QUESTION NO.

1
When A and B married, they chose conjugal
partnership of gains to govern their property
relations. After three years, B succeeded in
getting her marriage to A declared null and
void on the ground of latter’s psychological
incapacity. What liquidation procedure will
they follow in disposing their assets. Explain
fully.
• When A and B married, they chose
conjugal partnership of gains to govern their
property relations. After three years, B
succeeded in getting her marriage to A
declared null and void on the ground of
latter’s psychological incapacity. What
liquidation procedure will they follow in
disposing their assets. Explain fully.
• A and B
• Conjugal partnership of gains
• Declared null and void on the
ground of psychological
incapacity
• LIQUIDATION PROCEDURE
• Article 147 of the Family Code
When a man and a woman who are
capacitated to marry each other live
exclusively with each other as husband and
wife without the benefit of marriage or
under a void marriage , their wages and
salaries shall be owned by them in equal
shares and the property acquired by both
of them through their work or industry
shall be governed by the rules on co-
ownership.
• Article 147 of the Family Code
In the absence of the proof to the contrary,
properties acquired while they lived together
shall be presumed to have been obtained by
their joint efforts, work or industry and shall
be owned by them in equal shares. For
purposes of this article, a party who did not
participate in the acquisition by the other
party of any property shall be deemed to have
contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if
the former’s efforts consisted in the care and
maintenance of the family and household.
ANSWER:
The liquidation procedure to be followed in
disposing their assets shall be governed by Article
147 of the Family Code.
Article 147 of the Family Code applies when a
man and a woman 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. Under this property regime, property
acquired by both spouses through their work or
industry are prima facie presumed to have been
obtained through their joint efforts.
 In the case at bar, since A and B’s marriage was
declared void, Article 147 of the Family Code shall
govern their property regime as well as the
liquidation procedure in disposing their assets. In
the absence of proof to the contrary, property
aquired by them during the marriage shall be divided
in two equal shares.
• QUESTION NO. 2
• Gloria and Joseph, both Filipinos, got
married and had two children. Joseph later
worked in Rome where he acquired Italian
citizenship. He got a divorce from Gloria in
Rome but upon returning to the Philippines,
he realized his mistake, asked forgiveness
from his wife and resumed living with her.
They had two more children. What is the
status of their 4 children. Explain fully.
• Gloria and Joseph, both Filipinos, got
married and had two children. Joseph
later worked in Rome where he acquired
Italian citizenship. He got a divorce from
Gloria in Rome but upon returning to the
Philippines, he realized his mistake, asked
forgiveness from his wife and resumed
living with her. They had two more
children. What is the status of their 4
children. Explain fully.
• Gloria and Joseph
• Both Filipinos
• Married and had two children
• Joseph went to Rome and acquired Italian Citizenship
• Joseph got a divorce in Rome
• Joseph, upon his return to the Philippines, lresumed
living with Gloria
• They had two more children.
• What is the status of the four children?
Article 164 of the Family Code
Children conceived or born
during the marriage of the
parents are legitimate.
ANSWER:
The four children of Joseph and Gloria are all
legitimate.
Article 164 of the Family Code provides that
children conceived or born during the marriage of
the parents are legitimate.
In the case at bar, all four children were
conceived and born during the marriage of the
Joseph and Gloria. Since the divorce obtained by
Joseph in Rome was not judicially recognized in the
Philippines, his marriage with Gloria was still valid
and subsisting when the other two children were
conceived and born. Thus, the first two children and
the other two are all legitimate.
Question No.3
• X insured himself for P 5 million,
designating Y, his wife, as his sole
beneficiary. The designation was
irrevocable. A few years later, X had
their marriage declared null and void on
the ground that Y had an existing prior
marriage. X subsequently died. Is Y
entitled to the insurance benefits.
Explain fully.
Article 50 of the Family Code
The effects provided for in paragraphs (2), (3), (4)
and (5) of Article 43 and in Article 44 shall apply in
proper cases to marriages which are declared void ab
initio or anulled by final judgment under Articles 40
and 45.

Paragraph (4) of Article 43 of the Family Code

The innocent spouse may revoke the designation of
the other spouse who acted in bad faith as a
beneficiary in any insurance policy, even if such
designation be stipulated as irrevocable.
Answer:
Yes, Y is entitled to the insurance benefits.
Paragraph (4) of Article 43 of the Family
Code, in relation to Article 50 of the same
code, provides that in cases of marriage
declared as void ab initio, the innocent
spouse may revoke the designation of the
other spouse who acted in bad faith as a
beneficiary in any insurance policy, even if the
designation be stipulated as irrevocable.
 In the case at bar, while Y is considered in
bad faith for having an existing prior marriage
when she married X, she is still entitled to the
insurance benefits because X did not revoke
her designation as beneficiary before his
death. Thus, Y is entitled to the insurance
benefits upon X’s death.
Question No. 4
• Juan, a Filipino with fair complexion,
married Maria. Before the marriage,
Maria confessed to Juan that she was
two-months pregnant with the child of a
black African who had left the country
for good. When the child was born, Juan
could not accept it being too black in
complexion. What is the status of the
child? Explain fully.
Article 164 of the Family Code
Children conceived or born
during the marriage of the
parents are legitimate.
Answer:
The status of the child is legitimate.
Article 164 of the Family Code provides
that child conceived or born during the
marriage of the parents are legitimate.
In the case at bar, the child was born
during the marriage of Juan and Maria. Thus,
the child’s status is legitimate unless and until
impugned by Juan.
Question No. 5
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 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 judicial
proceedings, Sandy who is now 13 years old, whom
they consider as their own. Sandy was orphaned as
a baby and was entrusted to them by the midwife
who attended to Sandy’s birth. Alll the children,
including Amy, now live with Andrew in his house.
Is there any legal obstacle to the legal adoption of
Amy by Andrew? To the legal adoption of Sandy by
Andrew and Elena?
 No, there is no obstacle to the legal
adoption of Amy by Andrew.
Republic Act No. 8552 provides that an
illegitimate daughter may be adopted by a
qualified adopter to improve her status to that
of legitimacy.
In the case at bar, Amy is the legitimate
daughter of Andrew. Therefore, Andrew may
adopt Amy to raise her status to that of a
legitimate child.
 Yes, there is legal obstacle to the adoption
of Sandy by Andrew and Elena.
Republic Act No. 8552 provides that it is
the husband and wife that shall jointly adopt.
In the case at bar, facts show that Andrew
was never married and therefore, Andrew
and Elena cannot jointly adopt Sandy.
Question No. 6:
In 2010, Eva, a Filipina, went to work as a nurse.
She met and fell in love with Paul, an American
citizen and they got married in 2012. Eva acquired
American Citizenship in 2014. During their sojourn in
the Philippines in 2017, they filed a joint petition for
the adoption of Vicky, a 7 year old daughter of Eva’s
sister. The government, through the Office of the
Solicitor General, opposed the petition on the
ground that the petitioners, being both foreigners,
are disqualified to adopt Vicky. Is the government’s
opposition tenable?
 Yes, the government’s opposition is tenable.
While Republic Act No. 8552 allows aliens to
adopt, nevertheless, one of the requirements is that
they should be living in the Philippines for at least
three continuous years prior to the filing of the
application for adoption and maintain such
residence until the adoption decree is entered.
In the case at bar, Eva and Paul who are both
American citizens filed the joint petition for adoption
of Vicky on their first year of stay in the Philippines.
Since they did not comply with the residency
requirement, they are not qualified to adopt.