So whats the rule in dependent civil action? 1.

Number 1, the rule on dependent civil action contemplates of four distinct situations. a. Lets go to the first situation. When I say dependent civil action, Im referring to Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code it says person criminally liable is civilly liable. Im not talking of any other sources. Lets go to the first situation, the first situation is where the civil action is not waived, not reserved and not file, not filed ahead of the criminal action. What is the rule? It is not waived, it is not reserved neither it is not filed ahead of the criminal action, so whats the rule? Number 1 ruling, when the civil action based on 100, Article 100 in the RPC is not waived, no reserve, no file ahead, it is deemed impliedly instituted the moment the criminal action is filed in court. So in the crime of robbery, the moment that criminal information for robbery is filed in court, and the party offended party does not waive the filing of civil action, does not reserve the filing of civil action or does not file it ahead of criminal action then automatically the civil action is deemed impliedly instituted with the criminal case. So in that same case criminal case, two purposes are pursued the state seeks imposition of criminal liability and that private offended party seeks recover of civil liability. In other words, in that same case for robbery, there are two lawyers there appearing, generally, the party prosecutor representing the State, the People of the Philippines, and the private lawyer representing the private offended party. But the private offended party does not wish to engage the services of private lawyer, the private offended party may just engage the prosecutor. So, the private offended party will just have to make arrangement to the public prosecutor that, fiscal I dont wish to engage the services of private lawyers so can you please prove also civil liability in the presentation of your evidence? Because normally if you have your own lawyer, the prosecutor will only be concerned themselves with proving the elements of the crime, the fiscal would not be concerned so much with proving the damage caused because he is only representing the interest of the State and the State does not concern with the damage, but then the rules allow that the prosecutor also act as the, in a way act as the lawyer both for the State and the private offended party. So the both the criminal action, the civil action are jointly tried at the same place. Theres only one criminal case. Take note, theres only one case but the criminal aspect and civil aspect are jointly tried. Therell only be one decision, okay? There will be only one decision rendered by the court. The decision of the court may take this form: what happens if the court finds the accused not guilty because of reasonable doubt there is no sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt so the court declares the accused not guilty. Can the court in the same decision hold the accused liable for civil liability, damages when on one hand the court absolves the accused can it, on the other hand, hold the accused liable civilly? Under Article 29 of the Civil Code, when the acquittal of the accused is based on reasonable doubt there is no sufficient evidence constituting proof beyond reasonable doubt, it is still possible that the accused may be held civilly liable although criminally exonerated. Why? The reason there is, because in the civil case the only quantum of evidence required is preponderance of evidence which is an evidence lower and degrade than proof beyond reasonable doubt. So its possible that the evidence presented is not

enough to constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt but good enough to constitute proof, ah, preponderance of evidence. On the other hand, if the judgment of acquittal is based on complete innocence because the court finds that the acts or omissions from which criminal liability might have arise did not exist, can the court still hold the accused civilly liable? In this case, no more and this is consistent with the dependent nature of the civil action. You cannot anymore invoke article 100 because article 100 presupposes conviction. 2. When the civil action arising from a crime based on Article 100 is waived. Waived meaning the private offended party is no longer interested to pursue it. The waiver here must be made before the prosecution starts to present evidence because if no waiver is made at this stage then you apply the first situation, the civil action is impliedly instituted so if the offended party intends to waive it then the offended party must state in the prosecution that he is no longer interested in pursuing a civil action. If this happens, the criminal case will proceed where the prosecutor will only prove the criminal aspect of the case and there will be no judgment insofar as the civil liability is concerned. Similarly, even if the accused is convicted in the criminal case the offended party cannot anymore file a separate civil action based on the same act or omission pursuant to Article 100 because it was already waived. So in this case if it is waived then there is no way at all that the private offended party can recover the civil liability. 3. Where the civil action based on Article 100 is reserved. When should the reservation be made? Again the reservation under Section 1 of Rule 111 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, the reservation must be made before the prosecution starts presenting evidence. Why? Because if reservation is not made at this stage, the first situation will apply the civil action will be deemed impliedly instituted with that criminal action. So the reservation must be made before presentation of evidence and under such circumstance that the private offended party can possibly make the reservation. So if there is a reservation the criminal case will proceed minus the civil action because the civil action is reserved to weigh the outcome of the criminal action. So for the meantime, the civil action is suspended and the criminal action will proceed. After the trial of the criminal case the court may order judgment and the court may acquit the accused based on reasonable doubt. What is the effect of the acquittal of the case based on reasonable doubt? Again, based on Article 29 of the Civil Code, the civil action which was suspended may now be pursued. If the acquittal is based on complete innocence, the suspended civil action may not anymore be pursued because the extinction of the criminal action varies with the extinction of the civil action. So the same rule as with number 1. Under Section 2 of Rule 111 the effect of reservation is that a civil action is suspended but under Section 3 of Rule 111 the private offended party has the option. 4. The civil action is filed ahead of the criminal action. This situation may occur when: a. The prosecutor fails or refuses to file the case because based on his own judgment there is no case there is no basis to proceed with the criminal case but private offended party believes that there is preponderance of evidence to prove the civil liability of the

accused so the offended party may engage his own lawyer and go ahead with the civil action based on Article 100 b. The judge finds no probable cause to proceed with the trial that there is no basis to proceed with the case so no case filed similarly in this case the private offended party may file his own civil action based on Article 100 So these are the two instances where the private offended party may go ahead with the civil action even when no criminal action is filed or even if no criminal action is filed at all. Lets imagine now the civil action is filed now pending in court. The prosecutor may have a change of heart or gathered evidence and the prosecutor now decides to file criminal action. So what happens now if the criminal action is filed in court? What is its effect on the pending civil action which was filed ahead of the criminal action? The rule under Article 30 of the Civil Code, once the criminal action is filed and consistent with the nature of the civil action which is being independent the filing of the criminal action suspends the now pending civil action so the civil action which was filed ahead will have to be suspended to outweigh the outcome of the criminal action which was subsequently filed consistent with the dependent nature or under Section 2 of Rule 111, the private offended party who have filed a civil action ahead of the criminal action before judgment on the merits in the civil action may move that the civil action be consolidated with the criminal action so both action will be tried jointly as if it is impliedly instituted with the civil action. But it may happen that because the civil action is filed ahead, the civil action already started presenting evidence. Under the rules, when the civil action is consolidated with the criminal action the evidence presented in the civil action is automatically reproduced in the criminal action so it will be considered that the evidence was also introduced in that criminal action without holding prejudice the right of the party in the criminal case to cross examine the witnesses and the parties to present additional witnesses. The two cases now will be tried jointly. In case its not consolidated because the private offended party didnt move for his consideration, the suspended civil action filed ahead of the criminal action will now wait for the final outcome of the criminal case. If the court acquits the accused for reasonable doubt then apply there the procedure as if it was jointly instituted if acquittal based on reasonable doubt the suspended civil action may now continue but if based on innocence the suspended civil action will have to be dismissed. Take note under Section 5 Rule 111, in a situation where a civil action is separately filed, any action in the civil case absolving the defendant from civil liability does not prevent the filing of the criminal action arising from the same act or omission of the subject in the civil action.

Independent Civil Action Are those based on Articles 32, 33, 34 and 2176. What Article 32? It is a situation where the public officer violates the constitutional right of an individual as enumerated in the bill of rights. The bill of

rights section 3 enumerates the individual constitutional rights. If someone violates any or some of these rights that may gave rise to an independent civil action apart from the criminal action. Article 33 is civil liability arising from the crime of defamation (libel or oral), fraud (estafa) and physical injuries (homicide, murder, infanticide, parricide). So in the case of murder, the civil aspect of the killing is governed by the so-called independent civil action under Article 33. There is a criminal case for murder there is also a civil action for damages arising from murder. Article 34 is a situation where the police fails or refuses to render aid or protection to anyone who has a danger of his life or property. So by virtue of this, the private offended party may file an independent civil action apart from the possible criminal liability that the fellow will have in court. And 2176 is the so-called Quasi-delict. This is an act when someone through fault or negligence causes damage to another. Article 2176 this may constitute criminal negligence, reckless imprudence resulting to physical injuries governed by the Revised Penal Code as crimes committed to reckless imprudence like reckless driving. Under 2176 it is a torturous action when civil liability may be covered. So all these provisions provide for a civil action which is independent from the criminal action. So what is the rule when independent civil action is instituted? 1. Since its very nature it is independent, this kind of civil action may be filed separately, independently, or simultaneously with the criminal action and the civil action arising from crime under Article 100. Take note the independent civil action given their nature may be filed separately with the criminal action, may be filed independently or simultaneously. There is no restriction. In fact it may also be pursued simultaneously civil action arising from crimes under Article 100 so its possible that arising from the same act there may be two civil actions. One under Article 100 and an independent civil action basing it to Article 32, 33,34,2176. Because these are based on different sources of civil liability. The rule now is a civil action based on Article 100 and another civil action based on the so-called independent civil action may be pursued simultaneously. 2. Since it is independent it is not deemed impliedly instituted in the criminal action. The only civil action where it is deemed impliedly instituted is the civil action based on Article 100 but if civil action based on Article 32 and the rest it is not deemed impliedly instituted. 3. Since it is independent it doesnt have to be reserved. No need for reservation because it is not deemed impliedly instituted. The need for reservation finds relevance only if it is a dependent civil action based on Article 100 because if you dont reserve it, it is deemed impliedly instituted. But being independent it may be filed anytime without regard as to the outcome of the case no reservation is required. 4. The dependent civil action based on Article 100 may be waived but if the offended party waives the civil action in Article 100 it doesnt carry with it those that are independent. Although these independent civil actions may be waived. But the waiver of the dependent civil action doesnt carry with it the waiver of the civil actions which are independent. But whether or not private offended party pursues the independent civil action is the prerogative of the private offended

party. He may or may not pursue it. So waiver must be specific, if waiver is expressly refers to civil actions based on Article 100 then the waiver should only affect that dependent civil action but not the other actions which are independent. 5. Since the civil actions are independent they may proceed regardless the outcome of the criminal case. even if accuse of the criminal case is acquitted based on innocence the independent civil action based on Article 32, and so on may still proceed requiring preponderance of evidence the reason for this is because these are all independent. As I said earlier, prosecution of two independent and dependent simultaneous filing is not prohibited but double recovery is. Under Section 3 of Rule 111 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure the offended party are not allowed to recover twice of the same act or omission. So suppose in criminal action for murder or robbery filed against accused where in that criminal case the civil action deemed impliedly instituted the court finds accused guilty and adjudges civil liability 1 million. On other hand, in the independent civil action based on Article 33 which states same liability court find same civilly liable for 2 million. The private offended party obtains an award of 1 million in dependent civil action deemed impliedly instituted in the civil action and 2 million award under in the judgment rendered in the independent civil action. so the offended party has two monetary awards.

29:47 Monetary awards representing civil liability. Under section 3 the offended party cannot collect both awards we cannot collect the million and then collect the 2 million because that would be unjust enrichment. Under the existing jurisprudence, the private offended party has the option which of the two awards to collect. But given human nature, of course, it is expected that they collect the bigger award. Theres a 1 million, theres 2 million the offended party may choose to collect the 2 million. They cannot anymore insist to collect the 1 million awarded in the other case because that would be double recovery. Shaleem: Sir, lets say they already collected the 1 million in the criminal action, and then the civil action was passed, two three years after, so can we collect the 2 million? So the first is already collected? S: yes, the first is already collected Well, if you are the lawyer for the accused, you would ask the dismissal of the civil action, once the award of the first civil case is collected *He mustve meant criminal case+ Thats the remedy there, whats the point of proceeding with the independent civil action when youve already collected your awards? In the hope that the bigger award will be given? That is not the purpose of the rule. That would make the maybe, if you are the council of the private offended party, maybe you have a judgement here, but do not collect or wait (?) for a fee, the judgement in the other case, but if you are the lawyer of the accused then volunteer to satisfy if you are afraid that the judgement of the civil case, it would be

bigger. It now depends on the lawyer, how to manoeuvre depending on the interest of your client (partner?) Lets go to PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONS: In the situation where the same act or omission may give rise to the filing of a case or civil case, it is a possible scenario that in an issue raised in the civil case is closely connected or intimately connected or similar to the issue raised in the criminal case. So that it is necessary to resolve the issue in the civil case first before proceeding with the criminal action because the resolution of the issue in the civil case is determinative of whether or not to proceed with the criminal case. In this case, the prejudicial question principle applies, that criminal action will have to be suspended to await the outcome of the civil case. The term itself prejudicial this issue has to be resolved first before proceeding with the criminal action. So what is contemplated in prejudicial question is There are two actions criminal and civil and what is prejudicial is the issue in the civil to warrant the suspension of the criminal not the other way around. This is illustrated in the case of Isabel Apa et. al v. Judge Romuldo Fernandez. Isabel Apa et. al filed a civil case for I think partition, endowment? Where Isabelo Apa claimed to be the owners of a piece of land located in Lapu-Lapu city. Four years after the defendants in the civil case, the spouses Tigol where the defendants of the civil case involving issue of ownership filed a counter-suit against Isabelo Apa et. al, this time a criminal case for violation of the anti-squatting law. Before, squatting is a criminal offense. It has been decriminalized now. Before its a criminal offense to squat on another persons property. So there were now two pending actions, one for civil action and another criminal action involving the issue of ownership and the other is a criminal action is a violation of the anti-squatting law. Isabelo Apa et al now the accused for anti-squatting filed a motion to suspend the criminal action to await the final judgement of the civil action. The motion was denied by Judge Fernandez and so Isabelo Apa went all the way up to the Supreme Court where he was sustained by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said, This case illustrates the principle of prejudicial questioning why? In the civil case, the issue there is ownership. So after the trial the Court will rule that either Isabelo Apa is the owner or not. Because Isabelo Apa and et al claim to be the owners of that property subject of litigation. In this criminal case of the violation of the anti-squatting law, the issue there is WON the accused is the owner of the property, allegedly illegally possessed because anti-squatting law this is someone who takes possession of a (sic) land without the consent of the owner. In other words, for one to be convicted of anti-squatting, he must not be the owner! You cannot be a squatter of your own property. So the Supreme Court said, if in the civil case, Isabelo Apa prevails and he is adjudged as the owner of the property where he is being charged as the squatter, then, logically there would be no more basis to proceed with the criminal case because no one would be convicted with the violation of the anti-squatting law because he is the owner of the subjected land. So, obviously the issue of ownership in the civil case, is determinative as to WON to proceed with the criminal case. The opposite situation is that involve the case of Sabanal vs. Tongco. Sabanal case involves a contract between Philippine Star and a distributor of newspaper. He entered into a distributorship agreement where Philippine Star was to deliver newspaper materials to the distributor Sabanal. Ok. In payment for the newspaper deliveries, Philippine Star, Sabanal issued a number of PDC but when these cheques bounced Sabanal was sued for violation of Batas Pamabansa bilang dalawang-dalawa. BP 22. For his

part, Sabanal filed an action for recovery of over-paid amounts. He said that a payment for the newspaper items and materials delivered to him by Philippine Star, he already made payments and these payments were even more than the amount due him, so there was overpayment so he asked the court that he be refunded of the overpaid amount. He then asked the court that filed for the criminal case (in violation) of BP 22 to suspend the criminal prosecution invoking prejudicial question. The issue there is WON the issue in the civil case is determinative of WON to proceed with the criminal case BP22, the Supreme Court ruled in the negative. The Supreme Court said the issue in the civil case is WON there was overpayment. If Mr. Sabanal prevails in the suit then, Philippine Star will be ordered to return the overpaid amount. But in the criminal case prosecution of BP 22, the issue there is not about overpayment, the issue there is WON Mr. Sabanal issued a bounced check, a check that is not sufficiently funded. The mere issuance of a bounced check constitutes the crime of BP 22. So even if Mr. Sabanal prevails in the suit that there was really overpayment, it has nothing to do at all with the issue of WON he issued a bounced (bummed?) check. So long as the elements of BP 22 there was issuance of a bounced check, and there was issuance of a check and that check was not sufficiently funded thats it! That constitutes the crime of BP 22, regardless of WON there was overpayment. So the SC said, the issue in the civil case is not determinative of the criminal case. So, prejudicial questions. And a typical example of a prejudicial question is the case of Bobis vs. Bobis where someone is prosecuted for bigamy but there was another civil case for annulment of marriage. Now in bigamy one of the elements of bigamy is that there must be 2 pending marriages. The first marriage must be valid and the 2nd must also be valid if it not for the fact that it is bigamous. In other words, the first and 2nd must comply with the requisites of a valid marriage so that the first wife which is shown to be not valid, it would be a defense in bigamy. But again, in view of the recent jurisprudence interpreting Article 40 of the Family Code, that may not be a defense at all. You are prosecuted for bigamy and then file theres a pending case for nullity for marriage. The SC said that is no longer a defense now because by entering the 2nd marriage without having declaring the 1st as void, you will be constituted for having bigamy. So the defense that you cannot be prosecuted is no longer availing today because the rule now is even if you believe that your 1st marriage is void, it is not for you to say that it is void, you really have to go to court to declare it void before you contract a subsequent marriage. Contracting a subsequent marriage, without court declaring your 1st marriage void is bigamous. Thats the prevailing doctrine now. We will discuss it more thoroughly when we take up the Family Code. Lets go to Civil Personality. There are two persons in the contemplation of law. The natural person and us, warm bodies capable of feelings. And the so called natural persons and the creation of law. Juridical Person, I leave it up to your corporation and partnership, lets just limit ourselves to the natural persons. Its more interesting. When does civil personality begin? When is one deemed to be a person one possessing civil personality, one possessing rights and obligations? Under article 40 of the Civil Code, birth determines personality. For one to be considered a person possessing civil personality, possessing rights and obligation he must be born. What about the unborn? Under article 40, the unborn child while still inside the womb, for civil purposes is considered born. Meaning, they have rights! They have rights! But, they should comply with the condition in courts under Article 41. And what are the conditions in Art. 41?

The unborn child must be eventually born, meaning, general rule that child, the unborn child, must be born must be born alive the moment it is completely separated from the maternal womb. It must be alive upon delivery. But if the child has inter-uterine life of less than 7 months, the so called premature babies, for them to be considered born, it is necessary that they must be alive within 24 hours from complete delivery. So if the fetus dies within 24 hours after complete delivery, the fetus is deemed to have not acquired civil personality, so even if an unborn child is already entitled to certain rights, these right arises from the so-called presumptive civil personality, but for it to be considered really a person, it must be born. So it is completely legal for someone to donate to an unborn child. Because donation is favourable to the unborn child. But of course, subject to the conditions in Article 41. The fetus who did not or does not acquire actual civil personality does not possess rights. This is illustrated in the case of Geluz vs. Court of Appeals. This involves action for damages filed by a father-husband against a doctor who performed abortion against the mother-wife. On the 3rd abortion, the husband, the father, complained, sued the doctor for damages. The trial court ruled in favour of the father but on appeal the SC reversed the judgement holding that the unborn child did not acquire civil personality and therefore it did not acquire rights. And therefore, it is not entitled to claim damages for the supposed sufferings and pain arising from the abortion. Damages arising from physical injury, pain and suffering can only be claimed by a person! And because an unborn child, a fetus which was aborted inside, did not become a person then he is not entitled to claim damages from physical pain or suffering. But the Supreme Court said, while the father cannot claim physical damages suffered by the aborted child, the father on his own as a father may claim moral damages for the suffering he himself sustained. Like the frustration that his fatherhood was aborted. He is entitled to claim moral damages on his own behalf, but he cannot claim moral damages on behalf of the child for the supposed physical sufferings or physical injury for the child because that child did not become a person. Because only a person can suffer pain. But do not confuse civil personality with death, because while an unborn child would die inside the womb, does not acquire civil personality, it does not follow that the unborn child is not capable of dying. So a person may not have that person an unborn child may not have acquired civil personality, but he can always die. Because death and civil personality are two different legal terms. This is the ruling in the case of Steel Manufacturing Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation vs. Honorable Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator. The employee here is a member of the union of a manufacturing company, the union entered into a collective bargaining agreement with the employer, and under CBA, the employee is entitled to a bereavement benefit in case of death of any of his or her dependent. In this case, his unborn child of his wife suffered a miscarriage, so the fetus died while inside the womb of the mother. He filed a claim for bereavement benefits for his dependent, but this was denied by the company. The argument or the reason cited by the company is that under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, bereavement benefit can be availed of only by his (50:53) The when the collective bargaining agreement speaks of death, it contemplates of a situation where one who died must already attain civil personality. Meaning you must be born because only those who are born can die. But this argument was rejected by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said do not confuse civil personality with capacity to die while only those who were born have civil personality, may have the capacity to possess rights and obligations, it does not follow that the unborn child cannot

die because life begins at conception. So if the fetus dies, is aborted while inside, that constitutes death, where life is extinguished. So the HAVA was sustained by the Supreme Court, he was allowed to claim the bereavement benefit under the collective bargaining. Civil Personality is extinguished by death. While Civil Personality is inherent to every natural person, this civil personality can be extinguished by death. Under the Rules of Court and also a portion of the Civil code, there are 3 presumptions of law governing death. 1. We have the presumption of death, spelled out under Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, Rules of Evidence, Section 3 Paragaraph W. 2. Presumption of Survivorship, Rule 131, Section 5 Paragraph (jj) of the Rules of Evidence 3. And presumption on simultaneity in deaths under Rule 131, Section 3 Par. (kk) of the Rules of Evidence Lets go to the 1st presumption: Presumption of Death Under Par. (w), when a person disappears after 7 years and there is no evidence that he or she is still alive. The law presumes, that he is already dead. Thats for absence of 7 years, but the 7 year period, which calls for the application of this presumption for the purposes other than succession. Meaning that if someone went missing for 7 years, the heirs or the surviving heirs, the supposed surviving heirs cannot anymore settle the estate of the missing person because this concerns with succession. So his property cannot be anymore inherited by the supposed heirs, because 7 years is not sufficient for purposes of opening succession. Maybe for any other purpose but not succession. For purposes of succession, the law requires 10 years of absence. So it should be at least 10 years, the heirs may now settle the estate of the missing person. But if the missing person disappeared at the age of 75, the presumption of death of course if he is absent for 5 years for all purposes, even or including succession. So if your lolo or father disappeared after the age of 75, then you only need to wait for 5 years. Not so aaaahh, terrible to wait for 5 years. You can claim your share of the pie. However, if the disappearance took place under the circumstance involving danger of death, so the 7 10 5 involves a disappearance under normal circumstance, if the disappearance took place under the circumstances involving danger or death as when the missing person disappeared while on board an airship which also disappeared, the law only requires 4 years for the presumption to apply, or when the missing person is a member of the armed forces who participated in armed hostility and went missing, 4 years is the only period required for the presumption to apply. But, for purposes of remarriage, under no found circumstances the disappearance of 4 years would be (nulled?) allowed to remarry if the disappearance took place in a circumstance involving danger of death, the law only requires 2 years. So the law obviously takes pity on the surviving remaining spouse. You only have to wait 2 years before you can move on. Take note, that the presumption of death, spelled out on Par. (w) applies only when there is no evidence as to the missing person is really dead so that when under the circumstances, there is evidence, there is

preponderance of evidence that the missing person really died, you dont have to wait for 7 years, 10 years, 4 years, 2 years. The person must be deemed to be established or proven death at that instance. So if someone disappeared during a conflagration, or during when the MV PRINCESS OF THE STARS sank, you do not need to wait for 4 years. Death is already established at the time of the sinking of the vessel. This was the ruling of the Eastern Shipping Lines vs. Lucero. Lucero, is the captain of the vessel applying the route from, it was in transit from abroad to the Philippines. And they encountered a typhoon while sailing. And when the vessel was in the eye of the storm, Lucero kept contact with the employer describing their precarious situation. Eventually, the vessel sank and since then Mr. Lucero has never been heard. The wife, despite the fact that the vessel of Mr. Lucero went missing, the wife still insist on claiming the pay allotment. She still insist in claiming the salary of her husband Mr. Lucero because according to her, the presumption of death requires a certain period. 4 years. So, I still have 4 years to continue receiving the salary of my husband who still is not yet dead, officially and legally. SC said, No way! This presumption applies only when there is preponderance of evidence establishing the fact. In this case, it was established that Mr. Lucero even made contacts to the employer when they were about to sink. And in fact, the finding of the issuance of the of the disaster (?) is that all crew, perished with the vessel. It was evidence enough that Mr. Lucero really died in that accident. The same ruling was availed in the case of Victory Shipping Lines vs. Workmens Compensation Commission where the crew of the vessel was asleep, and suddenly realized that the vessel was engulfed with fire of unknown origin, he jumped off the vessel. And since then, he has not been heard of. The father then filed a claim for the insurance benefit arising from the death of the son. But he was refused, it was made that he should wait until 4 years before he can collect the insurance proceeds because of the presumption of law. Supreme Court said, that is wrong! That presumption on the law of death applies only when there is preponderance of evidence establishing the fact of death. In this case, there was testimony of witnesses that in the midst of the fire Mr. Lucero (ingon siya Lucero) jumped of the vessel. That is enough evidence to prove, the crew, not Lucero clearly died in the occasion of the action. Lets go to JJ. JJ is presumption of survivorship, this is a situation where two persons died in the same calamity. Such as shipwreck, battle or conflagration, and that theres nothing from the circumstances of which we can infer as to who died first. The survivorship shall be determined from the result of the strength and age of the sexes subject to the following rules. This is a situation where 2 persons died, but there is issue as to who of them died first. That there are some cases with the issue as to who of them died first. So this now is the rule, presumption on survivorship. Number 1 Rule: if both are 15, the older is deemed to have survived. Meaning the older is deemed to have died last. The younger died first. If both are above 60, the younger is deemed to have survived.

If one is below 15 and the other is above 60, the younger is presumed to have survived. If one is below 15 or above 60 and the other is between these ages and the sex is different, the male is deemed to have survive. If the same, the older is deemed to have survived. If one is either is below 15 and above 60 and the other is between the age of 15 or below 60, the latter is presumed to have survived. Take note that the presumption of survivorship, applies only for purposes of succession, because if the issue is about succession, you apply par. (jj) which says that when 2 or more persons are called to succeed each other, he who alleges the death of one prior to the death of the other has the burden of proof, otherwise they are presumed to have died the same time, and therefore no transmission of rights between them. So, for purposes of succession if there is no proof who of them died first, it shall be presumed that the two died at the same time therefore, no succession took place. No one inherited from the other because they died at the same time. Inheritance applies only when the other died ahead than the, the one died ahead than the other. So for other purposes other than succession, you apply presumption on survivorship, (jj). END