1.

) Concept of Law and Civil Law

Law

A system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior.

Civil Law

Branch of Law that treats the personal and family relations of a person, his property and successional rights,
and the effects of obligation and contracts.

Originating from Roman law, particularly the Code of Justinian, civil law systems are characterized by comprehensive
legal codes that cover various areas of law, such as civil, criminal, and administrative law.

Civil law refers to a legal system that is primarily based on written codes and statutes.

Common Law

may designate all that part of the positive law, juristic theory, and ancient custom of any state or nation which
is of general and universal application, thus marking off special or local rules or customs.

Originating in medieval England, common law systems are characterized by the principle of stare decisis, which means
that courts are bound to follow the precedents set by higher courts in similar cases.

Common law is a legal system that relies heavily on judicial precedents and case law. This system allows for flexibility
and adaptability in the law, as judges can interpret and apply legal principles based on the specifics of each case

Law Merchant

Also known as the Lex Mercatoria, historically refers to a body of commercial law used by merchants and traders in
medieval Europe.

law merchant; commercial law; that system of laws which is adopted by all commercial nations and constitute as part of
the law of the land; part of common law

Statutory Law Prevails

Statutory law is written and codified, meaning it is formally enacted by legislative bodies and compiled into statutes.
This codification provides clear and specific rules that govern behavior, making it easier for individuals and entities to
understand their legal obligations.

Unlike common law, which is based on judicial precedents and can be subject to varying interpretations, statutory law is
designed to be straightforward and unambiguous. Courts are generally bound to apply the plain language of statutes,
which reinforces their authority and predictability

1
 Quisaba vs. Sta. Ines-Melale Veneer and Plywood, Inc., 58 SCRA 771 (1974)

Facts
● Jovito N. Quisaba, the petitioner, was employed by Sta. Ines-Melale Veneer & Plywood, Inc. for eighteen years.
On January 11, 1973, he was instructed by the company's vice-president, Robert Hyde, to purchase logs, which
Quisaba refused, asserting that such a task was inconsistent with his role as an internal auditor.
● Following his refusal, Hyde temporarily relieved him of his auditing duties and warned that failure to comply could
lead to dismissal. Quisaba pleaded for fairness, citing the economic crisis, but was demoted to a menial position,
which he characterized as a "constructive discharge."
● Quisaba subsequently filed a complaint on February 5, 1973, in the Court of First Instance of Davao, seeking
moral damages, exemplary damages, termination pay, and attorney's fees, but did not request reinstatement or
back wages. The defendants moved to dismiss the case, claiming that jurisdiction lay with the National Labor
Relations Commission (NLRC) under Presidential Decree No. 21.
● The lower court dismissed the complaint, asserting the employee-employer relationship as the basis for NLRC
jurisdiction.

Issues
1. Does the complaint for damages arising from constructive dismissal fall under the jurisdiction of the regular
courts?
2. Does the nature of Quisaba's complaint warrant consideration in the regular courts?

Held
1. Yes, the complaint for damages arising from constructive dismissal falls under the jurisdiction of the regular
courts.
2. Yes, the nature of Quisaba's complaint warrants consideration in the regular courts.

Ratio Decidendi
● The Supreme Court emphasized that Quisaba's claims involved issues beyond mere employee-employer
relations, particularly focusing on the oppressive nature of the employer's actions, which justified the involvement
of the judiciary in addressing civil rights violations.

Procedural History
● The original complaint was filed by Quisaba in the Court of First Instance of Davao on February 5, 1973. The
defendants moved to dismiss the case, arguing that it fell under the jurisdiction of the NLRC.
● The lower court dismissed the complaint, asserting that the employee-employer relationship was the basis for
NLRC jurisdiction.
● Quisaba then appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in his favor, clarifying the
jurisdictional boundaries between labor-related disputes and civil claims.

2
 Case: Cruz vs, Pahati

Facts
● The case of Cruz v. Pahati involves a dispute over the ownership of a car between Jose R. Cruz and Reynaldo
Pahati. Cruz originally owned the car but was unlawfully deprived of it when Felixberto Bulahan, who fraudulently
altered a letter from Cruz, sold the car to Pahati. Cruz filed a case in the Court of First Instance of Manila seeking
the recovery of the car from Pahati.

Issues
1. Did Cruz have a valid claim to recover the car from Pahati?
2. Was Pahati a buyer in good faith?
3. Did Bulahan's fraudulent actions affect the ownership rights of Cruz?

Held
1. Yes, Cruz had a valid claim to recover the car from Pahati.
2. No, Pahati was not a buyer in good faith.
3. Yes, Bulahan's fraudulent actions affected the ownership rights of Cruz.

Ratio Decidendi
● The Supreme Court ruled that Cruz, as the original owner, had the right to recover his property since he was
unlawfully deprived of it. The court emphasized that possession obtained through fraud does not confer
ownership. Pahati could not be considered a buyer in good faith because he did not exercise due diligence in
verifying the legitimacy of the transaction. The court highlighted that the principle of protecting the rightful owner
takes precedence over the claims of a buyer who failed to act prudently.

Procedural History
● The case was initially filed in the Court of First Instance of Manila, where Cruz sought to recover possession of
the car.
● The lower court ruled in favor of Pahati, prompting Cruz to appeal to the Supreme Court.
● The Supreme Court ultimately reversed the lower court's decision, ruling in favor of Cruz and reaffirming his
ownership rights over the car.

3
2.) Kinds of Laws

As to the relationships Governed

Natural Law refers to a system of law that is derived from nature and human reason, positing that certain
rights are inherent and universal, not contingent upon legislation. It emphasizes moral
principles that govern human conduct and are believed to be discoverable through reason and
observation of the natural world

Positive Law created by human beings and consists of statutes and regulations enacted by governments. It
contrasts with natural law by asserting that laws are valid not based on moral considerations,
but on their enactment through proper legislative processes

Common Law developed through court decisions and judicial interpretations, rather than through legislative
statutes. It reflects societal norms and judicial precedents, evolving over time through case law

Statutory Law enacted by legislative bodies, such as Congress or state legislatures. Statutory laws are written
and codified, providing a clear and accessible framework for legal standards and obligations

As to Effect

Substantive Law defines the rights and duties of individuals and collective bodies. It encompasses areas such as
criminal law, contract law, and tort law, outlining what constitutes legal obligations and rights

Procedural Law governs the process through which substantive laws are enforced. It includes rules and
procedures for conducting legal proceedings, ensuring fair and orderly administration of justice

Distributive Law deals with the allocation of resources and benefits among members of a society, often
reflecting principles of equity and justice

As to Nature

Civil Law deals with disputes between individuals or organizations, typically involving compensation or
restitution rather than criminal penalties. Civil law covers areas such as contracts, property, and
family law

Criminal Law involves laws that prohibit actions deemed harmful to society and prescribes punishments for
those who violate these laws. Criminal law is focused on maintaining public order and safety

International Law governs the legal relations between nations and includes treaties, conventions, and customary
international law. It addresses issues such as human rights, trade, and conflict resolution

Administrative Law regulates the activities of governmental agencies, overseeing the implementation of statutes
and ensuring accountability in public administration

4
 Case: University of the Philippines vs. Dizon, G.R. No. 171182

Facts
● The case University of the Philippines vs. Dizon (G.R. No. 171182) involves a dispute between the University of
the Philippines (UP) and Stern Builders Corporation regarding unpaid construction bills. On August 30, 1990, UP,
represented by President Jose V. Abueva, entered into a General Construction Agreement with Stern Builders for
a project at the UP Los Baños campus. Stern Builders submitted three progress billings, but UP paid only two.
The third billing, amounting to P273,729.47, was disallowed by the Commission on Audit (COA). Although the
disallowance was later lifted, UP did not pay the third billing, prompting Stern Builders to file a lawsuit against UP
and its officials for the unpaid amount and damages.
● On November 28, 2001, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Stern Builders, awarding them
P503,462.74 for the third billing, P5,716,729.00 in actual damages, P10,000,000.00 in moral damages, and
attorney's fees. UP's motion for reconsideration was denied, and UP filed a notice of appeal, which Stern Builders
contested as being late. The RTC denied the appeal and granted a writ of execution for the collection of the
judgment amount, leading to the garnishment of UP's funds.

Issues
1. Were UP's funds validly garnished?
2. Was UP's notice of appeal filed on time?

Held
1. No, UP's funds, being government funds, are not subject to garnishment.
2. No, UP's notice of appeal was filed out of time.

Ratio Decidendi
● The Supreme Court ruled that as a government instrumentality, UP's funds are public in nature and cannot be
garnished to satisfy a judgment. The court emphasized that public funds are protected under the principle of
sovereign immunity, which prevents the seizure of government assets without specific statutory authority. The
garnishment of UP's funds was deemed illegal, and the court ordered the return of the garnished amount.
Additionally, the court found that the appeal was not timely filed, as it was not effectively served to UP's counsel,
thus rendering the RTC's decision final and executory.

Procedural History
● The case began with Stern Builders filing a lawsuit against UP in the RTC for unpaid construction bills. After the
RTC ruled in favor of Stern Builders, UP sought to appeal the decision.
● However, the RTC denied the appeal due to its late filing and issued a writ of execution for the collection of the
judgment amount. UP then filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals, which was dismissed.
● UP subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in favor of UP regarding the garnishment
of funds and clarified the issues surrounding the appeal's timeliness.
● The Supreme Court annulled the RTC's orders for garnishment and directed the return of the garnished funds.

5
 3.) Sources of Laws and its Applications:

Case: Benedicto vs. De la Rama, 3 Phil. Rep., 34.

Facts
● Agueda Benedicto, filed for divorce from her husband, Esteban De la Rama, on the grounds of adultery. The
couple had been married since July 1891 and lived together until August 1892, when Agueda discovered
Esteban's infidelity. On July 5, 1902, the Court of First Instance of Iloilo granted Agueda a divorce, ordering
Esteban to pay her P81,042.76 as her share of the conjugal property and P3,200 for support since the action was
instituted. Esteban appealed this decision, and on December 8, 1903, the Supreme Court of the Philippines
reversed the lower court's ruling, dismissing Agueda's complaint. Agueda subsequently appealed to the Supreme
Court of the United States, which found that the evidence did not support the conclusion that Agueda was at fault
and reversed the Philippine Supreme Court's decision.

Issues
1. Did the Supreme Court of the Philippines err in reversing the lower court's decision granting the divorce?
2. Was Agueda entitled to her share of the conjugal property and support?

Held
1. Yes, the Supreme Court of the Philippines erred in reversing the lower court's decision granting the divorce.
2. Yes, Agueda was entitled to her share of the conjugal property and support.

Ratio Decidendi
● The Supreme Court of the United States concluded that the Philippine Supreme Court had improperly set aside
the findings of the lower court, which had credible evidence supporting Agueda's claims of Esteban's adultery.
The trial judge's conclusions were based on the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses, which the appellate
court failed to adequately consider. The U.S. Supreme Court emphasized that the evidence did not preponderate
against Agueda's claims, thus reinforcing her right to a divorce and her entitlements regarding the conjugal
property and support.

Procedural History
● The case began in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo, where Agueda Benedicto successfully obtained a divorce.
● Esteban De la Rama appealed to the Supreme Court of the Philippines, which reversed the lower court's ruling
and dismissed Agueda's complaint.
● Agueda then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which reversed the Philippine Supreme Court's
decision, reinstating the divorce granted by the lower court and affirming Agueda's rights to her share of the
conjugal property and support.
● The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion.

6
 Case: Republic vs. Drugmaker’s Laboratories Inc.

Facts
● The FDA was created pursuant to RA 3720, otherwise known as the “Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act” primarily in
order to establish safety or efficacy standards and quality measure of foods, drugs and devices and cosmetics
products. On March 15, 1989, the Department of Health, thru then Secretary Alfredo RA Bengzon issued AO 67 s.
1989, entitled Revised Rules and Regulations on Registration of Pharmaceutical products. Among others, it
required drug manufacturers to register certain drug and medicine products with FDA before they may release the
same to the market for sale. In this relation, a satisfactory bioavailability/bioequivalence (BA/BE) test is needed for
a manufacturer to secure a CPR for these products. However, the implementation of the BA/BE testing
requirement was put on hold because there was no local facility capable of conducting the same. The issuance of
circulars no. 1 s. of 1997 resumed the FDA’s implementation of the BA/BE testing requirement with the
establishment of BA/BE testing facilities in the country. Thereafter, the FDA issued circular no. 8 s. of 1997 which
provided additional implementation details concerning the BA/BE testing requirement on drug products.

Issues
1. Did the FDA have the authority to issue and implement Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997?
2. Were Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997 valid administrative regulations?

Held
1. Yes, the FDA had the authority to issue and implement Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997.
2. No, Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997 were not valid administrative regulations.

Ratio Decidendi
● The Supreme Court ruled that administrative agencies may exercise quasi-legislative or rule-making powers only
if there exists a law delegating these powers to them. AO 67, s. 1989, which introduced the BA/BE testing
requirement, was considered a valid administrative regulation issued by the Secretary of Health in consonance
with the express authority granted by RA 3720 to implement the statutory mandate that all drugs and devices
should be registered with the FDA prior to manufacture and sale.

● However, Circular Nos. 1 and 8, s. 1997 were not considered administrative regulations because they did not
implement a primary legislation by providing details, interpret or clarify existing statutory regulations, or ascertain
the existence of certain facts or things upon which the enforcement of RA 3720 depends. The circulars merely
aimed to administer and supervise the implementation of the provisions of AO 67, s. 1989, including the BA/BE
testing requirement, consistent with and pursuant to RA 3720. Therefore, the FDA had sufficient authority to issue
the circulars without the need for prior hearing, consultation, and publication.

Procedural History
● The case began when the FDA sought direct recourse to the Supreme Court through a petition for review on
certiorari against the RTC's Order and Writ of Permanent Injunction.
● The Supreme Court granted the FDA's application and issued a Temporary Restraining Order.
● The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the FDA, finding that it had the authority to issue Circular Nos. 1
and 8, s. 1997, and that the circulars were not invalid administrative regulations.

7
 Case: Beumer vs. Amores, GR No. 195670, 2012-12-03

Facts
● Willem Beumer, a Dutch national, married Avelina Amores, a Filipino citizen, in 1974. During their marriage, they
acquired several properties, including a house and lot in Quezon City and a parcel of land in Tagaytay City. In
1998, Beumer filed a petition for the dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City. Amores filed a counterclaim, seeking the partition of the conjugal assets and the
declaration of the properties as conjugal in nature. The RTC ruled in favor of Amores, declaring the properties as
conjugal and ordering their partition. Beumer appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals (CA), contesting the
RTC's award of the lots in favor of Amores. He argued that the money used to purchase the properties came from
his own capital and not from the conjugal partnership.

Issues
1. Were the properties acquired during the marriage conjugal in nature?
2. Did the RTC err in awarding the lots to Amores?

Held
1. Yes, the properties acquired during the marriage were conjugal in nature.
2. No, the RTC did not err in awarding the lots to Amores.

Ratio Decidendi
● The Supreme Court upheld the lower courts' rulings that the properties were conjugal in nature. The court
emphasized that under Article 116 of the Family Code, all property acquired during the marriage is presumed to
be conjugal, and the burden of proof lies on the spouse claiming otherwise. Beumer failed to overcome this
presumption and provide clear and convincing evidence that the funds used to purchase the properties were his
exclusive capital. The court also affirmed the RTC's partition of the conjugal assets, finding no error in the award
of the lots to Amores.

Procedural History
● The case originated in the RTC of Quezon City, where Beumer filed a petition for the dissolution of the conjugal
partnership.
● Amores filed a counterclaim, and the RTC ruled in her favor, declaring the properties as conjugal and ordering
their partition. Beumer appealed the decision to the CA, which affirmed the RTC's ruling.
● Beumer then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.
● The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the lower courts' decisions, finding no reversible error in their rulings
regarding the conjugal nature of the properties and the partition of the assets.

8
 Case: Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares vs. Commission on Elections and Estrella C. Elamparo

Facts
● Mary Grace Natividad S. Poe-Llamanzares, a foundling, was abandoned as an infant in the Parish Church of
Jaro, Iloilo, on September 3, 1968. She was later adopted by celebrity couple Ronald Allan Kelley Poe and
Jesusa Sonora Poe. After living in the United States for several years, she returned to the Philippines and
became a naturalized citizen under Republic Act No. 9225. In 2015, she filed her Certificate of Candidacy (COC)
for the presidency in the 2016 elections. However, Estrella Elamparo and other petitioners filed cases with the
Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to deny due course to her COC, arguing that she was not a natural-born
citizen and had not met the ten-year residency requirement.

Issues
1. Is Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares a natural-born Filipino citizen?
2. Has she satisfactorily complied with the ten-year residency requirement?

Held
1. Yes, Mary Grace Poe-Llamanzares is a natural-born Filipino citizen.
2. Yes, she has satisfactorily complied with the ten-year residency requirement.

Ratio Decidendi
● The Supreme Court ruled that foundlings are considered natural-born citizens of the Philippines. The court
emphasized that there is no language in the Constitution that excludes foundlings from being recognized as
natural-born citizens. The presumption under international law supports the notion that a foundling is a citizen of
the country where they were found. Furthermore, the court found that Poe had satisfied the residency requirement
by providing substantial evidence of her physical presence and intent to remain in the Philippines, including
school records and tax documents.

Procedural History
● The case began when Elamparo and other petitioners filed complaints with the COMELEC to deny Poe's COC,
claiming she was not a natural-born citizen and had not met the residency requirement.
● The COMELEC ruled against Poe, leading her to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court.
● The Supreme Court consolidated the petitions and ultimately reversed the COMELEC's decision, ruling in favor of
Poe-Llamanzares, affirming her eligibility to run for president based on her natural-born citizenship and
compliance with residency requirements.

9
 Case: Heirs of Jumero vs. Lizares

Facts
● The heirs of the deceased Vicente Jumero claimed ownership of the land, asserting that it had been in their family
for generations. Jacinto Lizares, the defendant, contended that he had purchased the land from Vicente Jumero
for the price of P50. The heirs argued that the sale was invalid since it was not documented and that they had
continued to possess the land after Vicente's death. The trial court ruled in favor of Lizares, leading the heirs to
appeal the decision.

Issues
1. Was the sale of the land to Jacinto Lizares valid?
2. Did the heirs of Jumero have a legitimate claim to the land?

Held
1. No, the sale of the land to Jacinto Lizares was not valid.
2. Yes, the heirs of Jumero had a legitimate claim to the land.

Ratio Decidendi
● The Supreme Court ruled that the alleged sale of the land was invalid due to the lack of sufficient evidence to
support Lizares' claim of ownership. The court emphasized that a valid sale of real property must be in writing and
duly notarized, particularly when the value exceeds a certain threshold. The absence of a formal deed of sale and
the failure of Lizares to prove that he had taken possession of the land in good faith were critical factors in the
court's decision. The court recognized the heirs' continuous possession of the land as a strong indicator of their
ownership rights.

Procedural History
● The case was initially decided by the Court of First Instance of Occidental Negros, which ruled in favor of Jacinto
Lizares.
● The heirs of Jumero appealed the decision to the Supreme Court.
● The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence and the lower court's findings, ultimately reversing the trial court's
ruling and reinstating the heirs' claim to the land.
● The court ordered Lizares to vacate the property and recognized the heirs of Jumero as the rightful owners.

10
 Case: Dalamal vs. Deportation Board

Facts
● Kishu Dalamal, a British subject, was charged together with other aliens with having committed certain
irregularities in violation of the Central Bank Rules and Regulations. Acting on the complaint, the Chairman of the
Deportation Board issued a warrant of arrest against Dalamal pursuant to the authority given to said Board by
Section 1(b) of Executive Order No. 398. Dalamal was arrested but was subsequently released upon filing a bond
in the amount of P10,000.00.

Issues
1. Was the warrant of arrest issued by the Deportation Board illegal?
2. Did the Deportation Board have the power to issue warrants of arrest?

Held
1. No, the sale of the land to Jacinto Lizares was not valid.
2. Yes, the heirs of Jumero had a legitimate claim to the land.

Ratio Decidendi
● The Supreme Court ruled that the warrant of arrest issued by the Deportation Board was illegal because it
violated Section 1(3), Article III of the Constitution, which states that no warrants shall be issued except by judges
upon probable cause. The court emphasized that only judges are empowered to issue warrants, either of arrest or
of search, and only upon probable cause, to be determined by a judge after examination under oath or affirmation
of the complainant or the witnesses.

● The court also held that even if the President has the power to order the arrest of an alien as an incident of his
power of investigation with a view to deportation, the delegation of such power to the Deportation Board is
unlawful, as it violates the principle that a power delegated by Congress cannot in turn be delegated.

Procedural History
● Dalamal filed a petition for habeas corpus seeking the annulment of the warrant of arrest issued by the
Deportation Board and the cancellation of the bond filed for his provisional liberty.
● The Supreme Court reviewed the case and ultimately ruled in favor of Dalamal, finding the warrant of arrest illegal
and the Deportation Board's actions unconstitutional.

11
 Case: Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Duque III (G.R. No. 173034)

Facts
● This case involves a challenge to the validity of Administrative Order No. 2006-0012, also known as the Revised
Implementing Rules and Regulations (RIRR) of Executive Order No. 51, or the Milk Code. The Milk Code, issued
in 1986, aims to promote breastfeeding and regulate the marketing of breastmilk substitutes. The RIRR,
implemented by the Department of Health (DOH), extended the coverage of the Milk Code to children beyond 12
months, imposed an absolute ban on advertising and promotion of breastmilk substitutes, and added new labeling
requirements. The Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Association of the Philippines (PHAP) contended that these
provisions exceeded the scope of the Milk Code and were unconstitutional.

Issues
1. Did the DOH exceed its authority in promulgating the RIRR?
2. Are the international agreements referenced in the RIRR part of the law of the land and enforceable?

Held
3. Yes, the DOH exceeded its authority in promulgating the RIRR.
4. No, the international agreements referenced in the RIRR are not part of the law of the land and enforceable
without local legislation.

Ratio Decidendi
● The Supreme Court ruled that while the Milk Code aimed to implement the International Code of Marketing of
Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), the RIRR's provisions that imposed an absolute prohibition on advertising and
promotion of breastmilk substitutes went beyond the authority granted by the Milk Code.

● The court emphasized that international agreements do not automatically become part of domestic law unless
transformed through local legislation. The ICMBS was not adopted as a treaty and thus did not have the force of
law in the Philippines. The court noted that the Milk Code itself did not adopt the absolute prohibition on
advertising found in the ICMBS, allowing for regulated marketing practices, which the RIRR improperly expanded.

Procedural History
● The case was initiated when the PHAP filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65, seeking to nullify the RIRR.
● The Supreme Court granted a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on August 15, 2006, and held oral arguments
on June 19, 2007.
● On October 9, 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision, declaring specific provisions of the RIRR null and
void for being ultra vires while upholding other provisions as consistent with the Milk Code.
● The court ruled that the international agreements cited in the RIRR did not have the force of law in the Philippines
without proper domestic legislation.

12
 4.) Basic Rules Regarding Laws:

Case: Tañada vs. Tuvera 146 SCRA 446

Facts
● Petitioners Lorenzo M. Tañada, Abraham F. Sarmiento, and the Movement of Attorneys for Brotherhood, Integrity,
and Nationalism, Inc. (MABINI) sought to compel the respondents, including Juan Tuvera, to publish various
presidential decrees, letters of instruction, general orders, proclamations, executive orders, and administrative
orders that had not been published in the Official Gazette. The petitioners invoked the constitutional right to
information, arguing that the lack of publication denied the public knowledge of laws governing them. The
respondents contended that publication was not necessary for the effectivity of laws that provided their own
effectivity dates.

Issues
1. Is publication in the Official Gazette required for presidential issuances to be valid and effective?
2. Does non-publication render presidential issuances invalid and ineffective, even if they have been enforced prior
to publication?

Held
1. Yes, publication in the Official Gazette is required for presidential issuances to be valid and effective.
2. Yes, non-publication renders presidential issuances invalid and ineffective, even if they have been enforced prior
to publication.

Ratio Decidendi
● The Supreme Court ruled that the publication of all laws, including presidential issuances of public nature or
general applicability, is mandated by law. The court emphasized that Article 2 of the Civil Code states that laws
take effect after fifteen days following their publication in the Official Gazette, unless otherwise provided. The
court clarified that even if a law specifies its own effectivity date, it does not negate the requirement for
publication. The principle of "ignorantia legis non excusat" (ignorance of the law excuses no one) cannot be
applied if the public has not been adequately informed of the law's contents through publication.

● The court also noted that the word "shall" in Commonwealth Act 638 imposes an imperative duty on public
officials to publish laws to ensure that citizens are informed of matters of public concern. The court ruled that
presidential issuances that are not published lack binding force and effect.

Procedural History
● The case was initiated when the petitioners filed a writ of mandamus against the respondents to compel the
publication of the presidential issuances.
● The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that publication was not always necessary. The Regional Trial
Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, leading to the respondents appealing the decision.
● The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the lower court's ruling, ordering the publication of all unpublished
presidential issuances of general application and declaring that such issuances would have no binding force
unless published.

13
 Case: Philippine International Trading Corp. vs. Angeles 263 SCRA 421

Facts
● The case Philippine International Trading Corp. vs. Angeles (G.R. No. 108461) involves a petition for review filed
by the Philippine International Trading Corporation (PITC) against Judge Zosimo Angeles of the Regional Trial
Court of Makati. The controversy arose from PITC's issuance of Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01,
which imposed regulations on the importation of goods by private entities, specifically targeting Remington
Industrial Sales Corporation and Firestone Ceramic, Inc. These companies sought to import tools and machinery
but were barred by PITC due to their failure to comply with export credit requirements. They filed a petition for
prohibition and mandamus against PITC, arguing that the administrative order was unconstitutional and invalid.

Issues
1. Did the PITC have the authority to issue Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01?
2. Was the Administrative Order unconstitutional?

Held
1. No, the PITC did not have the authority to issue Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-08-01.
2. Yes, the Administrative Order was unconstitutional.

Ratio Decidendi
● The Supreme Court ruled that the PITC exceeded its authority in issuing Administrative Order No. SOCPEC 89-
08-01. The court emphasized that administrative agencies must operate within the bounds of their statutory
authority. The order imposed restrictions that were not consistent with the law governing the PITC's functions. The
Supreme Court also held that the order violated the due process rights of the affected parties, as it imposed
conditions that were not legally mandated and effectively barred them from engaging in lawful trade without just
cause.

Procedural History
● The case began when Remington and Firestone filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus against PITC in the
Regional Trial Court of Makati, seeking to nullify the administrative order and allow them to import goods.
● The trial court ruled in favor of the private respondents, declaring the administrative order null and void. PITC
appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which ultimately upheld the trial court's ruling, affirming that the
administrative order was unconstitutional and beyond the authority of the PITC.
● The Supreme Court's decision clarified the limitations of the PITC's powers in regulating trade and the necessity
of adhering to due process in administrative actions.

14
5.) Ignorance of the Law

Art. 3: Ignorance of the law excuses no one

It is the presumption that every person knows the law.

Ignorance cannot be put up as a defense because it can always be used causing disorder in society

This is the reason why publication is an essential element, so that no one can excuse himself or herself for not knowing.

Ignorantia juris non excusat: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

When the rule may be relaxed

While mistake of the law does not generally vitiate consent, when there is a mistake on a doubtful question of law, or on
the construction or application of law, this is analogous to a mistake of fact and ignorantia legis neminem excusat
should have no proper application. - When one-half of lawyers are wrong, why a layman should be made accountable
for an honest mistake.
It was held that the rule should not be applied with equal force to minors who, People v. Navarro (CA) 51 OG 4062
due to their lack of intelligence should be treated differently.

He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists in Art 526.
his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. Mistakes upon a
doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith.

Mutual error as to the legal effect of an agreement when the real purpose of Art. 1334
the parties is frustrated may vitiate consent.

If something is received when there is no right to demand it, and it was Art. 2154
unduly delivered through mistake, the obligation to return it arises.

Payment by reason of a mistake in the construction or application of a Art. 2155

doubtful or difficult question of law may come within the scope of the
preceding article.
Rule Applies Only to Domestic Laws, Foreign Laws are excluded

Processual Presumption - A foreign law is a matter of fact which must be proven with evidence. In the absence of any
contrary evidence, it is presumed to be the same as our domestic law.

6.) Non Retroactivity of the Laws

Art. 4: Laws shall not be retroactive unless provided

Statutes are to be construed as having prospective or future operation only; it is not meant to be applicable to the past
unless it is expressly provided for or is clearly and necessarily implied from the law.
Cases when the law may be given retroactive effect:

1. The law expressly provides

2. When the law is curative or remedial – meant to cure defects in order to enforce existing obligations. To enable
people to carry into effect what they intended in the obligation but could not due to some statute. Not meant to impair
obligation or affect vested rights.
3. When the law is procedural – when it deals with procedure it applies to all actions, which have accrued, or pending
and future actions.

15
Ex. When the legislature provides that all bills should undergo 4 readings instead of 3. This affects all bills that have
been created and even those already undergoing readings.
4. When the law is penal in character and is favorable to the accused.

6.) Mandatory and Prohibitory Laws

Art. 5: Acts committed against mandatory and prohibitory laws shall be void.
MANDATORY PROVISIONS OF LAWS: If one fails to commit certain acts that are mandatory in the law, it renders the
proceeding or acts to which it relates as illegal or void.

Ex. The law provides “ The action to revoke the donation under this article (Article 64, Family Code)
must be brought within 5 years from the time the decree of legal separation
has become final.”
PROHIBITORY LAWS: Those that one is not supposed to do. Couched in negative terms.

Ex. The law provides that “ No legal separation may be decreed unless the (Article 59, Family Code)
court has taken steps towards reconciliation.”

8.) Effect of Foreign Laws and Judgments

9.) Cases when NCC applies foreign laws

What are the sources of law regarding the enforcement of foreign judgments?

Foreign judgments may be enforced in the Philippines under procedural rules or jurisprudence (Mijares v Ranada, 455
SCRA 397 (2005)).

Section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court primarily governs the enforcement of foreign judgments. Under this rule, the
foreign judgment merely creates a right of action, and its non-satisfaction is the cause of action by which a suit can be
brought for its enforcement (BPI Securities Corporation v Guevara, 752 SCRA 342 (2015)). The rule creates a
distinction between a foreign judgment in an action in rem and one in personam. For the former, ‘the foreign judgment is
deemed conclusive upon the title to the thing’, while for the latter, the foreign judgment is merely ‘presumptive, and not
conclusive, of a right as between the parties and their successors in interest by a subsequent title’ (BPI Securities
Corporation v Guevara, 752 SCRA at 367 (2015), citing Mijares v Ranada, 455 SCRA 397, 409 (2005)). In either case,
the foreign judgment ‘may be repelled by evidence of want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the party, collusion, fraud, or
clear mistake of law or fact’ (last paragraph, section 48, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court).

Decisions of the Supreme Court applying or interpreting the rule on enforcement of foreign judgments form part of the
legal system of the Philippines (article 8 of the Civil Code).

Art. 17: Forms and Solemnities of contracts/will, acts done before consular officials, prohibitive laws
Extrinsic validity: the laws shall govern the forms of contracts and wills where they are made. Thus a will made in the
U.S. must follow the laws regarding the forms of wills in the U.S.
Lex loci celebrationis - "law of the place of the ceremony." This law applies to contracts, especially marriage, and
determines the validity of the contract based on the laws of the place where it was made.
Acts before Diplomatic and Consular Officials: Any act or contract made in a foreign country made before the
diplomatic and consular officials must also conform to Philippine laws. This is because in the premises of a diplomatic

16
office the foreign country waives its jurisdiction so the Philippine laws govern in the premises of the Philippine
Diplomatic Office in foreign countries.
Prohibitive Laws: Prohibitive laws concerning property, persons, their acts and those meant for public order, public
policy, or good customs will continue to be in effect even if the person is in a different country with different laws.

Ex. A Filipino gets married to 2 women in another country where bigamy is legal, the second marriage is void since
bigamy is not permitted in the Philippines.

10.) Repeal of Laws and Non Observance

Art. 7: Repealed Laws

Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones

Between a law and the Constitution, the latter prevails

Administrative or executive acts are valid only when they are not contrary to laws or the Constitution

REPEAL: legislative act of abolishing a previous statute through a new law

Where a portion of a statute is rendered unconstitutional and part is valid the arts may be separated if they can stand
independently of one another.

11.) Computation of Period

Art. 13: Years, days, months

Years: 365 days each Months: 30 days – if designated by their name, they shall
be computed by the number of days that they respectively
have

Hour: 24 hours Nights: Sunset to sunrise

- In computing a period first day exclude last day included

These definitions and rules are crucial for legal clarity and consistency. They help avoid ambiguities in legal documents
and ensure that all parties interpret time frames in the same manner. This is particularly important in contexts such as
contracts, legal notices, and deadlines for legal actions.

12.) Conflict of Laws

Conflict of Laws

That part of the law of each state or nation which determines whether, in dealing with a legal situation, the law or some
other state or nation will be recognized, given effect, or applied

13.) Judicial Decisions (Decisions of Foreign Courts)

What are the basic mandatory requirements for recognition of a foreign judgment?

The foreign judgment must not have been obtained by fraud, collusion or clear mistake of fact or law (section 48, Rule

17
39 of the Rules of Court).

The foreign judgment must not be contrary to the public policy or good morals of the Philippines (Mijares v Ranada, 455
SCRA 397 (2005)).

The judgment must be final and executory (Salonga, Private International Law, p553 (1995) citing II Beagle, 1390; see
also PNB v Bondoc, 14 SCRA 770 (1965)).

14.) Duty to Decide

Duty to Decide

refers to the responsibilities of the judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, in resolving cases and controversies that
come before it. This duty is rooted in the constitutional mandate for the judiciary to interpret laws, adjudicate disputes,
and ensure justice.

The judiciary's role is crucial in maintaining checks and balances within the government, ensuring that legislative and
executive actions comply with constitutional provisions

15.) Doctrine of STARE DECISIS

Doctrine of Stare Decisis "to stand by things decided,"

mandates courts to follow precedents established by previous rulings when deciding similar cases. This doctrine
ensures consistency and predictability in the law, as it obligates lower courts to adhere to the decisions of higher courts
within the same jurisdiction.

16.) Customs

Art. 21: Contrary to good customs, morals, or public policy

Elements:

1. There is an act which is legal 2. But which is contrary to morals, 3. And it is done with intent to injure
good customs, public order, public
policy
Acts contra bonos mores (lit. against good morals) refers to acts that are considered harmful to the moral standards
of society. Specifically, it describes actions or behaviors that corrupt public morals or violate standards of decency
accepted by society.
- Presupposes material or other loss which one may suffer as a result of another person’s act

17.) Waivers of Rights

Art. 6: Waiver of Rights

Rights may be waived unless it is contrary to law, public policy, morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person
with a right recognized by law.

18
The right must exist at the time of the waiver.

Requisites:

1. The person knows that a right exists

2. Has adequate knowledge upon which to make an intelligent decision

3. Knowledge of the facts related to the right to be waived

4. Must be shown that the waiver is made knowingly and intelligently

Rights provided for in statutes can generally be waived unless the object of the statute is to protect or promote public
interest
Examples of what cannot be waived:

1. Waiver against the right to purchase land.

2. Waive an action against future fraud

3. Waive right to receive less than the compensation a worker is to receive under the law.

17.) Vested Rights

Vested Rights

refer to the legal entitlements that arise when a property owner has made significant investments or taken substantial
steps toward a development project, thereby securing the right to continue that project under the regulations in place at
the time of their application, even if subsequent changes in zoning or land use laws occur.

19