Persons & Family Relations: Codals with Cases

Art. 2. Laws shall take

efect after ffteen days
following the completion
of their publication in the
Ofcial Gazette, unless it
is otherwise provided.
This Code shall take
efect one year after such
publication.
Facts of the case: Petitioners led by Lorenzo Tanada invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of pbli! !on!ern" as well as the prin!iple that laws to
be valid and enfor!eable mst be pblished in the #ffi!ial $azette or otherwise effe!tively promlgated seek a writ of mandams to !ompel the pbli!ation in the
#ffi!ial $azette of varios presidential de!rees" letters of instr!tions" general orders" pro!lamations" e%e!tive orders" letter of implementation and administrative
orders&
Issue: 'hether or not pbli!ation is indispensable&
Held: The (preme Cort held that all laws or stattes" in!lding those of lo!al appli!ation and private laws" shall be pblished as a !ondition for their effe!tivity&
For a law whi!h is made effe!tive by the legislatre pon its approval or on any other date withot previos pbli!ation will violate de pro!ess provision of the
Constittion&
The general rle is that" where the law is silent as to the effe!tivity or where it provides that it shall take effe!t immediately or pon approval" s!h law or statte
shall take effe!t after fifteen days from its pbli!ation in the offi!ial gazette& 'herefore" the Cort hereby orders respondents to pblish in the #ffi!ial $azette all
npblished presidential issan!es whi!h are of general appli!ation" and nless so pblished" they shall have no binding for!e and effe!t&
Art. . !gnorance of the
law e"cuses no one from
compliance therewith.
Latin #a"im on !gnorance of the
Law$
Ignorantia legis non excusat meaning
Ignorance of the law excuses no one.
Without the maxim, the corrupt
will make social existence
unbearable, abuses will increase,
and ignorance will be rewarded.
!gnorance of the Law %istinguished
from !gnorance of the &act '#istake
of &act($
While ignorance of the law is no
excuse, i.e., no excuse for not
complying with the law,
ignorance of the fact eliminates
criminal intent as long as there is
no negligence.
Kasilag vs. Rodriguez
69 PHIL 217
Facts of the case: )ar!ial *asilag" petitioner filed a motion for review on !ertiorari of the de!ision of the Cort of +ppeals whi!h modified the de!ision of the Cort
of First ,nstan!e of -ataan holding that the !ontra!t is entirely nll and void and withot effe!t that the plaintiff.respondents" then appellants" are the owners of the
dispted land" with its improvements" in !ommon ownership with their brother $avino Rodrigez& /en!e they are entitled to the possession& ,n the same de!ision"
a !ertifi!ate of title named nder 0miliana +mbrosio has been !an!elled and another !ertifi!ate of title has been in favor of $avino Rodrigez& Petitioner !ontends
that he was in possession of the land and that he was re!eiving the frits thereof by virte of a mortgage !ontra!t" entered into between him and the de!eased
0miliana +mbrosio" whi!h was dly ratified by a notary pbli!&
Issue: +s to what e%tent they may prod!e the nllity of the prin!ipal obligation" whether good faith may be premised pon ignoran!e of the law&
Held: The rle is that a lawfl promise made for a lawfl !onsideration is not invalid merely be!ase an nlawfl promise was made at the same time and for the
same !onsideration" and this rle applies" althogh the individality is de to violation of a stattory provision" nless the statte e%pressly or be ne!essary
impli!ation de!lares the entire !ontra!t void& $ross and ine%!sable ignoran!e of the law may not be the basis of good faith" bt possible" e%!sable ignoran!e
may be s!h basis&
Cort resolved that petitioner is a possessor in good faith&
Thus) it has been held that one who possesses land by virtue of a void contract can) nevertheless) be considered a possessor
in good faith if the law involved is comparatively di* cult to comprehend) and as such he is entitled to reimbursement for
useful improvements he had introduced on the land before he is deprived of the land.
Art. +. Laws shall have no
retroactive efect) unless
the contrary is provided.
,eason -hy Laws in .eneral Are
/rospective
In general, laws are prospective, not
retroactive. While the judge looks
backward, the legislator must look
forward. If the rule was that laws were
retroactive, grave injustice would occur,
for these laws would punish individuals
for violations of laws not yet enacted.
While ignorance of the law does not
serve as an excuse, such ignorance
refers only to laws that have already
been enacted.
Art. 2!. "he action for the recognition
of natural children may be brought only
during the lifetime of the presumed
parents, except in the following cases#
$%& If the father or mother died during
the minority of the child, in which case
the latter may ' le the action before the
expiration of four years from the
tie!za vs. "rillia!tes
2#$ %&R $2
Facts of the case: )r& Lpo +tienza filed a !omplainant against 1dge Fran!is!o -rillantes 1r&" presiding 2dge of )etropolitan Trial Cort for gross immorality and
appearan!e of improprietary& The !omplainant alleged that he !aght the respondent sleeping in his bedroom and pon in3iry he learned that the respondent was
!ohabiting with )s& 4e!astro who the !omplainant has 5 !hildren& The !omplainant alleged that the respondent even harassed him on some o!!asion whi!h the
latter denied vehemently& ,t was also learned that the respondent has 6 !hildren to a !ertain )s& #ngkiko whi!h he married twi!e bt on both o!!asions was not
able to se!re a marriage li!ense& The respondent was later abandoned by 7s& #ngkiko leaving to his !are and !stody the !hildren& The respondent !laims that
the married 4e Castro in a !ivil rite for in good faith he believe he was single be!ase his first marriage was solemnized withot a li!ense& The respondent !laimed
that the provision of the Family Code was not appli!able to him be!ase his first marriage took effe!t in 89:6 whi!h was governed by the Civil Code while the
se!ond marriage took pla!e in 8998 and governed by the Family Code& Held: There is retroa!tive effe!t be!ase nder +rti!le ;< of the Family Code it refers to all
marriages entered into after the effe!tivity of the Family Code on +gst ="899> regardless of date of first marriage as long as it does not impair vested rights base
on +rti!le 56: of the Family Code&
Therefore the respondent is dismissed from the servi!e with forfeitre of all leave and retirement benefits with pre2di!e to reappoint in any government instittion&
ruego vs. &ourt of ''eals
(arch 1$)1996
Facts of the case: #n )ar!h ?" 89>=" a !omplaint for !omplsory re!ognition and enfor!ement of s!!essional rights was filed by the minors" private respondent
+ntonia F& +rego and her alleged sister 0velyn F& +rego" represented by their mother and natral gardian" Lz )& Fabian& 7amed defendants therein were 1ose
0& +rego" 1r& and the five @6A minor !hildren of the de!eased $loria +& Torres" represented by their father and natral gardian" 1sto P& Torres" 1r&" now the
petitioners herein&
,n essen!e" the !omplaint avers that the late 1ose )& +rego" (r&" a married man" had an amoros relationship with Lz )& Fabian sometime in 8969 ntil his
death on )ar!h =<" 89>5& #t of this relationship were born +ntonia F& +rego and 0velyn F& +rego& The !omplaint prayed for an order praying that herein private
respondent and 0velyn be de!lared the illegitimate !hildren of the de!eased 1ose )& +rego" (r&B that herein petitioners be !ompelled to re!ognize and
a!knowledge them as the !omplsory heirs of the de!eased 1ose )& +regoB that their share and parti!ipation in the estate of their de!eased father be determined
and ordered delivered to them& Held: The present law !annot be given retroa!tive effe!t insofar as the instant !ase is !on!erned" as its appli!ation will pre2di!e
the vested right of private respondent to have her !ase de!ided nder +rti!le 5>6 of the Civil Code& The right was vested to her by the fa!t that she filed her a!tion
nder the regime of the Civil Code& Pres!inding from this" the !on!lsion then oght to be that the a!tion was not yet barred" notwithstanding the fa!t that it was
broght when the ptative father was already de!eased" sin!e private respondent was then still a minor when it was filed" an e%!eption to the general rle provided
nder +rti!le 5>6 of the Civil Code& /en!e" the trial !ort" whi!h a!3ired 2risdi!tion over the !ase by the filing of the !omplaint" never lost 2risdi!tion over the
same despite the passage of 0&#& 7o& 5<9" also known as the Family Code of the Philippines&
The rling herein reinfor!es the prin!iple that the 2risdi!tion of a !ort" whether in !riminal or !ivil !ases" on!e atta!hed !annot be osted by sbse3ent
happenings or events" althogh of a !hara!ter whi!h wold have prevented 2risdi!tion from atta!hing in the first instan!e" and it retains 2risdi!tion ntil it finally
disposes of the !ase& 'herefore" the petition is denied and the de!ision of the Cort of +ppeals and its resoltion are hereby affirmed&
R0TR#+CT,C0 +PPL,C+T,#7& 'ell.settled is the prin!iple that while the legislatre has the power to pass retroa!tive laws whi!h do not impair the obligation of
!ontra!ts" or affe!t in2riosly vested rights" it is e3ally tre that stattes are not to be !onstred as intended to have a retroa!tive effe!t so as to affe!t the
pending pro!eedings" nless s!h intent is e%pressly de!lared or !learly and ne!essarily implied from the langage of the ena!tment @ Espiritu v. Cipriano, 66
(CR+ 6==A&
attainment of his majority
Art. 0. Acts e"ecuted
against the provisions of
mandatory or prohibitory
laws shall be void) e"cept
when the law itself
authori1es their validity.