PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

Limitations are provided for by the Constitution: [1] The rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, [2] The rules shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and [3] The rules shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. (Art. VIII, Sec. 5[5], Constitution). In determining whether a rule prescribed by the Supreme Court, for the practice and procedure of the lower courts, abridges, enlarges, or modifies any substantive right, the test is whether the rule really regulates procedure, that is, the judicial process for enforcing rights and duties recognized by substantive law and for justly administering remedy and redress for a disregard or infraction of them. If the rule takes away a vested right, it is not procedural. If the rule creates a right such as the right to appeal, it may be classified as a substantive matter; but if it operates as a means of implementing an existing right then the rule deals mer

None of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make alterations in the thing owned in common, even though benefits for all will result therefrom. However, if the withholding of the consent of one or more of the co-owners is clearly prejudicial to the common interest, the courts may afford adequate relief. (Art. 491 of the Civil Code) An alteration is a change which is more or less permanent, changes the use of the thing, and prejudices the condition of the thing or its enjoyment by the others.

Is the falsity employed in their statement in the affidavit of cohabitation a mere irregularity? The ratiocination of the Republic that as a marriage under a license is not invalidated by the fact that the license was wrongfully obtained, so must a marriage not be invalidated by a fabricated statement that the parties have cohabited for at least five years as required by law, is NOT correct. The contract is flagrant. The former is with reference to an irregularity of the marriage license, and not to the absence of one. Hence, there is no marriage license at all. Furthermore, the falsity of the allegation in the sworn affidavit relating to the period of the parties’ cohabitation, which would have qualified their marriage as an exception to the requirement for a marriage license, cannot be a mere irregularity, for it refers to a quintessential fact that the law precisely required to be deposed and attested to by the parties under oath. If the essential matter in the sworn affidavit

Jurisprudence has laid down the rule that the five-year common-law cohabitation period under Article 76 means a five-year period computed back from the date of celebration of marriage, and refers to a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of a marriage. (Niñal v. Bayadog). It covers the years immediately preceding the day of the marriage, characterized by exclusivity – meaning no third party was involved at any time within the five years – and continuity (that is, unbroken).

Article 1227. The debtor cannot exempt himself from the performance of the obligation by paying the penalty, save in the case where this right has been expressly reserved for him. Neither can the creditor demand the fulfillment of the obligation and the satisfaction of the penalty at the same time, unless this right has been clearly granted him. However, if after the creditor has decided to require the fulfillment of the obligation, the performance thereof should become impossible without his fault, the penalty may be enforced. (Civil Code of the Philippines) The one who failed to perform that which is incumbent upon him cannot exculpate himself from the performance of the main obligation by the payment of the penalty provided by the penal clause except when the agreement so specifically provides that said payment will actually extinguish the main obligation. As for the creditor, he cannot ask the debtor to fulfill the main obligation and the penalty at the same time, unless, of co

When an unlawful aggression has ceased to exist, the one making a defense has no right to kill or injure the former aggressor. An act of aggression, when its author does not persist in his purpose, or when he discontinues his attitude to the extent that the object of his attack is no longer in peril, is not unlawful aggression warranting self-defense. When the unlawful aggression which has begun no longer exists, the one making the defense has no more right to kill or even wound the former aggressor. Aggression, if not continuous, does not constitute aggression warranting self-defense. SOURCES: People vs. San Juan, G.R. No. 144505, 06 August 2002, 386 SCRA 400; People vs. Tejero, G.R. No. 135050, 19 April 2002, 381 SCRA 382; People vs. Geneblazo, G.R. No. 133580, 20 July 2001, 361 SCRA 572; People vs. Caguing, G.R. No. 139822, 06 December 2000, 347 SCRA 374

NOTE: Please remember that "practice of law" is defined differently in different jurisdictions. In the Philippines, it has been defined rather loosely by the Supreme Court. Please check the case of Cayetano v. Monsod cited below. Is there a good reason to allow non-lawyers to provide legal services? Lawyers’ education and training is superior. Admission standards are high. We are bound by codes of conduct and must be insured. Lawyers who breach professional duties may be disciplined. Why should anyone with lesser qualifications be inflicted on the public? The short answer is that lawyers do not and cannot fill the public’s need for legal services. According to the 2009 Ontario Civil Legal Needs Project, lawyers provide advice and representation for only 11.7 per cent of what the study called "justiciable events:" issues relating to consumers, employment, debt, social assistance, housing, disability pension, discrimination, family law, and hospit

Article 1226. In obligations with a penal clause, the penalty shall substitute the indemnity for damages and the payment of interests in case of noncompliance, if there is no stipulation to the contrary. Nevertheless, damages shall be paid if the obligor refuses to pay the penalty or is guilty of fraud in the fulfillment of the obligation. The penalty may be enforced only when it is demandable in accordance with the provisions of this Code. If the agreement contains a stipulation that in case of noncompliance, the person obliged shall pay a certain fine, there is no more need for payment for damages or for interests, except when the parties agreed that there must still be payment of the same. Otherwise put, parties to an agreement may stipulate that the debtor in case of noncompliance shall pay both a certain fine agreed upon and the damages and interests for failure to perform the obligation. Remember, as a general rule, the stipulated fine substitutes the payment for damages a

Centuries ago Magna Charta decreed that — "No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or be disseized of his freehold, or liberties, or free customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will we pass upon him nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either justice or right." (Magna Charta, 9 Hen., 111, 1225, Cap. 29; 1 Eng. Stat. at Large, 7.) No official, no matter how high, is above the law. The courts are the forum which functionate to safeguard individual liberty and to punish official transgressors. "The law," said Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, "is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who by accepting office participates in its functions is all the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which

The Commission has the power, authority and duty to examine, audit and settle all accounts and expenditures of the funds and properties of the Philippine government. Towards that end, it has the exclusive authority to define the scope, techniques and methods of its auditing and examination procedures. It also may prevent and disallow irregular, unnecessary, excessive, extravagant or unconscionable expenditures, or uses of government funds and properties. (Section 2(2), Article IX-D, Constitution of the Philippines) RULE II, SECTION 1 OF 2009 REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT The Commission on Audit shall have the power, authority, and duty to examine, audit and settle all accounts pertaining to the revenues and receipts of, and expenditures or uses of funds and property, owned or held in trust by, or pertaining to the Government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or instrumentalities, including government-owned and controlled corporations with original c

To be entitled to this mitigating circumstance, the following elements must be present: (1) There should be an act both unlawful and sufficient to produce such condition of mind; (2) the act that produced the obfuscation was not far removed from the commission of the crime by a considerable length of time, during which the perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity. (People vs. Gonzalez, G.R. No. 139542, 21 June 2001, 359 SCRA 220)

[1] Traditionally, the general rule is non-delegation. However, under modern political law, delegation has slowly become the general rule. [2] The principle of non-delegation of powers is usually cited with reference to legislative powers. NON-DELEGATION OF POWERS REINFORCES SEPARATION OF POWERS [3] The general principle of non-delegation of legislative power, which both flows from the reinforces the more fundamental rule of the separation and allocation of powers among the three great departments of government, must be applied with circumspection in respect of statutes which like the Medical Act of 1959, deal with subjects as obviously complex and technical as medical education and the practice of medicine in our present day world. (Tablarin v. Gutierrez, 152 SCRA 730, 1987) [4] One thing, however, is apparent in the development of the principle of separation of powers and that is that the maxim of delegatus non potest delegare or delegate potestas non potest delegare, adopt

[ NO RECOMMENDED CITATION ] PJP UNDOCKETED : This content is yet to be peer reviewed and has not yet received any favorable recommendation for citation. It may or may not be queued up for citation recommendation or peer review. Caution is advised. CONTACT US : For immediate action on requests, comments, concerns, suggestions, and other forms of feedback, please message us on Facebook at www.m.me/projectjuris . [1] The general rule is separation of powers. The exceptions are blending of powers and checks and balances. [2] Constitutional entities blend powers when they put their powers together to achieve a goal. When the President signs a bill, there is a blending between the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch. When the President vetoes, there is checks and balances. [3] When the Commission on Appointments confirms the President's appointment, there is blending of powers. When it does not confirm, there is checks and balances. [4

Here are notes you may find useful in your study of "separation of powers," a concept in political law (Constitutional Law 1). [1] The general rule is separation of powers. Every branch of government has exclusive prerogative and jurisdiction within its own sphere. Other branches cannot encroach upon its powers and discretion. Basically, "Huwag mo akong pakialaman. Powers ko 'to." [2] This principle applies not only to the Three Great Branches but also to all bodies created by the Constitution such as the Commission on Election (COMELEC), the Commission on Audit (COA), the Civil Service Commission (CSC) and the Office of the Ombudsman, among others. [3] Reading Angara v. Electoral Commission alone is sufficient to understands the basics of this principle. However, it must be noted that there are cases in which the Supreme Court declared the validity or invalidity of government actions, invoking separation of powers, to the great surprise of some legal exp