This is a personalized and summarized version of the book (Rabuya) said that this is contrary to the

with personal insights, notes, questions and conclusions. Julius provisions of the Civil Code,
Guzman which states that The Code
shall take effect one year after
Persons & Family Relations Reviewer such publication and not after
Professor: Judge Aguinaldo the circulation.

Civil Code of the Philippines Sources of Civil Code: (S-C-D-F-P-C)

(Republic Act No. 386)
Article 1 This act shall be known as the Civil Code of the
Philippines
Definition of Terms:
Code A collection of laws of the same kind; a
body of legal provisions referring to a
particular branch of law.
Civil Code A collection of laws which regulate the
private relations of the members of civil
society, determining their respective rights
and obligations, with reference to persons,
things and civil actions.
Republic Act No. 386 An act to Ordain and Institute the Civil
Code of the Philippines - The main draft of the Civil Code was
prepared by the Roxas Code Commission, via Executive Order No. 48
of March 1947 by President Manuel Roxas 1.
Dates to Remember:
June 18, 1949 Approved by Congress
August 30, 1950 Effectivity of the Code.
(Note: The effectivity date was
exactly one year after the
Official Gazette publishing the
Code was released for
Circulation. In which the author
a. Spanish Civil Code of 1889
b. The codes, laws, judicial decisions, and work of jurists of other
countries;
c. Doctrines laid down by the Supreme Court
d. Filipino Customs and traditions;
e. Philippine Statutes; and
f. Code Commissions
Article 2 Laws shall take effect after 15 days following the
completion of publication in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulations in the Philippines, unless it is
otherwise provided. (Amended by Executive Order No. 200)
General Rule: A law may provide its own effectivity. If the law is silent
as to its own effectivity, then shall take effect only after 15 days
following its complete publication.
Tanada v. Tuvera
Publication Article 2 of the Civil Code does not preclude the
Requirement requirement of publication in the Official Gazette
even if the law itself provides for the date of its
effectivity since the clear object of the law is to give
general public adequate notice of the various laws
which are to regulate their actions and conduct as
citizens. Furthermore, the publication must be in
full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is
to inform the public of the contents of the laws.

1
Persons & Family Relations by Mel Sta. Maria, page 1

Julius Edward M. Guzman |1

 Where to In the motion of reconsideration of the same case,
Publish: a question arose as to where the publication must
be made. The Court resolved that the publication
must be effected in the Official Gazette and not in
any other medium, pursuant to the Civil Code and
Revised Administrative Code. Hence, Executive
Order No. 200 was passed by President Aquino,
amending Section 2 of the Civil Code, which
states that publication of laws may now either
be in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper
circulation in the Philippines.
unless it is The proviso unless it is otherwise provided
otherwise perforce refers only to a law that has been duly
provide: published pursuant to the basic constitutional
requirements of due process. It only refers to the
date of effectivity and not requirement of
publication itself.
** Municipal Ordinances and Supreme Court Decisions are not
covered by Article 2 or laws under Article 2 of the Civil Code.
Municipal Ordinances are covered by Local Government Code, while
Supreme Court decisions are published in advanced reports and the
SCRA.
Article 3 Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
therewith.
General Rule:
When a law is passed by Congress, duly approved by the President
of the Philippines, properly published and consequently becomes
effective, the public is always put on constructive notice of the laws
existence and effectivity. Therefore, the presumption of knowledge of
laws under Article 3 of the Civil Code is conclusive, in which, everyone
is conclusively presumed to know the law.

Effective When the law provides for its immediate effectivity
Immediate upon approval, it must be interpreted as coming
upon into effect immediately upon its publication.
Approval
Covered by Article 2 of the New Civil Code: (P-E-ARR-M)
General Rule: Laws should refer to all laws and not only to those of
general application.
(a) Presidential Decrees;
(b) Executive Orders;
(c) Administrative Rules and Regulations; (Note: Publication only
required when their purpose is to enforce or implement
existing laws pursuant to a valid delegation and not to internal
rules and regulations.)
(d) Monetary Board Circulars (Note: Required to publish if they
are meant not merely to interpret but to fill in the details of
the Central Bank Act)
Exception to the General Rule:
Article 3 applies only to mandatory and prohibitory laws.
Not Covered by Article 3 of the Civil Code: (F-DPP)
Article 3 applies to all kinds of domestic laws, whether civil or penal,
substantive or remedial but limited to mandatory and prohibitory law.
Below are the following laws not covered by Article 3:
(a) Foreign Laws
(b) Doctrine of Processual Presumption
Doctrine of Processual Presumption: If the foreign law is involved
and its not properly pleaded and proved, the courts will presume that
the foreign law is the same as our local, domestic or internal law.
Ignorance of Law vs. Ignorance of Fact
Theres a difference between Ignorance of Law and Ignorance of Law,
in which the ignorance of law is no excuse, ignorance of fact may
excuse a party from the legal consequences of his conduct.

Julius Edward M. Guzman |2

Article 4 Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the Permissive or Directory Law The law commands that what it
contrary is provided. permits to be done should be
tolerated or respected.
Retroactive Law one intended to affect transactions which
occurred, or rights which accrued, before it became operative, and General Rule:
which ascribes to them effects not inherent in their nature, in view of Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws
the law in force at the time of their occurrence. are void.

General Rule: Laws shall have prospective effect unless the contrary Exception to the rule:
is expressly provided. Lex Prospicit, non respicit (a) When the law itself authorizes its validity.
(b) When the law act valid, but punishes the violator.
Exception to the General rule: (L-P-PL-P-C-R) (c) Where the law merely makes the act voidable, that is, valid
(a) Law itself provides retroactivity; unless annulled.
Exception to the exception: (d) Where the law declares the act is void, but recognizes effects
a. Ex-Post Facto Law: One that would make a previous as arising from it.
act criminal although it was not so at the time it was
committed. Article 6 Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to
i. Requirements: law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or
1. Refer to criminal matter. prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
2. Retroactive in its application
3. Prejudicial to the accused. Definition of Terms:
b. Non-impairment of Obligations of Contracts Political Rights Referring to the participation of persons in the
(b) Penal laws favorable to the accused government of the State.
(c) Procedural or Remedial Laws Civil Rights Rights of personality (sometimes called Human
(d) Curative Laws Rights), family rights and patrimonial rights.
(e) A law that creates new substantive rights. (Note: Rights to personality and family rights
are not subject to waiver; but patrimonial rights
can generally be waived)
Article 5 Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or
Real Rights Or the power belonging to a person over a
prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself specific thing, without a passive subject,
authorizes their validity. individually determined against whom, such
right may be personally exercised; it is
Definition of Terms: enforceable against the whole world.
Mandatory The law commands that Personal Right The power belonging to one person to demand
something to be done. of another, as a definite passive subject, the
Prohibitory The law commands that fulfillment of a prestation to give, to do or not to
something should not be done. do.

Julius Edward M. Guzman |3

 Waiver A voluntary and intentional relinquishment or
abandonment of a known existing legal right,
advantage, benefit, claim or privilege, which
except for such waiver would have enjoyed.
(F.F. Cruz & Co, Inc. v. HR Construction Corp)
Elements of Rights: (S-O-E)
(a) Subject
a. Active Subject entitled to demand the enforcement
of the right.
b. Passive Subject duty-bound to suffer its
enforcement.
(b) Object constitutes things and services
(c) Efficient Cause the fact that gives rise to the legal relation.
Requisites of Valid Waiver
(a) He must actually have the right which he renounces;
(b) He must have knowledge of existence;
(c) He must have the capacity to make the renunciation;
(d) The renunciation must clear and unequivocal manner.
Doctrine of Waiver the principle is recognized that everyone has a
right to waive, and agree to waive, the advantage of a law or rule made
solely for the benefit and protection of the individual in his private
capacity, if it can be dispensed with and relinquished without infringing
on any public right and without detriment to the community at large.
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 declared a law to be inconsistent with the
Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.
2 3
25 RCL 911
Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations shall be
valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the
Constitution.
Repeal of a law is the legislative act of abrogating through a
subsequent law the effects of a previous statute or portions thereof.
Ways of Repealing Laws
1. Implied repeal takes place when a new law contains
provisions contrary or inconsistent with those of former
without expressly repealing them.2 Repeals and amendments
by implications are not favored.3
a. Requisites of Implied Repeal
i. The laws cover the same subject matter.
ii. The latter is repugnant to the earlier. (Note:
the requirement of the repugnancy is that a
subsequent law cannot be construed as
repealing a prior law unless an irreconcilable
and inconsistency and repugnancy exists in
the terms of new and old laws; (1) the two
laws must be absolutely incompatible, and
(2) there must be such a repugnancy
between the laws that they cannot be made
to stand together.)
2. Express repeal is a repeal which is literally declared by new
law, either in specific terms, as where particular laws and
provisions are named and identified and declared to be
repealed or in general terms, as where a provision in a new
law declares all laws and part of laws inconsistent therewith
to be repealed.
Effects of Repeal or Repealing Law
Express Repeal When a law which expressly repeals a
prior law is itself repealed, the law first repealed shall not be
revived unless expressly so provided.
Quimsing v. Lachica, 2 SCRA 182
Julius Edward M. Guzman |4
 Implied Repeal When a law which impliedly repeals a prior
law is itself repealed, the prior law shall be revived, unless the
repealing law provides otherwise.
General Law vs. Special Law
General Rule: When there is a conflict between a general law and a
special statue, the special statute should prevail since it evinces the
legislative intent more clearly than the general statute.
Special Law it is to be taken as an exception to the general law in
the absence of special circumstances forcing a contrary conclusion. It
is well settled rule that a special statute, provided for a particular case
or class of cases, is not repealed by a subsequent statute, general in
its terms, provisions and application, unless the intent to repeal or alter
is manifest, although the terms of the general law are broad enough
to include the cases embraces in the special law.
(a) General Law Enacted Prior to Special Law the general
law in general remains good law and there is no repeal, except
insofar as the exception or special law is concerned.
(b) General Law Enacted After Special Law The special law
remains, unless:
1. There is an express declaration to the contrary;
2. There is a clear necessary and irreconcilable conflict;
or
3. Unless the subsequent general law covers the whole
subject and is clearly intended to replace the special
law on the matter.
Unconstitutional Statutes
The Constitution is the supreme, organic and fundamental law
of the land, in which that no ordinary statute can override a
constitutional provisions.4
4 6
Floresca v. Philex Mining Corporation, 136 SCRA 136
5
728 SCRA 1 (2014)
The power to declare a law unconstitutional, is the Supreme
Court. The Supreme Court may declare an act of the national
legislature void, because it is in conflict with the fundamental
law.
When the Supreme Court passes judgment upon the
constitutionality of a statute or an administrative action, the
Court is exercising the power of Judicial Review.
Effects of Declaration of Unconstitutionality
The unconstitutional act confers no rights, imposes no duties and
affords no protection.
Doctrine of Operative Fact (Araullo v, Aquino) the doctrine
recognizes the existence of the law or executive act prior to the
determination of its unconstitutionality as an operative fact that
produced consequences that cannot always be erased, ignored or
disregard. In short, it nullifies the void law or executive act but sustain
its effects. It provides an exception to the general rule that a void or
unconstitutional law produces no effect.5
Article 8 Judicial decisions applying or interpreting laws or the
Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the
Philippines.
The courts have the principal function of not only resolving legal
controversies but also of interpreting and construing vague provisions
of law relative to a particular dispute.
Construction is the art or process of discovering and expounding
the meaning and intention of the authors of the ;law with respect to its
application to a given case, where that intention is rendered doubtful,
among others by reason of fthe fact that the given case is not explicitly
provided for in the law.6
Caltex, Inc. v. Palomar, 18 SCRA 247
Julius Edward M. Guzman |5
The Judicial decisions are not law, with regard to the doctrine of
separation of powers, in which the judicial department has no power
to enact laws but it is the obligation of the legislative department to do
so. However, Article 8, provides that the decisions of the Supreme
Court shall form part of the legal system.
Legis interpretatio legis vim obtinet or the interpretation placed
upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law
Supreme Courts interpretation of a statute forms part of the
law as of the date it was originally passed because the Courts
construction merely establishes the legislative intent that the
interpreted law carries into effect.
Doctrine of Stare Decisis When the Court has once laid down a
principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere
to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are
substantially the same.
Doctrine refers to the Supreme Court decisions.
Prospective application of New Doctrines.
Article 9 No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by
reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.
Applying the rule nullem crimen, nulla poena sine lege or
there is no crime when there is no law punishing it)
The judge may not decline to render a judgment, instead, the
judge must dismiss the criminal action.
If the law is silent, or is obscure, insufficient with respect to a particular
controversy, the judge shall apply the custom of the place and in
default thereof, the general principles of law and justice.
Article 10 In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of
laws it is presumed that the law making body intended right and
justice to prevail.
** The rule expressed in Article 10 of the Civil Code is to be applied
only in case of doubt. Thus, dura lex sed lex.
** The Supreme Court has always held that equity, which been
described as justice outside legality, is applied only in the absence
of, and never against, statutory law or judicial rules of procedure.
Article 11 Customs which are contrary to law, public order or
public policy shall not be countenanced.
Article 12 A custom must be proved as a fact, according to the
rules of evidence.
Customs A rule of conduct formed by repetition of acts uniformly
observed as a social rule, legally binding and obligatory.
Requisites in Application of Customs
1. Plurality of acts, or various resolutions of a juridical question
raised repeatedly in life;
2. Uniformity, or identity of acts or various solutions to the
juridical questions;
3. General practice by the great mass of the social group
4. Continued performance of these acts for a long period of time;
5. The practice must not be contrary to law. Morals, or public
order.
Article 13 When the law 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
the number of days which they respectively have.
In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded and the last
day included.
Julius Edward M. Guzman |6
 Computation
Year 12 calendar months (amended by Section 13,
Administrative Code of 1987)
Months 28 or 29 or 30 or 31 (Note: a month designated in
the calendar without regard to the number of days it
may contain.)
Days 24 Hours
Period The first day is excluded while the last day is
included.
Ordinary Contract the agreement of the
parties prevails.
Rules of Court If the last day of the period
falls on a Saturday, a Sunday or legal
holiday in the place where the court sits, the
time shall not run until the next working day.
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.
General Rule: As a rule, criminal law is binding all persons who lives
or sojourn in Philippine Territory. (Principle of Generality)
Exceptions to the Rule:
(a) Treaty Stipulation;
(b) Laws of Preferential application; and
(c) Principles of Public International Law
Article 15 Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the
status, conditions and legal capacity of persons are binding
upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
Nationality Rule Laws relating to family rights & duties, status,
condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of
the Philippines, even though living abroad.
Below are the following status and condition:
Divorce between Filipinos, void:
o Philippine laws doesnt provide absolute divorce of
marriage, hence, the courts cant recognize and grant
it.
o Corpus v Sto. Tomas The Supreme Court held that
the family code only recognizes two types of defective
marriages void & voidable. The non-recognition of
divorce is a manifestation of the respect of the
sanctity of the marital union especially among Filipino
Citizen.
o Tenchavez v. Escano The SC held that for the
Philippines courts to recognize the effect of an
absolute divorce between the Filipino citizens would
be a patent violation of the public policy, in view of the
3rd paragraph of Article 17 of the Civil Code.
Divorce obtained by Foreigners:
o Only Filipinos are covered by Article 15 by policy
against Absolute Divorce.
o However, Aliens may obtain divorce abroad, which
may be recognized by the Philippine courts provided
they are valid to their national laws.
o Van Dorn v. Romillo Jr.- The SC dismissed the alien
divorcees Philippine suit for accounting of alleged
post-divorce conjugal property and rejected his
submission that the foreign divorce is not valid in this
jurisdiction. Pursuant to this national laws, private
respondent is no longer the husband of the petitioner.
He would have no standing to sue in the case at bar.
As he is bound to the decision of his country, wherein
divorce decree is valid and, therefore following Art. 15
of the civil code, he is estopped by his own
representation from asserting his rights over the
alleged conjugal property.
Reckoning point in determining Citizenship:
o Republic of the Philippines v. Orbecido III & Bayot
v. CA - The reckoning point is not the citizenship of
Julius Edward M. Guzman |7
 the divorcing parties at birth or at the time of marriage
but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is
obtained abroad.
Three legal premises to a valid absolute divorce:
o A divorce is obtained abroad by an alien married to a
Filipino national, may be recognized in this country
provided that the divorce decree is valid according to
the national laws of the foreigner
o The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the
parties at birth or marriage, but on the validity of
divorce is obtained abroad.
o An absolute divorce decree between both Filipinos is
contrary to the concept of public policy and morality
and shall not be recognized by the Philippine courts.
Legal standing of Divorced Persons to sue for Adultery:
o Pilapil v. Ibay When a foreigner married to Filipino
and obtain divorce abroad, he is no long the spouse
of the Filipino. Therefore, losing standing to sue
adultery.
Partial Divorce Under Article 26 of Family Code.
o Article 26 of the Family Code, allows the Filipino to
contract a subsequent marriage in case the divorce is
validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating him or her to remarry.
o This law only applies when it is the foreign spouse
who obtains the divorce decree and not the Filipino.
Legal Capacity
o Laws relating to the legal capacity are binding, upon
citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
While aliens, shall govern to their national laws.
o Insular Government v. Frank
FACTS: The case at bar, Frank is an American citizen
who entered a contract with the Philippine
government, for a period of two years. But he only
served 6 months and therefore, the government sued
for damages. Frank in his defense the contract is void
because he was still a minor. Although, the contract
was entered in Illinois in which in his national law,
Frank was considered as an adult.
ISSUE: W/N Frank is liable for damages?
HELD: The contract is valid because at the time and
place of making the contract (lex loci celebrationis).
Frank was of age and fully capacitated. Therefore,
Frank can be held liable for damages.
o (NOTE: the above mentioned case, the author said,
the court should applied nationality principle following
article 15 of the Civil Code. The author argues that
whether to apply the national law or the law of the
place where the contract was made, is immaterial
since they happen to be the same)
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.
Principle of Lex Ritae All matters, concerning the title and
disposition are determined, which can be alone prescribe the mode by
which a title can pass from one person to another. This general
principles includes all rules governing the descent, alienation and
transfer of immovable conveyances.
Exception to the rule:
(a) The order of succession
(b) Amount of successional rights;
(c) Intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will;
(d) The national law of decedent likewise governs the capacity of
the heir in succeed.
Julius Edward M. Guzman |8
 When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or
Testate Estate of Bohanan v. Bohanan consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign
The Supreme Court held that the testator was a citizen of State of country, the solemnities by Philippine laws shall be observed in
Nevada. Since the laws of the said state allow the testator to dispose their execution.
of all his property according to his will. His testamentary disposition
depriving his wife and children of what should be their legitimes under Principle of Lex Loci Celebrationis
the Philippine Law should be respected and the project partition made The forms and solemnities of
in accordance with his testamentary disposition should be approved. FORMALITIES contracts, wills and other public
OR Lex Loci instruments are governed by
Bellis v. Bellis EXTRINSIC Celebrationis the laws of the country in which
The Supreme Court held that the illegitimate children are not entitled VALIDITY they are executed. (Par. 1,
to their legitimes under Texas Laws. Renvoi Doctrine cannot be Article 2 of the Civil Code)
applied, the doctrine is usually pertinent where the decedent is The intrinsic validity of a
Lex
contract is governed by the
national of his country and a domiciliary of another. A provision in a Contractus
proper law of the contracts.
foreigners will to the effect that his properties shall be distributed with INTRINSIC
The law of the place voluntarily
Philippine law and not with his national laws is illegal and void for his VALIDITY OF Lex Loci
agreed upon by the contracting
national laws. CONTRACTS Voluntatis
parties.
Lex Loci The law of the place intended
Renvoi Doctrine The problem arises when there is doubt as to Intentionis by them expressly or impliedly.
whether a reference to a foreign law is a reference to the internal law INTRINSIC The intrinsic validity of the provisions of a will,
of said foreign law; or a reference to the whole of the foreign law, VALIDITY OF shall be governed by the national law of the
including its conflict rules. WILLS decedent.
ACTS
When the acts referred in the first par. Of Article
EXECUTED
17 of the Civil Code are executed before the
In the Matter of the Testate Estate of the Deceased Edward E. BEFORE
diplomatic or consular officials of the Philippines
Christensen DIPLOMATIC
in a foreign country, the solemnities established
The SC held that since the conflicts rule of California refers back to AND
by Philippine laws shall be observed in their
CONSULAR
the matter of the Philippines (the place of domicile), the courts have execution.
OFFICIALS
no alternative but to accept the referring back to the Philippine courts.
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or
If the courts will to do otherwise throw back the matter to California,
property and those which for their object public
the problem would be tossed back and forth between states PROHIBITIVE order, public policy, and good customs shall not
concerned. LAWS be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments or
by determination or conventions agreed upon in
Article 17 The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills and a foreign country.
other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the
country in which they are executed.

Julius Edward M. Guzman |9

Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem (Doctrine of Processual Presumption)
The SC held that even if the laws of the Netherlands neither enforce
a parents obligation to support his child nor penalize the
noncompliance therewith, such obligations is still duly enforceable
because it would be of great injustice to the child to be denied of
financial support when the latter is entitled.
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.
The provisions of the Civil Code are applicable to matters governed
by the Code of Commerce and special laws in a suppletory character.
Hence, where there is no deficiency in the special law or Code of
Commerce, the provisions of the Civil Code cannot be applied.
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.
Article 20 Every person, who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter
for the same.
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 the latter for the damage.
Principle of Damnum Absque Injuria
Damage resulting from the legitimate exercise of a persons
right is a loss without injury (damnum absque injuria), for
which the law gives no remedy. In other words, one who
merely exercise ones rights does no actionable injury and
cannot be held liable for damages.
However, the principle does not apply when there is an abuse
of persons rights or when the exercise of this right is
suspended or extinguished to a court order.
Amonoy v. Gutierrez
Facts: Petitioner commenced the demolition of respondents house
on May 30, 1986 under the authority of a Writ of Demolition by the
RTC. A TRO was issued by the Supreme Court on June 2, 1986.
However, the petitioner did not heed the TRO and pursued the
demolition of respondents house.
Issue: W/N the petitioners demolition is valid despite the SC issued
TRO?
Held: The continuation of demolition after the issuance of the TRO,
amounted to an insidious abuse of rights. Hence, his actions were
tainted with bad faith. Furthermore, his acts constituted not only an
abuse of a right, but also an invalid exercise of a right that had been
suspended when he received the TRO. Therefore, the SC held that
the petitioner cannot invoke damnum absque injuria, a principle
premised on the valid exercise of a right.
Pro Line Sports Center, Inc. v. Court of Appeals
Facts: The merger with AG Spalding Bros, Inc. and Questor, became
the owner of the trademark spalding. Its exclusive distributor in the
Philippines is Pro Line Sports, Inc. Pro Line, filed a complaint against
Universal, for the alleged manufacturer of fake spalding balls. Due
to the search and investigation conducted by NBI wherein, they found
basketballs and volleyballs marked in spalding in the premises of
Universal, Pro Line and Questor filed a criminal complaint for unfair
competition against the Universal and the president. It was eventually
dismissed. Upon the dismissal, Universal filed a civil case against the
petitioner for the alleged filing an unfounded suit.
Issue: WON Sehwani and UNIVERSAL are entitled to recover
damages for the alleged filing an unfounded suit?
Held: The SC held that to hold that Pro Line as the authorized agent
of QUESTOR exercised sound judgment in taking the necessary legal
steps to safeguard the interest of its principal with respect to the
trademark in question. If the process resulted in the closure and
Julius Edward M. Guzman |10
padlocking of UNIVERSALs factory and the cessation of its business
operations, these were unavoidable consequences of petitioners valid
and lawful exercise of their right. One who makes use of his own right
does no injury.
Albenson Enterprise Corp. v. Court of Appeals
Facts: Albenson Ent. delivered mild steel plates to Guaranteed
Industries Inc. A Pacific Banking Corporation Check was paid and
drawn against the account of EL Woodworks. Check was later
dishonored for the reason Account Closed. Company traced source
of check and later discovered that the signature belonged to one
Eugenio Baltao. Albenson made an extrajudical demand upon Baltao
but latter denied that he issued the check. Company filed a complaint
against Baltao for violation of BP 22. It was later discovered that
private respondent had son: Eugene Baltao III, who manages the
business establishment, EL Woodworks. No effort from the father to
inform Albenson of such information. Rather the father filed complaint
for damages against Albenson.
Issue: WON there is indeed cause for the damages against Albenson
Enterprise.
Held: Based on Art 19, 20, 21 of the civil code, petitioners didnt have
the intent to cause damage to the respondent or enrich themselves
but just to collect what was due to them. There was no abuse of right
on the part of Albenson on accusing Baltao of BP 22. There was no
malicious prosecution on the part of Albenson: there must be proof
that:
the prosecution was prompted by a sinister design to vex
and humiliate a person and
that damages was initiated deliberately by defendant
knowing that his charges were false and groundless
Garciano v. Court of Appeals
The SC held with respect to Garcianos claim for moral damages, the
right to recover them under Article 21 is based on equity, and he who
comes to court to demand equity, must come with clean hands.
Hence, Article 21 should be construed as granting the right to recover
damages to injured persons who are not themselves at fault. In the
case at bar, Garciano is not without fault. Firstly, she went on indefinite
leave of absence and failed to report back in time for the regular
opening of classes. Secondly, for reasons known to herself alone, she
refused to sign a written contract of employment. Lastly, she ignored
the Board of Directors order for her to report on July 5, 1982.
Principle of Abuse of Rights
The principle of Abuse of Rights stated in Article 19 of the Civil Code,
departs from the classical theory that he who uses a right injures no
one. This is to grant indemnity for damages in cases where there is
an abuse of rights, even when the act is not illicit.
Elements of Abuse of Rights:
1. There is a legal right or duty;
2. Exercised in bad faith; and
3. Sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
Velayo v. Shell Co. Of the Philippines
Facts: The Commercial Air Lines, Inc. was on the verge of bankruptcy
and met all with his creditors. It was agreed that the asset of the
petitioner would be sold and proceeds distributed to the creditors.
Afterwards, Shell Co. made a telegraphic assignment of its credit to a
sister company in US, which secured attachment and sale of CALIs
plane, which the proceeds were claimed to the satisfaction of its credit.
Issue: WON Shell Co. Philippines be made to pay for damages to the
other creditors of CALI?
Held: The SC held that the case at bar squarely within the purview of
the principle of abuse of rights embodied in Art. 19 of the Civil Code.
The article contains essentially a merely declaration of principles, yet
such declaration is implemented by Article 21, a sequent of Article 19,
which declares that 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 the latter damages. Hence, Shell Co. is liable
for damages because it did not show good faith and honesty.
Julius Edward M. Guzman |11
Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. Court of Appeals
Facts: Restituto Tobias, a purchasing agent and administrative
assistant to the engineering operations manager, discovered fictitious
purchases and other fraudulent transactions, which caused Globe
Mackay Cable and Radio Corp loss of several thousands of pesos. He
reported it to his immediate superior Eduardo T. Ferraren and to the
Executive Vice President and General Manager Herbert Hendry. A
day after the report, Hendry told Tobias that he was number one
suspect and ordered him one week forced leave. When Tobias
returned to work after said leave, Hendry called him a crook and a
swindler, ordered him to take a lie detector test, and to submit
specimen of his handwriting, signature and initials for police
investigation. Moreover, petitioners hired a private investigator.
Private investigation was still incomplete; the lie detector tests yielded
negative results; reports from Manila police investigators and from the
Metro Manila Police Chief Document Examiner are in favor of Tobias.
Petitioners filed with the Fiscals Office of Manila a total of six (6)
criminal cases against private respondent Tobias, but were dismissed.
Tobias received a notice of termination of his employment from
petitioners in January 1973, effective December 1972. He sought
employment with the Republic Telephone Company (RETELCO); but
Hendry wrote a letter to RETELCO stating that Tobias was dismissed
by Globe Mackay due to dishonesty. Tobias, then, filed a civil case for
damages anchored on alleged unlawful, malicious, oppressive, and
abusive acts of petitioners. The Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch
IX, rendered judgment in favor of private respondent, ordering them to
pay the private respondent for moral damages.
Issue: WON petitioners are liable for damages.
Held: Yes. The Court has already ruled that the right of the employer
to dismiss an employee should not be confused with the manner in
which the right is exercised and the effects flowing therefrom. If the
dismissal is done abusively, then the employer is liable for damages
to the employee. Under the circumstances of the instant case, the
petitioners clearly failed to exercise in a legitimate manner their right
to dismiss Tobias, giving the latter the right to recover damages under
Article 19 in relation to Article 21 of the Civil Code.
RCPI v. Court of Appeals
Facts: Loreto Dionela received a telegram via the Radio
Communications of the Philippines, Inc. (RCPI). However, at the end
of the telegram were the following:
SA IYO WALANG PAKINABANG DUMATING KA DIYAN WALA
KANG PADALA DITO KAHIT BULBUL MO
The said portion of the telegram was not intended for Loreto. Loreto
sued RCPI for damages based on Article 19 and 20 of the Civil Code.
In its defense, RCPI averred that there was no intention to malign
Loreto and that the attached message was an insider joke between
RCPI employees which was not meant to be attached. RCPI also
disclaimed liability as it insisted it should be held liable for the libelous
acts of its employees.Loreto however averred that the said message
was read by his employees and it affected greatly his business
reputation. The trial court ruled in favor of Loreto. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court.
Issue: Whether or RCPI directly and primarily liable to Dionela for
damages.
Held: The SC held that RCPI was negligent as it failed to take the
necessary or precautionary steps to avoid the occurrence of the
humiliating incident now complained of. The company had not
imposed any safeguard against such eventualities and this void in its
operating procedure does not speak well of its concern for their
clienteles interests. Negligence here is very patent. This negligence
is imputable to appellant and not to its employees. RCPI should be
held liable for the acts of its employees. As a corporation, RCPI acts
and conducts its business through its employees. It cannot now
disclaim liability for the acts of its employees. To hold that the RCPI is
not liable directly for the acts of its employees in the pursuit of its
business is to deprive the general public availing of the services of
RCPI of an effective and adequate remedy.
Breach of Promise to Marry. Generally not Actionable.
The existing rule is that a breach of promise to marry is not an
actionable wrong.
Julius Edward M. Guzman |12
 De Jesus v. Syquia it was held that the history of breach of
promise suits in the US and UK has shown that no other action
lends itself more readily to abuse by designing women and
unscrupulous men.
Tanjanco v. Court of Appeals
Facts: From December 1957, the petitioner courted Araceli Santos,
both are adult age. The petitioner professed his undying love and
affection to Santos who also fell in love with him. With that, the
petitioner promise Santos of marriage, with her consent which
acceded to petitioners carnal knowledge. As a result, Santos
conceived a child. Santos had to resign her job and thereafter, she
became unable to support herself and her baby. Because of
Tanjancos refusal to marry Santos, the latter filed a complaint against
the former for recovery of damages.
Issue: WON Santos is entitled to damages.
Held: No. Plainly there is voluntariness and mutual passion. The facts
stand out that for one whole year, from 1958 to 1959, Araceli, a woman
of adult age, maintained intimate sexual relations with Apolonio, with
repeated acts of intercourse. Such conduct is incompatible with the
idea of seduction. Hence, the courts conclude that no case is made
under Art. 21 of the Civil Code and no other cause of action being
alleged..
Constantino v. Mendez
Facts: Amelita Constantino, petitioner, was a waitress at Tonys
Restaurant where she met Ivan Mendez, respondent. On that first
meeting, Ivan invited Amelita to have dinner with him at Hotel Enrico
where the former has stayed. While eating dinner, Ivan confessed his
love to Amelita through a promise of marriage and then they had
sexual intercourse. However, after the act, Ivan confessed that he is
already married to someone else. Despite the fact that Ivan is already
married, they had repeated their sexual contact whenever Ivan is in
Manila which resulted to peitioners pregnancy. Consequently, Amelita
appealed for help and support from Ivan, but failed. She then filed for
the recognition of the unborn child and payment for damages.
However, Ivan rebutted by the petition of the dismissal of the complaint
for lack of cause of action. RTC ruled in favor of Amelita, respondent
petition the complaint CA that RTC erred in its ruling. CA favored the
respondent and dismissed the complaint of petitioner.
Issue: WON the petitioner is entitled to claim damages based on
Articles 19 and 21 of Civil Code.
Held: No. In the case at bar petitioner was already 28 years old and
she admitted that she was attracted to respondent. Petitioners
attraction to respondent is the reason why she surrendered her
womanhood. Had petitioner been induced or deceived because of a
promise of marriage, she could have immediately ended her relation
with respondent when she knew that respondent was a married man
after their first sexual contact. Her declaration that they repeated their
sexual intercourse only indicates that passion and not the alleged
promise of marriage was the moving force that made her submit
herself to respondent. The Supreme Court said Damages could only
be awarded if sexual intercourse is not a product of voluntariness and
mutual desire therefore petitioner is not entitled to claim for damages
based on articles 19 & 21.
Breach of Promise to Marry, When Actionable
The SC held that Alfonso is liable for
damages. In the case at bar, the
circumstances under which defendant
tried to win Lolitas affection cannot lead
to any other conclusion than that it was he
who, thru an ingenious scheme or
1. If there
trickery, seduced the latter to the extent of
is Deceit Pe v. Pe
making her fall in love with him. Indeed,
or Fraud
no other conclusion can be drawn from
this chain of events than that defendant
not only deliberately, but through a clever
strategy, succeeded in winning the
affection and love of Lolita to the extent of
having illicit relations with her. The wrong
Julius Edward M. Guzman |13
 he has caused her and her family is
indeed immeasurable considering the fact
that he is a married man. Verily, he has
committed and injury to Lolitas family in a
manner contrary to morals, good customs
and public policy as contemplated in
Article 21 of the New Civil Code.
The Supreme Court held that Breach of
promise to marry is not an actionable
wrong per se. In this case, it is the deceit
and fraud employed by Gashem that
constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the
Civil Code. His promise of marrying
Marilou was a deceitful scheme to lure her
into sexual congress. As found by the trial
court, Marilou was not a woman of loose
2. If
morals. She was a virgin before she met
expenses
Gashem. She would not have
Are
surrendered herself to Gashem had
Actually
Gashem not promised to marry her.
Incurred
Gashem Gashems blatant disregard of Filipino
Shookat traditions on marriage and on the
Baksh v. reputation of Filipinas is contrary to
Court of morals, good customs, and public policy.
Appeals As a foreigner who is enjoying the
hospitality of our country and even taking
advantage of the opportunity to study
here he is expected to respect our
traditions. Any act contrary will render him
liable under Article 21 of the Civil Code.
The Supreme Court also elucidated that
3. When
Article 21 was meant to expand the
Woman
concepts of torts and quasi delict. It is
Was
meant to cover situations such as this
Forcibly
case where the breach complained of is
Abducted
not strictly covered by existing laws. It
and
was meant as a legal remedy for the
Raped
untold number of moral wrongs which is
impossible for human foresight to
specifically enumerate and punish in the
statute books such as the absence of a
law penalizing a the breach of promise to
marry.
The Supreme Court held that in this case,
it was not a simple breach of promise to
marry. Because of such promise,
Wassmer made preparations for the
wedding. Velezs unreasonable
withdrawal from the wedding is contrary
to morals, good customs or public policy.
Wassmers cause of action is supported
under Article 21 of the Civil Code which
provides in part any person who wilfully
causes loss or injury to another in a
manner that is contrary to morals, good
Wassmer customs or public policy shall
v. Velez compensate the latter for the damage.
And under the law, any violation of Article
21 entitles the injured party to receive an
award for moral damages as properly
awarded by the lower court in this case.
Further, the award of exemplary damages
is also proper. Here, the circumstances of
this case show that Velez, in breaching
his promise to Wassmer, acted in wanton,
reckless, and oppressive manner this
warrants the imposition of exemplary
damages against him.
Under the circumstances obtaining in the
case at bar, the acts of petitioner in
Bunag Jr forcibly abducting private respondent and
v. Court having carnal knowledge with her against
of her will, and thereafter promising to marry
Appeals her in order to escape criminal liability,
only to thereafter renege on such promise
after cohabiting with her for twenty-one
Julius Edward M. Guzman |14
 days, irremissibly constitute acts contrary
to morals and good customs. The SC held
that these are grossly insensate and
reprehensible transgressions which
indisputably warrant and abundantly
justify the award of moral and exemplary
damages, pursuant to Article 21 in
relation to paragraphs 3 and 10, Article
2219, and Article 2229 and 2234 of Civil
Code.
Malicious Actions An action for damages arising from malicious
prosecution is anchored in Article 21, 2217 and 2219 (8) of the Civil
Code. Hence, one cannot be held liable in damages for maliciously
instituting a prosecution where he acted with probable cause. Malice
and want of probable cause must both exist in order to justify a suit for
malicious prosecution.
Requisites of Malicious Prosecution
(a) The fact of the prosecution and the further fact that the
defendant himself was the prosecutor;
(b) In bringing the action the prosecutor acted without probable
cause; and
(c) That the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice
that is improper or sinister motive.
Article 22 Every person who through an act or 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.
Article 23 Even when an act or event causing damage to
anothers 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.
Unjust Enrichment - exists when a persons unjustly retains a benefit
to the loss of another, or when a person unjustly retains a benefit to
the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of
another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good
conscience.
There is unjust enrichment when:
(a) A person is unjustly benefited; and
(b) Such benefit is derived at the expense or with damages to
another.
Accion in Rem Verso - An action for recovery of what has been paid
or delivered without just cause or legal ground.
Requisites of Action In Rem Verso:
(a) The defendant has been enriched;
(b) The plaintiff has suffered a loss;
(c) The enrichment of the defendant is without just or legal
ground; and
(d) The plaintiff has no other action based on contract, quasi-
contract, crime or quasi-delict.
Obana v. Court of Appeals
The SC held that no person should be benefited without a valid basis
or justification, shall enrich himself at the expense of another and hold
on to a property no longer belonging to him.
Liability Without Fault or Negligence:
The Civil Code under Article 23, recognizes liability without fault or
negligence, even when the event producing loss to others may be
accidental or fortuitous, so long as he another person is benefited
through such event or act.
Basis of Liability under Article 23
What constitutes in Articles 23 is an involuntary act or an act which
though foreseen could not have been avoid. An involuntary act, cannot
generally create an obligation; but when by such act its author has
been enriched, it is only just that he should indemnify for the damages
caused to the extent of his enrichment.
Julius Edward M. Guzman |15
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.
Article 25 Thoughtless extravagance in expense 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 institutions.
Article 24 (Courts Duty of Protecting the Disadvantage)
The provision calls on the court to be vigilant in the protection
of the rights of those who are disadvantaged. Its
supplemented by Article 1332 of the Civil Code.
The legislative intent is to protect both those who are found
weak and uneducated who may have been taken advantage
by unscrupulous persons or those who may have used undue
influence in entering into agreements.
Rongavilla v. Court of Appeals
The Supreme Court declared that the public policy is also well served
in defending the rights of the aged to legal protection, including their
right to property that is their home, as against fraud,
misrepresentation, chicanery and abuse of trust and confidence by
those owed them candor and respect.
Thoughtless Extravagance under Article 25:
(a) There must be an acute public want or emergency; and
(b) The person seeking to stop it must be a government or private
charitable institution.
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 offense, 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 to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious
beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or
other personal condition.
Concepcion v. Court of Appeals
Philosophy behind Article 26:
The philosophy behind Article 26, underscores the necessity for its
inclusion in our civil law. The sacredness of human personality is a
concomitant consideration of every plan for human amelioration.
Under this article, the rights of persons are amply protected and
damages are provided for violations of a persons dignity, personality,
privacy and peace of mind.
Enumerations under Article 26 are Not Exclusive;
The violations mentioned in Article 26 are not exclusive but are merely
examples and do not preclude other similar or analogous acts.
Art. 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a
public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just
cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages
and other relief against he latter, without prejudice to any
disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.
Art. 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or
industrial enterprises or in labor through the use of force,
intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive
or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the
person who thereby suffers damage.
Julius Edward M. Guzman |16
Article 27, General Rule: A public officer whether judicial, quasi-
judicial or executive is not personally liable to one injured in
consequence of an act performed within the scope of his official
authority and in line of his official duty.
Exception to the rule: However, any person suffering material or
moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects
without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for
damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any
disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.
The scope of Article 27: Limited to refusal or neglect to perform
official duties.
Requisites of Action under Article 27:
(a) That the defendant be a public official charged with the
performance of official duties;
(b) That there be a violation of an official duty in favor of an
individual;
(c) That there be willfulness or negligence in the violation of such
official duty; and
(d) That there be an injury to the individual.
** Article 27 presupposes that the refusal or omission of a public
official is attributable to malice or inexcusable negligence.
Ledesma v. Court of Appeals:
Facts: Violeta Delmo who was supposed to graduate magna cum
luade was not allowed to do so because of her act of lending money
to members of organization of which she was a member. According to
the school authorities, that act was against school rules and
regulations. Thus, the President of the state college did, despite her
qualifications and the Bureau of Public Schools instruction not to
deprive her of the honors due to her, but just the same, she was
graduated as a plain student. The Supreme Court said that she went
through a painful ordeal brought about by the Presidents neglect of
duty and callousness. Hence, moral damages and exemplary damage
were proper. The basis of the decision was article 27, NCC, where a
person suffering material or moral loss because a public employee
refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may
file an action of damages and other relief again the latter.
Issue: WON the school is liable for damages.
Held: The President of the state college was held liable for damages
under Article 27 of the Civil Code for failure to graduate a student with
honors on account of said officials neglect of duty and callousness.
Furthermore, Delmo went through a painful ordeal, thus, moral and
exemplary damages under Article 27 of the Civil are but proper.
Unfair Competition Article 28 provides Unfair competition in
agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through
the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust,
oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by
the person who thereby suffers damage.
It is clear that what is being sought to be prevented is not
competition per se but the use of unjust, oppressive or right-
handed methods or to earn a living. Plainly, what the law
prohibits is unfair completion and not competition where the
means used are fair and legitimate.
Requisites of Unfair Competition:
(a) It must involve an injury to a competitor or trade rival;
(b) It must involve acts which are characterized as contrary to
good conscience or shocking to judicial sensibilities or
otherwise unlawful; these include force, intimidation, deceit,
machination or any other unjust, oppressive or high-handed
method.
Willaware Products Corporation v. Jesichris Manufacturing Corp.
Facts: Article 28 of the Civil Code provides that "unfair competition in
agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor through
the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust,
oppressive or high-handed method shall give rise to a right of action
Julius Edward M. Guzman |17
by the person who thereby suffers damage." From the foregoing, it is
clear that what is being sought to be prevented is not competition per
se but the use of unjust, oppressive or high handed methods which
may deprive others of a fair chance to engage in business or to earn
a living. Plainly,what the law prohibits is unfair competition and not
competition where the means use dare fair and legitimate.
Article. 29 - When the accused in a criminal prosecution is
acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved
beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same
act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a
preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the
court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for
damages in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon
reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of
any declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of
the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.
General Rule: Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly
liable.
Since a person criminally liable is also civilly liable, does his
acquittal in a criminal case mean extinction of his civil liability?
Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the
civil liability of the accused based on delict.
(a) Not Author of Act or Omission: Acquittal on the ground that
the accused is not the author of the act or omission
complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability,
for a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of
any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for
such act or omission.
(b) Reasonable Doubt: Even if the guilt of the accused has not
been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil
liability based on delict which may be proved by
preponderance of evidence only.
Intent of Article 29
The reasons for the provisions of Article 29 which provides
that the acquittal of the accused on the ground that his guilt
has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt does not
necessarily exempt him from civil liability for the same act or
omission.
Article 29, presupposes;
(a) The private offended party opted to recover his damages on
the basis of the offenders civil liability arising from the crime
he committed under Article 100 of the RPC;
(b) He also opted to institute his civil action based thereon,
expressly or impliedly with the criminal action;
(c) The accused was acquitting in the criminal action on
reasonable doubt as to his guilt; and
(d) The said ground of acquittal was declared by the court in its
judgment or is clearly inferable from the text thereof.
Padilla v. Court of Appeals (No need for Separation Action)
The SC held that there are no reasons to require a separate civil action
to still be filed considering that to be proved in the civil case have
already been established in the criminal proceedings where the
accused is acquitted. Due process has been accorded the accused. A
separate civil action may be warranted where additional facts have to
be established or more evidence must be adduced or where the
criminal has been fully terminated and a separate complaint would be
just as efficacious or even more expedient than a timely remand to the
trial court where the criminal action was decided for further hearings
on the civil aspects of the case.
Article 30 - When a separate civil action is brought to demand
civil liability arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal
proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil case,
a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove
the act complained of.
Julius Edward M. Guzman |18
Article 31 - When the civil action is based on an obligation not
arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such
civil action may proceed independently of the criminal
proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
Rule of Implied Institution: When a criminal action is instituted, the
civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense
charged shall be deemed instituted with the criminal action unless the
offended party waives the civil action, reserves the right to institute it
separately or institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
When Civil Action is Reserved: The reservation of the right to
institute separately the civil actions shall be made before the
prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances
affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such
reservation.
When Civil Action is Instituted Prior to Criminal Action: If the
criminal action is instituted after the said civil actions has already been
institute, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be
found before judgment on the merits. (Note: the suspension shall last
until final judgment is rendered in the criminal action)
When Civil Action is Instituted, But No Criminal Action: When a
separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a
criminal offense and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the
pendency of the civil case, preponderance of evidence shall be
sufficient to prove the act complained of.
Article 31: According to Justice Capistrano, the provision does not
provide for an independent action. An independent civil action is an
action that is based upon the same criminal act as in the case of
Articles 32, 33 and 34. When the civil action not arising from the act
or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action being based
upon an obligation not arising from the criminal act but from a different
source is not an independent civil action.
Quasi-delict as Separate Source of Obligation: A quasi-delict is a
separate legal institution under the civil code with a substantivity all its
own and individuality that is entirely apart and independent from delict
or crime.
Tayag v. Alacantara (Acquittal of Accused, Irrelevant in Quasi-
Delict)
It was held that a separate civil action lies against the offender in a
criminal act, whether or not he is criminally prosecuted and found
guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if
he is actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both
scores and would be entitled in such eventuality. Exclusivity of the civil
liability founded on Article 100 of RPC, while the civil liability for the
same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not
extinguished even by a declaration in criminal case that the criminal
charged has not happened or has not been committed by accused.
Same Negligent Act May Produce Two Kinds of Civil Liabilities:
The same negligent act causing damages may produce a civil liability
arising from Article 100 of the RPC or creates an action for quasi-
delict. The former is a violation of the criminal law, while the latter is a
distinct and independent negligence, having always had its own
foundation and individuality.
Quasi-Delict Covers Acts Criminal In Character: Article 2176
whenever it refers to fault or negligence, covers not only acts not
punished by law but also acts criminal in character, whether intentional
and voluntary or negligent.
Article 32 - Any public officer or employee, or any private
individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates
or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights
and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for
damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
Julius Edward M. Guzman |19
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical
publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process
of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is
taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one's person, house, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies
for purposes not contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the
government for redress of grievances;
(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel,
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face
to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witness in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one's
self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced
by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession,
except when the person confessing becomes a State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual
punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in
accordance with a statute which has not been judicially declared
unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the
defendant's act or omission constitutes a criminal offense, the
aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and
distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution
(if the latter be instituted), and mat be proved by a preponderance
of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages
may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a
judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the
Penal Code or other penal statute.
Article 33 - In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a
civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the
criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution,
and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
Art. 35 - When a member of a city or municipal police force
refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case
of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily
liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be
subsidiarily responsible therefor. The civil action herein
recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings,
and a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such
action.
Independent Civil Actions: In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33
,34 and 2176 of the Civil Code, an independent civil action may be
brought by the offended party. It shall proceed independently of the
criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
Civil Damages for violation of Constitutional Liberties under
Article 32: Article 32 is an implementation of the civil rights
guaranteed under the Philippine Constitution. It was reported by the
commission:
Julius Edward M. Guzman |20
 (a) In most cases, the threat to freedom orginates from abuses of
power by government officials and peace officers.
(b) Even when the prosecuting attorney filed a criminal action, the
requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt often
prevented the appropriate punishment;
(c) Direct and open violation of the Penal Code trampling upon
the freedoms named are not so frequent as those subtle,
clever, and indirect ways which do not come within the pale of
the penal laws.
When Public Officer Personally Liable: An individual can hold a
public officer personally liable for damages on account of an act or
omission that violates a constitutional right only if it results in a
particular wrong or injury to the former.
According to Vinzons-Chato v. Fortune, there are two kinds of Duties
to the Public officers: (a) the duty owing to the public collectively; and
(2) the duty owing to particular individuals.
In determining whether a public officer is liable for an improper
performance or non-performance of duty, it must be first determined
which of the two classes of duties is involved. Thus, the liability of a
public officer to an individual or the public is based upon and is co-
extensive with his duty to the individual or the public. If to the one or
there he owes no duty, to that one he can incur no liability.
Good Faith, Not A Defense: It is not necessary that the defendant
under Article 32, should have acted with malice or bad faith. To make
such requisite would defeat the main purpose of said article, which is
effective protection of individual rights. The object of the article is to
put an end to official abuse by the plea of good faith.
Article 33 To hold a person liable for damages under Article 33, only
a preponderance of evidence is required. An acquittal in a criminal
case is not a bar to the filing of an action for civil damages, for one
may not be criminally liable and still be civilly liable. The article
contemplates a civil action for recovery of damages that is entirely
unrelated to the purely criminal aspect of the case.
Civil Action Allowed to Be Instituted is Ex-Delicto: The underlying
purpose of the principle is to allow the citizen to enforce his rights in
private action brought by him, regardless of the action of the State
attorney.
Term Physical Injuries: In Carandang v. Santiago, The word
physical injuries should be understood to mean bodily injury, not the
crime of physical injuries, because the terms used with the latter are
general terms.
Criminal Negligence, Included in Article 33: In Corpus v. Paje, the
Supreme Court held that criminal negligence, is reckless imprudence
is not one of the three crimes mention in Article 33. While in Madeja
v. Caro, the Supreme Court held that Corpuz is not authoritative. It
was ruled that the civil action may proceed independently of the
criminal proceeding even if the crime charged is homicide through
reckless imprudence.
Art. 35 - When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal
offense, charges another with the same, for which no
independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special
law, but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to
believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting
attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the
complaint may bring a civil action for damages against the
alleged offender. Such civil action may be supported by a
preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant's motion, the
court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the
defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.
If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should
be presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall
be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings.
Julius Edward M. Guzman |21
Art. 36 - Pre-judicial questions which must be decided before any
criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed, shall be
governed by rules of court which the Supreme Court shall
promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the provisions
of this Code.
Doctrine of Prejudicial Question: defined to be one which arises in
a case, the resolution of which question is logical antecedent of the
issue involved in said case. A prejudicial question usually comes into
play in a situation where a civil action and criminal action both pend
and there exists in the former an issue which must be preemptively
resolved before the criminal action may proceed, because howsoever
the issue raised in the civil action is resolved would be determinative
juris et de jure of the guilt or innocence of the accused in criminal case.
Elements of Prejudicial Question:
(a) The previously instituted civil action involves an issue similarly
or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent
criminal action; and
(b) The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the
criminal action may proceed.
(Note: the issue in the civil action that is prejudicial to the continuation
of criminal action and not vice-versa)
Suspension of Proceedings: A petition for suspension of the
criminal action based upon the pendency of a prejudicial question in a
civil action may be filed in the office of the prosecutor or the court
conducting the preliminary investigation. The rule authorizes only the
suspension of the criminal action and not its dismissal by reasons of
prejudicial question.
When Cases Involved are Civil and Administrative: In Ocampo v.
Buenaventura, it was held that doctrine of prejudicial question is
inapplicable because no criminal case but merely an administrative
and a civil suit were involved. While in Quiambao v. Osorio, since the
actions involved were civil and administrative in character, it was held
that there was no prejudicial question.
Administrative Case, Does Not Constitute Prejudicial Question to
Criminal Prosecution:
In La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. v. Fernandez,
Facts: La Chemise filed with the NBI a letter complaint alleging therein
the acts of unfair competition being committed by Hernandas & Co.
The Court issued the search warrants. Harnandas filed a motion to
quash the search warrants, alleging that trademark used by him was
different from La Chemise Lacostes trademark and that the pendency
of application for the registration of his Trademark renders premature
any criminal or civil action.
Issue: WON the proceedings before the patent office is a prejudicial
question that need to be resolved before the criminal action for unfair
competition may be pursued.
Held: No. The proceedings pending before the Patent Office do not
partake of the nature of a prejudicial question which must first be
definitely resolved. The case which suspends the criminal action must
be a civil case, not a mere administrative case, which is determinative
of the innocence or guilt of the accused. The issue whether a
trademark used is different from anothers trademark is a matter of
defense and will be better resolved in the criminal proceedings before
a court of justice instead of raising it as a preliminary matter in an
administrative proceeding.
Criminal Prosecution Does Not Constitute Question to
Administrative Proceeding for Disbarment or Suspension of a
Lawyer: A criminal prosecution will not constitute prejudicial question
even if the same facts and circumstances are attendant in the
administrative proceedings for the disbarment or suspension of a
member of the bar because administrative cases agains lawyers
belong to a class of their own.
Julius Edward M. Guzman |22