SEPTEMBER 4

QUIZ

1. (date of effectivity)

AU: Every word matters. This is not really an exception but a qualification
provided by law (“so unless it is otherwise provided by this Code”). Ms. S, this
qualification pertains to what?

S: Sir, if there is a specific provision in the law stating a different date of

effectivity.

AU: Number 1 is false.

2. (retroactive effect)

S: False sir. Laws shall have no retroactive effect unless it is otherwise

provided.

S2: Even if there is no express stipulation that the law shall be given
retroactive effect, they will be given retroactive effect.

AU: In other words, it is not only because it was so expressly provided that the
law shall have retroactive effect. There are also some laws that will be given
retroactive effect even if it is not expressly stipulated. Example:
a. Tax laws undetermined at the time of
b. Interpretative statues the passage)
c. Laws creating New substantive f. Emergency laws
rights g. “when expressly provided
d. Curative statues h. Penal laws favorable to the
e. Remedial/procedural accused provided, accused is
(applicable to pending and not a habitual criminal

3. (non-observance of laws?)

S: False because its non-observance shall not be…

AU: To the contrary, it shall not be excused. #3 is False

4.

S: True because a law is inconsistent with the Constitution, the latter shall
prevail.
5. (conflict between law and constitution)

AU: It’s a simple question. If an act is not contrary to the constitution, is it

possible that it is contrary to a statute? In other words, it should not only be not
contrary to the constitution it should also not be contrary to the law.

S: Sir I don’t think it’s a possible because laws should also be in consonance
with the constitution as well.

AU: Anyone disagrees? The point is, if an act is not in consistent with the
constitution. May it be consistent with the law/statute? If it is not inconsistent
with the constitution then it cannot be consistent with the law because the law
is consistent with the constitution. May logic ba ung argument na yan?

In other words… are all laws covered by the constitution? Its just that laws, as
long as they are not unconstitutional, it can be given effect. Ang constitution ay
limitations lang. Any other that is not against the constitution pwede basta hindi
ito against the constitution. In other words, ang mga laws okay lang yan basta
hindi against constitution. Kapag hindi covered ng constitution, fine. Kapag
hindi covered edi hindi prohibited. In other words, the provision is really wrong
because the law requires that it should not only be consistent with the laws but
is should be also be consistent with the constitution. Take note, a particular
executive act may be declared void not just because it is unconstitutional but it
is invalid if contrary to a law which is being implemented. Who cares about the
constitution? If it is inconsistent with the law, then it will not be given effect.
That’s why this is false.

6.

S: False because months are deemed to have 30 days.

7.

S: False because penal laws are obligatory to those who live and sojourn in
the Philippines. Transient, so long as they are here in the Philippines.

8.

S: False because this is qualified by those covered by succession. The second

paragraph of article 16 would qualify this rule.

9.

S: False because when an accused is acquitted because his guilt was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
10.

AU: There is a qualification. If a child is born with an intrauterine life of less

than 7 months, the child has to survive for more than 24 hours to acquire
personality. #10 is false.

11. (date of effectivity of law)

AU: Laws shall take effect AFTER 15 days… hindi 15 days after. May difference
ba? Yes! March 1 is the publication, March 17 is the effectivity because March 1
should be excluded because it is the first day and after 15 days (2-16) is the 17th.

12.

AU: Example, a law creating new rights, why not?

S: The law requires that the fact of its retroactive application must be
exclusively provided.

13.

S: One year shall mean 365 days. 12 months is 360 days. 2015 is not a leap
year. If it was leap year, the answer is December 31. Since 2015 is not a leap
year, 1 year from Jan 1, 2015 is exactly January 1, 2016.

14.

S: The law of the country where the property is located shall govern. Lex rae
sitae.

15.

S: D. All of the above

16.

S: Death because it does not only modify but terminates juridical capacity.

17.

S: Death of the child’s father is not the reckoning point rather it is whether
or not the child had an intrauterine life of 7 months

18.
AU: “If the older or younger survives, it still should be proven who survived”
Now, do you agree with that answer? No! It only applies if there is doubt. But if
you have proof, there is no more doubt. Ang rason is about ano ang issue. Is it
an issue on succession? Or any other matter outside of succession? Yun ang
labanan. Yung insurance, they may also be persons who are to succeed each
other, but iba ang rule ang mag aapply. Ang rule na ito ay para lang sa
succession. If this one one is in article 43, the other one is? Ano ang tawag doon?
Doon sa rule na yan, relevant ang younger, older. Ang tawag ay survivorship rule
under the rules of court. Anong issue kung saan ang survivorship rule ang
applicable? Kapag insurance! Who died first, the insured or the beneficiary?
There you have to apply survivorship rule rather than article 43.

19.

AU: Principle of Estoppel! Actively misrepresented.

20.

S: Ignoratia legis non excusant.

RECITATION/LECTURE

AU: What are the sources of law?

a. Constitution
b. Administrative or general orders not contrary to the constitution
c. Statutes, laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, or batas pambansa
d. Jurisprudence and judicial customs
e. Decisions of foreign courts if applicable
f. Principles governing analogous cases
g. Principles of legal hermeneutics
h. Equity and general principles of law (morals)

AU: If the law states that this law shall take effect on Jan 1 2018, then
that law will take effect on Jan 1 2018. Correct?

No, it will only take effect if it is published in newspaper of general circulation or

official gazette

AU: If this law provides that it will take effect after 1 year from
publication and is printed on the OG and the printed date is Jan 1 2017
then that law will take effect on Jan 1 2018?

No. People v. Veridiano.

Even though the Official Gazette was dated as the April 9, 1979 issue;
it was only made available to the public on June 14, 1979; thus, it is the
latter date, the date of actual publication, that would govern the
reckoning point as to when the law was actually made known to the
public through publication.

AU: Is the date in the OG the date of publication?

The printed date is different from the date of publication. The answer is when
the OG was released to the public. Not publication was released. The printed
date is NOT NECESSARILY the date of publication. For all you know, yung
printed date is also the date of the release which usually is pero minsan hindi.
Kaya kapag sinabi mo published in the OG it is not necessarily the printed date.
This is the case of People v. Veridiano.

AU: In the first place, in the case of Pesigan v. Angeles, what was the issue
here?

WON EO 626 was already enforced at the time of the confiscation of the carabaos.
If at the time of confiscation, effective na ang batas, pwede na. In this case, the
SC ruled that the law is not yet in effect because it was only published 2 months
after publication. In other words, without pulication a law cannot take effect.

AU: Whereas in the case of People v. Veridiano, what was the issue/s?

WON BP22 is already in effect when the checks were issued. One of the issues
resolved by the SC is what acts are punished by BP 22. In other words, whether
it is the act of issuance or the act of dishonor being punished by the law. The SC
held that BP 22 is not in effect at the time the issuance of the check. The date of
when the OG was released to the public is material and controlling.

AU: In contracts, what are the vices of consent?

a. Mistake – substantial mistake and not merely an accidental mistake

a. It must pertain to mistake of fact instead of mistake of law. Why not?
Because ignorance of the law is inexcusable. Although is it possible
for mistake of law to actually vitiate consent? Yes, if hard to
understand. Any other?
b. Intimidation – An internal moral force operating in the will and inducing
performance of an act
c. Violence – An external, serious or irresistible physical force exerted upon
a person to prevent him from doing something or to compel him to do an
act
d. Undue influence – Any means employed upon a party which, under the
circumstances could not be resisted and has the effect of controlling his
volition and inducing him to give his consent to the contract, which
otherwise, he would not have entered into.
e. Fraud – use of insidious words or machinations in inducing another party
to enter into the contract, which without them, he would not have agreed.

AU: Assuming the police officers (Kian case) were convicted and also
assuming for the sake of argument that congress would pass this law which
would impose death penalty. Would these police officers suffer death
penalty?

No. Laws are generally prospective.

XPN:
a. Tax laws
b. Interpretative statues
c. Laws creating New substantive rights
d. Curative statues
e. Remedial/procedural (applicable to pending and undetermined at the time
of the passage)
f. Emergency laws
g. “when expressly provided
h. Penal laws favorable to the accused provided, accused is not a habitual
criminal

AU: If the law did not provide for the retroactive effect of the law, may it
still be given retroactive effect?

same above.

Acosta v. Plan

A record on appeal is no longer necessary for taking an appeal. The

same proviso appears in Section 18 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines
issued by this Court on January 11, 1983. Being procedural in nature,
those provisions may be applied retroactively for the benefit of
petitioners, as appellants. 'Statutes regulating the procedure of the
courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending undetermined
at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retrospective in that
sense and to that extent.

AU: In relation to Real Estate Mortgage (REM), during the redemption

period, after the sale, the mortgagor manifested his intent to exercise
redemption. Sabi ng mortgagee, “don’t you remember there is a provision
in our contract where mortgagor waived his right of redemption.” Let’s
assume that the mortgagee is a bank. Can the mortgagor still exercise the
right of redemption?
Is it contrary to law? Moral? Good conduct? Waiver was declared void because it
is contained in a contract of adhesion. For a waiver to apply, it must be
voluntarily entered into by the parties.

AU: What is the case of Martinez v. Van Buskirk?

It is a matter of common knowledge as well as proof that it is the

universal practice of merchants to deliver merchandise of the kind of that
being delivered at the time of the injury, in the manner in which that was
then being delivered; and that it is the universal practice to leave the
horses in the manner in which they were left at the time of the accident.
This is the custom in all cities. It has not been productive of accidents or
injuries. The public, finding itself unprejudiced by such practice, has
acquiesced for years without objection. Ought the public now, through
the courts, without prior objection or notice, to be permitted to reverse the
practice of decades and thereby make culpable and guilty one who had
every reason and assurance to believe that he was acting under the
sanction of the strongest of all civil forces, the custom of a people.

What was the negligent act? Leaving the cart. However, the SC ruled that it was
not negligent because it was the custom at that place. The horses here were
threatened by other horses.

AU: A leased an equipment from B because he was about to open his own
car shop. They agreed that the period of the lease is 1 month and that was
Feb 15. March 15, B demanded for the return through telephone call but
because of a mechanical defect of A’s truck he wasn’t able to return the
equipment. On the next day, while the equipment was still with A, the
equipment was burned because of a fire from a neighboring establishment.
Can A be held liable for the loss?

He cannot be held liable for the loss. Is there delay? He was not yet in delay.
During the time of demand, 1 month period has not yet matured. In other words,
for delay to set in, there must be a valid demand. For the demand to be valid,
the obligation must be due and demandable. Why is this obligation not yet due
and demandable at the time of demand? One month is considered as 30 days
then therefore when demand was made, A still has the right to keep the thing
loaned. A demand before a due date is a useless demand.

Armigos v. CA

The rule stated in Article 13 of the Civil Code to the effect that "In
computing a period, the first day shall be excluded, and the last day
included" is similar, but not Identical to Section 4 of the Code of Civil
Procedure which provided that "Unless otherwise specially provided, the
time within which an act is required by law to be done shall be computed
by excluding the first day and including the last; and if the last be
Sunday or a legal holiday it shall be excluded", as well as the old Rule
28 of the Rules of Court which stated that "In computing any period of
time prescribed or allowed by the Rules of Court, by order of a court, or
by any other applicable statute, the day of the act, event or default after
which the designated period of time begins to run is not to be included.
The last day of the period so computed is to be included, unless it is a
Sunday or a legal holiday, in which event the time shall run until the end
of the next day which is neither a Sunday or a legal holiday." In applying
this rule, the Court considered the day as synonymous with the date.

AU: A & B were married in Tondo, Manila. One of them, a foreigner, and
one of them is 15-year old. What is the status of the marriage?

It depends on who the 15-year old is because if the foreigner is 15 years old and
in his/her national laws, he/she has legal capacity to marry, then the marriage
is valid.

AU: What is the basis of that answer?

Article 15 is also applicable to foreigners by analogy (case).

AU: If A & B, both Filipinoes, married in Tondo, Manila. Months thereafter

they went to US. B married C in the Nevada. But the marriage was after B
acquiring citizenship of NY and also after a divorce decree was obtained.
Can B be prosecuted for bigamous?

Bigamy is penal in nature. Therefore, Philippine laws does not apply to non-
resident alien. Article 14 the territoriality principle. If the act was committed
outside of the Ph, ano ba naman ang pakeelam natin doon.

AU: Assuming same facts, but instead of A marrying C abroad, A went to

the PH and married C also in Tondo, Manila (same church where A got
married to B). Can A be held liable for bigamy?

No because of the case of Republic v. Orbecido. But you have to determine first
which came first—divorce decree or citizenship. If divorce decree came first, sorry
sila, kulong sila at least ung Filipino.

AU: In a mixed marriage, one of the spouses being a Filipino, if a divorce

decree was obtained abroad and the foreigner filed an action for joint
administration of their properties, will this action prosper?

Van Dorn v. Romillo. Who obtained the divorce decree? The Filipina!

For resolution is the effect of the foreign divorce on the parties and their
alleged conjugal property in the Philippines.

The Nevada District Court, which decreed the divorce, had obtained
jurisdiction over petitioner who appeared in person before the Court
during the trial of the case. It also obtained jurisdiction over private
respondent who, giving his address as No. 381 Bush Street, San
Francisco, California, authorized his attorneys in the divorce case, Karp
& Gradt Ltd., to agree to the divorce on the ground of incompatibility in
the understanding that there were neither community property nor
community obligations.

It is true that owing to the nationality principle embodied in Article 15 of

the Civil Code, only Philippine nationals are covered by the policy
against absolute divorces the same being considered contrary to our
concept of public police and morality. However, aliens may obtain
divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Philippines, provided
they are valid according to their national law. In this case, the divorce in
Nevada released private respondent from the marriage from the
standards of American law, under which divorce dissolves the marriage.

Thus, pursuant to his national law, private respondent is no longer the

husband of petitioner. He would have no standing to sue in the case
below as petitioner's husband entitled to exercise control over conjugal
assets. As he is bound by the Decision of his own country's Court, which
validly exercised jurisdiction over him, and whose decision he does not
repudiate, he is estopped by his own representation before said Court
from asserting his right over the alleged conjugal property.