SUMMARY OF DOCTRINES

I. PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

Art. 26, NCC

The philosophy behind Art. 26, NCC underscores the necessity for its inclusion in our
Civil Law. The Code Commission stressed in no uncertain terms that the human personality be
exalted. Thus, under this article, the rights of a person are amply protected, and damages are
provided for violations of a persons dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind. Further, the
violations mentioned in this codal provision are not exclusive but merely examples and do not
preclude other similar or analogous acts such as the one involved in this case. (CONCEPCION
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 120706, January 31, 2000)

Prejudicial Question
A prejudicial question is one that arises in a case the resolution of which is a logical
antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which pertains to another
tribunal. The prejudicial question must be determinative of the case before the court but the
jurisdiction to try and resolve the question must be lodged in another court or tribunal.
More simply, for the court to appreciate the pendency of a prejudicial question, the law
requires the concurrence of two essential requisites, to wit:
a) The civil action involves an issue similar or intimately related to the issue raised in the
criminal action; and
b) The resolution of such issue determines whether or not the criminal action may
proceed. (CHING vs. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 110844, April 27, 2000)
Pendency of a civil action for nullity of marriage does not pose a prejudicial question in a
criminal case for concubinage. The rationale behind the principle of prejudicial question is to
avoid two conflicting decisions. For a civil case to be considered prejudicial to a criminal action
as to cause the suspension of the latter pending the final determination of the civil case, it must
appear not only that the said civil case involves the same facts upon which the criminal
prosecution would be based, but also that in the resolution of the issue or issues raised in the
aforesaid civil action, the guilt or innocence of the accused would necessarily be determined.
(BELTRAN vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 137567, June 20, 2000)

Property Regime of Unions Without Marriage (Art. 148, FC); Support; Retroactive
Application of the Family Code
Actual contribution is required by Art. 148 of the Family Code, in contrast to Art. 147 .
which states that efforts in the care and maintenance of the family and household are regarded as
contributions to the acquisition of common property by one who has no salary or income or work
or industry. The care given by one party [to] the home, children, and household, or spiritual or
moral inspiration provided to the other, is not included in Art.148. Hence, if actual contribution
of the party is not proved, there will be no co-ownership and no presumption of equal shares
The right to support (for shelter) of illegitimate children does not prevail over the right of the
spouses to eject them. Article 203 of the Family Code expressly provides that the obligation to
give support shall be demandable from the time the person who has the right to receive the same
needs it for maintenance, but it shall not be paid except from the date of the judicial or extrajudicial demand. (TUMLOS vs. FERNANDEZ, G.R. No. 137650, April 12, 2000)

Judicial Declaration of Presumptive Death of a Spouse

Since the marriage was contracted in 1958, the applicable provision is Art. 83, NCC
which provides that a subsequent marriage contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse is
illegal and void ab initio unless the prior marriage is first annulled or dissolved, except when the
first spouse (1) has been absent for seven consecutive years at the time of the second marriage
without the spouse present having news of the absentee being alive, or (2) if absent for less than
seven years, is generally considered as dead and believed to be so by the spouse present at the
time of contracting such subsequent marriage, or (3) is presumed dead according to Articles 390
and 391 of the Civil Code. For the exception to apply, the subsequent marriage must have been
made in good faith. A judicial declaration of absence of the absentee spouse is not necessary as
long as the prescribed period of absence is met. The marriage under these exceptional cases is
deemed to be valid until declared null and void by a competent court. In contrast, under the
1988 Family Code, in order that a subsequent bigamous marriage may exceptionally be
considered valid, the following conditions must concur: (a) the prior spouse of the contracting
party must have been absent for four consecutive years, or two years where the danger of death
under the circumstances in Article 391 of the Civil Code at the time of disappearance; (b) the
spouse present has a well founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead; and (c) there is,
unlike the old rule, a judicial declaration of presumptive death of the absentee for which purpose
the spouse present can institute a summary proceeding in court to ask for that
declaration. (ARMAS vs. CALISTERIO, G. R. No. 136467, April 6, 2000)

Validity of Marriage; Marriage License Required

A marriage license is a formal requirement, its absence renders the marriage void ab
initio. Absence any claim of an exceptional character, the purported marriage between the
parties could not be classified among those exempt from the marriage license requirement. (SY
vs. COURT OF APPEALS , G.R. No. 127263, April 12, 2000)

Exemption from Marriage License; Declaration of Nullity of a Void Marriage

The five-year period provided by law in order to exempt the future spouses from securing
a marriage license should be computed on the basis of a cohabitation as "husband and wife"
where the only missing factor is the special contract of marriage to validate the union. In other
words, the five-year common-law cohabitation period, which is counted back from the date of
celebration of marriage, should be a period of legal union had it not been for the absence of the
marriage. This 5-year period should be the years immediately before the day of the marriage and
it should be a period of cohabitation characterized by exclusivity meaning no third party was
involved at any time within the 5 years and continuity that is unbroken. Otherwise, if that
continuous 5-year cohabitation is computed without any distinction as to whether the parties
were capacitated to marry each other during the entire five years, then the law would be
sanctioning immorality and encouraging parties to have common law relationships and placing
them on the same footing with those who lived faithfully with their spouse.
The Family Code is silent as to who can file a petition to declare the nullity of a marriage.
A void marriage can be attacked collaterally and can be questioned even after the death of either
party. That is why the action or defense for nullity is imprescriptible. Any proper interested party
may attack a void marriage. (NIAL vs. BAYADOG, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000)

Property Relations of Unions Without Marriage

The co-ownership in Article 144 of the Civil Code requires that the man and woman
living together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage must not in any way be
incapacitated to marry. If the property is acquired during the time when the other party to the

cohabitation has a subsisting marriage, such property is presumed to be conjugal unless it be

proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. (ADRIANO vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, G.R. No. 124118, March 27, 2000)