Human Relations (n)

Article 19. 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.

Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law, wilfully or negligently causes damage to another,
shall indemnify the latter for the same.

 Respondents having acted in bad faith, moral damages may be

recovered
 Bigamy,The guilty party is liable to the offended party for moral damages under . -The
accused’s collective acts or fraud and deceit before, during and after his marriage with
private complainant were willful, deliberate, and with malice and caused injury to the
latter, and the fact that she did not sustain any physical injuries is not a bar to an award for
moral damages.
 Absence of good faith must be sufficiently - the negligent act of professor-While school was
guilty of negligence and this liable to respondent for the latter‘s actual damages. Court hold
that respondent should have not been awarded moral damages, we do not agree with the
court that the respondent jader suffered shock, trauma, and pain when he was informed
that he could not graduate and will not be allowed to take the bar examinations as what
Court of Appeals held because it‘s also respondent‘s duty to verify for himself whether he
has completed all necessary requirements to be eligible for the bar examinations.

Want of care to the conscious (negligence)disregard of civil obligations coupled with conscious
knowledge of the cause naturally calculated to produce them would make the earring party
liable.

Educational institutions are duty-bound to inform the students of their academic status and not
wait for the latter to inquire from the former.

 Damages, award of moral and exemplary damages for an illegally dismissed employee is
proper where the employee had been harassed and arbitrary terminated by the employer.
---- moral damages be awarded to compensate one for diverse injuries such as mental
anguish,besmirched reputation, wounded feelings and social humiliation occationed by the
employers unreasonable dismissal of the employee. MBWS
 A right,though by itself legal because recognize or granted by law as such, may nevertheless
become the source of some illegality. Thus when the right is exercised in a manner which
does not conform with the norm enshrined in art. 19 of the code and results in damage to
another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held
responsible.
 A telegraph company is liable for acts of its employees in connection with libelous or
defamatory telegram. A message sending company is duty-bound to take precautionary or
necessary steps in order to prevent such humiliating incidents.

Note: by analogy, in the light of information technology, a pager company must exercise due
caution that no libelous, defamatory nor obscene or pornographic message come through.
Obviously, such a message speaks for itself, and thus calls for an award of damages.

Hotel Nikko v. Reyes

“ Doctrine of volenti non fit injuria “; (to which a person assents is not esteemed in law as injury)
refers to self inflicting injury which precludes the recovery of damages by one who has knowingly
and voluntary exposed himself to danger, even if he is not negligent in doing so.
Damnum Absque Injuria - Damage without injury
 However this doctrine does not find application to the case at bar because even if
respondent reyes assumed the risk of being asked to leave the party,petitioner, under art. 19
and 21 of the NCC were still under obligation to treat him fairly in order not to expose him to
unnecessary ridicule and shame.

Party gate crashers; a person who did not abuse her right in asking a person to leave a party to
which he was not invited cannot be made to pay for damages, necessarily neither her employer
be held liable.

Bad judgement which, if done with good intentions, cannot amount to bad faith

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

ACTS CONTRA BONUS MORES (Art. 21)

presupposes loss or injury, material or otherwise,which one may differ(to disagree in a
opinion) as a result of such violation
ELEMENTS: aci
1. There is an act which is legal;
2. But which is contrary to morals, good customs, public order, or public policy;
3. And it is done with intent to injure

 Their can be no recovery of damages for breach of promise to marry

1. when there is carnal knowledge; the aggrieved party may;
A) ask the other to recognize the child and give support to said child
B) sue for moral damages, if there be criminal or moral seduction, but not if the intercourse
was due to mutual lust
- Moral seduction through an ingenious and tricky scheme, to the extent of
making her fall in love with him
- (Damages may be awarded not because of promise to marry but because of fraud and
deceit beyond it, the promise is only to subtle scheme or deceptive devise to entice or enveigle
her to accept him and to obtain her consent to sexual act -)Gashem shokat….below…(in other
words, if the CAUSE be promise to marry, and the EFFECT is a carnal knowledge, there is a chance
that there was a criminal or moral seduction, hence recovery of moral damages may prosper
under art 21... If on the other hand around,there can be no recovery of moral damages, because
here mutual lust has intervene.
C) sue for actual damages,should there be any, such as expenses for the wedding
preparation,medical and unearned wages
2. when there has no carnal knowledge, there may be an actual and moral damages under
certain conditions as when there has been clear deliberate desire to inflict loss or injury, or when
there has been an evident abuse of right.xxx Thus , a man who deliberately fails to appear at the
altar during the schedule wedding simple because it was his intention to embarass or humiliate
the girl, no doubt inflict irreparable injury to her honor and reputation,wounds her feelings, and
leads to the way for her possible social ostracism. The girl, in such case, can recover not only
actual but also moral and exemplary damages
Xxx mere breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong but to formally
set a wedding and go through all the 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 defendant must be held answerable in damages

 Damages may be awarded not because of promise to marry but because of fraud and deceit
beyond it.
- it is the proximate cause of giving herself unto him in a sexual congress, proof that he had in
reality,No intention of marrying her and that the promise is only to subtle scheme or deceptive
devise to entice or enveigle her to accept him and to obtain her consent to sexual act - could
justified award of damages under 21 because
- it is essential, however,that such injury should have been committed in a manner contrary to
morals,good customs and public policy.

In that instance, the court found that petitioner‘s deceptive promise to marry led Marilou to
surrender her virtue and womanhood
 (pe v pe) moral seduction; the SC applying art. 21 ruled that indeed he, a married man
has seduced lolita through an ingenious and tricky scheme, to the extent of making
her fall in love with him. Verily, he has committed an injury to lolita’s family in a manner
contrary to morals good customs and public policy.

 Court finds that the acts complaint of cannot be consider as disgraceful or grossly immoral
conduct. Mere sexual relations between two unmarried and consenting adults (in many
occation)are not enough to warrant administrative sanction for illicit behavior.

Article 22. 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.

Unjust enrichment
When
1. a person unjustly benefited
2. Such benefit is derived at the expense of or w/ the damages of another

Solutio indebiti - there is mistake in the undue payment

Accion in rem verso - NO mistake in the undue payment

Accion in rem verso - Action for recovery of what has been paid without just cause(auxillary-
action of last resort)
Requisites:
1. that the defendant has been enriched
2. That the plaintiff has been suffered a loss
3. That the enrichment of the defendant is w/o just or legal ground
4. That the plaintiff has no other action based on contract, quasi contract or quasi delict

Distinguished from solutio indebiti: Mistake is an

essential element in solutio indebiti but not in
accion in rem verso.

Article 23. 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.

Article 24. 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. mimit

“ parens patriae” the sovereign power of the state in safeguarding the rights of person under
disability, such as insane and incompetent. The state under parens patriae is under the obligation
to minimize the risk to those who because of their minority, are as yet unable to take care of
themselves fully

Article 28. Unfair competition in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor

through the use of force, intimidation, deceit, machination or any other unjust, oppressive or
highhanded method shall give rise to a right of action by the person who thereby suffers damage.

Article 25. 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.

Article 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace
of mind of his neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though
they may not constitute a criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for
damages, prevention and other relief:
(1) Prying into the privacy of another's residence;
(2) Meddling with or disturbing the private life or family relations of another;
(3) Intriguing to cause another to be alienated from his friends;
(4) Vexing or humiliating another on account of his religious beliefs, lowly station in life, place of
birth, physical defect, or other personal condition.

 The sacredness of human personality is a concomitant consideration of every plan for

human amelioration(to become better). The right of persons are amply protected, and
damages are provided for violations of a person‘s dignity, personality, privacy and peace of
mind. There is no question that Nestor suffered mental anguish,
besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, and social
humiliation as a proximate result of petitioner‘s abusive,
scandalous, and insulting language. Nestor, therefore is
entitled to damages. (BMWS)

Article 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss because a public servant or employee
refuses or neglects, without just cause, to perform his official duty may file an action for damages
and other relief against the latter, without prejudice to any disciplinary administrative action that
may be taken.

Non - feasance - refusal or neglect without just cause to perform his duty
Misfeasance - doing once duty improperly,there is an order to perform under the law
Malfeasance - performing a wrongful conduct when one has no obligation to do so, not required
to do so under the law.
RELIEF AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICIALS (Art. 27)
A public officer who commits a tort or other wrongful act, done in excess or beyond the scope
of his duty, is not protected by his office and is personally liable therefore like any private
individuals
 Abuse of right ; temporary retraining order’s even if an acts of a party may have been legally
justified at the outset,their continuation after the issuance of the TRO amounted to an
insidious abuse of his right(bad faith) - his act constituted not only an abuse of right, but an
invalid exercise off a right that had been suspended.
The exercise of a right ends when the right disappears, and it disappears when it is
abused,specially to the prejudice of the other.
Article 29. When the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground
that his guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for
damages for the same act or omission may be instituted. Such action requires only
a preponderance of evidence. Upon motion of the defendant, the court may require
the plaintiff to file a bond to answer for damages in case the complaint should be
found to be malicious.

If in a criminal case the judgment of acquittal is based upon reasonable doubt, the
court shall so declare. In the absence of any declaration to that effect, it may be
inferred from the text of the decision whether or not the acquittal is due to that
ground.
Article 30. When a separate civil action is brought to demand civil liability arising from a criminal
offense, and no criminal proceedings are instituted during the pendency of the civil case, a
preponderance of evidence shall likewise be sufficient to prove the act complained of.

(EX DELICTO)Criminally liable shall be civilly liable

Criminal liability(ex delicto)
Degree of proof
1. proof beyond reasonable doubt - moral
certainty that exclude all possibilities
Art 29 GR: if a criminal Case instituted
Acquittal
A) reasonable doubt
B) Pure innocence( not author of the crime)
Found guilty and DIED while on appeal
Art 30 Pendency
Civil liability
1. preponderance of evidence - quantity &
quality of evidence that would out weight the
quantity and quality of the other party
Deemed instituted - depend upon the same crime
Exception:
1.civil case instituted ahead/prior to the criminal
case
2.Waiver
3.If there is reservation
A) civil liability is not extinguish
B) Civil liability is extinguish
Civil liability extinguish - civil liability based solely
on ex delicto
Except: art. 31 source of obligation arising from
a) Law
b) Contract
c) Quasi contract
d) Quasi Delict
When the civil liability survives, an action for
recovery therefor may be pursued but only by
way of filing a separate civil action. This separate
civil action may be enforced either against the
executor/administrator or the estate of the
accuse, depending on the source of obligation
upon which the same is based as explained
above.

 the acquittal of the bus driver was based on reasonable doubt, which means that the civil
case for damages was not barred since the cause of action of the heirs was based on quasi-
delict. Even if damages are sought on the basis of crime and not quasi-delict, the acquittal of
the bus driver will not bar recovery of damages because the acquittal was based not on a
finding that he was not guilty but only on reasonable doubt. Thus, it has been held that the
 judgment of acquittal extinguishes the liability of the accused for damages only when it
includes a declaration that the facts from which the civil might arise did not exist. Thus, the
civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal where the acquittal is based on reasonable
doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required in civil cases; where the court
expressly declares that the liability of the accused is not criminal but only civil in nature
 The answer at the case at bar is in the affirmative. The acquittal of Manantan was due to
reasonable doubts therefore civil action can prosper. There exist two types of acquittal, the
first is acquittal because the accused was not the author of the crime or there is no crime -
the criminal and civil liability is extinguished while in the
second is the acquittal due to reasonable doubts - the criminal aspect is the only one
extinguished since civil liability merely requires preponderance of evidence. The case prospers in
pursuance of article 29 of the New Civil Code.

Article 31. When the civil action is based on an obligation not arising from the act or omission
complained of as a felony, such civil action may proceed independently of the criminal
proceedings and regardless of the result of the latter.

Xxxx not arise from crime but from some other act - like contract or a legal duty
 (exception)rape to the Supreme Court, the controlling statute was Article 89 of the Revised
Penal Code. The provision states that death extinguishes the criminal aspect. In the case at
bar, there was no reservation of an independent civil action against the accused; the
criminal and civil aspects are therefore considered as instituted in the criminal action. Since
the civil action was anchored with the criminal case then it follows that the death dissolves
both civil and criminal liability.
The Solicitor General‘s dependence on the Sendaydiego case was misplaced. What was
contemplated in the Sendaydiego case was the civil liability arising from other sources of
obligation other than delicts. It is therefore safe to say that what death extinguishes is criminal
liability and civil liability arising from delict only. (people v bayotas)

 Driver reckless imprudence, but acquitted on the ground that his guilt not proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
Allege civil action will NOT prosper
A.) it was barred by a prior judgment in the criminal case
B.)the plaintiff had not reserve the civil case
Held: the civil case may still prosper:
A) because the suit is based on culpa contractual, not the alleged criminal offense( under
art.31,an independent civil action is allowed)
B) Because, while there was no express reservation is already implied in the law which
declares the civil action to be independent from the criminal action. As a matter of fact, the duty
of the offended party to make such reservation applies only to reservation against the defendant
in the criminal case, and not to persons secondary liable.

criminal civil Independent

-recover only once
-no reservation bec. Its separate and distinct
-GR: if no reservation =is deemed instituted
32 - bill of right,liberties
33 -defamation,physical injury,fraud
34-primary,and subsidiary
2176-Quasi Delict
32-good faith is not a defence
GR;can not file against a judge unless violation of RPC,penal laws
33-defamation,physical injury,fraud
physical injury can be filed arising from a crime like homicide and murder
 34 -primary and subsidiary
2176 -Quasi Delict-It is an act or omission arising from fault or negligence
which causes damage to another, there being no pre-existing contractual
relations between the parties
Except;in a contract of gross negligence,you can set aside the contract

Article 32. Any public officer or employee, or any private individual, who directly or indirectly
obstructs, defeats, violates or in any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights and
liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter for damages:

 (Cojuanco v PCSO) Under the Article 32, it is not necessary that the public officer acted with
malice or bad faith.To be liable, it is enough that there was a violation of the constitutional
rights of petitioner, even on the pretext of justifiable motives or good faith in the
performance of one's duties.
A little exercise of prudence would have disclosed that there was no writ issued specifically for
the sequestration of the racehorse winnings of petitioner. There was apparently no record of any
such writ covering his racehorses either. The issuance of a
sequestration order requires the showing of a (at first
appearance/sight)prima facie case and due regard for the
requirements of due process.The withholding of the prize winnings of
petitioner without a properly issued sequestration order clearly spoke
of a violation of his property rights without due process of law.

Article 33. In cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries a civil action for damages, entirely
separate and distinct from the criminal action, may be brought by the injured party. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of the criminal prosecution, and shall require only a
preponderance of evidence
 (Ruiz v Ucol)Ruiz contends that there can be no res judicata in the case, since the decision of
the trial court did not pass upon the civil aspect of the criminal case. Article 33 of the Civil
Code which gives an offended party in cases of defamation, among others, the right to file a
civil action distinct from the criminal proceedings is not without limitations.
Damages: acquital of the accuse was stated in the dispositive portion of the decision that her
guilt was not established beyond reasonable doubt ; answer of the accused in administrative case
not libelous as what is libelous is the compalint by petitioners maid but authored by him.
 Judgment: were a civil action was separately filed based on injuries arising from reckless
driving, but the driver was acquitted in the criminal case on the ground that he was not
negligent and the case is “pure accident” the civil action for damages should be dismissed.
(victory v jeep, marcia v CA)

Article 34. When a member of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or
protection to any person in case of danger to life or property, such peace officer shall be
primarily liable for damages, and the city or municipality shall be subsidiarily responsible
therefor. The civil action herein recognized shall be independent of any criminal proceedings, and
a preponderance of evidence shall suffice to support such action.
 (interflavor v argos) art.33 contemplates an action against the employee in his primary civil
liability, it does not apply to an action against the employer to enforce its subsidiary liability
because such liability arises only after conviction of the employee in the criminal case or
when the employee is adjudged guilty of the wrongful act in a criminal action and found to
have committed the offense in the discharge of his duties.
 “ any action brought against the employer based on its subsidiary liability before the
conviction of its employee is premature.”

Art. 2176-2177
Quasi delict It is an act or omission arising from fault or negligence which causes damage to another,
there being no pre-existing contractual relations between the parties
ELEMENTS:
1. There must be an act or omission
2. There must be fault or negligence attributable to the person charged
3. There must be damage or injury
4. There must be a direct relation of cause and effect between the act arising from fault or negligence
and the damage or injury (proximate cause );
5. There is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties.

 The Supreme Court held that Barredo can be civilly liable. He is primarily liable under Article
1903 which is a separate civil action against negligent employers. Garcia is well within his
rights in suing Barredo. He reserved his right to file a separate civil action and this is more
expeditious because by the time of the SC judgment Fontanilla is already serving his
sentence and has no property. It was also proven that Barredo is negligent in hiring his
employees because it was shown that Fontanilla had had multiple traffic infractions already
before he hired him, something he failed to overcome during hearing. Had Garcia not
reserved his right to file a separate civil action, Barredo would have only been subsidiarily
liable. Further, Barredo is not being sued for damages arising from a criminal act, but rather
for his own negligence in selecting his employee under Article 1903.

 (Mansion biscuit v CA) - check issue in behalf of the company. Criminal liability dismiss and
civil liability extinguish because he is only a representative of the corporation

Article 36. Pre-judicial questions, which must be decided before any criminal prosecution may
be instituted or may proceed, shall be governed by rules of court which the Supreme Court shall
promulgate and which shall not be in conflict with the provisions of this Code.

General Rule : if both criminal and civil cases are filed in court, the criminal case takes
precedence.
Exception : When there is a prejudicial
question

Prejudicial question - is one which must be decided first before a criminal action may be
instituted or may proceed because a decision therein is vital to the judgment in criminal case

Requisites
A) Civil action involves an issue intimately related to the issue in criminal action
B)The resolution of issue in civil case determines guilt or innocence of the accuse or (whether or
not the criminal action may proceed)
C)Jurisdiction to try, said question must be lodged in another tribunal.

a Prejudicial question usually comes into play in a situation where a civil action and a criminal
action may proceed, because howsoever the issue raised in the civil action is resolves would be
determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in a criminal case.( Donato v luna)

Who may raise; the defendant in a criminal case( not the prosecution )

Xxx.. No prejudicial question if the civil and criminal action can, according to law,proceed
independently from each other
 The rationale on the existence of prejudicial questions is to avoid two conflicting issues. Its
Requisites are
1) that a civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue in the criminal
action and
2) the resolution of the issue determines whether or not the criminal action will proceed. In the
present case, the accused need not present a final judgment declaring his marriage void for he
can adduce evidence in the criminal case of the nullity of his marriage other than the proof of a
final judgment. More importantly, parties to a marriage should not be allowed to judge for
themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the competent courts. So long as there
is no such final judgment the presumption is that the marriage exists for all intents and purposes.
Therefore he who cohabits with a woman not his wife risks being prosecuted for concubinage
 The Supreme Court held that this is an exception to the general rule of prejudicial
questions and that the suspension or cancellation of the plebiscite be granted. A case
involving a boundary dispute between Local Government Units presents a prejudicial
question which must first be decided before plebiscites for the creation of the proposed
barangays may be held.While it may be the general rule that a prejudicial question
contemplates a civil and criminal action and does not come into play where both cases are
civil, in the interest of good order, the SC can very well suspend action on one case pending
the outcome of another case closely interrelated/linked to the first.
A requisite for the creation of a barangay is for its territorial jurisdiction to be properly identified
by metes and bounds or by more or less permanent natural boundaries. Primarily because
territorial jurisdiction is an issue raised in a pending civil case, until and unless such issue is
resolved with finality, to define the territorial jurisdiction of the proposed barangays would only
be an exercise in futility.

 In order that a person may be held liable for the crime of bigamy, the subsequent marriage
must have all the essential elements of a valid marriage, were it not for the subsistence of
the first marriage. One of the essential elements of a valid marriage is that the consent
thereto of the contracting parties must be freely given. Without the element of consent a
marriage would be illegal and void. Since the validity of the second marriage is in question,
subject of the action for bigamy, cannot be determined in the criminal case and since
prosecution for bigamy does not lie unless all the elements concur, it is necessary then that
a decision in a civil action must first be secured. The issue here is whether or not such
marriage was really bigamous.

The SC ruled that the defendant in a case of bigamous claims that his second marriage is not
valid on the ground that his consent thereto was obtained by means of duress,force, and
intimidation, the suit for annulment of the second marriage must first be decided before the
criminal action for bigamy can proceed.

 The issue of the nullity of the marriage in the civil case is not determinative of petitioner‘s
guilt or innocence in the crime of bigamy. It is noteworthy that the complaint for annulment
of the second marriage on the ground that her consent was obtained through deceit was
filed by Paz Abayan, the second wife. He who contracts a second marriage before a judicial
declaration of nullity of marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for bigamy. The case
for annulment of marriage can only be considered as a prejudicial question to the bigamy
case against the accused only if it is proved that the petitioner‘s consent to marriage was
obtained through duress, violence or intimidation. Such is not the case at bar. Petitioner
merely raised the issue of prejudicial question to evade the prosecution of the criminal case.
Records reveal that prior to petitioner‘s second marriage he had been living with private
respondent as husband and wife for more than five years. He only came up with the story
that his consent to the marriage was secured through force, threat and intimidation one
year from the solemnization of the second marriage.

Other instances of prejudicial question

1) In a criminal case for damage to ones property, a civil action that involves ownership of said
property should be resolve
2) A civil action involving an obligation to pay wages is a prejudicial question to a criminal
prosecution for delay of the payment of such wages

Instances of non Prejudicial question

1. the determination of title to land in a cadastral case is not prejudicial question to a criminal
case for falsification of a public documents filed against a notary public who allegedly falsified an
affidavit that had been presented as evidence in the cadastral proceeding.

Article 40. Birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall be considered born for all
purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be born later with the conditions specified in the
following article. (29a)

 No action for damages could be instituted in behalf of the unborn child on account of the
injuries it received; no such action could derivatively accrue to its parents. No transmission
of rights can take place from on due to the lack of juridical personality. Article 40 of the Civil
Code limits the application of the presumptive civil personality by imposing the condition
that the child should be subsequently born alive. However, moral damages could be
awarded for the illegal arrest of the normal development of the fetus on account of distress
and anguish attendant to is lost, and the disappointment of their parental expectations. The
records do not bear such case. It is clear that the husband is only intent on recovering
money from the doctor.

Article 41. For civil purposes, the foetus is considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely
delivered from the mother's womb. However, if the foetus had an intra-uterine life of less than
seven months, it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-four hours after its complete delivery
from the maternal womb. (30a)

Presumption on the capacity to act

Issue:
Whether or not Feliciano‘s donation is void for lack of consent due to incapacity.
Ruling:
In order for a donation to be valid, the donor‘s capacity to give consent at the time of the
donation is existing. There lies no doubt that insanity impinges on consent freely given. However
the burden of proving such incapacity rests upon the person who alleges it, if no sufficient proof
to this effect is presented, capacity is presumed. The evidence presented by petitioners was
insufficient to overcome the presumption that Feliciano was competent when he donated the
property in question. A study of the nature of schizophrenia will show that Feliciano could still be
presumed capable of attending to his rights.