You are on page 1of 5


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 — herself, Dr. Elsie Chan, and Ambrosia. 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 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 the petition?
Antecedence — Before the marriage petitioner was not aware of respondent’s personality disorder and it was only after
marriage that it begun to surface. Dr. Samson declared that respondent’s behavioural equilibrium started at a very early
age of fifteen. His dishonesty and lack of remorse are mere extensions of his misconduct in childhood which generally
attributable to respondent’s childhood experiences of separation
and emotional deprivations. In fine, his psychological incapacity is but a product of some genetic causes, faulty parenting
and influence of the environment although its over manifestation appear only after the wedding. (Mendoza V. Mendoza,
G.R. No. 157649, Nov. 12, 2012)
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.
(Hence, psychological incapacity must have started since Neil’s early childhood, NOT early adulthood.)
(8) Rene and Lily got married after a brief courtship. After one month, Lily discovered that while Rene presented himself
as a macho man he was actually gay. He would not go to bed with her. He kept obscene magazines of nude men and
always sought the company of handsome boys. What legal remedy does Lily have?
(A) She can file an action for annulment of marriage on ground of fraud.
(B) She can seek a declaration of nullity of the marriage based on Rene’s psychological incapacity.
(C) She can go abroad and file for divorce in a country that can grant it.
(D) She has none since she had the opportunity to examine the goods and freely entered into the marriage.
(11) When one exercises a right recognized by law, knowing that he thereby causes an injustice to another, the latter is
entitled to recover damages. This is known as the principle of
(A) res ipsa loquitur.
(B) damnum absque injuria.
(C) vicarious liability.
(D) abuse of rights.
(43) Six tenants sued X, the landowner, for willfully denying them water for their farms, which water happened to flow
from land under X’s control, his intention being to force them to leave his properties. Is X liable for his act and why?
(A) No, because the tenants must be content with waiting for rainfall for their farms.
(B) No, since X owns both the land and the water.
(C) Yes, because the tenants’ farms have the natural right of access to water wherever it is located.
(D) Yes, since X willfully caused injury to his tenants contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.
(44) Illegitimate brothers and sisters, whether of full or half-blood, are bound to support each other, EXCEPT when
(A) the brother or sister who needs support lives in another place.
(B) such brothers and sisters are not recognized by their father.
(C) the brother or sister in need stops schooling without valid reason.
(D) the need for support of a brother or sister, already of age, is due to the latter's fault.
Lito was a commercial pilot who flew for Pacific-Micronesian Air. In 1998, he was the co-pilot of the airline's Flight
MA916 that mysteriously disappeared two hours after take-off from Agana, Guam, presumably over the Pacific Ocean.
No trace of the plane and its 105 passengers and crew was ever found despite diligent search; Lito himself was never
heard of again. Lito left behind his wife, Lita, and their two children.
In 2008, Lita met and and married Jaime. They now have a child of their own.
While on a tour with her former high school classmates in a remote province of China in 2010, Lita was surprised to see
Lito or somebody who looked exactly like him, but she was sure it was Lito because of the extreme surprise that
registered in his face when he also saw her. Shocked, she immediately fled to her hotel and post haste returned to the
country the next day. Lita now comes to you for legal advice. She asks you the following questions:
VII. (l) If Lito is alive, what is the status of his marriage to Lita? (1%)
(A) The marriage subsists because the marital bond has not been terminated by death.
(B) The marriage was terminated when Lita married Jaime.
(C) The marriage subsists because Lita's marriage to Jaime is void.
(D) The marriage is terminated because Lito is presumed dead after his plane has been missing for more
than 4 years.
(E) The marriage can be formally declared terminated if Lito would not resurface.
VII. (2) If Lito is alive, what is the status of Lita's marriage to Jaime? (1%)
(A) The marriage is valid because Lita's marriage to Lito was terminated upon Lito's disappearance for
more than seven years.
(B) The marriage is valid. After an absence of more than 10 years, Lito is already presumed dead for all
(C) The marriage is void. Lito's mere absence, however lengthy, is insufficient to authorize Lita to
contract a subsequent marriage.
(D) The marriage is void. If Lito is indeed alive, his marriage to Lita was never dissolved and they can
resume their marital relations at any time.
Betty entrusted to her agent, Aida, several pieces of jewelry to be sold on commission with the express obligation to turn
over to Betty the proceeds of the sale, or to return the jewelries if not sold in a month's time. Instead of selling the
jewelries, Aida pawned them with the Tambunting Pawnshop, and used the money for herself. Aida failed to redeem the
pawned jewelries and after a month, Betty discovered what Aida had done. Betty brought criminal charges which resulted
in Aida's conviction for estafa.
Betty thereafter filed an action against Tambunting Pawnshop for the recovery of the jewelries. Tambunting raised the
defense of ownership, additionally arguing that it is duly licensed to engage in the pawnshop and lending business, and
that it accepted the mortgage of the jewelry in good faith and in the regular course of its business.
If you were the judge, how will you decide the case? (1%)
(A) I will rule in favor of Betty. My ruling is based on the Civil Code provision that one who has lost any
movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof may recover it from the person in possession of the same. Tam
bunting's claim of good faith is inconsequential.
(B) I will rule in favor of Betty. Tambunting's claim of good faith pales into insignificance in light of the unlawful
deprivation of the jewelries. However, equity dictates that Tambunting must be reimbursed for the pawn value of
the jewelries.
(C) I will rule in favor of Tambunting. Its good faith takes precedence over the right of Betty to recover the
(D) I will rule in favor of Tambunting. Good faith is always presumed. Tambunting's lawful acquisition in the
ordinary course of business coupled with good faith gives it legal right over the jewelries.
(55) QR and TS who had a marriage license requested a newly appointed Judge in Manila to marry them on the beach of
Boracay. Since the Judge maintained Boracay as his residence, he agreed. The sponsors were all public officials. What is
the status of the marriage.
(A) Valid, since the improper venue is merely an irregularity; all the elements of a valid marriage are present.
(B) Void, because the couple did not get local permit for a beach wedding.
(C) Voidable, because the Judge acted beyond his territorial jurisdiction and is administratively liable for the
(D) Void, because the Judge did not solemnize the marriage within the premises of his court.
(56) X and Y, Filipinos, got married in Los Angeles, USA, using a marriage license issued by the Philippine consul in Los
Angeles, acting as Civil Registrar. X and Y did not know that they were first cousins because their mothers, who were
sisters, were separated when they were quite young. Since X did not want to continue with the relation when he heard of
it, he left Y, came to the Philippines and married Z. Can X be held liable for bigamy?
(A) No since X’s marriage to Y is void ab initio or did not exist.
(B) No since X acted in good faith, conscious that public policy did not approve of marriage between first
(C) Yes since he married Z without first securing a judicial declaration of nullity of his marriage to Y.
(D) Yes since his first marriage to Y in Los Angeles is valid.
(63) Baldo, a rejected suitor, intimidated Judy into marrying him. While she wanted to question the validity of their
marriage two years after the intimidation ceased, Judy decided in the meantime to freely cohabit with Baldo. After more
than 5 years following their wedding, Judy wants to file a case for annulment of marriage against Baldo on ground of lack
of consent. Will her action prosper?
(A) Yes, the action for annulment is imprescriptible.
(B) No, since the marriage was merely voidable and Judy ratified it by freely cohabiting with Baldo after the force
and intimidation had ceased .
(C) No, since the action prescribed 5 years from the date of the celebration of the marriage.
(D) Yes, because the marriage was celebrated without Judy's consent freely given.
(64) Is the wife who leaves her husband without just cause entitled to support?
(A) No, because the wife must always be submissive and respectful to the husband.
(B) Yes. The marriage not having been dissolved, the husband continues to have an obligation to support his wife.
(C) No, because in leaving the conjugal home without just cause, she forfeits her right to support.
(D) Yes, since the right to receive support is not subject to any condition
(69) The doctrine of stare decisis prescribes adherence to precedents in order to promote the stability of the law. But the
doctrine can be abandoned
(A) When adherence to it would result in the Government’s loss of its case.
(B) When the application of the doctrine would cause great prejudice to a foreign national.
(C) When necessary to promote the passage of a new law.
(D) When the precedent has ceased to be beneficial and useful.