PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

PRELIMINARY CHAPTER
CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

I. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 386

A. CIVIL LAW ≠ CIVIL CODE:

LARA VS. DEL ROSARIO, G.R. NO. L-6339, APRIL 20, 1954

B. CIVIL LAW ≠ COMMON LAW:

(B.1) CIVIL LAW – CODAL, STATUTORY AND WRITTEN LAW.

(B.2) COMMON LAW – DERIVED FROM CASE LAW. UNWRITTEN.

II. LAWS.

A. PUBLICATION – ART. 2, CIVIL CODE AS AMENDED BY E.O # 200.

GENERAL RULE: PUBLICATION, INDISPENSABLE REQUISITE FOR THE

EFFECTIVITY OF LAWS. COVERS EXECUTIVE ORDERS, PRESIDENTIAL
DECREES, AND ADMINISTRATIVE RULES ( TAÑADA VS. TUVERA, 146 SCRA
446).

PEOPLE VS. QUE PO LAY, 50 O.G. 2850

NASECORE VS. ERC, MERALCO, FEB. 2, 2006

GATBONTON VS. NLRC, MAPUA, JUNE 23, 2006

EXCEPTIONS: PUBLICATION IS NOT NECESSARY IF:

(1) LAW IS INTERPRETATIVE IN NATURE;

TAÑADA VS. TUVERA (DEC. 1986)

PHIL. INT’L. TRADING CORP. VS. JUDGE ANGELES, G.R. NO. 108461, OCT. 24,1996-

JUDGE DADOLE, ET AL. VS. COMMISSION ON AUDIT, G.R. NO. 125350, DEC. 3, 2002

(2) LAW WHICH IS INTERNAL IN NATURE;

VETERANS FEDERATION OF THE PHILS. VS. REYES, FEB. 28, 2006

(3) LETTERS OF INSTRUCTIONS – RULES TO BE FOLLOWED BY

SUBORDINATES.

(4) MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES ARE COVERED BY THE LOCAL GOV’T. CODE.

B.) WHERE SHOULD PUBLICATION TAKE PLACE.

GENERAL RULE:
(B.1) OFFICIAL GAZETTE, OR,
(B.2) NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION.

BASA VS. MERCADO (61 PHIL. 636)

EXCEPTION: HAGONOY MARKET VENDOR ASSOC. VS. MUNICIPALITY OF HAGONOY

BULACAN, G.R. NO. 137621, FEB. 6, 2002

C. EFFECTIVITY –
GENERAL RULE: LAW SHALL TAKE EFFECT ON THE DATE IT IS
EXPRESSLY PROVIDED TO TAKE EFFECT .

EXCEPTION: IF NO SUCH DATE IS MADE, AFTER 15 DAYS FOLLOWING THE

COMPLETION OF ITS PUBLICATION.

1
LA BUGAL-B’LAAN TRIBAL ASSO. INC. ET AL. VS. RAMOS, ET AL., GR. NO. 127882, JAN. 27,
2004

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE VS. LHUILLIER PAWNSHOP, INC., G.R. NO.

150947, JULY 15, 2003

LARA VS. DEL ROSARIO , G.R. NO. L-6339, APRIL 20, 1954

NOTE: PUBLICATION ≠ EFFECTIVITY.

III. ARTICLE 3 – IGNORANTIA JURIS NON EXCUSAT.

MIAQUE, ET AL VS. JUDGE PAMONAG, A.M. NO. MTJ-02-1412, MARCH 28, 2003

ADONG VS. CHEONG SENG GEE, 43 PHIL. 43.

In the absence of
PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION (ESTATE OF SUNTAY, 50 O.G. 5321).
pleading and proof, the laws of the foreign country or state will
be presumed to be the same as our local or domestic law
IV. ARTICLE 4 – RETROACTIVITY VS. PROSPECTIVITY.
***ART. 256, FAMILY CODE – RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF THE FAMILY CODE.

STA. ROSA REALTY VS. AMANTE, MARCH 16, 2005

SANTOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 347 SCRA 389

MEDINA INVESTIGATION & SECURITY CORPORATION V. C. A., G.R. NO. 144074, 20 MARCH
2001

PEOPLE VS. COLANGUI, MARCH 3, 2006

CIR VS. REYES, JAN. 27, 2006

ELVIRA YU OH VS. CA, G.R. NO. 125297, JUNE 6, 2003

PEOPLE VS. QUIACHON, G.R. NO. 170236, AUG. 31, 2006.

QUIZANA VS. REDUGERIO, 94 PHIL. 922

V. ARTICLE 6 – WAIVER OF RIGHTS.

LAPANDAY AGRICULTURAL VS. ESTITA, JAN. 21, 2005

SANCHEZ, ET AL. VS. CA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 108957, SEPT. 29,1997

GUY VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 163707, SEPT. 15, 2006

PEA VS. BOLINAO SECURITY AGENCY, OCT. 5, 2005

VALDERAMA VS. MACALDE, SEPT. 16, 2005

VI. ARTICLE 8 – JUDICIAL DECISIONS HAVE THE FORCE AND EFFECT OF A

LAW.

DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS "When the court has once laid down a principle of
law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and
apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same.

Under the doctrine, when this Court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a
certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle, and apply it to all future cases, where
facts are substantially the same; regardless of whether the parties and property are the
same. The doctrine of stare decisis is based upon the legal principle or rule involved and not
71 

upon the judgment, which results therefrom.

2
RATIO DECIDENDI ≠ OBITER DICTUM.

PEOPLE VS. MACARAEG, L-4316, MAY 28, 1952.

TALA REALTY SERVICES CORP. V. BANCO FILIPINO, 334 SCRA 114 (G.R. NO. 137980, 20 JUNE 2000) –

TUNG CHIN HUI V. RODRIGUEZ, 340 SCRA 765 (G.R. No. 137571, 21 September 2000

LAMBINO VS. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 174153, OCT. 25, 2006 –

***NOTE: IF NAME OF MONTH IS NOT GIVEN, IT IS DEEMED EQUIVALENT TO 30 DAYS

(ART. 13).

CIR VS. PRIMETOWN PROPERTY, G.R. NO. 162155, AUGUST 28, 2007

VII. ARTICLE 14 – PENAL LAW – THEORY OF TERRITORIALITY..

DISTINGUISH “EXTERRITORIALITY” FROM “EXTRATERRITORIALITY”

SCHNECKENBURGER VS. MORAN, 63 PHIL. 249

SEAFDEC VS. ACOSTA, 226 SCRA 49

VIII. ARTICLE 15 – PRINCIPLE OF NATIONALITY.

NOTE: CIVIL LAWS PERTAINING TO FAMILY RIGHTS/DUTIES, STATUS, CONDITION,

LEGAL CAPACITY FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE OF NATIONALITY.

A. ) REP. ACT NO. 9225 –ALSO KNOWN AS “CITIZENSHIP RETENTION AND RE-
ACQUISITION ACT OF 2003”.

B.) DERIVATIVE CITIZENSHIP (SEC. 4)

NICOLAS-LEWIS VS. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 162759, AUG. 4, 2006

ROEHR VS. RODRIGUEZ, G.R. NO. 142820, JUNE 20, 2003

**EXCEPTIONAL CASE: VAN DORN VS. ROMILLO, JR., 139 SCRA 139

ARTICLE 26, PAR. 2, FAMILY CODE – IF ALIEN SPOUSE OBTAINED THE DECREE OF
DIVORCE, FILIPINO SPOUSE WILL HAVE THE RIGHT TO RE-MARRY.

REP. VS. ORBECIDO, OCT. 5, 2005

IX. ARTICLE 16 – LAW GOVERNING REAL PROPERTY.

GENERAL RULE - LEX REI SITAE.
EXCEPTION: INTESTATE AND TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION.
(A) ORDER OF SUCCESSION.
(B) AMOUNT OF SUCCESSIONAL RIGHT.
(C) INTRINSIC VALIDITY OF WILL (ART. 16).
(D) LEGAL CAPACITY TO SUCCEED. (ART. 1039)

MICIANO VS. BRIMO, 50 PHIL. 867

BELLIS VS. BELLIS, 20 SCRA 358.

RENVOI DOCTRINE
AZNAR VS. GARCIA, 7 SCRA 95

FORUM NON CONVENIENS

LONG ARM STATUTE

3
 X. ARTICLE 17 – LAW GOVERNING EXTRINSIC VALIDITY OF CONTRACTS,
WILLS, PUBLIC INSTRUMENTS.

GENERAL RULE: LEX LOCI CELEBRATIONIS (FORMS AND SOLEMNITIES) OR

LOCUS REGIT ACTUM.

*** APPLICATION OF GENERAL RULE:

(1) ARTICLE 815, CIVIL CODE – WILLS MADE BY FILIPINOS ABROAD, MAYBE
IN THE FORM ESTABLISHED BY SUCH COUNTRY.

EXCEPTIONS- (1.A) 2ND PAR., ARTICLE 17 (DIPLOMATIC OR

CONSULAR OFFICIALS).
(1.B.) ARTICLE 819 IN RELATION TO ARTICLE 818
(1.C) ARTICLE 816
(1.D) ARTICLE 817

(2) ARTICLE 26, FAMILY CODE – MARRIAGES CONTRACTED BY FILIPINOS

ABROAD IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAWS IN FORCE IN THE SAID COUNTRY.

EXCEPTIONS: (2.A.) ARTICLE 35 PAR. 1- AGE.

(2.B) ARTICLE 35, PAR. 4- BIGAMOUS MARRIAGE.
(2.C) ARTICLE 35, PAR. 5- MISTAKE OF IDENTITY.
(2.D)ARTICLE 35,PAR. 6- VOID UNDER ARTICLE 53.
(2.E) ARTICLE 36- PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY.
(2.F) ARTICLE 37 – INCESTUOUS MARRIAGE..
(2.G) ARTICLE 38- VOID FOR REASONS OF PUBLIC POLICY.

HUMAN RELATIONS.
I. ARTICLE 19 – ABUSE OF RIGHTS IS ACTIONABLE.
DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA (AUYONG HIAN VS. CTA, 59 SCRA 110)

GENERAL RULE: BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY, NOT ACTIONABLE (GASHEM

SHOOKAT BAKSH VS. CA, 219 SCRA 115; HERMOSISIMA VS. CA, 109 PHIL. 629).

EXCEPTIONS: BREACH OF PROMISE TO MARRY + SOME ACT OR EVENT = CIVIL

ACTION FOR DAMAGES.(SEE PE VS. PE, 5 SCRA 200; WASSMER VS. VELEZ, 12 SCRA
648).

SEA COM CO. INC. VS. CA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 122823, NOV. 25,1999

METRO BANK V. WONG, G.R. No. 120859, 26 June 2001

ARLEGUI VS. C.A., G.R. NO. 126437, MARCH 6, 2002

RAMOS VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 124354, APRIL 11, 2002

MWSS VS. ACT THEATER, INC., G.R. NO. 147076, JUNE 17, 2004

NIKO HOTEL VS. ROBERTO REYES, A.K.A. AMAY BISAYA, FEB. 28, 2005, G.R. NO. 154259

PEA VS. CHU, SEPT. 21, 2005

ARDIENTE VS. PASTORFIDE, G.R. NO. 161921, JULY 17, 2013 –

II. ARTICLE 20 – CONTRARY TO LAW.

FRANCISCO VS. CA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 116320, NOV. 29,1999

III. ARTICLE 21 – CONTRARY TO MORALS, GOOD CUSTOMS/PUBLIC POLICY.

BUÑAG JR. VS. CA, GR 101749, JULY 10,1992

IV. ARTICLE 22 – ACCION IN REM VERSO – NO MISTAKE.

4
 A.) PRINCIPLE OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT

H.L. CARLOS CONSTRUCTION VS. MARINA PROPERTIES CORP., JAN. 29, 2004, G.R. NO.
147614-

ARAMIS B. AGUILAR V. COURT OF APPEALS, 335 SCRA 308 (G.R. No. 116895, 7 July 2000)

PNB VS. SHELLINK, OCT. 20, 2005

EQUITABLE PCI BANK VS. ONG, G.R. NO. 156207, SEPT. 15, 2006

LACSON VS. LACSON, G.R. NO. 150644, AUG. 28, 2006

SPS. VILLALVA VS. RCBC SAVINGS BANK, G.R. NO. 165661, AUG. 28, 2006

B.) NEGOTIORUM GESTIO

V. ARTICLE 24 – COURT’S PROTECTION OF THE UNDERDOG.

PARENS PATRIAE

ARTICLE 29 – PROOF BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT ¹ PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE;

ACQUITTAL IN CRIMINAL ACTION ¹ RELIEF FROM CIVIL LIABILITY.

VI. ARTICLE 30 – CIVIL OBLIGATION ARISING FROM A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

CONNECT WITH ART. 35
VII. INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION- (ARTICLE 31)

READ SEC. 3, RULE 111, 2000 REVISED RULES ON CRIM. PROCEDURE.

(A.) ART. 32 – BREACH OF CONSTITUTIONAL AND OTHER RIGHTS.

SILAHIS INT’L. HOTEL VS. SOLUTA, FEB. 20, 2006

(B.) ART. 33 – DEFAMATION, FRAUD, PHYSICAL INJURIES.

(C.) ART. 34 – REFUSAL OR FAILURE OF CITY/MUNICIPAL POLICE TO

GIVE PROTECTION.

(D.) ART. 2177 – QUASI-DELICT OR CULPA AQUILIANA.

SARMIENTO, JR. VS. CA., G.R. NO. 122502, DEC. 27, 2002

VIII. Article 35 – SEE ARTICLE 30, CIVIL CODE.

A.) ARTICLE 100, REVISED PENAL C0DE

READ SEC. 2, RULE 111, 2000 REVISED RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

REASON: QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASE ≠CRIMINAL CASE.

WESTERN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY VS. SALAS, G.R. NO. 13032, AUG. 21, 1997.

B) EFFECT OF DEATH OF THE ACCUSED TO THE CIVIL LIABILITY. (SEC.4, RULE

111, 2000 REV. RULES ON CRIM. PROCEDURE)

PEOPLE VS. SENDAYDIEGO, 81 SCRA 120

PEOPLE VS. BAYOTAS, G.R. NO. 102007, SEPT. 2, 1994

C) SECTION 1, RULE 111, REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL

SARMIENTO VS. CA., G.R. NO. 122502, DEC. 27, 2002

ACE HAULERS CORP. VS. CA, GR # 127934, AUGUST 23, 2000.

MACCAY VS. SPOUSES NOBELA, G.R. NO. 145823, MARCH 31, 2005

5
 IX. ARTICLE 36 – PREJUDICIAL QUESTION. SEE SECS. 6 & 7, RULE 111, REVISED
RULES ON CRIM. PRO.

SPS. GADITANO VS. SAN MIGUEL CORP., G.R. NO. 188767, JULY 24, 2013
A) ELEMENTS:

B.) EFFECT OF NULLITY OF 1ST MARRIAGE TO THE BIGAMY CASE.

DONATO VS. LUNA, 160 SCRA 441

BELTRAN VS. PEOPLE, 334 SCRA 106 (JUNE 20, 2000)

TE V. C. A., 346 SCRA 327 (29 Nov. 2000)

C.) EFFECT OF NULLITY OF SECOND MARRIAGE TO THE BIGAMY CASE.

DE LEON VS. MABANAG, 70 PHIL. 202

TENEBRON VS. CA., G.R. NO. 150758, FEB. 18, 2004

SABANDAL V. HON.TONGCO,G.R.No. 124498, 5 Oct. 2001

SPS. YULIENGCO VS. CA., ET AL., G.R. NO. 141365, NOV. 27, 2002

JUDGE TAMIN VS. CA, MAY 8, 1992

TOMLIN II VS. ATTY. MOYA, FEB. 23, 2006

SPS. LEE-YU VS. PCIBANK, MARCH 17, 2006

WONG JAN REALTY VS. ESPAÑOL, OCT. 13, 2005

OMICTIN VS. CA, G.R. NO. 148004, JAN. 22, 2007

MAGESTRADO VS. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 148072, JULY 10, 2007

OCAMPO VS. BUENAVENTURA, 55 SCRA 267.

PERSONS
I. CLASSIFICATION OF PERSON
II. ARTICLE 37 – JURIDICAL CAPACITY ¹ CAPACITY TO ACT.
III. ARTICLES 38 AND 39 – RESTRICTIONS ON CAPACITY TO ACT.
DIFFERENT CLASSES OF INCAPACITY:
IV. ARTICLE 40 – CIVIL PERSONALITY.
DE JESUS VS, SYQUIA, 58 PHIL. 886
GELUZ VS. CA, 2 SCRA 801
LIMJOCO VS. ESTATE OF FRAGANTE, 45 O.G. (NO. 9) SUPP. 397 (1948).

V. ARTICLE 43 – PRESUMPTION ON SURVIVORSHIP/ SIMULTANEOUS DEATH.

SEE RULE 131, SEC. 5(KK), RULES OF COURT.
VI. DOMICILE AND RESIDENCE.

SAN LUIS VS. SAN LUIS, G.R. NOS. 133743, 134029, FEB. 6, 2007

ROMUALDEZ-MARCOS VS. COMELEC, GR NO. 119976, SEPT. 12 AND OCTOBER 25,

1995
UGDORACION VS. COMELEC, GR NO. 179851, APRIL 18, 2008 – 3 BASIC RULES IN
DOMICILE OF CHOICE

POE VS. COMELEC, GR NO. 221697, APRIL 5, 2016

6
7