You are on page 1of 3

Long Test Answer Sheet Part 1 August 28, 2018

Civil Law

1. ANSWER:
Art. 2: Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of
their publication either in the official Gazette or in the newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.

2. ANSWER:

The Spanish Civil Code took effect twenty (20) days after publication
in the official newspaper in the Philippines. The majority view provides
that since it was published in the Gacete de Manila on November 17, 1889,
therefore it took effect on December 7, 1889.

3. REFERENCE: Art. 2: Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the
completion of their publication either in the official Gazette or in the
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise
provided.

ANSWER:

According to several cases decided by the Supreme Court, the date of


effectivity of the Civil Code of the Philippines is August 30, 1950, which
is one year after its publication in the Official Gazette as required by Article
2 of the said Code.

Article 2 of the New Civil Code (NCC) expressly provides that the NCC of
the Philippines shall take effect “one year after the completion of its
publication in the Official Gazette.” It was published in a Supplement
dated June 1949. However, the June 1949 issue of the Official Gazette
was released for circulation on August 30, 1949. Consequently, if the
basis for computing the one-year period is the date of publication (June
1949), then the date of effectivity would be June 30, 1950. On the other
hand if the basis for computing the one year period id the date of
circulation (August 30 1949), then the date of effectivity would be August
30, 1950. The Supreme Court has chosen the later as the basis of the
date of effectivity of the NCC.

4. (a). Yes, there is sufficient compliance. The law itself prescribes the
requisites of publication for its effectivity, and all requisites have been
complied with.

Article 2 of the New Civil Code provides that “Laws shall take effect after
fifteen (15) days following the completion of their publication either in
Official Gazette or newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines,
unless it is otherwise provided.”
(b). The law take effect upon compliance with all the conditions for
effectivity ( the passage of law, approval of the President, publication in
newspaper of general circulation) and the last condition was complied with
on July 10, 1990. Hence, the law become effective on that date.

(c). No, it is not yet effective when it was approved by Congress on July 1,
1990 and approved by the President on July 3, 1990. The other requisites
(publication in the Official Gazette and a newspaper of general circulation
in the Philippines) were not yet complete at that time.

5. The effectivity date of Spanish Code and New Civil Code. The Spanish
Code (December 7, 1889- August 29, 1950). The New Civil Code
(August 30, 1959)

1955 – date of death of X (after the NCC becomes effective)


1948 – the year after B’s birth [1947]; Spanish Code and not NCC
governs.

(a). If X died in 1955, A and B can inherit from him because under the
New Civil Code spurious children may inherit subject to certain conditions
provided in the said Code. This is of course, based on the assumption that
X had recognized them as his spurious children either voluntarily or
compulsorily. Otherwise, If X had not recognized them they cannot inherit
from him.

(b). If X died after B’s birth (1948), then A and B cannot inherit from
him. The reason is that in such case, the right or capacity of A and B to
inherit from X shall still be govern by the Spanish Civil Code. Under the
facts presented, X died prior to the effectivity of the NCC. Therefore, what
is applicable is the Spanish Civil Code. Under said Code, spurious children
cannot inherit.

6. It is based on expediency as well as public policy and necessity. Were it


not for this rule, almost everybody would be able to relieve himself of any
criminal or civil liability by claiming that he is ignorant of the law.

It must be noted however, that the rule refers only to mistakes with regard
to the existence of law rather than mistakes with regard to the application
or interpretation of a difficult or doubtful question of law or with regard to
the effect of certain contract or transaction. Mistake on a difficult or
doubtful question of law may be basis of good faith or render a
contract voidable or may give birth to quasi-contract of solution
indebiti.

7. While ignorance of the law is no excuse, ignorance of the fact eliminates


criminal intent, as long as there is no negligence. Hence, the latter
constitutes as an excuse and a legal defense.

8.
8. Retroactive effect is given effect if the law is of an emergency in
nature and is authorized by the police power of the State.

Pursuant to Article 4 of the NCC, “laws shall have no retroactive effect


unless the contrary is provided.” P.D. 957 was intended to cover even
those real estate mortgages, like the one at issue here, executed prior to
its enactment and such intent must be given effect if the purpose of
protecting innocent purchasers is to be achieved.

P.D. No. 957 did not expressly provide for retroactivity in its entirety, yet
the same can be inferred from the intent of the law to protect innocent lots
buyers from scheming subdivision developers.

Despite the impairment clause, a contract valid at the time of its execution
may be legally modified or even completely invalidated by a subsequent
law. If the law is a proper exercise of the police power, it will prevail over
the contract.

9. The following are the exceptions:

(a). When the law makes the act not void but merely voidable.
Examples – such as those where consent is vitiated by;

(b). When the law makes the act valid but subjects the wrongdoer to
criminal responsibility. Example – A widow who marries again
within 300 days after her husband’s death will be able to marry
validly, provided she is able to obtain a marriage license, without
prejudice to her criminal liability.

(c). When the law makes the act itself void, but recognizes some
legal effects flowing therefrom.

(d). When the law makes certain acts valid, although generally they
would have been void.

10.