Art 2.

Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official
Gazette or news paper of general circulation, unless it is otherwise provided. or otherwise impose
burdens on the people,Publication must be in full (otherwise it is not deemed published at all)
since its PURPOSE is to inform the public of its contents
- Effect of Publication: The people are deemed to have conclusively been notified of the
law
even if they have not read them
COVERED BY PUBLICATION REQUIREMENT:
• Presidential Decrees and Executive Orders
• Administrative rules and regulations, if their
purpose is to enforce or implement existing law
pursuant to a valid legislation
NOT COVERED BY THE REQUIREMENT OF
PUBLICATION:
• Interpretative regulations and those
administrative regulations internal in nature
• Letters of Instructions
• Municipal ordinances (because they are
covered by the Local Government Code)

(tanada vs tuvera) presidential decrees that provide for fines, forfeitures, or penalties for their
violation should be publicize or otherwise impose burdens on the people, such as tax revenue
measures, fall within this category.
(customs vs hypermix) when administrative rule is interpretative in nature,its applicability needs
nothing further than its issuance,for its gives no real consequence more than what the law itself has
already prescribed.
When on the other hand, the administrative rule goes beyond merely providing for the means that
can facilitate or render least cumbersome the implementation of the law but substantially increases
the burden of those governed, it behooves the agency to accord to those directly affected a chance to
be heard, and there after to be duly informed,before that new issuance is given the force and effect of
law
(Acaac vs ascuna) the petitioner asserting the lack of publication has the burden of proving it
(hello Garci vs HR) while we take judicial notice of this facts, the recent publication does not cure the
infirmity of the inquiry sought to be prohibited by the instant petitions. Insofar as the consolidated
cases are concerned , the legislative investigation subject thereof still could not be undertaken by the
respondent committees,because no published rules governed it, in clear contravention of the
constitution.
Art 3. ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith
DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION - The foreign law, whenever applicable, should be proved
by the proponent thereof; otherwise, such law shall be presumed to be exactly the same as the law of
the forum.
exception
(kasilag vs. Rodriguez) ignorance of the law as a basis of good faith,a mistake on the doubtful or
difficult question of law may be basis of good faith(possessor in good faith). This does not
mean,however,that one is excuse because of such ignorance. He is still liable but his liability is
mitigated.and as such he is entitled to reimbursement for useful improvement he has introduce to the
land before he is deprived of the land.
(elegado vs CA) if our own lawyers and tax payers cannot claim a similar preference(from foreign)
because they are not allowed to claim a like ignorance, it stands to reason that foreigners cannot be
any less bound by our own laws in our own country
(YAO KEE vs. AIDA SY-GONZALES )Under Article 71 of the Civil Code to establish the validity of foreign
marriages the existence of the foreign law as a question of fact must be proven and the alleged
foreign marriage must be proven by convincing evidence. The petitioners have provided the fact of
marriage however the same do not suffice to establish the validity of said marriage with Chinese Law
or custom. In such absence of foreign law, the doctrine of processual presumption must be applied.
The Supreme Court then held that in the absence of a foreign law it must be presumed as the same as
ours. In the Philippine Laws, a marriage cannot be valid without the presence of a solemnizing officer;
therefore the marriage of Sy Kiat to Yao Kee was null and void.
(laureano v. CA)The Supreme Court held that foreign laws must be proved as fact in order to employ
them. The plaintiff was not able to prove the applicability of the laws of Singapore that he cited to his
case. Under the principle of processual presumption, if foreign laws are not proved as facts it will be
presumed as the same as ours. Hence, Philippine Laws should apply. Further, under Article 291 of the
Labor Code of the Philippines, the petitioner‘s action for damages due to illegal dismissal has already
prescribed having been filed on January 8, 1987, or more than four (4) years after the effective date
has prescribed.
(Board of com vs. Dela rosa) ‘’cachalian case’’ the board of commissioner has the burden of proof,
however there is no proof of Chinese law relating to the marriage,there arises a presumption that it is
the same as that of the philippine law.
The marriage was not supported by any evidence other than there own self serving testimony
nor was there any showing was the law of china were.

Art. 4 laws shall have no retroactive effect,unless the contrary is provided

Exception;Exceptions: PIERCER
1. Penal laws when favorable to the accused who is not a habitual delinquent
2. Interpretative statutes
3. When the law itself expressly provides
- Exception to the exception:
a. ex post facto law
b. when retroactivity impairs the obligation of contract
4. Remedial statutes
5. Curative statutes
6. Emergency laws
7. Laws creating new rights

(aruego vs. CA) compulsary recognition and enforcement of successional rights which was filed
prior to the advent of the family code, must be governed by art. 285 of the civil code and not by the
new art. 175 p2 of the family code. The present law can not be given retro active effect insofar as the
instant case is concern, its application will prejudice the vested right of the respondent(filling of
recognition of illegitimacy) to have her case decided under art. 285 0f the civil code.The right was
vested to her by the fact that she filed her action under the regime of the civil code.
Exception; procedural
(simon vs. Chan) it is axiomatic that the retroactive application of procedural laws does not
violate any right of a person who may feel adversely affected, nor is it constitutionally
objectionable;the reason is simply that, as a general rule, no vested right may attach to or arise from
procedural laws ; except that in criminal cases, the changes do not retro actively apply if they permit
or require a lesser quantum of evidence to convict than what is required at the time of the
commission of the offense.

Francisco vs. CA
We cannot invoke the new law(family code) in the case without impairing prior vested rights
pursuant to art. 256 in relation to 105(2) of the family code.accordingly, the repeal of art 158 and 160
of the new civil code does not operate to prejudice or otherwise affect rights which have become
vested or accrued while the said provision were in force.hence, the right accrued and vested while the
cited articles were in effect survive their repeal. We shall therefore resolve the issue of the nature of
the contested properties based on the provision of the new civil code.

exception
Pesca vs. Pesca
The interpretation(molina and santos) or construction placed by the courts establishes the
contemporaneous legislative intent of the law.the latter as so interpreted and construed would thus
constitute a part of that law as of the date the statute is enacted. Aug.3, 1988
 A different view is adapted, that the new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in favor
of the parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have acted in good faith in accordance
therewith under the familiar rule of “lex prospicit non respicit.”
Santos case promulgated jan 14,1995 and molina case feb 13 1997 have no retroactive
application and on the assumption that the molina ruling could be applied retroactively ,the guidelines
therein outline should be taken to be merely advisory and not mandatory in nature.
David vs. Agbay(canadian citizen who fake MLA)
(MLA filed in violation of art.172 on april 12 2007 when is still canadian citizens but 6 month later
reacquire phil. citizenship)Naturalization in foreign country was among those ways by which a natural
born citizen lose his philippine citizenship. While he reaquired philippine citizenship under RA 9225 six
month later,the falsification was already a consumated act,the said law having no retroactive effect
insofar as his dual citizenship status is concerned. The MTC therefore did not err in finding probable
cause for falsification of public document under art. 172 p 1.
exception
Abad vs. Philcomsat
The decision of court in GR 141796 and 141804 promulgated on june 15,2005 declared the
compromise agreement valid,and such validation properly retroacted to the date of a judicial approval
of the compromise agreement on june 8,1998.
Consequently, although the assailed elections were conducted by the Nieto-PCGG only on august
31,2004 but the ruling in GR 141796 and 141804 was promulgated only on june 15,2005, the ruling
was the legal standard by which the issue raised in civil case no. 041049 should be resolve.

Art. 5 acts executed against the provision of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void except
when the law itself authorizes their validity.
Exception: AVV
1. When law itself authorizes their validity
2. When law makes the act only voidable and not void
3. When law makes the act valid but
punishes the violator
Exception
3. When the law makes the act valid,but subject the wrong doer to criminal responsibility(3 fold
liability,criminal,civil,administrative)
Nerwin vs. PNOC
The respondent judge gravely abused hid discretion in entertaining an application for
TRO/preliminary injunction, and worse, in issuing a preliminary injunction through the assailed order
enjoining petitioners sought bidding for it O-ILAW project. The same is palpable violation of RA 8975
which was approve in Nov. 7,2000, thus, already existing at the time respondent judge issued the
assailed orders dated july 20 and dec 29,2003.
Sec. 3 of RA 8975 states in no uncertain terms,thus:
Prohibition on the issuance of temporary restraining order,preliminary injunctions and
preliminary mandatory injunctions - no court except supreme court,shall issue any temporary
restraining order,preliminary injunction or preliminary mandatory injunction against the government
or any of its subdivisions,officials, or any person or entity,whether public or private, acting under the
government direction,to restrain,prohibit or compel the following acts.
Judge vicente hidalgo was in fact already found administratively liable for gross misconduct and
gross ignorance of the law as the result of his issuance of the assailed TRO and writ of preliminary
prohibitory injunction.the court could only fine him in the amount of 40,000.

Art. 6 right may be waive unless the waiver is contrary to law public order public policy or good
customs.

REQUISITES OF A VALID WAIVER: RCCLF

1. Person making the waiver must have the
right he is waiving
2. He must have the capacity to make the
waiver
3. The waiver must be made in a clear and
unequivocal manner - adequate knowledge of the fact,awareness of its consequence,clear
term the exact nature and consequence of the waiver. waiver must be positively
demonstrated since a waiver by implication is not normally countenanced.

4. Such waiver is not contrary to law, public

order, public policy, morals or good customs
or is prejudicial to third person.
5. If required, formalities must be complied with - voluntary settlement is respected

DM consunji vs CA

It is an act of understanding that presupposes that a party has knowledge of its rights, but
chooses not to assert them. It must be generally showed by the party claiming(DM) a waiver
that the person(widow) against whom the waiver is asserted had at the time knowledge
,actual or constructive, of the existence of the party’s rights or of all material facts upon which
waiver of it can rest. Ignorance of a material fact negates waiver, and waiver can not be
established by a consent given by a mistake or misapprehension of fact.
A person makes knowing and intelligent waiver when that person knows that a right exists and
has adequate knowledge upon which to make an intelligent decision. Waiver requires a
knowledge of the facts basic to the exercise of the right waived, with an awareness of its
consequences. That a waiver is made knowingly and intelligently must be illustrated in the
record or by the evidence.

Aujero vs. Philcomsat

A legitimate waiver representing a voluntary settlement of a labor claims should be respected

by the court as the law between the parties. Considering the petition claim of fraud and bad
faith against philcomsat to be unsubstantiated, this court finds the quitclaim in dispute to be
legitimate waiver.

The petitioner’s educational background and employment status render it improbable that he
had been pressured, intimidated or inveigled into the subject quitclaim.

Villareal vs. People

In criminal cases where the imposing penalty may be death, as in the present case , the court
is called upon to see to it that the accused is personally made aware of the consequence of a
waiver of the right to present evidence . in fact, it is not enough that the accused is simply
warned of the consequences of another failure to attend the succeeding hearings.

Clearly the waiver of the right to present evidence in criminal case involving a grave penalty is
not assumed and taken lightly.

The court must first explain to the accused personally in clear term the exact nature and
consequence of the waiver.

The trial court should not have deemed the failure of petitioner to present evidence on
aug.25,1993 as a waiver of his right to present evidence.

Dela cruz vs. Dela cruz

Lucila would not have used the terms “ to put everything in proper order, I hereby waive…” if
her intent was to set a precondition to her waiver covering the property, half to isabelo and
half to emelita. If that were her intention , she could have stated , subject to the condition that
everything is put in proper order, I hereby waive…” or something to that effect.

The phrase “hereby waive” means that lucila was, by executing the affidavit,already waiving
her right to the property, irreversibly divesting herself to her existing right to the same. After
she and her co owner emelita accepted the donation, isabelo become the owner of half of the
subject property having the right to demand its partition.

Dona adela export vs. TIDCORP

In this case. The joint motion agreement was executed by BPI and TIDCORP only. Their was
no written consent given by petitioner or its representative that petitioner is waiving the
confidentiality of its bank deposits.the provision on the waiver of the confidentiality of
petitioners bank deposits was merely inserted in the agreement. It is clear therefore that
petitioner is not bound by the said provision since it was without the express consent of the
petitioner who was not a party and signatory to the said agreement.

Neither can petitioner be deemed to have given its permission by failure to interpose its
objection during the proceedings. It was elementary rule that

the existence of the waiver must be positively demonstrated since a waiver by implication is not
normally countenanced. The norm is that a waiver must not only voluntary , but must have been
made knowingly ,intelligently, and with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and
likely consequences.
There must be persuasive evidence to show an actual intention to relinquish the right. Mere
silence on the part of the holder of the right should not be construed as a surrender thereof; the
courts must every reasonable presumption against the existence and validity of such
waiver.
Art. 8 Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the
legal system of the Philippines.

Stare decisis (let it stand)et non quieta movere

- requires courts to follow the rule established in earlier SC decisions. The doctrine, however, is
not inflexible, so that when in the light of changing conditions, a rule has ceased to be
beneficial to the society, courts may depart from it.
-
states that ones a case has been decided one way,then another case,involving exactly the
same point at issue,should be decided in the same manner.

- ones a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and
closed to further argument.

Exception ; stare decisis does not and should not apply when there is a conflict between the
precedent and the law.

3 Reasons of stare decisis

1. legitimizes judicial institution
2. Judicial economy and stability - bar to attempt to relitigate the same issues
3. Allows predictability

Factors for exception

1. determine if the value is intolerable defying practical workability?
Ex. Jehova witness
2. will it add inequity while steak in such precedent?
3. Determine if related principle of law has been develop?
4. Finds out whether facts has significant changes in the application of the law that the court
will have to consider.

Xxxx the abandonment is not absolute but it is done reluctantly.

Ting v. Ting
 - interpretation or a judicial decision(Molina case guidelines 1997) form part of the law (FC
1988)that provide contemporaneous construction thus can be applied retroactively from the
day of complaint (1993).

STARE DECISIS states that ones a case(molina case) has been decided one way,then
another case,involving exactly the same point at issue,should be decided in the same
manner.

- ones a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and
closed to further argument.

Ayala vs Rosa-Dian Realty

The doctrine of the law of the case is adhered to in a single case where it arises, but is not
carried into other cases as precedent

law of the case- ruling and decision made by the upper court had remanded in the lower
court for implementation upon further determination of the facts and such ruling is no longer
question or disputed.

- the law of the case doctrine doesn’t apply because of obiter dictum, the only issue before
the CA at the time was the propriety of the annotation of the lis pendens. The additional
pronouncement of the CA that ayala is estopped from enforcing the deed of restrictions
even as it recognized that the said issue is being tried before the trial court was not necessary
to dispose of the issue as to the propriety of the annotation of the lis pen dens. It is not
neccessarily limited to the issues essential to the decision but may also include epressions or
opinion, which are not necessary to support the decision reached by the court. Mere dicta are
not binding under the doctrine of STARE DECISIS. The Ca went beyond the sole issue
raised before it and made factual findings without any basis in the record to rule
inappropriately that ayala is in estoppel and has waived his right to enforce the subject
restrictions.
Mere dicta are not binding under the doctrine of STARE DECISIS.Obiter dicta are opinion not
necessary to the determination of the case. They are not binding,and cannot have the force of
judicial precedents.is an opinion “ uttered by the way, not upon the point of question pending”
The Ca went beyond the sole issue raised before it and made factual findings without any basis in
the record to rule inappropriately that ayala is in estoppel and has waived his right to enforce the
subject restrictions.

Obiter dicta (singular“dictum)- are opinion not necessary to the determination of the case. They are
not binding,and cannot have the force of judicial precedents.
- is an opinion “ uttered by the way, not upon the point of question pending”

Ratio - reason Decidendi - decision - final judgement or opinion state the reason or grounds of such
judgement

Article 9, No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or
insufficiency of the laws.
Dura lex sed lex - the law may be harsh, but it is still the law

People v veneracion
- judge is not imposing the death penalty
-The Supreme Court mandates that after an adjudication of guilt, the judge should impose the proper
penalty provided for by the law on the accused regardless of his own religious or moral beliefs. In this
case the respondent judge must impose the death penalty.
Article 10 In case of doubt in the interpretation of law it is presume that the law making intended right
and justice to prevail.

Cessante ratione cessat ipsa lex - when the reason of law ceases, the law automatically ceases to be
one.

Philippine rabbit v Arciaga

One cannot invoke equity as a ground for opening of the case if an express provision of law exist under
which the remedy can be invoked. Equity fallows the law. It should be improper for the court to take it
up where the law leaves it and to extend it further than the law allows.

Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their right

Ursua v CA
Ursua aknowledge a recept not in his name allegedly violate CA 142 - a law discouraging chinese sudo
names, but he was aquited since the fact of his action is not the rationale of the law CA 142

Art 13
-If month is mention - consider the exact number of that particular month
- exclude the first day and include the last day
- if in the holiday or Sunday - it continue to the next working day

Art 11 Customs which are contrary to law, public order or public policy shall not be countenanced.

CIR V primetown
Customs- not taken judicial notice by the court. Except
REQUISITES FOR MAKING CUSTOM AN
OBLIGATORY RULE: PPOT
1. Plurality of acts or acts have been repeatedly
done
2. Generally practised by the great mass of the
social group
3. The community accepts it as a proper way of
acting, such that it is considered obligatory upon all
4. The practice has been going on for a long period
of time

Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-
observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.
REPEAL OF LAWS
1. Express repeal - repeal of repealing law will
not revive the old law (unless expressly
provided)
2. Implied repeal - the provisions of the
subsequent law are incompatible with those of
the previous law
Requisites:
1. Both laws cover the same subject matter
2. The latter law is repugnant to the earlier law

Thornton v thornton
CA dismiss habeas corpus base on FC RA 8369.
Did the FC repeal BP 129? implied repeal
 The provisions of RA 8369 reveal no manifest intent to revoke the jurisdiction of CA and SC
habeas corpuz relating to the custody of minors.thus the provision of RA 8369 must be read in
harmony w/ RA 7029 an BP 129 that family court have concurrent jurisdiction with the SC and
the CA.

A-B-C
-if law A is expressly repealed by law B. A will not be revive until C will provide
-if law A is impliedly repealed by law B and later repealed by C. A will be revive unless C
provide

Art 14
3 elements of penal laws
1.Territoriality
2.Generality
3.Prospectivity
Theories of territoriality and generality
Territoriality-Any offense committed in our territory is committed against the sate
Generality-whether citizens or alien

Exception:
1. principle of public international law
2. presence of treaty stipulation

Asaali v. commission of customs

1. vessel were philippine registry
2. Well settled international law that state has the right to protect itself and its revenues

Art 15,16,17

Even though living abroad

Govern by nationaliy(filipino) Govern byForeign country situated/executed
Article 15 laws relating to; Frd,S,C,Lc
family rights and duties, or to the status,
condition and legal capacity of persons are
binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even
though living abroad.
Article 16 P2 ; Article 16 P1
intestate and testamentary successions, both
with respect to the order of succession and to Real property as well as personal property is
the amount of successional rights and to the subject to the law of the country where it is
intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions . situated.
shall be regulated by the national law
of the person whose succession is
under consideration,
whatever may be the nature of the
property and regardless of the country
wherein said property may be found.
Article 17 P2 Article 17 P1 Fo So Wi Puvj
When the acts referred to are The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills,
and other public instruments shall be governed
executed before the diplomatic or
by the laws of the country in which they are
consular officials of the Republic of executed.
the Philippines in a foreign country,
the solemnities established by
Philippine laws shall be observed in
their execution.
Article 17 P3
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object
public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments
promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. (11a)

Testamentary - with Intestate - no extrinsic validity

Intrinsic validity(nationality)And
Extrinsic 1. forms 2. solemnities(celebrated)

Contract and Public Instrument Will and Testaments

Extrinsic validity Intrinsic validity Extrinsic validity Intrinsic validity
Art 17. LEX LOCI Art 16 LEX RAE SITAE Art 17 LEX LOCI Art 15 LEX
CELEBRATIONIS CELEBRATIONIS NATIONALIS
celebrated Property situated celebrated nationality
exception

0.extrinsic validity -
A) holographic will - written sign and dated
B) notarial will - w/ specific requirement,signed and numbered,attestation clause,w/
signature of 3 witnesses in every page, attestation clause
0.Intrinsic validity - specific content or statement of the will that must be in harmony with the law or
not

1.family rights - parental authority,marital authority and support

2.Duties -
3.Status - marriage
4.Condition - divorce - can not be recognize in the phil only alien
5.legal capacity - age

1.order of succession - hierarchy on who going to inherit first

2.Capacity to succeed - are you allowed by law to inherit the decedent
3.Intrinsic validity - specific content or statement of the will that must be in harmony with the law or
not
4.Amount of successional right - amount of property that each heir legally entitled
5.Capacity to succeed

Article 16 P1. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country
where it is situated.
In the case at bar the property of david and leticia in california rendered the court no
jurisdiction over it. Thus liquidation shall only be limited to the philippine properties.

Article 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal
capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad

Foreign divorce between filipino citizens even if either or both of the spouse is living abroad is
not entitled to recognition as valid in the philippines it fallows that the party are still legally
married in the philippines. The non recognition of divorce in the philippines is a manifestation
for the respect for the sanctity of the marital union especially among filipino citizens.or in
contrary to law public order public policy and good customs.
 nationality
Article 16 P2.However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with
respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights
and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by
the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration,
Art 17 P3
Prohibitive laws concerning
- persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their
- object public order,
- public policy and
- good customs
shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or
conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.

Renvoi Doctrine
 Where the conflict rules of the forum refer to a foreign law, and the latter refers it back to the
internal law, the latter (law of the forum) shall apply.

NOTE: If the foreign law refers it to a third country, the said country’s laws shall govern, and is referred
to as the transmission theory.

American airline vs CA
To sue in the place of business of the carrier wherein the contract was made,is therefore, manila, and
philippine courts are clothed with jurisdiction over the case

ATCI overseas corporation vs echin

Being a law intended by the parties(lex loci intentiones) to apply to the contract, which she voluntary
entered into that the term of his engagement shall be governed by prevailing kuwait civil service laws
and regulation as in fact POEA rules accord respect to such rules. In deed, the contract entered into is
considered the law between the parties who can establish stipulations,clauses,terms and conditions as
they may deem convenient,including laws which they may wish to govern their respective obligation
as long as they may not contrary to law,morals,good customs, and public order. The party invoking the
application of foreign law has the burden of proving the law under the doctrine of processual
presumption(in absence of proof foreign law is desame as ours). The foreign law is treated as a
question of fact to be properly pleaded and prove as the judge or labor arbiter can not take judicial
notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to know only domestic or forum law.