49. ROEHR v.
RODRIGUEZ alien may be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid
G.R. No. 142820, 20 June 2003
FACTS:
Wolfang O. Roehr, a German citizen married Carmen Rodriguez, a Filipina
in 1980 in Germany. Their marriage was subsequently ratified in Tayasan,
Negros Oriental. They begot two children. In 1996, Carmen filed an action
for declaration of nullity of their marriage. A motion to dismiss was denied
and the subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied. Petitioner
filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals but was
denied and the case was remanded to the RTC. Meanwhile, Wolfang
obtained a decree of divorce in Germany and granted parental custody over
their children to him. In view of said decree, petitioner filed a Second
Motion to Dismiss in 1999 on the ground that the trial court had no
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action or suit as a decree of
divorce had already been promulgated dissolving the marriage of petitioner
and private respondent. An order granting the Motion to Dismiss was issued
because of the dissolution of the marriage. A motion was filed by the
respondent asking that the case be set for hearing for the purpose of
determining the issues of custody of children and the distribution of their
properties. It was opposed on the ground that there was nothing to be done
anymore as the marital tie of the spouses had already been severed by the
divorce decree and that the decree has already been recognized by the court
in its order. The lower Court issued an order partially setting aside the
former order for the purpose of tackling the issues of property relations of
the spouses as well as support and custody of their children. This order was
questioned on the basis of the contention that the divorce decree obtained in
Germany had already severed the marital relations of the parties, hence,
nothing can be done anymore.
ISSUE/S:
Is a foreign divorce decree recognized in our jurisdiction and does it affect
the obligations on care and support of the children?
HELD:
NO. In Garcia v. Recio, Van Dorn v. Romillo, Jr., and Llorente v. Court of
Appeals, it has been consistently held that a divorce obtained abroad by an
according to the national law of the foreigner. Relevant to the present case
is Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera where the Court specifically recognized the
validity of a divorce obtained by a German citizen in his country.
It was held in Pilapil that a foreign divorce and its legal effects may be
recognized in the Philippines insofar as respondent is concerned in view of
the nationality principle in our civil law on the status of persons. As a
general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in other countries are
recognizable in our jurisdiction, but the legal effects thereof, e.g., on
custody, care and support of the children, must still be determined by our
the Rules of Court.
50. DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF
APPEALS
G.R. No. 137916, December 8, 2004
FACTS:
The Spouses Jacinto Gotangco and Charity Bantug were the owners of
seven parcels of land located in Palayan City. On August 22, 1980, the
Spouses Gotangco secured a loan for their poultry project in Palayan City
from the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). They then executed
a real estate mortgage over the parcels of land. On July 17, 1982, the
Spouses Gotangco, as vendors, executed in favor of Elpidio O. Cucio a
contract to sell over the seven parcels of land mortgaged to DBP for
P50,000.00, payable in two installments. The parties agreed that the said
amount shall be paid directly to DBP and applied to the mortgage
indebtedness of the Spouses Gotangco and that, upon full payment of the
purchase price, the Spouses shall execute a deed of sale over the said their
account with the DBP. parcels of land in favor of Cucio. The contract to sell
was known to DBP. On February 20, 1989, the DBP wrote the Spouses
Gotangco demanding payment of the balance of their loan in the amount of
P408,026.96 within ten (10) days from notice thereof. However, the
Spouses failed to respond or pay Cucio then filed a complaint against the
Spouses Gotangco and the DBP with the RTC of Palayan City for
injunction and damages. Cucio alleged, inter alia, that despite his payment
of the full purchase price of the seven (7) parcels of land and his demands
for the turnover of the owners duplicates of the said title to the Spouses
Gotangco, the DBP refused to do so. He further alleged that the DBP even
demanded the payment of the interest on the loan account of the Spouses
Gotangco. Furthermore, the Spouses Gotangco refused to execute a deed of
absolute sale of the said parcels of land in his favor. While the case was
pending, the DBP informed the Spouses Gotangco in a Letter dated
February 20, 199020 that it was going to have the mortgage foreclosed for
their failure to settle their account. On June 8, 1990, the Spouses Gotangco
wrote the DBP requesting for an updated statement of their account and the
application of their payments, inclusive of the proceeds of their insurance
claims. On the same date, the DBP filed an application for the extrajudicial
foreclosure of the real estate mortgage executed in its favor by the Spouses
Gotangco. The Spouses Gotangco forthwith filed a petition before the trial
court for a writ of preliminary injunction to enjoin the public auction,
alleging that the extrajudicial foreclosure of the real estate in favor of the
DBP would render the decision of the court on the merits moot and
academic. During the trial, Jacinto Gotangco testified that he suffered
mental anguish and serious anxieties because of the threatened extrajudicial
foreclosure of the real estate mortgage in favor of DBP. The Trial Court
ordered DBP to pay the Gotangcos the sum of P250,000.00 as moral
damages. On appeal by the DBP, the CA affirmed the decision, but reduced
the award of moral damages to P50,000.00.
ISSUE/S:
Is there a factual or legal basis for the grant of moral damages in favor of
the Gotangcos as against DBP?
HELD:
The Supreme Court ruled that there is no sufficient basis for the award of
moral damages in favor of the respondents spouses based on Article 19 of
the New Civil Code as a result of petitioners application for foreclosure of
real estate mortgage. For one thing, Charity Bantug Gotangco did not
testify. There is no factual basis for the award of moral damages
in her favor. Abuse of right under Article 19 of the New Civil Code, on
which the RTC anchored its award for damages and attorneys fees,
provides: Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his
due, and observe honesty and good faith. The elements of abuse of rights
are the following: (a) the existence of a legal right or duty; (b) which is
exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another. Malice or bad faith is at the core of said provision. Good faith is
presumed and he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same.
Good faith refers to the state of the mind which is manifested by the
acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from
taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another.
51. UYPITCHING v. QUIAMCO
G.R. No. 146322, 6 December 2006
FACTS:
In 1982, respondent Ernesto C. Quiamco was approached by Juan Davalan,
Josefino Gabutero and Raul Generoso to amicably settle the civil aspect of a
criminal case for robbery filed by Quiamco against them. They surrendered
to him a red Honda XL-100 motorcycle and a photocopy of its certificate of
registration. Respondent asked for the original certificate of registration but
the three accused never came to see him again. Meanwhile, the motorcycle
was parked in an open space inside respondent's business establishment,
Avesco-AVNE Enterprises, where it was visible and accessible to the
public. It turned out that, in October 1981, the motorcycle had been sold on
installment basis to Gabutero by petitioner Ramas Uypitching Sons, Inc., a
family-owned corporation managed by petitioner Atty. Ernesto Ramas
Uypitching. To secure its payment, the motorcycle was mortgaged to
petitioner corporation. been "taken by respondent's men." "Quiamco is a
thief of a motorcycle." When Gabutero could no longer pay the
installments, Davalan assumed the obligation and continued the payments.
In September 1982, however, Davalan stopped paying the remaining
installments and told petitioner corporation's collector, Wilfredo Verao,
that the motorcycle had allegedly Nine years later, on January 26, 1991,
petitioner Uypitching, accompanied by policemen, went to Avesco-AVNE
Enterprises to recover the motorcycle. The leader of the police team, P/Lt.
Arturo Vendiola, talked to the clerk in charge and asked for respondent.
While P/Lt. Vendiola and the clerk were talking, petitioner Uypitching
paced back and forth inside the establishment uttering On learning that
respondent was not in Avesco-AVNE Enterprises, the policemen left to
look for respondent in his residence while petitioner Uypitching stayed in
the establishment to take photographs of the motorcycle. Unable to find
respondent, the policemen went back to Avesco-AVNE Enterprises and, on
petitioner Uypitching's instruction and over the clerk's objection, took the
motorcycle.
ISSUE/S:
Did the filing of a complaint for qualified theft and/or violation of the Anti-
Fencing Law in the Office of the City Prosecutor warrant the award of
moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs in favor of
respondent?
performance of his duties, act with justice, give every one his due, and
observe honesty and good faith. Article 19, also known as the "principle of
abuse of right," prescribes that a person should not use his right unjustly or
contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise he opens himself to liability.
It seeks to preclude the use of, or the tendency to use, a legal right (or duty)
as a means to unjust ends. There is an abuse of right when it is exercised
solely to prejudice or injure another. The exercise of a right must be in
accordance with the purpose for which it was established and must not be
excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no intention to harm another.
Otherwise, liability for damages to the injured party will attach.

HELD:
Honeste vivere, non alterum laedere et jus suum cuique tribuere. To live
virtuously, not to injure others and to give everyone his due. These supreme
norms of justice are the underlying principles of law and order in society.
YES. Petitioners claim that they should not be held liable for petitioner
corporation's exercise of its right as seller-mortgagee to recover the
mortgaged vehicle preliminary to the enforcement of its right to foreclose
on the mortgage in case of default. They are clearly mistaken. foreclosure.
True, a mortgagee may take steps to recover the mortgaged property to
enable it to enforce or protect its foreclosure right thereon. There is,
however, a well-defined procedure for the recovery of possession of
mortgaged property: if a mortgagee is unable to obtain possession of a
mortgaged property for its sale on foreclosure, he must bring a civil action
either to recover such possession as a preliminary step to the sale, or to
obtain judicial Petitioner corporation failed to bring the proper civil action
necessary to acquire legal possession of the motorcycle. Instead, petitioner
Uypitching descended on respondent's establishment with his policemen
and ordered the seizure of the motorcycle without a search warrant or court
order. Worse, in the course of the illegal seizure of the motorcycle,
petitioner Uypitching even mouthed a slanderous statement. No doubt,
petitioner corporation, acting through its co-petitioner Uypitching, blatantly
disregarded the lawful procedure for the enforcement of its right, to the
prejudice of respondent. Petitioners' acts violated the law as well as public
morals, and transgressed the proper norms of human relations. The basic
principle of human relations, embodied in Article 19 of the Civil Code,
provides: Art. 19. Every person must in the exercise of his rights and in the