PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS 1920-1 – Arellano University School of Law

COURSE OUTLINE
COURSE DESCRIPTION: A basic course on the law of persons and the family which first views the
effects and application of laws, to examine the legal norms affecting civil
personality, marriage, property relations between husband and wife, legal
separation, the matrimonial regimes of absolute community, conjugal
partnership of gains, and complete separation of property, paternity and
filiation, adoption, guardianship, support, parental authority, surnames,
absence and emancipation, including the rules of procedure relative to the
foregoing

REFERENCES: Persons and Family Relations by Elmer T. Rabuya

Civil Law Reviewer by Desiderio P. Jurado

I. Preliminary Provisions of the New Civil Code (Arts. 1 – 18, NCC)

a. Effectivity of law

b. Application of laws

c. Computation of periods

d. Retroactivity effect; vested rights

e. Stare decisis; case law; law of the case; obiter dictum

(1) Tanada v. Tuvera, GR L-63915, Dec. 29, 1986

(2) Republic v. Pilipinas Shell, GR 173918, Apr. 8, 2008

ISSUE: Is MOF Order 11-85 effective against a person who knew of its existence but was not published?

FACTS: On October 10, 1984, the Oil Price Stabilization Fund (OPSF) was created under Presidential Decree No.
1956. On December 4, 1991, the Department of Energy (DOE) notified Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation
(Pilipinas Shell) of its underpayment for OPSF foreign exchange risk charge and its surcharge as imposed under
MOF Oder 11-85. On March 24, 1992, Pilipinas Shell paid the underpayment, but not its surcharge. Pilipinas Shell
filed a Notice of Appeal with the Office of the President where it was denied to which the Office says that despite
DOE’s inability to publish said MOF 11-85, it was right to impose surcharges. With this and certifications released
by the Office of the National Registry (ONAR), Pilipinas Shell appealed on grounds of MOF 11-85’s non-publication,
to which it was granted and reverse. To this, DOE brings forth two key points that Pilipinas Shell had waived its
right upon its payment of the surcharge and that Pilipinas Shell knowing the existence of MOF 1-85 through its
notification of its underpayment and surcharges, its non-publication is not an excuse.

RULING: No, MOF Order 11-85 is not effective against a person who knew of its existence but was not published.
Strict compliance with the requirements of publication cannot be annulled by a mere allegation that parties were
notified of the existence of the implementing rules concerned. When Pilipinas Shell was notified by the DOE, such
notification does not excuse the nonpublication of an administrative code. It was explicitly stated in Sec. 3 of
Chapter 2 of Book 7 of the Administrative Code that states that all rules already effective prior to the Code’s
effectivity must be published with the Office of the National Registry (ONAR) otherwise such rule cannot be the
basis of any sanction against any person or party. Hence, Pilipinas Shell cannot be held responsible for the
surcharge imposed by MOF Order 11-85.

(3) SEC v. GMA, GR 164026, Dec. 23, 2008

ISSUE: Is publication of SEC MC 2, Series of 1994 necessary before it can take effect?

FACTS: On August 19, 1995, GMA filed an application for collective approval of various amendments of its Articles
of Incorporation and By Laws with the SEC. The amendments applied for include the change in the corporate name
from “Republic Broadcasting System, Inc.” to “GMA Network Inc.” as well as the extension of the corporate term
for another fifty (50) years. Upon filing, GMA has been assessed by SEC a separate filing fee of P1,212,200.00. On
October 20, 1996, GMA formally protested the assessment. On February 20,1996, SEC approved the other
amendments to their Articles of Incorporation. On April 18, 1996, SEC issued a ruling upholding the validity of
questioned assessment stating that GMA is directed to comply with the required filing fee. GMA appealed but it
was dismissed. GMA filed a petition for review with the CA contending that SEC MC No. 2, series of 1994, which
was used for assessing the said amount of filing fee is not valid. The CA ruled that said memorandum is legally
invalid and ineffective for not having been published in accordance with the law. SEC argues that the questioned
memorandum pertains to the filing fee for Articles of Incorporation which, according to them, are not for of
penalty and sanction and therefore require no publication.

RULING: Yes, publication of SEC MC 2, series of 1994 is necessary before it can take effect. Under Article 2 of the
Civil Code, a law shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in the
Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided. The
questioned memorandum circular cannot be construed as simply interpretative of R.A. 3531. This administrative
issuance is an implementation of the mandate of R.A. 3531 which regulates fees and rates that affect the public at
large. It cannot be therefore considered as a mere internal rule or regulation, nor an interpretation of law, but a
rule which must be declared ineffective as it was neither published nor filed with the Office of the National Register
(ONAR).

(4) Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Aichi, GR 184823, Oct. 6, 2010

(5) Bernabe v. Alejo, GR 140500, Jan. 21, 2002

(6) Republic v. Miller, GR 125932, Apr. 21, 1999

(7) Republic v. CA/Bobiles, GR 92326, Jan. 24, 1992

(8) Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, GR 138509, July 31, 2000

(9) Padilla-Rumbaua v. Rumbaua, GR 166738, Aug. 14, 2009

(10) People v. Olarte, GR L-22465, February 28, 1967

(11) Vios v. Pantangco, Jr., GR 163103, February 6, 2009

II. Human Relations (Arts. 19 – 36, 2176, NCC)

a. Abuse of rights

b. Unjust enrichment

(12) Villanueva v. Rosqueta, GR 180764, Jan. 19, 2010

(13) Cebu Country Club v. Elizaque, GR 160273, Jan. 18, 2008

(14) Chieng v. Sy, GR 174238, July 7, 2009

III. Civil Personality (Arts. 37 – 51, NCC; Arts. 68 and 69, FC)

a. Juridical capacity versus capacity to act

b. Restrictions

c. Birth and death

d. Domicile

e. Use of Surnames (Arts. 364 – 380, NCC; RA9255 and its IRR; RA8239)

i. Characteristics
 ii. Usurpation; elements

iii. Use concerning children

iv. Use concerning wife

f. Absence (Arts. 381 – 396, NCC; Rule 107, ROC; Arts. 22, 774, 777, 1456, 2142 – 2175, NCC)

i. Definition

ii. Stages

iii. Presumption of death

g. Emancipation and Age of Majority (Arts. 234 and 236, FC, RA6809; Arts. 2176 and 2180, NCC)

i. When it takes place

h. Funeral (Arts. 305 – 310, NCC)

i. Guidelines
Civil Register (Arts. 407 – 413, NCC; Sec. 2(3), RA9048 and its IRR; Rules 103 and 108, ROC)
(15) Continental Steel v. Montano, GR 182836, Oct. 13, 2009
(16) Limbona v. COMELEC, GR 186006, Oct. 16, 2009
(17) San Luis v. San Luis, GR 133743/134029, Feb. 6, 2007
(18) Bayot v. CA, GR 155635/163979, Nov. 7, 2008
(19) Remo v. Secretary of Foreign Affairs, GR 169202, Mar. 5, 2010
(20) Republic v. Bolante, GR 160597, July 20, 2006
(21) Silverio v. Republic, GR 174689, Oct. 19, 2007
(22) Republic v. Cagandahan, 166676, Sept. 12, 2008
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS 1920-1 – Arellano University School of Law

IV. Marriage (Arts. 1 – 54, 68 – 73, Family Code; Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, AM 02-11-10-SC; RA9262; Art. 349, Revised Penal
Code; Rule 102 and 108, Rules of Court; RA9262)
a. Definition
b. Essential and formal requisites
c. Rule on foreign marriages
d. Kinds of marriages
e. Divorce
f. Annulment
g. Marital rights and obligations
(23) Ty v. CA, GR 127406, Nov. 27, 2000
(24) Villanueva v. CA, GR 84464, June 21, 1991
(25) Vda. De Jacob v. CA, GR 135216, Aug. 19, 1999
(26) Republic v. CA, GR 103047, Sept. 2, 1994
(27) Sy v. CA, GR 127263, Apr. 12, 2000
(28) Sevilla v. Cardenas, GR 167684, July 31, 2006
(29) Alcantara v. Alcantara, GR 167746, Aug. 28, 2007
(30) Borja-Manzano v. Judge Sanchez, AM MTJ-00-1329, Mar. 2001
(31) Republic v. Dayot, GR 175581/179474, Mar. 28, 2008
(32) Carino v. Carino, GR 132529, Feb. 2, 2001
(33) Navarro v. Domagtoy, AM MTJ-96-1088, July 19, 1996
(34) Van Dorn v. Romillo, GR L-68470, Oct. 8, 1985
(35) Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, GR 80116, June 30, 1989
(36) Garcia v. Recio, GR 138322, Oct. 2, 2001
(37) Amor Catalan v. CA, GR 167109, Feb. 6, 2007
(38) Republic v. Obrecido, GR, 154380, Oct. 5, 2005
(39) Republic v. Manalo, GR 221029, April 24, 2018
(40) Santos v. CA, GR 112019, Jan. 4, 1995
(41) Republic v. CA, GR 108763, Feb. 13, 1997
(42) Lontoc-Cruz v. Cruz, GR 201988, October 11, 2017
(43) Suazo v. Suazo, GR 164493, Mar. 10, 2010
(44) Alcazar v. Alcazar, GR 174451, Oct. 13, 2009
(45) Ninal v. Bayadog, GR 133778, Mar. 14, 2000
(46) De Castro v. De Castro, GR 160172, Feb. 13, 2008
(47) Carlos v. Sandoval, GR 179922, Dec. 16, 2008
(48) Braza v. Civil Registrar, GR 181174, Dec. 4, 2009
(49) Sermonia v. CA, GR 109454, June 14, 1994
(50) Mercado v. Tan, GR 137110, Aug. 1, 2000
(51) Armas v. Calisterio, GR 136467, Apr. 6, 2000
(52) Republic v. Nolasco, GR 94053, Mar. 17, 1993
(53) Valdez v. Republic, GR 180863, Sept. 8, 2009
(54) Go Tan v. Tan, GR 168852, Sept. 30, 2008
(55) Ang v. CA, GR 182835, Apr. 20, 2010
(56) Ilusorio v. Bildner, GR 139789/139808, May 12, 2001
(57) Ilusorio v. Bildner, GR 139789/139808, July 19, 2001
(58) Ong v. CA, GR 63025, Nov. 29, 1991
ATTY. NICO B. VALDERRAMA, CPA, MPM, ESQ 2
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS 1920-1 – Arellano University School of Law

(59) Go v. CA, GR 114791, May 29, 1997

V. Legal Separation (Arts. 55 – 67, FC; Rule on Legal Separation, AM 02-11-11-SC; Rule on
Provisional Orders, AM 02-11-12-SC; RA9262)
a. Grounds
b. Defenses
c. Effects
(60) Pacete v. Carriaga, GR 53880, Mar. 17, 1994
(61) Sabalones v. CA, GR 106169, Feb. 14, 1994
(62) Ong v. Ong, GR 153206, Oct. 23, 2006
(63) SSS v. Aguas, GR 165546, Feb. 27, 2006

a. Marriage settlement; requisites

b. Donation propter nuptias
c. Absolute community of property
d. Conjugal partnership of gains
e. Separation of property
f. Separation de facto
g. Abandonment
(64) Agapay v. Palang, GR 116668, July 28, 1997
(65) Arcaba v. Tabancura, GR 146683, Nov. 22, 2001
(66) Sunga-Chan v. CA, GR 164401, June 25, 2008
(67) Villanueva v. CA, GR 143286, Apr. 14, 2004
(68) De Leon v. De Leon, GR 185063, July 23, 2009
(69) Navarro v. Escobido, GR 153788, Nov. 27, 2009
(70) Hernandez v. Mingoa, GR 146548, Dec. 18, 2009
(71) Ching v. CA, GR 124642, Feb. 23, 2004
(72) Ferrer v. Ferrer, GR 166496, Nov. 29, 2006
(73) MBTC v. Pascual, GR 163744, Feb. 29, 2008
(74) Ayala Investment and Development Corp. v. CA, GR 118305, Feb. 12, 1998
(75) Carlos v. Abelardo, GR 146504, Apr. 9, 2002
(76) Buado v. CA, GR 145222, Apr. 24, 2009
(77) Roxas v. CA, GR 92245, June 26, 1991
(78) Guiang v. CA, GR 125172, June 26, 1998
(79) Jader-Manalo v. Camaisa, GR 147978, Jan. 23, 2002
(80) Jardeleza v. Jardeleza, GR 112014, Dec. 5, 2000
(81) Docena v. Lapesura, GR 140153, Mar. 28, 2001
(82) Villanueva v. Chiong, GR 159889, June 5, 2008
(83) Dela Cruz v. Segovia, GR 149801, June 26, 2008
(84) Ravina v. Villa Abrille, GR 160708, Oct. 16, 2009
(85) Maquilan v. Maquilan, GR 155409, June 8, 2007
(86) Saguid v. CA, GR 150611, June 10, 2003
(87) Acre v. Yuttiki, GR 153029, Sept. 27, 2007

a. Definition
b. Family relations
c. Rule on exemption
d. Beneficiaries
(88) Hontiveros v. RTC Branch 25, GR 125465, June 29, 1999
(89) Manacop v. CA, GR 97898, Aug. 11, 1997
(90) Taneo v. CA, GR 108562, Mar. 9, 1999
(91) Honrado v. CA, GR 166333, Nov. 25, 2005
(92) Arriola v. Arriola, GR 177703, Jan. 28, 2008
(93) Josef v. Santos, GR 165060, Nov. 27, 2008
(94) Cabang v. Basay, GR 180587, Mar. 20, 2009
(95) FEB Mitsui Marine Insurance Co., Inc. v. Manalastas, GR 236001, Mar. 18, 2019

ATTY. NICO B. VALDERRAMA, CPA, MPM, ESQ 3

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS 1920-1 – Arellano University School of Law

VIII. Paternity and Filiation (Arts. 163 – 182, FC; Rules on DNA Evidence, AM 06-11-5-SC; RA9255;
RA9858; Art. 345, RPC, RA9262)
a. Legitimate versus illegitimate; rights
b. Proof of filiation
c. Legitimation
(96) Benitez-Badua v. CA, GR 105625, Jan. 24, 1994
(97) Mariategui v. CA, GR 57062, Jan. 24, 1992
(98) Babiera v. Catotal, GR 138493, June 15, 2000
(99) Labagala v. Santiago, GR 132305, Dec. 4, 2001
(100) Liyao v. Tanhoti-Liyao, GR 138961, Mar. 7, 2002
(101) Rodriguez v. CA, GR 85723, June 19, 1995
(102) Solinap v. Locsin, Jr., GR 146737, Dec. 10, 2001
(103) Heirs of Cabais v. CA, GR 106314-15, Oct. 8, 1999
(104) Cenido v. Apacionado, GR 132474, Nov. 19, 1999
(105) Tijing v. CA, GR 125901, Mar. 8, 2001
(106) Estate of Ong v. Diaz, GR 171713, Dec. 17, 2007
(107) Puno v. Puno Ent. Inc., GR 177066, Sept. 11, 2009
(108) Tonog v. CA, GR 122906, Feb. 7, 2002
(109) Aruego v. CA, GR 112193, Mar. 13, 1996
(110) Dela Cruz v. Gracia, GR 177728, July 31, 2009
(111) Uy v. Chua, GR 183965, Sept. 18, 2009
IX. Adoption (Arts. 183 – 193, FC; RA8552; RA8043, as amended by RA9523; Rule on Adoption, AM 02-
06-02-SC; Amended IRR on RA8043)
a. Definition
b. Who can adopt
c. Who can be adopted
d. Rights of an adopted
e. Grounds for and effects of rescission
(112) Republic v. Vergara, GR 95551, Mar. 20, 1997
(113) Republic v. Toledano, GR 94147, June 8, 1994
(114) Republic v. CA, GR 92326, Jan. 24, 1992
(115) Republic v. CA, GR 97906, May 21, 1992
(116) Cang v. CA, GR 105308, Sept. 25, 1998
(117) Lahom v. Sibulo, GR 143989, July 14, 2003
(118) In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle and Michael Jude P. Lim, GR 168992-93, May
21, 2009
X.Support (Arts. 194 – 208, FC; IRR on RA9262)
a. Kinds
b. Composition
c. Persons obliged
d. When and how paid
e. Rules on attachment
(119) David v. CA, GR 111180, Nov. 16, 1995
(120) Gan v. Reyes, GR 145527, May 28, 2002
(121) De Asis v. CA, GR 127578, Feb. 15, 1999
(122) People v. Magtibay, GR 142985, Aug. 6, 2002
(123) Sy v. CA, GR 124518, Dec. 27, 2007
(124) Lacson v. Lacson, GR 150644, Aug. 28, 2006
(125) Mangonon v. CA, GR 125041, June 30, 2006
(126) Lim v. Lim, GR 163209, Oct. 30, 2009
XI. Parental Authority (Arts. 209 – 233, FC; Rule on Custody of Minors, AM 03-04-04-SC; Rule on
Juveniles in Conflict with the Law, AM 02-1-18-SC; Rule on Guardianship of Minors, AM 03-02-05-
SC; Rule on Examination of Child Witness, AM 004-07-SC; RA8972 and its IRR, Arts. 2176 and 2180,
NCC; RA6809)
a. Characteristics
b. Who exercises
ATTY. NICO B. VALDERRAMA, CPA, MPM, ESQ 4
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS 1920-1 – Arellano University School of Law

c. Order of substitute parental authority

d. Special parental authority
e. Rights and duties over unemancipated children
f. Effect on property of the child
g. Suspension and termination
h. Care and Education of Children (Arts. 356 – 363, NCC; PD603; RA9262; RA9523)
(127) Santos, Sr. v. CA, GR 113054, Mar. 16, 1995
(128) Perez v. CA, GR 118870, Mar. 29, 1996
(129) Silva v. CA, GR 114742, July 17, 1997
(130) Vancil v. Belmes, GR 132223, June 19, 2001
(131) Laxamana v. Laxamana, GR 144763, Sept. 3, 2002
(132) Madrinan v. Madrinan, GR 159374, July 12, 2007
(133) St. Mary’s Academy v. Carpitanos, GR 143363, Feb. 6, 2002
(134) Obedencio v. Murillo, AM RTJ-03-1753, Feb. 5, 2004
(135) Lindain v. CA, GR 95305, Aug. 20, 1992
(136) Cabales v. CA, GR 162421, Aug. 31, 2007
(137) Bondagjy v. Bondagjy, GR 140817, Dec. 7, 2001

a. Summary Judicial Proceedings (Arts. 238 – 253, FC; RA9262 and its IRR; Rule on Custody of
Minors, AM 03-04-04-SC; Rule on Guardianship of Minors, AM 03-02-05-SC; Rule on
Provisional Orders, AM 02-11-12-SC)
i. Covered cases
(138) Uy v. CA, GR 109557, Nov. 29, 2000
b. Final Provisions (Arts. 254 – 257, FC; Special Treatment of Minor Detainees and Jail Decongestion,
AC 04-2002; Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law, AM 02-1-18-SC; Rule on Commitment of
Children, AM 02-1-19-SC; RA8369; RA9208; RA9231; RA9257; RA9710; RA9775; RA9994)

Grading System:

30% Class Standing (15% Recitation, 10% Quizzes, 5% Prelim Exam)

30% Midterm Exam
40% Final Exam
100%

Requirements:

1. MANDATORY:
a. HANDWRITTEN CODAL PROVISIONS:
i. Articles 1 – 47 of the New Civil Code handwritten in yellow pad.
ii. The completeness of the legal provisions must be certified correct by two (2) other
students of the same class.
iii. This shall comprise 20% of your Prelims.
iv. Deadline: Day of Prelims.
b. CASE DIGESTS:
i. 69 (either the odd-numbered or even-numbered cases, only from Cases 1 to 138)
case digests in a large notebook.
ii. After the case title, present the ISSUE first, then the FACTS, and end with the RULING.
iii. Facts should include those relevant to answering the issue. At the end of the
presentation of facts, state the two sides argued by both parties. The ruling should
answer the issue and the legal basis must be explained and applied to the facts.
iv. Limit the digest to just one page.
v. These shall be counted as a special quiz (1 case digest is equivalent to 2 points).
vi. Deadline: Three weeks before Day of Finals.

ATTY. NICO B. VALDERRAMA, CPA, MPM, ESQ 5

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS 1920-1 – Arellano University School of Law

2. OPTIONAL (+1 in the Final Grade PER ITEM OF COMPLIANCE; Incomplete submission: NO
INCENTIVE):
a. The entire Family Code handwritten in yellow pad. The completeness of the legal provisions
must be certified correct by two (2) other students of the same class. Deadline: Three weeks
before Day of Finals.

b. CASE DOCTRINES:
i. 69 case doctrines in yellow pad or large notebook (own handwriting) presented in a Q&A
format.
ii. If you did the odd-numbered case digests, you must choose the even-numbered cases for
this requirement.
iii. Components of a case doctrines: (NOTE: No facts needed.)
1. [Case Number] Case Title, GR #, Date [Per J.__, En Banc/ __ Division]
2. Question
3. Answer: Doctrine held by the Supreme Court
iv. The number of doctrines must be certified correct by two (2) other students of the
same class.
v. Deadline: Three weeks before Day of Finals.

Ground Rules:

- Never use friction pens.

- NO RECORDING OF CLASS LECTURES.
- Always bring at least five (5) sheets of yellow pad.
- Recitation will be conducted every class session. If not present when called, a grade of 50 shall be given.
- Expect to have at least one (1) quiz every class session.
- No adjustments shall be made in the computation of the final grade.
- Any student who arrives past 3:00PM shall be considered absent.
- Any student who has been absent for more than 4 class sessions shall be given a final grade of FA (failure due
to absences which shall be counted as a grade of 68).
- Students who earned any final grade lower than 70 shall be given a final grade of 70.
- If a student fails to take the Prelims or Midterms with valid reason, he/she will not be given a special exam but
his/her grades will be less 10% of the succeeding major exam (Midterms for missed Prelims and Finals for
missed Midterms).
- If a student fails to take the Prelims or Midterms without any valid reason, he/she shall earn a grade of zero (0).
- An incentive of +1 each in the final grade will be given for perfect attendance (who arrived before the
professor’s roll call) during the following periods: First Day to Midterms and after Midterms to Finals, provided
that the student earns a grade of at least 75.00 before earning said incentive.

“The practice of law, despite its many, many flaws, can still be a very noble thing and I like to think that it’s just a
little more noble with me in it.”
-Harriet Korn, Harry’s Law

ATTY. NICO B. VALDERRAMA, CPA, MPM, ESQ 6