(CC 2) EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS Tanada vs Tuvera - even if there is a provision providing for its effectivity, PUBLICATION

is still needed - rationale; to give the public adequate notice of the laws that will regulate them PASEI vs Torres - Admin rules and regulations enforcing/implementing the law MUST be published - interpretative regulations; internal in nature; regulate only personnel of the admin agency and not the public; need not be published (FC 256) VESTED RIGHTS (CC 4)RETROACTIVE APPLICATION Duenas vs Santos - PD having a provision for an open space in Subdivisions; if it has retro active effect - NO RETROACTOVE effect since it does not have an express provision providing for its retroactive application Bernabe vs Alejo - Adrian; minor illegitimate son seeks to be acknowledged to be given a share in the estate of his late father - Acquired a vested right in Art 285 (old CC) since it gave him the opportunity to be recognized (although procedural) - FC could not be given retroactive effect in this case for it will impair Adrian's vested right Rep vs Miller - an alien qualified to adopt under the C&YWC in force during the filing of the petition acquired a vested right - cant be affected by the subsequent enactment of a new law disqualifying him (eg FC) Atienza vs Brilliantes - Brilliantes; previously married w/o a marriage license; alleges that he contracted his 2nd marriage in GF - FC 40 applicable to remarriages after its effectivity - retroactively applied since no vested right was impaired Ty vs CA - Reyes previously married (w/o m.license), married Ty in 1982; Reyes then sought to declare his marriage w/ Ty void - is the decree of nullity of the 1st marriage needed to enter a subsequent marriage?

- before the FC no judicial decree needed to declare a marriage void - after FC; need for judicial declaration of nullity - CAB; 2nd marriage entered before the FC; no need for judicial declaration of nullity - NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT of the FC since it will impair the vested rights of Ty and her children Ablaza vs Republic - brother of the deceased sought the nullity of the latter's marriage w/ Leonila (no marriage license) - AM 02-11-10 -> petition for declaration of nullity can be filed only by either the H or W - AM does not apply to Ablaza since the marriage in question under the old CC -AM prospective in application as it is a procedural rule (art 8) STARE DECISIS HUMAN RELATIONS CC 19 EXERCISE OF RIGHTS CC 20 CONTRARY TO LAW CC 21 CONTRARY TO MORALS MALICIOUS PROSECTUTION 2176 TORTS cheng vs Sy - if Cheng can recover Sy's civil liability under a separate case after the BP 22 cases were dismissed - in filing of BP 22 cases she did not reserve her right to litigate separately for the civil liability (deemed instituted w/ criminal case) - if the loan were proven to be true; cheng's inability to recover would amount to unjust enrichment of Sy's since they can evade payment based on a technicality - unjust enrichment: 1. person unjustly benefited 2. benefit at the expense of another - equity; still allowed to pursue her case ASJ vs Evangelista - Abuse of rights 1. existence of legal right 2. exercised in BF 3. for purpose of prejudicing another - San Juan right to withhold delivery based on accrued fees unpaid; made threats to impound the vehicle and detain Evangelistas UP vs Philab - accion in rem verso 1. defendant enriched 2. plaintiff suffered loss 3. enrichment w/o legal ground 4. (p) no other action based on C/QC/C/QD - action for recovery of what was paid w/o just cause is only applicable if there is no other remedy - Philab still has an action based on implied contract w/ Marcos Foundation

Hyatt Elevators v Cathedral - payment of additional charges in connection w/ repair and supply of parts - cant demand payment; since there was no consent (no evidence that such was accepted) PRHC v Ley Construction - no agreement on paying anything above the ceiling stipulated - benefit from excess infusion not unjust enrichment - Ley Construction was aware of the limit in the escalation agreement - Cant have remuneration of the excess since it was not given via mistake/ fraud, coercion/ request - It voluntarily gave excess amount w/ full knowledge that PRHC had no obligation to reimburse it Pantaleon vs Amex - was there an abuse of rights when AMEX in unreasonably delaying the process of purchase; review of charge purchases - exercised right of review credit history; since said purchase was outside of his usual spending pattern; checked history for past 12 months - recovery of moral damages; equity; injured persons should not be at fault; pantaleon's actions proximate cause of injury - amex violated no legal duty; damage w/o injury Valley golf vs Caram - non stock corps not exempt from acting fairly and in GF toward one another - Valley golf acted in BF; sent a final notice even if they knew that Caram was dead; selling of golf share at public auction for failure to pay unpaid balance - persisted in sending Caram (who's dead) notice to provide a color of regularity Illusorio vs Bildner - Court exceeded authority in granting Illusorio visitation rights; not even prayed for - even provided for contempt in case of refusal; such assertion was unnecessary - right involved is that of a wife to visit the hisband; not parent to minor child - NO COURT is empowered to compel a husband to live with his wife CC 40 BIRTH -> PERSONALITY CC 41 COMPLETE DELIVERY -> BORN CC 42 DEATH Continental Steel vs Montano

- claim of death benefits for the death of an unborn chiled - civil personality of unborn child not at issue; rights to bereavement leave pertain directly to the parents (of the unborn child) - need not acquire civil personality before he or she could die Duenas vs Santos - Juridical persons authorized by law may be parties in a civil action - not organized under the law; no legal capacity CC 50 HABITUAL RESIDENCE CC 51 DOMICILE; JURIDICAL PERSONS FC 68 H&W LIVE TOGETHER FC 69 H&W FIX DOMICILE San Luis vs San Luis - venue for a petition for letters of administration; RTC of the province where decedent resides at time of death - resides = actual habitation in this sense for R73 Ugdoracion v Comelec - losing domicile of origin by being a permanent resident of a foreign country; renunciation of status as resident in the PH - domicile of origin is lost when there is actual change of domicile + intention of abandoning former residence + establish new one + acts correspond w/ such purpose Limbona vs Comelec - it is presumed that H&W live together in one residence - Since H changed residence, W also effected change in domicile pursuant to the presumption ^