All things which are not outside the commerce of men may be the object of a contract (Civil Code, Article 1347). Accordingly, a contract whose objects is outside the commerce of men is inexistent and void from the beginning (Civil Code, Article 1409).
The Civil Code, or any other law, does not contain a definition of the phrase “outside the commerce of men”. The phrase does not refer to “impossible things or services,” as there are covered by a separate provision in the Civil Code (Article 1348). Neither does it refer to “services which are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy,” as these are also covered by a separate provision in the Civil Code (Article 1347, third paragraph). What we have are illustrative cases to shed light on what constitutes “outside (or within) the commerce of men”.
For instance, public roads and other properties for public use are outside the commerce of man, and may not be the subject of lease or other contracts. Property of public dominion is outside the commerce of man and, hence, it: (1) cannot be alienated or leased or otherwise be the subject matter of contracts; (2) cannot be acquired by prescription against the State; (3) is not subject to attachment and execution; and (4) cannot be burdened by any voluntary easement.
In other words, property belonging to the public domain, or those owned by the State such as forest or timber land or mineral land, is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be titled and any title which may be issued is void. There is no prescription or estoppel in questioning the acquisition, even if a title has been issued in favor of an “innocent purchaser”.
The status of a person is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be lost or acquired by prescription. An action for the recognition of natural children may be brought during the lifetime of the presumed parents.
The corpse of an individual is outside the commerce of man. However, the law recognizes that a certain right of possession over the corpse exists, for the purpose of a decent burial, and for the exclusion of the intrusion by third persons who have no legitimate interest in it. This quasi-property right, arising out of the duty of those obligated by law to bury their dead, also authorizes them to take possession of the dead body for purposes of burial to have it remain in its final resting place, or to even transfer it to a proper place where the memory of the dead may receive the respect of the living.
[Sources: Villarico vs. Sarmiento, G.R. No. 136438, 11 November 2004; Pahang vs. Sotto, G.R. No. L-21175, 15 July 1968; Dacanay vs Asistio, Jr., G.R. No. 93654, 6 May 1992; Valino vs. Adriano, G.R. No. 182894, 22 April 2014)
- Twin-Notice Rule and Procedural Requirements in Employment Termination Proceedings - June 3, 2020
- When Travel Pass is Needed for Interzonal Travel during Community Quarantine - June 1, 2020
- Can Companies Compel Employees to Work during the General Community Quarantine (GCQ) and Impose Disciplinary Sanctions - May 29, 2020