1. Art. 15 of the Civil Code – Laws relating to Family 2. Art. 15 of the Civil Code in relation to Art.
the Civil Code in relation to Art. 26 (2) of the Family
Art. 4 of the Family Code – Void Marriages
Relevant Laws:
Article 15 of the Civil Code
- Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and
legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines,
even though living abroad.
Article 4 of the Family Code
- The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the
marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).
Scenario:
A and B, both Filipino males, went to Las Vegas, Nevada, USA and
entered into a same-sex marriage. Would their marriage be recognized
in the Philippines?
The answer is no, as A and B, being both males, does not have legal
capacity to enter into marriage, and by being Filipinos, the laws relating
to family of the Philippines shall apply to them. Art. 15 of the Civil Code
provides that laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status,
condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon the citizens of
the Philippines even though living abroad and Art 4 of the Family Code
provides that absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall
render the marriage void ab initio. In the case at bar, being both Filipino
males, the laws of the Philippines shall be applicable to them to which
the said national laws do not recognized same-sex marriage. Therefore,
the marriage will not be recognized in the Philippines.
Code – Divorces between Filipinos
Relevant Laws:
Article 15 of the Civil Code
- Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and
legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines,
even though living abroad.
Art. 26 of the Family Code
- All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance with the
laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there
as such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under
Articles 35 (1), (4), (5) and (6), 3637 and 38. (17a)
Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly
celebrated and a divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the
alien spouse capacitating him or her to remarry, the Filipino spouse
shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law. (As amended by
Executive Order 227)
Scenario:
A and B, both Filipinos, married to each other, went to Las Vegas,
Nevada, USA and entered into a divorce. Will their divorce be recognized
in the Philippines?
The answer is no, for the reason that Philippine laws does not recognize
divorce between Filipinos. Art. 15 of the Civil Code provides that laws
relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition, and legal
capacity of persons are binding upon the citizens of the Philippines and
Art. 26 of the Family Code provides that only divorces between a
Filipino and a foreigner are recognized by Philippine laws. In the case at
bar, neither A nor B is a foreigner, both are Filipinos to which Philippine
laws shall apply to them. The Philippine laws do not recognize divorces
made by Filipinos abroad. Therefore, their divorce will not be recognized
in the Philippines.
 3. Art. 16 of the Family Code – Intestate Succession and Renvoi 4. Art. 194 of Family Code in relation Arts. 201 and 204 of the
Doctrine Family Code

Relevant Laws: Relevant Laws:

Art. 194 of the Family Code

Article 16 of the Family Code - Support comprises everything indispensable for sustenance, dwelling,
- Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the clothing, medical attendance, education and transportation, in keeping
country where it is stipulated. with the financial capacity of the family.

However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with
respect to the order of succession and to the amount of
successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary
provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person
whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the
nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein
said property may be found.
Renvoi Doctrine
- it means that the court of the forum, in determining the question before
it, must take into account the whole law of the other jurisdiction, but
also its rules as to conflict of laws, and then apply the law to the actual
question which the rules of the other jurisdiction prescribe. This may be
the law of the forum.
Scenario:
A, a Canadian citizen residing in the Philippines, died and willed all his
properties to B, a Filipino citizen. C, the brother of A, contested the will
of A and contends that Canadian law provides that he should be the one
to inherit all the properties of A. However, upon further study, it was
provided by Canadian law that, in cases of inheritance, the national law
of the country shall apply where the person resides. How will the Court
resolve this issue on jurisdiction?
The education of the person entitled to be supported referred to in the
preceding paragraph shall include his schooling or training for some
profession, trade or vocation, even beyond the age of majority.
Transportation shall include expenses in going to and from school, or to
and from place of work. (290a)
Article 201 of the Family Code
- The amount of support, in the cases referred to in Articles 195 and 196,
shall be in proportion to the resources or means of the giver and to the
necessities of the recipient.
Article 204 of the Family Code
- The person obliged to give support shall have the option to fulfill the
obligation either by paying the allowance fixed, or by receiving
and maintaining in the family dwelling the person who has a
right to receive support. The latter alternative cannot be availed of in
case there is a moral or legal obstacle thereto.
Scenario:
What is Support?
The answer should be in accordance with Arts. 194, 201, and 204.

The Court should apply the national laws of the Philippines in resolving
this issue. Art, 16 of the Family Code provides that in intestate and
testamentary successions, the national law of the person whose
succession is under consideration shall be applied. However, Renvoi
Doctrine is applied, when the national law of the foreigner refers back to
the jurisdiction to where the person resided. In the case at bar, the
national law of Canada refers back to the Philippines the jurisdiction to
settle the succession of A. The Philippines laws shall apply to the
succession and inheritance of A. Therefore C’s contention is untenable
and the Court shall resolve the issue according to Philippine laws.
 5. Art. 256 of the Family Code – Retroactivity of the Family Code
Relevant Laws:
Article 256 of the Family Code
- This Code shall have retroactive effect insofar as it does not prejudice or
impair vested or acquired rights in accordance with the Civil Code or
other laws.
Tayag v. CA
- This is a case where the Court held that the fact of filing of the petition
already vested in the petitioner her right to file it and to have the same
proceed to final adjudication in accordance with the law in force at the
time, and such right can no longer be prejudiced or impaired by the
enactment of a new law.
- That the Family Code should not be retroactively applied where it
impairs vested rights.
Scenario:
A, who was born on 1985, was the illegitimate son of B. B died on the
same year before the effectivity of the Family Code on 1987. A wants to
establish his illegitimate filiation with B. However, the Family Code
provides that he may only do so only during the lifetime of the alleged
parent, while the Civil Code provides an exception to this rule if the
parent died during the minority of the child. Would a case of filiation
prosper if A relies on the Civil Code?
The answer would be yes for the reason that the Family Code cannot be
retroactively applied if it will impair vested rights. Art. 256 of the
Family Code provides that the Family Code shall have retroactive effect
except in cases where it impairs vested rights. In Tayag v. CA, it was
held that the Family Code shall not be applied in cases where it could
impair vested rights. In the case at bar, A could invoke the Civil Code as
the proper law to apply in his case as the Family Code impairs his
vested rights. His alleged father died during his minority to which the
Civil Code allows a case to establish filiation before the enactment of the
Family Code. Therefore, his case will prosper.
6. RA 8552, Section 19 - Rescission of Adoption, in relation to Art.
919 of the Civil Code
Relevant Laws:
RA 8552 – Section 19, Rescission of Adoption
Grounds for Rescission of Adoption. –Upon petition of the adoptee, with
the assistance of the Department if a minor or if over eighteen (18) years
of age but is incapacitated, as guardian/counsel, the adoption may be
rescinded on any of the following grounds committed by the adopter(s):
(a) repeated physical and verbal maltreatment by the adopters) despite
having undergone counseling”;
(b) attempt on the life of the adoptee;
(c) sexual assault or violence; or
(d) abandonment and failure to comply with parental obligations.
Adoption, being in the best interest of the child, shall not been subject to
rescission by the adopters. However, the adopters may disinherit the
adoptee for causes provided, in Article 919 of the Civil Code.
Art. 919 of the Civil Code
The following shall be sufficient causes for the disinheritance of children and
descendants, legitimate as well as illegitimate:
(1) When a child or descendant has been found guilty of an attempt
against the life of the testator, his or her spouse, descendants, or
ascendants;
(2) When a child or descendant has accused the testator of a crime for
which the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more, if the
accusation has been found groundless;
(3) When a child or descendant has been convicted of adultery or
concubinage with the spouse of the testator;
(4) When a child or descendant by fraud, violence, intimidation, or
undue influence causes the testator to make a will or to change one
already made;
(5) A refusal without justifiable cause to support the parent or
ascendant who disinherits such child or descendant;
(6) Maltreatment of the testator by word or deed, by the child or
descendant;
(7) When a child or descendant leads a dishonorable or disgraceful life;
(8) Conviction of a crime which carries with it the penalty of civil
interdiction.
Scenario: 7. Arts. 37 and 38 of the Family Code - Legality of marriages
between step-brothers and step-sisters
A adopted B. Weeks later after the adoption, B asked A for money to
which the latter denied. B tried to kill A. A filed a criminal case against Relevant Laws:
B to which B was found guilty. A approached you for your sound legal
advice on the issue of rescission of adoption. What would you advice to Art. 37 of the Family Code
A? Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning,
whether relationship between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate:
My advice would be that, since RA 8552 withdrew the rights of the (1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and
adopters to rescind the adoption, it would be proper for the parents to (2) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood. (81a)
disinherit the said child as provided by Sec. 19 of RA 8552. Sec. 19 of RA
8552 provides the adopters may disinherit their child in cases where the Art. 38 of the Family Code
child was found guilty of an attempt against the life of his adopter. In The following marriages shall be void from the beginning for reasons of public
the case at bar, the adopter cannot rescind the adoption as this right policy:
was revoked by RA 8552. However, A may disinherit B, in accordance
with Sec, 19 of RA 8552, for causes provided by Art. 919 of the Civil (1) Between collateral blood relatives whether legitimate or illegitimate, up
Code. Therefore, A cannot rescind the adoption, he may only disinherit to the fourth civil degree;
B. (2) Between step-parents and step-children;
(3) Between parents-in-law and children-in-law;
(4) Between the adopting parent and the adopted child;
(5) Between the surviving spouse of the adopting parent and the adopted
child;
(6) Between the surviving spouse of the adopted child and the adopter;
(7) Between an adopted child and a legitimate child of the adopter;
(8) Between adopted children of the same adopter; and
(9) Between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed
that other person's spouse, or his or her own spouse.

Scenario:

A and B are step-brother and sister. Can they enter into marriage?

The answer would be yes for the reason that marriages between step-brothers and
step-sisters is not prohibited by the Family Code. The Family Code prohibits
marriages which are incestuous or against public policy to which marriages
between step-brothers and sisters is not declared void by the Family Code.
Therefore, A and B may enter into marriage.
 8. Art. 36 of the Family Code - Psychological Incapacity
Relevant Laws:
Article 36 of the Family Code
A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration,
was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity
becomes manifest only after its solemnization.
Molina v. CA that conflicting personalities or irreconcilable differences
does not constitute to psychological incapacity. In the case at bar, the
constant quarrel between A and B does not constitute to psychological
incapacity, in accordance with Molina v. Santos. Quarrels cannot
indicate neither the gravity, juridical antecedence, nor incurability of
psychological incapacity of B. Likewise, constant quarrels cannot be held
as an indicator of a psychological incapacity. Therefore, the petition will
not prosper.

The psychological incapacity must be characterized by its:

(1) gravity;
(2) juridical antecedence; and
(3) incurability.

Santos v. CA
The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be
incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it
must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage,
although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage;
and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be
beyond the means of the party involved.

Molina v. CA
Where the Court ruled that mere showing of "irreconcilable differences"
and "conflicting personalities" in no wise constitutes psychological
incapacity. It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their
responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they
must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological
(nor physical) illness.

Scenario:

A and B are married couple. Few months after their marriage, they
always get into fight even because of small reasons. A filed an
annulment case by reason of psychological incapacity, A contends that B
is psychologically incapacitated because of the constant quarrels B
initiate. Will the case prosper?

The answer is no, because mere showing of irreconcilable differences and

conflicting personalities does not constitute to psychological incapacity.
Art. 36 of the Family Code provides that psychological incapacity must
shown to be existing prior to the celebration of marriage. It was held in
Santos v, CA that psychological incapacity must be characterized by its
gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. The Court also ruled in
 9. Art. 35 of the Family Code – Void and Voidable Marriage
Relevant Laws:
Article 35 of the Family Code
The following marriages shall be void from the beginning:
(1) Those contracted by any party below eighteen years of age
even with the consent of parents or guardians;
(2) Those solemnized by any person not legally authorized to
perform marriages unless such marriages were contracted
with either or both parties believing in good faith that the
solemnizing officer had the legal authority to do so;
(3) Those solemnized without license, except those covered
the preceding Chapter;
(4) Those bigamous or polygamous marriages not failing
under Article 41;
(5) Those contracted through mistake of one contracting
party as to the identity of the other; and
(6) Those subsequent marriages that are void under Article
53.
Scenario:
A and B, ages 17 and 25 yrs old, with parental consent, entered into
marriage for the reason that A was already pregnant. For the purpose of
preserving the honor of the A’s family, her parents consented to
marriage. Is their marriage valid?
The answer is no, for the reason that A is a minor. Article 35 of the
Family Code provides that marriage contracted by a minor, even with
the consent of his parents is void ab initio. In the case at bar, A is a
minor, even with her parents consent, the marriage would fall on Article
35 of the Family Code which states that it is void ab initio. Therefore,
the marriage is void ab initio.
10. Art. 34 of the Family Code – Marriage License, Cohabitation of
more than 5 years.
Relevant Laws:
Article 34 of the Family Code
No license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman
who have lived together as husband and wife for at least five years and
without any legal impediment to marry each other. The contracting
parties shall state the foregoing facts in an affidavit before any person
authorized by law to administer oaths. The solemnizing officer shall also
state under oath that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting
parties are found no legal impediment to the marriage.
Scenario:
A and B are married couple. They hired C to be their housemaid. A had
a secret affair with C, lasting for 10 yrs. On the tenth year of their affair.
B died, A and C now wanted to enter into marriage. Without a marriage
license, they entered into marriage. Is their marriage valid?
The answer is no, their marriage would be void ab initio. The rule that
marriages require valid marriage licenses admits an exemption as
provided in Art. 34 for the Family Code which persons that cohabitated
as husband and wife for at least five years and without any legal
impediment may marry each other without marriage license. In the case
at bar, Art. 34 cannot apply to A and C for the reason that there was no
cohabitation of at least five years as there was an existing legal
impediment on the five year cohabitation requirement during the
marriage of A to B. The presence of this impediment bars exemption to
valid marriage license. Therefore, the marriage of A and C is void ab
initio for lack of valid marriage license.
 11. Art. 7 (4) and 32 of the Family Code – Military Commanders as whether members of the armed forces or civilians, and in the absence of
solemnizing officers the chaplain assigned to such unit. In the case at bar, PNP Chief Alpha
is not a military commander provided in Art. 7 and lacks authority to
Relevant Laws: solemnize marriages. Therefore, PNP Chief Alpha should not solemnize
the marriage.
Article 7 of the Family Code
Marriage may be solemnized by:
(1) Any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court's
jurisdiction;
(2) Any priest, rabbi, imam, or minister of any church or religious
sect duly authorized by his church or religious sect and
registered with the civil registrar general, acting within the
limits of the written authority granted by his church or
religious sect and provided that at least one of the contracting
parties belongs to the solemnizing officer's church or religious
sect;
(3) Any ship captain or airplane chief only in the case mentioned
in Article 31;
(4) Any military commander of a unit to which a chaplain is
assigned, in the absence of the latter, during a military
operation, likewise only in the cases mentioned in Article 32;
or
(5) Any consul-general, consul or vice-consul in the case provided
in Article 10.

Article 34 of the Family Code

A military commander of a unit, who is a commissioned officer, shall
likewise have authority to solemnize marriages in articulo mortis
between persons within the zone of military operation, whether
members of the armed forces or civilians.

Scenario:

The PNP Police Chief Alpha is the ground commander of Banana Strike
Team against the Republican Army of ADOBO. During the operations,
Brava and Charlie, both residents of the warzone, asked PNP Chief
Alpha to solemnize their marriage for the reason that Charlie has only
one month to live because of his Stage 10 Cancer. What would you
advise PNP Chief Alpha?

I would advise PNP Chief Alpha to not solemnize their marriage. Par. 4
of Article 7 provides that military commander may solemnized marriage
provided that the military commander is a commissioned officer, either
of the party is in articulo mortis, within the zone of military operation,
 12. Art. 45 (5) and 47 of the Family Code – The use of force,
intimidation, and undue influence, its prescription
Relevant Laws
Article 45 of the Family Code
Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes,
existing at the time of the marriage:
(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the
marriage annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below
twenty-one, and the marriage was solemnized without the
consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute
parental authority over the party, in that order, unless after
attaining the age of twenty-one, such party freely cohabited
with the other and both lived together as husband and wife;
(2) That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party
after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as
husband and wife;
(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless
such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts
constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as
husband and wife;
(4) That the consent of either party was obtained by force,
intimidation or undue influence, unless the same having
disappeared or ceased, such party thereafter freely cohabited
with the other as husband and wife;
(5) That either party was physically incapable of consummating
the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues
and appears to be incurable; or
(6) That either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible
disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable.
insane, at any time before the death of either party, or by the
insane spouse during a lucid interval or after regaining sanity;
(3) For causes mentioned in number 3 of Article 45, by the injured
party, within five years after the discovery of the fraud;
(4) For causes mentioned in number 4 of Article 45, by the injured
party, within five years from the time the force, intimidation or
undue influence disappeared or ceased;
(5) For causes mentioned in number 5 and 6 of Article 45, by the
injured party, within five years after the marriage.
Scenario:
A had sex with B and recorded it via laptop. A threatened B to marry
him or he will spread the sex video in the internet. B married A then A
deleted the video permanently. After 2 yrs of their marriage, B
discovered that A had been cheating then B filed an annulment case
against A that she had been forced to marry B. While the case was
pending, A cohabitated with B for 4 years. Will her case prosper?
The answer is no, for the reason that the prescribed period has already
lapsed. Article 45 of the Family Code provides that one of the causes for
voidable marriages is when the consent was obtained by force,
intimidation, or undue influence. However, Art. 47 of the same code
provides that the annulment of marriage must be filed within five years
after the disappearance of the force, intimidation, or undue influence. In
the case at bar, it is true that A filed a case against B within the
prescribed period after the disappearance of the force, intimidation, or
undue influence. However, A freely cohabited with B after its filing for a
period of 4 years thereby ratifying the marriage. Therefore, the case
would not prosper.

Article 47 of the Family Code

The action for annulment of marriage must be filed by the following
persons and within the periods indicated herein:
(1) For causes mentioned in number 1 of Article 45 by the party
whose parent or guardian did not give his or her consent,
within five years after attaining the age of twenty-one, or by
the parent or guardian or person having legal charge of the
minor, at any time before such party has reached the age of
twenty-one;
(2) For causes mentioned in number 2 of Article 45, by the same
spouse, who had no knowledge of the other's insanity; or by
any relative or guardian or person having legal charge of the
 13. Art. 177 and 178 of the Family Code – Legitimated Children
Relevant Laws:
Article 177 of the Family Code
Only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at
the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any
impediment to marry each other may be legitimated.
Article 178 of the Family Code
Legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage between
parents. The annulment of a voidable marriage shall not affect the
legitimation.
Scenario:
A, the child of B and C, was born before their marriage. After the birth
of A, B and C, both 18 and single, entered into marriage. However, it
was found that B was afflicted with an incurable sexually transmitted
disease prior to celebration of marriage, and thus the marriage of B and
C was annulled. Is A considered illegitimate?
The answer is no, A is still considered legitimate as the annulment of
marriage of B and C will not affect his status. Article 177 of the Family
Code provides that children born out of wedlock shall be considered
legitimate after the subsequent marriage of the parents of the said child
and Art 178 provides that the annulment of such marriage will not affect
the legitimation of the child. In the case at bar, B and C, without legal
impediments, entered into marriage after the birth of A. regardless of
the subsequent annulment of the marriage of B and C, the legitimacy of
A will remain unaffected. The marriage of B and C, made the status of A
as legitimated. Therefore, A is still considered legitimate.
14. Art. 46 and 47(3) of the Family Code – Fraud, its Prescription
Relevant Laws:
Article 46 of the Family Code
Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in
Number 3 of the preceding Article:
(1) Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of
the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude;
(2) Concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the
marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband;
(3) Concealment of sexually transmissible disease, regardless of
its nature, existing at the time of the marriage; or
(4) Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or
homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the
marriage.
No other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank,
fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for
action for the annulment of marriage.
Article 47 of the Family Code
3, For causes mentioned in number 3 of Article 45, by the injured
party, within five years after the discovery of the fraud;
Scenario:
A and B is a married couple. A year after their marriage, A discovered
that B is a drug-addicted person where B concealed the fact prior to the
celebration of marriage After six years of marriage, A filed an
annulment of marriage on the ground that her consent was obtained by
fraud when B concealed the fact that he is a drug-addicted person. Will
the case prosper?
The answer is no, the reason that the prescribed period for filing the
case has already lapsed. Art 45 of the Family Code that fraud is one of
the grounds for annulment of marriage, on Art. 46 provides that
concealment of drug addiction is fraudulent act, and Art. 47 provides
that the prescribed period for filing of annulment is five years after the
discovery of the fraud. In the case at bar, A filed an annulment case
after six years of the discovery of B’s drug addiction. The action of filing
after the lapse of five years is barred by the Family Code. Therefore, the
case will not prosper.
 15. Art. 55(5) of the Family Code – Drug Addiction, Legal Separation
Relevant Laws:
Relevant Laws:
Article 55 of the Family Code
Art. 55. A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the
following grounds:
1. Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed
against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the
petitioner;
2. Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to
change religious or political affiliation;
3. Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a
common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in
prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement;
4. Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of
more than six years, even if pardoned;
5. Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent;
6. Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent;
7. Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous
marriage, whether in the Philippines or abroad;
8. Sexual infidelity or perversion;
9. Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner; or
10. Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable
cause for more than one year.
For purposes of this Article, the term "child" shall include a child by
nature or by adoption.
Scenario
Scenario:
A and B is a married couple. A year after their marriage, A discovered
that B is a drug-addicted person where B concealed the fact prior to the
celebration of marriage A pleaded B to undergo rehabilitation, yet after
the rehabilitation treatment, B returned to his addiction. A filed a case
for legal separation. Will the petition prosper?
The answer is yes, the petition will prosper. Art. 55 provides that one of
the grounds for legal separation is drug addiction of the respondent. In
the case at bar, B is a drug-addict whom A tried to rehabilitate but
proved to be futile. Hence, A could file a petition of legal separation.
16. Art. 117 (4) of the Family Code – Gains, in a conjugal partnership
of gains
Article 117 of the Family Code
- The following are conjugal partnership properties:
(1) Those acquired by onerous title during the marriage
at the expense of the common fund, whether the
acquisition be for the partnership, or for only one of
the spouses;
(2) Those obtained from the labor, industry, work or
profession of either or both of the spouses;
(3) The fruits, natural, industrial, or civil, due or
received during the marriage from the common
property, as well as the net fruits from the exclusive
property of each spouse;
(4) The share of either spouse in the hidden treasure
which the law awards to the finder or owner of the
property where the treasure is found;
(5) Those acquired through occupation such as fishing or
hunting;
(6) Livestock existing upon the dissolution of the
partnership in excess of the number of each kind
brought to the marriage by either spouse; and
(7) Those which are acquired by chance, such as
winnings from gambling or betting. However, losses
therefrom shall be borne exclusively by the loser-
spouse.
A and B are married with a stipulation of conjugal partnership of gains.
A found a hidden treasure to which he claims that it is his alone. While
B contends that the hidden treasure is should be part of the conjugal
partnership of gains. Is B’s contention tenable?
The answer is yes, because hidden treasures are part of conjugal
properties. Article 117(4) of the Family Code includes hidden treasures
or its share from it awarded by the law to either spouse is considered a
conjugal property. In the case at bar, the hidden treasure found by A,
and now owned by A, is considered by the Family Code to be a part of
the conjugal property. Therefore, ownership of the hidden treasure shall
be vested upon the conjugal partnership.
 17. Art. 92 of the Family Code – Inheritance
Relevant Laws:
Relevant Laws:
Article 92 of the Family Code
The following shall be excluded from the community property:
(1) Property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title by either
spouse, and the fruits as well as the income thereof, if any, unless it
is expressly provided by the donor, testator or grantor that they
shall form part of the community property;
(2) Property for personal and exclusive use of either spouse. However,
jewelry shall form part of the community property;
(3) Property acquired before the marriage by either spouse who has
legitimate descendants by a former marriage, and the fruits as well
as the income, if any, of such property.
Scenario:
A is married to B. When A’s mother died, her will stated that A shall
inherit 10 million pesos. Will the inheritance be part of the absolute
community of property?
The answer is no, the inheritance shall not be part of the absolute
community. Art. 92 of the Family Code provides that property acquired
during the marriage by gratuitous title by either spouse, and the fruits
as well as the income thereof, unless expressly provided, is excluded
from community property. In the case at bar, inheritance does not
expressly provides that the 10 million shall form part of the absolute
community of A with B. Therefore, the inheritance shall not form part of
the absolute community.
Scenario:
18. Art. 1 and 148 – Parties having legal impediments, Property
Regime
Article 1 of the Family Code
Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a
woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of
conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an
inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents
are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage
settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within
the limits provided by this Code.
Article 148 of the Family Code
In cases of cohabitation not falling under the preceding Article, only the
properties acquired by both of the parties through their actual joint
contribution of money, property, or industry shall be owned by them in
common in proportion to their respective contributions. In the absence of
proof to the contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares are
presumed to be equal. The same rule and presumption shall apply to
joint deposits of money and evidences of credit.
If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or her share in the
co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute community or conjugal
partnership existing in such valid marriage. If the party who acted in
bad faith is not validly married to another, his or her shall be forfeited in
the manner provided in the last paragraph of the preceding Article.
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply even if both parties
are in bad faith.
A is married to B. B waived her rights over A and thus, A lived with C. A
and C entered into subsequent marriage with the stipulation of conjugal
property of gains. After the marriage of A and C, A bought a house, paid
entirely from his income, and a car from the income of bought A and C.
However, after 2 yrs, A saw that C is an insane woman, filed for
annulment, and claimed that the house bought by A is his alone. What
shall govern their property relationship?
A and C’s property relationship shall be governed by Art. 148 of the
Family Code. Art. 148 provides that in marriages without union, where
the parties have legal impediment to each other, all the properties and
industries acquired by the parties shall be co-owned by them in common
proportion to their respective contribution and Art. 1 of the Family Code
provides that marriage shall not be subject to stipulations. In the case at
bar, A is validly married to B, which the waiver is rendered void by Art.
1 of the Family Code. The property relations of A and C would be co-
ownership, as provided by Art. 148, as their marriage settlement of
conjugal partnership of gains is not binding as there was an existing
legal impediment on their cohabitation. Therefore, the property relations
that shall govern A and C shall be co-ownership.
19. Arts. 166 and 170 of the Family Code – Paternity, time period
Relevant Laws:
Article 166 of the Family Code
Legitimacy of a child may be impugned only on the following grounds:
(1) That it was physically impossible for the husband to have
sexual intercourse with his wife within the first 120
days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the
birth of the child because of:
(a) the physical incapacity of the husband to
have sexual intercourse with his wife;
(b) the fact that the husband and wife were
living separately in such a way that sexual
intercourse was not possible; or
(c) serious illness of the husband, which
absolutely prevented sexual intercourse;
(2) That it is proved that for biological or other scientific
reasons, the child could not have been that of the
husband, except in the instance provided in the second
paragraph of Article 164; or
(3) That in case of children conceived through artificial
insemination, the written authorization or ratification of
either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud,
violence, intimidation, or undue influence.
Article 170 of the Family Code
The action to impugn the legitimacy of the child shall be brought within
one year from the knowledge of the birth or its recording in the civil
register, if the husband or, in a proper case, any of his heirs, should
reside in the city or municipality where the birth took place or was
recorded.
If the husband or, in his default, all of his heirs do not reside at
the place of birth as defined in the first paragraph or where it
was recorded, the period shall be two years if they should reside in
the Philippines; and three years if abroad. If the birth of the child has
been concealed from or was unknown to the husband or his heirs, the
period shall be counted from the discovery or knowledge of the birth of
the child or of the fact of registration of said birth, whichever is earlier.
Scenario:
A is married to B. A is a Captain of MV Matatapang. 10 months after
boarding MV Matatapang, A learned that B gave birth to C on the same
month. B is claiming that C is their son. A is having misgivings and
believes that C is the son of their kumpare D. Can A impugn on the
legitimacy of C?
The answer is yes, A can impugned the legitimacy of the child. Art. 166
of the Family Code provides that legitimacy of the child may be
impugned if it was physically impossible for the father to have sexual
intercourse with his wife within the first 120 days of the 300 days
immediately preceding the birth of the child and Art. 170 provides that
legitimacy may be impugned by persons abroad within 3 yrs upon
discovery of the birth. In the case at bar, A learned that B gave birth to
C while on his tenth month or 300th day aboard MV Matatapang. It is
clear that it was physically impossible for A and B to engaged in sexual
activity within the first 120 days of the 300 days immediately preceding
the birth. Therefore, A could impugn the legitimacy of C within 3 yrs
upon discovery of the birth.
20. Art 213 of the Family Code – Mother and Child
Relevant Laws:
Article 213 of the Family Code
In case of separation of the parents, parental authority shall be
exercised by the parent designated by the Court. The Court shall take
into account all relevant considerations, especially the choice of the child
over seven years of age, unless the parent chosen is unfit.
Scenario:
A and B were married. A gave birth to C. However, A discovered that B
is a drug addict and. upon trying to rehabilitate B and failing, filed a
petition for legal separation to which the court granted. B filed a motion
that he should have the custody of their infant son, C, as he have the
financial capability to support the child and that A is just a mere vendor
and could not support the child. Should the court grant the motion?
The answer is no, the court should not grant the motion of B. Article 213
of the Family Code provides that in case of separation of parents,
parental authority shall be designated by the court except when the
child is below 7 years old to which the child must not be separated with
his mother. In the case at bar, A should have custody of C for the reason
that C is an infant child. B’s argument is untenable and should not
prosper for the law provides that in case where the child is not more
than 7 yrs of age, the child should not be separated from his mother.
Therefore, the custody of the child should belong to A.
BONUS twenty-one, such party freely cohabited with the other and both
lived together as husband and wife.
 The Difference of Parental Consent and Parental Advice

Article 15 of the Family Code

Any contracting party between the age of twenty-one and Article 86 of the Family Code
twenty-five shall be obliged to ask their parents or guardian for A donation by reason of marriage may be revoked by the donor in the
advice upon the intended marriage. If they do not obtain such following cases:
advice, or if it be unfavorable, the marriage license shall not be (1) If the marriage is not celebrated or judicially declared void ab
issued till after three months following the completion of the initio except donations made in the marriage settlements, which
publication of the application therefor. A sworn statement by the shall be governed by Article 81;
contracting parties to the effect that such advice has been sought, (2) When the marriage takes place without the consent of the
together with the written advice given, if any, shall be attached to the parents or guardian, as required by law;
application for marriage license. Should the parents or guardian refuse (3) When the marriage is annulled, and the donee acted in bad faith;
to give any advice, this fact shall be stated in the sworn statement. (4) Upon legal separation, the donee being the guilty spouse;
(5) If it is with a resolutory condition and the condition is complied
with;
Article 16 of the Family Code (6) When the donee has committed an act of ingratitude as specified
In the cases where parental consent or parental advice is needed, by the provisions of the Civil Code on donations in general.
the party or parties concerned shall, in addition to the requirements of
the preceding articles, attach a certificate issued by a priest, imam or
minister authorized to solemnize marriage under Article 7 of this Code
or a marriage counselor duly accredited by the proper government
agency to the effect that the contracting parties have undergone
marriage counseling. Failure to attach said certificates of marriage
counseling shall suspend the issuance of the marriage license
for a period of three months from the completion of the
publication of the application. Issuance of the marriage license
within the prohibited period shall subject the issuing officer to
administrative sanctions but shall not affect the validity of the marriage.

Should only one of the contracting parties need parental consent or

parental advice, the other party must be present at the counseling
referred to in the preceding paragraph.

Article 45(1) of the Family Code

Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes,
existing at the time of the marriage:

(1) That the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage
annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one,
and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the
parents, guardian or person having substitute parental authority
over the party, in that order, unless after attaining the age of