PART 1 INTRODUCTION (reference: Vitug, J) In its generic sense, civil law is understood to be that branch of law governing the

relationship of persons in respect of their personal and private interests. Civil law in the Philippine setting is closely identified with the Civil Code of the Philippines. Thus viewed, civil law may be defined as being that part of private law governing human and family relations; private property, ownership and its incidents; and contractual and non-contractual private obligations. (Vitug)

REFERENCE: TOLENTINO from

http://cybaroperations.wordpress.com/notes-on-philippine-civil-

law/
Definition of Civil Law. Under the Roman law, the term civil law was used in four different concepts. In the first sense, it was equivalent to the national law, or the law applicable to the individuals of each particular city exclusively. In the second sense, it was used to distinguish that body of law composed of plebiscites, imperial constitutions and others from the jus honorarium or pretorium. In the third sense, it was understood to mean the law applicable to the citizens of Rome, as distinguished from that applicable to foreigners or the jus gentium. In the last sense, it was sometimes used to designate the opinions of authorized jurisconsults. (1 Sanchez Roman 64-65) In its present concept, however, civil law is that branch of law which has for its double purposes the organization of the family and the regulation of property. (1 Falcon 34; 1 Sanchez Roman 70) It has thus been defined as the mass of precepts which determine and regulate the relations of assistance, authority and obedience among the members of a family, and those which exist among members of a society for the protection of private interests. (Julian Arribas, cited in 1 Sanchez Roman 70)

Civil Law and Common Law Distinguished (Reference: Vitug) In theory at least, sharp distinctions may be said to exist between the Civil Law and Common Law systems Civil law is often referred to as statutory law and common law as judge-made law. In point of fact, however, written laws have been known to exist in England and in the countries where the law of England is widely adopted even well before the start of codifications in most of continental Europe. Much of the Anglo-American law is, in reality, contained in statutes or in codes. Again, there is, supposedly, greater adherence by common law courts than civil law courts to judicial precedents that so evolve as law until the legislature deems it fit to change the norms set by the courts. Whereas, in civil law, courts officially are free to adjudge each legal issue regardless of how other courts have therefore resolved the application of the law; in practice, however, the role of stare decisis has discernibly been the same in both systems. Common law courts, on the one hand, have often deviated from an otherwise strict observance of judicial precedents by a rather expedient justification that no two cases are alike, and civil courts, on the other hand, have shown an inclination towards a respect for precedents for doctrinal consistence and stability. The real distinction, in actuality, seems to lie on how the systems would initially react or respond to a changing milieu. In common

law countries, the traditional responsibility has for the most part been with the judges; in civil law countries, the task is primarily reposed on the lawmakers. Contemporary practices, however, indicate a trend towards centralizing that function to professional groups that may, indeed, see the gradual assimilation in time of both systems. The Philippine legal system is a mixture of civil law and common law. The strong influence of civil law brought about by the four centuries of Spanish domination is still reflected in the strict adherence to statute law. So, also, however, the extensive infusion of common law into the system has resulted in the recognition of common law powers to judges and a statutory mandate that their decisions form part of the law of the land (Article 8, Civil Code). Common law has thus been the expression, after the implantation of American sovereignty in the Islands, that Philippine courts are not only courts of law but also courts of equity (U.S. vs. Tamparong, 31 Phil. 321; Rustia vs. Franco, 41 Phil. 280; Asian vs. Jalandoni, 45 Phil. 296; Alonzo vs. Padua, 150 SCRA 259). Civil Code of the Philippines The Civil Code of the Philippines, which took effect on 30 August 1950 (Lara vs. del Rosario, 94 Phil. 778), was mostly patterned after and primarily based on the Civil Code of Spain, made effective in the country on 08 December 1889 (Mijares vs. Neri, 3 Phil. 195), which, in turn, was in many parts the Code Napoleon. The Family Code of the Philippines The Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209, issued on 6 July 1987, as amended by Executive Order No. 227 of 17 July 1987), made effective on 3 August 1988, has introduced significant changes on the 1950 Civil Code provisions governing marriages, the personal and property relations of the spouses, paternity and filiation, adoption and, in general, the rights and duties appurtenant to family relations. II. COVERAGE (reference: wikipidea) Coverage of Exam
Civil Law Civil Code of the Philippines (excluding the Code of Muslim Personal Laws, Water Code, Rental Law, Law on Sale of Subdivision of Lots and Condominiums) Family Code of the Philippines (including the Child and Youth Welfare Code) Property Registration Decree (excluding the Public Land Law) Conflict of Laws (Private International Law)

Subject

Weight'

Civil Law

15%

Labor Law and Social Legislation

10%

Mercantile Law

15%

Criminal Law

10%

Political and International Law

15%

Taxation

10%

Remedial Law

20%

Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises 5%

IV. PATTERN/ EVOLUTION

Sources of Philippine Civil Law. At present, the immediate sources of Philippine civil law are (1) the new Civil Code and (2) some statutes, such as the Copyright Law, the Patent Law, the Law of Waters, and various labor laws and social legislation. The great bulk of our civil law is derived from Spanish and American law. The origin of the laws we have copied from Spain and the United States may therefore be considered also as indirect or remote sources of our present civil law.

4) Sources of Philippine Civil Law (a) The 1935 and the 1973 Philippine Constitutions, respectively. (See Art. 7, par. 2, Civil Code). (In the case of Javellana v. The Executive Secretary, L-36283, Mar. 31, 1973, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no more obstacle to the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution. Its effective date is Jan. 17, 1973 noon, according to a Presidential Proclamation). After the 1973 Constitution, we had the Freedom (Revolutionary and Provisional) Constitution promulgated as a result of the EDSA Revolution of Feb. 22-25, 1986. Presently, we have the 1987 Constitution,

effective Feb. 2, 1987. (b) Statutes, laws, presidential decrees, or executive orders which are applicable. (c) Administrative or general orders insofar as they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution. (See Art. 7, par. 3, Civil Code). (d) Customs of the place, provided they are not contrary to existing laws, public order, or public policy. (Art. 11, Civil Code). (e) Judicial decisions (interpreting the law), as well as judicial customs (where decisions are made notwithstanding the absence of applicable statutes or customs). (Art. 11, Civil Code). (f) Decisions of foreign courts. (g) Principles covering analogous cases. (Cerrano v. Tan Chuco, 38 Phil. 932). (h) Principles of legal hermeneutics (statutory construction). (i) Equity and the general principles of law (juridical standards of conduct premised on morality and right reasoning).

Influences on Spanish Civil Law. The civil law of Spain was influenced by several factors. They are: the Roman law, the Germanic law, the canon law, scientific evolutionary thought, foreign legislation, and the doctrines contained in jurisprudence. Spain was once a part of the great Roman Empire, and it was natural that the Roman law should be introduced in Spain. Upon the fall of the Roman Empire, Spain was overrun by the Goths, who established their capital in Barcelona in the year 416, with Ataulfo on the throne. During the period of Gothic supremacy in Spain, a caste system developed. The Roman law was continued for the conquered people, and collected in the Code of Alaric or Breviario de Aniano. A different set of laws, of Germanic or Gothic character, was made applicable to the rulers, compiled in the Code of Euric or of Tolosa. The canonical influence in Spanish civil law was due to the spread of Christianity and the constant intervention of the clergy in legislation. (1 Sanchez Roman 72-76, 145) N. Anglo-American Common Law. Neither English nor American common law is in force in the Philippines nor are the doctrines derived therefrom binding upon our courts, save only insofar as they are founded on sound principles applicable to local conditions and are not in conflict with existing law. (U.S. vs. Cuna, 12 Phil. 241; Arnedo vs. Llorente, 18 Phil. 257; U.S. vs. Abiog, 37 Phil. 137) But many of our laws are of American origin, and they can be construed and applied only with the aid of the common law from which they are derived, and, to breathe the breath of life into some of the institutions introduced into these islands under American sovereignty, recourse must be had to the rules, principles, and doctrines of the common law. (Alzua vs. Johnson, 21 Phil. 308, 42 Phil. 980) Notwithstanding this tendency, however, when cases are not covered by the letter of any written law, theories and precedents of Anglo-American cases are not applied when they conflict with well-defined civil law theories based on existing Spanish written law, or are inconsistent with local customs and institutions. (In re Shoop, 41 Phil. 213) This is especially true now that the Philippines is an independent country. During the American regime, the Supreme Court of the Philippines felt itself bound by the rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States in construing and applying statutory enactments modelled upon or borrowed from English or American originals. (Cuyugan vs. Santos, 34 Phil. 166) Such decisions rendered after Philippine independence should not be so controlling,

although they may still have persuasive effect. Even laws taken bodily from American sources not infrequently acquire a characteristic coloring from the change of environment. (Javellana vs. Mirasol, 40 Phil. 761) O. Civil and Commercial Law. In many countries, there is a distinction between civil law and commercial law, represented by a separate code for each. There have been movements towards unification of these two branches of law. Such unification has been carried out in the Swiss federal code of obligations. There are attempts towards this direction in the civil code of the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics of 1942, and in the Franco_Italian project approved in Paris in 1927 and published in Rome in 1928. Vivante, among others, advocates it, saying that there exists no fundamental difference between civil and commercial acts. Munoz, however, believes that complete unification is impossible; and Vidari strongly opposes it. Because of the modern developments in commercial law, unification is becoming increasingly more difficult day by day. The disintegration of commercial law into definite independent branches will be the greatest obstacle to unification. Thus, the law on negotiable instruments, the law on securities, the law on banking, the law on maritime commerce, the law on corporations, and other specialized legislation in the commercial field, will be barriers to the projected unification. Partial unification, however, can surely be attained. The present civil code is a step towards that objective. It has repealed many provisions of the code of commerce, and has unified the law on sales, partnership, agency, deposit, and guaranty.

SOURCES OF CIVIL CODE

(1) Sources of the Civil Code (a) The Civil Code of Spain (b) The Philippine Constitution of 1935 (c) Statutes or Laws (Philippine, American, European) (d) Rules of Court (local and foreign) (e) Decisions of local tribunals (particularly the Supreme Court) (f) Decisions of foreign tribunals (g) Customs and traditions of our people (h) General principles of law and equity (i) Ideas from the Code Commission itself (reference: Paras) (2) Commentators and Annotators on the Civil Code of Spain Among the famous commentators and annotators on the Civil Code of Spain were: (a) Justice Jose Ma. Manresa y Navarro (Comentarios al Codigo Civil Espaol 12 volumes) (b) Felipe Sanchez Roman (Estudio de Derecho Civil) (c) Quintus Mucius Scaevola (pen name of a group of commentators borrowed from the famous Roman juris-consultant) (Codigo Civil Comentado) (d) Calixto Valverde (Tratado de Derecho Civil Espaol) (e) Mario Navarro Amandi (Cuestionario del Codigo Civil

Reformado) (f) Colin and Capitant (French authors), De Buen (who wrote the Spanish notes). (Curso Elemental de Derecho Civil) (g) Enneccerus, Kipp, and Wolff (German authors Derecho Civil) (h) Chief Justice Jose Castan Tobenas

HISTORY (3) Brief History of Our Civil Laws (a) Prior to the present Civil Code, our civil law was premised principally on the old Civil Code (the Civil Code of Spain of 1889). (b) Prior to the Civil Code of Spain of 1889, our civil law was found in the Recopilacion de las Leyes de las Indias with the following as supplemental laws to be applied in the following order: 1) the latest Spanish laws enacted for the colonies 2) La Novisima Recopilacion 3) La Nueva Recopilacion 4) the Royal Ordinances of Castille 5) Leyes de Toro (Laws of Toro) 6) the Siete Partidas (promulgated thru the Ordenamiento de Alcala of 1384)
G. Codification of Laws. As laws multiply, the need for compilation arises. After compilation, however, a higher need is felt, that of codification. This is the systematic organization of the law into one or more codes. A code is a collection of laws of the same kind; a body of legal provisions referring to a particular branch of the law. A lucid description of codification was made by David Dudley Field in the following words: To reduce the bulk, clear out the refuse, condense and arrange the residium, so that the people and the lawyer, and the judge as well, may know what to practise and obe y this is codification, nothing more and nothing less. Same; Reasons. There are various reasons which lead to codification, among them being: (1) the necessity of simplifying and arranging the many juridical rules scattered in several laws and customs; (2) the necessity of unifying various legislations in the same country; and (3) the necessity of introducing reforms occasioned by social changes. (1 Ruggiero 102) H. Codification in Modern Times. The path of codification suitable to modern times was first blazed by Napoleon when the French civil code, known as the Code Napoleon, was promulgated in 1804. Since then this path has been followed by nearly all modern nations; even the two great exceptions, Great Britain and the United States, are slowly yielding to this universal trend toward codification. The task of codification is a difficult one. It took three years to draft the French civil code; the first draft of the German code took fourteen years; the Swiss and the Chile codes each took eight years;

and the Argentine code took five years. The Civil Code of the Philippines, however, was completed in seven months. After their promulgation, the best codes of the world today underwent several revisions before they took their present form. The French civil code, promulgated in 1804, passed through successive editions, that of 1816 being substantially in force today. The Italian code was first completed in 1860, but was revised successively in 1862, 1853, and 1865. The Swiss civil code of 1900 suffered important changes introduced by the Swiss parliament from 1904 to 1907. The German Code, which is perhaps one of the best in the world today, was severely criticized after its completion in 1887. This led to a period of revision, from 1890 to 1895, when a second code was published. This was again revised, and the present and final edition was approved one year later. I. Codification in Spain. The move to make the laws in Spain uniform was started by Alfonso X, known as the Wise, by the promulgation in 1255 of the Fuero Real, which can properly be called a code. The second step was made by Alfonso XI, when through the Ordenamiento de Alcala of 1384, he promulgated the code known as Las Siete Partidas. This was followed by such other collections or compilations as the Leyes de Toro, La Nueva Recopilacion, La Recopilacion de las Leyes de India, La Novisima Recopilacion, this last one having been promulgated by Carlos IV on July 15, 1805. All these codes or compilations, however, were of a general character embracing all the divisions of law. The first step towards the codification of the different branches of law was made in the Constitution of 1812, which provided that a single Civil Code shall govern in all the dominions of the Spanish monarchy. A Projecto de Codigo Civil was completed in 1851, but it was never approved and promulgated. On May 11, 1888, the Ley de Bases was promulgated, to serve as the legal basis for a new Civil Code, which after some corrections, took effect in Spain in its final form on July 24, 1889. J. Codification in the Philippines. The first step towards codification of private law in the Philippines was taken by President Manuel L. Quezon in 1940, when he created a Code Committee to formulate a civil code for the Philippines. This committee was headed by Supreme Court Chief Justice Ramon Avancena, with the following as members: Justice Jose P. Laurel, Justice Antonio Villareal, Dr. Jorge Bocobo, and Dr. Pedro Ylagan. In June 1941, Justiice Alex Reyes and Justice Mariano A. Albert were appointed as additional members. The Department of Justice assigned then Judge Roberto Concepcion and First Assistant Solicitor General Jose B.L. Reyes, now retired Chief Justice and retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, respectively as General Consultants to the Committee. During the military occupation of the Philippines, the Code Committee was retained as an office in the Japanese-sponsored government. The members were reappointed on March 12, 1942; but on June 6, 1942, former Supreme Court Justices Anacleto Diaz and Antonio Horilleno were added as new members. Attorney Godofredo Reyes was also appointed member on August 10, 1942, thereby increasing the membership to ten. The Code Committee had begun its work of codification of the civil code; but its records were destroyed in the battle for the liberation of Manila in 1945. On March 20, 1947, by Executive Order No. 48, President Manuel A. Roxas created a new Code Commission, composed of five members, in view of the need for immediate revision of all existing substantive laws of the Philippines and of codifying them in conformity with the customs, traditions and idiosyncracies of the Filipino people and with modern trends in legislation and the progressive principles of law.

The four original members appointed were: Dr. Jorge Bocobo, as chairman, and Judge Guillermo B. Guevarra, Dr. Pedro Y. Ylagan, and Dean Francisco R. Capistrano, as members. The present writer (Dr. Tolentino) was appointed as the fifth member of this Code Commission on February 29, 1948; but he resigned in 1949 due to his election as member of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the Philippines in January, 1948, and approved on June 18, 1949, as Republic Act No. 386.

EXTRA INFO (5) Books of the Civil Code (a) Book I Persons (Note Book I is called Persons instead of Persons and Family Relations because juridical persons such as corporations, which are likewise referred to in Book I, have NO families.) (b) Book II Property, Ownership, and its Modifi cations (c) Book III Different Modes of Acquiring Ownership (d) Book IV Obligations and Contracts: Other Parts: 1) Preliminary Title 2) Human Relations 3) Transitional Provisions 4) Repealing Clause (6) Some Important Changes Made by the Civil Code (a) Book I The elimination of absolute divorce, the creation of judicial or extrajudicial family homes, the insertion of a chapter on Human Relations, the abolition of the dowry, greater rights for married women. (b) Book II There are new provisions on the quieting of title; on the creation of new easements. The provisions on the censo and use and habitation have been eliminated. (c) Book III The holographic will has been revived; rights (successional) of the surviving spouse and of illegitimate children have been increased; the mejora or betterment has been disregarded. (d) Book IV Defective contracts have been reclassifi ed; there is a new chapter on reformation of contracts; some implied trusts are enumerated; new quasi-contracts have been created. (7) The Code Commission A Code Commission of fi ve members was created by then President Manuel A. Roxas thru Executive Order 48, dated Mar. 20, 1947, in view of the need for immediate revision and codifi cation of Philippine Laws in conformity with Filipino customs and ideals, and in keeping with progressive modern legislation. The fi nal draft of the Civil Code was fi nished on Dec. 16, 1947. The Commission rendered its report in a publication

dated Jan. 26, 1948. Congress approved the draft on June 18, 1949 as Republic Act 386. (8) The Original Members of the Code Commission (a) Dean Jorge Bocobo (Chairman) (b) Judge Guillermo B. Guevarra (Member) (c) Dean Pedro R. Ylagan (Member) (d) Dean Francisco R. Capistrano (Member) [NOTE: The fi fth member Senator Arturo Tolentino had not yet been appointed at the time the Civil Code was drafted.]. (9) Proportion of Changes The Civil Code contains 2270 articles, 43% of which are completely new provisions. (10) Language of the Civil Code Inasmuch as the Civil Code was written in English, and approved as such by Congress, the English text should prevail in its interpretation and construction. (Sec. 15, Rev. Adm. Code). Literal English translations of Spanish or Latin terms must be interpreted, however, according to their original sources. (11) Need for a Preliminary Title Please note that in the preceding Chapter I is the phrase Preliminary Title. The purpose of this Title is to set forth general principles.

Hisroty of the Civil Law of the Philippines

Civil law (or civilian law) is a legal system originating in Europe, intellectualized within the framework of late Roman law, and whose most prevalent feature is that its core principles are codified into a referable system which serves as the primary source of law. This can be contrasted with common law systems whose intellectual framework comes from judge-made decisional law which gives precedential authority to prior court decisions on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions (doctrine of judicial precedent). Historically, civil law is the group of legal ideas and systems ultimately derived from the Code of Justinian, but heavily overlaid by Germanic, canonical, feudal, and local practices, as well as doctrinal strains such as natural law, codification, and legislative positivism. Conceptually, civil law proceeds from abstractions, formulates general principles, and distinguishes substantive rules from procedural rules.It holds case law to be secondary and subordinate to statutory law.

ROMAN LAW Roman law is the legal system of ancient Rome, and the legal developments comprising more than a thousand years of jurisprudence from the Twelve Tables (c. 439 BC) to the Corpus Juris Civilis (AD 529) ordered by the emperor Justinian I. The historical importance of Roman law is reflected by the continued use of Latin legal terminology in legal systems influenced by it. "Roman law" also denotes the legal system applied in most of Western Europe until the end of the 18th century. In Germany, Roman law practice remained in place longer under the Holy Roman Empire (9631806). Roman law thus served as a basis for legal practice throughout Western continental Europe, as well as in most former colonies of these European nations, including Latin America, and also in Ethiopia. English and North American common law were influenced also by Roman law, notably in their Latinate legal glossary (for example, stare decisis, culpa in contrahendo, pacta sunt servanda)

The code of Justinian The Corpus Juris (or Iuris) Civilis ("Body of Civil Law") is the modern name for a collection of fundamental works in jurisprudence, issued from 529 to 534 by order of Justinian I, Eastern Roman Emperor. It is also sometimes referred to as the Code of Justinian, although this name belongs more properly to the part titled Codex Justinianus. The work as planned had three parts: -the Code (Codex) is a compilation, by selection and extraction, of imperial enactments to date; -the Digest or Pandects (the Latin title contains both Digesta and Pandectae) is an encyclopedia composed of mostly brief extracts from the writings of Roman jurists; -the Institutes (Institutiones) is a student textbook, mainly introducing the Code although it has important conceptual elements that are less developed in the Code or the Digest. All three parts, even the textbook, were given force of law. They were intended to be, together, the sole source of law; reference to any other source, including the original texts from which the Code and the Digest had been taken, was forbidden. Nonetheless, Justinian found himself having to enact further laws and today these are counted as a fourth part of the Corpus, the Novellae Constitutiones (Novels, literally New Laws).

An important common characteristic of civil law, aside from its origins in Roman law, is the comprehensive codification of received Roman law, i.e., its inclusion in civil codes. The earliest codification known is the Code of Hammurabi, written in ancient Babylon during the 18th century BC. However, this, and many of the codes that followed, were mainly lists of civil and criminal wrongs and their punishments. Codification of the type typical of modern civilian systems did not first appear until the Justinian Code.

Civil law is primarily contrasted with common law, which is the legal system developed first in England, and later among English-speaking peoples of the world. Despite their differences, the two systems are quite similar from a historical point of view. Both evolved in much the same way, though at different paces. The Roman law underlying civil law developed mainly from customary law that was refined with caselaw and legislation. Canon law further refined court procedure. Similarly, English law developed from Norman and Anglo-Saxon customary law, further refined by caselaw and legislation. The differences of course being that (1) Roman law had crystallised many of its principles and mechanisms in the form of the Justinian Code, which drew from caselaw, scholarly commentary, and senatorial statutes; and (2) civilian caselaw has persuasive authority, not binding authority as under common law.

HISTORY OF CIVIL LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES PRE-SPANISH PERIOD Historians have shown conclusively that the early Filipinos lived in numerous independent communities called barangays under various native rules which were largely customary and unwritten. Evidence points to the existence of two codes, namely, the Maragtas Code issued by Datu Sumakwel of Panay Island some time between 1200 and 1212 AD and the Penal Code of Kalantiao issued by a datu of that name in 1433. however, there are some historians who question the existence of these codes.

The Spanish Regime The arrival of Ferdinand Magellan in the Philippines on 16 March 1521 presaged a new era in the history of Philippine law. Spanish laws and codes were extended to the Philippines either expressly by royal decrees or by implication through the issuance of special laws for the islands. The most prominent of these laws and codes were the Fuero Juzgo, Fuero Real, Las Siete Partidas, Las Leyes de Toros, Nueva Recopilacion de Las Leyes de Indias, which contained all the laws then in force in the Spanish colonies and the Novisima Recopilacion, which comprised all the laws from the fifteenth century up to 1805. At the end of Spanish rule in the Philippines, the following codes and special laws were in force in the country: the Codigo Penal de 1870 which was extended to the islands in 1887; the Ley Provisional para la Aplicaciones de las Disposiciones del Codigo Penal en las Islas Filipinas in 1888; the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal (Code of Criminal Procedure of 1872, which was extended in 1888); Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil (Code of Civil Procedure of 1856); Codigo de Comercio (Code of Commerce of 1886); Codigo Civil de 1889 (except the portion relating to marriage); the Marriage Law of 1870; the Ley Hipotecaria (Mortgage Law of 1861, which was extended in 1889); the Ley de Minas (Mining Law of 1859); the Ley Notarial de

1862; the Railway Law of 1877; the Law of Foreigners for Ultramarine Provinces of 1870; and the Code of Military Justice.

THE CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

The Civil Code is strongly influenced by the Spanish Civil Code, which was first enforced in 1889 within the Philippines, then a colony of Spain. The Spanish Civil Code remained in effect even during the American colonization of the Philippines. However, by 1940, the Commonwealth Government of President Manuel Quezon had created a Commission to create a new Civil Code. The Commission was initially headed by Chief Justice Ramon Avancea. However, the work of the Commission was interrupted by the Japanese invasion of the Philippines, and its records were destroyed during the Battle of Manila in 1945. In 1947, President Manuel Roxas created a new Code Commission, this time headed by the former Dean of the University of the Philippines College of Law Jorge Bocobo. Among the members who sat on the new Commission were future Supreme Court Associate Justice Francisco R. Capistrano, and future Vice-President Arturo Tolentino. The Commission completed the final draft of the new Civil Code by December 1947, and this was submitted to Congress, which enacted it into law through Republic Act No. 386. The Civil Code took effect in 1950.[1] Due to its extensive coverage and impact, the Civil Code is among the most widely studied and commented upon laws in the Philippines. Several legal luminaries developed reputations as experts on the Civil Code and consequently enhanced their reputations in the field of Philippine law. These include Tolentino, Supreme Court Associate Justices J. B. L. Reyes, Flerida Ruth P. Romero,

FEATURES OF CIVIL CODE The Civil Code is divided into 5 books, persons and family relations; property; succession; obligations and contracts; special contracts.

Special contracts encompasses several classes of contracts as sales, agency, and partnership. The law on torts and damages is found in Book V, although developments in tort and damages law have been guided less by the Code than by judicial precedents. The influence of the Spanish Civil Code is most evident in the books on property, succession and obligations and contracts. The law on succession, for example, retains such concepts indigenous to Spain such as the rule on legitimes and reserva troncal. On the other hand, many of the provisions on special contracts, particularly on sales, are derived from American common law, reflecting the influence of American rule over the Philippines and the influx of commercial relations involving Americans during that time. The great mass of disputes between private persons over civil and property relations are resolved by application of the provisions of the Civil Code. With over 2000 specific provisions, the Civil Code attempts to anticipate all possible questions arising from civil and property relations and prescribe a definitive solution for these problems. Understandably, the Civil Code itself is unable to provide a definite answer for all emerging problems, and reliance has been placed by the courts not only on the provisions of the Code, but also on the interpretations of the Code as laid down by the Supreme Court. Notably, the Civil Code itself recognizes that "[j]udicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines" (Article 8, Civil Code), a recognition of the eminent role now played by judicial precedents in Philippine law.