NCC, ARTS. 19-36.doc Version 1

STUDY GUIDE (Articles 19-36, Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, NCC) 13
STUDY GUIDE:
THE CIVIL CODE

PRELIMINARY TITLE
CHAPTER 2
Human Relations (Arts. 19-36)
 Why the Code Commission Formulated a Chapter on Human

Relations. – A chapter on human relations was formulated to present some
basic principles that are to be observed for the rightful relationship between
human beings and the stability of the social order. The lawmaker makes it
imperative that everyone duly respect the rights of others. Indeed, this
Chapter is calculated “to indicate certain norms that spring from the fountain
of good conscience. These guides for human conduct should run as golden
threads through society, to the end that law may approach its supreme
ideal, which is the sway and dominance of justice.”
NOTE: The new provisions in this Chapter can be given retroactive

effect, pursuant to Arts. 2252, 2253 and 2254 of the Civil Code. These
articles have been applied to condemn the defendant to pay damages even
though the acts, basis of the action, took place before the Civil Code
became effective on August 30, 1950.
 Utilize the notes below to emphasize on certain points in your readings

under this chapter. 
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.
1. Principle of Abuse of Rights. – Article 19 states the principle of

“abuse of rights”. It 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,
to wit:
(A) To act with justice;

(B) To give everyone his due; and
(C) To observe honesty and good faith.
NOTE:
Honesty – careful regard for other’s rights and property.
Good faith – honest intention to avoid taking undue advantage of another.
Bad faith – presupposes a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious
performance of a wrong. Mere bad judgment or negligence does not
necessarily mean bad faith.
A right, though by itself is legal (because it is recognized or granted by

law as such) may nevertheless become the source of some illegality. This
is because when a right is exercised in a manner which does not conform
with the norms enshrined in Article 19 and results in damage to another, a
legal wrong or injury is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be
held responsible.
Therefore, rights must never be abused. The moment they are abused,
they cease to be rights.
2. Elements of abuse of rights. – What are the requisites that must

concur in order that a person may be held liable for damages under the
abuse of rights principle?
(A) There is a legal right or duty;

(B) Which is exercised in bad faith;
(C) For the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.
 Albenson Enterprises Corp. vs. Court of Appeals,

G.R. No. 88694, January 11, 1993, 217 SCRA 16.
 Llorente vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 85464,

October 3, 1991, 202 SCRA 309.
 Sea Commercial Company, Inc., G.R. No. 122823,

November 25, 1999, 319 SCRA 210.
3. Remedy for Violation of Article 19. – While Article 19 lays down

a rule of conduct for the government of human relations and for the
maintenance of social order, it does not provide a remedy for its violation.
Article 20, together with Article 21, put teeth to Article 19 and other
provisions on the law on human relations that do not provide sanctions for
their violation.
4. “Damnum Absque Injuria” – Expound on the principle of

damnum absque injuria (damage without injury). Anent this principle, be
able to distinguish between the following legal concepts: ‘injury’, ‘damage’
and ‘damages’.
 Far East Bank and Trust Company vs. Pacilan, G.R. No.
157314, July 29, 2005, 465 SCRA 372.
5. Articles 19, 20 and 21 Compared. – 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.
There is a common element under Articles 19 and 21, and that is, the
act must be intentional. However, Article 20 does not distinguish: the act
may be done either “willfully,” or “negligently.”
ARTICLE 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully

or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter
for the same.
1. Norm of Conduct Required Under Article 20. – Article 20 speaks

of the general sanction for all other provisions of law which do not especially
provide for their own sanction. The article punishes illegal acts, whether
done willfully or negligently.
(A) Damage Through Willful Act. – Article 3 of the Revised Penal

Code states that, “Every person criminally liable for a felony is also
civilly liable.”
(B) Damage Through Negligence. – Article 2176 of the New Civil
Code provides that, “Whoever by act or omission causes damage
to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the
damage done.”
ARTICLE 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or

injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage.
1. Reason for the Article – Fully aware that there are countless gaps
in statues, which leave so many victims of moral wrongs helpless, even
though they have actually suffered material and moral injury, the Code
Commission has deemed it necessary in the interest of justice, to
incorporate Article 21 into the Civil Code.
2. Acts Contra Bonus Mores; Requisites for Recovery of
Damages. – Article 21 deals with acts contra bonus mores, and has the
following elements:
(A) There is an act which is legal;

(B) The act, though legal, is contrary to morals, good customs,

public order, or public policy; and
(C) The act is done with intent to injure.
3. Rule on Breach of Promise to Marry. –

(A) General Rule. - The breach of promise to marry per se is
not an actionable wrong. If a person promised to marry another, and the
promise was broken, no court can compel the promissor to marry the
promisee. The right to marry is a personal one and is not subject to judicial
compulsion. There is no law which imposes the duty or obligation to marry
somebody. The freedom of choice in finding a lifetime partner is universally
accepted and respected.
(B) Exception. – If there is moral seduction, a grant of moral
damages is justifiable under Article 21.
 Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

97336, February 19, 1993, 219 SCRA 115.
4. Malicious Prosecution; Its Requisites. – It is an established rule

that in order for malicious prosecution to prosper, the following requisites
must be proven by petitioner:
(1) the fact of prosecution and the further fact that the defendant
(respondent) was himself the prosecutor, and that the action finally
terminated with an acquittal;
(2) that in bringing the action, the prosecutor acted without probable
cause; and
(3) that the prosecutor was actuated or impelled by legal malice, that
is, by improper or sinister motive.
From the foregoing requirements, it can be inferred that malice and
want of probable cause must both be clearly established to justify an award
of damages based on malicious prosecution.
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.
1. Unjust Enrichment. – Article 22 embodies the maxim, Nemo ex

alterius incommod, debet lecupletari (no man ought to be made rich out of
another’s injury).
The doctrine of unjust enrichment means that a person shall not be

allowed to profit or enrich himself inequitably at another’s expense. There
is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of
another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the
fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience.
 Requisites. – The principle of unjust enrichment requires

two (2) conditions:
(a) That a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification,
and
(b) That such benefit is derived at the expense of another.
2. Accion in Rem Verso. – An action to recover what has been paid

without just cause under this Article is known as accion in rem verso.
 Requisites. – For the action to prosper, the following

essential elements must be present:
(a) That the defendant has been enriched;
(b) That the plaintiff has suffered a loss;
(c) That the enrichment of the defendant is without just or legal
ground; and
(d) That the plaintiff has no other action based on contract, quasi-
contract, crime or quasi-delict.
 Distinguished from Solutio Indebiti. –

The principle of unjust enrichment is also expressed in another
provision of the Civil Code, Article 2154 which reads:
“Art. 2154. If something is received when there is no right
to demand it, and it was unduly delivered through
mistake, the obligation to return it arises.”
The two elements of solutio indebiti are:

(a) a payment is made when there exists no binding relation between
the payor, who has no duty to pay, and the person who received
the payment; and
(b) the payment is made through mistake and not through liberality or
some other cause.
Mistake, therefore, is an essential element in solutio indebiti. But in

accion in rem verso, it is not necessary that there should have been mistake
in the payment (e.g., payment under pressure or pursuant to an unlawful
contract).
 Merely a subsidiary remedy. –

An accion in rem verso is considered merely an auxiliary action,
available only when there is no other remedy on contract, quasi-contract,
crime, and quasi-delict. If there is an obtainable action under any other
institution of positive law, that action must be resorted to, and the principle
of accion in rem verso will not lie. (Shinryo, Philippines, Company, Inc. vs.
RRN, Inc., G.R. No. 172525, October 20, 2010.)
3. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES:
(A) D owes C P100,000.00. On maturity date, D paid C the

P100,000.00, and C issued D a receipt to acknowledge the payment. Later
on, when C asked D to pay his obligation again, D could not find the receipt.
Unable to prove that he had earlier already paid his obligation, D paid C the
P100,000.00 again. Subsequently, D found the missing receipt. Can he
now get back what he had intentionally (but unwillingly) paid? YES, in view
of Article 22, which treats of an accion in rem verso.
(B) A contract for the sale of land was declared null and void
after the buyer had already paid the purchase price. May said buyer
recover the price paid from the successors-in-interest of the seller? YES,
because if said successors could recover the land without being required to
reimburse the buyer, they would be enriching themselves unjustly at the
expense of the buyer.
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.
1. Liability Without Fault or Negligence. – Article 23 recognizes

liability without fault or negligence, even when the event producing loss to
others may be accidental or fortuitous, so long as another person is
benefited through such event or act.
2. Benefit as Basis for Liability under Article 23. – Article 23

likewise seeks to prevent unjust enrichment. It does not require a person
to be at fault or negligent to incur liability. Mere benefit under the conditions
set by law is sufficient to hold the person liable.
What is contemplated by Article 23 is an involuntary act or an act which

though foreseen could not have been avoided. An involuntary act, because
of its character, cannot generally create an obligation; but when by such act
its author has been enriched, it is only just that he should indemnify for the
damages caused, to the extent of his enrichment.
3. ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLES:
(A) Without A’s knowledge, a flood drives his cattle to the

cultivated highland of B. A’s cattle are saved, but B’s crop is destroyed.
True, A was not at fault, but he was benefited. It is but right and equitable
that he should indemnify B. (In this example, A will be the defendant, and
B will be the plaintiff in a suit for damages.)
(B) A hears the rampaging waters of the river from upstream.

Down the river are B’s ten carabaos each tied to a tree. The flash flood is
coming down fast. A frees the carabaos by cutting their ropes with his bolo.
The carabaos scamper to safety in the nick of time, then walk leisurely to
the cornfield of C and feast on the plants. C sues B for damages. Is B
liable to C for damages? YES, under Article 23. Although his carabao’s
entry into the cornfield is not through his fault or negligence, as it was A
who freed the carabaos, B is benefited by the act of A and the subsequent
entry of the carabaos into the cornfield of C. His carabaos are safe and
sound, and very full and contented as well.
(C) A fire (due to an accident) broke out in Unit A of a row of

townhouses. Unit B was destroyed to prevent the spread of the fire to Units
C and D. The owner of Unit B may ask for indemnity from the owners of
Units C and D who were benefited from the destruction of Unit B, even if
the owners of Units C and D were not at fault for the fire or for the
destruction of Unit B.
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.
1. Legislative Intent of Article 24. – The law seeks the welfare of

the incapacitated, disadvantaged and handicapped being unable to fully
protect themselves. This is anchored on the doctrine of parens patriae.
The doctrine refers to the inherent power and authority of the state to
provide protection to the person and property of a person non sui juris
(under legal disability). Under this doctrine, the State has the sovereign
power of guardianship over persons under disability.
2. Parens Patriae and Minors. - The state, as parens patriae, is

under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those, who, because of
their minority, are as yet unable to take care of themselves fully. Those of
tender years deserve its utmost protection.
3. Parens Patriae and Labor. - Article 4 of the New Labor Code

provides that “all doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the
provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and regulations,
shall be resolved in favor of labor.
4. Parens Patriae and Contracts. - Article 1332 of the New Civil

Code provides teeth to the principle enunciated in Article 24. It states that
when one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language
not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing
the contract must show that the terms thereof have been fully explained to
the former.
 Sps. Tan vs. Mandap, G.R. No. 150925, May 27, 2004.
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.
1. Requisites. – The requisites for the filing of actions to stop

thoughtless extravagance are:
(A) There is thoughtless extravagance (not mere
extravagance) in expenses;
(B) The extravagance is for pleasure or display;
(C) There is a period of acute public want or emergency;
(D) The case for injunction is filed in court by a
governmental institution or private charitable institution.
A private individual may not be a petitioner.
Reason for the law. – Thoughtless extravagance during emergencies may

incite the passions of those who cannot afford to spend. Feelings of envy
and deprivation in the minds of the unprivileged will be inflamed if they see
and perceive extravagant indulgences in frivolities and ostentations in time
of public want and need.
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.
1. The foregoing violations under Article 26 are not exclusive, but are
merely examples and do not preclude other similar or analogous acts.
Thus, in Concepcion vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 120706, January 31,
2000, 324 SCRA 85, the Supreme Court held:
“It is petitioner’s position that the act imputed to him does

not constitute any of those enumerated in Arts. 26 and 2219. In
this respect, the law is clear. The violations mentioned in the
codal provisions are not exclusive but are merely examples and
do not preclude other similar or analogous acts. Damages
therefore are allowable for actions against a person’s dignity,
such as profane, insulting, humiliating, scandalous or abusive
language. Under Article 2217 of the Civil Code, moral damages
which include physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious
anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock,
social humiliation, and similar injury, although incapable of
pecuniary computation, may be recovered if they are the
proximate result of the defendant’s wrongful act or omission.”
 St. Louis Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,

G.R. No. L-46061, November 14, 1984, 133 SCRA 179.
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.
1. As a general rule, a public officer is not personally liable to one

injured in consequence of an act performed within the scope of his official
authority, and in line with his official duty.
2. Article 27 excludes malfeasance and misfeasance, but covers only

nonfeasance.
3. What are the requisites in order that an action under Article 27 will
prosper?
(A) That the defendant be a public official charged with the

performance of official duties;
(B) That there be a violation of an official duty in favor of an
individual;
(C) That there be willfulness or negligence in the violation of such
official duty; and
(D) That there be an injury to the individual.
 Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-54598, April 15,

1988, 160 SCRA 449.
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.
1. Concept. - Unfair competition consists in employing deception or

any other means contrary to good faith by which any person shall pass off
the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals, or his business, or
services for those of the one having established goodwill, or committing any
acts calculated to produce said result.
2. Under Article 28, unfair competition could be committed through

the use of either (a) force, (b) intimidation, (c) deceit, (d) machination, or
any other unjust oppressive or high-handed method in agricultural,
commercial or industrial enterprises or in labor.
3. Reason Behind Article 28. – Article 28 is intended to lay down a

general principle outlawing unfair competition, both among enterprises and
among laborers. Unfair competition must be expressly denounced in this
Chapter because same tends to undermine free enterprise. While
competition is necessary in a free enterprise, it must not be unfair.
4. True Test of Unfair Competition. – The true test of unfair

competition is whether certain goods have been intentionally clothed with
an appearance which is likely to deceive the ordinary purchaser exercising
ordinary care.
 Del Monte Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-

78325, January 25, 1990, 181 SCRA 410.
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.
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.
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:
(1) Freedom of religion;
(2) Freedom of speech;
(3) Freedom to write for the press or to maintain a periodical
publication;
(4) Freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention;
(5) Freedom of suffrage;
(6) The right against deprivation of property without due process
of law;
(7) The right to a just compensation when private property is
taken for public use;
(8) The right to the equal protection of the laws;
(9) The right to be secure in one’s person, house, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures;
(10) The liberty of abode and of changing the same;
(11) The privacy of communication and correspondence;
(12) The right to become a member of associations or societies
for purposes not contrary to law;
(13) The right to take part in a peaceable assembly to petition
the Government for redress of grievances;
(14) The right to be free from involuntary servitude in any form;
(15) The right of the accused against excessive bail;
(16) The right of the accused to be heard by himself and

counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy and public trial, to meet the witnesses
face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses in his behalf;
(17) Freedom from being compelled to be a witness against
one’s self, or from being forced to confess guilt, or from being
induced by a promise of immunity or reward to make such
confession, except when the person confessing becomes a State
witness;
(18) Freedom from excessive fines, or cruel and unusual
punishment, unless the same is imposed or inflicted in accordance
with a statute which has not been judicially declared
unconstitutional; and
(19) Freedom of access to the courts.
In any of the cases referred to in this article, whether or not the
defendant’s act or omission constitute a criminal offense, the
aggrieved party has a right to commence an entirely separate and
distinct civil action for damages, and for other relief. Such civil
action shall proceed independently of any criminal prosecution (if
the latter be instituted), and may be proved by a preponderance of
evidence.
The indemnity shall include moral damages. Exemplary
damages may also be adjudicated.
The responsibility herein set forth is not demandable from a
judge unless his act or omission constitutes a violation of the Penal
Code or other penal statute.
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.
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.
ARTICLE 35. When a person, claiming to be injured by a

criminal offense, charges another with the same, for which no
independent civil action is granted in this Code or any special law,
but the justice of the peace finds no reasonable grounds to believe
that a crime has been committed, or the prosecuting attorney
refuses or fails to institute criminal proceedings, the complainant
may bring a civil action for damages against the alleged offender.
Such civil action may be supported by a preponderance of evidence.
Upon the defendant’s motion, the court may require the plaintiff to
file a bond to indemnify the defendant in case the complaint should
be found to be malicious.
If during the pendency of the civil action, an information should
be presented by the prosecuting attorney, the civil action shall be
suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings.
 A compressed discussion of the points of

law enunciated in Articles 29-35 
 The five sources of civil liability. (Art. 1157, NCC) – The civil
obligation or liability of a person can arise from any of the following sources:
(a) Law – Example: The obligation of a person to pay his taxes is
directed by the provisions of the National Internal Revenue Code. The
source of this civil liability is then our tax laws.
(b) Contracts – Example: Under a lease contract, the landowner is

obliged to give the possession of his property to the tenant, who in turn has
the obligation to pay to the landowner his monthly rentals. Here, the source
of the respective obligations of the parties is their contract or lease
agreement.
(c) Quasi-contract – Example: A kind stranger took care of your dog

for a week when it got lost in the park. When the stranger returned the dog,
he was asking you to reimburse him all expenses he incurred for the dog
while it was under his care. Even if you did not agree to those expenses
because you did not enter into a contract with the stranger, you will be
obliged to pay the stranger such expenses. This is because you benefited
from those expenses. This juridical relation seeks to prevent unjust
enrichment on the part of the party who benefited.
(d) Crime or Delict. – A person who commits a crime becomes civilly

liable in the form of damages, in addition to his criminal liability in the form
of imprisonment. Hence, every person criminally liable is also civilly liable.
(e) Quasi-Delict or Tort or Culpa Aquiliana or Culpa Extra-

contractual. – This is the civil liability arising from a person’s act of
negligence. In this juridical relation, there is no contract between the
parties. Moreover, unlike in a civil obligation arising from crime, there is
here damage to the offended party, but there was no intention to cause
damage on the part of the offending party.
 Every person criminally liable for a crime

becomes also civilly liable. (Art. 100, RPC)
 Examples:
 If you are convicted of the crime of theft of a carabao, not only will
you go to prison to serve your sentence (THIS IS THE CRIMINAL
LIABILITY), but you will also be directed by the court to pay damages which,
among others, will include the return of the carabao to its owner, or the
payment of its value if it has already been lost (THIS IS THE CIVIL
LIABILITY).
 If you kill a person, you will be convicted of homicide or murder,

and will also be made to pay moral damages (and other kinds of damages
proven by the offended party in court) to the spouse or other surviving heirs
of the victim.
 Rule of Implied Institution of the Civil

Action in the Criminal Action. –
 When a criminal action is filed in court, the civil action for the recovery
of civil liability arising from the offense charged (WHAT IS REFERRED
TO IS CIVIL LIABILITY SOURCED FROM CRIME OR DELICT) is
automatically deemed instituted with the criminal action.
 Example: In the example above, if a criminal case for theft of a carabao
is filed against the accused, not only will the criminal court rule on his
criminal liability, but the court will also make a judgment as to his (the
accused) civil liability to the offended party (owner of the carabao, and
private complainant in the criminal case).
 What are the exceptions to the rule on implied institution? In other

words, when will the civil case for recovery of civil liability ex delicto (arising
from the crime) NOT be included or impliedly instituted in the criminal
action?
(A) When the offended party waives the civil action, i.e., the
offended party makes a waiver stating his intention not to recover civil
liability anymore.
(B) When the offended party reserves the right to institute the
civil action in a venue separate from the court where the criminal
action is pending.
 Here, the offended party has to inform the judge of the court
hearing the criminal case that he will be filing a separate civil action to
recover civil liability arising from the crime; hence, the criminal court does
not need to make a judgment on the civil aspect of the case. The offended
party must, however, notify the criminal court of such intention BEFORE the
prosecution (lawyer for the government and private complainant) starts
presenting its evidence in the criminal case.
 The offended party, however, cannot file the separate civil

action to recover civil liability arising from the crime, unless there is final
judgment in the criminal case convicting the accused of the crime charged.
 Example: In the same example above, assume that the owner of the
carabao (the private complainant) reserved his right to file a separate civil
action before the criminal court. Under such case, the private complainant
has to wait before there is a final judgment in the criminal case for theft
before he can file a civil case for recovery of civil liability ex delicto from the
accused. This is because if the criminal court finds that the accused did not
commit the act complained of, the offended party will have no basis for
recovering civil liability ex delicto.
(C) When the offended party institutes or files the civil action
ahead of the criminal action.
 When the offended party files a civil action against the accused
to recover civil liability ex delicto BEFORE the criminal action is filed in the
criminal court, only preponderance of evidence is needed to prove the act

complained of as basis for civil liability. (Article 30, NCC.)
 However, if during the pendency of the civil action filed by the

offended party, an information is filed by the prosecution in the criminal
court charging the accused of the same act complained of, the civil action
will have to be suspended until the termination of the criminal proceedings.
If the accused is convicted, only then will the civil action be allowed to
continue to recover civil liability ex delicto from the offender. This is
because if the accused is not guilty of committing the act complained of,
there can be no basis for the recovery of civil liability ex delicto. (Article
35, NCC.)
 The rule, therefore, is that civil liability ex

delicto can be recovered from the offender
ONLY if he is convicted. Does it mean that
there will be no basis for the offended
party to recover civil liability ex delicto if
the offender is acquitted?
Answer: It depends on the nature of the
acquittal.
 If the accused is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not been
proven beyond reasonable doubt, the offended party can still recover civil
liability ex delicto. (Article 29, par. 1, NCC.) The basis for acquittal must
be stated by the court in the body or text of its decision. (Article 29, par.
2, NCC.)
 REASON: The civil liability is not extinguished by acquittal where

the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt, because only preponderance
of evidence is required in civil cases.
 Example: A was charged with the theft of B’s carabao. After

due proceedings in the criminal case, A was acquitted on the ground that
while it was established that A took the carabao without B’s knowledge and
consent, the element of intent to gain on the part of A was not adequately
proven by the prosecution. Hence, A was acquitted on the ground that his
guilt has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore,
(a) If the civil aspect of the case was impliedly instituted in the criminal
action, the judge, despite A’s acquittal can still render judgment
holding A liable to B for the return of the carabao, or its value, if it
has already been lost.
(b) If B had earlier reserved his right to file a separate civil action,
despite the acquittal, he can still file a civil case to recover A’s civil
liability ex delicto. All that B needs to do is to prove by
preponderance of evidence his right to recover civil lilability.
 However, civil liability ex delicto can no longer be recovered if there is

a finding in the judgment of the court in the criminal case that the act or
omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist. (Section 2,
Rule 111, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure.)
 REASON: If it is proven in the criminal proceedings that the act

complained of was never committed by the accused, then there can be no
legal basis for civil liability.
 Example: In the same example above, assume that the basis
for A’s acquittal was the fact that it was not A who took the carabao of B,
but another person wearing the same shirt that A was wearing when the
crime was committed. In this case, it was proven that A’s act of unlawfully
taking B’s carabao did not in fact exist. Hence, there can be no basis to
hold A liable civilly for damages.
 “Proof beyond reasonable doubt”

distinguished from “preponderance of
evidence”. –
 “Proof beyond reasonable doubt” is the decree of proof required in

convicting the accused in a criminal case. On the other hand, in a civil case,
the party who has the “preponderance of evidence” wins in the case.
 It is clear that the degree of proof required in criminal cases is

weightier than that required in civil cases.
 Hence, in criminal cases, if one of the elements of a crime as

defined under the Revised Penal Code (RPC) is not adequately proven,
even if the evidence for the defense is weak, the respondent (accused in
the case) will be acquitted by the criminal court.
 In civil cases, however, the court merely weighs the evidence

of the plaintiff (the complainant) and the defendant. The court then rules in
favor of the party who has the preponderance of evidence (that whose
evidence is more convincing or weightier).
 Civil liability arising from crime

distinguished from civil liability arising
from tort. –
There are instances when the same act or omission of the

defendant can result in two different sources of civil liability – one arising
from a crime, and one arising from tort.
 Example: An overspeeding driver runs over a child crossing the

pedestrian lane along Legarda. The child dies as a result of the mishap.
The family of the victim here can recover civil liability arising from two
different sources :
(1) The family of the victim can file a criminal case for reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide. The criminal action is based on the
negligent act of the driver, which resulted in damage, or the death of the
child. A criminal action for homicide cannot be filed because there was no
intent to kill the child on the part of the driver. If the driver is found guilty of
criminal negligence, he will be adjudged by the court liable also for civil
liability ex delicto in the form of damages to be paid to the family of the child.
(2) The family of the victim can also, at the same time, file another
action to recover civil liability arising from quasi-delict or tort, which is a
different source of civil liability under Article 1157 of the Civil Code. (Article
31, NCC)
Both actions, being entirely different, can proceed independently of each

other. If the accused is acquitted in the criminal case, this will not prevent
the family of the victim from recovering civil liability arising from quasi-delict.
 Assume that the court in the criminal case convicts the accused
of the crime charged, and consequently awards damages to the family of
the victim. In addition, the court hearing the victim’s right to recover civil
liability arising from quasi-delict also rules in favor of the victim, and awards
damages to the family of the child. Under the circumstances, even if the
offended party is given by law the right to file two separate actions to
recover civil liability arising from independent sources, the offended party
cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the accused.
He can recover only once and choose from either actions.
 What are independent civil actions?
 In the cases provided in Articles 32, 33 and 34 of the Civil Code, an

independent civil action may be brought by the offended party.
 They are called independent civil actions because they can proceed
independently of the criminal action, and shall require only a preponderance
of evidence. Hence, even if the acts or omissions enumerated from Articles
32, 33 and 34 constitute a crime, the offended party does not need to
reserve his right to institute the civil action separately. He can immediately
file a civil action to recover civil liability ex delicto, without waiting for the
proceedings in the criminal action to be terminated, and regardless of the
result of the criminal action – i.e., whether the accused is convicted or
acquitted.
 ART. 32. – Any public officer or employee, or even a private

individual, who violates any of the constitutional liberties of a person can be
held civilly liable for damages, whether or not the defendant’s act or
omission constitutes a criminal offense.
 Note, however, that under the last paragraph of Article 32, civil
liability cannot be demanded from a judge, unless his act or omission
constitutes a criminal offense.
 ART. 33. – Under Article 33, the term “physical injuries” should be
understood to mean bodily harm, not the crime of physical injuries as
defined under the Revised Penal Code. Hence, a civil action to recover civil
liability under this article may be filed whether the offense committed is that
of physical injuries or frustrated homicide, or attempted homicide, or even
death (homicide or murder).
ARTICLE 36. Prejudicial 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.
 A 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 the criminal case.
 Example 1: A was lawfully married to B. At the point of a gun, A

was threatened if he would not marry C. So A married C. Out of jealousy,
B asked the fiscal to file bigamy charges against A, who had in the
meantime asked that the second marriage be annulled in view of the
intimidation committed on him. Should the criminal action proceed at once?
ANSWER : NO, for the decision in the civil case for annulment would
affect A’s criminal liability for bigamy, and the issue in the annulment case
(whether there was intimidation as to make A’s consent to the marriage
defective) therefore is a prejudicial question. (See Paras)
 Example 2: A was forced to marry B. A then sued for annulment.

During the pendency of the case, A married C. When C learned of the first
marriage, C complained to the fiscal who now sued A for bigamy. A alleges
that the pendency of the annulment proceedings is a prejudicial question.
Is he correct?
ANSWER : A is wrong because the decision in the annulment case is
not important. The first marriage will be either annulled or not. If not
annulled, bigamy can prosper; if annulled, still bigamy can prosper, for when
he married the second time, he was still married to his first wife. A marriage,
even if voidable or annullable, is considered valid until it is annulled.
 What are the elements of a prejudicial question?
 Beltran vs. People, G.R. No. 137567, June 20, 2000.  The
Supreme Court in this case ruled that a petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage is not a prejudicial question to a subsequent case for concubinage
filed by the other spouse. Read the legal basis for the court’s ruling in this
case.
*** END ***

END OF THE TOPIC REMINDERS:
1. Study and master the principles under each topic.

2. When a case is required in this study guide to be read in its
original text , be ready to recite the case or to prepare a case
digest thereof in our activities in class.
SOURCES for NOTES:
The discussions outlined in this study guide have been

collectively lifted from the cases cited and commentaries
made by the authors in the references cited in our course
syllabus.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
My father used to say that it’s never too late to do anything you wanted to do.
And he said, ‘You never know what you can accomplish until you try.’
Michael Jordan
Don’t let the fear of the time it will take to accomplish something
stand in the way of your doing it. The time will pass anyway;
we might just as well put that passing time to the best possible use.
Earl Nightingale
When you get into a tight place and everything

goes against you, till it seems as though you
could not hang on a minute longer, never give up
then, for that is just the place and time that the
tide will turn.
Harriet Beecher Stowe
HRL/29Nov2015

NCC, ARTS. 19-36.doc Version 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NCC, ARTS. 19-36.doc Version 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STUDY GUIDE (Articles 19-36, Chapter 2, Preliminary Title, NCC) 13

THE CIVIL CODE

 Why the Code Commission Formulated a Chapter on Human

NOTE: The new provisions in this Chapter can be given retroactive

 Utilize the notes below to emphasize on certain points in your readings

ARTICLE 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his

1. Principle of Abuse of Rights. – Article 19 states the principle of

(A) To act with justice;

A right, though by itself is legal (because it is recognized or granted by

2. Elements of abuse of rights. – What are the requisites that must

(A) There is a legal right or duty;

 Albenson Enterprises Corp. vs. Court of Appeals,

 Llorente vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 85464,

 Sea Commercial Company, Inc., G.R. No. 122823,

3. Remedy for Violation of Article 19. – While Article 19 lays down

4. “Damnum Absque Injuria” – Expound on the principle of

5. Articles 19, 20 and 21 Compared. – Articles 19, 20, and 21 are

ARTICLE 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully

1. Norm of Conduct Required Under Article 20. – Article 20 speaks

(A) Damage Through Willful Act. – Article 3 of the Revised Penal

ARTICLE 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or

(A) There is an act which is legal;

(B) The act, though legal, is contrary to morals, good customs,

3. Rule on Breach of Promise to Marry. –

 Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

4. Malicious Prosecution; Its Requisites. – It is an established rule

ARTICLE 22. Every person who through an act of

1. Unjust Enrichment. – Article 22 embodies the maxim, Nemo ex

The doctrine of unjust enrichment means that a person shall not be

 Requisites. – The principle of unjust enrichment requires

2. Accion in Rem Verso. – An action to recover what has been paid

 Requisites. – For the action to prosper, the following

 Distinguished from Solutio Indebiti. –

The two elements of solutio indebiti are:

Mistake, therefore, is an essential element in solutio indebiti. But in

 Merely a subsidiary remedy. –

(A) D owes C P100,000.00. On maturity date, D paid C the

ARTICLE 23. Even when an act or event causing damage

1. Liability Without Fault or Negligence. – Article 23 recognizes

2. Benefit as Basis for Liability under Article 23. – Article 23

What is contemplated by Article 23 is an involuntary act or an act which

(A) Without A’s knowledge, a flood drives his cattle to the

(B) A hears the rampaging waters of the river from upstream.

(C) A fire (due to an accident) broke out in Unit A of a row of

ARTICLE 24. In all contractual, property or other

1. Legislative Intent of Article 24. – The law seeks the welfare of

2. Parens Patriae and Minors. - The state, as parens patriae, is

3. Parens Patriae and Labor. - Article 4 of the New Labor Code

4. Parens Patriae and Contracts. - Article 1332 of the New Civil

ARTICLE 25. Thoughtless extravagance in expenses for

1. Requisites. – The requisites for the filing of actions to stop

Reason for the law. – Thoughtless extravagance during emergencies may

ARTICLE 26. Every person shall respect the dignity,

“It is petitioner’s position that the act imputed to him does

 St. Louis Realty Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,

ARTICLE 27. Any person suffering material or moral loss

1. As a general rule, a public officer is not personally liable to one

2. Article 27 excludes malfeasance and misfeasance, but covers only

(A) That the defendant be a public official charged with the

 Ledesma vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-54598, April 15,

ARTICLE 28. Unfair competition in agricultural,

1. Concept. - Unfair competition consists in employing deception or

2. Under Article 28, unfair competition could be committed through

* END *