Chapter 1: Effect and Application of Laws (NCC 1-18) CASE DOCTRINE:

When Laws take effect (NCC 2) There is no independent civil action to recover the civil
Read: Revised Administrative Code (RAC) Sections liability arising from the issuance of an unfunded check
18-24 prohibited and punished under BP Blg 22. Section 1 (b) Rule
111 of the Rules of Court provides that the criminal action for
Executive Order 200, Section 1 violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 shall be deemed to
1. Tanada v. Tuvera, GR 63915 (1986) include the corresponding civil action. No reservation to file
CASE DOCTRINE: such civil action separately shall be allowed.
All statutes, including those of local application and private
laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, 8. Fil-Estate v Homena-Valencia, G.R. No. 173942, 25
which shall begin 15 days after publication unless a different June2008 – fresh 15 days applied retro
effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. Article 2 of the Civil CASE DOCTRINE:
Code provides that publication of laws must be made in the A) Procedural laws may be given retroactive effect to
Official Gazette, and not elsewhere, as a requirement for actions pending and undetermined at the time of
their effectivity. their passage, there being no vested rights in the
rules of procedure. B) Procedural rules are remedial
2. Dadole v. COA, GR125350 (2002) – allowance of judges in character as they do not create new or
in Mandaue
CASE DOCTRINE: Mandatory v. Prohibitory laws (NCC 5)
Administrative circulars cannot go beyond the law they seek Read: NCC 17(3)
to implement. A limit cannot be imposed through an 9. UOBP v. Board of Commissioners, GR 182133, 23 June
administrative circular when the law it is seeking to 2015- Mg nullified, but only as to party complaining.
implement does not provide for such (own words) CASE DOCTRINE:
There is a question of law when the doubt or difference
3. Cawad v. Abad, GR207145, 28 July 2015- magna carta of arises as to what the law is on a certain state of facts, and
public health workers not as to the truth or the falsehood of alleged facts. Said
CASE DOCTRINE: question at best could... be resolved only tentatively by the
As an exception to the rule on publication, interpretative administrative authorities. The final decision on the matter
regulations which “need nothing further than their bare rests not with them but with the courts of justice.
issuance for they give no real consequence more than what
the law itself already prescribed” need not be published. Waiver of Rights (NCC 6)
These kinds of regulations do not need to be published to be Read: NCC 2035
effective since they do not add anything to the law and do Art. 2035. No compromise upon the following questions shall
not affect substantial rights of any person. be valid:
(1) The civil status of persons;
Mandatory effect of laws; mistake of fact v. mistake of law (2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
(NCC (3) Any ground for legal separation;
4. Kasilag v. Rodriguez, 69 Phil. 217 (4) Future support;
CASE DOCTRINE: (5) The jurisdiction of courts;
“Every person who is unaware of any flaw in his title or in the (6) Future legitime. (1814a)
manner of its acquisition by which it is invalidated shall be
deemed a possessor of good faith.” And in this case, the 10. Aujero v PhilComSat, GR 193484, 18 January 2012-
petitioner acted in good faith. Good faith maybe a basis of quitclaim valid, coercion not proven
excusable ignorance of the law. CASE DOCTRINE:
While the law looks with disfavor upon releases and
5. Elegado v. CTA, G.R. No. L-68385 quitclaims by employees who are inveigled or pressured into
CASE DOCTRINE: signing them by unscrupulous employers seeking to evade
their legal responsibilities, a legitimate waiver representing a
Non-retroactivity of laws (NCC 4) voluntary settlement of a laborer's claims should be
Read: NCC 2252-2269 respected by the courts as the law between the parties.
Revised Penal Code (RPC) 22
FC 256 11. Doña Adela Export International v. TIDCORP, GR 201931,
6. Liam Law v. Olympic Sawmill, GR No. L-30771 (1984) 11 February 2015- waiver not valid to party who did not sign
CASE DOCTRINE: CASE DOCTRINE:
(a)Presume an agreement is legal unless the contrary is The norm is that a waiver must not only be voluntary, but
proved must have been made knowingly, intelligently, and with
(b)Section 9 of Usury Law applicable against defendant, not sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely
plaintiff consequences.
(c)Allegations of usury, being procedural and legally non- Mere silence on the part of the holder of the right should not
existent, are repealed with retroactive effect be construed as a surrender thereof; the courts must indulge
every reasonable presumption against the existence and
7. Simon v. Chan, GR157547, 21 Feb 2011 – no separate validity of such waiver.
civil action for BP22, retro application
 conduct, by its very nature, cannot be pigeonholed into a
Termination of effectivity of laws (NCC 7) precise definition.
Read: NCC 1987 Constitution, Art. XVIII Sec. 3 Presumption and Applicability of Custom (NCC 11, 12)
SECTION 3. The Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.
Appropriations for the Judiciary may not be reduced by the Read: 1987 Constitution, Art. XII, Sec. 5
legislature below the amount appropriated for the previous
year and, after approval, shall be automatically and regularly Rules of Court (RoC), Rule 129 (2), (3)
released.
FC 254 Computation of time/ Legal Periods (NCC 13)
Art. 24. It shall be the duty of the local civil registrar to prepare RoC, Rule 22
the documents required by this Title, and to administer oaths RAC 31
to all interested parties without any charge in both cases. The 16. Quiqui vs Boncaros, GR L-51841 (1987)
documents and affidavits filed in connection with applications CASE DOCTRINE:
for marriage licenses shall be exempt from documentary For the petitioners to seek exception for their failure to
stamp tax. (n) comply strictly with the requirements for perfecting their
Appeal, strong compelling reasons, like the prevention of a
Judicial decisions: Stare Decisis (NCC 😎 grave miscarriage of justice, must be shown to exist in order
12. De Roy v. CA, GR 80718 (1988) to warrant this Court to suspend the
CASE DOCTRINE:
There is no law requiring the publication of Supreme Court Rules.
decisions in the Official Gazette before they can be binding. Applicability of Penal Laws (NCC 14)
Read: RPC 2
13. Pesca v Pesca, GR 136921, 17 April 17, 2001 17. AAA v. BBB, GR 212448, 11 January 2018
CASE DOCTRINE: CASE DOCTRINE:
The "doctrine of stare decisis," ordained in Article 8 of the RA. No. 9262 criminalizes is not the marital infidelity per se
Civil Code, expresses that judicial decisions applying or but the psychological violence causing mental or emotional
interpreting the law shall form part of the legal system of the suffering on the wife. Otherwise stated, it is the violence
Philippines. The rule follows the settled legal maxim - "legis inflicted under the said circumstances that the law seeks to
interpretado legis... vim obtinet" - that the interpretation outlaw. Marital infidelity as cited in the law is only one of the
placed upon the written law by a competent court has the various acts by which psychological violence may be
force of law committed. Moreover, depending on the circumstances of
the spouses and for a myriad of reasons, the illicit
Duty to render judgment (NCC 9, 10) relationship may or may not even be causing mental or
Read: RPC 5 emotional anguish on the wife. Thus, the mental or
14. Alonzo v IAC, GR L-72873, 28 May 1987 emotional suffering of the victim is an essential and distinct
CASE DOCTRINE: element in the commission of the offense.
By letter of the law, the complainants would have won this
case. But, due to the circumstances, the Court stuck to the Conflicts Rules (NCC 14-18)
spirit of the law and gave leeway to the Alonzos. Principle of territoriality
Nationality principle
“The spirit, rather than the letter of a statute determines its 18. Del Socorro v Van Wilsem, GR 193707, 10 December 2014
construction, hence, a statute must be read according to its CASE DOCTRINE:
spirit or intent. For what is within the spirit is within the Foreign law should not be applied when its application would
letter but although it is not within the letter thereof, and that work undeniable injustice to the citizens or residents of the
which is within the letter but not within the spirit is not forum. hence, a law, or judgment or contract that is
within the statute. Stated differently, a thing which is within obviously unjust negates the fundamental principles of
the intent of the lawmaker is as much within the statute as if Conflict of Laws. Applying the foregoing, even if the laws of
within the letter; and a thing which is within the letter of the the Netherlands neither enforce a parent’s obligation to
statute is not within the statute unless within the intent of support his child nor penalize the non-compliance therewith,
the lawmakers.” –Agpalo such obligation is still duly enforceable in the Philippines
because it would be of great injustice to the child to be
15. People v Tulagan, GR 227363, 12 March 2019 denied of financial support when the latter is entitled
CASE DOCTRINE: thereto.
The term lewd is commonly defined as something indecent or
obscene; it is characterized by or intended to excite crude 19. IPAM v. de Vera GR 205703, 7 March 2016
sexual desire. That an accused is entertaining a lewd or CASE DOCTRINE:
unchaste design is necessarily a mental process the existence (1)The Philippine laws apply. In order to afford the full
of which can be inferred by overt acts carrying out such protection of labor to our OFWs, the State has vigorously
intention, i.e., by conduct that can only be interpreted as enacted laws, adopted regulations and policies, and
lewd or lascivious. The presence or absence of lewd designs is established agencies to ensure that their needs are satisfied
inferred from the nature of the acts themselves and the and that they continue to work in a humane living
environmental circumstances. What is or what is not lewd environment outside of the country.
(2) the provision in the employment contract, where the
employer could terminate the employee at any time for any Duty to act with justice, honesty and good faith
ground and it could even disregard the notice of termination, 25. Llorente v. Sandiganbayan, GR 122166 (1998)
violates the employee’s right to security of tenure under CASE DOCTRINE:
Articles 280 and 281 of the Labor Code. It states that every person must, in the exercise of his rights
20. Aznar v Garcia, 7 SCRA 95 (1963) and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
CASE DOCTRINE: everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith.
In coming up with this ruling, the Supreme Court made use of
the renvoi doctrine: The recognition of the renvoi theory Indeed, a person should be protected only when he acts in
implies that the rules of the conflict of laws are to be the legitimate exercise of his right, that is, when he acts with
understood as incorporating not only the ordinary or internal prudence and in good faith; but not when he acts with
law of the foreign state or country, but its rules of the negligence or abuse
conflict of laws as well. According to this theory ‘the law of a Actions for breach of promise to marry
country’ means the whole of its law.
26. Bunag v. CA, GR 101749 (1992)
21. Raytheon International v Rouzie, GR 162894, 26 February CASE DOCTRINE:
2008 Moral damages are not awarded to penalize the defendant
CASE DOCTRINE: but to compensate the plaintiff for injuries he may have
Under the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a court, in suffered.
conflicts-of-laws cases, may refuse impositions on its
jurisdiction where it is not the most “convenient” or available 27. Baksh v. CA, GR 97336 (1993)
forum and the parties are not precluded from seeking CASE DOCTRINE:
remedies elsewhere. Article 21 was thus applied not because of the promise to
marry itself, but because of the fraud and deceit behind it
22. Roehr v. Rodriguez, GR 142820 (2003) and the willful injury to the woman’s honor and reputation
CASE DOCTRINE: that followed its breach.
As a general rule, divorce decrees obtained by foreigners in
other countries are recognizable in our jurisdiction. But the Unjust enrichment
legal effects thereof, e.g. on custody, care and support of the 28. Garcia v. Philippine Airlines, GR 164856 (2009, en banc)
children, must still be determined by our courts. CASE DOCTRINE:
The fundamental doctrine of unjust enrichment is the
 Lex situs transfer of value without just cause or consideration. The
 Rule of extraterritoriality elements of this doctrine are: enrichment on the part of the
 Renvoi defendant; impoverishment on the part of the plaintiff; and
lack of cause.

Chapter 2: Human Relations (Articles 19-36) 29. PCIB v. Balmaceda, GR158143, 21 September 2011
Relevance of provisions CASE DOCTRINE:
Application
23. De Tavera vs Philippine Tuberculosis Society, L-48928 Unfair Competition
(1982)
CASE DOCTRINE: Liability of public officers
While the general provisions of the New Civil Code on Human 30. Aberca v. Ver, GR L-69866, (1988)
Relations and of the fundamental principles of the New CASE DOCTRINE:
Constitution on preservation of human dignity present some
basic principles that are to be observed for the rightful 31. Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan, GR 103501-03 (1997)
relationship between human beings and the stability of social CASE DOCTRINE:
order, these are merely guides for human conduct in the
absence of specific legal provisions and definite contractual Damages despite acquittal in criminal cases
stipulations. Independent civil actions
Prejudicial questions
24. Chato v. Fortune Tobacco, GR 141309 (2008) 32. Cojuangco v. Palma, Adm. Case No. 2474 (2004)
CASE DOCTRINE: CASE DOCTRINE:
hat a public officer who directly or indirectly violates the
constitutional rights of another, may be validly sued for 33. Reyes v. Pearlbank Securities, GR 171435 (2008)
damages under Article 32 of the Civil Code even if his acts CASE DOCTRINE:
were not so tainted with malice or bad faith. Thus, the rule in
this jurisdiction is that a public officer may be validly sued in 34. Pimentel v. Pimentel, G.R. No. 172060 (2010)
his/her private capacity for acts done in the course of the CASE DOCTRINE:
performance of the functions of the office, where said public
officer: (1) acted with malice, bad faith, or negligence; or (2) 35. Montanez v. Cipriano, GR 181089 (2012)
where the public officer violated a constitutional right of the CASE DOCTRINE:
plaint
36. Pulido v. People, GR 220149 (2021 en banc, unanimous)
CASE DOCTRINE: