INTRODUCTION

Law is the body of official rules and regulations, generally found in constitutions,
legislation, judicial opinions, and the like, that is used to govern a society and to control
the behaviour of its members, so Law is a formal mechanism of social control.
Legal systems are particular ways of establishing and maintaining social order. Laws
are mainly created in response to certain issues or acts that should be addressed. Due
to changing environment, technology and economy, new laws are promulgated and
present laws are need to be abrogated, previous laws are abandoned and others are
repealed. However, there are promulgated laws which are in conflict with the present
law without expressly abrogating or repealing the latter.
Repeals by implication are not favored, and will not be decreed unless it is manifest that
the legislature so intended. As laws are presumed to be passed with deliberation with
full knowledge of all existing ones on the subject, it is but reasonable to conclude that in
passing a statute it was not intended to interfere with or abrogate any former law
relating to some matter, unless the repugnancy between the two is not only
irreconcilable, but also clear and convincing, and flowing necessarily from the language
used, unless the later act fully embraces the subject matter of the earlier, or unless the
reason for the earlier act is beyond peradventure renewed. Hence, every effort must be
used to make all acts stand and if, by any reasonable construction, they can be
reconciled, the later act will not operate as a repeal of the earlier. (Smith, Bell & Co. vs.
Estate of Maronilla, 41 Phil. 557 (1916).
In a case which contemplates a situation where two existing laws are applicable but are
undoubtedly in conflict with one another, which law should be applied? This study will
discuss two laws in the Family Code with conflicting provisions.
CONTENT
There is an irreconcilable conflict between Article 86(3) which makes the donation
merely revocable at the instance of the donor in case the marriage is annulled and the
done is proven to be in bad faith in contracting the marriage and Article 50 in relation to
Article 43(3) which provides that one of the effects of annulment is that a donation
propter nuptias is considered revoked by operation of law if the done is in bad faith in
contracting the marriage. It should be noted that both provisions do not specify whether
the donor is in good faith.

CONCLUSION

It is true that Article 86(3) came later than Article 50 and the rule in statutory
construction provides that in case of irreconcilable conflict between two statutes, the
latter statute prevails. But it must be noted that does not apply where the earlier
provision conforms to the obvious policy and intent of the legislature.
It is more keeping with the spirit of the law to consider any donation propter nuptias as
revoked by operation of law in case where marriage is annulled and the donee acted in
bad faith. It would be consistent with the fact that if the donor is aware that the donee
acted in bad faith, he or she would not make a donation in favor of that person. While if
Article 86(3) will be applied, wherein the innocent party is given the option to revoke the
donation or not, it might defeat the very purpose of annulment. While it is true that the
donor, being the one who made the donation should be given the right to revoke or not
the donation, this may lead to unwholesome consequences. Collusion may also arise in
annulment knowing that the party who acted in bad faith who happens to be the donee
will not oppose to the innocent spouse in the annulment case provided that latter will not
revoke the donation propter nuptias made by him or her.
In my opinion the provision of article 86(3) of the Family Code must be applied instead
to annulled marriage where the donee is not in bad faith in. Donee-spouse in annulment
case is not in bad faith in the grounds provided in Article 45 paragraphs 2, 5 and 6. But
at present time, donation propter nuptias cannot be revoked on these grounds.
Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at
the time of the marriage:
(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was
eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was
solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having
substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining
the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived
together as husband and wife;
(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming
to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party
afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely
cohabited with the other as husband and wife;
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue
influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter
freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the

marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be
incurable; or
(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease
found to be serious and appears to be incurable.