Bar’s Chair Cases for the 2023 Bar Exams

1. Tan-Andal v. Andal (Psychological Incapacity)

a. Liberalize the application of Article 36 of the FC
b. Removal of the expert witness (psychologist) proving psychological incapacity . However,
there must be proof of the durable or enduring aspect of a person’s personality called
“personality structure” which manifests itself through clear acts of dyscfunctionality that
undermines the family. The spouse’s personality structure must make it impossible form him
or her to understand, and more important, to comply with his or her essential marital
obligations. – Remember, proof of these aspects of personality need not be given by an
expert. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter
contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed.
c. Medical examination by an expert of the spouse concerned is no longer required as the
courts may rely on the totality of evidence to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity.
d. Incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage,
although psychological incapacity may not be perceivable at the time of the celebration of
the marriage, such psychological incapacity must have attached at such moment, or prior
thereto.

2. Republic v. Pasig (land titles)

a. If the land has not been used by the government and the same has been idle for a long time
– a person may apply by himself or through his predecessor in interest who have been in
open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain not covered by existing certificate of titles or patents
under a bona fide claim of ownership for at least 20 years immediately preceding the filing
of the application for confirmation of title except when prevent by war or force majeure.
They shall be conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a
government grant and shall be entitled to a certificate of title.
b. Section 6 of RA 11573 shortens the period of possession required under the old Section 14
(1). Instead of requiring applicants to establish their possession from June 12, 1945, or
earlier, the new Section 14 (1) only requires proof of possession at least 20 years
immediately preceding the filing of the application for confirmation of title except when
prevented by war or force majeure.
c. The final proviso of the new Section 14 (1) which expressly states that upon proof of
possession of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain for the period and in the
manner required under said provision, the applicants shall be conclusively presumed to have
performed all the conditions essential to a government grant and shall be entitled to a
certificate of title. This final proviso unequivocally confirms that the classification of land as
alienable and disposable immediately places it within the commerce of man and renders it
susceptible to private acquisition through adverse possession.
d. Ang prevailing ngayon is as long as the land is alienable and disposable and you possess
the land for at least 20 years that land is already subject to titling.
 e. Proof that the land is alienable and disposable – a duly signed certification by a duly
designated DENR geodetic engineer that the land is part of alienable and disposable
agricultural lands of the public domain is sufficient proof that the land is alienable.
3. Aquino v. Aquino (Successional Barrier – The Iron Curtain Rule)

a. A child whose parents did not marry each other can inherit from their grandparent by their
right of representation, regardless of the grandparent’s marital status at the birth of the
child’s parent.
b. Iron curtain rule does not apply in representation.
c. Illegitimate grandchildren can inherit from their grandparents, even though they are
illegitimate. – applicable only when their parents are dead, and they are stepping in as
replacement of your parents even though child is illegitimate.
d. GR: an illegitimate child has no right to inherit ab intestato from the legitimate children and
relatives of his father or mother; nor shall such children or relatives inherit in the same
manner from the illegitimate child.

EX: Iron curtain rule does not apply in representation.

e. Children, regardless of the circumstances of their births, qualified to inherit from their direct
ascendants, such as their grandparents – by their right of representation. Both marital and
nonmarital children, whether born from a marital or nonmarital child, are blood relatives of
their parents and other ascendants.
f. Illegitimate children have the status as legitimate children in terms of the family tree
(structure)
g. When a nonmarital child seeks to represent their deceased parent to succeed in their
grandparent’s estate, they shall inherit by right of representation. If any one of them should
have died, leaving several heirs, the portion pertaining to him shall be divided among the
latter in equal portions.

This rule will only apply when the nonmarital child has a right of representation to their
parent’s share in her grandparent’s legitime. It is, however, silent on collateral relatives
where the nonmarital child may inherit by themselves.

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

4. PNTC Colleges, Inc. vs. Time Realty, Inc. (unjust enrichment)

a. There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or
when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principle of
justice, equity, and good conscience.
b. There is no unjust enrichment when the person who will benefit has a valid claim to such
benefit.

5. Maria Vicia Carullo-Padua v. Joselita Padua (pyschological incapacity/annulment/expert

opinion is no longer required to prove psychological incapacity)
 a. Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must
be proven through expert opinion. Proof of these aspects of personality need not be given
by an expert. Ordinary witness who has been present in the life of the spouses before the
latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed
from the supposedly incapacitated spouse. From there, the judge will decide if these
behaviors are indicative of a true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital
obligations.
b. There must be proof of durable or enduring aspects of a person’s personality, called
“personality structure” which manifests itself through a clear act of dysfunctionality that
undermines the family. It must be making it impossible for the incapacitated spouse to
understand and comply with his essential marital obligations.
c. Psychological incapacity contemplates incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to
assume basic marital obligations and not merely difficulty, refusal or neglect in the
performance of martial obligations or ill will. Irreconcilable differences, conflicting
personalities, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility, physical abuse, habitual alcoholism,
sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment, by themselves, also do not warrant a
finding of psychological incapacity – unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage.

6. Hannamer C. Pugoy-Solidum vs. Republic of the Philippines (psychological incapacity)

a. Factors in finding psychological incapacity:

1. Gravity – grave and serious

2. Juridical antecedence – rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage,
although the overt manifestations emerge only after the marriage; and
3. Incurability – incurable.

b. Totality of evidence must support a finding of psychological incapacity.

7. Luisito G. Pulido v. People of the Philippines (judicial declaration of nullity of

marriage/Bigamy)

a. Parties are not required to obtain a judicial declaration of absolute nullity of a void ab initio
first and subsequent marriage in order to raise it as a defense in a bigamy case.
b. However, the same rule does not apply if the first marriage is merely voidable. The accused
cannot interpose an annulment decree as a defense in the criminal prosecution for bigamy
since the voidable first marriage is considered valid and subsisting when the second
marriage was contracted. The crime of bigamy, therefore, is consummated when the second
marriage was celebrated during the subsistence of the voidable first marriage.
c. Voidable marriages are valid marriages.
d. For purposes of remarriage – judicial declaration of nullity of marriage is needed; but for
purposes of defense against bigamy, judicial declaration of nullity of marriage is not
required.
8. Republic of the Philippines vs. Jocelyn Asusano Kikuchi (judicial recognition of foreign divorce
decree in the Philippines)

a. Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by the Philippine court, the party pleading
it must first prove the fact of divorce and its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. As
both of these purports to be official acts of a sovereign authority, the required proof are
their official publications or copies attested by the officers having legal custody thereof.
b. It is a settled rule that the translation of a foreign law must be made by a publisher that is
recognized as a legitimate source of official translation of a foreign law. Mere translation
from google or ChatGPT is not sufficient.

9. Spouses Joo Hyung Park and Kyung Ah Lee vs. Hon. Rico Sebastian D. Liwanag (Inter-country
Adoption law is different for Domestic Adoption.)

a. Requirements for an alien to adopt a Filipino individual/child:

1. He must possess all the qualification as stated for a Filipino national

2. His country has diplomatic relation with the Philippines
3. He has been living in the Philippines for 3 continuous years prior to the filing of the
petition for adoption and maintains such residence until the adoption decree is entered
4. He has been certified by his diplomatic or consular office or any appropriate government
agency to have the legal capacity to adopt in his own country and that his government
allows the adoptee to enter his country as his adopted child.

CASES IN PROPERTY

10. Heirs of Jesus P. Magsaysay vs. Sps. Zaldy and Annaliza Perez

a. In an action to recovery property, the person who claims a better right of ownership to the
property sought to be recovered must prove two (2) things: 1. Identity of the land claimed,
and 2. His title thereto.

11. Heirs of Herminio Marquez vs. Heirs of Epifania M. Hernandez

a. Title to the property cannot be attacked collaterally (certificate of title) especially if the
certificate of title has attained indefeasibility or 1 year after such certificate has been issued.
On the other hand, what can be collaterally attacked is the fact of ownership.
b. Placing a land under the Torrens System does not mean that ownership thereof can no
longer be attached or disputed. A certificate cannot always be considered as conclusive
evidence of ownership.
c. A complaint for quieting of title does not amount to a collateral attack because at the heart
of the action for quieting of title is the adjudication of the ownership of the disputed
property.
12. Reynaldo Reyes vs. Sps. Wilfredo and Melita Garcia (Doctrine: No one can give what he does
not have)

a. A co-owner may alienate an inchoate portion of the subject property which belongs to him
even without the consent of the other co-heirs/co-owners. Under the civil code, each co-
owner shall have the full ownership of his party and the fruits and benefits pertaining
thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign, or mortgage it and even substitute another
person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved.

NOTE: But the effect of the alienation or mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be
limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of
the co-ownership.

b. The appropriate recourse of co-owners in cases where their consent were not secured in a
sale of the entire property as well as in a sale merely of undivided shares of some of the co-
owners is an action for partition.

Neither recovery of possession nor restitution can be granted since the defendant buyers are
legitimate proprietors and possessors in joint ownership of the common property claimed.

13. Republic of the Philippines vs. Manuel M. Caraig

a. Requirements for the applicants for the application for registration of land:

1. That the subject land forms part of the disposable and alienable land of the public
domain.
2. That the applicant by themselves and their predecessors in interest have been in open,
continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation thereof.
3. That the possession is under a bona fide claim of ownership for a period of 20 years
before the filing of the action.

b. Testimonies of the witnesses that are credible enough can sufficiently established one’s
possession in the concept of an owner of the property for a period of 20 years before the
filing the action.
c. Other evidence that may be used to prove ownership is tax declaration & deed of sale.

14. Dioscoro Polino Bacala vs. Heirs of Spouses Juan Polino and Corazon Rom. (Donation of
property land)

a. Donation has three (3) indispensable elements:

1. Reduction of the patrimony of the donor.

2. Increase of the patrimony of the donee.
3. Intent to do an act of liberality or animus donandi.
15. Doris Marie S. Lopez vs. Aniceto G. Saludo Jr. (requirements for the donation of purchase
money)

a. Donations of purchase money (money itself) must follow the formal requisites mandated by
the civil code. Under the Civil code, donations of a movable property (which includes
money) may be made orally or in writing.

An oral donation requires the simultaneous delivery of the thing or of the document
representing the right donated.

If the value of the personal property donated exceeds 5 thousand pesos, the donation and
the acceptance shall be made in writing, otherwise, the donation shall be void for non-
compliance with the formal requisites prescribed by law.

16. Celedenio C. Demegillo vs. Arturo S. Lumampao

a. Case law provides that it does not allow a collateral attack on the Torrens Certificate of title
on the ground of fraud.
b. Questioning the Torrens Original Certificate of Title in an answer as an affirmative defense by
in an ordinary civil action for recovery of possession filed by the registered owner partakes
of the nature of a collateral attack against a certificate of title brought under the operation
of the Torrens System of registration.
c. NOTE: Quieting of title is a direct attack, not a collateral attack. Hence, allowed.

17. Atty. Aristotle T. Dominguez vs. Bank of Commerce

a. In petition for cancellation of adverse claim, trial courts are not precluded from adjudicating
matters involving attorney’s fees.

18. Spouses Eugenio Ponce and Emiliana Nerosa vs. Jesus Aldanese (tax declaration though not
conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, are good indicia of possession in the concept
of an owner)

a. Although tax declarations or realty tax payment of property are not conclusive evidence of
ownership, they are, nevertheless, good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for
no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that he does not own.
b. Tax declaration or realty tax payment constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of
title over the property.
c. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes manifests not only
one’s sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property, but also the intention to
contribute needed revenues to the government.

19. Republic of the Philippines vs. Luisa Abellanosa (requisites for the reconstitution of title)
 a. Requisites for the reconstitution of title:

1. Certificate of title had been lost or destroyed.

2. The documents presented by petitioner are sufficient and proper to warrant
reconstitution of the lost or destroyed certificate of title.
3. Petitioner is the registered owner of the property or had an interest therein.
4. The certificate of title was in force at the time it was lost and destroyed.
5. The description, area and boundaries of the property are substantially the same as those
contained in the lost or destroyed certificate of title.

20. Amlayon Ende vs. Roman Catholic Prelate of the Prelature Nullius of Cotabato (no prior
determination of heirship is necessary before an heir can file an ordinary civil action to enforce
ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession through the nullification of deeds if there is
no special proceeding is filed yet)

a. If there is already special proceeding for the settlement of the decedent’s estate, the
compulsory heirs cannot commence an ordinary civil action to declare the nullity of a deed
or instrument and for recovery of the property.

b. If there is no special proceeding filed for the settlement of the decedent estate, the
compulsory heirs MAY commence an ordinary civil action to declare the nullity of a deed or
instrument and for recovery of the property or any other action in the enforcement of their
ownership rights acquired by virtue of succession. – there is no need of a prior separate
judicial declaration of their status as such.

However, the ruling of the court shall only be in relation to the cause of action of the
ordinary civil action (e.g., the nullification of a deed or instrument, and recovery or
reconveyance of property) which ruling is binding only between and among the parties. It’s
not an official declaration of heirship.

CASES ON OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS

21. Dioscoro Polino Bacala vs. Heirs of Spouses Juan Polino and Corazon Rom

a. GR: The power to rescind an obligation must be invoked judicially, it cannot be exercised
solely on a party’s own judgment that the other had committed a breach of the obligations.

EX: when the contract itself provides that it may be revoked or cancelled upon violation of
its terms and conditions.

22. Banco De Oro Unibank vs. Edgardo C. Ypil

 a. A “Claim” is considered liquidated when the amount and the time of payment is fixed. If
acknowledged by the debtor, although not in writing, the claim must be treated as
liquidated.
b. In order for legal compensation to be applied, the claim must be due and liquidated. It must
be noted that that just because there is balance (or may utang pa si debtor), it is enough
that the claim is due and demandable. There must be detailed computation or proof thereof
and confirmation of the debtor is necessary.

23. Tony N. Chua vs. Sec. of Justice (novation)

a. There is an express novation if the new obligation unequivocally declares that it extinguishes
or substitutes the old obligation.
b. There is an implied novation if the old obligation and the new obligation are on every point
incompatible with each other.
c. The test of incompatibility is whether the two contracts can stand together, each one having
an independent existence. The incompatibility must take place in any essential elements of
the obligation, such as its object, cause, or principal consideration; otherwise, the change
would be merely modificatory in nature and does not extinguish the original obligation.
d. The party’s agreement for a new schedule of payment does not novate the original
obligation, the new schedule of payment is merely modificatory and supplementary to the
original obligation.

24. Lauro Cardinez vs. Spouses Prudencio

a. In order for donation to be effective, consent of the donor is material, and absent of such
consent to donate the property (land) the donation thereof is void ab initio.

25. Spouses Eugenio De Vera and Rosalia Padilla vs. Fausta Catungal

a. When consent is vitiated, the contract is voidable. A voidable contract is valid and binding
until annulled in a proper court action.
b. When one of the contracting parties is unable to read or is otherwise illiterate, and fraud is
alleged, a presumption that there is fraud or mistake in obtaining consent of that party
arises. Hence, under the Civil Code, consent that has been obtained through fraud is
voidable until annulled.

When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in a language not understood
by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged, the person enforcing the contract must show that
the terms thereof have been fully explained to the former.
 Although the Deed is notarized and enjoy the presumption of regularity and accorded with
evidentiary weight as regards its due execution, this presumption, however, may be rebutted
by clear and convincing evidence.

26. Carlos J. Valdes vs. La Colina Development Corporation (rescission is not available just because
one of the parties where hopeful that the contract will turn out to their advantage)

a. Rescission of contract is unavailing to one of the parties where the contract did not turn out
the way they hope it would or as it was originally planned. The courts cannot constitute
themselves as guardians of persons who are not legally incompetent.

27. Lorenzo Willy vs. Remedios Julian (partially performed contracts are no longer covered by the
Statute of Frauds)

a. Statute of Frauds is not applicable to agreements or contracts which have been partially or
totally performed.

28. Heirs of Eliseo Bagaygay vs. Heirs of Anastacio Paciente (action to question a void contract is
imprescriptible)

a. An action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.
b. Laches do not apply if the assailed contract is void ab initio. Laches cannot prevail over the
law that actions to assail a void contract are imprescriptible it being based on equity.
c. Land sold in violation of 5-year prohibition of homestead patent can be questioned even 46
years later.

29. Pastora Ganancial vs. Betty Cabugao (Absolute simulation voids a contract)

a. In absolute simulation, there appears a colorable contract, but there actually is none, as the
parties thereto have never intended to be bound by it.
b. In determining the true nature of a contract, the primary test is the intention of the parties.
Such intention is determinable not only from the express terms of their agreement, but also
from the contemporaneous and subsequent acts of the parties.

30. Integrated Credit and Corporate Services vs. Rolando Cabrera (Memorandum of Agreement
can be considered as a Contract of Sale)

a. Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) can be considered as a Contract of Sale.

b. Contract has no prescribe form. A contract is what the law defines it to be and not what the
contracting parties call it.
c. Essential element of a contract: Consent, object, and consideration.

31. Home Guaranty Corporation vs. Elvira S. Manlapaz

 a. A contract to sell is a “bilateral contract” whereby the prospective seller binds himself to sell
the said property exclusively to the prospective buyer upon the happening of the positive
suspensive condition, that is, the full payment of the purchase price.
b. The seller’s obligation to deliver the corresponding certificates of title is simultaneous and
reciprocal to the buyer’s full payment of the purchase price.
c. In a contract to sell, the seller retains ownership of the property, and the seller binds himself
to transfer ownership to buyer upon full payment of the purchase price.

32. The Heirs of Zenaida B. Gonzales vs. Spouse of Dominador and Estefania Basas (double sale)

a. The rule on double sales applies when the same thing is sold to multiple buyers by one
seller, but not to sales of the same thing by multiple sellers.
b. In a contract of sale, the seller binds himself to transfer the ownership of the thing sold and
he must have the right to convey ownership of the thing at the time of its delivery.
c. Settled is the rule that “No one can give what one does not have”. One can sell only what he
owners or is authorized to sell.
d. Rules on double sale
a. Movable property – if the property has been sold to different vendees, the
ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession of
the property in good faith.
b. Immovable property – ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good
faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.

Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in
good faith was first in the possession, and, in the absence thereof, to the person
who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.

CASES ON AGENCY

33. PNB-Republic Bank (Maybank Philippines Incorporated) vs. Remedios Sian-Limsiaco

a. The limits of the agent’s authority shall not be considered exceeded should it have been
performed in a manner more advantageous to the principal than that specified by him. In
relation to this, the authority to encumber one’s land title includes the authority to perform
acts to disencumber such title.
b. Thus, the filing to cancel the mortgage liens, which were annotated in the mortgagor-
principal’s respective titles through the special authority granted by the principal should be
considered within the limits of the agent’s authority since disencumbering the mortgagor-
principal’s title of the same mortgage liens are obviously advantageous to the latter.
34. Rex Rico vs. Union Bank of the Philippines

a. The contract between the card company and the credit card holder is a simple loan
arrangement.
b. Although the relationship between the card company and the card holder is that of creditor-
debtor, which exits upon the acceptance by the cardholder of the terms and conditions of
the card membership agreement, this creditor-debtor relationship arises only after the credit
card issuer has approved the cardholder’s purchase requests. In other words, when the
cardholder uses his/her credit card to pay for purchases, an offer to enter into loan
agreement with the credit card company is made. Only when the card company approves
the purchase request that the parties enter into a binding loan agreement.
c. Although the credit card company may disapprove the cardholder’s credit card transaction,
it shall do so justifiably and within the bounds of laws and the credit card membership
agreement.

Hence, a bank has no obligation to approve all the purchase request of a credit cardholder. It
may or may not approve his purchase request based on his credit standing, history and
financial capability. Further, a demand presupposes the existence of an obligation between
the parties.

35. Development Bank of the Philippines vs. heirs of Julieta L. Danaico (Interest)

a. No interest shall be due unless it has been expressly stipulated in writing.

b. Requisites for payment of monetary interest:
a. There was an express stipulation for the payment of interest.
b. The agreement for the payment of interest was reduced in writing.
c. Payment of interest accrues only from the time judicial or extrajudicial demand is made.

36. Pastora Ganancial vs. Betty Cabugao (infirmity in the notarization of the instrument will not
invalidate the mortgage contract)

a. Formal infirmities in the notarization of the instrument will not invalidate the
mortgage. An irregular notarization merely reduces the evidentiary value of the
document to that of a private document, which requires proof of its due execution
and authenticity to be admissible ad evidence.
b. The irregular notarization – or, for that matter, the lack of notarization – does not
necessarily affect the validity of the contract reflected in the document.

37. Herminio T. Disini vs. Republic of the Philippines (unjust enrichment)

a. Unjust enrichment is a prerequisite for the enforcement of the doctrine of restitution.

 b. There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or
when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principle of
justice and good conscience.
c. The principle of unjust enrichment essentially contemplates payment when there is no duty
to pay, and the person who receives the payment has no right to receive it.
d. No one should unjustly enrich himself by receiving commissions in connection with a
government project when clearly, he has no right for it nor entitled to retain the same.

38. Cecilia Yulo Locsin vs. Puerto Galera Resort Hotel Inc. (Atty.’s fees)

a. Attorney’s fees cannot be awarded where there is no sufficient showing of bad faith in a
party’s persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his
cause.
b. Hence, even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons, or to incur expenses
to protect his rights, attorney’s fees may not be awarded where there is no showing of bad
faith.

39. People of the Philippines vs. Gerald Moreno Tazon

a. Settled that when death occurs due to a crime, the following may be recoevered:
a. Civil Indemnity ex delicto for the death of the victim;
b. Actual or compensatory damages
c. Moral damages
d. Exemplary damages
e. Attorney’s fees and expenses of litigation
f. Interest
b. In People vs. Jugueta, the court held that for crimes like murder where the penalty imposed
is reclusion perpetua the nature and amount of damages that may be awarded are: 75K as
civil indemnity, 75K as moral damages, and 75K as exemplary damages.
c. Formula in computing loss of earning capacity is:

Net Earning Capacity = [2/3 x (80-age at the time of death) x (gross annual income –
reasonable and necessary living expenses)].

Other things to remember:

1. Newspaper of General Circulation

a. Within jurisdiction
b. Published at regular intervals for news.
c. Bona fide subscription list of paying subscribers.
d. Not for a particular class of persons
2. Life of Newborns (important for insurance claims)
a. Complete delivery = cutting of umbilical cord
b. 7 months up – if born alive, considered alive since conception
c. 6.9 months down – must survive first 24 hours to be considered born since conception.
3. Survivorship (Succession vs. Others)
a. For succession purposes = Presumption of Simultaneous deaths (Art. 43, NCC)
b. Applies if both are heirs of each other by law or by will.
c. Survivorship for other purposes

Apply the Rules of Court

A B Survivor
Under 15 Under 15 Older
Over 60 Over 60 Younger
Under 15 Over 60 Younger
15-60 15-60 Male survives the Female.
Older survives the Younger
Under 15 or over 60 15-60 15-60

4. Presumption of Death
a. Declared Absent
i. 2 years
ii. 5 years if with representative
b. Declared Dead
i. 7 years – dead for all purposes, EXCEPT succession
ii. 10 years – for succession (EXCEPT: 5 years if 75 and up)
c. Dead for all purposes if disappearance under dangerous circumstances: 4 years
i. Lost vessel/Aircraft
ii. Armed forces in hostilities
iii. Other dangerous circumstances
d. Dead for remarriage – 4 years
i. EXCEPTION: 2 years if under dangerous circumstances

NOTE: Considered dead upon the happening of the calamity, NOT UPON EXPIRATION OF THE
PERIOD SPECIFIED.

5. Defects in Marriage

Requisite Absence Defect

Essential Void Voidable
Formal Void Valid
+Administrative or Criminal
EXCEPT: Liability.

1. Exempt from license

2. One believed in good faith
that the officer had
authority.
6. Exemption from license
a. 5-year co-habitation
i. Exclusive and Continuous
ii. No legal impediment – for all of 5 years (OCA vs. Necessario)
iii. Minority not counted. Minority exempted for legitimation purposes.
iv. Affidavit
v. Sworn Statement by Solemnizing Officer that he ascertained.

7. Valid Marriages
a. Adopted + illegitimate child of adopter
b. Step brother + step sister
c. Guardian + Ward
d. Brother in law + sister in law
e. Adulterous and concubines, as long as didn’t kill spouse.
8. Children of Void marriages
a. General Rule: Illegtimate

EXCEPT:

1. Null due to Psychological Incapacity

2. Null due to noncompliance with Article 52 on distribution, partition,
recording of legitimes of children of first marriage.

9. Legal Separation vs. Separation of Property

Legal Separation Separation of Property

Abandonment for a year Abandonment for 3 months
Failure to comply with the marital obligations.

10. Article 147 vs. Article 148 of the NCC

Article 147 Article 148

No legal impediment to marry With impediment to marry
Common law couples
Void for: Void for other reasons like bigamous or
against public policy
a. NO requisites
b. Psychological Incapacity
c. No registration after nullity (Art. 53)
(Compare with No partition after
death: CSP)
Co-ownership Partnership
Presumed jointly acquired Presumed acquired separately
 Actual contribution must be proven.

11. Adoption

Domestic RA 8552 Inter-Country RA 8043

Priority Not the last resort Last Resort
Adopter 18 years + 16 years older 27 years old + 16 years older
X to 16y gap: Biological Parent or spouse of parent
Alien GR: Cannot adopt With diplomatic ties with
X: Resident for 3 years Philippines (both)
X to X:

a. Former Filipino
adopting 4th degree
(joint)
b. Child of PH spouse
c. Spouse of a current
PH wanting to adopt
a 4th
Adoptee Below 18 years old Below 15 years old
Venue RTC of adopter ICAB
Rescission Adoptee only Silent (so both)

12. Void If not in proper form

Writing Public Instrument Registered

(Must be in writing otherwise (Must be in Public Instrument (Must be registered

void) otherwise void) otherwise void)
Donation and Acceptance of Donation and Acceptance of Chattel Mortgage
goods (more than 5K) Immovables
Decreasing diligence of Partnership contribution with Sale/Transfer of Large Cattle
common carriers real rights
Antichresis (Principal
+Interest)
Agent’s authority to sell land
Interest

13. Form for Convenience only

Public Instrument Writing

Transmission of Real Rights All contracts (501)

X: Sale of:
 a. Personal Property 500 and up
(otherwise, unenforceable)
b. Real Property (otherwise,
unenforceable)
Waiving Hereditary rights
Administration Power (SPA)
Cession of Actions or rights in a public
document

14. Usufruct

a. Leases by the usufructuary end upon termination of the usufruct, EXCEPT leases of rural
land.
b. Caucion Juratoria – promise under oath if usufructuary can’t produce the required bond
c. Death of the usufructuary terminates the usufruct unless a period has been set. But the
death of the owner does not stop the usufruct.

15. Prescriptive Period

Acquisition of movables 4 years (if good faith) or 8 years (if bad faith)
Acquisition of immovables 10 years or 30 years
Written contract 10 years (can contest)
Oral and quasi contract 6 years
Judgment or law 10 years
Torts 4 years
Forcible Entry/Unlawful Detainer and 1 year
defamation
Others 5 years

16. No prescriptive period

a. Stolen movables
b. Registered lands
c. Right of way demand
d. Abate nuisance
e. Quite title of land in possession
f. Void contracts
g. Partition of co-ownership
h. Recovery of lands of public domain

17. Land Title

 a. Mirror Principle – all persons dealing with property covered by a Torrens Title are not
required to go beyond what appears on the face of the title when there is no cloud or
vice apparent therein EXCEPT:

i. Bad faith
ii. Banks/financing
iii. Seller not registered owner
iv. Strong clues or knowledge of flaws

b. Indefeasibility – upon expiration of 1 year from the entry of the decree or registration in
the LRA. The certificate & decree becomes incontrovertible and indefeasible. EXCEPT:

i. Previous valid title exists

ii. Land is not registrable
iii. Acquisition of certificate through fraud.

18. Donation

Mortis Causa Inter Vivos

Revocable Irrevocable
Only fruits are transferred immediately to the
done.
Donor Reserves the right to dispose the
property.

NOTE: it is important to distinguish between

mortis causa and intervivos because if it is a
mortis causa it has to follow the requisites of
a “Will”

----------NOTHING FOLLOWS----------