Atty Mercano’s Lecture
* These vices of consent will not affect the parties’ obligations if these are not raised as
*Persons- an entity or being endowed with personality
- is a being or entity with JC.
* Natural persons- human beings
* Juridical persons- entities, associations, coalition of persons whose personalities are
granted or recognized by law.
*Capacity to act is not personality. It supplements juridical capacity. Even CA is restricted,
an entity or being already has personality.
*Art 38 and 39 on suppresses CA.
*Insolvency and trusteeship involve juridical persons.
* Minority- that state when a natural person has not yet attained age of majority.
When a minor enters into a contract:
-valid if with the consent and assistance of a guardian
-voidable
-unenforceable if both parties are minors or incapacitated
-void if the contract is of marriage when the minor has no capacity to enter into one
even with the consent of the parent or even when celebrated abroad.
QUESTION 1 What is the status of the contract where a minor actively
misrepresents? In Braganza, why were the minors still required to pay the contract
even if they only misrepresented their status passively?
*Insanity- when he enters into a contract, the contract is
-valid when the guardian assists him and when he entered the same during a lucid
interval.
-voidable where the other party is sane
-enforceable as in the case of 2 insane persons contracting with each other.
QUESTION 2 IN THE CASE OF STANDARD OIL, WHY DID THE COURT HOLD
THE INSANE PARTY LIABLE EVEN THOUGH HIS INSANITY WAS
ADMITTED.
*Lucid interval- an interruption of sanity in a state of insanity
- generally, persons are presumed to be sane so that the party pleading it must prove
it. Once proved, the insanity condition prevails unless it is counter established that the
insane had acted during a lucid interval.
*Deaf-mute- must also not know how to write.
defenses in an appropriate suit. Without the appropriate action to nullify the contract, the
contract persists and they are bound to perform their obligations and duties. The contract
here is either voidable or unenforceable.
*Requirements under Article 41:
-the fetus must have an intra-uterine life of at least 7months
-there must be complete separation from the womb of the mother
-the fetus is alive by the time of the complete separation.
*XPNs to this rule are:
-there is birth but there is no personality (fetus intra-uterine less than 7months)
-no birth but there is personality in cases of provisional personality
*Personality is vital in cases where some legal relations depend on the existence of
personality.
*For the right under the provisional personality to be fully realized, the conceived child
must be born in compliance under Art 41.
* The fetus is a forced heir. Even if the conceived child is born after the death of the testator,
if he is omitted in the will, annulment of institution of heirs is a remedy.
* when the benefits accrue to the parents and not to the fetus, personality of the fetus is not
an issue- the benefits in the case of Continental is based on the death of the dependent and
not on the loss perception of person.
* In Art 43, when the persons are not called to succeed each other, Rules of Court’s Rules
on Survival will apply and not Art 43.
* If a juridical entity actually has no PERSONALITY, the proper affirmative defense is
“no legal capacity to sue.” It must be raised at the earliest opportunity, otherwise, deemed
waived. If the complaint is dismissed for this reason, the case cannot be appealed because
the same is without prejudice. However, the case can be elevated to the SC by petition for
review, pure question of law.
* Under Article IV, Sec 1 (2), the person claiming citizenship must only prove either the
citizenship of his mother or father.
QUESTION 3 GIVEN THE APPLICATION OF PH LAW OVER THIS COUNTRY,
WHY IS IT STILL NECESSARY, FOR PURPOSES OF FAMILY AND
MARRIAGE LAWS, TO KNOW WHO ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES?
*Art 50 is not accurate as to the definition of domicile.
QUESTION 4 IN LAW, WHEN IS RESIDENCE UNDERSTOOD TO REFER TO
DOMICILE AS WELL? CITE A PRACTICAL APPLICATION IN THIS RULE.
GIVEN THE CIVIL DISTINCTION OF DOMICILE AND RESIDENCE, DOES
THE CASE OF JALOSJOS CONFIMRED THAT RULE, OR IS JALOSJOS AND
EXCEPTION. WHAT ABOUT THE AMEX CASE, DOES AMEX AFFIRM OR
AGREE WITH JALOSJOS?