Short answer. Juridical capacity is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations — to hold rights and duties — while capacity to act is the power to do acts with legal effect, such as making contracts. Article 37 makes the first inherent in every person and lost only at death; the second is acquired and can be lost.
What the law says
Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, is inherent in every natural person and is lost only through death.
Civil Code, Article 37 — Juridical Capacity and Capacity to Act. Read the full provision →
What the law says
Capacity to act, which is the power to do acts with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost.
Civil Code, Article 37 — Juridical Capacity and Capacity to Act. Read the full provision →
Juridical capacity: the fitness to hold rights
Article 37 draws a fundamental distinction. The first concept is juridical capacity, which the article describes this way: Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, is inherent in every natural person and is lost only through death. This is a passive quality — the mere capacity to hold rights and be bound by obligations, to be a party to legal relationships at all. Every human being has it simply by being a person: a newborn, a person in a coma, and a person with a severe disability all possess juridical capacity equally. It cannot be taken away by anyone, and it ends only when the person dies. It is the baseline of legal personality.
Capacity to act: the power to do legal acts
The second concept is capacity to act, which the article defines as follows: Capacity to act, which is the power to do acts with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost. This is the active side — not just the ability to hold rights, but the power to exercise them, to enter a valid contract, make a will, file a case, or otherwise produce legal consequences by one's own acts. Unlike juridical capacity, it is not automatic. It is acquired — most importantly on reaching the age of majority — and it may be lost or restricted, for example by insanity or other conditions the law recognises. So a person can fully be a subject of rights yet not be able, on their own, to act on them.
How the two fit together
The relationship between them is the key to the article. Juridical capacity can exist alone — a young child or a person deprived of reason has it — but capacity to act cannot exist without juridical capacity, because you cannot exercise rights you have no fitness to hold. When the two are united in the same person, the law speaks of full civil capacity: the person both holds rights and can validly act on them. A gap between the two explains many everyday situations. A minor owns property (juridical capacity) but generally cannot by himself sell it (limited capacity to act), which is why a parent or guardian acts for those who hold rights but cannot yet fully exercise them.
Why the distinction matters
This is not mere theory; it decides whether an act someone performed is valid. If a person lacks or has restricted capacity to act — because of minority, insanity, or another recognised cause — a contract or other act they attempt on their own may be void or voidable, even though their juridical capacity is intact. That is how the law protects those who cannot fully look after their own affairs. What Article 37 does not do is list every circumstance that limits capacity to act, or fix the effects of each; those are spelled out in other provisions and depend on the specific incapacity. Where a transaction's validity turns on someone's capacity, it is worth checking the details with counsel.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Heirs of Antonio Lopez vs. Spouses Felix and Marita Empaynado, G.R. No. 196517, November 11, 2024 — read the decision on LawPhil →