Bld2020 Family 1

FROM Nth Time BAR CHALLENGER TO ATTORNEY
PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

BAR LAW FOR DUMMIES TRAINING PROGRAM
WITH 1989-2019 BAR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

SUPPORT TOOL N0. 1 (1ST OF 5 CIVIL LAW SUBJECTS)
Ang BAR LAWS FOR DUMMIES 2020 (BLD2020) PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS na may Page | 1
272 na pahina ay dinesenyo upang umangkop sa kakayanan ng mga ordinaryong tao (layman) at mga
pasimulang mag-aaral ng batas. Higit sa lahat, ang BLD2020 ay may adhikaing tulungan ang mga “nth” time bar
examinees na mapagtagumpayan na ang hamon ng napakahirap bar examination sa pamamagitan ng pag-gamit
ng mga estratehiyang pang-elementarya at highschool na pagtuturo hanggang sila ay magkaroon ng sariling
technique na kanilang magagamit sa kanilang patuloy pag-aaral.
Ang mga manunulat ay pauna na nang humihingi ng pang-unawa sapagkat may mga pagkakataon na
hindi maiiwasan na gumamit ng mga salitang bulgar upang higit na maitanim sa isipan ng mga mambabasa ang
nais ipaunawa nito. Bukod dito, ang mga katagang ginamit ay mga salitang pang-araw-araw nating gamitin,
kaya’t hindi maiiwasan ang mga maling gramatiko at pag-gamit ng lengwahe sa kaka-ibang paraan.
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
NAPAKA-MAHAL NG MGA LAW BOOKS – MAHAL PA SA TUITION FEES. KAYA GAMITIN LAGI
ANG LIBRARY CARD. BUMILI NA LANG PAG KAYO AY MGA LAWYERS NA. – SABI NG ATING MGA
MAGULANG AT NG ATING MGA WALLET
ANG MGA MANUNULAT AY NAGSIKAP NA PABABAIN ANG HALAGA NG MATERYALES NA ITO

UPANG ANG MGA MAG-AARAL AY HINDI NA MATUKSONG IPA-PDF OR PHOTOCOPY. ATIN PONG
SUPORTAHAN ANG MGA MANUNULAT NA GUMAGAWA NG BABASAHING MAY KALIDAD SA MABABANG
HALAGA.
NAWA’Y ANG GAWAING ITO ANG MAG-PASIMULA UPANG ANG MGA “MAINSTREAM
AUTHORS”, LAW SCHOOLS, AT MGA LAW PROPFESSORS AY GUMAWA NG MODULAR MATERIALS NA
MAARING MABILI DIREKTA SA KANILA SA MABABANG HALAGA GAMIT ANG MAKABAGONG
TEKNOLOHIYA
BAR LAW FOR DUMMIES 2020

THE LAW ON PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
FIRST EDITION
JULY 5, 2019 updated with CONFLICTS OF LAWS and 2019 BQA on JULY 14, 2020
MANILA, PHILIPPINES
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHORS

The author is a humble partner to succeed in your quest for a law degree and to clinch the evasive “Attorney” title
to your name. He believes that no one has the monopoly of knowledge so you may email him for any correction,
modification and suggestion at barlawfordummies@gmail.com. Other law subjects will soon be available for 2020
Bar Exams. For orders visit FB Page: Law Reviewers, Books and Bookstand for Sale/OR TEXT 09325293595

FREQUENTLY ASKED TOPICS
FROM 1989-2019 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
INTRODUCTION …5
Page | 2
HOW TO ANSWER BAR QUESTIONS…5
PART I: FAMILY CODE
VOID MARRIAGES …14
PROPERTY REGIME OF UNIONS WITHOUT MARRIAGE…31
ARTICLE 148…41
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY…46
ARTICLE 40…64
VOIDABLE MARRIAGES…69
CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF GAINS…74
ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY OF PROPERTIES…89
CPG VS. ACP …92
TERMINABLE MARRIAGES…106
ART. 50-54…122
PRESUMPTIVE LEGITIME…123
MARRIAGE SOLEMNIZED / DIVORCE OBTAINED ABROAD…124
LEGAL SEPARATION…138
SEPARATION OF PROPERTY…144
REGIME OF SEPARATION OF PROPERTY…146
VALID MARRIAGE...147
DONATIONS BY REASON OF MARRIAGE...149
RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN HUSBANDS AND WIVES…150
PROPERTY RELATIONS BETWEEN HUSBANDS AND WIVES...151
THE FAMILY…154
PATERNITY AND FILIATION...164
SUPPORT…184
PARENTAL AUTHORITY…188


EMANCIPATION AND AGE OF MAJORITY…196
VESTED RIGHT… 198
ADOPTION… 201
INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION…215
Page | 3
OTHER RELATED LAWS
RA 9048… 217
PD 603… 218
RA 7610… 218
AM 02-11-10SC… 219
PART II: DOCTRINES IN CIVIL LAW
WHEN LAW TAKES EFFECT… 221
LEGAL EFFECTS OF IGNORANCE OF THE LAW… 222
WAIVER OF RIGHTS… 223
JUDICIAL DECISIONS AS PART OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM… 224
DUTY OF THE COURTS TO RENDER JUDGMENT… 224
PRESUMPTION IN CASE OF DOUBTS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW… 225
NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE… 226
LEX REI SITAE… 226
LEX LOCI CELEBRATIONIS… 227
OBSERVATION OF HONESTY AND GOOD FAITH… 239
INDEMNIFICATION FOR ILLEGAL ACTS… 240
ACTIONABLE ACTS… 240
UNJUST ENRICHMENT… 244
RIGHT OF PRIVACY… 245
INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION… 245
IMPAIRMENT OF RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES… 245
PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW… 246
PART III. THE LAW ON PERSONS
JUDICIAL CAPACITY VS. CAPACITY TO ACT… 248


WHEN CIVIL PERSONALITY BEGINS… 248
WHEN CHILD IS CONSIDERED BORN… 248
PRESUMPTION OF SURVIVORSHIP… 251
PRESUMPTION OF DEATH – ORDINARY ABSENCE… 251

Page | 4
PRESUMPTION OF DEATH – QUALIFIED OR EXTRAORDINARY ABSENCE… 251
PART IV: OTHER CIVIL LAW CONCEPT
CIVIL LAW SYSTEM VS. COMMON LAW SYSTEM… 255
RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL… 255
JOINT VENTURE… 256
PRESUMPTION OF SURVIVAL IN RULES OF COURT… 257
2019 BQA PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS...257
CONFLICTS OF LAW...266


The BAR LAW FOR DUMMIES 2020 (BLD2020) is designed for self-study/self-review and primarily aimed to help the nth
time examinees to pass the bar exams and for average law students to fully understand difficult concepts of law as illustrated in our day-
to-day activities. The technique is spoon-feeding and we did much of all the thinking for you to save time. We included all the topics asked
in past 20 years of bar examinations, the bar answers to that bar questions, the relevant jurisprudence as well as the important codal
provisions. And because we believe that no one has the monopoly of knowledge, we plan to make BLD as a “COMMUNITY REVIEWER”
where readers are encourage to email BLD2020 for any correction, addition and suggestion to come up with an ultimate law reviewer.
Those who will participate shall be acknowledged as part of the community.
Page | 5
Initially, BLD2020 shall be available in hard copies to cope up with the initial expenses entailed. In the future, when all the
reviewers are complete and as the circumstances may warrant, a board of trustees shall be formed to guard the integrity of the “community
reviewer” and it shall be available via online subscription for a minimal fee just to keep the system afloat. On that note, we ask for a lot
of prayers for the people who would become part of the community to have good health and a focused mind to finish the work in time for
2020 bar examination.
You will find that we used Tagalog language and Filipino culture most of the time in explaining the law. Firstly, it is because
we are more equipped in our own native tongue when expressing our feelings and thoughts, and according to psychology of learning,
students learn better in their native language. Secondly, different concepts of laws are best illustrated with our day-to-day experiences.
And thirdly, we want the readers to laugh and stay awake by using colorful words and hilarious situations.
By the way, when you avail of BLD2020 you will be added to a Facebook group exclusive for BLD users. Take note that only
veriafiable accounts with email address shall be accepted and retained as member. We will do all the sharing and updates in that group.
HOW TO ANSWER BAR QUESTIONS?

(You may skip the exercises below and go to the main page right away)
Ang bar question, malimit maraming facts na immaterial or flowery ang mga sentences. As you read along those questions,
tanggalin ninyo sa isip ninyo yung mga immaterial facts, and retain only the material fact of the question.
Take for example the no. 1 question in 2018 bar exams. If we take away the unimportant facts, ito lang dapat ang question.
Solenn and Sonny were 18 and 19 years old when they got married without parental consent. Is the marriage void,
voidable or void?
However, you can only spot the material facts if you know the CORRECT applicable law. So, dito papasok ang inyong stock
knowledge. Kaya kailangang maraming nabasang cases at yung mga codal provisions lamang na ginamit sa mga cases na ito ang
intindihing mabuti. You may want to read all the codal provisions but concentrate on those provisions often used in jurisprudence.
Therefore, paramihan ng nabasang cases ang survival sa bar exams. Also basahin din lahat ang mga previous bar questions taking
notes of the codal provisions used in answering that bar questions.
By the way, if you are reading books or school reviewers for the bar exam, you are in the very long and slow process, at
mapupuno lang ang utak mo ng napakaraming annotations na usually “disconnected sa personal mong buhay”, kaya nga baka maya-
maya ay tulog ka na. If you are using those materials, just scan them, and look for the jurisprudence and be mindful of the codal provisions
(the law) used for such cases - napaka-rami kasing babasahin at baka ka maubusan ng oras. Kaya don’t read everything - just those
important and controversial issues. If you are enrolled in a review center, just attend the discussion of subjects which you think na
“mahina” ka. Otherwise, save time and money and do a self-review in other subjects. Maraming free lectures available provided by kind
hearted law professors to grab.
Also, don’t tell yourself na your chance of passing the bar will increase because you are to attend the best review center or
you are a graduate of this “known” law school. In those “known” law schools, mataas ang bar passing rate nila kasi po first year pa lang
may “pruning na”. Let say, there were 500 first year students, all who failed in a subject shall be given the pink slip to find another law
school. So next school year, 300 na lang. All students who have a failing grade sa isang subject and/or had less than 77% general
avarage shall be given that pink slip. The next sem, 250 na lang. then in the last year of law study, 150 na lang iyan. Iyan yung mga


pinaka-mahuhusay at mostly full-time students - these are the the “creme of the crop”. Kaya most likely papasa silang lahat at matataas
ang rating. But most law schools do not do like that. Kaya it is a “misnomer” to say that there is such a thing as the best law school.
Remember that we have same books and equally talented law professors. The playing field is fair and it’s still your study techniques pa
rin ang magpapasa sa iyo sa bar exams.
----------------xxx--------------------
Page | 6
Going back on how to answer bar questions. Read the 2018 bar exam first question and just pick the facts material to the
question. You can do this by NOT reading the facts first but the question muna. Saka mo balikan ang facts. Para as you read along,
matatangal mo n yung mga immaterial facts. At para hindi ka mabaliw sa dami ng “flowers and leaves” ng facts – eh ang hinahanap mo
lang naman ay ang “fruit to eat”.
2018 BAR EXAMINATION CIVIL LAW PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
[a] Is the marriage of Solenn and Sonny valid, voidable, or void? (2.5%)
[b] If the marriage is defective, can the marriage be ratified by free cohabitation of the parties? (2.5%)
[at this time automatic ng papasok sa kukote mo yung mga void and voidable marraiges – magii-magine ka na ng Art. 35, mag-pinsang
nag-asawa, Art. 37, 38, 36, 40, 53 at isama mo na rin ang Art. 45 – lahat yan ay nilagyan natin ng mukha sa BLD – kaya madaling
“mapanood” sa isipan}
{so habang binabasa mo ang napakahabang essay – madali na para sa iyo na tanggalin ang lahat, at iwanan lamang ang material facts
relevant sa question}
[1] Sidley and Sol were married with one (1) daughter, Solenn. Sedfrey and Sonia were another couple with one son, Sonny. Sol and
Sedfrey both perished in the same plane accident. Sidley and Sonia met when the family who those who died sued the airlines and went
through grief-counseling sessions. Years later, Sidley and Sonia got married. At that time, Solenn was 4 years old and Sonny was 5
years old. These two were then brought up in the same household. Fifteen years later, Solenn and Sonny developed romantic
feelings towards each other, and eventually eloped. On their own and against their parents’ wishes, they procured a marriage
license and got married in church.
[So yung highlighted lang ang relevant. Discard the others by simplifying the question. Hindi ba, ito lang dapat ang tanong? (yung marriage
license nasa likod na ng utak mo yun)
Solenn and Sonny were 18 and 19 years old when they got married without their parents’ consent. Is the marriage
valid, voidable or void?
[Anong applicable law sa set of facts? – the marriage is voiable. The applicable law is Art 45 on annulable marriage. If you cant remember
the exact article – at least you have the provision in annullable marriage ay nasa utak mo na. At ang mahalaga, tama ang sagot mo na
ang marriage is not void, but voidable.]
When you answer, gamitin po muna ninyo yung formula na ito, para masanay po kayo to think of the appliable law att para na rin po
simplified yung answer. Don’t do it like yung answer ng UPLC, masyadong scholarly made at syempre open book na yun. They are good
as source of information, but the style is not appropriate in the bar. So here is the simplified formula.
Direct answer
The legal basis
The only material facts to the legal basis
The conclusion


Direct answer (Yes, or No). State the essential essence lang ng applicable law – not the whole law (According to Article ____, In
the annals of decisions, the Supreme Court ruled that____, In one of the decisions of the Supreme Court,.....According to the law....).
The only material facts to the law – do not repeat the law (Here... In the case at bar....), The conclusion (Therefore, Hence, In the
light of the foregoing,)
Page | 7
[Direct answer) [The legal basis]

The marraige is voidable. Under Art 45 of the Family Code, the consent of the parents or guardian or person having
parental authority over the party who is 18 years of age or over but below 21 years old at the time of marriage, is required, and such
marriage may be annulled by the party himself/herself or by the person whose consent is required within the prescriptive period provided
for in Art. 47 of the same Code.
[The only material facts to the law – do not repeat the law]
Here, Solenn and Sonny were only 19 and 20 years old, respectively, when they got married without the consent of their
respective parents.
[The conclusion – just repeat the direct answer with little of the law]
Hence, the marriage is voidable and annullable within the presciptive period provided for in the Family Code.
----------------------xxx------------------------
Your answer could be any of the following.
[Sample 1]
The marriage is voidable. Under Art 45 of the Family Code, the consent of the parents or guardian or person having
parental authority over the party, who is 18 years of age or over but below 21 years old at the time of marriage, is required, and such
marriage may be annulled by the party himself/herself or by the person whose consent is required within the prescriptive period provided
for in Art. 47 of the same Code.
Here, Solenn and Sonny were only 19 and 20 years old, respectively, when they got married without the consent of their
respective parents. Hence, the marriage is voidable and annullable within the presciptive period provided for in the Family Code.
[Sample 2] The marriage is voidable. Under the Family Code, the consent of parents, where a party in a marriage is 18 years old or
over but below 21, is required, and such marriage may be annulled by the party himself/herself or by his/her parents within the prescriptive
period provided for in the same Code.
Here, Solenn and Sonny were only 19 and 20 years old, respectivelly, when they got married without the consent of their
respective parents. Hence, the marriage is voidable and may be annulled within the presciptive period provided for in the same Code.
[Sample 3] The marriage is voidable. Under the Family Code, the consent of parents is required where a party, in a marriage, is over
18 years of age or over but below 21. Here, Solenn and Sonny were only 19 and 20 years old, respectivelly, when they got married
without the consent of their respective parents. Hence, the marriage is voidable and annullable within the prescriptive period provided
for in the same Code.


[Sample 4] The marriage is voidable. Under the Family Code, the consent of parents is required where a party, in a marriage, is over
18 years of age or over but below 21. Here, Solenn and Sonny were only 19 and 20 years old, respectivelly, when they got married
without the consent of their respective parents. Hence, the marriage is voidable.
[Sample 5] The marriage is voidable for lack of parental consent. Here, Solenn and Sonny were only 19 and 20 years old,
respectively, when they got married without parental consent as required by the Family Code for marriages where one of the parties is
at least 18 years old or over but below 21.
Page | 8
[Sample 6] The marriage is voidable because Solenn and Sonny were only 19 and 21 years old, respectively, when they got married
and they did not have parental consent as required by law in Art. 45 of the Family Code.
The marriage is voidable for lack of parental consent. At the time of their marriage, Solenn and Sonny were only 19 and 20 years old, respectively.
Assuming their marriage was under the Family Code, Article 14 provides that parental consent is required where either or both of the parties are between
18 and 21 years old at the time of marriage. In the absence of such parental consent, Article 45 of the Family Code provides that the marriage is voidable.
Since the marriage was against their parents’ wishes, their marriage is voidable. Unlike in the Civil Code, their being step-siblings is immaterial under the
Family Code and will not render the marriage void since such is not considered incestuous nor against public policy – UPLC, answer uploaded on Nov
18, 2019. I got it right.
-------------------Xxxx-------------------
[b] If the marriage is defective, can the marriage be ratified by free cohabitation of the parties? (2.5%)
[Direct answer] [The applicable law]

Yes, the marriage may be ratified. Under Art 45 paragraph 1 of the Family Code, an annullable marriage may be ratified
by the parties themselves by freely cohabiting as husband and wife after such party or parties, whose age is insufficient, attained the age
of 21.
[the only material facts to the law – do not repeat the law] [the
conclusion]
Here, Solenn and Sonny where 18 and 19 years old, respectively, when they got married. Hence, when Solenn attains the
age of 21 and they are still cohabitting as husband and wife, the deffective marriage is ratified.
Sample 1
Yes, the marriage may be ratified. Under Art 45 paragraph 1 of the Family Code, an annullable marriage may be ratified
by the parties themselves by freely cohabiting as husband and wife after such party or parties, whose age is insufficient, attained the age
of 21.
Here, Solenn and Sonny where 18 and 19 years old, respectively, when they got married. Hence, when Solenn attains the
age of 21, and they are still cohabitting as husband and wife, the deffective marriage is ratified.
(In the next two samples, the direct answer and appllication of the law is combined followed by the law used to justify the
answer.)
Sample 2; Yes. Solenn and Sonny may ratify the defective marriage when both of them freely cohabit as husband and wife after they
attained the age 21 as provided for in Art 45 of the Family Code.
Sample 3; Yes, Solenn and Sonny may ratify the marriage when both of them attained the age of 21 and still cohabiting as husband
and wife as provided for the Family Code.
When you get used of the pattern, masasanay na rin po kayong sumagot ng halu-halo na ang direct answer, facts & law –
kagaya ng sample 2 and 3. Pero we are not saying na mas mataas ng points na makukukha ninyo. So we suggest pa rin to use the


pattern. Mas pagandahin na lang po ninyo, alam kong mas mahuhusay kayo sa amin. It is just a matter of practice and it will show how
good you are.
Yes, it can be ratified by free cohabitation. Article 45(1) of the Fam Code provides that such voidable marriage may be ratified by free cohabitation of the
party/ies over 18 years old but below 21 who married without the consent of his/her parents, by living together as husband and wife after attaining the age
of 21.
Page | 9
Here, Solenn and Sonnv freely cohabitated and lived as husband and after attaining 21 years; thus, the marriage is considered ratified, provided that the
parents have not filed an action for annulment before parties reached 21 years old. – UPLC, answer uploaded on Nov 18, 2019. I got it right. hahahahah
----------------xxx-------------------
Question NO. 2.
[a] What is the filation status of Shalimar? (2.5%)
[b] What system of property relationship will be liquidated following the declration of nullity of their marriage? (2.5%)
[c] In the liquidation, who should get the parcel of land? The jewelry? (2.5%)
[d] Is Shalimar entitled to payment of presumptive legitime? If yes, how much should be her share and from where should this be
taken?
[2] After finding out that his girlfriend, Sandy, was four (4) months pregnant, Sancho married Sandy. Both were single and had never
been in any serious relationship in the past. Prior to the marriage, they agreed in a marriage settlement that the regime of conjugal
partnership of gains shall govern their property relations during the marriage. Shorty after the marriage, thier daughter Shalimar was
born.
Before they met and got married, Sancho purchased a parcel of land on installment, under a Contract of Sale, with a full purchase price
payable in equal annual amortizations over a period of ten (10) years, with no downpayment, and secured by a mortgage on the land.
The full puchase price was PHP1,000,000.00, with interest rate of 6% per annum. After paying the fourth (4th) annual installment, Sancho
and Sandy got married, and Sancho completed the payments in the subsequent years from his salary as an accountant. The previous
payments were also paid out of his salary. During their marriage, Sandy also won PHP1,000,000.00 in the lottery and used it to purchase
jewelry. When things did not work out for the couple, they filed an action for the declration of nullity of their marriage based on the
psychological incapacity of both of them. When the petition was granted, the parcel of land and the jewelry bought by Sandy were found
to be the only properties of the couple.
[a] What is the filation status of Shalimar? (2.5%)
(As you read along the facts you can write on the questionnaire)
Legitimate, Art 36, by express provision of the law.
[b] What system of property relationship will be liquidated following the declration of nullity of their marriage? (2.5%)
Article 147 property regime for cohabitation
[c] In the liquidation, who should get the parcel of land? The jewelry? (2.5%)
Apply Art 147 taking care of the family as contribution and special c0-ownership
[d] Is Shalimar entitled to payment of presumptive legitime? If yes, how much should be her share and from where should this be
taken?
No. Walang legitime sa Art 36, 147 ang regime, (sa ACP at CPG lang may legitime, and in other proper cases)


Then, get a piece of yellow paper, write your answer using the format we discussed above. Try to answer with three
samples each...hanggang ma-simplified po ninyo yung answer. Open your codals, by the way. Hindi pa ito exam.
(a) Shalimar is a legitimate child. Children conceived or born before the judgment of absolute nullity of the marriage because of psychological
incapacity under Article 36 has become final and executory shall be considered iegitimate (Article 54, Family Code). Since Shalimar was born before the
judgment granting the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage of Sancho and Sandy under Art 36 became final and executory, Shalimar is a
legitimate child. Page | 10
(b)The property regime that will be liquidated is co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code. When a man and a woman who are
capacitated to marry each other live exclusively with each other as husband and wife under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by
them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules ership (Article 147, Family
Code). Sancho and Sandy were capacitated to marry each other; however, their marriage was declared void under Article 36.
(c) Sancho should get the parcel of land while Sandy should get the jewelry. According to Article 147 of the Family Code, property acquired
through their work or industry by a man and a woman, who are capacitated to marry each other and wbo cohabited under a void marriage, shall be
governed by rules on co-ownership and in the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they live together shall be presumed to have
been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry. In the given case, Sancho bought the parcel of land and paid for it using his salary while Sandy used
her winnings from the lottery to purchase the jewelry.
It was not established that Sandy cared for or maintained the family; hence, she should not be deemed to have contributed to the acquisition
the parcel of land. The jewelry was acquired by Sandy using her lottery winnings which she obtained not by work or industry but by chance.
(d) No, Shalimar is not entitled to presumptive legitime. The liquidation of the co-ownership under Article 147 did not provide for the obligation
to pay the presumptive legitime of the common children. Said obligation applies only to the liquidation of the absolute community or conjugal partnership
of gains pursuant to Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code, which provisions are inapplicable to a void marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. The
rules on co-ownership apply and the properties of the parties should be liquidated in accordance with the Civil Code provisions on co-ownership. UPLC
Answers. Uploaded on Nov 18, 2019. Take note tama lahat ang mga original answers ko. Hahahahahah
-------------------xxx--------------------------
Question no. 3. Here, read first the question below, then read the facts of the case. As you read along, write down the answer from your
mind sa blank space provided in each question.
[3] Silverio was a woman trapped in the man’s body. He was born male and his birth certificate indicated his gender as male, and his
name as Silverio Stalon. When he reached the aged of 21, he had sex re-assignment surgery in Bangkok, and from then on, he lived as
a female. On the basis of his sex reassignment, he filed an action to have his first name changed to Shelley, and his gender, to female.
While he was following up his case in the RTC of Manila, he met Sharon Stan, who also filed a similar action to change her first name to
Shariff, and her gender, from female to male.
Sharon was registered as a female upon birth. While growing up, she developed male characteristics and was diagnosed to have
congenital adrenal hyperplasia (“CAH’) which is a condition where a person posssesses both male and female characteristics. At puberty,
tests revealed that her ovarian structures had greatly minimized, and she had no breast or menstrual developement. Alleging that for all
intents and appearnces, as well as mind and emotion, she had become a male, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such
that her gender should be changed from female to male, and that her first name should be changed from Sharon to Shariff.
Silverio and Sharon fell in love and decided to marry. Realizing that their marriage will be frowned upon in the Philippines, they travelled
to las Vegas, USA where they got married based on the law of the place of the celebration of the marriage. They, however, kept their
Philippine citizenship.
[a] Is there any legal basis for the court to approve Silverio’s petition for correction of entries in his birth certificate? (2.5%)
[b] Will your answer be the same in the case of Sharon’s petition? (2.5%)
[c] Can the marriage of Silverio (Shelley) and Sharon (Shariff) be legally recognized as valid in the Philippines? (2.5%)
Practice writing the “initial answer” in the space provide below..


[a] Is there any legal basis for the court to approve Silverio’s petition for correction of entries in his birth certificate? (2.5%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[b] Will your answer be the same in the case of Sharon’s petition? (2.5%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page | 11
[c] Can the marriage of Silverio (Shelley) and Sharon (Shariff) be legally recognized as valid in the Philippines? (2.5%)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then, try to answer with codals open. Share to us your answer in the group page.
(a) No, there is no legal basis for the court to approve Silverio’s petition. As settled in the case of Silverio v. Republic (G.R. No, 174689, October 22, 2007),
our laws do not sanction change of name and correction of entry in the civil register as to sex on the ground of sex reassignment Sex reassignment is not
one of the grounds for which change of first name may be allowed under Republic. Act No. 9048. The petition for correction of entry as to sex of the birth
certificate of Silverio cannot prosper, because the said document contained no error and it cannot be corrected. Silverio was born a male. The sex of a
person is determined at birth. Considering that there is no law legally recognizing sex reassignment, the determination of a person’s sex made at the time
of his or her birth, if not attended by error, is immutable.
(b) No, my answer will not be the same. In the case of Republic v. Cagandahan (G.R. 166676, September 12,2008), the Supreme Court held that where
the person is biologically or naturally intersex the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, having reached the age of
majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex. Sharon is considered an intersex, because he has CAH, which means that she has the biological
characteristics of both male and female. Based on that case, Sharon’s petition should be granted since he has simply let nature takes its course and has
not taken unnatural steps to arrest or interfere with what he was born with. The change of name should also be granted considering that it merely
recognizes Sharon’s preferred gender.
(c) No, it cannot be legally recognized as valid. Laws relating to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the
Philippines even though living abroad (Article 15, Civil Code). One of the requisites of a marriage is that the contracting parties must be a male and a
female (Article 2, Family Code). Since Silverio and Sharon are Filipino citizens their status, condition and legal capacity is determined by Philippine law,
their marriage abroad is not a valid marriage under Philippine law, because both contracting parties are males. – UPLC ANSWERS. Uploaded on
November 18, 2019
-------------------xxxx-----------------------------------
Question no. 10.
[10] Sinclair and Steffi had an illicit relationship while Sinclair was married to an other. The relationship produced a daughter Sabina,
who grew up with her mother. For most parts of Sabina’s youth, Steffi spent for her support and edducation. When Sabina was 21 years
old, Sinclair’s wife for so many years died. Sinclair and Steffi left no time in legitimizing their relationship. After the 40-day prayers for
Sinclair’s late wife, Sinclair and Steffi got married without a marriage license, claiming that they have been cohabiting for the last 20
years.
After graduation from college, Sabina decided to enroll in law shool. Sinclair said that he was not willing to pay for her school fees since
she was no longer a minor. Sinclair claimed that, if Sabina wanted to be a lawyer, she had to work and spend for her law education.
[a] What is Sabina’s filiation status? (2.5%)
[b] Is Sinclair legally required to finance Sabina’s law education?
Read the applicable law and simplify your answer. Share your answer to us in the group page.
(a) Sabina is an illegitimate child of Sinclair and Steffi because she was conceived and born outside a valid marriage (Article 165, Family Code). She was
not legitimated by the subsequent marriage between Sin clair and Steffi. Only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time


of conception of the former, were not uisqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be legitimated (Art. 177, Family Code). At the time of
Sabina’s conception, her parents were disqualified by an impediment to marry each other, because Sinclair was married to someone else.
(b) Yes, he is legally required to finance Sabina’s education. Support comprises everything indispensable for education among other things in keeping
with the financial capacity of the family. The education of the person entitled to be supported shall include his schooling or training for some profession
even beyond the age of majority (Art. 194, Family Code). Parents and their illegitimate children are obliged to support each other (Article 195, Family
Code). Considering the foregoing rules, Sinclair is enjoined by law to finance Sabrina’s law education even beyond the age of majority. – UPLC uploaded
Nov 18, 2019
Page | 12
---------------------xxx--------------------------------
Question no. 16
[16] Selena was a single 18-year old when she got pregnant and gave birth to Suri. She then left to work as a caregiver to Canada,
leaving Suri with her parents in the Philippines. Selena, now 34 years old and permanent resident in Canada, met and married Sam who
is a 24-year old Canadian citizen who works as a movie star in Canada. Sam’s parents are of Filipino anscestry but has become Canadian
citizens before Sam was born. Wanting Suri to have all the advantages of an legitimate child, Selena and Sam decided to adopt her.
Sam’s parents, already opposed to the marriage of their son to someone significantly older, vehemently, objected to the adoption. They
argued that Sam was not old enough and that the requisite age gap required by the Inter-Country Adoption Act between Sam as adopter
and Suri as adoptee was not met.
Are Sam’s parents correct? (2.5%)
This time, read the law in the book and close it. Then try to answer the question. Open the book again to improve your answer if you are
not satisfied. Share to us your answer.
No, Sam’s parents are incorrect. Under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 8043 or the Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995, the requirement that the adopter
must be at least twenty-seven years of age and at least sixteen years older than the adoptee does not apply if the adopter is the spouse of the parent by
nature of the adoptee. Since, Sam is the spouse of Selena, who is the parent by nature of Suri, Sam mav adopt Suri even if he is below twenty-seven
years of age and is not at least sixteen years older than the adoptee. – UPLC, uploaded Nov 18, 2019
-----------------------xxx---------------------------
[17] Sofia and Samuel, both unmarried, lived together for so many years in the Philippines and begot three children. While Sofia stayed
in the Philippines with the children, Semuel went abroad to work and became and naturalized German citizen. He met someone in
Germany whom he wanted to marry. Semuel thereafter came home and filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for partition
of the common properties acquired during his union with Sofia in the Philippines. The properties acquired during the union consisted of
a house and lot in Cavite worth PhP2 million, and some personal properties, including cash in the bank amounting to PhP1 million. All
these properties were acquired using Samuel’s salaries and wages since Sofia was a stay-at-home mother. In retaliation, Sofia filed and
action, on behalf of their minor children, for support.
(a) How should the properties be partitioned? (2.5%)
(b) Should Semuel be required to support the minor children? (2.5%)
This time, read the law in the book, close it and answer the question. Share it.
(a) Properties should be divided equally between Sofia and Semuel. The property relations of Sofia and Semuel are governed by Article 147 of the Civil
Code, because they lived exclusively with each other as husband and wife and they were capacitated to marry each other. Under the said provision, the
wages and salaries of Sofia and Semuel shall be owned by them in equal shares; hence, the cash in the bank from Semuel’s salaries and wages is co-
owned by Semuel and Sofia in equal shares. Article 147 also provides that the property acquired by the partners through their work or industry shall be
governed by the rules on co-ownership and in the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired during the cohabitation shall be presumed to have
been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry and shall be owned by them in equal shares. Article 147 provides further that if the efforts of one of
the parties consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household, he or she is deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition of
the property even if he or she did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of the said property. Sofia, as a stay-at-home mother, cared for and


maintained the family, consequently, she is deemed to have contributed in the acquisition of the house and lot. As co-owner, Sofia is entitled to one-half
of the property.
(b) Yes, Semuel should be required to support the minor children. Parents and their illegitimate children are obliged to support each other (Article 195,
Family Code). Semuel is required to support his illegitimate children with Sofia. The children are illegitimate, because they were conceived and born
outside a valid marriage (Article 165, Family Code). – UPLC, answer uploaded Nov 18, 2019
---------------------------xxx-------------------------------- Page | 13
Note: When you answer, gumamit na po kayo ng paper and use cursive handwriting. Use the book – HANDWRITING FOR
LASALLIANS BY DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY – available sa National Bookstore at P300.00. It improved my handwriting skills.
PART I
FAMILY CODE
As a teaser, do you know why law books and jurisprudence are so ridiculously difficult to understand? It is because the authors
meant them to impress their collegues, and not for the students and definitely not for the parties – who are mostly simple persons. And
you know why it is hard to study law, because the lawyer-professors teach them per provision starting from the first article to the last one,
and that is not an effective teaching strategy.
In studying the concept of marriage, we chose to start with its counterfiet – the void marriages, and not the typical per provision
starting from Article 1. Think of Family Code like a menu – a chopseuy. Look at it and you will know the ingredients. But if just look at the
raw ingredients, one by one, you will keep on guessing what will be the final menu when they all are mixed together. By studying void
marriages early on, we will be able to tackle most of the first 38 articles at the quickest time instead of chewing the first article to the last.
After void marraiges, we will get to know the controversial psychological incapacity under Art 36 followed by Article 40. Then
we will take on voidable marraiges and property regimes under articles 147 and 148, followed by Articles 50 to 53 and terminable
marriages, and finishing it up with the evolution of the foreign divorces under Art 26 and legal separaton.
Other topics such as rights and obligations of husbands and wives, paternity and filiation, support and the family are best
discussed alongside with jurisprudence and bar questions related to different types of marriages. They are actually consequences of
conflict and a lot of issues concerning those topics are raised up in each major subject matter we mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
The physical form ng program will be like this: the lecture in Tagalog language, along side with provisions, followed by
juriprudence and bar questions and answers from 1987-2018. So you dont need to buy notes on frequent bar topics and bar questions
and answers for they are all here. Sa bar answers, some of old answers are already overturned by recent decisions, like ng Manalo case
on foreign divorces. We also included those questions but have put a note that the original answer was overturned by a recent
jurisprudence.
Please take notice that the bulk of the lecture are alongside with the important jurisprudence, if you find that the lecture is
short at the beginning of the topic, we chose to do the discussion with the jurisprudence for a better recall.
__________________________
In our lecture we wil use the following persons
X = the husband
Y = the wife
Z= the paramour or the second husband ni Y
W = the paramour or second wife ni X


A, B, C = children ni X and Y
D, E, F = children ni X and W
G, H, I = children ni Y and Z
When the solemnizing officer finally says, “I now pronounce you man and wife”, you and your spouse has become a new
Page | 14
creation. Parang isang nilalang. That’s what happened in a valid marriage (or at least voidable), it is like new creation – isang bagong
nilalang na tao. The new ‘person’ has its own “personality”. He can acquire assets, incur debt and obligations as well as rights. Meron
siyang property regime – na Absolute community of property or, kung ayaw nila ng ACP, pwede ring conjugal partnership of gains, or a
unique marriage settlement.
Just like a natural person, pag namatay - magkakaroon ng succession – yung ari-arian niya ay mapupunta sa mga heirs. Pero
bago mapunta sa heirs – magbabayad muna ng mga utang at yung natira yun lang ang tinatawag na estate na paghahatian ng mga
naiwan.
Sa marriage, similarly, ganun din. Ang tawag dun ay liquidation of property. Let say - sabi ni X, hiwalay na tayo – I will file
annulment. When granted by the court, the marriage died or is dissolved.
There shall be liquidation – babayaran lahat ng utang, at yung matitira ay paghahatian din ng mag-asawa. Ang unique sa FC,
ang mga anak ay bibigyan ng advance na mana – or yung tintawag nating – presumptive legitime.
In studying marriage, mas mahusay simulan ang pag-aaral sa counterfeit – or the void marriage. Pag void, walang new
creation. Walang mamatay at walang dissolution. Because a void marriage is inexistent.
So in a nutshell, there is no property regime – neither absolute community of property (ACP) nor conjugal property of gains
(CPG) in void marraiges. The property regime is governed by special co-ownership under Art 147 or 148. It means they are the co-
owners of their property depending on the amount or kinds of their contribution. Dahil the property regime is neither ACP or CPG, there
is no regime to dissolve so there is no liquidation and delivery of presumptive legitime.
Since there is no the marriage at all, the children are illegitimate. That’s the general rule. Exception? Meron. If the voidability
of the marraige is under Art 36 (psychological incapacity) or Art. 53.
So lets start with void marriages.
VOID MARRIAGES
WHAT ARE VOID MARRIAGES?
Art 37. Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning, whether the relationship between
the parties be legitimate or illegitimate:
(1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and

(2) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood.
Art 38. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public policy:
(1) Between collateral blood relatives, whether legitimate or illegitimate, up to the fourth civil degree;
(2) Between step-parents and step-children;
(3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
(4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;
Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted child:
(5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter,


(6) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter;
(7) Between the adopted children of the same and
(8) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that other person’s spouse or his or her own spouse.
How do you count degree? From you, your parents are one degree up, your grand parents are two degrees up, their other children
or your uncles and aunties are on third, and their children or your first cousins are on the fourth degree. So hanggang kay lovely cousin Page | 15
ang hindi mo pwedeng i-seduce to marry you. Pero yung anak ni cousin na mas bata. Yan...pwede mo ng ligawan at pakasalan – kasi
pang 5th degree na level ni pamangkin sa pinsan. So hanggang pinsan yung prohibition – the 4th degree relatives.
---------------------
Ok. Let us take them one by one.
[1] Exception, if direct ascendants or descendants, kahit ilang degree hindi pwede. You cannot marry your great-great-great
grandmother who is in the 5th degree.
[2] Between step children, pwede. Dati sa Civil code bawal ang marriage between step-children. But now, under FC, there is no more
prohibition.
[3] Between adopted chidren, not allowed. Though there are no relationships between them. Remember in adoption, the legal tie is
created only between the adopting parent and the adopted child. If X adopted A, B and C. The children have not become siblings by
adoption but they have one parent who is X. By public policy, they cannot marry each other.
[4] Let say X, marries Y, Y cannot remarry any of the adopted children of X when he (X) dies. Because she is the surviving spouse (Y)
of the adopting parent (X), and that’s against public policy.
X and Y’s marriage was annuled. Pwede ng pakasalan ni Y ang any adopted child ni X. Because X and Y are no more couple. It
means – pwede ng maging karibal ni daddy yung anak niya.
[5] A is the adopted child of X, she married B. A died. X cant marry B. But if the marriage of A and B were annuled, X can marry B.
Because A and B are not anymore a couple.
Surviving spouse – means there is death. If na-annul na marriage, wala ng magiging surviving spouse. So the prohibition does not
apply.
[6] Marraige between an adopted child and illegitimate child of the adopter is valid.
Rule:
Marriages between adopted children of the same adopter are likewise declared void by reason of public policy.
Thus, as far as adopted child is concerned, he or she is prohibited from marrying the following:
(1) the adopter;
(2) the surviving spouse of the adopter;
(3) the legitimate children of the adopter; and
(4) the other adopted children of the same adopter.
The adopter, on the other hand, is prohibited from marrying the following:
(1) the adopted child; and


(2) the surviving spouse of the adopted child.
[7] Let say Z, the paramour, killed X, and then he marries Y. The marriage is valid. There was no intention to marry Y at the time of the
incident. The intention must be proven by factual evidence.
Let’s say X killed Y, and marrried V. The marriage is valid. The killing is not intended to marry V. The intention must be proven by
factual evidence. Hindi pwede na by mere allegation na paramour niya si V. Dapat the intention to marry is clear. Page | 16
Final conviction of the crime is not required. Sa petition of annulment pwede ng i-allege ang intent to kill in order to marry the victim’s
spouse.
----------------------------------
Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age even with the consent of parents guardians;
(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted with
either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so;
(3) Those solemnized without a license, except those covered by the preceding Chapter;
(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not falling under Article 41;
(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting party as to the identity of the other; and
(6) ‘Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article 53.
No. 1, 2 and 3 of Art 35 talk about the essential and formal requisites of marriage. Isa lang mawala sa essential requisites, the marriage
is void. If they are present, but insuffcicient - kulang, that is only a defect, the marriage is not void but voidable. It means valid until
declared void.
SO WHAT ARE THESE ESSENTIAL REQUISITES?
Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present:
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties

(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer
WHAT ABOUT THE FORMAL REQUISITES OF MARRIAGE?
Art 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer,

(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their
personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal
age.
WHAT ABOUT UNION OF SAME-SEX INDIVIDUALS?
They are not marriage at all, even when celebrated with all the essential and formal requisites. Let’s say they were able to get
a marriage license, mukhang babae na yung isa at mukha namang over 18 years old na. The civil registrar had to dispense with the birth
certificate. So the marriage license was issued by mistake. The union cannot be called marriage at all for lack of law recognizing as such.
The Family Code defines marriage as “special contract of permanent union between a man and woman”, it means biological designation
of sex by birth.


Some author would say that such union is void because of lack of incapacity to marry each other. That is misplaced. Kasi nga
legal capacity is dependent on age and state of mind. The gay guys are in the right mind and over 18 years old, so they have the right to
be happy and get married, di ba? So, the crux is that there is no law allowing such celebrated union to be considered as marriage.
SO WHEN YOU ARE ASKED SA BAR, WHAT ARE THE VOID AB INTIO MARRIAGES UNDER THE FAMILY CODE?
Incestous marriages under Art. 37 are void from the beginning as well those under Art 38 for being against pubic policy.
Page | 17
Marriages absent one of any of the essential or formal requisites are also void ab initio by direct provision of the law as well as those
bigamous and polygamous marriages not falling under Art 41, marriage by mistake of the identity of the other, marriages in non-
compliance of Art. 40, and those subsequent marriages under Art 53. Marriages when one of the parties has psychological incapacity
under Art. 36 are also void from the beginning. In addition, union of same-sex individuals even when solemnized with all the essential
and formal requisites shall not be considered marriage at all for lack of law recognizing such celebrated union as marriage.
_____________________________
So now, let me take you in a ride on the preliminaries of a marriage to have better understanding of void ab initio marriages
under No. 1, 2 and 3 of Art 35.
Before performing the marriage ceremony, the judge must do an indept interview.
[1] To personally interview the contracting parties and examine the requirements they submitted. The parties must have complied with
all the essential and formal requisites of marriage.
SO ANU-ANO BA ITONG ESSENTIAL REQUISITES;
[a] Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and
(b) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.
Legal capacity dapat babae at lalaki by birth, so, if sobrang bata ng babae at sa tingin ni judge ay below 18, he might require
proof like birth ceritificate or when he heard ng magsalita si Y, na parang sinasapian ng demonyo – pero sobrang ganda, makinis at ang
haba ng buhok, babaeng-babae sa labas na anyo, pero ka-boses ni Ted Failon – transsexual. Red flag na yun. The solemnizing officer
must not celebrate the marriage. Male and female dapat and 18 years old and above. If below 21, the officer will require the presence ng
parents or gurdian, to give consent in front of him.
Note: Any absence ng any essential requisites, the marriage is void, but any defect, the marraige is voidable. Therefore, no legal capacity
(17 below ang age, same-sex parties, 18 years old nga - pero sintu-sinto or special child) or no consent was given by a party or both in
the presence of the officer (marriage via skype), the marraige is void ab initio.
Pag sinabing defect, nadun ang legal capacity and consent, pero may defect. Like no consent ng parents or guardian sa
below 21 years old na ikakasal, consent was given in good faith na may authority n mag solemnize ng marriage si pastor, yun pala wala.
Yan... mga defect lang yan....the marraige is not void but voidable. It means valid until declared void.
SO ANU-ANO NAMAN ITONG FORMAL REQUISITES:
(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;

(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and
(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and
their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of
legal age.


So the first thing to do, ay pupunta si X and Y sa civil registry, mag-aaply ng marriage license. Requirement na dalhin syempre ang
mga birth certificate or baptismal certificate. If below 21 years old either si X or Y, they need consent ng tatay muna, or nanay, surviving
parent or guardian, in that order. Kung walang consent, hindi void ang mariage, voidable lang. Defect lang yun sa consent ng parties.
If walang birth or batismal, the requirement is a sworn affidavit, plus affidavit ng 2 disinterested person na sina X and Y nga ay mga
nasa tamang edad na para magpakasal. Or kung nadun ang mga parents, sworn affidavit ng parents na nasa tamang edad na sila X
and Y para magpakasal. At kung sa tingin naman ni civil registrar sa mga hitsura ni X and Y na mas matanda pa sa kanya, ok na wag Page | 18
na magpresent ng birth certificate, material lang ito to determine the legal capacity by age, or if may legal capacity, need pa ba ng parental
consent. So any absence ng mga requirment na mga sinabi ko, at nakapag-issue ng marriage license si civil registrar, the absence shall
be considered only as irregularity, the marriage is valid. Pero si civil registrar shall be liable civilly, criminaly and administraively liable.
Bahala na siya sa buhay niya, basta ang kasal valid.
In cases na may dati ng kasal either X and Y or both, they need to present the following instead of birth certificate:
[a] Death certificate ng previous spouse; or
[b] Judicial decree of absolute divorce (foreign judgment ito n already recognized by the Philippine court); or
[c] Judicial decree of nullity or annulment of pevious marriage.
If walang death certificate, madalas yung mga kinain ng dagat, nalunod at nakitang bangkay na. Sa probinsya madalas pag patay
na, wala ng report report pa. Kung yung mga nabuhay nga ng mga walang birth certificate, nang mamatay, irereport pa ba? Eh patay na.
So, sworn affidavit na lang of the circumstances of death ng previous partner.
THE 3-MONTH ISSUANCE RULE
If the one of the parties or both is between 21 to 25 years old, they are obliged to obtain PARENTAL ADVICE upon the intended
marriage. Ito yung blessings ng parents. If unfavorable – ayaw ng parents ni Y kay X, dahil hampaslupa siya, the license shall be issued
only after three months from the completion of the publication. Nasa isang sworn statement ang lahat ng yan, to be submitted with the
application.
If any of the party or both, ay between 18 to 25, kailangan ng CERTIFICATE OF MARRIAGE COUNSELLING from their religious
affiliation or from any marriage counsellor accredited by the government. If walang certification, the marriage license shall only be issued
after 3 months from the completion of the publication.
PUBLICATION
Sa loob ng 10 ARAW, ipopost ang notice of application sa bulletin board sa labas ng local civil registry. Yung kitang kita ng tao. At
sa loob ng 10 araw, ang buong sambayanan ay may panahon para tumutol at sabihin sa local civil registrar about any impediment na
wag maikasal si X and Y. Pagkatapos ng 10 araw, ilalabas na ang marriage license, duly noted ang impediment reported.
ANU-ANO ITONG IMPEDIMENT NA ITO?
Sabi sa batas any impediment? It is submitted na yung mga minor lang na wont result sa invalidity ng marriage or hindi magreresult
ng crime. If say the parties are only 12 years old, malaking bulas lang, dahil sa religion or custom nila ay ok ang ganun ang idad n ikasal,
tapos dadalhin sa Iran ang bata, yung mga magulang ok lang sa kanila, the license shall not be issued. Child trafficking na ito. Let say
that the girl is an imbecile, the license shall be not be issued. May prior and subsisting marriage, the license wont be issued. To issue
the license is ministerial, yes if all requirments are present and in order. If there is a serious impediment at magreresult ng crime, the civil
registrar may hold off the issuance.
VALIDITY NG MARRIAGE LICENSE
Valid yan for 120 days from issuance and effective all over the Philippines. So sa 121th day, expred na license ng kasal, the
marriage shall be viid for lack of marriage license.


And it shall be deemed automatically cancelled at the expiration period if hindi ginamit ni X and Y. Non-transfereable. Hindi pwedeng
si X and U na lang n kakambal ni Y ang ikasal tutal ito naman ang original gf ni X.....or let say the license was to be issued in January 2,
2019, eh asawang asawa n si X and Y, nagpakasal sila Jan 1, sumabay sa putukan. The marriage is void, kahit kinabukasan may license
na sila.
CEREMONY
Page | 19
Eh di eto na, ang araw ng kasal. All are in order, everything is within the bounds of the law. Marriage ceremony na at pirmahan na
ng marriage certificate.
Art. 6. No prescribed form or religious rite for the solemnization of the marriage is required. It shall be necessary, however, for the
contracting parties to appear personally before the solemuizing officer and declare in the presence of not less than two witnesses
of legal age that they take each other as husband and wife. This declaration shall be contained in the marriage certificate which
shall be signed by the contracting parties and their witnesses and attested by the solemnizing officer.
In case of a marriage in articulo mortis, when the party at the point of death is unable to sign the marriage certificate, it shall be
sufficient for one of the witnesses to the marriage to write the name of said party, which fact shall be attested by the solemnizing
officer.
Ito yung portion na, “ lalaki, tinatanggap mo b na maging kabiyak.....? opo. Padre.” Yan lang yung ceremony, hindi na kasama yung
misa sa simbahan at mga abuluyan. Pag sinabi na ni Y na opo padre. Tapos na yung ceremony. Paano kung walang witness, secret
marriage. It cant happen, kasi laging may witness. Yung secretary ni judge, yung alalay ng pari, kahit na sinong mga tao doon
papipirmahin yun as witnesses.
Sa articulo mortis, yung witness ang pwedeng pipirma in liue of the dying spouse. Let say balikat na lang natitira kay sundalo, kasi
tinamaan ng kanyon. To be attested by the military commander na hindi n kayang pumirma pa ni X...at wala ng ngang braso.
So the marriage contract or certificate is not essential part of marriage. AT HINDI ITO YUNG MARRIAGE LICENSE.
Marriage contract is the best evidence na may marriage na nangyari. Oral marriage, as long na nadoon lahat ang essential at formal
requisites is valid.
______________________________________
Balikan natin about solemnizing officer dahil maraming tinatanong sa bar exams on this topic;
WHO CAN SOLEMNIZE?
Art. 7. Marriage may be solemnized by:
(1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court’s jurisdiction;
(2) Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious sect duly authorized by his church or religious sect and
registered with the civil registrar general, acting within the limits of the written authority granted him by his church. Or
religious sect and provided that at least one of the contracting parties belongs to the solemnizing officer’s church or religious
sect;
(3) Any consul-general, consul or vice-consul in the case provided in Article 10.
(4) Any ship captain or airplane chief only in the cases mentioned in Article 31; or
(5) Any military commander of a unit to which a chaplain is assigned, in the absence of the latter, during a military operation,
likewise only cases mentioned in Article 32;
[6] Nasaan, ang authority ng mga mayors? Wala sa family code, nasa Local government code. Sec 255 (xviii)
.....(xviii) Solemnize marriages, any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding;


Therefore, from Aug 3, 1988 to the effectivity ng Local Government Code ng 1991 in January 1992, mayors could not solemnize
marriages. A marriage solemnized within that interegnum is void.
MAYORS AS SOLEMNIZING OFFICERS
Whereas under Art. 56 of the NCC, marriages may be solemnized by mayors of cities and municipalities, under the FC, mayors
are no longer authorized to solemnize marriages. However, in view of the Local Government Code which took effect on January. Page | 20
1992, the duty elected mayors of the cities and municipalities can again solemnize marriages, thus, reverting back to the old law.
The word mayor includes a “vice mayor who is the acting mayor”.
[7] Imam in Muslim rites or leaders of the ethnic cultural communities in Art 33.
Ok sila lang ang pwedeng magkasal ( 1-7), anybody else the marriage shall be void dahil walang formal requisite. But merong
provision n exception which is belief in good faith.
Art. 35. The following marriages shall be void from the beginning;
xxx(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted
with either or both parties believing in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so; xxxx
NOTE: believe in good faith on question of fact lang ito pwede.
GOOD FAITH IN QUESTION OF FACT VS GOOD FAITH IN QUESTION OF LAW
Let say, X and Y married under the solemnization of Mang Kanor, judge ng beauty contest. Pero ang appelation sa buong
baranggay ay si Judge Kanor. X and Y with all their heart believe that Mang Kanor is a an RTC judge and has authority to solemnize
marriages. What is the status of the marriage? It is submitted na the marraige is void. Good faith is not a defense against ignorance of
the law. Igorance of the law excuses no one. It is assumed that we know the lists of solemnizing officers, kasi batas ito. If the officer is
not one of the lists, then the marriage must be declared void. Dapat may due diligence on the part of X and Y to ask for the real work ni
Mang Kanor para maging question of fact ito.
Let say, Si mayor Z, he was ordered immediately to vacate the position, he solemnized the marriage of X and Y. It is submitted
that the marriage is valid because he is one of the listed officers and X and Y believed in good faith that the mayor still have the authority
to solemnize marriage despite of that order. It is a question of fact, and good faith is a valid defense.
So there, dapat may color of authority ang solemnizing officer, at ang issue ay question of fact lang. If the officer is not one of
the lists, let say yung kung lasenggo lang sa kanto ang magkakasal, o isang nagpapanggap na paring naggagala sa piyesta, the marriage
is void ab initio in spite of the genuine belief of X and Y. Because that is ignorance of the law. Hindi mo alam kung sinu-sino lamang ang
maaring magkasal? Kaya dapat nagtatanong ng batas at may due diligence to check everyting if all are in order.
WHERE TO SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGES?
Art. 8. The marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open court, in the church, chapel or temple,
or in the office of the consul-general, consul or vice-consul, as the case may be, and not elsewhere, except in cases of
marriages contracted at the point of death or in remote places in accordance with Article 29 of this Code, or where both of the
parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the marriage may be solemnized at a house or place designated
by them in a sworn statement to that effect.
[1] Judges – sa chamber lang, if sa labas ng chamber, need ng written requests, if none, that is only an irregularity. The marriage is still
valid.
What about if judge in Manila, solemnizes marriage in Cebu? It is submitted na valid ang marriage but subject to administrative
penalty si Judge.


[2] Priests, rabbi, imam, pastors – sa loob lang ng church, chapel or temple, and not elsewhere. Excpept may written request from the
party address to the officer na sa bahay, or any place like sa garden. If sa ibang lugar at walang written request, the marriage is still
valid. Irregularity lang ang lack of written request.
[3] Consul general, consul, or vice-consul – in their offices, not elsewhere. Same with number 2.
[4] Ship captain or airplane chief – in the ship at sea or on plane in flight, but also during stopovers and port of call. If outside those Page | 21
areas, the marriage is void unless the any of the party or both, believe so in good faith that the ship captain or the pilot still has the
jurisdiction to solemnize marriages ouside those areas. Kasi nga, may color of authority pa rin sila. Its still a question of fact.
[5] Military commander pag walang chaplain – within the zone of military operation where he is assigned between persons, whether
members of the armed forces or civilians, at pag wala lang si chaplain. If nandyan si Chaplain, the chaplain shall officiates the articulo
mortis, not the commander in chief. If the commander officiates, the marriage is void, unless belief in good faith sets in.
[a] what if X, a soldier, was brought to a hospital outside of the military zone, and mamatay n talaga si X. Walang ibang pwedeng
magkasal, si commander lang na nagdala sa sugatang sundalo ang nadoon. Kinasal niya. Valid b yung kasal. It is submitted, yes.
By analogy with the number 4 on ship captains and pilots, sa port of call at stop overs pede silang magkasal, here sa hospital
outside the military zone, pwede rin, basta may significant connections ang mga circumstances that will lead to marriage in
articulo mortis.
Point of death – think of a person who is a victim of a frustrated murder. Yun talagang mamamatay na. Nabuhay lang siya
because of the timely medical intervention. If mga galos lang at kalmot hahahaha hindi ito articulo mortis. Or the wound is not
fatal, like sa balikat or extremeties, hindi ito point of death.
[6] Mayors – sa LGC, walang sinabi about limitation in jurisdiction. It is submitted that mayors may solemnize anywhere in the
Philippines.
MARRIAGE LICENSE
The cardinal rule is, pag walang marriage license, the marriage is void. Exceptions
[1] marriage by articulo mortis in Art 27;

[2] marriage in remote places in Art 28;
[3] marraige in articulo mortis during air travel and voyage in Art 31;
[4] marriage in articulo mortis within the zone of military operation in Art 32;
[5] marraige among Muslims or among members of the ethnic cultutral communities in accordance with their customs, rites and
practices in Art 33.
[6] Uninterrupted cohabitation of the parties as husband and wife for at least 5 years and without any legal impediment to marry in Art
34.
ARICULO MORTIS SA BAHAY OR HOSPITAL
[1] Art, 27. In case either or both of the contracting parties are at the point of death, the marriage may be solemnized without
necessity of a marriage license and shall remain valid even if the ailing party subsequently survives.
The clue here, either X and Y is fatally wounded or in the point of death.
Si X is about to die, nasa death bed na. No time to secure marriage license, kasi di ba may publication pa ng 10 days. Y can call on
any solemnizing officer to officiate the ceremony.
REMOTE PLACES


[2] Art. 28. If the residence of either party is so located that there is no means of transportation to enable such party to
appear personally before the local civil registrar, the marriage may be solemnized without the necessity of a marriage license.
Like in Pag-asa Island, though may biyahe pero minsan lang sa loob ng isang buwan. X and Y got married. The marriage is
void. Because there is a mean of transportion going to the civil registrar. Dapat yung wala talagang means of transporatation. Let say
nasa jungle, yan...wala talagang kalsada, tapos tatawid pa ng dagat going to the main city. Kadalasan, mga tribes na ito na ang
Page | 22
applicable provision is Art 33.
ARTICULO MORTIS ON VOYAGE
[3] Art. 31. A marriage in articulo mortis between passengers or crew members may also be solemnized by a ship captain or
by an airplane pilot not only while the ship is at sea or the plane is in flight, but also during stopovers at ports of call.
Let say plane 101, crashed. X and Y survived but X is fatally wounded. The pilot also died. Yung assistant pilot na lang ang
buhay. The assistant pilot may solemnize in the absence of the main pilot kasi by policy siya na ang chief pilot.
Let say, X suffered a heart attack, he is about to die. The chief pilot designate his assistant to solemnize. The marriage is
void. The assistant has no authority. The authority cannot be delegated.
ARICULO MORTIS ON WAR ZONE
[4] Art. 32. A military commander of a unit, who is a commissioned officer, shall likewise have authority to solemnize
marriages in articulo mortis between persons within the zone of military operation, whether members of the armed forces or civilians.
Let say X was about to go to war zone at everyone knows na walang nakakabalik ng buhay. X married Y, solemnized by the
military commander. X died in the war zone. The marriage is void. The marraige is not in articulo mortis. Because X was so healthy he
married Y.
ETHNIC/RELIGIOUS RITES
[5] Art. 33. Marriages among Muslims or among members of the ethnic cultural communities may be performed validly
without the necessity of a marriage license, provided they are solemnized in accordance with their customs, rites or practices.
So this is an addional solemnizing officer, yung mga tribe leaders or priests.
COHABITATION
[6] Art. 34. No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have lived together as husband and
wife for at least five years and without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting parties shall state the foregoing facts
in an affidavit before any person authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also state under oath that he
ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties and found no legal impediment to the marriage.
The cohabitation must be:

[a] uninterrupted for at least 5 years;


[b] the parties lived as husband and wife; and have no legal impediment to marry
X cohabited with Y, but had an affair with V, and lived with her for a month. The cohabitation has been broken. Start uli ng
counting from the time of balikan ni X and Y.
There must be a perception sa community that the parties are living as husband and wife. Dapat walang pretention na mag-
tiyahin lang. Kasi nahihiya si Y, she is older ng 20 years than X. So alam ng buong bayan na mag tiyahin sila kasi ang tawag ni X kay Y
Page | 23
ay Ate or Tita, pero sa bahay they live as couple.
The exception of the couple from the requirement to secure a marriage license is to save the dignity of the couple and their
children in the requirement of publishing their names while awaiting for the issuance of marriage license. Magiging tsismis pa sila na ang
mga anak pala nito ay mga anak sa pagkakasala. Meaning walang kasal.
PRESUMPTION OF MARRIAGE
There is this presumption of marriage between couples. You dont ask you neighbor na - patingin nga ng marriage contract
ninyo, if kasal nga kayo. That is unacceptable. Kahit sa barangay, the officers cannot ask for the marraige contract if you file a case
against sa isang tsismosa na kinakalat na kabit ka. The fact that nagsasama na kayo, the presumption is that you are legally married
and only at the proper forum lang like the court can question that presumption.
THE PARTIES MUST BE OF AGE with NO SUBSISTING PREVIOUS MARRIAGE
If the parties are of not legal age, the counting shall start when both get 18 years old.
If there is an subsisting marriage, the cohabitation is adulterous. The counting shall start at the severance of marriage by court order or
by death of one of the parties in the previous marriage.
JURISPRUDENCE
THE VALIDITY OF A VOID MARRIAGE

MAY BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED IN AN ACTION FOR SUPPORT
De Castro vs. Assidao-DeCastro, GR No.. 160172, Februarys, 2008
X and Y were sweethearts since 1991 and planned to get married, so they apply for marriage license. When they got back to
claim the license, it was already expired. Thus, in order to push through with the plan, they executed an affidavit dated March 15, 1995
stating that they have been living togather as husband and wife for at least 5 years. The couple got married in that same date. To cut
the story short, naghiwalay din sila, immediately thereafter the marraige. They begat Z in Novemeber 1995. Y filed a complaint for support
against X before the RTC.
[1] IS THE MARRIAGE VALID?
No. It is void ab initio for lack of marriage license. Under the Family Code, in the absence of any of the essential or formal
requisites, it shall render the marriage void ab initio, whereas a defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable.
In the instant case, it is clear from the facts that X and Y did not have a marriage license when they contracted their marriage. Instead,
they presented an affidavit stating that they had been living together for more than five years.
[2]WHAT IS A VALID COHABITATION?
The fact the parties lived together and exclusively with each other as husband and wife for a continuous and unbroken period
of at feast five years before the marriage.
[a] What is the reason for exempting them from seeking a marriage license?


The aim of this provision is to avoid exposing the parties to humiliation, shame and embarrassment concomitant with the
scandalous cohabitation of persons outside a valid marriage due to the publication of every applicant’s name for a marriage license.
[3] WHAT IS THE DUTY OF THE JUDGE/OFFICER BEFORE IT SOLEMNIZE MARIAGES?
Before performing the marriage ceremony, the judge must personally examine the marriage license presented. If the
contracting’ parties have cohabited as husband and wife for at least five years and have no legal impediment to marry, they are exempt Page | 24
from the marriage license requirement. Instead, the parties must present an affidavit of cohabitation sworn to before any person
authorized by law to administer oaths. The judge, as solemnizing officer, must personally examine the affidavit of cohabitation as to the
parties having lived together as husband and wife for at least five years, and the absence of any legal impediment to many each other.
The judge must also execute a sworn statement that he personally ascertained the parties qualifications to marry and found no legal
impediment to the marriage. Sec 5 of the Guidelines on the Solemnization of Marriage by the Members of the Judiciary provides that:
“In the; case of a marriage effecting legal ratification of cohabitation, the solemnizing officer shall:
(a) personally interview the contracting parties to determine their qualifications to marry;
(b) personally examine the affidavit of the contracting parties as to the fact of having lived together as husband and wife for
at least five (5) years and the absence of any legal impediments to many each other; and
(c) execute a sworn statement showing compliance with (a) and (b) and that the solemnizing officer found no-legal impediment
to the marriage.”
NOTE : If the solemnizing officer notarized the affidavit of cohabitation, he cannot objectively examine and review the affidavit’s
statements before performing the marriage ceremony . Should there be any irregularity or false statements in the affidavit of cohabitation
he notarized, he cannot be expected to admit that he solemnized the marriage despite the irregularity or false allegation. Thus, judges
cannot notarize the affidavits of cohabitation of the parties whose marriage they will solemnize.
Sa mga remote areas, walang notary public, so the MTC judges are allowed to notarize sworn affidavit on cohabitation.
Judges, therefore, cannot notarize the affidavits of cohabitation of the parties whose marriage they will solemnize. Ibigay na lang nila sa
ibang judges ang duty to solemnize those marriages.
[4] WHAT IS THE STATUS OF CHILDREN BORN OUT OF VOID MARRIAGE?
The general rule is that children born out of void marriages are illegitimate under Art. 165. Except those whose parental
marriages are nullified on the ground of psychological incapacity under Art 36 or failure of the subsequent couple to comply with Art 52.
Children born out of those void marriages are legitimate by express provision of the law.
[5] DOES THE TRIAL COURT HAVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE MARRIAGE IN AN ACTION FOR
SUPPORT?
Yes. The trial court had jurisdiction to rule on the validity of marriage in an action for support. The validity of a void marraige
may be collaterally attacked.
[a] What other action may the validity of a void marrige be colaterally attacked?
Heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of the child, settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or criminal case for that
matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage even in a suit not directly insitituted to question the same as long as it is essential
to the determination of the case. This is without prejudice to any issue that may arise in the case. When such need arises, a final judgment
of declaration of nullity is necessary even if the purpose is other than to remarry. The clause “on the basis of a final judgment declaring
such previous marriage void” in Article 40 of the Family Code connotes that such final judgment need not be obtained only for purpose
of remarriage.


Take note: The decree of nullity of marriage can be sought even if a party wont remarry in contrast to Art 40 of the Family
Code.
VOID MARRIAGES CAN ALSO BE ATTACKED IN RESOLVING THE ISSUE OF WHO HAS THE BETTER RIGHT OVER A DEATH
BENEFITS.
Tupa vs. Judge Rojo, A.M. No. MTJ-14- 1842, February 24, 20l4 Page | 25
THERE IS GENUINE CONSENT OF PARTIES IN LIMITED PURPOSE MARRIAGES
Republic vs. Albios G.R. No. 198780, October 16,2013
Y married X, a US citizen. She promised to pay him $2000 in exchange that when he come back to US he will process her
petition for citizenship. X, since then, never communicated with her. Y, then filed for declaration of Nullity of Marriage for it was just a
marriage in jest. The RTC declared the marriage void ab initio. The RTC was of the view that the parties married each ether for
convenience only. Thus, it ruled that when marriage was entered into for a purpose other than the establishment of a conjugal and family
life, such was a farce and should not be recognized from its inception.
Is a marriage, contracted for the sole purpose of acquiring American citizenship in consideration of $2,000.00, void ab initio
on the ground of lack of consent?
No. The respondent’s marriage is not at all analogous to a marriage in jest. Y and X had an undeniable intention to be bound
in order to create the very bond necessary to allow the respondent to acquire American citizenship. Only a genuine consent to be married
would allow them to further their objective, considering that only a valid marriage can properly support an application for citizenship.
There was, thus, an apparent intention to enter into the actual marriage status and to create a legal tie, albeit for a limited purpose.
Genuine consent was, therefore, clearly present.
So yung mga marriage for convenience are valid.
WHAT IS MARRIAGE IN JEST?
A marriage in jest is a pretended marriage, legal in form but entered into as a joke, with no real intention of entering into the
actual marriage status, and with a clear understanding that the parties would not be bound. The ceremony is not followed by any conduct
indicating a purpose to enter into such a relation. It is a pretended marriage not intended to be real and with no intention to create any
legal ties whatsoever, hence, the absence of any genuine consent. Marriages in jest are void ab initio, not for vitiated, defective, or
unintelligent consent, but for a complete absence of consent. There is no genuine consent because the parties have absolutely no
intention of being bound in any way or for any purpose.
IS LIMITED PURPOSE MARRIAGE VOID?
No. The institution of marriage carries with it concomitant benefits. This has led to the development of marriage fraud for the
sole purpose of availing of particular benefits. In the United States, marriages where a couple marries only to achieve a particular purpose
or acquire specific benefits, have been referred to as “limited, purpose” marriages. A common limited purpose marriage is one entered
into-solely for the legitimization of a child or for immigration purposes.
Sa USA, marami nito. Mga Filipina, nagaasawa ng mga Amerikano to gain US citizenship. Binabayaran nila ng up to 5,000
dollars. The marriage is valid but for immigration purposes, that is fraudulent. Kaya may mga investigation. Immigration officers will
conduct interviews and titignan yung bahay if the couple is really living together. Do they share the same room? Do they sleep together?
They want to make sure that the marriage is genuine for immigration purposes only, but not for its validity.
-----------------------------------------------


RULES ON CONSENT
[1} Dapat both parties have no consent para ang marriage ay void. If the other one genuinely believe that the marriage is genuine, there
is consent and that marriage is valid.
From the second paragraph ng Art 35, the marriage is valid even if the other party had knowledge that the solemnizing officer
had no authority to solemnize marriage so long as the other party genuinely believes otherwise. Page | 26
[2] “Consent” of parties who are below 21 is insufficient. The parents or guardians, in addition, must give consent. Otherwise, the
marriage is voidable.
[3] If there is consent, but it is VITIATED by error, fraud, intimidation, force, etc., the marriage is not void; it is merely VOIDABLE, i.e.,
valid until annulled.
[4] If there is absolutely no consent, or when the parties did not intend to be bound, as in the case of a JOKE or in the case of a STAGE
or MOVIE PLAY, the marriage is VOID.
[5] Consent must be freely given and in the presence of the solemnizing officer.
Kung ang isang party has believed in good faith n genuine yung kasal, the marriage is only voidable, not void.
Let say X, knew n walang authority to solemnize marriages si P, he married Y, who believed in good faith that everything was
in order. So voidable ang marriage di ba? Can X, the offending party or the one in bad faith, have it annulled?
No. Si Y lang ang may right to have it annulled being the innocent party. X cannot because he had given his consent freely
and he is the offending spouse who acted in bad faith. Those who come to court must come with clean hands.
JURISPRUDENCE
MARRIAGE WITHOUT A LICENESE IS VOID AB INITIO
Raquel G. Kho vs. Republic G.R. No. 187462; June 01, 2016
X and y exchanged marital vows in a marriage ceremony which took place at around 3:00 o’clock in the morning of June
1,1972. Petitioner has never gone to the office ot the LocaRegistrar to apply for marriage license. Among the pieces of evidence presented
by petitioner is a Certification issued by the Municipal Civil Registrar which attested to the fact that the Office of the Local Civil Registrar
has neither record nor copy of a marriage license issued to petitioner and respondent with respect to their marriage celebrated on June
1,1972.
Whether a lack of a marriage license make a marriage null and void?
Yes. The absence of a marriage license makes a marriage null and void. The marriage of petitioner and respondent was
celebrated on June 1,1972, prior to the effectivity of the Family Code. Hence, the Civil Code governs their union. Accordingly, Article 53
of the Civil Code spells out the essential requisites of marriage as a contract, to wit: ART 53. No marriage shall be solemnized without
marriage license, except in a marriage of exceptional character.
2016 Brad and Angelina had a secret marriage before a pastor whose office is located in Arroceros Street City of Manila. They paid
money to the pastor who took care of all the documentation. When Angelina wanted to go to the U.S., she found out that there was no
marriage license issued to them before their marriage. Since their marriage was solemnized in 1995 after the effectivity of the Family
Code, Angelina filed a petition for judicial declaration of nullity on the strength of a certification by the Civil Registrar of Manila that, after
a diligent and exhaustive search, the alleged marriage license indicated in the marriage certificate does not appear in the records cannot
be found.
(a) Decide the case and explain. (2.5%)


The petition is meritorous. Under the FC, marriages without license are void, and a certification from the Civil Registrar to that
effect is the best evidence to prove that fact. Here, the marriage was celebrated without a valid marriage license and that fact was
corroborated by the certification issued by the Civil Registrar. Therefore, the petition should be granted.
DOCTRINE
[1] Article 3 of the Family Code provides that one of the formal requisites of marriage is a valid marriage license and Article 4 of the same Page | 27
Code states that absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio. In Abbas v. Abbas (G.R.
No. 183896, January 30,2013, 689 SCRA 646), the Supreme Court declared the marriage as void ab rnit/o because there is proof of lack
of record of marriage license.
[2 The absence of the marriage license was certified to by the local civil registrar who is the official custodian of these documents
and who is in the best position to certify as to the existence of these records. Also, there is a presumption of regularity in the performance
of official duty (Republic v. CA and Castro, G.R. No. 103047, September 2,1994- , 236 SCR A 257).
[3] Irrespective of when the marriage took place, other than for purposes of remarriage, no judicial action is necessary to declare a
marriage an absolute nullity. For other purposes, such as but not limited to determination of heirship, legitimacy or illegitimacy of a child,
settlement of estate, dissolution of property regime, or a criminal case for that matter, the court may pass upon the validity of marriage
even in a suit not directly instituted to question the same so long as it is essential to the determination of the case. This is without prejudice
to any issue that may arise in the case. When such need arises, a final judgment of declaration of nullity is necessary even if the purpose
is other than to remarry. The clause on the basis of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void in Article 40 of the Family
Code connotes that such final judgment need to be obtained only for purpose of remarriage Cablaza v. Republic, G.R. No. 158298,
August 11, 2010,628 SCRA 27).
2008 Roderick and Faye were high school sweethearts. When Roderick was 18 and Faye, 16 years old, they started to live together
as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. When Faye reached 18 years of age, her parents forcibly took her back and arranged
for her marriage to Brad. Although Faye lived with Brad after the marriage, Roderick continued to regularly visit Faye while Brad was
away at work. During their marriage, Faye gave birth to a baby girl, Laica. When Faye was 25 years old, Brad discovered her liaison with
Roderick and in one of their heated arguments, Faye shot Brad to death. She lost no time in marrying her true love Roderick, without a
marriage license claiming that they have been continuously cohabiting for than 5 years.
Was the marriage of Roderick and Faye valid? (2%)
No, it is not valid. Under Art. 35 of the Family Code, a marriage celebrated without a marriage license is void except in cases
falling under Art 34 which requires that the cohabitation must be continuous and uninterupted for at least 5 years, and the parties were
living exclusively as husband and wife.
Here, the visitations made by Roderick cannot be considered as cohabitation. They they did not cohabitate exclusively as
husband and wife for they lived in an adulterous relationship. Hence, they are not exempt from securing a marriage license. Their marriage
is void for lack of marriage license.
2008 Despite several relationships with different women, Andrew remained unmarried. His first relationship with Brenda
produced a daughter, Amy, now 30 years old, His second, with Carla, produced two sons: Jon and Ryan. His third, with Donna, bore him
two daughters: Vina and Wilma. His fourth, with Elena, bore him no children although Elena a daughter Jane, from a previous relationship.
His last, with Fe, produced no biological children but they informally adopted without court proceedings, Sandy, now 13 years old, whom
they consider as their own. Sandy was orphaned as a baby and was entrusted to them by the midwife who attended to Sandy’s birth. All
the children, including Amy, now live with Andrew in his house.
Can Jon and Jane legally marry?
Jon and Jane can legally marry because they are not related to each other. Jane is not a daughter of Andrew.


2007 Write “TRUE” if the statement is true or “FALSE” if the statement is false. If the statement is FALSE, state the reason.
(2%)
1.Amor gave birth to Thelma when she was 15 years old. Thereafter, Amor met David and they got married when she was 20
years old. David had a son, Julian, with his ex-girlfriend Sandra. Julian and Thelma can get married.
TRUE. Julian and Thelma can get married. Marriages between stepbrothers and stepsisters are not among the marriages Page | 28
prohibited under the Family Code.
2. The day after John and Marsha got married, John told her that he was impotent. Marsha continued to live with John for 2
years. Marsha is now estopped from filing an annulment case against John.
FALSE. Marsha is not estopped from filing an annulment case against John on the ground of his impotence, because she
learned of his impotence after the celebration of the marriage and not before. Physical incapability to consummate the marriage is a valid
ground for the annulment of marriage if such incapacity was existing at the time of the marriage, continues and appears to be incurable.
The marriage may be annulled on this ground within five years from its celebration (Art. 45 [5], Family Code).
1993 A and B. Both 18 years old, were sweethearts studying in Manila. On August 3, 1988, while in first year college, they
eloped. They stayed in the house of a mutual friend in town X, where they were able to obtain a marriage license. On August 30, 1988,
their marriage solemnized by the town mayor of X in his office. Thereafter, they returned to Manila and continued to live separately in
their respective boarding houses, concealing from their parents, who were living in the province what they had done. In 1992, after
graduation from college, A and B decided to break their relation and parted ways. Both went home to their respective towns to live and
work.
[A] Was the marriage of A and B solemnized on August 30, 1988 by the town mayor of X in his office a valid carriage?
Explain your answer.
No, the marriage is void. Under the Family Code, one of the essential requisites of marriage is consent of the parties to be
freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer who must have an authority to solemnize as such. Here, mayors have no authority
to solemnize marriges under the Family Code. Therefore the marriage is void.
Under the Local Gov Code of 1991, the town mayors have now bestowed authority to solemnize marriages.
Note: Marriage was in 1988. The authority of mayors to solemnize marriages was present in Civil Code 1950 which was
superseded by the Family Code where mayors are not one of the authorize solemnizing officers. In 1990, the Local Government Code
authorized mayors to solemnize. Hence, from Aug 3, 1988 up to the effectivity of LGC in 1991, mayors could not solemnize.
[B] Can either or both of them contract marriage with another person without committing bigamy?
(try answering this subsequent question with art 40 and bigamy as bases of the answer)
Direct answer, the law. Here, therefore
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________


2002 On May 1,1975, Facundo married Petra, by whom he had a son Sotero. Petra died on July 1, 1996, while Facundo died
on January 1, 2002. Before his demise, Facundo had married, on July 1, 2000, Querica. Having lived together as husband and wife since
July 1, 1990, Facundo and Querica did not secure a marriage license but executed the requisite affidavit for the purpose.
To ensure that his inheritance rights are not adversely affected by his father’s second marriage, Sotero now brings a suit to
seek a declaration of the nullty of the marriage of Facundo and Querica, grounded on the absence of a valid marriage license. Querica
contends that there was no need for a marriage license in view of her having lived continuously with Facundo for five years before their Page | 29
marriage and that Sotero has no legal personality to seek a declaration of nullity of the marriage since Facundo is now deceased.
Does Sotero have the personality to seek a declaration of nullity of the marriage, especially now that Facundo is already
deceased?
Yes, Sotero has the personality. In the annals of decision, the Supreme court ruled that a void marriage may be questioned
by any interested party in any proceeding where the resolution of the issue is material.
Here, the inheritance rights of Sotero over the estate of his father is about to impaired by the latter’s void marriage with
Querica. Therefore, being a compulsory heir, Sotero has the personality to question the validity of the marriage of Facundo and Querica.
1995 Isidro and Irma, Filipinos, both l8 years of age, were passengers of Flight No. 317 of Oriental Airlines, plane they boarded
was of Philippine registry, while en route from Manila to Greece some passengers hijacked the plane, held the chief pilot hostage at the
cockpit and ordered him to fly instead to Libya. During the hijacking Isidro suffered a heart attack and was on the verge of death. Since
Irma was already eight months pregnant by Isidro. She pleaded to the hijackers to allow the assistant pilot to solemnize her marriage
with Isidro. Soon after the marriage, Isidro expired. As the plane landed in Libya, Irma gave birth. However, the baby died a few minutes
after complete delivery.
Back in the Philippines Irma immediately filed a claim for inheritance. The parents of Isidro opposed her claim for inheritance. The
parents of Isidro opposed her claim contending that the marriage between her and Isidro was void ab initio on the following grounds: (a)
they had not given their consent to the marriage of their son; (b) there was no marriage license; (c) the solemnizing officer had no authority
to perform the marriage; and. (d) the solemnizing officer did not file an affidavit of marriage with the proper civil registrar.
1. Resolve eacn of the contentions ([a] to Id]) raised by the parents of Isidro. Discuss fully.
(a) The fact that the parents of Isidro and oflrma did not give their consent the marriage is merely voidable under Art 45 paragraph 1 of
the Family Code, not void.
(b) The marriage was solemnized in articulo mortis, it was exempt from the license requirement under Art. 31 of the FC.
(c) Under extraordinary and exceptional circumstances, the assistant pilot was acting for and in behalf of the airplane chief who was
under disability as being hostage, the marriage was solemnized by an authorized officer under Art. 7 (3) and Art. 31, of the FC.
(d) Failure of the solemnizing officer to file the affidavit of marriage is merely an irregularity which may subject the solemnizing officer to
penalty.
1996 On Valentine’s Day of 1996, Elias and Fely, both single and 25 years of age, went to the city hall where they sought out a
fixer to help them obtain a quickie marriage. For a fee, the fixer produced an ante-dated marriage license for them, issued by the Civil
Registrar of a small remote municipality. He then brought them to a licensed minister in a restaurant behind the city hall, and the latter
solemnized their marriage there and then.
1. Is their marriage valid, void or voidable? Explain.
The marriage is valid. Under the Family Code , the irregularity in the issuance of a valid license does not adversely affect the validity
of the marriage. The marriage license is valid because it was in fact issued by a Civil Registrar and it is effective anywhere in the
Philippines.


2. Wouldyour answer be the same if it should turn out that the marriage license was spurious? Explain.
No, the marriage would be void. An spurious license is just as scrap of paper. In such a case, there was actually no valid
marriage license.
1989 [B] While “X”, an Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals, was vacationing in Cehu City, he was requested to solemnize the
marriage of Serge and Joan in the residence of Serge’s parents. “X” could not refuse the request of both the parents of the couple
Page | 30
because they were his relatives. On the day set for the wedding, there were so many visitors at the residence of Serge’s parents so that
“X” decided to solemnize the marriage at the kiosk of the public plaza located nearby. Is the marriage of Serge and Joan valid? Give your
reasons.
[Yes, because the requirement that the marriage be solemnized in a public place is not an essential requisite of the law. – UPLC. I DISSENT WITH THE
RESONING.]
The marriage is valid. Unde Art 8 of the FC, the marriage shall be solemnized publicly in the chambers of the judge or in open
court, or in some other place when both of the parties request the solemnizing officer in writing in which case the marriage may be
solemnized at a house or place designated by them in a sworn statement to that effect.
Here, X was requested orally and proceeded the wedding at the kiosk of the public plaza. The absence of written request did
not invalidate the marriage for it is only an irregularrity. Therefore, the marriage is valid but Justice X is administatively liable for violating
the prosedure.
1989 Paul, a 17-year old Filipino and a permanent resident in the United States, married Jean, a 16-year old American in Las
Vegas, Nevada. The parents of both gave their consent to the marriage. The marriage is valid in Nevada. Is its also valid in the
Philippines? Give your reasons.
No, the marriage is not valid. Art 15 of the Civil Code, laws relating to family rights and/or to the status, condition and legal
capacity of perons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines even though living abroad. Also, in the FC, marraige between two persons
must be at least 18 years of age at the celebration of the marriage.
Here, Paul is a Filipino and below 18 years old. Therefore, the marraige is void under Philippine law.
UNDER THE CIVIL CODE
If the marriage took place before the effectivity of the Family Code,’the marriage will be valid since under the provisions of the
Civil Code, a marriage which is valid in the place of celebration is valid in the Philippines except bigamous, polygamous, and incestuous
marriages as determined by Philippine law. The minimum age under the old law was sixteen (16) for the male and fourteen (14) for
thefemale.
2002 BAR EXAMINATION
QUESTION NO. 1
On May 1,1975, Facundo married Petra, by whom he had a son Sotero. Petra died on July 1, 1996, while Facundo died on
January 1, 2002. Before his demise, Facundo had married, on July 1, 2000, Querica. Having lived together as husband and wife since
July 1, 1990, Facundo and Querica did not secure a marriage license but executed the requisite affidavit for the purpose.
To ensure that his inheritance rights are not adversely affected by his father’s second marriage, Sotero now brings a suit to
seek a declaration of the nullty of the marriage of Facundo and Querica, grounded on the absence of a valid marriage license. Querica
contends that there was no need for a marriage license in view of her having lived continuously with Facundo for five years before their
marriage and that Sotero has no legal personality to seek a declaration of nullity of the marriage since Facundo is now deceased.


Does Sotero have the personality to seek a declaration of nullity of the marriage, especially now that Facundo is already deceased?
Yes, Sotero has the personality. In the annals of decision, the Supreme court ruled that a void marriage may be questioned
by any interested party in any proceeding where the resolution of the issue is material. Here, the inheritance rights of Sotero over the
estate of his father is about to impaired by the latter’s void marriage with Querica. Therefore, being a compulsory heir, Sotero has the
personality to question the validity of the marriage of Facundo and Querica.
Page | 31
2009 BAR EXAMS
QUESTION NO. 3
In December 2000, Michael and Anna, after obtaining a valid marriage license, went to the Office of the Mayor of Urbano,
Bulacan, to get married. The Mayor was not there, but the Mayors secretary asked Michael and Anna and their witnesses to fill up and
sign the required marriage contract forms. The secretary then told them to wait, and went out to look for the Mayor who was attending a
wedding in a neighboring municipality.
When the secretary caught up with the Mayor at the wedding reception, she showed him the marriage contract forms and told him
that the couple and their witnesses were waiting in his office. The Mayor forthwith signed all the copies of the marriage contract, gave
them to t;he secretary who returned to the Mayor’s office. She then gave copies of the marriage contract to the parties, and told Michael
and Anna, that they were already married. Thereafter, the couple lived together as husband and wife, and had three sons.
[a] Is the marriage of Michael and Anna valid, voidable, or void? Explain your answer.
(The marriage is void because the formal requisite of marriage ceremony was absent (Art. 3, F.C. 209, Family :ode). The
marriage is void because an essential requisite absent: consent of the parties freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer (Art.
2, FC)
There was no marriage at all is a better answer
The marraige is inexistent. According to Art 35 the Family Code, if one of the essential or formal requisites of marriage be absent,
the marraige is void. Here, there were no solemnizing officer, no celebration and no consents given in the presence of a solemnizing
officer. Therefore, this is not a marriage at all for it has no semblance of a marriage. The marriage is inexistent.
The complete publication of the Family Code was made on August 4, 1987. On September 4. 1987, Junior Cruz and Gemma
Reyes were married before a municipal mayor. Was the marriage valid?
Yes, the marriage is valid. The Family Code took effect on August 3. 1988. At the time of the marriage on September 4, 1987,
municipal mayors were empowered to solemnize marriage under the Civil Code of 1950.
In 1990, the Local Goverment Code, empowered mayors to solemnize marriages.
1. Suppose the couple got married on September 1, 1994 at the Manila Hotel before the Philippine Consul General to Hongkong,
who was on vacation in Manila. The couple executed an affidavit consenting to the celebration of the marriage at the Manila Hotel. Is the
marriage valid?
[The marriage is not valid. Consuls and vice consuls are empowered to solemnize marriages between Philippine citizens abroad in
the consular office of the foreign country to which they were assigned and have no power to solemnize marriage on Philippine soil. -
UPLC]
[Alternative Answer: A Philippine consul is authorized by law to solemnize marriages abroad between Filipino citizens. He has no
authority to solemnize a marriage in the Philippines. Consequently, the marriage in question is void, unless either or both of the contracting


parties believed in good faith that the consul general had authority to solemnize their marriage in which case the marriage is valid.] -
UPLC
The marriage is valid. Under Art 8 of the Family Code, consuls may validly solemnize off the consular office at the request of
the parties and his approval. Be as it may, it may only be considered as irregularity which does affect the validity of marriage.
Page | 32
PROPERTY REGIMES OF UNION WITHOUT MARRIAGE
ART. 147 vs ART 148
Art. 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated to many each other, live exclusively with each other as husband
and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and
the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained
by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not
participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the
former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household.
Neither parly can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during cohabitation and
owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.
When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-ownership shall
be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common children or their descendants,
each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share shall belong to the
innocent parly. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.
WHAT ARE THESE UNIONS?
All unions where the parties have no impediment to marry EACH OTHER and they live EXCLUSIVELY as HUSBAND AND
WIFE.
Tony stark, single, billionaire, genius, philantropist and playboy – cohabits with Natasha and Pepper. Anong property regime
ng 2 cohabitation. Since it is not exclusive, the property regime is Article 148 and not 147.
Mag-pinsan, they have impediment to marry EACH OTHER. Since there is an impediment, the regime is under Art . 148, not
147.
WHAT ARE THESE VOID MARRIAGES NOT INCLUDED AS ART 147?
Those void marriages of minors, under Art 37 and 38. Why? Because they have impediment to marry each other. Mag-
pinsan, mag-lola, mag-ina, mag-kapaitd. So all those unions and marriages are under Art 148 because the parties are relatives.
EH PAANO KUNG ISA LANG SA PARTIES HAVE IMPEDIMENT TO MARRY?
Art. 148 is catch all provision. Pag wala ng paglagyan Sa Art 147, sa 148 na ang property regime.
KASAMA B YUNG SUBSEQUENT MARRIAGE SA ART. 40
No. Hindi naman void yun per se. VOIDABLE yun. Naging void lang because of the non-cmpliance with Art 40.


EXAMPLE
X and Y live exclusively as husband and wife, and with no impediment to marry each other, since 2000. Both of them work as
employee and were able to buy a house and lot. They begat A. X earns 50thou a month, and has an apartment which earns 20thou a
month while Y earns 100thou a month.
Page | 33
Wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal share.
Hati sila sa 50thou plus 100thous = 150thou/2 = P75,000 each for X and Y
Fruits of the separate property

Apartment – kay X lang ang separate property niya
Rent of 20thou – kay X lang. Fruit yan, not salary and wages
House and Lot

That poperty shall be divided by percentage contribution because both of them work as employee. But in a situation where Y
stays home and take care of the labahan, linis at alaga kay A, in that case, the house and lot co-owned by them in equal share.
CAN X AND Y SELL/MORTGAGE THE HOUSE AND LOT?

Yes.
CAN X OR Y SELL/MORTGAGE IT WIHOUT THE OTHER PARTNER’S CONSENT?

No. The alienation, disposition or encumbrancing of properties is prohibited without the consent of the other partner.
WHEN CAN Y OR X SELL/ENCUMBER THE HOUSE AND LOT WITHOUT THE OTHER PARTNER’S CONSENT?
After the termination of the cohabitation, or annulment of the void marriage.
WHAT LAW GOVERNS THEIR PROPERTY RELATIONSHIP?

Special co-ownership under Art. 147.
WHY DO WE CALL IT SPECIAL CO-OWNERSHIP?
In ordinary co-ownership, the owners may sell/encumber their undivided share without the consent of the other co-owners
while in Art 147, though the parties are co-owners but they restricted to alienate or encumber the common property without the consent
of the other co-owner-partner unless after the termination of the cohabitation or annulment of the void marriage.
WHAT IS ORDINARY CO-OWNERSHIP?
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may
therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are
involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be
allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the coownership.
WHAT IS THAT PERSONAL RIGHT/S?
X and Y have personal rights in the property as common law spouses/spouses in void marriage. X cnnot just let anyone stay
at home and enjoy while he is away.


“Y, iwan ko muna si kumpare para mag-stay sa bahay. Let him eat, drink and be merry inside our co-owned home while I am
away. Tutal, co-owner naman tayo ng bahay according to Art. 493 of the Civil Code.”
Y said, “hindi mo ba nabasa yung “personal rights as an exception”. Hindi pwede! He will invade my right to privacy.” Yan
yung personal rights.
AFTER THE TERMINATION OR ANNULMENT, HOW MUCH EACH OF SPOUSE MAY ALIENATE OR ENCUMBER?
Page | 34
Only his/her share, not necessarily half. If a buyer in good faith and for value has acquired the property, the portion alloted for
the other patner cannot be returned back to him, but the partner who sold the house must reimburse the share of that partner.
--------------------XXX-------------------
HOW CAN ONE BE IN BAD FAITH?
When he/she knowingly participated in the process of securing a void marriage like falsifying a marriage license or conniving
with someone to act as a solemnizing officer to entice a beautiful young maiden to marry and eventually to have sex with her.
WHAT IS THE EFFECT?
His/her share in the co-owership shall be forfeited in favor their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all
of the common children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of
descendants, such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the
cohabitation.
-----------------xxx-------------------------
HOW TO ANSWER BAR QUESTIONS? Just a reiteration.
If you check the UPLC answers, you will notice that the answers are elaborative and proper cases are included. That’s good
because we can use it as source of information but it is not proper way of answering the bar questions. Firstly, the aswers are scholarly
written. Of course, open book na yun when they constructed the answer. Pero in the actual bar eaxams, you and your stock knowlege
lang – no open books. Secondly, answers should be concise. In few sentences, dapat nandun n lahat ang direct answer, the applicable
law, application and the conclusion. And thirdly, examiners have only few months to check the more or less 8,000 booklets. Magbubuklat
lang yan ng mga key questions – yung mga difficult, and if you have answered correctly there would be no need to check your answers
in minor questions. Obviously, because you have already convinced him that you are already a lawyer – worthy to be included in the roll.
Kaya nga may mga instances na hindi naman niya (examinee) natapos ang mga questions but she topped the bar. Well that is only my
observation.
Okay, lets take some of the bar questions.
Bernard and Dorothy lived together as common-law spouses although they are both capacitated to marry. After one year of
cohabitation, Dorothy went abroad to work in Dubai as a hair stylist and regular sent money to Bernard. With the money, Bernard bought
a lot. For a good price, Bernard sold the lot. Dorothy came to know about the acquisition and sale of the lot and filed a suit to nullify the
sale because she did not give her consent to the sale.
[a] Will Dorothy’s suit prosper? Decide with reasons.


[Give the direct answer (Yes, or No,) folowed by the applicable law (Under the law,]
Yes. Under Article 147 of the Family Code neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the property
acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their cohabitation.
[Apply the law to the facts without repeating the law [Here,) followed by the conclusion (Therefore,)]
Page | 35
Here, Bernard sold the property without Dorothy’s consent within the period of their cohabitation. Therefore, the sale is void. However,
if the buyer is in good faith and for value, the sale cannot be annuled but Dorothy shall be entitled to reimbursent and damages.
So here it is.
Yes. Under Article 147 of the Family Code neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter vivos of his or her share in the
property acquired during cohabitation and owned in common, without the consent of the other, until after the termination of their
cohabitation.
Here, Bernard sold the property without Dorothy’s consent within the period of their cohabitation. Therefore, the sale is void.
However, if the buyer is in good faith and for value, the sale cannot be annuled but Dorothy shall be entitled to reimbursent and damages.
[b] Suppose Dorothy was jobless and did not contribute money to the acquisition of the lot and her efforts consisted mainly in
the care and maintenance of the family and household, is her consent to the the sale a prerequisite to its validity? Explain.
[Give the direct answer (Yes, or No,) folowed by the applicable law (Under the law,]
Yes, Under Art 147 of the Family Code, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be
deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family
and the household.
Here, Dorothy’s care and maintenance of the family and household are deemed contributions in the acquisition of the lot. The lot is
deemed owned in common by the common-law spouses in equal shares as the same was acquired during their cohabitation. Therefore,
her consent to the sale is a prerequisite to its validity without prejudice to the rights of a buyer in good faith and for value.
This how it will look like.
Yes, Under Art 147 of the Family Code, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property
shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the
family and the household.
Here, Dorothy’s care and maintenance of the family and household are deemed contributions in the acquisition of the lot. The
lot is deemed owned in common by the common-law spouses in equal shares as the same was acquired during their cohabitation.
Therefore, her consent to the sale is a prerequisite to its validity without prejudice to the rights of a buyer in good faith and for value.
Bert and Joe, both male and single, lived together as common law spouses and agreed to raise a son of Bert’s living brother
as their child without legally adopting him. Bert worked while Joe took care of their home and the boy. In their 20 years of cohabitation
they were able to acquire real estate assets registered in their names as co-owners. Unfortunately, Bert died of cardiac arrest, leaving
no will. Bert was survived by his biological siblings, Joe, and the boy.
[a] Can Article 147 on co-ownership apply to Bert and Joe, whereby all properties they acquired will be presumed to have been
acquired by their joint industry and shall be owned by them in equal shares?


[Give the direct answer (Yes, or No,) folowed by the applicable law (Under the law, ]
No, Article 147 applies only when a “man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage”.
Page | 36
Here, Bert and Joe are both men and they are also incapacitated from marrying each other since in this jurisdiction, marriage may only
take place between a man and a woman. Therefore, Article 147 is inapplicable to their property relations.
So the final answer is like this.
No, Article 147 applies only when a “man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each
other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage”.
Here, Bert and Joe are both men and they are incapacitated from marrying each other since in this jurisdiction, marriage may
only take place between a man and a woman. Therefore, Article 147 is inapplicable to their property relations.
Jambrich, an Austrian, fell in-love and lived together with Descallar and bought their house and lots at AgroMacro Subdivision.
In the Contracts to Sell, Jambrich and Descallar were referred to as the buyers. When the Deed of Absolute Sale was presented for
registration before the Register of Deeds, it was refused because Jambrich was an alien and could not acquire alienable lands of the
public domain. After Jambrich and Descaller separated, Jambrich purchased an engine and some accessories for his boat from
Borromeo. To pay for his debt, he sold his rights and interests in the Agro-Macro properties to Borromeo.
Borromeo discovered that titles to the three (3) lots have been transferred in the name of Descallar. Who is the rightful owner
of the properties? Explain.
[It depends. On the assumption that the Family Code is the applicable law, the ownership of the properties depends on whether or not
Jambrich Descallar are capacitated to many each other during their cohabitation, and whether or not both have contributed funds for the acquisition of the
properties.
If both of them were capacitated to marry each other, Article 147 on Co-ownership will apply to their property relations and the properties in
question are owned by them in equal shares even though all the funds used in acquiring the properties came only from the salaries or wages, or the
income of Jambrich from his business or profession. In such a case, while Jambrich is disqualified to own any part of the properties, his subsequent
transfer of all his interest therein to Borromeo, a Filipino, was valid as it removed the disqualification. In such case, the properties are owned by Boiromeo
and Descallar in equal shares.
If, on the other hand, Jambrich and Descallar were not capacitated to many each other, Article 148 on co-ownership governs their property
relations. Under this regime, Jambrich and Descallar are co-owners of the properties but only if both of them contributed in their acquisition. If all the funds
used in acquiring the properties in question came from Jambrich, the entire property is his even though he is disqualified from owning it. His subsequent
transfer to Borromeo, however, is valid as it removed the disqualification. In such case, all of the properties are owned by Borromeo, If, on the other hand,
Descallar contributed to their acquisition, the properties are co-owned by Descallar and Borromeo in proportion to the respective contributions of Descallar
and Jambrich.} -UPLC
NOTE: The answer is only good as part of the lecture. You don’t answer with “It depends”. I take that Art 147 is the applicable
law and not Art 148. Di ba sa civil law like in sales, when the stipulation is vague – the presumption is the parties meant it be of least
transmission of rights at sa criminal law – when the evidence is not sufficient to prove the crime complained of – the lesser crime, if
evidence supports it. Here, dahil vague yung status ng mga characters, I take 147, instead of 148.
So, here is the answer.


Borromeo and Descallar own the properties. Under Article 147 of the Family Code, (if hindi matadaan yung exact article
– Under the Family Code,) (If hindi mo alam na Family Code ang applicable – Under the law,) a party may validly alienate his/her share
in co-ownership without the consent of the other party after the termination of the cohabitation. And in the absence of proof to the contrary,
the properties are presumed obtained by joint efforts, work and industry.
Page | 37
Here, Jambrich sold his rights and interest to Borromeo after the termination of cohabitation with Descallar. and there were
no proof that only Jambrich who brought the property out of his own effort, work and industry. The presumption stands that the he and
Descallar owned them in common and in equal share. Therefore, the properties are owned by Descallar and Borromeo in common and
in equal share.
(Dito may sub-issue. Always put it the last portion para malinaw yung direct answer mo)
The prohibition on alien to own real properties only binds the lot and not the rights and interest of the alien-partner. Here,
Jambrich sold his rights and interests over the said properties to Borromeo, a Filipino, and that cured the defect.
Sa Bar Exam, ganito ang peg ng answer mo.
Borromeo and Descallar co-own the properties. Under Article 147 of the Family Code, a party may validly alienate his/her
share in co-ownership without the consent of the other party after the termination of the cohabitation. And in the absence of proof to the
contrary, the properties are presumed obtained by joint efforts, work and industry.
Here, Jambrich sold his rights and interest to Borromeo after the termination of cohabitation with Descallar. and there were
no proof that only Jambrich who brought the property out of his own effort, work and industry. The presumption stands that the he and
Descallar owned them in common and in equal share. Therefore, the properties are owned by Descallar and Borromeo in common and
in equal share.
The prohibition on alien to own real properties only binds the lot and not the rights and interest of the alien-partner. Here,
Jambrich sold his rights and interests over the said properties to Borromeo, a Filipino, and that cured the defect.
Di ba mas maigsi mas ok tignan.
In 1997, B and G started living together without the benefit of marriage. The relationship produced one offspring, Venus. The
couple acquired a residential lot in Paranaque. After four (4) years or in 2001, G having completed her 4- year college degree as a fulltime
student, she and B contracted marriage without a license. The marriage of B and G was, two years later, declared null and void due to
the absence of a marriage license.
[a] If you were the judge who declared the nullity of marriage, to whom would you award the lot? Explain
(Since the marriage was null and void, no Absolute Community or Conjugal Partnership was established tween B and G. Their properties are
governed by the “special co-ownership” provision of Article 147 of the Family Code because both B and G were capacitated to each other. The said Article
provides that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to many each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit
of marriage, or under a void marriage:
(1) their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares; and
(2) property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
In co-ownership, the parties co-owners if they contributed something of value in the acquisition of the property. Their share is in proportion to
their respective contributions. In an ordinary coownership the care and maintenance of the family is not ecognized as a valuable contribution for the
acquisition of a property. In the Article 147 “special co-ownership” however, care and maintenance is recognized as a valuable contribution which will
entitle the contributor to half of the property acquired.


Having been acquired during their cohabitation, the residential lot is presumed acquired through their joint work and industry under Article
147, hence, B and G are co-owners of the said property in equal shares.
Article 147 also provides that when a party to the void marriage was in bad faith, he forfeits his share in the co-ownership in favor of the
common children or descendants. In default of children or descendants, the forfeited share shall belong to the innocent party. In the foregoing problem,
there is no showing that one party was in bad faith. Hence, both shall be presumed in good faith and no forfeiture shall take place. - UPLC)
Note: I have some reservation sa answer ng UPLC. But it is good to read as lecture. Anyhow, It is submitted that both B and Page | 38
G are in bad faith. And the forfeiture in Art. 148 last paragraph is also applicable to Art. 147 when both parties are in bad faith. So this is
my answer.
I will award the property to Venus, their common child. Under Art. 147, which is the applicable regime for B and G, when
a party is in bad faith, his/her share in the the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children.
Here, both B and G contacted marriage without a marriage license knowing that their cohabitation is short of one year to
exempt them from securing the license. Therefore, B and G are in bad faith and will suffer forfeiture of their share in the residential lot in
favor of their common child, Venus.
(Dito may sub-issue uli. Always put it the last portion para malinaw yung direct answer mo)
Under the last paragraph of Art. 148, forfeiture shall take place when both parties are in bad faith, and it is submitted that the
forfeiture is applicable also in void marriages under Art. 147.
Sa Bar Exam, ganito arrangement ng answer.
I will award the property to Venus, their common child. Under Art. 147, which is the applicable regime for B and G, when
a party is in bad faith, his/her share in the the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children.
Here, both B and G contacted marriage without a marriage license knowing that their cohabitation is short of one year to
exempt them from securing the license. Therefore, both are in bad faith and will suffer forfeiture of their share in the residential lot in
favor of their common child, Venus.
Under the last paragraph of Art. 148, forfeiture shall take place when both parties are in bad faith, and it is submitted that the
forfeiture is applicable also in void marriages under Art. 147.
QUESTION NO. 7
G and B were married on July 3, 1989. On March 4, 2001, the marriage, which bore no offspring, was declared void ab initio
under Article 36 of the Family Code. At the time of the dissolution of the marriage, the couple possessed the following properties:
[1] a house and lot acquired by B on August 3, 1988, one third (1 / 3) of the purchase price (representing down payment) of which he
paid; one third (1/3) paid by G on February 14,1990 out of a cash gift given to her by her parents on her graduation on April 6, 1989; and
the balance was paid out of the spouses’ joint income; and
[2] an apartment unit donated to B by an uncle on June 19,1987.
[A] Who owns the foregoing properties? Explain.
(Since the marriage was declared void ab initio in 200l, no Absolute Community or Conjugal Partnership was ever established between B
and G. Their property relation is governed by a “special co-ownership” under Article 147 of the Family Code because they were capacitated to many each
other. Under that Article 147, wages and salaries of the “ former spouses” earned during their cohabitation shall be owned by them in equal shares while


properties acquired thru their work or industry shall be owned by them in proportion to their respective contributions. Care and maintenance of the family
is recognized as a valuable contribution. In the absence of proof as to the value of their respective contributions, they shall share equally.
If ownership over the house and lot was acquired by B on August 3,1988 at the time be bought it on installment before he got married, he
shall remain owner of the house and lot but he must reimburse for all the amounts she advanced to pay the purchase price and for her ½ share in the last
payment from their joint income. Insuch case, the house and lot were not acquired during their cohabitation, hence, are not co-owned by B and G.
But if the ownership of the house and lot was acquired during the cohabitation, the house and lot will be owned as follows: Page | 39
[1] 1/3 of the house and lot is owned by B. He is an undivided co-owner to that extent for his contribution in its acquisition in the form of the
down payment he made before the celebration of the marriage. The money he used to pay the down payment was not earned during the cohabitation,
hence, It is his exclusive property.
[2] 1/3 of the house and lot is owned by G. She is an undivided co-owner to the extent for her contribution in its acquisition when
she paid 1/3 of the purchase price using the gift from her parents. Although the gift was acquired by G duriiigher cohabitation with B, it is her
exclusive property. It did not consist of wage or salary or fruit of her work or industy.
[3] 1/3 of the house is co-owned by B and G because the payment came from their co-owned funds, i.e., their joint income during
their cohabitation which is shared by them equally in the absence of any proof to the contrary.
After summing up their respective shares, B and G are undivided co-owners of the house and lot in equal shares.
As to the apartment, it is owned exclusively by B because he acquired it before their cohabitation. Even if he acquired it during
their cohabitation it will still be his exclusive property because it did not come from his wage or salary, or from his work or industry. It was
acquired gratuitously from his uncle - UPLC)
Note: Ang Tanong lang naman ay who owns the foregoing properties?
So here is a concise and direct answer.
Both the house and lot and apartment are owned by B. Under Art. 147 which is the applicable regime for annulled
marriages on the ground of psychological incapacity, the presumption of equal share of ownership of properties can be disputed by proof
to the contrary.
Here, the marriage was annulled on the ground of psychological incapacity, and there were contrary proof(s) against the
presumption of co-ownership. Therefore, as for the house and lot, it is owned by B, subject to reimbursement of the 1/3 of the amount
paid by G plus an additional ½ of the 1/3 she also paid out of joint-contribution. As for the apartment, it also owned by B as his separate
property.
[B] If G and B had married on July 3, 1987 and their marriage was dissolved in 2007, who owns the properties?
(The answer is the same as in letter A, Since the parties to the marriage which was later declared void ab initio were capacitated to marry
each other, the applicable law under the New Civil Code was Article 144. This Article is substantially the same as Article 147 of the Family Code. Hence,
the determination of ownership will remain the same as in question A. And even assuming that the two provisions are not the same, Article 147 of the
Family Code is still the law that will govern the property relations of B and G because under Article 256, the Family Code has retroactive effect insofar as
it does not prejudice or impair vested or acquired rights under the New Civil Code or other laws. Applying Article 147 retroactively to the case of G and B
will not impair any vested right. Until the declaration of nullity of the marriage under the Family Code, B and G have not as yet acquired any vested right
over the properties acquired during their cohabitation. UPLC)
I have reservation.
Both the house and lot and apartment are solely owned by B. Under the Family Code, the effect of judgment for void ab
initio marriages under Art, 36 retroacts to the date of marriage, and the applicable property regime shall be Art. 147 under the retroactivity
character of the Family Code provided that no vested right shall be impaired or prejudiced.


Here, the effect of judgment in 2007 retoracts to July 3, 1987, and since no vested rights are impaired or prejudiced in the
application of the Family Code, the applicable property regime is Art. 147. Therefore, as for the house and lot, it is owned by B, subject
to reimbursement of the 1/3 of the amount paid by G plus an additional ½ of the 1/3 she also paid out of joint-contribution. As for the
apartment, it also owned by B as his separate property.

Page | 40
In December 2000, Michael and Anna, after obtaining a valid marriage license, went to the Office of the Mayor of Urbano,
Bulacan, to get married. The Mayor was not there, but the Mayor’s secretary asked Michael and Anna and their witnesses to fill up and
sign the required marriage contract forms. The secretary then told them to wait, and went out to look for the Mayor who was attending a
wedding in a neighboring municipality.
When the secretary caught up with the Mayor at the wedding reception, she showed him the marriage contract forms and told
him that the couple and their witnesses were waiting in his office. The Mayor forthwith signed all the opies of the marriage contract, gave
them to the secretary who returned to the Mayor’s office. She then gave copies of the marriage contract to the parties, and told Michael
and Anna that they were already married. Thereafter, the couple lived together as husband and wife, and had three sons.
[C] What property regime governs the properties acquired by the couple? Explain.
The property regime is special co-ownership under Art. 147. Under the Family Code, when parties with no impediment
to marry each other cohabited under a void marriage the poperty regime shall be governed by Art. 147.
Here, the parties have no impediment to marry each other and their marriage is void for being lack of semblance of a valid
marriage. No soleminizing officer, no celebration and obviously no consent to be given in the presence of a solemnizing officer. Therefore,
the property regime is special co-ownrship under Art.147.
For five years since 1989, Tony, a bank Vice-President. And Susan, an entertainer, lived together as husband and wife without
the benefit of marriage although they were capacitated to many each other. Since Tony’s salary was more than enough for their needs.
Susan stopped working and merely “kept house”. During that period, Tony was able to buy a lot and house in a plush subdivision.
However, after five years, Tony and Susan decided to separate.
[A] Who will be entitled to the house and lot ?
Tony and Susan are entitled to the house and lot. Under Article 147 of the Family Code, the property acquired during the
parties’ cohabitation are presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industiy and shall be owned by them in equal
shares even the efforts of one of them consisted merely in his or her care and maintenance of the family and of the household.
Here, Susan kept the house. Therfore, she is entiles as co-owner of the house and lot in equal share.
Luis and Rizza, both 26 years of age and single, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage. Luis is gainfully employed. Rlzza is not employed, stays at home, and takes charge of the household chores.
After living together for a little over twenty years, Luis was able to save from his salary earnings during that period the amount
of P200.000.00 presently deposited in a bank. A house and lot worth P500.000.00 was recently purchased for the same amount by the
couple. Of the P500,000.00 used by the common-law spouses to purchase the property, P200.000.00 had come from the sale of palay
harvested from the the hacienda owned by Luis and P300.000.00 from the rentals of a building belonging to Rizza. In fine, the sum of
p500,000.00 had been part of the fruits received during tine period of cohabitation from their separate property. A car worth P1M being
used by the common-law spouses was donated just months ago to Rizza by her parents.


Luis and Rizza now decide to terminate their cohabltatation, and they ask you to give them your legal advice on the
following:
[A] How/under the law, should the bank deposit of P200.000.00, the house and lot valued at P500.000.00 and the car worth
PlOO.OOO.OO be allocated to them?
The P200,000 bank deposit is co-owned by the parties in equal share, the car is solely owned by Rizza and the house Page | 41
and lot is owned by the parties based on the percentage contribution in acquisition cost. Under the Art. 147 of the Family Code,
parties without impediment to marry live exclusively as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, Their
wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry
shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
Here, the deposits of P200thou is out of the salary of Luis, the car is donated exclusively for Rizza and the house and lot was
obtained through percentage contribution of P200thou from Luis harvest of palay from his exclusive property and P300,000 from rent of
an apartment of Rizza’s exclusive property. Therefore, the deposit is co-owned by the parties in equal share, the car is solely owned by
Rizza and 3/5 of the value of the house is owned by Rizza while 2/5 belongs to Luis.
Fruits or rents from the exclusive property are not covered by special c-ownership.
In 1989. Rico, then a widower forty (40) years of age, cohabited with Cora, a widow thirty (30) years of age. While living
together, they acquired from their combined earnings a parcel of riceland.
After Rico and Cora separated, Rico lived together with Mabel, a maiden sixteen (16) years of age. While living together, Kico
was a salaried employee and Mabel kept house for Rico and did full-time household chores for him. During their cohabitation, a parcel
of coconut land was acquired by Rico from his savings.
After living together for one (1) year, Rico and Mabel separated. Rico then met and married Letty, a single woman twenty-six
(26) years of age. During the marriage of Rico and Letty, Letty bought a mango orchard out of her own personal earnings.
[a] Who would own the riceland, and what property regime governs the ownership? Explain.
Here, is 1% lang naman. Deretso na answer basta tama. Wala ng pattern.
Rico and Cora are the co-owners of the riceland. The regime is that of co-ownership (Art. 147, Family Code, first paragraph)
ANSWERING BAR QUESTIONS
Ang answer ng UPLC is elaborative so I cut and re-arranged it. Some are in lecture type and good source of information so I
cut and retained the important information, enclosed them in parentheses and write an answer suitable for the bar. May mga few na I
don’t agree so I retain the answer for comparison.
I want you to practice uli sa basic way. Para po masanay kayo na laging may legal basis. Karamihan kasi ng bar answers ay
galing lamang sa inyong pananaw, common sense at opinion, kaya sablay sa bar. Lagi po dapat na may legal basis.
Direct answer, then applicable law

Application of the law to the facts, then, the conclusion
State the sub-issue (if applicable)
Yes or no……Under the ______.

Here,………..Therefore………..


State the other issue concisely
Study the example below.
The P200,000 bank deposit is co-owned by the parties in equal share, the car is solely owned by Rizza and the house
Page | 42
and lot is owned by the parties based on the percentage contribution in acquisition cost. Under the Art. 147 of the Family Code,
parties without impediment to marry live exclusively as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage, Their
wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry
shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership.
Here, the deposits of P200thou is out of the salary of Luis, the car is donated exclusively for Rizza, and the house and lot was
obtained through percentage contribution of P200thou from harvest of palay from Luis’ exclusive property and P300,000 from rent of an
apartment of Rizza’s exclusive property. Therefore, the deposit is co-owned by the parties in equal share, the car is solely owned by
Rizza, and 3/5 of the value of the house is owned by Rizza while 2/5 belongs to Luis.
(State the sub-issue sa ibaba, at wag ihalo sa main answer)
Fruits or rents from the exclusive property are not covered by special c-ownership.
If the answer is the exception to the rule. Do not state the general rule then the exception. That’s confusing. The examiner
knows about the exception. Do not lecture to him. Kaya, mas mahusay dumeretso ka na sa exception as your direct answer, state the
law on exception without mentioning the general rule (kasi hahaba lang), apply the exception to the facts, then conclusion.
ARTICLE 148
The regime under Art 148 applies when Art 147 is not the proper regime. This is the catch all regime.
ART. 148. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by both of the parties
through their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective
contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same
rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.
If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community
or conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who acted in bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her share
shall be forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith.
WHAT ARE THESE COHABITATIONS CONTEMPLATED IN ART 148?
Article 148 refers to the property regime of bigamous marriages, adulterous relationships, relationships in a state of
concubinage, relationships where both man and woman are married to other persons, multiple alliances of the same married man. Isama
mo na yung cohabitation ni Tony Stark with Salt and Pepper – single si Stark pero maraming babae.
Wage and salary – not shared, kanya-kanya
Properties, credit and joint deposits – shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the
absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are presumed to be equal.
FORFEITURE


The share of the married one who acted in bad faith CANNOT NOT FORFEITED. Kasi his/her share accues to the
community/conjugal property ng kanyang marriage.
The share of the unmarried who acted in bad faith can be forfeited.
How? In the manner provided in Art. 147.

Page | 43
So sa mga common children muna. If wala na at mga patay na, sa mga apo. If walang anak o apo or in case of their waiver, sa mga apo
sa tuhod. If wala talaga, sa innocent party. Pero here, there is no innocent spouse. He has a real spouse. So both are in bad faith.
IF BOTH ARE IN BAD FAITH
“The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties are in bad faith.’’
Does it mean that the property of the single-in-bad-faith partner shall be forfeited in favor of the married-in-bad-faith partner.
I think so. This is in form of penalty for cohabiting with a married person. I checked the books wala silang annotion about it. If
you have found any clarification, please email me.
So the single-kabit-ng-taong-may-asawa must not make anything amounting to bad faith. Kung hindi, her/his share shall be
forfeited. But the married one, he/she is already in bad faith because he knew that he/she is married. But his share cannot be forfeited
because the real spouse has inchoate title over his/her share as part of the conjugal/community property.
For the single one, at the on-set of the cohabitation must not know that the guy she is going with is already taken. If she does,
she already in bad faith.
Again these need confirmation. Wala sa books.
------------xxx------------
Going back to Art. 148.
LET SAY, THE COHABITATION IS ADULTEROUS.
X had subsisting marraige with Y, cohabited with V from 2000-2010. During the cohabitation , V just stayed home and took
care of A, their son, while X earns 50thou a month. They had bought a house and lot worth P10M.
WHO OWNS THE P50THOU?

Only X.
WHO OWNS THE HOUSE AND LOT?

Only X and his wife Y as part of their community property. The property accrues to their community property.
CAN X AND Y ALIENATE/ENCUMBER THE HOUSE AND LOT?

Yes. As part of their community property and V, having no part in the acquisition, is not a co-owner at all.
Let say, V contributed to the acquisition of the house and lot. Can X and Y or she alienate/encumber her share?
No. Although under Art 493, each owner has the right to alienate/encumber his/her undivided share in the property held in common, all
of them has personal rights.
WHAT HAPPEN WHEN THE TITLE TO THE HOUSE AND LOT IS UNDER THE NAME OF V?
Constructive trust is created as to the share of the cojugal partnership of X and Y. Ginagamit ni V as trustee.
WHAT GOVERNS THE PROPERTY RELATIONS?


Special co-ownership. Becuase the parties cannot sell/encumber the property as co-owners.
IS THE HOUSE AND LOT A FAMILY HOME?

No. X and V are not husband and wife.
LET SAY THE COHABITATION IS NOT ADULTEROUS

X COHABITS WITH V AND Z, ALL OF THEM ARE SINGLE.
Page | 44
The property regime is governed by Art 148 for they are not living exclusively as husband and wife.
WHAT HAPPEN TO X’s SHARE IN HIS RESPECTIVE COHABITATION WITH V AND Y.
X share shall be forfeited in a mannner provided in the last paragraph of Art 147.
His share in the co-owership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of the common
children or their descendants, each vacant share shall belong to the respective surviving descendants. In the absence of descendants,
such share shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the cohabitation.
If the cohabitation does not involved any previous marriage, the same rules applies as regards to the alienation, disposition
or mortgage of properties held in common.
WAS THERE A NEED FOR THE COURT TO WAIT FOR THE LIQUIDATION, PARTITION AND PARTITION OF PROPERTIES
BEFORE IT ISSUE THE FINAL DECREE OF ANNULLMENT?
No, in cases of void marriages. Obviously dahil walang regime. Their property relations are governed by civil law on co-
ownership.
JURISPRUDENCE
ADULTEROUS COHABITATION
Rivera vs Heir of Villanueva, GR 141501, July 21, 2006
X and Y cohabitated with each other from 1927 to 1980. They could not marry becuase Y is married to Z who died in 1963. In
the course of cohabitation, they acquired 4 lots under their names with 1, solely under the name of Y.
X and A, his alleged daughter extra-judicially partitioned the properties. The brothers of X opposed.
[a] What is A’s status in relation to Y?
A is not related to Y. In this case, X and Y lived without a child for 20 years. A closer examination of of A’s birth certificate
reveals that she was listed as “adopted’ by both Y and X. Definitely, the mere registration of a child in his or her birth certificate as the
child of the supposed parents is not a valid adoption. It does not confer upon this child the status of an adopted child and the legal rights
of such child. It was not sufficiently established that A was Y’s biological daughter nor even as an adopted daughter. Thus, she cannot
inherit from Y.
Since she could not have validly participated in Y’s estate, the extra-judicial partition executed with X in 1990 was invalid.
[b] Were the properties equally owned by X and Y?
No. From 1927 until the death of X’s legal wife on April1 20, 1963, the relationship of Y and X was adulterous. In such an
adulterous relationships, it is necessary for each of the partners to prove his or her actual contribution to the acquisition cf property in
order to be able to lay claim to any portion of it. Presumptions of co-ownership and equal contribution do not apply. In this case, the


record shows only four properties acquired by Y andX between 1927 and 1963, which they registered in both their names. These can
only be apportioned according to the actual contributions of each. However, the records are devoid of evidence that Y contributed anything
to the acquisition of these properties. On the other hand, X, who was the treasurer of their municipality was the lone breadwinner. Thus,
none of the four parcels of land should accrue to Y’s half siblings.
Between 1927 and 1963, there was, one parcel of land registered solely in Y’s name. The fact of registration created a
conclusiveness of title in favor of the person in whose name it was registered. X, also sought to prove that, he alone purchased and had Page | 45
the capability to do so during their cohabitation, never actually challenged the validity of registration in Y’s name. Thus, the efficacy of
the title in Y’s name remained unrebutted. This property should accrue entirely to her heirs. After Z’s death in 1963, the cohabitation of
X ceased to be adulterous. This was governed by the pursuant to Article 144 of the Civil Code:
Art. 144. – When a man aid a woman live together as husband and wife, but they are not married, or their marriage is void
from the beginning, the property acquired by either or both of them through their work- or industry or their wages and salaries shall be
governed by the rules on co-ownership.
Thus, as regards to the properties acquired by X and Y during this period, half of them should pertain to Xs heirs and the other
half to Y.
QUESTION 11-B
If there is no marriage settlement, the salary of a “spouse” in an adulterous marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership of
gains.
False. Under Article 148 of the Family Code, the property relations between married partner and his/her paramour is
governed by ordinary co-ownership where the partners become co-owners only when they contributed to the acquisition of the property,
Here, the paramour is deemed to have not contributed in the earning of the salary of the married partner. Therfore, the salary of a
married partner belongs to the absolute community, or conjugal partnership with his/her spouse.
2000 BAR
QUESTION NO. 2-B
For five years since 1989, Tony, a bank Vice-President. And Susan, an entertainer, lived together as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage although they were capacitated to many each other. Since Tony’s saiaiy was more than enough for their
needs. Susan stopped working and merely “kept house”. During that period, Tony was able to buy a lot and house in a plush
subdivision. However, after five years, Tony and Susan decided to separate.
[B] Would it make any difference if Tony could not marry Susan because he was previously married to Alice from whom he is legally
separated ?
Yes. Under Article 148 of the Family Code, when the parties to the cohabitation could not marryy each other because of
an impediment, only those properties acquired by both of them through their actual Joint contribution of money, property, or industry
shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. The efforts of one of the parties in maintaining the
family and household are not considered adequate contribution In the acquisition of the properties.
Here, Susan did not contribute to the acquisition of the house and lot, she has no share therein. Therefore, the house and
lot is Tony’s exclusive property.
Note: If Tony cohabited with Susan after his legal separation from Alice, the house and lot is his exclusive property. If he cohabited with
Susan before his legal separation from Alice, the house and lot belongs to his community or partnership with Alice.


1998 BAR
In 1973, Mauricio. a Filipino pensioner of the U.S. Government, contracted a bigamous marriage with Erllnda,
Despite the fact that his first wife, Carol, was still living, in 1975, Mauriclo and Erlinda jointly bought a parcel of riceland, with
the title being placed jointly in their names. Shortly thereafter, they purchased another property (a house and lot} which was placed in
her name alone as the buyer. In 1981,Maurlcto died, and Carol promptly filed an action against Erlinda to recover both the riceland and Page | 46
the house and lot. Claiming them to be conjugal property of the first marriage. Erlinda contends that she and the late Maudcio were co-
owners of the riceland, and with respect to the house and lot, she claims she is the exclusive owner. Assuming she fails to prove that
she had actually used her own money in either purchase, how do you decide the case?
Both riceland and the house and lot accures to the conjugal property with Carol, Under Article 144 of the Civil Code,
which applies to bigamous marriages, only the properties acquired by both parties through their actual joint contribution of money,
property or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. And the married one’s share in the
co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community/conjugal partnership existing in such valid marriage.
Here, Erlinda failed to prove that she used her own money to buy those propertie nor contributed any of value to the purchase thereof,
she cannot claim to be the co-owner of the riceland nor the exclusive owner of the house and lot. Therofore, such properties are
Mauricio’s and they shall accrue to the conjugal partnership with Carol, Carol can validly claim such properties to the exclusion of Erlinda.
(Art. 144, Civil Code)
Note: the applicable law is Art. 144 of the Civil Code and not Art. 148 of the FC. But they are both the same.
In 1989. Rico, then a widower forty (40) years of age, cohabited with Cora, a widow thirty (30) years of age. While living
together, they acquired from their combined earnings a parcel of riceland.
After Rico and Cora separated, Rico lived together with Mabel, a maiden sixteen (16) years of age. While living together, Rico
was a salaried employee and Mabel kept house for Rico and did full-time household chores for him. During their cohabitation, a parcel
of coconut land was acquired by Rico from his savings.
After living together for one (1) year, Rico and Mabel separated. Rico then met and married Letty, a single woman twenty-six
(26) years of age. During the marriage of Rico and Letty, Letty bought a mango orchard out of her own personal earnings.
[B] Who would own the coconut land, and what property regime governs the ownership? Explain.
Rico is the exclusive owner of the coconut land. The regime is a sole/single proprietorship (Art. 148. Family Code, first
paragraph is applicable, and not Art. 147). Mabel has impediment to marry. (Wrong reasoning)
In June 1985, James married Mary. In September 1988, he also married Ophelia with whom he begot two (2) children, A
and B. In July 1989, Mary died. In July 1990, he married Shirley and abandoned Ophelia. During their union, James and Ophelia
acquired a residential lot worth P300.000.00.
Ophelia sues James for bigamy and prays that his marriage with Shirley be declared null and void. James, on the other
hand, claims that since his marriage to Ophelia was contracted during the existence of his marriage with Mary, the former is not binding
upon him, the same being void ab Initio, he further claims that his marriage to Shirley is valid and binding as he was already legally
capacitated at the time he married her.
What property regime governed the union of James and Ophelia?


(The provisions of Art 148 of the Family Code, shall govern. In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article,
only the properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint contribution of money , property, or industry shall be owned
by them in common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the contrary, their contributions and
corresponding shares are presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and evidences
of credit – UPLC ANSWER)
Note: I DISAGREE. Page | 47
From September 1988 to July 1989, the day that Mary died, the relationship between James and Ophelia was adulterous or
bigamous, hence, the applicable regime is Art. 148 of the FC. When Mary died, the relationship has stopped to become adulterous or
bigamous, hence the governing law was Art. 147.
Is the estate of. Mary entitled to a share in the esidential lot acquired “by James and Ophelia?
It should be distinguished when the property was acquired. If it was acquired before Mary’s death, Mary’s estate is entitled to
½ of the share of James. If it was acquired after Mary’s death, there will be no share at all for the estate of Mary. The property sahll
belong to the union of James and Ophelia which ceased to be adulterous.
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
WHAT IS VOID MARRIAGE UNDER ART 36
Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply
with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its
solemnization.
The term “psychological incapacity” to be a ground for the nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, refers to
a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent
as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. The root cause must
be identified, as a psychological illness, and its incapacitating nature must be fully explained.
In fine, for psychological incapacity to render a marriage void ab initio, it must be characterized by:
[a] Gravity – It must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage;
[b] Juridical Antecedence – It must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may
emerge only after the marriage; and
[c] Incurability – It must be incurable, of even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.
MEMORIZED THAT WORD FOR WORD AND BY HEART
Laging lumalabas sa bar exams ang Art 36. If ever you were asked if the cause of action shall prosper, the answer is always
No, unless the facts are well explained at halos sabihin na ng examiner na Yes ang answer. Otherwise, it is always no. Why? Factual
ang existence ng psychological incapacity. You need witnesses, medical report, incidence of abuse, etc. Mahirap magprove ng existence
but it is very easy to deny.
GRAVITY
You have to correlate this with the following articles of the Family Code.
Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fideltiy, and render mutual help
and support.


Art 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile.
Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family.
Art. 71. The management of the household shall be the right and duty of both spouses.
Art. 72. When one of the spouses neglects his or her duties to the conjugal union or commits acts which tend to bring
Page | 48
danger, dishonor or injury to the other or to the family, the aggrieved party may apply to the court for relief.
Art. 73. Either spouse may exercise any legitimate profession, occupation, business or activity without the consent of the
other.
It is a factual issue. Kung si spouse, for no valid reason at all, ayaw ng maki-pag sex, laging wala sa bahay, doesnt care sa
gawaing bahay at hindi na rin nagbibigay ng pera, o anumang tulong kahit sa mga maliliit na bagay sa bahay. Yun bang sukang-suka na
sa iyo. Hahahahaha pag nakita ka, laging sira araw niya at gusto na lang na umalis siya o ikaw ang umalis. Remember, for apparently
no valid reason at all. Pero pag may reason like your so annoying kasi...you squandered the family coffers, tamad k rin naman at
bungangera at hindi ka madalas maligo, ang galing mong mag baskeball pero hindi mo ma-i-shoot yung mabaho mong short na may
nakapulupot n brief sa laundry box. Ang tawag diyan ay indifferences. You and your spouse are not just compatible.
JURIDICAL ANTECEDENCE
The incapacity that is so grave is nandun n nung bata pa siya. Sanggol pa lang. Alam ninyo, ang ugali ng sanggol, hindi
nagbabago kahit tumanda na. Pag iyakin, iyakin din paglaki. Pag sutil na bata, sutil pa rin paglaki. Yung sanggol na iiyak lang paggutom
at dede lang tatahan na, mabait yan paglaki. Pero yung batang iyak ng iyak, pinadede na, kinalong mo, naubos mo na ang songs sa
videoke, iyak-iyak pa rin, wala namang lagnat, matigas ang ulo niyan pag laki...hahahaha of course in the passing of years. Nagiging
mature, yes. Napagsasabihan na at pwede ng disiplinahin. But yung ugali, it remains.
Sa topic natin dapat daw yung facts I said sa itaas (gravity), dapat daw nandun na bago pa kayo ikasal. So paano
mapapatunayan ito. You have to have testimony ng mga taong nakasama niya nung binata pa siya. Former girlfriends, siblings, parents,
friends, katulong nila dati sa bahay....yan....trabaho ng psychologists/psychiatrists yan...he has to interview them to come up with the
medical history, then yung report shall be testified in court ni doktor. Sasabahin ni doc, your honor, bago pa sila ikasal, in fact, bata pa
lang si husband siya may medical condition na...he could not keep friends, laging basagulero, he in in fact incarcerated nung teenager,
he attempted to to kill himself...etc...and tawag po diyan ay split personality disodrer, rooted n nung sanggol pa siya...kasi meron siyang
imaginary friend....sino daw yun?....yung taong kapangalan niya hahahaha...or because of drug abuse or accident which happened
before the marriage, X developed or acquired this kind of psychosis.
But remember, sabi ng Court, hindi na kailangan ng medical report if, so malaking IF, the totality of evidence points to the
gravity of the incapacity at ito ay kayang patunayan ng mga testimonies ng mga witnesses. So dapat marami kang witnesses, at willing
ang family and friends ng spouse mo to testify in your favor. Otherwise, if ayaw ng family and friends, dapat mahusay yung doktor to
convince them to grant an interview. Hindi pwedeng ikaw lang o ang mga anak mo ang maiinterview ng doktor. Hahanap ka talaga ng
mga taong nakasalumuha na ng spouse mo, even before you know him.
But in one case, sabi ng court, if the medical report ng erring spouse contains only the testimonies of the wife, her friends or
children, at wala ang side ng asawa or anyone who is neutral...it is like hearsay. Not admissible in evidence. So deny yung yung cause
of action.
INCURABILITY
Simply said -walang lunas. Permanent na. If even curable, hindi ang kagandahan mo ang magpapabago sa asawa mo. Let
say, psychotic si mister. Walang lunas yun but with medical maintenance, X can live normally. But it will still linger. There were women
na kayang mag handle ng asawang may psychosis. They grew up and wired how to get along with a spouse na may medical condition.


Kaya nga there was a question raised sa isang case, if the husband cannot handle marriage because he has psychological
incapacity, di ba dapat forever disqualified siya to contract marriage? The court said, no. Baka sa iyo lang. Marriage is a tango. Dalawahan
yan. Maaring ikaw you cannot handle him but merong taong inilaan para sa kanya. And true enough, yung mga lalaking annulled ang
marriage, pag nag-kaidad na, nakakapagasawa at namumuhay ng maayos. They found heaven in the second marriage.
One more, let say tinanong sa bar. Y filed annulment against X, the court denied ang annulment. And then, the wife found out
that they have no marriage license pala. So she file a case again for nullity of marriage on the ground of lack of marriage license. Pwede Page | 49
p b yun? Magka-iba naman ng grounds. Hindi na pwede. Estopped na si wife. Kasi sa unang petition, she alleges that they were validly
married. Tapos ngayon, void for lack of license. Hindi n pwede yun. So papasok yung principle ng estoppel.
So we have to choose wisely on what ground to annul the marriage, kasi may mga advantages or disadvantges yan.
Let say if walang license, the children are illegitimate. Pero sa art 36, legitimate. So may effect yan sa inheritance ng mga
bata at sa mga donations. Tapos walang property regime ang mag asawa, not conjugal nor absolute. Special co-ownership yan under
art 147. So mamili ka na – kung anong ground ang mas advantage sa iyo. Ay! hindi na lang ako magfaffile ng annulment based on no
license or Art 36, super bilyonaryo nga pala siya…. Ipapa void ko n lang kasi he concealed na homosexual siya, para voidable lang
marriage ko. The advantage is, legitimate ang mga anak ninyo, at kung mayaman si Mr. Aba eh di share kayo sa properties, forfeited
yung kanyang net profits at yung mga anak ninyo ibibigay na agad yung presumptive legitime as advance ng inheritance nila. So there
it is. Mawawlan k rin lang ng asawa at nagdusa ka na rin lang, pwede kang umalis sa marriage ng tagumpay!
JURISPRUDENCE
COURT MUST DECLARE THE MARRIAGE NULL AND VOID

WITHOUT AWATING FOR THE DISOLUTION OF THE PROPERTIES
IF THE GROUND IS PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACTY UNDER ART 36 OF FC (or VOID marriages)
Dino vs. Dino, G.R. No. 178044, January 19,2011
X and Y cohabitated from 1984 to 1994. They were back together in 1996, and decided to get married on 1998. In 2001, X
filed a declaration of nullity on the grounds of psychological incapacity of Art 36 of the Family Code. The trial court annuled the marriage
with notation that the decree of the nullity shall be issued after liquidation, partition and distribution of the parties’ properties under Art
147. Is the trial court correct?
No. The Court has ruled in Valdes v. RTC, Branch 102, Quezon City that in a VOID MARRIAGE, REGARDLESS OF ITS
CAUSE, the property relations of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed either by Article 147 or Article 148 of the Family
Code. Article 147 of the Family Code applies to union of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract
marriage, but, whose marriage is nonetheless void, such as A and B in this case.
(memorize and understand this – most likely ito itatanong sa bar exam)
For Article 147 of the Family Code to apply, the following elements must be present:
(a) the man and the woman must be capacitated to marry each other;
(b) they live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and
(c) their, union is without the benefit of marriage, or their marriage is void.
All these elements are present in this case and there is no question that Article 147 of the Family Code applies to the property relations
between A and’B.
The trial court erred in ordering that a decree of absolute nullity of marriage shall be issued only after liquidation, partition and
distribution of the parties’ properties under Article 147 of the Family Code. The ruling has no basis because Section 19( 1) of the Rule on


Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Null Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages does not apply to cases governed under Articles
147 and 148 of the Family Code. Section 19(1) of the Rule provides:
Sec. 19. Decision. – (1) the court renders a decision granting the petition, it shall declare therein that the decree
of absolute nullity or decred of annulment shall be issued by the court only after compliance with Articles 50 and 51 of the
Family Code as implemented under the Rule on Liquidation, Partition and Distribution of Properties.
Page | 50
The pertinent provisions of the Family Code cited in Section 19(1) of the Rule are:
Art 50. The effects provided for in paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 43 and in Article 44 shall also apply in
proper cases to marriages which are declared void ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45.
The final judgment in such cases shall provide for the liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties of the
spouses, the custody and support of the common children, and the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters
had been adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings.
All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be notified of
the proceedings for liquidation.
In the partition, the conjugal dwelling and the lot on which it is situated, shall be adjudicated in accordance with the
provisions of Articles 102 and 129.
Art. 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive legitimes of all common children, computed as of the date of
the final judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in cash, property or sound securities, unless the parties, by mutual
agreement judicially approved, had already provided for such matters.
The children or their guardian, or the trustee of their properly, may ask for the enforcement of the judgment.
The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed shall in no way prejudice the ultimate successional
rights of the children accruing upon the death of either or both of the parents; but the value of the properties already received
under the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be considered as advances on their legitime, (n)
It is clear from Article 50 of the Family Code that Section 19(1) of the Rule applies only to marriages which are
declared void ab initio or annulled by final judgment under Articles 40 and 45 of the Family Code. In short, Article 50 of the Family
Code does not apply to marriages which are declared void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code, which should be declared void
without waiting for the liquidation of the properties of the parties. Article 40 of the Family Code contemplates a situation where a second
or bigamous marriage was contracted. Under Article 40, “the absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of
remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment declaring such previous marriage void.” Thus the Court ruled:
X x x where the absolute nullity of a previous marriage is sought to be invoked for purposes of contracting second marriage,
the sole basis acceptable in law, for said projected marriage to be free from legal infirmity is a final judgment declaring a
previous marridge void.
Article 45 of the Family Code, on the other hand, refers to voidable marriages, meaning, marriages which are valid until they
are set aside by final judgment of a competent court in an action for annulment. In both instances under Articles 40 and 45, the marriages
are governed either by absolute community of property or conjugal partnership of gains unless the parties agree to a complete separation
of property in a marriage settlement entered into before the marriage. Since the property relations of the parties is governed by absolute
community of property or conjugal partnership of gains, there is a need to liquidate, partition and distribute the properties before a decree
of annulment could be issued. That is not the case annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code because the marriage is
governed by the ordinary rules on co-ownership.
In this case, X’s marriage to Y was declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code and not under Article 40 or 45. Thus,
what governs the liquidation of properties owned in common by the spouses are the rules on co-ownership. In Valdes, the Court ruled


that the property, relations of parties in a void marriage during the period of cohabitation is governed either by Article 147 or Article 148
of the Family Code. The rules on co-ownership apply and the properties of the spouses should be liquidated in accordance with the Civil
Code provisions on co-ownership. Under Article 496 of the Civil Code, “partition may be made by agreement between the parties or by
judicial proceedings, x x x.” It is not necessary to liquidate the properties of the spouses in the same proceeding for’declaration of nullity
of marriage.
(explanation – unawain ito at tandaan) Page | 51

Ang binuwag lang ng court ay ang cohabitation dahil kailanman hindi sila naging mag-asawa – void ab intio)
So, kung ang basis ng annulment is under Art 35 (legal incapacity, lack of any requisite of a valid marriage), Art 36
(psychological incapacity), Art 37 (incestous marriages), Art 38 (void because of public policy) or the marriage is void because it is
bigamous, the court must declare it void and immediately issue the decree of nullity. There’s no need for liquidation, partition and delivery
of legitime – dahil there’s no property regime.
Reason: Kasi po void ab initio, it means there was no marriage at all. And becuase it is void from the beginning, wala silang
property regime. So papasok ang regime nila sa tinatawag na speial co-owership under either Art 147 or Art 148. So here the estranged
couple may just make a project of partition to be approved by the court.
If the marriage is voidable. There shall be dissolution, liquidation and partition of properties and delivery of the presumptive
legitime of the children plus registraion of the decree ot the local civil registrar where the court resides and to the civil registrar where the
marriage took place, and the registration of the decree to appropriate property registries.
Reason: kasi po there was a valid marriage kaso nga lang voidable. So meron silang property regime. It is either via marriage
settlement, absolute community, conjugal partnership of gains or complete separation of properties which the court must dissolve prior
to the issuance of the final decree of annulment.
EXCEPTION
Paano if the marriage is Art 41 and 42 of the Family Code. Does the court need to rule on its validity? NO! Automatic terminated yan
upon recording sa civil registry of the appearance ng nawawalang spouse. Yan ang tinatawag na TERMINABLE MARRIAGE.
ABANDONMENT AND SEXUAL INFIDELITY PER SE

DO NOT CONSTITUTE PSCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
Republic vs. Court of Appeals, G.R No. 159594, November 12,2012
Abandonment was not one of the grounds for the nullity of marriage under the Family Code. It did not also constitute
psychological incapacity, if being instead a ground for legal separation under Article 55(10) of the Famity Code. On the other hand, sexual
infidelity was not a valid ground for the nullity of marriae under Article 36 of the Family Code considering that there should be a showing
that such marital infidelity was a manifestation of a disordered personality that made her completely unable to discharge the essential
obligations of marriage.
Abandonment – it is not a ground for nullity of marriage, or does constitute psychological incapactiy. It is a ground for legal separation.
ART 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE IS NOT A DIVORCE LAW

[1] Is Art. 36 of the Family Code a divorce law?
No. Article 36 of the Family Code is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes
therefore manifest themselves. It refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of marriage. It is a
malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about
to assume. (Perez-Ferraris vs.Ferraris, G-R.No. 162368, July 17, 2006)


Bld2020 Family 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bld2020 Family 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FROM Nth Time BAR CHALLENGER TO ATTORNEY

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

ANG MGA MANUNULAT AY NAGSIKAP NA PABABAIN ANG HALAGA NG MATERYALES NA ITO

BAR LAW FOR DUMMIES 2020

PART I: FAMILY CODE

VOID MARRIAGES …14

PROPERTY REGIME OF UNIONS WITHOUT MARRIAGE…31

CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP OF GAINS…74

ABSOLUTE COMMUNITY OF PROPERTIES…89

CPG VS. ACP …92

MARRIAGE SOLEMNIZED / DIVORCE OBTAINED ABROAD…124

REGIME OF SEPARATION OF PROPERTY…146

DONATIONS BY REASON OF MARRIAGE...149

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS BETWEEN HUSBANDS AND WIVES…150

PROPERTY RELATIONS BETWEEN HUSBANDS AND WIVES...151

PATERNITY AND FILIATION...164

VESTED RIGHT… 198

PART II: DOCTRINES IN CIVIL LAW

WHEN LAW TAKES EFFECT… 221

LEGAL EFFECTS OF IGNORANCE OF THE LAW… 222

WAIVER OF RIGHTS… 223

JUDICIAL DECISIONS AS PART OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM… 224

DUTY OF THE COURTS TO RENDER JUDGMENT… 224

PRESUMPTION IN CASE OF DOUBTS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW… 225

NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE… 226

LEX REI SITAE… 226

LEX LOCI CELEBRATIONIS… 227

OBSERVATION OF HONESTY AND GOOD FAITH… 239

INDEMNIFICATION FOR ILLEGAL ACTS… 240

ACTIONABLE ACTS… 240

UNJUST ENRICHMENT… 244

RIGHT OF PRIVACY… 245

INDEPENDENT CIVIL ACTION… 245

IMPAIRMENT OF RIGHTS AND LIBERTIES… 245

PREJUDICIAL QUESTIONS IN CIVIL LAW… 246

PART III. THE LAW ON PERSONS

JUDICIAL CAPACITY VS. CAPACITY TO ACT… 248

WHEN CHILD IS CONSIDERED BORN… 248

PRESUMPTION OF SURVIVORSHIP… 251

PRESUMPTION OF DEATH – ORDINARY ABSENCE… 251

PART IV: OTHER CIVIL LAW CONCEPT

CIVIL LAW SYSTEM VS. COMMON LAW SYSTEM… 255

RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL… 255

JOINT VENTURE… 256

PRESUMPTION OF SURVIVAL IN RULES OF COURT… 257

2019 BQA PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS...257

HOW TO ANSWER BAR QUESTIONS?

2018 BAR EXAMINATION CIVIL LAW PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

[Direct answer) [The legal basis]

[Direct answer] [The applicable law]

[a] What is the filation status of Shalimar? (2.5%)

[a] What is the filation status of Shalimar? (2.5%)

Legitimate, Art 36, by express provision of the law.

Article 147 property regime for cohabitation

Practice writing the “initial answer” in the space provide below..

Question no. 10.

[a] What is Sabina’s filiation status? (2.5%)

[b] Is Sinclair legally required to finance Sabina’s law education?

Are Sam’s parents correct? (2.5%)

(a) How should the properties be partitioned? (2.5%)

(b) Should Semuel be required to support the minor children? (2.5%)

In our lecture we wil use the following persons

Z= the paramour or the second husband ni Y

W = the paramour or second wife ni X