J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

CASE 2016-0038: TAN SIOK1 KUAN and PUTECHING, VS. FELICISIMO “BOY” HO, RODOLFO C. RETURTA,2 VICENTE M. SALAS, and LOLITA MALONZO, (G.R. 175085, 01 JUNE 2016, PEREZ J.) (SUBJECT/S: UNLAWFUL DETAINER; RES INTER ALIAS ACTA)  (BRIEF TITLE: KUAN ET AL. VS. HO ET AL.)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, finding no reversible error in the assailed rulings, the Court resolves to DENY the present petition. Accordingly, the Decision dated June 29, 2006 and the Resolution dated October 17, 2006 of the Court of Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED and the complaints for unlawful detainer filed by petitioners Tan Siu Kuan and Pute Ching against respondents Felicisimo “Boy” Ho, Rodolfo Returta, Vicente Salas, and Lolita Malonzo are DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT IS THE PRINCIPLE OF RES INTER ALIAS ACTA?

IT STATES THAT THE RIGHT OF A PARTY CANNOT BE PREJUDICED BY AN ACT, DECLARATION OR OMISSION OF ANOTHER, EXCEPT AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED, AMONG WHICH ARE: (1) ADMISSION BY THIRD PARTY, (2) ADMISSION BY CO-PARTNER OR AGENT, (3) ADMISSION BY CONSPIRATOR, AND ( 4) ADMISSION BY PRIVIES.

WHAT IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND SAID PRINCIPLE?

ON  A PRINCIPLE OF GOOD FAITH AND MUTUAL CONVENIENCE, A MAN’S OWN ACTS ARE BINDING UPON HIMSELF, AND ARE EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM. SO ARE HIS CONDUCT AND DECLARATIONS. YET IT WOULD NOT ONLY BE RIGHTLY INCONVENIENT, BUT ALSO MANIFESTLY UNJUST, THAT A MAN SHOULD BE BOUND BY THE ACTS OF MERE UNAUTHORIZED STRANGERS; AND IF A PARTY OUGHT NOT TO BE BOUND BY THE ACTS OF STRANGERS, NEITHER OUGHT THEIR ACTS OR CONDUCT BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

PETITIONERS FAILED  TO PROVE THAT LESSOR-LESSEE RELATIONSHIP EXIST. NO LEASE CONTRACT WAS PRESENTED. THERE WAS NO PROOF OF RENTAL PAYMENTS.

THUS PETIONERS APPEAR AS STRANGERS TO RESPONDENTS. THEIR ALLEGATIONS AS LESSORS WHICH WERE VEHEMENTLY DENIED BY RESPONDENTS CANNOT BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST RESPONDENTS.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0038-KUAN

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0037: RAQUEL G. KHO VS. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES AND VERONICA G. KHO (G.R. 187462, 01 JUNE 2016, PERALTA J.)(SUBJECT/S: MARRIAGE LICENSE; EXCEPTIONAL MARRIAGES; EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT SC MUST ONLY RESOLVE  QUESTIONS OF LAW) (BRIEF TITLE: KHO VS. REPUBLIC)

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court hereby declares the marriage contracted between Raquel G. Kho and Veronica Borata on June 1, 1972 null and void ab initio pursuant to Article 80 of the Civil Code and Articles 4 and 5 of the Family Code.  The foregoing is without prejudiced to the application of Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code.

Let a copy of this decision be furnished the Municipal Civil Registrar of Arteche, Eastern, Samar for proper registration of this decree of nullity of marriage.

So ordered.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

OSG ARGUES THAT THE ISSUES ARE FACTUAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE NOT PROPER FOR SC TO RESOLVE THESE ISSUES. IS OSG CORRECT?

NO.

THE ISSUES INVOLVE A DETERMINATION AND APPLICATION OF LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE INTERTWINED WITH A QUESTION OF FACT: WHETHER A MARRIAGE LICENSE WAS OBTAINED BY THE PARTIES PRIOR TO MARRIAGE.

WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE THAT SC SHALL NOT ENTERTAIN QUESTIONS OF FACT?

THERE ARE 10:

( 1) WHEN THE CONCLUSION IS A FINDING GROUNDED ENTIRELY ON SPECULATION, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES;

(2) WHEN THE INFERENCE MADE IS MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN, ABSURD OR IMPOSSIBLE;

(3) WHERE THERE IS A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION;

( 4) WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS BASED ON A MISAPPREHENSION OF FACTS;

(5) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE CONFLICTING;

(6) WHEN THE COURT OF APPEALS, IN MAKING ITS FINDINGS, WENT BEYOND THE ISSUES OF THE CASE AND THE SAME IS CONTRARY TO THE ADMISSIONS OF BOTH APPELLANT AND APPELLEE;

(7) WHEN THE FINDINGS ARC CONTRARY TO THOSE OF THE TRIAL COURT; (8) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT ARE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT CITATION OF SPECIFIC EVIDENCE ON WHICH THEY ARE BASED; /D.ATL5. T?1

 (9) WHEN THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE PETITION AS WELL AS IN THE PETITIONERS’ MAIN AND REPLY BRIEFS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE RESPONDENTS;

AND (I 0) WHEN THE FINDINGS OF FACT OF THE COURT OF APPEALS ARE PREMISED ON THE SUPPOSED ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND CONTRADICTED BY THE EVIDENCE ON RCCORD.11

IS THIS PRESENT CASE AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE?

YES.

BECAUSE  THE FINDINGS OF THE RTC AND THE CA ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS INDEED A MARRIAGE LICENSE ARE CONFLICTING.

WHAT IS THE APPLICABLE  LAW  ON MARRIAGE LICENSE?

ARTICLE 53 OF THE CIVIL CODE SPELLS OUT THE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE AS A CONTRACT. IT READS:

ART. 53. NO MARRIAGE SHALL  BE SOLEMNIZED  UNLESS ALL THESE  REQUISITES ARE COMPLIED WITH:

(1) LEGAL CAPACITY OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES;

(2) THEIR CONSENT, FREELY GIVEN;

(3) AUTHORITY OF THE PERSON PERFORMING THE MARRIAGE; AND

(4) A MARRIAGE LICENSE, EXCEPT IN A MARRIAGE OF EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER.13

WHAT ARE MARRIAGES OF EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER?

THESE MARRIAGES ARE:

(I) MARRIAGES IN ARTICULO MORTIS OR AT THE POINT OF DEATH DURING PEACE OR WAR;

(2) MARRIAGES IN REMOTE PLACES;

(3) CONSULAR MARRIAGES;

( 4) RATIFICATION OF MARITAL COHABITATION;

(5) RELIGIOUS RATIFICATION OF A CIVIL MARRIAGE;

(6) MOHAMMEDAN OR PAGAN MARRIAGES; AND

(7) MIXED MARRIAGES. PETITIONER’S AND RESPONDENT’S MARRIAGE DOES NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THESE EXCEPTIONS.

SUPPOSE A MARRIAGE IS PERFORMED WITHOUT MARRIAGE LICENSE. IS IT VALID?

IT IS VOID PER ART. 80 OF THE CIVIL CODE.

WHY IS MARRIAGE LICENSE NECESSARY?

BECAUSE IT IS THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY THE STATE TO THE CONTRACTING PARTIES, AFTER THE PROPER GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL HAS INQUIRED INTO THEIR CAPACITY TO CONTRACT MARRIAGE.

THE REQUIREMENT AND ISSUANCE OF A MARRIAGE LICENSE IS THE STATE’S DEMONSTRATION OF ITS INVOLVEMENT AND PARTICIPATION IN EVERY MARRIAGE, IN THE MAINTENANCE OF WHICH THE GENERAL PUBLIC IS INTERESTED.

OSG ARGUES THAT THE PRESUMPTION IS ALWAYS IN FAVOR OF THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE AND THAT ANY DOUBT SHOULD BE RESOLVED TO SUSTAIN SUCH VALIDITY. IS THEIR ARGUMENT CORRECT?

YES BUT NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO DOUBT. EVIDENCE IS CLEAR THAT NO MARRIAGE LICENSE WAS OBTAINED BY THE PARTIES.

THE PRESUMED VALIDITY OF THE MARRIAGE OF THE PARTIES HAD BEEN OVERCOME, AND THAT IT BECAME THE BURDEN OF THE PARTY ALLEGING A VALID MARRIAGE TO PROVE THAT THE MARRIAGE WAS VALID, AND THAT THE REQUIRED MARRIAGE LICENSE HAD BEEN SECURED. 20

AS STATED ABOVE, PETITIONER WAS ABLE TO PRESENT A CERTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPAL CIVIL REGISTRAR OF ARTECHE, EASTERN SAMAR ATTESTING THAT THE OFFICE OF THE LOCAL CIVIL REGISTRAR “HAS NO RECORD NOR COPY OF ANY MARRIAGE LICENSE EVER ISSUED IN FAVOR OF RAQUEL G. KHO [PETITIONER] AND VERONICA M. BORATA [RESPONDENT] WHOSE MARRIAGE WAS CELEBRATED ON JUNE 1, 1972.”21

THUS, ON THE BASIS OF SUCH CERTIFICATION, THE PRESUMED VALIDITY OF THE MARRIAGE OF PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT HAS BEEN OVERCOME AND IT BECOMES THE BURDEN OF RESPONDENT TO PROVE THAT THEIR MARRIAGE IS VALID AS IT IS SHE WHO ALLEGES SUCH VALIDITY. AS FOUND BY THE RTC, RESPONDENT WAS NOT ABLE TO DISCHARGE THAT BURDEN.

RESPONDENT ON THE OTHER  HAND FAILED TO PRESENT COPY OF THE ALLEGED MARRIAGE LICENSE.

BUT PETITIONER’S MOTIVE WHICH IS TO LEGITIMIZE HIS ILLICIT AFFAIR WITH ANOTHER WOMAN IS NOT PURE. WILL THIS FACT NOT BE CONSIDERED?

NO.

THE LAW MUST BE APPLIED.

AS THE MARRIAGE LICENSE, AN ESSENTIAL REQUISITE UNDER THE CIVIL CODE, IS CLEARLY ABSENT, THE MARRIAGE OF PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT IS VOID AB INITIO.

 TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

SCD-2016-0037-KHO

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.

CASE 2016-0036: ANDRES L. DIZON VS. NAESS SHIPPING PHILIPPINES, INC. AND DOLE UK (LTD.) (G.R.–NO. 201834, 01 JUNE 2016; PERES J.) (SUBJECT/S: SEAMAN’S DISABILITY BENEFITS, MANDATORY POST EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION; WHAT IS WORK-RELATED SICKNESS;  WHEN DISABILITY IS COMPENSABLE; WHEN IS THERE OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE).

DISPOSITIVE:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED. The Decision of the Labor Arbiter declaring Naess Shipping Phils. Inc. And/or DOLE UK (Ltd.) Jointly and severally liable to pay Andres L. Dizon US Dollars Sixty Six Thousand Pesos (US$66,000.00) is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. However, for humanitarian considerations, taking into account complainant’s unblemished record of  thirty (30) years of service to respondents, the latter are hereby directed to pay Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) financial assistance to complainant.”

SO ORDERED.”

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

IS PETITIONER ENTITLED TO DISABILITY BENEFITS?

NO.

BECAUSE HE FAILED TO SUBMIT HIMSELF TO POSTEMPLOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION BEFORE THE COMPANY-DESIGNATED DOCTOR WITHIN 3 DAYS UPON HIS ARRIVAL.

WHAT IS THE RULE THAT THE PETITIONER VIOLATED?

THE PROVISION IN THE CONTRACT HE SIGNED WHICH STATES THAT HE IS ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION AND DISABILITY BENEFITS BUT HE SHALL SUBMIT HIMSELF TO A POST EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION BY A COMPANY-DESIGNATED PHYSICIAN WITHIN THREE WORKING DAYS UPON HIS RETURN.

IS THERE AN EXCEPTION TO THIS RULE?

YES.

EXCEPTION: WHEN HE IS PHYSICALLY INCAPACITATED TO DO SO, IN WHICH CASE A WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE AGENCY WITH THE SAME PERIOD IS DEEMED AS COMPLIANCE.

WHAT IS THE RESULT IF HE DOES NOT COMPLY WITH SUCH RULE?

IT SHALL  RESULT IN HIS FORFEITURE OF THE RIGHT TO CLAIM THE DISABILITY BENEFITS.

WHAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR THE MANDATORY POST-EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION WITHIN 3 DAYS FROM REPATRIATION?

IT MAKES IT EASIER FOR A PHYSICIAN TO DETERMINE THE CAUSE OF THE ILLNESS OR INJURY.

ASCERTAINING THE REAL CAUSE OF THE ILLNESS OR INJURY BEYOND THE PERIOD MAY PROVE DIFFICULT.

TO IGNORE THE RULE MIGHT SET A PRECEDENT WITH NEGATIVE REPERCUSSIONS, LIKE OPENING FLOODGATES TO A LIMITLESS NUMBER OF SEAFARERS CLAIMING DISABILITY BENEFITS, OR CAUSING UNFAIRNESS TO THE EMPLOYER WHO WOULD HAVE DIFFICULTY DETERMINING THE CAUSE OF A CLAIMANT’S ILLNESS BECAUSE OF THE PASSAGE OF TIME.

FOR DISABILITY TO BE COMPENSABLE WHAT ARE THE NECESSARY ELEMENTS?

 (1) THE INJURY OR ILLNESS MUST BE WORK-RELATED; AND

 (2) THE WORK-RELATED INJURY OR ILLNESS MUST HAVE EXISTED DURING THE TERM OF THE SEAFARER’S EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT.

FOR AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE AND THE RESULTING DISABILITY OR DEATH TO BE COMPENSABLE, WHAT CONDITIONS MUST BE PRESENT?

1. THE SEAFARER’S WORK MUST INVOLVE THE RISKS DESCRIBED HEREIN;

2. THE DISEASE WAS CONTRACTED AS A RESULT OF THE SEAFARER’S EXPOSURE TO THE DESCRIBE[ D] RISKS;

3. THE DISEASE WAS CONTACTED WITHIN A PERIOD OF EXPOSURE AND UNDER SUCH OTHER FACTORS NECESSARY TO CONTRACT IT; [AND]

4. THERE WAS NO NOTORIOUS NEGLIGENCE ON THE PART OF THE SEAFARER.

WHAT IS WORK-RELATED SICKNESS?

ANY SICKNESS RESULTING TO DISABILITY OR DEATH AS A RESULT OF AN OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE LISTED IN SECTION 32-A OF THE  POEA-SEC CONTRACT.

HOW    SHALL THE PROVISIONS OF POEA-SEC CONTRACT BE APPLIED?

MUST BE APPLIED FAIRLY, REASONABLY AND LIBERALLY IN FAVOR OF THE SEAFARERS, FOR IT IS ONLY THEN THAT ITS BENEFICENT PROVISIONS CAN BE FULLY CARRIED INTO EFFECT.

HOWEVER, THIS CATCHPHRASE CANNOT BE TAKEN TO SANCTION THE AWARD OF DISABILITY BENEFITS AND SICKNESS ALLOWANCE BASED ON FLIMSY EVIDENCE AND EVEN IN THE FACE OF AN UNJUSTIFIED NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE THREE-DAY MANDATORY REPORTING REQUIREMENT UNDER THE POEA-SEC.

WHY WAS THIS PETITION DENIED?

BECAUSE PETITIONER FAILED TO ESTABLISH BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE  ENTITLEMENT TO DISABILITY BENEFITS, HAVING FAILED TO UNDERGO A POST-EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL EXAMINATION AS REQUIRED UNDER THE LAW WITHOUT VALID OR JUSTIFIABLE REASON, AND TO ESTABLISH THAT HIS ILLNESS WAS CONTRACTED DURING THE TERM OF HIS CONTRACT AND THAT THE SAME WAS WORKRELATED.

IS PETITIONER ENTITLED TO MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES?

NO BECAUSE HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DISABILITY BENEFITS.

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 SCD-2016-0036-DIZON

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.