CIVIL LAW REVIEW I

Module No. 1: Preliminary; Human Relations; Persons

Preliminary Title
Effectivity of Laws

Article 2

In Article 2, there can only be 3 possible scenarios:

1. The law may already provide for its own date of effectivity.

If that is the case then the date of effectivity provided for by law shall govern subject only
to the requirement of publication.

The SC ruled that even if the law already provides for its own date of effectivity,
Congress may not do away the requirement of publication, otherwise the requirement of
due process under the Constitution will not be satisfied.

As explained in the landmark case of Tanada vs Tuvera, the clause unless otherwise
provided in Art 2 of the NCC does not refer to the requirement of publication, instead it
refers to the15 day period. It is the 15-day period which may be changed by the
Congress

2. If the law is silent as to its date of effectivity, it shall take effect after 15 days following
the completion of its publication either in Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general
circulation.

Do not forget the word “following”. It is after 15 days following the completion of its
publication.

In counting the 15-day period, you will not include the last day of publication. But the
effectivity date will not be on the 15th day, but on the 16th day.

If the law does not provide for the place of publication, the law can only be published
wither in the OG or in a NPGC. But Congress may change the place of publication in a
certain law. If Congress provides for another place of publication other than the OG or in
a NPGC, then that will govern. That law will simply be considered as a special law
compared to the provisions of Art 2 of the NCC which is supposed to be the general law
on the matter of effectivity of laws

3. The effectivity clause of a certain law may provide that the law shall take effect
immediately upon its approval.

Then how do we construe it? The better view (yun na lang ang isasagot natin) is that
that law shall take effect immediately on the date of its complete publication as held by
the SC in the case of La-Bugal-B’Laan Tribal Association vs Ramos. The SC explained
that there is nothing in Art 2, as amended by EO No. 200, that prevents a law from
becoming effective other than the 15-day period provided by Congress. If Congress
intends that the law shall take effect immediately upon approval, we will not be following
the 15-day period. But that law cannot be construed as becoming effective without the
requirement of publication. Otherwise, there will be violation of due process clause as
held in the case of Tanada vs Tuvera.

So tama yung sinabi ng Korte Suprema, that the effectivity clause shall be construed as
becoming effective immediately on the date of its complete publication

Art 3
Ignorance of the law, excuses no one from compliance therewith

Because of the provisions of article 3, every citizen of th PH is charged with knowledge

that is a presumption of knowledge of our own internal or domestic law and that
presumption is conclusive.

So yung ignorance or mistake of law, it is not usually a defense. Usually, generally it

cannot serve as a basis of good faith.

Exception. There are situations where mistake of law may be a basis of good faith such
as when it would involve the interpretation or application of a very doubtful or difficult
provision of law according to Art 526 of NCC that may be availed of good faith when the
law is doubtful or difficult. Likewise, in solution in debiti. You have to also learn in Art
2155 of NCC that if the mistake is in relation to the application or interpretation of a
doubtful or difficult provision of law, that may also come within the scope of solution in
debiti.

The rule in Art 3 of course refers only to our own domestic or internal law. In so far as a
foreign law is concern, there is no conclusive presumption of knowledge of foreign laws
because as you have learned in your law of procedure, in the event that a foreign law
will be necessary to resolve a case before PH court, the requirement is that the foreign
law must be proven as a matter of fact. As a consequence, in remedial law, a foreign law
is required to be specifically alleged and proven. So if it is not alleged, or even if it is
alleged and not yet proven, then the courts will simply presumethat the foreign law is the
same as our internal or domestic law under the doctrine of processual presumption.
There is another name for that doctrine. It is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of
presumed identity approach in private international law.

Art 4
As a rule, laws shall have prospective application only.

The rule is that lex pros non res picit. But there are exceptions to the rule. There are
situations where a law may be given retroactive application,

5 Exceptions:
Exception number 1: when the law itself provides for its own retroactivity. Ex to Ex:
even if the law will provide for its retroactivity, nonetheless, if there will be violation of
the same cards under the Constitution, that law shall not be given retroactive effect.
Such as:

Number 1, when the retroactive application of the law will amount to ex post facto law.
What is an ex post facto law? An ex post facto law is a criminal law that is prejudicial to
the accused and is given retroactive application. Congress is prohibited from enacting an
EPFL. Another thing, Congress is also prohibited from enacting a law providing for
retroactive application if that law will impair an obligation of contracts. As a rule,
Congress is prohibited from enacting a law that will impair an existing valid contractual
obligation. Exception. Congress may impair an obligation of contract if the law was
enacted pursuant to a valid or legitimate exercise of police power of the State. Second
exception, when the law is penal in character and it is favorable to the accused.
Exception, those who are habitually delinquent cannot benefit from that law. Third,
procedural laws are also prospective in their application because a law of procedure
conceptually it does not affect substantive rights. Since it does not affective substantive
rights, there are no vested rights in the law of procedure and that is the reason why it
may be given retroactive application. Fourth, if the law is curative in character. If the
purpose of the law is to cure a defect necessarily, the law is retroactive. And lastly, when
the law creates new substantive rights. It may be given retro application subject to the
limitation that it must not impair another right, an existing or vested right, of the same
origin.

Let us got to repeal of laws,

Art. 7

There are 2 ways by which a law may be rendered ineffective.

1. by an act of congress., known as repeal of laws
2. by declaration of unconstitutionality which is an act off judiciary

As to repeal of laws it may be expressly or impliedly. The repeal of laws is expressed if

in the repealing law the specific law to be repealed is identified. so in order for an
express repeal to exist it is necessary that there is identification or designation of a
specific particular law to be repealed. Kapag hndi iniligay ng repealing law kung anong
batas ang to be repealed that is not an express repeal. On the other hand, in the
absence of an express repeal, an implied repeal may only exist if 2 requisites will be
satisfied. 1. The 2 laws cover the same subject matter. 2. The 2 laws are totally
repugnant or inconsistent to each other.

What is the effect of the repeal of the repealing law? So we are talking to 3 laws. The 1 st
law was repealed by the 2nd law and the 2nd law is in itself is repealed by a 3 rd law. So
what is the effect of the repeal of the 2nd law? Will that revived the 1st law?
The answer to that question would depend on the manner by which the 2nd law had
repealed the 1st law.

If the 2nd law repealed the 1st law in an express manner, and the 2nd law is also repealed
by a 3rd law, rule: the 1st law is not revived. Unless, the 3rd law expressly provides its
revival. Oth., if the pior law or the 1 st law was repealed by the 2nd law in an implied
manner, and the 2nd law is also repealed by a 3 rd law, rule: the 1st law is immediately
revived. Unless, the 3rd law provides to the contrary.

Art 8
Judicial decisions shall form part of the legal system of the PH

Of course the decisions that being referred to in Art 8 are all decisions of the SC
because only decisions of the SC can set binding precedent under the doctrine of stare
decisis.
Now, a decision of the SC interpreting a law shall form part of the law because that
interpretation is very much part of the law itself. For example, we cannot read art 2 of the
NCC, without the landmark case of Tanada vs Tuvera because in the landmark case of
Tanada vs Tuvera the SC interpreted a portion of Art 2, the clause “unless otherwise
provided. So we cannot completely read the provision in art 2 of the NCC, without the
case Tanada vs Tuvera. So that case is now forming part of the legal system of the PH
because that is very much part of Art 2 of the NCC.

And that is the meaning of Art 8 of NCC when it says that judicial decisions shall form
part of the legal system of the PH.

Now, when the SC interprets a law for the 1 st time, that interpretation will necessarily
retroact to the date of the enactment of the law, because in our system of our
government, it is Congress that enacts the law but it does not have the power to interpret
the law. That the power to interpret resides with the judiciary. Specifically, ang final
arbiter ng contruction of laws ay SC. So when the SC interprets a law, that interpretation
is considered part of a law from the day of its enactment. So necessarily, a judicial
decision will go back to the day of enactment of the law. Exception, a decision of the SC
cannot be given retroactive application instead it shall only be given prospective
application, when the SC reverses itself and overrules a previous doctrine and it comes
up with a new doctrine. The new doctrine cannot be applied retroactively instead the
new doctrine can only be applied prospectively. Reason: due process. There are
persons who already relied on the previous interpretation that was given by the SC.

Art 13.
Counting of legal periods.

We have 2 laws on counting of legal periods.

Under Art 13 of the civil code, when the law speaks of a year, it shall mean 365 days.
Under the provisions of the civil code, the actual number of days is important because
we would actually have to count 365 times. So, it will matter whether it is a leap year or a
regular year. The result will not be the same,

OTH, under the provisions of the Administrative Code, when the law speaks of a year, it
shall be construed as 12 calendar months. Kapaag sinundan natin ang calendar month,
the actual number of days is no longer important. Example, today is Aug 14, 2019. A
calendar month from today will begin on the 14th and ending on September 13. So the
first calendar month from today, August 15 and ending on September 14. Then the next
is September 15 up to October 14. And if you will do it 12 times, the 12 calendar months
from today will simply be August 14 of year 2020. You will simply change the year. The
actual number days is necessary.

Since the provisions of Article 13 and Section 31 Chapter 8 Book 1 of 1987

Administrative Code cover the same subject matter, the counting of legal period with
respect to the meaning of 1 year. But the provisions of the 2 laws are totally repugnant
with each other, totally inconsistent with each other. That is the reason why in the case
of CIR vs Primetown Property Group, reiterated in other cases, the SC declared the
implied repeal of the provisions of Art 13 of the NCC with respect to the meaning of a
year. That it was impliedly repealed by the provisions of Section 31, Chapter 8 Book 1 of
the 1987 Administrative Code. So as it is now, under the state of present laws and
jurisprudence, when we speak of a year, it is no longer 365 days, it now means 12
calendar months. Do not omit the word “calendar.” 12 calendar months is different from
12 months. 12 months is 365 days.

The other provisisions of Art 13 is still consistent with the provisions of the
Administrative Code. So when the law speak of a month, ganun parin, it shall mean 30
days, unless a law refers to a specific month. For example, if the law refers to June,
June consists of 30 days. When it refers to May, May consists of 31 days. When a law
speaks of a day, ganun parin, it shall mean 24 hours, and when the law speaks of a
night, it begins from sunset and ending at sunrise.

Now let us consider our basic conflict of laws rule. Starting with Article 14.

As to the application of our penal law, of PH penal law. Pursuant to Article 14 of the civil
code, our penal laws shall be applicable to all in general. So long as the crime is
committed within PH territory. So long as the person is within PH territory and he
commits a crime, our penal law will apply to him because our penal law applies to all in
general regardless of nationality. And that is the reason why we refer to the principle
embodied in Art 14, the principle of generality of our criminal law. That our criminal law,
applies to all in general regardless of race or nationality.

But, there are three exceptions to the principle of generality. First, when the PH has
entered into a treaty, which provides that our penal law will not be applicable to a certain
situation. Second exception is when there is a law passed by Congress which provides
that in a certain situation our PH penal law will not be applicable and we called that as
the law of preferential application. Pangatlo, when there is a settled principle of public
international law, which provides that the PH penal law will not be applicable to a certain
situation. For example, it is a recognized principle of public international law that heads
of states are immune from the criminal jurisdiction of the host state as well as the
diplomatic officials and employees.

Art 15, which embodies the nationality rule or the nationality principle. On the ff issues,
or in the ff matters, apat yun. Status of persons, conditions of persons, legal capacity of
persons and his family rights and duties, the applicable law shall be the national law of
the person. So following the nationality rule, the law of the PH shall apply on the matter
of status, conditions, legal capacity and family rights and duties. It will apply to citizens
of the PH regardless of where they are. So if you would be confronted with a question in
the bar examination as to the determination of the sex of a certain person. Ano ba ang
sex nya? So that will affect the validity of his or her marriage. Since sex is a matter
involving status and conditions of a person, and sometimes his legal capacity to enter
into a contract. Example a contract of marriage, the applicable law will be the national
law of the person concern. For example if that person is a Filipino citizen, in determining
his sex, he will be governed by PH law, and under PH law, the sex of a Filipino citizen is
determined simply at the time of birth by a mere visual examination of the genital of the
infant. And such determination is made by the birth attendant, either by a physician or by
a midwife. And the determination made by the birth attendant at the time of birth by a
mere visual examination of the genital of the infant is considered immutable, unless
there has been a palpable error that has been committed. And you have learned that if a
palpable error has been committed, the same may now be corrected by way of
administrative correction by the office of the local civil registrar. OTH, if no palpable error
was committed, the determination of sex made by the birth attendant and reflected in the
birth certificate of the child is having considered immutable and the same may not be
changed by sex reassignment surgery if the person is Filipino citizen because we do not
have any law recognizing the legal effects of sex reassignment surgery. Silverio vs
Republic. Assuming that that person who undergo sex reassignment surgery is a
foreigner, he was a former Filipino citizen but he became a naturalized citizen of
Switzerland and let us assume that under the law Switzerland, if a person undergo sex
reassignment, he or she is allowed to change his sex. So, the former Filipino citizen,
who is now a Swiss national, underwent sex reassignment surgery and pursuant to his
new national law, the law of Switzerland, he had changed sex from male to female, and
she will be going back to the PH to marry her childhood boyfriend, who is a male. With
that marriage be considered as valid? The answer is yes because that will be a marriage
between a man and a woman. So again in determining the sex of a person, Art. 15,
nationality principle.

On the matter of legal capacity, ordinarily, it is the national law of the person concern
that shall govern in determining his legal capacity. Exception, if the contract relates to
acquisition of real property, especially lands, the applicable law, even if the issue is
simply the legal capacity to acquire real property, the applicable law is not the national
law of the person concerned. Bakit? Lex rei sitae, law of the place where the property is
situated. If we are dealing with real properties, almost all matters affecting real
properties are governed by lex loci rei sitae, including the issue of legal capacity.
Example, here in the Ph, we do not allow foreigners to acquire or to own land in the PH.
So in determining the legal capacity of foreigner to acquire parcels of land in the PH, the
applicable law is not the national law of the foreigner, but the law of the situs. The law of
the place where the property is situated. On the matter of family rights and duties,
ordinarily, the applicable law is the national law of the person concern. So if the issue is
whether or not a certain person has an obligation to support a child here in the PH, the
applicable law ordinarily is the national law of the one, of the person, who has an
obligation to provide support. For example, in the case of Velsocoro vs? There was a
dutch national, married to a Filipino citizen and they had a minor child. When the child
was 2 years old, the foreign national obtained a decree of absolute divorce from his
country. And after obtaining a decree of absolute divorce, he went back to the PH and
married another Filipino citizen. Since the divorce, the foreigner father stopped providing
legal support to the minor child. After a number of years, the mother of the child filed s
criminal action against the foreigner father for violating RA 9262, VAWC, alleging
economic violence that the foreigner father had ot been providing support to the
minorchild. Ang depensa ng foreigner father, pursuant to his national law, he does not
have the obligation to support his minor child in the PH. But in that case, the foreigner
was not able to prove the existence of his national law. The SC simply applied the
doctrine of processual presumption. But aadditionally, ang sabi ng Korte Suprema, even
if the foreigner was able to prove that indeed pursuant to his national law, he does not
have obligation to support his minor child in the PH. Sabin g Korte Suprema, kahit
napatunayan nya yun, that is supposed to be the applicable law following art 15 of NCC.
But nevertheless, ang sabi ng Korte Suprema, the applicable foreign law may not be
applied in the forum. Because we have learned in your conflicts of law that there are
situations where the foreign law may not be applied by the forum. That the forum may
refused to apply the applicable foreign law and one of those situations is when the
applicable foreign law is contrary to a sound and well-established public policy of the
forum. So ang sabi ng Korte Suprema, if you will be confronted in a situation where one
of the parents is a foreigner but the child likewise has ancestry of a Filipino mother or
Filipino father and the national law of the foreigner provides that he does not have
obligation to support his or her minor child in the PH. Following the rule of of SC in the
case of Velsocoro vs Vanwilsem?, that foreign law may not be applied here in the PH
because the same is contrary to a sound an dwell-established public policy of the PH
because here in the PH, it is the a public policy of the state that the parents have the
obligation to provide support to their minor children.

Art 16. Par 1, which embodies the principle of lex rei sitae or sometimes called lex
situs.par 1 of art 16, simply provides that in matters affecting properties whther the real
or personal, the applicable law shall be the law of the place where the property is
situated and we refer to that as the principle of lex rei sitae or lex situs. Mas mahigpit
ang application ng lex rei sitae if the property is real property. Almost all matters
affecting to acquisition, or title to or ownership of real property shall be governed by lex
rei sitae. So even if the issue is simply the legal capacity of the party to aacquire real
property, the governing law is not the national kaw of the person concern but lex situs,
lex rei sitae. Exception to lex rei sitae, even if the property is involved but the issue is
succession, whether the succession is testamentary or intestate, the following aspects of
succession shall be governed by the national law of the decedent and not by the law of
the place where the property is situated, even if real property is involved. So bar matter,
tandaan natin ang apat na to. The following aspects of succession shall be governed by
the national law of the decedent: 1. Order of succession. So kung yung issue, what will
happen to the property, what will happen to the estate upon the death of a certain
person, who shall be entitled to get, or who shall be entitled to inherit the properties that
were left by the deceased by reason of his death, yun yung tinatawag nating order of
succession. Pangalawa, the amount of successional rights. How much shall be the
entitlement of a certain person to the estate of the deceased. As to whether there is a
legitime pursuant to the law of the deceased as to whether or not there is a legitime, or
as to whether or not there are compulsory heirs, that will be governed by the national law
of the decedent because that will affect the amount of successional rights. Pangatlo, the
issue of intrinsic validity of the testamentary provisions shall likewise be governed by
the national law of the decedent. So kapag ang issue ais the existence of preterition, the
effect of preterition is total annulment of the institution of heirs so therefore, preterition
will affect the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provisions so therefore that issue will
be governed by the national law of the decedent. And finally, the issue of the capacity to
inherit from the decedent. It shall be governed by the national law of the decedent and
not by the national law of the heir. So apat yun. Again, order of succession, amount of
successional rights, intrinsic validity of testamentary providions and legal capacity to
succeed. For example, simple problem, a foreigner and a child in the PH with a Filipino
mother, the child is illegitimate and the foreigner father executed a will. He left his
properties including those situated in the PH to his brother and nothing was left to his
illegitimate child. So upon the death, the brother of the decedent went to the PH for the
probate of his will, for the purpose of the settlement of those properties located in the PH
and during the probate, the mother of the illegitimate child, on behalf of the illegitimate
child, opposed the probate on the ground that the illegitimate child was preterited. If you
will be following the provisions of our own laws, the civil code, yes the child was
preterited because in our laws, an illegitimate child is a compulsory heir in a direct line
that is omitted from the will and that is the case of preterition. But following the national
law of the decedent, wala silang konsepto ng legitime, wala silang konsepto ng
compulsory heir and under the national law of the decedent, he can dispose of his entire
estate in any manner that he pleases. So in determining the issue of preterition, what is
the governing law? The national law of the decedent. So applying the law of the
decedent, there is no preterition. The illegitimate child was not preterited because under
the national law of the decedent, there is no concept of legitime, there is no concept of
compulsory heir, so there is no concept of preterition. If the issue is any of those 4, order
of succession, amount of successional rights, intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions
and legal capacity to succeed, the governing law is the national law of the decedent. But
what if there is a change in the national law of the decedent, the law existing at the time
the will was executed has been changed such that when the decedent died iba na ang
batas. So on the matter of order of succession, amount of successional rights, intrinsic
validity of testamentary providions and capacity to succeed, nagkaroon ng change ng
law, ang magiging tanong, what will be the applicable law? Is it the law at the time when
the will was executed or the law at the time of death on the matter of order of
succession, amount of successional rights, intrinsic validity of testamentary providions
and capacity to succeed. Ang sagot, it is the law existing at the time of death that will
govern. Why? Because the right of succession is transmitted only upon death of a
person. So prior to his death the interest of a would be heir is merely inchoate such that
that interest is not yet an actual right so kahit baguhin ng batas, walang masasaktan.
There will be no impairment of right because that right is not yet in existence. The
interest is merely inchoate. That is the reason. Pwede baguhin ang batas because of
777, the right of succession is transmitted only upon death.

Let us go to Art 17, par 1. If the issue is the validity of forms and solemnities or extrinsic
validity. Paghiwalayin natin yung extrinsic validity of wills. If the issue is the validity of
forms and solemnities attending the execution of a will, the law is the law of the place
where the will is executed. So, even if the testator is a Filipino citizen, but he executed
his will abroad, for example, in France, and under the law of France, pwede kang
gumawa ng will using a video camera, so the Filipino citizen made his will using the
video cam. Sabi nya, “I am Atty. Elmer Rabuya, I am a Filipino citizen, and this is my last
will and testament” sa harap ng camera. But before that, “shout out muna sa mga tropa
ko sa Mandaluyong.” Is that will valid? May that will be probated here in the PH? The
answer is yes because if the issue is form and solemnities attending the execution of a
will, the applicable law is the law of the place where the will is executed. Exception,
Filipino citizens are not allowed to execute joint wills regardless of the place where it is
executed. Ang sabi ng civil code, joint wills executed by Filipino citizens will remain void
even if it is executed in a place where it is allowed.

Now, let us go to formalities of a contract. Ganun din ang rule, if the issue is the validity
of the form and solemnities attending the execution of a contract, the applicable law is
the law of the place where the contract is executed, following the principle lex loci
celebrationis. Exception. Even if the issue is simply the form and solemnities attending
the execution of a contract, but if the contract relates to acquisition of real property, and
the situs provides for mandatory or prohibitory laws on formality. It is the law of the situs
that will govern, even if the issue is the forms and solemnities.

Now. If the issue is the intrinsic validity of a contract, if the issue is are the provisions of
a contract valid, in interpreting the provisions of a contract, What law shall apply? Kung
yan ang tanong, those questions will involve the intrinsic validity of a contract. So kung
ang issue is the intrinsic validity of a contract, what is the applicable law? Una, the law
voluntarily agreed upon by the parties. Under the principle of lex loci voluntatis. For
example, ang sabi nila sa contract: in determining the validity of the provisions of this
contract or in the interretation of the provisions of this contract, it is the law of Singapore
that will govern. So that is the law, voluntarily agreed upon by the parties to govern. In
the absence of a law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties, the applicable law would be
that law intended by the parties to govern under the principle lex loci intenciones. And
that intention will have to be determined from the circumstances of the case.

If the issue is form and solemnities attending the execution of a will, and there has been
a change in the law, the law existing at the time of the execution is different from the law
existing at the time of the testator’s death, on the matter of forms and solemnities, what
will prevail? If the issue is simply forms and solemnities, the applicable law will be the
law existing at the time of the wills execution.

Finally, on conflicts of law. Remember the provisions of Art 17, par 3. On the matter of
PH prohibitory laws. If there is a prohibitory law of the PH on persons, their properties,
and their acts. Again, with respect to PH prohibitory laws on persons, their properties,
and their acts, and PH laws on public safety and PH laws which are declarations of
public policy. With respect to those laws, those laws cannot be rendered ineffective or
nugatory by any foreign law, by any foreign judgment, or any event that transpired
abroad. Again, remember that provision. Our prohibitory law on persons, their properties,
their acts, our laws on public safety and our laws which are declarations of public policy
cannot be rendered nugatory ineffective by any foreign law any foreign judgment or any
event that transpired abroad. Example, if the parties are both citizens of the PH, and one
of them obtained a decree of absolute divorce, even if that decree of absolute divorce is
recognized as valid in the place where it was obtained. That foreign judgment, that
foreign law cannot rendered ineffective the public policy of the PH that prohibits a decree
of absolute divorce if the parties are both citizens of the PH. In our jurisdiction, a decree
of absolute divorce obtained by a Filipino citizen married to another Filipino citizen is
contrary to our public policy. Therefore, not recognized as valid.

Let us got to human relations, wag kayo mahiya, pwede kayo sumabay. Every person
must in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with kindness,
give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. Those are cardinal
principles to govern a human conduct. And the sanctions are provided in Art 20 and 21
if that norm is violated. And that norm is applicable whether it is an exercise of a right or
performance of a duty. Kaya lang simpleng tip. If the problem involves performance of a
duty or obligation, wag nalang human relations ang i-site nyo. The provisions of
Obligations and Contracts are much clearer. On the other hand, you will usually apply
the provisions of human relations if it is …exercise of a right. And the exercise of a right
causes injury to someon. Normally, ang mga problem sa bar exam will involve the
exercise of a right that result to an injury to someone else. If that is the case, will the
actor be liable for resulting injury which is the consequence of the exercise of his right?
The action to that question will depend on the manner by which the right has been
exercised. So dalawang principles lang ang pwedeng i-apply in that question. It is either
the principle of damnum absque injuria or the principle of abuse of right. Under the
principle of damnum absque injuria, the actor is not liable for the resulting injury. But
under the principle of abuse of right, the actor will be liable for damages. So when is the
exercise of a right a case of damnum absque injuria? And when is it a case of abuse of
right? When the right is exercised legitimately or validly, or in other words, if the right is
exercised in good faith, even if injury caused from the exercise of a right, that injury is
not considered a legal injury that will give rise to an actionable wrong. So therefore, the
actor will not be liable for damages under the principle of damnum absque injuria. For
example, you are the owner of a parcel of land and your parcel of land has been made
by your neighbors as a shortcut going to the highway because if they will not pass
through your property, malayo yung ruta going to the public highway. There is a long
route. So, as a shortcut, they will pass through your parcel of land kasi hindi mo pa
binabakuran. But one day, you have decided to enclose your parcel of land, as a
consequence, hndi na sila makadaan as a shortcut going to the highway. They will now
have to pass through a longer route. Eh marami ang nagrereklamo. Marami ng nalalate
sa opisina, marami ng nalalate sa eskwela, marami ng bumabagsak raw, marami ng
relasyon ang nasira at nalalate sa date. Will the property owner be liable for the
inconvenience suffured by the neighbor? No. that is a case of a damnum absque injuria
because a property owner has a right to enclose his land and in enclosing his land in
good faith, he will not be liable for any injury to his neighbor. And after all, the neighbor
cannot contend that they have acquired right to pass through his property. They cannot
say that through lapse of time, they have acquired an easement of right over his parcel
of land. Why? Because as you have learned in your property law, that an easement of
right of way is a lease-continuing easement, that cannot be acquired by way of
prescription because under the law, only a continues and apparent easement can be
acquired by way of prescription. OTH, if the exercise of a right is done in bad faith, solely
for the purpose of causing injury or prejudice to someone else. This time, the actor will
be liable for the resulting injury under the principle of abuse of right. The SC justified the
liability for abuse of right in this manner. Sabi ng Korte Suprema, the right ends when it
disappears. Now, it disappears from the moment it was abused. Kaya merong liability
sabi ng Korte Suprema, the right ends when it disappears and in it, it disappears from
the moment that a right is subjected to abuse. In short, once the right is abused, it
ceases to be a right. So therefore, there will now be liability for damages. You own a
parcel of land, and you rented out that parcel of land to a lessee and that lessee
converted it into a gasoline station. But the lessee has not been paying the rentals for
several months already. Eh ayaw din umalis, ang kapal ng mukha. So ang ginawa mo,
binakuran mo ung parcel of land mo. Edi wala ng makapasok na sasakyan para
makapgpagasolina. Namatay ang negosyo. Will you be liable for damages for the
consequence of the exercise of you right to close or fence your property? The answer
this time is yes because the purpose of the exercise of your right is to cause prejudice to
the lessee. Ang sabi ng batas natin, even if you are the owner of the property, for the
purpose of recovering procession of your property, you cannot take the law into your
own hands. The civil code requires the property owner to avail of the appropriate judicial
processes for the purpose of recovering procession of his property. He’s not allowed to
take the law into his own hands. Otherwise, he will be liable for abuse of right. He will be
liable for damages under the principle of abuse of right. In relation to abuse of right, you
have encountered the decision of the SC on the matter of breach of promise of marriage,
sabi ng Korte Suprema, a mere breach of promise of marriage is not an actionable
wrong that will give rise for liability for damages. What is the reason why a breach for
promise of marriage is not actionable wrong? Because the SC said so. Anong reason?
Because the SC ruled that it is not an actionable wrong. Eh anong explanation? Wala
bang pain? Sinampal ka, masakit? Yes masakit. Gumagaling? Mamya wala na yon, but
can you recover damages? Yes. Sinuntok ka, sinapak ka, black and bule ka, masakit?
Of course. Gumagaling? Yes, after number of days. Can you recover damages? Yes. Si
Gerald iniwan si Bea and broke his promise of marriage. Masakit? Yes. Can she recover
damages? No. The SC said, no. It is not an actionable wrong. Eh, kapag narinig ni Bea
yung sinampal pwede magrecover ng damages, sinuntok pwede magrecover ng
damages, tapos yung heartbreak hndi pede. Parang sasabihin *inanyo. Pano natin
ipapaliwanag yun, no? In fact yang sakit that is by reason of the heart. Isa yan sa mga
sakit na walang lunas. Sometimes mahirap magmove on. Pagkatapos ng heartbreak
nagkukulong ka sa kwarto, kinakain mo lahat ng laman ng ref. Tumataba ka. Ilang araw
kang walang ligo. Ang baho mo na. Kapag may nakakakita sayo pwedeng hndi ka na
marecognize. Yung iba nagsusuicide pa. Yan yung klase ng sakit na minsan walang
lunas. Because sabi nga ng Korte Suprema, heart has its own reason, which reason
itself cannot understand. So yung process ng moving on ay minsan dumarating, minsan
maaring hndi dumating. And yet it is not an actionable wrong. How do we explain it?
Simply because Congress intended it to be not an actionable wrong. It was the only
explanation. It was by reason of Congress. It was their intention not to make it
actionable. Sisihin an gang Kongreso because it could have been made an actionable
wrong. In the draft of the civil code, there was an attempt to make breach of promise of
marriage an actionable wrong, nasa draft yon. Sabi ng draft, isang provision sana yan
ng human relations na if you will break your promise of marriage, you will be liable for
damages. Nasa draft yun. Of course the draft, it was made by a committee of experts
with civil law. Nanjan sila Senator Arturo Tolentino. He was a member of the committee
together with Capistrano who later on became Associate Justice of SC. Kasama rin ung
dean ng UP si Orkebohobo(???) sila Rabuya (HAHHAA). And when they presented the
draft to Congress for approval, kasama yung provision making breach of promise of
marriage actionable wrong. Kaya imaginine nyo, that was year 1947-48, the civil code
took effect 1950. So yung deliberations nya on the draft nung 1948, 1949. Sinong mga
nasa Kongreso non? Puro lalaki yan na ag uusap usap: “Pre, nakita mo yung draft?
Magiging liable ka pare pag di ka tumupad sa pangako mong, payag ka? “ “Of course,
nagkasundo silang lahat na tanggalin yun. So that will tell us of the intention of Congress
not to make breach of promise of marriage an actionable wrong and that is the reason
for the SC’s decision.

However, if there will be moral seduction, it will not be a mere breach of promise of
marriage. If the promise of marriage will be utilized by a man as scheme, as a device, for
the purpose of entering the gates of paradise, and the woman would not have open the
gates had there been no promise of marriage. So the woman surrender Bataan’s simply
because of that promise. Without that promise, she would not house surrender her
virtuous to the man. And the man from the very start had no intention of fulfilling that
promise. He only made use the promise of marriage to have carnal knowledge with the
woman. If that is the case, that is moral seduction. And that is the basis for the recovery
of damages under Art 21 of the civil code. But yung tinatawag nating moral seduction,
the woman would not have surrendered her virtue to the man had there been no promise
of marriage. So if the woman would have surrendered her virtue to the man kahit
walang promise of marriage, that is not moral seduction. That will be a case of mutual
love, mutual lust. And if that is the case, if there is promise of marriage, that will be a
mere breach of promise of marriage in the case of mutual lust, mutual desire, mutual
love. But there is no need for sexual intercourse in order for one to be liable by reason of
breach of promise of marriage. In the case of Wassmer vs Velez, the groom made the
bride to believe that the wedding will push through. The invitations were sent out,
nakapost na sa FB. All the preparations for the wedding were had, expenses were
incurred, only for the groom to back out from the wedding 2 days prior to its celebration.
Ang sabi ng Korte Suprema, the actuation of the groom is contrary to good customs.
Therefore, the bride can recover damages pursuant to Art 21 of the civil code.

In article 28 of the civil code, unfair competition. Is the concept of unfair competition in
article 28 of the civil code the same as the concept of unfair competitionin IP Law? So,
kailangan ba ang patent? Kailangan ba ang copyright in order for unfair competition to
be committed? The SC ruled in the case of Willaware vs Jesichris Manufacturing
Corporation that the concept of unfair competition under article 28 of the civil code is
much broader than the concept of unfair competition in IP Law. In other words, there can
be a violation of unfair competition in Art 28 of civil code, even if the product or the
process has not been subjected to the protection of a patent. Sabi ng Korte Suprema,
hndi kailangan ng patent in order that unfair competition to be committed under the civil
code because the concept of unfair competition under the civil code is much broader
than the concept of unfair competition in IP Law. Under the civil code, art. 28, unfair
competition can be committed so long as 2 requisites : 1. There is an act causing injury
or losses to a competitor or to a trade rival. 2. Such act is contrary to good conscience,
shocking to judicial sense or otherwise unlawful. Mahaba yun baka makalimutan nyo.
Sabihin nyo na lang, the acts unlawful. So, there is injury to a competitor or trade rival
and the act which causes injury to a competitor is unlawful. Example, in the case of
Willaware, dalawang kompanya. Both engaged in the manufacture of plastic products,
kaya lang magkaiba ung plastic products nila. Si Willaware, and plastic product nya
sosyal. Ginagamit ung plastic products nya as spare parts of a car, kaya mas maganda
ang income ni Willaware compared to Jesichris?. Si Jesichris yung produkto nya jologs.
Yung plastic products nya for kitchenware item. Yan yung tabo, timba, planggana. Yun
yung produkto ni Jesichris? Kaya mejo naiinggit si Jesichris dun sa katabi nyang
kumpanya. Kaya ang ginagawa nya, lahat ng nagreresign sa Willaware kinukuha nya
and it was also actively pirating employees of the other company. Tapos inaalam nya
pano gumawa ng plastics that can be used as spare parts of a car. In time, napag aralan
ni Jesichris ung proseso kasi kinukuha nya ung knowledge ng dating empleyado ni
Willaware, to the point that Jesichris can now compete with Willaware. Yung binebenta
nyang spare parts ng car, Jesichris is selling it at much lower selling price compared to
Willaware. At hndi lang un, Jesichris also pirated some of the customers of Willaware.
So bottom line, Willaware suffered losses because of the acts of Jesichris.  Willaware
filed an action for damages against Jesichris for unfair competition under Art 28. Ang
depensa ni Jesichris: “eh hndi naman patented yung produkto mo, yung proseso mo, so
you are not entitled to recover damages.” Sabi ng Korte Suprema, hndi kailangan ang
patent in order for unfair competition to be committed under the provisions of Art 28
because the concept of unfair competition in Art 28 is much broader than the concept of
unfair competition in IPL. Unfair competition will be committed so long as 2 requisites will
be proven: 1. The act of Jesichris cause losses to Willware, and yes, it has proven that it
resulted losses to Willaware. 2. Such act is contrary to good conscience, shocking to the
judicial sensibilities or otherwise unlawful. So in that case, the SC hold Jesichri liable to
Willaware for unfair competition.
 
Let us go to civil personality. The concept of civil personality is important because civil
personality is synonymous to juridical capacity. Juridical capacity is defined as the
fitness to be the subject of legal relations. So civil personality is simply the aptitude to be
the recipient of rights or the purpose of incurring obligations. So ang tanong, are you
susceptible of acquiring rights or incurring obligation? The answer is yes if you are
possessing civil personality and that is the importance of that concept.

In our laws, there two kinds of persons, artificial and natural. I will not  bother myself in
artificial persons because that will be taken cared of by your Corporation Law. Let us
discuss the concept of natural person. In a natural person, what determins personality?
Art. 40. Birth determines personality. But the “birth” in Art 40 is qualified under Art 41. 
Nilinaw ng Art 41. Under Art 41, the determination of civil personality will depend on the
intrauterine life of the fetus. Kaya magsisimula tayo, if the intrauterine life of the fetus is
at least 7 months, nasa sinapupunan for at least 7 months, the same requirement of the
law is that at the time of complete delivery, the infant must be alive, no matter how short
that may be. So long as the intrauterine life if at least 7 months, and the infant was alive
when it was  completely delivered, then it was possessed with civil personality. Ano yung
tinatawag nating complete delivery? That is the separation of the infant from the
mother’s womb. So there will only be complete delivery after the cutting of the umbilical
cord. So if after cutting of the umbilical cord, the infant can breathe on its own, it is alive
at that time, then it is possessed of  civil personality. OTH, if the intrauterine life of the
fetus is less than 7 months, mas mahaba ang requirement ng batas. This time the law
requires the infant to be alive for atleast 24 hrs in order to be possessed with civil
personality. Otherwise, it will not be possessed with civil personality. These are the rules
for children who have been delivered out of the mother’s womb. But what about those
still inside the mother’s womb, yung tinatawag nating “conceived child?” Does the law
grant a conceived child a civil personality? The answer is yes but only for a limited
purpose. The law recognizes the existence of civil personality on the part of a conceived
child only for purposes that are beneficial to the conceived child. So for purposes
beneficial, yes, it has civil personality. But for purposes that are not beneficial to it, it has
no civil personality. Ganun lang kasimple. In order words, for purposes of acquiring
rights, it has a civil personality; but for purposes of incurring obligation, it does not exist
as yet. At the same time, the civil personality of the conceived child is merely provisional
or temporary. Bakit temporary? because later on, once it has been delivered, the
conditions required under Art. 41 are required to be satisfied. If not satisfied, then the
provisional personality that we earlier recognized will likewise be lost. It is as if the child
was never possessed by any personality, whether provisional or permanent. So, for
purposes of receiving rights a conceived child has a civil personality. What are those
rights that a conceived child is entitled to? 1. The right to be supported by the
progenitors. So even if the child is still inside the mother’s womb, it is already entitled to
legal support. It is already a “dependent” for puposes of legal support. 2. It can be the
recipient of a simple donation. Donations na no string attached, yung walang conditions.
For purposes of receiving donations, a conceived child has civil personality. 3. For
purposes of succession by operation of law. A conceived child is already a compulsory
heir, and a legal heir. Such that if a conceived child is omitted in the will of a parent, that
will amount to preterition, even if the conceived child will only be born after the death of
the testator. And likewise, a conceived child can be made a beneficiary in a life
insurance policy because that is beneficial to the interest of a conceived child. But the
issue of existence of civil personality on the part of the conceived child is only important
if the issue in the case is the right of the conceived child. Again, the issue of determining
the existence of civil personality on the part of the conceived child will only be important
if the issue in the case is the right of the conceived child. Stated otherwise, there is no
need to dwell the issue of civil personality of the conceived child if the legal question
does not involve the right of the conceived child but the right of the parents of the
conceived child.
 
Let us compare 2 cases. Isa  unborn case, where the wife commit abortion 3 times.
Kung naalala nyo ung kaso nay un. The 1st two abortions di nalaman ng husband, but
the  3rd abortion, the husband learned of the 3rd abortion. So after learning about the 3rd
abortion, the husband filed an action against the doctor for damages against the doctor
on the ground of the death of his child. If the recovery of damages is by reason of death
or physical injuries the right of action primarily belongs to the victim. But if the victim is
already death, the action may be exercised on his behalf by his heirs. So yung action ng
heirs will only be on behalf of the victim. In other words, the action to be filed by the heirs
is only a derivative action. So going back on that case, when the  father filed an action
for damages against the doctor on the ground of the death of the child, the right of action
actually pertains to the victim, to child. But can the child file that action? No because the
child was never possessed of civil personality. We recall that when he was taken out of
the mother’s womb it was already dead, it was aborted. And since the victim, the child,
cannot file the action himself because the child was not possessed of civil personality,
the father cannot likewise file the action on behalf of the child because the action filed by
the father is merely derivative. In that case there was a need to determine the civil
personality of the conceived child because the issue in that case is the right of the
conceived child to file the action. OTH, in the case of Continental Steel Manufacturing
Corporation vs Montaño, kung nabasa nyo yun, The issue in that case was the right of
the parents of the conceived child over the provisions of the CBA. In that case, the father
of the conceived child is a member of the union and the union has an existing CBA with
the employer. One of the provisions of the CBA was to the effect that in case of death of
a legitimate dependent of a union member, the union member is entitled to certain
financial assistance. One of the union members happened to have a pregnant wife but
when the wife was 6-month pregnant, the wife was forced to deliver the child. And at the
time of complete delivery, the child was already dead. Subsequently , the union member
applied for the financial assistance provided for in the CBA. But the employer refused to
pay the financial assistance on the ground that there was no death in the family member
of the union member. Ang argument ng employer was based on an erroneous
interpretation of Art 42 of the civil code. Ang sabi ng employer, death extinguishes civil
personality. So therefore, only those who were in possession of civil personality can die.
Nasusundan nyo yung argumento ng employer? Since ang sabi ng civil code death
extinguishes civil personality so yun lang may civil personality ang pwedeng mamatay.
That was the legal contention of the employer. Sabi ng Korte Suprema, maling
interpretasyon yun ng Art 42 of the civil code. Ang sabi lang ng civil code, death
extinguishes civil personality but the civil code did not require possession of civil
personality as a condition sine qua non for death. We do not have any law providing
definition for death because we know when death comes. Dali lang naman nun ano.
Example. Yang katabi mo. Sama ng tingin.hihi Ganun lang , death is simply the
cessation of life. So sa kaso ng Montaño ang tamang tanong, was the conceived child
possessed of life? And the cessation of life knowing of course result into death. So ang
tamang tanong, was the conceived child while in the mother’s womb, did he possess
life? The answer in that question is a resounding yes because even our Constitution
recognizes the existence of life from the moment of conception and the Constitution
seeks to guarantee and protect that life from the moment of conception. So our
Constitution recognizes the existence of life on the part of the conceived child so the
cessation of that life will result into death regardless of possession of civil personality.
Yung konsepto ng death is distinct and separate from the concept of civil personality.
The SC ruled in that case that there was death in the family of the union member, but
ang requirement ng CBA, the one who died must be a dependent of a union member.
Ang susunod na tanong, was the one who died, the conceived child, a dependent of the
union member? The answer to that question is a yes because one of the rights to which
a conceived child is entitled to is the right to be supported by the progeritors. So
therefore, it is a dependent of the parents. Last question, is the one who died a
legitimate dependent of the union member? And again the answer to that question is a
yes because ang sabi ng Art 164 of the FC, children conceived or born inside a valid
marriage are legitimate. So, if the conception will take place inside a valid marriage, the
status of legitimacy attaches from the moment of conception. May status na yung bata if
the conception took place inside a valid marriage. Legitimate nay un kahit na nasa loob
pa ng tyan ng nanay. So the provision of the CBA came into play. There was death of a
legitimate dependent of a union member. So therefore, according to the provisions of the
CBA, the union member is entitled to the financial assistance as provided for in the CBA.
And additionally, the SC said in that case, since the issue in that case is not the right of
the conceived child but the right of the parents of the conceived child, there was no need
in fact to dwell on the issue of the civil personality of the conceived child. There was no
need for the application of the provisions of Art 37 in relation to Art 40, 41, 42 of the civil
code. Kailangan lang yon, importante lang yun mga provisions na yun if the issue of the
case is the right of the conceived child.

Art 42. Simpleng probisyon. It says death extinguishes civil personality. So once you are
dead, you cannot anymore acquire rights. Example. If you are a beneficiary of the
insurance policy of the insured, in order for the beneficiary to be entitled of the proceeds
of the insurance, it is necessary that the beneficiary must still be living at the time of the
death of the insured because if the beneficiary dies ahead of the insured, death
extinguishes civil personality. So for that matter let us go to art. 43 of civil code.

In any question of survivorship, if the issue of survivorship is important, if there are 2

persons who died and it is important to determine who between them dies ahead or who
between them was the last to die. Bakit minsan importanteng alamin natin? Hindi ba
pwedeng pareho na lang silang patay? Bakit importanteng alamin pa sinong unang
namatay o huling namatay? Example if those 2 persons are heirs of each other,
tagapagmana sila ng isa’t isa, so in determining whether one inherited from the other, it
is important to determine who between them died ahead. Clear? Another example of
importance of the issue of survivorship. If the two persons who died are the insured and
the beneficiary in an insurance policy. Para masagot natin yung tanong: is the
beneficiary became entitled to the insurance proceeds, it is necessary that the
beneficiary survived the insured. In answering all those questions, if the issue of
survivorship is the question in your bar examination, two applicable laws Art 43 and the
presumption of survivorship under Rule 131 of the ROC. Tanong lang, kelan nyo
gagamitin ang Art 43 at kelan nyo gagamitin ang provision ng Rules of Court? Art 43 of
the civil code will be the applicable law in the issue of survivorship if the issue is
successional rights meaning the 2 persons who died and whose question of survivorship
is the issue, if they are heirs of each other and the legal question is did one inherit from
the other? To answer that question, the applicable law is Art 43 of the civil code. Ang
batas na gagamitin nyo ay Art 43 if the 2 persons are heirs of each other, and the
question is one of succession. Did one inherit from another. What are the rules under Art
43? 1. The one who alleges the death of another has the burden of proving the same. 2.
If it cannot be proven who died first, in the absence of proof who died first, the law thinks
that both of them died at the same time and there shall be no transmission of
successional rights from one to another. So ang sabi lang ng batas, if it cannot be
determined who died ahead, they both died at the same time and they will not inherit
from each other. There shall be no transmission of successional rights from one to the
other. Example, father and son, parehong may asawa. But si tatay lang ang may
properties, si tatay lang may kaya and yung anak is ____ no properties of his own. Wala
syang estate. So both of them boarded a ship which capsized and sank, and both the
father and the son died because of the incident. Magtatanong ngayon. The father-in-law
did not execute his will. Magtatanong yung ung survivor spouse nung the son. Can she
inherit any of the properties left by the father-in-law? In intestate succession, an
in-law, a child in-law, is not a legal heir of the father-in-law. So the only way by which the
surviving spouse of the son can be entitled to some of the properties left by the father-in-
law is when the son survived the father. In which case, the son inherited from the father
and that upon his death that those properties will form part of his estate that can be
inherited partly by the surviving spouse. So in determining whether the son inherited
from the father, the applicable law is Article 43. If the surviving spouse of the son will
claim that she’s entitled to some of the properties left by the father-in-law because her
spouse inherited from the father, then the surviving spouse of the son has the burden of
proving that the father-in-law died ahead of her husband. If she cannot prove that, the
law deems that both the father and the son died at the same time and that the son did
not inherit from the father. So nothing in turn can be inherited by his surviving spouse.
Palitan natin ang issue. This time, before the father boarded the ship, the father
procured an insurance policy. Dalawang policy nya. 5M in favor of the wife, yung wife
nya ginawa nyang beneficiary and another insurance policy, another 5M, when this time
the beneficiary is his son. The age of the son is 37, the age of the father is 65, when they
boarded the ship. The ship likewise sank and the 2 died. So here comes again the
widow of the son asking the question, is she entitled to the insurance proceeds in the
insurance contract of the father, where the father named her hudband as the
beneficiary? To answer that question it is important that the beneficiary must have
survived the insured. In determining who died ahead, we can no longer apply Art 43of
the civil code because the issue is no longer successional rights. This time the issue is
insurance. So the applicable law is Rule 131 of the Rules of Court. The presumption of
survivorship under the rules of court. Under the ROC, there are two ages na tatandaan
natin. One is below 15 and the other is over 60. Here are the rules: if the 2 persons are
both below 15, the older is deemed the survivor or the last to die. On the other hand, if
both of them are above 60, it is the younger who is deemed to be the survivor. If one is
either below 15 or over 60 and the other is between the ages 15 and 60, it is the latter
who is deemed to be the survivor. If one is below below 15 and the other is above 60, it
is the younger who is deemed to be the survivor. Lastly, if both of them are between the
ages 15 and 60, but the sexes be different, one is female and the other is male, it is the
male who is deemed to be the survivor. Applying those presumptions in our case, the
age of the son is 37, the age of the father is 65, so one of them is above 60 and the
other is between the ages of 15 and 60, so it is the son who is deemed to have died last.
So therefore, the beneficiary survived the insured. So therefore, the beneficiary became
entitled to the insurance proceeds of 5M. That upon his death that 5M will be his estate,
that in turn will be inherited by his heirs. Who are his heirs? His mother entiled to ½ of
his estate, 2.5M, and his surviving spouse entitled to the other half, 2.5M.

Let us have a 10 minute break before we discuss the family code. (END)