FAMILY CODE

Emancipation (1993)

Julio and Lea, both 18 years old, were sweethearts. At a party at the house of a mutual friend. Lea met Jake, also 18 years old, who showed interest in her. Lea seemed to entertain Jake because she danced with him many times. In a fit of jealousy, Julio shot Jake with his father's 38 caliber revolver which, before going to the party he was able to get from the unlocked drawer inside his father's bedroom. Jake died as a result of the lone gunshot wound he sustained. His parents sued Julio's parents for damages arising from quasi-delict. At the time of the incident, Julio was 18 years old living with his parents. Julio's parents moved to dismiss the complaint against them claiming that since Julio was already of majorityage, they were no longer liable for his acts. 1) Should the motion to dismiss be granted? Why? 2) What is the liability of Julio's parents to Jake's parents? Explain your answer.1) No, the Motion to Dismiss should not be granted. Article 236 of the Family Code as amended by Republic Act 6809, provides in the third paragraph that "nothing in this Code shall be construed to derogate from the duty or responsibility of parents and guardians for children and wards below twenty-one years of age mentioned in the second and third paragraphs of Article 2180 of the Civil Code". 2) The liability of Julio's parents to Jake's parents arises from quasi-delict (Arts. 2176 and 2180 Civil Code) and shall cover specifically the following:

a) P50,000.00 for the death of the son;

b) such amount as would correspond to lost earning capacity; and

c) moral damages.

Family Code; Retroactive Application; Vested Rights (2000)

On April 15, 1980, Rene and Angelina were married to each other without a marriage settlement. In 1985, they acquired a parcel of land in Quezon City. On June 1, 1990, when Angelina was away in Baguio, Rene sold the said lot to Marcelo. Is the sale void or voidable? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The sale is void. Since the sale was executed in 1990, the Family Code is the law applicable. Under Article 124 of the FC, the sale of a conjugal property by a spouse without the consent of the other is void.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The sale is voidable. The provisions of the Family Code may apply retroactively but only if such application will not impair vested rights. When Rene and Angelina got married in 1980, the law that governed their property relations was the New Civil Code. Under the NCC, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Heirs of Felipe v. Aldon, 100 SCRA 628 and reiterated in Heirs of Ayuste v. Malabonga, G.R No, 118784, 2 September1999, the sale executed by the husband without the consent of

the wife is voidable. The husband has already acquired a vested right on the voidable nature of dispositions made without the consent of the wife. Hence, Article 124 of the Family Code which makes the sale void does not apply.

Family Home; Dwelling House (1994)

In 1991, Victor established judicially out of conjugal property, a family home in Manila worth P200.000.00 and extrajudicially a second family home in Tagaytay worth P50.000.00. Victor leased the family home in Manila to a foreigner. Victor and his family transferred to another house of his in Pasig. Can the two family homes be the subject of execution on a judgment against Victor's wife for non-payment of the purchase in 1992 of household appliances?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The two (2) so-called family homes can be the subject of execution. Neither of the abodes are considered family homes because for purposes of availing the benefits under the Family Code, there can only be one (1) family home which is defined as the "dwelling house" where the husband and the wife and their family actually "reside" and the land on which it is situated. (Arts. 152 and 161, Family Code)

Family; Constitutional Mandates; Divorce (1991)

A. How does the 1987 Constitution strengthen the family as an Institution?

B. Do the Constitutional policy on the family and the provision that marriage is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State bar Congress from enacting a law allowing divorce in the Philippines?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. Sec, 2, Article II of the Constitution provides that: The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from conception. The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the support of the Government. Section I, Article XV, further provides that: The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development. (Note: The Committee recommends that a citation of either one of the provisions be credited as a complete answer).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

B, No, the Constitutional policy, as well as the supporting provision, does not amount to a prohibition to Congress to enact a law on divorce. The Constitution only meant to help the marriage endure, to "strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development."

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

B. Yes. Congress is barred from enacting a law allowing divorce, since Section 2 of Article XV provides: "Sec. 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State." Since marriage is "Inviolable", it cannot be dissolved by an absolute divorce.

Marriage; Annulment; Effects; Requisites Before Remarriage (1990)

The marriage of H and W was annulled by the competent court. Upon finality of the judgment of nullity. H began looking for his prospective second mate. He fell in love with a sexy woman S who wanted to be married as soon as possible, i.e., after a few months of courtship. As a young lawyer, you were consulted by H, (a) How soon can H be joined in lawful wedlock to his girlfriend S? Under existing laws, are there certain requisites that must be complied with before he can remarry? What advice would you give H?

(b) Suppose that children were born from the union of H and W, what would be the status of said children? Explain your answer.

(c) If the subsequent marriage of H to S was contracted before compliance with the statutory condition for its validity, what are the rights of the children of the first marriage (i.e., of H and W) and of the children of the subsequent marriage (of H and S)?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(a) H, or either spouse for that matter, can marry again after complying with the provisions of Article 52 of the Family Code, namely, there must be a partition and distribution, of the properties of the spouses, and the delivery of thechildren's presumptive legitimes which should be recorded sexually-transmissible disease, found to be serious and in the appropriate civil registry and registries of property. H should be so advised.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: for (a)

The following are the requisites prescribed by law and I advice to H is to comply with them, namely:

1) If either spouse contracted the marriage in bad faith, his or her share of the net profits of the community property : or conjugal partnership property shall be forfeited in favor of the common children or, if there are none, the children of the guilty spouse by a previous marriage or, in default of children, the innocent spouse;

2) Donations by reason of marriage shall remain valid except that if the donee contracted the marriage in bad faith, such donations made to said donee are revoked by operation of law;

3) The spouse who contracted the subsequent marriage in bad faith shall be disqualified to inherit from the innocent spouse by testate and intestate succession;

4) If both spouses of the subsequent marriage acted in bad faith all donations by reason of marriage and testamentary dispositions made by one in favor of the other are revoked by operation of law.

5) The judgment of annulment 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 appropriate civil registry and registers of property, (Articles 53. 52, 43. 44. Family Code).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(b) The children born from the union of H and W would be legitimate children if conceived or born before the decree of annulment of the marriage (under Art. 45 of the Family Code) has become final and executory (Art. 54, Family Code}.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(c) The children of the first marriage shall be considered legitimate children if conceived or born before the Judgment of annulment of the marriage of H and W has become final and executory. Children conceived or born of the subsequent marriage shall likewise be legitimate even if the marriage of H and S be null and void for failure to comply with the requisites of Article 52 of the Family Code (Article 53, Family Code). As legitimate children, they have the following rights;

a) To bear the surnames of the father and the mother in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code on Surnames;

b) To receive support from their parents, their ascendants, and in proper cases, their brothers and sisters, in conformity with the provisions of this Code on Support; and

c) To be entitled to the legitime and other successional rights granted to them by the Civil Code (Article 174, Family Code).

Marriage; Annulment; Grounds (1991)

One of the grounds for annulment of marriage is that either party, at the time of their marriage was afflicted with a sexually-tranmitaed disease found to be serious appears incurable. Two (2) years after their marriage, which took place on 10 October 1988, Bethel discovered that her husband James has a sexually-transmissible disease which he contracted even prior to their marriage although James did not know it himself until he was examined two [2) years later when a child was already born to them. Bethel sues James for annulment of their marriage. James opposes the annulment on the ground that he did not even know that he had such a disease so that there was no fraud or bad faith on his part. Decide.

B. Suppose that both parties at the time of their marriage were similarly afflicted with sexually-transmissible diseases, serious and incurable, and both knew of their respective infirmities, can Bethel or James sue for annulment of their marriage?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. The marriage can be annulled, because good faith is not a defense when the ground is based upon sexually-transmissible disease on the part of either party.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

B. Yes, the marriage can still be annulled because the fact that both of them are afflicted with sexually-transmissible diseases does not efface or nullity the ground.

Alternative Answer:

B. No, the marriage can no longer be annulled, because the fact that both were afflicted and that both knew of their respective infirmities constitutes a waiver of that ground.

Marriage; Annulment; Judicial Declaration (1993)

Maria and Luis, both Filipinos, were married by a Catholic priest in Lourdes Church, Quezon City in 1976, Luis was drunk on the day of his wedding. In fact, he slumped at the altar soon after the ceremony. After marriage, Luis never had a steady job because he was drunk most of the time. Finally, he could not get employed at all because of drunkenness. Hence, it was Maria who had to earn a living to support herself and her child begotten with Luis. In 1986, Maria filed a petition in the church matrimonial court in Quezon City to annul her marriage with Luis on the ground of psychological incapacity to comply with his marital obligation. Her petition was granted by the church matrimonial court. 1) Can Maria now get married legally to another man under Philippine laws after her marriage to Luis was annulled by the church matrimonial court? Explain. 2) What must Maria do to enable her to get married lawfully to another man under Philippine laws?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

1) No, Maria cannot validly contract a subsequent marriage without a court declaration of nullity of the first marriage. The law does not recognize the church declaration of nullity of a marriage.

2) To enable Maria to get married lawfully to another man. she must obtain a judicial declaration of nullity of the prior marriage under Article 36 Family Code.

Marriage; Annulment; Legal Separation; Prescription of Actions (1996)

2) Bert and Baby were married to each other on December 23, 1988. Six months later, she discovered that he was a drug addict. Efforts to have him rehabilitated were unsuccessful. Can Baby ask for annulment of marriage, or legal separation? Explain.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Baby cannot ask for annulment of her marriage or for legal separation because both these actions had already prescribed. While concealment of drug addiction existing at the time of marriage constitutes fraud under Art. 46 of the FC which makes the marriage voidable under Art. 45 of the FC, the action must, however, be brought within 5 years from the discovery thereof under Article 47(3), FC, Since the drug addiction of Bert was discovered by Baby in June 1989, the action had already prescribed in June of 1994. Although drug addiction is

a ground for legal separation under Art. 55(5) and Art. 57 of the FC requires that the action must be brought within 5 years from the occurrence of the cause. Since Bert had been a drug addict from the time of the celebration of the marriage, the action for legal separation must have been brought not later than 23 December 1993. Hence, Baby cannot, now, bring the action for legal separation.

Marriage; Annulment; Proper Party (1990)

D and G, age 20 and 19, respectively, and both single, eloped and got married to each other without parental consent in the case of G, a teenaged student of an exclusive college for girls. Three years later, her parents wanted to seek judicial annulment on that ground. You were consulted and asked to prepare the proper complaint. What advice would you give G's parents? Explain your answer.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

G himself should file the complaint under Article 45 of the Family Code, and no longer the parents because G is already 22 years of age.

Marriage; Annulment; Proper Party (1995)

Yvette was found to be positive for HIV virus, considered sexually transmissible, serious and incurable. Her boyfriend Joseph was aware of her condition and yet married her. After two (2) years of cohabiting with Yvette, and in his belief that she would probably never be able to bear him a healthy child, Joseph now wants to have his marriage with Yvette annulled. Yvette opposes the suit contending that Joseph is estopped from seeking annulment of their marriage since he knew even before their marriage that she was afflicted with HIV virus. Can the action of Joseph for annulment of his marriage with Yvette prosper? Discuss fully.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No, Joseph knew that Yvette was HIV positive at the time of the marriage. He is, therefore, not an injured party. The FC gives the right to annul the marriage only to an injured party. [Art. 47 (5), FC]

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

The action for annulment can prosper because the prescriptive period of five (5) years has not yet lapsed. [Art. 45 (6), FC].

Marriage; Divorce Decree; Void Marriages (1992)

In 1989, Maria, a Filipino citizen married her boss Johnson an American citizen, in Tokyo in a wedding ceremony celebrated according to Japanese laws. One year later, Johnson returned to his native Nevada, and he validly obtained in that state an absolute divorce from his wife Maris. After Maris received the final judgment of divorce, she married her childhood sweetheart Pedro, also a Filipino citizen, in a religious ceremony in Cebu City, celebrated according to the formalities of Philippine law. Pedro later left for the United

States and became naturalized as an American citizen. Maris followed Pedro to the United States, and after a serious quarrel, Marts filed a suit and obtained a divorce decree issued by the court in the state of Maryland. Maris then returned to the Philippines and in a civil ceremony celebrated in Cebu City according to the formalities of Philippine law, she married her former classmate Vincent likewise a Filipino citizen. b) Was the marriage of Maris and Pedro valid when celebrated? Is their marriage still valid existing now? Reasons. c) Was the marriage of Marts and Vincent valid when celebrated? Is their marriage still validly existing now? Reasons. d) At this point in time, who is the lawful husband of Marts? Reasons

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

(b) The marriage of Maris and Pedro was valid when celebrated because the divorce validly obtained by Johnson in Manila capacitated Maris to marry Pedro. The marriage of Maris and Pedro is still validly existing, because the marriage has not been validly dissolved by the Maryland divorce [Art. 26, Family Code).

(c) The marriage of Maris and Vincent is void ab initio because it is a bigamous marriage contracted by Maris during the subsistence of her marriage with Pedro (Art 25 and 41, Family Code). The marriage of Maris and Vincent does not validly exist because Article 26 does not apply. Pedro was not a foreigner at the time of his marriage with marts and the divorce abroad (in Maryland) was initiated and obtained not by the alien spouse, but by the Filipino spouse. Hence, the Maryland divorce did not capacitate Marts to marry Vincent.

(d) At this point in time, Pedro is still the lawful husband of Maris because their valid marriage has not been dissolved by any valid cause (Art. 26. Family Code)

Marriage; Divorce Decrees; Filiation of Children (2005)

In 1985, Sonny and Lulu, both Filipino citizens, were married in the Philippines. In 1987, they separated, and Sonny went to Canada, where he obtained a divorce in the same year. He then married another Filipina, Auring, in Canada on January 1,1988. They had two sons, James and John. In 1990, after failing to hear from Sonny, Lulu married Tirso, by whom she had a daughter, Verna. In 1991, Sonny visited the Philippines where he succumbed to heart attack..

a) Discuss the effect of the divorce obtained by Sonny and Lulu in Canada. (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The divorce is not valid. Philippine law does not provide for absolute divorce. Philippine courts cannot grant it. A marriage between two (2) Filipinos cannot be dissolved by a divorce obtained abroad. (Garcia v. Redo, G.R. No. 138322, October 2, 2001). Philippine laws apply to Sonny and Lulu. Under Article 15 of the New Civil Code, laws relating to family rights and duties, status, and capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines wherever they may be. Thus, the marriage of Sonny and Lulu is still valid and subsisting.