Book 1 - Persons and Family_v2

7/25/2019 Book 1 - Persons and Family_v2

1/119

School of Law

Compilation ofQuestions and Suggested Answers

Book 1

(Persons, Family Relations, & Adoption)

Submitted by:

CIVIL LAW (Weekday & Weekend CLASS

(A!"! #$%'#$%

Submitted to:

A))"! *+,,-. )+Q/ILL-Ci0il Law 1e0iew 2rofessor

3e4ember %56 #$%


2/119

)able of Content

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS.........................................................................1

2ersons and 7amily 1elations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!%Eulogio vs. Bell, Sr......................................................................................1

Geronimo vs. Santos....................................................................................4

Vaas vs. Vaas............................................................................................6Aranas vs. Mercado.....................................................................................8

Avenido vs. Avenido,....................................................................................9

im vs. E!uita"le #$% Ban&......................................................................1'(el Socorro vs. Van )ilsen........................................................................11

)illa*are #roducts $or+oration vs. esic-ris Manuacturing $or+oration

...................................................................................................................1/

Ardiente vs. S+ouses #astoride................................................................10

e+u"lic vs. Encelan.................................................................................162an vs. Andrade.........................................................................................18

S+ouses 3ing vs. $-oac-u.......................................................................5'e+u"lic vs. aceda..................................................................................51

$a+ili vs. #eo+le........................................................................................5/

e+u"lic vs. $antor...................................................................................50S+ouses Gaditano vs. San Miguel $or+oration........................................57

Garciauia:on vs. Belen.........................................................................59

#eo+le vs. ;dtu-an..................................................................................../1

e+u"lic vs. Al"ios....................................................................................//Salas, r. vs. Aguila.................................................................................../0

Ventura, r. vs. S+ouses A"uda................................................................../7imua vs. ua........................................................................................./9Mendo:a vs. e+u"lic................................................................................4'

e+u"lic vs. $ourt o A++eals...................................................................45

#ana vs. 3eirs o ose uanite, Sr.............................................................4/ollora vs. #eo+le.....................................................................................40

emo vs. Secretar o


3/119

S.$. Mega*orld $onstruction and (evelo+ment $or+oration vs. #arada

...................................................................................................................07

FAMILY RELATIONS....................................................................................................59

Annulment of *udgment< Affida0it of 1eappearan4e!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!8

Santos vs. Santos.......................................................................................09Annulment under Art! 9 (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!%Alca:ar vs. Alca:ar....................................................................................61

Cild Custody!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!=(acasin vs. (acasin..................................................................................6/

Con;ugal 2roperty< Li>uidation< 3isposition!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!93eirs o #rotacio Go vs. Servacio.............................................................64

Co'ownersip!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Borromeo vs. (escallar.............................................................................66

7oreign 3i0or4e!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?e+u"lic vs. ;r"ecido %%%..........................................................................68

7uneral!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!8Valino vs. Adriano.....................................................................................69

*udi4ial Separation of Absolute Community 2roperty!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5%overas vs. overas..................................................................................71

Legal Separation< 7orfeiture!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5=uiao vs. uiao.........................................................................................7/

Legal Spouse!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!59Social Securit $ommission vs. A:ote.......................................................74

@arriage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5;cam+o vs. ;cam+o..................................................................................76

avadia vs. 3eirs o uan una.................................................................78

Ando vs. (e+artment o


4/119

2sy4ologi4al In4apa4ity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!%$#>ala* vs.


5/119

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

Persons and Fa!"# Re"a$!ons

I!

%!&!" La' To(!) : 2ersons & 7amily 1elations

So*r)e : +ulogio 0s! Bell6 Sr!G.. o. 186/55, ul 8, 5'10

%on$r!+*$or : Quiron6 @aria Cristina

''

PROBLEM:

Ana6 Bobby and Cesar 1odrigue (1odrigue siblings are te unmarried 4ildren of Sps!@ary and 1obert 1odrigue! )ey lodged a 4omplaint against te Sps! +dward and @aryDar4ia for annulment of 4ontra4t of sale ee4uted by teir parents Spouses 1odrigueo0er teir =$ s>uare'meter residential ouse and lot6 as well as te 4an4ellation of tetitle obtained by Sps! Dar4ia by 0irtue of te 3eed!

)e 1)C granted te 1odrigue siblings prayer6 tat te sale of te sub;e4t ouse and lotunder te 3eed of Sale is only an e>uitable mortgage in fa0or of Sps! Dar4ia! .owe0er6te mortgage 4annot bind te property in >uestion being 0iolati0e of 7amily Code6 itsen4umbran4e not a0ing been 4onsented to in writing by a ma;ority of te benefi4iarieswo are te plaintiffs (siblings erein! )e said e>uitable mortgage is deemed to be anunse4ured mortgage for wi4 te Sps! 1odrigue as mortgagor are liable to te3efendant Sps! Dar4ia in te amount of 2%6$$$6$$$!$$ plus %#E interest!

Bot plaintiffs and defendants appealed to te Court of Appeals but te de4ision wasaffirmed in toto! )e 1odrigue family appealed te 4ase to te Supreme Court to

>uestion teir liability of 2%6$$$6$$$!$$ plus interest! )e Court6 owe0er dismissedteir 2etition for failure to sow re0ersible error 4ommitted by te Court of Appeals!)ereafter6 entry of ;udgment was made and a writ of ee4ution was issued! )eir familyome was le0ied on ee4ution! )e 1)C used te present 0alue of te property as itsa4tual 0alue!

a Can a family ome be sold on ee4ution under Art! %$ of te 7amily CodeF


6/119

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

/n>uestionably6 te family ome is eempt from ee4ution as epressly pro0ided for inArti4le %= of te 7amily Code! It as been said tat te family ome is a real rigt tat is

gratuitous6 inalienable and free from atta4ment! Arti4les % and %$ of te 7amilyCode spe4ify te e4eptions mentioned in Ati4le %=6 to wit:

A2%$E 100. 2-e amil -ome s-all "e e?em+t rom e?ecution, orcedsale or attac-ment e?ce+t@

1


7/119

%n an event, i t-e value o t-e currenc c-anges ater t-e ado+tion o t-is

$ode, t-e value most avora"le or t-e constitution o a amil -ome s-all

"e t-e "asis o evaluation.


8/119

II!


So*r)e : Deronimo 0s! SantosG.. o. 197'99, Se+tem"er 58, 5'10

%on$r!+*$or : *urolan6 @arymar

''

PROBLEM:

Sebastian @iguel6 4laimed in Court to be te only 4ild of de4eased 1odolfo and,ati0idad CariGo! .e de4lared tat wit te deat of is parents6 te property 4onsistingof one'alf of te par4el of land and belonging to is parents was passed on to im by telaw on intesta4y! 1odrigo CariGo6 sibling of 1odolfo6 4ontested te 4laim on te groundtat te de4eased spouses were 4ildless and took in as teir ward Sebastian wo was intrut6 te 4ild of ,ati0idadHs sister! .e 4laimed tat te birt 4ertifi4ate of Sebastian wasa simulated do4ument! 1odrigo was able to obtain a 4opy of te Sebastians alleged birt4ertifi4ate! It ad irregular features6 su4 as tat it was written in pentel pen6 te entry inte bo date of birt was erased and te name of te informant! .owe0er6 te Court ruledtat Sebastian is te legal eir ' being te legitimate 4ild ' of te de4eased spouses! Itfound tat SebastianHs filiation was duly establised by te 4ertifi4ate of li0e birt wi4

was presented in e0iden4e! )e Court dismissed te 4laim of petitioner tat te birt4ertifi4ate appeared to a0e been tampered6 spe4ifi4ally on te entries pertaining to tedate of birt of respondent and te name of te informant! 7urtermore it eld tat1odrigo failed to addu4e e0iden4e to eplain ow te erasures were done! In te absen4eof su4 4ontrary e0iden4e6 te Court relied on te prima fa4ie presumption of te 0era4ityand regularity of te birt 4ertifi4ate as a publi4 do4ument! Is te Courts ruling 4orre4tF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

,o6 te Courts ruling is not 4orre4t!

/nder Art! %5# of te Ci0il Code6 te filiation of legitimate 4ildren is establised by anadmission of legitimate filiation in a publi4 do4ument or a pri0ate andwritten instrumentand signed by te parent 4on4erned!

In te problem gi0en6 te filiation of Sebastian is not at issue! 1odrigo does not 4laim tatSebastian is not te legitimate 4ild of te de4eased spouses! Wat 1odrigo alleges is tatSebastian is not te 4ild of te de4eased spouses at all! )e birt 4ertifi4ate of Sebastian


9/119

would sow tat it was tampered spe4ifi4ally on te entries pertaining to is date of birtand te name of te informant! 3espite tese glaring erasures6 te 4ourt still relied on teprima fa4ie presumption of te 0era4ity and regularity of te birt 4ertifi4ate! )e4on4urren4e of te se4ondary e0iden4e relied upon by te 4ourt does not suffi4ientlyestablis te one 4ru4ial fa4t: tat Sebastian is indeed a 4ild of te de4eased spouses!

7urtermore6 a re4ord of birt is merely a prima fa4ie e0iden4e of te fa4ts 4ontainedterein! It is not 4on4lusi0e e0iden4e of te trutfulness of te statements made tere byte interested parties!


10/119

III!


So*r)e : VaGas 0s! VaGasG.. o. 5'879', anuar 51, 5'10

%on$r!+*$or : Corbo6 1obie

''

PROBLEM:

Carrie is a ig 4lass so4ialite wo lo0es to party e0ery nigt! Basi4ally se lo0es telimeligt! Derald on te oter and6 was a timid6 andsome guy wo works as a Ci0il+ngineer in Jep4o International! )e two met o0er a 4ommon friends birtday party!)e two got along well and e0entually got romanti4ally in0ol0ed! After a mont6 tey gotmarried in %888 wen Carrie was already pregnant! /nfortunately6 teir baby died at4ildbirt In @ar46 #$$6 Carrie left te ouseold and did not return! Derald later foundout tat se left for 3ubai to work tere! Derald ten filed a petition for de4laration ofnullity of marriage based on psy4ologi4al in4apa4ity under Arti4le = of te 7amilyCode! In it6 e alleged tat during teir 4oabitation6 Carrie was etremely6 ;ealous6outgoing and prone to making any pretet to lea0e te ouse< se en;oyed nigt life6drank and smoked ea0ily e0en wen se was pregnant and refused to perform ouseold

4ores6 traits wi4 se did not eibit during teir wirlwind 4ourtsip! Se did notsow any remorse for te deat of teir 4ild6 li0ed as if single6 self'4entered6 selfis andimmature!

Based on te fa4ts gi0en6 are Carries traits be 4onsidered as e0iden4e for psy4ologi4alin4apa4ity6 tus warranting te grant for petition for de4laration of nullity of marriageF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

,-! Wile Derald and Carrie possess in4ompatible personalities6 te latters a4ts and

traits do not ne4essarily indi4ate psy4ologi4al in4apa4ity!

Arti4le = 4ontemplates downrigt in4apa4ity or inability to take 4ognian4e of and toassume basi4 marital obligations! @ere Kdiffi4ulty6 Krefusal or Knegle4t in teperforman4e of marital obligations or Kill will on te part of te spouse is different fromKin4apa4ity rooted on some debilitating psy4ologi4al 4ondition or illness! Indeed6irre4on4ilable differen4es6 seual infidelity or per0ersion6 emotional immaturity andirresponsibility6 and te like6 do not by temsel0es warrant a finding of psy4ologi4al


11/119

in4apa4ity under Arti4le =6 as te same may only be due to a persons refusal orunwillingness to assume te essential obligations of marriage and not due to somepsy4ologi4al illness tat is 4ontemplated by said rule!


12/119

IV!


So*r)e : Aranas 0s! @er4adoG.. o. 1064'7, anuar 10, 5'14

%on$r!+*$or : Siega6 @ar )eresa

''

PROBLEM:

+mi6 a widower entered into a marital union wit )erri in te year %859! -ut of su4marriage6 tey ad fi0e 4ildren! +mi died intestate on *anuary %88% and was sur0i0ed byis se4ond wife6 )erri and teir fi0e 4ildren< and is two 4ildren by is first marriagenamely 7rank and +lma!+mi inerited and a4>uired real as well as personal propertiesduring is lifetime!

)erri6 as administratri of +mis property submitted an in0entory of te estate of +mi6e4luding from su4 in0entory sares of sto4k wi4 are in er name and wi4 werepaid by er from money deri0ed from te tai4ab business wi4 se and er usbandad sin4e %85 as a 4on;ugal undertaking! +lma6 mo0ed tat te 4ourt dire4t )erri toamend te in0entory 4ontending tat M of te sares of sto4k wi4 were e4luded from

te in0entory6 be in4luded! Is te 4ontention of +lma 4orre4tF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

"es!+mi and )erri a0ing been married prior to te effe4ti0ity of te 7amily Code in August=6 %8??6 teir property regime was te 4on;ugal partnersip of gains! )e sares of sto4kwi4 were paid by er from te money deri0ed from te tai4ab business wi4 se ander usband as as a 4on;ugal undertaking6 partake of a 4on;ugal 4ara4ter! -ne' alftereof or of te 0alue tereof sould be in4luded in te in0entory of te estate of er

usband!


13/119

V!


So*r)e : A0enido 0s! A0enido6G.. o. 17/04', anuar 55, 5'14

%on$r!+*$or : "gna4io6 @arie Angelee

''

PROBLEM:

+u';ane3oemingo got married to *on 3oe @arudoon %89# and tey begot 9 4ildren!7ifteen years later6 *on 3oe left teir ome and e was nowere to be found! In %8586+u';ane learned tat *on 3oe got married to a 4ertain Len*oeni4ia! +u';ane filed aComplaint for 3e4laration of ,ullity of @arriage against Len on te ground tat se (+u';ane is te lawful wife of *on 3oe! Len argued tat er marriage to *on 3oe was notbigamous be4ause +u';ane failed to present er Certifi4ate of @arriage wit *on 3oe!+u';anein er defense argued tat only a Certifi4ation was issued by te Lo4al Ci0il1egistrar be4ause te re4ords were lost during te Se4ond World War! In addition6 +u';ane and some witnesses testified to te fa4t of marriage between er and *on 3oe! +u';ane alleged tat su4 marriage was solemnied in Bool by te 2aris 2riest of te saidtown! )e trial 4ourt ruled in fa0or of +u';ane relying on te Kpresumption of marriage

to o0erturn te 0alidity of te se4ond marriage! )e marriage between Len and *on 3oewas de4lared 0oid for being bigamous! Is te trial 4ourt 4orre4tF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

"es6 te trial 4ourt is 4orre4t!

A presumption establised by our Code of Ci0il 2ro4edure is tat a man and a womandeporting temsel0es as usband and wife a0e entered into a lawful 4ontra4t ofmarriage! 7urter6 wile a marriage 4ertifi4ate is 4onsidered te primary e0iden4e of a

marital union6 it is not regarded as te sole and e4lusi0e e0iden4e of marriage!*urispruden4e tea4es tat te fa4t of marriage may be pro0en by rele0ant e0iden4e otertan te marriage 4ertifi4ate!In te 4ase at bar6 te establisment of te fa4t of marriage was 4ompleted by tetestimonies of te witnesses and te unrebutted te 4ertifi4ations of marriage issued byte paris priest!

)erefore6 te trial 4ourt is 4orre4t!


14/119


15/119

VI!


So*r)e : Lim 0s! +>uitable 2CI BankG.. o. 18/918, anuar 10, 5'14

%on$r!+*$or : Dula6 @aria @oni4a

''

PROBLEM:

A par4el of land a4>uired by te spouses . & W was mortgaged by . as a se4urity for aloan obtained by im from N"O Bank! Is te signature of te wife6 W6 needed on temortgage 4ontra4tF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

"es! Arti4le %$ of te Ci0il Code pro0ides tat Kall property of te marriage is presumedto belong to te 4on;ugal partnersip6 unless it be pro0ed tat it pertains e4lusi0ely to teusband or to te wife! Absent any fa4t tat te par4el of land is te e4lusi0e propertyof te usband6 ten te land is presumed to be 4on;ugal property and en4e te mortgage

4ontra4t must be signed by te wife!


16/119

VII!


So*r)e : 3el So4orro 0s! Van WilsenG.. o. 19/7'7, (ecem"er 1', 5'14

%on$r!+*$or : Sayson6 Derlyn @ae

''

PROBLEM:

,orma married +rik in .olland! ,orma is a 7ilipino 4itien wile +rik is a 4itien of.olland! )eir marriage was blessed wit a son6 1od! )e marriage of ,orma and +rikdid not last long and a final de4ree of di0or4e was issued by te Court of .olland! +rikpromised to support is minor 4ild! )ereafter6 ,orma and is son 4ame ome to te2ilippines but +rik ne0er ga0e support!

/pon learning tat +rik was in te 2ilippines and married6 ,orma troug a letter6demanded from +rik to support is son! .owe0er6 +rik refused to re4ei0e te letter! )isa4t prompted ,orma to file a 4riminal 4ase against +rik in 0iolation of 1A 8## forun;ustified refusal to render support as pro0ided under Art! %8 of te 7amily Code! Is+rik obliged to support is minor son under te 2ilippine lawF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

,o6 +rik as no obligation to support is minor 4ildunder 2ilippine law!

)e Supreme Court ratio4inated tat ,orma 4annot rely on Arti4le %8 of te ,ew Ci0ilCode in demanding support from +rik6 wo is a foreign 4itien6 sin4e Arti4le %8 of te,ew Ci0il Code stresses te prin4iple of nationality! Insofar as 2ilippine laws are4on4erned6 spe4ifi4ally te pro0isions of te 7amily Code on support6 te same onlyapplies to 7ilipino 4itiens! By analogy6 te same prin4iple applies to foreigners su4 tat

tey are go0erned by teir national law wit respe4t to family rigts and duties!

)e obligation to gi0e support to a 4ild is a matter tat falls under family rigts andduties! Sin4e +rik is a 4itien of .olland e is sub;e4t to te laws of is 4ountry6 not to2ilippine law6 as to weter e is obliged to gi0e support to is 4ild6 as well as te4onse>uen4es of is failure to do so!.owe0er6 tis does not mean tat respondent is not obliged to support is son altogeter!+rik must pro0e tat under te laws of .olland6 e is not obliged to support is minor


17/119

son! )e Supreme Court is not obliged to take ;udi4ial noti4e of te laws of te,eterlands!


18/119

VIII!


So*r)e : Willaware 2rodu4ts Corporation 0s! *esi4ris @anufa4turingCorporation

G.. o. 190049, Se+tem"er /, 5'14

%on$r!+*$or : @a4atangay6 @aria )eresa

''

PROBLEM:

N Corp pioneered te use of plasti4 in pla4e of rubber in te manufa4ture of automoti0eunder 4assis parts su4 as spring eye busing6 stabilier busing6 and oters! O Corp6 onte oter and6 is engaged in te manufa4ture of kit4enware items made of plasti4 andmetal! Wen some of N Corps employees transferred to O Corp6 te former dis4o0eredtat O Corp ad been manufa4turing and distributing te same automoti0e parts witea4tly similar design6 same material and 4olours as N Corps manufa4tures anddistributes6 but at a lower pri4e! N Corp alleged tat O Corp deliberately 4opied itsprodu4t designs tus 4onstituting unfair 4ompetition!

Wat is te differen4e between te 4on4ept of Kunfair 4ompetition under Arti4le #? of

te ,CC and Kunfair 4ompetition 4o0ered by intelle4tual property lawsF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

/nfair 4ompetition under 1epubli4 A4t ,o! ?#8= is a damage suit were te produ4ts arenot 4o0ered by patent registration!

)e 4on4ept of Kunfair 4ompetition under Arti4le #? is 0ery mu4 broader tan tat4o0ered by intelle4tual property laws! /nder te present arti4le6 wi4 follows teetended 4on4ept of Kunfair 4ompetition in Ameri4an ;urisdi4tions6 te term 4o0ers e0en

4ases of dis4o0ery of trade se4rets of a 4ompetitor6 bribery of is employees6misrepresentation of all kinds6 interferen4e wit te fulfillment of a 4ompetitors4ontra4ts6 or any mali4ious interferen4e wit te latters business!

Arti4le #? of te Ci0il Code pro0ides tat unfair 4ompetition in agri4ultural64ommer4ial or industrial enterprises or in labor troug te use of for4e6 intimidation6de4eit6 ma4ination or any oter un;ust6 oppressi0e or ig'anded metod sall gi0e riseto a rigt of a4tion by te person wo tereby suffers damage! Wat is being sougt to be


19/119

pre0ented is not 4ompetition per se but te use of un;ust6 oppressi0e or igandedmetods wi4 may depri0e oters of a fair 4an4e to engage in business or to earna li0ing!


20/119

IN!


So*r)e : Ardiente 0s! Spouses 2astorfideG.. o. 161951, ul 17, 5'1/

%on$r!+*$or : 1i0era6 Clieford

''

PROBLEM:

A sold er ouse and lot to B! )e 4ontra4t stipulates tat te water and power supply ofte said property sall be for te a44ount of B! 7or four 9 years6 te water supplyremained under te name of A! B ne0er 4omplied wit stipulation in te 4ontra4t to4ange a44ount under Bs name! B as been delin>uent in paying te water bills for =monts! At te prodding of A6 te water distri4t 4ut off te water supply! Witoutre4ei0ing noti4e of te dis4onne4ted6 B 4omplained at te water distri4t! Se was told ofer delin>uen4y and tat te dis4onne4tion was done at te instan4e of A6 wose nameremained on te a44ount! B paid er delin>uen4y but te water supply was notre4onne4ted! Aggri0ed6 B filed a 4ase for damages wit 1)C against A and te waterdistri4t! A insisted tat se 4ould not be eld liable as se ad no a4tual parti4ipation inte dis4onne4tion! Sould bot A and te water distri4t be liableF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

"es6 bot sould be liable! Arti4le %8 of te Ci0il Code pro0ides6 e0ery person must6 inte eer4ise of is rigts and in te performan4e of is duties6 a4t wit ;usti4e6 gi0ee0eryone is due6 and obser0e onesty and good fait! As a4ts wi4 0iolated teabo0ementioned pro0isions of law is er un;ustifiable a4t of a0ing te Bs water supplydis4onne4ted6 4oupled wit er failure to warn or at least notify respondent spouses ofsu4 intention! -n te part of te water distri4t6 it is teir failure to gi0e prior noti4e ofte impending dis4onne4tion and teir subse>uent negle4t to re4onne4t respondent

spousesH water supply despite te latterHs settlement of teir delin>uent a44ount! .en4e6bot of tem are liable!


21/119

N!


So*r)e : 1epubli4 0s! +n4elanG.. o. 17''55, anuar 9, 5'1/

%on$r!+*$or : Ba4also6 Vernie 1ose

''

PROBLEM:

-n *une #6 %8586 1aymond married +mily and te union bore two 4ildren6 Cristineand *a4ky! )o support is family6 1aymond went to work in Canada on April #$6 %8?9!-n @ay #?6 %8?6 1aymond6 wile still in Canada6 learned tat +mily ad been a0ingan illi4it affair wit Alfred "ee! Sometime in %88%6 +mily allegedly left te 4on;ugalome wit er 4ildren and li0ed wit Alfred! Sin4e ten6 1aymond and +mily ad beenseparated! But 1aymond 4ontinued to pro0ide finan4ial support for +mily and teir4ildren e0en after e learned of er illi4it affair wit Alfred! -n August %6 %8861aymond filed wit te 1)C a petition against +mily for te de4laration of te nullity ofis marriage based on +milys psy4ologi4al in4apa4ity! +mily denied tat se ad anaffair wit Alfred! 3uring te trial6 1aymond affirmed is allegations of +milysinfidelity and subse>uent abandonment of te family ome! 1aymond presented te

psy4ologi4al e0aluation report on +mily prepared by 3r! 3iana Vi4toria of te ,ationalCenter for @ental .ealt! 3r! Vi4toria found tat +mily was Knot suffering from anyform of ma;or psy4iatri4 illnessP6 but ad been Kunable to pro0ide te epe4tationsepe4ted of er for a good and lasting marital relationsip< er Ktransferring from one;ob to te oter depi4ts some interpersonal problems wit 4o'workers as well as erimpatien4e in attaining er ambitions< and Ker refusal to go wit er usband abroadsignifies er relu4tan4e to work out a good marital and family relationsip!

Weter or not te marriage is null and 0oid due to psy4ologi4al in4apa4ity! Supportyour answer wit spe4ifi4 pro0isions of law!

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

,o! Arti4le = of te 7amily Code go0erns psy4ologi4al in4apa4ity as a ground forde4laration of nullity of marriage! It pro0ides tat RPa marriage 4ontra4ted by any partywo6 at te time of te 4elebration6 was psy4ologi4ally in4apa4itated to 4omply wit teessential marital obligations of marriage6 sall likewise be 0oid e0en if su4 in4apa4itybe4omes manifest only after its solemniation!R


22/119

In interpreting tis pro0ision6 we a0e repeatedly stressed tat psy4ologi4al in4apa4ity4ontemplates Kdownrigt in4apa4ity or inability to take 4ognian4e of and to assume tebasi4 marital obligations< not merely te refusal6 negle4t or diffi4ulty6 mu4 less ill will6on te part of te errant spouse!

In any e0ent6 seual infidelity and abandonment of te 4on;ugal dwelling6 e0en if true6 donot ne4essarily 4onstitute psy4ologi4al in4apa4ity< tese are simply grounds for legalseparation! )o 4onstitute psy4ologi4al in4apa4ity6 it must be sown tat teunfaitfulness and abandonment are manifestations of a disordered personality tat4ompletely pre0ented te erring spouse from dis4arging te essential marital obligations!,o e0iden4e on re4ord eists to support 1aymonds allegation tat +milys infidelity andabandonment were manifestations of any psy4ologi4al illness!

@arriage is an in0iolable so4ial institution prote4ted by te State! Any doubt sould beresol0ed in fa0or of its eisten4e its eisten4e and 4ontinuation and against its dissolutionand nullity! It 4annot be dissol0ed at te wim of te parties nor by transgressions made

by one party to te oter during te marriage!


23/119

NI!


So*r)e : )an 0s! AndradeG.. o. 1719'4, August 7, 5'1/

%on$r!+*$or : Villamor6 Cletus

''

PROBLEM:

1osario was te registered owner of te four par4els land wi4 se mortgaged to andsubse>uently fore4losed by one Simon! Wen te redemption period was about to epire61osario sougt te assistan4e of Bobby! )ereafter6 1osario sold te same to Bobby ander son6 2ro4eso Andrade6 *r!for 2%$$6$$$!$$! -n *uly #6 %8?=6 2ro4eso6 *r! 4eded untoBobby is rigts and interests o0er te sub;e4t properties in 4onsideration of 2$6$$$!$$!)e 3eed of Assignment was signed by6 .enry6 one of 1osarios sons! Bobby etendedan -ption to Buy te sub;e4t properties in fa0or of 2ro4eso6 *r!6 gi0ing te latter until 5:$$in te e0ening of *uly =%6 %8?9 to pur4ase te same for te sum of 2=%$6$$$!$$! Wen2ro4eso6 *r! failed to do so6 Bobby 4onsolidated is ownersip o0er te sub;e4t properties6tus6 te )C)s were issued in is name!

1osarios 4ildren6 filed a 4omplaint for re4on0eyan4e and annulment of deeds of4on0eyan4e and damages against Bobby before te 1)C6 tey 4laimed tat sin4e tesub;e4t properties were inerited by tem from teir fater6 2ro4eso Andrade6 Sr!6 tesub;e4t properties were 4on;ugal in nature! Is te sub;e4t properties are 4on;ugal innatureF 3e4ide wit reasons!

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

,o!

Arti4le %$ of te Ci0il Code=? wi4 states tat RPall property of te marriage ispresumed to belong to te 4on;ugal partnersip6 unless it be pro0ed tat it pertainse4lusi0ely to te usband or to te wife!R 7or tis presumption to apply6 te partyin0oking te same must6 owe0er6 preliminarily pro0e tat te property was indeeda4>uired during te marriage!

In oter words6 te presumption in fa0or of 4on;ugality does not operate if tere is nosowing of wen te property alleged to be 4on;ugal was a4>uired! @oreo0er6 te


24/119

presumption may be rebutted only wit strong6 4lear6 4ategori4al and 4on0in4inge0iden4e! )ere must be stri4t proof of te e4lusi0e ownersip of one of te spouses6and te burden of proof rests upon te party asserting it! (Citations omitted

In tis 4ase6 re4ords re0eal tat te 4on;ugal partnersip of 1osario and er usband was

terminated upon te latters deat on August 56 %85? wile te transfer 4ertifi4ates of titleo0er te sub;e4t properties were issued on September #?6 %858 and solely in te name ofR1osario Vda! de Andrade6 of legal age6 widow6 7ilipino!R -ter tan teir bareallegation6 no e0iden4e was addu4ed by te Andrades to establis tat te sub;e4tproperties were pro4ured during te 4o0erture of teir parents or tat te same werebougt wit 4on;ugal funds! @oreo0er6 1osarios de4laration tat se is te absoluteowner of te disputed par4els of land in te sub;e4t deed of salewas not disputed by erson 2ro4eso6 *r!6 wo was a party to te same! .en4e6 by 0irtue of tese in4idents6 teCourt upolds te 1)Cs findingtat te sub;e4t properties were e4lusi0e or soleproperties of 1osario!


25/119

NII!


So*r)e : Spouses .ing 0s! Coa4uyG.. o. 1797/6, une 56, 5'1/

%on$r!+*$or : Canasa6 *on 2aul

''

PROBLEM:

AA owned a par4el of land ad;a4ent to te land owned by BB! )e latter filed a 4omplaintbefore te 1)C of @andaue to en;oin te former from 4onstru4ting a fen4e witout a0alid permit6 in order to present an e0iden4e6 BB installed sur0eillan4e 4amera and iredtwo persons to take potos on te going 4onstru4tions wi4 in4ludes business offi4ewitout te permit of AA6 wi4 te latter prompted to filed an a4tion for in;un4tion anddamages on te alleged 0iolation of teir rigt to pri0a4y! Is te a4tion of AA willprosperF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

"es6 te a4tion of AA will prosper6 under te ;urispruden4e6 prying into te pri0a4y ofanoters residen4e6 4o0ers pla4es6 lo4ations6 or e0en situations wi4 an indi0idual4onsiders as pri0ate! In te 4ase at and6 a business offi4e is entitled to te same pri0a4ywen te publi4 is e4luded terefrom!


26/119

NIII!


So*r)e : 1epubli4 0s! ,a4edaG.. o. 18576', A+ril 1', 5'1/

%on$r!+*$or : "ray6 1ea

''

PROBLEM:

1oberto married @aria on ## *uly %8?5! A reading of te @arriage Contra4t re0ealed tatat te time of teir wedding6 @arina was only %5 years and 9 monts old! Sometime in%8896 @arina went to Singapore and ne0er returned sin4e ten! )ere was ne0er any4ommuni4ation between tem! Se0eral years after se left6 one of teir town mates inLuna6 La /nion 4ame ome from Singapore and told im tat te last time se saw iswife6 te latter was already li0ing wit a Singaporean usband!

In 0iew of er absen4e and is desire to remarry6 respondent filed wit te 1)C on %@ay #$$# a 2etition for a ;udi4ial de4laration of te presumpti0e deat andor absen4e of@arina! )e 1)C granted respondents 2etition!

2etitioner (1epubli4 of te 2ilippines6 troug te -ffi4e of te Soli4itor Deneral(-SD6 appealed to te Court of Appeals! A44ording to petitioner6 respondent failed to4ondu4t a sear4 for is missing wife wit te diligen4e re>uired by law and enoug togi0e rise to a Kwell'founded belief tat se was dead!)e CA dismissed te appeal rulingtat te earing of a petition for te de4laration of presumpti0e deat is a summarypro4eeding under te 7amily Code and is tus go0erned by )itle NI tereof! Arti4le #95of te 7amily Code pro0ides tat te ;udgment of te trial 4ourt in 4ourt pro4eedings sallbe immediately final and ee4utory!

Is te Court of Appeals de4ision in ruling tat te 1epubli4 of te 2ilippines6 in tepetition for de4laration of presumpti0e deat ad no rigt to appeal te 1)C de4ision and

4annot >uestion te failure of te 1espondent to establis a well'founded belief tat isabsentee spouse is dead6 4orre4tF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

"es6 te ruling of te Court of Appeals is 4orre4t! )e 1epubli4 of te 2ilippines6 in tepetition for de4laration of presumpti0e deat ad no rigt to appeal te 1)C de4ision and


27/119

it 4an no longer >uestion te failure of te 1espondent to establis a well'founded belieftat is absentee spouse is dead!

Arti4le 9% of te 7amily Code pro0ides:

Art. 41. A marriage contracted " an +erson during t-e su"sistence o a+revious marriage s-all "e null and void, unless "eore t-e cele"ration o

t-e su"se!uent marriage, t-e +rior s+ouse -ad "een a"sent or our

consecutive ears and t-e s+ouse +resent -as a *ellounded "elie t-att-e a"sent s+ouse *as alread dead. %n case o disa++earance *-ere t-ere

is danger o deat- under t-e circumstances set ort- in t-e +rovisions o

Article /91 o t-e $ivil $ode, an a"sence o onl t*o ears s-all "e

suicient.


28/119

NIV!


So*r)e : Capili 0s! 2eopleG.. o. 18/8'0, ul /, 5'1/

%on$r!+*$or : Cata>uis6 *asmine 1awen

''

PROBLEM:

Ador and Carmen is a newly married 4ouple! )ey ad a simple 4ur4 wedding on-4tober %86 #$%% were tey promised to 4eris and remain faitful to ea4 oter untilteir last breat! )ey li0ed togeter in Antipolo City and ad one 4ild6 *un';un! +arlyon teir marriage6 Ador would always 4ome ome early from work and spend time witCarmen and *un';un! .owe0er6 Ador gradually be4ame busy be4ause of is work wi4re>uires im to stay in is offi4e and tere were also nigts tat Ador would not 4omeome! Carmen paid no attention to tis! But te situation only grew worse wen Adorwould not 4ome ome for weeks wit no sort of 4ommuni4ation! -n ,o0ember %?6 #$%=6it was found tat Ador ad 4ontra4ted a se4ond marriage wit Dlenda Barrios! .urtbeyond repair6 Carmen filed a bigamy 4ase against Ador before te 1)C Antipolo!.a0ing known of te fa4t6 Ador filed wit te 1)C 2asig to de4lare is marriage wit

Dlenda as 0oid and filed a @otion to Suspend 2ro4eedings in 1)C Antipolo alleging tattere is a pending 4ase for te de4laration of nullity of is subse>uent marriage< and tatif te marriage is de4lared null and 0oid6 it would e4ulpate im from te 4arge ofbigamy! 3uring te pre'trial6 te 1)C 2asig de4lared te se4ond marriage 0oid! .en4e6Ador filed a @otion to 3ismiss te 4arge of bigamy in 1)C Antipolo!

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

,o! )e elements of te 4rime of bigamy are:

(% te offender as been legally marrieduent marriage< and(9 tat te se4ond or subse>uent marriage as all te essential re>uisites for

0alidity!


29/119

)e subse>uent ;udi4ial de4laration of te se4ond marriage for being bigamous in naturedoes not bar te prose4ution of petitioner for te 4rime of bigamy! *urispruden4e isreplete wit 4ases olding tat te a44used may still be 4arged wit te 4rime of bigamy6e0en if tere is a subse>uent de4laration of te nullity of te se4ond marriage6 so long aste first marriage was still subsisting wen te se4ond marriage was 4elebrated!

7urtermore6 te parties to te marriage sould not be permitted to ;udge for temsel0esits nullity6 for te same must be submitted to te ;udgment of 4ompetent 4ourts and onlywen te nullity of te marriage is so de4lared 4an it be eld as 0oid6 and so long as tereis no su4 de4laration te presumption is tat te marriage eists! )erefore6 e wo4ontra4ts a se4ond marriage before te ;udi4ial de4laration of te first marriage assumeste risk of being prose4uted for bigamy!


30/119

NV!


So*r)e : 1epubli4 0s! CantorG.. o. 184651, (ecem"er 1', 5'1/

%on$r!+*$or : *ordan6 1ebe44a

''

PROBLEM:

@aria and *erry were married on September #$6 %885! )ey li0ed togeter as usbandand wife in teir 4on;ugal dwelling! Sometime in *anuary %88?6 te 4ouple ad a 0iolent>uarrel and after teir >uarrel6 *erry left teir 4on;ugal dwelling and tis was te last timetat te respondent e0er saw im! Sin4e ten6 se ad not seen6 4ommuni4ated nor eardanyting from *erry or about is wereabouts!

-n @ay #%6 #$$#6 or more tan four (9 years from te time of *errys disappearan4e6 terespondent filed before te 1)C a petition for er usbands de4laration of presumpti0edeat6 4laiming tat se ad a well'founded belief tat *erry was already dead!Sealleged tat se ad in>uired from er moter'in'law6 er broters'in'law6 er sisters'in'law6 as well as er neigbors and friends6 but to no a0ail! In te opes of finding *erry6

se also allegedly made it a point to 4e4k te patients dire4tory wene0er se went to aospital! All tese earnest efforts6 te respondent 4laimed6 pro0ed futile6 prompting er tofile te petition in 4ourt! Weter te @aria ad a well'founded belief tat *erry isalready deadF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

,o!/nder Arti4le 9% of te 7amily Code6 tere are (9 essential re>uisites for tede4laration of presumpti0e deat6imposes a stri4ter standard of te re>uirement of Rwell'founded belief R!)us6 mere absen4e of te spouse (e0en for su4 period re>uired by te

law6 la4k of any news tat su4 absentee is still ali0e6 failure to 4ommuni4ate or generalpresumption of absen4e under te Ci0il Code would not suffi4e!)e present spouse mustpro0e tat iser belief was te result of diligent and reasonable efforts and in>uiries tolo4ate te absent spouse and tat based on tese efforts and in>uiries6 ese belie0es tatunder te 4ir4umstan4es6 te absent spouse Is already dead! It re>uires eertion of a4ti0eeffort (not a mere passi0e one!


31/119

In te present 4ase6 7irst6 te respondent did not a4ti0ely look for er missing usband! It4an be inferred from te re4ords tat er ospital 0isits and er 4onse>uent 4e4king ofte patients dire4tory terein were unintentional! Se did not purposely undertake adiligent sear4 for er usband as er ospital 0isits were not planned nor primarilydire4ted to look for im!

Se4ond6 se did not report *errys absen4e to te poli4e nor did se seek te aid of teautorities to look for im!

)ird6 se did not present as witnesses *errys relati0es or teir neigbors and friends6wo 4an 4orroborate er efforts to lo4ate *erry! Worse6 tese persons6 from wom seallegedly made in>uiries6 were not e0en named

Lastly6 tere was no oter 4orroborati0e e0iden4e to support te respondents 4laim tatse 4ondu4ted a diligent sear4!


32/119

NVI!


So*r)e : Spouses Daditano 0s! San @iguel CorporationG.. o. 188767, ul 54, 5'1/

%on$r!+*$or : ,alia6 +llen

''

PROBLEM:

Beer Corporation filed a 4ase against spouses Arnel "u and 1osanne "u for 0iolation ofB!2! ## and estafa be4ause te 4e4k paid by te spouses signed by 1osanne and drawnagainst Arnels B3- Current A44ount was isonour d for a0ing been drawn againstinsuffi4ient funds! -n te oter and6 te spouses filed an a4tion for spe4ifi4 performan4eand damages against B3-6 Beer Corporation and @oni4a Do! )e spouses alleged tatB3- unlawfully garnised and debited teir bank a44ounts< tat teir obligation to BeerCorporation ad been etinguised by payment< and tat @oni4a Do wo borrowedmoney from te spouses issued a forged 4e4k as payment leading to its isonour and tee0entual garnisment of teir sa0ings a44ount!

)e spouses assert tat te issues tey a0e raised in te 4i0il a4tion 4onstitute a bar to

te prose4ution of te 4riminal 4ase for 0iolation of Batas 2ambansa Blg! ## and estafa!)e Se4retary of te 3epartment of *usti4e suspends te preliminary in0estigation on teground of pre;udi4ial >uestion! )is was owe0er re0ersed by te Court of Appeals!

It is argued tat te appellate 4ourt o0erlooked te fa4t tat te spouses ad an automati4transfer arrangement wit B3-6 su4 tat funds from te sa0ings a44ount wereautomati4ally transferred to teir 4e4king a44ount wene0er a 4e4k tey issued waspresented for payment!

Is te ruling of te Court of Appeals 0alidF 3e4ide wit reasons!

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

"es6 te ruling of te Court of Appeals is 0alid!

/nder Arti4le = of te ,ew Ci0il Code6 pre;udi4ial >uestions6 wi4 must be de4idedbefore any 4riminal prose4ution may be instituted or may pro4eed6 sall be go0erned by


33/119

rules of 4ourt wi4 te Supreme Court sall promulgate and wi4 sall not be in4onfli4t wit te pro0isions of tis Code!

In te 4ase of S2-/S+S DA3I)A,-6 0s! SA, @ID/+L C-12-1A)I-,6 D!1! ,o!%??556 *uly #96 #$%=6 te 4ourt de4lared tat tere is no pre;udi4ial >uestion in a

4riminal 4ase for 0iolation of B!2! ## and estafa and a 4i0il 4ase in0ol0ing an a4tion forspe4ifi4 performan4e and damages by 4iting Se4tion 56 1ule %%% of te #$$$ 1ules ofCriminal 2ro4edure: )e elements of a pre;udi4ial >uestion are: (a te pre0iouslyinstituted 4i0il a4tion in0ol0es an issue similar or intimately related to te issue raised inte subse>uent 4riminal a4tion6 and (b te resolution of su4 issue determines weter ornot te 4riminal a4tion may pro4eed!

)ese e>ually apply in te 4ase at and! )e material fa4ts surrounding te 4i0il 4ase bearno relation to te 4riminal in0estigation being 4ondu4ted by te prose4utor! )epre;udi4ial >uestion in te 4i0il 4ase in0ol0es te disonor of anoter 4e4k! BeerCorporation is not pri0y to te nature of te alleged materially altered 4e4k leading to its

disonor and te e0entual garnisment of petitioners sa0ings a44ount!

+0en if te trial 4ourt in te 4i0il 4ase de4lares B3- liable for te unlawful garnismentof te spouses sa0ings a44ount6 petitioners 4annot be automati4ally ad;udged free from4riminal liability for 0iolation of Batas 2ambansa Blg! ##6 be4ause te mere issuan4e ofwortless 4e4ks wit knowledge of te insuffi4ien4y of funds to support te 4e4ks is initself te offense!


34/119

NVII!


So*r)e : Dar4ia'Quiaon 0s! BelenG.. o. 189151, ul /1, 5'1/

%on$r!+*$or : A0enido6 Anna @ae

''

PROBLEM:

)e lo0e of Susana and @ario bore tem a 4ild name Samanta! At tat time6 Susanaand @ario were bot single and 4apa4itated to marry but de4ided to ;ust li0e togeter as4ommon law usband and wife! .owe0er6 teir lo0e faded and tey de4ided to part ways!Susana as te 4ustody of Samanta! @ario6 on te oter and6 married Angela and ad4ildren wit er! After fifteen years6 @ario died intestate!

Samanta ten filed for a 2etition for Letters of Administration for te +state of erfater 4laiming tat se is te natural 4ild of @ario a0ing been 4on4ei0ed and born atte time wen er parents were bot 4apa4itated to marry ea4 oter! Susana impugnedte 0alidity of @arios marriage to Angela by 4laiming tat it was bigamous! Angelamarried @ario despite te subsisten4e of te formers marriage wit one 7elipe!

Can Samanta >uestion te 0alidity of te marriage of Angela and @arioF 3e4ide witreason

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

"es6 Samanta 4an >uestion te 0alidity of te marriage of Angela and @ario!

In a 0oid marriage6 it was toug no marriage as taken pla4e6 tus6 it 4annot be tesour4e of rigts! Any interested party may atta4k te marriage dire4tly or 4ollaterally! A0oid marriage 4an be >uestioned e0en beyond te lifetime of te parties to te marriage!

)ere is no doubt tat Samanta6 wose su44essional rigts would be pre;udi4ed by erfaters marriage to Angela6 may impugn te eisten4e of su4 marriage e0en after tedeat of er fater! )e said marriage may be >uestioned dire4tly by filing an a4tionatta4king te 0alidity tereof6 or 4ollaterally by raising it as an issue in a pro4eeding forte settlement of te estate of te de4eased spouse6 su4 as in te 4ase at bar! Inelu4tably6Samanta6 as a 4ompulsory eir6 as a 4ause of a4tion for te de4laration of te absolute


35/119

nullity of te 0oid marriage of @ario and Angela6 and te deat of eiter party to te saidmarriage does not etinguis su4 4ause of a4tion!


36/119

NVIII!


So*r)e : 2eople 0s! -dtuanG.. o. 191066, ul 17, 5'1/

%on$r!+*$or : Duma6 Israel

''

PROBLEM:

2opoy and Basa got married in %88$! Basa went to abroad for work! years later62opoy6 fell in lo0e wit anoter woman and tus 4ontra4ted marriage wit @a;arot!)ereafter6 2opoy ten filed a 4omplaint before te 1)C for ;udi4ial de4laration of nullityof is %st marriage on te ground tat tere was no 0alid marriage li4ense! )e 4ourtgranted 2opoys petition and de4lared tat is %st marriage was 0oid ab initio! /ponlearning6 Basa enraged tat 2opoy and er will no longer a0e a se4ond 4an4e6 filed a4ase for Bigamy against 2opoy! 2opoy ten filed for te >uasal of te information on teground tat e did not 4ommit te 4rime of Bigamy sin4e is %st as been ;udi4iallyde4lared 0oid! 3e4ide!

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

2opoy is guilty of bigamy! Arti4le 9$ of te 7amily Code 4learly pro0ides tat teabsolute nullity of a pre0ious marriage may be in0oked for purposes of remarriage on tebasis solely of a final ;udgment de4laring su4 pre0ious marriage 0oid! A de4laration ofte absolute nullity of a marriage is now epli4itly re>uired eiter as a 4ause of a4tion ora ground of defense! It as been eld in a number of 4ases tat a ;udi4ial de4laration ofnullity is re>uired before a 0alid subse>uent marriage 4an be 4ontra4ted< or else6 wattranspires is a bigamous marriage6 repreensible and immoral! Sin4e 2opoy 4ontra4tedis se4ond marriage witout first se4uring a ;udi4ial de4laration of nullity of is firstmarriage6 it is 4lear ten tat e is guilty of bigamy! It is true e0en if te first marriage is

subse>uently de4lared 0oid ab initio as long as one 4ontra4ted marriage before itsde4laration of nullity!

RESEAR%HERS NOTE:

.owe0er6 te do4trine enun4iated inM;%G; v. #E;#E(D!1! ,-! %9##6 7ebruary6 #$$9 may be 4onsidered as an e/)e($!on! In said 4ase6 te 4ourt as ruled tat te


37/119

mere pri0ate a4t of signing a marriage 4ontra4t bears no semblan4e to a 0alid marriageand tus6 needs no ;udi4ial de4laration of nullity! Su4 a4t alone6 witout more6 4annot bedeemed to 4onstitute an ostensibly 0alid marriage for wi4 petitioner migt be eldliable for bigamy!


38/119

NIN!


So*r)e : 1epubli4 0s! AlbiosG.. o. 19878', ;cto"er 16, 5'1/

%on$r!+*$or : Labella6 @argaret

''

PROBLEM:

)o a4>uire Ameri4an 4itiensip6 Liberty Albios married 3aniel Lee 7ringer6 anAmeri4an6 before te @etropolitan )rial Court6 Bran4'86 @andaluyong City (@e)C!)wo years later6 Albios filed wit te 1)C a petition for de4laration of nullity of ermarriage wit 7ringer! Se alleged tat immediately after teir marriage6 tey separatedand ne0er li0ed as usband and wife be4ause tey ne0er ad any intention of enteringinto a married state or 4omplying wit any of teir essential marital obligations! Inde4laring te respondents marriage 0oid6 te 1egional )rial Court eplained tat teparties failed to freely gi0e teir 4onsent to te marriage as tey ad no intention to belegally bound by it and used it only as a means for te Albios to a4>uire Ameri4an4itiensip! Agreeing wit te 1)C6 te Court of Appeals ruled tat te essential re>uisiteof 4onsent was la4king! It eld tat Albios marriage as akin to a marriage in ;est6 defined

in te 4ase of /nited States 0! 1ubenstein6 as a pretended marriage6 legal in form butentered into as a ;oke6 wit no real intention of entering into te a4tual marriage status6and wit a 4lear understanding tat te parties would not be bound! Wit no intention to4reate any legal ties watsoe0er6 @arriages in ;est are 0oid ab initio6 not for 0itiated6defe4ti0e6 or unintelligent 4onsent6 but for a 4omplete absen4e of 4onsent!

)e -ffi4e of te Soli4itor Deneral (-SD argued tat te present 4ase does not fallwitin te 4on4ept of a marriage in ;est6 and empasied tat 4onsent was not la4kingbetween Albios and 7ringer! )ere was a 4lear intention to enter into a real and 0alidmarriage so as to fully 4omply wit te re>uirements of an appli4ation for 4itiensip!)e -SD 4ontends tat tere was a full and 4omplete understanding of te legal tie tat

would be 4reated between tem6 sin4e it was tat pre4ise legal tie wi4 was ne4essary toa44omplis teir goal!

Is te Soli4itor Denerals 4ontention meritoriousF +plain!

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:


39/119

"es! )e parties ere intentionally 4onsented to enter into a real and 0alid marriage6 for ifit were oterwise6 te purpose of Albios to a4>uire Ameri4an 4itiensip would berendered futile!

/nder Arti4le # of te 7amily Code6 4onsent is an essential re>uisite of marriage! 7or

4onsent to be 0alid6 it must be (% freely gi0en and (# made in te presen4e of asolemniing offi4er! Consent must be real in te sense tat it is not 0itiated nor rendereddefe4ti0e by any of te 0i4es of 4onsent under Arti4les 9 and 9 of te 7amily Code6su4 as fraud6 for4e6 intimidation6 and undue influen4e! Consent must also be 4ons4iousor intelligent6 in tat te parties must be 4apable of intelligently understanding te natureof6 and bot te benefi4ial or unfa0orable 4onse>uen4es of teir a4t!

In te 4ase at bar6 4onsent was not la4king between Albios and 7ringer! )at teir 4onsentwas freely gi0en is best e0iden4ed by teir 4ons4ious purpose of a4>uiring Ameri4an4itiensip troug marriage! Su4 plainly demonstrates tat tey willingly anddeliberately 4ontra4ted te marriage!

Altoug te a0owed purpose of marriage under Arti4le % of te 7amily Code is for te4ouple to establis a 4on;ugal and family life6 te possibility tat te parties in a marriagemigt a0e no real intention to establis a life togeter is6 owe0er6 insuffi4ient to nullifya marriage freely entered into! )e same Arti4le % pro0ides tat te nature6 4onse>uen4es6and in4idents of marriage are go0erned by law and not sub;e4t to stipulation! A marriagemay6 tus6 only be de4lared 0oid or 0oidable under te grounds pro0ided by law! )ere isno law tat de4lares a marriage 0oid if it is entered into for purposes oter tan wat teConstitution or law de4lares6 su4 as te a4>uisition of foreign 4itiensip! )erefore6 solong as all te essential and formal re>uisites pres4ribed by law are present6 and it is not0oid or 0oidable under te grounds pro0ided by law6 it sall be de4lared 0alid!

@oti0es for entering into a marriage are 0aried and 4omple! )e State does not and4annot di4tate on te kind of life tat a 4ouple 4ooses to lead! Any attempt to regulateteir lifestyle would go into te realm of teir rigt to pri0a4y and would raise serious4onstitutional >uestions! Altoug te Court 0iews wit disdain te Albioss attempt toutilie marriage for disonest purposes6 it 4annot de4lare te marriage 0oid! .en4e6toug te er marriage may be 4onsidered a sam or fraudulent for te purposes ofimmigration6 it is not 0oid ab initio and 4ontinues to be 0alid and subsisting!


40/119

NN!


So*r)e : Salas6 *r! 0s! AguilaG.. o. 5'5/7', Se+tem"er 5/, 5'1/

%on$r!+*$or : 2erias6 Cristine *oymarie

''

PROBLEM:

-n %88 Brad married Angie and a0e a daugter named +lena! Brad left Angie and+lena6 te 4on;ugal dwelling pla4e and no longer 4ommuni4ated! -n #$$ Angie filed a2etition for 3e4laration of ,ullity of @arriage 4iting psy4ologi4al in4apa4ity underArti4le = of te 7amily Code! )e petition states tat tey Ra0e no 4on;ugal propertieswatsoe0er!R -n @ar4 #$%$6 te marriage was de4lared 0oid but on *une #$%$ Angiefiled a @anifestation and @otion stating tat se dis4o0ered:

(a two #$$'s>uare'meter par4els of land wit impro0ements lo4ated in Cebu City6(b a %$?'s>uare'meter par4el of land wit impro0ement in Lapu# City!

)e registered owner of te 3is4o0ered 2roperties is RBrad Celos married to @iley

Celos!R )e )C)s of te 3is4o0ered 2roperties were entered on %888 and #$$! Bradfiled an -pposition to te @anifestation alleging tat tere is no 4on;ugal property to bepartitioned based on Angies petition! A44ording to Brad6 Angies statement was a ;udi4ialadmission and was not made troug palpable mistake! Brad 4laimed tat Angie wai0eder rigt to te 3is4o0ered 2roperties!

Will Angies 4laim prosperF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

"es! 2ursuant to te 1ules6 e0en upon entry of ;udgment granting te annulment ofmarriage6 te 4ourt 4an pro4eed wit te li>uidation6 partition and distribution of te4on;ugal partnersip of gains if it as not been ;udi4ially ad;udi4ated upon6 as in tis 4ase!)e 3is4o0ered 2roperties are among te 4on;ugal properties to be partitioned anddistributed between Brad and Angie! )e statement is not a ;udi4ial admission< tepetition (of nullity was filed on #$$ but Angie found te 3is4o0ered 2roperties beforete promulgation of te de4ision! Angie was palpably mistaken in er petition and it


41/119

would be unfair to punis er o0er a matter tat se ad no knowledge of at te time semade te admission!

Arti4le %95 of te 7amily Code applies to te union of parties wo are legally 4apa4itatedand not barred by any impediment to 4ontra4t marriage6 but wose marriage is

noneteless de4lared 0oid under Arti4le = of te 7amily Code!

Wen a man and a woman wo are 4apa4itated to marry ea4 oter6 li0e e4lusi0ely witea4 oter as usband and wife witout te benefit of marriage or under a 0oid marriage6teir wages and salaries sall be owned by tem in e>ual sares and te property a4>uiredby bot of tem troug teir work or industry sall be go0erned by te rules on 4o'ownersip!

Were te ground for nullity of marriage was also psy4ologi4al in4apa4ity6 it was tatte properties a4>uired during te union of te parties6 would be go0erned by 4o'ownersip!


42/119

NNI!


So*r)e : Ventura6 *r! 0s! Spouses AbudaG.. o. 5'59/5, ;cto"er 5/, 5'1/

%on$r!+*$or : 3igaum6 Lu4ks @ae

''

PROBLEM:

"ani and 1osie got married! "ani is a widower wile unknown im6 1osie was pre0iouslymarriage to Cris wo6 at te time of teir marriage6 was still ali0e and well! )e 4oupledidnt a0e a 4ild of teir own owe0er6 tey a0e a 4ild from teir pre0ious marriagesnamely6 Crissy ("anis daugter and Cross (1osies son respe4ti0ely! Cross e0entuallygot married to Lu and tey a0e a son named Cross *r!

Subse>uently6 "ani bougt a portion of a lot te title of wi4 was issued in te name ofte "ani married to 1osie! Later on6 is daugter6 Crissy bougt te remaining portion ofte lot wit wi4 te fater and daugter operated a business until "ani got si4k! .e tensold is portion to is daugter in order to 4o0er for is medi4al epenses until is deat!)wo years after is deat6 1osie passed away!

Lu6 upon dis4o0ering te said sale6 filed a 4ase in bealf of er son6 Cross *r! wit te1)C for Annulment of 3eed of Sale against Crissy on te ground of forgery and tat teproperty is 4o'owned by "ani and 1osie! )is was opposed by Crissy alleging tat temarriage between 1osie and er fater6 "ani6 was null and 0oid from te beginning due tote fa4t tat 1osies first marriage was still subsisting! )us6 neiter 1osie and er eirs4an 4laim interest o0er te property bougt by er and er fater! Se furter alleged tatte said property is solely owned by er fater as 1osie did not 4ontribute in tea4>uisition of te said property! If you are te 1)C *udge6 ow will you de4ide te 4aseF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

If I were te 1)C *udge6 I will de4ide te 4ase in fa0or of Crissy and dismiss te 4asefiled by Lu!

KArt! %9?! In 4ases of 4oabitation Pwerein te parties are in4apa4itated to marry ea4oter6 only te properties a4>uired by bot of te parties troug teir a4tual ;oint


43/119

4ontribution of money6 property6 or industry sall be owned by tem in 4ommon inproportion to teir respe4ti0e 4ontributions! N

Applying te abo0e pro0ision in tis 4ase6 "ani and 1osie are in4apa4itated to marry ea4oter at te time of te 4elebration of teir marriage as 1osie and Crosss marriage was

still subsisting! )us6 law on 4oabitation sall apply!

In 4ases of 4oabitation6 only tose properties a4>uired by teir a4tual ;oint 4ontributionof money6 property6 or industry sall be owned by tem in 4ommon in proportion to teirrespe4ti0e 4ontributions! In tis 4ase6 it was sown tat "ani bougt te said property anda0e it titled in is name alone! )ere was no sowing tat 1osie ad a4tually 4ontributedeiter money6 property or industry in te a4>uisition of said property! Wat wassuffi4iently sown was tat Crissy paid for te amortiation of te property in bealf ofis fater! )us6 te said property is not 4ommonly owned by "ani and 1osie but isowned solely by "ani alone!


44/119

NNII!


So*r)e : Lim'Lua 0s! LuaG.. os. 1705798', une 0, 5'1/

%on$r!+*$or : 2arawan6 +ula

''

PROBLEM:

A filed an a4tion for te de4laration of nullity of er marriage wit B! In er prayer forsupport pendente lite for erself and er two 4ildren6 A sougt te amount of2--6---!--! After due earing6 te trial 4ourt issued an -rder granting supportpendente lite! B filed a motion for re4onsideration6 asserting tat A is not entitled tospousal support 4onsidering tat se does not maintain for erself a separate dwellingfrom teir 4ildren and B as 4ontinued to support te family for teir sustenan4e andwell'being in a44ordan4e wit familys so4ial and finan4ial standing! Sould 4ertainepenses already in4urred by B be dedu4ted from te total support owing to petitionerand er 4ildrenF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

"es! As a matter of law6 te amount of support wi4 tose related by marriage andfamily relationsip is generally obliged to gi0e ea4 oter sall be in proportion to teresour4es or means of te gi0er and to te needs of te re4ipient! )e amount of supportmay be redu4ed or in4reased proportionately a44ording to te redu4tion or in4rease of tene4essities of te re4ipient and te resour4es or means of te person obliged to support!


45/119

NNIII!


So*r)e : @endoa 0s! 1epubli4G.. o. 107649, ovem"er 15, 5'15

%on$r!+*$or : )e;ano6 @isaellee

''

PROBLEM:

Arabelle and 3omini4 got married wile still in 4ollege be4ause te former got pregnant!3uring teir marriage6 3omini4 was ;obless for most of te time wile Arabelle be4amete familys bread winner! 3omini4 ad etra marital affairs6 repeatedly borrowed moneywitout repaying tem and treatened to 4ommit sui4ide wen Arabelle refused tore4on4ile!

Arabelle filed a petition for te de4laration of te nullity of marriage wit 3omini4 basedon is psy4ologi4al in4apa4ity under Arti4le = of te 7amily Code! Arabelle presented3r! 1ose Samson wo testified tat 3omini4 was inade>uate6 immature and irresponsiblewit antiso4ial attitude and lifestyle based on er inter0iews wit te petitioner and oterpeople! )e 1)C granted te petition! )e -ffi4e of Soli4itor Deneral opposed arguing

tat 3omini4 was not eamined in person and te epert witnesss testimony is onlypersuasi0e not 4on4lusi0e upon te 4ourt!

Is te presentation of epert opinion and a4tual eamination of a person an indispensablere>uirement in petitions for de4laration of nullity of marriage on te ground ofpsy4ologi4al in4apa4ityF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

,o! By te 0ery nature of 4ases in0ol0ing te appli4ation of Arti4le =6 it is logi4al and

understandable to gi0e weigt to te epert opinions furnised by psy4ologistsregarding te psy4ologi4al temperament of parties in order to determine te root 4ause6;uridi4al ante4eden4e6 gra0ity and in4urability of te psy4ologi4al in4apa4ity! .owe0er6su4 opinions6 wile igly ad0isable6 are not 4onditions sine >ua non in grantingpetitions for de4laration of nullity of marriage! At best6 4ourts must treat su4 opinions asde4isi0e but not indispensable e0iden4e in determining te merits of a gi0en 4ase! In fa4t6if te totality of e0iden4e presented is enoug to sustain a finding of psy4ologi4al


46/119

in4apa4ity6 ten a4tual medi4al or psy4ologi4al eamination of te person 4on4ernedneed not be resorted to!


47/119

NNIV!


So*r)e : 1epubli4 0s! Court of AppealsG.. o. 109094, ovem"er 15, 5'15

%on$r!+*$or : 2arilla6 3a0e +dward Velas>ue

''

PROBLEM:

+duardo and Amor fell in lo0e and got married! .owe0er6 +duardo filed a petition for tede4laration of te nullity of is marriage to Amor on te ground of 2sy4ologi4alIn4apa4ity! .e alleged tat engaged in petty arguments wit im< tat se 4onstantlyrefused to gi0e in to is seual needs< tat se spent most of er time gossiping witneigbors instead of doing te ouseold 4ores and 4aring for teir adopted daugteruandered by gambling all is remittan4es as an o0erseas worker in Qatar sin4e%88=< and tat se abandoned te 4on;ugal ome in %885 to li0e wit 3iego6 erparamour!

Will +duardos suit prosperF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

+duardos suit will not prosper! )e a4ts 4omplained of do not by temsel0es 4onstitutepsy4ologi4al in4apa4ity! It is not enoug to pro0e te 4ommission of tose a4ts or teeisten4e of is abnormal bea0ior! It must be sown tat tose a4ts or tat bea0ior wasmanifestation of a seropus mental disorder and tat it is te root 4ause wy se was notable to perform te essential duties of married life!

2sy4ologi4al in4apa4ity under Arti4le = of te 7amily Code 4ontemplates an in4apa4ityor inability to take 4ognian4e of and to assume basi4 marital obligations6 and is not

merely te diffi4ulty6 refusal6 or negle4t in te performan4e of marital obligations or illwill! It 4onsists of: (a a true inability to 4ommit oneself to te essentials of marriage< (bte inability must refer to te essential obligations of marriage6 tat is6 te 4on;ugal a4t6te 4ommunity of life and lo0e6 te rendering of mutual elp6 and te pro4reation andedu4ation of offspring< and (4 te inability must be tantamount to a psy4ologi4alabnormality! 2ro0ing tat a spouse failed to meet is or er responsibility and duty as amarried person is not enoug< it is essential tat e or se must be sown to be in4apableof doing so due to some psy4ologi4al illness!


48/119


49/119

NNV!


So*r)e : 2ana 0s! .eirs of *ose *uanite6 Sr!G.. o. 1645'1, (ecem"er 1', 5'15

%on$r!+*$or : Legaspo6 @ar;e

''

PROBLEM:

+fren and @ely got married in %8?! In %88?6 te spouses were a44used of murder! )e4ourt a4>uitted +fren6 owe0er6 it found @ely gulity as 4arged! )e 4ourt awardeddamages to te family of te 0i4tim! )e ;udgment ten be4ame final and ee4utory!/pon motion for ee4ution by te eirs of te de4eased6 te 1)C ordered te issuan4e ofte writ6 resulting in te le0y of real properties registered in te names of +fren and @ely!+fren ten >uestions te said writ 4laiming tat te properties le0ied were 4on;ugalassets6 not parapernal assets of @ele4ia!

Can te 4on;ugal properties of spouses +fren and @ely be le0ied and ee4uted upon forte satisfa4tion of @ele4ias 4i0il liability in te murder 4aseF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

"es! Altoug te spouses were married under te regime of te 4on;ugal partnersip ofgains as stipulated in te Ci0il Code6 te 7amily Code 4ontains terms go0erning 4on;ugalpartnersip of gains tat supersede te terms of te 4on;ugal partnersip of gains underte Ci0il Code!

Arti4le %## stipulates tat te payment of personal debts 4ontra4ted by te usband or tewife before or during te marriage sall not be 4arged to te 4on;ugal propertiespartnersip e4ept insofar as tey redounded to te benefit of te family! ,eiter sall te

fines and pe4uniary indemnities imposed upon tem be 4arged to te partnersip!

.owe0er6 te payment of personal debts 4ontra4ted by eiter spouse before te marriage6tat of fines and indemnities imposed upon tem6 as well as te support of illegitimate4ildren of eiter spouse6 may be enfor4ed against te partnersip assets after teresponsibilities enumerated in Arti4le %#% a0e been 4o0ered6 if te spouse wo is boundsould a0e no e4lusi0e property or if it sould be insuffi4ient< but at te time of te


50/119

li>uidation of te partnersip6 su4 spouse sall be 4arged for wat as been paid for tepurpose abo0e'mentioned!

.en4e6 te 4i0il indemnity tat te de4ision in te murder 4ase imposed on @ely may beenfor4ed against teir 4on;ugal assets after te responsibilities enumerated in Arti4le %#%

of te 7amily Code a0e been 4o0ered!


51/119

NNVI!


So*r)e : ,ollora 0s! 2eopleG.. o. 191450, Se+tem"er 7, 5'11

%on$r!+*$or : Imperial6 Cristine

''

PROBLEM:

)e 7irst Wife testified tat se and a44used .usband met in Saudi Arabia wile se wasworking tere as a Staff @idwife in Jing Abdula ,a0al Base .ospital! .e 4ourted erand on April 6 %8886 tey got married at te PI+@+LI7 Cur4 Psi4 in Sapang2alay6San *ose del @onte! Wile working in said ospital6 se eard rumors tat er usbandas anoter wife and be4ause of aniety and emotional stress6 se left Saudi Arabia andreturned to te 2ilippines /pon arri0al in te 2ilippines6 te 7irst Wife learned tatindeed6 .usband 4ontra4ted a se4ond marriage wit Se4ond Wife on 3e4ember ?6 wense se4ured a 4ertifi4ation as to te 4i0il status of .usband from te ,ational Statisti4s-ffi4e (,S-! )e .usband admitted a0ing 4ontra4ted two (# marriages6 wit )eWi0es! .e6 owe0er6 4laimed tat e was a @uslim 4on0ert way ba4k on *anuary %$6%88#6 e0en before e 4ontra4ted te first marriage! As a P@uslim 4on0ert6 e is allegedly

entitled to marry four (9 wi0es as allowed under te @uslim or Islam belief!

3uring trial6 te usband eplained tat in is @arriage Contra4t wit te 7irst Wife6 it isindi4ated tat e was a TCatoli4 2ente4ostal but tat e was not aware wy it waspla4ed as su4 on said 4ontra4t! In is @arriage Contra4t wit te Se4ond Wife6 tereligion TCatoli4 was also indi4ated be4ause e was keeping as a se4ret is being a@uslim sin4e te so4iety does not appro0e of marrying a @uslim! .e also indi4ated tate was Tsingle despite is first marriage to keep said first marriage a se4ret!

Was te #nd marriage bigamousF @ay te usbands religious affiliation be used as adefenseF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

"es!

Arti4le %=(# of te Code of @uslim 2ersonal Laws states tat KPin 4ase of a marriagebetween a @uslim and a non'@uslim6 solemnied not in a44ordan4e wit @uslim law or


52/119

tis Code6 te P7amily Code of te 2ilippines6 or +e4uti0e -rder ,o! #$86 in lieu of teCi0il Code of te 2ilippines sall apply! ,olloras religious affiliation is not an issueere! ,eiter is te 4laim tat ,olloras marriages were solemnied a44ording to @uslimlaw! )us6 regardless of is professed religion6 ,ollora 4annot 4laim eemption fromliability for te 4rime of bigamy!

/nder Art =98 of te 12C6 te marriage is bigamous and pursuant to Art = of te 7amilyCode6 it is 0oid ab initio! ,olloras religious affiliation is inappli4able ere! ,eiter of ismarriages were solemnied under te @uslim Law! )e SC ruled tat is two marriageswere not 4ondu4ted a44ording to te Code of @uslim! .en4e6 is religious affiliation maynot be used as a defense!


53/119

NNVII!


So*r)e : 1emo 0s! Se4retary of 7oreign AffairsG.. o. 1695'5, Marc- 0, 5'1'

%on$r!+*$or : 3a4udao6 1on *uko

''

PROBLEM:

2etitioner @aria Virginia V! 1emo is a married 7ilipino 4itien wose 2ilippine passportwas ten epiring on #5 -4tober #$$$! 2etitioner is married to 7ran4is4o 1! 1allona andte following entries appear in er passport: K1allona as er surname6 K@aria Virginiaas er gi0en name6 and K1emo as er middle name! 2rior to te epiry of te 0alidity ofer passport6 petitioner6 wose marriage still subsists6 applied for te renewal of erpassport wit te 3epartment of 7oreign Affairs (37A6 wit a re>uest to re0ert to ermaiden name and surname in te repla4ement passport!)e 37A denied te re>uest!A44ording to te 37A6 te use of maiden name is allowed in passport appli4ation only ifte married name as not been used in pre0ious appli4ation!

2etitioner argued tat in te 4ase of a married woman6 Arti4le =5$ of te Ci0il Code

pro0ides:

A1)! =5$! A married woman may use:(% .+1 @AI3+, 7I1S) ,A@+ A,3 S/1,A@+ A,3 A33 .+1./SBA,3S S/1,A@+6 -1(# .+1 @AI3+, 7I1S) ,A@+ A,3 .+1 ./SBA,3S S/1,A@+6-1(= .+1 ./SBA,3S 7/LL ,A@+6 B/) 21+7INI,D A W-13I,3ICA)I,D ).A) S.+ IS .IS WI7+6 S/C. AS K@1S!

.en4e6 te use of te word Kmay in te abo0e pro0ision indi4ates tat te use of te

usbands surname by te wife is permissi0e rater tan obligatory! Clearly6 a marriedwoman as an option6 but not a duty6 to use te surname of te usband in any of teways pro0ided by Arti4le =5$ of te Ci0il Code! Se is terefore allowed to use not onlyany of te tree names pro0ided in Arti4le =5$6 but also er maiden name upon marriage!Is 2etitioner 4orre4tF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:


54/119

2etitioner is mistaken! Se4tion (d of 1A ?#=8 Klimits te instan4es wen a marriedwoman may be allowed to re0ert to te use of er maiden name in er passport! )eseinstan4es are deat of usband6 di0or4e de4ree6 annulment or nullity of marriage! )e4onfli4t between Arti4le =5$ of te Ci0il Code and Se4tion (3 of 1A ?=#8 is more

imagined tan real! 1A ?=#86 in4luding its implementing rules and regulations6 does notproibit a married woman from using er maiden name in er passport! In fa4t6 inre4ognition of tis rigt6 te 37A allows a married woman wo applies for a passport forte first time to use er maiden name! Su4 an appli4ant is not re>uired to adopt erusbands surname!

In te 4ase of renewal of passport6 a married woman may eiter adopt er usbandssurname or 4ontinuously use er maiden name! If se 4ooses to adopt er usbandssurname in er new passport6 te 37A additionally re>uires te submission of anautenti4ated 4opy of te marriage 4ertifi4ate! -terwise6 if se prefers to 4ontinue usinger maiden name6 se may still do so! )e 37A will not proibit er from 4ontinuously

using er maiden name!

.owe0er6 on4e a married woman opted to adopt er usbands surname in er passport6se may not re0ert to te use of er maiden name6 e4ept in te 4ases enumerated inSe4tion (3 of 1A ?=#8! )ese instan4es are: (% deat of usband6 (# di0or4e6 (=annulment6 or (9 nullity of marriage! Sin4e petitioners marriage to er usbandsubsists6 se may not resume er maiden name in te repla4ement passport! -terwisestated6 a married womans re0ersion to te use of er maiden name must be based only onte se0eran4e of te marriage!


55/119

HUMAN RELATIONS

Ar$s. 1901

NNVIII!

%!&!" La' To(!) : 2ersons and 7amily 1elations< .uman 1elations< Arts! %8'#%

So*r)e : Alano 0s! @agud'LogmaoG.. o. 17004', A+ril 7, 5'14

%on$r!+*$or : Cal0o6 @ario 3ennis

''

PROBLEM:

Angelito Logmao was brougt to te Western 3istri4t @edi4al Center by sidewalk0endors wo allegedly saw im fall at te Cubao City o0erpass6 werein e wasidentified in te patients data seet as Arnelito Lumogso! Considering is deteriorating4ondition and te ospital as no 0a4an4y6 e was transferred to ,ational JidneyInstitute! .e was not a44ompanied by any relati0es6 tus *ennifer6 te transplant

4oordinator was instru4ted to lo4ate is family or relati0es6 se 4onta4ted se0eraltele0ision and radio stations and sougt te assistan4e of te 2,2 to lo4ate tewereabouts of Angelitos family6 but no one sowed at te Institute! .e was pronoun4eddead due to te se0erity of brain in;ury! 3r! -na6 te Cairman of te 3epartment ofSurgery made a re>uest from 3r! Alano6 te +e4uti0e 3ire4tor of te .ospital for anautority to remo0e te organs of Angelito for organ transplantation wi4 as beenappro0ed by 3r! Alano in a @emorandum wi4 pro0ides tat as long as te re>uisitesas been 4omplied and wit appro0al of ,BI6 te remo0al of organs may be done!Angelitos organs were remo0ed and were used for organ transplantation in te .ospital!)e ,ational Jidney Institute announ4ed in teir press release te su44essful organtransplantation and a 4ousin of Angelito eard on te radio tat te donor was a 4ertain

Arnelito Lugmoso! Be4ause of tis dis4o0ery6 Oenaida6 Angelitos moter filed a4omplaint for damages against 3r! Alano and se0eral do4tors of ,JI alleging tat tey4onspired to remo0e te organs of Angelito wile te latter was still ali0e! -nly 3r! Alanowas eld liable for damages by te 1)C! -n appeal6 te Court of Appeals affirmed tede4ision wit modifi4ation6 by redu4ing te award of moral and eemplary damages6 aswell as attorneys fees! Is 3r! Alano liable for damages for autoriing te remo0al of teorgans of AngelitoF


56/119

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

,o6 to be entitled to damages6 under te Ci0il Code6 negligen4e must be pro0en!3r! Alanois not negligent6 e ga0e autoriation for te remo0al of some of te internal organs to

be transplanted to oter patients6 e did so in a44ordan4e wit te law6 i!e!6 gi0ing issubordinates instru4tions to eert all reasonable efforts to lo4ate te relati0es or net ofkin of respondentHs son! Announ4ements were made troug radio and tele0ision6 teassistan4e of poli4e autorities was sougt6 and te ,BI was notified! )ere 4an be no4a0il tat e employed reasonable means to disseminate notifi4ations intended to rea4te relati0es of te de4eased! .e did not 0iolate te rigts of te respondent under te lawtus a0ing eer4ised due diligen4e in te performan4e of is duties6 e is not liable fordamages for te deat and remo0al of organs of Angelito!

Art. 19. Ever +erson must, in t-e e?ercise o -is rig-ts and in t-e +erormance o -is

duties, act *it- =ustice, give everone -is due, and o"serve -onest and good ait-.

)is arti4le6 known to 4ontain wat is 4ommonly referred to as te prin4iple of abuse ofrigts6 sets 4ertain standards wi4 must be obser0ed not only in te eer4ise of oneHsrigts6 but also in te performan4e of oneHs duties! )ese standards are te following: toa4t wit ;usti4e< to gi0e e0eryone is due< and to obser0e onesty and good fait! )elaw6 terefore6 re4ognies a primordial limitation on all rigts< tat in teir eer4ise6 tenorms of uman 4ondu4t set fort in Arti4le %8 must be obser0ed! A rigt6 toug byitself legal be4ause re4ognied or granted by law as su46 may ne0erteless be4ome tesour4e of some illegality! Wen a rigt is eer4ised in a manner wi4 does not 4onformwit te norms ensrined in Arti4le %8 and results in damage to anoter6 a legal wrong istereby 4ommitted for wi4 te wrongdoer must be eld responsible! But wile Arti4le%8 lays down a rule of 4ondu4t for te go0ernment of uman relations and for temaintenan4e of so4ial order6 it does not pro0ide a remedy for its 0iolation! Denerally6 ana4tion for damages undereiter Arti4le #$ or Arti4le #% would be properR!


57/119

E22e)$!&!$# o2 La's

NNIN!

%!&!" La' To(!) : 2ersons and 7amily 1elations< .uman 1elations< +ffe4ti0ity of Laws

So*r)e : Spouses 3a4udao 0s! DonalesG.. o. 188'06, anuar 8, 5'1/

%on$r!+*$or : LogroGo6 *osep Alfie

''

PROBLEM:

3a4udao filed a syndi4ated estafa 4ase against Lega4y Droup in te offi4e of City2rose4utor 3a0ao Ciy in 7ebruary 6 #$$8! -n @ar4 %?6 #$$8 3-* Se4retary issued3- ,o! %?# dire4ting all City 2rose4utors to forward all 4ases filed against Lega4yDroup to 3-* Spe4ial 2anel in @anila for appropriate a4tion! Aggrie0ed by su4 turn ofe0ents6 3a4udaofiled 0ia petition for 4ertiorari6 proibition and mandamus6 as4ribing toSe4retary of *usti4e gra0e abuse of dis4retion in issuing 3- ,o! %?#! .e 4laimed tat 3-,o! %?# was an obstru4tion of ;usti4e and a 0iolation of te rule against ena4tment oflaws wit retroa4ti0e effe4t! Is 3a4udao 4orre4t in is petition tat 3- ,o! %?# 0iolateste rule against ena4tment of laws wit retroa4ti0e effe4tF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

,o! As a general rule6 laws sall a0e no retroa4ti0e effe4t! .owe0er6 e4eptions eist6and one su4 e4eption 4on4erns a law tat is pro4edural in nature! )e reason is tat aremedial statute or a statute relating to remedies or modes of pro4edure does not 4reatenew rigts or take away 0ested rigts but operates only in furteran4e of te remedy orte 4onfirmation already eisting rigts! )e retroa4ti0e appli4ation is not 0iolati0e of anyrigt of a person wo may feel ad0ersely affe4ted6 for6 no 0ested rigt generally atta4esto or arises from pro4edural law!


58/119

Pres*($!&e Dea$3

NNN!

%!&!" La' To(!) : 2ersons and 7amily 1elations< .uman 1elations< 2resumpti0e 3eat

So*r)e : 1epubli4 0s! Villanue0aG.. o. 51'959, ul 59, 5'10

%on$r!+*$or : +smeGa6 Jimberly @arie

''

PROBLEM:

.ow sall a Kwell'founded belief be establisedF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

A well'founded belief may be establised upon a sowing of proper and onest'to'goodness in>uiries and eUorts to as4ertain not only te absent spouseHs wereabouts but6more importantly6 weter te absent spouse is still ali0e or is already dead! )is stri4tstandard approa4 ensures tat a petition for de4laration of presumpti0e deat underArti4le 9% of te 7amily Code is not used as a tool to 4on0eniently 4ir4um0ent te laws inligt of te StateHs poli4y to prote4t and strengten te institution of marriage! Courtssould ne0er allow pro4edural sort4uts but instead sould see to it tat te stri4terstandard re>uired by te 7amily Code is met!


59/119

NNNI!

%!&!" La' To(!) : 2ersons and 7amily 1elations< .uman 1elations< 2resumpti0e 3eat

So*r)e : 1epubli4 0s! DranadaG.. o. 187015, une 1/, 5'15

%on$r!+*$or : Dutierre II6 Cedri4

''

PROBLEM:

*ane and *osepus got married in %88! In %886 after being fired from is ;ob6 *osepuswent to 2apua ,ew Duinea to seek greener pasture and landed a ;ob as a sales man in adepartment store! 7rom tat time6 *ane was not able to re4ei0e 4ommuni4ation from im!*ane asked *osepus family on is wereabouts but none of tem 4ould gi0e any definiteanswer! ,o oter efforts were made by *ane to lo4ate *osepus!

After %$ years of waiting6 *ane filed a petition de4laring *osepus presumpti0ely dead!)e 1egional )rial Court de4lared *osepus presumpti0ely dead but was appealed by te-ffi4e of te Soli4itor Deneral alleging tat *ane failed to pro0e er well founded belieftat *osepus was already dead! )e appeal was dismissed by te Court of Appeals!

Was te appeal properF 3id te 1)C err in te grant of petition for de4laration ofpresumpti0e deat based on te efforts made by *aneF

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

,o6 te appeal was improper!

)e law pro0ides tat a petition for de4laration of presumpti0e deat of an absent spousefor te purpose of 4ontra4ting a subse>uent marriage under Arti4le 9% of te 7amily Codeis a summary pro4eeding Kas pro0ided for under te 7amily Code! )aken togeter6

Arti4les 9%6 #=?6 #95 and #= of te 7amily Code pro0ide tat sin4e a petition forde4laration of presumpti0e deat is a summary pro4eeding6 te ;udgment of te 4ourtterein sall be immediately final and ee4utory!

In tis 4ase6 te 1egional )rial Court as already gi0en its 0erdi4t and 4annot be remediedby mere noti4e of appeal!

)e 1)C erred in granting te de4ision in fa0or of *ane!


60/119

*urispruden4e pro0ides tat spouse present is burdened to pro0e tat is spouse as beenabsent and tat se as a well'founded belief tat te absent spouse is already deadbefore te present spouse may 4ontra4t a subse>uent marriage! )e law does not definewat is meant by a well'grounded belief is a state of te mind or 4ondition prompting te

doing of an o0ert a4t! It may be pro0ed by dire4t e0iden4e or 4ir4umstantial e0iden4ewi4 may tend6 e0en in a sligt degree6 to elu4idate te in>uiry or assist to adetermination probably founded in trut! Any fa4t or 4ir4umstan4e relating to te4ara4ter6 abits6 4onditions6 atta4ments6 prosperity and ob;e4ts of life wi4 usually4ontrol te 4ondu4t of men6 and are te moti0es of teir a4tions6 was6 so far as it tends toeplain or 4ara4terie teir disappearan4e or trow ligt on teir intentions6 4ompeten4ee0iden4e on te ultimate >uestion of is deat!

)e belief of te present spouse must be te result of proper and onest to goodnessin>uiries and efforts to as4ertain te wereabouts of te absent spouse and weter teabsent spouse is still ali0e or is already dead! Weter or not te spouse present a4ted on

a well'founded belief of deat of te absent spouse depends upon te in>uiries to bedrawn from a great many 4ir4umstan4es o44urring before and after te disappearan4e ofte absent spouse and te nature and etent of te in>uiries made by present spouse!

In te 4ase at bar6 *ane did not initiate a diligent sear4 to lo4ate er absent usband! Insort6 *ane was allegedly not diligent in er sear4 for er usband! If se were6 sewould a0e sougt information from te )aiwanese Consular -ffi4e or assistan4e fromoter go0ernment agen4ies in )aiwan or te 2ilippines! Se 4ould a0e also utiliedmass media for tis end6 but se did not! Worse6 se failed to eplain tese omissions!

.owe0er6 te de4ision of te 1)C is final and ee4utory6 it be4omes immutable andunalterable!


61/119

Un*s$ Enr!)3en$

NNNII!

%!&!" La' To(!) : 2ersons and 7amily 1elations< .uman 1elations< /n;ust +nri4ment

So*r)e : 2ilippine )ransmarine Carriers6 In4! 0s! LegaspiG.. o. 5'5791, une 1', 5'1/

%on$r!+*$or : Apatan6 1osane

''

PROBLEM:

Leandro was employed as a seaman by 2)C6 In4! Wile on board te 0essel e sufferedillness and tus was repatriated! .e filed a 4omplaint wit te Labor Arbiter for full andpermanent disability 4ompensation against 2)C6 In4! )e LA awarded /S?$6$$$!$$based on te I)7 Cruise Sip @odel Agreement6 not on te CBA wi4 is only/S$6$$$!$$! )is de4ision was affirmed by te ,L1C! 3uring te earing on temotion for ee4ution before te ,L1C6 2)C6 In4! agreed to pay respondent/S?%6=#$!$$! )e terms and 4onditions of said payment were embodied in te 1e4eiptof *udgment Award wit /ndertaking6 werein Leandro a4knowledged re4eipt of te saidamount and undertook to return it to 2)C6 In4! in te e0ent te latters petition for4ertiorari would be granted6 witout pre;udi4e to Leandros rigt to appeal!

)e CA granted 2)C6 In4s petition and modified te assailed resolutions of te ,L1C6awarding only /S$6$$$!$$ pursuant to te CBA! Can 2)C6 In4! now re4o0er fromLeandro te amount it paid in e4ess of /S$6$$$!$$F State te prin4iple in Ci0il Law!

SU,,ESTED ANS-ER:

"es! Sin4e te agreement was 0oluntarily entered into by Leandro and 2)C6 In4! andrepresented a reasonable settlement6 it is binding on bot of tem and may not later bedisowned simply be4ause of a 4ange of mind! Leandro agreed to te stipulation tat ewould return te amount paid to im in te e0ent tat te petition for 4ertiorari would begranted! Sin4e te petition was indeed granted by te CA6 Leandro must 4omply wit te4ondition to return te e4ess amount! )o allow now im to retain te e4ess money;udgment would amount to is un;ust enri4ment to te pre;udi4e of 2)C6 In4!

/n;ust enri4ment is a term used to depi4t result or effe4t of failure to make remunerationof or for property or benefits re4ei0ed under 4ir4umstan4es tat gi0e rise to legal or


62/119

e>uitable obligation to a44ount for tem! )o be entitled to remuneration6 one must 4onferbenefit by mistake6 fraud6 4oer4ion6 or re>uest! /n;ust enri4ment is not itself a teory ofre4on0eyan4e! 1ater6 it is a prere>uisite for te enfor4ement of te do4trine ofrestitution! )ere is un;ust enri4ment wen: (%! A person is un;ustly benefited< and (#!Su4 benefit is deri0ed at te epense of or wit damages to anoter!

In te present 4ase6 petitioner paid respondent /S?%6=#$!$$ pursuant to te writ ofee4ution! CA 3e4ision6 owe0er6 modified te final resolution of te ,L1C andawarded only /S$6$$$!$$ to Leandro! If allowed to return te e4ess6 Leandro woulda0e been un;ustly benefited to te pre;udi4e and epense of 2)C6 In4!


63/119

-3o !s a *r!d!)a" Person

NNNIII!

%!&!" La' To(!) : 2ersons

Documents

Book 1 - Persons and Family_v2