phllawstudent

[phllawstudent]

Persons 18

Persons 18: Thoughtless Extravagance and injunctions

Article 25 of the Civil Code provides that, “Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the instance of any government or private charitable institution.”

For Art. 25 to apply, the ff requisites must be present:

There must be thoughtless extravagance in spending;

Such spending must happen at a time of acute public want or emergency;

The spending can be stopped by the courts;

Courts can only take action upon the instance of a government or private charitable institution.

What Art. 25 seeks to prevent is for a person or group of persons to display so much wealth at a time of great public need or some other emergency

Examples are: (1) engrandeng kasalan o okasyon sa panahon ng maraming paghihirap o kawalan ng trabaho; (2) the great flood of 40 days and 40 nights in Luzon in the ‘70s; and the martial law. (By express provision of General Order no. 15, Marcos, using his special legislative power, ordered that town fiestas should be limited to one day only. He did this on the basis of Art. 25 of the Civil Code.

Question: Can the Mayor stop the party based on Art. 25?

Answer: No. The mayor cannot summarily stop or enjoy the acts of total extravagance even when there is a time of public want/ emergency.

Art. 25 specifically provides that these acts can be stopped only by the order of the court. The court can only act at the petition of a govt or private charitable institution. In this problem, the mayor is neither, thus he does not have legal standing to bring the action. The court also orders that thoughtless extravagance can be stopped by order of the courts, not by order of the mayor.

Eg of charitable institutions: Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office (PCSO) because it i a govt-owned and controlled corporation directly under the Office of the President, and purpose of the corpo is to run sweepstake s/ lotteries and the proceeds thereof are used to fund the govt's efforts towards helping the needy

Private charitable institutions also cover nonprofit or not-for-profit groups whose purpose is to help the same cause.

Question: How do we stop thoughtless extravagance from a practical point? What kind of action or petition are we going to file?

Answer: under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, preliminary injunctions (an order granted at any stage of action or proceeding prior to judgment or final order, requiring a party or particular court, agency or person to refrain from a particular act or acts. It is a provisional remedy. It can be granted even when there is no prior judgment or final order in a case. Dahil provisional remedy, pwedeng mapawalang-bisa sa final order or maaari ring maging final/permanent injunction

Prohibitory injunction - prevents a person from doing something

Mandatory injunction - to call the defendant into action

Government here is not the local government; government here is the charitable institution

[phllawstudent]

Persons 17

Article 24, Parens Patriae and Contracts of Adhesion

Article 23 provides that, “Even when an act or event causing damage to another’s property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited.”

For Article 23 to apply - the requisites are:

There must be an act or event which causes damage;

The damage is caused upon another person’s property;

The defendant must have been benefited from the act or event;

The defendant is still liable, even if there is no fault or negligence in his part.

When these four requisites are present, then the person is liable for indemnity. The basis of the indemnity is the degree to which he or she has been benefited. This is because Article 23 is a follow-up to the principle of unjust enrichment. The law makes a person liable for damages, even if he had no participation in the act or event, so long as he or she gains some benefit therefrom.

Article 24 is part of the chapter on human relations. Its difference from the other provisions is that Art. 24 is a directive addressed not to us, but for the courts.

Article 24 of the Civil Code provides that, “in all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.”

Moral dependence refers to the inherent imbalance in the relationship between two persons where one party needs the other more such as the dependent party has no choice but to submit to the will of the dominant or more powerful party. The imbalance typically stems from socioeconomic reasons. The law has a strong bias in favor of the employee and against the employer. No less than the Constitution tells us that. The Supreme Court teaches us that a person’s job is his property - sometimes, only property.

Based on moral dependence, labor has to be accorded more protection particularly against the possible abuses of management.

In practical terms, when there is doubt between the construction of labor laws or to a certain extent in the evaluation in the pieces of evidence, these doubts have to be resolved in favor of labor, in favor of the employee and against management, against the employer.

The employer occupies the economic high ground.

Employee has no other other remedy, no other recourse but to come to court. Only when the employee asserts his or her rights thus the protection kicks in. This is the essence of moral dependence.

Ignorance on the other hand is a function of the degree of instruction or education that one person has. The law will tilt in favor of someone who has not finished primary/elementary education versus someone who has finished a college degree or is part of the professional board. However, it is wrong to assume that the bias always kicks in just because one party has proven that he cannot read or write.

Art. 24 has no bearing in the commission of crimes. A lot would depend on the factual circumstances surrounding each case. The degree of instruction and the amount of education a person has has been placed not as a justifying or mitigating circumstance under the revised penal code. Instead, we find it under alternative circumstance.

If a person has used his knowledge, training and education to commit the crime of estafa, then that should be taken against him.

Indigence refers to the state of relative poverty. The law offers plenty of protection for the poor and we also see that in the Rules of Court.

A person who comes to court has to pay the necessary fees. That’s the general rule.

Exception: When an indigent comes to court to file a complaint

Rule 141 of the Rules of Court provides that a person is an indigent or proper litigant when the combined gross monthly income of himself and his immediate family do not amount to double the minimum wage

Another condition is that a person must not own real property whose fair market value exceeds three hundred thousand pesos

If a person has these two essential requisites, he or she is an indigent and therefore will not pay the fees. Pero pag mananalo siya sa kanyang complaint, iaawas muna ang dapat niyang binayaran bago ibigay sa kanya kung ano ang iaaward ng Court.

Mental weakness - kadalasan sa mga kaso na ang lola nagpapahiram ng titulo sa kanyang anak o apo pero hindi lang isinasangla kundi ibinibenta.

Presented to persons in advance age, suffering from mental illness, or both.

Mental weakness is something the Court must watch out for, particularly when the parties to a contract are of an advanced age or n the allowance or disallowance of a will as executed by the person who may have been unduly influenced by a family member, friend or caregiver.

1912 case: the Supreme Court ruled that perfect soundness of mind is not essential to testamentary capacity. A testator may be afflicted with a variety of mental weakness, disorder or peculiarity and still be capable in law of executing a valid will. It is not necessary that the mind shall be wholly unbroken and impaired or unshattered by disease or otherwise. Or that the testator shall be in full possession of his reasoning faculties.

Tender age - the law has always shown a bias in favor of minors no matter their position relative to the law.

A contract of sale executed by a minor may nevertheless be declared void. A contract of loan made by a minor can be voided on the basis of his or her minority. When a minor is called a witness to Court, the law confers a lot of protection upon the minor. They may be called and examined not necessarily in open court but behind closed doors. A child witness has the right to be accompanied by a trusted adult or caregiver. Courts have to make every single accomodation possible to keep the child witness comfortable during the examination. The protection of children is so great, so wide that minors who may have committed crime are not denominated as accused. They are called children in conflict with the law, and their cases are handled specifically by court personnel who have undergone special training for this purpose.

Why does the law afford protection for those who are morally dependent, for senior citizens or for minors? Ano ang basis nito?

Art. 24 and the host of other laws are based on the principle of parens patriae (parent of his or her country, and refers to the State in its role as “sovereign” or the State in its capacity as a provider of protection to those unable to care for themselves. In fulfilling this duty, the State may resort to the exercise of its inherent powers: police power, eminent domain, and power of taxation. Parens patriae is a role that the government takes in order to somewhat balance the inherent inequality of differnet persons within the State. Under this doctrine, the State is justified to use the three powers

Teresita Dio v. St Ferdinand Memorial Park inc.

Teresita Dio is a well-known businesswoman from Lucena City. She purchased from St. Ferdinand Memorial a parcel of land about 36 m. This parcel of land was used as the final resting site for Teresita’s father and husband. When her daughter died, she also buried her daughter on the same lot. Some time in 1986, she decided to build a mausoleum on the land she had purchased. She had the design made and the possible cost of the mausoleum was 60k. St. Ferd Memorial Prk was duly informed of this plan. Teresitas plan was approved but the SF MPi pointed to Rule 69 of their contract that any plans of the construction of buildings, imrpovements or memorials have to conform to the standards of smpfi. Further lot owners are prohibited from engaging outside contractors. Rule 69 of their contrat provides that only smpfi may build mausoleum’s improvements in memorials. Total cost of this is 100k

RTC ruled in favor of the Memorial Park. rejected the claim of Teresita that she was not informed of the rule 69 at the time she purchased the memorial lot. The fact that she reached out to the memorial park to have her design approved was evidence that she was aware of Rule 69.

CA for its part affirmed the ruling of RTC. it ruled that Teresita agreed with the rules of their contract and to any future rules governing the cemetery.

SC applied two principles. Art. 24 of the Civil Code and the Doctrine of contract of admission.

Did not apply Art. 24 (???)

It ruled that Dio is an experienced businesswoman. She doubtlessly dealt with numerous documents and is therefore presumed to know the import thereof. It cannot be further emphasized that it behooves every contracting party to learn and know the contents of an instrument before signing and agreeing to it.

Contract of adhesion - one wherein one party imposes a ready-made form of contract on the other. It is not strictly against the law. A contract of adhesion is as binding as ordinary contracts. The reason being that the party who adheres to the contract is free to reject it entirely

Contract of adhesion - terms and agreement upon installation of software, contract of carriers sa barko at eroplano,

- Walang room for negotiation. Yes or no lang ang sagot ng isang party. choice is to adhere to or reject the contract in its entirety.

These contracts are prepared ahead of time by one of the parties

Not only is dio educated, she is likewise a well-known and experienced businesswoman plus she cannot claim to be the weaker or disadvantaged party in the subject contract so as to call for a strict interpretation against the memo park.

Vicente and Laleng Kabanting v. bpi fam savings bank

Acceleration clause -

RTC ruled in favor of bpi, partly because the spouses has waived their right to present their evidence

CA affirmed RTC ruling but deleted the award of 20k as attorney’s fees

SC (through sc justice diosadado peralta) ruled in favor of bpi

Reiterating the case in teresita vs. memorial park, the validity or enforceability of the (impune) contracts will have to be determined by the peculiar circumstances obtaining in each case and the situation of the parties concerned

A contract of adhesion is not invalid just bec one of the parties exclusively prepared the contract ahead of time. The other party in fact has the choice either to agree to or adhere to the terms of the contract or to reject it completely

When the terms of the contract of adhesion are not clear, any doubts on the contract shall be resolved against the party who prepared it.

Summary:

Art. 24 applies to the contractual property or other relations;

Art. 24 is a dormant power. It is only activated when the weaker party comes to court . it is only then that the protection begins.

The law protects those who suffer from moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap;

Basis of this protection is the parens patriae doctrine, this principle means that the State acting as a sovereign, must step in to afford protection to those who need it;

Contract of adhesion is one where the contract is prepared exclusively by one party, and the other party has nothing to do but to accept/reject it;

It is not invalid, per se. A lot would depend on the peculiar circumstances of the contract. All doubts however are construed against the party who prepared the same, and in favor of the party who merely signs it.

[phllawstudent]

Persons 16

Persons 16: Article 23 of the Civil Code (lexinmotion)

“Now that we have covered Articles 19 to 21, the rest of the provisions in this chapter of the Civil Code are merely reading matters. Babalik tayo sa mas detailed na pagpapaliwanag, pagdating natin sa Article 36 of the Civil Code.

Tinuturing silang mga reading matters, kapatid, dahil heto ang mga provision ng batas na lalaktawan lang sa klase. Hindi sila masyadong pinag-uusapan, kahit sa mga textbooks na ginagamit natin, dahil walang masyadong discussion dito ang Supreme Court o hindi rin sila itinatanong sa bar exam.”

Continuation of unjust enrichment ang Art. 23

Article 23 of the Civil Code provides that, “Even when an act or event causing damage to another’s property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited.

Note: If there is one thing you can take away from this lesson, it is this: When you read and analyze the law, always go back to the context of each codal provision. Where the provision is placed or how it is written will tell you a lot about the reason for the law, the intention of those who wrote the law and how the law should be understood.

For Art. 23 to apply, the requisites are:

There must be an act or event which causes damage;

The damage is caused upon another person’s property;

The defendant must have been benefited from the act or event;

The defendant is still liable even if there is no fault or negligence on his part.

When these four requisites are present, then the person is liable for indemnity. The basis of the indemnity is the degree to which he or she has been benefited. This is because Article 23 is a follow-up to the principle of unjust enrichment. The law makes a person liable for damages even if he had no participation in the act or event so long as he or she gains some benefit therefrom.

In this scenario, is X liable for the burning of the houses of Y and Z? If yes, then what would be the basis for holding X liable?

Answer: Yes, X is liable. There must be some specific provision of the law that was violated. In this case, the facts are not enough for us to hold X liable under Art. 20.

X could have violated certain health and safety standards when it comes to the handling of the LPG, we do not know if his business is registered or not. If it is then that’s the specific provision of the law that he violated. The LGU will not issue a business permit if certain safety standards are not met. If it is unregistered, then that can also be the specific law that X has violated which has precipitated the burning of the houses of Y and Z. For these reasons, X cannot be held liable under Article 20.

X is liable under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. This is the very heart of the subject called Torts and Damages. Art. 2176 provides that, “Whoever by act or or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. XXX”

X here is liable because he omitted the necessary steps - the steps of an ordinary man of reasonable intelligence would take to ensure his action was safe. He could have repaired his gate by any other means that did not involve open flames or sparks.

[phllawstudent]

Persons 15

Persons 15: Article 22 and the Principle of Unjust Enrichment (lexinmotion)

Recap on distinctions of the cause of action: Under Art. 20 of the Civil Code, the basis of the action is always an unlawful act, or an act that is contrary to some specific provision of the law and that such act, must be done willfully or negligently.

On the other hand, an action under Art. 21 of the Civil Code is one that is also called contra bonus mores. It can never be committed by mere negligence, only through a willful or voluntary act.

By the end of today’s lesson, you should be able to:

Define the principle of unjust enrichment;

Identify the requisites for an accion in rem verso to prosper;

Distinguish accion in rem verso from solutio indebiti.

Art. 22 of the Civil Code provides that, “Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.”

Article 22, just like some of the provisions of the chapter on human relations, is an admonishment or a firm warning that is addressed to everyone - to all persons - be they natural persons like us or artificial persons like corporations, partnerships and city governments. Art. 22 tells us that anyone who acquires or comes into possession of something; means that the principle does not distinguish on the nature of the thing or value. In the next line of the codal provision, the law adds a qualification at the expense of another. The law imposes upon us the duty to return the thing.

In the case of lexinmotion’s story, there was unjust enrichment on the part of his brother. He acquired or came into possession of the amount of Php 26,000. He received it without just or legal ground.

Classic example of unjust enrichment: mga sitwasyon kung saan sobra ang sukli. In Jalandoni vs. Encomienda, the Supreme Court lays down the following requisites for unjust enrichment.

There is unjust enrichment under Art. 22 of the Civil Code when:

A person is unjustly benefited;

Such benefit is derived at the expense of or with damages to another.

When it comes to unjust enrichment, dalawa lang ang hanap natin: (1) may isang taong nagbabayad kahit wala siyang obligasyon na magbayad; (2) may isang taong makakatanggap kahit malinaw na wala naman siyang karapatan na makatanggap

Jalandoni-Osmena vs. Encomienda

The regional trial court of Cebu City ruled against Encomienda. It gave credence to the argument of Osmena that indeed there was no loan at all. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the Regional Trial Court and held that Georgia Jalandoni Osmena should be liable to pay the expenses advanced by Carmen Encomienda. The Supreme Court refused to believe the argument advanced by Georgia.

The SC ruled that, “The principle of unjust enrichment finds application in this case. Unjust enrichment exists when a person unfairly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good conscience....”

The principle essentially contemplates payment when there is no duty to pay and the person who receives the payment has no right to receive it.

There are verbal contracts of loan. A contract of loan does not lose its effects just because the parties failed to write it down. Contracts are binding between the parties whether oral or written. The law is explicit that all contracts shall be obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into provided all the essential requisites for their validity are present.

A simple loan or mutuum exists when a person receives a loan of money or any other fungible thing and acquires its ownership. He is bound to pay to the creditor the equal amount of the same kind and quality.

Beumer vs. Amores

The regional trial court ruled that the power tools and equipment taken by Willem belonged to him alone. Whatever Avelina acquired as her inheritance shall also belong to her alone. The lots that were bought during their union shall also belong exclusively to Avelina because of the constitutional prohibition against foreign ownership of lands in the Philippines. Finally, the two houses shall be co-owned by the two of them.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the regional trial court. The Court of Appeals applied the doctrine of in pari delicto or the rule that he who comes to court must come with clean hands. The COA pointed out that Willem is not entitled to one half of the price of the lots because he acquired them against the prohibition on foreign ownership.

For his appeal to the SC, Willem advanced another theory. He argued that if the courts were to allow Avelina to keep the lands all for herself, she would be unjustly enriched at the cost and damage of Willem.

In this case, the SC ruled that, “Article 22 is expressed in the maxim: memo cum alterius deter detremento protest (no person shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another). An action for recovery of what has been paid without just cause has been designated as an accion in rem verso. This prohibition does not apply if, as in this case, the action is proscribed by the Constitution or by the application of the Pari delicto doctrine.” The SC adds that while the foreign spouse cannot own lands in the Philippines, he is nevertheless allowed to own the improvements built there on.

Loria vs. Munoz

This is a decision penned by Justice Marie Vic Leonen.

The regional trial court ruled in favor of Munoz. The court ordered Loria to pay not only the money but also interests, damages, and attorney’s fees. COA also ruled in favor of Munoz pero inalis ang damages at attorney’s fees. The issue in this case is whether or not Carlos Loria is liable to pay Lu Dulpho Munoz the amount of two million pesos.

The principle of unjust enrichment has two conditions:

A person must have been benefited without a real or valid basis or justification;

The benefit was derived at another person’s expense or damage.

Loria received two million pesos from Munoz for a subcontract of a government project to dredge the Masarawag and San Francisco rivers in Guinobatan, Albay. However, contrary to the parties’ agreement, Munoz was not subcontracted for the project. Nevertheless, Loria retained the two million pesos. Thus, Loria was unjustly enriched; he retained Munoz’s money without valid basis or justification.

Under Art. 22 of the Civil Code. Loria must return the two million to Munoz. However, Loria tried one more argument and that is pari delicto. It is a settled rule that there can be no recovery to an illegal contract.

From these three cases, we can now come up with the following rules:

There is unjust enrichment when one person receives an unjust benefit and that this benefit comes at the expense and damage of another person.

The exceptions to unjust enrichment are the Constitutional Prohibition against foreign ownership of lands and the principle of pari delicto.

The exception to the exception of pari delicto is when its application will violate public policy.

Question: Paano ba naging exception ang pari delicto sa kaso ni Beumer vs. Amores pero siya naman ang naging basehan ni Justice Leonen sa Loria vs. Munoz?

Answer: Walang unjust enrichment sa kaso ni Beumer vs. Amores dahil hindi naman pwedeng maging owner ng lupa ang isang foreigner. Sa Loria vs. Munoz ay may unjust enrichment dahil nabudol ni Loria si Munoz sa halagang dalawang milyon. Applicable man ang pari delicto ay hindi pa rin lusot si Loria dahil bawal ayon sa ating public policy ang manlamang ng kapwa. Kaya in the end, dapat pa ring isoli ni Loria ang two million pesos.

University of the Philippines vs. PHILAB Industries

The regional trial court ruled in favor of UP. it ruled that Philab was owed the money but it had no right to collect from UP. it did have the right to collect from the assets of the foundation.

On appeal, the COA

[phllawstudent]

Persons 14

Persons 14: Article 21 and Breach of Promise to Marry (lexinmotion)

Art. 21 provides that, “Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”

At the end of the lesson, you should be able to:

Distinguish the causes of action under Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code;

Identify cases where breach of promise to marry becomes an actionable wrong;

Enumerate instances where volenti non fit injuria should apply.

Articles 19, 20, 21 and 36 of the Civil Code are all considered bar matters under the chapter on Human Relations. For most professors, these are the only things you will need to learn.

Similarities of Art. 20 and 21

The law mentions damages in both provisions. The person who causes damage shall be liable to compensate or indemnify the same.

“There is an injury when there is an illegal invasion of a known right. An unlawful act or any act that is contrary to law results in an illegal invasion of a legal right. This right can be the right of a private person or it can be the right or duty of a state in general.

For an action to prosper under Art. 20 or 21, there must be both injury and damage. The latin phrase for that is damnum et injuria.

Question: Can there be an action for loss under Article 21; without injury or situation of damnum absque injuria?

Answer: No. The rule is still damnum et injuria. Damage and injury must be present in order for the cause of action under Art. 21 to prosper. The phrase “loss” or “injury” in the provision simply imply the wider, broader and deeper reach of the law under Art. 21.

In Art. 21 of the Civil Code, the law does not require a violation of the law (opposite to Art. 20). All that the law requires is that there must be a legal act, but this legal act must be against morals, good customs or public policy. This is why an action under Art. 21 of the Civil Code is also called an action CONTRA BONUS MORES or one that is contrary to good morals.

Art. 21 says that the injury of loss must come from a willful act (dapat sinadya at hindi dahil sa kapabayaan).

Tanjanco vs. Court of Appeals

The Supreme Court lays down the GENERAL RULE: The breach of promise of marriage is not an actionable wrong.

The Court of First Instance (CFI) ruled in favor of Apolonio. Both of them (Araceli) were consenting adults and as such, the case should be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. On appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled that the facts of the case amount to an action for damages under Art. 21 of the Civil Code. it ruled that Art. 21 of the Code provides that, “Any person who willfully causes loss or damage to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.”

The Court of Appeals ordered that the case be remanded back to the CFI to proceed with the case. The issue here is whether or not under the facts and circumstances Apolonio is liable for the damages for the breach of promise to marry.

“The essential feature is seduction, that in law is more than mere sexual intercourse, or a breach of a promise of marriage; it connotes essentially the idea of deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman has yielded.” - Supreme Court

The action for breach of promise to marry is never a reward. What the law punishes in cases of breach of promise to marry is the seduction. “There is no seduction kung pareho n’yong ginusto.”

If it is a product of mutual lust, what the law punishes is the idea of deceit, enticement or superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman has yielded. Note: The breach of the promise to marry, without seduction, cannot stand.

Pe vs. Pe

The trial court ruled in favor of Alfonso Pe. it concluded that there was simply not enough evidence to hold Alfonso liable. The Supreme Court extends the right to recover damages, not only on the part of the woman but also on the part of the family.

Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court of Appeals

The lower court ruled in favor of Marilou on the strength of Art. 21 of the Civil Code. it concluded that Marilou would not have given herself had it not been for the promise of marriage made by Gashem. That Gashem deflowered her and that Gashem violated Filipino customs and morals by turning back on the promise of marriage.

The SC ruled that, “The Pari delicto rule does not apply in this case for while indeed, the private respondent may not have been impelled by the purest of intentions, she eventually submitted to the petitioner in sexual congress not out of lust, but because of moral seduction. In fact, it is apparent that she had qualms of conscience about the entire episode for as soon as she found out that the petitioner was not going to marry her after all, she left him. She is not, therefore, in pari delicto with the petitioner. Pari delicto means “in equal fault; in a similar offense or crime; equal in guilt or in legal fault.” At most, it must be conceded that she is merely in delicto.”

Wassmer vs. Velez

The issue in this case was whether or not Francisco Velez should be liable for damages for his breach of promise to marry. The SC ruled that, “this is not a case of mere breach of promise to marry. As stated, mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and go through all the above-described preparation and publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs for which the defendant must be held answerable in damages in accordance with Article 21 aforesaid.”

The general rule is that the breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. The exceptions are:

There is seduction - or the man employs deceit, enticement, superior power or abuse of confidence on the part of the seducer to which the woman has yielded;

When the promise of marriage is the proximate cause of why a woman would have sex with a man, and the man clearly has no intention to fulfill this promise;

When there have been extensive preparations for the wedding and one of the parties walks out when the matrimony is about to be solemnized.

The action for damages is also available on behalf of the family who suffers embarrassment as a result of the willful act that is contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy.

There are other actions under Art. 21 and it is wrong to assume that they involve only breaches of promises to marry.

Roberto Reyes vs. Nikko Hotel Manila Garden and Ruby Lim

Reyes is also known as Amay Bisaya (an actor)

The trial court ruled in favor of Miss Lim, declaring that the plaintiff had no business being in the party.

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Amay Bisaya and it found Miss Lim and the hotel liable for the way they treated the actor.

In this case, the SC lays down the requisites for an action contra bonus mores. The Court teaches us that for an action under Art. 21 to prosper there must be:

Legal act;

The act is contrary to moral, good customs, public order and public policy;

The act is done with intent to injure

Any injury suffered by Amai Bisaya must be borne by him alone.

In this case, the Supreme Court also wants us to learn about the concept of volenti non fit injuria, meaning, “to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury.” This phrase also means self-inflicted injury or consent to injury. Any person who voluntarily exposes himself to injury, even if he is negligent in doing so, cannot recover damages.

Cerezo vs. The Atlantic Gulf and Pacific Company

The SC applied the principle of volenti non fit injuria

By squatting and pooping inside the trench, he has voluntarily exposed himself to risk and injury. Even if he was negligent, even if it was to answer a call of nature, he went inside the trench on his own, thus, for his own injury, no other person can be liable for damages.

[phllawstudent]

Persons 13

Persons 13: Article 20 and Damnum Absque Injuria (lexinmotion)

Chapter 2 of the Civil Code

Note: Art. 19 should not be studied in a vacuum. It should be read in the context of Articles 20 and 21 of the Civil Code.

By the end of the lesson, you should be able to:

Identify the instances when the principle of damnum absque injuria is applicable.

Enumerate the requisites for a case to prosper under Art. 20.

Identify the provisions of the law related to Art. 20 of the Civil Code.

A cause of action is a fact or set of facts, that gives rise to the right to come to court and file an action. Sa madaling sabi, ito ay ang iyong basis kung bakit o paano ka makakalapit sa ating hukom.

Ayon sa Labor Code, anumang trabaho na lampas sa walong oras isang araw ay may karampatang overtime pay. (25 percent on his hourly rate for all hours of work in excess of eight hours each day; could reach up to 30 percent if it is rest day, regular holiday, or special day)

E.g. Cause of action of X is the nonpayment of his overtime pay

Reason of coming to court is to collect it

When there is no cause of action, the facts and the circumstances do not merit the remedy prayed for. When the complaint is evaluated and there is no relief that can be given, based on the facts and circumstances, then the complaint lacks cause of action. There is one more and it appears in CivPro - failure to state a cause of action.

This chapter gives us the various causes of action or the legal basis for an action to be filed in court.

Note: While the Civil Code provisions on human relations enumerate certain causes of action, the better and more precise legal basis can be found elsewhere.

Art. 20 of the Civil Code provides that, “Every personwho, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.”

Natural person and artificial person

Damage - loss, hurt or harm that is the result of an injury. An injury, on the other hand, is the illegal invasion of a legal right. When the two of them are combined, then there is a cause of action. This is called damnum et injuria.

In a scenario, A has the legal right to receive the item in good condition, the right to inspect the parcel before he communicates his approval and acceptance of the laptop.

The damage, in this case, was the broken laptop and all the things that A could have done with the laptop had he received it in good working condition. In this case, A is injured and as a result of this injury, he has suffered damage. Because there is now injury and damage, he has the cause of action to hold the seller or the courier.

Question: Is it possible to suffer damage without injury? Can there be a cause of action if there is only damage and no injury?

Did G suffer damage? Was there an injury on the part of G? What is the liability of H to G, if any?

G suffered damage. He lost his banana trees, vegetables, herbs, etc., the view from the balcony. However, these losses are not based on injury. G had no legal right to occupy and cultivate the vacant lot beside his property. The vacant lots did not belong to him. The view is not also his property. He had no legal right over the view from his balcony.

The scenario is an instance of damnum absque injuria, the Latin phrase which means damage without injury.

...Wrong without damage or damage without wrong does not constitute a cause of action, since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong...” - Custodio vs. Court of Appeals, Supreme Court ruling

For an action under Art. 20 to prosper, the cause of action must be one defined by the law.

E.g.

Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code provides that, “Every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.” Once a person is convicted for a crime, he's liable to pay for whatever damages he has caused.

Art. 309 of the Civil Code, regarding “amoks in lamay”

Articles 1734 and 1735 in relation to Art. 20 of the Civil Code, couriers mishandling of parcels

Under Art. 20 of the Civil Code, cause of the damage is not material. It can be committed willfully (sinasadya) or negligently (kapabayaan).

[phllawstudent]

Persons 12

Persons 12: Art. 19 and the Chapter on Human Relations (lexinmotion)

The Chapter on Human Relations exists to prescribe the norm of conduct, or the things we have to observe, to comply with and to abide by, when we deal with other human beings. This chapter tells us about the limits of our rights, the specific causes of action or bases for legal action and the remedies for the violation of our rights.

Art. 19 of the Civil Code provides that, “Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due and observe honesty and good faith.”

- This provision may be used in questions specifically referring to a problem involving abuse of rights

Art. 19 of the Civil Code is also known as the principle of abuse of rights, because it tells us the hard limits of our rights. It also defines for us the maximum limitations of our rights and how these rights should be exercised.

The right of the owner of an animal is not absolute. If the same animal causes damage to another, at the time and place any person has the right to defend himself, his family and his property.

Noe censis - defined under Art. 694 of the Civil Code

The right to the freedom of expression is not absolute.There are certain limitations, like the crime of libel

If we fail to do three things under Art.19 of the Civil Code, then to a certain extent, we are abusing our rights. Our rights are guaranteed by law, but if we misuse or more accurately, abuse these rights, then they can be the source of some illegalities.

There is an abuse of rights when the following requisites concur:

There is a legal right or duty

It is exercised in bad faith

The sole intention is to prejudice or cause injury to another

...Art. 19 prescribes that a person should not use his right unjustly or contrary to honesty and good faith, otherwise he opens himself to liability. It seeks to preclude the use of, or the tendency to use, a legal right (or duty) as a means to unjust ends.

There is an abuse of right when it is exercised solely to prejudice or injure another. The exercise of the right must be in accordance with the purpose for which it was established and must not be excessive or unduly harsh; there must be no intention to harm another. Otherwise, liability for damages to the injured party will attach.”

Under the law of sales, the seller of a personal property on installments (motor na hulugan)

Seller’s options if ever the buyer can’t pay hulugan

Exact fulfillment of the sale

Cancel the sale

Foreclose the mortgage if one has been constituted (hindi na niya pwede habulin ang kulang)

The three duties under Art. 19 are (1) act with justice, (2) give everyone his due, (3) observe honesty and good faith

In the case of Philippine National Bank vs. De Jesus, the SC teaches us that, “good faith, here understood, is an intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning of statutory definition, and it encompasses among other things, an honest belief, the absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage. An individual’s personal good faith is a concept of his own mind and, therefore, may not conclusively be determined by his protestations alone. It implies honesty of intention and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the validity of one’s right, ignorance of a superior claim, and absence of intention to overreach another.”

[phllawstudent]

Persons 11

Persons 11: Lex Loci Celebrationis and Summary of Conflict of Laws (lexinmotion)

Art. 17 of the Civil Code provides that, “The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.” - this paragraph introduces the concept of lex loci celebrationis - or in plain English, law of the place of the contract. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.

A short provision under Art. 804 of the Civil Code: “Every will must be in writing and executed in a language or dialect known to the testator.” - may be used to the question as to whether a proxy marriage held in Mexico is valid in the Philippines

An oral will is not valid under Philippine law because of the express provision of 804.

Another example is Art. 808 of the Civil Code; this provision requires that if the testator who is making the will is blind/cannot read, the law requires that the will should be read to him twice. (First read: one of the witnesses; Second read: notario publico)

Art. 815 of the Civil Code provides that, “When a Filipino is in a foreign country, he is authorized to make a will in any of the forms established by the law of the country in which he may be. Such will may be probated in the Philippines.”

“When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution.”

When a person chooses to or is required by law to execute an act before the diplomatic or consular officials of our country and the execution of the act must happen abroad, then by way of exception, the solemnities of Philippine laws have to be observed.

“Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object, public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.”

The third paragraph is a reiteration of our previous discussion on Art. 26 of the Family Code. There is a law prohibiting an act in the Philippines then the act cannot be given legal effect in the Philippines even if the act is valid there as such. (The absolute divorce in the case of Minoro Takahashi and Juliet Moran was obtained by both the Japanese husband and the Filipina wife.)

The Supreme Court lays down the prohibition on absolute divorces on Filipino spouses, even if they are obtained abroad. The Supreme Court ruled that, “for the Philippine courts to recognize and give recognition or effect to a foreign decree of absolute divorce between Filipino citizens could be a patent violation of the declared public policy of the state, specially in view of the third paragraph of Art. 17 of the Civil Code that prescribes the following:

Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public order, policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.

Even more, the grant of effectivity in this jurisdiction to such foreign divorce decrees would, in effect, give rise to an irritating and scandalous discrimination in favor of wealthy citizens, to the detriment of those members of our polity whose means do not permit them to sojourn abroad and obtain absolute divorces outside the Philippines.

The law of the forum means the law of the place where the conflict of law question is raised.

Mobilia sequuntur personam - a Latin maxim which means movables followed the person

Under this principle, personal property is governed by the law of the person, or more accurately, the movable is governed by the law of the owner. If the owner is bound by the law of his domicile, then the movables have to be governed by the law of the domicile.

Filipinos’ personal properties are governed by Philippine law by express provision of Art. 16 of the Civil Code.

Lex loci contractus - the law of the contract between the parties

The nature, construction or interpretation of the contract and its validity is determined by the law of the contract or lex loci contractus

- Generally applied between two persons who are not from the same state

- The law of the contract between two parties can be validly agreed upon and in this case it is called lex loci voluntatis

- It can also be the contract that is implicitly or explicitly intended by the parties to a contract

Lex loci intentionem, their contracts specifically provides that in case of conflict it is the law of Singapore that will be applied.

Concept of Renvoi - means that a court in one jurisdiction will dismiss the case there and refer it to the case of another state because the law of the other state should be the applicable law.

E.g. Two Filipinos suing each other in California. Because of lex loci rei sitae, the court of California passes the case from the US to a regional trial court in Bukidnon; that is called single renvoi.

If the regional trial court in Bukidnon refuses to hear the case and refers it back to California, then this is called double renvoi.

Case of Aznar vs. Garcia

[phllawstudent]

Persons 10

Persons 10: Lex Loci Rei Sitae and Art. 16 of the Civil Code (lexinmotion)

The principle above means that real property is governed by the law of the place where it's located.

Orion bank savings vs. Suzuki case

It is a universal principle that real or immovable property is exclusively subject to the laws of the country or state it is located. The reason is found in the nature of immovable property...its immobility.

Immovables are part of the country and so closely connected to it that all rights over them have their natural center of gravity there.Thus all matters concerning the title in this position of real property are determined by what is known as the lex loci rei sitae which alone can prescribe the mode by which a title can pass from one person to another or by which an interest therein can be gained or lost. This general principle includes all rules governing the descent, alienation, and transfer of a movable property and the validity effect and construction of wills and other conveyances.

The SC continues, “this principle even governs the capacity of the person making the deed relating to immovable property no matter what its nature may be. Thus an instrument will be ineffective to transfer title to land if the person making it is incapacitated by Lex Loci Rei Sitae.

Article 16 of the Civil Code provides that, “Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated.”

“However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.”

Exceptions:

Order of succession - refers to the presence in the class of heirs who will succeed. The presence of even one class necessarily excludes the other classes

First class is called the primary heirs. If a person has no children and no spouse, it would be hvs or her parents.

Secondary heirs. The presence of even a single member of the primary heirs would necessarily exclude the heirs in the second class.

Concurring heirs. Persons who concur o sumasabay sa primary

Amount of successional rights - the percentage of the gross estate that should be divided among the primary heirs and the concurring heirs.

For eg. if the spouse concurs with the parents of the testator, he gets one-fourth of the gross estate; if he concurs with the children of the testator, he gets the same as that of each one of the children.

Intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions - refers to the legality of each clause of the will; the basis of whether or not a particular bequest or devise

Capacity to succeed from the dissident - just a reiteration of the rule under Art. 15 which provides that family rights and duties, status, condition and the capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad

Art. 415 of the Civil Code contains a long list of immovable or real or realty or real property.

Possible question in class: Bakit walang definition ng real property?

Real property - land, building, roads etc., trees, plants, and growing fruits so long as nasa immovable, meaning, lupa

also, in immovable, fixed property such that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the object

Note: A tent or any temporary structure is not an immovable.

Other examples of immovable include: houses, pigeon houses, beehives, and fish ponds so long as they are permanently attached to the land forming a part thereof; fertilizer (it depends; pag nakasaboy na sa lupa, it becomes part of the land thus becoming available)

Personal property - under Art. 416 and 417 of the Civil Code (examples)

As a general rule, lahat ng di kasali sa415, pasok na sa movable or personal property subject to certain exceptions - laman ng bahay, kotse, mga bagay na kaya nating buhatin o ilipat nang hindi nasisira ang lupa na kanilang dinidikitan.

A statue is a movable property but if nakadikit sa pader, sa lupa o sa isang poste ng building and it cannot be removed without causing damage to the statue or the real property where it is fixed, then it is an immovable by an express provision of Art. 415, paragraph 3

If the statue is placed in such a way as to reveal the intention to attach it permanently, then it becomes an immovable not because of paragraph 3 but because of paragraph 4.

Pautang, collectibles, account receivables, and tax of corporations are also personal property

[phllawstudent]

Persons 9

Persons 9: Nationality Principle and Absolute Divorces in the Philippines (lexinmotion)

Article 15 provides that, “Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad.”

Art. 15 of the Civil Code contains the nationality principle under conflict of laws.

When it comes to family rights and duties, the most basic example is Art. 194 of the Family Code which provides that, “Support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling, clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation in keeping with the financial capacity of the family.”

“The education of the person entitled to be supported referred to in the preceding paragraph shall include his school or training for some profession, trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority. Transportation shall include expenses in going to and from school, or to and from the place of work.”

Art. 195, on the other hand, imposes the duties enumerated under Art. 194 of the Family Code upon the spouses, legitimate ascendants and descendants and parents to their legitimate and illegitimate children.

Correlating Art. 15 of the Civil Code and Article 194 and 195 of the Family Code, we can come to the conclusion that:

The family rights and duties of a person, is determined by his national law;

Support includes food, shelter, clothing, school, medical expenses and transportation.

File an action for support. There is no fixed amount set forth by law, but the guidelines are always based on the financial capacity of the person obliged to support, and based on the needs of the person who is entitled to support. The judgment for support never achieves finality. It has to change from time to time.

Question: Would your answer be the same if Y is not a Filipino, but instead a Dutch? Would he still be liable to support his Filipina wife?

In the case of Norma del Socorro v. Ernst Johan Brinkman Van Wilsem, the Dutchman in this case, argued that he had no obligations to support their minor child, under the law of the Netherlands.

To this, the Supreme Court applied the doctrine of processual presumption. The SC ruled that, “in view of respondents’ failure to prove the national law of the Netherlands in his favor, the doctrine of processual presumption shall govern. Under this doctrine, if the foreign law involved is not properly pleaded and proved, our courts will presume that the foreign law is the same as our local or domestic or internal law. Thus, since the law of the Netherlands as regards the obligation to support has not been properly pleaded and proved in the instant case, it is presumed to be the same with Philippine law, which enforces the obligation of parents to support their children and penalizes the noncompliance therewith.”

“Status” in Art. 15 means the sum total of a person’s rights, duties and capacities. An example of this in civil law is paternity. Paternity is a status of being a parent to a child.

Under the laws on wills and succession, a parent, by the status of paternity, has the right and capacity to succeed from his child.

Under our laws, the status of a person is inalienable, imprescriptible, and cannot be the subject of compromise. No matter how much you hate your child or your future children, hinding-hindi mo maaalis sa kanila na anak mo sila. That is the essence of the status of a person.

Another status is affiliation (relationship or status that one person has of being a child to a parent).

Capacity

Legal capacity is divided into two parts.

Juridical capacity

Capacity to act

Art. 37 of the Civil Code provides that juridical capacity is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations. It is inherent in every natural person and it is lost only through death.

Artificial persons (or persons whose personality is created by law like corporations, city government and partnerships) begin to have juridical personality on the date they are created. That’s the issuance of the certificate of registration and the articles of incorporation.

We have the capacity to act, the second half of the legal capacity under the Civil Code. Capacity to act is the active aspect of legal capacity. It is the ability to make actions with legally binding consequences.

Unlike juridical capacity, capacity to act exists in varying degrees. According to Professor Balane, no person has 100 percent capacity to act, but we can come very, very close to it.

Example: unborn fetus (An unborn child can have the right to succeed. The capacity to act of an unborn baby is very, very close to zero but it is not zero. As the child grows older, pwede siyang bumili ng suka at patis, that is a contract of sale and that sale is valid subject to certain conditions.)

Aliens in the Philippines have the capacity to enter into contracts of lease and employment but cannot, at least, at the time of publication own congressional franchises for public utilities. Towards the end of the spectrum, we have regular persons, Filipinos, with full capacity to act. We can own land, buy houses or sell them if we want to. The capacity to contract a valid marriage is also part of the capacity to act. Combining the ability to be the subject of legal relations and the capacity to act on these legal relations, we now have legal capacity.

Applying Art. 15, our legal capacity is always determined by our national law (Philippine law).

Theories on personal law:

Nationality principle. Family rights and duties, the status, condition and the capacity of a person is determined by his or her national law.

Domiciliary principle. Instead of the national law, we follow the law wherever the person may be domiciled.

In the Philippines, we follow the nationality principle because of the express provision of Art. 15.

Under the domiciliary principle, the family rights and duties of a person, his status, condition and capacity are determined by the law of his domicile (the place of permanent residence)

Domicile refers to the place where a person currently resides. In Romualdez vs. Regional Trial Court, and later on in Macalintal vs. Comelec, the SC teaches us that, “Domicile denotes a fixed, permanent residence to which when absent for business or pleasure, or for like reasons, one intends to return.” it is the combination of two elements, animus manendi, or the intent to stay, and animus revertendi, or the intent to return. It implies an element of permanence.

Art. 26 of the Family Code provides that, “All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those under Art. 35(1), (4), (5), (6), 36, 37, and 38.

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse, capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law.”

Personal appearance in your wedding ceremony is not an essential requisite under Art. 2 of the Family Code.

We have no law on absolute divorces. The only way a marriage is dissolved is through death, through the declaration of the nullity of marriage or under annulment under Art. 36 of the Family Code.

Rules when it comes to divorces in the Philippines:

Between a Filipino and a Filipina who marry here in the Philippines, there can be no divorce. (at least at the time of publication)

A foreigner and a Filipina who marry in the Philippines, but obtain the decree of divorce abroad, are divorced according to Philippine law, so long as the divorce decree is recognized in the Philippines.

In order for the Filipino spouse to marry again, the divorce decree must necessarily capacitate him or her to marry again.

The existence of the divorce decree and the foreign law on divorce, in order for them to be given recognition in the Philippines, must be pleaded and proved in accordance with our laws of evidence.

It is no longer important if the divorce decree was obtained by the foreigner, by the Filipino spouse or both.

The last of these rules was given by the SC in the case of Minoro Takahashi and Juliet Morania vs. Republic of the Philippines. This case was decided on Dec. 5, 2019.

[phllawstudent]

Persons 8

Persons 8: Conflict of Laws and the Principle of Generality (lexinmotion)

Part of the law that comes into play when the issue before the court affects some fact, event or transaction that is so clearly connected with the foreign system of the law as to the necessitate recourse to that system

For this course to apply, there must always be a foreign element (a fact, event or transaction that takes place outside of Philippine territory).

Conflict of laws provision of the Civil Code

Art. 14 of the Civil Code provides that, “Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be obligatory upon all who live or sojourn in Philippine territory subject to the principles of public international law and to treaty stipulations.”

Principle of territoriality means that our laws, penal laws, laws that affect public safety and security shall be obligatory upon all who live in or sojourn in the Philippine territory.

Laws of public safety apply to anyone and everyone within Philippine territory. Why it is called the Principle of generality is because it came from an international law principle.

Tip from a prof: “Kung may image, mas madali mong maaalala.”

Contains exceptions to the principle of generality. The general rule is that the principle of generality

Principles of public international law

Equality among nations. On the international level, all states, no matter how small or large, no matter the economic performance or sheer number of people living in their territory, are equal.

Other countries are not subject to Philippine law. Presidents, ambassadors or public ministers and their official retinue (entourage) are immune from criminal prosecution. They cannot be sued or arrested or punished by the law of our country. They are, strictly speaking, acting as direct representatives or outer egos of the head of the state. Thus, the immunity conferred upon will also apply equally to ambassadors or public ministers and their official retinue.

Consuls have no diplomatic immunity.

The ambassador who commits a crime in the country is expelled from the Philippines and declared a persona non grata. That being said, he cannot return to the Philippines. There would be no way for our courts to acquire jurisdiction over whatever crime he had committed in our country. He may, however, be criminally liable within his own state.

Treaties stipulations

May be altered. US-PH agreement

The Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) provides that, “US servicemen accused of crimes under the Philippine law are to be detained in compounds where there are both US and Filipino marshals who can secure the accused.”

(agreement between a country and a foreign nation having military forces visiting in that country)

Laws of preferential application

While the Principles of Generality apply to all who live and sojourn in the Philippines, it is possible that some of them will not apply or will apply differently. Under our tax laws, certain provisions which should apply to Filipinos working for a particular resident, foreign corporation are applied differently. Some of them affect entire corporations.

Principle of territoriality

There are certain instances when a crime is committed outside the territory of the Philippines, but may nevertheless be punished by our Courts.

Art. 2 Revised Penal Code

Application of its provisions - except as provided in the treaties and laws of preferential application, the provisions of this code shall be enforced not only within the Philippine archipelago.

Paragraph 1 provides that there is criminal liability for offenses committed while onboard a Philippine ship or airship

Planes and ships carrying the Philippine flag, by legal fiction, are parts of Philippine territory.

Paragraph 2: Forgery or counterfeiting any coin or currency note of the Philippines; even if committed, for example, in Vietnam, is nevertheless a crime that is committed against the Philippines.

Another classic exception sa principle of territoriality: Human Security Act of 2007

HB no. 6875 - An Act to Prevent, Prohibit, and Penalize Terrorism

Thereby repealing RA 9372

Question: Is the HB an amendment or repeal? Repeal, and because it specifically mentions RA 9372, it is an express repeal.