Family Code; Retroactive Application; Vested Rights (2000)

On April 15, 1980, Rene and Angelina were married to each other without a marriage settlement. In 1985, they
acquired a parcel of land in Quezon City. On June 1, 1990, when Angelina was away in Baguio, Rene sold the said lot to
Marcelo. Is the sale void or voidable?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The sale is void. Since the sale was executed in 1990, the Family Code is the law applicable. Under Article 124 of the
FC, the sale of a conjugal property by a spouse without the consent of the other is void.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The sale is voidable. The provisions of the Family Code may apply retroactively but only if such application will not
impair vested rights. When Rene and Angelina got married in 1980, the law that governed their property relations was
the New Civil Code. Under the NCC, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Heirs of Felipe v. Aldon, 100 SCRA 628 and
reiterated in Heirs of Ayuste v. Malabonga, G.R. No. 118784, 2 September 1999, the sale executed by the husband
without the consent of the wife is voidable. The husband has already acquired a vested right on the voidable nature of
dispositions made without the consent of the wife. Hence, Article 124 of the Family Code which makes the sale void
does not apply.

Property Relations; Obligations; Benefit of the Family (2000)

As finance officer of K and Co., Victorino arranged a loan of P5 Million from PNB for the corporation. However, he was
required by the bank to sign a Continuing Surety Agreement to secure the repayment of the loan. The corporation
failed to pay the loan, and the bank obtained a judgment against it and Victorino, jointly and severally. To enforce the
judgment, the sheriff levied on a farm owned by the conjugal partnership of Victorino and his wife Elsa. Is the levy
proper or not?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The levy is not proper there being no showing that the surety agreement executed by the husband redounded to the
benefit of the family. An obligation contracted by the husband alone is chargeable against the conjugal partnership
only when it was contracted for the benefit of the family. When the obligation was contracted on behalf of the family
business the law presumes that such obligation will redound to the benefit of the family. However, when the obligation
was to guarantee the debt of a third party, as in the problem, the obligation is presumed for the benefit of the
third party, not the family. Hence, for the obligation under the surety agreement to be chargeable against the
partnership it must be proven that the family was benefited and that the benefit was a direct result of such agreement,
(Ayala Investment v. Ching, 286 SCRA 272)

Property Relations; Unions without Marriage (2000)

For five years since 1989, Tony, a bank Vice-president, and Susan, an entertainer, lived together as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage although they were capacitated to many each other. Since Tony’s salary was more than
enough for their needs, Susan stopped working and merely “kept house”. During that period, Tony was able to buy a
lot and house in a plush subdivision. However, after five years, Tony and Susan decided to separate.

a) Who will be entitled to the house and lot?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Tony and Susan are entitled to the house and lot as co- owners in equal shares. Under Article 147 of the Family Code,
when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other lived exclusively with each other as husband
and wife, the property acquired during their cohabitation are presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts,
work or industry and shall be owned by them in equal shares. This is true even though the efforts of one of them
consisted merely in his or her care and maintenance of the family and of the household.

b) Would it make any difference if Tony could not marry Susan because he was previously married to Alice from whom
he is legally separated?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, it would make a difference. Under Article 148 of the Family Code, when the parties to the cohabitation could not
marry each other because of an impediment, only those properties acquired by both of them through their actual joint
contribution of money, property, or Industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their
respective contributions. The efforts of one of the parties in maintaining the family and household are not considered
adequate contribution in the acquisition of the properties.

Since Susan did not contribute to the acquisition of the house and lot, she has no share therein. If Tony cohabited with
Susan after his legal separation from Alice, the house and lot is his exclusive property. If he cohabited with Susan
before his legal separation from Alice, the house and lot belongs to his community or partnership with Alice.
Marriage; Legal Separation; Declaration of Nullity (2002)

If drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only during the marriage,
would this constitute grounds for a declaration of nullity or for legal separation, or would they render the marriage
voidable?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In accordance with law, if drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only during
the marriage, they:
a) Will not constitute as ground for declaration of nullity (Art. 36, Family Code);
b) Will constitute as grounds for legal separation (Art. 56, FC) and
c) will not constitute as grounds to render the marriage voidable (Art.45and 46, FC)

Parental Authority; Special Parental Authority; Liability of Teachers (2003)

If during class hours, while the teacher was chatting with other teachers in the school corridor, a 7 year old male pupil
stabs the eye of another boy with a ball pen during a fight, causing permanent blindness to the victim, who could be
liable for damages for the boy’s injury: the teacher, the school authorities, or the guilty boy’s parents? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The school, its administrators, and teachers have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child
while under their supervision, instruction or custody (Article 218, FC). They are principally and solidarily liable for the
damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor unless they exercised the proper diligence
required under the circumstances (Article 219, FC). In the problem, the TEACHER and the SCHOOL AUTHORITIES
are liable for the blindness of the victim, because the student who cause it was under their special parental authority
and they were negligent. They were negligent because they were chatting in the corridor during the class period when
the stabbing incident occurred. The incident could have been prevented had the teacher been inside the classroom
at that time. The guilty boy’s PARENTS are subsidiarily liable under Article 219 of the Family Code

Marriage; Requisites; Marriage License (2002)

On May 1, 1978 Facundo married Petra, by whom he had a son Sotero. Petra died on July 1, 1996, while Facundo died
on January 1, 2002. Before his demise, Facundo had married, on July 1, 2002, Quercia. Having lived together as
husband and wife since July 1, 1990, Facundo and Quercia did not secure a marriage license but executed the requisite
affidavit for the purpose.
To ensure that his inheritance rights are not adversely affected by his father second marriage, Sotero now brings
a suit to seek a declaration of the nullity of the marriage of Facundo and Quercia, grounded on the absence of a valid
marriage license. Quercia contends that there was no need for a marriage license in view for her having lived
continuously with Facundo for five years before their marriage and that has Sotero has no legal personality to seek a
declaration of nullity of the marriage since Facundo is now deceased.
A. Is the marriage of Facundo and Quercia valid despite the absence of a marriage license? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The marriage with Quercia is void. The exemption from the requirement of a marriage license under Art, 34,
Family Code, requires that the man and woman must have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years
and without any legal impediment to marry each other during those five years. The cohabitation of Facundo and
Quercia for six years from 1990 to July 1, 1996 when Petra died was one with a legal impediment hence, not in
compliance with the requirement of law. On other hand, the cohabitation thereafter until the marriage on July 1, 2000,
although free from legal impediment, did not meet the 5-year cohabitation requirement.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The marriage of Facundo and Quercia is VALID. The second marriage was solemnized on July 1, 2000, when the Family
code was already affective. The family code took effect on August 3, 1988. Under the Family Code, no marriage license
is required if the parties have been cohabiting for the period of five years and there is no legal impediment. There must
no legal impediment only at the time of the solemnization of the marriage, and not the whole five years period. This is
clearly the intent of the code framers (see Minutes of the 150th joint Civil Code of the Family Law Committees held on
August 9, 1986). Also in Manzano v. Sanchez, AM No. MT-00-129, March 8, 2001, the Supreme Court said that, as one
of the requisites for the exception to apply, there must be no legal impediment at the time of the marriage. The
Supreme Court did not say that the legal impediment must exist all throughout the five-year period.
This is different from the case of Nināl v. Bayadog, (328 SCRA 122 [2000]). In the said case, the situation occurred
during the Relations of the new Civil Code where Article 76 thereof clearly provides that during the five-year
cohabitation, the parties must be unmarried. This is not so anymore in the Family Code. The Change in the Family
Code is significant. If the second marriage occurred before the effectivity of the Family Code, the answer would that be
that the marriage is void.
B. Does Sotero have the personality to seek the declaration of nullity of the marriage, especially now that Facundo is
already deceased? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B. A void marriage may be questioned by any interested party in any proceeding where the resolution of the issue is
material. Being a compulsory heir, Soterro has the personality to question the validity of the marriage of
Facundo and Quercia. Otherwise, his participation in the estate on Facundo would be affected. (Ninãl v.Bayadog, 328
SCRA 122 [2000] ).
Marriage; Void Marriages; Psychological Incapacity (2002)

A. Give a brief definition or explanation of the term “psychological incapacity” as a ground for the declaration of
nullity of a marriage.

B. If existing at the inception of marriage, would the state of being of unsound mind or the concealment of drug
addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism be considered indicia of psychological incapacity? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. “PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY” is a mental disorder of the most serious type showing the incapability of one or both
spouses to comply the essential marital obligations of love, respect, cohabitation, mutual help and support, trust and
commitment. It must be characterized by Juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability and its root causes must be
clinically identified or examined. (Santos v. CA, 240 SCRA 20 [1995]).

B. In the case of Santos v. Court of Appeals, 240 SCRA 20 (1995), the Supreme Court held that being of unsound
mind, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality may be indicia of psychological incapacity,
depending on the degree of severity of the disorder. However, the concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism,
lesbianism or homosexuality is a ground of annulment of marriage.

Parental Authority; Child under 7 years of age (2006)

Under Article 213 of the Family Code, no child under 7 years of age shall be separated from the mother unless the
court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise.

(1) Explain the rationale of this provision.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The rationale of the 2nd paragraph of Article 213 of the Family Code is to avoid the tragedy of a mother who sees her
baby torn away from her. It is said that the maternal affection and care during the early years of the child are
generally needed by the child more than paternal care (Hontiveros v. IAC, G.R. No. 64982, October 23, 1984;
Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code, Volume One, pp. 718-719). The general rule is that a
child below 7 years old shall not be separated from his mother due to his basic need for her loving care (Espiritu v.
C.A., G.R. No. 115640, March 15,1995).

(2) Give at least 3 examples of “compelling reasons” which justify the taking away from the mother’s custody of
her child under 7 years of age.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. The mother is insane (Sempio-Diy, Hand book on the Family Code of the Philippines, pp. 296-297);
b. The mother is sick with a disease that is communicable and might endanger the health and life of the child;
c. The mother has been maltreating the child;
d. The mother is engaged in prostitution;
e. The mother is engaged in adulterous relationship;
f. The mother is a drug addict;
g. The mother is a habitual drunk or an alcoholic;
h. The mother is in jail or serving sentence.

Marriage; Grounds; Declaration of Nullity: Annulment: Legal Separation: Separation of Property

(2003)

Which of the following remedies, i.e., (a) declaration of nullity of marriage, (b) annulment of marriage, (c) legal
separation, and/or (d) separation of property, can an aggrieved spouse avail himself/herself of-
(i) If the wife discovers after the marriage that her husband has “AIDS”.
(ii) If the wife goes (to) abroad to work as a nurse and refuses to come home after the expiration of her three-year
contract there.
(iii) If the husband discovers after the marriage that his wife has been a prostitute before they got married.
(iv) If the husband has a serious affair with his secretary and refuses to stop notwithstanding advice from relatives and
friends.
(v) If the husband beats up his wife every time he comes home drunk.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(i) Since AIDS is a serious and incurable sexually- transmissible disease, the wife may file an action for
annulment of the marriage on this ground whether such fact was concealed or not from the wife, provided that
the disease was present at the time of the marriage. The marriage is voidable even though the husband
was not aware that he had the disease at the time of marriage.
(ii) If the wife refuses to come home for three (3) months from the expiration of her contract, she is
presumed to have abandoned the husband and he may file an action for judicial separation of property. If the refusal
continues for more than one year from the expiration of her contract, the husband may file the action for legal
separation under Art. 55 (10) of the Family Code on the ground of abandonment of petitioner by respondent
without justifiable cause for more than one year. The wife is deemed to have abandoned the husband when she leaves
the conjugal dwelling without any intention of returning (Article 101, FC). The intention not to return cannot be
presumed during the 30year period of her contract.

(iii) If the husband discovers after the marriage that his wife was a prostitute before they got married, he has no
remedy. No misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute fraud as legal
ground for an action for the annulment of marriage (Article 46 FC).

(iv) The wife may file an action for legal separation. The husband’s sexual infidelity is a ground for legal separation
9Article 55, FC). She may also file an action for judicial separation of property for failure of her husband to comply with
his martial duty of fidelity (Article 135 (4), 101, FC).

(v) The wife may file an action for legal separation on the ground of repeated physical violence on her person
(Article 55 (1), FC). She may also file an action for judicial separation of property for failure of the husband to comply
with his marital duty of mutual respect (Article 135 (4), Article 101, FC). She may also file an action for declaration of
nullity of the marriage if the husband’s behavior constitute psychological incapacity existing at the time of the
celebration of marriage.

Paternity & Filiation; Recognition of Illegitimate Child (2005)

Steve was married to Linda, with whom he had a daughter, Tintin. Steve fathered a son with Dina, his secretary of 20
years, whom Dina named Joey, born on September 20, 1981. Joey’s birth certificate did not indicate the father’s
name. Steve died on August 13, 1993, while Linda died on December 3, 1993, leaving their legitimate daughter, Tintin,
as sole heir. On May 16, 1994, Dina filed a case on behalf of Joey, praying that the latter be declared an acknowledged
illegitimate son of Steve and that Joey be given his share in Steve’s estate, which is now being solely held by Tintin.
Tintin put up the defense that an action for recognition shall only be filed during the lifetime of the presumed
parents and that the exceptions under Article 285 of the Civil Code do not apply to him since the said article has been
repealed by the Family Code. In any case, according to Tintin, Joey’s birth certificate does not show that Steve is his
father.

a) Does Joey have a cause of action against Tin tin for recognition and partition? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Joey does not have a cause of action against Tintin for recognition and partition. Under Article 175 of the Family
Code, as a general rule, an action for compulsory recognition of an illegitimate child can be brought at any
time during the lifetime of the child. However, if the action is based on “open and continuous possession of the status
of an illegitimate child, the same can be filed during the lifetime of the putative father.”

In the present case, the action for compulsory recognition was filed by Joey’s mother, Dina, on May 16,1994, after the
death of Steve, the putative father. The action will prosper if Joey can present his birth certificate that bears the
signature of his putative father. However, the facts clearly state that the birth certificate of Joey did not indicate the
father’s name. A birth certificate not signed by the alleged father cannot be taken as a record of birth to prove
recognition of the child, nor can said birth certificate be taken as a recognition in a public instrument (Reyes v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 39537, March 19, 1985). Consequently, the action filed by Joey’s mother has already prescribed.

b) Are the defenses set up by Tin tin tenable? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the defenses of Tintin are tenable. In Tayag v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 95229, June 9,1992), a complaint to
compel recognition of an illegitimate child was brought before effectivity of the Family Code by the mother of a minor
child based on “open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child.” The Supreme Court held that the
right of action of the minor child has been vested by the filing of the complaint in court under the regime of the Civil
Code and prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. The ruling in Tayag v. Court of Appeals finds no application in the
instant case. Although the child was born before the effectivity of the Family Code, the complaint was filed after its
effectivity. Hence, Article 175 of the Family Code should apply and not Article 285 of the Civil Code.

c) Supposing that Joey died during the pendency of the action, should the action be dismissed? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If Joey died during the pendency of the action, the action should still be dismissed because the right of Joey or his
heirs to file the action has already prescribed. (Art. 175, Family Code)
Paternity & Filiation; Recognition of Illegitimate Child (2005)

Steve was married to Linda, with whom he had a daughter, Tintin. Steve fathered a son with Dina, his secretary of 20
years, whom Dina named Joey, born on September 20, 1981. Joey’s birth certificate did not indicate the father’s
name. Steve died on August 13, 1993, while Linda died on December 3, 1993, leaving their legitimate daughter, Tintin,
as sole heir. On May 16, 1994, Dina filed a case on behalf of Joey, praying that the latter be declared an acknowledged
illegitimate son of Steve and that Joey be given his share in Steve’s estate, which is now being solely held by Tintin.
Tintin put up the defense that an action for recognition shall only be filed during the lifetime of the presumed
parents and that the exceptions under Article 285 of the Civil Code do not apply to him since the said article has been
repealed by the Family Code. In any case, according to Tintin, Joey’s birth certificate does not show that Steve is his
father.

a) Does Joey have a cause of action against Tin tin for recognition and partition? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Joey does not have a cause of action against Tintin for recognition and partition. Under Article 175 of the Family
Code, as a general rule, an action for compulsory recognition of an illegitimate child can be brought at any
time during the lifetime of the child. However, if the action is based on “open and continuous possession of the status
of an illegitimate child, the same can be filed during the lifetime of the putative father.”

In the present case, the action for compulsory recognition was filed by Joey’s mother, Dina, on May 16,1994, after the
death of Steve, the putative father. The action will prosper if Joey can present his birth certificate that bears the
signature of his putative father. However, the facts clearly state that the birth certificate of Joey did not indicate the
father’s name. A birth certificate not signed by the alleged father cannot be taken as a record of birth to prove
recognition of the child, nor can said birth certificate be taken as a recognition in a public instrument (Reyes v. Court of
Appeals, G.R. No. 39537, March 19, 1985). Consequently, the action filed by Joey’s mother has already prescribed.

b) Are the defenses set up by Tin tin tenable? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the defenses of Tintin are tenable. In Tayag v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 95229, June 9,1992), a complaint to
compel recognition of an illegitimate child was brought before effectivity of the Family Code by the mother of a minor
child based on “open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child.” The Supreme Court held that the
right of action of the minor child has been vested by the filing of the complaint in court under the regime of the Civil
Code and prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. The ruling in Tayag v. Court of Appeals finds no application in the
instant case. Although the child was born before the effectivity of the Family Code, the complaint was filed after its
effectivity. Hence, Article 175 of the Family Code should apply and not Article 285 of the Civil Code.

c) Supposing that Joey died during the pendency of the action, should the action be dismissed? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If Joey died during the pendency of the action, the action should still be dismissed because the right of Joey or his
heirs to file the action has already prescribed. (Art. 175, Family Code)

Paternity &Filiation; Rights of Legitimate Children (1990)

B and G (college students, both single and not disqualified to marry each other) had a romantic affair, G was seven
months in the family way as of the graduation of B. Right after graduation B went home to Cebu City. Unknown to G, B
had a commitment to C (his childhood sweetheart) to marry her after getting his college degree. Two weeks after B
marriage in Cebu City, G gave birth to a son E in Metro Manila.

After ten years of married life in Cebu, B became a widower by the sudden death of C in a plane crash. Out of the
union of B and C, two children, X and Y were born. Unknown to C while on weekend trips to Manila during the last 5
years of their marriage, B invariably visited G and lived at her residence and as a result of which, they renewed their
relationship. A baby girl F was born to B and G two years before the death of C. Bringing his family later to Manila, B
finally married G. Recently. G died.

What are the rights of B’s four children: X and Y of his first marriage; and E and F, his children with G? Explain your
answer.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Under the facts stated, X and Y are legitimate children of B and C. E is the legitimate children of B and G. E is the
legitimated child of B&G. F is the illegitimate child of B and C. As legitimate children of B and C, X and Y have the
following rights:

1) To bear the surnames of the father and the mother, in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code on
Surnames;
2) To receive support from their parents, their ascendants, and in proper cases, their brothers and sisters, in-
conformity with the provisions of the Family Code on Support; and
3) To be entitled to the legitime and other successional rights granted to them by the Civil Code. (Article 174, Family
Code).

E is the legitimated child of B and G. Under Art. 177 of the Family Code, only children conceived and born outside of
wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to
marry each other may be legitimated. E will have the same rights as X and Y.

F is the illegitimate child of B and G. F has the right to use the surname of G, her mother, and is entitled to support as
well as the legitime consisting of 1/2 of that of each of X, Y and E. (Article 176, Family Code)

Property Relations; Marriage Settlement; Conjugal Partnership of Gains (2005)

Gabby and Mila got married at Lourdes Church in Quezon City on July 10, 1990. Prior thereto, they executed a
marriage settlement whereby they agreed on the regime of conjugal partnership of gains. The marriage settlement was
registered in the Register of Deeds of Manila, where Mila is a resident. In 1992, they jointly acquired a residential
house and lot, as well as a condominium unit in Makati. In 1995, they decided to change their property relations
to the regime of complete separation of property. Mila consented, as she was then engaged in a lucrative business.
The spouses then signed a private document dissolving their conjugal partnership and agreeing on a complete
separation of property.

Thereafter, Gabby acquired a mansion in Baguio City, and a 5-hectare agricultural land in Oriental Mindoro, which he
registered exclusively in his name.

In the year 2000, Mila’s business venture failed, and her creditors sued her for P10,000,000.00. After obtaining a
favorable judgment, the creditors sought to execute on the spouses’ house and lot and condominium unit, as well as
Gabby’s mansion and agricultural land.

a) Discuss the status of the first and the amended marriage settlements.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The marriage settlement between Gabby and Mila adopting the regime of conjugal partnership of gains still subsists. It
is not dissolved by the mere agreement of the spouses during the marriage. It is clear from Article 134 of the Family
Code that in the absence of an express declaration in the marriage settlement, the separation of property between the
spouses during the marriage shall not take place except by judicial order.

b) Discuss the effects of the said settlements on the properties acquired by the spouses.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The regime of conjugal partnership of gains governs the properties acquired by the spouses. All the properties acquired
by the spouses after the marriage belong to the conjugal partnership. Under Article 116 of the Family Code, even if
Gabby registered the mansion and 5-hectare agricultural land exclusively in his name, still they are presumed to be
conjugal properties, unless the contrary is proved.

c) What properties answerable for Mila’s obligations? Explain.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Since all the properties are conjugal, they can be held answerable for Mila’s obligation if the obligation redounded to
the benefit of the family. (Art. 121 [3], Family Code) However, the burden of proof lies with the creditor claiming
against the properties (Ayala Investment v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 118305, February 12, 1998, reiterated in
Homeowners Savings & Loan Bank v. Dailo, G.R. No. 153802, March 11, 2005).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Except for the residential house which is the family home, all other properties of Gabby and Mila may be held
answerable for Mila’s obligation. Since the said properties are conjugal in nature, they can be held liable for debts and
obligations contracted during the marriage to the extent that the family was benefited or where the debts were
contracted by both spouses, or by one of them, with the consent of the other.

A family home is a dwelling place of a person and his family. It confers upon a family the right to enjoy such
property, which must remain with the person constituting it as a family home and his heirs. It cannot be seized by
creditors except in special cases. (Taneo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R.No.108532, March 9,1999)
Marriage; Void Marriages (2004)

A. BONI and ANNE met while working overseas. They became sweethearts and got engaged to be married on New
Year’s Eve aboard a cruise ship in the Caribbean. They took the proper license to marry in New York City, where there
is a Filipino consulate. But as planned the wedding ceremony was officiated by the captain of the Norwegian-
registered vessel in a private suite among selected friends.

Back in Manila, Anne discovered that Boni had been married in Bacolod City 5 years earlier but divorced in Oslo
only last year. His first wife was also a Filipina but now based in Sweden. Boni himself is a resident of Norway where
he and Anne plan to live permanently.

Anne retains your services to advise her on whether her marriage to Boni is valid under Philippine law? Is there
anything else she should do under the circumstances?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If Boni is still a Filipino citizen, his legal capacity is governed by Philippine Law (Art. 15 Civil Code). Under
Philippine Law, his marriage to Anne is void because of a prior existing marriage which was not dissolved by the
divorce decreed in Oslo. Divorce obtained abroad by a Filipino is not recognized.

If Boni was no longer a Filipino citizen, the divorce is valid. Hence, his marriage to Anne is valid if celebrated in
accordance with the law of the place where it was celebrated. Since the marriage was celebrated aboard a
vessel of Norwegian registry, Norwegian law applies. If the Ship Captain has authority to solemnize the marriage
aboard his ship, the marriage is valid and shall be recognized in the Philippines.

As to the second question, if Boni is still a Filipino, Anne can file an action for declaration of nullity of her marriage to
him.

Parental Authority; Substitute vs.Special (2004)

Distinguish briefly but clearly between: Substitute parental authority and special parental authority.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

In substitute parental authority, the parents lose their parental authority in favor of the substitute
who acquires it to the exclusion of the parents.

In special parental authority, the parents or anyone exercising parental authority does not
lose parental authority. Those who are charged with special parental authority exercise such authority
only during the time that the child is in their custody or supervision.

Substitute parental authority displaces parental authority while special parental authority concurs with parental
authority.

Paternity & Filiation; Common-Law Union (2004)

A. RN and DM, without any impediment to marry each other, had been living together without benefit of church
blessings. Their common-law union resulted in the birth of ZMN. Two years later, they got married in a civil
ceremony. Could ZMN be legitimated? Reason.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

ZMN was legitimated by the subsequent marriage of RN and DM because at the time he was conceived, RN and DM
could have validly married each other. Under the Family Code children conceived and born outside of wedlock of
parents who, at the time of the former’s conception, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other are
legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents.

Marriage; Psychological Incapacity (2006)

Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage,
shall be void. Choose the spouse listed below who is psychologically incapacitated. Explain.
a) Nagger
b) Gay or Lesbian
c) Congenital sexual pervert
d) Gambler
e) Alcoholic
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The best answers are B and C. To be sure, the existence and concealment of these conditions
at the inception of marriage renders the marriage contract voidable (Art. 46, Family Code). They may serve as indicia
of psychological incapacity, depending on the degree and severity of the disorder (Santos v. CA, G.R. No. 112019, Jan.
4, 1995). Hence, if the condition of homosexuality, lesbianism or sexual perversion, existing at the inception
of the marriage, is of such a degree as to prevent any form of sexual intimacy, any of them may qualify as a ground
for psychological incapacity. The law provides that the husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual
love, respect and fidelity (Art. 68, Family Code). The mandate is actually the spontaneous, mutual affection between
the spouses. In the natural order it is sexual intimacy which brings the spouses wholeness and oneness (Chi Ming Tsoi
v. CA, G.R.No.119190, January 16,1997).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
None of them are necessarily psychologically incapacitated. Being a nagger, etc. are at best only physical
manifestations indicative of psychological incapacity. More than just showing the manifestations of incapacity, the
petitioner must show that the respondent is incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage
and that it is also essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological, not physical
illness (Republic v. Quintero-Hamano, G.R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A congenital sexual pervert may be psychologically incapacitated if his perversion incapacitates him from discharging
his marital obligations. For instance, if his perversion is of such a nature as to preclude any normal sexual activity with
his spouse.

Marriage; Void Marriages (2006)

Gigi and Ric, Catholics, got married when they were 18 years old. Their marriage was solemnized on August 2, 1989 by
Ric’s uncle, a Baptist Minister, in Calamba, Laguna. He overlooked the fact that his license to solemnize marriage
expired the month before and that the parties do not belong to his congregation. After 5 years of married life and
blessed with 2 children, the spouses developed irreconcilable differences, so they parted ways.

While separated, Ric fell in love with Juliet, a 16 year-old sophomore in a local college and a Seventh-Day Adventist.
They decided to get married with the consent of Juliet’s parents. She presented to him a birth certificate showing she is
18 years old. Ric never doubted her age much less the authenticity of her birth certificate. They got married in a
Catholic church in Manila. A year after, Juliet gave birth to twins, Aissa and Aretha.

(1) What is the status of the marriage between Gigi and Ric – valid, voidable or void? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Even if the Minister’s license expired, the marriage is valid if either or both Gigi ang Ric beleived in good faith that
he had the legal authority to solemnize marriage. While the authority of the solemnizing officer is a formal requisite of
marriage, and at least one of the parties must belong to the solemnizing officer’s church, the law provides that the
good faith of the parties cures the defect in the lack of authority of the solemnizing officer (Art.35, par.2, Family Code;
Sempio-Diy, p.34; Rabuya, The Law on Persons and Family Relations, p. 208).

The absence of parental consent despite their having married at the age of 18 is deemed cured by their
continued cohabitation beyond the age of 21. At this point, their marriage is valid (See Art. 45, Family
Code).

(2) What is the status of marriage between Ric and Juliet – valid, voidable or void?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The marriage between Juliet and Ric is void. First of all, the marriage is a bigamous marriage not falling under
Article 41 [Art. 35(4)Family Code], A subsisting marriage constitutes a legal impediment to re- marriage.
Secondly, Juliet is below eighteen years of age. The marriage is void even if consented to by her parents [Art. 35(1),
Family Code]. The fact that Ric was not aware of her real age is immaterial.

(3) Suppose Ric himself produced the falsified birth certificate to persuade Juliet to marry him despite her minority
and assured her that everything is in order. He did not divulge to her his prior marriage with Gigi. What action, if any,
can Juliet take against him? Explain. =

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Juliet can file an action for the declaration of nullity of the marriage on the ground that he willfully caused loss or injury
to her in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs and public policy [Art. 21, New Civil Code]. She may also
bring criminal actions for seduction, falsification, illegal marriage and bigamy against Ric.

(4) If you were the counsel of Gigi, what actions will you take to enforce and protect her interests? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

I would file an action to declare the marriage between Juliet and Ric null and void ab initio and for Ric’s share in the co-
ownership of that marriage to be forfeited in favor and considered part of the absolute community in the marriage
between Gigi and Ric [Arts. 148 & 147, Family Code]. I would also file an action for damages against Ric on the
grounds that his acts constitute an abuse of right and they are contrary to law and morals, causing damages to Gigi
(See Arts 19, 20, 21, New Civil Code).

Parental Authority; Child under 7 years of age (2006)

Under Article 213 of the Family Code, no child under 7 years of age shall be separated from the mother
unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise.

(1) Explain the rationale of this provision.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The rationale of the 2nd paragraph of Article 213 of the Family Code is to avoid the tragedy of a mother who sees her
baby torn away from her. It is said that the maternal affection and care during the early years of the child are
generally needed by the child more than paternal care (Hontiveros v. IAC, G.R. No. 64982, October 23, 1984;
Tolentino, Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code, Volume One, pp. 718-719). The general rule is that a
child below 7 years old shall not be separated from his mother due to his basic need for her loving care (Espiritu v.
C.A., G.R. No. 115640, March 15,1995).

(2) Give at least 3 examples of “compelling reasons” which justify the taking away from the mother’s custody of
her child under 7 years of age.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. The mother is insane (Sempio-Diy, Hand book on the Family Code of the Philippines, pp. 296-297);
b. The mother is sick with a disease that is communicable and might endanger the health and life of the child;
c. The mother has been maltreating the child;
d. The mother is engaged in prostitution;
e. The mother is engaged in adulterous relationship;
f. The mother is a drug addict;
g. The mother is a habitual drunk or an alcoholic;
h. The mother is in jail or serving sentence.

Paternity & Filiation; Artificial Insemination; Formalities (2006)

Ed and Beth have been married for 20 years without children. Desirous to have a baby, they consulted Dr. Jun
Canlas, a , prominent medical specialist on human fertility. He advised Beth to undergo artificial insemination. It was
found that Ed’s sperm count was inadequate to induce pregnancy Hence, the couple looked for a willing donor. Andy
the brother of Ed, readily consented to donate his sperm. After a series of test, Andy’s sperm was medically introduced
into Beth’s ovary. She became pregnant and 9 months later, gave birth to a baby boy, named Alvin.

(1) Who is the Father of Alvin? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Andy is the biological father of Alvin being the source of the sperm. Andy is the legal father of Alvin because there was
neither consent nor ratification to the artificial insemination. Under the law, children conceived by artificial insemination
are legitimate children of the spouses, provided, that both of them authorized or ratified the insemination in a
written instrument executed and signed by both of them before the birth of the child (Art. 164, Family Code).

(2) What are the requirements, if any, in order for Ed to establish his paternity over Alvin?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The following are the requirements for Ed to establish his paternity over Alvin:
a. The artificial insemination has been authorized or ratified by the spouses in a written instrument
executed and signed by them before the birth of the child; and
b. The written instrument is recorded in the civil registry together with the birth certificate of the child (Art. 164, 2nd
paragraph, Family Code).

Paternity & Filiation; Common-Law Union (2004)

A. RN and DM, without any impediment to marry each other, had been living together without benefit of church
blessings. Their common-law union resulted in the birth of ZMN. Two years later, they got married in a civil
ceremony. Could ZMN be legitimated? Reason.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ZMN was legitimated by the subsequent marriage of RN and DM because at the time he was conceived, RN and DM
could have validly married each other. Under the Family Code children conceived and born outside of wedlock of
parents who, at the time of the former’s conception, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other are
legitimated by the subsequent marriage of the parents.
Marriage; Legal Separation; Mutual guilt (2006)
Saul, a married man, had an adulterous relation with Tessie. In one of the trysts, Saul’s wife, Cecile, caught them in
flagrante. Armed with a gun, Cecile shot Saul in a fit of extreme jealousy, nearly killing him. Four (4) years after the
incident, Saul filed an action for legal separation against Cecile on the ground that she attempted to kill him.

(1) If you were Saul’s counsel, how will you argue his case?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

As the counsel of Saul, I will argue that an attempt by the wife against the life of the husband is one of the grounds
enumerated by the Family Code for legal separation and there is no need for criminal conviction for the ground to be
invoked (Art. 55, par. 9, Family Code).

(2) If you were the lawyer of Cecile, what will be your defense?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As the counsel of Cecile, I will invoke the adultery of Saul. Mutual guilt is a ground for the dismissal of an action for
legal separation (Art. 56, par. 4, Family Code). The rule is anchored on a well-established principle that one must
come to court with clean hands.

(3) If you were the judge, how will you decide the case?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the judge, I will dismiss the action on the ground of mutual guilt of the parties. The Philippine Constitution
protects marriage as an inviolable social institution (Art. XV, Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution). An action for legal
separation involves public interest and no such decree should be issued if any legal obstacle thereto appears on
record. This is in line with the policy that in case of doubt, the court shall uphold the validity and sanctity of marriage
(Brown v. Yambao, G.R. No. L-10699, October 18, 1957).

Marriage; Non-Bigamous Marriages (2006)

Marvin, a Filipino, and Shelley, an American, both residents of California, decided to get married in their local parish.
Two years after their marriage, Shelley obtained a divorce in California. While in Boracay, Marvin met Manel, a Filipina,
who was vacationing there. Marvin fell in love with her. After a brief courtship and complying with all the requirements,
they got married in Hongkong to avoid publicity, it being Marvin’s second marriage. Is his marriage to Manel valid?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. The marriage will not fall under Art. 35(4) of the Family Code on bigamous marriages, provided that
Shelley obtained an absolute divorce, capacitating her to remarry under her national law. Consequently, the marriage
between Marvin and Manel may be valid as long as it was solemnized and valid in accordance with the laws of
Hongkong [Art. 26, paragraphs 1 and 2, Family Code].

Marriage; Psychological Incapacity (2006)

Gemma filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Arnell on the ground of psychological
incapacity. She alleged that after 2 months of their marriage, Arnell showed signs of disinterest in her, neglected her
and went abroad. He returned to the Philippines after 3 years but did not even get in touch with her. Worse, they met
several times in social functions but he snubbed her. When she got sick, he did not visit her even if he knew of her
confinement in the hospital. Meanwhile, Arnell met an accident which disabled him from reporting for work and earning
a living to support himself.

Will Gemma’s suit prosper? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Gemma’s suit will not prosper. Even if taken as true, the grounds, singly or collectively, do not constitute
“psychological incapacity.” In Santos v. CA, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995, the Supreme Court clearly explained
that “psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability”
(Ferraris v. Ferraris, G.R. No. 162368, July 17, 2006; Choa v. Choa, G.R. No. 143376, November 26, 2002 ). The illness
must be shown as downright incapacity or inability to perform one’s marital obligations, not a mere refusal,
neglect, difficulty or much less, ill will. Moreover, as ruled in Republic v. Molina, G.R. No.108763, February 13,1997, it
is essential that the husband is capable of meeting his marital responsibilities due to psychological and not physical
illness (Antonio v.Reyes, G.R.No.155800, March 10,2006; Republic v. Quintero-Hamano, G.R. No. 149498, May 20,
2004). Furthermore, the condition complained of did not exist at the time of the celebration of marriage.

Marriage; Psychological Incapacity (2006)

Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage,
shall be void. Choose the spouse listed below who is psychologically incapacitated. Explain.
a) Nagger
b) Gay or Lesbian
c) Congenital sexual pervert
d) Gambler
e) Alcoholic
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The best answers are B and C. To be sure, the existence and concealment of these conditions
at the inception of marriage renders the marriage contract voidable (Art. 46, Family Code). They may serve as indicia
of psychological incapacity, depending on the degree and severity of the disorder (Santos v. CA, G.R. No. 112019, Jan.
4, 1995). Hence, if the condition of homosexuality, lesbianism or sexual perversion, existing at the inception
of the marriage, is of such a degree as to prevent any form of sexual intimacy, any of them may qualify as a ground
for psychological incapacity. The law provides that the husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual
love, respect and fidelity (Art. 68, Family Code). The mandate is actually the spontaneous, mutual affection between
the spouses. In the natural order it is sexual intimacy which brings the spouses wholeness and oneness (Chi Ming Tsoi
v. CA, G.R.No.119190, January 16,1997).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
None of them are necessarily psychologically incapacitated. Being a nagger, etc. are at best only physical
manifestations indicative of psychological incapacity. More than just showing the manifestations of incapacity, the
petitioner must show that the respondent is incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage
and that it is also essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological, not physical
illness (Republic v. Quintero-Hamano, G.R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A congenital sexual pervert may be psychologically incapaci- tated if his perversion incapacitates him from discharging
his marital obligations. For instance, if his perversion is of such a nature as to preclude any normal sexual activity with
his spouse.

Capacity: Juridical Capacity (2008)

No. II. At age 18, Marian found out that she was pregnant. She insured her own life and named her unborn child as
her sole beneficiary. When she was already due to give birth, she and her boyfriend Pietro, the father of her
unboarn child, were kidnapped in a resort in Bataan where they were vacationing. The military gave chase and after
one week, they were found in an abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian and Pietro were hacked with bolos. Marian and
the baby delivered were both found dead, with the baby's umbilical cord already cut. Pietro survived.

(A). Can Marian's baby be the beneficiary of the insurance taken on the life of the mother? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the baby can be the beneficiary of the life insurance of Marian. Art. 40 NCC provides that "birth
determines personality; but the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are
favorable to it, provided that it be born later with the conditions specified in Art. 41. Article 41 states
that "for civil purposes, the fetus shall be considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely
delivered from the mother's womb. However, if the fetus had an intra-uterine life of less than seven
months, it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-four (24) hours after its complete delivery from
the maternal womb. The act of naming the unborn child as sole beneficiary in the insurance is favorable
to the conceived child and therefore the fetus acquires presumptive or provisional personality. However,
said presumptive personality only becomes conclusive if the child is born alive. The child need not
survive for twenty-four (24) hours as required under Art. 41 of the Code because "Marian was
already due to give birth," indicating that the child was more than seven months old.

Capacity; Juridical Capacity of Donee; Requisites for Acceptance (2012)

No.I. b) Ricky donated P 1 Million to the unborn child of his pregnant girlfriend, which she accepted. After six (6)
months of pregnancy, the fetus was born and baptized as Angela. However, Angela died 20 hours after birth. Ricky
sought to recover the P 1 Million. Is Ricky entitled to recover? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, Ricky is entitled to recover the P1,000,000.00. The NCC considers a fetus a person for purposes
favorable to it provided it is born later in accordance with the provision of the NCC. While the donation
 is favorable to the fetus, the donation did not take effect because the fetus was not born in accordance
with the NCC.

To be considered born, the fetus that had an intrauterine life of less than seven (7) months should live
for 24 hours from its complete delivery from the mother’s womb. Since Angela had an intrauterine life
of less than seven (7) months but did not live for 24 hours, she was not considered born and, therefore,
did not become a person. Not being a person, she has no juridical capacity to be a donee, hence,
the donation to her did not take effect. The donation not being effective, the amount donated may be
recovered. To retain it will be unjust enrichment.

Capacity: Legal Capacity; Lex Rei Sitae (2007)

No.VII. Write "TRUE" if the statement is true or "FALSE" if the statement is false. If the statement is FALSE, state
the reason. (2% each).

(1). Roberta, a Filipino, 17 years of age, without the knowledge of his parents, can acquire a house in Australia
because Australian Laws allow aliens to acquire property from the age of 16.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

TRUE. Since Australian Law allows alien to acquire property from the age of 16, Roberta may validly
own a house in Australia, following the principle of lex rei sitae enshrined in Art. 16, NCC, which states
"Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated."
Moreover, even assuming that legal capacity of Roberta in entering the contract in Australia is
governed by Philippine Law, she will acquire ownership over the property bought until the contract is
annulled.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

FALSE. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition or legal capacity of persons
are binding upon the citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad (Art. 15, NCC). The age of
majority under Philippine law is 18 years (R.A. No. 6809); hence, Roberta, being only 17 years old, has
no legal capacity to acquire and own land.

Correction of Entries; Clerical Error Act (2008)

No. IV. Gianna was born to Andy and Aimee, who at the time Gianna's birth were not married to each other. While
Andy was single at the time, Aimee was still in the process of securing a judicial declaration of nullity on her
marriage to her ex-husband. Gianna's birth certificate, which was signed by both Andy and Aimee, registered the
status of Gianna as "legitimate", her surname carrying that of Andy's and that her parents were married to each
other.

(A). Can a judicial action for correction of entries in Gianna's birth certificate be successfully maintained to:

a). Change her status from "legitimate" to "illegitimate" (1%);

and

b). Change her surname from that of Andy's to Aimee's maiden surname? (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, a judicial action for correction of entries in Gianna's birth certificate can be successfully maintained
to change (a) her status from "legitimate" to "illegitimate," and (b) her surname from that of Andy's
to Aimee's maiden surname in accordance with Rule 108 of the Rules of Court because said changes are
 substantive corrections.
(B). Instead of a judicial action, can administrative proceedings be brought for the purpose of making the above
corrections? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. An administrative proceeding cannot be brought for the purpose of making the above corrections.
R.A. 9048, otherwise known as the Clerical Error Act, which authorizes the city or municipal civil
registrar or the consul general to correct a clerical or typographical error in an entry and/or change the
first name or nickname in the civil register without need of a judicial order. Errors that involve the
change of nationality, age, status, surname or sex of petitioner are not included from the coverage of
the said Act (Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, 22 Oct., 2007).

Nationality Principle (2009)

No.XII. Emmanuel and Margarita, American citizens and employees of the U.S. State Department, got married in
the African state of Kenya where sterility is a ground for annulment of marriage. Thereafter, the spouses were
assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Manila. On the first year of the spouses’ tour of duty in the Philippines,
Margarita filed an annulment case against Emmanuel before a Philippine court on the ground of her husband’s
sterility at the time of the celebration of the marriage.

(A). Will the suit prosper? Explain your answer. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the suits will not prosper. As applied to foreign nationals with the respect to family relations and
status of persons, the nationality principle set forth in Article 15 of the Civil Code will govern the
relations of Emmanuel and Margarita. Since they are American citizens, the governing law as to the
ground for annulment is not Kenyan Law which Magarita invokes in support of sterility as such ground;
but should be U.S. Law, which is the national Law of both Emmanuel and Margarita as recognized under
Philippine Law. Hence, the Philippine court will not give due course to the case based on Kenyan Law.
The nationality principle as expressed in the application of national law of foreign nationals by Philippine
courts is established by precedents (Pilapil v. Ibay•Somera, 174 SCRA 653[1989], Garcia v. Recio, 366
SCRA 437 [2001], Llorente v. Court of Appeals 345 SCRA 92 [2000], and Bayot v. Court of Appeals 570
SCRA 472 [2008]).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The forum has jurisdiction over an action for the annulment of marriage solemnized elsewhere but only
when the party bringing the actions is domiciled in the forum. In this case, none of the parties to the
marriage is domiciled in the Philippines. They are here as officials of the US Embassy whose stay in the
country is merely temporary, lasting only during their fixed tour of duty. Hence, the Philippine courts
have no jurisdiction over the action.

Nationality Principle; Change of Name not Covered (2009)

No.XX. (A). If Ligaya, a Filipino citizen residing in the United States, files a petition for change of name before the
District Court of New York, what law shall apply? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
New York law shall apply. The petition of change of name filed in New York does not concern the legal
capacity or status of the petitioner. Moreover, it does nto affect the registry of any other country
including the country of birth of the petitioner. Whatever judgment is rendered in that petition will
have effect only in New York. The New York court cannot, for instance, order the Civil Registrar in the
Philippines to change its records. The judgment of the New York court allowing a change in the name of
the petitioner will be limited to the records of the petitioner in New York and the use of her new name
in all transactions in New York. Since the records and processes in New York are the only ones
affected, the New York court will apply New YorK law in resolving the petition.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Philippine law shall apply (Art 15, NCC). Status, conditions, family rights and duties are governed by
Philippine laws as to Filipinos even though sojourning abroad.
ALTENATIVE ANSWER:
If Ligaya, a Filipino, files a petition for change of name with the District Court of New YoRk, the laws of
New York will govern since change of name is not one of those covered by the principles of nationality.

(B). If Henry, an American citizen residing in the Philippines, files a petition for change of name before a Philippine
court, what law shall apply? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Philippine law will apply. The petition for change of name in the Philippines will affect only the records
of the petitioner and his transactions in the Philippines. The Philippine court can never acquire
jurisdiction over the custodian in the US of the records of the petitioner. Moreover, change of name has
nothing to do with the legal capacity or status of the alien. Since Philippine records and transactions are
the only ones affected, the Philippine court may effect the change only in accordance with the laws
governing those records and transactions that law cannot be but Philippine law.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
U.S. law shall apply as it is his national law. This is pursuant to the application of lex patriae or the
nationality principle, by which his legal status is governed by national law, the matter of change of
name being included in the legal status. The Supreme Court has reiterate in several cases, that the lex
patriae as provided in Article 15 of the Civil Code is applicable to foreign nationals in determining their
legal status (supra).

Adoption; Termination; Death of Adopter (2009)

No.XIII. Rafael, a wealthy bachelor, filed a petition for the adoption of Dolly, a one- year old foundling who had a
severe heart ailment. During the pendency of the adoption proceedings, Rafael died of natural causes. The Office
of the Solicitor General files a motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the case can no longer proceed
because of the petitioner’s death.

(A). Should the case be dismissed? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
It depends on the stage of the proceedings when Rafael died. If he died after all the requirements
under the law have been complied with and the case is already submitted for resolution, the court may
grant the petition and issue a decree of adoption despite the death of the adopter (Section 13, RA
8552). Otherwise, the death of the petitioner shall have the effect terminating the proceedings.

(B). Will your answer be the same if it was Dolly who died during the pendency of the adoption proceedings?
Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, if it was Dolly who died, the case should be dismissed. Her death terminates the proceedings (Art.
13, Domestic Adoption Law).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
It depends. If all the requirements under the law have already been complied with and the case is
already submitted for resolution, the death of the adoptee should not abate the proceedings. The court
should issue the decree of adoption if will be for the best interest of the adoptee. While RA8552 provides
only for the case where it is the petitioner who dies before the decree is issued, it is with more
compelling reason that the decree should be allowed in case it is the adoptee who dies because adoption
is primarily for his benefit.
Adoption; Illegitimate Child (2010)

No.VIII. Spouses Rex and Lea bore two children now aged 14 and 8. During the subsistence of their marriage, Rex
begot a child by another woman. He is now 10 years of age.

On Lea’s discovery of Rex’s fathering a child by another woman, she filed a petition for legal separation which was
granted.

Rex now wants to adopt his illegitimate child.

(A) Whose consent is needed for Rex’s adoption of his illegitimate child? (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The consent of the 14-year-old legitimate child, of the 10- year -old illegitimate child and of the
biological mother of the illegitimate child are needed for the adoption (Section 7 and 9, RA 8552). The
consent of Lea is no longer required because there was already a final decree of legal separation.

(B) If there was no legal separation, can Rex still adopt his illegitimate child? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, he can still adopt his illegitimate child but with the consent of his spouse, of his 14-year-old
legitimate child, of the illegitimate child, and of the biological mother of the illegitimate child (Section 7
and 9, RA 8552).

Adoption; Illegitimate Child; Use of Mother’s Surname as Middle Name (2012 and 2014)

No.IV.b) Honorato filed a petition to adopt his minor illegitimate child Stephanie, alleging that Stephanie’s mother is
Gemma Astorga Garcia; that Stephanie has been using her mother’s middle name and surname; and that he is now
a widower and qualified to be her adopting parent. He prayed that Stephanie’s middle name be changed from
"Astorga" to "Garcia," which is her mother’s surname and that her surname "Garcia" be changed to "Catindig," which
is his surname. This the trial court denied. Was the trial court correct in denying Hororato’s request for Stephanie’s
use of her mother’s surname as her middle name? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, the trial court was not correct. There is no law prohibiting an illegitimate child adopted by his
natural father to use as middle name his mother’s surname. The law is silent as to what middle name
an adoptee may use.
In case of In re:
Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, G.R. No. 148311, March 31, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled
that the adopted child may use the surname of the natural mother as his middle name because there is
no prohibition in the law against it. Moreover, it will also be for the benefit of the adopted child who
shall preserve his lineage on his mother’s side and reinforce his right to inherit from his mother
and her family. Lastly, it will make the adopted child conform with the time-honored Filipino tradition
of carrying the mother’s surname as the person’s middle name.

Consent; Consent of the Adopter’s Heirs (2008)

No.V. Despite several relationships with different women, Andrew remained unmarried. His first relationship with
Brenda produced a daughter, Amy, now 30 years old. His second, with Carla, produced two sons: Jon and Ryan.
His third, with Donna, bore him no children although Elena has a daughter Jane, from a previous relationship. His
last, with Fe, produced no biological children but they informally adopted without court proceedings, Sandy's now
13 years old, whom they consider as their own. Sandy was orphaned as a baby and was entrusted to them by the
midwife who attended to Sandy's birth. All the children, including Amy, now live with andrew in his house.

(A). Is there any legal obstacle to the legal adoption of Amy by Andrew? To the legal adoption of Sandy by Andrew
and Elena? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, there is a legal obstacle to the legal adoption of Amy by Andrew. Under Sec. 9(d) of RA 8552, the
New Domestic Adoption Act of 1998, the written consent of the illegitimate sons/daughters, ten (10)
years of age or over, of the adopter, if living with said adopter and the latter's spouse, if any, is
necessary to the adoption. All the children of Andrew are living with him. Andrew needs to get the
written consent of Jon, Ryan, Vina and Wilma, who are all ten (10) years old or more. Sandy's consent
to Amy's adoption is not necessary because she was not legally adopted by Andrew. Jane's consent is
likewise not necessary because she is not a child of Andrew. Sandy, an orphan since birth, is eligible for
adoption under Sec. 8(f) of RA 8552, provided that Andrew obtains the written consent of the other
children mentioned above, including Amy and Elena obtains the written consent of Jane, if she is over
ten years old (Sec. 9(d), RA 8552).

Qualifications of Adopter (2010)

No.IX. Eighteen-year old Filipina Patrice had a daughter out of wedlock whom she named Laurie. At 26, Patrice
married American citizen John who brought her to live with him in the United States of America. John at once
signified his willingness to adopt Laurie.
Can John file the petition for adoption? If yes, what are the requirements? If no, why? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, John cannot file the petition to adopt alone. Philippine law requires husband and wife to adopt
jointly except on certain situations enumerated in the law. The case of John does not fall in any of the
exceptions (R.A. 8552).

Marriage; Annulment; Grounds (2009)

No.XII. Emmanuel and Margarita, American citizens and employees of the U.S. State Department, got married in
the African state of Kenya where sterility is a ground for annulment of marriage. Thereafter, the spouses were
assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Manila. On the first year of the spouses’ tour of duty in the Philippines, Margarita
filed an annulment case against Emmanuel before a Philippine court on the ground of her husband’s sterility at the
time of the celebration of the marriage.

(B). Assume Emmanuel and Margarita are both Filipinos. After their wedding in Kenya, they come back and take up
residence in the Philippines. Can their marriage be annulled on the ground of Emmanuel’s sterility? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the marriage cannot be annulled under the Philippine law. Sterility is not a ground for annulment of
marriage under Article 45 of the Family Code.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, the marriage cannot be annulled in the Philippines.

The Philippine court shall have jurisdiction over the action to annul the marriage not only because the
parties are residents of the Philippines but because they are Filipino citizens. The Philippine court,
however, shall apply the law of the place where the marriage was celebrated in determining its formal
validity (Article 26, FC; Article 17, NCC).

Since the marriage was celebrated in Kenya in accordance with Kenyan law, the formal validity of such
marriage is governed by Kenyan law and any issue as to the formal validity of that marriage shall be
determined by applying Kenyan law and not Philippine law.

However, while Kenyan law governs the formal validity of the marriage, the legal capacity of the
Filipino parties to the marriage is governed not by Kenyan law but by Philippine law (Article 15, NCC).
Sterility of a party as a ground for the annulment of the marriage is not a matter of form but a matter
of legal capacity. Hence, the Philippine court must apply Phillippine law in determining the status of
the marriage on the ground of absence or defect in the legal capacity of the Filipino parties. Since
sterility does not constitute absence or defect in the legal capacity of the parties under Philippine law,
there is no ground to avoid or annul the marriage. Hence, the Philippine court has to deny the petition.

Marriage; Annulment; Grounds (2007)

No. VII. Write "TRUE" if the statement is true or "FALSE" if the statement is false. If the statement is FALSE, state
the reason. (2% each).

(4). The day after John and Marsha got married, John told her that he was impotent. Marsha continued to live
withJohn for 2 years. Marsha is now estopped from filing an annulment case against John.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

FALSE. Marsha is not estopped from filing an annulment case against John on the ground of his
impotence, because she learned of his impotence after the celebration of the marriage and not before.
Physical incapacity to consummate is a valid ground for the annulment of marriage if such incapacity
was existing at the time of the marriage, continues and appears to be incurable. The marriage may be
annulled on this ground within five years from its celebration.

Marriage; Annulment; Parties (2012)

No.IX.b) A petition for declaration of nullity of a void marriage can only be filed by either the husband or the wife?
Do you agree? Explain your answer. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, I agree. Under the rules promulgated by the Supreme Court, a direct action for declaration of
nullity may only be filed by any of the spouses.

ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, I do not agree. There are others who may file a petition for declaration of nullity such as the other
spouse in bigamous marriages.

Marriage; Annulment; Support Pendente Lite (2010)

No.V. G filed on July 8, 2000 a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to B. During the pendency of the
case, the couple entered into a compromise agreement to dissolve their absolute community of property. B ceded
his right to their house and lot and all his shares in two business firms to G and their two children, aged 18 and 19.

B also opened a bank account in the amount of P3 million in the name of the two children to answer for their
educational expenses until they finish their college degrees.

For her part, G undertook to shoulder the day-to-day living expenses and upkeep of the children. The Court
approved the spouses’ agreement on September 8, 2000.

(A) Suppose the business firms suffered reverses, rendering G unable to support herself and the children. Can G
still ask for support pendente lite from B? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If B acquiesces and does not file the action to impugn the legitimacy of the child within the prescriptive
period for doing so in Article 170 of the Family Code, G's daughter by another man shall be conclusively
presumed as the legitimate daughter of B by G.

(B) Suppose in late 2004 the two children had squandered the P3 million fund for their education before they could
obtain their college degrees, can they ask for more support from B? Explain. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, the two children can still ask for support for schooling or training for some professions, trade or
vocation, even beyond the age of majority until they shall have finished or completed their education
(Article 194, Paragraph 2, Family Code; Javier v. Lucero, 94 Phil. 634 {1954}].Their having squandered
the money given to them for their education will not deprive them of their right to complete an
education, or to extinguish the obligation of the parents to ensure the future of their children.

Marriage; Divorce Decrees; Filipino Spouse Becoming Alien (2009)

No.IV. Harry married Wilma, a very wealthy woman. Barely five (5) years into the marriage, Wilma fell in love with
Joseph. Thus, Wilma went to a small country in Europe, became a naturalized citizen of that country, divorced
Harry, and married Joseph. A year thereafter, Wilma and Joseph returned and established permanent residence in
the Philippines.

(A). Is the divorce obtained by Wilma from Harry recognized in the Philippines? Explain your answer. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSRWER :

As to Wilma, the divorced obtained by her is recognized as valid in the Philippines because she is now
a foreigner. Philippine personal laws do not apply to a foreigner. However, recognition of the divorce as
regards Harry will depend on the applicability to his case of the second paragraph of Article 26 of the
Family Code. If it is applicable, divorce is recognized as to him and, therefore, he can remarry.
However, if it is not applicable, divorce is not recognized as to him and, consequently, he cannot
remarry.

ALTERNATIVEANSWER
Yes , the divorce obtained by Wilma is recognized as valid in the Philippines. At the time she got the
divorce, she was already a foreign national having been naturalized as a citizen of that “small
country in Europe.” Based on precedents established by the Supreme Court ( Bayot v. CA, 570 SCRA
472 [2008]), divorce obtained by a foreigner is recognized in the Philippines if validly obtained
in accordance with his or her national law .

(B). If Harry hires you as his lawyer, what legal recourse would you advise him to take? Why? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
I will advice Harry to Dissolve and liquidate his property relations with Wilma ; and

(1) If he will remarry, file a petition for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment of
divorced (Rule 39,Rules of Court ).

(C). Harry tells you that he has fallen in love with another woman, Elizabeth, and wants to marry her because,
after all, Wilma is already married to Joseph. Can Harry legally marry Elizabeth? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER :

Yes, he can validly marry Elizabeth, applying the doctrine laid down by the Supreme Court in Republic
v. Obrecido (427 SCRA 114 [2005]). Under the second paragraph of Article 26 of the Family Code, for
the Filipino spouse to have capacity to remarry, the law expressly requires the spouse who obtained
the divorce to be a foreigner at the time of the marriage. Applying this requirement to the case of Harry
it would seem that he is not given the capacity to remarry. This is because Wilma was a Filipino at the
time of her marriage to Harry.

In Republic v. Obrecido, however, the Supreme Court ruled that a Filipino spouse is given the capacity
to remarry even though the spouse who obtained the divorce was a Filipino at the time of the marriage,
if the latter was already a foreigner when the divorce was already obtained abroad. According to the
court, to rule otherwise will violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Marriage; Divorce Decrees; Foreign Spouse Divorces Filipino Spouse (2012)

(b) Cipriano and Lady Miros married each other. Lady Miros then left for the US and there, she obtained American
citizenship.

Cipriano later learned all about this including the fact that Lady Miros has divorced him in America and that she had
remarried there. He then filed a petition for authority to remarry, invoking Par. 2, Art. 26 of the Family Code. Is
Cipriano capacitated to re-marry by virtue of the divorce decree obtained by his Filipino spouse who was later
naturalized as an American citizen? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes, he is capacitated to remarry. While the second paragraph of Art 26 of the Family Code is applicable
only to a Filipino who married a foreigner at the time of marriage, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of
Republic v. Orbecido, G.R. No. 154380, 5 Oct, 2005, that the said provision equally applies to a Filipino
who married another Filipino at the time of the marriage, but who was already a foreigner when the
divorce was obtained.

Marriage; Divorce Decrees; Foreign Spouse Divorces Filipino Spouse (2010)

No.I. True or False.

(A). Under Article 26 of the Family Code, when a foreign spouse divorces his/her Filipino spouse, the latter may re-
marry byproving only that the foreign spouse has obtained a divorce against her or him abroad. (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER :

FALSE, In Garcia v. Recio , 366 SCRA 437 (2001) , the SC held that for a Filipino spouse to have capacity
to contract a subsequent marriage, it must also be proven that the foreign divorced obtained abroad by
the foreigner spouse give such foreigner spouse capacity to remarry.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

TRUE, Art 26 (2) (FC), clearly provides that the decree of divorce obtained abroad by the foreigner
spouse is sufficient to capacitate the Filipino spouse to remarry.

Marriage; Legal Separation; Prescription (2012)

No.IV.a) After they got married, Nikki discovered that Christian was having an affair with another woman. But Nikki
decided to give it a try and lived with him for two (2) years. After two (2) years, Nikki filed an action for legal
separation on the ground of Christian’s sexual infidelity. Will the action prosper? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Although the action for legal separation has not yet prescribed, the prescriptive period being 5 years, if
Obecido’s affair with another woman was ended when Nikki decided to live with him again, Nikki’s
action will not prosper on account of condonation. However, if such affair is still continuing, Nikki’s
action would prosper because the action will surely be within five (5) years from the commission of
the latest act of sexual infidelity. Every act of sexual liaison is a ground for legal separation.
Marriage; Legal Separation; Prescription (2007)

No.VII. Write "TRUE" if the statement is true or "FALSE" if the statement is false. If the statement is FALSE, state
the reason. (2% each).

(2). If a man commits several acts of sexual infidelity, particularly in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, the prescriptive
period to file for legal separation runs from 2002.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

FALSE. The five-year prescriptive period for filing legal separation runs from the occurrence of sexual
infidelity committed in 2002 runs from 2002, for the sexual infidelity committed in 2003, the
prescriptive period runs from 2003 and so on. The action for legal separation for the last act of sexual
infidelity in 2005 will prescribe in 2010.

Marriage; Psychological Incapacity (2013)

No.I. You are a Family Court judge and before you is a Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage (under
Article 36 of the Family Code)filed by Maria against Neil. Maria claims that Neil is psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the essential obligations of marriage because Neil is a drunkard, a womanizer, a gambler, and a
mama's boy- traits that she never knew or saw when Neil was courting her. Although summoned, Neil did not
answer Maria's petition and never appeared in court.

To support her petition, Maria presented three witnesses- herself, Dr. Elsie Chan, and Ambrosia. Dr. Chan testified
on the psychological report on Neil that she prepared. Since Neil never acknowledged n9r responded to her
invitation for interviews, her report is solely based on her interviews with Maria and the spouses' minor children.
Dr. Chan concluded that Neil is suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, an ailment that she found to be
already present since Neil'searly adulthood and one that is grave and incurable. Maria testified on the specific
instances when she found Neil drunk, with another woman, or squandering the family's resources in a casino.
Ambrosia, the spouses' current household help, corroborated Maria's testimony.

On the basis of the evidence presented, will you grant the petition? (8%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The petition should be denied.

The psychological incapacity under Art. 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b)
juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their
responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of
doing so, due to some physiological (not physical) illness (Republic v. CA and Molina, G.R. No. 108763,
Feb 13, 1997).

In this case, the pieces of evidence presented are not sufficient to conclude that indeed Neil is suffering
from psychological incapacity [Narcissistic Personality Disorder] existing already before the marriage,
incurable and serious enough to prevent Neil from performing his essential marital obligations.
Dr. Chan’s report contains mere conclusions. Being a drunkard, a womanizer, a gambler and a
mama’s boy, merely shows Neil’s failure to perform his marital obligations. In a number of cases, the
Supreme Court did not find the existence of psychological incapacity in cases where the respondent
showed habitual drunkenness (Republic v. Melgar, G.R. No. 139676, 2006), blatant display of infidelity
and irresponsibility (Dedel v. CA, 2004) or being hooked to gambling and drugs (Republic v. Tanyag-
San Jose, G.R. No. 168328, 2007).
 ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes. The petition should be granted.

The personal medical or psychological examination of respondent is not a requirement for declaration
of psychological incapacity. It is the totality of the evidence presented which shall determine the
existence of psychological incapacity (Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, Oct 19, 2000).
Dr. Chan’s report corroborated by Maria’s and Ambrosia’s testimonies, therefore, sufficiently
prove Neil’s psychological incapacity to assume his marital obligations.

Marriage; Psychological Incapacity (2012)

No.II.b) The petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based allegedly on the psychological
incapacity of the respondent, but the psychologist was not able to personally examine the respondent and the
psychological report was based only on the narration of petitioner. Should the annulment be granted? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
respondent, it is required that the
psychologist should personally examine the respondent and the psychological report should be based
on the psychologist’s independent assessment of the facts as to whether or not the respondent is
psychologically incapacitated.

Since, the psychologist did not personally examine the respondent, and his report is based solely on the
story of the petitioner who has an interest in the outcome of the petition, the marriage cannot be
annulled on the ground of respondent’s psychological incapacity if the said report is the only evidence
of respondent’s psychological incapacity.

Marriage; Requisites (2008)

No. III. Roderick and Faye were high school sweethearts. When Roderick was 18 and Faye, 16 years old, they
started to live together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. When Faye reached 18 years of age,
her parents forcibly took her back and arranged for her marriage to Brad. Although Faye lived with Brad after the
marriage, Roderick continued to regularly visit Faye while Brad was away at work. During their marriage, Faye
gave birth to a baby girl, Laica. When Faye was 25 years old, Brad discovered her continued liason with Roderick
and in one of their heated arguments, Faye shot Brad to death. She lost no time in marrying her true love
Roderick, without a marriage license, claiming that they have been continuously cohabiting for more than 5 years.

(A). Was the marriage of Roderick and Faye valid? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The marriage of Roderick and Faye is not valid. Art. 4, FC provides that the absence of any of the
essential or formal requisites renders the marriage void ab initio. However, no license shall be
necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at
least 5 years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. In Republic v. Dayot, G.R. No.
175581, 28 March 2008, reiterating the doctrine in Niñal v. Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, 14 March 2000,
this five- year period is characterized by exclusivity and continuity. In the present case, the
marriage of Roderick and Faye cannot be considered as a marriage of exceptional character, because
there were 2 legal impediments during their cohabitation: minority on the part of Faye, during the first
two years of cohabitation; and, lack of legal capacity, since Faye married Brad at the age of 18. The
absence of a marriage license made the marriage of Faye and Roderick void ab initio.

Marriage; Subsequent Marriage (2008)

No. I. Ana Rivera had a husband, a Filipino citizen like her, who was among the passengers on board a commercial
 jet plane which crashed in the Atlantic Ocean ten (10) years earlier and had never been heard of ever since.
Believing that her husband had died, Ana married Adolf Cruz Staedtler, a divorced German national born of a
German father and a Filipino mother residing in Stuttgart. To avoid being reqiured to submit the required
certificate of capacity to marry from the German Embassy in Manila, Adolf stated in the application for marriage
license that he was a Filipino citizen. With the marriage license stating that Adolf was a Filipino, the couple got
married in a ceremony officiated by the Parish Priest of Calamba, Laguna in a beach in Nasugbu, Batangas, as the
local parish priest refused to solemnize marriages except in his church. Is the marriage valid? Explain fully. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. The marriage is not valid. Art. 41 FC allows the present spouse to contract a subsequent marriage
during the subsistence of his previous marriage provided that: (a) his prior spouse in the first marriage
had been absent for four consecutive years; (b) that the spouse present has a well-founded belief that
the absent spouse was already dead, and c)present spouse instituted a summary proceeding for the
declaration of the presumptive death of absent spouse. Otherwise, the second marriage shall be null and
void. In the instant case, the husband of Ana was among the passengers on board a commercial jet plane which
crashed in the Atlantic Ocean. The body of the deceased husband was not recovered to confirm his death. Thus,
following Art. 41, Ana should have first secured a judicial declaration of his presumptive death before
she married Adolf. The absence of the said judicial declaration incapacitated Ana from contracting her
second marriage, making it void ab initio.

Marriage; Void Marriages; By Reason of Public Policy (2008)

No.V. Despite several relationships with different women, Andrew remained unmarried. His first relationship with
Brenda produced a daughter, Amy, now 30 years old. His second, with Carla, produced two sons: Jon and Ryan. His
third, with Donna, bore him no children although Elena has a daughter Jane, from a previous relationship. His last,
with Fe, produced no biological children but they informally adopted without court proceedings, Sandy's now 13
years old, whom they consider as their own. Sandy was orphaned as a baby and was entrusted to them by the
midwife who attended to Sandy's birth. All the children, including Amy, now live with andrew in his house.

(D). Can Jon and Jane legally marry? (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Yes. Jon and Jane can marry each other; Jon is an illegitimate child of Andrew
while Jane is a child of Elena from a previous relationship. Thus, their marriage is not one of the
prohibited marriages enumerated under Art. 38 of the FC.

Marriage; Void Marriages; By Reason of Public Policy (2007)

No. VII. Write "TRUE" if the statement is true or "FALSE" if the statement is false. If the statement is FALSE, state
the reason. (2% each).

(5). Amor gave birth to Thelma when she was 15 years old. Thereafter, Amor met David and they got married
when she was 20 years old. David had a son, Julian, with his ex-girlfriend Sandra. Julian and Thelma can get
married.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

TRUE. Julian and Thelma can get married. Marriage between stepbrothers and stepsisters are not
among the marriages prohibited under the Family Code.
Marriage; Void Marriages; Property Relations (2009)

No. III. In December 2000, Michael and Anna, after obtaining a valid marriage license, went to the Office of the
Mayor of Urbano, Bulacan, to get married. The Mayor was not there, but the Mayor’s secretary asked Michael and
Anna and their witnesses to fill up and sign the required marriage contract forms. The secretary then told them to
wait, and went out to look for the Mayor who was attending a wedding in a neighboring municipality.

When the secretary caught up with the Mayor at the wedding reception, she showed him the marriage contract
forms and told him that the couple and their witnesses were waiting in his office. The Mayor forthwith signed all the
copies of the marriage contract, gave them to the secretary who returned to the Mayor’s office. She then gave
copies of the marriage contract to the parties, and told Michael and Anna that they were already married.
Thereafter, the couple lived together as husband and wife, and had three sons.

(C). What property regime governs the properties acquired by the couple? Explain. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The marriage being void, the property relationship that governed their union is special co-ownership
under Article 147 of the Family Code. This is on the assumption that there was noimpediment for them
to validity marry each other.

Marriage; Void Marriages; Status of Children (2009)

No. III. In December 2000, Michael and Anna, after obtaining a valid marriage license, went to the Office of the
Mayor of Urbano, Bulacan, to get married. The Mayor was not there, but the Mayor’s secretary asked Michael and
Anna and their witnesses to fill up and sign the required marriage contract forms. The secretary then told them to
wait, and went out to look for the Mayor who was attending a wedding in a neighboring municipality.

When the secretary caught up with the Mayor at the wedding reception, she showed him the marriage contract
forms and told him that the couple and their witnesses were waiting in his office. The Mayor forthwith signed all the
copies of the marriage contract, gave them to the secretary who returned to the Mayor’s office. She then gave
copies of the marriage contract to the parties, and told Michael and Anna that they were already married.
Thereafter, the couple lived together as husband and wife, and had three sons.

(A). Is the marriage of Michael and Anna valid, voidable, or void? Explain your answer. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER :

The marriage is void because the formal requisite of marriage ceremony was absent ( Art.3, F.C. 209,
Family Code).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The marriage is void because an essential requisite was absent: consent of the parties freely given in
the presence of the solemnizing officer (Art .2, FC).

(B). What is the status of the three children of Michael and Anna? Explain your answer. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The children are illegitimate, having been born outside a valid marriage.

Parental Authority; Illegitimate Minor Child (2009)

No.XIV. Rodolfo, married to Sharon, had an illicit affair with his secretary, Nanette, a 19-year old girl, and begot a
baby girl, Rona. Nanette sued Rodolfo for damages: actual, for hospital and other medical expenses in delivering
the child by caesarean section; moral, claiming that Rodolfo promised to marry her, representing that he was single
when, in fact, he was not; and exemplary, to teach a lesson to like-minded Lotharios. When Rona reaches seven (7)
years old, she tells Rodolfo that she prefers to live with him, because he is better off financially than Nanette. If
Rodolfo files an action for the custody of Rona, alleging that he is Rona’s choice as custodial parent, will the court
grant Rodolfo’s petition? Why or why not? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, because Rodolfo has no parental authority over Rona. He who has the parental authority has the
right to custody. Under the Family Code, the mother alone has parental authority over the illegitimate
child. This is true even if illegitimate father recognized the child and even though he is giving support
for the child. To acquire custody over Rona, Rodolfo should first deprive Nanette of parental authority if
there is ground under the law, and in a proper court proceedings. In the same action, the court may
award custody of Rona to Rodolfo if it is for her best interest.

Parental Authority; In Vitro Fertilization (2010)

No.VI. Gigolo entered into an agreement with Majorette for her to carry in her womb his baby via in vitro
fertilization. Gigolo undertook to underwrite Majorette’s pre- natal expenses as well as those attendant to her
delivery. Gigolo would thereafter pay Majorette P2 million and, in return, she would give custody of the baby to
him.

After Majorette gives birth and delivers the baby to Gigolo following her receipt of P2 million, she engages your
services as her lawyer to regain custody of the baby.

(C) Who of the two can exercise parental authority over the child? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Majorette, the mother, can exercise parental authority. Since the child was born out of wedlock, the
child is illegitimate and the mother has the exclusive parental authority and custody over the child.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Gigolo can exercise parental authority over the child. Majorette has no blood relation to the child. She is
just a “carrier” of the child.

Paternity & Filiation; Child Born Under a Void Marriage (2010)

No.X. In 1997, B and G started living together without the benefit of marriage. The relationship produced one
offspring, Venus. The couple acquired a residential lot in Parañaque. After four (4) years or in 2001, G having
completed her 4-year college degree as a fulltime student, she and B contracted marriage without a license.

The marriage of B and G was, two years later, declared null and void due to the absence of a marriage license.

(B). Is Venus legitimate, illegitimate, or legitimated? Explain briefly. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Venus is illegitimate. She was conceived and born outside a valid marriage. Thus, she is considered
illegitimate (Art 165, Family Code). While Venus was legitimated by the subsequent marriage of her
parents, such legitimation was rendered ineffective when the said marriage was later on declared null
and void due to absence of a marriage license.

Under Article 178 of the Family Code, “legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage
between parents. The annulment of a voidable marriage shall not affect the legitimation.” The
inclusion of the underscored portion in the Article necessarily implies that the Article's application is
limited to voidable marriages. It follows that when the subsequent marriage is null or void, the
legitimation must also be null and void. In the present problem, the marriage between B and G was not
voidable but void. Hence, Venus has remained an illegitimate child.

Paternity & Filiation; Impugning Legitimacy (2010)

No.IV. Spouses B and G begot two offsprings. Albeit they had serious personality differences, the spouses continued
to live under one roof. B begot a son by another woman. G also begot a daughter by another man.

(A). If G gives the surname of B to her daughter by another man, what can B do to protect their legitimate
children's interests? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

B can impugn the status of G's daughter by another man as his legitimate daughter on the ground that
for biological reason he could not have been the father of the child, a fact that may be proven by the
DNA test. Having been born during the marriage between B and G, G's daughter by another man is
presumed as the child of B under Article
164 of the Family Code. In the same
action to impugn, B can pray for the correction of the status of the said daughter in her record of birth.

(B). If B acquiesces to the use of his surname by G’s daughter by another man, what is/are the consequence/s?
Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If B acquiesces and does not file the action to impugn the legitimacy of the child within the prescriptive
period for doing so in Article 170 of the Family Code, G's daughter by another man shall be conclusively
presumed as the legitimate daughter of B by G.

Paternity & Filiation; In Vitro Fertilization; Surrogate Mother’s Remedy to Regain Custody (2010)

No.VI. Gigolo entered into an agreement with Majorette for her to carry in her womb his baby via in vitro
fertilization. Gigolo undertook to underwrite Majorette’s pre- natal expenses as well as those attendant to her
delivery. Gigolo would thereafter pay Majorette P2 million and, in return, she would give custody of the baby to
him.

After Majorette gives birth and delivers the baby to Gigolo following her receipt of P2 million, she engages your
services as her lawyer to regain custody of the baby.

(A) What legal action can you file on behalf of Majorette? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

As her lawyer, I can file a petition for habeas corpus on behalf Majorette to recover custody of her child.
Since she is the mother of the child that was born out of wedlock, she has exclusive parental authority
and custody over the child. Gigolo, therefore, has no right to have custody of the child and his refusal to
give up custody will constitute illegal detention for which habeas corpus is the proper remedy.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The action to regain custody will not prosper. In the first place Majorette cannot regain custody of the
baby. As surrogate mother she merely carries the child in her womb for its development. The child is
the child of the natural parents- Gigolo and his partner. The agreement between Gigolo and Majorette is
a valid agreement.
 (B) Can Gigolo demand from Majorette the return of the P2 million if he returns the baby? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, he cannot. Both he and Majorette are guilty of violating the provision of the Anti-Child Abuse Law
(RA7610) on child trafficking. Being in pari delicto, the partners shall be left where they are and Gigolo
cannot demand the return of what he paid.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes. The agreement between Gigolo and Majorette is a valid agreement.

(D) Is the child entitled to support and inheritance from Gigolo? Explain. (2.5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If Gigolo voluntarily recognized the child as his illegitimate child in accordance with Article 175 in
relation to Article 172 of the Family Code, the child is entitled to support and inheritance from Gigolo.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes, because Gigolo is the natural and biological parent of the baby.

Paternity & Filiation; Legitimacy; Presumption (2008)

No. III. Roderick and Faye were high school sweethearts. When Roderick was 18 and Faye, 16 years old, they
started to live together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. When Faye reached 18 years of age,
her parents forcibly took her back and arranged for her marriage to Brad. Although Faye lived with Brad after the
marriage, Roderick continued to regularly visit Faye while Brad was away at work. During their marriage, Faye
gave birth to a baby girl, Laica. When Faye was 25 years old, Brad discovered her continued liason with Roderick
and in one of their heated arguments, Faye shot Brad to death. She lost no time in marrying her true love
Roderick, without a marriage license, claiming that they have been continuosly cohabiting for more than 5 years.

(B). What is the filiation status of Laica? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Laica is legitimate because children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are presumed
to be legitimate (Art. 164, FC).

(C).Can Laica bring an action to impugn her own status on the ground that based on DNA results, Roderick is her
biological father? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. Laica cannot bring an action to impugn her own status. In Liyao Jr. v. Tanhoti-Liyao, GR. No.
138961, 07March 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that impugning the legitimacy of the child is a strictly
personal right of husband, except: (a) when the husband died before the expiration of the period fixed
for bringing the action; (b) if he should die after the filing of the complaint, without having desisted
therefrom, or (c) if the child was born after the death of the husband. Laica's case does not fall under
any of the exceptions.

(D). Can Laica be legitimated by the marriage of her biological parents? (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No. Laica cannot be legitimated by the marriage of her biological parents because only children
conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who at the time of the conception of the former were
not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be legitimated (Art. 177, FC).
Paternity & Filiation; Legitimation of a Child from a Previous Valid Marriage (2008)
No. IV. Gianna was born to Andy and Aimee, who at the time Gianna's birth were not married to each other. While
Andy was single at the time, Aimee was still in the process of securing a judicial declaration of nullity on her
marriage to her ex-husband. Gianna's birth certificate, which was signed by both Andy and Aimee, registered the
status of Gianna as "legitimate", her surname carrying that of Andy's and that her parents were married to each
other.

(C). Assuming that Aimee is successful in declaring her former marriage void, and Andy and Aimee subsequently
married each other, would Gianna be legitimated? (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Gianna cannot be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of Andy and Aimee. Art. 177 of the FC
provides that "only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the
conception of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be
legitimated." In the present case, a legal impediment was existing at the time of the conception of
Gianna. Her mother, Aimee, was still alive in the process of securing judicial declaration of nullity on her
marriage to her ex-husband.

Paternity & Filiation; Legitimation of a Dead Child (2009)

No. I. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your
answer in not more than two (2) sentences.

(E). A dead child can be legitimated. (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

TRUE To be legitimated, the law does not require a child to be alive at the same time of the marriage of
his / her parents ( Article 177, FC ). Furthermore, Art. 181 of the Family Code which states that “[Th]e
legitimation of children who died before the celebration of marriage will benefit their descendants,”
does not preclude instances where such legitimation will benefit no one but the child's ascendants ,or
other relatives .

Paternity & Filiation; Support: Ascendants & Descendants; Collateral Blood Relatives (2008)

No.V. Despite several relationships with different women, Andrew remained unmarried. His first relationship with
Brenda produced a daughter, Amy, now 30 years old. His second, with Carla, produced two sons: Jon and Ryan.
His third, with Donna, bore him no children although Elena has a daughter Jane, from a previous relationship. His
last, with Fe, produced no biological children but they informally adopted without court proceedings, Sandy's now
13 years old, whom they consider as their own. Sandy was orphaned as a baby and was entrusted to them by the
midwife who attended to Sandy's birth. All the children, including Amy, now live with andrew in his house.

(B). In his old age, can Andrew be legally entitled to claim support from Amy, Jon, Ryan, Vina, Wilma, and Sandy
assuming that all of them have the means to support him? (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Andrew, in his old age, cannot be legally entitled to claim support because Art. 195, par 2 of the FC
limits the giving of support to "legitimate ascendants and descendants."

(C). Can Amy, Jon, Ryan, Vina, Wilma, and Sandy legally claim support from each other? (2%)
 SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Amy, Jon, Ryan, Vina, Wilma and Sandy cannot legally claim support from each other because Art. 195,
par 5 limits the giving of support to "legitimate brothers and sisters, whether full or half blood."

Paternity & Filiation; Use of Surname; Illegitimate Child (2009)

No.XIV. Rodolfo, married to Sharon, had an illicit affair with his secretary, Nanette, a 19-year old girl, and begot a
baby girl, Rona. Nanette sued Rodolfo for damages: actual, for hospital and other medical expenses in delivering
the child by caesarean section; moral, claiming that Rodolfo promised to marry her, representing that he was
single when, in fact, he was not; and exemplary, to teach a lesson to like-minded Lotharios.

(B). Suppose Rodolfo later on acknowledges Rona and gives her regular support, can he compel her to use his
surname? Why or why not? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. he has no right to compel Rona to use his surname. The law does not give him the right simply
because he gave her support (RA 9255).

Under the Family Code, an illegitimate child was required to use only the surname of the mother. Under
RA 9255, otherwise known as the Revilla law, however, the illegitimate child is given the option to use
the surname of the illegitimate father when the latter has recognized the former in accordance with
law. Since the choice belongs to the illegitimate child, Rodolfo cannot compel Rona, if already of age,
to use the surname against her will. If Rona is still a minor, to use the surname of Rodolfo will require
the consent of Rona's mother who has sole parental authority over her.

Paternity & Filiation; Who May Impugn Legitimacy (2009)

K
No.V. Four children, namely: Alberto, Baldomero, Caridad, and Dioscoro, were born to the spouses Conrado and
Clarita de la Costa. The children’s birth certificates were duly signed by Conrado, showing them to be the couple’s
legitimate children.

Later, one Edilberto de la Cruz executed a notarial document acknowledging Alberto and Baldomero as his
illegitimate children with Clarita. Edilberto died leaving substantial properties. In the settlement of his estate, Alberto
and Baldomero intervened claiming shares as the deceased’s illegitimate children. The legitimate family of Edilberto
opposed the claim.

Are Alberto and Baldomero entitled to share in the estate of Edilberto? Explain. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Alberto and Baldomero are not entitled to share in Edilberto’s estate.
They are not related at all to Edilberto. They were born during the marriage of Conrado and Clarita,
hence, are considered legitimate children of the said spouses. This status is conferred on them at birth
by law.

Under Philippine law, a person cannot have more than one natural filiation. The legitimate filiation of a
person can be changed only if the legitimate father will successfully impugn such status.

In the problem, therefore, the filiation of Alberto and Baldomero as legitimate children of Condrado
cannot be changed by their recognition by Edilberto as his illegitimate children. Before they can be
conferred the status of Edilberto’s illegitimate children, Condrado must first impugn their legitimacy.
Since Condrado has not initiated any action to impugn their legitimacy, they continue to be the
legitimate of Condrado. They cannot be the illegitimate children of Edilberto at the same time. Not
being the illegitimate children of Edilberto, they have no right to inherit from him.
Property Relations; Adulterous Relationship (2009)

No. XI. TRUE or FALSE. Answer TRUE if the statement is true, or FALSE if the statement is false. Explain your
answer in not more than two (2) sentences.

(B). If there is no marriage settlement, the salary of a "spouse" in an adulterous marriage belongs to the conjugal
partnership of gains. (1%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. In adulterous relationship, the salary of a married partner belongs to the absolute community, or
conjugal partnership, of such married partner with his or her lawful spouse. Under Articles 148 of the
Family Code, the property relations between married partner and his/her paramour is governed by
ordinary co•ownership where the partners become co•owners only when they contributed to the
acquisition of the property. The paramour is deemed to have not contributed in the earning of the
salary of the married partner.

Property Relations; Accession (2012)

No.III.(a) Maria, wife of Pedro, withdrew P 5 Million from their conjugal funds. With this money, she constructed a
building on a lot which she inherited from her father. Is the building conjugal or paraphernal? Reasons. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

It depends. If the value of the building is more than the value of the land, the building is conjugal and
the land becomes conjugal property under Art. 120 of the Family Code. This is a case of reverse
accession, where the building is considered as the principal and the land, the accessory. If, on the
other hand, the value of the land is more than the value of the building, then the ordinary rule of
accession applies where the land is the principal and the building, the accessory. In such case, the
land remains paraphernal property and the building becomes paraphernal propery.

Note: The rule on reverse accession is applicable only to the regime of conjugal partnership of gains in both the
Family Code and the New Civil Code. The foregoing answer assumes that CPG is the regime of the property
relations of the spouses.

Property Relations; Ante-Nuptial Debt (2007)

No. VII. Write "TRUE" if the statement is true or "FALSE" if the statement is false. If the statement is FALSE, state
the reason. (2% each).

(3). An individual, While single, purchases a house and lot in 1990 and borrows money in 1992 to repair it. In
1995, such individual gets married while the debt is still being paid. After the marriage, the debt is still the
responsibility of such individual.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

FALSE. The absolute Community of property is liable for the ante-nuptial debts of either spouse in so far
as the same redounded to the benefit of the family (Art. 94 par.7, FC).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

FALSE. The debt is already the responsibility of the community property, because the property already
constitutes absolute community property under Art. 91 of FC which took effect in 1988 while the house
and lot here involved was purchased in 1990. There is no indication that the spouse who bought the
property had legitimate descendants by a former marriage, which would exclude the house and lot from
the community property, Art. 92 par 3, FC). If the spouses established a conjugal partnership, the
property belongs to the individual spouse if full ownership was vested before marriage (Art. 118, FC).

Property Relations; Unions Without Marriage (2012)

No.V. a) Spouses Primo and Monina Lim, childless, were entrusted with the custody of two (2) minor children, the
parents of whom were unknown. Eager of having children of their own, the spouses made it appear that they were
the children’s parents by naming them Michelle P. Lim and Michael Jude Lim. Subsequently, Monina married Angel
Olario after Primo’s death.

She decided to adopt the children by availing the amnesty given under R.A. 8552 to those individuals who
simulated the birth of a child. She filed separate petitions for the adoption of Michelle, then 25 years old and
Michael, 18. Both Michelle and Michael gave consent to the adoption.

The trial court dismissed the petition and ruled that Monina should have filed the petition jointly with her new
husband. Monina, in a Motion for Reconsideration argues that mere consent of her husband would suffice and that
joint adoption is not needed, for the adoptees are already emancipated.

Is the trial court correct in dismissing the petitions for adoption? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the trial court was correct. At the time the petitions for adoptions were filed, petitioner had already
remarried. Under the law, husband and wife shall adopt jointly, except in the cases enumerated in the
law. The adoption cases of Michelle and James do not fall in any of the exceptions provided in the law
where a spouse is permitted to adopt alone. Hence, Monina should adopt jointly with her husband Angel
(Adoption of Michelle P. Lim, G.R. Nos. 168992-93, May 21, 2009).

Property Relations; Unions Without Marriage (2012)

No.V. b) Jambrich, an Austrian, fell in-love and lived together with Descallar and bought their houses and lots at
Agro-Macro Subdivision. In the Contracts to Sell, Jambrich and Descallar were referred to as the buyers. When the
Deed of Absolute Sale was presented for registration before the Register of Deeds, it was refused because Jambrich
was an alien and could not acquire alienable lands of the public domain. After Jambrich and Descallar separated,
Jambrich purchased an engine and some accessories for his boat from Borromeo. To pay for his debt, he sold his
rights and interests in the Agro-Macro properties to Borromeo.Borromeo discovered that titles to the three

(3) Jb9lots have been transfereed in the name of Descallar. Who is the rightful owner of the properties? Explain.
(5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

It depends. On the assumption that the Family Code is the applicable law, the ownership of the
properties depends on whether or not, Jambrich and Descallar are capacitated to marry each other
during their cohabitation, and whether or not both have contributed funds for the acquisition of the
properties.

If both of them are capacitated to marry each other, Art 147- co-ownership will apply to their property
relations and the properties in question are owned by them in equal shares even though all the funds
used in acquiring the properties came only from the salaries or wages, or the income of Jambrich from
his business or profession. In such case, while Jambrich is disqualified to own any part of the
properties, his subsequent transfer of all his interest therein to Borromeo, a Filipino, was valid as it
removed the disqualification. In such case, the properties are owned by Borromeo and Descallar in
equal shares.
If, on the other hand, Jambrich and Descallar were not capacitated to marrymeach other Art. 148-co-
ownership governs their property relations. Under this regime, Jambrich and Descallar are co-owners
of the properties but only if both of them contributed in their acquisition. If all the funds used in
acquiring the properties in question came from Jambrich, the entire property is his even though he is
disqualified from owning it. His subsequent transfer to Borromeo, however, is valid as it removed the
disqualification. In such case, all the properties are owned by Borromeo. If, on the other hand
Descallar contributed to their acquisition, the properties are co-owned by Descallar and Borromeo in
proportion to the respective contributions of the Descallar and Jambrich.

Note: The facts of the problem are not exactly the same as in the case of Borromeo v. Descallar, G.R.
NO. 159310, Feb 24, 2009, hence, the difference in the resulting answer.

Property Relations; Void Marriages (2010)

No.VII. G and B were married on July 3, 1989. On March 4, 2001, the marriage, which bore no offspring, was
declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code. At the time of the dissolution of themarriage, the
couple possessed the following properties:

 a house and lot acquired by B on August 3, 1988, one third (1/3) of the purchase price (representing
downpayment) of which he paid; one third (1/3) was paid by G on February 14, 1990 out of a cash gift
given to her by her parents on her graduation on April 6, 1989; and the balance was paid out of the
spouses’ joint income; and

 an apartment unit donated to B by an uncle on June 19, 1987.

(A) Who owns the foregoing properties? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Since the marriage was declared void ab initio in 2001, no Absolute Community or Conjugal Partnership
was ever established between B and G. Their property relation is governed by a “special co-ownership”
under Article 147 of the Family Code because they were capacitated to marry each other.

Under that Article 147, wages and salaries of the “former spouses” earned
during their cohabitation shall be owned by them in equal shares while properties acquired thru their
work for industry shall be owned by them in proportion to their respective contributions. Care and
maintenance of the family is recognized as a valuable contribution. In the absence of proof as to the
value of their respective contributions, they shall share equally.

If ownership of the house and lot was acquired by B on August 3, 1988 at the time he bought it on
installment before he got married, he shall remain owner of the house and lot but he must reimburse G
for all the amounts she advanced to pay the purchase price and for one-half share in the last payment
from their joint income. In such case, the house and lot were not acquired during their cohabitation,
hence, are not co-owned by B and G.

But if the ownership of the house and lot was acquired during the cohabitation, the house and lot will be
owned as follows:

(1) 1/3 of the house and lot is owned by

B. He is an undivided co-owner to that extent for his contributions in its acquisition in the form of the
down payment he made before the celebration of the marriage. The money he used to pay the down
payment was not earned during the cohabitation, hence, it is his exclusive property.
(2) 1/3 of the house and lot is owned by G. She is an undivided co-owner to the extent for her
contribution in its acquisition when she paid 1/3 of the purchase price using the gift from her parents.
Although the gift was acquired by G during her cohabitation with B, it is her exclusive property. It did not
consist of wage or salary or fruit of her work or industry.
(3) 1/3 of the house is co-owned by B and G because the payment came from their co-owned funds,
i.e., their joint income during their cohabitation which is shared by them equally in the absence of any
proof to the contrary.

After summing up their prospective shares, B and G are undivided co-owners of the house and lot in
equal shares.

As to the apartment, it is owned exclusive by B because he acquired it before their cohabitation. Even if
he acquired it during their cohabitation, it will still be his exclusive property because it did not come
from his wage or salary, or from his work or industry. It was acquired gratuitously from his uncle.

(B) If G and B had married on July 3, 1987 and their marriage was dissolved in 2007, who owns the properties?
Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The answer is the same as in letter A. Since the parties to the marriage which was later declared void ab
initio were capacitated to marry each other, the applicable law under the New Civil Code was Article
144.This Article is substantially the same as Article 147 of the Family Code.

Hence, the determination of ownership will remain the same as in question A. And even assuming that
the two provisions are not the same, Article 147 of the Family Code is still the law that will govern the
property relations of B and G because under Article 256, the Family Code has retroactive effect insofar
as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights under the new Civil Code or other laws.
Applying Article 147 retroactively to the case of G and B will not impair any vested right. Until the
declaration of nullity of the marriage under the Family Code, B and G have not as yet acquired any
vested right over the properties acquired during their cohabitation.

Property Relations; Void Marriages (2010)

No.X. In 1997, B and G started living together without the benefit of marriage. The relationship produced one
offspring, Venus. The couple acquired a residential lot in Parañaque. After four (4) years or in 2001, G having
completed her 4-year college degree as a fulltime student, she and B contracted marriage without a license.

The marriage of B and G was, two years later, declared null and void due to the absence of a marriage license.

(A). If you were the judge who declared the nullity of the marriage, to whom would you award the lot? Explain
briefly. (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Since the marriage was null and void, no Absolute Community or Conjugal Partnership was
established between B and G. Their properties are governed by the “special co-ownership” provision of
Article 147 of the Family Code because both B and G were capacitated to marry each other. The said
Article provides that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live
exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, or under a void
marriage: (1) their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares; and (2) property
acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-
ownership. In co-ownership, the parties are co-owners if they contributed something of value in the
acquisition of the property. Their share is in proportion to their respective contributions. In an
ordinary co- ownership the care and maintenance of the family is not recognized as a
valuable contribution for the acquisition of a property. In the Article 147 “special co-ownership”
however, care and maintenance is recognized as a valuable contribution which will entitle the
contributor to half of the property
acquired.

Having been acquired during their cohabitation, the residential lot is presumed acquired through their
joint work and industr under Article 147, hence, B and G are co-owners of the said property in equal
shares.

Article 147 also provides that when a party to the void marriage was in bad faith, he forfeits his share in
the co- ownership in favor of the common children or descendants, the default of children or
descendants, the forfeited share shall belong to the innocent party. In the foregoing problem, there is no
showing that one party was in bad faith. Hence, both shall be presumed in good faith and no forfeiture
shall take place.

2014

Miko and Dinah started to live together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage in 1984. Ten (10)
years after, they separated. In 1996, they decided to live together again, and in 1998, they got married. On
February 17, 2001, Dinah filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Miko on the ground
of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The court rendered the following decision: 1.
“Declaring the marriage null and void; 2. Dissolving the regime of absolute community of property; and 3.
Declaring that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall only be issued after liquidation, partition and
distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code." Dinah filed a motion for partial
reconsideration questioning the portion of the decision on the issuance of a decree of nullity of marriage only
after the liquidation, partition and distribution of properties under Article 147 of the Code. If you are the
judge, how will you decide petitioner’s motion for partial reconsideration? Why? (2014 BAR) SUGGESTED
ANSWER: I will grant partial reconsideration. If the marriage is declared void under Art. 36, the provisions of
the Family Code on liquidation, partition, and distribution of the properties on absolute community or
conjugal partnership will not apply but rather Art. 147 or 148 depending on the presence or absence of a legal
impediment between them. In Diño v. Diño (G.R. No. 178044, January 19, 2011), the SC ruled that Art. 50 of
the FC and Section 19 of the Rules on Declaration of Nullity applies only to marriages which are declared void
ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Arts. 40 and 45 of the FC. In short, Art. 50 of the FC does not
apply to marriages which are declared void ab initio under Art. 36 of the FC which should be declared void
without waiting for the liquidation of the properties of the parties. After undergoing sex reassignment in a
foreign country, Jose, who is now using the name of "Josie," married his partner Ador. Is the marriage valid?
(2014 BAR) Page 21 of 199 Civil Law a. Yes, the marriage is valid for as long as it is valid in the place where it
is celebrated following Article 17 of the Civil Code. b. Yes, the marriage is valid if all the essential and formal
elements of marriage under the Family Code are present. c. No, the marriage is not valid because one essential
element of marriage is absent. d. No, the marriage is not valid but is voidable because "Josie" concealed her
real identity. SUGGESTED ANSWER: C – not valid for lack of one essential requirement (Silverio v.
Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007)

Ariz and Paz were officemates at Perlas ng Silangan Bank (PSB). They fell in love with each other and had a
civil and church wedding. Meanwhile, Paz rapidly climbed the corporate ladder of PSB and eventually became
its Vice President, while Ariz remained one of its bank supervisors, although he was short of 12 units to finish
his Masters of Business Administration (MBA) degree. Ariz became envious of the success of his wife. He
started to drink alcohol until he became a drunkard. He preferred to join his "barkadas"; became a
wifebeater; would hurt his children without any reason; and failed to contribute to the needs of the family.
Despite rehabilitation and consultation with a psychiatrist, his ways did not change. After 19 years of
marriage, Paz, a devout Catholic, decided to have their marriage annulled by the church. Through the
testimony of Paz and a psychiatrist, it was Page 19 of 199 Civil Law found that Ariz was a spoiled brat in his
youth and was sometimes involved in brawls. In his teens, he was once referred to a psychiatrist for treatment
due to his violent tendencies. In due time, the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal (NAMT) annulled the
union of Ariz and Paz due to the failure of Ariz to perform and fulfill his duties as a husband and as a father to
their children. The NAMT concluded that it is for the best interest of Paz, Ariz and their children to have the
marriage annulled. In view of the NAMT decision, Paz decided to file a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage of their civil wedding before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City using the NAMT
decision and the same evidence adduced in the church annulment proceedings as basis. If you are the judge,
will you grant the petition? Explain. (2014 BAR) SUGGESTED ANSWER: If I were the judge, I will not grant
the petition. While the decision of the church tribunal annulling the marriage of the parties may be persuasive,
it is not however, binding upon the civil courts. For psychological incapacity to be a ground for nullity, it must
be shown that it was rooted in the history of the party alleged to be suffering from it, it must be grave and
serious, and incurable such that it renders the person incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations
due to causes psychological in nature. In the case presented, it appears that Ariz fulfilled his marital
obligations at the beginning and it was only after feeling envious about the success of Paz that he started
exhibiting violent tendencies and refused to comply with marital obligations. Psychological incapacity is not
mere refusal but outright incapacity to perform marital obligations which does not appear to be present in the
case of Ariz (Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000).

After undergoing sex reassignment in a foreign country, Jose, who is now using the name of "Josie," married
his partner Ador. Is the marriage valid? (2014 BAR) Page 21 of 199 Civil Law a. Yes, the marriage is valid for
as long as it is valid in the place where it is celebrated following Article 17 of the Civil Code. b. Yes, the
marriage is valid if all the essential and formal elements of marriage under the Family Code are present. c. No,
the marriage is not valid because one essential element of marriage is absent. d. No, the marriage is not valid
but is voidable because "Josie" concealed her real identity. SUGGESTED ANSWER: C – not valid for lack of
one essential requirement (Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007).

2015

You are a Family Court judge and before you is a Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage (under Article 36
of the Family Code) filed by Maria against Neil. Maria claims that Neil is psychologically incapacitated to comply with
the essential obligations of marriage because Neil is a drunkard, a womanizer, a gambler, and a mama's boy- traits
that she never knew or saw when Neil was courting her. Although summoned, Neil did not answer Maria's petition
and never appeared in court. To support her petition, Maria presented three witnesses- herself, Dr. Elsie Chan, and
Ambrosia. Dr. Chan testified on the psychological report on Neil that she prepared. Since Neil never acknowledged
n9r responded to her invitation for interviews, her report is solely based on her interviews with Maria and the
spouses' minor children. Dr. Chan concluded that Neil is suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, an ailment
that she found to be already present since Neil's early adulthood and one that is grave and incurable. Maria testified
on the specific instances when she found Neil drunk, with another woman, or squandering the family's resources in a
casino. Ambrosia, the spouses' current household help, corroborated Maria's testimony. On the basis of the evidence
presented, will you grant the petition? (8%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: If I were the judge, I will not grant the petition. Although psychological incapacity
has not been defined by the Family Code, the Supreme Court in several cases (Republic vs. San Jose -
February 28, 2007; Zamora v. CA an Zamora G.R. No. 141917 February 7, 2007; Benjamin Ting v. Carmen
Ting G.R. No. 166562; March 31, 2009) has ruled that the intendment of the law is to confine
psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an
utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. What the law requires is
downright incapacity and not refusal or neglect or difficulty but a failure to perform essential marital
obligations due to causes psychological in nature. Further, the presentation of expert proof presupposes
a thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist or expert for a conclusive
diagnosis of grave, severe, and incurable presence of psychological incapacity. (Paz vs. Paz – February
18, 2010) In this case, the report of Dr. Chan is solely based on her interviews with Maria and the
children. She did not actually hear, see and evaluate Neil. Hence, the report cannot constitute a
reasonable basis to reach a conclusion as to Neil’s psychological incapacity.

Marco and Gina were married in 1989. Ten years later, or in 1999, Gina left Marco and lived with another man,
leaving their two children of school age with Marco. When Marco needed money for their children's education he sold
a parcel of land registered in his name, without Gina's consent, which he purchased before his marriage. Is the sale
by Marco valid, void or voidable? Explain with legal basis. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The sale made by Marco is considered void. The parties were married in 1989 and
no mention was made whether they executed a marriage settlement. In the absence of a marriage
settlement, the parties shall be governed by absolute community of property whereby all the properties
owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage as well as whatever they may
acquire during the marriage shall form part of the absolute community. In ACP, neither spouse can sell
or encumber property belonging to the ACP without the consent of the other. Any sale or encumbrance
made by one spouse without the consent of the other shall be void although it is considered as a
continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse upon authority of the court or written consent of
the other spouse. (Article 96 FC)

Julie had a relationship with a married man who had legitimate children. A son was born out of that illicit
relationship in 1981. Although the putative father did not recognize the child in his certificate of birth, he
nevertheless provided the with child all the support he needed and spent time regularly with the child
and his mother. When the man died in 2000, the child was already 18 years old so he filed a petition to
be recognized as an illegitimate child of the putative father and sought to be given a share in his putative
father's estate. The legitimate family opposed, saying that under the Family Code his action cannot
prosper because he did not bring the action for recognition during the lifetime of his putative father. a) If
you were the judge in this case, would how you rule? (4%) b) Wishing to keep the peace, the child
during the pendency of the case decides to compromise with his putative father's family by abandoning
his petition in exchange for Yi of what he would have received as inheritance if he were recognized as an
illegitimate child. As the judge, would you approve such a compromise? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: a) If I were the judge, I will not allow the action for recognition filed after the death of the
putative father. Under the Family Code, an illegitimate child who has not been recognized by the father in the record
of birth, or in a private handwritten instrument, or in a public document and may prove his filiation based on open
and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate child but pursuant to Article 175, he or she must file the
action for recognition during the lifetime of the putative father. The provision of Article 285 of the Civil Code allowing
the child to file the action for recognition even after the death of the father will not apply because in the case
presented, the child was no longer a minor at the time of death of the putative father. b) No, I will not approve the
compromise agreement because filiation is a matter to be decided by law. It is not for the parties to stipulate
whether a person is a legitimate or illegitimate child of another. (De Jesus v. Estate of Dizon 366 SCRA 499) In all
cases of illegitimate children, their filiation must be duly proved. (Article 887, Civil Code)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Yes, I would approve the compromise because it is no longer considered future inheritance.
What the law prohibits is a compromise with respect to future legitime. In this case, the father is already dead so the
compromise is considered valid.

Mrs. L was married to a ship captain who worked for an international maritime vessel. For her and her family's
support, she would claim monthly allotments from her husband's company. One day, while en route from Hong Kong
to Manila, the vessel manned by Captain L encountered a severe typhoon at sea. The captain was able to send radio
messages of distress to the head office until all communications were lost. In the weeks that followed, the search
operations yielded debris of the lost ship but the bodies of the crew and the passengers were not recovered. The
insurance company thereafter paid out the death benefits to all the heirs of the passengers and crew. Mrs. L filed a
complaint demanding that her monthly allotments continue for the next four years until her husband may be legally
presumed dead because of his absence. If you were the magistrate would how you rule? (3%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: I would rule against Mrs. L. There is no merit in her contention that the monthly
allotments to her should continue despite the presumptive death of the husband. In case of
disappearance where there is danger of death, the person shall be presumed to have died at the
beginning of the four (4) year period although his succession will be opened only at the end of the four
year period. (Article 391, Civil Code) Since the husband of Mrs. L is presumed to have died at about the
time of disappearance, he is no longer entitled to receive his salary from the day the presumption of
death arises.

VI. 5 Kardo met Glenda as a young lieutenant and after a whirlwind courtship, they were married. In the early part
of his military career, Kardo was assigned to different places all over the country but Glenda refused to accompany
him as she preferred to live in her hometown. They did not live together until the 12th year of their marriage when
Kardo had risen up the ranks and was given his own command. They moved to living quarters in Fort Gregorio. One
day, while Kardo was away on official business, one of his military aides caught Glenda having sex with the corporal
assigned as Kardo's driver. The aide immediately reported the matter to Kardo who rushed home to confront his
wife. Glenda readily admitted the affair and Kardo sentawayher in anger. Kardo would later come to know the true
extent of Glenda's unfaithfulness from his aides, his household staff, and former neighbors who informed him that
Glenda has had intimate relations with various men throughout their marriage whenever Kardo was away on
assignment. Kardo filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36. Based on interviews from
Kardo, his aide, and the housekeeper, a psychologist testified that Glenda's habitual infidelity was due to her
affliction with Histrionic Personality Disorder, an illness characterized by excessive emotionalism and uncontrollable
attention-seeking behavior rooted in Glenda's abandonment as a child by her father. Kardo himself, his aide, and his
housekeeper also testified in court. The RTC granted the petition, relying on the liberality espoused by Te v. Te and
Azcueta v. Republic. However, the OSG filed an appeal, arguing that sexual infidelity was only a ground for legal
separation and that the RTC failed to abide by the guidelines laid down in the Molina case. How would you
decide the appeal? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: I will resolve the appeal in favor of the Republic. In the case of Dedel v. Dedel,
(G.R. No. 151867 January 29, 2004) the Supreme Court refused to declare the marriage of the parties
void on the ground of sexual infidelity of the wife Sharon. In case mentioned, the wife committed
infidelity with several men up to the extent of siring two illegitimate children with a foreigner. The court,
however, said that it was not shown that the sexual infidelity was a product of a disordered personality
and that it was rooted in the history of the party alleged to be psychologically incapacitated. Also, the
finding of psychological incapacity cannot be based on the interviews conducted by the clinical
psychologist on the husband or his witnesses and the person alleged to be psychologically incapacitated
must be personally examined to arrive at such declaration. (Marcos v. Marcos, 343 SCRA 755; Agraviador
v. Agraviador, G.R. No. 170729- December 8, 2010)

Persons and Personality (Civil Code)2016

 Section 1 of P.D. No. 755 states: "Section 1. Declaration of Nation- al Policy. - It is hereby declared that the policy
of the State is to provide readily available credit facilities to the coconut farmers at preferential rates; that this policy
can be expeditiously and effi- ciently realized by the implementation of the 'Agreement for the Acquisition of a
Commercial Bank for the Benefit of the Coconut Farmers' executed by the Philippine Coconut Authority, the terms of
which' Agreement’ are hereby incorporated by reference; x x x" A copy of the Agreement was not attached to the
Presidential Decree. P.D. No. 755 was published in the Official Gazette but the text of the Agreement described in
Section I was not published. Can the Agreement in question be accorded the status of a law? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: NO, the Agreement cannot be accorded the status of a law. A law must be
published to become effective. Article 2 of the Civil Code provides that laws shall take effect after fifteen
(15) days following the comple- tion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise
provided. The publication must be of the full text of the law since the purpose of publication is to inform
the public of the contents of the law (Tanada v. Tuvera, 136 SCR A 27 {1985/). In Nagkakaisang Maralita
v. Military Shrine Services (675 SCRA 359 [2013/), the Supreme Court held that the addendum to the
Proclamation issued by President Mar- cos has no force and effect considering that the same was not
pub- lished in the Official Gazette. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Co- juangco, Jr. v. Republic 686 Page
10 of 199 Civil Law SCRA 472 {2012], which is on all fours with this case, ruled that while the Agreement
was incorporated by reference, it was not reproduced or attached as an annex to the law and therefore
cannot be accorded to the status of a law. Publication of the full text of the law is indispensable for its
effectivity.

Romeo and Juliet, both Filipinos, got married. After a few years, Juliet got word from her mother that she can go to
the United States for naturalization. Juliet promised she will be back the moment she becomes an American. After
sometime, Romeo learned from a friend that Juliet already became a US citizen and even divorced him to marry a
wealthy American businessman. Romeo filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court praying that an order be
issued authorizing him to remarry pursuant to Article 26 of the Family Code. Decide the petition with reasons. (5%)
(2016 BAR)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: If the time of Juliet’s acquisition of U.S. citizenship preceded the time when she
obtained the divorce decree, then the divorce decree can be given effect in the Philippines, and
consequently, Romeo will be capac- itated to remarry under Philippine law. On the other hand, if Juliet
ob- tained the divorce decree before she acquired U.S. citizenship, then the foreign divorce decree
cannot be recognized by Philippine courts. Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Family Code provides that
where a mar- riage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino
spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. In Republic v. Orbecido (472 SCRA 114
[2005])i the Supreme Court ruled that Article 26, paragraph 2 should be interpreted to include cases
involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later on,
one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree. The reckoning point is
not their citizenship at the time of celebration of marriage, but their citizenship at the time the divorce
decree is obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him/her to remarry.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: The petition should not be granted. A divorce obtained abroad by an alien may
be recognized in our jurisdiction, provided such decree is valid according to the national law of the
foreigner. However, the di- vorce decree and the governing personal law of the alien spouse who
obtained the divorce must be proven. Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws and
judgments; hence, like any other evidentiary facts, both the divorce decree and the national law of the
alien must be alleged and proven according to our law on evidence (Republic v. Or- becido, 366 SCRA
437 (20011). In this case, no evidence was ad- duced to prove the divorce between Romeo and Juliet
and the validity of the same under IJ.S. law.

Civil Law Leo married Lina and they begot a son. After the birth of their child, Lina exhibited unusual behavior and
started to neglect her son; she frequently went out with her friends and gambled in casinos. Lina later had extra-
marital affairs with several men and eventually abandoned Leo and their son. Leo was able to talk to the psychiatrist
of Lina who told him that Lina suffers from de- mentia praecox, a form of psychosis where the afflicted person is
prone to commit homicidal attacks. Leo was once stabbed by Lina but fortunately he only suffered minor injuries. Will
a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed with the court prosper? Explain. (5%) (2016 BAR)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: NO, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family
Code will not prosper. Even if taken as true, the grounds alleged are not sufficient to declare the
marriage void under “psycho- logical incapacity”. In Santos v. CA (240 SCRA 20 [1995J), the Supreme
Court explained that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence, and (c) incurability. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability to per-
form one’s marital obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect, difficulty, or much less, ill will. While Lina
was not examined by a physician, the Supreme Court has ruled in Marcos v. Marcos (343 SCRA 755
12000]) that actual medical examination need not be resorted to where the totality of evidence
presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. However, in this case, the pieces of
evidence presented are not suffi- cient to conclude that indeed Lina is suffering from psychological inca-
pacity existing already before the marriage, incurable and serious enough to prevent her from
performing her essential marital obligations.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: No, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code will not prosper. However, a Petition for Annulment of Marriage under Article 45 of the
Family Code may prosper, on the ground of unsound mind, assuming that Lina’s unsound mind existed at
the time of the celebration of the marriage.

Brad and Angelina had a secret marriage before a pastor whose office is located in Arroeeros Street, City of Manila.
They paid money to the pastor who took care of all the documentation. When Angelina wanted to go to the U.S., she
found out that there was no marriage license issued to them before their marriage. Since their marriage was
solemnized in 1995 after the effectivity of the Family Code, Angelina tiled a petition for judicial declaration of nullity
on the strength of a certification by the Civil Regis- trar of Manila that, after a diligent and exhaustive search, the
alleged marriage license indicated in the marriage certificate does not appear in the records and cannot be found. [a]
Decide the case and explain. (2.5%) Page 16 of 199 Civil Law [b] In ease the marriage was solemnized in 1980
before the effectivity of the Family Code, is it required that a judicial petition be tiled to declare the marriage null and
void? Explain. (2.5%) (2016 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: [a] I will grant the petition for judicial declaration of nullity of Brad and
Angelina’s marriage on the ground that there is a lack of a marriage license. Article 3 of the Family Code
provides that one of the formal requisites of marriage is a valid marriage license and Article 4 of the
same Code states that absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void
ah initio. In Abbas v. Abbas, (689 SCRA 646 12013/), the Supreme Court declared the marriage as void
ah initio because there is proof of lack of record of marriage license. The certification by the Civil
Registrar of Manila that, after a diligent and exhaustive search, the alleged marriage license indicated in
the marriage certificate does not appear in the records and cannot be found proves that the marriage of
Brad and Angelina was solemnized without the requisite marriage license and is therefore void ab initio.
The absence of the marriage license was certified to by the local civil registrar who is the official
custodian of these documents and who is in the best position to certify as to the existence of these
records. Also, there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty (Republic v. CA and
Castro, 236 SCRA 257 /1994/). [b] No, it is not required that a judicial petition be filed to declare the
marriage null and void when said marriage was solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code. As
stated in the cases of People v. Men- doza, 95 Phil. 845 (1954/ and People v. Aragon, 100 Phil. 1033
(1957/^ the old rule is that where a marriage is illegal and void from its perfor- mance, no judicial is
necessary to establish its invalidity.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: [b] Irrespective of when the marriage took place, other than for purpos- es of
remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other purposes,
such as but not limited to de- termination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of
estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the court may pass upon the
validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so long as it is essential to
the determination of the case. This is without prejudice to any issue that may arise in the case. When
such need arises, a final judgment of declaration of nullity is necessary even if the purpose is other than
to remarry. The clause on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void in Article
40 of the Family Code connotes that such final judgment need to be obtained only for purpose of
remarriage (Ablaza v. Republic, 628 SCRA 27 120101).

Bernard and Dorothy lived together as common-law spouses although they are both capacitated to marry. After one
year of co-habitation, Dorothy went abroad to work in Dubai as a hair stylist and regularly sent money to Bernard.
With the money, Bernard bought a lot. For a good price, Bernard sold the lot. Dorothy came to know about the
acquisition and sale of the lot and filed a suit to nullify the sale because she did not give her consent to the sale. [a]
Will Dorothy's suit prosper? Decide with reasons. (2.5%) [b] Suppose Dorothy was jobless and did not contribute
money to the acquisition of the lot and her efforts consisted mainly in the care and maintenance of the family and
household, is her consent to the sale a prerequisite to its validity? Explain. (2.5%) (2016 BAR)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: [a] YES, Dorothy’s suit will prosper, unless the buyer is a buyer in good faith and
for value. The rule of co-ownership governs the property relationship in a union without marriage
between a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other. Article 147 of the Family Code is
specifically applicable. Under this article, neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his
or her share in the property ac- quired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of
the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation, thus, Bernard may not validly dispose of the
lot without the consent of Dorothy as the lot was acquired through their work during their cohabitation.
[NOTE: It is suggested that some credit be given to examinees who reason that Article 147 does not
apply became under the facts given, Dorothy and Bernard were not living together as husband and wife].
[b] YES, if Dorothy was jobless and did not contribute money to the acquisition of the lot, her consent is
still a prerequisite to the validity of the sale. Under the same article, a party Page 35 of 199 Civil Law
who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have
contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance
of the family and the household. In this case, although the money used to buy the lot was solely from
Bernard, Dorothy’s care and maintenance of the family and household are deemed contributions in the
acquisition of the lot. Article 147, 2nd paragraph is applicable, as the lot is deemed owned in common by
the commonlaw spouses in equal shares as the same was acquired during their cohabitation, without
prejudice to the rights of a buyer in good faith and for value.

II. Marriage (Family Code)

State whether the following marital unions are valid, void, or voidable, and give the corresponding
justifications for your answer: (2017 Bar)

(a) Ador and Becky’s marriage when Ador was afflicted with AIDS prior to marriage. (2%) (2017 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (a) The marriage is voidable because Ador was afflicted with a serious and
incurable sexually-transmitted disease at the time of the marriage. For a marriage to be annulled under
Art. 45(6), the sexually-transmissible disease must be: 1) existing at the time of the marriage; 2) found
to be serious and incurable; and 3) unknown to the other party. Since Ador was afflicted with AIDS,
which is a serious and incurable disease, and the condition existed at the time of the marriage, the
marriage is voidable, provided that such illness was not known to Becky.

(b)Carlos’ marriage to Dina which took place after Dina had poisoned her previous husband Edu in order to free
herself from any impediment in order to live with Carlos. (2%) (2017 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANWER: (b) The marriage of Carlos to Dina is void for reasons of public policy. Article 38 (9)
of the Family Code provides that marriage between parties where one, with the intention to marry the
other, killed that other person’s spouse or his or her own spouse is void from the beginning for reasons
of public policy.

(c) Eli and Fely’s marriage solemnized seven years after the disappearance of Chona, Eli’s previous spouse, after
the plane she had boarded crashed in the West Philippine Sea. (2%) (2017 BAR)

SUGGESTED ANSWERS: (c) The marriage is void under Article 35 (4) in relation to Article 41 of the
Family Code. The requisites of a valid marriage under Article 41 are as follows: 1) the prior spouse had
been absent for four consecutive years, except when the disappearance is in danger of death which only
requires two years; 2) the present spouse had a well-founded belief that the abent spouse was already
dead; and 3) the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive
death. There is nothing in the facts that Eli instituted a summary proceeding for declaration of
presumptive death of his previous spouse and this cannot be presumed. Thus, the exception under
Article 35 (4) is inapplicable and the subsequent marriage is void. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: (c) If the
marriage was celebrated under the New Civil Code, the marriage would be valid, as no declaration of
presumptive death is necessary under Article 391 of the said Code.

(c) David who married Lina immediately the day after obtaining a judicial decree annulling his prior marriage to
Elisa. (2%) (2017 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWERS: (d) The marriage was valid as there were no facts showing that David and Elisa
have properties and children, which would render the marriage void under Article 53 of the Family Code
in relation to Article 52. In addition, David and Lina have no impediment to marry. ALTERNATIVE
ANSWER: (d) If the spouses have properties and children, the marriage is void under Article 53 of the
Family Code in relation to Article 52. For a marriage subsequent to a judgment of annulment of a
previous marriage to be valid, the properties of the spouses must have been partitioned and distributed,
the presumptive legitimes of children, if any, must have been delivered, and the aforementioned facts
must be recoreded in the civil registry and registries of property. The marriage was entered into the day
after obtaining of a judicial decree of annulment and it would have been impossible for David to comply
with the requirements in such a short time. Therefore, the marriage is void.

(d)Marriage of Zoren and Carmina who did not secure a marriage license prior to their wedding, but lived together
as husband and wife for 10 years without any legal impediment to marry. (2%) (2017 BAR)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (e) If Zorena and Carmina lived together as husband and wife for 10 years prior
to their marriage, then the marriage is valid, despite the absence of the marriage license. An exception
to the rule that a marriage shall be void if solemnized without a license under Article 35 (3) is that
provided for under Article 34 of the Family Code. When a man and a woman have lived together as
husband and wife for at least 5 years and without any legal impediment to marry each other, they may
celebrate the marriage without securing a marriage license.

Property Relations of the Spouses (Family Code) Danny and Elsa were married in 2002. in 2012, Elsa left the
 conjugal home and her two minor children with Danny to live with her paramour. In 2015, Danny sold without Elsa's
consent a parcel of land registered in his name that he had purchased prior to the marriage. Danny used the
proceeds of the sale to pay for his children's tuition fees. Is the sale valid, void or voidable'? Explainyour answer.
(3%) (2017 BAR)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Page 34 of 199 Civil Law The sale of the parcel of land is void. There is no
indication in the facts that Danny and Elsa executed a marriage settlement prior to their marriage. As
the marriage was celebrated during the effectivity of the Family Code and absent a marriage settlement,
the property regime between the spouses is the Absolute Community of Property (Article 75, FC). Under
the Absolute Community of Property regime, the parcel of land belongs to the community property as
the property he had brought into the marriage even if said property were registered in the name of
Danny (Article 91, FC). In addition, said property do not fall under any of the exceptions under Article
92. Therefore, the sale of the property is void, because it was executed without the authority of the
court or the written consent of the other spouse (Article 96, 100, FC).

2018

I
Sidley and Sol were married with one (1) daughter, Solenn. Sedfrey and Sonia were another couple with one son,
Sonny. Sol and Sedfrey both perished in the same plane accident. Sidley and Sonia met when the families of those
who died sued the airlines and went through grief-counseling sessions. Years later, Sidley and Sonia got married. At
that time, Solenn was four (4) years old and Sonny was five (5) years old. These two (2) were then brought up in
the same household. Fifteen (15) years later, Solenn and Sonny developed romantic feelings towards each other,
and eventually eloped. On their own and against their parents' wishes, they procured a marriage license and got
married in church.
(a) Is the marriage of Solenn and Sonny valid, voidable, or void? (2.5%)
(b) If the marriage is defective, can the marriage be ratified by free cohabitation of the parties? (2.5%)

Suggested answer of Red Pogi:

a. VOIDABLE. As provided for in Article 14 of the Family Code, if a party to a marriage is already
eighteen years old but below twenty-one, his or her consent is not sufficient; the parents or
guardians must, in addition, give their consent. In the absence of such parental consent, the
consent given by a party to a marriage whose age is 18 but below 21 is considered defective. And
under Article 4 of the same Code, a defect in the essential requisites of marriage (Consent of
Parties) renders the marriage voidable. On the case at hand, Solenn and Sonny were both 19 and
20 years old respectively at the time of the celebration of their marriage. Hence, absence of
parental consent as required by law renders the marriage of Solenn and Sonny VOIDABLE.

b. YES Under Article 45(1) of the Family Code, a voidable marriage because of lack of Parental consent is
ratified if the party whose parent did not give consent, after reaching the age of 21, freely cohabits with
the other and both lived together as husband and wife. Yes. Though voidable, their marriage may be
ratified by free cohabitation.Under the Family Code, ratification is made if the “injured” party freely
cohabits with the guilty party, and such will cure the defect. In such case of no parental consent, either
parent of Solenn or Sonny cannot file the suit if after attaining the age of 21, they freely cohabited with
each other and lived as husband and wife. It is the cohabitation after reaching the age of 21 that will
constitute ratification.

II
After finding out that his girlfriend Sandy was four (4) months pregnant, Sancho married Sandy. Both were single
and had never been in any serious relationship in the past. Prior to the marriage, they agreed in a marriage
settlement that the regime of conjugal partnership of gains shall govern their property relations during marriage.
Shortly after the marriage, their daughter, Shalimar, was born. Before they met and got married, Sancho purchased
a parcel of land on installment, under a Contract of Sale, with the full purchase price payable in equal annual
amortizations over a period of ten (10) years, with no down payment, and secured by a mortgage on the land. The
full purchase price was PhP1 million, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. After paying the fourth (4th) annual
installment, Sancho and Sandy got married, and Sancho completed the payments in the subsequent years from his
salary as an accountant. The previous payments were also paid out of his salary. During their marriage, Sandy also
won PhP1 million in the lottery and used it to purchase jewelry. When things didn't work out for the couple, they
filed an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage based on the psychological incapacity of both of them.
When the petition was granted, the parcel of land and the jewelry bought by Sandy were found to be the only
properties of the couple.
(a) What is the filiation status of Shalimar? (2.5%)
(b) What system of property relationship will be liquidated following the declaration of nullity of their marriage?
(2.5%)
(c) In the liquidation, who should get the parcel of land? The jewelry? (2.5%)
 a. The filiation status of Shalimar is that of a legitimate child. Under Article 54 of the Family
Code, children conceived or born before the judgement or absolute nullity of marriage under
Article 36 has become final and executory shall be considered legitimate. Hence, Shalimar
being born during the marriage of her parents, Sancho and Sandy, and before the declaration
of nullity of their marriage under Art. 36 of FC is considered as a legitimate child. LEGITIMATE.
Under Art. 177 of the Family Code states that, Only children conceived and born outside of
wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by
any impediment to marry each other may be legitimated. On the case at hand, since Sancho
and Sandy don’t have any legal impediment at the time of conception of Shelimar. Hence, the
process of legitimation took place automatically by the subsequent valid marriage of the
parents as provided for under Art. 178 of the same Code and, as a result of which, such
children born out of wedlock (“legitimated children”) become legitimate children of the
spouses.

a. The system of property relationship that will be liquidated following the declaration of nullity of
their marriage is co-ownership. Under Article 147 of the Family Code, the property relation of a
man and a woman living together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a
void marriage shall be governed by the rule on co-ownership. Notwithstanding the fact that an
agreement was entered into by the parties before the celebration of their marriage providing
specifically for a system of conjugal partnership of gains to govern their property relation, the
subsequent declaration of nullity of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code produces
the effect of making their property relation to be covered by the Rule on Co-ownership. Thus,
pursuant to their marriage settlement, their properties shall be liquidated under said rule.

b. In the liquidation of their properties, the land and jewelry shall be divided between the parties,
Sancho and Sandy, equally. The Law on Sales provides that the ownership of properties acquired
through installments shall be vested to the buyer upon full payment of the price. In the case at
bar, with respect to the acquisition of the land, Sancho, using his own salary, made full payment of
the price during their marriage/cohabitation, thus, ownership over it was vested at that time. The
ownership of the land and jewelry which were acquired through Sancho’s own salary and efforts
during their marriage, is vested to both Sancho and Sandy pursuant to Article 147, FC which
provides that any property acquired during cohabitation shall be owned by both parties in equal
shares and any party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party is presumed to
have contributed in its acquisition. The fact that both parties acted in bad faith shall have no effect
in their respective shares in the properties to be liquidated applying the principle of inpari delicto,
the bad faith of one party is cured by the bad faith of the other party. Both are, therefore,
assumed to be in good faith.

c. 1. Yes. Shalimar is entitled to the payment of her presumptive legitime. Article 886 of the Family
Code provides that compulsory heirs listed under Article 887, FC are entitled to their respective
legitime. Shalimar being a legitimate child and as such a compulsory heir(Art. 887, FC) is entitled
to her presumptive legitime.

2. The share of Shalimar representing her legitime shall be one-half of the shares of her mother and
father to their properties upon liquidation pursuant to Article 888 of the Family Code. Since the share of
her father,Sancho, to the land and jewelry amounts to P1,000,000 in total which is the same as that of
her mother, Sandy, the share of Shalimar shall be P500,000 each on the land and jewelry representing
one-half of the share of her parents.

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE:

General Rule: that the regime of absolute community or Conjugal Property of Gains may only exist in a
valid, or at least voidable marriage (see discussion of Atty. Lasam as to the effect of on Property of void
and voidable marriages), and does not, as a rule, exist in a void marriage.
Exception on Void Marriages: It is only in the case of a void marriage under Article 40, i.e., where a
spouse in a prior void marriage contracts a subsequent marriage in the absence of a judicial declaration
of nullity of the prior marriage, where the regime of absolute community exceptionally exists.

III
Silverio was a woman trapped in a man's body. He was born male and his birth certificate indicated his gender as
male, and his name as Silverio Stalon. When he reached the age of 21, he had a sex reassignment surgery in
Bangkok, and, from then on, he lived as a female. On the basis of his sex reassignment, he filed an action to have
his first name changed to Shelley, and his gender, to female. While he was following up his case with the Regional
Trial Court of Manila, he met Sharon Stan, who also filed a similar action to change her first name to Shariff, and her
gender, from female to male.
Sharon was registered as a female upon birth. While growing up, she developed male characteristics and was
diagnosed to have congenital adrenal hyperplasia ("CAH") which is a condition where a person possesses both male
and female characteristics. At puberty, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had greatly minimized, and she
had no breast or menstrual development. Alleging that for all intents and appearances, as well as mind and emotion,
she had become a male, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender should be changed
from female to male, and that her first name should be changed from Sharon to Shariff.
Silverio and Sharon fell in love and decided to marry. Realizing that their marriage will be frowned upon in the
Philippines, they travelled to Las Vegas, USA where they got married based on the law of the place of celebration of
the marriage. They, however, kept their Philippine citizenship.
(a) Is there any legal bases for the court to approve Silverio's petition for correction of entries in his birth certificate?
(2.5%)
(b) Will your answer be the same in the case of Sharon's petition? (2.5%)
(c) Can the marriage of Silverio (Shelley) and Sharon (Shariff) be legally recognized as valid in the Philippines?
(2.5%)

a. No. There are no legal bases for the court to approve Silverio’s petition for correction of entries in
his birth certificate. It was held in Silverio v Republic that there is no law legally recognizing sex
reassignment and its effects. The sex of a person is determined at birth, visually done by the birth
attendant by examining the genitals of the infant. Silverio was born a male and in his birth
certificate indicated his gender as male. Since there is no law recognizing sex reassignment and its
effects, then the petition of Silverio Stalon for correction of entries in his birth certificate will not
be approved.

b. No. My answer will not be the same. The petition of Sharon to change her name from Sharon to
Shariff and her gender from female to male, will prosper. In Republic v Cagandahan, the Supreme
Court allowed the correction of entries in the birth certificate of Cagandahan to change her sex or
gender from female to male on the ground of her medical condition known as Congenital Adrenal
Hyperplasia and her name from Jennifer to Jeff. Cagandahan was endowed with mixed
composition of chromosomes. She has female chromosomes but her body produces high level of
male hormones. Cagandahan has simply let nature take its course and accordingly, he has ordered
her life to that of a male. According to the court, in this kind of situation, the determining factor in
his gender classification would be what the individual having reached the age of majority, with
good reason thinks of his/her sex, and Cagandahan chose to be a male. Like Cagandahan, Sharon
has the same condition and has filed the same petition. The petition will prosper.

c. First choice: No. The marriage of Silverio and Shariff cannot be legally recognized as valid in the
Philippines. The New Civil Code substantially provides that laws relating to family rights and
duties, status, conditions and legal capacity of persons, are binding upon citizens of the
Philippines, even though living abroad. And The Family Code substantially provides that no
marriage shall be valid unless the essential requisite of legal capacity of the contracting parties
who must be a male and a female must be present. Both Filipinos, Silverio is born a male and
Shariff is also a male (as Shariff’s petition was granted), the essential requisite of legal capacity of
the contracting parties who must be a male and a female, is absent, their marriage even though
celebrated abroad and valid there as such, is void here in the Philippines.

Alternative Answer: Yes. The marriage of Silverio and Sharon can be legally recognized as valid in the Philippines.
The New Civil Code substantially provides that laws relating to family rights and duties, status, conditions and legal
capacity of persons, are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. And The Family Code
substantially provides that no marriage shall be valid unless the essential requisite of legal capacity of the
contracting parties who must be a male and a female, must be present. The petitions of Silverio and Sharon are still
pending for decision. Given that both are Filipinos, and, Silverio was born a male and Sharon was born a female, the
essential requisite of legal capacity of contracting parties who must be a male and a female, is present, and their
marriage in Las Vegas is valid there as such, then their marriage is valid.

X
Sinclair and Steffi had an illicit relationship while Sinclair was married to another. The relationship produced a
daughter Sabina, who grew up with her mother. For most parts of Sabina's youth, Steffi spent for her support and
education. When Sabina was 21 years old, Sinclair's wife of many years died. Sinclair and Steffi lost no time in
legitimizing their relationship. After the 40-day prayers for Sinclair's late wife, Sinclair and Steffi got married without
a marriage license, claiming that they have been cohabiting for the last 20 years.
After graduating from college, Sabina decided to enroll in law school. Sinclair said that he was not willing to pay for
her school fees since she was no longer a minor. Sinclair claimed that, if Sabina wanted to be a lawyer, she had to
work and spend for her law education.
(a) What is Sabina's filiation status? (2.5%)
(b) Is Sinclair legally required to finance Sabina's law education? (2.5%)

Suggested answer of Ms. Elishaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa:

a. Illegitimate. Art.165, FC states that children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are
illegitimate. The subsequent marriage of her biological parents did not cure Sabina's filiation
status since she was conceived and born outside wedlock and whose parents, at the time, had
legal impediment to marry, hence, disqualified in Article 177, FC

a. Yes. Parents are obliged to support their illegitimate children upon the demand of the latter. Art.
195 (4) FC. The law education of Sabina is included in the support contemplated under Article 194
FC which provides that the education of the person entitled to be supported shall include his or her
schooling or training for some profession, even beyond the age of majority. Art. 194 of FC provides
that support also includes education of the person entitled to be supported until he completes his
education or training for some profession, trade, or vocation, even beyond the age of majority.
Thus, Sabina, even if no longer a minor, is still entitled to be supported of her law education.

XVI
Selena was a single 18-year old when she got pregnant and gave birth to Suri. She then left to work as a caregiver
in Canada, leaving Suri with her parents in the Philippines. Selena, now 34 years old and a permanent resident in
Canada, met and married Sam who is a 24-year old Canadian citizen who works as a movie star in Canada. Sam's
parents are of Filipino ancestry but had become Canadian citizens before Sam was born. Wanting Suri to have all the
advantages of a legitimate child, Selena and Sam decided to adopt her. Sam's parents, already opposed to the
marriage of their son to someone significantly older, vehemently objected to the adoption. They argued that Sam
was not old enough and that the requisite age gap required by the Inter-Country Adoption Act between Sam as
adopter and Suri as adoptee was not met. Are Sam's parents correct? (2.5%)

Suggested answer by Mr. APOLINARIO Eboy (emphasis supplied):

Sam’s parents were correct as to the argument that he was not old enough to adopt. It was explicitly provided in RA
8043 or the Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995 that an alien may file an application for adoption if he is at least 27
years of age. The fact that Sam, being 24yo at the time of adopting a Filipino child makes the argument of his
parents correct and that Sam therefore is not eligible to adopt.
Sam’s parents were also correct on their contention that Sam did not meet the requisite age gap, however, the law
provides for an exception and that is when the adopter or the spouse of such is the parent by nature of the adoptee.
Sam’s wife is the parent by nature of Suri, thereby falling under the exception and making the argument of Sam’s
parents incorrect.

XVII
Sofia and Semuel, both unmarried, lived together for many years in the Philippines and begot three children. While
Sofia stayed in the Philippines with the children, Semuel went abroad to work and became a naturalized German
citizen. He met someone in Germany whom he wanted to marry. Semuel thereafter came home and filed a petition
with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for partition ofthe common properties acquired during his union with Sofia in the
Philippines. The properties acquired during the union consisted of a house and lot in Cavite worth PhP2 million, and
some personal properties, including cash in bank amounting to PhP1 million. All these properties were acquired using
Samuel's salaries and wages since Sofia was a stay-at-home mother. In retaliation, Sofia filed an action, on behalf of
their minor children, for support.
(a) How should the properties be partitioned? (2.5%)
(b) Should Semuel be required to support the minor children? (2.5%)

Suggested answer of Ms. Ignacio:

a. Article 147 of the Family Code explicitly provides that the properties acquired by both parties
 during their union shall be presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts, and shall
be owned by them in equal shares. Sofia, who did not participate in the acquisition, shall be
deemed to have contributed jointly because her efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of
the family and of the household. Thus, half of the PHP 2million worth of the house and lot, as well
as half of the PHP1 million worth of some personal properties including the cash in bank will go to
Sofia, and the other half of those will go to Semuel.

b. YES. Semuel is required to support the minor children. As provided in Article 195 (4) of the Family
Code, the parents are obliged to give support even to their illegitimate children.

Suggested answer of Mr. Gittu:

a. The partition of properties shall be govern by the rules on co-ownership and must be distributed in
equal shares to both common law spouses. As stated under Art. 147 of the Family Code, "when a
man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by
them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry
shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties
acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts,
work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party
who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed
jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of
the family and household. In this case, since during their cohabitation Semuel acquired properties
using his salaries while Sofia stayed-at-home taking care of the family then the presumption under
the law is that they are co-owners to all properties acquired during their cohabitation and as such
must be distributed to them in equal shares.

b. Yes, Semuel is obliged to support his minor children being their father. Art. 195 (4) of the Family
Code provides that, "Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate
children of the latter are obliged to support each other to the whole extent set forth in Art. 194 of
the Code.