Definitions and Doctrines in Political Law

POLITICAL LAW
It is that branch of Public Law which deals with the organization and operations of the governmental organs of
the state and defines its relations with the inhabitants of its territory. (People v. Perfecto GR L18463 October 4, 1922)

POLITICAL LAW IS A PUBLIC LAW

Hence, it is abrogated (abolished) by the change of sovereignty UNLESS it is expressly redeemed or
subsequently reenacted. (People v. Perfecto 43 Phil. 887)

It is a general principle of the public law that on acquisition of territory the previous political relations of the
ceded region are totally abrogated. "Political" is here used to denominate the laws regulating the relations
sustained by the inhabitants to the sovereign. xxx Every nation acquiring territory, by treaty or otherwise,
must hold it subject to the Constitution and laws of its own government, and not according to those of the
government ceding it. (Macariola v. Asuncion 114 SCRA 77)

Upon the transfer of sovereignty from Spain to the US and later to RP, the provisions of the Code of
Commerce must be deemed to have been abrogated because where there is a change of sovereignty, the
political laws of the former sovereign, whether compatible or not with those of the new sovereign, are
automatically abrogated, UNLESS they are expressly re-enacted by affirmative act of the new sovereign.

MUNICIPAL LAW
That which pertains solely to the citizens and inhabitants of a State. Deals with the CONDUCT or STATUS of
Individuals, Corporations, and other PRIVATE entities within a particular State.

JUSTICIABLE QUESTION
Implies a given right, legally demandable and enforceable, an act or omission violative of such right, and a
remedy granted and sanctioned by law for said breach of right. (Casibang vs. Aquino, 92 SCRA 642)

POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE

A political question is one the resolution of which has been vested by the Constitution exclusively in either the
people, in the exercise of their sovereign capacity, or in which full discretionary authority has been delegated
to a co-equal branch of the Government. Thus, while courts can determine questions of legality with respect to
governmental action, they cannot review government policy and the wisdom thereof, for these questions have
been vested by the Constitution in the Executive and Legislative Departments.

CONSTITUTION
The Constitution is the basic and paramount law to which all other laws must conform and to which all
persons, including the highest officials, must defer.

Three (3) parts of a written Constitution

1. Constitution of Sovereignty (Article XVII Amendments and Revisions)
2. Constitution of Liberty (Article III Bill of Rights)
3. Constitution of Government (Article VI, VII, VIII, IX)

It should be interpreted:
1. Verba Legis ordinary meaning of the words used
2. Ratio legis et anima intent of the framers
3. Ut magis valeat quam pereat as a whole (Francisco vs HR GR160261 11.10.03)
THE 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
It is classified as written, enacted and rigid.
Effectivity: The ConCom completed their task on 12 October 1986 and presented the draft constitution to
President Aquino on October 15, 1986. After a period of nationwide information campaign, a plebiscite for its
ratification was held on FEBRUARY 2, 1987. More than three-fourths of all votes cast, 76.37% (or 17,059,495
voters) favored ratification as against 22.65% (or 5,058,714 voters) who voted against ratification. On
February 11, 1987, the new constitution was proclaimed ratified and took effect. De Leon v. Esguerra - The
1987 Constitution was ratified in a plebiscite on February 2, 1987. By that date, therefore, the Provisional
Constitution must be deemed to have been superseded.

POLITICAL QUESTION of Constitutionality:

In Re: Puno June 29, 1992 - It was through the February 1986 revolution, a relatively peaceful one, and more
popularly known as the people power revolution that the Filipino people tore themselves away from an
existing regime. This revolution also saw the unprecedented rise to power of the Aquino government. It has
been said that the locus of positive law-making power lies with the people of the state and from there is
derived the right of the people to abolish, to reform and to alter any existing form of government without
regard to the existing constitution.

JUSTICIABLE QUESTION on EDSA I vs. EDSA II: Estrada v. Arroyo GR 146738

The Court also distinguished between EDSA People Power I and EDSA People Power II. EDSA I involves the
exercise of the people power of revolution which overthrew the whole government. EDSA II is an exercise of
people power of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly to petition the government for redress of
grievances which only affected the office of the President. EDSA I is extra constitutional and the legitimacy of
the new government that resulted from it cannot be the subject of judicial review, but EDSA II is intra
constitutional and the resignation of the sitting President that it caused and the succession of the Vice
President as President are subject to judicial review. EDSA I presented political question; EDSA II involves
legal questions.

PEOPLE POWER IS RECOGNIZED IN THE CONSTITUTION

1. Article III Section 4 guarantees the right of the people to peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances;
2. Article VI Section 32 requires congress to pass a law allowing the people to directly propose of reject any
act or law or part of it passed by congress of a local legislative body
3. Article XIII Section 16 provides that the right of the people and their organizations to participate in all
levels of social, political, and economic decisions making shall not be abridged and that the Senate shall, by
law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms;
4. Article XVII, Section 2 provides that subject to the enactment of an implementing law, the people my
directly propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative.

CONSTITUTIONAL SUPREMACY DOCTRINE

Under this doctrine, if a law or contract violates ANY norm of the Constitution, that law or contract, whether
promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private
purposes, is null and void and without any force or effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental,
paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is DEEMED written in every statute and contract. (Manila Prince
Hotel v. GSIS GR 122156 02.03.97)

LEX POSTERIOR DEROGATE PRIORI

In states where the constitution is the highest law of the land, both statutes and treaties may be invalidated if
they are in conflict with the constitution. (Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion, G.R. No. 139465, January 18, 2000)

THE PREAMBLE
We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane
society, and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good,
conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and our posterity, the blessings of independence
and democracy under the rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do
ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

Origin or authorship is the Will of the Sovereign Filipino People

Scope and Purpose To build a just and human society and to establish a government that shall embody
our ideals and aspirations, promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to
ourselves and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime
of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and peace. (Bernas)

TERRITORY
Is a fixed portion of the surface of the Earth inhabited by the people of the State. As an element of the state,
it is an area over which a state has Effective Control.

The PHILIPPINE TERRITORY

The Philippine Archipelago consists of Terrestrial domain, Fluvial domain, Aerial domain (Sovereignty over
airspace extends only until where outer space begins. 50-100 miles from earth) including its Territorial Sea,
Seabed, Subsoil, Insular Shelves, other Submarine areas All other territories over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction.

ARCHIPELAGIC DOCTRINE
The waters, around between and connecting different islands of the Archipelago, regardless of their breadth or
dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the Philippines. (Article I 2nd Sentence.)

Integration of a group of islands to the sea and their oneness so that together they can constitute one unit,
one country, and one state.

An imaginary single baseline is drawn around the islands by joining appropriate points of the outermost islands
of the archipelago with straight lines and all islands and waters enclosed within the baseline form part of the
territory.
Purpose: [1] Territorial Integrity, [2] National Security, [3] Economic Reasons.

DOCTRINE OF EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION

Discovery alone is not enough. Mere discovery gives only an inchoate right to the discoverer. For title to finally
vest, discovery must be followed by effective occupation in a reasonable time and attestation of the same.

GROTIUS DOCTRINE OF IMMEMORIAL PRESCRIPTION

Speaks of uninterrupted possession going beyond memory.

THALWEG DOCTRINE
For boundary rivers, in the absence of an agreement between the riparian states, the boundary line is laid on
the middle of the main navigable channel.

MIDDLE OF THE BRIDGE DOCTRINE

Where there is a bridge over a boundary river, the boundary line is the middle or center of the bridge.

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES

Function:
It is a statement of the basic ideological principles and policies that underlie the Constitution. As such, the
provisions shed light on the meaning of the provisions of the Constitution and they are the guide for all
departments of the government in the implementation of the Constitution. (Bernas Comprehensive Reviewer
2011)
Note: As a general rule, these provisions are non-self-executing. But a provision that is complete in itself, and
provides sufficient rules for the exercise of rights is self-executing.

STATE
It is a community of persons more or less numerous (PEOPLE), permanently occupying a definite portion of
TERRITORY, independent of external control (SOVEREIGNTY), and possessing an organized GOVERNMENT to
which the great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.
State v. Nation : State is a legal concept ; Nation is a ethnic concept.

PEOPLE
as an element of a state, simply means a community of persons sufficient in number and capable of
maintaining the continued existence of the community and held together by a common bond of law. It is of no
legal consequence if they possess diverse racial, cultural, or economic interest. (Bernas Comprehensive
Reviewer 2011). People as used in the Constitution: [1] as Inhabitants - Article II, Section 15, 16; Article III,
Section 2; Article XIII, Section 1; [2] as Electors - Article VII, Section 4; Article XVI, Section 2; Article XVIII,
Section 25); [3] as Citizens - Article II, Section 4; Article III, Section 7.

SOVEREIGNTY supreme and uncontrollable power inherent in a Sate by which the state is governed.

Legal is the supreme power to affect legal interests either by legislative, executive or judicial action. Lodged
in the people but normally exercised by state agencies.
Political is the sum total of all the influences in a state, legal and non-legal, which determine the course of
law.
Internal Sovereignty refers to the power of the State to control its domestic affairs. It is the supreme power
over everything within its territory.
External Sovereignty Also known as INDEPENDECE, which is freedom from external control. It is the power
of the State to direct its relations with other States.

Characteristics It is permanent, exclusive, comprehensive, absolute, indivisible, inalienable, and

imprescriptible. BUT, in the case of Tanada v. Angara, it was held that sovereignty of a state cannot be
absolute. It is subject to limitations imposed by membership in the family of nations and limitations imposed
by treaties. The Constitution did not envision a hermit-type isolation of the country from the rest of the world.
(2000 Bar Question)

GOVERNMENT is that institution or aggregate of institutions by which an independent society makes and
carries out those rules of action which are necessary to enable men to live in a social state or which are
imposed upon the people forming that society by those who possess the power or authority of prescribing
them. (US v. Dorr 2 Phil 332)
Functions: [1] Constituent compulsory because it constitute the very bonds of society.
[2] Ministrant undertaken to advance general interest of society
Classification: De jure has rightful title but no power or control, either:
a] because same has been withdrawn from it; OR
b] because same has not yet actually entered into the exercise thereof.
De facto actually exercises power or control but without legal title.

It was held in Lawyers League for a Better Philippines v. Corazon Aquino that the people have made the
judgment; they have accepted the government of President Corazon Aquino which is in effective control of the
entire country so that it is not merely a de facto government but in fact and law a de jure government.
Moreover, the community of nations has recognized the legitimacy of the present government.

PARENS PATRIAE DOCTRINE

the government as guardian of the rights of the people may initiate legal actions for and in behalf of particular
individual. (Government of the Philippine Islands vs. Monte de Piedad, 35 SCRA 738)
DEMOCRATIC and REPUBLICAN STATE
Republican State is wherein all government authority emanates from the people and is exercised by
representatives chosen by the people. (Bernas Comprehensive Reviewer 2011). Democratic State - In view of
the new Constitution the Philippines is not only a representative or republican sate but also shares some
aspect of direct democracy such as INITIATIVE and REFERENDUM in Article VI Section 32 and Article XVIII
Section 2. (Bernas Comprehensive Reviewer 2011)

DOCTRINE OF INCORPORATION
The rules of international law form part of the law of the land and no legislative action is required to make
them applicable to a country. The Philippines follows this doctrine, because Section 2. Article II of the
constitution states that the Philippines adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of
the law of the land. However, the doctrine dictates that rules of international law are given equal standing
with, and are not superior to, national legislative enactments.

DOCTRINE OF AUTOLIMITATION
The doctrine where the Philippines adheres to principles of international law as a limitation to the exercise of
its sovereignty.

DOCTRINE OF SUABILITY / STATE IMMUNITY

Under this doctrine, the State cannot be sued without its consent.
The State may not be sued without its consent. (Sec 3, Art XVI) There can be no legal right as against the
authority that makes the laws on which the right depends. [Kawananakoa v. Polyblank 205 US 349] also
called the doctrine of Royal Prerogative of Dishonesty. If the State is amenable to suits, all its time would be
spent defending itself from suits and this would prevent it from performing it other functions. [Republic v.
Villasor]

JUDICIAL POWER
Judicial power is the authority to settle justiciable controversies or disputes involving rights that are
enforceable and demandable before the courts of justice or the redress of wrongs for violations of such rights.
Vested in the Supreme Court and such lower courts as may be established by law. Since the courts are given
judicial power and nothing more, courts may neither attempt to assume or be compelled to perform non-
judicial functions. They may not be charged with administrative functions except when reasonably incidental to
the fulfillment of their duties.

JUDICIAL REVIEW
The power of the SC to declare a law, treaty, ordinance and other governmental act unconstitutional.
Requisites: [1] Actual Case or Controversy; [2] Proper Party (Locus Standi); [3] Earliest Opportunity; [4]
Necessity of deciding constitutional questions

DOCTRINE OF PURPOSEFUL HESITATION

This is about the Symbolic function of the court. It means that the court would not decide on matters which
are considered political questions. This focus on the necessity of resolving Judicial Review. Furthermore, in
questions of constitutionality, Supreme Court will not rule right away because the Supreme Court assumes that
the Law passed the two departments already, thus, it went through process of determining its constitutionality

INTER-GENERATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY DOCTRINE

The Supreme Court in granting the petition ruled that the children had the legal standing to file the case based
on the concept of intergenerational responsibility. Their right to a healthy environment carried with it an
obligation to preserve that environment for the succeeding generations. In this, the Court recognized legal
standing to sue on behalf of future generations. Also, the Court said, the law on non-impairment of contracts
must give way to the exercise of the police power of the state in the interest of public welfare.

NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS Clause

When does a law impair the obligation of contracts:
1) If it changes the terms and conditions of a legal contract either as to the time or mode of performance
2) If it imposes new conditions or dispenses with those expressed
3) If it authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its terms.

A mere change in PROCEDURAL REMEDIES which does not change the substance of the contract, and which
still leaves an efficacious remedy for enforcement does NOT impair the obligation of contracts.
A valid exercise of police power is superior to obligation of contracts.
SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE
This principle operated as an implicit limitation on legislative powers as on the two other powers. In essence,
separation of powers means the legislation belongs to Congress, execution to the executive, settlement of
legal controversies to the judiciary. Each is prevented from invading the domain of the others. But the
separation is not total. The system allows for checks and balances the net effect of which being that, in
general, no one department is able to act without the cooperation of at least one of the other departments.

Purpose: To prevent concentration of powers in one department and thereby to avoid tyranny. The purpose
was not to avoid friction, but, by means of the inevitable friction incident to the distribution of governmental
powers among the three departments, to save the people from autocracy.
[1] To secure action; [2] To forestall overaction; [3] To prevent despotism; and [4] To obtain efficiency

PRINCIPLE OF BLENDING OF POWERS

Instances when powers are not confined exclusively within one department but are assigned to or shared by
several departments.

CHECKS AND BALANCES PRINCIPLE

This allows one department to resist encroachments upon its prerogative or to rectify mistakes or excesses
committed by the other departments. The first and safest criterion to determine whether a given power has
been validly exercised by a particular department is whether or not the power has been constitutionally
conferred upon the department claiming its exercisesince the conferment is usually done expressly.
However, even in the absence of express conferment, the exercise of the power may be justified under the
doctrine of necessary implication. The grant of express power carried with it all other powers that may be
reasonably inferred from it.

ORIGIN OF THE REVENUE BILL

ART. VI Section 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of public debt, bills of
local application, and private bills shall originate EXCLUSIVELY in the HOUSE, but the Senate may propose or
concur with amendments.

EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE
It is the power of the President to withhold certain types of information from the public, the courts,
and the Congress.

ART. VI Section 22. The heads of departments may, upon their own initiative, with the consent of the
President, or upon the request of either House, as the rules of each House shall provide, appear before and be
heard by such House on any matter pertaining to their departments. Written questions shall be submitted to
the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before their
scheduled appearance. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related
thereto. When the security of the State or the public interest so requires and the President so states in writing,
the appearance shall be conducted in executive session.

DOCTRINE IN MARBURY V. MADISON

The case of Marbury v. Madison established the doctrine of judicial review as a core legal principle in American
constitutional system: So if a law be in opposition to the constitution; of both the law and the constitution
apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding
the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law; the court must determine which of
these conflicting rules governs the case. This is the very essence of judicial duty.

MONSANTO DOCTRINE
One who is given pardon has no demandable right to reinstatement. He may however be reappointed.

DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT

In Yap v. Thenamaris Ships Management, the Operative Fact Doctrine was discussed in that:
As a general rule, an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no
protection; it creates no office; it is inoperative as if it has not been passed at all.

The general rule is supported by Article 7 of the Civil Code, which provides:
Art. 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused
by disuse or custom or practice to the contrary.

The doctrine of operative fact serves as an exception to the aforementioned general rule. In Planters Products,
Inc. v. Fertiphil Corporation, we held:
The doctrine of operative fact, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a matter of equity
and fair play. It nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a
statute prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences
which cannot always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration.

The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who
have relied on the invalid law. Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of unconstitutionality
would put the accused in double jeopardy or would put in limbo the acts done by a municipality in reliance
upon a law creating it.
In that case, this Court further held that the Operative Fact Doctrine will not be applied as an exception
when to rule otherwise would be iniquitous and would send a wrong signal that an act may be justified when
based on an unconstitutional provision of law.

DOCTRINE OF QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY / ALTER EGO DOCTRINE

Acts of the Secretaries of Executive departments when performed and promulgated in the regular course of
business or unless disapproved or presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive (Villena v. Secretary of the
Interior). The President can assume a Cabinet post, (because the departments are mere extensions of his
personality, according to the Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency, so no objection can be validly raised based
on Sec. 13, Art VII.)

QUALIFIED POLITICAL AGENCY DOCTRINE (ALSO ALTER EGO PRINCIPLE)

all the different executive and administrative organizations are mere adjuncts of the Executive Department,
the heads of the various executive departments are assistants and agents of the Chief Executive, and, except
in cases wherein the Chief Executive is required by the Constitution or by the law to act in person or the
exigencies of the situation demand that he act personally, the multifarious executive and administrative
functions of the Chief Executive are performed by and through the executive departments., performed and
promulgated in the regular course of business, are, unless disapproved or reprobated by the Chief Executive,
presumptively acts of the Chief Executive. (Free Telephone Workers Union vs. Minister of Labor and
Employment)

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

Whenever there is an available administrative remedy provided by law, no judicial recourse can be made until
all such remedies have been availed of and exhausted.
The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies applies where a claim is cognizable in the first instance
by an administrative agency alone. Judicial interference is withheld until the administrative process has been
completed. As stated in Industrial Enterprises, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 184 SCRA 426.

PRIMARY ADMINISTRATIVE DOCTRINE / DOCTRINE OF PRIOR RESORT

Where there is competence or jurisdiction vested upon administrative body to act upon a matter, no resort to
courts may be made before such administrative body shall have acted upon the matter

DOCTRINE OF FINALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

No resort to courts will be allowed unless administrative action has been completed and there is nothing left to
be done in the administrative structure.

BRANDEIS DOCTRINE OF ASSIMILATION OF FACTS

Where what purports to be a finding upon a question of fact is so involved with and dependent upon a
question of law as to be in substance and effect a decision on the latter, the court will, in order to decide the
legal question, examine the entire record including the evidence if necessary.

DOCTRINE OF PRIMARY JURISDICTION

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction applies where a case is within the concurrent jurisdiction of the court and
an administrative agency but the determination of the case requires the technical expertise of the
administrative agency. In such a case, although the matter is within the jurisdiction of the court, it must yield
to the jurisdiction of the administrative case.

DOCTRINE OF NON-INTERFERENCE
Regarded as an elementary principle of higher importance in the administration of justice that the judgment of
a court of competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified, or vacated by any court of concurrent
jurisdiction (30-A Am Jur 605).

DOCTRINE OF IMPLIED MUNICIPAL LIABILITY

A municipality may become obligated upon an implied contract to pay the reasonable value of the benefits
accepted or appropriated by it as to which it has the general power to contract (Province of Cebu vs. IAC, 147
SCRA 447).
The doctrine applies to all cases where money or property of a party is received under such circumstances that
the general law, independent of an express contract, implies an obligation to do justice with respect to the
same.
Thus, in this case, the Province of Cebu cannot set up the plea that the contract was ultra vires and still retain
benefits thereunder. Having regarded the contract as valid for purposes of reaping benefits, the Province of
Cebu is estopped to question its validity for the purpose of denying answerability.

DOCTRINE OF RATIFICATION
Although the act of a public officer may not be binding on the State because he has exercised his powers
defectively, his acts may be ratified.
Exceptions:
[1] Where there is a want of power in the public officer to perform the original act
[2] The actwas absolutely void at the time. However if the act is merely voidable, it can be rendered
valid
[3] If the principal himself could not lawfully have done the act, or if it could not have been lawfully
done by anyone.

DOCTRINE OF OFFICIAL IMMUNITY FROM LIABILITIES

In re: Gonzales A public officer who under the Constitution is required to be a member of the Philippine Bar
as a qualification for the office held by him cannot be charged with disbarment during his incumbency. He
cannot be charged criminally before the Sandiganbayan, or are other court, with any offense which carries
with it the penalty of removal from office. Members of the Supreme Court are removed only by impeachment.
They are not entitled to immunity from liability. They must first be removed, via the constitutional route of
impeachment, and then only may he be held liable either criminally or administratively (including disbarment),
for any wrong.

DOCTRINE OF REJECTION OF 2ND PLACER

Geronimo v Ramos - Sound policy dictates that public elective offices are filled by those who havereceived
the highest number of votes cast in the election for that office, and it is a fundamental idea in allrepublican
forms of government that no one can be declared elected and no measure can be declaredcarried unless he or
it receives a majority or plurality of the legal votes cast in the election. COMELECcannot name the 2nd placer
as the winner. Follow the hierarchy of positions instead.
DOCTRINE OF PROPER SUBMISSION
Plebiscite may be held on the same day as regular election (Gonzales v. COMELEC GR L28196 Nov. 1967),
provided the people are sufficiently informed of the amendments to be voted upon, to conscientiously
deliberate thereon, to express their will in a genuine manner. Submission of piece-meal amendments is
unconstitutional. All the amendments must be submitted for ratification at one plebiscite only. The people
have to be given a proper frame of reference in arriving at their decision. They have no idea yet of what the
rest of the amended constitution would be. (Tolentino v. Comelec GR L34150 Oct. 16 1971)

DOCTRINE OF NECESSARY IMPLICATION

Grant of an express power carries with it all other powers that may be reasonably inferred from it.

DOCTRINE OF SHIFTING MAJORITY

For each House of Congress to pass a bill, only the votes of the majority of those present in the session, there
being a quorum, is required.

DOCTRINE OF INAPPRORIATE PROVISION

A provision that is constitutionally inappropriate for an appropriation bill may be singled out for veto even if it
is not an appropriation or revenue item. (Gonzales v. Macaraig)

Reason for the Doctrine

The intent behind the doctrine is to prevent the legislature from forcing the government to veto an entire
appropriation law thereby paralyzing government.

Inappropriate Provisions
- Repeal of laws. Repeal of laws should not be done in appropriation act but in a separate law (PHILCONSA v.
Enriquez) (use this doctrine carefully)

DOCTRINE OF AUGMENTATION
Prohibition against transfer of appropriations, however the following may, by law, be authorized to
augment any item in the general appropriations law for their respective offices from savings in other
items of their respective appropriations:
1. President
2. Senate President
3. Speaker of the House
4. Chief Justice
5. Heads of Constitutional Commissions.

THEORY OF RELATIVE CONSTITUTIONALITY

The constitutionality of a statute cannot, in every instance, be determined by a mere comparison of its
provisions with applicable provisions of the Constitution, since the statute may be constitutionally valid as
applied to one set of facts and invalid in its application to another. A statute valid at one time may become
void at another time because of altered circumstances. Thus, if a statute in its practical operation becomes
arbitrary or confiscatory, its validity, even though affirmed by a former adjudication, is open to inquiry and
investigation in the light of changed conditions (Central Bank Employee Assn, Inc. vs. BSP, GR 148208, Dec.
15, 2004).

OVER-BREADTH DOCTRINE
Decrees that a governmental purpose may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily, broadly and
thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.

VOID FOR VAGUENESS RULE

A criminal statute that fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is
forbidden by the statute, or is so indefinite that it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions is
void for vagueness. The constitutional vice in a vague or indefinite statute is the injustice to the accused in
placing him on trial for an offense, the nature of which he is given no fair warning.

A law is vague as not to satisfy the due process need for notice when it lacks comprehensible standards that
men of common intelligence must necessarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application or is so
indefinite that it encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions.

It is injustice to the accused in placing him on trial for an offense, the nature of which he is given no fair
warning.

PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

The objects within the sight of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to
seizure and may be presented as evidence (open to the eye and hand). This finds application only when the
incriminating nature of the object is in the plain view of the police officer.
~ It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. The difficulty arises
when the object is inside a closed container. Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the object
itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant. However, if the package proclaims
its contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an
observer, then the contents are in plain view and may be seized. In other words, if the package is such that an
experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is
deemed in plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be
evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. (People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 668)
Requisites:
1. Valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of
their official duties;
2. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be where they are;
3. The evidence must be immediately apparent; and
4. Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.

DOCTRINE OF FAIR COMMENT / BORJAL DOCTRINE

Fair commentaries on matters of public interest are privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for
libel or slander. It means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is deemed false,
because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false imputation is
deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his
public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order that such discreditable imputation to a public official
may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If
the comment is an expression of opinion, based on established facts, it is immaterial that the opinion happens
to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably inferred from the facts. (Borjal vs. CA, 301 SCRA 1)

BALANCING OF INTEREST DOCTRINE

Privilege Not Absolute. Claim of executive privilege is subject to balancing against other interests. In other
words, confidentiality in executive privilege is not absolutely protected by the Constitution. Neither the doctrine
of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can
sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all
circumstances. A claim of executive privilege does not guard against a possible disclosure of a crime or
wrongdoing (Neri v. Senate).

MIRANDA DOCTRINE
The Miranda Doctrine or the Miranda Warning provides that:
1. A person in custody must be informed at the outset in clear and unequivocal terms that he has the right to
remain silent and that anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law;
2. He or she has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer with him during the interrogation;
3. If he cannot afford a lawyer, like if he is an indigent, a lawyer shall be appointed by the State to represent
him;
4. His right to counsel is available at any stage of the interrogation, hence, even if he consents to answer
questions without the assistance of counsel, the moment he asks for a lawyer at any point of the investigation,
the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. If the above are not observed, the evidence obtained
therefrom shall not be admissible in court.

EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES DOCTRINE

[This doctrine though is commonly used in warrantless arrest and warrantless search and seizure cases]
The ECD basically provides that the normal procedures and rules of court in the admissibility of evidence may
be disregarded in exigent circumstances like when there is a coup detat. The rationale is the same as with
PSC, that is to protect public safety or national security. This doctrine was used in the 1994 case of People vs
Rolando De Gracia (GR Nos. 102009-10). The accused therein was subjected to a warrantless search and
seizure sometime in 1989 during the height of the coup attempts against then President Cory Aquino.
Confiscated from him were various explosives and ammunition. De Gracia contested the warrantless search
and seizure but the Supreme Court ruled that the search warrant can be dispensed with due to the exigent
circumstances attendant to the case.

POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE

Exclusionary Rule
- Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence against
him (the accused). Therefore, any evidence obtained by virtue of an illegally obtained confession is also
inadmissible, being the fruit of a poisonous tree.

DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING EVENT

Prosecution for another offense if subsequent development changes the character of the first indictment under
which he may have already been charged or convicted. Conviction of accused shall not bar another
prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense originally charged when:
1. Graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the same act or omission;
2. Facts constituting graver offense arose or discovered only after filing of former complaint or information; &
3. Plea of guilty to lesser offense was made without the consent of prosecutor or offended party.

Cabo vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 169509, June 16, 2006, for double jeopardy to attach, the case
against the accused must have been dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent by a court
of competent jurisdiction, upon a valid information sufficient in form and substance and the accused pleaded
to the said charge.

MELO DOCTRINE
The rule of identity does not apply when the second offense was not in existence at the time of the first
prosecution, for the simple reason that in such case, there is no possibility for the accused, during the first
prosecution, to be convicted for an offense that was then inexistent. Thus, where the accused was charged
with physical injuries and after conviction, the injured person dies, the charged for homicide against the same
accused does not put him twice in jeopardy.
DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY
Superior officer is liable for acts of subordinate when:
1. he negligently or willfully employs or retains unfit or incompetent subordinates
2. he negligently or willfully fails to require subordinate to conform to prescribed regulations
3. he negligently or carelessly oversees business of office as to furnish subordinate an opportunity for default
4. he directed or authorized or cooperated in the wrong
5. law makes himself expressly liable

SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION DOCTRINE

Power of administrative agency to promulgate rules and regulations on matters of their own specialization.

DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA

The doctrine of res judicata applies only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to the exercise of
purely administrative functions. Administrative proceedings are non-litigious and summary in nature; hence,
res judicata does not apply. [Nasipit Lumber Co. v NLRC (1989)].

The essential requisites of res judicata are:

1. The former judgment must be final;
2. It must have been rendered by a court having jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties;
3. It must be a judgment on the merits; and
4. There must be identity of parties, subject matter and cause of action. [Ipekdijan Merchandising v CTA
(1963)]

VARIANCE DOCTRINE
Is that a crime charged includes crime proved, convict of crime proved. Also applies when crime proved
includes crime charged, convict of crime charged.

RIPENESS FOR REVIEW DOCTRINE

1. This determines the point at which courts may review administrative action.
2. Application:
[a] when the interest of the plaintiff is subjected to or imminently threatened with substantial injury
[b] if the statute is self-executory
[c] when a party is immediately confronted with the problem of complying or violating a statute and there is a
risk of criminal penalties
[d] when plaintiff is harmed by the vagueness of the statute.

REGALIAN DOCTRINE
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other minerals oils, all forces of potential
energy, fisheries, forests, or timber, wildlife, flora, and fauna and natural resources belong to the State. With
the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. (Sec. 2 Art XII)

STEWARDSHIP DOCTRINE
Private property is supposed to be held by the individual only as a trustee for the people in general, who are
its real owners.

DOCTRINE OF TRANSFORMATION
The generally accepted rules of international law are not per se binding upon the State but must first be
embodied in legislation enacted by the lawmaking body and so transformed into municipal law. Only when so
transformed will they become binding upon the State as part of its municipal law.

PACTA SUN SERVANDA

Treaties must be observed in good faith. If necessary, the State concerned must even modify its national
legislation and constitution to make them conform to the treaty to avoid international embarrassment.

REBUS SIC STANTIBUS

A contracting states obligations under a treaty terminates when a vital or fundamental change or
circumstance occurs, thus allowing a state to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty, because of the
disappearance of the foundation upon which it rests

WILSON DOCTRINE
recognition shall not be extended to any government established by revolution or internal violence until the
freely elected representatives of the people have organized a constitutional government.

ESTRADA DOCTRINE
the Mexican government declared that it would, as it saw fit, continue or terminate its diplomatic relations with
any country in which a political upheaval had taken place and in so doing it would not pronounce judgment on
the right of the foreign state to accept, maintain or replace its government. (Cruz, International Law, 2003
ed.) (In view of recent developments, the Wilson doctrine and the Estrada doctrine are no longer in the
mainstream of public international law.)

INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE DOCTRINE

an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality notwithstanding that he has already renounced
or forfeited it under the laws of the second state whose nationality he has acquired.

HOT PURSUIT DOCTRINE

Requisites:
a. Pursuit commences from internal waters,territorial sea or contiguous zone ofpursuing state
b. Continuous and unabated
c. Conducted by warship, military aircraft orgovernment ships, authorized for the purpose
d. Ceases as soon as the ship being pursued enters the territorial sea of its own, or of a third state

DOCTRINE OF FREE ENTERPRISE

Pest Management Association of the Philippines vs. Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority, G.R. No. 156041,
February 21, 2007 and Pharmaceutical and Health Care Association of the Philippines vs. Sec. Duque III, G.R.
No. 173034, October 9, 2007, it was held that despite the fact that our present Constitution enshrines free
enterprise as a policy, it nevertheless reserves to the Government the power to intervene whenever
necessary to promote the general welfare. Free enterprise does not call for removal of protective regulations.
It must be clearly explained and proven by competent evidence just exactly how such protective regulation
would result in the restraint of trade.

WILSON/TOBAR DOCTRINE
Precludes recognition of government established by revolution, civil war, coup detat or other forms of internal
violence until freely elected representatives of the people have organized a constitutional government (US
President Woodrow Wilson and Ecuadorian FM) [2004 Bar]

STIMSON DOCTRINE
Precludes recognition of any government established as a result of external aggression (US Sec. Of State
Henry Stimson)

ESTRADA DOCTRINE
Dealing or not dealing with the government established through a political upheaval is not a judgment on the
legitimacy of the said government (Mexican Minister Genaro Estrada) [2004 Bar]
DOCTRINE OF INDELIBLE ALLEGIANCE
an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality although he has already renounced it under
the laws of another state whose nationality he has acquired

DOCTRINE OF EFFECTIVE NATIONALITY

(Art. 5, Hague Convention of 1930 on the Conflict of Nationality Laws) a person having more than one
nationality shall be treated as if he had only oneeither the nationality of the country in which he is habitually
and principally resident or the nationality of the country with which, in the circumstances, he appears to be
most closely connected (Frivaldo vs. Comelec)
Share

PHILIPPINE LEGAL DOCTRINES

(as compiled by Atty. Alvin T. Claridades)

Doctrine of absolute privilege.

Doctrine that protects persons from claims alleging defamation where the alleged defamatory statements were
made by members of legislative assemblies while on the floor of the assembly or communications made in the
context of judicial proceedings, as part of a trial.

Doctrine of absorption of common crimes. Also called Hernandez doctrine.

The rule enunciated in People v. Hernandez [99 Phil. Rep 515 (1956)] that the ingredients of a crime form part
and parcel thereof, and hence, are absorbed by the same and cannot be punished either separately therefrom
or by the application of Art. 48 of the Rev. Penal Code. [Enrile v. Amin, GR 93335, Sept. 13, 1990]. It held that
the crime of rebellion under the Rev. Penal Code of the Phils. is charged as a single offense, and that it cannot
be made into a complex crime.

Doctrine of actio personalis moritur cum persona. Lat.

[The doctrine that] personal action terminates or dies with the person. [Santos v. Sec. of Labor, L-21624, 27
Feb. 1968].

Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction. Rem. Law. 1.

The principle that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court has done all
that it can do in the exercise of that jurisdiction. 2. The doctrine holding that [e]ven the finality of the
judgment does not totally deprive the court of jurisdiction over the case. What the court loses is the power to
amend, modify or alter the judgment. Even after the judgment has become final, the court retains jurisdiction
to enforce and execute it [Echegaray v. Sec. of Justice, 301 SCRA 96]. Also called Doctrine of continuity of
jurisdiction.

Doctrine of adherence to judicial precedents. Also called the Doctrine of stare decisis.
[The] doctrine [that] enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country to follow the rule
established in a decision of its Sup. Court. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in
subsequent cases by all courts in the land. [Phil. Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) v. Comelec, GR 190529,
Apr. 29, 2010].

Doctrine of agency by estoppel. Also known as the Doctrine of holding out.

The doctrine where the principal will be estopped from denying the grant of authority if 3rd parties have
changed their positions to their detriment in reliance on the representations made.

Doctrine of alter ego.

A doctrine based upon the misuse of a corporation by an individual for wrongful or inequitable purposes, and
in such case the court merely disregards the corporate entity and holds the individual responsible for acts
knowingly and intentionally done in the name of the corporation. The doctrine imposes upon the individual
who uses a corporation merely as an instrumentality to conduct his own business liability as a consequence of
fraud or injustice perpetuated not on the corporation, but on third persons dealing with the corporation. [Cited
Sulo ng Bayan, Inc. v. Araneta, Inc., GR L-31061 Aug. 17, 1976].

Doctrine of apparent authority.

[T]he doctrine [under which] acts and contracts of the agent, as are within the apparent scope of the
authority conferred on him, although no actual authority to do such acts or to make such contracts has been
conferred, bind the principal. The principals liability, however, is limited only to 3rd persons who have been
led reasonably to believe by the conduct of the principal that such actual authority exists, although none was
given. In other words, apparent authority is determined only by the acts of the principal and not by the acts of
the agent.[Banate v. Phil. Countryside Rural Bank, Inc., GR 163825, July 13, 2010].Also called the Holding out
theory; or Doctrine of ostensible agency or Agency by estoppel. See Apparent authority doctrine.

Doctrine of assumption of risk.

The precept that denotes that a person who knows and comprehends the peril and voluntarily exposes himself
or herself to it, although not negligent in doing so, is regarded as engaging in an assumption of the risk and is
precluded from a recovery for an injury ensuing therefrom. Also called Doctrine of volenti non fit injuria.

Doctrine of attractive nuisance.

A legal doctrine which makes a person negligent for leaving a piece of equipment or other condition on
property which would be both attractive and dangerous to curious children. These have included tractors,
unguarded swimming pools, open pits, and abandoned refrigerators. Liability could be placed on the people
owning or controlling the premises even when the child was a trespasser who sneaked on the property. See
Attractive nuisance doctrine.

Doctrine of bar by prior judgment. Rem. Law.

[A concept of res judicata holding that] When, as between the first case where the judgment was rendered
and the second case that is sought to be barred, there is identity of parties, subject matter, and causes of
action. In this instance, the judgment in the first case constitutes an absolute bar to the second action.
[Antonio v. Sayman Vda. de Monje, GR 149624, 29 Sept. 2010, 631 SCRA 471, 480].

Doctrine of caveat emptor. Also called the Doctrine of let the buyer beware.
A warning that notifies a buyer that the goods he or she is buying are as is, or subject to all defects. The
principle under which the buyer could not recover damages from the seller for defects on the property that
rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes. The only exception was if the seller actively concealed
latent defects or otherwise made material misrepresentations amounting to fraud.

Doctrine of collateral estoppel.

A doctrine that prevents a person from relitigating an issue. Once a court has decided an issue of fact or law
necessary to its judgment, that decision preclude[s] relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of
action involving a party to the first case. Also called Doctrine of preclusion of issues.

Doctrine of command responsibility.

The doctrine under which any government official or supervisor, or officer of the PNP or that of any other law
enforcement agency shall be held accountable for Neglect of Duty if he has knowledge that a crime or
offense shall be committed, is being committed, or has been committed by his subordinates, or by others
within his area of responsibility and, despite such knowledge, he did not take preventive or corrective action
either before, during, or immediately after its commission. [Sec. 1, EO 226. Feb. 17, 1995].

Doctrine of comparative injury.

A rule in equity which states that although a person is entitled to injunctive relief, if the injury done to the
respondent or the public would be disproportionate, then injunctive relief must be denied.

Doctrine of comparative negligence,

[The doctrine that allows] a recovery by a plaintiff whose own act contributed to his injury, provided his
negligence was slight as compared with that of the defendant. [Rakes v. The Atlantic, Gulf and Pacific, Co., GR
1719, Jan. 23, 1907].

Doctrine of compassionate justice.

The doctrine that the harsh provisions of law and the rigid rules of procedure may sometimes be tempered
and dispensed with to give room for compassion.

Doctrine of completeness.
[The doctrine holding that] a dying declaration to be admissible must be complete in itself. To be complete in
itself does not mean that the declarant must recite everything that constituted the res gestae of the subject of
his statement, but that his statement of any given fact should be a full expression of all that he intended to
say as conveying his meaning in respect of such fact. [People v. De Joya, GR 75028, Nov. 8, 1991].

Doctrine of conclusiveness of judgment. Rem. Law.

A concept of res judicata holding that] where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases, but no
identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as to those matters actually and directly
controverted and determined and not as to matters merely involved therein. Stated differently, any right, fact
or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in the determination of an action before a
competent court in which judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the judgment therein
and cannot again be litigated between the parties and their privies, whether or not the claim, demand,
purpose, or subject matter of the two actions is the same. [Antonio v. Sayman Vda. de Monje, GR 149624, 29
Sept. 2010, 631 SCRA 471, 480].

Doctrine of condonation. Admin. Law.

[The doctrine that a] public official cannot be removed for administrative misconduct committed during a prior
term, since his re-election to office operates as a condonation of the officers previous misconduct to the
extent of cutting off the right to remove him therefor. The foregoing rule, however, finds no application to
criminal cases pending against petitioner. [Aguinaldo v. Santos, 212 SCRA 768, 773 (1992)]. Also called
Doctrine of forgiveness.

Doctrine of constitutional supremacy.

[The doctrine that] if a law or contract violates any norm of the constitution, that law or contract, whether
promulgated by the legislative or by the executive branch or entered into by private persons for private
purposes, is null and void and without any force and effect. Thus, since the Constitution is the fundamental,
paramount and supreme law of the nation, it is deemed written in every statute and contract. [Manila Prince
Hotel v. GSIS, 335 Phil. 101 (1997].

Doctrine of constructive compliance. Succ.

Doctrine which states that if, without the fault of the heir, the modal institution cannot take effect in the exact
manner stated by the testator, it shall be complied with in a manner most analogous to and in conformity with
his wishes. [Art. 883, CC].

Doctrine of constructive trust.

A general principle that one who acquires land or other property by fraud, misrepresentation, imposition, or
concealment, or under any such other circumstances as to render it inequitable for him to retain the property,
is in equity to be regarded as a trustee ex maleficio thereof for a person who suffers by reason of the fraud or
other wrong, and is equitably entitled to the property, even though such beneficiary may never have any legal
estate therein. [Magallon v. Montejo, GR 73733, Dec. 16, 1986].
Doctrine of continuity of jurisdiction. Rem. Law.
The general principle that once a court has acquired jurisdiction, that jurisdiction continues until the court has
done all that it can do to exercise that jurisdiction. See Doctrine of adherence of jurisdiction.

Doctrine of corporate negligence.

[T]he judicial answer to the problem of allocating hospitals liability for the negligent acts of health
practitioners, absent facts to support the application of respondeat superior or apparent authority. Its
formulation proceeds from the judiciarys acknowledgment that in these modern times, the duty of providing
quality medical service is no longer the sole prerogative and responsibility of the physician. The modern
hospitals have changed structure. Hospitals now tend to organize a highly professional medical staff whose
competence and performance need to be monitored by the hospitals commensurate with their inherent
responsibility to provide quality medical care. [Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana, GR 126297, Jan. 31,
2007].

Doctrine of corporate responsibility.

The doctrine following which it was held that] a hospital x x x has the duty to see that it meets the standards
of responsibilities for the care of patients. Such duty includes the proper supervision of the members of its
medical staff. [Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana, GR 126297, Jan. 31, 2007].
Doctrine of deference and non-disturbance on appeal.
[The doctrine that the Sup.] Court on appeal would not disturb the findings of the trial court on the credibility
of witnesses in view of the latters advantage of observing at first hand their demeanor in giving their
testimony. [Tehankee, concurring op., Llamoso v Sandiganbayan, GR L-63408 & 64026 Aug. 7, 1985].

Doctrine of dependent relative revocation. Succ.

Doctrine which states that a revocation subject to a condition does not revoke a will unless and until the
condition occurs. Thus, where a testator revokes a will with the proven intention that he would execute
another will, his failure to validly make a latter will would permit the allowance of the earlier will.

Doctrine of discovered peril.

The doctrine [holding] that where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is appreciably later
in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or negligence should be
attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the impending harm and failed
to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof. [See Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil. 809]. See Last clear
chance doctrine.

Doctrine of disregarding the distinct personality of the corporation.

[The doctrine stating that] when the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong,
protect fraud, or defend crime, x x x the law will regard the corporation as an association of persons, or in the
case of two corporations, merge them into one, the one being merely regarded as part or instrumentality of
the other. [Yutivo & Sons Hardware Co. v. CTA, 1 SCRA 160]. The same is true where a corporation is a
dummy and serves no business purpose and is intended only as a blind, or an alter ego or business conduit for
the sole benefit of the stockholders. [McConnel v. CA, 1 SCRA 722].

Doctrine of effective occupation.

A doctrine in international law which holds that in order for a nation to occupy a coastal possession, it also had
to prove that it controlled sufficient authority there to protect existing rights such as freedom of trade and
transit. See Effective occupation doctrine.

Doctrine of election of remedies.

A doctrine developed to prevent a plaintiff from a double recovery for a loss, making the person pursue only
one remedy in an action. Although its application is not restricted to any particular cause of action, it is most
commonly employed in contract cases involving fraud, which is a misrepresentation of a material fact that is
intended to deceive a person who relies on it.
Doctrine of equitable recoupment.
It provides that a claim for refund barred by prescription may be allowed to offset unsettled tax liabilities
should be pertinent only to taxes arising from the same transaction on which an overpayment is made and
underpayment is due.

Doctrine of equivalents.
The rule stating that an infringement also takes place when a device appropriates a prior invention by
incorporating its innovative concept and, although with some modification and change, performs substantially
the same function in substantially the same way to achieve substantially the same result. [Smith Kline and
Beckman Corp. v. CA, 409 SCRA 33].

Doctrine of equivalents test.

A test established to determine infringement which recognizes that minor modifications in a patented invention
are sufficient to put the item beyond the scope of literal infringement. Thus, an infringement also occurs when
a device appropriates a prior invention by incorporating its innovative concept and, albeit with some
modification and change, performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to achieve
substantially the same result. [Godinez v. CA, GR 97343. Sep. 13, 1993]. Compare with Literal infringement
test.
Doctrine of estoppel. Rem. Law.
[A doctrine] based on grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith and justice, [the] purpose [of which] is
to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they
were directed and who reasonably relied thereon. [PNB v. CA, 94 SCRA 357].

Doctrine of estoppel by laches. Rem. Law.

An equitable doctrine by which some courts deny relief to a claimant who has unreasonably delayed or been
negligent in asserting a claim. A person invoking laches should assert that an opposing party has slept on
his/her rights and that the party is no longer entitled to his/her original claim.

Doctrine of executive privilege.

[The doctrine stating that a] x x x President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in
the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to
express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential
communications. The privilege is fundamental to the operation of government and inextricably rooted in the
separation of powers under the Constitution x x x [Almonte v. Vasquez, 314 Phil. 150 (1995)].

Doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

The general rule that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the
means afforded him by administrative processes. The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to
decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such
administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation. [Rep. v. Lacap, GR
158253, Mar. 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255].

Doctrine of fair comment.

A doctrine in the law of libel, which means that while in general every discreditable imputation publicly made is
deemed false, because every man is presumed innocent until his guilt is judicially proved, and every false
imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessarily actionable. In order
that such discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of
fact or a comment based on a false supposition. If the comment is an expression of opinion, based on
established facts, then it is immaterial that the opinion happens to be mistaken, as long as it might reasonably
be inferred from the facts. [Borjal v. CA, 361 Phil. 1999].

Doctrine of finality of judgment. Rem. Law.

[The doctrine that] once a judgment attains finality it thereby becomes immutable and unalterable. It may no
longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an
erroneous conclusion of fact or law, and regardless of whether the modification is attempted to be made by
the court rendering it or by the highest court of the land. Just as the losing party has the right to file an appeal
within the prescribed period, the winning party also has the correlative right to enjoy the finality of the
resolution of his case. The doctrine of finality of judgment is grounded on fundamental considerations of public
policy and sound practice, and that, at the risk of occasional errors, the judgments or orders of courts must
become final at some definite time fixed by law; otherwise, there would be no end to litigations, thus setting
to naught the main role of courts of justice which is to assist in the enforcement of the rule of law and the
maintenance of peace and order by settling justiciable controversies with finality. [Gallardo-Corro v. Gallardo,
403 Phil. 498 (2001)].

Doctrine of forgiveness. See Doctrine of condonation.

Doctrine of forum non-conveniens. Lat. The forum is inconvenient. Priv. Internatl. Law.
[A rule designed] to deter the practice of global forum shopping, [Coquia and Aguiling-Pangalangan, Conflicts
Of Laws, pp. 40-41, 2000 Ed.] that is to prevent non-resident litigants from choosing the forum or place
wherein to bring their suit for malicious reasons, such as to secure procedural advantages, to annoy and
harass the defendant, to avoid overcrowded dockets, or to select a more friendly venue. Under this doctrine, a
court, in conflicts of law cases, may refuse impositions on its jurisdiction where it is not the most convenient
or available forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking remedies elsewhere. [First Phil. Internatl.
Bank v. CA, 252 SCRA 259, 281 (1996).].

Doctrine of governmental immunity from suit.

The doctrine that no governmental body can be sued unless it gives permission.

Doctrine of hierarchy of courts. Rem. Law.

An established policy that parties must observe the hierarchy of courts before they can seek relief directly from
th[e Sup.] Court.
The rationale for this rule is twofold:
(a) it would be an imposition upon the limited time of th[e Sup.] Court; and
(b) it would inevitably result in a delay, intended or otherwise, in the adjudication of cases, which in some
instances, had to be remanded or referred to the lower court as the proper forum under the rules of
procedure, or as better equipped to resolve the issues because th[e Sup.] Court is not a trier of facts. [Heirs of
Hinog v. Melicor, GR 140954, 12 Apr. 2005, 455 SCRA 460].

Doctrine of holding out. Also known as the Doctrine of agency by estoppel.

The doctrine where the principal will be estopped from denying the grant of authority if 3rd parties have
changed their positions to their detriment in reliance on the representations made.

Doctrine of hold-over.
The doctrine under which a public officer whose term has expired or services have been terminated is allowed
to continue holding his office until his successor is appointed or chosen and had qualified.

Doctrine of immunity from suit.

1. [The doctrine the application of which] has been restricted to sovereign or governmental activities [jure
imperii]. The mantle of state immunity cannot be extended to commercial, private and proprietary acts [jure
gestionis]. [Jusmag v. NLRC, GR 108813. Dec. 15, 1994].

2. The restrictive application of State immunity is proper when the proceedings arise out of commercial
transactions of the foreign sovereign, its commercial activities or economic affairs. Stated differently, a State
may be said to have descended to the level of an individual and thus can be deemed to have tacitly given its
consent to be used only when it enters into business contracts. It does not apply where the contract relates to
the exercise of its sovereign functions. [US v. Ruiz, GR L-35645, May 22, 1985, 136 SCRA 487, 490].
Doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment.
The doctrine that has a two-fold purpose: (1) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and thus,
procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business and (2) to put an end to judicial controversies,
at the risk of occasional errors, which is precisely why courts exist. [SSS v. Isip, GR 165417, Apr. 3, 2007].

Doctrine of immutability and inalterability of a final judgment.

Exceptions: (1) the correction of clerical errors;
(2) the so-called nunc pro tunc entries that cause no prejudice to any party;
(3) void judgments; and
(4) whenever circumstances transpire after the finality of the decision rendering its execution
unjust and inequitable. [Temic Semiconductors, Inc. Employees Union (TSIEU)-FFW v.
Federation of Free Workers (FFW), GR 160993, May 20, 2008, 554 SCRA 122, 134].

Doctrine of immutability of judgment.

A fundamental legal principle that a decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable,
and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous
conclusions of fact and law, and whether it be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of
the land. The only exceptions to the general rule on finality of judgments are the so-called nunc pro tunc
entries which cause no prejudice to any party, void judgments, and whenever circumstances transpire after
the finality of the decision which render its execution unjust and inequitable. [Sacdalan v. CA, GR 128967, May
20, 2004, 428 SCRA 586, 599].

Doctrine of implications. Stat. Con.

That which is plainly implied in the language of a statute is as much a part of it as that which is expressed. [In
Re: McCulloch Dick, 35 Phil. 41, 45, 50].

Doctrine of implied municipal liability.

A municipality may become obligated upon an implied contract to pay the reasonable value of the benefits
accepted or appropriated by it as to which it has the general power to contract. [Province of Cebu v. IAC, 147
SCRA 447].

Doctrine of implied trust.

[The doctrine] enunciated in Art. 1456 of the Civ. Code [which provides that] if property is acquired through
mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the
benefit of the person from whom the property comes. [Armamento v. Guerrero, GR L-34228 Feb. 21, 1980].

Doctrine of in pari delicto.

Legal principle that if two parties in a dispute are equally at fault, then the party in possession of the
contested property gets to retain it and the courts will not interfere with the status quo. It implies that if a
party whose action or failure to act precipitates breach of a contract, or who fails to take appropriate action or
takes inappropriate action to limit or recoup a loss, such party may not claim nor be awarded damages.

Doctrine of inappropriate provision.

[It deals with] item provisions [in a budget bill] that are to be treated as items for the Presidents veto power.
[Dean Tupaz, 24 Hours Before the Bar (1st Ed. 2005), p. 133].

Doctrine of incompatibility of public offices. Pol. Law.

It concerns a potential clash of two incompatible public offices held by a single official. In other words, the
doctrine concerns a conflict between an individuals performance of potentially overlapping public duties.

Doctrine of incorporation. Intl. Law.

The doctrine that states that the rules of Intl. Law form part of the law of the land and no legislative action is
required to make them applicable to a country. The Phils. follows this doctrine, because Sec. 2. Art. II of the
Consti. states that the Phils. adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of
the land.

Doctrine of indefeasibility of torrens titles.

A certificate of title, once registered, should not thereafter be impugned, altered, changed, modified, enlarged
or diminished except in a direct proceeding permitted by law. [De Pedro v. Romasan, GR 158002, Feb. 28,
2005].

Doctrine of indelible allegiance.

The doctrine that an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality notwithstanding that he has
already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the 2nd state whose nationality he has acquired.

Doctrine of informed consent.

A duty imposed on a doctor to explain the risks of recommended procedures to a patient before a patient
determines whether or not he or she should go forward with the procedure. See Informed consent doctrine.

Doctrine of interlocking confessions. Evid.

[The doctrine under which] extra-judicial confessions independently made without collusion which are identical
with each other in their essential details and are corroborated by other evidence on record are admissible, as
circumstantial evidence, against the person implicated to show the probability of the latters actual
participation in the commission of the crime. [People v. Molleda, 86 SCRA 667, 701 (1978)].

Doctrine of inverse condemnation.

[It involves] [t]he action to recover just compensation from the State or its expropriating agency. It has the
objective to recover the value of property taken in fact by the governmental defendant, even though no formal
exercise of the power of eminent domain has been attempted by the taking agency. [Napocor v. Heirs of
Sangkay, GR 165828, Aug. 24, 2011].

Doctrine of judicial admissions.

[The] well-settled [doctrine] that judicial admissions cannot be contradicted by the admitter who is the party
himself and binds the person who makes the same, and absent any showing that this was made thru palpable
mistake, no amount of rationalization can offset it. [Binarao v. Plus Builders, Inc., GR 154430, June 16, 2006,
491 SCRA 49, 54].

Doctrine of judicial stability.

[The doctrine that] no court can interfere by injunction with the judgments or orders of another court of
concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by the injunction. [Cabili v. Balindong, AM
RTJ-10-2225, Sept. 6, 2011].

Doctrine of judicial stability.

An elementary principle in the administration of justice [where] no court can interfere by injunction with the
judgments or orders of another court of concurrent jurisdiction having the power to grant the relief sought by
the injunction. [Go v. Villanueva, Jr., GR 154623, Mar. 13, 2009, 581 SCRA 126, 131-132]. See Doctrine of
non-interference.

Doctrine of judicial supremacy.

1. [The doctrine recognizing that] the judiciary is vested with the power to annul the acts of either the
legislative or the executive or of both when not conformable to the fundamental law. [Assoc. of Small
Landowners v. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, GR 78742. July 14, 1989].
2. The power of judicial review under the Constitution. [Angara v. Electoral Commission, 63 Phil. 139].

Doctrine of jus sanguinis. Lat. Right of blood.

A principle of nationality law by which citizenship is not determined by place of birth but by having instead one
or both parents who are citizens of the state or more generally by having state citizenship or membership to a
nation determined or conferred by ethnic, cultural or other descent or origin.

Doctrine of jus soli.Lat. Right of the soil.

The doctrine recognizing the right of anyone born in the territory of a state to nationality or citizenship.

Doctrine of laches. Also Doctrine of stale demands.

1. [A doctrine] based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the
discouragement of stale claims and x x x is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a
right or claim to be enforced or asserted. [Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29 (1968)].
2. The time-honored rule anchored on public policy that relief will be denied to a litigant whose claim or
demand has become stale, or who has acquiesced for an unreasonable length of time, or who has not been
vigilant or who has slept on his rights either by negligence, folly or inattention. [Arradaza v. CA, 170 SCRA 12,
20 (1989)].

Doctrine of lack of capacity to sue.

The doctrine of lack of capacity to sue based on failure to first acquire a local license is based on
considerations of public policy. It was never intended to favor nor insulate from suit unscrupulous
establishments or nationals in case of breach of valid obligations or violations of legal rights of unsuspecting
foreign firms or entities simply because they are not licensed to do business in the country. [Facilities Mngt.
Corp. v. De la Osa, GR L-38649, Mar. 26, 1979, 89 SCRA 131].

Doctrine of last clear chance. Also known as the Doctrine of discovered peril or the Humanitarian
doctrine.
A doctrine in the law of torts which states that the contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat
the claim for damages if it is shown that the defendant might, by the exercise of reasonable care and
prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party. In such cases, the person
who had the last clear chance to avoid the mishap is considered in law solely responsible for the consequences
thereof. [Ong v. Metropolitan Water District, 104 Phil. 405 (1958)]. See Last clear chance doctrine.

Doctrine of legal entity of the separate personality of the corporation.

[The doctrine] that a corporation may not be made to answer for acts and liabilities of its stockholders or
those of legal entities to which it may be connected or vice versa. [Panay, Inc. v. Clave, GR L-56076, Sept. 21,
1983, 124 SCRA 638].

Doctrine of let the buyer beware. Also called the Doctrine of caveat emptor.
A warning that notifies a buyer that the goods he or she is buying are as is, or subject to all defects. The
principle under which the buyer could not recover damages from the seller for defects on the property that
rendered the property unfit for ordinary purposes. The only exception was if the seller actively concealed
latent defects or otherwise made material misrepresentations amounting to fraud.

Doctrine of liberal construction of retirement laws. Stat. Con.

[The doctrine] that retirement laws are liberally construed and administered in favor of the persons intended
to be benefited. All doubts as to the intent of the law should be resolved in favor of the retiree to achieve its
humanitarian purposes. [Borromeo v. CSC, 199 SCRA 924 (1991)].

Doctrine of limited liability.

The ship agent shall also be civilly liable for the indemnities in favor of 3rd persons which may arise from the
conduct of the captain in the care of the goods which he loaded on the vessel; but he may exempt himself
therefrom by abandoning the vessel with all the equipments and the freight it may have earned during the
voyage. [Art. 587, Code of Commerce; Yangco v. Lasema, 73 Phil. 330 (1941)]. See Limited liability doctrine.

Doctrine of lis pendens. Lat. A pending suit.

The jurisdiction, power or control which a court acquires over the property involved in a suit pending the
continuance of the action and until final judgment thereunder.

Doctrine of loss of confidence.

Requisites: (1) Loss of confidence should not be simulated;
(2) it should not be used as a subterfuge for causes which are improper, illegal, or unjustified;
(3) it may not be arbitrarily asserted in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary;
(4) it must be genuine, not a mere afterthought to justify an earlier action taken in bad faith;&
(5) the employee involved holds a position of trust and confidence. [Midas Touch Food Corp. v.
NLRC, GR 111639, July 29, 1996, 259 SCRA 652]. See Loss of confidence doctrine.

Doctrine of malicious prosecution.

[The doctrine that pertains to] persecution through the misuse or abuse of judicial processes; or the institution
and pursuit of legal proceedings for the purpose of harassing, annoying, vexing or injuring an innocent person.
[Villanueva v. UCPB, GR 138291, Mar. 7, 2000].

Doctrine of management prerogative.

[The doctrine under which] every employer has the inherent right to regulate, according to his own discretion
and judgment, all aspects of employment, incl. hiring, work assignments, working methods, the time, place
and manner of work, work supervision, transfer of employees, lay-off of workers, and discipline, dismissal, and
recall of employees. [Rural Bank of Cantilan, Inc. vs Julve, 517 SCRA 17].

Doctrine of mortgagee in good faith.

The rule that all persons dealing with property covered by a Torrens Certificate of Title, as buyers or
mortgagees, are not required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title. The public interest in
upholding the indefeasibility of a certificate of title, as evidence of the lawful ownership of the land or of any
encumbrance thereon, protects a buyer or mortgagee who, in good faith, relied upon what appears on the
face of the certificate of title. [Cavite Devt. Bank v. Sps. Lim, GR 131679, 1 Feb. 2000].

Doctrine of mutuality of remedy.

A civil law doctrine founded on the idea that one party should not obtain from equity that which the other
party could not obtain.

Doctrine of necessary implication. Stat. Con.

The doctrine which states that what is implied in a statute is as much a part thereof as that which is
expressed. [Natl. Assoc. of Trade Unions (NATU) v. Torres, GR 93468. Dec. 29, 1994].

Doctrine of non-delegation.
1. [The principle that] delegated power constitutes not only a right but a duty to be performed by the delegate
through the instrumentality of his own judgment and not through the intervening mind of another.

2. The recognized exceptions to this principle are as follows:

(1) Delegation of tariff powers to the Pres. under Sec. 28 (2) of Art. VI of the Consti.;
(2) Delegation of emergency powers to the Pres. under Sec. 23(2) of Art. VI of the Consti.;
(3) Delegation to the people at large;
(4) Delegation to local governments; and
(5) Delegation to administrative bodies.
[Abakada Guro Party List v. Ermita, GR 168056, Sept. 1, 2005, 469 SCRA 1, 115-116].

Doctrine of non-interference. Rem. Law.

An elementary principle of higher importance in the administration of justice that the judgment of a court of
competent jurisdiction may not be opened, modified, or vacated by any court of concurrent jurisdiction. [Rep.
v. Reyes, 155 SCRA 313 (1987)]. Also Doctrine of judicial stability.
Doctrine of non-suability.
The basic postulate enshrined in the constitution that (t)he State may not be sued without its consent,
[which] reflects nothing less than a recognition of the sovereign character of the State and an express
affirmation of the unwritten rule effectively insulating it from the jurisdiction of courts. It is based on the very
essence of sovereignty. [DA v. NLRC, GR 104269, Nov. 11, 1993, 227 SCRA 693].

Doctrine of operative fact.

[The doctrine that] nullifies the effects of an unconstitutional law by recognizing that the existence of a statute
prior to a determination of unconstitutionality is an operative fact and may have consequences which cannot
always be ignored. The past cannot always be erased by a new judicial declaration. [It] is applicable when a
declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on those who have relied on the invalid law.
[Planters Products, Inc. v. Fertiphil Corp., GR 166006, 14 Mar. 2008]. See also Operative fact doctrine.

Doctrine of ostensible agency.

[The doctrine which] imposes liability, not as the result of the reality of a contractual relationship, but rather
because of the actions of a principal or an employer in somehow misleading the public into believing that the
relationship or the authority exists. [Professional Services, Inc. v. Agana, GR 126297, 126467 and 127590,
Jan. 31, 2007, 513 SCRA 478, 500-501]. See Doctrine of ostensible authority.

Doctrine of ostensible authority. Also known as Doctrine of apparent authority.

[The doctrine holding that] if a corporation knowingly permits one of its officers, or any other agent, to do acts
within the scope of an apparent authority, and thus holds him out to the public as possessing power to do
those acts, the corporation will, as against any one who has in good faith dealt with the corporation through
such agent, be estopped from denying his authority [Prudential Bank v. CA, GR 103957, June 14, 1993].

Doctrine of outside appearance.

The doctrine which states that a corporation is bound by a contract entered into by an officer who acts
without, or in excess of his actual authority, in favor of a person who deals with him in good faith relying on
such apparent authority.

Doctrine of overbreadth. Consti. Law.

[A]n exception to the prohibition against third-party standing, [the doctrine] permits a person to challenge a
statute on the ground that it violates the [free speech] rights of third parties not before the court, even though
the law is constitutional as applied to that defendant. In other words, the overbreadth doctrine provides that:
Given a case or controversy, a litigant whose own activities are unprotected may nevertheless challenge a
statute by showing that it substantially abridges the [free speech] rights of other parties not before the court.
[Chemerinsky, Consti. Law, p. 86, 2nd Ed. (2002)]. Compare with Doctrine of void for vagueness.

Doctrine of parens patriae (father of his country).

The doctrine [referring] to the inherent power and authority of the state to provide protection of the person
and property of a person non sui juries. Under that doctrine, the state has the sovereign power of
guardianship over persons under disability. Thus, the state is considered the parens patriae of minors. [Govt.
of the P. I. v. Monte de Piedad, 35 Phil. 728].

Doctrine of pari delicto.

[The doctrine under which] no recovery can be made in favor of the plaintiffs for being themselves guilty of
violating the law. [Ponce v. CA, GR L-49494 May 31, 1979].

Doctrine of part performance.

An equitable principle that allows a court to recognize and enforce an oral contract despite its legal deficiencies
and provides a way around the statutory bar to the enforcement of an oral contract. By applying the doctrine,
a party can establish the existence of a contract despite the lack of any written evidence. Generally, without
written evidence, a contract does not satisfy the formal requirements set by the legislature under the statute
of frauds. The doctrine is an exception to this as it allows failure to comply with the statute of frauds to be
overcome by a partys execution, in reliance on an opposing partys oral promise, of an oral contracts
requirements.

Doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity.

The doctrine used whenever a court finds that the corporate fiction is being used to defeat public convenience,
justify wrong, protect fraud, or defend crime, or to confuse legitimate issues, or that a corporation is the mere
alter ego or business conduit of a person or where the corporation is so organized and controlled and its
affairs are so conducted as to make it merely an instrumentality, agency, conduit or adjunct of another
corporation. [Indophil Textile Mill Workers Union v. Calica, 205 SCRA 697 (1992)].

Doctrine of political question.

[The] well-settled doctrine that political questions are not within the province of the judiciary, except to the
extent that power to deal with such questions has been conferred upon the courts by express constitutional or
statutory provisions. [Taada v. Cuenco, GR L-10520, Feb. 28, 1957].

Doctrine of preclusion of issues.

The doctrine in which issues actually and directly resolved in a former suit cannot again be raised in any future
case between the same parties involving a different cause of action. [Borlongan v. Buenaventura, GR 167234,
Feb. 27, 2006]. Also called Doctrine of collateral estoppel.
Doctrine of prejudicial question.
The doctrine [that] comes into play generally in a situation where civil and criminal actions are pending and
the issues involved in both cases are similar or so closely related that an issue must be pre-emptively resolved
in the civil case before the criminal action can proceed. Thus, the existence of a prejudicial question in a civil
case is alleged in the criminal case to cause the suspension of the latter pending final determination of the
former. [Quiambao v. Osorio, GR L-48157 Mar. 16, 1988].

Doctrine of presumed-identity approach. Also called Doctrine of processual presumption.

Where a foreign law is not pleaded or, even if pleaded, is not proved, the presumption is that foreign law is
the same as ours. [EDI-Staffbuilders Internatl., v. NLRC, GR 145587, Oct. 26, 2007, 537 SCRA 409, 430].

Doctrine of presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty.

The doctrine holding that every public official, absent any showing of bad faith and malice, is entitled to the
presumption regularity in the performance of official duties.

Doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Rem. Law.

[The doctrine that holds that] if the case is such that its determination requires the expertise, specialized skills
and knowledge of the proper administrative bodies because technical matters or intricate questions of facts
are involved, then relief must first be obtained in an administrative proceeding before a remedy will be
supplied by the courts even though the matter is within the proper jurisdiction of a court. [Industrial
Enterprises, Inc. v. CA, GR 88550. Apr. 18, 1990].

Doctrine of prior restraint.

[The doctrine concerning] official governmental restrictions on the press or other forms of expression in
advance of actual publication or dissemination. [Bernas, The 1987 Consti. of the Rep. of the Phils., A
Commentary, 2003 ed., p. 225].

Doctrine of prior use.

The principle that prior use of a trademark by a person, even in the absence of a prior registration, will convert
a claim of legal appropriation by subsequent users.

Doctrine of privileged communication.

1. [The doctrine] that utterances made in the course of judicial proceedings, incl. all kinds of pleadings,
petitions and motions, belong to the class of communications that are absolutely privileged. [US v. Salera, 32
Phil. 365].
2. [The doctrine that] statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely privileged that is,
privileged regardless of defamatory tenor and of the presence of malice if the same are relevant, pertinent,
or material to the cause in hand or subject of inquiry. [Tolentino v. Baylosis, 1 SCRA 396].

Doctrine of privity of contract.

Doctrine that provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person
or agent except the parties to it. The basic premise is that only parties to contracts should be able to sue to
enforce their rights or claim damages as such.

Doctrine of pro reo. Rem. Law.

[The doctrine that] where the evidence on an issue of fact is in question or there is doubt on which side the
evidence weighs, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the accused. [People v. Abarquez, GR 150762, 20
Jan. 2006, 479 SCRA 225, 239]. See Pro reo doctrine.

Doctrine of processual presumption.

[The doctrine holding that] if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will
presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law. [Lim v. Collector, 36 Phil.
472].

Doctrine of promissory estoppel.

[The doctrine under which] an estoppel may arise from the making of a promise, even though without
consideration, if it was intended that the promise should be relied upon and in fact it was relied upon, and if a
refusal to enforce it would be virtually to sanction the perpetration of fraud or would result in other injustice.
In this respect, the reliance by the promisee is generally evidenced by action or forbearance on his part, and
the Idea has been expressed that such action or forbearance would reasonably have been expected by the
promisor. Mere omission by the promisee to do whatever the promisor promised to do has been held
insufficient forbearance to give rise to a promissory estoppel. [Ramos v. Central Bank of the Phils., GR L-
29352, Oct. 4, 1971; 41 SCRA 565 at p. 588].

Doctrine of proper submission. Consti. Law.

1. All the proposed amendments to the Consti. shall be presented to the people for the ratification or rejection
at the same time, not piecemeal.
2. Plebiscite may be held on the same day as regular election provided the people are sufficiently informed of
the amendments to be voted upon, to conscientiously deliberate thereon, to express their will in a genuine
manner. Submission of piece-meal amendments is constitutional. All the amendments must be submitted for
ratification at one plebiscite only. The people have to be given a proper frame of reference in arriving at their
decision. They have no idea yet of what the rest of the amended constitution would be. [Tolentino v. Comelec,
41 SCRA 702].

Doctrine of protection against compulsory disclosures.

[The doctrine that] no person could be compelled to testify against himself or to answer any question which
would have had a tendency to expose his property to a forfeiture or to form a link in a chain of evidence for
that purpose, as well as to incriminate him. [Cabal v. Kapunan, Jr., GR L-19052, Dec. 29, 1962].

Doctrine of proximate cause.

The [doctrine stating that] proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either
immediately or by settling other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events,
each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately
affecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances
that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have
reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably
result therefrom. [Vda. de Bataclan v. Medina, GR L-10126, Oct. 22, 1957].

Doctrine of public policy.

[The doctrine under which], as applied to the law of contracts, courts of justice will not recognize or uphold a
transaction when its object, operation, or tendency is calculated to be prejudicial to the public welfare, to
sound morality or to civic honesty. [Cui v. Arellano University, GR L-15127, 30 May 1961, 2 SCRA 205, 209].

Doctrine of purposeful hesitation.

[The doctrine that charges every court, including ths Sup. Court,] with the duty of a purposeful hesitation
before declaring a law unconstitutional, on the theory that the measure was first carefully studied by the
executive and legislative departments and determined by them to be in accordance with the fundamental law
before it was finally approved. [Drilon v. Lim, 235 SCRA 135 (1994)].

Doctrine of qualification. Conf. of Laws.

The process of deciding whether or not the facts relate to the kind of question specified in a conflicts rule. The
purpose of characterization is to enable the court of the forum to select the proper law. [Agpalo, Conflict of
Laws, p. 18]. See Characterization.

Doctrine of qualified political agency. Pol. Law.

The doctrine which holds that, as the Pres. cannot be expected to exercise his control powers all at the same
time and in person, he will have to delegate some of them to his Cabinet members, who in turn and by his
authority, control the bureaus and other offices under their respective jurisdictions in the executive
department. [Carpio v. Exec. Sec., GR 96409. Feb. 14, 1992].

Doctrine of quantum meruit. Lat. As much as one deserves.

[Doctrine that] prevents undue enrichment based on the equitable postulate that it is unjust for a person to
retain benefit without paying for it. [See Soler v. CA, 410 Phil. 264, 273 (2001)].

Doctrine of qui facit per alium. See Doctrine of respondeat superior.

Doctrine of ratification in agency.

[The doctrine pertaining to] the adoption or confirmation by one person of an act performed on his behalf by
another without authority. The substance of the doctrine is confirmation after conduct, amounting to a
substitute for a prior authority. [Manila Memorial Park Cemetery, Inc. v. Linsangan, GR 151319, Nov. 22, 2004,
443 SCRA 394-395].

Doctrine of rational equivalence.

[The] reasonable necessity of the means employed [to repel the unlawful aggression] does not imply material
commensurability between the means of attack and defense [but] [w]hat the law requires is rational
equivalence, in the consideration of which will enter the principal factors of the emergency, the imminent
danger to which the person attacked is exposed, and the instinct, more than the reason, that moves or impels
the defense, and the proportionateness thereof does not depend upon the harm done, but rests upon the
imminent danger of such injury. [People v. Gutual, 324 Phil. 244, 259-260 (1996)].

Doctrine of relations back.

That principle of law by which an act done at one time is considered by a fiction of law to have been done at
some antecedent period. It is a doctrine which, although of equitable origin, has a well recognized application
to proceedings at law; a legal fiction invented to promote the ends of justice or to prevent injustice end the
occurrence of injuries where otherwise there would be no remedy. The doctrine, when invoked, must have
connection with actual fact, must be based on some antecedent lawful rights. It has also been referred to as
the doctrine of relation back. [Allied Banking Corp. v. CA, GR 85868. Oct. 13, 1989]. Also called Doctrine of
relation back.

Doctrine of renvoi. Fr. Refer back.

The process by which a court adopts the rules of a foreign jurisdiction with respect to any conflict of laws that
arises. In some instances, the rules of the foreign state might refer the court back to the law of the forum
where the case is being heard.
Doctrine of res gestae. Lat. Things done.
Doctrine that is a recognized exception to the rule against hearsay evidence based on the belief that, because
certain statements are made naturally, spontaneously, and without deliberation during the course of an event,
they leave little room for misunderstanding or misinterpretation upon hearing by someone else, i.e., by the
witness, who will later repeat the statement to the court, and thus the courts believe that such statements
carry a high degree of credibility.

Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Lat. The thing itself speaks.

A doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he had exclusive control of whatever caused the
injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the accident
would not have happened.

Doctrine of res judicata.

The doctrine [that] has 2 aspects.
The first is the effect of a judgment as a bar to the prosecution of a second action upon the same claim,
demand or cause of action.
The second aspect is that it precludes the relitigation of a particular fact or issues in another action between
the same parties on a different claim or cause of action. [Lopez v. Reyes, GR L-29498, Mar. 31, 1977, 76 SCRA
179].

Doctrine of res perit domino. Lat. The thing is lost to the owner.
The doctrine that states that when a thing is lost or destroyed, it is lost to the person who was the owner of it
at the time.

Doctrine of respect for administrative or practical construction.

See Respect for administrative or practical construction doctrine.

Doctrine of respondeat superior.Lat. Let the master answer.

A legal doctrine which states that, in many circumstances, an employer is responsible for the actions of
employees performed within the course of their employment.

Doctrine of ripeness for judicial review.

This [doctrine] determines the point at which courts may review administrative action. The basic principle of
ripeness is that the judicial machinery should be conserved for problems which are real and present or
imminent and should not be squandered on problems which are future, imaginary or remote. [Mamba v. Lara,
GR 165109, Dec. 14, 2009].

Doctrine of secondary meaning.

The doctrine [under which] a word or phrase originally incapable of exclusive appropriation with reference to
an article in the market, because geographical or otherwise descriptive might nevertheless have been used so
long and so exclusively by one producer with reference to this article that, in that trade and to that group of
the purchasing public, the word or phrase has come to mean that the article was his produce. [Ang v.
Teodoro, 74 Phil. 56].

Doctrine of self-help.
The doctrine enunciated in Art. 429 of the Civ. Code which provides: The owner or lawful possessor of a thing
has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use
such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical
invasion or usurpation of his property.

Doctrine of separability.
[The doctrine that] enunciates that an arbitration agreement is independent of the main contract. The
arbitration agreement is to be treated as a separate agreement and the arbitration agreement does not
automatically terminate when the contract of which it is part comes to an end. [Gonzales v. Climax Mining
Ltd., GR 161957, Jan. 22, 2007].

Doctrine of separation of church and state.

The doctrine enshrined in Sec. 6, Art. II of the 1987 Phil. Consti. which provides that: The separation of
Church and State shall be inviolable. The idea advocated by this principle is to delineate the boundaries
between the two institutions and thus avoid encroachments by one against the other because of a
misunderstanding of the limits of their respective exclusive jurisdictions. [Austria v. NLRC, GR 124382, 16
August 1999].

Doctrine of separation of powers.

A basic postulate that forbids one branch of government to exercise powers belonging to another co-equal
branch; or for one branch to interfere with the others performance of its constitutionally-assigned functions.
[Velasco, Jr., concurring op., Neri v. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations,
GR 180643, Mar. 25, 2007].

Doctrine of severability. See Doctrine of separability.

Doctrine of shifting majority.
For each House of Congress to pass a bill, only the votes of the majority of those present in the session, there
being a quorum, is required.

Doctrine of sole and exclusive competence of the labor tribunal. Labor.

The doctrine that recognizes the Labor Arbiters exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases
involving all workers, whether agricultural or non-agricultural:
(1) Unfair labor practice cases;
(2) Termination disputes;
(3) If accompanied with a claim for reinstatement, those cases that workers may file involving wages, rate of
pay, hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment;
(4) Claims for actual, moral, exemplary and other forms of damages arising from the employer-employee
relations;
(5) Cases arising from any violation of Art. 264 of the Labor Code, including questions involving the legality of
strikes and lockouts; and
(6) Except claims for employees compensation, social security, medicare and maternity benefits, all other
claims arising from employer-employee relations, including those of persons in domestic or household service,
involving an amount exceeding P5,000.00, whether or not accompanied with a claim for reinstatement. [From
Art. 217, LC].

Doctrine of sovereign immunity. Also called Doctrine of non-suability.

1. [Doctrine] expressly provided in Art. XVI of the 1987 Consti., viz: Sec. 3. The State may not be sued
without its consent.
2. [The doctrine which holds that] a sovereign is exempt from suit, not because of any formal conception or
obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the
authority that makes the law on which the right depends.

Doctrine of stale demands. Also Doctrine of laches.

1. [A doctrine] based upon grounds of public policy which requires, for the peace of society, the
discouragement of stale claims and x x x is principally a question of the inequity or unfairness of permitting a
right or claim to be enforced or asserted. [Tijam v. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29 (1968)].
2. The time-honored rule anchored on public policy that relief will be denied to a litigant whose claim or
demand has become stale, or who has acquiesced for an unreasonable length of time, or who has not been
vigilant or who has slept on his rights either by negligence, folly or inattention. [Arradaza v. CA, 170 SCRA 12,
20 (1989)].

Doctrine of stare decisis. Also called the Doctrine of adherence tojudicial precedents.
[The] doctrine [that] enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country to follow the rule
established in a decision of its Sup. Court. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be followed in
subsequent cases by all courts in the land. [Phil. Guardians Brotherhood, Inc. (PGBI) v. Comelec, GR 190529,
Apr. 29, 2010].

Doctrine of stare decisis et non quieta movere. Lat. To adhere to precedents and not to unsettle
things which are established.
The doctrine [that] enjoins adherence to judicial precedents. It requires courts in a country to follow the rule
established in a decision of the Supreme Court thereof. That decision becomes a judicial precedent to be
followed in subsequent cases by all courts in the land. The doctrine of stare decisis is based on the principle
that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and closed to further
argument. [Fermin v. People, GR 157643, Mar. 28, 2008, 550 SCRA 132].

Doctrine of State immunity.

[The doctrine under which] a State cannot be sued in the courts of another State, without its consent or
waiver. [Jusmag Phils. v. NLRC, GR 108813 Dec. 15, 1994].

Doctrine of state responsibility to aliens. Intl. Law.

The doctrine under which a state is under obligation to make reparation to another state for the failure to
fulfill its primary obligation to afford; in accordance with international law, the proper protection due to an
alien who is a national of the latter state. See also State responsibility doctrine.

Doctrine of statistical improbability.

Also known as Lagumbay doctrine. [Lagumbay v. Comelec, 16 SCRA 175 (1966)]. Elec. Law.
The doctrine [that] is applied only where the unique uniformity of tally of all the votes cast in favor of all the
candidates belonging to one party and the systematic blanking of all the candidates of all the opposing parties
appear in the election return. [Sinsuat v. Pendatun, GR L-31501, June 30, 1970, 33 SCRA 630].

Doctrine of strained relations. Labor.

[The rule] that where reinstatement is not feasible, expedient or practical, as where reinstatement would only
exacerbate the tension and strained relations bet. the parties, or where the relationship bet. the employer and
employee has been unduly strained by reason of their irreconcilable differences, particularly where the illegally
dismissed employee held a managerial or key position in the company, it would be more prudent to order
payment of separation pay instead of reinstatement. [Quijano v. Mercury Drug Corp., GR 126561. July 8,
1998].

Doctrine of subrogation.
The principle [that] covers a situation wherein an insurer [who] has paid a loss under an insurance policy is
entitled to all the rights and remedies belonging to the insured against a 3rd party with respect to any loss
covered by the policy. It contemplates full substitution such that it places the party subrogated in the shoes of
the creditor, and he may use all means that the creditor could employ to enforce payment. [Keppel Cebu
Shipyard, Inc. v. Pioneer Ins. and Surety Corp., GR 180880-81 & 180896-97, Sept. 25, 2009, 601 SCRA 96,
141-142].

Doctrine of supervening event.

The doctrine under which facts and events transpiring after the judgment or order had become final and
executory [which circumstances] affect or change the substance of the judgment and render its execution
inequitable would justify the suspension or nullification of such final and executory judgment or order.

Doctrine of supervening negligence. Also Doctrine of discovered peril.

The doctrine x x x to the effect that where both parties are negligent, but the negligent act of one is
appreciably later in time than that of the other, or when it is impossible to determine whose fault or
negligence should be attributed to the incident, the one who had the last clear opportunity to avoid the
impending harm and failed to do so is chargeable with the consequences thereof. [Picart v. Smith, 37 Phil.
809]. [A]n antecedent negligence of a person does not preclude the recovery of damages for supervening
negligence of, or bar a defense against the liability sought by, another if the latter, who had the last fair
chance, could have avoided the impending harm by the exercise of due diligence. [Pantranco North Express,
Inc. v. Baesa, 179 SCRA 384].

Doctrine of the law of the case.

That principle under which determination of questions of law will generally be held to govern a case
throughout all its subsequent stages where such determination has already been made on a prior appeal to a
court of last resort. It is merely a rule of procedure and does not go to the power of the court, and will not be
adhered to where its application will result in an unjust decision. It relates entirely to questions of law, and is
confined in its operation to subsequent proceedings in the same case. [Villa v. Sandiganbayan, GR 87186, Apr.
24, 1992, 208 SCRA 283, 295-296].

Doctrine of the proper law. Conf. of Laws.

The doctrine applied in the choice of law stage of a lawsuit involving the conflict of laws. In a conflicts lawsuit,
one or more statelaws will be relevant to the decision-making process. If the laws are the same, this will cause
no problems, but if there are substantive differences, the choice of which law to apply will produce a different
judgment. Each state therefore produces a set of rules to guide the choice of law, and one of the most
significant rules is that the law to be applied in any given situation will be the proper law. This is the law which
seems to have the closest and most real connection to the facts of the case, and so has the best claim to be
applied.

Doctrine of the real and hypothecary nature of maritime law. Mar. Ins.
[The rule that] a ship owners liability is merely co-extensive with his interest in the vessel, except where
actual fault is attributable to the shipowner. [Aboitiz Shipping Corp. v. CA, GR 121833, Oct. 17, 2008].

Doctrine of the third group.

[The doctrine] to the effect that the right of the owner of the shares of stock of a Phil. Corp. to transfer the
same by delivery of the certificate, whether it be regarded as statutory on common law right, is limited and
restricted by the express provision that no transfer, however, shall be valid, except as between the parties,
until the transfer is entered and noted upon the books of the corporation. [Uson v. Diosomito, GR L-42135,
June 17, 1935].

Doctrine of ultimate consumption.

Goods intended for civilian use which may ultimately find their way and be consumed by belligerent forces,
may be seized on the way. See Ultimate consumption doctrine.

Doctrine of ultimate destination.

The final destination in the territory of an enemy or under its control making goods contraband under the
doctrine of continuous voyage. See Ultimate destination doctrine.

Doctrine of ultra vires. Lat. Beyond the powers.

The doctrine in the law of corporations that holds that if a corporation enters into a contract that is beyond the
scope of its corporate powers, the contract is illegal.

Doctrine of unforeseen events.

The doctrine enunciated by Art. 1267 of the Civ. Code [which] is not an absolute application of the principle of
rebus sic stantibus [that] would endanger the security of contractual relations. [So v. Food Fest land, Inc., GR
183628 & 183670. Apr. 7, 2010]. Art. 1267 provides: When the service has become so difficult as to be
manifestly beyond the contemplation of the parties, the obligor may also be released therefrom, in whole or in
part.

Doctrine of vagueness.
An aspect of the due process requirement of notice, [which] holds that a law is facially invalid if persons of
common intelligence must necessarily guess as at its meaning and differ as to its application.

Doctrine of vicarious liability.

A legal doctrine that assigns liability for an injury to a person who did not cause the injury but who has a
particular legal relationship to the person who did act negligently. Also referred to as Imputed negligence.

Doctrine of void for vagueness. Consti. Law.

[The doctrine that] is most commonly stated to the effect that a statute establishing a criminal offense must
define the offense with sufficient definiteness that persons of ordinary intelligence can understand what
conduct is prohibited by the statute. It can only be invoked against that specie of legislation that is utterly
vague on its face, i.e., that which cannot be clarified either by a saving clause or by construction. [Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan, GR. 148560, 19 Nov. 2001]. Compare with Doctrine of overbreadth.

Doctrine of volenti non fit injuria.

[The doctrine that] refers to self-inflicted injury or to the consent to injury which precludes the recovery of
damages by one who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in
doing so. [Nikko Hotel Manila Garden v. Reyes, GR 154259, Feb. 28, 2005].

Doctrine of waiver.
A doctrine resting upon an equitable principle which courts of law will recognize, that a person, with full
knowledge of the facts shall not be permitted to act in a manner inconsistent with his former position or
conduct to the injury of another, a rule of judicial policy, the legal outgrowth of judicial abhorrence so to
speak, of a persons taking inconsistent positions and gaining advantages thereby through the aid of courts.
[Lopez v. Ochoa, GR L-7955, May 30, 1958].

Doctrine of waiver of double jeopardy.

[The doctrine that holds that] when the case is dismissed with the express consent of the defendant, the
dismissal will not be a bar to another prosecution for the same offense; because, his action in having the case
dismissed constitutes a waiver of his constitutional right or privilege, for the reason that he thereby prevents
the court from proceeding to the trial on the merits and rendering a judgment of conviction against him.
[People v. Salico, 84 Phil. 722 (1949)].
Philippine_Laws
Guidelines for the Bar Examinations.

WELCOME to Philippine_Laws.
Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2010
Political Law Doctrines

Archipelagic Doctrine Integration of a group of islands to the sea and their oneness so that together they
can constitute one unit, one country, and one state. An imaginary single baseline is drawn around the islands
by joining appropriate points of the outermost islands of the archipelago with straight lines and all islands and
waters enclosed within the baseline form part of the territory. The main purpose is to protect the territorial
interests of an archipelago. (Art 1.)

Doctrine of Parens Patriae government as guardian of the rights of the people. (Governemntof Philippine
Islands v. El Monte Piedad)

Plain View Doctrine the objects within the sight of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have
that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence (open to the eye and hand).

Doctrine of Indelible Allegiance an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality
notwithstanding that he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the second state whose
nationality he has acquired.

Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy Although holding neither purse nor sword and so regarded as the
weakest of the three departments of the government, the judiciary is nonetheless vested with the power to
annul the acts of either the Legislative or the Executive department or both when not conformable to the
fundamental law.

Regalian Doctrine ( Jura Regalia) All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and
other minerals oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests, or timber, wildlife, flora, and fauna and
natural resources belong to the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall
not be alienated. (Sec. 2 Art XII)

Stewardship Doctrine Private property is supposed to be held by the individual only as a trustee for the
people in general, who are its real owners.
Doctrine of Shifting Majority For each House of Congress to pass a bill, only the votes of the majority of
those present in the session, there being a quorum, is required.

Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency or Alter Ego Principle Acts of the Secretaries of Executive
departments when performed and promulgated in the regular course of business or unless disapproved or
presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive (Villena v. Secretary of the Interior)

Doctrine of Proper Submission- plebiscite may be held on the same day as regular election provided the
people are sufficiently informed of the amendments to be voted upon, to conscientiously deliberate thereon, to
express their will in a genuine manner. Submission of piece-meal amendments is constitutional. All the
amendments must be submitted for ratification at one plebiscite only. The people have to be given a proper
frame of reference in arriving at their decision. They have no idea yet of what the rest of the amended
constitution would be. (Tolentino v. Comelec)

Philippine Legal Doctrines

Habeas Corpus vs Warrantless Arrest

However, the grant of relief in a habeas corpus proceeding is not predicated on the disappearance of a
person, but on his illegal detention. Habeas corpus generally applies to all cases of illegal confinement or
detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty or by which the rightful custody of any person is
withheld from the person entitled thereto.

The ultimate purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to relieve a person from unlawful restraint. It is devised
as a speedy relief from unlawful restraint. It is a remedy intended to determine whether the person under
detention is held under lawful authority.

The purpose of the writ is to determine whether a person is being illegally deprived of his liberty. If the inquiry
reveals that the detention is illegal, the court orders the release of the person. If, however, the detention is
proven lawful, then the habeas corpus proceedings terminate. The use of habeas corpus is thus very limited.

When forcible taking and disappearance -- not arrest and detention -- have been alleged, the proper remedy is
not habeas corpus proceedings, but criminal investigation and proceedings.
Reference: Martinez vs Mendoza, G.R. No. 153795 (August 17, 2006)

Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution states that:

The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it
becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or
rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not
exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part
thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the
Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special
session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the
President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall
persist and public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension,
convene in accordance with its rules without any need of a call.

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual
basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof,
and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the
civil courts or the legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and
agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the
writ.

The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or
offenses inherent in or directly connected with the invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially
charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.

Under Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the three instances when warrantless
arrests may be lawfully effected are:
o an arrest of a suspect in flagrante delicto (in the very act of);
o an arrest of a suspect where, based on personal knowledge of the arresting officer, there is
probable cause that said suspect was the perpetrator of a crime which had just been
committed; and
o an arrest of a prisoner who has escaped from custody serving final judgment or temporarily
confined during the pendency of his case or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.

Question on Jurisdiction of Court Only During the Appeal

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, - versus - BANTIGUE POINT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,
Respondent.
G. R. No. 162322 (March 14, 2012)

Facts
"Acting on an appeal filed by the Republic, the CA ruled that since the (Republic) former had actively
participated in the proceedings before the lower court, but failed to raise the jurisdictional challenge therein,
petitioner is thereby estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the lower court on appeal."

SC Ruling
The Republic is not estopped from raising the issue of jurisdiction in this case.
At the outset, we rule that petitioner Republic is not estopped from questioning the jurisdiction of the lower
court, even if the former raised the jurisdictional question only on appeal. The rule is settled that lack of
jurisdiction over the subject matter may be raised at any stage of the proceedings.[18] Jurisdiction over the
subject matter is conferred only by the Constitution or the law.[19] It cannot be acquired through a waiver or
enlarged by the omission of the parties or conferred by the acquiescence of the court.[20] Consequently,
questions of jurisdiction may be cognizable even if raised for the first time on appeal.[21]

The ruling of the Court of Appeals that a party may be estopped from raising such [jurisdictional] question if
he has actively taken part in the very proceeding which he questions, belatedly objecting to the courts
jurisdiction in the event that the judgment or order subsequently rendered is adverse to him[22] is based on
the doctrine of estoppel by laches. We are aware of that doctrine first enunciated by this Court in Tijam v.
Sibonghanoy.[23] In Tijam, the party-litigant actively participated in the proceedings before the lower court
and filed pleadings therein. Only 15 years thereafter, and after receiving an adverse Decision on the merits
from the appellate court, did the party-litigant question the lower courts jurisdiction. Considering the unique
facts in that case, we held that estoppel by laches had already precluded the party-litigant from raising the
question of lack of jurisdiction on appeal. In Figueroa v. People,[24] we cautioned that Tijam must be
construed as an exception to the general rule and applied only in the most exceptional cases whose factual
milieu is similar to that in the latter case.

The facts are starkly different in this case, making the exceptional rule in Tijam inapplicable. Here, petitioner
Republic filed its Opposition to the application for registration when the records were still with the RTC.[25] At
that point, petitioner could not have questioned the delegated jurisdiction of the MTC, simply because the case
was not yet with that court. When the records were transferred to the MTC, petitioner neither filed pleadings
nor requested affirmative relief from that court. On appeal, petitioner immediately raised the jurisdictional
question in its Brief.[26] Clearly, the exceptional doctrine of estoppel by laches is inapplicable to the instant
appeal.

Laches has been defined as the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do
that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to
assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting the presumption that the party entitled to assert it either
has abandoned or declined to assert it.[27] In this case, petitioner Republic has not displayed such
unreasonable failure or neglect that would lead us to conclude that it has abandoned or declined to assert its
right to question the lower court's jurisdiction.

Acquisitions by lucrative title

... refers to properties acquired gratuitously
... and include those acquired by either spouse during the marriage
... by inheritance, devise, legacy, or donation.

What is an "Ancient Document"

"The affidavit cannot be considered an ancient document either.

An ancient document is one that is (1) more than 30 years old, (2) found in the proper custody, and (3)
unblemished by any alteration or by any circumstance of suspicion.[11] It must on its face appear to be
genuine.

Not all notarized documents are exempted from the rule on authentication. Thus, an affidavit does not
automatically become a public document just because it contains a notarial jurat. Furthermore, the affidavit in
question does not state how the ownership of the subject land was transferred from Sinforoso Mendoza to
Margarito Mendoza. By itself, an affidavit is not a mode of acquiring ownership."
Cequena and Lirio vs Bolante, GR 137944 (April 6, 2000)

Dead Man's Statute or Survivorship Rule

"Dead Man's Statute' or "Survivorship Rule" under Section 23, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court

SEC. 23. Disqualification by reason of death or insanity of adverse party. Parties or assignors of parties to a
case, or persons in whose behalf a case is prosecuted, against an executor or administrator or other
representative of a deceased person, or against a person of unsound mind, upon a claim or demand against
the estate of such deceased person, or against such person of unsound mind, cannot testify as to any matter
of fact occurring before the death of such deceased person or before such person became of unsound mind.
The "Dead Man's Statute" provides that if one party to the alleged transaction is precluded from testifying by
death, insanity, or other mental disabilities, the surviving party is not entitled to the undue advantage of giving
his own uncontradicted and unexplained account of the transaction.9 But before this rule can be successfully
invoked to bar the introduction of testimonial evidence, it is necessary that:

1. The witness is a party or assignor of a party to case or persons in whose behalf a case in prosecuted.
2. The action is against an executor or administrator or other representative of a deceased person or a person
of unsound mind;
3. The subject-matter of the action is a claim or demand against the estate of such deceased person or
against person of unsound mind;
4. His testimony refers to any matter of fact of which occurred before the death of such deceased person or
before such person became of unsound mind."10
Sunga-Chan and Sunga vs Chua, G.R. No. 143340 (August 15, 2001)

Principle of Ambulatory Nature of a Will

79 Am Jur 2d, Wills, 851: It seems clear that in the absence of statute expressly conferring such jurisdiction, a
court does not have the power to entertain a suit for the establishment or annulment of the will of a living
testator. The ambulatory nature of a will, and the absence of parties in interest, which results from the rule
that a living person has neither heirs nor legatees, render impossible the assumption that a court has inherent
power to determine the validity of a will prior to the death of the maker. It has been held that a statute
providing for the probate of a will before the death of the testator, leaving him at liberty to alter or revoke it,
or to escape the effect of any action under it by removal from the jurisdiction, is alleged and void on the
ground that such a proceeding is not within the judicial power.
[G.R. No. 129505. January 31, 2000]
OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II, petitioner, vs. PACITA DE LOS REYES PHILLIPS, respondent.
[G.R. No. 133359. January 31, 2000] OCTAVIO S. MALOLES II, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.
FERNANDO V. GOROSPE, JR., in his Official Capacity as Presiding Judge of RTC-Makati, Branch 61, and
PACITA PHILLIPS as the alleged executrix of the alleged will of the late Dr. Arturo de Santos, respondents.

AMBULATORY - capable of being altered

Ambulatory will refer to a will that can be altered during the testator's lifetime. Generally all wills are
considered ambulatory because as long as the person who made it lives, it can always be changed or revoked.
Posted 22nd November 2016 by Rem Ramirez, REBL No. 20231

Conflict of Laws: Lex Loci Celebrationis vs Lex Loci Contractus

Lex loci celebrationis relates to the law of the place of the ceremony or the law of the place where a contract
is made.

The doctrine of lex contractus or lex loci contractus means the law of the place where a contract is executed
or to be performed. It controls the nature, construction, and validity of the contract and it may pertain to the
law voluntarily agreed upon by the parties or the law intended by them either expressly or implicitly.
Reference: GR 149177

Conflict of Laws: Most Significant Relationship Rule

"Under the state of the most significant relationship rule, to ascertain what state law to apply to a dispute, the
court should determine which state has the most substantial connection to the occurrence and the parties. In
a case involving a contract, the court should consider where the contract was made, was negotiated, was to
be performed, and the domicile, place of business, or place of incorporation of the parties. This rule takes into
account several contacts and evaluates them according to their relative importance with respect to the
particular issue to be resolved."
Reference: GR 149177
Read Also: Lex Loci Celebrationis
Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction
"The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the
means afforded him by administrative processes. The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to
decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such
administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation.

Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that
is, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the
question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience
and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact."
source: Republic v. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255

Doctrine of Primacy of Administrative Remedies

"The general rule is that before a party may seek the intervention of the court, he should first avail of all the
means afforded him by administrative processes. The issues which administrative agencies are authorized to
decide should not be summarily taken from them and submitted to a court without first giving such
administrative agency the opportunity to dispose of the same after due deliberation.

Corollary to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; that
is, courts cannot or will not determine a controversy involving a question which is within the jurisdiction of the
administrative tribunal prior to the resolution of that question by the administrative tribunal, where the
question demands the exercise of sound administrative discretion requiring the special knowledge, experience
and services of the administrative tribunal to determine technical and intricate matters of fact."
source: Republic v. Lacap, G.R. No. 158253, March 2, 2007, 517 SCRA 255

The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies is a cornerstone of our judicial system. The thrust of the
rule is that courts must allow administrative agencies to carry out their functions and discharge their
responsibilities within the specialized areas of their respective competence. It has been held, however, that the
doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies and the doctrine of primary jurisdiction are not ironclad
rules.

In the case of Republic of the Philippines v. Lacap, the Court enumerated the numerous exceptions to these
rules, namely:
(a) where there is estoppel on the part of the party invoking the doctrine;
(b) where the challenged administrative act is patently illegal, amounting to lack of jurisdiction;
(c) where there is unreasonable delay or official inaction that will irretrievably prejudice the
complainant;
(d) where the amount involved is relatively so small as to make the rule impractical and oppressive;
(e) where the question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided by the courts of
justice;
(f) where judicial intervention is urgent;
(g) where the application of the doctrine may cause great and irreparable damage;
(h) where the controverted acts violate due process;
(i) where the issue of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies has been rendered moot;
(j) where there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
(k) where strong public interest is involved; and
(l) in quo warranto proceedings.