LAW AS DEFINED BY SANCHEZ ROMAN 4. The human patrimony discretion.

In legal construction of statutes,

LAW
- Law is defined as a rule of conduct, just and obligatory, laid
down by legitimate authority for the common observance and
benefit.
DISTINCTIONS – CIVIL LAW VS CIVIL CODE
CIVIL LAW
- Branch of law that treats of the personal and family relations
of an individual, his property and successional rights, and the
effects of his obligations and contracts.
ARTICLE 1
This Act shall be known as the “Civil Code of the Philippines.”
Civil Code – a compilation of existing civil laws, scientifically
arranged into boos, titles etc. promulgated by legislative
authority.
Civil Code – is a collection of laws, which regulate the private
relations of the members of the society, determining their
respective rights and obligations, with reference to persons,
things, and civil acts.
Civil Code Divided into Four Books
Book I, Persons – originally it covered Art. 37-413, but when the
Family became effective on August 3, 1988, the law on Persons
pertains only to the following:
Book II, Property, Ownership and Its Modifications
Book III, Different Modes on Acquiring Property
Book IV, Obligations and Contracts
Civil Law covers:
1. The person himself and the rights of personality.
2. The family and the rights of family.
3. Associations and partnerships
a. Right to things or the right to property and its
modifications
b. The right of obligations
c. The rights of hereditary succession
Most of our civil laws are found in the Civil Code but the Civil
Code is not the only repository of our civil laws. (Family code
E.O. 209, Youth Welfare Code, and Domestic Adoption act.)
The Civil law is wider in concept than the Civil Code. The Civil
Code is part of the civil Law, but not all laws are part of the Civil
Code.
CLASSIFICATION OF LAWS
a) If a right is granted or merely procedural or the
manner for its enforcement is laid down
i.) Substantive Law
Substantive law is that which declares what
acts are crimes and prescribes the punishment
for committing them.
ii.) Procedural Law
Procedural law provides or regulates the steps
by which one who commits a crime is to be
punished.
b.) Scope or content
i.) Private Law
Civil law – governs the relations of the
members of the community to one another.
ii.) Public Law
Political law – deals with the relations of
people and government.
c.) According to force or effect
i.) Mandatory/ Prohibitory
Mandatory Law – refers to something that is
required, and not optional or subject to
mandatory requirements of law are typically
found by the use of words such as “must”,
“will” and “shall”.
Prohibitory Law- imposes duty to refrain from
doing a forbidden act. They use the phrases
“shall not,” “must not,” or “may not.”
ii.) Permissive/ Suppletory
Laws those which may be deviated from, if the
individual so desires. They use the phrase
“May”.
ARTICLE 2
Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion
of their publication in the official Gazette, or in a newspaper of
general circulation, unless it is otherwise provided. This Code
shall take effect one year after such publication. (As amended by
Executive Order No. 200 dated June 18, 1987).
- supported and reinforced by Section 1 of
Commonwealth Act No. 638 and Section 35 of the Revised
Administrative Code.
When do laws become effective?
An ordinary law takes effect:
(a) On the date it is expressly provided to take effect.
(b) If no such date is made, then after 15 days following the
completion of its publication in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation. – Which means on the 16th
day after the complete publication, if voluminous, the release of
the last series.
LAWS THAT NEED PUBLICATION
All statutes, including those of local application and private laws
shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall
begin after fifteen days following their publication unless a
different date is fixed by the legislature.
Publication is required of a Central Bank Circular and Executive
Order if PUNITIVE in Character
The fact that the circular is PUNITIVE in character is the principal
reason why publication should be made. Laws of punitive nature
cannot be given punitive effect unless published in the Official
Gazette (People v. Uy Kimpang, Jr., C.A., 52 O.G. 3087).
However, circulars which are mere statements of general policy
as to how the law should be construed do NOT need presidential
approval and publication in the Official Gazette for their
effectivity.
Administrative Orders and Regulation – it is required if the
purpose is to enforce or implement existing laws pursuant to a
valid delegation.
All presidential decrees must be published, including, even say,
those naming a public place after a favored individual or
exempting him from certain prohibitions and requirements.
Internal instructions issued by an administrative agency are not
covered by the rule on prior publication. Also not covered are
municipal ordinances which are governed by the Local
Government Code.
SHOULD LAWS THAT AFFECT ONLY A PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL
BE PUBLISHED?
In Tanada vs. Tuvera, the word laws include all laws and not only
to those of general application, even if some do not apply to all
directly, for the subject of law is a matter of public interest. In
fact, for laws to be valid the law must invariably affect the
public interest even if it is applicable some and not to all.
EG GRANT OF CITIZENSHIP
IF IT IS NOT PUBLISHED, WHAT WOULD BE THE EFFECT?
The provisions of Article 2 then would be in effect, that the
aforementioned is therefore not effective.
IS IT ALREADY A LAW BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT HAS SIGNED IT?
A law which provides for its immediate effectivity upon approval
becomes effective ONLY after its complete publication and NOT
IMMEDIATELY after its signing by the President.
CONGRESS LEGISLATES, EXECUTIVE ENFORCES, JUDICIARY
INTERPRETS. SUPPOSE THE EXECUTIVE ENFORCES WITHOUT
PUBLICATION, IS THERE ANY DEFECT?
Publication may not be dispensed with because such omission
would offend due process insofar as it would deny the public of
the laws that are supposed to govern it. Without publication,
individuals not aware of it will be prejudiced as a result and not
so because of failure to comply but because they do not know of
its existence.
WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION THAT
WOULD BE VIOLATED IF THE LAW IS IMMEDIATELY ENFORCED
WITHOUT PUBLICATION?
- people’s right to be informed on matters of public
concern (Section 6, Article IV of the 1973 Philippine
Constitution)
-"the right of the people to information on matters of
public concern," (Section 6 of Article III. Bill of Rights
1987 Philippine Constitution)
Publication must be Complete
Publications of statutes must be in full or it is no publication at
all. Since publication is to inform of the full contents of the law,
the mere mention of number, title, effectivity and whereabouts
is not even substantial compliance.
Publication through Newspapers Now Allowed
Executive Order 200 dated June 18, 1987, modifying Article 2
now provides: For the publication of laws either in the Official
Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the
Philippines as a requirement for effectivity.
The Official Gazette is not an effective medium in the publication
of laws, executive orders, circulars and notices in this country. As
it is deemed few people read, unaware and it is limited and
delayed.
GENERAL CIRCULATION
-CIRCULARIZED ANYWHERE IN THE PHILIPPINES EG IQUIRER
-DOES NOT INCLUDE PUBLICATION IN A LIMITED AREA EG SUN
STAR
INDISPENSABILITY OF PUBLICATION AND EXCEPTIONS
Meaning of “Unless it is otherwise provided”
The phrase refers to the DATE OF EFFECTIVITY not to the
REQUIREMENT OF PUBLICATION.
PUBLICATION IS INDISPENSABLE, in other words, no law can
become immediately effective upon approval without
publication. To rule otherwise, is to run into collision with the
constitutional requirement of the due process clause of the
Constitution.
CASES ASSIGNED UNDER ARTICLE 2
TANADA vs. TUVERA (1986) 146 S 446
DECEMBER 29, 1986
RESOLUTION
Ponente: Cruz, J.
Petitioner: Lorenzo Tanada and MABINI
Respondent: Hon. Juan C. Tavera, Exec. Asst. to the President
Facts: Demanding disclosure of a number of presidential decrees
and the court affirmed the necessity of the publication with the
dispositive portion as follows:
WHEREFORE the Court hereby orders respondents to publish
in the Official Gazette all unpublished presidential issuances
which are of general application, and unless so published,
they shall have no binding force and effect.
The petitioners suggest that there should be no distinction
between laws of general applicability and those which are
not; that publication means complete publication; and that
the publication must be made forthwith in the Official
Gazette.
In the Comment required of the then Solicitor General,
he claimed first that the motion was a request for an
advisory opinion and should therefore be dismissed, and,
on the merits, that the clause "unless it is otherwise
provided" in Article 2 of the Civil Code meant that the
publication required therein was not always imperative;
that publication, when necessary, did not have to be made
in the Official Gazette; and that in any case the subject
decision was concurred in only by three justices and
consequently not binding.
DE ROY vs. COURT OF APPEALS 157 SCRA 759 ISSUE: Whether or not the rule enunciated in the Habaluyas case
January 29, 1988 should not be made to apply to the case at bar owing to the
RESOLUTION non-publication of the Habaluyas decision in the Official Gazette
as of the time the decision was promulgated.
Ponente: Cortes, J.
Petitioner: Felisa Pedroso De Roy and Virgilio Ramos Contrary to the petitioners view, there is no law requiring the
Respondents: Court of Appeals and Lusi Bernal Sr. publication of Supreme Court decision in the Official Gazette
before they can be binding and as a condition to be effective. It
FACTS: Special civil action for certiorari seeks to declare null and is the bounden duty of counsel as lawyer in active law practice
void two resolution of the Special First Division of the Court of to keep abreast of decision of the SC particularly where issues
have been clarified, constantly reiterated, and published in the
Appeals in the case of Bernal v. De Roy. (1) Denied extension of
GRs and the SCRAs
time to file of motion for reconsideration (2) denied motion of
reconsideration for having been filed out of time.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court resolved to
Firewall of a burned-out building by Felisa Pedrosa collapsed and DENY the instant petition for lack of merit.
destroyed the tailoring shop of Luis Bernal resulting to injuries of
the private respondents and death of a daughter Mirassa Bernal.
Even though warned beforehand by the petitioners.
Regional Trial Court – found De Roy guilty of gross negligence
awarding damages to the Bernals
Court of Appeals – Decision affirmed, on August 17, 1987 and
received by the petitioners on August 25, 1987.
On September 9, 1987, last day of file for an appeal, petitioners
filed a motion for extension of time to file a motion for
reconsideration, which was eventually denied by the appellate
court in the resolution of September 30, 1987.
Petitioners filed their motion for reconsideration on September
24, 1987 and was denied in the Resolution of October 27, 1987.
CA correctly applied the rule laid down in Habaluyas Enterprises,
Inc, vs. Japzon, the fifteen-day period for appealing or for filing a
motion for reconsideration cannot be extended. This rule was
promulgated on May 30, 1986 as clarified by the Supreme Court
with a one-month grace period.
VILLAFUERTE V. CORDIAL, JR., G.R. NO. 222450
July 7, 2020
RESOLUTION
Ponente: Reyes, J.
Petitioner: Miguel Luis R. Villafuerte, Governor of the Province of
Camarines Sur
Respondents: Constantino H. Cordial, Jr., Mayor of Caramoan,
Camarines Sur and Irene R. Breis, Vice-Mayor of Caramoan,
Camarines Sur
FACTS:
Task Force Sagip Kalikasan conducted an inspection in Barangay
Gata, Caramoan, Camarines Sur and found illegal mining
activities.
Days after the inspection, respondents passed Resolution No. 48
which requested for the removal of Task Force Sagip Kalikasan in
the entire Municipality of Caramoan, Camarines Sur without the
conduct of deliberation.
July 18, 2014 – Respondents were administratively charged with
Grave Misconduct, Dishonesty, and Conduct Prejudicial to the
Best Interest of Service. The complaint was lodged before the
Sangguaning Panlalawigan of Camarines Sur.
In response to the complaint, respondents filed a Motion for
Extension to File Answer. However, instead of filing their
Answer, respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss. Which was
dismissed for lack of merit.
Respondents filed a Motion for Reconsideration asserting that
with the publication of the Rules of Procedure only on October
9, 16 and 23, 2014, it became effective only on November 8,
2014, the 16th day following its publication as held in the case of
Tañada v. Tuvera, interpreting the Article 2 of the Civil Code of
the Philippines.
The MR was denied as the Sangguaning Panlalawigan of
Camarines Sur maintained that the publication requirement
anent ordinances and resolutions of local government units was
governed by the Local Government Code, and not by the Civil
Code as pronounced in Tañada.
Respondents were recommended by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan of Camarines Sur to be placed under preventive
suspension, where in response, respondents filed a petition for
certiorari and in this petition insisted that the Rules of Procedure
as embodied in Resolution No. 13-2013 must be published; and
failure to observe such requirement not only rendered said
Resolution ineffective, but likewise removed the jurisdiction of
the Sangguaning Panlalawigan of Camarines Sur over the
proceedings.
In a Decision dated January 13, 2015, the RTC construed that the
lack of publication of the Rules of Procedure embodied in
Resolution No. 13-2013 stripped off the Sangguaning
Panlalawigan of Camarines Sur of jurisdiction over the conduct
of the administrative hearing against respondents.
ISSUE: Whether or not the non-publication of Resolution No. 13-
2013 divested the Sangguaning Panlalawigan of Camarines Sur
of jurisdiction over the proceedings of the case.
In the instant case, what was being assailed is Resolution No. 13-
2013, which provides for the rules of procedure concerning the
conduct of investigation against municipal officials in said
province, issued by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Camarines
Sur. Clearly, it is neither penal in nature as it does not provide
for any sanction or punishment nor a tax measure. It is merely
interpretative of Title II, Chapter 4 of the LGC, which outlines
the procedure when a disciplinary action is instituted against an
elective local official. Based on the foregoing, Resolution No. 13-
2013 need not be published.
The allegations in the Complaint filed by Mabulo against the
respondents vested the Sangguaning Panlalawigan of
Camarines Sur of jurisdiction over the case.
As it is, the RTC failed to discern the import of the publication
requirement. Publication or lack of it is relevant in determining
the observance of due process.
DECISION:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is hereby
GRANTED. Accordingly, the Decision dated January 13, 2015 and
the Order dated December 15, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court
of San Jose, Camarines Sur, Branch 30 are REVERSED and SET
ASIDE.
The Orders dated October 28, 2014 and December 12, 2014, and
the Resolution dated December 16, 2014 issued by the
Sangguaning Panlalawigan of Camarines Sur are hereby
REINSTATED.
ARTICLE 3
Ignorance to the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
APPLICABILITY OF PROVISION AND ITS SCOPE
This rule applies to ALL domestic laws whether penal or civil and
whether substantive or procedural.
It applies only to mandatory or prohibitive laws and not to
permissive or supplementary laws.
Rule Applies Only to Domestic Laws, Foreign Laws are excluded –
the rule applies to all domestic laws whether penal or civil and
whether substantive or procedural.
It does not apply on ignorance of foreign laws because our
courts do not generally take judicial notice of them, it must be
pleaded and proved as matter of fact.
EFFECT OF IGNORANCE OF FOREIGN LAW
-Ignorance of foreign laws is not a mistake of the law but a
mistake of fact.
Processual Presumption
A foreign law is a matter of fact which must be proven with
evidence. In the absence of any contrary evidence, it is
presumed to be the same as our domestic law. - ignorance of
foreign laws is not a mistake of the law but a mistake of fact.
Processual Presumption
A foreign law is a matter of fact which must be proven with
evidence. In the absence of any contrary evidence, it is
presumed to be the same as our domestic law.
The party who claims the applicability of a foreign law has the
burden of proof, and where the said party has failed to discharge
the burden, Philippine law applies.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN IGNORANCE OF LAW FROM
IGNORANCE OF FACT
Ignorance of law – is want of knowledge or acquaintance with
the laws of the land (Ignorantia legis non excusat)
Ignorance of fact – is want of knowledge of some fact to the
subject matter in hand. (Ignorantia facti excusat)
While mistake of the law does not generally vitiate consent,
when there is a mistake on a doubtful question of law, or on the
construction or application of law, this is analogous to a
mistake of fact.
Example: If a legal heir on whom the estate falls is ignorant of
the death of his ancestor, he is ignorant of a fact. But even if he
is aware of the death, he is said to be ignorant of a law if he is
not aware of his rights as the heir.
Case assigned under Article 3
Rodolfo Caranto v. Anita Agra Caranto
March 2, 2020
RESOLUTION
Ponente: Hernando, J.
Petitioner: Rodolfo Caranto
Respondents: Anita Agra Caranto
FACTS:
Respondent is the registered owner of a 347-square-meter
parcel of land situated in Barangay Hagdang Bato, Mandaluyong
City. In 2001, Rodolfo filed a Complaint for cancellation of title
and reconveyance against respondent seeking to: (a) cancel the
title of the subject land; (b) reconvey one-half of the same to
him; and (c) pay the sum equal to 25% of the value of the
recoverable property as attorney's fees as well as costs of suit.
Rodolfo alleged that respondent’s husband, Juan, was his
brother, and they had another sister named Rizalina. On May 12,
1972, Juan executed an SPA authorizing Rizalina to execute a
deed of extrajudicial settlement involving the subject property.
On September 18, 1972, an Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate
was executed stating the division and settlement of several
estate.
May 22, 1983, Juan died and on August 14, 1993, Anita executed
an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication, adjudicating upon herself the
subject property.
Rodolfo filed a Notice of Adverse Claim and criminal complaint
for falsification of public documents against Anita. Rodolfo
alleged that Juan was survived not only by his wife but also by
himself and his sister Rizalina. On January 16, 1990, Rizalina
executed a Deed of Waiver of Rights favoring Rodolfo over the
subject property, therefore Rodolfo is now entitled to one half
theroef. September 3, 1998 Resolution, the city prosecutor of
Mandaluyong City recommended the filing of an Information for
falsification against Anita.
Anita sought the dismissal of the complaint for lack of cause of
action and that Rodolfo is barred by laches or prescription.
Further, Anita claimed that the subject property is her exclusive
property since she purchased the same with her own money.
She denied that Rodolfo is a legitimate brother of her husband,
Juan. Anita further denied committing any falsehood or
misrepresentation in the execution of the Affidavit of Self
Adjudication. Lastly, she belied Rodolfo's allegation that he
exerted earnest efforts to settle the dispute between them prior
to the filing of the complaint considering that she was already
residing in the United States.
Anita, in turn, filed a compulsory claim for damages against
Rodolfo for filing a baseless and malicious suit against her.
During the trial, Dante Agra, the brother of Anita and her
attorney-in-fact, testified that Juan disclosed to him that Rodolfo
was his illegitimate brother and that he also has an illegitimate
sister. Further, Dante narrated that Juan informed him that he
was the only son of Dolores Lopez who was the latter's mother
as stated in the Marriage Certificate of Juan and Anita. Anita
presented a Certification from the National Archives that it has
no file of the Makati City Register of Births for the year 1935;
hence, there was no available record about the birth of Juan on
April 4, 1935 to Juan Caranto, Sr., as his father, and Dolores
Lopez, as his mother. On the other hand, the Office of the Local
Civil Registrar of Bacnotan, La Union, stated that Rodolfo was
born on May 21, 1945, to Juan Caranto as his father and
Guillerma Lopez, as his mother.
Issues:
The core issues for resolution are:
(1) whether Anita is estopped from impugning the relationship
between her late husband, Juan, and Rodolfo;
(2) whether the evidence of Rodolfo, particularly the
Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Late Guillerma O.
Lopez-Caranto, sufficed to prove that he is entitled to one-half of
the subject property of Juan by way of inheritance and by virtue
of the waiver of rights executed by Rizalina in his favor; and
(3) assuming that Juan's mother was named Dolores Lopez,
whether Rodolfo is entitled to the whole subject property by
reason that it was previously owned by his mother Guillerma.
RULING:
RTC ruled that the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate of the
Deceased and the Waiver of Rights executed by Rizalina in his
favor did not suffice to support Rodolfo’s claim that he is the
brother of Juan. Rodolfo also failed to present Juan’s birth
certificate showing that they have the same mothers.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court hereby renders
judgment in favor of defendant Anita Agra Caranto and against
plaintiff Rodolfo Caranto, ordering said plaintiff –
1) to pay the amount of Php20,000.00 as exemplary damages;
2) to pay the amount of Php20,000.00 as attorney's fees;
3) to pay the amount of Php10,000.00 as litigation expenses and
cost of suit.
Court of Appeals agreed with the RTC’s ruling but held that the
award of exemplary damages was improper as there was no
factual finding if the complaint against Anita was indeed
malevolent in manner.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court partially AFFIRMS
in part the October 22, 2007 Decision of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 212 of Mandaluyong City. This Court partially DISMISSES
the instant appeal without prejudice to the filing before the
appropriate court of an intestate proceeding for the purpose of
determining the heirs who may be entitled to inherit to the
estate, including the property covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 7884, previously under Transfer Certificate of Title No.
391576, of deceased Juan L. Caranto. Additionally, the award of
exemplary damages is DELETED but the awards of P20,000.00 as
attorney's fees and P10,000.00 litigation expenses and cost of
suit are AFFIRMED.
Rodolfo filed for Certiorari.
Rule 45 of Rules of Court says only questions of law should be
raised in Certiorari and not factual questions.
In Century Iron Works, Inc. v. Bañas, the Court differentiated a
question of law from a question of fact in this manner:
A question of law arises when there is doubt as to what the law
is on a certain state of facts, while there is a question of fact
when the doubt arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged
facts. For a question to be one of law, the question must not
involve an examination of the probative value of the evidence
presented by the litigants or any of them. The resolution of the
issue must rest solely on what the law provides on the given set
of circumstances. Once it is clear that the issue invites a review
of the evidence presented, the question posed is one of fact.
Rodolfo's arguments are essentially questions of fact.
Indubitably, the Court will not review the factual findings of the
appellate court as there is not even a scintilla of evidence that
the instant petition falls under any of the exceptions laid down
in Medina. To stress, the burden of proof lies upon Rodolfo who
failed to convince the Court that a review of the factual findings
is necessary. His mere assertion and claim that the case falls
under the exceptions is not enough.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is
DENIED. The April 18, 2012 Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 92085 is AFFIRMED.
ARTICLE 4
Laws shall have no retroactive effect,
unless the contrary is provided.
General Rule in Prospectivity
As a general rule, laws always operate at the future. Statutes
have only a prospective operation unless the intention to give
them a retrospective effect is EXPRESSLY DECLARED or
NECESSARILY IMPLIED from the language used. If there is doubt,
doubt must be resolve against retrospectivity.
Retroactivity
There is retroactivity when a law is made applicable to situations
or acts already done before passage of the said law. A
retroactive law creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty or
attaches a new disability in respect to a transaction already
past.
A retrospective statute is one which takes away or impair vested
rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation
and imposes a new duty of attaches a new disability in respect to
transaction or consideration already past.
Retroactive Operation Must be expressed in the Statue Itself
The retrospective applicability of a law should be EXPRESSLY
provided therein. In the absence of such provision, the
presumption is in favor of the prospective operation of the law.
Prospective operation will be presumed when a retroactive
operation would produce invalidity. No court would hold a
statute retroactive when the legislature has not said so.
Constitutional Limitations on Passage of Retroactive Laws
The constitution expressly prohibits the passage of ex post facto
laws and those which impair the obligations of contracts.
REASON FOR ITS PROSPECTIVITY
-to protect vested rights. Thus one may lose his rights previously
acquired if a retroactive law is subsequently passed and
designed to deprive him of those rights. There will be no more
stability in the effects of transactions.
Statutes which may be given Retroactive Application
1. Remedial Laws – laws which provide for the methods of
enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their violation.
2. Penal laws favorable to the Accused or Convict – penal laws
shall have retroactive effect insofar as they favor the persons
guilty of a felony, who is not a habitual criminal. (Art. 22, RPC).
3. Curative laws – are laws intended to correct errors or
irregularities incurred in judicial or administrative proceedings,
acts of public officers, or private deeds and contracts which
otherwise would not produce intended consequences by some
statutory disability. a. Interpreting laws – clarify or interpret
provision of an existing statute.
4. Emergency laws – are laws intended to meet
exigencies which require immediate action.
5. Laws creating new rights – may be given retroactive
provided no vested right of the same origin is affected.
6. Tax laws – can be given retroactive effect.
Rule on Prospective Application of Laws Applies to Judge-
Made-Laws
Co vs. CA, in lieu with Art. 8 of Civil Code: “judicial decisions
applying or interpreting the laws or the constitution shall form a
part of the legal system of the Philippines” the principle of
prospectivity applies to judicial decision, which although
themselves are not laws, are nevertheless evidences of what the
law means.
Cases assigned under Article 4
CARLOS V. SANDOVAL GR# 179922
December 16, 2008
RESOLUTION
Ponente: Reyes, J.
Petitioner: Juan de Dios Carlos
Respondents: Felicidad Sandoval
PRINCIPLES:
ONLY a spouse can initiate an action to sever the marital bond
for marriages solemnized during the effectivity of the Family
Code, except cases commenced prior to March 15, 2003. The
nullity and annulment of a marriage cannot be declared in a
judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, or confession of
judgment.
FACTS:
Spouses Felix B. Carlos and Felipa Elemia died intestate. They left
six parcels of land to their compulsory heirs, Teofilo Carlos and
petitioner Juan De Dios Carlos.
During the lifetime of Felix Carlos, he agreed to transfer his
estate to Teofilo. The agreement was made in order to avoid the
payment of inheritance taxes. Teofilo, in turn, undertook to
deliver and turn over the share of the other legal heir, petitioner
Juan De Dios Carlos.
Parcel 1, 2 & 3 was registered in the name of Teofilo. Parcel 4
was registered in the name of Juan de Dios Carlos.
May 13, 1992, Teofilo died intestate and was survived by his
wife, Felicidad, the respondent and their son, Teofilo II. Parcel 5
& 6 were registered under Felicidad and Teofilo II.
In 1994, Juan de Dios Carlos filed a suit against Felicidad at RTC
Muntinlupa where the parties arrived at a partial compromise
agreement stating that they acknowledge their share in the sale
of a portion of Parcel 1. September 17, 1994, parties executed a
deed of extraducial partition for the remaining land of Parcel 1.
They also divided the remaining land from parcel 2 from the case
Rillo v. Carlos. The parties also equally divided Parcel 3 & 4.
The court also declared the petitioner as the sole owner of the
Parcel of land.
Respondents appealed to the CA arguing that the RTC acted
without or in excess of jurisdiction in rendering summary
judgment annulling the marriage of Teofilo, Sr. and Felicidad and
in declaring Teofilo II as not an illegitimate child of Teofilo, Sr.

Juan de Dios Carlos filed a case in the RTC with the ff cause of WHEREFORE, the summary judgment appealed from is
action: declaration of nullity of marriage; (b) status of a child; (c) REVERSED and SET ASIDE and in lieu thereof, a new one is
recovery of property; (d) reconveyance; and (e) sum of money entered REMANDING the case to the court of origin for further
and damages. proceedings.

Juan de Dios Carlos asserted that the marriage between his late The first paragraph of Article 88 and 101 of the Civil Code
brother Teofilo and respondent Felicidad was a nullity in view of expressly prohibit the rendition of decree of annulment of a
the absence of the required marriage license. He likewise marriage upon a stipulation of facts or a confession of judgment.
maintained that his deceased brother was neither the natural Yet, the affidavits annexed to the petition for summary
nor the adoptive father of respondent Teofilo Carlos II. judgment practically amount to these methods explicitly
proscribed by the law.
Petitioner likewise sought the avoidance of the contracts he
entered into with respondent Felicidad with respect to the Issues:
subject real properties. He also prayed for the cancellation of
the certificates of title issued in the name of respondents. He
argued that the properties covered by such certificates of title,
including the sums received by respondents as proceeds, should
be reconveyed to him.

Finally, petitioner claimed indemnification as and by way of

moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, litigation
expenses, and costs of suit.

Petitioner’s motion for summary judgement was granted and

the RTC declared the respondent’s marriage to the late Teofilo
as null and void. The court also declared Teofilo II not the
natural, illegitimate of legally adopted child of the late Teofilo.
ESTHER ABALOS V. PEOPLE GR# 221836
August 14, 2019
RESOLUTION
Ponente: Reyes, J.
Petitioner: Esther Abalos
Respondents: People of the Philippines
Facts:
Petitioner, together with Christine Molina, offered private
complainant Elaine Sembrano post-dated checks for
rediscounting. Petitioner received 250,000 pesos less 7% as
interest. When Sembrano presented the checks for payment on
due dates, the checks were dishonored. Petitioner received a
demand letter on October 23, 2011 and failed to this day to pay,
and so a complaint for ESTAFA was filed against her.
RTC- found petitioner guilty as charged and sentenced her
penalty of imprisonment of four (4) years and two (2) months of
prision correctional as minimum to twenty (20) years of
reclusion temporal as maximum.
The accused is likewise found to be civilly liable to pay the
private complainant the amount of Php232,500.00 as and by
way of actual damages, with legal interest thereon to be
computed from the date of the filing of this case, until the same
is fully paid.
CA- Dismissed the appeal, but affirmed the interest rate of 6%
Issue:
Whether or not CA erred in finding that petitioner is guilty of
ESTAFA considering that the real transaction between the
parties, as defined by law, is not criminal in nature, but civil only.
Whether or not all elements of ESTAFA were established.
Ruling: WHEREFORE, the Decision dated May 20, 2015 of the Court of
The prosecution was able to establish beyond reasonable doubt Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 35633 sentencing petitioner to four
all the elements of this kind of estafa: (1) postdating or issuing a (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional as minimum
check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time the to twenty (20) years of reclusion temporal as maximum is
check was issued; (2) lack of sufficient funds to cover the check; AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in that the monetary award of
(3) knowledge on the part of the offender of such circumstances; P232,500.00 shall be subject to interest rate of 12% per annum
and (4) damage to the complainant. from the filing of the Information until June 30, 2013 and 6% per
annum from July 1, 2013 until the finality of the decision, and
While it is true that no criminal liability under the RPC arises the total amount of the foregoing shall, in turn, earn interest at
from the mere issuance of postdated checks as a guarantee of the rate of 6% per annum from the finality of the decision until
repayment,[39] this is not true in the instant case where the full payment thereof.
element of deceit is attendant in the issuance of the said checks.
The liability therefore is not merely civil, but criminal.
As for the penalty, under the RPC, the penalty of estafa (of the
amount of P232,500.00) ranged from six months and one day as
minimum to 20 years as maximum.
Under R.A. No. 10951, the petitioner is liable to suffer the
indeterminate penalty of imprisonment ranging from six years
and one day of prision mayor, as minimum, to eight years, eight
months and one day of prision mayor, as maximum.
The imposable penalty under the RPC presents a lower minimum
period, but a higher maximum period of imprisonment
compared to that imposable under R.A. No. 10951.
It is clear, therefore, that if R.A. No. 10951 would be given
retroactive effect, the same will prejudice petitioner. The
penalty under the RPC, insofar as it benefits the petitioner must
prevail. Hence, the penalty imposed by the RTC and the CA,
which is four years and two months of prision correccional as
minimum to 20 years of reclusion temporal as maximum, is
correct as it is within the proper penalty imposed by law.
ARTICLE 19
Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the
performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his
due, and observe honesty and good faith.
-PRINCIPLE OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS
- If a person acts with abuse, his right ceases, and his
acts become illicit, giving rise to liability
- Every abnormal exercise of a right, contrary to its
socioeconomic purpose is an abuse that will give rise to
liability
-SC held that in all transactions, there is a presumption of good
faith. This presumption is overturned by clear and convincing
evidence.
“Every Person”
-Natural persons
-Artificial persons (e.g. Corporations, City/ Municipality,
PAGCOR, Hospitals, Universities)
Abatement of nuisances
- Nuisances is discussed in Article 694, CC
Article 19 tells us we must observe 3 things in the exercise of
rights. If we FAIL to do these things, we are abusing our rights.
Our rights are guaranteed by law, but if we misuse or more
accurately, abuse these rights, then there is some sort of
illegality:
Duties under Article 19
1. Act with justice
2. Give everyone his due
3. Observe honesty and good faith
Requisites for abuse of rights: 3. And absence of an intention to overreach another
1. There is a legal right or duty
2. It is exercised in bad faith
3. The sole intention is to prejudice or cause INJURY to another ARTICLE 20
Article 19 prescribes that a person should not use his right Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
unjustly or contrary to honestly and good faith, otherwise he negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify
opens himself to liability. It seeks to preclude the use of, or the the latter for the same.
tendency to use, a legal right (or duty) as a means to unjust Law provides its own sanctions, and for cases when the
law does not provide its own sanctions, this Article
ends.
provides the general sanction – INDEMNIFICATION OF
DAMAGES.
There is abuse of rights when it is exercised solely to prejudice or
injure another. The exercise of a right must be in accordance
• Torts based on malice
with the purpose for which it was established and must not be
• Torts based on negligence
excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no intention to harm
another. Otherwise, liability for damages to the injured party will
A Cause of Action is a fact or set of facts that gives rise to the
attach.
right to come to court and file an action.
In the case of PNB vs De Jesus, the Supreme Court teaches us
When there is no cause of action, the facts and circumstances do
that “good faith… is an intangible and abstract quality with no
not merit the remedy prayed for. When the complaint is
technical meaning or statutory definition, and it encompasses
evaluated and there is no relief that can be given, based on the
among other things:
facts and circumstances, then the complaint lacks a cause of
1. an honest belief
action.
2. the absence of malice
3. the absence of design to defraud or to seek an
DAMNUM ET INJURIA
unconscionable advantage.
Damage is the loss, hurt or harm that is the result of an injury.
An injury on the other hand is the illegal invasion of a legal right.
Personal good faith is a concept of his own mind and, therefore,
When the two of them are combined – an injury resulting to
may not conclusively be determined by his protestations alone.
damage, then there is a cause of action.
It implies honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of
circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry.
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA (Damage without Injury/
Prejudice)
The essence of good faith lies in - If damages result from such exercise of legal
1. an honest belief in the validity of one’s right rights.
2. Ignorance of a superior claim
Example: Amonoy demolition disregarding TRO does not
correctly invoke damnum absque injuria
No Right Impaired, No Basis for Damages – pervades the
entire legal system, it is essential that some right of his be
impaired.
INJURY from DAMAGE
INJURY – illegal invasion of a legal rights while damages is
the loss, hurt or harm which results from the injury.
There can be damage without injury. In cases where the
loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty
– situations often called damnum absque injuria.
ARTICLE 21
Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another
in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or
public policy shall compensate latter for the damage.
-an action CONTRA BONUS MORES or CONTRARY TO
GOOD MORALS
Requisites for an action contra bonus mores:
1. There is a legal act
2. The act is contrary to morals, good customs, public
order or public policy
3. The act is done with intent to injure
Q: Can there be action if there is no injury if there is loss?
A: No, the rule is still damnum et injuria
There are many acts injurious acts that are contrary to
public policy but are not forbidden by statute which have
not been foreseen by the lawmakers. Like business
practices that are unfair and oppressive.
Requisites for Recovery of Damages
Damages are recoverable even though no positive law has
been violated but it is necessary that the act should have
been willfully done and it is contrary to morals, good
customs and public policy.
1. If the loss or injury is due to own inexcusable fault
or negligence, he should not be allowed to
recover. If one is at fault he cannot recover.
2. A person who did not act in an abusive manner is
not deemed to have acted in a manner in contrast
with morals, good customs, and public policy.
Rule on Breach of Promise to Marry, Not Actionable;
Exception
1. A promise to marry broken cannot be compel by
court because it is a personal one and is not
subject to judicial compulsion.
Exceptions when Moral Damages are Recoverable
- If there is criminal or moral seduction, a grant of
moral damages is justifiable under Article 21.
- There must be deception, enticement, superior
power or abuse of confidence on the part of the
seducer to which the woman yielded. Thus if the
sexual intercourse was due to mutual last no
moral damages can be held.
-If the promise to marry is the proximate cause of why a woman
would have sex with a man and the man has clearly no intention
to fulfill this promise
-where there has been extensive preparations for the wedding
and one of the parties walks out when the matrimony is about
to be solemnized
The breach of promise to marry is not an actional wrong, except
in the case where a man’s promise to marry is in fact the
proximate cause of the acceptance of his love by a woman and
his representation to fulfil that promise thereafter becomes the
proximate cause of the giving of herself unto him in a sexual
congress, proof that he had, in reality, no intention of marrying
her and that the promise was only a subtle scheme or deceptive
device to entice or inveigle her to accept him an dto obtain her
consent to the sexual act, could justify the award of damages
pursuant to article 21 not because of such promise to marry but
because of the fraud and deceit behind it and the willful injury to
her honor and reputation which follow thereafter. It is essential
however that such injury should have been committed in a
manner contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.
Actual damages suffered; Recoverable – actual damages
by promise to marry can be recovered.
• In case of birth of child, support is
demandable
• In case of rape, support of the child can be
demanded.
ARTICLE 22
Every person, who through an act of performance by another,
or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of
something at the expense of the latter without just or legal
ground, shall return the same to him.
Principle of Unjust Enrichment
- No person should unjustly enrich self at the
expense of another.
- But with legal ground is not prohibited. Legitimate
enrichment is never discouraged by law.
Coverage of the Article
1. Someone acquires into possession of something
which means delivery or acquisition of things.
2. Acquisition is undue and at the expense of
another without legal ground.
There is unjust enrichment when:
1. Person is unjustly benefited
2. Such benefit is at the expense of another.
Rendition of Services Not Included
- Liability will lie in in the quasi-contract.
Accion in Rem Inverso
-only an auxillary action
- Action is for the recovery of has been paid without
just cause can only be availed if no other remedy.
- Action is only subsidiary, if there is a contract,
quasi-contract, delict or quasi-delict and prescription has barred
the action, accion rem inverso cannot occur.
Accion Rem Inverso from Solutio Indebiti
- Solutio indebiti, payment was made by mistake
which is an essential element to maintain the
action for recovery.
Requisites for Accion Rem Verso
1. Defendant has been enriched
2. Plaintiff suffered a loss
3. Enrichment is without just or legal ground
4. Plaintiff has no other action based on contract,
quasi-contract, crime or quasi-delict.
Article Not Applicable if Property is acquired by Virtue of
a Final Judgment – a property acquired by virtue of a final
judgment rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction,
cannot be said to have been acquired without just or legal
ground.
• Government not exempted from the Principle
of Unjust enrichment.
Merger of the Principle of Unjust Enrichment with the
Principle of Quasi-Contract
• Quasi-contracts are based on the principle
that no person shall be unjustly enriched at
the expense of another.
ARTICLE 23
Even when an act or event causing damage to another’s
property was not due to the fault or negligence of the
defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through
the act or event he was benefitted.
This is likewise to prevent unjust enrichment.
Example by 1947 Code Commission illustrates to wit:
For example: Without A’s knowledge, a flood drives his cattle to
the cultivated highland of B. A’s cattle are saved, but B’s crop is
destroyed. True, A was not at fault, but he was benefited. It is
but right and equitable that he should indemnify B.
While an involuntary act does not create an obligation, but the
act has enriched the author then he should indemnify for the
damages and cost to the extent of his enrichment
ARTICLE 24
In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the
parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral
dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender
age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his
protection.
Pleadings as well as remedial laws should be construed liberally
in order that the litigants may have ample opportunity to pursue
their respective claims and that a possible denial of substantial
justice due to legal technicalities may be avoided.
Anchored on the doctrine PARENS PATRIAE or the inherent
power of the state to provide protection of the person and
property of an incapacitated person (NON SUI JURIS “Not his
own master”: A term applied to an individual who lacks the legal
capacity to act on his or her own behalf, such as an infant or an
insane person.)
STATE: considered as the father, to provide protection to
persons mentioned in article 24 (incapacitated persons) and
cover the person and his property
The maxim : Ignorance of the law excuses no one from
compliance therewith it's not strictly applied to minors because
they deserve utmost protection
If a minor is a victim of a crime of rape and the parents decide
not to pursue the criminal case, the state may on its own file this
complaint against the person responsible for the rape of the
child. Statutory rape applies if the child is 12 years old or below.
there is no defense on the part of the person responsible
ARTICLE 25
Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display
during a period of acute public want or emergency may be
stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any
government or private charitable institution.
The law seeks to prevent inconsiderate and ostentatious
activities during times of emergency. However, article 25
specifically provides for the entities which are given legal
standing to seek an injunction: any government or private
charitable institution
The purpose being it may unwittingly rekindle unrest on the
hearts of the poor who will be keenly conscious of their
deprivation and poverty.
ARTICLE 26
Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and
Peace of Mind of his neighbors and other persons. The
following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offence, shall produce a cause of action for damages,
prevention and other relief:
1. Prying into the privacy of another’s residence;
2. meddling with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another;
3. intriguing cause another to be alienated from his
friends;
4. fixing or humiliating another on account of his
religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of
birth, physical defect, or other personal condition
When we talk of prevention: may come in the form of a
Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) which may be followed by a
preliminary or permanent injunction.
These are no criminal offenses. But it may be a ground for
damages or one seeking the issuance of preliminary injunction
from the courts, and other reliefs.
Examples:
1. Prying into the privacy of another’s residence: a
neighbor who is financially successful compared to the
general public. Then prying at the rich person’s
appliances whether they’re branded or not.
2. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family
relations of another: Happens when the wife is injected
with false gossip about the whereabouts and
engagements of her husband in activities not desirable
to the marriage. CHISMIS ni concerned neighbor.
CASE: Radio Communications of the Philippines inc vs Verchez
Facts: A member of a family in Sorsogon has an ailing mother
and so asked for money from her relatives via telegram. The
telegram company failed to deliver the telegram on time and
failed to inform the family of the reason.
Issue: WON Verchez family should be awarded moral and
exemplary damages and atty’s fees
Ruling: RCPI is liable for damages under Article 2176, CC–
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there
being at fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence if there is no pre-existing
contractual relation between the parties, is called quasi-delict
and is governed by the provisions of this Chapter.