I.

a. Yes. The marriage between Harry and Elizabeth is valid.

According to Article 26 of the Family Code, where a marriage between a

Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a divorce is thereafter
validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the
Filipino spouse shall likewise have capacity to remarry under Philippine Law.

In the case at bar, Wilma was already a foreign national having been
naturalized as a citizen of that small country in Europe when he got the divorce
decree. Harry then, is already capacitated to remarry when he married Elizabeth
hence, their marriage is valid.

b. I will advise Harry to dissolve and liquidate his property relation with
Wilma as soon as possible and petition the court to recognize the foreign divorce
decree obtained by Wilma in order that his capacity to remarry will no longer be
questioned.

II.

a. As a judge, I will apply the doctrine of processual presumption.

According to the rules, the doctrine of processual presumption refers to the

right of the court to presume that in the absence of the proof, the alleged foreign
laws shall be treated as the same as that of the laws in the Philippines.

In the case at bar, Chin alleged that under the laws of China, village leader
has authority to solemnize marriage however she failed to present evidence
supporting her allegations hence, the court will presume that the laws of China with
respect to solemnization of marriage is the same as that of Philippine marriage
laws which however provides that village leader is not among those who are
authorized to solemnize marriage hence, we apply Article 35 of the Family Code,
which says that marriages solemnized by a person not authorized to do so shall
render the marriage void.
 b. The marriage between Chin and Jon is valid.

According to the Article 35 of the Family Code, when one or both of the
contracting parties believe in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal
authority to do so where in fact the same has none, the marriage will still be valid.

In the case at bar, Chin and Jon did not have an idea that the authority of
the Baptist minister who solemnized their marriage was already expired a month
before the celebration of their marriage. This will not be case of ignorance of the
law since Chin and Jon relied on the fact that the Baptist minister has the
authority to solemnize marriage which is provided under Article 7 of the Family
Code.

Hence, their marriage is valid.

III.

a. Gemma’s suit will not prosper.

According to the Supreme Court, it is not enough to prove the commission of

the acts or the existence of abnormal behavior. It must be shown that those said
acts or 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. It
must also be shown that such psychological incapacity, as manifested in those acts
or that behavior, was existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage.

In the case at bar, there was no showing that Arnell was suffering from a
manifestation of that disorder, that his behavior was a manifestation of that
disorder, and that such disorder prevented him from complying with duties as a
married person.

Hence, the acts of Arnell complained about do not by themselves constitute

psychological incapacity.

b. Still no.
 According to the Court, statement of expert witness conforming to the
alleged suffering of the spouse’s personality disorder may be given great weight
however, such statements alone will not render the marriage void on the ground of
psychological incapacity since there are other matters to consider. It must be
shown that those said acts or 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. It must also be shown that such psychological incapacity, as
manifested in those acts or that behavior, was existing at the time of the
celebration of the marriage.

IV.

a. No. John is not correct.

According to Article 45 of the Family Code, impotence may be a ground for

annulment of marriage if either party was physically incapable of consummating the
marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable
and under Article 47 of the same Code, the period to file for such action shall be
within 5 years from the celebration of the marriage however failure to do so shall
not render the marriage ratified since this ground is not subject of ratification.

In the case at bar, Marsha filed an action to annul their marriage on the
ground of impotency at the end of the 2nd year of their marriage. The action was
filed within the five year prescriptive period. However, even if no action was filed,
the marriage cannot be ratified.

Thus, John’s contention is not correct.

b. No.

According to the Supreme Court, in case the potent spouse is aware of the
impotency of his or her spouse before the celebration of their marriage, it is
implied that he/she renounced copulation by consenting to the marriage, hence, he
may be estopped from filing the action.
 V.

a. Under Article 147 of the Family Code, Salaries and wages, properties
acquired by both through work and industry and properties presumed to be
acquired jointly while living together, shall be divided equally while properties
acquired through exclusive funds shall remain exclusive to either parties.

b. Under Article 148 of the Family Code, Salaries and wages shall be
separately owned by parties, properties acquired through exclusive funds shall
remain exclusive, properties acquired by both through work and industry shall be
owned in common in proportion to respective contribution however, there will be no
presumption of joint acquisition as to the properties acquired while living together.

c. No. In so far as Art. 148 of the Family Code is concern, properties

acquired while living together shall not be presumed as joint acquisition and such
will not be offset by efforts of the other in the care and maintenance of the
family and household.

d. The properties shall be divided depending upon the ground for

termination of marriage. In case of death, Article 103 of the Family Code will
apply, in case of Legal Separation, Articles 63 and 64 will apply and in case of
Annulment or judicial declaration of nullity, Articles 50 and 52 will apply.

VI.

a. Ed is the father of Alvin because Alvin was conceived and born during the
marriage of his mother to Ed. Under the law, the child born during the marriage of
the mother to her husband is presumed to be the legitimate child of the husband.
While it is true that there was no written consent by the husband to the artificial
insemination, absence of such consent may only give the husband a ground to
impugn the legitimacy of the child but will not prevent the child from acquiring the
status of legitimate child of the husband at the same time of its birth.

b. Under the Family Code, Children born out of a bigamous marriage shall be
considered illegitimate.
 Hence, Alvin is an illegitimate child and Andy is his biological father.

VII.

Yes, Joey has such a cause of action against Tintin.

While the Family Code has repealed the provisions of the Civil Code on proof
of filiation, said repel did not impair vested rights. Under the Civil Code, as an
illegitimate child may file an action to compel his recognition even after the death
of the putative father when the father died during the minority of the child. While
the Family Code has repealed this provision, it will not operate to prejudice those
who has already acquired a vested right thereto.
In the case at bar, Joey was born an illegitimate child in 1981. As an
illegitimate child, he had acquired, at birth, the right to prove his filiation in
accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code in force at that time.

VIII.

a. Yes, the position of the government is tenable.

Foreigners are disqualified to adopt unless they fall in any of the exceptions
provided for in the law.

Eva and Paul are both foreigners. Eva, falls in one of the exceptions. She is
qualified to adopt because she is a former Filipino citizen who wishes to adopt a
relative by consanguinity. Unfortunately, Paul is not qualified to adopt because
he does not fall in any of the exceptions. Hence, they cannot adopt jointly.
When husband and wife are adopting jointly, both of them must be qualified to
adopt in their own right. Eva cannot, alone by herself, adopt her niece because
husband and wife must adopt jointly unless they fall in any exceptions provided
for in the law. They cannot adopt separately because they do not fall in any of
the exceptions.
 Hence, whether separately or jointly, Eva and Paul cannot adopt Vicky in the
Philippines.

b. No, my answer would be different.

Eva is qualified to adopt her illegitimate daughter, because she falls in one of
her exceptions that allow foreigners to adopt. She is a former Filipino citizen
adopting her relative by consanguinity. Eva can adopt separately her illegitimate
child because her case is also an exception to the rule that husband and wife
should adopt jointly.

IX.

As a judge, I would rule that the first marriage settlement was valid
because it was in writing, signed by the parties and executed before the
celebration of the marriage. Second, the subsequent agreement of the parties was
void as a modification of their marriage settlement. To be valid, the modification
must be executed before the celebration of the marriage. The subsequent
agreement of the parties did not effect a dissolution of their conjugal partnership
and a separation of their properties because it was not approved by the court. To
be valid, an agreement by the parties to dissolve their conjugal partnership and to
separate properties during the marriage has to be approved by the court.

Considering that the marriage settlement was binding between the parties,
conjugal partnership of gains was the regime of their property relations. Under the
regime of conjugal partnership of gains, all properties acquired by the spouses
during the marriage, jointly or by either one of them, through their work or
industry are conjugal. Therefore, the residential house and lot, and the
condominium unit are conjugal having been jointly acquired by the couple during the
marriage. Inasmuch as the subsequent agreement on dissolution of the conjugal
partnership and separation of property was invalid, conjugal partnership subsisted
between the parties. Therefore, the mansion and the agricultural land are also
conjugal having been acquired by one of the spouses during the marriage.

The marriage settlement cannot prejudice third parties, such as the

creditors, because it was not registered with the local civil registered with the
local civil registrar where the marriage was recorded. To bind third parties, the
Family Code requires registration of the marriage settlement not only with the
proper register of deeds but also with the local civil registrar where the marriage
was recorded. Hence, if the rules on conjugal partnership will prejudice the
creditors, the rules on absolute community will be applied instead. However, insofar
as debts contracted by one spouse without the consent of the other are
concerned, the rule is the same for both conjugal partnership and absolute
community. The partnership or community is liable for debts contracted by one
spouse but only to the extent that it benefited to the family. Therefore, if the
debts contracted by Mila redounded to the benefit of the family, all the conjugal
partnership properties are liable to pay them but only to the extent the family was
benefited. The separate properties of Mila may be held answerable for Mila’s
debts and obligations that did not redound to the benefit of the family.

X.

Both parents of Sam and Cathy shall be held liable for damages.

According to Article 221 of the Family Code, parents and other persons
exercising parental authority shall be civilly liable for the injuries and damages
caused by the acts or omissions of their unemancipated children living in their
company and under their personal authority subject to the appropriate
defenses provided by law.