Basic Principles affecting Applicability of Laws

1) Principle of Territoriality (Art. 14, NCC)

Penal laws and those of public security and safety shall be

obligatory upon all those who live or sojourn in the Philippine
territory, subject to the principles of public international law and to
treaty stipulations. Examples of the exceptions: Heads of states,
ambassadors or public ministers and their official retinue possess
immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the country of their sojourn
and cannot be sued, arrested or punished by the law of that country.

2) Principle of Nationality (Art. 15, NCC)

Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status,

condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of
the Philippines, even though they are living abroad.

Implications:

a) Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce, thus a

marriage between two Filipinos cannot be dissolved even by a
divorce obtained abroad. (Tenchavez vs. Escano, 15 SCRA 3550).
In the case of Filipinos who have obtained foreign citizenship, the
validity of divorce will be determined based on the law of the
country of which he is a citizen at the time the valid
divorce is obtained. (Quita vs. CA, 300 SCRA 406.)

b) Under Art. 26 of the Family Code, where a marriage between a

Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him her
or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse Filipino spouse shall likewise
have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law. However, in a
landmark case entitled Republic vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029
decided on April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court held that a divorce
validly obtained abroad by the Filipino spouse who is married
to a foreigner shall also be recognized here in the Philippines.
3) Principle of Lex Rei Sitae (Art. 16, NCC)

With respect to property, be it personal or real, the rule is that it is

subject to the law of the county where it is situated. However, the
national law of the person whose succession is under consideration
and not the law of the country where the property is situated will
govern with respect to the following aspects of succession, whether
testate or intestate:

a) order of succession
b) amount of successional right
c) intrinsic validity of the will; and
d) legal capacity to succeed

Example: Juan is a Filipino citizen who purchased a real property

in Japan. Juan has two legitimate children: Juanito and Juanita
who, under Philippine law, are compulsory heirs. Suppose that
under Japanese law, there are no compulsory heirs.

Issues:

1) Under Philippine law, a foreigner cannot own real property.

Can Juan validly own a real property in Japan? Applying the
general principle, it is the law of Japan which shall govern.

2) Under Philippine law, when Juan dies, his two children shall
inherit a portion of his real property in Japan. Japanese law
does not provide for any inheritance for compulsory heirs. Can
Juanito and Juanita own a portion of said real property when
Juan dies. Under Art. 16, it is provided that when it comes to
succession, it is the law of the person whose succession is
under consideration which will be applied, hence, the Philippine
law shall govern.

4) Principle of Lex Loci Celebrationis (Art. 17, NCC)

 The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills and other public
instruments shall be governed by laws of the country where they are
executed, subject to certain exceptions. However, when the acts
referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of
the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities
established by Philippine laws shall be observed.

Human Relations (Art. 19, 20 and 21, NCC)

1) Art. 19, commonly referred to as the principle of abuse of rights,

sets certain standards which may be observed not only in the
exercise of one’s rights but also in the performance of one’s duties.
These standards are the following: to act with justice, to give
everyone his due and to observe honesty and good faith.

2) Art. 20 speaks of the general sanction for all other provisions of law
which do not provide their own sanction. Thus, anyone who,
contrary to law, whether will willfully or negligently, causes damage
to another, shall indemnify his/her victim for injuries suffered
thereby.

3) Art. 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, or acts which are
contrary to morals, good customs or public policy. It presupposes
loss or injury, material or otherwise, which one may suffer as a result
of the violation.

4) Articles 19, 20 and 21 are related to each other and, under these
articles, an act which causes injury to another may be made the basis
for an award of damages. In Articles 19 and 20, the act must be
intentional while in Article 20, the act may done “willfully” or
“negligently”.

5) Articles 22 and 23 are based on the principle that no person shall be

unjustly enriched at the expense of another person. They are what is
referred by law as “quasi-contracts”, namely:

a) solution indebite or undue payment (Art. 22)

 b) negotiorum gestio or unauthorized management (Art. 23)
Civil Liability Arising from Commission of Crime:

Principles:

1) For every criminal liability there is a corresponding civil liability. Under

the Rules of Court, when a criminal action is instituted, the civil
action for the recovery of civil liability shall be deemed instituted with
the criminal action subject to the following exceptions:

a) when the offended party waives the civil action;

b) when the offended party reserves the right to institute it
separately;
c) institutes the civil action prior to the criminal action;
d) when the law grants the offended party the right to institute a
civil action which is entirely separate and independent from the
criminal action (independent civil action) such as when the
action is based on:

d.1) defamation
d.2) fraud
d.3) physical injuries (Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code)

In these cases, even if the act or omission complained of

may constitute a crime, the civil action may proceed
independently of the civil action.

2) A civil action based on or arising from a crime which has been

reserved cannot be instituted until the final judgment has been
entered in the criminal action. Moreover, if the criminal action is filed
after the civil action has already been instituted the latter may be
suspended in whatever state it may be found before judgment on
the merits and the suspension shall last until final judgment is
rendered in the criminal action. However, the civil action may be
consolidated with the criminal action.

3) Degree of proof required:

 a) for civil liability – preponderance of evidence
b) for criminal liability – proof beyond reasonable doubt.

4) Acquittal of the accused which extinguishes his criminal liability does

not necessarily result to the extinction of his civil liability. If his
acquittal is based on the established fact that he did not commit
the crime, then his civil liability is deemed extinguished.
However, if his acquittal is based on the fact that the prosecution
failed to produce evidence beyond reasonable doubt, the
action on his civil liability may proceed because the degree of proof
required is only preponderance of evidence.

Prejudicial question (Article 36):

A prejudicial question is defined as that which arises in a case, the

resolution of which is a logical antecedent of the issue involved therein,
and the cognizance of which pertains to another tribunal. In prejudicial
question matters, there are always two (2) cases involved, namely: a civil
and a criminal case. The criminal case is always suspended because the
issues in the civil case is determinative of the outcome of the criminal case.

Example:

A is married to B. Subsequently, through the use of force and intimidation,

B was forced to marry C. When A learned of B’s marriage to C, A initiated
a criminal action against B for bigamy. B, on the other hand, brought an
action for annulment of his marriage to C on the ground that his consent
was obtained through force and intimidation and thereafter asked the court
having jurisdiction of the bigamy case to suspend the hearing of the case
on the ground of prejudicial question. Is there a prejudicial question in this
case?

Is the annulment of B’s marriage to C a prejudicial question to the

resolution of the bigamy case? It is worthwhile to note that bigamy is
committed by a married man who willingly and knowingly enters into a
second marriage while his previous marriage is still existing. In this case, if
B’s second marriage is annulled by the court on the ground of vitiated
consent through force and intimidation, then there would be no basis for
the bigamy case. Therefore, whether or not the marriage of B to C is valid
is a prejudicial question in the criminal case against him for bigamy.