Case Digests for Articles 1-10 of Civil Code Persons and Family Relations

Elmer Rabuya
Article 2
People v. Simon234 SCRA 555, 569 (1994)G.R. No. 93028Facts:
Accused-appellant Martin Simon was charged with a violation of Section 4, Article II
of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972, under an indictment alleging he sold four tea bags of marijuana to a Narcotics
Command (NARCOM) poseur-buyer in consideration of the sum of P40.00.
Issue:
Whether or not accused-appellant Simon should be given a lighter punishment of six
months to six years instead of reclusion perpetua, pursuant to the amendments
of Republic Act No. 7659 to Republic Act No. 6425
Held:
Yes, since Republic Act No. 7659 was effected on December 31, 1993
People v. Godoy
250 SCRA 676, 732 (1995)G.R. Nos. 115908-09
Facts:
Accused-appellant Danny Godoy was charged in two separate filings before the Regional
Trial Court, for Palawan and Puerto Princes City, Branch 47, with rape and kidnapping
with serious illegal detention of 17-year-old Mia Taha.
Issue:
Whether or not, if found guilty, accused-appellant Godoy will be subject to death penalty
imposed by Republic Act No. 7659
Held:
Yes, since Republic Act No. 7659 which reimposed the death penalty on certain heinous
crimes took effect on December 31, 1993, that is, fifteen days after its publication in the
December 16, 1993 issues of the Manila Bulletin, Philippine Star, Malaya and Philippine
Times Journal and not on January 1, 1994 as is sometimes misinterpreted
GSIS v. Commission on Audit
301 SCRA 731, 736 (1999)G.R. No. 125982
Facts:
The case before the Court is a special civil action of certiorari seeking to review the
decision of the Commission on Audit that affirmed the ruling of Corporate Auditor Mariano
C. Gaborne disallowing in audit the payment of death benefits in the amount of
P43,107.19, to the heirs of the late Brig. General Arturo T. Asuncion, who died on
November 16, 1987, in a helicopter crash, for the reason that a reserve officer like himof
the Armed Forces of the Philippines was not at that time a compulsory member of the
Government Service Insurance System.
Issue:

Whether or not the heirs of Brig. General Asuncion should receive payment of death
benefits
Held:
Yes, since E. O. No. 79 is effective fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official
Gazette, or on January 7, 1987. At that time, the late General Asuncion was reserve
officer who had rendered a total of ten (10) years of continuous active duty service
commission in the AFP. Hence, he was compulsorily covered as member of the GSIS on
the date he died on November 15, 1987, in line of duty in helicopter crash. Consequently,
his heirs are entitled to payment of death benefits.
Taada v. Tuvera
136 SCRA 27 (1985)G.R. No. L-63915
Facts:
Invoking the right of the people 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, Lorenzo Taada, et. al petitioned a writ of mandamus to compel Juan
Tuvera,Executive Assistant to the President et. al to publish a number of presidential
decrees, letter of instructions and general orders to the Official Gazette. Petitioners
maintain that since the subject of the petition concerns a public right and its object is to
compel public duty, they need not show any specific interest. Respondents further
contend that publication in the OG is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity
of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates.
Issue:
Whether or not publication in the Official Gazette is an indispensable requirement for the
effectivity of PDs, LOIs, General Orders, Eos, etc, where laws themselves provide for their
own effectivity dates
Held:
Yes, since the publication of presidential issuances of public nature or of general
applicability is a requirement of due process. Before a person may be bound by law, he
must first be officially informed of its contents.
Article 3
Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis
336 SCRA 747, 755 (2000)G.R. No. 138509
Facts:
Respondent contracted a first marriage with Maria Javier. Without said marriage having
been annulled, nullified or terminated, the same respondent contracted a second
marriage with petitioner Imelda Marbella-Bobis and allegedly a third marriage with a
certain Julia Sally Hernandez.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent is guilty of bigamy despite respondents claim of ignorance of
Article 40 of the Family Code
Held:

Yes, since ignorance of the existence of Article 40 of the Family Code cannot even be
successfully invoked as an excuse. The contracting of a marriage knowing that the
requirements of the law have not been complied with or that the marriage is in disregard
of a legal impediment is an act penalized by the Revised Penal Code.
Article 7
Agujetas v. CA
261 SCRA 17 (1996)G.R. No. 106560
Facts:
Petitioners Florezil Agujetas and Salvador Bijis, former Chairman and Vice-Chairman,
respectively of the Provincial Board of Canvassers for the Province of Davao Oriental assail
the decision of the public respondent Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Mati, Davao Oriental finding them guilty as charged for failure to
proclaim a winning elected candidate.
Issue:
Whether or not R.A. 7166 repeals Section 231 of the Omnibus Election Code, saying that
winners should be proclaimed by the Board of Canvassers.
Held:
No, since R.A. 7166 neither expressly or impliedly repeals Section 231 of the Omnibus
Election Code.

Laguna Lake Development Authority v. CA

251 SCRA 421 (1995)G.R. No. 120865-71
Facts:
Towards environmental protection and ecology, navigational safety, and sustainable
development, Republic Act No. 4850 created the "Laguna Lake Development Authority."
Issue:
Whether or not R.A. 7160 and the Local Government Code of 1991 repealed R.A. 4850,
which established the LLDA
Held:
No, since it has to be conceded that the charter of the Laguna Lake Development
Authority constitutes a special law. Republic Act No. 7160, the Local Government Code
of 1991, is a general law. It is basic in statutory construction that the enactment of alter
legislation which is a general law cannot be construed to have repealed a special law. It
is a well-settled rule in this jurisdiction that "a special statute, provided for particular case
or class of cases, is not repealed by a subsequent statute, general in its terms, provisions
and application, unless the intent to repeal or alter is manifest, although the terms of the
general law are broad enough to include the cases embraced in the special law. Where
there is a conflict between a general law and a special statute, the special statute should
prevail since it evinces the legislative intent more clearly than the general statute. The
special law is to be taken as an exception to the general law in the absence of special
circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion. This is because implied repeals are not

favored and as much as possible, effect must be given to all enactments of the legislature.
A special law cannot be repealed, amended or altered by a subsequent general law by
mere implication

Filoteo, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan

263 SCRA 222 (1996)G.R. No. 79543
Facts:
Petitioner Jose D. Filoteo, Jr. was a police investigator of the Western Police District in
Metro Manila, an old hand at dealing with suspected criminals. A recipient of various
awards and commendations attesting to his competence and performance as a police
officer, he could not therefore imagine that one day he would be sitting on the other side
of the investigation table as the suspected mastermind of the armed hijacking of apostil
delivery van.Filoteo admitted involvement in the crime and pointed to three other soldiers,
namely, Eddie Saguindel, Bernardo Relator and Jack Miravalles (who turned out to be a
discharged soldier), as his confederates. At 1:45 in the afternoon of May 30, 1982,
petitioner executed a sworn statement in Tagalog before M/Sgt. Arsenio C. Carlos andSgt.
Romeo P. Espero.Peitioner however sought later that his confession be inadmissible
evidence, saying that the law should favor him as an accused.
Issue:
Whether or not Article III, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution shall be given retroactive
effect and petitioners extrajudicial confession be held as inadmissible evidence
Held:
No, since what he did was not a penal offense. Under the penal law, a person guilty of
felony who is not a habitual criminal may be given favor by the law