Text of the provision
Art. 24. In all contractual, property or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvantage on account of his moral dependence, ignorance, indigence, mental weakness, tender age or other handicap, the courts must be vigilant for his protection.
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
This is the principle of parens patriae in private law. Where one party to a relationship is weaker — through moral dependence, ignorance, poverty, mental weakness, tender age, or any handicap — the courts must actively protect them. It underlies the special scrutiny courts give to contracts of adhesion, transactions with illiterates, and dealings that exploit inequality.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 19 — justice and good faith in all relations.
- Article 1332 — burden on the party who drafted a contract with an illiterate (once built).
Cases citing this article
- Antonio Baclig vs. the Rural Bank of Cabugao, Inc., Florante R. Rigunay, Miguel A. Frando and the Register of Deeds of Ilocos Sur, G.R. No. 230200, July 3, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Domingo and Lourdes Paguyo vs. Pierre Astorga, et al, G.R. No. 130982, September 16, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Silvestre and Celia Pascual vs. Rodrigo V. Ramos, G.R. No. 144712, July 4, 2002 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Estrella Pabalan vs. Vasabude Sabnani, G.R. No. 211363, February 21, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- The Commission on Audit, represented by its Chairman, The Bureau of Internal Revenue, represented, G.R. No. 188760 / G.R. No. 189060 / G.R. No. 189333, June 30, 2020 — 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.