Civil Code of The Philippines - Rubaya
Civil Code of The Philippines - Rubaya
A
“civil
code”
is
a
collection
of
laws
which
regulate
the
private
relations
of
the
members
of
the
society,
determining
respective
rights
and
obligations,
with
reference
to
persons,
things
and
civil
acts.
It
consists
of
2,270
articles
divided
into
4
books;
I. Persons
II. Property,
Ownership
III. Different
Modes
of
Acquiring
Ownership
IV. Obligations
and
Contracts
**The
Family
Code
of
the
PH
repeals
Articles
52
to
304,
311
to
355,
and
397
to
406
of
Book
I.
Articles
305
to
310;
356
to
396;
and
407
to
413
are
not
repealed.
The
1st
civil
code
in
force
in
the
PH
was
the
“Civil
Code
of
Spain
of
1889”
extended
to
this
country
by
Royal
Decree
of
July
31,
1889,
it
became
effective
Dec
7,
1889.
Followed
by
RA
No.
386,
which
was
approved
by
Congress
on
June
18,
1949.
Not
all
civil
law,
however,
are
to
be
found
in
the
civil
code
of
the
PH,
several
civil
laws
are
scattered
in
the
various
special
laws
promulgated
by
the
legislature.
The
date
of
effectivity
of
the
Civil
Code
of
the
Philippines
was
August
30,
1950.
However,
this
date
was
exactly
one
year
after
the
Official
Gazette
publishing
the
Code
was
released
for
“circulation,”
the
said
release
having
been
made
on
August
30,
1949.
Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all.
Art
2.
-‐
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)
A
law
may
provide
for
its
own
effectivity.
If
the
law
is
silent
as
to
its
own
effectivity,
then
it
shall
take
effect
only
after
fifteen
(15)
days
following
its
complete
publication.
- The
15-‐day
period
may
either
be
on
the
15th
day
or
16th
day
depending
on
the
language
used
by
Congress
in
fixing
the
effectivity
date
of
the
statute.
• 15th
Day:
if
the
law
declares
“15
days
after
its
publication”
Example:
Sec.
28
of
RA
No.
7659
(“An
act
to
impose
the
death
penalty
on
certain
heinous
crimes”).
This
Act
shall
take
effect
15
days
after
its
publication
in
2
national
newspaper
of
general
circulation.
The
publication
shall
not
be
later
than
7
days
after
the
approval
hereof.
Thus,
in
PEOPLE
v.
SIMON
and
PEOPLE
v.
GODOY,
the
SC
ruled
that
RA
No.
7659
took
effect
Dec
31,
1993,
that
is,
15
days
after
its
publication
in
the
Dec
16,
1993,
and
not
on
Jan
1,
1994
as
is
sometimes
misinterpreted.
• 16th
Day:
if
the
law
declares
“after
15
days
following
its
publication”
Example:
Sec.
8
of
RA
No.
7691
(“An
Act
Expanding
the
Jurisdiction
of
the
Metropolitan
Trial
Courts,
Municipal
Courts,
and
Municipal
Circuit
Trial
Courts,
etc.”).
This
act
shall
take
effect
15
days
following
its
publication
in
the
Official
Gazette
or
in
2
national
newspaper
of
general
circulation.
The
Supreme
Court
on
June
14,
1994,
the
Court
declared
that
R.A.
No.
7691
became
effective
on
April
15,
1994,
fifteen
(15)
days
following
its
publication
in
the
Malaya
and
in
the
Times
Journal
on
March
30,
1994.
When
the
law
is
silent
as
to
its
effectivity,
then
it
shall
take
effect
after
fifteen
(15)
days
following
the
completion
of
its
publication.
Example:
In
GSIS
v.
COMMISSION
ON
AUDIT,
a
question
as
to
the
effectivity
of
EO
No.
79
arose,
the
law
is
silent
to
its
effectivity.
Thus,
Court
ruled:
“The
question
that
arises
is
when
is
the
executive
order
effective?
The
President
issued
the
executive
order
on
Dec
2,
1986.
It
was
published
in
the
Official
Gazette
on
December
22,
1986.
Thus,
E.O.
No.
79
is
effective
fifteen
(15)
days
following
its
publication
in
the
Official
Gazette,
or
on
January
07,
1987.
xxx”
The
case
of
TENADA
v.
TUVERA,
the
Court
ruled
that
Art.
2
of
the
Civil
Code
does
not
preclude
the
requirement
of
publication
in
the
Official
Gazette
even
if
the
law
provides
for
the
date
of
its
effectivity
since
the
clear
object
of
the
law
is
to
give
the
general
public
adequate
notice
of
the
various
laws.
Without
such
notice
and
publication,
there
would
be
no
basis
for
the
application
of
the
maxim
“ignorantia
legis
non
excusat.”
It
would
be
the
height
of
injustice,
according
to
the
Court,
to
punish
or
otherwise
burden
a
citizen
for
the
transgression
of
a
law
of
which
he
had
no
notice
whatsoever,
not
even
a
constructive
one.
In
the
TENADA
v.
TUVERA
case,
the
Court
resolved
the
issue
by
saying
that
pursuant
to
the
Civil
Code
and
the
Revised
Administrative
Code,
publication
must
be
effected
in
the
Official
Gazette
and
not
in
any
other
medium.
Because
of
this
ruling,
EO
No.
200
was
passed
by
President
Corazon
Aquino
on
June
18,
1987,
amending
Sec.
2
of
the
Civil
Code.
Pursuant
to
this
amendatory
law,
publication
of
laws
may
now
either
be
in
the
Official
Gazette
or
in
a
newspaper
of
general
circulation
on
the
PH.
The
proviso
“unless
it
is
otherwise
provided”
in
Article
2
of
the
Civil
Code
perforce
refers
only
to
a
law
that
has
been
duly
published
pursuant
to
the
basic
constitutional
requirements
of
due
process.
It
refers
to
the
date
of
effectivity
and
not
to
the
requirement
of
publication
itself.
Statute
should
not
be
regarded
as
purporting
literally
to
come
into
effect
immediately
upon
its
approval
or
enactment
and
without
need
of
publication.
For
so
to
interpret
such
statute
would
be
to
collide
with
the
constitutional
obstacle
posed
by
the
due
process
clause.
The
legislative
may,
in
its
discretion,
provide
that
the
usual
15-‐day
period
shall
be
shortened
or
extended.
The
term
“laws”
should
refer
to
all
laws
and
not
only
those
of
general
application,
all
laws
relates
to
the
people
in
general
albeit
there
are
some
that
do
not
apply
to
them
directly.
Art.
3.
Ignorance
of
the
law
excuses
no
one
from
compliance
therewith.
(2)
In
MARIBELLA-‐BOBIS
v.
BOBIS,
where
the
accused
is
prosecuted
for
the
crime
of
Bigamy
for
not
obtaining
judicial
declaration
of
nullity
of
his
1st
marriage
before
re-‐marrying,
the
SC
declared:
“Ignorance
of
the
existence
of
Art.
40
of
the
Family
Code
cannot
even
be
successfully
invoked
as
an
excuse.
The
contracting
of
a
marriage,
knowing
the
requirements
of
the
law
have
not
been
complied
with
or
that
the
marriage
is
in
disregard
of
a
legal
impediment,
is
an
act
penalized
by
the
Revised
Penal
Code.
The
legality
of
a
marriage
is
a
matter
of
law
and
every
person
is
presumed
to
know
the
law.”
Laws Covered
Art.
3
applies
to
all
kinds
of
domestic
laws,
whether
civil
or
penal,
substantive
or
remedial.
However,
the
article
is
limited
to
mandatory
and
prohibitory
laws.31
It
does
not
include
those
which
are
merely
permissive.
• Not
applicable
to
Foreign
Laws:
There
is
no
conclusive
presumption
of
knowledge
of
foreign
laws
• Doctrine
of
Processual
Presumption:
if
the
foreign
law
involved
is
not
properly
pleaded
and
proved,
our
courts
will
presume
that
the
foreign
law
is
the
same
as
our
local
or
domestic
or
internal
law.
This
is
what
we
refer
to
as
the
doctrine
of
“processual
presumption.”
Ignorance of the law is no excuse; ignorance of fact may excuse a party from legal consequences
of his conduct.
Art. 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. (3)
A
retroactive
law
is
one
intended
to
affect
transaction
which
occurred,
or
rights
which
accrued,
before
it
became
operative,
and
which
ascribes
to
them
affects
not
inherent
in
their
nature,
in
view
of
the
law
in
force
at
the
time
of
their
occurrence.
ex
post
facto
law
–
is
one
that
would
make
previous
act
criminal
although
it
was
not
so
at
the
time
it
was
committed.
Non-‐Impairment
of
Obligation
of
Contracts
–
Under
Sec.
10,
Art.
3
of
the
1987
Constitution
of,
Congress
is
prohibited
from
passing
laws
that
will
impair
the
obligation
of
contracts.
A
law
impairs
and
obligation
of
contracts
concluded
if
it
has
retroactive
application
so
as
to
affect
existing
contracts
concluded
before
its
enactment.
Non-‐Impairment
of
Contracts,
General
Rule
–
only
laws
existing
at
the
time
of
the
execution
of
the
contract
are
applicable
thereto
and
not
later
statutes,
unless
the
latter
are
specifically
in-‐
tended
to
have
retroactive
effect.
Exercise
of
Police
Power,
Exception
to
Rule
–
One
involves
police
power.
A
law
enacted
in
the
exercise
of
police
power
to
regulate
or
govern
certain
activities
or
transactions
could
be
given
retroactive
effect.
Police
power
legislation
is
applicable
not
only
to
future
contracts,
but
equally
to
those
already
in
existence.
In
the
case
PEOPLE
v.
VALDEZ,
the
accused
was
found
guilty
by
the
trial
court
of
two
crimes:
(1)
murder
for
which
he
was
sentenced
to
suffer
the
death
penalty;
and
(2)
illegal
possession
of
firearms
and
ammunition
under
PD
No.
1866
for
which
he
was
sentenced
to
suffer
reclusion
perpetua.
The
crime
was
committed
on
October
1995.
His
conviction
was
automatically
reviewed
by
the
Supreme
Court.
During
the
pendency
of
the
appeal,
R.A.
No.
8294
was
enacted
by
Congress,
which
became
effective
on
June
21,
1997.
Under
the
amendatory
law,
the
illegal
possession
or
use
of
firearm
may
no
longer
be
separately
charged
and
only
one
offense
should
be
punished,
viz.,
murder
in
this
case,
and
the
use
of
unlicensed
firearm
should
only
be
considered
as
an
aggravating
circumstance.
Applying
Article
22
of
the
RPC,
the
Court
ruled
that
R.A.
No.
8294
should
be
applied
retroactively
in
this
case
since
it
is
favorable
to
the
accused.
Thus,
accused
was
found
liable
only
for
murder
and
the
illegal
possession
of
firearm
was
merely
treated
as
an
aggravating
circumstance.
Relates
to
remedies
or
modes
of
procedure,
which
do
not
create
a
new
r
take
away
vested
rights,
but
only
operate
in
furtherance
of
the
remedy
or
confirmation
of
rights
already
existing,
do
not
come
within
the
legal
conception
of
a
retroactive
law,
or
the
general
rule
against
retroactive
operation
of
statutes.
Curative
Laws
Enacted
to
cure
defects
in
a
prior
law
or
to
validate
legal
proceedings,
instruments
or
acts
of
public
authorities
which
would
otherwise
be
void
for
want
of
conformity
with
certain
existing
legal
requirements.
They
are
intended
to
supply
defects,
abridged
superfluities
and
curb
certain
evils.
However,
they
cannot
violate
constitutional
provisions,
nor
destroy
vested
rights
of
third
persons.
They
cannot
affect
a
judgment
that
has
become
final.
Art.
5.
Acts
executed
against
the
provisions
of
mandatory
or
prohibitory
laws
shall
be
void,
except
when
the
law
itself
authorizes
their
validity.
(4a)
If
the
law
commands
that
something
be
done,
it
is
mandatory.
If
the
law
commands
that
something
should
not
be
done,
it
is
prohibitory.
1. When
the
law
itself
authorizes
its
validity
although
generally
they
would
have
been
void.
2. When
the
law
makes
the
act
valid,
but
punishes
the
violator.
3. Where
the
law
merely
makes
the
act
voidable,
that
is,
valid
unless
annulled.
4. Where
the
law
declares
the
act
void,
but
recognizes
legal
effects
as
arising
from
it.
Art.
6.
Rights
may
be
waived,
unless
the
waiver
is
contrary
to
law,
public
order,
public
policy,
morals,
or
good
customs,
or
prejudicial
to
a
third
person
with
a
right
recognized
by
law.
(4a)
Civil
Rights
–
may
be
further
classified
into
rights
of
personality
(sometimes
called
human
rights),
family
rights
and
patrimonial
rights.
The
rights
to
personality
and
family
rights
are
not
subject
to
waiver;
but
patrimonial
rights
can
be
generally
waived.
Political
Rights
–
are
those
referring
to
the
participation
of
persons
in
the
government
of
the
States.
Patrimonial
Rights
are
2
kinds;
1.
Real
right
or
the
power
belonging
to
a
person
over
a
specific
thing,
without
a
passive
subject
individually
determined
against
whom
such
right
may
be
personally
exercised;
and
2.
Personal
right
or
the
power
belonging
to
one
person
to
demand
of
another,
as
a
definite
passive
subject,
the
fulfillment
of
a
prestation
to
give,
to
do
or
not
to
do.
Art.
7.
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
declared
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)
Laws
are
repealed
in
2
ways:
(1)
express,
or
(2)
implied.
Express
repeal
is
that
contained
in
a
special
provision
of
a
subsequent
law.
Implied
repeal
takes
place
when
the
provision
of
the
subsequent
law
is
incompatible
with
those
of
an
earlier
law
and
there
is
no
express
repeal.
The
Family
Code.
Article
253
of
the
Family
Code
provides
that
“Titles
III,
IV,
V,
VI,
VII,
VIII,
IX,
XI
and
XV
of
Book
1
of
Republic
Act
No.
386,
otherwise
known
as
the
Civil
Code
of
the
Philippines,
as
amended,
and
Articles
17,
18,
19,
27,
28,
29,
30,
31,
39,
40,
41
and
42
of
Presidential
Decree
No.
603,
otherwise
known
as
the
Child
and
Youth
Welfare
Code,
as
amended,
and
all
laws,
decrees,
executive
orders,
proclamations,
rules
and
regulations,
or
parts
thereof,
inconsistent
herewith
are
hereby
re-‐
pealed.”
The
statement
“all
laws
or
parts
thereof
which
are
inconsistent
with
this
Act
are
hereby
repealed
or
modified
accordingly,”
however,
is
not
an
express
repealing
clause
because
it
fails
to
identify
or
designate
the
act
or
acts
that
are
intended
to
be
repealed.
If
repeal
of
particular
or
specific
law
or
laws
is
intended,
the
proper
step
is
to
so
express
it.
Implied
repeals
are
not
to
be
favored
because
they
rest
only
on
the
presumption
that
because
the
old
and
the
new
laws
are
incompatible
with
each
other,
there
is
an
intention
to
repeal
the
old.
If
both
laws
can
by
reasonable
construction
stand
together,
both
will
be
sustained.
The
two
laws
must
be
absolutely
incompatible,
and
clear
finding
thereof
must
surface,
before
inference
of
implied
repeal
may
be
drawn.
The
fundament
is
that
the
legislature
should
be
presumed
to
have
known
the
existing
laws
on
the
subject
and
not
have
enacted
conflicting
statutes.
Hence,
all
doubts
must
be
resolved
against
any
implied
repeal,
and
all
efforts
should
be
exerted
in
order
to
harmonize
and
give
effect
to
all
laws
on
the
subject.
There
are
two
requisites
for
implied
repeals;
1.
the
laws
cover
the
same
subject
matter,
and
2.
The
latter
is
regnant
to
the
earlier.
CASE
BASIS
AGUJETAS
v.
CA
–
261
SCRA
(1996)
–
READ
Conflict
Between
General
and
Special
Law
When
there
is
a
conflict
between
a
general
law
and
a
special
statute,
the
special
statute
should
prevail
since
it
evinces
the
legislative
in-‐
tent
more
clearly
than
the
general
statute.
The
special
law
is
to
be
taken
as
an
exception
to
the
general
law
in
the
absence
of
special
circumstances
forcing
a
contrary
conclusion.
A
special
law
cannot
be
repealed,
amended
or
altered
by
a
subsequent
general
law
by
mere
implication.
• GENERAL
LAW
ENACTED
PRIOR
TO
SPECIAL
LAW:
if
general
law
was
enacted
PRIOR
to
the
spcial
law,
the
latter
is
considered
the
exception
to
the
general
law.
• GENERAL
LAW
ENACTED
AFTER
SPECIAL
LAW:
if
general
law
enacted
AFTER
the
special
law,
the
special
law
remains
unless:
1. There
is
an
express
declaration
to
the
contrary;
or
2. There
is
a
clear,
necessary
and
irreconcilable
conflict;
or
3. Unless
the
subsequent
general
law
covers
the
whole
subject
and
is
clear
intended
to
replace
the
special
law
in
the
matter
CASE
BASIS
LAGUNA
LAKE
DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY
v.
CA
–
251
SCRA
(1995)
–
READ
ART.
8
Judicial
decisions
applying
or
interpreting
the
laws
or
the
Constitution
shall
form
a
part
of
the
legal
system
of
the
Philippines.
The
judicial
department
has
no
power
to
enact
laws
because
the
same
is
the
exclusive
province
of
the
legislative
department.
The
SC
in
MIRANDA
v.
IMPERIAL
categorically
stated
that
“only
the
decisions
of
the
Supreme
Court
establish
jurisprudence
or
doctrines
in
this
jurisdiction.”
Decisions
of
the
Supreme
Court,
although
in
themselves
not
laws,
are
evidence
of
what
the
law
means.
The
decisions
of
subordinate
courts
are
only
persuasive
in
nature,
and
can
have
no
mandatory
effect.
However,
this
rule
does
not
militate
against
the
fact
that
a
conclusion
or
pronouncement
of
the
Court
of
Appeals
which
covers
a
point
of
law
still
undecided
in
the
Philippines
may
still
serve
as
a
judicial
guide
to
the
inferior
courts.
Doctrine of Stare Decisis
The
“doctrine
of
stare
decisis”
means
that
when
the
Court
has
once
laid
down
a
principle
of
law
as
applicable
to
a
certain
state
of
facts,
it
will
adhere
to
that
principle
and
apply
it
to
all
future
cases
where
the
facts
are
substantially
the
same.
The
doctrine
of
stare
decisis
enjoins
adherence
to
judicial
precedents.
It
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.
The
doctrine,
however,
does
not
mean
blind
adherence
to
precedents.
If
the
doctrine
is
found
to
be
contrary
to
law,
it
should
be
abandoned.
CASE
BASIS
FILOTEO,
JR.
v.
SANDIGAN
BAYAN
–
263
SCRA
222
(1996)
–
READ
Art.
9.
No
judge
or
court
shall
decline
to
render
judgment
by
reason
of
the
silence,
obscurity
or
insufficiency
of
the
laws.
ART.
9
is
applicable
to
criminal
prosecutions.
Applying
the
rule
“nullum
crimen,
nulla
poena
sine
lege”
(there
is
no
crime
when
there
is
no
law
punishing
it)
the
judge
must
dismiss
the
case
if
somebody
is
accused
of
a
non-‐existent
crime.
If
the
law
is
silent,
obscure
of
insuffient,
under
the
old
Civil
Code,
it
was
expressly
stated
that
“when
there
is
no
statute
exactly
applicable
to
the
point
in
controversy,
the
custom
of
the
place
shall
be
applied,
and,
in
default
thereof,
the
general
principles
of
law.”
it
was
then
modified,
the
judge
shall
apply
that
rule
which
he
believes
the
law-‐making
body
should
lay
down
guided
by
the
general
principles
of
law
and
justice.
As
it
stands
now,
the
Civil
Code
of
the
Philippines
is
silent
with
respect
to
this
point.
It
is,
however,
submitted
that
we
can
still
apply
the
old
rule
considering
the
provisions
of
Arts.
10,
11
and
12
of
the
present
Civil
Code.
In
other
words,
if
the
law
is
silent,
or
is
obscure
or
insufficient
with
respect
to
a
particular
controversy,
the
judge
shall
apply
the
custom
of
the
place,
and
in
default
thereof,
the
general
principles
of
law
and
justice.
Art.
10.
In
case
of
doubt
in
the
interpretation
or
application
of
laws,
it
is
presumed
that
the
lawmaking
body
intended
right
and
justice
to
prevail.
This
rule
is
to
be
applied
only
in
case
of
doubt.
Thus,
the
law
may
be
hard,
but
it
is
still
the
law
“dura
lex
sed
lex”.
The
first
duty
of
the
judge
is
apply
the
law
-‐-‐-‐
whether
wise
or
not,
whether
unjust
-‐-‐-‐
provided
that
the
law
is
clear,
and
there
is
no
doubt.
Illustration
In
PEOPLE
v.
AMIGO,
the
accused
claims
that
the
penalty
of
re-‐
clusion
perpetua
is
too
cruel
and
harsh
a
penalty
and
pleads
for
sympathy.
The
Court
replied:
“Courts
are
not
the
forum
to
plead
for
sympathy.
The
duty
of
courts
is
to
apply
the
law,
disregarding
their
feeling
of
sympathy
or
pity
for
the
accused.
DURA
LEX
SED
LEX.
The
remedy
is
elsewhere
––
clemency
from
the
executive
or
an
amendment
of
the
law
by
the
legislative,
but
surely,
at
this
point,
this
Court
cannot
but
apply
the
law.”
“Justice
outside
legality,”
is
applied
only
in
the
absence
of,
and
never
against,
statutory
law
or
judicial
rules
of
procedure.