THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)

Annotations By Rabuya
PRELI\MINARY TITLE
CHAPTER 1: EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS
Article 1: This Act shall be known as the "Civil Code of the Philippines." (n)
COMMENTS:
§ 1. The Civil Code of the Philippines
[1.1] Code Defined
A “code” is a collection of laws of the same kind; a body of legal provisions referring to a particular branch of law. A “civil code,”
therefore, is a collection of laws that regulate private relations among members of civil society, determining their respective rights
and obligations with reference to persons, things, and civil acts.
[1.2] History of the Philippine Civil Code
• The first civil code in force in the Philippines was the Civil Code of Spain of 1889, extended to the country by Royal
Decree of July 31, 1889, and became effective on December 7, 1889.
• The current civil code is Republic Act No. 386, approved on June 18, 1949.
• Not all civil laws are contained in the Civil Code; various special laws enacted by the legislature also cover civil law
matters.
[1.3] Sources of the Civil Code
The present Civil Code is derived from:
1. The Spanish Civil Code of 1889
2. Codes, laws, judicial decisions, and juristic works from other countries
3. Doctrines laid down by the Philippine Supreme Court
4. Filipino customs and traditions
5. Philippine statutes
6. The Code Commission itself
[1.4] Physical or Mechanical Composition
The Civil Code consists of 2,270 articles divided into four books:
• Book I – Persons
• Book II – Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications
• Book III – The Different Modes of Acquiring Ownership
• Book IV – Obligations and Contracts
Note: The Family Code of the Philippines repeals certain articles of Book I, particularly Articles 52 to 304, 311 to 355, and
397 to 406. However, Articles 305 to 310, 356 to 396, and 407 to 413 remain valid.
[1.5] Effectivity of the Civil Code (R.A. No. 386)
• The Civil Code took effect on August 30, 1950, exactly one year after its publication in the Official Gazette on
August 30, 1949.
• The Supreme Court, in several cases, has ruled that publication means "release for circulation", not merely approval or
printing.
Article 2: Effectivity of Laws
"Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette
or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided." (As amended by E.O.
No. 200)
COMMENTS:
§ 2. Effectivity of Laws
[2.1] In General
• A law takes effect fifteen (15) days after publication, unless it provides otherwise.
[2.2] Laws Providing for Their Own Effectivity
Example:
• The Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209) provides that it becomes effective one year after
publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
• Since its publication in Manila Chronicle was completed on August 4, 1987, it took effect on August 3, 1988 (as
clarified in Memorandum Circular No. 85, November 7, 1988).
[2.3] Computation of the 15-Day Period
• 15th Day: If the law states it is effective “15 days after its publication,” the effectivity is on the 15th day.
• 16th Day: If the law states it is effective “after 15 days following its publication,” the effectivity is on the 16th
day.
Examples:
• R.A. No. 7659 (Death Penalty Law) took effect on December 31, 1993, following its December 16, 1993
publication.
• R.A. No. 7691 (Expanding Jurisdiction of Trial Courts) took effect on April 15, 1994, following its March 30,
1994 publication.
[2.4] When Law Is Silent
• If a law does not specify an effectivity date, it takes effect 15 days after publication.
[2.5] Publication Requirement
• The Supreme Court in Tañada v. Tuvera ruled that publication in the Official Gazette is necessary, even if a law
states its own effectivity date.
[2.6] Where to Publish
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
• Tañada v. Tuvera (Motion for Reconsideration) clarified that publication must be in the Official Gazette, leading
to E.O. No. 200, which now allows publication in a newspaper of general circulation.
[2.7] Publication in Full
• Partial publication is not valid. The entire law must be published.
[2.8] Meaning of "Newspaper of General Circulation"
• A newspaper need not have the largest circulation but must regularly publish local news and have a bona fide
list of paying subscribers.
[2.9] Meaning of "Unless It Is Otherwise Provided"
• This clause refers to effectivity date but does not dispense with the publication requirement.
[2.10] Effective Immediately Upon Approval
• A law stating it is "effective upon approval" actually means "effective upon publication", to comply with due
process.
[2.11] Reduction or Extension of the 15-Day Period
• The legislature may shorten or extend the default 15-day rule.
• Example: The Civil Code took effect one year after publication.
[2.12] Meaning of "Laws" in Article 2
• Includes: Presidential Decrees, Executive Orders, Administrative Rules (if implementing laws), Monetary Board Circulars
(if they impose penalties).
• Excludes: Supreme Court decisions (lawyers must stay updated), municipal ordinances (covered by the Local
Government Code).
Article 3: Ignorance of the Law Excuses No One
[3.1] Conclusive Presumption of Knowledge of Laws
• Everyone is conclusively presumed to know the law, regardless of actual awareness.
• Constructive notice is sufficient—laws are published and accessible to the public.
• The rule is based on necessity and expediency; allowing ignorance as a defense would lead to evasion of the law and
hinder justice.
[3.2] Application: Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis (2000)
• A person prosecuted for bigamy claimed ignorance of Article 40 of the Family Code (requiring a judicial declaration of
nullity before remarriage).
• The Supreme Court ruled that ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse, as every person is presumed to know the law.
[3.3] Presupposes Publication
• The presumption of knowledge applies only to published laws.
• Without publication, applying "ignorantia legis non excusat" would be unjust (Tañada v. Tuvera).
[3.4] Laws Covered
• Applies to all Philippine laws, whether civil, penal, substantive, or procedural.
• Limited to mandatory and prohibitory laws; does not cover permissive laws.
[3.4.1] Not Applicable to Foreign Laws
• No presumption of knowledge of foreign laws—they must be pleaded and proven in court.
• Ignorance of a foreign law is treated as a mistake of fact rather than a mistake of law.
[3.4.2] Doctrine of Processual Presumption
• If a foreign law is not proven, courts presume it is the same as Philippine law.
[3.5] Ignorance of Law vs. Ignorance of Fact
• Ignorance of the law is not an excuse, but ignorance of fact may excuse liability.
• Example: A man remarries, believing in good faith that his missing wife is dead. Since this is a mistake of fact, he is not
liable for bigamy.
[3.6] Difficult Questions of Law
• In specific cases, mistake of law may be excused, similar to mistake of fact.
• Example: Article 526 of the Civil Code allows good faith in cases of doubtful or difficult legal questions.
• The Supreme Court has ruled that a lawyer cannot be disbarred for an honest mistake of law.
Article 4: Laws Shall Have No Retroactive Effect, Unless the Contrary is Provided
§ 4. Prospective Application of Laws
[4.1] Reinstatement of Principle
Laws shall have prospective effect unless the contrary is expressly provided.
[4.2] Retroactive Law, Explained
A retroactive law is one intended to affect transactions that occurred or rights that accrued before it became operative. It
ascribes to them effects not inherent in their nature, in view of the law in force at the time of their occurrence.
[4.3] Purpose of the Provision
This rule is related to Article 3. The obligatory force of law presupposes that it has been promulgated and made known to the
citizen; hence, a law that has not yet become effective cannot be considered conclusively known by the people. To make the law
binding before it has taken effect may lead to arbitrary exercise of legislative power.
[4.4] General Rule: Prospectivity
In general, laws are to be construed as having only prospective operation (Lex prospicit, non respicit).
[4.5] Exceptions to the General Rule
Laws may be given retroactive effect in the following cases:
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
1. If the law itself provides for retroactivity
2. Penal laws favorable to the accused
3. Procedural or remedial laws
4. Curative laws
5. Laws creating new substantive rights
[4.6] Law That Provides for Its Retroactivity
A law may expressly provide for its retroactivity. However, there are two constitutional exceptions:
1. Ex post facto laws – Retroactive penal statutes making an act criminal when it was not so at the time committed ( Sec.
22, Art. III, 1987 Constitution).
2. Impairment of obligations of contracts – Laws affecting existing contracts before their enactment (Sec. 10, Art. III,
1987 Constitution).
[4.6.1] Ex-Post Facto Law
A law is ex post facto if it:
1. Refers to criminal matters
2. Is retroactive in application
3. Is prejudicial to the accused
[4.6.2] Non-Impairment of Obligation of Contracts
Contracts are governed by the law in force at the time they were executed. Later statutes affecting the contract impair the
obligation of contracts unless the law explicitly states its retroactivity.
[[Link]] Exercise of Police Power, Exception to Rule
Police power legislation, enacted to promote public welfare, may be given retroactive effect, even if it impairs contracts or
vested rights.
[4.7] Penal Laws Favorable to Accused
Penal laws shall have retroactive effect if favorable to the accused, provided he is not a habitual delinquent (Article 22, RPC).
• Example: People vs. Valdez – The Supreme Court retroactively applied R.A. No. 8294, which was favorable to the
accused by eliminating a separate charge of illegal possession of firearms.
Article 5. Acts Executed Against Mandatory or Prohibitory Laws
Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their
validity. (4a)
COMMENTS:
§ 5. Mandatory or Prohibitory Laws
[5.1] Mandatory, Prohibitory, and Permissive Laws
• If the law commands that something be done, it is mandatory.
• If the law commands that something should not be done, it is prohibitory.
• If the law permits something and commands that it should be tolerated or respected, it is permissive or directory.
[5.2] General Rule
• Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws are void.
[5.3] Exceptions to the Rule
The general rule that acts executed against mandatory or prohibitory laws are void is subject to the following exceptions:
1. When the law itself authorizes its validity, even though generally such acts would be void.
o Example: Lotto and sweepstakes are generally considered gambling and prohibited by law, but they are allowed
because the law expressly permits them.
2. When the law makes the act valid but punishes the violator.
o Example: A widow who remarries within 300 days after her husband's death commits an offense punishable by
law, but the marriage remains valid.
3. Where the law merely makes the act voidable, meaning it is valid until annulled.
o Example: A marriage contracted under violence, intimidation, or fraud is valid until a competent court annuls it.
4. Where the law declares the act void but recognizes legal effects arising from it.
o Example: In cases of void marriages under Articles 36 and 53 of the Family Code, children born of such
marriages are considered legitimate.

Article 6. Waiver of Rights

Rights may be waived unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a
third person with a right recognized by law. (4a)
COMMENTS:
§ 6. Waiver of Rights
[6.1] Elements of Rights
Every right has three elements:
1. Subject – Persons entitled to enforce the right.
o Active Subject: The person entitled to demand enforcement.
o Passive Subject: The person duty-bound to comply.
2. Object – Things or services to which the right pertains.
3. Efficient Cause – The fact that gives rise to the legal relation.
[6.2] Kinds of Rights
Rights are classified into:
• Political Rights – Rights that allow individuals to participate in government.
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
• Civil Rights – Rights related to individual and family life, which include:
1. Rights of personality (human rights)
2. Family rights
3. Patrimonial rights (property rights)
Note: Rights of personality and family rights cannot be waived, but patrimonial rights can generally be waived.
[6.3] Real and Personal Rights, Distinguished
• Real Right – A right over a specific thing enforceable against the whole world.
• Personal Right – A right enforceable against a specific person to demand the fulfillment of an obligation.
[6.4] Requisites of a Valid Waiver
For a waiver to be valid, the following must be present:
1. The person must actually possess the right being waived.
2. The person must have the capacity to renounce the right.
3. The waiver must be made in a clear and unequivocal manner.

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 the contrary.
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 the laws or the
Constitution. (5a)
COMMENTS:
§ 7. Repeal of Laws
[7.1] Ways of Repealing Laws
Laws may be repealed in two ways:
1. Express Repeal – When a law explicitly states that it repeals a previous law.
2. Implied Repeal – When a later law is incompatible with an earlier one and does not contain an express repeal.
[7.2] Example of Express Repeal
• Example: The Family Code expressly repealed specific provisions of the Civil Code and Child and Youth Welfare Code.
[7.3] Implied Repeal
• Not favored in law; courts assume laws should be interpreted harmoniously.
• Requires absolute incompatibility between new and old laws.
[7.3.1] Presumption Against Implied Repeal
• Courts presume that lawmakers are aware of existing laws and do not intend to repeal them unless explicitly stated.
[7.3.2] Requisites of Implied Repeal
1. The two laws must cover the same subject matter.
2. The later law must be irreconcilably inconsistent with the earlier law.
[7.3.3] Requirement of Repugnancy
• The later law must be so inconsistent with the prior law that both cannot stand together.
[7.4] Conflict Between General and Special Laws
• A special law prevails over a general law.
• A general law enacted before a special law remains valid, except in matters covered by the special law.
• A general law enacted after a special law does not repeal the special law unless:
1. It expressly repeals the special law.
2. It creates an irreconcilable conflict.
3. It covers the entire subject and is intended to replace the special law.
Case Example: Laguna Lake Development Authority vs. CA (251 SCRA 421, 1995)
• The Local Government Code (a general law) did not repeal the charter of the Laguna Lake Development Authority (a
special law) because there was no express repeal, and special laws prevail over general laws.
[7.5] Effect of Repeal of Repealing Law
• If the original repeal was express, repealing the repealing law does not revive the old law.
• If the original repeal was implied, repealing the repealing law may revive the old law.
Art. 8. Judicial Decisions
Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the
Philippines.
[8.1] Judicial Decisions, Not Laws
• The judiciary cannot enact laws as this power belongs exclusively to the legislature (separation of powers).
• Courts do not supervise legislation to ensure propriety or common sense; this is a legislative concern.
• While judicial decisions form part of the legal system, they are not laws. Instead, they are evidence of what the law
means.
• The interpretation of a law by a competent court has the force of law.
[8.2] Refers to Supreme Court Decisions
• Miranda vs. Imperial: Only Supreme Court (SC) decisions establish jurisprudence or doctrines.
• SC interpretations of laws are considered part of the law from the time of enactment because they clarify legislative
intent.
• Decisions of lower courts are persuasive but not binding.
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
• However, an appellate court's ruling on an undecided legal issue in the Philippines may serve as a judicial guide for lower
courts.
[8.3] Doctrine of Stare Decisis
• When the SC establishes a legal principle applicable to certain facts, it must adhere to that principle in future similar
cases.
• Ensures consistency and stability in the legal system by maintaining judicial precedents.
• Once a legal question has been settled, it should not be reargued.
• However, incorrect precedents must be abandoned if contrary to law.
[8.3.1] Doctrine Refers to SC Decisions
• Only SC decisions establish binding jurisprudence.
• The doctrine of stare decisis applies only to SC rulings.
[8.3.2] Prospective Application of Doctrines
• Co vs. Court of Appeals: Judicial decisions, although not laws, evidence what the law means.
• Judicial doctrines apply prospectively unless otherwise provided.
• Filoteo, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan: Retroactive application of jurisprudence is limited. A constitutional provision in the Bill
of Rights is not a penal statute and does not have automatic retroactive application.

Art. 9. No Judge or Court Shall Decline to Render Judgment

[9.1] Applicability to Criminal Prosecutions
• If there is no law punishing an act, the judge must dismiss the case.
• Applies the principle "nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege" (no crime, no penalty without a law).
[9.2] What Must a Judge Do
• Under the old Civil Code, courts were instructed to apply customs or general principles of law and justice when laws were
insufficient.
• Congress removed this provision to avoid undue legislative delegation to judges.
• Courts may still apply customs and legal principles in line with Arts. 10, 11, and 12 of the Civil Code.

Art. 10. Doubt in Interpretation or Application of Laws

[10.1] When to Apply Article 10
• Courts apply this rule only when there is doubt in the law.
• If the law is clear, the court must apply it, even if it is harsh (dura lex sed lex).
[10.2] Illustration
• People vs. Amigo: The penalty of reclusion perpetua is harsh, but courts must still apply the law. The proper remedy is
executive clemency or legislative amendment.
[10.3] Resort to Equity
• Courts apply equity only when no statutory law or judicial rule applies.
• Equity cannot override clear legal provisions.

Art. 11. Customs Contrary to Law, Public Order, or Public Policy

[11.1] Custom, Defined
• Custom is a repeated social practice that becomes legally binding.
[11.2] Requisites in Application of Customs
1. Repeated acts addressing a legal issue.
2. Uniformity in how the issue is addressed.
3. General acceptance by society.
4. Continuity over a long period.
5. General belief that the custom is obligatory.
6. Must not contradict law, morals, or public order.
[11.3] Not Subject to Judicial Notice
• Customs must be proven as facts using the rules of evidence.

Art. 12. Proof of Custom

• Custom must be established as a fact according to evidence rules.

Art. 13. Computation of Legal Periods

[12.1] Illustration
• Under the 1964 Rules of Court, a 12-month period of redemption equaled 360 days.
• The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure changed this to 365 days.
[12.2] Computing Periods
• Years: 365 days
• Months: 30 days (unless named, then actual number of days in the month applies)
• Days: 24 hours
• Nights: From sunset to sunrise
[12.3] If Last Day Falls on a Non-Working Day
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
• If the last day of a legal period is a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the period extends to the next working day.
Art. 14. Penal Laws and Public Security
Text:
Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory, subject to
the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations. (8a)

COMMENTS:
§ 13. General Applicability of Penal Laws
1. [13.1] Illustration of Principle in Article 14
o Example: Joe, an American citizen residing in the Philippines, killed a Filipino in Manila. Joe argued that as an
American citizen, he is not bound by Philippine law.
o Answer: No. Penal laws and those of public security and safety are obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in
Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and treaty stipulations.
2. [13.2] Principle of Generality
o Article 14 embodies the principle of GENERALITY, one of the three main characteristics of Philippine Criminal
Law.
o Rule: Philippine criminal law is binding on all persons who live or sojourn in Philippine territory.
3. [13.3] Exceptions to the Rule
o [13.3.1] Treaty Stipulations:
▪ Example: The Military Bases Agreement (1947) between the Philippines and the U.S. stipulates that
Philippine courts have no jurisdiction over felonies committed:
1. Within a military base, unless both the offender and the offended are Filipino civilians or the
offense is against Philippine security.
2. Outside bases, if both the offender and the offended are U.S. military personnel.
3. By a U.S. armed forces member against U.S. security.
o [13.3.2] Laws of Preferential Application:
▪ Example: Republic Act No. 75 prohibits the issuance of arrest warrants against foreign ambassadors or
public ministers and their domestics registered in the Department of Foreign Affairs.
o [13.3.3] Principles of Public International Law:
▪ Diplomatic representatives (e.g., ambassadors) and heads of state possess immunity from criminal
jurisdiction in the country of their sojourn.
▪ Exception: Consuls are subject to the laws of the country where they reside and can be prosecuted for
violations.

Art. 15. Family Rights, Status, and Legal Capacity

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. (9a)

COMMENTS:
§ 14. Nationality Principle
1. [14.1] Family Rights and Duties
o Example: Maria and Jose, a Filipino couple residing in Switzerland, are still governed by Philippine law. Under
Article 68 of the Family Code, spouses must support each other, even if Swiss law does not impose such an
obligation.
o Answer: Jose cannot refuse to support Maria because Philippine law applies to Filipino citizens abroad.
2. [14.2] Status and Condition
o [14.2.1] Divorce Between Filipinos, Not Valid:
▪ Philippine law does not recognize absolute divorce. A divorce obtained abroad by Filipino citizens is
invalid.
▪ Case: Tenchavez vs. Escaño (1965): Vicenta Escaño, a Filipino, obtained a divorce in Nevada while still
a Filipino citizen. The Supreme Court ruled that the divorce was invalid under Philippine law, and her
marriage to Pastor Tenchavez remained subsisting.
o [14.2.2] Divorces Obtained by Foreigners:
▪ Aliens may obtain divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines if valid under their
national law.
▪ Case: Van Dorn vs. Romillo, Jr. (1985): A U.S. citizen obtained a divorce in Nevada. The Supreme Court
ruled that the divorce was valid for the U.S. citizen but not for the Filipino spouse.
o [14.2.3] Legal Standing of Divorced Persons to Sue for Adultery:
▪ A foreigner who divorces a Filipino spouse loses the standing to sue for adultery.
▪ Case: Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera (1989): A German national who divorced his Filipino wife could not file an
adultery case against her.
o [14.2.4] Partial Divorce under Article 26, Family Code:
▪ In mixed marriages, if the foreign spouse obtains a valid divorce abroad, the Filipino spouse may
remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code.
3. [14.3] Legal Capacity
o Philippine laws on legal capacity bind Filipino citizens abroad. For aliens, their national law governs their legal
capacity.
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
o Case: Insular Government vs. Frank (1909): An American minor was held liable for a contract because he was of
legal age under Illinois law at the time of contracting.

Art. 16. Lex Rei Sitae and Succession

Real and personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated. However, intestate and testamentary
successions are regulated by the national law of the decedent, regardless of the property's location. (10a)

COMMENTS:
§ 15. Principle of Lex Rei Sitae
1. [15.1] Principle of Lex Rei Sitae
o Real and personal property is governed by the law of the country where it is located.
2. [15.2] Exceptions to Lex Rei Sitae
o Intestate and testamentary successions are governed by the decedent’s national law, including:
1. Order of succession.
2. Amount of successional rights.
3. Intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions.
o Case: Testate Estate of Bohanan (1960): A U.S. citizen’s will was governed by Nevada law, which allowed him to
dispose of his property without providing for his wife and children.
3. [15.3] Renvoi Doctrine
o Definition: A conflict of laws rule where a court refers back to the law of the forum.
o Case: In re Estate of Christensen (1963): The California conflicts rule referred the case back to Philippine law,
which was applied.
4. [15.4] Illustrative Problem
o Problem: An American citizen executes a will in Canada leaving Philippine property to a friend.
o Answer:
1. Capacity to execute the will: American law.
2. Formalities: Canadian law.
3. Capacity to inherit: American law.
4. Intrinsic validity: American law.

Art. 17. Lex Loci Celebrationis

The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and public instruments are governed by the law of the country where they are
executed. Prohibitive laws concerning public order, policy, and good customs are not rendered ineffective by foreign laws or
judgments. (11a)

COMMENTS:
§ 16. Principle of Lex Loci Celebrationis
1. [16.1] Formalities or Extrinsic Validity
o The forms and solemnities of contracts and wills are governed by the law of the place where they are executed.
2. [16.2] Intrinsic Validity of Contracts
o Governed by the proper law of the contract (lex contractus), which may be the law agreed upon by the parties or
implied by their intentions.
3. [16.3] Intrinsic Validity of Wills
o Governed by the national law of the decedent.
4. [16.4] Illustrative Problem
o Problem: A Filipino and an American enter into a contract in Canada.
o Answer:
1. Formal validity: Canadian law.
2. Legal capacity: Respective national laws.
3. Intrinsic validity: Proper law of the contract.
5. [16.5] Acts Executed Before Diplomatic or Consular Officials
o Acts executed before Philippine diplomatic or consular officials abroad must follow Philippine solemnities.
6. [16.6] Prohibitive Laws
o Prohibitive laws concerning public order, policy, and good customs are not overridden by foreign laws or
judgments.

Art. 18. Suppletory Application of the Civil Code

In matters governed by the Code of Commerce and special laws, their deficiency shall be supplied by the provisions of this Code.
(16a)

COMMENTS:
§ 17. Suppletory Application of the Civil Code
• The Civil Code applies suppletorily to matters governed by the Code of Commerce and special laws, but only if there is a
deficiency in those laws.
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
Chapter 2 – Human Relations
Article 19
Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith.
Article 20
Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Article 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 the damage.

COMMENTS
§ 18. Human Relations
[18.1] In General
Articles 19 to 36 of the Civil Code regulate human relations and establish basic principles that ensure rightful relationships between
people, thus maintaining social order.
[18.2] Principle of Damnum Absque Injuria
• The Latin maxim damnum absque injuria means “damage without legal injury.”
• It holds that damage resulting from the legitimate exercise of a person’s rights is not actionable.
• The law provides no remedy for losses that arise from a valid exercise of one’s rights.
• However, this principle does not apply when a right is abused or if a court suspends or extinguishes such a right.
• The exercise of rights must still be guided by justice, fairness, and good faith.

Case Doctrines on Damnum Absque Injuria

Amonoy v. Gutierrez, 351 SCRA 731 (2001)

Facts:
• Petitioner demolished respondents’ house based on a Writ of Demolition from the RTC.
• The Supreme Court later issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on June 2, 1986, served on June 4, 1986.
• Petitioner ignored the TRO and continued the demolition until 1987.
Ruling:
• The initial exercise of the right was legal, but continuing demolition after the TRO constituted an abuse
of rights.
• The Supreme Court ruled that abuse of right negates the defense of damnum absque injuria.
• Petitioner was held liable for damages because his continued act was unlawful after receiving the TRO.

Pro Line Sports Center, Inc. v. CA, 281 SCRA 162 (1997)
Facts:
• Pro Line, the exclusive distributor of "Spalding" balls, suspected Universal of producing counterfeit products.
• The NBI raided Universal’s factory, seized basketballs, and later padlocked the premises.
• Universal’s owner filed a criminal complaint for unfair competition, which was dismissed.
• Universal then sued for damages, claiming abuse of rights.
Ruling:
• The Supreme Court ruled that Pro Line acted within its legal rights in protecting its trademark.
• The closure of Universal’s factory was an unavoidable consequence of enforcing intellectual property rights.
• Exercise of a legal right, even if it causes loss, does not create liability under damnum absque injuria.

Albenson Enterprises Corp. v. CA, 217 SCRA 16 (1993)

Facts:
• Albenson Enterprises (AEC) delivered steel plates to Guaranteed Industries, Inc. (GII).
• As payment, AEC received a check from E.L. Woodworks, which later bounced due to a closed account.
• Upon investigation, AEC believed Eugenio S. Baltao issued the check and filed a criminal case against him.
• However, it turned out that the check was issued by his son, Eugenio Baltao III.
• The criminal case against Eugenio S. Baltao was dismissed, and he filed a civil suit for damages under Articles 19,
20, and 21.
Ruling:
• No abuse of rights occurred because AEC acted in good faith in filing the case.
• Eugenio S. Baltao failed to clarify the mistaken identity before AEC filed the criminal complaint.
• The Supreme Court ruled that AEC’s mistake was innocent, not malicious, and did not warrant damages.
• Key takeaway: Malicious prosecution requires (1) wrongful prosecution, (2) no probable cause, and (3) legal
malice—none of which were present in this case.

[18.3] Principle of Abuse of Rights

• Article 19 limits the exercise of rights to prevent abuse.
• A right must not be exercised in a manner that causes unjust harm to another.
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
• Example: A landowner may build a wall on his property, but if it is done solely to block a neighbor’s access, it constitutes
abuse of rights.
[18.4] Elements of Abuse of Rights
To establish abuse of rights, the following must be present:
1. Legal right or duty exists – The person must be exercising a legal right.
2. Exercise is done in bad faith or with intent to injure – There must be malice or intent to harm.
3. Damage results from the abuse – The wrongful act must cause harm to another.
Example:
• A creditor repeatedly harasses a debtor’s family despite a legal case being pending.
• Even if the creditor has the right to demand payment, the manner of exercising it constitutes abuse.

[18.5] Article 19 Explained

• Establishes the fundamental duty to act with justice, fairness, and good faith.
• It is not a source of liability by itself but serves as a basis for invoking Articles 20 and 21.
Example:
• A company terminates an employee without due process despite contractual obligations.
• Even if termination is allowed, the lack of fairness makes the act unlawful.

[18.6] Comparison of Articles 19, 20, and 21

Article Scope Liability Basis Examples
19 General rule on justice, fairness, Abuse of rights Landowner builds a wall to block a
and good faith neighbor’s view out of spite.
20 Illegal acts causing damage Violation of law A contractor fails to follow building
codes, causing damage.
21 Immoral or unethical acts Violation of morals, customs, A person spreads false rumors that harm
causing damage or public policy another’s reputation.

Key Takeaways
• Article 19: Exercise of rights must be just, fair, and in good faith.
• Article 20: Unlawful acts causing damage lead to liability.
• Article 21: Even lawful acts may result in liability if contrary to morals or public policy.
• Damnum Absque Injuria applies when damage occurs without legal injury, but it does not apply if there is abuse of
rights.
Garciano vs. Court of Appeals (212 SCRA 436, 1992)
FACTS:
• Garciano was employed as a teacher by Immaculate Concepcion Institute for the 1981-82 school year.
• On January 13, 1982, she applied for an indefinite leave of absence as her daughter was taking her to Austria,
and the school president approved the request.
• On June 1, 1982, while Garciano was still on leave, the school informed her husband that her services were
terminated due to the absence of a written employment contract.
• Upon her return, Garciano inquired about her employment status, and the Board of Directors reinstated her,
declaring the termination notice null and void.
• However, instead of reporting back to work, she filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against school officials
and faculty members, alleging discrimination and unjust dismissal.
RULING:
• The Supreme Court ruled that Garciano was not entitled to damages because her discontinuance from
teaching was her own choice.
• Key Points from the Court’s Explanation:
o While some faculty members and officials wanted her terminated, they did nothing to physically
prevent her from returning to work.
o The disagreement of the principal and faculty members with the Board’s decision did not amount to
illegal dismissal.
o Their actions, such as expressing dissent or threatening to resign, were within their right to free
speech and did not violate any laws or public policy.
o Garciano was ordered to report back on July 5, 1982, but failed to comply.
o Any loss she suffered was self-inflicted – volenti non fit injuria (a person who consents to risk cannot
claim injury).
• On Moral Damages under Article 21:
o The right to recover damages under Article 21 is based on equity.
o A party must come to court with clean hands to demand equity.
o Moral damages are only recoverable under Article 2219 if the case falls within Article 21.
o Reasons Garciano was not without fault:
1. She took an indefinite leave and did not return in time for the school’s reopening.
2. She refused to sign a written employment contract without any justification.
3. She ignored the Board’s order to return to work on July 5, 1982.
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya

[18.3] Principle of Abuse of Rights

• Article 19 of the Civil Code departs from the classical theory that "he who uses a right injures no one."
• The modern approach allows for indemnity for damages even when an act is not illicit if it involves abuse of
rights.
• Article 19 sets three standards in exercising rights and performing duties:
1. To act with justice
2. To give everyone his due
3. To observe honesty and good faith
• The law limits rights by requiring adherence to these norms of human conduct.
• A right, though legal, can still become the source of illegality if exercised in a manner inconsistent with Article 19.
• Purpose of Article 19:
o Expands the concept of torts to cover moral wrongs not specifically addressed by statutes.
o Fault or negligence is enough to make a person liable; abuse or bad faith all the more so.
o Good faith is essential – it is an honest intent to act fairly and avoid taking advantage of others.

[18.4] Elements of Abuse of Rights

The three elements of abuse of rights under Article 19 are:
1. There is a legal right or duty
2. It is exercised in bad faith
3. It is exercised solely to prejudice or injure another
• No strict rule exists to determine abuse of rights – it depends on the circumstances.
• Lack of good faith is essential to establish abuse of rights.

[18.5] Article 19, Explained

• While Article 19 is a general principle, it has led to legal rules that impose liability on those who act arbitrarily or in
bad faith.
• The same three elements of abuse of rights apply:
1. Legal right or duty
2. Bad faith
3. Intent to injure another
• Purpose:
o Ensures rightful human relations
o Maintains social order
o Promotes equity and justice over strict legalism

[18.6] Articles 19, 20 & 21, Compared

• Article 19: Establishes rules of conduct but does not provide a remedy.
• Article 20: Provides a general sanction for violations of the law.
• Article 21: Covers legal but immoral acts that cause injury with intent.
• Key distinctions:
o Article 19 and 21 require intent (willful act).
o Article 20 applies to both willful and negligent acts.
• Any of these provisions can be the basis for a claim for damages.

Case Applications of Abuse of Rights

Velayo vs. Shell Co. of the Philippines (100 Phil. 186, 1956)
Facts:
• CALI, facing bankruptcy, met with creditors and agreed to sell assets and distribute proceeds.
• Shell Co. secretly assigned its credit to a sister company in the US, which secured an attachment on CALI’s
plane and fully satisfied its own claim.
• Issue: Whether Shell Co. in the Philippines should pay damages to other creditors.
Ruling:
• Shell Co. abused its rights under Article 19, making it liable for damages under Article 21.
• Its actions lacked good faith and honesty, violating morals, good customs, and public policy.

Globe Mackay Cable & Radio Corp. vs. CA (176 SCRA 778, 1989)
Facts:
• Tobias, a purchasing agent at Globe Mackay, discovered fraudulent transactions and reported them.
• The next day, Hendry (GM) accused him of being the main suspect, forced him on leave, and later publicly
called him a crook and a swindler.
• Despite police reports clearing Tobias, Hendry hired a private investigator, who found him guilty but admitted
further investigation was needed.
• Hendry fired Tobias and sent damaging letters to potential employers.
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
• Tobias filed for damages for abusive dismissal and harassment.
Ruling:
• Petitioners abused their right to dismiss Tobias and are liable for damages.
• Reasons for liability:
1. Hendry’s baseless public accusations violated Article 19.
2. Pattern of harassment during investigations.
3. Disregard of police reports clearing Tobias.
4. Unjustified communication to future employers.
• Even if Globe Mackay had a right to dismiss Tobias, its manner of execution was abusive and wrongful.

§ 19. Breach Of Promise To Marry

[19.1] Breach of Promise to Marry, Generally Not Actionable

General Rule:
A breach of promise to marry per se is not an actionable wrong. Congress deliberately omitted provisions that would have made it
actionable from the draft of the New Civil Code. The rationale for this is provided in the Senate Committees' Report on the

Proposed Civil Code, which states:

“The elimination of this chapter is proposed. That breach of promise to marry is not actionable has been definitely decided in the
case of De Jesus vs. Syquia (58 Phil. 866 [1933]). The history of breach of promise suits in the United States and in England has
shown that no other action lends itself more readily to abuse by designing women and unscrupulous men. It is this experience
which has led to the abolition of rights of action in the so-called Heart Balm suits in many of the American states.”

Case Doctrines:
Tanjanco vs. Court of Appeals 18 SCRA 994 (1966)
Facts:
• Apolonio Tanjanco courted Araceli Santos from December 1957.
• He expressed his love and promised to marry her, which she reciprocated.
• Because of this promise, Santos consented to sexual relations with Tanjanco regularly from 1958 to 1959, which
resulted in her pregnancy.
• Due to embarrassment and inability to support herself and the child, Santos resigned from her job.
• Tanjanco refused to marry her, prompting Santos to sue for damages.
Ruling:
• Santos is not entitled to damages.
• The court found voluntariness and mutual passion in their relations, which lasted for one whole year.
• The ruling emphasized that if Santos was truly deceived, she would have severed all ties upon realizing that Tanjanco
had no intent to fulfill his promise.
• Article 21 of the Civil Code does not apply since there was no fraudulent scheme or injury committed in a manner
contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy.

Constantino vs. Mendez 209 SCRA 18 (1992)

Facts:
• Amelita, a 28-year-old waitress, met Ivan at Tony’s Restaurant.
• The day after they met, Ivan courted Amelita and professed his love.
• On the same night, he took her to his hotel room, where she agreed to sexual intercourse based on his promise of
marriage.
• After the act, Ivan confessed that he was already married.
• Despite knowing this, Amelita continued to engage in relations with him for three more months, leading to her
pregnancy.
• Ivan refused to provide support, prompting Amelita to sue.
Ruling:
• Mere sexual intercourse is not a basis for damages.
• Damages can only be awarded if there is no voluntariness and mutual desire.
• Since Amelita admitted to being attracted to Ivan, her decision to surrender her womanhood was due to passion, not
deception.
• If she had truly been misled, she would have immediately cut ties upon learning he was married.

[19.2] Breach of Promise to Marry, When Actionable

A breach of promise to marry may be actionable if there is an independent wrongful act, such as:

[19.2.1] If There Is Fraud or Deceit

If a man's false promise of marriage was the proximate cause of a woman’s acceptance of his love and her consent to sexual
relations, and it is proven that:
• He never intended to marry her,
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
• His promise was a scheme or deceptive device,
• The woman suffered injury to her honor and reputation,
then damages may be awarded under Article 21 of the Civil Code.

Pe vs. Pe 5 SCRA 200 (1962)

Facts:
• Alfonso Pe, a married man, was close to Lolita Pe’s family due to kinship.
• Under the pretext of learning how to pray the rosary, Alfonso wooed and seduced Lolita, exchanging love letters
and having clandestine meetings.
• When Lolita’s family learned of the affair, they forbade Alfonso from seeing her, but they continued their
relationship.
• In 1957, Alfonso persuaded Lolita to elope.
• Lolita’s family sued Alfonso for damages under Article 21.
Ruling:
• Alfonso is liable for damages.
• He fraudulently seduced Lolita by taking advantage of her trust and affection.
• His actions injured her family’s honor, violating morals, good customs, and public policy.

Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court of Appeals 219 SCRA 115 (1993)
Facts:
• Gashem, an Iranian medical student, courted Marilou Gonzales and proposed marriage.
• Marilou only accepted his love on the condition that they would marry.
• After securing her parents' approval, Gashem forced Marilou to live with him in August 1987.
• He physically abused her and later revealed that he was already married to someone else.
• Marilou sued for damages.
Ruling:
• Gashem is liable for damages.
• His fraudulent promise caused Marilou to surrender her virginity and live with him under false pretenses.
• His deception also misled Marilou’s parents, violating morals, good customs, and public policy.
• Article 21 applies, as his acts caused willful injury to her honor.

[19.2.2] If Expenses Are Actually Incurred

If the plaintiff incurred expenses for the wedding (e.g., invitations, attire, venue reservations), he/she can recover damages
for money or property advanced based on reliance on the promise.

Wassmer vs. Velez 12 SCRA 648 (1964)

Facts:
• Francisco Velez and Beatriz Wassmer set their wedding for September 4, 1954.
• Two days before the wedding, Velez left a note stating:
"Dear Bet, We will have to postpone wedding – My mother opposes it. Am leaving on the Convair today. Please do not ask too
many people about the reason why – That would only create a scandal."
• He disappeared and was never heard from again.
• Wassmer sued for damages.
Ruling:
• This was not a mere breach of promise to marry.
• Velez publicly set a wedding, let preparations ensue, then disappeared without justification.
• His conduct was unjustifiably contrary to good customs, warranting damages under Article 21.

[19.2.3] When Woman Was Forcibly Abducted And Raped

If a man forcibly abducted and raped a woman, then promised to marry her to escape criminal liability, only to later
renege on the promise, his actions are:
• Contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy,
• Actionable for damages under Article 21.

Key Takeaways:
1. Breach of promise to marry is generally NOT actionable.
2. Exceptions apply if an independent wrongful act occurs, such as:
o Fraud or deceit (Article 21).
o Actual wedding expenses incurred.
o Forcible abduction and rape followed by a false promise of marriage.
3. Case law establishes the necessity of proof of deceit, injury, or unjustified harm.

§ 20. Malicious Prosecution

[20.1] Basis of Action
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
An action for damages arising from malicious prosecution is based on Articles 21, 2217, and 2219(8) of the New Civil Code.
• A person cannot be held liable for maliciously instituting a prosecution if they acted with probable cause.
• Both malice and lack of probable cause must be present for a suit for malicious prosecution to prosper.
[20.2] Requisites of Malicious Prosecution
For a claim of malicious prosecution to succeed, the plaintiff must prove:
1. Fact of the prosecution – The defendant initiated the criminal action, and it ended in acquittal.
2. Absence of probable cause – The defendant acted without a reasonable basis in bringing the charges.
3. Legal malice – The prosecution was driven by improper or sinister motives.

§ 21. Accion In Rem Verso

[21.1] Accion In Rem Verso, Explained
• Under Article 22 of the Civil Code, if a person acquires or retains something at another’s expense without a legal
basis, they must return it.
• Accion in rem verso is the action for recovery of what was acquired without just cause.
[21.2] Distinguished from Solutio Indebiti
• Solutio indebiti is a quasi-contract preventing unjust enrichment when a payment was made by mistake.
• Article 2154 of the Civil Code defines solutio indebiti as a situation where:
1. A payment was made when there was no obligation to pay.
2. The payment was made due to a mistake (not through generosity or legal obligation).
• Key distinction:
o Accion in rem verso does not require a mistake.
o Solutio indebiti requires that the payment was made due to mistake.
[21.3] Requisites of Accion In Rem Verso
For an action under Article 22 to prosper, the plaintiff must prove:
1. Enrichment of the defendant – The defendant benefited.
2. Loss suffered by the plaintiff – The plaintiff was disadvantaged.
3. Enrichment without legal justification – There was no lawful reason for the benefit.
4. No other available legal remedy – The plaintiff has no contractual, quasi-contractual, criminal, or quasi-
delictual basis to recover.

Obaña vs. Court of Appeals (135 SCRA 557, 1985)

• Facts:
o Sandoval sold 170 cavans of rice to Chan Lin, with payment to be made upon delivery at Obaña’s store.
o After delivery, Chan Lin disappeared without paying.
o Obaña refused to return the rice, arguing he had already paid Chan Lin for it.
o Sandoval sued for replevin, leading to appeals up to the Supreme Court (SC).
• Ruling:
o Obaña was repaid by Chan Lin and could no longer claim ownership.
o SC ruled that Obaña must return the rice or its value, as he would unjustly enrich himself at Sandoval’s
expense.

§ 22. Liability Without Fault or Negligence

[22.1] Liability Without Fault or Negligence
• Article 23 of the Civil Code establishes liability even when a person is not at fault, as long as they benefited from
an event that caused harm to another.
[22.2] Illustration
• Example from the Civil Code Commission:
o A flood unintentionally carries A’s cattle onto B’s farmland.
o A’s cattle are saved, but B’s crops are destroyed.
o A was not at fault, but he benefited while B suffered a loss.
o Under Article 23, A must indemnify B.
[22.3] Basis of Liability Under Article 23
• Prevents unjust enrichment due to accidental or involuntary events.
• Even if an act was unintentional or unavoidable, the person who benefited must compensate for the damage
caused.

Article 24: Protection of the Disadvantaged

Legal Provision:
In all contractual, property, or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence,
ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age, or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.
§ 23. Protection of the Disadvantaged
[23.1] Court’s Duty of Protecting the Disadvantaged
Article 24 calls on the courts to be vigilant in protecting the rights of disadvantaged individuals. This protection extends to
situations where a party may be susceptible due to their moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness,
tender age, or other handicaps. The provision is supplemented by Article 1332 of the Civil Code, which states:
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
"When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is
alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former."
Thus, the burden of proof is on the party enforcing the contract to show that the disadvantaged party fully understood the
terms.
[23.2] Legislative Intent of Article 24
The provision aims to protect weak and uneducated individuals from being taken advantage of by unscrupulous persons or
those using undue influence in contractual or property agreements. Courts must ensure fairness and equity in such
situations.

Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals (168 SCRA 623, 1988)

• Facts:
o Carlos Telosa, an uneducated fisherman and farmer, took a loan from the Rural Bank of Lucena.
o The bank later claimed he owed P9,032.22, but Telosa insisted his debt was only P300.00.
o The Central Bank foreclosed his mortgage, prompting his heirs to file a case invoking Article 24.
• Ruling:
o The Supreme Court found that the Rural Bank officers took advantage of Telosa’s limited education.
o The mortgage was nullified due to fraudulent and anomalous transactions.
Rongavilla vs. Court of Appeals (294 SCRA 289, 1998)
• Facts:
o Two elderly and uneducated spinsters borrowed P2,000 from their nephews and nieces.
o They were tricked into signing a deed of sale of their home instead of an acknowledgment of debt.
o When they later learned of the deception, they filed a complaint.
• Ruling:
o The Supreme Court voided the sale under public policy principles, emphasizing that the law protects the
elderly from fraud, misrepresentation, and abuse of trust.
Lim vs. Court of Appeals (229 SCRA 616, 1994)
• Facts:
o Cresencia, who had only a second-grade education, relied on her lawyer-brother Lorenzo.
o Lorenzo made her sign a deed of sale in English, which she did not understand.
o Her heirs sought annulment after her death.
• Ruling:
o The Supreme Court applied Articles 24 and 1332, holding that Lorenzo failed to prove the deed’s
contents were explained to Cresencia.
o The sale was voided due to fraud and undue influence.
Cayabyab vs. Court of Appeals (232 SCRA 1, 1994)
• Facts:
o Illiterate elderly spouses, who spoke only Ilocano and Pangasinense, allegedly executed English-written
deeds of sale in favor of their stepson.
o They later discovered they had unknowingly transferred their property.
• Ruling:
o The Supreme Court invalidated the sales, emphasizing that the defendants failed to prove the illiterate
spouses understood the documents.
o The Court invoked Articles 24 and 1332 to protect them.

Article 25: Thoughtless Extravagance

Legal Provision:
Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped
by the order of the courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution.
§ 24. Thoughtless Extravagance
Before the courts can intervene in extravagant spending, two requisites must be met:
1. There must be an acute public want or emergency (e.g., wartime, famine, disaster).
2. A government or charitable institution must initiate the action.
The law seeks to balance personal freedoms with social responsibility, especially in times of crisis.

Article 26: Protection of Human Dignity

Legal Provision:
Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy, and peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following
and similar acts, though they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention, and
other relief:
1. Prying into the privacy of another’s residence
2. Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another
3. Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends
4. Vexing or humiliating another based on religious beliefs, social status, place of birth, physical defect, or
personal condition
§ 25. Protection of Human Dignity
[25.1] Philosophy Behind Article 26
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
• Human dignity is a fundamental right.
• The Code Commission emphasized that laws must exalt human personality and protect individuals from unjust
humiliation.
• The article ensures protection against undue intrusion into personal life, even if such acts are not criminal
offenses.
[25.2] Enumeration, Not Exclusive
• The acts listed under Article 26 are not exhaustive.
• Other forms of harassment or humiliation (e.g., abusive language, public shaming) may also be actionable under
this provision.
Concepcion vs. Court of Appeals (324 SCRA 85, 2000)
• Facts:
o Nestor Nicolas was publicly accused of having an adulterous affair with his landlady, Florence Concepcion.
o The accuser shouted degrading accusations at Nestor in his apartment.
o Nestor suffered public humiliation and embarrassment.
• Ruling:
o The Supreme Court granted damages under Article 26, holding that publicly humiliating a person with
baseless accusations is actionable.

Key Takeaways
• Article 24 mandates courts to protect disadvantaged individuals in contractual, property, and legal matters.
• Article 25 allows courts to halt extravagant spending during public crises, upon the request of charitable or
government institutions.
• Article 26 upholds human dignity by preventing acts of privacy invasion, defamation, and humiliation, even if
they are not criminal offenses.

§27. Unfair Competition

Unfair competition involves deception or any means contrary to good faith to pass off one’s goods, business, or services as
those of another who has already established goodwill. Acts calculated to produce this result are also considered unfair
competition. The law specifically enumerates common ways of committing unfair competition under Section 168.3 of the
Intellectual Property Code, as follows:

Acts Constituting Unfair Competition

1. Imitating the General Appearance of Goods
o Any person who sells goods giving them the general appearance of goods of another manufacturer or
dealer
o This includes:
▪ The goods themselves
▪ Wrapping of packages
▪ Devices or words
▪ Any other feature likely to mislead purchasers into believing they are buying goods from another
manufacturer or dealer
o Example: A company packaging their shampoo in a nearly identical bottle and label as a well-known brand,
deceiving customers into buying it.
2. Inducing False Belief in Service Origin
o Any person who uses artifice, device, or any means to induce the false belief that their services are
those of another
o This applies when a person tries to appropriate the reputation and public association of another’s
services
o Example: A cleaning service falsely advertising themselves as an accredited franchise of a well-known cleaning
brand.
3. Making False Statements to Discredit a Competitor
o Any person making false statements in trade
o Any act contrary to good faith designed to discredit another’s goods, business, or services
o Example: A company falsely claiming a rival's product contains harmful ingredients to discourage customers
from purchasing it.

Art. 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been proved beyond
reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be instituted.
Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require the plaintiff to file a
bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be found to be malicious.

If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the court shall so declare. In the absence of any
declaration to that effect, it may be inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that ground.

§28. Civil Liability Arising From Criminal Offenses

 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
[28.1] Delict as Source of Civil Liability
• Under Article 1157(4) of the Civil Code, a delict (crime) is one of the sources of obligations.
• General Rule: Every person criminally liable for a felony is also civilly liable.
[28.2] Basis of Civil Liability Arising From Crime
• The principle behind civil liability from crime is that a crime offends two entities:
1. The State, whose law was violated
2. The Injured Party, whose person, rights, or property were harmed
• However, legal scholars argue that civil liability arises not from the crime itself but from the damage caused by
the act.
o Key Point: Criminal liability only results in civil liability if the act causes direct and proximate injury.

[28.3] Acquittal of the Accused and Its Effect on Civil Liability

• Rule: An acquittal does not automatically extinguish civil liability.
• Exception: If the criminal court explicitly finds that the act did not exist, civil liability is extinguished.
• Legal Basis: Section 2, Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure states:
“The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it extinction of the civil action. However, the civil action based on delict shall
be deemed extinguished if there is a finding in a judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil
liability may arise did not exist.”

Caiña v. People (213 SCRA 309, 1992)

Facts:
• Merlin Caiña was charged with reckless imprudence resulting in serious physical injuries but was acquitted.
• The trial court still ordered him to pay P2,893.40 in damages.
• On appeal, the damages were deleted but later reinstated. Caiña argued that his acquittal should remove civil
liability.
Ruling:
• The court found no recklessness, negligence, or imprudence in the case.
• Since no wrongful act existed, the civil liability was extinguished.

[28.4] Acquittal Based on Reasonable Doubt

• If acquittal is due to reasonable doubt, civil liability is not automatically extinguished.
• Rationale:
o Criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt, while
o Civil cases only require preponderance of evidence (lower burden of proof).
• Example:
o A person accused of theft may be acquitted due to lack of criminal proof, but the victim can still sue for damages
in a civil case.

[28.5] Reason for the Rule in Article 29

Article 29 of the Civil Code allows a civil case to proceed despite a criminal acquittal based on reasonable doubt.
• Rationale by the Code Commission:
o The old rule that an acquittal automatically removes civil liability led to many injustices.
o Criminal and civil liabilities are distinct:
▪ Criminal liability punishes the offender.
▪ Civil liability compensates the victim.
o Key Distinction:
▪ Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt → Needed for criminal conviction.
▪ Preponderance of Evidence → Enough for civil liability.
Llorente v. Sandiganbayan (202 SCRA 309, 1991)
Facts:
• Atty. Llorente, a PCA officer, was accused of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act by denying an
employee’s clearance.
• The Sandiganbayan acquitted him.
Ruling:
• Despite the acquittal, civil liability was still possible because the decision was based on a lack of criminal proof,
not on the non-existence of the act.

[28.6] Article 29, Explained

• Acquittal does not necessarily remove civil liability.
• Civil actions are allowed to continue unless the court explicitly declares that the act did not exist.
Key Scenarios Under Article 29:
1. Acquittal Based on Lack of Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt
o Civil liability may still be pursued.
2. Acquittal Declaring That the Act Did Not Exist
o Civil liability is extinguished.
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
3. Civil Liability Independent of Criminal Act
o Even if no crime is committed, civil liability may exist due to tort (quasi-delict).

[28.7] No Need for Separate Civil Action

• General Rule: The civil action is deemed included in the criminal case.
• Exception: If civil liability is based on a source other than the crime (e.g., quasi-delict), a separate civil action
may be filed.

Key Takeaways
1. Unfair Competition involves deceptive practices that mislead the public and harm legitimate businesses.
2. Civil Liability from Crimes exists because wrongful acts cause harm, not merely because they are crimes.
3. Acquittal does not always remove civil liability, especially if based on reasonable doubt.
4. Article 29 of the Civil Code ensures victims can still claim damages, even after a criminal acquittal.
5. The burden of proof differs:
o Criminal cases require proof beyond reasonable doubt.
o Civil cases only require a preponderance of evidence.
I. Civil Actions Arising from Criminal Offenses
A. Legal Provisions
Article 30
When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal offense, and no criminal proceedings are
instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act
complained of.
Article 31
When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission complained of as a felony, such civil action
may proceed independently of the criminal proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.
B. Comments on the Institution of Civil Action Ex Delicto
[29.1] Rule of Implied Institution
When a criminal action is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of civil liability arising from the offense charged shall be
deemed instituted with the criminal action unless:
1. The offended party waives the civil action,
2. The offended party reserves the right to institute it separately, or
3. The offended party institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action.
The impliedly instituted civil action refers only to the recovery of civil liability based on delict.
[29.2] When Civil Action Is Reserved
• The reservation of the right to institute the civil action separately must be made before the prosecution starts
presenting its evidence.
• The offended party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make such a reservation.
• Once the reservation is made, the separate civil action cannot be instituted until final judgment has been rendered in
the criminal case.
[29.3] When Civil Action Is Instituted Prior to Criminal Action
• If the criminal action is later instituted, the prior civil action shall be suspended at whatever stage it is before
judgment on the merits.
• The suspension remains until a final judgment is rendered in the criminal action.
• Before judgment on the merits in the civil case, the offended party may move to consolidate it with the criminal case.
[29.4] When Civil Action Is Instituted, But No Criminal Action
• If no criminal case is filed, the preponderance of evidence shall be the standard of proof for establishing civil liability.
[29.5] Article 31, Explained
• Justice Capistrano clarifies that Article 31 does not provide for an independent action like those under Articles 32, 33,
and 34.
• A civil action based on quasi-delict is distinct from a civil action based on a crime.
• Example:
o A is prosecuted for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.
o The heirs of the deceased may file a civil action for damages based on quasi-delict under Article 2177.
o This action is independent of the criminal case and may proceed regardless of the outcome of the latter.
[29.6] Quasi-Delict as Separate Source of Obligation
• A quasi-delict is an entirely independent legal institution from a delict or crime.
• A single negligent act may give rise to:
1. Civil liability arising from a crime (delict) under the Revised Penal Code.
2. Quasi-delict liability under Articles 2176 to 2194 of the Civil Code.
[29.7] Acquittal of Accused, Irrelevant in Quasi-Delict
• The acquittal of an accused in a criminal case does not affect civil liability based on quasi-delict.
• Tayag v. Alcantara:
o Even if an accused is acquitted, a separate civil action based on quasi-delict may proceed.
o The offended party cannot recover twice, but they are entitled to the higher award if damages differ.
[29.8] Same Negligent Act May Produce Two Kinds of Civil Liabilities
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
• A single negligent act can give rise to:
1. Civil liability under Article 100 of the RPC (criminal negligence).
2. Quasi-delict liability under the Civil Code (Articles 2176-2194).
• The civil action based on quasi-delict is independent of the criminal case and only requires a preponderance of
evidence.
[29.9] Quasi-Delict Covers Acts Criminal in Character
• Article 2176 covers acts that are:
1. Not punishable by law.
2. Criminal in character (whether intentional or negligent).

II. Independent Civil Actions

Art. 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in any
manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies for purposes not contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition the
Government for redress of grievances;
(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against
him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against one’s self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being induced
by a promise of immunity or reward to make such confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance with a
statute which has not been judicially declared unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the defendant’s act or omission constitute a criminal offense, the
aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if the latter be instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance
of evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal
Code or other penal statute.
Art. 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, a civil action for damages, entirely separate and distinct from the
criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and
shall require only a preponderance of evidence.
Art. 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case of
danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily
responsible therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and a preponderance of
evidence shall suffice to support such action
A. Legal Provisions
Article 32
Any public officer, employee, or private individual who obstructs or violates constitutional rights shall be liable for damages,
including moral and exemplary damages.
• Examples of protected rights:
1. Freedom of speech, religion, and press.
2. Right against illegal detention, searches, and seizures.
3. Right to due process and equal protection.
4. Right against involuntary servitude.
5. Right to a fair trial.
• The civil action shall proceed independently of any criminal case and only requires preponderance of evidence.
• Exception: A judge is not liable unless the act constitutes a criminal offense.
Article 33
• In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, an independent civil action may be filed.
• The civil action proceeds independently of the criminal case and only requires preponderance of evidence.
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
Article 34
• When a peace officer fails to provide aid or protection, the officer shall be primarily liable for damages.
• The city or municipality shall be subsidiarily liable.
• The civil action is independent of any criminal proceedings and requires only preponderance of evidence.
B. Comments on Independent Civil Actions
[30.1] Independent Civil Actions, Explained
• Under Articles 32, 33, 34, and 2176, an independent civil action may be instituted.
• The action proceeds separately from the criminal case.
• No double recovery: The offended party cannot collect damages twice for the same act.
[30.2] Civil Damages for Violation of Constitutional Liberties under Article 32
• Article 32 is an enforcement of constitutional rights.
• Key reason for Article 32:
o Many constitutional rights violations come from government officials or peace officers.
o Prosecutors may decline filing criminal cases due to workload or insufficient evidence.
o Article 32 ensures that victims have a direct civil remedy, even if no criminal prosecution occurs.
[30.3] Good Faith, Not a Defense
• In Article 32 cases, good faith is not a defense.
• The law imposes strict liability on the violator.
[30.4] Article 33, Explained
• Independent civil actions apply to defamation, fraud, and physical injuries.
• These cases only require preponderance of evidence.
[30.5] Civil Action Allowed to Be Instituted Is Ex-Delicto
• Independent civil actions arise from the same criminal act but are separate from the criminal prosecution.
[30.6] “Physical Injuries” in Article 33
• The term includes all bodily harm, whether serious, less serious, or slight physical injuries.
[30.7] Criminal Negligence Included in Article 33
• Reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries falls under Article 33.

Summary
• Civil liability can arise from crimes or quasi-delicts.
• Independent civil actions under Articles 32, 33, 34 proceed separately from criminal cases.
• No double recovery is allowed for damages.
• Good faith is not a defense in cases involving constitutional rights violations.
Article 35
When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another with the same, but no independent civil action is
granted under the law, and:
1. The justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed; or
2. The prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings,
Then, the complainant may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender, supported by a preponderance of
evidence.
• The court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant if the complaint is later found to be
malicious.
• If, during the civil action, an information is filed by the prosecutor, the civil case shall be suspended until the
termination of the criminal case.

Article 36
• Prejudicial questions must be decided before a criminal prosecution may proceed.
• This doctrine is governed by the Rules of Court, as promulgated by the Supreme Court, ensuring no conflict with this
Code.

Prejudicial Question

Definition and Purpose

A prejudicial question is a legal issue that arises in a civil case, which must be resolved first before the related criminal case can
proceed. It occurs when the determination of the civil issue is logically necessary for the resolution of the criminal case.
• It is based on a fact distinct and separate from the crime but is intimately connected with it.
• The resolution of the civil case determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.
• It applies when a civil action and a criminal action are both pending, and the resolution of an issue in the civil case
directly affects the criminal case.

Elements of a Prejudicial Question

1. A previously instituted civil action involves an issue that is similarly or intimately related to the issue in the
subsequent criminal action.
2. The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed.
 THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES
(Republic Act No. 386, as Amended)
Annotations By Rabuya
Key Principle: The civil case must be resolved first before the criminal case proceeds.

Case Doctrines on Prejudicial Question

Ras vs. Rasul (100 SCRA 125, 1980)
• Facts:
o Ras was sued in a civil case over an alleged double sale of property.
o He denied the sale and claimed the signatures were forged.
o While the civil case was pending, the Provincial Fiscal filed a criminal case for estafa against him.
o A motion for suspension of the criminal case was filed.
• Ruling:
o The civil case must first determine the validity of the first sale.
o If the sale was void or fictitious, no double sale occurred, and Ras would be innocent of estafa.
o The SC held that a prejudicial question exists.
Yap vs. Paras (205 SCRA 625, 1992)
• Facts:
o Yap claimed that in 1971, Paras sold her his share in an estate for P300.
o In 1990, Paras sold the same property to another person for P5,000.
o Yap filed a civil case to nullify the second sale and a criminal case for estafa.
o The trial judge dismissed the criminal case citing prejudicial question.
• Ruling:
o Unlike Ras v. Rasul, there was no motion for suspension in this case.
o Not every civil defense raises a prejudicial question.
o The defense must be directly related to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
o SC ruled that no prejudicial question existed.
Balgos, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan (176 SCRA 287, 1989)
• Facts:
o A criminal case was filed against Balgos for seizing a Mustang car from a third party.
o A civil case was later filed to annul the sale of the car.
o Balgos moved for suspension of the criminal case.
• Ruling:
o Even if the sale was later annulled, it would not determine Balgos' guilt or innocence.
o Until annulled, the sale is presumed valid.
o Thus, no prejudicial question existed.

Suspension of Proceedings
• A petition to suspend the criminal case may be filed:
o Before the prosecutor or in the preliminary investigation stage.
o If the criminal case is already filed, the petition must be filed before the prosecution rests.
• Only suspension is allowed, not dismissal.

When the Doctrine Comes Into Play

Civil and Administrative Cases
• Ocampo vs. Buenaventura (55 SCRA 267, 1974): A prejudicial question does not exist when the cases involved
are only civil and administrative.
• Quiambao vs. Osorio (158 SCRA 674, 1988): No prejudicial question when cases are administrative and civil.
Administrative Case vs. Criminal Prosecution
• La Chemise Lacoste, S.A. vs. Fernandez (129 SCRA 373, 1984)
o Hemandas & Co. was accused of unfair competition.
o A search warrant was issued against them.
o They argued that the pending case in the Patent Office must be resolved first.
o Ruling: A pending case in the Patent Office is not a prejudicial question because it is administrative,
not civil.
Criminal Case vs. Disbarment Proceedings
• A criminal case is not a prejudicial question to an administrative case for a lawyer’s disbarment or
suspension.
• Reason: Disbarment cases belong to a class of their own and proceed independently of civil and criminal cases.

Conclusion
• A prejudicial question exists when the outcome of a civil case determines the guilt or innocence of the accused in
a criminal case.
• Not all civil defenses justify suspension of the criminal case.
• Mere pendency of an administrative case does not constitute a prejudicial question.
• The suspension of proceedings must be requested before the criminal case proceeds to trial.
Key Takeaway: The doctrine of prejudicial question ensures that criminal proceedings do not move forward when an
unresolved civil issue directly impacts the determination of criminal liability.