1. May legitimate child impugn their own legitimacy?

NO, a legitimate child cannot impugn his/her own legitimacy. Only the father can impugn the legitimacy of the child. A child
born within a valid marriage is presumed legitimate even though the mother may have declared its legitimacy or may have been
sentenced as an adulteress. Only the husband, or in exceptional circumstances, his heirs, could impugn the legitimacy of the child born
in a valid and subsisting marriage. (Basis - LIYAO VS. LIYAO/Art. 167 of the FC)

2. What is the status of a child born through artificial insemination?

Children conceived as a result of artificial insemination of the wife with the sperm of the husband or that of a donor or both are
likewise legitimate children of the husband and his wife, provided, that both of them authorized or ratified such insemination in a written
instrument executed and signed by them before the birth of the child. The instrument shall be recorded in the civil registry together with
the birth certificate of the child. (Basis - ART. 164 of the FC)

3. Is the court bound by the choice of parent made by a child older than 7 years of age?

The child, if over 7 years old, may be permitted to choose which parent he/she prefers to live with, but the court is not bound
by such choice if the parent chosen is unfit. In controversies involving the care, custody and control of the minor children, the
contending parents stand on equal standing before the court who shall make the selection according to the best interest of the child.
(Basis - LAXAMANA VS. LAXAMANA)

4. Miguel contends that he should be deemed residing in the family home as his stay in the United States is merely temporary.
Miguel asserts that the person staying in the house is his caretaker and that whenever his wife Scarlet visits the Philippines,
she stays in the family home. Is the contention of Miguel meritorious?

Miguel’s contention is not meritorious. Their home is not exempted. Maids/caretakers are not included in the enumeration of
beneficiaries of a family home provided in ART. 154 of the FC. The occupancy of the beneficiaries of the Family Home must be actual.
(Basis - MAŇACOP VS. CA)

5. The wife, during the marriage sold under pacto de retro her paraphernal property consisting of a house and lot. Few weeks
after, she died. The husband thereupon repurchased the property with his exclusive capital. To whom will the property
belong?

The property belongs to the heirs of the wife, which includes also the husband.

6. Dada filed a petition under RA 9048 before the office of the Local Civil Registrar to change her nationality in the record of
her birth from “Chinese” to “Filipino” attaching thereto the Certificate of Marriage of her parents and Certifications issued by
the appropriate government agencies attesting that her parents were Filipino citizens. Will the petition be granted?

NO, the petition will not be granted. RA 9048 does not cover change of nationality, that specific special law has only the
authority to correct clerical or typographical error and change of first name or nickname. RA 9048 also states that no correction must
involve the change of nationality, age, status or sex of the petitioner.

7. If during class hours, while the teachers were chatting with other teachers in the school corridor, a 7-year old boy male
pupil stubs the eye of another boy with a ballpen during a fight, causing permanent blindness to the victim. Who could be
liable for the damages for the boy’s injury?

The teachers are principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the child while under their
supervision, instruction or custody. In the case above, the teachers did not exercised proper diligence towards the custody of their
pupils, making them liable for the damages done by the student. (Basis – Art. 219 of the FC)

8. Rocky, single, filed a petition for the adoption of his illegitimate child. Among the prayers in the petition is that the child,
upon adoption, be allowed to use the surname of her biological mother as the child’s middle name. The Trial Court granted
the petition for adoption but denied the prayer for the use of the biological mother’s surname as on the ground that there is
no law or jurisprudence allowing the same. Comment on the said denial.

The denial of the Trial Court is erroneous. An illegitimate child, upon adoption by her natural father, can use the surname of
her natural mother as his/her middle name. The Court has ruled that there is no law prohibiting an illegitimate child adopted by her
natural father to use, as middle name, her mother's surname. What is not prohibited is allowed. After all, the use of the maternal name
as the middle name is in accord with Filipino culture and customs and adoption is intended for the benefit of the adopted. (In re:
Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, G.R. No. 148311, March 31, 2005; Rabuya, The Law on Persons and Family
Relations, p. 613)
9. A filed a petition for habeas corpus before the CA, which dismissed the same on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The
dismissal was anchored on the provisions of sec5. RA 8369, which states that “The Family Courts shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction to hear and decide the following cases – Petition for guardianship, custody of children, habeas corpus in
relation to the latter. Comment on the dismissal.

The dismissal was erroneous. RA 8369 did not divest the CA and the SC of their jurisdiction over habeas corpus cases
involving custody of minors. The Family Courts have concurrent jurisdiction with the CA and the SC in petitions for habeas corpus
where the custody of minors is at issue. (Basis - MADRIANA VS. MADRIANA)

10. H married W in 1990. Five years after their marriage, H abandoned W and their 2 children and cohabitated with P. During
their (H and P) cohabitation, H purchased a house and lot and registered the same in the name of P, hence, Certification of
Title was issued in the name of P. In 2000, H died leaving no will. W filed a case for reconveyance of the said house and lot
claiming that the funds used to purchase the said property was conjugal funds and earnings of H as P was without means to
pay for the same. If you were the Judge, how would you rule the case?

H and P are not legally capacitated to marry each other, but nonetheless, they lived together. Co-ownership between H and P
will not effect since P has failed to prove her actual contribution to the property. A mere cohabitation without proof of actual contribution
will not result in a co-ownership. The house and lot belongs to the conjugal property of H and W since they are validly married. The
petition for reconveyance filed by W is granted. (Basis – TUMLOS VS. FERNANDEZ/Art. 148 of the FC)

11. Lovely, a former Filipina, who became an American citizen after her marriage to an American husband, would like to adopt
in the Philippines, jointly with her husband, one of her minor brothers. Assuming that all the requirements have been
obtained, could the contemplated joint adoption in the Philippines prosper?

Yes, Lina and her American husband can jointly adopt a minor brother of Lina because she and her husband are both
qualified to adopt. Lina, as a former Filipino citizen, can adopt her minor brother under Sec. 7(b)(i) of RA 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act
of 1998), or under Art. 184 (3)(1) of the Family Code. The alien husband can now adopt under Sec. 7(b) of RA8552. However, the
American husband must comply with the requirements of the law including the residency requirement of three (3) years. Otherwise, the
adoption will not be allowed.

12. Spouses Cruz filed a complaint for damages against Cruz’s brother, Willie, a widower, and his live-in-partner Luningning.
Respondents moved for the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of
Art. 151 of the Family Code. Rule on the motion.

Art. 151 of the FC does not apply in this case since the suit is not exclusively among the family members. Whenever a
stranger is a party in the case involving family members, the requisite showing the earnest efforts towards a compromise is no longer
mandatory. (Basis - HONTIVEROS VS. CA)

13. After the death of her husband Rafael, Catherine remarried. She then sold the northern half portion of a parcel of land
registered in her and her children’s name by her first husband to her brother-in-law. They then executed an Agreement of
Purchase and Sale and later a Deed of Absolute Sale. Twenty years after, Catherine’s children with Rafael filed a complaint or
declaration of nullity of sale and delivery of possession of the northern half portion of the subject property, claiming that the
sale made by their mother was void because Catherine, being their natural guardian had no authority to sell the northern half
portion of the property which she and her children co-owned. Decide the case.

Upon the death of Rafael, Catherine is entitled to a half of the property, as her share of their conjugal property with Rafael.
She was also entitled to the same share as that of Rafael’s children. Therefore, the sale of the subject property made by Catherine is
valid. The petition of the Catherine’s children is denied. (Basis – FLORA VS. PRADO)

14. Roderick and Faye were high school sweethearts. When Roderick was 18 and Faye was 16 years old, they started to live
together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. When Faye reached the age of 18, her parents forcibly took her
back and arranged for her marriage with Brad. Although Faye lived with Brad after the marriage, Roderick continued to
regularly visit Faye while Brad was away at work. During their marriage, Fate give birth to a cute baby girl named Cris. 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 cohabitating
for more than 5 years.

a. What is the status of the marriage of Roderick and Faye?

The status of the marriage of Roderick and Faye is VOID for lack of marriage license. Their 5-year cohabitation is not valid
because it was not continuous and exclusive because of the interruption of Brad. They must be living together as a husband and wife
continuously and exclusively for at least 5 years before the said marriage. (Basis - NIŇAL VS. BADAYOG)

b. What is the filiation status of Cris?

Cris is deemed to be a legitimate child of Brad and Faye since Cris is born during the subsisting marriage of Brad and Faye.
Art. 164 of the FC states that children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are legitimate.
c. Can Cris be legitimated by the marriage of her biological parents? (assuming that Roderick is her father?

NO, Cris cannot be legitimated since during her conception, Roderick and Faye are disqualified to marry each other because
of the subsisting marriage of Faye and Brad. (Basis – Art. 177 of the FC)

15. Justin, a member of the PNP, married Lyzette on May 5, 1975 with whom he had 3 children, and Dada on May 5, 1995, with
whom he had no children. Justin later on became ill and bedridden and passed away under the care of Dada, who spent for
his medical and burial expenses. Lyzette and Dada both filed claims for monetary benefits and financial assistance pertaining
to the deceased from various government agencies. Lyzette was able to collect P300,000 while Dada received a total of
P50,000. Dada filed a case for collection for sum of money against Lyzette praying that Lyzette be ordered to return to her half
of the P300,000 that Lyzette received. During the trial of the case, the marriage of Lyzette and Justin was declared void for
lack of the requisite marriage license, and the trial court ruled in favor of Dada declaring the marriage of Dada and Dustin
valid, thus, entitles Dada to the death benefits. Rule on the petition.

NO ANSWER YET

16. ABC Co. obtained a loan from Metrobank in the amount of Ten Million Pesos. Mr. Tan and Mr. Lim, President and Vice-
President of ABC Co., respectively, executed a continuing guaranty with ABC Co., binding themselves, jointly and severally,
the payment of the loan. ABC Co. defaulted on its loan. Thereupon, Metrobank filed a complaint for sum of money with prayer
for a writ of preliminary attachment against ABC Co. to collect, impleading Mr. Tan and Mr. Lim, in their capacities as
securities of ABC Co. The sheriff of the trial court, levied on attachment the two hundred thousand (200,000) common shares
of stocks registered in the name of Mr.Tan as shown in the certificates of stocks with CityCorp. Thereafter, the wife of Mr. Tan,
Mrs. Tan, filed a motion to set aside the levy on attachment, alleging that the shares of stocks were acquired by her and her
husband during their marriage, and out of conjugal funds, hence cannot be levied upon, attaching therein their Marriage
Certificate and Articles and By-laws of CityCorp. Metrobank opposed said motion, claiming that the shares of stocks were
exclusive properties of Mr. Tan as the same were registered only in his name. Further arguing that, granting, without
admitting, that the said share of stocks were conjugal properties, the same maybe attached for the reason that the continuing
guaranty and surety executed by Mr. Tan was in pursuit of his profession or business and the same redounded to the benefit
of the family. Rule on the contentions of Metrobank.

The contention of Metrobank is incorrect. Levy on attachment should extend only to the exclusive property of Mr. Tan. In this
case, the said attached shares are conjugal funds of the spouses, and not an exclusive property of Mr. Tan, as established with
evidences by Mrs. Tan. When a husband enters into a contract of surety agreement, it is not presumed that it is for the benefit of the
conjugal partnership. Proof must be presented to establish the benefit redounding to the conjugal partnership. In the absence of any
showing of benefit received by it, the conjugal funds cannot be held liable on an indemnity agreement executed by Mr. Tan. Therefore,
the contention of Metrobank is denied. (Basis – SECURITY BANK VS. MAR TIERRA)