ARTICLE 26

St. Louis Realty Corporation VS Court of Appeals

G.R. NO. L-46061 November 14, 1984
Aquino

Yes . St. Louis Realty was grossly negligent in mixing up the Aramil and
Arcadio residences in a widely circulated publication like the Sunday Times.
As a result, Dr. Aramils private life was mistakenly and unnecessarily
exposed and he suffered diminution of income and mental anguish.

FACTS:
St. Louis Realty caused to be published with the permission of Arcadio S.
Arcadio (but without permission of Dr. Conrado Aramil) in the issue of the
Sunday Times of December 15, 1968 and January 5, 1969 an advertisement
with the heading "WHERE THE HEART IS". In the advertisement, the house
featured was Dr. Aramils house and not Mr. Arcadio with whom the company
asked permission and the intended house to be published. Dr. Aramil noticed
the mistake and wrote a letter of protest to St. Louis Realty demanding an
explanation one week after such receipt. The letter was received by Ernesto
Magtoto, an officer of St. Louis Realty in charge of advertising. He stopped
publication of the advertisement. He contacted Doctor Aramil and offered his
apologies. However, no rectification or apology was published.

Tenchavez vs Ecao November 29, 1965

On February 20, 1969, Dr. Aramil's counsel demanded from St. Louis Realty
actual, moral and exemplary damages of P110,000. In its answer dated
March 10, St. Louis Realty claimed that there was an honest mistake and
that if Dr Aramil so desired, rectification would be published in the Manila
Times. It published in the issue of the Manila Times of March 18, 1969 a new
advertisement with the Arcadio family and their real house. But it did not
publish any apology to Dr Aramil and an explanation of the error.
On March 29, Dr Aramil filed his complaint for damages. St. Louis Realty
eventually published in the issue of the Manila Times of April 15, 1969 the
following "NOTICE OF RECTIFICATION" in a space 4 by 3 inches but never
published an apology.
ISSUE:
Whether or not St. Louis Realty Corporation is liable to pay damages to Dr.
Conrado Aramil
HELD:

FACTS
On February24, 1948, appellant Pastor B. Tenchavez, 32 years of age, and
Vicenta Ecao, 27 years of age, exchanged marriage vows without the
knowledge of their parents, Mamerto and Mena Ecao. Afterwhich, they paln
to elope not did not materialize because her parents knew about their secret
marriage. Upon the suggestion of Father Reynes, the parties planned to
recelebrate their marriage to validate it. It did not take place as they
discovered about the amorous relationship of Tenchavez and Pacita Noel,
their matchmaker and go-between. From then, Tenchavez and Vicenta lived
separately. On June 24, 1950, Vicenta left for the United States where she
filed divorce with the appellant and was granted. There, she married an
American and has begotten children. Tenchavez initiated proceedings at the
Court of First instance of Cebu that prays for the legal separation of his
marriage with Vicenta and charges the parents of Vicenta for a million pesos
in moral damages.
ISSUES
Whether or not the appellant is entitled of the claim for moral damages
RULING
Yes, it is in accordance with the Article 26 of the Civil Code. However, the
court ruled that the appellants claim of amount in moral damages is
unreasonable based on three grounds, namely: (1) the marriage was
celebrated in secret and its failure was not characterized by publicity or
undue humiliation, (2) the parties never lived together, and (3) there is
evidence that the appellant had originally agreed to the annulment of
marriage. Thus, the court held that the appellant should recover P25,000 for
moral damages and attorneys fee.