1.

Theo and Ravil are picture perfect partners except that their relationship is a union without marriage under
Art. 147 of the Family Code. Their union was blessed with two minor children. A tragedy happened leading
to the death of Theo. Arrangement were made to liquidate their assets while Theo was still in the morgue.
The brothers and father of Theo were claiming to be the recepients of his share in the undivided property.
a. Assuming that the property is about to be liquidated, who will take charge of the cadaver of
Theo? 5pts
b. Assume that the undivided property is a house and lot, money in the bank amounting to P5
million and a Mercedes Benz. The following proposal were manifested during the intestate
proceeding:
1. b.1 Atty. Ungas, the lawyer of Ravil moved to sell all the property and sell the property and
divide the proceeds to Ravil and to the relatives of Theo since their regime is governed
by Co-ownership and death is one the grounds for partition of a co-ownership. 5pts
1.b.2 Atty. Cupal, the lawyer of the father of Theo is claiming for reduction of the legitime of
the children to ½ since the children are illegitimate. 5pts
1.b..3 Atty. Epal, the lawyer of the brothers of Theo is manifesting that only the money and the
house and lot should be liquidated and the proceeds thereof divided to the parties since
the Mercedes Benz, aside from a collector's car, is necessary to the transportation of the
children to school. 5pts
If you were the judge in the Family Court, rule on the different manifestation of the lawyers of the
parties.

2. Reina and Amadz were common law spouses. Amadz cannot marry Reina because of his marriage to
Mariza is still pending decision in court which Amadz filed. Amadz promised to marry Reina once his
marriage to Mariza is dissolved by the court. Amadz and Mariza had two children, an adult and a minor. The
property of Amadz and Mariza consisting of cash on the bank amounting to P 10 million only.
a) If the theory of Amadz is the allege lesbianism of Mariza. In case of favorable decision to Amadz,
what will be its legal ramification on the relationship of Reina and Amadz? 5pts
b) If the theory of Amadz is the allege physical incapacity of Mariza.In case of favorable decision to
Amadz, what will be its legal ramification on the relationship of Reina and Amadz? 5Pts
b.1) In case of a favorable decision, how should the property be liquidated assuming that the
property regime of Amadz and Mariza is conjugal partnership of gains. How will the
property be liquidated? 5pts
b.2) If the regime is absolute community property, how will the property be liquidated? 5pts
c) if Amadz' ground is STD and AIDS which he contracted before marriage.In case of favorable
decision to Amadz, can he marry Reina? 5pts
d) if you are the prosecutor in the case, how will you go about with the case? 5Pts
e) if the theory of Amadz is lack of authority of the solemnizing officer who is actually his friend
which he procured for instant marriage to Mariza when they were love-struck with each other. If
you are the judge, how would you rule? 5pts
f) Assume that Mariza is the one who filed the case and the ground is an earlier marriage of
Amadz to another woman, how would their property be liquidated in case of a favorable
judgment? 5pts
g) If both Mariza and Reina married Amadz and Mariza is the 1st wife:
g.1) if Mariza filed the case, what should be her prayer? 5pts
g.2) if Reina filed the case, what should be her prayer? 5pts
h) if Amadz theory is unsound mind of Mariza and Mariza's theory is, likewise, the unsound mind of
Amadz, in case of favorable decision on both claims:
h.1 What will be its legal ramification on the relationship of Reina and Amadz? 5Pts
h.2 What would be the finding and order of the court? 5Pts
h.3 If the parties do not file opposition the claims/theory of each other, what would be the
order of the court? 5Pts
3. Dindong and Marian live an ideal married life from 2009 until Marian got addicted to sniffing solvent. Due to
her addiction, Dindong filed a legal separation which was given due course by the court. Spurned and
feeling slighted, Marian decided to revoke all donations by reason of marriage in favor of Dingdong which
the court, likewise, granted.
a) Suppose during their marriage, Marian decided to renovate and adorn Dingdong's house which
serve as their family home. The renovation and adornment cost around P 6 million pesos while
the house was valued at P 1 million pesos. In the event a judicial decree of separation of
property is granted, who owns the house? 7.5pts
b) Supposed Dingdong was simply a playboy bachelor, who, after a countless televised-marriage
proposal, eventually decided to have a “live-in” relationship with Marian
b.1) what will govern their property relationship? 5Pts
b.2) suppose Marian was disowned by her family, entered into the live-in relationship and
subsequently live as a common housewife while Dingdong basked in the limelight as a famous
actor. In the event that the relationship is terminated and you, are now the judge, how would you
rule on their property relationship? 5pts
4. Rey Corporation is engaged in civil works and shipbuilding. It has two plants, one in Subic which is
owned by Rey Corp. and the other in Cebu which is owned by Mr. Lim, the CEO and President of Rey Corp.
a) Assume that Rey Corp has a floating dock in Subic and permanent graving dock in Cebu. What
is the nature of said properties? 5pts
b) Assume that they have different gargantuan civil work machineries in both offices which Rey
Corp. mortgage to Metrobank. In case MetroBank foreclosed the mortgage for non-payment of a
loan, what are the ramifications of the foreclosure as far as the parties are concerned? 5 pts
c) Assume that Rey Corp has a dog pound and kennel to house and breed dogs for their security
needs in both offices. In case Rey Corp executed a total mortgaged of their property to
MetroBank, what shall be ramification of the foreclosure insofar as the dog pound and kennel is
concerned? 5 pts
ANSWERS AND COMMENTS:

• Answer the question directly. Do not repeat the question and do not beat around the bush.
• What happened to the three-paragrap rule?
1. A cadaver is a dead body. Once dead how do you call it, “he” or “it”?
2. The question is about funeral not liqiudation of property. Art. 305 of the CC states the rules. It refers to
Art. 294 of CC which was repealed and now replaced by Art. 199 of the FC. If you notice Art. 199,
mentions “nearest degree” after the Art. 199 par.1. It is submitted that Art. 199 applies whether the
spouses are married or not. Art. 147 of FC is not the applicable prvision though it can be considered
because it governs property relation of one of the union without marriage. To apply it would lead to an
obscure supposition that a cadaver is a property which is subject to liquidation. Moreover, if you use Art.
147 then it wiil lead to another obscurity in case the partners live in a bigamous relationship under Art.
148.
3. In 1.b you cannot liquidate the family home because the two beneficiaries are still minors under Art. 159
of FC. Secondly, none will go to the relatives of Theo. Note that in succesion, the presence of
descendants of the deceased excludes ascendants and those in collateral line.In b.2 and b. the
parties had no locus standi based on their contentions. Overall, the procedure is under Art. 103 and 130
in relation to Art. 96 and 124.
4. The answer in 2.a is qualified. If lesbianisn was existing at the time of marriage the marriage can be
annulled. Consequently, Amadz and Reina can marry each other. If lesbianism manifested only after
marriage, it is a ground for legal separation. As a consequence, Amadz could not marry Reina.
5. In 2.b.1, use Art 129 FC Note: If what is aked is CPP, the outcome would different.
6. In 2.b.2., use Art. 102 FC. Note: if the same question is asked and the grounds are subsequent
marriage under Art. 41 and any of the ground in legal spouse, the outcome will be different because of
the rules on forfeiture under Arts. 43 ( 2), 63 (2-4), and 148.
7. in 2.c, Amadz can marry but their marriage will voidable. It is a basic rule in law that voidable contracts
re: marriage are valid until annulled.
8. In 2.d the duty of thre prosecutor are laid down in Art. 48 and 60 of FC: 1. take steps to prevent collusion
between parties; 2. evidence are not suppressed; 3. evidence are not fabricated and in legal separation;
4. that there is erneast efforts exerted to compromise.
9. The case should be dimissed for lack of cause of action and likewise, order the fiscal to file the
appropriate complaint/s against Amadz and his friend. This is in consonance with Art. 1 of the FC which
pronounce marriage as “an inviolabe social institution”. Secondly, in 2.e a party cannot benefit on his
own trickery because parties must come to court with clean hands. 2.e must be fdifferentiated from
other similar proceedings where there was no trickery on the part of the petitioner like Art. 36 and Art. 45
(2) where the grounds can into existence without fault or conscious participation on the part of the
petitioner. `And class, the marriage is valid because the other party believe in good faith that the person
solemnizing their marriage has the authority to do so. See Art. 35 (2) of FC.
10. The marriage is bigamous and their property relation is governed by Art. 148 and the rule on forfeiture.
There will be an inventory of assets based on co-ownership based on proof of “actual joint contribution”
and presumption of “equality of contribution”, payment of all debts and obligations contracted, then the
share of the guilty spouse will be forfeited in favor of the existing valid marriage. Read 2 nd paragraph of
Art 148. Note: Forfeiture under Art 148 is not the same as Art. 43 (2) and 63 (2-4) Both are offended
spouses.
11. Decree of Annulment under Legal separation under Art 55 (7) I like Mr. Fortaleza's answer.
12. Declaration of nullity of Marriage the same being Bigamous marriage under Art 35 (4). Class I believe
that the title of our subject is Civil Law Reveiw so reserve bigamy and RA 9262 for your Criminal Law
Reveiw... Muslim marriage under Shariah Law..well I really have no idea,.... Class, in g.1 and g.2, tell me
how to have a legal controversy on the property which is an accessory issue without a prayer on the
main issue: declaration of nullity, annulment of marriage or legal separation? Another, annulment refers
to void marriage.
13. H.1 The marriage is void ab initio......... The legal raminification, however, is qualified. If Amadz'
unsoundmindedness is temporary, meaning he gained control of his mind he can marry Reina. If Amadz'
unsoundmindedness is permanent, he could still marry Reina though such marriage is subject to
annulment.
14. H.2 and H. 3 is your bonus.......because if I will not do it only 2 students would pass the midterms. That
is my last favor for you. There will be no more favors of this....
15. 2.d.3 Both. Art 120 FC has no application as the property forms part of the absolute community
property of the spouses. Some answered the correct ground in 2.d.2 yet their answer on this numberis
wrong. Why? I really dont understand..... Why answer Art. 102 in the preceding immediately question
then answered or applied Art. 12O in this question. Shouldnt you have answered Art. 129 in order to lead
you to a false conclusion to apply Art. 120 to this problem or you simply didnt liquidation under ACP and
CPG? 7.5pts
16. 2.e.1 Art. 147 FC 5pts
17. In the absence of proof to the contrary, any property acquired by them is presumed to have been
obtained through their joint efforts and is owned by them in equal shares. Their property relationship is
governed by rules on co-ownership. ( Abing vs. Waeyan, 2006) 10pts
18. The floating dock in Subic is a personal property while the graving dock in Cebu is an immovable prop-
erty
19. The one in Subic is an immovable insofar as Metrobank and Rey Corp is concerned, thus real property
mortgage applies. The machiniries for civil works is installed therein by Rey Corp who is the owner of the
tenement (par.5 of Art. 415 or destination). The other in Cebu is governed by chattel mortgage as far as
Rey Corp and Metrobank is concerned. These are treated as chattels or movables because the owner of
the tenement is Mr. Lim not Rey Corp. (Makati Leasing vs. Wearever)
20. Same reason as above but under par. 6 of Art 415