REPUBLIC ACT NO.

386

AN ACT TO ORDAIN AND INSTITUTE THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

PRELIMINARY TITLE

CHAPTER 1

Effect and Application of Laws

ARTICLE 1. This Act shall be known as the “Civil Code of the Philippines.” (n)

ARTICLE 2. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their
publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided.

The Official Gazette is the official publication of the Republic of the Philippines. It contains laws,
issuances, rules and reports from the government to its people.
From the express wording of the Article 2 of the Civil Code, ang mga batas ay nagkakaroon
lamang ng bisa kung ito ay nalathala, nagkaroon ng publication at kung ito ay na-published sa
official gazette or a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines.

Why is there a publication requirement for laws to be effective?

The answer is in the next provision.

ARTICLE 3. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith. (2)

Once a law is published it is conclusively presumed that everyone knows about it and the
government to a certain extent expects that we must abide by it. This rule has certain exceptions
but the reason for the publication is its part of due process.
1. Laws have to be published to satisfy due process requirements.
2. Laws require publication before they can become effective.
3. Once a law becomes effective everyone must obey the law.
The rule that law was must be published before they can become effective was laid down by the
Supreme Court in the case of Tañada vs. Tuvera.
Sometime in the mid 80s, Lorenzo Tañada who later on became a senator came to court with a
group of lawyers called “Mabini” they claim that they have a long list of presidential decrees
essentially, laws and declarations made by the late president Ferdinand Marcos. During this time,
Marcos had the power to issue laws. They argued that they had the right to know about these
laws that these decrees should be published before they can become effective. The Office of the
Solicitor General essentially the law firm that represents the Republic of the Philippines argued
that Tañada and his group Mabini did not have the legal standing to sue.
Legal standing means that those who come to court must have SOME INTEREST, or some
RIGHT that is DIRECTLY AFFECTED, could be affected or immediately threatened by ANOTHER
PERSON’S ACTION.
The government’s position in this case is that the case should be dismissed because Tañada is
not affected by the presidential decrees and therefore it is a waste of time to hear him out.
The second argument from the government which I think is even more important is that the
wording of Article 2 provides unless it is otherwise provided.
Kung ang mismong presidential decree and naglalatag kung kelan at paano siya magiging
effective, if the law itself provides for its own means and methods of effectivity then it should not
be declared invalid. They argued na ito ay dapat pumasok sa unless it is otherwise provided. We
have provided, provode, provided and therefore these presidential decrees should remain valid.
Batay sa panig ng dalawang grupo ganito naman ang sagot ng Supreme Court:
The publication of all presidential issuances “of a public nature” or “of general applicability” is
MANDATED by law. Obviously, presidential decrees that provide for FINES, FORFEITURES or
PENALTIES for their violation or otherwise impose a burden for the people, such as TAX and
revenue measures, fall within this category. Other presidential issuances which APPLY ONLY to
particular persons or CLASS OF PERSONS such as administrative or executive orders NEED
NOT to be published on the ASSUMPTION that they have been circularized to all concerned.
It is needless to add that the publication of presidential issuances of a public nature or of general
applicability is a requirement of due process. It is rule of law that before a person may be bound
by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents.
The clause “unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the DATE of effectivity AND NOT to the
requirement of publication itself, which CANNOT in any event BE OMITTED. This clause does
not mean that the legislator may make the law effective immediately upon approval, or on any
other date WITHOUT its PREVIOUS PUBLICATION.
When do laws become effective?
1. Laws can take effect WHENEVER the law so PROVIDES.
Example: Train Law took effect on January 1, 2018 but it was signed into law on December 19,
2017 but because of the express provision of Section 87 of the Train Law it shall begin to take
effect on January 1, 2018.
2. If the law does NOT provide for the effectivity date, then we must apply Article 2 – fifteen
days AFTER PUBLICATION.
3. Laws can also take effect “IMMEDIATELY UPON ITS APPROVAL.”
There are two views on this matter:
The FIRST VIEW is taken from the case of FARIÑAS VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY.
In this case, Congressman Rodolfo Fariñas and then Congressman Chiz Escudero along with
other members of the House of Representatives came to court to challenge the constitutionality
or validity of Republic Act No. 9006 or the Fair Elections Act. They claim that section 14 of the
Fair Elections Act repealed or essentially deletes section 67 of the Omnibus Election Code,
section 67 provides that incumbent elected officials except the President and the Vice President
are deemed to have resigned their positions upon their filing of certificates of candidacies for other
positions.

The minority raises two arguments:

1. The Fair Elections Act is unconstitutional because it violates Section 26(1) of Article VI of
the 1987 Constitution. This contains the rule that all laws should only have ONE SUBJECT
and that subject should be INCLUDED IN ITS TITLE;
2. The Fair Elections Act is INVALID because its effectivity clause provides that “it shall take
effect IMMEDIATELY upon it’s approval.”

The Supreme Court ruled that, “some sectors of society and in government may believe that the
repeal of Section 67 is bad policy as it would encourage POLITICAL ADVENTURISM. But policy
matters are NOT the CONCERN of the Court.”
The second is President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed Republic Act No. 9006 into law on
February 12, 2001. This law provides that it shall take effect immediately upon its approval, the
Supreme Court ruled that this phrase is defective but it does not render the entire law to be invalid.
Publication is INDISPENSABLE in every case but the legislature MAY in its DISCRETION provide
that the usual 15-day period can be shortened or extended…
In the case of the Republic Act No. 9006, the phrase “shall take effect immediately upon its
approval” should be taken to mean 15 DAYS AFTER its publication. That is the FIRST VIEW.

The SECOND VIEW was first laid down by the SUPREME COURT in the case of LA BUGAL-
B'LAAN TRIBAL ASSOCIATION , INC. VS. SECRETARY
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that, when the law states it “shall take effect immediately
upon approval,” it becomes effective immediately upon the PUBLICATION. What is
MANDATORY, the Supreme Court emphasized, and what DUE PROCESS should be about, is
that the law must FIRST be published in the Official Gazette or a newspaper of general circulation.

To summarize our rules:

1. A law becomes effective on the date it SO PROVIDES.
2. If the law DOES NOT state a date, we take the date of publication and count 15 DAYS
AFTER the publication date.
3. If the law provides that it shall take effect immediately upon approval, it becomes effective
on the DATE OF PUBLICATION – the basis is the case of La Bugal-B'Laan Tribal
Association , Inc. vs. Secretary

A presumption is an assumption as to the EXISTENCE of a fact, or set of facts. Most of them are
laid down by LAW; others come from ORDINARY HUMAN EXPERIENCE or common sense.
A presumption JURIS TANTUM, is a prima facie, or face value presumption. They are also called
REBUTTABLE or DISPUTABLE presumptions.
Example: Article 1735 which provides that, “If goods are lost, destroyed or deteriorated,
COMMON CARRIERS are PRESUMED to have been AT FAULT or to have acted negligently,
UNLESS they prove that they observed EXTRAORDINARY DILIGENCE as required in Article
1733.”
A CONCLUSIVE presumption or JURIS ET DE JURE is conclusive. The law DOES NOT allow
the presentation of evidence CONTRADICT the conclusion.
Not knowing the law or a mistaken understanding of the law admits of three exceptions. They are:
1. Article 526 provides that mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of the law may be
the basis of GOOD FAITH.
2. Article 1334 also provides that MUTUAL ERROR as the legal effect of an agreement,
when the real purpose of the parties is frustrated may vitiate CONSENT.
3. Article 2155 also provides that payment by reason of a mistake in the construction or
application of a doubtful or difficult question of the law may come within the scope of
SOLUTIO INDEBITI.

Once a law is published and later on becomes effective we are bound to comply with it. Ang rule
na yan ay hindi mag aapply to foreign laws. When a foreign is used as a basis to terminate the
employment of an OFW or to prove the validity of a divorce obtained in the US then that foreign
law must be specifically alleged and proved in our courts. Our courts cannot simply take judicial
notice of them or accept them as the party who relies on them claims them to be.
 If a FOREIGN LAW is NOT properly proved or pleaded in our courts, then our courts will simply
presume that the foreign law is THE SAME as our local laws. This principle in international law is
called the DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION or the doctrine of PRESUMED
IDENTITY-APPROACH.

Orion Savings Bank vs. Suzuki

The rule under our Constitution is that foreigners CANNOT own land in the Philippines – EXCEPT
for properties that were acquired BEFORE the 1935 Constitution and for properties acquired
through SUCCESSION.
Another exception is the one laid down in the Condominium Act which allows foreigners to buy
up to 40% of any condominium building, PROVIDED that the 60% is owned by Filipinos.
The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Mendoza discussed that IMMOVABLE properties
are governed, PRIMARILY by the law of the PLACE WHERE they are SITUATED. This is because
immovable properties CANNOT be moved. This is called the principle of LEX LOCI REI SITAE.
The title to, any conveyance or transfer of the property must necessarily be governed by the law
where the property is situated. Property relations between spouses are governed principally by
the national law of the spouses. However, the party invoking the application of a FOREIGN LAW
has the burden of proving the foreign law. The foreign law is a question of FACT to be properly
pleaded and proved as the judge CANNOT take judicial notice of a foreign law. He is presumed
to know only DOMESTIC or the law of the FORUM.
To prove a foreign law the party invoking it must present a copy thereof and comply with sections
24 and 25 of rule 132 of the revised rules of court. In this case, Orion Savings Bank submitted a
certification from the Embassy of the Republic of Korea to prove the existence of Korean Law this
falls short from what the law requires.
If there is one thing you should take away from the case of Orion Savings Bank vs. Suzuki it is
this: where a foreign law is NOT PLEADED or, even if pleaded, is NOT PROVEN, the presumption
is that the foreign law is THE SAME as Philippine Law.

ARTICLE 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. (3)

Whenever the law mentions retroactive effects ang ibig sabihin lang niyan ay ang bisa ng batas
ay bumabalik mula sa petsa ng kanyang effectivity pabalik (backwards) in time. Ang kabaliktaran
naman ay prospective meaning the effects come into play forward in time.
For example, nagpasa ang Congress ng isang batas na lahat ng healthcare workers ay
magkakaroon ng minimum daily wage na 1,200 pesos magsisimula sa June 1, 2020. Applying
Article 4, we know that the new minimum wage will only begin to apply on June 1, 2020. Meaning,
hindi sila pwedeng humingi ng back wages or salary differential para sa mga pinasok mula May
1, 2020 to May 30, 2020. The answer is Article 4, nagsisimula yan sa Latin maxim na “Lex
prospicit, non respicit.” – The law looks forward not backward.
The first exception is when the LAW PROVIDES for its own retroactivity. Kung ang batas na
mismo, ang nagsasabi na mag-aapply siya backwards in time, then we must apply the law
retroactively.
There are, however, EXCEPTIONS to this exception. Even if the law itself provides for
retroactivity, it CANNOT be given retroactive effect if the law will become:
a. An EX POST FACTO law
b. The new law will result in the IMPAIRMENT of obligation of contracts. You CANNOT be
held CRIMINALLY LIABLE for an act which was NOT A CRIME at the time you committed
it.
An EX POST FACTO LAW stems from the rudimentary concept of FAIR PLAY.

The second exception to the exception is the impairment clause.

Another EXCEPTION to the rule that laws must only be given PROSPECTIVE effect is when
PENAL LAWS are FAVORABLE to the accused. This means that, if Congress REDUCES the
penalty for the crime of robbery with homicide from reclusion perpetua to reclusion temporal, then
the NEW PENALTY should also be applied to retroactively.
At its essence, a person is a habitual delinquent when the following are present:
1. The person has committed THREE crimes;
2. The crimes involved are crimes of ROBBERY, THEFT, ESTAFA or FALSIFICATION;
3. LESS THAN TEN YEARS have elapsed from the conviction for OR release from crime
number 2 and the commission of the THIRD CRIME.
The third exception to the prospective application of laws comes from the case of SYSTEMS
FACTORS CORP. vs. NLRC. In this case, the Supreme Court rules that “remedial statutes or
statutes relating to remedies or modes of procedure, which DO NOT create new or take away
vested rights, but only operate in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of rights already
existing, DO NOT come within the legal conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against
retroactive operation of statutes.”
Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to action spending
and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and
to that extent.
The retroactive application of procedural laws is NOT violate of any right of a person who may
feel that he is adversely affected. The reason is that as a general rule, NO VESTED RIGHT may
attach to nor arise from procedural laws.

Fourth exception: CURATIVE statutes are enacted to CURE defects in a PRIOR law.
They are intented to SUPPLY defects, ABRIDGE superfluities and CURB certain evils. They are
intended to ENABLE persons to carry into effect that which they have designed or intended, but
has failed of expected legal consequence by reason of some statutory disability or irregularity in
their own action.

Last exception is from the very old case decided over 100 years ago, Bona vs. Briones (1916):
The will of Francisco Briones was executed based on the rules then inforce, 1911 rules which
provides that a will is nevertheless valid even if it does not have an attestation clause if it can be
proven that all of the requirements in the attestation clause are present that the signing of the will
by the testator and the witnesses and that the signing happened in the presence of the testator
and of the witnesses and that the same is attested to by two or more credible witnesses basta
nandiyan yan, valid ang will. According to the 1911 rules for whatever reason the will was
disallowed by the lower court the appeal was decided by the Supreme Court in 1916 at which
time may bago nang rule. It now requires each of the pages of the will must be written in words
in the upper part of each page plus an expanded at the station clause.
The Supreme Court rules that, “it is well-known that the principle that A NEW LAW shall NOT
have retroactive effect only governs the rights arising from acts done under the rule of the former
law; but if the right be declared for the first time by a subsequent law it shall take effect from THAT
TIME even though it has arisen from acts subject to the former laws, PROVIDED that it DOES
NOT prejudice another acquired right of the SAME ORIGIN.”
The general rule is that laws must be applied prospectively, moving forward. The exception is that
the laws may be given retroactive effect, moving backward. The exceptions are:
1. When the law so provides. The exceptions to this exception are ex post facto laws, and
laws that impair the obligation of contracts;
2. When a penal law is more favorable or beneficial to the accused. The exception to this
exception is when the convicted felon is a habitual delinquent.
3. When the law is remedial or procedural in nature.
4. When the law is curative in character.
5. When the law creates new substantive rights, so long as they do not prejudice, change or
remove another right, from the same origin.

ARTICLE 5. Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall
be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity. (4a)

Mandatory – Kailangan
Prohibitory – Bawal

Statutory Construction is the VERBA LEGIS or PLAIN MEANING rule. The rule comes from the
Latin maxim “verbal egis non est recedendum.” In English, this means “from the WORDS of a
statute, there should be NO DEPARTURE.”
Article 2 of the FAMILY CODE provides that, “No marriage SHALL be VALID, unless THESE
essential requisites are present:
1. LEGAL CAPACITY of the contracting parties who must be MALE AND FEMALE; and
2. CONSENT freely given in the PRESENCE of the solemnizing officer.”

Article 1027 provides that, “The following are INCAPABLE of succeeding:

1. The PRIEST who heard the confession of the testator during his LAST ILLNESS, or the
minister of the gospel who extended spiritual aid to him during the SAME PERIOD;”

Article 5 of the Civil Code admits of several exceptions. These are:

1. When the law itself AUTHORIZES their validity;
2. When the law makes the act VALID, but PUNISHES the violator;
SMDC vs. Ang
In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that, “If the dismissal is based on a JUST CAUSE,
then the NON-COMPLIANCE with PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS should NOT render
the termination from employment illegal or INEFFECTUAL. Instead, the employer must
INDEMNIFY the employee in the form of NOMINAL damages.”
3. When the law makes the act VOIDABLE;
Contracts can be Valid, Voidable or Void:
A VALID contract meets of all the requirements of the law.
A VOIDABLE contract is one that is valid, UNTIL it is annulled.
A VOID contract is one that DOES NOT meet the requirements of the law.
Strictly speaking, a void contract DOES NOT exist – it is ILLEGAL and cannot be enforced.
An ACTION to challenge a void contract, DOES NOT PRESCRIBE.
4. When the law declares the act VOID, but recognizes LEGAL EFFECTS ARISING from the
void act.
Article 36 Family Code
A marriage contracted by any individual who was psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential obligations of marriage is void, even if the incapacity becomes evident
after the marriage is solemnized.
As its essence, PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY refers to a party’s INABILITY to
UNDERSTAND the obligations of marriage.
The wisdom of the law is that, kung ang isang tao ay HINDI nauunawaan kung ANO o
PAANO maging asawa, then it means that there was NO MARRIAGE right FROM THE
START. Hindi naman kasi niya alam o naiintindihan kung ano ang pinasok niya.
Article 54 of the Family Code, which provides that, “Children conceived or born BEFORE
the judgement of annulment, or ABSOLUTE NULLITY of the marriage under ARTICLE 36
has become final and executory, shall be considered LEGITIMATE.
 Children conceived or born of the SUBSEQUENT marriage under ARTICLE 53 shall
likewise be legitimate.”

ARTICLE 6. Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public
policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by
law. (4a)
A RIGHT is a POWER or a privilege that is given to one person. As a rule, this power or privilege
is DEMANDABLE AGAINST another person or persons. The following are the ELEMENTS of a
right:
1. SUBJECT persons – the ACTIVE subject or the person who HAS the power and privilege,
and the PASSIVE subject, or the person AGAINST WHOM this power and privilege is
DEMANDABLE;
2. OBJECT – this is the THING or SERVICE that is covered by the right
3. EFFICIENT CAUSE – the FACT that gives rise to the power or privilege.
When the law talks about rights the law breaks them down into categories:
POLITICAL RIGHTS are rights that stem from our PARTICIPATION in government.
CIVIL RIGHTS are rights that are also inherent to us as human beings, but pertain specifically to
our RELATIONSHIPS with others.
When the law speaks of rights they often refer to them as real rights and personal rights.
REAL RIGHTS is a right that is enforceable against the world.
PERSONAL RIGHTS is a right that is enforceable against a specific person or persons.
In F.F. Cruz & Co. vs. HR Construction Corporation, the Supreme Court defined a waiver as, “A
VOLUNTARY and intentional RELINQUISHMENT or abandonment of a KNOWN existing, legal
right, advantage, benefit, claim or privilege, which EXCEPT for such waiver, the party would have
enjoyed.”
The Supreme Court teaches us that there are three ways of making a waiver:
1. The VOLUNTARY abandonment or SURRENDER of the right;
2. CONDUCT that warrants an INFERENCE of the relinquishment of the right;
3. INTENTIONAL doing of an act INCONSISTENT with claiming it.
For a waiver to be VALID, kahit express yan or implied, kahit ano pang form niyan, the following
REQUISITES must be present:
1. A person must ACTUALLY HAVE the right which he or she renounces;
2. A person must have the CAPACITY to make the renunciation;
3. The renunciation must be made in a CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL manner;
4. The waiver must NOT be CONTRARY to law, public order, public policy, morals or good
customs, or PREJUDICIAL to a THIRD PERSON with a right recognized by law.
The GENERAL RULE is that all rights can be WAIVED. The EXCEPTIONS are:
1. When they are CONTRARY to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs;
2. When the waiver is PREJUDICIAL to a THIRD PERSON with a right recognized by law.

Article 777 of the Civil Code provides that the “Rights to the succession are TRANSMITTED from
the MOMENT OF DEATH of the decedent.” BEFORE the moment of death, there is only a
FUTURE RIGHT. Wala pang napapasa sa iyo – kulang ang first requisite.

A RIGHT is a POWER or privilege belonging to a person and it is DEMANDABLE AGAINST

another. Rights can be waived, relinquished or surrendered. They can be waived EXPRESSLY –
that is, in writing or they can be waived IMPLIEDLY – through action or inaction.
A person MUST HAVE a right, before he can waive it. He must have the LEGAL CAPACITY to
waive that right. Generally, all rights can be waived.

ARTICLE 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.
When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be
void and the latter shall govern.
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are
not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. (5a)

This provision of the law appears in the Civil Code but it isn’t discussed well in Persons. Instead,
it is taken up in Statutory Construction, Constitutional Law 1 and 2 and again in Public
Corporations. There are three important principles you will need to learn from this provision.
These are:
1. The prohibition on irrepealable laws
2. Constitutional supremacy
3. Effects of unconstitutionality

There is an IMPLIED REPEAL when the following requisite are present:

1. There is an OLD law AND a NEW law
2. BOTH LAWS cover the SAME SUBJECT MATTER
3. The new law is repugnant or INCOMPATIBLE with the old law.
Section 21, Chapter 5 of Book I of the Administrative Code of 1987 provides that, “When a law
which EXPRESSLY repeals a prior law itself repealed, the law first repealed shall not be thereby
revived unless expressly so provided.”
Section 22 also provides that, “When a law which IMPLIED repeals a prior law is itself repealed,
the prior law shall thereby be revived, unless the repealing law provides otherwise.”

The second paragraph of the Article 7 speaks about Constitutional Supremacy:

The Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the land. Entire books are written about it. All laws,
administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations must conform with the Constitution. If
there is CONFLICT between the law or executive act and the Constitution, then the Constitution
ALWAYS PREVAILS. This is known as the PRINCIPLE of constitutional SUPREMACY.

Pimentel vs. Legal Education Board

“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 in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never
been passed.” This was the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of Chavez vs. Judicial and
Bar Council.

Summary:
1. Laws are repealed by SUBSEQUENT ones. Congress CANNOT make a law that can
NEVER be repealed.
2. When an EXPRESS REPEAL is repealed, there is NO REVIVAL – EXCEPT when the
repealing law provides.
3. When an IMPLIED REPEAL is repealed, there is AUTOMATIC REVIVAL – EXCEPT when
the repealing law provides otherwise
4. The Constitution is the SUPREME LAW of the land.
5. An unconstitutional law is a VOID LAW and the EXCEPTION is the DOCTRINE of
OPERATIVE FACT.

ARTICLE 8. Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall
form part of the legal system of the Philippines. (n)
In TECSON vs. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, the Supreme Court defined CIVIL LAW as “the
mass of precepts which determine and regulate the relations of assistance, authority and
obedience among the members of the family, and those which exist among members of society
for the protection of PRIVATE INTERESTS.”

The Civil Law system relies primarily on codal, statutory and written law. It is supplemented from
case law, ang batayan ng batas ay kung ano lang ang nasusulat hindi na lumalayo doon. On the
other hand, common law is the law derived from case law, common law continues to evolve as
more and more judges apply the law and modify or adapt them specifically to meet different
contexts and situations.
In the Philippines, our judicial system is a combination of the civil law system and common law.
Our laws draw heavily from the Spanish Law. Our Civil Code borrows heavily from the Spanish
Civil Code. Our Revised Penal Code although it has been in effect since 1932 was originally in
Spanish.

Article 8 is a new provision, wala yan sa Spanish Civil Code. It is a new provision because it is an
attempt to institutionalize the use of jurisprudence as being part of the law of our country.
Jurisprudence refers to the decisions of the Supreme Court that interpret the law. When we
answer questions in law schools there are three acceptable basis upon which we can anchor our
answers. These are codal provisions or the exact wording of the law in the statute or codal.
Implementing rules and regulations and this is often used in taxation and labor law and finally
jurisprudence. The application and interpretation of the laws or the constitution is limited to only
that of the supreme court.

STARE DECISIS is a common-law concept derived from Latin maxim “Stare decisis et non quieta
movere” which means “to stand by decisions and NOT DISTURB the undisturbed.”
Stare decisis is there to promote JUDICIAL STABILITY. It means that once a matter is decided
by the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court and all of the lower courts will follow this ruling, for all
FUTURE cases involving the SAME issues.

Article 8 teaches us that the rulings of the Supreme Court FORM PART of the law of the land.
This applies ONLY to the MAIN RULINGS of the Court.

ARTICLE 9. No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence,
obscurity or insufficiency of the laws. (6)
Batay sa Article 9, bawal mag pass ang isang judge sa isang kaso kung malabo ang batas, walang
batas o sadyang mahirap lang itong intindihin.
Article 9 imposes a duty; no exceptions, judges have to decide.
As it relates in Criminal Law, we have the Latin maxima “Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege”
meaning “There is no crime when there is no law punishing it.”
When a judge has to decide whether a person is guilty or not guilty, he or she has to look at the
elements of the crime alleged. If the actions proven by the prosecution do not amount to a crime
then the judge has to acquite the accused because an act is not a crime unless there is a law that
specifically define something as a crime.
Article 9 imposes a DUTY upon judges to decide cases, even when the law is silent, unclear or
obscure.

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. (n)

Article 10 on the other hand, is the solution for when the law is silent, unclear or difficult to
understand. Kung ang batas ay malabo, magulo o walang sinasabi then we use Article 10. That
it is presumed that the law-making body intended right and justice to prevail.

There are three important rules in statutory construction:

First, is the plain meaning rule or verbal legis – teaches us that from the words of the statute,
there should be no departure.
Second rule that, in case there are two conflicting provisions or rules then we must harmonize
them in order to give meaning to both.
Third rule is a series of biases in the law, these are the directions upon which the scales of justice
should tip.
For example, when there is doubt in the construction and application of collective bargaining
agreements then the conflict should be resolved in favor of labor and against management. The
reason for the rule is simple, sadyang makapangyarihan ang isang management ng kompanya
kung ihahambing sa kakayahan ng mga manggagawa, maaaring um-oo lang sila sa isang
provision ng CBA para lang matapos na.
Another example, in case there is doubt in the construction and application of the terms of service
of an airline it should be resolved in favor of the passenger and against the airline, this is because
it partakes of a contract of adhesion – a pre-made contract prepared by one party and the other
party has no choice but to sign the agreement or not.
Article 10 tells us that in cases covered by Article 9, the PRESUMPTION is that RIGHT AND
JUSTICE should prevail.

ARTICLE 11. Customs which are contrary to law, public order or public policy shall not be
countenanced. (n)

ARTICLE 12. A custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence. (n)
In the case of In Re: Authority to Continue Use of Firm Name “Sycip” – the Supreme Court teaches
us that a “CUSTOM is a RULE OF CONDUCT formed by REPETITION of acts, UNIFORMLY
observed as a social rule, LEGALLY BINDING and obligatory.”
The law provides that partners may use none, one, some or all of the NAMES OF THE
PARTNERS as the PARTNERSHIP NAME. If a person who is NOT a partner has his NAME
INCLUDED in the partnership name, the law makes that person LIABLE AS IF he or she was a
partner. This is Article 1815 of the Civil Code.
The Supreme Court ruled that, “it must be conceded that in the Philippines, NO LOCAL CUSTOM
permits or allows the continued use of a deceased or former partner’s name in the firm names of
law partnerships. Firm names, under OUR CUSTOM, identify the more active and/or more
SENIOR MEMBERS or partners of the law firm. A glimpse at the history of the firms of petitioners
and of other law firms in this country would show how their firm names HAVE EVOLVED and
changed from time to time as the COMPOSITION of the partnership CHANGED.”
Canon 3, Rule 3.02 that provides, “The CONTINUED USE of the name of a DECEASED partner
is permissible PROVIDED that firm INDICATES in all its communications that said partner is
deceased.”

There are two kinds of Custom:

1. Juridical Custom – One that is legally binding and obligatory. It is not a written law but it
can be used to supplement a rule.
2. Social Custom – These do not have the obligatory effect of laws. They cannot in any way
supplement our laws.
Article 12 points out that customs that are contrary to law cannot be tolerated.
Before a custom may acquire the force of SUPPLETORY RULE, the custom must meet the
following requisites:
1. PLURALITY of acts, various resolutions of a juridical question, raised repeatedly in life;
2. UNIFORMITY or identity of acts or various solutions to the juridical question;
3. General practice by the GREAT MASS of the social group;
4. CONTINUED performance of these acts for a LONG PERIOD of time;
5. General conviction that the practice corresponds to a JURIDICAL NECESSITY, or that it
is obligatory;
6. The practice must NOT BE CONTRARY to law, morals or public order or public policy.

ARTICLE 13. When the laws speak of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood
that years are of three hundred sixty-five days each; months, of thirty days; days, of
twenty-four hours; and nights from sunset to sunrise.
If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of days
which they respectively have.
In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and the last day included. (7a)
Section 31 tells us that – Legal Periods – “YEAR” shall be understood to be TWELVE CALENDAR
MONTHS; “month” of thirty days, UNLESS it refers to a SPECIFIC calendar month in which case
it shall be computed according to the number of days the specific month CONTAINS; “day,” to a
day of twenty-four hours; and “night,” from sunset to sunrise.”
Under the Civil Code, a year is composed of 365 days.
Under the Administrative Code, a year is considered to be 12 calendar months.
In Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Primetown Property Group, Inc., the Supreme Court
teaches us that there is an IMPLIED REPEAL of Article 13 of the Civil Code. This is because
Section 27 of the Book VII of the Administrative Code contains a REPEALING CLAUSE.
Article 13 teaches us that we EXCLUDE the FIRST day and INCLUDE the LAST day. We start
counting NOT FROM May 30 but from May 31. Kung pagsasamahin natin ang dalawang calendar
months, gamit ang computation na itinuro ng Supreme Court sa kaso ng Primetown Property,
then X must pay 10,000 pesos on JULY 29, still for a total of 60 days.
Summary:
1. Customs are classified as social and juridical customs. ONLY JURIDICAL customs can
be used to supplement the law. However, they must first be PROVEN AS FACTS.
2. A good custom, no matter its intentions, can NEVER PREVAIL over a SPECIFIC
PROVISION of the law.
3. Article 13 has been IMPLIEDLY REPEALED by Section 31 of Chapter VIII of Book I of the
Administrative Code. A year is now defined as TWELVE calendar months.
4. Dates appearing on problems are ALWAYS IMPORTANT in relation to our final answers.

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 to treaty stipulations. (8a)

ARTICLE 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. (9a)

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. (10a)

ARTICLE 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments
shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.

When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the
Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine
laws shall be observed in their execution.

Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their
object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by
laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a
foreign country. (11a)

ARTICLE 18. In matters which are governed by the Code of Commerce and special laws,
their deficiency shall be supplied by the provisions of this Code. (16a)