National Marketing Corporation V. Tecson G.R. No.

L-2013127 August 1969

Facts: December 21, 1965, National Marketing Corporation filed a complaint, docketed as civil case no. 63701 on the same court, as successor of the Price Stabilization Corporation, against the same defendant from10 years ago. Defendant Miguel Tecson moved to dismiss the said complaint upon the ground lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter of that and prescription of action. The court, then, issued an order of dismissal with regards the article 13 of the civil code. However, National Marketing Corporation appealed to the court of appeals from such order. Looking at the fact that 1960 and 1964 is a leap year, they insisted that a year means a calendar year and a leap year would still be counted as 1 year even if it consists of 366 days. The case reached its conclusion with the appellants theory with regards to the article 13 of the civil code.

Issues: Whether or not the term year as used in the article 13 of the civil code is limited to 365 days.

Ruling: The term year as used in the article 13 of the civil code is limited to 365 days. However, it is said to be unrealistic and if public interest demands a reversion to the policy embodied in the revised administrative code, this may be done through legislative process and not by judicial decree.

Pastor B. Tenchavez v. Vicenta F. Escao G.R. No. L-19671 November 29, 1965 FACTS: 1. Pastor Tenchavez and Vicenta Escao exchanged marriage vows without the knowledge of her parents, before a Catholic chaplain, Lt. Moises Lavares. The marriage was the culmination of a previous love affair and was duly registered with the local civil register. 2. They planned to get married and then elope. Elopement did not, however, materialize because her mother found out about the clandestine nuptial. Vicenta was taken home where she admitted that she had already married Pastor. Mamerto and Mena Escao (Escao parents) were surprised, because Pastor never asked for the hand of Vicente, and were disgusted because of the great scandal that the clandestine marriage would provoke. 3. V i c e n t a w e n t t o M i s a m i s O c c i d e n t a l , t o e s c a p e f r o m t h e s c a n d a l t h a t h e r marriage stirred in Cebu society. There, a lawyer filed for her a petition, drafted by then Senator Emmanuel Pelaez, to annul her marriage. 4. She did not sign the petition however and the case was dismissed without prejudice because of her non-appearance at the hearing. S h e a p p l i e d f o r a p a s s p o r t , i n d i c a t i n g i n h e r a p p l i c a t i o n t h a t s h e w a s s i n g l e , that her purpose was to study, and she was domiciled in Cebu City, and that she intended to return after 2 yrs. 5. In US, Escano filed divorce against the Tenchavez in the Second Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Washoe, on the ground of "extreme cruelty, entirely mental in character." 6. Oct/21/1950 - decree of divorce, "final and absolute", was issued in open court by the said tribunal. 7. L a t e r , E s c a n o m a r r i e d a n A m e r i c a n , R u s s e l l L e o M o r a n , i n N e v a d a . S h e n o w lives with him in California, and, by him, has begotten children. On A u g u s t 8 , 1 9 5 8 She acquired American citizenship. 8. Jul/30/1955 amended on May 31, 1956 Tenchavez had initiated the proceedings at bar against Vicenta F. Escao, legal separation for bigamy, against Escano Parents whom he charged with having dissuaded and discouraged Vicenta from joining her husband, and alienating her affections, and against the Roman Catholic Church for having, through its Diocesan Tribunal, decreed the annulment of the marriage, and asked for legal separation and one million pesos in damages. ISSUE: Whether or not the divorce filed and affirmed by the Second Judicial Court of the State of Nevada was Valid.

HELD: That a foreign divorce between Filipino citizens, sought and decreed after the effectivity of the present Civil Code (Rep. Act 386), is not entitled to recognition as valid in this jurisdiction; and neither is the marriage contracted with another party by the divorced consort, subsequently to the foreign decree of divorce, entitled to validity in the country;

Juan Miciano vs. Andre Brimo G.R. No. L-22595 November 1, 1927 FACTS:

Andre Brimo opposed the appeal of Juan Miciano, administrator of the estate of the deceased Joseph Brimo. The property was said to be in the Philippines and the will of the deceased wished that the distribution of his properties and everything in connection with it be in accordance with the Philippine laws. Oppositor-appellant Brimo claimed that the will of the testator is not in accordance with the laws of his Turkish nationality. The errors he (oppositor) assigned in his opposition were the following: (1) the approval of said scheme partition, (2) denial of his participation in the inheritance, (3) denial of the motion for reconsideration of the order approving the partition, (4) the approval of the purchase made by the Pietro Lanza of the deceased's business and the deed of transfer of said business, and (5) the declaration that the Turkish laws are impertinent to this cause, and the failure not to postpone the approval of the scheme of partition and the delivery of the deceased's business to Pietro Lanza until the receipt of the depositions requested in reference to the Turkish laws. ISSUE: Whether or not Philippine laws shall be applied on the estate of Joseph Brimo, a Turkish citizen who have resided for a considerable length of time in the Philippines HELD: Article 10 of the old Civil Code of the Philippine law was applied on the estate of Joseph Brimo, where it was provided, nevertheless, legal and testamentary successions, in respect to the order of succession as well as to the amount of the successional rights and the intrinsic validity of their provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is in question, whatever may be the nature of the property or the country in which it may be situated. However, the oppositor did not prove, though was granted ample opportunity to introduce competent evidence, that said testamentary dispositions are not in accordance with the Turkish laws. Therefore, there is no evidence in the record that the national law of the testatrix was violated in the testamentary dispositions in question which, not being contrary to our laws in force, must be complied with and executed; thus, the approval of the scheme of partition in this respect was not erroneous. Therefore, the orders appealed from are modified and it is directed that the distribution of this estate be made in such a manner as to include the herein appellant Andre Brimo as one of the legatees, and the scheme of partition submitted by the judicial administrator is approved in all other respects, without any pronouncement as to costs. SO ORDERED