurisprudence

RULING:

Yes. The court held that the Divorce Decree of the parties in Nevada shall be valid in the
Philippines. There is no question as to the validity of the Divorce Decree in the United States. The
Decree is binding on the private respondent as an American Citizen. According to Article 15 of the
Civil Code of the Philippines, “Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition
and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living
abroad.” Being Richard Upton an American Citizen, the divorce degree is binding upon him and that
Alicia Reyes is a Filipino and under the policy that divorce is contrary to Philippine public policy and
morality.
 VALDEZ v RTC
(G.R. No. 122749, JULY 31, 1996)
J. VITUG

FACTS:
Petitioner Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez-Valdez (Respondent) were married on
January 05, 1971. Begotten during the marriage were five children. In a petition in June 1992,
petitioner sought the declaration of nullity of marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.
The Trial court rendered the judgment of declaring the marriage of the parties involved null and void
under Article 36 of the Family Code of the ground of their mutual psychological incapacity to comply
with their essential marital obligations.

Consuelo Gomez sought a clarification of that portion of the decision directing compliance
with Article 50, 51 and 52 of the Family Code. She asserted that the Family Code contained no
provisions on the procedure for the liquidation of common property in “unions without marriage”.
Article 147 of the Family Code explicitly provides that the property acquired by both of the parties
during their union, in the absence of proof to the contrary, are presumed to have been obtained
through the joint efforts of the parties and will be owned by them equally in equal shares, plaintiff
and defendant will own their “family home” and all their properties for that matter in equal shares.
The decision of the trial court was that the disposition of the properties shall be governed by the
rules of ownership. Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the order, but the motion was
denied.

ISSUE: WON Article 147 of the Family Code is applicable to void marriages.

RULING:

Yes, the Article 147 of the Family Code is applicable to void marriages. In void marriages,
regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties during the period of
cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148, such as the case may be, of
the Family Code.

Article 147 stats that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other,
live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void
marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property
acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules of co-
ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together
shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned
by them in equal shares.

Under this regime, property acquired by both spouses through work and industry shall be
governed by the rules of co-ownership. Any party who did not participate in the acquisition of the
property shall be considered as having contributed thereto jointly.
 VALDEZ v RTC
(G.R. No. 122749, JULY 31, 1996)
J. VITUG

FACTS:
Petitioner Antonio Valdez and Consuelo Gomez-Valdez (Respondent) were married on
January 05, 1971. Begotten during the marriage were five children. In a petition in June 1992,
petitioner sought the declaration of nullity of marriage pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code.
The Trial court rendered the judgment of declaring the marriage of the parties involved null and void
under Article 36 of the Family Code of the ground of their mutual psychological incapacity to comply
with their essential marital obligations.

Consuelo Gomez sought a clarification of that portion of the decision directing compliance
with Article 50, 51 and 52 of the Family Code. She asserted that the Family Code contained no
provisions on the procedure for the liquidation of common property in “unions without marriage”.
Article 147 of the Family Code explicitly provides that the property acquired by both of the parties
during their union, in the absence of proof to the contrary, are presumed to have been obtained
through the joint efforts of the parties and will be owned by them equally in equal shares, plaintiff
and defendant will own their “family home” and all their properties for that matter in equal shares.
The decision of the trial court was that the disposition of the properties shall be governed by the
rules of ownership. Petitioner moved for the reconsideration of the order, but the motion was
denied.

ISSUE: WON Article 147 of the Family Code is applicable to void marriages.

RULING:

Yes, the Article 147 of the Family Code is applicable to void marriages. In void marriages,
regardless of the cause thereof, the property relations of the parties during the period of
cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148, such as the case may be, of
the Family Code.

Article 147 stats that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other,
live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void
marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property
acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules of co-
ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together
shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned
by them in equal shares.

Under this regime, property acquired by both spouses through work and industry shall be
governed by the rules of co-ownership. Any party who did not participate in the acquisition of the
property shall be considered as having contributed thereto jointly.