CIVIL LAW by Dean Albano

7/26/2019 CIVIL LAW by Dean Albano

1/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

CIVIL LAWDean Ed Vincent S. Albano

1. ***Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status,condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citiens ofthe !hilippines, e"en though li"ing abroad. #$a%

Art. 26. All marriages solemnied outside the !hilippines, inaccordance with the laws in force in the country where they weresolemnied, and "alid there as such, shall also be "alid in thiscountry, e&cept those prohibited under Articles '( #1%, #)%, #(% and#%, ''+ and '. #1+a%

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner

i !alidl" celebrated and a di!orce i thereafter !alidl"obtained abroad b" the alien po#e capacitating him or herto remarr"$ the Filipino po#e hall ha!e capacit" to remarr"#nder %hilippine law. &A amended b" '(ec#ti!e )rder 22*+

1. Corp#z !. ,to. -oma-./. 0o. 1(+1 August 11,2313 4 5/670, 8.9

:he alien spouse can claim no right under the secondparagraph of Article 2 of the ;amily


2/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

the alien po#e who$ after obtaining a di!orce$ i nolonger married to the Filipino po#e #Republic v.Orbecido%. :o maintain & & & that, under our laws, -the ;ilipinospouse9 has to be considered still married to -the alienspouse9 and still sub>ect to a wifeBs obligations & & & cannot be

>ust. -:he ;ilipino spouse9 should not be obliged to li"etogether with, obser"e respect and ?delity, and rendersupport to -the alien spouse9. :he latter should not continueto be one of her heirs with possible rights to con>ugalproperty. She should not be discriminated against in her owncountry if the ends of >ustice are to be ser"ed. :he legislati"eintent is for the bene?t of the ;ilipino spouse, by clarifying hisor her marital status, settling the doubts created by thedi"orce decree. Essentially, the second paragraph of Article2 of the ;amily ect to thelaw of the country where it is stipulated.

Cowe"er, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respectto the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights

and to the intrinsic "alidity of testamentary pro"isions, shall beregulated by the national law of the person whose succession isunder consideration, whate"er may be the nature of the propertyand regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.#13a%

1. #ita !. CA and /andan-./. 0o. 12)2. December22, 1$$. 4 5ELL7S6LL7, 8.9

!ri"ate respondent stressed that the citienship of petitioner

was rele"ant in the light of the ruling in Van Dorn v. RomilloJr. that aliens may obtain di"orces abroad, which may berecognied in the !hilippines, pro!ided the" are !alidaccording to their national law. :he trial court found thatboth were ;ilipino citiens and were married in the!hilippines. 6t maintained that their di"orce obtained in 1$()in


3/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

-S


4/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

'. ***Art. 1*. :he forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and otherpublic instruments shall be go"erned by the laws of the country inwhich they are e&ecuted.

=hen the acts referred to are e&ecuted before the diplomatic orconsular oKicials of the /epublic of the !hilippines in a foreigncountry, the solemnities established by !hilippine laws shall beobser"ed in their e&ecution.

!rohibiti"e laws concerning persons, their acts or property, andthose which ha"e, for their ob>ect, public order, public policy andgood customs shall not be rendered ineKecti"e by laws or >udgmentspromulgated, or by determinations or con"entions agreed upon in a

foreign country. #11a%

1. 4nited Airline$ Inc. !. CA-./. 0o. 12)113. April 23,2331. 4 A!0A0, 8.9

According to the doctrine of le( loci contract#, a! a"eneral rule, the law of the place where a contract is made orentered into go"erns with respect to its nature and "alidity,obligation and interpretation. :his has been said to be therule e"en though the place where the contract was made is

diKerent from the place where it is to be performed, andparticularly so, if the place of the maHing and the place ofperformance are the same. Cence, the co#rt ho#ld appl"the law of the place where the airline ticet wa i#ed ,when the paenger are reident and national of thefor#m and the ticet i i#ed in #ch ,tate b" thedefendant airline.

).

Art. 1. E"ery person must, in the e&ercise of his rights and in theperformance of his duties, act with >ustice, gi"e e"eryone his due,and obser"e honesty and good faith.

Art. 27. E"ery person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligentlycauses damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.


5/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

Art. 21. Any person who wilfully causes loss or in>ury to another in amanner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policyshall compensate the latter for the damage.

1. ,po#e 8ing !. Choach#"$ ,r#./. 0o. 1+$+', 8une 2,231' 4 DEL unction because respondentsinstallation of a stationary camera directly facing petitionersproperty and a re"ol"ing camera co"ering a signi?cantportion of the same property constitutes a "iolation ofpetitioners right to pri"acy.

6SSE 6s there a "iolation of petitioners right to pri"acyJ

Article 2#1% of the


6/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

amount which is eFui"alent to the price of the blacH >eans wasmissing. :hey, thus, concluded that it was respondent whofailed to maHe such payment. 6t was, therefore, within theirright to "erify from respondent whether she indeed paid ornot and collect from her if she did not.

6SSE Did the petitioner e&ercise their right to "erify thepayment made by the respondent in good faithJ

:he element of ab#e of rightare as follows #1% there isa legal right or duty@ #2% which is e&ercised in bad faith@ #'%for the sole intent of pre>udicing or in>uring another.

nder the abuse of rights principle found in Article 1$, aperson must, in the e&ercise of legal right or duty, act in good

faith. Ce would be liable if he instead acted in bad faith, withintent to pre>udice another. ;ood faithrefers to the state ofmind which is manifested by the acts of the indi"idualconcerned. 6t consists of the intention to abstain from taHingan unconscionable and unscrupulous ad"antage of another.3alice or bad faith, on the other hand, implies a consciousand intentional design to do a wrongful act for a dishonestpurpose or moral obliFuity.

c. Ardiente !. ,po#e %ator


7/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

pro"ision and results in damage to another, a legal wrong isthereby committed for which the wrongdoer must beresponsible. :hus, if the pro"ision does not pro"ide a remedyfor its "iolation, an action for damages under either Article 23or Article 21 of the ury in a mannercontrary to morals, good customs and public policy.:hecircumstances under which defendant tried to win LolitaBsaKection cannot lead, to any other conclusion than that it was

he who, thru an ingenious scheme or tricHery, seduced thelatter to the e&tent of maHing her fall in lo"e with him & & &defendant not only deliberately, but through a cle"er strategy,succeeded in winning the aKection and lo"e of Lolita to thee&tent of ha"ing illicit relations with her & & & he hascommitted an in>ury to LolitaBs family in a manner contrary tomorals, good customs and public policy as contemplated inArticle 21.

e. Vela"o !. ,hell Compan"-./. 0o. LO+1+. 7ctober '1,

1$(. 4 ;EL6P, 8.9

Defendant Q taHing ad"antage of his Hnowledge thatinsol"ency proceedings were to be instituted by


8/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

#2$a%

Art. =1.;or ci"il purposes, the fetus is considered born if it is ali"eat the time it is completely deli"ered from the motherBs womb.Cowe"er, if the fetus had an intraOuterine life of less than se"en

months, it is not deemed born if it dies within twentyOfour hoursafter its complete deli"ery from the maternal womb. #'3a%

1. Continental ,teel 3fg Corp !. Vol#ntar" Arbitrator3onta9o -./. 07. 12' 7ctober 1', 233$ 4


9/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

. ***Art. 2. 0o marriage shall be "alid, unless these essential reFuisitesare present#1% Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and

a female@ and#2%


10/140


11/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

concomitant with the scandalous cohabitation of personsoutside a "alid marriage due to the publication of e"eryapplicants name for a marriage license. :he publicityattending the marriage license may discourage such personsfrom legitimiing their status. :o preser"e peace in the

family, a"oid the peeping and suspicious eye of publice&posure and contain the source of gossip arising from thepublication of their names, the law deemed it wise to preser"etheir pri"acy and e&empt them from that reFuirement.

( ( ( what nat#re of cohabitation i contemplated ( ( (to warrant the co#nting of the

missing factor is the special contract of marriage to "alidatethe union. 6n other words, the ?"eOyear commonOlawcohabitation period, which is counted bacH from the date ofcelebration of marriage, should be a period of legal union hadit not been for the absence of the marriage. -hi 5"earperiod ho#ld be the "ear immediatel" before the da"of the marriage and it ho#ld be a period ofcohabitation characterized b" e(cl#i!it" D meaning nothird part" wa in!ol!ed at an" time within the 5 "earand contin#it" D that i #nbroen. 7therwise & & & the law

would be sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties toha"e common law relationships and placing them on the samefooting with those who li"ed faithfully with their spouse & & &6t should be noted that a license is reFuired in order to notifythe public that two persons are about to be united inmatrimony and that anyone who is aware or has Hnowledge ofany impediment to the union of the two shall maHe it Hnown tothe local ci"il registrar.

b. -econ/a"ot !. /a"ot-./. 07. 1+((1 Iarch 2,

233 4


12/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

& & & the contracting partie hall tate the re>#iitefact in an aEida!itbefore any person authoried by law toadminister oaths@ and that the oKicial & & & who solemniedthe marriage shall also state in an aKida"it that he tooH stepsto ascertain the ages and other Fuali?cations of the

contracting parties and that he found no legal impediment tothe marriage.

:he /epublic admitted that 8ose and ;elisa started li"ingtogether barely

& & & the falsity of the allegation in the sworn aKida"it relatingto the period of 8ose and ;elisaBs cohabitation, which wouldha"e Fuali?ed their marriage as an e&ception to thereFuirement for a marriage license, cannot be a mere

irregularity, for it refers to a Fuintessential fact that the lawprecisely reFuired to be deposed and attested to by theparties under oath. 6f the essential matter in the swornaKida"it is a lie, then it is but a mere scrap of paper, withoutforce and eKect. Cence, it is as if there was no aKida"it at all.

c. ep#blic !. Albio#./. 0o. 1$+3, 7ctober 1,231' 4 IE0D7RA, 8.%

6SSE 6s a marriage, contracted for the sole purpose of

acFuiring American citienship in consideration of T2,333"oid ab initio on the ground of lacH of consentJ 0).

ML6I6:ED !/!7SEN IA//6AES are marriages where acouple marries only to achie"e a particular purpose or acFuirespeci?c bene?ts. A common limited purpose marriage is oneentered into solely for the legitimiation of a child. Another isfor immigration purposes.


13/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

:he oHe, with no real intention of enteringinto the actual marriage status, and with a clearunderstanding that the parties would not be bound. Iarriagesin >est are "oid ab initio for a complete absence of consent.

Albio! and rin"erhad an undeniable intention to be bound inorder to create the "ery bond necessary to allow the

respondent to acFuire American citienship. 7nly a genuineconsent to be married would allow them to further theirob>ecti"e, considering that only a "alid marriage can properlysupport an application for citienship. :here was, thus, anapparent intention to enter into the act#al marriagetat# and to create a legal tie$ albeit for a limitedp#rpoe. ;en#ine conent wa$ therefore$ clearl"preent.

:he possibility that the parties in a marriage might ha"e no

real intention to establish a life together is, howe"er,insuKicient to nullify a marriage freely entered into inaccordance with law. -here i no law that declare amarriage !oid if it i entered into for p#rpoe otherthan what the Contit#tion or law declare$ #ch a theac>#iition of foreign citizenhip. :herefore, so long as allthe essential and formal reFuisites precribed by law arepresent, and it is not "oid or "oidable under the groundspro"ided by law, it shall be declared "alid.

8ence$ tho#gh the repondentG marriage ma" beconidered a ham or fra#d#lent for the p#rpoe ofimmigration$ it i not !oid ab initio and contin#e to be!alid and #biting.

d. Corp#z !. ,to. -oma-!upra9


14/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

e. ;oBanga"an !. Banga"an$ :r#./. 0o. 23131, 8uly 3',231' 4


15/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

restored respondents capacity to remarry despite the paucityof e"idence on this matter.

g. F#Hii !. 3arina" #./. 0o. 1$3)$, 8une 2, 231' 4udgment relating to the status of a marriage aKectsthe ci"il status, condition and legal capacity of its parties.Cowe"er, the eKect of a foreign >udgment is not automatic. :oe&tend the eKect of a foreign >udgment in the !hilippines,!hilippine courts must determine if the foreign >udgment isconsistent with domestic public policy and other mandatorylaws. Article 1( of the udgmentaKecting its citien, o"er whom it e&ercises personal>urisdiction relating to the status, condition and legal capacityof such citien.

A petition to recognie a foreign >udgment declaring amarriage "oid does not reFuire relitigation under a !hilippine

court of the case as if it were a new petition for declaration ofnullity of marriage. !hilippine courts cannot presume to Hnowthe foreign laws under which the foreign >udgment wasrendered. :hey cannot substitute their >udgment on thestatus, condition and legal capacity of the foreign citien whois under the >urisdiction of another state. :hus, !hilippinecourts can only recognie the foreign >udgment as a factaccording to the rules of e"idence.

+. ****

Art. )1. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence ofa pre"ious marriage shall be null and "oid, unless before thecelebration of the subseFuent marriage, the prior spouse had beenabsent for four consecuti"e years and the spouse present has awellfo#nded beliefthat the absent spouse was already dead. 6n case ofdisappearance where there is danger of death under thecircumstances set forth in the pro"isions of Article '$1 of the


16/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

;or the purpose of contracting the subseFuent marriage under thepreceding paragraph the spouse present must institute a summaryproceeding as pro"ided in this


17/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

occurring before and after the disappearance of the absentspouse and the nature and e&tent of the inFuiries made by thepresent spouse.

. *

Art. 56. :he petition for legal separation shall be denied on any ofthe following grounds

#1% =here the aggrie"ed party has condoned the oKense or actcomplained of@#2% =here the aggrie"ed party has consented to the commission ofthe oKense or act complained of@#'% =here there is conni"ance between the parties in thecommission of the oKense or act constituting the ground for legalseparation@

#)% =here both parties ha"e gi"en ground for legal separation@#(% =here there is collusion between the parties to obtain decree oflegal separation@ or#% =here the action is barred by prescription.

Art. 6@. :he decree of legal separation shall ha"e the followingeKects#1% :he spouses shall be entitled to li"e separately from each other,but the marriage bonds shall not be se"ered@#2% :he absolute community or the con>ugal partnership shall be

dissol"ed and liFuidated but the oKending spouse shall ha"e no rightto any share of the net pro?ts earned by the absolute community orthe con>ugal partnership, which shall be forfeited in accordance withthe pro"isions of Article )'#2%@#'% :he custody of the minor children shall be awarded to theinnocent spouse, sub>ect to the pro"isions of Article 21' of this


18/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

$. **Art. *6. 6n order that any modi?cation in the marriage settlementsmay be "alid, it must be made before the celebration of themarriage, sub>ect to the pro"isions of Articles , +, 12, 1'( and

1'.

Art. 1@=. 6n the absence of an e&press declaration in the marriagesettlements, the separation of property between spouses during themarriage shall not taHe place e&cept by >udicial order. Such >udicialseparation of property may either be "oluntary or for suKicientcause. #1$3a%

Art. [email protected] of the following shall be considered suKicient causefor >udicial separation of property

#1% :hat the spouse of the petitioner has been sentenced to a penaltywhich carries with it ci"il interdiction@#2% :hat the spouse of the petitioner has been >udicially declared anabsentee@#'% :hat loss of parental authority of the spouse of petitioner hasbeen decreed by the court@#)% :hat the spouse of the petitioner has abandoned the latter orfailed to comply with his or her obligations to the family as pro"idedfor in Article 131@#(% :hat the spouse granted the power of administration in the

marriage settlements has abused that power@ and#% :hat at the time of the petition, the spouses ha"e been separatedin fact for at least one year and reconciliation is highly improbable.

6n the cases pro"ided for in 0umbers #1%, #2% and #'%, thepresentation of the ?nal >udgment against the guilty or absentspouse shall be enough basis for the grant of the decree of >udicialseparation of property. #1$1a%

Art. 1@6. :he spouses may >ointly ?le a "eri?ed petition with the

court for the "oluntary dissolution of the absolute community or thecon>ugal partnership of gains, and for the separation of theircommon properties.

All creditors of the absolute community or of the con>ugalpartnership of gains, as well as the personal creditors of the spouse,shall be listed in the petition and noti?ed of the ?ling thereof. :hecourt shall taHe measures to protect the creditors and other persons


19/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

with pecuniary interest. #1$1a%

1. %artoa :o !. CA-./. 0o. 23. December 1, 1$$2. 4ust cause@ and 2.;ailure of one spouse to comply with his orher obligations to the family without >ust cause, e"en if saidspouse does not lea"e the other spouse. Abandonment impliesa departure by one spouse with the a"owed intent ne"er toreturn, followed by prolonged absence without >ust cause, andwithout in the meantime pro"iding in the least for ones familyalthough able to do so. :here must be absolute cessation of

marital relations, duties and rights, with the intention ofperpetual separation. :he physical separation of the parties,coupled with the refusal by the pri"ate respondent to gi"esupport to the petitioner, suKiced to constitute abandonmentas a ground for the >udicial separation of their con>ugalproperty. :heir separation thus falls also sFuarely underArticle 1@5of the ;amily


20/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

1. Agapa" !. %alang -./. 0o. 11. 8uly 2, 1$$+ 4/7IE/7, 8.9

Article + of the ;amily urisdiction, this


21/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

designated administratorOspouse for the bene?t of the community, orby both spouses, or by one spouse with the consent of the other@#'% Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without theconsent of the other to the e&tent that the family may ha"e beenbene?ted@

#)% All ta&es, liens, charges and e&penses, including ma>or or minorrepairs, upon the community property@#(% All ta&es and e&penses for mere preser"ation made duringmarriage upon the separate property of either spouse used by thefamily@#% E&penses to enable either spouse to commence or complete aprofessional or "ocational course, or other acti"ity for selfOimpro"ement@#+% AnteOnuptial debts of either spouse insofar as they ha"eredounded to the bene?t of the family@

#% :he "alue of what is donated or promised by both spouses infa"or of their common legitimate children for the e&clusi"e purposeof commencing or completing a professional or "ocational course orother acti"ity for selfOimpro"ement@#$% AnteOnuptial debts of either spouse other than those falling underparagraph #+% of this Article, the support of illegitimate children ofeither spouse, and liabilities incurred by either spouse by reason of acrime or a FuasiOdelict, in case of absence or insuKiciency of thee&clusi"e property of the debtorOspouse, the payment of which shallbe considered as ad"ances to be deducted from the share of the

debtorOspouse upon liFuidation of the community@ and#13% E&penses of litigation between the spouses unless the suit isfound to be groundless.

6f the community property is insuKicient to co"er the foregoingliabilities, e&cept those falling under paragraph #$%, the spousesshall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separateproperties. #11a, 12a, 1'a, 232aO23(a%

Art. 121. :he con>ugal partnership shall be liable for

#1% :he support of the spouse, their common children, and thelegitimate children of either spouse@ howe"er, the support ofillegitimate children shall be go"erned by the pro"isions of this ugalpartnership of gains, or by both spouses or by one of them with the


22/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

consent of the other@#'% Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without theconsent of the other to the e&tent that the family may ha"ebene?ted@#)% All ta&es, liens, charges, and e&penses, including ma>or or minor

repairs upon the con>ugal partnership property@#(% All ta&es and e&penses for mere preser"ation made during themarriage upon the separate property of either spouse@#% E&penses to enable either spouse to commence or complete aprofessional, "ocational, or other acti"ity for selfOimpro"ement@#+% AnteOnuptial debts of either spouse insofar as they ha"eredounded to the bene?t of the family@#% :he "alue of what is donated or promised by both spouses infa"or of their common legitimate children for the e&clusi"e purposeof commencing or completing a professional or "ocational course or

other acti"ity for selfOimpro"ement@ and#$% E&penses of litigation between the spouses unless the suit isfound to groundless.

6f the con>ugal partnership is insuKicient to co"er the foregoingliabilities, the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaidbalance with their separate properties. #11a%

1. A"ala In!etment J /e!elopment Corp !. CA#./. 0o.11'3( ;ebruary 12, 1$$ 4 IA/:60ER, 8.%

6SSE 6s a surety agreement or an accommodation contractentered into by the husband in fa"or of his employer redoundsto the bene?t of the con>ugal partnershipJ 0).

#A% where the husband contracts obligations on behalf ofthe family business, the law presumes, and rightly so, thatsuch obligation will redound to the bene?t of the con>ugalpartnership.

#5% 7n the other hand, if the money or ser"ices are gi"ento another person or entity, and the husband acted only as asurety or guarantor, that contract cannot, by itself, alone becategoried as falling within the conte&t of obligations for thebene?t of the con>ugal partnership. :he contract of loan orser"ices is clearly for the bene?t of the principal debtor andnot for the surety or his family. 0o presumption can beinferred that, when a husband enters into a contract of surety


23/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

or accommodation agreement, it is for the bene?t of thecon>ugal partnership. !roof must be presented to establishbene?t redounding to the con>ugal partnership.

:he fact that on se"eral occasions the lending institutions did

not reFuire the signature of the wife and the husband signedalone does not mean that being a surety became part of hisprofession. 0either could he be presumed to ha"e acted forthe con>ugal partnership. Article 101, para"rap$ , o% t$eamily ode i! emp$atic t$at t$e payment o% per!onal debt!contracted by t$e $u!band or t$e #i%e be%ore or durin" t$emarria"e !$all not be c$ar"ed to t$e con+u"al partner!$ipe'cept to t$e e'tent t$at t$ey redounded to t$e bene2t o% t$e%amily. Signing as a surety is certainly not an e&ercise of anindustry or profession nor an act of administration for the

bene?t of the family.

12.

Art. 6. :he administration and en>oyment of the communityproperty shall belong to both spouses >ointly. 6n case ofdisagreement, the husbandBs decision shall pre"ail, sub>ect torecourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must bea"ailed of within ?"e years from the date of the contract

implementing such decision.

6n the e"ent that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable toparticipate in the administration of the common properties, theother spouse may assume sole powers of administration. :hesepowers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authorityof the court or the written consent of the other spouse. 6n theabsence of such authority or consent, the disposition orencumbrance shall be "oid. Cowe"er, the transaction shall beconstrued as a continuing oKer on the part of the consenting spouse

and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contractupon the acceptance by the other spouse or authoriation by thecourt before the oKer is withdrawn by either or both oKerors. #23a%

Art. 12=. :he administration and en>oyment of the con>ugalpartnership shall belong to both spouses >ointly. 6n case ofdisagreement, the husbandBs decision shall pre"ail, sub>ect torecourse to the court by the wife for proper remedy, which must be


24/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

a"ailed of within ?"e years from the date of the contractimplementing such decision.

6n the e"ent that one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable toparticipate in the administration of the con>ugal properties, the

other spouse may assume sole powers of administration. :hesepowers do not include disposition or encumbrance without authorityof the court or the written consent of the other spouse. 6n theabsence of such authority or consent, the disposition orencumbrance shall be "oid. Cowe"er, the transaction shall beconstrued as a continuing oKer on the part of the consenting spouseand the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contractupon the acceptance by the other spouse or authoriation by thecourt before the oKer is withdrawn by either or both oKerors. #1(a%

1. Flore !. Lindo$ :r-./. 0o. 1'$), April 1' 2311 4


25/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

1'. **Art. 152.:he family home, constituted >ointly by the husband andthe wife or by an unmarried head of a family, is the dwelling housewhere they and their family reside, and the land on which it issituated. #22'a%

Art. 15@.:he family home is deemed constituted on a house and lotfrom the time it is occupied as a family residence. ;rom the time ofits constitution and so long as any of its bene?ciaries actuallyresides therein, the family home continues to be such and is e&emptfrom e&ecution, forced sale or attachment e&cept as hereinafterpro"ided and to the e&tent of the "alue allowed by law. #22'a%

Art. 15=.:he bene?ciaries of a family home are#1% :he husband and wife, or an unmarried person who is the head

of a family@ and#2% :heir parents, ascendants, descendants, brothers and sisters,whether the relationship be legitimate or illegitimate, who are li"ingin the family home and who depend upon the head of the family forlegal support. #22a%

Art. 155. :he family home shall be e&empt from e&ecution, forcedsale or attachment e&cept#1% ;or nonpayment of ta&es@#2% ;or debts incurred prior to the constitution of the family home@

#'% ;or debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or aftersuch constitution@ and#)% ;or debts due to laborers, mechanics, architects, builders,materialmen and others who ha"e rendered ser"ice or furnishedmaterial for the construction of the building.

Art. 15.:he family home shall continue despite the death of one orboth spouses or of the unmarried head of the family for a period often years or for as long as there is a minor bene?ciary, and the heirscannot partition the same unless the court ?nds compelling reasons

therefor. :his rule shall apply regardless of whoe"er owns theproperty or constituted the family home. #2'a%

Art. 162. :he pro"isions in this


26/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

:he foregoing r#le on contit#tion of famil" home, forpurposes of e&emption from e&ecution, could be summariedas follows

Firt, family residences constructed 5E;7/E the eKecti"ityof the ;amily udicially ore&tra>udicially constituted as a family home prior to theeKecti"ity of the ;amily ect property being a family home and itsbeing e&empted from e&ecution at the time it was le"ied orwithin a reasonable time thereafter. ;or all intents andpurposes, the petitioners negligence or omission to asserttheir right within a reasonable time gi"es rise to thepresumption that they ha"e abandoned, wai"ed or declined toassert it. Since the e&emption under Article 1(' of the ;amilyect property as a family home.

b. 3anacop !. CA-./. 0o. 13)+(. 0o"ember 1', 1$$2. 4IEL7, 8.9


27/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

6SSE 6s the family home of petitioner e&empt frome&ecution of the money >udgment aforecitedJ 0).

:he e&emption pro"ided inArticle 155is eKecti"e from thetime of the constitution of the family home as such, and lasts

so long as any of its bene?ciaries actually resides therein. 6nthe present case, the residential house and lot of petitionerwas not constituted as a family home whether >udicially ore&tra>udicially under the udgment arising therefrom wasrendered #8anuary 1$%.3ot$ preceded t$e e)ectivity o% t$eamily ode on Au"u!t , 14. -hi cae doe not fall#nder the e(emption from e(ec#tion pro!ided in theFamil" Code.

c. Arriola !. Arriola-./. 07. 1+++3' O 8anuary 2, 233 4AS:/6AOIA/:60ER, 8.9

Article 152 and 15@speci?cally e(tend the cope of thefamil" home not H#t to the dwelling tr#ct#re in whichthe famil" reide b#t alo to the lot on which it tand.:hus, applying these concepts, the sub>ect house as well asthe speci?c portion of the sub>ect land on which it stands aredeemed constituted as a family home by the deceased and


28/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

petitioner Vilma from the moment they began occupying thesame as a family residence 23 years bacH.

Article 15imposes the proscription against the immediatepartition of the family home regardless of its ownership. :his

signi?es that e"en if the family home has passed bysuccession to the coOownership of the heirs, or has beenwilled to any one of them, this fact alone cannot transform thefamily home into an ordinary property, much less dispel theprotection cast upon it by the law. :he rights of the indi"idualcoOowner or owner of the family home cannot sub>ugate therights granted under Article 1($ to the bene?ciaries of thefamily home. ,et againt the foregoing r#le$ the famil"home coniting of the #bHect ho#e and lot onwhich it tand cannot be partitioned at thi time$

e!en if it ha paed to the coownerhip of hi heir$the partie herein.

d. :oeph ! 3endozaJJJ

1). *Art. 166. Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only on thefollowing grounds#1% :hat it was physically impossible for the husband to ha"e se&ualintercourse with his wife within the ?rst 123 days of the '33 days

which immediately preceded the birth of the child because of#a% the physical incapacity of the husband to ha"e se&ual intercoursewith his wife@#b% the fact that the husband and wife were li"ing separately in sucha way that se&ual intercourse was not possible@ or#c% serious illness of the husband, which absolutely pre"ented se&ualintercourse@

#2% :hat it is pro"ed that for biological or other scienti?c reasons,the child could not ha"e been that of the husband, e&cept in the

instance pro"ided in the second paragraph of Article 1)@ or

#'% :hat in case of children concei"ed through arti?cialinsemination, the written authoriation or rati?cation of eitherparent was obtained through mistaHe, fraud, "iolence, intimidation,or undue inuence. #2((a%


29/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

1. Concepcion !. CA-./. 07. 12')(3 August '1, 233( 4


30/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

legitimacy presumpti"ely "ested by law upon 8ose erardofa"ors his interest.

1(. **Art. 1*2.:he ?liation of legitimate children is established by any ofthe following#1% :he record of birth appearing in the ci"il register or a ?nal>udgment@ or#2% An admission of legitimate ?liation in a public document or apri"ate handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned.

6n the absence of the foregoing e"idence, the legitimate ?liationshall bepro"ed by#1% :he open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate

child@ or#2% Any other means allowed by the /ules of


31/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

signed by the parent. Such other proof of oneBs ?liation maybe a baptismal certi?cate, a >udicial admission, a family 5iblein which his name has been entered, common reputationrespecting his pedigree, admission by silence, the testimoniesof witnesses and ot$er *ind! o% proo% admi!!ible under Rule

1 of the /ules of


32/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

1. ***Art. 1*6. 6llegitimate children shall use the surname and shall beunder the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled tosupport in conformity with this


33/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

word MmayN is permissi"e and operates to confer discretionupon the illegitimate children.

1+. *Art. 1++. ointlywith his or her spouse a relati"e by consanguinity of the latter.

Aliens not included in the foregoing e&ceptions may adopt ;ilipinochildren in accordance with the rules on interOcountry adoptions asmay be pro"ided by law. #2a, E. 7. $1 and !D 3'%

Art. 15. Cusband and wife must >ointly adopt, e&cept in thefollowing cases#1% =hen one spouse seeHs to adopt his own illegitimate child@ or#2% =hen one spouse seeHs to adopt the legitimate child of the other.#2$a, E. 7. $1 and !D 3'%

A 552 /ometic Adoption Act of 1.


34/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

1. ep#blic !. -oledano -./. 0o. $)1)+. 8une , 1$$) 4!07, 8.9

& & & both h#band and wife MhallM Hointl" adopt if oneof them i an alien. 6t was so crafted to protect ;ilipino

children who are put up for adoption. :he ;amily ointly adopt, e&cept in the cases pro"ided for in Art 15.nder the said new law, >oint adoption by husband and wife ismandatory. :his is in consonance with the concept of >ointparental authority o"er the child, which is the ideal situation.As the child to be adopted is ele"ated to the le"el of alegitimate child, it is but natural to reFuire the spouses toadopt >ointly. :he rule also insures harmony between thespouses.

1$. **'%4BLIC AC- 0). 7= &2771+ a amended b" '%4BLICAC- 0). 171*2 &2712+

SE


35/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

the petitioner.

Section ). ;ro#nd for Change of Firt 0ame or 0icname. U:he petition for change of ?rst name or nicHname may be allowed inany of the following cases

#1% :he petitioner ?nds the ?rst name or nicHname to be ridiculous,tainted with dishonor or e&tremely diKicult to write or pronounce.

#2% :he new ?rst name or nicHname has been habitually andcontinuously used by the petitioner and he has been publicly Hnownby that by that ?rst name or nicHname in the community or

#'% :he change will a"oid confusion.

1. ,il!erio !. ep#blic-./. 07. 1+)$ 7ctober 22, 233+4


36/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

0o Law Allows :he


37/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

naturally and legally be aKected by the grant of a petition forcorrection or cancellation of entries.

21. ***Art. 21. :he school, its administrators and teachers, or theindi"idual, entity or institution engaged in child are shall ha"especial parental authority and responsibility o"er the minor childwhile under their super"ision, instruction or custody.

Authority and responsibility shall apply to all authoried acti"itieswhether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity orinstitution. #')$a%

Art. 21.:hose gi"en the authority and responsibility under thepreceding Article shall be principally and solidarily liable for

damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipatedminor. :he parents, >udicial guardians or the persons e&ercisingsubstitute parental authority o"er said minor shall be subsidiarilyliable.

:he respecti"e liabilities of those referred to in the precedingparagraph shall not apply if it is pro"ed that they e&ercised theproper diligence reFuired under the particular circumstances.

All other cases not co"ered by this and the preceding articles shall

be go"erned by the pro"isions of the uries and damages caused by the actsor omissions of their unemancipated children li"ing in their companyand under their parental authority sub>ect to the appropriatedefenses pro"ided by law.

Art. 2@=. Emancipation taHes place by the attainment of ma>ority.nless otherwise pro"ided, ma>ority commences at the age ofeighteen years. #A amended b" A 0o. 67 @ December 1',1$$%

1. -amargo !. CA -./. 0o. (3)). 8une ', 1$$2.4;EL6


38/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

that may be caused by a minor child who li"es with them. :hisprinciple of parental liability is a species of what is freFuentlydesignated as "icarious liability, or the doctrine of imputednegligence & & & where a person is not only liable for tortscommitted by himself, but also for torts committed by others

with whom he has a certain relationship and for whom he isresponsible. :hus, parental liability is made a natural orlogical conseFuence of the duties and responsibilities ofparents Q their parental authority Q which includes theinstructing, controlling and disciplining of the child. Article221 of the ;amily


39/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

liabilit" hall be impoed p#r#ant to Article 217 ofthe Ci!il Code.nder said Article 213, the enforcement ofsuch liability shall be eKected against the father and, in caseof his death or incapacity, the mother. :his was ampli?ed bythe


40/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

by his or her son, no liability would attach if the damage iscaused with criminal intent.

Art. 6@. :he decree of legal separation shall ha"e the followingeKects & & & #'% :he custody of the minor children shall be awarded

to the innocent spouse, sub>ect to the pro"isions of Article 21' ofthis


41/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

petition for custody. B#t it i not a bai for pre!entingthe father to ee hi own child. 0othing in the aidpro!iion diallow a father from eeing or !iiting hichild #nder e!en "ear of age.

f. /a!id !. CA #./. 0o. 11113 4 0o"ember 1, 1$$( 4IE0D7RA, 8.%

& & & the determination of the right to the c#tod" ofminor children i rele!ant in cae where the parent$who are married to each other$ are for ome reaoneparated from each other. 6t does not follow, howe"er, thatit cannot arise in any other situation. 6n the case of alva:a v.;aela, it was held that the writ of habeas corpus is theproper remedy to enable parents to regain the custody of a

minor daughter e"en though the latter be in the custody of athird person of her free will because the parents werecompelling her to marry a man against her will. #le 172 O1mae no ditinction between the cae of a mother whoi eparated from her h#band and i entitled to thec#tod" of her child and that of a mother of anillegitimate child who$ b" law$ i !eted with oleparental a#thorit"$ b#t i depri!ed of her rightf#lc#tod" of her child.

-he fact that pri!ate repondent ha recognized theminor child ma" be a gro#nd for ordering him to gi!e#pport to the latter$ b#t not for gi!ing him c#tod" ofthe child. nder Art. 21' of the ;amily


42/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

:he fears e&pressed by respondent to the eKect thatpetitioner shall be able to corrupt and degrade their childrenonce allowed to e"en temporarily associate with petitioner isbut the product of respondentBs unfounded imagination, for noman, bereft of all moral persuasions and goodness, would

e"er taHe the trouble and e&pense in instituting a legal actionfor the purpose of seeing his illegitimate children. 6t can >ustbe imagined the deep sorrows of a father who is depri"ed ofhis children of tender ages.

h. Becett !. :#dge ,armiento$ :r.#A.I. 0o. /:8O12O2'2 8anuary '3, 231' 4 VELASusted & & &. :o be sure, the welfare,the best interests, the bene?t, and the good of the child mustbe determined as of the time that either parent is chosen tobe the custodian. & & & in Daca!in v. Daca!in, a custodyagreement can ne"er be regarded as permanent andunbending, the simple reason being that the situation of theparents and e"en of the child can change, such that sticHingto the agreed arrangement would no longer be to the lattersbest interest. 6n a "ery real sense, then, a H#dgment

in!ol!ing the c#tod" of a minor child cannot beaccorded the force and eEect of re H#dicata.

i. 3agbaleta !. ;onong#./. 0o. LO))$3' April 22, 1$++ 45A//ED7, 8.%

& & & it is necessary that e"ery eKort should be made toward acompromise before a litigation is allowed to breed hate andpassion in the family and it is Hnown that a lawsuit betweenclose relati"es generates deeper bitterness than between

strangers & & & thee conideration do not weigh eno#ghto mae it imperati!e that #ch eEort to compromieho#ld be a H#ridictional prere>#iite for themaintenance of an action whene!er a tranger to thefamil" i a part" thereto, whether as a necessary orindispensable one. 6t is neither practical nor fair that thedetermination of the rights of a stranger to the family =ho>ust happened to ha"e innocently acFuired some Hind of


43/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

interest in any right or property disputed among its membersshould be made to depend on the way the latter would settletheir diKerences among themsel"es.

>. P#a ! IAC JJJ

H. ,iochi !. ;ozon -./. 0o. 1$$33 Iarch 1, 2313 4ugal partnership is dissol"ed and liFuidated andthe oEending po#e wo#ld ha!e no right to an" hare ofthe net prougal partnership & & &Article 132#)% of the ;amily


44/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

legal separation@ or#% =here the action is barred by prescription.

m. B#ga"ong !. ;inez -./. 0o. LO133''. December 2,1$(. 4 ;EL6P, 8.9

6SSE Do the husbands attitude of sleeping with his wife for2 nights despite his alleged belief that she was unfaithful tohim, amount to a condonation of her pre"ious and supposedadulterous actsJ


45/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

M6t has been held in a long line of decisions of the "arioussupreme courts of the diKerent states of the . S. that aingle !ol#ntar" act of e(#al interco#re b" theinnocent po#e after dico!er" of the oEene iordinaril" #Eicient to contit#te condonation, especiallyas against the husband.

n. Brown !. ?ambao-./. 0o. LO13$$. 7ctober 1, 1$(+ 4/EGES, 8. 5. L., 8.9

oint eKorts, worH or industry, and shall be owned by them in eFualshares. ;or purposes of this Article, a party who did not participatein the acFuisition by the other party of any property shall be deemedto ha"e contributed >ointly in the acFuisition thereof if the formerBs


46/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

eKorts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and ofthe household.

0either party can encumber or dispose by acts inter "i"os of his orher share in the property acFuired during cohabitation and owned in

common, without the consent of the other, until after the terminationof their cohabitation.

=hen only one of the parties to a "oid marriage is in good faith, theshare of the party in bad faith in the coOownership shall be forfeitedin fa"or of their common children. 6n case of default of or wai"er byany or all of the common children or their descendants, each "acantshare shall belong to the respecti"e sur"i"ing descendants. 6n theabsence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocentparty. 6n all cases, the forfeiture shall taHe place upon termination of

the cohabitation. #1))a%

Art. 1=. 6n cases of cohabitation not falling under the precedingArticle, only the properties acFuired by both of the parties throughtheir actual >oint contribution of money, property, or industry shallbe owned by them in common in proportion to their respecti"econtributions. 6n the absence of proof to the contrary, theircontributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be eFual.:he same rule and presumption shall apply to >oint deposits ofmoney and e"idences of credit.

6f one of the parties is "alidly married to another, his or her share inthe coOownership shall accrue to the absolute community or con>ugalpartnership e&isting in such "alid marriage. 6f the party who acted inbad faith is not "alidly married to another, his or her shall beforfeited in the manner pro"ided in the last paragraph of thepreceding Article.

:he foregoing rules on forfeiture shall liHewise apply e"en if bothparties are in bad faith. #1))a%

1. ;o Banga"an !. Banga"an$ :r. #./. 0o. 23131, 8uly 3',231' 4


47/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

& & & the words Mmarried toN preceding the name of a spouseare merel" decripti!e of the ci!il tat# of theregitered owner. Such words do not pro"e coOownership.=ithout proof of actual contribution from either or bothspouses, there can be no coOownership under Article 1) of

the ;amily


48/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

2). ***Article =15. :he following are immo"able property#1% Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all Hinds adhered tothe soil@#2% :rees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached to the

land or form an integral part of an immo"able@#'% E"erything attached to an immo"able in a ?&ed manner, in such away that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaHing thematerial or deterioration of the ob>ect@#)% Statues, reliefs, paintings or other ob>ects for use orornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the owner of theimmo"able in such a manner that it re"eals the intention to attachthem permanently to the tenements@#(% Iachinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended bythe owner of the tenement for an industry or worHs which may be

carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tenddirectly to meet the needs of the said industry or worHs@#% Animal houses, pigeonOhouses, beehi"es, ?sh ponds or breedingplaces of similar nature, in case their owner has placed them orpreser"es them with the intention to ha"e them permanentlyattached to the land, and forming a permanent part of it@ the animalsin these places are included@#+% ;ertilier actually used on a piece of land@#% Iines, Fuarries, and slag dumps, while the matter thereof formspart of the bed, and waters either running or stagnant@

#$% DocHs and structures which, though oating, are intended bytheir nature and ob>ect to remain at a ?&ed place on a ri"er, laHe, orcoast@#13%


49/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

Ioreo"er, Article )1( #$% of the 0ew ect to remain at a ?&ed place on ari"er, laHe, or coast are considered immo"able property.

:hus, power barges are categoried as immo"able property bydestination, being in the nature of machinery and otherimplements intended by the owner for an industry or worHwhich may be carried on in a building or on a piece of landand which tend directly to meet the needs of said industry orworH

b. /a!ao ,awmill ! Catillo

:he machinery only becomes immobilied if placed in a plant

by the owner of the property or plant. 6mmobiliation cannotbe made by a tenant, a usufructuary, or any person ha"ingonly a temporary right. :he tenant, usufructuary, ortemporary possessor acted as agent of the owner of thepremises@ or he intended to permanently gi"e away theproperty in fa"or of the owner. :herefore, the machineryshould be considered as !ersonal !roperty, since it was notplaced on the land by the owner of the said land.

2(.

Article =@. Cidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land,building, or other property on which it is found.

0e"ertheless, when the disco"ery is made on the property ofanother, or of the State or any of its subdi"isions, and by chance,oneOhalf thereof shall be allowed to the ?nder. 6f the ?nder is atrespasser, he shall not be entitled to any share of the treasure.6f the things found be of interest to science or the arts, the Statemay acFuire them at their >ust price, which shall be di"ided inconformity with the rule stated. #'(1a%

Article =@. 5y treasure is understood, for legal purposes, anyhidden and unHnown deposit of money, >ewelry, or other preciousob>ects, the lawful ownership of which does not appear. #'(2%

2. ***


50/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

Article ==*. :he owner of the land who maHes thereon, personallyor through another, plantings, constructions or worHs with thematerials of another, shall pay their "alue@ and, if he acted in badfaith, he shall also be obliged to the reparation of damages. :heowner of the materials shall ha"e the right to remo"e them only in

case he can do so without in>ury to the worH constructed, or withoutthe plantings, constructions or worHs being destroyed. Cowe"er, ifthe landowner acted in bad faith, the owner of the materials mayremo"e them in any e"ent, with a right to be indemni?ed fordamages. #'3a%

Article ==. :he owner of the land on which anything has beenbuilt, sown or planted in good faith, shall ha"e the right toappropriate as his own the worHs, sowing or planting, after paymentof the indemnity pro"ided for in articles () and (), or to oblige

the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the onewho sowed, the proper rent. Cowe"er, the builder or planter cannotbe obliged to buy the land if its "alue is considerably more than thatof the building or trees. 6n such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, ifthe owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building ortrees after proper indemnity. :he parties shall agree upon the termsof the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall ?& theterms thereof. #'1a%

Article ==. Ce who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land

of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right toindemnity. #'2%

Article 5=6. 0ecessary e&penses shall be refunded to e"erypossessor@ but only the possessor in good faith may retain the thinguntil he has been reimbursed therefor.

seful e&penses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faithwith the same right of retention, the person who has defeated him inthe possession ha"ing the option of refunding the amount of the

e&penses or of paying the increase in "alue which the thing mayha"e acFuired by reason thereof. #)('a%

Article 16*. 6f the lessee maHes, in good faith, usefulimpro"ements which are suitable to the use for which the lease isintended, without altering the form or substance of the propertyleased, the lessor upon the termination of the lease shall pay thelessee oneOhalf of the "alue of the impro"ements at that time. Should


51/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

the lessor refuse to reimburse said amount, the lessee may remo"ethe impro"ements, e"en though the principal thing may suKerdamage thereby. Ce shall not, howe"er, cause any more impairmentupon the property leased than is necessary.

=ith regard to ornamental e&penses, the lessee shall not be entitledto any reimbursement, but he may remo"e the ornamental ob>ects,pro"ided no damage is caused to the principal thing, and the lessordoes not choose to retain them by paying their "alue at the time thelease is e&tinguished. #n%

1. oale ! Catelltort

nder Art. )), the landowner can choose betweenappropriating the building by paying the proper indemnity or

obliging the builder to pay the price of the land, unless its"alue is considerably more than that of the structures, inwhich case the builder in good faith shall pay reasonable rent.6f the parties cannot come to terms o"er the conditions of thelease, the court must ?& the terms thereof.:he choice belongs to the owner of the land, a rule thataccords with the principle of accession, i.e., that theaccessory follows the principal and not the other way around.E"en as the option lies with the landowner, the grant to him,ne"ertheless, is preclusi"e. :he landowner cannot refuse to

e&ercise either option and compel instead the owner of thebuilding to remo"e it from the land.

!ossession acFuired in good faith does not lose this charactere&cept in the case and from the moment facts e&ist whichshow that the possessor is not unaware that he possesses thething improperly or wrongfully. :he good faith ceases or islegally interrupted from the moment defects in the title aremade Hnown to the possessor, by e&traneous e"idence or bysuit for reco"ery of the property by the true owner.

b. 0#g#id ! CA

nder Article )), the landowner is gi"en the option, either toappropriate the impro"ement as his own upon payment of theproper amount of indemnity or to sell the land to thepossessor in good faith. /elatedly, Article () pro"ides that abuilder in good faith is entitled to full reimbursement for all


52/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

the necessary and useful e&penses incurred@ it also gi"es himright of retention until full reimbursement is made.

=hile the law aims to concentrate in one person theownership of the land and the impro"ements thereon in "iew

of the impracticability of creating a state of forced coOownership, it guards against un>ust enrichment insofar as thegoodOfaith builders impro"ements are concerned. :he rightof retention is considered as one of the measures de"ised bythe law for the protection of builders in good faith. 6ts ob>ectis to guarantee full and prompt reimbursement as it permitsthe actual possessor to remain in possession while he has notbeen reimbursed #by the person who defeated him in the casefor possession of the property% for those necessary e&pensesand useful impro"ements made by him on the thing

possessed. Accordingly, a builder in good faith cannot becompelled to pay rentals during the period of retention nor bedisturbed in his possession by ordering him to "acate. 6naddition, as in this case, the owner of the land is prohibitedfrom oKsetting or compensating the necessary and usefule&penses with the fruits recei"ed by the builderOpossessor ingood faith. 7therwise, the security pro"ided by law would beimpaired. :his is so because the right to the e&penses and theright to the fruits both pertain to the possessor, maHingcompensation >uridically impossible@ and one cannot be used

to reduce the other.

2+. *Article =5. :he share of the coOowners, in the bene?ts as well as inthe charges, shall be proportional to their respecti"e interests. Anystipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be "oid.

:he portions belonging to the coOowners in the coOownership shall bepresumed eFual, unless the contrary is pro"ed. #'$'a%

Article =*. Any one of the coOowners may bring an action ine>ectment. #n%

Article =5. 0otwithstanding the pro"isions of the precedingarticle, the coOowners cannot demand a physical di"ision of the thingowned in common, when to do so would render it unser"iceable forthe use for which it is intended. 5ut the coOownership may beterminated in accordance with article )$. #)31a%


53/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

Article =1.0one of the coOowners shall, without the consent of theothers, maHe alterations in the thing owned in common, e"en thoughbene?ts for all would result therefrom. Cowe"er, if the withholdingof the consent by one or more of the coOowners is clearly pre>udicial

to the common interest, the courts may aKord adeFuate relief.#'$+a%

Article ==.:here is coOownership whene"er the ownership of anundi"ided thing or right belongs to diKerent persons.

6n default of contracts, or of special pro"isions, coOownership shallbe go"erned by the pro"isions of this :itle.

2.

Article 5@@. :he possession of hereditary property is deemedtransmitted to the heir without interruption and from the moment ofthe death of the decedent, in case the inheritance is accepted.

7ne who "alidly renounces an inheritance is deemed ne"er to ha"epossessed the same. #))3%

Article 5@=. 7n who succeeds by hereditary title shall not suKer theconseFuences of the wrongful possession of the decedent, if it is notshown that he was aware of the aws aKecting it@ but the eKects ofpossession in good faith shall not bene?t him e&cept from the date ofdeath of the decedent. #))2%

Article 11@. 6n the computation of time necessary for prescriptionthe following rules shall be obser"ed

#1% :he present possessor may complete the period necessary forprescription by tacHing his possession to that of his grantor orpredecessor in interest@#2% 6t is presumed that the present possessor who was also thepossessor at a pre"ious time, has continued to be in possessionduring the inter"ening time, unless there is proof to the contrary@#'% :he ?rst day shall be e&cluded and the last day included. #1$3a%

2$. **Article 55.:he possession of mo"able property acFuired in good


54/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

faith is eFui"alent to a title. 0e"ertheless, one who has lost anymo"able or has been unlawfully depri"ed thereof, may reco"er itfrom the person in possession of the same.

6f the possessor of a mo"able lost or which the owner has been

unlawfully depri"ed, has acFuired it in good faith at a public sale,the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the pricepaid therefor. #))a%

1. Ledema ! CA

6t is Fuite clear that a party who #a% has lost any mo"able or#b% has been unlawfully depri"ed thereof can reco"er thesame from the present possessor e"en if the latter acFuired itin good faith and has, therefore, title thereto for under the

?rst sentence of Article (($, such manner of acFuisition iseFui"alent to a title. :here are three #'% reFuisites to maHepossession of mo"able property eFui"alent to title, namely #a%the possession should be in good faith@ #b% the owner"oluntarily parted with the possession of the thing@ and #c% thepossession is in the concept of owner.

ndoubtedly, one who has lost a mo"able or who has beenunlawfully depri"ed of it cannot be said to ha"e "oluntarilyparted with the possession thereof. :his is the >usti?cation for

the e&ceptions found under the second sentence of Article (($of the


55/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

:he buyer in the second sale would be left holding the bag, soto speaH, and would be compelled to return the thing boughtby him in good faith without e"en the right to reimbursementof the amount he had paid for it.

c. Aznar ! ?apdiangco

:he lower court was correct in applying Article (($ of the


56/140


57/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

relationship betweenamong Hin constitutes a resolutorycondition which, by e&press wish of the petitioner,e&tinguishes the usufruct.

;rom the pleadings submitted by the parties, it is indubitable

that there were indeed facts and circumstances whereby thesub>ect usufruct may be deemed terminated or e&tinguishedby the occurrence of the resolutory conditions pro"ided for inthe title creating the usufruct, namely, the document ad"ertedto which the petitioner e&ecuted on 8uly 21, 1$.

'1. ***Article 6=. :he owner, or any person who by "irtue of a real rightmay culti"ate or use any immo"able, which is surrounded by otherimmo"ables pertaining to other persons and without adeFuate outlet

to a public highway, is entitled to demand a right of way through theneighboring estates, after payment of the proper indemnity.

Should this easement be established in such a manner that its usemay be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate,establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of the"alue of the land occupied and the amount of the damage caused tothe ser"ient estate.

6n case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the

culti"ation of the estate surrounded by others and for the gatheringof its crops through the ser"ient estate without a permanent way,the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage caused bysuch encumbrance.

:his easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immo"able isdue to the proprietorBs own acts. #()a%

Article 657. :he easement of right of way shall be established atthe point least pre>udicial to the ser"ient estate, and, insofar asconsistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominantestate to a public highway may be the shortest. #((%

Article 62=. :he e&istence of an apparent sign of easement betweentwo estates, established or maintained by the owner of both, shall beconsidered, should either of them be alienated, as a title in orderthat the easement may continue acti"ely and passi"ely, unless, at thetime the ownership of the two estates is di"ided, the contrary should


58/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

be pro"ided in the title of con"eyance of either of them, or the signaforesaid should be remo"ed before the e&ecution of the deed. :hispro"ision shall also apply in case of the di"ision of a thing owned incommon by two or more persons.

1. Bogomedellin 3illing Inc ! CAAn easement or ser"itude is a real right, constituted on thecorporeal immo"able property of another, by "irtue of whichthe owner has to refrain from doing, or must allow someoneto do, something on his property, for the bene?t of anotherthing or person. 6t e&ists only when the ser"ient and dominantestates belong to two diKerent owners. 6t gi"es the holder ofthe easement an incorporeal interest on the land but grantsno title thereto. :herefore, an acHnowledgment of theeasement is an admission that the property belongs to

another

6n the absence of an e&press grant by the owner, or conductby petitioner sugar mill from which an ad"erse claim can beimplied, its possession of the lot can only be presumed to ha"econtinued in the same character as when it was acFuired #thatis, it possessed the land only by "irtue of the original grant ofthe easement of right of way%,-29 or was by mere license ortolerance of the owners #respondent heirs%.-2$9 6t is afundamental principle of law in this >urisdiction that acts of

possessory character e&ecuted by "irtue of license ortolerance of the owner, no matter how long, do not start therunning of the period of prescription

nder ci"il law and its >urisprudence, easements are eithercontinuous or discontinuous according to the manner they aree&ercised, not according to the presence of apparent signs orphysical indications of the e&istence of such easements. :hus,an easement is continuous if its use is, or may be, incessantwithout the inter"ention of any act of man, liHe the easement

of drainage@-'9 and it is discontinuous if it is used atinter"als and depends on the act of man, liHe the easement ofright of way.-'$9

:he easement of right of way is considered discontinuousbecause it is e&ercised only if a person passes or sets foot onsomebody elses land. LiHe a road for the passage of "ehiclesor persons, an easement of right of way of railroad tracHs is


59/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

discontinuous because the right is e&ercised only if and whena train operated by a person passes o"er anotherBs property.6n other words, the "ery e&ercise of the ser"itude dependsupon the act or inter"ention of man which is the "ery essenceof discontinuous easements.

:he presence of more or less permanent railroad tracHs doesnot in any way con"ert the nature of an easement of right ofway to one that is continuous. 6t is not the presence ofapparent signs or physical indications showing the e&istenceof an easement, but rather the manner of e&ercise thereof,that categories such easement into continuous ordiscontinuous. :he presence of physical or "isual signs onlyclassi?es an easement into apparent or nonOapparent. :hus, aroad #which re"eals a right of way% and a window #which

e"idences a right to light and "iew% are apparent easements,while an easement of not building beyond a certain height isnonOapparent

b. Abellana ! CA

!etitionersB assumption that an easement of right of way iscontinuous and apparent and may be acFuired by prescriptionunder Article 23 of the


60/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

has been paid@ #'% that the isolation was not due to acts of theproprietor of the dominant estate@ #)% that the right of wayclaimed is at a point least pre>udicial to the ser"ient estateand, in so far as consistent with this rule, where the distancefrom the dominant estate to a public highway may be the

shortest.-$9 :he burden of pro"ing the e&istence of theseprereFuisites lies on the owner of the dominant estate.

e. ,QQQQQQQQQ ! CA WI/-8

f. amo ! ;atchalian

:he petitionerBs position is not impressed with merit. =e ?ndno reason to disturb the appellate courtBs ?nding of fact thatthe petitioner failed to pro"e the nonOe&istence of an adeFuate

outlet to the Sucat /oad e&cept through the atchalianA"enue. As borne out by the records of the case, there is aroad right of way pro"ided by the Sabrina /odrigue LombosSubdi"ision indicated as Lot )1''OO12 in its subdi"ision planfor the buyers of its lots. :he fact that said lot is stillunde"eloped and causes incon"enience to the petitioner whenhe uses it to reach the public highway does not bring himwithin the ambit of the legal reFuisite. =e agree with theappellate courtBs obser"ation that the petitioner should ha"e,?rst and foremost, demanded from the Sabrina /odrigue

Lombos Subdi"ision the impro"ement and maintenance of Lot)1''OO12 as his road right of way because it was from saidsubdi"ision that he acFuired his lot and not either from theatchalian /ealty or the respondents Asprec. :o allow thepetitioner access to Sucat /oad through atchalian A"enueinspite of a road right of way pro"ided by the petitionerBssubdi"ision for its buyers simply because atchalian A"enueallows petitioner a much greater ease in going to and comingfrom the main thoroughfare is to completely ignore what>urisprudence has consistently maintained through the years

regarding an easement of a right of way, that merecon"enience for the dominant estate is not enough to ser"e asits basis. :o >ustify the imposition of this ser"itude, there mustbe a real, not a ?ctitious or arti?cial, necessity for it.

g. 4nio#rce Commercial Corp ! Ch#ng


61/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

As de?ned, an easement is a real right on anothers property,corporeal and immo"able, whereby the owner of the lattermust refrain from doing or allowing somebody else to do orsomething to be done on his property, for the bene?t ofanother person or tenement. Easements are established

either by law or by the will of the owner. :he former arecalled legal, and the latter, "oluntary easements

0either can petitioner claim that the easement is personalonly to Cidalgo since the annotation merely mentionedSandico and Cidalgo without eFually binding their heirs orassigns. :hat the heirs or assigns of the parties were notmentioned in the annotation does not mean that it is notbinding on them. Again, a "oluntary easement of right of wayis liHe any other contract. As such, it is generally eKecti"e

between the parties, their heirs and assigns, e&cept in casewhere the rights and obligations arising from the contract arenot transmissible by their nature, or by stipulation or bypro"ision of law.-2(9 !etitioner cites


62/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

Article *1. =hoe"er ?nds a mo"able, which is not treasure, mustreturn it to its pre"ious possessor. 6f the latter is unHnown, the ?ndershall immediately deposit it with the mayor of the city ormunicipality where the ?nding has taHen place.

:he ?nding shall be publicly announced by the mayor for twoconsecuti"e weeHs in the way he deems best.

6f the mo"able cannot be Hept without deterioration, or withoute&penses which considerably diminish its "alue, it shall be sold atpublic auction eight days after the publication.

Si& months from the publication ha"ing elapsed without the ownerha"ing appeared, the thing found, or its "alue, shall be awarded tothe ?nder. :he ?nder and the owner shall be obliged, as the case

may be, to reimburse the e&penses. #1(a%

Article *27. 6f the owner should appear in time, he shall be obligedto pay, as a reward to the ?nder, oneOtenth of the sum or of the priceof the thing found. #1a%

Article 21*1. :he rights and obligations of the ?nder of lostpersonal property shall be go"erned by articles +1$ and +23.

1. Finder PeeperR

/)0A-I)0,

'(.

Article *25. Donation is an act of liberality whereby a persondisposes gratuitously of a thing or right in fa"or of another, whoaccepts it.

Article *2.Donations which are to taHe eKect upon the death ofthe donor partaHe of the nature of testamentary pro"isions, and shallbe go"erned by the rules established in the :itle on Succession.#23%

Article *2.=hen the donor intends that the donation shall taHeeKect during the lifetime of the donor, though the property shall notbe deli"ered till after the donorBs death, this shall be a donation inter


63/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

"i"os. :he fruits of the property from the time of the acceptance ofthe donation, shall pertain to the donee, unless the donor pro"idesotherwise.

'. ***

Article *@=.:he donation is perfected from the moment the donorHnows of the acceptance by the donee. #2'%

Article *@*.:he donorBs capacity shall be determined as of the timeof the maHing of the donation. #n%

1. When donation perfected

'+. ***Article *=.:he donation of a mo"able may be made orally or in

writing.An oral donation reFuires the simultaneous deli"ery of the thing orof the document representing the right donated.

6f the "alue of the personal property donated e&ceeds ?"e thousandpesos, the donation and the acceptance shall be made in writing.7therwise, the donation shall be "oid. #'2a%

Article *=. 6n order that the donation of an immo"able may be"alid, it must be made in a public document, specifying therein the

property donated and the "alue of the charges which the donee mustsatisfy.

:he acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in aseparate public document, but it shall not taHe eKect unless it isdone during the lifetime of the donor.

6f the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shallbe noti?ed thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall be notedin both instruments. #''%

Article 1@56.


64/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

#12+a%

Article *=5. :he donee must accept the donation personally, orthrough an authoried person with a special power for the purpose,or with a general and suKicient power@ otherwise, the donation shall

be "oid. #'3%

Article *=6.Acceptance must be made during the lifetime of thedonor and of the donee. #n%

1. ep#blic ! ,QQQQQ

b. Lagazo ! CA

6n the words of the esteemed Ir. 8ustice 8ose


65/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

the acceptance, or where the formal notice of the acceptance,made in a separate instrument, is either not gi"en to thedonor or else not noted in the deed of donation and in theseparate acceptance, the donation is null and "oid.

c. ,ecretar" )f 'd#cation ! 8eir )f /#la"

=e ?nd it diKicult to sustain that the defendantOappellantsha"e complied with the condition of donation. 6t is not amissto state that other than the bare allegation of the defendantOappellants, there is nothing in the records that couldconcretely pro"e that the condition of donation has beencomplied with by the defendantOappellants. 6n the samebreadth, the planting ofpalay on the land donated can hardlybe considered and could not ha"e been the Mschool purposesN

referred to and intended by the donors when they haddonated the land in Fuestion. Also, the posture of thedefendantOappellants that the land donated is being used astechnology and home economics laboratory of the /ial0ational Cigh School is far from being the truth consideringthat not only is the said school located two Hilometers awayfrom the land donated but also there was not e"en a singleclassroom built on the land donated that would reasonablyindicate that, indeed, classes ha"e been conducted therein.:hese obser"ations, together with the unrebutted ocular

inspection report made by the trial court which re"ealed thatthe land donated remains idle and without any impro"ementthereon for more than a decade since the time of thedonation, gi"e s no other alternati"e but to conclude that thedefendantOappellants ha"e, indeed, failed to comply with whatis incumbent upon them in the deed of donation

Anent the second issue, we re>ect the contention of the 7Sthat respondents cause of action is already barred byprescription under Article +) of the 0ew


66/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

ad"antage. 6t must be stressed that the donation is onerousbecause the DE


67/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

upon him, the obligee may seeH rescission and the court shalldecree the same unless there is >ust cause authoriing the?&ing of a period. 6n the absence of any >ust cause for thecourt to determine the period of the compliance, there is nomore obstacle for the court to decree the rescission claimed.

;inally, since the Fuestioned deed of donation herein isbasically a gratuitous one, doubts referring to incidentalcircumstances of a gratuitous contract should be resol"ed infa"or of the least transmission of rights and interests.

b. *Article *51. Donations cannot comprehend future property.5y future property is understood anything which the donor cannotdispose of at the time of the donation. #'(%

Article 1=5.:he thing must be licit and the "endor must ha"e aright to transfer the ownership thereof at the time it is deli"ered. #n%

Article *==. Donations of the same thing to two or more diKerentdonees shall be go"erned by the pro"isions concerning the sale ofthe same thing to two or more diKerent persons. #n%

c. /o#ble /onationR go!erned b" r#le on do#ble ale

%A-0',8I%

+. 1++**,? V, CA

Article 1++ of the


68/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

in the management, administration and adoption of policiesof the business.

+$. 1+$@13*3. 131 U 13'**

1. 13)**2. 11@ 12' U 12)*'. 12@ 12$@ 1'3***

)-';A V, CA:he birth and life of a partnership at will is predicated onthe mutual desire and consent of the partners. :he right tochoose with whom a person wishes to associate himself isthe "ery foundation and essence of that partnership. 6tscontinued e&istence is, in turn, dependent on the constancyof that mutual resol"e, along with each partnerBs capability

to gi"e it, and the absence of a cause for dissolutionpro"ided by the law itself. Verily, any one of the partnersmay, at his sole pleasure, dictate a dissolution of thepartnership at will. Ce must, howe"er, act in good faith, notthat the attendance of bad faith can pre"ent the dissolutionof the partnershipbut that it can result in a liability fordamages.

6n passing, neither would the presence of a period for itsspeci?c duration or the statement of a particular purpose

for its creation pre"ent the dissolution of any partnershipby an act or will of a partner. Among partners, mutualagency arises and the doctrine of delectu! per!onaeallowsthem to ha"e thepo#er, although not necessarily theri"$t,to dissol"e the partnership. An un>usti?ed dissolution bythe partner can sub>ect him to a possible action fordamages.

:he dissolution of a partnership is the change in therelation of the parties caused by any partner ceasing to be

associated in the carrying on, as might be distinguishedfrom the winding up of, the business. pon its dissolution,the partnership continues and its legal personality isretained until the complete winding up of its businessculminating in its termination.:he liFuidation of the assetsof the partnership following its dissolution is go"erned by"arious pro"isions of the


69/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

binding among them and normally taHes precedence to thee&tent applicable o"er the


70/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

action ha"e been set out as follows M;or a hospital to beliable under the doctrine of apparent authority, a plaintiKmust show that #1% the hospital, or its agent, acted in amanner that would lead a reasonable person to concludethat the indi"idual who was alleged to be negligent was an

employee or agent of the hospital@ #2% where the acts ofthe agent create the appearance of authority, the plaintiKmust also pro"e that the hospital had Hnowledge of andacFuiesced in them@ and #'% the plaintiK acted in relianceupon the conduct of the hospital or its agent, consistentwith ordinary care and prudence.N

(. 1+)@ 1'1(@ 1'(*%I0'/A V, CA

:he ect property topetitioners DuFue. Cence, any MsaleN in fa"or ofpetitioners DuFue is "oid

. 1'1+@ 1)3' #1%@ 11@ 12@ 1'@ 1$@ 1$3$@ 1$13@ 1$11***BIC)L ,AVI0;, BA0P V, CA

:he sale proscribed by a special power to mortgage underArticle 1+$ is a "oluntary and independent contract, andnot an auction sale resulting from e&tra>udicial foreclosure,

which is precipitated by the default of a mortgagor. Absentthat default, no foreclosure results. :he stipulationgranting an authority to e&tra>udicially foreclose amortgage is an ancillary stipulation supported by the samecause or consideration for the mortgage and forms anessential or inseparable part of that bilateral agreement.:he power to foreclose is not an ordinary agency thatcontemplates e&clusi"ely the representation of the


71/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

principal by the agent but is primarily an authorityconferred upon the mortgagee for the latterBs ownprotection. :hat power sur"i"es the death of themortgagor

+. 1$2)@ 1+(***,A0C8'S V, 3'/ICA/

;or the purpose of eFuity, an agent who is not the eKicientprocuring cause is nonetheless entitled to his commission,where said agent, notwithstanding the e&piration of hisauthority, nonetheless, too diligent tep to bring bactogether the partie$ #ch that a ale wa udice its personnel, nilab, through respondentE>ercito, negotiated with respondent Dr. Iontoya of

Iedicard, in order to ?nd mutually bene?cial ways ofcontinuing the Cealth


72/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

compensation that the broHer conduct the negotiationsbetween the parties after they ha"e been brought intocontact with each other through his eKorts. :he caseof=acondray v. ellneris Fuite instructi"e

:he business of a real estate broHer or agent,

generally, is only to ?nd a purchaser, and thesettled rule as stated by the courts is that, inthe absence of an e&press contract betweenthe broHer and his principal, the implicationgenerally is that the broHer becomes entitledto the usual commissions whene"er he bringsto his principal a party who is able and willingto taHe the property and enter into a "alidcontract upon the terms then named by theprincipal, although the particulars may be

arranged and the matter negotiated andcompleted between the principal and thepurchaser directly.

0otably, there are cases where the right of the broHers toreco"er commissions were upheld where they actually tooHno part in the negotiations, ne"er saw the customer, ande"en some in which they did nothing e&cept ad"ertise theproperty, as long as it can be shown that they were theeKicient cause of the sale.6n the case at bar, the role of therespondents in the transaction is undisputed. =hether or

not they participated in the negotiations of the sale is of nomoment. Armed with an authority to procure a purchaserand with a license to act as broHer, we see no reason whythe respondents can not reco"er compensation for theireKorts when, in fact, they are the procuring cause of thesale

. 1$1$@ 1$2+@ 1$'3@ 133*,'VILLA V, CA

6t is the


73/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

compensation, she recei"ed )[ of the proceeds in theconcept of commissions. And as we said, Se"illa herselfbased on her letter of 0o"ember 2, 1$1, preOassumedher principalBs authority as owner of the businessundertaHing. =e are con"inced, considering the

circumstances and from the respondent oint managament or apartnership. 5ut unliHe simple grants of a power ofattorney, the agency that we hereby declare to becompatible with the intent of the parties, cannot bere"oHed at will. :he reason is that it is one coupled with aninterest, the agency ha"ing been created for mutualinterest, of the agent and the principal. 6t appears that LinaSe"illa is a bona 2detra"el agent herself, and as such, she

had acFuired an interest in the business entrusted to her.Ioreo"er, she had assumed a personal obligation for theoperation thereof, holding herself solidarily liable for thepayment of rentals. She continued the business, using herown name, after :ourist =orld had stopped furtheroperations. Cer interest, ob"iously, is not to thecommissions she earned as a result of her businesstransactions, but one that e&tends to the "ery sub>ectmatter of the power of management delegated to her. 6t isan agency that, as we said, cannot be re"oHed at the

pleasure of the principal. Accordingly, the re"ocationcomplained of should entitle the petitioner, Lina Se"illa, todamages.

LI3 V, ,ABA0nder Article 1$2+ of the ect matter of the power conferred and


74/140

CIVIL LAW REVIEWER

not merely an interest in the e&ercise of the power becauseit entitles him to compensation. =hen an agents interest iscon?ned to earning his agreed compensation, the agency isnot one coupled with an interest, since an agents interestin obtaining his compensation as such agent is an ordinary

incident of the agency relationship.

;#arant" and ,#ret"

$. Distinctions**$3. 23(@ 23(@ 23($ ***

:0 /'V. C)% V, %8IL ;4AA0-''nder a contract of guarantee, the guarantor binds himselfto the creditor to ful?ll the obligation of the principaldebtor in case the latter should fail to do so. -')9:he

guarantor who pays for a debtor, in turn, must beindemni?ed by the latter. -'(9Cowe"er, the guarantor cannotbe compelled to pay the creditor unless the latter hase&hausted all the property of the debtor and resorted to allthe legal remedies against the debtor.-'9:his is what isotherwise Hnown as the bene?t of e&cussion.

6t is clear that e&cussion may only be in"oHed after legalremedies against the principal debtor ha"e been e&panded.:hus, it was held that the creditor must ?rst obtain a

>udgment against the principal debtor before assuming torun after the alleged guarantor, Mfor ob"iously theXe&haustion of the principals property cannot e"en beginto taHe place before >udgment has been obtained.N -'+9:helaw imposes conditions precedent for the in"ocation of thedefense. :hus, in order that the guarantor may maHe useof the bene?t of e&cussion, he must set it up against thecreditor upon the latters demand for payment and pointout to the creditor a"ailable property of the debtor withinthe !hilippines suKicient to co"er the amount of the debt. -'9

=hile a guarantor en>oys the bene?t of e&cussion, nothingpre"ents him from paying the obligation once demand ismade on him. E&cussion, after all, is a right granted to himby law and as such he may opt to maHe use of it or wai"eit. !hiluarantees wai"er of the right of e&cussion cannotpre"ent it from demanding reimbursement frompetitioners. :he law clearl

CIVIL LAW by Dean Albano

Documents

Transcript of CIVIL LAW by Dean Albano