Article 23 of the Civil Code

 

Persons 16: Article 23 of the Civil Code (lexinmotion)

“Now that we have covered Articles 19 to 21, the rest of the provisions in this chapter of the Civil Code are merely reading matters. Babalik tayo sa mas detailed na pagpapaliwanag, pagdating natin sa Article 36 of the Civil Code.

Tinuturing silang mga reading matters, kapatid, dahil heto ang mga provision ng batas na lalaktawan lang sa klase. Hindi sila masyadong pinag-uusapan, kahit sa mga textbooks na ginagamit natin, dahil walang masyadong discussion dito ang Supreme Court o hindi rin sila itinatanong sa bar exam.”

 

Continuation of unjust enrichment ang Art. 23

 

Article 23 of the Civil Code provides that, “Even when an act or event causing damage to another’s property was not due to the fault or negligence of the defendant, the latter shall be liable for indemnity if through the act or event he was benefited.

 

Note: If there is one thing you can take away from this lesson, it is this: When you read and analyze the law, always go back to the context of each codal provision. Where the provision is placed or how it is written will tell you a lot about the reason for the law, the intention of those who wrote the law and how the law should be understood.

 

For Art. 23 to apply, the requisites are:

1. There must be an act or event which causes damage;
2. The damage is caused upon another person’s property;
3. The defendant must have been benefited from the act or event;
4. The defendant is still liable even if there is no fault or negligence on his part.

 

When these four requisites are present, then the person is liable for indemnity. The basis of the indemnity is the degree to which he or she has been benefited. This is because Article 23 is a follow-up to the principle of unjust enrichment. The law makes a person liable for damages even if he had no participation in the act or event so long as he or she gains some benefit therefrom.

 

In this scenario, is X liable for the burning of the houses of Y and Z? If yes, then what would be the basis for holding X liable?

 

Answer: Yes, X is liable. There must be some specific provision of the law that was violated. In this case, the facts are not enough for us to hold X liable under Art. 20.

X could have violated certain health and safety standards when it comes to the handling of the LPG, we do not know if his business is registered or not. If it is then that’s the specific provision of the law that he violated. The LGU will not issue a business permit if certain safety standards are not met. If it is unregistered, then that can also be the specific law that X has violated which has precipitated the burning of the houses of Y and Z. For these reasons, X cannot be held liable under Article 20.

 

X is liable under Article 2176 of the Civil Code. This is the very heart of the subject called Torts and Damages. Art. 2176 provides that, “Whoever by act or or omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. XXX”

 

X here is liable because he omitted the necessary steps - the steps of an ordinary man of reasonable intelligence would take to ensure his action was safe. He could have repaired his gate by any other means that did not involve open flames or sparks.