PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

I.     General Principles

Definition of Laws (as defined by Sanchez Roman)

Law, in its general sense (derecho), is defined as the science of moral laws
based on the rational nature of man, which governs his free activity for the realization
of his individual and social ends, and which by its very nature is demandable and
reciprocal. (1 Sanchez Roman 3). In its specific sense (ley), it is defined as a rule of
conduct, just, obligatory, promulgated by legitimate authority, and of common
observance and benefit. (Ibid.).

Sanchez Roman defines it as “a rule of conduct, just, obligatory, promulgated

by the competent authority for the common good of a people or nation, which
constitutes an obligatory rule of conduct for all its members.”

Classification of Laws According to the Manner of Promulgation

Classification of Human Positive Law

(a) According to whether a right is given, or merely the procedure for

enforcement is laid down: 

1) Substantive law
- that which establishes rights and duties. (See Bustos v. Lucero, 81 Phil. 640). 

2) Remedial (or procedural or adjective) law

- that which prescribes the manner of enforcing legal rights and claims. 

(b) According to the scope or content of the law: 

1) Private law 
- that which regulates the relations of the members of a community with one
another. (This consists of Civil and Commercial Laws.) 

2) Public law 
- that which governs the relations of the individual with the State or ruler or
community as a whole. (This includes Political Law, Criminal or Penal Law, and
Remedial Law.) 

(c) According to force or effect: 

1) Mandatory (absolute, imperative) and/or Prohibitive laws

- those which have to be complied with, because they are expressive of public
policy: disobedience is punished either by direct penalties or by considering an
act or contract void. [Examples: a transfer of large cattle is not valid unless
registered (Sec. 33, Act 1147); a donation of real property must be in a public
instrument to be valid even as between the parties. (Art. 749, Civil Code).] 

2) Permissive (or suppletory) laws

 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

- those which may be deviated from, if the individual so desires. [Example: In the
case of “hidden treasure,’’ the fi nder gets 50% and the owner of the land on
which it is found gets 50%. (See Art. 438). However, by agreement, the proportion
can be changed.] 

Definition of Civil Law

(a) It is that branch of the law that generally treats of the personal and family relations
of an individual, his property and successional rights, and the effects of his obligations
and contracts. 

(b) It is that mass of precepts that determine and regulate the relations of assistance,
authority, and obedience among members of a family, and those which exist among
members of a society for the protection of private interests (1 Sanchez Roman,
Estudios de Derecho Civil, p. 70 citing Arribas), family relations, and property rights.
(1 Falcon 9). 

[NOTE: The word “civil’’ is derived from the Latin word “civiles,’’ a citizen, as
distinguished from a savage or a barbarian. Originally, the word pertained to a
member of a “civitas’’ or free political community. (Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 331)]. 

Civil Law v. Civil Code

Concept of Civil Law. 

Civil law is defined as the mass of precepts which determines and regulates
those relations of assistance, authority and obedience existing among members of a
family as well as among members of a society for the protection of private interests. (1
Sanchez Roman 70). 

Concept of Civil Code. 

A Civil Code is defined as a collection of laws, which regulates the private

relations of the members of civil society, determining the respective rights and
obligations, with reference to persons, things and civil acts. (1 Tolentino, Civil Code, p.
10, 1974 ed.).
 
II.     Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386)
 
A.    Preliminary Considerations
 
Sources of the Civil Code

The sources of the Civil Code of the Philippines are the following: 

1.) Civil Code of Spain of 1889; 

2.) Codes and laws of other countries, such as Spain, the various States of the
United States of America, like California and Louisiana, France, Argentina,
Mexico, Switzerland, England and Italy; 
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

3.) Judicial decisions of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, of the U.S.A.,
Spain and other countries; 
4.) Philippine laws or statutes such as the Code of Civil Procedure (Act No. 190),
the Rules of Court, the Marriage Law (Act No. 3613), The Divorce Law (Act No.
2710), the Family Code (E.O. No. 229, as amended by E.O. No. 227), and the
Inter-Country Adoption Law (R.A. No. 8043); 
5.) Works of jurists and commentators of various nations; 
6.) Filipino customs and traditions; and 
7.) The Code Commission itself. (See: Report of the Code Commission, pp. 2-3).

Books of the Civil Code

(a) Book I - Persons (Note - Book I is called “Persons’’ instead of “Persons and Family
Relations” because juridical persons such as corporations, which are likewise referred
to in Book I, have NO families.) 

(b) Book II - Property, Ownership, and its Modifications 

(c) Book III - Different Modes of Acquiring Ownership 

(d) Book IV - Obligations and Contracts: 

Other Parts: 

1) Preliminary Title
2) Human Relations 
3) Transitional Provisions 
4) Repealing Clause

Code Commission

A.    Preliminary Title: Effect and Application of Laws

Article 2

Art. 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their
publication the official Gazette, or in a newspaper of general circulation, unless it is
otherwise provided. This Code shall take effect one year after such publication. (As
amended by Executive Order No. 200 dated June 18, 1987).

 Executive Order 200

PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION OF LAWS EITHER IN THE OFFICIAL
GAZETTE OR IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE
PHILIPPINES AS A REQUIREMENT FOR THEIR EFFECTIVITY
 All laws inconsistent with this Executive Order should be repealed or
modified accordingly. 
 This requires all laws to be filed either in Official Gazette and in a
newspaper of general circulation before that law takes effect. 
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

 Section 3, Chapter 2, Book VII of the Administrative Code of 1987

 Every agency shall file with the University of the Philippines Law Center
(Or ONAR) three (3) certified copies of the rule they adopted. If the rules
adopted are not published within three (3) months from that date shall
not be the basis of any sanction against any party or persons. 
 The record officer of the agency, or his equivalent functionary, has to
perform and carry out the requirement of this section under pain of
disciplinary action. 
 A permanent register of all rules shall be kept by the issuing agency and
shall be open to public inspection.

 Lara v. del Rosario, G.R. 6339, April 20, 1954

 Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915, April 24, 1985
 Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. 63915, Dec. 29, 1986
 Republic of the Philippines v. Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corp, G.R. No.
173918, 550 SCRA 680 (2008)
o The Office of the Energy Affairs, DOE now, informed the respondent of
the Oil Price Stabilisation Fund, to minimise frequent charges. 
o Ministry of Finance of Department of Finance issued and imposed
pursuant to MOF Circular no. 1-85, amended as Department of FInance
Circular no. 2-94. 
o However, the amendments were not published before the Office of the
National Administrative Register. Hence, Circular no. 2-94 is null and
void. 

 Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. v. Military Shrine Services,

G.R. No. 187587, June 5, 2013

Article 3
Art. 3. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
 This provision only applies to mandatory and prohibitory laws
(compulsory applied to all), not to permissive and directory laws. 

Art. 3 can  be applied to foreigners: 

1. Foreigners who sojourn in the Philippines. 
2. Penal laws
These two requirements must be read in conjunction. However, Civil Code of
the Philippines is not applicable to Foreigners. 

Processual Presumption
 The doctrine presumed that foreign law is the same as domestic law. 

 Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915, April 24, 1985

 Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. 63915, Dec. 29, 1986
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

 Consunji v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137873, April 20, 2001

o Ignorantia Facti Excusat or ignorance of facts is an excuse. 
o Juego was unaware of the contributory negligence of the DMCI that
caused her husband's instantaneous death. Upon learning this to the
resolution of prosecution, she immediately filed a civil case against
Consunji. 
 

Article 4

Art. 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. 
General Rule: Laws are prospective. 
Exception: 
1. Favourable to the accused 
2. The accused is not habitual 
3. Remedial/Procedural in nature 
4. Law is curative
5. Substantive Law
6. Emergency Laws
7. Tax Laws
8. Interpretative Laws
Exceptions to the Exceptions:
1. Impairs obligation contract
2. Ex Post Facto Law
 If the law imposes greater penalty or punishment. 
 Criminalizing conduct that was legal when originally
performed.

 Co vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100776, October 28, 1993

o In this case, Albino Co issued the bouncing check on 1 September 1983.
o In 1981, Ministry of Justice Circular no. 4 was issued, and this provides
that the issuance of bouncing checks is not considered a violation of
Estafa nor BP Blg 22. However, this was reversed in the MOJ Circular
no. 12 on 8 August 1984.
o Issue: Whether or not Co shall be criminally liable for issuing bouncing
cheque pursuant to Ministry of Justice Circular no. 12. 
o Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that pursuant to Article 4 of the Civil
Code of the Philippines, laws shall have no retroactive effect or
application.  In the case at bar, Co issued the bouncing check prior to the
existence of the Circular no. 12 that criminalises the said act. Hence, he
shall be exonerated. 

 Columbia Pictures vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110318, August 28, 1996
o Search warrant took place in 1987 against the Private Respondent,
Sunshine Home Video. 
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

o The jurisprudence of 20th Century Fox vs Court of Appeals was issued in

1988, and this provides that master tape is necessary in determining if
there is copyright infringement. 
o Issue: Whether or not the ruling in 20th Century Fox shall be applied in
the present case. 
o Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the new doctrine should be
applied prospectively and should not apply to parties who relied on the old
doctrine and acted in good faith. In the case at bar, the search warrant
came into existence before the ruling of the 20th Century fox. Hence, the
present case will not be governed by the new rulings and the same will be
applied prospectively. In addition, since this requirement is only a new
requirement, it will be an injustice if it was implemented retroactively. 

 People vs. Derilo, G.R. No. 117818, April 18, 1997

o In 1982, Derilo committed a murder. Subsequently, in 1986, he was
charged with murder by band. At the time of the commission of the
felony, the sentence was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
death. 
o However, in December 1993, RA 7659 took effect that imposes a heavier
penalty to murder, from Reclusion Temporal to Recusion Perpetua to
death. 
o Issue: Whether or not the penalty of capital punishment imposed under
RA 7659 can be carried out.
o Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the general rule is that laws are
prospective. One of the exceptions is the law can be applied retroactively if
it is favourable to the accused. However, RA 7659 is Ex Post Facto Law. In
the case at bar, RA 7659, Ex Post Facto Law, cannot be applied since it
imposes a greater penalty to Derillo, from the Reclusion Temporal as the
original sentence to Reclusion Perpetua to Death pursuant to 7659. 

 Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vs. COA, G.R.
No. 169752, September 25, 2007
o Philippine Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was created in
1905 by legislation. At the time of the creation of PSPCA, there was no
Corporation Law nor Securities and Exchange Commission that would
govern private entities. 
o Commission of Audit visited PSPCA and insisted that the former will
audit the latter as PSPCA is a government agency. 
o Issue: Whether or not PSPCA qualifies as a government agency that it may
be subject to the audit of COA
o Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that pursuant to Article 4 of the Civil
Code, state laws shall have no retroactive effect. In the case at bar, since
PSPCA was enacted prior to the Charter Test, which was created by 1935
Constitution, and Corporation Law, which came into existence in 1906.
Thereby, the Charter Test and Corporation law will not apply to PSPCA. 

 
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

 Curata vs. Philippine Ports Authority, G.R. No. 154211-12, June 22, 2009
o In 1989, Executive Order no. 385 delineated BPZ and placed it under
PPA. for its proper zoning planning, development, and utilization.
Pursuant thereto, 185 lots were expropriated. 
o On May 15, 2002, the trial court directed PPA to release 10% of the zonal
value deposited to the lot owners, pursuant to AO 50, including the Cruz
Group.
o The Cruz group contends that provisional payment should be 100% of
the zonal value pursuant to Sec. 4 RA 8974.
o PPA avers that RA 8974 is actually a substantive law that cannot be
given retroactive effect and that AO 50 should apply.
o Issue: Whether or not RA8974 may be given a retroactive application.
o Ruling: The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Velasco, held that
no it cannot be given a retroactive application. Because, pursuant to Art. 4
of the CC “laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is
provided.” In the case at bar, the RA 8974 was enacted on 2000 as
opposed to the AO 50 which was enacted in 1999.
o Moreover, Substantive laws cannot be given retroactive effect as it creates
new rights. 

 In Re: Petition for the Assistance in the Liquidation of Intercity Savings

and Loan Bank, PDIC vs. Stockholders of Intercity Savings and Loan Bank,
GR No. 181556, December 14, 2009
o In 1987, PDIC filed a petition for assistance in the liquidation of Intercity
Bank.
o In 2004, RA 9302 was enacted. 
o In 2005, PDIC filed  a motion for approval of final distribution of assets
and termination of the liquidation proceedings. 
o Issue: Whether or not RA 9302 may be applied retroactively in this case. 
o Ruling:  No. The Supreme Court ruled that pursuant to Article 4, laws
shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. They
being the formulation of rules for the future, not the past. Hence, the legal
maxim “lex de futuro judex de praeterito” the law provides for the future,
the judge for the past. In the case at bar, PDIC initially filed its petition in
1985. Therefore, PDIC cannot rely on RA 9302 since the law was enacted
after its initial petition. 

 Eastern Mediterranean Maritime vs. Surio, G.R. No. 154213, August 23,
2012
o EMM filed a petition for Certiorari and Mandamus against NLRC for not
taking cognizance of the case decided by POEA. 
o During the pendency of the EMM case in POEA, RA 8042 was enacted.
Since there is no law that governs such a case, RA 8042 retroactively
applies, since that law is procedural in nature. 
o Issue: Whether or not RA 8042 shall apply retroactively.
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

o Ruling: Yes. The Court ruled that laws shall have no retroactive effect,
unless it is provided, in accordance with Article 4. One of the exception of
the Article 4 is if the law is procedural law, that can apply retroactively. In
the case at bar, RA 8042 is procedural in nature. Hence, RA 8042 can
apply retroactively. In addition, in the case of De Los Santos vs. De
Mangubat, it provides that statutes may be given retroactive effect on
actions pending and undetermined at the time of passage and this will not
violate any rights as there are no vested rights in rules of procedure. 

 Dacudao vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 188056, January 8, 2013

o Dacudao et al filed a direct petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and
Mandamus against the issuance of DOJ Order no. 182 in violation of
Article 4 of Civil Code. 
o Issue: Whether or not DOJ no. 182 shall apply retroactively in the present
case. 
o Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that pursuant to Article 4 of the
Civil Code, laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless it is provided.
Exception to the general rule, laws can apply retroactively if it is
procedural in nature. In the case at bar, DO no. 182 shall apply
retroactively as one of the exception exist in the case, DO no 182 is being
procedural or remedial in nature.  
o Statutes that regulate the procedure of the courts will be construed as
applicable to pending and undermined cases at the time of its passage. All
procedural laws are retroactive and not violative of any right of a person
as there is no vested rights attached in procedural law. Procedural law is
just a furtherance of law or the confirmation of already existing rights. 
 
Article 5
Art. 5 Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be
void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity.
General Rule: Acts which are contrary to mandatory or prohibited laws are void.
Exceptions:
1. When the law itself authorized its validity (i.e., lotto, sweepstakes)
2. When the law makes the act only voidable and not void (i.e., if consent is
vitiated, the contract is voidable and not void)
3. When the law makes the act valid but punishes the violator (i.e., if the
marriage is celebrated by someone without legal authority but the parties
are in good faith, the marriage is valid but the person who married the
parties is liable)
4. When the law makes the act void but recognizes legal effects flowing
therefrom (i.e., Articles 1412 & 1413)
Prohibitory Laws are those which contain positive prohibitions. 
Kinds of Mandatory Laws: 
1. Positive Laws - When something must be done.
2. Negative or Prohibitory Laws - When something should not be done. 
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

 Brehm v. Republic, G.R. No. L-18566, September 30, 1963

o Gilbert R. Brehm, an American citizen serving the U.S. Navy with
temporary assignment at Subic Bay married Ester Mira, a Filipina
citizen, who had a daughter named Elizabeth. After their marriage, the
spouses established residence at Intramuros and ever since, Elizabeth
had been under their care and support.
o Gilbert Brehm filed a petition before the Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Court (JDRC) for adopting his step child.
o Oppositions aver that Art. 335 does not apply in the case, reasoning out
that it covers only adoptions for the purpose of establishing a
relationship of paternity and filiation, where none existed, but not where
the adopting parents are not total strangers to said child.
o ISSUE: Whether or not non-resident aliens are qualified to adopt
o Ruling: No. Article 335 of the Civil code provides that non-resident aliens
cannot adopt. This provision is mandatory because it contains words of
positive prohibition and is couched in the negative terms importing that the
act required shall not be done otherwise designated.

 Nerwin v. PNOC. G.R. No. 167057, April 11, 2012

o

 
Article 6

Art. 6 Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public policy,
morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognised by
law. 
General Rule: Rights may be waived
Exception: 
1. Unless the waiver is contrary to law, public policy, morals or good
customs. 
2. When the waiver is prejudicial to a third person with a right recognised by
law.  

Requisite for a Valid Waiver:

1. Full Capacity of right
2. The waiver must be made clearly, but not neccerassily express
3. Right must exist at the time of waiver
4. Not contrary to law, public policy, morals or good customs
5. If there is formalities, that shall apply. 

Examples of the Rights that cannot be renounced: 

1. Natural rights, such as right to life
2. Alleged rights which really do not yet exist (Ex. Future inheritance)
3. Those renunciation of which would infringe upon public policy
4. When the waiver is prejudicial to a third person with a right recognised by
law
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

 Arrieta v. National Rice and Corn Corporation, G.R. No. L-15645, January
31, 1964
o Arrieta won as the lowest bidder conducted by NARIC for the supply of
20000 tons of Burmese rice. Arrieta paid 5% deposit as advance
payment, the remaining will be paid by NARIC. 
o However, NARIC was not able to pay. 
o Since NARIC was not able to pay, Arrieta offered Thailand rice instead. 
o NARIC avers that Arrieta’s offer to substitute Thailand rice for the
originally contracted Burmese rice amounted to a waiver of whatever
rights she might have derived from the breach of the contract. 
o ISSUE: WON Arrieta’s offer to substitute Thailand rice constituted a
waiver to the rights she would derive from the breach of contract.
o Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that Waivers are not presumed,
but must be clearly and convincingly shown, either by express stipulation
or acts admitting no other reasonable explanation (Arrieta vs. National
Rice and Corn Corporation, 10 SCRA 79).

 Castro v. Del Rosario, G.R. No. L-17915, January 31, 1967

o The Petition of Quo Warranto, Certiorari, and Mandamus was filed to
assail the appointment of the respondents and appellants, especially, the
appointment of Tomas C. Toledo on the grounds of Section 23 of
Republic Act No. 2260, that Del Rosario himself should be the one
considered for Toledo’s position.
o The Petitioner Castro filed the present petition to annul the appointment
and be declared entitled to the position as the eight other Assistant
Revenue Regional Director waived their rights to the position for failure
to complain against Toledo’s appointment.
o Issue: Whether or not the Petitioner Castro can waive the rights of other
Assistant Revenue Regional Director for failure to contest Toledo’s
appointment and assumed to be the next qualified employee for the
disputed position.
o Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that Waiver is the intentional
relinquishment of a known right (Castro vs. Del Rosario, 19 SCRA 196).
The silence of the eight other Assistant Revenue Regional Directors do not
amount to waiver on their part because waiver must be predicated on
more concrete grounds.

 San Miguel v. Cruz, G.R. No. L-27828, February 27, 1970

o Cruz was advised of the company’s decision to retire him from the service
for physical disability, effective 31 March 1958 as he was seen in the
news paper staging strike against San Miguel. 
o Cruz received full and complete payment of all his retirement benefits.
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

o Three years later, Cruz charged the San Miguel Company before the
Court of Industrial Relations with unfair labor practices for his dismissal
in 1958, allegedly for union activities.
o Issue: Whether or not a former employee who has accepted benefits may
still contest the regularity and validity of his retirement 3 years thereafter.
o Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the acceptance of benefits such
as separations pay and terminal leave benefits would not amount to
estoppel or waiver of right of employee to contest his illegal dismissal. (San
Miguel vs. Cruz) However, even assuming that where was ground to
declare his separation from the service invalid, complainant’s receipt of all
the benefits arising therefrom, with full knowledge of all the facts
surrounding the same, amounts to waiver of the right to contest the
validity of the company’s act.

 Gongon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-24421, April 30, 1970

o Commonwealth Act 539 provides that "the intendment of the law is to
award the lots to those who may apply in the order mentioned", that is,
"the first choice is given to the bona fide ‘tenants’, the second to the
‘occupants’ and the last to ‘private individuals.’"
o Commonwealth Act 539 is intended for the homeless or those people who
do not own land. 
o RTC dismissed Gongon’s appeal which was affirmed by the CA holding
that Gongon waived his preferential right to purchase the lot in question
and that he is just a sublessee not a bona fide occupant.
o Issue: Whether or not Gongon has waived his preferential right to
purchase the lot in question
o The Supreme Court ruled that the preferential rights of tenants under
Commonwealth Act No. 539 to purchase a public land cannot be validly
waived, as such waiver was against public policy. (Gongon vs. Court of
Appeals)

 DMConsunji v. CA, G.R. No. 137873, April 20, 2001

o Waiver requires knowledge of the facts basic to the exercised of the right
waived, with an awareness of its consequences. That a waiver is made
knowingly and intelligently must be illustrated on the records of by
evidence. (Consunji vs Court of Appeals)

 YHT Realty v, Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126780, February 17, 2005
 
Article 7

Art. 7 Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-
observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom, or practice to the contrary. 
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall
be void and the latter shall govern. 

Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they
are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. 

Note: If both statutes can stand together, there is no repeal. 

How laws are repealed: 
1. Express Repeal law contains a repealing clause. 
 There is no revival of the repealed law, unless provided. 
2. Implied Repeal, repugnant from one another. Dealing with the same
topic.
 The third law will revive the original law.

Rules for General Law and Special Law

1. If the general law was enacted prior to the special law, the latter is
considered the exception to the general law. Therefore, the general law
remains good law, and there is no repeal, except insofar as the exception
or special law is concerned. 
2. If the general law was enacted after the special law, the special law
remains unless: 
1. There is an express declaration to the contrary. 
2. Or there is a clear, necessary and irreconcilable conflict. 
3. Or unless the subsequent general law covers the whole subject and
is clearly intended to replace the special law on the matter.
Unconstitutional Law, if the law is inconsistent to constitution, the former shall
be void. 
Exception: 
 When the legislative or executive act, prior to its being declared as
unconstitutional by the courts, is valid and must be complied with. 
 This doctrine relaxes the condition. 
 
 Victorias Milling Company, Inc. v. Social Security Commission, G.R. No. L-
16704, March 17, 1962, 4 SCRA 627
o Social Security Commission issued the Circular no. 22 stating that all
bonuses and overtime pay will now be considered and included in
computing the premiums due to the system.
o Victorias Milling Company contends that Circular no. 22 is contrary to
Circular no. 7, that expressly excluded bonuses and overtime pay in the
computation.
o Issue: Whether or not bonuses and overtime pay should be included in
computing premiums due. (YES)
o Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that SSC issued Circular no. 22 in
view of the amendment of the provisions of RA 1161 that defines
‘compensation’. RA 1792 changed the definition of ‘compensation’.
Circular No. 22 is interpretative in nature so it does not need to be
published in the OG to be effective.
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

 Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association, Inc. v. Feliciano, G.R. No. L-
24022, March 3, 1965, 13 SCRA 377 Read the Majority and Dissenting
Opinions
o Chairman Feliciano announced an invitation to bid rice pursuant to RA
2207, since imminent shortage is certified by the National Economic
Council. 
o  Iloilo Palay contends that Feliciano is prohibited to import rice as RA
3452 precluded government agencies therefrom, and only private entities
are allowed to import after paying its corresponding taxes. 
o Issue: Whether or not RA 3452 repealed RA 2207.
o Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that RA 2207 and RA 3452 can
work harmoniously. Because RA 2207 is performed only during imminent
shortage or national emergency, while RA 3452 works under normal
condition and if there is artificial shortage. Moreover, in RA 2207, total ban
on rice importation is conducted. While, RA 3452 only partial ban as
private entities are allowed to import. 
o Dissenting Opinion: The two laws contradict each other. First, in policy.
Under RA 2207, the general rule is that no person or entity, public or
private, shall import rice and corn. Meanwhile, RA 3452, the importation of
rice is left to private parties, with no restriction other than payment of
taxes. Second, in procedure: RA 2207, in case of emergency, President
may import rice and corn in quantities certified by the NEC, through any
governmental agency that he may designate. Whereas, RA 3452, any
government agency is prohibited, the said prohibition being express,
absolute total, and unconditional. 

 Floresca v. Philex Mining Corporation, G.R. No. L-30642, April 30, 1985,
136 SCRA 136
o Floresca et al filed a civil case for negligently and deliberately failing to
take the required precautions in protecting their workers. 
o RTC ruled in favor of Philex holding that the Worker’s Compensation
Commission (WCC) has the exclusive jurisdiction over damage or
compensation claims for work-connected deaths or injuries.
o However, RA 173 or WCA is inconsistent with the Constitution. 
o Issue: Whether or not RA 173 shall be void for being inconsistent to the
Constitution. 
o Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that pursuant to the second
paragraph of Article 7, if the statute is inconsistent with the Constitution,
former shall be void and latter will govern. In the case at bar, RA 173
diminishes workers’ rights and collides with the Constitution. In addition,
the Court ruled that the Constitution is the supreme, organic, and
fundamental law of the land. It is axiomatic that no ordinary statute can
override a constitutional provision. Hence, RA 173 is superseded by the
New Civil Code which obeys the constitutional provision on social justice. 

 Thornton v. Thornton, G.R. No. 154598, August 16, 2004

 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

o Richard Thornton filed a writ of habeas corpus before the Family Court of
Makati, but dismissed. Elevated to Court of Appeals, likewise dismissed
on the grounds of RA 8369 for not having jurisdiction over the case,
Family Courts have the exclusive jurisdiction over such cases. 
o RA 7902 (An act Expanding the Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals) and
BP 129 (The Judiciary Reorganization).
o Issue: Whether or not CA has the jurisdiction to issue writ of habeas
corpus in cases involving the custody of minors. (YES)
o Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that RA 8369 does not revoke the
jurisdiction of CA to issue writ of habeas corpus for cases involving the
custody of minors. RA 8369, RA7902,and BP 129 should be read in
harmony, in that the CA and family courts should have concurrent
jurisdiction for the issuance of the aforementioned writ.
 
Article 8

Art. 8 Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form
part of the legal system of the Philippines.
 The court exist in order to state what the law is. 
 However, a reversal of that interpretation cannot be given a retroactive
effect to the prejudice of parties who had relied on the first interpretation. 

Stare Decisis Adherence to the judicial antecedents. 

 State Decisis is not applicable to Supreme Court, only to lower courts than
Supreme Court En Banc as Supreme Court can modify jurisprudence.

How judicial decisions may be abrogated

1. By a contrary ruling by the Supreme Court itself. 
2. By corrective legislative acts of Congress, although said laws cannot
adversely affect those favoured prior to Supreme Court decisions. 

 People v. Licera, G.R. No. L-39990,  July 22, 1975, 65 SCRA 270
o Licera was apprehended and charged with illegal possession of firearms. 
o He cited the jurisprudence in the case of Macarandang that as a secret
agent or peace officer, he has the right to bear firearms. Hence, be
exonerated. 
o Issue: Whether or not the supreme court ruling even not a law shall
prevail and exonerate Licera from criminal liability.
o Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that pursuant to Article 8 of the
Civil Code states that Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws
or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.
This implies that the jurisprudence in Macarandang case takes part of the
legal system of the Philippines. Therefore, the accused-appellant is free
from any criminal liability.
 People v. Jabinal, G.R. No. L-30061, February 27, 1974, 55 SCRA 607
o In 1964, Jabinal was arrested in violation of possession of illegal fireams
and ammunition. 
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

o In 1964, the prevailing doctrine was the cases of Macarandang and

Lucero, that acquitted the same on the ground that being peace officers
are exempted from the requirement relating to license to possess
firearms. 
o In 1967, the Doctrine of Mapa was issued, that reverses the doctrines of
People vs Macarandang and People vs Lucero cases. 
o Issue: Whether or not Jabinal should be acquitted on the basis of the
rulings in Macarandang and Lucero or whether or not his conviction stand
in view of the doctrine in Mapa. 
o Ruling:  The Supreme Court ruled that when a doctrine of this Court is
overruled and a different view is adopted, the new doctrine should be
applied prospectively and should not apply to parties who relied on the old
doctrine. In the case at bar, at the time of Jabinal’s apprehension, the
prevailing doctrines were the cases of Macarandang and Lucera. The
Doctrine of Mapa was just promulgated in 1967. Thus, Jabinal shall be
acquitted. 

 De Castro v. JBC, G.R. No. 191002, April 20, 2010

o Issue: Whether or not the Decision in the Valenzuela case proscribing
midnight appointments apply to appointments in the Judiciary. (NO)
o The SC ruled that appointments in the Judiciary are not covered by the
constitutional ban on midnight appointments before elections.
Incumbent President GMA can appoint the next SC CJ.
o

 
Article 9

Art. 9 No judge or court shall decline to render judgement by reason of the silence,
obscurity or insufficiency of the laws. 

Judge or court may apply any rule as long as the rule chosen is in harmony
with general interest, order, morals, and public policy. Among such rules may
be the following:
1. Customs which are not contrary to law, public orders, and policy.
2. Decisions of foreign and local courts on similar cases.
3. Opinions of highly qualified writers and professors.
4. Rules of Statutory Construction - The spirit of the law.
5. Principles laid down in analogous instance. Thus it has been said that
where the law governing a particular matter is silent on a question at
issue, the provision of another law governing another matter may be
applied where the underlying principle or reasons is the same. “Ubi cadem
ratio ibi eadem disposito.”

 Alonzo v. Padua, G.R. No. 72873, May 28, 1987

o Celestino and Eustaquia Padua sold their undivided shares to Alonzo
spouses. 
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

o 13 years and 14 years after the first and second time of selling the
undivided shares, the other heirs of Padua claimed for the right to pre-
emption or redemption. 
o Heirs of Padua argues that there is no written notice was given to them b
vendees. 
o Regional Trial Court dismissed the case in favour of Alonzo. However, the
Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the trial court. Declared that
the notice required by the said article was written notice and that actual
notice would not suffice as a substitute.
o Issue: Whether or not actual the lower court interpreted and applied the
law correctly.
o Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that although RA 1623 requires
written notice in order for the 30-day legal redemption to begin, and
apparently, the heirs of Padua did not receive any written notice.
However, exceptions exist, because in the course of 14 years, written
notice and/or the 30-day reglementary period covered by RA 1623 has
passed. In addition, since Alonzo and Padua are neighbors, it insinuates
that Padua claimants know about the transaction of selling the shares.
Lastly, if the Court would abide with RA 1623, it would create injustice on
part of Alonzo. 

 People v. Ritter, G.R. No. 88582, March 5, 1991

o Heinrich Ritter (Ritter) brought Jessie Remirez and Rosario Baluyot in a
hotel room in Olongapo City. Ritter masturbated Ramirez and fingered
Rosari Baluyot. Rosario told Ramirez that Ritter inserted something in
her vigina and it was not yet removed.
o On 14 May 1987, Alcantara saw Rosario being ogled by people because of
Rosario’s blooded skirt. He took pity on her condition and brought her to
Olongapo General Hospital.
o Maria Burgos Turla, the grandmother filed a case of rape with homicide
at City Fiscal Olongapo. On 29 March 1989, the court finds the accused
GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt for the crime of rape with homicide as
defined and penalized in Art. 335 No. 3 of the Revised Penal Code.
o Issue: Whether or not Ritter should be acquitted on grounds of reasonable
doubt or acquitted on grounds of rape with homicide.
o Ruling: Yes, acquitted on grounds of reasonable doubt, therefore ordered
to pay P30,000 as moral and exemplary damages and immediately expel
with prejudice to re-entry into the country. However, it does not exempt
him from moral and exemplary damages. He must award moral and
exemplary damages to the victim’s heirs. It does not necessarily follow
that the appellant is also free from civil liability which is impliedly
instituted with the criminal action. Ritter was deported. 

 In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Astorga Garcia, Honorato B.

Catindig, G.R. No. 148311, March 31, 2005
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

o Honorato Catindig filed a petition before the RTC to adopt her minor
illegitimate child Stephanie Astorga Garcia with a prayer that Stephanie’s
middle name Astorga be changed to “Garcia,” her mother’s surname, and
that her surname “Garcia” be changed to “Catindig,” his surname.
o RTC granted the petition but denied the petitioner’s prayer that
Stephanie should be allowed to use the surname of her natural mother
(GARCIA) as her middle name.
o Issue: Whether or not an illegitimate child, upon adoption by her natural
father, may use the surname of her natural mother as her middle name.
o Ruling: In the case at bar, since there is no law prohibiting an illegitimate
child adopted by her natural father to use, as middle name her mother’s
surname, the Court finds no reason why she should not be allowed to do
so. Lastly, it is customary for every Filipino to have a middle name, which
is ordinarily the surname of the mother. This custom has been recognized
by the Civil Code and Family Code.In fact, it is a Filipino custom that the
initial or surname of the mother should immediately precede the surname
of the father.

Article 10

Art. 10 In case of doubt in the interpretation and application of laws, it is presumed

that the law making body intended right and justice to prevail. 

Dura Lex Sed Lex, the law may be harsh, but it still the law. 
In case of doubt, the law making body intended right and justice to prevail.

General Rule: Where the law is clear, it must be applied according to its unambiguous
provisions. 

Exception: If there is ambiguity in the law, interpretation of the law requires fidelity to
the legislative purpose. 

Exceptions to the exceptions: When the law and its provisions are unclear, construe
it by applying the rules and construction. 

 Republic Flour Mills, Inc. v. Commissioner of Customs, G.R. No. L-28463,

May 31, 1971, 39 SCRA 269
o Republic Flour Mills, Inc was charged P7,948 as payment for the
wharfage of bran and pollard. 
o Flour Mills avers that bran and pollard are not products of the
Philippines because they are merely a waster materials from the process
of making flour. 
o Likewise, Flour Mills Inc., contends that ‘products of the Philippines’
under Section 2802 of the Tariff and Customs Code should be excluded
since they are merely waste and not the product, being the flour.
o Issue: Whether or not bran and pollard are considered ‘products of the
Philippines’.
o Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that when the law is clear, apply it.
In the case at bar, Section 2802 of the Tariff and and Customs Code
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

provides that there shall be levied, collected and paid on all articles
imported brough into the Philippines. Since Section 2802 is clear, Republic
Flour Mills, Inc.,  has to pay because bran and pollars are imported in the
Philippines.
  
 Bello v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-38161, March 29, 1974, 56 SCRA 509
o Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled that time and again cautioned against
narrowly interpreting a statute as to defeat the purpose of the legislator
and stressed that it is of the essence of judicial duty to construe statutes
so as to avoid such deplorable results (of injustice or absurdity) and that,
therefore,a literal interpretation is to be rejected ijf it would be unjust or
lead to absurd results. 
 
Article 11-12

Art. 11. Customs which are contrary to law, public order and public policy shall not be
countenanced.
Art. 12. A custom must be proved as a fact according to the rule of evidence.

Custom as a rule of conduct formed by repetition of acts, uniformly observed

(practiced) as a social rule, legally binding and obligatory. 
 The unwritten rule, spontaneous, and from society. 

Law is written and enacted by Congress. 

Juridical Custom can supplement statutory law or be applied in the absence of such
statute.

Requisites before the Court consider customs: 

 A custom must be proved as a fact.
 The custom must not be contrary to law, public order, or public policy. 
 There must be a number of repeated acts. 
 The repeated acts must have been uniformly performed. 
 There must be a juridical intention to make a rule of social conduct. 
 There must be a lapse of time - this by itself is not a requirement of
customs, but it gives evidence of the fact that indeed it exists and is being
duly observed. 

 Martinez v. Van Buskirk, G.R. No. L-5691, December 27, 1910

o Martinez filed a case against the Buskirk’s cochero for being negligent in
leaving the horses in the street. 
o Issue: Whether or not Buskirk is liable to the negligence of his cochero. 
o Ruling: No. The Court ruled that that the cochero of the defendant was not
negligent in leaving the horses in the manner described by the evidence in
this case. The act of the defendant's driver in leaving the horses in the
manner proved was not unreasonable or imprudent. Acts that the
performance of which has not proved destructive or injurious and which
have, therefore, been acquiesced in by society for so long a time that
they have ripened into custom, can not be held to be of themselves
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

unreasonable or imprudent. In fact, the very reason why they have been
permitted by society is that they are beneficial rather than prejudicial.
o It is the universal practice to leave the horses in the manner in which
they were left at the time of the accident. Those conditions showed that
the defendant’s cochero was not negligent in the management of the
horse.

 In the Matter of the Petition for Authority to Continue Use of the Firm
name “Ozaeta, Romulo etc., July 30, 1979, 92 SCRA 1
o Atty. Sycip and Atty. Ozaeta filed a petition to continue the use in names
of the firms, the names of partners who had passed away. 
o The petitioners aver that there are no local customs prohibiting the
same. Moreover, in the United States, it is permitted to continue using
the deceased partner’s name in law partnership. Lastly, the continued
use of deceased partner’s name is not unethical pursuant to Canon 33 of
the Canons of Professional Ethics. 
o Issue:  Whether or not the surviving partners cannot continue using the
names of the firms, the names of partners who had passed away.
o Ruling: No. Customs which are contrary to law, public order or public
policy shall not be countenanced. Custom even if proven, cannot prevail
over a statutory rule or even a legal rule enunciated by the Supreme
Court. 
 
Article 13

Art. 13. When the law speaks of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood
that years are of three hundred sixty-five days each; months, of thirty days; days, of
twenty four hours; and nights from sunset to sunrise. 

If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of days
which they respectively have.

In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and the last day included. 

Ordinary Contrat a person have to perform his duty regardless of day: holiday,
Sunday, Saturday

 
 Revised Administrative Code (Executive Order No. 292), Book 1, Sec. 31
o Year shall be understood to be 12 calendar months. 
 Rule 22 of the Rules of Court, Section 1. 
o How to compute time - The day of the act or event from which the
designated period of time begins to run is to be excluded and the date of
performance included. 

 CIR v. Primetown, G.R. No. 162155, August 28, 2007

 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

o The SC said that Article 13 of the Civil Code has been impliedly repealed
by the Revised Administrative Code.
o As per Art. 13, a year consists of 365 days, and as per jurisprudence, a
year consists of 365 days regardless if it is a regular year or a leap year.
But in 1987, EO 292 or the Revised Administrative Code of 1987 was
enacted and it provides that a year consists of 12 months, and a month
consists of 30 days. This impliedly repealed Art. 13 of the Civil Code,
however, jurisprudence provides that implied repeal is not favored as the
the two laws cover the same subject matter being the computation of legal
period. But as the Revised Administrative Code being the more recent law,
it should be the one to govern.

 Garvida vs. Sales, G.R. No. 124893, April 18, 1997, 271 SCRA 767
o The Petitioner herein Lynette G. Garvida seeks to annul and set aside the
order issued by Commission on Election (COMELEC) en banc
suspending her proclamation as the duly elected Chairman of the
Sangguniang Kabataan of Barangay San Lorenzo Municipality of Bangui,
Ilocos Norte.
o However, her application was denied on the grounds that her age
exceeded to the limit for membership in the Katipunan ng Kabataan as
laid down in Section 3 (b) of COMELEC Resolution no. 2824.
o The Petitioner was 21 years, 11 months, and 5 days during the election
for SK Chairmanship.
o Issue: Whether or not the Petitioner is ineligible to hold the SK Chairman
position despite winning the election due to her age.
o Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that The general rule is that an
elective official of the Sangguniang Kabataan must not be more than 21
years of age on the day of his election. The only exception is when the
official reaches the age 21 during his incumbency. Section 424 of Republic
Act 7160 provides that Sangguniang Kabataan shall not be more than 21
years of age. The Petitioner was 21 years, 11 months, and 5 days during
the election for SK Chairmanship. Hence, she is ineligible to run as
Sangguniang Kabataan.
 
Article 14

Art. 14. Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all
who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public
international law and to treaty stipulations. 

General Rule: Citizens and foreigners are subject to penal laws and all other laws
designed to maintain public security and safety. The liability for any violation of the
said laws will even attach regardless of whether a foreign is merely sojourning in
Philippine Territory. 

Exceptions: While foreigners may be liable for committing offenses in violation of penal
laws and those of public security and safety, they may however be immune from suit
and therefore, cannot be criminally prosecuted in the Philippines in certain cases where
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

the Philippine government has waived its criminal jurisdiction over them on the basis of
the principles of public international law and treaty stipulations.
 
 Revised Penal Code, Article 2
o Generality
o Territoriality
o Prospectivity
 
Article 15

Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal
capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living
abroad.

Exception: Exemplify the nationality principle. 

 Nationality Principle, foreign laws shall govern the foreigner. 

Exception of Nationality Principle

 Testate and Intestate of decedent. 
 
 Tenchavez v. Escano, G.R. No. L-19671, November 29, 1965 with Art 17
o Vicenta Escano was married to Tenchavez. 
o Vicenta Escano filed a divorce petition in America, which was granted.
o Vicenta Escano married an American and acquired US citizenship. 
o Issue: Whether or not the divorce decree is valid here in the Philippines.
o Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that regardless of where a citizen of
the Philippines might be, he or she will be governed by Philippine laws
with respect to his or her family rights and duties, or to his or her status,
condition, and legal capacity. Hence, if a Filipino, regardless of whether he
or she was married here or abroad, initiates a petition abroad to obtain an
absolute divorce from his wife or her husband and eventually becomes
successful in getting an absolute divorce, the Philippines will not recognise
such absolute divorce. Pursuant to Art. 26 of the Family Code, the only
absolute divorce which the Philippines recognises is one which is procured
by the alien spouse of the Philippine citizen. Hence, in the eyes of
Philippine law insofar as the Filipino is concerned and in cases where he
or she is the one who procures the absolute divorce abroad, his or her
status is still married and therefore should he or she marry again, he or
she can be considered to have committed either concubinage in case of the
husband or adultery in case of the wife. 

 Del Socorro v. Van Wilsen G.R. No. 193707, December 10, 2014 with Art 17
o Del Socorro and Wilsem is married in Holland. The two were blessed with
a child. 
o Years later, they were separated and divorced. 
o Del Socorro filed a case against Wilsen in violation for RA 9262. 
o Wilsen contends that by virtue of the Divorce Decree, he is not obligated
to petitioner for any financial support.
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

o Issue: Whether or not a foreign national can be held criminally liable

under R.A. No. 9262 for his unjustified failure to support his minor child.
o Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that pursuant to Art. 15, nationality
principle applies. In the case at bar, Wilsen states that in Netherlands,
they are not obliged to support financially his son. However, Wilsen failed
to substantiate his claim. Hence, Processual Presumption shall prevail.
Therefore, he is criminally liable under RA 9262.

 
Article 16

Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country
where it is situated. 

However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of
succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and
regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. 

General Rule: Law of the country where the real property is situated shall be the
governing law over such real property. 

Exception: Intestate and testamentary succession. 

Doctrine of Renvoi: Literally means a referring back; the problem arises when there is
doubt as to whether a reference in our law (such as Article 1, paragraph 2) to a foreign
law (such as the national law of the deceased) 
 To avoid pingpong, which means 
a. Internal Law
b. Conflict Law

Art. 16 and Art. 1039 render applicable the national law of the decedent, in
intestate or testamentary with regards to four items: 
a. The order of succession
b. The amount of successional rights 
c. The intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will
d. The capacity to succeed. 

 Miciamo v. Brimo G.R. No. L-22595, November 1, 1927

o Joseph Brimo is a Turkish testator who died in the Philippines. 
o His testament provides that the law will govern his testament will be the
Philippine Law. Anyone who will disobey his request, will be canceled. 
o However, paragraph 2 of the Article 16 of Civil Code provides that the
national law of the decedent will be used, which is contrary to Joseph
Brimo’s testament. 
o Issue: Whether or not Joseph Brimo’s testament is valid. 
o Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that pursuant to paragraph 2, Article
16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that the national law of the
decedent will be used in governing the intestate or testamentary
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

successional rights. In the case at bar, Joseph Brimo’s testament being

contrary to the provision of Article 16 is invalid. Hence, Turkish law shall
prevail in governing the successional rights. 
 
 Christensen v. Christensen, G.R. No. L-16759,  January 31, 1963
o Edward E. Christensen in his intestate and testament, he transferred all
of his income, and residue of his property to Appellee Maria Lucy
Christensen as his descendant. While he gave and bequeathed the
amount of P3,600 to his acknowledged natural child.
o The Appellant herein Helen Christensen Garcia filed a complaint as the
will of deceased descendant deprives her of her legitime as an
acknowledged natural child of Edward E. Christensen. Appellant Helen
Christensen Garcia contends that the distribution should be governed by
Philippine Law; and she shall be entitled to one-half of the estate in full
ownership.
o Issue: Whether or not the Philippine law shall apply in succession.
o Ruling: Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that pursuant to Article 946 of the
Civil Code of California, Philippine Law shall govern the succession of the
case because Art 946 provides that intestate and testamentary
successions shall be governed by the law of his domicile. In the case at
bar, the domicile of the deceased is Philippines. Therefore, Philippine Law
prevails in this case.

 Bellis v. Bellis, G.R. No. L-23678,  June 6, 1967

o Amos Belis a Texas Citizen who was prosecuted in the Philippines. 
o Belis had legitimate and illegitimate child. Amos Belis left $240,000 to
his legitimate children, and P120,000 to his illegitimate children. 
o However, two of the illegitimate children, Maria Cristina Bellis, and
Miriam Palma Bellis, filed their respective opposition to the project
partition on the ground that they were deprived of Philippine law were to
be applied and not the Texas law.
o Issue: Whether or not the Philippine law shall apply in the case in the
determination of the illegitimate children’s successional right. 
o Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that pursuant to paragraph 2, Article
16 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that the national law of the
decedent will govern the case. In the case at bar, Texas law does not
require legitimes, then his will, which deprived his illegitimate children of
the legitimes, is valid.
 
Article 17

Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments
shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed. 

When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the
Republic of Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine
laws shall be observed in their execution. 
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for
their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered
ineffective by laws or judgements promulgated, or by determinations or conventions
agreed upon in a foreign country. 

General Rule: Laws of the country where the solemnities of contracts, wills, and other
public instruments are executed shall govern. 

Doctrine of Lex Loci Celebrationis governs the first paragraph

 The first paragraph of Article 17 lays down this rule. Thus, a contract
entered into by a Filipino in Japan will be governed by Japanese insofar
as form and solemnities of the contract are concerned

Rule of Exterritoriality governs the second paragraph

 Even if the act be done abroad, still if executed before Philippine
diplomatic and consular officials, the solemnities of Philippine las shall be
observed. The theory is that the act is being done within an extension of
Philippine territory (the principle of exterritoriality).

Rule Respecting Prohibitive Law

 Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those whil
have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not
be rendered ineffective by laws, or judgements promulgated, or by
determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. 
The prevailing rule in Private International Law 
a. Lex loci voluntatis (the law of the place voluntarily selected) 
b. Lex loci intentionis (the law of the place intended by the parties to the
contract)
Exceptions: 

 Tenchavez v. Escano, G.R. No. L-19671, November 29, 1965

o In a case where a Filipina wife obtained a divorce abroad and later
remarried an American, the Filipino husband in the Philippines can file a
legal separation case against the wife for having technically committed
adultery, considering that the absolute divorce is not recognised in the
Philippines. (Tenchavez vs Escaño)

 Del Socorro v. Van Wilsen G.R. No. 193707 December 10, 2014
o Par. 3, Art. 17 of the Civil Code states that prohibitive laws concerning
persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public
order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by
laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions
agreed upon in a foreign country.
o The court ruled that the deprivation or denial of financial support to the
child is considered an act of violence against women and children, thus,
Van Wilsem may be held criminally liable for violating Sec. 5 of RA 9262.
 
Article 18
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

Art. 18. In matters which are governed by the Code of Commerce and special laws,
their deficiency shall be supplied by the provisions of this code. 

 Ang v. American Steamship Agencies Inc., G.R. No. L-22491, January 27, 1967,
19 SCRA 631
o Ang filed a petition against Americal Steamship Agencies Inc. (ASAI) for
misdelivery and/or conversion of articles. 
o Pursuant to Section 3(6), Paragraph 4 of the Carriage of Good by Sea Act,
ASAI contends that Ang’s claim is barred by the prescriptive period of the
Act. 
o Issue: Whether or not the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act shall govern in the
present case.
o Ruling: No. The Supreme Court ruled that the subject matter in the case is
not predicated upon loss or damage but on alleged misdelivery or
conversion of the goods, the applicable rule on prescription is that found in
the Civil Code, namely, either ten years for breach of a written contract or
four years for quasi-delict, and not the rule on prescription in the Carriage
of Goods by Sea Act. 

 Dole Philippines, Inc. v. Maritime Co. of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-61352,
February 27, 1987, 148 SCRA 119
o The Court answered citing the case of Yek Tong Lin Fire & Marine
Insurance Co., Ltd. vs. American President Lines, Inc. “where suit to
recover for damage to cargo shipped by vessel from Tokyo to Manila was
filed more than two years after the consignee's receipt of the cargo, this
Court rejected the contention that an extrajudicial demand toiled the
prescriptive period provided for in the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act”

 Tamano v.  Judge Ortiz, G. R. No. 126603, June 29, 1998

 LLave v. Republic, G.R. No. 169766, March 30, 2011
 Zamoranos v. People, G.R. No. 193902, June 1, 2011
 Villagracia v. Sharia, G.R. No. 188832, April 23, 2014

PERSONS
  
Articles 37 to 39 of the Civil Code
 Emancipation and Age of Majority (Republic Act No. 6809)
 Mercado v. Espiritu, G.R. No. L-11872, December 1, 1917
 Bambalan v. Maramba, G.R. No. L-27710, January 30, 1928
 Sia Suan & Chiao v. Alcantara, G.R. No. L-1720, March 4, 1950
 De Braganza v. De Villa Abrille, G.R. No. L-12471, April 13, 1959
 Catalan v. Basa, G.R. No. 159567, July 31, 2007
 Atizado v. People, G.R. No. 173822, October 13, 2010
 
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

Article 40
Article 5, PD 603 or Child and Youth Welfare Code
 
Articles 41 to 42
 De Jesus v. Syquia, G.R. No. L-39110, November 28, 1933
 Limjoco v. Intestate Estate of Pio Fragante, G.R. No. L-770, April 27, 1948
 Geluz v. CA, G.R. No. L-16439, July 20, 1961
 Quimiguing v. Icao, G.R. No. 26795, July 31, 1970
 Continental Steel V. Montano, G.R. No. 182836, October 13, 2009
 Valino v. Adriano, G.R. No. 182894, April 22, 2014
 
Article 43
 Rule 131, Sec 3., Rules of Court
Joaquin v. Navarro, 93 Phil. 257