PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS CIVIL CODE OF 1950
Chapter 1: Effect and Application of Laws
Article 1 This Act shall be known as the Civil Code of the Philippines • Republic Act No.386
o Otherwise known as the Civil Code of the Philippines
o Full Name: An Act to Ordain and Institute the Civil Code of the Philippines o Date of Enactment: January 26, 1949
o Main draft prepared by the Roxas Code Commission
! Create by President Manuel Roxas through E.O. 48 (March 20, 1947) ! Chairman of the Commission: Dr. Jorge C. Bacobo
! Duration ! May 8, 1947 to December 15, 1947
Article 2 Laws shall be effective after fifteen days following the completion of the publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation, unless it is otherwise provided
• The 1950 Civil Code took effect on August 30, 1950
o [Note: So the code'’s draft was created in 1947, which was eventually enacted by Congress in 1949, had been published in 1950 and has taken effect since the same year it was published.]
• Amended through E.O. 200 issued by President Corazon Aquino on June 18, 1987
o Amendment ! Publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines
! Rationale
! The publication need not be made in the Official Gazette because of its erratic release and limited readership ([SC] Tanada et al. vs. Tuvera) ! Newspaper of general circulation could undoubtedly better perform the
function of communicating laws to the people because it has a wide circulation and comes out regularly
• Effectivity of Laws
o No one shall be charged of the statute's provisions until the said publication is completed and the required period has expired
o Publication must be in full or no publication at all
o After the fifteen-day period, the people are deemed to have conclusively been notified of the law
o Statutes and Laws also covered in this rule:
! Presidential Decrees, EOs, Administrative rules and regulations, City charter o The clause “unless it is otherwise provided” solely refers to the 15-day period and not
to the requirement of publication
! In Tañada v. Tuvera, “omission [of the publication requirement] would offend due process insofar as it would deny the public of the laws
o If the law provides for a longer or shorter period than the 15-day provided, what the law expresses immediately prevails.
o “Shall immediately take effect” ! means that the law shall take effect immediately after the publication
Article 3 Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith • That every person knows the law is a conclusive presumption.
• The public is always put on constructive notice of the law'’s existence and effectivity. • To allow ignorance as a valid defense is to foment disorder in society.
• Article 3 is a consequence of the mandatory provision that all laws must be published. o It would be the height of injustice to punish or burden a citizen for the transgression of a
law which he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one. • “ignorantia legis non excusat”
Article 4 Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided. • Laws looks to the future and has no retroactive effect.
• Statutes are to be construed as having only prospective operation
• Unless the law expressly declared or necessarily implied from the language used. But in case of doubt, the same must be resolved against retrospective effect.
• Statutes are not to be construed as having a retroactive effect so as to affect pending proceedings
• Exceptions to the non-retroactivity clause:
o 1. When the law expressly provides for retroactivity. o 2. When the law is curative or remedial.
! Curative ! “healing acts” that do not impair obligations or interfere with vested rights
! Related case: DBP v. Court of Appeals
! DBP questionably acquired lots but Congress enacted RA 85 to precisely correct such invalidity.
o 3. When the law is procedural
o 4. When the law is penal in character and favorable to the accused. ! In accordance with Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code
! Shall have retroactive effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of felony, who is not a habitual criminal.
Article 5 Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity.
• Mandatory provision ! the omission of such shall render the proceedings and acts related to it generally illegal or void.
• Prohibitory ! contain positive prohibitions and are couched in the negative terms stating that the act required shall not be done otherwise than designated. Acts committed in violation of
prohibitory laws are likewise void.
Article 6 Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public policy, morals, good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
• Waiver – intentional relinquishment of a known right • [So when is the waiver legal and valid?]
o Must be clearly and convincingly shown either by express stipulation or acts admitting no other reasonable explanation
o The right must be in existence at the time of the waiver.
o It must be exercised by a duly capacitated person actually possessing the right to make the waiver.
• [So when is the waiver not valid, illegal and worthy of prohibition?] o Ignorance of the material fact negates the waiver
o When it’s contrary to law, public policy, morals, good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law
• Rights, protections and advantages conferred by statutes may be generally waived. However, if the object of the statute is to promote great public interests, liberty and morals, it cannot be defeated by any private stipulation
o e.g. Consent between spouses on the commission of adultery and concubinage Article 7 Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation and 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.
• Repeal of a law – legislative act abrogating through a subsequent law the effects of a previous statutes
o Either expressed or implied
! Implied repeal – when a new law contains provisions contrary to and inconsistent with those of the former without expressly repealing them
! Repeals and amendments by implication are not favored. ! Express repeal
! Literally declared by a new law, either in specific terms (particular law and provisions are named, identified and declared) or in general terms (provision of a new law declares all laws and parts of laws
inconsistent)
! Some particular exceptions (as per SC: Iloilo Palay and Corn Planters Association v. Feliciano)
! Repealing clause “all laws and parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed” - is NOT an expressed repeal
! A special statute, for a particular case or class of cases, is not repealed by a subsequent statute, general in its terms, provisions and applications
• No ordinary statute can override the constitutional provision (Floresca v. Philex Mining). • Constitutionality or unconstitutionality of a statute depends upon factors other than those existing
at the time of the enactment thereof.
o Where a portion of a statue is rendered unconstitutional and the remainder valid, the parts will be separated and the constitutional portion upheld”
o Consequently, as per SC: Lidasan v. COMELEC, when the parts of the statute are so mutually dependent and connected, if some parts are unconstitutional, all the provisions which are mutually dependent, conditional and connected, must fall with them.
o Valid portions may stand and be enforced. [Separability clause]
• Rules and regulations, when promulgated in pursuance of the procedure or authority conferred upon the administrative agency by law, partake the nature of a sanction provided in the law. • A rule is binding as long as the procedure fixed for its promulgation is followed and within the
scope of the the statutory authority given by the legislature, even if the courts disagree with the policy stated therein or its innate wisdom.
• Related case: Teoxon v. Members of the Board Administrator o An administrative agency cannot amend an act of Congress
Article 8 Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the Philippines.
• Principal function of courts:
o 1. resolving legal controversies; and
o 2. interpreting and construing vague provisions of law relative to a particular dispute. • Construction [like in StatCon] – is the act or process of discovering and expounding on the
meaning and intention of the authors of the law with respect to its application to a given case, where the intention is rendered doubtful, among others by reason of the fact that given case is not explicitly provided for in the law. [Caltex v. Palomar]
• Judicial decisions assume the same authority as the statute itself
o These decisions also constitute evidence of what the law means
• Maxim: “Legis interpretatio legis vim obtinet” - the interpretation place upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law
• Judicial decisions of the Supreme Court are authoritative and precedent-setting while those of the inferior courts and the appellate courts are merely persuasive.
• Judicial decisions (application and interpretation) of the Supreme court are deemed and are established as part of the law as of the date of enactment since it established contemporaneous legislative intent.
• HOWEVER, when the doctrine of the SC is overruled and a different view is adopted, the new doctrine should be applied prospectively.
• In People v. Licera, it is said that when a new doctrine abrogates an old rule, the new doctrine should not adversely affect those favored by the old rule.
Article 9 No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.
• Judges are tasked with the dispensation of justice under the constitutional precept that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.
• Judges, therefore, must not evade performance of this responsibility just because of an apparent non-existence of any law governing a particular legal dispute or because the law involved is vague or inadequate.
• [The in the absence or lack of a workable interpretation of the law, the judge therefore “fills-in” the gap]
• The judiciary cannot “legislate”. Legislation is the function of Congress.
o HOWEVER, in Floresca v. Philex Mining, the SC said that existence of the concept that the courts cannot engage in judicial legislation, that myth has been exploded by Article 9 of the new Civil Code.
o HENCE, the legislator himself, through Art. 9 of the Civil Code, recognizes the court “do and must legislate” (Holmes) to fill in the gaps in the law.
Article 10 In case of doubt in the interpretation and application of laws, it is presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail.
• Where the law is clear ! must be applied according to its unambiguous provisions, without judicial addition or subtraction.
o First and foremost duty of the court is to apply the law
o Interpretation and construction come only after it has been demonstrated that application is impossible/inadequate without them.
• Interpretation of the law requires fidelity to the legislative purpose
o Interpretation should not be at war with the end sought to be attained.
o SC has cautioned against narrowly interpreting a statute to defeat the purpose of the legislator.
Article 11 Article 12
Customs which are contrary to law, public order or public policy shall not be countenanced A custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence.
• Custom – rule of conduct formed by repetition of acts, uniformly observed and practiced as a social rule, legally binding and obligatory.
• Courts take no judicial notice of custom.
• Local custom as a source of right cannot be considered by a court of justice o UNLESS such custom is properly established by competent evidence • Juridical custom DIFFERS FROM social custom
o juridical – can supplement statutory law or applied in the absence of one
• Customs which are contrary to law, public order or public policy shall not be countenanced Article 13 When the law speaks of years, months, days or nights, it shall be understood that years are of three
hundred sixty-five days each; months, of thirty days, days, of twenty-four hours; and nights from sunset to sunrise.
If months are designated by their name, they shall be computed by the number of days which they respectively have.
In computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and the last day included. • [WHAT THE HELL?!, But oh well haha]
• Year = 365 days
• Month (specified) = no. of days in that specific month • Day = 24 hours
• Night = sunset to sunrise
• First day shall be excluded and the last day, included.
• Leap year = 366 days BUT THIS CONTRAVENES Art. 13 definition of the year. One year EXPLICITLY ordained in the Civil Code is 365 days.
Article 14 Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in the Philippine territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations
• Exceptions: (where the Philippine government has waived its criminal jurisdiction over them on the basis of the principles of public international law and treaty stipulations)
o 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations:
o Diplomatic agent shall be inviolable and he/she shall not be liable to any form of arrest or detention.
! A diplomatic agent is the head of the mission or member of the diplomatic staff of the mission.
o S/He possesses immunity from criminal jurisdiction o the receiving state.
Article 15 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.
• Nationality rule: Regardless of where a citizen of the Philippines might be, he or she will be governed by Philippine laws with respect to his or her status, condition and legal capacity. • e.g. the case of absolute divorce
o When a Filipino citizen, regardless of wherever he or she is abroad, whether absolute divorce is legal in the country where he or she resides, initiates divorce from his or her spouse and is granted, the Philippines will not recognize such divorce.
o If the alien spouse initiates and procures absolute divorce, the Philippines shall recognize the divorce.
Article 16 Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country were it is situated. However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. • The law of the country where the real property is situated shall be the governing law over such
real property.
• As to the order of succession and the amount of successional rights, whether in intestate or testamentary succession, they shall be regulated by the national law of the deceased and this shall be applicable regardless of the nature of the property.
• Minciano v. Brimo (Turkish national)
• Apply the national law of the deceased in intestate and testamentary succession with regards to four elements:
o the order of succession
o the amount of successional rights
o intrinsic validity of the provisions of the will o capacity to succeed.
Article 17 The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.
When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution.
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. • The law provides clearly that the forms and solemnities of public instruments, wills, and contracts
shall be governed by the laws of the country where they are executed.
• Diplomatic and consular officials are representative of the state. Hence, any act or contract made in a foreign country before diplomatic and consular officials must conform with the
solemnities under Philippine law.
• Under our law, prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws, or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country
Article 18 In matters which are governed by the Code of Commerce and special laws, their deficiency shall be supplied by the provisions of this Code.
Chapter 2: Human Relations Article 19
Article 20 Article 21
Every person must, who in the exercise of his/her rights and in the performance of his/her duties, act with justice, give everyone his/her due and observe honesty and good faith.
Every person who contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs and public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
Article 19
• Provides for a rule of conduct that is consistent with an orderly and harmonious relationship • known to contain what is commonly referred to as principle of abuse of rights, set certain
standards that may be observed not only in the exercise of one's rights but also in the performance of one's duties
o Standards: o 1. Act with justice
o 2. Give everyone his or her due o 3. Observe honesty and good faith
• A right by itself legal, granted by law as such, may nevertheless become a source of some illegality.
• Elements of an abuse of right (Alebenson v. CA) o 1. There is legal right or duty
o 2. Which is exercised in bad faith
o 3. for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another • [What is Malice/Bad faith?] (DBP v. CA)
o does not simply connote bad judgment or simple negligence o connotes ill-will or spite and speaks not in response to duty o implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm Article 20
• renders it impossible that a person who suffers damage because another has violated some legal provision should find himself without relief
• anyone, who, whether willfully or negligently, in the exercise of his legal right or duty, causes damage to another, shall indemnify his or her victim for injuries suffered thereby.
Article 21
• designed to “fill in the countless gaps in statutes”, which leave so many victims of moral wrongs, helpless, even though they have actually suffered material and moral injury
o 1. act which is legal
o 2. but which is contrary to morals, good customs, public order or public policy o 3. it is done with intent to injure
• Application: (from the book)
o The case of the pregnant girl who was promised of marriage
! Can still file for civil action even if there's nothing “illegal/contrary to law” ! She and her family have suffered incalculable moral damages
! Under article 21, they would have such a right action Integration of Art. 19, 20 and 21
• An act which causes injury to another may be made the basis for an award of damage • Common element of Art. 19 and 21 ! the act must be intentional
• Article 20: does not distinguish: the act maybe done either “willfully”, or “negligently” • Application (from the book): Mr. Curio case (Art. 19)
o Petitioner had unjustly discriminated against Mr. Curio
o Petitioner had no reason to be strict and “go legal” all of a sudden with respect to Mr. Curio since he cleared three employees who are in a similar situation
• Application: Velayo v. Shell Co. (Art. 19)
o defendant liable under Article 19 for disposing of its property – a perfectly legal act – in order to escape reach of a creditor
o held that a principal is liable under Article 19 in terminating the agency • Application: Article 19
o PNB v. CA
o Held: Certainly, it knew that the agricultural year was about to expire, that by its disapproval of the lease private respondents would be unable to utilize the sugar quota in question. In failing to observe the reasonable degree of care and vigilance which the surrounding circumstance reasonably impose
• Art. 20 - an act may be intentional or due to negligence, but it is contrary to law, so it is illegal”. (May not be done with malice but it is illegal)
• Art. 21 – an act may be legal, but it is done with the intent to harm, injure or burden another. Article 22
Article 23
Every person who through an act or performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground shall return the same to him/her
Even when an act or event causing damage to another's property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event s/he was benefited
• Unjust enrichment: no person can claim what is not validly and legally his or hers. Hence, he or she should not unduly profit on something which does not meritoriously belong to him or her • Article 22: even if it is unintentional, there is somebody who suffers/takes damage when one
comes into possession of something
• Force majeure – no just enrichment, both suffered damages, no unjust enrichment • prevention of unjust enrichment
• Relevant jurisprudence: Obana v. CA, Pajarillo v. CA, Perez v. Pomar
• “Nemo cum alterious detrimento locupletari potest” - that no one should not be permitted to enrich himself/ herself to the damage of another.
• There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience. (Republic v. Ballacanag).
Article 24 In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his/her moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his/her protection.
• Equity rule ! tempers Article 3
• Court vigilance: the court must be vigilant in protecting the rights of the disadvantaged in the view that any decision will be consonance with what is right and legal.
Article 25 Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution
• “Thoughtless” ! insensitive
• Government and private charitable institutions are given legal standing to seek an injunction Article 26 Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy, and peace of mind of his /her
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 or other relief:
o 1. prying into the privacy of another's residence
o 2. meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another o 3. intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his/her friends
o 4. vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.
• Protection of human dignity ! the sacredness of human personality is a concomitant of every plan for human amelioration. The touchstone of every system of laws, of the culture and civilization of every country is how far it dignifies man/woman.
• The privacy of one's home is an inviolable right
• Watching TV in another's residence is not “Prying into privacy”
• there is meddling of so-called friends who poison the mind of one or more members of the family against other members
• To a certain extent, these situations seem inevitable, from the nature of social make-up, but there ought to be a limit somewhere, when the penal laws against defamation and unjust vexation are not transgressed.
• Social equality is not sought by the legal provision under consideration but due regard for decency and propriety.
Article 27 Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his/her official duty may file an action for damages and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that may be taken.
• What’s the difference between a public servant and employee
o Public servant = elected into office[?]; holds a certain high rank
o Public employee = appointed or hired on the basis of merit, functions under a government agency or office of a governmental institution
• Speaks of public servant or employees and are liable for their refusal or negligence to perform their functions
• The refusal or negligence should be based on just cause. Absence of which constitutes for a cause of action for damages or other relief.
o Example: When a public employee (Mr. X) refuses to process your request because “a certain person-in-charge” is absent. Will Art. 27 apply?
! It depends. If Mr. X has just cause for his refusal and/or negligence of his function, then he is not. But his absence cannot be justified, and neglect is established, then he is liable. [JUST CAUSE is important]
! Absence may not be a form of refusal but there is negligence
• A public official is supposed to be an agent or at least a representation of the government • therefore the law exacts on him or her an obligation to be very vigilant
and just so that the public can be assured that the government is truly effective in servicing their needs
• in Correa v CFI of Bulacan, a public officer who commits a tort or other wrongful act done in excess or beyond the scope of his duty, is not protected by his office and is personally liable therefore like any private individual
Article 28 Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises, or in labor through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage.
• This is necessary in a system of free enterprise.
• Should not deprive others of a fair chance to engage in business or earn a living
Article 29 When the accused in criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his/her guilt has not been proved(proven?) 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 criminal case the judgment or 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.
• This means that only preponderance of evidence is required. Therefore, acquittal because of the failure to present a proof beyond reasonable doubt does not necessarily amounts to the extinction of the civil case, unless the accused is innocent and is not the perpetrator.
• Proof beyond reasonable doubt ! that amount of proof which forms an abiding moral certainty that the accused committed the crime charged. It is not absolute certainty.
• If the basis is innocence, then there is no need for a separate civil case
• Preponderance of evidence (in a civil case) – that, as a whole, the evidence adduced by one side outweighs that of the adverse party.
• Hence if the guilt of the accused is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action to prove civil liability can still be filed where only preponderance of evidence is needed.
• “a judgment of acquittal does not constitute a bar to subsequent civil action involving the same subject matter, even in regard to a civil action brought against the defendant by the State. • People of the Philippines v. Ritter
o presumption of innocence o on the ground of reasonable doubt o lacks laws against child exploitation
o response ! RA 7610 (against child exploitation) ! intervention at first sign of exploitation o
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.
• Even in the civil obligation arose from a criminal offense the required quantum of evidence on a civil suit to claim such civil obligation is but merely preponderance of evidence.
o Example: A steals B'’s property. B has the capacity to sue you for your criminal liability. Under Article 30, B can file a separate civil action even without a criminal proceeding YET.
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.
• Pertains to injuries which do not necessarily arise from a commission of a crime
• Art. 2176: Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done.
• Quasi-delict is culpa aquiliana and is separate and distinct from criminal negligence, which is a delict.
• Quasi-delict (culpa aquiliana) applicable for torts ! no contractual relations between parties • Quasi-delict (culpa contractual) ! if there exist a contract or obligation
• Responsibility for fault or negligence under the preceding article is entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability.
• Not on the act or omission charged as a felony in a criminal case, but to one based on an obligation arising from other sources, such as law or contract.
Article 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:
[INSERT LONG LIST OF RIGHTS HERE THAT I WILL PROBABLY NOT REMEMBER] In any cases referred to in this article, whether of not the defendant'’s act or omission constitutes 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 civl 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 constitute a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
• Two kinds of duties exercised by public officers: o 1. Of Duties to the Public !
! owing primarily to the public collectively – to the body politic – and not to any private individual
o Of Duties to Individuals !
! Includes those who, whole they owe to the public the general duty of a proper administration of their respective offices, yet become, by reason of their employment by a particular individual to do some act for him in an official capacity.
• The liability of a public officer to an individual or the public is based upon and is co-extensive with his duty to the individual or the public. If to the one, or the other, he owes no duty, to that he can incur no liability
• “duty owing to the public in general” - an individual cannot have a cause of action for damages o in performing or failing to perform a public duty, the officer has touched his/her interest
to his/her prejudice; but the officer owes no duty to him/her as an individual. The remedy in this case is not judicial but political.
• Thus, the rule restated is that an individual cannot have a particular action against a public officer without a particular injury, or a particular right which are the grounds upon which all actions are founded.
• Allows a damage suit for “tort for impairment of rights and liberties”
• In tort law, for a plaintiff to maintain an action for damages for the injuries of which he
complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed the plaintiff, meaning a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it.
• To have cause of action for damages against the petitioner, the respondent must allege that it suffered a particular or special injury.
• A cause of action exists WHEN:
o 1. a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created.
o 2. an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right o 3. an act or omission on the part of such defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff
for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages
• REASONS on the creation of an absolutely separate and independent civil action for the violation of civil liberties is essential to the effective maintenance of democracy:
o the threat to freedom originates from the abuse of power of gov'’t officials and peace officers ! [Subjecting these criminal or civil actions under the whims and pure
discretion of the public official/prosecutors], many individuals, whose freedom had been tampered with, have been unable to reach
o even when prosecuting attorney filed a criminal action, the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt often prevented the appropriate punishment
o direct and open violations of the Penal Code trampling upon the freedoms named are not so frequent as those subtle, clever and indirect ways which do not come within the pale
of the penal law.
• Only judges are excluded from liability under the said article, provided their acts or omissions do not constitute a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
• Good faith not a defense
o the very nature of Article 32 is that the wrong may be civil or criminal. It is not necessary therefore that there should be malice or bad faith. To make such a requisite would defeat the main purpose of Article 32 which is that effective protection of individual right • Why are judges exempted?
o Right to speedy trial: the judge repeatedly granted motion for postponement, then undergoes certiorari for grave abuse of discretion. It would be absurd for the judges to be liable for every error.
o The judge will only be liable if the act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal Code or other penal statute.
! If the act of the judge amounts to criminal offense
! “knowingly rendering an unjust judgment” ! hard to prove ! example:
! before and during the martial law, gov't departments were converted to ministries
! Ministry of Education, Cuture and Sports ! silly directive, when joining “world softball competition”.
! Alleged to have cheated because players were overage ! Documents were faked or intentionally mismatched them with
the persons
! The “ruling is that one must look for the presence of pubic hair”. ! PE teacher abused this.
! PE teacher claims innocence pursuant to the MECS directive ! The Supreme Court acquitted the teacher, and that there was
“no knowingly rendering an unjust judgment” ! There is something wrong with such ruling.
Article 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 hall require only a preponderance of evidence.
• Terms such as defamation, fraud and physical injuries must be understood in their ordinary sense”.
o Fraud – estafa, forgery, etc. o Defamation – libel, unjust vexation o Physical injuries – death, homicide, etc.
Article 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.
• It is the duty of police officers to see to it that peace and order are maintained in the community. • Their failure or refusal to render the needed assistance to maintain lawful order can be a basis for
claiming damages against them
• When the civil liability is satisfied: does not provide for “just cause” but there is still a way out: “if it is in case of danger to life or property” -[has to be in danger of life and property and not just any other trivial and simple circumstance ! it has to be of the same magnitude to “danger to life and property”.
o Danger to property has to amount to the same magnitude as danger to life ! needs substantial
• What do you mean by “subsidiarily liable/ subsidiary liability” ! o if it's according to principle of “respondeat superior” [?] o and it is the failure of their duty to the public [?]
Article 35 When a person, claiming to be injured by a criminal offense, charges another with the same, for which no independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law, but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complainant may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender. Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence. Upon the defendant's motion, the court may require the plaintiff to file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should be found to be malicious
If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should be presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings. • Rule 111 of the Rules of Court:
o Sec. 1 ! 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 the offended party waives the civil action .
! The reservation of the right to institute separately civil action shall be made before the prosecution starts presenting its evidence and under circumstances affording the offended party a reasonable opportunity to make such reservation ! no counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party complaint may be filed by the
accused in the criminal case, but any cause of action which could have been the subject thereof may be litigated in a separate civil action
o Sec 2 ! When a separate civil action is suspended
! A criminal action has been commenced, the separate civil action arising therefrom cannot be instituted, the latter shall be suspended in whatever stage it may be found before judgment on the merits. The suspension shall last until final judgment is rendered in the civil action, the same may, upon the motion of the offended party, be consolidated with the criminal action in the court trying the criminal action
! The extinction of the penal action does not carry with the extinction of the civil action
o Sec. 3 ! when the civil action may proceed independently
! It shall proceed independently of the criminal action and shall require only a preponderance of evidence
! In no case however, may the offended party recover damages twice for the same act or omission charged in the criminal action
o Sec. 4 ! Effect of death
! the death of the accused after arraignment and during the pendency of the criminal action shall extinguish the civil liability arising from the delict. However, the independent civil action under sec 3 or which thereafter is instituted to enforce the liability arising from other sources of obligation may be continued against the estate or legal representative of the accused after proper substitution or against said estate, as the case may be.
! Legal representatives, o representatives to appear and be substituted within period of 30 days from notice
o Sec. 5 ! judgment in civil action not a bar
! A final judgment rendered in a civil action the defendant form civil liability is not a bar to a criminal action against the defendant for the same act or omission subject to the civil action
Article 36 Prejudicial questions, which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed, shall be governed by the rules of court which the Supreme Court shall promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this Code
• The general rule is that where both a civil and criminal case arising from the same facts are filed in courts, the criminal case takes precedence.
• An exception to this general rule would be if there exist prejudicial questions which should be resolved first before action could be taken.
• Prejudicial questions ! is one that arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical
antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal • Always two case: The criminal is always suspended because the issues in the civil is
determinative of the outcome of the criminal case. • Two elements of a prejudicial question:
o 1. the previously instituted action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the subsequent criminal action
o 2. the resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may proceed Chapter 3: Civil Personality
Article 37 Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, is inherent in every natural person and is lost only through death. Capacity to act, which is the power to do acts with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost.
Article 37
• Juridical capacity - acquired upon birth
• Capacity to act – not intrinsic in a person. It is attained or conferred and it can be lost not only by death of the person but by any valid cause provided by law.
Article 38 Minority, insanity or imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, prodigality and civil interdiction are mere restrictions on the capacity to act, and do not exempt the incapacitated person from certain obligations, as when the latter arise from his acts or from property relations, such as easements.
• Minority – when one is under the age of majority (18)
• Insanity – any mental disorder severe enough that it prevents a person from having legal capacity • Prodigality – (Prodigal) A person whose affairs are managed by a curator because of the person’s
wasteful spending or other bad conduct.
• Interdiction – The act of depriving a person of the right to handle his or her own affairs
• Easement – An interest in land owned by another person consisting in the right to use control the land or an area above or below it.
Article 39 The following circumstances, among others, modify or limit capacity to act: age, insanity, imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, penalty, prodigality, family relations, alienage, absence, insolvency and trusteeship. The consequences of these circumstances are governed in this Code, other codes, the Rules of Court, and in special laws. Capacity to act is not limited on account of religious belief or political opinion.
A married woman, twenty-one years of age or over, is qualified for all acts of civil life, except in cases specified by law.
Article 39
• SIGNIFICANCE of 38 and 39 – The former restricts the capacity to act, while 39 is broader in scope but it enumerates situations which merely modify the capacity to act.
Article 40 Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the following article. Article 41 For civil purposes, the fetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered
from the mother’s womb. However, if the fetus had an intra-uterine life of less than seven months, it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb.
• Articles 40 and 41:
• Child and Youth Welfare Code amended article 40. It thus provided that the civil personality of the child shall commence from the time of his conception for all purposes favorable to him, subject to the requirements of article 41.
• Birth certificate – provides prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. These facts may however be rebutted by competent evidences such as testimonies of the attending physician or
the midwife.
• In cases of an exposed child, the person who found the child shall report to the local civil registrar the place, date and time of finding and other attendant circumstances.
• In cases of illegitimate children, the birth certificate shall be signed and sworn jointly by the parents of the infant or only by the mother if the father refuses. In this case it is not permissible to state or reveal in the document the name of the father who refuses to acknowledge paternity. Article 42 Civil personality is extinguished by death.
The effect of death upon the rights and obligations of the deceased is determined by law, by contract and by will.
Article 42
• The rights and obligations of a dead person can still be regulated by contract, will or the law. Article 43 If there is doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each other, as to which
of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall prove the same; in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time and there shall be o transmission of rights from one to the other.
Article 43
• Proof of death must be established by positive evidence. However it can likewise be established by circumstantial evidence derived from facts. If ever an inference is to be made it must be derived from an existing fact. Proof of death can never be established from mere interference arising from another inference or from presumptions and assumptions.
Article 44 The following are juridical persons: 1. The State and its political subdivisions;
2. Other corporations, institutions and entities for public interest or purpose created by law; their personality begins as soon as they have been constituted according to law;
3. Corporations, partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose to which the law grants a juridical personality, separate and distinct from that of each shareholder, partner or member.
Article 45 Juridical persons mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2 of the preceding article are governed by the laws creating or recognizing them.
Private corporations are regulated by laws of general application on the subject.
Partnerships and associations for private interest or purpose are governed by the provisions of this Code concerning partnerships.
Article 46 Juridical persons may acquire and possess property of all kinds, as well as incur obligations and bring civil or criminal actions, in conformity with the laws and regulations of their organizations. Juridical person – a being of legal existence susceptible of rights and obligations, or of being the subject of juridical relations
Articles 44-46:
• State – The state cannot be sued without its consent. Express consent may be embodied in a genera law or special law. Consent is implied when the government enters into business contracts and when a State files a complaint, thereby opening itself to a counterclaim.
• Suability V. Liability – Suability depends on the consent of the state to be sued. Liability depends on the applicable law and the established facts. When a state is suable it does not necessarily mean that it is also liable. On the other hand if it cannot be sued it can never be held liable. • Political subdivisions – Municipal corporations, provinces, cities and municipalities
• Corporation – governed by BP 68 or the Corporation Code. These are creatures of the law and can only come into existence in the manner prescribed by law.
• Partnership – Two or more people bind themselves to contribute money, property, or industry to a common fund with the intention of dividing the profits among themselves. Two or more people may also form a partnership in the exercise of a profession.
• Distinct personality and exceptions – The obligation of the corporation is not the obligation of stockholders and vice versa.
Article 47 Upon the dissolution of corporations, institutions and other entities for public interest or purpose mentioned in No. 2 of Article 44, their property and other assets shall be disposed of in pursuance of law or the charter creating them. If nothing has been specified on this point, the property and other assets shall be applied to similar purposes for the benefit of the region, province, city or
municipality which during the existence of the institution derived the principal benefits from the same.
Chapter 4:Citizenship and Domicile
Article 48 The following are citizens of the Philippines:
1. Those who were citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the Constitution 2. Those born in the Philippines of foreign parents who, before the adoption of said constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippines;
3. Those whose fathers are citizens of the Philippines;
4. Those whose mothers are citizens of the Philippines and, upon reaching the age of majority, elect Philippine Citizenship;
5. Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Article 49 Naturalization and the loss and reacquisition of citizenship of the Philippines are governed by special laws.
Article 50 For the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of natural persons is the place of their habitual residence.
Article 51 When the law creating or recognizing them, or any other provision does not fix the domicile of juridical persons, the same shall be understood to be the place where their legal representation is established or where they exercise their principal functions.
Articles 48-51:
returning. Residence is used to indicate a place of abode, whether permanent or temporary. Domicile is residence coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited time. No length of residence without intention of remaining will constitute domicile. A person may have multiple residences but he may only have one domicile.
• Domicile of minors - Minors follow the domicile of their parents
• Change in Domicile - 1) an actual removal or an actual change of domicile; 2) a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence establishing a new one; and 3) acts which correspond with the purpose
• Fixing Domicile - The husband and the wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of conflict the court shall decide (Art. 69)
FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES E.O. 209 “Family Code of The Philippines”
E.O. 277 Contains amendments and modifications to Articles 26, 36 and 39. Effectivity August 3, 1988
R.A. 6809 Amended Title X of the Family Code dealing with emancipation and the age of majority. This took effect on December 18, 1989.
Chapter 1: Marriage
Article 1 Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with the law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. IT is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this code.
• Upon marriage the husband and wife become one single moral, spiritual and social being not only for the purpose of procreation but also for mutual help and protection in all aspects of life. It is one of the most basic civil rights of man. While it is a sacrosanct obligation it is nevertheless a civil contract regulated by law. Marriage as a special contract can'’t be restricted by discriminatory policies of private individuals or corporations.
• Once one is married, one is married for all intents and purposes i.e. one cannot be married for one purpose and married for another purpose.
• There are three parties to a marriage - the husband, wife and the state through its policies embodied in codes and customs.
• Examples of State Policies which guard marriage • R.A. 6995 - Mail order Brides 1990
• -These include matchmaking services for Filipina women to Foreign Nationals which use the postal service for the actual service or for advertising the services.
• -Also inducing a woman to become a member of a club whose sole purpose is matchmaking. • R.A. 9208 -Anti Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
• -This includes matching a Filipino woman to a foreign national for money, profit or material, economic or other consideration.
• -To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the purpose of acquiring, buying, offering, selling, or trading them.
• Marriage between rapist and rape victim
• -A subsequent valid marriage of the offender to the victim extinguishes the criminal action or penalty imposed for rape.
• -If the couple is married, the forgiveness of the victim spouse shall also extinguish the criminal action or the penalty provided that the crime shall not be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio.
• Marriage as status - marriage creates a social status or relation between the contracting parties in which not only they but the State as well is interested.
• Marriage in International Law - it is a recognized fundamental human right uner I.L. through the UNDHR, ICESCR and ICCPR.
• Constitutional Protection - The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution. Furthermore the right to marriage falls within the ambit of the right of association also the right of privacy in a marriage is a right!
• These state policies however do not absolutely bar the legislature from enacting a law which allows absolute divorce. The legislature has the plenary power to decide what sort of situations allowing the absolute divorce may be recognized within the limits allowed by the Constitution. Note that this is still consistent with the policy of the State to protect the sanctity of marriage because there may be instances where parties might have undergone a marriage ceremony to bind themselves together but, subsequently, no functional marital life would exist. Hence there would be no marriage to preserve at all.
• Marriage does not shed the spouses'’ integrity or their privacy as individuals.
• Communications between the spouses are privileged. Neither the husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists. • Legislative Control over Marriage - The Constitution doesn'’t establish the parameters of state
protection to marriage and the family. It remains the province of the legislature to define all legal aspects of marriage.
• Law governing validity of marriage - In determining the validity of marriage, it is to be tested by the law in force at the time the marriage was contracted. As a general rule, the nature of the marriage already celebrated cannot be changed by a subsequent amendment to the law. However statutes may apply retroactively depending on its wording also statutes may also expressly validate or invalidate marriages. However, an express validation or invalidation is important because any ambiguity or doubt in the law should follow the general rule that marriages are governed by the law enforced at the time of their celebration and any interpretation of the law must always be made towards upholding the validity of a marriage.
Article 2 No marriage shall be valid unless these essential Requisites are present
1.) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and 2.) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.
• Legal capacity - If any of the parties is below 18 the marriage is void even if the consent of the parents were previously obtained. Also the contracting parties must not be related to each other in the manner articulated in Article 37 which refers to incestuous marriages and Article 38 which refers to void marriages for reasons of public policy. Legal capacity to marry must likewise have reference to Article 39 of the Civil Code which states that capacity to act is, among others, limited by family relations.
• Contracting parties must be of different sex i.e. the contracting parties must be a male and a female. The term "“contracting parties"” cannot refer to same sex parties since the Civil Code uses terms that are heterosexual imports.
• Effect of sex change - definitely not contemplated in Article 2. However the reality of transsexuals and intersexuals'’ gender identities have been called to the attention of the SC.
• In Silverio v. Republic the court ruled that even though the Silverio "“became"” a female through sex reassignment surgery in order to get married to his/her partner, his/her sex is still nonetheless determined by visually looking at the genitals of a baby at the time of birth. The SC also said that
there is no law recognizing sex reassignment.
• In Republic v. Cagandahan the respondent was found to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH) which is a condition where the person has both male and female characteristics and organs and where, through expert evidence, it was shown that the respondent, through genetically a female, secreted male hormones not female hormones. He/She had no breasts and did not have menstrual periods. He/She, in his mind and emotion, gelt like a male person and did not want to have surgery. The SC considered the person as an intersex individual and granted the preference of the person to be considered a male person thereby allowing the amendment of the birth certificate from female to male. The SC saw that statutes compel that a person be classified either as a male or as a female but the court is not controlled by mere appearances when nature itself fundamentally negates such rigid classification. Further the SC said (and this is very important) it is at maturity that the gender of such persons (intersex) is fixed. With REGARD to his change of name from Jennifer to Jeff the court enunciated the principle that a change of name is not a matter of right but of judicial discretion. Considering that his birth certificate will also be amended in terms of his sex the court found merit in his request for change of name.
• Consent • Freely given
• The same must be made in the presence of the solemnizing officer • A total absence of consent makes the marriage void ab initio.
• Consent obtained through fraud, force, intimidation, or undue influence makes such marriage merely annullable or voidable.
• State Consent - Given through the solemnizing officer. This is way a Solemnizing Officer may incur penalties if he/she contracts a marriage without authority.
• PENIS - O ano, nagising ka noh?! Keep reading! Don'’t give up!
• Note the difference: Absence of Consent = Void ab initio Vs. Defective or Vitiated Consent = Voidable (Valid until annulled)
• There is no specific manner in which consent must be given so long as there is a clear manifestation that the parties take each other as husband and wife.
• Proxy marriages are invalid in the Philippines. Article 3 The formal requisites of marriage are:
1.) Authority of the solemnizing officer;
2.) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Ch. 2 of this Title; and
3.) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.
• Authority of the solemnizing officer - note the difference between the person of authority and his vested authority. The former is a human being the latter is a legal power ("“by the power vested in men by...blah blah) to perform marriages within his/her jurisdiction. What is important is the latter. Hence a solemnizing officer may be present but he may not have the proper authority to marry. • The new Local Government Code which took effect in 1992 granted the power to solemnize a
marriage to a Mayor.
• In the absence of any proof to the contrary the authority of the officer or clergyman shown to have performed a marriage ceremony will be presumed.
• Also, every presumption will be indulged that the marriage was legally performed.
duly and regularly issued. It is enough that the officer knows that the license has been issued by a competent official.
• Under Article 29 in relation to 27 and 28 which provides situations where the parties are excused from obtaining a marriage license, the solemnizing officer has the following additional duty • -In marriages that are performed in articulo mortis and marriages performed in an area where there
is no means of transportation to go to the local civil registrar, the S.O. is required to ascertain the ages and relationship of the contracting parties as well as the absence of any legal impediment to marry.
• Under Article 34, persons living together as husband and wife for at least five years without the benefit of marriage may contract a valid marriage even in the absence of a marriage license. In this case the S.O. has the following additional duty
• -Ascertain the qualifications of the contracting parties.
• A Valid Marriage License must be issued by the Local Civil Registrar at the place where the marriage application was filed.
• -Lifetime of 120 days from the date of issue and is effective in any part of the Philippines but it only valid within the Philippines.
• -The date of issue is the date of the signing of the marriage license by the local civil registrar. • -The other requirements are merely directory in the sense that their non-observance shall only
constitute an irregularity and shall not render a marriage void or voidable. • However...
• The marriage certificate itself is not an essential nor formal requirement of marriage. Failure to sign the marriage certificate or the absence of such does not render the marriage void or annullable • WITNESSES - As a general rule, the absence of any of the two witnesses shall render the marriage void. However because of the presumption of validity of marriages, the absence of any of the two witnesses could be justifiably argued to be a mere irregularity which can give rise to civil, criminal and administrative liabilities pursuant to Article 4. Another logical argument would be the fact that the witnesses are not parties who partake of the marriage. What is essential is that the contracting parties were present before a duly authorized S.O. and that they gave their vows (Perido v. Perido). • COMMON LAW MARRIAGES - These are not recognized in the Philippines. In essence it is a
non-ceremonial or informal marriage by agreement entered into by a man and a woman having capacity to marry. Such agreement should be coupled with consummation in the form of
cohabitation and reputation. We don'’t recognize it because the intervention of a an ecclesiastical or civil functionary duly authorized by the state is a mandatory requirement of marriage.
Article 4 The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio except as stated in Article 35(2).
A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as provided in Article 45 An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable.
• An expired marriage license is not a valid marriage license thereby making any marriage contracted on the basis of such license void.
• Good faith of at least one of the parties that the S.O. had authority to perform the marriage could render the marriage valid. This however must be distinguished from Article 3 of the Civil Code (Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith).
• To distinguish one must find out if the party who believed in good faith believed under a mistake of fact or ignorance of the law.
priest and certainly had a reputation as such who married them had the proper authority despite the fact that in reality the priest authorization had recently expired. In general mistake of facts
regarding the authority of the S.O. can be cured by good faith of either spouse.
• Ignorance of the law: Consider a situation where the S.O. was clearly not any of the S.O.s
enumerated in Article 7 e.g. janitor, senator, security guard. Even if the clearly ignorant and asinine spouses believed in good faith re: authority, the marriage is not valid.
• Marriage by way of jest is likewise void because there is absolutely no genuine consent on the part of both the contracting parties.
• Marriage by proxy solemnized here in the Philippines is likewise void.
• A mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong hence the aggrieved party cannot file a case to compel the person who has breached the promise to enter into the marriage contract. However in Wassmer v. Velez when the wedding had already been paid for and one of the parties backed out at the last moment causing financial and emotional hardships as well as public shame, the aggrieved party could certainly file for damages under Article 21 of the Civil Code. In this case, actual damages were awarded to the plaintiff.
Article 5 Any Male or Female of the age of eighteen years or upwards not under any of the impediments mentioned in Articles 37 and 38, may contract marriage.
Article 6 No prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall be necessary, however, for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as husband and wife. This declaration shall be contained in the marriage certificate which shall be signed by the contracting parties and their witnesses and attested by the solemnizing officer. In case of a marriage in articulo mortis, when the party at the point of death is unable to sign the marriage certificate, it shall be sufficient for one of the witnesses to the marriage to write the name of said party, which fact shall be attested by the solemnizing officer.
• Marriage Ceremony - The Family Code recognizes ceremonial marriages i.e. marriages which are solemnized by persons duly authorized by the state. There is no specific form or ceremony that is required however there must be a personal appearance by both parties in front of an S.O. and during such appearance the parties must declare that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of at least two witnesses of legal age. This is the minimum requirement.
• An exchange of vows can be presumed to have been made from the testimonies of the witnesses who state that a wedding took place since the very purpose of having a wedding is to exchange marital commitments (Balogbog v. Court of Appeals)
• The declaration of consent need not be vocally expressed. The consent may be shown by other manifestations. It is the agreement itself, not the form in which it is couched, which constitutes the contract.
Some of the irregularities which do not affect the validity of marriage: 1. Absence of two witnesses of legal age during the marriage ceremony 2. Absence of a marriage certificate
3. Marriage solemnized in a place other than publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open court, in church, chapel, or temple, or in office of the consul-general, consul, or vice-consul
4. Issuance of marriage license in a city or municipality not the residence of either of the contracting parties
5. Unsworn application for a marriage license
6. Failure of the contracting parties to present original birth certificate or baptismal certificate to the local civil registrar who likewise failed to ask for the same
7. Failure of the contracting parties between the ages of 18 and 21 to exhibit consent of parents or persons having legal charge of them to the local civil registrar
