Text of the provision
Art. 5. Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity.
(4a)
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
An act done in violation of a mandatory law (one that commands) or a prohibitory law (one that forbids) is generally void — it produces no legal effect. The exception is where the law itself, despite the violation, chooses to uphold the act's validity (for example, marking a term as merely voidable, or validating a defective act for the sake of innocent parties).
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 6 — when rights may (and may not) be waived.
- Article 3 — ignorance of such laws is no excuse.
Cases citing this article
- Platon and Librada Ceruila vs. Rosilyn Delantar, et al, G.R. No. 140305, December 9, 2005 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- 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 →
- Philippine National Bank, substituted by Tranche 1 (SPV-AMC), Inc. vs. Rina Parayno Lim and Puerto Azul Land, Inc, G.R. No. 171677, January 30, 2013 — 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 →
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.