Anda di halaman 1dari 10

I.

At the age 18, Marian found out that she was pregnant. She
insured her own life and named her unborn child as her sole
beneficiary. When she was already due to give birth, she and
her boyfriend Pietro, the father of her unborn child, were
kidnapped in a resort in Bataan where they were vacationing.
The military gave chase and after one week, they were found
in abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian and Pietro were hacked
with bolos. Marian and the baby she delivered were both found
dead, with the baby’s umbilical cord already cut. Pietro
survived. Can Marian’s baby be the beneficiary of the
insurance taken on the life of the mother? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Marian’s baby can be a beneficiary of the insurance policy.

An unborn child shall be considered born for all purposes that are
favorable to it, provided, it be born later in accordance with the Civil
Code.

In this case, the child is considered born, since its umbilical cord is
already cut when found. An entitlement to the insurance proceeds is an
incidence that is favorable to the child.

II.

Roderick and Faye were high school sweethearts. When


Roderick was 18 and Faye, 16 years old, they started to live
together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage.
When Faye reached 18 years of age, her parents forcibly took
her back and arranged for her marriage to Brad. Although Faye
lived with Brad after the marriage, Roderick continued to
regularly visit Faye while Brad was away at work. During their
marriage, Faye gave birth to a baby girl, Laica. When Faye was
25 years old, Brad discovered her continued liaison with
Roderick and in one of their heated arguments, Faye shot Brad
to death. She lost no time in marrying her true love Roderick,
without a marriage license, claiming that they have been
continuously cohabiting for more than 5 years. Was the
marriage of Roderick and Faye valid? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The marriage of Roderick and Faye was not valid because of the
absence of a marriage license.

It is true that the fact that a man and a woman live continuously
and exclusively as husband and wife for at least five years is one of the
exceptions from the requirement of marriage license, but the same is
not without a condition and that condition is that both of them must
have no legal impediment to marry each other.

In this case, the cohabitation of Roderick and Faye fell short of


the period of five years, for the reason that they were only able to do
so for the period of two years from the time when Faye was 16 years
old up to the time that she was forced by her parents to marry Brad.
Although their clandestine relationship continued after the marriage,
those periods cannot be counted, for the reason that at that time, Faye
had already a legal impediment.

III.

Amor gave birth to Thelma when she was 15 years old.


Thereafter, Amor met David and they got married when she
was 20 years old. David had a son, Julian, with his ex-girlfriend
Sandra. Julian and Thelma got married. What is the status of
the marriage between Julian and Thelma? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The marriage between Julian and Thelma is valid.

A marriage between a step-brother and a step-sister is not among


those marriages under the Family Code which are void by reason of
public policy. The enumeration therein is exclusive and does not
include a marriage between a step-brother and a step-sister.

Hence, although Thelma is a step-sister of Julian and Julian is a step-


brother of Thelma, they can validly marry each other.

IV.

In 1985, Sonny and Lulu, both Filipino citizens, were married in


the Philippines. In 1987, they separated, and Sonny went to
Canada, where he obtained a divorce in the same year. He then
married another Filipina, Auring, in Canada in January 1, 1988.
They had two sons, James and John. In 1990, after failing to
hear from Sonny, Lulu married Tirso, by whom she had a
daughter, Verna. In 1991, Sonny visited the Philippines where
he succumbed to heart attack.

a) Discuss the effect of the divorce obtained by Sonny and Lulu


in Canada. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The divorce obtained in Canada does not affect the validity of the
marriage between Sonny and Lulu in the Philippines.

Divorce is not recognized in the Philippines. Although Sonny was in a


foreign country when he obtained the divorce, his status, legal
capacity, and family relation are still governed by Philippine laws.

b) Explain the status of the marriage between Sonny and


Auring. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
As far as the Philippine law is concern, the marriage between Sonny
and Auring is void.

Under the Family Code, a marriage contracted during the subsistence


of prior marriage is void, subject only to the exception in cases of
absence or where the prior marriage was dissolved or annulled. The
marriage between Sonny and Auring does not fall within the exception.

c) Was Lulu correct in arguing that since her marriage with


Tirso was valid in Canada, it should likewise be valid in the
Philippines?

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Lulu was not correct.

Article 15 of the Family Code provides that 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.
Thus, although the marriage of Lulu with Tirso may be valid in Canada,
it cannot be valid in the Philippines.

V.

Under Article 26 of the Family Code, when a foreign spouse


divorces his/her Filipino spouse, the latter may re-marry by
proving only that the foreign spouse has obtained a divorce
against her or him abroad. True or False. Explain (5%).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
False. The statement falls short of the provision of Article 26 of the
Family Code because it only requires a Filipino spouse to prove that his
or her foreign spouse must obtain a divorce abroad when not only that
is required but also that the Filipino spouse must prove that the foreign
spouse is capacitated to re-marry.

VI.

You are a Family Court judge and before you is a petition for
the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage (under Article 36 of the
Family Code) filed by Maria against Neil. Maria claims that Neil
is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
obligations of marriage because Neil is a drunkard, a
womanizer, a gambler, and a mama’s boy-traits that she never
knew or saw when Neil was courting her. Although summoned,
Neil did not answer Maria’s petition and never appeared in
court.

To support her petition, Maria presented three witnesses-


herself, Dr. Elsie Chan and Ambrosia. Dr. Chan testified on the
psychological report on Neil that she prepared. Since Neil
never acknowledged nor responded to her invitation for
interviews, her report is solely based on her interviews with
Maria and the spouses’ minor children. Dr. Chan concluded that
Neil is suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, an
ailment that she found to be already present since Neil’s early
childhood and one that is grave and incurable. Maria testified
on the specific instances when she found Neil drunk, with
another woman, or squandering the family resources in a
casino. Ambrosia, the spouses’ current household help,
corroborated Maria’s testimony. On the basis of the evidence
presented, will you grant the petition? (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

As the judge, I will not grant the petition.

Psychological incapacity, as a ground for nullity of marriage, is limited


only to the most serious cases of personality disorders. Even if taken
as true, being a drunkard, a womanizer, a gambler, and a mama’s boy,
singly or collectively, do not constitute psychological incapacity.

In this case, the evidence presented is insufficient to establish Neil’s


psychological incapacity. The psychological evaluation report of Dr.
Chan merely presented a general conclusion that Neil is suffering from
Narcissistic Personality Disorder but there was no factual basis thereof.
Maria failed to show that the alleged psychological incapacity of Neil is
characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. Her
testimony, the testimony of their common children and that of
Ambrosia were found to be self-serving since Neil was not able to
contradict the allegations against him.

OR

As the judge, I will grant the petition. While being a drunkard,


womanizer, gambler or mama’s boy does not per se constitute
sufficient ground for the nullity of marriage, but if it is grave enough
that it amounts to a psychological illness that makes a party
incapacitated to perform the marriage vows, it will suffice to declare
the marriage a nullity.

In the instant case, the psychologist had sufficiently established that


such behaviors of Neil amounted to Narcissistic Personality Disorder
and such illness is grave, incurable and existing prior to the time of the
celebration of the marriage. In nullity cases, under Article 36 of the
Family Code of the Philippines, the findings and testimony thereon of
the psychologist is controlling. The fact that Neil was not personally
examined by the psychologist is of no moment, considering that the
declarations before Dr. Chan of Maria relative to the personality of the
first is sufficient to arrive into a psychological findings.
VII.

Which of the following remedies: (a) declaration of nullity of


marriage; (b) annulment of marriage; and (c) legal separation,
can an aggrieved spouse avail himself/herself of:

A. If the wife discovers after the marriage that her husband


has AIDS; (5%)

B. If the wife went abroad as a nurse and refuses to come


home after the expiration of her 3-year contract;

C. If the husband discovers after the marriage that his wife has
been a prostitute before they got married; (5%)

D. If the husband has a serious affair with his secretary and


refuses to stop notwithstanding advice from relatives and
friends; (5%)

E. If the husband beats up his wife every time he comes home


drunk. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

A. If the wife discovers after the marriage that her husband has AIDS,
she may file a petition for annulment of marriage. AIDS is
characterized as sexually transmitted disease which under the Family
Code, is a ground for annulment of marriage.

B. If the wife went abroad as a nurse and refuses to come home after
the expiration of her 3-year contract, the husband may file a petition
for legal separation. Refusal to come home without justifiable cause or
reason for more than one (1) year can be considered as abandonment
which under the Family Code, is a ground for legal separation.

C. If the husband discovers after the marriage that his wife has been a
prostitute before they got married, none among the three remedies is
available for him. Misrepresentation or concealment as to chastity is
not a ground for annulment of marriage.
D. If the husband has a serious affair with his secretary and refuses to
stop notwithstanding advice from relatives and friends, the aggrieved
wife may file a petition for legal separation. Serious affair with the
secretary can be considered as sexual infidelity which under the Family
Code, is a ground for legal separation.

E. If the husband beats up his wife every time he comes home drunk,
the aggrieved wife may file a petition for legal separation. Repeated
physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the
aggrieved spouse is a ground for legal separation.

VII.

On May 1, 1975 Facundo married Petra by whom he had a son


Sotero. Petra died on January 1, 2002. Before his demise,
Facundo had married, on 1 July 2002, Querica. Having lived
together as husband and wife since July 1, 1990, Facundo and
Quercia did not secure a marriage license but executed the
requisite affidavit for the purpose.

To ensure that his inheritance rights are not adversely affected


by his father’s subsequent marriage, Sotero now brings a suit
to seek a declaration of the nullity of the marriage of Facundo
and Querica, grounded on the absence of a valid marriage
license. Querica contends that there was no need for a
marriage license in view of having lived continuously with
Facundo for five years before their marriage and that Sotero
has no legal personality to seek a declaration of nullity of the
marriage since Facundo is now deceased.

A. Is the marriage of Facundo and Querica valid, despite the


absence of a marriage license? Explain. (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. The marriage of Facundo and Querica is not valid by reason of the
absence of a marriage license.

The Family Code provides that the exemption from the requirement of
a marriage license requires that the man and woman must have lived
together as husband and wife for at least five years without any legal
impediment to marry each other.

In the present case, the cohabitation of Facundo and Querica from


1990 up to January 1, 2002 when Petra died was one with a legal
impediment. On the other hand, the cohabitation thereafter until the
marriage on July 1, 2002, although free from legal impediment, did not
meet the 5-year cohabitation requirement.

B. Rule on the petition filed by Sotero (5%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The petition filed by Sotero is meritorious.

A void marriage celebrated prior to the effectivity of A.M. No. 02-11-10,


which took effect on March 15, 2003, may be questioned by any real
party in interest in any proceeding where the resolution of the issue is
material.

Considering that Sotero is a compulsory heir of Facundo and Petra, and


the marriage between Facundo and Querica was celebrated in July 1,
2002, he has the personality to question the validity of the marriage of
his deceased father, Facundo and Querica as it affects his successional
rights.
X.

What is the status of the following marriages and why?

(a) A marriage between two 19-year olds without parental


consent. (2%)
(b) A marriage between two 21-year olds without parental
advice. (2%)
(c) A marriage between two Filipino first cousins in Spain
where such marriage is valid. (2%)
(d) A marriage between two Filipinos in Hong Kong before a
notary public. (2%)
(e) A marriage solemnized by a town mayor three towns away
from his jurisdiction, (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) A marriage between two 19-year olds without parental consent is
voidable. Being both 19 years old, the consent of the parties is not full
without the consent of their parents. The consent of the parents of the
parties to the marriage is indispensable for its validity.

(b) A marriage between two 21-year olds without parental advice is


valid. An absence of parental advice is merely an irregularity affecting
a formal requisite and does not affect the validity of the marriage itself.
This is without prejudice to the civil, criminal, or administrative liability
of the party responsible therefor.

(c) A marriage between Filipino first cousins is void by reason of public


policy. The fact that it is considered a valid marriage in Spain does not
validate it because this fall on the exception stated in Article 26 of the
Family Code.

(d) If the marriage before a notary public is valid under Hongkong Law,
then the marriage is also valid in the Philippines. Otherwise, the
marriage that is not valid under Hongkong law will not also be valid in
the Philippines.

(e) A marriage solemnized by a town mayor three towns away from his
jurisdiction is valid. Under the Local Government Code, the authority of
a mayor to solemnize marriages is not restricted within his
municipality. And even assuming that his authority is restricted within
his municipality, such marriage will nevertheless, be valid because
solemnizing the marriage outside said municipality is a mere
irregularity which does not affect the validity of marriage.

IX.

Saul, a married man, had an adulterous relation with Tessie. In


one of the trysts, Saul’s wife, Cecile, caught them in flagrante.
Armed with gun, Cecile shot Saul in a fit of extreme jealousy,
nearly killing him. Six (6) years after the incident, Saul filed an
action for legal separation against Cecile on the ground that
she attempted to kill him. Give the two (2) grounds for the
dismissal of the case. (10%).

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The two (2) grounds for the dismissal of the case are prescription and
mutual guilt.
The Civil Code provides that an action for legal separation shall be filed
within five (5) years from the time of the occurrence of the cause. An
action filed beyond that period is deemed prescribed. Considering that
Saul filed an action for legal separation against Cecile only after six (6)
years from the incident, such is barred by prescription.

Under the same Code, mutual guilt is also one of the grounds for the
denial of petition for legal separation. In the instant case, there is
mutual guilt since Saul had an adulterous relation with another woman
at the time when Cecile shot him when she caught them in flagrante.