PERSONS AND CIVIL PERSONALITY CASE DIGEST

Geluz v. CA, 2 SCRA 801

FACTS: Nita Villanueva & Antonio Geluz met in 1948 through Nitas aunt. In 1950, she got pregnant. To conceal her
pregnancy from her parents, she had an abortion. When they got married, she got pregnant again. Since she was an
employee of COMELEC & her pregnancy would be inconvenient to her, she had abortion in Oct 1953. She again became
pregnant after 2 years and had an abortion for the third and last time. The last abortion constituted the plaintiffs basis
in filling an action for award of damages. CA and trial court granted the award of damages.
ISSUE: W/N Geluz is entitled for damages
HELD: It is apparent that he consented to the previous abortions making his action questionable for why he only filed for
damages on his wifes third abortion. Also, SC held that the fetus wasnt born yet so it has no juridical personality. The
award for the death of a person does not cover the case of an unborn fetus that is not endowed with personality and
incapable of having rights and obligations.

CORPUZ v. TIROL STO. TOMAS AND THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
(G.R. No. 186571, 11 August 2010)
FACTS:
Petitioner Corpuz, a naturalized Canadian citizen married respondent Sto. Tomas but subsequently filed for divorce in
Canada which was granted by the Court Justice of Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Two years later, Corpuz fell in love with
another Filipina. He went to Civil Registry Office of Pasig City to register the Canadian divorce decree on his marriage
certificate with Sto. Tomas. However, despite the registration, an official of National Statistics Office informed Corpuz
that the former marriage still subsists under the Philippine law until there has been a judicial recognition of the
Canadian divorce decree by a competent judicial court in view of NSO Circular No. 4, series of 1982.
Consequently, he filed a petition for judicial recognition of foreign divorce and/or declaration of dissolution of marriage
with the RTC. However, the RTC denied the petition reasoning out that Corpuz cannot institute the action for judicial
recognition of the foreign divorce decree because he is a naturalized Canadian citizen. It was provided further that Sto.
Tomas was the proper party who can institute an action under the principle of Article 26 of the Family Code which
capacitates a Filipino citizen to remarry in case the alien spouse obtains a foreign divorce decree. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code grant aliens the right to institute a petition for judicial
recognition of a foreign divorce decree.
RESOLUTION:
No. The second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code bestows no rights in favor of aliens BUT the foreign divorce
decree obtained by such alien, may be proven in court and recognized according to our rules of evidence. Thus, it serves
as a presumptive evidence of right in favor of the alien, pursuant to Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court which
provides for the effect of foreign judgments.

Joaquin v. Navarro, 93 Phil 257
FACTS: During the battle of liberation of Manila on February 6, 1945, the following sought refuge on the ground floor of
German Club building: Joaquin Navarro Sr (70); Angela Joaquin (67); daughter Pilar (32-33); daughter Concepcion (23-
25); son Joaquin Natividad Jr (30); and wife of Jr Adela Conde (--). The building was set on fire and Japanese started
shooting the daughters who fell. Sr. decided to leave the building. His wife didnt want to leave so he left with his son,
Jr., and Jr.s wife and neighbor Francisco Lopez. As they came out, Jr. was hit and fell on the ground and rest lay flat on
the ground to avoid bullets. German Club collapsed trapping many people presumably including Angela Joaquin. Sr.,
Adela, and Francisco sought refuge in an air aid shelter where they hid for 3 days. On February 10, 1945, on their way to
St. Theresa Academy, they met Japanese patrols. Sr. and Adela were hit and killed. The trial court ruled that Angela
Joaquin outlived her son while CA ruled that son outlived his mother.
ISSUE: W/N the son/mother died first before the other.
[If the son died first, petitioner would reap the benefits of succession. If mother died first, respondent Antonio, son of Jr.
by his first marriage, would inherit]
HELD: Based on the story of Francisco Lopez, Jr. died before his mother did. This presumption was based on
speculations, not evidence. Gauged by the doctrine of preponderance of evidence on which civil cases are to be decided,
this inference should prevail. Evidence of survivorship may be direct, indirect, circumstantial or inferential.

Standard Oil v. Arenas, G.R. No. L-5921, July 25, 1911
FACTS: Standard Oil sued 5 debtors for payment, including appellant Vicente Villanueva who acted as surety to the loan.
CFI Manila ordered the defendants to pay jointly and severally to the plaintiffs. While the judgment was in the course of
execution, Elisa Villanueva, wife of Vicente, appealed and alleged that her husband was declared insane.
ISSUE: W/N suffering from monomania of wealth necessarily warrants the conclusion that the person does not have
capacity to act
HELD: Villanueva possess the capacity to act. No evidence that a person suffering from a monomania of wealth is really
insane and incapable of binding himself in a contract. Capacity to act must be presumed to attach to every person who
has not been previously declared to be incapable, and to continue until the contrary is proven
Mercado v. Espiritu, 37 Phil 215
FACTS: Margarita Espiritu died leaving a 48-hectare land. The plaintiffs alleged that they are the children and heirs of
Margarita and that defendant Luis Espiritu, brother of Margarita, induced and fraudulently succeeded in getting the
plaintiffs to sell their land for a sum of P400 as opposed to its original value. Hence, the plaintiffs sought to annul the
deed of sale and asserted that 2 of the 4 parties were minors. These two minors presented themselves to be of legal age
upon signing it and made a manifestation in front of notary public.
ISSUE: W/N the deed of sale is valid when the minors presented themselves to be of legal age
HELD: The contract is valid. They will not be permitted to excuse themselves from the fulfillment if the obligations
contracted by them.

Bambalan v. Maramba, 51 Phil 417
FACTS: Bambalans parents received a loan from marimba. When the father died, Bambalan was left as the sole heir of
his fathers estate. Maramba forced Bambalan, who was at that time a minor, to sell their land as payment for the loan.
Bambalan signed because he was forced to do so because they were threatening his mother with imprisonment.
Muerang and Maramba bought Bambalans 1
st
cedula to acknowledge the document
ISSUE: W/N the sale of land to Maramba was valid
HELD: The sale was void because he was a minor at the time of the execution. Doctrine of Mercado vs Espiritu is not
applicable because the plaintiff did not pretend to be of age, and the defendant knew him as a minor.

Braganza v. Villa-Abrille, 105 Phil 456
FACTS: Rosario Braganza and her sons loaned from De Villa Abrille P70,000 in Japanese war notes. They promised in
writing to pay him P10,000 + 2% per annum in legal currency of the Philippines in 2 years after cessation of war. Because
they havent paid, Abrille sued them. CFI Manila and CA held that they shall be liable to pay according to the contract
they signed. Braganza petitioned to review the decision of CA whereby they were ordered to pay Abrille P10,000 + 2%
interest, praying for consideration of the minority of her sons when they signed the contract.
ISSUE: W/N the sons who were 16 and 18 are bound by the contract of loan which they have signed
HELD: SC found Rosario will still be liable to pay her share in contract because the minority of her sons does not release
her from liability. She ordered to pay 1/3 of P10,000 + 2% interest. Minority is a personal defense to the children. In
order to hold a minor liable to the contract, the fraud must be actual and not constructive.


Martinez vs Martinez
GR No. 162084, June 28, 2005
FACTS:
Daniel Martinez Sr. and Natividad de Guzman-Martinez were the owners of a parcel of land. The former executed a last
will and testament directing the subdivision of the property into 3 lots bequeathed to each of his sons namely Rodolfo,
Manolo (designated as administrator of the estate), and Daniel Jr. In October 1997, Daniel Sr. died. Rodolfo then found
a deed of sale purportedly signed by his father on September 1996 where it appears that the land was sold to Manolo
and his wife Lucila and was also issued to them. Rodolfo filed a complaint against his brother Manolo and sister-in-law
Lucila for the annulment of the deed of sale and cancellation of the TCT. Spouses wrote Rodolfo demanding him to
vacate the property which the latter ignored and refused to do so. This prompted the spouses to file a complaint for
unlawful detainer against Rodolfo. This matter was referred to the barangay for conciliation and settlement but none
was reached. It was alleged in the position paper of the spouses that earnest efforts toward a compromise had been
made but the same proved futile.
ISSUE: WON spouses Martinez complied with the requirements of Art 151 of the Family Code.
HELD:
No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint that
earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but the same have failed.
Lucila Martinez, the respondents sister-in-law was one of the plaintiffs in the case at bar. The petitioner is not a
member of the same family as that of her deceased husband and the respondent. Her relationship with the respondent
is not one of those enumerated in Article 150. It should also be noted that the petitioners were able to comply with the
requirements of Article 151 because they alleged in their complaint that they had initiated a proceeding against the
respondent for unlawful detainer in the katarungan Pambarangay in compliance with PD1508 and that after due
proceedings, no amicable settlement was arrived at resulting in the barangay chairmans issuance of a certificate to file
action.

Wassmer v. Velez, 12 SCRA 648
FACTS: Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer applied for a marriage license on August 23, 1954. The wedding was to take
place on September 4, 1954. Two days before the wedding, Francisco left a note for Beatriz informing her that the
wedding will not push through because his mother opposed the union. The following day, he sent her another note
stating that the wedding will push through as planned. Francisco Velez never showed up and has not been heard since
then. Subsequently, Beatriz filed suit for damages.
ISSUE: WON Beatriz Wassmer has a right to claim for actual damages for breach of promise to marry?
HELD: Pursuant to Art 21 of the Civil Code, Yes. Beatriz Wassmer can claim for damages. While it is true that breach of
promise to marry is not actionable per se, the court reasoned that what Velez committed could hardly be described as a
simple breach of promise to marry. To leave the bride two days before the wedding, after making all the necessary
preparations, with no justifiable reason, is morally reprehensible. His behavior is verily against societys concept of good
morals and customs. Beatriz Wassmer can collect compensation for actual damages arising from Velez action.

Tanjanco v. CA
Facts:
Apolonio Trajanco courted Araceli Santos. Since he promised her marriage, she consented to his pleas for carnal
knowledge. As a result, she conceived a child, and due to her condition, she had to resign from her work. Because she
was unable to support herself and
the baby, and the Apolonio refused to marry her, she instituted an action for damages, compelling the defendant to
recognize the unborn child, pay her monthly support, plus P100,000 in moral and exemplary damages.

Issue:
Whether or not the acts of petitioner constitute seduction as contemplated in Art. 21.

Held:
No, it is not. Seduction is more than mere sexual intercourse or a breach of promise to marry. It connotes essentially the
idea of deceit, enticement superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman has
yielded. In this case, for 1 whole year, the woman maintained intimate sexual relations with the defendant, and such
conduct is incompatible with the idea of seduction. Plainly here there is voluntariness and mutual passion, for had the
plaintiff been deceived, she would not have again yielded to his embraces for a year.


De Jesus v. Syquia, 58 Phil 866
FACTS: Antonia Loanco de Jesus, 20 years old, and Cesar Syquia, 23 met in a barber shop where de Jesus worked as
cashier. They had a relationship and Antonia got pregnant with a baby boy. During her pregnancy, Syquia often visited
her. He even wrote a letter to a reverend father saying that he wanted his name to be given to the child. When he went
to Japan and China, he was writing letters to Antonia reminding her to keep herself in good condition so that their junior
would be strong. When she gave birth, Syquia took her and the child to live in a house in Manila where they lived as a
family for a year. She became pregnant again but Syquia left her to marry another woman. During the christening of the
child which Syquia arranged, he decided to give the child the name of Ismael Loanco instead of Cesar Syquia Jr.
ISSUE: W/N there would be damages for breach to marry and W/N Syquia is compelled to recognize Ismael Loanco as his
natural child
HELD: The letter written by Syquia to the Rev Fr serves as an admission of paternity and the other letters are sufficient
to connect the admission with the child carried by Antonia. P50.00 to ismael Loanco. The SC held that they agree with
the trial court in refusing to provide damages for breach of promise to marry since this has no standing in court.