Persons and family relations Important provisions: Civil code: arts. 2,3,13,14,15,16,17,19,20,21,40,41,42 Family code: arts.

1,2,26,36,39,40,41,43,legal separation CIVIL CODE: Art. 2 Tanada vs Tuvera(read)--- 2 cases 1st- provisions on unless otherwise provided =publication is required for the law to be valid = there must be a day of publication provided in the law = referred to is only the date 2nd immediately = immediately after publication = next day Because of art. 3, the law presupposes that the law was publicized; the only requirement of he is the CONSTRUCTIVE knowledge NOT ACTUAL knowledge. Art. 13 = the counting of months, days, etc. * when month is given by name- count its days Art. 16,17 RENVOI DOCTRINE - nagtuturuan yung two states - international football Sta. Maria (i.e Testate estate of Garcia, 7 SCRA 95) *Garcia is a Californian citizen, he resides in the Phils., and has a property. Garcia dies in the Phils. *California law- the law where the person is domiciled governs; Philippine law citizenship *there is a conflict between the laws of states. (Phil law and Cali law) Options: 1) Accept the renvoi: apply Phil. Law 2) Reject the renvoi: apply foreign law

**(Warmer vs Velis) breach of contract to marry - Prepared the reception with guests - Appearance of the guests = ground for actionable wrong * promising to marry causes a girl/ woman to have carnal knowledge (breach of promise to marry) = a person cannot make a woman to have carnal knowledge after for the reason that she believed that the person will marry her. = carnal knowledge the promise to marry- its OK! Art. 40 case: Intercontinental- labor case (oct. 13, 2009) - Issue of first impression - Birth determines personality - Civil personality of a child starts with concepcion CBA states: employee dies, benefits. Fetus died. Can it claim berigment benefit? Is it already independent? SC ruling: yes, it can be considered as independent. Fetus need not be born in order to die. Child does not need to be born to be considered independent Civil code: death distinguishes civil personality, *but life is different from civil personality. Constitutional prov.: the state recognizes and protects the rights of an unborn. Less than 7 months life- no civil personality; From cutting of the umbilical cord: Policy of making PD 603: to favor the unborn; All doubts to be decided in favor of the unborn.

FAMILY CODE Marriage- art .1 1) Can a person (transsexual) who has changed all his private parts enter into the same marriage with the same sex? Ans: NO. Basis: 1) Republic vs Silverio -petition for changing name and sex Facts: Silverio underwent sex reassignment surgery in Thailand. He has a fianc, thus, we wants to change his name and sex to be able to marry said fianc. Issue: can you consider a person having undergone sex change a woman? SC ruling: No. gender must be considered in its ordinary sense. It does not include a person who has had sex reassignment. Also: 1) Phil. Statute only classifies a male r a female. 2) if the petition of Silverio be granted, there will be a wide range of effect in our law. 2)Republic vs Kagandahan Facts: Jenny had dominant female parts when she was born. When she reached the age of majority, she became a man without any operation. She wants to change her name to Jeff. Her condition is called congenital adrenal hyperplexia (intersex). Issue: whether Jenny can be considered as a girl. SC ruling: she was considered as a girl. F the natural circumstance indicates the gender of a person (intersex), the court shall not make the definition of law rigid. The gender/ sex of biologically intersex is what the person, upon reaching the age of majority, thinks of herself/ himself. *There must be a clinical support that such person is a male/ female.

Psychological incapacity Republic vs Molina (Molina doctrine) SC: do not apply Molina doctrine by its letter. However, it is still valid. each case must e decided in its particular circumstance Facts: man and woman eloped. When they had no more money, they went back to Manila, man live in his home, woman lived with her uncle. Everyday, the girl will text him that if he doesnt come to her place, she will kill herself. Eventually, the man went to the girl and they got married. After a while, they filled for their marriage to be declared null and void on te ground of psychological incapacity. The man was diagnosed with dependent disorder; woman with narcissistic aggressive Issue: is the marriage null and void? SC ruling: Yes. The man is suffering from dependent disorder. He cannot decide his everyday life. E cannot comply with marital obligations. The woman is very aggressive. So, the marriage can be declared null and void. A person declared to be psychologically incapacitated can remarry. Such incapacity may be relative. (i.e. may asawa ka ayaw mo makipag make-love s kanya, sa iba gusto mo.) it is a ground for psychological incapacity. Another case: Where disagreements on money grounds cannot declare a marriage null and void. + it must be directly related with marital obligations.

SC Circular: AM 02-11-10, 02-11-11, March 15, 2003: *Clinical findings for psychological incapacity is not mandatory. Question; can a 3rd person file for the action of declaration of nullity? Answer: solely the spouses can file for he action of declaration of nullity. However, settlement of state can be attacked collaterally. (SC Circular does not preclude a person from attacking collaterally the settlement of estate. LEGAL SEPARATION: (almilor vs RTC of Pilipinas) Facts: The guy was known to be gay by the woman. Still, she married him for she believed that she can change that guy and make him a real man. Later, she filed for annulment on the ground that her husband was gay. Issue: can their marriage be annulled? SC ruling: NO. There was no concealment done by the man of his gender. Thus it can only be a ground for legal separation. ANNULMENT: art. 46 enumerations is EXCLUSIVE. 5 year period (living together before marriage): *there should be no impediment *at the time of marriage, must not be legally incapacitated. Case: Linial vs bayadong: Facts: man is married, has a girlfriend. After 5 years, they entered into marriage with license. SC ruling: Not qualified. There is a subsisting marriage. Also, during the 5 year period, there must be 1) exclusivity; 2) continuity. Another case: Morigo vs people Ruling: no need for declaration of nullity in all marriages if previous marriage is ostensible. (i.e. married your dog; marriage during a play)

Another case: Facts: minor cohabited for 5 years. When they reached 18, they married. Issue:Is the marriage valid? SC ruling: No. we would be sanctioning immorality if their marriage be valid. Diot vs Diot: Facts: man was asked by a woman to help her get a package. Upon reaching their destination, she made him sign a paper which he thought was receiving slip but it was an affidavit stating that they had cohabitated for 5 years. Issue: is the marriage valid? SC ruling: NO. the marriage id void. The consent of the man was not freely and intelligently given. If the license is forged, then it is just a mere scrap of paper. *marriage solemnized outside the jurisdiction of judge is VOID. However, in Dumugtoy case, it is just a MERE IRREGULARITY. Art. 36 (tsi ming tsoi)

Property relations Case: criminal action *in every criminal action, there is civil indemnity* Question: can a property governed by conjugal property be levied? Answer: NO. conjugal partnership of gains will only be liable if it renounces to the case. Law requires that all debts must first be paid before the liability of the spouse. *conjugal partnership is absolute community property of gains. *can be levied in a criminal case, negligence. *spouse if found guilty of concubinage: -cannot share in the gains or profit. -will be given to the heirs or children *unless they (spouses) enter into an agreement: -spouses can enter into a voluntary separation of property with judicial approval -by mere agreement DECLARATION OF PRESUMPTIVE DEATH Case: People vs Velasco SC: there must be serious effort to locate your spouse. It must be a sham sketchy effort. *there must be good faith that the spouse is dead. 4 years: ordinary circumstances; 2 years: extraordinary circumstances