Text of the provision
Art. 2254. No vested or acquired right can arise from acts or omissions which are against the law or which infringe upon the rights of others.
(n)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
A transitional rule from the 1950 changeover: no vested or acquired right can arise from acts or omissions that are against the law or that infringe the rights of others.
The principle behind this article is that unlawful conduct cannot become the source of a legal entitlement simply because time has passed or because no one objected right away. If a right could be built out of an act that broke the law or trampled someone else's rights, the law would end up rewarding the very conduct it forbids. As a transitional rule, it made clear that the shift to the new Code did not retroactively legitimize anything that had been unlawful under the law in force when it was done.
Questions about this provision
- Can I claim a vested or acquired right in something I obtained through an unlawful act or by infringing another's rights?
- I occupied land illegally for years and now claim I have acquired a vested right to stay — does the law recognize vested rights arising from unlawful acts?
Related provisions
- Article 2253 — Old Law Governs Prior Acts.
- Article 2255 — Conditional Acts Before Effectivity.
Cases citing this article
- Energy Development Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 203367, March 17, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. Team Sual Corporation (formerly Mirant Sual Corporation), G.R. No. 194105, February 5, 2014 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue vs. San Roque Power Corporation/Taganito Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue/Philex Mining Corporation vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, G.R. No. 187485 / G.R. No. 196113 / G.R. No. 197156, February 12, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Commission on Internal Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117982, February 3, 1997 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.