Bar Laws For Dummies Sample PFR PDF

FROM Nth BAR CHALLENGER TO ATTORNEY
BAR LAW FOR DUMMIES 2020
THE LAW ON PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

Ang BAR LAWS FOR DUMMIES 2020 (BLD2020) na may 311 na pahina ay dinesenyo upang
umangkop sa kakayanan ng mga ordinaryong tao (layman) at mga pasimulang mag-aaral ng batas.
Higit sa lahat, ang BLD2020 ay may adhikaing tulungan ang mga “nth” time bar examinees na
mapagtagumpayan na ang hamon ng napakahirap bar examination sa pamamagitan ng pag-gamit ng
mga estratehiyang pang-elementarya at highschool na pagtuturo hanggang sila ay magkaroon ng
sariling technique na kanilang magagamit sa kanilang patuloy pag-aaral.
Ang mga manunulat ay pauna na nang humihingi ng pang-unawa sapagkat may mga pagkakataon na
hindi maiiwasan na gumamit ng mga salitang bulgar upang higit na maitanim sa isipan ng mga
mambabasa ang nais ipaunawa nito. Bukod dito, ang mga katagang ginamit ay mga salitang pang-
araw-araw nating gamitin, kaya’t hindi maiiwasan ang mga maling gramatiko at pag-gamit ng
lengwahe sa kaka-ibang paraan.
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________

FIRST EDITION
JULY 5, 2019
MANILA, PHILIPPINES
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHORS (ECHOS LANG!)
The authors are your humble partners to succeed in your quest for a law degree and to clinch the evasive “Attorney”
title to your name. We believe that no one has the monopoly of knowledge so you may email us for any correction,
modification and suggestion at barlawfordummies@yahoo.com. Other law subjects will soon be available for 2020
Bar Exams. For orders visit FB Page: Law Reviewers, Books and Bookstand for Sale


FREQUENTLY ASKED TOPICS
FROM 1987-2018 PERSONS AND FAMILY
Introduction p. 4
How to answer bar questions p. 4
PART I: FAMILY CODE
Void Marriages p. 14
Property regime of unions without marriage p. 33
Article 147 p. 33
Article 148 p. 44
Psychological incapacity p. 49
Article 40 p. 68
Voidable Marriages p. 73
Conjugal Partnership of Gains p. 80
Absolute Community of Properties p. 95
CPG vs. ACP p. 80
Terminable Marraiges p. 114
Art. 50-54 p. 132
Presumptive legitime p.134
Marriage Solemnized / Divorce Obtained Abroad p. 135
Legal Separation p.150
Separation of Property p. 157
Regime of separation of property p. 160
Valid marriage p. 161
Donations by reason of marriage p. 164
Rights and obligations between husbands and wives p. 166
Property relations between husbands and wives p. 168
The Family p. 171
Paternity and filiation p. 182
Support p. 204


Emancipation and age of majority p. 217
Vested right p. 219
Adoption p. 223
Inter-country adoption 237
Other related laws
RA 9048 p. 239
PD 603 p. 240
RA 7610 p. 240
AM 02-11-10SC p. 241
PART II: DOCTRINES IN CIVIL LAW
When law takes effect p. 243
Legal effects of ignorance of the law p. 245
Waiver of rights p. 246
Judicial decisions as part of the legal system p. 248
Presumption in case of doubts in the interpretation of the law p. 250
Nationality principle p. 250
Lex rei sitae p. 251
Lex loci celebrationis p. 252
Observation of honesty and good faith p. 266
Indemnification for illegal acts p. 266
Actionable acts p. 266
Unjust enrichment p. 271
Right of privacy p. 272
Independent civil action p. 273
Impairment of rights and liberties p. 274
Prejudicial questions in civil law p. 275
PART III. THE LAW ON PERSONS
Judicial capacity vs. Capacity to act p. 276
When civil personality begins p. 277
When child is considered born p. 277



Presumption of survivorship p. 281
Presumption of death – ordinary absence p. 281
Presumption of death – qualified or extraordinary absence p. 281
PART IV: OTHER CIVIL LAW CONCEPT
Civil law system vs. Common law system p. 284
Right of first refusal p. 284
Joint venture p. 285
Presumption of survival in Rules of Court p. 285
References 288


The BAR LAW FOR DUMMIES 2020 (BLD2020) is designed for self-review and primarily aimed to help
the nth time examinees to pass the bar exams and for average law students to fully understand difficult
concepts of law as illustrated in our day-to-day activities. The technique is spoon-feeding and we did
much of all the thinking for you to save time. We included all the topics asked in past 20 years of bar
examinations, the bar answers to that bar questions, the relevant jurisprudence as well as the important
codal provisions. And because we believe that no one has the monopoly of knowledge we plan to make
BLD as a “COMMUNITY REVIEWER” where readers are encourage to email BLD2020 for any correction,
addition and suggestion to come up with an ultimate law reviewer. Those who will participate shall be
acknowledged as part of the community.
Initially, BLD2020 shall be available in hard copies to cope up with the initial expenses entailed. In the
future, when all the reviewers are complete and as the circumstances may warrant, a board of trustees
shall be formed to guard the integrity of the “community reviewer” and it shall be available via online
subscription for a minimal fee just to keep the system afloat. On that note, we ask for a lot of prayers
for the people who would become part of the community to have good health and a focused mind to
finish the work in time for 2020 bar examination.
You will find that we used Tagalog language and Filipino culture most of the time in explaining the law.
Firstly, it is because we are more equipped in our own native tongue when expressing our feelings and
thoughts, and according to psychology of learning, students learn better in their native language.
Secondly, different concepts of laws are best illustrated with our day-to-day experiences. And thirdly,
we want the readers to laugh and stay awake by using colorful words and hilarious situations.
By the way, when you avail of BLD2020 you will be added to a Facebook group exclusive for BLD users.
Take note that only veriafiable accounts with email address shall be accepted and retained as member.
We will do all the sharing and updates in that group.
HOW TO ANSWER BAR QUESTIONS?

(You may skip the exercises below and go to the main page right away)
Ang bar question, malimit maraming facts na immaterial or flowery ang mga sentences. As you read
along those questions, tanggalin ninyo sa isip ninyo yung mga immaterial facts, and retain only the
material fact of the question.
Take for example the no. 1 question in 2018 bar exams. If we take away the unimportant facts, ito lang
dapat ang question.
Solenn and Sonny were 18 and 19 years old when they got married without parental consent.
Is the marraige void, voidable or void?
However, you can only spot the material facts if you know the CORRECT applicable law. So, dito papasok
ang inyong stock knowledge. Kaya kailangang maraming nabasang cases at yung mga codal provisions
lamang na ginamit sa mga cases na ito ang intindihing mabuti. You may want to read all the codal
provisions but concentrate on those provisions often used in jurisprudence. Therefore, paramihan ng
nabasang cases ang survival sa bar exams. Also basahin din lahat ang mga previous bar questions
taking notes of the codal provisions used in answering that bar questions.
By the way, if you are reading books or school reviewers for the bar exam, you are in the very long and
slow process, at mapupuno lang ang utak mo ng napakaraming annotations na usually “disconnected
sa personal mong buhay”, kaya nga baka maya-maya ay tulog ka na. If you are using those materials,
just scan them, and look for the jurisprudence and be mindful of the codal provisions (the law) used for
such cases - napaka-rami kasing babasahin at baka ka maubusan ng oras. Kaya don’t read everything
- just those important and controversial issues. If you are enrolled in a review center, just attend the


discussion of subjects which you think na “mahina” ka. Otherwise, save time and money and do a self-
review in other subjects. Maraming free lectures available provided by kind hearted law professors to
grab.
Also, don’t tell yourself na your chance of passing the bar will increase because you are to attend the
best review center or if you were a graduate of this “known” law school. In those “known” law schools,
mataas ang bar passing rate nila kasi po first year pa lang may “pruning na”. Let say, there were 500
first year students, all who failed in a subject shall be given the pink slip to find another law school. So
next school year, 300 na lang. All students who have a failing grade sa isang subject and/or had less
than 77% general avarage shall be given that pink slip. The next sem, 250 na lang. then in the last year
of law study, 150 na lang iyan. Iyan yung mga pinaka-mahuhusay at mostly full-time students - these
are the the “creme of the crop”. Kaya most likely papasa silang lahat at matataas ang rating. But most
law schools do not do like that. Kaya it is a “misnomer” to say that there is such a thing as the best law
school. Remember that we have same books and equally talented law professors. The playing field is fair
and it’s still your study techniques pa rin ang magpapasa sa iyo sa bar exams.
----------------xxx--------------------
Going back on how to answer bar questions. Read the 2018 bar exam first question and just pick
the facts material to the question. You can do this by NOT reading the facts first but the question muna.
Saka mo balikan ang facts. Para as you read along, matatangal mo n yung mga immaterial facts. At para
hindi ka mabaliw sa dami ng “flowers and leaves” ng facts – eh ang hinahanap mo lang naman ay ang
“fruit to eat”.
2018 BAR EXAMINATION CIVIL LAW PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
[a] Is the marriage of Solenn and Sonny valid, voidable, or void? (2.5%)
[b] If the marriage is defective, can the marriage be ratified by free cohabitation of the parties?
(2.5%)
[at this time automatic ng papasok sa kukote mo yung mga void and voidable marraiges – magii-magine
ka na ng Art. 35, mag-pinsang nag-asawa, Art. 37, 38, 36, 40, 53 at isama mo na rin ang Art. 45 – lahat
yan ay nilagyan natin ng mukha sa BLD – kaya madaling “mapanood” sa isipan}
{so habang binabasa mo ang napakahabang essay – madali na para sa iyo na tanggalin ang lahat, at
iwanan lamang ang material facts relevant sa question}
[1] Sidley and Sol were married with one (1) daughter, Solenn. Sedfrey and Sonia were another couple
with one son, Sonny. Sol and Sedfrey both perished in the same plane accident. Sidley and Sonia met
when the family who those who died sued the airlines and went through grief-counseling sessions.
Years later, Sidley and Sonia got married. At that time, Solenn was 4 years old and Sonny was 5
years old. These two were then brought up in the same household. Fifteen years later, Solenn and
Sonny developed romantic feelings towards each other, and eventually eloped. On their own and
against their parents’ wishes, they procured a marriage license and got married in church.
[So yung highlighted lang ang relevant. Discard the others by simplifying the question. Hindi ba, ito lang
dapat ang tanong? (yung marriage license nasa likod na ng utak mo yun)
Solenn and Sonny were 18 and 19 years old when they got married without their parents’
consent. Is the marraige valid, voidable or void?
[Anong applicable law sa set of facts? – the marriage is voiable. The applicable law is Art 45 on
annulable marriage. If you cant remember the exact article – at least you have the provision in


annullable marriage ay nasa utak mo na. At ang mahalaga, tama ang sagot mo na ang marriage is not
void, but voidable.]
When you answer, gamitin po muna ninyo yung formula na ito, para masanay po kayo to think of the
appliable law att para na rin po simplified yung answer. Don’t do it like yung answer ng UPLC,
masyadong scholarly made at syempre open book na yun. They are good as source of information, but
the style is not appropriate in the bar. So here is the simplified formula.
Direct answer
The legal basis
The only material facts to the legal basis
The conclusion
Direct answer (Yes, or No). State the essential essence lang ng applicable law – not the whole law
(According to Article ____, In the annals of decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that____, In one of the
decisions of the Supreme Court,.....According to the law....).
The only material facts to the law – do not repeat the law (Here... In the case at bar....), The
conclusion (Therefore, Hence, In the light of the foregoing,)
[Direct answer) [The legal basis]

The marraige is voidable. Under Art 45 of the Family Code, the consent, of the parents or guardian
or person having parental authority over the party who is 18 years of age or over but below 21 years old
at the time of marriage, is required, and such marriage may be annulled by the party himself/herself or
by the person whose consent is required within the prescriptive period provided in Art. 47 of the same
Code.
[The only material facts to the law – do not repeat the law]
Here, Solenn and Sonny were only 19 and 20 years old, respectively, when they got married without the
consent of their respective parents.
[The conclusion – just repeat the direct answer with little of the law]
Hence, the marriage is voidable and annullable within the presciptive period provided for in the Family
Code.
----------------------xxx------------------------
Your answer could be any of the following.
[Sample 1]
The marriage is voidable. Under Art 45 of the Family Code, the consent, of the parents or guardian
or person having parental authority over the party, who is 18 years of age or over but below 21 years
old at the time of marriage, is required, and such marriage may be annulled by the party himself/herself
or by the person whose consent is required within the prescriptive period provided in Art. 47 of the same
Code.
Here, Solenn and Sonny were only 19 and 20 years old, respectively, when they got married without
the consent of their respective parents. Hence, the marriage is voidable and annullable within the
presciptive period provided for in the Family Code.


[Sample 2]
The marriage is voidable. Under the Family Code, the consent of parents, where a party in a marriage
is 18 years old or over but below 21, is required, and such marriage may be annulled by the party
himself/herself or by his/her parents within the prescriptive period provided for in the same Code.
Here, Solenn and Sonny were only 19 and 20 years old, respectivelly, when they got married without
the consent of their respective parents. Hence, the marriage is voidable and may be annulled within the
presciptive period provided for in the same Code.
[Sample 3]
The marriage is voidable. Under the Family Code, the consent of parents is required where a party,
in a marriage, is over 18 years of age or over but below 21. Here, Solenn and Sonny were only 19 and
20 years old, respectivelly, when they got married without the consent of their respective parents.
Hence, the marriage is voidable and annullable within the prescriptive period provided for in the same
Code.
[Sample 4]
The marriage is voidable. Under the Family Code, the consent of parents is required where a party,
in a marriage, is over 18 years of age or over but below 21. Here, Solenn and Sonny were only 19 and
20 years old, respectivelly, when they got married without the consent of their respective parents.
Hence, the marriage is voidable.
[Sample 5]
The marriage is voidable for lack of parental consent. Here, Solenn and Sonny were only 19 and 20
years old, respectively, when they got married without parental consent as required by the Family
Code for marriages where one of the parties is at least 18 years old or over but below 21.
[Sample 6]
The marriage is voidable because Solenn and Sonny were only 19 and 21 years old, respectively,
when they got married and they did not have parental consent as required by law in Art. 45 of the
Family Code.
-------------------Xxxx-------------------
[b] If the marriage is defective, can the marriage be ratified by free cohabitation of the parties?
(2.5%)
[Direct answer] [The applicable law]

Yes, the marriage may be ratified. Under Art 45 paragraph 1 of the Family Code, an annullable
marriage may be ratified by the parties themselves by freely cohabiting as husband and wife after such
party or parties, whose age is insufficient, attained the age of 21.
[the only material facts to the law – do not repeat the law]
[the conclusion]


Here, Solenn and Sonny where 18 and 19 years old, respectively, when they got married. Hence, when
Solenn attains the age of 21 and they are still cohabitting as husband and wife, the deffective marriage
is ratified.
Sample 1
Yes, the marriage may be ratified. Under Art 45 paragraph 1 of the Family Code, an annullable
marriage may be ratified by the parties themselves by freely cohabiting as husband and wife after such
party or parties, whose age is insufficient, attained the age of 21.
Here, Solenn and Sonny where 18 and 19 years old, respectively, when they got married. Hence, when
Solenn attains the age of 21, and they are still cohabitting as husband and wife, the deffective marriage
is ratified.
(In the next two samples, the direct answer and appllication of the law is combined followed by the law
used to justify the answer.)
Sample 2
Yes. Solenn and Sonny may ratify the defective marriage when both of them freely cohabit as
husband and wife after they attained the age 21 as provided for in Art 45 of the Family Code.
Sample 3
Yes, Solenn and Sonny may ratify the marriage when both of them attained the age of 21 and still
cohabiting as husband and wife as provided for the Family Code.
When you get used of the pattern, masasanay na rin po kayong sumagot ng halu-halo na ang direct
answer, facts & law – kagaya ng sample 2 and 3. Pero we are not saying na mas mataas ng points na
makukukha ninyo. So we suggest pa rin to use the pattern. Mas pagandahin na lang po ninyo, alam kong
mas mahuhusay kayo sa amin. It is just a matter of practice and it will show how good you are.
----------------xxx-------------------
Question NO. 2.
[a] What is the filation status of Shalimar? (2.5%)
[b] What system of property relationship will be liquidated following the declration of nullity of their
marriage? (2.5%)
[c] In the liquidation, who should get the parcel of land? The jewelry? (2.5%)
[d] Is Shalimar entitled to payment of presumptive legitime? If yes, how much should be her share and
from where should this be taken?
[2] After finding out that his girlfriend, Sandy, was four (4) months pregnant, Sancho married Sandy.
Both were single and had never been in any serious relationship in the past. Prior to the marriage, they
agreed in a marriage settlement that the regime of conjugal partnership of gains shall govern their
property relations during the marriage. Shorty after the marriage, thier daughter Shalimar was born.


Before they met and got married, Sancho purchased a parcel of land on installment, under a Contract
of Sale, with a full purchase price payable in equal annual amortizations over a period of ten (10) years,
with no downpayment, and secured by a mortgage on the land. The full puchase price was
PHP1,000,000.00, with interest rate of 6% per annum. After paying the fourth (4th) annual installment,
Sancho and Sandy got married, and Sancho completed the payments in the subsequent years from his
salary as an accountant. The previous payments were also paid out of his salary. During their marriage,
Sandy also won PHP1,000,000.00 in the lottery and used it to purchase jewelry. When things did not
work out for the couple, they filed an action for the declration of nullity of their marriage based on the
psychological incapacity of both of them. When the petition was granted, the parcel of land and the
jewelry bought by Sandy were found to be the only properties of the couple.
[a] What is the filation status of Shalimar? (2.5%)
(As you read along the facts you can write on the questionnaire)
Legitimate, Art 36, by expressed provision of the law.
[b] What system of property relationship will be liquidated following the declration of nullity of their
marriage? (2.5%)
Article 147 property regime for cohabitation
[c] In the liquidation, who should get the parcel of land? The jewelry? (2.5%)
Apply Art 147 taking care of the family as contribution and special c0-ownership
[d] Is Shalimar entitled to payment of presumptive legitime? If yes, how much should be her share and
from where should this be taken?
No. Walang legitime sa Art 36, 147 ang regime, (sa ACP at CPG lang may legitime, and
in other proper cases)
Then, get a piece of yellow paper, write your answer using the format we discussed above. Try to
answer with three samples each...hanggang ma-simplified po ninyo yung answer. Open your codals, by
the way. Hindi pa ito exam.
-------------------xxx--------------------------
Question no. 3. Here, read first the question below, then read the facts of the case. As you read along,
write down the answer from your mind sa blank space provided in each question.
[3] Silverio was a woman trapped in the man’s body. He was born male and his birth certificate indicated
his gender as male, and his name as Silverio Stalon. When he reached the aged of 21, he had sex re-
assignment surgery in Bangkok, and from then on, he lived as a female. On the basis of his sex
reassignment, he filed an action to have his first name changed to Shelley, and his gender, to female.
While he was following up his case in the RTC of Manila, he met Sharon Stan, who also filed a similar
action to change her first name to Shariff, and her gender, from female to male.
Sharon was registered as a female upon birth. While growing up, she developed male characteristics
and was diagnosed to have congenital adrenal hyperplasia (“CAH’) which is a condition where a person
posssesses both male and female characteristics. At puberty, tests revealed that her ovarian structures
had greatly minimized, and she had no breast or menstrual developement. Alleging that for all intents
and appearnces, as well as mind and emotion, she had become a male, she prayed that her birth


certificate be corrected such that her gender should be changed from female to male, and that her first
name should be changed from Sharon to Shariff.
Silverio and Sharon fell in love and decided to marry. Realizing that their marriage will be frowned upon
in the Philippines, they travelled to las Vegas, USA where they got married based on the law of the place
of the celebration of the marriage. They, however, kept their Philippine citizenship.
[a] Is there any legal basis for the court to approve Silverio’s petition for correction of entries in his
birth certificate? (2.5%)
[b] Will your answer be the same in the case of Sharon’s petition? (2.5%)
[c] Can the marriage of Silverio (Shelley) and Sharon (Shariff) be legally recognized as valid in the
Philippines? (2.5%)
Practice writing the “initial answer” in the space provide below..
[a] Is there any legal basis for the court to approve Silverio’s petition for correction of entries in his
birth certificate? (2.5%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[b] Will your answer be the same in the case of Sharon’s petition? (2.5%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[c] Can the marriage of Silverio (Shelley) and Sharon (Shariff) be legally recognized as valid in the
Philippines? (2.5%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, try to answer with codals open. Share to us your answer in the group page.
-------------------xxxx-----------------------------------
Question no. 10.
[10] Sinclair and Steffi had an illicit relationship while Sinclair was married to an other. The relationship
produced a daughter Sabina, who grew up with her mother. For most parts of Sabina’s youth, Steffi
spent for her support and edducation. When Sabina was 21 years old, Sinclair’s wife for so many years
died. Sinclair and Steffi left no time in legitimizing their relationship. After the 40-day prayers for
Sinclair’s late wife, Sinclair and Steffi got married without a marriage license, claiming that they have
been cohabiting for the last 20 years.
After graduation from college, Sabina decided to enroll in law shool. Sinclair said that he was not willing
to pay for her school fees since she was no longer a minor. Sinclair claimed that, if Sabina wanted to be
a lawyer, she had to work and spend for her law education.
[a] What is Sabina’s filiation status? (2.5%)



[b] Is Sinclair legally required to finance Sabina’s law education?
Read the applicable law and simplify your answer. Share your answer to us in the group page.
---------------------xxx--------------------------------
Question no. 16
[16] Selena was a single 18-year old when she got pregnant and gave birth to Suri. She then left to work
as a caregiver to Canada, leaving Suri with her parents in the Philippines. Selena, now 34 years old and
permanent resident in Canada, met and married Sam who is a 24-year old Canadian citizen who works
as a movie star in Canada. Sam’s parents are of Filipino anscestry but has become Canadian citizens
before Sam was born. Wanting Suri to have all the advantages of an legitimate child, Selena and Sam
decided to adopt her. Sam’s parents, already opposed to the marriage of their son to someone
significantly older, vehemently, objected to the adoption. They argued that Sam was not old enough and
that the requisite age gap required by the Inter-Country Adoption Act between Sam as adopter and Suri
as adoptee was not met.
Are Sam’s parents correct? (2.5%)
This time, read the law in the book and close it. Then try to answer the question. Open the book again to
improve your answer if you are not satisfied. Share to us your answer.
-----------------------xxx---------------------------
[17] Sofia and Samuel, both unmarried, lived together for so many years in the Philippines and begot
three children. While Sofia stayed in the Philippines with the children, Semuel went abroad to work and
became and naturalized German citizen. He met someone in Germany whom he wanted to marry.
Semuel thereafter came home and filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for partition of the
common properties acquired during his union with Sofia in the Philippines. The properties acquired
during the union consisted of a house and lot in Cavite worth PhP2 million, and some personal
properties, including cash in the bank amounting to PhP1 million. All these properties were acquired
using Samuel’s salaries and wages since Sofia was a stay-at-home mother. In retaliation, Sofia filed and
action, on behalf of their minor children, for support.
(a) How should the properties be partitioned? (2.5%)
(b) Should Semuel be required to support the minor children? (2.5%)
This time, read the law in the book, close it and answer the question. Share it.
---------------------------xxx--------------------------------
Note: When you answer, gumamit na po kayo ng paper and use cursive handwriting. Use the book –
HANDWRITING FOR LASALLIANS BY DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY – available sa National Bookstore at
P300.00. It improved my handwriting skills.


PART I
FAMILY CODE
As a teaser, do you know why law books and jurisprudence are so ridiculously difficult to understand? It
is because the authors meant them to impress their collegues, and not for the students and definitely not
for the parties – who are mostly simple persons. And you know why it is hard to study law, because the
lawyer-professors teach them per provision starting from the first article to the last one, and that is not an
effective teaching strategy.
In studying the concept of marriage, we chose to start with its counterfiet – the void marriages, and not
the typical per provision starting from Article 1. Think of Family Code like a menu – a chopseuy. Look
at it and you will know the ingredients. But if just look at the raw ingredients, one by one, you will keep
on guessing what will be the final menu when they all are mixed together. By studying void marriages
early on, we will be able to tackle most of the first 38 articles at the quickest time instead of chewing
the first article to the last.
After void marraiges, we will get to know the controversial psychological incapacity under Art 36 followed
by Article 40. Then we will take on voidable marraiges and property regimes under articles 147 and
148, followed by Articles 50 to 53 and terminable marriages, and finishing it up with the evolution of
the foreign divorces under Art 26 and legal separaton.
Other topics such as rights and obligations of husbands and wives, paternity and filiation, support and
the family are best discussed alongside with jurisprudence and bar questions related to different types
of marriages. They are actually consequences of conflict and a lot of issues concerning those topics are
raised up in each major subject matter we mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
The physical form ng program will be like this: the lecture in Tagalog language, along side with
provisions, followed by juriprudence and bar questions and answers from 1987-2018. So you dont need
to buy notes on frequent bar topics, and bar questions and answers for they are all here. Sa bar answers,
some of old answers are already overturned by recent decisions, like ng Manalo case on foreign divorces.
We also included those questions but have put a note that the original answer was overturned by a
recent jurisprudence.
Please take notice that the bulk of the lecture are alongside with the important jurisprudence, if you
find that the lecture is short at the beginning of the topic, we chose to do the discussion with the
jurisprudence for a better recall.
__________________________
In our lecture we wil use the following persons
X = the husband
Y = the wife
Z= the paramour or the second husband ni Y
W = the paramour or second wife ni X
A, B, C = children ni X and Y
D, E, F = children ni X and W


G, H, I = children ni Y and Z
When the solemnizing officer finally says, “I now pronounce you man and wife”, you and your spouse
has become a new creation. Parang isang nilalang. That’s what happened in a valid marriage (or at least
voidable), it is like new creation – isang bagong nilalang na tao. The new ‘person’ has its own
“personality”. He can acquire assets, incur debt and obligations as well as rights. Meron siyang property
regime – na Absolute community of property or, kung ayaw nila ng ACP, pwede ring conjugal partnership
of gains, or a unique marriage settlement.
Just like a natural person, pag namatay - magkakaroon ng succession – yung ari-arian niya ay
mapupunta sa mga heirs. Pero bago mapunta sa heirs – magbabayad muna ng mga utang at yung
natira yun lang ang tinatawag na estate na paghahatian ng mga naiwan.
Sa marriage, similarly, ganun din. Ang tawag dun ay liquidation of property. Let say - sabi ni X, hiwalay
na tayo – I will file annulment. When granted by the court, the marriage died or is dissolved.
There shall be liquidation – babayaran lahat ng utang, at yung matitira ay paghahatian din ng mag-
asawa. Ang unique sa FC, ang mga anak ay bibigyan ng advance na mana – or yung tintawag nating –
presumptive legitime.
In studying marriage, mas mahusay simulan ang pag-aaral sa counterfeit – or the void marriage. Pag
void, walang new creation. Walang mamatay at walang dissolution. Because a void marriage is
inexistent.
So in a nutshell, there is no property regime – neither absolute community of property (ACP) nor conjugal
property of gains (CPG) in void marraiges. The property regime is governed by special co-ownership
under Art 147 or 148. It means they are the co-owners of their property depending on the amount or
kinds of their contribution. Dahil the property regime is neither ACP or CPG, there is no regime to
dissolve so there is no liquidation and delivery of presumptive legitime.
Since there is no the marriage at all, the children are illegitimate. That’s the general rule. Exception?
Meron. If the voidability of the marraige is under Art 36 (psychological incapacity) or Art. 53.
So lets start with void marriages.


VOID MARRIAGES
WHAT ARE VOID MARRIAGES?
Art 37. Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning, whether
the relationship between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate:
(1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and

(2) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood.
Art 38. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public policy:
(1) Between collateral blood relatives, whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil
degree;
(2) Between step-parents and step-children;
(3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
(4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;
Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child:
(5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter,
(6) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter;
(7) Between the adopted children of the same and
(8) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that other person’s
spouse or his or her own spouse.
How do you count degree? From you, your parents are one degree up, your grand parents are two
degrees up, their other children or your uncles and aunties are on third, and their children or your first
cousins are on the fourth degree. So hanggang kay lovely cousin ang hindi mo pwedeng i-seduce to
marry you. Pero yung anak ni cousin na mas bata. Yan...pwede mo ng ligawan at pakasalan – kasi pang
5th degree na level ni pamangkin sa pinsan. So hanggang pinsan yung prohibition – the 4th degree
relatives.
---------------------
Ok. Let us take them one by one.
[1] Exception, if direct ascendants or descendants, kahit ilang degree hindi pwede. You cannot marry
your great-great-great grandmother who is in the 5th degree.
[2] Between step children, pwede. Dati sa Civil code bawal ang marriage between step-children. But
now, under FC, there is no more prohibition.
[3] Between adopted chidren, not allowed. Though there are no relationships between them.
Remember in adoption, the legal tie is created only between the adopting parent and the adopted
child. If X adopted A, B and C. The children have not become siblings by adoption but they have one
parent who is X. By public policy, they cannot marry each other.
[4] Let say X, marries Y, Y cannot remarry any of the adopted children of X when he (X) dies. Because
she is the surviving spouse (Y) of the adopting parent (X), and that’s against public policy.
X and Y’s marriage was annuled. Pwede ng pakasalan ni Y ang any adopted child ni X. Because X and
Y are no more couple. It means – pwede ng maging karibal ni daddy yung anak niya.


[5] A is the adopted child of X, she married B. A died. X cant marry B. But if the marriage of A and B
were annuled, X can marry B. Because A and B are not anymore a couple.
Surviving spouse – means there is death. If na-annul na marriage, wala ng magiging surviving spouse.
So the prohibition does not apply.
[6] Marraige between an adopted child and illegitimate child of the adopter is valid.
Rule:
Marriages between adopted children of the same adopter are likewise declared void by reason of public
policy.
Thus, as far as adopted child is concerned, he or she is prohibited from marrying the following:
(1) the adopter;
(2) the surviving spouse of the adopter;
(3) the legitimate children of the adopter; and
(4) the other adopted children of the same adopter.
The adopter, on the other hand, is prohibited from marrying the following:
(1) the adopted child; and
(2) the surviving spouse of the adopted child.
[7] Let say Z, the paramour, killed X, and then he marries Y. The marriage is valid. There was no
intention to marry Y at the time of the incident. The intention must be proven by factual evidence.
Let’s say X killed Y, and marrried V. The marriage is valid. The killing is not intended to marry V. The
intention must be proven by factual evidence. Hindi pwede na by mere allegation na paramour niya si
V. Dapat the intention to marry is clear.
Final conviction of the crime is not required. Sa petition of annulment pwede ng i-allege ang intent to
kill in order to marry the victim’s spouse.
----------------------------------
Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents
guardians;
(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such
marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the
solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so;
(3) Those solemnized without a license, except those covered by the preceding Chapter;
(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41;
(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other; and
(6) ‘Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.
No. 1, 2 and 3 of Art 35 talk about the essential and formal requisites of marriage. Isa lang mawala sa
essential requisites, the marriage is void. If they are present, but insuffcicient - kulang, that is only a
defect, the marriage is not void but voidable. It means valid until declared void.


SO WHAT ARE THESE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES?
Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present:
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties

(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer
WHAT ABOUT THE FORMAL REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE?
Art 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer,

(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place the appearance of the contracting parties before the
solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and
wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.
WHAT ABOUT UNION OF SAME-SEX INDIVIDUALS?
They are not marriage at all, even when celebrated with all the essential and formal requisites. Let’s say
they were able to get a marriage license, mukhang babae na yung isa at mukha namang over 18 years
old na. The civil registrar had to dispense with the birth certificate. So the marriage license was issued
by mistake. The union cannot be called marriage at all for lack of law recognizing as such. The Family
Code defines marriage as “special contract of permanent union between a man and woman”, it means
biological designation of sex by birth.
Some author would say that such union is void because of lack of incapacity to marry each other. That
is misplaced. Kasi nga legal capacity is dependent on age and state of mind. The gay guys are in the
right mind and over 18 years old, so they have the right to be happy and get married, di ba? So, the
crux is that there is no law allowing such celebrated union to be considered as marriage.
SO WHEN YOU ARE ASKED SA BAR, WHAT ARE THE VOID AB INTIO MARRIAGES UNDER THE
FAMILY CODE?
Incestous marriages under Art. 37 are void from the beginning as well those under Art 38 for being
against pubic policy. Marriages absent one of any of the essential or formal requisites are also void ab
initio by direct provision of the law as well as those bigamous and polygamous marriages not falling
under Art 41, marriage by mistake of the identity of the other, marriages in non-compliance of Art. 40,
and those subsequent marriages under Art 53. Marriages when one of the parties has psychological
incapacity under Art. 36 are also void from the beginning. In addition, union of same-sex individuals
even when solemnized with all the essential and formal requisites shall not be considered marriage at
all for lack of law recognizing such celebrated union as marriage.
_____________________________
So now, let me take you in a ride on the preliminaries of a marriage to have better
understanding of void ab initio marriages under No. 1, 2 and 3 of Art 35.
Before performing the marriage ceremony, the judge must do an indept interview.


[1] To personally interview the contracting parties and examine the requirements they submitted. The
parties must have complied with all the essential and formal requisites of marriage.
SO ANU-ANO BA ITONG ESSENTIAL REQUISITES;
[a] Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and
(b) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.
Legal capacity dapat babae at lalaki by birth, so, if sobrang bata ng babae at sa tingin ni judge ay below
18, he might require proof like birth ceritificate or when he heard ng magsalita si Y, na parang
sinasapian ng demonyo – pero sobrang ganda, makinis at ang haba ng buhok, babaeng-babae sa labas
na anyo, pero ka-boses ni Ted Failon – transsexual. Red flag na yun. The solemnizing officer must not
celebrate the marriage. Male and female dapat and 18 years old and above. If below 21, the officer will
require the presence ng parents or gurdian, to give consent in front of him.
Note: Any absence ng any essential requisites, the marriage is void, but any defect, the marraige is
voidable. Therefore, no legal capacity (17 below ang age, same-sex parties, 18 years old nga - pero sintu-
sinto or special child) or no consent was given by a party or both in the presence of the officer (marriage
via skype), the marraige is void ab initio.
Pag sinabing defect, nadun ang legal capacity and consent, pero may defect. Like no consent ng parents
or guardian sa below 21 years old na ikakasal, consent was given in good faith na may authority n mag
solemnize ng marriage si pastor, yun pala wala. Yan... mga defect lang yan....the marraige is not void
but voidable. It means valid until declared void.
SO ANU-ANO NAMAN ITONG FORMAL REQUISITES:
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;

(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before
the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband
and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.
So the first thing to do, ay pupunta si X and Y sa civil registry, mag-aaply ng marriage license.
Requirement na dalhin syempre ang mga birth certificate or baptismal certificate. If below 21 years old
either si X or Y, they need consent ng tatay muna, or nanay, surviving parent or guardian, in that order.
Kung walang consent, hindi void ang mariage, voidable lang. Defect lang yun sa consent ng parties.
If walang birth or batismal, the requirement is a sworn affidavit, plus affidavit ng 2 disinterested person
na sina X and Y nga ay mga nasa tamang edad na para magpakasal. Or kung nadun ang mga parents,
sworn affidavit ng parents na nasa tamang edad na sila X and Y para magpakasal. At kung sa tingin
naman ni civil registrar sa mga hitsura ni X and Y na mas matanda pa sa kanya, ok na wag na
magpresent ng birth certificate, material lang ito to determine the legal capacity by age, or if may legal
capacity, need pa ba ng parental consent. So any absence ng mga requirment na mga sinabi ko, at
nakapag-issue ng marriage license si civil registrar, the absence shall be considered only as irregularity,
the marriage is valid. Pero si civil registrar shall be liable civilly, criminaly and administraively liable.
Bahala na siya sa buhay niya, basta ang kasal valid.
In cases na may dati ng kasal either X and Y or both, they need to present the following instead of
birth certificate:


[a] Death certificate ng previous spouse; or
[b] Judicial decree of absolute divorce (foreign judgment ito n already recognized by the Philippine
court); or
[c] Judicial decree of nullity or annulment of pevious marriage.
If walang death certificate, madalas yung mga kinain ng dagat, nalunod at nakitang bangkay na. Sa
probinsya madalas pag patay na, wala ng report report pa. Kung yung mga nabuhay nga ng mga walang
birth certificate, nang mamatay, irereport pa ba? Eh patay na. So, sworn affidavit na lang of the
circumstances of death ng previous partner.
THE 3-MONTH ISSUANCE RULE
If the one of the parties or both is between 21 to 25 years old, they are obliged to obtain PARENTAL
ADVICE upon the intended marriage. Ito yung blessings ng parents. If unfavorable – ayaw ng parents
ni Y kay X, dahil hampaslupa siya, the license shall be issued only after three months from the
completion of the publication. Nasa isang sworn statement ang lahat ng yan, to be submitted with the
application.
If any of the party or both, ay between 18 to 25, kailangan ng CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE

COUNSELLING from their religious affiliation or from any marriage counsellor accredited by the
government. If walang certification, the marriage license shall only be issued after 3 months from the
completion of the publication.
PUBLICATION
Sa loob ng 10 ARAW, ipopost ang notice of application sa bulletin board sa labas ng local civil registry.
Yung kitang kita ng tao. At sa loob ng 10 araw, ang buong sambayanan ay may panahon para tumutol
at sabihin sa local civil registrar about any impediment na wag maikasal si X and Y. Pagkatapos ng 10
araw, ilalabas na ang marriage license, duly noted ang impediment reported.
ANU-ANO ITONG IMPEDIMENT NA ITO?
Sabi sa batas any impediment? It is submitted na yung mga minor lang na wont result sa invalidity ng
marriage or hindi magreresult ng crime. If say the parties are only 12 years old, malaking bulas lang,
dahil sa religion or custom nila ay ok ang ganun ang idad n ikasal, tapos dadalhin sa Iran ang bata,
yung mga magulang ok lang sa kanila, the license shall not be issued. Child trafficking na ito. Let say
that the girl is an imbecile, the license shall be not be issued. May prior and subsisting marriage, the
license wont be issued. To issue the license is ministerial, yes if all requirments are present and in order.
If there is a serious impediment at magreresult ng crime, the civil registrar may hold off the issuance.
VALIDITY NG MARRIAGE LICENSE
Valid yan for 120 days from issuance and effective all over the Philippines. So sa 121th day, expred na
license ng kasal, the marriage shall be viid for lack of marriage license.
And it shall be deemed automatically cancelled at the expiration period if hindi ginamit ni X and Y. Non-
transfereable. Hindi pwedeng si X and U na lang n kakambal ni Y ang ikasal tutal ito naman ang original
gf ni X.....or let say the license was to be issued in January 2, 2019, eh asawang asawa n si X and Y,
nagpakasal sila Jan 1, sumabay sa putukan. The marriage is void, kahit kinabukasan may license na
sila.
CEREMONY


Eh di eto na, ang araw ng kasal. All are in order, everything is within the bounds of the law. Marriage
ceremony na at pirmahan na ng marriage certificate.
Art. 6. No prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall be
necessary, however, for the contracting parties to appear personally before the solemuizing officer and
declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that they take each other as
husband and wife. This declaration shall be contained in the marriage certificate which shall be signed
by the contracting parties and their witnesses and attested by the solemnizing officer.
In case of a marriage in articulo mortis, when the party at the point of death is unable to sign the
marriage certificate, it shall be sufficient for one of the witnesses to the marriage to write the name of
said party, which fact shall be attested by the solemnizing officer.
Ito yung portion na, “ lalaki, tinatanggap mo b na maging kabiyak.....? opo. Padre.” Yan lang yung
ceremony, hindi na kasama yung misa sa simbahan at mga abuluyan. Pag sinabi na ni Y na opo padre.
Tapos na yung ceremony. Paano kung walang witness, secret marriage. It cant happen, kasi laging may
witness. Yung secretary ni judge, yung alalay ng pari, kahit na sinong mga tao doon papipirmahin yun
as witnesses.
Sa articulo mortis, yung witness ang pwedeng pipirma in liue of the dying spouse. Let say balikat na
lang natitira kay sundalo, kasi tinamaan ng kanyon. To be attested by the military commander na hindi
n kayang pumirma pa ni X...at wala ng ngang braso.
So the marriage contract or certificate is not essential part of marriage. AT HINDI ITO YUNG MARRIAGE
LICENSE.
Marriage contract is the best evidence na may marriage na nangyari. Oral marriage, as long na nadoon
lahat ang essential at formal requisites is valid.
______________________________________
Balikan natin about solemnizing officer dahil maraming tinatanong sa bar exams on this topic;
WHO CAN SOLEMNIZE?
Art. 7. Marriage may be solemnized by:
(1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court’s jurisdiction;
(2) Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect duly authorized by his
church or religious sect and registered with the civil registrar general, acting within the limits
of the written authority granted him by his church. Or religious sect and provided that at least
one of the contracting parties belongs to the solemnizing officer’s church or religious sect;
(3) Any consul-general, consul or vice-consul in the case provided in Article 10.
(4) Any ship captain or airplane chief only in the cases mentioned in Article 31; or
(5) Any military commander of a unit to which a chaplain is assigned, in the absence of the latter,
during a military operation, likewise only cases mentioned in Article 32;
[6] Nasaan, ang authority ng mga mayors? Wala sa family code, nasa Local government code. Sec 255
(xviii)
.....(xviii) Solemnize marriages, any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding;


Therefore, from Aug 3, 1988 to the effectivity ng Local Government Code ng 1991 in January 1992,
mayors could not solemnize marriages. A marriage solemnized within that interegnum is void.
MAYORS AS SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS
Whereas under Art. 56 of the NCC, marriages may be solemnized by mayors of cities and municipalities,
under the FC, mayors are no longer authorized to solemnize marriages. However, in view of the Local
Government Code which took effect on January. 1992, the duty elected mayors of the cities and
municipalities can again solemnize marriages, thus, reverting back to the old law. The word mayor
includes a “vice mayor who is the acting mayor”.
[7] Imam in Muslim rites or leaders of the ethnic cultural communities in Art 33.
Ok sila lang ang pwedeng magkasal ( 1-7), anybody else the marriage shall be void dahil walang formal
requisite. But merong provision n exception which is belief in good faith.
Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning;
xxx(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such
marriages were contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing
officer had the legal authority to do so; xxxx
NOTE: believe in good faith on question of fact lang ito pwede.
GOOD FAITH IN QUESTION OF FACT VS GOOD FAITH IN QUESTION OF LAW
Let say, X and Y married under the solemnization of Mang Kanor, judge ng beauty contest. Pero ang
appelation sa buong baranggay ay si Judge Kanor. X and Y with all their heart believe that Mang Kanor
is a an RTC judge and has authority to solemnize marriages. What is the status of the marriage? It is
submitted na the marraige is void. Good faith is not a defense against ignorance of the law. Igorance of
the law excuses no one. It is assumed that we know the lists of solemnizing officers, kasi batas ito. If
the officer is not one of the lists, then the marriage must be declared void. Dapat may due diligence on
the part of X and Y to ask for the real work ni Mang Kanor para maging question of fact ito.
Let say, Si mayor Z, he was ordered immediately to vacate the position, he solemnized the marriage of
X and Y. It is submitted that the marriage is valid because he is one of the listed officers and X and Y
believed in good faith that the mayor still have the authority to solemnize marriage despite of that order.
It is a question of fact, and good faith is a valid defense.
So there, dapat may color of authority ang solemnizing officer, at ang issue ay question of fact lang. If
the officer is not one of the lists, let say yung kung lasenggo lang sa kanto ang magkakasal, o isang
nagpapanggap na paring naggagala sa piyesta, the marriage is void ab initio in spite of the genuine belief
of X and Y. Because that is ignorance of the law. Hindi mo alam kung sinu-sino lamang ang maaring
magkasal? Kaya dapat nagtatanong ng batas at may due diligence to check everyting if all are in order.
WHERE TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGES?
Art. 8. The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open court, in the
church, chapel or temple, or in the office of the consul-general, consul or vice-consul, as the case may
be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of marriages contracted at the point of death or in remote places
in accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or where both of the parties request the solemnizing officer


in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a
sworn statement to that effect.
[1] Judges – sa chamber lang, if sa labas ng chamber, need ng written requests, if none, that is only
an irregularity. The marriage is still valid.
What about if judge in Manila, solemnizes marriage in Cebu? It is submitted na valid ang marriage but
subject to administrative penalty si Judge.
[2] Priests, rabbi, imam, pastors – sa loob lang ng church, chapel or temple, and not elsewhere.
Excpept may written request from the party address to the officer na sa bahay, or any place like sa
garden. If sa ibang lugar at walang written request, the marriage is still valid. Irregularity lang ang
lack of written request.
[3] Consul general, consul, or vice-consul – in their offices, not elsewhere. Same with number 2.
[4] Ship captain or airplane chief – in the ship at sea or on plane in flight, but also during stopovers
and port of call. If outside those areas, the marriage is void unless the any of the party or both, believe
so in good faith that the ship captain or the pilot still has the jurisdiction to solemnize marriages
ouside those areas. Kasi nga, may color of authority pa rin sila. Its still a question of fact.
[5] Military commander pag walang chaplain – within the zone of military operation where he is
assigned between persons, whether members of the armed forces or civilians, at pag wala lang si
chaplain. If nandyan si Chaplain, the chaplain shall officiates the articulo mortis, not the commander
in chief. If the commander officiates, the marriage is void, unless belief in good faith sets in.
[a] what if X, a soldier, was brought to a hospital outside of the military zone, and mamatay n talaga si
X. Walang ibang pwedeng magkasal, si commander lang na nagdala sa sugatang sundalo ang nadoon.
Kinasal niya. Valid b yung kasal. It is submitted, yes. By analogy with the number 4 on ship captains
and pilots, sa port of call at stop overs pede silang magkasal, here sa hospital outside the military
zone, pwede rin, basta may significant connections ang mga circumstances that will lead to marriage
in articulo mortis.
Point of death – think of a person who is a victim of a frustrated murder. Yun talagang mamamatay
na. Nabuhay lang siya because of the timely medical intervention. If mga galos lang at kalmot
hahahaha hindi ito articulo mortis. Or the wound is not fatal, like sa balikat or extremeties, hindi ito
point of death.
[6] Mayors – sa LGC, walang sinabi about limitation in jurisdiction. It is submitted that mayors may
solemnize anywhere in the Philippines.
MARRIAGE LICENSE
The cardinal rule is, pag walang marriage license, the marriage is void. Exceptions
[1] marriage by articulo mortis in Art 27;

[2] marriage in remote places in Art 28;
[3] marraige in articulo mortis during air travel and voyage in Art 31;
[4] marriage in articulo mortis within the zone of military operation in Art 32;
[5] marraige among Muslims or among members of the ethnic cultutral communities in accordance
with their customs, rites and practices in Art 33.


[6] Uninterrupted cohabitation of the parties as husband and wife for at least 5 years and without any
legal impediment to marry in Art 34.
ARICULO MORTIS SA BAHAY OR HOSPITAL
[1] Art, 27. In case either or both of the contracting parties are at the point of death, the marriage may
be solemnized without necessity of a marriage license and shall remain valid even if the ailing party
subsequently survives.
The clue here, either X and Y is fatally wounded or in the point of death.
Si X is about to die, nasa death bed na. No time to secure marriage license, kasi di ba may publication
pa ng 10 days. Y can call on any solemnizing officer to officiate the ceremony.
REMOTE PLACES
[2] Art. 28. If the residence of either party is so located that there is no means of transportation to
enable such party to appear personally before the local civil registrar, the marriage may be solemnized
without the necessity of a marriage license.
Like in Pag-asa Island, though may biyahe pero minsan lang sa loob ng isang buwan. X and Y got
married. The marriage is void. Because there is a mean of transportion going to the civil registrar.
Dapat yung wala talagang means of transporatation. Let say nasa jungle, yan...wala talagang kalsada,
tapos tatawid pa ng dagat going to the main city. Kadalasan, mga tribes na ito na ang applicable
provision is Art 33.
ARTICULO MORTIS ON VOYAGE
[3] Art. 31. A marriage in articulo mortis between passengers or crew members may also be
solemnized by a ship captain or by an airplane pilot not only while the ship is at sea or the plane is in
flight, but also during stopovers at ports of call.
Let say plane 101, crashed. X and Y survived but X is fatally wounded. The pilot also died. Yung assistant
pilot na lang ang buhay. The assistant pilot may solemnize in the absence of the main pilot kasi by
policy siya na ang chief pilot.
Let say, X suffered a heart attack, he is about to die. The chief pilot designate his assistant to
solemnize. The marriage is void. The assistant has no authority. The authority cannot be delegated.
ARICULO MORTIS ON WAR ZONE
[4] Art. 32. A military commander of a unit, who is a commissioned officer, shall likewise have
authority to solemnize marriages in articulo mortis between persons within the zone of military
operation, whether members of the armed forces or civilians.


Let say X was about to go to war zone at everyone knows na walang nakakabalik ng buhay. X married
Y, solemnized by the military commander. X died in the war zone. The marriage is void. The marraige is
not in articulo mortis. Because X was so healthy he married Y.
ETHNIC/RELIGIOUS RITES
[5] Art. 33. Marriages among Muslims or among members of the ethnic cultural communities may be
performed validly without the necessity of a marriage license, provided they are solemnized in
accordance with their customs, rites or practices.
So this is an addional solemnizing officer, yung mga tribe leaders or priests.
COHABITATION
[6] Art. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together
as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The
contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to
administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he ascertained the
qualifications of the contracting parties and found no legal impediment to the marriage.
The cohabitation must be:

[a] uninterrupted for at least 5 years;
[b] the parties lived as husband and wife; and have no legal impediment to marry
X cohabited with Y, but had an affair with V, and lived with her for a month. The cohabitation has
been broken. Start uli ng counting from the time of balikan ni X and Y.
There must be a perception sa community that the parties are living as husband and wife. Dapat walang
pretention na mag-tiyahin lang. Kasi nahihiya si Y, she is older ng 20 years than X. So alam ng buong
bayan na mag tiyahin sila kasi ang tawag ni X kay Y ay Ate or Tita, pero sa bahay they live as couple.
The exception of the couple from the requirement to secure a marriage license is to save the dignity of
the couple and their children in the requirement of publishing their names while awaiting for the
issuance of marriage license. Magiging tsismis pa sila na ang mga anak pala nito ay mga anak sa
pagkakasala. Meaning walang kasal.
PRESUMPTION OF MARRIAGE
There is this presumption of marriage between couples. You dont ask you neighbor na - patingin nga
ng marriage contract ninyo, if kasal nga kayo. That is unacceptable. Kahit sa barangay, the officers
cannot ask for the marraige contract if you file a case against sa isang tsismosa na kinakalat na kabit
ka. The fact that nagsasama na kayo, the presumption is that you are legally married and only at the
proper forum lang like the court can question that presumption.
THE PARTIES MUST BE OF AGE with NO SUBSISTING PREVIOUS MARRIAGE
If the parties are of not legal age, the counting shall start when both get 18 years old.
If there is an subsisting marriage, the cohabitation is adulterous. The counting shall start at the
severance of marriage by court order or by death of one of the parties in the previous marriage.


JURISPRUDENCE
THE VALIDITY OF A VOID MARRIAGE

MAY BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED IN AN ACTION FOR SUPPORT
De Castro vs. Assidao-DeCastro, GR No.. 160172, Februarys, 2008
X and Y were sweethearts since 1991 and planned to get married, so they apply for marriage license.
When they got back to claim the license, it was already expired. Thus, in order to push through with the
plan, they executed an affidavit dated March 15, 1995 stating that they have been living togather as
husband and wife for at least 5 years. The couple got married in that same date. To cut the story short,
naghiwalay din sila, immediately thereafter the marraige. They begat Z in Novemeber 1995. Y filed a
complaint for support against X before the RTC.
[1] IS THE MARRIAGE VALID?
No. It is void ab initio for lack of marriage license. Under the Family Code, in the absence of any of the
essential or formal requisites, it shall render the marriage void ab initio, whereas a defect in any of the
essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable. In the instant case, it is clear from the facts that
X and Y did not have a marriage license when they contracted their marriage. Instead, they presented
an affidavit stating that they had been living together for more than five years.
[2]WHAT IS A VALID COHABITATION?
The fact the parties lived together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a continuous
and unbroken period of at feast five years before the marriage.
[a] What is the reason for exempting them from seeking a marriage license?
The aim of this provision is to avoid exposing the parties to humiliation, shame and embarrassment
concomitant with the scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage due to the publication
of every applicant’s name for a marriage license.
[3] WHAT IS THE DUTY OF THE JUDGE/OFFICER BEFORE IT SOLEMNIZE MARIAGES?
Before performing the marriage ceremony, the judge must personally examine the marriage license
presented. If the contracting’ parties have cohabited as husband and wife for at least five years and have
no legal impediment to marry, they are exempt from the marriage license requirement. Instead, the
parties must present an affidavit of cohabitation sworn to before any person authorized by law to
administer oaths. The judge, as solemnizing officer, must personally examine the affidavit of
cohabitation as to the parties having lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, and the
absence of any legal impediment to many each other. The judge must also execute a sworn statement
that he personally ascertained the parties qualifications to marry and found no legal impediment to the
marriage. Sec 5 of the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the Judiciary
provides that:
“In the; case of a marriage effecting legal ratification of cohabitation, the solemnizing officer shall:
(a) personally interview the contracting parties to determine their qualifications to marry;
(b) personally examine the affidavit of the contracting parties as to the fact of having lived together as
husband and wife for at least five (5) years and the absence of any legal impediments to many each
other; and


(c) execute a sworn statement showing compliance with (a) and (b) and that the solemnizing officer found
no-legal impediment to the marriage.”
NOTE : If the solemnizing officer notarized the affidavit of cohabitation, he cannot objectively examine
and review the affidavit’s statements before performing the marriage ceremony . Should there be any
irregularity or false statements in the affidavit of cohabitation he notarized, he cannot be expected to
admit that he solemnized the marriage despite the irregularity or false allegation. Thus, judges cannot
notarize the affidavits of cohabitation of the parties whose marriage they will solemnize.
Sa mga remote areas, walang notary public, so the MTC judges are allowed to notarize sworn affidavit
on cohabitation. Judges, therefore, cannot notarize the affidavits of cohabitation of the parties whose
marriage they will solemnize. Ibigay na lang nila sa ibang judges ang duty to solemnize those marriages.
[4] WHAT IS THE STATUS OF CHILDREN BORN OUT OF VOID MARRIAGE?
The general rule is that children born out of void marriages are illegitimate under Art. 165. Except those
whose parental marriages are nullified on the ground of psychological incapacity under Art 36 or failure
of the subsequent couple to comply with Art 52. Children born out of those void marriages are legitimate
by express provision of the law.
[5] DOES THE TRIAL COURT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE
MARRIAGE IN AN ACTION FOR SUPPORT?
Yes. The trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the validity of marriage in an action for support. The
validity of a void marraige may be collaterally attacked.
[a] What other action may the validity of a void marrige be colaterally attacked?
Heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or
criminal case for that matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly
insitituted to question the same as long as it is essential to the determination of the case. This is without
prejudice to any issue that may arise in the case. When such need arises, a final judgment of declaration
of nullity is necessary even if the purpose is other than to remarry. The clause “on the basis of a final
judgment declaring such previous marriage void” in Article 40 of the Family Code connotes that such
final judgment need not be obtained only for purpose of remarriage.
Take note: The decree of nullity of marriage can be sought even if a party wont remarry in contrast to
Art 40 of the Family Code.
VOID MARRIAGES CAN ALSO BE ATTACKED IN RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF WHO HAS THE
BETTER RIGHT OVER A DEATH BENEFITS.
Tupa vs. Judge Rojo, A.M. No. MTJ-14- 1842, February 24, 20l4
THERE IS GENUINE CONSENT OF PARTIES IN LIMITED PURPOSE MARRIAGES
Republic vs. Albios G.R. No. 198780, October 16,2013


Y married X, a US citizen. She promised to pay him $2000 in exchange that when he come back to US
he will process her petition for citizenship. X, since then, never communicated with her. Y, then filed for
declaration of Nullity of Marriage for it was just a marriage in jest. The RTC declared the marriage void
ab initio. The RTC was of the view that the parties married each ether for convenience only. Thus, it
ruled that when marriage was entered into for a purpose other than the establishment of a conjugal and
family life, such was a farce and should not be recognized from its inception.
Is a marriage, contracted for the sole purpose of acquiring American citizenship in consideration of
$2,000.00, void ab initio on the ground of lack of consent?
No. The respondent’s marriage is not at all analogous to a marriage in jest. Y and X had an undeniable
intention to be bound in order to create the very bond necessary to allow the respondent to acquire
American citizenship. Only a genuine consent to be married would allow them to further their objective,
considering that only a valid marriage can properly support an application for citizenship. There was,
thus, an apparent intention to enter into the actual marriage status and to create a legal tie, albeit for
a limited purpose. Genuine consent was, therefore, clearly present.
So yung mga marriage for convenience are valid.
WHAT IS MARRIAGE IN JEST?
A marriage in jest is a pretended marriage, legal in form but entered into as a joke, with no real intention
of entering into the actual marriage status, and with a clear understanding that the parties would not
be bound. The ceremony is not followed by any conduct indicating a purpose to enter into such a
relation. It is a pretended marriage not intended to be real and with no intention to create any legal ties
whatsoever, hence, the absence of any genuine consent. Marriages in jest are void ab initio, not for
vitiated, defective, or unintelligent consent, but for a complete absence of consent. There is no genuine
consent because the parties have absolutely no intention of being bound in any way or for any purpose.
IS LIMITED PURPOSE MARRIAGE VOID?
No. The institution of marriage carries with it concomitant benefits. This has led to the development of
marriage fraud for the sole purpose of availing of particular benefits. In the United States, marriages
where a couple marries only to achieve a particular purpose or acquire specific benefits, have been
referred to as “limited, purpose” marriages. A common limited purpose marriage is one entered into-
solely for the legitimization of a child or for immigration purposes.
Sa USA, marami nito. Mga Filipina, nagaasawa ng mga Amerikano to gain US citizenship. Binabayaran
nila ng up to 5,000 dollars. The marriage is valid but for immigration purposes, that is fraudulent. Kaya
may mga investigation. Immigration officers will conduct interviews and titignan yung bahay if the
couple is really living together. Do they share the same room? Do they sleep together? They want to
make sure that the marriage is genuine for immigration purposes only, but not for its validity.
-----------------------------------------------
RULES ON CONSENT
[1} Dapat both parties have no consent para ang marriage ay void. If the other one genuinely believe that
the marriage is genuine, there is consent and that marriage is valid.
From the second paragraph ng Art 35, the marriage is valid even if the other party had knowledge that
the solemnizing officer had no authority to solemnize marriage so long as the other party genuinely
believes otherwise.


[2] “Consent” of parties who are below 21 is insufficient. The parents or guardians, in addition, must
give consent. Otherwise, the marriage is voidable.
[3] If there is consent, but it is VITIATED by error, fraud, intimidation, force, etc., the marriage is not
void; it is merely VOIDABLE, i.e., valid until annulled.
[4] If there is absolutely no consent, or when the parties did not intend to be bound, as in the case of a
JOKE or in the case of a STAGE or MOVIE PLAY, the marriage is VOID.
[5] Consent must be freely given and in the presence of the solemnizing officer.
Kung ang isang party has believed in good faith n genuine yung kasal, the marriage is only voidable,
not void.
Let say X, knew n walang authority to solemnize marriages si P, he married Y, who believed in good faith
that everything was in order. So voidable ang marriage di ba? Can X, the offending party or the one in
bad faith, have it annulled?
No. Si Y lang ang may right to have it annulled being the innocent party. X cannot because he had given
his consent freely and he is the offending spouse who acted in bad faith. Those who come to court must
come with clean hands.
JURISPRUDENCE
MARRIAGE WITHOUT A LICENESE IS VOID AB INITIO
Raquel G. Kho vs. Republic G.R. No. 187462; June 01, 2016
X and y exchanged marital vows in a marriage ceremony which took place at around 3:00 o’clock in the
morning of June 1,1972. Petitioner has never gone to the office ot the LocaRegistrar to apply for marriage
license. Among the pieces of evidence presented by petitioner is a Certification issued by the Municipal
Civil Registrar which attested to the fact that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar has neither record
nor copy of a marriage license issued to petitioner and respondent with respect to their marriage
celebrated on June 1,1972.
Whether a lack of a marriage license make a marriage null and void?
Yes. The absence of a marriage license makes a marriage null and void. The marriage of petitioner and
respondent was celebrated on June 1,1972, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. Hence, the Civil
Code governs their union. Accordingly, Article 53 of the Civil Code spells out the essential requisites of
marriage as a contract, to wit: ART 53. No marriage shall be solemnized without marriage license, except
in a marriage of exceptional character.
2016 BAR EXAMINATION
QUESTION 19
Brad and Angelina had a secret marriage before a pastor whose office is located in Arroceros Street City
of Manila. They paid money to the pastor who took care of all the documentation. When Angelina wanted
to go to the U.S., she found out that there was no marriage license issued to them before their marriage.
Since their marriage was solemnized in 1995 after the effectivity of the Family Code, Angelina filed a
petition for judicial declaration of nullity on the strength of a certification by the Civil Registrar of Manila


that, after a diligent and exhaustive search, the alleged marriage license indicated in the marriage
certificate does not appear in the records cannot be found.
(a) Decide the case and explain. (2.5%)
The petition is meritorous. Under the FC, marriages without license are void, and a certification from
the Civil Registrar to that effect is the best evidence to prove that fact. Here, the marriage was celebrated
without a valid marriage license and that fact was corroborated by the certification issued by the Civil
Registrar. Therefore, the petition should be granted.
DOCTRINE
[1] Article 3 of the Family Code provides that one of the formal requisites of marriage is a valid marriage
license and Article 4 of the same Code states that absence of any of the essential or formal requisites
shall render the marriage void ab initio. In Abbas v. Abbas (G.R. No. 183896, January 30,2013, 689
SCRA 646), the Supreme Court declared the marriage as void ab rnit/o because there is proof of lack of
record of marriage license.
[2 The absence of the marriage license was certified to by the local civil registrar who is the official
custodian of these documents and who is in the best position to certify as to the existence of these
records. Also, there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty (Republic v. CA
and Castro, G.R. No. 103047, September 2,1994- , 236 SCR A 257).
[3] Irrespective of when the marriage took place, other than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial action
is necessary to declarea marriage an absolute nullity- For other purposes, such as but not limited to
determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child, settlement of estate, dissolution of
property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage
even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so long as it is essential to the determination
of the case. This is without prejudice to any issue that may arise in the case. When such need arises, a
final judgment of declaration of nullity is necessary even if the purpose is other than to remarry. The
clause on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void in Article 40 of the Family
Code connotes that such final judgment need to be obtained only for purpose of remarriage Cablaza v.
Republic, G.R. No. 158298, August 11, 2010,628 SCRA 27).
QUESTION NO. 3
Roderick and Faye were high school sweethearts. When Roderick was 18 and Faye, 16 years old, they
started to live together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. When Faye reached I8 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 liaison with Roderick and in one of 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 than 5 years.
Was the marriage of Roderick and Faye valid? (2%)
No, it is not valid. Under Art. 35 of the Family Code, a marriage lacking a license if void except in cases
falling under Art 34 which requires that the cohabitation must be continuous and uninterupted for at
least 5 years, and the parties were living exclusively as husband and wife, to exempt the parties from
securng marraige license. Here, Roderick and Faye cohabitated when Faye had impediment to marry,


and after her marriage with another man, she had an adulterous relationship with Roderick. Therefore,
they are not exempt them from securing a marraige license. The marraige of Roderick and Faye is void.
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 Donna, bore him two daughters: Vina and Wilma. His fourth, with Elena,
bore him no children although Elena a daughter Jane, from a previous relationship. His last, with Fe,
produced no biological children but they informally adopted without court proceedings, Sandy, 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. All the children, including Amy, now live with Andrew in
his house.
Can Jon and Jane legally marry?
Jon and Jane can legally marry because they are not related to each other. Jane is not a daughter of
Andrew.
Write “TRUE” if the statement is true or “FALSE” if the statement is false. If the statement is FALSE,
state the reason. (2%)
1. Amor gave birth to Thelma when she was 15 years old. Thereafter, Amor met David and
they got married when she was 20 years old. David had a son, Julian, with his ex-girlfriend
Sandra. Julian and Thelma can get married.
TRUE. Julian and Thelma can get married. Marriages between stepbrothers and stepsisters are not
among the marriages prohibited under the Family Code.
2. The day after John and Marsha got married, John told her that he was impotent. Marsha
continued to live with John for 2 years. Marsha is now estopped from filing an annulment
case against John.
FALSE. Marsha is not estopped from filing an annulment case against John on the ground of his
impotence, because she learned of his impotence after the celebration of the marriage and not before.
Physical incapability to consummate the marriage is a valid ground for the annulment of marriage if
such incapacity was existing at the time of the marriage, continues and appears to be incurable. The
marriage may be annulled on this ground within five years from its celebration (Art. 45 [5], Family Code).
QUESTION NO. 1
A and B. Both 18 years old, were sweethearts studying in Manila. On August 3, 1988, while in first year
college, they eloped. They stayed in the house of a mutual friend in town X, where they were able to
obtain a marriage license. On August 30, 1988, their marriage solemnized by the town mayor of X in
his office. Thereafter, they returned to Manila and continued to live separately in their respective
boarding houses, concealing from their parents, who were living in the province what they had done. In


1992, after graduation from college, A and B decided to break their relation and parted ways. Both went
home to their respective towns to live and work.
[A] Was the marriage of A and B solemnized on August 30, 1988 by the town mayor of X in his office a
valid carriage? Explain your answer.
No, the marraige was void. Under the Family Code, one of the essential requisites of marriage is
consent of the parties to be freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer who must have an
authority to solemnize as such. Here, mayors have no authority to solemnize marriges under the FC
and other law. Thefore the marraige is void.
Under the Local Gov Code of 1991, the town mayors have now bestowed authority to solemnize
marriages.
Note: Marriage was in 1988. The authority of mayors to solemnize marriages was present in ncc 1950
which was superseded by fc where mayors are not one of the authorize solemnizing officers. In 1990,
the local governement code authorized mayors to solemnize. Hence, from aug 3, 1988 up to the effectivity
of local government code in 1991, mayors could not solemnize.
[B] Can either or both of them contract marriage with another person without committing bigamy?
(try answering this subsequent question with art 40 and bigamy as bases of the answer)
Direct answer, the law. Here, therefore
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
QUESTION NO. 1
On May 1,1975, Facundo married Petra, by whom he had a son Sotero. Petra died on July 1, 1996,
while Facundo died on January 1, 2002. Before his demise, Facundo had married, on July 1, 2000,
Querica. Having lived together as husband and wife since July 1, 1990, Facundo and Querica did not
secure a marriage license but executed the requisite affidavit for the purpose.
To ensure that his inheritance rights are not adversely affected by his father’s second marriage, Sotero
now brings a suit to seek a declaration of the nullty of the marriage of Facundo and Querica, grounded
on the absence of a valid marriage license. Querica contends that there was no need for a marriage
license in view of her having lived continuously with Facundo for five years before their marriage and
that Sotero has no legal personality to seek a declaration of nullity of the marriage since Facundo is now
deceased.
Does Sotero have the personality to seek a declaration of nullity of the marriage, especially now that
Facundo is already deceased?


Yes, Sotero has the personality. In the annals of decision, the Supreme court ruled that a void marriage
may be questioned by any interested party in any proceeding where the resolution of the issue is
material. Here, the inheritance rights of Sotero over the estate of his father is about to impaired by the
latter’s void marriage with Querica. Therefore, being a compulsory heir, Sotero has the personality to
question the validity of the marriage of Facundo and Querica.
QUESTION NO.
Isidro and Irma, Filipinos, both l8 years of age, were passengers of Flight No. 317 of Oriental Airlines,
plane they boarded was of Philippine registry, while en route from Manila to Greece some passengers
hijacked the plane, held the chief pilot hostage at the cockpit and ordered him to fly instead to Libya.
During the hijacking Isidro suffered a heart attack and was on the verge of death. Since Irma was already
eight months pregnant by Isidro. She pleaded to the hijackers to allow the assistant pilot to solemnize
her marriage with Isidro. Soon after the marriage, Isidro expired. As the plane landed in Libyalrma gave
birth. However, the baby died a few minutes after complete delivery.
Back in the Philippines Irma immediately filed a claim for inheritance. The parents of Isidro opposed
her claim for inheritance. The parents of Isidro opposed her claim contending that the marriage between
her and Isidro was voidab initio on the following grounds: (a) they had not given their consent to the
marriage of their son; (b) there was no marriage license; (c) the solemnizing officer had no authority to
perform the marriage; and. (d) the solemnizing officer did not file an affidavit of marriage with the proper
civil registrar.
1. Resolve eacn of the contentions ([a] to Id]) raised by the parents of Isidro. Discuss fully.
(a) The fact that the parents of Isidro and oflrma did not give their consent the marriage is merely
voidable under Art 45 paragraph 1 of the Family Code, not void.
(b) The marriage was solemnized in articulo mortis, it was exempt from the license requirement under
Art. 31 of the FC.
(c) Under extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, the assistant pilot was acting for and in behalf
of the airplane chief who was under disability as being hostage, the marriage was solemnized by an
authorized officer under Art. 7 (3) and Art. 31, of the FC.
(d) Failure of the solemnizing officer to file the affidavit of marriage is merely an irregularity which may
subject the solemnizing officer to penalty.
1996
QUESTION NO.4
On Valentine’s Day, 1996, Elias and Fely, both single and 25 years of age, went to the city hall where
they sought out a fixer to help them obtain a quickie marriage. For a fee, the fixer produced an ante-
dated marriage license for them, issued by the Civil Registrar of a small remote municipality. He then
brought them to a licensed minister in a restaurant behind the city hall, and the latter solemnized their
marriage there and then.
1) Is their marriage valid, void or voidable? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER


The marriage is valid. Under the Family Code , the irregularity in the issuance of a valid license does
not adversely affect the validity of the marriage. The marriage license is valid because it was in fact
issued by a Civil Registrar and it is effective anywhere in the Philippines.
2) Wouldyour answer be the same if it should turn out that the marriage license was spurious?
Explain.
No, the marriage would be void. An spurious license is just as scrap of paper. In such a case, there
was actually no valid marriage license.
[B] While “X”, an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, was vacationing in Cehu City, he was
requested to solemnize the marriage of Serge and Joan in the residence of Serge’s parents. “X” could not
refuse the request of both the parents of the couple because they were his relatives. On the day set for
the wedding, there were so many visitors at the residence of Serge’s parents so that “X” decided to
solemnize the marriage at the kiosk of the public plaza located nearby. Is the marriage of Serge and
Joan valid? Give your reasons.
[Yes, because the requirement that the marriage be solemnized in a public place is not an essential
requisite of the law. I DISSENT WITH THE RESONING.]
The marriage is valid. Unde Art 8 of the FC, The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers
of the judge or in open court, or in some other place when both of the parties request the solemnizing
officer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated by them
in a sworn statement to that effect.
Here, X was requested orally and proceeded the wedding at the kiosk of the public plaza. The absence
of written request did not invalidate the marriage for it is only an irregularrity. Therefore, the marriage
is valid but Justice X is administatively liable for violating the prosedure.
QUESTION NO. 2
Paul, a 17-year old Filipino and a permanent resident in the United States, married Jean, a 16-year old
American in Las Vegas, Nevada. The parents of both gave their consent to the marriage. The marriage
is valid in Nevada. Is its also valid in the Philippines? Give your reasons.
No, the marriage is not valid. Art 15 of the Civil Code, laws relating to family rights and/or to the
status, condition and legal capacity of perons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though
living abroad. Also, in the FC, marraige between two persons must be at least 18 years of age at the
celebration of the marriage.
Here, Paul is a Filipino and below 18 years old. Therefore, the marraige is void under Philippine law.
UNDER THE CIVIL CODE
If the marriage took place before the effectivity of the Family Code,’the marriage will be valid since under
the provisions of the Civil Code, a marriage which is valid in the place of celebration is valid in the


Philippines except bigamous, polygamous, and incestuous marriages as determined by Philippine law.
The minimum age under the old law was sixteen (16) for the male and fourteen (14) for thefemale.
QUESTION NO. 1
On May 1,1975, Facundo married Petra, by whom he had a son Sotero. Petra died on July 1, 1996,
while Facundo died on January 1, 2002. Before his demise, Facundo had married, on July 1, 2000,
Querica. Having lived together as husband and wife since July 1, 1990, Facundo and Querica did not
secure a marriage license but executed the requisite affidavit for the purpose.
To ensure that his inheritance rights are not adversely affected by his father’s second marriage, Sotero
now brings a suit to seek a declaration of the nullty of the marriage of Facundo and Querica, grounded
on the absence of a valid marriage license. Querica contends that there was no need for a marriage
license in view of her having lived continuously with Facundo for five years before their marriage and
that Sotero has no legal personality to seek a declaration of nullity of the marriage since Facundo is now
deceased.
Does Sotero have the personality to seek a declaration of nullity of the marriage, especially now that
Facundo is already deceased?
Yes, Sotero has the personality. In the annals of decision, the Supreme court ruled that a void marriage
may be questioned by any interested party in any proceeding where the resolution of the issue is
material. Here, the inheritance rights of Sotero over the estate of his father is about to impaired by the
latter’s void marriage with Querica. Therefore, being a compulsory heir, Sotero has the personality to
question the validity of the marriage of Facundo and Querica.
2009 BAR EXAMS
QUESTION NO. 3
In December 2000, Michael and Anna, after obtaining a valid marriage license, went to the Office of the
Mayor of Urbano, Bulacan, to get married. The Mayor was not there, but the Mayors secretary asked
Michael and Anna and their witnesses to fill up and sign the required marriage contract forms. The
secretary then told them to wait, and went out to look for the Mayor who was attending a wedding in a
neighboring municipality.
When the secretary caught up with the Mayor at the wedding reception, she showed him the marriage
contract forms and told him that the couple and their witnesses were waiting in his office. The Mayor
forthwith signed all the copies of the marriage contract, gave them to t;he secretary who returned to the
Mayor’s office. She then gave copies of the marriage contract to the parties, and told Michael and Anna,
that they were already married. Thereafter, the couple lived together as husband and wife, and had three
sons.
[a] Is the marriage of Michael and Anna valid, voidable, or void? Explain your answer.
(The marriage is void because the formal requisite of marriage ceremony was absent (Art. 3, F.C. 209,
Family :ode). The marriage is void because an essential requisite absent: consent of the parties freely
given in the presence of the solemnizing officer (Art. 2, FC)
There was no marriage at all is a better answer


The marraige is void. According to Art 35 the Family Code, if one of the essential or formal requisites
of marriage be absent, the marraige is void. Here, there were no solemnizing officer, no celebration and
no consents given in the presence of a solemnizing officer. Therefore, this is not a marriage at all for it
has no semblance of a marriage. The marriage is void.
The complete publication of the Family Code was made on August 4, 1987. On September 4. 1987,
Junior Cruz and Gemma Reyes were married before a municipal mayor. Was the marriage valid?
Yes, the marriage is valid. The Family Code took effect on August 3. 1988. At the time of the marriage
on September 4, 1987, municipal mayors were empowered to solemnize marriage under the Civil Code
of 1950.
In 1990, the Local Goverment Code, empowered mayors to solemnize marriages.
1) Suppose the couple got married on September 1, 1994 at the Manila Hotel before the
Philippine Consul General to Hongkong, who was on vacation in Manila. The couple executed
an affidavit consenting to the celebration of the marriage at the Manila Hotel. Is the marriage
valid?
[The marriage is not valid. Consuls and vice consuls are empowered to solemnize marriages between
Philippine citizens abroad in the consular office of the foreign country to which they were assigned and
have no power to solemnize marriage on Philippine soil. ]
[Alternative Answer: A Philippine consul is authorized by law to solemnize marriages abroad between
Filipino citizens. He has no authority to solemnize a marriage in the Philippines. Consequently, the
marriage in question is void, unless either or both of the contracting parties believed in good faith that
the consul general had authority to solemnize their marriage in which case the marriage is valid.] - UPLC
The marriage is valid. Under Art 8 of the Family Code, consuls may validly solemnize off the consular
office at the request of the parties and his approval. Be as it may, it may only be considered as
irregularity which does affect the validity of marriage.
PROPERTY REGIMES OF UNION WITHOUT MARRIAGE

ART. 147 vs ART 148
Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to many 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.
In the absence of 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 of the household.


Neither parly can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired
during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination
of their cohabitation.
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in
the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by
any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective
surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent parly. In
all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.
WHAT ARE THESE UNIONS?
All unions where the parties have no impediment to marry EACH OTHER and they live EXCLUSIVELY
as HUSBAND AND WIFE.
Tony stark, single, billionaire, genius, philantropist and playboy – cohabits with Natasha and Pepper.
Anong property regime ng 2 cohabitation. Since it is not exclusive, the property regime is Article 148
and not 147.
Mag-pinsan, they have impediment to marry EACH OTHER. Since there is an impediment, the regime
is under Art . 148, not 147.
WHAT ARE THESE VOID MARRIAGES NOT INCLUDED AS ART 147?
Those void marriages of minors, under Art 37 and 38. Why? Because they have impediment to marry
each other. Mag-pinsan, mag-lola, mag-ina, mag-kapaitd. So all those unions and marriages are under
Art 148 because the parties are relatives.
EH PAANO KUNG ISA LANG SA PARTIES HAVE IMPEDIMENT TO MARRY?
Art. 148 is catch all provision. Pag wala ng paglagyan Sa Art 147, sa 148 na ang property regime.
KASAMA B YUNG SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE SA ART. 40
No. Hindi naman void yun per se. VOIDABLE yun. Naging void lang because of the non-cmpliance
with Art 40.
EXAMPLE
X and Y live exclusively as husband and wife, and with no impediment to marry each other, since 2000.
Both of them work as employee and were able to buy a house and lot. They begat A. X earns 50thou a
month, and has an apartment which earns 20thou a month while Y earns 100thou a month.
Wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal share.

Hati sila sa 50thou plus 100thous = 150thou/2 = P75,000 each for X and Y
Fruits of the separate property

Apartment – kay X lang ang separate property niya
Rent of 20thou – kay X lang. Fruit yan, not salary and wages
House and Lot



That poperty shall be divided by percentage contribution because both of them work as employee. But
in a situation where Y stays home and take care of the labahan, linis at alaga kay A, in that case, the
house and lot co-owned by them in equal share.
CAN X AND Y SELL/MORTGAGE THE HOUSE AND LOT?

Yes.
CAN X OR Y SELL/MORTGAGE IT WIHOUT THE OTHER PARTNER’S CONSENT?

No. The alienation, disposition or encumbrancing of properties is prohibited without the consent of the
other partner.
WHEN CAN Y OR X SELL/ENCUMBER THE HOUSE AND LOT WITHOUT THE OTHER PARTNER’S
CONSENT?
After the termination of the cohabitation, or annulment of the void marriage.
WHAT LAW GOVERNS THEIR PROPERTY RELATIONSHIP?

Special co-ownership under Art. 147.
WHY DO WE CALL IT SPECIAL CO-OWNERSHIP?

In ordinary co-ownership, the owners may sell/encumber their undivided share without the consent of
the other co-owners while in Art 147, though the parties are co-owners but they restricted to alienate
or encumber the common property without the consent of the other co-owner-partner unless after the
termination of the cohabitation or annulment of the void marriage.
WHAT IS ORDINARY CO-OWNERSHIP?
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining
thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its
enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage,
with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the
division upon the termination of the coownership.
WHAT IS THAT PERSONAL RIGHT/S?
X and Y have personal rights in the property as common law spouses/spouses in void marriage. X cnnot
just let anyone stay at home and enjoy while he is away.
“Y, iwan ko muna si kumpare para mag-stay sa bahay. Let him eat, drink and be merry inside our co-
owned home while I am away. Tutal, co-owner naman tayo ng bahay according to Art. 493 of the Civil
Code.”
Y said, “hindi mo ba nabasa yung “personal rights as an exception”. Hindi pwede! He will invade my
right to privacy.” Yan yung personal rights.
AFTER THE TERMINATION OR ANNULMENT, HOW MUCH EACH OF SPOUSE MAY ALIENATE OR
ENCUMBER?
Only his/her share, not necessarily half. If a buyer in good faith and for value has acquired the property,
the portion alloted for the other patner cannot be returned back to him, but the partner who sold the
house must reimburse the share of that partner.


--------------------XXX-------------------
HOW CAN ONE BE IN BAD FAITH?
When he/she knowingly participated in the process of securing a void marriage like falsifying a marriage
license or conniving with someone to act as a solemnizing officer to entice a beautiful young maiden to
marry and eventually to have sex with her.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT?
His/her share in the co-owership shall be forfeited in favor their common children. In case of default of
or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to
the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the
innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.
-----------------xxx-------------------------
HOW TO ANSWER BAR QUESTIONS? Just a reiteration.
If you check the UPLC answers, you will notice that the answers are elaborative and proper cases are
included. That’s good because we can use it as source of information but it is not proper way of
answering the bar questions. Firstly, the aswers are scholarly written. Of course, open book na yun
when they constructed the answer. Pero in the actual bar eaxams, you and your stock knowlege lang –
no open books. Secondly, answers should be concise. In few sentences, dapat nandun n lahat ang direct
answer, the applicable law, application and the conclusion. And thirdly, examiners have only few
months to check the more or less 8,000 booklets. Magbubuklat lang yan ng mga key questions – yung
mga difficult, and if you have answered correctly there would be no need to check your answers in minor
questions. Obviously, because you have already convinced him that you are already a lawyer – worthy
to be included in the roll. Kaya nga may mga instances na hindi naman niya (examinee) natapos ang
mga questions but she topped the bar. Well that is only my observation.
Okay, lets take some of the bar questions.
Bernard and Dorothy lived together as common-law spouses although they are both capacitated to
marry. After one year of cohabitation, Dorothy went abroad to work in Dubai as a hair stylist and regular
sent money to Bernard. With the money, Bernard bought a lot. For a good price, Bernard sold the lot.
Dorothy came to know about the acquisition and sale of the lot and filed a suit to nullify the sale because
she did not give her consent to the sale.
[a] Will Dorothy’s suit prosper? Decide with reasons.
[Give the direct answer (Yes, or No,) folowed by the applicable law (Under the law,]
Yes. Under Article 147 of the Family Code neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos
of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the
consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.
[Apply the law to the facts without repeating the law [Here,) followed by the conclusion
(Therefore,)]


Here, Bernard sold the property without Dorothy’s consent within the period of their cohabitation.
Therefore, the sale is void. However, if the buyer is in good faith and for value, the sale cannot be
annuled but Dorothy shall be entitled to reimbursent and damages.
So here it is.
Yes. Under Article 147 of the Family Code neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of
his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the
consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.
Here, Bernard sold the property without Dorothy’s consent within the period of their cohabitation.
Therefore, the sale is void. However, if the buyer is in good faith and for value, the sale cannot be
annuled but Dorothy shall be entitled to reimbursent and damages.
[b] Suppose Dorothy was jobless and did not contribute money to the acquisition of the lot and her
efforts consisted mainly in the care and maintenance of the family and household, is her consent to the
the sale a prerequisite to its validity? Explain.
[Give the direct answer (Yes, or No,) folowed by the applicable law (Under the law,]
Yes, Under Art 147 of the Family Code, 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 the household.
(Therefore,)]
Here, Dorothy’s care and maintenance of the family and household are deemed contributions in the
acquisition of the lot. The lot is deemed owned in common by the common-law spouses in equal shares
as the same was acquired during their cohabitation. Therefore, her consent to the sale is a prerequisite
to its validity without prejudice to the rights of a buyer in good faith and for value.
This how it will look like.
Yes, Under Art 147 of the Family Code, 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 the household.
Here, Dorothy’s care and maintenance of the family and household are deemed contributions in the
acquisition of the lot. The lot is deemed owned in common by the common-law spouses in equal shares
as the same was acquired during their cohabitation. Therefore, her consent to the sale is a prerequisite
to its validity without prejudice to the rights of a buyer in good faith and for value.
Bert and Joe, both male and single, lived together as common law spouses and agreed to raise a son of
Bert’s living brother as their child without legally adopting him. Bert worked while Joe took care of their
home and the boy. In their 20 years of cohabitation they were able to acquire real estate assets registered
in their names as co-owners. Unfortunately, Bert died of cardiac arrest, leaving no will. Bert was survived
by his biological siblings, Joe, and the boy.


[a] Can Article 147 on co-ownership apply to Bert and Joe, whereby all properties they acquired
will be presumed to have been acquired by their joint industry and shall be owned by them in equal
shares?
[Give the direct answer (Yes, or No,) folowed by the applicable law (Under the law, ]
No, Article 147 applies only 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”.
(Therefore,)]
Here, Bert and Joe are both men and they are also incapacitated from marrying each other since in this
jurisdiction, marriage may only take place between a man and a woman. Therefore, Article 147 is
inapplicable to their property relations.
So the final answer is like this.
No, Article 147 applies only 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”.
Here, Bert and Joe are both men and they are incapacitated from marrying each other since in this
jurisdiction, marriage may only take place between a man and a woman. Therefore, Article 147 is
inapplicable to their property relations.
Jambrich, an Austrian, fell in-love and lived together with Descallar and bought their house and lots at
AgroMacro Subdivision. In the Contracts to Sell, Jambrich and Descallar were referred to as the buyers.
When the Deed of Absolute Sale was presented for registration before the Register of Deeds, it was
refused because Jambrich was an alien and could not acquire alienable lands of the public domain.
After Jambrich and Descaller separated, Jambrich purchased an engine and some accessories for his
boat from Borromeo. To pay for his debt, he sold his rights and interests in the Agro-Macro properties
to Borrome’o.
Borromeo discovered that titles to the three (3) lots have been transferred in the name of Descallar. Who
is the rightful owner of the properties? Explain.
{It depends. On the assumption that the Family Code is the applicable law, the ownership of the
properties depends on whether or not Jambrich Descallar are capacitated to many each other during
their cohabitation, and whether or not both have contributed funds for the acquisition of the
properties.
If both of them were capacitated to marry each other, Article 147 on Co-ownership will apply to their
property relations and the properties in question are owned by them in equal shares even though all
the funds used in acquiring the properties came only from the salaries or wages, or the income of
Jambrich from his business or profession. In such a case, while Jambrich is disqualified to own any
part of the properties, his subsequent transfer of all his interest therein to Borromeo, a Filipino, was
valid as it removed the disqualification. In such case, the properties are owned by Boiromeo and
Descallar in equal shares.


If, on the other hand, Jambrich and Descallar were not capacitated to many each other, Article 148 on
co-ownership governs their property relations. Under this regime, Jambrich and Descallar are co-
owners of the properties but only if both of them contributed in their acquisition. If all the funds used
in acquiring the properties in question came from Jambrich, the entire property is his even though he
is disqualified from owning it. His subsequent transfer to Borromeo, however, is valid as it removed
the disqualification. In such case, all of the properties are owned by Borromeo, If, on the other hand,
Descallar contributed to their acquisition, the properties are co-owned by Descallar and Borromeo in
proportion to the respective contributions of Descallar and Jambrich.} -UPLC
NOTE: The answer is only good as part of the lecture. You don’t answer with “It depends”. I take that
Art 147 is the applicable law and not Art 148. Di ba sa civil law like in sales, when the stipulation is
vague – the presumption is the parties meant it be of least transmission of rights at sa criminal law –
when the evidence is not sufficient to prove the crime complained of – the lesser crime, if evidence
supports it. Here, dahil vague yung status ng mga characters, I take 147, instead of 148.
So, here is the answer.
Borromeo and Descallar own the properties. Under Article 147 of the Family Code, (if hindi matadaan
yung exact article – Under the Family Code,) (If hindi mo alam na Family Code ang applicable – Under the
law,) a party may validly alienate his/her share in co-ownership without the consent of the other party
after the termination of the cohabitation. And in the absence of proof to the contrary, the properties are
presumed obtained by joint efforts, work and industry.
(Therefore,)]
Here, Jambrich sold his rights and interest to Borromeo after the termination of cohabitation with
Descallar. and there were no proof that only Jambrich who brought the property out of his own effort,
work and industry. The presumption stands that the he and Descallar owned them in common and in
equal share. Therefore, the properties are owned by Descallar and Borromeo in common and in equal
share.
(Dito may sub-issue. Always put it the last portion para malinaw yung direct answer mo)
The prohibition on alien to own real properties only binds the lot and not the rights and interest of the
alien-partner. Here, Jambrich sold his rights and interests over the said properties to Borromeo, a
Filipino, and that cured the defect.
Sa Bar Exam, ganito ang peg ng answer mo.
Borromeo and Descallar co-own the properties. Under Article 147 of the Family Code, a party may
validly alienate his/her share in co-ownership without the consent of the other party after the
termination of the cohabitation. And in the absence of proof to the contrary, the properties are presumed
obtained by joint efforts, work and industry.
Here, Jambrich sold his rights and interest to Borromeo after the termination of cohabitation with
Descallar. and there were no proof that only Jambrich who brought the property out of his own effort,
work and industry. The presumption stands that the he and Descallar owned them in common and in
equal share. Therefore, the properties are owned by Descallar and Borromeo in common and in equal
share.


The prohibition on alien to own real properties only binds the lot and not the rights and interest of the
alien-partner. Here, Jambrich sold his rights and interests over the said properties to Borromeo, a
Filipino, and that cured the defect.
Di ba mas maigsi mas ok tignan.
In 1997, B and G started living together without the benefit of marriage. The relationship produced one
offspring, Venus. The couple acquired a residential lot in Paranaque. After four (4) years or in 2001, G
having completed her 4- year college degree as a fulltime student, she and B contracted marriage without
a license. The marriage of B and G was, two years later, declared null and void due to the absence of a
marriage license.
[a] If you were the judge who declared the nullity of marriage, to whom would you award the lot?
Explain
(Since the marriage was null and void, no Absolute Community or Conjugal Partnership was established
tween B and G. Their properties are governed by the “special co-ownership” provision of Article 147 of
the Family Code because both B and G were capacitated to each other. The said Article provides that
when a man and a woman who are capacitated to many each other, live exclusively with each other as
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, or under a void marriage:
(1) their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares; and
(2) property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on
co-ownership.
In co-ownership, the parties co-owners if they contributed something of value in the acquisition of the
property. Their share is in proportion to their respective contributions. In an ordinary coownership the
care and maintenance of the family is not ecognized as a valuable contribution for the acquisition of a
property. In the Article 147 “special co-ownership” however, care and maintenance is recognized as a
valuable contribution which will entitle the contributor to half of the property acquired.
Having been acquired during their cohabitation, the residential lot is presumed acquired through their
joint work and industry under Article 147, hence, B and G are co-owners of the said property in equal
shares.
Article 147 also provides that when a party to the void marriage was in bad faith, he forfeits his share
in the co-ownership in favor of the common children or descendants. In default of children or
descendants, the forfeited share shall belong to the innocent party. In the foregoing problem, there is
no showing that one party was in bad faith. Hence, both shall be presumed in good faith and no forfeiture
shall take place.)
Note: I have some reservation sa answer ng UPLC. But it is good to read as lecture. Anyhow, It is
submitted that both B and G are in bad faith. And the forfeiture in Art. 148 last paragraph is also
applicable to Art. 147 when both parties are in bad faith. So this is my answer.
I will award the property to Venus, their common child. Under Art. 147, which is the applicable
regime for B and G, when a party is in bad faith, his/her share in the the co-ownership shall be forfeited
in favor of their common children.


(Therefore,)]
Here, both B and G contacted marriage without a marriage license knowing that their cohabitation is
short of one year to exempt them from securing the license. Therefore, B and G are in bad faith and
will suffer forfeiture of their share in the residential lot in favor of their common child, Venus.
(Dito may sub-issue uli. Always put it the last portion para malinaw yung direct answer mo)
Under the last paragraph of Art. 148, forfeiture shall take place when both parties are in bad faith, and
it is submitted that the forfeiture is applicable also in void marriages under Art. 147.
Sa Bar Exam, ganito arrangement ng answer.
I will award the property to Venus, their common child. Under Art. 147, which is the applicable
regime for B and G, when a party is in bad faith, his/her share in the the co-ownership shall be forfeited
in favor of their common children.
Here, both B and G contacted marriage without a marriage license knowing that their cohabitation is
short of one year to exempt them from securing the license. Therefore, both are in bad faith and will
suffer forfeiture of their share in the residential lot in favor of their common child, Venus.
Under the last paragraph of Art. 148, forfeiture shall take place when both parties are in bad faith, and
it is submitted that the forfeiture is applicable also in void marriages under Art. 147.
QUESTION NO. 7
G and B were married on July 3, 1989. On March 4, 2001, the marriage, which bore no offspring, was
declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code. At the time of the dissolution of the
marriage, the couple possessed the following properties:
[1] a house and lot acquired by B on August 3, 1988, one third (1 / 3) of the purchase price
(representing down payment) of which he paid; one third (1/3) paid by G on February 14,1990 out of a
cash gift given to her by her parents on her graduation on April 6, 1989; and the balance was paid out
of the spouses’ joint income; and
[2] an apartment unit donated to B by an uncle on June 19,1987.
[A] Who owns the foregoing properties? Explain.
(Since the marriage was declared void ab initio in 200l, no Absolute Community or Conjugal Partnership
was ever established between B and G. Their property relation is governed by a “special co-ownership”
under Article 147 of the Family Code because they were capacitated to many each other. Under that
Article 147, wages and salaries of the “ former spouses” earned during their cohabitation shall be owned
by them in equal shares while properties acquired thru their work or industry shall be owned by them
in proportion to their respective contributions. Care and maintenance of the family is recognized as a
valuable contribution. In the absence of proof as to the value of their respective contributions, they shall
share equally.
If ownership over the house and lot was acquired by B on August 3,1988 at the time be bought it on
installment before he got married, he shall remain owner of the house and lot but he must reimburse
for all the amounts she advanced to pay the purchase price and for her ½ share in the last payment
from their joint income. Insuch case, the house and lot were not acquired during their cohabitation,
hence, are not co-owned by B and G.


But if the ownership of the house and lot was acquired during the cohabitation, the house and lot will
be owned as follows:
[1] 1/3 of the house and lot is owned by B. He is an undivided co-owner to that extent for his contribution
in its acquisition in the form of the down payment he made before the celebration of the marriage. The
money he used to pay the down payment was not earned during the cohabitation, hence, It is his
exclusive property.
[2] 1/3 of the house and lot is owned by G. She is an undivided co-owner to the extent for her
contribution in its acquisition when she paid 1/3 of the purchase price using the gift from her parents.
Although the gift was acquired by G duriiigher cohabitation with B, it is her exclusive property. It did
not consist of wage or salary or fruit of her work or industy.
[3] 1/3 of the house is co-owned by B and G because the payment came from their co-owned funds,
i.e., their joint income during their cohabitation which is shared by them equally in the absence of any
proof to the contrary.
After summing up their respective shares, B and G are undivided co-owners of the house and lot in
equal shares.
As to the apartment, it is owned exclusively by B because he acquired it before their cohabitation. Even
if he acquired it during their cohabitation it will still be his exclusive property because it did not come
from his wage or salary, or from his work or industry. It was acquired gratuitously from his uncle )
Note: Ang Tanong lang naman ay ‘who owns the foregoing properties?
So here is a concise and direct answer.
Both the house and lot and apartment are owned by B. Under Art. 147 which is the
applicable regime for annulled marriages on the ground of psychological incapacity, the presumption of
equal share of ownership of properties can be disputed by proof to the contrary.
Here, the marriage was annulled on the ground of psychological incapacity, and there were
contrary proof(s) against the presumption of co-ownership. Therefore, as for the house and lot, it is
owned by B, subject to reimbursement of the 1/3 of the amount paid by G plus an additional ½ of the
1/3 she also paid out of joint-contribution. As for the apartment, it also owned by B as his separate
property.
[B] If G and B had married on July 3, 1987 and their marriage was dissolved in 2007, who owns the
properties?
(The answer is the same as in letter A, Since the parties to the marriage which was later declared void
ab initio were capacitated to marry each other, the applicable law under the New Civil Code was Article
144. This Article is substantially the same as Article 147 of the Family Code. Hence, the determination
of ownership will remain the same as in question A. And even assuming that the two provisions are not
the same, Article 147 of the Family Code is still the law that will govern the property relations of B and
G because under Article 256, the Family Code has retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or
impair vested or acquired rights under the New Civil Code or other laws. Applying Article 147
retroactively to the case of G and B will not impair any vested right. Until the declaration of nullity of
the marriage under the Family Code, B and G have not as yet acquired any vested right over the
properties acquired during their cohabitation.)
I have reservation.


Both the house and lot and apartment are solely owned by B. Under the Family Code, the effect of
judgment for void ab initio marriages under Art, 36 retroacts to the date of marriage, and the applicable
property regime shall be Art. 147 under the retroactivity character of the Family Code provided that no
vested right shall be impaired or prejudiced.
Here, the effect of judgment in 2007 retoracts to July 3, 1987, and since no vested rights are impaired
or prejudiced in the application of the Family Code, the applicable property regime is Art. 147.
Therefore, as for the house and lot, it is owned by B, subject to reimbursement of the 1/3 of the amount
paid by G plus an additional ½ of the 1/3 she also paid out of joint-contribution. As for the apartment,
it also owned by B as his separate property.
In December 2000, Michael and Anna, after obtaining a valid marriage license, went to the Office of the
Mayor of Urbano, Bulacan, to get married. The Mayor was not there, but the Mayor’s secretary asked
Michael and Anna and their witnesses to fill up and sign the required marriage contract forms. The
secretary then told them to wait, and went out to look for the Mayor who was attending a wedding in a
neighboring municipality.
When the secretary caught up with the Mayor at the wedding reception, she showed him the marriage
contract forms and told him that the couple and their witnesses were waiting in his office. The Mayor
forthwith signed all the opies of the marriage contract, gave them to the secretary who returned to the
Mayor’s office. She then gave copies of the marriage contract to the parties, and told Michael and Anna
that they were already married. Thereafter, the couple lived together as husband and wife, and had three
sons.
[C] What property regime governs the properties acquired by the couple? Explain.
The property regime is special co-ownership under Art. 147. Under the Family Code, when parties
with no impediment to marry each other cohabited under a void marriage the poperty regime shall be
governed by Art. 147.
Here, the parties have no impediment to marry each other and their marriage is void for being lack of
semblance of a valid marriage. No soleminizing officer, no celebration and obviously no consent to be
given in the presence of a solemnizing officer. Therefore, the property regime is special co-ownrship
under Art.147.
For five years since 1989, Tony, a bank Vice-President. And Susan, an entertainer, lived together as
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage although they were capacitated to many each other.
Since Tony’s salary was more than enough for their needs. Susan stopped working and merely “kept
house”. During that period, Tony was able to buy a lot and house in a plush subdivision. However, after
five years, Tony and Susan decided to separate.
[A] Who will be entitled to the house and lot ?
Tony and Susan are entitled to the house and lot. Under Article 147 of the Family Code, the property
acquired during the parties’ cohabitation are presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work
or industiy and shall be owned by them in equal shares even the efforts of one of them consisted merely
in his or her care and maintenance of the family and of the household.
Here, Susan kept the house. Therfore, she is entiles as co-owner of the house and lot in equal share.


Luis and Rizza, both 26 years of age and single, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage. Luis is gainfully employed. Rlzza is not employed, stays at home, and
takes charge of the household chores.
After living together for a little over twenty years, Luis was able to save from his salary earnings during
that period the amount of P200.000.00 presently deposited in a bank. A house and lot worth
P500.000.00 was recently purchased for the same amount by the couple. Of the P500,000.00 used by
the common-law spouses to purchase the property, P200.000.00 had come from the sale of palay
harvested from the the hacienda owned by Luis and P300.000.00 from the rentals of a building belonging
to Rizza. In fine, the sum of p500,000.00 had been part of the fruits received during tine period of
cohabitation from their separate property. A car worth P1M being used by the common-law spouses was
donated just months ago to Rizza by her parents.
Luis and Rizza now decide to terminate their cohabltatation, and they ask you to give them your legal
advice on the following:
[A] How/under the law, should the bank deposit of P200.000.00, the house and lot valued at
P500.000.00 and the car worth PlOO.OOO.OO be allocated to them?
The P200,000 bank deposit is co-owned by the parties in equal share, the car is solely owned by
Rizza and the house and lot is owned by the parties based on the percentage contribution in
acquisition cost. Under the Art. 147 of the Family Code, parties without impediment to marry live
exclusively 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.
Here, the deposits of P200thou is out of the salary of Luis, the car is donated exclusively for Rizza and
the house and lot was obtained through percentage contribution of P200thou from Luis harvest of
palay from his exclusive property and P300,000 from rent of an apartment of Rizza’s exclusive
property. Therefore, the deposit is co-owned by the parties in equal share, the car is solely owned by
Rizza and 3/5 of the value of the house is owned by Rizza while 2/5 belongs to Luis.
Fruits or rents from the exclusive property are not covered by special c-ownership.
In 1989. Rico, then a widower forty (40) years of age, cohabited with Cora, a widow thirty (30) years of
age. While living together, they acquired from their combined earnings a parcel of riceland.
After Rico and Cora separated, Rico lived together with Mabel, a maiden sixteen (16) years of age. While
living together, Kico was a salaried employee and Mabel kept house for Rico and did full-time household
chores for him. During their cohabitation, a parcel of coconut land was acquired by Rico from his
savings.
After living together for one (1) year, Rico and Mabel separated. Rico then met and married Letty, a single
woman twenty-six (26) years of age. During the marriage of Rico and Letty, Letty bought a mango
orchard out of her own personal earnings.
[a] Who would own the riceland, and what property regime governs the ownership? Explain.
Here, is 1% lang naman. Deretso na answer basta tama. Wala ng pattern.


Rico and Cora are the co-owners of the riceland. The regime is that of co-ownership (Art. 147, Family
Code, first paragraph)
ANSWERING BAR QUESTIONS
Ang answer ng UPLC is elaborative so I cut and re-arranged it. Some are in lecture type and good source
of information so I cut and retained the important information, enclosed them in parentheses and write
an answer suitable for the bar. May mga few na I don’t agree so I retain the answer for comparison.
I want you to practice uli sa basic way. Para po masanay kayo na laging may legal basis. Karamihan
kasi ng bar answers ay galing lamang sa inyong pananaw, common sense at opinion, kaya sablay sa
bar. Lagi po dapat na may legal basis.
Direct answer, then applicable law

Application of the law to the facts, then, the conclusion
State the sub-issue (if applicable)
Yes or no……Under the ______.

Here,………..Therefore………..
State the other issue concisely
Study the example below.
The P200,000 bank deposit is co-owned by the parties in equal share, the car is solely owned by
Rizza and the house and lot is owned by the parties based on the percentage contribution in
acquisition cost. Under the Art. 147 of the Family Code, parties without impediment to marry live
exclusively 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.
(Therefore,)]
Here, the deposits of P200thou is out of the salary of Luis, the car is donated exclusively for Rizza, and
the house and lot was obtained through percentage contribution of P200thou from harvest of palay from
Luis’ exclusive property and P300,000 from rent of an apartment of Rizza’s exclusive property.
Therefore, the deposit is co-owned by the parties in equal share, the car is solely owned by Rizza, and
3/5 of the value of the house is owned by Rizza while 2/5 belongs to Luis.
(State the sub-issue sa ibaba, at wag ihalo sa main answer)
Fruits or rents from the exclusive property are not covered by special c-ownership.
If the answer is the exception to the rule. Do not state the general rule then the exception. That’s
confusing. The examiner knows about the exception. Do not lecture to him. Kaya, mas mahusay
dumeretso ka na sa exception as your direct answer, state the law on exception without mentioning the
general rule (kasi hahaba lang), apply the exception to the facts, then conclusion.




ARTICLE 148
The regime under Art 148 applies when Art 147 is not the proper regime. This is the catch all regime.
ART. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired
by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be
owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the
contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and
presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.
If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to
the absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who acted
in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her share shall be forfeited in the manner provided
in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith.
WHAT ARE THESE COHABITATIONS CONTEMPLATED IN ART 148?
Article 148 refers to the property regime of bigamous marriages, adulterous relationships, relationships
in a state of concubinage, relationships where both man and woman are married to other persons,
multiple alliances of the same married man. Isama mo na yung cohabitation ni Tony Stark with Salt
and Pepper – single si Stark pero maraming babae.
Wage and salary – not shared, kanya-kanya
Properties, credit and joint deposits – shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their
respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and
corresponding shares are presumed to be equal.
FORFEITURE
The share of the married one who acted in bad faith CANNOT NOT FORFEITED. Kasi his/her share
accues to the community/conjugal property ng kanyang marriage.
The share of the unmarried who acted in bad faith can be forfeited.
How? In the manner provided in Art. 147.
So sa mga common children muna. If wala na at mga patay na, sa mga apo. If walang anak o apo or in
case of their waiver, sa mga apo sa tuhod. If wala talaga, sa innocent party. Pero here, there is no
innocent spouse. He has a real spouse. So both are in bad faith.
IF BOTH ARE IN BAD FAITH
“The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith.’’
Does it mean that the property of the single-in-bad-faith partner shall be forfeited in favor of the
married-in-bad-faith partner.
I think so. This is in form of penalty for cohabiting with a married person. I checked the books wala
silang annotion about it. If you have found any clarification, please email me.


So the single-kabit-ng-taong-may-asawa must not make anything amounting to bad faith. Kung hindi,
her/his share shall be forfeited. But the married one, he/she is already in bad faith because he knew
that he/she is married. But his share cannot be forfeited because the real spouse has inchoate title over
his/her share as part of the conjugal/community property.
For the single one, at the on-set of the cohabitation must not know that the guy she is going with is
already taken. If she does, she already in bad faith.
Again these need confirmation. Wala sa books.
------------xxx------------
Going back to Art. 148.
LET SAY, THE COHABITATION IS ADULTEROUS.
X had subsisting marraige with Y, cohabited with V from 2000-2010. During the cohabitation , V just
stayed home and took care of A, their son, while X earns 50thou a month. They had bought a house
and lot worth P10M.
WHO OWNS THE P50THOU?

Only X.
WHO OWNS THE HOUSE AND LOT?

Only X and his wife Y as part of their community property. The property accrues to their community
property.
CAN X AND Y ALIENATE/ENCUMBER THE HOUSE AND LOT?

Yes. As part of their community property and V, having no part in the acquisition, is not a co-owner at
all.
Let say, V contributed to the acquisition of the house and lot. Can X and Y or she
alienate/encumber her share?
No. Although under Art 493, each owner has the right to alienate/encumber his/her undivided share
in the property held in common, all of them has personal rights.
WHAT HAPPEN WHEN THE TITLE TO THE HOUSE AND LOT IS UNDER THE NAME OF V?
Constructive trust is created as to the share of the cojugal partnership of X and Y. Ginagamit ni V as
trustee.
WHAT GOVERNS THE PROPERTY RELATIONS?

Special co-ownership. Becuase the parties cannot sell/encumber the property as co-owners.
IS THE HOUSE AND LOT A FAMILY HOME?

No. X and V are not husband and wife.
LET SAY THE COHABITATION IS NOT ADULTEROUS

X COHABITS WITH V AND Z, ALL OF THEM ARE SINGLE.
The property regime is governed by Art 148 for they are not living exclusively as husband and wife.
WHAT HAPPEN TO X’s SHARE IN HIS RESPECTIVE COHABITATION WITH V AND Y.



X share shall be forfeited in a mannner provided in the last paragraph of Art 147.
His share in the co-owership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or
waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the
respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the
innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.
If the cohabitation does not involved any previous marriage, the same rules applies as regards to the
alienation, disposition or mortgage of properties held in common.
WAS THERE A NEED FOR THE COURT TO WAIT FOR THE LIQUIDATION, PARTITION AND
PARTITION OF PROPERTIES BEFORE IT ISSUE THE FINAL DECREE OF ANNULLMENT?
No, in cases of void marriages. Obviously dahil walang regime. Their property relations are governed
by civil law on co-ownership.
JURISPRUDENCE
ADULTEROUS COHABITATION
Rivera vs Heir of Villanueva, GR 141501, July 21, 2006
X and Y cohabitated with each other from 1927 to 1980. They could not marry becuase Y is married to
Z who died in 1963. In the course of cohabitation, they acquired 4 lots under their names with 1, solely
under the name of Y.
X and A, his alleged daughter extra-judicially partitioned the properties. The brothers of X opposed.
[a] What is A’s status in relation to Y?
A is not related to Y. In this case, X and Y lived without a child for 20 years. A closer examination of of
A’s birth certificate reveals that she was listed as “adopted’ by both Y and X. Definitely, the mere
registration of a child in his or her birth certificate as the child of the supposed parents is not a valid
adoption. It does not confer upon this child the status of an adopted child and the legal rights of such
child. It was not sufficiently established that A was Y’s biological daughter nor even as an adopted
daughter. Thus, she cannot inherit from Y.
Since she could not have validly participated in Y’s estate, the extra-judicial partition executed with X
in 1990 was invalid.
[b] Were the properties equally owned by X and Y?
No. From 1927 until the death of X’s legal wife on April1 20, 1963, the relationship of Y and X was
adulterous. In such an adulterous relationships, it is necessary for each of the partners to prove his or
her actual contribution to the acquisition cf property in order to be able to lay claim to any portion of it.
Presumptions of co-ownership and equal contribution do not apply. In this case, the record shows only
four properties acquired by Y andX between 1927 and 1963, which they registered in both their names.
These can only be apportioned according to the actual contributions of each. However, the records are
devoid of evidence that Y contributed anything to the acquisition of these properties. On the other hand,
X, who was the treasurer of their municipality was the lone breadwinner. Thus, none of the four parcels
of land should accrue to Y’s half siblings.


Between 1927 and 1963, there was, one parcel of land registered solely in Y’s name. The fact of
registration created a conclusiveness of title in favor of the person in whose name it was registered. X,
also sought to prove that, he alone purchased and had the capability to do so during their cohabitation,
never actually challenged the validity of registration in Y’s name. Thus, the efficacy of the title in Y’s
name remained unrebutted. This property should accrue entirely to her heirs. After Z’s death in 1963,
the cohabitation of X ceased to be adulterous. This was governed by the pursuant to Article 144 of the
Civil Code:
Art. 144. – When a man aid a woman live together as husband and wife, but they are not married, or their
marriage is void from the beginning, the property acquired by either or both of them through their work- or
industry or their wages and salaries shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
Thus, as regards to the properties acquired by X and Y during this period, half of them should pertain
to Xs heirs and the other half to Y.
QUESTION 11-B
If there is no marriage settlement, the salary of a “spouse” in an adulterous marriage belongs to the
conjugal partnership of gains.
False. Under Article 148 of the Family Code, the property relations between married partner and
his/her paramour is governed by ordinary co-ownership where the partners become co-owners only
when they contributed to the acquisition of the property, Here, the paramour is deemed to have not
contributed in the earning of the salary of the married partner. Therfore, the salary of a married partner
belongs to the absolute community, or conjugal partnership with his/her spouse.
2000 BAR
QUESTION NO. 2-B
For five years since 1989, Tony, a bank Vice-President. And Susan, an entertainer, lived together as
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage although they were capacitated to many each other.
Since Tony’s saiaiy was more than enough for their needs. Susan stopped working and merely “kept
house”. During that period, Tony was able to buy a lot and house in a plush subdivision. However,
after five years, Tony and Susan decided to separate.
[B] Would it make any difference if Tony could not marry Susan because he was previously married to
Alice from whom he is legally separated ?
Yes. Under Article 148 of the Family Code, when the parties to the cohabitation could not marryy
each other because of an impediment, only those properties acquired by both of them through their
actual Joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in
proportion to their respective contributions. The efforts of one of the parties in maintaining the family
and household are not considered adequate contribution In the acquisition of the properties.
Here, Susan did not contribute to the acquisition of the house and lot, she has no share therein.
Therefore, the house and lot is Tony’s exclusive property.
Note: If Tony cohabited with Susan after his legal separation from Alice, the house and lot is his
exclusive property. If he cohabited with Susan before his legal separation from Alice, the house and lot
belongs to his community or partnership with Alice.


1998 BAR
In 1973, Mauricio. a Filipino pensioner of the U.S. Government, contracted a bigamous marriage with
Erllnda,
Despite the fact that his first wife, Carol, was still living, in 1975, Mauriclo and 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 her name alone as the buyer. In 1981,Maurlcto
died, and Carol promptly filed an action against Erlinda to recover both the riceland and the house and
lot. Claiming them to be conjugal property of the first marriage. Erlinda contends that she and the late
Maudcio were co-owners of the riceland, and with respect to the house and lot, she claims she is the
exclusive owner. Assuming she fails to prove that she had actually used her own money in either
purchase, how do you decide the case?
Both riceland and the house and lot accures to the conjugal property with Carol, Under Article 144
of the Civil Code, which applies to bigamous marriages, only the properties acquired by both parties
through their actual joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in
common in proportion to their respective contributions. And the married one’s share in the co-ownership
shall accrue to the absolute community/conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage.
Here, Erlinda failed to prove that she used her own money to buy those propertie nor contributed any
of value to the purchase thereof, she cannot claim to be the co-owner of the riceland nor the exclusive
owner of the house and lot. Therofore, such properties are Mauricio’s and they shall accrue to the
conjugal partnership with Carol, Carol can validly claim such properties to the exclusion of Erlinda.
(Art. 144, Civil Code)
Note: the applicable law is Art. 144 of the Civil Code and not Art. 148 of the FC. But they are both the
same.
In 1989. Rico, then a widower forty (40) years of age, cohabited with Cora, a widow thirty (30) years of
age. While living together, they acquired from their combined earnings a parcel of riceland.
After Rico and Cora separated, Rico lived together with Mabel, a maiden sixteen (16) years of age. While
living together, Rico was a salaried employee and Mabel kept house for Rico and did full-time household
chores for him. During their cohabitation, a parcel of coconut land was acquired by Rico from his
savings.
After living together for one (1) year, Rico and Mabel separated. Rico then met and married Letty, a
single woman twenty-six (26) years of age. During the marriage of Rico and Letty, Letty bought a
mango orchard out of her own personal earnings.
[B] Who would own the coconut land, and what property regime governs the ownership? Explain.
Rico is the exclusive owner of the coconut land. The regime is a sole/single proprietorship (Art. 148.
Family Code, first paragraph is applicable, and not Art. 147). Mabel has impediment to marry. (Wrong
reasoning)
In June 1985, James married Mary. In September 1988, he also married Ophelia with whom he begot
two (2) children, A and B. In July 1989, Mary died. In July 1990, he married Shirley and abandoned
Ophelia. During their union, James and Ophelia acquired a residential lot worth P300.000.00.


Ophelia sues James for bigamy and prays that his marriage with Shirley be declared null and void.
James, on the other hand, claims that since his marriage to Ophelia was contracted during the
existence of his marriage with Mary, the former is not binding upon him, the same being void ab Initio,
he further claims that his marriage to Shirley is valid and binding as he was already legally
capacitated at the time he married her.
What property regime governed the union of James and Ophelia?
(The provisions of Art 148 of the Family Code, shall govern. In cases of cohabitation not falling under
the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint
contribution of money , property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their
respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding
shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money
and evidences of credit – UPLC ANSWER)
Note: I DISAGREE.
From September 1988 to July 1989, the day that Mary died, the relationship between James
and Ophelia was adulterous or bigamous, hence, the applicable regime is Art. 148 of the FC. When Mary
died, the relationship has stopped to become adulterous or bigamous, hence the governing law was Art.
147.
Is the estate of. Mary entitled to a share in the esidential lot acquired “by James and Ophelia?
It should be distinguished when the property was acquired. If it was acquired before Mary’s death,
Mary’s estate is entitled to ½ of the share of James. If it was acquired after Mary’s death, there will be
no share at all for the estate of Mary. The property sahll belong to the union of James and Ophelia which
ceased to be adulterous.


PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
WHAT IS VOID MARRIAGE UNDER ART 36
Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if
such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
The term “psychological incapacity” to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the
marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. The root cause must be identified, as a
psychological illness, and its incapacitating nature must be fully explained.
In fine, for psychological incapacity to render a marriage void ab initio, it must be characterized by:
[a] Gravity – It must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the
ordinary duties required in a marriage;
[b] Juridical Antecedence – It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage,
although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and
[c] Incurability – It must be incurable, of even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means
of the party involved.
MEMORIZED THAT WORD FOR WORD AND BY HEART
Laging lumalabas sa bar exams ang Art 36. If ever you were asked if the cause of action shall prosper,
the answer is always No, unless the facts are well explained at halos sabihin na ng examiner na Yes ang
answer. Otherwise, it is always no. Why? Factual ang existence ng psychological incapacity. You need
witnesses, medical report, incidence of abuse, etc. Mahirap magprove ng existence but it is very easy to
deny.
GRAVITY
You have to correlate this with the following articles of the Family Code.
Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fideltiy,
and render mutual help and support.
Art 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile.
Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family.
Art. 71. The management of the household shall be the right and duty of both spouses.
Art. 72. When one of the spouses neglects his or her duties to the conjugal union or commits acts
which tend to bring danger, dishonor or injury to the other or to the family, the aggrieved party may
apply to the court for relief.
Art. 73. Either spouse may exercise any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity without
the consent of the other.


It is a factual issue. Kung si spouse, for no valid reason at all, ayaw ng maki-pag sex, laging wala sa
bahay, doesnt care sa gawaing bahay at hindi na rin nagbibigay ng pera, o anumang tulong kahit sa
mga maliliit na bagay sa bahay. Yun bang sukang-suka na sa iyo. Hahahahaha pag nakita ka, laging
sira araw niya at gusto na lang na umalis siya o ikaw ang umalis. Remember, for apparently no valid
reason at all. Pero pag may reason like your so annoying kasi...you squandered the family coffers, tamad
k rin naman at bungangera at hindi ka madalas maligo, ang galing mong mag baskeball pero hindi mo
ma-i-shoot yung mabaho mong short na may nakapulupot n brief sa laundry box. Ang tawag diyan ay
indifferences. You and your spouse are not just compatible.
JURIDICAL ANTECEDENCE
The incapacity that is so grave is nandun n nung bata pa siya. Sanggol pa lang. Alam ninyo, ang ugali
ng sanggol, hindi nagbabago kahit tumanda na. Pag iyakin, iyakin din paglaki. Pag sutil na bata, sutil
pa rin paglaki. Yung sanggol na iiyak lang paggutom at dede lang tatahan na, mabait yan paglaki. Pero
yung batang iyak ng iyak, pinadede na, kinalong mo, naubos mo na ang songs sa videoke, iyak-iyak pa
rin, wala namang lagnat, matigas ang ulo niyan pag laki...hahahaha of course in the passing of years.
Nagiging mature, yes. Napagsasabihan na at pwede ng disiplinahin. But yung ugali, it remains.
Sa topic natin dapat daw yung facts I said sa itaas (gravity), dapat daw nandun na bago pa kayo ikasal.
So paano mapapatunayan ito. You have to have testimony ng mga taong nakasama niya nung binata
pa siya. Former girlfriends, siblings, parents, friends, katulong nila dati sa bahay....yan....trabaho ng
psychologists/psychiatrists yan...he has to interview them to come up with the medical history, then
yung report shall be testified in court ni doktor. Sasabahin ni doc, your honor, bago pa sila ikasal, in
fact, bata pa lang si husband siya may medical condition na...he could not keep friends, laging
basagulero, he in in fact incarcerated nung teenager, he attempted to to kill himself...etc...and tawag po
diyan ay split personality disodrer, rooted n nung sanggol pa siya...kasi meron siyang imaginary
friend....sino daw yun?....yung taong kapangalan niya hahahaha...or because of drug abuse or accident
which happened before the marriage, X developed or acquired this kind of psychosis.
But remember, sabi ng Court, hindi na kailangan ng medical report if, so malaking IF, the totality of
evidence points to the gravity of the incapacity at ito ay kayang patunayan ng mga testimonies ng mga
witnesses. So dapat marami kang witnesses, at willing ang family and friends ng spouse mo to testify
in your favor. Otherwise, if ayaw ng family and friends, dapat mahusay yung doktor to convince them
to grant an interview. Hindi pwedeng ikaw lang o ang mga anak mo ang maiinterview ng doktor.
Hahanap ka talaga ng mga taong nakasalumuha na ng spouse mo, even before you know him.
But in one case, sabi ng court, if the medical report ng erring spouse contains only the testimonies of
the wife, her friends or children, at wala ang side ng asawa or anyone who is neutral...it is like hearsay.
Not admissible in evidence. So deny yung yung cause of action.
INCURABILITY
Simply said -walang lunas. Permanent na. If even curable, hindi ang kagandahan mo ang magpapabago
sa asawa mo. Let say, psychotic si mister. Walang lunas yun but with medical maintenance, X can live
normally. But it will still linger. There were women na kayang mag handle ng asawang may psychosis.
They grew up and wired how to get along with a spouse na may medical condition.
Kaya nga there was a question raised sa isang case, if the husband cannot handle marriage because he
has psychological incapacity, di ba dapat forever disqualified siya to contract marriage? The court said,
no. Baka sa iyo lang. Marriage is a tango. Dalawahan yan. Maaring ikaw you cannot handle him but
merong taong inilaan para sa kanya. And true enough, yung mga lalaking annulled ang marriage, pag
nag-kaidad na, nakakapagasawa at namumuhay ng maayos. They found heaven in the second marriage.


One more, let say tinanong sa bar. Y filed annulment against X, the court denied ang annulment. And
then, the wife found out that they have no marriage license pala. So she file a case again for nullity of
marriage on the ground of lack of marriage license. Pwede p b yun? Magka-iba naman ng grounds. Hindi
na pwede. Estopped na si wife. Kasi sa unang petition, she alleges that they were validly married. Tapos
ngayon, void for lack of license. Hindi n pwede yun. So papasok yung principle ng estoppel.
So we have to choose wisely on what ground to annul the marriage, kasi may mga advantages or
disadvantges yan.
Let say if walang license, the children are illegitimate. Pero sa art 36, legitimate. So may effect yan sa
inheritance ng mga bata at sa mga donations. Tapos walang property regime ang mag asawa, not
conjugal nor absolute. Special co-ownership yan under art 147. So mamili ka na – kung anong ground
ang mas advantage sa iyo. Ay! hindi na lang ako magfaffile ng annulment based on no license or Art 36,
super bilyonaryo nga pala siya…. Ipapa void ko n lang kasi he concealed na homosexual siya, para
voidable lang marriage ko. The advantage is, legitimate ang mga anak ninyo, at kung mayaman si Mr.
Aba eh di share kayo sa properties, forfeited yung kanyang net profits at yung mga anak ninyo ibibigay
na agad yung presumptive legitime as advance ng inheritance nila. So there it is. Mawawlan k rin lang
ng asawa at nagdusa ka na rin lang, pwede kang umalis sa marriage ng tagumpay!
JURISPRUDENCE
COURT MUST DECLARE THE MARRIAGE NULL AND VOID

WITHOUT AWATING FOR THE DISOLUTION OF THE PROPERTIES
IF THE GROUND IS PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACTY UNDER ART 36 OF FC (or VOID marriages)
Dino vs. Dino, G.R. No. 178044, January 19,2011
X and Y cohabitated from 1984 to 1994. They were back together in 1996, and decided to get married
on 1998. In 2001, X filed a declaration of nullity on the grounds of psychological incapacity of Art 36 of
the Family Code. The trial court annuled the marriage with notation that the decree of the nullity shall
be issued after liquidation, partition and distribution of the parties’ properties under Art 147. Is the trial
court correct?
No. The Court has ruled in Valdes v. RTC, Branch 102, Quezon City that in a VOID MARRIAGE,
REGARDLESS OF ITS CAUSE, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is
governed either by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family Code. Article 147 of the Family Code applies
to union of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage,
but, whose marriage is nonetheless void, such as A and B in this case.
(memorize and understand this – most likely ito itatanong sa bar exam)
For Article 147 of the Family Code to apply, the following elements must be present:
(a) the man and the woman must be capacitated to marry each other;
(b) they live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and
(c) their, union is without the benefit of marriage, or their marriage is void.
All these elements are present in this case and there is no question that Article 147 of the Family Code
applies to the property relations between A and’B.
The trial court erred in ordering that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall be issued only after
liquidation, partition and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.
The ruling has no basis because Section 19( 1) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Null


Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages does not apply to cases governed under Articles 147
and 148 of the Family Code. Section 19(1) of the Rule provides:
Sec. 19. Decision. – (1) the court renders a decision granting the petition, it shall declare therein that
the decree of absolute nullity or decred of annulment shall be issued by the court only after compliance
with Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code as implemented under the Rule on Liquidation, Partition and
Distribution of Properties.
The pertinent provisions of the Family Code cited in Section 19(1) of the Rule are:
Art 50. The effects provided for in paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 43 and in Article 44 shall also
apply in proper cases to marriages which are declared void ab initio or annulled by final judgment under
Articles 40 and 45.
The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the
properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children, and the delivery of their
presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings.
All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be
notified of the proceedings for liquidation.
In the partition, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated, shall be adjudicated in
accordance with the provisions of Articles 102 and 129.
Art. 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive legitimes of all common children, computed as
of the date of the final judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in cash, property or sound securities,
unless the parties, by mutual agreement judicially approved, had already provided for such matters.
The children or their guardian, or the trustee of their properly, may ask for the enforcement of the
judgment.
The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed shall in no way prejudice the ultimate
successional rights of the children accruing upon the death of either or both of the parents; but the
value of the properties already received under the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be
considered as advances on their legitime, (n)
It is clear from Article 50 of the Family Code that Section 19(1) of the Rule applies only to
marriages which are declared void ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and
45 of the Family Code. In short, Article 50 of the Family Code does not apply to marriages which are
declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code, which should be declared void without
waiting for the liquidation of the properties of the parties. Article 40 of the Family Code contemplates a
situation where a second or bigamous marriage was contracted. Under Article 40, “the absolute nullity
of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment
declaring such previous marriage void.” Thus the Court ruled:
X x x where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of
contracting second marriage, the sole basis acceptable in law, for said projected marriage to be free from
legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring a previous marridge void.
Article 45 of the Family Code, on the other hand, refers to voidable marriages, meaning, marriages which
are valid until they are set aside by final judgment of a competent court in an action for annulment. In
both instances under Articles 40 and 45, the marriages are governed either by absolute community of
property or conjugal partnership of gains unless the parties agree to a complete separation of property
in a marriage settlement entered into before the marriage. Since the property relations of the parties is


governed by absolute community of property or conjugal partnership of gains, there is a need to
liquidate, partition and distribute the properties before a decree of annulment could be issued. That is
not the case annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code because the marriage is
governed by the ordinary rules on co-ownership.
In this case, X’s marriage to Y was declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code and not under
Article 40 or 45. Thus, what governs the liquidation of properties owned in common by the spouses are
the rules on co-ownership. In Valdes, the Court ruled that the property, relations of parties in a void
marriage during the period of cohabitation is governed either by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family
Code. The rules on co-ownership apply and the properties of the spouses should be liquidated in
accordance with the Civil Code provisions on co-ownership. Under Article 496 of the Civil Code,
“partition may be made by agreement between the parties or by judicial proceedings, x x x.” It is not
necessary to liquidate the properties of the spouses in the same proceeding for’declaration of nullity of
marriage.
(explanation – unawain ito at tandaan)

Ang binuwag lang ng court ay ang cohabitation dahil kailanman hindi sila naging mag-asawa –
void ab intio)
So, kung ang basis ng annulment is under Art 35 (legal incapacity, lack of any requisite of a valid
marriage), Art 36 (psychological incapacity), Art 37 (incestous marriages), Art 38 (void because of public
policy) or the marriage is void because it is bigamous, the court must declare it void and immediately
issue the decree of nullity. There’s no need for liquidation, partition and delivery of legitime – dahil
there’s no property regime.
Reason: Kasi po void ab initio, it means there was no marriage at all. And becuase it is void from the
beginning, wala silang property regime. So papasok ang regime nila sa tinatawag na speial co-owership
under either Art 147 or Art 148. So here the estranged couple may just make a project of partition to be
approved by the court.
If the marriage is voidable. There shall be dissolution, liquidation and partition of properties and delivery
of the presumptive legitime of the children plus registraion of the decree ot the local civil registrar where
the court resides and to the civil registrar where the marriage took place, and the registration of the
decree to appropriate property registries.
Reason: kasi po there was a valid marriage kaso nga lang voidable. So meron silang property regime. It
is either via marriage settlement, absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains or complete
separation of properties which the court must dissolve prior to the issuance of the final decree of
annulment.
EXCEPTION
Paano if the marriage is Art 41 and 42 of the Family Code. Does the court need to rule on its validity?
NO! Automatic terminated yan upon recording sa civil registry of the appearance ng nawawalang
spouse. Yan ang tinatawag na TERMINABLE MARRIAGE.
ABANDONMENT AND SEXUAL INFIDELITY PER SE

DO NOT CONSTITUTE PSCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
Republic vs. Court of Appeals, G.R No. 159594, November 12,2012


Abandonment was not one of the grounds for the nullity of marriage under the Family Code. It did not
also constitute psychological incapacity, if being instead a ground for legal separation under Article
55(10) of the Famity Code. On the other hand, sexual infidelity was not a valid ground for the nullity of
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code considering that there should be a showing that such
marital infidelity was a manifestation of a disordered personality that made her completely unable to
discharge the essential obligations of marriage.
Abandonment – it is not a ground for nullity of marriage, or does constitute psychological incapactiy. It
is a ground for legal separation.
ART 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE IS NOT A DIVORCE LAW

[1] Is Art. 36 of the Family Code a divorce law?
No. Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at
the time the causes therefore manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting
a party even before the celebration of marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive
one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.
(Perez-Ferraris vs.Ferraris, G-R.No. 162368, July 17, 2006)
It is well to reiterate that Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended, is not a divorce law that cuts the
marital bond at the time the grounds for divorce manifest themselves; a marriage, no matter how
unsatisfactory, is not a null and void marriage. Thus, absent sufficient evidence establishing
psychological incapacity within the context of Article 36, the court is compelled to uphold the
indissolubility of the marital tie. (Del RosariO vsDel Rosario, GJL No. 222541, February 15,2017)
GUIDELINES IN THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION

ART. 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE
Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Molina
(Read and study. Herethereto is the evolution ng guidelines from a so strict na Molina case to
Te case na naging flexible na ang court. Enjoy the flow.)
[1] The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be
resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and
nullity.
[2] The root cause of-the psychological incapacity must be:

(a) medically or clinically identified
(b) alleged in the complaint
(c) sufficiently proven by experts and
(d) clearly explained in the decision.
Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological – not physical.
Although, its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the court
that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could
not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid
assumption thereof. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.


[3] The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage. The
evidence must show that the illness existing when the parties exchanged their “I do’s”. The manifestation
of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached such
moment, or prior thereto.
(uy! Juridical antecedence ito)
[4] Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such
incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily
absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the
assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of
a profession or employment in a job. Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of
children and prescribing medicine to cure them but may not be psychologically capacitated to procreate,
bear and raise his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage.
(uy! Incurability ito)
[5] Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the the party to assume the
essential obligations of marriage. Thus, wild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional
emotional outbursts cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as downright
incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a
natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality
structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the
obligations essential to marriage.
( gavity ito)
[6] The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family
Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard
to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the
petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
[7] Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the
Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts, xxx.
At Ng dumating ang Santos case, ang psychological incapacity ay nagkaroon na ng precise

characterization, namely:
[1] gravity
[2] juridical antecedence
[3] incurability
And then dumating ang Antonio vs. Reyes case, and sabi ng court:
Each case must be judged, not on the basis a prior assumptions, predilections or generalizations but
according to its own facts. In regard to psychological incapacity as a ground for annulment of marriage,
it is trite to say that no case is on “all fours” with another case. The trial judge must take pains in
examining the factual milieu and the appellate court must as much as possible, avoid substituting its
own judgment for that of the trial court.


(Simply said, iba-iba ang facts ng existence ng psychological incapacity unlike sa ibang mga civil case,
one case can be the same to another one. The trial court must not deny or grant a complaint just
because similarly situated ito sa isang case.)
Kaya naman ng dumating ang case ni Te vs Te in 2009:
The Court encourages a reexamination of jurisprudential trends on the interpretation of Article 36

although there has been no major deviation or paradigm shift from the Mm.doctrine,
So in Marcos vs. Marcos:
It was held that there is no requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be personally
examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of
marriage based on psychological incapacity. What matters is whether the totality of evidence presented
is adequate to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity.
But in Te vs Te again, need naman ng expert opinion for the courts to know the nature of a dependent
personality disorder and how one afflicted with such disorder would be incapacitated from complying
with marital obligations:
“xxxby the very nature of Article 36, courts, despite having the primary task and burden of decision-
making, must not discount but, instead, must consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on the
psychological and mental temperaments of the parties.”
“Of course, this is not to say that anyone diagnosed with dependent personality disorder is automatically
deemed psychologically incapacitated to comply with the obligations of marriage. We realize that
psychology is by no means an exact science and the medical cases of patients, even though suffering
from the same disorder, may be different in their symptoms or manifestations and in the degree of
severity. It is the duty of the court in its evaluation of the facts, as guided by expert opinion, to carefully
scrutinize the type of disorder and the gravity of the same before declaring the nullity of a marriage
under Article 36.”
Te case, therefore, instead of substantially departing from Molina, merely stands for a more flexible
approach in considering petitions for declaration of nullity of marriages based on psychological
incapacity.
(Masyado kasing stringent ang guidelines ng Molina, para bang kailangang sira-ulo talaga napangasawa
mo. Sa Te case, the Court ay naging considerate as it requires an expert opinion to guide the court.
Kaya pag dating ng Ting vs Velez case, it reiterated ang Santos case on the three (3) characterization ng
pychological incapacity namely; gravity, juridical antecedence and incurrability. But a critical factor in
appreciating or evaluating the expert opinion evidence – the psychologist’s testimony and psychological
report ay dapat hindi lang one-sided. If it is, heresay lang ang evidentiary value ng report)
In saying this, we do not suggest that a personal examination of the party’s alleged to be psychologically
incapacitated is mandatory. Jurisprudence holds that this type of examination is not a mandatory
requirement While such examination is desirable, we recognize that it may not be practical in all
instances given the oftentimes estranged relations between the parties. For a determination though of a
party’s complete-personality profile, information coming from persons intimately related to him (such
as the party’s close relatives and friends) may be helpful. This is an approach in the application of Article


36 that allows flexibility, at the same time that it avoids, if not totally obliterate, the credibility gaps
spawned by supposedly expert opinioin based entirely on doubtful sources of information.
(So here, the report must not be one-sided. Pwede na kahit mga relatives and friends ng spouse ang ma-
interview to have a credible psychological profile ng spouse na may psychological incapacity, if ayaw
nitong magpa-interview.)
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY IS CHARACTERIZED BY

GRAVITY, JURIDICAL ANTECEDENCE AND INCURABILITY
Republic vs Cabantug-Baguio, G.R. No. 171042 June30, 2008
X and Y were married in 1997 and they moved to Y’s parents house. X, however, stayed only there
during weekends and spent the whole weekdays with his parents. Y soon realized that he is a “mama’s
boy”. In 1999, he worked as seaman and when he disembarked he stayed at his parents residence.
Allotment were also given to his mother. When they finally see each other, X told Y that they are not
ompatible and should part ways. Y filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground
of psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital duties and obligations. Will it prosper?
No. The mere showing, of “irreconcilable differences” and “conflicting personalities” does not constitute
psychological incapacity neither failure of the parties to meet their responsibilities and duties as married
persons. It is essential that the parties to a marriage must be shown to be insensitive to or incapable
of meeting their duties and responsibilities due to some psychological (not physical) illness, which
insensitivity or incapacity should even becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
The term “psychological incapacity” to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the
Family Code, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the
marriage. It is malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and
responsibilities of the matrimonial bond is about to assume. The root cause must be identified as a
psychological illness, and its incapacitating nature must be fully explained.
In fine, for psychological incapacity to render a marriage void ab initio, it must be characterized by:
[a] Gravity – It must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the
ordinary duties required in a marriage;
[b] Juridical Antecedence – It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage,
although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and
[c] Incurability – It must be incurable, of even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means
of the party involved.
Here, X’s failure to establish a common life with Y stems from his refusal, not incapacity, to do so. It is
downright incapacity, not refusal or neglect or difficulty, much less ill will, which, renders a marriage
void on the ground of psychological incapacity. While the examination by a physician of a person in
order to declare him/her psychological incapacitated is not required, the root cause thereof must be
medically or clinically identified.
(The reason why the court most likely uphold the continuation of marraige)
There must be evidence to adequately establish the same. There is none such in the case at bar, however,
the Constitution sets out a policy of protecting and strengthening the family as the basic social


institution and marriage as the foundation of the family. Marriage, an inviolable institution protected
by the State, cannot be dissolved, at the whim of the parties. In petitions for the declaration of nullity of
marriage, the burden of proof to show the nullity of marriage lies on the plaintiff. Any doubt should be
resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and
nullity. As reflected above, Y failed to discharge the onus probandi. While the Court sympathizes with
her predicament, its first and foremost duty is to apply the law. Dura lex sed lex. Y’s marriage with X
may have failed then, but it cannot be declared void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity.
In fine, X’s abandonment of F constitutes only a ground for legal separation but not for declaration of
nullity of marriage.
INCURABILITY IS AN INTEGRAL REQUISITE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
Antonio vs. Reyes G.R, No. 155800, March 10,2006
In 1992, X filed a petition to declare null and void his marraige with Y. Alleging psychological incapacity
to comply with the essential obligations of marriage – existing at the time of the Celebration of marriage
and still subsists to the present. X claimed that Y lied about herself, the people around her, her
occupation, income, educational attainment and other events or things. A clinical psychologist, on the
basis of tests, observed that persistent and constant lying to A was abnormal. Her extreme jealousy was
likewise pathological and reached the point of paranoia. Based on such, she was medically concluded
to be psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations. The lower Court ruled
that her fantastic ability to invent and fabricate stories and personalities rendered her psychological
incapable of giving meaning and significance to her marriage, and thus declared the marriage null and
void.
Is the requisite that psychological incapacity must be incurable a requisite to the declaration of nullity
of a marriage?
Yes. It would be insensate to reason to mandate in this case an expert medical or clinical diagnosis of
incurability, since the parties would have had no impelling cause to present evidence to that effect. The
incurability of Y’s psychological incapacity has been established by X. The incurability is an integral
requisite of psychological incapacity.
THE AWARD OF MORAL AND EXEMPLARY DAMAGES WAS NOT PROPER
Buenaventura vs. Buenaventura, G.R. No. 127449, March 3l, 2005
Y filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity against
X. The petition was granted by the RTC. Monetary awards (moral and exemplary damages) were granted
by the court to Y. It also issued an order for X to give 1/2 of his retirement benefits and shares of stock,
the exclusive care and custody of their child in favor of Y.
What property regime is applicable to X and Y?
Art 147 governs their property regime and their poperty relations shall govern by special co-ownership.
In case a marriage is declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity, the property regime
applicable is that of special co-ownership under Art. 147 of the Family Code. A void marriage, regardless
of its ground cannot be governed by the conjugal partnership of gains or the absolute community of
property regime. Thus, Y is entitled to the ½ of the the retirement benefits and share of stock.


Were the monetary awards and division of properties directed by the court proper?
No. The award of moral and exemplary damages was not proper. The award of moral damages should
be based, not on the mere act of entering into the marriage, but on specific evidence that it was done
deliberately and with malice by a party who had knowledge of his/her disability and yet willfully
concealed the same. Additionally, since psychological incapacity means that one is truly incognitive of
the basic marital covenants that one must discharge, this removes the basis for deception.
AS THE MARRIAGE OF THE PARTIES IS VOID, THEIR PROPERTY RELATION SHALL BE
GOVERNED BY ARTICLE 147 OF THE FAMILY CODE
Gonzales vs, Gonzales, G.R. No, 159521, December 16, 2005
X and Y were married in 1979, and they are engaged in burger business. The marriage was dissolved
on the ground of psychologicl incapacity in 1992. The properties were divided equally between the
parties. X questioned the decision on equal partition. He claims that all the properties were acquired by
the burger business he started when he was still single. Was the division proper?
Yes. As the marriage of the parties is void, their property relation shall be governed by Article 147 of the
Family Code, which states in part:
“When a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other but live 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. In the absence of
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.”
CAN I ATTACK VOID AB INITO MARRAIGES COLLATERALLY EVEN WHEN THE PARTIES HAVE
ALREADY DIED?
Yes. Under Art. 39 of the Family code, the action or defense for the declaration of absolute nullity of a
marriage shall not prescribe (As amended, by R.A. 8533, approved Feb. 23, 1998). Thus:
A void marriage may be questioned by any interested party in any proceeding where the resolution of
the issue is material (Ninal v. Bayadog, 328 SCRA 122). A void marriage is always void, can be attacked
directly or collaterally, and the action to declare it null and void is imprescriptible. Whereas, a voidable
marriage is valid until annulled, cannot be attacked collaterally, and action to annul it prescribes.
ANG MARRIAGE KO AY VOID AB INITIO DAHIL ANG AKING NAPA-NGASAWA AY AKING PINSAN,
MAARI BA AKONG MAGPAKASAL NG HINDI KO PINAPA-ANNUL ANG AKING UNANG KASAL SA
AKING PINSAN?
Hindi. Art. 40 of the Family code states that the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked
for purposes of remarriage on basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.
A marriage even one which is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a judicial
proceeding. The outcome of the civil case for annulment of petitioner’s marriage had no bearing upon
the determination of petitioner’s innocence or guilt the criminal case for bigamy, because all that is
required for the charge of bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the time the
second marriage is contracted. (Abunado v. P.P G.R.No. 159218, Mar.30, 2004) (Te v. CA G.R.No.
126746. Nov.29, 2000)


(Note: This ruling must really be revisited and re-examined)
WILLFUL EXPOSURE OF CHILDREN TO THE CULTURE OF GAMBLING MANIFESTS WANTON

DISREGARD OF THE CHILDREN’S MORAL AND MENTAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS A
VIOLATION OF DUTY AS A PARENT
Valerio Kalaw v. MaElena Fernandez G.R. No. 166357 January 14, 2015
The willful exposure to gambling by Y to her children is sufficient to prove her psychological incapacity.
A petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is governed by Article 36 of the Family Code which
provides that a marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if
such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
LACK OF PERSONAL EXAMINATION OF PSYCHOLOGIST IS NOT FATAL IN DECLARATION OF

NULLITY OF MARRIAGE IF-THE TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED IS ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN
A FINDING OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY THEN ACTUAL MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF THE
PERSON CONCERNED NEED NOT BE RESORTED TO.
Glenn lenn Vinasv. Mary Grace Parel-Vinas G.R. No. 208790, January 21,2015
PETITIONER FAILED TO OVERCOME THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO SHOW PSYCHOLOGICAL

INCAPACITY OF HIS SPOUSE:
(1) he failed to prove its root cause, and
(2) psychological report was insufficient as there was neither showing of that the spouse was
interviewed nor examined
Robert F. Mallilin v. Luz G. Jamesolamin and the Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. 192718
February 18,2015
Psychological incapacity as required by Article 36 and must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence and (c) incurability. The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. It must be rooted in the history of
the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may only emerge after the
marriage. It must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the
party involved.
The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code
as regards the husband and wife as welt as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard,to
parents andr their children;
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY AS A GROUND TO NULLIFY MARRIAGE SHOULD REFER TO THE

MOST SERIOUS CASES OF PERSONALITY DISORDER.
Republic vs. Romero II G.R. No. 209180; G.R. No. 209253; February 24, 2016
Moreover, the OCPD which X allegedly suffered from was not shown to have juridical antecedence. No
specific behavior or habits during his adolescent years were shown which would explain his behavior
during his marriage with Y. Simply put, Dr. Basilio’s medical report did not establish that X’s incapacity
existed long before he entered into marriage.


Thus, absent sufficient evidence to prove psychological incapacity within the context of Article 36 of the
Family Code, the Court is compelled to uphold the indissolubility of the marital tie.
RULES ON CO-OWNERSHIP GOVERN THE PROPERTIES OF SPOUSES WHOSE MARRIAGE WAS

DECLARED VOID DUE TO PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
Virginia Ocampo V. Deogracio Ocampo; GR NO 198908 AUGUST 3, 2015
In this case, there are no impediments to marry from either of the spouses. Having lived together as
husband and wife, their marriage was found to be void under Art. 36 of the Family Code on the ground
of psychological incapacity. From the foregoing, the SC ruled that the parties will share on equal shares
on the basis of co-ownership, considering that Y failed to prove that the properties were acquired solely
on her own efforts, as correctly held by the lower courts. Wherein, in the absence, therefore, of any
documentary evidence to prove the contrary, all the properties acquired by the spouses during the
marriage are presumed conjugal. Further, the testimonial evidence adduced by Y aimed at establishing
that X took no part in acquiring said properties failed to convince this Court that the latter be given only
a meager share thereof. Hence, Respondent X cannot be deprived of his share in the conjugal
partnership.
SUMMARY
Void ab intio marriages have no property regime – their property relations are governed by either Art
147 or 148. There is no dissolution of marriage for there were no marriage at all, neither there shall be
liquidation of properties and distribution of presumptive legitime because the parties are governed by
special co-ownership in their property relations. Children born under void ab initio marraiges are
illegitimate except when the gound for nullity of marriage is psychological incapcity under Art 36 or
Art. 53 (see discussion under the title Art 53). In such cases, children are legitimate by express
provision of the law. Nevertheless, the court shall immediately issue the final decree of nullity of
marriage which is necessary for any party who wishes to contract a subsequent marriage to avoid
prosecution for bigamy.
The union of same-sex individuals is not even legally permissible to be called “void ab intio marriage”
for there is no law allowing the marriage of people belonging to the same sex. Neither the provisions of
the Family Code on void ab initio marraiges are applicable to their unions and property relations. To
consider same-sex unions as void ab inito marriages is tantamount to placing it at the same category
of void ab initio marriages of heteresexuals.
Leo married Lina and they begot a son. After the birth of their child, Lina exhibited unusual behavior
and started to neglect her son; she frequently went out with her friends and gambled in casinos. Lina
later had extra-marital affairs with several men and eventually abandoned Leo and their son. Leo was
able to talk to the psychiatrist of Lina who told him that Lina suffers from dementia praecox, a form of
psychosis where the afflicted person is prone to commit homicidal attacks. Leo was once stabbed by
Lina but fortunately he only suffered minor injuries.
Will a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed with the court prosper? Explain.
No, a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code will not prosper.
In the annals of decisions, the Supreme Court explained that psychological incapacity must be
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The illness must be shown as


downright incapacity or inability to perform one’s marital obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect,
difficulty, or much less, ill will.
Here, Lina was not examined by a physician and the pieces of evidence presented are not sufficient to
conclude that indeed Lina is suffering from psychological incapacity existing already before the marriage,
incurable and serious enough to prevent her from performing her essential marital obligations. Even if
taken as true, the grounds alleged are not sufficient to declare the marriage void under “psychological
incapacity. Therefore, the petition must be denied.
THIS IS THE TEMPLATE TO ANSWER IF THERE’S NO MEDICAL REPORT, AND THE

JURISPRUDENCE TO QUOTE.
Doctrine to quote
[1] In Santos v. CA (G.R. No. 113054, March 16,1995, 240 SCRA 20), the Supreme Court explained that
psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability to perform one’s marital
obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect, difficulty, or much less, ill will.
[2] The Supreme Court has ruled in Marcos v. Marcos (G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000,343 SCRA
755), that actual medical examination need not be resorted to where the totality of evidence presented
is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity.
QUESTION NO. 19
Brad and Angelina had a secret marriage before a pastor whose office is located in Arroceros Street, City
of Manila. They paid money to the pastor who took care of all the documentation. When Angelina wanted
to go to the U.S., she found out that there was no marriage license issued to them before their marriage.
Since their marriage was solemnized in 1995 after the effectivity of the Family Code, Angelina filed a
petition for judicial declaration of nullity on the strength of a certification by the Civil Registrar of Manila
that, after a diligent and exhaustive search, the alleged marriage license indicated in the marriage
certificate does not appear in the records cannot be found.
[B] In case the marriage was solemnized in 1980 before the effectivity of the. Family Code, is it
required that a judicial petition be filed to declare the marriage null and void? Explain.
Yes, a a judicial petition be filed to declare the marriage null and void is required. Under Art. 256 of
the Family Code, the same code has retroactive effect provided that no vested rights or acquired rigths
were impaired, and under Art 40, it says that on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous
marriage void connotes that such final judgment need to be obtained only for purpose of remarriage.
Here, there were no vested or acquired rights to be impaired in the application of the Family Code.
Therefore, the petition to declare the marraige void is required as enunciated in Art 40 of the Family
Code.
For other purposes, such as but not limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a
child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the court
may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so
long as it is essential to the determination of the case.
(remember that if you still want to state more, like yung mga side issues, ilagay ninyo sa ibaba at wag
ihalo sa main answer para hindi nakakalito or if you have alternative answer – sa ibaba na lang pero
dapat maigsi lang)


This doctrine is only applicable if there is a vested or acquired right that will get impaired. [1] It
is not required that a judicial petition be filed to declare the marriage null and void when said
marriage was solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code. As stated in the cases of people v.
Mendoza (G.R. No. L-5877, September 28,1954, 95 Phil. 845), and people v. Aragon (g.R; No. L-
10016, February 28,1957,100 Phil. 1033)’ the old rule is that where a marriage is illegal and void
from its performance, no judicial petition is necessaryto establish its invalidity.
This is the default rule now. [1] Irrespective of when the marriage took place, other than for purposes
of remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a marriage an absolute nullity. For other
purposes, such as but not limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child,
settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the court may
pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so long as
it is essential to the determination of the case. This is without prejudice to any issue that may arise in
the case. When such need arises, a final judgment of declaration of nullity is necessary even if the
purpose is other than to remarry. The clause on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous
marriage void in Article 40 of the Family Code connotes that such final judgment need to be obtained
only for purpose of remarriage (Ablaza v. Republic, G.R No. 158298, August 11 2010,628 SCRA 27).
Kardo as a young lieutenant, met Glenda, and after a whirlwind courtship. They were married. In the
early part of his military career, Kardo was assigned to different places all over the country but Glenda
refused to accompany him as she preferred to live in her hometown. They did riot live together until the
12th year of their marriage when Kardo had risen up the ranks and was given his own command. They
moved to living quarters in Fort Gregorio. One day, while Kardo was away on official business, one of
his military aides caught Glenda having sex with the corporal assigned as Kardo’s driver. The aide
immediately reported the matter to Kardo who rushed home to confront his wife. Glenda readily admitted
the affair and Kardo sent her away in anger. Kardo would later come to know the true extent of Glenda’s
unfaithfulness from his aides, his household staff, and former neighbors who informed him that Glenda
has had intimate relations with various men throughout their marriage whenever Kardo was away on
assignment.
Kardo filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36, Based on interviews from
Kardo, his aide, and the housekeeper, a psychologist testified that Glenda’s habitual infidelity was due
to affliction with Histrionic Personality disorder, an illness characterized by excessive emotionalism and
uncontrollable attention-seeking behavior rooted in Glenda’s abandonment as a child by her father.
Kardo himself, his aide, and his housekeeper also testified in court. The RTC granted the petition, relying
on the liberality espoused by Te v. Te (G.R No. 161793, February 13, 2009) and Azcueta v. Republic
(G.R. No. 180668, May 26, 2009). However, the OSG filed an appeal, arguing that sexual infidelity was
only a ground for legal separation and that the RTC failed to abide by the guidelines laid down in the
Molina case. How would you decide the appeal? (5% )
I will grant the appeal. In the annals of decisions, the Supreme Court explained that psychological
incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The illness
must be shown as downright incapacity or inability to perform one’s marital obligations, not a mere
refusal, neglect, difficulty, or much less, ill will.
Here, there was no showing that the incapacity is incurable or that it was so grave that she could not
perform her essential marital obligations. Also, there was insufficient evidence that Glenda’s defects
were already present at the inception of, or prior to, the marriage; her alleged psychological incapacity
did not satisfy the jurisprudential requisite of juridical antecedence, as laid down in the case of Molina.
Therefore, the petition should be denied.


Mere sexual infidelity is not itself a ground for dissolution of marriage under Article 36, even if habitual;
at most, it can only be a ground for legal separation.
Doctrine to remember
[1] As held by the Supreme Court, “there is no requirement that the respondent spouse be personally
examined by a physician or psychologist as a conditionsine qua non for the declaration of nullity of
marriage based on psychological incapacity. What matters is whether the totality of evidence presented
is adequate to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity” (Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490,
October 19,2000).
[2] Mere sexual infidelity is not itself a ground for dissolution of marriage under Article 36, even if
habitual; at most, it can only be a ground for legal separation.
Ariz and Paz were officemates at Perlas ng Siangan Bank (PSB). They fell in love with each other and
had a civil and church wedding. Meanwhile, Paz rapidly climbed the corporate ladder of PSB and
eventually became its Vice President, while Ariz remained one of its bank supervisors, although he was
short of twelve (12) units to finish his Masters of Business Administration (MBA) degree.
Ariz became envious of the success of his wife. He started drinking alcohol until he became a drunkard.
He preferred to join his barkadas; became a wife-beater: would hurt his children without any reason;
and failed to contribute to the needs of the family. Despite rehabilitation and consultation with a
psychiatrist, his ways did not change.
After 19 years of marriage, Paz, a devout Catholic, decided to have their marriage annulled by the
church. Through the testimony of Paz and a psychiatrist, it was found that Ariz was a spoiled brat in
his youth and was sometimes involved in brawls. In his teens, he was once referred to a psychiatrist for
treatment due to his violent tendencies. In due time, the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal
(NAMT) annulled the union of Ariz and Paz due to the failure of Ariz to perform and fulfill his duties as
a husband and as a father to their children. The NAMT concluded that it is for the best interest of Paz,
Ariz and their children to have the marriage annulled.
In view of the NAMT decision, Paz decided to file a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage of their
civil wedding before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City using the NAMT decision and the same
evidence adduced in the church annulment proceedings as basis.
If you are the judge, will you grant the petition? Explain.
No, I will not grant the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. In the annals of decisions, the
Supreme Court explained that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical
antecedence, and (c) incurability. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability to
perform one’s marital obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect, difficulty, or much less, ill will.
Here, the maladaptive behavior manifested only after Paz rapidly became one of the corporate officers.
This is not an illness but only a developed ill will and difficulty caused by jealousy. The psychological
incapacity to be a ground to declare a marriage null and void must be an illness not merely an ill will or
difficulty. Therefore, the petition must be denied.
The interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimoniai Tribunal (NAMT) should be given great
respect by our courts but they are not controlling or decisive. Its interpretation is not conclusive on the


courts. The courts are still required to make their own determination as to the merits of the case, and
not rely solely on the finding of the NAMT.
If the ground is Art. 36, always use the doctrine ni Santos vs. Santos – pang deny ng petition.
Santos v. CA (G.R. No. 113054, March 16,1995, 240 SCRA 20, if you cant remember the GR, date and
SCRA, gawin mong ganito – para safe.
[1] In the annals of decision, the Supreme Court explained that psychological incapacity must be
characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The illness must be shown as
downright incapacity or inability to perform one’s marital obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect,
difficulty, or much less, ill will.
DOCTRINE TO REMEMBER
[1] In Republic v. Molina (G.R. Ho. 108763, February 13, 1997), the Supreme Court ruled that while
the interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimoniai Tribunal (NAMT) of the Catholic
Church in

Bar Laws For Dummies Sample PFR PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bar Laws For Dummies Sample PFR PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FROM Nth BAR CHALLENGER TO ATTORNEY

BAR LAW FOR DUMMIES 2020

How to answer bar questions p. 4

PART I: FAMILY CODE

Property regime of unions without marriage p. 33

Conjugal Partnership of Gains p. 80

Absolute Community of Properties p. 95

CPG vs. ACP p. 80

Terminable Marraiges p. 114

Art. 50-54 p. 132

Presumptive legitime p.134

Marriage Solemnized / Divorce Obtained Abroad p. 135

Legal Separation p.150

Separation of Property p. 157

Regime of separation of property p. 160

Valid marriage p. 161

Donations by reason of marriage p. 164

Rights and obligations between husbands and wives p. 166

Property relations between husbands and wives p. 168

The Family p. 171

Paternity and filiation p. 182

Vested right p. 219

Inter-country adoption 237

Other related laws

PART II: DOCTRINES IN CIVIL LAW

When law takes effect p. 243

Legal effects of ignorance of the law p. 245

Waiver of rights p. 246

Judicial decisions as part of the legal system p. 248

Presumption in case of doubts in the interpretation of the law p. 250

Nationality principle p. 250

Lex rei sitae p. 251

Lex loci celebrationis p. 252

Observation of honesty and good faith p. 266

Indemnification for illegal acts p. 266

Actionable acts p. 266

Unjust enrichment p. 271

Right of privacy p. 272

Independent civil action p. 273

Impairment of rights and liberties p. 274

Prejudicial questions in civil law p. 275

PART III. THE LAW ON PERSONS

Judicial capacity vs. Capacity to act p. 276

When civil personality begins p. 277

When child is considered born p. 277

Presumption of death – ordinary absence p. 281

Presumption of death – qualified or extraordinary absence p. 281

PART IV: OTHER CIVIL LAW CONCEPT

Civil law system vs. Common law system p. 284

Right of first refusal p. 284

Joint venture p. 285

Presumption of survival in Rules of Court p. 285

HOW TO ANSWER BAR QUESTIONS?

2018 BAR EXAMINATION CIVIL LAW PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

[Direct answer) [The legal basis]

[Direct answer] [The applicable law]

[a] What is the filation status of Shalimar? (2.5%)

[a] What is the filation status of Shalimar? (2.5%)

Legitimate, Art 36, by expressed provision of the law.

Article 147 property regime for cohabitation

Practice writing the “initial answer” in the space provide below..

Question no. 10.

[a] What is Sabina’s filiation status? (2.5%)