49. ROEHR v.

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