Assignment No. 3.

Sections 1A and 1E

MODULE 2 : FUNDAMENTALS OF LEGAL REASONING (syllabus)

I. Preliminaries
A. Logic
B. Role of Logic in Law
C. Propositions and Sentences
D. Arguments, Premises, and Conclusions
E. Recognizing an Argument

Case : [ G.R. No. 224307, August 06, 2018 ] THE MISSIONARY SISTERS OF OUR LADY OF FATIMA
(PEACH SISTERS OF LAGUNA), REPRESENTED BY REV. MOTHER MA. CONCEPCION R.
REALON, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. AMANDO V. ALZONA, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

Instructions: Read the case as published by the e-library of the Supreme Court.

Answer the following questions guided by the given syllabus and based on the assigned
case.

The answers must be brief but must show understanding of the role of logic in law, and
how logic is actually applied in decided cases.

Answers must be handwritten, scanned and emailed at sbcasol.sophia@gmail.com on or

before April 11, 2021

1. Is logic and reasoning the same?

No, they are not the same. Logic is described as the study of the principles and methods of good
reasoning. It is a science of reasoning which aims to determine and lay down the criteria of good
reasoning and bad reasoning. Logic is applied in drawing conclusions in a case. On the other hand,
reasoning is the capacity for consciously making sense of things, establishing and verifying facts,
applying logic. Reasoning can be discerned from the arguments in a case.

2. What are the specific laws involved in the case?

In the case, it involves a donation, specifically, Article 737 of the Civil Code on persons who may give or
receive a donation which provides that “the donor’s capacity shall be determined as of the time of the
making of the donation.” And Article 738, in relation to Article 745, of the Civil Code which provides that
all those who are not specifically disqualified by law may accept donations either personally or through
an authorized representative with a special power of attorney for the purpose or with a general and
sufficient power.” Doctrine of corporation by estoppel under Section 21 of the Corporation Code was
also mentioned in the case.
 3. If syllogism is defined as a form of logical reasoning that joins two or more premises to arrive at
a conclusion, what are the syllogisms used, if any, in arriving at the ruling of:
(a) The Regional Trial Court – For the ruling in trial court, the premises and conclusion are:

Petitioner was argued that it was not registered with SEC at the time the donation was made and
therefore has no juridical personality and cannot legally accept the donation.

At the time of the execution of the Deed, petitioner was a de facto corporation.

As such, Petitioner is a de facto corporation and has juridical personality to be a beneficiary and has
the power to acquire and possess property.

In this case, the syllogism in RTC’s decision is a categorical syllogism.

(b) The Court of Appeals

If petitioner is an unregistered corporation,

then petitioner cannot exercise the powers, rights, and privileges expressly granted by the Corporation
Code.

Petitioner cannot enter into a contract of Donation with Purificacion.

This is a conditional syllogism

(c) The Supreme Court

While the initial conveyance is defective, the genuine intent of Purificacion to donate the subject
properties in favor of the petitioner is indubitable.

Purificacion acted with full knowledge of circumstances of the Petitioner. This is evident from
Purificacion's acts.

Ultimately, the subsequent incorporation of the petitioner and its affirmation of Mother Concepcion’s
authority to accept on its behalf cured whatever defect that may have attended the acceptance of the
donation.

This is conjunctive syllogism.

4. In law, is it possible that the ruling of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court as well as the
Supreme Court, though different from each other, may all be correct?

When the Trial Court renders its judgment and the case has been brought for an appeal, the Court of
Appeals exercises its appellate jurisdiction over the case. If, after rendering a judgment, the case is
brought to the Supreme Court, the same will have to exercise its appellate jurisdiction. Both the Court of
Appeals and Supreme Court may only decide on the issue or issues raised in Trial Court. They may either
partially or wholly concur or disagree with the judgment.

5. What are the definitions invoked by the Supreme Court to support its rulings? Are these
definitions novel?
De facto corporation - one that possesses the requisite personality of the contract of donation
Doctrine of corporation by estoppel. In which case, the person who has contracted or otherwise dealt
with non-existent corporation is estopped to deny the latter’s legal existence in any action leadingout of
or involving such contract or dealing.

6. How essential is the correct definition of the concept of a de facto corporation in resolving the
issue of the case?

It is essential because only those who have filed articles of incorporation and were issued the certificate
of incorporation were considered as de facto corporation and only such corporation may accept
donation. In the case, the SC ruled that the petitioner is not a de facto government because the issuance
of the certificate of incorporation was 2 days after Purificacion executed a Deed of Donation.

7. What is Principle of equity? Principle of law? Which of them should prevail?

Equity is the principle by which substantial justice may be attained in cases where the prescribed or
customary forms of ordinary law are inadequate.

The rule of law is a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and
private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally
enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights
norms and standards.

The law should prevail. aequitas sequitur legem”, which means that equity will not allow a remedy that
is contrary to the law. This maxims lays down that equity supplements law and does not supersede it.
Wherever the law can be followed, it must be followed.

8. Within the context of the case how do you understand the phrase: The Court is both of law and
of justice. The Court's mission and purpose is to apply the law with justice.

The Court has the duty to uphold the law at all times. The Court is vested with power by the Constitution
to interpret and apply the laws, which can be discerned from Article 10 of the Civil Code of which
provides “In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking
body intended right and justice to prevail.”

In the case, the Supreme Court liberally decided to favor the petitioner. Although the law should prevail
equity, the laws are presumed to be just. The Supreme Court held that should it not allow the donation,
it will unjustly enrich the respondent and would defeat the good intent of Purificacion.

Please also read: CARLOS ALONZO and CASIMIRA ALONZO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and
TECLA PADUA, [G.R. No. L-72873. May 28, 1987.] Strictly not part of the assignment but for love of
wisdom and of law.