CHAPTER VII: LATIN MAXIMS: THEIR MEANING AND IMPORTANCE

I. IMPORTANCE OF LATIN MAXIMS

Latin maxims are used not only in interpreting statutes. They are also used by judges and
justices in their decisions to add elegance to their language and to give emphasis to the legal points
therein discussed. This is so because Roman legal literature is noted for originality and the style of
Roman jurists is simple, clear, brief and precise.
II. LATIN MAXIMS APPLICABLE TO STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
A. ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT LAWS SHOULD BE PROSPECTIVE, NOT RETROACTIVE
 Lex Prospicit, Non Respicit- The law looks forward, not backward.
Lex de Futuro. Judex de Praterio - The law provides for the future, the judge for the past.
 This principle is still found in Article 4 of our New Civil Code, which provides as follows:
"Article 4. Laws shall have no retroactive effect, unless the contrary is provided."
 The general rule has not changed. In this jurisdiction, all statutes are to be construed as
having only a prospective operation unless the purpose and intention of the legislature
to give them retrospective effect is expressly declared or is necessarily implied from the
language. In every case of doubt, the doubt must be resolved against retrospective
effect.
B. ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN THE LAW IS CLEAR, WHAT THE COURTS SHOULD DO IS TO APPLY
IT, NOT TO INTERPRET IT
 Absolute Sentencia Expositore Non Indiget - When the language of the law is clear, no
explanation of it is required.
Optima Statuti Interpretatix Est Insum Statutum - The best interpreter of the statute is
the statute itself.
 This principle has been used and applied in a long line of cases that have been decided
by the Supreme Court. Hence, it is well-established in this jurisdiction that where the
law is clear, the court's duty is to apply it, not to interpret it.
C. ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT IT IS NOT THE LETTER OF THE LAW THAT KILLETH, IT IS THE SPIRIT OF
THE LAW THAT GIVETH LIFE
 Ratio Legis Est Anima - The reason of the law is its soul.
Ratio Legis - Interpretation according to spirit.
Cessante Ratione Cesat Ipsa - When the reason for the law Lex ceases, the law ceases
also to exist.
 What if the letter of the law conflicts with its spirit, which prevails?
"If the language of the law is clear and unequivocal, then read the law to mean exactly
what it says. If not, look for the intention of the legislature."
D. ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THOSE ENUMERATED ARE DEEMED
EXCLUDED
 Expresio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius - Express mention is implied exclusion.
 This principle has also been used and applied in a litany of cases. The rule has not
changed. The enumeration of specified matters in a statute is construed, as an exclusion
of matters not enumerated unless a different intention appears.
E. ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT SPECIAL PROVISIONS PREVAIL OVER GENERAL PROVISIONS
 Generalia specialibus non derogant - A general law does not nullify a specific or special
law.
  Case: MARIA VIRGINIA V. REMO v. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
G.R. No. 169202, March 5,2010
 A basic tenet in statutory construction is that a special law prevails over a general law,
thus: "It is a familiar rule of statutory construction that to the extent of any necessary
repugnancy between a general and a special law or provision, the latter will control the
former without regard to the respective dates of passage."
F. ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHILE THE LAW MAY BE HARD, IT IS THE LAW THAT WILL BE
FOLLOWED
 Dura Lex Sed Lex - The law may be harsh but it is still the law.
 When the law is clearly worded there is no room for interpretation. It is the sworn duty
of the judge to apply the law without fear or favor. It is not for the courts to decide that
the law is unwise. The duty of the courts is apply the law, whether it is wise or unwise.
 Case: ARNOLD JAMES M. YSIDORO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES G R No 192330,
November 14, 2012
G. ON THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE THAT WITHOUT INTENT, THERE CAN BE NO CRIME
 Cogitationis Poenam Nemo Emeret - No man may be punished for his thought.
Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea - The act itself does not make a man guilty
unless his intention were so.
Actus Me Invito Factus Est Meus Actus - Non An act done by me against my will is not
my act.
 These principles are still applicable. Under Article 3 of the Revised Penal Code, the first
element of a felony must be that the act or omission is voluntary. Hence, if the alleged
criminal act is committed by an insane person, he is not criminally liable but he may be
civilly liable.
H. ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT IGNORANCE OF THE LAW EXCUSES NO ONE BUT IGNORANCE OF FACT
MAY BE AN EXCUSE
 Ignorantia Legis Neminem Excusat - Ignorance of the law excuses no one.
Ignorantia Facto Excusat - Ignorance or mistake in point of fact is an excuse.
 The first maxim is still found in Article 3 of the New Civil Code which provides as follows:
"Article 3. Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith." Article 3
applies to all kinds of domestic laws, whether civil or and whether substantive or
remedial.
 The maxim, however, does not apply to the following:
1. Ignorance of foreign law is not ignorance of the law but merely an ignorance of fact.
2. In Tuvera v. Tafiada, a law should first be published before it becomes effective.
I. ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT WHEN THE LAW DOES NOT DISTINGUISH, WE SHOULD NOT
DISTINGUISH
 Ubi Lex Non Distinguit Nec Nos Distiguere Debemos - Where the law does not
distinguish, we should not distinguish.
 The constitutional guarantee of due process is granted to every Filipino, rich or poor,
learned or ignorant, and regardless of his religious belief or political persuasion. Article
III, Section 1 of the constitution provides as follows: "No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws."
III. LATIN MAXIMS AND PHRASES RELATED TO THE SUBJECT OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION
A. MENS LEGISLATORES
 The courts should give the statute a reasonable or liberal construction which will best
effect its purpose rather than one which will defeat it.
B. REDDENDO SINGULA SINGULIS
 Each word or phrase or clause must be referred to their proper connection in order to
give it proper force and effect, rendering none of them useless or superfluous. Literally,
the maxim means, "referring each to each."
C. CASSUS OMISSUS PRO OMISSO HABBENDUS EST
 Literally, this means a case omitted is to be held as intentionally omitted. The cassus
omissus principle means that if a person, object or thing is omitted from an
enumeration in the statute, it must be held to have been intentionally omitted.
D. NOSCITUR A SOCIIS
 Where a particular word or phrase in a statute is ambiguous in itself or is equally
susceptible of various meanings, its true meaning may be made clear and specific by
considering the company in which it is found or with which it is associated.
E. EJUSDEM GENERIS
 When general words follow the designation of particular things, or classes of persons or
subjects, the general words will usually be construed to include only those persons or
things of the same class or general nature as those specifically enumerated.

CHAPTER VIII: INTERPRETATION OF WORDS AND PHRASES USED IN A STATUTE

HOW ARE WORDS AND PHRASES IN A STATUTE INTERPRETED?
It depends. If the words and phrases used are defined in the statute itself, such definition
controls the meaning of the statutory word, irrespective of any other meaning the word or phrase may
have in its ordinary or usual sense If there is no such definition, the words or phrases in the statute
should be interpreted in accordance with its well-accepted meaning and they should be construed in the
light of the context of the whole statute.
IS THE STATUTORY DEFINITION CONCLUSIVE TO THE COURTS?
A statutory definition is not necessarily conclusive to the courts in the following cases:
1.) When such definition creates obvious incongruities.
2.) When it contravenes the major purpose of the statute.
3.) When it becomes illogical as a result of a change in its factual basis.
In such cases, the words will be given a meaning that will serve the purpose of the law, or which
will make the law logical and free from incongruities.
RULES THAT GOVERN THE FOLLOWING SITUATIONS
A. WHEN A WORD USED IN A STATUTE HAS A GENERAL MEANING.
 The general word should not be given a restricted meaning unless it is otherwise
indicated.
 This is founded on the Latin Maxim - GENERALIA VERBA SUN GENERALITER
INTELLIGENCIA, which means that what is generally mentioned shall be generally
understood.
 
Example: The word "hospital" is known to the general public as a place where sick
persons are treated or confined either for medical treatment, medical examination or
operation. In PD No. 1519, otherwise known as the New Medical Care Law, the word
"hospital" is defined as "any medical facility, government or private, accredited in
accordance with rules and regulations by the commission." (The word "commission" in
PD No. 1519 is understood to be the Philippine Medical Commission)
B. WHEN THE WORD USED HAS A TECHNICAL MEANING.
 When the words or phrase used have a technical meaning, they are considered to have
been used in their technical sense.
 Example: The word "marriage" has a very special meaning and technical meaning under
Article 1 of the Family Code of the Philippines which provides: Marriage is a special
contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance
with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life…
 Case: MACASAET v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT G.R. No. 83748, May 12, 1989
C. WHEN THE WORD USED HAS NO MEANING IN HARMONY WITH THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT.
 When the words used have no meaning in harmony with the legislative intent, they can
be treated as surplasage and they may entirely be ignored.
 Before resorting to this, however, the courts should construe the statute in its entirety
'and find out if the words used can still admit a reasonable construction which will give
them force and meaning.
 In the absence of any reasonable construction, then the said words can be ignored.
D. WHEN THE WORD OR PHRASE IS REPEATEDLY USED IN A STATUTE.
 A word or phrase used in one part of a statute shall receive the same interpretation
when used in every other part of the statute, unless a different meaning is intended.
Likewise, when a word or phrase is repeatedly used in a statute, it will, as a rule, bear
the same meaning throughout the statute.
PARTICULAR WORDS AND PHRASES
A. THE WORD "OR"
 The word or is a disjunctive term which indicates an alternative. Hence, when "or" is
used, the various members of the sentence are to be taken separately.
 As a rule therefore, it should be construed in the sense in which it ordinarily implies,
that it is a disjunctive word.
 The Word "OR," is not disjunctive in the following cases:
1. When the spirit or context of the law warrants it.
2. Although the persons who can pardon the offender under Article 344 of the
Revised Penal Code are mentioned disjunctively, the said provision should be
construed to mean that the right to institute criminal proceedings in said cases
is exclusively and successively reposed in said persons in the order in which they
are named.
B. THE WORD 'AND"
 The word "and" is a conjunctive term, and if it is used in a sentence, it means that the
members of a sentence are to be taken jointly.
 The word "and" may mean "or" if this is the plain intention of the legislature which
could be gleaned from the context of the statute.
 C. THE TERM "AND/OR"
 The use of the term "and /o?' means that effect shall be given to both the conjunctive
"and" and the disjunctive "or' depending on which one will serve the legislative intent.
 Case: ANTONIO D. DAYAO, et al. v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 193643 and FEDERATION
OF PHILIPPINE INDUSTRIES, INC. v. COMELEC, et al., G.R. No. 193704 January 29, 2013.
 Case: CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. SATURNINO DELA CRUZ G.R. No. 158737, August
31, 2004
D. THE WORD "SHALL"
 The word "shall" is imperative. When used in a statute, it operates to impose a duty,
which may be enforced.
 The rule, however, is not absolute. The word "shall" may be construed as "may" when
so required by the context or by the intention of the statute.
 Case: REPUBLIC v. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 79582, April 10, 1989.
E. THE WORD "MAY"
 The word "may" is permissive and it operates to confer jurisdiction.
F. THE WORD "ALL," "EVERY," AND "ANY"
 The word "air may be used in its universal sense or in its comprehensive sense.
 Example: The phrase "all citizens, 18 years of age, must register and vote" includes all
Filipino citizens, male or female, who are eighteen years of age, and not suffering from
any disqualification to vote.
G. THE WORDS "AND SO FORTH,' AND "AND THE LIKE"
 The words "and so forth" refers to those similar to what is enumerated or mentioned
preceding the words "and so forth."
 This is similar to the phrase "and others of similar character."
 Example: "Article 420. The following are property of public dominion: (1) Those
intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges
constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character.
H. NEGATIVE TERMS "CANNOT," "SHALL NOT," AND "NO"
 The use of these words in a statute indicates the intention of the legislature to make the
law mandatory and prohibitive.
 Example: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in
cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it." (Section 15, Article III,
1987 Constitution)
DUE PROCESS OF LAW
Due process of law has procedural and substantive requirements:
1. From the procedural point of view, it simply means that the procedure to be observed
should be fair or as Daniel Webster puts it, it is a "law which hears before it condemns."
2. A substantive requirement of due process is actually a provision against oppressive or
arbitrary laws.
REQUIREMENTS OF DUE PROCESS
The due process clause should be interpreted both as a substantive and as a procedural guarantee.
Hence, the requirements of due process are:
A. SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
 is a guarantee that life, liberty, and property shall not be taken away from anyone
without due process of law.
 If a law is invoked to take away one's life, liberty, and property, the more specific
concern of substantive due process is not to find out whether said law is being enforced
in accordance with procedural formalities but whether or not the said law is a proper
exercise of legislative power. This will necessarily require the following:
1. There must be a valid law upon which it is based.
2. The law must have been passed or approved to accomplish a valid
governmental objective.
3. The objective must be pursued in a lawful manner.
4. The law as well as the means to accomplish the objective must be valid and not
oppressive.
B. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
 refers to the regular methods of procedure to be observed before one's life, liberty or
property, can be taken away from him.
 Simply stated, it means that the procedure to be observed must be fair. Procedural due
process therefore is a guarantee to obtain a fair trial in a court of justice according to
the mode of proceeding applicable to each case.
 TWO ASPECTS:
1. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
The requirements of due process in judicial proceedings, as laid down in Banco
Filipino v. Palanca (37 Phil. 921), are as follows:
a) There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power
to hear and determine the matter before it.
b) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant
and over the property which is the subject matter of the proceeding.
c) The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard.
d) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
2. PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
The requirements of due process in administrative proceedings, as laid down in
Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relations (69 Phil. 635), are as follows:
a) The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one's case
and submit evidence in support thereof.
b) The tribunal must consider the evidence presented.
c) The decision must have something to support itself.
d) The evidence must be substantial.
e) The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the
hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties
affected.
 f) The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and
not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
g) The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its
decision in such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know
the various issues involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.
COURT'S POWER TO CONSTRUE STATUTES ARISES ONLY IF THE STATUTE IS NOT CLEAR
 A statute, which is clear and free from ambiguity, need not be interpreted by the courts. They
must be applied to give effect to the intent expressed in the language of the statute.
 This principle is based on the Latin Maxim DURA LEX SED LEX (The law may be harsh but it is the
law) and in another Latin maxim ABSOLUTA SENTENTIA EXPOSITORE NON INDIGET (When the
language of the law is clear, no explanation of it is required).
 When the law, however, is not clear, or when it is ambiguous, the court is justified to interpret
or construe the statute and to resort to all legitimate aids to construction in order that it can
ascertain the true intent of the statute.
IN THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUING A STATUTE, WHAT ARE THOSE THAT THE COURT CAN DO AND
CANNOT DO?
A. What the court can do?
1. Primarily, the court's duty is to ascertain the true intent of the statute.
2. In the pursuit of this duty, the court can resort to all legitimate aids to construction. These
aids are those found in the law itself, known as intrinsic aids, and those extraneous facts and
circumstances outside of the statute, known as extrinsic aids.
3. It can depart from the language of the statute if by so doing, the legislative purpose could be
carried out.
4. It may correct clerical errors, mistakes or misprints, which, if not corrected, would render
the statute meaningless.
5. It can issue guidelines in applying the statute in order to delineate what the law requires.
B. What the court cannot do?
1. The court cannot speculate as to the intent of the law.
2. The court cannot supply a meaning not found in the phraseology of the law.
3. The court cannot assume a purpose, which is not expressed in the statute.
4. The court cannot change the meaning of the law, especially if the meaning will defeat the
purpose of the law.
5. The court cannot rewrite the law and invade the domain of the legislature (This is known as
JUDICIAL LEGISLATION).
6. The court cannot interpret into the law a requirement, which the law does not prescribe.
7. The court cannot enlarge the scope of the statute and include transactions or situations not
provided by the legislature.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THE STATUTE IS NOT CAPABLE OF INTERPRETATION OR CONSTRUCTION?
When a statute is not capable of construction or interpretation because it fails to express a
meaning, or if the absurdity in the law cannot be reconciled despite resorting to all aids in construction,
it becomes inoperative.
CAN THE SUPREME COURT ABANDON OR OVERRULE ITS EARLIER DECISION?
 The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, may abandon or overrule its earlier decision, if it is right and
proper to do so but the new decision modifying or overruling a doctrine or principle should only be
applied prospectively, and should not apply to parties who had relied on the doctrine and acted on the
faith thereof.
IF THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN A PARTICULAR CASE IS NOT CORRECT, SHOULD IT BE
FOLLOWED BY THE INFERIOR COURTS?
 Unless and until that decision of the Supreme Court is reversed by itself, sitting en banc, it
shall be binding not only upon the inferior courts but also upon all branches of the
government.
 The basis for this is Article 8 of the new Civil Code, which provides as follows: "Article 8.
Judicial decision applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the
legal system of the Philippines."

CHAPTER IX: RULES OF CONSTRUCTION OF CONTRACTS

I. CAN THE CONTRACTING PARTIES ENTER INTO ANY KIND OF AGREEMENT AND ESTABLISH SUCH
TERMS AND CONDITIONS THAT THEY MAY DEEM PROPER?
 The contracting parties may enter into any kind of agreement and establish such terms and
conditions that they like provided that they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs,
public order or public policy.
 Example: An undertaking in a letter agreement premised on the termination of a marital
relation is not only contrary to law but also contrary to Filipino morals and public policy. As
such, any agreement or obligation based on such unlawful consideration and which is
contrary to public policy should be deemed null and void.
II. WHO ARE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT?
 As a rule, "contracts take effect only between the parties, their assigns and heirs," and therefore
generally, its terms cannot determine the rights of third persons.
 The exceptions to this rule are the following:
1. Where the obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible by their NATURE,
by STIPULATION, or by PROVISION of LAW (Article 1311).
2. Where there is a STIPULATION POUR AUTRUI (a stipulation in favor of a third party.)
(Article 1311).
3. Where a third person induces another to violate his contract (Article 1314).
4. Where in some cases, third persons may be adversely affected by a contract where they
did not participate (See Articles 1312, 2150, 2151; Act No. 1956 the Insolvency Law: R.A.
No. 875).
5. Where the law authorizes the creditor to sue on a contract entered into by his debtor
("Accion Directa').
III. WHEN IS IT NECESSARY AND NOT NECESSARY TO INTERPRET THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT?
A. When Necessary
 When the terms of the contract are not clear and there is doubt regarding the intention
of the contracting parties, it becomes necessary to resort to interpretation. This
becomes the duty of the court when the parties decide to seek judicial intervention.
B. When Not Necessary
  When the terms of the contract are clear and leave no doubt upon the intention of the
contracting parties, interpretation of the same is not necessary.

IV. IN CASE OF CONFLICT BETWEEN THE WORDS OF THE CONTRACT AND EVIDENT INTENTION OF THE
PARTIES, WHICH PREVAILS?
The second paragraph of Article 1370 answers the question. It provides as follows: "If the words
appear to be contrary to the evident intention of the parties, the latter shall prevail over the former."
V. HOW TO JUDGE THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES?
Article 1371 of the New Civil Code provides as follows: "In order to judge the intention of the
contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally considered."
VI. RULES GOVERNING THE FOLLOWING:
A. USE OF GENERAL TERMS
 However general terms of a contract may be, they shall not be understood to
comprehend things that are distinct and cases that are different from those upon which
the parties intended to agree.
B. STIPULATIONS THAT ADMIT GENERAL MEANINGS
 If some stipulations of any contract should admit of several meanings, it shall be
understood as bearing that import which is most adequate to render it effectual.
C. USAGE OR CUSTOM OF THE PLACE
 The usage or custom of the place shall be borne in mind in the interpretation of the
ambiguities of a contract, and shall fill the omission of stipulations that are ordinarily
established.
D. OBSCURE WORDS OR STIPULATION
 The interpretation of obscure words or stipulation in a contract shall not favor the party
who caused the obscurity.
VII. RULE IN CASE OF DOUBT AS TO THE PRINCIPAL OBJECT AND AS TO THE INCIDENTAL
CIRCUMSTANCES
When it is absolutely impossible to settle doubts by the rules established in the preceding
articles, and the doubts refer to incidental circumstances of a gratuitous contract, the least transmission
of rights and interests shall prevail. If the contract is onerous, the doubt shall be settled in favor of the
greatest reciprocity of interests.
VIII. OTHER RULES OF INTERPRETATION
 Other rules of interpretation are found in Sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of
Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines.
 Case: SALUN-AT MARQUEZ and NESTOR DELA CRUZ v. ELOISA ESPEJO, et al., G.R. No. 168387,
August 25, 2010.