Civil Law - Civil Code (Lex 2014)

Copyright 2014 CD Technologies Asia, Inc. and Accesslaw, Inc. Philippine Law Encyclopedia First Release 2014 1

Republic Act No. 386 - Civil Code

Art. 2 - Publication

ABAKADA Guro Party List, et al. vs. Cesar V. Purisima, et al., G.R. No. 166715, August14, 2008

What constitutes publication is set forth in Article 2 of the Civil Code, whichprovides that "[l]aws shall take effect after 15 days following the completion of theirpublication either in the Official Gazette, or in a newspaper of general circulation inthe Philippines."

Virgilio D. Garcillano vs. House of Rep. Committee on Public Information, etc., G.R.Nos. 170338 & 179275, December 23, 2008

Executive Order No. 200, which repealed Art. 2 of the Civil Code, provides that"laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publicationeither in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in thePhilippines, unless it is otherwise provided".

SEC vs. GMA Network, Inc., G.R. No. 164026, December 23, 2008

In a long line of decisions, this Court has ruled that publication in the OfficialGazette is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for itseffectivity date for then the date of publication is material for determining its dateof effectivity, which is the fifteenth day following its publication but not when thelaw itself provides for the date when it goes into effect.

Respondents' argument, however, is logically correct only insofar as it equates theeffectivity of laws with the fact of publication. Considered in the light of other statutesapplicable to the issue at hand, the conclusion is easily reached that said Article 2 doesnot preclude the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette, even if the lawitself provides for the date of its effectivity. Thus, Section 1 of Commonwealth Act638 provides as follows:

"Section 1. There shall be published in the Official Gazette [1] allimportant legislative acts and resolutions of a public nature of the Congress ofthe Philippines; [2] all executive and administrative orders and proclamations,except such as have no general applicability; [3] decisions or abstracts ofdecisions of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals as may be deemedby said courts of sufficient importance to be so published; [4] such documents


or classes of documents as may be required so to be published by law; and [5]such documents or classes of documents as the President of the Philippinesshall determine from time to time to have general applicability and legaleffect, or which he may authorize so to be published. . . ."

The clear object of the above quoted provision is to give the general publicadequate notice of the various laws which are to regulate their actions and conduct ascitizens. Without such notice and publication, there would be no basis for theapplication of the maxim "ignorantia legis non excusat." It would be the height ofinjustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law ofwhich he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one.

National Electrification Administration vs. Victoriano B. Gonzaga, G.R. No. 158761,December 4, 2007

Bank of the Phil. Islands vs. Casa Montessori Internationale, G.R. Nos. 149454 &149507, May 28, 2004

Rodolfo C. Farias vs. Executive Secretary, Comelec, G.R. No. 147387, December 10,2003

Republic of the Philippines vs. Express Telecommunication Co., G.R. No. 147096,January 15, 2002

Rodolfo S. De Jesus vs. COA, G.R. No. 109023, August 12, 1998

Phil. International Trading Corp., et al. vs. Zosimo Z. Angeles, et al., G.R. No. 108461,October 21, 1996

Phil. Association of Service Exporters, Inc. vs. Ruben D. Torres, G.R. No. 101279,August 6, 1992

Reynaldo V. Umali vs. Jesus P. Estanislao, G.R. Nos. 104037 & 69, May 29, 1992

Caltex Philippines, Inc. vs. Commission on Audit, G.R. No. 92585, May 8, 1992

Cesar Bengzon vs. Franklin N. Drilon, G.R. No. 103524, April 15, 1992

Lorenzo M. Taada vs. Juan C. Tuvera, G.R. No. 63915, April 24, 1985

Section 1 of P.D. No. 755 incorporated, by reference, the "Agreement for theAcquisition of a Commercial Bank for the Benefit of the Coconut Farmers" executedby the PCA. [However,] [t]he PCA-Cojuangco Agreement referred to . . . in Section 1of P.D. 755 was not reproduced or attached as an annex to the same law. And it iswell-settled that laws must be published to be valid. In fact, publication is anindispensable condition for the effectivity of a law. . . . The publication, as further


held in Taada, must be of the full text of the law since the purpose of publication isto inform the public of the contents of the law. Mere referencing the number of thepresidential decree, its title or whereabouts and its supposed date of effectivity wouldnot satisfy the publication requirement. . . . We cannot, therefore, extend to the saidAgreement the status of a law.

Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. 180705, November 27,2012

Publication is a basic postulate of procedural due process. The purpose ofpublication is to duly inform the public of the contents of the laws which govern themand regulate their activities. . . . Procedural due process demands that administrativerules and regulations be published in order to be effective. . . . There are, however,several exceptions to the requirement of publication. First, an interpretative regulationdoes not require publication in order to be effective. The applicability of aninterpretative regulation "needs nothing further than its bare issuance for it gives noreal consequence more than what the law itself has already prescribed." It "add[s]nothing to the law" and "do[es] not affect the substantial rights of any person."Second, a regulation that is merely internal in nature does not require publication forits effectivity. It seeks to regulate only the personnel of the administrative agency andnot the general public. Third, a letter of instruction issued by an administrative agencyconcerning rules or guidelines to be followed by subordinates in the performance oftheir duties does not require publication in order to be effective.

Association of Southern Tagalog Electric Cooperatives, et al. vs. ERC, G.R. Nos.192117 & 192118, September 18, 2012

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

Juan Dulalia, Jr. vs. Pablo C. Cruz, A.C. No. 6854, April 27, 2007

Bernardo P. Betoy, Sr. vs. Mamerto Y. Coliflores, A.M. No. MTJ-05-1608, February 28,2006

Leonardo Acabal, et al. vs. Villaner Acabal, et al., G.R. No. 148376, March 31, 2005

Alex L. David vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 127116, April 8, 1997


Art. 4 - Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided

League of Cities of the Phils., et al. vs. COMELEC, et al., G.R. Nos. 176951, 177499 &178056, November 18, 2008

Jerry C. Valeroso vs. People of the Phils., G.R. No. 164815, February 22, 2008

Allied Banking Corp. vs. Quezon City Government, et al., G.R. No. 154126, October 11,2005

Gloria Santos Dueas vs. Santos Subdivision Homeowners Asso., G.R. No. 149417,June 4, 2004

Juan G. Frivaldo vs. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996

Philippine National Bank vs. Office of the President, G.R. No. 104528, January 18, 1996

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

Rajah Humabon Hotel, Inc., vs. Cresenciano B. Trajano, G.R. Nos. 100222-23,September 14, 1993

Virgilio Callanta vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 105083, August 20, 1993

Pio Balatbat vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 36378, January 27, 1992

Rogelio Inciong vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 88943, May 21, 1990

Development Bank of the Phils. vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. Nos.82763-64, March 19, 1990

Retroactivity of laws is a matter of civil law, not of a constitutional law, as itsgoverning law is the Civil Code, not the Constitution. Article 4 of the Civil Codeprovides that laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided. Theapplication of the Civil Code is of course self-explanatory laws enacted byCongress may permissibly provide that they shall have retroactive effect. The CivilCode established a statutory norm, not a constitutional standard.

COMELEC vs. Conrado Cruz, et al., G.R. No. 186616, November 20, 2009

In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at adisadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mentalweakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.

Bienvenido T. Buada, et al. vs. Cement Center, Inc., G.R. No. 180374, January 22,


2010

Statutes are prospective and not retroactive in their operation, they being theformulation 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, which isarticulated in Article 4 of the Civil Code: "Laws shall have no retroactive effect,unless the contrary is provided." The reason for the rule is the tendency of retroactivelegislation to be unjust and oppressive on account of its liability to unsettle vestedrights or disturb the legal effect of prior transactions.

PDIC vs. Stockholders of Intercity Savings and Loan Bank, Inc., G.R. No. 181556,December 14, 2009

Art. 5 - Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory lawsshall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity

Nicasio I. Alcantara vs. DENR, et al., G.R. No. 161881, July 31, 2008

Manuel L. Lee vs. Regino B. Tambago, A.C. No. 5281, February 12, 2008

Arturo R. Abalos vs. Galicano S. Macatangay, Jr., G.R. No. 155043, September 30,2004

Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108870, July 14, 1995

Art. 6 - Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, publicorder, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third personwith a right recognized by law

PNB vs. Nepomuceno Productions, G.R. No. 139479, December 27, 2002

Valenzuela Hardwood and Industrial Supply vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102316,June 30, 1997

Pleasantville Dev't. Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 79688, February 1, 1996

People of the Phils. vs. Donato, G.R. No. 79269, June 5, 1991


Waiver of personal demand for immediate payment is allowed by Article 6 of theNew Civil Code and such waivers and automatic correction of the procedural defectsthus rendered moot the challenge against the validity of the levy.

Pablito T. Villarin, et al. vs. Coronado P. Munasque, G.R. No. 169444, September 17,2008

While management may validly waive its prerogatives, such waiver should not becontrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs. An absolute andunqualified employment for life in the mold of petitioner's concept of perpetualemployment is contrary to public policy and good customs, as it unjustly forbids theemployer from terminating the services of an employee despite the existence of a justor valid cause. It likewise compels the employer to retain an employee despite theattainment of the statutory retirement age, even if the employee has became a"non-performing asset" or, worse, a liability to the employer.

Ronilo Sorreda vs. Cambridge Electronics Corp., G.R. No. 172927, February 11, 2010

Waiver is defined as "a voluntary and intentional relinquishment or abandonmentof a known existing legal right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege, which exceptfor such waiver the party would have enjoyed; the voluntary abandonment orsurrender, by a capable person, of a right known by him to exist, with the intent thatsuch right shall be surrendered and such person forever deprived of its benefit; or suchconduct as warrants an inference of the relinquishment of such right; or the intentionaldoing of an act inconsistent with claiming it."

F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. vs. HR Construction Corp., G.R. No. 187521, March 14, 2012citing People vs. Donato, G.R. No. 79269, June 5, 1991

As to what rights and privileges may be waived, the authority is settled: . . . thedoctrine of waiver extends to rights and privileges of any character, and, since theword 'waiver' covers every conceivable right, it is the general rule that a person maywaive any matter which affects his property, and any alienable right or privilege ofwhich he is the owner or which belongs to him or to which he is legally entitled,whether secured by contract, conferred with statute, or guaranteed by constitution,provided such rights and privileges rest in the individual, are intended for his solebenefit, do not infringe on the rights of others, and further provided the waiver of theright or privilege is not forbidden by law, and does not contravene public policy; andthe principle is recognized that everyone has a right to waive, and agree to waive, theadvantage of a law or rule made solely for the benefit and protection of the individualin his private capacity, if it can be dispensed with and relinquished without infringing


on any public right, and without detriment to the community at large.

F.F. Cruz & Co., Inc. vs. HR Construction Corp., G.R. No. 187521, March 14, 2012citing People vs. Donato, G.R. No. 79269, June 5, 1991

Art. 7 - Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones

Purpose of Curative Statutes

Curative statutes are enacted to cure defects in a prior law or to validate legalproceedings which would otherwise be void for want of conformity with certain legalrequirements. They are intended to supply defects, abridge superfluities and curbcertain evils. They are intended to enable persons to carry into effect that which theyhave designed or intended, but has failed of expected legal consequence by reason ofsome statutory disability or irregularity in their own action. They make valid thatwhich, before the enactment of the statute was invalid. Their purpose is to givevalidity to acts done that would have been invalid under existing laws, as if existinglaws have been complied with. Curative statutes, therefore, by their very essence, areretroactive.

The Coca-Cola Export Corp. vs. Clarita P. Gacayan, G.R. No. 149433, December 15,2010, citing Narzoles v. National Labor Relations Commission, 395 Phil. 758, 763-765(2000)

Nicasio I. Alcantara vs. DENR, et al., G.R. No. 161881, July 31, 2008

Planters Products, Inc. vs. Fertiphil Corp., G.R. No. 166006, March 14, 2008

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co., Inc. vs. National Wages and ProductivityCommission, et al., G.R. No. 144322, February 6, 2007

Gregorio B. Honasan II vs. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the DOJ, G.R. No.159747, April 13, 2004

Francisco vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No. 160261, November 10, 2003

Civil Service Commission vs. Dacoycoy, G.R. No. 135805, April 29, 1999

Municipality of Paraaque vs. V.M. Realty Corp., G.R. No. 127820, July 20, 1998

Pablo P. Garcia, et al. vs. Jose P. Burgos, et al., G.R. No. 124130, June 29, 1998


Eastern Shipping Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 116356, June 29,1998

People of the Phil. vs. Aquino, G.R. No. 39274, July 26, 1991

Union of Filipro Employees vs. Nestle, G.R. Nos. 88710-13, December 19, 1990

The general rule is that a void law or administrative act cannot be the source oflegal rights or duties. Article 7 of the Civil Code enunciates this general rule, as wellas its exception: "Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation ornon-observance shall not be excused by disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the formershall be void and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executive acts, orders andregulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or theConstitution."

Commr. v. San Roque Power Corp., G.R. Nos. 187485, 196113 & 197156, October 8,2013

The doctrine of operative fact is an exception to the general rule, such that ajudicial declaration of invalidity may not necessarily obliterate all the effects andconsequences of a void act prior to such declaration. In Serrano de Agbayani v.Philippine National Bank, the application of the doctrine of operative fact wasdiscussed as follows:

The decision now on appeal reflects the orthodox view that anunconstitutional act, for that matter an executive order or a municipalordinance likewise suffering from that infirmity, cannot be the source of anylegal rights or duties. Nor can it justify any official act taken under it. Itsrepugnancy to the fundamental law once judicially declared results in its beingto all intents and purposes a mere scrap of paper. As the new Civil Code putsit: "When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, theformer shall be void and the latter shall govern. Administrative or executiveacts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary tothe laws of the Constitution." It is understandable why it should be so, theConstitution being supreme and paramount. Any legislative or executive actcontrary to its terms cannot survive.

Such a view has support in logic and possesses the merit of simplicity.It may not however be sufficiently realistic. It does not admit of doubt thatprior to the declaration of nullity such challenged legislative or executive actmust have been in force and had to be complied with. This is so as until afterthe judiciary, in an appropriate case, declares its invalidity, it is entitled


to obedience and respect. Parties may have acted under it and may havechanged their positions. What could be more fitting than that in a subsequentlitigation regard be had to what has been done while such legislative orexecutive act was in operation and presumed to be valid in all respects. It isnow accepted as a doctrine that prior to its being nullified, its existence as afact must be reckoned with. This is merely to reflect awareness that preciselybecause the judiciary is the governmental organ which has the final sayon whether or not a legislative or executive measure is valid, a period oftime may have elapsed before it can exercise the power of judicial reviewthat may lead to a declaration of nullity. It would be to deprive the law ofits quality of fairness and justice then, if there be no recognition of whathad transpired prior to such adjudication. . . .

Clearly, for the operative fact doctrine to apply, there must be a "legislative orexecutive measure," meaning a law or executive issuance, that is invalidated by thecourt. From the passage of such law or promulgation of such executive issuance untilits invalidation by the court, the effects of the law or executive issuance, when reliedupon by the public in good faith, may have to be recognized as valid.

Commr. v. San Roque Power Corp., G.R. Nos. 187485, 196113 & 197156, October 8,2013

Art. 8 - Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitutionshall form part of the legal system of the Philippines

Cristenelli Fermin vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 157643, March 28, 2008

Filinvest Devt. Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 146941, August9, 2007

Republic of the Phils. vs. Carlos Flores Garcia, et al., G.R. No. 167741, July 12, 2007

Aquilino Q. Pimentel, et al. vs. Eduardo R. Ermita, et al., G.R. 164978, October 13,2005

GSIS vs. Leo L. Cadiz, G.R. No. 154093, July 8, 2003

Gregorio R. Castillo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 138231, February 21, 2002

Lorna Guillen Pesca vs. Zosimo A. Pesca, G.R. No. 136921, April 17, 2001


Pagpalain Haulers vs. Trajano, G.R. No. 133215, July 15, 1999

PBCom vs. CIR, G.R. No. 112024, January 28, 1999

Columbia Pictures vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110318, August 28, 1996

Kilosbayan, Inc. vs. Manuel L. Morato, G.R. No. 118910, July 17, 1995

Phil. Constitution Association vs. Enriquez, G.R. No. 113105, August 19, 1994

The principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere, as embodied in Article 8 of theCivil Code of the Philippines, enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires ourcourts to follow a rule already established in a final decision of the Supreme Court.That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in subsequent cases by allcourts in the land.

Filinvest Development Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al., G.R. No.146941, August 9, 2007

The principle of stare decisis embodies the legal maxim that a principle of lawwhich has been established by the decision of a court of controlling jurisdiction willbe followed in other cases involving a similar situation. It is founded on the necessityfor securing certainty and stability in the law and does not require identity of parties.

Pepsi Cola Products (Phils.), Inc. vs. Efren Espiritu, et al., G.R. No. 150394, June 26,2007

The principle of stare decisis et non quieta movere enjoins adherence to judicialprecedents. It requires our courts to follow a rule already established in a finaldecision of the Supreme Court. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to befollowed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis isbased on the principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, itshould be deemed settled and closed to further argument.

De Mesa vs. Pepsi Cola, G.R. No. 153063-70, August 19, 2005

The principle of stare decisis enjoins adherence by lower courts to doctrinal rulesestablished by this Court in its final decisions. It is based on the principle that once aquestion of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled andclosed to further argument. Basically, it is a bar to any attempt to relitigate the sameissues, necessary for two simple reasons: economy and stability. In our jurisdiction,the principle is entrenched in Article 8 of the Civil Code.

We have also previously held that "[u]nder the doctrine of stare decisis, once a


court has laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it willadhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantiallythe same."

The Baguio Regreening Movement, Inc., et al. vs. Brain Masweng, et al., G.R. No.180882, February 27, 2013

Art. 9 - No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of thesilence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws

David Reyes vs. Jose Lim, G.R. No. 134241, August 11, 2003

Gilda C. Lim, et al. vs. Patricia Lim-Yu, G.R. No. 138343, February 19, 2001

The duty of the courts is to apply or interpret the law, not to make or amend it.

It is true that Article 9 of the Civil Code mandates that "[n]o judge or court shalldecline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of thelaw." However, it is not a license for courts to engage in judicial legislation. The dutyof the courts is to apply or interpret the law, not to make or amend it. In our system ofgovernment, it is for the legislature, should it choose to do so, to determine whatguidelines should govern the recognition of the effects of sex reassignment. The needfor legislative guidelines becomes particularly important in this case where the claimsasserted are statute-based. To reiterate, the statutes define who may file petitions forchange of first name and for correction or change of entries in the civil registry, wherethey may be filed, what grounds may be invoked, what proof must be presented andwhat procedures shall be observed. If the legislature intends to confer on a person whohas undergone sex reassignment the privilege to change his name and sex to conformwith his reassigned sex, it has to enact legislation laying down the guidelines in turngoverning the conferment of that privilege. It might be theoretically possible for thisCourt to write a protocol on when a person may be recognized as having successfullychanged his sex. However, this Court has no authority to fashion a law on that matter,or on anything else. The Court cannot enact a law where no law exists. It can onlyapply or interpret the written word of its co-equal branch of government, Congress.

Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio vs. Republic of the Phil., G.R. No. 174689, October 19,2007


Art. 10 - In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it ispresumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail

ABD Overseas Manpower Corp. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 117056, February 24, 1998

Karen E. Salvacion vs. Central Bank of the Phils., G.R. No. 94723, August 21, 1997

Juan G. Privaldo vs. COMELEC, et al., G.R. Nos. 120295, 123755, June 28, 1996

It is well settled that courts are not to give a statute a meaning that would lead toabsurdities. If the words of a statute are susceptible of more than one meaning, theabsurdity of the result of one construction is a strong argument against its adoption,and in favor of such sensible interpretation. We test a law by its result. A law shouldnot be interpreted so as not to cause an injustice. There are laws which are generallyvalid but may seem arbitrary when applied in a particular case because of its peculiarcircumstances. We are not bound to apply them in slavish obedience to their language.The court may consider the spirit and reason of the statute, where a literal meaningwould lead to absurdity, contradiction, injustice, or would defeat the clear purpose ofthe lawmakers.

NPC Drivers and Mechanics Association, et al. vs. NPC, et al., G.R. No. 156208,December 2, 2009

Art. 13 - Years, months, days or nights

Metrobank vs. Sps. Antonio and Elisa Tan, et al., G.R. No. 178449, October 17, 2008

Arturo O. Radaza, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 177135, October 15, 2008

Mitsubishi Motors Phil. Corp. vs. Chrysler Phils. Labor Union, G.R. No. 148738, June29, 2004

Radin C. Alcira vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 149859, June 9, 2004

People of the Phils. vs. Felipe Demate, G.R. Nos. 132310 & 143968-69, January 20,2004


People of the Phils. vs. Manuel Gutierrez, G.R. Nos. 144907-09, September 17, 2002

Ramon Estanislao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143687, July 31, 2001

People of the Phil. vs. Rolando A. Alfanta, G.R. No. 125633, December 9, 1999

Republic of the Phil. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 127162, November 18, 1999

Republic of the Phil. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 127167, November 18, 1999

Luis Miguel Ysmael vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132497, November 16, 1999

Violeta Batara vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127906, December 16, 1998

CCBPI Postmix Workers Union vs. NLRC, G.R. Nos. 114521 & 123491, November 27,1998

Philippine National Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 98382, May 17, 1993

State Investment House, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 99308, November 13,1992

Sps. Go It Bun vs. Baltazar R. Dizon, G.R. Nos. 75915-16, September 18, 1992

A year is understood to be three hundred sixty-five (365) days.

Metrobank vs. Sps. Antonio and Elisa Tan, et al., G.R. No. 178449, October 17, 2008

Art. 14 - Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatoryupon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory

Sps. Victor and Milagros Perez, et al. vs. Antonio Hermano, G.R. No. 147417, July 8,2005

Carmen Bascon Tibajia, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 82193, February 16,1991

Art. 15 - Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to status, condition andlegal capacity


Maria Jeanette C. Tecson vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 161434, March 3, 2004

Lucio C. Morigo vs. People of the Phils., G.R. No. 145226, February 6, 2004

Grace J. Garcia vs. Rederick A. Recio, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001

Paula T. Llorente vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124371, November 23, 2000

A foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage affects the civil status,condition and legal capacity of its parties. However, the effect of a foreign judgmentis not automatic. To extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines,Philippine courts must determine if the foreign judgment is consistent with domesticpublic policy and other mandatory laws. Article 15 of the Civil Code provides that"[l]aws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legalcapacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though livingabroad." This is the rule of lex nationalii in private international law. Thus, thePhilippine State may require, for effectivity in the Philippines, recognition byPhilippine courts of a foreign judgment affecting its citizen, over whom it exercisespersonal jurisdiction relating to the status, condition and legal capacity of such citizen.

Minoru Fujiki vs. Maria Paz Galela Marinay, et al., G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013

Art. 16 - Real and personal property; intestate and testamentary succession

Paula T. Llorente vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124371, November 23, 2000

Art. 17, par. 3 - A declaration of public policy cannot be rendered ineffectualby a judgment promulgated in a foreign jurisdiction

Lucio C. Morigo vs. People of the Phils., G.R. No. 145226, February 6, 2004

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.

Bank of the Phil. Islands vs. Casa Montessori Internationale, G.R. Nos. 149454 &149507, May 28, 2004

Art. 19 - Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in theperformance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observehonesty and good faith.

Heirs of Purisima Nala vs. Artemio Cabansag, G.R. No. 161188, June 13, 2008

ASJ Corp., et al. vs. Sps. Efren and Maura Evengelista, G.R. No. 158086, February 14,2008

Phil. Bank of Communications, et al. vs. Elenita B. Trazo, G.R. No. 165500, August 30,2006

Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Benguet Ciorp., G.R. Nos. 134587 & 134588,July 8, 2005

MWSS vs. Act Theater, G.R. No. 147076, June 17, 2004

Lilian Capitle vs. Julieta Vda. De Gaban, G.R. No. 146890, June 8, 2004

Eli Lui vs. Sps. Eulogio and Paulina Matillano, G.R. No. 141176, May 27, 2004

Catalino P. Arafiles vs. Phil. Journalists, Inc., G.R. No. 150256, March 25, 2004

Andrade vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127932, December 7, 2001

Alfredo Long and Felix Almeria vs. Lydia Basa, G.R. No. 134963-64, September 27,2001

Vicente Rellosa, et al. vs. Gonzalo Pellosis, et al., G.R. No. 138964, August 9, 2001

Sea Commercial Co. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122823, November 25, 1999

RCBC vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 133107, February 25, 1999

Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122191, October 8, 1998

Barons Marketing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126486, February 9, 1998

Traders Royal Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 93397, March 3, 1997


In Re: Emil Jurado, A.M. No. 93-2-037 SC, April 6, 1995

Albenso Enterprises vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 88694, January 11, 1993

Arturo De Guzman vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 90856, July 23,1992

David P. Llorente vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 85464, October 3, 1991

Philippine Air Lines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-46558, July 31, 1981

Standards in the Exercise of One's Rights and Duties

This article, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle ofabuse of rights, sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the exerciseof one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties. These standards are thefollowing: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty andgood faith. The law, therefore, recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights; that intheir exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. Aright, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, maynevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in amanner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results indamage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer mustbe held responsible. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for thegovernment of human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does notprovide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under eitherArticle 20 or Article 21 would be proper.

Cebu Country Club, Inc., et al. vs. Ricardo F. Elizagaque, G.R. No. 160273, January 18,2008

GF Equity, Inc. vs. Arturo Valenzona, G.R. No. 156841, June 30, 2005

Under Article 19 of the Civil Code, an act constitutes an abuse of right if thefollowing elements are present: (a) the existence of a legal right or duty; (b) which isexercised in bad faith; and (c) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.

ASJ Corporation, et al. vs. Sps. Efren & Maura Evangelista, G.R. No. 158086, February14, 2008

Far East Bank and Trust Company vs. Themistocles Pacilan, Jr., G.R. No. 157314, July29, 2005

When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the norms


enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is therebycommitted for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible.

Heirs of Purisima Nala vs. Artemio Cabansag, G.R. No. 161188, June 13, 2008

An act constitutes an abuse of right if the following elements are present: (a) theexistence of a legal right or duty; (b) which is exercised in bad faith; and (c) for thesole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.

ASJ Corp., et al. vs. Sps. Efren and Maura Evangelista, G.R. No. 158086, February 14,2008

Elsewhere, we explained that when "a right is exercised in a manner which doesnot conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another,a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be responsible."The object of this article, therefore, is to set certain standards which must be observednot only in the exercise of ones rights but also in the performance of ones duties.These standards are the following: act with justice, give everyone his due and observehonesty and good faith. Its antithesis, necessarily, is any act evincing bad faith orintent to injure. Its elements are the following: (1) There is a legal right or duty; (2)which is exercised in bad faith; (3) for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuringanother. When Article 19 is violated, an action for damages is proper under Articles20 or 21 of the Civil Code.

Allan C. Go vs. Mortimer F. Cordero, G.R. No. 164703, May 4, 2010

Under the abuse of right principle found in Article 19 of the Civil Code, a personmust, in the exercise of his legal right or duty, act in good faith. He would be liable ifhe instead acts in bad faith, with intent to prejudice another. Complementing thisprinciple are Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code which grant the latter indemnity forthe injury he suffers because of such abuse of right or duty.

Titus B. Villanueva vs. Emma M. Rosqueta, G.R. No. 180764, January 19, 2010

When a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform with the normsenshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is therebycommitted for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible. But a right, though byitself legal because [it is] recognized or granted by law as such, may neverthelessbecome the source of some illegality. A person should be protected only when he actsin the legitimate exercise of his right, that is, when he acts with prudence and in goodfaith; but not when he acts with negligence or abuse. There is an abuse of right whenit is exercised for the only purpose of prejudicing or injuring another. The exercise of


a right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established, and mustnot be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no intention to injure another.

Unicapital, Inc. v. Consing, Jr., G.R. Nos. 175277, 175285 & 192073, September 11,2013, citing Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Limited v. Catalan, 483 Phil.525, 538 (2004)

Art. 20 - Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causesdamage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the damage.

Michael John Z. Melto vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 164733, September 21, 2007

Petrophil Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122796, December 10, 2001

Bautista vs. Mangaldan Rural Bank, G.R. No. 100755, February 10, 1994



Art. 21 - Any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a mannerthat is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate thelatter for the damage.

ACI Phil., Inc. vs. Editha C. Coquia, G.R. No. 174466, July 14, 2008

San Miguel Corp. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 147566, December 6, 2006



Alfredo S. Paguio vs. PLDT, G.R. No. 154072, December 3, 2002


Bibiano V. Baas, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., February 10, 2000

Traders Royal Bank vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. Nos. 114299 & 118862,September 24, 1999

Saudi Arabian Airlines vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122191, October 8, 1998

Barons Marketing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126486, February 9, 1998

Custodio vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116100, February 9, 1996

Filinvest Credit vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 115902, September 27, 1995

Far East Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108164, February 23, 1995

Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993

Arturo De Guzman vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G.R. No. 90856, July 23,1992

Conrado Bunag, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 101749, July 10, 1992

Philippine School of Business Administration vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 84698,January 4, 1992

Rafael Patricio vs. Oscar Leviste, G.R. No. 51832, April 26, 1989

Standards in the Exercise of One's Rights and Duties

This article, known to contain what is commonly referred to as the principle ofabuse of rights, sets certain standards which must be observed not only in the exerciseof one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties. These standards are thefollowing: to act with justice; to give everyone his due; and to observe honesty andgood faith. The law, therefore, recognizes a primordial limitation on all rights; that intheir exercise, the norms of human conduct set forth in Article 19 must be observed. Aright, though by itself legal because recognized or granted by law as such, maynevertheless become the source of some illegality. When a right is exercised in amanner which does not conform with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results indamage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer mustbe held responsible. But while Article 19 lays down a rule of conduct for thegovernment of human relations and for the maintenance of social order, it does notprovide a remedy for its violation. Generally, an action for damages under eitherArticle 20 or Article 21 would be proper.

Cebu Country Club, Inc., et al. vs. Ricardo F. Elizagaque, G.R. No. 160273, January 18,


2008

GF Equity, Inc. vs. Arturo Valenzona, G.R. No. 156841, June 30, 2005

Article 21 refers to acts contra bonus mores and has the following elements: (1)There is an act which is legal; (2) but which is contrary to morals, good custom,public order, or public policy; and (3) it is done with intent to injure.

Allan C. Go vs. Mortimer F. Cordero, G.R. No. 164703, May 4, 2010

A common theme runs through Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the act complainedof must be intentional.

Allan C. Go vs. Mortimer F. Cordero, G.R. No. 164703, May 4, 2010, citing Ramas v.Quiamco, G.R. No. 146322, December 6, 2006



Art. 22 - Every person who through an act or performance by another, or anyother means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of thelatter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.

Conditions of an Accion in Rem Verso

Unjust enrichment has been applied to actions called accion in rem verso. In orderthat the accion in rem verso may prosper, the following conditions must concur: (1)that the defendant has been enriched; (2) that the plaintiff has suffered a loss; (3) thatthe enrichment of the defendant is without just or legal ground; and (4) that theplaintiff has no other action based on contract, quasi-contract, crime, or quasi-delict.The principle of unjust enrichment essentially contemplates payment when there is noduty to pay, and the person who receives the payment has no right to receive it.


LBP vs. Alfredo Ong, G.R. No. 190755, November 24, 2010

Republic of the Phil. vs. Normelito J. Ballocanag, et al., G.R. No. 163794, November 28,2008

Allied Banking Corp. vs. Lim Sio Wan, et al., G.R. No. 133179, March 27, 2008

Planters Products Inc. vs. Fertiphil Corp., G.R. No. 166006, March 14, 2008

H.L. Carlos Construction vs. Marina Properties Corp., G.R. No. 147614, January 29,2004

NDC vs. Madrigal Wan Hai Lines, G.R. No. 148332, September 30, 2003

Alfred Fritz Frenzel vs. Ederlina P. Catito, G.R. No. 143958, July 11, 2003

MC Engineering, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104047, April 3, 2002

Rilloraza, Africa, De Ocampo and Africa vs. Eastern Telecommunications Phil., Inc., etal., G.R. 104600, July 2, 1999

Conchita Nool, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 116635, July 24, 1997

Security Bank & Trust Company vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117009, October 11,1995

Principle of Unjust Enrichment; Principle of Equity.

The principle of unjust enrichment requires two conditions: (1) that a person isbenefited without a valid basis or justification, and (2) that such benefit is derived atanother's expense or damage.

Benguet Corp. vs. Department of Environment and Natural Resources, et al., G.R. No.163101, February 13, 2008

Under the principle of unjust enrichment nemo cum alterius detrimentolocupletari potest no person shall be allowed to enrich himself unjustly at theexpense of others. This principle of equity has been enshrined in our Civil Code[Article 22]. We have held that there is unjust enrichment when a person unjustlyretains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains the money or propertyof another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.Equity, as the complement of legal jurisdiction, seeks to reach and complete justicewhere courts of law, through the inflexibility of their rules and want of power to adapttheir judgments to the special circumstances of cases, are incompetent to do so. Equityregards the spirit and not the letter, the intent and not the form, the substance rather


than the circumstance, as it is variously expressed by different courts.

LCK Industries Inc., et al. vs. Planters Dev't. Bank, G.R. No. 170606, November 23,2007

Enrichment consists in every patrimonial, physical or moral advantage appreciablein money.

Enrichment of the defendant consists in every patrimonial, physical, or moraladvantage, so long as it is appreciable in money. It may consist of some positivepecuniary value incorporated into the patrimony of the defendant, such as: (1) theenjoyment of a thing belonging to the plaintiff; (2) the benefits from service renderedby the plaintiff to the defendant; (3) the acquisition of a right, whether real orpersonal; (4) the increase of value of property of the defendant; (5) the improvementof a right of the defendant, such as the acquisition of a right of preference; (6) therecognition of the existence of a right in the defendant; and (7) the improvement ofthe conditions of life of the defendant.

Vicente S. Almario vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 170928, September 11, 2007

The enrichment of the defendant must have a correlative prejudice, disadvantage,or injury to the plaintiff.

The enrichment of the defendant must have a correlative prejudice, disadvantage,or injury to the plaintiff. This prejudice may consist, not only of the loss of property orthe deprivation of its enjoyment, but also of non-payment of compensation for aprestation or service rendered to the defendant without intent to donate on the part ofthe plaintiff, or the failure to acquire something which the latter would have obtained.The injury to the plaintiff, however, need not be the cause of the enrichment of thedefendant. It is enough that there be some relation between them, that the enrichmentof the defendant would not have been produced had it not been for the fact fromwhich the injury to the plaintiff is derived.

Vicente S. Almario vs. Philippine Airlines, Inc., G.R. No. 170928, September 11, 2007

Equity jurisdiction aims to do complete justice in cases where a court of law isunable to adapt its judgments to the special circumstances of a case.

Equity is exercised in this case "as the complement of legal jurisdiction [that] seeksto reach and to complete justice where courts of law, through the inflexibility of their


rules and want of power to adapt their judgments to the special circumstances ofcases, are incompetent to do so." The purpose of the exercise of equity jurisdiction inthis case is to prevent unjust enrichment and to ensure restitution. Equity jurisdictionaims to do complete justice in cases where a court of law is unable to adapt itsjudgments to the special circumstances of a case because of the inflexibility of itsstatutory or legal jurisdiction.

Jacobus Bernhard Hulst vs. PR Builders, Inc., G.R. No. 156364, September 3, 2007

A person shall not be allowed to profit or enrich himself inequitably at another'sexpense.

There is unjust enrichment when (1) a person is unjustly benefited, and (2) suchbenefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another. The main objective ofthe principle of unjust enrichment is to prevent one from enriching oneself at theexpense of another. It is commonly accepted that this doctrine simply means that aperson shall not be allowed to profit or enrich himself inequitably at another'sexpense. One condition for invoking this principle is that the aggrieved party has noother action based on contract, quasi-contract, crime, quasi-delict or any otherprovision of law.

Antonio Chieng vs. Sps. Eulogio and Teresita Santos, G.R. No. 169647, August 31,2007

There is unjust enrichment "when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss ofanother, or when a person retains money or property of another against thefundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience." The principle ofunjust enrichment requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without avalid basis or justification, and (2) that such benefit is derived at the expense ofanother.

Arturo Sarte Flores vs. Sps. Enrico, Jr. and Edna Lindo, G.R. No. 183984, April 13,2011

The DAR unjustly enriched itself when it appropriated the entire 147.6913-hectarereal property of respondents . . . because the entire lot was decidedly beyond the areait had intended to subject to agrarian reform under the VOS arrangement. . . . Underthe Civil Code, there is unjust enrichment when a person retains the property ofanother without just or legal ground and against the fundamental principles of justice,equity and good conscience. Hence, although the Court affirms the award of justcompensation for the expropriated portion owned by respondents, the Republic cannot


hold on to the excluded portion consisting of 75.6913 hectares, despite both portionsbeing included under one new title issued in its favor. The consequence of our findingof unjust and improper titling of the entire property by the Republic is that the titleover the excluded portion shall be returned or transferred back to respondentsMontalvan, with damages.

LBP vs. Paz O. Montalvan, et al., G.R. No. 190336, June 27, 2012

[T]he rationale underlying the owner's right to seek an evaluation of thecontractor's work is the right to pay only the true value of the work as may bereasonably determined under the circumstances. This is consistent with the lawagainst unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code which states that"[e]very person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means,acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter withoutjust or legal ground, shall return the same to him." Expounding on this provision in arecent case, we have held that "[t]he principle of unjust enrichment essentiallycontemplates payment when there is no duty to pay, and the person who receives thepayment has no right to receive it."

R.V. Santos Company, Inc. vs. Belle Corp., G.R. Nos. 159561-62, October 3, 2012

It is notable that the confusion on the amounts of compensation arose from theparties' inability to agree on the fees that respondents should receive. Considering theabsence of an agreement, and in view of respondents' constructive fulfillment of theirobligation, the Court has to apply the principle of quantum meruit in determining howmuch was still due and owing to respondents. Under the principle of quantum meruit,a contractor is allowed to recover the reasonable value of the services rendered despitethe lack of a written contract. The measure of recovery under the principle shouldrelate to the reasonable value of the services performed. The principle prevents undueenrichment based on the equitable postulate that it is unjust for a person to retain anybenefit without paying for it. Being predicated on equity, the principle should only beapplied if no express contract was entered into, and no specific statutory provisionwas applicable.

Int'l. Hotel Corp. vs. Francisco B. Joaquin, Jr., et al., G.R. No. 158361, April 10, 2013

Art. 23 - Obligation to indemnify when one benefits from an act or event


which causes damage to another's property

Rafael Patricio vs. Oscar Leviste, G.R. No. 51832, April 26, 1989

Art. 24 - Protection for party who is at a disadvantage

Francisco Rayos vs. Ponciano G. Hernandez, G.R. No. 169079, February 12, 2007

Chua Tee Dee vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135721, May 27, 2004

Sps. James and Florence Tan vs. Carmina Mandap, G.R. No. 150925, May 27, 2004

Spouses Silvestre and Celia Pascual vs. Rodrigo V. Ramos, G.R. No. 144712, July 4,2002

Pepito Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107791, May 12, 2000

Sps. Narciso and Dolores Rongavilla vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. 83974, August17, 1998

Augusto Benedicto Santos III vs. Northwest Orient Airlines, G.R. No. 101538, June 23,1992

While contracts of adhesion may be struck down as void and unenforceable forbeing subversive of public policy, the same can only be done when, under thecircumstances, the weaker party is imposed upon in dealing with the dominantbargaining party and is reduced to the alternative of taking it or leaving it, completelydepriving the former of the opportunity to bargain on equal footing.

Keppel Cebu Shipyard, Inc. vs. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corp., G.R. Nos.180880-81 & 180896-97, September 18, 2012

Art. 26 - Respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of hisneighbors and other persons

Rodrigo Concepcion vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 120706, January 31, 2000

The philosophy behind Art. 26 underscores the necessity for its inclusion in our


civil law. The Code Commission stressed in no uncertain terms that the humanpersonality must be exalted. The sacredness of human personality is a concomitantconsideration of every plan for human amelioration. The touchstone of every systemof law, of the culture and civilization of every country, is how far it dignifies man. Ifthe statutes insufficiently protect a person from being unjustly humiliated, in short, ifhuman personality is not exalted then the laws are indeed defective. Thus, underthis article, the rights of persons are amply protected, and damages are provided forviolations of a person's dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind. To add, aviolation of Article 26 of the Civil Code may also lead to the payment of moraldamages under Article 2219 (10) 75 of the Civil Code.

Unicapital, Inc. v. Consing, Jr., G.R. Nos. 175277, 175285 & 192073, September 11,2013, citing Manaloto v. Veloso III, G.R. No. 171365, October 6, 2010

(2) - Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations ofanother;

RCPI vs. Alfonso Verchez, et al., G.R. 164349, January 31, 2006

Blas F. Ople vs. Ruben D. Torres, et al., G.R. 127685, July 23, 1998

(3) - Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;

Jerome Castro vs. People of the Phil., G.R. 180832, July 23, 2008

(4) - Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowlystation in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition

MVRS Publications vs. Islamic Da'wah Council, G.R. No. 135306, January 28, 2003

Art. 27 - Action for damages when a public servant or employee refuses orneglects to perform official duty

Philex Mining Corp. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 125704, August28, 1998


Jose V. Nessia vs. Jesus M. Fermin, G.R. No. 102918, March 30, 1993

Domingo A. Tuzon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 90107, August 21, 1992

David P. Llorente vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 85464, October 3, 1991

Art. 28 - Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrialenterprises, or in labor

Calamba Medical Center, Inc. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 176484, November 25, 2008

Tatad vs. Secretary of Dept. of Energy, G.R. Nos. 124360 & 127867, November 5, 1997

The circulation of such list containing names of alleged union members intended toprevent employment of workers for union activities similarly constitutes unfair laborpractice, thereby giving a right of action for damages by the employees prejudiced.

Calamba Medical Center, Inc. vs. NLRC, et al., G.R. No. 176484, November 25, 2008

Art. 29 - Civil action for damages

George Manantan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107125, January 29, 2001

Remedios Nota Sapiera vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128927, September 14, 1999

Raul H. Sesbreno vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 121433, September 23, 1996

Ruben Maniago vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104392, February 20, 1996

Roy Padilla vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-39999, May 31, 1984

People of the Phils. vs. Itong Amistad, G.R. No. L-34666, October 30, 1981

Civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal: (a) where the acquittal is based onreasonable doubt; (b) where the court expressly declares that the liability of theaccused is not criminal but only civil in nature; and (c) where the civil liability is notderived from or based on the criminal act of which the accused is acquitted.


Samson Ching vs. Clarita Nicdao, et al., G.R. No. 141181, April 27, 2007

Remedios Nota Sapiera vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 128927, September 14, 1999

The civil action based on the delict is extinguished if there is a finding in the finaljudgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liabilitymay arise did not exist or where the accused did not commit the act or omissionimputed to him.

Samson Ching vs. Clarita Nicdao, et al., G.R. No. 141181, April 27, 2007

Anamer Salazar vs. People of the Phil., G.R. No. 151931, September 23, 2003

Art. 30 - Separate civil action to demand civil liability

People of the Phils. vs. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994

Art. 31 - Civil case can proceed independently of criminal proceedings

Bobie Rose V. Frias vs. Flora San Diego-Sison, G.R. No. 155223, April 3, 2007

Pablito Murao, et al. vs. People of the Phil., G.R. 141485, June 30, 2005

Republic of the Phil. Thru the DPWH vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116463, June 10,2003

Jose S. Cancio, Jr. vs. Emerenciana Isip, G.R. No. 133978, November 12, 2002

Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 37404, November 18, 1991

Art. 32 - Liability for violations of rights and freedoms

Liwayway Vinzons-Chato vs. Fortune Tobacco Corp., G.R. No. 141309, December 23,


2008


Benjamin D. Obra vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120852, October 28, 1999

Lolito G. Aparicio vs. Ermelindo C. Andal, G.R. Nos. 86587-93, July 25, 1989

The remedy of petitioner against the warrantless search conducted on his vehicle iscivil.

Feliciano Galvante vs. Orlando C. Casimiro, et al., G.R. No. 162808, April 22, 2008

The general rule is that a public officer is not liable for damages which a personmay suffer arising from the just performance of his official duties and within thescope of his assigned tasks. An officer who acts within his authority to administer theaffairs of the office which he/she heads is not liable for damages that may have beencaused to another, as it would virtually be a charge against the Republic, which is notamenable to judgment for monetary claims without its consent. However, a publicofficer is by law not immune from damages in his/her personal capacity for acts donein bad faith which, being outside the scope of his authority, are no longer protected bythe mantle of immunity for official actions.

Liwayway Vinzons-Chato vs. Fortune Tobacco Corp., G.R. No. 141309, June 19, 2007

A public officer who directly or indirectly violates the constitutional rights ofanother, may be validly sued for damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code even ifhis acts were not so tainted with malice or bad faith.


The clear intention therefore of the legislature was to create a distinct cause ofaction in the nature of tort for violation of constitutional rights, irrespective of themotive or intent of the defendant. This is a fundamental innovation in the Civil Code,and in enacting the Administrative Code pursuant to the exercise of legislativepowers, then President Corazon C. Aquino, could not have intended to obliterate thisconstitutional protection on civil liberties.


Article 32 of the Civil Code specifies in clear and unequivocal terms a particularspecie of an "act" that may give rise to an action for damages against a public officer,and that is, a tort for impairment of rights and liberties. Indeed, Article 32 is the


special provision that deals specifically with violation of constitutional rights bypublic officers. All other actionable acts of public officers are governed by Sections38 and 39 of the Administrative Code. While the Civil Code, specifically, the Chapteron Human Relations is a general law, Article 32 of the same Chapter is a special andspecific provision that holds a public officer liable for and allows redress from aparticular class of wrongful acts that may be committed by public officers. Comparedthus with Section 38 of the Administrative Code, which broadly deals with civilliability arising from errors in the performance of duties, Article 32 of the Civil Codeis the specific provision which must be applied in the instant case precisely filed toseek damages for violation of constitutional rights.


[I]t is a basic principle of the law on public officers that a public official oremployee is under a three-fold responsibility for violation of duty or for a wrongfulact or omission. This simply means that a public officer may be held civilly,criminally, and administratively liable for a wrongful doing. Thus, if such violation orwrongful act results in damages to an individual, the public officer may be held civillyliable to reimburse the injured party. If the law violated attaches a penal sanction, theerring officer may be punished criminally. Finally, such violation may also lead tosuspension, removal from office, or other administrative sanctions. Thisadministrative liability is separate and distinct from the penal and civil liabilities.

Waldo Q. Flores, et al. vs. Antonio F. Montemayor, G.R. No. 170146, June 8, 2011,citing Tecson v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 123045, November 16, 1999

(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law.

Eduardo M. Cojuangco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 119398, July 2, 1999

Better Buildings vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 109714, December 15, 1997

(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws


(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and effects againstunreasonable searches and seizures

Feliciano Galvante vs. Orlando C. Casimiro, et al., G.R. No. 162808, April 22, 2008

Silahis Int'l Hotel Inc., et al. vs. Rogelio S. Soluta, et al., G.R. 163087, G.R. No. 163087,February 20, 2006



(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same.

Paz S. Baens vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-57091, November 23, 1983

(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to beinformed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedyand public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsoryprocess to secure the attendance of witness in his behalf

Sps. Antonio and Lorna Quisumbing vs. MERALCO, G.R. No. 142943, April 3, 2002


(19) Freedom of access to the courts


Last paragraph


Art. 33 - Civil action for damages in cases of defamation, fraud and physicalinjuries

William Madarang, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 143044, July 14, 2005

Manolo P. Samson vs. Reynaldo B. Daway, G.R. Nos. 160054-55, July 21, 2004


Int'l Flavors & Fragrances (Phil.) vs. Merlin J. Argos, G.R. No. 130362, September 10,2001

Espero Salao vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107725, January 22, 1998

Jose Bordador vs. Brigida D. Luz, G.R. No. 130148, December 15, 1997

People of the Phils. vs. Rogelio C. Bayotas, G.R. No. 102007, September 2, 1994

Prudential Bank vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74886, December 8, 1992


Eduardo Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 37404, November 18, 1991

Diong Bi Chu vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 49588, December 21, 1990

Marcelo Jervoso vs. People of the Phils., G.R. No. 89306, September 13, 1990

Carmen L. Madeja vs. Felix T. Caro, G.R. No. L-51183, December 21, 1983

Art. 34 - Liability when member of police force refuses or fails to render aidor protection

Manolo P. Samson vs. Reynaldo B. Daway, G.R. No. 160054-55, July 21, 2004

Art. 36 - Prejudicial questions

Reynaldo V. Tuanda vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 110544, October 17, 1995

Art. 41 - Intra-uterine life

People of the Phils. vs. Fernando Felipe, G.R. No. L-40432, July 19, 1982

Art. 42 - Effect of death upon the rights and obligations of the deceased

Teofila Ilagan-Mendoza, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 171374, April 8,2008

Sections 40, 41 and 42 of the Civil Code do not provide at all a definition of death.Moreover, while the Civil Code expressly provides that civil personality may beextinguished by death, it does not explicitly state that only those who have acquired


juridical personality could die.

Death has been defined as the cessation of life. Life is not synonymous with civilpersonality. One need not acquire civil personality first before he/she could die. Evena child inside the womb already has life. No less than the Constitution recognizes thelife of the unborn from conception, that the State must protect equally with the life ofthe mother. If the unborn already has life, then the cessation thereof even prior to thechild being delivered, qualifies as death.

Continental Steel Mfg. Corp. vs. Allan S. Montao, et al., G.R. No. 182836, October 13,2009

Art. 44 - Juridical persons

Milagros Joaquino vs. Lourdes Reyes, G.R. No. 154645, July 13, 2004

Gloria Santos Dueas vs. Santos Subdivision Homeowners Assn., G.R. No. 149417,June 4, 2004

Board of Optometry vs. Angel B Colet, G.R. No. 122241, July 30, 1996

Yao Ka Sin Trading vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 53820, June 15, 1992

Genlite Industries is merely the DTI-registered trade name or style of therespondent by which he conducted his business. As such, it does not exist as aseparate entity apart from its owner, and therefore it has no separate juridicalpersonality to sue or be sued. As the sole proprietor of Genlite Industries, there is noquestion that the respondent is the real party in interest who stood to be directlybenefited or injured by the judgment in the complaint below. There is then nonecessity for Genlite Industries to be impleaded as a party-plaintiff, since thecomplaint was already filed in the name of its proprietor, Engr. Luis U. Parada. Toheed the petitioner's sophistic reasoning is to permit a dubious technicality to frustratethe ends of substantial justice.

S.C. Megaworld Construction Development Corp. v. Parada, G.R. No. 183804,September 11, 2013


Art. 50 - The domicile of natural persons is the place of their habitualresidence

Agapito A. Aquino vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120265, September 18, 1995

Imelda Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995

Antonio Y. Co vs. Electoral Tribunal, G.R. No. 92191-92, July 30, 1991

Art. 53 - Requisites of marriage

Republic of the Phils. vs. Jose A. Dayot, G.R. Nos. 175581 & 179474, March 28, 2008

For a marriage to be deemed void, the absence of a marriage license must beapparent on the marriage contract.

To be considered void on the ground of absence of a marriage license, the lawrequires that the absence of such marriage license must be apparent on the marriagecontract, or at the very least, supported by a certification from the local civil registrarthat no such marriage license was issued to the parties.

Restituto M. Alcantara vs. Rosita A. Alcantara, et al., G.R. No. 167746, August 28, 2007

Art. 58 - No marriage shall be solemnized without a license

Republic of the Philippines vs. Jose A. Dayot, G.R. Nos. 175581 & 179474, March 28,2008

Art. 76 - When no marriage license is necessary



Evangeline Leda vs. Trebonian Tabang, A.C. No. 2505, February 21, 1992

Construction of Five-Year Common Law Cohabitation Period

The five-year common-law cohabitation period under Article 76 means a five-yearperiod computed back from the date of celebration of marriage, and refers to a periodof legal union had it not been for the absence of a marriage. It covers the yearsimmediately preceding the day of the marriage, characterized by exclusivity meaning no third party was involved at any time within the five years andcontinuity that is unbroken.

Republic of the Phil. vs. Jose A. Dayot, G.R. No. 175581, March 28, 2008

Engrace Nial vs. Norma Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000

Art. 78 - Recognition of the right of Muslims to contract marriage inaccordance with their customs and rites

Neng "Kagui Kadiguia" Malang vs. Corocoy Moson, G.R. No. 119064, August 22, 2000

Art. 80 (3) - Solemnized without a marriage license, save marriages ofexceptional character


Art. 80 (4) - Bigamous and polygamous marriages

Filipina Y. Sy vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127263, April 12, 2000

Federico C. Suntay vs. Isabel Cojuangco-Suntay, G.R. No. 132524, December 29,1998


Maria Apiag, et al. vs. Esmeraldo G. Cantero, A.M. MTJ-95-1070, February 12, 1997

Maria Rosario De Santos vs. Adoracion G. Angeles, G.R. No. 105619, December 12,1995

Lilia Oliva Wiegel vs. Alicia V. Sempio-Diy, G.R. No. L-53703, August 19, 1986

Art. 81 - Incestuous marriages


Art. 82 - Void marriages


Art. 83 (2) - When subsequent marriage during lifetime of first spouse isallowed

Ofelia P. Ty vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127406, November 27, 2000

Antonia Armas vs. Marietta Calisterio, G.R. No. 136467, April 6, 2000


Nenita Bienvenido vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111717, October 24, 1994

Republic of the Phil. vs. Gregorio Nolasco, G.R. No. 94053, March 17, 1993


Art. 85 (3) - Either party was of unsound mind


Art. 89 (par. 2) - Children conceived of voidable marriages before the decreeof annulment shall be considered as legitimate


Maria Rosario De Santos vs. Adoracion G. Angeles, G.R. No. 105619, December 12,1995

Art. 101 - No decree of legal separation shall be promulgated upon astipulation of facts or by confession of judgment.

Enrico L. Pacete vs. Glicerio V. Carriaga, Jr., G.R. No. L-53880, March 17, 1994

Art. 103 - An action for legal separation shall in no case be tried before sixmonths shall have elapsed since the filing of the petition.

Enrico L. Pacete vs. Glicerio V. Carriaga, Jr., G.R. No. L-53880, March 17, 1994

Art. 106 (2) - Effect of decree of legal separation on property relations

Angelica Ledesma vs. Intestate Estate of Cipriano Pedrosa, G.R. No. 102126, March


12, 1993

Art. 110 - Residence of family

Imelda Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995

Art. 113 (2) - Exception to rule that husband must be joined in all suits by wife

Josefina Santos vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. L-66671, October 28, 1986

Art. 117 - Exercise by wife of profession or occupation

Nancy Go vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 114791, May 29, 1997

Art. 119 - Agreement as to property relations

Lorea De Ugalde vs. Jon De Ysasi, G.R. No. 130623, February 29, 2008


Art. 126 - Donations by reason of marriage

Donation propter nuptias of real property made in a private instrument before the


New Civil Code took effect on August 30, 1950 is void.

Under the Old Civil Code, donations propter nuptias must be made in a publicinstrument in which the property donated must be specifically described. Article 1328of the Old Civil Code provides that gifts propter nuptias are governed by the rulesestablished in Title 2 of Book 3 of the same Code. Article 633 of that title providesthat the gift of real property, in order to be valid, must appear in a public document. Itis settled that a donation of real estate propter nuptias is void unless made by publicinstrument.

The Heirs of Marcelino Doronio, et al. vs. Heirs of Fortunato Doronio, et al., G.R. No.169454, December 27, 2007

Art. 127 - Rules governing donations by reason of marriage

Romana Locquiao Valencia vs. Benito A. Locquiao, G.R. No. 122134, October 3, 2003

Art. 129 - Express acceptance is not necessary for the validity of donations byreason of marriage

Romana Locquiao Valencia vs. Benito A. Locquiao, G.R. No. 122134, October 3, 2003

Art. 133 - Donations between spouses

Emilie T. Sumbad vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106060, June 21, 1999

Cornelia Matabuena vs. Petronila Cervantes, G.R. No. L-28771, March 31, 1971


Art. 135 - Paraphernal property


Art. 136 - The wife retains ownership of paraphernal property


Art. 142 - Common fund in conjugal partnership of gains

Lorea De Ugalde vs. Jon De Ysasi, G.R. No. 130623, February 29, 2008


What is more, under the conjugal partnership of gains established by Article 142 ofthe Civil Code, the husband and the wife place only the fruits of their separateproperty and incomes from their work or industry in the common fund. . . . Thismeans that they continue under such property regime to enjoy rights of ownershipover their separate properties. Consequently, to automatically change the marriagesettlements of couples who got married under the Civil Code into absolute communityof property in 1988 when the Family Code took effect would be to impair theiracquired or vested rights to such separate properties.

Efren Pana vs. Heirs of Jose Juanite, Sr., et al., G.R. No. 164201, December 10, 2012

Now, when a couple enters into a regime of conjugal partnership of gains underArticle 142 of the Civil Code, "the husband and the wife place in common fund thefruits of their separate property and income from their work or industry, and divideequally, upon the dissolution of the marriage or of the partnership, the net gains orbenefits obtained indiscriminately by either spouse during the marriage." From theforegoing provision, each of the couple has his and her own property and debts. Thelaw does not intend to effect a mixture or merger of those debts or properties between


the spouses. Rather, it establishes a complete separation of capitals.

Brigido B. Quiao vs. Rita C. Quiao, et al., G.R. No. 176556, July 4, 2012 citing Abalosvs. Macatangay, Jr., 482 Phil. 877-894 (2004)

Art. 143 - All property of the conjugal partnership of gains is owned incommon by husband and wife


Art. 144 - Co-ownership



Eustaquio Mallilin vs. Ma. Elvira Castillo, G.R. No. 136803, June 16, 2000

Guillerma Tumlos vs. Mario Fernandez, G.R. No. 137650, April 12, 2000


Antonio A. S. Valdes vs. RTC, Branch 102, Quezon City, G.R. No. 122749, July 31,1996

Josephine B. Belcodero vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89667, October 20, 1993

Art. 145 - Conjugal partnership shall commence on the date of celebration ofthe marriage



Art. 148 (2) - Exclusive property: that which is acquired during the marriageby lucrative title

Alfonso Tan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120594, June 10, 1997

Art. 153 (1) - Conjugal partnership property

Sps. Virgilio and Michelle Castro vs. Romeo V. Miat, G.R. No. 143297, February 11,2003

Art. 158 (par. 1) - Ownership of improvements made on separate property ofspouse

As the respondents were married during the effectivity of the Civil Code, itsprovisions on conjugal partnership of gains (Articles 142 to 189) should havegoverned their property relations. However, with the enactment of the Family Code onAugust 3, 1989, the Civil Code provisions on conjugal partnership of gains, includingArticle 158, have been superseded by those found in the Family Code (Articles 105 to133).

Francisco Muoz, Jr. vs. Erlinda Ramirez, et al., G.R. No. 156125, August 25, 2010

Art. 158 (par. 2) - Buildings constructed using partnership funds on landowned by one of the spouses

Lucia Embrado vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 51457, June 27, 1994


Art. 160 - Presumption that property of the marriage is conjugal

Walter Villanueva, et al. vs. Florentino Chiong, et al., G.R. No. 159889, June 5, 2008

Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co. vs. Nicholson Pascual, G.R. No. 163744, February 29,2008

Alfredo Ching vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124642, February 23, 2004

Flordeliza Calpatura Flora vs. Roberto Prado, G.R. No. 156879, January 20, 2004

Milagros Manongsong vs. Felomena Jumaquio Estimo, G.R. No. 136773, June 25,2003

Teresita C. Francisco vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 102330, November 25, 1998

Alfonso Tan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120594, June 10, 1997

Paulino Estonina vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 111547, January 27, 1997

Remedios G. Salvador vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109910, April 5, 1995

Bonifacio Olegario vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104892, November 14, 1994

Josephine B. Belcodero vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 89667, October 20, 1993

Ramon C. Ong vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 63025, November 29, 1991

Diosdidit Cuenca vs. Restituto Cuenca, G.R. No. 72321, December 8, 1988

Properties acquired during the marriage are presumed to belong to the conjugalpartnership.

All properties acquired during the marriage are disputably presumed to belong tothe conjugal partnership. As a condition for the operation of [Article 160], in favor ofthe conjugal partnership, the party who invokes the presumption must first prove thatthe property was acquired during the marriage. The presumption may be rebutted onlywith strong, clear, categorical and convincing evidence. There mus

Civil Law - Civil Code (Lex 2014)

Documents

Transcript of Civil Law - Civil Code (Lex 2014)