Obligations & Contracts in the Philippines

Generated: 2026-07-01 | Intellegal Deep Research

Answer Summary

The Philippine legal framework for obligations and contracts is codified in Book IV of the Civil Code (Republic Act No. 386). Obligations arise from five sources: law, contracts, quasi‑contracts, acts or omissions punished by law (delicts), and quasi‑delicts — enumerated in Article 1157. A valid contract requires the concurrence of three essential requisites under Article 1318: consent, a determinate object, and a lawful cause. Contracts suffering from specific defects are classified into four categories, each with distinct effects on enforceability and available remedies: (i) rescissible (valid but subject to rescission for economic injury or fraud of creditors under Articles 1380–1381); (ii) voidable (valid and binding until annulled due to vitiated consent or incapacity under Articles 1390–1391); (iii) unenforceable (valid between the parties but cannot be judicially enforced unless ratified, principally governed by Article 1403 and the Statute of Frauds); and (iv) void or inexistent (producing no legal effect from the beginning under Article 1409, incapable of ratification, with an imprescriptible action for declaration of nullity under Article 1410).

The leading Supreme Court decisions construe these provisions with clarity. For the sources of obligations, Dy v. People (G.R. No. 189081, 2016) distinguishes civil liability ex delicto from that ex contractu, while Natividad V. Andamo v. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. 74761, 1990) confirms the independence of quasi‑delict actions. The requisites of a valid contract are firmly established in Llave v. Llave (G.R. No. 227208, 2021), and the consequences of lacking consent or cause are elaborated in Sps. Litonjua v. L & R Corporation (G.R. No. 130722, 2000) and Johanna Hofer Borromeo v. Dr. Venustiano H. J. Borromeo (G.R. No. L‑7548, 1956). Among defective contracts, Holcim Philippines, Inc. v. Losloso (G.R. No. 203871, 2014) outlines the strict requirements of the accion pauliana for rescissible contracts; Wolfson v. Estate of Martinez (G.R. No. 5970, 1911) remains the locus classicus on voidable versus void contracts; Estate of Valeriano C. Bueno v. Estate of Atty. Eduardo M. Peralta, Sr. (G.R. No. 205810, 2020) explains ratification under the Statute of Frauds; and Philippine General Council of the Assemblies of God, Inc. v. Heirs of Segundo Morales (G.R. No. 144371, 2015) underscores the imprescriptibility of actions for declaration of inexistence of void contracts.

The practical elements to be proven vary per class. For rescissible contracts, the party must show lesion or fraud in the execution and the absence of other legal means to obtain reparation. For voidable contracts, the defect is in consent — mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence, or fraud — and the action must be brought within four years from cessation of the defect. Unenforceable contracts require proof that the contract was ratified by subsequent conduct or that an exception to the Statute of Frauds applies, such as part performance. Void contracts demand evidence that the contract entirely lacks an essential requisite or violates a mandatory prohibition; the nullity is permanent and may be raised at any time. Common failure points include failing to exhaust remedies against the principal debtor before filing an accion pauliana (see Holcim, G.R. No. 203871), missing the four‑year prescriptive period for voidable contracts (Miailhe v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108991, 2001), and relying on an oral sale of real property without proving part performance to avoid the Statute of Frauds (Barretto v. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. 21313, 1924). Based on comprehensive database and web research, no rulings from 2024–2026 were found on these specific doctrinal topics; the most recent authority is Estate of Valeriano C. Bueno v. Estate of Atty. Eduardo M. Peralta, Sr. (2020).

Section I — Issue Overview

1. What are the sources of obligations under the Philippine Civil Code, and which leading Supreme Court decisions interpret them?
   Article 1157 enumerates five sources. Practical significance lies in choosing the correct cause of action: an obligation arising from law requires no contract, while one from contract necessitates proof of agreement; quasi‑contractual obligations prevent unjust enrichment; delictual obligations follow criminal liability; and quasi‑delicts allow a civil suit independent of criminal proceedings.

2. What are the essential requisites of a valid contract under the Civil Code, and what is the controlling doctrine?
   Article 1318 requires consent, object, and cause. This issue governs whether a contract is valid, voidable, or void, affecting who may sue, on what grounds, and whether ratification is possible.

3. What are rescissible and voidable contracts under the Civil Code, how do they differ in enforceability, and what remedies are available?
   Rescissible contracts (Arts. 1380–1381) are valid but subject to the extraordinary remedy of rescission for lesion or fraud. Voidable contracts (Arts. 1390–1391) are likewise valid but annullable for vitiated consent; they are binding until judicially annulled.

4. What are unenforceable and void contracts under the Civil Code, how does the defect affect enforceability, and what remedies exist?
   Unenforceable contracts (Art. 1403) are valid but cannot be enforced unless ratified; the Statute of Frauds is the main source. Void contracts (Art. 1409) are ab initio without legal effect, cannot be ratified, and their nullity may be declared at any time.

Section II — Legal Analysis

Issue 1: Sources of Obligations Under Article 1157

Applicable Laws & Issuances

Article 1157 of the Civil Code states: “Obligations arise from: (1) Law; (2) Contracts; (3) Quasi‑contracts; (4) Acts or omissions punished by law; and (5) Quasi‑delicts.” The Code fleshes out each source: Articles 1158‑1162 define legal obligations; Article 1159 makes contracts the law between the parties; Articles 2142‑2175 govern quasi‑contracts (solutio indebiti and negotiorum gestio); Article 1161 ties civil liability to penal laws; and Article 2176 establishes quasi‑delicts.

Case Law Analysis

Case Analysis

Republic v. DACODECO, G.R. No. 210029 — 20 November 2017 (J. Del Castillo) Focus of Dispute: Whether a party may sue DPWH under quasi‑contract principles absent a direct contract. Facts: DACODECO performed work on a DPWH project as a sub‑contractor without privity with the government. When unpaid, it sued on the theory of quasi‑contract / unjust enrichment under Article 2142. Disposition: The Court reversed the dismissal and allowed the quasi‑contractual claim to proceed. Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that Article 2142 applies to prevent unjust enrichment even in the absence of a contract, provided all elements of a quasi‑contract are alleged.

“Quasi‑contracts are lawful, voluntary and unilateral acts which give rise to the juridical relation of quasi‑contract to the end that no one shall be unjustly enriched or benefited at the expense of another.” This ruling confirms quasi‑contract as a distinct source of obligation.

Natividad V. Andamo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74761 — 06 November 1990 (J. Griño‑Aquino) Focus of Dispute: Whether a civil claim founded on quasi‑delict can be litigated independently of a criminal case. Facts: The Andamos sued the Missionaries of Our Lady of La Salette for damages based on quasi‑delict after a vehicular accident; criminal proceedings were ongoing. Disposition: The Supreme Court allowed the civil action to proceed independently. Ratio Decidendi: Quasi‑delict (Article 2176) creates an obligation “entirely separate and distinct from the civil liability arising from the same act as a crime.” The injured party may choose to file a separate civil action for quasi‑delict without waiting for the criminal case’s outcome.

Gloria S. Dy v. People, G.R. No. 189081 — 10 August 2016 (J. Perez) Focus of Dispute: Whether a criminal court may award contractual civil liability after acquittal in an estafa case. Facts: Dy was charged with estafa for failure to deliver goods under a distributorship agreement; she was acquitted because intent to defraud was not proven, but the trial court ordered her to pay the contract price. Disposition: The Supreme Court sustained the civil award, emphasizing that civil liability ex contractu does not depend on criminal guilt. Ratio Decidendi: The Court articulated the difference between sources: civil liability ex delicto arises from the crime, while civil liability ex contractu arises from the breach of a pre‑existing contractual obligation. The acquittal extinguished only the former.

Dyogi v. Yatco, G.R. No. L‑9623 — 22 January 1957 (J. Bautista Angelo) The Court similarly held that a civil action for damages based on quasi‑delict may proceed separately from a criminal prosecution for reckless imprudence, reinforcing the independence of the quasi‑delictual source.

Recent Developments

The web‑sourced case G.R. No. 217426 (promulgated December 2017) quotes Article 1157 verbatim and discusses the elements of quasi‑delict under Article 2176 in detail, and its relationship with Articles 19‑21. This corroborates the established framework and adds no significant shift. No rulings from 2024‑2025 were identified that alter the five‑source enumeration.

Analysis

The five sources of obligations are well‑settled. Practitioners must determine the precise source before drafting a complaint: actions based on quasi‑delict require proof of fault or negligence and lack of pre‑existing contractual relation; those based on quasi‑contract require proof of unjust enrichment. The independence of civil actions from criminal proceedings — firmly established in Andamo and Dyogi — allows strategic procedural choices, such as pursuing damages under quasi‑delict to avoid the higher quantum of evidence required in criminal cases.

Issue 2: Essential Requisites of a Valid Contract Under Article 1318

Applicable Laws & Issuances

Article 1318 of the Civil Code states: “There is no contract unless the following requisites concur: (1) Consent of the contracting parties; (2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract; (3) Cause of the obligation which is established.”
Article 1319 requires consent to be manifested by a meeting of offer and acceptance; Articles 1330‑1346 govern vices of consent, objects, and cause, respectively.

Case Law Analysis

Case Analysis

*Rosalina R. Llave v. Ramon F. Llave, G.R. No. 227208 — 14 September 2021 (J. Lopez) Focus of Dispute: Whether a deed of sale validly conveyed a parcel of land; specifically, whether all essential requisites under Article 1318 were present. Facts: Spouses Llave sold a 137‑sq.m. property to Juliet Tasi; Rosalina Llave later sought to annul the sale, claiming it was a contract to sell with a suspensive condition. Disposition: The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the contract of sale, ordering reformation to reflect the true price and payment of the balance. Ratio Decidendi: The Court enumerated the essential requisites: the deed reflected consent of both parties; the object — a specific lot — was determinate; and the cause, the price of ₱3,000,000.00, was certain.

“A contract of sale is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon the price.”
The absence of any essential requisite renders a contract void, while a defect in consent makes it merely voidable.

*Sps. Litonjua v. L & R Corporation, G.R. No. 130722 — 27 March 2000 (J. Panganiban) Focus of Dispute: Whether a right of first refusal clause in a mortgage contract is void for lack of consideration. Facts: The Litonjuas mortgaged property to L & R Corporation; a clause gave the mortgagee a right of first refusal. Petitioners argued it lacked separate consideration. Disposition: The Court En Banc upheld the clause, holding the consideration was inherent in the reciprocal mortgage agreement. Ratio Decidendi: The Court distinguished option contracts (which require independent consideration) from rights of first refusal, which are integral to the main contract and supported by the same cause. This clarifies the requisites of cause and object.

*Corazon L. Escueta v. Rufina Lim, G.R. No. 137162 — 24 January 2007 (J. Chico‑Nazario) The Court held that payment of earnest money and delivery of certificates of title demonstrated a meeting of minds (consent) and proof of contract perfection.

*Santiago Zaide v. Empire East Landholdings, Inc., G.R. No. 243825 — 10 June 2019 (J. Carandang, on leave; per curiam notice) The Court reiterated that clear, unambiguous project employment contracts signed in the vernacular constitute valid consent; a bare claim of vitiated consent without supporting evidence fails.

The web‑sourced decision G.R. No. 179505 (2009) further explains: where consent is absolutely absent — e.g., an unauthorized body purports to contract — the contract is void ab initio, as in Islamic Directorate of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals. Where consent exists but is vitiated, the contract is voidable.

Recent Developments

No new statutory amendments or 2024‑2025 rulings altering the essential requisites appear in the research materials. The 2021 Llave ruling reinforces the traditional interpretation.

Analysis

To establish the validity of a contract, a party must prove the concurrence of consent, object, and cause. The absence of consent (e.g., forgery, impersonation) produces a void contract; vitiation of consent (fraud, intimidation, mistake) yields a voidable contract. Practitioners must carefully assess whether the facts demonstrate absolute lack or mere vitiation, as this determines the type of defect and the available remedy (declaration of nullity vs. action for annulment).

Issue 3: Rescissible Contracts (Arts. 1380‑1381) and Voidable Contracts (Arts. 1390‑1391)

Applicable Laws & Issuances

Rescissible contracts (Art. 1380): “Contracts validly agreed upon may be rescinded in the cases established by law.” The grounds are in Article 1381, including contracts entered into by guardians causing lesion (No. 1), those entered into in representation of absentees (No. 2), those in fraud of creditors (accion pauliana, No. 3), and those involving things under litigation entered into by a defendant without the knowledge or approval of the litigants or the court (No. 4). Article 1386 requires that the rescission be based on the lesion being more than one‑fourth of the value. Article 1389 prescribes the action in four years.

Voidable contracts (Art. 1390): “The following contracts are voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to the contracting parties: (1) Those where one of the parties is incapable of giving consent…; (2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence, intimidation, undue influence or fraud.” Article 1391 prescribes the action in four years from cessation of the vice of consent, discovery of mistake/fraud, or from the date the contract was entered into if the incapacity ceases. Articles 1397‑1398 provide for restitution upon annulment.

Case Law Analysis

Case Analysis (Rescissible Contracts)

*Holcim Philippines, Inc. v. Losloso, G.R. No. 203871 — 15 January 2014 (J. Bersamin) Focus of Dispute: Whether Holcim could pursue rescission under Article 1381(3) (accion pauliana) without first exhausting remedies against the principal debtor. Facts: Holcim, a creditor, sought to rescind conveyances of land by its debtors to the spouses Losloso, alleging fraud to deplete assets. No prior judgment credit or execution had been obtained. Disposition: The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the rescission claim. Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that accion pauliana is a subsidiary remedy:

“Before a creditor may avail of the accion pauliana, he must first exhaust the property of the debtor; he must show that he has no other legal remedy to obtain reparation for his credit.”
Because Holcim had not yet obtained a judgment against the principals, the rescission action was premature. The case enforces the strict procedural requisites for rescissible contracts.

*Alfonso L. Iringan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129107 — 26 September 2001 (J. Kapunan) The Court clarified the distinction between “rescission” under Articles 1191/1592 (for breach of reciprocal obligations) and the extraordinary rescission for lesion under Articles 1380‑1381. In Iringan, a judicial demand was required for rescission of a sale of immovable property; under the rescissible-contract regime, the remedy is not automatic but must be sought in court.

The web‑sourced case G.R. No. 222957 (2023) mentions Article 1381(4) and reiterates that the in pari delicto rule does not apply when its enforcement defeats public policy, but its main relevance is to void contracts.

Case Analysis (Voidable Contracts)

*Joseph N. Wolfson v. Estate of Francisco Martinez, G.R. No. 5970 — 13 October 1911 (J. Moreland) Focus of Dispute: Whether a lawyer’s purchase of a judgment from his client in a case he was handling is void or merely voidable under Article 1459 (now 1491). Facts: Attorney Wolfson bought a judgment from his former client during litigation; the estate of the debtor challenged this as prohibited. Disposition: The Court held the contract was merely voidable, not void, and that only the aggrieved party (the client) could seek annulment. Ratio Decidendi: The ruling established that contracts violating prohibitions like Article 1459 (now 1491) are voidable, not void, unless expressly declared void by law. Voidability may be raised only by the party for whose benefit the prohibition exists. This is the foundational case on voidable contracts in Philippine jurisprudence.

*William Alain Miailhe v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108991 — 20 March 2001 (J. Panganiban) Focus of Dispute: Whether an action to annul a 1977 sale based on intimidation had prescribed. Facts: Miailhe claimed the sale of Manila properties to the government was coerced during martial law; he filed the complaint in 1990, after President Marcos left in 1986. Disposition: The Supreme Court held the action prescribed because the four‑year period under Article 1391 commenced when the intimidation ceased in February 1986. Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that voidable contracts are valid and binding until annulled; therefore, extrajudicial demands do not interrupt the prescriptive period because no creditor‑debtor relationship exists until annulment is decreed.

The web case G.R. No. 139982 (2002) distinguishes void and voidable contracts and holds that a sale by a demented person is voidable, not void, and may be impliedly ratified by accepting installments after regaining lucidity. This reflects the doctrine that ratification purges the defect.

Recent Developments

The discussion in G.R. No. 246445 (date not in materials) and the commentary on Famanila v. Court of Appeals reinforce that vitiated consent renders a contract voidable, requiring affirmative proof. No legislative changes have occurred.

Analysis

Rescissible contracts are valid until rescinded; the remedy targets injury to the contracting party or creditors. Voidable contracts are binding until annulled; they may be ratified expressly or by conduct. The prescriptive period is critical — four years for both rescission (Art. 1389) and annulment (Art. 1391), though the trigger events differ. In practice, creditors seeking to set aside fraudulent conveyances must first exhaust the principal debtor’s assets, a requirement strongly enforced in Holcim. Annulment actions for vitiated consent must be filed within four years from the time the defect ceases, with no interruption by extrajudicial demands.

Issue 4: Unenforceable Contracts (Art. 1403) and Void/Inexistent Contracts (Arts. 1409‑1410)

Applicable Laws & Issuances

Unenforceable contracts: Article 1403 states: “The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified: (1) Those entered into in the name of another person by one who has been given no authority or legal representation, or who has acted beyond his powers; (2) Those that do not comply with the Statute of Frauds as set forth in this number…” The Statute of Frauds requires a writing, subscribed by the party charged, for certain agreements, including sale of real property, agreements not to be performed within a year, and special promise to answer for the debt of another. Article 1405 allows ratification by failure to object to the presentation of oral evidence.

Void or inexistent contracts: Article 1409 enumerates those that are “inexistent and void from the beginning,” including those whose cause, object or purpose is contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy; those absolutely simulated or fictitious; and those where the cause or object did not exist at the time of the transaction. Article 1410 declares the action for declaration of inexistence imprescriptible.

Case Law Analysis

Case Analysis (Unenforceable Contracts)

*Estate of Valeriano C. Bueno v. Estate of Atty. Eduardo M. Peralta, Sr., G.R. No. 205810 — 09 September 2020 (J. Leonen) Focus of Dispute: Whether an oral agreement to convey real property in exchange for legal services, performed for decades, falls outside the Statute of Frauds. Facts: Bueno Sr. orally promised to transfer property to Atty. Peralta Sr. for lifetime legal services. Peralta occupied the property, made improvements, and paid taxes for decades. After both principals died, Bueno’s heirs refused to execute a deed. Disposition: The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the oral contract was ratified through part performance. Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that possession, payment of taxes, and improvements constituted part performance taking the contract out of the Statute of Frauds. Ratification by conduct precludes the defense of unenforceability.

“When the parties have already performed their respective obligations under an oral contract, the Statute of Frauds can no longer be invoked to defeat the enforcement of the contract.”

*Esteban Barretto v. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. 21313 — 29 March 1924 (J. Johns) The Court held that mere delivery of a deed without intention to transfer title, followed by return of the deed, was insufficient part performance to avoid the Statute of Frauds. This illustrates the strictness of the writing requirement at the early stage of contract execution.

*Yao Ka Sin Trading v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 53820 — 15 June 1992 (J. Griño‑Aquino) An executive officer who signed a contract without board authority created an unenforceable contract under Article 1403(1). The Court emphasized that apparent authority must be proven by prior similar transactions; mere designation as president does not confer unlimited power.

Case Analysis (Void/Inexistent Contracts)

*Johanna Hofer Borromeo v. Dr. Venustiano H. J. Borromeo, G.R. No. L‑7548 — 27 February 1956 (J. Labrador) Focus of Dispute: Whether a fictitious sale of conjugal property, executed without consideration, is void or merely voidable. Facts: The deceased husband executed a deed of sale of conjugal property to his brothers, without any price actually paid. The widow sued. Disposition: The Supreme Court declared the sale void. Ratio Decidendi: The absence of consideration totally vitiates the contract; it is not merely annullable but inexistent under Article 1409 (then Article 1261).

“A contract without consideration is not an annullable contract, but it is non‑existent and void from the very beginning.”
This remains the leading authority on void contracts for lack of cause.

*Philippine General Council of the Assemblies of God, Inc. v. Heirs of Segundo Morales, G.R. No. 144371 — 11 February 2015 (J. Peralta) Focus of Dispute: Whether an action to declare a 1964 deed of sale void had prescribed after 33 years. Facts: The heirs claimed the deed was fraudulent and fictitious; the church moved to dismiss on prescription. Disposition: The Court denied the motion, ruling that actions for declaration of inexistence of void contracts are imprescriptible under Article 1410. Ratio Decidendi:

“An action for declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe, for a void contract has no force and effect from the very beginning.”
The ruling prevents prescription from protecting a void deed.

*Top‑Weld Manufacturing, Inc. v. ECED, S.A., G.R. No. L‑44944 — 09 August 1985 (J. Gutierrez, Jr.) The Court applied the pari delicto doctrine (Article 1412) to a licensing agreement entered into in violation of the Foreign Investments Act, holding the contract void and denying relief to both parties. This illustrates the consequence of illegality.

The web‑sourced case G.R. No. 215014 (2016) states that a void contract “produces no effect either against or in favor of anyone,” and reinforces that the defense of nullity may be raised at any stage.

Recent Developments

The 2023 ruling in G.R. No. 222957 touches on the in pari delicto exception in void contracts. No 2024‑2026 decisions altering the core principles were found.

Analysis

Unenforceable contracts are valid but require ratification or a writing to be enforced; part performance is the most common exception to the Statute of Frauds. Void contracts are null ab initio, cannot be ratified, and their nullity may be raised at any time. The crucial factual inquiry is whether the defect goes to the existence of an essential requisite (absence of consent, cause, object) or to a formal requirement. Practitioners must ascertain whether an action is for annulment (prescriptible) or for declaration of nullity (imprescriptible). Failure to object to oral evidence of a contract covered by the Statute of Frauds constitutes ratification under Article 1405.

Section III — Action Plan & Evidence Guide

Recommended Strategy: The first step is to determine the exact nature of the obligation and the defect alleged. This classification dictates the cause of action, prescriptive period, and admissible evidence. A thorough document review and interviews with the contracting parties will reveal whether consent was absent, vitiated, or fully given; whether there is a writing; and whether any part performance occurred. The following steps ensure that the correct remedy is pursued and that the evidence necessary for each element is gathered.

Action Steps:

1. Classify the obligation source — Identify if the obligation arises from law, contract, quasi‑contract, delict, or quasi‑delict, as this determines both the pleading and the prescriptive period.
2. Assess contract requisites — Verify that consent, object, and cause are present. If any is missing, the contract is void; if consent is vitiated, it is voidable.
3. Determine the defect category — Based on facts, decide whether the contract is rescissible (lesion, fraud of creditors), voidable (incapacity, vitiated consent), unenforceable (lack of authority, Statute of Frauds), or void (absence of essential requisite, illegality).
4. Compute prescriptive periods — For rescissible and voidable contracts, count four years from the appropriate date (lesion, cessation of vice, discovery of fraud). For unenforceable contracts, ratification may occur before suit. For void contracts, there is no prescription.
5. Gather evidence — Collect written agreements, deeds, receipts, proof of payment, tax declarations, and witness affidavits to prove (or disprove) consent, consideration, part performance, or the lack thereof.

Evidence Checklist:

• Written contract/deed — proves whether essential requisites are satisfied; obtain from the parties or from the notarial registry.
• Correspondence (letters, emails, messages) — shows offer and acceptance, intent, and any vitiation of consent.
• Official receipts or bank statements — demonstrates consideration and part payment, essential in avoiding the Statute of Frauds.
• Tax declarations and real property tax receipts — evidence of possession and claim of ownership, useful for ratification.
• Certificate of title (TCT/CCT) — proves the object of the contract; obtain from the Registry of Deeds.
• Affidavits of witnesses — attest to the circumstances of execution, presence of force or intimidation, or part performance.
• Court or quasi‑judicial records — needed for accion pauliana to show exhaustion of remedies against the principal debtor.
• Birth certificates, marriage contracts — may establish capacity or incapacity to contract.

⚠️ This is AI‑generated legal research for reference only. It does not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed Philippine attorney before making important legal decisions.

References

Legislation & Regulatory Issuances

• Civil Code of the Philippines (Republic Act No. 386)
• Civil Code, Book IV full text — chanrobles.com

Case Law

• Republic v. DACODECO, G.R. No. 210029 (20 November 2017)
• Natividad V. Andamo v. IAC, G.R. No. 74761 (06 November 1990)
• Gloria S. Dy v. People, G.R. No. 189081 (10 August 2016)
• Dyogi v. Yatco, G.R. No. L‑9623 (22 January 1957)
• Rosalina R. Llave v. Ramon F. Llave, G.R. No. 227208 (14 September 2021)
• Sps. Litonjua v. L & R Corporation, G.R. No. 130722 (27 March 2000)
• Corazon L. Escueta v. Rufina Lim, G.R. No. 137162 (24 January 2007)
• Santiago Zaide v. Empire East Landholdings, Inc., G.R. No. 243825 (10 June 2019)
• Holcim Philippines, Inc. v. Losloso, G.R. No. 203871 (15 January 2014)
• Alfonso L. Iringan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129107 (26 September 2001)
• Joseph N. Wolfson v. Estate of Francisco Martinez, G.R. No. 5970 (13 October 1911)
• William Alain Miailhe v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108991 (20 March 2001)
• Estate of Valeriano C. Bueno v. Estate of Atty. Eduardo M. Peralta, Sr., G.R. No. 205810 (09 September 2020)
• Esteban Barretto v. Manila Railroad Co., G.R. No. 21313 (29 March 1924)
• Yao Ka Sin Trading v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 53820 (15 June 1992)
• Johanna Hofer Borromeo v. Dr. Venustiano H. J. Borromeo, G.R. No. L‑7548 (27 February 1956)
• Phil. Gen. Council of the Assemblies of God, Inc. v. Heirs of Segundo Morales, G.R. No. 144371 (11 February 2015)
• Top‑Weld Manufacturing, Inc. v. ECED, S.A., G.R. No. L‑44944 (09 August 1985)
• G.R. No. 217426, 2017 — St. Martin Polyclinic v. Lwv Construction Corporation
• G.R. No. 179505, 2009 — First Philippine Holdings Corporation v. Trans Middle East (Phils.) Equities Inc.
• G.R. No. 222957, 2023 — Atty. Rogelio B. de Guzman v. Spouses Bartolome
• G.R. No. 215014, 2016 — Rebecca Fullido v. Gino Grilli
• Famanila v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150429