Art. 2 - Effectivity of Laws (Art.

2)
1. Publication Requirement
What to Publish
Importance of Publication
Cases:
- Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, 29 December 1986, 146 SCRA 446
- FACTS: Petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish various
P.D.s, general orders, proclamations, E.O.s, etc., in the Official Gazette. Respondent argued that
publication is not necessary according to the “otherwise provided” as when the decrees themselves
declared that they were to become effective immediately upon approval
- ISSUE: Whether publication is an indispensable requirement for the effectivity of the presidential
issuances in question
- HELD: Yes. “unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the date of effectivity; not the requirement of
publication itself
- De Roy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80718, 29 January 1988
- FACTS: RTC found De Roy grossly negligent for the injuries and death of the daughter of Bernal due
to a collapsed firewall owned by De Roy. Petitioners filed for a motion for extension of time to file a
motion for reconsideration. CA denied the motion by applying the rule laid down in Habaluyas
Enterprises v. Japzon that said period cannot be extended. Petitioners contend that the ruling should
not be applied because it was not published in the Official Gazette
- ISSUE: Is publication in the O.G. required before S.C. decisions can become binding and effective?
- HELD: No. Publication is not required. There is no law requiring it.
- People v. Que Po Lay 94 Phil 640
- FACTS: Que Po Lay was accused of violating Circular No. 20 of the Central Bank (to sell the foreign
currency to Central Bank) he was in possession of US dollars and checks all amounting to USD
7,000.oo Que Po Lay argued that the Circular was not yet published in the Official Gazette. Said
Circular should have no effect on his act therefore he should be acquitted.
- ISSUE: Is prior publication necessary for the effectivity of a Circular with a Penal provision?
- HELD: Yes. Circulars and regulations, especially like the Circular No. 20 which prescribes a penalty
should have been published before becoming effective – and the people officially informed of said
comments and penalties.
- NPC v. Pinatubo Commercial, G.R. No. 176006, 26 March 2010.
- FACTS: NPC issued Circular No. 99-75 which set the guidelines for bidding of their disposable
ACSR. Pinatubo submitted a pre-qualification but was denied. Reconsideration was also denied.
Pinatubo then filed a petition in the RTC. For the annulment of the Circular.
- ISSUE: W/N NPC Circular No. 99-75 must be published
- HELD: No. Interpretative regulation and those merely internal in nature, need not be published.
Neither are the so-called letter of instructions concerning rules or guidelines. The Circular was merely
a directive issued but the NPC President to his subordinates for regulation. It did not, in any way
affect the rights of the public in general.
- Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers G.R. No. 180643 March 25, 2008
- FACTS: Case about the senate investigation of the NB ZTE Project concerning NEDA head Romulo
Neri. Neri argued that the senate failed to publish its Rule of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of
Legislation, that the deliberation of the respondent Committees that led to the issuance of the
contempt order is flawed.
- ISSUE: W/N the Senate Rules of Procedure Governing Inquiries in Aid of Legislation must be
published
- HELD: Yes. It must be published. Respondents violated that it should be in accordance with the “duly
published rules of procedure” Sec. 21, Art VI of the Phil. Consti.
- Pimentel v. SENATE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, GR No. 187714, March 8, 2011
- FACTS: Issue on Senator Vilar regarding double insertion of P200M pesos for C-5 road extension
project. Vilar stated that he would answer the accusations to the Senate (now acting as a Committee
of the Whole) and not the Ethics Committee. Petitioners proposed amendments to the Rules of the
Ethic Committee that would constitute the Rules of the Senate Committee of the Whole. Pimentel
raised an issue the need to publish the proposed amended rules.
- ISSUE: W/N publication of the Rules of the Senate Committee of the whole is required for their
effectivity
 - HELD: Yes. Publication is required. In relation to the ruling in Neri vs. Senate Committee on
Accountability of Public Officers and Investigations. It is incumbent upon the Senate to publish the
rules of its legislative inquiries. Even though the Rules are internal in nature, Sec 81 Rule 15 state
- that the rules shall be effective after publication

Art. 3 - Ignorance of Law excuses no one

1. Mistake of law v. Mistake of Fact:
a. Art. 526 – mistake on doubtful or difficult provision of law is basis for good faith - mitigates but does not
extinguish liability;
b. Art. 1334 – mutual error on legal effect of agreement- may vitiate consent;
c. Art. 2155 – mistake in payment gives rise to right to return of erroneous payment

Art. 4 - Prospective Application of Laws

1. Exception
a. If provided in the law itself
b. Procedural law
c. Penal law if favorable to the accused
d. Curative and Repealing statutes;
e. Creating new rights
f. Tax statutes
g. Interpretative Statutes
2. Exception to the Exception
a. Ex post facto laws;
b. Penal laws not favorable to the accused;
c. Substantive laws impairing vested rights.
Cases:
- Valeroso v. People, G.R. No. 164815, 22 February 2008
- FACTS: Petitioner Jerry Valeroso was arrested for being a suspect in a kidnap with ransom case.
They found ammunition tucked in his waist after a body search. He was charged with illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition. Petitioner was found guilty. They lowered his penalty from
reclusion temporal to prision correcional because the former was amended.
- ISSUE: Should RA 8249, reducing the penalty provided in PD 1866 be given a retroactive effect
- HELD: Yes. Penal laws should not have retroactive effect unless the law is favorable to the accused
- PNB v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 104528, 18 January 1996
- FACTS: Private respondents were buyers on installments of subdivision lots from Marikina Village
Inc. MVI mortgaged the lots to PNB. Private respondents were unaware and still continued to pay.
PNB became owner of the lots. Private respondents filed suits which ruled that PNB can only collect
the remaining amortizations from respondents and cannot compel them to pay again. (P.D. 957)
Petitioner argued that P.D. 957 cannot be applied as the said law was enacted only on 1976 while the
mortgage was executed on 1975.
- ISSUE: Whether P.D. 957 may be applied to the mortgage contract which was executed prior to its
enactment.
- HELD: Yes. P.D. 957 may be applied. There is unmistakable intent of the law to protect the innocent
lot buyers from scheming subdivision developers. Must favor the weak.
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc., G.R. No. 168129, 24 April 2007
- FACTS: Philhealth filed a protest questioning thes assessment made by the CIR. E.O. 327 was
issued, it imposes VAT on the sales of goods and services. Philhealth inquired if they are exempted
from the VAT coverage. On June 9, 1988, CIR issued the rule on their VAT exemption since they are
a provider of medical services. On Oct 1, 1999, BIR sent respondent a Preliminary Assessment
Notice for deficiency in its payment of the VAT. Petitioner argued that the Tax COde is entitled to the
benefit of non-retroactivity under section 246 unless the taxpayer shows bad faith. CTA did not take
any action on the protests. A petition for review was filed with the CTA. CTA declared CIR ruling null
and void.
- ISSUE: Should a modification or reversal of any of the rules and regulations promulgated be given a
retroactive effect?
 - HELD: No. It shall have no retroactive effect. There is no showing that the respondent acted in bad
faith. They just failed to describe themselves as a health maintenance organization. Respondent
believed in good faith that was VAT exempt for taxable years 1996-1997.

Art. 5 - Acts Contrary to Mandatory or Prohibitory Provisions are Void

Mandatory law - is one the omission of which renders the proceeding or acts to which it relates generally illegal or void; if
the law commands something be done
Prohibitory law - those which contain positive prohibitions and are couched in negative terms importing that the act
required shall not be done otherwise than designated; when the law commands that something should not be done
1. Exceptions (PAVE)
a. The law makes the act valid BUT punishes THE VIOLATOR
- Ex. A widow who remarries before the lapse of 300 days after the death of her husband is liable to
criminal prosecution but the marriage is valid
b. The law itself authorizes its validity
- Ex. Lotto and sweepstakes
c. The law makes the act only voidable
- a marriage celebrated through violence or intimidation or fraud is valid until it is annulled by a
competent court
d. The law declares the nullity of an act but recognizes its effects as legally existing
- in a void marriage under Articles 36 and 53 of the Family Code, the children born thereto are
considered legitimate
Art. 6 - Waiver of Rights
Waiver - intentional relinquishment of a known right with both knowledge of its existence and an intention to relinquish it
Right – the power or privilege given to one person
1. Requisites
- he must actually have the right which he renounces
- he must have the capacity to make the renunciation
- the renunciation must be made in a clear and unequivocal manner
2. Exceptions
a. Waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs;
b. If the waiver is prejudicial to a third party with a right recognized by law.
c. Alleged rights which really do not yet exist, as in the case of future inheritance
- Since no right is vested until the death of the decedent
d. If the right is a natural right, such as right to be supported.
Cases:
- D.M. Consunji vs. CA, G.R. No. 137873, April 20, 2001
- FACTS: Victim Jose A. Juego was crushed to death when the platform he was then on board and
performing work, fell. His widow, Maria, filed in RTC a complaint for damages against the deceased’s
employer. Employer raised that the widow already availed of the benefits from the State Insurance
fund (death benefits provided under the Labor Code) therefore the widow cannot claim the
deceased’s employer damages under the Civil Code.
- ISSUES: (1) Does the election made by the private respondent of one of the two inconsistent
remedies equivalent to a waiver of the other? (2) Is there a valid waiver by the private respondent?
- HELD: (1) Yes, choice of one remedy is deemed to have waived the other. It results in a waiver by
election. (2) No. There is no valid waiver made by the private respondent because there was a
mistake of fact. Respondent was not aware of her rights. Where one lacks knowledge of a right, there
is no basis upon which waiver of it can rest.
- Cui vs. Arellano University 2 SCRA 205
- FACTS: Emetrio Cui took up preparatory Law in Arellano University. His uncle was the Dean of the
COL. Plaintiff was a scholar in the said university, he was made to sign a contract covenant whereas
he waived his right to transfer to another school without refunding the equivalent of his scholarship in
cash. On the last semester, he transferred to Abad Santos University where his uncle accepted
deanship. Cui petitioned the defendant to issue his TOR but the latter refused not until he paid back
the P1,003.87 - the amount refunded by Arellano University. He still paid for the sum because he
needed the TOR for his bar exams.
 - ISSUE: W/N the provision of the contract between plaintiff and the defendant, whereby the former
waived his right to transfer to another school without refunding to the latter the equivalent of of his
scholarships in cash, valid or not?
- HELD: The provision is not valid. The real essence of scholarships should not have a contract like the
discussed waiver. The contract was repugnant to the sound morality and civic honesty. Scholarships
should be awarded in recognition of merit, not to keep outstanding students, it should not be a
business scheme, thus it is also inconsistent to good morals.
Art. 7 - Repeal of Laws
1. Kinds of Repeal
a. Express - repeal which is literally declared by a new law
b. Implied (not favored) - when a new law contains provisions contrary or inconsistent with those of a former
without expressly repealing them; 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
2. Effects
a. Express repeal: When a law which expressly repeals a prior law is itself repealed, the law first repealed shall
not be thereby revived unless expressly so provided
b. Implied repeal: When a law which impliedly repeals a prior law is itself repealed, the prior law shall thereby be
revived, unless the repealing law provides otherwise.
3. Sec. 444, Local Government Code
Cases:
- Mecano v. COA, G.R. No. 103982, 11 December 1992
- FACTS: Mecano requested for reimbursement from Commission on Audit for his medical and
hospitalization expenses (which he is entitled to under Section 699 of the Revised Administrative
Code). His claim was denied reasoning that the RAC was repealed by Administrative Code of 1987,
COA claiming that the same section was not restated or reenacted in the Admin Code.
- ISSUE: Did the Admin Code repeal or abrogate Sec. 699 of the RAC?
- HELD: No. Admin Code did not Appeal or abrogate Section 699 of the RAC. The general repealing
provision failed to identify or designate the act/s that are intended to be repealed. THe new Code
does not cover nor attempt to cover the entire subject matter of the old code

Art. 8 - Judicial Decisions form part of the law of the land

Doctrine of stare decisis
- When the Supreme Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will
adhere to the principle, and apply it to all future cases, where facts are substantially the same
- One of policy grounded on the necessity for securing certainty and stability of judicial decisions
Cases:
- People v. Licera G.R. No. L-39990, July 2, 1975
- FACTS: Defendant Rafael Licera was charged with illegal possession of firearms. On appeal to the
SC, he invokes as legal justification for possession of the Winchester rifle his appointment as “secret
agent” by Gov. Leviste of Batangas. Based on People v. Macarandang, he should be exempted from
the requirements relating to license of firearms. He alleges that the CFI erred in relying on a case of
People v. Mapa which held that Sec.879 of the RAC provides no exemption for persons appointed as
secret agents.
- ISSUE: Whether the CFI was correct in convicting Licera of Illegal Possession of Firearms on the
basis of the Mapa ruling.
- HELD: No. Macarandang Ruling should have been used buy the CFI as basis of acquitting Licera.
Licera’s designation as secret agent was in 1961, apprehension was in 1965 (Macarandang Ruling
was in 1959) Then Mapa revoked the Macarandang precedent only in 1967 - where a new doctrine
abrogates an old rule, the new doctrine should operate respectively only and should not adversely
affect those favored by the old rule. Macarandang rule obtains not only at the time of Licera’s
appointment but also the time of his apprehension. He incurred no criminal liability.
Art. 9 - Duty of Judges
- “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
 - Judges 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 was involved is vague or inadequate, they are tasked
with resolving legal controversies and interpreting statutes
- A judge must give a decision, whether he knows what law to apply or not. Thus, even if a judge does not know
the rules of cockfighting, he must still decide the case.
Case:
- Chu Jan vs. Bernas, 34 Phil 631 (1916)
- FACTS: A match was held in the cockpit between two cocks belonging to Chu Jan and Lucio Bernas.
P160 wager. Bernas’ cock was declared the winner. Chu Jan brought a suit asking that his own
rooster be declared winner. Justice of peace declared it was a draw. Bernas appealed to CFI. CFI
rendered judgment dismissing the appeal.
- ISSUE: May the court dismiss a case for lack of knowledge?
- HELD: No. Ignorance of the court, unfamiliarity to the rules applicable to a certain matter, are not
reasons that can serve to excuse the court for dismissing cases without deciding the issues.
Art. 10 - Doubtful Statues
- Dura lex sed lex - the law may be hard but it is the law
- First duty of court is to apply the law, construction and interpretation only come after it has been demonstrated.
- Objective must be carried out. Even if there be doubt as to the meaning of the language employed, the
interpretation should not be at war with the end sought to be attained
Case:
- People vs. Purisima, G.R. Nos. L-42050-66, L-46229-32, L-46313-16, L-46997, 20 November 1978
- FACTS: Pursuant to P.D. 9 (penalizing the illegal possession of deadly weapons) a total of 26 people
were charged for the mere act of carrying deadly weapons.
- ISSUE: W/N the mere carrying of deadly weapons constitute a crime under P.D. 9
- HELD: No. it is not the intention of P.D. 9 to punish the mere carrying of deadly weapons. Purpose of
P.D. 9, the carrying of deadly weapons outside the residence must be related to subversive or
criminal activities to constitute a crime. Penalize the mere fact of carrying deadly weapons would lead
to injustice, not intended by a legislative measure.
Art. 11 - 12 - Customs
- Customs - rule of conduct formed by repetition of acts, uniformly observed as a social rule, legally binding and
obligatory
- A local custom as a source of right cannot be considered by a court of justice unless such custom is properly
established by competent evidence like any other fact.
- Custom, even if proven, cannot prevail over a statutory rule or even a legal rule enunciated by the Supreme
Court
1. Requisites to make a custom an obligatory rule
a. Plurality or repetition of acts;
b. Practiced by the great mass of the social group;
c. Continued practice for a long period of time;
d. The community accepts it as a proper way of acting, such that it is considered as obligatory upon all
Cases:
- Martinez vs. Van Buskirk, 18 Phil 79 (1910)
- FACTS: Martinez was riding in a carromata when a delivery wagon used to transport fodder ran into
them. The incident wounded the plaintiff. Defendant presented evidence that the cochero driving the
wagon was considered a safe and reliable one. The cochero tied the driving lines of the horses to the
front end of the delivery wagon and then went back inside of the wagon to unload, another driver
drove by and the horses got frightened by the sound of the whip, the horses ran away, the driver
thrown from inside the wagon, the horses came into collision with the carromata in which the plaintiff
was riding. The court found the defendant guilty of negligence.
- ISSUE: W/N the cochero of the defendant was negligent int leaving the horses in such manner.
- HELD: No. The cochero was experienced and capable. It was common knowledge and a universal
practice of merchants to leave the horses in the same manner they were left at the time of the
incident. This is the custom in all cities.
- Yao Kee vs. Sy-Gonzales, G.R. No. 55960, November 24, 1988
- FACTS: Sy Kiat, a chinese national, died on January 17, 1977 in Caloocan City. He left behind
P300,000 worth of real and personal properties. Aida Sy-Gonzalez with her siblings filed a petition for
the grant letters of administration. They alleged that they were the Children of the deceased with
 Asuncion Gillego and they nominate Aida for appointment as administratix of the intestate estate of
the deceased. Petition was opposed by Yao Kee (alleged lawful wife of Sy Kiat) and Sze Zook Wah
(their eldest daughter). Yao Kee testified that she was married to Sy Kiat in 1931 in China. She does
not have a certificate because the custom during their time was for elders to agree upn the betrothal
of their children. She claims that the document was signed only by the parents of the bridegroom, and
she does not know about the whereabouts of that document. CFI Held in favor of the petitioners and
appointed Sze Zook Wah administratix. On appeal to CA, they still ruled in favor of petitioners.
- ISSUE: Is Sy Kiat’s marriage to Yao Kee in accordance with the Chinese law and customs
conclusive?
- HELD: The pieces of evidence presented in trial may very well prove the fact of marriage between
Yao Kee and SY Kiat. However, they do not suffice to establish the validity of said marriage in
accordance with Chinese Law or custom.

Art. 13 - Computation of Period and Time

1. Rule on Computation of Period: First day excluded, last day included
a. Years- 365 days, unless year identified
b. Months-30 days, unless month identified
c. Days – 24 hours
d. Nights - sunset to sundown
2. Exception: Computation of age - each year based on birth anniversary
3. Policy if last day is a Sunday or Legal Holiday
Cases:
- CIR vs. Primetown, G.R. 162155, August 28, 2007
- FACTS: Respondent applied for the refund or credit of income tax because he suffered losses. He
filed a petition for review with the CTA on April 14, 2000. CTA dismissed because it was filed 2 years
beyond the prescriptive period for filing. CTA then found that the respondent filed adjusted return on
April 14, 1998. Thus, its right to claim a refund commenced on that date. CTA ruled that the 2-year
prescriptive period was equivalent to 730 days. Since the year 2000 was a leap year, it was filed 731
days after. CA reversed the CTA decision ruling that Article 13 of the Civil Code does not distinguish
between a regular year and a leap year.
- ISSUE: Whether the CA is correct in referring to Article 13 of the NCC as the basis in the correct
computation of time
- HELD: No. The CA is correct in finding that the petition was filed within the prescriptive period but its
basis should not be the NCC. E.O. 292 or the Administrative Code of 1987 was enacted. Section 31,
Chapter VIII, Book 1 thereof provides: Legal Periods – “Year” shall be understood to be twelve
calendar months; “month” of 30 days; unless it refers to a specific calendar month
Art. 14 - Penal Laws
a. Applicability in the Philippines if committed here
b. Territoriality
c. Exceptions
- Public International Law (Diplomatic Immunity, etc)
- Treaty Stipulations
Art. 15 - Civil Laws
1. General Rule: Nationality Principle
a. Family Rights and Duties
b. Status
c. Condition
d. Legal Capacity
Art. 16
1. Exceptions
a. Property transactions (real or personal) – lex situs or lex rei sitae
2. Exception to Exception: National Law of Decedent
a. Order of successional rights
b. Amount of successional rights
c. Intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions
d. Capacity to succeed
3. Renvoi Doctrine
 - Renvoi literally means referring back; the problem arises when there is a doubt as to whether a reference to a
foreign law is a reference to the internal law of said foreign law; or a reference to the whole of the foreign law,
including its conflict rules
Art. 17
1. Lex Loci Celebrationis
- The first paragraph of the Article lays down the rule of lex loci celebrationis insofar as extrinsic validity (forms
and solemnities) is concerned. Thus, a contract entered into by a Filipino in Japan will be governed by
Japanese law insofar as form and solemnities of the contract are concerned. Thus also, if a power of attorney is
executed in Germany, German laws and not our Civil Code should determine its formal validity.
a. Exception: Intrinsic validity and Art. 26, par. 1 FC
- The intrinsic validity of a contract is governed by the proper law of the contract or “lex contractus,”
which may either be the law of the place voluntarily agreed upon by the contracting parties (“lex loci
voluntatis”) or the law of the place intended by them expressly or impliedly (“lex loci intentionis”)

Cases for Art. 15 - 17:

- Van Dorn vs. Ronillo, Jr. et al., 139 SCRA 139
- FACTS: Petitioner Van Dorn, citizen of the Philippines, and private respondent Richard Upton, citizen of
US, were married in HK in 1972. Got divorced in Nevada on 1982. Upton filed suit against the petitioner
stating that Van Dorn’s business in Manila is their conjugal property. Petitioner moved to dismiss the case
on the grounds that in their divorce they acknowledged “no community property”. Court denied the Motion
to Dismiss since the property is located in the PH. Van Dorn contends that Upton is estopped from laying
claim on the alleged conjugal property because of their divorce. Respondent still maintains that the divorce
is not valid and binding in this jurisdiction.
- ISSUE: What is the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their alleged conjugal property in the
PH?
- HELD: The divorce decree is binding on private respondent as an American Citizen. Only PH nationals are
covered by the policy against divorce. Private respondent is no longer the husband of the petitioner.
- Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera 174 SCRA 653
- FACTS: Petioner Pilapil, Filipino citizen, private respondent Geiling, German national, obtained a divorce
in a German Court. 5 months later, Geiling filed two complaints for adultery against petitioner alleging that
she had an affair with two different men. Petitioner filed motion to quash on the ground that her ex-spouse
does not qualify to charge for adultery since they are already divorced.
- ISSUE: W/N an alien spouse has legal standing to file a complaint for adultery after obtaining a divorce
decree.
- HELD: No. An alien spouse has no legal standing to file a complaint for adultery after obtaining a divorce
decree, being no longer the husband of the petitioner.
- San Luis v. San Luis, G.R. Nos. 133743 & 134029, February 6, 2007
- FACTS: Felicisimo contracted three marriages in his lifetime
(1) with Virginia sulit + 6 children: Rodolfo, Mila, etc. – Virginia died 5 years later
(2) with Merry Lee Corwin + 1 child: Tobias – they were divorced in Hawaii
(3) with Felicidad San Luis – married in California
After Felicisimo died, Felicidad sought the dissolution of their conjugal partnership assets and estate. She
filed a petition for letters of administration before the RTC of Makati City. Petitioner Rodolfo San Luis (son
of Felicisimo from his first marriage) filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds of improper venue claiming
that Felicisimo resides in Laguna as Governor. He also claimed that respondent has no legal claim being
she was only a mistress
- ISSUE:
(1) Whether the venue was properly laid
(2) Whether a Filipino who is divorced by his alien spouse abroad may validly remarry under the Civil Code
(3) Whether Felicidad San Luis has legal capacity to file the subject petition for letters of administration
- HELD:
(1) Yes. Letters of administration of the estate of Felicisimo should be filed in the RTC of the province in
which he resides at the time of his death. (RTC of Makati has jurisdiction over Alabang, Muntinlupa
(2) Yes. The Court need not retroactively apply the provisions of the family code (Art. 26, par 2, FC). The
Van Dorn case is sufficient basis in resolving the issue. A divorce decree validly obtained by the alien
spouse is valid in the Philippines, Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry under Philippine law.
(3) Yes. Even if Felicisimo was not capacitated to marry respondent, the Court found that the latter has
legal personality since she may be considered as the co-owner of Felicisimo as their properties we
acquired through joint efforts. (Art. 144 of the Civil Code)
Art. 18
Suppletory application of Civil Code in matters governed by special law
- The provisions of the Civil Code are applicable to matters governed by the Code of Commerce and special laws in a
suppletory character Hence, where there is no deficiency in the special law or Code of Commerce, the provisions of
the Civil Code cannot be applied