PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS PRELIMINARY CHAPTER CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

I. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 386 A. CIVIL LAW CIVIL CODE: LARA VS. DEL ROSARIO, G.R. NO. L-6339, APRIL 20, 1954 CIVIL LAW COMMON LAW: II. LAWS.

A. GEN. RULE ON PUBLICATION ART. 2, CIVIL CODE AS AMENDED BY

E.O # 200. TAADA VS. TUVERA, 146 SCRA 446 PEOPLE VS. QUE PO LAY, 50 O.G. 2850 GATBONTON VS. NLRC, MAPUA, JUNE 23, EXCEPTIONS: PUBLICATION IS NOT NECESSARY IF: (1) LAW IS INTERPRETATIVE IN NATURE; PHIL. INTL. TRADING CORP. VS. JUDGE ANGELES, G.R. NO. 108461, OCT. 24,1996JUDGE DADOLE, ET AL. VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R. NO. 125350, DEC. 3, 2002 (2) LAW WHICH IS INTERNAL IN NATURE;

(3) LETTERS OF INSTRUCTIONS SUBORDINATES.

RULES

TO

BE

FOLLOWED

BY

(4) MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES ARE COVERED BY THE LOCAL GOVT. CODE. B.) WHERE SHOULD PUBLICATION TAKE PLACE. GENERAL RULE: (B.1) OFFICIAL GAZETTE, OR, (B.2) NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION. BASA VS. MERCADO (61 PHIL. 636). EXCEPTION: HAGONOY MARKET VENDOR ASSOC. VS. MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY BULACAN, G.R. NO. 137621, FEB. 6, 2002 C. EFFECTIVITY ARTICLE 2, CIVIL CODE LA BUGAL-BLAAN TRIBAL ASSO. INC. ET AL. VS. RAMOS, ET AL., GR. NO. 127882, JAN. 27, 2004 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. LHUILLIER PAWNSHOP, INC., G.R. NO. 150947, JULY 15, 2003 NOTE: PUBLICATION EFFECTIVITY.

marializalopez-rosario

Page 1

04/11/08

III.

ARTICLE 3 IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSAT..

ADONG VS. CHEONG SENG GEE, 43 PHIL. 43 PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION

IV.

ARTICLE 4 RETROACTIVITY VS. PROSPECTIVITY.

***ART. 256, FAMILY CODE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE FAMILY CODE. GENERAL RULE: PROSPECTIVITY OF LAWS. STA. ROSA REALTY VS. AMANTE, MARCH 16, 2005 SANTOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 347 SCRA 389 EXCEPTIONS/WHEN LAWS CAN BE GIVEN A RETROACTIVE EFFECT PEOPLE VS. QUIACHON, G.R. NO. 170236, AUG. 31, 2006 V. MANDATORY/PROHIBITORY LAWS

VI.

ARTICLE 6 WAIVER OF RIGHTS. GENERAL RULE: RIGHTS MAY BE WAIVED. EXCEPTIONS: WHEN RIGHTS CANNOT BE WAIVED.

VALDERAMA VS. MACALDE, SEPT. 16, 2005

VII.

ARTICLE 7 - REPEAL OF LAWS A) EXPRESS B) IMPLED C) SELF- LAPSING

VIII. ARTICLE 8 JUDICIAL DECISIONS HAVE THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF A

LAW. DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS RATIO DECIDENDI OBITER DICTUM. LAMBINO VS. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 174153, OCT. 25, 2006 ***NOTE: IF NAME OF MONTH IS NOT GIVEN, IT IS DEEMED EQUIVALENT TO 30 DAYS (ART. 13). CIR VS. PRIMETOWN PROPERTY, G.R. NO. 162155, AUGUST 28, 2007 LEX POSTERIORI DEROGAT PRIORI. IX. X. ARTICLES 9/10DUTY OF COURT TO RENDER JUDGMENT ARTICLES 11/12 CUSTOMS ARTICLE 13 COMPUTATION OF PERIODS ARTICLE 14 PENAL LAW THEORY OF TERRITORIALITY.

XI. XII.

GENERAL RULE: PENAL LAW FOLLOWS THE THEORY OF TERRITORIALITY AND GENERALITY REGARDLESS OF NATIONALITY.

marializalopez-rosario

Page 2

04/11/08

EXCEPTIONS: (1.) PRINCIPLES DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY.

OF

PUBLIC

INTERNATIONAL

LAW

(2.) PRESENCE OF TREATY STIPULATIONS. EXTERRITORIALITY EXTRATERRITORIALITY SCHNECKENBURGER VS. MORAN, 63 PHIL. 249 SEAFDEC VS. ACOSTA, 226 SCRA 49

XIII. ARTICLE 15 PRINCIPLE OF NATIONALITY.

NOTE: CIVIL LAWS PERTAINING TO FAMILY RIGHTS/DUTIES, STATUS, CONDITION, LEGAL CAPACITY FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE OF NATIONALITY. A. ) REP. ACT NO. 9225 B.) DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP (SEC. 4) ROEHR VS. RODRIGUEZ, G.R. NO. 142820, JUNE 20, 2003 **EXCEPTIONAL CASE: VAN DORN VS. ROMILLO, JR., 139 SCRA 139 ARTICLE 26, PAR. 2, FAMILY CODE IF ALIEN SPOUSE OBTAINED THE DECREE OF DIVORCE, FILIPINO SPOUSE WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO RE-MARRY. REP. VS. ORBECIDO, OCT. 5, 2005

XIV. ARTICLE 16 LAW GOVERNING REAL PROPERTY.

NOTE: IF PROBLEM INVOLVES PROPERTY, APPLY THE LEX SITUS. GENERAL RULE - LEX REI SITAE. EXCEPTION: INTESTATE AND TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION. (A) ORDER OF SUCCESSION. (B) AMOUNT OF SUCCESSIONAL RIGHT. (C) INTRINSIC VALIDITY OF WILL (ART. 16). (D) LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUCCEED. (ART. 1039) MICIANO VS. BRIMO, 50 PHIL. 867 BELLIS VS. BELLIS, 20 SCRA 358. NOTE: RENVOI DOCTRINE- REFERRING BACK. DECEDENT IS A NATIONAL OF ONE COUNTRY AND A DOMICILE OF ANOTHER. WHEN THE CONFLICT RULE OF THE FORUM REFERS A MATTER TO A FOREIGN LAW FOR DECISION.- TRANSMISSION THEORY AZNAR VS. GARCIA, 7 SCRA 95 FORUM NON CONVENIENS.

XV.

ARTICLE 17 LAW GOVERNING EXTRINSIC VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS, WILLS, PUBLIC INSTRUMENTS.

GENERAL RULE: LEX LOCI CELEBRATIONIS (FORMS AND SOLEMNITIES) OR LOCUS REGIT ACTUM. *** APPLICATION OF GENERAL RULE:

marializalopez-rosario

Page 3

04/11/08

(1) ARTICLE 815, CIVIL CODE WILLS MADE BY FILIPINOS ABROAD, MAYBE IN THE FORM ESTABLISHED BY SUCH COUNTRY. EXCEPTIONS: WHEN LEX LOCI NOT APPLICABLE. HUMAN RELATIONS.

I.

ARTICLE 19 ABUSE OF RIGHTS IS ACTIONABLE.

DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA A PERSON WHO EXERCISES HIS LEGAL RIGHT DOES NO INJURY (AUYONG HIAN VS. CTA, 59 SCRA 110) GENERAL RULE: BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY, NOT ACTIONABLE (GASHEM SHOOKAT BAKSH VS. CA, 219 SCRA 115; HERMOSISIMA VS. CA, 109 PHIL. 629). EXCEPTIONS: BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY + SOME ACT OR EVENT = CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES.(SEE PE VS. PE, 5 SCRA 200; WASSMER VS. VELEZ, 12 SCRA 648). SEA COM CO. INC. VS. CA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 122823, NOV. 25,1999 RAMOS VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 124354, APRIL 11, 2002. MWSS VS. ACT THEATER, INC., G.R. NO. 147076, JUNE 17, 2004 DOCTRINE OF VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA NIKO HOTEL VS. ROBERTO REYES, A.K.A. AMAY BISAYA, FEB. 28, 2005, G.R. NO. 154259

II.

ARTICLE 20 CONTRARY TO LAW.

FRANCISCO VS. CA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 116320, NOV. 29,1999 III. ARTICLE 21 CONTRARY TO MORALS, GOOD CUSTOMS/PUBLIC POLICY. BUAG JR. VS. CA, GR 101749, JULY 10,1992 IV. ARTICLE 22 ACCION IN REM VERSO NO MISTAKE. A.) PRINCIPLE OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT APPLIED IN ARTICLE 22 (ACQUISITION OF SOMETHING) AND ARTICLE 23, CIVIL CODE (ONE BENEFITTED THRU ACT OR EVENT CAUSING DAMAGE TO ANOTHER). H.L. CARLOS CONSTRUCTION VS. MARINA PROPERTIES CORP., JAN. 29, 2004, G.R. NO. 147614-. LACSON VS. LACSON, G.R. NO. 150644, AUG. 28, 2006 B.) NEGOTIORUM GESTIO AUTHORITY OF OFFICIOUS MANAGER OVER PROPERTY.

V.

ARTICLE 24 COURTS PROTECTION OF THE UNDERDOG.

PARENS PATRIAE SOVEREIGN POWER OF THE STATE IN SAFEGUARDING PERSONS UNDER DISABILITY.

VI.

ARTICLE 29 PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE; ACQUITTAL IN CRIMINAL ACTION RELIEF FROM CIVIL LIABILITY.

marializalopez-rosario

Page 4

04/11/08

EXCEPTION: CRIMINAL CASE DOES NOT EXIST.

VII.

ARTICLE 30 CIVIL OBLIGATION ARISING FROM A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. CONNECT WITH ART. 35

VIII. INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION- (ARTICLE 31) CIVIL OBLIGATION NOT ARISING FROM A FELONY. INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION ONE BROUGHT DISTINCTLY AND SEPARATELY FROM THE CRIMINAL CASE (SEC. 3, RULE 111, 2000 REVISED RULES ON CRIM. PRO.).

(A.)

ART. 32 BREACH OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER RIGHTS.

SILAHIS INTL. HOTEL VS. SOLUTA, FEB. 20, 2006 (B.) ART. 33 DEFAMATION, FRAUD, PHYSICAL INJURIES. (C.) ART. 34 REFUSAL OR FAILURE OF CITY/MUNICIPAL POLICE TO GIVE PROTECTION. (D.) ART. 2177 QUASI-DELICT OR CULPA AQUILIANA. IX. ARTICLE 35 SEE ARTICLE 30, CIVIL CODE. RESERVATION OF CIVIL ACTION SHOULD BE MADE BEFORE PROSECUTION PRESENTS EVIDENCE. A.) ARTICLE 100, REVISED PENAL C0DE. PERSON CRIMINALLY LIABLE IS ALSO CIVILLY LIABLE. GENERAL RULE: EXTINCTION OF PENAL ACTION DOES NOT CARRY EXTINCTION OF CIVIL ACTION (SEC. 2, RULE 111, 2000 REVISED RULES ON CRIM. PRO.) REASON: QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASE CRIMINAL CASE. EXCEPTION: IF ACQUITTAL IS BASED ON A FINDING THAT THE ACCUSED DID NOT COMMIT THE CRIMINAL ACTS IMPUTED TO HIM (WESTERN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY VS. SALAS, G.R. NO. 13032, AUG. 21, 1997). B) EFFECT OF DEATH OF THE ACCUSED TO THE CIVIL LIABILITY. (SEC.4, RULE 111, 2000 REV. RULES ON CRIM. PROCEDURE) PEOPLE VS. SENDAYDIEGO, 81 SCRA 120 PEOPLE VS. BAYOTAS, G.R. NO. 102007, SEPT. 2, 1994 C) SECTION 1, RULE 111, REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE NOTE: DUE TO THE DUAL CONCEPT OF CIVIL LIABILITY, MORE THAN ONE CIVIL ACTION TO RECOVER CIVIL LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SAME ACT OR OMISSION IS ALLOWED. ONLY LIMITATION IS AGAINST DOUBLE RECOVERY (ACE HAULERS CORP. VS. CA, GR # 127934, AUGUST 23, 2000). MACCAY VS. SPOUSES NOBELA, G.R. NO. 145823, MARCH 31, 2005 X. ARTICLE 36 PREJUDICIAL QUESTION. SEE SECS. 6 & 7, RULE 111, REVISED RULES ON CRIM. PRO.

marializalopez-rosario

Page 5

04/11/08

A) ELEMENTS DONATO VS. LUNA, 160 SCRA 441 TENEBRON VS. CA., G.R. NO. 150758, FEB. 18, 2004 WONG JAN REALTY VS. ESPAOL, OCT. 13, 2005 OMICTIN VS. CA, G.R. NO. 148004, JAN. 22, 2007 MAGESTRADO VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 148072, JULY 10, 2007 NOTA BENE: (1.) TO BE PREJUDICIAL, CIVIL ACTION FIRST, BEFORE THE CRIMINAL ACTION. (2) NO PREJUDICIAL QUESTION WHERE ONE CASE IS ADMINISTRATIVE AND THE OTHER IS CIVIL (OCAMPO VS. BUENAVENTURA, 55 SCRA 267).

PERSONS I. CLASSIFICATION OF PERSON ARTICLE 37 JURIDICAL CAPACITY CAPACITY TO ACT. JURIDICAL CAPACITY ARTICLES 38 AND 39 RESTRICTIONS ON CAPACITY TO ACT.

II. III. IV.

INCAPACITY IS THE RESTRICTION OF A PERSONS CAPACITY TO ACT. DIFFERENT CLASSES OF INCAPACITY: A. NATURAL INCAPACITY B. CIVIL INCAPACITY

V.

ARTICLE 40 CIVIL PERSONALITY.

GENERAL RULE: BIRTH DETERMINES PERSONALITY. EXCEPTION: PRESUMPTIVE/ PROVISIONAL PERSONALITY ARTS. 40 AND 41. DE JESUS VS, SYQUIA, 58 PHIL. 886 GELUZ VS. CA, 2 SCRA 801

Limjoco vs. Estate of Fragante, 45 O.G. (NO. 9) Supp. 397 (1948) VI.
ARTICLE 43 PRESUMPTION ON SURVIVORSHIP/ SIMULTANEOUS DEATH. SEE RULE 131, SEC. 5(KK), RULES OF COURT. VII. DOMICILE AND RESIDENCE.

marializalopez-rosario

Page 6

04/11/08