PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

MCQs
1. Bully Chaceford, a ship captain, fell in love with Mikki Go. To prove his
undying love for her, he asked General Germs, a military commander, to
solemnize their marriage. Is the marriage valid?
a. Yes. A military commander is one of officers enumerated under Article
7 of the Family Code who can solemnize marriage
b. Yes. A General as the highest rank in the military unit is authorized to
solemnize marriage
c. No. The military commander cannot solemnize marriage since
neither Bully nor Mikki are in Articulo mortis.
d. No. There is no proof that there is an absence of chaplain in the place
where the military commander was assigned.
2. The following are requisites for a valid waiver except:
a. The person waiving must be capacitated to make the waiver
b. The rights must exist before, at, or after the time of the waiver
c. It must not be contrary to law, public policy, morals or good customs
d. The waiver must be unequivocal
3. The Family Code of the Philippines is
a. Executive Order No. 209
b. Republic Act No. 290
c. Executive Order No. 116
d. Republic Act No. 161
Essay
1. Paul and Andrea had been living together as husband and wife since
December 2008. In August 2013, they finally decided to get married. Paul
sought for an advice from his lawyer friend, Manu, who said that a
marriage license is no longer necessary if they had been living together
as husband and wife for at least five years without any legal impediment.
Manu advised them that in lieu thereof, they must execute an affidavit
stating those facts. Paul and Andrea did what Manu advised them. In the
affidavit, they stated that they had been living as husband and wife
without legal impediment since January 2008. Thereafter, they got
married. Determine the status of the marriage of Paul and Andrea.

Their marriage is void from the very beginning. Art. 35 (3) of the Family
Code provides that a marriage solemnized without a license is void ab
initio. Art. 34 of the same Code provides for one exception, wherein a
marriage of a man and woman who have lived together as husband and
wife for at least five years without any legal impediment to marry each
other need not secure a license. In lieu thereof, an affidavit shall be
executed by them stating the foregoing facts before any person
authorized by law to administer oaths.
In the case at hand, the affidavit executed by Paul and Andrea is false.
Hence, the marriage is as if celebrated without a license.
2. A is the owner of an apartment which is being leased to B who has not
been paying his rentals for the last ten months. A, while B was away,
entered in the premises, brought out the things belonging to B and
padlocked the premises preventing B from entering into it. B sued for
damages. A interposed the defense that he was just exercising his rights
as owner of the premises. Decide.
Answer: A is liable for damages. While it is true that he was just exercising
his rights, it is equally true that he was just exercising his rights, it is
equally true that the law imposes upon him certain limitations in the
exercise of the same. Under the law, every person must, in the exercise of
his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. (Art. 19, NCC). In
entering into the premises and bringing out all the things of Bas well as
padlocking the premises, A did not act with justice; instead he acted in
bad faith. This is a clear case of abuse of right for which A can be held
liable for damages.
3. Give the guidelines enumerated in the case of Republic vs. Molina in
determining the existence of psychological incapacity.
CRIMINAL LAW
MCQs
Analysis and Solution

1. Gerald, through force and intimidation, divested Kim of her bag and accessories.
However, before Gerald could leave Kim's house, Xian arrived. Xian was able to
recover the things robbed by Gerald and reported Gerald to the police
authorities. Gerald was prosecuted for consummated robbery. Gerald contends
that he is only liable for Frustrated Robbery because he was not able to leave
Kim's house. Is Gerald's contention correct?
a. No, there is no frustrated robbery with force or intimidation against
persons. From the moment of taking, the crime is already
consummated.

b. Yes, in robbery, it is necessary that the accused be able to take the property
outside the house of the victim.
c. No, Gerald is guilty of attempted robbery only since he was not able to take
out the property from Kim's house.
d. Yes, because Gerald was frustrated for not completing the crime.
Knowledge and Recall
2. Which is NOT true about impossible crimes?
a) It is intended to suppress the criminal tendency or propensity of an offender.
b) It is based on the classical theory of criminal law
c) There is no attempted or frustrated impossible crime
d) Physical or Legal impossibility of the accomplishment is an element

Understanding

3. The following circumstances constitute unlawful aggression EXCEPT:

a. A slap on the face.
b. Pointing a toy pistol at the accused, which the accused believed to be a real
gun.
c. Embracing a woman, touching her private parts and her breasts, and
throwing her to the ground.
d. Placing ones hand on his hip, as if to draw his revolver.
Ratio: For unlawful aggression to exist, it must be real, not merely imaginary.

Essay
Issue-Posing:

1. Peter shot John in the head, however, he did not hit him because he forgot to
wear his eyeglasses and instead the gun hit Peter's daughter, Petra, who died as
a consequence. Is peter liable for the death of Petra?
Answer: Yes, Peter is liable. Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that criminal liability shall be incurred by any person committing a
felony although the wrongful act done be different from that which is intended.
Anyone who inflicts injury voluntarily and with intent is liable for all the
consequences of his criminal act. In this case, even though Peter intended to
shoot John, the act of shooting Petra instead is a direct, logical and natural
consequence of his wrongful act. Hence, Peter is criminally liable for the death
of Petra.
2. One night, Brig. Gen. Lopez and Col. Gabriel, while vacationing in Hong Kong,
conspired to commit coup dtat against the Philippine government and were
scheduled to return to the Philippines the next day. The Philippine intelligence
group was informed about the conspiracy by Raymond, who overheard their
plans. When the army officers arrived at the Philippine airport, they were
apprehended by the police. You are the counsel for Brig. Gen. Lopez and Col.
Gabriel. What defense, if any, can you raise in their favor?

ANSWER:
As counsel for Brig. Gen. Lopez and Col. Gabriel, I will argue that they cannot be
prosecuted in Philippine Courts since the crime was committed outside the
Philippine territory. Under the principle of territoriality, penal laws of the
Philippines are enforceable only within its territory. Article 2 of the Revised Penal
Code provides for the following exceptions to the territorial application of
criminal law: (1) The offender commits an offense while on a Philippine ship or
airship; (2) The offender forges or counterfeits any coin or currency note of the
Philippines or obligations or securities issued by the Government of the
Philippines; (3) The offender commits acts connected with the introduction into
the Philippines of the obligations and securities mentioned in the preceding
number; (4) While being a public officer or employee, the offender commits an
offense in the exercise of his functions; or (5) The offender commits any of the
crimes against national security and the law of nations.
Conspiracy to commit coup detat is not one of those where the Revised Penal
Code may be applied extraterritorially. The crime was not committed in a
Philippine ship or airship, nor did Brig. Gen. Lopez and Col. Gabriel forge or
counterfeit coins or currencies, or introduce the same to the Philippines. As to
the fourth exception, even though Brig. Gen. Lopez and Col. Gabriel are public
officers, they did not commit the offense in the exercise of their functions.
Finally, coup detat is not a crime against national security and the law of
nations. It is a crime against public order. Hence, the Philippine courts have no
jurisdiction over the crime committed by Brig. Gen. Lopez and Col. Gabriel.
3. What is mistake of fact? Enumerate the requisites of mistake of fact as a
defense.
ANSWER:
Mistake of fact is that which, had the facts been true to the belief of the
offender, can justify his act.
In the case of People v. Oanis, the Supreme Court laid down the following
requisites of the defense of mistake of fact:
1 That the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the
accused believed them to be;
2 That the intention of the accused in performing the act should be lawful;
3 That the mistake of fact must be without fault or carelessness on the part
of the accused.
Constitutional Law I

1. A government that actually exercises power and control as opposed to the

true and lawful government is in terms of legitimacy
a. a government of force
b. a de facto government

c. a de jure government
d. an interim government
2. The following are examples of constituent functions except:
a Definition and punishment of crimes.
b Administration of Justice in civil cases
c Regulation of trade and industry
d Fixing of the legal relations between husband and wife and between
parents and children.
3. Which of the following statements is true:
a. The general rule is that legislative power cannot be delegated
b. The legislative power can be delegated.
c. The President has legislative powers under the Constitution - he has
executive powers as a rule
d. The House of Representatives has the power to delegate legislative
powers - not only HR but also Senate
(Letter B is not a general rule).
Essay
1. Mr. Walang-alam was contracted by the Customs Arrastre Services of the
Bureau of Customs to manage the arrastre services inside the Bureau. In
thier contract, CAS expressly stipulated that in case of breach, it may be
sued by Mr. Walang-alam. During the existence of the contract, CAS
committed a breach thereof. Mr. Walang-alam instituted an action for
damages against CAS pursuant to the contract entered into by the
parties. Mr. Walang-alam contends that upon enterinng into a contract
with a private person, the CAS has descended to the status of a private
individual and thus it is divested itself its immunity from suit. Is Mr.
Walang-alam correct? Is CAS liable?
Ans:
No. The express stipulation in the contract giving Mr. Walang-alam
consent to sue does not matter. As a rule, the state may expressly waive
its immunity from only by an act of legislature. CAS has no authority to
expressly waive such immunity. When the State enters into a business
contract, it must be distinguished whether the contract is entered into by
the state in jus imperii and in jus gentionis. In this case, the contract
involved is proprietary in nature. However, as held in the case of Mobil v.
Customs Arrastre Service, the fact that a non-corporate government
entity performs a function proprietary in nature does not necessarily
result in its being suable. If said non-governmental function is undertaken
as an incident to its governmental function, there is no waiver thereby of
the sovereign immunity from suit extended to such government entity.
Arrastre services is an incidental function of the Bureau of Customs. BOC,

on the other hand, is part of Department of Finance with no personality on

its own.
Although said arrastre function may be deemed proprietary, it is a
necessary incident of the primary and governmental function of the
Bureau of Customs, so that engaging in the same does not necessarily
render said Bureau liable to suit. For otherwise, it could not perform its
governmental function without necessarily exposing itself to suit. Thus, it
is not liable.
2. A civil action for reconveyance of illegal-gotten wealth was filed by the
PCGG against X. X filed a counterclaim against PCGG Officials. PCGG
Officials moved to dismiss the counterclaim by invoking Executive Order
No. 1 which provides that PCGG Officials cannot be the subject of a civil
action for acts or omissions committed in the exercise of their official
functions. Will the counterclaim prosper?
ANS: Yes, the counterclaim will prosper. The State is immune from suit in
the sense that it cannot, as a rule, be sued without its consent. But in
filing an action, it divests itself of its sovereign character and sheds its
immunity from suit, descending to the level of an ordinary
litigant. (Republic v. Sandiganbayan, 204 SCRA 212)
3. No I - Article II. Section 3, of the 1987 Constitution expresses, in part, that
the "Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the people and (of)
the State." Describe briefly what this provision means. Is the Philippine
National Police covered by the same mandate?
ANS: Article II, Section 3 of the 1987 Constitution means that the Armed
Forces of the Philippines should not serve the interest of the President but
of the people and should not commit abuses against the people. (Record
of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. V, p. 133.) This provision is
specifically addressed to the Armed Forces of the Philippines and not to
the Philippine National Police, because the latter is separate and distinct
from the former. (Record of the Constitutional Commission, Vol. V, p. 296;
Manalo v. Sistoza. 312 SCR A 239 [1999].)
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: Article II, Section 3 of the 1987
Constitution can be interpreted to mean that the Armed Forces of the
Philippines can be a legitimate instrument for the overthrow of the civilian
government if it has ceased to be the servant of the people. (Bernas, The
1987 Constitution of the Philippines: A Commentary, 2003 ed., p. 66.) This
provision does not apply to the Philippine National Police, because it is
separate and distinct from the Armed Forces of the Philippines. (Record of
the Constitutional Commission, Vol. V, p. 296, Manalo v. Sistoza. 312 SCRA
239 [1999].)