Accion in rem verso | Human Relations | PRELIMINARY TITLE

Accion in Rem Verso under Philippine Civil Law

Accion in rem verso is a doctrine rooted in equity, allowing for a cause of action when one person is unjustly enriched at the expense of another without any lawful basis. This principle, derived from Roman law, serves to address situations where one party has gained something unfairly, and the other party has suffered a corresponding loss. In the Philippines, this doctrine is explicitly recognized under Article 22 of the Civil Code, which states:

"Every person who, through an act or performance by another or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him."

I. Elements of Accion in Rem Verso

To establish a claim for accion in rem verso, the following elements must be proven:

1. Enrichment of the Defendant: The defendant must have received a benefit or gain, either through an increase in assets or a decrease in liabilities.
2. Loss or Suffering by the Plaintiff: Corresponding to the enrichment of the defendant, there must be a tangible loss or detriment suffered by the plaintiff.
3. Absence of Just or Legal Cause: The enrichment must have been without a legal basis; i.e., it must have occurred without an underlying contract, law, or court order.
4. No Other Remedy Available: Accion in rem verso is subsidiary in nature and can only be invoked if there is no other existing legal remedy available to the plaintiff to recover the loss.

In simpler terms, the doctrine prevents one person from benefiting at another’s expense without a legal reason, provided that the plaintiff has no other available means to seek redress.

II. Subsidiary Nature of Accion in Rem Verso

Accion in rem verso is a remedy of last resort, meaning it cannot be invoked if there are other possible actions available. If, for example, a party could sue for a breach of contract, tort, or quasi-contract, then accion in rem verso is not applicable. It is only when no other cause of action is available that this doctrine may be applied. This emphasizes the doctrine’s subsidiary nature, which means it is only used in instances where no other remedy can provide relief.

III. Basis of Accion in Rem Verso in Equity

The doctrine is founded on the principle of equity and natural justice. It reflects the legal maxim "nemo cum alterius detrimento locupletari potest" (no one should be enriched at the expense of another). Philippine courts, in recognizing the equitable underpinnings of accion in rem verso, aim to prevent unjust enrichment, which is not permissible under Philippine law.

IV. Comparison with Similar Concepts

Accion in rem verso is often compared to and distinguished from other legal remedies:

• Quasi-Contract: Although both quasi-contract and accion in rem verso prevent unjust enrichment, a quasi-contract involves an obligation arising from the law itself, such as negotiorum gestio (unauthorized management of another’s affairs) or solutio indebiti (payment by mistake). In contrast, accion in rem verso only applies in situations where there is no legal basis whatsoever for the enrichment.

• Tort: Tort law involves a wrongful act that causes damage. In contrast, accion in rem verso does not require a wrongful act; it only requires that one party has been unjustly enriched.

• Constructive Trust: In some cases, courts have applied the concept of constructive trust to remedy unjust enrichment. However, a constructive trust is not required to invoke accion in rem verso. The latter is a stand-alone remedy based directly on the equity principle of preventing unjust enrichment.

V. Case Law and Jurisprudence in the Philippines

Philippine courts have elaborated on the application of accion in rem verso in various decisions, establishing it as a well-defined principle. Some notable rulings clarify the doctrine:

1. Magallanes v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada – In this case, the Supreme Court held that to recover under accion in rem verso, the plaintiff must show that the defendant was enriched, the plaintiff suffered loss, the enrichment was without legal cause, and there was no other legal remedy.

2. Uy v. Spouses Medina – The court reiterated that accion in rem verso applies only as a subsidiary remedy. When a contract or another cause of action exists, accion in rem verso cannot be used.

3. Republic v. Court of Appeals – The court affirmed that accion in rem verso can be employed as a form of relief when no other legal course of action is available and the elements of unjust enrichment are met.

These cases demonstrate the judiciary’s adherence to the doctrine's strict subsidiary nature, emphasizing that the enrichment must lack legal basis and no other remedy should be available to the aggrieved party.

VI. Practical Application and Procedural Aspects

In filing a claim based on accion in rem verso, plaintiffs must specify in their complaint the four essential elements, particularly emphasizing the absence of any legal cause or basis for the defendant's enrichment and that no other remedy exists. The procedural implications include presenting evidence that:

• Proves the defendant’s enrichment and the plaintiff’s corresponding loss.
• Establishes the lack of any contractual, quasi-contractual, or tort-based remedy.

Because accion in rem verso is grounded in equity, courts are generally cautious in applying it, as it serves as an extraordinary remedy. It is used sparingly and only in situations where justice cannot be served through other means.

VII. Limitations and Defenses

Defendants can argue that the enrichment was justified by law, a contract, or other legal causes, nullifying the third element of accion in rem verso. They can also present existing legal remedies available to the plaintiff, thus disqualifying the claim as it would no longer be a last-resort option. Other defenses include demonstrating that the plaintiff suffered no real loss or that the enrichment was either partial or conditional, which may impact the claim's validity.

VIII. Conclusion

Accion in rem verso in Philippine civil law plays a critical role in ensuring that justice is achieved by addressing unjust enrichment. It remains a potent yet carefully limited remedy for situations where other legal avenues are unavailable. Given its equity-based nature and strict elements, accion in rem verso offers a means to prevent unjust outcomes and preserve fairness between parties, in line with the Philippine legal principle that no person should unjustly benefit at another’s expense.

Tortious Interference | Human Relations | PRELIMINARY TITLE

Tortious Interference under Philippine Civil Law

In Philippine Civil Law, the concept of tortious interference—while not explicitly defined in the Civil Code—is covered under the broad principles of liability for damages under the title of Human Relations in the Preliminary Title, as well as specific provisions on torts and quasi-delicts. Tortious interference generally refers to wrongful acts that intentionally damage a contractual or business relationship between two parties, leading to economic harm.

1. Overview of Tortious Interference

• Tortious interference occurs when a third party intentionally disrupts or causes harm to an existing contractual relationship, business expectancy, or prospective economic advantage.
• This form of interference can involve either:
  • Interference with contractual relations (when a third party causes a party to breach a valid and existing contract).
  • Interference with prospective economic advantage (where a third party’s actions prevent a business relationship or economic expectancy from being realized).

The Civil Code’s provisions on quasi-delicts (Articles 2176-2194) and principles under Human Relations (Articles 19-21) form the legal basis for tortious interference under Philippine law.

2. Legal Framework for Tortious Interference in Philippine Civil Law

• Article 19: States the general principle that every person must act with justice, give everyone their due, and observe honesty and good faith in the exercise of their rights and duties. This article can be invoked when tortious interference occurs, as interference with contractual relations or business expectancy would be inconsistent with the duty to act in good faith.

• Article 20: Provides that any person who wilfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to law or public policy shall be liable for damages. This is applicable when tortious interference involves an unlawful or wrongful act.

• Article 21: Covers cases where a person acts in a way that, while not illegal per se, is still against the norms of morality and public policy, causing damage or injury. This is a “catch-all” provision under Human Relations and is relevant in tortious interference cases involving morally questionable or unfair acts that result in economic harm to another.

• Articles 2176-2194 on Quasi-delicts: The principle of quasi-delict in Article 2176 makes any person liable who, by act or omission, causes damage to another by fault or negligence. In tortious interference, while the interference is typically intentional, quasi-delict principles may apply if the interference is due to negligence or fault.

3. Types of Tortious Interference Recognized in Philippine Law

• Interference with Contractual Relations: Occurs when a third party intentionally induces a party to breach an existing, valid contract with another party. This interference results in damages to the other party. To establish interference, the plaintiff must prove:

  1. Existence of a valid contract between the parties.
  2. Knowledge of the contract by the interfering third party.
  3. Intentional inducement by the third party, leading to a breach of the contract.
  4. Damage resulting from the breach.

• Interference with Prospective Advantage or Business Expectancy: Involves interference with relationships that are not yet contractual but are reasonably expected to yield economic benefit. This may cover potential business relationships, client relationships, or employment prospects. For liability, it must be shown that:

  1. The plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of an economic benefit.
  2. The defendant knew of the prospective relationship or expectancy.
  3. There was intentional interference without legitimate justification.
  4. The interference caused actual damages to the plaintiff.

4. Defenses to Tortious Interference

Defendants may raise the following defenses to tortious interference claims:

• Legitimate Business Interest: If the interference was aimed at protecting a valid business interest, this might be a legitimate defense, especially if the means were lawful and justifiable.

• Privilege or Justification: If the interference was done under circumstances that the law considers as privileged or justified (e.g., competition in business if it was fair), it might not be considered wrongful.

• Absence of Malice or Wrongful Intent: Tortious interference requires intentional action. If the defendant did not act with wrongful intent or malice, this may absolve them from liability.

5. Damages Recoverable in Tortious Interference Cases

Damages may be awarded in cases of tortious interference, including:

• Actual Damages: Compensation for the actual loss or injury caused by the interference. This can include lost profits, lost business opportunities, and other economic losses directly resulting from the interference.

• Moral Damages: Under Article 2219, moral damages may be awarded if the interference caused anguish, embarrassment, or social humiliation.

• Exemplary Damages: When interference is done with gross negligence or evident bad faith, exemplary damages may be awarded to deter similar conduct in the future (Article 2229).

6. Relevant Jurisprudence and Examples in Philippine Law

• Philippine courts have recognized tortious interference in a limited number of cases, generally where the actions are blatantly harmful to the contractual relations or business interests of another.
• Case Law Example: In one significant case, a corporation was held liable for inducing an employee of another corporation to breach his employment contract through unfair tactics, causing loss to the original employer.
• Application in Commercial Competition: Courts also consider whether the interference aligns with fair competition laws; competition is permitted but must be lawful and fair.

7. Conclusion

Tortious interference under Philippine Civil Law is grounded in the principles of justice, fairness, and good faith. While the Civil Code does not specifically name tortious interference, the provisions on Human Relations (Articles 19-21) and quasi-delict principles (Articles 2176-2194) provide a broad framework to cover intentional acts of interference that result in economic harm. Courts are meticulous in applying these principles, ensuring that liability is imposed only when wrongful interference can be clearly established. The law allows remedies for victims of tortious interference through actual, moral, and even exemplary damages, maintaining a balance between the freedom to contract, fair competition, and protecting parties from wrongful economic harm.

Unjust Enrichment | Human Relations | PRELIMINARY TITLE

Unjust Enrichment in Philippine Civil Law

In Philippine civil law, the principle of unjust enrichment is codified in Article 22 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, which provides that:

"Every person who, through an act or performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him."

Unjust enrichment is a legal principle aimed at preventing one party from benefitting at the expense of another in situations where there is no legal justification. It operates under the premise that no one should unjustly benefit at the cost of another, as it is contrary to the principles of fairness and equity.

Key Components of Unjust Enrichment

To invoke a cause of action based on unjust enrichment, the following elements must be present:

1. Enrichment of One Party: The defendant must have received a benefit or become enriched, either through acquisition, savings, or the improvement of their condition or position.

2. Impoverishment of Another Party: The plaintiff must suffer a corresponding loss or deprivation of a property, right, or interest.

3. Causal Connection: There must be a direct link between the enrichment of one party and the impoverishment of the other.

4. Absence of Just or Legal Ground: The enrichment must have no legal or contractual basis. It should not result from a lawful contract or any justifiable legal obligation.

The cause of action for unjust enrichment only arises when these elements are present, creating an obligation to return or compensate the aggrieved party.

Legal Basis and Scope

Article 22 of the Civil Code, as part of Human Relations under Preliminary Title, establishes the foundational rule on unjust enrichment. This provision reflects the principle of equity and is supplemented by related articles, particularly Articles 2142-2175 on Quasi-Contracts, which regulate specific instances of unjust enrichment.

Unjust enrichment is considered a quasi-contractual obligation because it does not arise from the agreement of the parties but from the equitable mandate to prevent injustice. It governs cases where a party receives an unearned benefit that would be unjust to retain without compensation.

Distinction from Related Doctrines

Unjust enrichment is distinct from other doctrines, such as Contractual Obligations, Negotiorum Gestio, and Solutio Indebiti. Here’s how unjust enrichment differs from these similar principles:

1. Contractual Obligations: Obligations arising from a contract are grounded on the consensual agreement of parties, whereas unjust enrichment arises in the absence of any contract.

2. Negotiorum Gestio (Articles 2144-2153): This applies when a person voluntarily manages another’s affairs without authorization. The person managing may claim reimbursement for expenses but is not acting out of an unjust enrichment situation.

3. Solutio Indebiti (Articles 2154-2155): This principle arises when a person mistakenly pays another something they do not owe. Unlike unjust enrichment in general, this involves a mistaken payment rather than a broader absence of justification for enrichment.

Remedies under Unjust Enrichment

When unjust enrichment is established, the primary remedy is restitution. This involves restoring the object of enrichment or its equivalent value to the impoverished party. If restitution is impossible or impracticable, compensation may be granted.

1. Return of Property: If a party has gained property or funds that they should not have received, they must return it or its equivalent value.

2. Compensation for Services or Benefits Received: If a person has rendered services or provided benefits that enriched another, compensation may be required, equivalent to the reasonable value of those services or benefits.

3. Payment for Improvements: If unjust enrichment involves improvements made on another’s property, the enriched party may have to pay for these enhancements, particularly if they significantly benefited from them.

Limitations and Defenses

Certain defenses and limitations may apply to unjust enrichment claims:

1. Lack of Enrichment: If the enriched party did not actually benefit or if the enrichment is negligible, the claim may be denied.

2. Existence of a Legal Ground: A claim of unjust enrichment is invalid if there is a lawful contract, a legal obligation, or other justifying grounds.

3. Prescription of Action: Although unjust enrichment is equitable, the claim is subject to the general rules of prescription for quasi-contractual obligations (typically within six years). The period begins to run from the time the enrichment occurred.

4. Statutory Exemptions: Some statutes exempt certain situations from unjust enrichment claims. For example, in some cases involving public authorities or benefits under governmental programs, a claim for unjust enrichment may be limited.

Applications in Philippine Jurisprudence

Philippine courts have applied unjust enrichment in various cases, illustrating its practical implications. Common examples include:

1. Wrongful Retention of Money or Property: Courts may order restitution where a party wrongfully retains funds or property, particularly in situations where they received them by mistake.

2. Unauthorized Use of Another’s Property or Services: Cases may involve businesses or individuals benefiting from another’s property or labor without compensation. For instance, if one party uses another’s intellectual property without permission, courts may order compensation.

3. Improvements on Property by Mistake: In cases where one party has mistakenly improved another’s property, courts may order reimbursement for the cost of those improvements, recognizing that the property owner benefited.

Unjust Enrichment and Equity

The doctrine of unjust enrichment serves as an equitable remedy aimed at preventing unfair advantage and restoring parties to their rightful positions. It promotes fairness and deters exploitation by obligating those who receive unearned benefits to compensate the aggrieved party.

In summary, unjust enrichment in Philippine civil law is an essential doctrine that ensures no person benefits unfairly at the expense of another without lawful justification. Guided by principles of equity, it provides a basis for recovery when traditional legal or contractual grounds are absent, reinforcing the core values of justice and fairness in the legal system.

Abuse of Right | Human Relations | PRELIMINARY TITLE

Civil Law: Abuse of Rights Doctrine

Under Philippine Civil Law, specifically under the Preliminary Title on Human Relations, the concept of abuse of rights is a fundamental principle that imposes limitations on the exercise of one’s rights. This doctrine, found under Article 19 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, seeks to balance individual rights with social justice and the general welfare. Here’s an in-depth analysis:

Article 19: The Principle of Abuse of Rights

Article 19 of the Civil Code states:

"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."

This provision implies that rights are not absolute and must be exercised responsibly. The abuse of rights doctrine applies when a person exercises a legal right in a way that is contrary to equity, fairness, and justice. Simply put, even if an act is within a person’s legal right, it becomes actionable if performed with the intention of injuring others or violating moral standards.

Elements of Abuse of Rights

Jurisprudence has identified essential elements to establish an abuse of rights. The Supreme Court has ruled that for an act to constitute an abuse of right, the following must be present:

1. Legal Right Exercised: The act in question must involve the exercise of a right recognized by law.
2. Intent to Prejudice or Harm: The right must be exercised in a manner that intentionally causes injury to another person, or with bad faith, malice, or gross negligence.
3. No Legitimate Purpose: The exercise of the right must lack a legitimate purpose, resulting in harm or prejudice to others.

When Abuse of Rights Arises

The abuse of rights doctrine is typically applied in situations where:

1. One’s Act Affects the Rights of Others: When a person’s act adversely affects the rights of another, without any substantial benefit to the actor, but only for the purpose of causing harm or inconvenience.
2. Excessive or Malicious Acts: A person’s rights are exercised excessively, beyond the reasonable limits of what would be considered fair or necessary.
3. Prejudice Against Third Parties: Rights are exercised with a direct, deliberate intention to cause damage or injury to third parties, whether through personal, property, or business interference.

Remedies for Abuse of Rights

If an abuse of rights is proven, a person affected may seek various remedies, depending on the damage or harm caused:

1. Compensation for Damages: Under Article 20 and Article 21 of the Civil Code, any abuse of rights causing harm gives rise to liability for damages.

   • Article 20: Imposes liability for damages when a person willfully or negligently causes injury in a manner that violates the law.
   • Article 21: Provides a remedy for acts that may be lawful but are performed in a manner that is contrary to good morals, customs, or public order.

2. Moral Damages: If the abuse of rights causes emotional or psychological harm, the injured party may claim moral damages.

3. Other Types of Damages: Actual, nominal, and even exemplary damages may be awarded, depending on the extent and nature of the abuse and injury.

Relevant Case Law

The Supreme Court has had several landmark rulings that elaborate on the doctrine of abuse of rights, such as:

• Velayo v. Shell Company of the Philippines Ltd.: The Supreme Court emphasized that the abuse of rights doctrine curtails the unfettered exercise of rights when it infringes upon fairness, honesty, and good faith.
• Sps. Ceniza v. Court of Appeals: The Court held that rights may be subject to judicial intervention if exercised with malice or in a manner that violates equitable principles.
• Far East Bank & Trust Co. v. Pacilan: In this case, the Court clarified that even legal actions can be rendered actionable if they are carried out with the intent to cause injury, without any legitimate business purpose.

Examples of Abuse of Rights

1. Legal Rights Exercised Maliciously: Filing repetitive lawsuits against a competitor, not for the sake of justice but to unduly harass or exhaust their resources.
2. Economic Pressure: Threatening business partners with contract termination as a coercive tactic without valid grounds, purely to gain an unfair advantage.
3. Employment Dismissals: Terminating an employee not for poor performance or legal reasons, but out of personal vendetta or discrimination.

The Concept of Social Justice in Abuse of Rights

The doctrine of abuse of rights is closely aligned with the principle of social justice. In the exercise of one’s rights, one must consider the rights of others and the greater welfare of society. This principle upholds the idea that rights are not purely individualistic but are shared within a social context, where the benefit of one should not unfairly compromise the welfare of another.

Good Faith and Honesty in Civil Relations

Article 19 emphasizes not only justice but also honesty and good faith in human relations. This is important as it sets a standard for behavior that transcends strict legality, ensuring that individuals consider the ethical implications of their actions, even when acting within their rights.

Conclusion

The abuse of rights doctrine is a powerful provision within Philippine Civil Law that acts as a counterbalance against the reckless or malicious exercise of individual rights. While individuals are free to exercise their legal rights, they must do so within the bounds of good faith, justice, and equity.

Human Relations | PRELIMINARY TITLE

Topic: Civil Law > I. Preliminary Title > B. Human Relations

---

Under the Philippine Civil Code, the provisions concerning "Human Relations" are found in Chapter 2 of the Preliminary Title (Articles 19-36). This segment deals with the basic principles that govern the interaction and conduct of individuals in society. These articles are fundamental as they outline the general duties and obligations of individuals within society and are integral to maintaining social harmony, addressing rights, and preventing abuses. Below is a breakdown of each article and an explanation of the doctrine it encapsulates.

---

1. Article 19 – Principle of Human Dignity, Honesty, and Good Faith

"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."

• Interpretation: Article 19 lays down the general principle of abuse of rights. This rule implies that while individuals have rights, they must exercise them reasonably and in good faith. If one uses their rights in a manner that harms others or is contrary to the basic ethical standards of justice, honesty, and fairness, they may be liable for damages.
• Applications: This article is often invoked when actions technically within one’s legal rights result in harm to another or are done maliciously or unreasonably. It prevents people from using their rights in a manner that injures others.

---

2. Article 20 – Liability for Damages due to Acts Contrary to Law

"Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same."

• Interpretation: Article 20 establishes general liability for damages resulting from actions that are contrary to law. It is intended to apply to any unlawful act that does not fall under a specific category.
• Requirements: For liability to exist under Article 20, there must be an act that (1) is against the law, (2) causes damage, and (3) is willful or negligent.
• Applications: This article addresses any act that causes harm, including breaches of the law or regulations. It serves as a catch-all provision for acts that do not fall under specific civil or criminal laws.

---

3. Article 21 – Liability for Acts Contrary to Morals, Good Customs, Public Order, or Public Policy

"Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs, or public policy shall compensate the latter for the damage."

• Interpretation: Article 21 covers acts that may not be explicitly unlawful but are contrary to morals or public policy. It intends to uphold ethical standards in society.
• Applications: Known as the "moral damages" provision, this article has been invoked in cases of seduction, breach of promise to marry, and other acts where no specific legal provision exists, but where harm or injury is caused in a morally reprehensible manner.
• Examples: Defamation, malicious acts, and certain breaches of trust fall under Article 21 if they harm another’s interests or dignity.

---

4. Article 22 – Prohibition Against Unjust Enrichment

"Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him."

• Interpretation: Article 22 embodies the principle of unjust enrichment, which prevents individuals from benefiting at the expense of others without a legitimate reason.
• Applications: This principle is used to ensure fairness when someone gains something improperly or unjustly. It is often applied in cases involving restitution or the return of property that was wrongfully acquired.

---

5. Article 23 – Restitution in Case of Undue Payment

"Even when an act or event causing damage to another’s property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if, by reason thereof, he was benefited without just or legal ground."

• Interpretation: Article 23 mandates restitution in cases of undue payment, even without fault or negligence. This principle ensures equitable handling in cases where one party benefits at another’s expense without legal justification.
• Applications: This provision has been used in situations where payments were made by mistake, and the recipient has an obligation to return the money or property unjustly received.

---

6. Article 24 – Protection of Weaker Party in Human Relations

"In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection."

• Interpretation: Article 24 obligates courts to protect weaker parties in relationships or transactions. This is particularly relevant in cases of contracts, where there may be inequality in bargaining power.
• Applications: This article is often invoked in situations involving minors, elderly persons, or those with mental incapacity, ensuring they are not unfairly exploited in legal agreements or transactions.

---

7. Articles 25-36 – Other Provisions Governing Human Relations

These articles cover various specific aspects of human relations, including, but not limited to:

• Article 25: Condemnation of excessive or wasteful display of wealth during times of economic hardship, highlighting social responsibility.
• Article 26: Respect for human dignity and privacy, prohibiting unwarranted publicity and defamation.
• Article 27: Compensation for damages arising from a public officer's refusal or neglect to perform official duties without just cause.
• Article 28: Prohibition of unfair competition and prevention of monopolistic or oppressive practices in commerce and trade.
• Article 29: Liability for damages when a criminal act is committed and the criminal case fails due to technicality, thus allowing a separate civil action.
• Article 30: Authorizes civil action in cases where a criminal act has been committed but no criminal prosecution is pursued.
• Article 31: Civil liability in cases where a criminal act results in injury to another person.
• Article 32: Grants a civil action for violations of constitutional rights, allowing for damages to be awarded if any constitutional right is violated by a public officer.
• Article 33: Allows for civil action in cases of defamation, fraud, and physical injuries, even if a criminal case is also filed.
• Article 34: Holds police officers and law enforcement officials liable for damages if a crime occurs in their presence and they fail to prevent it.
• Article 35: Provides that civil actions are unaffected by criminal proceedings, meaning one can still pursue civil damages even if no criminal liability is established.
• Article 36: Allows for the application of the rules of human relations to other analogous cases.

---

Summary

The articles on Human Relations in the Civil Code are foundational principles that guide how individuals in the Philippines are expected to interact, placing importance on ethical behavior, fairness, honesty, and respect for others’ rights. These provisions aim to prevent abuse of rights, promote social responsibility, and provide remedies for unjust or harmful conduct that may not fall squarely under other specific laws. They emphasize the social responsibility that accompanies the exercise of rights and the importance of maintaining equity and justice in interpersonal relations.