PROJECT JURISPRUDENCE

A natural obligation is an obligation that has no legal basis and hence does not give a right of action to enforce its performance. It is based on equity, morality, and natural law, and should be voluntary. philawgov.wikia.org/wiki/Natural_Obligation. A civil obligation (as defined in Art. 1156) is based on positive law; hence, it is enforceable by court action. A natural obligation on the other hand, is based on natural law; hence, it is not enforceable by court action. The obligation, however, exists in equity and moral justice, such that if the debtor voluntarily performs it, he can no longer recover what he has given. www.attyjimenez.blogspot.com/2016/10/distinction-between-civil-obligation.html . Below are four rules to remember regarding natural obligations. [1] The promise to perform a natural obligation is as effective as performance itself, and converts the natural obligation to a civil obligation. [2] Partial payment of a natural obligation does not make it civil; th

[ 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 . The following are three kinds of prestations (objects of contracts). It must be recalled that, under Article 1156 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, an obligation is the juridical necessity to do, to give or not to do. [1] TO GIVE. The prestation to give is a real obligation. It is the obligation to deliver either [a] a specific or determinate thing, or [b] a generic or indeterminate thing. An example of this would be the vendor's obligation to give the vendee the thing purchased. [2] TO DO. The prestation to do is

The following are ten of the most notable dissenting opinions of Justice Leonen. Mario Victor "Marvic" F. Leonen (born December 29, 1962) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines. He is the second youngest to hold the said position since Manuel V. Moran in 1938. Prior to his stint in the country's highest court, he had served as chief peace negotiator of the Republic of the Philippines in the talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvic_Leonen. [1] LEONEN'S DISSENT RE: ABSENT SPOUSE'S PRESUMPTIVE DEATH . https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2019/11/leonen-dissent-re-absent-spouse-presumptive-death-gr-no-199194.html . [2] LEONEN'S DISSENT RE: CONTROL TEST , GRANDFATHER RULE. https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2019/11/leonen-dissent-re-control-test-grandfather-rule-gr-no-195580.html . [3] LEONEN'S DISSENT RE CONTINUING PRESENCE RULE . https://www.projectjurisprudence.com/2019/11/leonen-dissent-re-c

768 Phil. 615. SPECIAL THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 203655, September 07, 2015 ] SM LAND, INC., PETITIONER, VS. BASES CONVERSION AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ARNEL PACIANO D. CASANOVA, ESQ., IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND CEO OF BCDA, RESPONDENTS. DISSENTING OPINION; LEONEN, J.: Bases Conversion and Development Authority's Second Motion for Reconsideration[1] cannot be summarily denied on the ground that judgment had already been entered and had already become final and executory on March 18, 2015. Bases Conversion and Development Authority's first Motion for Reconsideration was denied on March 18, 2015.[2] Based on the Entry of Judgment[3] prepared on April 14, 2015, the August 13, 2014 Decision[4] in this case was declared final and executory on the same date—March 18, 2015. Bases Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) received the March 18, 2015 Resolution only on April 20, 2015.[5] The immediate Entry of Judgment deprived BCDA of its 15-day period fr

Defamation can be a crime as well as a civil wrong. Criminal defamation occurs when one purposely communicates to any person, orally or in writing, any information which he or she knows to be false and knows will tend to expose any other living person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. definitions.uslegal.com/c/criminal-defamation. LEONEN:  I reiterate my view that libel ought to be decriminalized. It is inconsistent with the constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech. There is no state interest served in criminalizing libel. Civil actions for defamation are sufficient to address grievances without threatening the public's fundamental right to free speech. The libel provisions in the Revised Penal Code are now overbroad. They do not embody the entire doctrine of principles that this Court for decades has expounded on under the free speech principles to which the State adheres. The history of the criminalization of libel in the Philippines shows that libel

5 Phil. 628 [G.R. No. 211120, February 13, 2017] MEDEL ARNALDO B. BELEN, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT. DISSENTING OPINION; LEONEN, J.: Medel Arnaldo B. Belen has indeed made callous, acerbic, and intemperate comments through his motions before the prosecutor. His comments betray a lack of empathy for another human being. They also reveal his sense of undeserved superiority, which is as empty as it is comical. However, in my view, he cannot be criminally liable for libel. In his Omnibus Motion (for Reconsideration & Disqualify)[1] filed before the Office of the City Prosecutor of San Pablo City in an estafa case,[2] Medel Arnaldo B. Belen (Belen) stated: In the instant case, however, the investigating Fiscal was not impartial and exhibited manifest bias for 20,000 reasons. These reasons were not legal or factual. These reasons were based on her malicious and convoluted perceptions. If she was partial, then she is stupid. The Investigating Fiscal&