Juridical capacity to Rules of Survivorship said employee and his family who suffered the loss of a loved one.

y who suffered the loss of a loved one. It cannot

be said that the parents’ grief and sense of loss arising from the death of
Case Digest: CONTINENTAL STEEL vs MONTANO
their unborn child, who, in this case, had a gestational life of 38-39 weeks but
CONTINENTAL STEEL MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, Petitioner, died during delivery, is any less than that of parents whose child was born
alive but died subsequently.
vs.
The court also emphasized that life is not synonymous with civil personality.
HON. ACCREDITED VOLUNTARY ARBITRATOR ALLAN S. MONTAÑO and One need not acquire civil personality first before he/she could die. Even a
NAGKAKAISANG MANGGAGAWA NG CENTRO STEEL CORPORATION- child inside the womb already has life. No less than the Constitution
SOLIDARITY OF UNIONS IN THE PHILIPPINES FOR EMPOWERMENT AND recognizes the life of the unborn from conception, that the State must
REFORMS (NMCSC-SUPER), Respondents. protect equally with the life of the mother. If the unborn already has life,
G.R. No. 182836, October 13, 2009 then the cessation thereof even prior to the child being delivered, qualifies as
death.
FACTS:

Hortillano, an employee of petitioner Continental Steel Manufacturing

Corporation (Continental Steel) and a member of respondent Nagkakaisang
Manggagawa ng Centro Steel Corporation-Solidarity of Trade Unions in the
Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (Union) filed a claim for Paternity
Leave, Bereavement Leave and Death and Accident Insurance for dependent,
pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) concluded between
Continental and the Union. This, after his wife, Marife, had a pre-mature
delivery which resulted to the death of their unborn child.

Continental Steel immediately granted Hortillano’s claim for paternity leave

but denied his claims for bereavement leave and other death benefits,
consisting of the death and accident insurance. It posited that the express
provision of the CBA did not contemplate the death of an unborn child, a
fetus, without legal personality.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Hortillano is entitled to bereavement benefits on the death

of his unborn child.

RULING:

Yes, Hortillano is entitled to bereavement benefits.

The Court emphasize that bereavement leave and other death benefits are
granted to an employee to give aid to, and if possible, lessen the grief of, the
Marcos v. Manglapus
Facts:
Former President Ferdinand Marcos petitions the SC for mandamus and
prohibition asking to order respondents to issue travel documents to him and
his immediate family and to enjoin the implementation of the President "s
decision to bar their return to the Philippines.
Issue:
WON the President may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the
Philippines, in the exercise of the powers granted in her by the Constitution.
Ruling:
Affirmative. Although the 1987 Constitution imposes limitations on the
exercise of specific powers of the President, it maintains intact what is
traditionally considered as within the scope of "executive power ". The
powers of the President cannot be said to be limited only to the specific
powers enumerated in the Constitution. Whatever power inherent in the
government that is neither legislative nor judicial has to be executive. Even
the members of the Legislature has recognized that indeed Mrs. Aquino has
the power under the Constitution to bar the Marcoses from returning, as per
House Resolution No. 1342.
Marcos v Manglapus, et. al.
Facts: Same as above, except that Ferdinand has died.
Held: Among the duties of the President under the Constitution, in
compliance with his (or her) oath of office, is to protect and promote the
interest and welfare of the people. Her decision to bar the return of the
Marcoses and subsequently, the remains of Mr. Marcos at the present time
and under present circumstances is in compliance with this bounden duty. In
the absence of a clear showing that she had acted with arbitrariness or with
grave abuse of discretion in arriving at this decision, the Court will not enjoin
the implementation of this decision.
Facts:
This case involves a petition of mandamus and prohibition asking the court to
order the respondents Secretary of Foreign Affairs, etc. To issue a "travel
documents "to former Pres. Marcos and the immediate members of his
family and to enjoin the implementation of the President's decision to bar
their return to the Philippines. Petitioners assert that the right of the
Marcoses "to return "in the Philippines is guaranteed by "the Bill of Rights,
specifically "Sections "1 and 6. They contended that Pres. Aquino is without
power to impair the liberty of abode of the Marcoses because only a court
may do so within the limits prescribed by law. Nor the President impair their
right to travel because no law has authorized her to do so.
They further assert that under "international law, their right "to return "to
the Philippines is guaranteed particularly by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the International Covenant on "Civil "and Political Rights,
which has been ratified by the Philippines.
Issue:
"Whether or not, in the exercise of the powers granted by "the constitution,
the President (Aquino) may prohibit the Marcoses from returning to the
Philippines.
Held:
"It must be emphasized that the individual right involved is not the right to
"travel from "the Philippines to other countries or within the Philippines.
These are what the right to travel would normally connote. Essentially, the
right involved in this case at bar is the right "to return "to one's country, a
distinct right under "international law, independent from although related to
the right to travel. Thus, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenant on "Civil "and Political Rights treat the right to
freedom of "movement "and abode within the territory of a state, the right
to leave the country, and the right to enter one's country as separate and
distinct rights. What the Declaration speaks of is the "right to freedom of
"movement "and residence within the borders of each state". On the other
hand, the Covenant guarantees the right to liberty of "movement "and
freedom to choose his residence and the right to be free to leave any
country, including his own. Such rights may only be restricted by laws
protecting the "national security, public order, "public health "or morals or
the separate rights of others. However, right to enter one's country cannot
be arbitrarily deprived. It would be therefore inappropriate to construe the
limitations to the right "to return "to ones country in the same context as
those pertaining to the liberty of abode and the right to travel.
The Bill of rights "treats only the liberty of abode and the right to travel, but
it is a well considered view that the right "to return "may be considered, as a
generally accepted principle of "International Law "and under our
Constitution as part of the law of the land. "
The court held that President did not act arbitrarily or with grave abuse of
discretion in determining that the return of the Former Pres. Marcos and his
family poses a serious threat to national interest and welfare. President
Aquino has determined that the destabilization caused by the return of the
Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved during the past few years
after the Marcos regime.
The return of the Marcoses poses a serious threat and therefore prohibiting
their return to the Philippines, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.
[G.R. No. 184757, October 05, 2011]
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANICETO BULAGAO,
ACCUSED-APPELLANT.
FACTS:
The Regional Trial Court imposed upon accused-appelant of death for
each count of rape.The Court modified the penalty to reclusion perpetua in
view of the enactment of Repuiblic Act No. 9346. Which prohibits the
imposition of death penalty, the presence of a qualifying circumstance which
would have warranted the imposition of the death penalty would still cause
the award of moral damages and civil indemnity to be increased each from
fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos
(P75,000.00) under prevailing jurisprudence.
In the case at bar, both Information’s, charge a crime of rape qualified
by the use of a deadly weapon. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal
Code, the crime of rape under paragraph 1 of Article 266-A when committed
with the use of a deadly weapon is punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death. This crime was proven as charged in Crim. Case No. 198-M-2001,
which was alleged to have occurred on June 17, 2000. Since no other
qualifying or aggravating circumstance was alleged in the Information, the
proper penalty is reclusion perpetua.
ISSUE:
Whether the presence of aggravating circumstance of the case show
highly reprehensible or outrageous conduct of the offender. In the case of (2)
counts of rape and suffer the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua..
RULING:
Guilty beyond reasonable doubt of two (2) counts of rape and
sentencing the accuse- to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, without
eligibility for parole, for each count of rape is hereby AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS.

Oropesa vs Oropesa GR No 184528 25 April 2012
Facts: This is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Decision
rendered by the CA affirming the Order of the RTC in a Special Proceedings
records; and to grant leave to the Oppositor to file Demurrer to Evid. A
subsequent Demurrer was filed and was granted.
MR was filed by petitioner and appealed the case to CA; failed, now to the

which dismissed Nilo Oropesa’s, peitioner, petition for guardianship over the SC.

properties of his father, respondent, Cirilo Oropesa.

Petitioner filed with the RTC of Parañaque City, a petition for him and a Issue: Whether respondent is considered incompetent as per the Rules who

certain Ms. Louie Ginez to be appointed as guardians over the property of his should be placed under guardianship?

father, respondent, Cirilo Oropesa. Decision: No.The only medical document on record is the Report of
Neuropsychological Screening. Said report, was ambivalent at best, although

In said petition, petitioner alleged that respondent has been afflicted with had negative findings regarding memory lapses on the part of respondent, it

several maladies and has been sickly for over 10 years already having also contained finding that supported the view that respondent on the

suffered a stroke, that his judgment and memory were impaired and such average was indeed competent.

has been evident after his hospitalization. That due to his age and medical
condition, he cannot, without outside aid, manage his property wisely, and
has become easy prey for deceit and exploitation by people around him,
particularly his girlfriend, Ms. Luisa Agamata.

Respondent filed his Opposition to the petition for guardianship filed by his
(ever caring and loving) son.

During trial, petitioner presented his evidence which consists of his, his sister,
and respondent’s former nurse’s testimony.

After presenting evidence, petitioner rested his case but failed to file his
written formal offer of evidence.

Respondent, thereafter, filed his Omnibus Motion to declare that petitioner

has waived the presentation of his Offer of Exhibits and Evidence since they
were not formally offered; To expunge the documents of the petitioner from
Crewlink v.Teringtering,
G.R. No. 166803, October 14, 2012
FACTS:
Respondent Editha Teringtering, spouse of deceased Jacinto Teringtering, and
in behalf of her minor child, filed a complaint against Crewlink for the payment
of death benefits, benefit for minor child, burial assistance, damages, and
attorney’s fees. Editha alleged that her husband entered into an overseas
employment contract with Crewlink, had medical examinations and was
declared fit to work. On April 9, 2001, Jacinto died due to drowning. Editha
claimed for compensation but was denied by Crewlink. She claimed that the
fact Jacinto died during the term of his contract and while still on board is
enough for her to claim for compensation. She asserted that the death was
not deliberate and of his own will but as a result of mental disorder. Crewlink,
on the other hand, claimed that Jacinto jumped off the ship twice. He was just
saved the 1st time. Hence, it is a clear manifestation that it was Jacinto’s will to
jump off the 2nd time.
ISSUE: W/N Jacinto was insane.
HELD: No evidence showed respondent’s claim. Depression does not equate
to mental disorder.
Crewlink v.Teringtering, G.R. No. 166803
October 14, 2012
FACTS:
Respondent Editha Teringtering, spouse of deceased Jacinto Teringtering, and
in behalf of her minor child, filed a complaint against Crewlink for the payment
of death benefits, benefit for minor child, burial assistance, damages, and
attorney’s fees. Editha alleged that her husband entered into an overseas
employment contract with Crewlink, had medical examinations and was
declared fit to work. On April 9, 2001, Jacinto died due to drowning. Editha
claimed for compensation but was denied by Crewlink. She claimed that the
fact Jacinto died during the term of his contract and while still on board is
enough for her to claim for compensation. She asserted that the death was
not deliberate and of his own will but as a result of mental disorder. Crewlink,
on the other hand, claimed that Jacinto jumped off the ship twice. He was just
saved the 1st time. Hence, it is a clear manifestation that it was Jacinto’s will to
jump off the 2nd time.
ISSUE: W/N Jacinto was insane.
HELD: No evidence showed respondent’s claim. Depression does not equate
to mental disorder.
ANTONIO GELUZ, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and OSCAR
LAZO, respondents.
No. L-16439. July 20, 1961
Facts:
Nita Villanueva came to know Geluz when she was pregnant by her husband
before their marriage. Geluz performed an abortion on Nita Villanueva. After
the latter’s marriage, she again became pregnant and since she was employed
in the Commission on Elections, the pregnancy was inconvenient and she had
herself aborted again by Geluz. In less than two years, she again became
pregnant and had her two-month old fetus aborted by Geluz for a sum of fifty
pesos. Nita’s husband was then campaigning for his election and was aware
and did not give consent to the abortion. He filed for an action for the award
of damages. The trial court and Court of Appeals predicated the award of
damages in the sum of three thousand pesos for moral damages.
Issue:
Whether or not the spouses Lazo could recover damages from the physician
who caused the same.
Held:The petition is meritorious.
The minimum award for the death of a person does not cover the case of an
unborn fetus that is not endowed with personality and incapable of having
rights and obligations. Since an action for pecuniary damages on account of
personal injury or death pertains primarily to the injured, no such right of
action could derivatively accrue to the parents or heirs of an unborn child. The
damages which the parents of an unborn child can recover are limited to the
moral damages for the illegal arrest of the normal development of the fetus,
on account of distress and anguish attendant to its loss, and the
disappointment of their parental expectations. In this case, however, the
appellee was indifferent to the previous abortions of his wife, clearly indicative
that he was unconcerned with the frustration of his parental hopes and
expectations.
The decision is reversed and the complaint ordered is dismissed.
RAMON RALLOS v. FELIX GO CHAN, GR No.L-24332, 1978-01-31
Facts:
Concepcion and Gerundia both surnamed Rallos were sisters and registered
co-owners of a parcel of land known as Lot No. 5983 of the Cadastral Survey
of Cebu... the sisters executed a special power of attorney in favor of their
brother, Simeon Rallos, authorizing him to sell for and in their behalf
Concepcion Rallos died.
Simeon Rallos sold the undivided shares of his... sisters Concepcion and
Gerundia in lot 5983 to Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty Corporation for the sum
of P10,686.90.
Ramon Rallos as administrator of the Intestate Estate of Concepcion Rallos
filed a complaint... praying (1) that the sale of the undivided share of the
deceased Concepcion Rallos in lot
5983 be declared unenforceable, and said share be reconveyed to her estate;
(2) that the Certificate of Title issued in the name of Felix Go Chan & Sons
Realty Corporation be cancelled and another title be issued in the names of
the corporation and the "Intestate estate of
Concepcion Rallos" in equal undivided shares; and (3) that plaintiff be
indemnified by way of attorney's fees and payment of costs of suit.
After trial, the court a quo rendered judgment
Declaring the deed of sale, Exh. 'C', null and void insofar as the one-half pro-
indiviso share of Concepcion Rallos in the property in question, - Lot 5983 of
the Cadastral Survey of Cebu - is concerned
Sentencing the co-defendant Juan T. Borromeo, administrator of the Estate
of Simeon Rallos, to pay to defendant Felix Go Chan & Sons Realty
Corporation the sum of P5,343.45, representing the price of one-half (1/2)
share of lot 5983
The appellate tribunal, as adverted to earlier, resolved the appeal on
November 20, 1964 in favor of the appellant corpo-ration sustaining the sale
in question.
Issues:
is the sale of the undivided share of Concepcion Rallos in lot 5983 valid
although it was executed by the agent after... the death of his principal?
Ruling:
Out of the above given principles, sprung the creation and acceptance of the
relationship of agency whereby one party, called the principal (mandante),
authorizes another, called the agent (mandatario), to act for and in his behalf
in transactions... with third persons.
The authority of the agent to act emanates from the powers granted to him
by his principal; his act is the act of the principal if done within the scope of
the authority.
By reason of the very nature of the relationship between principal and agent,
agency is extinguished by the death of the principal or of the agent. This is
the law in this jurisdiction.
Articles 1930 and 1931 of the Civil Code provide the exceptions to the
general rule aforementioned.
Article 1931 is the applicable law. Under this provision, an act done by the
agent after the death of his principal is valid and effective only under two
conditions, viz: (1) that the agent acted without knowledge of the death of
the principal, and (2) that... the third person who contracted with the agent
himself acted in good faith. Good faith here means that the third person was
not aware of the death of the principal at the time he contracted with said
agent. These two requisites must concur: the absence... of one will render
the act of the agent invalid and unenforceable.
In the instant case, it cannot be questioned that the agent, Simeon Rallos,
knew of the death of his principal at the time he sold the latter's share in Lot
No. 5983 to respondent corporation. The knowledge of the death is clearly to
be inferred from the pleadings filed by
Simeon Rallos before the trial court.
On the basis of the established knowledge of Simeon Rallos concerning the
death of his principal, Concepcion Rallos, Article 1931 of the Civil Code is
inapplicable. The law expressly requires for its application lack of knowledge
on the part of the agent of the death... of his principal; it is not enough that
the third person acted in good faith.
In sustaining the validity of the sale to respondent corporation, the Court of
Appeals reasoned out that there is no provision in the Code which provides
that whatever is done by an agent having knowledge of the death of his
principal is void even with respect to third... persons who may have
contracted with him in good faith and without knowledge of the death of the
principal.
We cannot see the merits of the foregoing argument as it ignores the
existence of the general rule enunciated in Article 1919 that the death of the
principal extinguishes the agency.
Another argument advanced by respondent court is that the vendee acting in
good faith relied on the power of attorney which was duly registered on the
original certificate of title recorded in the Register of Deeds of the Province
of Cebu
Although a revocation of a power of attorney to be effective must be
communicated to the... parties concerned,[18] yet a revocation by operation
of law, such as by death of the principal is, as a rule, instantaneously effective
inasmuch as "by legal fiction the agent's exercise of authority is regarded as
an execution of the principal's... continuing will."[19] With death, the
principal's will ceases or is terminated; the source of authority is
extinguished.
The Civil Code does not impose a duty on the heirs to notify the agent of the
death of the principal. What the Code provides in Article 1932 is that, if the
agent dies, his heirs must notify the principal thereof, and in the meantime
adopt such... measures as the circumstances may demand in the interest of
the latter. Hence, the fact that no notice of the death of the principal was
registered on the certificate of title of the property in the Office of the
Register of Deeds, is not fatal to the cause of the estate of the... principal.
Holding that the good faith of a third person in dealing with an agent affords
the former sufficient protection, respondent court drew a "parallel" between
the instant case and that of an innocent purchaser for value of a registered
land... with the case before Us because here We are confronted with one
who admittedly was an agent of his sister and who sold the property of the
latter after her death with full knowledge of such death. The situation is...
expressly covered by a provision of law on agency the terms of which are
clear and unmistakable leaving no room for an interpretation contrary to its
tenor
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, We set aside the decision of respondent PEOPLE v TIROL and BALDESCO, GR NO. L-30538, January 31, 1981-
appellate court, and We affirm en toto the judgment rendered by... the Court
of First Instance of Cebu NO DIGEST
Principles:
"ART. 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are
ratified:
"(1) Those entered into in the name of another person by one who has been
given no authority or legal representation or who has acted beyond his
powers; x x x."
"ART. 1919. Agency is extinguished:
"xx xx xx

"3. By the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of

the agent; x x x."
ART. 1930. The agency shall remain in full force and effect even after the
death of the principal, if it has been constituted in the common interest of
the latter and of the agent, or in the interest of a third person who has
accepted the stipulation in his favor.

ART. 1931. Anything done by the agent, without knowledge of the death of
the principal or of any other cause which extinguishes the agency, is valid
and shall be fully effective with respect to third persons who may have
contracted with him in good faith.