Art.

Keywords Full Text

This Act shall be known as the "Civil Code of the
1 Name of the Code
Philippines."
Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the
Effectivity; publication completion of their publication in the Official Gazette,
2
(as amended) unless it is otherwise provided. This Code shall take
effect one year after such publication.
Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance
3 Ignorance of the law
therewith.
Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the
4 Non-retroactivity
contrary is provided.
Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or
Acts vs.
prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law
5 mandatory/prohibitory
itself authorizes their validity.
laws
Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to
law, public order, public policy, morals, or good
6 Waiver of rights
customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right
recognized by law.
“Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their
violation or non-observance shall not be excused by
disuse, or custom or practice to the contrary.

Repeals; supremacy of When the courts declared a law to be inconsistent with

7 Constitution; validity of the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter
admin acts shall govern.

Administrative or executive acts, orders and regulations

shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the
laws or the Constitution.”
Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or
Judicial decisions as part
8 the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of
of legal system
the Philippines.
No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by
9 Duty to decide reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the
laws.
In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of
laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended
10 Right & justice to prevail
right and justice to prevail.

Customs which are contrary to law, public order or

11 Customs contrary public policy shall not be countenanced.
 A custom must be proved as a fact, according to the
12 Custom must be proved rules of evidence.

When the laws speak of years, months, days or nights,

it shall be understood that years are of three hundred
sixty-five days each; months, of thirty days; days, of
Years, months days or twenty-four hours; and nights from sunset to sunrise. If
13
nights 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.
Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall
Territoriality be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the
14
(penal/security laws) Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public
international law and to treaty stipulations.
Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the
Nationality rule status, condition and legal capacity of persons are
15
(status/capacity/family) binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though
living abroad.

Tanada vs. Tuvera G.R. No. L-63915

Case Digest: Tañada v. Tuvera

G.R. No. L-63915, April 24, 1985; Resolution December 29, 1986

Facts:
- Petitioners, led by Sen. Lorenzo Tañada, sought to compel public officials to publish all
presidential decrees, letters of instruction, proclamations, and similar issuances of general
application before their implementation. They argued that citizens cannot be bound by laws
they have no means of knowing. Respondents contended that publication was not required for
laws to be effective if the President so ordered, citing then-prevailing practices under Martial
Law.

Issue:
- laws, particularly presidential issuances of general applicability, must be published before they
can take effect.

Ruling:
- Yes. The Supreme Court held that publication in the Official Gazette is mandatory for all
statutes, presidential decrees, executive orders, and similar issuances of general application.
Without publication, they are ineffective and unenforceable. In its 1986 Resolution, the Court
clarified that the 15-day effectivity rule (Article 2 of the Civil Code) starts only after proper
publication, unless a different period is provided. The Court stressed that due process demands
that people be informed of the laws they must obey.

Doctrine:
- Article 2, Civil Code: Laws take effect after 15 days from publication in the Official Gazette (or a
newspaper of general circulation, per later amendment), unless otherwise provided.
- Article 3, Civil Code: Ignorance of the law excuses no one — but this presupposes that the law
has been properly published.

No publication → no effectivity → no binding force.

Disposition:
Petition granted; government directed to publish all presidential issuances of general
application before enforcement.

Case Digest: People v. Que Po Lay, 94 Phil. 640 (1954)

Facts:
⁃ Que Po Lay was convicted by the Court of First Instance of Manila for violating Central
Bank Circular No. 20 (issued in 1949), which required individuals in possession of foreign
exchange to sell it to the Central Bank within one day. The circular was not published in
the Official Gazette until November 1951, approximately three months after his
conviction.
Issue:
⁃ Can a penal regulation issued by the Central Bank—namely Circular No. 20—take effect
and be enforceable against individuals before it has been published in the Official
Gazette?

Holding:
⁃ The Supreme Court acquitted Que Po Lay, ruling that a regulation with penal
consequences must be published before becoming effective. Without publication, it had
no binding or penal force at the time of the alleged violation.

Relation to Articles 2 & 3, Civil Code

⁃ Article 2: Laws take effect 15 days after their publication in the Official Gazette, unless
otherwise provided. Circular No. 20, despite its law-like nature, followed the same
principle: without publication, it wasn’t legally in force.
⁃ Article 3: Ignorance of the law excuses no one. This principle only applies if the public is
legally bound—i.e., the law or regulation has been properly published. In this case, the
regulation wasn’t effective, so Que Po Lay couldn’t be penalized for violating it.
⁃ This alignment is supported by multiple sources, including court digests and summaries
that clearly affirm: publication is required before enforcement, especially for penal rules.
Que Po Lay was rightly acquitted because Circular No. 20 hadn’t yet acquired legal force.

Case Digest: D.M. Consunji, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 137873 (Apr. 20, 2001)

Facts
* By res ipsa loquitur, a construction worker (Jose Juego) died in an accident at a DM Consunji
site.
* His widow, Maria, filed for compensatory and moral damages (Civil Code remedy) from DMCI
while earlier claiming death benefits from the Employees’ Compensation Commission (ECC).
* DMCI argued that by claiming ECC benefits, Maria waived her right to pursue Civil Code
damages.

Issue
* Does the earlier claim for ECC benefits constitute a waiver of her right to seek additional Civil
Code damages?

Ruling
* No—waiver under Article 6 of the Civil Code requires an intentional and intelligent
relinquishment of a known right. The Supreme Court ruled Maria lacked knowledge of DMCI’s
negligence and of her alternative remedy when she sought ECC benefits. Without awareness of
material facts or rights, Webster’s action did not amount to a waiver. Therefore, she was not
precluded from filing a separate civil action. The case was remanded for determination whether
her awarded damages exceeded ECC benefits.

Doctrine (Article 6)
“Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law… or prejudicial to a third person
recognized by law.”
- Waiver is not presumed. It must be knowingly and intelligently made.
- Ignorance of material facts negate waiver. Since Maria didn’t know of DMCI’s negligence at the
time, her ECC claim did not preempt her right to pursue civil remedies.

After her husband’s fatal accident, Maria Juego claimed ECC death benefits without knowing of
DMCI’s negligence or her right to sue civilly. DMCI argued this act waived her right under Article
6 of the Civil Code. The Supreme Court held that waiver requires knowledge—and here she
lacked awareness of the facts—so no waiver occurred. Her right to pursue civil damages
remained intact, and the case was remanded to assess if her civil award exceeded ECC
compensation.

Case Digest: Cui v. Arellano University

G.R. No. L-15127 (May 30, 1961)

Facts:
- Emeterio Cui, a scholarship student at Arellano University, was required to sign a contract
stipulating that if he transferred schools, he must refund scholarship tuition already received. In
his final semester, Cui transferred to another university. Arellano withheld his transcript unless
he paid back the amount (₱1,033.87), which Cui paid under protest. He then sued to recover
the amount. Meanwhile, a 1949 memorandum from the Director of Private Schools declared
that scholarship terms requiring repayment upon transfer were against sound policy and good
morals.

Issue:
- Was the contractual waiver—requiring refund of scholarship tuition upon transfer—a valid
waiver of Cui’s right to transfer schools?

Ruling:
- No. The Supreme Court held that while rights may indeed be waived, such waiver must not be
contrary to law, public policy, morals, or good customs (Article 6, Civil Code). The contractual
provision was invalid because it contravened the sound policy enunciated in the 1949
memorandum, and sought to exploit the scholarship as a marketing tool rather than a
meritorious grant. The disclaimer preventing transfer was void as it offended morality and
public policy.

Doctrine (Article 6 – Waiver of Rights):

- Valid waiver requires knowledge, intelligence, and must not offend public morals or policy.
- Cui as a student had the right to transfer; a waiver that hinders such right—even if
contractually agreed—can be reversed if it violates broader societal values.

Disposition:

- The Court ordered Arellano University to refund the amount Cui had paid, with legal interest,
as the waiver was null and void

Case Digest: Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera (G.R. No. 80116, June 30, 1989, 174 SCRA 653)
Facts:
* Imelda M. Pilapil, a Filipino, was married to German national Erich Geiling. After several years
of marriage,
* Geiling obtained a divorce decree from Germany in January 1986. He subsequently filed
adultery charges against Pilapil in the Philippines, alleging infidelity that occurred while their
marriage was still ongoing.

Issue:
* Can a foreigner who has obtained a valid divorce decree abroad prosecute his former spouse
for adultery in the Philippines, given that adultery is a private offense that must be filed by the
offended spouse?

Ruling:
* No. The Supreme Court held that since Geiling had been granted a valid divorce in Germany,
he was no longer Pilapil’s husband—thus he no longer had the legal standing of an "offended
spouse" to file for adultery under Philippine law.
* The divorce was valid and recognized for him under the nationality principle of our Civil Code
(Article 15), extinguishing his capacity to initiate such a private charge in the Philippines

Case Digest: Roehr v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 142820 (June 20, 2003)
Facts:
Wolfgang Roehr, a German citizen, married Filipina Carmen Rodriguez in Germany in
1980. The marriage was later ratified in the Philippines. In 1997, Roehr obtained a divorce
decree in Germany granting him parental custody of their two daughters. Meanwhile, Rodriguez
filed for annulment of marriage in a Makati RTC in 1996.

Issue:
Since Roehr obtained a valid foreign divorce, does the Philippine court retain jurisdiction
to determine custody and support issues involving Filipino citizens?

Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed that foreign divorce decrees obtained by aliens can be
recognized in the Philippines under the nationality principle (Article 15, Civil Code). While the
divorce itself dissolves the marital tie of the alien spouse, Philippine courts maintain jurisdiction
over matters affecting Filipino citizens—especially the custody, support, and education of
children. Thus, the Makati RTC was correct to proceed with such issues, despite the divorce
decree. Property distribution, however, was properly dismissed by the trial court since both
parties admitted absence of conjugal assets.

Connection to Article 15, Civil Code

Article 15 states:
“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.”

In Roehr v. Rodriguez, this principle was central: even though the marriage was dissolved
abroad (by the alien spouse), Philippine courts still had a constitutional duty—through Article
15—to adjudicate family-related consequences affecting Filipino citizens (e.g., child custody).
The case underscores that while aliens may avail themselves of foreign divorces, Philippine
jurisdiction remains for family matters impacting its citizens.

Case Digest: Roehr v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 142820 (June 20, 2003)
Facts:
Wolfgang Roehr, a German citizen, married Filipina Carmen Rodriguez in Germany in 1980. The
marriage was later ratified in the Philippines. In 1997, Roehr obtained a divorce decree in
Germany granting him parental custody of their two daughters. Meanwhile, Rodriguez filed for
annulment of marriage in a Makati RTC in 1996.

Issue:
Since Roehr obtained a valid foreign divorce, does the Philippine court retain jurisdiction to
determine custody and support issues involving Filipino citizens?

Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed that foreign divorce decrees obtained by aliens can be
recognized in the Philippines under the nationality principle (Article 15, Civil Code). While the
divorce itself dissolves the marital tie of the alien spouse, Philippine courts maintain jurisdiction
over matters affecting Filipino citizens—especially the custody, support, and education of
children. Thus, the Makati RTC was correct to proceed with such issues, despite the divorce
decree. Property distribution, however, was properly dismissed by the trial court since both
parties admitted absence of conjugal assets.

Connection to Article 15, Civil Code

Article 15 states:
“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.”

In Roehr v. Rodriguez, this principle was central: even though the marriage was dissolved
abroad (by the alien spouse), Philippine courts still had a constitutional duty—through Article
15—to adjudicate family-related consequences affecting Filipino citizens (e.g., child custody).
The case underscores that while aliens may avail themselves of foreign divorces, Philippine
jurisdiction remains for family matters impacting its citizens.

SYLLABUS PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
ATTY. ELIZA YAMAMOTO-SANTOS
SAN BEDA COLLEGE ALABANG, SCHOOL OF LAW
SYLLABUS

Course Description and Objective: An in-depth study of the statutory provisions and
jurisprudence on the effect and application of laws in the various fields of human relations. This
course will provide a broad understanding of marriage as an inviolable social institution and its
consequences between spouses and their children and all other relevant information on the
effects of marriage in the lives of people. This course will also tackle legal issues on paternity
and filiation, adoption, support, and rules on surname.

BOOK: Persons and Family Relations by Rabuya

I. Preliminary Title (Articles 1 to 36 of the New Civil Code and Other Applicable Special Laws)
[Link]

A. Effect and Application of Laws

* Applicable Laws:
- Republic Act No. 386
- Executive Order No. 200

Important Principles

1.1 Article 2 and 3: Effectivity of the Civil Code: August 30, 1950
Cases:
Tañada v. Tuvera (146 SCRA 446)
People v. Que Po Lay (94 Phil 640)

1.2 Article 4: Non-Retroactivity of Laws

General Rule: Laws have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided.

Exceptions:

a. Unless the law expressly provides for the retroactivity of the law (e.g. this law shall have
retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in
accordance with the Civil Code or other laws);
b. Curative or remedial;
c. Procedural or Remedial;
d. Interpretative Statutes;
e. Emergency Laws;
f. Laws creating new rights;
g. Tax laws when expressly declared or is clearly the legislative intent; and
g. When the law is penal in character and favorable to the accused.

Note: Concept of Ex Post Facto Law

1.3 Article 5: Mandatory and Prohibitory Laws

General Rule: Acts contrary to mandatory or prohibitory laws are VOID.

Exceptions:
1. The law makes the act valid but punishes the violator;
2. Law itself authorizes its validity;
3. Law makes the act only voidable; and
4. Law declares the nullity of the act but recognizes its effects as legally existing.

1.4 Article 6: Waiver of Rights

Rule: Waiver is the intentional relinquishment of a known right and is not to be presumed but
must be clearly and convincingly shown, either by express stipulation or acts admitting no other
reasonable explanation.

Cases:
DM Consunji v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 137873; 20 April 2001)
Cui v. Arellano (G.R. No. L-15127; May 30, 1961)

1.5 Article 7: Repeal of a Law.

a. Express and Implied Repeal

b. Effect of a Repeal: Partial Unconstitutionality of Statues
- b.1 Doctrine of Operative Fact- Acts done pursuant to a law which was subsequently declared
unconstitutional remain valid, but not when the acts are done after the declaration of
unconstitutionality.

1.6 Article 8: Judicial Decisions

Doctrine of Stare Decisis: enjoins adherence to judicial precedents and 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.

1.7 Article 9: Duty of Judges

1.8 Article 10: Doubtful Statutes
1.9 Article 11 and 12. Customs
a. Customs must be proven as a fact and the courts are not to take judicial notice thereof.
b. Elements:
1. Rule of conduct;
2. Formed by repetition of acts;
3. Uniformly observed or practiced as a social rule; and
4. Is legally binding and obligatory.

1.10 Article 13. Counting of Days, Months and Years.

a. Difference between those imposed by Agreement vs Laws

1.11 Article 14. Obligatory Force of Penal Laws

General Rule: Citizens and foreigners are subject to all penal laws imposed by the
Philippines as well as all laws enacted for the maintenance of public security and
safety.

Exceptions:
a. When the Philippine government has waived its criminal jurisdiction over the foreigners
based on the principles of international law and treaties;
b. When foreigners are within the territory of their Embassies considered as foreign soil;
c. Parliamentary Immunity; and
d. Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code.[2]

1.12 Article 15. Nationality Rule (Lex Nationalii);

Cases:
Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera (174 SCRA 653)
Roehr v. Rodriguez (G.R. No. 142820, 20 June 2003)
Garcia v. Recio (G.R. No. 138322, 2 October 2002)

———————————