Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
276Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Rednotes.civil law

Rednotes.civil law

Ratings: (0)|Views: 5,786|Likes:
Published by jojitus
bar
bar

More info:

Published by: jojitus on Jun 21, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

01/19/2015

pdf

text

original

 
 RedNotesinCivilLaw
113
 
C
IVIL
L
AW
 
2005
C
ENTRALIZED
B
 AR 
O
PERATIONS
 
MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED TOPICS IN CIVIL LAW
Source: U.P. Law Center 
Persons and Family Relations
TOPIC: REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE (1989, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996,1997, 1998, 1999, 2002)
IWhat is the status of the following marriages and why?A.A marriage between two 19-year olds without parental consent.B.A marriage between two 21-year olds without parental advice.C.A marriage between two Filipino first cousins in Spain where such marriage is valid.D.A marriage between two Filipinos in Hong Kong before a notary public.E.A marriage solemnized by a town mayor three towns away from his jurisdiction. (1999)
ANSWERS:
A. The marriage is voidable. The consent of the parties to the marriage was defective. Beingbelow 21 years old, the consent of the parties is not full without the consent of their parents. Theconsent of the parents of the parties to the marriage is indispensable for its validity.B. Between 21-year olds, the marriage is valid despite the absence of parental advice,because such absence is merely an irregularity affecting a formal requisite –i.e., the marriagelicense—and does not affect the validity of the marriage itself. This is without prejudice to thecivil, criminal, or administrative liability of the party responsible therefore.C. By reason of public policy, the marriage between Filipino first cousins is void [Art. 38, par.(1), FC], and the fact that it is considered a valid marriage in a foreign country in this case, Spain—does not validate it, being an exception to the general rule in Art. 26 of said Code which accordsvalidity to all marriages solemnized outside the Philippines x x x and valid there as such.D. It depends. If the marriage before the notary public is valid under Hong Kong law, themarriage is valid in the Philippines. Otherwise, the marriage that is invalid in Hong Kong will beinvalid in the Philippines.E. Under the Local Government Code, a town mayor may validly solemnize a marriage but saidlaw is silent as to the territorial limits for the exercise by a town mayor of such authority.However, by analogy, with the authority of members of the judiciary to solemnize a marriage, itwould seem that the mayor did not have the requisite authority to solemnize a marriage outside of his territorial jurisdiction. Hence, the marriage is void, unless it was contracted with either or bothparties believing in good faith that the mayor had the legal authority to solemnize this particularmarriage [Art. 35, par. (2), FC].
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
C. The marriage is void. Under Article 26 of the Family Code, a marriage valid wherecelebrated is valid in the Philippines except those marriages enumerated in said Article whichmarriages will remain void even though valid where solemnized. The marriage between first cousinsis one of those marriages enumerated therein, hence, it is void even though valid in Spain where itwas celebrated.D. If the two Filipinos believed in good faith that the Notary Public is authorized to solemnizemarriage, then the marriage is valid.E. The marriage is valid. Under the Local Government Code, the authority of a mayor tosolemnize marriages is not restricted within his municipality implying that he has the authorityeven outside the territory thereof. Hence, the marriage he solemnized outside his municipality isvalid. And even assuming that his authority is restricted within his municipality, such marriage will,
 
 
SanBedaCollegeofLaw
114
San BedaCollege of Law
 
C
IVIL
L
AW
 
nevertheless, be valid because solemnizing the marriage outside said municipality is a mereirregularity applying by analogy the case of 
Navarro vs. Domagtoy 
, 259 SCRA 129. In this case, theSupreme Court held that the celebration by a judge of a marriage outside the jurisdiction of hiscourt is a mere irregularity that did not affect the validity of the marriage notwithstanding Article7 of the Family Code which provides that an incumbent member of the judiciary is authorized tosolemnize marriages only within the court’s jurisdiction.
OTHER ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
C. By reason of Article 15 in relation to Article 38 of the Civil Code, which applies to Filipinoswherever they are, the marriage is void.E. The marriage is void because the mayor has no authority to solemnize marriage outside hisjurisdiction.IIOn Valentine’s Day, 1996, Elias and Fely, both single and 25 years of age, went to the cityhall where they sought out a fixer to help them obtain a quickie marriage. For a fee, the fixerproduced an ante-dated marriage license for them, issued by the Civil Registrar of a small remotemunicipality. He then brought them to a licensed minister in a restaurant behind the city hall, andthe latter solemnized their marriage right there and then.A.Is their marriage valid, void, or voidable?B.Would your answer be the same if it should turn out that the marriage license wasspurious? Explain. (1996)
ANSWERS:
A.The marriage is valid. The irregularity in the issuance of a valid license does not adverselyaffect the validity of the marriage. The marriage license is valid because it was in fact issued by aCivil Registrar (Arts. 3 and 4, FC).B. No, the answer would not be the same. The marriage would be void because of the absenceof a formal requisite. In such a case, there was actually no valid marriage license.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A. It depends. If both or one of the parties was a member of the religious sect of thesolemnizing officer, the marriage is valid. If none of the parties is a member of the sect and both of them were aware of the fact, the marriage is void. They cannot claim good faith in believing thatthe solemnizing officer was authorized because the scope of the authority of the solemnizingofficer is a matter of law. If, however, one of the parties believed in good faith that the other wasa member of the sect, then the marriage is valid under Article 35(2), FC. In that case, the party ingood faith is acting under a mistake of fact, not a mistake of law.
TOPIC: PROPERTY RELATIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE (1989, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1998,2000)
IIn 1973, Mauricio, a Filipino pensioner of the U.S. Government, contracted a bigamousmarriage with Erlinda, despite the fact that his first wife, Carol, was still living. In 1975, Mauricioand 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 hername alone as the buyer. In 1981, Mauricio died, and Carol promptly filed an action against Erlindato recover both the Riceland and the house and lot, claiming them to be conjugal property of thefirst marriage. Erlinda contends that she and the late Mauricio were co-owners of the Riceland; andwith respect to the house and lot, she claims she is the exclusive owner. Assuming she fails toprove that she had actually used her own money in either purchase, how do you decide the case?(1998)
ANSWER:
 
 RedNotesinCivilLaw
113
 
C
IVIL
L
AW
 
2005
C
ENTRALIZED
B
 AR 
O
PERATIONS
 
Carol’s action to recover both the Riceland and the house and lot is well-founded. Both areconjugal property in view of the failure of Erlinda, the wife in a bigamous marriage, to prove thather own money was used in the purchases made. The Supreme Court in a case applied Art. 148,Family Code, despite the fact that the husband’s death took place prior to the effectivity of saidlaw. However, even under Art. 144, Civil Code, the same conclusion would have been reached inview of the bigamous nature of the second marriage.
ANOTHER ANSWER:
Under Art. 148 of the FC, which applies to bigamous marriages, only the propertiesacquired by both parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry shallbe owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. Moreover, if one of the parties is validly married to another, his share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolutecommunity/conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage.Thus, in this case, since Erlinda failed to prove that she used her own money to buy theRiceland and house and lot, she cannot claim to be the co-owner of the Riceland nor the exclusiveowner of the house and lot. Such properties are Mauricio’s. And since his share accrues to theconjugal partnership with carol, Carol can validly claim such properties to the exclusion of Erlinda(Art. 144, Civil Code).IIIn 1970, Bob and Issa got married without executing a marriage settlement. In 1975, Bobinherited from his father a residential lot upon which, in 1981, he constructed a two-roombungalow with savings from his own earnings. At that time, the lot was worth P800,000 while thehouse, when finished cost P600,000. In 1989, Bob died, survived only by his wife, Issa and hismother, Sofia. Assuming that the relative values of both assets remained at the same proportion:A.State whether Sofia can rightfully claim that the house and lot are not conjugal butexclusive property of her deceased son.B.Will your answer be the same if Bob died before August 3, 1988? (1998)
ANSWERS:
A. Since Bob and Issa 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 (Art. 119, CivilCode). By conjugal partnership of gains, the husband and 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 thisinstance, the lot inherited by Bob in 1975 is his own separate property, he having acquired thesame by lucrative title (Art. 148, par. 2, Civil Code). However, the house constructed from his ownsavings in 1981 during the subsistence of his marriage with Issa is conjugal property and notexclusive property in accordance with the principle of “reverse accession” provided for in Art. 158,Civil Code.B. Yes, the answer would still be the same. Since Bob and Issa contracted their marriage wayback in 1970, then the property relations that will govern is still the relative community or conjugalpartnership of gains (Art. 119, Civil Code). It will not matter if Bob died before or after August 3,1988 (effectivity of the Family Code), what matters is the date when the marriage was contracted.As Bob and Issa contracted their marriage way back in 1970, the property relation that governsthem is still the conjugal partnership of gains. (Art. 158, Civil Code)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
A. Sofia, being her deceased son’s legal heir concurring with his surviving spouse (Arts. 985,986, and 997, Civil Code), may rightfully claim that the house and lot are not conjugal but belongto the hereditary estate of Bob, the value of the land being more than the cost of the improvement(Art. 120, FC).B. If Bob died before August 3, 1988, which is the date the Family Code took effect, theanswer will not be the same. Art. 158, Civil Code, would then apply. The land would then bedeemed conjugal, along with the house, since conjugal funds were used in constructing it. Thehusband’s estate would be entitled to reimbursement of the value of the land from conjugalpartnership funds.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->