Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1

Art. 6
Art. 7
Art. 13 - Computation of period
Ledasan v. COMELEC
 Vs. admin code (admin code prevails bec it was issued later than the NCC)
Art. 14
 Ambassadors are exempted from criminal liab not because of PIL but bec of treaty
stipulations. They can only declare them as person non grata.

Art. 15 (Nationality Theory) 


 Memorize!!!
 I.e. divorce issue.
 Correlate with Art. 16

Art. 16 (Lex Rei Sitae except successions)


 Real/Personal properties
 Impt: 2 par. Regarding succession - correlate with Art. 1039 > national law of the person
prevails.
 Example: Manny Pacquiao
 Transferring of property - covered by US law
 Succession - covered by PH law

[Sept. 23 4-6pm launching of book ni sir = recitation] 

[Anong case to?] Van Weilsen?


Minor child and mother are in the PH. Father stayed in Poland? The father was seen in
Palawan. Mother sued for support.
father: under my national law, I am not obliged to provide support. 
He failed to prove the law -- processual presumption doctrine/ presumed identity approach

Must allege and prove the foreign law. If not, the foreign law is considered the same as PH law.

Bellis v. Bellis
Foreigner issued a last will and testament. Illegitimate children in PH were excluded.
He is not domiciled in PH and was a resident in Texas.
He has illegitimate children in PH and now contends that they must have a share on the estate.
Following the nationality theory, Texas law will prevail (No compulsory heirs). Illegitimate
children cannot demand their share.

Art. 17 (Lex Loci Celebrationis)

Catch all phrases of damages: (19, 20, 21 - MEMORIZE!)

Art. 19 (Mere statement, does not provide indemnity in case of violation)


Sources of damages: (20 and 21)

Art. 20
Art. 21

Bunag vs. CA 


Girl was raped and promised marriage. Marriage did not happen. Woman was entitled to
damages based on Arts. 19, 20, 21. No criminal liab bec of consent. No seduction because ?
lol. 

Art. 28

Discussed Case:
Corp 1 produces plastic for motor parts. Adjacent corporation 2 produces plastic for
kitchenware. Corp 2 was pirating employees from Corp 1 because Corp 1 seems to be more
profitable. Corp 2 started making motor parts and Corp 1 sued for damages 2million. Motorparts
were not patented and there were many other corps making such as contended by Corp 2.
SC: Unfair competition (registration is not requisite) is broader than infringement(registration is a
requisite). Corp1 is entitled to damages based on Art. 28
Issue here is not trademark but the immoral act done.

Art 29, 30, 31 - Independent Civil Actions

Jeepney accident
1. Reckless Imprudence - criminal aspect (based on crime of 1157) against the driver -
reasonable doubt
2. Breach of contract of carriage - civil aspect (based on contract of 1157) against Operator
- preponderance of evidence - substantive law will prevail than procedural (ROC)

Read 1157  - Sources of Obligations


Art. 111 RPC - criminally liable is also civilly liable.

Filing of Criminal case impliedly instituted ang civil case

Art 36 - Prejudicial question (memorize definition from jurisprudence)

 Applies only between civil and criminal cases.


                                    Civil and administrative (as long as determinative of the guilt of of
the accused)
 Does not apply when both are civil/criminal in nature
 DAR and MTC.. Other awardee filed ejectment. Other awardee filed for legitimacy. issue
in DAR who is legitimate awardee. DAR has to decide first the legitimate awardee. Civil
case for ejectment must be suspended to allow DAR determine on the issue.
 Remind sir on prejudicial questions involved in annulment cases and remarriages.

Natural Persons
Article 40 - 41

Art. 41 presumed personality. 


 1987 consti protects child still in the womb.
 Fetus can be a donee subject to Art. 41 that the child must be alive within at least 24
hours reckoning from the cutting of umbilical cord (less than 7 months)
 More that 7 months, alive at the time of delivery. If he died, donations will go to the
compulsory heirs are parents.
 Bar Q: 22hrs alive si less than 7months baby, nagbrown out. Fortuitous event. Entitled to
donation?
 Bar Q: 22hrs alive si less than 7months baby, sinaksak. Fortuitous event. Entitled to
donation?
 No conditions or cause enumerated. Thus even if fortuitous event, parents are not
entitled.if the law does not distinguish, do not distinguish.
 Bar Q: donation of 1 million  to the unborn child was oral. - no one is not entitled to the
donation made was oral. It should be in writing. Donation is void. (Art. 748)

FAMILY CODE NEXT Article 1 - 36


De dios v De Dios

Оценить