RedFN.

Notes

CivRev I Lecture Week 2 (9.19.20)

I.

Q: When an employer is sued for the acts of his employee causing damage to another, what do
you call his liability?

A: Vicarious liability, which shall be primary and direct if the action is civil and subsidiary if the
action against the employee is criminal.

II.

Q: A, an alien, and B, a Filipino, got married in the Philippines. One of them is 16 years old. They
migrated to Canada where B later on secured a divorce decree. B married C, another Filipino, in
Vancouver. They had a child D.

(1) What is the status of A and B’s marriage?

(2) What is the status of B and C’s marriage?
(3) May B and C be prosecuted for Bigamy?
(4) Who is B’s heir?

A: (1) The status of A & B’s marriage is void. Art 35(1) provides that a marriage where either or
both of the parties is a below 18 years old is void.

AO Note: It depends on who is the minor. If it is the foreigner spouse and under his national law
he/she is capacitated to marry, then the marriage should be valid following the nationality principle.
We apply reciprocity per jurisprudence.

My comment: I disagree. It is plainly clear that under our law, a marriage contracted by a person
below 18 is void, without any qualification as to the nationality. The nationality principle under
Conflicts rule may not be applied if to do so would contravene with our domestic laws. Moreover
under the New Civil Code, prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property xxx shall not
be rendered ineffective by laws or judgment promulgated or conventions agreed upon in a foreign
country. The nationality law may be applied to sustain the validity of the marriage but only insofar
as the foreign law which has jurisdiction over the alien is concerned. But as far as Philippine law on
marriage is concerned, the marriage between A and B shall be deemed void. To sustain your
proposition would lead to an absurd situation where it would be legally acceptable for an adult
Filipino man to bring home a minor foreigner wife from a country where child brides are a norm.
That is not something our laws will sanction.

A: (2) The status of B & C’s marriage is valid. In the case of Republic vs. Molina, the Filipino spouse
may now initiate a divorce against the foreigner spouse. The law does not strictly require that the
alien spouse be the one to file for divorce; it is enough that a divorce decree is validly obtained
abroad. If it is otherwise then the Court shall refuse to apply the text of the law if it does not
reflect the legislative intent. Under the foreign law, the alien has been freed of marital bonds. To
1
RedFN.Notes

CivRev I Lecture Week 2 (9.19.20)

refuse recognition of the divorce by reason that it is the Filipino spouse who filed it will lead to an
absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remains married but without a spouse. The Filipino spouse
who initiates the divorce is just in the same situation as one who is at the receiving end of a
divorce proceeding – they are both effectively without a spouse.

AO Note: Precedents on Art. 26 par. 2 requires the filing of a petition for the recognition for the
divorce decree.

AO Note: Article 40 which requires a prior declaration of nullity is not a tenable contention because
it is one which presupposes that the first marriage is void. This is not applicable if divorce decree is
obtained because that means the marriage is valid.

My comment: I disagree. Article 40 does not apply for the simple reason that the prior marriage was
dissolved prior to B’s contracting a subsequent marriage. But this does not mean that a marriage
dissolved by divorce is already valid. The grounds for divorce under foreign law and the grounds for
invalidity of marriage under Philippine law are different. For instance, a marriage which is void under
Philippine law by reason of lack of authority of a solemnizing officer by mistake of law can be
dissolved through divorce on the ground of irreconcilable differences.

A: (3) No. B and C cannot be prosecuted bigamy because we follow the territoriality principle under
Article 14 of the NCC. And even if they are indeed prosecuted, the action will not prosper because
the divorce decree for the prior marriage was validly obtained before B remarried.

A: (4) B’s heirs are C and D. Under Philippine law, the surviving spouse and the legitimate child are
compulsory heirs entitled to legitimes. Under the New Civil Code, the capacity to succeed is
governed by the national law of the person whose succession is under consideration. Since B is a
Filipino, we apply Philippine law on succession.

III.

Q: Ana married Ben. While her first marriage is subsisting, Anna married Carlo. Ana was charged
with bigamy. She filed a motion for suspension of the criminal proceeding on the ground that a
case for annulment of her marriage is pending in another court. If you where the judge, how would
you rule on the motion?

AO Note: First, determine which marriage is subject of the action. If it is the first marriage, then
there is no prejudicial question because a marriage, even if ultimately found to be voidable, is
deemed valid until annulled. Hence A already committed the crime upon contracting the second
marriage. If it is the second marriage which is subject of the action, ask first who filed and for what
ground. If, as held in the case of Landicho vs. Relova, it was the accused who filed for annulment
on the ground of violence, intimidation or undue influence, then you need to resolve first the civil
action. It would unjust to indict someone for an act he/she did not consent to.

2
RedFN.Notes

CivRev I Lecture Week 2 (9.19.20)

IV.

AO Note: On questions re: juridical personality and succession. Check the facts. Was the child born
alive? If so. did the child have an intra-uterine life of less than seven months and died within 24
hours? If so, then it did not acquire civil personality. No indemnity for injury to person may be
derived by the heirs because this presupposes that someone died. Under the law, you cannot die if
you are not considered a person. Moral damages lang pwede kasi it pertains to the heirs who suffer
mental anguish from the loss of their unborn child. Also, pag walang juridical personality, not
entitled to succeed.

V.

Q: Was the survivorship rules under the Rules of Court applied in Joaquin vs. Navarro.

A: No. The decedents therein were called on to succeed each other. The survivorship rules expressly
state that they do not apply in cases of succession. The applicable provision is Article 43 of the
New Civil Code. In the case, the decedents were not presumed to have died at the same time
because testimonies of witnesses adequately established who died first.

VI.

Q: A was convicted of homicide, which judgment became final and executory. During his
incarceration, A disposed of his property. Is the disposition valid?

A: It depends. First, we determine whether there is civil interdiction. Civil interdiction is an accessory
penalty which depends, not upon the crime committed, but upon the penalty actually imposed
(considering mitigating and aggravating circumstances). If there is civil interdiction, then the accused
may not validly disposed his property inter vivos. Thus, the disposition shall be valid if it is done
mortis cause such as by will.