CIVIL LAW ATTY RABUYA
FORECAST LECTURE
LEGAL EDGE
PERSONS and FAMILY
RELATIONS
o Action in Rem Verso (ARV) is the action
for recovery provided for under art 22
ncc. The concept is not similar with
solutio in debiti. Both are actions for
recovery for something lost without
just cause. In both, there is an
obligation to return that what is unduly
paid or delivered to him. In both the
basis of the obligation, the objective is
to prevent unjust enrichment. They
differ in the following. As to the source,
in solution in debiti the source is quasi-
contract, in ARV, the source is the law.
ARV cannot prosper if the obligation is
based on delict, quasi-delict, contract
or quasi-contract. In solution in debiti,
there is mistake. IF the there is
mistake, an action in rem verso cannot
prosper.
o Unfair Competition (UC), Art. 28 NCC.
This concept is much broader than the
concept in unfair competition in
intellectual property code. The subject
in UC in the NCC does not require a
patent. Requisites in UC:
o Requisites for a Natural Person to
acquire legal personality. Keyword:
The infant must be alive at the time he
is born if the same has an intra-uterine
life of more than 7 mos. If the
intrauterine life is less than 7 mos. the
infant must be alive after the lapse of
24 hours from birth.
o The law only grants civil personality on
the conceived child ONLY FOR THE
PURPOSE BENEFICIAL TO HIM. The
conceived child can thus receive
donations or become a beneficiary in
an insurance contract. But at the same
time that civil personality is
PROVISIONAL only as it is required to
comply with art. 41 of the NCC.
o Survivorship. Who between two
persons died ahead of the other? There
are 2 laws: Art. 43 NCC and the
presumption of survivorship under the
ROC. Art. 43 NCC applicable if the
question is about successional rights
and the two persons are heirs of each
other. Otherwise, ROC applies. Read
Art. 43 NCC.
Page 1 of 9
o Art. 26, Par. 2 FC. Republic vs Manalo
Landmark Ruling Answer this case. In
case of a mixed marriage. Answer this
if the question refers to the filipino
spouse who obtained the decree of
absolute divorce abroad. Regardless of
whether the Filipino spouse or
foreigner spouse obtained the divorce
decree, the said decree is valid here in
the Philippines. If obtained by the
foreigner spouse, Art. 26, Par.2 FC
applies. If obtained jointly by the
spouse, the case of Median applies. If
obtained by the filipino spouse, the
case of Manalo applies. Provided that
the divorce decree is valid and the
decree allows the spouse to remarry. If
both spouses are filipino citizens, if any
of them obtained a divorce abroad, the
same is null and void for being contrary
to law and public policy. Rep vs
Orbecido, for purposes of citizenship,
the reckoning point is their citizenship
is the time when the divorce decree is
obtained, not at the time of the
celebration of their marriage.
o Application of Art. 26, Par. 2. Divorce
obtained prior to the effectivity of the
FC. There is no need to apply art 26 par
2 retroactively because there is
sufficient jurisprudential basis in Van
Dorn and Pilapil case.
o Art. 34 FC. Legal ratification of
cohabitation for marriage. The man
and the woman must be cohabiting for
a period of 5 years, uninterrupted and
continuously. Even in the absence of
the affidavit of cohabitation the
marriage is still valid because they are
still allowed to prove that they have
complied with the requisites. But if the
affidavit of cohabitation did not comply
with the requisites of 5 years or is
found false the marriage is void and
estoppel will not validate the marriage.
Estoppel does not apply when there is
a law governing the relations of the
party. The marriage is governed by
law, hence, estoppel does not apply.
o However, in the case of a 2nd marriage
during the subsistence of a prior
marriage, the absence of a affidavit of
cohabitation in the 2nd marriage
cannot be used as a defense in a
criminal offense for bigamy.
o If it can be proven that the 2nd
marriage is celebrated without a
marriage license, a charge for bigamy
will not prosper. The second marriage
must be valid for a charge of bigamy to
CIVIL LAW ATTY RABUYA FORECAST LECTURE (LEGAL EDGE)
 prosper. Therefore, a marriage without
a marriage license or authority of a
solemnizing officer is valid defense
against bigamy.
o But if the ground for nullification of the
2nd marriage is psychological
incapacity, the same is not a valid
defense in a charge for bigamy. Art 36
FC is a unique ground.
o Void Marriage. GR: Void marriage does
not exist. The parties are not spouses.
Therefore, the nullity of marriage is a
valid defense against support.
o Void marriage can be a subject of a
collateral attack. Therefore in
succession, the surviving spouse is not
entitled to his or her share in the estate
because he or she is not a surviving
spouse.
o But for purposes of contracting another
marriage, we cannot say that the prior
marriage is void because a declaration
of absolute nullity of marriage is
required. Read Art. 40 FC. Hence,
bigamy may prosper even when the 1st
marriage is void absent a declaration of
absolute nullity.
o If the 2nd marriage is celebrated prior
to Aug. 19, 1986 (promulgation of the
case of weigle vs sempio-dy), if the
marriage is void, it is considered as not
existing. So even if the 2nd marriage is
contracted without a prior judicial
declaration of absolute nullity of
marriage, the same is void and a
charge of bigamy will not prosper.
Weigle case cannot apply retroactively.
o If the 2nd marriage is celebrated is
celebrated during the effectivity of the
FC, apply Art. 40 FC. However, Art. 40
applies if there was a prior void
marriage.
o Cancellation or Correction in the Civil
registry is not a proper remedy in case
of void marriage. The remedy is a
petition for declaration of absolute
nullity of marriage. HOWEVER, if there
is no marriage that took place which
can be declared void ab initio,
cancellation or correction in the civil
registry is the proper remedy eg.
Marriage in jest, theatrical marriage or
no marriage at all. Rep vs. Olaibar, in
this case, Olaibar never contracted a
marriage only his identity was used to
contract marriage with a Korean
national. Morigo vs People, in this case,
Page 2 of 9
the parties only signed a marriage
contract without a solemnizing officer.
In our law that is not a marriage but
only a private contract.
o Art. 40 is only applicable if there was a
prior void marriage. If there is no
marriage at all, art. 40 FC does NOT
apply.
o Distinguish a bigamous marriage in art
35, par. 4 FC and art. 40 FC. In the
former, the prior marriage is either
valid or voidable and the 2nd marriage
was contracted was contracted during
the substance of valid or voidable
marriage. This is the true bigamy.
There is a legal impediment. In the
latter, the prior marriage must be VOID
ab initio marriage except that a 2nd
marriage was celebrated without
securing a judicial declaration of
absolute nullity of the prior void
marriage. In Art. 40, the property
regime is either ACP, CPG or CSP
(these 3 prop regime applies only in
case of valid, voidable marriage and
bigamous marriage under art 40 FC).
In Art 35, par. 4, the property regime
is art. 147 or 148 FC.
o Art. 147 and 148 FC is not co-
ownership. Just simply refer to them as
a property regime.
o Juliano-Llave vs Rep. J. Del Castillo
Ruling. The aggrieved spouse in the
1st marriage has the personality to file
a potion to declare the 2nd marriage as
void on the ground of bigamy because,
the parties in the 2nd marriage is not
expected to terminate their marriage
so long as they are still benefiting from
their relations. If the ground is bigamy,
the provision where the husband or
wife of the 2nd marriage has
personality to file the petition does not
apply to bigamy. The parties in the 2nd
marriage are not in really spouses in
the eyes of the law.
o Art. 41 FC Requisites in order for the
2nd marriage to become a valid
marriage in case of presumption of
death. If the 2nd marriage under art.
41 FC is void ab initio the proper
remedy is a petition for absolute nullity
of marriage. The filing of the affidavit
of reappearance does not apply since
that remedy is for the purpose of
terminating a valid 2nd marriage. If the
2nd marriage is void a petition for
judicial declaration of nullity is the
proper remedy.
CIVIL LAW ATTY RABUYA FORECAST LECTURE (LEGAL EDGE)

o Art 147 and 148 FC these are property
regimes. Applicable in case of void
marriage except art. 40 FC. But if the
ground is absence of legal capacity the
prop regime is art. 148. (Art 35, 37, 38,
35 par. 4 FC) Other void marriage, art
147 applies.
o Art. 147 and 148 FC does not apply in
case of same sex union as it is not
recognized by philippine laws.
o In case of mere cohabitation, Art. 147
applies if they are capacitated to marry
each other and they live exclusively
with each other.
o In Art 148 the registration of the
property is immaterial.
o Effects of the Prop regime after
termination of marriage. CSP
mandatorily governs the property
relations of the spouses in case the the
other spouse did not liquidate the prop
regime of his prior marriage.
o Art 130 FC does not apply if at the time
of the effectivity of the FC the marriage
is already terminated because one of
the spouses has already died.
Otherwise, there will be impairment of
rights. But if the prop regime still
subsists because the marriage still
subsists at the time of the effectivity of
the FC, Art. 130 FC applies in the event
the marriage terminates.
o In Art. 155, the Family Home is not
protected, it can be levied or attached.
The FH will lose its protection if the
value exceeds 300k/200k and the
reason for the increase is VOLUNTARY
IMPROVEMENT!. If the reason for the
increase is involuntary improvement,
the Family home may be protected
despite exceeding the value set by law.
Involuntary improvement is an
increase in value of the property
without the voluntary action of the
owner.
o Aguilar vs Siasat J. Del Castillo. The
SSS form 31 is a competent proof of
filiation.
o Dela Cruz vs Gracia. If the handwritten
private instrument of the alleged
parent is the ONLY proof, then the rule
requiring the signature of the parent is
required should be strictly applied. If
the same is an additional proof of
Page 3 of 9
filiation, it is the competent proof of
filiation.
o If the birth cert of the child is not
signed by the father, that bc is not
competent proof of filiation. However,
so long as the father participated in the
preparation of the bc, his participation
will take the place of the signature.
Hence, he is deemed to have
voluntarily acknowledged the child as
his own.
o Retroactive effect of a decree of
adoption. Once an adoption decree is
issued for purposes beneficial to the
adopted child, the issuance of the same
shall retroact to the date when the
petition of adoption. Hence, the
adopted child will enjoy the benefits of
a legitimate child from the time the
petition for adoption is filed.
o But the retroactive effect of the decree
adoption cannot be applied for the
purpose of imposing liability to the
adopter because parental authority is
not deemed retroacted.
o Bartolome vs SSS. When the adopted
child does not have blood relations with
the adopters and both adopters died
during the minority of the adopted
child. Are the relatives of the adopters
bound to provide legal support to the
adopted child? No. They are not
related. The relations created by the
decree of adoption is merely personal
between the adopter and the adopted
child.
o Parental authority is not the basis of
support. The basis of support is the
legal relations of the respective parties.
o Support. The parents, whether legit or
illegitimate and the letters children,
whether legit or illegitimate, they are
required to support each other.
o Monthly allowance or without paying
monthly allowance by receiving
support in the family dwelling in the
discretion of the person giving support.
o Parental Authority. The tender age
presumption rule. The parents cannot
agree to the contrary of this rule. But if
the child is illegitimate only the mother
has PA and custody over the child. The
only right of the father is visitational
rights, includes right to access to the
child. Custody not included.
CIVIL LAW ATTY RABUYA FORECAST LECTURE (LEGAL EDGE)
o If the wife obtained a loan with
mortagage of conjugal property w/o
the consent of the husband will the
mortgage be validate by the fact that
the same redounded to the benefit of
the family? NO! The disposition and
encumbrance must be with the consent
of both the spouse or court
authorization. Otherwise, the mortgage
is void in its entirety even if it
redounded to the benefit of the family.
The same will be chargeable to the
ACP, CPG.
PROPERTY
o VIP CASE Sanggunian Panlalawigan vs
Cong Ted Garcia. If the property is of
public dominion, the same is within the
absolute control of Congress. However,
if that property is a patrimonial
property of the LGU the same is private
property of the LGU. The LGU cannot
be deprived of its property without
payment of JC. The test to determine
the nature of the property is the
ACTUAL USE of the property. If the use
is governmental, public dominion. If
commercial or proprietary, patrimonial.
o Communities Cagayan Inc. vs Nanol J.
Del Castillo. Distinction between the
limited definition of a builder in good
faith and expanded definition of the
such. Under the limited definition, a
BGF must have a claim of ownership.
He believe himself as the owner of the
land with sufficient basis. The builder
must believe that he is the owner of the
land at the time of building by means
of a mode of acquisition but he is not
aware that there is defect in his title.
So if the builder was aware that he is
not the owner at the time of building he
is a builder in bad faith. However, in the
expanded definition, if the builder is
aware that he is not the owner of the
land but the owner expressly allows the
building or construction the builder is in
good faith.
o If both builder and owner acted in bad
faith. That is not the expanded
definition but the result is the same. In
expanded definition, the owner must
give his EXPRESS CONSENT!
o There is an issue in this case regarding
the Maceda Law.
o Lessee, Usufructuary and Vendee a
retro are not builders in good faith as
Page 4 of 9
there are specific provisions in the NCC
that applies to them.
o Dept of Education vs Masibag? DE was
allowed to build a school in the land of
a private indivudual. DE is a possessor
by mere tolerance. A possessor by
mere tolerance is a builder in bad faith
because he is aware that he is not the
owner of the land at the time of
building. However, when the owner
expressly allowed the construction of
the building in his land , the builder is
in good faith based on the expanded
definition of a builder in gf.
o Padilla Jr. vs Maliksi. The one who gave
permission for the builders to construct
was not the owner of the land. SC said
the builder is in bad faith. The fact that
the person who gave the consent to
build is not the owner of the land
should have placed the builders on
guard.
o Aluvium. The water level must be more
or less maintained. The deposit must
be by reason of the movement of the
water. So if the water level merely
receded, that is not alluvium but only a
dried up river bed.
o Aluvium must be an exclusive work of
nature.
o Conversion of Property of public
dominion to patrimonial:
1. There must be abandonment or
withdrawal from its use.
2. There must be a positive or
affirmative act.
o It is not necessary that the positive act
may be in the form of a law as it may
come from the executive.
o XPN: Agricultural lands of public
domain may be converted to
patrimonial property of the state, there
must be an express declaration that it
is no longer for public use or that it is
converted.
o Malabanan vs Republic. Conversion
must be in a form of a law or
presidential proclamation but only
when the president is expressly
authorized by Congress to do so.
o SC made a distinction between par. 1
and par. 2 of the Property Registration
Decree. In Par. 1 the basis of the grant
of title ohs possession and occupation
of the land since June 12, 1945 or
CIVIL LAW ATTY RABUYA FORECAST LECTURE (LEGAL EDGE)
 earlier. Par. 2 the basis of the grant of
title is acquisitive prescription.
o In Par. 1 contemplates of agricultural
lands of the public domain which must
not be patrimonial. It must be declared
alienable and disposable at the time of
the application. In Par. 2, the
properties are alienable and disposable
and may be subject to acquisitive
prescription. It is necessary that during
the entire period of prescription the
property must be patrimonial for 30
years. We cannot add the period when
the property is still a property of public
dominion. A property of public
dominion is not susceptible of
acquisitive prescription.
o Co-ownership. When a co-owner allows
another person to build in the co-
owned property, the same is an
alteration of co-ownership. Hence, the
consent of one co-owner is not
sufficient to allow the person to build in
the co-owned property.
o In the sale of the ideal shares of the
other co-owner, art. 493 applies. He is
exercising a case of absolute ownership
with respect to his ideal share. He
cannot also be compelled to sell his
ideal share.
o Art. 487. The will of one of the co-
owners is sufficient in maintaining an
action for ejectment.
o Repudiation of Co-ownership.
o Ining vs Vega. Each co-owner may
demand at any time the partition of the
thing owned in common, insofar as his
share is concerned.
o Art. 559 NCC. Doctrine of
irrevindicability of movables. Does not
apply to lost movables and to cases
where the previous possessor has been
unlawfully deprived thereof. The latter
includes not only theft but also cases of
abuse of confidence provided there is
no intent to deliver for the purpose of
consummating a valid sale.
o The act of the agent is the act of the
principal. When an agent sells the
property of a principal the latter can no
longer recover the property from the
buyer because the doctrine of
irrevindicability does not apply when
there is a valid sale despite the
presence of abuse of confidence.
Page 5 of 9
o Nuisance. Only a nuisance per se may
be abated summarily. Even in the
exercise of the LGUs police power, a
nuisance per accidens may not be
abated without a judicial order.
o A motel or sauna is a legitimate
business. It is not a nuisance per se
that can be summarily abated by the
LGU.
o Cruz vs Pandacan. A basketball court is
not a nuisance per se which can be
subjected to summary abatement.
There must be a judicial termination
that it is indeed a nuisance. The same
rule applies even when the abatement
is in an ordinance.
o When the building is constructed in
violation of the Building Code, the
same may be summarily abated not
because it is a nuisance per se but
because it is in violation of the Building
Code. The local chief executed is vested
by the LGC to enforce the Building
Code.
WILLS AND SUCCESSION
o Legitime. Acts of the testator that may
validly affect the legitime.
o Probate.
GR:
Probate court cannot pass upon an
issue regarding intrinsic validity of the
will.
XPN:
1. All the heirs agreed
2. Testamentary provision is
patently invalid on the face of the
will.
3. When practical consideration
dictates that the probate court
pass upon that intrinsic issue
otherwise the conduct of the
probate proceedings becomes a
useless ceremony. eg. Will
opposed because the same is a
donation inter vivos.
o Preterition.
o However, probate proceedings should
still continue whenever there are
devices and legacies despite the
presence of preterition. On the other
hand, if there is a claim of preterition
but the will does not contain any
devices or legacies, practical
consideration dictates the probate
court must first pass upon the issue of
preterition.
CIVIL LAW ATTY RABUYA FORECAST LECTURE (LEGAL EDGE)

o Ascendants are compulsory heir in the
direct line if there are no descendants.
A conceived child is also a compulsory
heir in the direct line. Cannot be
omitted otherwise there will be
preterition.
o Reserva Troncal is simply a case of
delayed succession.
o Three Lines of Transmission
o Origin to Propositus through gratuitous
title either donation or inheritance.
o Propositus to Reservista through
succession by law
o Resrvista to Reservatario through legal
succession
o The reservatario inherits as a legal heir
not from the reservist but from the
propositus.
o The reservista can sell the property
subject of the reserve troncal. The
transferee becomes absolute owner of
the property if he is a innocent
purchaser for value or transferee in
good faith.
o There is a resolutely condition that at
the time of the death of the reservista,
the resrvatorio is still living.
o During the lifetime of the reservista,
the right of the resrvatario is merely
inchoate.
o The reservatario can protect his claim
in the property by making everyone in
bad faith hehe through constructive
notice. By registering the property in
the RD in case of real property. In case
of personal proerty, the reservatario
can demand a guaranty from the
reservista.
o A resevatrio must be a relative within
the 3rd degree of consanguinity of the
propositus.
o Because the resrvatario will be
inheriting from the proposiatus by
intestate succession, the rules of
intestate succession shall apply. The
rule of proximity may therefore apply.
o Fideicommissary Substitution. When
there is an obligation of the first heir to
preserve and to transmit the property
in amor of the 2nd heir.
Page 6 of 9
o A substitution becomes
fideicommissary substitution:
1. When the substitution is to be called
a fideicommissary substitution.
2. When it is provided that the
fiduciary heir is expressly obligated
to preserve and transmit the
property to the fideicommisary.
o It is only the fideicommissary
substitution is deemed not imposed if
invalid, but the institution of the first
heir will not be affected.
o Limitations:
1. The fideicommissary cannot go
beyond one degree of the first
heir. eg. parent and child.
2. Both the first heir and 2nd heir
must be living.
3. A fideicommissary substitution
cannot be imposed upon the
legitime.
o Barrier Rule Art 992 NCC. The
illegitimate child is barred from
inheriting from the legitimate parent.
o The illegitimate child must be a child of
someone who is legitimate.
o Barrier rule applies only to intestate
succession.
o Intestate Succession refer to picture
o SS excludes CL except B/S/N/N. 1/2 SS
1/2 B/S/N/N.
o Among CL the B/S/N/N exclude all
other CL.
o State is the ultimate heir.
o No DL, ILC, SS and BSNN: Other CL
o Up to 5th degree
o Proximity Rule applies
o No representation
o FB and HB share
o Barrier Rule
OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS
o Natural Obligations.
o Art. 1956 Interest shall not be due
unless it is in writing. Two kinds of
interest 1. Monetary and 2.
Compensatory (a kind of penalty). Art.
1956 applicable only to monetary
interest.
CIVIL LAW ATTY RABUYA FORECAST LECTURE (LEGAL EDGE)
o In case of monetary interest that is
expressly stipulated interest it is in the
nature of a civil obligation which is
legally demandable. However, if the
monetary interest is not stipulated in
writing the same is either a case of a
natural obligation or solution in debiti.
In the latter, the debtor may demand
recovery of the interest paid.
o Art. 1182 Potestative Condition. If the
fulfillment is left in the exclusive will of
the debtor and the same time
suspensive, the obligation becomes
void. But in other situations when the
conditions is potestative and at the
same time resolutely the obligation is
valid. If the obligation is casual or
mixed the obligation is valid. To
reiterate, it is only when the condition
is potestative and suspensive is the
obligation void.
o Art. 1186 Doctrine of Constructive
Fulfillment of Suspensive Condition.
Applicable to mixed conditional
obligation when part of the obligation is
dependent upon the debtors will. Said
condition is the same time suspensive.
It is the debtor who actively prevented
the fulfillment of the condition, the
same is deemed complied.
o If the debtor did all in his power to
comply for the fulfillment of the
condition, the doctrine also applies.
o Option vs. Right of First Refusal. In
both it will create a privilege. Same
function. Take note of distinctions.
o There is an absence of acceptance of
the option in RFR. The Option may
become a contract when all the
requisites of a contract are present. In
an option what is lacking is
consideration. An Option is a contract
in itself. It is a preparatory contract.
The consideration may be something of
value (money, prop or service). An
Option contract is an onerous contract.
If an option is supported by a
consideration of its own, then it
becomes a valid contract. If the option
is w/o consideration, it is not a
contract. It is not binding and the
offeror may withdraw it at anytime but
he must withdraw it prior to its
acceptance.
o RFR there must be no definite offer yet.
Otherwise, it is an option. In a RFR
only the object has been agreed upon
because the price is to be negotiated on
Page 7 of 9
in the event the grantor makes an offer
to the grantee. But the obligation of the
grantor in a RFR is to offer first the offer
to the grantee. If the grantee refuses
the offer, the grantor may offer the
contract to someone else but it must be
in the same terms with the grantee. If
the price is lower to the others, there is
a violation of the RFR and the grantee
may exercise the the RFR for that offer.
If there is a counter-offer such is in the
nature of a rejection and making a new
offer.
o Tender of Payment and Consignation.
If the debtor made a valid tender of
payment and the creditor without just
cause refused the payment, it is the
creditor that is in delay (mora
accipiendi). The debtor cannot be
required to pay compensatory interest.
The debtor will be liable to pay
monetary interest only if he did not
follow his tender of payment with a
valid consignation. Why? Because the
debtor kept the money for himself.
That is unjust enrichment.
o Novation. Debtor must clearly
consented to the substitution in order
for the novation to be valid.
o Assignment of Credit and Conventional
Subrogation. In AC what is being
transferred is the very same obligation
of the assignor. In CS it is a mode of
extinguishment of obligation. A new
obligation is created for the purpose of
extinguishing the old. The obligation
transferred to the assignee is not the
old obligation but a new one. In AC the
consent of the debtor is not necessary.
What is required by law is a mere
notice to the debtor. In CS the consent
of the debtor is necessary because CS
is a new contract involving three
persons, the creditor, the new creditor
and the debtor. W/o the consent of the
debtor there is no CS.
o If the intention of the parties is CS and
the debtors consent was not obtained,
the same cannot be treated as an AC.
o The buyer of a mortgaged property is
not a Third Person Interested in the
Fulfillment of the Debtors Obligation.
He is only interested in the mortgaged
property. Thus, he cannot compel the
creditor to accept payments of debt
from him. But if he is a third party
mortgagor, he is a third person
interested in the fulfillment in the
obligation. Therefore, he may compel
CIVIL LAW ATTY RABUYA FORECAST LECTURE (LEGAL EDGE)
 the creditor to accept payments of the
debt subject of the mortgage.
o Stipulation Pour Atrui. A stipulation
between the contracting parties
conferring a favor or benefit to
someone who is not a party to the
contract or a third person.
o The conferment of benefit must be
deliberate and intentional not
incidental. The conferment of benefit
must only be part of the contract and
not the entire contract. Otherwise, the
third person must be made a party to
the contract. Neither of the contracting
parties represents the third person
receiving the benefit. The third person
must have accepted the benefit prior to
its withdrawal. (eg. Credit card)
o If a contracting party violates the
stipulation pour atrui, the party to
whom the benefit is conferred may sue
the party responsible for its breach.
o Distinction of Rescission in Art 1381
and Art. 1191.
o J. Del Castillo case. An absolutely
Simulated contract is not a rescissible
contract but a void contract. A
rescissible contract presupposes a valid
contract.
o The principle of constructive notice is
not applicable in Art. 1381 because the
provision is a remedy of last resort.
o Perfection, Validity, Obligatory, Binding
Effect and Enforceable
o Perfection is simply limited to the
existence of the contract. Consensual
or Real Contract. There are only 4 real
contracts and all of them are under
credit transaction. All other contracts
are consensual.
o Obligatory the contract must be valid,
perfected, binding and enforceable.
o If a contract is perfected but invalid the
same is void ab initio.
o The principle of in pari delicto applies
only to void contracts where the cause,
purpose or object of the contract is
illegal (eg. Illegal Contracts).
o Not all valid contracts are obligatory
because they are unenforcreable. Void
Contract vs. Unenforceable Contracts.
The latter is subject to ratification. The
Page 8 of 9
contract entered into by the agent and
another person without the consent of
the principal is UNENFORCEABLE
because it is subject to ratification.
o A rescissible contract is valid contract.
In Art. 1381 par. 1 and 2, the same
must NOT be a disposition or
encumbrance of REAL PROPERTY
otherwise it is not a rescissible contract
but an UNENFORCEABLE CONTRACT.
o Voidable Contract. Valid but voidable.
In resicissible contract the contract is
wiped out or nullified while in voidable
contract the contract is merely
invalidated. In a void contract there is
no need for judicial declaration.
o When the contract is entered into by
two mentally insane, the contract is
unenforceable but when one of them is
no long insane and ratified the contract
the same is voidable but if the other is
also no long insane and ratified the
contract, the same is now VALID.
o Art. 1403 par. 1 does not apply to a
sale of a parcel of land by an agent in
behalf of an alleged principal without
written authorization. The contract is
void. Applicable law is art. 1874 NCC.
o Void Contracts. Par. 1 it is only the
illegality of the cause which invalidates
the contract and not the motive of the
contract. Motive and cause are
different concepts. But there are
situations where motive is the cause of
the contract as when motive
predetermines the cause of the
contract. This happens when motive is
the only reason of the cause of the
contract. (hypo: daisy)
o If the consideration stated in the
contract is false, the same is void for
being an absolutely simulated contract.
The object of the contract must exist.
SALES
o In a contract of sale, it is not required
that the seller be the owner of the
object at the time of perfection.
Instead the law provides that upon the
perfection of the contract that will only
create an obligation on the part of the
seller to make the delivery and transfer
ownership of the property sold. Thus, if
the seller did not comply with the
obligation of delivery and transfer of
the thing sold, the contract is not void
CIVIL LAW ATTY RABUYA FORECAST LECTURE (LEGAL EDGE)
 but the failure will be considered a
breach of contract which will entitle the
buyer to damages.
o If the contract is valid at the time of
perfection it cannot become void later
on. Any non-compliance of the contract
is merely a breach.
o Nemo Dat Quod Non habet. If the seller
is not the owner of the thing sold, it
cannot transfer title to the buyer. XPN
innocent purchaser for value.
o Double Sale. Requisites. Important!
Both of the sale must be a valid sale.
Sale of a parcel of land to a foreigner
void even if the latter used a common
law wife as a dummy.
Torts
o St. Lukes Case. The Enrollment
Contract will be the basis of St Lukes
liability to the students of the fire
incident. In an enrollment contract
there are built in obligations as these
obligations are deemed incorporated in
the contract without express
stipulation. The School has obligation
of providing the student of an
environment that is adequate and
conducive for learning. In that
environment the students must be
constant ly free from any threat to their
lives. But the School is not an insurer
of all risks. The school will not be liable
for any death injury or death
happening inside the school if it can be
able to prove to exercise due diligence
to prevent injury or damage to the
students. Burden of proof is with the
school.
o Caravan Travel and Tours Ruling
reiterated in Greenstar Express vs
Universal. If the situation will involve
that the employer happens to be the
registered owner of the vehicle, the
only burden of the plaintiff is that the
er is the registered owner of the
vehicle. It is now the ER who has the
burden of proof to deny the existence
of the ER-EE relationship or the ER
exercised due diligence in the selection
and supervision of the EEs.
Page 9 of 9
Credit and Transaction
o Difference between Real Estate
Mortgage and Antichresis.
: In the latter, the creditor is always in
possession of the immovable.
However, in a REM, the creditor may be
in possession of the immovable if it is
expressly stipulated. In AC there must
be an express agreement authorizing
the creditor to receive the fruits of the
immovable with a corresponding
obligation to apply the same to the
principal. W/o this agreement the
contract is not AC. In AC as long as the
debt is not paid in full, the creditor can
maintain possession of the immovable
and the debtor cannot compelled the
return of the immovable.
o If the creditor mortgagee is a bank it is
the provision of the Sec. 47of the GBL
will be applicable where there is always
a right of redemption whether the
mortgage is judicial or extrajudicial. If
the mortgagor is a natural person, the
redemption period is one year but if it
is a juridical person the period is. 3
mos. from the date of sale or until the
registration of the sale whichever
comes first.
o Pledge vs. Chattel Mortgage. The law
allows a contract of pledge to secure
future transactions. A contract of
Chattel Mortgage can only secure
existing indebtedness. No continuing
contract of CM.
CIVIL LAW ATTY RABUYA FORECAST LECTURE (LEGAL EDGE)