Final Exam in Civil Law Review I

Answered by: Miguel A. Anas Jr.

I. Distinctions. Distinguish the following concepts. (5 points each)

a. Unjust enrichment and thoughtless extravagance

Ans: There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of
another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental
principles of justice, equity and good conscience. This principle is contemplated under
Article 22 of the New Civil Code (NCC) which provides that “every person who through
an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession
of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the
same to him.”
On the other hand, thoughtless extravagance in expenses for pleasure or display during a
period of acute public want or emergency may be stopped by order of the courts at the
instance of any government or private charitable institution. This notorious spending and
ostentatious display of money which the law sought to be prevented is embodied in
Article 25, NCC.

b. Waiver of right and waiver of obligation

Ans: Under Art. 6 of the New Civil Code, rights may be waived, unless the waiver is
contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a
third person with a right to be recognized by law. As a general rule therefore, rights can
be waived, and in order for the waiver to be valid, the following are required: (1)
Existence of a right; (2) Knowledge of the existence of a right; and (3) Intention to
relinquish the right.
Whereas, an obligation which is a juridical necessity to give, to do or not to do cannot be
waived. Nevertheless, a creditor can waive the loan but the debtor cannot, much less the
obligation to pay his/her debt. This is so because obligation can never be the subject of a
waiver, and it may only be extinguished not by a waiver but by causes as provided under
the law, such as condonation or remission, annulment, rescission, fulfillment of a
resolutory condition, prescription, and loss or destruction of a determinate thing without
the fault of the debtor, and before he has incurred in delay.

c. Nullity of marriage and annulment of marriage

Ans: A declaration of nullity of marriage applies to marriages which are null and void
from the beginning (void ab initio). Such marriages are considered as having never been
taken place, due to the absence of at least one of the essential or formal requisites that
are necessary for a marriage to have validity as provided under Article 35 of the Family
Code (FC). Moreover, they are also void ab initio on account of the following: (a) void
marriages due to psychological incapacity (Article 36, FC); (b) incestuous marriages

1
 (Article 37); (c) marriages against public policy (Article 38); (d) bigamous marriages
(Article 41); and (e) void subsequent marriage, when one of the spouses remarry without
complying with the recordal requirement of the judgment of annulment or absolute
nullity of the previous marriage, etc. (Articles 52 and 53).
On the other hand, annulment applies to marriages which are voidable, but considered
valid and existing until it is annulled by the courts. The grounds for annulment of
marriage must have been existing at the time of marriage, which include: (a) lack of
parental consent (Article 45[1]); (b) insanity (Article 45[2]); (c) fraud (Article 45[3]);
(d) duress (Article 45[4]); (e) impotence (Article 45[5]); and (f) serious and incurable
sexually transmissible disease (Article 45[6]).
Finally, the action to declare absolute nullity of void marriages does not prescribe while
the action to annul voidable marriages prescribes in 5 years.

d. Quieting of Title and Annulment of Title

Ans: Quieting of title is an action that may be brought to remove a cloud or to quiet the
title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in
fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title
as embodied in Article 476 of the New Civil Code (NCC). This action which may also be
brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest
therein is a special civil action as provided under Rule 63 of the Rules of Court on
declaratory relief and similar remedies. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to,
or interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the action. He need not be
in possession of said property (Art. 477, NCC).
Annulment of title, on the other hand, is an ordinary civil action which questions the
validity of the grant of title on grounds which amount to lack of due process of law. The
remedy is premised in the nullity of the procedure and thus the invalidity of the title that
is issued. Hence, the issue put on this action is the ownership of the property and its
registration.
Finally, the prescriptive period for bringing the action to quiet title depends on the issue
as to whether or not the plaintiff is in possession of subject property. Thus, if the plaintiff
is in possession thereof, the action is imprescriptible. However, if said party is not in
possession thereof, such action prescribes in ten (10) years (for ordinary prescription) or
30 years (for extra-ordinary prescription). Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Supreme
Court once held in the case of Bucton v. Gabar, G.R. No. L-36359, Jan.31, 1974 that
such action is imprescriptible based on Article 480 of the New Civil Code. Accordingly,
the imprescriptibility of an action to quiet title is a general principle from American
jurisprudence.
As regards annulment of title, the action prescribes in ten (10) years from the date the
right of action accrued pursuant to Sec. 53, par. 3 of PD 1529 in relation to Articles
1456 and 1144(2) of the New Civil Code.

2
e. Disinheritance and Incapacity to Inherit

Ans: Disinheritance is an act whereby the compulsory heir is excluded from the
inheritance and the rights of the compulsory heir to the legitime, any testamentary
disposition and anything that he is supposed to receive in intestacy are forfeited. This
must be effected only through a will wherein the legal cause must be expressly provided
by law, particularly Article 916 in relation to Articles 919 to 921 of the New Civil Code
(NCC). The burden of proving the truth of the cause of the disinheritance shall rest upon
the heirs of the testator, if the disinherited heir should deny it.
As to the incapacity to inherit, the same refers to the legal inability of the heir to inherit
from the estate of the decedent due to undue influence as provided under Article 1027,
NCC, and due to acts of unworthiness under Article 1028, NCC as well as some
prohibitions as contemplated under Article 1032 in relation to Article 739 of the same
Code.
Other distinctions are as follows:
Disinhiritance Incapacity to inherit
Disinheritance is by will/act of the Incapacity exists by operation of law
testator
There should be a will Incapacity applies for both testate and
intestate
The grounds should be expressly The grounds need not even be written
provided

f. Reservista and Reservatario

Ans: Reservista is one of the persons involved in reserva troncal as provided under
Article 891, NCC. Accordingly, he is the legitimate ascendant who inherits from his
descendant any property which the latter may have acquired by gratuitous title from
another ascendant, or a brother or sister, is obliged to reserve such property as he may
have acquired by operation of law for the benefit of relatives who are within the third
degree and who belong to the line from which said property came.
On the other hand, reservatario is the person for whom the property is reserved, and who
is a relative within the third degree counted from the descendant-propositus, and
belonging to the line from which the property came.

II. Matching Type. Match the words in the right column to the words or terms in the
left column. Note: the key is relationship, not equivalence. (2 points each)

Ans:
a. Juridical capacity
b. Article 1 of the Family Code
c. Defect in formal requisites
A minor beneficiary in a life insurance
policy
Prohibition against same-sex marriage
An imam who officiates the marriage of
members of the AFP during a gunfight with

3
 Moro rebels
d. Void marriage Marriage between first degree cousins
e. Valid marriage Lack of marriage certificate
f. Intrinsic validity National law of the parties
g. Co-ownership Common law spouses
h. Inheritance Rights, obligations and credits
i. Preterition Compulsory heir
j. Disposable free portion Wills

III. Essay. (5 points each)

a. Five years after getting married, the marriage between Mark and Jennifer is
everything but happy. Jennifer discovered that Mark was maintaining another
woman and this caused them a lot of conflicts which also affected the children.
Tired of Mark’s infidelity, Jennifer left the conjugal home and filed a petition to
declare the marriage void on the ground of Mark’s psychological incapacity. Is
infidelity a manifestation of psychological incapacity?
Ans: No. Although infidelity may result in the inability to comply with the essential
marital obligations of marriage which is referred to as psychological incapacity under
Article 36 of the Family Code, the same shall not be considered as manifestation of such
incapacity for want of requisite elements thereof. Psychological incapacity as a ground
for the declaration of nullity of marriage must be characterized by the following:
(1) Gravity – it must be grave and serious;
(2) Juridical antecedence – it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the
marriage; and
(3) Incurability – it must be incurable or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be
beyond the means of the party involved.
It is clear in the case at bar that all the foregoing elements of psychological incapacity
do not exist. Moreover, it bears to stress that psychological incapacity must be more than
just a difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of the marital obligations. It is not
enough that a party prove that the other failed to meet the responsibility and duty of a
married person. Thus, the petition should be dismissed. Jennifer should have filed a
petition for legal separation.

b. Mila filed an action to annul his marriage to Arthur. She claims that Arthur is a
homosexual and his homosexual activities have become too obvious. Mila claims
that Arthur’s homosexuality constitutes fraud. Will the petition prosper?
Ans: It depends. In order for the petition to prosper, homosexuality existing at the time
of the marriage must be proven as to constitute fraud which has been concealed the other
spouse. In other words, it can be considered as such, if there is concealment of this
condition prior to the marriage thereby making the marriage voidable. According to the
Family Code of the Philippines, a marriage may be annulled if the consent of either party
was obtained by fraud.

4
 This situation is based on Article 46(4) of the Family Code which states that concealment
of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the
time of the marriage shall constitute fraud. If the foregoing circumstances cannot be
proven, however, the petition will not prosper.

c. Jeff and Annie had an amorous relationship last year. They, however, did not
end up together. Annie married Clint, Jeff’s best friend. A few months after the
marriage, Annie’s child was born. Claiming that it was Jeff’s child, Annie sought
support from Jeff. Jeff, however, questioned the child’s paternity. What is the
burden of Annie in order to get support from Jeff?

Ans: The burden of Annie is to show an order for support which must be issued when
paternity or filiation is established by clear and convincing evidence. The burden of
proving paternity is on the person who alleges that the putative father is the biological
father of the child and in this case is Annie.

Filiation is the relationship of the child to his father or mother. It can be proven by
presenting in court any of the following: (1) the record of birth appearing in the Civil
Register or a final judgment; or (2) an admission of illegitimate filiation in a public
document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the father.

In the absence of the foregoing evidence, however, the relationship of son to his father
shall be proven by: (1) the open and continuous possession of your son of the status of an
illegitimate child or; (2) By any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special
laws (Art. 172 in relation to Art. 175, Family Code)

Considering that Annie is already married to Clint, it is therefore hard to prove the
filiation of her child. Thus, the only remedy possible is she may resort into DNA testing of
her child and Jeff her ex-boyfriend. Section 9 of Rule on DNA Evidence, it states that if
the value of the probability of paternity is 99.9% or higher there shall be a disputable
presumption of paternity.

d. Tecla filed an action to annul the second marriage of her husband Eustaquio and
Peregrina, claiming that it was bigamous because of the prior marriage between
Tecla and Eustaquio. Unfortunately, no certificate of marriage was filed in the
local civil registry. For lack of such documentary evidence, the trial court
dismissed Tecla’s action. Is the marriage between Tecla and Eustaquio deemed
inexistent since the local civil registry has no record of the same?

Ans: No, the marriage between Tecla and Eustaquio is not deemed inexistent even if the
local civil registry has no record of the same. In the case of Peregrina Macua Vda, De
Avenido v. Tecla Hoybia Avenido the court ruled that while a marriage certificate is
considered the primary evidence of a marital union, it is not regarded as the sole and
exclusive evidence of marriage. Jurisprudence teaches that the fact of marriage may be

5
 proven by relevant evidence other than the marriage certificate. Hence, even a person’s
birth certificate may be recognized as competent evidence of the marriage between his
parents.
It should be stressed that the due execution and the loss of the marriage contract, both
constituting the conditio sine qua non for the introduction of secondary evidence of its
contents, were shown by the very evidence they have disregarded. They have thus
confused the evidence to show due execution and loss as “secondary” evidence of the
marriage.
Verily, the execution of a document may be proven by the parties themselves, by the
swearing officer, by witnesses who saw and recognized the signatures of the parties; or
even by those to whom the parties have previously narrated the execution thereof. The
court also held that the loss may be shown by any person who knows the fact of its loss,
or by anyone who has made, in the judgment of the court, a sufficient examination in the
place or places where the document or papers of similar character are usually kept by
the person in whose custody the document lost was, and has been unable to find it; or
who has made any other investigation which is sufficient to satisfy the court that the
instrument has indeed been lost.
Supreme Court held that “marriage may be proven by any competent and relevant
evidence. The testimony by one of the parties to the marriage or by one of the witnesses
to the marriage has been held to be admissible to prove the fact of marriage. The person
who officiated at the solemnization is also competent to testify as an eyewitness to the
fact of marriage.”

IV. Research. (10 points each)

Research online on the case of Amadea Angela Aquino vs. Rodolfo C. Aquino
(G.R. No. 208912 / G.R. No. 209018) and answer these questions:

a. Under the Family Code, what is the status of Amadea? Is she legitimate?
Illegitimate? Or legitimated?
Ans: Amadea is an illegitimate child because she was conceived and born from the time
of his father’s untimely death which prevented her parents from actually getting married.
Under Article 164 of the Family Code of the Philippines “illegitimate child” is defined as
one conceived and born outside of a valid marriage or outside lawful wedlock.
Therefore, even if Amadea’s parents had no legal impediment to marry but since from the
time of her birth there was no valid marriage between her parents she is considered to be
an illegitimate child.

b. Can filiation be raised and resolved in settlement proceedings?

Ans: No, the proof of legitimacy under Article 172, or illegitimacy under Article 175,
should only be raised in a direct and separate action instituted to prove the filiation of a
child. The rationale behind this procedural prescription is stated in the case of Tison v.

6
 Court of Appeals, viz.: Well settled is the rule that the issue of legitimacy cannot be
attacked collaterally.
The presumption of legitimacy in the Family Code actually fixes a civil status for the
child born in wedlock, and that civil status cannot be attacked collaterally. The
legitimacy of the child can be impugned only in a direct action brought for that purpose,
by the proper parties, and within the period limited by law.
The legitimacy of the child cannot be contested by way of defense or as a collateral issue
in another action for a different purpose “The contest of the legitimacy of a child by the
husband or his heirs must be made by proper complaint before the competent court; any
contest made in any other way is void.” This principle applies under our Family Code.
Articles 170 and 171 of the code confirm this view, because they refer to the action to
impugn the legitimacy.
This action can be brought only by the husband or his heirs and within the periods fixed
in the present articles. The obvious intention of the law is to prevent the status of a child
born in wedlock from being in a state of uncertainty for a long time. It also aims to force
early action to settle any doubt as to the paternity of such child, so that the evidence
material to the matter, which must necessarily be facts occurring during the period of the
conception of the child, may still be available.
c. Is there a legal or equitable justification to remove the distinction between
legitimate and illegitimate children?
Ans: In our Philippine setting, one of the legal ways or equitable justification of
removing the distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children is found in Republic
Act No. 9255 or an act allowing Illegitimate Children to use the Surname of their father.
Provided however that such illegitimate child shall file the following documents to the
LCRO or PFSP for registration such as (1) Affidavit of Admission of Paternity, (2)
Private Handwritten Instrument (3) Affidavit to use the Surname of the Father. The
Legitimate child same as the illegitimate child will enjoy the privilege of using their
father’s last name and be accepted as an heir and child of the latter.
Also under Article 895 of the Civil Code, illegitimate children may get a share of the
estate of the father same as a legitimate child. However, such share is only limited to
one-half share of the legitimate child. And the legitime of the surviving spouse must first
be fully satisfied before the share of the legitimate children can be given.
It is noteworthy that in our Philippine jurisprudence there is no really an equitable
justification between a legitimate and illegitimate other than the part where both may use
the surname of the father. But when it comes to succession we can see that the law favors
the legitimate over the illegitimate. And also another instance where there is no equitable
justification between the two is provided under Article 992 or known as the Iron-curtain
rule where “An illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestate from the legitimate
children and relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit
in the same manner from the illegitimate child.”