You are on page 1of 20



1. Q: Tina charged Eduardo

Eduardo for bigamy for which he was convicted.

with bigamy. He invokes as defense good faith and that he did not know that there was still a need for a prior declaration of nullity of marriage before he can contract a subsequent marriage. Is his defense tenable? A: No. Eduardo is presumed to have acted with malice or evil intent when he married Tina. As a general rule, mistake of fact or good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by dolo; such defense negates malice or criminal intent. However, ignorance of the law is not an excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law. Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. (Manuel v. People, G.R. No. 165842, Nov. 29, 2005)

Eduardo testified that he declared he was single because he believed in good faith that his first wife was already dead, havingnot heard from her for 20 years, and that he did not know that he had to go to court to seek for the nullification of his first marriage before marrying Tina.

Is Eduardo liable for the crime of bigamy?

2. Q: Eduardo was married to Ruby. He then met Tina and proposed marriage, assuring her that he was single. They got married and lived together. Tina, upon learning that Eduardo had been previously married, charged

A: Yes. Eduardo is presumed to have acted with malice or evil intent when he married Tina. As a general rule, mistake of fact or good faith of the accused is a valid defense in a prosecution for a felony by dolo; such defense negates malice or criminal intent. However, ignorance of the law is not an excuse because everyone is presumed to know the law. It was the burden of the Eduardo to prove his defense that when he married the Tina, he was of the wellgrounded belief

that his first wife was already dead. He should have adduced in evidence a decision of a competent court declaring the presumptive death of his first wife as required by Article 349 of the Revised Penal Code, in relation to Article 41 of the Family Code. Such judicial declaration also constitutes proof that Eduardo acted in good faith, and would negate criminal intent on his part when he married the private complainant and, as a consequence, he could not be held guilty of bigamy in such case. Eduardo, however, failed to discharge his burden. (Manuel v. People, G.R. No. 165842, Nov. 29,)

necessary steps to ascertain the ages and relationship of the contracting parties and the absence of a legal impediment to the marriage. (Art. 29, FC)

4. Q: Will the solemnizing

officers failure to execute an affidavit that he solemnized the marriage in articulo mortis affect the validity of marriage?

3. Q:

What must the solemnizing officer in a marriage in articulo mortis do after solemnizing such marriage?

A: No, it will not.The marriage will be still valid. The Law permits marriages in articulo mortis without marriage license but it requires the solemnizing officer to make an affidavit and file it.

A: He shall state in an affidavit executed before the local civil registrar or any other person legally authorized to administer oaths, that the marriage wa performed in articulo mortis and that he took the

However, such affidavit is not an essential or formal requisite of marriage, the same with a Marriage Contract. The signing of the marriage contract and the affidavit is only required for the purpose of evidencing the act, not a requisite of marriage. It is the obligation of the solemnizing officer. It does not affect the validity of marriage (De Loria v.

Felix, G.R. No. L9005, Jun. 20, 1958).

2. No legal impediment to

marry each other During the period of cohabitation. Note: The fiveyear period of cohabitation must have been a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of marriage. 3. Fact of absence of legal impediment must be Present at the time of the marriage 4. Parties must execute an Affidavit that they are living together as husband and wife for 5 years and that they do not have any impediment to marry 5. Solemnizing officer must execute a Sworn statement that he had ascertained the qualifications of the parties and found no legal impediment to their marriage (Manzano v. Sanches, Mar. 1, 2001)

5. Q:

What are the requisites for the 5 year cohabitation exception to the marriage license requirement?

A: The requisites are: 5D PAS 1. Living together as husband and wife at least 5 years before the marriage.

The 5 year period must be characterized by:

a. Exclusivity the partners

must live together exclusively, with no other partners, during the whole 5year period. b. Continuity cohabitation unbroken. such was

6. Q: Pepito was married to

Note: The period is counted from the date of celebration of marriage. It should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage. 1

Teodulfa. Teodulfa was shot by him resulting in her death. After 1 year and 8 months, he married Norma without any marriage license. In lieu thereof, they executed an affidavit stating that they had lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and were thus exempt from

securing a marriage license. What is the status of their marriage?

about twenty months had elapsed.

A: Void for lack of marriage license.To be exempt from the license requirement under the 5year cohabitation rule, the cohabitation should be in the nature of a perfect union that is valid under the law but rendered imperfect only by the absence of the marriage contract and is characterized by continuity, that is, unbroken, and exclusivity, meaning no third party was involved at anytime within the 5 years. It should be a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the marriage.

7. Q: Would your answer be the same if Pepito was separated in fact from Teodulfa?

In this case, Pepito and Norma are not exempt from the marriage license requirement because at the time of Pepito and Norma's marriage, it cannot be said that they have lived with each other as husband and wife for at least five years prior to their wedding day because from the time Pepito's first marriage was dissolved to the time of his marriage with Norma, only

A: Yes, the marriage is still void. Even if they were separated in fact, and thereafter both Pepito and Norma had started living with each other that has already lasted for five years, the fact remains that Pepito had a subsisting marriage at the time when he started cohabiting with Norma. It is immaterial that when they lived with each other, Pepito had already been separated in fact from his lawful spouse. The subsistence of the marriage even where there was actual severance of the filial companionship between the spouses cannot make any cohabitation by either spouse with any third party as being one as "husband and wife".(Nial v. Bayadog, GR No. 133778, March 14, 2000)

8. Q: What distinctions

are the between a

marriage license and a marriage certificate? MARRIAGE LICENSE Authorization by the celebrate marriage. state to

married. This is the usual order of things in society and, if the parties are not what they hold themselves out to be, they would be living in constant violation of the common rules of law and propriety. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio always presume marriage. (Vda. De la Rosa v. Heirs of Vda. De Damian, G.R. No. 103028, Oct. 10, 1997)

Formal requisite of marriage. MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE Best evidence of the existence of the marriage. Not an essential or requisite of marriage. formal

9. Q: Guillermo and Josefa

lived together as husband and wife, but there is doubt as to whether they got married, since no record of the marriage existed in the civil registry but their relatives and friends maintained that the two in fact married each other and lived as husband and wife for more than half a century. Is Guillermo married to Josefa?

10. Q: What is the status of marriages between Filipinos solemnized abroad in accordance with the law in force in said country?

A: GR: Marriages between Filipinos solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the law of the foreign country where it is celebrated, if valid there, shall be valid here as such.

A: They are presumed to be married. In this jurisdiction, every intendment of the law leans toward legitimizing matrimony. Persons dwelling together apparently in marriage are presumed to be in fact

XPN: It shall be void, even if it is valid in the foreign country where the marriage was celebrated, if any of the following circumstances are present: LIM 2B 2P

1. Lack of legal capacity even with parental consent (e.g. party is below 18); 2. Incestuous; 3.Contracted through Mistake of one party as to the identity of the other; 4. Contracted following the annulment or declaration of nullity of a previous marriage but Before partition, etc.; 5. Bigamous or polygamous except as provided in Art. 41 FC on terminable bigamous marriages; 6.Void due to Psychological incapacity; 7.Void for reasons of Public policy

indicate the date of the solemnization, the reason being that he allegedly had to wait for the marriage license to be submitted by the parties. Such marriage contracts were not filed with the Local Civil Registry. Are such marriages valid?

11. Q: Judge Palaypayon solemnized marriages even without the requisite marriage license. Thus, some couples were able to get married by the simple expedient of paying the marriage fees. As a consequence, their marriage contracts did not reflect any marriage license number. In addition, the judge did not sign their marriage contracts and did not

A: No. The Family Code pertinently provides that the formal requisites of marriage are, inter alia, a valid marriage license, except in the cases provided for therein. Complementarily, it declares that the absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall generally render the marriage void ab initio and that, while an irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage, the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable. (Cosca v. Palaypayon, A.M. No. MTJ92721, Sept. 30, 1994)

12. Q: What requisites


the of

psychological incapacity? A: 1. Juridical antecedence must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although overt manifestations may arise only after such marriage.
2. Gravity grave enough

retroacts to the date when it was contracted, hence, he is not guilty of bigamy for want of an essential element the existence of a valid previous marriage. Rule on Veronicos argument.

to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essental marital obligations.
3. Permanence

or incurability must be incurable. If curable, the cure should be beyond the means of the parties involved.

13. Q: While his marriage is subsisting, Veronico married Leticia, which marriage was later declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity. When Veronico got married for the third time, Leticia filed a case for bigamy against him.

A: No. Article 349 of the RPC penalizes the mere act of contracting a second or subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a previous valid marriage. Here, as soon as the second marriage to Leticia was celebrated, the crime of bigamy had already been consummated as the second marriage was contracted during the subsistence of the valid first marriage. (Tenebro v. CA,G.R. No. 150758, Feb. 18, 2004)

14. Q: Is the judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a void marriage necessary?

A: 1. For purposes of remarriage judicial declaration of absolute nullity is necessary.

For his defense, Veronico claims that effects of the nullity of his marriage with Leticia

Note: In the instance where a party who has previously contracted a marriage which is legally unassailable, he is required by law to prove that the previous one was an absolute nullity. But this he may do on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.

diligence as to give rise to a "wellfounded belief" that she is dead. The four requisites not having concurred, his action for the declaration of presumptive death of his wife should be denied. (Republic v. Nolasco, G.R. No. 94053, Mar. 17, 1993)

2. For purposes other than remarriage no judicial action is necessary.

16. Q: What is the effect if the parties to the subsequent marriage obtains knowledge that the spouse absent has reappeared?

15. Q: Gregorio married Janet. When he was employed overseas, he was informed that Janet left. Five years later, he filed an action for her to be declared presumptively dead without alleging that he wishes to remarry. Will his action prosper?

A: No. A petition to declare an absent spouse presumptively dead may not be granted in the absence of any allegation that the spouse present will remarry. Also, there is no showing that Gregorio conducted a search for his missing wife w/ such

A: None. If the absentee reappears, but no step is taken to terminate the subsequent marriage, either by affidavit or by court action, such absentee's mere reappearance, even if made known to the spouses in the subsequent marriage, will not terminate such marriage. (SSS v. Jarque Vda. De Bailon, G.R. No. 165545, Mar. 24, 2006)

17. Q:

When are non bigamous subsequent marriages void?

A: The subsequent marriage of a person whose prior

marriage has been annulled but contracted said subsequent marriage without compliance with Art. 52, FC, shall be void.

being required to submit the required certificate of capacity to marry from the German Embassy in Manila, Adolf stated in the application for marriage license stating that Adolf was a Filipino, the couple got married in a ceremony officiated by the Parish Priest of Calamba, Laguna in a beach in Nasugbu, Batangas, as the local parish priest refused to solemnize marriage except in his church. Is the marriage valid? Explain fully.

Before he contracts a subsequent marriage, he must first comply with the requirement provided for in Art. 52, The recording in the civil registries and registries of properties of the following: JPDD 1. Judgment of annulment; 2. Partition; 3. Distribution of properties, and 4. Delivery of presumptive legitimes 18. Q: Ana Rivera had a husband, a Filipino citizen like her, who was among the passengers on board a commercial jet plane which crashed in the Atlantic Ocean ten (10) years earlier and had never been heard of ever since. Believing that her husband had died, Ana married Adolf Cruz Staedler, a divorced German national born of a German father and a Filipino mother residing in Stuttgart. To avoid

A: The issue hinges on whether or not the missing husband was dead or alive at the time of the second marriage.

If the missing husband was in fact dead at the time the second marriage was celebrated, the second marriage was valid. Actual death of a spouse dissolves the marriage ipso facto whether or not the surviving spouse had knowledge of such fact. A declaration of presumptive death even if obtained will not make the marriage voidable because presumptive death will not

prevail death. over the fact 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 on the ground that Yvette has STD. 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.

If the missing husband was in fact alive when the second marriage was celebrated, the second marriage was void ab initio because of a prior subsisting marriage. Had Ana obtained a declaration of presumptive death, the second marriage would have been voidable.

In both cases, the fact that the German misrepresented his citizenship to avoid having to present his Certificate of Legal Capacity, or the holding of the ceremony outside the church or beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the solemnizing officer, are all irregularities which do not affect the validity of the marriage. (2008 Bar Question).

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

19. Q: 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

A: No. Concealment of a sexually transmitted disease may annul the marriage if there was fraud existing in the party concerned. In this case, there was no fraud because Joseph knew that Yvette was suffering from HIV when he married her. (par 3, Art. 46, Family Code)

20. Q: What is the role of the prosecutor or Solicitor General in all cases of annulment or

declaration of absolute nullity of marriage?

4. Summary judgment 5. Judgment pleadings on the

A: They shall take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not suppressed. Concomitantly, even if there is no suppression of evidence, the public prosecutor has to make sure that the evidence to be presented or laid down before the court is not fabricated. Truly, only the active participation of the public prosecutor or the Solicitor General will ensure that the interest of the State is represented and protected in proceedings for declaration of nullity of marriages by preventing the fabrication or suppression of evidence.

22. Q: What must be done by a person whose prior marriage was annulled or declared void if he wishes to remarry?

A: He must comply with the requirement provided for in Art. 52, before he contracts a subsequent marriage, viz:

The recording in the civil registries and registries of properties of the following: JPDD 1. Judgment of annulment; 2. Partition;

21. Q: What are the actions prohibited in annulment and declaration of absolute nullity of marriage cases?

3. Distribution properties; and


4. Delivery of presumptive legitimes.

A: CCSSJ 1. Compromise 2. Confession of judgment 1 3. Stipulation of facts

23. Q: What are the grounds for legal separation?


1. Repeated

Physical violence or grossly abusive conduct against petitioner, common child, child of petitioner; induce petitioner, common child, child of petitioner to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement;
3. Attempt by respondent 8. Sexual

Infidelity perversion; ity of respondent;


9. Lesbianism/homosexual

2. Attempt to corrupt or

Note: It must exist after celebration of marriage

10. Abandonment

of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than 1 year.

against petitioner;
4. Final



judgment sentencing respondent to imprisonment of more than 6 years; Addiction habitual alcoholism respondent; or of

24. Q: What are the grounds for denial of petition for legal separation? A: C4MPDR
1. Condonation

5. Drug

of to of

act the the

complained of;
2. Consent

commission offense/act; Note:It must exist after celebration of marriage

6. Physical 3. Connivance

in the commission of the act; in the procurement of decree of LS;

violence moral pressure Compel petitioner change religious political affiliation;

or to to or

4. Collusion

5. Mutual guilt; 6. Prescription: 5 yrs from

7. Bigamous


Subsequently contracted by respondent in the Philippines or abroad 1

occurrence of cause;
7. Death

of either party during the pendency of the case (LapuzSy v.

Eufemio, G.R. No. L 31429, Jan. 31, 1972);
8. Reconciliation

property and those which will remain separate, a list of creditors and their addresses. 3. As to capacity to succeed: The Family Code does not provide for the revival of revoked provisions in a will originally made in favor of the offending party as a result of the LS. This absence gives the innocent spouse the right to choose whether the offending spouse will be reinstituted. 4. As to the forfeited shares: Those given to the children cannot be returned since the spouses are no longer the owners of such. But those given to the innocent spouse may be returned. Note: In an action for legal separation on the ground of adultery filed by the husband, even though the defendant wife did not interpose the defense of prescription, nevertheless, the courts can take cognizance thereof, because actions seeking a decree of legal separation or annulment of marriage, involve

of the spouses during the pendencyof the case (Art. 56, FC).

25. Q: What are the effects of reconciliation?

A: 1. As to the Decree:
a. During the pendency

of the case: proceedings terminated whatever stage

LS in

b. After the issuance of the decree: Final decree of LS to be set aside 2. As to Regime: the Property

GR: With respect to separation of properties, the same shall subsist. XPN: The parties, however, can come into an agreement to revive their previous regime. Their agreement must be under oath and must contain a list of the properties desired to be returned to the community or conjugal

public interest, and it is the policy of our law that no such decree be issued if any legal obstacles thereto appear upon the record. Also, the husband was guilty of commission of the same offense by living with another woman.


But such powers do not include: DAE

1. Disposition; 2. Alienation; or 3. Encumbrance

of the conjugal or community property.

This is an exception to the Rules of Court provision that defenses not raised in the pleadings will not be considered since provisions on marriage are substantive in nature.(Brown v. Yambao, G.R. No. L 10699, Oct. 18, 1957)

27. Q: During his lifetime and while he was married to Epifania, Joseph acquired a piece of land which he then subsequently conveyed, by way of a purported sale, to his other woman, Maria. Is the sale of the piece of land by Joseph to his mistress proper?

26. Q:

To whom does the right to administer the community property belong to? A: GR: It belongs spouses jointly. to both

XPN: If one spouse is incapacitated or otherwise unable to participate in the administration of the common properties capacitated or able spouse may assume sole powers of administration

A: No. The proscription against the sale of property between spouses under Art. 1490 applies even to common law relationships. In an earlier ruling, the SC nullified a sale made by a husband in favor of a concubine, after he had abandoned his family and left the conjugal home where his wife and children lived, and from whence they derived their support, for being contrary to morals and public policy. The sale

was regarded by the court as subversive of the stability of the family, a basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protects (Ching v. CA, GR No. 165879, Nov. 10, 2006).

their joint efforts and is owned by them in equal shares. Their property relationship in such a case is essentially governed by the rules on coownership. Thus, Romeo cannot seek the ejectment of Juliet therefrom. As a coowner, she is as much entitled to enjoy its possession and ownership as him. (Abing v. CA,G.R. No. 146294, Jul. 31, 2006)

28. Q: Romeo and Juliet lived

together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. During their cohabitation, they acquired a house. When they broke up, they executed an agreement where he agreed to leave the house provided Juliet will pay his entire share in their properties. She failed to do so but she also ignored his demand for her to vacate. Romeo sued her for ejectment which the court granted. Was the court correct in granting the same?

29. Q:

What are the requisites before a suit between members of the same family may prosper?

A: 1. Earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made; 2. Such efforts failed;
3. The

A: No. Under Art. 147 of the FC, the property is co owned by the parties. Under said provision, in the absence of proof to the contrary, any property acquired by commonlaw spouses during their cohabitation is presumed to have been obtained thru

fact that earnest efforts toward a compromise have been made but the same have failed appears in the verified complaint or petition.

30. Q: Is the right to claim filiation

transmissible to heirs of the child? the

their heated arguments, Faye shot Brad to death. She lost no time in marrying her true love Roderick, without a marriage license, claiming that they have been continuously cohabiting for more than 5 years.

A: GR: The right to claim filiation may be used only by the child. It is not transmissible to the heirs. XPN: In cases where child died: 1. During minority or 2. In a state of insanity.

Was the marriage of Roderick and Faye valid?

31. Q: Roderick and Faye were high school sweethearts. When Roderick was 18 and Faye, 16 years old, they started living together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. When Faye reached 18 years of age, her parents forcibly took her back and arranged for her marriage to Brad. Although Faye lived with Brad after the marriage, Roderick continued to regularly visit Faye while Brad was away at work. During their marriage, Faye gave birth to a baby girl, Laica. When Faye was 25 years old, Brad discovered her continued liaison with Roderick and in one of

A: The marriage was void because there was no marriage license. Their marriage was not exempt from the requisite of a marriage license because Roderick and Faye have not been cohabiting for at least 5 continuous years before the celebration of their marriage. Their lovers trysts and brief visitations did not amount to cohabitation. Moreover, the Supreme Court held that for the marriage to be exempt from a license, there should be no impediment for them to marry each other during the entire 5 years of cohabitation. Roderick and Faye could not have cohabited for 5 years of cohabitation. Roderick and Faye could not have been

cohabited for 5 continuous years without impediment because Faye was then legally married to Brad. (2008 Bar Question)

or his heirs in the cases provided by law within the prescriptive period. Can Laica be legitimated by the marriage of her biological parents? A: No she cannot be legitimated by the marriage of her biological parents. In the first place she is not, under the law, the child of Roderick. In the second place, her biological parents could not have validly married each other at the time she was conceived and born simply because Faye was still married to Roderick at that time. Under Article 177 of the Family Code, only children conceived or born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the child were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, may be legitimated. (2008 Bar Question)

What is the status of Laica?


A: Having been born during the marriage of Faye and Brad, she is presumed to be the legitimate child of Faye and Brad, she is presumed to be the legitimate child of Faye and Brad. This presumption had become conclusive because the period of time to impugn her filiation had already prescribed.

Can Laica bring an action to impugn her own status on the ground that based on DNA results, Roderick is her biological father?

A: No, she cannot impugn her own filiation. The law does not allow a child to impugn his or her own filiation. In the problem, Laicas legitimate filiation was accorded to her by operation of law which may be impugned only by Brad,

32. Q: Spouses Primo and Monica Lim, childless, were entrusted with the custody of two minor children, the parents of whom were unknown. Eager of having children of their own, the spouses made it appear that they were the

childrens parents by naming them Michelle P. Lim and Michael Jude Lim.

Is the trial court correct in dismissing the petitions for adoption?

Subsequently, Monina married Angel Olario after Primos death of her husband. She decided to adopt the children by availing the amnesty given under R.A. 8552 to those individuals who simulated the birth of a child. She filed separate petitions for the adoption of Michelle, then 25 years old and Michael, 18. Both Michelle and Michael gave consent to the adoption.

A: Yes. Section 7 Article 3 of R.A. 8552 reads: Sec. 7 Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, xxx. provision means that joint adoption by the husband and the wife is mandatory. This is in consonance with the concept of joint parental authority over the child which is the ideal situation.

As the child to be adopted is elevated to the level of a legitimate child, it but natural to require the spouses to adopt jointly. The rule also ensures harmony between the spouses.

The trial court dismissed the petition and ruled that Monina should have filed the petition jointly with her new husband. Monina, in a Motion for Reconsideration argues that mere consent of her husband would suffice and that joint adoption is not needed, for the adoptees are already emancipated.

The law is clear. There is no room for ambiguity. Monina, having remarried at the time the petitions for adoption were filed, must jointly adopt. Since the petitions for adoption were filed only by Monina herself, without joining her husband, Olario, the trial court was correct in denying the petitions for adoption on this ground. (In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P.

Lim, In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michael Jude P. Lim, Monina P. Lim, G.R. Nos. 16899293, May 21, 2009)

1. Petition for judicial authority to administer or encumber specific separate property of the abandoning spouse. 2. Petition for an order providing for disciplinary measures over a child. 3. Petition for approval of bond of parents who exercise parental authority over the property of their children. 4. Judicial declaration presumptive death. of

33. Q: What are the effects of emancipation?

A: 1. Parental authority over the person and property of the child is terminated 2. Child shall be qualified and responsible for all acts of civil life, save exceptions established by existing laws.
3. Contracting

5. Action of a child for delivery of presumptive legitime 6. Judicial determination of family domicile in case of disagreement between the spouses 7. Objection of one spouse as to the profession of the other. 8. Action entrusting parental authority over foundlings, abandoned, neglected or abused children to heads of institutions. 9. Annulment by wife of the husband's decision in the administration and enjoyment of community or conjugal property.

marriage shall require parental consent until the age of (21) twenty one. responsibility of parents or guardians for children and wards below (21) twentyone under the second and third paragraphs of Art.2180 of the Civil Code shall not be derogated.

4. The

34. Q: What are the matters subject to summary proceedings? 1 A:

10. Appointment of one of the spouses as sole administrator but only when the other spouse is absent, or separated in fact, or has abandoned the other or the consent is withheld. ( Uy v. CA, G.R. No. 109557, November 29, 2000 )

allowed him to be subjected to Sexual Abuse, he/she shall be permanently deprived of PA.

35. Q: What are the grounds for suspension of PA?

1. Gives

orders, example;
2. Treats

Corrupting counsel and

child with excessive Harshness and cruelty; subjected to Acts lasciviousness; penalty of Interdiction ; parent or exercising PA; of

3. Subjects/allows child be

4. Conviction of crime with


5. Culpable Negligence of


6. Compels child to Beg.

Note: If the person exercising PA has subjected the child or