Philippine Laws on Persons and Family Relations

Succession, as provided by the Civil Code, is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights, and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are transmitted through his death to another or others either by his will or by operation of law. Succession is a derivative mode of acquiring ownership whereby only persons with legal capacity may own properties, acquire rights, and incur obligations. It is contemplated that the heirs’ rights to the succession are transmitted only from the moment of the death of the decedent-- a notion which is embodied as well in Article 777 of the Civil Code. Nonetheless, the decedent has the right to designate an heir by executing a will in compliance with the formalities required by law. This is called a testamentary succession. Other forms of succession are (1) legal succession which takes place if a person dies without a will and (2) mixed succession is that effected partly by will and partly by operation of law.

Even so, a testator may revoke a will at any time before his death and any waiver or restriction of this right is void. In fact, the law even recognizes the revocation of a will done outside the Philippines so long as it is done according to the law of the place where the will was made, or according to the law of the place in which the testator had his domicile at the time. This paper aims to present an extensive understanding of the revocation of succession under the Civil Code and the Family Code of the Philippines by discussing the modes available to the decedent, including its subsequent legal effects.

The private respondent, Cristito Mata, filed a complaint against the herein petitioner with the Municipal Court of Digos Davao del Sur, for the collection of damages and attorney's fees. After trial, judgment was rendered in favor of the private respondent. A copy of the decision was received by the petitioner on 8 June 1977, and the following day, 9 June 1977, he filed a notice of appeal with the said municipal court, and on 24 June 1977, he completed the other requirements for the perfection of an appeal, including the filing of an appeal bond and the payment of the appellate court docket fee. However, when the case was elevated to the Court of First Instance of Davao Del Sur for the consideration of the appeal, the presiding judge thereof ruled that the appeal was filed beyond the reglementary period; consequently, he dismissed the appeal. Petitioner's contention that when he received a copy of the decision of the municipal court on June 8, 1977, he perfected his appeal on June 24, 1977 which is only fifteen (15) days had elapsed so the decision of the Court of First Instance of Davao del Sur in dismissing his appeal, for having been filed beyond the reglementary period, is erroneous and contrary to law. The petitioner contended that the computation of the TITLE NAMARCO vs. Tecson GR NUMBER 29 SCRA 70 DATE August 27, 1969 PONENTE Concepcion; CJ NATURE/KEYWO RDS Prescription, Computing a period FACTS November 14, 1955: the Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment in Civil Case No. 20520 ent itl ed "Price Stabilization Corporation vs. Miguel D. Tecson and Alto Surety and Insurance Co., Inc." o Defendants will jointly and severally pay plaintiff PRATRA the sum of P7,200.00 plus 7% interest plus P500.00 for attorney's fees , and plus costs. Defendant Miguel Tecson must indemnify Alto Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. November 21, 1955: A copy of the decision was served upon the defendants. December 21, 1965: National Marketing Corporation, the successor of Price Stabilization Corporation, filed a complaint, Civil Case No. 63701, against the same defendants for the revival of the judgment rendered in Case No. 20520. Defendant Miguel Tecson moved to dismiss said complaint based on the lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and prescription of action. February 14, 1966: Court issued an order reading which stated that: Lack of jurisdiction: the matter of jurisdiction must be admitted. Prescription: Plaintiff admits that court decision became final on December 21, 1955. The case was filed December 21, 1965. The Plaintiff forgot the 1960 and 1964 were leap years and so, more than 10 years have passed. A year having 365 days each (Art 13, Civil Code of the Philippines). The complaint made by Namarco was dismissed as having been prescribed. ISSUE(S) Whether or not the complaint of Namarco should be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction and prescription. RULING(S) Judgment affirmed. There is prescription as years are to be understood as 365 days; hence, 1960 and 1964 being leap years, so that ten years of 365 days each or an aggregate of 3,650 days from December 21, 1955 expired on December 19, 1965.

THE PRESENT CRIMINAL PENALTY SYSTEM OF THE PHILIPPINES:
A VIOLATION OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF OFFENDERS AND
PROOF OF THE FAILURE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO COMPLY WITH ITS DUTY.

A visit to prisons in the Philippines will reveal the sorry state of our penitentiary system and how the current situation defeats its purpose and intent – to punish the crimes of offenders and to rehabilitate offenders to become productive members of society once again.
The Bill of Rights protects every human being from deprivation of “life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” and guarantees “the equal protection of law.” Thus, every human being, no matter what his social, economic and legal standing in the community, remains entitled to the equal protection of law. Commission of crime does not deprive a person of his or her basic human rights.
The Constitution provides that “No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against” the convicts. Another section of the Bill of Rights provides: “Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua. The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.”
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights further provides for the respect of the human rights of offenders. It emphasizes the need for a penitentiary system that aims the reformation and social rehabilitation of offenders to prepare them to rejoine the outside community. The same is also provided for in other international declarations and conventions, especially as provided for in the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.
In addition to reinforcing respect for the human rights of offenders, our laws prescribe as well that the State ensure the rehabilitation and the reformation of all those who will be rejoining the outside community by virtue of the doctrine of parens patriae and the inherent right of the State to exercise its police power. Article II of the 1987 Constitution provides that it is the prime duty of the government to serve and protect the people, to maintain peace and order, and to protect life, liberty, and property and to promote the general welfare, which are all essential for the people to enjoy the blessings of democracy. This two-edged mandate to enhance the human rights of offenders and to provide for their rehabilitation bring to fore, not only the present jail conditions in the country but also the extent of the integration of the rehabilitative penalty system into criminal justice system.
Justice Jorge Coquia refers to “the prison and correctional systems in the Philippines as the repository of the criminal justice system that provides for the safekeeping and the rehabilitation of prisoners and detainees.” However, while our laws on criminal penalties are strong on the punitive aspect, they seem to be wanting in the rehabilitative aspect.
This situation makes us face the following questions: “In the absence of the rehabilitative phase, is our present criminal penalty system violative of the rights of the convict? What is the responsibility of the State as regards the reformation of convicts vis-à-vis the human rights of convicts? When the community takes back a convict who has served his sentence, what is the assurance of the community that he has truly reformed? What is the liability of the State in case the convict commits new crimes? Is not the State neglectful of its responsibility to ensure that the community is welcoming back a supposedly ‘rehabilitated convict?’”

According to the Rules of Court parol evidence is not admissible to prove an agreement made upon the consideration of marriage other than a mutual promise to marry. 1 This litigation calls for application of that rule. In the justice of the peace court of Basud, Camarines Norte, Felipe Cabague and his son Geronimo sued the defendant Matias Auxilio and his daughter Socorro to recover damages resulting from defendants' refusal to carry out the previously agreed marriage between Socorro and Geronimo. The complaint alleged, in short: (a) that defendants promised such marriage to plaintiffs, provided the latter would improve the defendants' house in Basud and spend for the wedding feast and the needs of the bride; (b) that relying upon such promises plaintiffs made the improvement and spent P700; and (c) that without cause defendants refused to honor their pledged word. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the contract was oral, unenforceable under the rule of evidence hereinbefore mentioned. And the court dismissed the case. On appeal to the Court of First Instance, the plaintiffs reproduced their complaint and defendants reiterated their motion to dismiss. From an order of dismissal this appeal was perfected in due time and form. It should be observed preliminarily that, under the former rules of procedure, when the complaint did not state whether the contract sued on was in writing or not, the statute of frauds could be no ground for demurrer. Under the new Rules "defendant may now present a motion to dismiss on the ground that the contract was not in writing, even if such fact is not apparent on the face of the complaint. The fact may be proved by him." (Moran Rules of Court 2d ed. p. 139 Vol. I.) There is no question here that the transaction was not in writing. The only issue is whether it may be proved in court. The understanding between the plaintiffs on one side and the defendants on the other, really involves two kinds of agreement. One, the agreement between Felipe Cabague and the defendants in consideration of the marriage of Socorro and Geronimo. Another, the agreement between the two lovers, as "a mutual promise to marry". For breach of that mutual promise to marry, Geronimo may sue Socorro for damages. This is such action, and evidence of such mutual promise is admissible. 2 However Felipe Cabague's action may not prosper, because it is to enforce an agreement in consideration of marriage. Evidently as to Felipe Cabague and Matias Auxilio this action could not be maintained on the theory of "mutual promise to marry". 3 Neither may it be regarded as action by Felipe against Socorro "on a mutual promise to marry." Consequently, we declare that Geronimo may continue his action against Socorro for such damages as may have resulted from her failure to carry out their mutual matrimonial promises. Wherefore this expediente will be returned to the lower court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. So ordered.

EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, vs. ATTY. LEO J. PALMA
Adm. Case No. 2474           
September 15, 2004

Eduardo and Atty. Palma met sometime in the 70's. Eduardo was a client of well-known law firm and Atty. Palma was the lawyer assigned to handle his cases. Because of his growing business concerns, Eduardo decided to hire Atty. Palma as his personal counsel.

Consequently, Atty. Palma's relationship with Eduardo's family became intimate. He traveled and dined with them abroad. He frequented their house and even tutored Eduardo's 22-year old daughter Lisa, who was then a college student.

On June 22, 1982, without the knowledge of complainant's family, respondent married Lisa in Hongkong.

Art. 149. The family, being the foundation of the nation, is a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects. Consequently, family relations are governed by law and no custom, practice or agreement destructive of the family shall be recognized or given effect. spending for primary health care, basic education and development assistance. Third. They (the leaders) were asked to submit their programs to UN organizations for monitoring.

The third edition of this book was inspired by the authors' desire to help prepare the law students in their quest to become members of the legal profession. It contains not only the most recent laws pertaining to Family Law, but also the most recent and relevant decisions of the Supreme Court. It has been designed in a very simple way so that the reader will easily understand the law and jurisprudence cited. Undoubtedly, it will help not only law students but bar candidates, lawyers, judges, and laymen as well.

TITLE XIII USE OF SURNAME Concept of Name NAME 5. "Civil registrar general" refers to the Administrator of the National Statistics Office which is the agency mandated to carry out and administer the provision of laws on civil registration. 6. "First name" refers to a name or nickname given to a person which may consist of one or more names in addition to the middle and last names. SECTION 3. Who May File the Petition and Where.-Any person having direct and personal interest in the correction of a clerical or typographical error in an entry and/or change of first name or nickname in the civil register may file, in person, a verified petition with the local civil registry office of the city or municipality where the record being sought to be corrected or changed is kept. In case the petitioner has already migrated to another place in the country and it would not be practical for such party, in terms of transportation expenses, time and effort to appear in person before the local civil registrar keeping the documents to be corrected or changed, the petition may be filed, in person, with the local civil registrar of the place where the interested party is presently residing or domiciled. The two (2) local civil registrars concerned will then communicate to facilitate the processing of the petition. Citizens of the Philippines who are presently residing or domiciled in foreign countries may file their petition, in person, with the nearest Philippine Consulates. The petitions filed with the city or municipal civil registrar or the consul general shall be processed in accordance with this Act and its implementing rules and regulations. All petitions for the clerical or typographical errors and/or change of first names or nicknames may be availed of only once. SECTION 4. Grounds for Change of First Name or Nickname.-The petition for change of first name or nickname may be allowed in any of the following cases: SECTION 10. Implementing Rules and Regulations.-The civil registrar general shall, in consultation with the Department of Justice, the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Office of the Supreme Court Administrator, the University of the Philippines Law Center and the Philippine Association of Civil Registrars, issue the necessary rules and regulations for the effective implementation of this Act not later than three (3) months from the effectivity of this law. SECTION 11. Retroactivity Clause.-This Act shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code and other laws. SECTION 12. Separability Clause.-If any portion or provision of this Act is declared void or unconstitutional, the remaining portions or provisions thereof shall not be affected by such declaration. SECTION 13. Repealing Clause.-All laws, decrees, orders, rules and regulations, other issuances, or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. SECTION 14. Effectivity Clause.-This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its complete publication in at least two (2) national newspapers of general circulation. Approved.

Philippine private law promotes the rights and interests of children. It emphasizes that their welfare is paramount in all questions relating to their care, custody, education and property, and enumerates the duties and obligations of parents to safeguard and protect them by ensuring their moral and mental development.

However, the Philippines has no law which provides for or recognizes shared parenting. Neither is there any law which recognizes divorce, civil partnerships, or same-sex marriages. Thus there is no express rule which specifically applies to the children of such relationships.

Nevertheless, the absence of any Philippine law on divorce, same-sex relationships, civil partnerships, or shared parenting does not mean that the Philippine legal framework has not considered, and does not protect the best interests of the children of these and all other relationships. But this should not stop us from looking for other ways to further enhance the protections that our children are legally entitled to.

Since Philippine private law is based on the Spanish Civil Code, their legal commonalities and shared histories should be more than enough impetus for Philippine lawmakers and policymakers to look into Spanish law, for the purpose of further enhancing and protecting the best interests of the Filipino child.

Do the Appeal and the Supreme Court decisions in Prest case provide needed clarification of the law relating to the court’s jurisdiction in ancillary relief proceedings to order the transfer of properties to a party, when the properties legally belong not to the other party but to its companies?

The family law is the expression of values and principles on which is based the entire social fabric. However , the definition of "family"-because of the socioeconomic and cultural changes of recent years-varies from State to State, and assumes different connotations even within the same legal system. The present report proposes to analyze the working method of the Commission on European Family Law (CEFL), which is founded to promote, on the basis of "Principles" elaborated on issues of importance and topicality, a European process of harmonization of the Family Law.

Presently, House Bill No. 4994, known as the Bangsamoro Basic Law, is in the hands of the Philippine Congress. This bill is the culmination of several years of negotiations between the Philippine government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF)— negotiations that have the primary purpose of securing lasting peace for the Bangsa Moro (Moro Nation) of Mindanao. Indeed, from the time of that Spanish conquistadores (with their swords and the Christian cross) landed on Philippine shores almost five centuries ago, peace has eluded the Muslims of Mindanao. Sadly, the Spanish colonizers introduced a type of Christianity via “massive military and religious campaigns to subdue local armed resistance and stamp out indigenous religious beliefs and practices.”1 It is thus said of the Muslim sons and daughters of Mindanao that, from the mid-16th century up to the very present, “There is no Moro generation that has not fought or witnessed war in their homeland.”2 As a consequence of struggling against often vastly superior forces, the Muslims of the Philippines who previously had dominion over those islands have now become an impoverished minority in their own homeland.3