ESSAY EXERCISES

TRACT and alternative method of answering

Question 1 (1991)
One of the grounds for annulment of marriage is that
either party, at the time of their marriage was afflicted
with a sexually-transmissible disease, found to be
serious and appears incurable. Two (2) years after their
marriage, which took place on 10 October 1988, Bethel
discovered that her husband James has a sexuallytransmissible disease which he contracted even prior to
their marriage although James did no 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.

I.
The marriage can be annulled provided the sexuallytransmissible disease is serious and incurable. Under
the Family Code, one of the grounds for annulment of
marriage is when either party was afflicted with a
sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and
appears to be incurable.
Assuming James disease is serious and incurable,
the instant case would fall squarely within the ambit of
the above stated law James contention is immaterial
as the law does not whether or not the party afflicted
with the disease is in good faith. When the law does
not distinguish, neither should we distinguish.
Therefore, the marriage can be annulled.

I.
The marriage can be annulled provided
James sexually-transmissible disease is serious
and incurable. Under the law one of the grounds
for annulment of marriage is when either party
was afflicted with a sexually transmissible
disease found to be serious and appears to be
incurable. James contention that he is in good
faith is immaterial as the law does not
distinguish whether the afflicted party is in good
faith or not.

Question 2 (1997)
What do you understand by the doctrine of
incorporation?

2.
The doctrine of incorporation means that a
legal system adopts and makes effective within
its jurisdiction rules of international law without
the need of further legislative action. Under the
Constitution, the Philippines applies the
doctrine of incorporation but only to the extent
of generally accepted principles of international
law, to wit: the Philippines adopts generally
accepted principles of international law as part
of the law of the land.

Question 3 (1994)
Abe, married to Liza, contracted another
marriage with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter,
Abe and Connie returned to the Philippines and
lived as husband and wife in the hometown of
Abe in Calamba, Laguna. Can Abe be
prosecuted for bigamy?

3.
Abe cannot be prosecuted for bigamy.
Generally, penal laws of the Philippines are
subject to the limitation of territoriality
applicable only with Philippine jurisdiction.
In this case, the bigamous marriage was
contracted in Singapore. Bigamy not being one
of the exceptions to territoriality as enumerated
in Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the same
cannot be prosecuted in the Philippines by
virtue of extraterritoriality.
Thus, Abe cannot be prosecuted for bigamy.

3.
Abe cannot be prosecuted for bigamy as the
bigamous marriage was not contracted in the
Philippines.
The
Philippines
adopts
and
observes the principle of territoriality in the
application of its penal laws. Bigamy not being
one of the exceptions to territoriality under
Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code, the same
cannot be prosecuted in the Philippines when
committed outside the country.

Question 4
What marriages are exempt
marriage license requirement?

from

the

4.
The following are marriages
marriage license requirement:

exempt

from

the

a. Marriage in articulo mortis;

b. Marriage between persons residing in a place
without transportation to allow them to personally
appear before the local civil registrar;
c. Marriage between Muslims or cultural minorities
solemnized in accordance with their customs or
practice; and
d. Marriage between persons who have lived
together as
husband and wife for five years and
without legal impediment to marry each other.

Question 5 (2000)
What is an impossible crime?

5.
An impossible crime is an act which would be
an offense against person or property, where it
not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishments or on account of the
employment of inadequate or ineffectual
means.

Question 6
Distinguish between crimes mala in se and
crimes mala prohibita.

6.
The difference between crimes mala in se and crimes
mala prohibita are as follows:
a. As to concept, the former are those that are penalized
as inherently wrong or evil; while the latter are those that
are not inherently evil, but penalized by law for public
good, welfare or interest;
b. As to legal implication, the former admits of the
defense of good faith or lack of criminal intent or
negligence; the latter does not admit of such defense; and
c. As to stages of execution, the former penalizes an
actor in the consumated, frustrated and attempted stage;
while the latter generally penalizes only consumated
crimes.