ARTICLE 3
Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith
Ignorance of facts (Mistake of Fact)
If there is a legitimate good faith and basis of mistake of fact, it
can be an excuse. Can be an absolutory circumstance. Frees
someone from criminal liability. The presence of mistake of fact
could negate some requirements of criminal liability like criminal
intent. Had the facts been true as the individual believed them to
be, the individual would be exonerated from any liability.
Requisites:
(1) The act would have been lawful had the facts been as the
accused believed them to be
(2) That the intention of the accused in performing the act should
be lawful
(3) Act is not tainted with negligence
US v. Ah Chong
Ah Chong works as a cook and in connection with his work,
he was allowed to live in a certain quarter together with another
employee named Pascual.
Robberies were common in the place and Ah Chong made it a
habit to keep a kitchen knife beneath his pillow. Since the room
has no permanent lock, they improvised by placing a hook from
the inside and reinforced it by placing a chair against the door.
One night, Ah Chong was soundly asleep when he was
suddenly awakened by someone who was forcibly opening the
door. He called out twice asking the person to identify himself but
got no answer.
The door suddenly swung open pushing the chair forward
thereby hitting Ah Chong in the knees. As it was dark, Ah Chong
honestly believed that he was under attack, and so he took his
kitchen knife and struck the intruder, which turned out to be
Pascual who eventually died.
Ah Chong invoked self-defense stating that it was a mistake of
fact because he honestly believed that his life was in danger.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Had it been true that the one who entered the room was an
intruder, then Ah Chong had all the right to defend himself and
his act of killing the intruder would have been justified.
Ah Chong exercised due diligence in trying to prevent the
incident by calling out thrice to the person outside.
Mistake of fact can be a defense provided that his actions
were not tainted with negligence.
Someone who acted in self-defense cannot be criminally and
civilly liable.
Processual Presumption
In instances when a foreign law relevant in the issue of the case
is not duly proven, it shall be presumed that such foreign law is
the same with our laws. (Yao Kee v. Gonzales)
Yao Kee v. Gonzales
This involves the estate of a certain China man, Sy Kiat who
died intestate in the Philippines leaving properties in the
Philippines and some heirs.
Upon his death, one group of heirs headed by Aida Gonzales,
claimed to be the legitimate children of the late Sy Kiat and
moved for the settlement of the estate left by their father and be
appointed as the administratrix of the estate.
This petition was opposed by a Chinese woman named Yao
Kee who claims to the lawful wife of the deceased. She claimed
that she and Sy Kiat had children.
Primordial issue: Whether or not Yao Kee was lawful wife of
the deceased.
During the trial, Yao Kee tried to prove that she was lawfully
married to Sy Kiat pursuant to a marriage ceremony celebrated in
China in accordance with Chinese laws and customs.
Art 26 of the Family Code, validity of the marriage is
determined by the law of the place where the marriage is
solemnized. (lex loci celebracionis)
Unfortunately for Yao Kee, she failed sufficiently to prove
Chinese law on marriage and so the court had difficulty resolving
the issue whether Yao Kee was legally married to Sy Kiat.
Supreme Court Ruling:
Applied the principle of Processual presumption (In instances
when a foreign law relevant in the issue of the case is not duly
proven, it shall be presumed that such foreign law is the same
with our laws)
Since the Chinese law on marriage has not been duly proved,
we now apply Philippine law on marriage. For a marriage to be
valid in Philippine law, it must comply with 5 requisites (2
essential and 3 formal)
1. Consent mutually given
2. Legal Capacity
3. Authority of the solemnizing officers
4. Valid marriage license
5. Marriage ceremony
The marriage of Yao Kee and Sy Kiat had no participation of a
solemnizing officer because under Chinese customs, they
claimed, marriage can be solemnized without a solemnizing
officer.
SC ruled that since the marriage of Yao Kee and Sy Kiat in
China had no solemnizing officer, and applying the Philippine law
now pursuant to the Processual presumption doctrine, it is
obvious that the marriage is void for lack of one of the formal
requisites.
ARTICLE 4
Laws shall have no retroactive application, unless the
contrary is provided.
General rule: Laws shall have prospective application (Prospective law
- a law that applies to facts, events and transactions occurring after the
law took effect)
Exception:
 When the law is penal or criminal in nature, provided
that it is favorable to the accused
People v. Patalin
Involves prosecution of the crime of robbery with multiple
rape. At the time the crime was committed, the crime was
punished by death.
During the pendency of the trial, death penalty was abolished.
Trial went on and when the decision was rendered, death penalty
was reimposed.
Issue: Whether or not the accused can be punished with
death considering that at the time the crime was committed,
death penalty was imposable but was abolished during the
pendency of the case and when the decision was made, death
penalty was reimposed?
Supreme Court Ruling:
SC taking cue from the principle that when the law involved is
penal in nature, the accused cannot be penalized by death
because when death penalty was abolished during the pendency
of the trial, that law was favorable to the accused and should
therefore be given retroactive application.
Supreme Court invoked the rule that penal laws should be
given retroactive application when favorable to the accused.
Hence, the accused can no longer be penalized with death
penalty. The effect of the amendatory law abolishing death
penalty retroacts to the time the crime was committed.
The fact that death penalty was reimposed when the decision
was rendered does not matter because the accused had already
vested rights when the death penalty was abolished during the
pendency of the trial.
ARTICLE 10
In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is
presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to
prevail.
Presumption: Laws are aimed at promoting justice.
Salvacion v. Central Bank
Salvacion, a 12 year old girl was illegally detained and
repeatedly raped by a foreigner, a tourist. The foreigner was
arrested and the parents of Salvacion filed civil action for
damages arising from the same crime.
Insofar as the criminal case was concerned, when the hearing
was set, the accused escaped.
The civil action continued and after trial, judge rendered in
favor of the complainant and court awarded damages in favor of
the victim.
The accused was nowhere to be found. The family tried to
enforce the monetary judgment obtained from the court in the
civil and when they discovered that the accused had bank
deposits, an action for garnishment was filed, requesting the
bank to release certain amount enough to satisfy the monetary
judgment of the court.
Central Bank refused invoking a Central bank circular which
says that foreign currency deposits are exempted from
garnishment, execution and other processes of the court.
The said circular was lifted from the Foreign Currency Deposit
Act which makes foreign currency absolutely confidential. Hence,
it cannot be subject of execution or garnishment.
The family filed an action for declaratory relief to settle once
and for all the applicability of the central bank circular and foreign
currency deposit act to the case at hand.
Issue: Whether the foreign currency deposit of the accused
can be garnished to satisfy the monetary award rendered by the
court.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court, applying Sec 10 of the Civil Code, said
that in case of doubt in terms of the interpretation and application
of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right
and justice to prevail.
The SC examined the rationale behind the Foreign Currency
Deposit Act and it was established that the purpose of the law
was to encourage foreign investment to help steer the local
economy.
By way of incentive to foreign investors, the Congress offered
to protect foreign currency deposits against execution,
attachment, garnishment and other court processes.
Obviously the purpose is to protect legitimate investors, so
that foreign investors would deposit their currency in the local
banks, enough to be utilized for banking purposes. This was not
intended to protect transient individuals who do not intend to
keep their money in the bank for a long time.
Keeping the foreign currency deposits of the accused away
from the processes of our courts would be a grave injustice to a
Filipino citizen who was victimized by a tourist.
Under Art 10 the obvious purpose of the law is right and
justice and where is justice when a foreigner who bastardizes a
Filipino citizen is allowed to protect himself by invoking our own
law?
The SC will not hesitate to deviate from the obvious language
of the law if only to serve the ends of justice.
In re adoption of Stephanie Garcia
Petition for adoption filed by the natural father Mr. Catindig of
an illegitimate daughter Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia.
The court granted the petition for adoption but the court fixed
the name of the child to be Stephanie Nathy Catindig.
Mr. Catindig filed a motion for clarification praying that his
daughter should be allowed to use the surname of her biological
mother Garcia as her own middle name.
The Court denied the request for the reason that there is no
law that allows the adopted child to use the family name of the
mother as the child’s middle name.
Supreme Court Ruling
The purpose of adoption is for the benefit of the adopted child,
to elevate the status of an illegitimate child to that of a legitimate
child.
If a child is adopted, he now possesses all the rights and
privileges being enjoyed by legitimate children.
Under the law, legitimate children use the surname of their
biological mother as their middle name
It would be unjust that an adopted child who is supposed to
enjoy the same rights and privileges being enjoyed by legitimate
children to be discriminated by disallowing her to use the
surname of her biological mother as her middle name.
If the law does not prohibit, it allows.
Justice was served by allowing Stephanie to use as middle
name the family name of her mother.
ARTICLE 14
Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be
obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory,
subject to the principles of public international law and
treaty stipulations.
Subjective Territoriality principle
The country where the crime was started may have jurisdiction
over the crime even if the crime was completed in another
country.
People v. Tulin
Involves the crime of piracy involving a vessel somewhere in
Mindanao. The vessel was seized by the pirates and forcibly
brought to Singapore.
While the vessel was in Singapore, a foreigner joined the
pirates and supervised the unloading of the petroleum products
and transferring them to another vessel.
All the pirates, including the foreigner were arrested because
they returned to the Philippines.
The foreigner went to the SC on the main argument that he
cannot be convicted of the crime because his alleged
participation in the piracy took place only in Singapore which is
beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines.
Supreme Court Ruling
While it is true that the actual participation of the accused took
place in Singapore which is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of
the Philippines, it shall be noted that the crime started in the
Philippines when the vessel was forcibly seized by the pirates
and continued until the vessel reached Singapore.
When the accused joined the pirates, his involvement was
deemed to be a continuation of the entire criminal process.
The crime started in the Philippines but was completed in
Singapore and it doesn’t matter if his involvement only took place
in Singapore because he was part of the criminal process of
piracy.
One of the exceptions of the territoriality principle is when the
offender commits any of the crimes commit any of the crimes
against national security and the law of nations and piracy is
classified as crime against national security and law of nations.
Objective Territoriality principle
The country where the crime was completed may exercise
jurisdiction even if it was started outside.
US v. Bull
Involves a shipment of some animals from Formosa (now
Taiwan) on board a certain vessel. The animals were treated
inhumanely. The manner by which the animals were treated
allegedly violated a certain law which penalizes inhumane
treatment of animals.
When they arrived in the Philippines, they were arrested but in
their defense, they advanced the argument that they cannot be
tried because the Philippine courts had no jurisdiction since the
crime was started and committed in Formosa.
Supreme Court Ruling
While it is true that the shipment started in Formosa, it is also
true that the shipment entered in the Philippines and the crime
was a continuing offense and during the transport, the animals
were treated inhumanely.
Since the crime which begun in Formosa was completed in
the Philippines, Philippine courts have jurisdiction to try and
convict the offenders.
The Philippines adhere to both subjective and objective principles
Art 15
Laws relating to family rights and duties or to the status,
condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon
citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
What law governs personal status of foreigners?
Art 15 applies as well to foreigners even if literally it mentions only
Filipinos. Hence, just like Filipinos who are governed by Philippine laws
wherever they may be, foreigners insofar as family rights, duties,
status, condition, or legal capacity, are also governed by their own
national law even if they are in the Philippines.
Cases:
Recto v. Harden
Atty. Recto, a prominent lawyer happens to represent a client
who is an American citizen, Mrs. Harden. His services were
engaged by Mrs. Harden to protect her interests in some
properties in the Philippines. This was resorted to by Mrs. Harden
preliminary to her petition for divorce against her husband in the
US.
In their contract, Mrs. Harden agreed to pay Atty Recto
professional fees. After rendering his professional services, Atty
Recto collected his fees as stipulated in the contract.
Mrs. Harden refused to pay the stipulated attorney’s fees.
This prompted Atty Recto to go to court and file an action to
collect.
In refusing to pay, Mrs. Harden argued that the stipulations in
the contract cannot be validly enforced because the contract is
void for it was entered into in connection with the divorce that she
filed against her husband in the States. Hence, since divorce was
involved, the contract is void because divorce is against public
policy in the Philippines.
Supreme Court Ruling
SC ruled in favor of Atty Recto.
Contract of professional service was not entered into in
connection with the divorce. The contract was to protect the
interests of Mrs. Harden in relation to her properties in the
Philippines.
Even assuming that the contract was entered into in
connection with a petition for divorce, it does not follow that the
contract is void insofar as Mrs. Harden is concerned. She is an
American citizen and insofar as validity of divorce, she is
governed by her own national law. Since divorce is valid in the
US, the contract shall be valid insofar as Mrs. Harden is
concerned.
Art 15 applies as well to foreigners even if literally it mentions
only Filipinos so that like Filipinos who are governed by Philippine
laws wherever they may be, foreigners insofar as family rights,
duties, status, condition, or legal capacity, are also governed by
their own national law even if they are in the Philippines.
Van dorn v. Romillo
A foreigner and a Filipina, and a divorce decree was obtained
in the US.
After obtaining the divorce, the husband returned to the
Philippines and filed an action, in his capacity as the husband of
the wife, that he be allowed to administer the properties which he
claimed to be belonging to the conjugal partnership.
The wife said that he cannot anymore file the action for he is
no longer her husband pursuant to the divorce decree obtained.
The husband argued that the divorce decree cannot be
recognized in the Philippines because Philippines does not
recognize divorce, it being against public policy. Hence, he
remains to be her husband.
Supreme Court Ruling
Being a foreigner, the husband is governed by his own
national law and being a US citizen, divorce is recognized and
therefore, the divorce decree obtained in the US validly binds the
husband.
Insofar as Philippine law is concerned, he is no longer the
husband of the Filipina wife.
The SC did not rule on the validity of divorce insofar as the
Filipina wife was concerned but on the validity of divorce on the
part of the American husband pursuant to the nationality theory.
Imelda Pilapil v. Ibay Somera
A couple, German and a Filipina. The German husband
obtained a divorce decree before the German courts.
After the divorce was obtained, the husband returned to the
Philippines, and when he discovered that while they were still
married, the wife played fire with another man, he sued for
adultery.
The wife argued he cannot anymore institute the criminal
action for adultery because under Philippine laws, the private
offended party in the crime of adultery is the husband and since
the German cannot anymore be considered as her husband at
the time of the institution of the action as a result of the divorce
obtained, he has no personality to institute the action for adultery.
Supreme Court Ruling
The legal personality to institute a criminal action for adultery
should be determined at the time of the filing of the action. Since
the husband is governed by his own law, the divorce decree that
he obtained in Germany should be considered as valid insofar as
he is concerned,
Since the divorce is valid, the husband then cannot anymore
be considered as an offended husband.
Exceptions:
Where legal capacity is not governed by Article 15
1. When the contract involves property.
The legal capacity of the parties concerned is to be determined
by the law of the place where the property is located. While
status or legal capacity is generally governed by the national law
of the individual, this is not so when the status concerns itself
with a contract involving property.
Distinguish ordinary contract from a contract of property:
Ordinary contract - A contract which does not involve property =
Article 15 applies (Nationality Theory)
Contract involving property = Article 16 applies (Lex Rei Sitae)
Example: Can a 15 year old German buy a property in the
Philippines? (He is of age in Germany but is still a minor in the
Philippines)
No. Article 16 and not 15 shall apply. Pursuant to Art 16, all
matters concerning the contract involving property shall be
governed by the law of the country where the property is located.
Hence, the legal capacity of the German to buy property shall be
governed by Philippine laws, and under our laws the age of
majority is 18.
2. When it involves the legal capacity of an heir to inherit
from a decedent.
Example: If you are a Filipino and your father is a German
national, the issue of whether or not you are entitled to inherit
from your German father is not determined by your national law.
The legal capacity of an heir to inherit Art 1039 is governed by
the national law of the decedent. Hence, German laws shall
apply, by way of exception to Article 15.
3. When it involves the legal capacity of a testator to make a
will
In laws involving succession, legal capacity to make a will is
subsumed under extrinsic validity of a will, hence shall be
governed by Article 17 and 815
Example: When a Filipino citizen executes a will in Japan leaving
properties in the Philippines to his Vietnamese girlfriend, the
issue of whether or not he has the capacity issue to execute the
will is not determine by Philippine laws but by Japanese laws
where the will was executed.
4. When it involves the legal capacity to contract marriage
Legal capacity to contract marriage is generally not governed by
Article 15 except if the party is a Filipino. (Because then Art 15
nationality theory shall apply)
General rule: What law governs the capacity of a contracting
party to contract marriage (Art 17 lex loci celebracionis shall
apply)
(Art 17 shall apply lex loci celebracionis, Art 26 2nd par – if a party is a
Filipino)
ARTICLE 16
Real property as well as personal property is subject to the
law of the country where it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with
respect to the order of succession and to the amount of
successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national
law of the person whose succession is under consideration,
whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless
of the country wherein said property may be found.
1st paragraph: Espouses the principle of Lex Rrei Sitae.
If the transaction involves property, all components of transaction
shall be governed by Lex Rex Sitae (Law of the country where
the property is located)
Matters governed by of Lex Rei Sitae
1. Capacity of the contracting parties
2. Formalities of the contract involving properties
3. Intrinsic validity
4. Conveyances, prescription, easements, eminent domain,
accession, registration, title, possession
Exceptions:
1. If the issue involves succession, even if property is
involved (2nd par of Art 16)
a. Order of succession (Who should inherit first)
b. Amount of succession rights (How much is one entitled to
inherit)
c. Intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions
Shall not be governed by Lex Rei Sitae but by the national law of
the decedent (not the heir). (Art 15)
Do not confuse decedent with heir.
2. If the property is merely incidental to the transaction.
Example: When A and B enters into a contract involving the
design of A’s house because B is an interior designer. The
contract is entered into in Japan and the property is in the
Philippines. In Japan, 15 years old may validly enter into a
contract. But in the Philippines, a person should be 18 years old.
Is the contract valid?
Yes. While the contract involves property, it being the subject of
interior decoration, the nature of the transaction is merely a
contract of service. The property merely being incidental. (The
property is not the subject of the contract and it is not a contract
involving the conveyance of a title or property) Hence, it is just an
ordinary contract.
Rule on ordinary contracts
Capacity of contracting parties shall be governed by Art 15 (Nationality
theory) and not Lex Rei Sitae because the property involved is merely
incidental.
Extrinsic validity of ordinary contracts – Art 17
Rule: If the contract involves property as the subject of the
contract, all aspects of the contract shall be governed by Art 16
Lex Rei Sitae. But if it is an ordinary contract where property is
merely incidental, capacity – Art 15 while formalities – Art 17
Understand Art 16 in relation to Art 17
Laurel v. Garcia
Involves a property popularly known as the Niponggo property
located in Japan which was ceded to the Philippine government
by way of compensation to the damage caused by Japan to the
Philippines during the war.
During the time of Pres. Aquino, that Niponngo property has
been abandoned by the govt. The government thought of
disposing the Niponggo property so the proceeds will be used in
pursuit of the CARP.
The intended sale was met by objections invoking the national
patrimony clause of the Constitution, saying that the property is
so valuable and historical value.
Issue: Whether or not the Niponggo property can be validly
sold to a third party?
The opposition argued that under the Civil Code provisions,
Niponggo property was considered part of the public domain
because it was intended for some public service. Hence, it cannot
be subject to a contract and beyond the commerce of man.
The govt argued that the classification of the Niponggo
property as part of the public domain is based on the provision of
the Civil Code and such provision finds no application because
the property subject of the intended sale is located in Japan,
hence lex rei sitae applies and the issue if it can be validly
disposed of shall be determined by Japanese laws.
Supreme Court Ruling
Lex Rei Sitae only applies only when the issue of the case
involves title or possession of property. In this case, there is no
dispute as to who owns the Niponggo property because it is
established that it belongs to the Philippine government. And
since Lex Rei Sitae cannot apply, Philippine laws should govern.
Effect if a juridical transaction is entered into favorable to
the unborn child and dies before birth
Does not comply with conditions of Art 41
Effect: The presumptive civil personality will not ripen into a full
civil personality. Hence, the transaction will not have any legal
effect.
Geluz v. Court of Appeals
Action for damages filed by a father against a doctor who
performed 3 abortions on his wife.
Issue: Whether or not the husband has the cause of action to
recover damages arising from the death of the fetus
Supreme Court
Only he who suffered injury has the right to recover damages
and not anyone else. If the victim died, the action may be
pursued by the heirs.
In this case, the fetus died while it was still inside the womb, it
did not become a person because it was not born, and it did not
have any right and when it died, it transmitted nothing to the
parents.
It does not follow however that the father cannot claim
damages at all, but not on behalf of the child, but due to his
anxiety and frustration from parental expectation.
The father failed to prove moral damages arising from the
abortion. He did not appear to be suffering from the agony of the
death of his child.
Civil personality is extinguished by death
And all his rights and obligations die with him.
3 presumptions governing death:
1. Presumption of death (Rule 131 RRC Sec 3 par W)
When the dead body cannot be found – A person may be
considered dead when the presumption applies:
It arises when:
Someone disappeared without trace; his whereabouts
unknown
Rule:
Disappearance under ordinary circumstance:
Presumption of death: 7 years of absence
Succession: 10 years before his estates can be divided by the
heirs (Except: When the father disappeared after the age of 75 –
absence of 5 years only)
Remarriage: 4 years
Disappearance under extraordinary circumstances when
there is danger of death
Presumption of death: 4 years of absence 
Remarriage: 2 years
Applies only in the absence of evidence to prove the fact of
death. Otherwise, when there is enough preponderance of
evidence, that the person who disappeared really died, the
presumption does not apply.
Eastern Shipping Lines v. Josephine Lucero
Lucero is captain of a vessel and his services were engaged
by the company on a voyage, Philippines to Hongkong and back.
Under the contract, his wife shall be the allottee of his salary.
But the vessel encountered huge waves brought about by the
typhoon.
Captain Lucero sent distress messages to the company, the
last message being that the crew are ready to abandon the ship.
Everyone accepted that Lucero is already dead, except the
wife.
She argued that contract shall only be terminated upon the
arrival of the vessel to the Philippines and because the vessel
has not yet arrived, she shall continue to receive the salary of the
husband.
She also contended that her husband cannot be presumed
dead because the presumptive period of death of 4 years has not
yet expired.
Supreme Court Ruling
The rule on the presumption of death applies only when there
is absence of evidence to prove the fact of death.
In the case at bar, there is preponderance of evidence that the
captain really died when the vessel capsized.
The rule on presumption does not apply, but the
preponderance.