Topic 5

1. Article 19 – Principle of Abuse of Rights

The principle of abuse of rights is mentioned in Article 19 of the New Civil Code
stating 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. There is an abuse of right when it is exercised solely to prejudice or injure
another.
The Elements of an abuse of rights as mentioned in the case of Raul Sesbreon
vs. Court of Appeals are:
1. There is a legal right or duty;
2. which is exercised in bad faith (did not act with justice, give everyone his due,
and observe honesty and good faith); and
3. for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
2. Coverage of Article 20, this article speaks of the general sanction for all other
provisions of law which do not especially provide for their own sanction. Therefore,
anyone who, whether willfully or negligently, in the exercise of his legal right or duty,
causes damage to another, shall indemnify his victim for injuries suffered thereby.
3. Acts contra bonus mores is mentioned under article 21 of the New Civil Code where it
states that any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage; The elements of Contra Bonus Mores are:
1. There is an act which is legal;
2. but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy;
and
3. it is done with intent to injure.
4. Breach of promise to marry is not actionable, the Supreme Court ruled that there is
now law which imposes the duty or obligation to marry somebody, the freedom of
choice in finding a life partner is universally accepted and respected.
The Exception. To the breach of promise to marry may give rise to damages under
certain circumstances:
a. No recovery of moral damages except when there is a criminal or moral
seduction – There can be no recovery of moral damages for mere breach of
promise to marry. There must be deception, enticement, superior power or abuse
of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman yielded;
b. Actual Damages Suffered, Recoverable; and
 c.In case of Birth of Child, support for the child can be demanded.
5. Accion In Rem Verso; Unjust Enrichment
Under 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 it based on contract, quasi-
contract, crime or quasi-delict. The action is only subsidiary.
The distinctions of In Rem Verso and Solutio indebiti is that, in In rem verso, is
not necessary that the payment be made by mistake. Payment could have been
knowingly and voluntarily made, but nevertheless, there would be recover of
what has been paid, while in solution indebiti, payment was made by mistake
which is an essential element to maintain the action.
6. Article 25 Thoughtless Extravagance
The thoughtless extravagance as mentioned under Article 25, the 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.
7. Article 26. Reverence for Human Personality
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 his religious beliefs, lowly station in
life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
8. Article 27. Nonfeasance
Nonfeasance Distinguished from Misfeasance and Malfeasance.
Nonfeasance is the non-performance, failure or refusal to do an act which on is
required to do, while malfeasance is an act prohibited by law or an act out not to be
done. Misfeasance on the other hand is the improper or irregular performance of an act.
9. Article 28. Unfair competition
Under 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.
Cases:
Raul Sesbreno vs. Court of Appeals
Ruling: YES. Private respondent Pilipinas bank is liable for damages plus legal interest
thereon by arising out of its breach of duty. By failing to deliver the Note to the petitioner
as depositor-beneficiary of the thing deposited, Pilipinas effectively and unlawfully
deprived petitioner of the Note deposited with it. Whether or not Pilipinas itself
benefitted from such conversion or unlawful deprivation inflicted upon petitioner, is of no
moment for present purposes.In the case at bar, the custodian-depositary bank Pilipinas
refused to deliver the security deposited with it when petitioner first demanded physical
delivery thereof. Instead of complying with the demand of the petitioner, Pilipinas
purported to require and await the instructions of Philfinance, in obvious contravention
of its undertaking under the DCR to effect physical delivery of the Note upon receipt of
“written instructions” from petitioner Sesbreño.
Hermosisima vs. CA
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that no moral damages can be had in the instant case
because it was the woman who virtually seduced the man by surrendering herself to
him because she a girl ten years older was overwhelmed by her love for him, she
wanted to bind him by having a fruit of their engagement even before they had the
benefit of clergy.
Pe vs Pe
Ruling: Yes, the defendant is liable. Alfonso committed an injury to Lolita’s family in a
manner contrary to morals, good customs and public policy contemplated in Article 21
of the Civil Code. The defendant took advantage of the trust of Cecilio and even used
the praying of rosary as a reason to get close with Lolita. The wrong caused by Alfonso
is immeasurable considering the fact that he is a married man.
Art. 21. “Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in manner that is
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the
damage.”
In the case at bar, Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has the following
elements: 1) There is an act which is legal; 2) but which is contrary to morals, good
custom, public order, or public policy; 3) and it is done with intent to injure. Thus, under
any of these three (3) provisions of law, an act which causes injury to another may be
made the basis for an award of damages. The decision appealed from is reversed.
Defendant is hereby sentenced to pay the plaintiffs the sum of P5,000.00 as damages
and P2,000.00 as attorney’s fees and expenses of litigations. Costs against appellee.
Erlinda Estop vs. Loreto Punsay
Ruling: There is no claim for any other kind of damages. In fact, Erlinda Estopa filed no
brief here. And her complaint merely alleged "social humiliation, mental anguish, be
smirched reputation, wounded feelings and moral shock."
We have today decided that in this jurisdiction, under the New Civil Code, the mere
breach of a promise to marry is not actionable. (Hermosisima vs. Court of Appeals,
Supra, 631); and we have reversed the Cebu court's award for moral damages in a
breach of promise suit. Consistently with such ruling, Loreto Piansay, Jr. may, not be
condemned to pay moral damages, in this case.
Now, as plaintiff has no right to moral damages, she may not demand exemplary
damages. (She lays no claim to temperate or compensatory damages.)
"While the amount of the exemplary damages need not be proved, the plaintiff must
show that he is entitled to moral, temperate or compensatory damages before the court
may consider the question of whether or not exemplary damages should be awarded.
(Art. 2234, New Civil Code.)
Wassmer vs. Velez
Ruling: This is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. As stated, mere breach
of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go
through all the preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is
about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to
good customs for which defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance
with Article 21 which provides in part “any person who wilfully 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.”
And under the law, any violation of Article 21 entitles the injured party to receive an
award for moral damages as properly awarded by the lower court in this case. Further,
the award of exemplary damages is also proper. Here, the circumstances of this case
show that Velez, in breaching his promise to Wassmer, acted in wanton, reckless, and
oppressive manner – this warrants the imposition of exemplary damages against him.
Constantino vs. Mendez
Ruling: According to 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.
In the case at bar petitioner was already 28 years old and she admitted that she was
attracted to respondent. Petitioner’s attraction to respondent is the reason why she
surrendered her womanhood. Had petitioner been induced or deceived because of a
promise of marriage, she could have immediately ended her relation with respondent
when she knew that respondent was a married man after their first sexual contact. Her
declaration that in the months of September, October and November, 1974, they
repeated their sexual intercourse only indicates that passion and not the alleged
promise of marriage was the moving force that made her submit herself to respondent.
The Supreme Court said “Damages could only be awarded if sexual intercourse is not a
product of voluntariness and mutual desire” therefore petitioner is not entitled to claim
for damages based on articles 19 & 21
Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court Of Appeals
Ruling: Mere breach of marriage is not punishable by law. However, since the
respondent was proved to have a good moral character, and that she had just let her
virginity be taken away by the petitioner since the latter offered a promise of marriage,
then she could ask for payment for damages. Furthermore, since she let her lover, the
petitioner, “deflowered” her since she believed that his promise to marry was true, and
not due to her carnal desire, then she could have her claims against the petitioner.
Moreover, the father of the respondent had already looked for pigs and chicken for the
marriage reception and the sponsors for the marriage, and then damages were caused
by the petitioner against the respondents, which qualified the claims of the respondent
against the petitioner.
Carlos A. Loria v. Ludolfo P. Muñoz
Ruling: Loria must return Munoz's P2,000,000.00 under the principle of unjust
enrichment
Under Article 22 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, "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." 
There is unjust enrichment "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.

Domingo Gonzalo v. John Tarnate, Jr.

Ruling: Unjust enrichment exists, according to Hulst v. PR Builders, Inc., "when a
person unjustly retains a benefit at the loss of another, or when a person retains money
or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good
conscience." The prevention of unjust enrichment is a recognized public policy of the
State, for Article 22 of the Civil Code explicitly provides that "[e]very 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." It is well to note that Article 22 "is part of the chapter of the Civil
Code on Human Relations, the provisions of which were formulated as basic principles
to be observed for the rightful relationship between human beings and for the stability of
the social order; designed to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain of good
conscience; guides for human conduct that should run as golden threads through
society to the end that law may approach its supreme ideal which is the sway and
dominance of justice."
Lagunzad v. Gonzales
Ruling: An agreement whereby a film producer would pay the heirs and relatives of
Moises Padilla a sum of money inorder to depict them in the movie which he included a
love interest angle depicting the mother and a sweetheart, is not a violation of freedom
of ex-pression. While it is true that the film producer purchased the rights to the book
entitled "The Moises Padilla Story," that did not dispense with the need for prior consent
and authority from the deceased's heirs to portray publicly episodes in said deceased's
life and in that of his mother and the members of his family
Ayer v. Capulong
Ruling: Senator Enrile cannot object to his inclusion in the movie on the EDSA
Revolution by invoking his right to privacy. "The right of privacy or "he right to be let
alone" is not an absolute right. A limited intrusion into a person's privacy has long been
regarded as permissible where that person is a public figure and the information sought
to be elic¬ited from him or to be published about him constitutes matters of a public
character. Succinctly put, the right of privacy cannot be invoked to resist publication and
dissemination of matters of public interest. The right of priivacy of a "public figure" is
necessarily narrower than that of an ordinary citizen."
As distinguished from Lagunzad v. Gonzales, which involved a film biography
necessarily including at least his immediate family, the subject matter of the move in this
case is one of public concern and does not relate to the individual or public life of
Senator Enrile.