1.

A contract may be annulled where one of the parties is incapable of giving

consent to the contract.
a. RULE-BASED:
i. A Contract is considered to be a meeting of the minds of the
parties bound therein. As stated under Art. 1318 of the Civil
Code, contracts, to be valid and enforceable, must have the
three essential requisitesconsent, object and cause.
Hence, the absence or irregularity of either one of the
required elements would render the contract voidable and
annullable, despite having no damage to the contracting
parties, which is affirmed under Art. 1390 of the same Code.
b. ANALOGICAL
i. As held by the Court in Katipunan v. Katipunan, the lack of
education of respondent placed him at a hopelessly
disadvantageous position to enter into the contract of sale,
virtually rendering him incapable of giving rational consent,
thereby declaring the contract to be voidable. This is so
because the contract (of sale) is born from the meeting of
the minds of the contracting parties regarding the object of
the contract and the price imposed therein. Had respondent
been able to understand clearly and completely the
provisions of the contract, such affirmation given to him
would render the contract binding and enforceable.
c. POLICY-BASED:
i. Under Art. III, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution, No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law In view of this, it can be realized that the
Constitution gives due respect to the liberty of the people.
Hence, where a contract is executed against the liberty or
free will of another, or when obtained through the vitiated
consent of another, it shall be rendered voidable.
d. NARRATIVE REASONING
i. A contract entered into by person ABC, during a drunken
state, with person DEF shall be voidable or annullable. This
means that the provisions of the contract executed shall be
binding upon the contracting parties unless and until
annulled by a proper action in court. The reason for this is
because person ABC, when in a drunken state, could not
have been able to decipher properly the provisions of the
contract executed by him and person DEFthe consent
given he gave could not have been made by him in his full
awareness.
2. Damages may be awarded when there is abuse of rights.
a. RULE BASED
i. Under Art. 19 of the Civil Code, Every person must, in the
exercise of his right xxx act with justice, give everyone his

due, and observe honesty and good faith. This means that a
persons way of exercising his right must not be of bad faith
or prejudicial to another. Otherwise, the person exercising
and abusing said right shall be made liable under Art. 20
which covers the obligations of persons causing damage to
another to indemnify latter for the sameand Art. 21, which
covers the obligation to compensate another for the damage
caused.
b. ANALOGICAL
i. According to the Court in Sea Commercial Company, Inc. vs.
Court of Appeals, the absence of good faith is essential to
the abuse of right, and that a person exercising his right
arbitrarily or unjustly shall be made liable. Hence, as
persons, we have numerous rights that we can exercise that
are respected by the laws, and these rights must be
performed in ways that will not negatively affect others with
the legal rights respected under the laws. If, notwithstanding
the prohibition, rights are abused, liabilities will arise therein
as to deter the abuser from repeating the said act as well as
to compensate the person negatively affected by the
damage done.
c. POLICY-BASED
i. It is a obligatory upon the State, as mentioned in Art. II, Sec.
27 of the 1987 Constitution, to take effective measures
against graft and corruption involving public officers in the
exercise of their rights. The doctrine of state immunity shall
not apply to said public officers where said abuse, although
in the exercise of their official duties, are done in bad faith or
in excess of his authority. The Constitution, although
respective of the rights directed to public officers, does not
belie the fact that there may be abuse of said rights granted
to them.
d. NARRATIVE
i. XYZ, an employer who lays off his employees by virtue of
retrenchment but later on hires other persons to perform the
tasks that retrenched employees used to perform, will be
liable for damage. This is because retrenchment is a
management prerogative and is a just cause for termination
of employees due to economic/financial purposes. However,
it can be realized that XYZ was in bad faith in laying off
employees, and that his acts were clearly made to
circumvent the security of tenure of old employees, hence,
he shall be made liable for damages caused.
3. Acquittal of the accused does not extinguish civil liability.
a. RULE BASED

i. Under Art. 20 of the Civil Code, every person who is

criminally liable shall also be civilly liable. Similarly, Art. 29 of
the Civil Code states that when the accused in a criminal
prosecution is acquitted because his guilt has not been
proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages
for the same act may be instituted. However, when the
evidence to prove the guilt of the accused is insufficient and
leads to the acquittal, his liability due to the damages, loss or
injury caused shall not be ignoredthis is because of the
fact that the procedure under Civil Cases is different from
those of Criminal Cases.
b. ANALOGICAL
i. The Court held in Alferez vs. People of the Philippines that
the failure of the prosecution to prove the acts of the
accused lead to his acquittal. Nonetheless, petitioners
acquittal does not exclude his civil liability because there
may have been actions of the accused that could have lead
to damages or injuries that require the indemnification
thereof. Such injuries or damages may then be
compensated through the civil action, requiring only
preponderance of evidence.
c. POLICY-BASED
i. It is mandated under Art. III, Sec. 14(2) of the 1987
Constitutution that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be given the presumption of innocence until the
contrary is proved. This means that the accused is
considered to be innocent until the prosecution presents
evidence that will lead to his conviction, giving credence to
the rights of the person accused despite the action filed
against him.
d. NARRATIVE REASONING
i. WXY filed for damages to property thru reckless imprudence
against XYZ. However, XYZ was acquitted due to the
inability of prosecution to produce evidence of XYZs guilt.
WXY may still be able to file for a civil action for damages.
4. Public officers are covered by the mantle of state immunity from suits for
acts done in the performance of official duties
a. RULE BASED
i. Under Par. 1, Sec. 38, Chapter 9, Book I of the
Administrative Code of 1987, a public officer shall not be
civilly liable for acts done in the performance of his rights
unless there is clear showing of bad faith. This means that
for as long as the public officer is exercising his duties within
the limitations set by law and within the walls of justice, he
shall be clothed with protection from civil actions against
him. However, where the exercise of the officers duties were

clearly involves bad intentions, malice or negligence, he

shall be liable therewith.
b. ANALOGICAL
i. As held in Orocio vs. Commission on Audit, when petitioner
was empowered with discretion to decide to render opinions
in the exercise of his quasi-judicial functions, opines of a
case involving the injury suffered by EFJ under quasi-delict,
he shall not be held liable for the injury resulting from his
opinion. This is because petitioner acted within the authority
imposed upon him and in the exercise of his official duties.
c. POLICY BASED
i. Under the Sec 1, Art. XI of the 1987 Constitution, Public
office is public trust, and that public officers and employees
must at all times be accountable to the people, and serve
them with responsibility, integrity and justice. Hence, acts
executed destroying the public trust of the people shall not
be protected by the state immunity. Also, acts that clearly
manifest the bad intentions as well as malice and negligence
shall hold the officers executing such acts liable.
d. NARRATIVE
i. If BCD, occupying a high position as public officer, commits a
wrongdoing as an individual, his being a public officer cannot
clothe him with the protection of state immunity. This is
because his act was done not in the exercise of his official
duties but on the exercise of his individuality. This will also
be the ruling had BCD acted with authority but in excess of
it.
5. Self-defense should be established by clear, satisfactory and convincing
evidence.
a. Under Art. 11 of the Revised Penal Code, self-defense may be
constituted as a justifying circumstances if there was unlawful
aggression, the means employed to prevent such is reasonably
necessary, and that there was lack of sufficient provocation on the
part of the person who committed self-defense. Hence, it can be
realized that for self-defense to be raised, the three requisites must
be proven through the presentation of evidences that will constitute
the three requisites required under the Revised Penal Code.
Otherwise the circumstance may not be accepted.
b. As held by the Court in People vs. Tabuelog, the accused, in cases
of self-defense, must rely on the strength of his own evidence and
not on the weakness of the prosecutions evidence since he admits
the commission of the alleged criminal act. This is because upon
admitting to committing self-defense, the accused is recognizing his
or her action of calling, but on the context of defending ones self. If
the accuseds evidence is of doubtful veracity, and it is not clear and
convincing, the defense must necessarily fail.

c. Under the Art. III, Sec. 1 of the 1987 Constitution, no person shall
be deprived of life xxx without due process of laws. This provision
affirms the fact that a person, upon being unjustly attacked, may
offer protection to himself to uphold his right to his life. However, it
must be noted that another man (the one who unjustly attacked)
also has his constitutional right to life, which makes it reasonable
for the accused to be required to prove self-defense as a justifying
circumstance to his killing of another.
d. Where XYZs testimony regarding the night of the commission of
alleged self-defense, and where grave inconsistencies were found
to be present, the Court must hold that the elements for selfdefense to be raised was not completely established. Hence, XYZ
could be held liable for murder.