So we are already in the case of DY vs People. This involved
the 21 million that allegedly delivered to Gloria DY. What
should have been done under the circumstances by Man
Dy? Dba, she was aquitted by the offense charged but the
court awarded or ordered her to pay the 21 Million pesos
plus, but there was denial of the order grant to the
appellate court. WHY? This was questioned by Gloria DY
and they went to 21 million pesos. Isn’t it? So why is she
not liable to 21 million? She’s liable but in the same
criminal case. What should have been done by Man Dy is
what? File a separate civil action because it is based on a
contract of loan and this was proven during the trial when
according to her she received the checks but this was all in
cash dba? So, actually according to the court transpired
between the parties, that is a contract of loan initially this
involves a what? It was Dy who facilitated of the mortgage
of the warehouse and then, as payment, the NCCI received
a demand letter that the warehouse foreclose due to
absence of payment. So what man dy did is to deliever 21
checks if im not mistaken as payment. But there was no
payment still. So, Gloria was sued for estafa but, it was
unable to prove the element or receipt or
misappropriation. But despite the acquittal, the lower court
ordered Dy to pay 21 million. The Supreme Court said that
it is improper because there is no basis for the payment of
21 million arising from the crime of estafa. It cannot
prosper, instead what should have been done is to file a
separate civil action to recover the 21 million.
Let’s go to prejudicial question
What are the 2 elements of the prejudicial question? And
remember that these elements were revised by the
supreme court in the 2000 rules of criminal procedure. It is
now required that the civil case must be file ahead of the
criminal case. Otherwise, there would be no prejudicial
question. And, when does the, who (generally?) has given
the right to file a petition or motion to suspend the criminal
proceeding on the ground that there exist a prejudicial
question. It is the accused as the general rule. When? It
might be there be before the prosecutor’s office if the
complaint is still with the office of the prosecution or is in
the court before the court hearing the criminal case at
anytime before the prosecution rest its case and if the court
finds that there exist a prejudicial question, does it have the
authority to moto proprio dismsiss? No, it doesn’t have, not
even to suspend because it must await for the decision of
motion to suspend the criminal proceedings of the ground
that there exist a prejudicial question. So why is the
criminal proceeding be suspended and not the civil action?
The reason why there is suspension of the criminal case?
Because it will determine the guilt or the innocence of the
accused. So, in the case of TUANDA vs SANDIGAN BAYAN,
there is a prejudicial question likewise in the case of PASI.
PASI’s decision of the Supreme Court is the reiteration of
earlier decision rendered in the case of yap vs paras. In
BELTRAN VS PEOPLE, where is there a prejudicial question?
There is already been a commission of the offense charge
and then, In YAP VS CABALES, is there prejudicial question?
NO, because? BP. 22 hindi pwede. The mere issuance of the
funded check cannot be constitute a criminal offense so
there can be no suspension of the criminal proceeding even
if in this case, the buyer alleged that the contract sale
should be annulled because of the existence of squatters or
illegal settlers in the area which was not stipulated in the
contract that there are illegal settlers in the area that was
bought, ito yung mga checks na “what do you call that?”
you have it in case rediscounting,
DREAMWORK VS JANIOLA. Meron? No, why not? PIMINTEL
VS PIMINTEL? Non also, first and foremost, there was non-
compliance of the elements, and likewise, there non be a
prejudicial question even assuming that the civil case was
filed ahead because the crime that he was accused of has
no relation to the declaration of nullity.
CONSING JR. there is no prejudicial question because, this
was arises from article 33 dba? Fraud. The holds through,
moreover It is an independent civil action. So no prejudicial
question in the dependent civil action Same holds through
the case of CATTERPILLAR because the bases of the criminal
complaint was different from the civil case.
We go to juridical capacity. So what is Juridical capacity?
(JOAN ROMANO HIGHLIGHT RECIT) while the capacity to
act? So the in relation to article 40 which is that? The birth
determines personality but the conceived child shall be
considered born for all purposes favorable to it provided
and *inaudible* later the conditions set in article 41. So in
relation to juridical capacity the conceived child is deemed
to have juridical capacity can be the subject of legal relation
that does not have the capacity to act subject of course to
the requirement that the unborn child and the conceive
child shall be born later in accordance with the provisions
of article 41 and if the conditions set forth in article 41 had
been satisfied, then whatever is given to the child shall
become vested, becomes a valid relation or the
acknowledgement becomes a vested right of the child and
that’s entitled to received support or entitled to receive
share in the legitime, if the recognizing parent dies before
the birth of the child and the recognizing parent executes a
will, the unborn child cannot be (prepurated?) because
there was already a recognition made by the father prior to
the birth of the child otherwise compliance with the
requirement to article 41 and does the child is now entitled
to own the rights of the an illegitimate child and she is a
share of the legitime and it cannot be (inaudible). In the
case of Quimiguing Vs. Icao, the court held that the child is
given provisional personality, and thus entitled to receive
support. Article 40 does not require that at the time that
the child shall receive support, the child should already be
born. While it is true that under article 40 that it is birth
that determines personality, but nonetheless, having a
juridical capacity the may be the subject of legal relation. It
can be a recipient of support. So even still unborn the child
is entitled to receive support pursuant to the provisions of
article 195 of the family code on support. Now, the
provisions on articles 38 and 39 refer to mere restrictions
or limitations on one’s capacity to act. So any of those
mentioned therein can enter into a contract but the
contract however is defective because these are considered
to be limitations on ones capacity to act unless it is the
guardian for and in behalf of those incapacitated who
would enter into a contract. But it does not make the
contract void, it is merely voidable.
properly notarized by a nota republic. But if you go into the
intrinsic validity, because in a deed of donation a
consideration is supposed to be the love and affection for
which the donor have over the donee. (this will suffice the
succeeding discussion)
If the contract is executed abroad, it must comply with the
laws of the country where it was executed. But of course, in
as much as we do note take judicial notice of foreign laws
and foreign decrees, it is subject to the rules of procedure
under rule 132 sections 24 and 25. The exemption there is
when if it executed in the before a consular official of the
republic of the Philippines, it must comply with the
Philippine law.

Now we go to article 42. When is there death? There is

death when there is cessation of life, that refer to physical
death. So when do you apply article 43? This only applies to
persons who are called to succeed each other and there is
no proof that as to which of them died first. Whoever
alleges the death of one prior to the other has the burden
of proof. In the absence of proof, then there shall be no
transmission of rights from one to the other. Article 43 only
applies only to issues on succession. Other issues even they
are called to succeed each other, you apply the disputable
presumptions of survivorship under the rules of court.

Question: in terms of execution of a contract, is it part of

the intrinsic validity of the contract or the extrinsic validity
of the contract?

A: when you talk of form and solemnities, that’s covered by

the preparation of the document. You do not talk of what is
stipulated in the contract. But if you talk of the validity of
the contract per se, you go to the stipulations. Like if it is a
contract of sale, but the consideration is one night stand or
sexual intercourse? But when you talk of the execution of
last will and testament, holographic, you do not delve into
the intrinsic validity of the testamentary provisions. You
just merely go over the document whether all pages are
handwritten, signed, and dated. When we talk of the
intrinsic validity, you go to article 16 paragraph 2. You don’t
correlate article 17 to article 16. They are different because
one refers to the intrinsic validity, the other refers merely
to the technical manner of the preparation. And that is why
I said, if you talk of a deed of donation involving real
property, if it is executed in the Philippines, you don’t read
what is provided for in the deed of donation when you talk
of whether it has complied with the formalities required by
law. All you have to do is look at the back if it has been