ARTICLE 2:

TAADA vs TUVERA Case Digest

Persons and Family Relation G.R. No. L-63915 :


Facts: Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern as well as
the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the Official Gazette
or otherwise effectively promulgated, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel
respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in the Official Gazette of
various presidential decrees, letters of instructions, general orders, proclamations, executive
orders, letter of implementation and administrative orders. The respondents, through the
Solicitor General, would have this case dismissed outright on the ground that petitioners
have no legal personality or standing to bring the instant petition, absence of any showing
that petitioners are personally and directly affected or prejudiced by the alleged non-
publication of the presidential issuances in question said petitioners are without the
requisite legal personality to institute this mandamus proceeding, they are not being
"aggrieved parties." Petitioners maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a
public right and its object is to compel the performance of a public duty, they need not show
any specific interest for their petition to be given due course. 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 own effectivity dates. It is thus
submitted that since the presidential issuances in question contain special provisions as to
the date they are to take effect, publication in the Official Gazette is not indispensable for
their effectivity.

Issues: Whether the petitioners have legal personality to bring the instant petition?

Whether publication is needed to make the law effective?

Held: Clearly, the right sought to be enforced by petitioners herein is a public right
recognized by no less than the fundamental law of the land. Court has ruled that publication
in the Official Gazette is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does not
provide for its effectivity date-for then the date of publication is material for determining its
date of effectivity, which is the fifteenth day following its publication-but not when the law
itself provides for the date when it goes into effect. Considered in the light of other statutes
applicable to the issue at hand, the conclusion is easily reached that said Article 2 does not
preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the law itself
provides for the date of its effectivity. Without such notice and publication, there would be
no basis for the application of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." That duty must be
enforced if the Constitutional right of the people to be informed on matters of public
concern is to be given substance and reality. The law itself makes a list of what should be
published in the Official Gazette. The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public
nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by law. Obviously, presidential decrees that
provide for fines, forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden or.
the people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall within this category. Other presidential
issuances which apply only to particular persons or class of persons such as administrative
and executive orders need not be published on the assumption that they have been
circularized to all concerned.


De Roy and Ramos vs. CA [G.R. No. 80718 January 29, 1988]

Facts: The firewall of a burned-out building owned by petitioners collapsed and destroyed
the tailoring shop occupied by the family of private respondents, resulting in injuries to
private respondents and the death of Marissa Bernal, a daughter. Private respondents had
been warned by petitioners to vacate their shop in view of its proximity to the weakened wall
but the former failed to do so. On the basis of the foregoing facts, the Regional Trial Court.
First Judicial Region, Branch XXXVIII, presided by the Hon. Antonio M. Belen, rendered
judgment finding petitioners guilty of gross negligence and awarding damages to private
respondents. On appeal, the decision of the trial court was affirmed in toto by the Court of
Appeals in a decision promulgated on August 17, 1987, a copy of which was received by
petitioners on August 25, 1987. On September 9, 1987, the last day of the fifteen-day period
to file an appeal, petitioners filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for
reconsideration, which was eventually denied by the appellate court in the Resolution of
September 30, 1987. Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration on September 24,
1987 but this was denied in the Resolution because the same was not filed within the grace
period as enscribed in the present jurisprudence .

Issue: Whether or not the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying
the denied the motion and let the petitioner be bound by the negligence of their counsel

Held: The Court finds that the Court of Appeals did not commit a grave abuse of discretion
when it denied petitioners' motion for extension of time to file a motion for reconsideration.
In the instant case, petitioners' motion for extension of time was more than a year after the
expiration of the grace period. Hence, it is no longer within the coverage of the grace period.
Considering the length of time from the expiration of the grace period to the promulgation
of the decision of the Court of Appeals on August 25, 1987, petitioners cannot seek refuge in
the ignorance of their counsel regarding said rule for their failure to file a motion for
reconsideration within the reglamentary period. It is the bounden duty of counsel as lawyer
in active law practice to keep abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court particularly where
issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated, and published in the advance reports of
Supreme Court decisions (G. R. s) and in such publications as the Supreme Court Reports
Annotated (SCRA) and law journals.


ARTICLE 3:
Garcia Recio vs Recio

GR 138322, October 2, 2002

Lessons Applicable: divorce

Laws Applicable: Art. 15 and Art. 26 par. 2 FC

FACTS:

Grace J. Garcia-Recio (2
nd
mariage) ----- Rederick A. Recio Editha Samson (Wife)

March 1, 1987: Rederick A. Recio, a Filipino was married to Editha Samson, an Australian
citizen, in Malabon, Rizal
May 18, 1989: a decree of divorce, purportedly dissolving the marriage, was issued by an
Australian family court
June 26, 1992: Recio became an Australian citizen, as shown by a "Certificate of Australian
Citizenship" issued by the Australian government
January 12, 1994: Recio married Grace j. Garcia, a Filipino, in Cabanatuan City. Recio
declared himself as "single" and "Filipino."
October 22, 1995: Recio and Grace J. Garcia ak.a. Garcia-Recio begun to live separately
without prior judicial dissolution of their marriage
May 16, 1996: In accordance to the Statutory Declarations secured in Australia, their
conjugal assets were divided
March 3, 1998: Garcia-Recio filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage on
the groundof bigamy claiming she only learned of the prior marriage in November, 1997
Recio prayed in his answer that it be dismissed for no cause of action
RTC: marriage dissolved on the ground that the divorce issued in Australia was valid and
recognized in the Philippines

ISSUE: W/N the divorce between Recio and Samson was valid and proven

HELD: NO. Remand the case to the court a quo for the purpose of receiving evidence which
conclusively show respondent's legal capacity to marry petitioner; and failing in that, of declaring the
parties' marriage void on the ground of bigamy

Divorces:
1. A marriage between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a divorce obtained abroad, because
of Articles 15 and 17 of the Civil Code.
2. In mixed marriages involving a Filipino and a foreigner, Article 26 of the Family Code allows the
former to contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is "validly obtained abroad by the alien
spouse capacitating him or her to remarry."
3. A divorce obtained abroad by a couple, who are both aliens, may be recognized in the Philippines,
provided it is consistent with their respective national laws.
Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must
prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it
o legal capacity to contract marriage is determined by the national law of the party concerned
o A divorce obtained abroad is proven by the divorce decree itself
The decree purports to be a written act or record of an act of an officially body or tribunal of a foreign
country
o Under Sections 24 and 25 of Rule 132, on the other hand, a writing or document may be proven as a
public or official record of a foreign country by either:
1. an official publication; or
2. a copy thereof attested by the officer having legal custody of the document.
If the record is not kept in the Philippines, such copy must be:
1. accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine
foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept; and
2. authenticated by the seal of his office
Since the divorce was a defense raised by Recio, the burden of proving the pertinent
Australian law validating it falls squarely upon him
In its strict legal sense, divorce means the legal dissolution of a lawful union for a cause
arising after marriage. But divorces are of different types:
1. absolute divorce or a vinculo matrimonii - terminates the marriage
2. limited divorce or a mensa et thoro - suspends it and leaves the bond in full force
Recio presented a decree nisi or an interlocutory decree a conditional or provisional
judgment of divorce
o On its face, the herein Australian divorce decree contains a restriction that reads:
"1. A party to a marriage who marries again before this decree becomes absolute (unless the other
party has died) commits the offence of bigamy."


REPUBLIC VS ORBECIDO
Posted by kaye lee on 9:15 AM
472 SCRA 114, GR NO. 154380, October 5, 2005 [Article 26;Divorce]

FACTS:
Orbecido and Villanueva were married ad had two children. Wife went to US to work and later became a
US citizen. Thereafter he learned from his son that his wife obtained divorce and married another man.
Orbecido filed a petition for authority to remarry under the Article 26 (2) of the Family Code. RTC
Zamboanga del Sur granted his petition. The SolGen's motion for reconsideration was denied. Orbecido
filed a petition for review of certiorari on the Decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 (2).

RULING:
Yes. Article 26 Par.2 should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the
celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a
foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry
as if the other party were a foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage.

The reckoning point is not their citizenship at the time of celebration of marriage, but their citizenship at
the time the divorce decree is obtained abroad by alien spouse capacitating him/her to remarry.

However, Orbecido is barred from remarrying because he did not present competent evidence showing
his wife had obtained a divorce decree and had remarried.

Article 4: