Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS
New Civil Code
Art. 2 Laws Shall take effect after 15 days
following the completion of their publication
in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of
general circulation in the Philippines, unless it
is otherwise provided. This code shall take
effect one year after such publication.
Effect: Unless it is otherwise provided.
In the case of Lara v. Del Rosario, SC held that
the Civil Code of the Philippines took effect on
August 30, 1950. This date is exactly one year
after the Official Gazette (O.G.) published the
Code and was released for circulation.
Publication is INDISPENSABLE (Tanada v.
Tuvera). In other words no law can become
immediately effective upon approval without
publication.
Laws, Statutes, presidential issuances of general
application that were not published SHALL
HAVE NO BINDING FORCE AND EFFECT.
The publication of the law must be FULL or
COMPLETE, otherwise there is NO
PUBLICATION to be considered since its
purpose is to inform the public of the full
contents of the law. (Ignorantia legis non
excusat, Art. 3, Civil Code of PH)
Exceptions:
De Roy v. Court of Appeals 157 SCRA 757
Publication is not required contrary to Re Roys
(pet.) view. There is no law requiring
Jurisprudence to be published in pursuant to
Art. 2 of the Civil code of the PH.
It is the duty of the counsel as lawyers to
conduct himself to the best of his knowledge
(Lawyers Oath). A counsel in active law should
ne updated with the Supreme Court decisions
(G.R.) and Supreme Court Report Annotated
(SCRA) and law journals.
PRINCIPLE: Only laws and statues and circulars
punitive in nature are covered with Art. 2:
Publication of Laws
Art. 2 cases:
Lara v. Del Rosario unless otherwise
provided
Tanada v. Tuvera Publication is indispensable
De Roy v. CA Jurisprudence, GR, SCRA, are not
covered by Art. 2, hence the contention of the
lawyer in the non-publication of Habaluyas v.
Japzon (Aug. 5, 1985) causing the jurisprudence
to be non-enforceable is not valid.
Side issue: Habaluyas v. Japzon 15-day period
for appealing or for filing a motion for
reconsideration cannot be extended.
Art. 4 Laws shall have no retroactive effect,
unless the contrary is provided.
General rule: Laws are applied prospectively
Exceptions: The retrospective applicability of a
law should be expressly provided therein. The
presumption is in favour of the prospective
operation of the law.
Principle: The rule against retrospectivity is
intended to protect vested rights. A vested right
is some right or interest in property that has
become fixed and established that it is no
longer open to controversy.
Cases:
Atienza v. Brillantes Article 40 of the Family
Code (FC) is given a retroactive effect as per
Article 256 of FC. Article 40 does not impair
vested or acquired rights. Regardless of the
date of the first marriage, Art. 40 is given a
retroactive effect in pursuant to Art. 4 of the
Civil code and Art. 256 of the FC.
Art. 40 of FC is a Rule of Procedure: A married
person whose previous marriage though void,
will be exposed to a charge of bigamy, if he/she
re-marries without first having secured a
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS

declaration of the nullity of previous marriage
(Domingo v. CA; Abunado v. Pp)
Carlos V. Sandoval A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC is
prospective in application. AM2-11-10-SC is a
declaration of nullity but the law governing the
marriage in controversy is the Civil code which
is silent to who may declare the marriage void.
The absence of a proviso in the Civil Code cant
be construed as a license for any person to file a
declaration of nullity of marriage as in the case
of Carlos filing in behalf of Teofilo.
PD 1638 does not also expressly state that this
presidential decree has a retroactive effect.
Vested right are protected by due process
clause. Hence, any laws impeding the vested
rights when given a retroactive law, it is void.
Art. 6 Rights may be waived, unless the waiver
is CONTRARY TO LAW, PUBLIC ORDER, PUBLIC
POLICY, MORALS, or GOOD CUSTOMS, or
PREJUDICIAL to a third person with a right
recognized by law.

Petition for declaration of nullity of void DEFINITION: RIGHTS AND WAIVER

marriage may only be filed by the husband and
A right is a legally The intentional or
wife. Exception: Nullity of marriage commenced
enforceable claim of voluntary
before the effectivity of AM011110SC and
once person to relinquishment of a
Marriages celebrated during the effectivity of
another, that the known right or such
the Civil Code (Law governing marriages prior to
other shall do a given conduct as warrants
FC)
act, or shall not do a inference of the
Side issue: Carlos may still claim his right over given act. It is the relinquishment of
the properties of his brother however he should power or privilege such right. A waiver
have not filed for pet. For annulment of given to one person may be express or
marriage but rather he should have followed and as a rule implied.
proper procedure by law. demandable of
another.
Anita Cheng v. Sps. Sy BP 22: The filing of the
case happened on January 20, 1999 while the
Sec. 1, Par. (b), of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules Requisites of a valid waiver
of Courts was passed on December 1, 2000.
1.) Person waiving must be capacitated to
Sec. 1 Par. (b) of Rule 111 of the 2001 RRofC make the waver.
states that the criminal action for violation BP22 2.) The waiver must be clear and
shall be deemed to include corresponding civil unequivocal, but not necessarily
action. No reservation to file such civil action express.
separately shall be allowed. 3.) The person waiving must actually have
the right he is renouncing.
The 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure 4.) The waiver must not be contrary to law,
is retroactive in nature because it as a public order, public policy, morals or
procedural rule, hence the retroactive good customs.
application. 5.) The waiver must not be prejudicial to a
Carolino v. Senga GR189649 PD 1638: third person with a right recognized by
Provides that the name of a retiree who loses law.
his Filipino Citizenship shall be removed from 6.) When formalities are required as in the
the retired list and his retirement benefits case of express condonation of
terminated ipon such loss. PD 1638 is not debt.(mandating the formalities of
applied retroactively because it may impair donation), the formalities must be
vested and acquired rights. In this case, Carolina complied with.
enjoys his retirement benefits priot to PD 1638.
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS
Right which cannot be renounced (any attempt
of waiver is void and illegal)
1.) Natural rights (i.e. right to life)
2.) Alleged rights which really do not yet
exist (e.g. future inheritance)
3.) Renunciation which would infringe
upon public policy (e.g. right to be hear
in court cannot be renounce in
advanced; overtime may be waived if it
is already earned but not in advance or
if it is yet to be earned)
4.) When the waiver is prejudicial to the
third person with a right recognized by
law. ( e.g. if the heir repudiates the
inheritance to the prejudice of his own
creditors, the latter may petition the
court to authorize them in the name of
the heir.)
Famanila v. CA The Receipt and Release
signed and witnessed by the wife and
relative of Roberto was a valid waiver.
Despite his partial recovery in the hospital
and signing the waiver, the said action was
vitiated consent. There is vitiated consesnt
when the vices of consent are fraud,
mistake, violence, intimidation,and undue
influence. Roberto failed to provide proof
that the waiver was unlawful and his
consent was vitiated.
Hence, the waiver is valid and Roberto is
ineligible to claim disability benefits
because he signed the Receipt and Release
waiver worth 13,200 USD.
GUY v. CA (Sept. 15, 2006) The release
and waiver does not state with clarity the
purpose of its execution. It merely states
that Remedios received 300kPHP and
educational plan for her minor daughters.
This waiver is not a waiver of successional
rights.
If this waiver happen to be a waiver of
successional rights of a minor, according to
Art. 1044 of the Civil Code: Any inheritance
left to minors or xxx Parents may repudiate
the inheritance left to their wards only by
way of Judicial Authorization. The waiver
in this case will be void.
Art. 9 No judge or court shall decline to render
judgement by reason of silence, obscurity or
insufficiency of the laws.
Article provides that even if law is
obscure, vague or insufficient in its
guidance, the judge is nevertheless
enjoined to give a decision. A judge
must give a decision, whether he knows
what law to apply or not.
Only applies to civil cases.
Criminal cases follow the rule: nullum
crimen, nulla poena sine lege which
translates to there is no crime when
there is no law condemning it.
Judge may only decline judgment only if
it involves criminal cases. It cannot
decline to render judgement in civil
cases.
In the case of Silverio vs. RP: In the case at bar,
Silverio wanted to change his/her name and sex
on the grounds that she has successfully
transitioned from being a male to a female by
means of sexual reassignment and hormonal
therapy.
Here, Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio wants to
change his name into Mely, and the his sex
from Male to female.
The petition was granted on the ground of Art.
9, they cannot decline civil cases such as this.
According to Trial court:
1.) Granting the petition would be in
consonance of justice and equity.
2.) No harm, injury, or prejudice will be
caused to anybody in the
community.
3.) No evidence were presented to
show any cause or ground to deny
petition.
The OSG filed petition for certiorari alleging that
there is no law allowing the change of entries
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS
in the birth certificate by reason of sex
alteration.
Silverio contended that courts shall not decline
judgement by reason of silence, obscurity, or
insufficiency of laws.
However, it is not the job of Judiciary to create
laws, it is of a legislative function.
Allowing Silverio to have his/her Birth. Cert.
alter his/her name and sex will pave the way for
her marriage, and according to the Family Code,
Marriage is a special contract between a male
and a female.
RTC granted the petition of Silverio.
CA rendered a decision in favour of OSG.
SC affirmed CA decision/
Art. 14 Penal laws and those of public security
and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live
or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to
the principles of public international law and
to treaty stipulations.
PRINCIPLE OF TERRITORIALITY
Generally, our civil laws do not apply to
aliens who are governed by their
national law. However, the PH with
respect to criminal laws, adhere to the
principle of territoriality such that any
offense committed within our territory
offends the State. The sovereign state
has the power to prosecute and punish
the offender, he be a NATIONAL,
NATURALIZED or FOREIGNER/ALIEN.
This is because aliens owe some sort of
allegiance even if it be temporary.
Exceptions:
1.) Under the principles of Public Intl Law
(PUL). Diplomatic officials, foreign
ambassadors and visiting heads of
states, provided they do not travel in
cognito.
2.) Under treaty stipulations. PH-US Bases
Agreement which exempts certain
members of the armed forces of the US
from the jurisdiction of our courts.
Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem Norma and Ernst
contracted their marriage in Holland and they
were blessed with 1 son. Their marriage bond
ended by virtue of divorce issued by
appropriate court in Holland (par. 2, Art. 26 of
the FC). Ernst made a promise to support their
son monthly.
Van Wilsem never provided a monthly support
ever since the petitioner arrived in Cebu, PH.
Ernst was accused for violating RA 9262 for
unjust refusal to support the minor child.
Trial court dismissed the complaint since the
accused is an Alien.
Yes. Foreigners are subject to their National Law
(Natlity theory). The RTC is right however, that
does not mean that the foreigner is not obliged
to support their son altogether.
Van Wilsem claimed that his National Law
(Holland) does not oblige parents to support
the minor child. Since, the court does not take
the judicial notice of foreign laws, it is
incumbent of the accused to produce such
documents duly authenticated.
The law operates on the ground of justice and
equity. It would be at the height of injustice if
the obligation of Van Wilsem was not fulfilled.
Such obligation is still duly enforceable. (Art. 14
Obligatory Effect of Penal Laws)
Art. 15 Laws relating to family rights and
duties, or to the statysm condition and legal
capacity of persons are binding upon citizens
of the Philippines, even though living abroad.
Principle of Nationality Theory Personal law
follows Filipinos even though living abroad.
Man activity is not limited and circumscribed
within it native country. It has been
determined by general assent and common
agreement among civilized nations that the
laws relating to family rights and obligations,
and status, condition, and legal capacity
(remarry) of persons, accompany a person even
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS
when he moves to a foreign country, because
such laws are more suited to his personal
affairs.
PH follows Nationality Theory or Citizenship
theory such that national law of the person is
applied in matters involving personal relations.
Art.15 refers to
1.) Family rights and duties can be found
in the Family Code and other special
laws such as matters relating to
marriage, legal separation, property
relations, SUPPORT, adoption, filiation,
etc.
2.) Status - a term used to designate the
circumstances affecting the legal
situation of a person in view of his age,
nation and his family membership.
3.) Condition a mode or state of being;
state or situation; status or rank
4.) Legal capacity the legal power to
enter a binding obligation or to enjoy
privileges of a legal status.
Capacity to enter an ORDINARY CONTRACT is
governed by the national law of the person, and
not by the law of the place where the contract
was entered into. (lex loci celebracionis)
In the case of PILAPIL v. IBAY-SOMERA Pilapil
(Filipino) and Erich Geiling (German) contracted
their marriage in the Federal Republic of
Germany. In 1983 Geiling initiated a divorce
against Pilapil before the Local Court of
Germany in Jan 1983. On Jan 15 1986, a divorce
decree was issued on the grounds of failure of
marriage. Imelda, on the other hand filed an
action for legal separation. RTC gave the
custody of the child.
More than 5 months after the issuance of
divorce decree, Geiling filed two complaints for
adultery alleging that while still married, Pilapil
had an affair with William Chia and Jesus Chua.
Geiling had no legal capacity to file a suit for
concubinage or adultery. Only the legal spouse
of the accused ha the legal capacity to file for
adultery. Since Geiling was awarded with a
divorce decree and, Pilapil has already filed for
legal separation, support and separation of
property of before the RTC. Geiling and Pilapil
are no longer husband and wife.
Pursuant to par. 2, Art. 26 of the FC, A foreigner
who legally contracted a divorce decree by
virtue of his national law, the spouse is given
the legal capacity to remarry.
Pursuant to National Theory or the Art. 15,
Pilapil is covered by Art. 15, since it refers to
Legal capacity, status, Family rights and duties.
Assuming that national law of Germany
penalizes such action, German court have no
Jurisdiction to the Personal laws of the PH. (Lex
Locis Celebracionis = governed by national law
of the person not by the territorial law of the
place where the contract was entered into.)
In the case of GARCIA RECIO v. RECIO
Rederick Recio married an Australian Citizen:
Editha Samson. 2 years after, a divorce decree
was issued by Australian Court. Rederick is an
Australian Citizen on 1992 (3 yrs after divorce).
In 1994 Rederick married Garcia and he claimed
to be single andFilipino. 1995 they lived
separately without prior judicial dissolution of
their marriage.
In 1998, Garcia-Recio (pet.) filed a petition for
declaration of Nullity of marriage on the ground
of BIGAMY. Rederick, in defense, claimed that
he has the legal capacity to remarry for being an
Australian Citizen, and a divorce decree was
issued by Australian court.
RTC declared the marriage of RECIO and
GARCIA dissolved on the ground of BIGAMY.
But the court remanded the issue for the failure
to provide evidence that our duly authenticated
documents re: Legal Capacity to Remarry, and
present an expert witness.
The court does not take Judicial notice of the
foreign laws, the burden rests upon who
invokes foreign laws.
Art. 15 applies because it is important to
determine the LEGAL CAPACITY TO REMARRY
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS
by presenting duly authenticated documents. If
he does not have the L.C. the marriage between
Garcia and Recio are null and void on the
ground of BIGAMY (prior marriage). However, if
the respondent has the legal capacity, the case
is remanded to the lower court to determine
such legal capacity exist.
In the case of QUITA v. CA, the case here Fe
Quita and Arturo were not blessed with
children, somewhere along the way their
marriage soured. Eventually Fe sued Arturo for
divorce in San Fran, C.A. Subsequently Fe
obtained two marriages. Arturo died
intestately. He left no will with no descendants.
The Padlan spouses claimed to be the sole
surviving first degree relative (Ruperto Padlan,
brother of Arturo).
In the Nationality theory (Art.15), If Fe Quita
contracted the divorce during her time as a
Filipino, Fe Quitas marriage with Arturo still
subsists and she may inherit the estate of
Arturo Quita, because pursuant to Art. 15,
Personal laws are binding to citizens even if
they are residing outside the Philippines. Hence
the divorce degree is not acknowledged by the
Philippine Courts. Hence, Fe Quita remained
legally married inspite of the divorce decree. If,
Fe Quita was proved to be an American, the
VAN DORN (vandorn v Romillo) ruling applies
which held that aliens may obtain divorce
abroad, which may be recognized in the PH,
provided that they are valid according to their
National Law.
In the case of ELMAR PEREZ v. CA & CATINDIG,
Tristan and Lily (both Filipino) contracted a
divorce decree in Dominican Republic. After
divorce, Tristan married Elmar in Virgina, USA.
Pursuant to Art. 15 and the Tenchavez v. Escano
ruling, Filipino spouses who contracted a
divorce decree on a foreign land is not
acknowledge by the court, hence it is invalid
and ineffective.
In the case of Heirs of San Luis v. Felicidad San
Luis When Felicisimo died, Felicidad sought
the dissolution for their conjugal partnership.
Which was opposed by the heris of Virginia And
Felicisimo. Felicidad presented the Absolute
Divorce decree. She claimed that Felicisimo has
the legal capacity to remarry since the alien
spouse of Felicisimo complained for an absolute
divorce decree. (par. 2, Article 26 of the Family
Code)
If the Divorce decree was presented with an
official publication and a copy thereof attested
by the officer having legal custody of the
document or accompanied by certificate issued
by the proper consular officer in the embassy
and an authenticated by seal of his office. The
VAN DORN RULING applies, case will be
remanded to the trial court for further
reception of evidence.
In this case, Felicisimo has the legal capacity to
remarry if there was a preponderance of
evidence. If not, The marriage subsequent will
be void ab ignition on the ground of Bigamy.
In the case of LAVADIA v. Heirs of JUAN LUCES
LUNA In this case spouses Luna contracted a
divorce decree in Dominican Republic. The
Philippines follow the Nationality Principle re:
status, legal capacity, family rights and duties
and conditions. In this case the issue is WON
Luna has the legal capacity to remarry. The
Philippines under Nationality principle does not
recognize divorce regardless if you reside in
another country. Lavadia cannot claim the
estate of the deceased Luna because their
marriage in the first place was Bigamous hence,
its void ab initio. Lavadia also failed to present
that she was the co-owner of the office space.
The TENCHAVEZ ruling applies (Tenchavez v.
Esano).
In the case of DAVID NOVERAS v. LETICIA
NOVERAS Both acquired American citizenship.
The spouses have PH and US properties. David
went back to PH, a year after David went back
to PH and Leticia learned that David was having
an extra-marital affair. Upon learning these
facts, Leticia filed a divorce decree and acquired
custody of the two (2) children. In this case,
Leticia only provided the divorce decree. Leticia
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS
failed to provide the pertinent California Law on
divorce.
In Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, Supreme Court stated
that: Local court does not take judicial notice of
foreign laws, this means foreign laws should be
authenticated as facts. Failing to do this will
deny your petition unless the court remands
the civil case for further reception in the trial
court.
There must be at least (1) an official publication
(2) or a copy attested by the officer having the
legal custody thereof (divorce decree
document). The person invoking the foreign law
must also present an expert witness re: Foreign
Law on Divorce.
PH courts can not acquire jurisdiction of foreign
properties. Indeed, in Art. 16 of the Civil Code
states that real property as well as personal
property is subject to the law of the country
where it is situated. Thus, liquidation shall only
be limited to the PH properties.
In the case of ORION SAVINGS BANK v. SUZUKI
In this case Suzuki was an innocent buyer in
good faith of a condominium of person named
Kang (Korean Natl).
Under PH Law: GOVERNS REAL PROPERTY; LEX
LOCI REI SITAE. A universal principle that real or
immovable property is exclusively subject to the
laws of the country it is located. Principle:
Immovables are part of the country.
Under SOKOR Law: GOVERNS PROPERTY
RELATIONS, Property relations between sps.
Are governed principally by the Natl Law of the
SPs. However the party invoking the foreign law
(Orion) has the burden of proving the foreign
law as a fact, such as in the case of Corpuz v.
Sto. Tomas (Sec. 24 & 25 of Rule 132 of the
Revised rules of court: How to prove foreign
laws).
Failure to prove or if it is not pleaded.
PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION applies, this
doctrine refers to that foreign laws are identical
to the domestic laws.
In the case of DEL SOCORRO v. VAN WILSEM
In this case Del Socorro and Van Wilsem
contracted a marriage in Holland. They bore a
child named Roderigo. Van Wilsem and Del
Socorro contracted a divorce decree.
Respondent promised to give monthly support
to the child, and Del Socorro went back to Cebu.
Van Wilsem never supported their minor child.
Van Wilsem is currently residing in Cebu along
with his another wife. Del Socorro filed cases on
the grounds of RA 9262, unjust refusal to
support the minor child. Van Wilsem contends
that his Natl Law does not obligate them to
support their minor child. Under the nationality
principle, he may not be obligated if he proves
the laws as a fact. The court does not take
judicial notice of the foreign laws hence, Van
Wilsem must has the burden of proof. (Corpuz
v. Sto.Tomas)
Under the territoriality principle (Art. 14), Van
Wilsem is still liable because he sojourns in the
Philippines and following the processual
presumption that foreign laws are the same
with domestic laws.
Even if Van Wilsem proves the foreign law, it is
against the public policy of the PH and it would
be an injustice to the child if denied of child
support.
Art. 16 Real property as well as personal
property is subject of the law of the country
where it is stipulated.
However, intestate and testamentary
successions, both with respect ti the order of
succession and to the amount of successional
rights and to the intrinsic validy 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.
New Civil Code- follows the principle of
lex situs or lex sitae. Applies to lands as
well as to immovable in transactions
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS
like sale, lease, barter, mortgage or
other forms of alienation of property
Exceptions to Lex Situs Rule: Incidents
of succession whether intestate or
testamentary. These incidents are
governed by NATIONAL LAW of the
deceased irrespective of the nature of
the property involved regardless of the
country they are located. This shall be
settled or determined in accordance
with LEX NATIONALII (nationality) of
the decedent and not by the LEX SITUS
(Territoriality)
o Order of Succession
Preference of Succession
o Amount fo Succ. Rights refers
to the amkunt which the heirs
should receive from the
inheritance.
o Intrinsic Validity of the
provisions of a will
o Capacity to succeed the
universality of the inheritance
cannot be divided or broken up
merely because of different
countries (Lex Nationalli)
RENVOI DOCTRINE Literally means
REFERRING BACK" where in the case of
AZNAR v. CHRISTENSEN, it was held
that: when a foreigner dies domiciled
in the PH, our courts under Art. 16 par.
2 of the CC compelled to apply the
national law (lex nationalii) of the
deceased; but since the said foreign
state or country refers (renvoi) back
the matter to the PH, we have no
alternatives but to accept the renvoi to
us.
Intestate without a will where legal or
intestate heirs shall inherit the estate.
Testate where the deceased left
either a (1) notarial will or a (2)
holographic will should satisfy the
gollow requisites: a) entirely
handwritten; b) dated by the testator
each page; and c) signed by the testator
each page. Wills will undergo probate
to prove that it followed formalities of a
will.
HEIRS OF INTESTATE ESTATE and
ORDER OF SUCCESSION
o Primary compulsory heirs such
as Legitimate children
o Secondary compulsory heirs
such as parents
o Concurring secondary heirs
such as surviving spouse and
illegitimate children
Amount of successional rights
o Legitimate children 1
o Illegitimate children of the
leg. Children
o Surviving spouse of the leg.
Children
o Parents can only inherit in the
absence of cumpolsory heirs
Voluntary heirs: legatees (gift of
personal property) and devisees who
receive personal property
CHAPTER 2: HUMAN RELATIONS
Art. 19 EVERY PERSON MUST, IN THE EXERCISE
OF HIS RIGHTS AND IN PERFORMANCE OF HIS
DUTIES, ACT WITH JUSTICE, GIVE EVERYONE
THEIR HONESTY AND GOOD FAITH
This is the golden rule of the Civil Code.
1.) Act with Justice
2.) Give everyone his due
3.) Observe honesty and hood faith
Principle of Abuse of Rights: if a person acts
with abuse, his right to act ceases, and his act
becomes illicit giving rise to liability. The
exercise of a right ends when the right
disappears and it disappears when abused,
especially to the prejudice of others.
Good faith is an honest intention to refrain from
taking undue advantage while bad faith
presupposes dishonest purpose or some moral
obliquity and conscious performance of a
wrong.
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS
Articles giving emphasis on ACT WITH JUST,
GIVE EVERYONE HIS DUE
a.) Art. 20 Indemnification of another
due to illegal acts
b.) Art.21 Indemnification due to
immoral acts
c.) Art. 23 Unjust enrichment
d.) Art. 24 Unfair Competition
In the case of FAR EAST BANK vs. Pacilan Jr.
Pacilan opened an account in FEB and
distributed several (4) post dated checks (pdc).
Respondent issued more than what he was
supposed to issue (OVERDRAWN). Following the
R&R of the bank, his account was closed despite
the fact that he immediately deposited to
sufficiently fun his checks.
Pacilan Jr. took this as a moral damaging
conduct of the bank. It was unjust and
malicious.
The elements were not met in accordance to
Abuse of rights. Yes, the bank met the first
requirement: they were acting with a legal right
or duty; The exercise was not in bad faith; and
the intent was not prejudicing and injuring
another.
The banks closure of his banks were because of
his improper handling of his account. Pacilan Jr.
was also exposed to a criminal action, BP Blg.
22.
In the case of UYPITCHING V. QUIAMCO
Uypitching allegedly accused Quiamco for theft
and anti-fencing law. Uypitching went to
location of Quiamco and called called him
names such as thief.
Qiamco filed an action against Uypitching
because the action of the petitioner was
contrary to the social norm. Pursuan to Art. 19:
principle of Abuse of rights, Any person who in
the exercise of a lawful act or duty, acted in bad
faith, and for the sole intent of prejudicing the
respondent.
Uypitching met all the requirements for the
Abuse of Rights hence, Uypitching should
indemnify him for causing damage to the
petitioner.
In the case of Cebu Country Club (CCCI) vs.
Elizagaque
Respondent was offered with a 5M worth of
proprietary share, and was lowered to 3.5M,
but Elizagaque bought the proprietary share
from Dr. Butalid. In the two subsequent
meetings they decided to refusal the
membership of Elizagaque in CCCI. Elizagaque
moved for reconsideration, and wrote three
times to CCCI. Still, CCCI refused to answer.
Consequently, respondent filed for a complaint
for damages against petitioners.
The CCCI has the right to deny or approve the
membership but the fact that the respondent
was left in the dark groping in the dark
wondering why his application was approved.
He was not even informed that it has to be a
unanimous vote. Having designated by San
Miguel as a non-proprietary member of CCCI,
they should have treated him with courtesy and
civility. The actions of the petitioners were
contrary to the human relations. As provided in
Art. 19 and 21 of Civil Code. The exercise of a
right, though legal by itself must nonetheless
be in accordance with proper norm. When the
right is exercised arbitrarily, unjustly or
excessively and results in damage to another, a
legal wrong is committed for which the
wrongdoer must be held responsible.
Least thing CCCI could have done is to notify
and inform him why his application was
disapproved.
In the case of CALATAGAN GOLF CLUB (CGC) v.
CLEMENTE Jr. In this case Clemente applied to
purchase one share of stock of Calatagan,
Indicating in his memb. Form his mailing
address, complete residential address, office
and residence tek, numbers. As well as the
company with which he was connected;
Calatagan issued him the certificate after paying
120k for the share.
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS
CGC sent multiple letters of notification to
Clemente for being a delinquent member and
for failing to pay the monthly dues. As a result,
CGC posted his name as one of the delinquent
members and auctioned the stock in public.
Clemente only knew of these 4 years later. The
SEC dismissed Clemente seeking of restoration
of his shareholding. But CA reversed this and
cited that Sec. 69 of the corporation code does
not apply in the case at bar. The fact that CGC
failed to perform due diligence in informing the
respondent caused them to be liable under Art.
19, 20 and 21 of the Civil Code. This articles
enunciate a general obligation under law for
every person to ACT FAIRLY and IN GOOD
FAITH. They could have at least exhausted all
means to contact Clemente instead, they relied
on sending the letters in the closed P.O. box,
they were aware of this but they chose to
ignore the fact.
In the case of ARDIENTE V. SPS. JAVIER AND
THERESA PASTORFIDE, in this case, Sps.
Pastorfide bought the house of Ardiente.
Ardiente failed to transfer her name under the
power and water bills. It remained under the
name of Ardiente for (4) years. The sps. Became
delinquent in paying the bills. There water line
was cut off by COWD and ARDIENTE. The act of
cutting the water line w/o out prior notice and
caused damage. The principle of abuse of rights
is enshrined in Art. 19 of the Civil Code and
provides that every person must, in the exercise
of his rights and performance of his duties, act
with justice and observe honesty and good
faith. Ardiente, COWD, and Gonzales our
solidarily liable for performing their duties, and
acted in bad faith, consequently causing
damages. (water line cut off)
In the case of SESBRENO v. CA and VECO
Sesbreno filed cases to the VOC team for illegal
entry. In the present case, the VECO or VOC
team were performing their duties as was
stated in the par. 9 of the Metered Service
Contract. They were clothed with that authority
to enter the garage to inspect the meter.
In the case at bar. Sesbrenos witness were not
enough to convince the court. In relation to Art.
19, the VOC Team did not exercised their
performance of duty in bad faith and did not
cause any Injury. Hence, no liability may attach
under the concept of abuse of rights.
In the case of SALADAGA V. ASTORGA
Astorga did not act in good faith as a lawyer. He
should have seen to it that the agreement with
Saladaga is embodied in an instrument that
clearly expresses the intent of the contracting
aprties.
Art. 20 Art. 21
As to what the act is contrary to
Act is contrary to law Act is contrary to
morals, good
customs, or public
policy
As to the manner the act is commited
Done wilfully or Done wilfully
negligently
Art. 20 Every person who, contrary to law,
wilfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the
same.
This article provides for general sanction The
indemnification for damages. It covers
situations when the law does not provide its
own sanctions, as well as all legal wrongs not
constitutive of breach of CONTRACT.
It covers (a) Torts based on malice (b) Torts
based on negligence. In order for someone to
be indemnified, it is essential that right of his
must be IMPAIRED.
Torts acts or omission that gives rise to injury
or harm/ civil wrong
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS
Art. 21 Any person who wilfully 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 same.
Damages that can be prayed from the court
(MENTAL)
M MORAL DAMAGES humiliation, anxiety,
sleepless nights, and etc.
E EXEMPLARY serve as an example
N NOMINAL- vindication or recognition of a
right violated or invaded and not for the
purpose of indemnifying the plaintiff for any
loss suffered by him.
T TEMPERATE- refers to pecuniary damages
when the amount of damage cannot be proven
A ACTUAL- actual expenses incurred.
(presentation of official receipts)
L LIQUIDATED- damages agreed upon by
parties in case of breach (contract)
In Art. 21 if sexual intercourse was due to
mutual lust no moral damages could be
claimed.
Actual damages on breach of promise to marry
are recoverable such as the wedding
prepations.
Where there has been no carnal knowledge,
there may be an action for actual or moral
damages under certain conditions, as when
there has been a deliberate desire to inflict loss
or injury.
WON there is moral or criminal seduction, if the
carnal knowledge result in the birtch of the
child, the man, WON is under obligation to
support the child. He is compelled to support
the child.
Art. 22 Every person who through an act of
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.
This article is applicable only if 1) someone
acquires or comes into possession of
something which means delivery or
acquisition of things and 2) acquisition is
undue and at the expense of another, which
means without any just or legal ground. When
the property is obtained by virtue of a final
judgement of a court, Art. 22 does not apply.
Accion inrem verso (Art. 22) this action is for
recovery of what has been paid without just
cause; there is no mistake in the delivery. In
solution indebiti (art. 2154) this action is for
recovery of payment which was made by
mistake.
Requisites of Unjust enrichment:
1.) That the defendant has been enriched
2.) Plaintiff suffered loss
3.) The enrichment of defendant is w/o just
or legal ground
4.) The plaintiff has no other action base
on contract, quasi-contract, crime or
quasi delict.
In the case of FILINVEST v. NGILAY-
Respondents were grantees of agricultural
public lands located in Gensan through
HOMESTEAND and FREE patents sometime in
1986 and 1991 which are covered by 17 original
Certificate of Title issued by RoD of Gensan.
Respondents received downpayment for the
properties on Oct. 1995
A few days later, respondents came to know
that their sale did not have the approval of the
SENR. Hence, the contract is void.
Yes. The money should be returned by Ngilay
even if the contract is void, based on the
principle of unjust enrichment.
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS
In the case of GONZALO v. TARNATE Gonzalo
owns a company that won the award from
DPWH. Gonzalo then subcontracted with
Tarnate for the supply and labor. They agreed
to let Tarnate receive 10% from what Gonzalo
received from DPWH.
Tarnate learned that Gonzalo had unilaterally
rescinded the deed of assignment dated filed in
the DPWh. Tarnate demanded the payment on
the retention fee from Gonzalo. Tarnate filed
suit against gonzalo to recover the retention fee
of 233,526.13php, moral and exemplary
damages for breach of contract.
In the present case, Gonzalo and Tarnate
entered into an illegal contract: Subcontract
and the deed of assignment.
Every contracter is prohibited from sub
contracting unless the DPWH allows the
subcontracting or deed of assignment.
In the doctrine of Pari Delicto, no recovery may
arise when both parties entered into an illegal
contract unless if it contravenes the well-
established public policy.
The public policy of the PH is grounded on
justice and equity. In the present case, Gonzalo
was unjustly enriched. He retains a benefit from
the loss of another without just or legal
ground..
Art. 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 benefited.
This is anchored under Parens Patriae: the state
has the sovereign power of guardianship over
persons.
1.) Moral Dependence Parent-Child
2.) Ignoarance Want of knowledge
3.) Indigence Poverty
4.) Mental Weakness Insane, morons,
imbecile, idiot , mentally challenged.
Art. 25 Thoughtless extravagance in expenses
for pleasure or 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
INSTITUTION.
1.) There is thoughtless extravagance of
expenses
2.) The extravagance is for pleasure or
display
3.) There is a period of acute public want
or emergency
4.) The case is filed in court by a
governmental institution or private
charitable institution.
Art. 26 Every person shall respect the dignity,
personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other pesons. The following or
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 anothers
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 personal condition.
In the case of CASTRO v. Pp Tan met Bernice
after the graduation ceremonies, Tan and Chign
were talking about the filing of suit of Tan to
RIS. Consequently, Ching phoned Jerome Castro
and told him that Tan was planning to sue the
officer of RIS in their personal capacities. Before
they hung up: Jerome told Bernice xxx Take
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS
and be careful talking to [Tan], thats
dangerous.
Thereafter, Ching phoned Tan and informed
him what Castro said.
Insulted, Tan filed a complaint of Grave Oral
Defamation.
In the case at bar: Intriguing to cause another to
be alienated from friends may be a liability.
Art. 27 Any person suffering from 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.
Cause of Action:
1.) Nonfeasance omission of an act
which a person ought to do.
2.) Misfeasance the improper doing of an
act which a person might lawfully do;
3.) Malfeasance the doing of an act
which a person not ought to do at all.
The article only applies to NONFEASANCE: non-
performance of an acts which a person is ought
to do.
The duty he failed to perform must be
MINESTERIAL in character. If the duty is
discretionary, he is not liable for his refusal or
neglect to perform it. Unless he acted,
notoriously or he acted wilfully, maliciously or
with gross neglect.
This is to end pabagsak, pampadaulas, and
pampasalamat.
Req. for filing of action:
a) Public servant or employee refuses or
neglects to perform his official duty
b) There is no valid reason for the refusal
or neglect to perform official duty.
c) That injury or damage is suffered by the
plaintiff(nagdemanda)
In the case of Jose Ledesma v. CA Violeta
delmo did not Graduate as a Latin Honor
student for allegedly not following the rules&
by-laws of the school. The president of the
school here insisted that she will graduate as a
plaint student despite the fact that he is an
excellent student and a consistent scholar. The
Director of the Bureau of Public Schools
ordered the President of the school to let her
graduate with Latin honors. Ledesma
neglectfully or wilfully and maliciously
graduated Delmo with no Latin Honors. Hence,
Jose Ledesma is liable for exermplary and moral
damages caused by his action and his
nonfeasance pursuant to Art. 27.
In the case of CAMPUGAN V. TOLENTINO the
respondents here were not liable for Art. 27
because their duty as officers of Register of
Deeds were ministerial in nature in did not
include discretion. Therefore, the respondents
will not be disbarred on the ground of baseless
disbarment complaints.
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.
Employing deceptionor any other means
contrary to good faith by w/c any person shall
pass of goods manufactured by him or in which
he deals, or his business, or services for those of
the one having established goodwill.
Art. 29-35 Civil liability arising from a
criminal offense
Art.29 When the accused in criminal
prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his
guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS
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.
A person who is criminally liable is also civilly
liable.
In Criminal cases = Guilty beyond reasonable
doubt.
In Civil cases = Preponderance of Evidence is
only needed.
Art. 29 is based on Art. 100 of RPC w/c provides
every person criminally liable for a felony is also
civilly liable.
1.) Restitution to restore the thing stolen
by the theft;
2.) Reparation or damage caused inability
to return the property stolen, culprit
must pay the value of the property
stolen.
3.) Indemnification Consequential
damages - loss of his salary or earning.
Exceptions where no civil liability arises:
1.) The fact from which the civil action may
arise did not exist
2.) The accused did not commit the crime
3.) No crime existed
Criminal Action Affects Social order, needs
punishment or correction of the offender. Must
be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Civil Action Affects private rights, Reparation
of damages suffered by aggrieved party. Only
needs preponderance of evidence.
Preponderance of Evidence The evidence as a
whole adduced by one side is superior over that
of the other. Affected by facts and
circumstances, intelligence and credibility of the
witness, etc.
If the accused is not proved beyond reasonable
doubt this does not bar a subsequent action
for damages based on the same act or omission
A SUBSEQUENT CIVIL ACTION cannot be
INSTITUTED if acquittal was grounded on the
following:
1.) Accused is not the author the crime
2.) No crime existed
All civil actions are dependent except those
falling under:
Art. 31 (Civil action not based on the act
or omission complained as a felony)
Art. 32 (violation of ones civil liberties,
whether direct or indirect, committed
by a public employee or official, or any
private individual)
Art. 33 (fraud, defamation, or physical
injuries, intentionally commited and
used in its generic signification)
Art. 34 refusal of any member of the
municipal or city police force to render
aid or assistance in times of danger to
life or property without just cause
Art. 2176 quasi delict
GENERAL RULE: A civil action is deemed
impliedly instituted in a criminal action.
EXCEPTIONS:
1.) Right to institute separate civil action is
reserved
2.) There is waiver to constitute civil action
3.) Civil action is instituted prior to the
criminal action
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS
There can be no reservation in BP Blg. 22 (Anti-
bouncing checks law)
Effect of reservation
Whether civil action is filed ahead or
the filing of criminal action, the civil
action has to be suspended until the
termination of the criminal action
because it is depended on the ruling
criminal cases, hence civil action is
dependent to criminal cases.
Dependent civil actions if not reserved
will be deemed impliedly instituted w/
criminal action. If reserved, they may be
prosecuted independently like the
independent civil actions but must
await the outcome of the criminal case
to which they are dependent.
Art. 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.
In this article the dependent civil action is
suspended if the criminal case is filed until final
judgement.
Concept of reservation.
Art. 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.
An independent civil action is one that is
brought distinctly and separately from a
criminal case allowed for considerations of
public policy, because the proof needed for civil
cases is less than that required for criminal
cases
In independent civil actions, the civil action is no
longer deemed impliedly instituted with
criminal action. Here, the civil action proceeds
simultaneously and separately from criminal
action, provided that the offended party may
NOT RECOVER TWICE the damages from the
same act or omission.
Scope:
Art. 31 Where civil action is based on an
obligation not ARISING from the act or
omission complained as a felony.
The law expressly grants to the injured party
the right to INSTITUTE INDEPENDENT CIVIL
ACTION:
a.) Art. 32 Breach of Constitutional and
other rights
b.) Defamation, fraud, physical injuries
c.) Refusal or failure of city or municipal
police to give protection
d.) Art. 2176 quasi delict or culpa
aquiliana
Sources of obligation:
1.) Law
2.) Contracts
3.) Quasi Contracts
4.) Delict/Crime -> dependent civil action
5.) Quasi delict
In the case of People v. Bayotas Bayotas was
charged with rape and eventually convicted
thereon. Pending the appeal of his conviction
he died due to cardiac arrest. His death
extinguished his criminal liability and the civil
liability based solely on the act complained.
In the case of FRIAS v. SAN DIEGO-SISON In
this case Frias (pet.) was acquitted from his
perjury and false testimony. This does not mean
that Frias is not liable for moral damages.
Art. 32 Any public officer or employee, or any
private individual, who directly or indirectly
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS
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.
Bill of Rights Civil Liberties are Independent
Civil Action.
Ex.) Freedom of speech, religion, to write for
the press or to maintain a periodical
publication, from arbitrary or illegal detention
and other civil liberties.
In any cases referred to in this article, WON the
defendants act or omission constitutes a
criminal offense, the aggrieved party may file an
independent, or an entirely separate and
distinct civil action for damages, and other
relief. Such civil action should proceed
indepently of any criminal prosecution (if the
latter is instituted).
The indemnity shall include moral and
exemplary damages.
General Rule: Good faith is not a defense for
the impairment or violation of the fundamental
rights listed under the article.
Exception: Judges are expressly exempted from
damages, if by performing duties in good faith.
Judges are immune because one cannot
question the judges decision.
Exception to the Exception: if the judges act or
omission constitutes a violation of the RPC, he is
liable for damages aside from criminal liability.
Art. 33 Ind. Civil Action Defamation, Fraud
and Physical Injuries is an independent civil
action and may proceed separately from the
criminal prosecution. Damages only require a
PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.
Art. 34 Failure of a municipal or local police to
protect the citizens from crimes against
property and persons. Civil Action here in is
independent from the criminal action.
Art. 35 During the pendency of civil action, a
criminal action is filed, civil action is suspended
and to await the termination of the criminal
action. The imposition of bond is to discourage
filing of malicious complaints.
Art. 36 Prejudicial 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 the code.
A prejudicial question is one based on
FACT distinct and separate from crime
but so intimately connected with it that
it determines the guilt or innocence of
the accused (civil in nature).
A prejudicial question is that which
arises in a case, the resolution of which
question is a logical antecedent of the
issue involved in said case, the
cognizance of which pertains to another
tribunal
If an issue is raised in a criminal action
and it is civil in nature, and it is
determinative of the innocence or guilt
of the accused, the criminal action must
be suspended to await the resolution of
the civil court.
Two essential elements of P.Q.
Civil Action involves an issue similar
intimately related to the issue raised in
criminal action
The resolution of such issue
DETERMINES whether or not criminal
action may proceed
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS
It is the defendant who may invoke or seek
suspension of the criminal case.
Independent civil actions are not prejudicial
questions to criminal cases to which they are
related because they may proceed
independently of criminal cses.
Instances where P.Q. was not considered
1.) Where one acase is administrative and
the other civil
2.) When the question could be used as a
defense in the criminal case like
forgery which is a defense in the
criminal case
3.) When the civil action is an independent
civil action
In the case of TUANDA v. SANDIGANBAYAN
Mayor Tuanda filed a civil case to declare the
designations of private respondets as sectoral
reps. Null and void because of its violation of
the law.
The private respondents then filed an
information before the Sandiganbayan for
undue injury to sectoral members for refusing
to pay their comp. benefits. (criminal case).
Then Mayor Tuanda filed for a motion to
suspend the proceeding s in the criminal cse on
the ground that a prejudicial question exists in
the first case pending before RTC.
Yes. The criminal case filed by the respondents
are prejudicial question. If the respondents
placement as sectoral members is declared null
and void then the criminal case wont exist in
the first place.
In the case of BELTRAN v. PEOPLE Petitioner
filed a nullity of marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity (AM-2-10-11-SC).
In her answer, Charmaine alleged that it was
the petitioner who abandoned the conjugal
home and lived with another woman. She
subsequently filed a criminal suit for
CONCUBINAGE.
Petitioner then filed a motion to defer
proceedings on the ground that it is a
prejudicial question to the filing of declaration
of nullity of marriage.
No. Charmaine did not file a prejudicial
question. The issues does not involve similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the
criminal action. The resolution of such issue
does not determine WON the criminal action
may proceed.
In the case of PASI v. LICHAUCO PASI won the
award and confirmation fo the assignment of
Philippine orbital slots 161E and 153E.
However, when they requested the Land banks
confirmation of its participation in a loan for the
governments assignment to PASI, DOTC USEC
Lichauco can no longer be assigned to PASI.
Pasi filed a CIVIL CASE to declare the nullity of
the award of orbital slot 153E. Subsequently
PASI filed a criminal case for Gross violation of
Section 3 of Ra 3019 (Anti-Graft and
Corruption).
Yes. A PREJUDICIAL QUESTION EXISTS. Because
if the civil case was declared null and void then
there would be no criminal case that would
proceed.
In the case of YAP v. CABALES Sps. Yap issued
several checks (PDC) but in the early part of
1997 when the remaining checks were
deposited, it was dishonoured.
Sps. Mirabueno filed civil action for collection of
sum of money and damages, and attys fee.
(accion in rem verso)
Subsequently, Prosecutor filed several
information for violation of Bp. Blg. 22 against
petitioner.
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS

Petitioner filed to suspend proceedings of the CHAPTER 2: NATURAL PERSONS

criminal case on the ground of prejudicial
question.
There is no prejudicial question. It generally
exists in a situation where a civil action and
criminal action are both pending. The rationale
of P.Q. is to avoid two conflicting decisions.
The civil case pertains to the sum of collection
of money while the criminal case pertains to the
ACT of ISSUING bouncing checks. Hence, they
are not intimately close to each other. NO P.Q.
In the case of DREAMWORK v. JANIOLA No
prejudicial question exist because the second
element was lacking: The resolution of such
issue determines whether or not the criminal
issue may proceed.
In the case of PIMENTEL v. PIMENTEL Maria
(pvt. Resp) filed an action for frustrated
parricide against Joselito Pimentel.
Subsequently Joselito was summoned for a civil
case for the declaration of nullity of marriage on
the ground of psychological incapacity.
Joselito then filed for suspension of proceedings
for the parricide, alleging that P.Q. exists.
In Sec. 7, Rule 111 of 2000 Rules on Crim.
Procedure: The civil case must be instituted first
prior to the criminal case.
In the case at bar, the criminal case was
instituted, subsequently the civil case was filed.
Further, the resolution of the civil case is not
prejudicial to suspension of criminal action.
In the case of CONSING Jr. V. Pp A civil action
based on defamation, fraud, physical injuries
may be independently instituted pursuant to
Art. 33 of the Civil Code. There was no
prejudicial question that existed in the present
case.
Art. 40 Birth Determines personality but the
conceived child shall be considered born for all
purposes that are favourable to it, provided it
be born later with the conditions specified in
the following article.
The presumptive personality accorded to an
unborn child is conditional and for limited
purposes only.
A fetus which is aborted by the doctor is not a
person under the law and doctor may be held
liable for MORAL and EXEMPLARY damages.
Art. 41 For Civil purposes, the fetus is
considered born if it is alive at the time it is
completely delivered from the mother;s
womb. However, if the fetus had an INTRA-
UTERINE life of less than seven (7) months, it is
not deemed born if it dies within 24 hours
after its complete delivery from the maternal
womb.
A child is considered born from the moment of
its TOTAL SEPARATION FROM THE MOTHERS
WOMB and is alive.
7 mos. And does not survive within 24 hours, a
child is not considered born.
A still-born child who is breathless, lifeless after
separation is not considered born under Art. 41
The burden of proof lies on the person who
alleges that the child was alive when born since
the law makes it a CONDITION that the child be
alive when separated.
In the case of QUIMIGUING v. ICAO Carmen
Quimiguing assisted by her parents sued Felix
ICAO. The defendant although married,
succeeded in having carnal knowledge several
times by force and intimidation. As a result, she
was pregnant. Despite efforts and drugs
supplied by ICAO. The plaintiff had to stop
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS

studying. Hence, She claims support at thereof eve prior to the child being delivered,
120.00php per month, damages, and attys fee. qualifies as death.

ICAO moved to dismiss for lack of cause of Likewise the unborn child qualifies as
action since the baby was not born. dependent. As CS defines depended: one who
relies on another for support; one not able to
In this case, though the baby was not born,
exist or sustain oneself without power or aid
ICAO is still liable to pay for damages caused to
from someone else.
the plaintiff.
Hortillano was able to comply with all the
In the case of CONTINENTAL STEEL v. Montano
elements under CBA.
- In this case Hortillano was an employee of CS,
he filed claim for Paternity Leave, Bereavement,
and Death and Accident Insurance for
dependent pursuant to Collective Bargaining
Agreement.
----asgnasgs;ldfnh;oisngapldfmapdfjsapoj
The claimwas based on the death of the unborn
child. The female fetus died during labor.

According to Continental steel, the unborn child AMDG!

never died because it never acquired juridical
personality.

Labor Arbiter Montano argued that fetus had

the right to be supported by the parents from
the very moment h/she was conceived. The
fetus had to rely on another for support, child
could have not existed or sustained himself
without the aid of someone else, specifically the
mother.

WON a dead fetus can never acquire a juridical

personality

Pursuant to Art. 37, Juridical capacity is inherent

in every natural person and is lost only through
death. Capacity to act, which is the power to do
acts with legal effect is acquired and may be
lost.

Life is not synonymous with civil personality.

One need not to acquire civil personality to
acquire before he could die. No less than, the
Constitution recognizes the life of the unborn
from conception, That the state must protect
equally with the life of the mother. If the
unborn already has life, then the cessation
Persons and Family Relations 2017
PFS