Last Minute Tips in CIVIL LAW

8/9/2019 Last Minute Tips in CIVIL LAW

1/19

Question No. I

Rommel Padilla filed a petition for the change of his first name (From Rommel to BB GandangHari) and sex (From Male to Female) in his birth certificate in the RTC of Manila. He alleged thathe is a male transsexal! and nder"ent sex reassignment srger# in Thailand. The trial cortgranted the petition.

The trial cort is one of the opinion that there is no harm or in$r# that "ill be cased to an#bod#of the commnit# in granting the petition. %n the contrar#! granting the petition "old bring themch&a"aited happiness on the part of '! and it is in consonance "ith the principles of $sticeand eit#.

s the $dgment of the trial cort correct* +ill #or ans"er be different if petitioner "as born asan ,inter&sex- indiidal "ith Congenital /drenal H#perplasia (C/H)*

Answer:

0o. The sex determined at birth is immtable. There is no la" recogni1ing sex&

reassignment "ithin Philippine territor#. (2ilerio . Repblic! 345 2CR/ 454)

f the legislatre intends to confer on a person "ho has ndergone sex reassignmentthe priilege to change his name and sex to conform "ith his reassigned sex! it has to enactlegislation la#ing do"n the gidelines in trn goerning the conferment of that priilege.Ho"eer! the Cort has no athorit# to fashion a la" on that matter! or on an#thing else. TheCort cannot enact a la" "here no la" exists. t can onl# appl# or interpret the "ritten "ord of its co&eal branch of goernment! Congress. (Silverio vs. Republic, G.R. No.174689, October 19, 2007)

Ho"eer! in the case of ,inter&sex- indiidals (C/H&Congenital /drenal H#perplasia)!the cort "ill gie de corse to the person6s preference of "hich gender to declare. (Repblic .

Cagandahan! 373 2CR/ 58)

Question No. II

Robin Padilla and Mariel Rodrige1 met and became s"eethearts in 89:8. The# plannedto get married! ths the# applied for a marriage license "ith the %ffice of the Ciil Registrar in2eptember 89:8. The# had their first sexal relation sometime in %ctober 89:8! and hadreglarl# engaged in sex thereafter. +hen the cople "ent bac; to the %ffice of the CiilRegistrar! the marriage license has alread# expired.

Ths! in order to psh throgh "ith the plan! in lie of a marriage license! the# exected

an affidait dated March :3! 89:4 stating that the# hae been liing together as hsband and"ife for at least 3 #ears. The cople got married on the same date. 0eertheless! after theceremon#! Robin and Mariel again "ent bac; to their respectie homes and did not lietogether as hsband and "ife. %n 0oember :4! 89:4! Mariel gae birth to a child! Bella. 2incethe child


2/19

b.) s Bella the daghter of Robin*

Answer:

a.) 0o. >nder the Famil# Code! the absence of an# of the essential or formal

reisites shall renderer the marriage oid ab initio, "hereas a defect in an# of the essentialreisites shall render the marriage oidable. n the instant case! it is clear from the facts thatRobin and Marielle did not hae a marriage license "hen the# contracted their marriage.nstead! the# presented an affidait stating that the# had been liing together for more than fie#ears. Ho"eer! the affidait "as false becase the# did not in fact lie together as hsbandand "ife for the last fie #ears.

the falsit# of the affidait cannot be considered as a mere irreglarit# in the formalreisites of marriage. The false affidait "hich Robin and Marielle exected so the# coldpsh throgh "ith the marriage has no ale "hatsoeer? it is a mere scrap of paper. the# "erenot exempt from the marriage license reirement. Their failre to obtain and present amarriage license render their marriage voi ab initio.

b.) @es. Bella is Robin


3/19

Answer: Bab# Aames can inherit from Aames @ap.

The sccession to the estate of Aames @ap is goerned b# Philippine la" becase he"as a Filipino "hen he died (/rticle :7! Ciil Code). >nder /rticle :94 of the Ciil Code! thecapacit# of the heir to scceed is goerned b# the national la" of the decedent and not b# the

national la" of the heir. Hence! "hether or not Bab# Aames can inherit from Aames @ap isdetermined b# Philippine la". >nder Philippine la"! the adopted inherits form the adopter as alegitimate child of the adopter.

Bab# Aames! ho"eer! cannot inherit! in his o"n right! from the father of the adopter!Ton# @ap! becase he is not a legal heir of Ton# @ap. The legal fiction of adoption exists onl#bet"een the adopted and the adopter. (eotico v. "el *al :4 2CR/ 97 I:73J). 0either ma#he inherit from Ton# @ap b# representing Aames @ap becase in representation! therepresentatie mst be a legal heir not onl# of the person he is representing bt also of thedecedent from "hom the represented "as spposed to inherit (/rticle 54! Ciil Code).

Question No. V

The petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nllit# of marriage based allegedl# on theps#chological incapacit# of the respondent! bt the ps#chologist "as not able to personall#examine the respondent and the ps#chological report "as based onl# on the narration of petitioner. 2hold the annlment be granted* xplain.

Answer D 0%. /lthogh there is no reirement that a part# to be declared ps#chologicall#incapacitated shold be personall# examined b# a ph#sician or a ps#chologist! there isneertheless a need to proe the ps#chological incapacit# throgh independent eidenceaddced b# the person alleging said disorder. Correspondingl#! the presentation of expert proof prespposes a thorogh and in&depth assessment of the parties b# the ps#chologist or expert!

for a conclsie diagnosis of a grae! seere and incrable presence of ps#chologicalincapacit#. !+OR"$N #$N -$ v. +/$N#/ -$*ON -$, G.R. No. 16679, &ebruar' 18,2010)

Question No. VI

Cipriano and Ead# Miros married each other. Ead# Miros then left for the >2 and there! sheobtained /merican citi1enship. Cipriano later learned all abot this inclding the fact that Ead#Miros had diorced him in /merica and that she had remarried there. He then filed a petition for athorit# to remarr#! ino;ing par. 8! /rt. 87 of the FC. s Cipriano capacitated to re&marr# b#irte of the diorce decree obtained b# his Filipino spose "ho "as later natrali1ed as an

/merican citi1en* xplain.

Answer D @es. The rec;oning point for /rt. 87 par. 8 of the FC to appl# is not the citi1enship of the parties at the time of the celebration of their marriage bt their citi1enship at the time that aalid diorce is obtained abroad b# the alien spose capacitating him or her to re&marr#.

/lthogh said proision onl# proides for diorce obtained abroad b# the foreign spose in aalid mixed marriage! the legislatie intent "old be rendered ngator# if this proision "oldnot be applied to a sitation "here there is a alid marriage bet"een t"o Filipino citi1ens! one of


4/19

"hom thereafter is natrali1ed as a foreign citi1en and obtains a alid diorce decreecapacitating him or her to remarr#! as in this case. To rle other"ise "old be to sanctionabsrdit# and in$stice.

KKThe clear legislatie intent in the case of par. 8! /rt. 87 (the origin of "hich can be traced to=an Lorn . Romillo! Ar.! :4 2CR/ :4) of the FC is to aoid the absrd sitation "here the

Filipino spose remains married to the alien spose "ho! after obtaining a diorce! is no longer married to the Filipino spose. This is so not"ithstanding that! on its face! the said proisiondoes not appear to goern the sitation presented b# the case at hand. ( Republic v. Orbecio, GR. No. 14(80, October , 200 )

Question No. VII

For fie #ears since :! Ric;#! a la"#er! and /rlene! an entertainer! lied together as hsbandand "ife "ithot the benefit of marriage althogh the# "ere capacitated to marr# each other.2ince Ric;#6s salar# "as more than enogh for their needs! /rlene stopped "or;ing and merel#,;ept hose-. Lring that period! Ric;# "as able to b# a lot and hose in a plsh sbdiision.

Ho"eer! after fie #ears! Ric;# and /rlene decided to separate. +ho "ill be entitled to thehose and lot* xplain.

ANSWER Ric;# and /rlene are entitled to the hose and lot as co&o"ners in eal shares.>nder /rticle :5 of the Famil# Code! "hen a man and a "oman "ho are capacitated to marr#each other lie exclsiel# "ith each other as hsband and "ife! the propert# acired dringthe cohabitation are presmed to hae been obtained b# their $oint efforts! "or; or indstr# andshall be o"ned b# then in eal shares. This is tre een thogh the efforts of one of themconsisted merel# in his or her care and maintenance of the famil# and of the hosehold.

Question No. VIII

Testator died leaing an estate "orth P:!999!999.99. He is sried b# fie (3) legitimatechildren (,/!- ,B!- ,C!- ,L- and ,-) and b# his spose (F). Liide his estate.

Answer:

,/!- ,B!- ,C!- ,L- and ,- are entitled to P399!999.99 as collectie legitime to be diided into fieparts. ach "ill get P:99!999.99.

,F- "ill get a share eialent to the legitime of one legitimate child P:99!999.99.

/ailable part (Free Lisposal) of the free portion P99!999.99.

Question No. IX

/ testator died leaing cash mone# in the amont of P::!999!999.99? a car "orth P399!999.99!and a hose "orth P399!999.99. He institted ,B-! ,C- and ,L- as testamentar# heirs. Ho"eer!he specificall# proided that the car shold go to ,B- and the hose to ,C-. Ho" mch "ill eachget from the cash amont* xplain


5/19

Answer:

The rle is eer#thing mst be compted to complete the entiret# of the estate "hich in trnmst be diided eall# into 4 parts. Collating the properties! the estate is "orthP:8!999!999.99.

/s there is no designation of shares! this amont "ill be diided into three eal parts! that is!P!999!999.99 for each heir.

The heirs "ill diide the estate as follo"s

,B- "ill get :. P4!399!999.99 in cash pls the car "orth P399!999.99.,C- "ill get 8. P4!399!999.99 in cash pls the hose "orth P399!999.99.,L- "ill get 4. P!999!999.99 in cash.

Question No. X

Testator died leaing an estate "orth P:!999!999.99. He left an indebtedness of P499!999.99.+hen still alie! he gae a donation of P:99!999.99 to ,/!- a legitimate son. Testator is sriedb# for legitimate children! ,/!- ,B!- ,C- and ,L.- Liide his estate. (:9N)

/ns"erD

P:!999!999.99 ale of propert# of testator at the time of his death?P499!999.99 to be dedcted from said ale of propert#?

P 599!999.99 net ale of hereditar# estate.

P:99!999.99 donation to ,/- is to be added being collationable.

Total hereditar# state is P99!999.99.

Eegitime of ,/!- ,B!- ,C- and ,L- is P99!999.99.

Free Portion is P99!999.99.

,/!- ,B!- ,C- and ,L- "ill get P:99!999.99 each for their legitimes.

2ince ,/- got alread# an adance legitime of P:99!999.99 he "ill not receie an#thing an#moreas legitime.

Question No. XI

Eoren1o and Pala! both Filipinos! "ere married in the Philippines. Eoren1o later became an /merican Citi1en. Pala engaged in an adlteros relationship "ith Elorente! and the# bore ason. Becase of this! Eoren1o secred a diorce from a cort in 0eada! >2/ to seere hismarriage "ith Pala. The diorce is alid nder >2 la"s.


6/19

Eoren1o then retrned to Manila and married /licia (a 2panish national). The# bore threechildren. Eoren1o exected a "ill "here he beeathed all his propert# located in the >2 andManila to /licia and their three children. The "ill "as probated in the >2 and /licia "asappointed administrator of his estate. Thereafter! Eoren1o died in Manila.

1. +hat la" "ill goern the intrinsic alidit# of Eoren1o6s "ill* 2hold the "ill be re&

probated in the Philippines* xplain.

8. +as the foreign diorce obtained b# Eoren1o alid* xplain.

ANSWER:

What law will govern the intrinsic validity of Lorenzo’s will?

The applicable la" is the national la" (0e" @or;! >2/) of the decedent O Eoren1o.(/rticles :3 and :7 of the Ciil Code).

Foreign la"s do not proe themseles in or $risdiction and or corts are notathori1ed to ta;e $dicial notice of them. Ei;e an# other fact! the# mst be alleged and proed.

Was the foreign divorce obtained by Lorenzo valid?

@es. Eoren1o "as alread# an /merican citi1en at the time he secred the diorce. Ths!he is no longer bond b# Philippine la"s! "hich prohibits diorce.

,n =an Lorn . Romillo! Ar. I:4 2CR/ :4 (:3)J! "e held that o"ing to the nationalit#principle embodied in /rticle :3 of the Ciil Code! only Philippine nationals are covered ythe policy a!ainst asolute divorces" the sa#e ein! considered contrary to our concepto$ pulic policy and #orality. In the sa#e case" the %ourt ruled that aliens #ay otain

divorces aroad" provided they are valid accordin! to their national law .-

,Citing this landmar; case! the Cort held in ita . Cort of /ppeals I499 2CR/ 97(:)J! that once proven that respondent was no lon!er a &ilipino citi'en when heotained the divorce $ro# petitioner" the rulin! in Van (orn would eco#e applicale andpetitioner could )very well lose her ri!ht to inherit) $ro# hi# .-

,For failing to appl# these doctrines! the decision of the Cort of /ppeals mst bereersed. +e hold that the diorce obtained b# Eoren1o H. Elorente from his first "ife Pala "asalid and recogni1ed in this $risdiction as a matter of comit#. 0o"! the effects of this diorce (asto the sccession to the estate of the decedent) are matters best left to the determination of thetrial cort.-

Question No. XII

Lere; Ramsa# (a Filipino&/merican) and /nn Crtis (a Filipina&/stralian)! met last #ear (89::) at Thnderbird Resort in 2an Fernando! Ea >nion. The# became s"eethearts and gotengaged. Ho"eer! Lere; insisted that the# shold get married in 2ingapore. /nn agreed!thogh she "as nsre "h# Lere; did not "ant to get married in the Philippines. The# thensecred a marriage license from the Philippine Conslate in 2ingapore. The "edding ceremon#


7/19

"as celebrated b# a mascot at the >niersal 2tdios in 2ingapore. The marriage is alid nder the la"s of 2ingapore.

>pon their retrn to Manila! /nn registered their marriage "ith the 02%. 2he thendiscoered that Lere; had been preiosl# married in Manila in 8993 to /ngelica Panganiban.Bt the records of the 02% sho"ed that the said marriage "as alread# nllified on the grond of

both parties6 ps#chological incapacit# b# a final decision of the California 2preme Cort in Ane899. 2ch annlment is alid nder the la"s of California.

/nn retains #or serices to adise her on these estionsD

*i+ Is her #arria!e to (ere, in Sin!apore valid under Philippine law-

ANSWER: @2. /nnlment of marriage based on ps#chological incapacit# is recogni1ednder Philippine la"s. 2ince the annlment of Lere;6s marriage to /ngelica is alid (and inconformit#) "ith the la"s of California ("here it "as secred)! then it shall also be alid nder Philippine la"s (/rt. 87! Famil# Code).

2ince Lere;6s first marriage "as alread# annlled at the time he married /nn in 2ingapore! thenLere;6s marriage to /nn shall also be alid nder Philippine la"s. t is also of no moment thatthe marriage "as officiated b# a mascot at the >niersal 2tdios. This is becase prsant to

/rticle 87 of the Famil# Code! marriages celebrated abroad and alid there as sch! shall alsobe alid here. This marriage does not fall nder an# of the exceptions to the said rle.

*ii+ %an (ere, e prosecuted $or i!a#y at the instance o$ his $irst wi$eAn!elica-

ANSWER: No. Firstl#! there is no crime committed in Philippine territor# becase thesecond marriage "as celebrated abroad (in 2ingapore). >nder the territorialit# principle! or corts can onl# ta;e cogni1ance of crimes committed "ithin or territor#.

2econdl#! there is no bigam# becase the first marriage has alread# been annlled beforethe second marriage "as contracted. The annlment! thogh secred abroad! has alread#been enforced and recogni1ed nder Philippine la"s becase it "as alread# annotated in therecords ;ept b# the 02%.

*iii+ Is the annul#ent o$ #arria!e secured y (ere, in %ali$ornia valid under Philippine laws-

ANSWER: @2. /nnlment of marriage based on ps#chological incapacit# is recogni1ednder Philippine la"s. 2ince the annlment of Lere;6s marriage to /ngelica is alid (and inconformit#) "ith the la"s of California ("here it "as secred)! then it shall also be alid nder Philippine la"s (/rt. 87! Famil# Code).


8/19

Question No. XIII

n 899! Bea /lon1o! a Filipino citi1en! married a dirt#&old&man! Ronaldo! a Britishnational! in ndonesia in a "edding ceremon# celebrated according to ndonesian la"s. Ronaldo"as preiosl# married to Hilda oronel. +hen Bea fond ot that she "as made ,TheMistress-! she "as fming mad and immediatel# "ent bac; home to Manila. %ne month later!

Ronaldo retrned to his natie Eondon! and he alidl# obtained in that contr# an absoltediorce from his "ife Bea.

/fter Bea receied the final $dgment of diorce! she married a Filipino strggling actor (and the son of Ronaldo)! Aohn Elo#d! also a Filipino citi1en! in a religios ceremon# accordingto the formalities of Philippine la". Aohn Elo#d later left for the >nited 2tates and becamenatrali1ed as an /merican citi1en. Bea follo"ed Aohn Elo#d to the >nited 2tates! and after aserios arrel! Bea filed a sit and obtained a diorce decree issed b# the cort in the state of 0eada.

Bea then retrned to the Philippines and in a ciil ceremon# celebrated in e1on Cit#according to the formalities of Philippine la" she married another actor! Qan$oe! li;e"ise a

Filipino citi1en.

a+ Was the #arria!e o$ ea and Ronaldo valid when celerated- Is their #arria!estill validly e/istin! now- Reasons.

Answer:

The marriage of Bea and Ronaldo "as oid ab initio for being bigamos. 2ince Ronaldo"as preiosl# married to Hilda ornoel! and sch marriage "as still sbsisting at the time hemarried Bea! then his 8nd marriage to Bea is oid for being a bigamos marriage.

Their marriage no longer alidl# sbsists! becase it has been dissoled b# the absolte

diorce alidl# obtained b# Ronaldo from Eondon. (/rt. 87. Famil# Code).

+ Was the #arria!e o$ ea and 0ohn 1loyd valid when celerated- Is their #arria!estill validly e/istin! now- Reasons.

t depends. f the diorce decree obtained b# Ronaldo capacitated him to re&marr#! then it "illalso capacitate Bea to re&marr#. Ho"eer! Bea mst first secre a $dicial recognition toenforce the foreign decree of diorce in the Philippines. Presentation of the diorce decree isnot enogh. /fter the diorce decree is alidl# recogni1ed! then Bea can alidl# re&marr#.

f Bea married Aohn Elo#d "ithot secring a $dicial recognition of her diorce decree "ith

Ronaldo! then their marriage is oid.

The diorce decree obtained b# Bea from her marriage "ith Aohn Elo#d is not alid in thePhilippines becase she "as still a Filipino at the time she secred the said diorce. Ths!nder Philippine la"s! she is still married to Aohn Elo#d.

c+ Was the #arria!e o$ ea and 2an3oe valid when celerated- Is their #arria!e stillvalidly e/istin! now- Reasons.


9/19

/ns"erD The marriage bet"een Bea and Qan$oe is oid becase at the time Bea marriedQan$oe! she "as still la"fll# married to Aohn Elo#d. The diorce decree obtained b# Bea fromher marriage "ith Aohn Elo#d is not alid in the Philippines becase she "as still a Filipino at thetime she secred the said diorce. Ths! nder Philippine la"s! she is still married to AohnElo#d.

d+ At this point in ti#e" who is the law$ul husand o$ ea- Reasons.

/ns"erD Aohn Elo#d is the la"fl hsband of Bea. The diorce decree obtained b# Bea fromher marriage "ith Aohn Elo#d is not alid in the Philippines becase she "as still a Filipino at thetime she secred the said diorce. Ths! nder Philippine la"s! she is still married to AohnElo#d.

Question No. XIV

Pedro and Maria entered into a contract of lease oer a parcel of land or a bilding.Pedro! the lessee placed machiner# for the se of his sa" mill bsiness on the land and bildingbelonging to the lessor! Maria. Ho" do #o classif# the machiner#* xplain.

/02+RD The machiner# is a moable propert# since it "as planted b# the tenant! not theo"ner. mmobili1ation b# destination cannot be made b# one "ho is not the o"ner of the land.(Laao 2a"mills s. Castillo! 7: Phil. 59)

Question No. XV

Aeff is the o"ner of a parcel of land ad$oining the ban; of Rier +a"a in Bocae!Blacan. t is titled nder the name of Aeff. The land has a total area of :9!999 sare meters.

/fter six (7) #ears! the land receied an accretion of :!999 sare meters de to the natralcrrent of the rier. +ho o"ns the accretion* +h#* s the accretion a part of the title* 2pposeAeff enters into possession of the accretion! can he acire it b# prescription* +h#*

Who owns the accretion- Why-

/02+RD Aeff is the o"ner of the accretion. >nder the la"! to the o"ner of the landad$oining the ban; of a rier belongs the accretion receied b# sch land proided that thefollo"ing are complied "ithD

(i) it mst be the reslt of the natral crrent of the rier?(ii) the increase is gradal?(iii) the rier mst be continos.

Is the accretion a part o$ the title- Why-

/02+RD 0o. The accretion is not part of the title becase the title has a particlar description "hich does not comprise the accretion.


10/19

Suppose 0e$$ enters into possession o$ the accretion" can he ac4uire it y prescription-Why-

/02+RD Aeff is alread# the o"ner of the accretion. He does not need to "ait for a period

of time to acire o"nership of the accretion.

Question No. XVI

Michael and Tina prchased t"o (8) ad$acent parcels of land from different endors.Portions of the bildings and "all boght b# Michael "ere occp#ing a portion of Tina6s land!hence! pon learning of the same! Michael offered to b# the land. Bt Tina sed Michael inconnection "ith the encroachment or occpation b# Michael6s bilding and "all of the portion of her land. +hat la" goerns the rights of the parties* Can Tina insist on the remoal of theimproement* +h#*

What law !overns the ri!hts o$ the parties-

/02+RD The proisions of /rt. of the Ciil Code "ill goern the rights of the parties.n ie" of the impracticalit# of creating a state of forced co&o"nership! the la" has proided a

$st soltion b# giing the o"ner of the land the option to acire the improements after pa#ment of the proper indemnit#! or to oblige the bilder to pa# for the land. t is the o"ner of the land "ho is athori1ed to exercise the option! becase his right is older! and becase! b# theprinciple of accession! he is entitled to the o"nership of the accessor# thing.

%an 5ina insist on the re#oval o$ the i#prove#ent- Why-

/02+RD 0o. The remoal of the improement is not one of the remedies besto"ed b# la"

pon the o"ner of the land. This remed# is aailable onl# if and "hen the o"ner chooses thebilder to b# the land at a reasonable price bt the latter fails to pa# sch price. This has notta;en place. Hence! Tina6s options are limited toD (i) appropriating the encroaching portion of Michael6s bilding after pa#ment of the proper indemnit#? or (ii) obliging the latter to b# theportion of the lot occpied b# the strctre.

Question No. XVII

B;o! in good faith! has prchased a diamond ring from Gigi! a friend of his. Gigi gae B;o abill of sale. Eater on! Aohnn# identified the ring as the one he had lost abot a #ear ago. Thereis no estion as to the eracit# of Aohnn#6s claim. n the meantime! Gigi has disappeared.

+hat adice "old #o gie B;o in reference to Aohnn#6s demand that the ring be retrned or srrendered to her* (:9N)

/ns"erD "old adise B;o to retrn the ring to Aohnn#! and not expect to be reimbrsedb# Aohnn# the amont he (B;o) had paid Gigi. The la" sa#s that one "ho has lost an#moable or has nla"fll# been depried thereof ma# recoer it from the person in possessionof the same! "ithot sch possessor being entitled to reimbrsement! except if the acisitionin good faith had been at a pblic sale or action ( Art. !)! or at a merchant6s store! fair or mar;et ( Art. "#$ No. 4). (f acisition "as at a merchant6s store! fair! or mar;et! there can


11/19

een be no recoer#). B;o6s good faith is not material insofar as Aohnn#6s sperior rights areconcerned. *Arenas v. Ray#undo" 67 Phil 89+

Question No. XVIII

B;o "anted to deelop his piece of propert# "hich he fond to be occpied b# seeralpersons "ho had been in possession and farming on the land for :8 to :3 #ears. /fter ademand to acate! B;o entered the propert#! destro#ed the barbed "ire fence and blldo1edthe frit&bearing trees and crops on the land. B;o ino;ed the Loctrine of 2elf&Help becasehe has a title to the propert#. Lecide.

/ns"erD B;o "as "rong. The doctrine of self&help can onl# be exercised at thetime of actal or threatened dispossession! "hich is absent in this case. ,+hen possession hasalread# been lost! the o"ner mst resort to $dicial process for the recoer# of the propert#.-(%er&an 'anage&ent ( Services$ )nc. v. *A" :55 2CR/ 3+

B;o shold hae broght an action to recoer possession of the propert# && li;e

e$ectment (nla"fl detainer)! accion reinindicatoria or accion pbliciana as the case ma#be.

Question No. XIX

+hile strolling in a certain street! Ric;# finds a prse containing P:!999. Loes hebecome the o"ner thereof b# his mere possession* f not! ho" can he become the o"ner of the P:!999* Can that be considered a hidden treasre* xplain.

/ns"erD 0o. Mere possession does not ma;e Ric;# the o"ner thereof. f Ric;# ;no"s

the o"ner of the prse! there is no "a# b# "hich he can become the o"ner of the P:!999becase according to the la"! he mst retrn the prse inclding its contents to sch o"ner. f the o"ner is n;no"n! Ric;# shold immediatel# deposit the moable "ith the ma#or of theplace "here the finding too; place. There shall then be a pblic annoncement of the findingfor 8 consectie "ee;s. 2ix months from the pblication haing elapsed "ithot the o"ner haing appeared! the thing fond shall be a"arded to Ric;#! after reimbrsement of theexpenses. +Art. ,"!-

f the o"ner shold appear in time! he shall be obliged to pa# Ric;#! as a re"ard! ::9 of theamont fond. ( Art. ,#-

(0oteD the mone# fond cannot be considered a ,treasre- becase it "as not ,hidden

and n;no"n-. Art. /0! states ,B# treasre is nderstood! for legal prposes! an# hidden andn;no"n deposit of mone#! $e"elr# or other precios ob$ects! the la"fl o"nership of "hichdoes not appear.- Hence! the rles on hidden treasre do not appl#.)


12/19

6. Q: A$ter conductin! preli#inary investi!ation" a panel co#posed o$ stateprosecutors $ro# the (0 char!ed Sen. ;onasan" to!ether with others" with a violationo$ Art. 6=(0 0oint %ircular No." it has 3urisdiction to investi!ate the casea!ainst hi#" concurrent with the $$ice o$ the #uds#an. ;onasan counters that saidcircular is ine$$ective as it was never pulished. Is >=(0 %ircular No. 7?=@@6ine$$ective ecause it was not pulished- E/plain.

A: 0o. %MB&L%A Circlar 0o. 3&99: is merel# an internal circlar bet"een the t"o offices"hich otlines the athorit# and responsibilities among prosectors of the L%A and of the %fficeof the %mbdsman in the condct of preliminar# inestigations. t does not contain an# penalproision nor prescribe a mandator# act or prohibit an# nder pain of penalt#. Frther! it doesnot reglate the condct of persons or the pblic! in general. /s sch therefore! it need not bepblished. (:7 2CR/ 34 and Peo. . e Po Ea# ( Phil. 79). (onasan, v. 3e -anel o

nvesti5atin5 -rosecutors o t3e "epartent o +ustice, G.R. No. 19747, +une 1, 2004)

. Q: Roerto was in Ni,,o ;otel when he u#ped into a $riend who was then on her way to a weddin! reception ein! held in said hotel. Roerto alle!ed that he was theninvited y his $riend to 3oin her at the weddin! reception and carried the as,et $ull o$ $ruits which she was rin!in! to the a$$air. At the reception" the weddin! coordinator o$ the hotel noticed hi# and as,ed hi#" alle!edly in a loud voice" to leave as he was not inthe !uest list. ;e retorted that he had een invited to the a$$air y his $riend" whohowever denied doin! so. (eeply e#arrassed y the incident" Roerto then sued thehotel $or da#a!es under Articles 67 and 6 o$ the %ivil %ode. Will RoertoBs actionprosper- E/plain.

A: 0o. t "as held that the ersion of the hotel coordinator "as more credible considering thatshe has been in the hotel bsiness for 89 #ears "herein being polite and discreet are irtes tobe emlated. Conseentl#! the emplo#er hotel is not liable for damages. /rt. :! ;no"n tocontain "hat is commonl# referred to as the principle of abse of rights! is not a panacea for allhman hrts and social grieances. The elements for this principle to appl# areD

:) There is an act "hich is legal?8) Bt it is contrar# to morals! good cstom! pblic order! or pblic polic#? and4) t is done "ith intent to in$re.

/ common theme rns throgh /rticles : and 8: and that is! t3e act coplaine o ust be

intentional . n this case! there "as no sho"ing at all that the "edding coordinator had acted "ithill&moties. +ithot sch eidence! her act cannot amont to abse of rights. ! Ni77o otel 8anila Garen v. Re'es, a.7.a. 9$6a' :isa'a, G.R. No. 1429. &ebruar' 28, 200 )

illion to the unorn child o$ his pre!nant !irl$riend"which she accepted. A$ter C #onths o$ pre!nancy" the $etus was orn and apti'ed asAn!ela. ;owever" An!ela died @ hours a$ter irth. Ric,y sou!ht to recover the P6>illion.Is Ric,y entitled to recover- E/plain.


13/19

AD @es. Ric;# ma# recoer the donation becase the donee! /ngela! is not considered tohae been born. >nder /rticle : of the Ciil Code! if a fets had an intra&terine life of less thanseen months! it is not deemed born if it dies "ithin t"ent#&for hors after its complete delier#from the maternal "omb.

2ince the fets did not acire an# legal personalit#! it acired no rights "hich cold betransmitted to the mother. Ric;#! as donor! ma# recoer the mone# he donated to an inexistentdonee.

8. Q: 1iwayway Vin'ons=%hato was then the %o##issioner o$ Internal Revenuewhile &ortune 5oacco %orporation is an entity en!a!ed in the #anu$acture o$ di$$erentrands o$ ci!arettes" a#on! which are )%ha#pion") );ope") and )>ore) ci!arettes.

&ortune $iled a co#plaint a!ainst Vin'ons=%hato to recover da#a!es $or the alle!edviolation o$ its constitutional ri!hts arisin! $ro# Vin'on=%hatoBs issuance o$ Revenue>e#orandu# %ircular No. >,!$ 6ebr1ary "$#"#-


14/19

C. Q: >aria" wi$e o$ Pedro" withdrew P?> $ro# their con3u!al $unds. With this#oney" she constructed a uildin! on a lot which she inherited $ro# her $ather. Is theuildin! con3u!al or paraphernal- Reasons.

ANSWERD t depends. This is ;no"n as reerse accession. >nder /rticle :89 of the Famil#

CodeD

$rt. 120. The o"nership of improements! "hether for tilit# or adornment! made on theseparate propert# of the sposes at the expense of the partnership or throgh the acts or effortsof either or both sposes shall pertain to the con$gal partnership! or to the original o"ner&spose! sb$ect to the follo"ing rlesD

(i) +hen the cost of the improement made b# the con$gal partnership and an#reslting increase in ale are more than the ale of the propert# at the time of theimproement! the entire propert# of one of the sposes shall belong to the con$galpartnership! sb$ect to reimbrsement of the ale of the propert# of the o"ner&sposeat the time of the improement? other"ise! said propert# shall be retained in o"nership

b# the o"ner&spose! li;e"ise sb$ect to reimbrsement of the cost of the improement.

(ii) n either case! the o"nership of the entire propert# shall be ested pon thereimbrsement! "hich shall be made at the time of the liidation of the con$galpartnership.

9. Q: %ipriano and 1ady >iros #arried each other. 1ady >iros then le$t $or the DSand there" she otained A#erican citi'enship. %ipriano later learned all aout thisincludin! the $act that 1ady >iros had divorced hi# in A#erica and that she hadre#arried there. ;e then $iled a petition $or authority to re#arry" invo,in! par. " Art. C o$ the &%. Is %ipriano capacitated to re=#arry y virtue o$ the divorce decree otained y

his &ilipino spouse who was later naturali'ed as an A#erican citi'en- E/plain.

A: @es. The rec;oning point for /rt. 87 par. 8 of the FC to appl# is not the citi1enship of theparties at the time of the celebration of their marriage bt their citi1enship at the time that a aliddiorce is obtained abroad b# the alien spose capacitating him or her to re&marr#.

/lthogh said proision onl# proides for diorce obtained abroad b# the foreign spose in aalid mixed marriage! the legislatie intent "old be rendered ngator# if this proision "oldnot be applied to a sitation "here there is a alid marriage bet"een t"o Filipino citi1ens! one of "hom thereafter is natrali1ed as a foreign citi1en and obtains a alid diorce decreecapacitating him or her to remarr#! as in this case. To rle other"ise "old be to sanctionabsrdit# and in$stice.

KKThe clear legislatie intent in the case of par. 8! /rt. 87 (the origin of "hich can be traced to=an Lorn . Romillo! Ar.! :4 2CR/ :4) of the FC is to aoid the absrd sitation "here theFilipino spose remains married to the alien spose "ho! after obtaining a diorce! is no longer married to the Filipino spose. This is so not"ithstanding that! on its face! the said proisiondoes not appear to goern the sitation presented b# the case at hand. ( Republic v. Orbecio, GR. No. 14(80, October , 200 )


15/19

. Q: A$ter they !ot #arried" Ni,,i discovered that %hristian is havin! an a$$air with another wo#an. ut Ni,,i decided to !ive it a try and lived with hi# $or two years.A$ter years" Ni,,i $iled an action $or le!al separation on the !round o$ %hristianBs se/ualin$idelity. Will the action prosper- E/plain.

ANSWERD 0o. +hile sexal infidelit# is a alid grond for legal separation! 0i;;i is deemed

to hae condoned it! as she still lied "ith Christian een after she discoered his sexalinfidelit#. The precriptie period for this grond is fie (3) #ears after the marriage. Bt 0i;;ima# no longer file an action for legal separation on the grond of condonation.

7. &or $ive years since 677" Ric,y" a lawyer" and Arlene" an entertainer" livedto!ether as husand and wi$e without the ene$it o$ #arria!e althou!h they werecapacitated to #arry each other. Since Ric,yBs salary was #ore than enou!h $or their needs" Arlene stopped wor,in! and #erely F,ept houseG. (urin! that period" Ric,y wasale to uy a lot and house in a plush sudivision. ;owever" a$ter $ive years" Ric,y andArlene decided to separate. Who will e entitled to the house and lot- E/plain.

ANSWER: Ric;# and /rlene are entitled to the hose and lot as co&o"ners in eal shares.

>nder /rticle :5 of the Famil# Code! "hen a man and a "oman "ho are capacitated to marr#each other lie exclsiel# "ith each other as hsband and "ife! the propert# acired dringthe cohabitation are presmed to hae been obtained b# their $oint efforts! "or; or indstr# andshall be o"ned b# then in eal shares. This is tre een thogh the efforts of one of themconsisted merel# in his or her care and maintenance of the famil# and of the hosehold.

6@. Q: ;onorato $iled a petition to adopt his #inor ille!iti#ate child Stephanie"alle!in! that StephanieHs #other is e##a Astor!a arciaJ that Stephanie has eenusin! her #otherHs #iddle na#e and surna#eJ and that he is now a widower and4uali$ied to e her adoptin! parent. ;e prayed that StephanieHs #iddle na#e e chan!ed$ro# )Astor!a) to )arcia") which is her #otherHs surna#e and that her surna#e

)arcia) e chan!ed to )%atindi!") which is his surna#e. 5his the trial court denied. Wasthe trial court correct in denyin! ;onoratoBs re4uest $or StephanieBs use o$ her #otherBssurna#e as her #iddle na#e- E/plain.

A: 0o. The name of an indiidal has t"o parts & the gien name or proper name and thesrname of famil# name. The gien name ma# be freel# selected b# the parents for the child!bt the srname to "hich the child is entitled is fixed b# la". The Ciil Code (/rts. 47 to 49) issilent as to the se of a middle name. en /rt :57 of the FC! as amended b# Rep. /ct 0o.833 ( /n /ct /llo"ing llegitimate Children to >se the 2rname of Their Father) is silentas to "hat middle name a child ma# se.

$n aopte c3il is entitle to all t3e ri53ts provie b' la; to a le5itiate c3il ;it3out

iscriination o an' in, incluin5 t3e ri53t to bear t3e surnae o 3er at3er an 3er ot3er. $s s3e 3a becoe a le5itiate c3il on account o 3er aoption, it ollo;s t3at Step3anie isentitle to utili


16/19

Note: The 2preme Cort! in granting the petition! predicated its rling pon the stattor#principle that adoption stattes! being hmane and saltar#! shold be liberall# constred tocarr# ot the beneficent prposes of adoption. The modern trend is to consider adoption notmerel# as an act to establish a relationship of paternit# and filiation! bt also as an act "hichendo"s a child "ith legitimate stats. (n t3e atter o t3e $option o Step3anie Nat3' $stor5aGarcia, G.R. No. 148(11. arc3 (1, 200 )

66. Spouses Pri#o and >onina 1i#" childless" were entrusted with the custody o$ two#inor children" the parents o$ who# were un,nown. Ea!er o$ havin! children o$ their own" the spouses #ade it appear that they were the childrenBs parents y na#in! the#>ichelle P. 1i# and >ichael 0ude 1i#. Suse4uently" >onina #arried An!el lario a$ter Pri#oBs death.

She decided to adopt the children y availin! the a#nesty !iven under R.A. ?? to thoseindividuals who si#ulated the irth o$ a child. She $iled separate petitions $or theadoption o$ >ichelle" then ? years old and >ichael" 6. oth >ichelle and >ichael !aveconsent to the adoption.

5he trial court dis#issed the petition and ruled that >onina should have $iled the petition 3ointly with her new husand. >onina" in a >otion $or Reconsideration ar!ues that #ereconsent o$ her husand would su$$ice and that 3oint adoption is not needed" $or theadoptees are already e#ancipated.

Is the trial court correct in dis#issin! the petitions $or adoption- E/plain.

/D /D @es. 2ection 5 /rticle 4 of R./. 338 readsD 2ec. 5 O Hsband and "ife s3all $ointl#adopt! xxx. The se of the "ord ,shall- in the aboe‐oted hsband and the "ife is mandator#.This is in consonance "ith the concept of $oint parental athorit# oer the child "hich is the idealsitation. /s the child to be adopted is eleated to the leel of a legitimate child! it is bt natral

to reire the sposes to adopt $ointl#. The rle also ensres harmon# bet"een the sposes.

The la" is clear. There is no room for ambigit#. Monina! haing remarried at the time thepetitions for adoption "ere filed! mst $ointl# adopt "ith her hsband. 2ince the petitions for adoption "ere filed onl# b# Monina herself! "ithot $oining her hsband! %lario! the trial cort"as correct in den#ing the petitions for adoption on this grond. +)n Re:


17/19

A: Borromeo. Registration is not a mode of aciring o"nership. Certificates of title are not asorce of right. The mere possession of a title does not ma;e one the tre o"ner of thepropert#. +hen the transferee is not a holder in good faith and did not acire the properties for a alable consideration! the certificate of title is not indefeasible.

Aambrich "as the sorce of fnd sed to prchase the 4 lots! ths! he had all athorit# totransfer all his rights! interests and participation oer the sb$ect properties to Borromeo.

f a land is inalidl# transferred to an alien "ho sbseentl# becomes a Filipino citi1en or transfers it to a Filipino! the fla" in the original transaction is considered cred and the title of the transferee is rendered alid. +*a&ilo @orro&eo v. Antonietta escallar$ %.R. No. "!0"#$6ebr1ary /$ ##!-

6


18/19

property to her !randniece 0ocelyn who therea$ter instituted an action $or e3ect#enta!ainst the Spouses andon!.

5o assert their ri!ht" Spouses andon! $iled an action $or annul#ent o$ sale a!ainstEulalia and 0ocelyn alle!in! that there was no sale intended ut only e4uitale #ort!a!e$or the purpose o$ securin! the shorta!e incurred y (o#en! in the a#ount o$ P9@"

@@@.@@ while e#ployed as biyaheroB y Eulalia. Was the deed o$ sale etween (o#en!and Eulalia a contract o$ sale or an e4uitale #ort!a!e- E/plain.

A: t is an eitable mortgage. n execting the said deed of sale! Lomeng and lalia neer intended the transfer of o"nership of the sb$ect propert# bt to brden the same "ith anencmbrance to secre the indebtedness incrred b# Lomeng on the occasion of hisemplo#ment "ith lalia. The agreement bet"een Lominador and lalia "as not aoided in itsentiret# so as to preent it from prodcing an# legal effect at all. nstead! the said transaction isan eitable mortgage! thereb# merel# altering the relationship of the parties from seller andb#er! to mortgagor and mortgagee! "hile the sb$ect propert# is not transferred bt sb$ectedto a lien in faor of the latter. +S2s. Ray&1ndo$ et al. v. S2s. @andong$ %.R. No. ","#$ 81l./$ ##,-

:3. NatividadBs holo!raphic will" which had only one sustantial provision" as $irstwritten" na#ed Rosa as her sole heir. ;owever" when re!orio presented it $or proate" italready contained an alteration" na#in! re!orio" instead o$ Rosa" as sole heir" utwithout authentication y NatividadBs si!nature. Rosa opposes the proate alle!in! suchlac, o$ proper authentication. She clai#s that the unaltered $or# o$ the will should e!iven e$$ect. Whose clai# should e !ranted- E/plain.

A: 0either. Both their claims shold be denied. /s to Gregorio6s claim! the absence of properathentication is fatal to his case. /s to Rosa6s claim! to state that the "ill as first "ritten sholdbe gien efficac# is to disregard the seeming change of mind of the testatrix. Bt that change of

mind can neither be gien effect becase she failed to athenticate it in the manner reired b#la" b# affixing her fll signatre. !=ala; v. on. Relova, etc., et al., G.R. No. >40207, Sept. 28,1984)

6C. 0ohn Sa!un and >aria %arla %a#ua" ritish citi'ens at irth" ac4uired Philippineciti'enship y naturali'ation a$ter their #arria!e. (urin! their #arria!e the coupleac4uired sustantial landholdin!s in 1ondon and in >a,ati. >aria e!ot three children"0or!e" 1uisito" and 0oshur. In one o$ their trips to 1ondon" the couple e/ecuted a 3oint willappointin! each other as their heirs and providin! that upon the death o$ the survivor etween the# the entire estate would !o to 0or!e and 1uisito only ut the two could notdispose o$ nor divide the 1ondon estate as lon! s they live. 0ohn and >aria died

tra!ically in the 1ondon Suway terrorist attac, in @@?. 0or!e and 1uisito $iled a petition$or proate o$ their parentsB will e$ore a >a,ati Re!ional 5rial %ourt. 0oshur vehe#entlyo3ected ecause he was preterited.

Q: Should the will e ad#itted to proate- E/plain.

A: 0o! the "ill cannot be admitted to probate. Aoint "ills are oid nder the Ciil Code. /nd eenif the $oint "ill exected b# Filipinos abroad "ere alid "here it "as exected! the $oint "ill is still


19/19

not alid in the Philippines. Preterition is not a grond to disallo" a probate. n this case! thegrond for disallo"ance is the fact that it is a $oint "ill.

Q: Are the testa#entary dispositions valid- E/plain.

A: f a "ill is oid! all testamentar# dispositions contained in that "ill are also oid. Hence! all

testamentar# proisions contained in the oid $oint "ill are also oid.

Q: Is the testa#entary prohiition a!ainst the division o$ the 1ondon estate valid-E/plain.

A: The testamentar# prohibition against the diision b# Aorge and Eisito of the Eondon estatefor as long as the# lie! is not alid. /rt. of the Ciil Code proides that a donor or testatorma# prohibit partition for a period "hich ma# not exceed t"ent# (89) #ears.

69. Ric,y and Arlene are #arried. 5hey e!ot &ranco durin! their #arria!e. &rancohad an illicit relationship with Audrey and out o$ which" they e!ot Arnel. &ranco

predeceased Ric,y" Arlene and Arnel. e$ore Ric,y died" he e/ecuted a will which whensu#itted to proate was opposed y Arnel on the !round that he should e !iven theshare o$ his $ather" &ranco. Is the opposition o$ Arnel correct- Why-

/02+RD 0o! becase an illegitimate child has no right of representation. >nder /rt. 8of the Ciil Code! an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimatechildren and relaties of his father or mother! nor shall sch children or relaties inherit in thesame manner from the illegitimate children. This is the so&called barrier bet"een legitimatesand illegitimates. +Leonardo vs. *A$ 6eb. $ "!0C iaz vs. >,/$ 81ne",$ "!,C ela $ "!!#-.

6. ;ow can R0P distriute his estate y will" i$ his heirs are 0%P" his wi$eJ ;R andRV%" his parentsJ and an ille!iti#ate child" S-

/02+RD t shall be distribted this "a#D

:) : for the sriing spose "hich shall be ta;en from the free portion?8) : shall go to the illegitimate child?4) :8 shall go to HBR and R=C? and) : shall be freel# disposed of. (/rt. ! 0CC).

Documents

Last Minute Tips in CIVIL LAW