1. Al and Fe were both 18 years old when they got married on 14 February 2000.

They
cohabited for a few months, but separated when both of them had to leave for Manila to
finish college. In 2004, Fe became a dentist. In 2008, Al passed the Bar examinations
given in the same year. By this time, Al had a steady girlfriend. Fe was also entertaining
the thought of being committed to another person. On 15 May 2020, Al and Fe met and
decided that they would give each other a chance to be with the person they truly loved.
In the presence of a lawyer, Atty. Andy, Al and Fe signed an agreement wherein they
mutually agreed, among others, that they have decided to set each other free, that they
will not file any action against each other for the infidelity of the other, and that any
property thereafter acquired by them will personally belong to them. The agreement was
notarized by Andy. Under the facts, will Al and Fe be now capacitated to marry? NO.
(Art. 1, Family Code)

No, Al and Fe are not capacitated to remarry. Under the facts, Al and
Fe did not declare a proof of nullity hence in compliance with Art. 1
of the FC, marriage is a special contract of permanent union between
a man and a woman in which the state is vitally interested and as
stipulated on the case of Arbolario v Colinco a valid marriage
established shall deemed to continue until a proof that it has legally
ended hence on the facts obtained on this question Al and Fe did not
secure any proof that their marriage has legally ended.
2. Assume in the preceding number that Al had a live-in partner, Rita, with whom he had
been cohabiting since February of 2005. They had two children – Alicia and Alden. On
18 June 2019, Al died of a hypertensive stroke. Under the facts, and pursuant to the 15
May 2020 agreement of the parties, will Rita inherit from the estate of Al as his legal
spouse? NO. (Art. 1, Family Code)

No, Rita would not inherit any estate as Al’s legal spouse. Under the
facts, Al and Fe has no grounds for legal separation nor annulment,
thus, the validity of their marriage will continue, in compliance with
Art. 1 of FC. The cohabitation of Al with another person will not
server the tie of the subsisting previous marriage, hence, Rita is not
entitled to any inheritance from Al nor Fe.

3. Felipe and Adelaida, both 20 years old, were married on 20 June 1960 in their parish
church in Mactan, Cebu. After two weeks of cohabitation, they separated and never saw
each other until Felipe’s death on 2 April 2015. Felipe never married again until he died.
He left assets amounting to P30 million. In the settlement of his estate, Adelaida could
 not present a copy of their marriage contract which was among the documents burned
when the Mactan Municipal Hall caught fire on 5 May 1971. Under the facts, can
Adelaida inherit from Felipe as his legal wife? YES. (Arts. 1, 2 & 3, Family Code)

Yes, Adelaida can inherit from Felipe as his legal wife. Under the
facts, the two cohabited away from each other, but this does not
invalidate their legal marriage. In compliance with Arts. 1, 2, and 3,
their marriage will serve as a permanent union even they cohabited
apart from each other for a long amount of time. Adelaida can resort
to the witnesses of legal age on their marriage to prove validity of
their marriage with the absence of a marriage contract.
Marriage contract is neither an essential nor a formal requisite of marriage, in
accordance with Art. 2 and 3 of the FC.

4. Nora and Pedro, both 17, were married with the blessings of their parents who had
arranged their marriage since they were young. Both their parents executed a notarized
affidavit giving their consent to the marriage, which affidavits were attached to the
parties’ application for a marriage license. Under the facts, is the marriage between Nora
and Pedro valid? NO. (Art. 2 [1], 35 [1] & 45 [1], Family Code)

No, the marriage between Nora and Pedro is not valid, and shall be
void from the beginning. Under the facts, the two does not have the
legal capacity to marry, hence, no amount of consent will authorize
the validity of the marriage, in compliance with Art. 2. Therefore, the
marriage between Nora and Pedro is void from the beginning, even
with the consent of parents due to lack of essential requisites.

Compare Art. 35 (1) to Art. 45 (1). If the parties do not have legal capacity to marry, will the
marriage assume the status of validity if the parents of the minor gave their consent to the
marriage?
Yes, the legal capacity will assume the status of validity of marriage. Under the
provisions, there are restrictions and conditions to be followed for the couple to validate their
marriage in compliance with the stated legal capacity for the contracting parties has to possess.
 5. In the immediately preceding question, assume that Nora and Pedro were both 18 when
they got married. This time, however, both their parents did not give their blessings as
they wanted the couple to get married at the age of 21. Under the facts, is the marriage
between Nora and Pedro valid? YES, but marriage is voidable… (Art. 45 [1], Family
Code)

Yes, the marriage between Nora and Pedro is valid, but it is voidable (or has
the ground for annulment). Under the facts, the couple invoke legal capacity
to be married, however, in compliance with Art. 45 (1) of the FC, couples
married between the age of 18 to 21 without parental consent shall have the
grounds for annulment, but their marriage shall still be valid because at this
age does not possess the degree of maturity to comprehend the consequences
of responsibilities and martial relations of marriage.
Are you still required to obtain parental consent under Art. 14 of the Family Code if your age is
21 at the time of the celebration of the marriage? No. You will need parental advice as required
under Art. 15 this time.

No, parental consent of marriage of parties aged 21 would not need parental
consent, however, they are required to have parental advice in compliance with
Art. 15 of the FC and are given three months following the completion of their
publication of their marriage.
6. Dodoy and Daday, who had the same birthdate, were both 17 years and eleven months
old when they applied for a marriage license with the LCR of Quezon City of which both
of them were residents. After they obtained their license, they were married by Fr. Mark
at the Redemptorist Church in Tacloban City, which is Daday’s hometown. Is this
marriage void for lack of legal capacity? NO. (Art. 2 [1], Family Code)
(3 month rule) Art. 15?? Kasi iissue ka pa eh or baka yung marriage license art. 20?? Di
pa naman sila ikakasal like nasa altar na talaga, mag aapply pa lang – for follow up

No, their marriage would not be void due to the lack of legal capacity. As
obtained on the facts the legal capacity to marry will start at the
solemnization of the marriage,. Additionally, the couple got married after
they obtain their license, hence, it is conclusively presumed that the couple
waited for the amount of time for them to be legally capacitated to marry,
hence, their marriage would not be void. (add if in compliance art. 3, it is a
formal requisite to have a marriage license)
When is a contracting party’s legal capacity to marry determined? Is it at the time the
contracting parties apply for a marriage license, or is it at the precise moment the marriage is
celebrated?
The legal capacity to marry determines the precise moment on when the marriage will be
celebrated, hence, applying for a marriage license would be legal if both parties will be in the
legal age before the expiry of their marriage license.
7. Conrado, a transgender, went to Thailand and underwent sexual reassignment.
Thereafter, he changed his name to Connie. Two years after her procedure, she met
Arturo, who proposed marriage to her after one year. Two years after their marriage,
Connie confirmed that Arturo had sexual relations with his secretary, who in fact was
already pregnant with Arturo’s child. Connie then filed a criminal case for concubinage
against Arturo. Under the facts, will the action prosper? NO. (Art. 2 [1], Family Code)

No, the action would not prosper. Under the given facts, Connie
would not be recognized as a transgender-woman under the Philippine
law, in compliance with Art. 2 (1) of the FC, Connie is not legally
capacitated to marry because the marriage requirement requires a
male and a female to marry. Hence, Connie would not be able to file
any actions into their marriage that was not valid in the first place.
8. Belen and Caloy were wedded on 15 May 2019. The only reason why Belen gave her
consent to the marriage was because Caloy, who was a Canadian citizen, promised that
he would petition Belen to Canada where lucrative employment was waiting for her.
After their two-week honeymoon in Boracay, Caloy went back to Canada. Six months
passed, but Caloy never communicated with Belen. On 20 June 2020, Belen filed an
action for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Caloy on the ground of lack of
an essential requisite for their marriage. She avers that she did not really give her consent
to the marriage, and the only reason that she gave it was because of Caloy’s promise to
petition her to Canada, which never materialized. Can this marriage be declared void ab
initio for lack of an essential requisite- that she did not give her consent? NO. (Art. 2
[2], Family Code; See also Art. 45 [3] in relation to Art. 46, FC)

No, their marriage would not be declared as void ab initio for the lack
of essential requisites. Under the facts, Belen gave her consent to the
marriage, however, neglected the idea of complying with all martial
obligations. As stated on Art. 2 (2), Belen consented freely during
their marriages, and with regards to Art. 45 (3) and Art. 46, there is no
grounds for annulment for character and wealth, and Belen had full
knowledge of her intentions and his spouse, but preceded to marry
 otherwise. Therefore, their marriage cannot be declared as void ab
initio. (Art. 46 – not including character and wealth for fraud) Art. 46,
par. 2
Additionally, there is no grounds for character the guilty spouse in compliance
with Art. 46.
Can Belen argue that her consent was vitiated by fraud on the part of Caloy? See the cited
provisions above.
No, Belen cannot imply that her consent was vitiated by fraud. Under the facts,
Belen had a clear intention as to why she married Caloy, however, this does not imply that they
must neglect the martial and family obligations that they needed to comply with after being
married, as observed in Art. 2. In compliance with Art. 45 (3) and Art. 46, there is no fraud
occurred as both parties have full knowledge of their spouse’s intention for marriage.
YES _ PAG KUNWARI GINAWA THRU FRAUD

9. On 2 May 2020, Ben and Fe were married by Fr. John at the St. Joseph Parish in
Parañaque. Fr. John, however, failed to subsequently register the parties’ marriage
certificate with the Local Civil Registrar of Parañaque. Is this marriage valid? YES.
(Arts. 2 & 3, Family Code)

Yes, their marriage is valid even with the failure of registration of their marriage
certificate. Under the facts, the couple got married, hence, it is presumed that they
complied in having all formal and essential marriage requisites as observed in Art.
2 and 3 of the FC. Since the marriage certificate does not require a couple to
invalidate their marriage, hence, failure of registration for marriage certification
will not invalidate their marriage.
Is the marriage contract a formal or an essential requisite of marriage?
A marriage contract is neither a formal nor an essential requisite of marriage, as
observed in Art. 2 and 3 of the FC. Marriage contracts may only serve as a validation of proof of
marriage and for formality purposes of their documents, however, the validity of the marriage is
not dependent on this.
 10. On 15 July 2020, Mercy and Billy, both 25 years old, applied for a marriage license with
the Local Civil Registrar (LCR) of Manila where both of them were residents. Five days
before the issuance of the license, Billy, a seaman, was called on by his employer to
board his ship of assignment. Hence, on 21 July 2020, Mercy and Billy were married by
Mercy’s uncle who was a Judge in Manila. It was agreed that Mercy was to submit their
marriage license to her uncle as soon as it was issued by the LCR. Under the facts, is the
marriage valid? NO. (Art. 3 [2], Family Code)

No, their marriage shall not be valid. Under the facts, their marriage
did not secure any marriage license before being married, but yet
conducted a married without it. In accordance with Art. 3 (2), a
marriage license is a formal requisite of a marriage, and without it, the
marriage would be void from the beginning. Therefore, their marriage
is not valid and it is void.

11. On 15 March 2020, the LCR of Manila issued to Nonoy and Neneng, both 19 years old, a
marriage license. The license was issued by the LCR despite the requirement of the law
that the affidavit of consent of the parents of the contracting parties must be attached to
the parties’ application. Without the consent of the parents, Nonoy and Neneng
subsequently exchanged vows on 15 August 2020 at the San Agustin Church in
Intramuros officiated by Fr. James. Under the facts, is this marriage valid? NO. (Arts. 3
[1], 45 [1], & 20, Family Code)
No, their marriage would not be valid. Under the facts, their marriage license were already
expired at the time of use and, the couple were both 19 years of age when they exchanged vows
and got married, however, there were no given parental consent for them to legally authorize
their marriage. In compliance with Art. 3 (1) of the FC, a marriage license is a formal requisite of
marriage; Art. 20 states that there must be issuance of a marriage license, complying with Art. 45
(1) as the couple were 19 years of age, requiring them to attain parental consent of their parents
for either or both parties aged 21 below. Hence, their marriage is not valid (and/or may be
annulled) EXPIRED MARRIAGE LICENSE – VOID AT BEGINNING

Distinguish between a situation where the LCR issues a license despite lack of the
required affidavit of consent attached to the parties’ application, and a situation
where the parties married beyond the lifespan of their license.
If the contracting parties are either or both of the age between 18 and lower than
21 years, they are required to have parental consent of their marriage for the
issuance of LCR for their marriage license. However, if either or both contracting
 parties are aged 21 and 25, there is no need for a parental consent to acquire
issuance of LCR for their marriage license, but a parental advice is needed, the
marriage license would not be issued until after three months following the
completion of the publication of application, in accordance with Art. 15.
For the first situation, if either or both contracting parties are aged between 18 and
below 21, must attach an affidavit of their parental consent in their marriage
license.
On the other hand, both contracting parties over the age of 21 does not need any
form of affidavit of their parental consent in their marriage license instead
parental advice.
12. Jinky and Junbie were engaged to be married on 16 June 2020. On 15 June 2020, Jinky
came up with a rare viral infection and had to be isolated at home due to the gravity of
the ailment. Since all arrangements had already been made and paid, Jinky decided to
execute a special power of attorney authorizing her twin sister Ginger to attend the
wedding in her stead, and to sign the marriage contract after the ceremony is over. The
special power of attorney was duly notarized by a notary public. The celebration went
well, and nobody even realized that Jinky was sick and was unable to attend her wedding.
Under the facts, will this marriage assume validity considering that consent was
definitely given by the parties? NO. (Art. 3 [3], Family Code)

No, their marriage would not be valid, and it is void from the
beginning. Under the facts, Jinke was not personally present on the
solemnization. In compliance with Art. (3) of FC, it is a formal
requisite that the marriage ceremony shall take place in the
appearance of both contracting parties, as the Philippines prohibits
proxy-marriages. Therefore, their marriage is not valid from the
beginning, due to lack of formal requisite of a marriage.
13. Florante and Laura were married by Laura’s godfather, Judge Romeo of Quezon City,
who was her favorite godfather since she was a child. Since both of the parties were
residents of Manila, the marriage ceremony was celebrated in the chambers of Judge
Romeo’s best friend, Judge Ernesto, RTC Judge of Manila City. Florante and Laura
lived to celebrate their 40th wedding anniversary. Two weeks after the celebration,
Florante filed an action for the declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of
lack of a formal requisite. Laura and her children found out that Florante had a mistress
with whom he had relations for more than twenty years now. Under the facts, will the
action prosper? YES. (Art. 7 [1], Family Code)
 Yes, the action for annulment would prosper. Under the given facts,
the couple were married by a solemnizing officer on the chamber of
Judge Ernesto which is not under his jurisdiction In compliance with
Art. 7 (1), the marriage must be annulled because of the failure if
compliance of the solemnizing officer, acting beyond his limits of
jurisdiction due to lack of authority of the solemnizing officer hence
the marriage lacks formal requisites of a marriage under article 3(1).
14. Mac and Tahlia, both Seventh-Day Adventists, were wedded by Fr. Francis at the Manila
Cathedral in Intramuros. Both Mac and Tahlia believed in good faith that Fr. Francis had
the authority to solemnize their marriage. Is their marriage valid? NO. (Art. 7 [2] & 35
[2], Family Code)

No, their marriage would not be valid. Under the facts, the couple was
both a Sevent-Day Adventist, and was wedded by a priest under a
Catholic church. In accordance with Art. 7 (2), atleast one of the
contracting parties must be a member of the solemnizing officer’s
church or religious sect. Hence, their marriage is not valid due to lack
of authority of the solemnizing officer.
In determining the good faith of the parties in Art. 35 (2), be able to distinguish
between “ignorance of fact” and “ignorance of the law.”
Article 25 (2) of FC focuses mainly on the ignorance of the fact of the relevant
parties of the marriage, mainly for the solemnizing officer. Whether or not any of
the contracting parties are a member of the church or religious sect of the
solemnizing officer for it to be valid. On the other hand, Art. 35 (2) would not
comply to the ignorance to law as everyone is conclusively presumed to have
knowledge of the law, as stated in Art 3 of NCC.

15. Zoe boarded PAL Flight PR 306 bound for Houston, Texas, U.S.A. on 2 December
2015. While on a stop-over at Detroit, U.S.A., Zoe met Andrei, likewise a Filipino, who
was also travelling to Houston via Delta Air. Due to bad weather, both their airlines
announced that they will be held up at the airport for 48 hours. Their respective airlines
then made accommodation arrangements and they were back at the airport six hours
before their scheduled departures. In that span of time, Zoe and Andrei, both 38 years
old fell in love with each other. Right then and there, Andrei proposed marriage and Zoe
accepted. Three hours before boarding time, Andrei suffered from a stroke and was
unable to move his left arm and leg. Zoe then asked the Chief Pilot of their PAL flight,
 Capt. Remegio Gaspar, to marry them. Andrei died 20 minutes after the marriage. Is this
marriage valid? NO. (Arts. 7 [3] & 31, Family Code)

No, their marriage would not be valid. Under the facts, Zoe and
Andrei had different flights, and was wedded by an airplane chief
under the flight of Zoe. In compliance of Art. 7 (3), an airplane chief
may wed the couple, however, Art. 31 states that the airplane chief
must only solemnize a wedding within his jurisdiction. As Andrei
belongs to a different flight, Capt. Remegio Gaspar does not have the
jurisdiction to Andrei as he belongs in a different flight, hence, their
marriage is invalid due to lack of authority of the solemnizing officer.
Under Art. 31, can a marriage in articulo mortis be solemnized between
passengers of different flights?
No, in the event of articulo mortis, the airplane chief may only solemnize a
wedding under his authority. And that are passengers or crew members as both
contracting party under his flight.

16. Private Ryan belongs to a military unit headed by Major Pain. While in a place of
military operation, Ryan was shot, and is at the point of death. Jenny, his girlfriend,
requested Major Pain to marry them right then and there. Major Pain then married Ryan
and Jenny in the presence of two witnesses, the assigned priest in the unit – Fr. Malcolm,
and Ryan’s best friend – Private Emerson. Is this marriage valid? NO. (Art. 7[4],
Family Code)
No, their marriage is not valid. Under the facts, the assign chaplain is present as
stated by Article 7(4) a military commander can solemnize a marriage only on the
absence of the assigned chaplain hence Major pain does not have the authority to
solemnize a marriage therefore, their marriage will be invalid due to lack
authority of the solemnizing officer.
Under the facts, what requirement in Art. 7 (4), in relation to Art. 32, was not
complied with?
The requirement for the said provision is that the military commander will only
serve as a proxy to solemnize a wedding, if the assigned priest or chaplain is
absent during the military operation.
 The requirement needed in the said provision must comply that the military
commander in a unit, or if a chaplain is assigned to solemnize a wedding, as
stated in Art. 7 (4), which they did not comply because they had the priest just as
a witness of their marriage, as supposed that he must be the one solemnizing it.

17. When Consul-General Luna, assigned at the Philippine Consular Office in London, came
to the Philippines to vacation, he solemnized the marriage of Larry and Valerie, who both
believed in good faith that Consul-General Luna had the authority to solemnize their
marriage. Under the facts obtaining here, is the marriage between Larry and Valerie
valid? NO. (Art. 7[5], Family Code)

No, their marriage would not be valid. Under the facts, Counsul
General Luna is assigned at the Philippine Consular Office in London,
and he solemnized a marriage outside his jurisdiction and since the
marriage was conducted outside the consul-general’s jurisdiction, the
marriage will be invalid due to lack of authority of the solemnizing
officer.
In determining the good faith of the parties in Art. 35 (2), be able to distinguish
between “ignorance of fact” and “ignorance of the law.”
18. Sarah and Abraham were wedded by the Governor of Zamboanga at his office at the
Provincial Capitol on 18 August 2020. Is this marriage valid? NO. (Secs. 444-455, Art.
XVIII, R.A. No. 7160, Local Government Code.)

No, their marriage would not be valid. Under the facts, the
solemnizing officer solemnized the wedding of Sarah and Abraham in
the place wherein the Governor of Zamboanga lacks authority to do
so. In accordance with (Secs. 444-455, Art. XVIII, R.A. No. 7160,
Local Government Code.) One of the responsibilities of the mayor is
to solemnize a marriage, not a governor, hence, their marriage is
invalid and this serves as a defect of their contract. In short Governors
does not have the authority to solemnize a marriage because they
don’t fall under article 7.

19. Mexico does not require parental consent before the contracting parties can get married.
Nathan and Sabrina, both 19 years of age and Filipinos, got married in Mexico. They
were married in the presence only of their friends in Mexico because their parents were
 not notified about their wedding. One month after their marriage, Nathan and Sabrina
both came back to the Philippines to attend to their car rental business. Two weeks after
their arrival, the parents of Sabrina found out about the wedding and filed an action for
annulment of their marriage. Under the facts, will the action prosper? YES. (Art. 15,
New Civil Code; Art. 26, par. 1, Family Code; Art. 45[1], Family Code)

Yes, the action for annulment will prosper in their marriages. Under
the facts, the couple was married outside of the country and both in
the age of 19, without parental consent. In compliance with Art. 15 of
NCC, they are still bound by the laws of the Philippines, even if the
action was committed in a different land. Additionally, Art. 45 (1)
states that marriages aged between 18 and before 21 shall have
parental consent, otherwise will be voidable upon filling a petition for
annulment. Due to the failure of complying to the stated provisions, it
is hereby declared that the conducted marriage shall be at the grounds
for annulment.
Consent is an essential requisite; hence, a defect in the parties’ consent will affect
its validity. Being an essential requisite of marriage, it will be governed by the
“nationality rule.” On the other hand, the formal requisites of marriage will be
governed by the law of the country where the marriage is celebrated – “lex loci
celebrationis.”
20. Tony and Pam, both 20 years old were married without the parental consent of both their
parents. They became very happy with their married life despite their parents’ dissent to
their relationship. Two years after their marriage, both their parents filed an action for
the annulment of their marriage on the ground of lack of parental consent. Under the
facts, will the action for annulment prosper? NO. (Arts. 45[1] & 47[1], Family Code)

No, the action for annulment will not prosper. Under the given facts,
Tony and Pam were both 20 years old when they got married, without
parental consent nor awareness, however, after 2 years, their parents
contended to file an annulment for the lack of their consent. In
compliance with and Art. 47 (1), for the causes from Art. 45 (1), the
couple already surpassed the age of 21, hence, they are 22. Therefore,
the filing for annulment of the parents of the contracting party would
not prosper as the couple no longer need parental consent in their
marriage hence the period of prescription for the parents to file an
annulment had already
21. Assume in the immediately preceding question that instead of the parents filing the
annulment case, it was Pam who filed the action for annulment on the ground of lack of
parental consent. Will her action prosper? NO. (Arts. 45[1] & 47[1], Family Code)

No, the action would not prosper. Under the facts, the action for
annulment was filed at the age that both contracting parties already
reach the age of majority, even if the couple got married at the age
where parental consent is required, the petition would not prosper, in
compliance with Arts. 45(1) and 47 (1) hence the action will not
prosper.
What is ratification by cohabitation?
Ratification by cohabitation is the legal agreement of both contracting parties who
lived together as husband and wife for at least 5 years, without any legal
impediment to marry each other, as observed in Art. 34 of FC. This states that this
is the exempts the requisite of the married couple of attaining a marriage license
due to the ratification by cohabitation.
22. Dulce married Xavier, the son of her father by her mistress. Is this marriage void for
reasons of public policy? NO. (Art. 37, Family Code)

No, their marriage would not be void due to reasons of public policy,
but be void due to relationship being incestuous. Under the given
facts, both Xavier and Dulce came from a common father, hence, they
are half-blooded siblings which is widely prohibited by Art. 37.
Therefore, their marriage would be void.
23. Five years after Karen and Daren married, Daren died of massive heart attack. After two
years, Karen remarried to Daniel, Daren’s elder brother who was also a widower. Is the
marriage of Karen and Daniel void for reasons of public policy? NO. (Art. 38[3],
Family Code)

No, their marriage would not be void for the reason of public policy.
Under the given facts, both contracting parties of the new marriage are
both widowers, and it is clear that the case of Karen and Daniel’s
marriage does not object the public policy and would not be void.
24. Lala and Jojo are husband and wife. Lani is their daughter. After Lala’s death, Jojo
married Lucy. Fred is the son of Lucy by his deceased husband Franky. If Lani and Fred
later get married, will their marriage be void for reasons of public policy? NO. (Art.
38[2], Family Code)

No, their marriage would not be void due to the reason of public
policy. Under the given facts, both contracting parties are merely step-
children from different marriage, as observed in Art. 38, marriage
between step-children may not prohibit their action from doing so,
unless the marriage takes places between a step-parent and step-child.
Hence, their marriage is valid.
BE VOID DUE TO INCESTOUS
In Nos. 22-24 above, determine the relationship between the parties, then decide
whether they are covered within the terms of the applicable provision.
The first contracting parties Xavier and Dulce are NOT half-brothers and sisters
because Xavier is just an adoptive child of Dulce’s father to his mistress, hence,
no marriage is valid for them to be called as half brothers and sisters. Therefore,
they are not prohibited by Art. 37 (2)
The second contracting party, Karen and Daniel are just in-laws of the same
degree, not parent nor children in law, hence, they are not prohibited in marrying
according to Art. 38 (3)
The third contracting parties, Lani and Fred is quite similar to the first one. They
are called as step-children of their parents as their parents are not legally bind
because their subsequent marriages are still in legal effect, therefore, marrying of
both step-children would not be prohibited as stated in Art. 38 (2)
remarrying cohabiting to a new “spouse” would not legalize their cohabitation.
Hence, they are not bind by Art. 38 (2)
25. Girlie is the daughter of Larry by his high school sweetheart Annie who died while
giving birth to Girlie. They were never married because Annie was only 17 when she
gave birth. Ten years after, Larry married Anita. Since they were childless after six
years of marriage, they decided to adopt 15-year-old Elmer. In one of their family
reunions, Elmer met Girlie and fell in love with her. Later, they got married. Is the
marriage of Girlie and Elmer void for reasons of public policy? NO. (Art. 38[7], Family
Code)
No, their marriage would not be void due to reasons of public policy. Under the
given facts, Elmer is an adoptive child of Larry, however, Girlie would be called
 as an illegitimate child, as her biological parents were never married upon her
delivery, and will forever be an illegitimate child. In compliance with Art. 38 (7),
the contracting parties would not violate the provision as the marriage is NOT
between an adopted child and a legitimate child, therefore, their marriage will
prosper and not be void.
Is Girlie a legitimate child of the adopter here?
No, Girlie is not a legitimate child of neither of her father nor the adopter. Girlie
would only be a legitimate child, if and only if her biological parents are settled
into a marriage, however, due to the demise of her mother, Girlie will never be a
legitimate child.

26. Madeline caught her husband in their conjugal bed at home having carnal knowledge
with her best friend. She took a gun from the bedroom drawer and shot her husband, who
died instantaneously. During the trial in the case for parricide filed against her by her
husband’s family, Madeline fell in love with the lawyer defending her case. Thereafter,
Madeline married her lawyer. Is this marriage void for reasons of public policy? NO.
(Art. 38[9], Family Code)
No, their marriage would not be void due to reasons of public policy. Under the
given facts, Madeline married her lawyer AFTER she have killed her former
husband, and in compliance with Art. 38 (9), there is no intention from Madeline
marrying her lawyer for the sake of killing her own spouse nor the other
intentionally, as this event happened BEFORE their marriage. Hence, their
marriage would not be void.
Was the killing made with the intention of marrying the other person?
No, the intention was NOT made for the sake of marrying other people. Madeline
had already killed her spouse before entering a marriage. Under the given facts,
Madeline fell in love with her lawyer, however, it is not stated that she had killed
her spouse for the sake of marrying her lawyer, as they never knew each other
even from way back then.

27. Lisa and Logan married when they were both 17 years old. After ten years, they
separated due to irreconcilable differences. Lisa later found out that Logan had remarried
to his high school classmate Angie. Lisa then filed a criminal action against Logan for
bigamy. In his defense, Logan avers that the charge for bigamy against him must be
dismissed on the ground that only his second marriage to Angie is valid, his first marriage
to Lisa being void for lack of legal capacity on both parties to the marriage. Under the
 facts, is Logan’s argument tenable? NO. Should the criminal charge for bigamy against
him be dismissed? NO. (Art. 40, Family Code)
No, Logan’s argument for void marriage is not tenable, and the charges for
bigamy must NOT be dismissed. Under the given facts Lisa and Logan got
married at the age of 17, which under objects Art. 3, and is void. However,
entering into a second marriage, without having the first one be declared legally
dissolved is prohibited, as stated in Art. 349 of Revised Penal laws. Therefore,
completely abandoning a void marriage and entering another marriage is
PROHIBITED, and the guilty spouse must be held for a criminal charge of
bigamy. JUDICIAL DECLARATION OF NULLITY, ART. 40
No, Logan’s argument for void of the first marriage is NOT tenable, and charges
for bigamy must NOT be dismissed. Under the facts, even if Lisa and Logan’s
marriage is void by not complying with the formal requisites of marriage under
Art. 3 of the FC, there MUST be a judicial declaration of nullity and be legally
dissolved of the first marriage marriage. Therefore, Logan is criminally liable for
bigamy in compliance with Art. 349 of the Revised Penal code for entering into a
subsequent marriage.
In relation to your study of the provisions of Art. 40 of the Family Code, what are
the elements of “Bigamy” under Art. 349 of the Revised Penal Code?
The elements of a Bigamy are marriage who was entered by the guilty spouse of
having any form of marriages before that has not been legally dissolved, and
existing marriages.

28. Haiden, 20, and Hana, 19, applied for a marriage license before the LCR. In their
application they attached, among others, the affidavits of their parents which gave them
consent to marry in this tenor: “That we are giving our child consent to marry a person
of his or her choice according to his or her wise judgment.” A marriage license was then
issued to the couple, who were subsequently wedded. Is this marriage voidable for lack
of parental consent? YES. (Art. 45[1], Family Code)
Yes, their marriage is voidable due to the lack of parental consent. Under the
facts, the contracting parties were both under the age of 21, requiring the couple
to attain parental consent for their marriage and there were no witnesses with their
affidavit. It is given that under the filed affidavit, the parental consent was not at
all useful as their parents did not gave parental authority as to whom they are
going to marry specifically, in compliance with Art. 45 (1). Therefore, their
marriage is voidable due to the vagueness of their parental consent.
29. Three months after their marriage, Nenita found out that her husband Henry was
psychiatrically ill. It was only then that Henry’s doctors told her that Henry had been
seeing them for five years now. However, instead of filing an action for annulment of the
marriage, Nenita decided to be with her husband because of her love for him. Two years
after their marriage, Henry regained his sanity. Realizing that he had married Nenita at a
time when he was out of his mind, he filed an action for annulment of their marriage. In
her answer to the complaint, Nenita’s lawyer retorted that the action for annulment will
no longer prosper because by cohabiting with Henry instead of filing an action for
annulment, Nenita had already ratified the defect in their marriage. Do you agree with
Nenita’s argument? NO. (Art. 45[2], Family Code)
No, Nenita’s argument is not tenable. Under the given facts, Henry, who was
formerly of unsound mind, regained his sanity and demands for annulment to his
spouse at the time he was of unsound mind. In compliance with Art. 45 (2), Henry
would not be called as freely cohabiting with his spouse, as he has unsound of
mind during their marriage and Nenita had knowledge of this, and in compliance
with Art 47 (2), as Henry regained sanity, he is capable to file for annulment as he
is now mentally capacitated to contract. Therefore, Nenita’s argument is NOT
tenable and their marriage is voidable.
Who is given the right of ratification by cohabitation under Art. 45 (2)?
Either of the contracting party who is NOT freely cohabiting the other party with
the reason of having unsound mind, and entering marriage with this in place. The
ratification for cohabitation, however, can only be attained of the party of
unsound mind, regaining sanity at the time for action for ratification.
30. Jessa gave birth to Jessie when she was 18 years old. Her parents did not advise her to
get married. They were more concerned with Jessa finishing a college degree. After she
gave birth, Jessa went to Manila while her parents took care of Jessie in Cebu City. After
Jessa became a CPA, she got married to Edward, who was a lawyer in the legal division
of the accounting firm where she was working. One year after their marriage, Edward
found out that Jessa had concealed from him the fact that she had a son in Cebu City.
Edward then filed an action for annulment of their marriage on the ground of fraud.
Under the facts, will Edward’s action for annulment of their marriage prosper? NO.
(Arts. 45[3] & 46[2], Family Code)
No, the action for annulment would not prosper. Under the given facts, Edward
got married to Jessa at the time where her child, Jessie was already born, hence,
Jessa did not concealed any pregnancy of her child at the time of marriage, as
strictly prohibited by Art. 46 (2). Therefore, the action for annulment would not
prosper to the concealment of an existing child, during and after their marriage.
 Look at the strict provisions of Art. 46 (2).
31. Wehrly and Charlie were married on 14 February 2015. The only reason why Charlie
married Wehrly was because the latter’s father, who was an ex-convict, threatened to kill
him and his family if he did not marry her. On 21 May 2017, after Wehrly’s father died,
the spouses transferred to a new home which Charlie loaned from the bank. On 1 March
2020, Charlie filed an action for annulment of his marriage on the ground of intimidation.
Under the facts, has Charlie already lost his right to file an action for annulment by
reason of prescription? NO. (Arts. 45[4] & 47[4], Family Code)
No, Charlies right to file an action for annulment was not yet lost. Under the
given facts, the discovery of the intimidation is presumed to be prior to their
marriage in 2015 by Wherly’s father, who later on died on 2017. In compliance
with Art. 45 (4) and 47 (4), Charlie is now out of intimidation, as the guilty
father-in-law is not dead, hence, the counting for his 5 year period of filing an
action for annulment will begin in 2017. Therefore, filing an annulment on 2020
will be valid as he is on his 3rd year span before losing the right to file for
annulment.
When do you reckon the counting of the 5-year period?
Counting the 5 year period for the preceding case, in compliance with Art. 45 (4)
and 47 (4) will only begin at the time that the petitioner is freely cohabited, and is
out of intimidation to file for action for annulment.

Tony and Pam were married on 5 April 2018. On 1 May 2020, they transferred
to an exclusive subdivision in Alabang, where Tony met many friends who also
played basketball. Two months after they relocated, Pam noticed that Tony went
out with his friends until the wee hours of the night
32. Two years after their marriage, Edna and Leo were informed by the doctor that they
could no longer have a child because Leo had become sterile after he suffered from a
viral infection commonly known as mumps. Consequently, Edna filed an action for
annulment of her marriage against Leo grounded on Article 45(5) of the Family Code.
Under the facts, assuming that Edna files an action for the annulment of her marriage
with Leo within five years from the time their marriage was celebrated, will her action
prosper? NO. (Arts. 45[5] & 47[5], Family Code)
No, the file for annulment would not prosper. Under the given facts, the husband,
Leo was discovered to be sterile two years after their marriage and was diagnosed
for mumps. In compliance with Arts. 45 (5) and 47 (7), sterility is not a ground
for annulment, because under the provisions, only incapability of consummating
 is the ground for such file for annulment to prosper. Therefore, as Leo is NOT
incapable of consummating, but only sterile, would not be a ground for
annulment.

Distinguish between impotence and sterility.

Impotence is the physical incapability of erection of the husband, and he is not
capable of consummating with his spouse, and Sterility is the incapability of the
husband to produce good sperms for their marriage to bear a child, however,
sterility does not pertain to be incapable of consummating.
33. Tony and Pam were married on 5 April 2018. On 1 May 2020, they transferred to an
exclusive subdivision in Alabang, where Tony met many friends who also played
basketball. Two months after they relocated, Pam noticed that Tony went out with his
friends until the wee hours of the night. The parties became frequent, and Tony even
started neglecting his work and his household chores. Later, Pam discovered that Tony
was already addicted to shabu. Pam now comes to you for legal advice on what to do.
Under the facts, will you advice Pam to file an action for annulment under Article 45(3)
in relation to Article 46(4) of the Family Code, or will you simply ask her to file an
action for legal separation under Article 55(5) of the Family Code? Only Article 55(5).
Pam will be advised to file an action for legal separation in compliance with Art.
55 (5). Under the given facts, Pam’s husband, Tony, had a habitual drug use and
alcoholism AFTER their marriage, hence, it shall not be said that it is concealed
as observed in Arts. 45 (3), and 46 (4). Therefore, Pam has the legal authority to
file for a legal separation for a separate cohabitation with regards to Art. 55 (5).
Compare “drug addiction” as a ground under Art. 46 (4) and Art. 55 (5).
Under Art. 46 (4), any concealment of drug addiction from the guilty spouse
already done BEFORE, that was later on discovered AFTER the marriage by the innocent spouse
is the prohibitive grounds for ANNULMENT.
Under Art. 55 (5), the habitual alcoholism and drug use that was done through a
habitual nature AFTER the marriage and discovered by the innocent spouse if the ground for
LEGAL SEPARATION. However, there is NO concealment in this case because the habitual use
was never concealed, and habit was attained after their marriage.
34. Sweetiepie and Honeybunch were married on 5 June 2020. Honeybunch, who was a
practicing lawyer, often complained to Sweetiepie of work pressure. On 20 July 2020,
Honeybunch started manifesting feelings of severe depression, until he was referred to a
psychiatrist for examination. Honeybunch was forced to resign from work and did not
talk to anyone, including Sweetiepie, because of his serious mental condition. Later, as
 his condition worsened, the doctors recommended that he be confined at the
Mandaluyong Mental Institution until such time that his discharge be recommended by
the attending psychiatrist. Will the facts herein stated give Sweetiepie sufficient ground
for the filing of an action for the annulment of her marriage to Honeybunch? NO. (Art.
45[2], Family Code)

No, Sweetiepie does not have sufficient ground to file for an

annulment. Under the given facts, to constitute under article 45(2) the
insanity must have existed at the time of marriage and the petitioning
spouse had no knowledge about the insanity. In this case, However,
Honeybunch only became insane after the solemnization of the
marriage hence sweetiepie have to live up to her commitment.
Read the clear terms of Art. 45 – “…causes “existing at the time of the marriage.”

35. Rodney is a homosexual. His best friend Tracy was the only one who understood him.
One day, Rodney proposed marriage to Tracy and told her that marrying her was the only
way he could straighten up – become a real man. Tracy, who also had a liking for
Rodney, accepted the proposal and the two were married on 6 July 2017. On 5 December
2019, Tracy saw Rodney in a bar having a drink with another man. Thereafter, she saw
them check-in in a motel. Will the facts herein stated give Tracy sufficient cause for the
filing of an action for annulment of her marriage to Rodney? NO. (Art. 45[3] in relation
to Art. 46(4), and Art. 55(6) of the Family Code)
No, the file for annulment would not prosper, however, legal separation can.
Under the given facts, it is in full knowledge of Tracy of his husband’s
homosexuality even before their marriage, as observed in Arts. 45 (3) and 46 (4),
therefore, an action for annulment would not prosper as concealment of sexuality
has never took place, and the Rodney’s alcohol drinking is not habitual. However,
a file for legal separation would prosper, as observed in Art. 55 (6), due to the
homosexuality of Rodney.
36. Patty celebrated her 20th birthday on 25 August 2017. On the same day, she married 22
year-old Paulo against the wishes of her parents. She was resolved at proving to her
parents that she had made the right decision. On 5 December 2019, Patty’s parents filed
an action for annulment of Paulo and Patty’s marriage for lack of parental consent
thereto. Under the facts, will the action for annulment prosper? NO. (Art. 45[1] in
relation to Art. 47(1) of the Family Code)
 No, the action for annulment by Patty’s parents would not prosper. Under the
given facts, Patty was only 20 years of age when she got married without parental
consent, however, her parents filed an action for annulment two years after their
marriage, when at that time, Patty is already 22 years of age and both parties
freely cohabited with each other as husband and wives.. In compliance with Art.
45 (1), the file for annulment due to the lack of parental consent by her own
parents will only prosper when at the time of filing, Patty is below 21 years of
age. Therefore, as Patty is already 22, the action for annulment would not prosper.
Read the clear terms of Art. 47(1) – when the parents can file an action for the
annulment of the marriage of their child based on the ground under Art. 45 (1).

37. A year after Jess and Cha married, they underwent a medical check-up as a requirement
for obtaining a life insurance policy. On this occasion, Jess was diagnosed to be afflicted
with AIDS in its advanced stage. After a series of assessments, it was traced that Jess
acquired the disease two years before the marriage and contacted it through a
contaminated syringe when he donated blood for an NGO. Even Jess was not aware that
he had the disease until their current check-up. Under the facts, will the good faith of
Jess preclude Cha from filing an action for annulment? NO. (Art. 45[6] in relation to
Art. 47(5) of the Family Code)
No, Jess cannot preclude Cha from filing an action for annulment. Under the
facts, Jess was unaware of attaining AIDS in a serious condition, three years after
attaining it, however, in compliance with Art. 45 (6), the disease is sought to be
serious, and is a ground for annulment, in compliance with Art. 47 (5), which an
annulment can be filed, five years after their marriage, where Cha is still legally
authorized to do so. Hence, their marriage has the grounds for annulment.
REMEMBER: Not only must you consider that the action for annulment is being
filed within the prescriptive period provided by law under Art. 47, but you have to
make sure likewise that the facts of the case constitute a ground for annulment
under Article 45.
38. One week after Shirley and Jerby married, Shirley discovered that Jerby was absolutely
and incurably impotent. However, since she believed that she had married her husband
for better or for worse, she decided to continue her marriage with him. After two years,
however, the thought of her not having a child became unbearable. She then consulted a
lawyer so she could file an action for annulment of her marriage. Will Shirley’s action
for annulment still prosper at this point in time? YES. (Art. 45[5] in relation to Art.
47(5) of the Family Code)
 Yes, filing for annulment would prosper. Under the given facts, Shirley’s husband
Jerby is sought to be IMPOTENT, and is a clear grounds for annulment, in
compliance with Art. 45 (5), due to the reason of not physically capable of
erection, hence, cannot bear to procreate an offspring. Therefore, the file for
annulment would prosper.
39. Mina told his boyfriend Edwin that she was seven weeks pregnant. She told Edwin that
her father was going to kill both of them if he found out about her pregnancy. As a
consequence, Edwin married Mina before people had the chance to notice that she was
pregnant. However, two months after their marriage, Edwin came to know that Mina was
not pregnant. Edwin consulted a lawyer who advised him that he had five years from the
time of the discovery of the fraud within which to file an action for annulment of the
marriage; hence, he still has time to file the action. Is the lawyer’s advice here legally
justifiable? NO. (Art. 45[3], Art. 46, last par., & Art. 47[3] of the Family Code)
No, the legal advice of the lawyer is not justifiable. Under the given facts, Mina
lied about being pregnant, encouraging Edwin to get married, however, in
compliance with Art. 46, last par., there will be no misinterpretation of of
character; or of being pregnant will lead to a fraud that caused the couple to get
married. Therefore, no fraud is seen in this case, and an action for annulment
would not prosper.
Was there “fraud” within the terms of Art. 45[3]?
There was no fraud in compliance with Art. 45 (3) of the given case above, as
observed in Art 46, last par. As other misinterpretation or deceit of character
would not characterize as fraud.
40. Kit met Mercy in a birthday party of one of his officemates. The two were love-struck.
Six months after their acquaintance, Kit proposed marriage to Mercy and they were
married six months thereafter on 20 June 2020. When they celebrated their second
“monthsary” on 20 August 2020, Kit learned from a friend that Mercy was a high-end
prostitute who frequently posted herself at the Cash and Carry Mall looking for wealthy
customers. In fact, his friend became one of Mercy’s customers. Mercy admitted to the
fact when Kit confronted him. Under the facts, will Kit have sufficient ground to file an
action for annulment of his marriage to Mercy? NO. (Art. 45[3], Art. 46, last par., &
Art. 47[3] of the Family Code)
No, there is no sufficient grounds for annulment. Under the facts, it is in Mercy’s
character to be a prostitute, and there was NO fraud in forcing the concerned party
to enter a marriage, as prohibited in Arts. 45 (3) and 47 (3). In compliance with
Art. 46, last par., there will be no deceit for character of Mercy, as it is her job as
 a prostitute, and is not a ground for annulment. Therefore, the case does not have
sufficient grounds for annulment.
41. In the State of Venezuela, the Governor is an authorized solemnizing officer. Marita and
Benito, both Filipinos, were married in Venezuela by the Governor of the district where
their marriage was solemnized. After spending two months in Venezuela together, they
came back to the Philippines. Under Article 7 of the Family Code, and under the
provisions of the Local Government Code, the Governor is not one of those persons
authorized to perform marriages in the Philippines. Under the facts and our current state
of laws, will the marriage of Marita and Benito be recognized and valid in the
Philippines? YES. (Art. 26, par. 1, in relation to Arts. 3 and 35[2] of the Family Code)
Yes, their marriage is valid in their originating country, Philippines. Under the
given facts, in Venezuela, the Governor is legally authorized to solemnize a
wedding, even if the Philippines does not recognize this capability for Governors,
whatever valid for marriage in other country, then the Philippines must recognize
this validity, in compliance with Art. 26, first par. Therefore, the nationality rule
would not apply, as the couple must comply to what is valid in the laws of the
land where the marriage took place. Therefore, their marriage is valid.
In this case, where the issue is compliance with the formal requisites of marriage,
the “nationality rule” will not apply. The formal requisites of marriage will be
governed by the law of the country where the marriage is celebrated – “lex loci
celebrationis.” (Art. 17, NCC)

42. In Bulgaria, the contract of marriage is required to be in writing in order to be valid.

Mimi and Kerwin, both Filipinos, went to Bulgaria to get married there. They, however,
failed to sign their marriage contract before they went back to the Philippines. Upon the
advice of one of their friends, they were told that it was not necessary anyway since
under Philippine laws, the marriage contract is only proof of the existence of marriage,
but will not affect its validity since the signing of the marriage contract is neither an
essential nor formal requisite under Articles 2 and 3 of the Family Code. Under the facts,
will Mimi and Kerwin be considered now married under Philippines laws? NO. (Art.
26, par. 1 of the Family Code)
No, their marriage would not be valid. Under the given facts, the couple were
wedded in Bulgaria that requires the contracting parties to have a the contract of
marriage in writing, which the couple failed to accomplish. In compliance with
Art. 26, par. 1, the married couple must conform to the laws of the land where
their marriage took place, for the Philippines to recognize the validity of it.
Therefore, as the couple failed to accomplish the formal requisite of their
 marriage in Bulgaria, Philippines would not recognize the validity of their
marriage.
43. Pam’s father is the brother of Dante’s mother. Unknown to their families, Pam and
Dante had been clandestinely seeing each other. After they finished college and obtained
employment in different companies, they decided to travel to Europe. They got married
in London, the laws of which recognize marriages between collateral blood relatives up
to the third civil degree. When Pam and Dante come back to the Philippines, will their
marriage be considered valid here? NO. (Art. 26, par. 1 & Art. 38[1] of the Family
Code)
No, their marriage would not be valid, even if they got married outside
Philippines, where marrying up to 3rd Civil degree is recognized. Under the facts,
Pam and Dante were collateral blood relatives to the 3rd civil degree, their legal
capacity of marriage is bind by law, in compliance with Art. 15 of Civil Code. In
compliance with Art, 38 (1), they are prohibited to marry as they are collateral
blood relatives to the 3rd civil degree, hence, their marriage is void from the
beginning, even if Europe allows marriage up to 3rd Civil degree.
44. Janice, a Filipina, was wedded to Axle, an American, at the St. Andrew’s Cathedral in
Parañaque City. After five years, they separated due to irreconcilable differences. Axle
went back to Ohio, and there obtained a divorce against Janice. Then he married the
sister of his best friend Ashley before a Justice of the Peace in Ohio. Three years after
Axle remarried, Janice herself thought of remarrying his childhood sweetheart Benjamin
who, for two years now, had been pleading Janice to marry him. Under the facts, by
virtue of the divorce obtained by Axle in the U.S., will Janice be capacitated to marry
Benjamin? YES. (Art. 26, par. 2, Family Code)
Yes, the divorce between Axle and Janice is obtained, and both are capacitated to
remarry. Under the facts, Axle filed a divorce in Ohio, where divorce is
recognized, therefore, both of them is capacitated to remarry under Art. 26, par. 2,
as it prohibits the status of one spouse still married to the other, as the other one is
completely single again. Therefore, the divorce filed by Axel must be recognized
in the Philippines for Janice to be able to remarry with Benjamin.
45. Will your answer to the immediately preceding number be the same if it was Janice who
obtained a decree of divorce from the U.S. Court? YES. (Art. 26, par. 2, Family Code;
Republic vs. Manalo)
Yes, even if Janice is the one who filed for a divorce in Ohio, the Philippines must
recognize this divorce. In compliance with Art. 26, par. 2 and in Republic vs.
Manalo, the provision prohibits the event where the law only recognizes divorces
where the alien spouse filed it, as it will prejudice the Filipino spouse, who back
 then were not capacitated to file for divorce, as it will not be recognized in the
Philippines. Therefore, even if the Filipino spouse file the action for divorce, it
must be recognized by the laws of the Philippines.
46. Diwata and Makisig, both Filipinos were married on 25 June 2012. On 6 April 2013,
both Diwata and Makisig left for Canada for a two-year employment contract as civil
engineers. On 18 June 2015, Diwata went back to the Philippines, but Makisig stayed in
Canada with his cousins who invited him to be part of their restaurant business. On 5
August 2018, Makisig filed a petition for divorce in a court in Canada, which was granted
on 28 February 2019. On 10 July 2020, Makisig’s application for Canadian citizenship
was approved. Under the facts, will Diwata be capacitated to remarry by virtue of the
decree of divorce issued by the court of Canada? NO. (Art. 26, par. 2 of the Family
Code)
No, Diwata is not capacitated to remarry. Under the given facts, Makisig filed a
divorce in Canada when he is a Filipino citizen, which the Philippines does not
recognize as there are no divorce laws yet, therefore, as Filipinos, they are bind by
national law, in compliance with Art. 15 of Civil Code. Under Art. 26, par. 2 of
FC, for them to be capacitated to file a divorce and remarry, the petitioner must
attain foreign citizenship to a country where divorce is recognized and has a legal
proof of Makisig’s naturalization. Hence, since the file was done as the petitioner
is a Filipino, Philippines will not recognize this, thus, they are still married.
47. Will your answer to the immediately preceding question be the same if Makisig’s
application for Canadian citizenship was approved on 20 July 2018? NO. (Art. 26, par.
2 of the Family Code; Republic vs. Orbecido III)
No, even if Makisig is now a citizen of Canada, Diwata must present a lefal proof
of naturalization of Makisig as a Canadian citizen for the divorce to prosper. As
observed in Republic vs. Obrecio III, the Philippines recognizes divorce from a
Filipino spouse, and a former Filipino spouse who is not an alien. However, for
the petition for annulment of the Filipino spouse to prosper, Diwata must have a
legal proof that Makisig is indeed a Canadian citizen.
48. Orly and Lani decided that they should part ways while they still had respect for each
other. They agreed that Lani should file the petition for legal separation on the ground
that Orly had contracted a subsequent marriage in Japan with a Japanese national. The
arrangement would be more beneficial to them since their properties will be liquidated
and divided between the two of them. Thereafter, they will acquire properties in their
own name and dispose of them without the consent of the other spouse. On the basis of
this agreement, the court granted Lani’s petition. Is the decree of legal separation valid?
NO. (Art. 60, Family Code)
 No, there is no decree of legal separation valid. Under the facts, their judgement
of legal separation was only done between themselves, not under any court, nor
any attorney assigned. In compliance with Art. 60, there is no decree of legal
separation with the agreement of both parties in settling into it. Therefore, there is
no recognized legal separation in their marriage, without the court legally
authorizing them to do so.
49. On 28 March 2016, Emerita filed a petition for legal separation against Ernesto grounded
on abandonment. On 8 August 2017, the court granted the petition and issued the decree
of legal separation. Emerita then went home to her parents’ house since the spouses had
no children. On 2 December 2017, Emerita’s childhood boyfriend Rolando proposed his
love for her. Rolando knew that they could not be married, but he asked Emerita if they
could live together. When Ernesto heard about the proposal, he threatened Emerita that
he will file an action for adultery against her if she decides to live with Rolando. Should
Emerita move in with Rolando, will Ernesto have cause to file a criminal case for
adultery against her? YES. (Art. 63 [1], Family Code)
Yes, Emerita can move in with Rolando, however, Ernesto is not capable of filing
adultery against Emerita. Under the given facts, Emerita and Ernesto are already
legally separated, hence, in compliance with Art. 63 (1), both parties are entitled
to live separately, and marriage bonds would not serve. The file for Adultery
would not prosper are Rolando have no sufficient evidence of Emerita having
sexual intercourse with another man, and they are already legally separated.
Therefore, living in together with Rolando is valid, and there is no adultery in this
case.
Yes, Ernesto has the cause to file for a criminal case of adultery against Emerita.
Under the facts, while the two are legally separated, it is no excuse for one of the
party to engage in a married life with another person as observed in Art. 63 (1) of
the FC. Therefore, adultery charge against Emerita is rightful if she continued to
live in Rolando.
50. Godofredo had Ynna when he was 17. His girlfriend died while giving birth to Ynna at
the age of 16. His parents took care of Ynna until he finished his college education.
Godofredo married Proserfina at the age of 28. Proserfina agreed to take Ynna to their
home. Ynna was then 10 years old. Five years after their marriage, and after Godofredo
was laid off from his job, he went home drunk every evening and shouted invectives at
15-year-old Ynna, while compelling her to work until midnight doing the laundry and
cooking for his guests. Proserfina was so frustrated as he saw Godofredo turn into a
completely different person. She then decided to file an action for legal separation
against Godofredo grounded on Art. 55 (1). Do the facts here constitute sufficient cause
for the filing of a petition for legal separation under Article 55 [1]? NO.
 No, the filing for legal separation would not prosper. Under the given facts, Ynna
is not labelled as a common child, nor a child of the petitioner, her adoptive
parent, Proserfina as what the Art. 55 (1) prohibits the guilty spouse from doing
so. Therefore, there is no grounds for legal separation as the action was done to an
adopted child of the petitioner.
Is Ynna one of those persons enumerated under Article 55 (1)?
No, Ynna is neither any person in Art. 55 (1), due to the reason of her being an
adopted child of her adoptive parent, Proserfina and an illegitimate child of
Godofredo. Hence, she is not covered in Art. 55 (1)
51. Chelsea and Dodgie have been married for six years now. On 13 July 2020, Dodgie was
convicted in a criminal charge against him for which he was sentenced by the court to six
years imprisonment. Under the facts, will Chelsea have legal cause to file an action for
legal separation against Dodgie? NO. (Art. 55[4], Family Code)
No, there is no cause for filing legal separation. Under the given facts, Dodgie had
been convicted for only six years of imprisonment, wherein under Art. 55 (4), the
grounds for a legal separation for this case must be above 6 years of conviction.
Therefore, there will be no ground for filing a legal separation.
52. While in the U.S. on a business trip, Garry married Jenny in Las Vegas. Six months
thereafter, his wife Monna found out about the marriage. Monna then filed a petition for
legal separation against Garry grounded on Article 55 (7) of the Family Code. Garry
asserts that a criminal case for bigamy will not prosper against him because the second
marriage was contracted outside the Philippines. This is applying the principle of
territoriality under Article 14 of the Civil Code. Hence, according to Garry, Monna’s
action for legal separation grounded on his alleged bigamous marriage cannot prosper.
Do you agree with Garry’s contentions? Only to the first contention. (Art. 55 [7],
Family Code)
No, Garry’s contention for principle of territoriality would not prosper. Under the
given facts, there ARE subsequent marriage, prior to marrying Jenny in Las
Vegas and is a GROUND FOR BIGAMY under Art. 349 of Civil code. And in
compliance with Art. 55 (7), Mona is legally bind to petition for legal separation
against Garry due to the reason of entering a second marriage, even if celebrated
abroad. Therefore, Garry is charged with bigamy, and Mona may indeed petition
for legal separation.
53. One year after their marriage, Efren went home to his mother’s house and left his wife
Ernestina and their son Ernest in their conjugal home. He decided to stay with his mother
as he was tired of his wife’s nagging. He just deposited to Ernestina’s bank account
every month money for maintenance of the household and for their son’s education. Two
 years after Efren left their home, Ernestina filed an action for legal separation against him
on the ground of abandonment. Under the facts, will Ernestina’s action prosper? NO.
(Art. 55[10], Family Code)
No, the action for legal separation would not prosper. Under the given facts, upon
separate cohabitation of Efren, he still managed to give financial support for their
family and child every month, where under Art. 55 (10), proves there is no form
of abandonment where this provision prohibits, and gives capacity to file for legal
separation and Ernestina should take part of the blame due to her nagging that
caused her husband to leave their home. Therefore, due to the inexistence of
abandonment, there is no grounds for legal separation.
54. On 16 July 2020, Carmelo left his wife Aurelia and their three children to be with his
mistress. Two weeks thereafter, Aurelia filed an action in court to enforce her right and
her husband’s duty to cohabit with her. She prayed that the court issue an order to
command her husband to return home. Under the facts, will Aurelia’s action prosper?
NO. (Art. 68, Family Code)
No, the action for legal separation would not prosper. Under the given facts, it had
been only two weeks since Carmelo abandoned their family for his mistress, and
in compliance with Art. 68, Carmelo failed to oblige in living with his family,
however, as stated in Art. 55 (10), for Aurelia to file a legal separation, there must
be more than a year of abandonment for her file to prosper. Therefore, filing for
legal separation for two weeks of abandonment would not prosper.
55. On 8 June 1988, Horacio and Nenita were married in an old church in Nenita’s province
in Mindoro. Before the marriage, Horacio was the registered owner of a BMW car worth
P6 million. On the other hand, Nenita was the owner of a 1,000 square meter lot in
Makati worth P10 million. Under the facts, will these properties form part of the
conjugal assets of the spouses? NO. Will they remain the exclusive or paraphernal
properties of the spouses? YES. (Arts. 75, 91 & 106, Family Code)
Their properties would NOT form as conjugal assents of the other spouse and
WILL remain exclusive properties of the spouse as they have no prenuptial
agreement, and got married BEFRORE June 8, 1988. Under the given facts, both
properties were owned by each spouse before their marriage, in compliance with
Arts. 75, 91 and 106, for them to have conjugal property of their exclusive
ownerships, before the marriage, there must be a settlement between both
contracting parties as to what property may be earned in the conjugal property of
their family. Therefore, a prenup agreement or marriage settlements must occur
before their marriage.
Art. 75. The future spouses may, in the marriage settlements, agree upon the regime of absolute
community, conjugal partnership of gains, complete separation of property, or any other regime. In the
absence of a marriage settlement, or when the regime agreed upon is void, the system of absolute
community of property as established in this Code shall govern. (119a)

Art. 91. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter or in the marriage settlements, the community
property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the
marriage or acquired thereafter

Art. 106. Under the regime of conjugal partnership of gains, the husband and wife place in a common
fund the proceeds, products, fruits and income from their separate properties and those acquired by
either or both spouses through their efforts or by chance, and, upon dissolution of the marriage or of
the partnership, the net gains or benefits obtained by either or both spouses shall be divided equally
between them, unless otherwise agreed in the marriage settlements. (142a) ed thereafter. (197a)