1

76. Yon Mitori International Industries vs. Union violated the principle of abuse of rights as stated in
Bank of the Philippines Article 19 of the Civil Code.
78. Padillo v. Oropeza, G.R. No. 199338, 2013
Facts: Facts:
The Petitioner deposited 420,000.00 in Union Bank This case involves a petition for review on certiorari
through Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) Check. filed by Eleazar S. Padillo against Rural Bank of
The said check was drawn against the account of Angli Nabunturan, Inc. and Mark S. Oropeza. Padillo was
Lumber, one of Petitioner's alleged clients. employed by the Bank on October 1, 1977. In 2003,
When the Petitioner withdrew the said amount. The the Bank faced liquidity problems and took out
BPI Check was returned to Union Bank as the account retirement/insurance plans with Philam Life for its
against which it was drawn had been closed. It was employees in anticipation of possible closure. Padillo
then that Union Bank discovered that the Petitioner's was a beneficiary of the Philam Life Plan, which was
account had been mistakenly credited. The branch set to mature on July 11, 2009. In 2004, Oropeza took
manager of Union called the Petitioner to recover the over the management of the Bank and gradually
funds mistakenly released. However, the Petitioner rehabilitated it. In 2007, Padillo suffered a mild stroke
refused to return the funds, claiming that the BPI due to hypertension, which impaired his ability to
Check proceeded from a valid transaction between work effectively.
Angli Lumber and Yon Mitori. Issue: The main issue raised in this case is whether
Issue: WON the gross negligence of the claimant will Padillo is entitled to retirement benefits after
bar him from recovering the amount erroneously voluntarily retiring from his position as SA Bookkeeper
given to the other. at the Bank.
RULING: No. The requisites for the application of the Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Padillo
principle of unjust enrichment are present in this case. and held that he is entitled to retirement benefits. The
Here, it was unequivocally established that the Supreme Court based its decision on the
Petitioner withdrew and utilized the proceeds of the interpretation of the retirement plan and the principle
BPI Check fully knowing that he was not entitled of social justice. The Court emphasized that
thereto. Thus, based on the principle of unjust retirement benefits are considered as deferred
enrichment, the Petitioner is bound to return the compensation for the employee's years of service and
proceeds of the BPI Check, which he had no right to should be given to the employee upon retirement.
receive. 79. Antonio Locsin II v. Mekeni Food Corporation,
77. St. Martin Polyclinic Inc. vs. LMV Construction G.R. No. 192105, December 9, 2013
Corp Facts: The case involves a dispute between Antonio
Facts: Locsin II (petitioner) and Mekeni Food Corporation
Petitioner is an accredited company authorized to (respondent) regarding the car plan agreement
conduct medical examinations on prospective between them. In February 2004, Mekeni offered
applicants for overseas employment while respondent Locsin the position of Regional Sales Manager and
is engaged in recruiting Filipino workers for included a car plan as part of his compensation
deployment to Saudi Arabia. package. Under the car plan, Locsin would pay half of
The respondent referred a prospective applicant the cost of the vehicle through salary deductions,
Raguindin for a pre-deployment medical examination while Mekeni would cover the other half. Locsin used
and was deemed “fit for employment” as evidenced a used Honda Civic car as his service vehicle, which he
by a medical report. He was then deployed to Saudi paid for through monthly deductions from his salary.
Arabia but purportedly tested positive for hepatitis C However, Locsin resigned in February 2006 and
virus thereby leading Raguindin’s repatriation. offered to purchase the service vehicle by paying the
Issue: WON the petitioner and the other defendants outstanding balance.
are liable for damages for their unjustifiable act of Issue: Whether Locsin is entitled to a refund of his
disconnecting the water supply without prior notice or payments under the car plan agreement.
warning Ruling: The Supreme Court held that Locsin is entitled
Ruling: The court ruled that the petitioner and the to a refund of his payments under the car plan
other defendants are solidarily liable for damages. The agreement. The Court emphasized that the service
court held that the petitioner's act of disconnecting vehicle provided by Mekeni was necessary for Locsin
the water supply without prior notice or warning, and to effectively perform his duties as an Area Sales
the subsequent failure to reconnect the water supply Manager. Without the service vehicle, Locsin would
despite the settlement of the delinquent account, have been at the mercy of inefficient public
transportation, which would have hindered his ability
2

to generate business for Mekeni. The Court also noted agreements are repugnant to sound morality, civic
that while Locsin was paying for half of the vehicle's honesty, and public policy, rendering them void.
value, Mekeni was reaping the full benefits from its
use. Therefore, it would be unfair to deny Locsin a 82. Ismael G. Lomarda and Crispina Raso, Petitioners,
refund of his contributions. vs. Engr. Elmer T. Fudalan, Bohol I Electric
80. Spouses Hing v. Choachuy, Sr., G.R. No. 179736, Cooperative, Inc., G.R. No. 246012, June 17, 2020
2013 Facts:
Facts: This case involves a petition for review on Respondent, Emetrio Cui, applied for electrical service
certiorari filed by spouses Bill and Victoria Hing against from BOHECO I Electric Cooperative Inc. (BOHECO I)
Alexander Choachuy, Sr. and Allan Choachuy. The through his wife, Alma Fudalan. Facing obstacles in
petitioners filed a complaint for injunction and obtaining a required certification from Raso, the
damages against the respondents, alleging that the Barangay Power Association (BAPA) Chairperson, Cui
respondents illegally installed video surveillance allowed his electrical line to be connected to BAPA
cameras and took pictures of their property without upon assurance by Sabino Albelda Sr., a BOHECO I
their consent, thereby violating their right to privacy. authorized electrician.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the petitioners' Issues:
application for a writ of preliminary injunction, which Whether petitioners, Raso and others, are liable under
was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA). The Article 21 of the Civil Code and entitled to an award of
CA, however, reversed its decision and annulled the damages.
writ of preliminary injunction. Ruling:
Issue: Whether there is a violation of the petitioners' Yes. Both the RTC and CA found Raso and others liable
right to privacy and whether the respondents are the for abuse of rights under Article 19, in relation to
proper parties to the suit. Article 21, of the Civil Code. Article 19 sets standards
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the for the exercise of rights, and Article 21 compensates
petitioners, stating that the right to privacy is for willful acts causing loss or injury contrary to
enshrined in the Constitution and in our laws. The morals, good customs, or public policy.
Court explained that the right to privacy is the right to Yes. Under the circumstances, Raso and others are
be let alone and includes the right to be free from held liable for damages under Article 19, in relation to
unwarranted exploitation of one's person or intrusion Article 21, of the Civil Code. These articles provide
into one's private activities. The Court also clarified judicially enforceable remedies for moral wrongs
that the right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil beyond what statutes specifically provide.
Code is not limited to residences but may extend to
places where an individual has the right to exclude. 83. Mary Elizabeth Mercado, vs. Rene V. Ongpin, G.R.
No. 207324 September 30, 2020
81. Cui vs. Arellano University [112 Phil 135] Facts:
Facts: Ongpin married Alma D. Mantaring in 1972 and later
Emetrio Cui, a law student at Arellano University, was obtained a divorce from her. He subsequently married
granted scholarship grants for scholastic merit. He Mercado in the United States, believing he was
signed a contract waiving his right to transfer to divorced from Mantaring. Ongpin later secured a
another school without refunding the equivalent of judicial declaration nullifying his marriage to
his scholarship. When he transferred to Abad Santos Mantaring. Mercado contested the nullity petition,
University, Arellano University refused to issue his claiming legitimacy under Article 26 of the Family
transcripts unless he repaid the amount refunded to Code. The RTC declared Ongpin and Mercado's
him. Cui paid under protest and sought to recover the marriage null and void and awarded damages. The CA
sum. granted Ongpin's appeal against the damages.
Issue: Issue:
Whether the provision in the contract, wherein the Whether Mary Elizabeth Mercado is entitled to moral
plaintiff waived his right to transfer without refunding and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.
the equivalent of his scholarships, is valid.
Ruling:
Held: No. The Supreme Court held that the mere act of
The provision is not valid. Arellano University's contracting a second marriage, despite the existence
contract violated established educational policies, as of a first marriage, is not automatically a ground for
scholarships are intended to recognize merit rather damages under Article 19 in relation to Article 20 or
than retain students for business purposes. Such Article 21. Damages are warranted when there is
3

deceit, fraud, willful, deliberate, and malicious acts handed schemes that unjustly limited the market
causing injury to the innocent spouse. Since Mercado coverage and diminished the market return for Jolly
failed to show such conduct by Ongpin, she is not Beverages.
entitled to moral and exemplary damages or
attorney's fees 86. Apolinario De La Cruz, Et Al., Vs. The City Fiscal,
84. Willaware Products Corp. v. Jesichris G.R. No. L-13354 December 29, 1959
Manufacturing Corp., G.R. No. 195549, 2014 Facts:
Facts: The case involves a complaint filed by Carmelita de la
Jesichris Manufacturing Company accused Willaware Cruz against Apolinario de la Cruz in the Court of First
Products Corporation of engaging in unfair Instance of Lingayen, Pangasinan.
competition by manufacturing and distributing plastic- Carmelita challenged Apolinario's adjudication of a
made automotive parts that were allegedly a land parcel left by Francisca Bandong, claiming it
deliberate copy of Jesichris' products, sold at lower belonged to her, as she inherited it from her father
prices to the same customers. Willaware denied the Ludovico de la Cruz.
allegations and argued that Jesichris had no exclusive Petitioners claimed that these civil cases constituted a
right over the products. The RTC ruled in favor of prejudicial question that warranted the criminal action
Jesichris, stating that Willaware invaded Jesichris' being held in abeyance.
rights through unfair competition, a decision affirmed Issue : Whether the pending civil cases for the
by the CA. annulment of the deed of adjudication and the deed
Issue: of donation constitute a prejudicial question that
Whether or not Willaware committed acts amounting would warrant the criminal action being held in
to unfair competition under Article 28 of the Civil abeyance.
Code. Ruling :
Ruling: The Court ruled that the pending civil cases do not
Yes, Willaware engaged in unfair competition under constitute a prejudicial question. The Court affirmed
Article 28 of the Civil Code by using unjust and the order of the trial court, which denied the petition
oppressive methods, including copying products, for prohibition. The City Fiscal was allowed to
employing former employees, and selling to the prosecute the criminal case and file the corresponding
competitor's customers. The actions were deemed information against the petitioners-appellants.
contrary to good conscience, establishing unfair The Court explained that a civil action is prejudicial
competition. when it refers to a fact separate and distinct from the
85. Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc vs. Spouses offense charged, yet so intimately related to it as to be
Jose R. Bernardo And Lilibeth R. Bernardo, Doing determinative of the guilt or innocence of the
Business Under The Name And Style "Joll Y Beverage accused. In this case, the civil action for the
Enterprises, G.R. No. 190667, Nov 07, 2016 annulment of the deed of adjudication is entirely
Facts: foreign and distinct from the investigation being
Jose and Lilibeth R. Bernardo, owners of Jolly conducted by the City Fiscal for falsification of a public
Beverages Enterprises, signed an exclusive three-year document.
contract with Coca-Cola Bottlers Phil. Inc. in 1994, 87 La Chemise Lacoste, S. A, Vs. Hon. Oscar C.
later extending it for two more years in 1997, with the Fernandez, G.R. No. L-63796-97 May 2, 1984
promise of further renewal. In 1999, Coca-Cola Facts:
requested a list of clients, assuring respondents of The petitioner, La Chemise Lacoste, S.A., a foreign
extended contracts; however, after submission, the corporation, filed a complaint with the National
promised renewal did not materialize. Post-contract Bureau of Investigation (NBI) against Hemandas for
expiration, it was discovered that Coca-Cola engaged unfair competition. The NBI conducted an
in unfair competition, contacting Jolly Beverages' investigation and filed two applications for search
clients, offering lower prices, and employing unjust warrants to search the premises of Lacoste Sports
schemes. The respondents filed claims for damages. Center and Games and Garments, both owned by
The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision. Hemandas.
Issue: The search warrants were issued, and various goods
Whether Coca-Cola is liable for damages for abuse of and articles were seized during the search. Hemandas
rights and unfair competition under the Civil Code. filed a motion to quash the search warrants, arguing
Ruling: that the trademarks used by him were different from
Yes, Coca-Cola is liable for damages. The Court found the petitioner's trademark and that any action should
that Coca-Cola engaged in oppressive and high-
4

be postponed until the resolution of a pending case possessors of a 30,835 sq. m. lot situated at Barrio
before the Patent Office. Longos, Malabon Rizal. They based their possession
Issue: on an Agreement to Sell executed in their favor by the
Did the respondent judge act with grave abuse of Land Tenure Administration.
discretion in reversing his own finding of probable Quiambao filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the
cause and in finding that the issuance of the search Agreement to Sell had been cancelled by the Land
warrants was premature? Authority. He also raised the pendency of an
Ruling: administrative case between the same parties and
The respondent judge did not act with grave abuse of involving the same land, which he claimed was a
discretion in recalling the search warrants. The court prejudicial question that should bar the ejectment
found that there was no probable cause to justify the case.
issuance of the search warrants. The trademarks used Issue:
by Hemandas were different from the petitioner's The main issue in this case is whether the
trademark, and there were pending cases before the administrative case between the parties constitutes a
Patent Office regarding the registration of the prejudicial question that would bar the ejectment
trademarks. case.
88 Leonilo C. Donato, Vs. Hon. Artemon D. Luna, G.R. Ruling:
No. L-53642 April 15, 1988 The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Quiambao and
the Land Authority. The Court held that while there is
Facts no technical prejudicial question since the actions
On January 23, 1979, the City Fiscal of Manila filed an involved are civil and administrative in character, there
information for bigamy against Leonilo C. Donato is an intimate correlation between the two
based on the complaint of Paz B. Abayan. proceedings.
On September 28, 1979, before Donato's arraignment, 90 Abacan, Jr. V. Northwestern University, Inc., 495
Abayan filed a civil action for declaration of nullity of Phil. 123 (2005)
her marriage with Donato, which was based on the FACTS:
ground that she had no previous knowledge that This case involves a dispute between two factions
Donato was already married. within Northwestern University, Inc. (NUI), the
Donato's answer in the civil case for nullity raised the "Castro" and the "Nicolas" factions, who both claim to
defense that his second marriage was void since it was be the legitimate board of the university.
solemnized without a marriage license and that In December 1996, the SEC authorized the "Castro
Abayan obtained his consent through deceit. Donato faction" and Metropolitan Bank (Metrobank) Laoag
filed a motion to suspend the proceedings in the City branch to withdraw funds from NUI's account
criminal case, arguing that the civil case raises a with the bank. The "Nicolas faction" then filed a
prejudicial question that must be resolved first. criminal complaint for estafa against the "Castro
Issue : faction .
Whether or not a criminal case for bigamy should be Petitioners argue that which is an action to nullify the
suspended due to a pending civil case for annulment election of the directors of NUI belonging to the
of marriage on the ground that the civil case "Castro faction," is a necessary and logical antecedent
constitutes a prejudicial question. of the issue of whether the withdrawal of P1.4 M or
Ruling : P1.6 M.
No, SC held that the issue before the Juvenile and ISSUE:
Domestic Relations Court regarding the nullity of the Whether there exist prejudicial question and the
second marriage is not determinative of Donato's guilt proceedings in Civil Case must be held in abeyance
or innocence in the crime of bigamy. The court ruled pending resolution of SEC Case No. 12-96-5469.
that a prejudicial question arises in a case when its Ruling :
resolution is a logical antecedent of the issue involved Yes, considering the rationale behind the principle of
in said case, and the cognizance of which pertains to prejudicial question, being to avoid two conflicting
another tribunal. decisions, prudence dictates that we apply the
89 Ricardo Quiambao, Vs. Hon. Adriano Osorio, G.R. principle underlying the doctrine to the case at bar. In
No. L-48157 March 16, 1988 the present case, the question of which between the
Facts: Castro and the Nicolas factions are the de jure board
Zenaida Gaza Buensucero, Justina Gaza Bernardo, and of directors of NUI is lodged before the SEC.
Felipe Gaza filed a complaint for forcible entry against
Ricardo Quiambao. They claimed to be the legitimate 91. Abacan, Jr. V. Northwestern University
5

Facts: 93.San Miguel Properties, Inc., Vs. Sec. Hernando B.

Northwestern University, Inc. (NUI) filed a complaint Perez
for damages against petitioners and employees of the Facts:
Castro faction, alleging that they took undue San Miguel Properties (SMP) purchased 130
advantage of their positions in Metrobank and residential lots from BF Homes Inc., but 20 of them
released P1.4 million corporate funds without NUI's were withheld due to BF Homes' refusal to deliver the
knowledge or approval. NUI claims the defendants TCTs. SMP filed a complaint-affidavit in the Office of
have not accounted for the amount. Petitioner the Prosecutor (OCP) of Las Pinas, charging BF Homes
Palanca filed a motion to dismiss, but the RTC denied with non-delivery of titles. SMP sued BF Homes for
it and ordered them to file their answer. Instead, they specific performance in the HLURB, seeking to release
filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition. the 20 TCTs in its favor. The OCP dismissed SMP's
Issues: criminal complaint, and the case was transferred to
The primordial issue for Our resolution is whether or the CA via Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus.
not the civil case for annulment of title and reversion
before the RTC constitutes a prejudicial question Issue: Whether the HLURB administrative case for
which would operate as a bar to the action for the specific performance could be a reason to suspend the
cancellation of IFPMA No. 21 proceedings on the criminal complaint for the
Ruling: violation of PD No. 957 on the ground of a prejudicial
Yes, The existence of a cause of action is determined question.
by the allegations in the complaint. In resolving a Ruling:
motion to dismiss based on the failure to state a cause YES, an action for specific performance, even if
of action, only the facts alleged must be considered. pending in the HLURB, an administrative agency, raises
The primary test is whether the complaint alleges a prejudicial question that must first be determined
facts that would justify the relief demanded. NUI has before the criminal case for violation of Sec. 25 of PD
alleged an undue withdrawal from its account with No. 957 could be resolved.
Metrobank.
92. Spouses Vicente Yu And Demetria Lee-Yu, Vs. Prejudicial question is that which arises in a case, the
Philippine Commercial International Bank resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue
Facts: involved in the criminal case, and the cognizance of
In 1995, Vicente Yu and Demetria Lee-Yu mortgaged which pertains to another tribunal. It is determinative
their land in Dagupan City to Philippine Commercial of the criminal case, but the jurisdiction to try and
International Bank as security for a loan. The bank resolve it is lodged in another court or tribunal. It is
failed to pay the loan, interests, and penalties, leading based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime
to an extra-judicial foreclosure of real estate. The but is so intimately connected with the crime that it
property was auctioned in 1998, and a Certificate of determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. The
Sale was issued in favor of the bank. The bank filed an rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is
Ex-Parte Petition for Writ of Possession, which was to avoid conflicting decisions.
later dismissed. The petitioners filed a Motion to 94. People Of The Philippines, Vs. Victoria R.
Dismiss and Strike Out testimony, arguing that the Arambulo
bank violated Article 2089 of the Civil Code in the Facts:
indivisibility of the mortgaged properties. The Victoria Arambulo, Gungab, Reynaldo, Domingo Reyes,
petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA Rodrigo Reyes, and Oscar Reyes are heirs of Sps Pedro
but were dismissed. The present petition for review Reyes and Anastacia Reyes. Anaped Estate, Inc.,
on Certiorari is filed. incorporated as part of the estate planning, filed a
Issue: Whether or not the pendency of a prejudicial complaint for estafa against Victoria and her husband
issue renders the issues in Special Proceedings No. Miguel Arambulo, Jr., claiming Victoria failed to remit
99-00988-D ( sic) moot & academic rentals. Respondents filed a motion to suspend
Ruling: Civil Case No. 999-01369-D and Special proceedings due to the pendency of two intra-
Proclamation No. 99-00988-D are civil cases, involving corporate cases pending before the RTC QC and
the nullity of extrajudicial foreclosure and public Makati. The respondents argued that the resolution of
auction sale of properties. The prejudicial question the SEC cases would result in their acquittal in the
principle prevents conflicting decisions, allowing two criminal case. The TC granted the motion and set the
cases to proceed independently and take their own case for pre-trial. The respondents appealed to the
direction. CA, which concluded that if Buban's authority is found
defective, the prosecution for estafa cannot prosper.
6

Issue: W/N there is a prejudicial question? Yes, in the abroad, Syquia wrote several letters to Antonia,
2nd SEC Case. expressing his paternal interest in the baby and
Ruling: Petitioner argues that any decision of the trial promising to return to them soon. The baby was born
court in the SEC cases with respect to the question of as expected, and Syquia made all necessary
who are the lawful officers or directors of Anaped is preparations for the birth. He provided a home for
not determinative of the liability of respondents to Antonia and the baby, where they lived together for
remit the rental collections in favor about a year. However, when Antonia became
95. People Of The Philippines, Vs. Camilo Camenforte pregnant again, Syquia abandoned them and married
And Robert Lastrilla another woman. This case involves an action filed by
Facts: Antonia Loanco de Jesus and her mother, Pilar
The controversy revolves around the sale of land Marque, on behalf of Antonia's children, Ismael and
owned by Aurora Granda, her spouse Rafael, and her Pacita Loanco, against Cesar Syquia. The plaintiffs
children, Silvina and Camenforte. After Aurora's death, sought to recover damages resulting from a breach of
Rafael filed a complaint for violating the Revised Penal a marriage promise, to compel Syquia to recognize
Code, alleging falsified signatures in the Deeds of Sale. Ismael and Pacita as his natural children, and to pay
The Uy siblings counter-affidavits showed they bought for their maintenance.
the properties. Benjamin and Blanquita Granda, the Issue: Whether or not the acknowledgement of
children of Aurora, filed a civil case against the Uy paternity by Syquia is sufficient under the law.
siblings, Silvia, and Lastrilla. The RTC dismissed the Ruling:
civil case, but the CA affirmed the trial court's Yes. The court held that the acknowledgement of
decision. The petitioner argues that the CA erred in paternity by Syquia was sufficient under the law and
denying the appeal on the grounds of res judicata and that Ismael Loanco had enjoyed uninterrupted
that the criminal cases should have proceeded despite possession of the status of a natural child. The court
the dismissal of the related civil case. acknowledgement of paternity required by the law
Issue: Whether Criminal Case Nos. 2008-03-109 to 111 can be satisfied by the production of mote than one
and 2001-07-482 to 484 on the ground of a prejudicial document of indubitable authenticity. In this case, the
question (under the Civil Case). note written by Syquia to the priest, along with the
Ruling: A prejudicial question is a legal issue that must letters he wrote to Antonia during her pregnancy,
precede a criminal action and requires a decision constituted sufficient acknowledgement of paternity.
before a final judgment is rendered in the principal 97 Antonio Geluz vs CA Gr No L-16439, July 20,
action with which it is closely connected. The 2000 1961
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure conceptualize the Facts:
doctrine of prejudicial question under Sections 6 and Nita Villanueva, pregnant before her marriage to
7, Rule 111. A petition for suspension of a criminal Oscar Lazo, had multiple abortions by physician
action based on the pendency of a prejudicial Antonio Geluz. In 1955, Villanueva had her third
question in a civil action can be filed in the abortion without Lazo's consent, resulting in a two-
prosecutor's office or the court conducting the month-old fetus. Lazo sued Geluz for damages,
preliminary investigation. The elements of a attorney's fees, and costs. The trial court ordered
prejudicial question include the issue in the civil action Geluz to pay, but the Court of Appeals upheld the
being similar or intimately related to the issue in the decision, leading to Geluz filing a petition for certiorari
criminal action, determining whether the criminal to the Supreme Court.
action may proceed. Issue: Whether or not the unborn child acquires a civil
96 Antonio L. De Jesus, Et. Al. vs Cesar Syquia personality.
G.R. No. L-39110, November 28, 1993 Ruling:
No, the unborn child did not acquire civil personality.
Facts: Article 40 of the Civil Code expressly limits the
provisional personality by imposing the condition that
Syquia, an unmarried man from a prominent family in the child should be subsequently born alive: “provided
Manila, had an affair with Antonia, who was working it be born later with the condition specified in the
as a cashier in a barber shop owned by Syquia's following article.” In this case, there is no dispute that
brother-in-law. Antonia became pregnant and gave the child was dead when separated from its mother’s
birth to a baby boy. Before leaving for a trip, Syquia womb.
wrote a note to the priest who would christen the 98 Carmen Quimiguing, suing through her
baby, stating that the baby due in June was his and he parents, Antonio Quimiguing and Jacoba Cabilin
wanted his name to be given to it. While he was vs Felix Icao, GR No. 26795, July 31, 1970
7

Facts: 100 Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation

The case involves Carmen Quimiguing, who sued Felix vs Hon. Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator,
Icao for support and damages. Carmen alleged that G.R. No. 182836, October 13, 2009
she and Icao were neighbors in Dapitan City and had a Facts:
close and confidential relationship. Despite Icao being The case involves Rolando P. Hortillano, an employee
married, he allegedly had non-consensual sexual of Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation
intercourse with Carmen multiple times, resulting in (CSMC), who sought bereavement leave and other
her pregnancy. Carmen claimed that she had to stop death benefits after the death of his unborn child.
studying as a result and sought support at P120.00 per Hortillano's wife was pregnant and their child died
month, damages, and attorney's fees. However, the during delivery. Hortillano filed a claim for the benefits
trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of provided under the Collective Bargaining Agreement
action since it did not allege that the child had been (CBA) between CSMC and the union. However, CSMC
born. denied his claim, arguing that the unborn child did not
have civil personality and therefore could not be
Issue: Whether or not Carmen’s complaint for support considered a dependent under the CBA.
and damages should be dismissed for lack of cause of Issue: Whether or not the unborn child of Hortillano
action due to the unborn status of the child. can be considered a dependent under the CBA and
Ruling: entitled to bereavement leave and other death
The Supreme Court overturned the trial court's benefits.
decision, asserting that the complaint should not have Ruling:
been dismissed. The ruling established that a The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hortillano and
conceived child, even in utero, possesses provisional held that the unborn child can be considered a
personality according to Article 40 of the Civil Code of dependent under the CBA. The Court emphasized that
the Philippines. Consequently, the unborn child is the rights to bereavement leave and other death
entitled to support from its parents, including the benefits pertain directly to the parents of the unborn
defendant. The court referred to Article 742, which child upon the child's death. The Court also pointed
permits donations for conceived and unborn children. out that the Civil Code does not explicitly state that
99 Angel T. Limjoco vs Intestate Estate of Pedro only those who have acquired juridical personality
O. Fragnante G.R. No. L-770, April 27, 1948 could die. Furthermore, the Court recognized that the
Facts: unborn child already has life, as recognized by the
Pedro O. Fragante applied for a certificate of public Constitution, and therefore the cessation of life, even
convenience to operate an ice plant, and the Public prior to delivery, qualifies as death.
Service Commission approved the application after
determining it was in the public interest. The
commission issued the certificate to the Intestate 101 Ramon Joaquin, vs. Antonio C. Navarro, G.R. No.
Estate of the deceased Pedro Fragante. The petitioner L-5426 May 29, 1953;
is challenging the decision, arguing that allowing the FACTS:
substitution of the legal representative for the During the battle for the liberation of Manila, the
deceased applicant and granting the certificate to the family sought refuge in the German Club building. The
estate are contrary to the law. The specific legal building was packed with refugees, shells were
grounds for the challenge are not provided, so a exploding, and the club was set on fire. The Japanese
detailed analysis is difficult without more information started shooting at the people inside the building,
on the relevant laws and regulations. especially those trying to escape. The three daughters
Issue: Whether or not the estate of Pedro O. Fragrante were hit and fell near the entrance. Joaquin Navarro
is a “person”. Sr. and his son decided to leave the building to seek
Ruling: safety, but Angela Joaquin refused to join them.
Yes. The SC cited the SC of Indiana which held the Joaquin Navarro Sr., his son Joaquin Navarro Jr.,
“The estate of the decedent is a person in legal Joaquin Navarro Jr.'s wife Adela Conde, and a friend
contemplation. The word “person” in its legal Francisco Lopez managed to escape the burning
signification, is a generic term, and includes artificial building. Joaquin Navarro Jr. was shot in the head by a
as well as natural persons.” Under the present legal Japanese soldier and died immediately. The others lay
system, such rights and obligations as survive after flat on the ground to avoid bullets. Minutes later, the
death have to be exercised and fulfilled only by the German Club collapsed, trapping many people inside,
estate of the deceased. including Angela Joaquin.
ISSUE:
8

The main issue in the case is whether Angela Joaquin The main issue in the case is whether Imelda's claim
de Navarro died before her son Joaquin Navarro Jr. or for death compensation benefits was filed within the
vice versa. allowable period of three years.
RULING: RULING:
The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Imelda and held
of Appeals, finding that Joaquin Navarro Jr. died that her claim for death compensation benefits was
before his mother Angela Joaquin de Navarro. The filed on time. The Court relied on Article 391 of the
Supreme Court held that the facts were sufficient to Civil Code, which provides that a person missing under
determine the sequence of deaths without relying on certain circumstances can only be presumed dead
the statutory presumption. The Court found that the after four years from the date of being declared
evidence, although indirect and circumstantial, missing.
supported the inference that Joaquin Navarro Jr. died
before his mother.
102 Estrellita Tadeo-Matias, Petitioner, vs. Republic 104 Alejandro Estrada, vs. Soledad S. Escritor, A.M.
Of The Philippines, G.R. No. 230751, April 25, 2018 No. P-02-1651, June 22, 2006
FACTS:
FACTS: This case involves a court interpreter, Soledad S.
This case involves a petition for the declaration of Escritor, who cohabited with Luciano Quilapio, Jr.
presumptive death filed by Estrellita Tadeo-Matias while still married to another person. The
before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tarlac City. complainant, Alejandro Estrada, wanted the court to
Tadeo-Matias sought the declaration of presumptive declare their relationship as immoral in accordance
death of her husband, Wilfredo Matias, who went with the Administrative Code. Escritor argued that
missing in 1979 while serving as a member of the their relationship was legitimized by signing a
Philippine Constabulary. Tadeo-Matias filed the Declaration Pledging Faithfulness, which is recognized
petition in order to claim financial benefits due to her by their religious sect, the Jehovah's Witnesses. The
as the spouse of a former military officer. case was initially heard in the lower court.
ISSUE: ISSUE:
Whether the Court of Appeals (CA) erred in annulling Whether Escritor's right to religious freedom should
the RTC's decision granting the petition for the be considered as an exception to the prevailing
declaration of presumptive death. jurisprudence on illicit relationships for government
RULING: employees.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court RULING:
of Appeals (CA) and held that the RTC erred in The Supreme Court decided to remand the case to the
granting the petition for the declaration of Office of the Court Administrator and ordered the
presumptive death. The CA was correct in setting Solicitor General to intervene. The court wanted to
aside the RTC's decision. examine the sincerity and centrality of Escritor's
103 religious belief, the state's compelling interest to
Imelda Pantollano vs. Korphil Ship Management And override her religious belief, and whether the means
Manning Corporation, G.R. No. 169575 March 30, adopted by the state is the least restrictive to her
2011 religious freedom. The case was set for rehearing.
FACTS:
The case involves a claim for death compensation 105 Leoncia Balogbog and Gaudioso Balogbog, vs.
benefits filed by Imelda Pantollano, the surviving Honorable Court Of Appeals, Ramonito Balogbog
spouse of Vedasto Pantollano, a missing seaman. And Generoso Balogbog, G.R. No. 83598 March 7,
Vedasto was hired by Korphil Shipmanagement and 1997
Manning Corporation as a 4th Engineer on board the FACTS:
vessel M/V Couper. On August 2, 1994, Vedasto went Petitioners Leoncia and Gaudioso Balogbog, siblings of
missing while on duty. A search and rescue operation Gavino, deny knowing the private respondents and
was conducted, but Vedasto was not found. On May argue that Gavino died single and without issue. The
29, 2000, Imelda filed a complaint before the National lower court ruled in favor of the private respondents,
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) seeking death declaring them as heirs entitled to inherit from their
benefits, damages, and attorney's fees. grandparents, Basilio and Genoveva Balogbog. The
ISSUE: court based its decision on the testimonial evidence
presented by the private respondents, which included
witnesses who testified to the marriage of Gavino and
9

Catalina, as well as their continuous possession of the and Prohibition under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of
status of legitimate children. Civil Procedure. His Petitionsought to “declare article 1
ISSUE: and 2 of the Family Code as unconstitutional and, as
The main issue raised in the case is whether private aconsequence, nullify Articles 46(4) and 55(6) of the
respondents have sufficiently proven their filiation as Family Code”.
legitimate children. Falcis claims that a resort to Rule 65 was appropriate
RULING: he claims that this Court should follow a “‘fresh’
The court ruled in favor of private respondents, approach to this Court’sjudicial power” and find that
affirming the decision of the lower court. The court his Petition pertains to a constitutional case attended
held that in the absence of records of birth, authentic by graveabuse of discretion. He also asserts that the
documents, final judgment, or possession of status, mere passage of the Family Code, with itsArticles 1
legitimate filiation may be proven by continuous and 2, was a prima facie case of grave abuse of
possession of the status of a legitimate child and by discretion, and that the issues heraised were of such
any other means allowed by the Rules of Court or transcendental importance as to warrant the setting
special laws. The court cited Articles 266 and 267 of aside of proceduralniceties.
the Civil Code, which provide for the proof of filiation ISSUE
through continuous possession of status and other Whether or not the right to marry and the right to
means allowed by law. choose whom to marry arecognates of the right to life
106 Jerrysus L. Tilar vs. Elizabeth A. Tilar And The and liberty.
Republic Of The Philippines RULING
R. No. 214529 July 12, 2017 Yes, from its plain text, the Constitution does not
define or restrict marriage on the basis ofsex, gender,
FACTS sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression.
The case involves a petition for declaration of nullity of However, the Court heldthat it does not have a
marriage filed by petitioner Jerrysus L. Tilar against his monopoly in assuring this freedom since not all
wife, Elizabeth A. Tilar, on the ground of psychological intimate relationshipsare the same and, therefore, fit
incapacity. The petitioner alleged that their marriage, into the rights and duties afforded by our laws to
which took place on June 29, 1996, in a Catholic maritalrelationships.
Church in Cebu, was marred by the respondent's
extreme jealousy, violence, and gambling habits. The 108 Silverio v. Republic, GR. No. 174689 (2007)
petitioner claimed that the respondent's psychological FACTS
incapacity made her unable to fulfill her essential Petitioner Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio filed a
marital obligations. petition for the change of his first nameand sex in his
The petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, birth certificate in the RTC of Manila, Branch 8.
which the RTC denied, reiterating its previous ruling. Alleging in his petition that heis a male transsexual,
ISSUE that is, "anatomically male but feels, thinks and acts as
Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the case for lack a female" andthat he had always identified himself
of jurisdiction over the subject matter, specifically the with girls since childhood. He underwent
validity of a church marriage. psychologicalexamination, hormone treatment, breast
RULING augmentation and sex reassignment surgery.
The Supreme Court granted the petition, ruling that Fromthen on, petitioner lived as female and was in
the RTC erred in dismissing the case for lack of fact engaged to be married. He then soughtto have his
jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that marriage is name in his birth certificate changed from Rommel
not only a civil contract but also a social institution Jacinto to Mely, and his sexfrom male to female
protected by the State. The Court stated that the CA rendered a decision in favor of the Republic:
Family Code governs the civil and legal consequences ISSUE
of marriage, even if it is considered a sacrament in the Whether or not a person born male would be entitled
Catholic Church. The Court held that the principle of to change of gender on thecivil registrar and
separation of Church and State does not apply in this afterwards be legally capacitated to enter into
case. marriage with another man.
107 Jesus Falcis III vs Civil Registrar General, RULING
GR. No. 217910 September 3, 2019 No. A person’s sex is an essential factor in marriage
FACTS and family relations. It is a part of aperson’s legal
On May 18, 2015, Jesus Nicardo M. Falcis III (Falcis) capacity and civil status. Although the petitioner may
filed pro se before this Court a Petitionfor Certiorari have succeeded inaltering his body and appearance
10

through the intervention of modern surgery, no Civil Code. The Supreme Court clarified that this five-
lawauthorizes the change of entry as to sex in the civil year period should be immediately preceding the day
registry for that reason. Thus, there is nolegal basis for of marriage, characterized by exclusivity and unbroken
his petition for the correction or change of the entries continuity.
in his birth certificate. 116. Leonila G. Santiago, Vs. People Of The
109 Republic vs. Cagandahan, GR. No. 166676, Philippines, G.R. No. 200233, July 15, 2015
September 12, 2008 FACTS:
FACTS Leonila Santiago faced a bigamy conviction for
Petitioner was born on January 1981 and was marrying Nicanor Santos while he was still married to
registered as a female in the birth certificate.While Estela Galang. Leonila claimed innocence, arguing she
growing up she developed secondary male was unaware of Santos's prior marriage and that their
characteristics and was diagnosed with Congenital marriage lacked a license, rendering it void. The trial
Adrenal Hyperplasia which is a condition where a court gave weight to Galang's testimony, asserting
person thus afflicted possessboth male and female Leonila knew about the prior marriage. The Court of
characteristics. While maturing it was the male Appeals concurred, dismissing the lack of a marriage
characteristics thatcontinued to develop and be license as an attempt to question the marriage's
pronounced and hence, he deposed himself as a male validity.
person.He now seeks to alter his name of Jennifer to ISSUE:
Jeff. Should the validity of the second marriage be proven
ISSUE before a conviction for bigamy
Whether or not the petition for the change of name RULING:
can be ALLOWED. Yes. For the accused to be convicted of bigamy, the
RULING second or subsequent marriagemust have all the
Respondent undisputedly has CAH which involves essential requisites for validity. While the accused can
intersex anatomy. The court is of the viewthat where challenge the marriage's nullity during the trial,
the person is biologically or naturally intersex, the Leonila's consistent questioning of the marriage's
determining factor in hisgender classification would be validity based on the absence of a license was not
what the individual, like respondent, having reached accepted. The Supreme Court found her attempt to
the ageof majority, with good reasons thinks of feign innocence contradictory, refusing to allow her to
his/her sex. Respondent here thinks of himself as exploit her illegal actions to evade criminal
amale and considering that his body produces high consequences.
levels of male hormones there ispreponderant
biological support for considering him as being male. 117. Rodolfo G. Navarro,Vs.Judge Hernando C.
The petition is granted. Domagtoy (A.M. No. Mtj-96-1088 July 19, 1996)
Facts:
115. Republic Of The Philippines, vs. Jose A. Dayot, Navarro, the Municipal Mayor of Dapa, accuses
G.R. No. 175581, March 28, 2008 Municipal Circuit Trial Court Judge Hernando
Facts: Domagtoy of gross misconduct, inefficiency, and
In 1986, Jose and Felisa's marriage at Pasay City Hall, ignorance of the law. The allegations involve the
based on a sworn affidavit, was challenged by Jose in solemnization of marriages, where the judge
1993, alleging coercion and fraud. Felisa defended overlooked the marital status of one party and
their union, claiming a prior relationship since 1980. exceeded his jurisdiction.
Despite earlier dismissal, the Court of Appeals in 2006 Issue:
declared their marriage void ab initio, stating it failed Whether the actions of the respondent judge
the requirement of living together for five years before demonstrate gross misconduct, inefficiency, and
marriage. ignorance of the law.
Issue: Ruling:
Is the marriage of Jose Pascual and Felisa valid? In the first case, the judge erred by accepting an
Held: affidavit instead of requiring a judicial declaration,
No, the marriage of Jose Pascual and Felisa was leading to a void marriage. Additionally, he lacked
declared void ab initio by the Court of Appeals on authority to solemnize a marriage outside his
November 7, 2006, and this decision was affirmed. jurisdiction. The judge's misapplication of legal
Upon review, it was found that they did not meet the principles indicates gross ignorance of the law,
requirement of living together for at least five years resulting in a six-month suspension.
before the marriage, as mandated by Article 76 of the
11

118. Zenaida S. Beso, V. Judge Juan Daguman, Mctc,

Sta. Margarita-Tarangan-Pagsanjan, Samar [A.M. No.
Mtj-99-1211. January 28, 2000.
Facts:
Judge Juan J. Daguman Jr. solemnized the marriage
between Zenaida Beso and Bernardito Yman outside
his jurisdiction. Zenaida later discovered that the
marriage contract was not registered. She accused
Judge Daguman of neglect of duty and abuse of
authority, arguing that he solemnized the marriage
outside his jurisdiction and failed to retain or register
the document. Judge Daguman defended himself,
stating that the couple urgently requested the
ceremony at his residence due to specific
circumstances.
Issue:
Can a judge, in solemnizing a marriage, lean on the
side of liberality and conduct the ceremony outside
his court's jurisdiction?
Ruling:
No. The authority to solemnize marriages by a
member of the judiciary is limited to the court's
jurisdiction, as per Article 7 of the Family Code. While
Article 8 provides exemptions, such as when either
party is at the point of death, residing in remote
places, or expressing their request in writing, liberality
in solemnizing marriages outside jurisdiction is not
permitted without valid grounds.
119. Borja-Manzano V. Judge Sanchez, A.M. Mtj-00-
1329 (2001)
Facts:
Herminia Borja-Manzano, claiming to be the lawful
wife of David Manzano, alleges that her husband
entered into a void and bigamous marriage with
Luzviminda Payao on March 22, 1993, before the
respondent Judge. The marriage contract indicated
their "separated" status. The respondent Judge, in his
defense, contends that he solemnized the marriage
based on his belief that David and Luzviminda had
been cohabiting for seven years without marriage, as
stated in their joint affidavit.
Issue:
Is the respondent Judge's reliance on Article 34 of the
Family Code a valid defense for solemnizing the
marriage?
Ruling:
No. Even though the respondent Judge cited Article
34, which exempts the need for a marriage license if a
couple has lived together for at least five years, this
provision does not justify solemnizing a marriage
tainted by the impediment of an existing legal
marriage. Ignorance of the legal marriage and reliance
on cohabitation for exemption cannot serve as a valid
defense for solemnizing a subsequent marriage that is
void and bigamous.