Persons and Family Relations

Course Outline (JD 1E)

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
A. Concept of Law (COMMENTARIES AND JURISPRUDENCE ON THE CIVIL
CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES by Dr. Arturo M. Tolentino)
The term law may be understood in two (2) concepts:

(1) General or Abstract Sense

- law has been defined as “the science of moral rules, founded on the rational nature
of man, which govern his free activity, for the realization of the individual and social
ends, of a nature both demandable and reciprocal.”
- Briefly, it is the mass of obligatory rules established for the purpose of governing the
relations of persons in society.

(2) Specific or Material Sense

- law has been defined as a “juridical proposition or an aggregate of juridical

propositions, promulgated and published by the competent organs of the State in
accordance with the Constitution.
- It is a norm of human conduct in social life, established by a sovereign organization
and imposed for the compulsory observance of all.
- Sanchez Roman defines it as “a rule of conduct, just, obligatory, promulgated by the
competent authority for the common good of a people or nation, which constitutes an
obligatory rule of conduct for all its members.”

B. General Divisions of Law

Law in its most comprehensive sense has been divided into two general groups: divine law
and human law.

By divine law is meant that in which God himself is the legislator who has promulgated
the law; by human law is meant that which is promulgated by man to regulate human
relations.

Human law is in turn divided into two main classes: general or public law and individual or
private law. These in turn are subdivided as follows:

1. General or public law:

- International law, or that which governs the relations between nations

or states, that is, between human beings in their collective concept.
-Constitutional law, or that which governs the relations between human
beings as citizens of a state and the governing power.
-Administrative law, or that which governs the relations between
officials and employees of the government.
- Criminal law, or that which guaranties the coercive power of the law
so that it will be obeyed.
 - Religious law, or that which regulates the practice of religion.

2. Individual or private law:

- Civil law, or that which regulates the relations of individuals for purely
private ends.
-Mercantile law, or that which regulates the special relations produced
by commercial transactions.
-Procedural law, or that which provides for the means by which private
rights may be enforced.

II. CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (RA 386)

A. Effect and application of Laws (Articles 1-8 of the New Civil Code)
(Persons and Family Relations by Rabuya)

Code, defined;

A “code” is a collection of laws of the same kind; a body of legal provisions referring to a
particular branch of law. A “civil code,” therefore, is a collection of laws which regulate the
private relations of the members of civil society, determining their respective rights and
obligations, with reference to persons, things and civil acts.

i. Article 2

Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette, or in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided. (As amended by E.O. No. 200)

- Executive Order 200 (Providing for the publication of laws

either in the official gazette or in a newspaper of general
circulation in the Philippines as a requirement for their
effectivity.
Whereas, article 2 of the civil code partly provides that “laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in
the official gazette, unless it is otherwise provided;”

Whereas, the requirement that for laws to be effective only a publication thereof in the official gazette will suffice has entailed some problems,
a point recognized by the supreme court in tañada, et al. Vs. Tuvera, et al. (g.r. no. 63915, december 29, 1986), when it observed that “[t]here
is much to be said of the view that the publication need not be made in the official gazette, considering its erratic release and limited readership;”

Whereas, it was likewise observed that “[u]ndoubtedly, newspapers of general circulation could better perform the function of communicating
the laws to the people as such periodicals are more easily available, have a wider readership, and come out regularly

- Tanada, et al, v Tuvera. Et al., GR NO L-63915 (April 24

1985)

Facts:

Due process was invoked in court when Petitioners (Tanada,

Sarmiento and MABINI) sought for the writ of Mandamus to obligate
respondent public officials to publish various executive issuances in
the Official Gazette. Respondents had the case dismissed outrighton
 the grounds that petitioners do not have legal personality to bring
instant petition. Respondents also argued that although publication
was necessary, when the effectivity date of the law is mentioned,
(otherwise provided) publication isn’t a requirement.

Issues:

Whether or not the petitioners have the legal personality or standing to

carry out the instant petition and whether publication is necessary for
laws which have its own effectivity date.

Ruling: The Court ruled that Article 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the
requirement of publication in the Official Gazette even if the law itself
provides for the date of its effectivity since the clear object of the law is
to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws which are
to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. Without such notice
and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim
“ignorantia legis non excusat.”

- Tanada, et al, v Tuvera. Et al., GR NO L-63915

(December 29, 1986)

In the motion for reconsideration in the Tañada case, a question arose as to

where the publication must be made. Must the publication be effected only in the
Official Gazzete? This question was answered by the Supreme Court in the resolution
of the motion for reconsideration in the Tañada vs. Tuvera case. The court resolved
the issue by saying that pursuant to the Civil Code and the Revised Administrative
Code, publication must be effected in the Official Gazette and not in any other medium.
Because of this ruling, E.O. No. 200 was passed by President Corazon Aquino on June
18, 1987, amending Section 2 of the Civil Code. Pursuant to this amendatory law,
publication of laws may now either be in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines.

Laws Providing for its own effectivity

An example of a law that provides for its own effectivity is the “Family Code of
the Philippines” (Executive Order No. 209). Article 257 of the Family Code provides
that the Code shall take effect one (1) year after the completion of its publication in a
newspaper of general circulation, as certified by the Executive Secretary, Office of the
President. Its publication in the Manila Chronicle, a newspaper of general circulation,
was completed on August 4, 1987. Thus, in Memorandum Circular No. 85 dated
November 7, 1988, it was clarified that the Code took effect on August 3, 1988, and
not on August 5, 1988.

15th day computation

“15 days after its publication”15th day effectivity.

“after 15 days following its publication” 16th day effectivity

 When Law Is Silent

When the law is silent as to its effectivity, then it shall take effect after fifteen (15)
days following the completion of its publication. When the law does not provide for its
own effectivity then it must be published because the date of publication is material in
determining the law’s effectivity.

ii. Article 3

Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.

- People of the PH vs Eduardo B. Neri, GR No L37762

(December 19, 1985)

Facts:

Defendant Eduardo B. Neri was charged with illegal possession of

firearms. Defendant was caught carrying firearms, Exh. 'A', revolver,
Colt. Cal. 38 bearing Serial No. 898685 and Exhs. 'B', 'B-1, 'B-2' and 'B-
3' four live ammunitions Cal. 38, with one as a ‘home-made’ firearm
commonly called as ‘paltik.’ The accused appealed, saying that he was
issued a permit to carry the firearm outside his residence by the Acting
Provincial Commander and the firearm was granted by the Provincial
Governor to be used in the performance of his duties as Deputy
Governor. The appellant also relies upon the decision of the Court of
Appeals in the case of People vs. Asa, where members of a civilian guard
organization were acquitted because they had no intention to commit
the offense charged and believed in good faith that, as civilian guards,
they could possess firearms issued by the head of the civilian guard
organization.

Issue:

Whether or not the permit granted him by the Acting Provincial Governor
on January 16, 1970, marked as Exh. '3' and a Special Permit issued by
the Provincial Commander marked as Exh. '4' exempts the possessor
thereof from criminal responsibility and violations violating the
provisions of the Revised Administrative Code.

Ruling:

Section 879 of Article IV, supra, speaks of exceptions as to firearm

issued to officers. Government officials and employees who are allowed
to carry firearm for the use of their performance of official duties without
incurring criminal responsibility, go to a process of application to the
Chief of the Bureau, under such terms as the President may deem
proper. However, nowhere among the listed names could be found for
the Deputy Governor, hence, the accused does not fall within the
exception.

'Sec. 881 Special permit for possession of arms by civil employees. The chief of any Bureau of the National
Government may apply to the President of the Philippines for a special permit for any subordinate
official or employee of the Bureau to possess firearms and ammunition for personal protection in the
performance of his duties as such official or employee, and the President of the Philippines may issue, or
cause to be issued, such special permission under such terms as conditions as he may deem proper.'

This connection that the doctrine enunciated in the case of People vs.
Macarandang, 2 that the appointment of a civilian as secret agent to
assist in the maintenance of peace and order campaign and detection of
crimes sufficiently puts him in the category of a "peace officer"
equivalent even to a member of the municipal police expressly covered
by section 879 of the Revised Administrative Code so that he incurs no
criminal liability for possession of firearms issued to him by the
governor, has been revoked in the case of People vs. Mapa.

- Consunji vs Court of Appeals, GR No 137873 (April 20, 2001)

iii. Article 6
- People’s Bank and Trust Company vs Tambunting, GR NO L-
29666 (October 29, 1971)
- Consunji vs Court of Appeals, GR No 137873
(April 20, 2001)