Untitled

G.R. No. L-68470, FIRST DIVISION, October 8, 1985, MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.

Owing to nationality principle enshrined in Article 15 of the NCC, only Filipinos are covered by the policy of absolute divorces as it is considered contrary to the concept of public policy and morality. However, aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid according to their national law. In this case, the divorce in Nevada released Upton from the marriage. Thus, pursuant to his national law, Upton is no longer the husband of Van Dorn. He would have no standing to sue in the case as Van Dorn’s husband.

FACTS:

Van Dorn, a Filipino citizen, and Upton, US citizen, were married in Hong Kong. They established their residence in the Philippines and begot two children. After some years, the parties divorced in Nevada, United States. Van Dorn has re-married to Theodore Van Dorn. A suit then was instituted by Upton stating that petitioner’s business is a conjugal property with Upton and prayed that Van Dorn be ordered to render accounting of the business and he be declared with right to manage the conjugal property. Van Dorn moved to dismiss the case as the cause of action is barred by the judgment in the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein Upton acknowledged that he and Van Dorn had “no community property.” Lower Court denied the motion to dismiss stating that the property is located in the Philippines, and that the Divorce decree from Nevada Court cannot prevail over prohibitive laws of the Philippines.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the foreign divorce is binding in the Philippines where petitioner is a Filipino. (YES)

RULING:

GRACE J. GARCIA, a.k.a. GRACE J. GARCIA-RECIO, petitioner, vs. REDERICK A. RECIO, respondent

Facts: Rederick Recio, a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen, on March 1, 1987. On May 18, 1989, a decree of divorce, purportedly dissolving the marriage, was issued by an Australian family court. On June 26, 1992, Rederick became an Australian citizen. He then married Grace Garcia, a Filipina, on January 12, 1994. In their application for a marriage license, Rederick was declared single and Filipino. On October 22, 1995, Grace and Rederick lived separately even without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage.

Grace filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage on March 2, 1998, on the grounds of bigamy. She contended that Rederick’s previous marriage was still subsisting at the time she contracted a marriage with him. She claimed that she learned of Rederick’s marriage to Editha Samson only in November 1997. However, Rederick said that he had told Grace about his previous marriage and the dissolution thereof. On July 7, 1998, Rederick was able to secure a divorce decree from a family court in Australia. In this case, the Australian divorce decree contains a restriction that reads

A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree becomes absolute (unless the other party has died) bigamy commits the offence of bigamy.

Issue: Did Rederick Garcia commit bigamy?

Ruling: The Court is not sure. The case has been remanded to the Court a quo for the following reasons. Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code of the Philippines says that the Filipino spouse can be allowed to remarry only when the alien spouse who initiated the divorce would be capacitated to remarry because of the divorce. Like any other facts, foreign laws must be alleged and proved.

There are two basic types of divorce: (1) absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii and (2) limited divorce or a mensa et thoro. The Court could not determine which type of divorce Rederick had acquired in Australia because of insufficient evidence.

Because of this, Wolfgang filed a Second Motion to Dismiss on May 20, 1999, on the ground that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the matter since there is already a divorce decree obtained abroad. Judge Guevara-Salonga granted the motion to dismiss. Carmen, however, filed a Motion for Partial Reconsideration, praying that the case should proceed for the purpose of determining the issues of custody of their children and the distribution of the properties. The judge issued an order partially setting aside her order to dismiss for the purpose of tackling the issues of property relations of the spouses as well as the custody of the children.

Issue: Can our courts take cognizance of the custody issue of the children?

Ruling: Yes. First, it is important to point out that the divorce was validly obtained and is recognized in the Philippines. It has been consistently held that a divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the foreigner. In this case, the divorce decree has not been questioned by either party. Only the custody of the children is doubted.

While the court in Germany that granted the divorce decree has decided regarding the custody of the children, as a general rule, the legal effects of divorce, even if obtained abroad, must still be determined by our courts. This includes issues on custody and care and support of children. Before our courts can give the effect of res judicata to a foreign judgment, such as the award of custody to petitioner by the German court, it must be shown that the parties opposed to the judgment had been given ample opportunity to do so on grounds allowed under Rule 39, Section 50 of the Rules of Court. It should be noted that the proceedings in the German court were merely summary. It cannot be said that Carmen Rodriguez was given the opportunity to challenge the judgment of the German court. While Wolfgang was represented by two counsels, Rodriguez had no lawyers to assist her in the proceedings.

In addition, the divorce decree did not touch on the issue as to who the offending spouse was. Absent any finding that private respondent is unfit to obtain custody of the children, the trial court was correct in setting the issue for hearing to determine the issue of parental custody, care, support and education mindful of the best interests of the children. This is in consonance with the provision in the Child and Youth Welfare Code that the child’s welfare is always the paramount consideration in all questions concerning his care and custody.

Civil Personality: Chapter 3 Juridical Person

Article 47.

Upon the dissolution of corporations, institutions and other entities for public interest or purpose mentioned in No. 2 of Article 44, their property and other assets shall be disposed of in pursuance of law or the charter creating them. If nothing has been specified on this point, the property and other assets shall be applied to similar purposes for the benefit of the region, province, city or municipality which during the existence of the institution derived the principal benefits from the same.

Dissolution Defined:

The dissolution of a corporation is the termination of its existence as a legal entity.

No. 2 of Article 44

Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose, created by law; their personality begins as soon as they have been constituted according to law

Corporations, institutions and other entities for public interest or purpose

Examples of these are:

Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP)

Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP)

Duty Free Philippines

Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)

Home Development Mutual Fund (Pag-IBIG)

Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)

Light Rail Transit Authority (LTRA)

Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO), etc.

When do Corporations undergo dissolution?

voluntary filing of the dissolution because the corporation is incapable of continuing the business

involuntarily filing of the dissolution through government action as a result of failure to pay tax

surrender or expiration of its charter

legal proceedings

Dissolution for Private Corporations

ALFREDO M. VELAYO, in his capacity as Assignee of the insolvent COMMERCIAL AIR LINES, INC. (CALI), Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. SHELL COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, LTD., Defendant-Appellee, YEK HUA TRADING CORPORATION, PAUL SYCIP and MABASA & CO., intervenors.

G.R. No. L-7817, EN BANC, October 31, 1956, FELIX, J.

A moral wrong or injury, even if it does not constitute a violation of a statute law, should be compensated by damages. In this case, the defendant clearly acted in bad faith when it schemed and effected the attachment of the C-54 plane of its debtor CALI by assigning its credit to its sister company in the US. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay damages.

FACTS:

Shell supplies fuel needs of CALI. However, due to financial crisis CALI failed to pay Shell and its other creditors. Thus, they entered into an agreement that they would present suits against the corporation but to strive for a pro-rata division of the assets, and only in the case of non-agreement would the creditors file insolvency proceedings. However, when Shell PH assigned the credit to Shell Oil, its American Sister Corporation, the latter filed a case against CALI for the collection of assigned Credit attaching the C-54 plane of CALI which the creditors opposed and filed damages against Shell for breach of their agreement.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Shell shall be liable for damages. (YES)

RULING:

Article 21 of the Civil Code states that any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage. This is the legal remedy for that untold numbers of moral wrongs which is impossible for human foresight to provide for specifically in the statutes.

GLOBE MACKAY CABLE AND RADIO CORP., and HERBERT C. HENDRY v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and RESTITUTO M. TOBIAS

GR No. 81262, DIVISION, August 25, 1989, CORTES, J.

Articles 19, 20, and 21 of the NCC are known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights, which sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties. These standards are the following: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty and good faith. In this case, the petitioners clearly failed to exercise in a legitimate manner their right to dismiss Tobias, giving the latter the right to recover damages under Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of the Civil Code.The imputation of guilt without basis and the pattern of harassment during the investigations of Tobias transgress the standards of human conduct set forth in Article 19 of the Civil Code.

FACTS:

Restituto M. Tobias (Tobias) herein private respondent was an employee of Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp (GMCRC) herein petitioner. Herbert Hendry (Hendry) herein petitioner, was the Executive Vice-President and General Manager of GMCRC. Sometime in 1972, GMCRC discovered fictitious purchases and other fraudulent transactions for which it lost several thousands of pesos. Thereafter, Hendry ordered Tobias to take a force leave so as to have Tobias investigated. Hendry declared that Tobias was their number one suspect in the anomaly. Thus, criminal complaints for estafa were filed against Tobias. These charges were, however, dismissed for lack of probable cause. Subsequently, Hendry dismissed Tobias from employment. Claiming that he was illegally dismissed, Tobias filed a complaint for damages against GMCRC and Hendry with the RTC. The RTC decided in favor of Tobias. On appeal, the CA affirmed. Now, GMCRC and Hendry assail the decision of the CA. It asseverates that the dismissal of Tobias was in lawful exercise of its right. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not GMCRC and Hendry exercised lawfully their right to dismiss Tobias. (NO)

RULING:

Article 3

Article 2

Article 1

ARTICLE 7

"Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.

When the courts declare a law to b inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.

Administrative and executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution."

In this article, there are three (3) important principles:

Prohibition of irrepealable laws.

Constitutional supremacy.

Effects of unconstitutionality.

Article 7 is obvious because time moves forward.

A repeal of law takes in two forms, Express Repeal and Implied Repeal.

Express repeal means that the repeal is contained in a special provisions of a subsequent law. When an Express Repeal is repealed, there is no revival, except when the repealing law provides.

There is an Implied Repeal when the following requisites are present:

a. There is an OLD Law and a NEW Law.

b. Both laws cover the same subject matter.

c. The new law is repugnant or INCOMPATIBLE with the old law.

When an Implied Repeal is repealed, there is automatic revival, except when the repealing provides otherwise.

In Statutory Construction there is a rule that in case there is conflict between the prohibitions of an old law and the new law. It is the new law that should govern. The new law will prevail because it is the new, more updated, and more recent reflection of the intentions of the law maker.

The second part of the paragraph, it says that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All laws, administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations must conform with the Constitution. If there is conflict between the law or executive act and the Constitution, then the Constitution always prevails. This is known as the principle of Constitutional Supremacy.

What is unconstitutional acts?

"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed." This was the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Chavez vs. Judicial and Bar Council.