Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

The chapter on human relations

Not all provisions are actionable

When we think about provisions that are actionable, where actually referring to those provisions of law
that allow anyone to file a suit case on that particular provision.

Article 19 for example, talks about the abuse of right doctrine, tells you the measure of every person on
how they choose to do their life and the performance of their duties.

Anyone who violates article 19 per se will not give you any rights to file suit base on the violation of
article 19 aided by itself. Because there is nothing here that it would give rise to damages or it can give
rise to a cause of action.

Not all legal provision will allow you to file suit. Remember this, only those who spent out and asked for
damages, injunction or any other kind of remedy. Those are what you call, legal provisions that are

So the provision on chapter 2: human relations, the actionable provisions, they are referred to as the
special torts or the intentional torts. When we talk about torts, we are looking at a person’s ability to
file suit because someone committed manage to damage them. And that particular act whether
intentional or not done negligently actually gave rise to the violation of your legal rights.

The most common example is a vehicular accident, A Honda Civic comes into a Bus, there’s no particular
relation between the drivers of the Bus and the car, but because of that bumping that has been done
because of negligence. The person was texting while driving and they bump into that bus. The tie that
binds them together, the legal tie, or the vinculum juris is the negligent act. Under 2176 of the Civil
Code, that allows the victim to file suit for damages. You have to restore the vehicle and if I was
traumatized by that, then you have to pay for moral damages as well. It will take you sometime to
recover from that experience. That is what you call the 2176 Quasi Delict.

Most other jurisdictions, this is found in negligence

Civil code was copied from the Spanish Civil Code, the new civil code thought that 2176 as it was then
expressed under the old Spanish civil code, it talked about actions based on negligence. The good about
those acts that are not intentional, they’re not negligent, you weren’t texting or doing something else.
You’re really meant to cause harm to that person, you slap them or you do things that will humiliate
them those are what you call the human relations aspect. Those things are intentional tort, they are
actually covered under chapter 2 of human relations.

Article 20 talks about willfully and negligently, supposedly to cover even those that are negligent act
because they violate the law. On the other hand, 21 says even if they’re legal but you do it willfully and
is contrary to morals, public policy and good customs. Then you will also be held liable to that person.
They are now classified as the special torts. Special because in their original presumption that they only
cover the negligent acts but now we are also covering intentional acts.

So in the Bach Case for example, the Iranian Medical student did as a modus operandi seduce women
and then maltreat them. That particular act gave rise to a cause of action even if he wasn’t violating
anything. Even in the realm of human relations between and among women and friends. Anything that
is done intentionally, even show malice and injury and the damage that is cause to you, then you can file
suit and ask for damages from the court.

Things that are covered by the state are not something that you can file suit for.

Going now to the other kinds of special torts, you get the idea of unjust enrichment. The principle of
unjust enrichment, is encapsulated in art 22. Every person, who through an act or 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. So the illegal construed here is the
infairness. When you get something and you don’t have any legal ground to it. In the idea of law, you
hold something because it was passed on to you legally or you created it. Or if something no one has
ever own and then you discover it and then it’s yours. So that thing when anyone is actually the owner.

For example if you went swimming in the sea and you discovered the pearl, assuming its not someone
else private property ,that’s what you call a resulious. If someone owns that and you hold on to that,
that’s what you call, UNJUST ENRICHMENT.

An act or a performance by another or any other means, even if it comes to your possession you have a
duty to return it. And if you don’t, the owner can file suit. That’s the definition of the principle of unjust

When a person comes into possession of something he/she does not own and does not want to return
it, there is an opportunity to file an action in rem verso.

In law, you call it accion in rem verso. Or an action for a recover of something because of unjust
enrichment. Take note of this, this is an auxillary action. What do you mean when something is an
auxillary action? You can only use that particular action if you do not have any other recourse in law,
meaning, you borrowed money from a bank, and you have to mortgage your car. You have your car to
the bank and the time you have to pay. Later on, you were able to pay your debt, but the bank doesn’t
want to return your car, what will you do? You cant go there and forcibly return the car because that is a
violation of the law. There is a specific action for you to claim back your car and its not accion in rem
verso because under the law , you have the principle of replevin, when something is held by someone
who has no right to it. Replevin is not a remedy, there are certain requirements before you can file it. If
you don’t have any other choice, that’s the time you can file the accion in rem verso. That is what is
meant by auxillary.

Art 23 tells further on unjust enrichment, even when an act or then causes damage to another’s
property because of the negligence of the defendant. The latter shall be liable for indemnity only in the
act then that he was maltreated. It doesn’t matter the thing that you’re holding on came to you without
doing anything. You just woke up and suddenly, you have all these things in your house. But when it got
in your house because of calamitous event. There is no fault in your part however you have a
responsibility to return it because you don’t own that.

During flooding, the cows decided to go to your place and they tried eating and stomping your crops . at
the meantime, the cattles finish all your crops. In that perspective, its not the fault of the owner of the
cattle, that the cattle escape, in this case you have an act of God. To the extent, the owner of the cattle
was benefited because of the act of cattle eating your crops that is the extent you ask for damages. To
the extent that he benefited. He is enriched only to that portion. Are there exceptions to the principle
of unjust enrichment?