TOPIC CASE NAME G.R. No./A.M.

PONENTE DOCTRINE/RULING
Art 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication, even if the law itself provides for the date of its
effectivity. The 15-day period is merely for the purpose of determining the date of effectivity, not an alternative
Tanada v. Tuvera L-63915 Escolin
for the publication. Laws which are of public nature or of general applicability are to be published but not those
which apply only to particular persons or class such as administrative and executive orders.
Publication There is no law requiring the publication of SC decisions in the OG before they can be binding and as a condition
Requirement De Roy v. CA 80718 Cortes to their becoming effective. It is the duty of a lawyer to keep abreast of SC decisions particularly where issues
have been clarified which are published in the advance reports of SC decisions (GRs) and SCRA.
Publication of an administrative order/regulation to the University of the Philippines Law Center-Office of the
Philippine International
108461 Torres, Jr. National Administrative Registrar (UP-ONAR), does not cure the defect of an unpublished law. Laws must be
Trading v. Angeles
published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing laws pursuant also to a valid delegation.
There can be no repeal, absent any cogency of irreconcilable inconsistency or repugnancy between the issuances.
Repeal of Philippine International
108461 Torres, Jr. A later enactment relating to the same subject matter as that of an earlier statute is not of itself sufficient to
Laws Trading v. Angeles
cause implied repeal of the latter.
Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and
Prospectivity/ Municipal Government Of
Gutierrez, undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that sense and to that extent.
Retroactivity Coron v. Carino 65894
Jr. Although the right to appeal has been liberalized, the same is merely a statutory privilege and may be exercised
of Laws
only in the manner and in accordance with the provisions of law.
A waiver of scholarship grant upon transfer to another school is an invalid waiver being contrary to public policy
and morals. In determining a public policy of the state, courts are limited to a consideration of the constitution,
Waiver of
Cui Vs. Arellano University L-15127 Concepcion judicial decisions, statutes, and practice of government officers. Thus, courts will not recognize or uphold a
Rights
transaction which in its object, operation, or tendency is calculated to be prejudicial to the public welfare, to
sound morality or to civic honesty.
Aliens may obtain divorce abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided that it is valid according
Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr. Melencio- to their national law. Thus, the Filipino spouse is released from the bonds of marital obligations to live together
L-68470
Herrera with, observe respect and fidelity, render support to and be considered married to the foreign spouse. Therefore,
in cases where the standing to sue is based on the marriage, either spouse cannot bring suit against the other.
Nationality
Philippine laws does not allow absolute divorce. Hence, (1) in marriage between Filipinos, a divorce cannot be
Principle on
obtained even abroad; (2) in mix marriages, a divorce decree may be obtained abroad by the alien spouse,
Divorce;
Garcia v. Recio 138322 Panganiban provided it is valid according to their national law; and (3) for marriage between aliens, the divorce decree may
Foreign Laws
be recognized in the Philippines, provided it is consistent with their national laws. One who raises the divorce as
Must be
a defense, has the burden of proving its validity.
Proved as a
Courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws. They must be alleged and proved as a fact. A foreign written
Fact
law, to be admissible (1) must be attested by the officer having legal custody of the records or by his deputy; and
Wildvalley Shipping v. CA 119602 Buena (2) must be accompanied by a certificate by any foreign service officer, and with the seal of his office. If the law
was never alleged or invoked or not proven as a fact, it is presumed that the foreign law is the same with the
Philippine laws (processual presumption).
Saudi Arabian Quisum- The provisions on Human Relations were intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal
122191
Airlines v. CA bing remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs, not provided in the statutes. Thus, its violation are actionable,
 with judicially enforceable remedies in our courts even if some of the facts transpired or happened abroad. To
determine the country where the suit may be filed, the “State of the most significant relationship” rule (where
the over-all injury occurred) must be applied.
Lex loci contractus (the law of the place where a contract is made or entered into governs with respect to its
nature and validity, obligation and interpretation) applies even though the place where the contract was made
United Airlines v. CA 124110 Kapunan
is different from the place where it is to be performed, and particularly so, if the place of the making and the
place of performance are the same.
If a jural matter is presented which the conflict-of-laws rule of the forum refers to a foreign law, the conflict-of-
In the Matter of the
laws rule of which, in turn, refers the matter back again to the law of the forum, renvoi happens. In this case, the
Testate Estate Of Edward
L-16749 Labrador law of the forum should apply. Thus, the law of the forum adopts the whole foreign law including the conflict
E. Christensen v.
rules. In this instance, there is nothing left for the Philippines to do but to apply its own laws, otherwise, it will
Christensen
result in international football.
The renvoi problem will not arise unless the conflicts rule adopting the situs theory calls for the application of
Testate Estate of Amos G. the law of the place where the properties are situated. In the absence of proof as to the conflict of law, processual
Human L-23678 Bengzon
Bellis v. Bellis presumption arise. Therefore, the nationality principle applies pursuant to the NCC. If the wills executed by the
Relations: decedent is in conflict with the provisions of his national law, the latter prevails.
Renvoi A prejudicial question is that which arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue
Problem; involved in said case and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. The essential elements are: (a)
Prejudicial the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal action; and (b) the
Question; Quiambao v. Osorio L-48157 Fernan
resolution of such issue determines whether the criminal action may proceed, (3) jurisdiction pertains to another
Breach of court/tribunal. A pending civil case may be considered to be in the nature of a prejudicial question to an
Promise to administrative case, and vice versa.
Marry When rights are abused, although the act is not illicit, the person may still be held liable. Art. 19, and other
provisions under Human Relations, are intended to expand the concept of torts by granting adequate legal
Gonzaga-
Sea Commercial Co. v. CA 122823 remedy for the untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide specifically
Reyes
in statutory law. The following are the elements: (1) there is a legal right or duty; (2) which is exercised in bad
faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
Annulment of marriage can be considered as a prejudicial question to the bigamy case against the accused only
Donato v. Luna L-53642 Gancayco if it is proved that the petitioner's consent to such marriage was obtained by means of duress, violence and
intimidation in order to establish that his act in the subsequent marriage was an involuntary.
Should the question for annulment of the second marriage pending in a court prosper on the ground that the
consent of the accused was obtained by means of duress, force and intimidation, it is obvious that his act was
Zapanta v. Montesa L-14534 Dizon involuntary. Thus, it cannot be the basis of the accused’s conviction for the crime of bigamy. If the defendant in
a case for bigamy claims that the first marriage is void and the right to decide such validity is vested in another
court, the civil action for annulment must first be decided before the action for bigamy can proceed.
Art 19 of the NCC provides for the abuse of rights principle. Art 20 provides for right to indemnity against wilful
Globe Mackay Cable And
81262 Cortes and negligent acts while Art 21 provides for award of damages for wilful acts contrary to morals, good customs
Radio Corp. v. CA
or public policy. In these instances, when the rights are abused, they cease to be rights.
 As a rule, breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. However, as an exception, a breach of
promise to marry because of fraud and deceit to obtain the consent of a woman for a sexual act and the wilful
Baksh v. CA 97336 Davide, Jr.
injury to a woman’s honor and reputation which followed thereafter, is actionable under Art 21. This amounts
to moral seduction. The exception to the exception to this rule is when there is mutual lust.
Judges and members of the judiciary may solemnize marriages only within their jurisdiction. Thus, Justices of the
appellate courts may solemnize marriages anywhere while judges with specific jurisdictions may only solemnize
Aranes v. Occiano MTJ-02-1390 Puno marriages within their territorial jurisdictions. Although the validity of the marriage is not affected, the erring
Marriage; officer may be held administratively liable. Absence of a marriage license renders the marriage void and
Requisites subsequent issuance of such license cannot cure the defect.
Diaz-Salgado v. Anson 204494 Reyes Marriage License is a requisite of marriage and its absence renders the marriage void, unless it is of an exceptional
character. A fallacious marriage certificate and a marriage solemnized without a marriage license based on mere
fabrications that it is of exceptional character is void. The facts of the case prevail over the fabricated certificate.
For the ratification of marital cohabitation, the 5-year period should be computed on the basis of the
Ynares- cohabitation of the parties as husband and wife where the only missing factor is the special contract of marriage
Cohabitation Ninal v. Bayadog 133778
Santiago to validate the union. It shall also be exclusive, i.e. no 3rd party is involved, and unbroken/continuous. The
contents of the affidavit attesting the cohabitation cannot prevail over the facts of the case.
There are 8 things to consider in annulment on the ground of psychological incapacity:
(1) the burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved
in favor of the existence of the marriage and against its nullity;
(2) the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically/clinically identified, (b) alleged in the
complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision;
(3) incapacity must be existing at the time of the marriage celebration;
Republic v. CA 108763 Panganiban
(4) incapacity must be medically or clinically permanent or incurable;
(5) illness must be grave enough to disable the party to assume essential marital obligations;
(6) essential marital obligations are those embraced under Art 68-71, 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code;
(7) interpretations by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal, while not controlling/decisive, should be
given great respect; and
Psychological
(8) the fiscal and the Sol. Gen. must appear as counsel for the state.
Incapacity
Procreation is a marital obligation, failure to perform the same is tantamount to psychological incapacity. It is
Tsoi v. CA 119190 Torres, Jr.
immaterial who among the parties is impotent if it was admitted that there was no coitus between the parties.
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. The guidelines
do not require that a physician examine the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. What is
Marcos v. Marcos 136490 Panganiban
important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party’s psychological condition and the
totality of evidence presented.
Psychological incapacity is confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of
an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. Mere irreconcilable
Santos v. CA 112019 Vitug differences, conflicting personalities and incompatibility are not psychological incapacity. Those (1) vices and
addictions as ground for voidable marriages when it occurs before marriage, or those (2) grounds for legal
separation when it occurs after marriage, are not psychological incapacity.