evince29-blog

[evince29-blog]

Article 45, Family Code of the Philippines

Article 45: A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of marriage.

1.) That the party on whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardians or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;

2.) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

3.) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterward, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

4.) That the consent of either party by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife.

5.) That either party was physically incapable of consummating that the marriage with the other, and as such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or

6.) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease (STD) found to be serious and appears to be incurable.

Annulment is a court proceeding with the objective severing marital relations between husband and wife. A petition for an annulment of a marriage is filed when the marriage is considered voidable or if it is valid but is susceptible of being voided pursuant to the grounds provided by the law.

A petition for annulment of marriage in the Philippines can be therefore be filed on the following grounds as provided under this article and in order that the case may prosper, the party alleging the existence of the grounds mentioned earlier must be proved:

1. Lack of parental consent

2. Insanity

3. Consent is obtained thru fraud

4. Consent is obtained thru force, intimidation, and undue influence

5. Impotence

6. STDs

Paragraph 3 of the Article refers to impotency. Impotency is the incapability of procreation. In here, the incapability must continue to be so and appears to be incurable. Impotence is a common problem among men and is characterized by the consistent inability to sustain an erection sufficient for sexual intercourse or the inability to achieve ejaculation or both. In order that it can be used as a ground for annulment, one must prove its existence at the time of the marriage, appears to be incurable and continues to cause the inability of copulate. Sterility, however, is not contemplated by the law, for even if a person is sterile, he can still perform acts of copulation. 

Case: Sarao v. Gueverra, G.R. No. 47603, 40 O.G. 263 (CA)

 With regards to threat or intimidation, the law provides that it must be of such nature to prevent the party upon whom it is employed from acting as a free agent, his will being coerced by fear or compulsion (i.e that one of the parties executes a contract or performs an act against his will under pressure which  he can not resist.[Reyes vs. Zaballero])

Rules on voidable Marriages:

a.) Voidable marriages are valid until annulled. It is not the same as void ab initio or void from the beginning since these marriages are valid ab initio, but due to some grounds, like it can be subjected to annulment. They may suffer infirmities but it can be ratified.

b.) A marriage contracted between persons at ages 18 but below 21 without the consent of their parents or guardian is merely voidable. 

1.) If it is the party to the marriage who would file the action, it must be done by him/her within 5 years after attaining the age of 21.

2.) If it is the parent or guardian who should file it, then, it should be done at any time before the party reaches the age of 21 [Art. 47 Family Code].

These voidable marriages can be cured or cleansed of their defect by the act of the parties of freely cohabiting with one another, after the party whose parents or guardians who did not give consent to the marriage, reached the aged of 21.

In the case of insanity, the period to file action is different. The same spouse who had no knowledge of the of the other spouse’s insanity or the relative or guardian of the insane, must file the action to have the marriage annulled should be at any time before the death of either party, or by the insane spouse during a lucid interval or after regaining sanity [Art. 47 (2), Family Code)].

Also, with regard to paragraph 3 above, any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud:

a.) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude.

b.) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband.

c.) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of the marriage.

d.) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage.

References:

Family Code of the Phils. by Albano et al

[evince29-blog]

Chapter 2. Marriages Exempted from License Requirement

Art. 27. In case either or both of the contracting parties are at the point of death, the marriage may be solemnized without necessity of a marriage license and shall remain valid even if the ailing party subsequently survives. (72a)

In a marriage in Articulo Mortis  or at the point of death, as provided in this Article:

-No need marriage license; but

-If the party at the point of death survives, the marriage would still be valid.

Art. 28. If the residence of either party is so located that there is no means of transportation to enable such party to appear personally before the local civil registrar, the marriage may be solemnized without necessity of a marriage license. (72a)

Thus, there must be no legal impediment to marry one another exists.

Art. 29. In the cases provided for in the two preceding articles, the solemnizing officer shall state in an affidavit executed before the local civil registrar or any other person legally authorized to administer oaths that the marriage was performed in articulo mortis or that the residence of either party, specifying the barrio or barangay, is so located that there is no means of transportation to enable such party to appear personally before the local civil registrar and that the officer took the necessary steps to ascertain the ages and relationship of the contracting parties and the absence of a legal impediment to the marriage. (72a)

Art. 30. The original of the affidavit required in the last preceding article, together with the legible copy of the marriage contract, shall be sent by the person solemnizing the marriage to the local civil registrar of the municipality where it was performed within the period of thirty days after the performance of the marriage. (75a)

Art. 31. A marriage in articulo mortis between passengers or crew members may also be solemnized by a ship captain or by an airplane pilot not only while the ship is at sea or the plane is in flight, but also during stopovers at ports of call. (74a)

Art. 32. A military commander of a unit, who is a commissioned officer, shall likewise have authority to solemnize marriages in articulo mortis between persons within the zone of military operation, whether members of the armed forces or civilians. (74a)

This Article asserts that the marriage must be in the zone of military operation, such that the military commander has the authority to solemnize it.

Illustration:

XY, a soldier who was injured in the area of operation, for instance, in Marawi, was airlifted to Manila where he was confined at Philippine General Hospital. While at the emergency room, he was at the point of death. Can his military commander solemnize his the marriage with his Y?

NO.  

Reasons:

–The marriage must be solemnized at the zone of military operation. The commander does not have authority outside of it.

–Marriage is void for lack of marriage license unless solemnized by the mayor of the City of Manila. (Art.27 FC)

Art. 33. Marriages among Muslims or among members of the ethnic cultural communities may be performed validly without the necessity of marriage license, provided they are solemnized in accordance with their customs, rites or practices. (78a)

Jean and Julius, both belonging to the Kankanaey ethnolinguistic group and are residents of Laguna, had their marriage solemnized by judge Prince in San Pablo City in accordance with the Christian rites and practices. Is there a need for a marriage license?YES. Otherwise, it is void.

The condition of the validity of such marriage without a license is:

That the ceremony is in accordance with their customs, rites or practices.

Marriage as an inviolable social institution shall be protected. Marriages performed in accordance with customary laws, rites, traditions, and practices shall be recognized as valid. As proof of marriage, the testimony of authorized community elders or authorities of traditional sociopolitical structures shall be recognized as evidence of marriage for purposes of registration. (Section 8, RA No. 8371, “The Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Act of 1997.”

Art. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths.  

The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties are found no legal impediment to the marriage. (76a)

Arch and Curvy, both without any legal impediment to marry one another having been living together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife for 6 years. In lieu of the license, an affidavit stating that they have been living together for more than 5 years and without any legal impediment to marry one another. A legal impediment is an obstacle to valid marriage, determined by civil authority.

But suppose Curvy was 16 years of age when they started living together and they decided to get married, would marriage license be required?

YES. They are not exempted from the requirement because of an impediment to marry one another.

Why is there no license is required? rationale.

a.) To avoid exposing the parties to humiliation, shame and embarrassment concomitant with the scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage due to the publication of every applicant’s name for a marriage license.

b.) To preserve privacy.

Why 5 years?

The five-year common-law cohabitation should be a period of the legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage.

The 5-year period should be the years immediately before the day of marriage and it should be cohabitation characterized by:

1. exclusivity - no third party was   involved at any time within  5years and

2. continuity- unbroken.

Ø That the parties capacitated to marry each other.

REQUISITES FOR LEGAL RATIFICATION OF COHABITATION:

1. The man and woman must have been living together as husband and wife for at least five years before the marriage.

2. The parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other;

3. The fact of absence of legal impediment between the parties must be present  at   the time of marriage;

4. The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived together for five years;

5. The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement that he had ascertained the qualifications of the parties and that he had found no legal impediment to their marriage. (Borja-Manzano v. Judge   Sanchez, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329, March 8, 2001, 354 SCRA1)

References:

sc.judiciary.gov.ph

Family Code of the Phils. by Albano, et al.

[evince29-blog]

Articles 11 to 14 of the Family Code of the Philippines

Article 11. Where a marriage license is required, each of the contracting parties shall file separately a sworn application for such license with the proper local civil registrar which shall specify the following:

(1.) Full name of the contracting party;

(2.) Place of birth;

(3.) Age and date of birth;

(4.) Civil status;

(5.) If previously married, how, when and where the previous marriage was dissolved or annulled;

(6.) Present residence and citizenship;

(7.) Degree of relationship of the contracting parties;

(8.) Full name, residence and citizenship of the father;

9.) Full name, residence and citizenship of the mother; and

(10.) Full name, residence and citizenship of the guardian or person having charge, in case the contracting party has neither father nor mother and is under the age of twenty-one years.

The applicants, their parents or guardians shall not be required to exhibit their residence certificates in any formality in connection with the securing of the marriage license. (59a)

Art. 12. The local civil registrar, upon receiving such application, shall require the presentation of the original birth certificates or, in default thereof, the baptismal certificates of the contracting parties or copies of such documents duly attested by the persons having custody of the originals. These certificates or certified copies of the documents by this Article need not be sworn to and shall be exempt from the documentary stamp tax. The signature and official title of the person issuing the certificate shall be sufficient proof of its authenticity.

If either of the contracting parties is unable to produce his birth or baptismal certificate or a certified copy of either because of the destruction or loss of the original or if it is shown by an affidavit of such party or of any other person that such birth or baptismal certificate has not yet been received though the same has been required of the person having custody thereof at least fifteen days prior to the date of the application, such party may furnish in lieu thereof his current residence certificate or an instrument drawn up and sworn to before the local civil registrar concerned or any public official authorized to administer oaths. Such instrument shall contain the sworn declaration of two witnesses of lawful age, setting forth the full name, residence and citizenship of such contracting party and of his or her parents, if known, and the place and date of birth of such party. The nearest of kin of the contracting parties shall be preferred as witnesses, or, in their default, persons of good reputation in the province or the locality. 

The presentation of birth or baptismal certificate shall not be required if the parents of the contracting parties appear personally before the local civil registrar concerned and swear to the correctness of the lawful age of said parties, as stated in the application, or when the local civil registrar shall, by merely looking at the applicants upon their personally appearing before him, be convinced that either or both of them have the required age. (60a) 

Art. 13. In case either of the contracting parties has been previously married, the applicant shall be required to furnish, instead of the birth or baptismal certificate required in the last preceding article, the death certificate of the deceased spouse or the judicial decree of the absolute divorce, or the judicial decree of annulment or declaration of nullity of his or her previous marriage. In case the death certificate cannot be secured, the party shall make an affidavit setting forth this circumstance and his or her actual civil status and the name and date of death of the deceased spouse. (61a)

The law simply enumerates the contents of an application for a marriage license. Specifically the age and civil status of the applicants. If the applicant is not of legal age as required by the law, or if there is any legal impediment as shown by the application, the Local Civil Registrar would still issue the license, but a notation of the same. A legal impediment is an obstacle to valid marriage, determined by civil authority.

It also requires that if there was a previous marriage that has been annulled or nullified, the party or applicant concerned must attach it to the application in order to prove his capacity to contract marriage. Both parties' capacity to marry is an essential requisite of marriage, the absence of which renders the marriage null and void.

It also provides that if either of the parties was previously married but the spouse is already dead, then the law allows the applicant concerned to execute an affidavit setting forth his or her actual civil status and the name and the date of death of the deceased spouse.

Art. 14. In case either or both of the contracting parties, not having been emancipated by a previous marriage, are between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one, they shall, in addition to the requirements of the preceding articles, exhibit to the local civil registrar, the consent to their marriage of their father, mother, surviving parent or guardian, or persons having legal charge of them, in the order mentioned. Such consent shall be manifested in writing by the interested party, who personally appears before the proper local civil registrar, or in the form of an affidavit made in the presence of two witnesses and attested before any official authorized by law to administer oaths. The personal manifestation shall be recorded in both applications for marriage license, and the affidavit, if one is executed instead, shall be attached to said applications. (61a)

Therefore, the parties to the marriage who are between ages 18 and 21 must secure parental consent. Otherwise it is voidable. (Art. 25 [1] Family Code). 

A parental consent shall be manifested: 1. In writing by the person concerned who personally appears before the Local Civil Registrar; or 2. In the form of an affidavit made in the presence of two (2) witnesses and attested before any official authorized to administer oaths.

So if X and Y got married without the consent of their parents, is their marriage deemed to be invalid under the law?

No. Even if the parties failed to obtain their parents’ or guardian’s consent, their marriage is still considered as valid subject to the right of their parents or guardians to file for the annulment of their marriage within five (5) years from the celebration of the marriage. (Article 47 of the Family Code of the Philippines)

Non-compliance with the requirement of parental consent does not make the marriage invalid or void but merely voidable, which means that the marriage is valid until annulled.

As a result, however, a petition for the annulment of the marriage may be filed by the parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the party seeking the annulment, in that order, unless after attaining the age of majority, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife.

References:

sc.judiciary.gov.ph

http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph

Family Code of the Philippines by Albano, et al.

I also have this blog on September 15, 2018, at this link:

http://thelawexplorer.blogspot.com/2018/09/article-11-family-code-of-philippines.html

[evince29-blog]

Civil Interdiction is the state of deprivation by the court of a person’s right. It deprives the offender during the time of his sentence of the rights  of :

a.) parental and/or marital authority;

b.) guardianship to person or property;

c.) the right to manage his property;

d.) the right to dispose of such property by any act or conveyance (i.e. he cannot donate) inter vivos.

[evince29-blog]

Prodigality

Prodigality is the state of squandering money or property with a morbid desire to prejudice the heirs of a person.

[evince29-blog]

Article 50, New Civil Code of the Philippines

Article 50. For the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of natural persons is the place of their habitual residence.

The domicile of natural persons is the place of their habitual residence.

There are two (2) elements of domicile:

1.The fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place;

2. The intention to remain permanently or animus manendi

The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile and in case of disagreement, the court shall decide (Art. 69 Family Code). The Family Code abrogated the inequality between husband and wife where the husband, under the old law, fixes or dictates the domicile of the wife. It was gender-based discrimination and not rationally related to the objective of family solidarity.

But the court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if:

1. the latter should live abroad;

2. there are other compelling reasons for the exemption.

There distinctions between the domicile and the residence: "A residence is not a domicile, but domicile is residence coupled with the intent of returning.”

A residence is a place of abode; permanent or temporary; a factual relationship to a given place for various purposes; and involves the intent to leave as soon the purpose is established.

A domicile, on the other hand, is a fixed permanent residence, to which, when one absent, one has the intention of returning (Imelda R Marcos v. COMELEC, et al, GR No. 119976, Sept. 18, 1995).

The important points in domicile have to be noted:

1. A domicile, once acquired is retained until a new one is gained.

2. Domicile is not lost even if one has lived and maintained residences in different places for some purposes, without having had the intention to abandon it by reason of occupation, profession, etc., shall not be deemed to have lost his original residence.

In matters of domicile, a minor follows the domicile of his parents. In the case of Imelda R. Marcos v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995, it was said that a domicile, once acquired is retained until a new one is gained. In spite of her having born in Manila, Tacloban, Leyte is her place of domicile of origin by operation of law. This was not established only when she reached the age of 18 years old, but when his father brought his family back to Leyte. Domicile is not easily lost.

To successfully effect a change of domicile, one must demonstrate:

1. an actual removal or change of domicile;

2. a bona fide intention of abandoning the former place of residence and establishing a new one; and

3. acts which correspond with the purpose.

Imelda R. Marcos v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 119976, September 18, 1995

Facts:

Imelda R. Marcos filed her certificate of candidacy for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte stating, among others, her residence in the place was seven (7) months. Cong. Cirilo Roy Montejo, another candidate, filed a Petition for Cancellation and Disqualification of with the COMELEC contending, among others, that Imelda R. Marcos failed to comply with the one (1) - year residence requirement under the Constitution. An order was issued by the COMELEC disqualifying Imelda and canceling her certificate of candidacy. She filed an Amended Corrected Certificate of Candidacy, changing the "seven months" to "since childhood." It was denied because it was filed out of time. In an en banc resolution, the COMELEC  declared her as qualified to run and allowed her proclamation should she win in the election.  In another resolution same day, it directed that the proclamation is suspended in the event that she obtained the highest numbers of votes; hence, she went to the Supreme Court.

Issue: Whether or not Imelda Imelda Marcos was a resident of the First District of Leyte for a period of one year at the time of election on May 9, 1995.

Held:

Yes. The Supreme Court said:

"While the COMELEC seems to be in agreement with the general proposition that for purposes of election law, residence is synonymous to domicile, the Resolution reveals a tendency to substitute or mistake the concept of domicile for actual residence, a conception not intended for the purpose of determining a candidate's qualifications for election to the House of Representatives as required by the 1987 Constitution. As it was the residence, for the purpose of meeting the qualification for an elective position, has settled meaning in our jurisdiction.

"Article 50 of the Civil Code decrees that 'for the exercise of civil rights and the fulfillment of civil obligations, the domicile of natural persons is their place of habitual residence." In Ong Huan Tin v. Republic, 19 SCRA 966; Corre, 100, Phil. 321, this Court took the concept of domicile to mean an individual's 'permanent' home,' 'a place to which, whenever absent for business or for pleasure, one intends to return, and depends on facts and circumstances in the sense that they disclose intent.' Based on the foregoing, domicile includes the twin elements of 'the fact of residing or physical presence in a fixed place' and animus manendi, or the intention of returning there permanently.

"Residence, in its ordinary conception, implies the factual relationship of an individual to a certain place. It is the physical presence of a person in a given area, community or country. The essential distinction between and domicile in that the residence involves the intent to leave when the purpose for which the resident has taken up his abode ends. One may seek a place for purposes such as pleasure, business, or health. If a person's intent is to remain, it becomes his domicile; if his intent to leave after his purpose is established, it is a residence (Uytengsu v. Republic, Phil. 890).

Thus, it is quite normal for an individual to have different residences in various places. However, a person can only have a single domicile, unless, for various reasons, he successfully abandons his domicile in favor of another domicile of choice.

In Uytengsu v. Republic (supra) the Supreme Court laid this distinction quite clearly:

"There is a difference between domicile and residence.’Residence' is used to indicate a place of abode whether permanent or temporary; 'domicile' denotes a fixed permanent residence to which, when absent, one has the intention of returning. A man may have a residence in one place and a domicile in another. A residence is not a domicile, but a domicile can be a residence coupled with the intention to remain for an unlimited time. A man can have but one domicile for the same purpose at any time, but he may numerous places of residence. His place of residence is generally the place of domicile, but it is not by any means necessary so since no length of residence without the intention of remaining will constitute domicile.

The mere absence of a person from his permanent residence without the intention to abandon it does not result in a loss or change in domicile.

On the matters of Imelda's domicile, the Supreme said:

"Thus, the assertion by the COMELEC that 'she could not have been a resident of Tacloban City from childhood up to the time she filed for her Certificate of Candidacy (COC) because became a resident of many places,' flies in the face of settled jurisprudence in which this Court carefully made distinctions between (actual) residence and domicile for election law purposes."

In the instant case, in its proposition that the petitioner was ineligible to run for the position of Representative of the First District of Leyte, the COMELEC was obviously referring to the petitioner’s (actual) residence, not her domicile. This contention by the COMELEC ignores the settled jurisprudence on residence in election law, the deliberations of the constitutional commission, and the provisions of Omnibus Code (B.P Blg. 881) which provides that any person who transfers residence to another city, municipality, or country solely by reason of his occupation, profession, employment in public and private service, educational activities, work in military or naval service reservations, service in the army, navy or air force, the constabulary or national police force, or confinement or detention in government institutions in accordance with law shall not be deemed to have lost his original residence.

References: 

Family Code of the Philippines 2017th Edition by Albano et al

sc.judiciary.gov.ph/

[I have a blog of this on  September 04, 2018, at  http://thelawexplorer.blogspot.com/2018/09/article-50.html ]

[evince29-blog]

Article 39, New Civil Code of the Philippines

Article 39: The following circumstances, among others, modify or limit capacity to act:  age, insanity, imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, penalty, prodigality,  family relations, alienage, absence, insolvency, and trusteeship.

A married woman, twenty-one years of age or over, is qualified for all civil acts of civil life, except in cases specified by law. (As repealed by the Family Code and RA 6809, where the age of majority now is 18 years.)

This article includes not only provide the restrictions or limitations but also those circumstances that modify the capacity to act under the law.

The consequences of the circumstances of these are governed in this Code, other codes, the Rules of Court, and in special laws. It also asserts that the capacity to act is not limited on account of religious belief or political opinion.

Restrictions on the capacity to act:

1.Minority/Age: The age of majority is 18 years. (RA 6809). Therefore,  minors cannot give consent to contracts.

Illustration 1:

If A and B are both minors. A sold his car to B for 400, 000.00. A delivered it and B paid.  The contract is unenforceable.

Article 1403 of the New Civil Code NCC, one of the classics of an unenforceable contract is where both parties are incompetent to give consent. But the contract can be cleansed of its defect when their parents or guardians ratify the same. (Art. 1407, NCC)

Illustration 2:

A minor sold his car to B, a person of age. B paid A and A delivered the car to B. This contract is voidable.

If one of the parties to a contract is incapable of giving consent, the contract is voidable(Art. 1390, NCC). But if the parents or guardian of the said incompetent party would ratify the same, it is cleansed of its defect from the moment of signing or perfection of the contract of the minor.

In both cases, there is a restriction of capacity to act, yet the law recognizes effects of the said contracts.

Mercado and Mercado v. Espiritu, 37 Phils. 215, minors stated that they were of legal age when they entered into a contract of sale. The truth is that they were not of legal age. They could not be permitted to excuse themselves from the fulfillment of their obligation. This is so because of the principle of estoppel.

Domingo Mercado and Josefa Mercado, plaintiffs-appellants, v. Jose Espiritu, administrator of the estate of the deceased Luis Espiritu, defendant-appellee, G.R. No. L-11872, December 1, 1917

Perfecto Salas Rodriguez for appellants.

Vicente Foz for defendant-appellee.

Facts:

This is an appeal by the bill of exceptions, filed by the counsel for the plaintiffs from the judgment of September 22, 2018, in which the judge of the Seventh Judicial District dismissed the complaint filed by the plaintiffs and order them to keep perpetual silence in regard to the litigated land, and to pay costs of the suit.

By a complaint dated April 9, 1913, counsel for Domingo and Josefa Mercado brought suit in the Court of First Instance (now RTC) of Bulacan, against Luis Espiritu, but, as the latter died soon thereafter, the complaint was amended by being directed against Jose Espiritu in his capacity of his administrator of the estate of the deceased Luis Espiritu.

Luis Espiritu entered into a contract of sale with the heirs of his sister Margarita: Domingo and Josefa Mercado, who pretended to be of legal age to give their consent to a contract of sale of the land that they inherited from their Mother Margarita.

The siblings Domingo and Josefa sought for the annulment of the said contract alleging that they were of minor age during the perfection of contract.

Issue: Whether or not the deed of sale is valid when the minors presented themselves to be of legal age at the time of perfection of the contract.

Ruling:

The Court ruled that the contract of sale is VALID even if it were made and entered into by minors, who pretended to be of legal age.

The ruling was in accordance with the provisions of the law on the doctrine of estoppel and sec. 6 (a) Rule 123 which states that 'Whenever a party has, in its declaration, an act or an omission, intentionally or deliberately led another party to believe a particular thing to be true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising of such declaration, be permitted to falsify it.'

Furthermore, the sale of the real estate made by a minor who pretended to be of legal age, when in fact, he is not, is VALID, and he will not be permitted to excuse himself from the fulfillment of the obligations contracted by him or to have it annulled. The judgment that holds such sale to be valid and absolves the purchaser from the complaint filed against him does not violate laws relative to the sale of minor's property, nor the judicial rules established in consonance therewith.

The fact that a minor at the time of entering into a contract falsely represented to the person with whom he dealt that he had attained the age of majority will create an estoppel against the infant/minor, the other party had a good reason to believe that the minor is capable of contracting.

2. Sickness: An insane or demented person or a deaf-mute who does not know how to read and write may not give consent to a contract (Art. 1372 [2] NCC).

3. Penalty:

During the service of a sentence of an accused by imprisonment of 12 yrs & 1 day or more, the court may limit the accused's capacity to act or deprive him of some of his rights herein referred to as Civil Interdiction (the state of deprivation by the court of a person’s right)

Civil Interdiction deprives the offender during the time of his sentence of the rights  of :

        a.) parental and/or marital authority;

        b.) guardianship to person or property;

        c.) the right to manage his property;

      d.) the right to dispose of such property by any act or conveyance (i.e. he cannot donate) inter vivos.

4. Prodigality

The state of squandering money or property with a morbid desire to prejudice the heirs of a person.

5. Alienage

Aliens cannot acquire land in the Philippines

No private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold land of public domain. (Sec. 7, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution)

(Cheesman v. CA- a foreigner who marries a Filipino  and out of conjugal funds, a private property is acquired, such cannot form part of their community of property because the foreigner is disqualified from acquiring lands in the Phils. Dura lex sed lex

6. Absence

When a person disappears from his domicile, his whereabouts being unknown, he is considered as absent [Art. 382 NCC]. The court can appoint an administrator at the instance of an interested person, a relative or a friend. However, it is not absolute such that the person may still recover his rights should he appear. In fact, if someone can prove that he acquired the title over his properties under administration, the administration would cease.

7.Insolvency or trusteeship

•If declared insolvent, one cannot dispose of his properties existing at the time of the commencement of the proceedings for insolvency.

•No payments of property or credit can be made to him (Sections 18 and 24, Act No. 56)

8. Family Relations

By reason of public policy, where the possibility  that one may exert undue influence over the other, the ff restrictions are applied:

A husband and wife cannot donate to one another. This extends to the common-law relationship  (Art. 87, family code); or cannot sell to one another, as a rule, except in cases where they are governed by complete separation of property regime or when there is the separation of properties during the marriage;

Husband and wife cannot enter into a universal partnership of all properties (Art. 1782, NCC)

The law also declares the following void marriages:

a.) Those contracted among relatives in the direct line, whether legitimate or illegitimate (Art.37 Family Code); or

b.) Those in the collateral line up to the fourth civil degree of consanguinity (Art. 38, Family Code).    

9. Deaf-mute

A person who is blind or deaf cannot be a witness in a will (Art. 820 NCC)

But a deaf-mute may execute a will (Art. 807, NCC) or

A blind person can execute a will ( Art. 808, NCC)

On the other hand, POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS BELIEF does not affect the capacity to act. In fact, sec. 5, Art. III, 1987 Constitution provides that no religious test is required for the exercise of civil or political rights.    

Sources:

Family Code of the Philippines by Judge Vincent S. Albano

Civil Code of the Philippines by Paras

[I have a blog of this on  September 04, 2018, at  http://thelawexplorer.blogspot.com/2018/09/article-39-following-circumstances.html]

[evince29-blog]

Sale with right to repurchase

This is the right which the vendor reserves to himself, to reacquire the property sold provided that he returns to the vendee, the price of the sale, expenses of the contract, any other legitimate payments made such as the necessary and useful expenses made on the thing sold  and fulfills other stipulations which may have been agreed upon. It is where the conventional redemption takes place.

As provided under Article 1601 of the New Civil Code:

Article 1601. Conventional redemption shall take place when the vendor reserves the right to repurchase the thing sold, with the obligation to comply with the provisions of Article 1616 and other stipulations which may have been agreed upon.

When the Vendor reserves the right to repurchase the thing sold – with the obligation to return the price of the sale as well as the expenses of the contract, any other legitimate payments made by reason of the sale, the necessary and useful expenses made on the thing sold, and other stipulations which may have been agreed — upon the right to repurchase, in the absence of an express agreement, shall last four years from the date of the contract.

The second paragraph says that should there be an agreement; the period cannot exceed ten years.

However, the vendor may still exercise the right to repurchase within thirty days from the time final judgment was rendered in a civil action on the basis that the contract was a true sale with right to repurchase.

References:

New Civil Code by Paras

New Civil Code by Albano III

https://www.lawphil.net

[I have a blog of this on August 30, 2018, at http://thelawexplorer.blogspot.com/2018/08/what-is-sale-with-right-to-repurchase.html ]

[evince29-blog]

Article 19, New Civil Code of the Philippines

The Chapter II: Human Relations:  

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.

May we first define important terminologies in this Article:

Right is a power, privilege, or immunity granted under a constitution, statute, or decisional law; every well-grounded claim on others.

Duty is a human action which is exactly conformable to the laws which require us to obey them; a moral obligation or responsibility.

Justice is the constant and perpetual disposition to every man his due, the conformity of our actions and our will to the law.

Good faith is an honest intention to avoid taking undue advantage of another.

A right, although by itself legal because it is recognized or granted by law as such, may nevertheless become the source of illegality when it is exercised in a manner that does not conform to the norms enshrined in Article 19 NCC and results in damage to another, a legal wrong is thereby committed for which the wrongdoer must be held responsible.

I. Coverage:

This pervades the entire legal system. This renders it impossible that a person who suffers damage because another has violated some legal provision should find himself relief.

Where one wrongfully or negligently does an act which in its consequences is injurious to another, he is liable for the damage caused by such wrongful act. It also applies to artificial and natural persons.

To warrant the recovery of damage, in any case, there must be a right of action for a wrong inflicted by the defendant and damage resulting to the plaintiff thereof.

As a general rule: "Wrong without damage and damage without wrong does not constitute a rule of action."

II. The necessity for the law:

This article contains the principle of abuse of rights. It indicates the range of allowable conduct among citizens or certain norms that spring from the fountain of good conscience and makes it imperative that everyone duly respects the rights of others.

III. The core of Article 19, NCC is bad faith

• Good faith is always presumed.

• Malice or bad faith is in the core of Articles 19, 20, and 21. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence, it involves dishonest purpose or some legal obloquy and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or will that partakes of the moral of the nature of fraud.

• Malice or bad faith/motive never presumed. Anyone who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. (Elizabeth Diaz v. Encanto, et al G.R. no. 171303 Jan. 20, 2016)

Elizabeth Diaz v. Encanto, et al, G.R. No. 171303, Jan. 20, 2016, Leonardo - De Castro

Facts: This is a petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, as amended, which seeks to reverse and set aside the April 28, 2005 Decision and January 20, 2006 Resolution of the CA in CA-G.R. CV No. 55165, which reversed the April 17, 1996 Decision and September 17, 1996 Order of the RTC, Branch 71, Pasig City, in CC No. 58397.  

The Plaintiff-Appellant Elizabeth Diaz A Professor of the University of the Philippines applied for a sabbatical leave with pay, but it was denied.

       This issue was brought to the court where the finding that the grant or denial of such leave is not a matter of right as it is subject to the exigencies of service like the acute shortage of teaching staff.

Even the Office of the Ombudsman has similar findings with the CA that the grand of leave is not a matter of right and there was no bad faith. Yet, before the SC, the applicant insisted that the concerned officials acted in bad faith. Sustaining the findings of the CA, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the SC.

Held:

There were no traces of bad faith or malice in denying the application for sabbatical leave. They processed the application in accordance with their usual procedure. While the RTC declared that the petitioner Diaz should have been granted a sabbatical leave, it is important to note that the RTC awarded damages to the petitioner merely for the unreasonable and unconscionable delay in the resolution of her application for sabbatical leave.

It is an elementary rule in this jurisdiction that good faith is presumed and that the burden of proving bad faith rests upon the party alleging the same.

Her complaint for the recovery of damages before the RTC was based on the alleged bad faith of the respondents in denying her application for sabbatical leave vis-a-vis Articles 19 and 20.

Article 19 of the Civil Code prescribes a 'primordial limitation on all rights' by setting standards that must be observed in the exercise thereof. Abuse of right under Article 19 exists when the following elements are present:

        1. There is a legal right or duty;

        2. which is exercised in bad faith;

        3. for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring another.

The Court expounding on the concept of bad faith under Article 19, held that:

Malice or bad faith is at the core of Article 19 of the Civil Code. Good faith refers to the state of mind which is manifested by the acts of the individual concerned. It consists of the intention to abstain from taking an unconscionable and unscrupulous advantage of another. It is presumed. Thus, he who alleges bad faith has the duty to prove the same. Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or simple negligence; it involves a dishonest purpose or some moral obloquy and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or will that partakes of the nature of fraud. Malice connotes ill will or spite and speaks not in response to duty. It implies an intention to do ulterior and unjustifiable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive.

IV. Elements of abuse of right under Article 19:

1. There is a legal right or duty;

2. Which is exercised in bad faith;

3.For the sole intent of prejudicing and injuring another.

V. The principle for abuse of right under Art 19:

A person has the right to exercise his rights, but in so doing, he must be mindful of the rights of other people. Otherwise, he can be made liable for any damage(Meralco v. CA L-39019, Jan. 22, 1988)

VI. Standards set forth in Article 19

1. To act with justice;

2. To give everyone his due;

3. To observe honesty and good faith.

This article is also related to Articles 20 and 21:

Article 20 – provides general sanction for all other provisions of law. Anyone who, whether willfully or negligently, in the exercise of legal right or duty, causes damage to another, shall indemnify his victim for injuries suffered thereby.

Article  21 – deals with contra bonos mores (or against good morals). It's elements are:

1. There is an act which is legal

2.but which is contrary to morals, good custom, public order, or public policy; and

3. It is done with intent to injure

Thus, under any of these three (3) provisions of law,  an act that causes injury to another may be made the basis for an award of damages.

Though the question whether or not the principle of abuse of rights has been violated, resulting in damages under articles 19, 20 and 21 and other applicable provision of law, depends on the circumstances of each case.(Globe Mackay Cable v. CA 176 SCRA 778 [1989].

VII. The exercise of a right must be in good faith

One should in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, must strive to bring a measure of humanity into the law.

A man in the use of his right over the thing he owns or possesses should so act not to do injustice to others and should exercise his right with due respect to others rights observing at the same time honesty and good faith with his fellowmen.

VIII. Requirements for liability

To be liable under the law, the following requisites must be met:

1. The party claiming damages must have sustained the laws;

2. The party against whom they are claimed must be chargeable or guilty of the wrong complained of;

3. The loss must be the natural and proximate consequence of the wrong;

4. The wrong complained of must be contrary to law and the act or omission causing the damage should either be willful or a director a proximate result of negligence.

IX. Public Officer may be liable for his wrong doing under Art. 19.

The occupancy of a high public office cannot be used as a cloak against wrongdoing.

In fact, the SC ruled that a public officer can be sued in his individual capacity for his wrongdoing. (Chavez v. Sandiganbayan G.R. 91391, [January 24, 1991])

X. Civil liability  despite acquittal; the bad faith of the defendant

David Llorente v. Sandiganbayan, et al. G.R. No. 85464

–The performance of duty must be done with justice and good faith.

XI. Petitioner cannot invoke the principle of damnum absque injuria.

damnum absque injuria, a principle premised on the valid exercise of a right (Globe Mackay Cable and Radio Corp. v. CA, 176 SCRA 778)

Anything less or beyond such exercise will not give rise to the legal protection that the principle accords. And when damage or prejudice to another is occasioned thereby, liability cannot be obscured, much less abated.

References:

Family Code of the Phils. by Judge Ed Vincent S. Albano et al

Civil Code 17th edition by Paras

[I have a blog of this on August 22, 2018, at http://thelawexplorer.blogspot.com/2018/08/article-19-of-civil-code-of-philippines_22.html ]

[evince29-blog]

Article 7, New Civil Code of the Philippines

Article 7. Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones, and their violation or non-observance shall not be excused by disuse or custom or practice to the contrary.

When the court declares a law to be inconsistent with the Constitution, the former shall be void and the latter shall govern.

Administrative or executive acts, orders, and regulations shall be valid only when they are not contrary to the laws or the Constitution.

This article asserts the supremacy of the Constitution as the supreme law of the land over an ordinary law or legislation, administrative or executive acts.

There are sources of Law in order of preference in this Article:

•The Constitution

•Laws (Presidential Decrees)

•Administrative or executive acts, orders, and regulations

Laws are repealed only by subsequent ones. It is to be presumed that the lawmakers knew the older law and intended to change it. In enacting the older law, the legislators could not have known the newer one and hence, could not have intended to change what they did not know.

Non-observance of the law.The disuse, custom, or practice to the contrary does not repeal a law. Thus, although hardly enforced nowadays, an article of the Revised Penal Code still prohibits betting on the results of a basketball game, or any other sports contest.

[NOTE: Our Supreme Court, in the case of Hilado v. Collector (L-9408), held that the Philippine laws which are not of a Political character continued to be in force during the Japanese Occupation, it is a legal maxim that a law, once established, continues until it will be changed by some competent legislative power. [Therefore, our internal revenue laws, among others, continued to exist during the occupation.]

As for repealing of laws, there 2 kinds of repeal:

1. Express

A law or statute is expressly repealed if it is contained in the subsequent act or when a new law is enacted containing a provision expressly repealing an existing law.

2. Implied

When the subsequent law is inconsistent with the former, a law can be repealed by implication provided that the requisites exist:

–The laws must cover the same subject matter;

–There is a plain, unavoidable and irreconcilable repugnancy/inconsistency between the two.

Rules for General and Special laws:

A. In case of conflict between a general and a special law, which should prevail?

1. If both of which include and cover the same subject, or that the general law was enacted prior to the special law, the special law must be deemed an exception to the general law. (Lichauco v. Apostol, 44 Phil. 138)

Lichauco v. Apostol,

G.R. No. L-19628 (44 PHIL 138), Dec. 4, 1922

Facts:

The Petitioner, a corporation duly organized under the Philippine laws, has engaged in the business of importing carabao and other draft animals for several years and was desirous of importing, from Phnom-Penh, a shipment of draft cattle and bovine cattle for the manufacture of serum. However, the respondent Director of Agriculture refused to admit said cattle except upon the condition that the draft cattle be immunized from rinderpest. The Petitioner, however, contends that the respondent has no authority over the matter, invoking section 1762 of the Administrative Code, as amended by Act No. 3052. On the other hand, relying upon section 1770 of the Administrative Code, Administrative Order No. 21 of the Bureau of Agriculture, and Dept. Order No. 6 of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, respondent maintained its decision. Hence, the issue.

Issue: Whether or not section 1770 (and other similar acts) has been repealed by implication by Act 3052 and hence cannot be applied with the case at bar?

Held and Reasoning: No. The Court ruled that the contention of the petitioner is untenable for the reason that the invoked section 1762, as amended, is obviously of a general nature while 1770 is a particular one. Section 1770 is therefore not inconsistent or repugnant with section 1762 and instead be considered as a special qualification of the latter provision. Moreover, the court emphasized that“specific legislation upon a particular subject is not affected by a general law upon the same subject unless it clearly appears that the provision of the two laws are so repugnant..xxx…The special act and the general law must stand together, the one as the law of the particular subject and the other as the general law of the land.”

Therefore, Section 1770 of the Administrative Code remains in effect and serves as a supplementary provision to section 1762, as amended.

In relation to this subject matter, we should take into account that the Civil Code repeals:

1.    The old Civil Code of 1889.

2.    The Code of Commerce provisions on sales, partnership, agency, loan, deposit, and guaranty.

3.    The provisions of the Civil Procedure on prescription, as far as they are inconsistent with the Civil Code.

4. All the laws, acts, parts of acts, Rules of Court, executive orders, and administrative regulations, inconsistent with the Civil Code.

2. If the general law was enacted after the special law, the special law remains unless:

a.      There is an express declaration to the contrary;

b.     Or there is a clear, necessary and irreconcilable conflict.

c.      Or unless the subsequent general covers the whole subject and is clearly intended to replace the special law on the matter.

Bocobo vs. Estanislao, L-30458 August 31, 1976

FACTS: A radio operator was accused of libel before the Municipal Trial Court of Balanga, Bataan, the municipality being one of the places where the broadcast was heard. It was contended that while RA 1289 vested exclusive jurisdiction over libel cases in Courts of First Instance, still under a later law, RA 3828, municipal courts in provincial capitals were given concurrent jurisdiction over certain crimes (up to certain penalty).

ISSUE: Which court has jurisdiction?

HELD: The court of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) of Bataan has jurisdiction. Repeal of the special enactment (RA1289) by a general but later enactment (RA 3828) is NOT FAVORED, unless the legislative purpose to do so is manifest. This is so even if the provisions of the general but later law are sufficiently comprehensive to include matters apparently set forth in the special law. Incidentally, the suit must filed with RTC is to prevent undue harassment of the accused, in case, for instance, the suit is brought in a very remote municipality, simply because the broadcast was heard there.

[NOTE: An Act passed later but going into effect earlier will prevail over a statute passed earlier but going into effect later. This is because the later enactment expresses the later intent.

Effect if the Repealing Law is itself repealed:

a. When a law which expressly repeals a prior law is itself repealed, the first law repealed shall not thereby be revived, unless expressly so provided. (sec. 14, Rev. Administrative Code).

b. When a law which repeals a prior law, not expressly but by implication, is itself repealed, the repeal of the repealing law revives the prior law, unless the language of the repealing statute provides otherwise. (U.S. v. Soliman, 26 Phil. 5).

Repealing acts and their effects:

The repeal of a statute:

1.     It shall not affect or impair any act done, right vested, duty imposed, penalty accrued, or proceeding commenced before the taking effect of the repealing act;

2.            The repealing acts are valid and create a new rule of construction which is binding to the courts. Most repealing statutes are curative.

Sources:

• http://www.chanrobles.com

• The New Civil Code Sixteenth Edition by Paras

• Family Code of the Philippines by Judge Ed Vincent S Albano 2017 Edition

[I also have a blog of this on  August 21, 2018,  http://thelawexplorer.blogspot.com/2018/08/article-7-of-civil-code-of-philippines.html ]

[evince29-blog]

What a Certiorari is

A certiorari is an order or writ by which a higher court is requested to review the decision of a lower court alleging that the decision has been irregular, incomplete, or if there has been an error of law. It raises a question of law.

If the application is successful, it renders the decision at issue of no force or effect and null and void.

The special civil action for a certiorari and appeal are two different remedies that are mutually exclusive; they are not alternative or successive. Where an appeal is available, the certiorari will not prosper, even if the ground therefor is grave abuse of discretion.

The basic rule: A certiorari is not a substitute for the lapsed remedy of an appeal.

References:

http://www.chanrobles.com

duhaime.org

https://bataspinoy.wordpress.com

[I have posted this on  August 14, 2018,  at http://thelawexplorer.blogspot.com/2018/08/what-certiorari-is.html on a requirement of our Professor in Persons: Judge Princess]

[evince29-blog]

The doctrine of proximate cause

Proximate cause is that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which, the result would not have occurred.

The proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor. There must be a relation of "cause and effect," the cause being the felonious act of the offender, the effect of being the resultant injuries and/or death of the victim.

The "cause and effect" relationship is not altered or changed because of the pre-existing conditions, such as the pathological condition of the victim; the predisposition of the offended party; the physical condition of the offended party; or the concomitant or concurrent conditions, such as the negligence or fault of the doctors; or the conditions supervising the felonious act such as tetanus, pulmonary infection or gangrene. If a person inflicts a wound with a deadly weapon in such manner as to put life in jeopardy and death follows as a consequence of their felonious act, it does not alter its nature or diminish its criminality to prove that other causes cooperated in producing the factual result.

The offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his delightful act caused, accelerated or contributed to the death of the victim. A different doctrine would tend to give immunity to crime and to take away from human life a salutary an essential safeguard. (Quinto vs. Andres, G.R. 155791, March 16, 2005).

May we discuss the case related to this:

Melba Quinto v. Dante Andres, G. R. No. 15591, March 16, 2005

The eleven-year-old Edison Garcia, a Grade 4 elementary school pupil, and his playmate, Wilson Quinto, who was about eleven years old, were at Barangay San Rafael, Tarlac, Tarlac, at around 7:30 a.m. on November 13, 1995.

They saw respondents Dante Andres and Randyver Pacheco by the mouth of a drainage culvert. Andres and Pacheco invited Wilson to go fishing with them inside the drainage culvert to which Wilson agreed to. However, when Garcia saw that it was dark inside, he opted to remain seated in the grassy area about two meters from the entrance of the drainage system. Respondent Pacheco had a flashlight. He, along with Wilson and respondent Andres, entered the drainage system which was covered by concrete culvert about a meter high and a meter wide, with water about a foot deep. After a while, respondent Pacheco, who was holding a fish, came out of the drainage system without saying a word. Respondent Andres came out, went back inside, and emerged again, this time carrying Wilson who was already dead. 

Respondent Andres laid the boy's lifeless body down in the grassy area. Shocked at the sudden turn of events, Garcia fled from the scene. 

For his part, Andres went to the house of the petitioner Melba Quinto, Wilson's mother, and informed her that her that her son Wilson died. Melba rushed to the drainage culvert while respondent Andres followed her.

In a post-mortem examination, the cause of death was: Asphyxia by drowning; traumatic head injuries, contributory.

Issues:

a.) Whether or not the extinction of respondent's criminal liability, likewise, carries with it the extinction of their civil liability.

b.) Whether or not the preponderant evidence exists to hold the respondents to be civilly liable for the death of Wilson Quinto.

Ruling: 

Every person criminally liable for a felony is civilly liable. A person committing a felony is criminally liable for all the natural and logical consequences resulting therefrom although the wrongful act that was done be different from that which he intended.

The felony committed must be the proximate cause of the resulting injury.

If a person inflicts a wound with a deadly weapon in such manner as to put life in jeopardy and death follows as a consequence of their felonious act, it does not alter its nature or diminish its criminality to prove that other causes cooperated in producing the factual result. The offender is criminally liable for the death of the victim if his delictual act caused, accelerated or contributed to the death of the victim.

In the present case, the respondents were charged with homicide by dolo (deceit). 

The Supreme Court ruled that, as held by the trial court and the CA, the prosecution failed to adduce preponderant evidence to prove the facts on which the civil liability of the respondents rest, i.e., that the petitioner has a cause of action against the respondents for damages.

He presented two possibilities:

1. That the deceased could have been hit by a blunt object or instrument applied with full force, or

2. The deceased could have slipped, fell hard and his head hit a hard object.

The trial court gave credence to the testimony of Dr. Aguda that the deceased might have slipped, causing the latter to fall hard and have his head hit on the pavement.

However, the absence of any ill-motive to kill the deceased is relevant and admissible in evidence to prove that no violence was perpetrated on the person of the deceased.

In this case, the petitioner failed to adduce the proof of any ill-motive on the part of either respondent to kill the deceased before or after the latter was invited to join them in fishing. Indeed, the petitioner testified that respondent Andres used to go to their house and play with her son before the latter's death.

Principles:

the prime purpose of the criminal action is to punish the offender in order to deter him and others from committing the same or similar offense, to isolate him from society, to reform and rehabilitate him, or in general, to maintain social order.

The sole purpose of a civil action is restitution, reparation or indemnification of the private offended party for the damage or injury he sustained by reason of the delictual or felonious act of the accused.

"Natural" refers to an occurrence in the ordinary course of human life or events while "logical" means that there is a rational connection between the act of the accused and the resulting injury or damage.

The proximate cause is that cause which in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which, the result would not have occurred.

There must be a relation of "cause and effect," the cause being the felonious act of the offender, and the effect being the resultant injuries and/or death of the victim.

References:

Supreme Court Decisions in Criminal law

http:judiciary.gov.ph

lawyerly.com

[I have posted this in my blog on September 7, 2018, at http://thelawexplorer.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-doctrine-of-proximate-cause.html  ]