Notes in Persons Until Family Home PDF

NOTES IN PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS1

I. MARRIAGE

Art 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in
accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family
and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and
not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the
marriage within the limits provided by this Code. (52a)

A. REQUISITES

KINDS OF REQUISITES (Arts. 2, 3, 5, 53)

Essential Requisites
Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these ESSENTIAL requisites are present:
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be male and a female; and
(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer. (53a)

These are the only essential requisites of marriage. Kung ano lang ang nakasulat na essential those are the
only essential because there would be consequences. It’s only about the legal capacity of the contracting
parties. I will go into this (what are covered by the legal capacity). At the same time of course, the consent
given in the presence, this is another essential requisite.

Formal Requisites
Art. 3. The FORMAL requisites of marriage are:
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;
(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and

But in this article it is already clear that there are contracting parties who are exempt from a valid marriage
license. So after all, maski walang valid marriage license, a marriage may be valid under the Philippine law.
We’ll go into these circumstances when the law allows a marriage without a valid marriage license.

(3) A marriage ceremony which takes places with the appearance of the contracting parties before the
solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in
the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age. (53a, 55a)

Marriage ceremony takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties. Take note, this is a marriage
solemnized here in the Philippines. There is a need for the appearance of the contracting parties. Sa
essential meron na ito, in the presence of the solemnizing officer, so it is really a requirement to the validity
of marriage.

“In the presence of not less than two witnesses.” This is not really a part of the formal requisites, and formal
requisite again is the marriage ceremony. But this is required, pero if not complied with, it will not affect the
validity of the marriage.

1
Based on a lecture by Atty. Crisostomo A. Uribe, 26 September 2018, Arellano University School of Law

Civil Law Review 1 | DLSU Law | Palis | Guanio | 1

KINDS OF NON-COMPLIANCE

Absence, defect, and irregularity, distinguished
Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio,
except as stated in Article 35 (2).

A defect in any of the essential requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or
parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable. (n)

If it is only a DEFECT, it has a relation to the ESSENTIAL requisite. A defect shall render the marriage
voidable. Parang sa kontrata lang ito. Because again, ang marriage, ay isang special contract. Kapag may
defect sa consent, sa contract will be voidable. Ganun din sa marriage.

In legal capacity, what is covered by this requirement is the age. Even with falsified birth certificate, na 18
na siya, para lang mai-kasal, the marriage will not be valid. Actually there are instances na sa birth
certificate, which is authentic, he is 18, but in reality 17 lang siya o 16. The marriage will not also be valid.
Because ang tunay na edad na kailangan ay 18. Ang take note, it should be the age at the time of the
solemnization of the marriage. Basta doon sa araw ng kasal 18 na siya, pwede na, may legal capacity na
siya. Kahit 17 year old na may consent ng parents, that would not validate the marriage. Also, the fact that
the other party is in good faith, akala niya 18 years old na yung mapapangasawa niya, does not make the
marriage valid. No amount of good faith will save such marriage from being a void marriage.

As far as the essential requisites, ano ang pwede maging mga depekto, such that it would make the
marriage voidable?

Kung sa FORMAL requisites, and tawag ng batas ay IRREGULARITY. In a way, you can even claim na defect
din yun, pero dahil ang ginagamit ng batas ay irregularity, yun na rin ang gamitin niyo. Ang irregularity shall
not affect the validity of the marriage pero the party or parties responsible shall be civilly, criminally, and
administratively liable.

EFFECT OF NON-COMPLIANCE

Void marriages
Art. 35, (2). The following shall be void from the beginning:

(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages
were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the
legal authority to do so.

In the formal requisites, there are exceptions. One, nasa solemnizing officer. Pangalawa, nasa valid
marriage license.

REPUBLIC v ALBIOS (GR No. 198780, 16 October 2013)
May kinalaman ba ang motive sa validity ng marriage? Sabi ng Supreme Court in Republic v Albios, motive
does not affect the validity of marriage. In this case, even if the motive of one of the contracting parties, si
Albios, is to acquire the citizenship ng mapapangasawa niya, it does not affect the validity of the marriage.
At any rate, they gave consent to this marriage. Kaya, it does not affect the validity of the marriage.

Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and
void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four
consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already
dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the
provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.

For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph the spouse
present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive
death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. (83a)

If one is still married to somebody else, may subsisting marriage, obviously, wala siyang capacity to
contract marriage. But this is subject to Art. 41. Under said article, even if there is a subsisting marriage,
pwede actually maging valid ang marriage, pero may requirement na judicial declaration of death, or
presumptive death, otherwise it would not be a valid marriage.

Voidable marriages
Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:

(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or
over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents,
guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after
attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as
husband and wife;

The law requires that one the contracting parties are or are about between 18 and 21. Put this in the proper
perspective. When the Family Code took effect on August 3 1988, ang age of majority at that time ay 21,
kapareho lang ng Civil Code. Kaya ang edad ng between 18 and 21, minors pa sila. Kaya understandable na
kailangan ng parental consent. Pero ngayon, despite the fact na 18 na lang ang age of majority, so
nonetheless, pag between 18 and 21, kailangan pa rin ng parental consent. And if there is no such consent,
such marriage is voidable.

(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with
the other as husband and wife;

On the other hand, “of unsound mind”, will make the marriage voidable. And if the marriage is obtained
through fraud o may vitiation ng consent, the marriage will likewise be voidable. Ang madalas dito na nasa
Bar exam ay fraud. But specific lang ang circumstances na fraud will make a contract voidable, which will
be discussed.

(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full
knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the
same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband
and wife;

(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such
incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or

(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears
to be incurable. (85a)

Authority of the solemnizing officer
Art. 7. Marriage may be solemnized by:

(1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court’s jurisdiction;

Sa Family Code, ito lang ang naka-enumerate na may “authority.” Also, must be incumbent. Kapag retired
na, wala na siyang authority. May requirement din na within the court of jurisdiction. Does this jurisdiction
affect the authority of the solemnizing officer? Hindi. Kung hindi niya nagawa yon, it will not affect the
validity of the marriage.

(2) Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect duly authorized by his church or
religious sect and registered with the civil registrar general, acting within the limits of the written
authority granted by his church or religious sect and provided that at least one of the contracting
parties belongs to the solemnizing officer’s church or religious sect;

Kailangan registered the civil registrar, among others. May effect ito kung nag-lapse na yung registration or
license. It is as if wala na siyang authority pag nag-lapse na.

Required sa batas na at least one of the solemnizing officers belong to the same sect. Kung hindi
na-comply? Does this affect the validity of the marriage? HINDI. It does not affect the validity of the
marriage. It is a mere irregularity, which does not affect the validity of the marriage.

Ang essential requisite diyan is the “authority of the solemnizing officer.”

(3) Any ship captain or airplane chief only in the case mentioned in Article 31;

(4) Any military commander of a unit to which a chaplain is assigned, in the absence of the latter, during a
military operation, likewise only in the cases mentioned in Article 32;

Under very specific circumstances. Hindi pa ito nag-appear sa Bar exam.

(5) Any consul-general, consul or vice-consul in the case provided in Article 10. (56a)

Ito, ilang beses na nag-appear sa bar exam.

Take note, wala dito ang mayors. When the Family Code took effect on 3 August 1988, tinanggal
tinanggalan ng authority ang mayors. Before that, may authority sila for so long a time they have authority
to solemnize. Pero, ibinalik sa kanila yon under the Local Government Code (LGC), which took effect on 1
January 1992. Kahit ang tawag natin ay LGC of 1991, pero nag take effect siya 1 January 1992 as required
in that code.

In other words, mula 3 August 1988 hanggang 31 December 1991, walang authority ang mayors to
solemnize marriage.

Pero, even if walang authority to solemnize marriage, the marriage may be valid, nonetheless, if either or
both parties believe in good faith that the solemnizing officer has the legal authority. Sabi ng batas, “either
or both parties believe in good faith.”

Yung argument na good faith will not be enough because this requirement is required by law and ignorance
of the law excuses no one is not applicable dahil ang batas mismo ang nagpo-provide na ang good faith ay
pwede na. Doon sa ignorance of the law, kasi the law does not provide for good faith. Kaya pag nagsabi ka
“ay good faith ako hindi ko na alam na meron palang ganyang law”, hindi pwede because that law does not
allow good faith as a defense. Pero dito, the law itself provides that the marriage may be valid. Ang labanan
dito ay nasa good faith, may basehan ba siya to believe in good faith. Kase kung abogado siya tapos
ikle-claim niya na good faith siya, ay walang maniniwala sa kanya.

One important point, if you read the Local Government Code, the law does not provide that the mayors must
be within their jurisdiction, unlike members of the judiciary who are required to solemnized the marriage
within the courts jurisdiction. Maski mga priest, walang nakalagay na within their jurisdiction. Kaya ang mga
pari pwedeng mag solemnize kahit saan, kahit wala sa parish nila.

Marriage license; Validity
Art. 20. The license shall be valid in any part of the Philippines for a period of one hundred twenty days
from the date of issue, and shall be deemed automatically canceled at the expiration of the said period if
the contracting parties have not made use of it. The expiry date shall be stamped in bold characters on the
face of every license issued. (65a)

Nag-eexpire din ang marriage license. The law only provides for the life of the license na 120 days from the
issuance, hindi from the date na nag-apply siya. That is practically 4 months.

But may mga exempt from these requirement, tulad ng marriage in articulo mortis--ang isa sa contracting
parties was at the point of death habang ikakasal. Kung namatay ito, that person who is at the point of
death, it will not affect the validity of the marriage. On the other hand, kung nag-survive siya, nauna pang
namatay yung person not at the point of death, it will not also affect the validity of the marriage. It does not
matter.

During the five-year cohabitation, it is required that the parties are entirely free from any legal impediment.2

ABBAS v ABBAS (GR No. 183896, 30 January 2013)
Syed Abbas filed his petition for the declaration of nullity claiming that the marriage is void because of the
lack of marriage license. The other contracting party claimed na meron talaga, kaya lang based on the
testimonies and the marriage certificate, nakasulat doon ang license number.

Issue: W/N the absence of marriage license a ground to nullify the marriage.

Held: Kung nakalagay sa marriage certificate na meron marriage license with a certain number, you can
prove na hindi totoo ang marriage license na yan. In fact yung copy ng marriage license was not presented.
Normally naka-attach yan doon sa marriage certificate.

2
Art. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at
least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an
affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he
ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties are found no legal impediment to the marriage. (76a)

Although Syed Abbas was able to obtain a certification from the civil registrar which allegedly issued the
subject marriage license with that number, such marriage license was actually issued to another couple.

There was no valid marriage license. This marriage is a void marriage. Respondent failed to present the
actual marriage license or a copy thereof and relied on the marriage contract as well as the testimonies of
the witnesses.

There is a question here in Abbas because the parties are actually married in Taiwan. Proper ba ang
decision ng korte to declare the marriage void? To my mind, tama ang SC. What was put in issue was this
marriage dito sa Pilipinas, not the marriage in Taiwan. There could a case involving that marriage (in
Taiwan) but that would be a separate case. But as far as the marriage which was solemnize in the
Philippines, void yan. Until ma-prove na may marriage sa Taiwan ang valid here in the Philippines, hindi
talaga sila mag-asawa.

ARANES v OCCIANO (380 SCRA 659, 11 April 2002)
The judge solemnized the marriage outside the court’s jurisdiction kasi naki-usap ang contracting parties
kasi one of them was already of advance age, mahina na physically.

Did it affect the validity of the marriage?

Hindi. If the marriage was solemnized outside the court’s jurisdiction, meron pa ring authority and
solemnizing officer. Ang authority nasa tao. It is a mere irregularity, which may result to criminal, civil or
administrative liability on the part of the judge.

In this case, the judge was fined because he solemnized the marriage even without license.

Marriage license; Who shall issue; Where issued
Art. 9. A marriage license shall be issued by the local civil registrar of the city or municipality where either
contracting party habitually resides, except in marriages where no license is required in accordance with
Chap 2 of this Title.

The law requires the local civil registrar of the city or municipality where either contracting party habitually
resides. Kung wala, taga Marikina sila pareho pero nag-apply sila ng lisensya sa City of Manila at nag-issue
ang Civil Registrar ng Manila ng license, does it affect the validity? HINDI. Valid and marriage license na
yan. Yun nga lang, may irregularity dahil ang requirement ng batas ay it should be issued by local civil
registrar of the city or municipality where either contracting party habitually resides.

Who may be held liable then? It depends. Ang sabi ng batas, kung sino ang guilty why there is such an
irregularity. Ang Civil Registrar will be the one liable if the contracting parties in the application form stated
yung actual residence nila pero yung Civil Registrar nag-issue pa rin. Pero kung yung mga contracting
parties ang nilagay nila taga Tondo, Manila sila na hindi naman totoo, sila ang liable. The contracting
parties misrepresented themselves.

Posting of notice
10 days ito. Failure is a mere irregularity, which does not affect the validity of the marriage.


Certificate of legal capacity and marriage counseling3
Required but failure of compliance is just a mere irregularity. Marriage license would be valid.
If one of the contracting parties is foreigner, our law requires that he should submit a certificate of legal
capacity. Kung hindi niya na-submit yan, it does not affect the validity of the marriage. It is just a mere
irregularity. And Supreme Court and nagsasabi niyan, kasi nga ang formal requisite ay marriage license.

Parental advice4
However, between 21 and 25, one or both of the contracting parties, the law requires na dapat may parental
advice. Pero pag walang parental advice na sinubmit, will it affect the validity? HINDI, but it is not
necessarily an irregularity. It will depend kung ano ang ginawa ng civil registrar. Kung ang ginawa ng civil
registrar ay dahil walang parental advice sinuspend niya ang issuance ng license ng three months, walang
irregularity. Pero despite the fact na kailangan ng parental advice at walang nai-submit, and right there and
then probably within the 10-day posting period ay nag-issue siya agad, may irregularity, at ang pwedeng
maging liable ay ang civil registrar. Again, it would merely be an irregularity kung hindi niya sinuspend. Kung
sinuspend niya, may compliance ng batas.

Appearance of parties necessary in marriage ceremony; Signature on marriage certificate necessary;
Exceptions
Art. 6. No prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall be
necessary, however, for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemnizing officer and
declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as husband
and wife. This declaration shall be contained in the marriage certificate which shall be signed by the
contracting parties and their witnesses and attested by the solemnizing officer.

In case of a marriage in articulo mortis, when the party at the point of death is unable to sign the marriage
certificate, it shall be sufficient for one of the witnesses to the marriage to write the name of said party,
which fact shall be attested by the solemnizing officer. (55a)

Marriage ceremony takes place upon the appearance, walang proxy marriage here in the Philippines. The
Supreme Court would say na walang specific formalities na required sa marriage ceremony as long as
na-comply and Article 6. But there are other requisites again in relation to the marriage ceremony, but they
are not formal requisites, but they are required. Like dapat yung witnesses of legal age. Pero kung hindi of
legal age yung isa, or yung dalawa, or even walang witnesses, it will not affect the validity of the marriage.
3
Art. 16. In the cases where parental consent or parental advice is needed, the party or parties concerned shall, in addition to the
requirements of the preceding articles, attach a certificate issued by a priest, imam or minister authorized to solemnize marriage
under Article 7 of this Code or a marriage counselor duly accredited by the proper government agency to the effect that the
contracting parties have undergone marriage counseling. Failure to attach said certificates of marriage counseling shall suspend
the issuance of the marriage license for a period of three months from the completion of the publication of the application. Issuance
of the marriage license within the prohibited period shall subject the issuing officer to administrative sanctions but shall not affect
the validity of the marriage.

Should only one of the contracting parties need parental consent or parental advice, the other party must be present at the
counseling referred to in the preceding paragraph. (n)

4
Art. 15. Any contracting party between the age of twenty-one and twenty-five shall be obliged to ask their parents or guardian for
advice upon the intended marriage. If they do not obtain such advice, or if it be unfavorable, the marriage license shall not be issued
till after three months following the completion of the publication of the application therefor. A sworn statement by the contracting
parties to the effect that such advice has been sought, together with the written advice given, if any, shall be attached to the
application for marriage license. Should the parents or guardian refuse to give any advice, this fact shall be stated in the sworn
statement. (62a)


Of course the law requires na dapat may marriage certificate, pipirmahan ito ng solemnizing officer, ng mga
contracting parties. Pero maski walang marriage certificate doon sa office of the Civil Registrar, as long as
meron talagang kasal which can be proven by the testimony of the parties or those who are present during
the marriage ceremony then there is a valid marriage.

Supposedly ang marriage will be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open court, or sa
church. Pero kapag ang marriage ay na-solemnized on the beach of Boracay, would that affect the validity?
NO. Would there be an irregularity? IT DEPENDS. Kasi ang parties ay allowed na mag-request in writing na
ang kasal ay sa isang lugar. If there is such a request, pumayag ang solemnizing officer, walang irregularity.
Pero kung walang request na ganyan at na-solemnize ang marriage not in this places provided by the
Family Code, there is an irregularity. But then again, it does not affect the validity of the marriage.

Gigi and Ric, Catholics, got married when they were 18 years old. Their marriage was solemnized on 2
August 1989 by Ric’s Uncle, a Baptist Minister, in Calamba, Laguna. He overlooked the fact that his
license to solemnize marriage expires the month before and that the parties do no belong to his
congregation. After 5 years of married life and blessed with 2 children, the spouses developed
irreconcilable differences, so they parted ways.

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

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

Take note that Gigi and Ric are only 18 years old and hindi sila member ng sect of the solemnizing officer.
Mas ma-importante ay nag-expire na yung license ng solemnizing officer. Kung nag-expire na, ang effect is
there is no more marriage license. Is the marriage void? NOT NECESSARILY. If either or both believe in good
faith that the solemnizing authority has the authority to contract marriage, the marriage may be VALID if
there is parental consent. Otherwise, even if only one of the contracting parties lacks parental consent, the
marriage would be VOIDABLE.

And the fact that none of them belongs to the sect of the solemnizing officer is merely an irregularity, which
does not affect the validity of the marriage.

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

This marriage is definitely VOID.. The consent of the parents and the existence of the birth certificate
showing Juliet was 18 years of age does not matter. The fact is at the time of the solemnization of the
marriage, she was only 16 years age, therefore less than 18--contrary to what the law requires.

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

She can file a petition for the declaration of nullity. With that, there would be dissolution of whatever
properties they acquire during cohabitation.


(4) If you were the counsel for Gigi, what action/s will you take to enforce and protect her interests?
Explain.

Same as No. 3.

Suppose the couple got married on 1 September 1994 at the Manila Hotel before the Philippine Consul
General to Hong Kong, who was on vacation in Manila. The couple executed an affidavit consenting to
the celebration of the marriage at the Manila Hotel. Is the marriage valid?

Even if you consider the suggested answer of the UP Law Center, may conflicting views dito. But ako, I
would always go into the position that as much as possible, valid ang marriage. In other words, again, if
either or both contracting parties believe in good faith that he has the authority to solemnize marriage, it
may be a valid marriage. Again, ang labanan, can he truly claim na in good faith siya.

The complete publication of the Family Code was made on 4 August 1987. On 4 September 1987, Junior
Cruz and Gemma Reyes were married before a municipal mayor. Was the marriage valid?

As discussed a while ago, at this point in time, noong September 4, 1987, ang mga mayors wala nang
authority. But nonetheless, until the Supreme Court would tell me otherwise, and I think they will not, tingin,
under Art. 35 paragraph 2, as long as either or both contracting parties believe in good faith that these
mayor has the authority to solemnize marriage, the marriage may be a valid marriage. At this point in time,
September 4, 1987, sino kaya ang may alam na wala ng authority ang mga mayor. When for so many
decades marami ng silang kinakasal dahil may authority sila. Again, andon yung labanan sa good faith.

A and B, both 18 years old, were sweethearts studying in Manila. On 3 August 1988, while in first year
college, they eloped. They stayed in the house of a mutual friend in town X, where they were able to
obtain a marriage license. On 30 August 1988, their marriage was solemnized by the town mayor of X in
his office. Thereafter, they returned to Manila and continued to live separately in their respective
boarding house, concealing from their parents, who were living in the province, what they had done. In
1992, after graduation from college, A and B decided to break their relation and parted ways. Both went
home to their respective town to live and work.

(1) Was the marriage of A and B solemnized on 30 August 1988 by the town may of X in his office a
valid marriage? Explain.

Ang mayor dito, at this time August 3 1988, walang authority to solemnize marriage. But, it can be argued
that if either or both A or B believe in good faith that this mayor has the authority, the marriage may be
VOIDABLE. Pareho silang 18 years old, and the fact that they concealed this marriage from their parents,
obviously walang parental consent.

In December 2000, Michael and Anna, after obtaining a valid marriage license, went to the Office of the
Mayor of Urbano, Bulacan, to get married. The Mayor was not there, but the Mayor’s secretary asked
Michael and Anna and their witnesses to fill up and sign the required marriage contract forms. The
secretary then told them to wait, and went out to look for the Mayor who was attending a wedding in a
neighboring municipality.

When the secretary caught up with the Mayor at the wedding reception, she showed him the marriage
contract forms and told him that the couple and their witnesses were waiting in his office. The Mayor

forthwith signed all the copies of the marriage contract, gave them to the secretary who returned to the
Mayor’s office. She then gave copies of the marriage contract to the parties, and told Michael and Anna
that they were already married. Thereafter, the couple lived together as husband and wife, and had three
sons.

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

Obviously the marriage is a VOID because there was no marriage ceremony. There was no marriage
ceremony at all so they did not give their consent in the presence of the solemnizing officer. One of the
essential requisites (marriage ceremony) and also one of the formal requisites (consent) are lacking.

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

Because the marriage was void, the status of the children is ILLEGITIMATE. This does not fall under the
exceptions which will be discussed in a while.

On 1 May 1975, Facundo married Petra, by whom he had a son Sotero. Petra died on 1 July 1996, while
Facundo died on 1 January 2002. Before his demise, Facundo had married, on 1 July 2000, Querica.
Having lived together as husband and wife since 1 July 1990, Facundo and Querica did not secure a
marriage license but executed the requisite affidavit for the purpose.

To ensure that his inheritance rights are not adversely affected by his father’s second marriage, Sotero
now brings a suit to seek a declaration of the nullity of the marriage of Facundo and Querica, grounded
on the absence of a valid marriage license. Querica contends that there was no need for a marriage
license in view of her having lived continuously with Facundo for five years before their marriage and
that Sotero has no legal personality to seek a declaration of nullity of the marriage since Facundo is now
deceased.

Is the marriage of Facundo and Querica valid, despite the absence of a marriage license. Explain.

In the first place, in order for the marriage to be valid, the law requires that the contracting parties must
execute an affidavit that they have been living together as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage.

May mga kaso na even if they have not completed the 5-year cohabitation requirement, nag-eexcute sila ng
affidavit claiming that they have been living together as husband and wife. Pag may ganong affidavit valid
na ba ang marriage? Of course not. In fact nakasuhan pa sila, kase they committed perjury.

Dito, namatay si Petra 1996, kinasal sila ni Querica 2000, that is less than 5 years. In other words, yung
cohabitation nila, hindi umabot ng 5 years na entirely free from legal impediment. Para maging entirely free
yung 5 years cohabitation, dapat mga July 2, 2001. Pero hindi.

Pero dito, may VALID MARRIAGE. Because and pangalawang kasal, which is the determinative factor, hindi
yung una, was solemnized in July 2000. In 2000, Family Code na.

Pwedeng i-argue na, di ba sa Ninal v Bayadog (328 SCRA 122, 14 March 2000), the Supreme Court ruled na
void ang marriage kasi hindi na-complete and period of cohabitation. Ang ruling ng Korte diyan ay dapat
within that 5 year period, entirely free from legal impediment. Dapat ni isa sa kanila, walang asawa. Is that
applicable dito? Hindi. Because in Ninal v Bayadog, and dalawang marriages were both solemnize under the

Civil Code, wala pang Family Code. In fact, ang ginamit ng Supreme Court na basis to declare their marriage
void ay hindi Family Code, kundi Civil Code, Art. 76--where it is very clear that during the 5-year cohabitation
entirely free dapat from any legal impediment.

Tingnan niyo ang Family Code, Art. 345, which is the rule for the application of this requirement. At the least,
vague ang batas--kelan without any legal impediment? During the 5-year cohabitation? But, as interpreted by
the SC in the case of Borja-Manzano v Sanchez (354 SCRA 1, 8 March 2001), applying the Family Code, the
requisites for Art. 34 to apply was enumerated. Ang sabi ng SC, as long as at the time of the solemnization
of the marriage, wala ng legal impediment. But of course, there has to be a 5-year cohabitation. But even if
during the 5-year cohabitation, halos mahigit 4 years diyan ay may asawa kayong isa, so may legal
impediment, it does not affect the validity of the marriage as long as noong ikinasal sila wala ng asawa
yung isa, wala ng legal impediment.

This rule, Art. 34, was very consistent with the intention of the Revision Committee, yung committee which
revised the Civil Code of the Philippines. Kasi ang gusto nila, those who have been living together as
husband and wife, maski na may legal impediment during the cohabitation, ay hindi na mahirapan by
requiring a marriage license. Kasi pag i-require and marriage license, ipo-post pa yon, may 10-day posting
requirement. Edi malalaman nila at baka mag-viral pa eto at ipost sa Facebook.

Does Sotero have the personality to seek a declaration of nullity of the marriage, especially now that
Facundo is already deceased? Explain.

YES. He has an interest in the status of this marriage because this is after the death of his father at ang
usapin dito ay succession. If the marriage was declared void, walang share and asawa (Querica). Pero pag
valid ang marriage, kalahati ang mawawala kay Sotero. Kaya he has all the personality to seek the
declaration of nullity.

Take note, ang personality does not mean na mananalo siya. At least, meron lang siyang personality to
question. Ito ay standing lang, para matuloy ang kaso.

On Valentine’s Day, 1996, Elias and Fely, both single and 25 years of age, went to the city hall where
they sought out a fixer to help them obtain a quickie marriage. For a fee, the fixer produced an
ante-dated marriage license for them, issued by the Civil Registrar of a small remote municipality. He
then brought them to a licensed minister in a restaurant behind the city hall, and the latter solemnized
their marriage right there and then.

Is the marriage valid, void or voidable? Explain.

VALID MARRIAGE. Walang belief-belief in good faith dito na kailangan. Ang pinaka-issue lang dito ay yung
license. This license, na na-ante-date na nga, tapos issued pa in a small remote municipality, obviously
where neither the contracting parties habitually reside. Does it affect the validity of the marriage? HINDI.
Because valid ang marriage license na yan, ante-dated lang. The fact that not one of them habitually resides
in the said small remote municipality is a mere irregularity in the issuance of the marriage license. The fact
that the marriage was solemnized in a restaurant was a mere irregularity. Pero, kung itong contracting
5
Art. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and wife for at
least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an
affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he
ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties are found no legal impediment to the marriage. (76a)

parties requested in writing to have their marriage solemnized not in the Church, walang irregularity, maski
sa isang restaurant lang ang kasal.

QR and TS who has a marriage license requested a newly appointed Judge in Manila to marry them on
the beach of Boracay. Since the Judge maintained Boracay as his residence, he agreed. The sponsors
were all public officials.

What is the status of the marriage?

VALID MARRIAGE assuming all the other requisites are present. This is exactly the ruling of the SC in the
case of Aranes v Occiano (2002). Even if the marriage was solemnized outside of the court’s jurisdiction, it
does not affect the validity of the marriage. It is merely an irregularity, for which the judge may be held
liable.

Isidro and Irma, Filipinos, both 18 years of age, were passengers of Flight No. 317 or Oriental Airlines.
The plane they boarded was of the Philippine registry. While en route from Manila to Greece some
passengers hijacked the plane, held the chief pilot hostage at the cockpit and ordered him to fly instead
to Libya. During the hijacking Isidro suffered a heart attack and was on the verge of death. Since Irma
was already eight months pregnant by Isidro, she pleaded to the hijackers to allow the assistant pilot to
solemnize her marriage with Isidro. Soon after the marriage, Isidro expired. As the plane landed in Libya
Irma gave birth. However, the baby died a few minutes after complete delivery.

Back in the Philippines Irma immediately filed a claim for inheritance. The parents of Isidro opposed her
claim contending that the marriage between her and Isidro was void ab initio on the following grounds:

(a) they had not given their consent to the marriage of their son;

The effect would NOT be a void, but merely a VOIDABLE marriage. In voidable marriage, if one of them dies
before the annulment of the marriage, hindi na pwedeng ma-annul o i-question and validity ng marriage,
na-dissolve na eh. In contemplation of the law, forever valid na yan.

(b) there was no marriage license;

NO EFFECT. This is clearly a scenario exempt from the requirement of a marriage license, because the
marriage was in articulo mortis--one of the contracting parties was at the point of death.

(c) the solemnizing officer had no authority to perform the marriage; and

NO EFFECT. The solemnizing officer (the assistant pilot) has the authority to solemnize the marriage.

First, in the Family Code, there are two provisions6 in relation to pilots solemnizing marriages in articulo
mortis: sa isa, chief pilot; pero yung isa, pilot lang. In other words, it can be argued that the law does not
care kung chief pilot siya o hindi. As long as pilot siya, he has the authority to solemnize marriage.

Ang pangalawang argument, which is the weakest argument among the three, is that the chief pilot was
held hostage or is incapacitated at that time. Therefore, it may be argued that his authority was transferred
to the assistant pilot

The third argument is that Irma’s belief in good faith that the solemnizing officer has the authority to
solemnize the marriage.

(d) the solemnizing officer did not file an affidavit of marriage with the proper civil registrar.

This will NOT affect the validity of the marriage, it would be a mere IRREGULARITY for which the
solemnizing officer may be held liable.

Roderick and Faye were high school sweethearts. When Roderick was 18 and Faye, 16 years old, they
started to live together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. When Faye reached 18
years of age, her parents forcibly took her back and arranged for her marriage to Brad. Although Faye
lived with Brad after the marriage, Roderick continued to regularly visit Faye while Brad was away at
work. During their marriage, Faye gave birth to a baby girl, Laica.

When Faye was 25 years old, Brad discovered her continuous liaison with Roderick and in one of their
heated arguments, Faye shot Brad to death. She lost no time in marrying her true love Roderick, without
a marriage license, claiming that they have been continuously cohabiting for more than 5 years.

(a) Was the marriage of Roderick and Faye valid?

NO, The marriage is NOT VALID. They did not live together as husband and wife, tinatago nga nila eh. Dapat,
if they would live together as husband and wife, they would claim it to the world. Kung patago, walang
compliance with the requirements of the law.

What if the cohabitation was even before the contracting parties became 18 years old, and upon
attaining the age of 18, they executed an affidavit that they have been living together as husband and
wife for more than 5 years and that they should be exempt from the requirement of marriage license.

6
Art. 7. Marriage may be solemnized by:

(1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court’s jurisdiction;

(2) Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect duly authorized by his church or religious sect and registered
with the civil registrar general, acting within the limits of the written authority granted by his church or religious sect and provided
that at least one of the contracting parties belongs to the solemnizing officer’s church or religious sect;

(3) Any ship captain or airplane chief only in the case mentioned in Article 31;

(4) Any military commander of a unit to which a chaplain is assigned, in the absence of the latter, during a military operation,
likewise only in the cases mentioned in Article 32;

(5) Any consul-general, consul or vice-consul in the case provided in Article 10. (56a)

Art. 31. A marriage in articulo mortis between passengers or crew members may also be solemnized by a ship captain or by an
airplane pilot not only while the ship is at sea or the plane is in flight, but also during stopovers at ports of call. (74a)

Kung ako lang, baka pwede yung cohabitation na yan. As long as walang impediment at the time of the
solemnization of the marriage. Yun lang naman ang kailangan.

B. LAW GOVERNING VALIDITY

GENERAL RULE ON CONTRACTS

As to form
Art. 17, NCC. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be
governed by the laws of the country in which they are executed.

When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the
Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their
execution.

Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object public
order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments
promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country. (11a)

As to substantive requirements
Art. 15, NCC. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of
persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. (9a)

Lex loci celebrationis; Special Rule in Marriage
Art. 26, FC. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the laws in force in the
country where they were solemnized, and valid there as such, shall also be valid in this country, except
those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 3637 and 38. (17a)

Tama ang Supreme Court sa discussion nila sa Republic v Manalo (G.R. No. 221029, 24 April 2008)--this
Article modified Article 15. Sa Article 15 kasi, pag Filipino, even if abroad, yung status nila shall be governed
by the Philippine law. Ngayon, Philippine law allows: as long as the marriage was solemnized in accordance
with the law enforce in the country where there were solemnized, and valid there as such, maski ang
Philippine law ay nag-rerequire ng iba, it may be a valid marriage. But hindi lahat, meron exceptions sa
batas.

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is
thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino
spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (As amended by Executive Order 227)7

Exceptions to Art. 26:
1. Art. 35
(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of
parents or guardians - BELOW 18

Even if in that country valid and 17 years old ang 16 years old, pero dito sa Philippines, that would be a void
marriage. Although hindi ako masyadong natutuwa dito, kasi nga sa dating batas nga natin 14 years old
pwede na eh. Kaya kung valid doon sa country na yon maski 17 years old, eh bakit hindi i-recognize na valid
dito. But it’s a matter of wisdom, yun ang requirement ng batas.

(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article 418 - BIGAMOUS
NOT FALLING UNDER ART. 41

Even if valid sa kanila, hindi valid sa atin. We will go into this in a while, yung talagang ibig sabihin ng batas.

(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other
- MISTAKE OF IDENTITY

(6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 539 - SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGES
VOID UNDER ART. 53

Under Art. 53, the marriage may be void because of failure to comply with the requirement of the law which
is the delivery of the presumptive legitime. Kasi ang spouses, kapag naka-obtain ng degree of annulment or
degree and nullity of marriage, ang requirement kapag meron silang legitimate descendants ay ang delivery
ng presumptive legitime. Kapag hindi na-comply yon, ang subsequent marriage will be void. Kung ito and
scenario, kahit valid sa ibang bansa ay void pa rin sa atin.

2. Art. 3610 - PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
3. Art. 3711 and - INCESTUOUS MARRIAGE
7
See also Republic v. Orbecido III, 472 SCRA 114, 5 October 2005

8
Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and void, unless before the
celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse present has a
well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the
circumstances set forth in the provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.

For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph the spouse present must institute a
summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive death of the absentee, without prejudice to the
effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. (83a)

9
Art. 53. Either of the former spouses may marry again after compliance with the requirements of the immediately preceding Article;
otherwise, the subsequent marriage shall be null and void.

10
Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with
the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization. (As amended by Executive Order 227)

11
Art. 37. Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning, whether relationship between the parties be
legitimate or illegitimate:

4. Art. 38.12 - MARRIAGE AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY

Robert and Evelyn, both Filipinos, met in Los Angeles, California. They agreed to get married on 10 June
1989. On 7 June 1989, Robert flew to New York due to an urgent business matter but intended to return
to Los Angeles on 9 June 1989, in time for the wedding. The business emergency of Robert, however,
lasted longer than he expected so that he failed to return to Los Angeles as planned. In order not to
postpone the wedding, Robert immediately called his brother Val who was also residing at Los Angeles
to stand as his proxy at the wedding, which the latter did.

Is the marriage of Robert and Evelyn valid in the Philippines? Give your reasons.

Ang rule nasa first paragraph ng Art. 26. If the contracting parties are both Filipinos, and the marriage was
solemnized in accordance with the laws of Los Angeles and valid there as such, as a rule, isipin niyo valid.
Pero ano lang ang pwedeng maging issue dito? – the fact na proxy ang marriage. Is this issue one of those
exception under Art. 26? – I dare to claim na hindi. In other words, proxy marriages as long as solemnized
abroad may be valid under the Philippine law if the law of that country allows proxy marriages.

But if itong si Val ay identical twin ni Robert, at siya ang pumunta sa marriage, and itong asawa niya si
Evelyn was not aware na hindi pala ito si Robert, would that be mistake in the identity therefore the marriage
would be void? I dare to claim HINDI. As long as malinaw na ang mapapangasawa niya ay si Robert, hindi si
Val. Ang mistake in the identity, ang akala niya yung nasa marriage ceremony ang mapapangasawa niya,
which is in reality hindi.

What is the status of the following marriages and why?

A marriage between two Filipinos in Hong Kong before a notary public.

Kung dito sa Pilipinas yan, that is VOID. Unless against either or both contracting parties believe in good
faith. But this is in HK, and therefore as long as this marriage is solemnize in HK and valid there as such,
this is a valid marriage under the Philippine law.

A marriage between two Filipino first cousins in Spain where such marriage is valid.

VOID MARRIAGE. Even if the marriage is valid under the laws of Spain, that would be a void marriage
because this is covered in Art. 38. One of the exceptions to this rule (Art. 26, paragraph 1) is Article 38--if
the contracting parties are within the fourth civil degree in the collateral line that would be contrary to public
policy.
(1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and

(2) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood. (81a)

12
Art. 38. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public policy:

(1) Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree;
(2) Between step-parents and step-children;
(3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
(4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter;
(7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter;
(8) Between adopted children of the same adopter; and
(9) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that other person’s spouse, or his or her own spouse. (82)


The marriage of A and B, both Filipinos were solemnized in London in accordance with the law in force
in London and valid there as such. The marriage shall also be valid here the Philippines even if:
a. A and B are first cousins. – Hindi pwede dahil Article 38.
b. B was only 17 during the marriage and there was no parental consent. – Void also under
Philippine law because of Article 35, paragraph 1.
c. Bigamous marriage not falling under Art. 41 of the Family Code. – This is covered by Article 35.
d. There was mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other. – This is covered by
article 35.
e. None of the above.

Ang sagot dito ay “None of the above.” Lahat ng marriages na ito, even if valid in the country where it was
solemnized, void yan sa Pilipinas.

Marriage between step-brothers and step-sisters

Under the Family Code, marriage between step-brothers and step-sisters is no longer void. Sa Civil Code
yes, void ang marriage na ito. But not under the Family Code, kaya hindi ito void (VALID).

Marvin, a Filipino, and Shelley, an American, both resident of California, decided to get married in their
local parish. Two years after their marriage, Shelley obtained a divorce in California. While in Boracay,
Marvin met Manel, a Filipina, who was vacationing there. Marvin fell in love with her. After a brief
courtship and complying with all the requirements, they got married in Hongkong to avoid publicity, it
being Marvin’s second marriage. Is this marriage to Manel valid? Explain.

Ang applicable rule dito, nasa 2nd paragraph na ng Article 26. Mamaya tignan natin ang effect ng Orbecido
ruling – noong nag-asawa sila, yung isa Filipino at yung isa foreigner/alien and that the one who obtained
the divorce is the alien. This would be a valid marriage if again, in that divorce decree, yung alien is
capacitated to remarry – may mga divorce kasi na tinatawag na RELATIVE DIVORCE. Dapat ang divorce
decree na yan capacitated the alien to remarry. Kasi may ibang divorce decree may kondisyon para
makapag-asawa ulit or may period like in three (3) years hindi ka pwedeng mag-asawa. Kung hindi
na-comply ang requirement na yon, the marriage may not be a valid marriage, it can be a bigamous
marriage because it did not capacitate the alien to remarry. So dapat in this divorce decree, si Shelly dapat
must have been capacitated to remarry para si Marvin will also be capacitated to remarry.

Flor and Virgilio were married to each other in Roxas City in 1980. In 1984, Flor was offered a teaching
job in Canada, which she accepted. In 1989, she applied for and was granted Canadian citizenship. The
following year, she sued for divorce from Virgilio in a Canadian court. After Virgilio was served with
summons, the Canadian court tried the case and decreed the divorce. Shortly thereafter, Flor married a
Canadian

Can Virgilio marry again in the Philippines? Explain.

Noong tinanong ito, 1996, at that time, wala pang Orbecido ruling. Kaya at that time, noong sinagot ito ng
mga examinees, dapat Virgilio CANNOT remarry kasi wala pang Orbecido. Yung second paragraph ng Art.
26, on its face, is not applicable because ang scenario contemplated in such provision is a mixed marriage.
This one is a marriage between Filipinos.

But, kase ngayon naman ang exam, at may Orbecido na, thus, malinaw sa facts na that the Filipina obtained
or was granted the Canadian citizenship before she sued for divorce, then na-comply ng parties na ito and
requirement ng Orbecido. Take note, ang sequence, mauunang mag-acquire ng citizenship in that country
bago mag-obtain ng divorce. Otherwise, kung nauna ang divorce bago maging citizen ng ibang bansa, edi
pareho pa silang Filipinos. Kung pareho pa silang Filipinos and a divorce degree was obtained, that divorce
degree can never be recognized in this country because ang applicable provision ay Article 15.

In 1989, Maris, a Filipino citizen, married her boss Johnson, an American citizen, in Tokyo in a wedding
ceremony celebrated according to Japanese laws. One year later, Johnson returned to his native
Nevada, and he validly obtained in that state an absolute divorce from his wife Maris.

After Maris received the final judgment of divorce, she married her childhood sweetheart Pedro, also a
Filipino citizen, in a religious ceremony in Cebu City, celebrated according to the formalities of
Philippine law. Pedro left for the United States and became naturalized as an American citizen. Maris
followed Pedro to the United States, and after a serious quarrel, Maris filed a suit and obtained a divorce
decree issued by the court in the state of Maryland.

Maris then returned to the Philippines and in a civil ceremony celebrated in Cebu City according to the
formalities of Philippine law, she married her former classmate Vincent likewise a Filipino citizen.

Was the marriage of Maris and Johnson valid when celebrated? Is their marriage still validly existing
now? Reasons?

Under Article 26, 1st paragraph, their marriage may be a valid marriage. But, the marriage is not validly
existing now because itong si Johnson, was able to obtain an absolute divorce. Take note, na-dissolve ang
marriage, hindi void.

Was the marriage of Maris and Pedro valid when celebrated? Is their marriage still validly existing now?
Reasons?

As to Pedro, as long as all the other requisites are present, this is a valid marriage because under 2nd
paragraph of Art. 26, the alien spouse obtains an absolute divorce (wherein it capacitated him to remarry
not only capacitated the Filipino spouse to remarry), kaya valid ang marriage ni Pedro, hindi ito bigamous.

Was the marriage of Maris and Vincent valid when celebrated? Is their marriage still validly existing
now? Reasons?

Kaya lang may pangatlong kasal na siya, according to the formality of the Philippine law, she married her
former classmate. Nandito ang issue ngayon. Noon tinanong ito noong 1992, wala pa ang Republic v
Manalo, therefore ang sagot dapat dito ng mga examinees ay VOID because it is bigamous. Why? Kasi ang
nag-obtain ng divorce decree ay ang Filipino. If you have to be literal about it, under Art. 26, 2nd paragraph, it
should be the alien spouse who obtained the divorce decree, capacitating him to remarry. Pero sa facts,
malinaw, si Maris ang nag-file ng suit kaya it did not capacitate under the Philippine law. Pero sa US,
capacitated sila to remarry, but not under the Philippine law.

Pero, dahil meron ng Republic v Manalo, ang sagot na ay VALID na ang marriage na ito between Maris
and Vincent. In Republic v Manalo, under the 2nd paragraph of Art. 26. Una, i-apply mo ang Orbecido. Even
at the time of the marriage pareho silang Filipinos as long as one of them became a citizen of another
country ay applicable na yan.


Ang aking evaluation ng majority decision (in Republic v Manalo), in relation to the dissenting, tatlo ang
tingin kong arguments diyan ng majority.
(1) Art. 26, as worded, nakalagay obtained by the alien spouse. Pero obtained daw, according to the
majority, is not the same as initiated. Pwedeng na-obtain niya pero hindi siya ang nag-initiate o nag-file
ng petition. Seriously, hindi ako nag-aagree doon. But syempre, kung sasagot kayo sa exam, pwede
niyong ilagay yon kasi majority decision yan. Sa tingin ko, kahit sa deliberations, malinaw na ang
mag-file dapat ang alien para maging capacitated ang Filipino spouse. Nasa dissenting yan.

(2) Because in several cases in the pass, Philippine law had given to divorce decrees obtained abroad. At
cinite nila ang several cases, like Van Dorn v Romillo (139 SCRA 139, 8 October 1985) – meron divorce
decree obtained abroad and it was given effect in the Philippines. Pero, ang argument dito ng
dissenting opinion ay oo nga, divorce decree nga iyon, pero it does not pertain to remarriage, it only
pertains to other matters like property relations, like a criminal case in Pilalpill v Ibay-Somera (174
SCRA 653, 30 June 1989). Kaya, to extend that to remarriage, parang hindi totoo. Dahil nga, wala tayong
divorce decree. Kaya so far, yung mga decisions na yon, has nothing to do with remarriage. First time
itong Republic v. Manalo.

(3) That this provision, if it indeed requires the alien to file, at hindi pwede ang Filipino, is unconstitutional
because it violates the equal protection clause. This is the strongest argument of the majority.

At this point in time, who is the lawful husband of Maris? Reasons.

VINCENT, under the present decisions ng Supreme Court.

Harry married Wilma, a very wealthy woman. Barely 5 years into the marriage, Wilma fell in love with
Joseph. Thus, Wilma went to a small country in Europe, became a naturalized citizen at that country,
divorced Harry, and married Joseph. A year thereafter, Wilma and Joseph returned and established
permanent residence in the Philippines.

Is the divorce obtained by Wilma from Harry recognized in the Philippines? Explain you answer.

YES. As a rule in Republic v Orbecido, as long as the spouse or one of the spouses acquire the citizenship
of another country before they obtained the divorce decree, capacitating the alien to remarry, then that
would also capacitate the Filipino to remarry. Ito, citizen na siya ng bansang yon, tapos nag-obtain ng
divorce. May sequence: nauna ang naturalization, sunod and divorce, and then sumunod ang pag-aasawa.

If Harry hires you as his lawyer, what legal recourse would you advise him to take? Why?

With his divorce decree, pwede ng magkaroon ng settlement ng kanilang property relations.

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

YES. Wilma is already a citizen of another country and assuming this divorce decree capacitated her to
remarry then it would also capacitate the Filipino spouse to remarry under the 2nd paragraph of Art. 26 as
interpreted by the Supreme Court in Republic v Orbecido.

Arthur and Helen, both Filipinos, got married and had 2 children. Arthur later worked in Rome where he
acquired Italian citizenship. He got a divorce from Helen in Rome but, on returning to the Philippines, he
realized his mistake, asked forgiveness of his wife, and resumed living with her. They had 2 more
children. What is the status of their 4 children.

The first 2 children, they were married. So these children were conceived and born during the marriage, kaya
they are definitely legitimate children.

Pero, they already got a divorce. Assuming that this is an absolute divorce, which severed the marital bond,
and then they resumed living together and have children, these children were conceived even born outside
of a valid marriage or outside of wedlock. Therefore, the last two children are illegitimate children.

1. The children born before the divorce are legitimate but those born after it are not since Arthur got the
divorce when he had ceased to be a Filipino.
2. The divorce rendered illegitimate the children born before it since the marriage that begot them had
been nullified.
3. The children born before the after the divorce are all legitimate since Philippine law does not recognize
divorce.
4. All the children are legitimate since they were born of the same father and mother.

1989, Charice (Filipino) and Justine (American), were married in the Philippines. In 1990, they separated
and Justine went to Las Vegas where he obtained a divorce in the same year. He then married another
Filipina, Lea, in Canada on 1 January 1992. They had two sons, James and John (who were both born in
1992). In 1993, after failing to hear from Justine, Charice married Bugoy (a Filipino), by whom she had a
daughter, Regine. In 2009, Regine married James (son of Justice with Lea) in California, where such
marriage is valid.

What is the current status of the marriage of Charice and Justine under Philippine Laws?
a. Valid
b. Void
c. Voidable
d. Dissolved

DISSOLVED. Ang premise diyan, ang divorce ay absolute divorce kaya dissolved na ang marriage.

What is the status of the marriage between Justine and Lea under Philippines laws.
a. Valid
b. Void
c. Voidable
d. Dissolved

VALID. Assuming the divorce decree capacitated the alien to remarry.

What is the status of the marriage between Regine and Justine under Philippine laws?
a. Valid
b. Void
c. Voidable
d. Dissolved

VALID. This is the second paragraph of Art. 26. Since the divorce decree capacitated the alien to remarry,
then that also capacitated the Filipino spouse to remarry.

C. VOID MARRIAGES

Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:

(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents or
guardians;

(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages
were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the
legal authority to do so;

(3) Those solemnized without license, except those covered the preceding Chapter;

(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing under Article 41;

(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other; and

(6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.

Void and Voidable Marriages Distinguished
1. Status of Marriage - Ang voidable ay valid until annulled.

2. Ratification by cohabitation – A void marriage can never be ratified by cohabitation. It will forever
be void. Pero ang voidable marriages can be ratified by cohabitation, in general. Except yung
dalawang grounds: (1) STD; at (2) physical incapacity/impotence. Yung dalawang yan, hindi pwede
ang ratification by cohabitation.

3. Property regime – Pag void ang marriage, ang property diyan ay co-ownership, Art. 147 or 148
(Property Regimes of Unions without Marriage).13

4. Status of children – Pag void, dapat illegitimate. Pero may sariling mundo ang Pilipinas. Only in the
Philippines na void ang marriage pero ang anak, pwedeng legitimate by way of exception. This will
happen if the marriage is void because of psychological incapacity under Art. 36 o kaya void
because of the failure to comply with the requirements under Art. 53, in relation to Art. 52. Pero pag
voidable ang marriage, as long as na-conceived and batang ito before the annulment of the
marriage, legitimate and batang yan. Kasi nga valid ang marriage na yan until annulled. As long as
conceived, hindi kailangang born.

5. Who may question/impugn (directly or collaterally). – Pag void, this can be attacked collaterally,
pwede in the proceeding of the settlement of the estate yan i-attack. Pero kapag voidable, it has to
be a direct attack, an action for annulment. Walang collateral attack pagdating sa voidable.

Art. 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the
basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. (n)

This early, I may have to emphasize to you Art. 40. Ang Article 40 requires judicial declaration of nullity of
the prior marriage bago mag-asawa ulit for the subsequent marriage to be valid. Example: void ang dating
marriage dahil walang marriage license, kung gusto ng contracting parties na mag-asawa maski kanino,
there should be a judicial declaration of nullity. Otherwise, the subsequent marriage will be void.

Ang nakakalungkot lang diyan ay in relation to bigamy. Pag void ang marriage tapos walang judicial
declaration at nag-asawa ulit, can this contracting parties be held criminally liable? Ang mga SC justices are
not unanimous about this issue. Justice Carpio believes that there would be criminal prosecution because
for there to be bigamy, there must be an existing valid prior marriage. Justice Sempio-Diy supports this, kasi
tingin niya, ang Article 40 was never meant to be a penal provision – hindi nila dinadagdagan ang mga
criminal sa mundong ito. It was only meant to consider the validity of the subsequent marriage, which is
13
Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the
property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.

In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by
their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not
participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof
if the former's efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.

Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned
in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.

When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be
forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants,
each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to
the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation. (144a)

Art. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through
their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective
contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The
same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.

If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or
conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her
shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.

The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in both faith. (144a)

clear in the law. Pero, may mga decisions and SC na kapag walang judicial declaration of nullity, kahit void
marriage, bigamous ito. Ang safe na sagot diyan eh dalawa ang ilagay niyo.

Art. 53. Either of the former spouses may marry again after compliance with the requirements of the
immediately preceding Article; otherwise, the subsequent marriage shall be null and void.

Article 53 will not apply dahil sa namatay ang isa sa mga spouses, o silang dalawa. Dapat, na-dissolve ang
marriage dahil sa annulment or kaya may declaration of nullity. Otherwise, kung namatay ang isa, ay walang
delivery ng presumptive legitime diyan kasi walang presumptive, patay na eh. Kaya dapat, walang namatay
sa kanila.

In 1985, Sonny and Lulu, both Filipino citizens, were married in the Philippines. In 1987, they separated,
and Sonny went to Canada, where he obtained a divorce in the same year. He then married another
Filipina, Auring, in Canada on 1 January 1988. They had two sons, James and John. In 1990, after
failing to hear from Sonny, Lulu married Tirso, by whom she had a daughter, Verna. In 1991, Sonny
visited the Philippines where he succumbed to heart attack.

Discuss the effect of divorce obtained by Sonny and Lulu in Canada.

That divorce decree can never be recognized here in the Philippines and cannot be given effect because it
was obtained by Sonny who is a Filipino citizen. Even if they are abroad, their status will be governed by the
Philippine law as provided in Article 15.

Explain the status of the marriage between Sonny and Auring.

VOID, because this is a bigamous marriage. The divorce decree did not capacitate Sonny to remarry. This
goes into Art. 41, bigamous marriage.

In 1989, A married C. A’s husband (B) had been absent since 1983. B was in danger of death at the time
of his disappearance. The marriage of A and C is:
a. Valid, if there was a judicial declaration of presumption death even if both A and C acted in bad
faith. - This is wrong. Maski may judicial declaration of presumptive death, under Art. 44, if both

b. Valid, as long as 1 acted in good faith, even without a judicial declaration of presumption death.
- As long as walang judicial declaration, walang valid marriage. This happened in 1989, already
under the Family Code. That would be a bigamous marriage not falling under Art. 41, therefore void.
Sa Civil Code, hindi kailangan ng judicial declaration.

c. Void, if 1 acted in bad faith, with or without a judicial declaration of presumptive death. - There
HAS TO BE a judicial declaration.

d. Void, if both acted in bad faith even if there was a judicial declaration of presumption death. -
The marriage of A and C is VOID if both acted in bad faith even if there was a judicial declaration of
presumptive death. And issue lang dito ay dapat believed in good faith--dapat may diligent effort of
active search. Hindi pwedeng passive lang, naghihintay ka lang ng news.

A and B, both 18 years old, were sweethearts studying in Manila. On 3 August 1988, while in first year
college, they eloped. They stayed in the house of a mutual friend in town X, where they were able to
obtain a marriage license. On 30 August 1988, their marriage was solemnized by the town mayor of X in

his office. Thereafter, they returned to Manila and continued to live separately in their respective
boarding house, concealing from their parents, who were living in the province, what they had done. In
1992, after graduation from college, A and B decided to break their relation and parted ways. Both went
home to their respective towns to live and work.

Was the marriage of A and B solemnized on 30 August 1988 y the town mayor of X in his office a valid
marriage? Explain your answer.

We covered this.

Can either or both of them contract marriage with another person without committing bigamy? Explain
you answer.

Dahil valid ang marriage na ito, if can be shown that either or both believe in good faith, then bigamy is
committed. Pero if it is not proven if either or both believe in good faith na may authority and solemnizing
officer, then bigamy cannot be committed because and prior marriage is a void marriage. One of requisites
of bigamy is that the first marriage is a valid marriage.

X and Y, Filipinos, got married in Los Angeles, USA, using marriage license issued by the Philippine
consul in Los Angeles, acting as Civil Registrar. X and Y did not know that they were first cousins
because their mothers, who were sisters, were separated whey they were quite young. Since X did not
want to continue with the relation when he heard of it, he left Y, came to the Philippines and married Z.
Can X be held liable for bigamy?
a. No, since X’s marriage to Y is void ab initio or did not exist.
b. No, since X’s acted in good faith, conscious that public policy did not approve of marriage
between first cousins.
c. Yes, since he married Z without first securing a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to
Y.
d. Yes, since his first marriage to Y in Los Angeles is valid.

Again nandito ang issue: because ang first marriage ay void, ang claim ng ibang justices ay kapag walang
judicial declaration of nullity at nag-remarry, void ang marriage plus nag-commit pa ng crime na bigamy.
Again, tingin ko tama si Justice Carpio dito, and some other Justices. Parang Morigo v People (G.R. No.
145226, 6 February 2004)--void ang first marriage, walang judicial declaration, but the SC said walang
bigamy.

PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY (Art. 36)14

Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if
such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization. (As amended by Executive Order 227)

Requirements for petition under Art. 36.

First, that the respondent failed to comply with his or her essential marital obligations. I have read cases, I
have read drafts, na ang respondent actually complies with her essential marital obligations, thus, the
petition cannot prosper.

Second, there was failure to comply with essential marital obligations, hindi obligations sa opisina, hindi
obligations sa ibang aspeto ng buhay. It pertains to the essential marital obligations provided in the Family
Code, like the obligation to love, to give support.

Third, the reason why there was failure to comply with these essential marital obligations must be because
of a psychological incapacity. In other words, hindi ito dahil sa isang physical incapacity, hindi dahil out of
spite. This is one of the most difficult part sa tunay na buhay. In fact, sa cases, even if may manifestations
ng psychological incapacity (because what is required to allege is not the psychological incapacity itself,
pwedeng mga manifestations lang), if this manifestations is not rooted in an incapacity psychological in
character, hindi magpo-prosper and petition.

14
Compare with Arts. 68-73, Family Code:

Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and
support. (109a)

Art. 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. In case of disagreement, the court shall decide.

The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live abroad or there are other valid and compelling
reasons for the exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family.
(110a)

Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. The expenses for such support and other conjugal
obligations shall be paid from the community property and, in the absence thereof, from the income or fruits of their separate
properties. In case of insufficiency or absence of said income or fruits, such obligations shall be satisfied from the separate
properties. (111a)

Art. 71. The management of the household shall be the right and the duty of both spouses. The expenses for such management
shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Article 70. (115a)

Art. 72. When one of the spouses neglects his or her duties to the conjugal union or commits acts which tend to bring danger,
dishonor or injury to the other or to the family, the aggrieved party may apply to the court for relief. (116a)

Art. 73. Either spouse may exercise any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity without the consent of the other. The
latter may object only on valid, serious, and moral grounds.

In case of disagreement, the court shall decide whether or not:

(1) The objection is proper; and

(2) Benefit has occurred to the family prior to the objection or thereafter. If the benefit accrued prior to the objection, the resulting
obligation shall be enforced against the separate property of the spouse who has not obtained consent.

The foregoing provisions shall not prejudice the rights of creditors who acted in good faith. (117a)

Fourth, dapat psychological in character. The incapacity must be a mental disorder serious in character.
Pero hindi lahat ng mental disorder ay psychological incapacity, baka naman baliw lang talaga siya. Kapag
baliw siya, hindi Art. 36, annulment ang remedy if it was already existing at the time of marriage – hindi siya
na-baliw dahil nagpakasal siya sa iyo.

Fifth, kung meron talagang psychological incapacity, dito pinaka-importante and tatlong requisite, do not
ever fail to mention these requisites. In some Bar exam questions, and in some cases, kaya hindi nag
po-prosper ang petition ay dahil it was not shown that the incapacity was existing at the time of the
marriage:

(1) Juridical antecedents – Even if walang pang manifestations before the marriage, the manifestations
may be seen during the marriage, dapat existing na siya in order for the petition to proper.

(2) Gravity – It must be serious, so serious that even if the spouse wanted to perform one of its
obligations, he cannot. Hindi ito non-performance dahil gusto niya. Even if he wanted to, hindi niya
ma-perform because of the seriousness of his incapacity.

AND

(3) Incurability. –This requirement is subjective: pwede namang curable pero it takes so much money to
cure the incapacity. Pwede na yon basta ang kanilang financial status will not be able to have this
incapacity cured.

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

Will Gemma’s suit proper? Explain.

Before the accident, the husband obviously was no longer performing his essential marital obligations. But
does this mean mean that Gemma’s suit will prosper? From the allegations, IT CANNOT PROSPER. There
was no showing definitely that just because may mis-interest sa kanya, ni-neglect siya, or he did not get in
touch, was because of psychological incapacity. This is similar to the case of Republic v Quintero-Hamano
(428 SCRA 735, 20 May 2004). Even if may manifestations, if there was a failure to root the manifestations
in a psychological incapacity, the petition cannot prosper.

You are a Family Court judge and before you is a Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
(under Article 36 of the Family Code) filed by Maria against Neil. Maria claims that Neil is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage because Neil is a
drunkard, a womanizer, a gambler, and a mama's boy—traits that she never knew and saw when Neil
was courting her. Although summoned, Neil did not answer Maria's petition and never appeared in court.
To support he petition, Maria presented three witnesses—herself, Dr. Elsie Chan, and Ambrosia. Dr.
Chan testified on the psychological report on Neil that she prepared. Since Neil never acknowledged not
responded to her invitation for interviews, her report is solely based on her interviews with Maria and
the spouses’ minor children. Dr. Chan concluded that Neil is suffering from Narcissistic Personality
Disorder, an ailment that she found to be already present since Neil's early adulthood and one that is

grave and incurable. Maria testified on the specific instances when she found Neil drunk, with another
woman, or squandering the family's resources in a casino. Ambrosia, the spouses’ current household
help, corroborated Maria's testimony.

On the basis of the evidence presented, will you grant the petition?

Dito sa psychological incapacity, it’s really a matter of argument--how you argue your position. Minsan lang
may mas lamang na position.

Here, based on the evidence, it appears na dapat na decision ay DENY the petition. Kasi itong expert
concluded that Neil is suffering apparently from the facts, walang factual basis. Puro conclusion lang. This
testimony, on the other hand, ni Maria--na drunk--they are just manifestations; they do not show in any way
yung psychological incapacity. Kaya kung hindi ito mai-root sa incapacity, the petition cannot prosper. Also,
yung testimony ni Ambrosia only corroborated yung testimony ni Maria which merely goes into the
manifestations ng incapacity.

But of course, kung ang tingin mo is that the petition should be GRANTED, ang ia-argue mo is that her
conclusions are based on evidence, because kung wala talagang evidence to support yung conclusion, then
the court will not be bound to this conclusion na meron siyang Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Kardo met Glenda as a young lieutenant and after a whirlwind courtship, they were married. In the early
part of his military career, Kardo was assigned to different places all over the country but Glenda
refused to accompany him as she preferred to live in her hometown. They did not live together until the
twelfth year of their marriage when Kardo had risen up the ranks and was given his own command. They
moved to living quarters in Fort Gregorio. One day, while Kardo was away on official business, one of his
military aides caught having sex with the corporal assigned as Kardo's driver.

The aide immediately reported the matter to Kardo who rushed home to confront his wife. Glenda
readily admitted the affair and Kardo went away in anger. Kardo would later come to know the true
extent of Glenda's unfaithfulness from his aides , his household staff, and former neighbors who
informed him that Glenda has had intimate relations with various men throughout their marriage
whenever Kardo was away on assignment.

Kardo filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36. Based on interviews from
Kardo, his aide, and the housekeeper, a psychologist testified that Glenda's habitual infidelity was due to
her affliction with Histrionic Personality Disorder, an illness characterized by excessive emotionalism
and uncontrollable attention-seeking behavior rooted in Glenda's abandonment as a child by her father.
Kardo himself, his aide, and his housekeeper also testified in court. The RTC granted the petition,
relying on the liberality espoused by Te v Te and Azcueta v Republic. However, the OSG filed an appeal,
arguing that sexual infidelity was only a ground for legal separation and that the RTC failed to abide by
the guidelines laid down in the Molina case. How would you decide the appeal?

Again, parang ang mas may arguable na position is that the appeal should be GRANTED because the fact
that she had extramarital relations, again at best, is a manifestation of an incapacity. It doesn’t prove in any
way yung psychological incapacity. Although a psychologist testified that this was already existing--oh sige,
assuming na totoo--also supported ng evidence ang personality disorder na ito, what was only proven by
this testimony ng expert is that the personality disorder was already existing before the marriage. But
nothing here is shown that it is grave enough for her not to be able to perform her essential marital
obligations even if she wanted to. At saka, there is really nothing in the facts that would prove that this is

incurable. So yung dalawang yon not being present, mukhang the appeal should be GRANTED. The petition
should have been denied by the RTC.

Again, pwede kang mag-argue the other way around. Hindi lang kasi nakalagay but if there are pieces of
evidence to prove na grave ang personality disorder na ito, na incurable ito, then, maybe the petition should
be GRANTED (appeal DENIED).

INCESTUOUS MARRIAGES (Art. 37)15

Art 37. Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning, whether the
relationship between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate:
(1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and
(2) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood. (81a)

Between ascendants and descendants, walang limit sa DEGREE. In other words, a marriage between an
UNCLE and his NIECE is no longer covered by incestuous marriages unlike noong Civil Code--incestuous
and marriage na yan. But not anymore under the Family Code. Kaya if you consider yung scenario na yon,
the reason why it is void is because it is contrary to public policy--nandun na siya sa Article 38--kung ang
marriage was solemnized during the effectivity of the Family Code na. Pero kung ang marriage 1987 pa,
sabihin niyo because incestuous under the Civil Code.

MARRIAGES AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY (Art. 38)

Art. 38. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public policy:

(1) Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree;
15
Compare with Articles 963-967, New Civil Code:

Art. 963. Proximity of relationship is determined by the number of generations. Each generation forms a degree. (915)

Art. 964. A series of degrees forms a line, which may be either direct or collateral.

A direct line is that constituted by the series of degrees among ascendants and descendants.

A collateral line is that constituted by the series of degrees among persons who are not ascendants and descendants, but who
come from a common ancestor. (916a)

Art. 965. The direct line is either descending or ascending.

The former unites the head of the family with those who descend from him.

The latter binds a person with those from whom he descends. (917)

Art. 966. In the line, as many degrees are counted as there are generations or persons, excluding the progenitor.

In the direct line, ascent is made to the common ancestor. Thus, the child is one degree removed from the parent, two from the
grandfather, and three from the great-grandparent.

In the collateral line, ascent is made to the common ancestor and then descent is made to the person with whom the computation is
to be made. Thus, a person is two degrees removed from his brother, three from his uncle, who is the brother of his father, four from
his first cousin, and so forth. (918a)

Art. 967. Full blood relationship is that existing between persons who have the same father and the same mother.

Half blood relationship is that existing between persons who have the same father, but not the same mother, or the same mother,
but not the same father. (920a)


Walang problema dito. Up to the fourth civil degree--pinakamadaling isipin ay between first cousins. Again
ang degree, walang problema sa direct line, kasi per generation--so mag-lolo, two degrees. Great
grandparent niya, three degrees.

Pero in the collateral line, you first consider that the two persons in question--lalo na sa succession--ay
always simula doon sa namatay. Kasi siya naman ang pinaka-importante. But actually it doesn’t matter
ultimately--at least alam mo kung saan ka magsisimula. From him or her (dead person), you go up to the
common ancestor. Ang first cousin, ang common ancestor diyan ay ang grandparent--or grandparents,
kung pareho sila ng lolo at lola. From the grandparent pababa doon sa pinsan ay two degrees yan, kaya four
degrees ang first cousins and that is a void marriage ‘cause it is contrary to public policy. In other words,
take note, and fifth degree like pamangkin ng pinsan mo--legal heir mo pa yan sa succession--pwede mo na
ba siyang asawahin? Aba pwede! I-try mo lang, kung hindi ka sampalin ng pinsan mo. Pero pwede na, dahil
lampas na siya ng fourth civil degree. ‘Wag ka na lang magpaalam.

(2) Between step-parents and step-children;

Parents-in-law and children-in-law, bago ito (sa Family Code). Again, ang premise nito ay patay na ang
asawa. Otherwise, kung buhay pa ang asawa, eh di bigamous. Pero maski na mamatay na ang asawa, still,
hindi pa rin sila pwede mag-asawa.

(3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;

(4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;

(5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child;

(6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter;

Adopted child and adopter, bago din ito sa Family Code. But take note, sa enumeration, wala na ang
stepbrother-stepsister. Yun nga lang, sa Bar exam, minsan ang facts halos convoluted, ang ibig lang sabihin
ay stepbrother-stepsister sila. Hindi ko na yata inilagay, pero maraming facts. Maraming kwento sa buhay.

(7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter;

(8) Between adopted children of the same adopter; and

(9) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that other
person’s spouse, or his or her own spouse.16 (82)

This one, eto ang pinakabinago ng Family Code: “Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the
other, killed that other person’s spouse, or his or her own spouse.” Sa Family Code, una, pinatay ang asawa
with the intention of marrying. Ang intention kung bakit pumatay ay dahil gustong asawahin ang isang tao.
Pwede ang gusto niyang asawahin ay ibang tao or pwede niyang asawahin ang surviving spouse of
16
Compare with Article 80 (6), New Civil Code:

Art. 80. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
xxx
(6) Those where one or both contracting parties have been found guilty of the killing of the spouse of either of them;
xxx

another--it doesn’t matter. Pero this time, tingnan niyo ang provision--is there a requirement of conviction?
Wala, hindi na kailangan. The marriage will be void if that is the case.

Doon sa Civil Code, halos opposite. Pinatay din ang spouse or pumatay ng isang tao, pero dito sa Family
Code, dapat sinasadya ang pagpatay (hindi negligence). Pero sa Civil Code, the motive is irrelevant, basta
napatay niya. Sa Civil Code, kailangan ng conviction para maging void ang marriage.

Ang last year na itinanong sa Bar exam ay pinatay na pinoison niya--the wife poisoned her husband because
she wanted to live with another man without impediment. Covered ba ng Article 38 yan? Ang malinaw sa
Article 38, intention to marry. Ang nakalagay sa Bar exam, “to live with another man.” Is that covered? Kami
sa UP Law Center, covered na rin ng batas yan. Because from the facts, ultimately nag-asawa din sila.
Otherwise, baka i-circumvent mo ang batas. Even though ang intention din niya is to live together, pero
ultimately ikinasal din, parang ang intention na rin is to marry the other person.

Eto ang classic example ng nawala na sa Family Code:

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

The answer here is TRUE dahil si Thelma, anak ni Amor with another man. Si Julian, anak ni David with
another woman. In other words, si Julian at si Thelma ang tawag stepbrother-stepsister. And under the
Family Code, the answer is TRUE. Kung walang nakalagay na date, you assume that the facts are under the
Family Code.

Cesar and Baby contracted marriage on June 15, 1983. A year later, Baby bore a child, “X”. The
following year, the couple acquired a car and a residential lot in Metro Manila. On September 1, 1988,
the marriage was declared void from the beginning by a competent court because Cesar was below 16
years of age at the time of the marriage. Sometime in December 1988, Cesar met Rosa with whom he
fell in love. Cesar married Rosa on January 15, 1989. On September 1, 1989, Rosa gave birth
prematurely to a child, “Y”.

Is the marriage of Cesar and Rosa valid? What is the status of the child “Y”? Give your reasons.

From the circumstances, it may be inferred that there was no delivery of the presumptive legitime17. If it is
shown na wala talaga, dahil nga September pa lang then January--barely three months pa lang, then there is
failure to comply with the requirements under Article 5318, this is a void marriage.

Pero what is the status of the child? Again, under the Family Code, even if the marriage is void under Article
53, the child is a legitimate child.

REQUISITE FOR VALID REMARRIAGE (Art. 40)

17
Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage, the partition and distribution of the properties of the
spouses, and the delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registries of
property; otherwise, the same shall not affect third persons. (n)

18
Art. 53. Either of the former spouses may marry again after compliance with the requirements of the immediately preceding
Article; otherwise, the subsequent marriage shall be null and void.

Art. 40. The absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the
basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void. (n)

Joseph, a 17-year-old Filipino, married Jenny, 21-year-old American in Illinois, USA, where the marriage
was valid. Their parents gave full consent to the marriage of their children. After three years z Joseph
filed a petition in the USA to promptly divorce Jenny and this was granted. When Joseph turned 25
years, he returned to the Philippines and married Leonora. What is the status of this second marriage?

In a way, ang problem dito ay Filipino siya. Siya ang nag-file ng divorce--which was granted. Ang issue dito,
dahil Filipino siya, even if may divorce decree, kailangan pa din bang mag comply with Article 40? There
would have been no issue kung ang nag-file ng petition for divorce ay ang alien. Eh kaso Filipino siya, and
therefore pwedeng i-argue na Article 15 ang maga-apply sa kanya: That divorce decree cannot be given
effect under Philippine law. Therefore nung nag-asawa siya without Article 40 having been complied with,
the subsequent marriage is a void marriage.

Kaya lang it can be argued in the other way: Sa US kasi ang kasal na ito, nag-file ng petition for divorce and
was granted, and therefore the divorce decree can be recognized. Especially if you consider now Republic v
Manalo--na maski FIlipino ang nag-file ng divorce decree, pwede na. The divorce decree may be recognized
in the Philippines.

A marriage is void if:
a) Solemnized with a marriage license issued without complying with the required 10-day posting.
b) Solemnized by a minister whom the parties believe to have authority.
c) Between parties both 23 years of age but without parental advice.
d) None of the above.

Which of the following is void for reasons of public policy?
a) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood.
b) Between step parents and step children.
c) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law.
d) B and C

BIGAMOUS MARRIAGES (Arts. 41-44)

Art. 41. A marriage contracted by any person during subsistence of a previous marriage shall be null and
void, unless before the celebration of the subsequent marriage, the prior spouse had been absent for four
consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already
dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger of death under the circumstances set forth in the
provisions of Article 391 of the Civil Code, an absence of only two years shall be sufficient.

For the purpose of contracting the subsequent marriage under the preceding paragraph the spouse
present must institute a summary proceeding as provided in this Code for the declaration of presumptive
death of the absentee, without prejudice to the effect of reappearance of the absent spouse. (83a)

Sa Article 41, yung subsequent marriage can be terminated by the mere recording of the affidavit of
reappearance. Hindi kailangan ng judicial action. At ang affidavit na ito, hindi kailangang yung absent
spouse and mag-file. Maski sinong may interest sa marriage na yon, siya ang mag-execute kasi may
personal knowledge siya doon sa fact na buhay pa naman yung absent spouse, then that would terminate
subsequent marriage.


Ang pwedeng maging tanong diyan ay ang possible na anak. What if itong wife in a subsequent marriage
gave birth to a child, but after the termination of the marriage, after the recording. Anong status ng anak na
yon? It is definitely a child of the subsequent marriage, pero unless of course void ang subsequent marriage
kasi nga even if may judicial declaration, kung pareho silang in bad faith, void yan.

Art. 42. The subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall be automatically terminated by
the recording of the affidavit of reappearance of the absent spouse, unless there is a judgment annulling
the previous marriage or declaring it void ab initio.

A sworn statement of the fact and circumstances of reappearance shall be recorded in the civil registry of
the residence of the parties to the subsequent marriage at the instance of any interested person, with due
notice to the spouses of the subsequent marriage and without prejudice to the fact of reappearance being
judicially determined in case such fact is disputed. (n)

Art. 43. The termination of the subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall produce the
following effects:

(1) The children of the subsequent marriage conceived prior to its termination shall be considered
legitimate;

(2) The absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership, as the case may be, shall be
dissolved and liquidated, but if either spouse contracted said marriage in bad faith, his or her share of the
net profits of the community property or conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the
common children or, if there are none, the children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage or in
default of children, the innocent spouse;

(3) Donations by reason of marriage shall remain valid, except that if the donee contracted the marriage in
bad faith, such donations made to said donee are revoked by operation of law;

(4) The innocent spouse may revoke the designation of the other spouse who acted in bad faith as
beneficiary in any insurance policy, even if such designation be stipulated as irrevocable; and

(5) The spouse who contracted the subsequent marriage in bad faith shall be disqualified to inherit from
the innocent spouse by testate and intestate succession. (n)

Art. 44. If both spouses of the subsequent marriage acted in bad faith, said marriage shall be void ab initio
and all donations by reason of marriage and testamentary dispositions made by one in favor of the other
are revoked by operation of law. (n)

Under Article 44 voidable lang yan. Kung voidable, valid until annulled. Dito, termination ang term, hindi
annulled. Kasi nga hindi mo kailangan ng judicial action. If the child was born after the recording was
conceived before the termination of the marriage, legitimate child siya of the subsequent marriage.


D. VOIDABLE MARRIAGES

In order for a marriage to be voidable, ang pinaka-unang isipin: may DEFECT ang marriage na ito. From the
very start, at the time of the solemnization, may problema na, may defect. In other words, any ground for
annulment is ALWAYS required to be existing at the time of the marriage.

GROUNDS FOR ANNULMENT (Arts. 45-46)

Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage:

(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or
over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian
or person having substitute parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age
of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;

This ground can be ratified. There can be ratification by cohabitation.

(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with
the other as husband and wife;

Ganito din dito. There can be ratification by cohabitation.

(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full
knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife;

Ganun din sa number 3 na ground. Free cohabitation. Dito ang ground talaga fraud, pwedeng na-conceal
dito is STD. So ang STD, isipin niyo, dalawang pwedeng scenarios diyan: pwedeng gamitin siya under fraud,
pwedeng gamitin siya by itself, walang fraud. Pero magkaibang requisites. Sa fraud, pwede ang free
cohabitation, nalaman mo na eh. If you continue to freely cohabit, wala na. The marriage can no longer be
annulled.

(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence, unless the
same having disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and
wife;

Yung pang-apat, there can be ratification by free cohabitation.

(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such
incapacity continues and appears to be incurable; or

Pero ang fifth and sixth, walang free cohabitation. Maski apat na taon, tatlong taon pa, nalaman niya during
the marriage, pwede pa ding ma-annul ang marriage.

Physically incapable of consummating the marriage--another word diyan is IMPOTENCE--which should be
distinguished from STERILITY. Ang IMPOTENCE ang physically incapable of consummating. Take note na

pwede pati babae, pwedeng maging impotent, hindi lang lalaki. Although yung DOCTRINE OF TRIENNIAL
COHABITATION, kung after three years of marriage, yung babae virgin pa din, nagkakaron ng presumption
na ang lalaki ay impotent.

Take note that in the case of Jimenez v Canizares (109 Phil 273), kung ang claim ng husband ay impotent
ang wife and the wife, however, refused to have herself medically examined, the court should not
immediately conclude that the wife is physically incapacitated. Dapat i-order niya ang responder or
defendant to have herself examined. She cannot invoke the defense that this is in violation of her right
against self-incrimination because, una, this is not a criminal case, pangalawa, she will not testify orally.
I-examine lang naman siya. Pero if she refuses the order of the court, she can be held in contempt. Yun ang
solusyon.

(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears
to be incurable. (85a)

No free cohabitation. This one, hindi kailangan ng fraud. Basta already existing at the time of the marriage,
pero dapat malinaw na SERIOUS and appears to be INCURABLE. Sa fraud, it doesn’t matter kung anong
klaseng STD--maski hindi serious, maski curable--it could constitute fraud.

Anu-ano ang serious? Ang gnorrhea ba ay serious na STD? Ang sagot ni Kris Aquino ay hinde. Alam niya
yon. Pero obviously ang mga HIV, herpes are serious. Syphillis for a time, mga panahon ng mga 1920s,
serious na serious yan--nakakamatay. Pero ngayon hindi na. Madali lang naman daw ang cure.

Fraud
Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding
Article:

(1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving moral
turpitude;

Take note, it doesn’t matter kung gaano katagal ang penalty. Maski 30 days, basta crime involving moral
turpitude, then that can be a ground for annulment under FRAUD.

(2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other
than her husband;

In this case, kapag 5 or 6 months pregnant na ang wife, hindi na pwedeng mag-claim ang husband, because
at that stage, obvious na dapat na buntis ang asawa niya. HIndi pwedeng busog lang siya palagi.

(3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of the
marriage; or

Here, it doesn’t matter kung serious or hindi. Pero lalo na kung serious. Tapos na-conceal, but existing at
the time of the marriage.

(4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the
time of the marriage.

Eto, it’s because of the CONCEALMENT, NOT BECAUSE OF THE FACT.


No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such
fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage. (86a)

But ang isang pinaka-importante dito ay yung last paragraph:

Even if dati siyang hospitality girl, dati siyang maraming lalaki, it doesn’t matter--that cannot be used for the
annulment of the marriage on the ground of fraud. This is discussed in the case of Anaya v Palaroan (36
SCRA 97).

TRUE or FALSE: The day after John and Marsha got married, John told her that he was impotent.
Marsha continued to live with John for 2 years. Marsha is now estopped from filing an annulment case
against John.

The answer here is FALSE. As discussed a while ago, walang ratification by free cohabitation dito. Maski
tatlong taon, maski apat. Kasi five years ang prescriptive period dito. The fact that she continued to lived
with him for two years, baka tinatry pa din niya, na kaya ko ito.

Gene and Jane, Filipinos, met and got married in England while both were taking up post-graduate
courses there. A few years after their graduation, they decided to annul their marriage. Jane filed an
action to annul her marriage to Gene in England on the ground of the latter's sterility, a ground for
annulment in England. The English court decreed the marriage annulled. Returning to the Philippines,
Gene asked whether or not he would now be free to marry his former girlfriend. What would your legal
advice be?

Again may alternative answers dito ang UP Law Center, but I also go with the suggested answer. Tingin ko
yun ang mas tama.

Because pareho silang Pilipino, even if in England, yung marriage na yon ay na-dissolve because of the
annulment, sa England lang yon. Sa England pwede silang mag-asawa, but not here in the Philippines
because what will apply is Article 15. It’s Philippine law in relation to their status. Kaya hindi pa din siya
pwedeng mag-asawa under Philippine law--pwede siyang makasuhan ng bigamy.

I will always advice na wag i-confuse yung dalawang words: BIGAMOUS and BIGAMY. BIGAMOUS is a
STATUS of the marriage. BIGAMY is a CRIME.

What is the status of the following marriages and why?
a) A marriage between two 19-year olds without parental consent. - Dito (a) i-assume mo na
Filipinos. Kung wala siyang sinabi na Mongolian pala ito, eh di Pilipino. Kaya ang sagot ay
VOIDABLE--19; between 18 and 21.

b) A marriage between two 21-year olds without parental advice. - Ang sagot dito (b) ay depende
kung sinuspend ng Civil Registrar ang issuance ng marriage license. Kung hindi niya sinuspend,
VALID ang marriage pero may irregularity. Pero kung sinuspend niya, not even an irregularity.
Regardless, VALID ang marriage.

Bert and Baby were married to each other on December 23, 1988. Six months later, she discovered that
he was a drug addict. Efforts to have him rehabilitated were unsuccessful.

Can Baby ask for annulment of marriage? Explain.

Even assuming that this condition--drug addiction--existed before the time of the marriage ay na-discover
lang niya after 6 months, and apparently it was concealed, pero under the facts, December 1988. This
question was asked in 1996. Apparently tinatanong kayo on the day of the exam. In 1996 will the petition for
annulment prosper? Hindi na. Dapat ang discovery ay within 5 years. Nadiscover niya 1988, plus 5: that’s
1993. Eh 1996 na. The action would have prescribed.

Yvette was found to be positive for HIV virus, considered sexually transmissible, serious and incurable.
Her boyfriend Joseph was aware of her condition and yet married her. After two (2) years of cohabiting
with Yvette, and in his belief that she would probably never able to bear him a healthy child, Joseph now
wants to have his marriage with Yvette annulled. Yvette opposes the suit contending that Joseph is
estopped from seeking annulment of the marriage since he knew even before marriage that she was
afflicted with HIV virus.

Can the action of Joseph for annulment of his marriage with Yvette prosper? Discuss fully.

In fairness kay Yvette, hindi siya nagke-claim na may ratification by cohabitation, maski two years na ang
cohabitation. Ang kanyang claim ay estopped si Joseph because he knew. Can the action prosper? The
answer is NO, because if you read the provision on who can file the action, in every ground, ang nakalagay
“injured.” Only the injured party has the right to institute the action.

Kung alam mo na ang mapapangasawa mo ay may HIV, hindi ka injured. Pinakasalan mo pa din. Kaya this
action cannot prosper. Lalo na kung pareho ka na mayroong ground at alam nila sa isa’t isa.

Maria and Luis, both Filipinos, were married by a Catholic priest in Lourdes Church, Quezon City in 1976.
Luis was drunk on the day of his wedding. In fact, he slumped at the altar soon after the ceremony. After
the marriage, Luis never had a steady job because he was drunk most of the time. Finally, he could not
get employed at all because of his drunkenness. Hence, it was Maria who had to earn a living to support
herself and her child begotten with Luis. In 1986, Maria filed a petition in the church matrimonial court
in Quezon City to annul her marriage with Luis on the ground of psychological incapacity to comply with
his marital obligation. Her petition was granted by the church matrimonial court.

Can Maria now get married legally to another man under Philippine laws after her marriage to Luis was
annulled by the church matrimonial court? Explain.

The answer is NO. Yung church annulment is not officially recognized by our laws. Although in some
decisions, pwedeng gawing basis yon ng korte to determine kung may psychological incapacity dahil
kinopya lang natin ‘to sa kanila.

One of the grounds for annulment of marriage is that either party, at the time of their marriage, was
afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease, found to be serious and appears incurable.

Two (2) years after their marriage, which took place on 10 October 1998, Bethel discovered that her
husband James has a sexually-transmissible disease which he contracted even prior to their marriage
although James did not know it himself until he was examined two (2) years later when a child was
already born to them. Bethel sues James for annulment of their marriage. James opposes the
annulment on the ground that he did not even know that he had such a disease so that there was no
fraud or bad faith on his part. Decide.


The action for annulment here is not because of fraud. It is because he has STD that is serious in character
and appears to be incurable. Pagdating sa ground na yon, hindi kailangan ng fraud. So it means that even if
the person himself was not aware of the affliction, it doesn’t matter. It’s not a defense. Defense yon sa
fraud, kung yun ang ground for the annulment of the marriage, but not here.

Suppose that both parties at the time of their marriage were similarly afflicted with
sexually-transmissible diseases, serious and incurable, and both knew of their respective infirmities,
can Bethel or James sue for annulment of their marriage?

NO. Because neither of them is injured. Walang remedy of annulment.

Rene and Lily got married after a brief courtship. After one month, Lily discovered that while Rene
presented himself as a macho man, he was actually gay. He would not go to bed with her. He kept
obscene magazines of nude men and always sought the company of handsome boys. What legal
remedy does Lily have?
a) She can file an action for annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud.
b) She can seek a declaration of nullity of the marriage based on Rene’s psychological incapacity.
c) She can go abroad and file for divorce in a country that can grant it.
d) She has none since she had the opportunity to examine the goods and freely entered into the
marriage.

Ang sagot ay annulment. Ang premise diyan is even before the marriage, existing na, and he concealed the
fact that he was a homosexual.She can file an action for annulment of marriage on the ground of fraud.

Manuel came to Manila and married Marianne. Unknown to Marianne, Manuel had been previously
convicted in Palawan of theft and served time for it. After Marianne learned of his previous conviction,
she stopped living with him. Can Marianne seek the annulment of the marriage based on Manuel’s
non-disclosure of his previous crime?

The answer is YES. Because theft is crime involving moral turpitude. Maganda ang nilagay niya dito, after
learning of the conviction, she stopped living with him. Walang free cohabitation. Again, ang fraud as a
ground, subject to ratification.

Fidel, a Filipino with fair complexion, married Gloria. Before the marriage, Gloria confessed to Fidel that
she was two-months pregnant with the child of a black African who had left the country for good. When
the child was born, Fidel could not accept it being too black in complexion. What is the status of the
child?

The child is legitimate because the child was born during the marriage. Pero kung may action to impugn,
that’s another matter. Baka hindi din mag-prosper because estopped siya. At the time of the marriage alam
na niya. Bakit niya pinakasalan? Kaya legitimate ang child na ito. It was born within a valid marriage.

Ricky and Princess were sweethearts. Princess became pregnant. Knowing that Ricky is preparing for
the examinations, Marforth, a lawyer and cousin of Princess, threatened Ricky with the filing of a
complaint for immorality in the Supreme Court, thus preventing him from taking examinations unless he
marries Princess. As a consequence of the threat, Ricky married Princess. Can the marriage be annulled
on the ground of intimidation under Article 45 of the Family Code?
a) Yes, because without the threat, Ricky would not have married Princess.

b) Yes, because the threat to enforce the claim of Princess vitiates the consent of Ricky in
contracting the marriage.
c) No, because the threat made by Marforth is just and legal.
d) No, because Marforth is not a party to the contract of marriage between Princess and Ricky.

The answer is NO. Because this is a lawful threat. “Ipapakulong kita.” Eh pwede ka naman talagang
makulong. Kaya hindi siya pwedeng ma-annul on the ground of indimidation.

The following constitute the different circumstances or case of fraud which will serve as ground for the
annulment of a marriage, except?
a) Non-disclosure of the previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime
involving moral turpitude.
b) Concealment of a sexually-transmissible disease, regardless of it nature, existing at the time of
the marriage.
c) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the
time of marriage.
d) Concealment by the wife or the husband of the fact of sexual relations prior to the marriage.

The answer is D. “Concealment by the wife or the husband of the fact of sexual relations prior to the
marriage.” This falls under the last paragraph of Art. 46–no other misreperesentation or deceit will give
grounds for an action for annullment.

WHO CAN SEEK ANNULMENT AND WHEN (Art. 47)

Art. 47. The action for annulment of marriage must be filed by the following persons and within the
periods indicated herein:

(1) For causes mentioned in number 1 of Article 45 by the party whose parent or guardian did not give his
or her consent, within five years after attaining the age of twenty-one, or by the parent or guardian or
person having legal charge of the minor, at any time before such party has reached the age of twenty-one;

(2) For causes mentioned in number 2 of Article 45, by the same spouse, who had no knowledge of the
other’s insanity; or by any relative or guardian or person having legal charge of the insane, at any time
before the death of either party, or by the insane spouse during a lucid interval or after regaining sanity;

(3) For causes mentioned in number 3 of Article 45, by the injured party, within five years after the
discovery of the fraud;

(4) For causes mentioned in number 4 of Article 45, by the injured party, within five years from the time
the force, intimidation or undue influence disappeared or ceased;

(5) For causes mentioned in number 5 and 6 of Article 45, by the injured party, within five years after the
marriage. (87a)

Baldo, a rejected suitor, intimidated Judy into marrying him. While she wanted to question the validity of
their marriage two years after the intimidation ceased, Judy decided in the meantime to freely cohabit
with Baldo. After more than 5 years following their wedding, Judy wants to file a case for annulment of
marriage against Baldo on the ground of lack of consent. Will her action prosper?
a) Yes, the action for annulment is imprescriptible.

b) No, since the marriage was merely voidable and Judy ratified it by freely cohabiting with Baldo
after the force and intimidation had ceased.
c) No, since the action prescribed 5 years from the date of the celebration of the marriage.
d) Yes, because the marriage was celebrated without Judy’s consent freely given.

Isipin niyo, she wanted to question the validity of the marriage two years after the intimidation ceased. Ang
pag-compute ng prescriptive period starts from the time the intimidation ceased. After more than 5 years,
saka lang siya magfa-file. That is still allowed, since she has 5 years from the time the intimidation ceased
to file an action for annulment. In short, pwede pa hanggang 6th year ng marriage. PERO Judy decided to
freely cohabit. Although sa batas, walang specified period ng free cohabitation, dito tatlong taon na ito ng
free cohabitation.Kaya the action will NOT PROSPER. The answer is B.

B and G, age 20 and 19, respectively, both single, eloped and got married to each other without parental
consent in the case of G, a teenage student of an exclusive college for girls. Three years later, he
parents wanted to seek judicial annulment on that ground. You were consulted and asked to prepare the
proper complaint. What advice would you give G’s parents? Explain your answer.

This is about a lack of parental consent. Three years later, meaning three years after the marriage. But three
years after, kung tungkol ito kay G, si G was 19. Three years after, 22. The parents can no longer file this
action for annulment because the parents only would have the personality to institute the action for
annulment before their child reaches the age of 21.

However, if si G ang mag-file, it may prosper because G has 5 years from the time he or she attains the age
of 21 unless barred na ang action be free cohabitation or other grounds—hanggang mag-26 siya.. Free
cohabitation here should only be reckoned from 21. In other words siya ikinasal, and this spouse lived freely
with the other spouse hanggang 21, walang free cohabitation diyan. You can consider free cohabitation
only pag 21 na siya--from the time he or she attains the age of 21.

Josie, 18, married Dante, 25, without her parents’ knowledge and consent, and lived with him. After a
year, Josie returned to her parents’ home, complained of the unbearable battering she was getting from
Dante, and expressed a desire to have her marriage with him annulled. Who may bring the action?
a) Dante
b) Her parents
c) Josie herself
d) The State

After a year, 19 years old lang siya. Since MCQ ito, the BEST answer here is (b) HER PARENTS. Kasi wala pa
siyang 21. Pero, actually, as far as I’m concerned, although wala pang Supreme Court decision dito, maski si
Josie herself can file the action for annulment because of RA 6809. Kaya ganun ang batas na less than 21
ay parents lang because sa Family Code, ang age of majority was 21--kaya pag minor, hindi ka pwede
mag-file ng kaso, parents lang. Bago na ang batas, 6809 na. Age of majority, full capacity is 18 years old,
kaya pwede na siyang mag-file. Pero ang pinaka-safe dito ay parents, consistent with the Family Code.

Conrad and Linda, both 20 years old, applied for a marriage license, making it appear that they were
over 25. They married without their parents’ knowledge before an unsuspecting judge. After the couple
has been in cohabitation for 6 years, Linda’s parents filed an action to annul the marriage on ground of
lack of parental consent. Will the case prosper?

Will the case prosper? Malayo. The answer is NO. Dahil 20 plus 6, eh di 26 na. The parents can file the
action before the child attains the age of 21. Only the parties in the marriage can file the action for
annulment, after they have attained the age of 21.

II. LEGAL SEPARATION AND DIVORCE

A. GROUNDS FOR LEGAL SEPARATION (Art. 55)19

Art. 55. A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following grounds:

(1) Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common
child, or a child of the petitioner;

(2) Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political affiliation;

(3) Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner,
to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement;

(4) Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years, even if pardoned;

I would always ask this sa klase: If the respondent was able to avail of the benefits under the Probation
Law in relation to the conviction, can that conviction be a ground for a petition for legal separation? The
answer is NO. The fact na naka-avail siya, the penalty would have been NOT MORE THAN six years. Dito ang
ground ay dapat MORE THAN six years. Kaya ang crime na na-commit niya cannot be a ground for a
petition for legal separation.

(5) Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent;

Is there a requirement that this only occurred during the marriage? The answer is NO. Even if existing na
yan, una, dapat hindi alam ng kabilang party. Otherwise, hindi siya injured. Pero at the same time, required
ba na concealed? Hindi required. In the first place, itong respondent, pwedeng hindi niya alam—hindi niya
alam na adik na siya. I think most addicts would always say na “Hindi ako adik!” Kaya hindi nila alam na
adik na sila. Kaya hindi kailangan ng concealment, but it already existing at the time of the marriage. So it
can still be a ground for a petition for legal separation.

(6) Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent;

Eto, hindi din kailangan na should exist only during the marriage.
19
Compare with Art. 97, New Civil Code:

Art. 97. A petition for legal separation may be filed:
(1) For adultery on the part of the wife and for concubinage on the part of the husband as defined in the Penal Code; or
(2) An attempt by one spouse against the life of the other. (n)


(7) Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in the Philippines or
abroad;

Does the law require that the subsequent bigamous marriage is void? The answer is NO. Even if the
bigamous marriage is valid, it is still a ground for a petition for legal separation.

(8) Sexual infidelity or perversion;

Bagong formulation ito, dahil yung mga past laws would provide for adultery or concubinage. Pero
obviously this is more encompassing, mas broad ang scope ng ground na ito, plus, this would, in a way,
level the playing field between husband and wife—kasi mas madali di hamak na mag-prove ng adultery kesa
mag-prove ng concubinage. Wala pa akong kasong nabasa na guilty ang husband of concubinage. I don’t
know kung may kaso na kayong nabasa.

(9) Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner; or

No conviction required.

(10) Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year.

For purposes of this Article, the term “child” shall include a child by nature or by adoption. (9a)

DISTINGUISHED FROM SEPARATION IN FACT20
20
See Arts. 238-248:

Art. 238. Until modified by the Supreme Court, the procedural rules provided for in this Title shall apply as regards separation in fact
between husband and wife, abandonment by one of the other, and incidents involving parental authority. (n)

Art. 239. When a husband and wife are separated in fact, or one has abandoned the other and one of them seeks judicial
authorization for a transaction where the consent of the other spouse is required by law but such consent is withheld or cannot be
obtained, a verified petition may be filed in court alleging the foregoing facts.

The petition shall attach the proposed deed, if any, embodying the transaction, and, if none, shall describe in detail the said
transaction and state the reason why the required consent thereto cannot be secured. In any case, the final deed duly executed by
the parties shall be submitted to and approved by the court. (n)

Art. 240. Claims for damages by either spouse, except costs of the proceedings, may be litigated only in a separate action. (n)

Art. 241. Jurisdiction over the petition shall, upon proof of notice to the other spouse, be exercised by the proper court authorized to
hear family cases, if one exists, or in the regional trial court or its equivalent sitting in the place where either of the spouses resides.
(n)

Art. 242. Upon the filing of the petition, the court shall notify the other spouse, whose consent to the transaction is required, of said
petition, ordering said spouse to show cause why the petition should not be granted, on or before the date set in said notice for the
initial conference. The notice shall be accompanied by a copy of the petition and shall be served at the last known address of the
spouse concerned. (n)

Art. 243. A preliminary conference shall be conducted by the judge personally without the parties being assisted by counsel. After
the initial conference, if the court deems it useful, the parties may be assisted by counsel at the succeeding conferences and
hearings. (n)

Art. 244. In case of non-appearance of the spouse whose consent is sought, the court shall inquire into the reasons for his failure to
appear, and shall require such appearance, if possible. (n)

Art. 245. If, despite all efforts, the attendance of the non-consenting spouse is not secured, the court may proceed ex parte and
render judgment as the facts and circumstances may warrant. In any case, the judge shall endeavor to protect the interests of the


To distinguish LEGAL SEPARATION from DIVORCE and ANNULMENT:

It is said that LEGAL SEPARATION is actually a kind of divorce, but is only a RELATIVE DIVORCE because
the marital bond is not severed. Unlike in an ABSOLUTE DIVORCE, the marriage is dissolved. In
ANNULMENT, the marriage is also dissolved. In LEGAL SEPARATION, the marriage is NOT dissolved.

As to grounds, it is claimed that in ANNULMENT, the grounds must be existing AT THE TIME OF THE
MARRIAGE. It is likewise claimed that in LEGAL SEPARATION, the grounds should only be existing DURING
THE MARRIAGE. HINDI TOTOO YAN.There are certain grounds for LEGAL SEPARATION—which will be
discussed in while—which may already exist PRIOR TO THE MARRIAGE. And therefore pwedeng actually
gamitin either for legal separation or annulment—it’s up to the client kung anong gusto niyang i-file:
PETITION for LEGAL SEPARATION or an ACTION for ANNULMENT.

SEPARATION IN FACT is very much different from LEGAL SEPARATION.

In SEPARATION IN FACT, walang judicial approval ito, walang judicial decree. Therefore, una, wala silang
right to live separately, they will still be obliged to give support to each other, but also, the property regime
will continue to apply. Hindi madi-dissolve ang kanilang community or partnership just because separated
in fact.

Pero kapag LEGAL SEPARATION, even at the time of the filing of the petition, they can live separately. Also,
with a decree of legal separation, dissolved ang community or partnership—practically, separation of
property regime na. With legal separation, may obligation ba to support each other despite a decree? Meron,
but only the guilty spouse who may be ordered by the court to give support to the innocent spouse. Without
that order of the court, kahit innocent spouse ka pa, hindi ka entitled to support. Ang abogado mo, dapat
i-pray for support, so that the court could order the guilty spouse to give support.

SEPARATION OF PROPERTY, grounds:
1. Marriage settlement
2. Judicial decree
3. By law

The wife filed a case of legal separation against her husband on the ground of sexual infidelity without
previously exerting earnest efforts to come to a compromise with him. The judge dismissed the case for
having been filed with a condition precedent. Is the dismissal proper?

non-appearing spouse. (n)

Art. 246. If the petition is not resolved at the initial conference, said petition shall be decided in a summary hearing on the basis of
affidavits, documentary evidence or oral testimonies at the sound discretion of the court. If testimony is needed, the court shall
specify the witnesses to be heard and the subject-matter of their testimonies, directing the parties to present said witnesses. (n)

Art. 247. The judgment of the court shall be immediately final and executory. (n)

Art. 248. The petition for judicial authority to administer or encumber specific separate property of the abandoning spouse and to
use the fruits or proceeds thereof for the support of the family shall also be governed by these rules. (n)

The answer is NO. This is a matter which does not require efforts towards compromise. Yung requirement
under Art. 15121–an allegation in the complaint that there were earnest efforts towards a compromise and
that they failed—that is not applicable to a case of legal separation on this ground.

In legal separation, which is not correct?
a) The aggrieved spouse may file the action within five (5) years from the time of the occurrence
of the cause.
b) No trial shall be held without the 6-month cooling off period being observed.
c) The spouses will be entitled to live separately upon the start of the trial.
d) The prosecuting attorney has to conduct his own investigation.

The answer is C. The law provides that the spouses will be entitled to live separately UPON THE FILING OF
THE PETITION.

As to B (6-month cooling off period): Kung ang korte nag-schedule ng hearing in relation to the petition for
legal separation within 3 months from the filing, pwede pa din bang proper pa din ang pag-schedule ng
hearing? Yes, but ONLY for PROVISIONAL REMEDIES like support pendente lite ang pag-uusapan doon, or
custody of children—not into the merits of the petition for legal separation. These are not covered by the
6-month cooling off period, as discussed in Araneta v Concepcion (99 Phil. 709, 31 July 1956).

B. WHO CAN ASK FOR LEGAL SEPARATION (Art. 55)22

Saul, a married man, had an adulterous relation with Tessie. In one of the trysts, Saul’s wife, Cecile
caught them in flagrante. Armed with a gun, Cecile shot Saul in a fit of extreme jealousy, nearly killing
him. Four (4) years after the incident, Saul filed an action for legal separation against Cecile on the
ground that she attempted to kill him.

1) If you were Saul’s counsel, how will you argue his case?
The ground for this petition for legal separation is because there was an attempt by the respondent on the
life of the petitioner (Art. 55(9)). For this ground, hindi kailangan ng conviction in order for the petition to
prosper.

2) If you were the lawyer of Cecile, what will be your defense?
Ang defense diyan ay: Even if there was an attempt on the life of Saul, Saul also committed an act which is
a ground for the petition for legal separation—sexual infidelity.

3) If you were the judge, how will you decide the case?
21
Art. 151. No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear from the verified complaint or petition
that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the same have failed. If it is shown that no such efforts were in
fact made, the same case must be dismissed.

This rules shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of compromise under the Civil Code. (222a)
22
Compare with Arts. 99-100, New Civil Code:

Art. 99. No person shall be entitled to a legal separation who has not resided in the Philippines for one year prior to the filing of the
petition, unless the cause for the legal separation has taken place within the territory of this Republic. (Sec. 2a, Act No. 2710).

Art. 100. The legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided there has been no condonation of or consent to
the adultery or concubinage. Where both spouses are offenders, a legal separation cannot be claimed by either of them. Collusion
between the parties to obtain legal separation shall cause the dismissal of the petition. (3a, Act No. 2710)

The case will have to dismissed because of what is known as RECRIMINATION—if both parties commit acts
which are grounds for legal separation, the petition for legal separation cannot prosper.

The husband’s acts of forcibly ejecting his wife without just cause from the conjugal dwelling and
refusing to take her back constitutes
a) Desertion
b) Recrimination
c) Constructive abandonment
d) De facto separation

C. WHEN MAY PETITION BE FILED? (Art.57)23

Art. 57. An action for legal separation shall be filed within five years from the time of the occurrence of
the cause. (102)

Bert and Baby were married to each other on December 23, 1988. Six months later, she discovered that
he was a drug addict. Efforts to have him rehabilitated were unsuccessful.

Can Baby ask for legal separation? Explain.

Six months later, she discovered that he was a drug addict. Na-discover lang niya. Take note, the Family
Code requires that is should be 5 years from the occurrence of the cause, NOT from the time of discovery.
Kaya kung nag-occur ito prior to the marriage or even a few months after the marriage—by 1996 (when this
question was asked in the Bar exam), more than 5 years have already elapsed. The answer is NO, because
the action have already prescribed. Ang premise dito—as for legal separation—again, ngayon (day of the
exam).

NOTE: Art. 102 of the New Civil Code provides: “An action for legal separation cannot be filed except within
one year from and after the date on which the plaintiff became cognizant of the cause and within five years
from and after the date when such cause occurred.”

Under the Family Code, wala na itong “one-year from cognizance” requirement.

TRUE or FALSE: If a man commits several acts of sexual infidelity, particularly in 2002, 2003, 2004,
2005, the prescriptive period to file legal separation runs from 2002.

NO. According to the Supreme Court, every act is a ground for a petition for legal separation. This question
was asked in the 2007 Bar exam. Although the action may have prescribed as to the acts committed in
23
Compare with Arts. 102 and 99, New Civil Code:

Art. 102. An action for legal separation cannot be filed except within one year from and after the date on which the plaintiff became
cognizant of the cause and within five years from and after the date when such cause occurred. (4a, Act 2710)

Art. 99. No person shall be entitled to a legal separation who has not resided in the Philippines for one year prior to the filing of the
petition, unless the cause for the legal separation has taken place within the territory of this Republic. (Sec. 2a, Act No. 2710).

2002 (depende sa buwan), as to those committed in 2003, 2004, and 2005, hindi pa, since they are still
within the 5-year prescriptive period to file a petition for legal separation. Maski isa lang doon sa tatlo,
pwede pa. (See Brown v Yambao, 102 Phil. 168, 18 Oct 1957).

Rosa and Ariel were married in the Catholic Church of Tarlac on January 5, 1988. In 1990, Ariel went to
Saudi Arabia to work. There, after being converted into Islam, Ariel married Mystica. Rosa learned of the
second marriage of Ariel on January 1, 1992 when Ariel returned to the Philippines with Mystica. Rosa
filed an action for legal separation February 5, 1994.

1) Does Rosa have legal grounds to ask for legal separation?
YES. The fact that her husband remarried is a ground for a petition for legal separation regardless whether
Ariel’s marriage to Mystica is valid (even under the Muslim Code). A bigamous marriage is a ground for a
petition for legal separation.

2) Has the action prescribed?
NO. The facts show that Ariel remarried in 1990 or after. The action was filed in 1994, which is well within
the 5-year prescriptive period from the occurrence of the cause.

D. DEFENSES (Art. 56)

Art.56. The petition for legal separation shall be denied on any of the following grounds:

(1) Where the aggrieved party has condoned the offense or act complained of;

Condonation happens or takes place AFTER the fact.

A single voluntary act of sexual intercourse by the innocent spouse after discovery of the offense is
ordinarily sufficient to constitute condonation, especially as against the husband. (Bugayong v Ginez, 100
Phil. 616, 28 Dec 1956)

If the wife—who is the guilty spouse—left the conjugal abode and hindi hinanap ng husband for her to return,
walang condonation diyan. Siya na nga ang nagkasala, siya pa ang may gustong magpahanap. Hindi naman
tama yon. (Ocampo v Florenciano, 107 Phil. 35, 23 Feb 1960)

(2) Where the aggrieved party has consented to the commission of the offense or act complained of;24

Consent is given BEFORE the act.

Ang magandang example dito, if you remember this disbarment case involving this notary public. Kasi the
spouses had an agreement that the husband can have concubines and the wife can have adulterous
relationship with any man. Obviously, the agreement is void. Pero if one of them later on files a petition for
legal separation, will the petition prosper? The answer is NO. Dahil nagbigay ka na ng consent, pinayagan
mo siya eh. (See In re Santiago, 70 Phil. 66, 21 June 1940; People v Schneckenberger, 73 Phil. 413, 10 Nov
1941)
24
Compare with Art. 100, New Civil Code:

Article 100. The legal separation may be claimed only by the innocent spouse, provided there has been no condonation of or
consent to the adultery or concubinage. Where both spouses are offenders, a legal separation cannot be claimed by either of them.
Collusion between the parties to obtain legal separation shall cause the dismissal of the petition. (3a, Act No. 2710)


(3) Where there is connivance between the parties in the commission of the offense or act constituting
the ground for legal separation;

In connivance, talagang gumawa sila ng paraan so that there would be a ground for legal separation.

(4) Where both parties have given ground for legal separation;

Others would call this MUTUAL GUILT. It doesn’t have to be the same ground for each party. Pwedeng
magkaiba sila ng ginawa. In short, ang tawag dito ay RECRIMINATION. (See Brown v Yambao, 102 Phil 168,
18 Oct 1957)

(5) Where there is collusion between the parties to obtain the decree of legal separation; or

In relation to a confession of judgment, pag in-admit ng respondent na “I committed the act which was the
act cited as the basis for the petition for legal separation” at nag-decide ang korte to grant the petition, was
it proper for the judge to grant the petition na merong confession of judgment? IT DEPENDS. Kung ang sole
basis ng korte in granting the petition ay ang confession, ang pag-admit ng respondent that he committed
the act, that cannot be a valid judgment. Pero kung meron pang mga ibang ebidensya presented by the
petitioner, that could be a valid judgment even if there was a confession of judgment. (Ocampo v
Florenciano, 107 Phil. 35, 23 Feb 1960)

(6) Where the action is barred by prescription. (100a)

EFFECTS OF DECREE OF LEGAL SEPARATION

1. Personal Relations (Arts. 61, 63(1))

Art. 61. After the filing of the petition for legal separation, the spouses shall be entitled to live separately
from each other.

The court, in the absence of a written agreement between the spouses, shall designate either of them or a
third person to administer the absolute community or conjugal partnership property. The administrator
appointed by the court shall have the same powers and duties as those of a guardian under the Rules of
Court. (104a)

Art. 63 (1). The spouses shall be entitled to live separately from each other, but the marriage bonds shall
not be severed.

2. Custody of Children (Art. 63 (3), NCC 106 (3), PD 603 (Child and Youth Welfare Code) Art. 17, par. 3)

Art. 63 (3). The custody of the minor children shall be awarded to the innocent spouse, subject to the
provisions of Article 21325 of this Code.

25
Art. 213. In case of separation of the parents, parental authority shall be exercised by the parent designated by the Court. The
Court shall take into account all relevant considerations, especially the choice of the child over seven years of age, unless the parent
chosen is unfit. (n)

Art. 106 (3), New Civil Code. The custody of the minor children shall be awarded to the innocent spouse,
unless otherwise directed by the court in the interest of said minors, for whom said court may appoint a
guardian.

PD 603 (CYWC) Art. 17, par. 3. In case of separation of his parents, no child under five years of age shall
be separated from his mother unless the court finds compelling reasons to do so.

3. Property Relations (Arts. 63 (2), 64)

Art. 63 (2). The absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be dissolved and liquidated but the
offending spouse shall have no right to any share of the net profits earned by the absolute community or
the conjugal partnership, which shall be forfeited in accordance with the provisions of Article 43(2)26

Art. 64. After the finality of the decree of legal separation, the innocent spouse may revoke the donations
made by him or by her in favor of the offending spouse, as well as the designation of the latter as
beneficiary in any insurance policy, even if such designation be stipulated as irrevocable. The revocation
of the donations shall be recorded in the registries of property in the places where the properties are
located. Alienations, liens and encumbrances registered in good faith before the recording of the
complaint for revocation in the registries of property shall be respected. The revocation of or change in
the designation of the insurance beneficiary shall take effect upon written notification thereof to the
insured.

The action to revoke the donation under this Article must be brought within five years from the time the
decree of legal separation become final. (107a)

4. Support (Art. 198)

Art. 198. During the proceedings for legal separation or for annulment of marriage, and for declaration of
nullity of marriage, the spouses and their children shall be supported from the properties of the absolute
community or the conjugal partnership. After the final judgment granting the petition, the obligation of
mutual support between the spouses ceases. However, in case of legal separation, the court may order
that the guilty spouse shall give support to the innocent one, specifying the terms of such order. (292a)

ONLY the GUILTY spouse is obligated to give support to the innocent spouse, BUT ONLY IF ordered by the
court. This must be included in the prayer.

5. Use of Surname (NCC 370-372)

Art. 370. A married woman may use:
(1) Her maiden first name and surname and add her husband's surname, or

(2) Her maiden first name and her husband's surname or

(3) Her husband's full name, but prefixing a word indicating that she is his wife, such as "Mrs."

26
Art. 43(2): The absolute community of property or the conjugal partnership, as the case may be, shall be dissolved and liquidated,
but if either spouse contracted said marriage in bad faith, his or her share of the net profits of the community property or conjugal
partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the common children or, if there are none, the children of the guilty spouse by a
previous marriage or in default of children, the innocent spouse

Art. 371. In case of annulment of marriage, and the wife is the guilty party, she shall resume her maiden
name and surname. If she is the innocent spouse, she may resume her maiden name and surname.
However, she may choose to continue employing her former husband's surname, unless:
(1) The court decrees otherwise, or

(2) She or the former husband is married again to another person.

Art. 372. When legal separation has been granted, the wife shall continue using her name and surname
employed before the legal separation.

6. Right to Inherit (Art. 63 (4))

Art. 63 (4). The offending spouse shall be disqualified from inheriting from the innocent spouse by
intestate succession. Moreover, provisions in favor of the offending spouse made in the will of the
innocent spouse shall be revoked by operation of law.

7. Cost of Litigation (Arts. 94 (10), 121 (9))

Art. 94. The absolute community of property shall be liable for:
xxx
(10) Expenses of litigation between the spouses unless the suit is found to be groundless.

If the community property is insufficient to cover the foregoing liabilities, except those falling under
paragraph (9), the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties.
(161a, 162a, 163a, 202a-205a)

Art. 121. The conjugal partnership shall be liable for:
xxx
(9) Expenses of litigation between the spouses unless the suit is found to groundless.
If the conjugal partnership is insufficient to cover the foregoing liabilities, the spouses shall be
solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties. (161a)

RECONCILIATION

How done (Art. 65)

Art. 65. If the spouses should reconcile, a corresponding joint manifestation under oath duly signed by
them shall be filed with the court in the same proceeding for legal separation. (n)

Effects of reconciliation (Arts. 66-67)

Art. 66. The reconciliation referred to in the preceding Articles shall have the following consequences:

(1) The legal separation proceedings, if still pending, shall thereby be terminated at whatever stage; and

(2) The final decree of legal separation shall be set aside, but the separation of property and any forfeiture
of the share of the guilty spouse already effected shall subsist, unless the spouses agree to revive their
former property regime.

The court's order containing the foregoing shall be recorded in the proper civil registries. (108a)

Art. 67. The agreement to revive the former property regime referred to in the preceding Article shall be
executed under oath and shall specify:

(1) The properties to be contributed anew to the restored regime;

(2) Those to be retained as separated properties of each spouse; and

(3) The names of all their known creditors, their addresses and the amounts owing to each.

The agreement of revival and the motion for its approval shall be filed with the court in the same
proceeding for legal separation, with copies of both furnished to the creditors named therein. After due
hearing, the court shall, in its order, take measure to protect the interest of creditors and such order shall
be recorded in the proper registries of properties.

The recording of the ordering in the registries of property shall not prejudice any creditor not listed or not
notified, unless the debtor-spouse has sufficient separate properties to satisfy the creditor's claim. (195a,
108a)
III. PROPERTY RELATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE

A. WHAT GOVERNS MARRIAGE SETTLEMENTS (Art. 74)

Art. 74. The property relationship between husband and wife shall be governed in the following order:

(1) By marriage settlements executed before the marriage;

(2) By the provisions of this Code; and

(3) By the local custom. (118)

While marriage, generally, shall be governed by the provisions of the law, specifically the Family Code, there
is one aspect of marriage which may be governed by the stipulations of the parties, and that is their
property relations. In other words, what primarily will govern the property relations of the spouses are their
marriage settlement, susunod lang yung provisions of the code, then local customs.

WHEN MADE; MODIFICATIONS (Arts. 1, 76)

Art. 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in
accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family
and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and
not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the
marriage within the limits provided by this Code. (52a)

Art. 76. In order that any modification in the marriage settlements may be valid, it must be made before
the celebration of the marriage, subject to the provisions of Articles 66, 67, 128, 135 and 136. (121)27
27
Art. 66. The reconciliation referred to in the preceding Articles shall have the following consequences:
(1) The legal separation proceedings, if still pending, shall thereby be terminated at whatever stage; and


X and Y, both Filipinos, were married and resided in Spain although they intend to return to the
Philippines at some future time. They have not executed any marriage settlements. What law governs
their property relations?

a) They may choose between Spanish law and Philippine law.
b) Philippine law since they are both Filipinos.
c) No regime of property relations will apply to them.
d) Spanish law since they live in Spain.

(2) The final decree of legal separation shall be set aside, but the separation of property and any forfeiture of the share of the guilty
spouse already effected shall subsist, unless the spouses agree to revive their former property regime.

The court's order containing the foregoing shall be recorded in the proper civil registries. (108a)

Art. 67. The agreement to revive the former property regime referred to in the preceding Article shall be executed under oath and
shall specify:
(1) The properties to be contributed anew to the restored regime;

(2) Those to be retained as separated properties of each spouse; and

(3) The names of all their known creditors, their addresses and the amounts owing to each.

The agreement of revival and the motion for its approval shall be filed with the court in the same proceeding for legal separation,
with copies of both furnished to the creditors named therein. After due hearing, the court shall, in its order, take measure to protect
the interest of creditors and such order shall be recorded in the proper registries of properties.

The recording of the ordering in the registries of property shall not prejudice any creditor not listed or not notified, unless the
debtor-spouse has sufficient separate properties to satisfy the creditor's claim. (195a, 108a)

Art. 128. If a spouse without just cause abandons the other or fails to comply with his or her obligation to the family, the aggrieved
spouse may petition the court for receivership, for judicial separation of property, or for authority to be the sole administrator of the
conjugal partnership property, subject to such precautionary conditions as the court may impose.

The obligations to the family mentioned in the preceding paragraph refer to marital, parental or property relations.
A spouse is deemed to have abandoned the other when he or she has left the conjugal dwelling without intention of returning. The
spouse who has left the conjugal dwelling for a period of three months or has failed within the same period to give any information
as to his or her whereabouts shall be prima facie presumed to have no intention of returning to the conjugal dwelling. (167a, 191a)

Art. 135. Any of the following shall be considered sufficient cause for judicial separation of property:
(1) That the spouse of the petitioner has been sentenced to a penalty which carries with it civil interdiction;

(2) That the spouse of the petitioner has been judicially declared an absentee;

(3) That loss of parental authority of the spouse of petitioner has been decreed by the court;

(4) That the spouse of the petitioner has abandoned the latter or failed to comply with his or her obligations to the family as
provided for in Article 101;

(5) That the spouse granted the power of administration in the marriage settlements has abused that power; and

(6) That at the time of the petition, the spouses have been separated in fact for at least one year and reconciliation is highly
improbable.

In the cases provided for in Numbers (1), (2) and (3), the presentation of the final judgment against the guilty or absent spouse shall
be enough basis for the grant of the decree of judicial separation of property. (191a)

Art. 136. The spouses may jointly file a verified petition with the court for the voluntary dissolution of the absolute community or the
conjugal partnership of gains, and for the separation of their common properties.

All creditors of the absolute community or of the conjugal partnership of gains, as well as the personal creditors of the spouse, shall
be listed in the petition and notified of the filing thereof. The court shall take measures to protect the creditors and other persons
with pecuniary interest. (191a)


The answer is B. Philippine law shall govern since both of them are Filipinos, even if they are residing
abroad. Art. 17 of the New Civil Code provides “Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status,
condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living
abroad.”

When does the regime of conjugal partnership of gains begin to exist?

a) At the moment the parties take and declare each other as husband and wife before the
officiating officer.
b) At the time the spouses acquire properties through joint efforts.
c) On the date the future spouses executed their marriage settlements because this is the starting
point of their marital relationship.
d) On the date agreed upon by the future spouses in their marriage settlements since their
agreement is the law between the parties.

If the parties executed their marriage settlements in any other day not the day of the solemnization of the
marriage, the stipulation shall be void. In other words, under the Family Code28, unlike the Civil Code where it
was unclear or ambiguous when the marriage settlement shall start or commence, the marriage settlement
shall start at the exact moment of the marriage’s solemnization. This would have consequences in the
nature of the property of the spouses, as will be presented to you in a while. Kaya, the answer is A.

In the will of X, a parcel of land was validly bequeathed to A who was married to B at 5PM on 1 June
2011. A and B executed a marriage settlement where they agreed for a conjugal partnership of gains. At
10AM on 1 June 2011, X died. This parcel of land will form part of the

a) Conjugal partnership property
b) Absolute community
c) Separate property of A
d) Estate of X
e) State

What is relevant here first is yung property relations shall commence at the exact moment ng
solemnization. Pero si A inherited this parcel of land before the marriage, at 10AM on 1 June 2011 when X
died. Hindi ito na-acquire during the marriage. At any rate, since this is a CPG, and A already owned the
property before the marriage, he will be bringing the property to the marriage as a separate property. Kaya
ang sagot dito ay letter C. The parcel of land will be a separate property of A, it will not become a conjugal
property.

X and Y agreed verbally before their marriage (a) on the paternity of the illegitimate child of Y and (b) on
the economic regime that will govern X and Y’s property relations. Is the verbal agreement valid?

a) No, because a marriage settlement to be valid should be in writing.
b) Yes, since the ante-nuptial agreement need not be in writing.
28
Art. 81. Everything stipulated in the settlements or contracts referred to in the preceding articles in consideration of a future
marriage, including donations between the prospective spouses made therein, shall be rendered void if the marriage does not take
place. However, stipulations that do not depend upon the celebration of the marriages shall be valid.

c) No, because a marriage settlement cannot include an agreement on the paternity of an
illegitimate child.
d) Yes, since even if it is not a valid marriage settlement, it is a valid verbal contract.29

The verbal agreement is not valid. Under the Family Code, the marriage settlement is required to be in
writing. Thus, the answer is letter A because a marriage settlement to be valid should be in writing.

MARRIAGE SETTLEMENTS

The law requires that a marriage settlement shall be in writing. Does that mean therefore that this
agreement is one of those required to be in writing under the statute of frauds? Not anymore. Noong Civil
Code malinaw, dapat statute of frauds. Pero ngayon, under the Family Code, if it is not in writing, it will be a
void marriage settlement. Sa statute of frauds, if it is not in writing, it will merely be an unenforceable
contract. But of course, for this marriage settlement to bind third persons, it has to be in a public
instrument, because it cannot be registered if it is not in a public instrument. Registration is required to bind
third persons like creditors of the spouses.

When to be executed? Malinaw ang batas: it should be executed before the solemnization of the marriage.,
hindi during or after.

Can there be two or more valid marriage settlements? Pwede bang tatlo? Lima? The answer is yes. As long
as lahat ng modifications sa marriage settlement are executed before the marriage. Because in a marriage
settlement, the contracting parties may actually exclude even only one property from the conjugal
partnership or community property. For example, baka noong una ang kasunduan nila ang hindi lang
isasama sa conjugal partnership or community property ay ang lupa ng bawat isa, pero, nagka-sundo sila
pati ang refrigerator hindi na. Kaya, it can be a valid marriage settlement.

Who can validly executed a marriage settlement? Kung the marriage was solemnized, for example, in
December 1988, sa marriage settlement probably 25 November 1988, but one of the contracting parties
was 18 years old. In order for the marriage settlement to be valid, the law requires that the parents of the
contracting party who is between 18 and 21 is required to be made parties to the marriage settlement. Take
note, hindi lang sila witness, hindi lang yung presence nila, hindi lang yung consent nila, they should be
made parties in the marriage settlement; otherwise, the marriage settlement shall be void. But I dare to
claim if this marriage settlement was executed at a time na effective na ang R.A. 6809, which reduced the
age of majority to 18, even if the parents of this party who is between 18 and 21 were not made parties, the
marriage settlement may be valid. Why? Because the provision of the law requiring the parents to be made
parties mentioned the word ‘minor,’ hindi nakalagay ‘between 18 and 21.’ These contracting parties are no
longer minors under R.A. 6809. Kaya, hindi na kailangan ng parents niya to be made parties.

NATURE OF THE PROPERTY: DEPENDING ON THE PROPERTY REGIME AS AGREED UPON IN THE
MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT

Gabby and Mila got married at Lourdes Church in Quezon City on 10 July 1990. Prior thereto, they
executed a marriage settlement whereby they agreed on the regime of conjugal partnership of gains.
The marriage settlement was registered in the Register of Deeds of Manila, where Mila is a resident. In
1992, they jointly acquired a residential house and lot, as well as a condominium unit in Makati. In 1995,
29
Art. 77. The marriage settlements and any modification thereof shall be in writing, signed by the parties and executed before the
celebration of the marriage. They shall not prejudice third persons unless they are registered in the local civil registry where the
marriage contract is recorded as well as in the proper registries of properties.

they decided to change their property relations to the regime of complete separation of property. Mila
consented, as she was then engaged in a lucrative business. The spouse then signed a private
document dissolving their conjugal partnership and agreement on a complete separation of property.

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

In the year 2000, Mila’s business venture failed, and her creditors sued her for 10M. after obtaining a
favorable judgment, the creditors sought to execute on the spouses’ house and lot and condominium
unit, as well as Gabby’s mansion and agricultural land.

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

Yung first marriage settlement is a valid marriage settlement. In fact, the marriage settlement was
registered, kaya in writing ito – it cannot be registered pag oral.

But the amended marriage settlement which they executed in 1995 is definitely a void marriage settlement.
Again, for a marriage settlement to be valid, it has to be executed before the solemnization of the marriage.

Discuss the effect/s of the said settlements on the properties acquired by the spouses.

There is no question that the residential house and lot as well as the condominium unit are conjugal
properties. It does not appear that said properties have been acquired, for example, by gratuitous title, or by
using a separate property of a spouse. Nakalagay, ‘they jointly acquired’ these properties, kaya conjugal
properties.

However, as far as the mansion in Baguio City and the 5-hectare land in Oriental Mindoro, could this be
considered as a separate property kasi nagkasundo sila on a complete separation? No. Again, walang silbi
ang agreement na yon kasi void ang marriage settlement, so they will still be governed by the rules on
conjugal partnership of gains. Unless, for example, these land or mansion were inherited by Gabby or
acquired through his own money, and presumption dito, this is a conjugal property. A property acquired
during the marriage is presumed to be conjugal property. Unless ma-rebut and presumption na yan, they
will be considered as conjugal properties.

What properties may be held answerable for Mila’s obligation? Explain.

Ang una ay yung separate properties ni Mila, if she has separate properties. This is a debt incurred by the
spouse apparently without the consent of the other spouse: yung conjugal properties ay answerable to
extent that these contract entered into by the spouse without the consent of the other spouse had benefited
the family. If there is no showing that it had benefited the family, sarili lang na transaction yun ni Mila,
walang benefit sa family, then the conjugal properties cannot be made answerable.

On 10 September 1988 Kevin, a 26 year old businessman, married Karla, a winsome lass of 18. Without
the knowledge of their parents or legal guardians, Kevin and Karla entered into an antenuptial contract
the day before their marriage stipulating that conjugal partnership of gains shall govern their marriage.
At the time of their marriage Kevin’s estate was worth 50M while Karla’s was valued at 2M.

A month after their marriage, Kevin died in a freak helicopter accident. He left no will, no debts no
obligations. Surviving Kevin, aside from Karla, are his only relatives his brother Luis and first cousin
Lilia.

What property regime governed the marriage of Kevin and Karla? Explain.

Absolute community of property regime. This marriage was solemnized during the effectivity of the Family
Code. Despite this stipulation in the marriage settlement na CPG ito, it will not be a CPG because the
parents of the 18-year old Karla were not made parties to this marriage settlement – kasi nakalagay
‘without the knowledge.’ If they were not made parties, the marriage settlement is void under the Family
Code. On 10 September 1988, R.A. 6809 was not yet in effect. R.A. 6809 took effect on December 1989.
Thus, since the marriage settlement is void, the default marriage settlement under the Family Code ay
absolute community of property regime.

Bar Candidates Patricio Mahigugmaon and Rowena Amor decided to marry each other before the last
day of the 1991 Bar Examinations. They agreed to execute a marriage settlement. Rowena herself
prepared the document in her own hand-writing. They agreed on the following: (1) a conjugal
partnership of gains; (2) each donates to the other 50% of his/her present property; (3) Rowena shall
administer the conjugal partnership property; and (4) neither may bring an action for the annulment or
declaration of nullity of their marriage. Both signed the agreement in the presence of two witnesses.
They did not, however, acknowledge it before a notary public.

The fact that they did not acknowledge it before a notary public, it will not affect the validity of the marriage
settlement. But, it will not bind third persons because it cannot be registered.

a. As to form, is the marriage settlement valid? May it be registered in the registry of property? If not,
what steps must be taken to make it registrable?

Malinaw they agreed to execute a marriage settlement in a handwritten document. Pwede na ba yan? Yes.
The law only request that the marriage settlement should be in writing, whether handwriting or printed, it
does not matter.

Kaya lang, ang pangalawang tanong: may it be registered? The answer is NO because, they did not
acknowledge it before a notary public therefore it is not in a public instrument which cannot be registered.

What steps should be taken? Ipa-acknowledge it before a notary public. Ipa-notarized ang document for it to
be registrable.

b. Are the stipulations valid?

“A conjugal partnership of gains” – This stipulation is of course of valid.

“Each donates to the other 50% of his/her present property” – This stipulation will be valid only up to 1/5 or
20%. The law provides that if the property regime is other than ACP, they cannot donate to each other more
than 1/5 of their present property. It should be the present property, kasi ang future property shall be
governed by the rules on testamentary succession.30
30
Art. 84. If the future spouses agree upon a regime other than the absolute community of property, they cannot donate to each
other in their marriage settlements more than one-fifth of their present property. Any excess shall be considered void.
Donations of future property shall be governed by the provisions on testamentary succession and the formalities of wills.


“Rowena shall administer the conjugal partnership property” – This can be validly stipulated.

“Neither may bring an action for the annulment or declaration of nullity of their marriage”’ – That is void.
This cannot be a subject of an agreement between the parties.

c. If the marriage settlement is valid as to form and the above stipulations are likewise valid, does it
not follow that said marriage settlement is valid and enforceable?

As mentioned a while ago, this is a valid marriage settlement as to form – meaning it is already in writing.
However, it is only valid between the parties and cannot bind third persons because it is a private
instrument, habang hindi pa ito nare-rehistro. But, take note, that ang usapan nila, they will be married
before the last day; thus, until they are married, this marriage settlement cannot be given effect. It will have
an effect at the precise moment of the solemnization of the marriage.

DONATIONS IN CONSIDERATION OF MARRIAGE OR DONATION PROPTER NUPTIAS

In gratitude, the groom’s parents made a donation of a property in writing to the bride’s parents shortly
before their children’s wedding. The donation was accepted. What is the nature of the donation?

a) It is an ordinary donation since it was not given to the bride or groom.
b) It is donation propter nuptias since it was given with the marriage in mind.
c) It is an indirect donation propter nuptias since the bride would eventually inherit the property
from her parents.
d) It is remuneratory donation.

The answer is A. This is an ordinary donation even if it was in consideration of marriage dahil ikakasal ang
mga anak nila, nonetheless, it is clear from the fact that the donation was in favor of the parents of the
bride. To be a donation propter nuptias, it should be in favor of either or both contracting parties to this
marriage. Kung sa parents, ordinary donation.

You have to know kung ordinary donations because there are certain provisions in the Family Code na
applicable lang sa donation propter nuptias. For example, some grounds for the revocation will only apply in
donation propter nuptias and will not apply in ordinary donations.

Are donation propter nuptias governed by the statute of fraud?

Hindi. The Family Code expressly provides that donation propter nuptias shall be governed by the same
rules of ordinary donations unless otherwise modified by the Family Code.31 As to form ng donations,
meron bang pagbabago sa Family Code? Wala. So kung ang issue ay nasa validity ng donation propter
nuptias, in relation to form, it will be exactly the same form sa ordinary donations. So titignan natin yung
mga rules sa ordinary donation.

Do the rules on ordinary donation follow the statute of frauds?

Hindi. Again, pag statute of frauds, and the form was not complied with, ang status ng
agreement/contract/act would be unenforceable. Dito sa donation, if the form required was not complied
31
Art. 83. These donations are governed by the rules on ordinary donations established in Title III of Book III of the Civil Code, insofar
as they are not modified by the following articles

with, the donation is void. Although, pangalawa, pag statute of frauds, the law only requires the agreement
to be in writing. Dito sa donations, dipende sa property donated – kung immovable, the donation should be
in a public instrument, hindi lang in writing. Actually, pwede ring maging valid ang donation even if it is not
in writing if the movable property involved has the value of 5,000.00 or less – what is only required is the
simultaneous delivery.

Can common-law spouses donate properties of substantial value to one another?
a) No, they are only allowed to give moderate gifts to each other during family rejoicing.
b) No, they cannot give anything of value to each other to prevent placing their legitimate relatives
at a disadvantage.
c) Yes, unlike the case of legally married spouses, such donations are not prohibited.
d) Yes, as long as they leave sufficient property for themselves and for their dependents.

The answer is A. Common law spouses lang sila, by express provision of the Family Code, yung rule or
prohibition sa spouses are applicable to those who are living together as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage. Before the Family Code, sa New Civil Code, walang ganon. Pero ang SC ruled na kung
ang spouses are prohibited, eh dapat applicable din ito sa common-law spouses, because they cannot be
considered to be in a better position. Hindi nga sila kasal, why then should they be exempt from this
prohibition. Kaya ang prohibition na ito, inapply sa hindi mag-asawang o walang kasal pero they are living
together as husband and wife.

Moderate gifts, depende kung sino ka. Kung si Manny Pacquiao ka, edi 800K is definitely moderate. Pero
kung Uribe ka, edi 8K mahal na yon.

On the occasion of Digna’s marriage to George, her father gave her a donation propter nuptias of a car.
Subsequently, the marriage was annulled because of psychological immaturity of George.

May Digna’s father revoke the donation and get back the car? Explain.

There is a problem in this given situation: Kase ang rason, psychological immaturity, meron bang ganun? Sa
Art. 36 is psychological incapacity. And even in the grounds for the annulment of marriages, mukang wala
ito, this is not one of the grounds for annulment.

At any rate, if we consider this, ang isang problema dito, kung psychological immaturity, does that make
George to be in bad faith? Parang hindi siguro, immature lang siya, hindi in bad faith. Bad faith connotes
fraud. Kaya kung ganyan lang, baka hindi, walang right to revoke because walang bad faith on his part. So,
Digna’s father may not have the right to revoke the donation to get back the car.

ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY OF PROPERTY REGIME

GENERAL RULE: The community property shall consists of all the property owned by the spouses at the
time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter.32 [winnings]

So dalawa ang scenarios dito:

32
Art. 91. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter or in the marriage settlements, the community property shall consist of all the
property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter.

(1) “Already owned” – whatever the contracting parties already owned will become community property.
Dito, maraming misconception. And iniisip ng iba, even if already owned, kung acquired daw by
gratuitous title, it will not become community – this is wrong. Ang manner of acquisition before the
solemnization is irrelevant. As long as owned already by the spouse before the marriage, ang general
rule, it will become a community property.

(2) “Acquired thereafter” – (no explanation in the audio)

EXCEPTIONS:
1. If provided in the marriage settlement
2. If otherwise provided in the Code [Art. 91, 9233, 9334: presumption]

Art. 91 – even if owned already by the spouses before the marriage, it may be considered an exclusive
property if it was so stipulated in the marriage settlement. The Family Code is very clear: the spouses can
choose specific properties to be excluded from the community property – kung gusto nila kalabaw lang, edi
kalabaw lang, pero ACP ang property regime.

Art. 92 – In the Code, ano ang mga properties which would be considered na exclusive, even if already
owned before the marriage; yung isa, when this spouse has legitimate descendants by a prior marriage –
yung kanyang properties owned already before the marriage will remain to be exclusive properties.
Pangalawa, yung mga properties which are for the exclusive and personal use – ang hindi lang covered
dyan ay ang jewelry. In other words, and jewelry, even if for exclusive and personal use, it is by law
considered as community property.

Art. 93 – On the other hand, yung mga owned during the marriage, community property siya pero may mga
exception: of course it can also be stipulated in the marriage settlement but aside from that, ang pinaka
common ay if the property was acquired by the spouse by gratuitous title – pareho dito and ACP at CPG.
Basta by gratuitous title, exclusive property yan; unless, by gratuitous title pero and donor o ang testator
specifically gave this property to the community property or to the conjugal partnership. Otherwise, kung

Sa intestate succession, may both the spouses who acquired the property inherit the property? YES. Kung
ang namatay ay, for example, anak nila. Kung ang anak nila ang namatay, hindi lang isa ang magmamana
doon, silang dalawa.

Pangalawa, pwede naman by onerous title – hindi dahil sa income nila kundi dahil sa separate property nila.
For example, may pera sila na exclusive property, pinambili nila ng kotse, it can also be exclusive property.
In the same manner, pag nakipag-barter sila, edi ang kapalit na property will also be an exclusive property.

But, as long as the property was acquired during the marriage, ang presumption dyan ay conjugal property35
or community property. This is a very important presumption. Does it matter kung naka-rehistro lang sa
33
Art. 92. The following shall be excluded from the community property: (1) Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous
title by either spouse, and the fruits as well as the income thereof, if any, unless it is expressly provided by the donor, testator or
grantor that they shall form part of the community property; (2) Property for personal and exclusive use of either spouse. However,
jewelry shall form part of the community property; (3) Property acquired before the marriage by either spouse who has legitimate
descendants by a former marriage, and the fruits as well as the income, if any, of such property.

34
Art. 93. Property acquired during the marriage is presumed to belong to the community, unless it is proved that it is one of those
excluded therefrom.
35
Art. 116. All property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered is
the name of one of the spouses, is presumed to be conjugal unless the contrary is provided.

pangalan ng isang spouse? IT DOES NOT MATTER, the presumption would arise. Does it matter if the
registration was made after the annulment of the marriage? IT DOES NOT. Ang pag-rehistro is not the same
as acquired. It could have been acquired during the marriage, pero na-rehistro lang noong wala na ang
kasal. So, ang importante ay, at the time of the acquisition, kasal na ba sila o kasal pa rin sila – the
disputable presumption would then arise.

CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF GAINS
GENERAL RULE: The proceeds, products, fruits, or incomes from their separate property, and those
acquired by either or both through their efforts, or by chance, are considered as conjugal properties.

What are excluded from CPG?

Art. 109. The following shall be the exclusive property of each spouse:
(1) That which is brought to the marriage as his or her own;

In other words, pag CPG, and the spouse already owned this property before the marriage, he will be
bringing such property to the marriage as a separate property. Pero, lahat ng fruits nay an, halimbawa
5-door apartment unit yan na may mga rent, ang mga renta will be considered as conjugal properties.

Fruits ng exclusive property in an ACP will also be exclusive – kung sino ang may ari sa kanya din ang fruits.
In a CPG, however, kahit exclusive property mo yan, ang fruits niyan forms part of the conjugal partnership
properties. Pangalawa, that which are acquired by gratuitous title, that is similar to ACP. Pangatlo, that
which is acquired by right of redemption by barter, I also mention this in ACP, pareho lang ang rule dyan.

(2) That which each acquires during the marriage by gratuitous title;

As mentioned, this is similar to ACP.

(3) That which is acquired by right of redemption, by barter, or by exchange with property
belonging to only one of the spouses; and

Pareho lang ang rule dyan sa ACP.

(4) That which is purchased with exclusive money of the wife or of the husband.

Pareho din with an ACP. Take note, ang malaking pag-kakaiba ay sa No. 1, yung sa fruits.

Solomon sold his coconut plantation to Aragon, Inc. for P100 million, payable in installments of P10
million per month with 6% interest per annum. Solomon married Lorna after 5 months and they chose
conjugal partnership of gains to govern their property relations. When they married, Aragon had an
unpaid balance of P50 million plus interest in Solomon’s favor. To whom will Aragon’s monthly
payments go after the marriage?
a) The principal shall go to the conjugal partnership but the interests to Solomon.
b) Both principal shall go to Solomon since they are his exclusive properties.
c) Both principal and interests shall go to the conjugal partnership since these become due after
the marriage.
d) The principal shall go to Solomon but the interests to the conjugal partnership.

This is a CPG, so the principal amount, which is already owned before the marriage by Solomon, will remain
as his exclusive property. Pero lahat ng interest na mag-aacrrue mula doon sa kasal will form part of the
conjugal partnership of property. Pero pag nag-accrue siya before the marriage, separate property yun. Pero
pag nag-accrue during the marriage, that will form part of the conjugal partnership property. Again, the fruits
of a separate property will form part of the conjugal properties of the spouses. Kaya yung interest dito, dahil
after the marriage siya nag-accrue, would be conjugal properties.

Before Karen married Karl, she inherited P5 million from her deceased mother which amount she
brought into the marriage. She later used part of the money to buy a new Mercedes Benz in her name,
which Karen and her husband used as a family car. Is the car a conjugal or Karen’s exclusive property?
a) It is conjugal property since the spouses use it as a family car.
b) It is Karen’s exclusive property since it is in her name.
c) It is conjugal property having been bought during the marriage.
d) It is Karen’s exclusive property since she bought it with her own money.

Pag ganitong hindi malinaw na nakalagay ang property regime nila, tignan mo yung facts. Sabi sa facts: “is
car a conjugal?” Edi CPG sila, alangan naman na ACP ang regime dahil walang conjugal property pag ACP
ang regime. The fact na ginamit niya ang “conjugal”, edi CPG ang property regime dyan.

The car is an exclusive property of Karen kasi ang pinambili dyan ay exclusive property niya.

Audrey, single, bought a parcel of land in Malolos City from Franco for P1 million. A contract was
executed between them which already vested upon Audrey full ownership of the property, although
payable in monthly installments for a period of four (4) years. One (1) year after execution of the
contract, Audrey got married to Arnel. They executed a marriage settlement whereby they agreed that
their properties shall be governed by the regime of CPG. Thereafter, subsequent installments were paid
from the conjugal partnership funds. Is the land conjugal or paraphernal?

The answer here is the land is paraphernal because malinaw sa facts that ownership was already acquired
by Audrey before the marriage. Even if the installment payments were mostly paid by the conjugal
partnership funds, that does not mean na ang property ay conjugal property. Ang importante or
determinative factor ay kailan nag-vest ang ownership as a consequence of the sale.

Ang reckoning point o determinative factor ay kung kailan nag-vest ang ownership as a consequence of the
sale:

1. Kung nag-vest yan during the marriage, edi separate property niya yon. Thus, in a CPG, he/she already
owns the property, he will be bringing the property to the marriage as a separate property.

2. Pero kung nag-vest yung ownership after the marriage, ang sagot dito basically ay what kind of sale,
whether it is an absolute sale or conditional sale. Kung absolute sale, even if the price is payable in
installment, at nag-vest ang ownership, ang property ay paraphernal (this is the situation of Audrey). But in a
conditional sale, if the condition for the transfer of ownership ay full payment of the price, ang sagot dyan
ay conjugal property yan kasi nabayaran lang yun na kompleto after 4 years from the marriage (in reference
to the given situation). Kaya at that time, kasal na sila, edi conjugal property ang lupang ito. But not in this
case, kasi already vested even before the marriage.

Kaya lang, kahit na paraphernal ito, upon the dissolution of the partnership, si Audrey, kung namatay na siya,
yung estate niya will have to refund the partnership. Kung ano ang ginastos ng partnership in payment of
the monthly amortizations, that will be reimbursed.

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

FALSE. Apparently, without any other stipulations, this appears to be an absolute sale. Therefore, this
individual already acquired ownership as early as 1990. But in 1995, he got married while the debt is still
being paid.

Actually hindi rin nakalagay kung ano ang property regime. Pag walang settlement, since this marriage was
during the effectivity already of the Family Code, then this is an ACP. As an ACP, the purchased property will
become a community property upon marriage. Therefore, the debt is already the responsibility of the
community property.

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

From the circumstances, it appears that the levy WAS NOT proper because this debt was not obviously
consented to by the other spouse and this is not for the family. There is no showing at all that the loan
proceeds benefited the family. Therefore, it cannot prejudice the conjugal partnership properties.

Kaya, hindi pwedeng i-levy ang mga conjugal partnership properties considering that this is a debt of one of
the spouses which did not redound to the benefit of the family.

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

Merong difference sa appreciation dito kung ano ang tamang sagot because the sale happened on June 1
1990. Although ang property regime nito ay CPG, the marriage was in 1980 without a marriage settlement,
therefore CPG – yung property na ito which they acquired will be a conjugal property.

In the Family Code, pag conjugal property and it was sold by the spouse without the written consent of the
other spouse, the sale is void. Pero under the civil code, pag ang isang conjugal property ay sold by the
spouse without the consent of the other spouse, it will be merely voidable.

Ako, I am in agreement sa position na: because the sale happened in 1990 during the effectivity of the
Family Code, it will be a void sale if it was without the written consent of the other spouse unless the rules
of the Family Code in CPG would impair vested rights. Unless na merong ganoong claim, na kung mai-apply
ang Family Code provision and it would impair vested rights, dapat void ito.

Again, void ang sale na ito kasi it is without the written consent of the other spouse and this is a conjugal
property.


Charges upon and obligations of the conjugal partnership and the absolute community

Art. 94. The absolute community of property shall be liable for:
(1) The support of the spouses, their common children, and legitimate children of either
spouse; however, the support of illegitimate children shall be governed by the provisions
of this Code on Support;
(2) All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the designated
administrator-spouse for the benefit of the community, or by both spouses, or by one
spouse with the consent of the other;
(3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the
extent that the family may have been benefited;
(4) All taxes, liens, charges and expenses, including major or minor repairs, upon the
community property;
(5) All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made during marriage upon the separate
property of either spouse used by the family;
(6) Expenses to enable either spouse to commence or complete a professional or vocational
course, or other activity for self-improvement;
(7) Ante-nuptial debts of either spouse insofar as they have redounded to the benefit of the
family;
(8) The value of what is donated or promised by both spouses in favor of their common
legitimate children for the exclusive purpose of commencing or completing a professional
or vocational course or other activity for self-improvement;
(9) Ante-nuptial debts of either spouse other than those falling under paragraph (7) of this
Article, the support of illegitimate children of either spouse, and liabilities incurred by
either spouse by reason of a crime or a quasi-delict, in case of absence or insufficiency of
the exclusive property of the debtor-spouse, the payment of which shall be considered as
advances to be deducted from the share of the debtor-spouse upon liquidation of the
community; and
(10) Expenses of litigation between the spouses unless the suit is found to be groundless.

If the community property is insufficient to cover the foregoing liabilities, except those falling under
paragraph (9), the spouses shall be solidarily liable for the unpaid balance with their separate
properties.

Art. 121. The conjugal partnership shall be liable for:
(1) The support of the spouse, their common children, and the legitimate children of either
spouse; however, the support of illegitimate children shall be governed by the provisions
of this Code on Support;
(2) All debts and obligations contracted during the marriage by the designated
administrator-spouse for the benefit of the conjugal partnership of gains, or by both
spouses or by one of them with the consent of the other;
(3) Debts and obligations contracted by either spouse without the consent of the other to the
extent that the family may have benefited;
(4) All taxes, liens, charges, and expenses, including major or minor repairs upon the
conjugal partnership property;
(5) All taxes and expenses for mere preservation made during the marriage upon the
separate property of either spouse;

(6) Expenses to enable either spouse to commence or complete a professional, vocational, or
other activity for self-improvement;
(7) Ante-nuptial debts of either spouse insofar as they have redounded to the benefit of the
family;
(8) The value of what is donated or promised by both spouses in favor of their common
legitimate children for the exclusive purpose of commencing or completing a professional
or vocational course or other activity for self-improvement; and
(9) Expenses of litigation between the spouses unless the suit is found to groundless.

If the conjugal partnership is insufficient to cover the foregoing liabilities, the spouses shall be solidarily
liable for the unpaid balance with their separate properties.

Sa ACP at saka sa CPG, merong lang dalawang distinctions. (Referring to Art. 96) Etong No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 ay
parehong-pareho. Ang distinction nandito sa No. 5 at saka No. 9. Etong No. 6, 7, and 8,
kaparehong-kapareho din. In other words, the CPG, No. 9 lang kasi wala ang number 9 na ito.

Sa No. 5, pag ACP, to be chargeable to the community property dapat ‘used by the family.’ Pero sa CPG,
walang requirement na ‘used by the Family.’ As long as expenses ito 'for the ‘preservation made during the
marriage upon the separate property of a spouse,’ it is chargeable sa conjugal partnership – maski na, hindi
used by the family. Why would the law provide such distinction, madali lang isipin.
- Pag separate property ang mga properties niya, pati ang fruits dito sa kanya mapupunta. Kaya para
maging liable ang community property, dapat ginagamit ng family. Kapag hindi ginagamit ng family,
dahil sarili naman niyang property yun, at tutal sa kanya naman ang fruits, edi hindi liable ang
community property.
- Sa CPG, maski hindi ginagamit ng family ay chargeable to the conjugal partnership kasi ang fruits ng
property na yun tutal na-pupunta naman sa conjugal partnership. Kaya, maski na hindi used by the
family, dahil nakikinabang ang conjugal partnership, lahat ng expenses for the mere preservation of the
separate property ay chargeable to the conjugal partnership.

Sa No. 1, sa support ng illegitimate children, ang nakalagay sa ACP, chargeable to the community property.
Pero pag dating sa conjugal partnership, hindi siya chargeable sa conjugal partnership. Again why? Dito
nagdi-differ kasi doon sa mga owned by the spouse before the marriage: sa conjugal partnership, if owned
by the spouse before the marriage, the property will remain to be his exclusive property, so pag may anak
siya na illegitimate child, meron pa siyang pang gastos

In fact, in an ACP, for example, kung yung isang spouse merong illegitimate child before the marriage at
merong separate properties ang spouse na yun, will the separate properties remain exclusive? HINDI.
Naging exclusive lang, hindi yan magiging community property kung ang child by a prior marriage ay
legitimate child. Only then, magiging exclusive property pa rin yun. Pag illegitimate ang child, it will become
community property. Kaya lalabas, parang wala nang property ang spouse pang-gastos sa kanyang
illegitimate child. Kaya ang batas, chargeable muna sa community property pero pag-dating ng dissolution
ng community, kailangan mag re-imburse – parang inadvance lang ito doon sa spouse na yun na may
illegitimate child. Pero again, sa CPG, eh meron ka namang properties eh – yung mga properties mo before
the marriage will not become conjugal properties kaya yung expense sa illegitimate hindi chargeable sa
conjugal partnership.

May a spouse freely donate communal or conjugal property without the consent of the other?
a) Absolutely not, since the spouses co-own such property.
b) Yes, for properties that the family may spare, regardless of value.

c) Yes, provided the donation is moderate and intended for charity or family rejoicing.
d) Yes, in a donation mortis cause that the donor may still revoke in his lifetime.

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

It does not appear that they executed a marriage settlement. Pag-ganyan ang facts, you can state in your
answer na: it does not appear that they executed a marriage settlement and therefore, since the marriage
was solemnized during the effectivity of the Family Code, the property regime is ACP.

In an ACP, when this land was purchased by Marco before the marriage, it became a community property.
Therefore, dahil community property na siya at binenta ni Marco without the consent of Gina, which is
required to be in writing, that sale is VOID under the Family Code.

Dissolution of the marriage settlement36 37

Pwedeng by agreement of the parties in a marriage settlement.

Pangalawa, by law. When would this happen? Where the law itself would provide na separation of property
ang regime niyo. This would happen when one of the spouses dies and the surviving spouse failed to
liquidate the properties of the spouses within six months and the surviving spouse remarried. While the
subsequent marriage will be valid, the property regime imposed by law under Art. 10338, is a complete
separation of property regime.

The third, judicial decree. Ang judicial decree ay ang effect ng decree of legal separation. But this can also
be because of a decree as a result of a petition for separation of property. Take note, and petition for
separation pwedeng voluntary pwede ring for cause. Nonetheless, there has to be a judicial decree para
magkaroon sila talaga ng separation of property.

Separation of property between spouses during the marriage may take place only:
a) By agreement of the spouses.
b) If one of the spouses has given ground for legal separation.
c) Upon order of the court.
d) If one spouse has abandoned the other.

36
Art. 99. The absolute community terminates: (1) Upon the death of either spouse; (2) When there is a decree of legal separation;
(3) When the marriage is annulled or declared void; or (4) In case of judicial separation of property during the marriage under Articles
134 to 138.

37
Art. 126. The conjugal partnership terminates: (1) Upon the death of either spouse; (2) When there is a decree of legal separation;
(3) When the marriage is annulled or declared void; or (4) In case of judicial separation of property during the marriage under Articles
134 to 138.
38
Art. 103. Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the community property shall be liquidated in the same proceeding for the
settlement of the estate of the deceased.
If no judicial settlement proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall liquidate the community property either judicially or
extra-judicially within six months from the death of the deceased spouse. If upon the lapse of the six months period, no liquidation is
made, any disposition or encumbrance involving the community property of the terminated marriage shall be void.
Should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage without compliance with the foregoing requirements, a mandatory
regime of complete separation of property shall govern the property relations of the subsequent marriage.

There has to be an order of the court kasi during the marriage na yan. Dito, given ground lang. Dapat
merong decree of legal separation para magkaroon ng separation of property between the spouses. Kaya C,
upon order of the court.

In December 2000, Michael and Anna, after obtaining a valid marriage license, went to the Office of the
Mayor of Urbano, Bulacan, to get married. The Mayor was not there, but the Mayor’s secretary asked
Michael and Anna and their witnesses to fill up and sight the required marriage contract forms. The
secretary then told them to wait, and went out to look for the Mayor who was attending a wedding in a
neighboring municipality.

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

What property regime governs the properties acquired by the couple? Explain.
SPECIAL FORM OF CO-OWNERSHIP UNDER ART. 147.39 It does not appear na merong incapacity on the part
of the spouses or that one of them is married to another. Malinaw sa facts na walang ganon, which would
show na applicable ang 147.

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

From the facts, they lived together without the benefit of marriage pero they were capacitated to marry each
other – mukhang walang may-asawa sa kanila – therefore, ang applicable ay Art. 147. In Art. 147, dahil
co-ownership ito, ang rule dito ay ang share nila sa house and lot will be in proportion to their actual
contribution. Kaya lang kung walang proof ng actual contribution, it will be presumed to be equal. Pero in
the facts, hindi siya nagta-trabaho – Susan stopped working and merely “kept house.” Kung ang asawa, it
does not have to be the wife or the woman, ang contribution niya ay ang pag-maintain ng household ng
family, if it is Art. 147, it is as if nag-contribute siya equally. Therefore, and sharing dito sa house and lot ay
50-50 under Art. 147.

39
Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the
property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by
their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not
participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if
the former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.
Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned
in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be
forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants,
each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to
the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.

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

Since Tony could not marry Susan because he was previously separated, then Art. 148 would apply.
Because there is a third person who will be prejudiced, dahil may-asawa yung isa, Art. 148 will be
applicable.

In Art. 148, na co-ownership din, yung pag-maintain ng household ay walang effect yan, maski na 20
hours a day ka pa nagla-laba, naglu-luto. Kaya lalabas from the facts, galing yan sa income ni Tony.

Ang next na i-consider niyo ay kailan na-acquire ito ni Tony. Kasi kung na-acquire ito before the decree of
legal separation, this will form part of the community property nilang mag-asawa or conjugal partnership
nila. Pero, kung na-acquire ito ni Tony with his income after the decree of legal separation, it will be a
separate property of Tony, yung buong house and lot.

Luis and Rizza, both 26 years of age and single, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage. Luis is gainfully employed, Rizza is not employed, stays at home, and
take charge of the household chores.

After living together for a little over twenty years, Luis was able to save from his salary earnings during
that period the amount of P200,000.00 presently deposited in a bank. A house and lot worth
P500,000.00 was recently purchased for the same amount by the couple. Of the P500,000.00 used by
the common-law spouses to purchase the property, P200,000.00 had come from the sale of palay
harvested from the hacienda owned by Luis and P300,000.00 from the rentals of a building belonging to
Rizza. In fine, the sum of P500,000.00 had been part of the fruits received during the period of
cohabitation from their separate property. A card worth P100,000.00 being used by the common-law
spouses, was donated just months ago to Rizza by her parents.

Luis and Rizza now decide to terminate their cohabitation, and they ask you to give them your legal
advice on the following:
a) How, under the law, should the bank deposit of P200,000.00, the house and lot valued at
P500,000.00, and the car worth P100,000.00 be allocated to them?

Under the facts, malinaw na ang applicable provision ay Art. 147 – without the benefit of marriage lang pero
single naman sila, 26 years old. In 147, as to 200K, even if it was earned only by one of the spouses, ayon sa
batas, equal parati. So 100K kay Luis, 100K kay Rizza.

But, as for as the house and lot, a property acquired during the marriage, dahil co-ownership ito, actual
contribution. Take note, Rizza is not employed and only stays at home. Therefore, Rizza, having contributed
300K for the purchased of the house and lot, will have 3/5 share doon sa house and lot while Luis, having
contributed 200K, will have a 2/5 share.

As to the car, kay Rizza lang yan. Because under the facts, the car was donated by her parents. Malinaw
walang contributions dyan si Luis.

b) What would be your answer (to the above question) had Luis and Rizza been living together
all the time, i.e., since twenty years ago, under a valid marriage?

20 years ago, dapat i-compute mo mula noong tinanong ito sa bar exams, which is 1997. So 20 years ago,
1977, without a marriage settlement, that is a CPG. Kaya pag CPG ito, itong bank deposit, dahil earned ito
because of employment, this would be a conjugal property.

Itong house and lot, na-purchase ito out of the fruits of separate properties. Therefore, ang status ng house
and lot ay conjugal kasi ang mga fruits na yon conjugal din yon eh. So pag ang conjugal na pera pinambili
ng property, edi conjugal din yung nabiling property. Pero yung car which is acquired by gratuitous title, eh
exclusive property ni Rizza.

So pag-dating ng hatian, 50% ng 200K kay Luis, 50% kay Rizza. Pag-dating sa house ang lot, dito nag-iiba,
nagiging 50-50 ang labanan, in the absence of a marriage settlement.

Venecio and Ester lived as common-law spouses since both have been married to other persons from
whom they had been separated in fact for several years. Hardworking and bright, each earned incomes
from their respective professions and enterprises. What is the nature of their incomes?
a) Conjugal since they earned the same while living as husband and wife.
b) Separate since their property relations with their legal spouses are still subsisting.
c) Co-ownership since they agreed to work for their mutual benefit.
d) Communal since they earned the same as common-law spouses.

Ang incomes nila, kanya-kanya, pero hindi sa kanila yon. Ang income ni Venecio will form part of the
conjugal partnership or community property, dipended sa property regime nila. Ganon din ang income ni
Ester, it will form part of the conjugal partnership or community property.

And best answer ay B, pero hindi yan ang accurate answer. Separate kasi hindi yan magiging common
properties nila na mag-asawa. Pero, kasi nga 148 and applicable, whatever was acquired by the spouse by
their separate incomes, will actually pertain to the conjugal partnership kung CPG, hindi yan separate
precisely because their property relations are still subsisting.

Bert and Joe, both male and single, lived together as common law spouses and agreed to raise a son of
Bert’s living brother as their child without legally adopting him. Bert worked while Joe took care of their
home and the boy. In their 20 years of cohabitation they were able to acquire real estate assets
registered in their names as co-owners. Unfortunately, Bert died of cardiac arrest, leaving no will. Bert
was survived by his biological siblings, Joe and the boy.

Can Article 147 on co-ownership apply to Bert and Joe, whereby all properties they acquired will be
presumed to have been acquired by their joint industry and shall be owned by them in equal shares?

NO. 147 is not applicable because for 147 to apply dapat they are actually man and woman. Dahil pareho
silang lalaki, edi hindi applicable and 147. Ang contemplated na parties sa 147 and 148 ay man and a
woman. Kaya, ang applicable dito ay the ordinary rules on co-ownership, not the special form of
co-ownership under 147 nor under 148.

FAMILY RELATIONS

Ang family relations will cover this relationships: (1) husband and wife; (2) parents and children; (3) other
ascendants or descendants; (4) among brothers and sisters whether full or half blood. In other words, hindi
kasama dito ang mga pinsan.

Janice and Jennifer are sisters. Janice sued Jennifer and Laura, Jennifer’s business partner for
recovery of property with damages. The complaint did not allege that Janice exerted earnest efforts to
come to a compromise with the defendants and that such efforts failed. The judge dismissed the
complaint outright for failure to comply with a condition precedent. Is the dismissal in order?
e) No, since Laura is a stranger to the sisters, Janice has no moral obligation to settle with her.
f) Yes, since court should promote amicable settlement among relatives.
g) Yes, since members of the same family, as parties to the suit, are required to exert earnest
efforts to settle their disputes before coming to court.
h) No, the family council, which would ordinarily mediate the dispute, has been eliminated under
the Family Code.

The answer is NO because ang kinasuhan ni Janice ay hindi lang ang sister niya pero, ang kinasuhan ay pati
ang business partner ng sister niya. Thus, one of the defendants is not covered by this property relations,
hindi applicable and Art. 151. Dapat it should be entirely between those having family relations. Kung ang
kinasuha mo pati yung asawa ng kapatid mo, hindi na applicable ang 151, yung mga in-laws hindi yan
kasama sa family relations. Lalo na dito, hindi nga in-law ito, business partner lang.

Take note that Art. 151 requires the plaintiff, suing a family member whom he/she has family relations, to
allege in the complaint that efforts to have compromise have been exerted and such efforts failed.

What if sa trial court, natuloy ang kaso: the trial court either decide in favor of the plaintiff or the
defendant. Pag-dating doon sa SC, the defendant raise as a defense na there was no allegation in the
complaint that efforts to have a compromise have been exerted. Assuming it is true that no such
allegation is made, should the action be dismissed?

NO. Such defense should be invoked in the trial court. This does not affect the jurisdiction of the court, it
can be waived. The fact na hindi ito ni-raise as a defense doon sa trial court, winave na niya ito. Hindi na
niya pwedeng i-raise yan sa appellate court.

Art. 151. No suit between members of the same family shall prosper unless it should appear from the
verified complaint or petition that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made, but that the
same have failed. If it is shown that no such efforts were in fact made, the same case must be dismissed.

This rule shall not apply to cases which may not be the subject of compromise under the Civil Code.
(222a)

Art. 2035. No compromise upon the following questions shall be valid:
(1) The civil status of persons;
(2) The validity of a marriage or a legal separation;
(3) Any ground for legal separation;
(4) Future support;
(5) The jurisdiction of courts;
(6) Future legitime. (1814a)

So again, tignan niyo na there are certain matters na cannot be a subject of a compromise. Pag ganon, hindi
applicable and 151. Pag ganito ang issues sa kaso, hindi kailangan mag-allege in a complaint that efforts
towards a compromise have been exerted.

Gayon v Gayon (G.R. No. L-28394 – 1970)

A husband versus a sister-in-law. This is not covered by Art. 151 kasi ang sister-in-law does not have family
relations with the plaintiff.

FAMILY HOME

Spouses A and B leased a piece of land belonging to B's parents for 25 years. The spouses built their
house on it worth P300,000.00. Subsequently, in a case that C filed against A and B, the court found the
latter liable to C for P200,000.00. When the sheriff was attaching their house for the satisfaction of the
judgment, A and B claimed that it was exempt from execution, being a family home. Is this claim
correct?
a) Yes, because while B’s parents own the land, they agreed to have their daughter build her family
home on it.
b) No, because there is no judicial declaration that it is a family home.
c) No, since the land does not belong to A and B, it cannot qualify as a family home.
d) Yes, because the A and B’s family actually lives in that house.

Ang sagot dito ay NO because the land on which this house was built was not owned by the spouses who
are claiming na family home ito. In other words, and position dito ay, in order for a dwelling house to be
considered a family home, not only is the dwelling house owned by the spouses claiming that it is a family
home, the land over which the house was constructed must belong to the spouses or to one of them.

May a dwelling house be validly constituted as a family home even if at the time of the constitution hindi
siya owned by either of the spouses, hindi siya conjugal property, hindi siya community property?

The answer is YES. Ang exception lang ng batas dito ay, maybe this property or properties is/are the object
of a conditional sale, na ang condition is the full payment of the price and the only purpose that the seller
retained ownership was to secure the fulfillment of the obligation of the buyer to pay the price. Maski na
hindi pa may-ari ang mag-asawang ito of the dwelling house, it can be constituted as a family home.

Into the wisdom of this, if you will read the provision, ang nakasulat na word ay ‘and’ – ‘the dwelling house
and the land.’ Kung ang land ba ay hindi owned by these people constituting a family home, sila lang ang
may-ari ng dwelling house, hindi na ba talaga family home ang dwelling house? I beg to disagree. But this is
base on a ruling of the SC. I beg to disagree with this ruling because it is anti-poor. Precisely, yan ang
purpose ng batas na ito – to ensure na ang mga family sa Pilipinas ay hindi nagka-kalat sa mga kalsada.
That the families have a place where they can relax, sleep, etc. You can just imagine na ngayon hindi na uso
ang lupa na owned by the owner of the unit kasi mahal na ang mga lupa ngayon. Ang may-ari na lang ng
mga lupa ay yung mga nakatira sa Forbes Park. Otherwise, ang mga Pilipino ngayon, may-ari sila ng mga
condominium unit. Pag ganun ang scenario, you mean lahat ng mga nakatira sa condominium unit walang
family home dahil hindi sila ang may-ari ng lupa over which this condominium unit was constructed. Again,
this is contrary to the intention of the law, with all due respect. Kaya, I dare to claim that even if the land
over which the dwelling house was constructed was not owned by the spouses, it can be considered as a
family home. But until then, maghintay tayo ng kaso. In the meantime, yan ang ruling.

Art. 153. The family home is deemed constituted on a house and lot from the time it is occupied as a
family residence. From the time of its constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries actually resides
therein, the family home continues to be such and is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment
except as hereinafter provided and to the extent of the value allowed by law. (223a)


Hindi na katulad sa Civil Code na kailangan may public instrument, o registered. From the time it is
occupied as a family residence, it is considered as a family home. In fact, yung mga dwelling house noong
Civil Code na hindi nag-comply sa requirements ng Constitution, the fact that there were still occupying the
dwelling house took effect, automatically nagging family home na sila. Wala ng dapat gawin.

Art. 154. The beneficiaries of a family home are:
(1) The husband and wife, or an unmarried person who is the head of a family; and
(2) Their parents, ascendants, descendants, brothers and sisters, whether the relationship be legitimate or
illegitimate, who are living in the family home and who depend upon the head of the family for legal
support. (226a)

In a bar exam question: when this couple died in an accident, one of those who lived in the family home ay
ang grandchild nila na around 5 years old. Pero parents ng grandchild na ito are still alive but just residing in
another dwelling house, nasa ibang probinsya. Therefore, with the death of the couple who constituted a
family home, until when does this house and land be considered a family home? If you will consider the rule,
it will be until this child reaches the age of majority. Because ang child na yan, although 5 years old, cannot
be considered as a beneficiary. Why? Because although he was living in the family home, he does not
depend upon the head of the family for legal support. Kase ang masasabing nagsu-support sa kanya eh ang
parents pa rin niya. Kaya hindi siya beneficiary sa family home na yon. Nakalagay hanggang 10 years,
unless of course merong minor pa dyan.


Notes in Persons Until Family Home PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Notes in Persons Until Family Home PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NOTES IN PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS1

(1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and

non-appearing spouse. (n)

You might also like