15 – NATIONALITY THEORY
6) SAN LUIS V. SAN LUIS
1) VAN DORN V. ROMILLO
(Divorce decree obtained by alien spouse was
recognized)
Aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be
recognized in the Philippines, provided they are valid
according to their national law.
2) PILAPIL V. IBAY-SOMERA
(Divorce decree obtained by alien spouse was
recognized)
The German husband sued the wife for adultery
after obtaining a decree of divorce. He no longer has the
legal standing to sue the wife because he is no longer the
spouse within the meaning of our law.
3) RECIO V. RECIO (naturalized)
(Divorce decree was proven and recognized
because of petitioner’s failure to object)
It was not sufficient for Rederick (became
Australian citizen) to present the divorce decree to support
that he is capacitated to contract marriage under our laws.
What should have been presented is the necessary
documents in compliance with Rule 132 Section 24 and 25
referring to the official publication of the divorce decree, or
the official having legal custody of the document together
with the law of the place where it was obtained,
furthermore, if it is not kept in the Philippines, certification of
the consular official of the Philippines in the place where the
document is kept and sealed by the seal of the office of the
said consular official
Presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient and
that proof of its authenticity and due execution must be
presented.
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
(a) 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
(b) authenticated by the seal of his office.
Fortunately, for respondent’s cause, the divorce between
Editha and respondent Rederick was proven not by the
decree itself issued by the Australian family court but on the
ground that the petitioner failed to object as to its
inadmissibility in evidence.
4) QUITA V. CA (naturalized)
(there is a need to determine the citizenship of Fe
at the time the divorce decree was obtained to rule whether
Van Dorn ruling should apply)
5) ELMAR PEREZ V. CA
(divorce decree obtained from Dominican Republic
is not recognized)
(the divorce decree obtained by foreign spouse
was not recognized because of non compliance with Rule
132)
Felicidad still has a legal capacity to file the letters
of administration not as a wife but as a co-owner.
7) LAVADIA V. HEIRS OF LUNA
(divorce decree was not recognized because they
were both Filipinos when it was obtained)
8) NOVERAS V. NOVERAS
(divorce decree was not recognized because of
non compliance with Rule 132)
The validity of divorce was not proved because
only the divorce decree was presented in evidence. The
required certificates to prove it authenticity, as well as the
pertinent California law on divorce were not presented.
We agree with the appellate court that the
Philippine courts did not acquire jurisdiction over the
California properties of David and Leticia. Indeed, Article 16
of the Civil Code clearly state that real property as well as
personal property is subject to the law of the country where
it is situated. Thus, liquidation shall only be limited to the
Philippine properties.
9) ORION SAVINGS BANK V. SUZUKI
(Processual presumption applies)
Following the nationality rule, property relations
between spouses are governed principally by the national
law of the spouses. However, the party invoking the
application of a foreign law has the burden of proving the
foreign law. The foreign law is a question of fact to be
properly pleaded and proved as the judge cannot take
judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to know
only domestic or the law of the forum.
To prove a foreign law, the party invoking it must present a
copy thereof and comply with Sections 24 and 25 of Rule
132 of the Revised Rules of Court. Accordingly, matters
concerning the title and disposition of real property shall be
governed by Philippine law while issues pertaining to the
conjugal nature of the property shall be governed by
South Korean law, provided it is proven as a fact.
In the case at bar, Orion, unfortunately failed to
prove the South Korean law on the conjugal ownership
of property. It merely attached a “Certification from the
Embassy of the Republic of Korea” to prove the existence
of Korean Law. This certification, does not qualify as
sufficient proof of the conjugal nature of the property for
there is no showing that it was properly authenticated
by the seal of his office, as required under Section 24 of
Rule 132.
Accordingly, the International Law doctrine of presumed-
identity approach or processual presumption comes into
play, i.e., where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if
pleaded, is not proven, the presumption is that foreign law
is the same as Philippine Law.
1
 Under Philippine Law, the phrase “Yung Sam
Kang ‘married to’ Hyun Sook Jung” is merely
descriptive of the civil status of Kang. In other words,
the import from the certificates of title is that Kang is the
owner of the properties as they are registered in his name
alone, and that he is married to Hyun Sook Jung.

10) DEL SOCORRO V. WILSEM

(Processual presumption applies)

The obligation to give support to a child is a matter that falls

under family rights and duties. Since the respondent is a
citizen of Holland or the Netherlands, we agree with the
RTC-Cebu that he is subject to the laws of his country, not
to Philippinelaw, as to whether he is obliged to give support
to his child, as well as the consequences of his failure to do
so.

In international law, the party who wants to have a foreign

law applied to a dispute or case has the burden of proving
the foreign law. While respondent pleaded the laws of the
Netherlands in advancing his position that he is not obliged
to support his son, he never proved the same.

In view of respondent’s failure to prove the national law of

the Netherlands in his favor, the doctrine of processual
presumption shall govern. Under this doctrine, if the foreign
law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts
will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or
domestic or internal law.44 Thus, since the law of the
Netherlands as regards the obligation to support has not
been properly pleaded and proved in the instant case, it is
presumed to be the same with Philippine law, which
enforces the obligation of parents to support their children
and penalizing the non-compliance therewith.
In addition, considering that respondent is currently living in
the Philippines, Article 14 of the New Civil Code, applies to
the instant case, which provides that: "penal laws and those
of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all
who live and sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the
principle of public international law and to treaty
stipulations." On this score, it is indisputable that the
alleged continuing acts of respondent in refusing to support
his child with petitioner is committed here in the Philippines
as all of the parties herein are residents of the Province of
Cebu City. As such, our courts have territorial jurisdiction
over the offense charged against respondent. It is likewise
irrefutable that jurisdiction over the respondent was
acquired upon his arrest.

- RENVOI DOCTRINE
Renvoi means “referring back” which arises where our law
refers a case to another country for solution, but the law of
that country refers it back to our country for determination.

- TRANSMISSION THEORY
When the reference is made to a third state.

2
29-35 CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM A CRIMINAL
OFFENSE
1) PEOPLE V. BAYOTAS
The death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as the
civil liability based solely thereon. The death of the accused
prior to final judgment terminates his criminal liability and
only the civil liability directly arising from and based solely
on the offense committed.
2) FRIAS V. SAN DIEGO-SISON
Respondent is entitled to moral damages.
Article 31 of the Civil Code provides that when the
civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act
or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action may
proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and
regardless of the result of the latter.
While petitioner was acquitted in the false
testimony and perjury cases filed by respondent against
her, those actions are entirely distinct from the collection of
sum of money with damages filed by respondent against
petitioner.
We agree with the findings of the trial court and the
CA that petitioner's act of trying to deprive respondent of
the security of her loan by executing an affidavit of loss of
the title and instituting a petition for the issuance of a new
owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. 168173 entitles
respondent to moral damages. Moral damages may be
awarded in culpa contractual or breach of contract cases
when the defendant acted fraudulently or in bad faith.
3) DALURAYA V. OLIVIA
The civil action based on delict may be deemed
extinguished if there is a finding on the final judgment in the
criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil
liability may arise did not exist or where the accused did not
commit the acts or omission imputed to him.
Daluraya is not civilly liable for Marina Oliva’s
death despite his acquittal in the criminal case for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence. The prosecution was not able to
establish that the accused was the driver of the Nissan
Vanette which bumped Marina Oliva
4) PEOPLE V. DIONALDO
Death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability, as well as his
civil liability ex delicto.
Consequently, Renato's death on June 10, 2014
renders the Court's July 23, 2014 Resolution irrelevant and
ineffectual as to him, and is therefore set aside.
Accordingly, the criminal case against Renato is dismissed.
5) DY V. PEOPLE
Dy is not civilly liable for the crime of estafa
The SC held that when the acquittal is due to the
absence of the crime committed, the civil action deemed
instituted with the criminal case cannot prosper because
there is no delict from which any civil obligation may be
sourced. Civil liability arising from the contract is not civil
liability ex delicto, which arises from the same act or
omission constituting the crime.
In this case, despite the findings of the lower
courts, the SC held that there was no crime of estafa
proven. Dy’s liability of around P21 million arises from her
contractual obligation (loan) to Mandy, which should be
instituted in a separate civil action as to not violate Dy’s
constitutional right to due process.
6) PEOPLE V. CALOMIA
The death of the accused prior to final judgment
terminates his criminal liability and only the civil liability
directly arising from and based solely on the offense
committed.
Corollarily, the claim for civil liability survives
notwithstanding the death of accused, if the same may also
be predicated on a source of obligation other than delict.
(such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts)
36 – PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONS, ELEMENTS
Prejudicial question – is one based on a fact distinct and
separate from the crime but so intimately connected with it
that it determines the guilt or innocence of the accused, and
for it to suspend the criminal action, it must appear not only
that said case involves facts intimately related to those
upon which the criminal prosecution would be based but
also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the
civil case, the guilt or the innocence of the accused would
be necessarily determine.
ELEMENTS:
a) previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar
or intimately related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action; and
b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not
the criminal action may proceed.
1) TUANDA V. SANDIGANBAYAN
There exist a prejudicial question.
Should the private respondents' designations as
sectoral representatives be declared null and void for failure
to comply with the provisions of the Local Government
Code, the criminal charges against petitioners would no
longer, so to speak, have a leg to stand on. Petitioners
cannot be accused of bad faith and partiality there being in
the first place no obligation on their part to pay private
respondents' claims. Private respondents do not have any
legal right to demand salaries, per diems and other
benefits. In other words, the resolution of the issues raised
in the civil action will ultimately determine whether or not
there is basis to proceed with the criminal case.
2) BELTRAN V. PEOPLE
The pendency of the case for declaration of nullity
of petitioner's marriage is not a prejudicial question to the
concubinage case.
3
 Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to
judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be
submitted to the judgment of the competent courts and only
when the nullity of the marriage is so declared can it be
held as void, and so long as there is no such declaration
the presumption is that the marriage exists for all intents
and purposes. Therefore, he who cohabits with a woman
not his wife before the judicial declaration of nullity of the
marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for
concubinage.
3) PASI V. LICHAUCO
There exist a prejudicial question.
If the award to the undisclosed bidder of orbital slot
153ºE is, in the civil case, declared valid for being within
Lichauco’s scope of authority to thus free her from liability
for damages, there would be no prohibited act to speak of
nor would there be basis for undue injury claimed to have
been suffered by petitioner. The finding by the Ombudsman
of the existence of a prejudicial question is thus well-taken.
4) YAP V. CABALES
There exist no prejudicial question.
The issue in the criminal cases is whether the
petitioner is guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22, while in the civil
case, it is whether the private respondents are entitled to
collect from the petitioner the sum or the value of the
checks that they have rediscounted from Evelyn.
Even if petitioner is declared not liable for the
payment of the value of the checks and damages, he
cannot be adjudged free from criminal liability for violation
of B.P. Blg. 22. The mere issuance of worthless checks with
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds to support the
checks is in itself an offense.
5) DREAMWORK V. JANIOLA
There exist no prejudicial question.
The purpose for which the check was issued, the
terms and conditions relating to its issuance, or any
agreement surrounding such issuance are irrelevant to the
prosecution and conviction of petitioner for violation BP 22.
The clear intention of the framers of BP 22 is to make the
mere act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum.
6) PIMENTEL V. PIMENTEL
The resolution of the action for annulment of
marriage is NOT a prejudicial question that warrants the
suspension of the criminal case for frustrated parricide
against petitioner.
The civil case for annulment was filed after the
filing of the criminal case for frustrated parricide. As such,
the requirement of Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules
on Criminal Procedure was not met since the civil action
was filed subsequent to the filing of the criminal action.
The issue in the annulment of marriage is not
similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal case
for parricide. Further, the relationship between the offender
and the victim is not determinative of the guilt or innocence
of the accused.
Moreover, even if the marriage between petitioner
and respondent is annulled, petitioner could still be held
criminally liable since at the time of the commission of the
alleged crime, he was still married to respondent.
7) CONSING, JR. V. PEOPLE
No prejudicial question.
Unicapital’s complaint in the Makati civil case
reveals that the action was predicated on fraud. As such,
the action was one that could proceed independently of
Criminal Case pursuant to Article 33 of the Civil Code.
As for the Pasig Civil Case, even if respondent is
declared merely an agent of his mother in the transaction
involving the sale of the questioned lot, he cannot be
adjudged free from criminal liability. An agent or any person
may be held liable for conspiring to falsify public
documents. Hence, the determination of the issue involved
in Pasig Civil Case for Injunctive Relief is irrelevant to the
guilt or innocence of the respondent in the criminal case for
estafa through falsification of public document.
8) CATERPILLAR, INC. V. SAMSON
No prejudicial question.
There is no prejudicial question if the civil and the
criminal action can, according to law, proceed
independently of each other.
Hence, Civil Case, which as admitted by private
respondent also relate to unfair competition, is an
independent civil action under Article 33 of the Civil Code –
in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil
action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the
criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. As
such, it will not operate as a prejudicial question that will
justify the suspension of the criminal cases at bar
37-39 JURIDICAL CAPACITY/ CAPACITY TO ACT
RESTRICTIONS/ MODIFICATIONS NATURAL PERSONS
40-42 PERSONALITY SPRINGS FROM BIRTH AND ITS
EXCEPTION
1) QUIMIGING V. ICAO
As explicitly provided in Article 40 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, a conceived child, although as yet unborn, is
given by law a provisional personality of its own for all
purposes favorable to it. Only that there has to be
compliance with Article 41. The unborn child, being given
provisional personality is entitled to receive support.
For a married man to force a woman not his wife to yield to
his lust (as averred in the original complaint in this case)
constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his victim that
entitles her to claim compensation for the damage caused
pursuant to Article 21 of the Civil Code of the Philippines:
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.
2) CONTINENTAL STEEL V. MONTANO
4
 Montano’s claim for bereavement and other
benefits should be granted.

We need not establish civil personality of the

unborn child herein since his/her juridical capacity and
capacity to act as a person are not in issue. The rights to
bereavement leave and other death benefits in the instant
case pertain directly to the parents of the unborn child upon
the latter’s death.

While the Civil Code expressly provides that civil

personality may be extinguished by death, it does not
explicitly state that only those who have acquired juridical
personality could die. One need not acquire civil personality
first before he/she could die. Even a child inside the womb
already has life. No less than the Constitution recognizes
the life of the unborn from conception, that the State must
protect equally with the life of the mother. If the unborn
already has life, then the cessation thereof even prior to the
child being delivered, qualifies as death.

Likewise, the unborn child can be considered a

dependent under the CBA. As Continental Steel itself
defines, a dependent is "one who relies on another for
support; one not able to exist or sustain oneself without the
power or aid of someone else." Under said general
definition,26 even an unborn child is a dependent of its
parents. Hortillano’s child could not have reached 38-39
weeks of its gestational life without depending upon its
mother, Hortillano’s wife, for sustenance.

The CBA did not provide a qualification for the child

dependent, such that the child must have been born or
must have acquired civil personality, as Continental Steel
avers. Without such qualification, then child shall be
understood in its more general sense, which includes the
unborn fetus in the mother’s womb.

- Conditions that must be satisfied for the

exception to apply
- Effect of death on civil personality

43 – PRESUMPTION IN CASE OF DOUBT BETWEEN

TWO OR MORE PERSONS CALLED TO SUCCEED
EACH OTHER BUT NO PROOF AS TO WHICH OF THEM
DIED FIRST

44 – JURIDICAL PERSONS
1) MAYOR V. TIU