Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 96 views

    Lcano vs. Hill G.R. No. L-24803. May 26, 1977 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Lizzette Guiuntab
    Reginald Hill, a minor who was married and living with his father Marvin, caused the death of Agapito, son of Elcano. Reginald was acquitted in criminal court for lack of intent. Elcano then filed a civil suit against both Reginald and Marvin under Article 2180. While an acquittal in criminal court does not bar a separate civil suit, Marvin argued his liability as a parent was extinguished since Reginald was emancipated by marriage. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 2180 could still apply to Marvin, as emancipation by marriage is not full emancipation and still requires parental consent for certain acts. Therefore, Marvin's liability

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lcano vs. Hill G.R. No. L-24803. May 26, 1977 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Lizzette Guiuntab
    96 views1 page
    Reginald Hill, a minor who was married and living with his father Marvin, caused the death of Agapito, son of Elcano. Reginald was acquitted in criminal court for lack of intent. Elcano then filed a civil suit against both Reginald and Marvin under Article 2180. While an acquittal in criminal court does not bar a separate civil suit, Marvin argued his liability as a parent was extinguished since Reginald was emancipated by marriage. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 2180 could still apply to Marvin, as emancipation by marriage is not full emancipation and still requires parental consent for certain acts. Therefore, Marvin's liability

    Original Description:

    Elcano v. hill

    Original Title

    Elcano v. hill

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Reginald Hill, a minor who was married and living with his father Marvin, caused the death of Agapito, son of Elcano. Reginald was acquitted in criminal court for lack of intent. Elcano then filed a civil suit against both Reginald and Marvin under Article 2180. While an acquittal in criminal court does not bar a separate civil suit, Marvin argued his liability as a parent was extinguished since Reginald was emancipated by marriage. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 2180 could still apply to Marvin, as emancipation by marriage is not full emancipation and still requires parental consent for certain acts. Therefore, Marvin's liability

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    96 views1 page

    Lcano vs. Hill G.R. No. L-24803. May 26, 1977 Facts

    Uploaded by

    Lizzette Guiuntab
    Reginald Hill, a minor who was married and living with his father Marvin, caused the death of Agapito, son of Elcano. Reginald was acquitted in criminal court for lack of intent. Elcano then filed a civil suit against both Reginald and Marvin under Article 2180. While an acquittal in criminal court does not bar a separate civil suit, Marvin argued his liability as a parent was extinguished since Reginald was emancipated by marriage. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 2180 could still apply to Marvin, as emancipation by marriage is not full emancipation and still requires parental consent for certain acts. Therefore, Marvin's liability

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    LCANO vs.

    HILL
    G.R. No. L-24803. May 26, 1977
    FACTS
    Reginald Hill, a minor, caused the death of Agapito (son of Elcano). At the time of the occurrence,
    Reginald Hill was married and was living with and getting subsistence from his father, Marvin Hill.
    Elcano filed a criminal case against Reginald but Reginald was acquitted for lack of intent coupled
    with mistake. Elcano then filed a civil action against Reginald and his father, Marvin Hill, for damages
    based on Article 2180 of the Civil Code. Hill argued that the civil action is barred by his sons acquittal
    in the criminal case; and that if ever, his civil liability as a parent has been extinguished by the fact
    that his son is already an emancipated minor by reason of his marriage.
    Marvin Hill filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint had no cause of action against
    him, because he was relieved as guardian of the other defendant through emancipation by marriage.
    The trial court initially denied his motion but subsequently ordered the dismissal of the case when a
    motion for reconsideration was filed. Hence, this appeal.
    ISSUE
    May Article 2180 (2nd and last paragraphs) of the Civil Code be applied against Marvin Hill,
    notwithstanding the undisputed fact that at the time of the occurrence complained of, Reginald,
    though a minor, living with and getting subsistence from his father, was already legally married?
    RULING
    Yes. The acquittal of Reginald in the criminal case does not bar the filing of a separate civil action. A
    separate civil action lies against the offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is criminally
    prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted, provided that the offended party is not allowed, if accused is
    actually charged also criminally, to recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled in such
    eventuality only to the bigger award of the two, assuming the awards made in the two cases vary. In
    other words, the extinction of civil liability referred to in Par. (e) of Section 3, Rule 111, refers
    exclusively to civil liability founded on Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, whereas the civil liability
    for the same act considered as a quasi-delict only and not as a crime is not extinguished even by a
    declaration in the criminal case that the criminal act charged has not happened or has not been
    committed by the accused. Briefly stated, culpa aquiliana includes voluntary and negligent acts which
    may be punishable by law.
    While it is true that parental authority is terminated upon emancipation of the child (Article 327, Civil
    Code), and under Article 397, emancipation takes place by the marriage of the minor child, it is,
    however, also clear that pursuant to Article 399, emancipation by marriage of the minor is not really
    full or absolute. Thus Emancipation by marriage or by voluntary concession shall terminate parental
    authority over the childs person. It shall enable the minor to administer his property as though he
    were of age, but he cannot borrow money or alienate or encumber real property without the consent
    of his father or mother, or guardian. He can sue and be sued in court only with the assistance of his
    father, mother or guardian. Therefore, Article 2180 is applicable to Marvin Hill the SC however ruled
    since at the time of the decision, Reginald is already of age, Marvins liability should be subsidiary only
    as a matter of equity.

    You might also like