LEGAL RESEARCH

Part I

Sources of Legal Research

a. Printed Sources Constitution, statutes, court decisions, administrative rules and scholarly commentaries
b. Electronic Sources (for computer assisted legal research) computer database containing these and other
materials have dramatically changed the nature of legal research and improved its effectiveness. However,
the volume and variety of legal literature continues to grow, making researchers choice of tools and tactics
for each problem more difficult than ever.

Sources of LAW
a. Primary source of law Constitution, statutes passed by the legislature, ordinances, regulations and rulings
of administrative agencies

a.1. Secondary category of primary sources decisions of the Supreme Court

b. Secondary materials treaties, commentaries (for Civil Law: Arturo Tolentino; Remedial Law: Florenz D.
Regalado; Constitutional Law: Father Joaquin Bernas) and encyclopedias and other writings (example: legal
writings/academic journals, IBP Journals, Lawyers Review.)

STATUTORY LAW.
Our statutory law consists mainly of:
a. The 1987 Constitution
b. Treaties and International Agreements
c. Statutes enacted by the Legislature
d. Administrative Rules and Regulations
e. Ordinances by LGUs or Autonomous Regions

I. CONSTITUTION
a. Law of the highest authoritativeness and obligation.
b. Supreme law of the law, the ultimate authority to which reference must be made to determine the validity
of national laws, administrative regulations, local ordinances and executive actions.

Art. 7 (Civil Code) xxx

When the courts declare a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the
latter shall govern.

Administrative or Executive acts, orders and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary
to laws or the Constitution.

SUPREMACY OF THE CONSTITUTION. (Sec. 5, Art. VIII, Constitution)

(a) Grounds for declaring a law unconstitutional

1. the enactment of law may not be within the legislative powers of the law making body;
2. Arbitrary methods may have been established;
3. The purpose or effect violates the constitution or its basic principles.

(In Re: Cunanan In the Matter of the Petitions for Admission to the Bar of Unsuccessful Candidates of 1946 to
1953; ALBINO CUNANAN, ET AL, Resolution 1954 - the Bar Flunkers Case 94 Phil 534 RA 972
decreed that bar candidates who obtained in the bar exams of 1946 to 1953 a general average of 70% without
failing below 50% in any subject should be admitted in the practice of law despite their having been refused by
the Supreme Court.) Held: (1) It is obvious, therefore, that the ultimate power to grant license for the practice
of law belongs exclusively to this Court, and the law passed by Congress on the matter is of permissive
character, or as other authorities say, merely to fix the minimum conditions for the license.; (2) The law in
question, like those in the case of Day and Cannon, has been found also to suffer from the fatal defect of being a
class legislation, and that if it has intended to make a classification, it is arbitrary and unreasonable. xxx
Pursuant to the law in question, those who, without a grade below 50 per cent in any subject, have obtained a
general average of 69.5 per cent in the bar examinations in 1946 to 1951, 70.5 per cent in 1952, 71.5 per cent in
1953, and those will obtain 72.5 per cent in 1954, and 73.5 per cent in 1955, will be permitted to take and
subscribe the corresponding oath of office as members of the Bar, notwithstanding that the rules require a
minimum general average of 75 per cent, which has been invariably followed since 1950. Is there any motive of
the nature indicated by the abovementioned authorities, for this classification? If there is none, and none has
been given, then the classification is fatally defective.

(b) General rule: Law declared Unconstitutional confers no right, creates no office, affords no protection, and
justifies no acts performed under it.

Exception: The DOCTRINE OF OPERATIVE FACT, as an exception to the general rule, only applies as a
matter of equity and fair play. ) Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 79732, November 8, 1993, 227 SCRA
509.) The doctrine is applicable when a declaration of unconstitutionality will impose an undue burden on
those who have relied on the invalid law.

Thus, it was applied to a criminal case when a declaration of unconstitutionality would put the accused in
double jeopardy. (Tan v. Barrios, G.R. Nos. 85481-82, October 18, 1990, 190 SCRA 686, citing Aquino, Jr. v.
Military Commission No. 2, G.R. No. L-37364, May 9, 1975, 63 SCRA 546.) or would put in limbo the acts
done by a municipality in reliance upon a law creating it. (Municipality of Malabang v. Benito, G.R. No. L-
28113, March 28, 1969, 27 SCRA 533).

Such a view has support in logic and possesses the merit of simplicity. It may not however be sufficiently
realistic. It does not admit of doubt that prior to the declaration of nullity such challenged legislative
or executive act must have been in force and had to be complied with. This is so as until after the
judiciary, in an appropriate case, declares its invalidity, it is entitled to obedience and respect .
Parties may have acted under it and may have changed their positions. xxx. It is now accepted as a doctrine
that prior to its being nullified, its existence as a fact must be reckoned with. This is merely to reflect
awareness that precisely because the judiciary is the governmental organ which has the final say on
whether or not a legislative or executive measure is valid, a period of time may have elapsed before it can
exercise the power of judicial review that may lead to a declaration of nullity. It would be to deprive the law
of its quality of fairness and justice then, if there be no recognition of what had transpired prior to such
adjudication. (Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Roque Power Corporation, GR No. 187485,
October 8, 2013 / Taganito Mining Corporation vs. CIR, GR 196113 / Philex Mining Corp. vs. CIR, GR
197156)

(c) Partial unconstitutionality where a portion of a statute is rendered unconstitutional and the remainder
valid, the parts will be separated and the constitutional portion upheld, PROVIDED that the valid portion
must be so far independent of the invalid portion that is fair to presume that the legislature would have
enacted it by itself if they had supposed that they would not constitutionally enact the other. (Lidasan vs.
Comelec 21 SCRA 496)

Administrative/Executive acts. Requisites for validity: (a) the procedure fixed for its promulgation is
followed; (b) the scope of the act is within the statutory authority granted by the legislature/in harmony
with the provisions of the law if the act complied with these requisites, it is valid even if the courts are not
in agreement with the policy stated therein or its innate wisdom (Teoxon vs. Members of the Bd of
Administrator 33 SCRA 585)
II. TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS

Agreements made by two or more independent nations with view of public welfare. As a member of the family
of nations, the Philippines is a signatory to and has concluded numerous treaties and conventions.

The official text of treaties entered between the Philippines and foreign nations is published in the Official
Gazette. Another official source is the publication known as Treaty Series released by the DFA, beginning
August, 1947 at irregular intervals.

TREATY-MAKING IN THE PHILIPPINES

What is a treaty?

a. Under Philippine Laws, Treaties are international agreements entered into by the Philippines which require
legislative concurrence after executive ratification. This term may include compacts like conventions,
declarations, covenants and acts . (Section 2(b) Executive Order No. 459, Providing for the Guidelines in the
Negotiation of International Agreements and its Ratification).

b. Under International Law, Treaty means an international agreement concluded between States in written
form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related
instruments and whatever its particular designation. (Article 2 (1) (a), Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties)

c. Not all international agreements are governed by international law. The convention applies only to those
which are governed by the domestic law of one of the parties or some other national law chosen by the
parties. (Merlin M. Magallona, Primer on the Law of Treaties, p. 115)

What is an Executive Agreement?

Executive Agreements similar to treaties except that they do not require legislative concurrence . (Section 2(b)
Executive Order No. 459, Providing for the Guidelines in the Negotiation of International Agreements and its
Ratification)

What is the distinction between a treaty and an executive agreement?

a. The difference between the two is sometimes difficult of ready ascertainment. (Sayre, The
Constitutionality of Trade Agreements Acts 39 COLUMBIA L.R. 651, 755, quoted in 3 SCRA 357).

b. Under international law, there is no difference between treaties and executive agreements in their binding
effect upon states concerned, as long as the negotiating functionaries have remained within their powers .
(Hackworth, Digest of International Law, Vol. 5, p. 395, cited in USAFE Veterans Association Inc. vs.
Treasurer of the Philippines, 105 Phil. 1030, 1037 [1959]). International law continues to make no
distinction between treaties and executive agreements: they are equally binding obligations upon nations.
(Richard J. Erickson, The Making of Executive Agreements by the United States Department of Defense: An
agenda for Progress, 13 Boston U. Intl. L.J. 58 [1995], citing Restatement [third] of Foreign Relations Law
pt. III, introductory note [1987] and Paul Reuter, Introduction to the Law of Treaties 22 [Jose Mico & Peter
Haggemacher trans., 1989] cited in Consolidated Memorandum, p. 32.)

c. In our jurisdiction, we have recognized the binding effect of executive agreements even without the
concurrence of the Senate or Congress. Generally, treaties of any kind, whether bilateral or multilateral,
require Senate concurrence (Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., Constitutional Structure and Powers of Government,
Second Edition 1997) while executive agreements may be validly entered into without such concurrence.
(Commissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea Trading, 3 SCRA 351).
d. The members of the Constitutional Commission acknowledged the distinction between a treaty and an
executive agreement during their deliberations of Section 21 Article VII. One of the issues in the discussions
was trying to identify the kind of international agreements that require Senate concurrence.

e. Commissioner Joaquin Bernas made a clarification by quoting from the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Eastern Sea Trading:

The right of the executive to enter into binding agreements without the necessity of subsequent
Congressional approval has been confirmed by long usage. From the earliest days of our history, we have
entered into executive agreements covering such subjects as commercial and consular relations, most
favored nation rights, patent rights, trademark and copyright protection, postal and navigation
arrangements and the settlement of claims. The validity of this has never been seriously questioned by our
Courts.

Agreements with respect to the registration of trademarks have been concluded by the executive and
various countries under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1881 (21 Stat. 502) . . . International agreements
involving political issues or changes of national policy and those involving international agreements of a
permanent character usually take the form of treaties. But international agreements embodying adjustments
of detail, carrying out well established national policies and traditions and those involving arrangements of
a more or less temporary nature usually take the form of executive agreements. (The citation of said case is 3
SCRA 351.)

Commissioner Bernas further explained that international agreements, which require Senate concurrence,
are those, which are permanent in nature. Also, if it is with prior authorization from Congress, it does not
need subsequent concurrence by Congress. (Bernas, id)

f. The Department of Foreign Affairs in its press release (Press Release No. 314-03; 26 June 2003, Department
of Foreign Affairs) said that in executive agreement, there is no fundamental change in policy , nor will there
be need for legislation to fund the agreement. It does not impinge on any existing international legal
obligation.

What is the rationale for distinguishing a treaty form an executive agreement?

The distinction between a treaty or international agreement and an executive agreement is of great significance
in the Philippines because the procedure followed in the process of ratification is different.

If what is involved is a treaty, the concurrence by at least two-thirds of all the Members of the Senate is required.
(Section 21, Article VII, 1987 Philippine Constitution). On the other hand, if what is involved is an executive,
there is no such requirement.

What is the procedure for determining whether an agreement is a treaty or an executive agreement?

a. Internal procedure within the Office of the President and the DFA

In 1988, the Office of the President issued Memorandum Circular 89 to set the guidelines in case of conflict as
to whether an agreement is a treaty or an executive agreement. (a) The Legal Adviser of the Department of
Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Assistant Secretary on Legislative Affairs and the Senate will be given opportunity
to comment on the nature of the agreement. (b) Consultation shall be made with the leadership of the Senate.
(c) The Secretary of Foreign Affairs shall make the proper recommendation to the President. (Memorandum
Circular No. 89 of the Office of the President [1988]).

In 1997, Executive Order 459 was issued and under Sec. 9 thereof, the DFA determines the nature of an
agreement. Said Executive Order is silent if the determination by the DFA of the nature of agreement can be
overturned by the President or not.
If asked which of the two issuances is prevailing, as a rule, being a later act, E.O. 459 is controlling. However,
newly appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Antonio Eduardo Nachura, and prominent authors in
international law Jorge Coquia and Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago (Chairman of the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations before adjournment of the 13th Congress) are of the opinion that Memorandun Circular 89 is
still binding. (Ramos, Infante, Pasco, Cabugao, Memorandum on Negotiation and Treaty Ratification Process.)

What is the current framework for trade negotiations?

a. Who has the power to negotiate or make treaties?

The President has the power to make treaties implicitly in the general grant of authority in Section 1, Article VII
that The executive power is vested in the President of the Philippines, in particular as this is applied in foreign
relations. (Merlin M. Magallona, A Primer in International Law in Relation to Philippine Law, p.50)

By constitutional fiat and by the intrinsic nature of his office, the President, as head of State, is the sole organ
and authority in the external affairs of the country. (Bayan vs. Zamora, G.R. No. 138570. October 10, 2000). In
many ways, the President is the chief architect of the nations foreign policy; his dominance in the field of foreign
relations is (then) conceded. (Cortes, The Philippine Presidency a study of Executive Power, 2nd Ed., p. 195.)
Wielding vast powers an influence, his conduct in the external affairs of the nation, as Jefferson describes, is
executive altogether." (Cruz, Phil. Political Law, 1995 Ed., p. 223)

Since the President is the head of state in the system of government of the Philippines, he is the authority in the
countrys external or foreign relations. (Pimentel, Jr. vs. Office of the Executive Secretary, 462 SCRA 622 (2005),
p. 632, citing Cortes, The Philippine Presidency: A Study of Executive Power (1966), p. 187.) Being vested with
diplomatic powers, the President formulates foreign policy, deals with international affairs, represents the state
with foreign nations, maintains diplomatic relations, and enters into treaties or international agreements .
Likewise, the power granted to the Senate to concur in treaties (Section 21, Article VII, 1087 Constitution) is to
be interpreted as referring to treaties which the President makes and submits to the Senate for concurrence.

Normally, it is the Head of State or the Head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs who binds States in treaties.
These persons do not need to produce evidence of full powers to conclude a treaty. Treaty ratification is one of
the incidents of their position. For purposes of adopting a text to a treaty, the head of the diplomatic mission or
accredited representatives of States to an international conference or one of its organs are empowered to
authenticate or accredit the text of a treaty. If an act was performed without authorization or without the full
powers, a treaty can still be given force and effect provided it is subsequently confirmed by the State. (Id., Art.
8.)

b. Working procedure

Justice Isagani Cruz, in his book on International Law, describes the treaty-making process in this
wise (Pimentel vs. Office of the Executive Secretary, G.R. No. 158088, July 6, 2005):

The usual steps in the treaty-making process are: negotiation, signature, ratification, and exchange of the
instruments of ratification. The treaty may then be submitted for registration and publication under the U.N.
Charter, although this step is not essential to the validity of the agreement as between the parties.

1. Negotiation may be undertaken directly by the head of state but he now usually assigns this task to his
authorized representatives. These representatives are provided with credentials known as full powers, which
they exhibit to the other negotiators at the start of the formal discussions. It is standard practice for one of the
parties to submit a draft of the proposed treaty which, together with the counter-proposals, becomes the basis
of the subsequent negotiations. The negotiations may be brief or protracted, depending on the issues involved,
and may even collapse in case the parties are unable to come to an agreement on the points under
consideration.
In the Philippines, the negotiation phase of the treaty making process is essentially performed and controlled by
the Executive branch of the government through the Department of Foreign Affairs and the respective government
agencies involved. Once a treaty proposal is received by the Government the Department of Foreign is tasked to
determine whether or not said agreement is a treaty or an executive agreement. It is the Chief Executive,
through the recommendation of the DFA Secretary, who designates the persons who will comprise the Philippine
delegation and the departments, which will be involved and consulted in the negotiation.

Pursuant to Executive Order 459, the lead agency in the negotiation of a treaty or an executive agreement or
any amendment thereto shall convene a meeting of the panel members prior to the commencement of any
negotiations for the purpose of establishing the parameters of the negotiating position of the panel. No deviation
from the agreed parameters shall be made without prior consultation with the members of the negotiating
panel.

The panel of negotiators is normally composed of several individuals from the different agencies of government
who are technical experts and resource persons in certain areas of specialization. This group of persons is
normally referred to as technical working groups. A treaty, which has far-reaching effects on the different
industries, may involve several technical working groups. The technical working groups would meet and
outline the Philippine position and embody this position in writing. Ideally, the Philippine position must be in
conformity with the outlined policies, development goals and targets of the government and in general pursue
Philippine interest.

During the negotiation process, negotiators of each State party would meet and discuss to arrive at a mutually
beneficial arrangement. Battles over semantics and phrasing are normal in treaty negotiations. This stage is
very tedious and negotiators must be very vigilant in looking at each particular provision. Before concurring to
a particular provision, said negotiator must agree to it only after consultation with other negotiators and
evaluate if it is in conformity with the outlined Philippine position. In issues of primordial importance or high
significance, public consultation must be performed to be able to determine its overall impact on the industries
that are affected or parties who will be prejudiced. Negotiators aside from being experts must be strong,
assertive and emphatic in pursuing the Philippine position. Disagreements among the negotiators over certain
provisions is also normal, but some experienced negotiators have perfected the art of inserting provisions in
unexpected sections or rephrasing rejected provisions to make it appear acceptable. The quote timing is
everything finds application in the art negotiations, some negotiators will invoke provisions of doubtful
validity, during such times when negotiators of the other party are already quite tired or weary from long hours
spent on text analysis, interpretation and revision. Once a final draft of the agreement is reached, it will be sent
to the office of the Chief Executive who will signify his approval . If he approves the agreement, he will forward it
to the Office of the Executive Secretary, who in turn, will attest, to the authenticity and veracity of the text
signed or ratified. The Office of the Executive Secretary receives texts in their final form but can override these
agreements on broad grounds of it being against the Constitution, the law or public policy, in general. (Ramos,
Infante, Pasco, Cabugao, Interview, Atty. Minerva Tan, Office of the Executive Secretary, cited in the
Memorandum on Negotiation and Treaty Ratification Process)

2. If and when the negotiators finally decide on the terms of the treaty, the same is opened for signature. This
step is primarily intended as a means of authenticating the instrument and for the purpose of symbolizing the
good faith of the parties; but, significantly, it does not indicate the final consent of the state in cases where
ratification of the treaty is required. The document is ordinarily signed in accordance with the alternat, that is,
each of the several negotiators is allowed to sign first on the copy which he will bring home to his own state.

3. Ratification, which is the next step, is the formal act by which a state confirms and accepts the provisions of
a treaty concluded by its representatives. The purpose of ratification is to enable the contracting states to
examine the treaty more closely and to give them an opportunity to refuse to be bound by it should they find it
inimical to their interests. It is for this reason that most treaties are made subject to the scrutiny and consent of
a department of the government other than that which negotiated them. Ratification is generally held to be an
executive act, undertaken by the head of the state or of the government, as the case may be, through which the
formal acceptance of the treaty is proclaimed. (Gerhard von Glahn, Law Among Nations, An Introduction to
Public International Law, 4th Ed., p. 486.) A State may provide in its domestic legislation the process of
ratification of a treaty. The consent of the State to be bound by a treaty is expressed by ratification when: (a) the
treaty provides for such ratification, (b) it is otherwise established that the negotiating States agreed that
ratification should be required, (c) the representative of the State has signed the treaty subject to ratification, or
(d) the intention of the State to sign the treaty subject to ratification appears from the full powers of its
representative, or was expressed during the negotiation. (Article 14 of the Vienna Convention, cited in Coquia
and Defensor-Santiago, Intenational Law, 1998 Ed., pp. 506-507.)

In our jurisdiction, the power to ratify is vested in the President and not, as commonly believed, in the
legislature. The role of the Senate is limited only to giving or withholding its consent, or concurrence, to the
ratification. (Cruz, Isagani, International Law, 1985 Ed., p.175)

4. The next step is the exchange of the instruments of ratification, which usually also signifies the effectivity
of the treaty unless a different date has been agreed upon by the parties. Where ratification is dispensed with
and no effectivity clause is embodied in the treaty, the instrument is deemed effective upon its signature. (Cruz,
International Law (1998 Ed., pp. 172-174)

5. In our jurisdiction, for the treaty to be valid and effective, it must be concurred in by the Senate. The
process of treaty concurrence by the Senate follows the procedure under the 1987 Constitution on the passage of
bills. Such rules are supplemental by the Rules of the Senate. The step-by-step process of treaty concurrence is
discussed below.

Initially, the President, through a letter to the Senate, transmits to the Senate the Instrument of Ratification and
the text of the ratified treaty for concurrence pursuant to Sec. 21, Art. VII of the Constitution. The President
transmits the same by acting through the Executive Secretary, who himself makes a letter of endorsement to
the Senate. (The Senate Archives have a compilation of some of the documents and letters of government
officials and members of the Philippine Mission to the United Nations (including those of then President Fidel
Ramos, Executive Secretary Teofisto Guingona, and Foreign Affairs Secretary Roberto Romulo) regarding the
World Trade Organization. This compilation is indexed as CP-Senate Res. No. 97 B9-F97 in the Archives but it
can be asked as documents pertaining to the WTO deliberations.)

The Senate receives the agreement through its Legislative Bills and Index Services (Bills and Index). The Bills
and Index reproduces the text of the agreement and includes it in the Order of Business. It also indexes and
publishes an abstract of the agreement.

At the beginning of each Senate Session, the Secretary of the Senate reports all bills, proposed Senate
resolutions, and correspondences from the other branches of the government, and such other matters included
in the Order of Business. Like an ordinary bill, the international agreement undergoes three readings.

In the first reading, only the title and number is read . The title usually goes Concurrence in the Ratification of
(the treaty or international agreement) with the corresponding Proposed Senate Resolution Number. (Rules of
the Senate, Rule 36)

Afterwards, the treaty is referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. If the treaty concerns other Committees,
it is also referred to such other Committees for their joint consideration and recommendation. As an illustration,
the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) was also referred to the Committee on National Defense. If the treaty
concerns almost all or all the Senate Committees, it is referred to what is called the Committee of the Whole. For
instance, the World Trade Organization (WTO) was referred to the Committee of the Whole. The role of the
Committee is to study and analyze the agreement. It makes consultations to studies and position papers. It
conducts public hearings and considers public testimonies. The final output and recommendations are
documented in the committee report. The committee report is filed with the Bills and Index, which then
includes it in the Calendar of Business for second reading. (Interview withe Eduardo Sibuma, supra.)

At the start of the second reading, the Senator-Sponsor/s of the treaty endorses the committee report to the
Chamber through a sponsorship speech. During the second reading, the treaty would be opened to general
debate and to amendments. At the close of the debate, the members of the Senate would vote.
If approved by the Senate, the bill would pass to third reading. The Committee on Foreign Relations will
document any action taken in the form of a Proposed Resolution. The Proposed Resolution shall be engrossed
and printed by the Bills and Index, and distributed to each Senator three (3) days before third reading. (Sec.
26(2), Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution. Under the same provision, the requirements of three readings on
separate days and the distribution of the final copies of the bill before its passage may be dispensed with by a
certificate of urgency issued by the President for the purpose of meeting a public calamity or emergency.)

After three days from the distribution of the resolution with the treaty attached thereto, the Proposed
Resolution shall be submitted for nominal voting. The treaty shall be deemed approved if 2/3 of the Senators
voted for its approval. A Senate Resolution concurring in the ratification of the treaty is then adopted. The
adopted Senate Resolution is brought to the Secretary of the Senate, who thereafter transmits a copy thereof to
the Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

d. Opportunities/venues for private sector participation

Although the Chief Executive is the sole authority in treaty-making, it is nonetheless the policy of the State that the
people and their organizations have the right to participate in decision-making processes . (Sec. 16, Art. XIII of
the 1987 Constitution, The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable
participation at all levels of social, political, and effective decision-making shall not be abridged. The
State shall, by law, facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms. ) Organizations
refer to trade unions, peasant organizations, urban poor, cooperatives, human rights groups, religious groups,
and also associations of landowners and businessmen. The role of the State, by enacting a law, would be mere
facilitation of the consultation mechanisms, and not their creation, for consultation mechanisms were already
operating without the States action by law. Also, people refers to all the people, including minors. (Bernas,
The Intent of the 1986 Constitution Writers (1995), pp. 998-1004, citing II Record of the Constitutional
Commission, p. 608 and III Record of the Constitutional Commission pp. 146-147, 162-163.)

Also, the people shall have the right to access to all transactions of the State that concern public interest, subject to
standards prescribed by law. (Sec. 28, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution, Subject to reasonable conditions
prescribed by law, the State adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its
transactions involving public interest.) During the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission,
Commissioner Blas Ople, the sponsor of Sec. 28 Art. II, said that transactions include not just the perfected
contract but also the steps and negotiations taken that led to a contract. Commissioners Ople and Napoleon
Rama further explained that the difference between the provision under State Policies and that under the Bill of
Rights is that the latter affords the right of the people to demand information while the former speaks of the
duty of the government to disclose information even when nobody demands. (Bernas, id, pp. 155-156, citing IV
Record of the Constitutional Commission, pp. 24-26, 29.)

It necessarily follows that in all negotiations made by the President as to entering into international
agreements, it is the duty of the government to disclose to the people, even without the latter making a
demand, all its acts, but always limited by conditions prescribed by law.

The Supreme Court laid down in Chavez vs. Presidential Commission on Good Government (299 SCRA 744, pp.
763-765.) some of the restrictions to the State policy of public disclosure and to the exercise of the right to
information: 1) National security matters which include State secrets regarding military and intelligence
information, diplomatic matters, and information on inter-government exchanges prior to the conclusion of
treaties and executive agreements; 2) trade secrets pursuant to the Intellectual Property Code; 3) banking
transactions as provided by the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Act; 4) criminal matters or classified law enforcement
matters; and 5) other confidential matters including diplomatic correspondence, closed door Cabinet meetings,
executive sessions of Congress, and internal deliberations of the Supreme Court.

The right guaranteed by Section 7 of the Bill of Rights is the right to information on matters of public concern .
(Sec. 7, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution , The right of the people to information on matters of public
concern shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law. ) A
consequence of this right is the right to access official records and documents. These rights are subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law. It follows that the limitations include regulations on determining what
information are matters of public concern, and the manner of access to such matters of public concern.

In the case of Legaspi vs. Civil Service Commission,(150 SCRA 530 (1987) the Supreme Court said that public
concern has no exact definition. It encompasses an extensive scope of subjects which the public may want to
know, either because it directly affects their lives or simply because it arouses his interest. Each case must be
examined carefully.

It was also held in the above case that the duty to disclose information of public concern and to allow access to
public records is not discretionary on the part of the concerned government agency. If denied of the enjoyment
of the Constitutional right, the remedy of the citizen is to file a petition for mandamus to compel the
performance of the constitutional obligation.

Indeed, under Sec. 1 of Art. II (Declaration of Principles and State Policies) of the 1987 Constitution, The
Philippines is a democratic and republican State. Sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them. Republicanism means all government authority emanates from the people
and is exercised by representatives chosen by the people. Hence, the people are declared supreme.(Cruz,
Philippine Political Law (2002 Ed.), pp.51-52.)

What is the significant role of the Legislative branch in the treaty-making process?

Notwithstanding the sole authority of the President to negotiate and enter into treaties, the 1987 Constitution
limits his power by requiring the concurrence of 2/3 of all the members of the Senate for the validity and
effectivity of the treaty entered into by him. (Sec. 21, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution, No treaty or
international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the
members of the Senate.) The role of the Senate is confined to simply giving or withholding its consent to the
ratification. (Isagani Cruz, International Law, 2000, p.174)

The involvement of the Senate in the treaty-making process manifests the adherence of the Philippine system of
government to the principle of checks and balances. This indispensable participation of the legislative branch by
way of concurrence provides the check to the ratification of the treaty by the executive branch.

What is the effect of Senate Concurrence to a treaty?

A treaty becomes valid and effective if concurred in by two-thirds of all the members of the Senate. (Section 21,
Article VII, 1987 Constitution.) This means it forms part of Philippine law by virtue of transformation. By an act
of the legislature, treaty rules may be transformed into Philippine law, to be applied or enforced as part of
Philippine law. (Merlin M. Magallona, A Primer in International Law in Relation to Philippine Law, p. 49)

The treaty becomes part of the law of the land and it becomes obligatory and incumbent on our part, under the
principles of international law, to be bound by the terms of the agreement. In Bayan vs. Zamora (G.R. No.
138570. October 10, 2000), the Supreme Court said that with the ratification of the VFA, which is equivalent to
final acceptance, and with the exchange of notes between the Philippines and the United States of America, it
now becomes obligatory and incumbent on our part, under the principles of international law, to be bound by
the terms of the agreement. Thus, no less than Section 2, Article II of the Constitution, ( Sec. 2. The Philippines
renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of
international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice,
freedom, cooperation, and amity with all nations.) declares that the Philippines adopts the generally
accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace,
equality, justice, freedom, cooperation and amity with all nations.
As a member of the family of nations, the Philippines agrees to be bound by generally accepted rules for the
conduct of its international relations. While the international obligation devolves upon the state and not upon
any particular branch, institution, or individual member of its government, the Philippines is nonetheless
responsible for violations committed by any branch or subdivision of its government or any official thereof. As
an integral part of the community of nations, we are responsible to assure that our government, Constitution
and laws will carry out our international obligation. (Louis Henkin, Richard C. Pugh, Oscar Schachter, Hans
Smit, International Law, Cases and Materials, 2nd Ed American Casebook Series, p. 136.)

Hence, we cannot readily plead the Constitution as a convenient excuse for non-compliance with our
obligations, duties and responsibilities under international law.

Beyond this, Article 13 of the Declaration of Rights and Duties of States adopted by the International Law
Commission in 1949 provides: Every State has the duty to carry out in good faith its obligations arising
from treaties and other sources of international law, and it may not invoke provisions in its constitution
or its laws as an excuse for failure to perform this duty. (Gerhard von Glah, supra, p. 487.)

Equally important is Article 26 of the convention which provides that Every treaty in force is binding upon
the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith. This is known as the principle of pacta sunt
servanda which preserves the sanctity of treaties and have been one of the most fundamental principles of
positive international law, supported by the jurisprudence of international tribunals. (Harris, p. 634 cited in
Coquia, International Law, supra, p. 512.)

What is the effect if the Senate does not concur to a treaty?

As provided for by the constitution, a treaty not concurred in by the Senate will not be valid and effective. (Sec.
21, Art. VII of the 1987 Constitution)

Under the Philippine Legal System, how does a treaty stand in relation to the Philippine Constitution?

The Constitution is the basis for ascertaining the legality or validity of the treaty. By virtue of Article VIII,
Section 5(2)(a) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may determine the constitutionality of a treaty or
declare it as violative of a statute.(Merlin M. Magallona, A Primer in International Law in Relation to Philippine
Law, p.58)

How does a treaty stand in relation to a statute?

Being part of the law of the land and therefore an internal law, a treaty is not superior to an enactment of the
Congress of the Philippines, rather it would be in the same class as the latter. (Abbas v. Commission on
Elections (179 SCRA 287)

III. STATUTES ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE

In the Philippines, legislation is one of the three principal sources of our laws. The other are court decisions or
jurisprudence and custom.

A. Constitutional provision on the law-making power and process with Senate and House of
Representatives.

SECTION 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local
application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may
propose or concur with amendments.
SECTION 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in
the title thereof.

(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and
printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage,
except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or
emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall
be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.

SECTION 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President.
If he approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to
the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large in its Journal and proceed to reconsider
it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall
be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if
approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of
each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be
entered in its Journal. The President shall communicate his veto of any bill to the House where it originated
within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.

(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or
tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object.

The following is a SUMMARY of how a bill becomes a law:

a. Filing/Calendaring for First Reading

A bill is filed in the Office of the Secretary where it is given a corresponding number and calendared for First
Reading.

b. First Reading

Its title, bill number, and authors name are read on the floor, after which it is referred to the proper committee.

c. Committee Hearings/Report

Committee conducts hearings and consultation meetings. It then either approves the proposed bill without an
amendment, approves it with changes, or recommends substitution or consolidation with similar bills filed.

d. Calendaring for Second Reading

The Committee Report with its approved bill version is submitted to the Committee on Rules for calendaring
for Second Reading.

e. Second Reading

Bill author delivers sponsorship speech on the floor. Senators engage in debate, interpellation, turno en contra,
and rebuttal to highlight the pros and cons of the bill. A period of amendments incorporates necessary changes
in the bill proposed by the committee or introduced by the Senators themselves on the floor.

f. Voting on Second Reading

Senators vote on the second reading version of the bill. If approved, the bill is calendared for third reading.
g. Voting on Third Reading

Printed copies of the bills final version are distributed to the Senators. This time, only the title of the bill is read
on the floor. Nominal voting is held. If passed, the approved Senate bill is referred to the House of
Representatives for concurrence.

h. At the House of Representatives

The Lower Chamber follows the same procedures (First Reading, Second Reading and Third Reading).

i. Back to the Senate

If the House-approved version is compatible with that of the Senates, the final versions enrolled form is
printed. If there are certain differences, a Bicameral Conference Committee is called to reconcile conflicting
provisions of both versions of the Senate and of the House of Representatives. Conference committee submits
report on the reconciled version of the bill, duly approved by both chambers. The Senate prints the reconciled
version in its enrolled form.

j. Submission to Malacaang

Final enrolled form is submitted to Malacan ang. The President either signs it into law, or vetoes and sends it
back to the Senate with veto message.

B. Ordinance making power by the LGU (including the barangay)

Ordinances are enacted similarly as national laws. Here are the STAGES:

1. Filing of bills/sponsorship parts: Title / Preamble / Whereas / Principles or Clause / Text / Substance
and Date of Effectivity.

2. First Reading reading of the title and number of bill then referred to the appropriate committee

3. Committee Hearings deliberations, approval with or without amendments, substitution or

consolidation, and preparation of committee report

4. Second Reading period of debate (reading, sponsorship, interpellation), period of amendments

(committee and individual amendments), and approval

5. Third Reading distribution in printed form, and approval / roll call / vote

Unlike that of congress, sanggunians can undertake the 3 reading procedure even in 1 day (Malonzo vs. Zamora,
GR No. 137718, July 27, 1999).

Approval of Ordinance every ordinance enacted by the sanggunian (except barangay) shall be presented to
the LCE for approval (Sec. 54, LGC)

3 ways by which an enacted ordinance can be considered an approved ordinance:

1. When the mayor or governor affix his signature;
2. When the mayor failed to act within the reglementary period for him to approve the same;
3. By 2/3 vote to override the veto of the mayor.

Ordinances enacted by the Sangguniang Barangay shall (only ministerial per DILG Opinion No. 52, series of
2009), upon approval by the majority of all its member, be signed by the punong barangay.
Veto power of the LGE (Sec. 55, LGC)
1. Entire Veto for ordinary ordinance the mayor cannot veto any item but should veto the ordinance in its
entirety;
2. Item Veto with respect to (a) appropriations ordinance, (b) resolutions which approve local development
plans and (c) resolution approving public investment programs, item veto is applicable.

--- the veto power is complete when the mayor communicated his written veto message to the sanggunian
coupled with the act of returning the proposed ordinance unsigned.

Grounds for the exercise of the veto power of the LGE:

1. Ordinance is ultra vires
2. Ordinance is prejudicial to the public welfare

SEC. 56. REVIEW of Component City and Municipal Ordinances or Resolutions by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan.

(a) Within three (3) days after approval, the secretary to the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang
Bayan shall forward to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for review, copies of approved ordinances and the
resolutions approving the local development plans and public investment programs formulated by the local
development councils.

(b) Within thirty (30) days after receipt of copies of such ordinances and resolutions, the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan shall examine the documents or transmit them to the provincial attorney, or if there be none,
to the provincial prosecutor for prompt examination. The provincial attorney or provincial prosecutor shall,
within a period of ten (10) days from receipt of the documents, inform the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in
writing his comments or recommendations, which may be considered by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan in
making its decision.

(c) If the Sangguniang Panlalawigan finds that such an ordinance or resolution is beyond the power
conferred upon the Sangguniang Panlungsod or Sangguniang Bayan concerned, it shall declare such
ordinance or resolution invalid in whole or in part. The Sangguniang Panlalawigan shall enter its action in
the minutes and shall advise the corresponding city or municipal authorities of the action it has taken.

(d) If no action has been taken by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan within thirty (30) days after submission of
such an ordinance or resolution, the same shall be presumed consistent with law and therefore valid.

Review of Barangay Ordinance by the Sangguniang Panlungsod/Bayan:

a. Within 10 days after its enactment, the sangguniang barangay shall furnish copies of the barangay
ordinance to the Sangguniang panlungsod/bayan as to whether the ordinance is consistent with law and
city or municipal ordinance;
b. If found to be inconsistent with law and the ordinance, it shall be returned with comments and
recommendation to the sangguniang barangay for adjustment, amendment or modifications. Until then, the
barangay ordinance is suspended until the revision call for is effected;
c. If inacted by the sangguniang panlungsod/bayan within 30 days from receipt, the same shall be deemed
approved.

xxx xxx

Art. 3 (Civil Code) Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
Rationale: everyone is conclusively presumed to know the law. When a law is passed by congress, duly
approved by the president, properly published and consequently becomes effective, the public is always put on
constructive notice of the laws existence and effectivity.

This policy is founded not only on expediency and public policy but also on necessity; otherwise a convenient
shelter (immunity) from punitive effects of a disregard of the law would be made easily available instead of
punishment, ignorance is rewarded. (Zulueta vs. Zulueta, 1 Phil 258; Consunji vs. CA GR 137873 4/20/01)

Applicability of the Maxim. Art. 3 Applies to all domestic laws and not to foreign laws. (Luna vs. Linatoc 74
Phil 15; Zulueta vs. Zulueta 1 Phil 258).

Thus, ignorance of a foreign law will not be an ignorance of law but an ignorance of fact. Foreign laws must be
alleged and proved as a matter of fact, there being no judicial notice of foreign law.

Cases:
(1) Thus, a marriage in China celebrated before a village leader therein cannot be recognized as valid in the
Philippines, unless there is a proof that indeed in China and according to Chinese laws such marriage is valid.
Without such proof, we will assume that the law on marriage in China is the same as the law in the Philippines
(processual presumption), and in the Philippines, it is well-known that a village leader cannot perform a
marriage. (Wong Woo Yiu, L-21076, 3/31/65)

(2) The deceased Hodges was a citizen of Texas but a domiciliary of the Philippines. A claim was made by the
administrator (PCIB) of his estate that under Texas law successional rights to the estate of the deceased would
be governed by the law of the domicile. HELD: Before Texas Law should be applied in the instant case, it must
be alleged and proved as a matter of fact, there being no judicial notice of foreign law. (Phil. Commercial and
Industrial Bank vs. Escolin 56 SCRA 266)

-- {Written foreign law can be proved in our courts by an official publication thereof or a copy attested by the
officer or his deputy having legal custody of the record. Rule 132 Sec.25}

Honest Error of the law not a ground for disbarment. No attorney is bound to know all the law; God forbid
that it should be imagined that an attorney or even a judge is bound to know all the law. (Filart 40 Phil. 205)

Mistake of fact. Ignorance of fact may excuse a party from legal consequences of his conduct. Ex. A man who
marries a second wife upon the reasonable belief that his first wife missing for 10 years, is dead, does not incur
criminal liability for bigamy. (U.S. vs. Enriquez, 32 Phil. 202; see however Art 41 of the FC)

Difficult questions of law. (Has been given the same effect as a mistake of fact.). Art 526 He is deemed a
possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which
invalidates it. xxx MISTAKE upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be a basis of good faith.

Basis of good faith This does not mean, however, that one is excused because of such ignorance. He is still
liable but his liability is mitigated by reason of good faith.

It has been held that one who possesses land by virtue of a void contract can nevertheless be considered a
possessor on good faith. (Kasilag vs. Rodriguez 69 Phil 217)

IV. JURISPRUDENCE

Art. 8 (Civil Code) Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form
part of the legal system of the Philippines.
Judicial Decision. although in themselves are not law, assume the same authority as the statute itself.
Judicial interpretation/application merely establish the contemporaneous legislative intent that the construed
law purports to carry into effect. (Peo vs. Licera 65 SCRA 270)

(a) The decision referred to are those enunciated by the SC, which is the court of final resort. However, the
rulings of the CA may serve as precedents for inferior courts on points of law (still undecided in our
jurisprudence) not covered by the SC decision, and a ruling of the CA may become a doctrine. (Miranda vs.
Imperial 77 Phil 1066).

(b) Obiter dicta/dictum opinions not necessary to the determination of a case uttered in a way, not upon the
point of question pending where the court were turning aside from the main topic of the case to collateral
subjects. (People vs. Macaraeg L-4316 5/28/52; Navarro vs. Domagtoy 259 Scra 129)

Navarro vs. Domagtoy 259 SCRA 129. Administrative case was filed against a judge who solemnized
OUTSIDE his courts jurisdiction. According to the SC, there is only a resultant irregularity in the formal
requisites. This statement is erroneous because it generally makes the marriage null and void. It is
submitted, however, that since the principal issue in the Domagtoy case involves administrative liability of
the judge and not the validity of a marriage, the said statement of the SC is a mere obiter dictum and
therefore does not create a precedent.

(c) Dissenting opinion affirms or overrules no claim, right or obligation. It does not dispose of nor award
anything. Merely an expression of view. (Tolentino vs. Ongsiako L-17938, 4/30/63)

Stare Decisis.

a. Adherence to judicial precedents once a case has been decided one way, then another case, involving
exactly the same point at issue, should be decided in the same manner. This doctrine is based on the
principle that once a question of law has been examined and decided, it should be deemed settled and
closed to further argument.

b. However, this principle does not mean blind adherence to precedents. The doctrine or rule laid down,
which has been followed for years, no matter how sound it may be, if found contrary to law, must be
abandoned. (Tan Chong vs. Sec of Labor 79 Phil 249); and particularly it is not wise to subordinate legal
reason to case law and by so doing perpetuate error. (Phil Trust Co. vs, Mitchell 59 Phil 30; Phil Veterans
Office vs. Segundo, 164 SCRA 365) Ex. the old rule that a deaf mute was presumed to be an idiot no longer
prevails; such persons are now considered as capable of entering into a contract is shown to have sufficient
mental capacity. (Dir. of Lands vs. Abelardo 54 Phil 687)

Art. 4 (Civil Code) Laws shall have no retroactive effect unless the contrary is provided.

Retroactive law. one which takes away or impairs vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a
new obligation and imposes new duties or attaches new disability in respect to transaction or
consideration already past. (Castro vs. Sagales 94 Phil 208)

Not applicable to Case Law especially when prejudice will result to the party that has followed the earlier
SC decision (See Tan Chong vs. Sec. of Labor 79 Phil 249; Peo. vs. Licera 65 SCRA 270; Gold Creek Mining
Corp. vs. Rodriguez 66 Phil 259)

Apiag vs. Cantero 268 SCRA 47, Judge Cantero was charged administratively of immorality, among others,
for entering into a second marriage without having the first marriage judicially declared nullity (void on the
ground of drama marriage when he was still young) HELD: The 2 nd marriage cannot be a basis for
administrative liability against J. Cantero for immorality, because at the time of the 2 nd marriage of the
judge, the prevailing jurisprudence was that judicial declaration of nullity is not needed in void marriages.
 The subsequent marriage of the judge was solemnized just before the SC decided Wiegel vs. Sempio Diy 143
SCRA 499 declaring that there was a need for a judicial declaration of nullity of void marriage.

Art. 9 (Civil Code) No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence,
obscurity or insufficiency of laws.

Courts are governed: (1st) by written law; (2nd) customs of the place; (3rd) judicial decisions; (4th) by general
principles of law (Manresa).

The court must decide the question, not in accordance with law for there is none, but in conformity with justice,
reason and equity, in view of the circumstances of the case. (Gregorio Araneta vs. Rodas 81 Phil 806)

do and must legislate In the absence of the law, the judge must always be guided by equity, fairness and a
sense of justice. Art 9 recognizes that in certain instances, the court in the language of J. Holmes, do and must
legislate in filling the gaps in the law; because the mind of the legislator, like all human beings is finite and
therefore cannot envisage all possible cases to which the law may apply (Floresca vs. Philex Mining Corp. 136
SCRA 136)

-- and for illustration; see Republic vs. Orbecido GR 154380 10/5/05, where the SC in effect legislated on Art 26
par. 2 FC) In 1981, Cipriano Orbecido married Lady Myros Villanueva. In 1986, Lady went to the US. Later
Cipriano learned that she has been naturalized as a US citizen, obtained a divorce decree, married one Innocent
Stanley. Cipriano then filed a petition for authority to remarry. SC granted the petition.

Art. 26. All marriages (a) Solemnized Outside The Philippines, (b) in accordance with the laws in force in
the country where they were solemnized, and (c) valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country,
except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 36 37 and 38. (17a)

Where a marriage between a (a) Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated (b) and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad BY THE ALIEN SPOUSE capacitating him or her to remarry, --- the
FILIPINO SPOUSE shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (As amended by Executive Order
227)

HELD: The intent of par. 2 Art 26 is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino remains married to an
alien spouse, who after obtaining a divorce, is longer married to the Filipino spouse. Thus, taking into
consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, we hold that Par. 2 Art 26 should be
interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage
were Filipino citizens, but later on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains
a divorce decree. The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry AS IF the other party were a
foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would be to sanction absurdity
and injustice. The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of the
marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the alien spouse
capacitating the latter to marry.

Customs.
1. Requisites: Plurality of acts; Uniformity of acts; General practice by great mass of the social group; Continued
performance; General conviction that the acts are obligatory or corresponds to necessity; and, Must not be
contrary to law, public order or policy.
2. A judge cannot dismiss a case requiring decision as to who was the winner in a cockfight solely because he is
not acquainted with the rules of cockfighting. He should apply the customs of the place, or in default thereof,
general principle of law. (Chu Jan vs. Bernas 34 Phil 631)

Equity.
(a) (Alonzo vs. Padua 150 SCRA 259) Defined as being justice according to natural law and right. Aptly, the real
office of equity is to correct deficiency of, and to supplement, positive law growing as it does, out of necessity.
(b) Ex. Hermanos vs. Saldana 55 SCRA 342. In two separate contracts for the sale of two lots in a subdivision to
the same buyer, who defaulted in both contracts but where the total payment could cover one lot, the seller was
ordered to execute one absolute deed of sale to cover one lot.

Art. 11 (Civil Code) Customs which are contrary to law, public order, or public policy shall not be
countenanced.

Art. 12 (Civil Code) Customs must be proved as fact, according to the rules of evidence.