You are on page 1of 31

(Notes in red are either opinions of the lecturer or of the reviewee and his friends.

Civil law governs the private relationships between persons, from birth to death and beyond.
This field regulates human and family relations; property, ownership, and its incidents; and
obligations, contractual and non-contractual.

Art. 2, CC (effectivity of laws)
Publication requirement
Case: Taada vs. Tuvera Art. 2 refers to laws without qualification (no need for distinguishing
between general and special laws); the entire law must be published for compliance
Q: Where should publication be made?
1. OG, or
2. Newspaper of general circulation in PH
Unless otherwise provided: refers to the number of days following completion of publication
(can be lengthened or shortened)
Re: administrative circulars/issuances
Case: Yaokasin vs. Collector of Customs
1. If to implement/enforce the law, etc. necessary
2. If for internal use, etc. dispensable
Re: effective upon signing of the President
Case: Umali vs. Estanislao follow the rule in Art. 2 (after 15 days)
Contra: La Bugal Blaan vs. Ramos law takes effect immediately after complete publication
Follow La Bugal Blaan, its more recent
Art. 3, CC (ignorance of the law)
Principles upon which Art. 3 is based: exigency, necessity
Covered laws: domestic, mandatory, prohibitory
Presumption created: conclusive
Re: mistake
1. Mistake of law: inexcusable
2. Mistake of fact: (can be) excusable
Processual presumption to invoke foreign law in PH, one must establish its existence;
otherwise, it will be presumed that the foreign law is the same as PH law, and therefore, PH law
Art. 6, CC (waiver of rights)
Only rights may be waived; obligations cannot
Conditions prescribed by law for waiver
1. Not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, public policy (cf. Art. 1306, CC)
2. Not prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law
When the act is both a right and a duty (e.g. SCs expanded power of judicial review) we do
not speak of waiver (can the power of lower courts to hear and decide cases within their
jurisdiction be considered this? [cf. Art. 9, CC])

Art. 8, CC (re: judicial decisions)

(cf. Art. 2, CC)
Case: Roy vs. CA SC decisions need not be published in order to take effect; while part of the
PH legal system, these are not laws under Art. 2
Art. 9, CC (obligation to render judgment)
How rendered: in accordance with applicable law
If the law is unjust in the mind of the court: apply still (dura lex sed lex)
Art. 10, CC (customs and traditions)
How applied, if able
1. Civil: where the applicable law is
(a) Silent
(b) Obscure
(c) Insufficient
2. Criminal: you do not (nullum crimen nullum poena sine lege)
Art. 13, CC (times and dates)
Years: (compare with AdmCode provision)
30 days
XPN: When a month is designated by name, the no. of days w/c the month has
FELI rule in computation of periods
Art. 14, CC (re: penal laws)
Territoriality; exterritoriality
Art. 15, CC (lex nationalii)
1. Family rights and duties
2. Status/condition/legal capacity of persons
Art. 16, CC (re: property, etc.)
Lex rei sitae (as long as the owner is alive; when deceased, apply XPN)
XPN: Lex nationalii (i.e. national law of decedent), re:
1. Order of succession
2. Amount of successional rights
3. Intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions
1. Aznar vs. Garcia renvoi doctrine: when our law refers a case to another countrys law
for solution, and the law of that country refers it back to our country for determination,
there is no tossing back
2. Miciano vs. Brimo & Bellis vs. Bellis a provision in a foreigner's will to the effect that
his properties shall be distributed in accordance with PH law and not with his national
law is VOID; lex nationalii applies
Art. 17, CC (lex loci celebrationis)
Formalities of contracts, wills, other public instruments
XPN: 1. When executed before PH diplomats/consuls in a foreign country, forms/solemnities

in PH law are to be followed (exterritoriality)

2. Public policy; prohibitive laws re: persons, acts, property
Art. 17 only deals with extrinsic validity
Q: What law should govern re: intrinsic validity?
A: [Manresa]
1. Lex voluntatis
2. Lf none was agreed upon and both parties are of the same nationality, lex nationalii
3. If parties are of different nationality:
(a) Lex contractus
(b) If involving the performance of an obligation law of the place of performance
4. Law of domicile of debtor

Arts. 19, 20, & 21 are correlated
Art. 19 lays down a rule of conduct, violation of w/c is governed by either Art. 20 or Art. 21
Art. 19, CC (norms of human conduct [standards re: rights & duties])
1. Act with justice
2. Give everyone his due
3. Observe honesty and good faith
Interplay of damnum absque injuria & abuse of rights
Damnum absque injuria: one who made use of his own legal right does no injury, and
whatever damages are caused to another should be borne solely by the latter
XPN: When there is abuse of rights
1. Defendant has a legal right or duty
2. Exercised or performed in bad faith
3. For the sole purpose of prejudicing or injuring another
4. Complainant was prejudiced or injured as a result
Art. 20, CC (willful or negligent act done contrary to law)
Art. 21, CC (willful act contrary to morals/good customs/public policy)
Art. 20, CC
Act is done either willfully or negligently
Act is contrary to law
Liability arises from violation of law

Art. 21, CC
Act is done willfully
Act is contrary to morals/customs/public policy
Liability need not arise from violation of law

Art. 22, CC (accion in rem verso)

Definition: an action for recovery of what has been given or paid to another (a) without just/legal
cause, or (b) under circumstances giving rise to an obligation to account for benefits received
Requisites 1. Defendant has been enriched
What constitutes enrichment:
(a) Every patrimonial/physical/moral advantage appreciable in money
(b) Avoidance of expenses
(c) Other indispensable deductions in the patrimony of a person
(d) Prevention of a loss or injury
2. Brought about via

(a) Act or performance of plaintiff/defendant/3rd party

(b) Other means
3. Plaintiff/aggrieved party has incurred a loss
It is sufficient that the enrichment of the defendant would not have been
produced had it not been for the fact from which the loss/injury is
4. Enrichment is w/o just/legal ground
5. No remedy or action based on contract/quasi-contract/delict/quasi-delict
Recoverable Amount of loss suffered by plaintiff
whichever is lower
Amount of unjust enrichment obtained by defendant
1. Assumption of risk (?) unjust enrichment cannot be validly invoked by a
party who, through his own act or omission, took the risk of being denied
Other rules
2. In pari delicto when both parties to a transaction are mutually negligent in
the performance of their obligations, the fault of one cancels that of the other

Kinds of persons
1. Natural
2. Juridical: artificial beings created by law
Art. 37, CC (juridical capacity [i.e. personality] vs. capacity to act)
Fitness to be the subject of legal relations,
inherent in every natural person, and can be
lost only through death
Case: Testate Estate of Fragante case Power to do acts w/ legal effects
when a person dies and leaves an estate, the
personality of its own (ground: necessity)
Kinds of personality
1. Temporary/presumptive
2. Actual/permanent
Art. 40, CC (acquisition of personality)
Birth determines (permanent) personality
XPN: Presumptive personality for conceived children
1. For all purposes beneficial to it (i.e. civil beneficial purposes); and
2. Provided it must be born alive (cf. Art. 41, CC)
Art. 41, CC (born alive)
1. Intra-uterine life of 7 months: born alive at the time it is completely delivered
Delivery is complete when there is severance of the umbilical cord
2. Intra-uterine life if < 7 months: survival of at least 24 hours after complete delivery

1. Geluz vs. CA what is dead may never die

2. De Jesus vs. Syquia even a conceived child can be acknowledged; such
acknowledgement is conditionally valid

Two (sets of) rules
1. Rules of Court (R131, on disputable presumptions)
2. Art. 43, CC
(a) Person alleging death of one before the other must prove
(b) In absence of proof, presume that both died at the same time
Conditions for application of Art. 43, CC
1. In case of doubt
Art. 43 applies only in the absence of fact
2. The case must involve succession
3. Regardless of cause of death
Unlike the RoC w/c specify certain causes, Art. 43 makes no such distinction


Retroactive in character (cf. Art. 256, FC)
Limitation: insofar as not to prejudice rights vested/acquired re: CC provisions it repealed

Art. 1, FC (marriage, defined) special contract of permanent union between a man and a
woman entered into in accordance w/ law for the establishment of conjugal and family life [...]
foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution [...]
Case: Lichuaco-De Leon vs. CA agreements to terminate marital relations = VOID for being
violative of public policy considerations and PH morals (cf. Art. 1, FC)
Lawyers taking active part in forming such agreements can be disbarred
Nature of marriage
1. Heterosexual (Arts. 1-3, FC)
2. Ceremonial (Art. 3(3), FC)
Case: Eugenio vs. Velez common-law marriages (i.e. cohabitation by mere
agreement) are not recognized as marriages in our jurisdiction
Dual aspects of marriage
1. Act: actually appearing before the solemnizing officer
2. Status: a change in status w/ regard to the contracting parties
1. Companionship
2. Procreation
Kinds under FC
1. Valid
2. Voidable
3. Void
Re: breach of promise to marry
Per se, not an actionable wrong in this jurisdiction
PH has no law on breach of promise to marry
Case: Hermosisima vs. CA provision on breach of promise to marry was deleted
from CC draft to prevent unscrupulous women from taking advantage of innocent

men (sexist, but there you have it)

XPN: Actionable when accompanied by some other cause
1. Quasi-delict
2. Unjust enrichment
actual damages
3. Abuse of right
4. Violation of Art. 21, CC
actual, moral damages
Case: Wassmer vs. Velez mamas boy (+ costs have already been incurred)
Arts. 2-3, FC (requisites of marriage)
[Art. 2] Essential
1. Legal capacity
2. Consent freely given
[Art. 3] Formal
1. Authority of solemnizing officer
2. Marriage license (unless excused)
3. Marriage ceremony
Art. 4, FC (defects, absence, irregularity)

VOIDABLE (Art. 45, FC)

XPN: Art. 35(2), FC
shall be civilly, criminally,
and administratively liable


Legal capacity, factors

1. Difference in sex
Case: Silverio vs. Republic petition for change of name must be based on grounds
provided for by law; sexual reassignment is no such ground
No law allows change of entry in a birth certificate re: sex on such ground, either
2. Age (18+) (cf. Art. 35(1), FC)
Effects of [RA 6809 (Lina Law)], reducing age of majority from 21 to 18
(a) Person aged 18 becomes of major age
(b) Said person also becomes emancipated release from parental authority for all acts
of civil life except marriage (cf. Art. 14, FC re: parental consent requirement)
3. No impediments (cf. Arts. 37-38, FC)
Consent freely given
Dean Ali opines that re: kissing judge of QC, asking marrying parties to Kiss muna!
is a valid/viable way of having the parties show their consent
Authority of solemnizing officer; exceptions
1. Art. 35(2), FC (good faith marriages)
(a) Solemnizing officer not legally authorized
(b) Either/both parties believed in good faith that solemnizing officer was so authorized
2. Re: consuls-general, consuls, vice-consuls
Art. 7(5)
1. w/in place of assignment only
2. both contracting parties are Filipino
Art. 10, FC
Solemnized outside PH, valid there, deemed valid here
Art. 26, FC
XPN: Arts. 35(1), (4), (5), & (6), 36, 37, and 38, FC1
1 The ff. are part of the enumeration on void marriages: 35(1) below 18

Interplay: marriages void under Art. 7(5), FC, cf. Art. 10, FC can be deemed to have not
been voided (and therefore valid) if Art. 26, FC comes into play
Re: mayors as solemnizing officers
Marriages solemnized by mayors w/in period between 8/3*/88 to 1/1/92 = VOID
(* some authorities say 8/4/88)
XPN: Good faith marriage (Art. 35(2), FC) (see above)
Art. 7, FC [+LGC] (persons authorized to solemnize)
1. Incumbent members of the judiciary w/in their territorial jurisdiction
(a) Case: Navarro vs. Domagtoy beyond territorial jurisdiction = irregularity
(b) Dean Alis take: w/in territorial jurisdiction qualifies power to solemnize,
absence of w/c goes into the validity of the marriage; but follow Domagtoy for
purposes of the bar
J. Sempio-Diy says Domagtoy is obiter, though, but whatever
(c) Justices of courts w/ national jurisdiction can marry anywhere in PH
2. Priest/rabbi/imam/minister
(a) Duly authorized by his church/sect (in writing)
(b) Registered w/ the Civil Registrar General
(c) Acting w/in limits of authority
(d) At least one of the contracting parties belongs to the church/sect
(e) Case: Navarro vs. Domagtoy (again) absence = irregularity
3. Ship captain/airplane chief
(a) Re: marriages in articulo mortis
(b) In flight/during voyage only [XPN: stop-overs]
4. Military commander of a unit (cf. Art. 32, FC)
(a) A chaplain is assigned to the unit
(b) Chaplain is absent
(c) During military operation
(d) Also re: marriages in articulo mortis
i. Between persons w/in the zone of military operations
ii. Whether said persons are members of the armed forces or civilians
5. Consul-general/consul/vice-consul (see previous page)
6. Mayor
LGC is silent as to whether there is a territorial jurisdiction requirement
Domagtoy may be applied by analogy; i.e. solemnizing marriage outside the
mayors city/municipality = mere irregularity
Marriage license
GR: Required for validity (constitutes permission to marry granted by the State)
Art. 35(3), FC (cf. Art. 4, FC) marriages solemnized w/o marriage license =
Case: Filipina Sy vs. CA
XPN Arts. 27-34, FC (marriages exempt from license requirement)
35(4) bigamous
35(5) mistake of identity
35(6) subsequent marriages void under Art. 53
36 psychological incapacity
37 incestuous
38 void for reasons of public policy

1. Marriage in articulo mortis (Art. 27, FC)

(a) One or both parties at the point of death
(b) Remains valid even if ailing party subsequently survives
(c) Case: Loria vs. Felix no requirement under the law that the party in
danger of death should die immediately after marriage
2. Marriage in a remote place (Art. 28, FC): residence of either party is so
located that there is no means of transportation to enable such party to
appear personally before the local civil registrar
Means of transportation covers beasts of burden (horses, cows,
Affidavit requirement for [1] and [2] (Art. 29, FC)
1. Executed by solemizing officer before LCR or any other person legally authorized to
administer oath
2. States application of [1] or [2]
3. Officer took necessary steps to ascertain ages/relationship of contracting parties &
absence of legal impediment
4. Case: Loria vs. Felix (again) affidavit requirement, an obligation of the
officer; non-compliance therewith a mere irregularity

3. Legal ratification of cohabitation (Art. 34, FC)

(a) Cohabitation for at least 5 years (exclusive & continuous)
(b) No legal impediment to marry each other
Case: Nial vs. Bayadog should be all throughout the period of
J. Sempio-Diy (quoting Tolentino) disagrees; she opines that it
should be enough that the parties had no legal impediment at the
time of marriage (purpose of Art. 34 being only to save the parties
from the publicity attendant to application for marriage license that
might discourage them from legalizing their union); though, being
good jurisprudence, follow Nial for purposes of the bar
Affidavit requirements for [3]
1. One executed by the contracting parties, establishing application of [3], before
any person legally authorized to administer oath
Non-compliance: renders marriage VOID
2. Another executed by the solemnizing officer, stating under oath that he:
(a) Ascertained the parties qualifications
(b) Found no legal impediment
Non-compliance: mere irregularity
4. Marriage among Muslims/members of ethnic cultural communities (Art. 33,
Provided there is compliance w/ customs/rites/practices
Lifetime of marriage license: 120 days
Distinguished from marriage contract:
Permission by the State issued before One of the proofs of marriage, issued after
marriage, absence of w/c renders the marriage marriage, absence of which does not affect its
VOID (but see exceptions above)
Fsdfsdf sdf sd

Case: People vs. Belen re: irregularity

Marriage ceremony
1. Re: marriage by proxy
(a) If celebrated abroad: apply Art. 26, FC (see previous pages)
(b) If celebrated in PH: VOID for lack of ceremony requirement
2. Art. 8, FC (place of solemnization)
1. Church/chapel/temple
2. Chambers of the judge/in open court
3. Office of the consul-general/consul/vice-consul
XPN: 1. In articulo mortis
Art. 29, FC (cf. Arts. 27-28, FC)
2. Remote place
3. Both parties request solemnization in a place of their designation, in writing
and under oath (there might be case law providing that at least the oath
requirement is merely directory)

Art. 35(1) below 18*
Art. 35(2) solemnizing officer, not authorized (XPN: good faith marriages)*
Art. 35(3) no marriage license (XPN: exempt marriages [Arts. 27-34])*
Art. 35(4) bigamous
Art. 35(5) mistake of identity
Art. 35(6) subsequent marriage void under Art. 53
Art. 36 psychological incapacity
Art. 37 incestuous
Art. 38 void for reasons of public policy
[* see earlier pages]
1. Bigamous marriages (Art. 35(4), FC)
Provided it is not a terminable bigamous marriage (Art. 41, FC)
Case: Isakawa vs. Gangan
4 yrs. ordinary
2 yrs. extraordinary
(Art. 391, CC)

Diligent search of present spouse for whereabouts of absent spouse

(c) Well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead

(d) Judicial declaration of presumptive death
Dean Alis take: no need for declaration if absent spouse has
been so for at least 7 yrs. Art. 390, CC presumption of
death for all purposes, save succession
* if < 7 yrs. declaration required
- Despite bad faith of the 2nd spouse, so long as the present spouse acted in
good faith, the second marriage remains valid
See above good faith, required only out of present spouse
If 2nd spouse is in bad faith, apply forfeiture rules (see next page)
If both are in bad faith, the marriage is VOID (Art. 44, FC)


All donations propter nuptias & testamentary dispositions made

by one in favor of the other are revoked by operation of law
- Right to remarry, given only to the present spouse
Absent spouse who may appear cannot remarry
Modes of termination (Art. 42, FC): recording of affidavit of appearance in the civil
registry of the residence of the parties to the subsequent marriage
Who executes the affidavit: any interested person
Effects of termination (Art. 43, FC)
(a) Children of subsequent marriage conceived prior to its termination = legitimate
(b) Dissolution of ACP/CPG
Forfeiture: spouse in bad faith shall have no right to any share of the
net profits earned by the ACP/CPG, w/c shall be forfeited to:
- Common children
- If none, children of guilty spouse by previous marriage
- In default of children, innocent spouse
Here, the 2nd spouse can be made to suffer for his/her bad faith
(c) Donations propter nuptias remain valid
(d) Innocent spouse may revoke designation of spouse in bad faith as beneficiary
in an insurance policy even if such designation was otherwise revocable
(e) Disinheritance by operation of law of spouse in bad faith
2. Marriage contracted through mistake of identity (Art. 35(5), FC)
3. Subsequent marriages void under Art. 53, FC (Art. 35(6), FC, cf. Arts. 52-53, FC)
When a marriage is annulled/declared a nullity, the parties thereto must comply w/
Art. 52, FC (recording of (a) judgment of annulment/declaration of nullity, (b)
partition & distribution of property, and (c) delivery of presumptive legitimes in the
appropriate civil registry/registry of property) for purposes of remarriage; otherwise,
the marriage is VOID
4. Psychological incapacity (Art. 36, FC)
- Must exist at the time of celebration of marriage
- Essentially partakes of the existence of a personality disorder
Cases: (a) Santos vs. CA reqs. of psychological incapacity (totality of evidence):
1. Juridical antecedence
2. Seriousness/gravity of defect
3. Incurability
(b) Republic vs. CA (Molina case) psychological incapacity must be
established by competent testimony
(c) Marcos vs. Marcos personal examination of physician/psychologist is
not a condition sine qua non (declaration of existence of psychological
incapacity would still stand provided there is totality of evidence [see
(d) Baccay vs. Baccay socializing w/ relatives/in-laws, not an essential
marital obligation
(e) Marable vs. Marable womanizing per se, not evidence of psychological
(f) Velasco vs. Alcantara in pari delicto, not applicable (as defense) in
psychological incapacity cases; nothing stops the court from declaring both
spouses psychologically incapacitated
(g) Halili vs. Halili a spouse can go to court for a declaration that he himself
is psychologically incapacitated

5. Incestuous marriages (Art. 37, FC), i.e. between

(a) Ascendants & descendants of any degree
(b) Brothers & sisters (whether of full-/half-blood)
6. Marriages void for reasons of public policy (Art. 38, FC), i.e. between [PAAS2A-KC]
(a) Collateral blood relatives up to the 4th civil degree
(b) Step-parents & stepchildren
(c) Parents-in-law & children-in-law
(d) Adopter & adoptee
(e) Surviving spouse of adopter & adoptee
(f) Surviving spouse of adoptee & adopter
(g) Adoptee & legitimate child of adopter
(h) Adoptees of the same adopter
(i) Parties where one, w/ intention to marry the other, killed the latters/his own spouse
Enumeration is exclusive!
Note that stepchildren can marry each other, being excluded
Re: filing a petition for declaration of nullity
Prescriptive period: NONE; does not prescribe (Art. 39, FC)
1. Nial vs. Bayadog & Enrico vs. Heirs of Medinaceli
There is an apparent conflict between Nial and an A.M. invoked in Medina: in Nial, the
children of the deceased spouse were allowed to bring the action for declaration of
nullity (basis: Art. 39, FC [see above]); the A.M. allows only either of the spouses to bring
the action w/in their lifetimes
How to settle conflict:
(a) If both spouses live apply A.M. (basis: spouses = most affected parties)
(b) If at least one spouse dies children can bring action per Nial, as their interest has
been transformed from inchoate to actual (re: estate), in the settlement proceedings
(c) If the marriage was solemnized pre-effectivity of FC: apply Nial
2. Mallion vs. Alcantara res judicata (& estoppel) in nullity cases
Two cases were filed for declaration of nullity: (1) based on psychological
incapacity, w/c was dismissed, and w/c judgment attained finality; & (2)
based on lack of marriage license.
May such second case be filed?
RULING: NO; barred by
1. Res judicata: bar by prior judgment
There is identity of causes of action where petitioner invokes
different grounds (e.g. psychological incapacity, lack of marriage
license) for the same causes of action
2. Estoppel: when petitioner, in the first case, made a categorical
admission that the marriage was celebrated in accordance w/ law, he is
bound from later denying such admission
Remedy: Include all applicable grounds for declaration of nullity in the petition!
Art. 40, FC (invoking nullity for purposes of remarriage)
Previous rule: People vs. Mendoza & US vs. Aragon a void marriage does not exist in the
eyes of the law (now overturned [qualifiedly?] see below)


1. Consuegra vs. GSIS (?), Weigel vs. Sempio-Diy, Cario vs. Cario final judgment
required for remarriage purposes (i.e. no need to go to Art. 40 if there is no intent to
remarry) (so... if there is no intent to remarry, we apply Mendoza and Aragon?); it is
not for the parties to determine whether a marriage is valid or not; that is for the courts to
2. Domingo vs. CA non-compliance w/ Art. 40 can be ground for a bigamy charge



1. Defective marriages; valid until annulled
2. Effects: (a) Children legitimate
(b) There can be property relations
Art. 45, FC (defects making a marriage voidable)
Who files?
Prescriptive period
(a) Contracting
party By (a), through free (a) w/in 5 yrs. after
Lack of parental
who failed to obtain cohabitation
attaining the age of
consent when
parental consent
attaining the age of 21
(b) Parent/guardian of
(b) any time before (a)
turns 21 (Art. 47(1),
(Art. 45(1), FC)
(a) Sane spouse w/ no By (c), through free
knowledge of the cohabitation
others insanity
coming to reason
death of either
(b) Relative, guardian,
party to the
Unsound mind
etc. of (a)
(Art. 45(2), FC)
(c) Insane spouse
(c) during
interval or after
(Art. 47(2), FC)
Injured party
w/in 5 yrs. after the
marriage (Art. 47(5),
inability to
sterility (Art.
45(5), FC)
1. Republic vs. Jimenez impotency is never presumed; must be
established by fact
2. Vanderbilt vs. Vanderbilt if surgical intervention can be made safely
and w/ partys consent, female impotency is curable (will have to verify
this; read full text of case)
Injured party (must be
same as in impotency/sterility
free from STD)
(Art. 45(6), FC)
[+] serious & apparently incurable
Injured party
Free cohabitation w/ w/in
(Art. 45(3), FC)
full knowledge of the discovery of the fraud
facts constituting fraud (Art. 47(3), FC)
(see below)
Art. 46, FC (what constitutes fraud)
1. Non-disclosure of previous conviction by final judgment of a crime
involving moral turpitude
2. Concealment:

(a) by the wife of the fact that, at the time of marriage, she was
pregnant by a man not her husband
(b) of STD, regardless of nature, existing at the time of marriage
(c) of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism,
existing at the time of marriage
Injured party
Free cohabitation after w/in 5 yrs. from the
or time the vice(s) ceased
or disappeared

undue influence
(i.e. vices of
Case: Ruiz vs. Atienza valid threats do not vitiate consent
(Art. 45(4), FC)
Case: Sison vs. Te Lai (?) free qualifies cohabitation


Does PH have a divorce law?

Qualified answer.
1. ABSOLUTE No. Act 2710 was repealed by CC.
2. RELATIVE Yes, also known as legal separation.

Case: Lapuz-Sy vs. Eufemio the right to bring an action for legal separation is personal &
intransmissible; it ends at the death of one of the parties to the action (see also A.M. on Legal
Art. 55, FC (grounds)
1. Sexual infidelity (Art. 55(8), FC)
Sexual intercourse, not necessary; mere betrayal of trust is enough (J. SempioDiys view is that mere cohabitation would suffice; Dean Ali disagrees with
all this i.e. infidelity is qualified by sexual and therefore there must be
sexual intercourse or at least contact and I agree with him)
2. Perversion (Ibid.)
Case: Campos-Rueda case the right to sex must be exercised moderately (Dean Ali
asks: what constitutes moderately? At any rate, Dean Ali opines that
consensuality negates perversion, i.e. no matter how kinky, as long as it is
consensual, there is no perversion)
3. Repeated physical violence/grossly abusive conduct (Art. 55(1), FC)
(a) Repeated more than once (determination of this is a question of fact)
(b) Regardless of the purpose; mere repeated infliction is enough
4. Physical violence/moral pressure to compel change in religious/political affiliation (Art.
55(2), FC) cause (see underlined) is the necessary element
5. The rest of the grounds are self-explanatory
(a) Attempt to corrupt or induce engagement in prostitution, or connivance thereto
(b) Final judgment sentencing >6 yrs. imprisonment, even if pardoned
(c) Lesbianism/homosexuality
(d) Attempt against the life of the petitioner
(e) Subsequent bigamous marriage
(f) Abandonment w/o justifiable cause for more than 1 yr.
See? Self-explanatory. I included them here for purposes of memorization only

Art. 56, FC (defenses) [C4IP]

1. Consent
2. Connivance
3. Collusion
4. Condonation
Case: Bugayong case when upon hearing rumors of infidelity, the husband had sex
w/ the unfaithful wife not just once but thrice, instead of verifying the truth, there is
5. In pari delicto
6. Prescription
(a) Art. 57, FC (prescriptive period) 5 yrs. from occurrence of cause
(b) Case: Brown vs. Yambao an action for legal separation is imbued w/ public
interest; it should not be allowed to continue when filed beyond the prescriptive
Implication: prescription need not be raised as defense; court can motu proprio
dismiss on the basis of such ground
Arts. 58-60, FC (obligations of the court upon filing of action)
1. Impose 6-month cooling-off period (Art. 58)
2. No decree unless reconciliation is highly improbable despite effort of the court (Art. 59)
3. No decree based on stipulation of fact or confession of judgment (Art. 60)
[non-compliance: reversible error]
Arts. 63-64, FC (effect of a decree of legal separation)
Per se, NONE
In the nature of a judgment; no effect till it becomes final (normally after 15 days)
Effects of a final decree
1. Entitlement to separation from bed & board (Art. 63(1), FC)
But no severance of marital bond
Q Do the spouses have to live separately from each other?
A: NO. The law only speaks of entitlement & does not require spouses to
actually live separately. (However, the danger here would be that
reconciliation may be assumed to have happened easier & much earlier.
2. Dissolution of ACP/CPG (Art. 63(2), FC)
Forfeiture rule applies re: offending spouse (cf. Art. 43(2), FC; see earlier pages)
3. Disqualification of guilty spouse from succeeding the innocent spouse (Art. 63(4), FC)
Basis: unworthiness
- Worthiness re: legally separate spouses can be recovered by reconciliation
(see below) (compare w/ law on succession w/c requires mere pardon)
4. Right of innocent spouse to revoke:
(a) Donations made to guilty spouse (Art. 64, FC)
i. Covered donations: donations propter nuptias (cf. Art. 86(4), FC)
ii. No automatic revocation (action must be brought by innocent spouse)
iii. Prescriptive period: 5 yrs. from date of finality of decree of legal separation
(b) Designation of guilty spouse as beneficiary in an insurance policy on the formers life
i. Even if designation is otherwise irrevocable
ii. Takes effect upon written notification by innocent spouse to insured
Art. 66, FC (reconciliation; effects)

Reconciliation, defined: mutual restoration of feelings

Joint manifestation requirement (Art. 65, FC)
1. Under oath
2. Duly signed by spouses
3. Filed w/ the court
Effects 1. If no action has been filed yet, right to bring action is lost
2. Pending proceedings, proceedings shall be stopped at whatever stage it is in
3. Post-decree, decree produces no effect
4. Per Sec. 24, A.M. on Legal Separation: parties may revive their property relations
pre-legal separation or choose a new one, via agreement under oath submitted to
the court by motion & approved by same
(a) The court can deny/reject on the ground of prejudice/damage to creditors
(b) Absent such agreement, separation of property (& forfeiture) shall subsist



Art. 82, FC (donations propter nuptias, defined)
1. In consideration of marriage
2. Before marriage (ante-nuptial)
3. To either or both of the future spouses
Who can donate
1. Would-be spouses
2. Strangers
What can be donated
1. Present properties
2. Future properties
Exception to the rule prohibiting donation of future properties (Art. 751, CC) (cf.
nemo dat quod non habet but isnt this a doctrine in Sales?)
1. Must be in writing to be valid
(a) Same as marriage settlements (cf. Art. 77, FC)
(b) Donations propter nuptias are not covered by the Statute of Frauds (Art. 1403(2),
CC; deals only w/ enforceability of contracts)
2. Present: follow rules on ordinary donation (Arts. 748-749, CC)
3. Future: follow rules on testate succession/formalities of wills
1. If property regime is not ACP: 1/5 of present property/total assets (excess = VOID)
2. If property regime is ACP: NO LIMIT
3. If donor is a stranger: one cannot give or receive by donation what he cannot give or
receive by will (cf. CC provisions on succession)
1. Present property (Art. 86, FC)
Non-celebration of marriage, or even if celebrated, the marriage
turned out to be void (Art. 86(1), FC)
XPN: donations propter nuptias made in a marriage settlement
are automatically rendered VOID by non-celebration (Art. 81,
[but see
XPN to
No parental consent when reqd (Art. 86(2) cf. Art. 45(1), FC)
Donee is guilty spouse (re: legal separation case) (Art. 86(4), FC)
Donees ingratitude (Art. 86(6), FC, cf. Art. 765, CC)
Marriage is annulled & donee acted in bad faith (Art. 86(3), FC, cf.
Arts. 43(3) & 50, FC)
Bad faith is re: contracting the marriage
Resolutory condition is complied w/ (Art. 86(5), FC, cf. Art. 1179, CC)
* In (e), revocation is by law; in (f), by the happening of the condition
2. Future property (law on succession): revocable at any time, no need for ground
Prohibited donations (Art. 87, FC)
[rules also apply to persons living together as husband & wife w/o a valid marriage]
No donations between spouses during the marriage
Basis: to prevent one spouse from taking advantage of the other
A similar provision/prohibition exists under the law on Sales
XPN: Moderate gifts on the occasion of family rejoicing

1. What constitutes moderate?

Case: Harding vs. UCA (?) test: social/economic condition of the parties in the
community where they reside (i.e. ones capability to give the gift)
2. What constitutes family rejoicing?
Law/jurisprudence are silent; thus, such can be reasonably left to the
discretion/judgment of the parties (so... more or less like a political question?)


Art. 74, FC (what governs property relations of spouses)
1. Marriage settlement
(a) Defined (Art. 77, FC): written instrument executed by parties thereto before & in
consideration of marriage, signed by both parties
(b) Who executes: parties contemplating marriage
(c) Nature: a contract between the parties (thus, parties may stipulate matters/provisions
unrelated to marriage)
Q Can changes/amendments to the settlement be made?
A: YES 1. Before marriage absolutely
2. After marriage judicial approval required
(e) Marriage settlements are not covered by the Statute of Frauds (see previous page)
Q: What if the marriage does not push through (or is void)?
A: The law (Art. 81, FC) does not provide that the settlement becomes void.
1. Provisions dependent upon/in consideration of marriage VOID
2. All others not so dependent VALID
[thus, a marriage settlement may yet exist w/o a marriage but qualifiedly]
2. FC
3. Local customs
Property regimes
1. ACP (absolute community of property) common ownership of all property owned by
spouses at the time of marriage or acquired thereafter, save a few exclusions:
(a) Those excluded by law (Art. 92, FC)
i. Acquired during marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse (+ fruits/income)
XPN: When it is expressly provided by the donor/grantor/testator that the
property forms part of the community property
ii. For personal & exclusive use of either spouse
XPN: Jewelry
iii. Acquired before marriage by either spouse w/ legitimate descendants by prior
marriage (+ fruits/income)
(b) Those excluded by agreement
2. CPG (conjugal partnership of gains) separate property remains separate
Q: Can personal obligations be charged against the CPG?
A: YES, if the CPG has enough assets still to cover obligations chargeable against it
[i.e. creditors of the CPG are preferred as against creditors of debtor-spouses]
What constitutes conjugal property? (Art. 117, FC) [FLEX]

(a) Fruits (natural, industrial, civil)

i. If the fruit-bearing prop. is conjugal: conjugal from date of accrual
ii. If the fruit-bearing prop. is exclusive: conjugal from date of becoming net
Q When do fruits become net?
A: As [net = capital (gross) expenses], at the time of LIQUIDATION.
When liquidation occurs:
1. End of regime
2. End of marriage
In the meantime, spouse owning the exclusive property that
produced the fruits receives said fruits
(b) Livestock
XPN to provision on fruits (i.e. existing upon the dissolution of the [CPG] in
excess of [those] brought to the marriage)
e.g - 10 cows brought to the marriage
- at end of marriage, there are 150 cows
- original 10 are dead
- 140 cows are deemed conjugal
- remainder pertain to spouse who brought original 10 to the marriage
Dean Ali limited the term livestock to four-legged creatures. What about
fowls? It would be unreasonable to exclude fowls just on the basis of their
having two legs
(c) Earnings
Include: share in hidden treasure, property acquired through fishing/hunting,
property acquired by chance (losses borne exclusively by loser-spouse) (for
purposes of memorization, the term earnings is loosely interpreted to
include all other influxes of profit at the expense of effort, no matter how
small but as far as the FC is concerned, theyre different, OK?)
(d) Property acquired onerously at the expense of the common fund
Exclusions (Art. 109, FC) [EDGE2]
(b) Brought to the marriage as exclusive property
(c) Acquired during marriage:
i. By gratuitous title
ii. By redemption or exchange w/ property owned by either spouse
iii. At the expense of only one spouse
Grounds for deprivation of power to administer exclusive property (Art. 142, FC)
(a) One spouse becomes guardian of the other
(b) One spouse is judicially declared an absentee
(c) One spouse is sentenced to a penalty carrying civil interdiction
Re: property bought on installment paid from exclusive& conjugal funds (Art. 118, FC)
(a) Exclusive property, if buyer acquired full ownership prior to marriage
(b) Conjugal, if during the marriage
Re: improvements (Art. 120, FC):
(a) When cost of improvement (+ increase in value of the lot) > value of property at time
of improvement entire property becomes that of the CPG at time of
reimbursement* of the owner-spouse
(a) When cost of improvement, etc. value of property at time of improvement ownerspouse retains ownership, still subject to reimbursement*
[* reimbursement is to be made at the liquidation of the CPG]
3. ASP (absolute separation of property)

4. Combinations of the above

How to choose: 1. Choosing one (via marriage settlement)
2. No regime chosen
3. Agreement in marriage settlement turned out VOID
- ACP can apply in all 3 ways (though, re: [1], would it not be redundant?)
- CPG can apply only by [1]
- ASP can apply by [1], judicial separation, mandatory separation
Effectivity GR:
At the precise moment of the celebration of the marriage (per case law
[gotta find w/c case exactly] the term precise moment points to the
signing of the marriage contract)
XPN If multiple regimes are chosen, only the first one takes effect as provided
above; subsequent ones take effect per provision of the marriage
Common provisions on ACP and CPG
1. Charges upon/obligations of the regimes (Arts. 94 & 121, FC) [PTSD]
(a) Personal debts not redounding to the benefit of the family
For ACP only (Art. 94(9), FC): personal debts can be charged against the ACP
if debtor-spouse has no property or has insufficient property (considered an
advance on [& deducted from] the share of the debtor-spouse on the ACP
upon liquidation)
(b) Taxes, liens, charges, expenses
Expenses also contemplates those spent for: vocational course/selfimprovement, litigation between spouses (XPN: when groundless)
(c) Support
(d) Debts/obligations
Material phrases: benefit of the regime, benefit of the family, by both
spouses, by one spouse w/ consent of the other
If the regime is insufficient to cover the above liabilities, the spouses shall be solidarily
liable for the balance w/ their separate properties (XPN: for ACP only Art. 94(9), FC;
see above)
Case: Alipio vs. CA spouses sued for enforcement of an obligation entered into by
them together are impleaded not as individual debtors, but as representatives of the
CPG, such that the rule on solidary liability will not apply
2. Separation de facto shall not affect ACP/CPG
3. Re: encumbrance/alienation/disposition (Arts. 96 & 124, FC)
Jointly, otherwise VOID
1. w/ written consent of spouse
2. w/ judicial declaration to that effect
Cases: (a) Belcodero case & Roxas vs. Roxas* encumbrance includes leasing
[* Roxas was decided back when the CC governed property regimes]
(b) Cheesman vs. IAC aliens cannot acquire real property by purchase
(c) Jocson case date on title = date of coverage under the Torrens system
(d) Gonzales vs. Miller
Married to = only a manner of description;
(e) Stuart vs. Yatco
presumption is that the prop. belongs to the
spouse named in the title as owner alone
4. Causes of termination (Arts. 99 & 126, FC)
(a) Death of either spouse
(b) Legal separation
(c) Judicial separation of property

1. Brought by both spouses

2. No ground necessary
Revival of property regime (Art. 141(7), FC): by agreement; no
voluntary separation may thereafter be granted to the spouses
1. Brought by only one spouse
2. Requires a ground provided by law: [CALA2S]
(a) Being sentenced w/ a penalty carrying civil interdiction w/ it
(b) Judicial declaration of absence
(c) Loss of parental authority by court decree
(d) Abandonment/failure to comply w/ obligations to the family
(a) Abuse of power of administration granted in marriage settlement
(Art. 135,
(b) Spouses are separated in fact for at least 1 yr. at the time of
filing of the petition and reconciliation is highly improbable
Revival of property regime (Art. 141, FC): upon motion w/ the same
court that issued the separation decree, grounded on the cessation
of the ground(s) (redundant, lol) above
(d) Annulment, or declaration of nullity
(Art. 136,

Arts. 147 & 148, FC (property regimes of unions w/o marriage)

Art. 147
Art. 148
Reqs. for
1. Capacitated to marry
Cohabitations not falling under Art. 147
application 2. Exclusive cohabitation
their contributions for prop. acquired In either cash or property
1. No inspirational contribution!
by work/industry
2. No provision re: wages, thus, no
1. Wages = in equal shares
sharing; wages/salaries belong
2. Presumption: property so acquired
Rules of the
exclusively to the wage-earner
were obtained by joint effort
3. Inspirational contribution: nonparticipating party (i.e. nonworking) is deemed to have jointly
contributed if he/she takes care of
the family & housework

Art. 150, FC (covered relatives)
1. Husband & wife
2. Parents & children
3. Other ascendants & descendants
4. Brothers & sisters (whether of full-/half-blood)
Case: Gayon vs. Gayon (?) the above enumeration is exclusive
Art. 151, FC (earnest efforts rule)
Mandatory, otherwise the case shall be dismissed for premature filing
XPN: Non-compromisable cases (Art. 2035, CC):
1. Civil status of persons

2. Validity of marriage/legal separation

3. Any ground for legal separation
4. Future support
5. Jurisdiction of courts
6. Future legitime
Case: Gayon vs. Gayon (again) the word family in [no] suits between members of the
same family refers to persons enumerated under Art. 150, FC


Purpose: seat of familial love & affection
How constituted
(Art. 153, FC, cf.
Art. 161, FC)
Who can
constitute (Art.
152, FC)

(Art. 153, FC)

By occupancy
A person may constitute, or be the beneficiary of, only 1 family home
Case: Manacop vs. CA actual occupancy by beneficiary constitutes the
family home even if the owner does not actually reside therein (e.g. abroad)
1. Spouses, jointly
2. Unmarried head of the family
Q Can persons covered by Arts. 147/148 constitute a family home?
A: Case: Valdez vs. RTC of QC YES.
1. Constitutors (see above)
2. Parents, ascendants, descendants, brothers & sisters, legitimate or
illegitimate, living in the family home & dependent upon the head of the
family for support
Cases (a) Patricio vs. Dario in-laws are covered
(b) Manacop vs. CA (again) househelpers are not
covered; no relationship w/ the head of the family

Art. 158, FC (re: sale, encumbrance, assignment, donation)

Q: Can a family home be sold/encumbered/assigned/donated?
A: YES. (Art. 158, FC)
Consent requirement: constitutor, spouse, & majority of beneficiaries of legal age
[in case of conflict the court decides]
Art. 158, FC (re: execution, forced sale, attachment)
Q: Can a family home be attached, etc.?
A: GR:
Case: Modequillo vs. Breva as long as a beneficiary resides therein
XPN: YES, in the following cases:
1. Non-payment of taxes
2. Debts incurred prior to constitution of family home
3. Debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or after such constitution
4. Debts due to laborers, etc. who gave services/material for construction
Art. 157, FC (re: value ceilings)
1. Urban areas: P300,000
2. Rural areas: P200,000
The ceilings can be changed by law; seems that Congress has not gotten around to it yet


Kinds of filiation
1. Natural by gestation
2. Artificial by law (e.g. adoption)

Kinds of children
1. Legitimate (Art. 164, FC)
When legitimate
(a) Conceived or born during the marriage
(b) Conceived as a result of artificial insemination
i. Ratification of both spouses in writing; signed; before the birth of the child
ii. Recording of instrument in civil registry (w/ birth certificate of the child)
180-300 rule (Arts. 168, FC, cf. Art 169, FC)
(a) Art. 168 has nothing to do w/ legitimacy the child is presumed legitimate (absent
proof to the contrary); the issue is paternity, i.e. who authored the child?
(b) Two periods contemplated
i. 180 days from solemnization of 2nd marriage
ii. 300 days from termination of 1st marriage
(c) Rules
300 DAYS
[even if w/in 300 days after
termination of the 1st marriage
(Art. 169, FC)
as long as the child is born after
[whoever alleges legitimacy (or 180 days from solemnization of
300 DAYS
illegitimacy) must prove the same the 2nd marriage, it is considered
(see next page)]
conceived during same]
- [before-within] and [after-within] the 180 days & the 300 days overlap
- [after-after] & [before-after] the 180 days & the 300 days do not overlap
What if the child was born exactly on the 180th day? Art. 168, read as is, is
silent. So are most commentators. J. Vitug opines, however: the child is
considered conceived during the 1st marriage
Impugning legitimacy
Husband (Art. 170, FC)
being the most affected person
Who can impugn? XPN Heirs of the husband (Art. 171, FC): if the husband dies
1. Before the action prescribes (see below)
2. After filing of complaint w/o having desisted therefrom
3. And the child was born after his death
Till when? (Art.
Reckoning points:
170, FC)
1. [period] from knowledge of birth or its recording
2. [period] from discovery/knowledge of
(a) Birth, or
(b) Fact of registration,
... whichever is earlier, if the birth of the child was concealed
from or unknown to the husband (or heirs)
Prescriptive periods:
husband (or heirs) resides in the
1 yr.
city/municipality where the birth took
place or was recorded
husband (or heirs) does not reside in
2 yrs.
the place of birth but resides in PH

husband (or heirs) resides abroad

(J. Sempio-Diy says that the 3-year
period also applies where the
3 yrs.
childs birth took place abroad
while the husband/heir(s) resides
in PH)
1. Physical impossibility (w/in 120/300 days preceding childbirth)
(a) Impotency of the husband
(b) Living separately (Dean Alis take: separately should
be taken to contemplate situations where spouses are
in different countries [e.g. OFWs, one spouse works
abroad, the other spouse is in PH]; J. Sempio-Diys
take: separately also contemplates a situation where
one spouse is a prisoner in Bilibid and the other is in a
faraway province like Davao)
Serious illness of husband w/c absolutely prevented sex
Grounds (Art.
WON an illness is serious case-to-case basis
166, FC)
Dean Alis examples of non-serious illnesses:
- Case: Andal vs. Macaraeg tuberculosis
- Paralysis [qualified; non-serious as long as
junior is not paralyzed/still operational]
- Being confined in an iron lung [you can get out of
it for short periods of time, and it does not take
long to get it over with anyway]
2. Biological/scientific reasons
XPN: artificial insemination
3. Failure to follow procedure in Art. 164 re: artificial insemination
2. Illegitimate (Art. 165, FC)
When illegitimate
Born and conceived out of wedlock
XPN: Art. 54, FC; i.e. when the FC considers children conceived or born
1. Before judgment of annulment/abso. nullity has become final & executory
2. Of subsequent marriages under Art. 53, FC (see earlier pages)
... as legitimate

Common provisions on legitimate & illegitimate children

1. Arts. 173 & 175, FC (re: claiming status)
No need for one to file an action for recognition of filiation
Basis: FC gives children their status from the moment of birth
XPN: 1. Where status is questioned
2. Child is born after 300 days following termination of marriage of the
mother NO STATUS is given by law to such child (Art. 169, FC)
also applies where mother did not remarry (see also previous page)
(Art. 173, FC, cf. Art. 172, FC)
(Art. 175, FC, cf. Art. 172, FC)
XPN: Heirs of the child, should the child die
1. During minority

2. In a state of insanity
[if the child already filed an action prior to death, heirs may continue]
1. Child: as long as he/she lives
Same as for legitimates
2. Heirs: 5 yrs. from death of child XPN: If there is an admission of
illegitimate filiation (cf. Art.
Till when?
172(2), FC [see below])
during the lifetime of the
putative parent
2. Art. 172, FC (proof of filiation)
1. Record of birth (in civil register or final judgment)
Primary proof
2. Admission of filiation
Secondary proof (in
3. Open & continuous possession of status
absence of primary proof) 4. Any other means allowed by RoC, other laws
(a) Noble vs. Noble proof of bare filiation is not enough; what must be
established is acknowledgment
(b) Cabatania vs. CA mere physical resemblance is not proof of filiation
3. Arts. 174 & 176, FC (re: rights)
Mother only
XPN: [RA 9225] The child may
use the surname of the
father if the if filiation of
child is not denied, &
admission of such appears
in a (1) public instrument, or
(2) private instrument duly
Both mother & father
signed by the parent
Case: Grace Grande vs.
Patricio Antonio material
word = may; the child
cannot be compelled to use
his/her fathers surname
From parents, ascendants, and
Includes support from father so
brothers/sisters in proper cases
long as filiation is admitted
of the estate
of that of a legitimate child
l rights
3. Legitimated
Who can be legitimated (Art. 177, FC, as amended by RA 9858): natural children, i.e.
(a) Illegitimate children of parents who, at the time of the childs conception, were not
disqualified by any impediment to marry each other
(b) Children of parents who were disqualified by minority
How? (Art. 178, FC): subsequent valid marriage between the parents
Annulment of a voidable marriage shall not affect legitimation
Rights of legitimated children (Arts. 179-181, FC)
(a) Same rights as legitimate children
(b) Legitimation of children who died before parents marriage benefits descendants


(c) Retroactivity of rights: effects of legitimation retroact to the time of the childs birth
Impugning legitimation (Art. 182, FC)
Who can impugn? Persons whose rights are prejudiced
Till when?
5 yrs. from accrual of cause of action
Child was not really natural
4. Adopted
(a) RA 8552 (domestic adoption)
1. Filipino citizen
(a) of legal age
(b) w/ full civil capacity & legal rights
(c) of good moral character
(d) has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude
(e) emotionally & psychologically capable of caring for children
(f) can support/care for children in keeping w/ means of the family
(g) at least 16 yrs. older than the adoptee
XPN: waivable when adopter is the
- biological parent of the adoptee
- spouse of the adoptees parent
2. Alien
(a) qualifications laid down for PH citizens
(b) aliens country has diplomatic relations w/ PH
(c) residency in PH for at least 3 continuous yrs. prior to filing of
application for adoption (+ maintenance thereof until adoption
decree is entered)
(d) certification of [1] legal capacity to adopt, & [2] allowance of
(Sec. 7)
aliens government for adoptee to enter ther country as the
formers adopted child (issued by aliens diplomatic/consular
office, or any appropriate government agency)
[XPN: (c) & (d) are waivable for the following aliens:]
- former Filipino seeking to adopt relative w/in 4th civil degree
- alien seeking to adopt legitimate child of Filipino spouse
- alien married to PH citizen, seeking to jointly adopt relative
of Filipino spouse w/in 4th civil degree
3. Guardian, w/ respect to the ward (after termination of guardianship
& clearance of guardians financial accountabilities)
Husband & wife shall jointly adopt
XPN: 1. One seeks to adopt a legitimate child of his/her spouse
2. One spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate child
Provided the other spouse consented thereto
3. Spouses are legally separated
1. Any person <18 y/o declared available for adoption (adm./jud.)
2. Legitimate son/daughter of one spouse (adopter: other spouse)
(Sec. 8)
3. Illegitimate son/daughter (by a qualified adopter)
to improve his/her status to that of legitimacy
4. Person of legal age, if prior to the adoption, consistently considered
& treated by adopter as his/her own child since minority
5. Child whose adoption has been previously rescinded
6. Child whose biological/adoptive parent(s) has/have died, provided

that no proceedings shall be initiated w/in 6 months from the time

of death of said parent(s)
1. Adoptee (10+)
2. Biological parent(s), if known; or legal guardian/proper government
instrumentality w/ legal custody of the child
reqt (Sec. 3. Legitimate/adopted children (10+) of adopter(s) & adoptee*
4. Illegitimate children (10+) of adopter if living w/ him/her & spouse*
5. Spouse of adopter or adoptee*
[* if any]
Supervised trial custody period (Sec. 12):
1. Requisite for the granting of an adoption decree
2. At least 6 months
(a) Can be reduced motu proprio or upon motion if the court finds it to be in
the best interests of the adoptee (court shall state reasons therefor)
The period is irreducible for aliens
XPN: The period may be reduced for aliens for whom the
residency & certification requirements are waivable (see
previous page)
3. Temporary parental authority is vested in the adopter(s)
1. Parental authority (Sec. 16): all legal ties between the biological
parent(s) & the adoptee are severed & vested on the adopter(s)
XPN: Spouse of adopter = biological parent
2. Legitimacy (Sec. 17): adoptee is considered a legitimate child of
Effects of
the adopter(s), w/ all the rights/obligations appertaining thereto
3. Succession (Sec. 18): in intestate succession, adopter(s) &
(Secs. 14,
adoptee have reciprocal successional rights w/o distinction from
legitimate filiation
w/o prejudice to application of testamentary succession if the
adoptee & his/her biological parent(s) had left a will
4. Issuance of amended birth certificate; cancellation of original
Rescission Who files: adoptee (basis: adoption being in the childs best interest)
(Secs. 19 w/ DSWD assistance if a minor, or >18 but incapacitated
Q: If the adopter cannot rescind, what would his recourse be?
A: Disinheritance (Art. 919, CC [see discussion on Succession])
1. Repeated physical & verbal maltreatment
2. Attempt on the life of the adoptee
3. Sexual assault/violence
4. Abandonment & failure to comply w/ parental obligations
1. Restoration of parental authority of biological parent(s), if known,
(or legal custody of the DSWD) if adoptee is still a minor or
Reciprocal rights/obli. of adopter & adoptee = extinguished
2. Cancellation of amended birth certificate; restoration of original
3. Reversion of successional rights to its status prior to adoption
Only as of the date of judgment of rescission!

[vested rights acquired prior shall be respected]

(b) RA 8043 (inter-country adoption)
i. Inter-country adoption, defined (Sec. 3[a]): socio-legal process of adopting a
Filipino child by a foreigner or a PH citizen permanently residing abroad
where the petition is filed, supervised trial custody is undertaken, & the
decree of adoption is issued outside PH
ii. Inter-country adoption as last resort (Sec. 7): inter-country adoption will not
be entertained unless all possibilities for adoption in PH have been exhausted
and inter-country adoption is in the best interests of the chid
Any alien or Filipino citizen permanently residing abroad:
1. 27+
2. at least 16 yrs. older than the adoptee
XPN: (a) biological parent of the adoptee
(b) spouse of the adoptees parent
3. capacity to act & assume all rights/responsibilities of parental
authority under his/her national law
4. has undergone appropriate counselling in his/her country
5. has not been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude
6. eligible to adopt under his/her national law
(Sec. 9)
7. in a position to provide proper care/support, & give necessary
moral values/examples to all his children
8. agrees to uphold the basic rights of the child per PH law & UCRC
9. adopters country:
(a) has diplomatic relations w/ PH
(b) maintains a body similar to the Inter-Country Adoption Board
(c) allows adoption in its laws
10. possesses all the qualifications & none of the disqualifications
under this law (& in other applicable laws)
11. if married, spouse must jointly file
Legally free child:
1. Legally free voluntarily/involuntarily committed to the DSWD as
dependent, abandoned, neglected in accordance w/ the Child &
Youth Welfare Code (CYWC):
(a) Dependent (Art. 141(1), CYWC): w/o a parent, guardian, or
custodian; or one whose parents/guardian/other custodian for
good cause desires to be relieved of his care and custody; & is
dependent upon the public for support
(Sec. 8)
(b) Abandoned (Art. 141(2), CYWC): no proper parental
care/guardianship, or whose parents/guardians have deserted
him for a period of at least 6 continuous months
(c) Neglected (Art. 141(3), CYWC): basic needs have been
deliberately unattended or inadequately attended; neglect may
be physical or emotional
2. Child any person below 15 y/o
By biological/adopted children (10+)
reqt (Sec. 1. In writing
2. In the form of a sworn statement
Supervised trial custody period (Sec. 14)

1. Entity vested w/ custody:

(a) governmental agency; or
(b) authorized & accredited (private) agency
... in the country of the adopter(s)
2. Period: 6 months from the time of placement
3. Only after the lapse of the period can the adoption decree be issued