Art 17 (3) 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 judgements promulgated, or by
determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.

If 2 persons have dispute (for example it involves money) they can resort to
arbitration. Usually, if it involves big corporations the arbitration is undertaken
abroad. International Commercial Arbitration, located abroad. The decision is
binding to the courts but that is without prejudice to our laws. If the ruling of the
tribunal contradicts our own rules/ laws that ruling cannot be imposed here in the
Philippines, even if both parties are residents of the PH, or Filipino corporations.
The requirement of a rulling of a commercial arbitral tribunal can be enforced
here in the Philippines if that ruling is confirmed via our courts first. After
obtaining a favorable ruling in the arbitration, you have to go to our PH courts for
confirmation. If not favored, no writ of execution can be enforced against that
who lost.

Applies also to marriage abroad even in accordance to the law of that foreign
country, if one essential requisite by our laws is missing, it cannot be confirmed
here in the Philippines

Human Relations

Art. 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.
(Gives standards of human conduct but does not provide remedy so be read in
conjuction to 20, 21 or borh)

Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage
to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.

Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that
is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter
for the damage.
Wilfully- there is deliberate intention to do it
Art 20- even negligently as long as contrary to our laws
Art 21- Must be willfully done because what is covered is not violative of our laws
but is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy

These 3 provisions on Abuse of Right-under any of these provisions; an act which

causes injury to another may be made the basis for an award of actual damages

What is Abuse of Right? – departs from the classic theory “that he who has a right
injures no one”
3 Requisites: 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

If a person abuses a right will this automatically result to an action of damage

against him?
 Only in the commission of that abuse of right that the right of another
person is damaged/ injured, that injured party can file an action for
damages.
 There should be an injured party or affecting the rights of others

Custodio vs. CA
 There should be a legal right
Principle: If there is no right of a third person or another person that has been
violated even if a person abuses his prerogative in the exercise of his own right
then there is no claim for damages.

Garcia vs Salvador
 Illustrative of violation of Art 20

ABUSE OF RIGHT
Cebu Country vs Elizagaque
Amended laws were never disclosed to the clients

Valley Golf and Country Club vs Vda de Caram

Ardiente vs Pastorfide
Malicious Prosecution
Anchored on the provision of Article 21….
One cannot be held liable in damages for maliciously where he acted with
probable cause

Requisites of Malicious Prosecution

1. The fact of prosecution and the further fact that the defendant himself was
the prosecutor, and that the action was finally terminated with an acquittal
2. That in bringing the action the prosecutor acted without probable cause
3. The prosecutor was impelled by legal malice that is improper or sinister
motive.
When can you file an action of Malicious Prosecution
 After the finality of the dismissal of that action, upon the acquittal of the
accused in the criminal case.

Drilon vs CA

Breach of Promise to Marry- Generally not actionable, mere violation of

commitment
Exceptions: Actionable if incident to the breach of promise of marriage, the basis
is not actually the breach of promise of marriage
BPM, When Actionable:
1. If there is Fraud or Deceit –when breach of promise of marriage is a
proximate cause for the woman to give herself unto him in a sexual
congress, fraud and deceit behind BPM and the willfully injury to her honor
and reputation
2. If Expenses are actually incurred
3. When Woman was forcibly abducted and raped

No intention to injur, Regardless of the manner that you violated, there is abuse
of right?
No, It is not necessary that the case abuse of right to prosper that the other party
has deliberate intent to injure the right of others, you can still be liable because it
is at the expense of others (Wassmer vs. Velez) Notwithstanding the fact that
there is no deliberate intent to humiliate, there is a necessary consequence
because of his act.
Art 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
latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him

Principle of Unjust Enrichement- Enrichement without just or legal ground

Coverage: 1. A person is unjustly benefited 2. Such benefit is derived at the
expense of or with damages to another

Republic vs Lacap
Unjust Enrichment also applies in the government

Uy vs Public Estates Authority

No unjust enrichment

Can there be Unjust Enrichment in the property not taken in Expropriation

Proceedings?

Republic vs CA
Government has to undergo Expropriation proceedings
No actual taking of the remaining portion of the real property is necessary to
grant consequential damages.
If portion of the property is not taken is impaired then there should be
consequential damages. On the other hand, if the expropriation results to
benefits to the remaining lot of private respondent these consequential benefits
may be deducted from the awarded consequential damages, if any.

To determine just compensation, the trial court should first ascertain the market
value of the property to which should be added the consequential damages after
deducting therefrom consequential benefits which may arise from the
expropriation.
If the consequential benefits exceed the consequential damages, these items
should be disregarded altogether as the basic value of the property should be
pain in every case. Or the owner be deprived of the acyual value of the property
taken.
Art 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 latter shall be liable for
indemnity if through the act or event he was benefitted.

Benefit: Carabao survived

What is the extent of the indemnity? THE LIMIT IS THE BENEFIT

The benefit, regardless of the damage of the other party.
It is only the carabao that caused the damage
When the benefit> damage, whichever is lower. The party is not the cause of the
act.

Fire in a densely populated area. Firemen will destroy the house to spare the
other house. There will be indemnification based on benefit for those houses who
are spared.

Art 24: In all contractual, property or other relation when one of the parties is at
the 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 other party has the burden to properly explain the contract to the another
party who is illiterate. If this does not happen, the court has a duty to invalidate
that act.

Contract of Adhesion
 Conditions of that contract is dictated or crafted by one party, any
imperfection or ambiguity it will be against the party who made it and the
party who did not participate (only affixed his signature) will be favored.
 If there is something wrong with the contract it is account of the one who
crafted it.

Provisions of the Labor- construed against the employer and towards the
employee, if it is vague and ambiguous.