1- Preliminaries (Art. 1-18) Flashcards
Article 2
Laws shall take effect after fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines unless otherwise provide
What are the two views regarding the “unless otherwise provided” in Art. 2
which is governing?
[1] Referring to Date of Effectivity - shortening or extending the usual 15-day period. Publishing is Required
1 - IS GOVERNING
[2] Referring to Publication Req. - law making body, in its discretion, chooses to forego with the requirement publication and it is binding and valid
Views on “unless otherwise provided” >
what is the controlling doctrine re: publication?
Tanada v. Tuvera (1986)
Publication is an indispensable requirement before they can become effective, valid and binding.
is Tanada v. Tuvera absolute?
No, as held by the SC in the case of PVB Employees v. Vega (2001), the legislative has the discretion to provide for an exc as when the law itself provides that it be effective upon approval of the president
a new law RA 7169 which mandated the rehabilitation of the PVB
TN: liquidation is prelude to death, rehabilitation is reviving a dying corporation.
There is conflicting judicial decisions between Tuvera and PVB cases, which SC ruling is controlling?
- Statutory Construction - recent decision is controlling
- Art. 8 Sec 4(3) of the Constitution, no [doctrine or principle of law] laid down in a decision rendered by the SC en banc or in division, may be modified or reversed except by the [SC sitting en banc]
- PVB discussed Requirement for Publication in passing (obiter dictum)
TN: Tanada v. Tuvera (en banc)
PVB v. Vega (in division)
P.S.
None of the parties in the case ever raised the issue of lack of publication nor did they challenge the validity of RA 7169 on the ground that it was not published, and yet the SC made a statement about it. Obviously any discussion made by the SC involving the need of publication and its exception is more of an obiter dictum. Hence, it cannot be cited as an authority, not a binding precedent and neither can it revoke the ruling of Tanada.
Fariñas and other petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 14 of Republic Act No. 9006, also known as the “Fair Election Act,” which repealed a provision of the Omnibus Election Code. This provision mandated that any elective official running for a different office would be deemed resigned from their current office upon filing a certificate of candidacy. The petitioners argued that Section 14’s “Effectivity Clause,” stating that the law “shall take effect immediately upon its approval,” was unconstitutional due to the lack of a required publication period.
How would you rule?
LB: Farinas vs. Exec. Sec
Generally, the publication requirement is indispensable and the provision in Art. 2 of the CC “unless otherwise provided” refers to the shortening or extension of the usual 15-day period
However, the court ruled in Farinas v. Exec. Sec that RA 9006 is DEFECTIVE but does not render it invalid even when a provision provides that it takes effect immediately upon approval by the President.
The requirement of publication applies to
- Statutes
- Presidential issuances
- Rules & Regulations promulgated by administrative bodies pursuant to a valid delegated authority to implement or fill in the details of law
- Supreme Court decisions
- Ordinances/local laws
Re: publication > 3 > Exc
- R&R are interpretative in nature
- R&R are internal in nature that do not involve/affect the public
FACTS: The Social Security Commission (SSC) issued Circular No. 22, amending the definition of “compensation” to include bonuses and overtime pay in the computation of employee premiums, effective November 1, 1958. Victoria Milling Company, Inc. challenged the circular, arguing it contradicted a previous circular and was invalid due to lack of Presidential approval and publication in the Official Gazette.
ISSUE: Whether Circular No. 22 was valid despite the claims of lack of authority and publication
Valid.
When an administrative agency promulgates R&R, it “makes” new law with the force and effect of a valid law, however in this case, the SSC is rendering a statement of policy, which merely interprets a [pre-existing law]
As ruled in the case of Victorias Milling Company vs. SSC 1962
Circular No. 22 did not add any duty or detail that was not already in the law as amended. It merely stated and circularized the opinion of the Commission as to how the law should be construed
Thus it did not require presidential approval and publication in the Official Gazette for its effectivity.
Do judicial decisions need to be published in the Official Gazette?
JP
No, as held in the case of Roy v. CA where the SC ruled that decisions of the same part take of the nature of law but the requirement of publication is not compulsory
Re: publication > 5 > when are ordinances/local laws made effective?
- 10 days after posting a copy in the bulletin board of the
- Provincial Capital
- City
- Municipal, or
- Brgy. Hall, [and] - at least (2) conspicuous places in the LGU concerned
(Sec. 59, 7160)
Article 3 of the NCC
“Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.”
Question: If the policy is knowledge of the law is presumed, why is there a need for publication of laws?
Publication serves as a CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE to the people of the existence of the law. There can be no Article 3 when Article 2 is complied with.
IOW, if law is compliant with Art. 2, then Art. 3 is presumed
how to validly raise the defense of **Mistake of FACT*
1910 Ruling
is a defense which can exonerate liability when the requisites are present
- the act would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed them to be
- acted in good faith, w/o malice, nor criminal intent
- act is not tainted w/ negligence
as illustrated in the case of US v. Ah Chong
which element of a crime will mistake of fact negate?
Generally, the element of INTENT
In the case of Salvador v. Sandiganbayan, what are the requisites in order to properly invoke the defense of mistake of LAW?
2012 Ruling
!!mistake of law wasn’t mentioned in the full text!!
- the mistake was honest & reasonable
- that it be a matter of fact
- it negates the culpability required to commit the crime or the existence of the mental state which the statute prescribes with respect to an element of the offense
Art. 15 > Gen Rule > Nationality Principle > What happens when a party who invokes a foreign law is not duly proved?
Principle of [Processual Presumption] applies wherein a foreign law is relevant in the issue is NOT DULY PROVEN, it shall be presumed that such foreign law is the same with our laws therefore the application of Philippine law
As illustrated in the case of Yao Kee v. Gonzalez since the foreign law was not duly proven regarding marriage, Philippine law on marriage now applies
Article 4
Laws shall have no retroactive application, unless the contrary is provided
Exceptions to article 4
- when the law provides for its retroactive application
- Law is penal/criminal in nature, provided it is favorable to the accused [w/ exc.]
- Law is remedial/procedural in nature [w/ exc.]
- Law is curative in nature
- Narzolez - law enacted in exercise of police power
Art 4 > Exc 1 “When the law expressly provides that it apply retroactively > Exc of the exc?
- No Ex Post Facto Law shall be allowed
Art 4 > Exc 2 “criminal/penal laws that are favorable to the accused > Exc of the exc?
- when the accused is a habitual delinquent
- when the accused himself denies the benefits of the new law
- when the law itself expressly provides that its provisions should not cover existing cases or pending actions even if favorable to the offender
TN:
habitual delinquent - Art. 62 w/in 10 years from last conviction/release of the crimes is again found guilty of the crimes serious or less serious physical injuries, theft, robbery, falsification, estafa, is found guilty of any of said crimes the third time or oftener)
Art 4 > Exc 3 “procedural/remedial laws > Exc of the exc?
- impairs substantial rights
- when the decision is final & executory
Art 4 > Exc 4 > Curative Laws > EXC-EXC?
- vested rights are violated
- final judgments are altered
(based on ppt)
What is the nature of Supreme Court decisions? LB
Prospective.
As shown in the case of DBP v. CA & Pe (1992)
At the time of the foreclosure and sale of the land (1977-1979), the prevailing doctrine (from the cases of Monge v. Angeles and Tupas v. Damasco) was that the five-year period for repurchase was counted from the date of the foreclosure sale
1988 - Since the Belisario case was decided after the foreclosure sale and transfer of the land, it could not be retroactively applied to transactions that were governed by the earlier jurisprudence.
- 1970: Benito Salvani Pe acquires the land and mortgages it shortly after.
- 1977: The Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) forecloses the mortgage on the land.
- 1978: The foreclosure sale is registered.
- 1979: DBP sells the land to the spouses Gauvain and Bernardita Benzonan.
- 1982: The right to repurchase for Pe, based on the prevailing jurisprudence at the time (Monge and Tupas), expires.
- 1988: The Belisario case establishes a new doctrine regarding the counting of the five-year period for repurchase, stating it should start after the one-year redemption period.
- 1992: The Supreme Court rules in the DBP case, stating that the Belisario doctrine should not apply retroactively to revive Pe’s lost right to repurchase, as the spouses had already acquired vested rights based on the earlier rulings.
What is the nature of Supreme Court interpretations?
lm
Retrospective.
legis interpretado legis vim obtinet which means the interpretation of the law (of a competent court) has the force & effect of law
Why is SC interpretation retroactive?
It establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent of the law such that to interpret/construe it would constitute a part of that law as of the date the statute was enacted
Lorna filed a petition for the nullity of her marriage to Zosimo under Article 36 of the Family Code, citing Zosimo’s psychological incapacity.
While the case was pending, the Supreme Court rendered decisions in Santos v. CA (1995) and Republic v. Molina (1997), interpreting “psychological incapacity” and establishing guidelines for nullity of marriage.
The RTC ruled in Lorna’s favor, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, applying Santos and Molina retroactively. Lorna argues that these rulings should not have retroactive effect on her case.
Should the Santos and Molina rulings be treated as interpretations of law, warranting retroactive application, or should they be applied prospectively only?
It should be treated retroactively
In the case of Pesca v. Pesca, the SC explained/clarified the meaning of an existing law, that is in this case, psychological incapacity
On [August 3, 1998,] Juanita Narzoles filed a MR with the NLRC after her complaint for illegal dismissal was initially dismissed by the Labor Arbiter.
On [September 1, 1998,] Circular No. 39-98 amended Section 4, Rule 65, which changed the rules for filing a Petition for Certiorari, introducing a requirement for a minimum of five days after the denial of a MR.
On [October 19, 1998], Juanita received the NLRC Resolution denying her MR. She filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals on December 17, 1998, which was beyond the deadline set by Circular No. 39-98.
While Juanita’s petition was pending, A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC took effect on September 1, 2000, reverting Section 4, Rule 65 to the previous rule, allowing a fresh sixty-day period for filing a Petition for Certiorari if a Motion for Reconsideration was filed and denied.
The Court of Appeals dismissed Juanita’s Petition for Certiorari as it was filed late according to the rules in effect at the time.
Should A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC, which took effect on September 1, 2000, be applied retroactively to Juanita Narzoles’ case?
Aug 3 - MR filed (Fresh Period 60days for R65)
Sept 1 - Denial of MR; [a] remaining period for R65 [b] or 5 days in any event (Circ. # 39-98)
Oct 19 - MR denied
Dec 17 - R65 filed
Dec 17, 1988 - R65 denied
Sept 1, 2000 - Fresh Period Rule took effect (A.M. No. 00-2-03-SC)
In short, the filing of the petition for certiorari in this Court on 17 December 1998 is deemed to be timely, the same having been made within the 60-day period provided under the curative Resolution. We reach this conclusion bearing in mind that the substantive aspects of this case involves the rights and benefits, even the livelihood, of petitioner-employees.
Narzolez v. NLRC
On May 15, 1985, Ortigas & Company sold a parcel of land to Emilia Hermoso under a contract of sale. The contract explicitly stated that the subject lot could only be used for residential purposes, a restriction that was annotated on Hermoso’s title. Several years later, on October 10, 1992, the Metropolitan Manila Commission (now Metropolitan Manila Development Authority) passed an ordinance reclassifying portions of Ortigas Avenue, where Hermoso’s lot was located, into a commercial zone.
In 1996, Hermoso leased the property to Ismael Mathay III. The lease contract did not specify the use of the property. Mathay then constructed a commercial building on the lot, which was used as an office for a car sales company. Ortigas & Company filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Hermoso and Mathay, seeking the demolition of the building for violating the residential-use restriction.
Argue for Ortigas Co. and
Argue for Hermosa
[Ortigas Co.]
Generally, laws are not be applied prospectively however the exception provided are among the 5. In this case however, for the ordinance to take precedence over the contract would violate the constitutional right of Non-impairment of Contracts (Sec. 10, Art. 3, 1987 Constitution).
[Hermosa]
While it is a constitutional right that there be no law impairing the obligation of contracts, the exception to this non-impairment is when the law is a valid exercise of police power which will take precedence to contracts created prior to its enactment (therefore retroactively apply) as illustrated in the case of Ortigas Co v. CA
Article 5 of the NCC
Acts executed against the provisions of MANDATORY [or] PROHIBITORY laws shall be VOID, except when the law itself authorizes their validity
ex
- entering into a contract of same sex marriage
- contract of sale of drugs
Exc of Art. 5
- if the law considers the act VOIDABLE
- law itself provides that it be VALID but subjects the wrongdoer to criminal liability
- Law provides that the act if void, but recognizes some legal effects flowing therefrom.
- law provides for its VALIDITY but generally it would have been void
Ex
(1) - 18 & 21 got married w/o parental consent - voidable
(2) impostor priest celebrating a marriage of man & woman who are in good faith subjects impostor to criminal liabliity and the marriage VALID
(3) - Marriage where both are psychologically incapacitated is void but under Art. 54 FC, children conceived before judgment of nullity is final & executory are considered legitimate
foreigner buys land in Phil, contrary to rule foreigners cannot own, but in turn, sells it to a Filipino curing the defect
(4) BWS is valid, although killing is generally void.
Article 6 of the NCC
Rights may be waived,
- unless waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs, (Cui v. Arellano Uni)
[or]
- prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law. (Art. 1052 CC - Heir may waive his right but no effect if it prejudices the rights of his creditors
example of rights which may not be waived
right to receive future support from parents
right to future inheritance
Art 7
Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones [and] their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by [dcp] disuse, customs, or practice to the contrary
When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter govern.
Administrative or Executive Acts, Orders, or Regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the [laws or the Constitution].
What is the effect of a repealing law to the repealed law
GEN: the later law prevails over the prior law, as the later one expresses the latest legislative will
Repeal Exc
Rule when former and the new law are of DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATION
TN: GEN rule: Gen law repeals Gen law and Spl repeals Spl
EXC
- GEN then SPL: no repeal on GEN & SPL function as the GEN’s exception
- SPL then GEN: SPL remains unless:
a. express declaration to the contrary
b. irreconcilable conflict
c. GEN law covers whole subj [and] clearly intends to replace special law
Laguna Lake Development Authority (LLDA) v. CA, the LLDA was established by Republic Act No. 4850, enacted on June 18, 1966, which granted it exclusive jurisdiction to issue permits for fishpens and other aquaculture structures.
However, with the enactment of the Local Government Code (LGC), or Republic Act No. 7160, on October 10, 1991, municipalities in the Laguna Lake area interpreted this new law as granting them exclusive authority to issue fishing privileges within their municipal waters.
Does the enactment of the Local Government Code in 1991 repeal the provisions of the LLDA’s charter in 1966?
No, the enactment of the LGC does not repeal the LLDA’s charter of 1966
the LGC is a general law and the charter of LLDA is a special law. The general rule when a Special Law is enacted followed by a subsequent General Lawis that the Special Law remains valid unless:
a. there is an express declaration to the contrary
b. there is irreconcilable conflict
c. that the General Law clearly intends to repeal the Special law as it covers the entire subject
effect of repeal insofar as the repealed law is concerned
The repealed law does NOT render the previous law inoperative [nor] does it NOT undo effect prior to repeal unless a penal laws if repeal is TOTAL & ABSOLUTE
operative fact!
TN: a repealing law is a LAW therefore it should be prospective in application.
Art 7 > General Effect rule on Prospectivity > exceptions
LB
Penal laws if repeal is absolute & total (Pp v. Pimentel)
Art 7 > General Effect rule
> Exc: penal laws when repeal is total absolute > > exception to that exc?
- Repealing law provides for a SAVING/transitory CLAUSE
(Buscayno v. Military Commission) - repealing law reenacts the repealed statute (US v. Cuna) [reiterates]
TN:[2]
The repealing law on illegal drugs simply reiterated that the act was a crime and adjusted the types of penalties or clarify the scope of prohibited activities, but the intent is still to penalize those who commit drug-related crimes.
When is there IMPLIED repeal?
There is implied repeal when the provisions of the LATTER law are IRRECONCILABLY INCONSISTENT with the provisions of the former law.
Effects if the Repealing law is itself repealed
- If repealing law expressly repeals the prior law [and] repealing law is in itself repealed
- the 1st repealed shall not be revived [unless otherwise provided] - If the repeal of a law happens by implication and the repealing law is subsequently repealed, the first law is revived [unless] the language of the new repealing law specifically indicates otherwise.
TN(2)
- repeal by implicaton is by irreconcilable conflict
General Rule when a law is declared unconstitutional by the court
- orthodox view - void from the beginning [and] created no obligations nor conferred any rights nor creates office
- operative fact doctrine - confers rights, creates obligation even when later declared unconstitutional that should still be respected during its existence and effectivity
(“De Agbayani”) secured a loan from the Philippine National Bank (“PNB”) in 1944, backed by a Real Estate Mortgage on his property. The loan matured on July 19, 1944. De Agbayani defaulted on the loan payments, and on July 13, 1959, PNB initiated extra-judicial foreclosure proceedings against him.
De Agbayani’s defense was that the claim was barred by the 15-year prescriptive period for foreclosure actions, which he argued had elapsed by the time PNB filed the case. He contended that the 15 years had passed from the date of the loan’s maturity to the filing of the foreclosure.
However, during the period from March 10, 1945, to May 18, 1953, Executive Order No. 32 (The Moratorium Law) was in effect. This law temporarily suspended the enforcement of financial obligations. The Moratorium Law was later declared unconstitutional.
PNB argued that the period covered by the Moratorium Law should be excluded from the computation of the 15-year prescription period.
Issue:
Is PNB’s foreclosure claim barred by the prescription period, considering the time covered by the Moratorium Law?
No, PNB’s claim is not barred by the prescriptive period
In the case of De Agbayani v. PNB, the court recognized the operative fact doctrine where Moratorium Law which suspended obligations and prescriptive periods. The law was later declared unconstitutional however while it was still in force, the years it covered (8 years, 2mnths, 8 days) did not count in the toward the 15-year prescriptive period
Therefore, PNB can claim is not beyond the prescriptive period in spite of the total lapse of 15 years
it is established when a repealing law expressly repeals a prior law and later the repealing law is repealed, the 1st repealed law will not be revived unless otherwise provided
Q: what happens when a repealing statute is declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Law A (repealed) > Law B (repealing) > Law B declared unconsti > No Repeal but Operative Fact > Law A continues to have effect
the unconstitutional repealing statute shall have NO EFFECT of repealing a former statute. The prior law continues to remain in force
Article 8 of NCC
Judicial decisions applying [or] interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines
TN: not create otherwise it violates separation of powers
Article 9 of NCC
No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity, or inefficiency of the laws
Laws do not always answer all society’s problems. Nonetheless, in its absence or when it is inadequate, the court should:
- Customs
- Opinions from experts
- Decision from foreign courts
- analogous cases
Article 10 of the NCC
In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail
In the case of Karen E. Salvacion, a 12-year-old girl, she was kidnapped and raped multiple times by Greg Bartelli, an American tourist. After the trial court awarded damages to Karen and her parents, the China Banking Corporation refused to honor the writ of execution to release Bartelli’s dollar deposits, citing Section 113 of Central Bank Circular No. 960, which exempts foreign currency deposits from attachment or garnishment.
As the judge, how would you rule on the applicability of Section 113 in this case, considering the peculiar circumstances surrounding the crime and the need for justice for the victim? Would you uphold the bank’s refusal based on the law, or would you find the law inapplicable to ensure that the victim receives the damages awarded?
Citing Article 10 of the NCC which states that in case of doubt in the interpretation and application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right & justice to prevail. Therefore, to deny the writ of execution would do injustice to the Salvacion and open a door for evil to be evaded by mere flight to avoid jurisdictional persecution.
Furthermore, the intent & spirit of the lawmaking body of the Circular No. is to encourage & promote foreign investments. In this case, there is no such thing.
Therefore, I would have the account of the national garnished to satisfy the judgment.
Article 14 of NCC
Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon ALL who live or sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principles of PIL & treaty stipulations
Article 2 of RPC (as it is related to the Article 14 of NCC)
[Except] as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provision of this Code (RPC) shall be enforced-
- w/in Phil. archi, inc. its atmosphere, interior waters & maritime zone
- OUTSIDE Phil JD against those who:
a. commit an offense while on a Phil ship [or] airship
b. should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency…
c. connected w/ introduction of [b]
d. public officer/employee committing offense in exercise of their function
5. crime against national security [and] law of nations…
Explain w/ JP Subjective Territoriality Principle
TN: Phil adhere to two principles
In the case of Roger Tulin where his involvement in a qualified piracy which started in the Philippines and was involved when he was in Singapore. He raised the defense that the court has no JD over him as his involvement is beyond the territorial JD of the Philippines but the court ruled that it was a continuation of the entire criminal process
The country where the crime was started may have JD over the crime even if the crime was completed in another country.
Explain w/ JP Objective Territoriality Principle
The country who has TerJD is where the crime was completed even if it was started outside
US v. Bull
A foreign-registered ship, the Seafarer, entered the port of Manila while transporting cattle from a neighboring country. Upon inspection, it was found that the animals were subjected to inhumane conditions during the voyage. The ship’s captain, a foreign national, was charged under Philippine law for cruelty to animals. The captain contests the jurisdiction of the Philippine courts, arguing that his ship is registered in another country.
Issue: Can the Philippines prosecute a ship registered in a different country for crimes committed while in Philippine territorial waters?
Under the Objective Territoriality Principle Yes
The Philippines has jurisdiction over the crime because it was committed within its territorial waters, not necessarily due to a violation of international law. Under the principles of territoriality, the Philippines can prosecute crimes that occur within its jurisdiction, including those involving foreign-registered ships. The local law (Act No. 55, as amended) was applied in this case, as the offense occurred within the territorial limits of the Philippines.
Article 15 of the NCC
Laws relating to family rights & duties, or to the status, condition, and legal capacity
of the persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
Principle espouse by Article 15 w/ JP
Nationality Principle
Exc to Art. 15 specifically on legal status
- Capacity to acquire, encumber, assign, dmeote, or sell property - lex rei sitae (Art. 16)
- Capacity to succeed or inherit - national law of the decedent (Art. 1039 CC)
- Capacity to marry - lex loci celebracionis
- [exc-exc] Art. 35(1, 4, 5), 36, 37, 38 (Art. 26 FC) - capacity to make a will (lex nationalii, lex loci celebracionis) (Art. 17 & 815) - concerns w/ extrinsic validity of wills
- against public policy [such an all encompassing of national laws] (Del Socorro vs. Van Wilsen)
[5] - no obligation to support the child after divorce but this is against public policy
3 Consecutive Phases involved in the judicial resolution of conflict of laws problem
- JD
- Choice of Law
- Recognition & Enforcement of Judgments
Nippon Engineering v. Kitamura case question
2019 case of angelita and
marriage solemnize in germany between 2 naturalized german citizens
action for nullity of marriage, being foreigners now, they are governed by their national law
she cannot abaila of the ground of psyc incapacity being german cetizen,
key ruling: foreign citizen > action in philippines for marriage > grounds must be on the gorund of your new national law
can foreign husband file action for nulltiy of marriage in phil court using phil grounds?
instead of applying national theory like in the previosue question (keppel) , the SC ruled that issues relating to marriage, validity, absence of requireistis and ground for dissolution, shall be governed by lex loci celebracionis - valid marraige abraod is valid in the phil (exc. 36, 37, 38)
CONFLICT OF LAW RULE IN MARRIAGE IS ART. 17 (LEX LOCI CELEBRACIONIS)
because it was celebrated in philippines, the grounds of psych incapcity can be invoke by a foreigner. THIS IS CONTRARY TO THE KEPPEL CASE where he was not allowed to avail of psych incapcaity.
ambrose (2021)
A Filipino woman, Maria, sues her Dutch ex-husband, Jan, for failing to provide financial support for their minor child under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act (Anti-VAWC). Maria and Jan married in the Netherlands in 1990 and had a child in 1994. They divorced in 1995.
In 2009, Maria demanded financial support from Jan via a letter, but he refused to comply, arguing that his Dutch national law does not require him to provide support. Maria contends that, according to Philippine law, he has an obligation to support their child.
ISSUE:
Can Jan be compelled to provide financial support for his child under Philippine law, despite his national law stating otherwise?
Yes, the national can be compelled to provide financial support for his child under Philippine law.
While the Nationality Principle is upheld, the national must allege and prove that in the Netherland law, there is no obligation to support such a child and failure to do such will trigger the Doctrine of Processual Presumption which means that Philippine laws will apply.
Hypothetically the national proves sufficiently that his country do not impose obligation to support their children, such a thing contrary to public policy.
IOW, the Exception to Nationality Principle includes processual presumption and public policy
distinguish keppel’s case (2019) and ambrose casee (2021)
ambrose is more consistent with the doctirnes and provisions of the law.
BXTA AMRBOSE IS THE CONTROLLING
Art. 16 of NCC
real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated
however, intestate and testamentary succession, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.
allison gibbs v. gov’t phil
not succession
art 16 par. 2 does not apply. par. 1 does
Latin maxim espoused in Art. 16
Lex Rei Sitae (law of the country where the property is located) shall apply
Matters governed by Lex Rei Sitae
- Formalities of the contract involving property
- Capacity of Contracting Parties
- Intrinsic Validity
- Conveyances, prescription, easements, eminent domain, accession, registration, title, possession
EXC. to matters governed by Lex Rei Sitae (Art. 16)
- order of succession
- amount of succession right
- intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions
TN (1):
- Art. 15 will apply, not 16
Order of Succession - who should inherit first
Amount of Succession Rights - how much is one entitled to inherit
Intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions
David and Leticia Noveras, married in the Philippines, later became U.S. citizens and acquired properties in both the Philippines and California. After a divorce granted in California, Leticia sought judicial separation of their Philippine properties. The Regional Trial Court of the Philippines awarded the Philippine properties to David, while the Court of Appeals modified this to an equal division of the Philippine assets and required payment to their children.
David argues that the California court’s decision, which awarded the Philippine properties to him, should be recognized by the Philippine courts. He contends that the Philippine courts have jurisdiction over the U.S. properties as well.
ISSUE:
Does the Philippine court have jurisdiction to rule over properties located in California?
No, Philippines do not have jurisdiction to rule over properties in California
Espoused in Article 16 of the Civil Code provides that real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated.
When A and B enters into a contract involving the design of A’s house because B is an interior designer. The contract is entered into in Japan and the property is in the Philippines. In Japan, 15 years old may validly enter into a contract. But in the Philippines, a person should be 18 years old.
Is the contract valid?
Yes, the contract is valid.
The contract is an ordinary contract and not a property contract: the property here is only incidental to the contract of service.
Thus the rule governing is Art. 15. (nationality principle) so the age of the designer does not invalidate the contract.
When does a conflict of law arise w/ Art. 16?
- When there is a dispute over the title (ownership) or possession of an immovable
- When a foreign law is at conflict w/ domestic law insofar as ownership & disposition is concerned
In the case of Laurel v. Garcia re: the property given by Japan, Art. 16 does not apply as there is no conflict of the law to begin with—the property already belonged to someone and that was the RP
Facts:
Shigekane Suzuki, a Japanese citizen, purchased a condominium unit and parking slot in Mandaluyong City from Yung Sam Kang, a Korean. Despite Suzuki’s payment and possession, Kang did not deliver the titles. Suzuki later discovered that Orion Savings Bank held the titles due to a dacion en pago arrangement with Kang. Orion claimed the sale was invalid under Korean law, which requires both spouses’ consent for the conveyance of conjugal property.
Issue:
Is the sale between Suzuki and Kang void under Korean law because it lacked the consent of both spouses?
The sale between Suzuki and Kang is valid.
Article 16 of the Civil Code governs, stating that real and personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated. Therefore, the claim that the sale was invalid due to a lack of consent from Kang’s spouse under Korean law is immaterial in this case. The Philippine law applies, and the sale is valid under Philippine law.
Matters concerning title & possession shall be governed by Philippine law
Matters concerning conjugal nature of the property shall be governed by South Korean Law (provided that it is alleged and proved)
knowledge check: how to prove a foreign law? LB
Party invoking must present a copy thereof & comply with Sec 24 & 25 of Rule 132 of the RoC.
- Includes proof of official record authenticated by the seal of his office
Rule on Ordinary Contracts
Capacity - Art. 15
Extrinsic Validity - Art. 17
where property is merely incidental - Capacity = Art. 15
Formalities = Art. 17
What is the RULE if the contract involves property as the subject of the contract
Article 16 (Lex Rei Sitae)
A property located in a foreign country was ceded to the Philippine government as compensation for war damages. The government later planned to sell this property, with the proceeds intended for a national program. However, objections were raised, arguing that the property is part of the public domain and cannot be sold.
Which rule of law will govern in this case?
There is no conflict of laws as the ownership with the RP. However because of the nature is of public dominion, it cannot be dispensed without a law authorizing the same
Laurel v. Garcia
Article 17 of NCC
The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed
When it is executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the RP in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Phil Law shall be observed in their execution
Prohibitive laws shall NOT be rendered ineffective by (foreign) laws or (foreign) judgments promulgated in a foreign country
emphasis mine
latin maxim espouse by art. 17
lex loci celebracoinis
Exception of Art. 17
- formalities for acquisition/disposition of property - lex rei sitae (art. 16) [Republic v. SB]
TN: contract not invalidated because of no witnesses
lex loci celebraciones applies only insofar as the **extrinsic validity of contracts, forms and solemnities which are :
- whether contract is in writing/verbal
- whether it should be notarized
- Whether it be witnessed by a number of witnesses
Art. 17 applies exclusively to the extrinsic and NOT intrinsic (substantive aspect of the contract)
what are the intrinsic aspects of contracts
[ties]
- effect
- terms and conditions
- interpretation
- subject matter
what law governs the intrinsic aspect of a contract?
Liberality
exc when against public policy
RE: conflict of laws due to liberality, intrinsic validity of contracts shall be governed by
IOW
Intrinsic Validity > Liberality > Conflict of Law > How to Determine which law governs
- lex loci voluntatis or agreed law by parties (choice of law clause)
- lex loci intentionis or various components of contract like parties, where performed, etc. (most significant relationship theory)
- law of the country where the contract is likely to be upheld as VALID
When answering the question “Is the contract valid?”, there are various components to consider because the ‘Validity’ of the contract (as a whole) may refer to various component parts which are governed by various laws
Valid as to the:
1 Negotiation
2 Perfection
3 Execution
applying the previous question on the validity of contracts by its component parts. what codal provisions to apply for
[A] Ordinary Contracts/ Property Incidentally
[B] Involving Property
[A]
15 & 17
[B]
16
SEPT 9, 2024
same sex marriage in Ukraine. bought insurance in Phil. other spouse died.
insurance already state that it is payable to surviving lawful spouse
can the spouse claim insurance of the life insurance policy as a lawful spouse in Philippines?
Yes, the same sex marriage is recognized as the Nationality Princple
Girl underwent gender reassignment which was recognized in Ukraine and became a guy
wnet to philippines and got raped.
trish became a man in another country. was raped by eman in philippines.
is eman liable for rape my carnal knowledge?
No, as trish is already a man and
Explain the problem of Renvoi
When there is a conflict of law what we first do is
1. In solving such, we refer to the laws of the foreign country
2. Determine their particular national law [and] their conflict of laws
3. If their conflict of laws is the same such that their legal system provides that they should refer to the country in resolving the issue, then there arises the problem of Renvoi
- Philippine Forum may either reject or accept.
FC > Reject the Return > Apply Internal Law of FC
Forum > Accept the Return > Apply Internal Law of Forum
as illustrated in the case of Christensen v Aznar-Garcia where the problem of Renvoi was settled with the Philippine court reject the referring back & apply the internal law of the country (in this case, the internal law of California provides that it should use Philippine law)
Problem of Renvoi > Reject & Apply Foreign Law > What is the EXC provided for in the Application of Foreign Laws?
Provided in Art. 17 par. (3) CC
Prohibitive laws concerning:
- persons
- their acts or property & those which
- have for their object public order, p.policy & good customs
shall NOT be rendered ineffective by (foreign) laws or (foreign) judgments promulgated [or] by determinations [or] conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.
TN: emphasis is mine
as illustrated in the case of support Socorro v. Van Wilsen
Facts: Alice Reyes Van Dorn and Richard Upton, both Filipinos, were married in Nevada, USA. After living together in the Philippines, they obtained a divorce in Nevada. Following the divorce, Upton filed a civil action in the Philippines, claiming rights over the Galleon Shope, which Van Dorn operated, arguing that it was conjugal property and he had the right to manage it.
Issue: Did Richard Upton have a legal right to claim management of the Galleon Shope despite the Nevada divorce decree
No, Richard Upton has no legal right to claim management of the Galleon Shope precisely due to the severed marriage ties in the Nevada Divorce Decree
While both are Filipino and the rule of Art. 15 should be governed for Filipinos even abroad, Art. 17 is an exception to the rule such that legal status is governed by the place where the marriage is celebrated as espoused in the latin term lex loci celebracionis
Therefore, he has no standing to sue
LB Van Dorn v. Hon. Romillo
acts: Imelda Manalaysay Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, was married to Erich Geiling, a German national, in Germany. They were divorced in Germany. Subsequently, Geiling filed two adultery complaints against Pilapil in the Philippines. Pilapil moved to quash the complaints, arguing that Geiling, having obtained a divorce, no longer had the legal standing to file the complaints.
Issue: Did Erich Geiling have the legal capacity to sue for adultery after obtaining a divorce in Germany?
No, Geiling no longer has the legal capacity to sue for adulter by virtue of the divorce decree.
Provided in the RPC on Adultery, the party must be the offended spouse and because of the divorce decree, the ties between Pilapil and Geiling are severed insofar as their marital status is concerned
Therefore, Geiling has no legal standing to sue.
SC interpretated that marriage is for homosexual. Lucy and Lei marry.
Later, SC overturned its decision and ruled now that is for man and woman only. Lucy depressed died.
Lucy’s sister claimed to be the surviving heir and not Lei.
Who get to own Lucy’s Estate?
Operative Fact Doctrine
Vested Rights
Retroactivity of SC decisions only for the first time, if it changes doctrine en banc then it will not retroact since rights were vested.
Faith is married to Mark. Faith had same sex relations with Grace. SC rendered a decision interpreting of the family code to include homosexual marriages.
Faith relying on that doctrine contracted a 2nd marriage with Grace.
Mark filed criminal action for Bigamy. While pending, the SC overturned the doctrine promoting heterosexual marriages only.
Faith files motion to dismiss on the ground of that new doctrine.
What is the general rule of overturning an existing doctrine?
GEN: apply prospectively (Art. 4)
EXC. When the penal law is favorable to the accused
For this reason, the decision of the SC overturning en banc the ruling can be applied retroactively as it is penal in nature and favorable to the accused.
Law provides mistresses to inherent from their paramour
Mark died > Paramour law repealed saying it is against public morals.
Is paramour allowed to inherit?
No, operative fact doctrine does not apply because what takes place here is repeal. operative fact doctrine only applies to laws declared unconstitutional
A & B married > law passed entitling paramours to a portion of inheritance
B had an affair w/ C > C now entitled but also criminally liable for concubinage
Later, inheritance was declared unconstitutional.
B died > A filed case of concubinage
C argues that the Operative Fact Doctrine applies respecting the conferred rights of C to claim inheritance o B [and] she further argues the operative fact doctrine does not apply to her criminal liability
How will you advise?
Operative Fact Doctrine - Entitled to
Re: Publication which is controlling?
argue both ways
In the case of La Bugal-B’laan* 2004* the SC ruled en banc that once Congress provide for its immediate effectivity upon approval, it must be properly interpreted as coming into effect immediately upon its publication (Elmer Rabuya**)
In the case of Tanada v. Tuvera (1985) where the SC ruled en banc, publication is indispensable and Art. 3 of the NCC presupposes publication
how to determine if NEW DOCTRINE is prospectively applied?
explain using the case of Gaudan v. Degamo
Degamo relied on the Morales Case with the Condonation doctrine. This Doctrine was later abandoned on April 12, 2016 and shall apply prospectively.
Decision OVERTURNS previous doctrine: Prospective
Decision OVERTURNS [and] FAVORABLE to the accused:
retroactive(Elmer Rabuya)
Will operative fact work on doctrines overturned?
Yes, as illustrated in the case of degamo
Discuss the problem of renvoi using the case of
Christensen v. Aznar-Garcia
US Citizen Edward died bequeathing to Helen and Lucy
Helen argues that succession laws of the phil provide that illegitimate daughters must receive 1/2 of the share
Lucy argues based on the Philippine Civil Code Art. 16, order of succession, amount of successional rights is governed by the laws of the decedent (Edward being in California, California laws apply)
Helen argues based on the Californian Civil Code Art. 946 provides “If there is no law to the contrary, in the place where personal property is situated, it is deemed to follow the person of its owner, and is governed by the law of his domicile
thus the problem of renvoi
the philippine court (forum) may either ACCEPT or REJECT the referring back
to ACCEPT referring back & apply forum’s law
to REJECT the referring back & to apply law of foreign country
right of heir to receive in terms of succession (not the decedent)
Art. 1039Capacity to succeed is governed by the law of the nation of the decedent.
