Persons Class Notes 082219

PERSONS AND FAMILY
RELATIONS
ATTY. SAHARA ALIA J. SILONGAN
College of Law
Notre Dame University
References: Persons and Family Relations books by Pineda,
Paras, Tolentino, and Sta. Maria
EFFECT AND APPLICATION
OF LAWS
ARTICLES 1-18
The New Civil Code of the Philippines
Republic Act No. 386
Effective: August 30, 1950
A Civil Code has been defined “as 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.”
Civil Law is a system of norms or rules of a character

general and common which regulate the relations of persons,
individual or collective, and which protects the person in his
personality as well as his interests both moral and
patrimonial.
References: Persons and Family Relations
books by Pineda, Paras, Tolentino, and Sta.
Maria
Civil Law covers:
1. The person himself and the rights of personality;

2. The family and rights of family;
3. Associations and partnerships;
4. The human patrimony which includes:
a. The right to things or the right of property and its modifications;
b. The right of obligations; and
c. The right of hereditary succession.
Most of our civil laws are found in the Civil Code but the Civil Code is not the only
repository of our civil laws. We have many civil laws like the Child and Youth Welfare
Code (PD 603), the Family Code (E.O. No. 209), the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998 (RA
No. 8552), Inter-Country Adoption Law, etc. which are not found in the Civil Code.
The Civil Law is wider in concept than the Civil Code. The Civil Code is part of the Civil
Law, but not all civil laws are part of the Civil Code.
Article 1
This Act shall be known as the "Civil Code

of the Philippines."
Laws shall take effect aaer fiaeen days following the completion of their
publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code
shall take effect one year aaer such publication.
Amended by Executive Order No. 200 dated June 18, 1987. It now reads:
Laws shall take effect a8er fi8een days following

the completion of their publication in the Official
GazeEe, or in a newspaper of general
circulation, unless it is otherwise provided. This
Code shall take effect one year a8er such
publication.
Under the new amendment (E.O. No. 200), publication
may now be made through newspapers of general circulation.
The Official Gazette is not an adequate medium in the
publication of laws.
A newspaper is considered of general circulation if its

circulation is made within the court’s jurisdiction, published at
regular intervals for the dissemination of local news and
general information, with bona fide subscription list of paying
subscribers and if it is not devoted to the interest or published
for the entertainment of a particular class, profession, trade,
calling, race or religious denomination.

Maria
When do laws become effective?
The effectivity of a law will depend on whether or not it has provided a specific
date for its effectivity.
If there is no date specified for its effectivity, the law becomes effective “aaer
fiaeen (15) days following the completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or
newspaper of general circulation.”
If the law is voluminous and is published in series, the reckoning shall begin from
the release of the last of the series.
If the law provided a specific date for its effectivity (like one year aaer
publication), it becomes effective only upon the lapse of said period following its
complete publication and not before.
A law which provides for its immediate effectivity upon approval becomes
effective only aaer its complete publication and not immediately aaer its signing by
the President.

Maria
Effectivity of ordinances
LGC Section 59. Effectivity of Ordinances or Resolutions. -
(a) Unless otherwise stated in the ordinance xxx, the same shall take
effect aaer ten (10) days from the date a copy thereof is posted in a
bulletin board at the entrance of the provincial capitol or city,
municipal, or barangay hall, as the case may be, and in at least two (2)
other conspicuous places in the local government unit concerned.
Xxx
(d) In the case of highly urbanized and independent component cities,
the main features of the ordinance or resolution duly enacted or
adopted shall, in addition to being posted, be published once in a local
newspaper of general circulation within the city: Provided, That in the
absence thereof the ordinance or resolution shall be published in any
newspaper of general circulation.

Maria
Ordinances with penal provisions
SECTION 511. Posting and Publication of Ordinances with Penal Sanctions. - (a)
ordinances with penal sanctions shall be posted at prominent places in the provincial
capitol, city, municipal or Barangay hall, as the case may be, for a minimum period of
three (3) consecutive weeks. Such ordinances shall also be published in a newspaper
of general circulation, where available, within the territorial jurisdiction of the local
government unit concerned, except in the case of Barangay ordinances. Unless
otherwise provided therein, said ordinances shall take effect on the day following its
publication, or at the end of the period of posting, whichever occurs later.
xxx
(c) The secretary to the Sanggunian concerned shall transmit official copies of such
ordinances to the chief executive officer of the Official Gazette within seven (7) days
following the approval of the said ordinance for publication purposes. The Official
Gazette may publish ordinances with penal sanctions for archival and reference
purposes.
Section 59 (c) The gist of all ordinances with penal sanctions shall be published in a
newspaper of general circulation within the province where the local legislative body
concerned belongs. In the absence of any newspaper of general circulation within the
province, posting of such ordinances shall be made in all municipalities and cities of
the province where the sanggunian of origin is situated.

Maria
NATIONAL LAW
Distinctions ORDINANCE
Article 2, NCC Sections 59 and 511, LGC
Official Gazette or newspaper of general circulation a) Posting in the bulletin board and 2 other
conspicuous places in the province, city,
municipality, or brgy
b) For ordinance w/ penal provision: posting at

prominent places for 3 weeks, and publication in a
newspaper of gen. circulation in the province
where the LGU belongs. Otherwise, posting in all
the municipalities and cities of the province.
c) For highly urbanized and independent

component cities: publication once in a newspaper
of general circulation in the city. Otherwise,
newspaper of general circulation.

Maria
NATIONAL LAW ORDINANCE
Effective 15 days aaer completion of a) 10 days from posting
publication unless otherwise stated. b) With penal provision: the day
following its publication, or at the end
of the period of posting, whichever
occurs later.
Publication must be complete a) In case of highly urbanized and IC
cities, publish only the main features
of the ordinance;
b) With penal provision, only the gist of
the ordinance will be published

Maria
Tañada v. Tuvera
RULING: Yes. Article 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication in the Official
Gazette, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity.
The clear object of the above-quoted provision 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." It would be the height of injustice to punish
or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of which he had no notice
whatsoever, not even a constructive one.
The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general
applicability" is mandated by law. Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for
fines, forfeitures or penalties for their violation or otherwise impose a burden on the
people, such as tax and revenue measures, fall within this category. Other presidential
issuances which apply only to particular persons or class of persons such as
administrative and executive orders need not be published on the assumption that
they have been circularized to all concerned.
It is needless to add that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature"
or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due process.

Maria
“unless otherwise provided”
refers to the date of effectivity of laws and not to the
requirement of publication. Publication is indispensable. No law
can become immediately effective upon approval without
publication. To rule otherwise is to run into collision with the
constitutional requirement of the due process clause of the
Constitution.

Maria
De Roy v. CA
RULING: Contrary to petitioners' view, there is no law

requiring the publication of Supreme Court decisions in
the Official Gazette before they can be binding and as a
condition to their becoming effective. It is the bounden
duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice to keep
abreast of decisions of the Supreme Court particularly
where issues have been clarified, consistently reiterated,
and published in the advance reports of Supreme Court
decisions (G. R. s) and in such publications as the
Supreme Court Reports Annotated (SCRA) and law
journals.

Maria
WHAT NEEDS TO BE PUBLISHED?
Laws that need publication – all statutes, including those of
local application and private laws.
Internal instructions of administrative agencies and municipal

ordinances are not covered by the requirement.
Publication is required of a Central Bank Circular and

Executive Order if punitive (prescribes a penalty) in character.
The publication of administrative orders and regulations is

required if the purpose is to enforce or implement existing
laws pursuant to a valid delegation.

Maria
PUBLICATION MUST BE COMPLETE
The mere mention of the number of the law, its title,
the supposed date of its effectivity and its whereabouts
is not even substantial compliance (Tañada v. Tuvera)

Maria
Article 3
Ignorance of the law excuses no
one from compliance
therewith.
Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

Ignorantia juris non excusat.
Ignorantia legis non excusat.

Maria
Ignorance of law
Ignorance of law is want of knowledge or acquaintance with the laws
of the land insofar as they apply to the act, relation, duty, or matter
under consideration.
All persons are conclusively presumed to know the laws as long as the
laws had been duly promulgated. And any violation thereof is not
excusable on ground of ignorance. The rule is intended to prevent
evasion of the law. Justice will easily be frustrated if parties could
successfully plead ignorance of the law and escape the legal
consequences of their acts or be excused from the nonfulfillment of
their obligations.
The rule is applicable to all kinds of domestic laws, whether civil or
penal, and whether substantive or remedial.
The rule is relaxed when it comes to minors.

Maria
Ignorance of foreign laws
The rule is not applicable to ignorance of foreign laws.
Ignorance of a foreign law will not be a mistake of law but a mistake of
fact.
Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws. The existence of
foreign laws must be pleaded and proved as matters of fact. In the
absence of any contrary evidence, it is presumed to be the same as
our domestic law. This presumption is known as PROCESSUAL
PRESUMPTION.
E.g. Marriage celebrated in China before a village leader.
How to prove a foreign law: by an official publication thereof or by a
copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record and
accompanied with a certificate that such officer has the custody.

Maria
Ignorance of fact
Ignorance of fact is want of knowledge of some fact or facts
constituting or relating to the subject matter in hand.
Ignorantis facti excusat. Ignorance of fact may excuse a party
from the legal consequence of his conduct as long as there is no
negligence.
Example: Contracting a second marriage based upon a well-
founded belief that his first wife was already dead and it turns
out that she is in fact alive. There is no ignorance of law (bigamy)
but of fact.

Maria
Mistake of law
Mistake of law refers to a mistake regarding what law is
applicable to a certain set of facts. It is not ignorance of law.

Maria
Dept. of Justice v. Judge Mislang
(July 26, 2016)
RULING: Judge Mislang issued two TROs, a writ of preliminary injunction and
a status quo order, both of which did not satisfy the legal requisites for their
issuance, in gross violation of clearly established laws and procedures which
every judge has the duty and obligation to be familiar with.
Gross ignorance of the law is the disregard of basic rules and settled
jurisprudence. Though not every judicial error bespeaks ignorance of the law
and that, if committed in good faith, does not warrant administrative
sanction, the same applies only in cases within the parameters of tolerable
misjudgment. Such, however, is not the case with Judge Mislang. Where the
law is straighrorward and the facts so evident, failure to know it or to act as if
one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
In order to have a successful implementation of the Court's relentless drive to
purge the judiciary of morally unfit members, officials, and personnel, a rigid
set of rules of conduct must necessarily be imposed on judges. The standard
of integrity applied to them is - and should be - higher than that of the
average person for it is their integrity that gives them the privilege and right
to judge.

Maria
Article 4
Laws shall have no retroactive
effect, unless the contrary is
provided.

Maria
General Rule is Prospectivity
The general rule on the effectivity of laws is that laws operate prospectively.
Laws look at the future.
Statutes have only a prospective operation unless the intention to give them
a retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the
language used. If there is doubt, the doubt must be resolved against
retrospectivity.

Maria
Retroactivity
Retroactive law is one intended to affect transactions which occurred, or
rights which accrued, before it became operative, and which ascribes to them
effects not inherent in their nature, in view of the law in force at the time of
their occurrence. It creates new obligation and imposes a new duty, or
attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already
past.
Reason: If the rule was that laws were retroactive, grave injustice would
occur, for these laws would punish individuals for violations of laws not yet
enacted.
New doctrine of the Supreme Court should be applied prospectively, and not
apply to parties relying on the old doctrine and acting on the faith thereof.

Maria
Exceptions to applicability of Article 4:
1. If the laws themselves provide for retroactivity.

Example: Art. 256 of the Family Code which provides: “This Code shall have
retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired
rights in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.”
Exceptions to the exception:
a. In no case must an EX POST FACTO LAW be passed.
An ex post facto law is one that makes criminal and punishable an act done
before the passing of the law and which was innocent when done.
Section 22, Article III of the 1987 Constitution: No ex post facto law or bill of
attainder shall be enacted.
The prohibition against ex post facto laws applies only to criminal matters,
and not to civil matters such as the imposition of taxes. Liability for taxes is
incidental to social existence.
Ex: The War Profits Law imposed certain taxes on profits made during the
Japanese Occupation or WWII. Failure to pay said tax is criminally punishable
only if said failure is aaer the effectivity of the law.

Maria
b. Impairment of the obligation of contract
Section 10, Article III of the 1987 Constitution: No law impairing the
obligations of contract shall be passed.
2. If the laws are curative or remedial/procedural in nature.

The legislature has the power to pass healing acts which do not impair
the obligations of contracts nor interfere with vested rights. They are
remedial by curing defects and adding to the means of enforcing
existing obligations.
Remedial statutes are those which refer to the method of enforcing
rights or of obtaining redress of their violation. Ex: Arbitration Law, the
Rules of Court.
There are no vested rights in rules of procedure. Therefore, new rules
of court on procedure can apply to pending actions.

Maria
However, changes in substantial law or SC judicial
doctrines interpreting the application of a particular law
may not be applied retroactively, especially when
prejudice will result to the party that has followed the
earlier law or judicial doctrine.
3. If the law is penal in character and favorable to the
accused. This is based on Article 22 of the RPC which
specifically provides that penal laws shall have
retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty
of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal, although at the
time of the publication of such laws, a final sentence has
been pronounced and the convict is serving the same.

Maria
Atienza v. Brillantes, Jr.
RULING: Article 40 is applicable to remarriages entered into aaer the
effectivity of the Family Code on August 3, 1988 regardless of the date
of the first marriage. Besides, under Article 256 of the Family Code,
said Article is given "retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice
or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code
or other laws." This is particularly true with Article 40, which is a rule
of procedure. Judge Brillantes has not shown any vested right that was
impaired by the application of Article 40 to his case.
The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants'
rights may not preclude their retroactive application to pending
actions. The retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative
of any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected.
The reason is that as a general rule no vested right may attach to, nor
arise from, procedural laws.

Maria
Phil. Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals v. COA
RULING: The "charter test" cannot be applied.
Since the charter test had been introduced by the 1935 Constitution and not
earlier, it follows that the test cannot apply to the petitioner, which was
incorporated by virtue of Act No. 1285, enacted on January 19, 1905. Settled
is the rule that laws in general have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary
is provided. All statutes are to be construed as having only a prospective
operation, unless the purpose and intention of the legislature to give them a
retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the
language used. In case of doubt, the doubt must be resolved against the
retrospective effect.
The general principle of prospectivity of the law likewise applies to Act No.
1459, otherwise known as the Corporation Law, which had been enacted by
virtue of the plenary powers of the Philippine Commission on March 1, 1906,
a little over a year aaer January 19, 1905, the time the petitioner emerged as
a juridical entity.
EXCEPTIONS:
Statutes can be given retroactive effect in the following
cases:
(1)when the law itself so expressly provides;
(2)in case of remedial statutes;
(3)in case of curative statutes;
(4)in case of laws interpreting others; and
(5)in case of laws creating new rights.
None of the exceptions is present in the instant

case.
Carlos v. Sandoval
RULING: The Rule does not apply to cases already commenced before March
15, 2003 although the marriage involved is within the coverage of the Family
Code. This is so, as the new Rule which became effective on March 15, 2003 is
prospective in its application. Thus, the Court held in Enrico v. Heirs of Sps.
Medinaceli, viz.:
“As has been emphasized, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC covers marriages under the
Family Code of the Philippines, and is prospective in its application. “

Maria
Cheng v. Sy
RULING: Petitioner is in error when she insists that the 2000

Rules on Criminal Procedure should not apply because she
filed her BP Blg. 22 complaints in 1999. It is now settled that
rules of procedure apply even to cases already pending at the
time of their promulgation. The fact that procedural statutes
may somehow affect the litigants’ rights does not preclude
their retroactive application to pending actions. It is axiomatic
that the retroactive application of procedural laws does not
violate any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely
affected, nor is it constitutionally objectionable. The reason
for this is that, as a general rule, no vested right may attach
to, nor arise from, procedural laws.

Maria
Carolino v. Senga
RULING: No. PD No. 1638 was signed by then President Ferdinand Marcos on
September 10, 1979. Under Article 4 of the Civil Code, it is provided that laws shall
have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. It is said that the law looks
to the future only and has no retroactive effect unless the legislator may have formally
given that effect to some legal provisions, and that every case of doubt must be
resolved against retrospective effect. These principles also apply to amendments of
statutes.
PD No. 1638 does not contain any provision regarding its retroactive application, nor
the same may be implied from its language. In fact, Section 36 of PD No. 1638 clearly
provides that the decree shall take effect upon its approval. As held in Parreno v. COA,
there is no question that PD No. 1638, as amended, applies prospectively. Since PD
No. 1638, as amended, is about the new system of retirement and separation from
service of military personnel, it should apply to those who were in the service at the
time of its approval. Conversely, PD No. 1638 is not applicable to those who retired
before its effectivity in 1979. The rule is familiar that aaer an act is amended, the
original act continues to be in force with regard to all rights that had accrued prior to
such amendment

Maria
Article 5
Acts executed against the provisions of
mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be
void, except when the law itself authorizes
their validity.

Maria
Mandatory, directory, prohibitory laws
A mandatory provision of law is when the omission of which, renders
the proceeding or acts, to which it relates generally illegal or void.
“shall”
Ex: Prescriptive periods provided by law.
A directory provision, on the other hand, is one the observance of
which is not necessary to the validity of the proceeding. It usually
relates to form and manner, and where an act is incidental.
Ex: When a judge is required to render a decision within a certain
period but fails to do so, the decision is still valid but the judge may be
held administratively liable.
A prohibitory law is that which contains positive prohibitions and are
couched in the negative terms importing that the act required shall
not be done otherwise than designated.
Ex: No decree of legal separation shall be based upon a stipulation
of facts or a confession of a judgment.
Maria
In the Matter of Petition for Cancellation of Certificates of Live
Birth v. Republic
(August 7, 2017)
RULING: The subject birth certificates are void.

Act No. 3753, otherwise known as the Civil Registry Law, states:
Section 5. Registration and Certification of Birth. - xxx
In case of an illegitimate child, the birth certificate shall be signed and
sworn to jointly by the parents of the infant or only the mother if the
father refuses. xxx
Thus, it is mandatory that the mother of an illegitimate child signs the birth
certificate of her child in all cases, irrespective of whether the father
recognizes the child as his or not.
Hence, the subject birth certificates are void and should be cancelled for
being registered against the mandatory provisions of the Family Code
requiring the use of the mother's surname for her illegitimate children and
Act No. 3753 requiring the signature of the mother in her children's birth
certificates.
Maria
Article 6
Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is
contrary to law, public order, public policy,
morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a
third person with a right recognized by law.

Maria
Right
A right is a legally enforceable claim of one person against another, that the
other shall do a given act, or shall not do a given act. It is a power, privilege,
or immunity guaranteed under a constitution, statutes, or decisional laws, or
claimed as a result of long usage.
Distinguished from duty

A right need not be exercised. It might even be waived. A duty, however,
must be performed, and one who does not discharge the same must
necessarily be prepared to face the consequences of his dereliction or
omission.

Maria
Waiver
Waiver is the intentional or voluntary relinquishment of a known right or such
conduct as warrants an inference of relinquishment of such right.
Rule: Waivers are not presumed but must be clearly and convincingly shown,
either by express stipulation or acts admitting no other reasonable
explanation.
Unwaivable Rights: right to live, right to future support, rights to personality
and family rights.
Void waiver:
a) If the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good
customs;
e.g. A stipulation requiring a scholar to waive his right to transfer to
another school, unless he refunds the equivalent of his scholarship in cash.
b) If the waiver is prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
e.g. repudiation of an inheritance to the prejudice of creditors.

Maria
Requirements of a valid waiver
1. The waiving party must actually have the right he is
renouncing. One cannot waive what he does not have,
possess, or own at the time of the waiver.
2. He must have full capacity to make the waiver.
Otherwise, defective for lack of free consent.
3. The waiver must be clear and unequivocal.
4. The waiver must not be contrary to law, public order,
public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to
a third person with a right recognized by law.
5. When formalities are required, they must be complied
with. e.g. condonation of a debt must observe same
formalities as that of donation.
Maria
Famanila v. CA
RULING: Yes. Not all waivers and quitclaims are invalid as against public
policy. If the agreement was voluntarily entered into and represents a
reasonable settlement, it is binding on the parties and may not later be
disowned simply because of change of mind. It is only where there is clear
proof that the waiver was wangled from an unsuspecting or gullible person,
or the terms of the settlement are unconscionable on its face, that the law
will step in to annul the questionable transaction. But where it is shown that
the person making the waiver did so voluntarily, with full understanding of
what he was doing, and the consideration for the quitclaim is credible and
reasonable, the transaction must be recognized as a valid and binding
undertaking, as in this case.
To be valid and effective, waivers must be couched in clear and unequivocal
terms, leaving no doubt as to the intention of those giving up a right or a
benefit that legally pertains to them. The terms and conditions contained in
the Receipt and Release and appear to be clear and unambiguous.

Maria
Guy v. CA
(September 15, 2006)
RULING: To be valid and effective, a waiver must be couched in clear

and unequivocal terms which leave no doubt as to the intention of a
party to give up a right or benefit which legally pertains to him.
In this case, there was no waiver of hereditary rights. The Release and
Waiver of Claim does not state with clarity the purpose of its
execution. It merely states that Remedios received P300,000.00 and
an educational plan for her minor daughters "by way of financial
assistance and in full settlement of any and all claims of whatsoever
nature and kind x x x against the estate of the late Rufino Guy
Susim." Considering that the document did not specifically mention
private respondents' hereditary share in the estate of Sima Wei, it
cannot be construed as a waiver of successional rights.
Furthermore, it must be emphasized that waiver is the
intentional relinquishment of a known right. Where one lacks
knowledge of a right, there is no basis upon which waiver of it
can rest.
In the present case, private respondents could not have
possibly waived their successional rights because they are yet
to prove their status as acknowledged illegitimate children of
the deceased. Petitioner himself has consistently denied that
private respondents are his co-heirs. It would thus be
inconsistent to rule that they waived their hereditary rights
when petitioner claims that they do not have such right.
Hence, petitioner's invocation of waiver on the part of private
respondents must fail.
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.
When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the
Constitution, the former shall be void and the laEer shall govern.
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be
valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the
Constitution.

Maria
Repeal
Express repeal is when the repealing law provides for a provision or a
repealing clause explicitly stating that a particular existing law or part of a law
is thereby repealed.
Implied repeal is when there is no repealing clause in the repealing law, but
the prior law and the subsequent law could not reconcile being substantially
inconsistent with one another. It is not looked upon with favor.
TEST: Repealing Clause – All laws and parts thereof inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
There is no repeal when both statutes can reasonably stand together.
Statutes in pari materia (on the same subject matter) should be harmonized if
possible.
Rule when there is conflict:
1. If both laws are of same category and they cover the same subject matter, that
which is later in point of time prevails over the prior one.
Ex: Both laws are special laws. RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002 repealed RA 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972)
2. If the general law is PRIOR to the special law, the latter is considered merely an
exception to the general law.
Ex: Act No. 3815 (RPC, 1930) was repealed by RA 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972)
3. If the general law is LATER in enactment, the special law prevails except –
a. When there is a clear, necessary and irreconcilable conflict between the two.
b. When the general law covers the whole subject (including the subject matter of
the special law) and is clearly intended to replace the special law.
Revival of a repealed law
Rules:
1. If the first law is repealed by IMPLICATION by the
second law, and the second law is itself repealed by
the third law, the first law is revived unless otherwise
provided in the third law.
2. If the first law is repealed EXPRESSLY by the second
law, and the second law is repealed by third law, the
first law is NOT revived, unless expressly so provided.
In other words, in case of implied repeal, there is revival.
In case of express repealm there is no revival. Exception:
If the contrary is provided.
Disuse, custom, or practice to the
contrary
Although a law has fallen into disuse, or the customs or practices
of the citizenry run against a law – the violation or non-
observance of said is not excused by reason thereof.
Inciong v. De Guia
ISSUE: Whether or not the common practice of assignment of cases
without the benefit of raffle is justified.
HELD: It is not. Even on the assumption that assignment of cases is
"very common" in the Regional Trial Courts where she was assigned,
she should have borne in mind that practice is not the law. The law is
very explicit on this as expressed by Article 7 of the New Civil Code
which provides:
"Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or
non-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or customs
or practice to the contrary."
Respondent could not go against Circular No. 20 of the Honorable
Supreme Court in the exercise of its rule-making power until it is
repealed or otherwise modified.

Maria
SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION
The Constitution is the highest law of the land to which all other
laws must abide, otherwise, they will be void for being
unconstitutional.
Until the law has been declared void by a competent authority, it
remains valid and effective. The SC is empowered by the
Constitution to declare the unconstitutionality of a law and the
vote required is majority of the Justices who actually took part in
the deliberations on the issues in the case and who voted
thereon. (Art VIII, Section 4(2), 1987 Constitution)

Maria
League of Cities of the Philippines v. COMELEC
HELD: The Operative Fact Doctrine is not applicable. The general rule is that an
unconstitutional law is void. It produces no rights, imposes no duties and affords no
protection. It has no legal effect. It is, in legal contemplation, inoperative as if it has
not been passed.
The general rule is supported by Article 7 of the Civil Code, which provides:
ART. 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.
When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former
shall be void and the latter shall govern.
Thus, applying the operative fact doctrine to the present case, the Cityhood Laws
remain unconstitutional because they violate Section 10, Article X of the Constitution.
However, the effects of the implementation of the Cityhood Laws prior to the
declaration of their nullity, such as the payment of salaries and supplies by the "new
cities" or their issuance of licenses or execution of contracts, may be recognized as
valid and effective. This does not mean that the Cityhood Laws are valid for they
remain void. Only the effects of the implementation of these unconstitutional laws are
lea undisturbed as a matter of equity and fair play to innocent people who may have
relied on the presumed validity of the Cityhood Laws prior to the Court’s declaration
of their unconstitutionality.

Maria
Laws are superior to admin. and exec.
acts, orders and regulations
• Next to the Constitution in authority are the laws. But,
Congress cannot conceivably provide for all the details
necessary in the enforcement of a particular law such
that the administrative agencies authorized to
implement the law are empowered to issue the
implementing rules and regulations to enforce the law.
• The rules or regulations adopted under legislative
authority by a particular department must be in
harmony with the provisions of the law, and for the
sole purpose of carrying into effect its general
provisions. The law itself, however, cannot be
extended by such regulations.
• References: Persons and Family

Relations books by Pineda, Paras,
Tolentino, and Sta. Maria
Article 8
Judicial decisions applying or interpreting
the laws or the Constitution shall form a
part of the legal system of the Philippines.

Maria
JURISPRUDENCE
The judicial decisions referred in the Article are those of the
Supreme Court. These are called “jurisprudence” – the
doctrines formulated by the decisions of the Supreme Court.
The decisions of the Court of Appeals which cover points of
law still undecided in the Philippines may still serve as judicial
guidelines to the lower courts. And they may attain the status
of doctrines if aaer having been subjected to test in the
crucible analysis and revision, the Supreme Court should find
the same to have merits and qualities sufficient for their
consecration as rules of jurisprudence.
Decisions of the RTCs and MTCs no matter how sound and
wise do not become part of jurisprudence. They cannot be
cited as authorities.

Maria
Effectivity of judicial interpretation of
statutes
Jurisprudence cannot be considered as an independent source
of law; it cannot create law. But the Supreme Court’s
interpretation of a statute constitutes part of the law as of the
date it was originally passed, since the Court’s interpretation
merely establishes contemporaneous legislative intent that the
interpreted law carried into effect.

Maria
PITC v. COA
ISSUE: When is the effectivity of judicial interpretation of statutes?
HELD: Judicial interpretation of a statute constitutes part of the law as
of the date it was originally passed, since the Court's construction
merely establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent that the
interpreted law carried into effect, is all too familiar. Such judicial
doctrine does not amount to the passage of a new law but consists
merely of a construction or interpretation of a pre-existing one, x x x.
It is consequently clear that a judicial interpretation becomes a part of
the law as of the date that law was originally passed, subject only to
the qualification that when a doctrine of this Court is overruled and a
different view is adopted, and more so when there is a reversal
thereof, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively and should
not apply to parties who relied on the old doctrine and acted in good
faith. To hold otherwise would be to deprive the law of its quality of
fairness and justice then, if there is no recognition of what had
transpired prior to such adjudication.
Applying the foregoing disquisition to the present case, the Court disagrees
with PITC's position that the Decision in G.R. No. 183517 should be applied
prospectively.
As the COA correctly argued, the Decision in G.R. No. 183517 neither
reversed an old doctrine nor adopted a new one. The Court merely construed
therein the meaning and application of Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756
by taking into consideration the rationale behind the provision, its interplay
with pre-existing retirement laws, and the subsequent enactments and
statutes that eventually repealed the same. Prior to the Decision in G.R. No.
183517, there was no other ruling from this Court that explained the nature
of the retirement benefits under Section 6 of Executive Order No. 756. Thus,
the Court's interpretation of the aforesaid provision embodied in the Decision
in G.R. No. 183517 retroacts to the date when Executive Order No. 756 was
enacted.
Distinctions on effectivity of SC
decisions and rules
1.Judicial interpretation of a statute – retroacts to the date of
enactment of the statute
2.New doctrine – prospective application in order not to
prejudice the rights of those who relied in the old doctrine in
good faith.
3.Rules – retroactive application unless otherwise declared by
the court such as in Carlos v. Sandoval citing Enrico v. Heirs of
Sps. Medinaceli.

Maria
Stare decisis
The doctrine of stare decisis refers to the principle of adherence to
precedents for reasons of stability in the law. The doctrine requires
lower courts to follow the rules established in prevailing decisions of
the Supreme Court.
Where the Supreme Court had already resolved a particular issue of
jurisdiction in several cases, it is a salutary and necessary judicial
practice to apply the rulings therein to the subject petition.
Once a case has been decided one way, any other case involving
exactly the same point at issue should be decided in the same manner.
The doctrine is based on the principle that once a question of law has
been decided in one case, any other case involving the same issues
must be resolved in accordance with the preceding decisions.

Maria
• In order that a case can be considered as a
precedent to another case which is pending
consideration, the facts of the first case
should be similar or analogous to the second
case.

Maria
Abandonment of the principle of stare
decisis
• If a rule which has been followed as a precedent is found
contrary to law, it must be abandoned. The law is higher than
a precedent.
• Abandonment of a principle or rule of law established by the
Supreme Court must be based only on strong and compelling
reasons, the becoming virtue of predictability which is
expected from the Court would be immeasurably affected
and the public’s confidence in the stability of the solemn
pronouncements diminished.

Maria
Obiter dictum
• It is an opinion expressed by a court upon some question of law which is
not necessary to the decision of the case before it. It is a remark made, or
opinion expressed, by a judge, in his decision upon a cause, “by the way,”
that is, incidentally or collaterally, and not directly upon the question
before him, or upon a point not necessarily involved in the determination
of the cause. Such are not binding as precedent.
• When a matter has been clearly questioned or raised as an issue and the
same was touched in the decision when a conclusion was presumed, the
adjudication cannot be considered an obiter dictum but a factual finding.

Maria
Article 9
No judge or court shall decline to render
judgment by reason of the silence,
obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.

Maria
Courts shall not legislate
• Otherwise, they will be encroaching on the functions of the
Legislature.
• However, situations do arise where cases are brought to court
and there is no law exactly applicable to them. Sometimes
also, while there is a law, it is obscure or vague and
insufficient in its guidance. When these do happen, the judge
is, nevertheless, enjoined to render a decision. He shall not
abstain or decline in adjudging the case.

Maria
Obscurity or deficiency of law
Rules:
1. If the law is vague or obscure – the court should apply it in
the light of the rules of statutory construction.
2. If it is silent or insufficient – the court should fill the deficiency
by resorting to customs or general principles of law.
3. If the case is new in the country – the court may apply an old
foreign jurisprudence or legislation, if any.

Maria
Customs as suppletory rule
• Custom is the juridical rule which results from a constant and
continued uniform practice by the members of a social community,
with respect to a particular state of facts, and observed with a
conviction that it is juridically obligatory.
• In order that custom may have the force of suppletory rule, it must
have the following requisites:
1. Plurality of acts, or various resolutions of a juridical question
raised repeatedly in life;
2. Uniformity, or identity of the acts;
3. General practice by the great mass of the social group;
4. Continued performance of these acts for a long period of time;
5. General conviction that the practice corresponds to a juridical
necessity or that it is obligatory; and
6. The practice must not be contrary to law, morals or public order.
Maria
Silverio v. Republic
HELD: A person’s first name cannot be changed on the ground of sex reassignment. RA 9048 provides
the grounds for which change of first name may be allowed which excludes sex reassignment. Rather
than avoiding confusion, changing petitioner’s first name for his declared purpose may only create
grave complications in the civil registry and the public interest.
Further, no law allows the change of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the ground of sex
reassignment. Article 407 of the Civil Code authorizes the entry in the civil registry of
certain acts , events and judicial decrees . These acts, events and judicial decrees produce legal
consequences that touch upon the legal capacity, status and nationality of a person. Their effects are
expressly sanctioned by the laws. In contrast, sex reassignment is not among those acts or events
mentioned in Article 407. Neither is it recognized nor even mentioned by any law, expressly or
impliedly.
The trial court opined that its grant of the petition was in consonance with the principles of justice and
equity. It believed that allowing the petition would cause no harm, injury or prejudice to anyone. This is
wrong.
It is true that Article 9 of the Civil Code mandates that "no judge or court shall decline to render
judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the law." However, it is not a license for
courts to engage in judicial legislation. The duty of the courts is to apply or interpret the law, not to
make or amend it.
Maria
Dura lex sed lex
It is the sworn duty of the judge to apply the law
without fear or favor, to follow its mandate, not to
tamper with it. When the law is clear, the court cannot
apply a policy different from that of the law. What the
law grants, the court cannot deny. The judge cannot
refuse to apply a law just because he considers it
unjust. If the law is clear, it must be applied; dura lex
sed lex.

Maria
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege
Article 9 is applicable only to civil cases. It is not
applicable to criminal cases because of the basic
principle, “nullum crimen, nulla poena sine
lege.” When there is no law condemning the act,
there is no crime. Therefore, the case must be
dismissed.

Maria
Article 10
In case of doubt in the interpretation or
application of laws, it is presumed that the
lawmaking body intended right and justice
to prevail.

Maria
Article apples only if there is doubt
• If there is no doubt on the law, the court must apply it without fear or
favor. When the law itself is clearly worded, no interpretation should be
made.
• In case of doubt, the judge should proceed on the presumption that the
lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.
• We should interpret not by the letter that killeth, but by the spirit that
giveth life.

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

Maria
The court shall not supplant governing law with
customs, albeit how widely observed.

Maria
Article 12
A custom must be proved as a
fact, according to the rules of
evidence.

Maria
No judicial notice of customs
Custom must be proved as a fact. And to do that, it must be alleged in
the pleadings. Its existence must be proved by evidence, either by
testimony of witnesses or by documents recognizing its existence and
its observance for a long period of time.
Exceptions:
1. If there is already a decision rendered by the the same court
recognizing the custom, specially of the decision had already been
affirmed on appeal and the decision is already final and executory.
2. When the custom is of public knowledge.
3. If the evidence presented is not sufficient to establish the
existence of a custom, the alleged custom is considered as non-
existing.

Maria
Article 13
When the laws speak of years, months, days or nights, it shall be
understood that years are of three hundred sixty-five days each;
months, of thirty days; days of twenty-four hours; and nights
from sunset to sunrise.
If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed
by the number of days which they respectively have.
In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and last
day included.

Maria
Computation of Periods
• One year – means 365 days
• One month – means 30 days, unless the
month is particularized, in which case, the
month will be computed according to the
actual number of days it contains
• One day – means 24 hours
• Night – means sunset to sunrise
• Rule: Exclude the first and include the last day
Maria
When the last day falls on a weekend
or a holiday
• The last day will automatically be the next
working day if the act to be performed within the
period is prescribed or allowed:
1. by the Rules of Court;
2. by an order of the court; or
3. by any other applicable statute.
• The act will become due notwithstanding the
fact that the last day falls on a weekend or
holiday if the act to be performed arises from a
contractual relationship. The period is not
extended.
Maria
Article 14
Penal laws and those of public security and
safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or
sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the
principles of public international law and to
treaty stipulations.

Maria
Principle of Territoriality
Generally, our civil laws do not apply to aliens who
are governed by their national law. However, our
penal laws equally apply to aliens who live or
sojourn in the Philippines based on the principle
that during their stay, they owe allegiance to the
country though temporary in nature.
Thus, any offense committed by anyone within the
territory of the country is an offense against the
State. And the sovereign State has the power to
prosecute and punish the offender, be he a national
or a foreigner.

Maria
Exceptions to the Principle of
Territoriality
1. Those, who under principles of public
international law enjoy diplomatic immunities
from suit such as heads of states, foreign
ambassadors or diplomats provided they do not
travel incognito. Also, a foreign army is exempt
from civil and criminal jurisdiction of the place,
where it was permitted to march or to station
therein, by permission of its government or
sovereign;
2. Those expressly excluded from our jurisdiction
due to treaty stipulations.

Maria
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction of the
Philippines
For the enforcement of the Revised Penal Code, the Philippines has jurisdiction over
certain cases committed outside its territory. This is what is known as extraterritorial
jurisdiction – a juridical power extending beyond the physical limits of a particular
state or country.
Article 2. Application of its provisions. - Except as provided in the treaties and laws
of preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only
within the Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and
maritime zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or
obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of
the obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the
exercise of their functions; or
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of
nations, defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. (Revised Penal Code)

Maria
English Rule
Crimes perpetrated on board foreign merchant
vessels found within the 3-mile limit of
Philippine territorial waters are triable in
Philippine courts under the English rule.

Maria
Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem
HELD: The doctrine of processual presumption shall govern. Under this doctrine, if the foreign
law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law is
the same as our local or domestic or internal law. Thus, since the law of the Netherlands as
regards the obligation to support has not been properly pleaded and proved in the instant case,
it is presumed to be the same with Philippine law, which enforces the obligation of parents to
support their children and penalizing the non-compliance therewith.
Considering that Ernst is currently living in the Philippines, the Territoriality Principle in criminal
law, in relation to Article 14 of the New Civil Code, applies to the instant case, which provides
that: "[p]enal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live
and sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to the principle of public international law and to
treaty stipulations." On this score, it is indisputable that the alleged continuing acts of Ernst in
refusing to support his child with Norma is committed here in the Philippines as all of the parties
herein are residents of the Province of Cebu City. As such, our courts have territorial jurisdiction
over the offense charged against Ernst. It is likewise irrefutable that jurisdiction over the Ernst
was acquired upon his arrest.

Maria
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.

Maria
Family rights and duties
These refer to rights and duties provided in the
Family Code and other special laws relating to
family law. Thus matters relating to marriage, its
annulment or nullification, its consequences,
legal separation, property relations, support,
adoption, filiation, recognition, succession,
emancipation, parental authority are governed
exclusively by Philippine law, when citizens of
the Philippines are involved wherever they may
be.
Maria
Status, Condition, Legal Capacity
• Status – term used to designate the
circumstances affecting the legal situation of a
person in view of his age, nation and his family
membership.
• Condition – is a mode of being.
• Legal Capacity – the legal power to enter into
binding obligations or to enjoy privileges of a
legal status.
Maria
Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera
HELD: The divorce obtained by Erich in Germany and its legal
effects may be recognized in the Philippines in view of the
nationality principle in our civil law on the matter of status of
persons.
Being no longer the husband of Imelda, Erich had no legal

standing to commence the adultery case under the imposture
that he was the offended spouse at the time he filed suit.

Maria
Recio v. Recio
HELD: A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may be recognized in our
jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the
foreigner. However, the divorce decree and the governing personal law of the
alien spouse who obtained the divorce must be proven. Our courts do not
take judicial notice of foreign laws and judgments; hence, like any other facts,
both the divorce decree and the national law of the alien must be alleged and
proved according to our law on evidence.
Based on the records of the case, it cannot be concluded that Rederick, who
was then a naturalized Australian citizen, was legally capacitated to marry
Grace. The trial court erred in finding that the divorce decree ipso facto
clothed Rederick with the legal capacity to remarry without requiring him to
adduce sufficient evidence to show the Australian personal law governing his
status; or at the very least, to prove his legal capacity to contract the second
marriage.
Maria
Quita v. CA
HELD: Fe’s citizenship at the time of the divorce is a
factual issue requiring hearings to be conducted by the
trial court. Consequently, the CA did not err in ordering
the case returned to the trial court for further
proceedings.
Perez v. CA
HELD: Under the law, Elmar was never the legal wife of Tristan, hence her claim of
legal interest has no basis.
When Elmar and Tristan married, Tristan was still lawfully married to Lily. The divorce
decree that Tristan and Lily obtained from the Dominican Republic never dissolved the
marriage bond between them. It is basic that 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. Regardless of where a citizen of the
Philippines might be, he or she will be governed by Philippine laws with respect to
his or her family rights and duties, or to his or her status, condition and legal
capacity. Hence, if a Filipino regardless of whether he or she was married here or
abroad, initiates a petition abroad to obtain an absolute divorce from spouse and
eventually becomes successful in getting an absolute divorce decree, the Philippines
will not recognize such absolute divorce. Thus, Elmar never acquired the legal interest
as a wife upon which her motion for intervention is based.
San Luis v. San Luis
HELD: In resolving this issue, we need not retroactively apply the provisions of the Family Code,
particularly Art. 26, par. (2) considering that there is sufficient jurisprudential basis allowing us to
rule in the affirmative.
In Van Dorn v. Romillo (1985), the Court held therein that a divorce decree validly obtained by
the alien spouse is valid in the Philippines, and consequently, the Filipino spouse is capacitated
to remarry under Philippine law. To maintain, as private respondent does, that, under our
laws, petitioner has to be considered still married to private respondent and still subject to a
wife's obligations under Article 109 of the Civil Code cannot be just. Petitioner should not be
obliged to live together with, observe respect and fidelity, and render support to private
respondent. The latter should not continue to be one of her heirs with possible rights to conjugal
property. She should not be discriminated against in her own country if the ends of justice are
to be served.
In Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, the Court recognized the validity of a divorce obtained abroad. In the
said case, it was held that the alien spouse is not a proper party in filing the adultery suit against
his Filipino wife. The Court stated that "the severance of the marital bond had the effect of
dissociating the former spouses from each other, hence the actuations of one would not affect or
cast obloquy on the other."
Likewise, in Quita v. Court of Appeals, the Court stated that where a
Filipino is divorced by his naturalized foreign spouse, the ruling in Van
Dorn applies.
In Garcia v. Recio, the Court laid down the specific guidelines for
pleading and proving foreign law and divorce judgments. It held that
presentation solely of the divorce decree is insufficient and that proof
of its authenticity and due execution must be presented. The Court
cannot take judicial notice of foreign laws as they must be alleged and
proved.
Therefore, this case should be remanded to the trial court for further
reception of evidence on the divorce decree obtained by Merry Lee
and the marriage of respondent and Felicisimo.
Lavadia v. Heirs of Luna
HELD: Divorce between Filipinos is void and ineffectual
under the nationality rule adopted by Philippine law.
Hence, any settlement of property between the parties
of the first marriage involving Filipinos submitted as an
incident of a divorce obtained in a foreign country lacks
competent judicial approval, and cannot be
enforceable against the assets of the husband who
contracts a subsequent marriage.
Noveras v. Noveras
HELD: The foreign judgment and its authenticity must be proven as facts
under our rules on evidence, together with the alien’s applicable national law
to show the effect of the judgment on the alien himself or herself.
Based on the records, only the divorce decree was presented in evidence. The
required certificates to prove its authenticity, as well as the pertinent
California law on divorce were not presented.
Even if we apply the doctrine of processual presumption as the lower courts
did with respect to the property regime of the parties, the recognition of
divorce is entirely a different matter because, to begin with, divorce is not
recognized between Filipino citizens in the Philippines. Absent a valid
recognition of the divorce decree, it follows that the parties are still legally
married in the Philippines.
Article 16
Real property as well as personal property is subject
to the law of the country where it is stipulated.
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, whatever may be
the nature of the property and regardless of the
country wherein said property may be found.
Lex Situs or Lex Rei Sitae
This is the principle which provides that property
shall be governed by the law of the place where it is
situated.
Exceptions: Second paragraph of Article 16 which
refers to incidents of successions – whether
intestate or testamentary. These incidents are
governed by the national law of the deceased
irrespective of the nature of the property involved
and regardless of the country wherein said
property may be found.
Maria
Incidents of succession:
1. Order of succession in intestacy
2. Amount of successional rights
3. Intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will
4. Capacity to succeed.
Renvoi Doctrine – arises where our law refers a case to

another country for solution, but the law of that country
refers it back to our country for determination. When the
reference is made back to the law of the forum, that is known
as remission (or single renvoi) while the reference made to a
third state is known as transmission (double renvoi).

Maria
Orion v. Suzuki
HELD: All matters concerning the title and disposition of real property are determined by what is
known as the lex loci rei sitae, which can alone prescribe the mode by which a title can pass from
one person to another, or by which an interest therein can be gained or lost. This general
principle includes all rules governing the descent, alienation and transfer of immovable property
and the validity, effect and construction of wills and other conveyances.
This principle even governs the capacity of the person making a deed relating to immovable
property, no matter what its nature may be. Thus, an instrument will be ineffective to transfer
title to land if the person making it is incapacitated by the lex loci rei sitae, even though under
the law of his domicile and by the law of the place where the instrument is actually made, his
capacity is undoubted.
On the other hand, property relations between spouses are governed principally by the
national law of the spouses. However, the party invoking the application of a foreign law has the
burden of proving the foreign law. The foreign law is a question of fact to be properly pleaded
and proved as the judge cannot take judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed to know only
domestic or the law of the forum.
Accordingly, maZers concerning the title and disposition of real property shall be governed by
Philippine law while issues pertaining to the conjugal nature of the property shall be governed
by South Korean law, provided it is proven as a fact.
Maria
Ancheta v. Guersey-Dalaygon
HELD: Petitioner insists that his application of Philippine laws was made in good
faith. The Court cannot accept petitioner’s protestation. In claiming good faith in
the performance of his duties and responsibilities, defendant Alonzo H. Ancheta
invokes the principle which presumes the law of the forum to be the same as the
foreign law in the absence of evidence adduced to prove the latter law. In
defending his actions in the light of the foregoing principle, however, it appears
that the defendant lost sight of the fact that his primary responsibility as ancillary
administrator was to distribute the subject estate in accordance with the will of
Audrey O’Neill Guersey. Considering the principle established under Article 16 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines, as well as the citizenship and the avowed
domicile of the decedent, it goes without saying that the defendant was also duty-
bound to prove the pertinent laws of Maryland on the matter.

Maria
Article 17
The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public
instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in
which they are executed.
When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic
or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a
foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws
shall be observed in their execution.
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.

Maria
Principle of Lex Loci Celebrationis
Under this principle, matters bearing upon the
execution, interpretation and validity of a
contract are determined by the law of the place
where the contract is made. The formal validity
of contracts, wills, and other public instruments
shall be determined by the law of the country
where they are executed.

Maria
Principle of Exterritoriality
The acts referred to in the first paragraph of the
article executed before Philippine diplomatic
and consular officials in their offices abroad are
considered done in the Philippines because said
offices although found abroad, are considered
extensions of the Philippine territory.

Maria
Exterritoriality, Territoriality, and
Extraterritoriality
• Exterritoriality has a reference to the extension of the
territory of a country in another country which
extension is recognized under international law.
• Territoriality refers to the principle whereby all
persons, whether foreigner or nationals, who commit
crimes or violate penal laws and those of public
security and safety shall be liable for prosecution in the
territory or place of commission of the acts.
• Extraterritoriality is the principle recognized in
criminal law whereby crimes committed on board
vessels and airships of a country, although in
international waters or space, shall be triable by the
courts of said country.
Maria
Article 18
In maEers which are governed by the Code of
Commerce and special laws, their deficiency
shall be supplied by the provisions of this Code.

Maria
Civil Code is suppletory
• If the Code of Commerce or special laws are
insufficient, the Civil Code shall be applied to
supply the deficiency.
• If there is no deficiency in the special law, the
Civil Code must not be applied.
• In case of conflict between the Civil Code and
a special law, the latter prevails.

Maria
HUMAN RELATIONS
ARTICLES 19-36
Article 19
Every person must, in the exercise of his rights
and in the performance of his duties, act with
justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith.

Maria
Principle of Abuse of Rights
The term is used to refer to acts performed
which are not illegal but nevertheless make the
actor liable for damages, if in so acting or in
exercising his right, his purpose is to prejudice
or injure another.
A person should not use his right unjustly or
contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise
he opens himself to liability.

Maria
Good faith
The absence of good faith is essential to abuse
of right. Good faith is an honest intention to
refrain from taking advantage of another.
Bad faith, on the other hand, presupposes a
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and
conscious performance of a wrong. Bad faith is
never presumed.

Maria
Elements of Abuse of Rights
1. There is a legal right or duty;
2. Which is exercised in bad faith;
3. For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another.

Maria
Damnum Absque Injuria
Damage without prejudice. A person who only exercises his legal rights does
no injury. If damages result from such exercise of legal rights, it is damnum
absque injuria.
Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt or harm
which results from the injury; and damages are the recompense or
compensation awarded for the damage suffered. Thus, there can be damage
without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the
result of a violation of a legal duty. In such cases, the consequences must be
borne by the injured person alone, the law affords no remedy for damages
resulting from an act which does not amount to a legal injury or wrong. These
situations are oaen called damnum absque injuria. (Far East Bank v. Pacilan)
Far East Bank v. Pacilan
HELD: The elements of abuse of rights are the following: (a) the existence of a legal right or duty;
(b) which is exercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
Malice or bad faith is at the core of the said provision. The law always presumes good faith and
any person who seeks to be awarded damages due to acts of another has the burden of proving
that the latter acted in bad faith or with ill-motive.
The facts do not establish that, in the exercise of this right, petitioner bank committed an abuse
thereof. Specifically, the second and third elements for abuse of rights are not aZendant in the
present case.
No malice or bad faith could be imputed on petitioner bank for so acting since the records bear
out that the respondent had indeed been improperly and irregularly handling his account not
just a few times but hundreds of times. Under the circumstances, petitioner bank could not be
faulted for exercising its right in accordance with the express rules and regulations governing the
current accounts of its depositors. Upon the opening of his account, the respondent had agreed
to be bound by these terms and conditions.
Uypitching v. Quiamco
HELD: In this case, the manner by which the motorcycle was taken at
petitioners’ instance was not only attended by bad faith but also contrary to
the procedure laid down by law. Considered in conjunction with the
defamatory statement, petitioners’ exercise of the right to recover the
mortgaged vehicle was utterly prejudicial and injurious to respondent. On the
other hand, the precipitate act of filing an unfounded complaint could not in
any way be considered to be in accordance with the purpose for which the
right to prosecute a crime was established. Thus, the totality of petitioners’
actions showed a calculated design to embarrass, humiliate and publicly
ridicule respondent. Petitioners acted in an excessively harsh fashion to the
prejudice of respondent. Contrary to law, petitioners willfully caused damage
to respondent. Hence, they should indemnify him.
Cebu Country Club v. Elizagaque
HELD: Obviously, the CCCI Board of Directors, under its Articles
of Incorporation, has the right to approve or disapprove an
application for proprietary membership. But such right should
not be exercised arbitrarily.
The exercise of a right, though legal by itself, must nonetheless
be in accordance with the proper norm. When the right is
exercised arbitrarily, unjustly or excessively and results in
damage to another, a legal wrong is committed for which the
wrongdoer must be held responsible.
Calatagan Golf Club v. Clemente
HELD: The utter bad faith exhibited by Calatagan brings into
operation Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code, under the
Chapter on Human Relations. These provisions, which the Court
of Appeals did apply, enunciate a general obligation under law
for every person to act fairly and in good faith towards one
another. A non-stock corporation like Calatagan is not exempt
from that obligation in its treatment of its members. The
obligation of a corporation to treat every person honestly and in
good faith extends even to its shareholders or members, even if
the latter find themselves contractually bound to perform
certain obligations to the corporation.
Ardiente v. Javier
HELD: It is true that it is within petitioner's right to ask and even
require the Spouses Pastorfide to cause the transfer of the
former's account with COWD to the latter's name pursuant to
their Memorandum of Agreement. However, the remedy to
enforce such right is not to cause the disconnection of the
respondent spouses' water supply. The exercise of a right must
be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established
and must not be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no
intention to harm another. Otherwise, liability for damages to
the injured party will attach.
Sesbreno v. CA
HELD: There was no abuse of rights. Our holding could be
different had Sesbreño persuasively demonstrated the
intervention of malice or bad faith on the part of Constantino
and Arcilla during their inspection of the main premises, or any
excessiveness committed by them in the course of the
inspection. But Sesbreño did not. On the other hand, the CA
correctly observed that the inspection did not zero in on
Sesbreño’s residence because the other houses within the area
were similarly subjected to the routine inspection. This, we
think, eliminated any notion of malice or bad faith.
Saladaga v. Astorga
HELD: Respondent, as owner of the property, had the right to mortgage it to
complainant but, as a lawyer, he should have seen to it that his agreement with
complainant is embodied in an instrument that clearly expresses the intent of the
contracting parties.
Having the proclivity for fraudulent and deceptive misrepresentation, artifice or device
that is used upon another who is ignorant of the true facts, to the prejudice and
damage of the party imposed upon. In order to be deceirul, the person must either
have knowledge of the falsity or acted in reckless and conscious ignorance thereof,
especially if the parties are not on equal terms, and was done with the intent that the
aggrieved party act thereon, and the latter indeed acted in reliance of the false
statement or deed in the manner contemplated to his injury. The actions of
respondent in connection with the execution of the "Deed of Sale with Right to
Repurchase" clearly fall within the concept of unlawful, dishonest, and deceirul
conduct. They violate Article 19 of the Civil Code. They show a disregard for Section 63
of the Land Registration Act. They also reflect bad faith, dishonesty, and deceit on
respondent’s part. Thus, respondent deserves to be sanctioned.
Tan v. Valeriano
HELD: It is a doctrine well-entrenched in jurisprudence that the
mere act of submitting a case to the authorities for prosecution,
of and by itself, does not make one liable for malicious
prosecution, for the law could not have meant to impose a
penalty on the right to litigate.
Valeriano failed to prove that the subject complaints against him

were motivated purely by a sinister design. It is an elementary
rule that good faith is presumed and that the burden of proving
bad faith rests upon a party alleging the same. Absent such,
petitioners cannot be held liable for damages.
Arco Pulp and Paper Co., Inc. v. Lim
HELD: Article 19 is the general rule which governs the conduct of human relations. By itself, it is
not the basis of an actionable tort. Article 19 describes the degree of care required so that an
actionable tort may arise when it is alleged together with Article 20 or Article 21.
To be actionable, Article 20 requires a violation of law, while Article 21 only concerns with lawful
acts that are contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy:
Article 20 concerns violations of existing law as basis for an injury. It allows recovery should the
act have been willful or negligent. Willful may refer to the intention to do the act and the desire
to achieve the outcome which is considered by the plaintiff in tort action as injurious. Negligence
may refer to a situation where the act was consciously done but without intending the result
which the plaintiff considers as injurious.
Article 21, on the other hand, concerns injuries that may be caused by acts which are not
necessarily proscribed by law. This article requires that the act be willful, that is, that there was
an intention to do the act and a desire to achieve the outcome. In cases under Article 21, the
legal issues revolve around whether such outcome should be considered a legal injury on the
part of the plaintiff or whether the commission of the act was done in violation of the standards
of care required in Article 19.
When petitioner Arco Pulp and Paper issued a check in partial
payment of its obligation to respondent, it was presumably with
the knowledge that it was being drawn against a closed account.
Worse, it attempted to shia their obligations to a third person
without the consent of respondent.
Petitioner Arco Pulp and Paper’s actions clearly show "a

dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing
of a wrong, a breach of known duty through some motive or
interest or ill will that partakes of the nature of fraud." Moral
damages may, therefore, be awarded.
Article 20
Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall
indemnify the laEer for the same.

Maria
Generally, laws provide their own sanctions by
stating the responsibility of the violators
thereof. Also, they generally provide the
methods for their enforcement.
However, there are cases when the law does not
provide its own sanctions. In which case, this
Article provides the general sanction – the
indemnification for damages.

Maria
Article 21
Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to
another in manner that is contrary to morals,
good customs or public policy shall compensate
the laEer for the damage.

Maria
There are many injurious acts that are contrary
to public policy but are not forbidden by statute
which have not been foreseen by the
lawmakers.
Damages are recoverable even though no
positive law has been violated but it is necessary
that the act should have been willfully done and
more it is contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy.

Maria
Buenaventura v. CA
HELD: It is contradictory to characterize acts as a product of psychological incapacity,
and hence beyond the control of the party because of an innate inability, while at the
same time considering the same set of acts as willful. By declaring the petitioner as
psychologically incapacitated, the possibility of awarding moral damages on the same
set of facts was negated. The award of moral damages should be predicated, not on
the mere act of entering into the marriage, but on specific evidence that it was done
deliberately and with malice by a party who had knowledge of his or her disability and
yet willfully concealed the same. No such evidence appears to have been adduced in
this case.
For the same reason, since psychological incapacity means that one is truly incognitive
of the basic marital covenants that one must assume and discharge as a consequence
of marriage, it removes the basis for the contention that the petitioner purposely
deceived the private respondent. If the private respondent was deceived, it was not
due to a willful act on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the award of moral
damages was without basis in law and in fact.

Maria
Article 22
Every person who through an act of
performance by another, or any other means,
acquires or comes into possession of something
at the expense of the laEer without just or legal
ground, shall return the same to him.

Maria
Principle Against Unjust Enrichment
The principle provides that no person should
unjustly enrich himself at the expense of
another. The Article is applicable only if:
1. Someone acquires or comes into possession
of something; and
2. Acquisition is undue and at the expense of
another, which means without any just or
legal ground.
Maria
Accion in Rem Verso
This action is for the recovery of what has been
paid without just cause. It can only be availed of
if there is no other remedy to enforce based on
contract, quasi-contract, crime or quasi-delict.

Maria
Filinvest v. Ngilay
HELD: Unjust enrichment exists "when a person unjustly retains a
benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or
property of another against the fundamental principles of justice,
equity and good conscience." There is unjust enrichment under Article
22 of the Civil Code when (1) a person is unjustly benefited, and (2)
such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another.
Thus, the sale which created the obligation of petitioner to pay the
agreed amount having been declared void, respondents have the duty
to return the down payment as they no longer have the right to keep
it. The principle of unjust enrichment essentially contemplates
payment when there is no duty to pay, and the person who receives
the payment has no right to receive it. As found by the CA and
undisputed by the parties, the amount or the down payment made is
P14,000,000.00 which shall also be the amount to be returned by
respondents.
Gonzalo v. Tarnate
HELD: There is no question that Tarnate provided the equipment, labor and
materials for the project in compliance with his obligations under the
subcontract and the deed of assignment; and that it was Gonzalo as the
contractor who received the payment for his contract with the DPWH as well
as the 10% retention fee that should have been paid to Tarnate pursuant to
the deed of assignment. Considering that Gonzalo refused despite demands
to deliver to Tarnate the stipulated 10% retention fee that would have
compensated the latter for the use of his equipment in the project, Gonzalo
would be unjustly enriched at the expense of Tarnate if the latter was to be
barred from recovering because of the rigid application of the doctrine of in
pari delicto. The prevention of unjust enrichment called for the exception to
apply in Tarnate’s favor. Consequently, the RTC and the CA properly adjudged
Gonzalo liable to pay Tarnate the equivalent amount of the 10% retention
fee.
Bliss Development v. Diaz
HELD: Unjust enrichment exists when a person unjustly retains a benefit to
the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another
against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.
Under Article 22 of the Civil Code, there is unjust enrichment when (1) a
person is unjustly benefited and (2) such benefit is derived at the expense of
or with damages to another.
Allowing BDC to keep the amortizations paid by Diaz is tantamount to unjust

enrichment. It would result in BDC receiving amortizations twice the amount
it should have received, that is, the amortizations paid by Diaz and Arreza.
Even if BDC can prove that there was no overlap between the payments
made by Diaz and those made by Arreza, allowing it to keep the amortizations
paid by Diaz still amounts to unjust enrichment.
Article 23
Even when an act or event causing damage to

another's property was not due to the fault or
negligence of the defendant, the laEer shall be
liable for indemnity if through the act or event
he was benefited.
In all contractual, property or other relations,
when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on
account of his moral dependence, ignorance,
indigence, mental weakness, tender age or
other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for
his protection.
Doctrine of Parens Patriae
The law seeks the welfare of the incapacitated,
disadvantaged and handicapped being unable to
fully protect themselves. This is anchored on the
doctrine of parens patriae: the inherent power
and authority of the State to provide protection
of the person and property of a person non sui
juris. The State has the sovereign power of
guardianship over persons under disability.

Maria
Article 25
Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for
pleasure or display during a period of acute
public want or emergency may be stopped by
order of the courts at the instance of any
government or private charitable institution.

Maria
Requisites for filing of actions to stop
extravagance
1. There is thoughtless extravagance in
expenses;
2. The extravagance is for pleasure or display;
3. There is a period of acute public want or
emergency;
4. The case is filed in court by a governmental
institution or private charitable institution.

Maria
Article 26
Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and
peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The
following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages,
prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family
relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his
friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious
beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or
other personal condition.
Maria
Castro v. People
HELD: Notwithstanding his acquittal in the oral defamation case, petitioner
could have been liable for damages under Article 26 of the Civil Code:
Article 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and
peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar
acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a
cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:
xxx xxx xxx
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
xxx xxxxxx
Petitioner is reminded that, as an educator, he is supposed to be a role model

for the youth. As such, he should always act with justice, give everyone his
due and observe honesty and good faith.

Maria
Article 27
Any person suffering material or moral loss
because a public servant or employee refuses or
neglects, without just cause, to perform his
official duty may file an action for damages and
other relief against the laEer, without prejudice
to any disciplinary administrative action that
may be taken.

Maria
The purpose of the law is to eliminate corruption in the
government service. A public official who, for his plain
indolence or a cynical indifference to the responsibilities
of public service which is not corruption, causes damages
to another is liable for damages under the Article.
Requisites for filing of action:

1. A public servant or employee refuses or neglects to
perform his official duty;
2. There is no valid reason for the refusal or neglect to
perform official duty;
3. That injury or damage is suffered by the plaintiff.
Maria
• The law applies only to acts of nonfeasance which means
“non-performance” of some acts which a person is obliged
or has responsibility to perform; omission to perform a
required duty at all or, total neglect of duty.
• It does not apply to a case of negligence or misfeasance in
carrying out an official duty.
• For a public servant to be held liable under the Article, the
duty which he refused or failed to perform must be
ministerial in character, that is, the law absolutely requires
him to perform it. If the duty is discretionary, he is not
liable for his refusal or neglect to perform it, unless, he
acted in a notoriously arbitrary manner or he acted
willfully, maliciously, or with gross neglect.

Maria
Nonfeasance, Misfeasance,
Malfeasance
• Nonfeasance means the omission of an act
which a person ought to do.
• Misfeasance is the improper doing of an act
which a person might lawfully do.
• Malfeasance is the doing of an act which a
person ought not to do at all.

Maria
Ledesma v. CA and Delmo
HELD: It cannot be disputed that Violeta Delmo went through a painful ordeal
which was brought about by the petitioner's neglect of duty and callousness.
The Solicitor-General tries to cover-up the petitioner's deliberate omission to
inform Miss Delmo by stating that it was not the duty of the petitioner to
furnish her a copy of the Director's decision. Granting this to be true, it was
nevertheless the petitioner's duty to enforce the said decision. He could have
done so considering that he received the decision on April 27, 1966 and even
though he sent it back with the records of the case, he undoubtedly read the
whole of it which consisted of only three pages. Moreover, the petitioner
should have had the decency to meet with Mr. Delmo, the girl's father, and
inform the latter, at the very least of the decision. This, the petitioner likewise
failed to do, and not without the attendant bad faith.
Campugan v. Tolentino, Jr.
HELD: The aforementioned duty of the Register of Deeds is ministerial in
nature. A purely ministerial act or duty is one that an officer or tribunal
performs in a given state of facts, in a prescribed manner, in obedience to the
mandate of a legal authority, without regard to or the exercise of his own
judgment upon the propriety or impropriety of the act done. If the law
imposes a duty upon a public officer and gives him the right to decide how or
when the duty shall be performed, such duty is discretionary, not ministerial.
The duty is ministerial only when its discharge requires neither the exercise of
official discretion nor the exercise of judgment.
Whether or not the RTC order dated May 16, 2008 or the letter-request dated
June 30,2008 had been falsified, fraudulent or invalid was not for them to
determine inasmuch as their duty to examine documents presented for
registration was limited only to what appears on the face of the documents.
If, upon their evaluation of the letter-request and the RTC order, they found
the same to be sufficient in law and to be in conformity with existing
requirements, it became obligatory for them to perform their ministerial duty
without unnecessary delay.
Article 28
Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial
or industrial enterprises or in labor through the
use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or
any other unjust, oppressive or highhanded
method shall give rise to a right of action by the
person who thereby suffers damage.
Unfair Competition
• It consists in employing deception or any other means
contrary to good faith by which any person shall pass
off the goods manufactured by him or in which he
deals, or his business, or services for those of the one
having established goodwill, or committing any acts
calculated to produce such result.
• Under the Civil Code, unfair competition could be
committed through the use of either (a) force, (b)
intimidation, (c) deceit, (d) machination, or any other
unjust, oppressive or high-handed method in
agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in
labor.

Maria
Willaware Products v. Jesichris
Manufacturing
HELD: In order to qualify the competition as "unfair," it must have two characteristics: (1) it must
involve an injury to a competitor or trade rival, and (2) it must involve acts which are characterized as
"contrary to good conscience," or "shocking to judicial sensibilities," or otherwise unlawful; in the
language of our law, these include force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust,
oppressive or high-handed method. The public injury or interest is a minor factor; the essence of the
matter appears to be a private wrong perpetrated by unconscionable means.
Here, both characteristics are present.
First, both parties are competitors or trade rivals, both being engaged in the manufacture of plastic-
made automotive parts. Second, the acts of the petitioner were clearly "contrary to good conscience"
as petitioner admitted having employed respondent’s former employees, deliberately copied
respondent’s products and even went to the extent of selling these products to respondent’s
customers.
It is evident that petitioner is engaged in unfair competition as shown by his act of suddenly shiaing his
business from manufacturing kitchenware to plastic-made automotive parts; his luring the employees
of the respondent to transfer to his employ and trying to discover the trade secrets of the respondent.
Moreover, when a person starts an opposing place of business, not for the sake of profit to himself, but
regardless of loss and for the sole purpose of driving his competitor out of business so that later on he
can take advantage of the effects of his malevolent purpose, he is guilty of wanton wrong.

Maria
Articles 29-35
Sources of Obligations:
Article 1157. Obligations arise from:

(1) Law;
(2) Contracts;
(3) Quasi-contracts;
(4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and
(5) Quasi-delicts.

Maria
ARTICLES 29-35
An offense causes two (2) classes of injuries:
1. Social injury – this is produced by the criminal act which is sought to be
repaired thru the imposition of the corresponding penalty (imprisonment
and/or fine);
2. Personal injury – this is caused to the victim of the crime which injury is
sought to be compensated thru indemnity, which is civil in nature.
Note that the civil liability of the accused is not part of the penalty for the
crime committed. It is personal to the victim.

Maria
Quantum OF PROOF required
• CRIMINAL CASE
– Proof beyond reasonable doubt. The standard that must be met by the
prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical
explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant
committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is
innocent until proven guilty. (Note the Constitutionally granted right of the
accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.)
– In a criminal case, the accused is entitled to an acquittal, unless his guilt is
shown beyond reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not
mean such a degree of proof, excluding possibility of error, produces absolute
certainly. Moral certainly only is required, or that degree of proof which
produces conviction in an unprejudiced mind.
• CIVIL CASE
– Preponderance of Evidence. This means that The weight, credit and value of
the aggregate evidence of one is superior to the other.

Maria
KINDS OF ACQUITTAL
1. The guilt of the accused has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
2. The accused is not the author of the crime.
Example: When the prosecution’s witnesses failed to positively
identify the accused as the perpetrator; When the CCTV shows a
different person committing the offense.
3. The crime complained of did not exist.
Example: When the personal property allegedly stolen was in fact, not
stolen at all but was merely hidden from view.
4. Acquittal on the ground of prescription.
Example: When a complaint for libel is filed more than a year aaer the
discovery of the offense. The criminal liability is extinguished but the
civil liability is not.
Maria
Kinds of civil action
Dependent Civil Action (Civil Action ex delicto)
- This action is based on the crime being prosecuted. It seeks civil liability from the
offender for acts which arose from the same acts or omissions subject of the
criminal action.
- DCA if not reserved will be deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal action. If
reserved, it may be prosecuted independently like the independent civil actions
but must await the outcome of the criminal case to which it is dependent. (Article
29) If the DCA (Article 30) is filed ahead but overtaken by the criminal action, it
must be suspended and should await the outcome of the criminal case. This is so
considering the possibility that it may be barred if there is acquittal that
completely exonerates the accused from the crime, including civil liability.
- Governing provisions: Articles 29, 30, 35
Independent Civil Action
- This action can proceed simultaneously and separately from
the criminal action regardless of the outcome of the latter.
- The civil action under Article 33 (defamation, fraud and
physical injuries) need not be reserved because the law
itself already makes the reservation.
- For purposes of orderly administration of justice, the
claimant may inform the court taking jurisdiction over the
criminal action about the pendency of the civil action so
that the public prosecutor and the court will no longer
waste their time considering the matter of damages
suffered by the claimant and more, to prevent the
appearance of a private prosecutor.
Ordinary Civil Action
– If the acts complained of do not constitute
criminal offenses, the civil action is just an
ordinary civil action and not an independent civil
action. The latter presupposes the existence of a
criminal offense based on the same facts.
• Example: Article 31 on culpa contractual

Governing provisions; limitation
ICAs are governed by the following provisions of the NCC:
•Article 32 – violation of 19 civil rights and liberties
•Article 33 – defamation, fraud, physical injuries
•Article 34 – when police refused or failed to render aid
•Article 2176 – quasi-delict (where there is fault or
negligence and causing damage; there being no
contractual relations between the parties)
The only limitation is the filing of an ICA is that there shall

be no double recovery of damages.
Reservation
– The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil
action shall be made before the prosecution starts
presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording
the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such
reservation.
Effect of failure to make a reservation

– If the offended party failed to make a reservation of a
dependent civil action, then, the civil aspect of the case is
deemed instituted with the criminal case. This means, the
civil liability of the defendant will be determined in the
criminal proceedings and it cannot be the subject of a
separate case. It is barred. (See Hambon case)
Article 29
When the accused in a criminal prosecution is
acquiEed on the ground that his guilt has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for
damages for the same act or omission may be
insti tuted. Such acti on r e q ui re s only a
preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the
defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file
a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint
should be found to be malicious.
What is contemplated in Article 29 is an acquittal where the guilt of the
accused is based on reasonable doubt. Such kind of acquittal does not
bar the filing of a civil action for damages against the defendant for the
same act or omission. But, as the action is now civil, preponderance of
evidence suffices to establish the claim.
AcquiZal which bars civil action:

If the acquittal is anchored on the finding that:
a) The accused is not the author of the crime
b) No crime existed (on which the civil action ex delicto is based)
c) When the acquittal is based on pure innocence and not on
reasonable doubt
d) If there is a finding that in a final judgment in the criminal action
that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did
not exist.
AcquiZal which does not bar civil action
If the decision contains a declaration that:
1. The liability of the accused is not criminal but only civil;
2. The civil liability is not derived from or based on the criminal act
of which the accused is acquitted
3. When the civil action is based on quasi-delict
4. When the acquittal is based on reasonable ground.
Example: a court’s conclusion that the guilt of the defendant has not
been satisfactorily established
5. When the acquittal is based on prescription
Example: estafa case. a separate civil action may be filed based on
unjust enrichment
Reservation (rule 111, 2000 rules on
criminal procedure)
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. — (a) When a criminal action is
instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party
waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it separately or institutes the civil
action prior to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before
the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the
offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
Xxx
(b) The criminal action for violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to
include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file such civil action
separately shall be allowed.
xxx
Where the civil action has been filed separately and trial thereof has not yet
commenced, it may be consolidated with the criminal action upon application with the
court trying the latter case. If the application is granted, the trial of both actions shall
proceed in accordance with section 2 of this Rule governing consolidation of the civil
and criminal actions.
Reservation (Rule 111, 2000 Rules on
Criminal Procedure)
Section 2. When separate civil action is suspended. — Aaer the criminal action has
been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted
until final judgment has been entered in the criminal action.
If the criminal action is filed aaer the said civil action has already been instituted, the
latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the
merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action.
Nevertheless, before judgment on the merits is rendered in the civil action, the same
may, upon motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in
the court trying the criminal action. In case of consolidation, the evidence already
adduced in the civil action shall be deemed automatically reproduced in the criminal
action without prejudice to the right of the prosecution to cross-examine the
witnesses presented by the offended party in the criminal case and of the parties to
present additional evidence. The consolidated criminal and civil actions shall be tried
and decided jointly.
xxx
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action.
However, the civil action based on delict shall be deemed extinguished if there is a
finding in a final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which
the civil liability may arise did not exist.
People v. Bayotas
HELD: Death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as well as
the civil liability based solely thereon. As opined by
Justice Regalado, in this regard, "the death of the
accused prior to final judgment terminates his criminal
liability and only the civil liability directly arising from
and based solely on the offense committed, i.e., civil
liability ex delicto in senso strictiore."
Daluraya v. Oliva
HELD: Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable. The
acquittal of an accused of the crime charged, however, does not
necessarily extinguish his civil liability. Our law recognizes two kinds of
acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the accused. First is
an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or
omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, for
a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or
omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission.
There being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question, and
the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based on grounds
other than the delict complained of. The second instance is an acquittal
based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if
the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not
exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of
evidence only.
The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the
civil liability where: (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only
preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability
of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not
arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused is acquitted.
However, the civil action based on delict may be deemed extinguished if
there is a finding on the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or where the
accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him.
Records disclose that Daluraya’s acquittal was based on the fact that "the act
or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist" in view of the
failure of the prosecution to sufficiently establish that he was the author of
the crime ascribed against him. Consequently, his civil liability should be
deemed as non-existent by the nature of such acquittal.
People v. Dionaldo
HELD: Even if the death penalty was not to be imposed on accused-appellants
in view of the prohibition in RA 9346, the award of civil indemnity was
nonetheless proper, not being dependent on the actual imposition of the
death penalty but on the fact that qualifying circumstances warranting the
imposition of the death penalty attended the commission of the crime. In the
present case, considering that both the qualifying circumstances of ransom
and the death of the victim during captivity were duly alleged in the
information and proven during trial, civil indemnity in the amount of
₱100,000.00 must therefore be awarded to the family of the victim, to
conform with prevailing jurisprudence.
Basilonia v. Villaruz
HELD: Litigants represented by counsel should not expect that all they need to do is sit
back and relax, and await the outcome of their case. They should give the necessary
assistance to their counsel, for at stake is their interest in the case. While lawyers are
expected to exercise a reasonable degree of diligence and competence in handling
cases for their clients, the realities of law practice as well as certain fortuitous events
sometimes make it almost physically impossible for lawyers to be immediately
updated on a particular client's case.
Aside from the civil indemnity arising from the crime, costs and incidental expenses of
the suit are part of the judgment and it is incumbent upon the prevailing party in
whose favor they are awarded to submit forthwith the itemized bill to the clerk of
court. Manifestly, the heirs of Atty. Roblete failed to do so. Their indifference, if not
negligence, is indicative of lack of interest in executing the decision rendered in their
favor. To remind, the purpose of the law in prescribing time limitations for executing
judgments or orders is to prevent obligors from sleeping on their rights. Indeed,
inaction may be construed as a waiver.
Article 30
When a separate civil action is brought to
demand civil liability arising from a criminal
offense, and no criminal proceedings are
instituted during the pendency of the civil case,
a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be
sufficient to prove the act complained of.
Contemplated in the article is a situation where
no criminal case had been filed during the
pendency of the civil case.
However, the action will be suspended if in the
meantime, the criminal case is filed.
The civil action which was filed ahead of the
criminal action may be consolidated with the
latter case upon motion of the offended party.
Article 31
When the civil action is based on an obligation
not arising from the act or omission complained
of as a felony, such civil action may proceed
independently of the criminal proceedings and
regardless of the result of the laEer.
• The civil action contemplated in the Article is one
which arises not from the act or omission complained
of as a felony. It arises from some other acts such as
contract or a suit based on culpa contractual; legal
obligation to return money malversed, or a suit based
on quasi-delict.
• The civil action, not being based on the crime for which
the defendant is being prosecuted, it can proceed
independently of the criminal proceedings and
regardless of the result of the latter. In other words,
despite the acquittal of the defendant, a civil action
can still be filed against him.
Frias v. San Diego-Sison
HELD: Article 31 of the Civil Code provides that when the civil action is based on an
obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil
action may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the
result of the latter.
While petitioner was acquitted in the false testimony and perjury cases filed by
respondent against her, those actions are entirely distinct from the collection of sum
of money with damages filed by respondent against petitioner. Petitioner’s act of
trying to deprive respondent of the security of her loan by executing an affidavit of
loss of the title and instituting a petition for the issuance of a new owner’s duplicate
copy of TCT No. 168173 entitles respondent to moral damages. Moral damages may
be awarded in culpa contractual or breach of contract cases when the defendant
acted fraudulently or in bad faith. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or
negligence; it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious
doing of wrong. It partakes of the nature of fraud.
Rule 111, 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure
Section 3. When civil action may proceeded
independently. — In the cases provided for in
Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, the independent civil action may be
brought by the offended party. It shall proceed
independently of the criminal action and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence. In no
case, however, may the offended party recover
damages twice for the same act or omission
charged in the criminal action.
Article 32
Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or
indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any
of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the
laEer for damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;

(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public
use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the Government for redress of grievances;
(14) The right to be a free from involuntary servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and
to have compulsory process to secure the aEendance of witness in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's self, or from being forced to confess
guilt, or from being induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when
the person confessing becomes a State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or
inflicted in accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the
defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the
aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and
distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil action
shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the laEer be
instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may

also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge

unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or
other penal statute.
Civil Liberties
• The article provides for the imposition of
damages upon any public officer or public
employee or any private person, who directly
or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in
any manner impedes or impairs the 19 listed
rights and liberties.
• Their violations give rise to independent civil
actions.

Maria
Judges are exempted
• Judges are expressly exempted from damages,
if by performing their duties in good faith,
they happen to violate or impair the rights
and liberties mentioned in the Article.
• Exception: If the judge’s act or omission
constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or
other penal statute, the judge is liable for
damages aside from criminal liability.

Maria
Acts of the judge punishable under the RPC
1. Art. 204 – Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment;

2. Art. 205 – Rendering a manifestly unjust judgment
through inexcusable negligence or ignorance;
3. Art. 206 – Knowingly rendering an unjust
interlocutory order or decree;
4. Art. 207 – Maliciously delaying the administration of
justice.
The judge may also be held administratively liable.

Maria
Article 33
In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical
injuries a civil action for damages, entirely
separate and distinct from the criminal action,
may be brought by the injured party. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of the
criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence.

Maria
Article 33
• The civil action under Article 33 need not be
reserved because the law itself already makes
the reservation.
• However, for purposes of orderly administration
of justice, the claimant may inform the court
taking jurisdiction over the criminal action about
the pendency of the civil action so that the public
prosecutor and the court will no longer waste
their time considering the matter of damages
suffered by the claimant and more, to prevent
the appearance of a private prosecutor.
Maria
Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries
• Defamation, which is committed by means of writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting or theatrical or
cinematographic exhibition, or any similar means is LIBEL. A
defamation orally perpetrated is SLANDER.
• Fraud covers Estafa and Swindling and other deceits that are
punishable under Articles 315 – 318 of the RPC. When the basis of
the civil action is fraud, both civil and criminal actions may proceed
independently of each other under Article 33.
• Physical Injuries should be understood to mean bodily injury, not
the crime of physical injuries defined in the RPC, whether inflicted
with intent to kill or not; the civil action lie whether the offense
committed is that of physical injuries, attempted or frustrated
Maria
homicide, or even death.

Maria
Hambon v. CA
ISSUES: 1. Whether or not a reservation was necessary to institute a separate civil
action for damages under Article 33 of the New Civil Code.
HELD: Yes, reservation was necessary. Petitioner filed the complaint for damages on
June 6, 1989. Hence, Section 1, Rule 111 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, as
amended in 1988, is the prevailing and governing law in this case, viz.:
SECTION 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. – When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the
recovery of civil liability is impliedly instituted with the criminal action, unless the offended party waives the
civil action, reserves his right to institute it separately, or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
Such civil action includes recovery of indemnity under the Revised Penal Code, and damages under Article
32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code of the Philippines arising from the same act or omission of the accused.
...
Under the foregoing rule, civil actions to recover liability arising from crime (ex delicto)
and under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code (quasi-delict) are deemed
impliedly instituted with the criminal action unless waived, reserved or previously
instituted.
2. Whether or not the requirement of reservation diminishes petitioner’s substantive right.
HELD: Contrary to private respondent’s contention, the requirement that before a separate civil
action may be brought it must be reserved does not impair, diminish or defeat substantive rights,
but only regulates their exercise in the general interest of procedure. The requirement is merely
procedural in nature. For that matter the Revised Penal Code, by providing in Art. 100 that any
person criminally liable is also civilly liable, gives the offended party the right to bring a separate
civil action, yet no one has ever questioned the rule that such action must be reserved before it
may be brought separately.
Far from altering substantive rights, the primary purpose of the reservation is, to borrow the
words of the Court in "Caños v. Peralta":
‘. . . to avoid multiplicity of suits, to guard against oppression and abuse, to prevent delays, to
clear congested dockets, to simplify the work of the trial court; in short, the attainment of justice
with the least expense and vexation to the parties-litigants.
**Note: Section 1 has already been amended by the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure
which provides:
Section 1. Institution of criminal and civil actions. — (a) When a criminal action is instituted, the
civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be deemed
instituted with the criminal action unless the offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right
to institute it separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
The reservation of the right to institute separately the civil action shall be made before the
prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party
a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation.
Be it noted that the second paragraph under the 1985 Rules has been removed. This goes to show
that the Supreme Court recognized the substantive right of parties-litigants to institute an
independent civil action under Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176 of the Civil Code. The 2000
Amendment of the Rules on Criminal Procedure has the effect of abandoning decisions of the
Supreme Court to the effect that under Article 33 and the other articles concerning independent
civil actions, there is a need of making reservation. The requirement of reservation had been
deleted in the new Rules. The only limitation is that there shall be no double recovery of damages.
Article 34
When a member of a city or municipal police force
refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any
person in case of danger to life or property, such
peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages,
and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily
responsible therefor. The civil action herein
recognized shall be independent of any criminal
proceedings, and a preponderance of evidence shall
suffice to support such action.
The Article covers a situation where:
a) There is a danger to the life or property of a
person;
b) A member of the city or municipal police
force who is present in the scene refused or
failed to render aid or protection to the
person; and
c) Damages are caused either to the person
and/or property of the victim.
Liability of a Police Officer
• The primary liability imposed by this article
upon a member of a local police force for
refusing or failing to render aid or protection
to any person in case of danger to life or
property, is already covered by Article 27.
• The present article, however, creates a
separate civil action to enforce that liability,
independent of any criminal proceedings.
Liability of Municipal Corporation
This Article makes the city or municipality
subsidiarily liable for the omission of its police
officers to render aid or protection to anyone.
This liability, therefore, can be enforced against
the city or municipality only when the guilty
police officer is insolvent.
Article 35
When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges
another with the same, for which no independent civil action is
granted in this Code or any special law, but the justice of the peace
finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been
commiEed, or the prosecuting aEorney refuses or fails to institute
criminal proceedings, the complaint may bring a civil action for
damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant's
motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify
the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be

presented by the prosecuting aEorney, the civil action shall be
suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings.
The article covers a situation where the act or acts
committed constitute a criminal offense but there is
no independent civil action authorized by the civil
code or any special law. The offended party is
allowed to file a civil action for damages against the
offender.
If during the pendency of the civil action the
criminal case was filed in court, the civil action will
be suspended and to await the termination of the
civil case.
The Article also covers situations:
a) Where a MTC Judge who is authorized to
conduct PI dismisses a criminal case for lack of
reasonable ground to hold the accused for trial; or
b) When the public prosecutor fails to institute any
criminal case against the alleged offender.
Under the above situations, the offended party can

file the civil action for damages with the proper
court.
Plaintiff’s bond
It must be noted that the criminal case was either
already dismissed by the MTC or by the public
prosecutor for lack of prima facie case, or for other
reasons. It is not far-fetched that the civil case is
being pursued only for purposes of malicious
harrassment. The imposition of a bond would
discourage malicious complaints.
The bond will provide the appropriate
indemnification, if and when, the complaint is
dismissed and found malicious.
Article 36
Pre-judicial questions, which must be decided
before any criminal prosecution may be
instituted or may proceed, shall be governed by
rules of court which the Supreme Court shall
promulgate and which shall not be in conflict
with the provisions of this Code.
Rule 111, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure
Section 6. Suspension by reason of prejudicial question. — A petition

for suspension of the criminal action based upon the pendency of a
prejudicial question in a civil action may be filed in the office of the
prosecutor or the court conducting the preliminary investigation.
When the criminal action has been filed in court for trial, the petition
to suspend shall be filed in the same criminal action at any time before
the prosecution rests.
Section 7. Elements of prejudicial question. — The elements of a

prejudicial question are: (a) the previously instituted civil action
involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue
determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed. (5a)

Maria
Prejudicial Question
A prejudicial question is one based on a fact distinct
and separate from the crime but so intimately
connected with it that it determines the guilt or
innocence of the accused, and for it to suspend the
criminal action, it must appear not only that said
case involves facts intimately related to those upon
which the criminal prosecution would be based but
also that in the resolution of the issue or issues
raised in the civil case, the guilt or innocence of the
accused would be necessarily determined.
Prejudicial question generally comes into play in
a situation where a civil action and a criminal
action are both pending and there exists in the
former an issue that must be preemptively
resolved before the criminal action may
proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in
the civil action is resolved would be
determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or
innocence of the accused in the criminal case.
Rationale
• To avoid two conflicting decisions.
• That although it does not conclusively resolve the
guilt or innocence of the accused, it tests the
sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint or
information in order to sustain the further
prosecution of the criminal case.
• If proceedings must be stayed, it must be done in
order to avoid multiplicity of suits and prevent
vexatious litigations, conflicting judgments,
confusion between litigants and courts.
Effects of Presence of Prejudicial Question
The proceedings may only be suspended, not

dismissed, and that it may be made only upon
petition, and not at the instance of the judge
alone or the investigating officer.
Illustrative Case
Facts: Archie is married to Betty. During the existence of
this marriage, Archie married Veronica. Betty filed a
bigamy case against Archie. However, Archie previously
filed a case for annulment of his marriage with Veronica
on the ground that he was merely forced by Veronica to
marry her.
Is there a PQ? Yes. If the annulment case succeeds,
Archie has no second marriage under which he could be
charged with bigamy. The decision in the civil action must
be awaited first and the criminal case, upon motion, must
be suspended. The guilt or innocence of the accused will
be dependent upon the decision in the civil action.
Julia filed a civil action for the annulment of her
marriage with Gerald on the ground of intimidation
employed by Gerald against her. Meanwhile, Bea,
the first wife filed a criminal case for bigamy against
Gerald. Now, Gerald moves for the suspension of
the bigamy case on the ground of PQ.
Is there a PQ? None. Gerald cannot use his own
wrong as a shield against his own prosecution. A
person should not benefit from his own wrong.
Angel is married to Luis. During the subsistence of their
marriage, Luis married Jessie. Luis thereaaer filed a case for
the annulment of his marriage with Angel on the ground of
intimidation; that Angel’s family forced him to marry her.
Angel filed a criminal case for bigamy against Luis. Luis now
moves for the suspension of the criminal case on the ground
of PQ.
Is there a PQ? None. A party cannot judge for himself the
validity of his own marriage for in doing so, he runs the risk of
prosecution for bigamy by contracting a second marriage. This
is anchored on Article 40 of the FC which provides: Art. 40.
The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for
purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment
declaring such previous marriage void.
The mere fact that there are actions to annul
the marriage/s entered into by the accused does
not necessarily mean that there is already a
prejudicial question. It depends upon who filed
the annulment case and on what ground it is
based.

Maria
Illustrative Case
Alvin sold a parcel of land to Ben. Ben later found out that the
same parcel of land was sold by Alvin to Charlie. Ben filed a
civil action for the annulment of sale between Alvin and
Charlie. He later on filed a criminal case for estafa against Ben.
Ben raised the defense that his signature appearing on the
deed of sale in favor of Alvin was falsified.
Is there a PQ? Yes. Said civil action is prejudicial to the
criminal action for estafa. Should it be proved in the civil case
that indeed Ben’s signature was falsified, that he had no
participation in said sale; that said sale was void; Ben
therefore, had the authority to sell the land to Charlie. Thus,
he may be found innocent in the estafa case filed against him.
Anton charged Berto with the crime of malicious
mischief for destroying a car which Anton claims to
be his. However, in a separate civil action, where
the plaintiff is Berto and the defendant is Anton,
Berto is claiming ownership over the car.
Is there a PQ? Yes. The civil action must be decided
first before the criminal action. The reason for this
is that if Berto is declared the owner of the car, he
cannot be liable for malicious mischief. An owner
has the right to destroy his own property – known
as jus abutendi.
Nature of the cases: both civil cases
What if both cases are civil in nature? There is
no PQ. The trial court, however, may stay the
proceedings before it in the exercise of its sound
discretion.

Maria
Nature of the cases: civil, criminal and
administrative
Arthur, and engineer, and Liliana are married. During the subsistence of their
marriage, Arthur married Julieta, also an engineer. Liliana filed a criminal case for
bigamy against Arthur. Meanwhile, Arthur filed a petition for annulment of his
marriage with Liliana on the ground that he was forced to marry her. Liliana likewise
filed an administrative case against Arthur and Julieta before the PRC on the ground of
immorality. Arthur now claims the existence of PQ.
• Is there a PQ that would warrant the suspension of the criminal case? None. All
that is required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be
subsisting at the time the second marriage is contracted.
• Is there a PQ that would warrant the suspension of the administrative case? None.
The concept of prejudicial question involves a civil and a criminal case. There is no
prejudicial question where one case is administrative and the other is civil.
Further, Sec. 32 of the PRC Rules provides: The filing or pendency of a criminal
and/or civil cases in the courts or an administrative case in another judicial body
against an examinee or registered professional involving the same facts as in the
administrative case filed or to be filed before the Board shall neither suspend nor
bar the proceeding of the latter case. The Board shall proceed independently with
the investigation of the case and shall render therein its decision without awaiting
for the final decision of the courts or quasi-judicial body. (Te v. CA, Nov. 29, 2000)
Maria
Tuanda v. Sandiganbayan
HELD: A prejudicial question is one that must be decided before any criminal
prosecution may be instituted or before it may proceed (see Art. 36, Civil Code)
because a decision on that point is vital to the eventual judgment in the criminal case.
Thus, the resolution of the prejudicial question is a logical antecedent of the issues
involved in said criminal case. It comes into play generally in a situation where a civil
action and a criminal action are both pending and there exists in the former an issue
which must be preemptively resolved before the criminal action may proceed,
because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be
determinative juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal
case."
The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to avoid two conflicting
decisions. It has two essential elements:
(a) the civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in
the criminal action; and
(b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed.
All the elements of a prejudicial question are clearly and
unmistakably present in this case. There is no doubt that the
facts and issues involved in the civil action and the criminal
case are closely related. The filing of the criminal case was
premised on petitioners' alleged partiality and evident bad
faith in not paying private respondents' salaries and per
diems as sectoral representatives, while the civil action was
instituted precisely to resolve whether or not the designations
of private respondents as sectoral representatives were made
in accordance with law.
More importantly, ,the resolution of the civil case will
certainly determine if there will still be any reason to proceed
with the criminal action.
Beltran v. People
HELD: With regard to petitioner's argument that he could be
acquitted of the charge of concubinage should his marriage be
declared null and void, suffice it to state that even a
subsequent pronouncement that his marriage is void from the
beginning is not a defense.
Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to judge for
themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the
judgment of the competent courts and only when the nullity
of the marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so
long as there is no such declaration the presumption is that
the marriage exists for all intents and purposes. Therefore, he
who cohabits with a woman not his wife before the judicial
declaration of nullity of the marriage assumes the risk of
being prosecuted for concubinage.
PASI v. Lichauco
HELD: Under the Rules of Procedure of the Office of the
Ombudsman, a complaint at the evaluation stage may be
dismissed outright only for want of palpable merit. Want
of palpable merit obviously means that there is no basis
for the charge or charges. When, in the course of the
actions taken by those to whom the complaint is
endorsed or forwarded, a prejudicial question is found to
be pending, Section 6, Rule 111 of the Rules of Court
should be applied in a suppletory character. The
proceedings may only be suspended, not dismissed, and
that it may be made only upon petition,and not at the
instance of the judge alone or as in this case, the
investigating officer.
Yap v. Cabales
HELD: There is no prejudicial question. The issue in the criminal cases
is whether the petitioner is guilty of violating B.P. Blg. 22, while in the
civil case, it is whether the private respondents are entitled to collect
from the petitioner the sum or the value of the checks that they have
rediscounted from Evelyn.
The resolution of the issue raised in the civil action is not
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal
cases against him, and there is no necessity that the civil case be
determined first before taking up the criminal cases.
In the aforementioned civil actions, even if petitioner is declared not
liable for the payment of the value of the checks and damages, he
cannot be adjudged free from criminal liability for violation of B.P. Blg.
22. The mere issuance of worthless checks with knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds to support the checks is in itself an offense.
Dreamwork v. Janiola
HELD: The provisions of the Rules on Criminal Procedure are clear. i.e. the civil case must precede
the criminal case.
Sec. 7. Elements of prejudicial question. - The elements of a prejudicial question are: (a) the
previously instituted civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised
in the subsequent criminal action, and (b) the resolution of such issue determines whether or not
the criminal action may proceed.
A prejudicial question is understood in law as that which must precede the criminal action and
which requires a decision before a final judgment can be rendered in the criminal action with
which said question is closely connected. The civil action must be instituted prior to the
institution of the criminal action.
That the agreement surrounding the issuance of dishonored checks is irrelevant to the
prosecution for violation of BP 22. It must be emphasized that the gravamen of the offense
charge is the issuance of a bad check. The purpose for which the check was issued, the terms and
conditions relating to its issuance, or any agreement surrounding such issuance are irrelevant to
the prosecution and conviction of petitioner. The clear intention of the framers of B.P. 22 is to
make the mere act of issuing a worthless check malum prohibitum.
Pimentel v. Pimentel
HELD: Firstly, the rule is clear that the civil action must be instituted first
before the filing of the criminal action. In this case, the civil case for
annulment was filed aaer the filing of the criminal case for frustrated
parricide. As such, the requirement of Section 7, Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules
on Criminal Procedure was not met since the civil action was filed subsequent
to the filing of the criminal action.
the issue in the annulment of marriage is not similar or intimately related to
the issue in the criminal case for parricide. Further, the relationship between
the offender and the victim is not determinative of the guilt or innocence of
the accused.
At the time of the commission of the alleged crime, petitioner and
respondent were married. The subsequent dissolution of their marriage, in
case the petition in Civil Case No. 04-7392 is granted, will have no effect on
the alleged crime that was committed at the time of the subsistence of the
marriage. In short, even if the marriage between petitioner and respondent is
annulled, petitioner could still be held criminally liable since at the time of the
commission of the alleged crime, he was still married to respondent.
Consing, Jr. v. People
HELD: There is no prejudicial question. In the instant case, the Makati
Civil Case for Damages and Attachment on account of the alleged
fraud committed by respondent and his mother in selling the disputed
lot to PBI is an independent civil action under Article 33 of the Civil
Code. As such, it will not operate as a prejudicial question that will
justify the suspension of the criminal case at bar.
As far as the Pasig civil case is concerned, even if respondent is

declared merely an agent of his mother in the transaction involving
the sale of the questioned lot, he cannot be adjudged free from
criminal liability. An agent or any person may be held liable for
conspiring to falsify public documents. Hence, the determination of
the issue involved in Civil Case No. SCA 1759 for Injunctive Relief is
irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the respondent in the criminal
case for estafa through falsification of public document.
People v. Arambulo
HELD: SEC Case No. 05-97-5659 does not present a prejudicial question to the
criminal case for estafa. It is an action for accounting of all corporate funds
and assets of Anaped, annulment of sale, injunction, receivership and
damages. Even if said case will be decided against respondents, they will not
be adjudged free from criminal liability. It also does not automatically follow
that an accounting of corporate funds and properties and annulment of
fictitious sale of corporate assets would result in the conviction of
respondents in the estafa case.
With respect to SEC Case No. 03-99-6259, a prejudicial question exists. It is

clear that, should respondents herein prevail, then Buban, who does not own
either by himself or in behalf of Anaped which is the owner, the property
heretofore managed by Victoria, cannot demand remittance of the rentals on
the property and Victoria does not have the obligation to turn over the
rentals to Buban. Verily, the result of SEC Case No. 03-99-6259 will determine
the innocence or guilt of respondents in the criminal case for estafa.
Domingo v. Spouses Singson
HELD: The defense of the Spouses Singson in the civil case for
annulment of sale is that Engracia bought the subject property from
her parents prior to their demise and that their signatures appearing
on the Absolute Deed of Sale are true and genuine. Their allegation in
the civil case is based on the very same facts, which would be
necessarily determinative of their guilt or innocence as accused in the
criminal case.
If the signatures of the Spouses Domingo in the Absolute Deed of Sale
are genuine, then there would be no falsification and the Spouses
Singson would be innocent of the offense charged. Otherwise stated, a
conviction on the Criminal Case, should it be allowed to proceed
ahead, would be a gross injustice and would have to be set aside if it
were finally decided in the Civil Case that indeed the signatures of the
Spouses Domingo were authentic.
BOOK I - PERSONS
ARTICLES 37-51
Persons; Kinds
The term person refers to any being, whether
natural or artificial susceptible of legal rights and
obligations.
Natural Person – refers to human beings; visible
products of procreation; has physical existence.
Juridical Person – refers to entities created by law
or by a group or association of men for certain
lawful purposes; invisible products of legal fiction;
has no physical existence; exists only in
contemplation of law.
Maria
Personality
Personality is the embodiment of a collection of
qualities in a person. The quality of being a person.
• presumptive or provisional personality– while in
the womb of the mother
• actual personality– aaer becoming a person
• artificial personality – aaer death
e.g. estate of deceased is considered artificial or juridical for the
purposes of the settlement and distribution of his estate.
Case: People v. Bayotas

Maria
Status
Status means state or condition; social position.
The legal relation of an individual to the rest of
the community.
E.g. political status – citizen or national of
a particular country
civil status – may be single, married,
widowed, divorcee
Characteristics:
a) It cannot be subject of commerce.
b) It is imprescriptible.
c) It is not subject of compromise.
d) Right to claim it cannot be renounced.
e) Rights arising from it cannot be exercised by
creditors.
Article 37
Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the
subject of legal relations, is inherent in every
natural person and is lost only through death.
Capacity to act, which is the power to do acts
with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost.

Maria
Juridical capacity vs. Capacity to act
Juridical Capacity Capacity to Act
Inherent in every human being Not inherent. It is acquired upon
fulfillment of certain conditions or
requisites fixed by law (e.g. attainment
of legal age)
Capacity to be the subject of legal Capacity to do acts with binding or legal
relations (e.g. voluntary recognition by effect
the father of an unborn child)
Can exist without capacity to act (e.g. Cannot exist without juridical capacity
minor as heir in a will)
Lost only through death May be lost through grounds other
than death (e.g. insanity, penalty)

Maria
Full Civil Capacity
A person is considered to have full civil capacity
if he has both juridical capacity and capacity to
act.

Maria
Article 38
Minority, insanity or imbecility, the state of
being a deaf-mute, prodigality and civil
interdiction are mere restrictions on capacity to
act, and do not exempt the incapacitated person
from certain obligations, as when the laEer arise
from his acts or from property relations, such as
easements.

Maria
Restrictions on Capacity to Act
1. Minority
2. Insanity
3. Imbecility
4. Deaf-mute
5. Prodigality
6. Civil interdiction
The enumeration is not limitative. There are other
restrictions that can be found in the Family Code,
RPC, Constitution, Rules of Court.
Maria
Minority
Below 18 years of age
Restrictions:
1. He cannot enter into a valid contract of marriage.
2. He cannot make wills.
3. He cannot be witness to a will.
4. He cannot give consent to a contract.
5. He cannot act as an executor or administrator of an
estate.
6. He cannot exercise the right of suffrage.
Instances when minors are still liable
1. Compensation for his torts or quasi-delicts
2. For the necessaries sold and delivered to
him.
3. For contracts entered into in his behalf with
judicial authorization.
4. For contracts he entered into by pretending
to be of legal age.
Insanity
Legal term for mental disorder
Restrictions:
1. He cannot make a valid will or testament.
2. He cannot validly give consent to contracts.
3. He cannot act as an executor or
administrator of an estate.
Imbecility
Manifestation of mental deficiency or mental retardation.
Degrees:
Idiocy – IQ below 20; does not advance past a mental age of 3

Imbecility – IQ below 50; can be taught to do certain tasks
but may require protective supervision
Moronity – IQ below 70; generally can be trained to take
care of themselves, and may even be able to support
themselves.
It is presumed that every person is of sound mind in the

absence of proof to the contrary.
Deaf-Mutism
A person who can neither hear or speak.
Restrictions:
1. He cannot give consent to contracts if he does not
know how to read and write.
2. He cannot personally accept or repudiate inheritance
if he does not know how to read and write.
3. He cannot be a witness to a notarial will if he does
not know how to read and write. Although he can
make a will under the conditions set forth by law.
4. He cannot be naturalized.
Prodigality
A prodigal or spendthria is a squandered of his
money and property without regard to the
needs and future of his family which he is bound
to protect and support under the law.
The act of prodigality must show a morbid mind
and disposition to spend or waste his estate so
as to expose his family to want or deprive his
forced heirs of their inheritances.
Restrictions:
If placed under guardianship, the prodigal’s
capacity to act will be restricted because then
he could only act with binding effect through his
guardian. Until he is placed under guardianship,
his capacity to act is not affected.
Civil Interdiction
This is a mandatory accessory penalty deemed imposed whenever the
sentence rendered is within the range of reclusion temporal to death,
if the latter is not executed by reason of commutation or pardon.
Restrictions:
1. The convict during the term of his sentence is deprived of the
following rights – a) parental authority or guardianship over the
person or property of his children or ward; b) marital rights or
authority; c) management of his property; d) disposition of his
property by act or conveyance inter vivos.
2. The offender cannot enter into a marriage settlement, without
the assistance of a competent guardian appointed by the court.
Liabilities
While minors, insane and imbeciles may be
exempted from criminal liability, nonetheless,
they may be made liable with their own
property to compensate for the civil damages
they have caused.
Article 39
The following circumstances, among others, modify or
limit capacity to act: age, insanity, imbecility, the state of
being a deaf-mute, penalty, prodigality, family relations,
alienage, absence, insolvency and trusteeship. The
consequences of these circumstances are governed in this
Code, other codes, the Rules of Court, and in special laws.
Capacity to act is not limited on account of religious
belief or political opinion.
A married woman, twenty-one years of age or over, is
qualified for all acts of civil life, except in cases specified
by law.
Circumstances that limit capacity to act
Penalty – There are penalties imposable in crimes which restrict or
1.
modify a person’s capacity to act.
Example: perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification to hold public office;
suspension of the right of suffrage.
2. Family Relations - Art. 50. Family relations include those: (1)

Between husband and wife; (2) Between parents and children;(3)
Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or hal>lood.
Restrictions:
a. A person cannot file a complaint against a close family relative
without having first exerted efforts towards a compromise
agreement.
b. Relatives who fall under Art. 37 and par. 1 of Art. 38 of the FC
could not marry each other.
Maria
c. Husband and wife cannot donate properties to each other except only moderate gias
during family rejoicing; they cannot sell or lease properties to one another unless the
sale or lease unless excepted under the law.
d. There are situations when relatives cannot testify against each other. E.g. spouses,
descendant against parents or grandparents.
3. Alienage
Restrictions:
a. Aliens cannot exercise political rights.
b. They cannot acquire lands except through succession.
c. They cannot operate public utilities.
d. They cannot engage in coastwise trade.
e. They cannot practice some professions exclusive to Filipinos like practice of law save in
exceptional cases, and medicine.
f. They cannot own and manage mass media.
g. They cannot engage in retail trade.

Maria
4. Absence – a person may be declared an absentee by a court upon proper petition of qualified
persons, when his whereabouts are unknown for a certain number of years – either 2 or 5
years. He can also be presumed dead, if absent for at least 7 years or 4 years under certain
circumstances.
Modification of Absentee’s capacity:

a. An absentee declared presumptively dead under Art. 41 of the FC could no longer exercise
his/her marital rights with his/her spouse unless the subsequent marriage is first set aside.
b. If absent for at least 10 years, his/her estate could be divided among his/her heirs.
c. The absentee could be deprived of his/her right to co-administer the community or
conjugal property.
d. If the absentee reappears, while he is allowed to recover his property, he cannot claim
either fruits or rents.
e. Absence of spouse will justify the filing of a petition for receivership, judicial separation of
property or for sole administration of conjugal partnership by the spouse present.
Even though absent, he can validly transfer or alienate his property even without the knowledge
of the administrator of his property. (Art. 389, par. 3 NCC)
Maria
5. Insolvency – is that condition whereby a man’s assets, if all made immediately
available, would not be sufficient to discharge his obligations or liabilities. In other
words, his obligations are more than his assets. It is equivalent to bankruptcy in
foreign jurisdictions.
Restriction: Aaer an assignee has been appointed by the court, the insolvent could not
dispose of his property as the assignee takes over the management and control over
the property as representative of the creditors to whom the proceeds shall be
distributed.
6. Trusteeship – This is a legal relationship concerning the property which obliges the
person holding it to deal with the property for the benefit of another.
Restrictions:
1. A trustee cannot acquire by prescription the property he holds under the express
trust for another unless he repudiates the trust.
2. A trustee cannot appropriate for himself the property under trust which he
merely holds for the benefit of another.
Maria
3. A trustee is not allowed to become the buyer of the trust property.
4. If the trust is express, the trustee is restricted by the provisions of the trust
agreement and the law.
Capacity to act is not limited on account religious

belief or political opinion.
A woman to be capacitated to marry must at least
be 18 years of age. Having attained legal age, she is
already emancipated. Therefore, she is already
qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life save
the exceptions established by existing laws in
special cases.
Maria
Article 40
Birth determines personality; but the conceived
child shall be considered born for all purposes
that are favorable to it, provided it be born later
with the conditions specified in the following
article.
Although a foetus is not a person before it is
actually born, nevertheless, because of the
expectancy that it be born, the law grants it certain
rights conditioned however to its being born alive.
To be considered born, a foetus must be
completely delivered from the mother’s womb
which delivery could either be natural or artificial. It
is natural if the delivery is through the mother’s
vaginal opening. It is artificial if delivery is through
another opening like Caesarian operation.
A still-born baby is not considered a person.
Provisional Personality
• The presumptive or presumed personality accorded to
an unborn child is conditional and for limited purposes
only. This is also known as provisional personality.
• It is conditional because the presumed personality will
be perfected only if the foetus is born alive; if not, the
foetus would not attain the status of a person at any
moment.
• Further, the presumption is only for purposes
favorable to the foetus; if unfavorable, the child, even
if born alive, is not bound for acts done without its
consent – which obviously it cannot give.
Article 41
For civil purposes, the foetus is considered born
if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered
from the mother's womb. However, if the foetus
had an intra-uterine life of less than seven
months, it is not deemed born if it dies within
twenty-four hours a8er its complete delivery
from the maternal womb.
When Child is Considered Born
A child is considered born from the moment of its
total separation from the mother’s womb and is
alive.
• If the foetus that is separated from the maternal
womb had an intra-uterine life of less than seven
months, it is not considered born unless it
survives for at least 24 hours.
• If the foetus had an intra-uterine life of at least
seven months, it is considered born even if it
survives only for a few minutes.
Maria
• There is still-birth when the child has not
breathed or has not shown any sign of life
aaer being completely separated from the
mother’s womb. Such child is called still-born.
• When the newborn child is found dead, the
presumption is, the child was born dead. And
he who alleges otherwise, has the burden of
proof.

Maria
Article 42
Civil personality is extinguished by death.
The effect of death upon the rights and
obligations of the deceased is determined by
law, by contract and by will.

Maria
Effect of Death on Civil Personality
• As birth brings forth personality, death
extinguishes it.
• However, though personality has been
extinguished, the rights and obligations of the
deceased are not necessarily extinguished by
his death. The law, the contracts he entered
into, and the will he made, if any, will
determine the consequences of his death on
his rights and obligations.

Maria
Instances of Effects of Death
1. Death dissolves marriage.
2. Successional rights are transmitted from the moment of death of
the decedent.
3. Death of a parent permanently terminated parental authority.
4. Death of a partner dissolves a partnership.
5. Death of a spouse terminated community or conjugal partnership
of gains.
6. Death of a principal or agent terminates a contract of agency.
7. Death terminates criminal liability.
8. A summons and complaint addressed to a dead person an
decision rendered thereaaer is void because summons could not
be validly served on him.

Maria
Estate as Continuation of Personality
• For certain purposes like settlement of an
estate where some credits have to be
collected and some obligations have to be
paid, the estate of a deceased is considered as
a continuity of the personality of the
deceased. The said estate can sue and be
sued.
• The estate of a person has a personality
distinct and independent of the heirs.

Maria
Article 43
If there is a doubt, as between two or more
persons who are called to succeed each other, as
to which of them died first, whoever alleges the
death of one prior to the other, shall prove the
same; in the absence of proof, it is presumed
that they died at the same time and there shall
be no transmission of rights from one to the
other.

Maria
Presumption of Simultaneous Death
1. The parties are heirs to one another – such
as father and a son (without issue);
2. There is no proof that one dies ahead of the
other – such as when an airplane where the
parties are passengers exploded in the sky
with no survivors.

Maria
• If for example Pedro died in Paris on January
15, 1950, and his son Juan died in London on
the same date, but the respective hours of
their deaths cannot be established, there will
be no transmission of rights between them.
The properties of Juan will be inherited by his
own heirs (excluding his father Pedro), and
the properties of Pedro will be inherited by his
heirs other than Juan.
Maria
• The presumptions are rebuttable. If there are facts or evidence
from which a contrary conclusion could be safely inferred, the
evidence controls.
• If there is a doubt, as between two or more persons who are called
to succeed each other, as to which of them died first, whoever
alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same.
Preponderance of evidence is the rule.
• If there is no proof as to who died first, the presumption operates
and the presumption is that the parties dies at the same time.
• The law makes it clear that there shall be no transmission of rights
from one to the other. In other words, there is no succession
between the two of them. But their respective heirs will inherit
from them.

Maria
Presumption of Survivorship under the
Rules of Court
Rule 131
Section 3. Disputable presumptions. — The following presumptions are satisfactory if uncontradicted, but may be
contradicted and overcome by other evidence:
Xxx
(jj) That except for purposes of succession, when two persons perish in the same calamity, such as wreck, battle, or
conflagration, and it is not shown who died first, and there are no particular circumstances from which it can be
inferred, the survivorship is determined from the probabilities resulting from the strength and the age of the sexes,
according to the following rules:
1. If both were under the age of fiaeen years, the older is deemed to have survived;
2. If both were above the age sixty, the younger is deemed to have survived;
3. If one is under fiaeen and the other above sixty, the former is deemed to have survived;
4. If both be over fiaeen and under sixty, and the sex be different, the male is deemed to have survived, if the sex be
the same, the older;
5. If one be under fiaeen or over sixty, and the other between those ages, the latter is deemed to have survived.
Xxx
• The above rule applies whenever the parties who died are not call to succeed each other.
Maria
Article 44
The following are juridical persons:

(1) The State and its political subdivisions;
(2) Other corporations, institutions and entities for
public interest or purpose, created by law; their
personality begins as soon as they have been
constituted according to law;
(3) Corporations, partnerships and associations for
private interest or purpose to which the law grants
a juridical personality, separate and distinct from
that of each shareholder, partner or member.
Juridical persons mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2 of
the preceding article are governed by the laws
creating or recognizing them.
Private corporations are regulated by laws of
general application on the subject.
Partnerships and associations for private
interest or purpose are governed by the
provisions of this Code concerning partnerships.
Juridical Person
• A juridical person is an abstract being, formed
for the realization of collective purposes, to
which the law has granted capacity for rights
and obligations.
• Not all associations of persons for a collective
purpose are juridical persons. Only those
which are recognized by law and granted with
capacity for rights and obligations are
considered juridical persons.

Maria
Classification of Juridical Persons
a) The State and its political subdivisions which
include the LGUs;
-governed by the Constitution, LGC, Administrative Code
a) Juridical persons for public purposes;
- GOCCs, public corporations. Created by law. Their
specific date of operation shall be provided by their charter.
c) Juridical persons for private purposes.
-private corporations, partnerships. They begin to exist
from the issuance of their Certificate of Registration by the
SEC or upon the execution of their Articles of Partnership.
Maria
Public Corporations
Public corporations are those that are created
for public interest. Examples: Metropolitan
Water District, Phil. National Red Cross, San Juan
de Dios Hospital, banks belonging to the
Government.
Private Corporations
• All corporations which are not for public purposes or
interests are private corporations.
• A private corporation which may be constituted by 5 or
more persons, not exceeding 15, and majority of whom are
residents of the Phils, enjoys a legal personality distinct and
independent of the personality of the persons constituting
it. Generally, the liability of the corporation is not the
liability of the incorporators.
• A corporation, being a person, although artificial, has the
right of succession, can own properties and rights; it can
sue and be sued. And it is included within the meaning of
“person” protected under the due process clause of the
Constitution.
• The nationality of a private corporation is determined by
the character or by the citizenship of its controlling
stockholders. A corporation, which was organized here and
is controlled by American stockholders, is an American
corporation.
• A group of persons who claim to be a corporation cannot
be considered as such if it has not articles of incorporation
registered with the SEC. Being non-existing, it cannot sue.
The mere formation of the group does not give corporate
life to it.
• Until organized, a corporation has no life and therefore no
faculties. A sale of property made before it is actually
incorporated is void because the vendee has no legal
existence yet at the time of the sale.
Corporation by Estoppel
Section 21. Corporation by estoppel. – All persons who
assume to act as a corporation knowing it to be without
authority to do so shall be liable as general partners for all
debts, liabilities and damages incurred or arising as a result
thereof: Provided, however, That when any such ostensible
corporation is sued on any transaction entered by it as a
corporation or on any tort commiEed by it as such, it shall not
be allowed to use as a defense its lack of corporate
personality.
On who assumes an obligation to an ostensible corporation as
such, cannot resist performance thereof on the ground that
there was in fact no corporation.

Maria
Partnerships
In a partnership, two or more persons enter into a
contract binding themselves to contribute money,
property to industry to a common fund, with the
intention of dividing the profits among themselves.
The partnership has a juridical personality separate
and distinct from that of each of the partners.
However, a conjugal partnership of gains in the law
on marriage does not have any juridical personality.
Suits should be by the spouses or against the
spouses themselves.
Maria
Article 46
Juridical persons may acquire and possess
property of all kinds, as well as incur obligations
and bring civil or criminal actions, in conformity
with the laws and regulations of their
organization.

Maria
• Juridical persons are allowed to acquire and
possess property of all kinds. They can also
incur obligations. They can sue and be sued.
They can file civil actions and certain criminal
cases for the protection of their rights and
interests.
• However, they cannot be held criminally liable
or be defendants in criminal actions.

Maria
Article 47
Upon the dissolution of corporations, institutions
and other entities for public interest or purpose
mentioned in No. 2 of article 44, their property and
other assets shall be disposed of in pursuance of
law or the charter creating them. If nothing has
been specified on this point, the property and other
assets shall be applied to similar purposes for the
benefit of the region, province, city or municipality
which during the existence of the institution derived
the principal benefits from the same.

Maria
Dissolution of Juridical Persons
While natural persons lose their personality by
death, juridical persons lose theirs by
dissolution.

Maria

Persons Class Notes 082219

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Persons Class Notes 082219

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PERSONS AND FAMILY

A Civil Code has been deﬁned “as a collection of laws

Civil Law is a system of norms or rules of a character

1. The person himself and the rights of personality;

This Act shall be known as the "Civil Code

Laws shall take eﬀect a8er ﬁ8een days following

A newspaper is considered of general circulation if its

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

Article 2, NCC Sections 59 and 511, LGC

b) For ordinance w/ penal provision: posting at

c) For highly urbanized and independent

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

RULING: Contrary to petitioners' view, there is no law

References: Persons and Family Relations

Internal instructions of administrative agencies and municipal

Publication is required of a Central Bank Circular and

The publication of administrative orders and regulations is

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

1. If the laws themselves provide for retroactivity.

References: Persons and Family Relations

2. If the laws are curative or remedial/procedural in nature.

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

None of the exceptions is present in the instant

References: Persons and Family Relations

RULING: Petitioner is in error when she insists that the 2000

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

RULING: The subject birth certiﬁcates are void.

References: Persons and Family Relations

Distinguished from duty

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

RULING: To be valid and eﬀective, a waiver must be couched in clear

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

• References: Persons and Family

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations

References: Persons and Family Relations