AUDRICH CARLO R.

AGUSTIN
09772865685
agustinaudrich@yahoo.com

1. The distribution of the properties of Matilda shall be governed by the laws of

Australia.

Article 16, par 2 and Article 1039 provides that the validity of testamentary
dispositions is to be governed by the national law of the person whose succession is in
question regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.

Matilda, by the time of her death, was an Australian Citizen. Her properties, even if
they are situated in Pagudpud, must be distributed to her heirs in accordance with
Australian Laws. As a general rule, properties should be governed by the law of the
place where it situated. However, in case of testamentary successions like in the case
at bar, the property will be regulated by the national law of the person whose
succession is considered. Furthermore, the country where the testament was executed
cannot govern the properties for the execution is limited only to the instrumentalities
drafted.

Thus, the properties of Matilda, who is an Australian citizen, must be governed by the
civil laws of Australia in accordance to the nationality theory provided in Article 16
of the New Civil Code of the Philippines.

2. Yes. I believe that Pedro can raise a prejudicial question and the criminal case filed
against him can be suspended.

Article 36 of the New Civil Code provides that prejudicial questions, which must be
decided before any criminal prosecution, may proceed. In a decided case with facts
similar to the case at bar, in an action for bigamy, if the accused claims that the first
marriage is null and void and the right to decide such validity is vested in another
tribunal, the civil action for nullity must first be decided before the action for bigamy
can proceed; hence, the validity of the first marriage is a prejudicial question.
 While the marriage between Pedro and Maria was still subsisting, Pedro got married
to another woman resulting for a criminal action for bigamy against him. In the
meantime, he filed an action for annulment of marriage on the grounds of force giving
him the motion for the suspension of the criminal action on the ground of prejudicial
question. A civil case, to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action must not only
involve the same facts but also that the resolution of necessarily be determinative of
the innocence of the accused. In the case at bar, it was the first wife who filed Bigamy
against Pedro. He could have not raised a prejudicial question if the second wife was
the one filing the case of Bigamy as in the case of Landicho vs. Relova (22 SCRA
731)

Pedro can, therefore, raise a prejudicial question meeting the required element in
Article 36 of the New Civil Code. As a result, the Bigamy case being filed against
him can be suspended.

3. No. I believe Falso is not entitled to be compensated for the contract he entered.

Article 22 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides for the return of the profit
acquired from unjust enrichment. 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.”
(Loria vs. Munos, Jr, GR No. 187240)

In the case at bar, Falso entered into a contract without a proper license to practice the
profession. The party he contracted believed him to be a licensed architect and agreed
with a compensation on a rate given to a licensed practitioner. In this manner Falso
cannot be entitled to receive a compensation with the amount agreed since he could be
unjustly enriched for the unlawful action with regards to the contract he entered into.
He cannot possess and enjoy a compensation at the expense of the other party without
just or legal ground.
 Thus, Falso cannot be compensated for the contract he entered without a professional
license. He cannot be unjustly enriched at the expense of the other party in accordance
to Article 22 of the Civil Code of the Philippines.

4. NO. I believe the contention made by Madona Symi is improper.

Article 3 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states that “Ignorance of the Law
excuses no one from compliance therewith.” In a jurisprudence, it is an express legal
rule that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for failure to comply therewith nor does
it excuse anyone from compliance.

Miss Madona Symi has undoubtedly violated the ordinance and her contention of not
having been aware of the ordinance cannot excuse her from the conclusive
presumption that every person is presumed to know the ordinance. Article 3 uses the
phrase “no one” in determining the scope of the persons involved. It is also presumed
that her relatives or friends could have had informed her about the ordinance prior to
her coming back in the Philippines.

Madona Symi cannot proceed to her contention that she cannot be penalized for the
violation because of her ignorance on the ordinance. Article 3 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines clearly provides the conclusive presumption of the law being known to
every one.