Civil Law Bqa 1975-2019

FROM Nth Time BAR CHALLENGER TO ATTORNEY
CIVIL LAW
ARRANGED BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1975 TO 2019
ARRANGED AND SEQUENCED

BASED ON THE MOST FREQUENTY ASKED TOPICS
1975 - 2019 BAR EXAMINATIONS
Page | 1
CIVIL LAW
THIS BAR REVIEW MATERIAL is composed of 447 pages. The sources used
are Bar Law for Dummies Civil Law, UPLC, PALS, books with BQAs and other
materials that can be found in the internet. I just have the patience to ARRANGE
them based on the most asked topics from 1975 to 2019, and SEQUENCE them
by year. Some answers were paraphrased to suit the ALAC format and some were
found to be so informative in lecture type answer and better left out as they are.
Giving credits to the authors of those materials.
I must say that the most likely questions that would come out in any
succeeding bar would come from past bar examinations. Civil law is already
saturated. We already have full data bank of bar questions repeatedly asked each
year in modified form. So my tip to pass the subject is to read the questions per
topic, take note of the codal provisions and re-answer them in ALAC format for
better retention. As an option, you may want to read just one book, but you have
to avoid information overload by eliminating topics not previously asked in the bar.
So the key is to read first the past bar questions before you scan a book of your
choice. One more, civil law is highly opinionated subject so you would find several
alternative answers. Either answers are correct.
I also retained some of the lectures in BLDs (Bar Law for Dummies Family
Relations, Property, Succession, Oblicon and Special Contracts) for more indept
study of civil law bar questions. But for those who have poor foundation in civil
law, or are enrolled in refresher course, I suggest that you use the BLDs. They are
designed specially for nth time bar challengers as well as for beginners.
BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1975-2019

CIVIL LAW
FIRST EDITION
JULY 10, 2020
MANILA, PHILIPPINES
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
The ARRANGER is a humble partner to succeed in your quest for a law degree and to clinch the evasive “Attorney”
title to your name. He believes that no one has the monopoly of knowledge so you may email him for any correction,
modification and suggestion at barlawfordummies@yahoo.com.ph. Other law subjects will soon be available for
2020 Bar Exams. For orders visit FB Page: Law Reviewers, Books and Bookstand for Sale/OR TEXT 09325293595
CIVIL LAW
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BOOK 1: PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
Page | 2
FAMILY CODE...
VOID MARRIAGES...5
ARTICLE 147 VS ARTICLE 148...11
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY...20
ARTICLE 40...28
VOIDABLE MARRIAGE...29
CPG VS ACP...35
ADMINISTRATION OF PROPERTY...42
TERMINABLE MARRIAGE...46
MARRIAGE CELEBRATED ABROAD/DIVORCE...47
LEGAL SEPARATION...55
DONATION...58
PROPERTY RELATIONS...59
THE FAMILY...60
PATERNITY AND FILIATIONS...61
SUPPORT...72
PARENTAL AUTHORITY...74
EMANCIPATION AND AGE OF MAJORITY...78
VESTED RIGHT...79
ADOPTION...82
INTER=COUNTRY ADOPTION...87
DOCTRINE IN CIVIL LAW

WHEN LAW TAKES EFFECT...88
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW...89
WAIVER OF RIGHTS...89
INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW...90
NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE/LEX REI SITAE/LEX LOCI CELEBRATIONIS...90
ACTIONABLE ACTS...105
RIGHT TO PRIVACY...107
LAW ON PERSONS
CIVIL PERSONALITY...108
PRESUMPTION OF SURVIVORSHIP...111
PRESUMPTION OF DEATH...111
OTHER CIVIL LAW CONCEPT

RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL...113
CONFLICT OF LAWS...114
BOOK 2: PROPERTY
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY… 121
OWNERSHIP...124
CO-OWNERSHIP...143
CIVIL LAW
POSSESSION...152
USUFRUCT...165
EASEMENT AND SERVITUDE...171
NUISANCE...181
REGISTRY OF PROPERTY...183
MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP Page | 3

OCCUPATION...184
DONATION...184
PRESCRIPTION...193
LAND TITLES AND DEEDS...199
BOOK 3: SUCCESSION
CHARTS...221
GENERAL PROVISIONS...223
TESTAMENTARY PROVISIONS...225
LEGAL AND INTESTATE PROVISIONS...257
BOOK 4: OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

GENERAL PROVISIONS...260
OBLIGATIONS...
NATURE AND EFFECTS OF OBLIGATIONS...262
DIFFERENT KINDS OF OBLIGATIONS...273
EXTINGUISHMENT OF OBLIGATIONS...284
CONTRACTS… 298
ESSENTIAL REQUISITES...304
VOID AND INEXISTENT CONTRACTS...310
RESCISSIBLE CONTRACTS...313
VOIDABLE CONTRACTS...313
UNENFORCEABLE CONTRACTS...317
FORM OF CONTRACTS...320
BOOK 5: SPECIAL CONTRACTS...

DAMAGES...321
QUASI-CONTRACTS
QUASI-DELICTS...341
NEGOTIORUM GESTO...357
SOLUTIO INDEBITI...360
SALES...364
PLEDGE...391
CHATTEL MORTGAGE...394
ANTI-CHRESIS...398
LEASE...400
COMMON CARRIERS...333
CONTRACT OF LABOR...407
CONTRACT FOR PIECE OF WORK...408
GUARANTY...409
LOAN
MUTUUM...414
COMMODATUM...417
CONCURRENCE AND PREFERENCE OF CREDITS...417
DEPOSIT...420
AGENCY...424
CIVIL LAW
TRUSTS...431
PARTNERSHIP...434
ALEATORY CONTRACTS...441
COMPROMISES AND ARBITRATIONS...441
NATURAL OBLIGATIONS...443
ESTOPPEL...443
Page | 4
SOURCES...447
CIVIL LAW
BOOK 1
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
FAMILY CODE Page | 5
VOID MARRIAGES
2016 XIX Brad and Angelina had a secret marriage before a pastor whose office is located in
Arroceros Street City of Manila. They paid money to the pastor who took care of all the documentation.
When Angelina wanted to go to the U.S., she found out that there was no marriage license issued to
them before their marriage. Since their marriage was solemnized in 1995 after the effectivity of the
Family Code, Angelina filed a petition for judicial declaration of nullity on the strength of a certification
by the Civil Registrar of Manila that, after a diligent and exhaustive search, the alleged marriage
license indicated in the marriage certificate does not appear in the records cannot be found.
Decide the case and explain. (2.5%)
The petition is meritorous. Under the FC, marriages without license are void, and a
certification from the Civil Registrar to that effect is the best evidence to prove that fact. Here,
the marriage was celebrated without a valid marriage license and that fact was corroborated by
the certification issued by the Civil Registrar. Therefore, the petition should be granted.
DOCTRINE
[1] Article 3 of the Family Code provides that one of the formal requisites of marriage is a
valid marriage license and Article 4 of the same Code states that absence of any of the essential or
formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio. In Abbas v. Abbas (G.R. No. 183896,
January 30,2013, 689 SCRA 646), the Supreme Court declared the marriage as void ab rnit/o
because there is proof of lack of record of marriage license.
[2 The absence of the marriage license was certified to by the local civil registrar who is
the official custodian of these documents and who is in the best position to certify as to the existence
of these records. Also, there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty (Republic
v. CA and Castro, G.R. No. 103047, September 2,1994- , 236 SCR A 257).
[3] Irrespective of when the marriage took place, other than for purposes of remarriage, no
judicial action is necessary to declarea marriage an absolute nullity- For other purposes, such as but
not limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate,
dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the court may pass upon the validity
of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so long as it is essential to the
determination of the case. This is without prejudice to any issue that may arise in the case. When
such need arises, a final judgment of declaration of nullity is necessary even if the purpose is other
than to remarry. The clause on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void
in Article 40 of the Family Code connotes that such final judgment need to be obtained only for
purpose of remarriage Cablaza v. Republic, G.R. No. 158298, August 11, 2010,628 SCRA 27).
2009 III In December 2000, Michael and Anna, after obtaining a valid marriage license, went to
the Office of the Mayor of Urbano, Bulacan, to get married. The Mayor was not there, but the Mayors
CIVIL LAW
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 t;he secretary who Page | 6
returned to the Mayor’s office. She then gave copies of the marriage contract to the parties, and told
Michael and Anna, that they were already married. Thereafter, the couple lived together as husband
and wife, and had three sons.
[a] Is the marriage of Michael and Anna valid, voidable, or void? Explain your answer.
(The marriage is void because the formal requisite of marriage ceremony was absent (Art. 3, F.C. 209,
Family :ode). The marriage is void because an essential requisite absent: consent of the parties freely
given in the presence of the solemnizing officer (Art. 2, FC)- UPLC
There was no marriage at all is a better answer
The marraige is void. According to Art 35 the Family Code, if one of the essential or formal
requisites of marriage be absent, the marraige is void. Here, there were no solemnizing officer, no
celebration and no consents given in the presence of a solemnizing officer. Therefore, this is not a
marriage at all for it has no semblance of a marriage. The marriage is void.
2008 III Roderick and Faye were high school sweethearts. When Roderick was 18 and Faye, 16
years old, they started to live together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. When
Faye reached I8 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 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 than 5 years.
Was the marriage of Roderick and Faye valid? (2%)
No, it is not valid. Under Art. 35 of the Family Code, a marriage lacking a license if void except
in cases falling under Art 34 which requires that the cohabitation must be continuous and
uninterupted for at least 5 years, and the parties were living exclusively as husband and wife, to
exempt the parties from securng marraige license. Here, Roderick and Faye cohabitated when Faye
had impediment to marry, and after her marriage with another man, she had an adulterous
relationship with Roderick. Therefore, they are not exempt them from securing a marraige license.
The marraige of Roderick and Faye is void.
2008 Despite several relationships with different women, Andrew remained unmarried. His
first relationship with Brenda produced a daughter, Amy, now 30 years old, His second, with Carla,
produced two sons: Jon and Ryan. His third, with Donna, bore him two daughters: Vina and Wilma.
His fourth, with Elena, bore him no children although Elena has a daughter, Jane, from a previous
relationship. His last, with Fe, produced no biological children but they informally adopted without
court proceedings, Sandy, now 13 years old, whom they consider as their own. Sandy was orphaned
CIVIL LAW
as a baby and was entrusted to them by the midwife who attended to Sandy’s birth. All the children,
including Amy, now live with Andrew in his house.
Can Jon and Jane legally marry?
Jon and Jane can legally marry because they are not related to each other. Jane is not a
daughter of Andrew, Jon’s father. Page | 7
2007 Write “TRUE” if the statement is true or “FALSE” if the statement is false. If the
statement is FALSE, state the reason. (2%)
1. Amor gave birth to Thelma when she was 15 years old. Thereafter, Amor met David and
they got married when she was 20 years old. David had a son, Julian, with his ex-
girlfriend Sandra. Julian and Thelma can get married.
TRUE. Julian and Thelma can get married. Marriages between stepbrothers and
stepsisters are not among the marriages prohibited under the Family Code.
2. 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.
FALSE. Marsha is not estopped from filing an annulment case against John on the ground
of his impotence, because she learned of his impotence after the celebration of the marriage and not
before. Physical incapability to consummate the marriage is a valid ground for the annulment of
marriage if such incapacity was existing at the time of the marriage, continues and appears to be
incurable. The marriage may be annulled on this ground within five years from its celebration (Art.
45 [5], Family Code
2002 I On May 1,1975, Facundo married Petra, by whom he had a son Sotero. Petra died
on July 1, 1996, while Facundo died on January 1, 2002. Before his demise, Facundo had married,
on July 1, 2000, Querica. Having lived together as husband and wife since July 1, 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 nullty 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.
Does Sotero have the personality to seek a declaration of nullity of the marriage, especially
now that Facundo is already deceased?
Yes, Sotero has the personality. In the annals of decision, the Supreme court ruled that a
void marriage may be questioned by any interested party in any proceeding where the resolution of
the issue is material. Here, the inheritance rights of Sotero over the estate of his father is about to
impaired by the latter’s void marriage with Querica. Therefore, being a compulsory heir, Sotero has
the personality to question the validity of the marriage of Facundo and Querica.
CIVIL LAW
1999 The complete publication of the Family Code was made on August 4, 1987. On September
4. 1987, Junior Cruz and Gemma Reyes were married before a municipal mayor. Was the marriage
valid?
Yes, the marriage is valid. The Family Code took effect on August 3. 1988. At the time of the
marriage on September 4, 1987, municipal mayors were empowered to solemnize marriage under the
Page | 8
Civil Code of 1950.
In 1990, the Local Goverment Code, empowered mayors to solemnize marriages.
Suppose the couple got married on September 1, 1994 at the Manila Hotel before the Philippine
Consul General to Hongkong, 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?
[The marriage is not valid. Consuls and vice consuls are empowered to solemnize marriages
between Philippine citizens abroad in the consular office of the foreign country to which they were
assigned and have no power to solemnize marriage on Philippine soil. ]
[Alternative Answer: A Philippine consul is authorized by law to solemnize marriages abroad

between Filipino citizens. He has no authority to solemnize a marriage in the Philippines.
Consequently, the marriage in question is void, unless either or both of the contracting parties
believed in good faith that the consul general had authority to solemnize their marriage in which case
the marriage is valid.] - UPLC
Other answer:
The marriage is valid. Under Art 8 of the Family Code, consuls may validly solemnize off the
consular office at the request of the parties and his approval. Be as it may, it may only be considered
as irregularity which does affect the validity of marriage.
1996 IV 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 there and then.
1) Is their marriage valid, void or voidable? Explain.
The marriage is valid. Under the Family Code , the irregularity in the issuance of a valid license
does not adversely affect the validity of the marriage. The marriage license is valid because it was in
fact issued by a Civil Registrar and it is effective anywhere in the Philippines.
2) Would your answer be the same if it should turn out that the marriage license was spurious?
Explain.
No, the marriage would be void. An spurious license is just as scrap of paper. In such a case,
there was actually no valid marriage license.
1995 Isidro and Irma, Filipinos, both l8 years of age, were passengers of Flight No. 317 of Oriental
Airlines, plane they boarded was of Philippine registry, while en route from Manila to Greece some
CIVIL LAW
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 Libyalrma 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 Page | 9
opposed her claim for inheritance. The parents of Isidro opposed her claim contending that the
marriage between her and Isidro was voidab initio on the following grounds: (a) they had not given
their consent to the marriage of their son; (b) there was no marriage license; (c) the solemnizing officer
had no authority to perform the marriage; and. (d) the solemnizing officer did not file an affidavit of
marriage with the proper civil registrar.
1. Resolve each of the contentions ([a] to Id]) raised by the parents of Isidro. Discuss fully.
(a) The fact that the parents of Isidro and of Irma did not give their consent the marriage is merely
voidable under Art 45 paragraph 1 of the Family Code, not void.
(b) The marriage was solemnized in articulo mortis, it was exempt from the license requirement
under Art. 31 of the FC.
(c) Under extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, the assistant pilot was acting for and in
behalf of the airplane chief who was under disability as being hostage, the marriage was solemnized
by an authorized officer under Art. 7 (3) and Art. 31, of the FC.
(d) Failure of the solemnizing officer to file the affidavit of marriage is merely an irregularity which
may subject the solemnizing officer to penalty.
1993 I A and B. Both 18 years old, were sweethearts studying in Manila. On August 3, 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 August 30, 1988, their marriage solemnized by the
town mayor of X in his office. Thereafter, they returned to Manila and continued to live separately in
their respective boarding houses, 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.
[A] Was the marriage of A and B solemnized on August 30, 1988 by the town mayor of X in his
office a valid carriage? Explain your answer.
No, the marraige was void. Under the Family Code, one of the essential requisites of
marriage is consent of the parties to be freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer who
must have an authority to solemnize as such. Here, mayors have no authority to solemnize marriges
under the FC and other law. Therefore the marraige is void.
Under the Local Gov Code of 1991, the town mayors have now bestowed authority to
solemnize marriages.
Take note that the marriage took place in in 1988. The authority of mayors to solemnize
marriages was present in Civil Code 1950 which was superseded by the Family Code where mayors
CIVIL LAW
are not one of the authorize solemnizing officers. In 1990, the local governement code authorized
mayors to solemnize. Hence, from Aug 3, 1988 up to the effectivity of local government code in 1991,
mayors could not solemnize marriages.
1989 [B] While “X”, an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, was vacationing in Cehu
City, he was requested to solemnize the marriage of Serge and Joan in the residence of Serge’s
parents. “X” could not refuse the request of both the parents of the couple because they were his Page | 10
relatives. On the day set for the wedding, there were so many visitors at the residence of Serge’s
parents so that “X” decided to solemnize the marriage at the kiosk of the public plaza located nearby.
Is the marriage of Serge and Joan valid? Give your reasons.
[Yes, because the requirement that the marriage be solemnized in a public place is not an
essential requisite of the law. – UPLC I DISSENT WITH THE RESONING.]
The marriage is valid. Unde Art 8 of the FC, The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the
chambers of the judge or in open court, or in some other place when both of the parties request the
solemnizing officer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place
designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect.
Here, X was requested orally and proceeded the wedding at the kiosk of the public plaza. The
absence of written request did not invalidate the marriage for it is only an irregularrity. Therefore, the
marriage is valid but Justice X is administatively liable for violating the procedure.
1989 2 Paul, a 17-year old Filipino and a permanent resident in the United States, married
Jean, a 16-year old American in Las Vegas, Nevada. The parents of both gave their consent to the
marriage. The marriage is valid in Nevada. Is its also valid in the Philippines? Give your reasons.
No, the marriage is not valid. Art 15 of the Civil Code, laws relating to family rights and/or to
the status, condition and legal capacity of perons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even
though living abroad. Also, in the FC, marraige between two persons must be at least 18 years of age
at the celebration of the marriage.
Here, Paul is a Filipino and below 18 years old. Therefore, the marraige is void under
Philippine law.
UNDER THE CIVIL CODE
If the marriage took place before the effectivity of the Family Code,’the marriage would be
valid since under the provisions of the Civil Code, a marriage which is valid in the place of celebration
is valid in the Philippines except bigamous, polygamous, and incestuous marriages as determined by
Philippine law. The minimum age under the old law was sixteen (16) for the male and fourteen (14)
for female.
The marriage is valid. Under Art 8 of the Family Code, consuls may validly solemnize off the
consular office at the request of the parties and his approval. Be as it may, it may only be considered
as irregularity which does affect the validity of marriage.
PROPERTY REGIMES OF UNION WITHOUT MARRIAGE

(ART. 147 vs ART 148)
CIVIL LAW
2018 [17] Sofia and Samuel, both unmarried, lived together for so many years in the
Philippines and begot three children. While Sofia stayed in the Philippines with the children, Semuel
went abroad to work and became and naturalized German citizen. He met someone in Germany whom
he wanted to marry. Semuel thereafter came home and filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) for partition of the common properties acquired during his union with Sofia in the Philippines. Page | 11
The properties acquired during the union consisted of a house and lot in Cavite worth PhP2 million,
and some personal properties, including cash in the bank amounting to PhP1 million. All these
properties were acquired using Samuel’s salaries and wages since Sofia was a stay-at-home mother.
In retaliation, Sofia filed and action, on behalf of their minor children, for support.
(a) How should the properties be partitioned? (2.5%)
(b) Should Semuel be required to support the minor children? (2.5%)
(a) Properties should be divided equally between Sofia and Semuel. The property relations of
Sofia and Semuel are governed by Article 147 of the Civil Code, because they lived exclusively with
each other as husband and wife and they were capacitated to marry each other. Under the said
provision, the wages and salaries of Sofia and Semuel shall be owned by them in equal shares; hence,
the cash in the bank from Semuel’s salaries and wages is co-owned by Semuel and Sofia in equal
shares. Article 147 also provides that the property acquired by the partners through their work or
industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership and in the absence of proof to the contrary,
properties acquired during the cohabitation shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint
efforts, work or industry and shall be owned by them in equal shares. Article 147 provides further
that if the efforts of one of the parties consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the
household, he or she is deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition of the property even if
he or she did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of the said property. Sofia, as a
stay-at-home mother, cared for and maintained the family, consequently, she is deemed to have
contributed in the acquisition of the house and lot. As co-owner, Sofia is entitled to one-half of the
property.
(b) Yes, Semuel should be required to support the minor children. Parents and their
illegitimate children are obliged to support each other (Article 195, Family Code). Semuel is required
to support his illegitimate children with Sofia. The children are illegitimate, because they were
conceived and born outside a valid marriage (Article 165, Family Code). – UPLC, answer uploaded
Nov 18, 2019
2016 Bernard and Dorothy lived together as common-law spouses although they are both
capacitated to marry. After one year of cohabitation, Dorothy went abroad to work in Dubai as a hair
stylist and regular sent money to Bernard. With the money, Bernard bought a lot. For a good price,
Bernard sold the lot. Dorothy came to know about the acquisition and sale of the lot and filed a suit
to nullify the sale because she did not give her consent to the sale.
[a] Will Dorothy’s suit prosper? Decide with reasons.
Yes. Under Article 147 of the Family Code 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.
CIVIL LAW
Here, Bernard sold the property without Dorothy’s consent within the period of their
cohabitation. Therefore, the sale is void. However, if the buyer is in good faith and for value, the sale
cannot be annuled but Dorothy shall be entitled to reimbursent and damages.
[b] Suppose Dorothy was jobless and did not contribute money to the acquisition of the lot
and her efforts consisted mainly in the care and maintenance of the family and household, is her
Page | 12
consent to the the sale a prerequisite to its validity? Explain.
Yes, Under Art 147 of the Family Code, 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 the household.
Here, Dorothy’s care and maintenance of the family and household are deemed contributions
in the acquisition of the lot. The lot is deemed owned in common by the common-law spouses in equal
shares as the same was acquired during their cohabitation. Therefore, her consent to the sale is a
prerequisite to its validity without prejudice to the rights of a buyer in good faith and for value.
2015 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.
[a] 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, Article 147 applies only 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”.
Here, Bert and Joe are both men and they are incapacitated from marrying each other since
in this jurisdiction, marriage may only take place between a man and a woman. Therefore, Article
147 is inapplicable to their property relations.
2012 Jambrich, an Austrian, fell in-love and lived together with Descallar and bought their
house and lots at AgroMacro Subdivision. In the Contracts to Sell, Jambrich and Descallar were
referred to as the buyers. When the Deed of Absolute Sale was presented for registration before the
Register of Deeds, it was refused because Jambrich was an alien and could not acquire alienable
lands of the public domain. After Jambrich and Descaller separated, Jambrich purchased an engine
and some accessories for his boat from Borromeo. To pay for his debt, he sold his rights and interests
in the Agro-Macro properties to Borromeo.
Borromeo discovered that titles to the three (3) lots have been transferred in the name of
Descallar. Who is the rightful owner of the properties? Explain.
It depends. On the assumption that the Family Code is the applicable law, the ownership of the properties
depends on whether or not Jambrich Descallar are capacitated to many each other during their cohabitation, and
whether or not both have contributed funds for the acquisition of the properties.
CIVIL LAW
If both of them were capacitated to marry each other, Article 147 on Co-ownership will apply to their
property relations and the properties in question are owned by them in equal shares even though all the funds
used in acquiring the properties came only from the salaries or wages, or the income of Jambrich from his business
or profession. In such a case, while Jambrich is disqualified to own any part of the properties, his subsequent
transfer of all his interest therein to Borromeo, a Filipino, was valid as it removed the disqualification. In such
case, the properties are owned by Boiromeo and Descallar in equal shares.
Page | 13
If, on the other hand, Jambrich and Descallar were not capacitated to many each other, Article 148 on
co-ownership governs their property relations. Under this regime, Jambrich and Descallar are co-owners of the
properties but only if both of them contributed in their acquisition. If all the funds used in acquiring the properties
in question came from Jambrich, the entire property is his even though he is disqualified from owning it. His
subsequent transfer to Borromeo, however, is valid as it removed the disqualification. In such case, all of the
properties are owned by Borromeo, If, on the other hand, Descallar contributed to their acquisition, the properties
are co-owned by Descallar and Borromeo in proportion to the respective contributions of Descallar and Jambrich.
-UPLC
NOTE: The answer is only good as part of the lecture. You don’t answer with “It depends”. I
take that Art 147 is the applicable law and not Art 148. Di ba sa civil law like in sales, when the
stipulation is vague – the presumption is the parties meant it be of least transmission of rights at sa
criminal law – when the evidence is not sufficient to prove the crime complained of – the lesser crime,
if evidence supports it. Here, dahil vague yung status ng mga characters, I take 147, instead of 148.
So, here is the answer.
[Give the direct answer (Yes, or No,) folowed by the applicable law (Under the law, ]
Borromeo and Descallar own the properties. Under Article 147 of the Family Code, (if hindi
matadaan yung exact article – Under the Family Code,) (If hindi mo alam na Family Code ang applicable
– Under the law,) a party may validly alienate his/her share in co-ownership without the consent of
the other party after the termination of the cohabitation. And in the absence of proof to the contrary,
the properties are presumed obtained by joint efforts, work and industry.
[Apply the law to the facts without repeating the law [Here,) followed by the conclusion
(Therefore,)]
Here, Jambrich sold his rights and interest to Borromeo after the termination of cohabitation with
Descallar. and there were no proof that only Jambrich who brought the property out of his own effort,
work and industry. The presumption stands that the he and Descallar owned them in common and
in equal share. Therefore, the properties are owned by Descallar and Borromeo in common and in
equal share.
(Dito may sub-issue. Always put it the last portion para malinaw yung direct answer mo)
The prohibition on alien to own real properties only binds the lot and not the rights and
interest of the alien-partner. Here, Jambrich sold his rights and interests over the said properties to
Borromeo, a Filipino, and that cured the defect.
Sa Bar Exam, ganito ang peg ng answer mo.
Borromeo and Descallar co-own the properties. Under Article 147 of the Family Code, a
party may validly alienate his/her share in co-ownership without the consent of the other party after
CIVIL LAW
the termination of the cohabitation. And in the absence of proof to the contrary, the properties are
presumed obtained by joint efforts, work and industry.
Here, Jambrich sold his rights and interest to Borromeo after the termination of cohabitation
with Descallar. and there were no proof that only Jambrich who brought the property out of his own
effort, work and industry. The presumption stands that the he and Descallar owned them in common
and in equal share. Therefore, the properties are owned by Descallar and Borromeo in common and Page | 14
in equal share.
The prohibition on alien to own real properties only binds the lot and not the rights and
interest of the alien-partner. Here, Jambrich sold his rights and interests over the said properties to
Borromeo, a Filipino, and that cured the defect.
2010 In 1997, B and G started living together without the benefit of marriage. The
relationship produced one offspring, Venus. The couple acquired a residential lot in Paranaque. After
four (4) years or in 2001, G having completed her 4- year college degree as a fulltime student, she
and B contracted marriage without a license. The marriage of B and G was, two years later, declared
null and void due to the absence of a marriage license.
[a] If you were the judge who declared the nullity of marriage, to whom would you award the
lot? Explain
(Since the marriage was null and void, no Absolute Community or Conjugal Partnership was established
tween B and G. Their properties are governed by the “special co-ownership” provision of Article 147 of the Family
Code because both B and G were capacitated to each other. The said Article provides that when a man and a
woman who are capacitated to many each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage, or under a void marriage:
(1) their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares; and
(2) property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on
co-ownership.
In co-ownership, the parties co-owners if they contributed something of value in the acquisition of the
property. Their share is in proportion to their respective contributions. In an ordinary coownership the
care and maintenance of the family is not ecognized as a valuable contribution for the acquisition of a
property. In the Article 147 “special co-ownership” however, care and maintenance is recognized as a
valuable contribution which will entitle the contributor to half of the property acquired.
Having been acquired during their cohabitation, the residential lot is presumed acquired through their
joint work and industry under Article 147, hence, B and G are co-owners of the said property in equal
shares.
Article 147 also provides that when a party to the void marriage was in bad faith, he forfeits his share in
the co-ownership in favor of the common children or descendants. In default of children or descendants,
the forfeited share shall belong to the innocent party. In the foregoing problem, there is no showing that
one party was in bad faith. Hence, both shall be presumed in good faith and no forfeiture shall take
place.) - UPLC
Note: I have some reservation sa answer ng UPLC. But it is good to read as lecture. Anyhow,
It is submitted that both B and G are in bad faith. And the forfeiture in Art. 148 last paragraph is
also applicable to Art. 147 when both parties are in bad faith. So this is my answer.
CIVIL LAW
I will award the property to Venus, their common child. Under Art. 147, which is the
applicable regime for B and G, when a party is in bad faith, his/her share in the co-ownership shall
be forfeited in favor of their common children.
Here, both B and G contacted marriage without a marriage license knowing that their
cohabitation is short of one year to exempt them from securing the license. Therefore, both are in
Page | 15
bad faith and will suffer forfeiture of their share in the residential lot in favor of their common child,
Venus.
Under the last paragraph of Art. 148, forfeiture shall take place when both parties are in bad
faith, and it is submitted that the forfeiture is applicable also in void marriages under Art. 147.
2010 VII G and B were married on July 3, 1989. On March 4, 2001, the marriage, which
bore no offspring, was declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code. At the time of the
dissolution of the marriage, the couple possessed the following properties:
[1] a house and lot acquired by B on August 3, 1988, one third (1 / 3) of the purchase price
(representing down payment) of which he paid; one third (1/3) paid by G on February 14,1990 out of
a cash gift given to her by her parents on her graduation on April 6, 1989; and the balance was paid
out of the spouses’ joint income; and
[2] an apartment unit donated to B by an uncle on June 19,1987.
[A] Who owns the foregoing properties? Explain.
(Since the marriage was declared void ab initio in 200l, no Absolute Community or Conjugal Partnership
was ever established between B and G. Their property relation is governed by a “special co-ownership” under
Article 147 of the Family Code because they were capacitated to many each other. Under that Article 147, wages
and salaries of the “ former spouses” earned during their cohabitation shall be owned by them in equal shares
while properties acquired thru their work or industry shall be owned by them in proportion to their respective
contributions. Care and maintenance of the family is recognized as a valuable contribution. In the absence of
proof as to the value of their respective contributions, they shall share equally.
If ownership over the house and lot was acquired by B on August 3,1988 at the time be bought it on
installment before he got married, he shall remain owner of the house and lot but he must reimburse for all the
amounts she advanced to pay the purchase price and for her ½ share in the last payment from their joint income.
Insuch case, the house and lot were not acquired during their cohabitation, hence, are not co-owned by B and G.
But if the ownership of the house and lot was acquired during the cohabitation, the house and lot will
be owned as follows:
[1] 1/3 of the house and lot is owned by B. He is an undivided co-owner to that extent for his contribution
in its acquisition in the form of the down payment he made before the celebration of the marriage. The money he
used to pay the down payment was not earned during the cohabitation, hence, It is his exclusive property.
[2] 1/3 of the house and lot is owned by G. She is an undivided co-owner to the extent for her contribution
in its acquisition when she paid 1/3 of the purchase price using the gift from her parents. Although the gift was
acquired by G duriiigher cohabitation with B, it is her exclusive property. It did not consist of wage or salary or
fruit of her work or industy.
[3] 1/3 of the house is co-owned by B and G because the payment came from their co-owned funds,
i.e., their joint income during their cohabitation which is shared by them equally in the absence of any proof to
the contrary.
CIVIL LAW
After summing up their respective shares, B and G are undivided co-owners of the house and lot in equal
shares.
As to the apartment, it is owned exclusively by B because he acquired it before their cohabitation. Even
if he acquired it during their cohabitation it will still be his exclusive property because it did not come from his
wage or salary, or from his work or industry. It was acquired gratuitously from his uncle - UPLC
Note: Ang Tanong lang naman ay ‘who owns the foregoing properties?
Page | 16
So here is a concise and direct answer.
Both the house and lot and apartment are owned by B. Under Art. 147 which is the
applicable regime for annulled marriages on the ground of psychological incapacity, the presumption
of equal share of ownership of properties can be disputed by proof to the contrary.
Here, the marriage was annulled on the ground of psychological incapacity, and there were
contrary proof(s) against the presumption of co-ownership. Therefore, as for the house and lot, it is
owned by B, subject to reimbursement of the 1/3 of the amount paid by G plus an additional ½ of
the 1/3 she also paid out of joint-contribution. As for the apartment, it also owned by B as his
separate property.
[B] If G and B had married on July 3, 1987 and their marriage was dissolved in 2007, who
owns the properties?
(The answer is the same as in letter A, Since the parties to the marriage which was later declared void
ab initio were capacitated to marry each other, the applicable law under the New Civil Code was Article 144. This
Article is substantially the same as Article 147 of the Family Code. Hence, the determination of ownership will
remain the same as in question A. And even assuming that the two provisions are not the same, Article 147 of the
Family Code is still the law that will govern the property relations of B and G because under Article 256, the
Family Code has retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights under the
New Civil Code or other laws. Applying Article 147 retroactively to the case of G and B will not impair any vested
right. Until the declaration of nullity of the marriage under the Family Code, B and G have not as yet acquired
any vested right over the properties acquired during their cohabitation. - UPLC)
I have reservation.
Both the house and lot and apartment are solely owned by B. Under the Family Code,
the effect of judgment for void ab initio marriages under Art 36 retroacts to the date of marriage, and
the applicable property regime shall be Art. 147 under the retroactivity character of the Family Code
provided that no vested right shall be impaired or prejudiced.
Here, the effect of judgment in 2007 retoracts to July 3, 1987, and since no vested rights are
impaired or prejudiced in the application of the Family Code, the applicable property regime is Art.
147. Therefore, as for the house and lot, it is owned by B, subject to reimbursement of the 1/3 of
the amount paid by G plus an additional ½ of the 1/3 she also paid out of joint-contribution. As for
the apartment, it also owned by B as his separate property.
2009 BAR 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.
CIVIL LAW
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. Page | 17
[C] What property regime governs the properties acquired by the couple? Explain.
The property regime is special co-ownership under Art. 147. Under the Family Code,
when parties with no impediment to marry each other cohabited under a void marriage the poperty
regime shall be governed by Art. 147.
Here, the parties have no impediment to marry each other and their marriage is void for being
lack of semblance of a valid marriage. No soleminizing officer, no celebration and obviously no consent
given in the presence of a solemnizing officer. Therefore, the property regime is special co-ownrship
under Art.147.
2009 XIB2B If there is no marriage settlement, the salary of a “spouse” in an adulterous

marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership of gains.
False. Under Article 148 of the Family Code, the property relations between married
partner and his/her paramour is governed by ordinary co-ownership where the partners become co-
owners only when they contributed to the acquisition of the property, Here, the paramour is deemed
to have not contributed in the earning of the salary of the married partner. Therfore, the salary of a
married partner belongs to the absolute community, or conjugal partnership with his/her spouse.
2000 BAR For five years since 1989, Tony, a bank Vice-President. And Susan, an entertainer,
lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage although they were capacitated to
many each other. Since Tony’s salary was more than enough for their needs. Susan stopped working
and merely “kept house”. During that period, Tony was able to buy a lot and house in a plush
subdivision. However, after five years, Tony and Susan decided to separate.
[A] Who will be entitled to the house and lot ?
Tony and Susan are entitled to the house and lot. Under Article 147 of the Family Code,
the property acquired during the parties’ cohabitation are presumed to have been obtained by their
joint efforts, work or industiy and shall be owned by them in equal shares even the efforts of one of
them consisted merely in his or her care and maintenance of the family and of the household.
Here, Susan kept the household. Therefore, she is entitled as co-owner of the house and lot
in equal share.
[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 ?
Yes. Under Article 148 of the Family Code, when the parties to the cohabitation could not
marryy each other because of an impediment, only those properties acquired by both of them through
their actual Joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common
CIVIL LAW
in proportion to their respective contributions. The efforts of one of the parties in maintaining the
family and household are not considered adequate contribution In the acquisition of the properties.
Here, Susan did not contribute to the acquisition of the house and lot, she has no share
therein. Therefore, the house and lot is Tony’s exclusive property.
Note: If Tony cohabited with Susan after his legal separation from Alice, the house and lot is Page | 18
his exclusive property. If he cohabited with Susan before his legal separation from Alice, the house
and lot belongs to his community or partnership with Alice.
1998 BAR In 1973, Mauricio, a Filipino pensioner of the U.S. Government, contracted a
bigamous marriage with Erllnda despite the fact that his first wife, Carol, was still living. In 1975,
Mauriclo and Erlinda jointly bought a parcel of riceland, with the title being placed jointly in their
names. Shortly thereafter, they purchased another property (a house and lot} which was placed in
her name alone as the buyer. In 1981, Mauricio died, and Carol promptly filed an action against
Erlinda to recover both the riceland and the house and lot. Claiming them to be conjugal property of
the first marriage. Erlinda contends that she and the late Maudcio were co-owners of the riceland,
and with respect to the house and lot, she claims she is the exclusive owner. Assuming she fails to
prove that she had actually used her own money in either purchase, how do you decide the case?
Both riceland and the house and lot accures to the conjugal property with Carol, Under
Article 144 of the Civil Code, which applies to bigamous marriages, only the properties acquired by
both parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by
them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. And the married one’s share in the
co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community/conjugal partnership existing in such valid
marriage.
Here, Erlinda failed to prove that she used her own money to buy those properties nor
contributed any of value to the purchase thereof, she cannot claim to be the co-owner of the riceland
nor the exclusive owner of the house and lot. Therofore, such properties are Mauricio’s and they
shall accrue to the conjugal partnership with Carol, Carol can validly claim such properties to the
exclusion of Erlinda. (Art. 144, Civil Code)
Note: the applicable law is Art. 144 of the Civil Code and not Art. 148 of the FC. But they are
both the same.
1997 BAR 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. Rlzza is not
employed, stays at home, and takes 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 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 time period of cohabitation from their separate property. A car worth P1M being used by the
common-law spouses was donated just months ago to Rizza by her parents.
CIVIL LAW
Luis and Rizza now decide to terminate their cohabltatation, 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?
The P200,000 bank deposit is co-owned by the parties in equal share, the car is solely Page | 19
owned by Rizza and the house and lot is owned by the parties based on the percentage
contribution in acquisition cost. Under the Art. 147 of the Family Code, parties without
impediment to marry live exclusively 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.
Here, the deposit of P200thou is out of the salary of Luis, the car is donated exclusively for
Rizza and the house and lot was obtained through percentage contribution of P200thou from Luis
harvest of palay from his exclusive property and P300,000 from rent of an apartment of Rizza’s
exclusive property. Therefore, the deposit is co-owned by the parties in equal share, the car is
solely owned by Rizza and 3/5 of the value of the house is owned by Rizza while 2/5 belongs to
Luis.
Fruits or rents from the exclusive property are not covered by special c-ownership.
1992 BAR In 1989. Rico, then a widower forty (40) years of age, cohabited with Cora, a widow
thirty (30) years of age. While living together, they acquired from their combined earnings a parcel of
riceland.
After Rico and Cora separated, Rico lived together with Mabel, a maiden sixteen (16) years of
age. While living together, Rico was a salaried employee and Mabel kept house for Rico and did full-
time household chores for him. During their cohabitation, a parcel of coconut land was acquired by
Rico from his savings.
After living together for one (1) year, Rico and Mabel separated. Rico then met and married
Letty, a single woman twenty-six (26) years of age. During the marriage of Rico and Letty, Letty bought
a mango orchard out of her own personal earnings.
[a] Who would own the riceland, and what property regime governs the ownership? Explain.
Rico and Cora are the co-owners of the riceland. The regime is that of co-ownership (Art. 147,
Family Code, first paragraph). However, after Rico and Letty got married, his share has become part
of the absolute community of the couple.
[B] Who would own the coconut land, and what property regime governs the ownership?
Explain.
Rico is the exclusive owner of the coconut land. The regime is Art. 148. Family Code, first
paragraph is applicable, and not Art. 147 because Mabel has impediment to marry. However, after
his marriage with Letty, the coconut land has become part of the absolute community of property.
CIVIL LAW
1991 BAR In June 1985, James married Mary. In September 1988, he also married Ophelia
with whom he begot two (2) children, A and B. In July 1989, Mary died. In July 1990, he married
Shirley and abandoned Ophelia. During their union, James and Ophelia acquired a residential lot
worth P300,000.00.
Ophelia sues James for bigamy and prays that his marriage with Shirley be declared null and
void. James, on the other hand, claims that since his marriage to Ophelia was contracted during the Page | 20
existence of his marriage with Mary, the former is not binding upon him, the same being void ab
initio, he further claims that his marriage to Shirley is valid and binding as he was already legally
capacitated at the time he married her.
What property regime governed the union of James and Ophelia?
(The provisions of Art 148 of the Family Code, shall govern. 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 – UPLC ANSWER)
Note: I DISAGREE.
From September 1988 to July 1989, the day that Mary died, the relationship between James
and Ophelia was adulterous or bigamous, hence, the applicable regime is Art. 148 of the FC. When
Mary died, the relationship has stopped to become adulterous or bigamous, hence the governing law
was Art. 147.
Is the estate of. Mary entitled to a share in the residential lot acquired “by James and Ophelia?
It should be distinguished when the property was acquired. If it was acquired before Mary’s
death, Mary’s estate is entitled to ½ of the share of James. If it was acquired after Mary’s death, there
will be no share at all for the estate of Mary. The property shall belong to the union of James and
Ophelia which ceased to be adulterous.
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
2016 BAR Leo married Lina and they begot a son. After the birth of their child, Lina exhibited
unusual behavior and started to neglect her son; she frequently went out with her friends and
gambled in casinos. Lina later had extra-marital affairs with several men and eventually abandoned
Leo and their son. Leo was able to talk to the psychiatrist of Lina who told him that Lina suffers from
dementia praecox, a form of psychosis where the afflicted person is prone to commit homicidal
attacks. Leo was once stabbed by Lina but fortunately he only suffered minor injuries.
Will a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed with the court prosper? Explain.
No, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code will
not prosper. In the annals of decisions, the Supreme Court explained that psychological incapacity
must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The illness must
be shown as downright incapacity or inability to perform one’s marital obligations, not a mere refusal,
neglect, difficulty, or much less, ill will.
CIVIL LAW
Here, Lina was not examined by a physician and the pieces of evidence presented are not
sufficient to conclude that indeed Lina is suffering from psychological incapacity existing already
before the marriage, incurable and serious enough to prevent her from performing her essential
marital obligations. Even if taken as true, the grounds alleged are not sufficient to declare the
marriage void under “psychological incapacity. Therefore, the petition must be denied.
Page | 21
Doctrine to quote
[1] In Santos v. CA (G.R. No. 113054, March 16,1995, 240 SCRA 20), the Supreme Court
explained that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence,
and (c) incurability. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability to perform one’s
marital obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect, difficulty, or much less, ill will.
[2] The Supreme Court has ruled in Marcos v. Marcos (G.R. No. 136490, October 19,
2000,343 SCRA 755), that actual medical examination need not be resorted to where the totality of
evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity.
2016 XXIX Brad and Angelina had a secret marriage before a pastor whose office is located
in Arroceros Street, City of Manila. They paid money to the pastor who took care of all the
documentation. When Angelina wanted to go to the U.S., she found out that there was no marriage
license issued to them before their marriage. Since their marriage was solemnized in 1995 after the
effectivity of the Family Code, Angelina filed a petition for judicial declaration of nullity on the strength
of a certification by the Civil Registrar of Manila, that, after a diligent and exhaustive search, the
alleged marriage license indicated in the marriage certificate does not appear in the records cannot
be found.
[B] In case the marriage was solemnized in 1980 before the effectivity of the. Family Code, is
it required that a judicial petition be filed to declare the marriage null and void? Explain.
Yes, a a judicial petition be filed to declare the marriage null and void is required. Under Art.
256 of the Family Code, the same code has retroactive effect provided that no vested rights or
acquired rigths were impaired, and under Art 40, it says that on the basis of a final judgment declaring
such previous marriage void connotes that such final judgment need to be obtained only for purpose
of remarriage.
Here, there were no vested or acquired rights to be impaired in the application of the Family
Code. Therefore, the petition to declare the marraige void is required as enunciated in Art 40 of the
Family Code.
For other purposes, such as but not limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or
illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that
matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to
question the same so long as it is essential to the determination of the case.
This doctrine is only applicable if there is a vested or acquired right that will get
impaired. [1] It is not required that a judicial petition be filed to declare the marriage null and void
when said marriage was solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code. As stated in the cases
of people v. Mendoza (G.R. No. L-5877, September 28,1954, 95 Phil. 845), and people v. Aragon
(g.R; No. L-10016, February 28,1957,100 Phil. 1033)’ the old rule is that where a marriage is illegal
and void from its performance, no judicial petition is necessaryto establish its invalidity.
CIVIL LAW
This is the default rule now. [1] Irrespective of when the marriage took place, other than for
purposes of remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For
other purposes, such as but not limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a
child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the court
may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so
long as it is essential to the determination of the case. This is without prejudice to any issue that may Page | 22
arise in the case. When such need arises, a final judgment of declaration of nullity is necessary even
if the purpose is other than to remarry. The clause on the basis of a final judgment declaring such
previous marriage void in Article 40 of the Family Code connotes that such final judgment need to be
obtained only for purpose of remarriage (Ablaza v. Republic, G.R No. 158298, August 11 2010,628
SCRA 27).
2015 BAR Kardo as a young lieutenant, met Glenda, and after a whirlwind courtship, they
got married. In the early part of his military career, Kardo was assigned to different places all over
the country but Glenda refused to accompany him as she preferred to live in her hometown. They did
not live together until the 12th year of their marriage when Kardo had risen up the ranks and was
given his own command. They moved to living quarters in Fort Gregorio. One day, while Kardo was
away on official business, one of his military aides caught Glenda having sex with the corporal
assigned as Kardo’s driver. The aide immediately reported the matter to Kardo who rushed home to
confront his wife. Glenda readily admitted the affair and Kardo sent her 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 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 (G.R No. 161793,
February 13, 2009) and Azcueta v. Republic (G.R. No. 180668, May 26, 2009). 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?
I will grant the appeal. In the annals of decisions, the Supreme Court explained that
psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability to perform one’s marital
obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect, difficulty, or much less, ill will.
Here, there was no showing that the incapacity is incurable or that it was so grave that she
could not perform her essential marital obligations. Also, there was insufficient evidence that Glenda’s
defects were already present at the inception of, or prior to, the marriage; her alleged psychological
incapacity did not satisfy the jurisprudential requisite of juridical antecedence, as laid down in the
case of Molina. Therefore, the petition should be denied.
Mere sexual infidelity is not itself a ground for dissolution of marriage under Article 36, even
if habitual; at most, it can only be a ground for legal separation.
CIVIL LAW
Doctrine to remember
[1] As held by the Supreme Court, “there is no requirement that the respondent spouse be
personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a conditionsine qua non for the declaration of
nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. What matters is whether the totality of evidence
presented is adequate to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity” (Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No.
136490, October 19,2000). Page | 23
[2] Mere sexual infidelity is not itself a ground for dissolution of marriage under Article 36,
even if habitual; at most, it can only be a ground for legal separation.
2014 BAR Ariz and Paz were officemates at Perlas ng Siangan Bank (PSB). They fell in love
with each other and had a civil and church wedding. Meanwhile, Paz rapidly climbed the corporate
ladder of PSB and eventually became its Vice President, while Ariz remained one of its bank
supervisors, although he was short of twelve (12) units to finish his Masters of Business
Administration (MBA) degree.
Ariz became envious of the success of his wife. He started drinking alcohol until he became
a drunkard. He preferred to join his barkadas; became a wife-beater: would hurt his children without
any reason; and failed to contribute to the needs of the family. Despite rehabilitation and consultation
with a psychiatrist, his ways did not change.
After 19 years of marriage, Paz, a devout Catholic, decided to have their marriage annulled
by the church. Through the testimony of Paz and a psychiatrist, it was found that Ariz was a spoiled
brat in his youth and was sometimes involved in brawls. In his teens, he was once referred to a
psychiatrist for treatment due to his violent tendencies. In due time, the National Appellate
Matrimonial Tribunal (NAMT) annulled the union of Ariz and Paz due to the failure of Ariz to perform
and fulfill his duties as a husband and as a father to their children. The NAMT concluded that it is
for the best interest of Paz, Ariz and their children to have the marriage annulled.
In view of the NAMT decision, Paz decided to file a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage of their civil wedding before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City using the NAMT
decision and the same evidence adduced in the church annulment proceedings as basis.
If you are the judge, will you grant the petition? Explain.
No, I will not grant the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. In the annals of
decisions, the Supreme Court explained that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a)
gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The illness must be shown as downright
incapacity or inability to perform one’s marital obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect, difficulty, or
much less, ill will.
Here, the maladaptive behavior manifested only after Paz rapidly became one of the corporate
officers. This is not an illness but only a developed ill will and difficulty caused by jealousy. The
psychological incapacity to be a ground to declare a marriage null and void must be an illness not
merely an ill will or difficulty. Therefore, the petition must be denied.
The interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimoniai Tribunal (NAMT) should be
given great respect by our courts but they are not controlling or decisive. Its interpretation is not
CIVIL LAW
conclusive on the courts. The courts are still required to make their own determination as to the
merits of the case, and not rely solely on the finding of the NAMT.
If the ground is Art. 36, always use the doctrine ni Santos vs. Santos – pang deny ng
petition. Santos v. CA (G.R. No. 113054, March 16,1995, 240 SCRA 20, if you cant remember the GR,
date and SCRA, gawin mong ganito – para safe.
Page | 24
[1] In the annals of decision, the Supreme Court explained that psychological incapacity must
be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The illness must be
shown as downright incapacity or inability to perform one’s marital obligations, not a mere refusal,
neglect, difficulty, or much less, ill will.
DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER
[1] In Republic v. Molina (G.R. Ho. 108763, February 13, 1997), the Supreme Court ruled
that while the interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal (NAMT) of the
Catholic Church in the Philippines should be given great respect by our courts, they not controlling
or decisive. Its interpretation is not conclusive on the courts. The courts are still required to make
their own determination as to the merits of the case, and not rely solely on the finding of the NAMT.
2014 VI Miko and Dinah started to live together as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage in 1984. Ten (10) years after, they separated. In 1996, they decided to live together again,
and in 1998, they got married.
On February 17, 2001, Dinah filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of her marriage with
Miko on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The court
rendered the following decision:
1. Declaring the marriage null and void;

2. Dissolving the regime of absolute community of property; and
3. Declaring that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall only be issued after liquidation,
partition and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.”
Dinah filed a motion for partial reconsideration questioning the portion of the decision on the
issuance of a decree of nullity of marriage only after the liquidation, partition and distribution of
properties under Article 147 of the Code. If you are the judge, how will you decide petitioner’s motion
for partial reconsideration? Why?
I will grant the motion for partial reconsideration. In the annals of decision, the decree of
nullity of marriage be issued only after the liquidation, partition, and distribution of properties, does
not apply to declarations of nullity based on Art. 36 of the Family Code. The said rule only applies if
there was a second marriage which is void because of non-compliance with the requirements of Article
40 of the Family Code.
Here, the ground relied upon by the petitioner is psychological incapacity based on Art.36, and
the proper property regime is Art 147 which states that the spouses’ property relations is governed
by special co-ownership and not by CPG or ACP. And since there is no property regime to dissove,
the decree of absolute nullity of marriage should be issued without awating for distribution of
properties.
CIVIL LAW
DOCTRINE
[1] In the case of Difio v. Dino (GJR. No. 178044, January 19, 2011), the Court held that Sec.
19 (1) only applies to Family Code, Articles 50 and 51, which are, subsequently applicable only to
marriages which are declared void ab initio ot annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45
of the Family Code. Since there is no previous marriage in this case and the marriage was nullified
under Article 36 of the Family Code, Section 19 (1) of the said Rules does not apply Page | 25
[2] Section 19 (1) of the Rule ?11 Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Null Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages, which require that the decree of nullity of marriage be issued only
after the liquidation, partition and distribution of properties, does not apply to declarations of nullity
based on Art. 36 of the Family Code. The said rule only applies if there was a second marriage which
is void because of non-compliance with the requirements of Article 40 of the Family Code.
2013 BAR You are a Family Court judge and before you is a Petition for the Declaration of
Nullity of Marriage (under Article 36 of the Family Code) filed by Maria against Neil. Maria claims that
Neil is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage because Neil
is a drunkard, a womanizer, a gambler, and a Mama’s boy—traits that she never knew or saw when
Neil was courting her. Although summoned, Neil did not answer Maria’s petition and never appeared
in court.
To support her petition, Maria presented three witnesses —Dr. Elsie Chan, Ambrosia and
herself. Dr. Chan testified on the psychological report on Neil that she prepared. Since Neil never
acknowledged nor responded to her invitation for interviews, her report is solely based on her
interviews with 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 petition?
No, the petition should be denied. In the annals of decision, psychological incapacity under
Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability. And the totality of evidence presented must be sufficient to conclude that indeed the
party is suffering from psychological incapacity existing already before the marriage, incurable and
serious enough to prevent him/her from performing his essential marital obligations.
Here, the medical report contains mere conclusions. Being a drunkard, a womanizer, a
gambler and a Mama’s boy merely shows Neil’s failure to perform bis marital obligations. In a number
of cases, the Supreme Court did not find the existence of psychological incapacity in cases where the
respondents shoved habitual drunkenness, blatant display of infidelity and irresponsibility, or being
hooked to gambling and drugs. Hence, the petition should be denied for there is no totality of
evidence pointing that Neil suffers from psychological incapacity.
DOCTRINE
[1] The psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized
by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. It is not enough to prove that the parties
failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be
CIVIL LAW
shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (not physical) illness (Republicv. CA
and Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 1997)
[2] In a number of cases, the Supreme Court did not ftad the existence of psychological
incapacity in cases where the respondents shoved habitual drunkenness (Republic v. Melgar, G.R.
No. 139676, March 31,2006), blatant display of infidelity and irresponsibility (Dedelv. CA, January
29,2004), or being hooked to gambling and drugs (Republic v. Tantjag-San Jose, G.R. No. 168328, Page | 26
February 28,2007).
2012 BAR The petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based allegedly
on the psychological incapacity of the respondent, but the psychologist was not able to personally
examine the respondent and the psychological report was based only on the narration of petitioner.
Should the annulment be granted? Explain.
The annulment cannot be granted solely on the basis of the psychological report. For the
report to prove the psychological incapacity of the respondent, it is required that the psychologist
should personally examine the respondeat and the psychological report should be based on the
psychologist’s independent assessment of the facts as to whether or not the respondent is
psychologically incapacitated.
Since, the psychologist did not personally examine the respondent, and his report is based
solely on the story of petitioner who has an interest in the outcome of the petition, the marriage
cannot be annulled on the ground of respondent’s psychological incapacity if the said report is the
only evidence of respondent’s psychological incapacity. There must be a totality of evidence presented
that will collaborate the medical report.
2008 VI Gemma filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Arnel on
the ground of psychological incapacity. She alleged that after 2 months of their marriage, Arnell
showed signs of disinterest in her, neglected her and went abroad. He returned to the Philippines
after 3 years but did not even get in touch with her. Worse, they met several times in social functions
but he snubbed her. When she got sick, he did not visit her even if he knew of her confinement in the
hospital. Meanwhile, Arnell met an accident which disabled him from reporting for work and earning
a living to support himself. Will Gemma’s suit prosper? Explain.
No, the suit will not prosper. In the annals of decisions, the Supreme Court explained
that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability to perform one’s marital
obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect, difficulty, or much less, ill will.
Here, Arnel showed signs of disinterest in her and neglect. And when he returned from
abroad, he did not even get in touch with her but snubbed her in several occasions. He did not visit
her when she was sick. All these evidence do no suffice a totality of evidence to conclude that Arnell
suffers a psychological incapacity to perform the essentials of marital obligation. It must be shown
that those acts or that behavior was manifestation of a serious mental disorder and that it is the root
cause why he was not able to perform the essential duties of married life. These are mere refusal,
neglect, difficulty, or much less, ill will. Therefore, the petition must be denied.
2006 BAR Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage contracted by any party who,
at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
CIVIL LAW
obligations of marriage, shall void. Choose the spouse listed below who is psychologically
incapacitated. Explain.
a) Nagger
b) Gay or lesbian
c) Congenital sexual pervert
d) Gambler Page | 27
e) Alcoholic
[The gay or lesbian is psychologically incapacitated. Being gay or lesbian is a mental disorder which prevents
afflicted person from performing the essential duties of married life. He or she will not be able to perform his or
her duty of sexual consortium with his or her spouse due to his or her sexual preference for a person of the same
sex. However, the law requires that the disorder or state of being gay or lesbian incapacitating such person must
be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage.] - UPLC
NOTE: I DISSENT TOTALLY WITH THE ANSWER. It needs citation that being gay or lesbian is a
mental disorder. World Health Organization has recently declared that homosexuality is not anymore
a mental disorder.
Answer is C. Sexual perversion may be having sexual gratification with inanimate things or
animals which is a mental disorder.
1996 III On April 15, 1983. Jose, an engineer, and Marina, a nurse, were married to each other
in a civil ceremony in Boac, Marinduque. Six months after their marriage, Jose was employed in an
oil refinery in Saudi Arabia for a period of three years. When he returned to the Philippines. Marina
was no longer living in their house, but in Zamboanga City, working in a hospital. He asked her to
come home, but she refused to do so, unless he agreed not to work overseas anymore because she
cannot stand living alone. He could not agree as, in fact, he had signed another three year contract.
When he returned in 1989. He could not locate Marina anymore. In 1992, Jose filed an action served
by publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Marina did not file any answer. A possible
collusion between the parties was ruled Out by the Public Prosecutor. Trial was conducted, and
Marina neither appeared nor presented evidence in her favor.
If you were the judge, will you grant the annulment.
I will not grant the annulment. In the annals of decisions, the Supreme court ruled that
this particular ground for nullity of marriage was held to be limited only to the most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of utter sensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage. Here, Marina’s refusal to come home to her husband unless he agreed
not to work overseas, far from being indicative of an insensitivity to the meaning of marriage, or of a
personality disorder, actually shows a sensitive awareness on her part of the marital duty to live
together as husband and wife. Mere refusal to rejoin her husband when he did not accept the
condition imposed by her does not furnish any basis for concluding that she was suffering from
psychological incapacity to discharge the essential marital obligations. Therefore, the annulment
must fail.
1993 XIX 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 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 drunkenness. Hence, it was
CIVIL LAW
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.
1) 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. Page | 28
2) What must Maria do to enable her to get married lawfully to another man under Philippine
laws?
No, Maria cannot yet contract a subsequent marriage even after a successful church annulment.
Under Art. 40 of the Family Code, a party who wishes to re-marry must secure decree of annuling
his preceding marriage. Here, the decision of the church in annuling her marriage with Luis is not
what the law requires, but a civil annulment. Hence, she needs to file a petition of annulment on the
ground of psychological incapacity in a proper judicial court and a favorable judgment will enable her
to contract a subsequent marriage.
1993 II Give a brief definition or explanation of the term “psychological incapacity” as a ground
for the declaration of nullity of a marriage. 2%
“Psychological incapacity” is a mental disorder of the most serious type showing the
incapability of one or bothspouses to comply with the essential marital obligations of love, respect,
cohabitation, mutual help and support, trust and commitment ft must be characterized juridical
antecedence, gravity and incurability and Its root cause must be clinically identified or examined.
(Santos v. GA, 240 SCRA 20 [1995])
[B] If existing at the inception of marriage, would the state of being of unsound mind or the
concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism be considered
indicia of psychological incapacity? Explain.
In the case of Santos v. Court of Appeals, 240 SCBA 20 (1996), the Supreme Court held that
being of unsound mind, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuaSfty may be
indicia of psychological incapacity, depending on the degree of severity of the disorder. However, the
concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality is only a ground
for annulment marriage.
[C] If drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only
during the marriage, would these constitute grounds for a declaration of nullity or for legal separation
they render the marriage voidable?
In accordance with law, if drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality

should occur only during the marriage, they would not constitute as grounds for declaration of nullity
(Art 36, Family Code); but constitute as grounds for legal separation (Art FC); and would not constitute
as grounds to render the marriage voidable (Art. 45 and 46, FC).
ARTICLE 40
1991 V In June 1985, James married Mary. In September 1988, he also married Ophelia
with whom he begot two [2) children, A and B. In July 1989, Mary died. In July 1990, he married
CIVIL LAW
Shirley and abndoned Ophelia. During their union, James and Ophelia acquired a residential lot
worth P300.000.00.
Ophelia sues James for bigamy and prays that his marriage with Shirley be declared null and
void. James, on the other hand, claims that since his marriage to Ophelia was contracted during the
existence of his marriage with Mary. The former Is not binding upon him, the same being void ab
initio; he further claims that his marriage to Shirley is valid and binding as he was already legally Page | 29
capacitated at the time he married her.
[A] Is the contention of James correct?
No, James is not correct . Art 40 of the Family Code provides that 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. Here, James contracted a subsequent marriage with Shirley
without first securing a decree of nullity of his previous marriage with Ophelia. Therefore, James
may be held liable for Bigamy.
However, the first element in the prosecution of bigamy is that the accused is legally married
which is lacking in the case ar bar. Hence, the nullity of the first marraige may raise by way of defense
in action for bigamy.
VOIDABLE MARRIAGE
2018 [1] Sidley and Sol were married with one (1) daughter, Solenn. Sedfrey and Sonia were
another couple with one son, Sonny. Sol and Sedfrey both perished in the same plane accident. Sidley
and Sonia met when the family who those who died sued the airlines and went through grief-
counseling sessions. Years later, Sidley and Sonia got married. At that time, Solenn was 4 years old
and Sonny was 5 years old. These two were then brought up in the same household. Fifteen years
later, Solenn and Sonny developed romantic feelings towards each other, and eventually eloped.
On their own and against their parents’ wishes, they procured a marriage license and got
married in church.
[a] Is the marriage of Solenn and Sonny valid, voidable, or void? (2.5%)
[b] If the marriage is defective, can the marriage be ratified by free cohabitation of the parties?
The marriage is voidable. Under Art 45 of the Family Code, the consent of the parents or
guardian or person having parental authority over the party, who is 18 years of age or over but below
21 years old at the time of marriage, is required, and such marriage may be annulled by the party
himself/herself or by the person whose consent is required within the prescriptive period provided for
in Art. 47 of the same Code.
Here, Solenn and Sonny were only 19 and 20 years old, respectively, when they got married
without the consent of their respective parents. Hence, the marriage is voidable and annullable within
the presciptive period provided for in the Family Code.
[b] If the marriage is defective, can the marriage be ratified by free cohabitation of the parties?
CIVIL LAW
Yes, the marriage may be ratified. Under Art 45 paragraph 1 of the Family Code, an
annullable marriage may be ratified by the parties themselves by freely cohabiting as husband and
wife after such party or parties, whose age is insufficient, attained the age of 21.
Here, Solenn and Sonny where 18 and 19 years old, respectively, when they got married.
Hence, when Solenn attains the age of 21, and they are still cohabitting as husband and wife, the
Page | 30
deffective marriage is ratified.
2017 BAR State whether the following marital unions are valid, void, or voidable, and give the
corresponding justifications for your answer:
(a) Ador and Becky’s marriage wherein Ador was afflicted with AIDS prior to the marriage.
(b) Carlos marriage to Dina which took place after Dina had poisoned her previous husband Edu
in order to free herself from any order to live with Carlos.
(c) Eli and Fely’s marriage solemnized seven years after the disappearance of Chona, Eli’s
previous spouse, after the plane she had boarded crashed in the West Philippine Sea.
(d) David who married Lina immediately the day after obtaining a judicial decree annulling his
prior marriage to Elisa
(e) Marriage of Zoren and Carmina who did not secure a marriage license prior to their wedding,
but lived together as husband and wife for 10 years without any legal impediment to many.
[a] The marriage is voidable, because Ador was afflicted with a serious and incurable sexually-
transmitted disease at the time of marriage. For a marriage to be annulled under Article 45(6),
the sexualfy-transmissible disease must be:
1) existing at the time of marriage;
2) found to be serious and incurable; and
3) unknown to the other party.
Since Ador was afflicted with AIDS, which is a serious and incurable disease, and the condition
existed at the time of marriage, the marriage is voidable, provided that such illness was not
known to Becky.
[b] The marriage of Carlos to Dina is void for reasons of public policy. Article 38(9) of the Family
Code provides that marriage between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other,
killed that other person’s spouse or his or her own spouse is void from the beginning for
reasons of public policy.
[c] The marriage is void because there is nothing in the facts that suggest that Eli instituted a
summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death of her previous spouse and this
cannot be presumed. Thus, the exception under Article 35(4) is inapplicable and the
subsequent marriage is void.
CIVIL LAW
[d] The marriage is void if there were failure to comply with Article 53.
[e] If Zoren and Carmina’s marriage is valid. An exception to the rule that a marriage shall be
void if solemnized without license under Article 35(3) is that provided for under Article 34 of
the Family Code, When a man and woman have lived together as husband and wife for at
least 5 years and without any legal impediment to marry each other, they may celebrate the
Page | 31
marriage without securing a marriage license.
2006 IV Gigi and Ric, Catholics, got married when they were 18 years old. Their marriage was
solemnized on August 2, 1989 by RIc’s uncle, a Baptist Minister, in Calamba, Laguna. He
overlooked the fact that his license to solemnize marriage expired the month before and that the
parties do not belong to his congregation. After 5 years of married life and blessed with 2 children,
the spouses developed irreconcilably differences, so they parted ways.
While separated, Ric fell in love with Juliet, a l6 year-old sophomore in a local college and a
Seventh-Day Adventst. 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.
[A] If you were the counsel for Gigi, what action/s will take to enforce and protect her
interests? Explain.
I will file an action for bigamy against Ric and Juliet, administration of the properties, judicial
separation of properties to recover the properties in the cohabition of Ric and Juliet, forfeiture of Ric’s
share in the net profits, custody of children and support, and damages.
[As counsel for Gigi, I will file an action for the declaration of nullity of Gigi’s marriage to Ric on the
ground of absence of authority of the Baptist Minister to solemnize the marriage between Ric and Gigi who were
both non-members of the Baptist Church.
As counsel for Gigi, and on the basis of the legal presumption that her marriage to Ric is valid, I will file
the followingactions:
(1) Legal separation on the grounds of subsequent bigamous marriage and sexual infidelity.
(2) Receivership of the conjugal or community property,
(3) Judicial separation of property,
(4) Petition for sole administration of the conjugal or community property.
(5) Action for damages for abuse of right, and,
(6) Action to declare the marriage of Ric and Juliet as null and void and to recover her share
in her community of property with Ric, consisting of the portion shared by Ric in
whatever property was commonly or jointly acquired by Ric and Juliet] – uplc
This is worth reading.
[B] 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.
Juliet may file an action for seduction and bigamy, an action to declare her marriage to Ric
null and void on the ground that she was not of marrying age., a criminal case for falsification, peijury,
or illegal marriage as the case may be, and damages.
CIVIL LAW
[C] What is the status of the marriage between Ric and Juliet – valid, voidable or void? Explain.
The marriage between Ric and Juliet is void because Juliet was below 18 years of age. Under
the Family Code – the requisite age for legal capacity to contract marriage is 18 years old and a
marriage by a party who is below 18 years old is void under all circumstances. Hence, even though
Juliet’s parents have given their consent to the marriage and even though Ric believed in good faith
Page | 32
tbait she was 18 years old, the marriage is void.
2003 VI Which of the following remedies, i.e., (a) declaration of nullity of marriage, (b)
annulment of marriage, (c) legal separation, and/ or (d) separation of property, can an aggrieved
spouse avail himself/herself of
1. If the wife discovers after the marriage that her husband has “AIDS”
2. If the wife goes (to) abroad to work as a nurse and refuses/ to come home after the
expiration of her three-year contract there.
3. If the husband discovers after the marriage that his has been a prostitute before they got
married.
4. If the husband has a serious affair with his secretary and refuses to stop notwithstanding
advice from relatives a.nd friends.
5. If the husband beats up his wife every time he comes home drunk.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Since AIDS is a serious and incurable sexually transmissible disease, the wife may file an
action for annulment of the marriage on this ground whether such fact was concealed or not
from the wife, provided that the diseases was present at the time of the marriage. The
marriage is voidable even though the husband was not aware that he had the disease at the
time of marriage.
2. If the wife refuses to come home for three (3) months from the expiration of her contract, she
is presumed to have abandoned the husband and he may file an action forjudicial separation
of property. If the refusal continues for more –than one year from the expiration of her
contract, the husband may file the action for legal separation under Art. 55 (10) of the Family
Code on the ground of abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause far
more than one year. The wife is deemed to have abandoned the husband when she leaves the
conjugal dwelling without any intention of returning (Article 101, FC). The intention not to
return cannot be presumed during the 3-year period other contract.
3. If the husband discovers after the marriage that his wife was a prostitute before they got
married, he has no remedy. No misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank,
fortune or chastity shall constitute fraud as legal ground for an action for the annulment of
marriage (Article 46 FC).
4. The wife may file an action for legal separation, The husband’s sexual infidelity is a ground
for legal separation (Article 55, FC). She may also file an action for judicial separation of
property for failure of her husband to comply with his marital duty of fidelity (Article 135(4),
101, ?C)-
5. (v) The wife may file an action for legal separation on the ground of repeated physical violence
on her person (Article 55(1), FC). She may also file an action for judicial separation of property
for failure of the husband to comply with his marital duty of mutual respect (Article 135(4),
Article 101, FC). She may also file an action for declaration of nullity of the marriage if the
CIVIL LAW
husband’s behavior constitutes psychological incapacity existing at the time of the

celebration of marriage.
1999 III A marriage between two 19-year olds without parental consent.
The marriage is voidable. The consent of the parties to the marriage was defective. Being
below 21 years old, the consent of the parties is not full without the consent of their parents. Page | 33
1997 V Under what conditions, respectively, may drug addiction be a ground, if at all, (a) for a
declaration of nullity of marriage, (b) for an annulment of the marriage contract., and (c) for legal
separation between the spouses?
(a) Declaration of nullity of marriage:
1. The drug addiction must amount to psychological incapacity to comply with the essential
obligations of marriage;
2. It must be antecedent (existing at the time of marriage), grave and incurable;
3. The case must be filed before August 1, 1998. Because if they got married before August
3, 1998. It must be filed before August 1, 1998.
(b) Annulment of the Marriage Contract:
The drug addiction must be concealed:
1. It must exist at the time of marriage;

2. There should be no cohabitation with full knowledge of the drug addiction;
3. The case is filed within five (5) years from discovery.
(c) Legal Separation:
1. There should be no condonation or consent to the drug addiction;

2. The action must be filed within five (5) years from the occurrence of the cause.
3, Drug addiction arises during the marriage and not at the time of marriage.
1995 XIV 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 be 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 their marriage since he knew
even before their marriage that she was afflicted with HIV virus.
Can the action of Joseph for annulment of his marriage with Yvette prosper? Discuss.
Yes, the action shall prrosper. Under Art 45 of the Family Code, the existence of sexually
transmissible disease is serious and appears to be incurable is a ground for annulment. And the
action to file has not yet prescribed. Therefore, Joseph may successfuly have a favorable judgment
of annulment.
CIVIL LAW
1991 IV 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 1988. Bethel discovered
that 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 Page | 34
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.
a. Decide.
b. 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?
A. The marriage can be annulled, because good faith is not a defense when the ground is based
upon sexuallytransmissible disease on the part of either party
B. Yes, the marriage can still be annulled because the fact that both of them are afflicted with
sexually-transmisslble diseases does not efface or nullity the ground. - uplc
[a] The annulment should not be granted. There was no showing that the sexually transmitted
disease is found to be serious and appears to be incurable. Here, it does not satisfy that criteria to
consider such disease as a valid ground for annulment. Also, there was no fraud commited by James
for he was not aware of his affliction.Therefore, the petition must fail.
The fact that she has not contracted the disease in two years of their cohabitation negates the
idea that it was a serious and contagious one.
[b] No. Their consent were freely given and they were aware of each other’s medical condition.
They are estopped to annul the marriage, and it has been the principle of our civil law that when in
doubt, the law should uphold the validity of marriage.
1990 XX The marriage of H and W was annulled by the competent court. Upon finality of the
judgment of nullity. H began looking for his prospective second mate. He fell in love with a sexy
woman S who wanted to be married as soon as possible, i.e., after a few months of courtship. As a
young lawyer, you were consulted by H.
[A] How soon can H be joined In lawful wedlock to his girlfriend? Under existing laws, are
there certain requisites that must be complied with before he can remarry? What would you give H?
H can marry again after complying with the provisions of Article 52 of the Family Code. There
must be a partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, and the delivery of the children’s
presumptive legitimes, which should be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registries of
property. However, if the ground for annulment is psychological incapacity under art 36 of the FC,
there is no need to comply with Art 52. He can marry right away after the finality of judgment.
[B] Suppose that children were born from the union of H and W, what would be the status of
said children? Explain
CIVIL LAW
If the ground for the annulment of their marraige is Art 36 or Art 53, the children are
legitimate, as well as under Art 45 and 42. But it the gound is Art 40, 44, 35 37 and 38, the children
are illegitimate.
CPG VS ACP
Page | 35
2019 A.6. Name at least two (2) exclusions from the following property regimes as
enumerated under the Family Code:
(a) Absolute community of property (2%)
Article 201. The following shall be excluded from the community:
(1) Property acquired by gratuitous title by either spouse, when it is provided by the donor or testator
that it shall not become a part of the community;
(2) Property inherited by either husband or wife through the death of a child by a former marriage, there
being brothers or sisters of the full blood of the deceased child;
(3) A portion of the property of either spouse equivalent to the presumptive legitime of the children by a
former marriage;
(4) Personal belongings of either spouse.
A. Property for personal or exclusive use of either spouse; Property acquired during marriage
by gratuitous title by either spouse and the fruits as well as income thereof; 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.
(b) Conjugal partnership of gains (2%)
Article 156. Whenever an amount or credit payable in a certain number of years belongs to one
of the spouses, the sums which may be collected by installments due during the marriage shall not
pertain to the conjugal partnership, but shall be considered capital of the husband or of the wife, as the
credit may belong to one or the other spouse.
Article 157. The right to an annuity, whether perpetual or of life, and the right of usufruct,
belonging to one of the spouses shall form a part of his or her separate property, but the fruits, pensions
and interests due during the marriage shall belong to the partnership.
The usufruct which the spouses have over the property of their children, though of another
marriage, shall be included in this provision.
B. That which is brought to the marriage as his/her own; That which is purchased with
exclusive money of either spouse; That which is acquired by redemption, barter or exchange with
property belonging to only one of the spouse; That which each acquired during marriage by gratuitous
title.
2013 Rica petitioned for the annulment of her ten-year old marriage to Richard. Richard
hired Atty. Cruz to represent him in the proceedings. In payment for Atty. Cruz’s acceptance and legal
fees, Richard conveyed to Atty. Cruz a parcel of land in Taguig that he recently purchased with his
CIVIL LAW
lotto winnings. The transfer documents were duly signed and Atty Cruz immediately took possession
by fencing off the property’s entire perimeter.
Desperately needing money to pay for his mounting legal fees and his other needs and despite
the transfer to Atty. Cruz, Richard offered the same parcel of land for sale to the spouses Garcia. After
inspection of the land, the spouses considered it a good investment and purchased it from Richard.
Immediately after the sale, the spouses Garcia commenced the construction of a three-story building Page | 36
over the land, but they were prevented from doing this by Atty. Cruz who claimed he has a better
right in light of the prior conveyance in his favor.
Is Atty. Cruz’s claim correct?
(No, Atty. Cruz is not correct At first glance, it may appear that Atty, Cruz is the one who has a better right because
he first took possession of the property. However, a lawyer is prohibited under Article 1491 of the Civil Code from
acquiring the property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue
of their profession. While the suit is for annulment of marriage and it may be argued that the land itself is not the
object of the litigation, the annulment of marriage, if granted, will carry with it the liquidation of the absolute
community or conjugal partnership of the spouses as the case maybe (Art. 50 in relation to Art. 43 of the Family
Code). Richard purchased the land with his lotto winnings during the pendency of the suit for annulment and on
the assumption that the parties are governed by the regime of absolute community or conjugal partnership,
winnings during the pendency of the suit for annulment and on the assumption that the parties are governed by
the regime of absolute community or conjugal partnership, winnings from gambling or betting will form part
thereof. Also, since the land is part of the absolute community or conjugal partnership of Richard and Rica, it may
not be sold or alienated without the consent of the latter and any disposition or encumbrance of the property of
the community or conjugal property without the consent of the other spouse is void (Art. 96 and Art. 124, family
Code). UPLC – TOO LONG BUT GOOD FOR READING
No. He is not correct. Under Art 96 or Art 124 of the Family Code, neither of the spouses
may alienate any of the property beloning to the conjugal/community properties without the consent
of the other spouse. Otherwise the alienation is void.
Here, Richard alieanated the parcel of land to Atty. Cruz without the consent of Rica, his
wife. Therefore, the sale is void and Atty Cruz had no right at all over the property neither spouses
Garcia who also bought the property without Rica’s consent.
In addition, a lawyer is prohibited under Article 1491 of the Civil Code from acquiring the
property and rights which may be the object of any litigation in which they may take part by virtue of
their profession.
2012 Maria, wife of Pedro, withdrew P5 Million from their conjugal funds. With this money,
she constructed a building on a lot which she inherited from her father. Is the building conjugal or
paraphernal? Reasons.
The building may be paraphernal or conjugal. Under Art 120 of the Family Code if the
cost of improvement and and the resulting increase in value are more than the value of the property,
the property remains as separate property of the spouse-owner. Otherwise, the building is conjugal.
Here, the value of the building is P5M. If the value of the land is less than P5M, the building
is paraphernal, otherwise it is conjugal. In both cases, there shall be reimbursement of the cost of
improvement to the spouse-owner.
CIVIL LAW
WHAT IS REVERSE ACCESSION
Where the building is considered as the principal and the land, the accessory. If, on the other
hand, the value of the land is more than the value of the building, then the ordinary rule of accession
applies where the land is the principal and the building, the accessory, In such case, the land remains
paraphernal property and the building becomes paraphernal property. The rule on reverse accession
is applicable only to the regime of Conjugal Partnership of Gains in both the Family Code and the Page | 37
New Civil Code. The foregoing answer assumes that CPG is the regime of property relations of the
spouses.
2008 Adam, a building contractor, was engaged by Bias to construct a house on a lot which
he (Bias) owns. While digging on the lot in order to lay down the foundation of the house, Adam hit a
very hard object. It turned out to be the vault of the old Banco de las Islas Filipinos. Using a detonation
device, Adam was able to open the vault containing old notes and coins which were in circulation
during the Spanish era. While the notes and coins are no longer legal tender, they were valued at P
100 million because of their historical value and the coins’ silver and nickel content. The following
filed legal claims over the notes and coins.
Assuming that either or both Adam and Bias are adjudged as owners, will the notes and coins
be deemed part of their absolute community or conjugal partnership of gains with their respective
spouses?
Yes. Under the Family Code on property regime, properties acquired during the existence
of marriage shall form part of the community or conjugal poperties. Here, the vault of notes and coins
was acquired by chance during the existence of Adam and Bias’ respective marriages. Therefore, the
notes and coins shall form part of their respective property regime.
2005 Gabby and Mila got married at Lourdes Church in Quezon City on July 10,1990. Prior
thereto, they executed a marriage settlement whereby they agreed on the regime of conjugal
partnership of gains. The marriage settlement was registered in the Register of Deeds of Manila, where
Mila is a resident. In 1992, they jointly acquired a residential house and lot. As well as a condominium
unit in Makati. In 1995, they decided to change their property relations to the regime of complete
separation of property. Mila consented, as she was then engaged in a lucrative business. The spouses
then signed a private document dissolving their conjugal partnership and agreeing on a complete
separation of property.
Thereafter, Gabby acquired a mansion in Baguio City and a 5-hectare agricultural land in
Oriental Mindoro, which he registered exclusively In his name.
In the year 2000, Mila’s business venture failed, and her creditors sued her for
P10,000,000.00. After obtaining a favorable judgment, the creditors sought to execute on the spouses’
house and lot and condominium unit, as well as Gabby’s mansion and agricultural land.
Discuss the effect/s of the said settlements on the properties acquired by the spouses.
All properties acquired by the spouses are part of the conjugal partnership of gains.
Under the Family Code, all properties acquired by the spouses during the marriage, jointly or by
either one of them, through their work or industry are conjugal.
CIVIL LAW
Here, the residential house and lot, condominium unit, mansion and the agricultural land
have been acquired by the spouses, jointly or by either one of them, through their work or industry
during the marriage. Therefore, they are part of the conjugal property regime’
What properties may be held answerable for Mila’s obligations?
All properties of the conjugal property regime may be answerable for Mila’s obligation.
Page | 38
The Family Code requires registration of the marriage settlement not only with the proper registers
of deeds but also with the local civil registrar where the marriage was recorded to bind third persons
or in this case the creditors.
Here, there were no sufficient registration of the marriage settlement. It was only registered
in Register of Deeds in Manila, and there were no showing that the obligations incurred by Mila
redounded to the benefit of the family. Therefore, the creditors shall not be prejudiced by the
provisions of the conjugal partnership. All properties shall be treated as absolute community insofar
as the creditors are concerned subject to reimbursement at the proper dissolution of the conjugal
property regime.
REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT
To bind third parties, the Family Code requires registration of the marriage settlement not
only witht the proper registers of deeds but also with the local civil registrar where the marriage was
recorded. Hence, if the rules on conjugal partnership will prejudice the creditors, the rules on absolute
community will be applied instead. However, insofar as debts contracted by one spouse without the
consent of the other are concerned, the rule is the same for both conjugal partnership and absolute
community. The partnership or community is liable for debts contracted by one spouse but only to
the extent that it benefited the family.
2004 Mr. ZY lost P100,000 in a card game called Russian poker, but he had no more cash
to pay in full the winner at the time session ended. He promised to pay PX, the winner, two weeks
thereafter. But he failed to do so despite the lapse of two months, so PX filed in court a suit to collect
the amount of P50,000 that he won but remained unpaid.
Will the collection suit against ZY prosper? Could Mrs. ZY file in turn a suit against PX to
recover the P100,000 that her husband lost? Reason.
Yes, the suit will prosper. Under the Family Code, a spouse may have separate properties
like those from previous marriage marriages or donations he accepted as donee acquired during the
existence of marriage.
Here, ZY inccured an obligation of P50,000 payable to PX. Therefore, PX may institute a

cause of action to collect from the separate property of ZY. If there is none, ZY cannot collect from the
absolute community.
Whether the P100,000 paid by ZY as his losses to gambling come from the community or
separate property, his wife may also sue to recover it for such losses cannot be chared to community
property, and in the case where it come from the separate property, his wfe may still recover under
Article 2016 of the Civil Code if she and the family needed the money for support.
MONEY LOSS FROM GAMBLING
CIVIL LAW
Family Code provides that losses in gambling or betting are bone exclusively by the loser-
spouse. Hence, conjugal or community funds may not be used to pay for such losses. If the money
were exclusive property the other spouse may also sue to recover it under Article 2016 of the civil
code if she and the family needed the money for support.
ANOTHER ANSWER. Ito ang mas tamang answer.

Page | 39
PX action must fail. Under Article 2014 of the Civil Code, no action can be maintained by the
winner for the collection of what he has won in a game of chance. Here, PX filed a collection suit
under a promise to pay due to lost in a gambling spree. Hence, the action must fail by direct provision
of the law.
In case where ZY voluntarily paid PX, Mrs. ZY may validly file an action to recover what has
been paid under Article 2016 of the NCC.
2002 Way back in 1948, Winda’s husband sold in favor of Verde Sports Center Corp. (Verde)
a 10-hectare property belonging to their conjugal partnership. The sale was made without Winda’s
knowledge, much less consent. In 1950, Winda learned of the sale, when she discovered the deed of
sale among the documents in her husband’s vault after his demise. Soon after, she noticed that the
construction of the sports complex had started. Upon completion of the construction in 1952, she
tried but failed to get free membership privileges in Verde.
Winda now files a suit against Verde for the annulment of the sale on the ground that she
did not consent to the sale. In answer, Verde contends that, in accordance with the Spanish Civil
Code which was then in force, the sale in 1948 of the property did not need her concurrence. Verde
contends that in any case the action has prescribed or is barred by laches, Winda rejoins that her
Torrens title covering the property is indefeasible, and imprescriptible.
Decide the case, stating your reasons for your decision.
(While Article 1413 of the Spanish Civil Coda does not require the consent of the wife for the validity of the sale,
an alienation by the husband in fraud of the wife is void as held in Uy Coquo v. Llavas, 45 Phil. 430 (1923).
Assuming that the alienation in 1948 was in fraud of Winda and, therefore, makes the sale to Verde void the
action to set aside the sale, nonetheless, is already barred by prescription and laches. More than 52 years have
already elapsed from her discovery of the sale in 1950) - UPLC
I submit that the answer should be Art 256 on vested rights’ impairment.
I will decide in favor of Verde. Under the Family Code, vested or acquired rights cannot be
perjudiced or impaired by the retroactivity character of the Family Code.
Here, the sale happened in 1948 and discovered in 1950, and Winda wanted now to declare
the sale void because for lack of spousal consent. Since the discovery of the sale happened 52 years
ago, prescription and laches have already set in and the rights over the property have already acquired
by Verde. Therefore, the sale cannot be set aside for the acquired rights of Verde over the period of
time could be prejudiced or impaired.
2000 As finance officer of K and Co., Victorino arranged a loan of P5 Million from PNB for the
corporation. However, he was required by the bank to sign a Continuing Surely Agreement to secure
the repayment of the loan. The corporation failed to pay the loan, and the bank obtained a judgment
CIVIL LAW
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?
No, the levy is not proper. Under the Family Code, obligations contracted by a spouse with
the consent of the other may not be charged against the conjugal property unless it had redounded
to the benefit of the family.
Page | 40
Here, the corporation has a separate personality from its officers and the loan contracted by
the corporation is obviously did not redound to the family of Victorino. Therefore, the levy is improper
for it will make the loan chargeable to the conjugal property.
LOAN CONTRACTED FOR FAMILY BUSINESS
When the obligation was contracted on behalf of the family business the law presumes that
such obligation will redound to the benefit of the family.
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. Was the sale void or voidable?
The sale is void. Unde the Article 124 of the Family Code, the sale of a conjugal property
by a spouse without the consent of the other is void. Here, the sale was executed in 1990 during the
existence of the Family Code. Therefore, the sale is void for lack of spousal consent.
1998 In 1970, Bob and Issa got married without executing a marriage settlement. In 1975,
Bob inherited from his father a residential lot upon which, in 1981, he constructed a two room
bungalow with savings from his own earnings. At that time, the lot was worth P800,000.00 while the
house, when finished cost P600,000.00. In 1989, Bob died, survived only by his wife, Issa and his
mother, Sofia. Assuming that the relative values of both assets remained at the same proportion.
State whether Sofia can rightfully claim that the house and lot are not conjugal but exclusive
property of her deceased son.
[[1} Since Bob and Sofia got married in 1970, then the law that governs is the New Civil Code (Persons),
in which case, the property relations that should be applied as regards the property of the spouses is the system
of relative community or conjugal partnership of gains (Article 119, Civil Code]. By conjugal partnership, the
husband and the wife place in a common fund the fruits of their separate property and the income from their work
or industry (Article 142, Civil Code). In this instance, the lot inherited by Bob in 1975 is his own separate property,
he having acquired the same by lucrative title (par. 2, Art. 148, Civil Code). However, the house constructed from
his own savings in 1981 during the subsistence of his marriage with Issa is conjugal property and not exclusive
property in accordance with the principle of “reverse accession” provided for in Art. 158. Civil Code. ] - UPLC
(I dissent. Since he died in 1989 and there were no vested rights to be impaired, Art 120 of
the FC applies where reverse accession of the property may be the rule. Sofia may claim the property
subject to reimbursement of the value of the house construction]
Yes. Sofia can rightfully claim that the house and lot were not conjugal but exclusive property
of her deceased son. Under the FC, when there is not vested or acquired rights would be impaired,
the Family Code may be applied. Also under the same Code, when the cost of improvement is less
than the value of the property where it was built on, the property and the improvement shall belong
to the exclusive property of the spouse-owner.
CIVIL LAW
Here, the value of the bungalow which came from the conjugal fund is only 600thou which
is P200,000 short of the value of the lot, Bob’s exclusive property, and there were no vested right if
the FC is to be applied. Therefore, the house and lot shall be form part of the exclusive property of
Bob’s estate subject to reimbursemtent the share of Issa in the conjugal fund.
1997 Luis and Rizza, both 26 years of age and single, live exclusively with each other as
Page | 41
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. Luis is gainfully employed. Rlzza is not employed,
stays at home, and takes 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 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 tine period of cohabitation from their separate property. A car worth P1M 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 cohabltatation, 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?
The P200,000 bank deposit is co-owned by the parties in equal share, the car is solely
owned by Rizza and the house and lot is owned by the parties based on the percentage
contribution in acquisition cost. Under the Art. 147 of the Family Code, parties without
impediment to marry live exclusively 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.
Here, the deposits of P200thou is out of the salary of Luis, the car is donated exclusively for
Rizza and the house and lot was obtained through percentage contribution of P200thou from Luis
harvest of palay from his exclusive property and P300,000 from rent of an apartment of Rizza’s
exclusive property. Therefore, the deposit is co-owned by the parties in equal share, the car is
solely owned by Rizza and 3/5 of the value of the house is owned by Rizza while 2/5 belongs to
Luis.
Fruits or rents from the exclusive property are not covered by special c-ownership.
What would your answer be (to the above question) had Luis and Rlzza been living together
all the time since years ago, under a valid marriage?
The property relations between Luis and Rizza, their marriage having been celebrated 20 years ago (under
the Code) shall be governed by the conjugal partnership of gains, under which the husband and wife place in a
common fund the proceeds, products, fruits and income from their separate properties and those acquired by
either or both spouses through their efforts or by chance, and upon dissolution of the marriage or of the
partnership, the net gains or benefits obtained £>y either or both spouse shall be divided equally between them
(Art. 142. Civil Code). Thus:
CIVIL LAW
The salary of Luis deposited in the bank in the amount of P200.000.00 and the house and lot valued at
P500.000.00 shall be divided equally between Luis and Rizza. However, the car worth P100,000.00 donated to
Rizza by her parents shall be considered to her own paraphernal property, having been acquired by lucrative title
(par. 2, Art. 148, Civil Code). UPLC
I dissent. The Family Code may be applied since no vested right will be impaired. Since Art
106 of the Family Code and Art 142 of the Civil Code are the same, we will come up with the same Page | 42
answer.
The salary of Luis deposited in the bank in the amount of P200.000.00 and the house and
lot valued at P500.000.00 shall be divided equally between Luis and Rizza. However, the car worth
P100,000.00 donated to Rizza by her parents shall be considered to her own paraphernal property,
having been acquired by lucrative title.
1995 Tim came into possession of an old map showing where a purported cache of gold
bullion was hidden. Without any authority from the government, Tim conducted a relentless search
and finally found the treasure buried in a new river bed formerly part of a parcel of land owned by
spouses Tirso and Tessie. The old river which used to cut through the land of spouses Ursula and
Urbito changed its course through natural causes.
Suppose Tirso and Tessie were married on 2 August 1988 without executing any ante-nuptial
agreement. One year after their marriage, Tirso while supervising the clearing of Tessle’s inherited
land upon the latter’s request, accidentally found the treasure not in the new river bed but on the
property of Tessie. To whom shall the treasure belong? Explain.
The treassure shall belong to the conjugal property funds. Under the Family Code, where
no vested or acquired rights can be impaired or injured, such Code shall have reroactive effect. And
under the same code on conjugal property of regime, properties acquired by chance shall form part
of the conjugal property.
Here, the treasure was found by Tirso by chance during the existence of marriage, and
there is no vested rights on the part of Tessie that may be impaired. Therefore, the treasure shall
belong to the spouses as their conjugal property.
TREASURE FOUND IN CIVIL CODE
Under Art. 54 of the Civil Code, the share of the hidden treasure which the law awards to
the finder or the proprietor belongs to the conjugal partnership of gains.
OWNERSHIP, ADMINISTRATION, ENJOYMENT AND DISPOSITION
2017 Danny and EIsa were married in 2002. In 2012, Elsa left the conjugal home and her
two minor children with Danny to live with her paramour. In 2015, Danny sold without Elsa’s consent
a parcel of land that he had purchased prior to the marriage, Danny used the proceeds of the sale to
pay for his children’s tuition fees. Is the sale valid, void or voidable? Explain your answer.
The sale is void. Under the Art 96 of the Family Code, the sale of any property belonging
to the community property without marital consent or authority from the court is void.
CIVIL LAW
Here, Danny sold a parcel of land belonging to the community property. Therefore, the sale
is void for lack of marital cosent.
Under the Absolute Community of Property regime, the parcel of land belongs to the
community property as the property he had brought into the marriage even if said property were
registered in the name of one spouse (Article 91, FC). In addition, said property do not fall under any
Page | 43
of the exceptions under Article 92, Therefore, the sale of the property is void, because it was executed
without the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse (Article 96, 100, FC)
2015 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.
The sale is void. Under the Family Code, marriage celebrated during its effectivity, and in
the absence of a marriage settlement, the property relations between the spouses is governed by
absolute community of property, whereby all the properties owned by the spouses at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, as well as whatever they may acquire during the marriage, shall form
part of the community property, as a rule. And neither spouse may dispose or encumber common
properties without the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse, and in the
absence of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void.
Here, the parcel of land sold is part of the community property as Marco owned it before the
marriage. In an absolute community of property regime, the administration and enjoyment shall
belong to both spouses jointly. Despite separation de facto for more than 10 years, Gina remains
Marco’s spouse, and her consent is still required for the sale to be valid. Therefore, the sale of the
lot without Gina’s consent is void.
2009 Harry married Wilma, a very wealthy woman. Barely five (5) years into the marriage,
Wilma fell in love with Joseph. Thus, Wilma went to a small country in Europe, became a naturalized
citizen of that country, divorced Harry, and married Joseph. A year thereafter, Wilma and Joseph
returned and established permanent residence in the Philippines.
If Harry hires you as his lawyer, what legal recourse would you advise him to take? Why?
I will advice Harry to:
Dissolve and liquidate his property relations with Wilma; and if he will remarry, file a petition
for the recognition and enforcement of the foreign judgment of divorce (Rule 39, Rules of Court).
2007 Write “TRUE” if the statement is true or “FALSE” if the statement is false. If the
statement is FALSE, state the reason.
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.
PAGE UP TO 447. BUY HARD COPY

Civil Law Bqa 1975-2019

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Civil Law Bqa 1975-2019

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FROM Nth Time BAR CHALLENGER TO ATTORNEY

ARRANGED AND SEQUENCED

BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 1975-2019

DOCTRINE IN CIVIL LAW

OTHER CIVIL LAW CONCEPT

MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP Page | 3

LAND TITLES AND DEEDS...199

BOOK 4: OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

BOOK 5: SPECIAL CONTRACTS...

Decide the case and explain. (2.5%)

There was no marriage at all is a better answer

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

Can Jon and Jane legally marry?

In 1990, the Local Goverment Code, empowered mayors to solemnize marriages.

[Alternative Answer: A Philippine consul is authorized by law to solemnize marriages abroad

1) Is their marriage valid, void or voidable? Explain.

UNDER THE CIVIL CODE

PROPERTY REGIMES OF UNION WITHOUT MARRIAGE

(a) How should the properties be partitioned? (2.5%)

(b) Should Semuel be required to support the minor children? (2.5%)

[a] Will Dorothy’s suit prosper? Decide with reasons.

So, here is the answer.

Sa Bar Exam, ganito ang peg ng answer mo.

[2] an apartment unit donated to B by an uncle on June 19,1987.

[A] Who owns the foregoing properties? Explain.

So here is a concise and direct answer.

2009 XIB2B If there is no marriage settlement, the salary of a “spouse” in an adulterous

[A] Who will be entitled to the house and lot ?

What property regime governed the union of James and Ophelia?

1. Declaring the marriage null and void;

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

If you were the judge, will you grant the annulment.

In accordance with law, if drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality

[A] Is the contention of James correct?

1) existing at the time of marriage;

2) found to be serious and incurable; and

3) unknown to the other party.

This is worth reading.

husband’s behavior constitutes psychological incapacity existing at the time of the

(a) Declaration of nullity of marriage:

(b) Annulment of the Marriage Contract:

The drug addiction must be concealed:

1. It must exist at the time of marriage;

(c) Legal Separation:

(a) Absolute community of property (2%)

Article 201. The following shall be excluded from the community:

(b) Conjugal partnership of gains (2%)

Is Atty. Cruz’s claim correct?

WHAT IS REVERSE ACCESSION

What properties may be held answerable for Mila’s obligations?

REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT

Here, ZY inccured an obligation of P50,000 payable to PX. Therefore, PX may institute a

MONEY LOSS FROM GAMBLING

ANOTHER ANSWER. Ito ang mas tamang answer.

Decide the case, stating your reasons for your decision.

LOAN CONTRACTED FOR FAMILY BUSINESS

TREASURE FOUND IN CIVIL CODE

OWNERSHIP, ADMINISTRATION, ENJOYMENT AND DISPOSITION

I will advice Harry to:

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen