SECTION 5

FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES (SECTION 5)

By: Irish V. de Rama,Ed.D.









SECTION 5:Acts executed again the provisions of mandatory prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes the validity.
 

         Marriage law are mandatory and prohibitory, such that if the marriage is contracted where one of the parties is psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties to the marriage bond, the marriage is void. ( Art. 36, Family Code)


        But the law recognizes as legitimate a child born or conceived out of such marriage, provided that the child conceived or born prior to the declaration of nullity of , . (Art 54 Family Code)



Kinds of Mandatory Law
1.POSITIVE    When the law is something need to be done
2, NEGATIVE   When the law  is something prohibitory

EXCEPTIONS
1.When the law makes the act not void but merely voidable (valid until anulled) at the instance of the victim.
2. When the law makes the act valid but subjects the wrong doer to criminal responsibility.
         3. When  the law makes the act itself void,but recognizes some legal effects  flowing therefrom
 
              4 When the law itself makes certain acts valid although generally they would have been void.

              In the cases or matters filed after the effectivity of the constitution must be decided or resolved within 24hrs from date of submission for the Supreme Court, twelve months from the date of submission for the supreme court, 12 months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other  lower courts
 
A case matter shall be deemed submitted for decisions or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading brief, or memoramdum required by the rules of court or by the court itself

 CASE FOR ARTICLE 5
DBP V. CA, 65 SCAD 82, 249 SCR.331, OCTOBER 16, 1995 The supreme court said that the buyer of the parcel of the parcel of land that is considered as non disposable land of the public domain didn’t acquire the valid title over the land, but recognized the certain effects of the same, in that when the buyer ask for the land was deducted from the amount reimbursed. This is the recognition of a right without title was transmitted in favor of the buyer.And the reduction of the amount reimbursed is in conformity with the rule that no one that shall enrich himself at the expense of another. 
   It is well settled doctrine that a statute requiring rendition of judgment within a specified time is generally construed to be merely directory, so that non compliance  with them does not invalidate the judgment on the theory that if the statute had intended such result it would clearly indicated it MARCOS V.COMELEC, et al 64 SCAD 358, 248 SCRA 300. AN EXAMPLE of Constitutional provision requiring courts to render judgments within a certain period. 
         All cases or matters filed after the  effectivity of the constitution must be decided or resolved within 24months from date of submission for the Supreme court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts and three months for all other lower courts

A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the rules of the court itself.
Upon the expiration of the corresponding period a certification to this effect signed
by the Chief Justice   or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof e record of the case attached to the matter, and served upon the parties.The certification shall state why a decision or resolution  not been rendered or issued within said period


Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination , without further delay.

 Hence such law can be considered directory. In Marcelino v. Cruz, it was said that the difference between mandatory and directory provision is determined on the ground of expediency, the reason being that less injury results to the general republic by disregarding than enforcing the letter of the law.


Mga Komento

Mga sikat na post sa blog na ito

Gelano vs. Court of Appeals [GR L-39050, 24 February 1981Case digest article 88

marriage and cases