1. Ned met Catelyn in 1991 and started dating in 1996.

Catelyn was a medical student who was then

raising her first child John from a previous relationship. During the cohabitation of Ned and Catelyn, she
bore two more children namely, Robb (born on December 11, 1997) and Sansa (born on October
19,2000). Ned and Catelyn eventually got married in civil rights on October 10, 2002 and thereafter, the
birth certificates of their children Robb and Sansa, including John’s were amended to change their civil
status to legitimated by virtue of the said marriage.

Citing economic abuse on the part of Ned, Catelyn filed an application for the issuance of a Temporary
Protection Order with a request to make the same permanent after due hearing, before the Regional
Trial Court. While living separately from Ned, Catelyn discovered that Ned was not paying the rentals
due on the condominium unit they were occupying, forcing Catelyn to move out. She was likewise
compelled to find work to support the family, after Ned has started to be remiss in his financial
obligations to the family. Catelyn asked the Court to order Ned to support their three children. Ned for
his part, refuses to support John, arguing that he is not the biological father of the child and that the
legitimation was invalid.

Is John entitled to support? Explain. (5points)

Can Ned question the status and filiation of John in the case for support? (5points)

2. Gwen and Chris were able to acquire a house and lot in Kidapawan during their marriage. On March
15, 1996, their marriage was declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity. Chris asked for the
partition of their property but Marrieta refused. Thus, on January 29, 2003, Chris filed a Complaint for
partition before the MTC of Kidapawan. By way of defense, Gwen claimed that the subject property had
already been sold to their children Raymund and Leo. She likewise moved for the dismissal of the
complaint because the MTC lacked jurisdiction, the partition case being an action incapable of pecuniary
estimation. The Kidapawan MTC applying Article 129 ruled that the conjugal dwelling be adjudicated to
Gwen since the majority of the common children chose to remain with her. The RTC reversed the MTC
decision and instead applied article 147 of the Family Code. If this matter was raised to the Supreme
Court, how will it be resolved? Explain (10 points)

3. Baeby Baste is the four-year old child of Alden and Maine. He is also a T.V. personality earning a
substantial income. The parents then furnished the required bond under Article 225 of the Family Code.
Answer and explain the following:

a. Baeby Baste received a donation of Php 1,000,000.00 from Vic Sotto. May the parents use
Php200,000 out of the Php1,000,000 to answer for the rent and utility bills of the family? (3
points)

b. The Php 1,000,000.00 was placed in a time deposit and earned Php 70,000 interest. Can
Maine use the interest to buy groceries good for three months? (3 points)
4. According to Article 41 of the Family Code, what are the requisites for the declaration of presumptive
death? (2 points)

5. Who may adopt according to the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998? (2 points)

ANSWERS

1. (a)

Yes. John is entitled to support.

Article 1431 provides that “Through estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive
upon the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying thereon.

Article 1431 applies in the case at bar wherein Ned is estopped from depriving John of support. The
parties did not dispute the fact that John is not the biological son oof Ned. Such being the case, it was
improper to have John legitimated after the celebration of Ned and Catelyn’s marriage. Clearly then, the
legal process of legitimation was trifled with. Ned voluntarily but falsely acknowledged John as his. The
principle of estoppel applies and effectively bars Ned from asserting contrary to his previous
representations. He should not be allowed to evade responsibility arising from his own
misrepresentation.

Hence, John is entitled to support.

1. (b)

NO. Ned cannot question the status and filiation of John in the case for support.

In the case of Tison vs CA, the Court held that the “civil status of a child cannot be attacked collaterally.”
The child’s legitimacy cannot be contested by way of defense or as a collateral issue in another action
for a different purpose.

Here, Ned cannot question the status and filiation of John in the instant petition before the Court. The
petition sprang up out of Catelyn’s suit for support. Hence Ned cannot contest that John is not his
biological son since it is a collateral issue which this Court has no authority to resolve now.

Hence, Ned cannot question the status and filiation of John in the case for support.
2.

The Regional Trial Court was correct.

Article 147 must apply in the case at bar. The said law provides that the partition of the property must
be in equal shares if it can be shown that the man and the woman are first, capacitated to marry each
other, second live exclusively with each other as husband and wife and third, their union is without the
benefit of marriage or their marriage is void.

Here, all the elements are present. Although Article 129 provides for the procedure in case of
dissolution of the conjugal partnership regime, Article 147 specifically covers the effects of void
marriages on the spouses’ property relations. The term “capacitated to marry” pertains to the legal
capacity of a party to contract marriage. Any impediment to marry has not been shown to have existed
on the part of either Gwen or Chris. Under this property regime, property acquired by both spouses
through their work and industry shall be governed by the rules on equal co-ownership.

Hence, the ruling of the RTC was correct.

3. (a)

NO. The parents may not use the 200,000.00 out of the P1M for the family’s daily collective needs.

Under the Family Code, the property of the unemancipated child acquired through gratuitous title shall
belong to the child in ownership and shall be devoted to the latter’s support or education. (Article 226)

Here, the Php 200,000.00 came from the P1M which was acquired by Baste by gratuitous title or
donation.

Hence, the parents may not use the Php 200,000.00 for the family’s daily collective need since it should
be devoted to Baste’s support or education.

3 (b)

YES but only secondarily.

Under the family code, the rights of the parents over the fruits or income of the child’s property shall be
limited to primarily to the child’s support and secondarily to the collective daily needs of the family.

4. Under Article 41 of the Family Code, the requisites for a presumptive death of spouse for subsequent
marriage are as follows:
1. That the absent spouse has been missing for four consecutive years or two consecutive years if the
disappearance occurred where there is danger of death under the circumstances laid down in Article
391, Civil Code.

2. That the present spouse wishes to remarry.

3. That the present spouse has a well-founded belief that the absentee is dead.

4. That the present spouse files a summary proceeding for the declaration of presumptive death of the
absentee.

5. Section 7. Who May Adopt. – The following may adopt:

(a) Any Filipino citizen of legal age, in possession of full civil capacity and legal rights, of good
moral character, has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude, emotionally and
psychologically capable of caring for children, at least sixteen (16) years older than the adoptee,
and who is in a position to support and care for his/her children in keeping with the means of
the family. The requirement of sixteen (16) year difference between the age of the adopter and
adoptee may be waived when the adopter is the biological parent of the adoptee, or is the
spouse of the adoptee's parent;

(b) Any alien possessing the same qualifications as above stated for Filipino nationals: Provided,
That his/her country has diplomatic relations with the Republic of the Philippines, that he/she
has been living in the Philippines for at least three (3) continuous years prior to the filing of the
application for adoption and maintains such residence until the adoption decree is entered, that
he/she has been certified by his/her diplomatic or consular office or any appropriate
government agency that he/she has the legal capacity to adopt in his/her country, and that
his/her government allows the adoptee to enter his/her country as his/her adopted
son/daughter: Provided, Further, That the requirements on residency and certification of the
alien's qualification to adopt in his/her country may be waived for the following:

(i) a former Filipino citizen who seeks to adopt a relative within the fourth (4th) degree
of consanguinity or affinity; or

(ii) one who seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of his/her Filipino spouse; or

(iii) one who is married to a Filipino citizen and seeks to adopt jointly with his/her
spouse a relative within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity or affinity of the
Filipino spouse; or

(c) The guardian with respect to the ward after the termination of the guardianship and
clearance of his/her financial accountabilities.

Husband and wife shall jointly adopt, except in the following cases:

(i) if one spouse seeks to adopt the legitimate son/daughter of the other; or
 (ii) if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own illegitimate son/daughter: Provided, However, that
the other spouse has signified his/her consent thereto; or

(iii) if the spouses are legally separated from each other.

In case husband and wife jointly adopt, or one spouse adopts the illegitimate son/daughter of the other,
joint parental authority shall be exercised by the spouses.

WHEN MAY AN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE BE FILED?

WHO MAY FILE AN ACTION FOR ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE?

WHAT CONSTITUTES A VALID MARRIAGE?

VII- Yes he may remarry, juliet was already an american