STUDY GUIDE (Articles 22-36, Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, NCC) 1

STUDY GUIDE: (Articles 22-36)

THE CIVIL CODE

PRELIMINARY TITLE
CHAPTER 2 – Human Relations (n)

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 latter without just or legal ground, shall
return the same to him.

1. Unjust Enrichment. – Article 22 embodies the maxim, Nemo ex alterius incommod, debet lecupletari (no man
ought to be made rich out of another’s injury).

The doctrine of unjust enrichment means that a person shall not be allowed to profit or enrich himself inequitably at
another’s expense. 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.

 Requisites. – The principle of unjust enrichment requires two (2) conditions:

(a) That a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and
(b) That such benefit is derived at the expense of another.

2. Accion in Rem Verso. – An action to recover what has been paid without just cause under this Article is known
as accion in rem verso.

 Requisites. – For the action to prosper, the following essential elements must be present:
(a) That the defendant has been enriched;
(b) That the plaintiff has suffered a loss;
(c) That the enrichment of the defendant is without just or legal ground; and
(d) That the plaintiff has no other action based on contract, quasi-contract, crime or quasi-delict.

 Distinguished from Solutio Indebiti. –

The principle of unjust enrichment is also expressed in another provision of the Civil Code, Article 2154 which
reads:
“Art. 2154. If something is received when there is no right to demand it, and it was unduly delivered through
mistake, the obligation to return it arises.”

The two elements of solutio indebiti are:

STUDY GUIDE (Articles 22-36, Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, NCC) 2

(a) a payment is made when there exists no binding relation between the payor, who has no duty to pay, and the
person who received the payment; and
(b) the payment is made through mistake and not through liberality or some other cause.

Mistake, therefore, is an essential element in solutio indebiti. But in accion in rem verso, it is not necessary that
there should have been mistake in the payment (e.g., payment under pressure or pursuant to an unlawful contract).

 Merely a subsidiary remedy. –

An accion in rem verso is considered merely an auxiliary action, available only when there is no other remedy on
contract, quasi-contract, crime, and quasi-delict. If there is an obtainable action under any other institution of positive
law, that action must be resorted to, and the principle of accion in rem verso will not lie. (Shinryo, Philippines,
Company, Inc. vs. RRN, Inc., G.R. No. 172525, October 20, 2010.)
3. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES:

(A) D owes C P100,000.00. On maturity date, D paid C the P100,000.00 and C issued D a receipt to
acknowledge the payment. Later on, when C asked D to pay his obligation again, D could not find the
receipt. Unable to prove that he had earlier already paid his obligation, D paid C the P100,000.00 again.
Subsequently, D found the missing receipt. Can he now get back what he had intentionally (but unwillingly)
paid? YES, in view of Article 22, which treats of an accion in rem verso.

(B) A contract for the sale of land was declared null and void after the buyer had already paid the purchase
price. May said buyer recover the price paid from the successors-in-interest of the seller? YES, because if
said successors could recover the land without being required to reimburse the buyer, they would be
enriching themselves unjustly at the expense of the buyer.

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 latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was
benefited.

1. Liability Without Fault or Negligence. – Article 23 recognizes liability without fault or negligence, even when the
event producing loss to others may be accidental or fortuitous, so long as another person is benefited through such
event or act.

2. Benefit as Basis for Liability under Article 23. – Article 23 likewise seeks to prevent unjust enrichment. It does
not require a person to be at fault or negligent to incur liability. Mere benefit under the conditions set by law is sufficient
to hold the person liable.

What is contemplated by Article 23 is an involuntary act or an act which though foreseen could not have been
avoided. An involuntary act, because its character cannot generally create an obligation; but when by such act its
author has been enriched, it is only just that he should indemnify for the damages causes, to the extent of his
enrichment.
STUDY GUIDE (Articles 22-36, Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, NCC) 3

3. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES:

(A) Without A’s knowledge, a flood drives his cattle to the cultivated highland of B. A’s cattle are saved, but B’s crop
is destroyed. True, A was not at fault, but he was benefited. It is but right and equitable that he should indemnify
B. (In this example, A will be the defendant, and B will be the plaintiff in a suit for damages.)

(B) A hears the rampaging waters of the river from upstream. Down the river are B’s ten carabaos each tied to a tree.
The flash flood is coming down fast. A frees the carabaos by cutting their ropes with his bolo. The carabaos
scamper to safety – in the nick of time, then walk leisurely to the cornfield of C and feast on the plants. C sues B
for damages. Is B liable to C for damages? YES, under Article 23. Although his carabao’s entry into the cornfield
is not through his fault or negligence, as it was A who freed the carabaos, B is benefited by the act of A and the
subsequent entry of the carabaos into the cornfield of C. His carabaos are safe and sound, and very full and
contented as well.

(C) A fire (due to an accident) broke out in Unit A of a row of townhouses. Unit B was destroyed to prevent the
spread of the fire to Units C and D. The owner of Unit B may ask for indemnity from the owners of Units C and D
who were benefited from the destruction of Unit B, even if the owners of Units C and D were not at fault for the fire
or for the destruction of Unit B.

ARTICLE 24. 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.

1. Legislative Intent of Article 24. – 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 doctrine
refers to the inherent power and authority of the state to provide protection to the person and property of a person non
sui juris (under legal disability). Under this doctrine, the State has the sovereign power of guardianship over persons
under disability.

2. Parens Patriae and Minors. - The state, as parens patriae, is under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm
to those, who, because of their minority, are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully. Those of tender years
deserve its utmost protection.

3. Parens Patriae and Labor. - Article 4 of the New Labor Code provides that “all doubts in the implementation
and interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations, shall be resolved in
favor of labor.

4. Parens Patriae and Contracts. - Article 1332 of the New Civil Code provides teeth to the principle enunciated in
Article 24. It states that when one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not understood by
him, and mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully
explained to the former.
 Sps. Tan vs. Mandap, G.R. No. 150925, May 27, 2004.
STUDY GUIDE (Articles 22-36, Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, NCC) 4

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.

1. Requisites. – The requisites for the filing of actions to stop thoughtless extravagance are:

(A) There is thoughtless extravagance (not mere extravagance) in expenses;

(B) The extravagance is for pleasure or display;
(C) There is a period of acute public want or emergency;
(D) The case for injunction is filed in court by a governmental institution or private charitable institution. A
private individual may not be a petitioner.

2. Reason for the law. – Thoughtless extravagance during emergencies may incite the passions of those who
cannot afford to spend. Feelings of envy and deprivation in the minds of the unprivileged will be inflamed if they see
and perceive extravagant indulgences in frivolities and ostentations in time of public want and need.

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.

1. The foregoing violations under Article 26 are not exclusive, but are merely examples and do not preclude other
similar or analogous acts. Thus, in Concepcion vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120706, January 31, 2000, 324 SCRA
85, the Supreme Court held:

“It is petitioner’s position that the act imputed to him does not constitute any of those enumerated in Arts. 26
and 2219. In this respect, the law is clear. The violations mentioned in the codal provisions are not exclusive
but are merely examples and do not preclude other similar or analogous acts. Damages therefore are allowable
for actions against a person’s dignity, such as profane, insulting, humiliating, scandalous or abusive language.
Under Article 2217 of the Civil Code, moral damages which include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury,
although incapable of pecuniary computation, may be recovered if they are the proximate result of the
defendant’s wrongful act or omission.”

 St. Louis Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-46061, November 14, 1984, 133 SCRA
179.
STUDY GUIDE (Articles 22-36, Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, NCC) 5

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 latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.

1. As a general rule, a public officer is not personally liable to one injured in consequence of an act performed
within the scope of his official authority, and in line with his official duty.

2. Article 27 excludes malfeasance and misfeasance, but covers only nonfeasance.

3. What are the requisites in order that an action under Article 27 will prosper?

(A) That the defendant be a public official charged with the performance of official duties;
(B) That there be a violation of an official duty in favor of an individual;
(C) That there be willfulness or negligence in the violation of such official duty; and
(D) That there be an injury to the individual.

 Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-54598, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 449.

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.

1. Concept. - Unfair competition 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 said result.

2. Under Article 28, 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.

3. Reason Behind Article 28. – Article 28 is intended to lay down a general principle outlawing unfair competition,
both among enterprises and among laborers. Unfair competition must be expressly denounced in this Chapter because
same tends to undermine free enterprise. While competition is necessary in a free enterprise, it must not be unfair.

4. True Test of Unfair Competition. – The true test of unfair competition is whether certain goods have been
intentionally clothed with an appearance which is likely to deceive the ordinary purchaser exercising ordinary care.

 Del Monte Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-78325, January 25, 1990, 181 SCRA 410.
STUDY GUIDE (Articles 22-36, Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, NCC) 6

ARTICLE 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted 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
instituted. Such action requires 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.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare.
In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the
acquittal is due to that ground.

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.

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 latter.

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 latter 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 be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures;
(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 free from involuntary servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
STUDY GUIDE (Articles 22-36, Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, NCC) 7

(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 attendance of witnesses 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 constitute 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
latter 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.

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.

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.

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 committed, or the prosecuting attorney
refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complainant 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 attorney,
the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings.
STUDY GUIDE (Articles 22-36, Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, NCC) 8

 A compressed discussion of the points of law enunciated in Articles

29-35. 

 The five sources of civil liability. (Art. 1157, NCC) – The civil obligation or liability of a person can arise from any of
the following sources:

(a) Law – Example: The obligation of a person to pay his taxes is directed by the provisions of the National Internal
Revenue Code. The source of this civil liability is then our tax laws.

(b) Contracts – Example: Under a lease contract, the landowner is obliged to give the possession of his property
to the tenant, who in turn has the obligation to pay to the landowner his monthly rentals. Here, the source of the
respective obligations of the parties is their contract or lease agreement.
(c) Quasi-contract – Example: A kind stranger took care of your dog for a week when it got lost in the park. When
the stranger returned the dog, he was asking you to reimburse him all expenses he incurred for the dog while it was
under his care. Even if you did not agree to those expenses because you did not enter into a contract with the stranger,
you will be obliged to pay the stranger such expenses. This is because you benefited from those expenses. This
juridical relation seeks to prevent unjust enrichment on the part of the party who benefited.

(d) Crime or Delict. – A person who commits a crime becomes civilly liable in the form of damages, in addition to
his criminal liability in the form of imprisonment. Hence, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.

(e) Quasi-Delict or Tort or Culpa Aquiliana or Culpa Extra-contractual. – This is the civil liability arising from a
person’s act of negligence. In this juridical relation, there is no contract between the parties. Moreover, unlike in a civil
obligation arising from crime, there is here damage to the offended party, but there was no intention to cause damage
on the part of the offending party.

 Every person criminally liable for a crime becomes also civilly liable. (Art. 100, RPC)
 Examples:
1. If you are convicted of the crime of theft of a carabao, not only will you go to prison to serve your sentence (THIS IS
THE CRIMINAL LIABILITY), but you will also be directed by the court to pay damages which, among others, will
include the return of the carabao to its owner, or the payment of its value if it has already been lost (THIS IS THE
CIVIL LIABILITY).
2. If you kill a person, you will be convicted of homicide or murder, and will also be made to pay moral damages (and
other kinds of damages proven by the offended party in court) to the spouse or other surviving heirs of the victim.

 Rule of Implied Institution of the Civil Action in the Criminal Action. –

 When a criminal action is filed in court, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged (WHAT IS REFERRED TO IS CIVIL LIABILITY SOURCED FROM CRIME OR DELICT) is automatically
deemed instituted with the criminal action.
STUDY GUIDE (Articles 22-36, Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, NCC) 9

 Example: In the example above, if a criminal case for theft of a carabao is filed against the accused, not only will the
criminal court rule on his criminal liability, but the court will also make a judgment as to his (the accused) civil liability
to the offended party (owner of the carabao, and private complainant in the criminal case).

 What are the exceptions to the rule on implied institution? In other words, when will the civil case for recovery of
civil liability ex delicto (arising from the crime) NOT be included or impliedly instituted in the criminal action?

(A) When the offended party waives the civil action , i.e., the offended party makes a waiver stating his intention not
to recover civil liability anymore.

(B) When the offended party reserves the right to institute the civil action in a venue separate from the court where
the criminal action is pending.

 Here, the offended party has to inform the judge of the court hearing the criminal case that he will be filing a
separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from the crime; hence, the criminal court does not need to make a
judgment on the civil aspect of the case. The offended party must, however, notify the criminal court of such intention
BEFORE the prosecution (lawyer for the government and private complainant) starts presenting its evidence in the
criminal case.

 The offended party, however, cannot file the separate civil action to recover civil liability arising from the
crime, unless there is final judgment in the criminal case convicting the accused of the crime charged.

 Example: In the same example above, assume that the owner of the carabao (the private complainant) reserved his
right to file a separate civil action before the criminal court. Under such case, the private complainant has to wait before
there is a final judgment in the criminal case for theft before he can file a civil case for recovery of civil liability ex delicto
from the accused. This is because if the criminal court finds that the accused did not commit the act complained of, the
offended party will have no basis for recovering civil liability ex delicto.

(C) When the offended party institutes or files the civil action ahead of the criminal action.
 When the offended party files a civil action against the accused to recover civil liability ex delicto BEFORE
the criminal action is filed in the criminal court, only preponderance of evidence is needed to prove the act complained
of as basis for civil liability. (Article 30, NCC.)
 However, if during the pendency of the civil action filed by the offended party, an information is filed by the
prosecution in the criminal court charging the accused of the same act complained of, the civil action will have to be
suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings. If the accused is convicted, only then will the civil action be
allowed to continue to recover civil liability ex delicto from the offender. This is because if the accused is not guilty of
committing the act complained of, there can be no basis for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto. (Article 35, NCC.)

 The rule, therefore, is that civil liability ex delicto can be recovered from the offender
ONLY if he is convicted. Does it mean that there will be no basis for the offended party
to recover civil liability ex delicto if the offender is acquitted?
Answer: It depends on the nature of the acquittal.
STUDY GUIDE (Articles 22-36, Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, NCC) 10

 If the accused is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the
offended party can still recover civil liability ex delicto. (Article 29, par. 1, NCC.) The basis for acquittal must be stated
by the court in the body or text of its decision. (Article 29, par. 2, NCC.)
 REASON: The civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal where the acquittal is based on reasonable
doubt, because only preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases.

 Example: A was charged with the theft of B’s carabao. After due proceedings in the criminal case, A was
acquitted on the ground that while it was established that A took the carabao without B’s knowledge and consent, the
element of intent to gain on the part of A was not adequately proven by the prosecution. Hence, A was acquitted on the
ground that his guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore,
(a) If the civil aspect of the case was impliedly instituted in the criminal action, the judge, despite A’s acquittal can
still render judgment holding A liable to B for the return of the carabao, or its value, if it has already been lost.
(b) If B had earlier reserved his right to file a separate civil action, despite the acquittal, he can still file a civil case
to recover A’s civil liability ex delicto. All that B needs to do is to prove by preponderance of evidence his right
to recover civil lilability.

 However, civil liability ex delicto can no longer be recovered if there is a finding in the judgment of the court in the
criminal case that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. (Section 2, Rule 111, Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure.)

 REASON: If it is proven in the criminal proceedings that the act complained of was never committed by
the accused, then there can be no legal basis for civil liability.
 Example: In the same example above, assume that the basis for A’s acquittal was the fact that it was not A
who took the carabao of B, but another person wearing the same shirt that A was wearing when the crime was
committed. In this case, it was proven that A’s act of unlawfully taking B’s carabao did not in fact exist. Hence, there
can be no basis to hold A liable civilly for damages.

 “Proof beyond reasonable doubt” distinguished from “preponderance of evidence”. –

 “Proof beyond reasonable doubt” is the decree of proof required in convicting the accused in a criminal case. On
the other hand, in a civil case, the party who has the “preponderance of evidence” wins in the case.

 It is clear that the degree of proof required in criminal cases is weightier than that required in civil cases.

 Hence, in criminal cases, if one of the elements of a crime as defined under the Revised Penal Code (RPC)
is not adequately proven, even if the evidence for the defense is weak, the respondent (accused in the case) will be
acquitted by the criminal court.
 In civil cases, however, the court merely weighs the evidence of the plaintiff (the complainant) and the
defendant. The court then rules in favor of the party who has the preponderance of evidence (that whose evidence is
more convincing or weightier).
STUDY GUIDE (Articles 22-36, Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, NCC) 11

 Civil liability arising from crime distinguished from civil liability arising from tort. –

There are instances when the same act or omission of the defendant can result in two different sources of civil
liability – one arising from a crime, and one arising from tort.

 Example: An overspeeding driver runs over a child crossing the pedestrian lane along Legarda. The child died as a
result of the mishap. The family of the victim here can recover civil liability arising from two different sources :

(1) The family of the victim can file a criminal case for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The criminal
action is based on the negligent act of the driver, which resulted in damage, or the death of the child. A criminal action
for homicide cannot be filed because there was no intent to kill the child on the part of the driver. If the driver is found
guilty of criminal negligence, he will be adjudged by the court liable also for civil liability ex delicto in the form of
damages to be paid to the family of the child.

(2) The family of the victim can also, at the same time, file another action to recover civil liability arising from quasi-
delict or tort, which is a different source of civil liability under Article 1157 of the Civil Code. (Article 31, NCC)

Both actions, being entirely different, can proceed independently of each other. If the accused is acquitted in the
criminal case, this will not prevent the family of the victim from recovering civil liability arising from quasi-delict.

 Assume that the court in the criminal case convicts the accused of the crime charged, and consequently
awards damages to the family of the victim. In addition, the court hearing the victim’s right to recover civil liability arising
from quasi-delict also rules in favor of the victim, and awards damages to the family of the child. Under the
circumstances, even if the offended party is given by law the right to file two separate actions to recover civil liability
arising from independent sources, the offended party cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the
accused. He can recover only once and choose from either actions.

 What are independent civil actions?

 In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code, an independent civil action may be brought by
the offended party.

 They are called independent civil actions because they can proceed independently of the criminal action, and shall
require only a preponderance of evidence. Hence, even if the acts or omissions enumerated from Articles 32, 33 and
34 constitute a crime, the offended party does not need to reserve his right to institute the civil action separately. He
can immediately file a civil action to recover civil liability ex delicto, without waiting for the proceedings in the criminal
action to be terminated, and regardless of the result of the criminal action – i.e., whether the accused is convicted or
acquitted.

 ART. 32. – Any public officer or employee, or even a private individual, who violates any of the constitutional
liberties of a person can be held civilly liable for damages, whether or not the defendant’s act or omission constitutes a
criminal offense.
STUDY GUIDE (Articles 22-36, Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, NCC) 12

 Note, however, that under the last paragraph of Article 32, civil liability cannot be demanded from a judge,
unless his act or omission constitutes a criminal offense.

 ART. 33. – Under Article 33, the term “physical injuries” should be understood to mean bodily harm, not the
crime of physical injuries as defined under the Revised Penal Code. Hence, a civil action to recover civil liability under
this article may be filed whether the offense committed is that of physical injuries or frustrated homicide, or attempted
homicide, or even death (homicide or murder).

ARTICLE 36. Prejudicial 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.

 A prejudicial question is one which must be decided first before a criminal action may be instituted or may
proceed, because a decision therein is vital to the judgment in the criminal case.

 Example 1: A was lawfully married to B. At the point of a gun, A was threatened if he would not marry C. So
A married C. Out of jealousy, B asked the fiscal to file bigamy charges against A, who had in the meantime asked that
the second marriage be annulled in view of the intimidation committed on him. Should the criminal action proceed at
once?
ANSWER : NO, for the decision in the civil case for annulment would affect A’s criminal liability for bigamy, and this
therefore is a prejudicial question. (See Paras)

 Example 2: A was forced to marry B. A then sued for annulment. During the pendency of the case, A married
C. When C learned of the first marriage, C complained to the fiscal who now sued A for bigamy. A alleges that the
pendency of the annulment proceedings is a prejudicial question. Is he correct?
ANSWER : A is wrong because the decision in the annulment case is not important. The first marriage will be
either annulled or not. If not annulled, bigamy can prosper; if annulled, still bigamy can prosper, for when he married
the second time, he was still married to his first wife. A marriage, even if voidable or annullable, is considered valid until
it is annulled. (See Paras)

 What are the elements of a prejudicial question?

 Beltran vs. People, G.R. No. 137567, June 20, 2000. The Supreme Court in this case ruled that a petition
for declaration of nullity of marriage is not a prejudicial question to a subsequent case for concubinage filed by the other
spouse. Read the legal basis for the court’s ruling in this case.

END OF THE TOPIC REMINDERS:

STUDY GUIDE (Articles 22-36, Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, NCC) 13

1. Study and master the principles under each topic.

2. When a case is required in this study guide to be read in its original text , be ready to recite the case or to prepare a
case digest thereof in our activities in class.

SOURCES OF NOTES:

The discussions outlined in this study guide have been collectively lifted from the references listed
in your course syllabus.

*** END ***

When you get into a tight place and everything goes against you, till it seems as though you could not
hang on a minute longer, never give up then, for that is just the place and time that the tide will turn.
Harriet Beecher Stowe

HRL*18Nov2014