CIVIL LAW

By: ASSOCIATE DEAN TERESITA CRUZ

Answer briefly but completely and with legal basis:

1. Arnold and Belinda were married on June 1, 2005. They have 2 children, Abigail and Benjie.
Their marriage was judicially declared null and void on February 14, 2009 due to the absence of a
valid marriage license. There was no liquidation of their assets acquired during their marriage.
Arnold subsequently married Carina on June 1, 2012 complying with all the essential and formal
requisites provided for by the Family Code.

a. Is the marriage of Arnold and Carina valid, voidable or void? Explain well.

b. What is the property regime governing their marriage? Why?

ANSWER:

a. The marriage of Arnold and Carina is void. The Family Code provides that the judgment of annulment
or of absolute nullity of the marriage, the partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses , and
the delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the proper civil registry and
registries of property; otherwise, the same shall not affect third persons. Either of the former spouses may
marry again after complying with these requirements; otherwise, the subsequent marriage shall be null
and void. (Articles 52 and 53 of the Family Code).

Although Arnold and Carina complied with the essential and formal requisites of marriage, there was no
compliance with Article 52 of the Family Code, hence, the subsequent marriage is considered null and
void.

b. Since the marriage of Arnold and Carina is null and void, the property regime governing their marriage
is co-ownership under Article 147 of the Family Code considering that there is no legal impediment to
their marriage.

2. Anton was legally married to Bella and they have two children, Cherry and Danny . During the
subsistence of the marriage of Anton and Bella, the latter cohabited with Fred, who himself was
married to Gretchen. From the cohabitation of Bella and Fred, Hector was born on March 4, 2009.
On December 1, 2012, Fred died in a vehicular accident. Bella, on behalf of Hector, intervened in
the settlement of Fred’s estate alleging that Hector is entitled to inherit from Fred as his
illegitimate son. To prove Hector’s filiation to Fred, Bella presented Hector’s baptismal certificate
and school report cards where Fred was indicated as Hector’s father. She also presented pictures
showing Fred and Hector together on several occasions. On the other hand, Gretchen contends
that Hector’s action is already barred by Fred’s death.

a. May Hector prove his filiation with Fred and be entitled to share in Fred’s estate?
b. Will your answer be the same had the first marriage of Anton and Bella had been terminated by
the death of Anton one year prior to the birth of Hector? Explain well.

ANSWER:

a. No, Hector may not be allowed to prove his filiation with Fred and share in the latter’s estate as he is
considered the legitimate child of the valid marriage between Anton and Bella. Under Article 164 of the
Family Code, children conceived or born during the marriage of his parents are legitimate. Hector was
born during the valid marriage of Anton and Bella, hence, he is a legitimate child of that valid marriage.
Moreover, the legitimacy of the child may be impugned only by the husband and only on special cases, by
the heirs of the husband, which is not applicable in the case at bar. It was not shown in the facts of this
case that Anton impugned the legitimacy of Hector within the period provided for by the Family Code.

b. My answer will be different. Hector was born from the cohabitation of Bella and Fred who was legally
married to Gretchen, hence, he is considered the illegitimate child of Fred and Bella. Anton was already
dead one year prior to Hector’s birth, hence the former cannot be his father. Unfortunately, Hector still
cannot inherit from Fred’s estate since he was proving his filiation to Fred using pieces of evidence under
the second paragraph of Article 172 which include his baptismal certificate, school report cards and
pictures. Under Article 175 of the Family Code, illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation
in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children except when the action is based on the
second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the
alleged parent. Hector’s action to prove his illegitimate filiation to Fred using pieces of evidence under the
2 paragraph of Article 172 was already barred by Fred’s death.
nd

3. On a 500 sq.m. lot worth P1M located in Makati City with TCT # 1234 registered in the names of
Spouses Reyes, Spouses Santos built their house worth P900,000.00. Spouses Reyes became
aware of the construction when they visited their land but they kept quiet as they did not want any
trouble until such time that the construction is completely finished. State the rights and
obligations of Spouses Reyes and Spouses Santos based on the facts given.

ANSWER:

Spouses Reyes (landowners) and Spouses Santos (builders) were both in bad faith, hence the bad faith
of one neutralizes the bad faith of the other and both of them shall be considered in good faith. Sps.
Reyes were in bad faith since they were already aware of the construction being done on their land by
Sps. Santos but they did not object thereto. Sps. Santos were also in bad faith since they constructed their
house on land titled in the names of Spouses Reyes. The rights and obligations of the parties are
governed by Article 448 of the Civil Code.

The rights and obligations of Spouses Reyes as landowners in good faith are:

1. The right to appropriate the house constructed by Sps. Santos after payment of the necessary &
useful expenses incurred by Sps. Santos in the construction;
2. The right to sell the land encroached upon since the value of the land is not considerably more than
the value of the house, hence, forced lease is not applicable

The rights and obligations of Spouses Reyes as builders in good faith are:

1. The right to reimbursement of the necessary & useful expenses incurred in the construction of their
house;

2. The right of retention until fully paid of the necessary & useful expenses;

3. The right to buy the land encroached upon considering that the value of the land is not considerably
more than the value of the house, hence, forced lease is not applicable.

4. Edgar was the usufructuary of a parcel of land owned by Fred. With the consent of Edgar and
by chance, Greg found hidden treasure on this land. How would the hidden treasure be divided
between the parties?

ANSWER:

The hidden treasure shall be equally divided between Fred, the owner of the land where hidden treasure
was found and Greg, the finder. Edgar was merely the usufructuary of the land and not the owner, hence,
he does not get any share. (Article 438 NCC)

5. Corazon Reyes and Carlos Santos were married on Dec. 1, 2007. Since that time, Corazon has
been using the name Corazon Santos in all her employment records and other official documents.
On Feb. 2, 2008, upon petition of Corazon, due to concealment of habitual alcoholism existing at
the time of their marriage, a decree of annulment was granted by the Family Court of Manila.
Subsequently, Corazon filed with the same court a motion to resume using her maiden surname
of “Reyes” and that she be granted support by Carlos.

a. If you were the judge, would you grant the motion of Corazon to resume using her maiden
surname?

b. Should Corazon be granted support by her husband?

ANSWER:

a. Yes. Under Article 371 of the Civil Code, in case of annulment of marriage, and the wife is the guilty
party, she shall resume her maiden name and surname. If she is the innocent spouse, she may resume
her maiden name and surname. In the case at bar, Corazon is the innocent spouse, hence, she has the
option to resume using her maiden name and surname.

b. No more. The final judgment in annulment of marriage shall provide for the liquidation, partition and
distribution of the properties of the spouses, the custody and support of the common children, and the
delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous judicial
proceedings. After such liquidation and partition of the properties of the spouses, there is no more
obligation to support each other. (Article 50 NCC).

6. Anton and Belinda are husband and wife. They have an only son Carlos. Belinda has a
daughter, Donita, by a previous marriage which was declared void by the proper court. Anton, a
widower at the time he married Belinda, has a son, Elmer, with his first wife. Donita and Elmer who
had never been introduced to each other by Anton and Belinda, met at a party and eventually fell
in love with each other. Donita and Elmer, both 25 years of age, eloped and complying with all the
essential and formal requisites of marriage, got married before Judge Franco of the RTC of
Manila.

a. What is the nature of the marriage of Donita & Elmer? Explain well.

b. Suppose it was Carlos whom Donita married. What is the nature of the marriage between Carlos
and Donita. Explain fully.

ANSWER:

a. The marriage of Donita and Elmer is valid. It is not incestuous nor against public policy. Donita and
Elmer are step-sister and step-brother to each other. Under the Family Code, they are not related to each
other and there is no prohibition to their marriage.

b. The marriage of Donita and Carlos is null and void as it is incestuous and prohibited under Article 37
of the Family Code. Donita and Carlos are half-blood sister and half-blood brother to each other and their
marriage is prohibited by law for being incestuous.

7. Peter and Raquel, both 16 years old, were so in love with each other that they had pre-marital
sex resulting to Raquel’s pregnancy. Raquel gave birth to Oscar when she was only 17 years old.
Peter and Raquel married each other on June 1, 2010 when they were both 18 years old. May
Oscar be legitimated due to the marriage of his parents, Peter & Raquel?

ANSWER:

a. Oscar may be legitimated under RA 9858. An Act Providing For The Legitimation Of Children Born To
Parents Below Marrying Age (approved Dec. 20, 2009). This law amended Articles 177 and 178 of the
Family Code which now read:

Art.177. Children conceived & born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of conception of the
former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other, or were so disqualified only because
either or both of them were below 18 years of age, may be legitimated.

Art.178. Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage between parents. The annulment of
a voidable marriage shall not affect the legitimation.

It must be noted that the only impediment existing at the time of conception of Oscar for his parents to get
married to each other was the fact that both of them were below the marrying age of 18. Considering that
Peter and Raquel got married to each other after attaining the age of 18, Oscar may be legitimated to
raise him to the level of a legitimate child.

8. Jennifer was born in 1981 and was registered as “female” in her birth certificate. She was later
diagnosed to be afflicted with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH), a rare condition where a
person possesses both male and female characteristics. Tests revealed that her ovarian
structures had minimized, she has clitoral hyperthropy, she stopped growing and she has no
breasts or menstrual development. She has practically become a male person. She filed a petition
before the RTC of Siniloan, Laguna that her name in her birth certificate be changed from
“Jennifer” to “Jeff” and her gender from “female” to “male”. If you were the judge hearing this
case, will you grant or deny her petition?

ANSWER:

Jennifer’s petition should be granted. In the case of Republic vs. Cagandahan, the Supreme Court held
that considering that Jennifer was born an intersex, the determining factor in his/her gender classification
would be what he/she, having reached the age of majority, with good reason, thinks of his/her sex. More
importantly in this case, Jennifer did not use any drug nor underwent any sex re-assignment to change
her gender from female to male.

9. Anton, Bernie and Caloy are brothers. They purchased from their parents specific portions of a
parcel of land as evidenced by 3 separate deeds of sale, each deed referring to a particular lot in
metes and bounds. When the deeds were presented for registration, the Register of Deeds of
Pasay City could not issue separate certificates of title due to the absence of a subdivision plan,
hence, only 1 title was issued in the names of the three brothers. Anton, Bernie, and Caloy each
receive the fruits exclusively from the lot actually purchased by each of them. Later, Anton sold
his lot to Dencio, with verbal notice to his brothers. To enable Dencio to secure a new title in his
name, the Deed of Sale was made to refer to an undivided interest in the property of Anton, with
the metes and bounds of the lot being stated. Bernie and Caloy reacted violently to the sale
executed by Anton signifying their exercise of the right of legal redemption as co-owners of the
lot. Can Bernie and Caloy still legally redeem the lot sold by Anton to Dencio?

ANSWER:

Under the law, there is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to
different persons. There is no more co-ownership between the brothers as specific portions of the land
were sold to them even if only one title was issued to them. The right of legal redemption is no longer
available since no more co-ownership exists between the brothers. (Spouses Si vs CA, GR 122047,
October 12, 2000).

10. Dina owned a valuable painting worth P1.5M which was stolen from her house during a
robbery which was duly reported to the police authorities. A year later, during a party at Erica’s
house. Dina saw the painting hanging in Erica’s living room. Upon inquiry, Erica said she bought
the painting in a gallery auction sale at the Luz Gallery for P1M. The painting was positively
identified as the one stolen from Dina’s house. Can Dina recover this painting from Erica?

ANSWER:

Yes, Dina was unlawfully deprived of her personal property but she must reimburse Erica of the P1M the
latter paid in the gallery auction sale.

Under Article 559 of the New Civil Code, the possession of movable property acquired in good faith is
equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof,
may recover it from the person in possession of the same. If the possessor of the movable lost or of which
the owner has been unlawfully deprived, has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot
obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefor.

11. Elated that her sister Rosemarie who had been married for ten years was pregnant for the first
time, Rosalie donated a ring worth P25,000.00 to the unborn child. Rosemarie was profuse in
thanking her sister when they talked while shopping for baby clothes at Rustan’s. Rosemarie gave
birth after 7½ months of pregnancy but the baby died 21 hours after delivery. May Rosalie get
back the ring she donated? Why or why not?

ANSWER:

Yes, Rosalie may recover the ring that she donated since there was no compliance with the formalities
required by law. Article 748 of the New Civil Code provides that the donation of a movable property may
be made orally or in writing. If the value of the personal property donated exceeds five thousand pesos,
the donation and the acceptance shall be made in writing. Otherwise, the donation shall be void. In the
case at bar, the donation was a ring worth P25,000.00 and there was no showing that said donation and
acceptance were in writing, even a private instrument, hence, the donation is considered void.

12. Benigno who was terminally ill, signed the will with Bonnie, the 1 witness, at his bedside.
st

Benjie, the 2 witness, was in the far side of the room fully engrossed and concentrated in the
nd

cross word puzzle he was doing. Bobot, the 3 witness, was in the other side of the room near the
rd

window, playing scrabble with the grandchildren of Benigno. Benigno died on January 2, 2013. It
was contended that the will was not signed in the presence of the witnesses, hence void. Rule on
this contention.

ANSWER:

The will is valid. In Jaboneta vs Gustilo, the Supreme Court held that the real test of signing the will “in the
presence” of the testator and the three credible witnesses does not necessarily require actually seeing the
signing but only the possibility of seeing the signing without any physical obstruction to impair the vision. If
the testator and the three witnesses were together in one room and one witness merely turned his back
while another witness was already in the act of signing the will, such signing is still considered made in his
presence. What is important is the opportunity to have seen the signing of the document because there
was no physical obstruction.

13. Anton had two (2) legitimate children, Basilio and Carlos. Carlos had two (2) legitimate
daughters, Donna and Erica. Carlos died in 2011 and Erica repudiated her inheritance from her
father Carlos. In the year 2012, Anton died. Can Erica inherit from Anton?

ANSWER:

Yes, Erica can inherit from his grandfather Anton. Under Article 977 of the New Civil Code, an heir who
repudiates cannot be represented. However, under Article 976 of the same Code, a person who
repudiates may represent him whose inheritance he has renounced. In the case at bar, Erica repudiated
her inheritance from her father Carlos but she can validly represent her predeceased father in the
inheritance of her grandfather Anton.

14. Perlita executed a notarial will on Aug. 16, 2004, complying with all the formalities required by
law. On May 9, 2006 when she was already 92 years old, too weak because of her terminal cancer
even to rise from her bed, with intention to revoke, she asked her housemaid Ponciana to get her
will and burn it. Ponciana got the will from the drawer near Perlita’s bed, went to the kitchen,
burned the will and showed the ashes of the burned will to Perlita. Was there a valid revocation of
the will by burning? Explain well.

ANSWER:

There was no revocation of Perlita’s will by burning. The law allows the revocation by an overt act to be
done personally by the testator or by another person. However, if the overt act was done by another
person, such overt act must be done in the presence and under the express direction of the testator. In
the case at bar, the revocation of the will by burning was done by Ponciana, Perlita’s housemaid, under
the latter’s express direction but the burning was not done in her presence, hence, there was no valid
revocation of the will by burning. (Article 830 NCC).

15. Abigail borrowed P25,000.00 from Betsy & delivered her watch to the latter as pledge to
secure the payment of her debt.

a. What is the presumption under the law if the watch is later found in the possession of Abigail?
Explain well.

b. Is Abigail’s obligation to pay the P25,000.00 loan already extinguished? Why?

ANSWER:

a. Under Article 1274 of the New Civil Code, it is presumed that the accessory obligation of pledge has
been remitted when the thing pledged, after its delivery to the creditor, is found in the possession of the
debtor, or of a third person who owns the thing. Considering that the pledged watch is again in the
possession of the debtor Abigail, after the latter delivered said watch to her creditor, Betsy, the
presumption is that Betsy has condoned the pledge.

b. No. Under the law, the renunciation of the principal debt shall extinguish the accessory obligations;
but the waiver of the latter shall leave the former in force. (Article 1273 NCC). In the case at bar, only the
accessory obligation of pledge has been condoned by Betsy, hence, the principal obligation of loan, still
subsists. Abigail must pay her debt of P25,000.00 to Betsy.

16. Rolly and Oscar entered into a pacto de retro sale of Oscar’s house and lot worth P10M. The
price agreed upon by the parties is only P100,000.00. Is this contract valid, voidable or void?
Explain well.

ANSWER:

The contract is valid. All the requisites of a valid contract are present: consent of the contracting parties,
object certain which is the subject matter of the contract and cause of the obligation which is established.
(Article 1318 NCC). The gross inadequacy of the price agreed upon by the parties is immaterial
considering that this is a pacto de retro sale. In this kind of sales, the price is unusually lower to allow the
seller to repurchase his own property within an agreed period of time.

17. On Sept. 1, 2007, Romy was interested to buy a specific Honda Civic 2005 model car from a
second hand car shop in Makati. Sonny, the shop manager told him that the price of the said car
was P300,000.00. Romy accepted the offer but told Sonny to give him one (1) week to raise the
amount. There and then, Romy gave an initial amount of P10,000.00 promising to come back on
Sept. 7, 2012 to complete the payment. Romy returned to the shop on Sept. 8, 2012 but Sonny told
him that the car has already been offered and sold to Tony for P500,000. Sonny contended that
even with the money given by Romy, the offer is good only until Sept. 7, 2012 considering that
their agreement is only good for one (1) week. He further contended that after Sept. 7, 2012, the
offer can now be withdrawn and the car can be sold to another person and the P10,000.00 option
money forfeited in his favor. Do you agree with Sonny’s contention? Explain well.

ANSWER:

No, I do not agree with Sonny’s contention. There was already a perfected contract of sale between
Sonny and Romy over this specific car. All the requisites of a valid contract are present: consent of the
contracting parties, object certain which was the Honda Civic 2005 model car, and cause or consideration
which was the P300,000.00. (Article 1318 NCC). It should not be construed as an option contract which is
only an offer to buy or not to buy a certain object within a period of time, such offer may be withdrawn by
the offerer at any time before acceptance by communicating such withdrawal, except when the option is
founded upon a consideration distinct from the price. Not being an option contract but a perfected contract
of sale between the parties, Sonny can no longer sell the car to another person nor have the earnest
money given by Romy forfeited in his favor.
18. Arnold, Boyet and Caloy borrowed P120,000.00 from Dennis. This debt is evidenced by a
promissory note (PN) wherein the three bound themselves to pay the debt jointly and severally.
According to the PN, Arnold can be compelled to pay on June 15, 2012; Boyet can be compelled to
pay on January 15, 2013; while Caloy can be compelled to pay on June 15, 2014. On February 15,
2014, Dennis made a demand upon Caloy to pay the entire indebtedness but the latter refused to
pay contending that his share is not yet due and demandable. Subsequently, because of Caloy’s
refusal to pay the debt, Dennis brought an action against him for the collection of the full amount
of the obligation. Will the action of Dennis prosper? Explain fully

ANSWER:

This is a solidary obligation. As evidenced by the promissory note, the three debtors, Arnold, Boyet and
Caloy, bound themselves to pay their creditor Dennis, jointly and severally, hence, the creditor may
compel any of the solidary debtors to pay the entire amount of the debt even if they are not bound in the
same manner and by the same periods and conditions. In the case at bar, the obligations of Arnold and
Boyet are already due and demandable, hence, Caloy can be compelled to pay P80,000.00. Caloy’s own
obligation is only due and demandable on June 15, 2014 and he can be compelled to pay P40,000.00
when the period has arrived. (Article 1211 NCC).

19. Arnold appointed Anton as his agent to manage his prawn business in Dumaguete City.
Anton, who is based in Manila wants to appoint Arman as his substitute.

a. Can Anton validly appoint Arman as his substitute? Why or why not?

b. As to Anton, what is the effect of his appointment of Arman as his substitute? Explain well.

c. Give the modes of extinguishing agency.

ANSWER:

a. Yes, Anton can validly appoint a substitute or a sub-agent. Under Article 1892, the agent may appoint
a substitute if the principal has not prohibited him from doing so.

b. In view of his appointment of Arman as his substitute, Anton shall be responsible for the acts of his
substitute Arman:

(1). When he was not given the power to appoint one;

(2). When he was given such power, but without designating the person, and the person appointed was
notoriously incompetent or insolvent.

c. Under Article 1919, Agency is extinguished by its revocation, by the withdrawal of the agent, by the
death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of the principal or of the agent, by the dissolution of the firm
or corporation which entrusted or accepted the agency or by the accomplishment of the object or the
purpose of the agency.
20. Bert, Bart and Bong agreed to form a partnership to be engaged in the sale of appliances and
furniture. Bert agreed to contribute P1M; Bart agreed to contribute a parcel of land with a building
where the business shall be conducted and Bong agreed to contribute his industry.

a. What formalities must be complied with by Bert, Bart and Bong in order to constitute a legal
and valid partnership?

b. Under the law, what are the restrictions imposed on Bert and Bart as capitalist partners and on
Bong as industrial partner?

ANSWER:

a. A partnership may be constituted in any form, except where immovable property or real rights are
contributed thereto, in which case a public instrument shall be necessary. Every contract of partnership
having a capital of three thousand pesos or more, in money or property, shall appear in a public
instrument, which must be recorded in the Office of the Securities & Exchange Commission. A contract of
partnership is void, whenever immovable property is contributed thereto, if an inventory of said property is
not made, signed by the parties, and attached to the public instrument. Bert, Bart and Bong must comply
with these formalities prescribed by law, otherwise, their contract of partnership shall be considered void.
(Articles 1771, 1772, 1773 NCC).

b. Bert and Bart as capitalist partners cannot engage for their own account in any operation which is of
the same kind of business in which the partnership is engaged, unless there is a stipulation to the
contrary. Any capitalist partner violating this prohibition shall bring to the common funds any profits
accruing to him from his transactions, and shall personally bear all the losses. (Article 1808 NCC).

Bong, the industrial partner, cannot engage in any business for himself, unless the partnership expressly
permits him to do so; and if he should do so, the capitalist partners may either exclude him from the firm
or avail themselves of the benefits which he may have obtained in violation of this provision, with a right to
damages in either case. (Article 1789 NCC).