My Law School Story: Case Digest Compilation of a Law Student 2022
Need a law book?
Click the links: Civil Code Volume 1 (Persons and Family Relations) by Paras
The Revised Penal Code Book 1 by Reyes
Note: You will be directed to an online store by clicking the links. If you want a personalized book, purchase it at the link above. You will also help me sustain my advocacies when you buy using the link (it's what they called affiliate marketing).
Introduction
Digesting a case is very time-consuming, especially when the cases assigned by the professors are more than 200 pages long. Yes, there are decisions of the Supreme Court that long because of the opinions of the bench. Sometimes the cases are long because of the history included when the case is novel or difficult to decide. I encountered long cases on the subject Philosophy of Law.
Check this out (to know how I digest cases).
The Cases Digested by Subject and Topic
Civil Law 1: Persons and Family Relations (PFR)
PFR was my favorite subject in the first few months of the semester because our professor was a great teacher (she's the Judge in Nabunturan, Davao), but things changed after some heartaches. PRF is too relatable that I cannot refuse to reminisce about the person I love (my first heartbreak), but let's move on. Thomas Edison said, " Genius is 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration."
The New Civil Code Book 1
Prelim Cases
Topic: Article 2. When Law Takes Effect
Tañada vs. Tuvera
G.R. No. L – 63915
April 24, 1985
THESIS STATEMENT
Publication of issuances of general application or those that affect the public is indispensable.
It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents.
FACTS
Tañada, et al. seek a writ of mandamus to compel the public officials, the respondents, to publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, letters of implementation, and administrative order.
The respondents, through the Solicitor General, have this case dismissed outright on the ground that the petitioners have no legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition.
Respondents further contend that publication in the Official Gazette is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their effectivity.
ISSUE
1. Whether or not the petitioners have the legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition.
2. Whether or not the publication of the laws in the Official Gazette an essential condition for their effectivity.
RULING
1. Yes. In the case of Severino vs. Governor General in 1910, the Court held that while the general rule is that “a writ of mandamus would be granted to a private individual only in those cases where he has some private or particular interest to be subserved, or some particular right to be protected, independent of that which he holds with the public at large,” and in the case Mithchell vs. Boardmen, 79 M.e., 469, to quote “it is for the public officers exclusively to apply for the writ when public rights are to be subserved”.
Nevertheless, “when the question is one of public right and the object of the mandamus is to procure the enforcement of public duty, the people are regarded as the real party in interest and he has any legal or special interest in the result, it being sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested in the execution of the laws [High, Extraordinary Legal Remedies, 3rd ed., sec. 431].
The Court recognized a private citizen’s legal personality. The right sought by the petitioners is a public right recognized by the fundamental law of the land.
2. Yes. The Court concluded that said Article 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law provides for its effectivity date.
Section 1 of Commonwealth Act 638 makes a list of what should be published in the Official Gazette: 1. all important legislative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the Congress of the Philippines; 2. All executive and administrative orders and proclamations, except such as have no general applicability; 3. Decisions or abstracts of decisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals as may be deemed by said courts of sufficient importance to be so published; 4. Such documents or classes of documents as may be required so to be published by law; and 5. Such determine from time to time to have general applicability and legal effect, or which he may authorize so to be published. …
In Peralta vs. COMELEC, Justice Claudio Teehankee said: In a time of proliferating decrees, orders and letter of instructions which all form part of the law of the land, the requirement of due process and the Rule of Law demand that the Official Gazette as the official government repository promulgate and publish the texts of all such decrees, orders and instructions so that the people may know where to obtain their official and specific contents.
The Court declared that presidential issuances of general application, which have not been published, shall have no force and effect.
The Court orders 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 force and effect.
Conflict of Laws
Aznar vs. Garcia
G.R. No. L-16749
FACTS
Edward E. Christensen executed a will in Manila on March 5, 1951. In the will, he declared that he has ONE (1) child, named MARIA LUCY CHRISTENSEN and that he has no living ascendants, and no descendants except Lucy. He gave a sum of money to Helen Christensen Garcia who is acknowledged by the court as her natural daughter.
In the final account and project of partition, Aznar (the executor), ratified the payment of only P3,600 to Helen Christensen Garcia. He also proposed that the residue of the estate be transferred to his daughter, Maria Lucy Christensen.
Garcia opposed to the approval of the project of partition. She filed various motions for reconsideration, but these were all denied, the reason of this appeal.
ISSUES
1. Whether or not the Philippine law should be applied in determining the successional rights.
RULING OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF DAVAO (lower courts today)
1. No. The successional rights and intrinsic validity of the provisions in his will are to be governed by the law of California, in accordance with which a testator has the right to dispose of his property in the way he desires, because the right of absolute dominion over his property is sacred and inviolable (In re McDaniel's Estate, 77 Cal. Appl. 2d 877, 176 P. 2d 952, and In re Kaufman, 117 Cal. 286, 49 Pac. 192, cited in page 179, Record on Appeal).
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT
1. Yes. The provisions of Article 946 of the Civil Code of California provides that...
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.
The existence of this provision is alleged in appellant's opposition and is not denied. We have checked it in the California Civil Code and it is there.
We therefore find that as the domicile of the deceased Christensen, a citizen of California, is the Philippines, the validity of the provisions of his will depriving his acknowledged natural child, the appellant, should be governed by the Philippine Law, the domicile, pursuant to Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California, not by the internal law of California..
WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby reversed and the case returned to the lower court with instructions that the partition be made as the Philippine law on succession provides. Judgment reversed, with costs against appellees.
Waiver of Rights
Ferrer vs. Diaz
G.R. No. 165300
April 23, 2010
FACTS
Petitioner Atty. Ferrer claimed that on May 7, 1999, the Diazes, as represented by their daughter Comandante through a Special Power of Attorney (SPA), obtained from him a loan of ₱1,118,228.00. The loan was secured by a Real Estate Mortgage Contract by way of second mortgage over Transfer Certificate of Title and a Promissory Note payable within six months or up to November 7, 1999. Comandante also issued to petitioner postdated checks to secure payment of said loan.
Petitioner further claimed that prior to this or on May 29, 1998, Comandante, for a valuable consideration of ₱600,000.00, which amount formed part of the above mentioned secured loan, executed in his favor an instrument entitled Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still Undivided),…
On the basis of said waiver, petitioner executed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim which he caused to be annotated at the back of TCT No. RT-6604 on May 26, 1999.
The Diazes, however, reneged on their obligation as the checks issued by Comandante were dishonored upon presentment. Despite repeated demands, said respondents still failed and refused to settle the loan. Thus, petitioner filed on September 29, 1999 a Complaint for Collection of Sum of Money Secured by Real Estate Mortgage Contract against the Diazes and Comandante docketed as Civil Case No. Q-99-38876 and raffled to Branch 224 of RTC, Quezon City.
Comandante claimed that petitioner and his wife, presented to her sometime in May 1998 a document denominated as Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interests Over a Real Property (Still Undivided) pertaining to a waiver of her hereditary share over her parents’ above mentioned property. Purportedly, the execution of said waiver was to secure Comandante’s loan with the couple which at that time had already ballooned to ₱600,000.00 due to interests.
A year later, the couple again required Comandante to sign the following documents: (1) a Real Estate Mortgage Contract over her parents’ property; and, (2) an undated Promissory Note, both corresponding to the amount of ₱1,118,228.00, which petitioner claimed to be the total amount of Comandante’s monetary obligation to him exclusive of charges and interests.
ISSUE
Whether or not Comandante’s waiver of hereditary rights valid?
RULING OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
Yes. The RTC rendered on June 14, 2001 a Summary Judgment in favor of petitioner, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, summary judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff and against defendants by:
a) ORDERING all defendants jointly and solidarily to pay plaintiff the sum of ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEEN THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED TWENTY EIGHT PESOS (₱1,118,228.00) which is blood money of plaintiff;
b) ORDERING the Honorable Registrar of Deeds of Quezon City that the rights and interest of the plaintiff over subject property be annotated at the back of T.C.T. No. N-209049;
c) SENTENCING all defendants to pay plaintiff’s expenses of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (₱10,000.00) and to pay the costs of suit.
RULING OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
No. In its Decision dated December 12, 2003, the CA declared Comandante’s waiver of hereditary rights null and void. However, it found the Real Estate Mortgage executed by Comandante on behalf of her parents as binding between the parties thereto.
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT
NO. In this case, there is no question that at the time of execution of Comandante’s Waiver of Hereditary Rights and Interest Over a Real Property (Still Undivided), succession to either of her parent’s properties has not yet been opened since both of them are still living. With respect to the other two requisites, both are likewise present considering that the property subject matter of Comandante’s waiver concededly forms part of the properties that she expect to inherit from her parents upon their death and, such expectancy of a right, as shown by the facts, is undoubtedly purely hereditary in nature.
Anent the validity and effectivity of petitioner’s adverse claim, it is provided in Section 70 of PD 1529, that it is necessary that the claimant has a right or interest in the registered land adverse to the registered owner and that it must arise subsequent to registration. Here, as no right or interest on the subject property flows from Comandante’s invalid waiver of hereditary rights upon petitioner, the latter is thus not entitled to the registration of his adverse claim. Therefore, petitioner’s adverse claim is without any basis and must consequently be adjudged invalid and ineffective and perforce be cancelled.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals dated December 12, 2003 insofar as it excluded the respondents Spouses Bienvenido Pangan and Elizabeth Pangan from among those solidarily liable to petitioner Atty. Pedro M. Ferrer, is AFFIRMED. The inscription of the adverse claim of petitioner Atty. Pedro M. Ferrer on T.C.T. No. N-209049 is hereby ordered CANCELLED. Insofar as its other aspects are concerned, the assailed Decision is SET ASIDE and VACATED. The case is REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 224 for further proceedings in accordance with this Decision.
Foreign Divorce
Fujiki vs. Marinay
June 26, 2013
FACTS
Petitioner Minoru Fujiki (Fujiki) is a Japanese national who married respondent Maria Paz Galela Marinay (Marinay) in the Philippines on 23 January 2004.
In 2008, Marinay met another Japanese, Shinichi Maekara (Maekara). Without the first marriage being dissolved, Marinay and Maekara were married on 15 May 2008 in Quezon City, Philippines.
In 2010, Fujiki helped Marinay obtain a judgment from a family court in Japan which declared the marriage between Marinay and Maekara void on the ground of bigamy.
On 14 January 2011, Fujiki filed a petition in the RTC entitled: "Judicial Recognition of Foreign Judgment (or Decree of Absolute Nullity of Marriage)." Fujiki prayed that (1) the Japanese Family Court judgment be recognized; (2) that the bigamous marriage between Marinay and Maekara be declared void ab initio under Articles 35(4) and 41 of the Family Code of the Philippines; and (3) for the RTC to direct the Local Civil Registrar of Quezon City to annotate the Japanese Family Court judgment on the Certificate of Marriage between Marinay and Maekara and to endorse such annotation to the Office of the Administrator and Civil Registrar General in the National Statistics Office (NSO)
ISSUES
(1) Whether the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC) is applicable.
(2) Whether a husband or wife of a prior marriage can file a petition to recognize a foreign judgment nullifying the subsequent marriage between his or her spouse and a foreign citizen on the ground of bigamy.
(3) Whether the Regional Trial Court can recognize the foreign judgment in a proceeding for cancellation or correction of entries in the Civil Registry under Rule 108 of the Rules of Court.
RULING OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
1. Yes. The RTC ruled, without further explanation, that the petition was in "gross violation" of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC)
2. No. …the RTC resolved to deny petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. In its Resolution, the RTC stated that A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC applies because the petitioner, in effect, prays for a decree of absolute nullity of marriage.
3. No. The RTC further justified its motu proprio dismissal of the petition based on Braza v. The City Civil Registrar of Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental. The Court in Braza ruled that "[i]n a special proceeding for correction of entry under Rule 108 (Cancellation or Correction of Entries in the Original Registry), the trial court has no jurisdiction to nullify marriages
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT
1. No. …this Court held that the rule in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC that only the husband or wife can file a declaration of nullity or annulment of marriage "does not apply if the reason behind the petition is bigamy."
2. Yes. Fujiki has the personality to file a petition to recognize the Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying the marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy because the judgment concerns his civil status as married to Marinay. Rule 108, Section 1 of the Rules of Court states: Any person interested in any act, event, order or decree concerning the civil status of persons which has been recorded in the civil register, may file a verified petition for the cancellation or correction of any entry relating thereto, with the Regional Trial Court of the province where the corresponding civil registry is located. (Emphasis supplied)
3. Yes. For Philippine courts to recognize a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of a foreign country, the petitioner only needs to prove the foreign judgment as a fact under the Rules of Court.
There is therefore no reason to disallow Fujiki to simply prove as a fact the Japanese Family Court judgment nullifying the marriage between Marinay and Maekara on the ground of bigamy. While the Philippines has no divorce law, the Japanese Family Court judgment is fully consistent with Philippine public policy, as bigamous marriages are declared void from the beginning under Article 35(4) of the Family Code.
When the right of the spouse to protect his marriage is violated, the spouse is clearly an injured party and is therefore interested in the judgment of the suit.
It is an action for Philippine courts to recognize the effectivity of a foreign judgment, which presupposes a case which was already tried and decided under foreign law. The procedure in A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC does not apply in a petition to recognize a foreign judgment annulling a bigamous marriage where one of the parties is a citizen of the foreign country. Neither can R.A. No. 8369 define the jurisdiction of the foreign court.
Philippine courts are limited to the question of whether to extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines. In a foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage involving a citizen of a foreign country, Philippine courts only decide whether to extend its effect to the Filipino party, under the rule of lex nationalii expressed in Article 15 of the Civil Code.
