Albno

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 313 na pahina ay
dinesenyo upang umangkop sa kakayanan ng mga ordinaryong tao (layman) at Page | 1
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.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
NAPAKA-MAHAL NG MGA LAW BOOKS – MAHAL PA SA TUITION FEES.

KAYA GAMITIN LAGI ANG LIBRARY CARD. BUMILI NA LANG PAG KAYO AY MGA
LAWYERS NA. – SABI NG ATING MGA MAGULANG AT NG ATING MGA WALLET
ANG MGA MANUNULAT AY NAGSIKAP NA PABABAIN ANG HALAGA NG

MATERYALES NA ITO UPANG ANG MGA MAG-AARAL AY HINDI NA MATUKSONG
IPA-PDF OR PHOTOCOPY. ATIN PONG SUPORTAHAN ANG MGA MANUNULAT NA
GUMAGAWA NG BABASAHING MAY KALIDAD SA MABABANG HALAGA.
NAWA’Y ANG GAWAING ITO ANG MAG-PASIMULA UPANG ANG MGA

“MAINSTREAM AUTHORS” AT MGA LAW PROPFESSORS AY GUMAWA NG LIBRO
O BABASAHIN NA MAARING MABILI DIREKTA SA KANILA SA MABABANG
HALAGA GAMIT ANG MAKABAGONG TEKNOLOHIYA

FIRST EDITION
JULY 5, 2019
MANILA, PHILIPPINES
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHORS
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. For orders visit FB Page: Law
Reviewers, Books and Bookstand for Sale or text 09325293595

FREQUENTLY ASKED TOPICS
FROM 1987-2018 PERSONS AND FAMILY
Introduction p. 5
How to answer bar questions p. 5 Page | 2

PART I: FAMILY CODE
Void Marriages p. 15
Property regime of unions without marriage p. 35
Article 147 p. 35
Article 148 p. 48
Psychological incapacity p. 54
Article 40 p. 75
Voidable Marriages p. 81
Conjugal Partnership of Gains p. 89
Absolute Community of Properties p. 106
CPG vs. ACP p. 111
Terminable Marriages p. 128
Art. 50-54 p. 148
Presumptive legitime p.150
Marriage Solemnized / Divorce Obtained Abroad p. 151
Legal Separation p.167
Separation of Property p. 175
Regime of separation of property p. 178
Valid marriage p. 179
Donations by reason of marriage p. 182
Rights and obligations between husbands and wives p. 184
Property relations between husbands and wives p. 186
The Family p. 189
Paternity and filiation p. 201
Support p. 225
Parental authority p. 230

Emancipation and age of majority p. 239
Vested right p. 241
Adoption p. 246
Inter-country adoption p.262

Page | 3
Other related laws
RA 9048 p. 264
PD 603 p. 265
RA 7610 p. 265
AM 02-11-10SC p. 266
PART II: DOCTRINES IN CIVIL LAW
When law takes effect p. 268
Legal effects of ignorance of the law p. 270
Waiver of rights p. 271
Judicial decisions as part of the legal system p. 273
Duty of the courts to render judgment p. 273
Presumption in case of doubts in the interpretation of the law p. 275
Nationality principle p. 276
Lex rei sitae p. 276
Lex loci celebrationis p. 277
Observation of honesty and good faith p. 293
Indemnification for illegal acts p. 293
Actionable acts p. 293
Unjust enrichment p. 298
Right of privacy p. 299
Independent civil action p. 300
Impairment of rights and liberties p. 300
Prejudicial questions in civil law p. 302
PART III. THE LAW ON PERSONS
Judicial capacity vs. Capacity to act p. 303
When civil personality begins p. 304
When child is considered born p. 304

Presumption of survivorship p. 308
Presumption of death – ordinary absence p. 308
Presumption of death – qualified or extraordinary absence p. 308
PART IV: OTHER CIVIL LAW CONCEPT

Page | 4
Civil law system vs. Common law system p. 311
Right of first refusal p. 311
Joint venture p. 312
Presumption of survival in Rules of Court p. 312

The BAR LAW FOR DUMMIES 2020 (BLD2020) is designed for self-study/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 Page | 5
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 Page | 6
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. Page | 7
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 Page | 8
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. Page | 9
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%) Page | 10

(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%)
Page | 11
[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 Page | 12
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 Page | 13
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.
Page | 14
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:
Page | 15
(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;
(5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child:
(6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter,
(7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter;
(8) Between the adopted children of the same and
(9) 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 Page | 16
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?

Page | 17
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 Page | 18
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 –
Page | 19
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 Page | 20
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.
Page | 21
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,
Page | 22
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 Page | 23
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. Page | 24
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. Page | 25
[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? Page | 26
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
Page | 27
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 Page | 28

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 Page | 29
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.
Page | 30
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
__________________________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Page | 31
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. Page | 32
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.
Page | 33
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 Page | 34
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 Page | 35
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, Page | 36
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.” Page | 37
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. Page | 38
[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.
[Apply the law to the facts without repeating the law [Here,) followed by the
conclusion (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 Page | 39
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. Page | 40
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.
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 Page | 41
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 Page | 42
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.
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
Page | 43
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 Page | 44
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 Page | 45
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) Page | 46
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
Page | 47
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 Page | 48
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. Page | 49
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 Page | 50
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 Page | 51
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 Page | 52
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? Page | 53
(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. Page | 54
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.
Page | 55
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.
Page | 56
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. Page | 57
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 Page | 58
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. Page | 59
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 Page | 60
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 Page | 61
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 Page | 62
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 Page | 63
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 Page | 64
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 Page | 65
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, Page | 66
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)
Page | 67
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 Page | 68
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)
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.

Page | 69
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
Page | 70
[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 the Philippines should be given great respect by our courts, they 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.
QUESTION NO. 6
Miko and Dinah started to live together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage
in 1984. Ten (10) years after, they separated. In 1996, they decided to live together again, and in
1998, they got married.
On February 17, 2001, Dinah filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of her marriage with
Miko on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The court
rendered the following decision:
1. Declaring the marriage null and void;

2. Dissolving the regime of absolute community of property; and
3. Declaring that a decree of absolute nullity of maniage shall only be issued after liquidation,
partition and distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code.”
Dinah filed a motion for partial reconsideration questioning the portion of the decision on the
issuance of a decree of nullity of marriage only after the liquidation, partition and distribution of
properties under Article 147 of the Code. If you are the judge, how will you decide petitioner’s motion
for partial reconsideration? Why?
I will grant the motion for partial reconsideration. In the annals of decision, the decree of
nullity of marriage be issued only after the liquidation, partition, and distribution of properties, does
not apply to declarations of nullity based on Art. 36 of the Family Code. The said rule only applies if
there was a second marriage which is void because of non-compliance with the requirements of Article
40 of the Family Code.
Here, the ground relied upon by the petitioner is psychological incapacity based on Art.36, and
the proper property regime is Art 147 which states that the spouses’ property relations is governed
by special co-ownership and not by CPG or ACP. And since there is no property regime to dissove,
the decree of absolute nullity of marriage should be issued without awating for distribution of
properties.
DOCTRINE
[1] In the case of Difio v. Dino (GJR. No. 178044, January 19, 2011), the Court held that Sec. 19 (1)
only applies to Family Code, Articles 50 and 51, which are, subsequently applicable only to marriages
which are declared void ab initio ot annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45 of the Family
Code. Since there is no previous marriage in this case and the marriage was nullified under Article
36 of the Family Code, Section 19 (1) of the said Rules does not apply
[2] Section 19 (1) of the Rule ?11 Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Null Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages, which require that the decree of nullity of marriage be issued only after the
liquidation, partition and distribution of properties, does not apply to declarations of nullity based on

Art. 36 of the Family Code. The said rule only applies if there was a second marriage which is void
because of non-compliance with the requirements of Article 40 of the Family Code.
You are a Family Court judge and before you is a Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage (under Article 36 of the Family Code) filed by Maria against Neil. Maria claims that Neil is
Page | 71
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage because Neil is a
drunkard, a womanizer, a gambler, and a Mama’s boy—traits that she never knew or saw when Neil
was courting her. Although summoned, Neil did not answer Maria’s petition and never appeared in
court.
To support her petition, Maria presented three witnesses —Dr. Elsie Chan, Ambrosia and
herself. Dr. Chan testified on the psychological report on Neil that she prepared. Since Neil never
acknowledged nor responded to her invitation for interviews, her report is solely based on her
interviews with with Maria and the spouses’minor children. Dr. Chan concluded that Neil is suffering
from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, an ailment that she found to be already present since Neil’s
early adulthood and one that is grave and incurable. Maria testified on the specific instances when
she found Neil drunk, with another woman, or squandering the family’s resources in a casino.
Ambrosia, the spouses’ current household help, corroborated Maria’s testimony.
On the basis of the evidence presented, will you grant petition?
No, the petition should be denied. In the annals of decision, psychological incapacity under
Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c)
incurability. And the totality of evidence presented must be sufficient to conclude that indeed the
party is suffering from psychological incapacity existing already before the marriage, incurable and
serious enough to prevent him/her from performing his essential marital obligations.
Here, the medical report contains mere conclusions. Being a drunkard, a womanizer, a
gambler and a Mama’s boy merely shows Neil’s failure to perform bis marital obligations. In a number
of cases, the Supreme Court did not find the existence of psychological incapacity in cases where the
respondents shoved habitual drunkenness, blatant display of infidelity and irresponsibility, or being
hooked to gambling and drugs. Hence, the petition should be denied for there is no totality of
evidence pointing that Neil suffers from psychological incapacity.
DOCTRINE
[1] The psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a)
gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed
to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown
to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (not physical) illness (Republicv. CA and
Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 1997)
[2] In a number of cases, the Supreme Court did not ftad the existence of psychological incapacity in
cases where the respondents shoved habitual drunkenness (Republic v. Melgar, G.R. No. 139676,
March 31,2006), blatant display of infidelity and irresponsibility (Dedelv. CA, January 29,2004), or
being hooked to gambling and drugs (Republic v. Tantjag-San Jose, G.R. No. 168328, February
28,2007).
The petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based allegedly on the
psychological incapacity of the respondent, but the psychologist was not able to personally examine

the respondent and the psychological report was based only on the narration of petitioner. Should
the annulment be granted? Explain.
The annulment cannot be granted solely on the basis of the psychological report. For the
report to prove the psychological incapacity of the respondent, it is required that the psychologist
should personally examine the respondeat and the psychological report should be based on the
psychologist’s independent assessment of the facts as to whether or not the respondent is Page | 72
psychologically incapacitated.
Since, the psychologist did not personally examine the respondent, and his report is based
solely on the story of petitioner who has an interest in the outcome of the petition, the marriage
cannot be annulled on the ground of respondent’s psychological incapacity if the said report is the
only evidence of respondent’s psychological incapacity. There must be a totality of evidence presented
that will collaborate the medical report.
IF NONE, HEARSAY LANG YAN
Article 36 of the Family Code provides that a marriage contracted by any party who, at the tiime
of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations
of marriage, shall void. Choose the spouse listed below who is psychologically incapacitated. Explain.
a) Nagger
b) Gay or lesbian
c) Congenital sexual pervert
d) Gambler
e) Alcoholic
[The gay or lesbian is psychologically incapacitated. Being gay or lesbian is

a mental disorder which prevents afflicted person from performing the essential
duties of married life. He or she will not be able to perform his or her duty of sexual
consortium with his or her spouse due to his or her sexual preference for a person
of the same sex. However, the law requires that the disorder or state of being gay or
lesbian incapacitating such person must be existing at the time of the celebration of
the marriage.]
NOTE: I DISSENT TOTALLY WITH THE ANSWER. It needs citatiion that being gay or lesbian is
a mental disorder.
Answer is C. Sexual perversion may be having sexual gratification with inanimate things or
animals which is a mental disorder.
QUESTION NO. 6
Gemma filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Arnel on the ground
of psychological incapacity. She alleged that after 2 months of their marriage, Arnell showed signs of
disinterest in her, neglected her and went abroad. He returned to the Philippines after 3 years but
did not even get in touch with her. Worse, they met several times in social functions but he snubbed
her. When she got sick, he did not visit her even if he knew of her confinement in the hospital.
Meanwhile, Arnell met an accident which disabled him from reporting for work and earning a living
to support himself. Will Gemma’s suit prosper? Explain.

No, the suit 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)
Here, Arnell’ showed signs of disinterest in her and neglect. And when he returned from
abroad, he did not even get in touch with her but snubbed her in several occasions. He did not visit Page | 73
her when she was sick. All these evidence do no suffice a totality of evidence to conclude that Arnell
suffers a psycholigical incapacity to perform the esentials of marital obligation. It must be shown that
those acts or that behavior was manifestation of a serious mental disorder and that it is the root
cause why he was not able to perform the essential duties of married life. These are mere refusal,
neglect, difficulty, or much less, ill will. Therefore, the petition must be denied.
QUESTION NO. 3
On April 15, 1983. Jose, an engineer, and Marina, a nurse, were married to each other in a
civil ceremony in Boac, Marinduque. Six months after their marriage, Jose was employed in an oil
refinery in Saudi Arabia for a period of three years. When he returned to the Philippines. Marina was
no longer living in their house, but in ZamboangaCity, working in a hospital. He asked her to come
home, but she refused to do so, unless he agreed not to work overseas anymore because she cannot
stand living alone. He could not agree as, in fact, he had signed another three year contract. When
he returned in 1989. He could not locate Marina anymore. In 1992. Jose filed an action served by
publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Marina did not file any answer. A possible collusion
between the parties was ruled Out by the Public Prosecutor. Trial was conducted, and Marina neither
appeared nor presented evidence in her favor.
If you were the judge, will you grant the annulment.
I will not grant the annulment. In the annals of decisions, the Supreme court ruled that
this particular ground for nullity of marriage was held to be limited only to the most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of utter sensitivity or inability to give meaning and
significance to the marriage. Here, Marina’s refusal to come home to her husband unless he agreed
not to work overseas, far from being indicative of an insensitivity to the meaning of marriage, or of a
personality disorder, actually shows a sensitive awareness on her part of the marital duty to live
together as husband and wife. Mere refusal to rejoin her husband when he did not accept the
condition imposed by her does not furnish any basis for concluding that she –was suffering from
psychological incapacity to discharge the essential marital obligations. Therefore, the annulment
must fail.
QUESTION NO. 19
Maria and Luis, both Filipinos, were manied by a Catholic priest In Lourdes Church, Quezon City
In 1976. Luis was drunk on the day of his wedding. In fact, he slumped at the altar soon after the
ceremony. After marrtage, Luis never had a steady Job because he was drunk most of the time.
Finally, he could not get employed at all because of drunkenness. Hence, it was Maria who had to
earn a living to support herself and her child begotten with Luis. In 1986, Maria filed a petition in the
church matrimonial court in Quezon City to annul her marriage with Luis on the ground of
psychological incapacity to comply with his marital obligation. Her petitiowas granted by the church
matrimonial court.

1) Can Maria now get married legally to another man under Philippine laws after her marriage
to Luis was annulled by the church matrimonial court? Explain.
2) What must Maria do to enable her to get married lawfully to another man under Philippine
laws?
No, Maria cannot yet contract a subsequent marriage even after a successful church annulment.
Under Art. 40 of the Family Code, a party who wishes to re-marraige must secure decree of Page | 74
annuling his preceding marriage. Here, the decision of the church in annuling her marriage with
Luis is not what the law requires but a civil annulment. Hence, she needs to file a petition of
annulment on the ground of psychological incapacity in a proper judicial court and a favorable
judgment will enable her
QUESTION NO. 2
Give a brief definition or explanation of the term “psychological incapacity” as a ground for the
declaration of nullity of a marriage. 2%
“Psychological incapacity” is a mental disorder of the most serious type showing the
incapability of one or bothspouses to comply with the essential marital obligations of love, respect,
cohabitation, mutual help and support, trust and commitment ft must be characterized juridical
antecedence, gravity and incurability and Its root cause must be clinically identified or examined.
(Santos v. GA, 240 SCRA 20 [1995])
[B] If existing at the inception of marriage, would the state of being of unsound mind or the
concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism be considered
indicia of psychological incapacity? Explain.
In the case of Santos v. Court of Appeals, 240 SCBA 20 (1996), the Supreme Court held that
being of unsound mind, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuaSfty may be
indicia of psychological incapacity, depending on the degree of severity of the disorder. However, the
concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality is only a ground for
annulment marriage.
[C] If drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only during
the marriage, would these constitute grounds for a declaration of nullity or for legal separation they
render the marriage voidable?
In accordance with law, if drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should
occur only during the marriage, they: Will Not constitute as grounds for declaration of ulllty (Art 36,
Family Code); Constitute as grounds for legal separation (Art FC); and Will not constitute as grounds
to render the marriage voidable (Ait. 45 and 46, FC).

REQUIREMENT FOR REMARRIAGE
FINAL JUDGMENT ON NULLITY OF A PREVIOUS VOID MARRIAGE
ARTICLE 40 (THE BOTTLE-NECK OR THE GATEWAY PROVISION)

Page | 75
Article 40 of the Family Code contemplates 2 marriages:
[1] The first one is void for whatever reason which is to be confirmed by the court, and
[2] The subsequent remarriage which is at least voidable or valid.
Failure of the party to comply with this article, the subsequent marriage shall be void ab
initio because the first marriage still subsists but the property regime shall be either ACP or CPG, not
under Article 147 or 148. This is the only exception.
Art 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.
PARA SAAN B ANG ART. 40?
The reason is to make clear the status of the second marriage, or “pinawawalis” para itapon
sa basurahan ang unang VOID marriage.
Ito ay para sa taong mag-aasawa muli, pero ang dati niyang kasal ay void for whatever reason.
Let say si X, if he wants to get married again, he needs to file a petition to declare void yung
previous marriage niya sa kanyang pinsan. HINDI PWEDE NA SI X ANG MAGSASABI NA VOID ANG
MARRIAGE NIYA SA PINSAN – KAHIT OBVIOUS ITO. KASI MAGPAPAKASAL SIYA. But in other legal
effects, like sa manahan, status of children, crime for that matter like infidelity – hindi kailangan ang
final decree of nullity ng kasal ni X sa pinsan – pwede na agad niyang invoke na, let say – “Your
honor, void ang marriage namin, kaya walang infidelity if i have an affair wih other women.”
Examples
X married her cousin Y. Eh di void ito. X cannot marry again without complying with Art. 40.
He cannot say na void ang first marriage, at “magpapakasal na ako”. If he marries V, the subsequent
marraige is voi ab initio becuase of failure to comply with Art 40. What is the property regime of the
second marraige? The property regime is ACP or CPG. Eh, yung kasal sa pinsan? Art. 148 ang
property regime – not 147 because of impediment to marry a cousin.
Let say X marries her another cousin U. The subsequent marriage is void, not because of
non-compliance with the Art. 40 (the article requires that the subsequent marriage must at least
voidable), but because the marriage is against public policy. What is the property regime? Art.148,
Though X has previous void marriage with another cousin, he has no legal capacity to marry another
cousin.
Let say X conracted a first marriage with L, who concealed her lesbianism. So the the
marriage is voidable. Does X need to comply with Art. 40. No. Kasi the fisrt marriage is not void but
voidable. If X wants to re-marry again, he needs to file annulment, not under Art. 40, but under Art.
50 and X has to comply with Art 51 and 52 to avoid the penalty in Art 53.
-----------------xxx-------------

To reiterate, Art. 40 contemplates a previous void marriage to be declared as void and a
subsequent marraige which is at least voidable marriage. If walang compliance with Art 40, the
subsequent marraige is void ab initio but the property regime shall either ACP or CPG. Kasi nga at
least voidable ang secong marriage, naging lang void ab inito ito by non-compliance of Art. 40. The
consequences are in Art 43 (2-5) and Art. 44 – under Art 50 in relation to 51, 52 and 53
CONSEQUENCES OF FAIURE TO COMPLY WITH ART. 40: SEE ART 43 (2-5) AND 44 Page | 76
When X without complying with Art. 40, contracts a subsequent marraige the consecquences are as
follows:
[1] the marriage is void ab initio

[2] the property regime is either ACP or CPG and shall be dissolved and liquidate with forfeiture of
net profits
[3] the children are illegitimates
[4] Donations propter nuptias remain valid, except the the donee acted in bad faith
[5] innocent spouse may revoke the spouse designation, who acted in bad faith, as beneficiary
[6] erring spouse cannot inherit from the innocent spouse
[7]if both parties are in bad faith, all donations and testamentary dispositions made by one to
another are revoked by operation of law
[8] he can be prosecuted for bigamy
[9] may be liable for damages
FILIATION ON ART 40
Sa mga family code books, they say that children born in void marraiges are illegitimate
except the voidability is under art 36 or Art 53. But children born in the subsequent voidable
marriages where the party failed to comply under Art 40, are also illegitimate. Is this an exception to
the general rule under Article 165?
No. We can formulate that children born in a voidable marriage are legitimate except those
children born in subsequent voidable marriages because by express provision of the law that marraige
is void ab initio for failure of the party to comply with Art 40. Hence, the general rule under Art. 165
shall apply.
PROPERTY REGIME
There is a property regime in Art 40 – by marraige settlement, CPG or ACP. This is the only
exception to the general rule that void marraiges’ regime shall govern by art 147 or 148, as the case
may be.
JUDGMENT
Unlike in other void marraiges, where the court shall immediately issue the decree of nullity
without waiting for the distribution and partition of the property. In cases under Article 40, the court
will require liquidation, partition and distribution ng properties, and the delivery of presumptive
legitime before the issuance of the final decree of nullity. Here, the parties must conly with Art. 50 in
relation to Art 51 and 52. If not the subsequent marriage shall suffer the penalty under Art 53 –
which, again, might become void. (see my discussioon Art 53 where I call it the pa-ulit-ulit na
provision)
PRESUMPTIVE LEGITIME AND RECORDING

Illegitimate children under Art 40 shall receive their presumptive legitime.
BOTTLE-NECK PROVISION

Art. 40 is like the bottle-neck. Ito yung gate-way na siksikan. It is submitted that this provison
should be revisited.
ANO NAMAN ANG MGA BIGAMOUS MARRIAGES?

Bigamy under the Revised Penal Code requires that the accuse must be legally married or at
least the first marriage is voidable. Bigamous marriages under Art 35 (4) applies where the previous Page | 77
marriage is least voidable, then X contracts a subsequent valid marriage; while Art 40 applies when
the previous marriage is void, then X contracts a subsequent valid marraige.
Nakita ninyo yung distinction? Pero non-compliance with Art. 40, X can be held liable for
bigamy. Here, ang SC committed an act which we call judicial legislation. Why is it so? The penalty
of non-compliance must be expressly provided in the law. Wala namang nakalagay sa Art 40 na those
who does not comply shall be liable for bigamy. Therefore, the rule that any doubt must be resolved
in favor of the accused and strictly against the State should be our guiding principle. In addtion, Art.
40 is in the Family Code, a civil law. It is not a criminal law.
ARE BIGAMOUS MARRIAGES SAME WITH VOID AB INITIO MARRIAGES IN ART 40 (YUNG
SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE)
No. Bigamous marriages under Art 35 (4) applies where the previous marriage is at least
voidable, then X contracts a subsequent valid marriage; while Art 40 applies when the previous
marriage is void, then x contracts a subsequent valid marraige.
But SC rules that non-compliance with Art 40, the party shall be liable for bigamy. This is
erroneous and must be revisited.
EXAMPLES NG BIGAMOUS MARRIAGES
X contracted a marriage which is at least voidable, he then married his second cousin (valid).
X is liable for bigamy.
X contracted a marriage which is at least voidable, he then married his cousin (void). X is not
liable. The second marriage must be at least voidable.
X contracted a void (not under Art 36) marriage, then, he contracted a valid marriage. No
Bigamy – the first void marriage is a defense against bigamy. Pero sa recent jurisprudence, may
bigamy. This is erroneous. Nasa ibaba ang reasoning ni Justice Vitug.
X contracted a void (under art 36) marriage, he then contracted an at least voidable marriage.
X is liable for bigamy. So this is an exception. Art. 36 marriages, though void ab initio but it has legal
effects like the children are legitimates. Unlike in other void marriages, children are illgitimate.
ARTICLE 40 AND BIGAMY
Article 349. Bigamy. — The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who
shall contract a second or subsequent marriage before the former marriage has been legally dissolved,
or before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead by means of a judgment rendered
in the oper proceedings.
WHAT ARE THE ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME OF BIGAMY?
(1) that the offender has been legally married; (NOT VOID)
(2) that the marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the absent
spouse could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil Code;
(3) that he or she contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and

(4) that the second or subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity
First element pa lang, hindi pasok ang Art 40 which applies when the first marriage is void.
Therefore, non-compliance with Art. 40 is not bigamy at all.
[A] WHEN THE FIRST MARRIAGE IS VOID

Page | 78
Failure to comply with Art 40, the party shall be liable for bigamy even when the first marriage
is void
exception
[a] when the first marriage has no semblance of a marraige such as no marriage ceremony;
no solemnizing officer; pirmahan lang ng contract; same-sex marriages. Since there in no
marriage at all, no semblance, nasa Jolibee lang tapos doon nagpirmahan ng marriage
contract – laru laro lang yun. Its not marriage at all. The parties need not comply with Art
40.
Dissenting opinion on bigamy for non-compliance with Art. 40

Note: In one of his dissenting opinion, Justice Vitug opines that the Family Code did not have the effect
of overturning the rule in criminal law and related jurisprudence in connection with the crime of bigamy.
Justice Vitug maintains that the complete nullity of a previously contracted marriage, being a total nullity
and inexistent, is capable of being independently raised by way of a defense in a criminal case for
bigamy. He thus concludes that there is no incongruence between this rule in criminal law and that of
the Family Code and that each may be applied within their respective spheres of governance.
Kasi tignan ninyo, ang bigamous marriage under Art 35(4), the property regime is 148; while
void marriages under Art 40, the regime is either ACP or CPG. The effects of failure to comply with
Art 40 is stated in Art 50; unlike in bigamous marriages – the effect is in Art. 148. It seems that FC
does not consider void ab initio marriages in Art 40 as bigamous.
“As correctly stated by Justice Vitug in VaIdes v. Regional Trial Court, Br. 102, Quezon City in now
requiring for purposes of remarriage, the declaration of nullity by final judgment of the previously
contracted void marriage, the present law simply aims to do away with any continuing uncertainty of
the status of the second marriage. In other words, the purpose of the law is to clarify the status of the
subsequent marriage as void ab initio — which is a civil law rule. The new law did not clearly intend to
change the law on bigamy; otherwise, Article 40 could have expressly declared that violation of its
provisions would render the subsequent marriage bigamous.”
SO WHEN ASKED, IF X IS LIABLE FOR BIGAMY FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ART 40?
THE BEST ANSWER IS NO, AND QUOTE JUSTICE VITUG.
If you can justify your answer, you are sure pass the civil law regardless of what your answer
in other questions. This type of question might be the one the examiner will first to check. If correct
and substantive, he MAY LET YOU pass without checking other minor questions.
[B] WHEN THE SECOND MARRIAGE IS VOID
“Jurisprudence clearly requires that for the accused to be convicted of bigamy, the second or
subsequent marriage must have all the essential requisites for validity except for the existence of a
prior marriage. Thus, if the second marriage is void not because of the existence of the first marriage
but for other causes such as lack of license, the crime of bigamy is not committed. If the accused

wants to raise the nullity of the marriage, he or she can do it as a matter of defense during the
presentation of evidence trial proper of the criminal case.”
“In Santiago u. People, however, the Court found Leonila Santiago guilty of the crime of
bigamy, as an accomplice, even if the subsequent marriage was celebrated without a marriage license.
In this case, the Court found that Nicanor Santos and Leonila Santiago contracted the subsequent
marriage without a marriage license because they lied before the solemnizing officer and Page | 79
misrepresented that they had actually cohabited for at least five years before they married each other
but they had known each other for only less than four years.”
“The rule that the crime of bigamy is not committed if the second marriage is void not because
of the existence of the first marriage but for other causes does not apply if the reason for the nullity
of the second marriage is psychological incapacity.”
SO WE GOT THREE RULINGS
First, if the second marriage is void, bigamy shall not lie.
Second, when the marriage is void for reason attributable to the party, the party is liable as
accomplice, and
Third, psychologically incapacity does not exonerate the accused from the crime of bigamy.
VALIDITY OF A MARRIAGE AND ALL ITS INCIDENTS MUST BE DETERMINED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF ITS CELEBRATION.
Renato A. Castillo v. Lea P. Oe Leon Castillo G.R.NO. 189607, April 18,2016
In sum, the court held that the first marriage of Y was void for lack of license and consent,
and since there was no need for judicial declaration of its nullity before she could contract a second
marriage, therefore, respondent’s second marriage to petitioner is valid.
Under the Civil Code, “in a void marriage no judicial decree to establish the invalidity is
necessary,” while in a voidable marriage there must be a judicial decree.
NOTE : THE MARRAIGE HAPPENED DURING THE CIVIL CODE. SA FAMILY CODE A DECREE OF
NULLITY OF THE VOID MARRIAGE IS REQUIRED FOR Y TO BE ABLE TO CONTRACT A
SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE
QUESTION NUMBER 5
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 abndoned
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.

[A] Is the contention of James correct?
No, James is not correct . Art 40 of the Family Code provides that 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. Here, James contracted a subsequent marriage with Shirley
without first securing a decree of nullity of his previous marriage with Ophelia. Therefore, James
may be held liable for Bigamy. Page | 80
However, the first element in the prosecution of bigamy is that the accused is legally married
which is lacking in the case ar bar. Hence, the nullity of the first marraige may raise by way of defense
in action for bigamy.
(you may want to impress the examiner – include the defense in bigamy)

VOIDABLE MARRAIGE
As I said, pag void ab initio walang marriage at all. It means walang marriage na nabuhay na
parang tao, walang manahan na magaganap dahil sa simula pa lang co-owners na si X and Y ng
kanilang mga naipundar. Pero sa voidable marriages...aba! merong nabuhay na kasal. Pag pinatay
ito (annulment)...may manahan, may hatian ng ng ari-arian after the death of the marriage. At dahil
may hatian ng property....dapat alamin natin ang kanilang property regime...based on marriage Page | 81
settlement, conjugal property of gains (CPG) or absolute community of property (ACP).
ANU-ANO BA ITONG MGA VOIDABLE MARRIAGES?
Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of
the marriage:
[1] That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage annulled was eighteen
years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the
consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority over the
party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited
with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;
FOR ORER VISIT OUR PAGE

Albno

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Albno

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FROM Nth BAR CHALLENGER TO ATTORNEY

Ang mga manunulat ay pauna na nang humihingi ng pang-unawa

NAPAKA-MAHAL NG MGA LAW BOOKS – MAHAL PA SA TUITION FEES.

ANG MGA MANUNULAT AY NAGSIKAP NA PABABAIN ANG HALAGA NG

NAWA’Y ANG GAWAING ITO ANG MAG-PASIMULA UPANG ANG MGA

BAR LAW FOR DUMMIES 2020

How to answer bar questions p. 5 Page | 2

Property regime of unions without marriage p. 35

Conjugal Partnership of Gains p. 89

Absolute Community of Properties p. 106

CPG vs. ACP p. 111

Terminable Marriages p. 128

Art. 50-54 p. 148

Presumptive legitime p.150

Marriage Solemnized / Divorce Obtained Abroad p. 151

Legal Separation p.167

Separation of Property p. 175

Regime of separation of property p. 178

Valid marriage p. 179

Donations by reason of marriage p. 182

Rights and obligations between husbands and wives p. 184

Property relations between husbands and wives p. 186

The Family p. 189

Paternity and filiation p. 201

Parental authority p. 230

Vested right p. 241

Inter-country adoption p.262

PART II: DOCTRINES IN CIVIL LAW

When law takes effect p. 268

Legal effects of ignorance of the law p. 270

Waiver of rights p. 271

Judicial decisions as part of the legal system p. 273

Duty of the courts to render judgment p. 273

Presumption in case of doubts in the interpretation of the law p. 275

Nationality principle p. 276

Lex rei sitae p. 276

Lex loci celebrationis p. 277

Observation of honesty and good faith p. 293

Indemnification for illegal acts p. 293

Actionable acts p. 293

Unjust enrichment p. 298

Right of privacy p. 299

Independent civil action p. 300

Impairment of rights and liberties p. 300

Prejudicial questions in civil law p. 302

PART III. THE LAW ON PERSONS

Judicial capacity vs. Capacity to act p. 303

When civil personality begins p. 304

When child is considered born p. 304

Presumption of death – ordinary absence p. 308

Presumption of death – qualified or extraordinary absence p. 308

PART IV: OTHER CIVIL LAW CONCEPT

Right of first refusal p. 311

Joint venture p. 312

Presumption of survival in Rules of Court p. 312

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%) Page | 10

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..