JOAN P.
ROMANO, MBA, REB
DISCUSSIONS:
What is Republic Act 386 – The Civil Code of the Philippines. Let
us go to Article 2 –
When shall Article 2 be applied? If the law is silent as to its
effectivity. It becomes effective after 15 days following the
completion of publication in the Official Gazette or in a
newspaper of general circulation. Don’t use fifteen days after –
that’s wrong.
The law is written. And unless otherwise provided refers to the
date of the effectivity which may either be shortened or lengthen
the requirement under the Article 2 – 15 day period because the
law provides for its own effectivity. Does it take effect
immediately? No. it becomes effective upon the completion of
publication. Because if there is no publication, what happens? The
law does not take effect. The reason – is the Constitutional
guarantee – due process.
What laws must be published? All laws, whether it is of general
application or merely favourable to a certain individual or group.
All laws must seek publication otherwise it will not take effect.
Now, what about Executive Orders? Central Bank Circulars?
Administrative Orders? –If it is punitive in nature even the
Implementing Rules and Regulations.
If it is punitive in character, it must be published. So where shall
publication be made? – Amendment of Article 2, in the OG or
newspaper of general circulation.
What about ordinances? – Ordinances are not laws, so there is no
need to comply for Article 2 of the Civil Code because, this time
when you say it is governed by the Local Government Code or
the LGU that must be law. Whether it must be Sangguniang
Panglungsod, Sangguniang Pangbayan or Sangguniang
Panglalawigan. Decisions of the Supreme Court? No. In relation
to Article 8? – No. Decisions of the court form part of the legal
system of the Philippines, they are not laws. They merely interpret
the law or the Constitution. So it cannot be considered as laws.
Now, let’s go to Article 3 – Ignorance of the law excuses no one
from compliance therewith. What are these laws that we are all
presumed to know? All published laws. Regardless of the nature
of the law? Especially mandatory or prohibitory laws. So what
about foreign laws? No. Foreign laws are considered to be matters
of fact – must be alleged or proved. And how do you prove, in
relation to Article 15? Sections 24 & 25 Rule 132.
So this must be proved as a matter of fact. In relation to that, it
should be in accordance with Rule 132. Otherwise, processual
presumption or presumed-identity approach. What case? Orion
Savings Bank vs Suzuki.
How do laws operate? Prospectively. It looks forward, it does not
look backward. It would prejudice vested rights, creates new
obligations, imposes a new duty or attaches a new disability in
respect to a transaction already past. So these are some of the
reasons (exceptions)
JD 1- MANRESA
Exceptions where one can be given retroactivity. One is Remedial
Law. Why? No vested rights will be prejudiced in the application.
In the case of ATIENZA vs BRILLANTES. Which was given
retroactive application? Article 40 of the Family Code in relation
to Article 256, because no vested right was prejudiced by giving
retroactivity referring to what? Declaration of Nullity of the
Previous Void Marriage for the purpose of contracting
subsequent marriage. So the other exception? Penal Statutes, but
there two requisites that must be present in order to give
retroactive application: These are what: accused is not a habitual
delinquent, and favourable to the accused.
Third, Curative Laws – but these would refer to what only?
Would this be applied to the substance of the law? No. The law
becomes void. It would only refer to what provisions, merely
procedural in nature. What else? Taxation Laws – given
retroactive application. Emergency Laws. Law creating new rights.
Example would be the classification of children under the FC, for
as long as there is recognition, the child is entitled to his rights
under Art 176 – FC rights of the illegitimate children and that is
what? Those who are entitled to his legitime consisting of ½ of
the legitimate child. So in CARLOS vs SANDOVAL, this is
procedural in nature, but is it given retroactive application? No.
This is one exception. This refers to the rules on the declaration
of nullity of marriage or annulment of marriage which is given
prospective application and thus, it cannot govern petitions for
the declaration of nullity of marriage, filed before MARCH 15,
2003. So even if the marriages are covered by the Family Code,
but the petitions relating hereto are filed prior to the effectivity on
rules on the declaration of nullity of marriage, that will not be
covered by the said rules. One of which, if you have remembered
in the case of FUJIKI vs MARINAY, not only by the husband
or by the wife, but that is under the rules. Prior to that, even
NINAL vs BAYADOG, it was the heirs who questioned the
validity of the marriage.
In CAROLINO vs SENGA, anong issue dito? The application
of PD 1638 whereby, one is no longer entitled to receive pensions
by reason of his renunciation of citizenship. Does this apply to
Carolino? No, because, he did not retire under the said PD, he
retired under RA 340. So, it is not given retroactive application.
What did the SC say with regard to the pension benefit? Because,
pension benefits are considered to be proprietary rights that
cannot be taken away without due process of law.
Article 5 – So, this refers to what? What are the exceptions. Acts
executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws
shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity.
That’s no. 1 exception, a perfect example of which Article 41 –
Family Code, referring to Subsequent marriage, where the spouse
present obtaining a decree of presumptive death aside from the
underlying requirements under the law. No. 2 – By making the
invalidity to depend on the will of the injured party, such as
voidable or annullable contracts. Such as annullable or voidable
marriage. Only the aggrieved party may seek annulment and if the
aggrieved party does not seek annulment, then it becomes
ordinary contracts – ratified – in marriage, ratified by free
cohabitation as husband and wife. 3rd exception: Punishing the act

but validating the act – the widow is prohibited to contract
marriage within 300 days but the marriage is valid, it is subjected
to the provisions of the RPC. 4th by invalidating the act but
recognizing the legal effects as flowing from the invalid act. Article
36, as well as Article 53 in relation to Article 54. These marriages
are void from the very beginning but the children who were born
out of those void marriages are legitimate. So those are the
exceptions.
Waiver. What are the requisites in order that there shall be a valid
waiver? The person waiving must actually have the right to
renounce / must have actually in existence. Can you waive future
inheritance? No. Can you waive future support? No. You cannot
waive future support, but you can waive support in arrears.
Second, capacity to make the waiver. Referring to the legal
capacity which must not be – aside from the age? The consent on
the waiver must not be vitiated by any of the vices of the consent.
Third, it must be clear and unequivocal, which was held in the case
of GUY vs CA because that waiver and release only refers to?
Settlement of all – aside from the educational expenses – and all
settlement of claims or whatsoever nature and kind. Fourth, it
must not be contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or
good customs. He has the right to waive but it would prejudice
third persons – Article 1381 (3)- intended to defraud creditors.
And the last, certain formalities must be observed, which is
essentially for validity like express condonation of a debt.
Remember the form, in relation to Article 17? So it refers to
personal or movable, the value that exceeds Php 5,000, but if it is
an immovable. Ano ang sa movable? Ano ang requirements sa
movable for it to be valid? Exceeds Php 5,000 and it must be in
writing, the acceptance must also be in writing. But if we talk
about immovables: the value that exceed Php 5,000 it must be in
a public instrument, and the acceptance must be in a public
instrument.
Example – money, pag money Php 5,000 above. Suppose yung
nangutang sinabihan ng nagpautang, I won the lotto, so you can
have the Php 10,000. That would be in writing to be valid because,
that is an express condonation of a debt. Take note that a
condonation is akin to a donation. So it must comply the
requirements on donation. If one is to be delivered, before I
proceed. If we talk of movables, regardless of the value ha, miski
airplane pa yan or jet, ang iwaive, and then what is only involved
in an immovable is a pigeon’s house. A pigeon’s house is an
immovable. Movables – require only in a private document or
private instrument, Immovables must be in a public instrument.
But what was condoned was the pigeon’s house, for it to be valid,
it must have to be in a public instrument. That’s the irony of it.
Because it(pigeon’s house) is considered to be an immovable. So,
regardless of its value ha.
So, we go to the case of FAMANILA vs CA, there was a valid
waiver, Why? The grounds cited by Mr. Famanila are not the
grounds mention in Article 1391 of the Civil Code where the
contract or a waiver may be annulled only by vitiation of consent,
referring either to – ano ang mga vices of consent? Mistake, fraud,
undue influence, intimidation, violence. What he cited was
physical disability and financial constraints. So these are not the
JOAN P. ROMANO, MBA, REB
JD 1- MANRESA
grounds to annul the waiver, there was really a valid release and
quitclaim cited by Mr. Famanila and the fact it was witnessed by
the Spouse as well as the relative of Mr. Famanila.
In GUY vs CA, aside from the non-compliance with requisite #4
on clear and unequivocal waiver, the other reason given by the
court is that, while parents are allowed to receive in behalf of their
children any form of donation – but in this case, the waiver
requires judicial authorization which was not obtained by the
mother.
In the case of OTAMIAS vs REPUBLIC and the AFP-PGMC,
the deed of assignment that was executed by Otamias prior to his
retirement in AFP was considered to be a valid waiver because
aside from a valid waiver, it involved support for the children who,
under the law, are entitled to receive support from the parents.
There really was a valid waiver. There is no need for the AFP-
PGMC to intervene in the complaint because they are not parties
in interest to the waiver that was signed by Col. Otamias.
Repeal of Laws, so how are laws repealed? By Express or Implied.
Implied repeal – does not necessarily give rise to immediately
repeal of an old law. There must be first what? On the part of the
parties to first harmonize the provisions of the old and the new
law, and it was found that there was complete incompatibility with
the old and the new law, then there it now comes a presumption
of an implied repeal. There’s no problem with the express repeal,
like the provisions of the Family Code, that expressly repealed the
provisions of the Civil Code on marriage. But as a general rule,
implied repeals are not given by the court positive – because, we
should always go for express repeal. But nonetheless, there are
certain laws that are impliedly repealed by another law. So, what if
the a new law, now repeals another law, an the old law, the
repealing law. What would be the effect? A new law repeals the
repealing law? It depends on whether express or implied. If there
is implied repeal – there is revival, unless there is a contrary
provision but if it is an express repeal, there is no revival except if
it is expressly provided for in the repealing code.
So we go to Article 8, on judicial decisions. While judicial decisions
are not laws, they merely serve to interpret the laws and the
constitution and they shall form part a legal system of the
Philippines. They are not laws, because if they are such, then that
would be an encroach on the part of the judiciary to enact laws
which actually is the work of the legislature.