RABUYA’s
LAST MINUTE LECTURE IN CIVIL LAW
(2018 BAR EXAMS)
b) Distinctions:
i) In the first, the source of obligation is law; while in the second,
the source is quasi-contract;
ii) In the first, the undue payment or delivery is not by reason of
mistake; while in the second, the undue payment or delivery is
by reason of mistake;
iii) The first can only prosper if plaintiff has no other legal remedy
under contract, quasi-contract, delict or quasi-delict.
2. Suit for Damages Under Article 28, Civil Code (Unfair Competition)
a) Concept is broader than in intellectual property laws. It does not
require patent.
b) Requisites for liability:
i) Act causes injury to a competitor or trade rival; and
ii) Such act is contrary to good conscience, or shocking to judicial
sensibilities, or otherwise unlawful. (Willaware Products Corp. v.
Jesichris Manufacturing Corp.)
3. Nationality Principle (Article 15) and Art. 17, par. 3, Civil Code.
a) Applies if issue is: status, condition, legal capacity of persons and his
family rights and duties.
b) Not applicable when:
i) Issue is capacity of heir to succeed. Govening law is national
law of decedent.
ii) Issue is legal capacity to acquire real properties. Governing law
is lex rei sitae.
iii) Issue is duty of a foreigner parent to give support to his child in
the Philippines. Even his national law does not oblige him to
give support, such law does not apply in the Philippines for two
(2) reasons: (1) in private international law, the forum may
refuse to apply applicable foreign law if the same is contrary to a
sound and well-established public policy of the forum; (2) a
foreign law cannot render ineffective Philippine laws which are
declarations of public policy. (Del Soccoro v. Van Wilsem)
5. Prejudicial Question
a) Effect: only a ground for suspension of criminal case to await for
outcome of civil case.
b) Requisites:
i) civil case is filed ahead of the criminal case;
ii) issue in both cases are intimately related;
iii) issue in the civil determines whether the criminal case may
proceed or not.
c) Example No. 1: A got married to B in 1997 w/o a license. In 2010, A
married B w/o a judicial declaration of nullity of prior marriage. In 2015,
A filed petition to declare first marriage void on ground of absence of
marriage license. In 2016, he is prosecuted for bigamy. NO
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION because the civil case does not determine
the outcome of the criminal case. Whatever may be the outcome of the
civil case, the crime of bigamy has been committed.
d) Example No. 2: A and B signed a marriage contract without a
solemnizer. Subsequently, the solemnizer signed the same without the
parties. Said marriage contract was registered in the NSO. Thereafter,
A married C. After the marriage of A and C, A filed petition to cancel
the marriage contract between him and B under Rule 108. He was
subsequently charged with bigamy. THERE IS A PREJUDICIAL
QUESTION because the civil case is determinative of the criminal
case. If the civil case will be granted, the crime of bigamy is not
committed.
9. Consent in Marriage:
a) If consent is not given, there is no marriage. If consent is given but
defective, marriage is voidable.
b) If consent is given during the marriage ceremony and the same is not
defective, marriage is perfectly valid:
i) Even if there is no love. Love is not the only consideration for
marriage contract. (Republic v. Albios)
14. Distinctions Between Bigamous Marriage In Article 35(4) and Article 40,
FC
a) As to status of prior marriage: In Article 35(4), the prior marriage is
either valid or voidable; In Article 40, the prior marriage is void.
b) As to property regime: In Article 35(4), the void marriage is governed
by the property regime under Article 148 of the FC. In Article 40, the
void marriage is governed either by absolute community (if marriage is
celebrated without a marriage settlement) or by conjugal partnership of
gains or complete separation (if there is a marriage settlement
providing for such regime).
c) As to issuance of decree of absolute nullity: In Article 35(4), the decree
can be issued immediately even if there is a co-ownership because the
partition of the co-ownership is not required to be made in the same
proceeding for declaration of nullity of the marriage. In Article 40, if the
property regime is either absolute or conjugal, the decree cannot be
issued yet unless there is liquidation, partition and distribution of
properties and delivery of presumptive legitime. (Dino v. Dino)
15. A marriage can be declared void even if the action or proceeding is for:
a) action for support (De Castro v. Assidao-De Castro)
b) determination of entitlement to SSS death benefits (Carino v. Carino)
c) settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse because a void
marriage can be attacked collaterally.
d) BUT NOT: in a petition for correction and/or cancellation of entries in
the civil registry under Rule 108 (Braza v. City Civil Registrar)
32. Support
a) Basis of support: The basis of support is simply the relationships
mentioned in Articles 195 and 196 of the Family Code, subject to the
order of liability in Article 199. Support is not based on parental
authority. Hence, grandparents will become liable for support to their
grand children even if the parents are still exercising their parental
authority if the latter do not have the means to provide support.
b) Manner of giving support: At the option of the giver, the support may
either be in the form of: (1) paying a fixed allowance; or (2) receiving
and maintaining in the family dwelling the person to be supported.
However, the giver may not choose option no. 2 if there is a legal or
moral obstacle thereto. Example: The wife left the family dwelling
because he caught the husband in an act of infidelity with the caregiver
of her mother-in-law. Thereafter, the wife demanded legal support for
her minor children from the paternal grandparents (because the
husband does not have the means to provide support). The Court ruled
that the grandparents may not choose the second option and compel
the grand-children to go back to the family dwelling. Since the grand-
children are with their mother, they cannot be compelled to go back to
the house of the grand-parents because that will also be forcing their to
go back to the house which is the scene of the husband’s infidelity. The
same, according to the Court, amounted to a moral obstacle for
choosing the second option.
34. Funerals
a) Rule: As to who shall have the duty and the right to make funeral
arrangements, the same follow the same order of liability established
for support in Article 199 of the Family Code (Art. 305, Civil Code).
Thus, the paramour does not have such right to make funeral
arrangements over the objection of the legal wife (Valino v. Adriano).
b) Wishes of the deceased: The funeral shall be in accordance with the
wishes of the deceased. However, for the wishes of the deceased to
govern, it must be embodied in a last will and testament. Likewise, said
wishes may not contravene the provisions of Article 305. Hence, the
husband cannot validly wish that he be buried in the family mausoleum
of the paramour against the wishes of his legitimate family. In other
words, said wish cannot prevail over the right and the duty of his loved
ones under Article 305 to make the proper funeral arrangements.
(Valino v. Adriano)
B. PROPERTY
38. Alluvium
a) Requisites in order for additional soil deposit to become private
property: (1) the process of depositing soil must be thru a gradual and
imperceptible process; (2) the process of depositing soil must be the
exclusive work of nature (otherwise, the additional soil deposit will
remain to be property of public dominion); and (3) the accretion must
take place on rivers, creeks, streams or lakes (if the accretion takes
place on a sea, the additional soil deposit becomes property of public
dominion).
b) In alluvium, the water level is more or less maintained. If the land is
formed by reason of the recession of the water level from the river
banks, the same is not accretion, but simply a case of a river drying
up. A dried-up river bed belongs to the State. (Republic v. Santos III)
c) The lessee of a parcel of land bordering a creek noticed the downward
slope of the riprap constructed by the DPWH on the creek. He sought
the permission of the DPWH to fill the downward slope of the riprap to
level it with the leased premises. After he filled up said portion, he put
up a beerhouse on the property and sold the beerhouse to another
person. When the lessor learned that another person was occupying
the adjacent property, he filed an ejectment case against said
occupant claiming that the filled up portion is an integral part of his
land being an accretion thereof. The Court ruled that said portion
cannot be considered an alluvium because the latter is required to be
the exclusive work of nature. (Daclison v. Baytion)