I. Why the Distinction Matters

Philippine civil law separates (a) the ability to be a holder of rights and obligations from (b) the ability to exercise those rights and obligations through legally effective acts. This distinction is not academic—it determines:

whether a person (or entity) can be a party to legal relations at all;
whether a person’s consent can produce a valid contract;
whether transactions are valid, void, voidable, unenforceable, or rescissible;
whether a person needs a guardian, parental assistance, or court authority to act;
whether an act binds the person, creates liability, or can be annulled.

Philippine law labels these two ideas as juridical capacity and capacity to act (often called legal capacity).

II. Core Definitions Under the Civil Code

A. Juridical Capacity

Juridical capacity is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations—the basic attribute of being a “person” in law, capable of having rights and obligations.

Key characteristics in Philippine civil law:

Inherent in every natural person (human being).
Not a matter of maturity, intelligence, or discretion.
Lost only through death (for natural persons).

In practical terms: a person with juridical capacity can own property, inherit, be owed a debt, be injured and have a right to damages, be a child entitled to support, etc., even if that person cannot personally do legal acts.

B. Capacity to Act (Legal Capacity)

Capacity to act is the power to do acts with legal effect—the ability to exercise rights and undertake obligations by one’s own acts (e.g., to validly give consent, sign contracts, dispose of property, litigate in one’s own name without representation, etc.).

Key characteristics:

Acquired and can be lost or restricted.
Varies depending on status and circumstances (age, mental condition, civil interdiction, etc.).
May be full, limited, or absent for particular acts.

In practical terms: capacity to act determines whether your signature, consent, or decision creates a binding legal result.

III. The Relationship: “Personhood” vs “Power to Perform Legal Acts”

A helpful way to remember:

Juridical capacity answers: “Can the law recognize you (or an entity) as a holder of rights and obligations?”
Capacity to act answers: “Can you yourself validly exercise those rights and assume obligations by your own acts?”

A newborn baby has juridical capacity (the baby can inherit), but does not have capacity to act (the baby cannot sell inherited land).

IV. Statutory Framework: How Philippine Law Structures Capacity

A. Civil Code Provisions on Capacity

The Civil Code lays down three foundational ideas:

Juridical capacity belongs to every natural person and ends only at death.
Capacity to act is acquired and may be restricted or lost.
Restrictions on capacity to act exist for protection, but as a rule they do not automatically erase obligations arising from one’s acts or property relations, except as law provides.

The Civil Code also lists typical circumstances that modify or limit capacity to act, such as:

age,
insanity or imbecility,
being deaf-mute under certain conditions,
penalty (e.g., civil interdiction),
prodigality,
family relations,
alienage,
absence,
insolvency,
trusteeship, and notes that the consequences are governed by special laws.

B. Family Code and Special Laws

Capacity to act is also shaped by:

the Family Code (marriage capacity, parental authority, support, property relations);
laws on guardianship and special proceedings;
corporation law and other statutes for juridical persons;
penal law concepts like civil interdiction (affecting exercise of certain civil rights).

V. A Direct Comparison

1) Nature and Function

Juridical capacity: “legal personality” (ability to have rights/obligations).
Capacity to act: “legal competence” (ability to exercise rights/obligations via acts).

2) Who Has It

Juridical capacity: every natural person; juridical persons as created by law.
Capacity to act: depends—some have full, others limited, others none for specific acts.

3) How It Is Acquired

Juridical capacity (natural persons): inherent upon being a person recognized by law; associated with birth (with protections for the conceived child for favorable purposes).
Capacity to act: generally attained upon reaching the age of majority and having requisite mental capacity, subject to restrictions.

4) How It Is Lost

Juridical capacity: lost only by death (natural persons).
Capacity to act: can be restricted, suspended, or lost due to minority, mental incapacity, civil interdiction, guardianship, insolvency restrictions, etc.

5) Effect on Transactions

Without juridical capacity: there is no “person” in law to hold rights/obligations—legal relations generally cannot attach in the ordinary way.
Without capacity to act: acts may be invalid or defective (often voidable, sometimes void depending on the act and rule), and representation may be required.

VI. Natural Persons: When Juridical Capacity Exists but Capacity to Act Is Limited

Philippine civil law assumes juridical capacity is broad, but capacity to act is variable. The most common limitations arise from age and mental condition.

A. Minority (Under 18)

Under Philippine law, the age of majority is 18. A minor:

has juridical capacity (can be an heir, can own property, can be entitled to support);
typically has limited capacity to act, especially for contracts.

Contractual Consequences

The Civil Code provisions on consent identify persons who are incapable of giving valid consent (commonly including unemancipated minors and certain persons with mental incapacity; also a deaf-mute who does not know how to write under the Civil Code’s traditional formulation). Contracts where consent is defective due to such incapacity are typically voidable (annullable), not automatically void, unless another rule makes them void.

That matters because a voidable contract:

is valid and binding until annulled;
can be ratified (expressly or impliedly) once incapacity is removed (e.g., upon reaching majority);
is subject to rules on restitution and equity.

Protective vs Commercial Reality

A minor’s limited capacity exists primarily to protect the minor from exploitation, but the law also recognizes practical necessities:

minors can incur obligations for necessaries (food, shelter, medical needs) under equitable doctrines;
certain acts may be allowed with parental/guardian assistance or court approval (especially for property dispositions).

B. Mental Incapacity (Insanity, Imbecility, Similar Conditions)

A person with mental incapacity:

retains juridical capacity (still a person in law),
but may lack capacity to act in general or for certain acts.

The law protects such persons by:

treating consent as defective (again often producing voidable contracts);
providing guardianship mechanisms so a guardian can act in the ward’s best interests;
requiring court supervision for major acts, especially dispositions of property.

C. Deaf-Muteness (Under Civil Code Formulations)

Traditional Civil Code text discusses incapacity where a person is a deaf-mute who does not know how to write, tying incapacity to the ability to understand and communicate consent. The key legal concern is not disability per se, but whether the person can understand and validly express consent.

D. Prodigality and Other “Modifying Circumstances”

The Civil Code recognizes that certain conditions may justify limiting capacity to act for protection of property or family interests (historically including prodigality). In practice, this typically interfaces with judicial interventions (guardianship-like remedies) rather than erasing juridical capacity.

E. Civil Interdiction (Penalty)

Civil interdiction is a penal consequence that restricts a convicted person’s exercise of certain civil rights (classically involving rights of parental authority/guardianship and disposition of property). The person remains a legal person (juridical capacity remains), but capacity to act is curtailed in specified ways.

F. Insolvency, Trusteeship, Absence

These do not deny personhood; they regulate how rights are exercised:

insolvency can limit a debtor’s disposition of assets vis-à-vis creditors;
trusteeship can place management/disposition in the hands of a trustee;
absence can trigger representation mechanisms to protect the absentee’s interests and third parties.

VII. Juridical Persons: Capacity Takes a Different Shape

A. Juridical Capacity of Entities

Juridical persons (e.g., corporations, partnerships, associations, foundations where recognized) have juridical capacity because law recognizes them as separate legal persons capable of holding rights and obligations distinct from their members.

B. Capacity to Act of Juridical Persons

For juridical persons, “capacity to act” is not about age or mental state. It is about authority and scope:

A corporation acts through its board and authorized officers.
A partnership acts through partners or authorized managing partners, depending on the partnership agreement and law.
Capacity is limited by:
- the entity’s charter/purpose (e.g., corporate purposes),
- law and regulation,
- articles/bylaws or governing documents,
- agency authority rules (who is authorized to bind the entity).

Acts beyond corporate powers may raise ultra vires issues (and separate questions of enforceability, estoppel, and protection of third parties depending on circumstances).

VIII. Practical Legal Consequences of the Distinction

A. On Contracts and Consent

Many disputes boil down to: Was there valid consent by a party with capacity to act?

Common outcomes:

Voidable contracts where a party lacked capacity to consent (e.g., minor, certain mental incapacity), subject to annulment and ratification rules.
Unenforceable contracts where authority/representation requirements were not met (e.g., certain contracts requiring written authority; certain agency problems).
Void contracts where the law declares an act void regardless of capacity (e.g., illegal object/cause, absolute simulations, acts prohibited by law, etc.).

Capacity to act often determines whether the contract is merely defective but salvageable (voidable) or a nullity (void), depending on the governing provision.

B. On Property Dispositions

A person may own property (juridical capacity) but may be unable to sell, mortgage, or donate it without:

guardian action,
parental/guardian assistance,
court approval (especially for minors’ or wards’ property),
compliance with protective regimes (e.g., family property rules, conjugal/property regimes).

C. On Marriage and Family Acts

Marriage and many family-related acts require a specific legal capacity:

marriage capacity is governed by the Family Code (including minimum age and absence of impediments);
parental authority and adoption-related acts have their own capacity requirements;
dispositions involving family property and property regimes may need spousal consent, depending on the governing regime.

Here, “capacity” is not just general capacity to act, but special capacity for a particular status-based act.

D. On Litigation

A person may have rights (juridical capacity) but may need representation in court if lacking capacity to act:

minors sue and are sued through parents/guardians;
judicially declared incompetents sue and are sued through guardians;
juridical persons act through authorized representatives.

IX. Subtleties: Capacity Is Often “General,” “Special,” or “Relative”

Philippine civil law practice recognizes that capacity to act is not always all-or-nothing.

A. General vs Special Capacity

General capacity to act: broad ability to enter contracts and manage affairs.
Special capacity: required for particular acts (e.g., making a will, donating, marrying, adopting, alienating certain protected property, consenting in certain regulated transactions).

A person may be generally capable yet lack special capacity for a specific act because the law imposes extra requirements.

B. Relative Disqualifications (Incapacity with Respect to Certain Persons or Things)

Some rules restrict transactions not because a person is generally incapable, but because the law prevents conflicts of interest or undue influence (e.g., certain persons disqualified from receiving donations or inheritances in specific circumstances; certain fiduciaries restricted from acquiring property under their administration). These are not “lack of juridical capacity”—they are targeted legal prohibitions affecting the validity of acts.

X. Typical Illustrations (Philippine Context)

Infant heir
- A child inherits land from a parent.
- The child clearly has juridical capacity to own and inherit.
- But the child lacks capacity to act to sell the land; a guardian and often court approval are required.
Person with severe mental incapacity
- The person owns a bank account and is entitled to support (juridical capacity).
- The person cannot validly execute contracts without the legal safeguards; acts may be voidable or otherwise defective due to lack of capacity to give consent (capacity to act).
Corporation
- The corporation can own property and sue (juridical capacity).
- It can only act through authorized persons and within its powers; an unauthorized officer’s signature can fail to bind the corporation depending on authority and third-party protections (capacity to act through organs/agents).
Convicted person under civil interdiction
- Still a legal person with rights and obligations (juridical capacity).
- But cannot validly exercise certain civil rights (restricted capacity to act).

XI. Common Misconceptions Cleared Up

Misconception 1: “If you lack capacity to act, you have no rights.”

Not true. You can have extensive rights (property, inheritance, support, damages claims) because those flow from juridical capacity, not from capacity to act.

Misconception 2: “All acts by minors are void.”

Not generally. Many are voidable, and some are valid depending on the act, the law’s protective policies, and later ratification. The classification depends on the Civil Code rule involved and the nature of the transaction.

Misconception 3: “Disability automatically means incapacity.”

Philippine civil law focuses on legal ability to understand and consent (and statutory categories), not mere labels. Modern practice is careful to distinguish impairment from legal incapacity and to apply protective measures proportionate to the situation.

Misconception 4: “Juridical capacity and capacity to act are the same.”

They are distinct by design: one concerns having rights, the other concerns exercising rights by acts.

XII. A Working Summary

Juridical capacity = the basic attribute of legal personhood: the ability to be a holder of rights and obligations. For natural persons, it is inherent and ends only at death.
Capacity to act = the ability to produce legal effects through one’s acts (valid consent, valid transactions, valid exercise of rights). It is acquired and can be limited by law for protective or regulatory reasons.
Many civil-law issues—especially in contracts, property, family relations, and litigation—depend on which capacity is involved and what the specific law says about the consequences (void, voidable, representation required, court approval required, etc.).

XIII. Practical Checklist for Analyzing Any “Capacity” Problem

When a Philippine civil law question involves “capacity,” analyze in this order:

Is there a person recognized by law?
- If yes → juridical capacity is present (for natural persons, typically assumed).
Is the issue actually about the ability to do the act?
- If yes → capacity to act is the focus.
What is the source of the limitation?
- minority, mental incapacity, penalty, trusteeship/insolvency, family relation rule, or a special disqualification?
What does the governing rule say is the effect?
- void? voidable? unenforceable? requires representation? requires court approval?
Who may challenge and what remedies exist?
- annulment, ratification, restitution, guardianship remedies, protection of third parties, etc.

This article is for general educational discussion of Philippine civil law concepts and is not legal advice for any specific case.