September 2013 Philippine Supreme Court Decisions on Civil Law

Posted on October 16, 2013 Posted in Civil Law, Philippines - Cases, Philippines
- Law
Here are select Septeber 2013 r!lin"s o# the S!pree Co!rt o# the Philippines on
civil law$
CIVIL CODE
Civil re"istr%& nat!re o# civil re"ister boo's& boo's a'in" !p the civil re"ister and
all doc!ents relatin" thereto are p!blic doc!ents and shall be pria #acie
evidence o# the #acts therein contained& as p!blic doc!ents, the% are adissible in
evidence even witho!t #!rther proo# o# their d!e e(ec!tion and "en!ineness)*here
is no +!estion that the doc!entar% evidence s!bitted b% petitioner are all p!blic
doc!ents) ,s provided in the Civil Code$
,-*) .10) *he boo's a'in" !p the civil re"ister and all doc!ents relatin"
thereto shall be considered p!blic doc!ents and shall be prima facie evidence o#
the #acts therein contained)
,s p!blic doc!ents, the% are adissible in evidence even witho!t #!rther proo# o#
their d!e e(ec!tion and "en!ineness) *h!s, the -*C erred when it disre"arded said
doc!ents on the sole "ro!nd that the petitioner did not present the records
c!stodian o# the /SO who iss!ed the to testi#% on their a!thenticit% and d!e
e(ec!tion since proo# o# a!thenticit% and d!e e(ec!tion was not an%ore
necessar%) 0oreover, not onl% are said doc!ents adissible, the% deserve to be
"iven evidentiar% wei"ht beca!se the% constit!te prima facie evidence o# the #acts
stated therein) ,nd in the instant case, the #acts stated therein reain !nreb!tted
since neither the private respondent nor the p!blic prosec!tor presented evidence to
the contrar%) 1n Yasuo Iwasawa v. Felisa Custodio Gangan (a.k.a. Felisa Gangan
Arambulo and Felisa Gangan Iwasawa! et al.! G.". #o. $%&'()! *eptember
''! $%'+.
Contracts& contract to sell distin"!ished #ro contract o# sale& in a contract to sell,
ownership reains with the vendor and does not pass to the vendee !ntil #!ll
pa%ent o# the p!rchase price& a deed o# sale is absol!te when there is no
stip!lation in the contract that title to the propert% reains with the seller !ntil the
#!ll pa%ent o# the p!rchase price) 1n a conditional sale, as in a contract to sell,
ownership reains with the vendor and does not pass to the vendee !ntil #!ll
pa%ent o# the p!rchase price) *he #!ll pa%ent o# the p!rchase price parta'es o# a
s!spensive condition, and non-#!l#illent o# the condition prevents the obli"ation
to sell #ro arisin") *o di##erentiate, a deed o# sale is absol!te when there is no
stip!lation in the contract that title to the propert% reains with the seller !ntil #!ll
pa%ent o# the p!rchase price) "amos v. ,eruela held that ,rticles 1121 and 1322
o# the Civil Code are applicable to contracts o# sale, while -),) /o) 6332 applies
to contracts to sell) -anuel ./ 0 *ons! Inc. v. 1albueco! Incorporated, 4)-) /o)
15232., Septeber 11, 2013)
Contracts& lease contracts& lease contracts s!rvive the death o# the parties and
contin!e to bind the heirs e(cept i# the contract states otherwise& the provision in
the lease contract statin" that 6this contract is nontrans#erable !nless prior written
consent o# the lessor is obtained in writin"7 re#ers to trans#ers inter vivos and not
transissions ortis ca!sa) *he S!pree Co!rt has previo!sl% r!led that lease
contracts, b% their nat!re, are not personal) *he "eneral r!le, there#ore, is lease
contracts s!rvive the death o# the parties and contin!e to bind the heirs e(cept i#
the contract states otherwise) 1n *ui -an ,ui C2an v. Court of Appeals, we held
that$ 6, lease contract is not essentiall% personal in character) *h!s, the ri"hts and
obli"ations therein are transissible to the heirs) *he "eneral r!le, there#ore, is that
heirs are bo!nd b% contracts entered into b% their predecessors-in-interest e(cept
when the ri"hts and obli"ations arisin" there#ro are not transissible b% 819 their
nat!re, 829 stip!lation or 839 provision o# law) 1n the s!b:ect Contract o# Lease, not
onl% were there no stip!lations prohibitin" an% transission o# ri"hts, b!t its ver%
ters and conditions e(plicitl% provided #or the transission o# the ri"hts o# the
lessor and o# the lessee to their respective heirs and s!ccessors) *he contract is the
law between the parties) *he death o# a part% does not e(c!se nonper#orance o# a
contract, which involves a propert% ri"ht, and the ri"hts and obli"ations there!nder
pass to the s!ccessors or representatives o# the deceased) Siilarl%,
nonper#orance is not e(c!sed b% the death o# the part% when the other part% has a
propert% interest in the s!b:ect atter o# the contract)7 Section 6 o# the lease
contract provides that 6;t<his contract is nontrans#erable !nless prior consent o# the
lessor is obtained in writin")7 Section 6 re#ers to trans#ers inter vivos and not
transissions mortis causa. =hat Section 6 see's to avoid is #or the lessee to
s!bstit!te a third part% in place o# the lessee witho!t the lessor>s consent) -anuel
./ 0 *ons! Inc. v. 1albueco! Incorporated, 4)-) /o) 15232., Septeber 11, 2013)
Contracts& lease contracts& s!blease arran"eent& concept) ,ssi"nent or trans#er
o# lease, which is covered b% ,rticle 16.2 o# the Civil Code, is di##erent #ro a
s!blease arran"eent, which is "overned b% ,rticle 1630 o# the sae Code) 1n a
s!blease, the lessee becoes in t!rn a lessor to a s!b-lessee) *he s!b-lessee then
becoes liable to pa% rentals to the ori"inal lessee) However, the :!ridical relation
between the lessor and lessee is not dissolved) *he parties contin!e to be bo!nd b%
the ori"inal lease contract) *h!s, in a s!blease arran"eent, there are at least three
parties and two distinct :!ridical relations) -anuel ./ 0 *ons! Inc. v. 1albueco!
Incorporated, 4)-) /o) 15232., Septeber 11, 2013)
Contracts& lease contracts& lessee>s ri"ht !pon the terination o# the lease to 8a9
clai reib!rseent #ro the lessor #or hal# the val!e o# the !se#!l iproveents
introd!ced b% the lessee in "ood #aith, or to 8b9 deolish o# s!ch iproveents)
*he C, erred in not appl%in" ,rticle 165? o# the Civil Code which provides$ 6,rt)
165?) 1# the lessee a'es, in "ood #aith, !se#!l iproveents which are s!itable to
the !se #or which the lease is intended, witho!t alterin" the #or or s!bstance o#
the propert% leased, the lessor !pon the terination o# the lease shall pa% the lessee
one-hal# o# the val!e o# the iproveents at that tie) Sho!ld the lessor re#!se to
reib!rse said ao!nt, the lessee a% reove the iproveents, even tho!"h the
principal thin" a% s!##er daa"e thereb%) He shall not, however, ca!se an% ore
ipairent !pon the propert% leased than is necessar%) =ith re"ard to ornaental
e(penses, the lessee shall not be entitled to an% reib!rseent, b!t he a% reove
the ornaental ob:ects, provided no daa"e is ca!sed to the principal thin", and
the lessor does not choose to retain the b% pa%in" their val!e at the tie the lease
is e(tin"!ished)7
*he #ore"oin" provision applies i# the iproveents were$ 819 introd!ced in "ood
#aith& 829 !se#!l& and 839 s!itable to the !se #or which the lease is intended, witho!t
alterin" the #or and s!bstance) =e #ind that the a#oreentioned re+!isites are
satis#ied in this case) *he b!ildin"s were constr!cted be#ore 4eran>s deise,
d!rin" the s!bsistence o# a valid contract o# lease) 1t does not appear that H@SA
prohibited 4eran #ro constr!ctin" the b!ildin"s) *h!s, H@SA sho!ld have
reib!rsed 4eran 8or his estate9 hal# o# the val!e o# the iproveents as o#
2001) 1# H@SA is not willin" to reib!rse the 1nocencios, then the latter sho!ld be
allowed to deolish the b!ildin"s) -anuel ./ 0 *ons! Inc. v. 1albueco!
Incorporated, 4)-) /o) 15232., Septeber 11, 2013)
Contracts& tortio!s inter#erence& eleents& e(ception) ,s correctl% pointed o!t b%
the 1nocencios, tortio!s inter#erence has the #ollowin" eleents$ 819 e(istence o# a
valid contract& 829 'nowled"e on the part o# the third person o# the e(istence o# the
contract& and 839 inter#erence o# the third person witho!t le"al :!sti#ication or
e(c!se) 1n *o 3ing 4un v. Court of Appeals! we held that there was no tortio!s
inter#erence i# the intr!sion was ipelled b% p!rel% econoic otives) 1n *o 3ing
4un! we e(plained that$ 6,!thorities debate on whether inter#erence a% be
:!sti#ied where the de#endant acts #or the sole p!rpose o# #!rtherin" his own
#inancial or econoic interest) One view is that, as a "eneral r!le, :!sti#ication #or
inter#erin" with the b!siness relations o# another e(ists where the actor>s otive is
to bene#it hisel#) S!ch :!sti#ication does not e(ist where his sole otive is to
ca!se har to the other) ,dded to this, soe a!thorities believe that it is not
necessar% that the inter#erer>s interest o!twei"hs that o# the part% whose ri"hts are
invaded, and that an individ!al acts !nder an econoic interest that is s!bstantial,
not erel% de minimis, s!ch that wron"#!l and alicio!s otives are ne"atived,
#or he acts in sel#-protection) 0oreover, :!sti#ication #or protectin" one>s #inancial
position sho!ld not be ade to depend on a coparison o# his econoic interest in
the s!b:ect atter with that o# others) 1t is s!##icient i# the ipet!s o# his cond!ct
lies in a proper b!siness interest rather than in wron"#!l otives)7 Analita 3.
Inocencion! substituting for "amon Inocencion (deceased v. ,ospicio de *an
5ose! 4)-) /o) 2015?5, Septeber 23, 2013)
@aa"es& loss o# earnin" capacit%& copensation #or lost incoe is in the nat!re o#
daa"es and as s!ch re+!ires d!e proo# o# the daa"es s!##ered& there !st be
!nbiased proo# o# the deceased>s incoe) 1n People v) Carai", the S!pree Co!rt
had drawn two e(ceptions to the r!le that 6doc!entar% evidence sho!ld be
presented to s!bstantiate the clai #or daa"es #or loss o# earnin" capacit%,7 and
have th!s awarded daa"es where there is testion% that the victi was either 819
sel#-eplo%ed earnin" less than the ini! wa"e !nder c!rrent labor laws, and
:!dicial notice a% be ta'en o# the #act that in the victi>s line o# wor' no
doc!entar% evidence is available& or 829 eplo%ed as a dail%-wa"e wor'er
earnin" less than the ini! wa"e !nder c!rrent labor laws)7 1n 3eople of t2e
32ilippines v. 6dwin Ibane7 / Albante! et al.! 4)-) /o) 125?13, Septeber 23,
2013)
Bstoppel& re+!isites) Cor estoppel to ta'e e##ect, there !st be 'nowled"e o# the
real #acts b% the part% so!"ht to be estopped and reliance b% the part% claiin"
estoppel on the representation ade b% the #orer) 1n this case, petitioner cannot
be estopped #ro as'in" #or the ret!rn o# the vessel in the condition that it had
been at the tie it was seiDed b% respondent beca!se he had not 'nown o# the
deteriorated condition o# the ship) 6rnesto 8/ v. ,on. Gina -. 4ibat93alamos! in
2er capacit/ as 3residing 5udge of t2e ":C! 4ranc2 (&! -akati Cit/! and ;ri<
-etro =easing and Finance Corporation! 4)-) /o) 126200, Septeber 11, 2013)
1nterest& A!d"ent award& iposition o# interests& !nder ESP Circ!lar /o) 522,
e##ective on A!l% 1, 2013, the interest rate to be iposed #or a loan or #orbearance
o# one%, "oods or credits and the rate allowed in :!d"ents in the absence o#
stip!lation thereon, was chan"ed #ro 12F to 6F) /otice !st be ta'en that in
-esol!tion /o) 526 dated 0a% 16, 2013, the 0onetar% Eoard o# the Ean"'o
Sentral n" Pilipinas approved the revision o# the interest rate to be iposed #or the
loan or #orbearance o# an% one%, "oods or credits and the rate allowed in
:!d"ents, in the absence o# an e(press contract as to s!ch rate o# interest) *h!s,
!nder ESP Circ!lar /o) 522, iss!ed on A!ne 21, 2013 and e##ective on A!l% 1,
2013, the said rate o# interest is now bac' at si( percent 86F9, *.C. -egaworld
Construction and 8evelopment Corporation v. 6ngr. =uis .. 3arada! represented
b/ 6ngr. =eonardo A. 3arada of Genlite Industries! 4)-) /o) 1?3?0., Septeber
11, 2013)
Laches& concept& the +!estion o# laches is addressed to the so!nd discretion o# the
co!rt and, bein" an e+!itable doctrine, its application is controlled b% e+!itable
considerations) Laches has been de#ined as the #ail!re or ne"lect #or an
!nreasonable and !ne(plained len"th o# tie to do that which, b% e(ercisin" d!e
dili"ence, co!ld or sho!ld have been done earlier, th!s, "ivin" rise to a
pres!ption that the part% entitled to assert it either has abandoned or declined to
assert it)
On this score, it is a well-settled principle o# law that laches is a reco!rse in e+!it%,
which is, applied onl% in the absence o# stat!tor% law) ,nd tho!"h laches applies
even to iprescriptible actions, its eleents !st be proved positivel%) Gltiatel%,
the +!estion o# laches is addressed to the so!nd discretion o# the co!rt and, bein"
an e+!itable doctrine, its application is controlled b% e+!itable considerations)
Citibank! #.A. and t2e Citigroup 3rivate 4ank v. 6ster ,. :anco9Gabaldon! et al.>
Carol =im v. 6ster ,. :anco9Gabaldon! et al., 4)-) /o) 12?...H4)-) /o) 12?.62-
50, Septeber ., 2013)
Obli"ations& novation& concept& eleents) 1n novation, a s!bse+!ent obli"ation
e(tin"!ishes a previo!s one thro!"h s!bstit!tion either b% chan"in" the ob:ect or
principal conditions, b% s!bstit!tin" another in place o# the debtor, or b%
s!bro"atin" a third person into the ri"hts o# the creditor) /ovation re+!ires 8a9 the
e(istence o# a previo!s valid obli"ation& 8b9 the a"reeent o# all parties to the new
contract& 8c9 the e(tin"!ishent o# the old contract& and 8d9 the validit% o# the new
one) *here cannot be novation in this case since the proposed s!bstit!ted parties
did not a"ree to the P-,>s s!pposed assi"nent o# its obli"ations !nder the
contract #or the electrical and li"ht wor's at Herita"e Par' to the HP0C) *he latter
de#initel% and clearl% re:ected the P-,>s assi"nent o# its liabilit% !nder that
contract to the HP0C) 32ilippine "eclamation Aut2orit/ (formerl/ known as t2e
3ublic 6states Aut2orit/ v. "omago! Inc.>"omago! Inc. 1s. 32ilippine "eclamation
Aut2orit/! 4)-) /os) 15.663 and 153221, Septeber 1?, 2013)
Obli"ations& novation as a ode o# e(tin"!ishin" an obli"ation& concept& novation
is never pres!ed b!t !st be clearl% and !ne+!ivocall% shown) /ovation is a
ode o# e(tin"!ishin" an obli"ation b% chan"in" its ob:ects or principal
obli"ations, b% s!bstit!tin" a new debtor in place o# the old one, or b% s!bro"atin"
a third person to the ri"hts o# the creditor) 1t is 6the s!bstit!tion o# a new contract,
debt, or obli"ation #or an e(istin" one between the sae or di##erent parties)7 *he
settled r!le is that novation is never pres!ed, b!t !st be clearl% and
!ne+!ivocall% shown) 1n order #or a new a"reeent to s!persede the old one, the
parties to a contract !st e(pressl% a"ree that the% are abro"atin" their old contract
in #avor o# a new one) *h!s, the ere s!bstit!tion o# debtors will not res!lt in
novation, and the #act that the creditor accepts pa%ents #ro a third person, who
has ass!ed the obli"ation, will res!lt erel% in the addition o# debtors and not
novation, and the creditor a% en#orce the obli"ation a"ainst both debtors) 1# there
is no a"reeent as to solidarit%, the #irst and new debtors are considered obli"ated
:ointl%) 32ilippine "eclamation Aut2orit/ (formerl/ known as t2e3ublic 6states
Aut2orit/ v. "omago! Inc.>"omago! Inc. 1s. 32ilippine "eclamation Aut2orit/!4)-)
/os) 15.663 and 153221, Septeber 1?, 2013)
SPECIL L!S
Land re"istration& an applicant who see's to have a land re"istered in his nae has
the b!rden o# provin" that he is its owner in #ee siple) ,s held in "epublic v. =ee$
*he ost basic r!le in land re"istration cases is that 6no person is entitled to have
land re"istered !nder the Cadastral or *orrens s%ste !nless he is the owner in #ee
siple o# the sae, even tho!"h there is no opposition presented a"ainst s!ch
re"istration b% third persons) ( ( ( 1n order that the petitioner #or the re"istration o#
his land shall be peritted to have the sae re"istered, and to have the bene#it
res!ltin" #ro the certi#icate o# title, #inall%, iss!ed, the b!rden is !pon hi to
show that he is the real and absol!te owner, in #ee siple)
1n First Gas 3ower Corporation v. "epublic of t2e 32ilippines! "epresented b/ t2e
;ffice of t2e *olicitor General! 4)-) /o) 162.61, Septeber 2, 2013.
Land re"istration& /at!re o# land re"istration proceedin"s& land re"istration
proceedin"s are in re in nat!re and, hence, b% virt!e o# the p!blication
re+!ireent, all claiants and occ!pants o# the s!b:ect propert% are deeed to be
noti#ied o# the e(istence o# a cadastral case involvin" the s!b:ect lots& parties are
precl!ded #ro re-liti"atin" the sae iss!es alread% deterined b% #inal :!d"ent)
1n this case, records disclose that petitioner itsel# ani#ested d!rin" the
proceedin"s be#ore the -*C that there s!bsists a decision in a previo!s cadastral
case, i.e., Cad) Case /o) 35, which covers the sae lots it applied apprised o# the
e(istence o# the #ore"oin" decision even be#ore the rendition o# the -*C @ecision
and ,ended Order thro!"h the L-, -eport dated as earl% as /oveber 2., 122?
which, as above-+!oted, states that the s!b:ect lots 6were previo!sl% applied #or
re"istration o# title in the ;c<adastral proceedin"s and were both decided !nder
;Cad) Case /o) 35<, 4L-O -ecord /o) 1262, and are s!b:ect to the #ollowin"
annotation ( ( ($ ILots 122? 8.3-19 ;and< 1313 861-19 Pte) /!eva doc)>7 Since it
had been d!l% noti#ied o# an e(istin" decision which binds over the s!b:ect lots, it
was inc!bent !pon petitioner to prove that the said decision wo!ld not a##ect its
claied stat!s as owner o# the s!b:ect lots in #ee siple) 1n First Gas 3ower
Corporation v. "epublic of t2e 32ilippines! "epresented b/ t2e ;ffice of t2e
*olicitor General! 4)-) /o) 162.61, Septeber 2, 2013.
Land re"istration proceedin"s& nat!re& bein" a proceedin" in re, there is no need
to "ive personal notice to the owners or claiants o# the land so!"ht to be
re"istered in order to vest the co!rts with power and a!thorit% over the res) Since
no iss!e was raised as to ,ntonia Jictorino>s copliance with the prere+!isites o#
notice and p!blication, she is deeed to have #ollowed s!ch re+!ireents) ,s a
conse+!ence, petitioner is deeed s!##icientl% noti#ied o# the hearin" o# ,ntonia>s
application) Hence, she cannot clai that she is denied d!e process) 1n Crisanta
Guido96nri?ue7 v. Alicia I. 1ictorino! et al.! 4)-) /o) 1?0.25, Septeber 30,
2013)
Land re"istration& re+!ireent that the application #or land re"istration !st state
the #!ll naes and addresses o# all occ!pants o# the land and those o# the ad:oinin"
owners, i# 'nown, and i# not 'nown, it !st state the e(tent o# the search ade to
#ind the) ,s to the alle"ed denial o# petitioner>s ri"ht to d!e process d!e to
,ntonia Jictorino>s #ail!re to identi#% petitioner as indispensable part% in her
application #or re"istration, as well as to serve her with act!al and personal notice,
Section 13 o# Presidential @ecree /o) 1322 sipl% re+!ires that the application #or
re"istration shall 6state the #!ll naes and addresses o# all occ!pants o# the land
and those o# the ad:oinin" owners, i# 'nown, and, i# not 'nown, it shall state the
e(tent o# the search ade to #ind the)7 , per!sal o# ,ntonia Jictorino>s
,pplication shows that she en!erated the ad:oinin" owners) She also indicated
therein that, to the best o# her 'nowled"e, no person has an% interest or is in
possession o# the s!b:ect land) *he #act that she did not identi#% petitioner as an
occ!pant or an ad:oinin" owner is not tantao!nt to denial o# petitioner>s ri"ht to
d!e process and does not n!lli#% the -*C @ecision "rantin" s!ch application) 1n
Crisanta Guido96nri?ue7 v. Alicia I. 1ictorino! et al.! 4)-) /o) 1?0.25, Septeber
30, 2013)
Land -e"istration& *orrens title& concl!sive evidence o# ownership o# the land& the
phrase 6arried to7 is erel% descriptive o# the civil stat!s o# the re"istered owner)
, *orrens title is "enerall% a concl!sive evidence o# the ownership o# the land
re#erred to, beca!se there is a stron" pres!ption that it is valid and re"!larl%
iss!ed)23 *he phrase 6arried to7 is erel% descriptive o# the civil stat!s o# the
re"istered owner) In 5uan *evilla *alas! 5r. v. 6den 1illena Aguil! 4)-) /o)
202350, Septeber 23, 2013)
0arria"e& propert% re"ies #or arria"es that are s!bse+!entl% declared void
!nder ,rticle 36 o# the Cail% Code& propert% ac+!ired d!rin" the arria"e is
pres!ed to have been obtained thro!"h the co!ple>s :oint e##orts and "overned b%
the r!les on co-ownership) 1n 8i@o v. 8i@o, the S!pree Co!rt held that ,rticle
1.5 o# the Cail% Code applies to the !nion o# parties who are le"all% capacitated
and not barred b% an% ipedient to contract arria"e, b!t whose arria"e is
nonetheless declared void !nder ,rticle 36 o# the Cail% Code, as in this case)
,rticle 1.5 o# the Cail% Code provides$
,-*) 1.5) =hen a an and a woan who are capacitated to arr% each other, live
e(cl!sivel% with each other as h!sband and wi#e witho!t the bene#it o# arria"e or
!nder a void arria"e, their wa"es and salaries shall be owned b% the in e+!al
shares and the propert" ac#uire$ b" both o% them throu&h their wor' or
in$ustr" shall be &overne$ b" the rules on coownership(
In the absence o% proo% to the contrar") properties ac#uire$ while the" live$
to&ether shall be presume$ to have been obtaine$ b" their *oint e%%orts) wor'
or in$ustr") an$ shall be owne$ b" them in e#ual shares( Cor p!rposes o# this
,rticle, a part% who did not participate in the ac+!isition b% the other part% o# an%
propert% shall be deeed to have contrib!ted :ointl% in the ac+!isition thereo# i#
the #orer>s e##orts consisted in the care and aintenance o# the #ail% and o# the
ho!sehold)
/either part% can enc!ber or dispose b% acts inter vivos o# his or her share in the
propert% ac+!ired d!rin" cohabitation and owned in coon, witho!t the consent
o# the other, !ntil a#ter the terination o# their cohabitation)
=hen onl% one o# the parties to a void arria"e is in "ood #aith, the share o# the
part% in bad #aith in the co-ownership shall be #or#eited in #avor o# their coon
children) 1n case o# de#a!lt o# or waiver b% an% or all o# the coon children or
their descendants, each vacant share shall belon" to the respective s!rvivin"
descendants) 1n the absence o# descendants, s!ch share shall belon" to the innocent
part%) 1n all cases, the #or#eit!re shall ta'e place !pon terination o# the
cohabitation) 8Bphasis s!pplied9
Gnder this propert% re"ie, propert% ac+!ired d!rin" the arria"e is prima facie
pres!ed to have been obtained thro!"h the co!ple>s :oint e##orts and "overned b%
the r!les on co-ownership) 1n 5uan *evilla *alas! 5r. v. 6den 1illena Aguil! 4)-)
/o) 202350, Septeber 23, 2013)
0arria"e& n!llit% o# arria"e& a :!dicial declaration o# n!llit% is re+!ired be#ore a
valid s!bse+!ent arria"e can be contracted, or else, what transpires is a bi"ao!s
arria"e) *he S!pree Co!rt has consistentl% held that a :!dicial declaration o#
n!llit% is re+!ired be#ore a valid s!bse+!ent arria"e can be contracted& or else,
what transpires is a bi"ao!s arria"e, which is void #ro the be"innin" as
provided in ,rticle 338.9 o# the Cail% Code o# the Philippines) 1n Yasuo Iwasawa
v. Felisa Custodio Gangan (a.k.a. Felisa Gangan Arambulo and Felisa
Gangan Iwasawa! et al.! G.". #o. $%&'()! *eptember ''! $%'+.
-ealt% 1nstallent E!%er ,ct& ri"ht o# b!%er to re#!nd on installents in case he
de#a!lts in the pa%ents o# s!cceedin" installents accr!es onl% when he has paid
at least two %ears o# installents) Gnder -),) /o) 6332, the ri"ht o# the b!%er to
re#!nd accr!es onl% when he has paid at least two %ears o# installents) 1n this
case, respondent has paid less than two %ears o# installents& hence, it is not
entitled to a re#!nd) -anuel ./ 0 *ons! Inc. v. 1albueco! Incorporated, 4)-) /o)
15232., Septeber 11, 2013)