THE LAW PERTAINING TO THE PRIVATE PERSONAL AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS
CIVIL LAW
LEGAL PERSONALITY, CAPACITY TO ACT
Start of Legal Personality
Birth determines personality; but the
conceived child shall be considered born for
all purposes that are favorable to it, provided
it be born later with the conditions specified in
the following article.
For civil purposes, the fetus is considered born
if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered
from the mother's womb. However, if the fetus
had an intra-uterine life of less than seven
months, it is not deemed born if it dies within
twenty-four hours after its complete delivery
from the maternal womb. Article 40 and 41,
Civil Code
Life is not synonymous with civil personality
Death has been defined as the cessation of
life. Life is not synonymous with civil
personality. One need not acquire civil
personality first before he/she could die. Even
a child inside the womb already has life. No
less than the Constitution recognizes the life of
the unborn from conception, that the State
must protect equally with the life of the
mother. If the unborn already has life, then the
cessation thereof even prior to the child being
delivered, qualifies as death. Continental
Steel Manufacturing Corp. v. Montaño, G.R.
No. 182836, October 13, 2009
Rules of Survivorship under the Civil Code
If there is a doubt, as between two or more
persons who are called to succeed each other,
as to which of them died first, whoever alleges
the death of one prior to the other, shall prove
the same; in the absence of proof, it is
presumed that they died at the same time and
there shall be no transmission of rights from
one to the other. Article 43, Civil Code
Rules of Survivorship under the Rules of
Court
(jj) That except for purposes of succession,
when two persons perish in the same calamity,
such as wreck, battle, or conflagration, and it
is not shown who died first, and there are no
particular circumstances from which it can be
inferred, the survivorship is determined from
the probabilities resulting from the strength
and the age of the sexes, according to the
following rules:
1. If both were under the age of fifteen
years, the older is deemed to have
survived;
2. If both were above the age sixty, the
younger is deemed to have survived;
3. If one is under fifteen and the other
above sixty, the former is deemed to
have survived; 4. If both be over
fifteen and under sixty, and the sex be
different, the male is deemed to have
survived, if the sex be the same, the
older;
5. If one be under fifteen or over sixty,
and the other between those ages, the
latter is deemed to have survived.
(kk) That if there is a doubt, as between two
or more persons who are called to succeed
each other, as to which of them died first,
whoever alleges the death of one prior to the
other, shall prove the same; in the absence of
proof, they shall be considered to have died
at the same time. Disputable Presumptions,
Section 3, Rule 131 Rules of Court.
MARITAL RELATIONSHIPS
Judicial recognition of a foreign divorce
requires that the national law of the foreign
spouse and the divorce decree be pleaded
and proved as a fact before the Regional
Trial Court.
1
The Filipino spouse may be granted the
capacity to remarry once our courts find that
the foreign divorce was validly obtained by the
foreign spouse according to his or her national
law, and that the foreign spouse's national law
considers the dissolution of the marital
relationship to be absolute. Racho v. Seiichi
Tanaka, G.R. No. 199515, June 25, 2018
The well-founded belief in the absentee’s
death requires the present spouse to prove
that his/her belief was the result of diligent
and reasonable efforts to locate the absent
spouse and that based on these efforts and
inquiries, he/she believes that under the
circumstances, the absent spouse is already
dead.
Article 41 of the Family Code provides that
before a judicial declaration of presumptive
death may be granted, the present spouse
must prove that he/she has a well-founded
belief that the absentee is dead. In this case,
Edna failed. The RTC and the CA overlooked
Edna’s patent noncompliance with the said
requirement. The well-founded belief in the
absentee’s death requires the present spouse
to prove that his/her belief was the result of
diligent and reasonable efforts to locate the
absent spouse and that based on these efforts
and inquiries, he/she believes that under the
circumstances, the absent spouse is already
dead. It necessitates exertion of active effort
(not a mere passive one). Mere absence of the
spouse (even beyond the period required by
law), lack of any news that the absentee
spouse is still alive, mere failure to
communicate, or general presumption of
absence under the Civil Code would not
suffice. The premise is that Article 41 of the
Family Code places upon the present spouse
the burden of complying with the stringent
requirement of “well-founded belief” which
can only be discharged upon a showing of
proper and honest-to-goodness inquiries and
efforts to ascertain not only the absent
spouse’s whereabouts but, more importantly,
whether the absent spouse is still alive or is
2
already dead. Republic vs. Orcelino-
Villanueva, 764 SCRA 407, G.R. No. 210929
July 29, 2015
Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is
contrary to law, public order, public policy,
morals or good customs, or prejudicial to a
third person with a right recognized by law.
A writ of execution lies against the pension
benefits of a retired officer of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines, which is the subject
of a deed of assignment drawn by him
granting support to his wife and five (5)
children. The benefit of exemption from
execution of pension benefits is a statutory
right that may be waived, especially in order to
comply with a husband's duty to provide
support under Article XV of the 1987
Constitution and the Family Code. Mabugay-
Otamias v. Republic, G.R. No. 189516, June
8, 2016
Persons intending to contract a second
marriage must first secure a judicial
declaration of nullity of their first marriage.
If they proceed with the second marriage
without the judicial declaration, they are guilty
of bigamy regardless of evidence of the nullity
of the first marriage. Vitangcol v. People, G.R.
No. 207406, January 13, 2016.
For Article 147 to operate, the man and the
woman: (1) must be capacitated to marry
each other; (2) live exclusively with each
other as husband and wife; and (3) their
union is without the benefit of marriage or
their marriage is void, as in the instant case.
This particular kind of co-ownership applies
when a man and a woman, suffering no illegal
impediment to marry each other, exclusively
live together as husband and wife under a void
marriage or without the benefit of marriage. It
is clear, therefore, that for Article 147 to
operate, the man and the woman: (1) must be
capacitated to marry each other; (2) live
exclusively with each other as husband and
 THE LAW PERTAINING TO THE PRIVATE PERSONAL AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS
wife; and (3) their union is without the benefit
of marriage or their marriage is void, as in the
instant case. The term “capacitated” in the first
paragraph of the provision pertains to the
legal capacity of a party to contract marriage.
Any impediment to marry has not been shown
to have existed on the part of either Virginia or
Deogracio. They lived exclusively with each
other as husband and wife. However, their
marriage was found to be void under Article
36 of the Family Code on the ground of
psychological incapacity.
Property acquired by both spouses through
their work and industry should, therefore, be
governed by the rules on equal co-ownership.
Any property acquired during the union is
prima facie presumed to have been obtained
through their joint efforts. A party who did not
participate in the acquisition of the property
shall be considered as having contributed to
the same jointly if said party’s efforts consisted
in the care and maintenance of the family
household. Efforts in the care and
maintenance of the family and household are
regarded as contributions to the acquisition of
common property by one who has no salary or
income or work or industry. The presumption
is not rebutted by the mere fact that the
certificate of title of the property or the tax
declaration is in the name of one (1) of the
spouses only. Ocampo vs. Ocampo, 764
SCRA 608, G.R. No. 198908 August 3, 2015
The root cause of the psychological
incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically
identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c)
sufficiently proven by experts and (d)
clearly explained in the decision.
Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the
incapacity must be psychological — not
physical, although its manifestations and/or
symptoms may be physical. The evidence
must convince the court that the parties, or
one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to
such an extent that the person could not have
known the obligations he was assuming, or
knowing them, could not have given valid
assumption thereof. Although no example of
such incapacity need be given here so as not
to limit the application of the provision under
the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless
such root cause must be identified as a
psychological illness and its incapacitating
nature fully explained. Expert evidence may
be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical
psychologists. Republic v. Court of Appeals
and Molina, G.R. No. 108763, February 13,
1997
Psychological Incapacity: MAY 11, 2021
To summarize, psychological incapacity
consists of clear acts of dysfunctionality that
show a lack of understanding and
concomitant compliance with one's essential
marital obligations due to psychic causes. It is
not a medical illness that has to be medically
or clinically identified; hence, expert opinion is
not required.
As an explicit requirement of the law, the
psychological incapacity must be shown to
have been existing at the time of the
celebration of the marriage, and is caused by
a durable aspect of one's personality
structure, one that was formed before the
parties married. Furthermore, it must be
shown caused by a genuinely serious psychic
cause. To prove psychological incapacity, a
party must present clear and convincing
evidence of its existence. Tan-Andal v. Andal,
G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021