PERSONS AND FAMILY REVIEWER

PART ONE
ARTICLE 2. EFFECTIVITY OF THE LAWS
LAWS SHALL TAKE EFFECT AFTER FIFTEEN
DAYS FOLLOWING THE COMPLETION OF THEIR
PUBLICATION EITHER IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE
OF GENERAL CIRCULATION OF NEWSPAPER IN
THE PHILIPPINES UNLESS PROVIDED BY LAW
When law takes effect:
GENERAL RULE: 15 days after completion of
publication in OG or newspaper of general circulation.
EXCEPTION: the law can provide for its own fate of
effectivity.
PURPOSE: The people are deemed to have
conclusively been notified of the law even if they have
not read them.
COVERED BY THE PUBLICATION REQUIREMENTS

PD

EO

ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES
AND
REGULATIONS
NOT COVERED BY THE REQUIREMENT OF
PUBLICATION

INTERPRETATIVE REGUALTIONS AND

THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS
INTERNAL IN NATURE

LETTERS OF INSTRUCTIONS

MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE
TANADA VS TUVERA
That without publication there can be no effectivity.
Article 2 does not preclude the requirement of
publication in the Official Gazette even if the law itself
provides for date of its effectivity.
ARTICLE 3. IGNORANCE OF THE LAW
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW EXCUSES NO ONE
FROM COMPLIANCE THEREWITH.
KASILAG VS RODRIGUEZ
The CC of the Philippines provides that every person
who is unaware of any law in his title or in its manner of
its acquisition by which is invalidated shall be deemed a
possessor in good faith
CONSUNJI VS CA
The application of article 3 is limited to mandatory and
prohibitory laws. This maybe deduced from the
language of the provisions, which notwithstanding a
persons ignorance does not excuses his/her
compliance therewith.
ARTICLE 4 RETROACTIVITY
LAWS SHALL HAVE NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT,
UNLESS THE CONTRARY IS PROVIDED
GENERAL RULE: Laws are not retroactive
EXCEPTION:

Penal laws favorable to the accused

Interpretative statutes

When the law expressly provides

Remedial statutes

Curative statutes

Emergency laws

Laws creating new rights

EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION

EX POST FACTO LAW

PFR-MIDTERMS CADC

WHEN RETROACTIVITY IMPAIRS THE

OBLIGATION OF CONTRACT
ARUEGO VS CA
THE present law cannot be given retroactive effect on
so far as the instant case is concerned , as its
application will prejudice the vested right of private
respondent to have her case decided under the article
285 of the CC

ARTICLE 5 MANDATORY AND PROHIBATORY

LAWS
ACTS EXECUTED AGAINST THE PROVION OF
MANDATORY OR PROHIBITORY LAWS SHALL BE
VOID, EXCEPT WHEN THE LAW ITSELF
AUTHORIZE THEIR VALIDITY
GENERAL RUULE: ACTS violating Mandatory or
Prohibitory laws are void
EXCEPTION

When law itself authorize their validity

When law makes the act only voidable and

not void

When law makes the act valid but punishes

the violator
BREHM VS REPUBLIC
THE following cannot adopt non residential aliens. It is
therefore mandatory because it contains words of
positive prohibition and is couched in negative terms
importing he act required shall not be done otherwise
than designated.
ARTICLE 7 REPEAL OF LAWS
LAWS ARE REPEALED ONLY BY SUBSEQUENT
ONES, AND THEIR VIOLATION OR NON
OBSERVANCE SHALL NOT BE EXCUSED BY
DISUSE, OR CUSTOM OR PRACTICE TO
CONTRARY
THE LAWS ARE INCONSISTENT TO THE
CONSTITUTION THE LATTER SHALL GOVERN
OTHER LAWS WHEN THEY ARE NOT CONTRARY
TO LAWS OR THE CONSTITUTION ARE VALID
REPEAL OF LAWS
1. Express repeal-repeal of repealing law will
not revive the old laws
2. Implied repeal- he provisions of the
subsequent law are incompatible with those
of the previous law.
ARTICLE 8 JUDCIAL DECISIONS APPLYING OR
INTERPRETING THE LAWS OR THE CONSTITUTION
SHALL FORM A PART OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM OF
THE PHILIPPINES
PEOPLE VS JABINAL
Defendant was acquitted for he was appointed as a
secret agent and confidential agent. Decision of this
court under article 8 of the NCC states that Judicial
decision interpreting the laws of the constitution shall
for part of the legal system.
ARTICLE 9-12 APPLICABILITY OF CUSTOM
CUSTOMS: are rules of conduct formed by repetition of
acts uniformly observed as a social rule, legally binding
and obligatory.

REQUISITES
FOR
MAKING
CUSTOM
AN
OBLIGATORY RULE

Plurality of acts or acts have been repeatedly

done

Generally practiced by the great mass of the

social group

The community accepts it as a proper way of

acting such that it is considered obligatory
upon all.

The practice has been going on for a long

period of time.
MARTINEZ VS VAN BUSKIRK
The manner of the cochero described on the day of the
accident was indeed customary. As article 11 of the CC
states that customs which are contrary to law or public
policy shall not be countenanced. And Art 12 states that
custom must be proved as a fact according to the rules
of evidence.
ARTICLE 13 PERIODS
WHEN THE LAWS SPEAK OF YEARS, MONTHS,
DAYS OR NIGHTS, IT SHALL BE UNDERSTOOD
THAT YEARS ARE OF 365 DAYS EACH; MONTHS
OF 30 DAYS; DAYS OF 24HRS; NIGHTS FROM
SUNSET TO SUNRISE
IF MONTHS ARE DESIGNATED BY THEIR NAME,
THEY SHALL BE COMPUTED BY THE NUMBER OF
DAYS WHICH THEY RESPECTIVELY HAVE
IN COMPUTING A PERIOD, THE FIRST DAY SHALL
BE EXCLUDED, AND THE LAST DAY INCLUDED.
ARMIGOS VS CA
The appeal was filed out of time. The rule stated in
Article 13 of the CC to the effect that in computing a
period the first day should be excluded and the last day
included.
NAMARCO VS TECSON
When the law speaks of years pertains to calendar
years as per statutory construction, there is no question
whether it is not a leap year.
US vs TIQUI
Paragraph one of the art 13 provides that a day shall
always be understood to consist of 24 hrs, it follows that
the period allowed would not be 15 complete days were
the day in question that is the day of the publication of
the judgement to be included in the computation.
LEX
NATIONALIS
ART 15
BASIS:
CITIZENSHIP

COVERS:
family
rights
and
duties
status,
condition, and
legal capacity
EXCEPTION:
Article 26 para
2 FC

LEX
RAE
SITAE
ART 16
BASIS; law of
the
place
where
the
property
is
situated
COVERS : real
and
personal
property

LEX
LOCI
CELEBROTIONIS
ART 17
BASIS: law of the
place where the
contract
was
executed

EXCEPTIONS
Capacity
to
succeed
Intrinsic validity
of the will

EXCEPTIONS
Article 26 para 1
of FC
Intrinsic validity of
contracts

[Type text]

COVERS:
only
forms
and
solemnities
(extrinsic validity)

Amount
of
successional
rights
Order
of
succession
ARTICLE 15 NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE
LAWS RELATING TO FAMILY RIGHTS AND DUTIES,
OR TO THE STATUS, CONDITION AND LEGAL
CAPACITY OF PERSONS ARE BINDING UPON
CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES EVEN THOUGH
LIVING ABROAD.
IBANEZ DE ALDECOA VS HSB
The concurring opinion assumes their Spanish
Citizenship and hence their amenability to the laws of
Spain. The admirable beliefs of counsel for the
defendant bank contain lengthy and stray arguments to
the effect that these children are not citizen of the
Philippines.
INSULAR GOVERNMENT VS FRANK
The defendants claims that he was an adult when he
left Chicago but was a minor when he arrived at Manila
is not tenable. Art 15 of the CC regardless family rights
and duties or the status condition and legal capacity of
persons are only binding upon citizens
of the
Philippines
ARTICLE 16 TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION
REAL PROPERTY AS WELL AS PERSONAL
PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF HE
COUNTRY WHERE IT IS SITUATED
HOWEVER, INTESTATE AND TESTAMENTARY
SUCCESSIOS, BOTH WITH RESPECT TO THE
ORDER OF SUCCESSION AND TO THE AMOUNT
OF SUCCESSIONAL RIGHTS AND TO THE
INTRINSIC
VALIDITY
OF
TESTAMENTARY
PROVISIONS, SHALL BE REGUALTED BY THE
NATIONAL LAW OF THE PERSON WHOSE
SUCCESSION
IS
UNDER
CONSIDERATION,
WHATEVER MAY BE THE NATURE OF THE
PROPERTY AND REGARDLES OF THE COUNTRY
WHEREIN SAID PROPERTY MAY BE FOUND
BELLIS VS BELLIS
The children are not entitled to their legitimes according
to the Texas law.
CHRISTENSEN VS CHRISTENSEN
The court decide to grant more successional right to
Helen. The application of this article in the case at bar
requisites the determination of meaning of the term
national law is use therein. There are to rules in
California on the matter. The second is the conflict of
rule which should apply to California domiciled outside
of California.
ARTICLE 19-21
19: EVERY PERSON MUST IN THE EXERCISE OF
HIS RIGHTS AND IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS
DUTIES ACT WITH JUSTICE GUVE EVERYONE HIS
DUE AND OBSERVE HIS HONESTY AND GOOD
FAITH
20: EVERY PERSON WHO CONTRARY TO LAW,
WILLFULLY OR NEGLIGENTLY CAUSES DAMAGE
TO ANOTHER, SHALL INDEMNIFY THE LATTER
FOR THE SAME.

21: ANY PERSON WHO WILLFULLY CAUSES LOSS

OR INJURY TO ANOTHER IN A MANNER THAT IS
CONTRARY TO MORALS, GOOD CUSTOMS, OR
PUBLIC POLICY SHALL COMPENSATE THE
LATTER FOR DAMAGES.
PRINCIPLE OF ABUSE OF RIGHTS-When the right is
exercise for the purpose of prejudicing or injuring
another
REQUISITES:

There is a legal right or duty

Which is exercised in bad faith

For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring

another
DOCTIRNE OF VOLENTI NON FIT INJURIA(to which
person assents is not esteemed in law as injury)
Pertains to self-inflicted injuries or to the consent to
injury which precludes the recovery of damages by one
who has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himself to
danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so.
ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES
Presupposes loss or injury, material or otherwise, which
one may differ as a result of such violation.
ELEMENTS:

There is an act which is legal

But which is contrary to morals, good

customs, public order, or public policy.

And it is done with intent to injure

HERMOSISIMA VS CA
She cant recover moral damages for the breach of
promise to marry. She can recover for compulsory
damages for medical and hospitalization as well as
attorneys fees. The court is unable to say that the
petitioner is morally guilty of seduction, not because he
is approximately 10years younger but also because she
surrendered herself to the petitioner because she was
overruled by her love for him.
LLORENTE VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Petitioner is civilly liable having acted in bad faith.
Despite the acts of the petitioner being legal it does not
follow that his acts were done in good faith. It is the
essence of article 19 of the CC under which the
petitioner was made to pay damages, together with Art
22 that the performance of duty be done with justice
and god faith the courts find the award justified by Art
2202 of CC which holds the defendant liable for all
natural and probable damages.
PE vs PE
The defendant is liable since he was a married man
who seduced Lolita through tricky scheme to the extent
of making her fall inlove with him. The defendant
committed an injury to Lolitas family to the public extent
that is contrary to morals, good customs and public
policy.
BAKSH VS CA
A breach of promise to marry is not actionable wrong.
Art 21 is designed to expand the concept of torts and
quasi-delicts by granting adequate legal remedy for
untold number of moral wrongs which is impossible for
human forsight to specifiacally enumerate and punish in
statute.
WASSMER VS VELEZ

PFR-MIDTERMS CADC

This is not a mere breach of promise to marry and the

defendant must be held answerable in damage in
accordance to Art 21.
Mere breach of marrying is not an actionable wrong but
formally set a wedding and go through all the above
described preparation and publicly only to walk out of it
when the matrimony is about to solemnized.
PEOPLE VS RITTER
The defendant is civilly liable even though he was
acquitted of the crime on the grounds of reasonable
doubt. Civil liability requires mere preponderance of
evidence not proof beyond reasonable doubt. In the
case at bar there exist a facts of unlawful and immoral
conduct.
NIKKO HOTEL MANILA VS REYES
To be liable for damages under art 19 and 21 the act of
abuse must be intentional. Doing the cross
examination. Mr. reyes claimed that they were almost of
kissing distance when he was heard by Mrs lim to leave
the party it is highly unlikely to shout and speak on her
loud voice at a very close distance.
ARTICLE 22. UNJUST ENRICHMENT
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
ACCION IN REM VERSO
Action for recovery of what has been paid without just
cause.
REQUISITES:

DEefendant has been enriched

Plaintiff suffered a loss

Enrichment of defendant is without just or

legal ground

Plaintiff has no other action based on

contract,quasi-contract, crime, or quasi delict.
KINDS OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT

Solutio indebiti- undue payment or delivery of

a thing to another, who is then obligated to
return the thing.

Negotiorum gestio-duty to repay someone

who has managed the affairs or property of
another who was unable.
OBANA VS CA
Sandoval is the rightful owner of the 170 cavans of rice
and is entitled to recover the rice or the value thereof
since he was not paid the price there for. Having
been repaid the purchases price by Chan Lin, The
sale, as between them, had been voluntarily
rescinded, and petitioner-defendant was thereby
divested of any claim to the rice. Technically,
therefore, he should return the rice to Chan Lin, but
since even the latter, again from petitionerdefendant's own testimony above-quoted, was ready
to return the rice to SANDOVAL, and the latter's
driver denies that the rice had been returned by
petitioner-defendant cannot be allowed to unjustly
enrich himself at the expense of another by holding
on to property no longer belonging to him. In law and
in equity, therefore, SANDOVAL is entitled to recover

the rice, or the value thereof since he was not paid

the price there for.
LBP VS ONG
Unjust enrichment has been applied to actions called
accion in rem verso. In order that the accion in rem
verso may prosper, the following conditions must
concur: (1) that the defendant has been enriched; (2)
that the plaintiff has suffered a loss; (3) that the
enrichment of the defendant is without just or legal
ground; and (4) that the plaintiff has no other action
based on contract, quasi-contract, crime, or quasidelict. The principle of unjust enrichment essentially
contemplates payment when there is no duty to pay,
and the person who receives the payment has no
right to receive it.
SPS FLORES VS LINDO
There is unjust enrichment "when a person unjustly
retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a
person retains money or property of another against
the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good
conscience." The principle of unjust enrichment
requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited
without a valid basis or justification, and (2) that such
benefit is derived at the expense of another. The
main objective of the principle against unjust
enrichment is to prevent one from enriching himself at
the expense of another without just cause or
consideration. The principle is applicable in this case
considering that Edna admitted obtaining a loan from
petitioners, and the same has not been fully paid
without just cause.
ART 26 RIGHT TO PRIVACY
EVERY PERSON SHALL RESPECT DIGNITY,
PERSONALITY, PRIVACY, AND PEACE OF MIND OF
HIS NEIGHBORS AND OTHER PERSONS. THE
FOLLOWING AND SIMILAR ACTS THOUGH THEY
MAY NOT COSTITUTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE
SHALL PRODUCE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR
DAMAGES.
1.
2.
3.
4.

PRYING
INTO
THE
PRIVACY
OF
ANOTHERS RESIDENCE
MEDDLING WITH OR DISTURBING THE
PRIVATE LIFE OR FAMILY RELATIONS
OF ANOTHER
INTRIGUING TO CAUSE ANOHER RO BE
ALIENATED FROM HIS FRIENDS
VEXING OR HUMILIATING ANOTHER ON
ACCOUNT OF HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEF,
LOWLY STATION IN LIFE, PLACE OF
BIRTH, PHYSICAL DEFECT OR OTHER
PERSONAL CONDITION.

from his friends

Vexing or humiliating another on account of
his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place
of birth, physical defect or any other personal
conditions

CONCEPCION VS CA
Certainly, what Rodrigo is a violation of Nestors
person. The Supreme Court went on to explain the
rationale behind Article 26 and why the enumerations
therein are not exclusive: The Code Commission
stressed in no uncertain terms that the human
personality must be exalted. The sacredness of human
personality is a concomitant consideration of every plan
for human amelioration. The touchstone of every
system of law, of the culture and civilization of every
country, is how far it dignifies man. If the statutes
insufficiently protect a person from being unjustly
humiliated, in short, if human personality is not exalted
then the laws are indeed defective. Thus, under this
article, the rights of persons are amply protected, and
damages are provided for violations of a persons
dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind.
ART 31 ET SEQ- INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION.
ART 31 BASED ON AN OBLIGATION NOT ARISING
FROM FELONY(QUASI-DELICT)
ART 32 VIOLATION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES
ART 33
INJURIES

DEFAMATION,

FRAUD,

PHYSICAL

ART 34 POLICE REFUSE TO RENDER AID OR

PROTECTION TO ANY PERSON IN CASE OF
DANGER TO LIFE OR PROPERTY
When accused is acquitted in a criminal case because
his guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt,
plaintiff may still file a civil action for damages for the
same act or omission.
ART 2176 QUASI DELICT
Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another,
there being fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the
damage done. Such fault or negligence if there is no
pre existing contractual relation between the parties is
called a quasi-delict.
ISIP VS CANCIO

Acts though not criminal, produce action for damages,

prevention and other relief.

Prying into the privacy of anothers residence

Meddling with or disturbing the private life or
family relations of another
Intriguing to cause another to be alienated

[Type text]

NO.
An act or omission causing damage to another may
give rise to two separate civil
liabilities on the part of the offender, i.e., (1) civil liability
ex delicto, under Art100 of the RPC;
and (2) independent civil liabilities, such as
those (a) not arising from an act or
omission c o m p l a i n e d o f a s f e l o n y ; o r
(b)
where
the
injured
party
is

granted
a
right
to
file
an
a c t i o n independent and distinct from the criminal
action. Either of these two possible liabilities may be
enforced against the offender subject, however, to the
caveat under Article 2177 of the Civil Code that the
offended party cannot recover damages twice for the
same act or omission or under both causes.
Under the present Rules, the civil liability ex-delicto is deemed instituted with
the criminal action,but the offended party is given the option
to file a separate civil action before the
prosecutionstarts to present evidence. Anent the
independent civil actions, under the present Rules, the
independent civil actions may be filed separately and
prosecuted independently even without any reservation
in the criminal action. The failure to make a reservation
in the criminal action is not a waiver of the right to file a separate and
independent civil action.
In the case at bar, a reading of the complaint filed by
petitioner show that his cause of action is
based
on
culpa
contractual,
an
independent civil action. Cancios
cause of action is the
respondents breach of the contractual obligation. The nature of a cause of
action is determined
by the facts alleged in the complaint as
constituting the cause of action. The
purpose of an
action or suit and the law to govern it is to be
determined not by the claim of the party filing the
action, made in his argument or brief, but
rather
by
the
complaint
itself,
its
a l l e g a t i o n s a n d prayer for relief.
There is also no forum-shopping. The essence of
forum-shopping is the filing of multiple suits
involving the same parties for the same cause of action,
either simultaneously or successively,
to secure a favorable judgment. Although the cases
filed by petitioner arose from the same act
or omission of respondent, they are, however, based on different causes of
action.
CASUPANAN VS LAROYA
Under Section 1 of the present Rule 111, the
independent civil action in Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176
of the Civil Code is not deemed instituted with the
criminal action but may be filed separately by the
offended party even without reservation.
The
commencement of the criminal action does not suspend
the prosecution of the independent civil action under
these articles of the Civil Code. The suspension in
Section 2 of the present Rule 111 refers only to the civil
action arising from the crime, if such civil action is
reserved or filed before the commencement of the
criminal action.
The two cases can proceed simultaneously and
independently of each other.
Second, the accused, who is presumed
innocent, has a right to invoke Article 2177 of the Civil
Code, in the same way that the offended party can avail
of this remedy which is independent of the criminal
action.
One final point. The Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure took effect on December 1, 2000 while the
MCTC issued the order of dismissal on December 28,
1999 or before the amendment of the rules. The
Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure must be given
retroactive effect

PFR-MIDTERMS CADC

ARTICLE 36 PREJUDICIAL QUESTION

GENERAL RULE: if both criminal and civil cases are
filed in court, the criminal case takes precedence.
EXCEPTION: when there is a prejudicial question or a
question that arise in a case, the resolution which is
logical antecedent of the issue involved herein, and the
cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal.
ELEMENTS

Civil action involves an issue intimately

related to the issue in criminal action
Resolution of issue in civil case determines
whether of not the criminal action may
proceed
Cognizance of civil case pertains to another
tribunal

DONATO VS LUNA
Petitioner Leonilo Donato cant apply rule on prejudicial
question since a case for annulment of marriage can
only be considered as a prejudicial question to the
bigamy case against the accused if it was proved that
petitioners consent to such marriage and was obtained
by means of duress violence and intimidation to show
that his act in the second marriage must be involuntary
and cannot be the basis of his conviction for the crime
of bigamy.

QUIAMBAO VS OSORIO
The Doctrine of Prejudicial Question comes into play
generally in a situation where civil and criminal actions
are pending and the issues involved in both cases are
similar or so closely related that an issue must be preemptively resolved in the civil case before the criminal
action can proceed. Thus, the existence of a prejudicial
question in a civil case is alleged in the criminal case to
cause the suspension of the latter pending final
determination of the former.
The essential elements of a prejudicial question as
provided under Section 5, Rule 111 of the Revised
Rules of Court are: the Civil Action involves an issue
similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal
action the resolution of such issue determines whether
or not the criminal action may proceed.
However because of intimate correlation of the two
proceedings and the possibility of the Land
Authority in deciding in favor of Petitioner which
will terminate or suspend Private Respondents
Right to Eject Petitioner, the SC gave the lower
court and advise. This advise became the which
became the basis for deciding the case.
Faced with these distinct possibilities, the more prudent

course for the trial court to have taken is to hold the

ejectment proceedings in abeyance until after a
determination of the administrative case. Indeed, logic
and pragmatism, if not jurisprudence dictate such
move. To allow the parties to undergo trial
notwithstanding the possibility of petitioners right of
possession being upheld in the pending administrative
case is to needlessly require not only the parties but the
court as well to expend time, effort and money in what
may turn out to be a sheer exercise of futility.
BOBIS VS BOBIS
A prejudicial question is one which arises in a case the
resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue
involved therein.3It is a question based on a fact
distinct and separate from the crime but so intimately
connected with it that it determines the guilt or
innocence of the accused. Its two essential elements
are:7 (a) the civil action involves an issue similar or
intimately related to the issue raised in the criminal
action; and (b) the resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may proceed In
Article 40 of the Family Code, respondent, without first
having obtained the judicial declaration of nullity of the
first marriage, can not be said to have validly entered
into the second marriage. In the current jurisprudence,
a marriage though void still needs a judicial declaration
of such fact before any party can marry again;
otherwise the second marriage will also be void. The
reason is that, without a judicial declaration of its nullity,
the first marriage is presumed to be subsisting. In the
case at bar, respondent was for all legal intents and
purposes regarded as a married man at the time he
contracted his second marriage with petitioner. Any
decision in the civil action for nullity would not erase the
fact that respondent entered into a second marriage
during the subsistence of a first marriage. Thus, a
decision in the civil case is not essential to the
determination of the criminal charge. It is, therefore, not
a prejudicial question.

The powers of juridical persons are limited

only to those that are expressly conferred
upon them or those which can be implied
therefrom or incidental thereto.

CAPACITY TO ACT

Power to do act with legal effects

Merely acquired
Lost through death and other causes
Cannot exist without juridical capacity
Can be restricted, modified, or limited.
One has ability to do all things with legal
effects only in those specific circumstances
where the capacity to act is restrained.

GENERAL RULE: Determined by birth, extinguished by

death.

EXCEPTION: The law considers the conceived child as

born for all purposes favorable to it if born alive.
Therefore the child has a presumed personality which
has two characteristics. Limited and conditional.

A conceived child shall be considered born for all

purposes favorable to it, provided it be born later under
the following conditions

If it is alive at the time it is completely

delivered from mothers womb.
If it had an inter-uterine life of atleast
7months, only if lives for at least 24hrs after
its complete delivery from the maternal
womb.

GELUZ VS CA
ART 40-41 COMMENCEMENT/TERMINATION OF
PERSONALITY

ART 42 EXTINGUISHEMENT OF PERSONALITY.

JURIDICAL CAPACITY

Fitness to be the subject of legal relations.

Inherent
Lost only through death
Can exist without capacity to act
Cannot be limited or restricted

[Type text]

The Supreme Court believed that the minimum award

fixed at P3,000 for the death of a person does not cover
cases of an unborn fetus that is not endowed with
personality which trial court and Court of Appeals
predicated.
Both trial court and CA wasnt able to find any basis for
an award of moral damages evidently because Oscars
indifference to the previous abortions of Nita clearly
indicates he was unconcerned with the frustration of his
parental affections. Instead of filing an administrative or
criminal case against Geluz, he turned his wifes
indiscretion to personal profit and filed a civil action for
damages of which not only he but, including his wife
would be the beneficiaries. It shows that hes after
obtaining a large money payment since he sued Geluz
for P50,000 damages and P3,000 attorneys fees that
serves as indemnity claim, which under the
circumstances was clearly exaggerated.

EXTINGUISHMENT OF PERSONALITY

PROOF OF DEATH

Applies only to person who are called to

succeed each other.
The proof of death must be established by
positive evidence. Proof of death can never
be established from mere inference arising
from another inference or from presumptions
or assumptions.

EUGENIO VS VELEZ

Persons charged with duty of burial- if the deceased

was an unmarried man or woman or a child and left any
kin; the duty of the burial shall devolve upon the nearest
kin of the deceased. Albeit, petitioner claims he is the
spouse as contemplated under Art. 294 of the Civil
Code, Philippine law does not recognize common law
marriages where a man and a woman not legally
married who cohabit for many years as husband and
wife, who represent themselves to the public as
husband and wife, and who are reputed to be husband
and wife in the community where they live may be
considered
legally
mauled
in
common
law
jurisdictions. In addition, it requires that the man and
woman living together must not in any way be
incapacitated to contract marriage. Whereas, the
petitioner has a subsisting marriage with another
woman, legal impediment that disqualified him from
even legally marrying Vitaliana.

PFR-MIDTERMS CADC