Ernel D.

Dico
ROMAN LAW
1. Ignorantia Legis Non Excusat

(Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law
excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is
unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because
one was unaware of its content.
The rationale of the doctrine is that if ignorance were an excuse, a person
charged with criminal offenses or a subject of a civil lawsuit would merely claim
that one was unaware of the law in question to avoid liability, even if that
person really does know what the law in question is. Thus, the
law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no matter
how transiently. Even though it would be impossible, even for someone with
substantial legal training, to be aware of every law in operation in every aspect
of a state's activities, this is the price paid to ensure that willful blindness cannot
become the basis of exculpation. Thus, it is well settled that persons engaged in
any undertakings outside what is common for a normal person will make
themselves aware of the laws necessary to engage in that undertaking. If they
do not, they cannot complain if they incur liability.

2. Dura Lex Sed Lex

A Latin term that means "it is harsh, but it is the law".

The law may be hard to observe or difficult to obey, but it remains the law
and must be therefore followed just the same. This is the plain and simple
meaning and implication of the above cited Latin maxim which is well known in
a special way by those in the legal profession. The Latin principle is objectively
right and the legal experts are professionally right as well when invoking the Latin
truism – but only by virtue of the following three fundamental premises:
Firstly, that the law is just in its objective content, just for the subject party
concerned, and just to the society as a whole it is mandated for observance. In
other words even but there is an iota of injustice in the law in conjunction with
any of the said qualifying factors, a law may be difficult to comply with, but an
unjust law it remains. Thus it is that it loses its nature and finality as a
law. Example: The E-Vat as a law is unjust because the very poor and the very
rich are taxed same amount in their purchase of consumer goods!
Secondly, that the law equally applies to all – “without fear or favor”. This
simply means that everybody has exactly the same standing – the same basic
human dignity and the basic human rights – before the law. This is the
cornerstone of the majesty of the law: it bows to no one for consideration of
power and wealth. Precisely, herein hinges the majesty of the law – or this
becomes a joke. Example: Recently, nothing less than a whale in authority and
might wriggled out of the legal net while two small fries were caught!
 Lastly, that the law is interpreted and applied by a legal system that is not
simply working as designed and expected – but categorically working
according to the demands of social justice specially in terms of its distributive
dimension that is provident of public welfare or common goods. And this is
distinctly not the case when those entities and individuals tasked to act
accordingly, either do nothing or act to the contrary. Example: The
dysfunctional justice system in the Country.
Under any of the at least three realities above mentioned, it is quite
incongruous to say it with peace of conscience and conviction of reason the
famous Latin line “Dura lex, sed lex.” – in the concrete Philippine situation.
Therein, the maxim or saying becomes a big bad joke - such as in the following
cases: When jails are full of poor and helpless people. When the so called “Rich
and Famous” are above the law. When someone is altogether immune from
any prosecution for any gross misdeed, any gigantic graft, any colossal
corruption even by making them one big combined or huge composite villainy
– precisely brought to fulfillment by that someone with all the power and
influence to do what is right and just, but does exactly the abominable and
censurable.

3. Cessante Rationale Cessat Ipsa Lex

Where the reason for the existence of a law ceases, the law itself should al
so cease. The maxim means that nocommonlaw rule can survive the reasons on
which it is founded. It needs no statute to change it; it abrogates itself. Ifthe reas
ons on which a law rests are overborne by opposing reasons, which, in the progr
ess of society, gaincontrolling force, the old law, though still good as an abstract
principle, and good in its application to somecircumstances, must cease to ap
ply or to be a controlling principle to the new circumstances.

4. Patria Potesta

(Latin: “power of a father”), in Roman family law, power that the male
head of a family exercised over his children and his more remote descendants
in the male line, whatever their age, as well as over those brought into the family
by adoption. This power meant originally not only that he had control over the
persons of his children, amounting even to a right to inflict capital punishment,
but that he alone had any rights in private law. Thus, acquisitions of a child
became the property of the father. The father might allow a child (as he might a
slave) certain property to treat as his own, but in the eye of the law it continued
to belong to the father.
Patria potestas ceased normally only with the death of the father; but the
father might voluntarily free the child by emancipation, and a daughter ceased
to be under the father’s potestas if upon her marriage she came under her
husband’s manus (q.v.), a corresponding power of husband over wife.

5. Negotiorum Gestio
Negotiorum gestio (Latin for "management of business") is a form of
spontaneous voluntary agency in which an intervenor or intermeddler,
the gestor, acts on behalf and for the benefit of a principal (dominus negotii),
but without the latter's prior consent. The gestor is only entitled to reimbursement
for expenses and not to remuneration, the underlying principle being
that negotiorum gestio is intended as an act of generosity and friendship and
not to allow the gestor to profit from his intermeddling. This form of intervention is
classified as a quasi-contract and found in civil-law jurisdictions and in mixed
systems (e.g. Louisiana, Scots, South African, and Philippine laws).
For example, while you are traveling abroad, a typhoon hits your home
town and the roofing of your house is in danger. To avoid the catastrophic
situation, your neighbour does something urgently necessary. You are the
'principal' and your neighbour here is the 'gestor', the act of which saved your
house is the negotiorum gestio.

6. Res Perit Domino

The thing is lost to the owner. This phrase is used to express that when a
thing is lost or destroyed, it is lost to the person who was the owner of it at the
time. For example, an article is sold; if the seller have perfected the little of the
buyer so that it is his, and it be destroyed, it si the buyer’s loss; but if, on the
contrary, something remains to be done before the little becomes vested in the
buyer, then the loss falls on the seller.

7. Nulla Poena Sine Lege

Nulla poena sine lege (Latin for "no penalty without a

law", Anglicized pronunciation: /nʌlə piːnə saɪniː liːdʒiː/ NUH-lə PEE-nə SY-nee LEE-
jee) is a legal principle, requiring that one cannot be punished for doing
something that is not prohibited by law. This principle is accepted and codified
in modern democratic states as a basic requirement of the rule of law.[1] It has
been described as "one of the most 'widely held value-judgement[s] in the
entire history of human thought'".[2]

8. Salus Populi Est Suprema Lex

Salus populi suprema lex esto (Latin: "The health (welfare, good, salvation,
felicity) of the people should be the supreme law", "Let the good (or safety) of
the people be the supreme (or highest) law",[1] or "The welfare of the people
shall be the supreme law") is a maxim or principle found in Cicero's De
Legibus (book III, part III, sub. VIII).[2]

9. Caveat Emptor

A principle in commerce: without a warranty the buyer takes the risk

Caveat emptor is a reasonable approach for many consumer products.
Caveat emptor (/ˈɛmptɔːr/; from caveat, "may he beware", a subjunctive form
of cavēre, "to beware" + ēmptor, "buyer") is Latin for "Let the buyer
beware".[1] Generally, caveat emptor is the contract law principle that controls
the sale of real property after the date of closing, but may also apply to sales of
other goods. The phrase caveat emptor and its use as a disclaimer of warranties
arise from the fact that buyers typically have less information than the seller
about the good or service they are purchasing. This quality of the situation is
known as 'information asymmetry'. Defects in the good or service may be
hidden from the buyer, and only known to the seller.

10. Solutio Indebiti

INDEBITI SOLUTIO, civil law. The payment to one of what is not due to him. I
f the payment was made by mistake, thecivilians recovered it back by an actio
n called condictio indebiti; with us, such money may be recovered by an action
ofassumpsit.
Solutio indebiti refers to the juridical relation which arises whenever a
person unduly delivers a thing through mistake to another who has no right to
demand it.

If something is received when there is no right to demand it, and it was

unduly delivered through mistake, the obligation to return it arises. (Art. 2154,
CC)

11. Accesorium Siquitor Pricipale

‘Accessorium non ducit sed sequitur suum principale’ is a Latin phrase. It

means ‘an accessory does not draw, but follows its principal.’ An accessory
thing does not lead but follows the principal thing to which it is accessory.