Legal personality, capacity to act

1. Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, is inherent in every
natural person and is lost only through death. Capacity to act, which is the power to do acts
with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost. [Art. 37, CC]

2. Presumption of capacity: Capacity to act must be supposed to attach to a person who has not
previously been declared incapable, and such capacity is presumed to continue for so long
as the contrary is not proved [Standard Oil Co. v. Aranas (1911)]

3. It is presumed that a person who enters into a contract is of sound mind. The burden of proof
of insanity rests upon him who alleges insanity. [Engle v. Doe, G.R. No. L-23317 (1925)]

4. Circumstances which modify, limit, or restrict capacity to act: (1) Minority, (2) Insanity or
imbecility, (3) Deaf-mutism, (4) Civil Interdiction (Penalty), (5) Prodigality, (6) Family relations,
(7) Alienage, (8) Absence, (9) Insolvency and trusteeship. [Art. 38, CC]. Only religious belief
and political opinion are the circumstances which do not limit capacity to act according to CC.
[Art. 39, CC]

Marital relationships

5. Marriage is an institution, the maintenance of which the public is deeply interested. It is a

relation for life and the parties cannot terminate it at any shorter period by virtue of any contract
they may make. The reciprocal rights arising from this relation, so long as it continues, are
such as the law determines from time to time, and none other. [Goitia v. Campos Rueda, G.R.
No. 11263 (1916)]

6. Requisites of Marriage

Essential Requisites [Art. 2, FC]

1. Legal capacity of the contracting parties, who must be a male and a female; and
2. Consent (of the contracting parties) freely given in the presence of a solemnizing officer.

Formal Requisites [Art. 3, FC]

1. Authority of solemnizing officer (subject to Art. 35(2), FC)
2. A valid marriage license (subject to exceptions)
3. Marriage ceremony

Property

7. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to

different persons [Art. 484 (1), CC] Until a division is actually made, the respective share of
each cannot be determined, and every co-owner exercises joint ownership of the pro indiviso
property. [Coja v. CA, 539 SCRA 517]

8. Accession is a right by virtue of which the owner of a thing becomes the owner of everything
that is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or
artificially. [Art. 440, CC] Possession in good faith: the possessor is entitled to the fruits
received before the possession is legally interrupted [Art. 526, CC]
9. Being a real right, an easement is constituted on corporeal immovable property of another by
virtue of which the owner has to refrain from doing, or must allow someone to do something
on his property for the benefit of another thing or person. It exists only when the servient and
dominant estates belong to two different owners. It gives the holder of the land but grants no
title thereto. Therefore, an acknowledgment of the easement is an admission that the property
belongs to another. Having held the property by virtue of an easement, petitioner cannot
assert that its occupancy since 1929 was in the concept of an owner. [Cuaycong v. Benedicto,
37 Phil. 781]

10. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything
else which: (1) injures or endangers the health or safety of others; (2) annoys or offends the
senses; (3) shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; (4) obstructs or interferes with
the free passage of any public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs
the use of property. [Art. 694, CC]

11. Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance: One who maintains on his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children at play, and who fails to
exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable
to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in
the premises. [Jarco Marketing Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 129792 (1999)]

Obligations

12. An obligation is a juridical relation, whereby a person (called the creditor) may demand from
another (called the debtor) the observance of a determinative conduct, and in case of breach,
may obtain satisfaction from the assets of the latter. [Makati Stock Exchange v. Campos, G.R.
No. 138814 (2009)]

13. Obligations arise from: (1) Law; (2) Contracts; (3) Quasi-contracts; (4) Acts or omissions
punished by law; and (5) Quasi-delicts. [Art. 1157, CC]

14. Breaches of Obligations. Those who in the performance of their obligations are guilty of the
following are liable for damages [Art. 1170, CC]:
a. Fraud (dolo): The fraud contemplated by the foregoing provision is the deliberate and
intentional evasion of the normal fulfillment of obligations.
b. Negligence (culpa): Fault or negligence of the debtor as an incident in the fulfillment of an
existing obligation.
c. Delay (mora): Delay in the fulfillment of the obligation. The delay however must be
imputable to the debtor/obligor.
d. And those who in any manner contravene the tenor thereof: Covers any illicit act which
impairs the strict and faithful fulfillment of the obligation.

15. Obligations are extinguished: (1) by payment or performance; (2) by the loss of the thing due;
(3) by the condonation or remission of the debt; (4) by the confusion or merger of the rights of
creditor and debtor; (5) by compensation; and (6) by novation. Other causes include
annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a resolutory condition, and prescription. [Art. 1231, CC]

16. “No demand, No delay.” The mere expiration of the period fixed by the parties is not enough
in order that the debtor may incur in delay. Those obliged to deliver or to do something incur
in delay from the time the obligee judicially or extrajudicially demands from them the fulfillment
of their obligation. [Art. 1169, par. 1, CC]
Contracts (in general, loans and mortgages, interest)

17. The facts that the signatures of the witnesses and the notary public were forged does not
negate the existence of the contract for as long as the parties consented to it. The signatures
of the witnesses and the notary public are necessary simply to make the contract binding on
the third person. [Soriano v. Soriano, G.R. No. 130348 (2007)]

18. Requisites for valid consent

a. It must be manifested by the concurrence of the offer and acceptance [Arts. 1319-1326,
CC].
b. The contracting parties must possess the necessary legal capacity [Arts. 1327-1329, CC].
c. It must be intelligent, free, spontaneous, and real (not vitiated) [Arts. 1330-1346, CC].

19. A contract is perfected by mere consent. From the moment of a meeting of the offer and the
acceptance upon the object and the cause that would constitute the contract, consent arises.
However, “the offer must be certain” and “the acceptance seasonable and absolute; if
qualified, the acceptance would merely constitute a counteroffer. [Insular Life v. Asset Builders
Corp., G.R. No. 147410 (2004)]

20. Interpretation of Contracts

Torts, Quasi-delicts

21. Definition of Quasi-Delict. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to another, there being
fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there
is no pre-existing contractual relation between the parties, is called a quasi-delict and is
governed by the provisions of this Chapter. [Art. 2176, CC]

22. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those
considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or the doing
of something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do [Layugan v. IAC, G.R. No.
73998 (1988)].

23. Responsibility for fault or negligence under a quasi-delict [Art. 2176, CC] is entirely separate
and distinct from the civil liability arising from negligence under the penal code. But the plaintiff
cannot recover damages twice for the same act or omission of the defendant. [Art. 2177, CC]
24. Test to determine the existence of negligence: Did the defendant in doing the alleged
negligent act use that reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent man would
have used in the same situation? If not, then he is negligent. Negligence in a given case is
not determined by reference to the personal judgment of the actor in the situation before him,
but is determined in the light of human experience and the facts involved in the particular
case. Conduct is said to be negligent when a prudent man in the position of the tortfeasor
would have foreseen that an effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable to warrant his
foregoing the conduct or guarding against its consequences [Picart v. Smith, G.R. No. L-
12219 (1918)].

25. Literally, res ipsa loquitur means “the thing speaks for itself.” Where the thing which caused
the injury, without the fault of the injured, is under the exclusive control of the defendant and
the injury is such that it should not have occurred if he, having such control used proper care,
it affords reasonable evidence, in the absence of explanation that the injury arose from the
defendant’s want of care, and the burden of proof is shifted to him to establish that he has
observed due care and diligence [Professional Services v. Agana, G.R. No. 126297(2007)].

26. The presumption of negligence on the part of the master or employer, either in the selection
of servant/employee or in the supervision, when an injury is caused by the negligence of a
servant/employee may be rebutted if the employer shows to the satisfaction of the court that
in the selection and supervision, he has exercised the care and diligence of a good father of
a family [Ramos v. PEPSI, G.R. No. L-22533 (1967)].

27. Contributory negligence is conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as a legal
cause to the harm he has suffered, which falls below the standard which he is required to
conform for his own protection. There is contributory negligence when the party’s act showed
lack of ordinary care and foresight that such act could cause him harm or put his life in danger
[NPC v. Heirs of Casionan, G.R. No. 165969 (2008)].

Damages

28. Damages may be defined as the pecuniary compensation, recompense, or satisfaction for an
injury sustained, or as otherwise expressed, the pecuniary consequences, which the law
imposes for the breach of some duty or the violation of some right [People v. Ballesteros, G.R.
No. 120921 (1998)].

29. Damages may be: (a) actual or compensatory; (b) moral; (c) nominal; (d) temperate or
moderate; (e) liquidated; or (f) exemplary or corrective. [Art. 2197, CC]

30. To seek recovery of actual damages, it is necessary to prove the actual amount of loss with a
reasonable degree of certainty, premised upon competent proof and on the best evidence
obtainable [Asilo, Jr. v. People and Sps. Bombasi, G.R. No. 159017-18 (2011); ICTSI v. Chua,
G.R. No. 195031 (2014)].