PERSONS AND FAMILY INTRODUCTION Intersection of Modern Constitutional Developments and Traditional Family Law Provisions of t e !

"#$ Constitution % Overview of Due Process and &'ual Protection Cases (RI)*OLD v CONN&CTICUT +!",-. /#! U0)0 -$" (riswold1 &2ecutive Director of t e planned Parent ood Lea3ue of Connecticut and its medical director as accessories for 3ivin3 married persons information and medical advice on ow to prevent conception and1 followin3 e2amination prescri4in3 a contraceptive device or material for t e wife5s use0 (riswold said t e statute violates 6mendment +due process clause. t e !-t % )ec !71 6rt II % Purpose of t e statute was to discoura3e e2tra T e )tate reco3ni8es t e sanctity of family life and s all protect and stren3t en t e family it only pro i4its distri4ution of marital relations and as a 4asic autonomous social institution0 It s all e'ually protect t e life of t e mot er and t e life of t e un4orn from conception0 T e natural and contraceptives and not manufacture or sale primary ri3 t and duty of parents in t e rearin3 of t e yout for civic efficiency and t e development of moral c aracter s all receive t e support of t e (overnment0 I))U&)9 !0 70 *ON t e appellants ave t e standin3 to )ec !-1 6rt II assert constitutional ri3 ts of people to T e )tate reco3ni8es t e role of women in nation%4uildin3 and s all ensure t e fundamental e'uality 4efore t e law of women marital privacy and men0 6rt :; +T e Family.1 !"#$ Constitution )ec ! T e )tate reco3ni8es t e Filipino family as t e foundation of t e nation0 6ccordin3ly1 it s all stren3t en its solidarity and actively promote its total development0 )ec 7 Marria3e1 as an inviola4le social institution1 is t e foundation of t e family and s all 4e protected 4y t e )tate0 )ec / T e )tate s all defend9 +!. T e ri3 t of spouses to found a family in accordance wit t eir reli3ious convictions and t e demands of responsi4le parent ood< +7. T e ri3 t of c ildren to assistance1 includin3 proper care and nutrition1 and special protection from all forms of ne3lect1 a4use1 cruelty1 e2ploitation and ot er conditions pre=udicial to t eir development< +/. T e ri3 t of t e family to a family livin3 wa3e and income< +-. T e ri3 t of families or family associations to participate in t e plannin3 and implementation of policies and pro3rams t at affect t em0 )ec - T e family as t e duty to care for its elderly mem4ers 4ut t e )tate may also do so t rou3 =ust *ON t e contraceptive 4an statute violates ri3 t of marital privacy +from t e ri3 t of li4erty. >&LD9 6lt ou3 not stated in t e ?ill of Ri3 ts1 it is included in t e penum4ra of ri3 ts afforded to t e citi8ens0 It also sweeps unnecessarily 4roadly and does not prove to 4e a sufficient met od of family plannin30 It deprived married people t e due process of law 4y includin3 people w o are not meant to 4e included0 )tatute struc@ down as unconstitutional0 A * at if t e couples5 intention for usin3 contraceptive was for medical purposes and family plannin3B A Does it mean t at people only use contraceptive w en t ey are avin3 e2tra%marital affairsB 6nd t at if t ey don5t ave access to contraceptives1 t ey will no lon3er en3a3e in e2tra% marital affairB &I)&N)T6DT v ?6IRD +!"$!. -CD U) -/# )ec !1 6rt III % ?aird was arrested for violation of Massac usetts law No person s all 4e deprived of life1 li4erty1 or property wit out t e

due process of law1 nor s all anydevices4e denied t e a 4y e2 i4itin3 contraceptive person and 3ivin3 e'ual protection of t e laws0 contraceptive foam to a woman w en e ended is lecture at ?oston University0 % % T e statute pro i4ited t e sale1 lendin3 or 3ivin3 away of contraceptives unless prescri4ed 4y a p ysician to married people0 Its purpose is to discoura3e fornication +pre% marital se2. and prevent spread of se2ually transmitted disease0 >owever1 t e Emedical policyF was a mere aftert ou3 t1 amended after t e (riswold decision in !",, I))U&9 *ON t e statute is unconstitutional for denyin3 e'ual protection to unmarried people P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e - of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 >&LD9 Ges0 It violates due process clause 4y providin3 dissimilar treatment for married and unmarried persons w o are similarly situated0 T e deterrence of fornication cannot reasona4ly 4e re3arded as t e purpose of t e statute since it is riddled wit e2ceptions ma@in3 contraceptives freely availa4le for use in premarital se2ual relations and its scope and penalty structure is inconsistent wit t at purpose0 T e protection of pu4lic ealt cannot also 4e reasona4ly re3arded as t e purpose of t e statute since if t is were t e case1 it would 4e discriminatory and over4road0 It would appear t at only married people are protected from t e evil w ic it intends to suppress i0e0 )TD0 % Deprivin3 unmarried people wit contraceptive devices is tantamount to punis in3 t em wit t e ris@ of avin3 ille3itimate c ildren for fornication0 )o all t e more t at unmarried people s ould 4e 3iven access to contraceptives0 7 T&)T) T>6T JU)TIFG L6*FUL )T6T& INTRU)ION INTO T>& F6MILG !0 70 Is t ere a compellin3 state interest in re3ulatin3 people5s ri3 tsB Is t ere a fit 4etween t e state interest and t e measure ta@enB AIn 4ot (riswold and &isenstadt cases1 t ere was no fit 4etween t e state interest and t e measure ta@en0 T e means employed are not sufficient deterrent of t e evils sou3 t to avoid0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e D of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 II0 CI;IL P&R)ON6LITG )T6TU) K t e le3al condition or class to w ic one 4elon3s in society< t e le3al or =uridical position of t e individual in t e society< determines t e nature and num4er of is ri3 ts and o4li3ation IIND) OF )T6TU) 60 as a mem4er of society % resident or non%resident alien or non%citi8en ?0 as a mem4er of family % sin3le1 married or divorced % parent or c ild< 4rot er or sister % le3itimate1 ille3itimate or adopted C0 as imself % a3e % se2 % mental condition % occupation +not a status 4ecause not in erent. C>6R6CT&RI)TIC) OF )T6TU) !0 inaliena4le 70 imprescripti4le /0 can5t 4e renounced -0 can5t 4e su4=ect to compromise D0 ri3 ts arise from it cannot 4e e2ercised 4y creditors Juridical Capacity L% CI;IL C6P6CITG %M Capacity to 6ct 6rt /$ 6ptitude to oldin3 and 6ptitude to e2ercise of en=oyment of ri3 ts ri3 ts Fitness to 4e su4=ect of Power to do acts wit le3al le3al relations effects Indivisi4le and in erent Conditional and voida4le Can e2ist wit out capacity Re'uires 4ot +!. to act intelli3ence and +7. will0 Capacity is always presumed IIND) OF P&R)ON) N6TUR6L % uman 4ein3s % products of procreation Natural Persons JURIDIC6L % artificial1 a4stract % product of le3al fiction CC1 6rt -C ?irt determines personality< 4ut t e conceived s all 4 it1 provided it 4e 4orn later wit t e conditions specified in t e followin C>6R6CT&RI)TIC) OF F&T6L P&R)ON6LITG !0 limited K 4ecause it only as ri3 ts for purposes favora4le to it 70 provisionalNconditional K 4ecause it s ould 4e 4orn alive later 4efore t e ri3 ts can 4e claimed0 ?ut w en is it considered 4orn aliveB Refer to 6rt0 -!1 CC ?irt O total separation from t e mot er or removal of fetus in from mot er5s wom4 4y cuttin3 off t e um4ilical cord 60 Concept and Classes of Persons C>6R6CT&RI)TIC) OF CI;IL P&R)ON6LITG !0 not a 4ein31 4ut a 'uality of certain 4ein3s 70 not a p ysical element1 4ut a =uridical concept /0 not an o4=ect of contract1 or of possession1 cannot 4e impaired 4y a3reement -0 matter of pu4lic interest P&R)ON6LITG v C6P6CITG +T ese two concepts are intimately related 4ut not identical. Personality is9 is product of capacity in law e2ternal manifestation of capacity synonymous to =uridical capacity (enerally1 cannot 4e limited )pecifically1 may suffer limitations 4ecause it5s merely t e result of capacity to act CC1 6rt /$ Juridical capacity1 w ic is fitness to 4e t e su4=ect of le3al relations1 is in erent in every natural person and is lost only t rou3 deat 0

Capacity to act1 w ic is t e power to do acts wit le3al effect1 is ac'uired and may 4e lost0 /0 ?ut it can en=oy ri3 ts li@e in erit from will or intestacy and 4e 3iven donations even 4efore 4irt CC1 6rt -! For civil purposes1 t e fetus is considered 4orn if it is alive mot er5s wom40 >owever1 if t e fetus ad an intra%uterine life of less wit in 7- ours after its complete delivered from t e maternal wom40 % If intrauterine life L $ mont s1 t en t e fetus must live for 7- ours +even if life is mac ine sustained only. Ot erwise1 even if deat is 4y accident wit out w ic fetus could ave survived +e030 t e =anitor accidentally tripped on t e incu4ator or life support5s plu3 and caused t e fetus5 deat .1 @a it 77 ours pa yan1 it will not 4e considered alive No special si3n of life re'uired0 T ou3 complete respiration may 4e indicated 4y cryin3 or floatin3 of lun3s +w ic you can only do in case of deat . ;ia4ility +complete and independent functionin3 of internal or3ans. not re'uired In case of dou4t1 t ere is presumption t at t e c ild was 4orn alive % P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e , of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % (&LUP v C6 +!",!. 7 )CR6 #C! Nita ;illanueva ad t ree a4ortions wit Dr0 6ntonio (elu8 w ic Oscar La8o1 t e us4and1 is not aware of >us4and filed for dama3es of P/CCC 4y virtue of 6rt 77C, w ic C6 sustained I))U&9 *ON us4and can claim dama3es for t e deat of t e un4orn fetusB >&LD9 No0 T e fetus was not yet 4orn and t us does not ave civil personality0 6ccordin3 to 6rticle -C1 4irt determines personality0 In t is case1 t e fetus does not yet possess a personality to spea@ of 4ecause it was a4orted in uterus0 T e c ild s ould 4e 4orn 4efore t e parents can see@ any recovery for dama3es0 6ction for pecuniary dama3es on account of personal in=ury or deat pertains primarily to t e one in=ured0 T ere could 4e no action for suc dama3es t at can 4e instituted on 4e alf of t e un4orn c ild for t e in=uries it received 4ecause it lac@ed =uridical personality0 T e dama3es w ic t e parents of an un4orn c ild can recover are limited to moral dama3es1 in t is case1 for t e act of t e appellant (elu8 to perform t e a4ortion0 >owever1 moral dama3es cannot also 4e recovered 4ecause t e wife willin3ly sou3 t t e a4ortion1 and t e us4and did not furt er investi3ate on t e causes of t e a4ortion0 Furt ermore1 t e us4and did not seem to ave ta@en interest in t e administrative and criminal cases a3ainst t e appellant1 4ut was more concerned in o4tainin3 from t e doctor a lar3e money payment0 A6ccordin3 to Ma5am9 In t e P ilippines1 people w o see@ pecuniary dama3es for loss of relatives are seen in a ne3ative li3 t0 It 3ives t e impression t at Eyou5re =ust after t e money0F ?ut it s ould not 4e t e case0 CC1 6rt -7 Civil personality is e2tin3uis ed 4y deat 0 % ac@ed im and is wife and $ c ildren0 >is wife and si2 of t e @ids died0 Of t e !- suspects1 only 7 were appre ended1 Ciriaco ?aldesco and ?onifacio Tirol0 6fter t ey were found 3uilty of t e crime of murder of t e $ persons1 t ey filed an appeal1 durin3 w ic ?aldesco died0 I))U&9 *ON ?aldesco can still 4e eld lia4le for is offense >&LD9 Court dismissed t e criminal case since ?aldesco is already dead0 >owever1 ?aldesco5s personality is continued in is estate +6rt -7. ence t e civil lia4ilities will 4e recovered from is estate0 CC1 6rt -/ If t ere is a dou4t1 as 4etween two or more persons w o ar died first1 w oever alle3es t e deat of one prior to t e ot er1 presumed t at t ey died at t e same time and resorted tot ere s all 4e no t Rule !7/ of )ec ,C of Revised Rules of Court only if t ere are no inferentialNcircumstantial evidences to 4e inferred from !0 70 /0 -0 ?ot under !D older ?ot over ,C youn3er Under !D and over ,C youn3er ?etween !D K ,C male or if same se21 older Under !DNover ,C Q 4et 4etween t e !D and ,C 6pplica4le only w en +!. calamity Q +7. involves succession *ea@ness of Rule !7/ accordin3 to Ma5am9 )ince t is presumption is 4ased on discrimination 4etween close a3es is notstren3t 1 a3e and se2 of individuals accurately represented e030 w o will survive 4etween !7 and !D years old considerin3 t ey ave appro2imately t e same level of stren3t B D0 R R % Deat means natural or p ysical deat 1 as t ere no suc t in3 as civil deat in t e P ilippines Ri3 ts and o4li3ations are completely e2tin3uis ed1 w ile ot ers are transmitted to is successors 6fter t e deat 1 personality is deemed to continue to estate P&OPL& v TIROL +!"#!. !C7 )CR6 DD# Iosain Manipol and is family were sleepin3 w en e eard t e do3 4ar@0 * en e

went to investi3ate1 two persons ave already come up to t eir ouse1 as@in3 if t ey can 4orrow is land0 6fter e 3ave is consent1 Iulas arrived1 flas ed t e li3 t in is face and punc ed im0 * en e fell1 t e assailant5s companions +more t an !C armed men. came in % JO6SUIN v N6;6RRO +!"D/. "/ Phil $ )ummary proceedin3 to resolve t e order of deat s of Joa'uin Navarro1 JR and is mot er 6n3ela Navarro )ettin39 *orld *ar II0 ?attle of Manila is considered as a calamity0 6lso mentioned in t e story was t e nei3 4or Francisco Lope8 and t ree ot er dau3 ters w o were s ot w ile tryin3 to escape It is necessary to esta4lis succession 4ecause if JN Jr0 died first1 is eirs are not entitled to in erit from t eir 3randparents0 Refer to t e case for e2planation of t e pro4a4le causes and speculated circumstances of t eir deat +too many to enumerate ere1 refer to ori3inalT. I))U&9 * o 4etween t e mot er and t e son died firstB % % % % P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e $ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 Juridical Persons >&LD9 Inference can 4e derived from t e evidences so no need to use presumption0 T at t e mot er +6n3ela. died 4efore er son was 4ased on speculations1 not evidence0 (au3ed 4y t e doctrine of preponderance of evidence 4y w ic civil cases are decided1 t is inference s ould prevail0 &vidence of survivors ip may 4e +!. direct +7. indirect +/. circumstantial or +-. inferential0 6rt -/ spea@s a4out resolvin3 dou4t w en 7 or more persons are called to succeed eac ot er as to w ic of t em died first0 In t e Civil Code1 in t e a4sence of proof1 it is presumed t at t ey died at t e same time1 and t ere s all 4e no transmission of ri3 ts from one to anot er0 In t e Rules of Court1 in cases of calamity1 t ere is a ierarc y of survivors ip0 Iinds of Juridical Persons +CC1 6rt --. and laws 3overnin3 t em +CC1 6 !. 7. /. state and its political su4divisions K 3overned 4y t e laws creatin3 ot er corporations1 institutions and entities for pu4lic interest cr reco3ni8in3 t em corporations1 partners ips and associations for private interest or separate and distinct from t at of eac s are older1 partner or provisions of t is Code concernin3 partners ip CC1 6rt -$ Dissolution of No 7 % in pursuance of law or t e c arter crea ?0 Capacity to 6ct and Restrictions T ereon !0 Presumption of Capacity )T6ND6RD OIL CO0 v 6R&N6) +!"!!. !" Phil /,/ !"C# ;icente ;illanueva si3ned a 4ond as surety for Codina 6renas in favor of plaintiff !"C" T e plaintiff sued on t e 4ond< ;illanueva did not appear1 and was declared in default0 *ife appeared w en =ud3ment was a4out to 4e e2ecuted and as@ed t at e 4e relieved from t e 4ond and t e =ud3ment 4ecause e was insane +declared insane 4y July 7-1 !"C". wit is wife as is 3uardian0 Case was reopened and tried and t e evidence s owed t at ;illanueva e2ecuted t e 4ond wit full understandin3 of t e nature and conse'uences of t e act performed 4y im alt ou3 e was sufferin3 from a monomania of 3reat wealt 0 >e was1 t erefore1 eld lia4le on t e 4ond0 >ence appealed to t e )C0 I))U&9 !0 70 *ON monomania of wealt necessarily warrants t at t e person does not ave capacity to act *ON ;illanueva was actually incapa4le of enterin3 into contract at t e time t e 4ond was e2ecuted >&LD9 )C affirmed t e =ud3ment of t e C60 It would ave 4een necessary to s ow t at !0 suc monomania was a4itual and constituted a verita4le mental pertur4ation in t e patient< 70 t at t e 4ond e2ecuted was t e result of suc monomania1 and not t e effect of any ot er cause1 t at is1 t at t ere was not1 or could t ere ave 4een any ot er cause for t e contract t an t e ostentation of wealt and t is was purely an effect of suc monomania of wealt < /0 t at t e monomania e2isted on t e date t e 4ond in 'uestion was e2ecuted0 Monomania of P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e # of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 -0 M&RC6DO v &)PIRITU +!"!$. /$ Phil 7!D Domin3o Mercado and Josefa Mercado were minors +under t e Civil Code.1 !# and !" years 70 Restrictions old respectively1 on t e date t e instrument +sale of land to t eir uncle. was e2ecuted so t ey CC1 6rt , Ri3 ts may 4e waived1 unless t e waiver is contrary to law1 pu4lic order1 pu4lic policy1 morals1 or 3ood customs or see@ for annulment of contract0 pre=udicial to a t ird person wit a ri3 t reco3ni8ed 4y law0 >owever1 in t e deed of sale t ey stated t at t ey were of le3al a3e at t e time t ey e2ecuted and si3ned it< and t ey made t e same CC1 6rt /# Minority1 insanityNim4ecility1 state of 4ein3 deaf%mute1 prodi3ality and civil

interdiction are mere manifestation 4efore t e notary pu4lic w en t e restriction on capacity to act1 and do not e2empt t e document was prepared0 incapacitated person from certain o4li3ations1 as w en t e latter arise from is acts of from property relations0 wealt does not necessarily imply t at t e person is incapa4le of e2ecutin3 a 4ond suc as t at in 'uestion0 Capacity to act must 4e supposed to attac to a person w o as not previously 4een declared incapa4le1 and suc capacity is presumed to continue for so lon3 as t e contrary is not proved1 t at is1 at t e moment of is actin3 e was incapa4le1 cra8y1 insane1 or out of is mind< w ic 1 in t e opinion of t e court1 as not 4een proved in t is case0 6rt !/"C +!. if one is incapa4le of ;OID6?L& 6rt !-C/ +/. if 4ot iscontract1 valid unless courts says ot erwise UN&NFORC&6?L& unless ratified 6rt !/"$ capacitated party cannotincapa4le alle3e t e incapacity of ot er parties 6rt !/"" restitution not o4li3ed if not 4enefited I))U&9 *ON t e dead of sale was invalid 4ecause t e contractors are minors >&LD9 No0 T e courts ave laid down t e rule t at t e sale of real estate1 effected 4y minors w o ave already passed t e a3e of pu4erty and adolescence and are near t e adult a3e1 w en t ey pretend to ave already reac ed t eir ma=ority1 w ile in fact1 t ey ave not1 is valid1 and t ey cannot 4e permitted afterwards to e2cuse t emselves from compliance wit t e o4li3ation assumed 4y t em or see@ t eir annulment0 T eir misrepresentation estopped t em from claimin3 t e invalidity of t e contract0 6rt !/"C1 CC 4indin3 at t e discretion of t e Court0 It does not favor t e offender1 come to Court wit clean ands0 ?6M?6L6N v M6R6M?6 +!",,. D! Phil -!$ Isidro ?am4alan1 a minor1 e2ecuted a deed of sale of a piece of land to t e defendant1 (enoveva can ave still civilly lia4le alt ou3 criminally not lia4le Mueron30 o4li3ation e2cept for contracts )OURC&) OF O?LI(6TION) +o4li3ations arise fromU. !0 law -0 crimesNdelicts 70 contracts D0 'uasi%delicts /0 'uasi%contracts ,0 torts R&INT&(R6TION OF C6P6CITG !0 upon reac in3 a3e of ma=ority 70 civil interdiction1 e2tinction of principal penalty /0 =udicially determined competence wit out 3uardian +for t e first two1 no need for court proceedin3. 6n incapacitated person is not e2empt from o4li3ations K civilly lia4le 4ut not T is is @ind of confusin3 4ecause e is e2cluded from Eallcriminally lia4le0 e2cept contractsF1 ?UT w at e2actly is Enot a contractF CC1 6rt /" Modify1 limit or restrict capacity to act !0 a3e +minority. $0 aliena3e 70 insanity #0 a4sence /0 im4ecility "0 family relations -0 state of 4ein3 deaf%mute !C0 trustees ip D0 penalty !!0 insolvency ,0 prodi3ality % % ?am4alan made no representation as to is a3e1 w ic was well @nown to t e defendant1 inasmuc as t e latter was t e one w o purc ased t e plaintiff5s cedula to 4e used in t e ac@nowled3ement of t e document 4efore a notary pu4lic0 Plaintiff now see@s to annul t e sale0 60 Minority R6 ,#C" % Lowers t e a3e of ma=ority from 7! to !# Contracts 6rt !/7$ no more concept of+!. unemancipated minors cannot 3ive consent to contract uneman%cipated minors 4ecause a3e of emancipation O ma=ority I))U&9 *ON a minor5s non%representation of is a3e and @nowled3e of t e ot er contractin3 party as to t e incapacity of t e minor may render t e sale void >&LD9 Ges0 T e sale is void as to t e plaintiff1 4ecause e was a minor at t e time of e2ecution0 Mercado v &spiritu doctrine is not applica4le in t is case1 4ecause t e plaintiff did not pretend to 4e of a3e1 and t e defendant @new im to 4e a minor0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e " of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 ?R6(6NP6 v ;ILL6 6?RILL& +!"D". !CD Phil -D, % % Rosario alon3 wit er two sons +(uillermo and Rodolfo. loaned $C1CCC Mic@ey Mouse money from respondent sayin3 t ey5ll pay im e'uivalent amount after t e war0 T ey did not disclose t e a3e of t e sons so t e respondent willin3ly 3ave t em t e amount t ey were as@in3 for0 I))U&)9 *ON non%disclosure of a minor5s a3e may render t e deed void and *ON t e recipients are o4li3ed to restitute w at t ey earned >&LD9 T ere was no misrepresentation of a3e1 so it cannot constitute fraud0 ?ut since t ey 4enefited from t e amount1 t ey s ould return it 4ecause of 6rt !/""1 CC0 Marria3e 6rt /D +!.1 FC void a4 initio 6rt D1 FC male or female of t e a3e of !# may contract marria3e Crimes 6rt !71 RPC Periods of responsi4ility " and 4elowA a4solute irresponsi4ility " to !DA conditional responsi4ility

Araised to !D suc t at a3e of discernment is !D%!# %% unless wit discernment9 +a. manner of committin3 +4. conduct of t e offender %% for miti3ated responsi4ility1 penalty is one de3ree lower ?0 Insanity Contracts 6rt !/7$ +7. insaneNdemented cannot 3ive consent to contract 6rt !/7# +!. contracted in a lucid interval is valid1 4ut 4urden to prove lucid interval on prosecution 6rt !/"" restitution not o4li3ed if not 4enefited Crime 6rt !7+!. not e2empt from criminal lia4ility if lucid interval PR&)UMPTION OF )6NITG a. circumstantial evidence is sufficient 4. insanity must prove to precede t e act C0 )tate of 4ein3 deaf%mute 6rt !/7$ 6rt #C$ deaf%mute w o are no read1 no write cannot 3ive consent to contract deaf%mute may write a will 4ut if no read1 no write can desi3nate two +7. persons w o would communicate to im t e contents 4ecause e won5t 4e a4le to testify properlydeaf%mute cannot witness a will in court if ever t e need arises 6rt #7C P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !C of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 D0 Prodi3ality 6rt "7 +7.1 RC wanton waste of one5s estate< wit out re3ard for family e2posin3 t em to want and deprivin3 in eritance< mor4id state of mind and disposition to spend indispensa4le1 w o for t is purpose s all 4e desi3nated 4y a competent court1 in accordance wit t e provisions of t e Rules of Court0 6rt !!071 RPC Justifyin3 circ9 in defense of family 6rt !/0D1 RPC Miti3atin3 circ9 immediate vindication M6RTIN&P v M6RTIN&P +!"C7. ! Phil !#7 Pedro Martine8 Ilustre appeal after C6 re=ected is petition for declarin3 is dad1 Francisco1 a prodi3al >e was 3iven 4y dad special powers of attorney 4ut dad revo@ed it 4ecause son is mismana3in3 t eir estate )on accused dad of splur3in3 and s'uanderin3 t eir properties 4y 3ivin3 donation to is second wife and er family I))U&9 *ON Francisco s ould 4e declared prodi3al >&LD9 )ince prodi3ality is not defined in our law1 it may 4e inferred t at t e acts of prodi3ality must s ow a mor4id state of 4ind and a disposition to spend1 waste1 and lessen t e estate to suc an e2tent as is li@ely to e2pose t e family to want of support1 or to deprive t e forced eirs of t eir undisposa4le part of t e estate0 T e testimony of t e plaintiff was insufficient to support is alle3ations a3ainst is fat er0 T ere was no evidence to s ow is fat er as 4een transferrin3 4y sale or mort3a3e any property1 w ic will reflect in t e city record of pu4lic deeds0 T e court found t e defendant is far from 4ein3 prodi3al1 and is still in t e full e2ercise of is faculties and still possess t e industry1 t rift and a4ility in mana3in3 t e estate0 In fact1 t e fat er as increased profit w ile t e son imself possesses propensity to 4e prodi3al0 F0 Family Relations 6rt /$1 FC incestuous marria3e 6rt #$1 FC donation inter vivos not allowed 4et spouses 6rt 7!D1 FC dis'ualified to testify a3ainst eac ot er unless indispensa4le to crime a3ainst imNanot er 3randNparent 6rt !!C"1 CC prescription does not run 4etween us4and and wife1 parent and c ild +minority or insanity.1 3uardian and ward 6rt !-"C1 CC spouses cannot sell property to eac ot er unless9 +a. separation of property in marria3e settlement +4. =udicial separation of property (0 64sence 6rt /"C1 CC after $ years a person is presumed dead for all purposes e2cept succession< if $D1 D yrs only 6rt /"!1 CC if t ere is a dan3er of deat +- yrs only. +a. vessel lost at sea or missin3 airplane +4. mem4er of military or armed force in war +c. ot er circumstances of dan3er of deat 6rt !7-1 FC if one spouse is incapacitated1 ot er spouse may assume power of administration &0 Civil Interdiction 6rt /-1 RPC Civil interdiction0 V Civil interdiction s all deprive t e offender durin3 t e time of is sentence of t e ri3 ts of parental aut ority1 or 3uardians ip1 eit er as to t e person or property of any ward1 of marital aut ority1 of t e ri3 t to mana3e is property and of t e ri3 t to dispose of suc property 4y any act or any conveyance inter vivos0 6rt D-1 CC 6ny male of t e a3e of si2teen years or upwards1 and any female of t e a3e of fourteen years or upwards1 not under any of t e impediments mentioned in 6rticles #C to #-1 may contract marria3e0 +7. 6rt !7/1 CC For t e validity of marria3e settlements e2ecuted 4y any person upon w om a sentence of civil interdiction as 4een pronounced1 t e presence and participation of t e 3uardian s all 4e P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !! of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 III0 PR&%M6RIT6L CONTRO;&R)G I))U&9 * et er or not 4reac of promise to marry is actiona4le >&LD9 T is is

not t e case of mere 4reac of promise to marry0 Mere 4reac of promise to marry is not an actiona4le wron30 ?ut to formally set a weddin3 and 3o t rou3 all t e preparations pu4licity1 only to ?reac of promise to marry wal@ out of it w en t e matrimony is a4out to 4e solemni8ed is 'uite different0 T is is contrary to 3ood customs for w ic t e =ustice1 3ive everyone eld CC 6rt !" &very person must1 in e2ercise of ri3 ts and performance of is duties1 act wit defendant must 4e else is answera4le in dama3es in accordance wit 6rt0 7! due1 and o4serve onesty and 3ood fait 0 NCC0 Defendant is lia4le for actual dama3es1 as well CC 6rt 7C &very person w o1 contrary to law1 willfully or ne3li3ently causes dama3e to anot er s all indemnify Jud3ment as to moral and e2emplary dama3es0 t e latter for t e same0 affirmed wit modifications +on amount of dama3es.0 CC 6rt 7! 6ny person w o willfully causes loss o in=ury to anot er in a manner t at is contrary to morals1 3ood customs or T6NJ6NCO v C6 +!",,. pu4lic policy s all compensate t e latter for dama3e0 !# )CR6 ""- CC 6rt 7!$,* oever 4y act or omission causes dama3e to anot er16rceli 4ein3 fault or ne3li3ence1 is o4li3ed to pay for t e t ere )antos and 6polinario Tan=anco are dama3e done0 )uc fault or ne3li3ence1 if t ere is no pre%e2istin3 contractual relation 4etween t e parties1 is called a 'uasisweet earts0 ?ecause of t e man5s promise to delict and is 3overned 4y t e provision of t is C apter0 marry t e woman1 t ey continually ad se2ual ?6)I) FOR >&6RT?6LM )T6TUT& +!. property +7. e2pectation +cultural and societal. t ey used to value marria3e as t e only 3oal0 Impairs onor and purity of t e deserted party * y is t ere no success in claimin3 dama3es for 4reac of promise to marryB relations ip wit eac ot er for a span of one year wit t e woman5s consent0 * en s e 3ot pre3nant1 e refused to marry er0 T e prayer was for a decree compellin3 t e defendant to reco3ni8e t e un4orn c ild to 3ive er support plus moral and e2emplary dama3es of P!CC1CCC0 T e CFI dismissed t e complaint for no cause of action0 T e C6 set aside t e CFI decision0 % No source of o4li3ation 4ecause marria3e is purely voluntary and not compulsory0 It s ould 4e freely entered into wit out any t reat0 People marry 4ecause of love1 so it cannot 4e imposed and t us t ere is no le3al 4asis for action0 In t e olden days1 women are seen as used merc andise w en t eir sweet earts a4andon t em0 T eir c ances of 3ettin3 married after 4ein3 re=ected 4ecome slimmer0 Marria3e was t e only 3oal of women0 T in3s are different now1 especially since women can ave careers0 No more pressure to marryT ?reac of promise to marry is a 'uasi%delict +refer 4ac@ to E)ources of O4li3ationsF in Restrictions on Capacity to 6ct. I))U&9 *ON man seduced t e woman entitlin3 er to t e rewards set fort in 6rt 7! >&LD9 No0 In 6rt 7!1 t e essential feature is seduction1 t at in law is more t an se2ual intercourse or 4reac of promise to marry1 4ut connotin3 essentially t e idea of deceit1 enticement1 or a4use of confidence on t e part of t e seducer to w ic t e woman as yielded0 T e facts stand out t at for one w ole year1 t e plaintiff1 a woman of adult a3e1 maintained intimate se2ual relations wit defendant1 wit repeated acts of intercourse0 )uc conduct is incompati4le wit t e idea of seduction0 Plainly t ere is ere voluntariness and mutual passion0 If s e ad 4een deceived1 s e would not ave a3ain yield to is em4races1 muc less for one year0 ?esides1 s e is old enou3 to @now 4etter0 >ence no case is made under 6rt 7!0 D& J&)U) v )GSUI6 +!"//. D# Phil #,, Cesar )y'uia courted 6ntonia de Jesus w o was 7C years old0 6morous relations resulted in de Jesus 3ivin3 4irt to a 4a4y 4oy on June !$1 !"/!0 T ey lived to3et er for one year until 6ntonio 3ot pre3nant a3ain after w ic Cesar left to marry anot er woman0 Cesar reco3ni8ed is paternity of first c ild in writin3 wit a letter to t e priest and uninterrupted possession of natural c ild status for one year R *6))M&R v ;&L&P +!",-. !7 )CR6 ,-# % % Two days 4efore t e weddin3 +meanin3 everyt in3 a4out t e weddin3 was already set1 as well as 4ridal s owers and 3ifts. t e 3room Francisco ;ele8 suddenly flew to is ome in Ca3ayan de Oro1 leavin3 t e 4ride1 ?eatri8 *assmer1 only t is note9 Ewill ave to postpone weddin3 K my mot er opposes it0F T e ne2t day +day 4efore t e weddin3. e sent t is messa3e t rou3 tele3ram9 ENot in3 c an3ed rest assured returnin3 soon0F ?ut e never returned and was never eard from a3ain0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !7 of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % *oman files for

action for dama3es for 4reac of promise and reco3nition of t e c ild0 I))U&9 *ON 6ntonia is entitled to dama3es for 4reac of promise to marry and @ids to paternal support >&LD9 Promise to marry not satisfactorily proved so t e trial court was ri3 t in refusin3 to 3rant De Jesus5 prayer0 6lso1 action for 4reac of promise to marry as no standin3 for civil law1 apart from t e ri3 t to recover money or property advanced 4y t e plaintiff upon t e fait of suc promise0 T is case e2 i4its none of t e features necessary to maintain suc action0 % 6ntonia de Jesus only entitled to t e support of t e first c ild 4ecause of Cesar5s prior reco3nition0 No support for t e second c ild 4ecause no proof of paternity or reco3nition presented0 PICCININNI v >6JU) +!"#C. !#C Conn0 /," % % Marie >a=us fraudulently induced Ro4ert Piccininni +yes1 t e tennis player. to transfer properties to er name for t eir mutual 4enefit and en=oyment as future us4and and wife0 >us4and does not sue for er not marryin3 im 4ut for ca=olin3 im into transferrin3 property in er name I))U&9 *ON t e property is recovera4le under >eart4alm statute 4ecause t e wife did not marry im >&LD9 Ges 4ecause marital 3ifts are conditional until after marria3e so recovera4le0 ?an on >eart4alm statutes only for issues of t e eart li@e an3uis 1 moral dama3es1 failed e2pectation of financial and social 3ains0 In t is case1 t e petition is for recovery of un=ust enric ment of deferrin3 wife0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !/ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 I;0 D&FINITION Q N6TUR& OF M6RRI6(& FC1 6rt ! Marria3e is a special contract of permanent union 4etween a man and a woman entered into in accordance wit t e law1 for t e esta4lis ment of family and con=u3al life0 It is t e foundation of family and an inviola4le social institution w ose nature1 conse'uences and incidents are 3overned 4y t e law and not su4=ect to stipulation1 e2cept t at marria3e settlements may fi2 property relations durin3 t e marria3e wit in t e limits provided 4y t is Code0 ille3itimate parent0 T e parent must first prove t at e can sustain is two families and s ould under3o counselin30 I))U&9 *ON statute is unconstitutional for violation of e'ual protection and due process clauses >&LD9 Unconstitutional for many reasons0 6s for t e state interests9 !. Counselin3 also is not even an assurance of permission 7. Protect welfare of out custody c ildren to compel collection and incentive to delivery of money to 4ut t ere are also ot er means li@e wa3e assi3nment1 civil prior c ildren contempt proceedin3s or criminal penalty /. Prevent incurrin3 of new o4li3ation under inclusive 4ecause new marria3e is not t e only way people spend t eir resources1 over inclusive 4ecause t ey could 4e marryin3 to a 4etter financed couple0 6lso it only adds more c ildren out of wedloc@0 A6ccordin3 to Ma5am only t ose economically sta4le may marry and t is ?et 9 implication of t e 4an COMMIT TO M&MORGTTT LO;IN( v ;IR(INI6 +!",$. violates e'ual protection clause /## U) !1 !7 % % Mildred Lovin3 +of 6frican and Native 6merican descent. marries Ric ard Perry Lovin3 +a Caucasian. in violation of ;ir3inia5s ERacial Inte3rity 6ctF w ic is an anti%misce3enation statute t at pro i4its * ites from marryin3 into ot er races Interestin3 p rase9 E6lmi3 ty (od created t e races w ite1 4lac@1 yellow1 Malay and red and e placed t em on separate continents0 6nd 4ut for t e interference wit is arran3ement t ere would 4e no cause for suc marria3es0 T e fact t at e separated t e races s ows t at e did not intend for t e races to mi20F T e statute fuels E* ite )upremacyF 4ecause only * ites are for4idden to intermarry1 ot er races can marry anyone 60 Marria3e Models C>6R6CT&RI)TIC) OF M6RRI6(& !0 civil +independent of any reli3ion. 70 institute of pu4lic order and policy /0 natural +or3anic perpetuation of man. PRINCIP6L &FF&CT) OF 6 ;6LID M6RRI6(& !0 emancipation from parental aut ority 70 personal and economic relations 4etween spouses /0 personal and economic relations 4etween parent Q c ild -0 family relations ip D0 le3itimacy of se2ual union and family ,0 modification of criminal lia4ility $0 incapacity to ma@e donations to eac ot er #0 dis'ualification to testify a3ainst eac ot er M6RRI6(& Only 4etween man and woman )pecified duties and ri3 ts of spouses May not 4e su4=ect to stipulation or terminated ?reec of o4li3ation not actiona4le ORDIN6RG CONTR6CT) May 4e same se2 % I))U&9 *ON t e statute is unconstitutional for

violation of 4ot t e e'ual protection and due process clauses of !-t 6mendment >&LD9 Ges0 T e freedom to marry as lon3 4een reco3ni8ed as one of t e vital personal ri3 ts essential to t e orderly pursuit of appiness 4y free men0 Marria3e is one of t e 4asic civil ri3 ts of man1 fundamental to our very e2istence and survival0 Decisions )C and C6 of ;ir3inia are reversed0 P6?LOCII v R&D>6IL +!"$#. -/- U) /$-1 /#- % T omas Pa4loc@i was denied marria3e license 4ecause of non%support to prior c ildren0 &ven if e marries outside t eir state1 it will still not 4e valid0 T e state interest of t is statute was to protect t e welfare of out of custody c ildren and prevent incurrence of new o4li3ation 4y t e % >ave t e force of law 4etween t em Can 4e terminated at t e a3reement of parties ?reac of contract 3ives rise to action for dama3es AIn 4ot marria3e and ordinary contracts1 party5s consent is necessary T&RM) OF 6 TR6DITION6L M6RRI6(& CONTR6CT +!. us4and as ead of family K name and domicile P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !- of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 +7. us4and responsi4le for support +/. wife responsi4le for domestic and c ildcare services (R6>6M v (R6>6M +!"-C. N3ra mN. // F0 )upp0 "/, +pronounced as er name was pur3ed from t e re3istration list0 >ence t is action0 I))U&9 *ON compulsoryNmandatory to c an3e name upon marria3e >&LD9 No0 *oman upon marria3e1 may elect to retain er own surname or s e may adopt t e surname of er us4and and t e c oice is ers0 )o lon3 as a person5s name remains constant and consistent1 and unless until c an3ed in prescri4ed manner1 and in a4sence of any fraudulent or le3ally impermissi4le intent1 state as no le3itimate concern as to name used0 t e le3al name of any person is t e one written on A6ccordin3 to Ma5am ?et t e 4irt certificate +CC1 6rt /$C. IN R& )6NTI6(O +!"-C. $C Phil ,, % James )e4astian (ra am1 plaintiff sues is former wife1 Mar3ret e1 defendant1 to recover w at e was alle3edly entitled 4y a written a3reement w erein defendant a3reed to pay t e plaintiff a certain some of money0 T e a3reement was t at t e wife as@ed us4and to 'uit is =o4 so t at e can accompany er to is travels1 to w ic e a3reed as lon3 as s e will pay im W/CC eac mont 0 T e mont ly payment is to 4e in force until t e parties no lon3er desire t e a3reement0 % I))U&9 *ON t e a3reement compels t e wife to continue payin3 er us4and t e W/CC >&LD9 No1 t e contract is not valid0 Marria3e contract specifies t at it5s t e us4and5s duty or o4li3ation to support and live wit is wife1 and t e wife must contri4ute er services and society to t e us4and and follow im in is c oice of domicile0 6lso1 a private a3reement 4etween persons married or a4out to 4e married w ere4y t ey attempt to c an3e t e essential o4li3ations of t e marria3e contract is contrary to pu4lic policy0 ?R6D*&LL v ILLINOI) +!#$7. "/ U) +!, wall. !/C % &rnesto ?ani'uit and )oledad Colares separated for " consecutive years1 want to remarry so t ey sou3 t t e aid of 6tty0 Ro'ue )antia3o >e instituted a document t at waives w atever ri3 t of action one mi3 t ave a3ainst eac ot er 4ut reali8ed mista@e after !" days and cancelled t e document I))U&9 *ON t e document si3ned 4y t e spouses le3itimately terminated t e marital tie 4etween t em0 >&LD9 No0 Termination of t e marria3e cannot 4e stipulated 4y t e parties0 )antia3o 3uilty of malpractice and suspended for ! year0 )&L6NO;6 v M&NDOP6 +!"$D. ,- )CR6 ," Respondent Jud3e 6le=andro Mendo8a prepared a document e2tra=udicially li'uidatin3 t e con=u3al partners ip of )aturnino )elanova and 6velina Ceni8a0 One condition of t e li'uidation was t at eit er spouse would wit draw t e complaint for adultery or concu4ina3e w ic eac ad filed a3ainst t e ot er and t ey waived t eir ri3 t to prosecute eac ot er for w atever acts of infidelity eit er one would commit a3ainst t e ot er0 T is document was also ac@nowled3ed 4efore im as ECity Jud3e and Notary Pu4lic &2 Officio0F )elanova c ar3ed Jud3e Mendo8a wit 3ross i3norance of t e law0 I))U&9 *ON marria3e is valid >&LD9 63reement is void 4ecause it contravenes t e provisions of para3rap s +!. and +7. of CC 6rt 77!0 &ven 4efore t e enactment of t e NCC1 t is court eld t at t e e2tra=udicial dissolution of t e con=u3al partners ip durin3 t e marria3e wit out =udicial % Myra ?radwell was denied license to practice law JU)T ?&C6U)& )>& I) 6 F&M6L&0 ET at (od desi3ned t e se2es to occupy different sp eres of action and t at it 4elon3ed to men to ma@e1

apply and e2ecute t e laws1 was re3arded as an almost a2iomatic trut F 6ma8in3U t ey were a4le to tal@ to (od directly0 Prescri4e t e 'ualifications for admission to t e 4ar of its own courts is unaffected 4y t e !-t amendment % DUNN v P6L&RMO +!"$D. D77 )0 *0 7d ,$" Rose Palermo is a Nas ville lawyer w o married Denty C eat am1 also a Nas ville lawyer0 ) e as continued to use and en=oy er maiden name1 Palermo1 professionally1 socially and for all purposes0 Tennessee ad a state%wide compulsory Re3istration Law0 )u4se'uent to er marria3e1 s e lod3ed wit t e Re3istrar a c an3e of address form listin3 er name as Palermo0 ) e was advised t at s e was re'uired to re3ister anew under t e surname of er us4and1 or ave er name pur3ed from t e re3istration list0 Upon er refusal to so re3ister1 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !D of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 approval Esecured 4efore andF was void0 * ile adultery and concu4ina3e are private crimes1 t ey s all remain crimes1 and a contract le3ali8in3 t eir commission is contrary to law and conse'uently not =udicially reco3ni8a4le0 Respondent is severely censured0 6))UMPTION) OF F6MILG L6* +*eit8man article. !0 Marria3e is a permanent1 indissolu4le1 lifetime commitment 70 First marria3es +youn3 Q no previous marria3es. /0 Main reason is procreation -0 )trict division of la4or D0 * ite middle%class family +property and in eritance. ,0 Judeo%C ristian tradition +mono3amy. (OODRID(& v D&PT OF PU?LIC >&6LT> +7CC/. --C Mass0 /C" !- individuals +$ couples. were deprived of marria3e license 4ecause t ey were t e same se2 % % T ey are professionals and active in socio%civic activities1 t ere was lon3evity in t e relations ip and defendants were involved +adopted c ildren and parents. T ey met all facial 'ualifications1 list of impediment was not presented 4y civil re3istrar +to prove t at same se2 marria3e is one of t em. L&(I)L6TI;& R6TIO9 !0 favora4le settin3 for procreation 70 optimal settin3 for c ild rearin3 /0 conservin3 scarce state and private financial resources ?0 Re'uisites of Marria3e !0 intrinsic +6rt 7. &))&NTI6L R&SUI)IT&) K I))U&9 !0 *ON licensin3 law treats same se2 as impediment K presented 4y t e plaintiff 70 *ON 4ar of same se2 couple is a le3itimate e2ercise of t e )tate5s aut ority to re3ulation conduct K Court >&LD9 Marria3e is a secular institution0 No reli3ious ceremony is re'uired0 T ere are only / partners +7 spouses and t e )tate w o defines t e entry and e2it terms. PURPO)& NOT T6ILOR FIT9 !0 law does not distin3uis c ildren5s family 4ac@3round so w y deprive c ildren t e ri3 ts w en t ey did not c oose to 4e 4ornN3row up in suc a family +coitus v non coitus1 e030 adoption or assisted.1 failed to address t e c an3in3 realities of 6merican society 70 4est interest of t e c ild X parent5s se2ual orientation /0 omose2uals are well off and economically independent1 anyway1 t e same is not conditionNre'uirement for eterose2ual couples0 60 Le3al capacity a0 )e2 K +must 4e 4etween man and woman. 40 c0 63e K !# and a4ove +6rt D. No impediment w ic means9 +!. no previous marria3e +7. family relations +not incestuous. JON&) v >6LL6>6N +!"$/. DC! )0 *0 7d D## Mar=orie Jones and er female partner were not issued a license to marry eac ot er in t e state of Ientuc@y0 T ey contend t at t e failure of t e cler@ to issue t e marria3e license deprived t em of t ree +/. 4asic constitutional ri3 ts1 namely1 t e ri3 t to marry< t e ri3 t of association< and t e ri3 t to free e2ercise of reli3ion0 6ppellants also contend t at t e refusal su4=ects t em to cruel and unusual punis ment0 I))U&9 *ON same se2 constitutional ri3 ts to marry marria3e violates % >&LD9 No1 it does not violate any constitutionally protected ri3 t0 Two females cannot marry for marria3e as always 4een considered as t e union of a man and a woman0 It appears t at appellants are prevented from marryin3 not 4y t e statute of Ientuc@y 4ut rat er 4y t eir own incapacity of enterin3 into marria3e as t e term is defined0 6 license to enter into a status or a relations ip w ic t e parties are incapa4le of enterin3 is a nullity0 Definition of marria3e says1 Eunion of a man and a woman0F T us1 in t e court5s opinion1 t ere is not constitutional issue involved1 since t ere is no constitutional sanction w ic protects t e ri3 t of marria3e 4etween persons of t e same se20 IMPLIC6TION OF PRO>I?ITION9 deprivation of protection1 4enefits1 same reason w y t eseo4li3ations and ri3 ts e2clusive to married people

couples want t e 4enefit of marria3e T ey do not undermine marria3e1 In fact1 t ey appreciateN s ow i3 esteem for of marria3e 4y as@in3 for itT )tatute declared unconstitutional % )IL;&RIO v R&PU?LIC +7CC$. D/$ )CR6 7$/ Rommel Jacinto Dantes )ilverio wants to c an3e is name to Mely and se2 entry in is 4irt certificate from male to female 4ecause of is se2 reassi3nment +trans3ender.0 RTC 3ranted in 7CC/ C6 reversed in 7CC, P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !, of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 I))U&9 *ON e is entitled to t e c an3e of name action >&LD9 NOT !0 Names are for purposes of identification9 6rt /$,1 CC +no c an3e of name wit out =udicial declaration.1 R6 "C-# +Clerical &rror Law.1 Rule 103 +c an3e of name. and Rule !C# +Cancellation of Correction of &ntries< su4stantial c an3e. 70 (rounds for C an3e of Name +)ec -1 R6 "C-#. a0 Difficult and ridiculous1 dis onora4le name 40 >a4itual and continual use c0 To avoid confusion /0 Petitioner as not s own any reasona4le cause and does not s ow t at is name may pre=udice im -0 Case is administrative rat er t an =udiciary D0 C an3e of se2 not allowed 4ecause civil status is immuta4le and in erent ,0 No special law yet for se2 c an3e1 until t en se2 is determined 4y t e se2 at t e time of 4irt as resulted 4y visual inspection of medical attendant0 $0 T ou3 we 3et your point and sympat i8e wit you1 it5s not wit in t e province of t e Court to amend laws0 Gou5re 4ar@in3 at t e wron3 tree0 (o to t e Con3ress and as@ t em to pass a 4ill for you0 % (odofredo married Luida wit t e 4elief t at s e was a vir3in0 #" days after t e marria3e cele4ration1 Luida 3ave 4irt 0 >er us4and (odofredo erein appellant filed for annulment on t e 3round t at s e concealed er nonvir3inity0 I))U&9 *ON marria3e is valid >&LD9 * ere t ere as 4een no misrepresentation or fraud1 t at is1 w en t e us4and at t e time of t e marria3e @new t at t e wife was pre3nant1 t e marria3e cannot 4e annulled0 >ere1 t e c ild was 4orn less t an / mont s after t e cele4ration of marria3e0 Court refuses to annul t e marria3e for t e reason t at t e woman was at an advanced sta3e of pre3nancy at t e time of t e marria3e and suc condition must ave 4een patent to t e us4and0 &I(&NM6NN v (U&RR6 +!",-. D C060 Rep0 #/, &duardo &i3enmann married Maryden (uerra on !"D$0 Two years later1 &i3enmann filed an action to annul is marria3e wit (uerra on t e 3round t at e was 4etween a3es !,%7C at t at time and is mot er did not 3ive er consent to t e marria3e0 I))U&9 *ON t ere was parental consent1 t e a4sence of w ic could render t e marria3e void0 >&LD9 Consent may 4e 3iven in any form 4e it written1 oral or even 4y implication0 &i3enmann5s mot er was present at t e time of t e cele4ration of marria3e and did not o4=ect t ereto1 suc t at consent can 4e 3leaned from suc act0 % &i3enmann is also estopped from assertin3 t at e was a minor at t e time of t e marria3e cele4ration1 avin3 represented imself to 4e over 7D years of a3e0 6rt - 64sence of any essential or formal K void1 e2cept 6rt /D+7. Defect in t e essential re'uirement K voida4le +6rt -D. Irre3ularity in t e formal re'uirement K no effect in validity1 4ut t e parties responsi4le will 4e civilly1 criminally or administratively lia4le ?0 Consent freely 3iven in t e presence of solemni8in3 officer P&OPL& v )6NTI6(O +!"7$. D! Phil ,# Felipe )antia3o as@ed is deceased wife5s niece Felicita Masilan31 !#1 to accompany im on an errand Upon crossin3 a river and reac in3 municipality of )an Leonardo1 )atina3o e2pressed is se2ual desire to w ic 3irl declined1 4ut e persisted on wit force a3ainst er will T e two proceeded to accused5s uncle ouse1 63apito )antia3o w o called a Protestant minister to conduct a weddin30 6fter t e weddin31 )antia3o sent ome t e 3irl wit some money to 4uy 4read0 I))U&9 *ON t e marria3e e2empted im from criminal lia4ility >&LD9 NoT Ta@in3 into consideration )antia3o5s 4e avior 4efore and after t e marria3e1 t ere is no serious intention to marry t e 3irl e2cept for to avoid criminal lia4ility for t e rape case0 % (irl was under duress and t erefore1 lac@ of consent +essential re'uisite. w ic ma@es t e marria3e void ?UCC6T v M6N(ONON D& ?UC6T +!"-!. $7 Phil !" 70 FORM6L R&SUI)IT&) +6rt /. K e2trinsic 60 6ut ority of solemni8in3 officer % * o may aut ori8e t e marria3e +6rt $. a0 incum4ent mem4er of =udiciary 40 priest1 ra44i1 imam or minister of any reli3ious sect % duly reco3ni8ed 4y t e reli3ion1 % re3istered in Civil Re3istry % actin3 wit in t e limit of is aut ority P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H

Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !$ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % at least one of t e spouses is mem4er of t e sect c0 s ip captain and airplane c ief only in 6rt /! d0 military commander to w ic c aplain is assi3ned in 6rt /7 e0 consul%3eneral1 consul1 vice%consul for Filipinos a4road AMayors are aut ori8ed 4y L(C to solemni8e marria3e N6;6RRO v DOM6(TOG +!"",. 7D" )CR6 !7" Jud3e >ernando Doma3toy solemni8ed t e marria3e 4etween Floriano )umaylo and (emma del Rosario outside is court5s =urisdiction0 >e as =urisdiction in MCTC of )ta0 Monica?ur3os1 4ut t e marria3e was solemni8ed in Dapa w ic does not fall under is =urisdictional area0 Mayor Rodolfo Navarro filed t is administrative complaint0 I))U&9 *ON respondent =ud3e s ould 4e eld lia4le1 and w et er t is will render t e marria3e void0 >&LD9 Marria3e may 4e solemni8ed 4y1 amon3 ot ers1 any incum4ent mem4er of t e =udiciary wit in t e court5s =urisdiction0 )olemni8ation outside t e =ud3e5s territorial =urisdiction will not invalidate t e marria3e0 * at results is an irre3ularity in t e formal re'uisites of a valid marria3e0 Respondent =ud3e1 4y citin3 6rt # of t e FC as defense for t e e2ercise of is misplaced aut ority1 acted in 3ross i3norance of t e law and was t erefore eld administratively lia4le K suspension of , mont s0 % Irre3ularity in formal re'uisite K no effect in marria3e validity 6R6Y&) v OCCI6NO +7CC7. /#C )CR6 -C7 Petitioner Mercedita 6raZes c ar3ed respondent =ud3e )alvador Occiano for 3ross i3norance of t e law0 Occiano solemni8ed t e marria3e 4etween erein petitioner and t e late Dominador Oro4ia wit out t e re'uisite marria3e license and outside is territorial =urisdiction0 Couple lived to3et er as us4and and wife until t e deat of Oro4ia0 ?ut t en since t e marria3e was a nullity1 petitioner5s ri3 t to in erit t e vast property left 4y Oro4ia was not reco3ni8ed0 Respondent e2plained t at e solemni8ed t e marria3e out of uman compassion and 4ecause t e parties promised to present t eir license t e afternoon after t e weddin30 I))U&9 *ON t e respondent =ud3e administratively lia4le0 >&LD9 Ges0 >e was faulted for solemni8in3 a marria3e wit out t e re'uisite marria3e license and for e2ceedin3 is territorial =urisdiction0 >e was fined PDCCC and was 3iven a stern warnin3 4y t e )C t at repetition of t e same or similar offense would 4e dealt more severely0 T e a4sence of a marria3e license made t e marria3e void0 6nd even if t e plaintiff retracted er complaint1 t at5s not ow it is done0 *it drawal of complaint X e2oneration ?0 ;alid marria3e license e2cept for marria3es of e2ceptional c aracter 6rt " 6rt 6rt ML o4tained in a4itual residence of one of t e parties !C Re'uirements of Filipino marria3es a4road settled in t e consular office w ic will ta@e over t e duties of local civil re3istry !! Two separate application for one marria3e license w ic s all specify t e followin39 !0 full name 70 place of 4irt /0 a3e and date of 4irt -0 civil status D0 if previously married1 ow1 w en1 w ere t e previous marria3e was dissolved or annulled ,0 present residence and citi8ens ip $0 de3ree of relations ip of t e contractin3 parties #0 full name1 residence and citi8ens ip of t e fat er "0 full name1 residence and citi8ens ip of t e mot er !C0 full name1 residence and citi8ens ip of t e 3uardian1 person avin3 c ar3e1 in case orp aned !7 Proof of a3e a0 ori3inal or certified copy of 4irt certificate 40 ori3inal or certified copy of 4aptismal certif c0 residence certificate witnessed 4y 7 witnesses prefera4ly ne2t of @in Proof of a3e dispensed wit if9 a0 parents appear personally 40 local civil re3istrar convinced 4y mere loo@in3 +read9 mu@ an3 matanda na. c0 previously married !/ If previous marria3es1 not 4irt cert is re'uired 4ut9 a0 if no deat certificate is availa4le1 deat certificate of deceased spouse affidavit a4out circumstance and civil status 40 =udicial decree of a4solute divorceN=udicial decree of annulmentNdeclaration of nullity c0 declaration of presumptive deat !- if !#%7!1 t en parental consent !D if 7!%7D1 t en parental advice !, if anyone is re'uired wit parental consent or advice1 4ot s all under3o marria3e counselin30 Failure to attac certificate of 6rt 6rt 6rt 6rt 6rt P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !# of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 PD ",D 6rt !$ 6rt !# 6rt !" 6rt 7C 6rt 7! 6rt 77 6rt 7/ 6rt 7- 6rt 7D 6rt 7, accomplis ment suspends issuance for "C days0 +!"$,. mandatory family plannin3 and responsi4le parent ood !C consecutive days of postin3 in 4ulletin 4oard impediments noted in t e application for marria3e pay for issuance of ML<

indi3ents e2empted valid for !7C days anyw ere in t e P ilippines1 automatically cancelled at e2piration &it er or 4ot are forei3ners9 certificate of le3al capacity to marry from consular officials )tateless persons or refu3ees9 affidavit s owin3 capacity to marry Marria3e certificate s ould state t e followin39 a0 full name1 se2 and a3e of eac contractin3 party 40 citi8ens ip1 reli3ion and a4itual residence c0 date and precise time of t e cele4ration of marria3e d0 marria3e license num4er e0 secured parental consent if needed f0 complied wit parental advice if needed 30 if entered into marria3e settlement1 attac copy Duties of solemni8in3 officer a0 furnis couple wit ori3inal marria3e certificate 40 furnis local civil re3istrar wit duplicate and triplicate wit in !D days after t e marria3e c0 @eep wit im t e ori3inal marria3e license1 'uadruplicate of t e marria3e certificate and affidavit of t e contractin3 party to old marria3e elsew ere as said in 6rt # Duties of local civil re3istrar a0 prepare documents re'uired 4y t is Title 40 administer oat s to all interested parties wit out any c ar3e c0 e2empt from documentary stamp ta2 lo3 in re3istry 4oo@ every marria3e and details marria3es validly solemni8ed in ot er countries are valid ere e2cept for t e followin39 /D +!. under !# /D +-. 4i3amousNpoly3amous e2cept for 6rt -! /D +D. mista@e of identity /D +,. void under 6rt D/ /, psyc olo3ical incapacity /$ incestuous /# pu4lic policy T e followin3 are e2empted from o4tainin3 marria3e license 6rt 7$ * en eit er or 4ot of t e parties are in articulo mortis1 even if t e ailin3 survives +e030 screenplay *alan3 )u3at. 6rt 7# If t e residence of eit er party is in a remote location and transportation is impossi4le + orse ride and distant wal@in3 does not count. 6rt /! Marria3e in articulo mortis 4etween passen3ers or crews 4y s ip captain or airplane c ief1 w et er in sea1 in fli3 t or stopovers 6rt /7 Military commander of a unit1 in articulo mortis1 4etween civilians or mem4ers of armed forces wit in t e 8one of military operations 6rt // 6mon3 Muslims and et nic communities as lon3 as in accordance wit t eir custom law 6rt /- Man and woman w o ave lived to3et er as us4and and wife for five years and no le3al impediment R&PU?LIC v C6 and 6n3elina Castro +!""-. 7/, )CR6 7D$ % % % 6n3elina Castro and &dwin Cardenas were married in a civil ceremony performed 4y Jud3e Pa4lo Malvar0 T eir marria3e was un@nown to Castro5s parents a@a secret marria3e0 Defendant Cardenas was personally responsi4le for t e processin3 of t e documents1 includin3 t e procurement of marria3e license0 Couple did not immediately live to3et er1 4ut only until Castro 4ecame pre3nant0 T ey parted ways after - mont s1 t ereafter s e 3ave 4irt 0 ?a4y was adopted 4y er 4rot er wit t e consent of Cardenas1 and is now in U)0 In tryin3 to put into marital status in order 4efore leavin3 to t e U) to follow er dau3 ter1 s e sou3 t a =udicial declaration of nullity1 avin3 discovered t at t ere was no marria3e license issued to Cardenas prior to marria3e cele4ration0 6s proof Castro offered in evidence a certification +due searc and ina4ility to find despite dili3ence. from Pasi3 Civil Re3ister t at license num4er does not appear in t e records0 Cardenas failed to answer t e complaint1 t us was declared in default0 % I))U&9 *ON proof of a4sence of marria3e license presented 4y Castro as evidence is sufficient to render marria3e void0 >&LD9 Ges0 !0 T e certification of Edue searc and ina4ility to findF issued 4y civil re3istrar of Pasi3 en=oys pro4ative value0 It was t en sufficiently proved t at civil re3istrar5s office did not issue marria3e license no0 /!",!#7 to t e contractin3 parties0 70 T e failure of Castro to offer any ot er witness to corro4orate er testimony is mainly due to t e M6RRI6(&) OF &:C&PTION6L C>6R6CT&R P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !" of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 peculiar circumstances of t e case K Esecret marria3e0F /0 For is failure to answer despite notices1 Cardenas was declared in default0 Private respondent Castro cannot 4e faulted for er us4and5s lac@ of interest to participate in t e proceedin3s0 MOR&NO v ?&RN6?& +!""D. 7-, )CR6 !7C Marilou Moreno filed t is administrative complaint a3ainst Jud3e Jose ?erna4e for 3rave misconduct and i3norance of t e law0 )&(UI)6?6L v C6?R&R6 +!"#!. !C, )CR6 ,$ Jud3e Ca4rera c ar3ed wit 3ross i3norance of t e law for avin3 solemni8ed t e marria3e of Jaime )ayson and Marlyn Ja3onoy wit out a marria3e license0 % % % ) e and Marcelo Moreno were married 4efore Jud3e ?erna4e0 ) e averred t e ?erna4e assured er t at t e marria3e

contract will 4e released !C days after Octo4er -1 !""/0 ) e found out t at s e could not 3et er marria3e contract 4ecause t e Office of t e Local Civil Re3istrar failed to issue a marria3e license0 ) e claimed t at respondent =ud3e connived wit relatives of private respondent Marcelo Moreno to deceive er0 % Jud3e[s story9 Contractin3 parties and t eir families came to im 4earin3 a marria3e contract0 T eir re'uest to ave t e marria3e officiated was of suc ur3ency t at t e =ud3e conceded after ma@in3 t em promise to deliver t e marria3e license t at same afternoon0 Unfortunately1 no marria3e license was delivered0 64out a year later1 Marlyn Ja3onoy went to see t e =ud3e1 tellin3 im s e needed proof of er marria3e to Jaime )ayson in order to secure t e 4enefits accorded to Jaime[s family after is deat as a soldier0 T e =ud3e 3ave a copy of t e marria3e contract to Ja3onoy and told er to present t e same to t e local civil re3istrar and to ave t em issue er a marria3e license0 Local civil re3istrar naturally refused to issue said license +\for t e reason t at t e parties ave not attended t e Family Plannin3 seminar\. % % I))U&9 *ON t e marria3e is valid and =ud3e lia4le >&LD9 T e marria3e was void due to t e a4sence of a marria3e license0 T e Court affirmed t e recommendation of t e Office of t e Court 6dministrator w ic investi3ated on t e case t at respondent =ud3e was lia4le for misconduct for solemni8in3 a marria3e wit out a marria3e license0 It also said t at t e respondent =ud3e5s claim of 3ood intentions could never =ustify violation of t e law0 P&OPL& v ?ORROM&O +!"#-. !// )CR6 !C, &lias ?orromeo 3uilty 4eyond reasona4le dou4t of parricide1 claimin3 t at e s ould only 4e c ar3ed wit omicide since e and is partner were not le3ally married1 t ere 4ein3 no marria3e contract e2ecuted durin3 t eir c urc weddin30 I))U&9 *ON t e a4sence of a marria3e contract is sufficient to render a marria3e void0 >&LD9 T e Court ruled in t e ne3ative1 for t e fact t at no record of t e marria3e e2isted in t e re3istry is not enou3 to invalidate t e marria3e0 For as lon3 as all t e re'uisites for t e marria3e were present in t e cele4ration t ereof1 t e marria3e su4sists0 Presumption is always for t e validity of t e marria3e0 % 6lso1 durin3 t e trial1 &lias ?orromeo admitted t at e was married to t e victim0 T e Court too@ co3ni8ance of t is fact and articulated t at t ere was no 4etter proof of marria3e t an t e admission of one of t e parties of t e e2istence of suc marria3e0 Furt ermore1 t e accused and victim ave lived to3et er as us4and and wife and even ad one c ild0 )ince t e presumption of law is in favor of t e marria3e1 all evidence points to &lias ?orromeo[s conviction of parricide0 % >&LD9 64sent t e formal re'uisite of a marria3e license1 t e marria3e was void0 Jud3e s ould not ave solemni8ed t e marria3e wit out first securin3 said license0 Despite t e assertions of 3ood fait 1 t e =ud3e was fined an e'uivalent of is t ree mont s5 salary0 6LC6NT6R6 v 6LC6NT6R6 +7CC$. D/! )CR6 --, Restituto and Rosita 6lcantara went to t e Manila City >all in !"#7 to loo@ for someone w o could \fi2\ t e marria3e for t em1 as t ey ad not t en secured a marria3e license0 6 Efi2erF conducted t e ceremony ri3 t t en and t ere and also contracted a priest w o solemni8ed t e marria3e in !"#/0 % ML was issued 4y t e local civil re3istrar of Carmona1 Cavite to w ic neit er of t em resides0 T e parties were 3iven a marria3e contract 4earin3 a marria3e license num4er t at1 o4viously 4ecause of a typo3rap ical error1 did not accurately coincide wit t e ori3inal marria3e license num4er0 I))U&9 *ON t e irre3ularities in t e issuance of t e marria3e license are sufficient to render t e marria3e void0 >&LD9 )ince t e marria3e was contracted 4efore t e effectivity of t e Family Code1 6rticle D/ of t e Civil Code applies0 It states t at \no marria3e s all 4e solemni8ed t e followin3 re'uisites are complied wit 9 +!. le3al capacity of t e contractin3 parties< +7. t eir consent1 freely 3iven< +/. aut ority of t e P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#% 7CC" Pa3e 7C of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 person performin3 t e marria3e< and +-. a marria3e license1 e2cept in a marria3e of e2ceptional c aracter0 In t is case1 a marria3e contract 4earin3 t e marria3e license num4er and a certification from t e civil re3istrar were presented as evidence0 % T e inconsistency 4etween t e num4er +$CD-C//. in t e license indicated in t e certification of t e municipal civil re3istrar and t e num4er +$CD-!//. typed onto t e marria3e contract was considered a typo3rap ical error and t erefore ad no 4earin30 % T e fact t at neit er

of t e contractin3 parties was a resident of Carmona1 Cavite was seen as an irre3ularity t at cannot invalidate t e marria3e0 % Plaintiff s ould not 4e made to 4enefit from is own action and 4e allowed to e2tricate imself w en situation is no lon3er palata4le to is tasteNlifestyle + e as t ree c ildren wit mistress and c ar3ea4le of concu4ina3e. % T ey contracted second marria3e +reli3ious. after less t an a year w ic used t e same ML and marria3e contract I))U&9 *ON t e ceremony erewit descri4ed fulfilled t e formal re'uisite of a marria3e ceremony0 >&LD9 Ges0 T ere was a proper ceremony9 si3nin3 a statement t at declares t at t ey ta@e eac ot er as us4and and wife is sufficient0 In s ort1 t e declaration of t e parties need not 4e ver4al0 6rticle , of t e Family Code clearly articulates t at no particular form of marria3e ceremony is re'uired0 For as lon3 as t e contractin3 parties personally appear 4efore a solemni8in3 officer and ma@e a declaration in t e presence of not less t an two witnesses of le3al a3e t at t ey ta@e eac ot er as us4and and wife1 t e formal re'uisite of ceremony is complied wit 0 M6DRID&JO v D& L&ON +!"/C. DD Phil ! Flaviana Pere8 was married to Pedro Madride=o in articulo mortis0 ) e died t e day after t e weddin30 T e priest w o solemni8ed t e marria3e failed to send a copy of t e marria3e certificate to t e municipal secretary0 I))U&9 *ON t e failure to send t e copy of marria3e certification would render t e marria3e void0 >&LD9 No0 T e failure of t e priest to send a copy of t e marria3e certificate is a mere irre3ularity0 Conse'uently1 t e marria3e was valid0 C0 Ceremony % No prescri4ed form of ceremony1 w at matters is9 +6rt ,. a0 personal appearance of spouses +No pro2y allowed0 Marria3e via we4cam1 unli@ely to 4e valid0. 40 ta@e eac ot er as us4and and wife in presence of solemni8in3 officer c0 si3n marria3e certificate d0 at least two witnesses of le3al a3e % * ere can t e marria3e 4e solemni8edB +6rt #. a0 c am4ers of =ud3e1 open court1 c urc 1 c apel or temple 40 office of consul%3eneral1 consul1 vice consul c0 &:C&PT % articulo mortis +6rt 7$. % remote place1 no means of transportation +6rt 7#. % 4ot parties5 written re'uest1 sworn statement +6rt #. M6RTIN&P v T6N +!"C". !7 Phil $/! Rosalia Martine8 and 6n3el Tan sent a petition to t e =ustice of t e peace statin3 t at t ey wanted to enter into a contract of marria3e0 T e =ustice of t e peace1 t e two contractin3 parties1 and two witnesses of le3al a3e1 t en si3ned a document ratifyin3 t e a4ove petition and affirmin3 t at t e si3natories were actually present on t e day indicated in t e =ustice[s office0 Martine8 and Tan were t en issued a certificate of marria3e0 T e =ustice pronounced t em man and wife0 Martine8 and Tan did not live to3et er as us4and and wife after t e ceremony 4ecause Martine8 parents were a3ainst t e relations ip0 /0 PR&)UMPTION O F M6RRI6(& CC1 6rt 77C In case of dou4t1 all presumptions favor t e solida or facts leans toward t e validity of marria3e1 t e indissolu4 c ildren1 t e community of property durin3 marria3e1 t e au validity of defense for any mem4er of t e family in case of unla )ec / +aa.1 Rule !/! of Rules of Court T at a man and wom ave entered into a lawful contract of marria3e< Marria3e contract is only of evidentiary value1 t ere are also ot er means to prove t e e2istence of marria3e9 a0 4irt or 4aptismal certificate of c ildren 4earin3 t e name of t e spouses as parents 40 couple5s pu4lic co a4itation as spouses c0 testimonies from witnesses d0 documentary p otos and videos of t e weddin3 TRINID6D v C61 Feli2 and Lourdes Trinidad +!""#. 7#" )CR6 !## Patricio Trinidad and 6nastacia ?riones were t e parents of Inocentes1 Lourdes1 and Feli20 % * en Patricio died in !"-C1 survived 4y t e a4ove named c ildren1 e left four parcels of land0 6rturo Trinidad1 4orn July !"-/1 claimed to P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e 7! of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % 4e t e le3itimate son of Inocentes ma@in3 im a compulsory eir0 Lourdes and Feli21 on t e ot er and1 denied 6rturo[s claim1 contendin3 t at Inocentes died sin3le0 6rturo now as to prove t at Inocentes and is mot er were validly married and t at e was 4orn durin3 t e su4sistence of said marria3e0 I))U&9 *ON Inocentes and 6rturo5s mot er were validly married >&LD9 T e Court cited a particular case w ic ruled t at w en t e 'uestion of w et er a marria3e as 4een contracted arises in liti3ation1 said marria3e may 4e proven 4y +a. t e testimony of a witness to t e

matrimony1 +4. t e couple[s pu4lic and open co a4itation as us4and and wife after t e alle3ed wedloc@1 +c. t e 4irt and t e 4aptismal certificates of c ildren 4orn durin3 suc union1 and +d. t e mention of suc nuptial in su4se'uent documents0 For is part1 6rturo was only a4le to present a certificate from t e local civil re3istrar t at all documents of 4irt 1 marria3e1 and deat +in 6@lan. were eit er 4urned1 lost1 or destroyed durin3 t e Japanese occupation of t e municipality0 In place of t e marria3e contract1 petitioner presented two witnesses1 one testified t at s e was present durin3 t e nuptials1 and t e ot er t at t e couple co a4ited as us4and and wife0 T is last witness also stated t at s e visited t e couple[s ouse at t e time of petitioner[s 4irt 0 Tolentino[s annotation to 6rticle 7/ of t e Family Code mi3 t prove relevant to t is case9 T ere is a prima facie presumption t at a man and a woman livin3 maritally under t e same roof are le3ally married0 T e reason is t at suc is t e common order of society1 and if t e parties were not w at t ey eld t emselves out as 4ein31 t ey would 4e livin3 in constant violation of decency and law0 T e presumption of marria3e is re4utta4le only 4y co3ent proof to t e contrary0 )ince 6rturo[s witnesses attested to is parents[ pu4lic co a4itation as us4and and wife1 marria3e can 4e presumed0 T e ot er party t en 4ears t e 4urden of proof in contestin3 t e marria3e of 6rturo[s parents0 ;D60 D& J6CO? v C6 and Pedro Pilapil +!""". /!7 )CR6 $$7 Tomasa ;da0 de Jaco4 claims to 4e t e survivin3 spouse of Dr0 6lfredo &0 Jaco4 and was appointed )pecial 6dministratri2 of is estates 4y virtue of a reconstructed marria3e contract 4etween t em0 Pedro Pilapil1 t e doctor[s alle3ed adopted son1 claims t at t e marria3e 4etween Tomasa and Dr0 Jaco4 was void since +!. no marria3e license and +7. only a reconstructed marria3e contract0 >&LD9 Re3ardin3 t e first issue1 t e Court reco3ni8ed t at t e contractin3 parties ave 4een livin3 to3et er as us4and and wife for more t an five years 4efore t e solemni8ation of t e marria3e so t at t ey were e2empt from t e marria3e license re'uirement0 In answer to t e second issue1 t e Court e2plained t at t ou3 t e primary evidence of a marria3e must 4e an aut entic copy of t e marria3e contract1 secondary evidence provin3 t e same is admissi4le provided t at +!. due e2ecution of t e document and +7. su4se'uent loss of t e ori3inal instrument are first proven0 ?ot +!. and +7. were in fact esta4lis ed from t e preponderance of evidence presented durin3 t e trial< p oto3rap s of t e weddin31 letter of t e solemni8in3 officer1 statement of t e officer t at t e marria3e certificate was lost1 etc0 6lso1 t e testimony of one of t e parties to t e marria3e as 4een eld admissi4le as proof of t e fact of marria3e0 Furt ermore1 t e presumption in cases li@e t is is always in favor of marria3e0 Persons dwellin3 to3et er in apparent matrimony are presumed1 in t e a4sence of any counter%presumption or evidence special to t e case1 to 4e in fact married0 )&;ILL6 v C6RD&N6) +7CC,. -"$ )CR6 -7# )evilla as@s for a declaration of nullity of is marria3e to Cardenas on t e 3round t at t e marria3e was solemni8ed wit out t e parties[ first securin3 a marria3e license0 Cardenas ar3ued to t e contrary1 sayin3 t at t ey were married in civil rites wit Marria3e License No0 7$$C$"70 T e local civil re3istrar was as@ed to furnis evidence affirmin3 t e e2istence of said marria3e license0 T e representative w o appeared in court claimed t at t ey could not find t e re3istry 4oo@ supposedly containin3 t e relevant information to t is case 4ecause t e person in c ar3e as already retired0 % Irrelevant 4ut interestin3 facts9 Intertu od se2 and @nee fetis 0 (uy5s mom sent 3uy to )pain to 3o to med sc ool1 4ut w ile e was t ere e didn5t really study >&LD9 Loss of t e re3istry 4oo@ cannot 4e ta@en as proof of t e non%issuance of a marria3e license0 No certification li@e in 6lcantara case sayin3 t at due P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e 77 of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 searc was conducted0 Instead1 t e letter said t at Eno full attention 3iven 4ec of loaded wor@F % T e presumption of t e law is in favor of t e validity of t e marria3e so t at in t e a4sence of sufficient evidence a3ainst it1 t e marria3e su4sists0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e 7/ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 ;0 ;OID Q ;OID6?L& M6RRI6(& 60 ;oid Marria3es !0 (ROUND) I0 II0 !0 70 !"/, !"-! !"-/ !"-" 6rturo Mendo8a married Jovita De 6sis Mendo8a married Ol3a Lema1 wit su4sistin3 marria3e

Jovita died in !"-/ Mendo8a married Carmencita Panlilio1 it was for t is last marria3e t at e was prosecuted for 4i3amy0 >&LD9 Mendo8a is not 3uilty of 4i3amy for t e t ird marria3e 4ecause marria3e wit Lema was void for 4i3amy1 4ein3 contracted w en De 6sis was still alive0 * en e wed Panlilio1 is marria3e wit De 6sis was no lon3er su4sistin3 4y reason of t e latter[s deat 0 TOL&NTINO v P6R6) +!"#/. (0R0 No0 L%-/"CD 6rt - K 64sence of formal or essential re'uisite 6rt /D K Marria3es void a4 initio one is under !# years old solemni8ed 4y a person not aut ori8ed to perform marria3e1 e2cept w en eit er or 4ot spouses 4elieve in 3ood fait t at e as t e power to do so solemni8ed wit out a valid marria3e license 4i3amous or poly3amous e2cept under 6rt -! mista@e of identity su4se'uent marria3e void under 6rt D/ 63e K essential re'uisite )olemni8in3 Officer K formal re'uisite Marria3e License K formal re'uisite Le3al impediment K essential re'uisite Consent K essential re'uisite % % )erafia Tolentino files for rectification of deceased us4and5s deat certificate to place er as survivin3 spouse Tolentino contracted a marria3e wit Maria Clemente durin3 t e su4sistence of a prior marria3e0 >e was convicted of and served sentence for 4i3amy0 6fter completin3 t e term for is conviction1 e went 4ac@ to is second wife0 Tolentino[s deat certificate ad t e name of t e Maria Clemente as t e survivin3 spouse instead of )erafia0 /0 -0 >&LD9 )erafia1 t e first wife1 is Tolentino[s survivin3 spouse0 Tolentino[s conviction for 4i3amy is t e 4est proof t at is second marria3e was void0 *I&(&L v )&MPIO%DG +!"#,. !-/ )CR6 -"" Iarl *ie3el files for annulment of marria3e wit Lilia Olivia 4ecause s e previously married &duardo Ma2ion0 >owever Lilia says t at t e marria3e was contracted under duress0 6lt ou3 woman 4elieves t e marria3e is void1 w en t e us4and learned a4out Olivia[s previous marria3e1 e filed for a declaration of nullity0 >&LD9 Olivia[s first marria3e is merely voida4le1 er consent 4ein3 vitiated 4y force0 >er second marria3e is void 4ecause it was contracted w ile a prior marria3e was su4sistin30 6lt ou3 t e marria3e is void1 )empio%Diy says t at t ere s ould 4e le3al declaration of nullity for void marria3es or final =ud3ment of annulment for voida4le marria3es )C dismisses case sayin3 marria3e is not a matter of private contract and personal adventure0 AT e decision laid down in t is case ad NO L&(6L ?6)I)0 T e Civil Code does not re'uire a final =ud3ment of nullity in marria3es void a4 initio0 To 'uote Ma5am ?et 9 EInim4ento lan3 yan ni )empio%DiyTF D0 ,0 FC1 6rt -C 64solute nullity of t e previous marria3e for t e purpose of remarria3e may 4e invo@ed only t rou3 a =udicial declaration of nullity % % T is provision is retroactive1 re3ardless w en t e marria3e was cele4rated0 +)ee 6tien8a v ?rillantes0. Judicial declaration of nullity of t e first marria3e protects t e spouse and prevents a su4se'uent marria3e contracted 4y imN er from 4ecomin3 4i3amous0 6lso1 so t at everyt in3 will 4e crystal clear 4etween t e two e2%spouses0 Ot er uses of =udicial declaration of nullity of marria3e9 o Li'uidation1 partition and distri4ution o )eparation of property 4etween spouses o Custody and support of c ildren o Delivery of c ildren5s presumptive le3itime P&OPL& v M&NDOP6 +!"D-. "D Phil #-D P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e 7- of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 T&RR& v T&RR& +!""7. 7!! )CR6 , !"DC< t e Family Code 4ecame effective 6u3ust C/1 !"##.0 % % Dorot y and Jordan Terre met w en t e latter was in law sc ool0 Jordan was persistent in as@in3 for Dorot y[s and in marria3e1 even e2plainin3 to er t at er marria3e to a certain Mercelito envei3led t e ?ercinilla was void a4 initio 4ecause t ey were first cousins0 woman >e furt er reiterated t at t ere was no need for Dorot y to secure a court declaration re3ardin3 t e nullity of t at marria3e0 Convinced wit Jordan[s word1 t e two entered into a contract of marria3e0 Gears later1 Jordan suddenly disappeared0 It was found out t at e married a certain ;ilma Malicdem1 3ivin3 Dorot y a 3round for filin3 a3ainst im a case of 4i3amy0 ?tw1 Dorot y spent for is law sc ool e2penses and even 3ave im allowances0 % % T e Court answered t is 4y statin3 t at 6rticle -C is applica4le to remarria3es entered into after t e effectivity of t e Family Code1 re3ardless of t e date of t e first marria3e0 ?esides1 under 6rticle 7D, of t e Family Code1 said 6rticle is 3iven \retroactive effect insofar as it does not pre=udice or impair vested or ac'uired ri3 ts in accordance wit t e Civil

Code or ot er laws0\ Jud3e ?rillantes as not s own any vested ri3 t t at was impaired 4y t e application of 6rticle -C to is case0 % ?ORJ6%M6NP6NO v )6NC>&P +7CC!. /D- )CR6 ! Complaint filed 4y lawful wife of late David Man8ano w om respondent wed wit Lu8viminda Payao despite status of EseparatedF >&LD9 T at t e contractin3 parties ave 4een livin3 apart from t eir respective spouses for years did not dissolve t ose marria3e 4onds0 &ven free and voluntary co a4itation cannot severe t e ties of a su4sistin3 previous marria3e0 Furt ermore1 marital co a4itation for a lon3 period of time 4etween two individuals w o are le3ally capacitated to marry eac ot er is merely a 3round for e2emption from marria3e license0 It cannot serve as a =ustification for solemni8in3 a su4se'uent marria3e0 Man8ano and Payao[s marria3e is void for 4ein3 4i3amous0 Respondent =ud3e demonstrated 3ross i3norance of t e law w en e solemni8ed a void and 4i3amous marria3e0 6PI6( v C6NT&RO +!""$. 7,# )CR6 -$ Maria 6pia3 and Jud3e Cantero were married in a ceremony supposedly set up 4y t eir parents0 Two c ildren were 4orn out of t eir union0 T e =ud3e t en left 6pia3 wit no financial support w atsoever for er and t e c ildren0 Maria learned later on t at t e =ud3e ad contracted a second marria3e0 ) e t en filed a case of 4i3amy and falsification of document a3ainst t e =ud3e0 >&LD9 T e Court reiterated t e rule t at a marria3e t ou3 void still needs a =udicial declaration of suc fact 4efore any party t ereto can marry a3ain1 ot erwise t e second marria3e will also 4e void +6rticle -C of t e Family Code.0 I))U&9 *ON Jordan may 4e c ar3ed of 4i3amy >&LD9 6 =udicial declaration t at t e first marria3e is void is essential for contractin3 a su4se'uent marria3e0 Dorot y[s marria3e to Terre is void for 4ein3 4i3amous0 &ven if t e court were to assume for t e sa@e of ar3ument t at Jordan Terre eld in 3ood fait t e mista@en 4elief t at Dorot y[s marria3e to ?ercenilla was void a4 initio1 a case of 4i3amy will still follow0 >is first marria3e to complainant Dorot y must 4e deemed valid and is second marria3e to ;ilma Malicdem must 4e re3arded as 4i3amous0 % &ven if void marria3e1 it still needs =udicial declaration0 AMa5am ?et 9 EJordan is very inconsistent0 * atta lousy lawyer0F 6TI&NP6 v ?RILL6NT&) +!""D. 7-/ )CR6 /7 Jud3e ?rillantes and Penaida On3@i@o went t rou3 a marria3e ceremony solemni8ed 4y a town mayor and wit out a marria3e license0 T ey went t rou3 anot er marria3e ceremony1 a3ain wit out securin3 t e necessary marria3e license0 % Jud3e ?rillantes t en married Golanda De Castro1 sayin3 t at e was free to marry 4ecause under t e Civil Code is first marria3e was void0 >&LD9 Jud3e[s marria3e to On3@i@o was void1 4ut usin3 6rticle -C of t e Family Code1 e s ould ave first secured a =udicial declaration of t e nullity of is previous marria3e0 Jud3e ?rillantes ar3ued t at t e provision does not apply to im since is first marria3e was contracted in !",D and was still 3overned 4y t e Civil Code +w ic came into effect 6u3ust /C1 % % >owever1 Jud3e Cantero[s second marria3e too@ place 4efore t e promul3ation of *ie3el v0 )empio%Dy +!"#,. and 4efore t e effectivity of t e Family Code +!"##.0 >ence1 t e doctrine in Odayat v0 6mante1 w ere no =udicial decree is necessary to esta4lis t e invalidity of void marria3es1 is applica4le to is case0 T e =ud3e was free to contract a second marria3e wit out court declaration of t e nullity of t e first marria3e0 6nd since t e c ar3e of P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e 7D of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % % falsification is 4ased on a findin3 of 3uilt in t e 4i3amy c ar3e1 failure of t e 4i3amy aspect would li@ewise render t e falsification an3le invalid0 T e conduct of t e respondent =ud3e in is personal life falls s ort of court standards0 >owever1 t is mista@e s ould not totally destroy is career and deprive im or is eirs of t e fruits of is la4or0 For suc conduct1 t e court would ave imposed a penalty0 ?ut in view of is deat 1 dismissal of t e case was ordered0 It turns out 6pia3 and Cantero were only c ild ood sweet earts and married to save face 4ecause t e woman 3ot pre3nant0 )peculatively1 t e 6pia3s were after t eir s are in Cantero5s retirement 4enefits0 Interestin3 p rase9 EGout ful mista@e s ould not forever aunt =ud3e0 Man is not perfect0F 6rt /, K Psyc olo3ical incapacity % +7. compulsive 3am4lin3 or un4eara4le =ealousy1 +/. sociopat ic anomalies li@e sadism or infliction of p ysical violence1 constitutional la8iness or indolence1 dru3 dependence1 or some @ind of psyc ose2ual anomaly0 &it er party to t e

marria3e can file for a declaration of nullity0 6 spouse[s psyc olo3ical incapacity does not 4ar im or er from initiatin3 t e action for t e declaration of nullity0 III0 P)GC>OLO(IC6L INC6P6CITG 6n innovation of t e Family Code1 derived from 6rt !C"D of t e Canon Law Psyc olo3ical incapacity is not a vice of consent0 In fact1 a psyc olo3ically incapacitated party does 3ive a valid consent0 T e pro4lem lies in is or er ina4ility to fulfill t e o4li3ations arisin3 from t at consent0 6n e2ample of vice of consent is insanity0 No e2amples 3iven of psyc olo3ical incapacity 4ecause doin3 so would limit t e applica4ility of 6rticle /, under t e principle of e=usdem 3eneris0 T e psyc olo3ically incapacitated person is not dis'ualified from marryin3 a3ain1 especially if eNs e can find a partner w o would 4e a4le to accept is personality0 T e fact of is or er psyc olo3ical incapacity would 4e revealed anyway in t e application for a marria3e license for t e second marria3e and t e ot er party is t us placed on 3uard to conduct discreet investi3ation a4out t e matter0 T e followin3 3rounds may 4e mentioned as manifestations of psyc olo3ical incapacity1 accordin3 to Dr0 ;eloso of t e Metropolitan Marria3e Tri4unal of t e Cat olic 6rc diocese of Manila< +!. omose2uality or les4ianism1 +7. satyriasis or nymp omania1 +/. e2tremely low intelli3ence1 +-. immaturity1 +D. epilepsy1 +,. a4itual alco olism1 and +$. criminality0 Ot er manifestations1 accordin3 to ot er e2perts on c urc annulment1 would 4e +!. refusal of t e wife to dwell wit t e us4and after t e marria3e1 (UID&LIN&) L6ID DO*N IN R&PU?LIC v MOLIN6 !0 4urden of proof is on t e plaintiff1 su4=ect to investi3ation for collusion 70 root cause must 4e medicallyNclinically identified1 alle3ed in t e complaint and e2plained in t e decision /0 e2ist at t e time of t e marria3e -0 incura4le D0 3rave enou3 to 4rin3 a4out t e incapa4ility to fulfill marital o4li3ation ,0 cannot perform 6rt ,#%$!1 77C%77! and 225 $0 decision of t e National 6ppellate Matrimonial Tri4unal of Cat olic C urc s ould 4e o4served #0 state participation to protect sanctity of marria3e t rou3 t e fiscal or prosecutin3 attorney M6IN R&SUIR&M&NT) FOR P)GC>OLO(IC6L INC6P6CITG !0 =uridical antecedence +prior to t e marria3e. 70 incura4ility /0 3ravity )6NTO) v ?&DI6%)6NTO) +!""D. 7-C )CR6 7C Leouel )antos and Julia ?edia contracted a marria3e in !"#,0 T ey often ad 'uarrels 4ecause of t eir livin3 arran3ement0 T ey lived wit t e wife5s parents w o always intervened in t eir con=u3al affairs0 Julia t en left for t e United )tates as a nurse0 6fter seven mont s1 s e called er us4and to tell im s e will return t e followin3 year0 ) e never went ome t ou3 0 % % % % Leouel tried to locate er w en e was assi3ned in U) for trainin3 + e wa mem4er of t e 6rmed Force. 4ut is searc was to no avail0 Leouel t en filed for a declaration of nullity of marria3e1 ar3uin3 t at Julia[s failure to return ome and communicate wit im for more t an five years clearly s ows er 4ein3 psyc olo3ically incapacitated0 I))U&9 *ON Julia is psyc olo3ically incapacitated >&LD9 NO0 T e facts were not enou3 to s ow psyc olo3ical incapacity0 * at was s own was lac@ of willin3ness to comply wit marital o4li3ations0 T rou3 dicta1 t e Court also e2plained t at9 +!. T ere is ardly any dou4t t at t e intendment of t e law as 4een to confine t e meanin3 of % P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e 7, of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 psyc olo3ical incapacity to t e most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or ina4ility to 3ive meanin3 and si3nificance to t e marria3e0 +7. T at t e provision is open to a4use0 To prevent t is1 t e court s all order t e prosecutin3 attorney or fiscal assi3ned to it to appear on 4e alf of t e )tate to ta@e steps to prevent t e collusion 4etween parties and to ta@e care t at evidence is not fa4ricated or suppressed0 +/. In decidin3 t e case1 t e =ud3e must 4e 3uided 4y e2perience1 t e findin3s of e2perts and researc ers in psyc olo3ical disciplines1 and 4y decisions of c urc tri4unals w ic 1 alt ou3 not 4indin3 on t e civil courts1 may 4e 3iven persuasive effect since t e provision was ta@en from Canon Law0 R&PU?LIC v C6 and Roridel Molina +!""$. 7,# )CR6 !"# Roridel Molina filed a petition for declaration of nullity of er marria3e to Reynaldo Molina0 intercourse even if neit er party is impotent0 T e wife wanted to annul +instead of declaration of nullityB. t e marria3e 4ut t e us4and did not0 >&LD9 T e Court first e2plained t at t e action to declare a marria3e void can 4e

initiated 4y eit er party1 even 4y t e one w o[s incapacitated0 T is ma@es it immaterial to determine w ic spouse refuses to ave se2 wit t e ot er0 It t en went on to articulate t at \one marital o4li3ation is to procreate 4ased on t e universal principle t at procreation of c ildren t rou3 se2ual cooperation is t e 4asic end of marria3e0 Constant non%fulfillment of t is o4li3ation will finally destroy t e inte3rity or w oleness of t e marria3e0\ Insofar as t e case presented a 4reac of marital o4li3ation1 t ere is psyc olo3ical incapacity0 A6ccordin3 to Ma5am ?et 9 64normal reluctance or unwillin3ness to consummate marria3e is stron3ly indicative of a serious personality disorder0 It demonstrates utter insensitivity or ina4ility to 3ive meanin3 and si3nificance to t e marria3e0 )enseless and protracted refusal of one of t e parties to fulfill marital o4li3ations is e'uivalent to psyc olo3ical incapacity0 A6lso9 Tsoi5s love for is wife is e2ceptional0 >e doesn5t mind t e ris@ of divul3in3 to t e pu4lic is pac@a3e si8e to 4e discussed 4y law students in perpetuity if only to save t eir M6RCO) v M6RCO) +7CCC. /-/ )CR6 $DD ?ot spouses aremarria3e0 Poor 3uy0 mem4ers of 6FP and P)( for Marcos % % ) e claimed t at a year after t eir marria3e1 Reynaldo s owed si3ns of immaturity and irresponsi4ility +i0e0 spent all is time wit is friends1 depended on is parents for support1 was dis onest a4out t eir finances1 was a4itually 'uarrelsome.0 >e also lost is =o4 and from t en on Roridel 4ecame t e family[s 4readwinner0 T e couple ad 4een livin3 separately for more t an t ree years as of t e commencement of t is earin30 >&LD9 * at e2isted in t is case were irreconcila4le differences or conflictin3 personalities1 w ic in no wise constitute psyc olo3ical incapacity0 Court furt er said t at it is not enou3 to prove t at t e parties failed to meet t eir responsi4ilities and duties as married persons< it is essential t at t ey must 4e s own to 4e incapa4le of doin3 so1 due to some psyc olo3ical illness0 % % EMild c aracterolo3ical peculiarities1 mood c an3es and occasional emotional out4ursts cannot 4e accepted as root causes of psyc olo3ical incapacity0 T e illness must 4e s own as downri3 t incapacity or ina4ility1 not a refusal1 ne3lect or difficulty1 muc less ill will0 In ot er words1 t ere s ould 4e a natal or supervenin3 disa4lin3 factor in t e person1 an adverse inte3ral element in t e personality structure t at effectively incapacitates t e person from really acceptin3 and t ere4y complyin3 wit t e o4li3ations essential to marria3e0F % % ?renda married *ilson Marcos and ad five c ildren wit im0 Marcos was disc ar3ed from is =o4 and t is led to a series of 'uarrels wit is wife1 in w ic e did er p ysical arm0 >e was also wont to mistreatin3 is own c ildren0 T e couple t en started livin3 separately0 6t one time1 t e wife went to er us4and[s ouse to loo@ for t eir son0 >e was 3ravely an3ered 4y t is ran after er wit a samurai0 For failin3 to find wor@ and treatin3 is family violently1 t e Re3ional Trial Court found t e us4and psyc olo3ically incapacitated0 T is decision was denied 4y t e Court of 6ppeals1 reasonin3 t at1 ta@in3 t e totality of t e pieces of evidence presented1 psyc olo3ical incapacity was not manifest0 T)OI v C6 +!""$. 7,, )CR6 /7- % T e case of t e two inc er C inese +/ in w en erect. Ten mont s after marria3e1 C i Min3 Tsoi and (ina Lao still did not en3a3e in se2ual >&LD9 )upreme Court referred to t e 3uidelines laid out in Repu4lic vs0 Molina0 It ruled t e case in t e ne3ative1 statin3 t at +!. +4ased on =uridical antecedence. t ere was a4solutely no s owin3 t at Marcos[ defects were already present at t e inception of t e marria3e0 It was only after e lost is =o4 t at e 4ecame intermittently drun@1 failed to 3ive material and moral support1 and even left t e family ome0 6lso1 +7. +4ased on incura4ility. t ere P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e 7$ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 was no s owin3 t at is defects were incura4le1 especially now t at e[s 4een 3ainfully employed as a ta2i driver0 T rou3 dicta1 t e Court furt er articulated t at Repu4lic vs0 Molina included t e \medical and clinical identification\ of t e root cause of t e psyc olo3ical incapacity0 * at is important is t e presence of evidence t at can ade'uately esta4lis t e party[s psyc olo3ical condition0 For indeed1 if t e totality of evidence presented is enou3 to sustain a findin3 of psyc olo3ical incapacity1 t en actual medical e2amination of t e person concerned need not 4e resorted to0 T e Court even declared t at 6rticle /, s ould not 4e e'uated wit a divorce law or

le3al separation0 It is not a divorce law t at cuts t e marital 4ond at t e time t e causes t erefore manifest t emselves0 It is not le3al separation1 in w ic t e 3rounds need not 4e rooted on psyc olo3ical incapacity 4ut on p ysical violence1 moral pressure1 moral corruption1 civil interdiction1 dru3 addiction1 a4itual alco olism1 se2ual infidelity1 a4andonment and t e li@e0 +6t 4est1 t e evidence presented 4y t e wife in t is case refers only to 3rounds for le3al separation1 not for declarin3 a marria3e void0. C>O6 v C>O6 +7CC7. /"7 )CR6 !"# Case of t e incompetent psyc olo3ist< incompati4ility 6lfonso C oa filed for a declaration of nullity of marria3e 4ased on is wife[s psyc olo3ical incapacity0 T e case went to trial wit t e 6lfonso presentin3 evidence0 To t is t e wife replied wit a Motion to Dismiss or Demurrer to &vidence +w ic is an o4=ection or e2ception 4y one of t e parties in an action at law1 to t e effect t at t e evidence w ic is adversary produced is insufficient in point of law +w et er true or not. to ma@e out is case or sustain t e issue.0 T e RTC and C6 denied t e wife[s Motion to Dismiss0 I))U&9 *ON wife[s +!. immaturity1 +7. lac@ of attention to t eir c ildren1 and +/. lac@ of intention of pro%creative se2uality constitute psyc olo3ical incapacity0 >&LD9 T e evidence adduced 4y 6lfonso merely s ows t at e and is wife could not 3et alon30 T ere was a4solutely no s owin3 of t e 3ravity or =uridical antecedence or incura4ility of t e pro4lems 4esettin3 t eir marital union0 T e Court ere is of t e opinion t at a medical e2amination is not a condition sine 'ua non to a findin3 of psyc olo3ical incapacity1 so lon3 as t e totality of evidence presented is enou3 to esta4lis t e incapacity ade'uately0 >ere t e totality of evidence presented 4y respondent was completely insufficient to sustain a findin3 of psyc olo3ical incapacity % t e lac@ of medical1 psyc iatric or psyc olo3ical e2amination only worsens t e situation0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e 7# of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 6NTONIO v R&G&) +7CC,. -#- )CR6 /D/ Case of t e pat olo3ical liar % % 6ntonio filed for a declaration of nullity of is marria3e to Reyes1 w om e alle3ed is psyc olo3ically incapacitated1 as manifested in er a4itual lyin3 +t at one 4rot er%in%law attempted to rape and @ill1 t at s e was a psyc iatrist and free%lance voice talent w o[s distin3uis ed performer1 etc0. T ere were psyc iatrists w o testified for 4ot parties0 One used t e Compre ensive Psyc Pat olo3ical Ratin3 )cale +CPR). and said t at Reyes passed t e test and so was not psyc olo3ically incapacitated0 T e doctor from t e opposin3 party countered t e findin31 sayin3 t at t e test was not relia4le0 TC declared t e marria3e null and void0 ?efore its announcement of its decision1 t e Metropolitan Tri4unal of t e 6rc diocese of Manila annulled t e Cat olic marria3e of petitioner and respondent on t e 3round of lac@ of due discretion of 4ot parties0 T is decision was up eld 4y t e National 6ppellate Matrimonial Tri4unal 4ut stipulated t at only Reyes was impaired 4y a lac@ of due discretion0 )ame decision was up eld 4y t e Roman Rota of t e ;atican0 C6 eld ot erwise1 sayin3 t ere was insufficient evidence0 as to c aracter1 ealt 1 ran@1 fortune or c astity s all constitute suc fraud as will 3ive 3rounds for action for t e annulment of marria3e0\ It would 4e improper to draw lin@a3es 4etween misrepresentations made 4y Reyes and misrepresentation under 6rticles -D+/. and -,0 T e fraud under 6rticle -D+/. vitiates t e consent of t e spouse w o is lied to1 and does not allude to vitiated consent of t e lyin3 spouse0 In t is case1 t e misrepresentations of Reyes point to er own inade'uacy to cope wit er marital o4li3ations1 @indred to psyc olo3ical incapacity under 6rticle /,0 R&PU?LIC v CUI)ON%M&L(6R +7CC,. -#, )CR6 !$$ T e wife filed for declaration of nullity of marria3e 4ased on er us4and[s psyc olo3ical incapacity as manifested in is immaturity1 a4itual alco olism1 un4eara4le =ealousy1 maltreatment1 continual la8iness1 and a4andonment of t e family0 >&LD9 T e totality of evidence presented 4y t e wife was completely insufficient to esta4lis psyc olo3ical incapacity0 +!. T e wife alone testified in support of er complaint0 +7. ) e failed to esta4lis t e fact t at at t e time of t e cele4ration of t e marria3e er us4and was already sufferin3 from a psyc olo3ical defect0 +/. T ere was no evidence s owin3 t at t e us4and was not co3ni8ant of t e 4asic marital o4li3ations0 6t 4est1 t e circumstances relied upon 4y t e wife are 3round for le3al separation0 AMa5am ?et points out t e inconsistency

in t e rules9 No need for e2pert psyc olo3ical opinion 4ut presentin3 suc will Estren3t enF your case1 as t e court decision said somet in3 li@e Ecould ave increased er c ances of winnin3F P6R6) v P6R6) +7CC$. D7" )CR6 #! Rosa Paras filed for a declaration of nullity of er marria3e to Justo Paras on t e 3round of psyc olo3ical incapacity as manifested in is infidelity1 failure to support is c ildren1 a4andonment of t e family1 and falsification of documents0 Deat of t eir two c ildren1 t e family flew to )tates to recover0 * en t ey family return1 Justo said t at Rosa 4ecame cold to im T ey ad a 3asoline station w ic t e us4and usually 3ives for free for t e city 3overnment since e used to 4e t e mayor T e e2istence of an ille3itimate c ild Cyndee Rose Paras wit an alle3ed concu4ine named Loida C in30 >&LD9 * ile was not in3 caused 4y appeared to t e a4ove alle3ations were true1 t ere in t e records s owin3 t at t ey were psyc olo3ical incapacity0 Justo[s acts ave 4een t e result of irreconcila4le % >&LD9 +!. T e root cause of respondent[s psyc olo3ical incapacity as 4een medically or clinically identified1 alle3ed in t e complaint1 sufficiently proven 4y e2perts +t ere was no personal e2amination1 4ut Court cited Molina rulin3 sayin3 t at t e personal e2amination of t e su4=ect 4y t e p ysician is not re'uired.1 and clearly e2plained in t e trial court[s decision0 +7. T at t e psyc olo3ical incapacity was esta4lis ed to ave clearly e2isted at t e time of and even 4efore t e cele4ration of t e marria3e0 +/. T at t e 3ravity of respondent[s psyc olo3ical incapacity is sufficient to prove er disa4ility to assume t e essential o4li3ations of marria3e0 T e lies attri4uted to t e respondent indicate a failure on er part to distin3uis trut from fiction1 or at least a4ide 4y t e trut 0 One una4le to ad ere to reality cannot 4e e2pected to ad ere as well to any le3al or emotional commitments0 +-. T at t e Court of 6ppeals erred w en it did not consider t e fact t at t e marria3e was annulled 4y t e Cat olic C urc 0 T rou3 dicta1 t e Court also draw a distinction 4etween t e wife[s pat olo3ical lyin3 and t e implications of 6rticle -D+/. of t e Family Code w ic states t at a marria3e may 4e annulled if t e consent of eit er party was o4tained 4y fraud1 and 6rticle -, w ic enumerates t e circumstances constitutin3 fraud under t e previous article1 clarifyin3 t at \no ot er misrepresentation or deceit P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e 7" of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 differences 4etween im and is wife caused 4y t e deat of t eir c ildren and is failure in is professional endeavors0 T ere was t en no evidence t at Justo[s defects were present at t e time of t e marria3e and only after e lost t e mayoralty election0 TON(OL v TON(OL +7CC$. D/$ )CR6 !/D >us4and filed for a declaration of nullity of marria3e 4ased on is wife[s psyc olo3ical incapacity as manifested in er 4ein3 3iven to tantrums1 irrita4ility1 and want of dominance0 A)tep4rot ers and stepsisters are not included in t e list0 Reasons w y a4ove mentioned marria3es contravene pu4lic policy9 !0 Recessive 3enes of families 3et e2pressed 70 Causes confusion in t e family tree +w at is t e relations ip of a fat er to is c ild wit is dau3 terB. /0 Le3it c ild and adopted c ild are presumed to ave 4een raised as real si4lin3s -0 For Par " %M complete moral perversion0 &t icsT % 6 certain Dr0 ;ille3as e2amined t e wife and concluded t at s e was sufferin3 from an EInade'uate Personality DisorderF wit ysterical colorin3 w ic rendered er psyc olo3ically incapacitated to perform t e duties and responsi4ilities of marria3e0 ;I0 6rt -! K su4se'uent marria3e UNL&)) t ere is a Edeclaration of presumptive deat F of spouse in appropriate cases 6rt -- K if 4ot spouses contracted remarria3e from a4sence in 4ad fait +as to a4sence of one spouse. ;II0 >&LD9 Dr0 ;ille3as failed to lin@ t e wife[s personality disorder to a conclusion of psyc olo3ical incapacity since +!. e was not a4le to satisfactorily e2plain if er personality disorder was 3rave enou3 to 4rin3 a4out disa4ility to comply wit marital o4li3ations1 +7. t ere was no evidence t at suc incapacity was incura4le0 6lso1 t e psyc olo3ical incapacity considered under 6rticle /, is not meant to compre end all possi4le cases of psyc oses % ere1 t e spouses[ differences and misunderstandin3s 4asically revolve around and are limited to t eir disa3reement re3ardin3 t e mana3ement of t eir 4usiness0 In sum1 it was not disputed t at t e wife was sufferin3 from a psyc olo3ical disorder0 >owever1 t e totality of t e evidence presented did not s ow t at er

personality disorder is of t e @ind contemplated in 6rticle /,0 70 P&RIOD TO FIL& 6CTION OR R6I)& D&F&N)& FC1 6rt /" T e action or defense for t e declaration of a4solute nullity of a marria3e s all not prescri4e0 +6s amended 4y R6 #D//1 approved Fe40 7/1 !""#. % Under &0O0 7$$1 for marria3es contracted 4efore t e Family Code too@ effect1 t e action for t e declaration of nullity 4ased on psyc olo3ical incapacity prescri4ed in ten years % t at is1 ten years after !"##1 or !""#0 ?ut R060 #D// now ma@es all actions under 6rticle /, imprescripti4le0 It5s 3onna 4e ere forever1 at least1 until t is law 3ets repealed0 Mere lapse of time cannot 3ive effect to marria3e or any ot er contract t at is null and void0 % I;0 !0 70 6rt /$ K Incestuous marria3e 4etween ascendants and descendants 4etween 4rot ers and sisters1 w et er alf4lood or full%4lood 6rt /# K ;iolation of pu4lic policy /0 &FF&CT) OF NULLITG AFor provisions refer to t e ta4le in t e appendi2 NIY6L v ?6D6GO( +7CCC. /7# )CR6 !77 ;0 !0 70 /0 -0 D0 ,0 $0 #0 "0 4etween collateral relatives up to t e - de3ree1 ille3itimate or le3itimate 4etween step%parent and step%c ildren 4etween parent%in%law and c ild%in%law 4etween adopter and adopted survivin3 spouse of adopter and adopted 4etween survivin3 spouse of adopted and adopter 4etween le3itimate c ildren of adopter and adopted 4etween adopted c ildren of same adopted if one @ills own or ot er wife wit t e intention to marry anot er or t e victim5s spouse t % NiZal and ?adayo3 were married in !"$-0 NiZal s ot is wife ?ellones in !"#D1 causin3 er deat +w y didn5t t ey convict im of parricideBBB.0 6fter a year and a alf1 Ninal contracted a second marria3e wit ?adayo3 wit out a marria3e license0 T ey e2ecuted an affidavit statin3 t ey ave co a4ited for at least five years0 Ninal died in !""$0 >is c ildren wit ?ellones see@ a declaration of nullity of Ninal[s marria3e wit ?adayo30 % P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e /C of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % It is assumed t at t e validity or invalidity of t e second marria3e would affect t e c ildren[s successional ri3 ts0 >&LD9 NiZal and ?adayo3[s marria3e is void for lac@ of marria3e license0 T ey are not e2empt from ac'uirin3 a marria3e license 4ecause t eir five%year co a4itation was not t e co a4itation contemplated 4y law0 It s ould 4e in t e nature of a perfect union t at is valid under t e law 4ut rendered imperfect only 4y t e a4sence of t e marria3e contract0 Of t e five years t at t ey ad co a4ited1 only 7C mont s were wit out any le3al impediment0 Ot er t an for purposes of remarria3e +see 6rticle -C of t e Family Code.1 no =udicial action is necessary to declare a marria3e an a4solute nullity0 For ot er purposes1 suc as 4ut not limited to determination of eirs ip1 le3itimacy or ille3itimacy of a c ild1 settlement of estate1 dissolution of property re3ime1 or a criminal case for t at matter1 t e court may pass upon t e validity of marria3e even in a suit not directly instituted to 'uestion t e same so lon3 as it is essential to t e determination of t e case0 A T is is weird NiZal s ould ave 4een dis'ualified to marry ?adayo3 4ecause of 6rt /# Par " +@ills own or ot er wife wit t e intention to marry anot er or t e victim5s spouse. DOMIN(O v C6 and Delia )oledad 6vera +!""/. 77, )CR6 D$7 )oledad Domin3o filed for separation of property and declaration of nullity of er marria3e to Ro4erto Domin3o0 T ey were married !"$,1 4ut un@nown to )oledad1 Ro4erto was previously married to a certain &merlinda de la Pa80 ) e came to @now of t e first marria3e only after &merlinda sued t em for 4i3amy0 Ro4erto claimed t at )oledad[s petition for a declaration of nullity was superfluous in t at t eir marria3e was void a4 initio0 On t e ot er and1 )oledad insisted on t e necessity of t e =udicial declaration of nullity1 not for purposes of remarria3e1 4ut in order to provide a 4asis for t e separation and distri4ution of t e properties ac'uired durin3 coverture0 >&LD9 Judicial declaration of nullity can 4e invo@ed for purposes ot er t an remarria3e0 )eparation of property is also one of t e effects of =udicial declaration of nullity0 T e Court furt er asserted t at a =udicial declaration of nullity of marria3e is now e2plicitly re'uired eit er as a cause of action or a 3round for defense0 * ere t e a4solute nullity of a previous marria3e is sou3 t to 4e invo@ed for purposes of contractin3 a second marria3e1 t e sole 4asis accepta4le in law for said pro=ected marria3e to 4e free from le3al infirmity is a final =ud3ment declarin3 t e previous marria3e void0 In fact1 t e re'uirement for a declaration of a4solute nullity of a marria3e is also for t e protection of t e

spouse w o1 4elievin3 t at is or er marria3e is ille3al and void1 marries a3ain0 *it t e =udicial declaration of nullity of is or er first marria3e1 t e person w o marries a3ain cannot 4e c ar3ed of 4i3amy0 A&mp asis on t e word EONLGF N E)OL&LGF in 6rt -C1 FC AMa5am ?et t in@s t is is a weird case 4ecause usually it5s t e first wife t at files 4i3amy a3ainst us4and0 >ere1 it5s t e second wife0 D& C6)TRO v 6))ID6O%D& C6)TRO +7CC#. (R No0 !,C!$7 % % Reinelle 6nt ony De Castro impre3nated 6nna4elle 6ssidao1 a 3overnment dentist0 T eir marria3e license e2pired so t ey +falsely. e2ecuted an affidavit statin3 t at t ey ad 4een livin3 to3et er as us4and and wife for five years0 ?y virtue of t is affidavit1 t ey contracted a marria3e0 T e parties1 owever1 lived separately after t e marria3e[s cele4ration0 6ssidao filed a complaint for c ild support1 assertin3 t at s e was validly married to De Castro and t at er dau3 ter was De Castro[s le3itimate c ild0 >&LD9 T e e2ecution of t e false affidavit statin3 t at t e parties ad 4een livin3 to3et er as us4and and wife cannot 4e considered as a mere irre3ularity0 T ey were married wit out a valid marria3e license and so t eir marria3e was void a4 initio0 % T e c ild 4orn to t em was ille3itimate< owever1 it does not free De Castro from t e duty of providin3 financial support since e as 4een declarin3 er as a dependent in ta2 e2emption and even si3ned in er 4irt certificate0 ?0 ;oida4le Marria3es ;alid until annulled 4y a competent court Can 4e convalidated +ratified or annulled. eit er 4y free co a4itation or prescription Cannot 4e impu3ned upon deat of eit er party !0 (rounds for 6nnulment FC1 6rt -D (rounds for voida4le marria3es !0 70 /0 -0 D0 ,0 !#%7! yrs old 4ut no parental consent any party of unsound mind consent o4tained 4y fraud consent o4tained 4y force1 intimidation1 undue influence incura4le p ysical incapacity to consummate t e marria3e +im incura4le and serious )TD1 e2istin3 at t e time of t e marria3 3onorr ea are cura4le. For Par -9 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e /! of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % ;iolence K use of serious or irresisti4le force to wrest consent +6rt !//D1 CC. Undue influence K improper advanta3e of power over t e will of t e ot er1 deprivin3 t e latter of reasona4le freedom of c oice1 t reat to enforce a le3al claim does not invalidate consent to a marria3e Reverential fear K fear of causin3 distress1 disappointment or an3er on part of t e victim For Par D9 IMPOT&NCG is different from )T&RILITG0 Impotency cannot arden up1 so no se2 is possi4le0 )terility1 on t e ot er and1 is c aracteri8ed 4y low spermato8oa count0 >owever1 t e fact t at intercourse is possi4le1 t ere remains a possi4ility1 no matter ow low or tiny1 for t e us4and to sire a c ild0 % Old a3e is not a 3round 4ecause one w o marries an old person s ould ave 4een prepared for t e ot er5s impotence0 DOCTRIN& OF TRI&NNI6L CO>6?IT6TION9 If wife remains a vir3in after t ree years of livin3 to3et er1 t e presumption of impotency commences unless proven ot erwise0 D// F0 )upp0 ,7/ Maria Moe and Raoul Roe1 to3et er wit t eir c ild Ric ard Roe sou3 t t e declaration of a New Gor@ Domestic Relations Law re'uirin3 parental consent as unconstitutional0 Relevant portions of t e said law provides t at all male applicants for a marria3e license 4etween !, and !#1 and all female applicants 4etween !and !# must o4tain t e written consent of 4ot of t eir parents0 Maria was !D and Raoul1 !#1 w en t is case was initiated0 T ey continue to 4e prevented from marryin3 4ecause Marias[ mot er refuses to 3ive er consent to t eir union0 Plaintiffs contend t at t e NG Law was unconstitutional since it deprived t em of li4erty 3uaranteed to t em 4y t e Due Process Clause0 >&LD9 T e constitutional ri3 ts of c ildren cannot 4e e'uated to t at of adults 4ecause of9 +!. t e peculiar vulnera4ility of c ildren1 +7. t eir ina4ility to ma@e critical decisions in an informed and mature manner1 +/. t e importance of parental role in c ild%rearin30 Court also e2plained t at t e )tate interests espoused in t e NG Law are t e protection of minors from immature decision%ma@in3 and t e prevention of unsta4le marria3es0 T e law also assumes t at parents naturally act in t e 4est interest of t eir FC1 6rt -, * at do you mean 4y fraud in 6rt -D +/.B Concealment of9 c ildren1 so t at parental consent cannot 4e !0 final conviction of moral turpitude dispensed wit 0 70 /0 -0 pre3nancy 4y man ot er t an us4and )TD Dru3 addiction1 a4itual alco olism1 omose2uality or les4ianism Afor Nos / and -9 Incura4ility of t e )TD does not factor in 4ecause t e main issue is

t e concealment of t e fact of avin3 an )TD Can 4e a 3round for 6rt /, if proven to e2ist at t e time of marria3e 6rt -$ * o may file t e action and w en +see Ta4le. R6TIFIC6TION cures defect e2istin3 at t e time of marria3e and validates t e marria3e PR&)CRIPTION 4ars t e remedy 4ecause of t e lapse of t e period provided 4y t e law for 4rin3in3 t e action to annul I6TIPUN6N v T&NORIO +!"/$. /# O( $! Marcos Iatipunan sou3 t annulment of is marria3e to Rita Tenorio on t e 3round of latter[s insanity0 % T ere was no proof t at Tenorio was insane at t e time of t e cele4ration of t e marria3e0 >&LD9 No 3round for annulment0 Insanity t at occurs after t e cele4ration of t e marria3e does not constitute a cause for nullity0 )UNT6G v COJU6N(CO )UNT6G +!""#. /CC )CR6 $,C &milio )untay married Isa4el Co=uan3co0 Prior to t e marria3e1 &milio was already sufferin3 from sc i8op renia0 T e trial court declared t eir marria3e null and void on t e 3round of &milio[s insanity0 Now1 Isa4el 63uinaldo )untay wants to assert er claim as &milio[s le3itimate eir0 >&LD9 T e marria3e was voida4le1 unsound mind 4ein3 a 3round for annulment and not for declaration of nullity0 Isa4el 63uinaldo )untay s ould FC1 6rt -" Pendency of t e decree t us 4e accorded t e same ri3 ts as ac@nowled3ed a0 support of t e spouse +pendent elite. natural c ildren0 ) e was a le3itimate eir of &milio 40 custody and support of t e c ildren c0 visitation ri3 ts of t e ot er parent and t eir 3randmot er0 % T ere was a difference in t e dispositive +fallo. and t e 4ody of t e court decision0 In case of RPC1 6rt /-Prosecution of t e crimes adultery1 concu4ina3e1 seduction1 a4duction1 rape and acts of void.1 t e decision discrepancy +voida4le and not lasciviousness s ould 4e read as a w ole0 MO& v DINIIN) +!"#!. FC1 6rt -# T e need for a prosecutin3 attorney to prevent collusion or suppressionNfa4rication of evidence 4etween parties0 )tipulation of fact or confession of =ud3ment not to 4e accepted0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#% 7CC" Pa3e /7 of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 ?UCC6T v ?UCC6T +!"-!. )UPR6 (odofredo ?uccat married Luida Man3onon wit t e 4elief t at s e was a vir3in0 Luida 3ave 4irt #" days after t e cele4ration of t e marria3e0 (odofredo t en filed for annulment on t e 3round t at s e concealed er non%vir3inity0 >&LD9 It was not 4elieva4le for t e us4and to not ave @nown is wife[s state1 er pre3nancy 4ein3 in t e advanced sta3e +si2t mont .0 T e Court refused to annul t e marria3e1 sayin3 t at t ere was no misrepresentation or fraud on t e part of t e wife0 6SUINO v D&LIPO +!",C. !C" P il 7! Fernando 6'uino married Conc ita Deli8o1 four mont s after t e cele4ration of t e marria3e1 Deli8o 3ave 4irt 0 6'uino t en filed for annulment on t e 3round of fraud or concealment of pre3nancy0 >&LD9 )ince Deli8o was naturally plump1 6'uino could not ave @nown t at s e was four mont s pre3nant at t e time of t e marria3e0 6ccordin3 to medical opinion1 even on t e fift mont of pre3nancy1 t e enlar3ement of t e woman[s a4domen is still 4elow t e um4ilicus and ardly noticea4le0 It is only on t e si2t mont of pre3nancy t at t e roundness of t e woman[s a4domen 4ecomes apparent0 R&M6ND&D FOR R&TRI6L 6N6G6 v P6L6RO6N +!"$C. /, )CR6 "$ 6urora 6naya wanted to annul er marria3e to Fernando Palaroan on t e 4asis of is failure to disclose is relations ip wit anot er woman prior to t eir marria3e0 >&LD9 T ere was no 3round for annulment0 Neit er violence nor duress attended t e marria3e cele4ration0 6lso1 t reat cannot come from lawful actions suc as t reat to o4struct is admission to t e ?ar 4ased on immorality0 >e was also not @idnapped 4y is wife[s relatives1 t ere 4ein3 many occasions for im to escape0 % If 3uilty of seduction1 a man cannot avoid marria3e 4y duress +come to Court wit clean ands. M6RRI6(& NOT 6NNULL6?L&0 JIM&N&P v C6NIP6R&) +!",C. !C" P il 7$/ Joel Jimene8 filed for annulment on t e 3round of is wife[s impotency1 claimin3 t at er va3ina was too small to allow penetration0 % Remedios Cani8ares refused to ave p ysical e2am despite repeated orders 4y t e court contempt of court for noncompliance and constitutes collusion >&LD9 )ince t e only evidence presented was Jimene8[s testimony1 t ere was no sufficient 4asis to esta4lis t e wife[s impotency0 For all intents and purposes actually1 4ecause only t e testimony of t e us4and1 t e presumption of t e law is in favor of potency0 R&M6ND&D FOR FURT>&R PROC&&DIN()0 )6R6O v (U&;6RR6 +!"-C. -C

O( !D )upp 7,/ In t e afternoon of t eir weddin31 )arao tried to ave carnal @nowled3e of Pilar (uevarra1 4ut t e latter s owed reluctance and 4e33ed im to wait until evenin30 * en ni3 t came1 e a3ain approac ed t e wife1 4ut t rou3 e found t e orifice of er va3ina sufficiently lar3e of is or3an1 s e complained of pains in er private parts and e noticed oo8in3 t ere from some matter offensive to t e smell0 % Only married er to evade a premarital affair wit a close relative and no intention to 4ecome us4and and wife0 % I))U&9 *ON disclosure of previous relations ip is fraud >&LD9 NO 4ecause fraud as a vice of consent in marria3e is limited to t ose enumerated 4y law1 w ic in t is case would 4e t ose mentioned in 6rticle #, of t e Civil Code0 If we were to read t e later provision of t e Family Code into t is scenario1 t e clause \no ot er misrepresentation or deceit as to c aracter1 ealt 1 ran@1 fortune1 or c astity\ of 6rticle -, would 4ar 6naya[s action for annulment0 RUIP v 6TI&NP6 +!"-!. -C O( !"C/ Jose Rui8 impre3nated Pela3ia 6tien8a0 >e was fetc ed from is residence 4y 6tien8a[s relatives w o alle3edly intimidated im into marryin3 er0 6n uncle of 6tien8a was even said to ave t reatened to file immorality c ar3es a3ainst Rui8 t at would prevent is admission to t e ?ar0 % ?ecause of t is1 coitus ad not 4een successful1 and after t e first ni3 t every attempt t e plaintiff5s part to ave a carnal act wit is wife proved a failure1 4ecause s e complained of pains in er 3enital or3ans and e did not want er to suffer0 Upon t e advice of a p ysician and wit t e plaintiff5s consent1 an operation was performed in w ic t e uterus and ovaries were removed0 T e sur3ery rendered er incapa4le of procreation1 4ut s e could copulate0 Plaintiff1 owever1 since witnessin3 t e operation1 lost all desire to ave access wit is wife0 Now1 e as@s for annulment0 % I))U&9 *ON t eir marria3e can 4e annulled 4ased on t e defendant5s incapacity to procreate >&LD9 T e incapacity for copulation was only temporary0 T e defect must 4e lastin3 to 4e a 3round for annulment1 4ecause t e test of P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e // of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 impotence is not t e capacity to reproduce1 4ut t e capacity to copulate0 6NNULM&NT D&NI&D0 P&OPL& v )6NTI6(O )UPR6 FC1 6rt -/ &ffects of termination 4y reappearance9 +!. +7. c ildren of t e su4se'uent marria3e conceived prior to its termi 70 Marria3e w en one spouse is a4sent 6CPNCP( dissolved and li'uidated1 4ut if eit er spouse cont s are of t e net profits of t e 6CPNCP( property s all 4e forfeite a. common c ildren 4. if t ere are none1 t e c ildren of t e 3uilty spouse 4y a pr c. in default of c ildren1 t e innocent spouse< Donations 4y reason of marria3e remain valid1 e2cept t at i fait 1 suc donations made to said donee are revo@ed 4y operat FC1 6rt -! Is null and void1 unless 4efore t e cele4ration of t e su4se'uent marria3e1 t e prior spouse a4sent for consecutive years1 t e spouse ad a well%founded 4elief t at t e+-. T espouse wasspouse may revo@e t e desi3nation of t e a4sent innocent already dead0 4eneficiary in any insurance policy1 even if stipulated as irrevoca * ere t ere is dan3er of deat under t e circumstances set fort in t eT e spouse of 6rt /"! ofdis'ualified toan a4sence +D. provisions in 4ad fait t e Civil Code1 in erit from innocent s of only two years s all 4e spouse present must institute a presumptive deat of t e a4sentee1sufficient wit out pre=udice to t e effect of reappearance of t e a4sent spouse0 +/. AIn CC1 seven years is re'uired for presumptive deat and four years if t ere is presence of dan3er of deat 0 Period of time decreased in FC 4ecause of moderni8ed and faster means of communication tec nolo3y0 T ere is virtually little or no e2cuse for a spouse not to contact is family for a lon3 time0 AIn CC1 t ere as to 4e a E3eneral 4eliefF w ic includes t e 4elief of one5s community re3ardin3 t e w erea4outs of one spouse0 Now in t e FC1 it is only Ewell%foundedF 4elief 4ecause people today no lon3er care muc a4out t eir nei3 4ors li@e in t e yesteryears0 FC1 6rt -- If 4ot spouses of t e su4se'uent marria3e acted in 4ad donations 4y reason of marria3e and testamentary dispositions 4y operation of law0 FC1 6rt -7 T e su4se'uent marria3e automatically terminated a4sent spouse1 unless t ere is a =ud3ment annullin3 t e previous marria3e or declarin3 it 6 sworn statement of t e fact and circumstances of reappearance s all 4e recorded in t e civil re3istry of t e residence of t e parties to t e su4se'uent

marria3e at t e instance of any interested person su4se'uent marria3e and wit out pre=udice to t e fact of reappearance 4ein3 =udicially determined in case suc fact is disputed0 % % No matter ow lon3 it too@ t e spouse a4sent to appear1 t e su4se'uent marria3e will still 4ecome void0 ?ecause you only presumed imN er to 4e dead1 and t at is a re4utta4le presumption0 If t e reappearin3 spouse did not file t e Eaffidavit of reappearanceF eNs e cannot remarry 4ecause e is EdeadF until e declares e5s alive0 +)o t e two spouses couldn5t possi4ly come to an a3reement to not file an affidavit so t e su4se'uent marria3e may su4sist0. P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e /- of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 OLD RUL&) IN T>& CC t e marria3e0 Furt ermore1 t e court also pointed out t at M& and even 6J erself 4elieved 6rt ur was dead1 as evidenced 4y er treatin3 F> person step CC1 6rt #/ 6ny marria3e su4se'uently contracted 4y any person durin3 t e lifetime of t e first spouse of suc as er wit fat er0 any person ot er t an suc first spouse s all 4e ille3al and void from its performance1 unless9 +!. T e first marria3e was annulled or dissolved< or GU v GU +7CC,. +7. T e first spouse ad 4een a4sent for seven consecutive years at )CR6 -#D t e second marria3e wit out t e spouse -#- t e time of present avin3 news of t e a4sentee 4ein3 alive1 or if t e a4sentee1 Custody of c ild pendin3 for less t an case years1 t ou3 e as 4een a4sent annulment seven is 3enerally considered as dead and 4elieved to 4e so 4y t e spouse present at t e time of contractin3 suc su4se'uent % /"C and /"!0 T eGu files for contracted s all 4e valid &ric Jonat an marria3e so an annulment case in marria3e1 or if t e a4sentee is presumed dead accordin3 to 6rticles Pasi3 in any of t e t ree cases until declared null and void 4y a competent court0 RTC for wife5s psyc olo3ical incapacity Caroline Gu see@s custody of t eir c ild1 ?ianca1 in litis pendentia +pendin3 case. CC1 6rt #D May 4e annulled for any ofPasay RTC t e followin3 causes1 e2istin3 at t e time of t e marria3e9 % former us4and as =urisdiction 4e dead was in6rt -" Pasi3 RTC or wife 4elieved to 4ecause of fact +7. In a su4se'uent marria3e under 6rticle #/1 Num4er 71 t at t e livin3 and t e marria3e wit suc former us4and or wife was t en in +incidents of a pendin3 decree s all 4e specified force< 4y court w erein t e declaration for nullity was filed. JON&) v >ORTI(U&L6 +!"/$. % Custody 3oes to fat er 4ecause mot er is unfit ,- P il !$" )tep%dau3 ter versus step% fat er Marciana &scaZo died and a proceedin3 re3ardin3 er estate was commenced0 >er second us4and Feli2 >orti3uela.1 t e petitioner and dau3 ter of er first marria3e1 6n3elita Jones1 t e respondent1 were appointed as t e eirs0 T e partition of er estate was approved 4y t e court0 6 year later1 6J filed a motion to declare er t e only eir1 since s e claims t at t e marria3e 4etween M& and F> was null and void0 Jan !"!# M&5s first us4and1 6rt ur Jones +6rt ur.1 went a4road and was never eard from a3ain0 Oct0 !"!"M& as@ed er us4and to 4e =udicially declared an a4sentee0 On t e 7Dt of t e said mont 1 t e court issued and order declarin3 t at 6rt ur is an a4sentee and t e declaration will not ta@e effect until , mont s after its pu4lication0 It was t en pu4lis ed in t e succeedin3 mont s0 6pril !"7! Court issued anot er order1 sayin3 t at t e =udicial decree as ta@en effect0 May !"7$F> and M& 3ot married0 6J now contends t at t e decree s ould 4e understood as not avin3 ta@en effect from Oct !"!"1 t e date it was first pu4lis ed1 4ut in 6pril !"7!1 t e date t e court eld t at t e decree as ta@en effect0 T erefore1 from t at date until t e time of t e second marria3e1 only , yrs and !- days as elapsed1 t us1 in accordance wit sec / par 7 of (O no0 ,#1 t eir marria3e was void0 I))U&9 *ON t e second marria3e was void0 >&LD9 No0 For t e cele4ration of marria3e1 t e law only re'uires t at t e former spouse 4e a4sent for $ consecutive yrs at t e time of t e 7 nd marria3e0 T e date t at s ould 4e considered t erefore1 is Jan !"!#1 w en 6rt ur left and was never eard from a3ain0 T erefore1 w en t e 7nd marria3e was cele4rated1 6rt ur was already a4sent for more t an " yrs0 6lso1 t e fact t at t eir marria3e doesn5t appear in t e re3ister does not affect t e validity of T6M6NO v ORTIP +!""#. 7"! )CR6 D#!"D# )enator Mamintal 64udul Ja4ar Tamano married >a=a Putri Porayda Tamano in civil rites0 !""/ Tamano married &strelita Tamano in civil rites too !""- Tamano died % Porayda and son filed for t e declaration of nullity 4ecause of 4i3amy % Misrepresentations of Tamano as divorced +t ey

never divorced. and &strelita as sin3le +annulment was not final and e2ecutory for non%compliance indicates lac@ of intention to invo@e Muslim practice of poly3amywit 6rt D/. % &strelita contends t at RTC as no =urisdiction 4ecause t ey were Muslims1 ence =urisdiction 4elon3s to ) ari5a Courts >&LD9 ) ari5a Courts ave =urisdiction only over marria3es solemni8ed in Muslim rites0 Law is silent as to marria3es performed 4ot civilly and Muslim0 On t e ot er and1 e2clusive =urisdiction of all @inds of marria3e +civil and Muslim. 4elon3s to RTC0 ?esides1 t ey did not perform weddin3 ceremony in accordance to Muslim customs0 % P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e /D of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 ;I0 L&(6L )&P6R6TION 60 (rounds for Le3al )eparation MUNOP v D&L ?6RRIO +!"DD. D! O( D7!$ Jose del ?arrio maltreats t e wife % Jud3e attempts to reconcile 4ut wife declines1 s e pus es for er petition for le3al separation on t e 3round t at us4and attempted at er life >&LD9 Petition of le3al separation not 3ranted 4ecause t ere was intent to @ill was not esta4lis ed0 T e man only used is 4are andsNfists0 AMa5am ?et finds t is rulin3 ridiculous 4ecause FC1 6rt D$ 6rnold )c war8ene33er5s 4are ands are in itself !0 Repeated p ysical violence a3ainst let al weapons0 Li@ewise1 w at a4out martial artistsB a0 petitioner 40 petitioner5s c ild (6NDION(CO v P&Y6R6ND6 +!"#$. c0 common c ild of petitioner and respondent !DD 70 Moral or p ysical pressure to convert reli3ious or political 4eliefs )CR6 $7D May !"#,Teresita filed petition for le3al separation /0 6ttempt to corrupt or induce +a. petitioner1 +4. petitioner5s c ild and +c. common c ild of petitioner and on t e 3round of us4and Froilan5s respondent into prostitution or connivance in suc a practice -0 Respondent5s final =ud3ment of conviction for more t an si2 years1 evenconcu4ina3e1 petition for support and if pardoned D0 >a4itual alco olism1 dru3 addiction payment of dama3es ,0 Les4ianism or omose2uality Oct !"#, Teresita filed a criminal suit $0 ?i3amous marria3e1 ere or a4road #0 )e2ual infidelity or perversion For w ic Froilan files certiorari t at civil and "0 6ttempt at t e life of t e petitioner pendente lite s ould 4e suspended 4ecause of !C0 64andonment wit out =ustifia4le cause for one year OLD RUL& IN T>& CC CC1 6rt "$ !0 adultery +wife. or concu4ina3e + us4and. 70 attempt at t e life of t e ot er criminal c ar3es0 T at t ey s ould wait until t e decision in criminal case comes1 4efore civil can proceed0 >&LD9 Denied Froilan5s certiorari0 !"#, Rules on Criminal Procedure states t at civil may proceed a ead of or simultaneously wit criminal c ar3e0 Li@ewise1 no criminal proceedin3 is necessary in t e action for le3al separation0 6ll t at is needed for le3al separation is preponderance of evidence0 L6PUP )G v &UF&MIO )G +!"$7. -/ )CR6 !$$ Carmen filed petition for le3al separation a3ainst us4and &ufemio &ufemio Discovered t at e co a4its wit (o >io@ % &ufemio countered t at marria3e wit Carmen is void a4 initio 4ecause e was married to (o >io@ first1 under C inese customs Carmen died and er fat er too@ over t e case in er place >&LD9 Carmen5s deat e2tin3uis ed t e claim for nullity of marria3e0 6ction for le3al separation is purely personal even if property relations are involved0 T ese ri3 ts are mere effects of a decree of separation1 t eir source 4ein3 t e decree itself< wit out t e decree suc ri3 ts do not come into e2istence1 so t at 4efore t e finality of a decree1 t ese claims are merely ri3 ts in e2pectation0 D&L6 CRUP v D&L6 CRUP +!",#. 77 )CR6 /// Case of t e ma =on3era wife and overwor@ed us4and ACompare CC wit FC 3rounds0 T e FC e2panded t e 3rounds for le3al separation and li4erated t e 4ias in concu4ina3e 4y c an3in3 it to Ese2ual infidelity0F P&OPL& v P6P6T6 6ND ?ONDOC +!"D!. ## P il ,## 6ndres ?ondoc filed a3ainst wife (uadalupe Papata and Dalmacio ?ondoc % *ife and paramour repeatedly en3a3ed in se2ual intercourse durin3 !"-, *ife pleaded 3uilty and served sentence >us4and filed anot er case1 w ic defendants alle3e as dou4le =eopardy >&LD9 6dultery not a continuous crime0 &ac commission is a different count w ic can 4e punis ed separately0 !. plurality of facts performed durin3 separate period of time 7. unity of penal provisions infrin3ed upon /. unity of aim or purpose * at 6ndres for3aveNcondoned was t e previous acts and not t e su4se'uent acts0 ?esides e2cuse of t e paramour t at e doesn5t @now t e woman is already married is untena4le 4ecause t ey were previously reprimanded0 >e s ouldn5t ave tolerated er

w en s e approac ed im for t e second time0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e /, of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % &strella files petition of separation of property a3ainst us4and )everino 4ecause of mismana3ement of 4usiness enterprise >us4and never slept in con=u3al dwellin31 would rat er stay alle3ed a4andonment *ife even alle3ed t at us4and as concu4inein is office named Nenita >ernande8 RTC 3rants Nenita5s petition for le3al separation and division of con=u3al assets ?0 Defenses a3ainst Le3al )eparation FC1 6rt D, !0 Condonation +for3iveness. 70 Consent +permission. /0 -0 D0 ,0 >&LD9 Mere p ysical separation does not constitute a4andonment0 >us4and continues to support wife and c ildren despite a4sence0 ) e was even a4le to play ma =on3 from t e us4and5s sustenance0 64andonment defined in 6rt !$# Q in (ay v )tate9 for desertion of one spouses to constitute a4andonment1 t ere must 4e a4solute cessation of marital relations and duties and ri3 ts wit intention of perpetual separation0 To a4andon is to forsa@e entirely0 &mp asis is on its finality1 ence it means 3ivin3 up a4solutely and wit intent never a3ain to resume or claim one5s ri3 ts or interests0 Concu4ina3e and mismana3ement of 4usiness was not esta4lis ed eit er 4ecause e actually increased t e assets0 ON( &N( II6M v ON( +7CC,. DCD )CR6 $, Lucita files a petition for le3al separation a3ainst C inese us4and on t e 3rounds of repeated p ysical a4use0 >e would usually 4eat er up or utter a4usive lan3ua3e to er in front of customers0 6fter 7C years of marria3e and / @ids1 s e decides to separate from er us4and and went to er family0 >us4and retorted9 % Denied all alle3ations of Lucita1 t ey only fi3 t over t e discipline of c ildren % Ulterior motives of Lucita5s family was to encum4er t eir con=u3al properties % It was er w o a4andoned t em w en s e left t e con=u3al ome % >is son1 Iin3ston and ot er of is employees testified for im To w ic wife answered9 % Positive identification is always stron3er t an mere denial % ) e would not sacrificeNtrade er comforta4le life and love of er c ildren wit t e interests of er family if not in35s really wron3 s e left wit =ustifia4le cause1 4ecause if s e didn5t1 t e 4eatin3 will continue % Iin3ston as 4een wit is fat er since e was c ild w ile t e ot er witnesses5 liveli ood depends on t e us4and0 % P&TITION FOR L&(6L )&P6R6TION (R6NT&D0 Connivance +involvement of /rd party and active participation considered as connivance Recrimination +4ot as 3iven 3rounds for le3al separation1 co Collusion +a3reement 4etween spouses. Prescription +6rt D$. AMa5am ?et 5s Pan3alan3an. mnemonics9 -C and RP +Raul )TIPUL6TION OF F6CT) v CONF&))ION OF JUD(M&NT % )tipulation of facts is t e a3reement 4etween spouses of certain details and circumstances0 It is not accepted 4ecause it can 4e tantamount to collusion % Confes sion of =ud3ment1 on t e ot er and1 is w en one party admits 3uilt from w ic decision is solely 4ased P&OPL& v )6N)6NO Q R6MO) +!"//. D# P il $/ % !"!"9 Mariano ;entura and Ursula )ansano 3ot married and ad a c ild0 ) ortly after t at1 Mariano disappeared to Ca3ayan and a4andoned is family0 % *ife did not ave any means of survival so s e resorted to co a4itin3 wit Marcelo Ramos0 !"7-9 Mariano returned and filed for adultery1 to w ic 4ot )ansano and Ramos were sentenced 6fter conviction1 Ursula 4e3s for for3iveness and for Mariano to ta@e er 4ac@0 T e latter denied and told er to 3o do w at s e wants to do1 so s e returned to Ramos w ile e went to >awaii0 Mariano went 4ac@ to file for divorce +under 6ct 7$!C. I))U&9 *ON us4and consented to adultery and t erefore 4arred from action >&LD9 G&)0 ?ecause e 3ave wife freedom to do w atever s e would li@e to do0 OC6MPO v FLOR&NCI6NO +!",C. !C$ P il /D !"/# % Jose de Ocampo and )erafina 3ot married !"D! % )erafina Jose 6rcalas >us4and sends wife to Manila to study cosmetolo3y for a year w ere s e also ad relations ip wit ot er men0 !"D7 % Left t e us4and and lived separately !"DD % >us4and cau3 t wife in t e arms of Nelson Or8ame and t en told er e wanted le3al separation to w ic t e wife a3reed as lon3 as s e will not 4e criminally c ar3ed P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e /$ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 I))U&9 *ON t ere ad 4een collusion in t e form of confession of =ud3ment 4y t e wife >&LD9 T ou3 t e wife admitted er 3uilt1 w ic constitutes

confession of =ud3ment1 t e us4and also presented ot er evidences to support t e alle3ation0 Refusin3 to answer is not necessarily collusion0 6lso1 t e us4and ad no duty to searc for wife 4ecause it was er w o left t e ouse and so it was er duty to return or at least inform t e us4and of er w erea4outs0 >ence1 collusion may not 4ar t e action for le3al separation0 )6R(&NT v )6R(&NT +!"7C. !!- 60 -7# >us4and suspects t e wife to 4e committin3 adultery wit t eir driver1 C arles )immons0 To support is alle3ations1 e ired several detectives and en=oined is servants to @eep a close eye on t e actions of is wife0 T ey sta3ed a raid to catc t e wife red anded of t e crime alle3ed of er0 I))U&9 *ON t e us4and connived employees to set%up is wife5s adultery wit is % % Demo4ili8ed military man files a petition for le3al separation a3ainst is wife for er cruelty and a4usive 4e avior >e says s e tortures im at ni3 t1 forcin3 im to ave se2 wit im and if e declines1 s e would resort to ear pinc in31 air pullin3 and usin3 of o4scene lan3ua3e T is deprived im of rest and sleep so e ad no c oice 4ut to 3ive in to er wis es I))U&9 *ON avin3 se2 constitutes condonation >&LD9 G&)0 ?ecause in is case1 everyt in3 was done voluntarily0 ) arin3 t e same 4ed and continual se2ual relations is a conclusive evidence of condonation0 Decision would ave 4een different if e was t e wife 4ecause of p ysiolo3ical difference in t e stren3t of man and woman0 ?U(6GON( v (IN&P +!"D,. !CC P il0 ,7C ?en=amin was a U) serviceman1 e left is wife Leonila in t e care of is sisters as s e 3oes to sc ool ;aleriana Polan3co wrote to im a4out rumors of wife5s adultery< wife t en 3oes away from t e sister%in%law5s ouse and stayed at er mom5s place Leonila wrote to ?en=amin as well a4out a certain &lion3 w o @issed er in sc ool ?en=amin went ome and searc ed for er T ey stayed to3et er for 7 ni3 ts and ! day at is cousin1 Pedro5s ouse ;erified t e trut w ic made er pac@ up and wal@ away I))U&9 *ON ?en=amin5s act of searc in3 for and sleepin3 wit is wife constitutes condonation >&LD9 Ges0 ?ecause even if not yet proven1 e ad a 4elief in mind t at is wife was already unfait ful yet e still tried to ta@e er 4ac@0 T e ponencia relied mostly on U) cases0 COURT D&NI&D P&TITION FOR L&(6L )&P6R6TION0 M6TU?I) v PR6:&D&) +!",C. !C" P il0 $#" )ocorro Matu4is and Poilo Pra2edes a3reed to live separately from eac ot er1 t ey even instituted a document t at allows t em to 3et t emselves a new mate wit out t e intervention of t e ot er0 Jan !"DD9 Man co a4ited wit 6suncion Re4ulado 6pril !"D,9 *ife t efiled for concu4ina3e % TC dismissed 4ecause of prescription and consent decision appealed from in t e )C >&LD9 )C affirmed RTC 4ecause t ere was e2press consent1 ence s e deserved no sympat y from t e court0 6lso1 t e action was not instituted wit in a year of co3ni8ance0 >&LD9 G&)0 Petitioner could ave ta@en steps w ic would prevent im from castin3 dou4ts on t e fidelity of is wife 4ut instead it appeared t at e even facilitated is wife5s wron3doin30 It is to 4e inferred from is conduct t at e did desire is wife to commit t e offense in is a4sence1 and t at elpin3 as e did to afford t e opportunity w ic 4rou3 t a4out t e desired result1 e was consentin3 t ereto0 A* at could ave Mr0 )ar3ent done to prevent occurrence of connivanceB >e could ave =ust fired )immons or 4rou3 t is wife wit im on is 4usiness trips0 ?RO*N v G6M?6O +!"D$. !C7 P il !,# *illiam ?rown files a petition for le3al separation a3ainst is wife Juanita Gam4ao w o 3ot pre3nant 4y a certain Carlos Field w ile e was interred in Intramuros +3round9 adultery. % *ife did not reply1 so fiscal intervened and found t at t ere was no collusion0 >owever1 t e fiscal also found t at t e petitioner was 4arred from filin3 t e action 4ecause e ad a concu4ine +Lilia Delito. imself Petitioner says t at t e fiscal5s only duty was to ensure no collusion too@ place and not stand in place of t e wife Fiscal furt er added t at petitioner was also prescri4ed from action 4ecause e learned a4out t e cause in !"-D 4ut only file ten years later0 COURT D&NI&D L&(6L )&P6R6TION0 *ILL6N v *ILL6N +!",C. 7 6!! &0R0 -,/ Case of t e 4attered us4and P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e /# of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 C0 * en to fileNtry actions R&SUI)IT&) FOR L&(6L )&P6R6TION 6rt D$ T e petition must 4e filed wit in D years from t e time of occurrence of cause +as compared to t e dou4le period of CC. 6rt D# , mont s cool off

+4ut does not override provisions of 6rt -" re3ardin3 pendency of decree i0e0 support pendente lite1 support of spouse and c ildren and visitation ri3 ts. 6rt D" steps ta@en towards reconciliation 6rt ,C stipulation of facts and confession of =ud3ment s ould not 4e accepted in court or participation of fiscal or prosecutin3 attorney to prevent collusion CONTR&R6) v M6C6R6I( +!"$C. // )CR6 777 !"D7 &lena and Cesar were married1 ad t ree c ildren !",! Cesar met Lily w ile wor@in3 for is fat er5s 4usiness )ept ,7 Lu4os1 t e driver1 told er t at us4and was livin3 wit a woman in )in3alon3 6pr ,/ More rumors a4out er us4and 4ein3 seen wit a pre3nant woman May ,/ >us4and was usually away and 4ac@ for only 7%/ days< &lena declined to raise t e issue lest it drive er us4and away more % 6s@ed fat er%in%law and sister%in%law to tal@ top and convince er us4and to come 4ac@ to er % &mployee saw im wit a 4a4y on is arms % &lena tal@ed to Lily w o said t at it was Cesar w o refuses to leave er 6pr ,/ &lena1 wit of t eir two c ildren1 tried to convince Cesar to 3o ome1 t e latter refused to return to le3itimate family Dec ,/ Plaintiff filed petition for le3al separation RTC said t at wife 4ecame co3ni8ant of us4and5s infidelity on )ept !",7 +Lu4os5 report. )C 3ranted le3al separation 4ecause wife was only co3ni8ant of us4and5s infidelity w en s e confronted im and 3ot told t at e doesn5t intend to return to t em anymore0 >ence1 t ere was no prescription0 )OMO)6%R6MO) v ;6M&NT6 +!"$7. -, )CR6 !! Lucy )omosa Ramos files petition for le3al separation concu4ina3e and attempt on er life 4y us4and Clemente +!"$7 so CC was applica4le. ) e see@s preliminary mandatory in=unction to recover er parap ernal and e2clusive property I))U&9 *ON 6rt !C/ 4ars =ud3e from suc an action >&LD9 No0 It is not an a4solute 4ar0 Mana3ement of property may 4e decided ri3 t away especially if t e P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e /" of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 ot er spouse may encum4er or alienate petitioner from er ri3 tful s are in t e assets0 t e >&LD9 *ife not as@in3 for support from us4and5s personal funds1 rat er from t e con=u3al properties0 6lso1 t e alle3ation of er adulterous relations ip was not sufficiently esta4lis ed0 It is enou3 for t e court to ascertain t e @ind and amount of evidence even 4y affidavits only or ot er documentary evidence appearin3 in t e records0 It was also s own t at e was capa4le of providin3 t e said amount0 D0 &ffects of Filin3 of Le3al )eparation 6rt ,! a. entitled to live separately 4. t ird person may 4e appointed mana3e t eir 6CPNCP( 6rt ,7 pendency of t e case1 6rt -" applies a. support of t e spouses to 4. c. support and custody of c ildren visitation ri3 ts for c ildren D& L6 ;IN6 v ;ILL6R&6L +!"7C. -! P il !/ Narcisa (eopano files divorce complaint a3ainst us4and w o committed concu4ina3e wit 6na Calo3 and 4ooted er out of t e con=u3al ome in Ne3ros Occidental ) e lived wit er dau3 ters in Iloilo1 and now see@s divorce +t is case is in !"7C.1 partition of property and alimony % >us4and re4uts t at t e court as no =urisdiction over invo@es us4and5s ri3 tt e case since t eir domicile was in Ne3ros Occidental to fi2 t e marital domicile and wife5s duty to follow0 Li@ewise1 t e us4and5s ri3 t to administer marital assets +since wife wants separation of property. *ON No0 >us4and a4olis est e wife5s domicile is still t e same wit us4and5s0 t is ri3 t t e moment e furnis es cause for t e wife to leave im and 3round for divorce0 ) e may ac'uire separate domicile from er us4and0 6lso1 e displaced er from t e con=u3al dwellin3 in t e first place0 T us1 court ad =urisdiction over t e case0 *ON t e wife can o4tain preliminary in=unction Ges0 a3ainst us4and5s encum4erin3 and alienatin3 of t eir con=u3al property0 T e us4and5s administrative power must 4e curtailed to protect t e interest of t e wife0 &ven t ou3 wife doesn5t ave t e ri3 t to administer1 s e as t e ri3 t to s are0 R&G&) v IN&)%LUCI6NO +!"$". ## )CR6 C/ % Celia Ilustre%Reyes files petition for le3al separation on us4and Manuel Reyes on t e 3round of attempt to er life0 +6ttac@ed twice1 would ave 4een dead if not saved 4y fat er and driver0. % >us4and does not want to 3ive er pedente lite 4ecause e alle3e t at s e as adulterous relations ip wit er p ysician and t e price s e was as@in3 was too i3 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e -C of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7

?6Y&P v ?6Y&P +7CC7. /$- )CR6 /-C RTC 3ranted le3al separation to 6ida and (a4riel for us4and5s se2ual infidelity1 dissolution of CP( and division of con=u3al assets *ife @ept on as@in3 t in3s and dama3es from er us4and t rou3 t e court RTC denied t e dama3es 4ut 3ave due course to t e e2ecution pendin3 appeal0 C6 set aside t e RTC rulin3 for us4and to vacate t e residential ouse and surrender t e motor ve icle0 >&LD9 Le3al separation is not su4=ect to multiple appeals0 Its effects are incidents of t e final =ud3ment and not distinct matters0 L6 RU& v L6 RU& +!"#/. /C- )0 &0 7d /!7 % Plain ousewife5s contri4ution to t e CP( % !"DC us4and and wife 3ot married1 wife wor@ed for t e first seven years 4ut stopped at t e re'uest of er us4and % Married for /C years1 ousewife performed er duties li@e carin3 for t e c ildren and attendin3 to us4and5s needs until t e relations ip went sour % O4tained divorce 4ut wife was awarded only wit alimony and ealt insurance % Court denied er claim to one alf of t e con=u3al assets 4ecause s e made no contri4utions t ereto I))U&9 *ON wife is entitled to e'uita4le distri4ution >&LD9 Ges1 4ecause s e contri4uted er earnin3s in t e early days of t e marria3e and t en er service as a fru3al omema@er in t e su4se'uent years0 % % % Upon is return1 e too@ t em to Ce4u Rosario as@ed permission to 4rin3 t em to Manila for 3randfat er5s funeral1 were 3iven 7 wee@s Rosario did not return t em 4ut instead filed for civil case for custody 3rant1 4ecause e is already livin3 wit anot er woman and t e @ids want to stay wit er RTC orders er to return t e @ids to im wit in 7- ours >&LD9 Custody of c ildren is never final and always su4=ect to review for t e 4est interest of t e c ildren0 >owever1 until decision is modified1 t e custody is to t e fat ers0 ?esides1 Rosario is =ust livin3 in t e c arity of er 4rot ers0 L6P&R6L v R&PU?LIC +!",7. , )CR6 /D$ &lisea o4tained le3al separation decree from us4and &nri'ue )antamaria1 so now s e wants to revert to er maiden name0 ) e is a 4usinesswoman and afraid t at confusion as to t e name will lead er finances to t e dissolution of con=u3al property0 6rt /$7 mandates t at woman retains t e name used prior to le3al separation1 4ecause it is indicative of status and le3al separation affected no c an3e to er status0 >&LD9 )C denied er petition 4ecause s e relied on t e fact of er le3al separation and t at t ere was no con=u3al property to fear of 4ecause it as 4een dissolved wit t e decree of le3al separation0 Li@ewise1 t ey cannot allow easy circumvention of 6rt /$70 C6)& DI)MI))&D0 &0 &ffects of Le3al )eparation Decree 6rt ,/ !. Live separately from eac ot er 7. 6CPNCP( dissolved< offender no ri3 t to any s are in t e net profits1 forfeit in favor of common c ildren1 c ildren of 3uilty1 and innocent spouse /. Custody of minor c ildren 3oes to innocent spouse +su4=ect to 6rt 7!/. -. (uilty spouse dis'ualified as intestate eir 6rt ,- revo@e all donations1 4eneficiary in any insurance policy wit in D years M6TUT& v M6C6R6I( +!"D,. "" P il /-C 6rmando files petition for le3al separation a3ainst wife Rosario 4ecause of adultery wit 4rot er and 4rot er%in%law Le3al separation 3ranted< custody of four minor c ildren to fat er Fat er left t em in sister5s care in Davao and t en went to U)< Rosario lived wit t em t ere F0 Reconciliation T ere s ould 4e voluntary and mutual consent of t e spouses to reconcile0 CP( not automatically revived0 6rt ,$ applies0 6rt ,D Joint manifestation under oat in t e same court as le3al separation 6rt ,, Conse'uences of reconciliation9 !. le3al separation proceedin3s s all 4e terminated if still pendin3 7. final decree set aside1 4ut t e separation of property and forfeiture remains1 unless t ey revive former re3ime 6rt ,$ 63reement to revive former re3ime s all specify9 !. w at to contri4ute anew to restored property re3ime 7. w at to retain in separate property /. names of all t e creditors P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e -! of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e -7 of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 ;II0 DI;ORC&) Is t ere divorce in t e P ilippinesB T ere is =ust relative divorce0 ?UT ?UTT It reco3ni8es two @inds of divorce9 forei3n divorce and Muslim divorces0 60 Forei3n Divorces FC1 6rt !D Nationality t eory applies in t e P ilippines0 P ilippine laws follow Filipinos anyw ere t ey 3o0 FC1 6rt 7, Marria3es valid w ere cele4rated are valid everyw ere e2cept w en !. one is 4elow !# 7. 4i3amous1 not under 6rt -! /. mista@e as to identity of ot er party -. void

under D/ for non%compliance D. psyc olo3ical incapacity ,. incestuous $. pu4lic policy PROOF) FOR FOR&I(N L6*) TO 6PPLGN ?& R&CO(NIP&D IN OUR JURI)DICTION !. Provision of t e forei3n law 7. Cele4ration of marria3e in accordance to t ose provisions ;6N DORN v ROMILLO +!"#D. !/- )CR6 !/" % 6licia married Upton1 U) citi8en in >on3 Ion30 Later on in !"#71 t ey o4tained divorce in Nevada0 ) ortly after t at1 6licia contracted anot er marria3e wit ;an Dorn0 !"#/ Upton files suit in Pasay RTC for nonapplication of divorce decree to 6licia and ence is ri3 t to administer t e con=u3al property in &rmita1 t e decision (alleon ) op % 6licia files for dismissal w ic t e RTC denied assailed in )C >&LD9 Upton is estopped from t e claim 4ecause e declared in Nevada t at t ere were no con=u3al assets0 >e is 6merican and U) law applies to im1 t erefore1 6licia is no lon3er is wife0 ET e marria3e tie1 w en t us severed as to one party1 ceases to 4ind eit er0F Petition of 6licia 3ranted0 Upton5s case dismissed0 Prevents t e situation w erein you are married to your us4and 4ut your us4and is no lon3er married to you0 AMa5am ?et li@es t is decision 4ecause it proves t at we don5t need new laws0 *e only ave to t in@ out of t e 4o20 6 c an3e of focus is all we need0 P ilippine laws apply to Filipino1 er3o1 forei3ners cannot use our laws a3ainst our citi8ens0 T eir own laws s all apply to t em0 ?ravoT P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e -/ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 SUIT6 v C6 Q D6ND6N +!""#. /CC )CR6 D"7 !"-! Fe and 6rturo 3ot married1 no c ildren !"D- Fe 3ot final =ud3ment of divorce wit 6rturo< woman remarried twice !"$7 >us4and dies wit out will % ?landina Dandan and er si2 c ildren wit 6rturo Padlan presents t emselves as eir of t e decedent % Ruperto Padlan intervened % RTC 3rants succession to Suita and Padlan >&LD9 RTC failed to esta4lis Suita5s citi8ens ip w ic is material to t e resolution of case0 If proven t at s e was no lon3 a Filipino citi8en1 t en s e was no lon3er t e wife of Padlan and divorce decree 4indin3 on er +application of ;an Dorn. % Time of divorce is t e most material and not t e time of t e marria3e % Remanded t e case to determine t e citi8ens ip of Suita at t e time of divorce LLOR&NT& v C6 Q LLOR&NT& +7CCC. /-D )CR6 D"7 !"7$%D$ Loren8o enlisted as U) Navy !"/$ Paula married Loren8o !"-/ Loren8o5s naturali8ation in t e U) !"-D Loren8o went ome to find out t at Paula 3ot pre3nant 4y is 4rot er Ceferino !"-D 4irt of Crisolo3o Llorente w o was ille3itimate and fat erless in is 4irt certificate % Loren8o refused to lived wit Paula and instead drew a written a3reement witnessed 4y er dad and stepmom t at t ey will dissolve t e marital union and s e will ave no claims to t e con=u3al assets1 wit out c ar3es for criminal act !"D7 !"D# !"#! !"#D RTC C6 )C Divorce decree 4ecame final in t e )tates Loren8o married 6licia w o5s unaware of is previous marria3e wit Paula< 4e3ot / c ildren Loren8o drafted is last will and testament Loren8o died 6ssi3ned Paula as administratri21 s e 4ein3 t e le3al survivin3 wife 6licia declared as co%owner Remand for rulin3 on t e intrinsic validity of t e will0 T ere were four si3nificant point in time9 !. divorce 7. marria3e to 6lice /. e2ecution of will -. deat Citin3 Suita1 once proven t at Loren8o5s citi8ens ip is 6merican at t e time of divorce1 t en t e divorce will 4e valid and s ould 4e reco3ni8ed % ;alidity of t e will is 3overned 4y laws of t e country in w ic t ey are remand to t e court for furt er clarification )C reco3ni8es t ee2ecuted divorce decree and up olds t e marria3e of 6lice and Loren8o % P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e -- of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 (6RCI6 v R&CIO +7CC!. /,, )CR6 -/$ Rederic@ and &dit a )amson married in 6ustralia in !"#$1 t en divorced in !"#" !""7 Rederic@ 4ecame U) citi8en !""- Rederic@ married (race !""D (race and Rederic@ lived separately and t en (race files for nullity on 3round of Red5s 4i3amy RTC reco3ni8ed t e divorce o4tained in 6ustralia and did not 'uestion respondent5s lac@ of capacity to marry >&LD9 Respondent5s le3al capacity to marry cannot 4e determined 4ecause e failed to produce t e forei3n law as well as t e decree provin3 is capacity to marry0 Not sure if e was 3ranted a4solute or pro4ationary divorce0 ;III0 D& F6CTO )&P6R6TION FC1 6rt !CC T e separation in fact 4etween us4and and wife

s all not affect t e re3ime of 6CP e2cept t at9 !0 70 /0 T e spouse w o leaves t e con=u3al ome or refuses to live t erein1 wit out =ust cause1 s all not ave t e ri3 t to 4e supported * en t e consent of one spouse to any transaction of t e ot er is re'uired 4y law1 =udicial aut ori8ation s all 4e o4tained in a summary proceedin3 In t e a4sence of sufficient community property1 t e separate property of 4ot spouses s all 4e solidarily lia4le for t e support of t e family0 T e spouse present s all1 upon proper petition in a summary proceedin31 4e 3iven =udicial aut ority to administer or encum4er any specific separate property of t e ?0 Muslim Divorces (overned 4y Code of Muslim Personal Laws of t e P ilippines +Presidential Decree No0 !C#/. Divorce or Tala' +C apter /. !0 70 /0 -0 D0 ,0 $0 Repudiation of t e wife 4y t e us4and +tala'. ;ow of a4stinence 4y t e us4and +ila. In=urious assimilation of us4and +8i ar. 6cts of imprecation +li5an. t e wife 4y t e Redemption 4y t e wife +@ ul5. &2ercise 4y t e wife of t e dele3ated ri3 t to repudiate +tafwid. =udicial decree +fas@ . G6)IN v JUD(&1 )>6RI56 +!""D. 7-! )CR6 ,C, >atima Gasin see@s to use er maiden name a3ain after 4ein3 divorced to >a=in Idris Gasin1 w o as already remarried0 ) ari5a court dismissed er petition 4ecause t ere as to 4e c an3e of name0 >&LD9 No need to ave court proceedin3s for c an3e of name 4ecause er le3al name is t e one entered in t e civil re3ister0 * en t e marria3e ties no lon3er e2ists as in t e case of deat of us4and or Muslim divorce1 t e widow or divorcee need not see@ =udicial confirmation of t e c an3e in er civil status in order to revert to er maiden name as t e use of er us4and[s name is optional and not o4li3atory for er0 FC1 6rt !7$ T e separation in fact 4etween us4and and wife s all not affect t e re3ime of CP( e2cept t at9 !0 T e spouse w o leaves t e con=u3al ome or refuses to live t erein1 wit out =ust cause1 s all not ave t e ri3 t to 4e supported 70 * en t e consent of one spouse to any transaction of t e ot er is re'uired 4y law1 =udicial aut ori8ation s all 4e o4tained in a summary proceedin3 /0 In t e a4sence of sufficient community property1 t e separate property of 4ot spouses s all 4e solidarily lia4le for t e support of t e family0 T e spouse present s all1 upon proper petition in a summary proceedin31 4e 3iven =udicial aut ority to administer or encum4er any specific separate property of t e ot er spouse sand use t e fruits or proceeds FC1 6rt 7/" * en a us4and and wife are separated in fact1 or one as a4andoned t e ot er and one of t em see@s =udicial aut ori8ation for a transaction w ere t e consent of t e ot er spouses is re'uired 4y law 4ut suc consent is wit eld or cannot 4e o4tained1 a verified petition may 4e filed in court alle3in3 t e fore3oin3 facts0 T e petition s all attac t e proposed deed1 if any1 em4odyin3 t e transaction and if none s all descri4e in detail t e said transaction and state t e reason w y t e re'uired consent t ereto cannot 4e secured0 In any case1 t e final deed duly e2ecuted 4y t e parties s all 4e su4mitted to and approved 4y t e court0 FC1 6rt 7-7 Upon filin3 of t e petition1 t e court s all notify t e ot er spouse1 w ose consent to t e transaction is re'uired1 of said petition1 orderin3 said spouse to s ow cause w y t e petition s ould not 4e 3ranted1 on or 4efore t e date set in t e said notice for t e initial conference0 T e notice s all 4e accompanied 4y a copy of t e petition and s all 4e served at t e last @nown address of t e spouse concerned0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e -D of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 FC1 6rt 7-, If t e petition is not resolved at t e initial conference1 said petition s all 4e decided in a summary earin3 on t e 4asis of affidavits1 documentary evidence or oral testimonies at t e sound discretion of t e court0 If testimony is needed1 t e court s all specify t e witnesses to 4e eard and t e su4=ect%matter of t eir testimonies1 directin3 t e parties to present said witnesses0 FC1 6rt 7-$ T e =ud3ment of t e court s all 4e immediately final and e2ecutory0 % 4ein3 considered as immoral and 3ross misconduct T e only t in3 resolved in t is case is t at t ey cannot 4e considered immoral in t e eyes of t eir own reli3ious 3roup 4ut it does not deny t e fact t at t e relations ip is still not le3ally 4indin3 on t em0 P&R&P v C6 and Ray Pere8 +!"",. 7DD )CR6 ,,! !"", Ray and Nerissa 3ot married in Ce4u0 !""7 6fter , miscarria3es1 7 operations and a i3 ris@ pre3nancy1 s e finally 3ave 4irt to Ray Jr0 !""/ T e family went to Ce4u 4ut only Nerissa went 4ac@ to t e U) alt ou3 t ey all ad round trip tic@ets 4ecause Ray ad to stay 4e ind and ta@e care of ill mot er0 % ) e

came 4ac@ no lon3er in 3ood terms wit us4and RTC followed tender years presumption C6 reversed and 3ave custody to fat er 6rt 7!/ can 4e ta@en to mean separation +le3al or de facto. and s ould ta@e into account all relevant info +material1 Es all not 4e separatedF from mot er is mandatory unless unfitsocial1 moral. financial capacity not determinative asto e2ercise sole parental aut ority lon3 as 4ot ave ample means of support * en us4and 'uestioned wife5s nature of wor@ and it5s incapa4ility to care for c ild9 % It5s not in3 t at can5t 4e andled0 ) ifts can 4e ad=usted so s e can attend to t e c ild0 T ere are also daycare centers and s e could always ta@e a leave until t e c ild can mana3e on its own0 Petitioner also invites mot er to =oin t em in t e )tates so s e could loo@ after t e c ild0 >us4and will also =ust leave t e care of t e c ild to is mot er 4ecause of t e nature of is wor@ as a doctor ?esides1 not in3 can 4e more eart renderin3 t at t e wife5s situation w o waited so lon3 to ave a c ild only to 4e deprived from er 4efore t e first year0 P&TITION (R6NT&D0 C6 )&T 6)ID& 6ND R&;&R)&D0 RTC R&IN)T6T&D0 For immediate e2ecution0 &)TR6D6 v &)CRITOR +7CC,. -"7 )CR6 ! 6dministrative case a3ainst an employee of t e )upreme Court w o is livin3 wit a man not er us4and Declaration of Pled3e of Fait fulness practice of t e Je ova 5s *itnesses immuni8ed t em from P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e -, of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 I:0 RI(>T) Q O?LI(6TION) ?&T*&&N >U)?6ND Q *IF& 60 Co a4itation1 Mutual Love and Respect +e. 6ttemptin3 to compel or compellin3 t e woman or er c ild to en3a3e in conduct w ic t e woman or er c ild as t e ri3 t to desist from or desist from conduct w ic t e woman or er c ild as t e ri3 t to en3a3e in1 or attemptin3 to restrict or restrictin3 t e woman[s or er c ild[s freedom of movement or conduct 4y force or t reat of force1 p ysical or ot er arm or t reat of p ysical or ot er arm1 or intimidation directed a3ainst t e woman or c ild0 T is s all include1 4ut not limited to1 t e followin3 acts committed wit t e purpose or effect of controllin3 or restrictin3 t e woman[s or er c ild[s movement or conduct9 +f. Inflictin3 or t reatenin3 to inflict p ysical arm on oneself for t e purpose of controllin3 er actions or decisions< +3. Causin3 or attemptin3 to cause t e woman or er c ild to en3a3e in any se2ual activity w ic does not constitute rape1 4y force or t reat of force1 V 6ny arm1 or t rou3 intimidation RPC1 6rt 7-$ Deat or p ysical in=uries inflicted under e2ceptional circumstances0p ysicalle3ally married person w o avin3 directed a3ainst t e woman or 4ot of t em surprised is spouse in t e act of committin3 se2ual intercourse wit anot er person1 s all @ill any of t em or er c ild or erN is immediate family< in t e act or immediately t ereafter1 or s all inflict upon t em any serious p ysical in=ury1 s all suffer t e penalty of + . &n3a3in3 in purposeful1 @nowin31 or rec@less destierro0 conduct1 personally or t rou3 anot er1 t at alarms or causes su4stantial emotional or If e s all inflict upon t em p ysical in=uries of any ot er @ind1 e s all 4e e2empt from punis ment0 psyc olo3ical distress to t e woman or er c ild0 T is s all include1 4ut not 4e under to1 t e T ese rules s all 4e applica4le1 under t e same circumstances1 to parents wit respect to t eir dau3 terslimited ei3 teen followin3 acts9 years of a3e1 and t eir seducer1 w ile t e dau3 ters are livin3 wit t eir parents0 +i. Causin3 mental or emotional an3uis 1 pu4lic ridicule or s all ot erwise ave consented to t e 6ny person w o s all promote or facilitate t e prostitution of is wife or dau3 ter1 or umiliation to t e woman or er c ild1 includin31 4ut not limited to1 repeated ver4al infidelity of t e ot er spouse s all not 4e entitled to t e 4enefits of t is article0 and emotional a4use1 and denial of financial support or custody of minor c ildren of access to t e woman[s c ildNc ildren0 )ec 7, ?attered *oman )yndrome as a Defense0 K ;ictim%survivors w o are found 4y t e courts to 4e sufferin3 from 4attered woman syndrome do not incur any criminal and civil lia4ility notwit standin3 t e a4sence of any of t e elements for =ustifyin3 circumstances of self%defense under t e Revised Penal Code0 In t e determination of t e state of mind of t e woman FC1 6rt ,# T e us4and and t e wife are o4li3ed to live to3et er1 w o was mutual love1 respect andwoman syndrome at t e o4serve sufferin3 from 4attered fidelity and render mutual time of t e commission of t e crime1 t e courts s all 4e elp and support0 assisted 4y e2pert psyc iatristsN

psyc olo3ists0 )ec 7# Custody of c ildren0 K T e woman victim of violence s all 4e entitled to t e custody and support of CC1 6rt /- * en a mem4er of a city or municipal police force refuses or fails to render aid or protection to any person in case er c ildNc ildren0 C ildren 4elow seven +$. years old of dan3er to life or property1 suc peace officer s all 4e primarily lia4le for dama3es1 and t e city or municipality s all 4e older 4ut wit mental or p ysical disa4ilities s all su4sidiarily responsi4le t erefor0 T e civil action erein reco3ni8ed s all 4e independent of any criminal proceedin3s1 and a automatically 4e 3iven to t e mot er1 wit ri3 t to preponderance of evidence s all suffice to support suc action0 support1 unless t e court finds compellin3 reasons to order ot erwise0 R6 #/D/ +6nti%Rape Law. 6 victim w o is sufferin3 from 4attered woman syndrome )ec 7 Rape as a Crime 63ainst Persons0 V T e crime of rape s all ereafter 4e classified as a Crime 63ainst Persons under s all not 4e dis'ualified from avin3 custody of er Title &i3 t of 6ct No0 /#!D1 as amended1 ot erwise @nown as t e Revised Penal Code0 c ildren0 In no case s all custody of minor c ildren 4e 3iven to t e perpetrator of a woman w o is sufferin3 from 4attered woman syndrome0 R6 "7,7 +6nti ;6*C 6ct of 7CC-. )ec D 6cts of ;iolence 63ainst *omen and T eir C ildren0 % T e crime of violence a3ainst women and N6R6( v N6R6( +!""#. t eir c ildren is committed t rou3 any of t e followin3 7"! )CR6 -D! acts9 % Dominador was a teac er at )t0 Louis Colle3e of +a. Causin3 p ysical arm to t e woman or er Tu3ue3arao w en e met (ina &spita1 a !st year c ild< +4. T reatenin3 to cause t e woman or er c ild !$ yo student0 T ey ad a relations ip and p ysical arm< Dominador a4andoned is family to live wit +c. 6ttemptin3 to cause t e woman or er c ild (ina0 p ysical arm< Dominador used power as )an33unian3 +d. Placin3 t e woman or er c ild in fear of Panlalawi3an to secure employment for (ina at imminent p ysical arm< t e DTI0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e -$ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % !0 70 /0 -0 D0 !0 70 /0 -0 D0 ,0 $0 #0 "0 % % Dominador5s wife instituted a dis4arment proceedin3 a3ainst im for immorality1 4ut after one year s e wanted to wit draw er complaint sayin3 ) e fa4ricated alle3ations in complaint to umiliate and spite us4and Love letters 4etween two 3uilty were for3ed ) e suffered from emotional confusin3 due to e2treme =ealousy Denied (ina and Dominador ever ad a relations ip Dominador never left t e family ?ut a year later1 Julieta filed t e same case a3ain due to er us4and5s continuous t reat0 Dominador filed is answer >e never t reatened1 arassed1 or intimidated er >e never a4andoned family1 e loves t em0 >e protected Q preserved family0 Julieta and two sons drove im out of t eir ouse0 Julieta is emotionally distur4ed K incura4ly =ealous and possessive1 violent1 vindictive1 scandalous0 Julieta5s ric and s e a4 ors poor1 e is poor e was 4eaten1 4attered1 4rutali8ed1 tortured1 a4used and umiliated 4y Julieta in pu4lic and at ome so e filed for annulment 4ecause t ey cannot e2ist to3et er ) e as dis3raced1 s amed and umiliated im 4y tellin3 everyone everyw ere t at e5s wort less1 3ood%for%not in31 evil and immoral Denied relations ip wit (ina0 No @ids eit er0 Love letters9 inadmissi4le as evidence >e is old t us1 unfit to do t in3s alle3ed 4y Julieta0 Investi3atin3 officer9 indefinite suspension from practice of law0 >e never denied love letters1 didn5t disprove adulterous relations ip0 Denyin3 two @ids +6urelle Dominic and Iyle Dominador. 3round for disciplinary action0 I?P9 affirmed investi3atin3 officer5s recommendation Q 3ranted dis4arment denials wit out proof are insufficient0 >is accusations a3ainst Julieta were not proven0 Providin3 for is family1 3ivin3 t em a comforta4le life1 is 4ein3 a successful lawyer and seasoned politician do not necessarily mean t at e5s morally fit0 >e as duties to is c ildren +support1 educate1 instruct accordin3 to ri3 t precepts and 3ood e2ample1 3ive love1 companions ip1 understandin31 moral Q spiritual 3uidance. and to is wife +o4serve mutual love1 respect Q fidelity Q render elp and support.0 >e failed to fulfill t ese duties0 >e was away most of t e time 4ecause of is paramour not 4ecause of wor@ as e alle3es0 )on5s testimony proved t at e a4andoned is family w ic even affected is son5s own family0 Dominador did not merely contract a marria3e1 e s ould ave 4een a partner w o lived up to is promise to love Q respect is wife Q remain fait ful to er until deat 0 (OITI6 v C6MPO)

RU&D6 +!"!,. /D P il 7D7 &lisa (oitia and Jose Campos Rueda were married on January $1 !"!D0 T ey esta4lis ed t eir residence1 w ere t ey lived to3et er for a mont after w ic plaintiff returned to er parents0 ) e alle3ed t at defendant demanded of er t at s e perform unc aste and lascivious acts on is 3enitals0 ) e refused to perform any act ot er t an le3al and valid co a4itation0 Defendant continued demandin3 suc acts from er0 >er continued refusal e2asperated im1 inducin3 im to maltreat er 4y word and deed and inflict in=uries upon er lips1 face and different 4ody parts0 T us1 s e was o4li3ed to leave t e con=u3al a4ode and is now as@in3 for support0 CFI eld t at defendant cannot 4e compelled to support wife1 e2cept in is own ouse1 unless it 4e 4y virtue of a =udicial decree 3rantin3 er a divorce or separation from t e defendant0 I))U&9 *ON wife is entitled to support outside con=u3al a4ode >&LD9 Ges0 T e rule esta4lis ed in 6rt0 !-" of t e Civil Code is not a4solute0 T e doctrine t at neit er spouse cannot 4e compelled to support t e ot er outside t e con=u3al a4ode1 unless it 4e 4y virtue of a =udicial decree 3rantin3 t em a divorce or separation is not controllin3 in cases w ere one of t e spouses was compelled to leave t e con=u3al a4ode 4y t e ot er or w ere t e us4and voluntarily a4andons suc a4ode and t e wife see@s to force im to furnis support0 T e nature of t e duty of affordin3 mutual support is compati4le and enforcea4le in all situations1 so lon3 as t e needy spouse does not create any illicit situation0 6 =ud3ment for separate maintenance is a =ud3ment callin3 for t e performance of a duty made specific 4y t e mandate of t e soverei3n0 Moreland1 concurrin39 6 us4and cannot1 4y is own wron3ful acts1 relieve imself from t e duty to support is wife imposed 4y law< and w ere a I))U&9 *ON Dominador s ould 4e dis4arred >&LD9 Ges0 6 lawyer s ould not en3a3e in unlawful1 dis onest1 immoral +s ameless s owin3 indifference to opinion of 3ood mem4ers of society. or deceitful conduct1 s ould not 4e ave in scandalous manner1 in pu4lic or in private to t e discredit of t e le3al profession0 T ese are continuin3 re'uirementsN'ualification of all mem4ers of 4ar0 T is includes pro i4ition a3ainst adulterous relations ips0 ?urden of proof of 3ross immorality for a4andonin3 is family proved w en Julieta presented witnesses w o attested to adulterous relations ip 4etween (ina Q Dominador0 &ven (ina5s 4rot er admitted t at (ina and Dominador ad two c ildren0 &ven t ou3 Julieta as 4urden of proof1 e needs to s ow t at e is morally fit to remain a mem4er of 4ar0 >is P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e -# of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 us4and1 4y wron3ful1 ille3al and un4eara4le conduct1 drives is wife from t e domicile fi2ed 4y im1 e cannot ta@e advanta3e of er departure to a4ro3ate t e law applica4le to t e marital relation and repudiate is duties t ereunder0 Co a4itation includes normal se2ual intercourse only0 >us4and as to support wife 4ecause s e ad =ust cause for leavin30 A* o determines w at is accepta4le form of se2B T e spousesT Not t e =ud3e nor t e societyT A * y is missionary position prescri4ed 4y t e c urc B ?ecause it 3ives t e least satisfaction0 )e2 is not meant to 4e for pleasure 4ut for procreation only0 *6RR&N v )T6T& +!"#D. 7DD (a0 !D! Daniel *arren was convicted for rape and a33ravated sodomy of is wife w ile t ey were livin3 to3et er as us4and and wife0 >e appealed to dismiss t e indictment0 >is 3rounds9 !0 Rape statute implies marital e2clusion t us us4and cannot 4e 3uilty of rapin3 wife0 70 633ravated sodomy statute provides for marital e2clusion1 too0 /0 Interpretin3 t e a4ove%mentioned laws ot erwise would 4e tantamount to new interpretations Q application of suc would deny im of is due process ri3 ts0 I))U&9 *ON marital e2clusion is implied in t e rape and a33ravated sodomy statutes >&LD9 No0 T ere as never 4een an e2press marital e2emption in (eor3ia rape statute0 T eoriesN4ases for t in@in3 t at marital e2clusion e2ists in rape statute9 +a. Lord >ale K 4y 3ivin3 matrimonial consent1 wife 3ave up erself in t is @ind unto us4and and s e can5t ta@e t at 4ac@ +4. )u4se'uent marria3e doctrine of &n3lis law % if marria3e 4etween a rapist and is victim e2tin3uis es criminal lia4ilities t en corollary1 rape wit in marital relations ip s ould 4e 3iven t at immunity +c. Medieval time K wife is us4and5s c attel or property t us rape1 t us man is merely usin3 is own property +d. Unity of person t eory K us4and and wife 4ecome one1 wit wife incorporatin3 er e2istence to t at of t e us4and1 t us us4and cannott 4e

convicted of rapin3 imself0 Justifications9 +a. prevent fa4ricated c ar3es +4. prevent wives from usin3 rape c ar3es for reven3e +c. prevent state intervention so as not to 6ll of t ese t eories and =ustifications aret wart possi4le reconciliation pass]0 &'ual protection of t e laws is 4ein3 practiced now0 Rape is committed 4y avin3 carnal @nowled3e wit a female forci4ly and a3ainst er will0 It violates t e moral sense and personal inte3rity and autonomy of t e female victim0 Implied consent to suc in marria3e conflicts is a4surd and a3ainst t e constitution0 Durin3 era of slavery1 rape was seen ne3atively and not accepta4le even to c attels0 )odomy is t e carnal @nowled3e and connection a3ainst t e order of nature 4y man wit man or in same unnatural manner wit woman0 T ere as 4een no implied marital e2emption under t is statute even in earlier times0 Consent is not a defense unli@e in rape0 6nyone w o voluntarily participates is 3uilty0 T ere is due process0 Due process merely re'uires t at law 3ive sufficient warnin3 so men may avoid w at is for4idden0 )tatutes concerned are plain and 4roadly written0 T is may 4e t e first application to t is particular set of facts 4ut it is not an unforeseea4le =udicial enlar3ement of criminal statutes t at are narrowly drawn0 T ere is no marital e2emption in rape0 6 person commits rape w en e as carnal @nowled3e of a female forci4ly and a3ainst er will0 T>URM6N v CITG OF TORRIN(TON +!"#-. D"D F0 )upp0 !D7! ?etween early Octo4er !"#7 and June !C1 !"#/1 Tracey T urman notified t e police officers of t e City of repeated t reats upon er life and t e life of er c ild1 C arles T urman1 Jr01 made 4y er estran3ed us4and1 C arles T urman0 T is includes 4rea@in3 er winds ield w ile s e was in t e car1 w ere e was convicted of 4reac of peace1 and sta44in3 er repeatedly0 6ttempts to file complaints 4y wife a3ainst us4and 4ased on t reats of deat and maimin3 er were i3nored and re=ected 4y t e police 4ecause of an alle3ed administrative classification t at affords lesser protection w en t e victim is a woman a4used 4y a spouse or 4oyfriend1 or a c ild a4used 4y a fat er or stepfat er0 I))U&)9 *ON t e administrative violates t e e'ual protection clause classification >&LD9 Ges0 6 man is not allowed to p ysically a4use or endan3er a woman merely 4ecause e is er us4and0 6 police officer may not @nowin3ly refrain from interference in suc violence1 and may not automatically decline to ma@e an arrest simply 4ecause t e assaulter and is victim are married to eac ot er0 * atever may 4e said as to t e positive values of avoidin3 intra%family controversy1 t e c oice in t is conte2t may not lawfully 4e mandated solely on t e 4asis of se20 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e -" of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 )U?%I))U&) !0 Dismissal of claims of son % Correct0 Condition to stay away from son is not one of t e conditions after arrest0 T ere is failure to ade'uately alle3e denial of e'ual protection 70 6lle3ation of custom or policy % 6 pattern emer3es t at evidences deli4erate indifference on t e part of t e police department to t e complaints of Tracey and its duty to protect er0 )uc indifference raises an inference of custom or policy on t e part of municipality0 /0 Unidentified police officers % O@ay 4ecause case was dismissed even 4efore plaintiff ad an opportunity to discover identity of unidentified defendants0 -0 Pendent Jurisdiction over plaintiff5s state law claim% T e court as discretion to e2ercise t is power0 6t t e instant case1 court declines to e2ercise 4ecause needless decisions of state law s ould 4e avoided 4ot as a matter of comity and to promote =ustice 4etween t e parties1 4y procurin3 for t em a surer%footed readin3 of applica4le law0 P&OPL& v LI?&RT6 +!"#-. ,- NG 7d !D7 Mario and Denise were married 4ut w en e started 4eatin3 er s e sou3 t temporary protection from er us4and0 T e order was 3ranted and Mario was directed to move out1 stay away from t e family ome1 stay away from Denise and e may only visit t eir c ild once a wee@0 % Mario wanted to visit son 4ut Denise did not allow im to 3o t e ouse so t ey met instead in t e motel w ere Mario was stayin3 on t e condition t at t ey 4e accompanied 4y a friend0 >owever1 t e friend left upon t eir arrival at t e motel0 Mario t en attac@ed Denise1 t reatened to @ill er and forced er to perform fellatio on im and to en3a3e in se2ual intercourse wN im0 7 ^ year old son was t ere all t e time and Mario even forced Denise to tell t eir son to watc w at was appenin30 T ey were allowed to leave afterwards0 % Mario was convicted for rape

and sodomy 4ot in t eir !st de3rees0 >owever1 Mario contends t at9 o T ey are married t us e is covered 4y marital e2emption to rape and sodomy0 o Rape and sodomy statutes are unconstitutional 4ecause it treats married and unmarried persons differently0 I))U&)9 !0 *ON Mario is covered 4y t e marital e2emption 70 *ON t e statutes are unconstitutional for violatin3 e'ual protection clause >&LD9 !0 NO0 Male 3uilty of rape w en e en3a3es in se2ual intercourse wit female 4y forci4le compulsion0 Female is any female person not married to actor0 )odomy means en3a3in3 in deviate se2ual intercourse +se2ual conduct 4etween persons not married to eac ot er consistin3 of contact 4etween penis and anus1 mout and penis1 or mout and vulva0 Not married p rase means t ere is marital e2emption for 4ot 0 ?ut it as e2emptions0 One of w ic is w en spouses are livin3 apart pursuant to a valid and effective +a. order issued 4y court of competent =urisdiction re'uirin3 suc livin3 apart +4. decree of separation +c. written a3reement of separation1 t ey are considered to 4e not married0 T us1 forci4le rape or sodomy in t is instance would 4e punis a4le0 In t is case1 Denise and Mario were tec nically1 not married1 4y virtue of t e temporary order of protection0 70 /0 Constitutionality of Marital &2emption Married man ordinarily cannot 4e convicted of forci4ly rapin3 or sodomi8in3 is wife +marital e2emption.0 )tate is allowed to ma@e classifications as lon3 as t ere is a rational 4asis for doin3 so and it does not ar4itrarily 4urden a particular 3roup0 No rational 4asis for distin3uis in3 4etween marital and non%marital rape0 Rationales are arc aic0 +)ee People v Li4erta e2planations on t eories.0 Imposin3 a marital e2emption does not furt er t e cause it purportedly protects w ic is marital privacy +e030 Prevent state interference to protect privacy K not =ustified 4y allowin3 us4and to forci4ly rape is wife< Disrupt marria3e K t e act of rapeNsodomy in itself would disrupt t e marria3e and reconciliation is 'uite impossi4le< wife will present fa4ricated info K criminal =ustice system can ta@e care of t is.0 Marital rape is more violent and traumatic t an non%marital one0 IT I) UNCON)TITUTION6L0 Constitutionality of &2emption for Females K Only males can 4e convicted of rape in t e ! st de3ree0 Reason9 It aims to protect c astity of women and t eir property value to fat erN us4ands0 Treatin3 people differently 4ased on 3ender can only 4e =ustified 4y its su4stantial relation to t e ac ievement of an important 3overnmental o4li3ation0 )tate defense9 +a. only females can 4ecome pre3nant K it5s not t e main purpose +4. female faces pro4a4ility of medical1 sociolo3ical and psyc olo3ical pro4lems uni'ue to er 3ender K arc aic and over4road 3enerali8ation +c. women cannot actually rape men or if it appens1 it5s rare K not tena4le eit er0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e DC of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 T ey need to present an e2ceedin3ly persuasive =ustification for classification0 ) ow t at 3ender4ased law serves t e 3overnment5s interest 4etter t an a 3ender%neutral one0 6s it is1 only females w o forci4ly rape males 4enefit from t e present statute0 LII&*I)&1 IT I) UNCON)TITUTION6L0 6fter 77 years1 6urelia filed a case for separate maintenance due to infidelity and cruelty0 !C years prior to t e institution of t e case1 Rafael was 3uilty of repeated acts of infidelity wit four different women0 &ven after t e institution of t e case it was s own t at e as ad an illicit relation wit anot er woman0 T e incorri3i4le nature of t e defendant in is -0 )tri@e out only t e unconstitutional parts since relations wit ot er women coupled wit is lac@ t e statute is of ma=or importance0 It5s not of consideration and even 4rutality caused entirely void anyway0 6urelia to leave t e con=u3al ome and for er to D0 Due process is o4served0 >is act was already esta4lis er own a4ode0 T eir final separation criminal w en e attac@ed Denise0 occurred on 6pril !"-$0 T ere was no sufficient evidence to esta4lis t e cruelty of t e us4and 4ut t ere were sufficient ?0 Fi2in3 t e Family Domicile evidence to esta4lis t e infidelity of t e us4and0 I))U&9 *ON t e wife is t e court s all decide0 FC1 6rt ," T e us4and and t e wife s all fi2 t e family domicile0 In case of disa3reement1entitled for separate support from er us4and0 T&NC>6;&P v &)C6NO +!",,. !$ )CR6 ,$- % Pastor Tenc ave8 and ;icenta &scaZo were married in !"-#0 In !"DC1 defendant &scaZo o4tained a forei3n divorce in Nevada0 ) e furt er sou3 t papal dispensation of t e marria3e alt ou3 no document provin3 t e same was presented0 &scaZo5s marria3e to 6merican Rusell Leo

Moran in t e U) in !"D-1 w ic was later 4lessed wit t ree c ildren I))U&)9 !0 *ON divorce is valid 70 *ON Court may t en compel &scaZo to co a4it wit Tenc ave8 >&LD9 !0 Divorce is invalid for a forei3n divorce decree cannot 4e reco3ni8ed in t e P ilippines especially if it was 3ranted 4y court of t e place w ic was not t e parties5 4ona fide domicile and on a 3round not reco3ni8ed 4y our law1 w ic does not allow a4solute divorce0 &ven in private international law1 forei3n decrees +especially t ose confirmin3 or dissolvin3 a marria3e. cannot 4e enforced or reco3ni8ed if t ey contravene pu4lic policy0 >&LD9 G&) % In order to entitle a wife to maintain a separate ome and to re'uire separate maintenance from t e us4and it is not necessary t at t e us4and s ould 4rin3 a concu4ine into t e ome0 Perverse and illicit relations wit women outside t e con=u3al ome are sufficient 3rounds0 % Rulin3 in 6rroyo v0 ;as'ue8 de 6rroyo is not applica4le 4ecause in t e 6rroyo case t e only 3rounds t at were alle3ed was cruelty and t at c ar3e was not proven0 In t e present case1 t e c ar3e of cruelty was also not proven 4ut t e 6urelia also accused er us4and of infidelity and t at c ar3e as 4een proven +repeated acts of con=u3al infidelity. and t e us4and appears to 4e a recurrent1 if not incura4le offender0 T is fact 3ives t e wife an undenia4le ri3 t to relief0 % (oitia v0 Campos Rueda K us4and cannot 4y is own wron3ful acts1 relieve imself from t e duty to support is wife0 * en e drives is wife from t e domicile fi2ed 4y im1 e cannot ta@e advanta3e of er departure to a4ro3ate t e law applica4le to t e marital relations and repudiate is duties0 (6RCI6 v )6NTI6(O +!"7#. D/ P il0 "D7 % !"!C Cipriana (arcia Isa4elo )antia3o married !"7D Cipriana compelled to leave con=u3al dwellin39 !0 continued family dissensions 70 6le=o1 Isa4elo5s son 4y is first wife seduced Prisca 6urelio1 Cipriana5s dau3 ter 4y er first us4and0 Prisca 3ave 4irt to a c ild0 Isa4elo1 instead of re'uirin3 is son to marry Prisca1 refused to interfere and e seemed to tolerate t eir illicit relations ip0 /0 Isa4elo as conveyedN4een conveyin3 t eir con=u3al properties to 6le=o to foster latter5s w ims and caprices and t us1 dama3in3 and % 70 No0 It is not wit in t e province of courts to attempt to compel one of t e spouses to co a4it wit 1 and render con=u3al ri3 ts to t e ot er0 >owever1 a spouse w o un=ustifia4le deserts t e con=u3al a4ode can 4e denied support0 D6DI;6) v ;ILL6NU&;6 +!"7". D- P il0 "7 6urelia Dadivas de ;illanueva married Rafael ;illanueva and t ey ad t ree c ildren0 +!#1 !C1 ". P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e D! of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % pre=udicin3 Cipriana5s ri3 ts0 )ome of t ese properties include lands ac'uired durin3 t eir marria3e wit money 4elon3in3 to t e con=u3al partners ip0 Land annually produces -1DCC cavanes of palay at P-0CCNcavan0 Ot er alle3ations of CiprianaNPrayers to t e Court9 !0 T eir separation is necessary to avoid personal violence0 ) e could not live in t e con=u3al dwellin3 due to t e illicit relations ip of 6le=o and Prisca tolerated 4y Isa4elo0 70 ) e is entitled to PDCC pendente lite mont ly pension from con=u3al partners ip0 >owever1 Isa4elo refused to provide for er support despite er demands0 /0 ) e s ould 4e in%c ar3e of t e administration of t e property of t eir con=u3al partners ip 4ecause Isa4elo is unfit to do so0 >e e2 i4its immoral conduct and acts 4y pu4licly maintainin3 an illicit relations ip wit (eronima Gap0 Isa4elo answered wit a 3eneral denial0 CFI dismissed us4and1 e claims t e ri3 t to fi2 t e residence of t e family0 6fter plaintiff filed a petition for pendente lite wit t e CFI0 CFI 3ranted a mont ly allowance of P$D0 T e defendant t en filed a petition w erein e elected to fulfil is o4li3ation as fi2ed 4y t e trial court to receive and maintain plaintiff at is residence in Pasay City0 CFI denied t e petition0 C6 presented to )C for 6d=udication0 I))U&9 *ON a wife is entitled to receive support from er us4and w ere s e refused to live wit im on account of some misunderstandin3 s e ad wit t e us4and5s immediate relatives0 >&LD9 No0 Defendant%appellant 3ave t e option to support wife at con=u3al dwellin3 apart from is parents5 ome0 ) ould plaintiff refuse1 e is under no o4li3ation to 3ive any support0 T e wife cannot 4e compelled to live wit er us4and 4ut support can 4e denied to t e spouse w o left0 D&L RO)6RIO v D&L RO)6RIO +!"-". -, O( ,!77 Plaintiff (enoveva del Rosario1 a widow wit 7 @ids and defendant Teoderico del Rosario1 a mec anic1 widower wit a son 3ot married0 T ey lived

to3et er in t e ouse of defendant[s mot er0 ?ecause of petty 'uarrels1 plaintiff left t e con=u3al ome in !"-70 I))U&9 *ON plaintiff is =ustified in leavin3 and is entitled to support R6TIO9 Ges0 6s t e marria3e vow does not include ma@in3 sacrifices for t e in%laws1 t ere is le3al =ustification for wife5s refusal to live wit us4and1 ta@in3 into account t e Etraditional atred 4etween wife and er mot er%in%lawF +nya a a.0 It is true t at wife is o4li3ed to follow er us4and w erever e wis es to esta4lis t e residence +6rt D#1 CC.1 4ut t is ri3 t does not include compellin3 wife to live wit mot er%in%law1 if t ey cannot 3et alon3 to3et er0 6limony will 4e set accordin3 to us4and5s a4ility to pay0 I))U&)N>&LD9 !0 *ON t eir separation is =ustified % G&)0 T ey were avin3 a stormy life prior to t e separation due to t e fre'uent fi3 ts0 Isa4elo ordered er to leave t e ouse and t reatened to ill%treat er if s e returned0 Prisca5s situation is em4arrassin3 for er mot er0 >i3 ly possi4le t at 6le=o caused Prisca5s pre3nancy0 Compellin3 t em to co a4it could lead to furt er 'uarrels0 70 *ON transfers of property from Isa4elo to 6le=o are ille3al % NO0 Failed to prove t at property was community property0 Documentary evidences even s ow t at it was ac'uired 4y im 4efore t eir marria3e0 /0 *ON Cipriana is entitled to PDCC mont ly maintenance O NO0 T at5s too muc 0 PDC is enou3 0 6TIL6NO v C>U6 C>IN( ?&N( +!"D#. !C/ P il0 7DD Pilar 6tilano +plaintiff%appellee.1 !" years old1 married C ua C in3 ?en3 +defendant%appellant. on May !"D!0 T ey lived in Manila wit t e parents of t e C in3 ?en30 In Octo4er of t at year1 t e couple went 4ac@ to Pam4oan3a for a vacation in Pilar5s parents0 ) e stayed 4e ind1 tellin3 t e defendant t at s e would 3o 4ac@ to im later0 On )eptem4er !"D/1 owever1 s e filed a complaint of support a3ainst er us4and1 alle3in3 estran3ement since Octo4er !"D71 incessant 4ic@erin3 and is ina4ility to provide a ome for t em wit out is parents0 Defendant did not disclaim o4li3ation to support< owever1 e e2pressed is desire to fulfil is o4li3ation if s e returns to Manila and lives wit im in a domicile separate from is parents0 6s t e C0 Mutual >elp and )upport FC1 6rt ,# T e us4and and t e wife are o4li3ed to9 !0 live to3et er1 70 o4serve mutual love1 /0 -0 respect and fidelity1 render mutual elp and support FC1 6rt $C T e spouses are =ointly responsi4le for t e support of t e fa o4li3ations s all 4e paid from t e community property and in t e a4se properties0 In case of insufficiency or a4sence of said income or fruits properties0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e D7 of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 allowance of wife of WDC a e2penses s all 4e W#CC CC1 6rt !!! T e us4and is responsi4le for t e support of t e wife and t e rest of t e family0 T esemont < awarded met for wife5s attorney< parap ernal property0 In 4uy first from t e con=u3al property1 t en from t e us4and[s capital1 and lastly from t e wife[sand as an alternative1 case a modern ouse us4and and wife s all contri4ute t ere is a separation of property1 4y stipulation in t e marria3e settlements1 t e elsew ere0 proportionately to t e family e2penses0 I))U&9 *ON wife is entitled to relief FC1 6rt !"" * enever 7 or more persons are o4li3ed to 3ive support1 t e lia4ility s all devolveactiont e ff persons in t e at >&LD9 No0 To maintain an upon suc as t e one order erein provided9 4ar1 t e parties must 4e separated or livin3 apart !0 spouse from eac ot er0 Parties are not livin3 apart and 70 descendants in t e nearest de3ree wife as 4een supported in t e same manner /0 ascendants in t e nearest de3ree wit out complaint0 6s lon3 as ome is maintained -0 4rot ers and sisters and t e parties are livin3 as us4and and wife it may 4e said t at t e us4and is le3ally supportin3 is wife and t e purpose of t e marria3e s all 4e divided FC1 6rt 7CC * en t e o4li3ation to 3ive support falls upon two or more persons1 t e payment of t e sameis 4ein3 carried out0 6s for attorney5s fees1 it is only allowed to t e 4etween t em in proportion to t e resources of eac 0 successful party in liti3ation only w ere allowance is >owever1 in case of ur3ent need and 4y special circumstances1 t e =ud3e may order only one of t em to furnis t e support provided 4y t e statute0 provisionally1 wit out pre=udice to is ri3 t to claim form t e ot er o4li3ors t e s are due from t em0 * en two or more recipients at t e same time claim support from one and t e same person le3ally o4li3ed to 3ive it1 s ould !7 esta4lis ed in t e precedin3 6rticle s all 4e followed1 t e latter not ave sufficient means to satisfy all claims1 t e order P il -D/ unless t e concurrent o4li3es s ould 4e t e

spouse and a c ild su4=ect to parental aut ority1 in w ic case t e c ild s all 4e % 6rturo Pelayo is a p ysician w o was called on preferred0 4y t e defendants +parents of t e us4and. to P&L6GO v L6URON +!"C". MC(UIR& v MC(UIR& +!"D/. !D$ Ne40 77, % Lydia +,,. and C arles +#C. Mc(uire were married0 T ey ave @nown eac ot er for / years and wife @new of us4and5s e2traordinary fru3ality0 % ) e as two dau3 ters from previous marria3e1 w ose education was supported 4y t e second marria3e0 T ey are now married and livin3 in different states0 T ey in erited an #C%acre farm from first us4and and Lydia transferred er interest to er dau3 ters 4ut s e can ave t e rent money w ic s e uses to visit er dau3 ters0 *ife testified t at s e used to raise c ic@ens and er profits were used to 4uy clot in3 and 3roceries 4ecause us4and 3ave er very little money1 did not 3ive er clot es e2cept for a sin3le coat and never too@ er to a movie0 T eir ouse was not e'uipped wit a 4at room and @itc en was not modern0 T e furnace was not in 3ood condition and s e ad a ard time scoopin3 coal for it0 T e car did not ave an efficient eater0 ) e could not raise c ic@ens anymore due to t e / a4dominal operations s e went t rou3 w ic er us4and paid for0 ?ecause of t ese1 wife filed an action for e'uity to recover suita4le maintenance and support money1 and for costs and attorney5s fees0 District Court decreed t at wife was le3ally entitled to use t e credit of t e us4and and o4li3ate im to pay for certain items in t e nature of improvements and repairs1 furniture1 and appliances for t e ouse old< purc ase a new automo4ile wit an effective eater in /C days< pay travel e2penses of wife to visit eac dau3 ter at least once a year< wife 4e entitled in t e future to pled3e t e credit of t e us4and for w at may constitute necessities of life< personal % attend to t eir dau3 ter in law w o was a4out to under3o la4or0 Plaintiff tried is 4est to elp er deliver1 4ut s e died due to c ild4irt 0 Plaintiff is now as@in3 for due compensation for is services amountin3 to PDCC0 Defendants claim t at er delivery at t eir domicile was only incidental1 and t at it was er us4and w o s ould pay for t e services rendered 4y t e plaintiff0 I))U&9 * o 4etween t e parents%in%law and t e us4and is lia4le for t e payment of PelayoB >&LD9 T e us4and1 4ecause renderin3 of medical assistance in case of illness comprises one of t e mutual o4li3ations to w ic spouses are 4ound 4y way of mutual support0 It is improper for plaintiff to ave 4rou3 t action a3ainst t e defendants simply 4ecause t ey were t e parties w o called t e plaintiff0 T e defendants were not1 nor are t ey now1 under any o4li3ation 4y virtue of any le3al provision1 to pay t e fees claimed1 nor in conse'uence of any contract entered into 4etween t em and t e plaintiff0 T ey are stran3ers wit respect to t e o4li3ation t at devolves upon t e us4and to provide support0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e D/ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 D0 Mana3ement of t e >ouse old FC1 6rt $! T e mana3ement of t e ouse old s all 4e t e ri3 t and duty of 4ot spouses0 T e e2penses s all for suc mana3ement s all 4e paid in accordance wit t e provisions of 6rt $C0 CC1 6rt !!D T e wife mana3es t e affairs of t e ouse old0 ) e may purc ase t in3s necessary for t e support of t e family1 and t e con=u3al partners ip s all 4e 4ound t ere4y0 ) e may 4orrow money for t is purpose1 if t e us4and fails to deliver t e proper sum0 T e purc ase of =ewelry and precious o4=ects is voida4le1 unless t e transaction as 4een e2pressly or tacitly approved 4y t e us4and1 or unless t e price paid is from er parap ernal property0 GOUN( v >&CTOR +. $-C )o0 7d !!D/ &0 &2ercise of Profession FC1 6rt $/ &it er spouse may e2ercise any le3itimate profession1 occupation1 4usiness or activity wit out t e consent of t e ot er0 T e latter may o4=ect only on valid1 serious and moral 3rounds In case of disa3reement1 t e court s all decide w et er or not9 !0 t e o4=ection is proper 70 4enefit as accrued to t e family prior to t e o4=ection or t ereafter0 If t e 4enefit accrued prior to t e o4=ection1 t e resultin3 o4li3ation s all 4e enforced a3ainst t e separate property of t e spouse w o as not o4tained consent T e fore3oin3 provisions s all not pre=udice t e ri3 ts of creditors w o acted in 3ood fait 0 CC1 6rt !!$ T e wife may e2ercise any profession or occupation or en3a3e in 4usiness0 >owever1 t e provided9 !0 >is income is sufficient for t e family1 accordin3 to its social standin31 and 70 >is opposition is founded on serious and valid 3rounds0 In case of disa3reement on t is 'uestion1 t e parents and 3randparents as

well as t e family council1 if any1 s all 4e consulted0 If no a3reement is still arrived at1 t e court will decide w atever may 4e proper and in t e 4est interest of t e family0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e D- of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 is appro2imately proportionate to eit er t eir traditional participation in t e tar3eted activities or t eir proportion of t e population1 w ic ever is i3 er0 Ot erwise1 t e followin3 s ould 4e stated in t e pro3ramNpro=ect paper1 proposal or strate3y< +a. T e o4stacle in ac ievin3 t e 3oal< +4. T e steps 4ein3 ta@en to overcome t ose o4stacles< and +c. To t e e2tent t at steps are not 4ein3 ta@en to overcome t ose o4stacles1 w y t ey are not 4ein3 ta@en0 ,0 6ssist women in activities t at are of critical si3nificance to t eir self%reliance and development0 )ec D0 &'uality in Capacity to 6ct0 V *omen of le3al a3e1 re3ardless of civil status1 s all ave t e capacity to act and enter into contracts w ic s all in every respect 4e e'ual to t at of men under similar circumstances0 In all contractual situations w ere married men ave t e capacity to act1 married women s all ave e'ual ri3 ts0 To t is end9 R6 $!"7 *omen in Development and Nation% 4uildin3 6ct 6N 6CT PROMOTIN( T>& INT&(R6TION OF *OM&N 6) FULL 6ND &SU6L P6RTN&R) OF M&N IN D&;&LOPM&NT 6ND N6TION ?UILDIN( 6ND FOR OT>&R PURPO)&)0 )ection !0 Title0 V T is 6ct s all 4e cited as t e \*omen in Development and Nation ?uildin3 6ct0\ )ec 70 Declaration of Policy0 V T e )tate reco3ni8es t e role of women in nation 4uildin3 and s all ensure t e fundamental e'uality 4efore t e law of women and men0 T e )tate s all provided women ri3 ts and opportunities e'ual to t at of men0 To attain t e fore3oin3 policy9 !0 6 su4stantial portion of official development assistance funds received from forei3n 3overnments and multilateral a3encies and or3ani8ations s all 4e set aside and utili8ed 4y t e a3encies concerned to support pro3rams and activities for women< 70 6ll 3overnment departments s all ensure t at women 4enefit e'ually and participate directly in t e development pro3rams and pro=ects of said department1 specifically t ose funded under official forei3n development assistance1 to ensure t e full participation and involvement of women in t e development process< and /0 6ll 3overnment departments and a3encies s all review and revise all t eir re3ulations1 circulars1 issuances and procedures to remove 3ender 4ias t erein0 )ec /0 Responsi4le 63ency0 V T e National &conomic and Development 6ut ority +N&D6. s all primarily 4e responsi4le for ensurin3 t e participation of women as recipients in forei3n aid1 3rants and loans0 It s all determine and recommend t e amount to 4e allocated for t e development activity involvin3 women0 )ec -0 Mandate0 V T e N&D61 wit t e assistance of t e National Commission on t e Role of Filipino *omen1 s all ensure t at t e different 3overnment departments1 includin3 its a3encies and instrumentalities w ic 1 directly or indirectly1 affect t e participation of women in national development and t eir inte3ration t erein9 !0 Formulate and prioriti8e rural or countryside development pro3rams or pro=ects1 provide income and employment opportunities to women in t e rural areas and t us1 prevent t eir eavy mi3ration from rural to ur4an or forei3n countries< 70 Include an assessment of t e e2tent to w ic t eir pro3rams andNor pro=ects inte3rate women in t e development process and of t e impact of said pro3rams or pro=ects on women1 includin3 t eir implications in en ancin3 t e self%reliance of women in improvin3 t eir income< !0 70 *omen s all ave t e capacity to 4orrow and o4tain loans and e2ecute security and credit arran3ement under t e same conditions as men< *omen s all ave e'ual access to all 3overnment and private sector pro3rams 3rantin3 a3ricultural credit1 loans and non%material resources and s all en=oy e'ual treatment in a3rarian reform and land resettlement pro3rams< /0 *omen s all ave e'ual ri3 ts to act as incorporators and enter into insurance contracts< and -0 Married women s all ave ri3 ts e'ual to t ose of married men in applyin3 for passport1 secure visas and ot er travel documents1 wit out need to secure t e consent of t eir spouses0 In all ot er similar contractual relations1 women s all en=oy e'ual ri3 ts and s all ave t e capacity to act w ic s all in every respect 4e e'ual to t ose of men under similar circumstances0 )ec ,0 &'ual Mem4ers ip in Clu4s0 V *omen s all en=oy e'ual access to mem4ers ip in all social1 civic and recreational clu4s1

committees1 associations and similar ot er or3ani8ations devoted to pu4lic purpose0 T ey s all 4e entitled to t e same ri3 ts and privile3es accorded to t eir spouses if t ey 4elon3 to t e same or3ani8ation0 )ec $0 6dmission to Military )c ools0 V 6ny provision of t e law to t e contrary notwit standin31 consistent wit t e needs of t e services1 women s all 4e accorded e'ual opportunities for appointment1 admission1 trainin31 3raduation and commissionin3 in all military or similar sc ools of t e 6rmed Forces of t e P ilippines and t e P ilippine National Police not later t an t e fourt academic year followin3 t e approval of t is 6ct in accordance wit t e standards re'uired for men e2cept for t ose minimum essential ad=ustments re'uired 4y p ysiolo3ical differences 4etween se2es0 )ec #0 ;oluntary Pa3%I?I(1 ()I) and ))) Covera3e0 V Married persons w o devote full time to mana3in3 t e ouse old and family affairs s all1 upon t e wor@in3 spouse[s consent1 4e entitled to voluntary Pa3%I?I( +Pa3tutulun3an V I@aw1 ?an3@o1 Industriya at (o4yerno.1 (overnment )ervice Insurance )ystem +()I). or )ocial )ecurity )ystem +))). covera3e to t e e2tent of one% alf +!N7. of t e salary and compensation of t e wor@in3 spouse0 T e contri4utions due t ereon s all 4e deducted from t e salary of t e wor@in3 spouse0 /0 &nsure t e active participation of women and women[s or3ani8ations in t e development pro3rams andNor pro=ects includin3 t eir involvement in t e plannin31 desi3n1 implementation1 mana3ement1 monitorin3 and evaluation t ereof< Collect se2%disa33re3ated data and include suc data in its pro3ramNpro=ect paper1 proposal or strate3y< &nsure t at pro3rams andNor pro=ects are desi3ned so t at t e percenta3e of women w o receive assistance -0 D0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e DD of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 T e ()I) or t e )))1 as t e case may 4e1 s all issue rules and re3ulations necessary to effectively implement t e provisions of t is section0 )ec "0 Implementin3 Rules0 V T e N&D61 in consultation wit t e different 3overnment a3encies concerned1 s all issue rules and re3ulations as may 4e necessary for t e effective implementation of )ections 71 / and -1 of t is 6ct wit in si2 +,. mont s from its effectivity0 )ec !C0 Compliance Report0 V *it in si2 +,. mont s from t e effectivity of t is 6ct and every si2 +,. mont s t ereafter1 all 3overnment departments1 includin3 its a3encies and instrumentalities1 s all su4mit a report to Con3ress on t eir compliance wit t is 6ct0 )ec !!0 )epara4ility Clause0 V If for any reason any section or provision of t is 6ct is declared unconstitutional or invalid1 t e ot er sections or provisions ereof w ic are not affected t ere4y s all continue to 4e in full force and effect0 )ec !70 Repealin3 Clause0 V T e provisions of Repu4lic 6ct No0 /#,1 ot erwise @nown as t e Civil Code of t e P ilippines1 as amended1 and of &2ecutive Order No0 7C"1 ot erwise @nown as t e Family Code of t e P ilippines1 and all laws1 decrees1 e2ecutive orders1 proclamations1 rules and re3ulations1 or parts t ereof1 inconsistent erewit are ere4y repealed0 e2ecuted0 T e only evidence offered was testimonies of t e defendant and er counsel0 % 6ppellant )ilva1 owever1 was married to one Priscilla Isa4el of 6ustralia durin3 suc time0 It was only after May !"-D1 w en e was sent 4ac@ to U) for medical treatments of is 4attle wounds1 did e divorce Priscilla0 To add1 on May "1 !"-#1 e contracted anot er marria3e wit coplaintiff &lenita Ledesma )ilva0 I))U&)9 !0 70 *ON appellant5s deception and fraud =ustified award of dama3es to defendant Ges *ON defendant misrepresented erself as Mrs0 )ilva % Ges >&LD9 !0 Ges0 If appellant revealed is true situation1 appellee would never ave a3reed to 4e wit appellant0 &st er5s loss of employment in t e (irl )cout5s Davao Council was ultimately a result of )ilva5s deception and s e s ould 4e indemnified t erefor0 >is concealment of is real status was not mere dolo 4ut actual fraud0 >e )ec !/0 &ffectivity Clause0 V T e ri3 ts of women and all s ould t en stand solely lia4le for any and all t e provisions of t is 6ct s all ta@e effect immediately upon its pu4lication in t e Official (a8ette or in two +7. dama3es arisin3 t erefrom0 Moreover1 &st er newspapers of 3eneral circulation0 acted in 3ood fait since )ilva formerly introduced er as Mrs0 )ilva1 sent er letters t us addressed w ic implied aut ority to use is name0 F0 Use of )urname 70 Ges0 In t e face of evidence1 it is safe to conclude t at no marria3e ad really ta@en place0 It is not CC1 6rt /$C 6 married woman may use9 proper for &st er to continue

representin3 !0 >er maiden first name and surname and add er us4and[s surname +e030as t e wife of )aturnino considerin3 t at erself Miriam Defensor%)antia3o. 70 >er maiden first name and er us4and[s surname +e030 Loi &=ercito. t e time1 e was still married to Priscilla at /0 >er us4and[s full name1 4ut prefi2in3 a word indicatin3 t at s e Isa4el0 6nd as as \Mrs0\ /$C CC1 a married woman is is wife1 suc per 6rt +e030 Mrs0 Francis Pan3ilinan. is aut ori8ed to use us4and5s surname1 impliedly1 it also e2cludes ot ers from doin3 CC1 6rt /$/ 6 widow may use t e deceased us4and[s surname as t ou3 e were still livin31 in accordance wit 6rticle /$C0 li@ewise0 !,7 )CR6 ,, % Private respondent Consuelo David 6rturo CC1 6rt /$# T e unaut ori8ed or unlawful use of anot er person[s surname 3ives a ri3 t of action to t e latter0 Tolentino +yes1 t e one w o annotated t e law. in !"/!0 )IL;6 v P&R6LT6 +!",C. % Marria3e was dissolved and terminated in !"-/ !!C P il D$ pursuant to t e law durin3 t e Japanese Defendant &st er Peralta accompanied youn3er occupation 4y a decree of a4solute divorce on sister Florence in t e latter5s arrest and t e 3rounds of desertion and a4andonment 4y investi3ation0 t e wife for at least / continuous years0 T ere1 defendant met plaintiff )aturnino )ilva1 a % 6rturo Tolentino married Pilar 6dora4le 4ut s e U) citi8en and officer of t e U) 6rmy0 )ilva t en died soon after t e marria3e0 started courtin3 &st er and s e later accepted is proposal of marria3e avin3 4een made to % Constancia married 6rturo Tolentino on 6pril 7!1 4elieve t at e was sin3le0 T ey started livin3 !"-D and t ey ave / c ildren0 Constancia to3et er as common%law us4and and wife and Tolentino is t e present le3al wife of 6rturo 4ore a son1 )aturnino )ilva1 Jr0 Tolentino0 T ey were married on Jan !-1 !"-D0 >owever1 % Consuelo David continued usin3 t e surname no documents of marria3e were prepared nor Tolentino after t e divorce and up to t e time TOL&NTINO v C6 +!"##. CC1 6rt /$$ Usurpation of a name and surname may 4e t e su4=ect of an action for dama3es and ot er relief0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e D, of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % t at t e complaint was filed0 >er usa3e of t e surname Tolentino was aut ori8ed 4y t e family of 6rturo Tolentino +4rot ers and sisters.0 RTC9 Consuelo David s ould discontinue er usa3e of t e surname of Tolentino C69 reversed RTC % I))U&)9 !0 *ON t e petitioner5s cause of action as already prescri4ed 70 *ON t e petitioner can e2clude 4y in=unction Consuelo David from usin3 t e surname of er former us4and from w om s e was divorced0 >&LD9 !0 Ges % 6rt !!DC CC T e time for prescription of all @inds of actions1 w en t ere in no special provision w ic ordains ot erwise1 s all 4e counted from t e day t ey may 4e 4rou3 t0 6rt !!-" CC Period of prescription is D years from t e ri3 t of action accrues0 T e action as lon3 prescri4ed 4ecause s e married 6rturo Tolentino on 6pril 7!1 !"-D< Civil Code too@ effect on 6u3ust /C1 !"DC< ) e ac'uired @nowled3e t at Consuelo David was still usin3 t e surname Tolentino in !"D!0 ) e s ould ave filed t e case after s e o4tained @nowled3e t at Consuelo David was still usin3 t e surname Tolentino0 T e case was filed on Novem4er 7/1 !"$! or 7C years after s e o4tained @nowled3e0 70 No P ilippine law is silent w et er or not a divorced woman may continue to use t e surname of er us4and 4ecause t ere are no provisions for divorce under P ilippine law0 Commentary of Tolentino as re3ards 6rt /$C of t e CC9 t e wife cannot claim an e2clusive ri3 t to use t e us4and5s surname0 ) e cannot 4e prevented from usin3 it1 4ut neit er can s e restrain ot ers from usin3 it +4ias muc B.0 6rt /$! is not applica4le 4ecause it contemplates annulment w ile t e present case refers to a4solute divorce w ere t ere is severance of valid marria3e ties0 &ffect of divorce more a@in to deat of t e spouse w ere t e deceased woman is continued to 4e referred to as EMrs0 of t e us4andF even if e as remarried0 If t e appeal would 4e 3ranted t e respondent would encounter pro4lems 4ecause s e was a4le to prove t at s e entered into contracts wit t ird persons1 ac'uired properties and entered into ot er le3al relations usin3 t e surname Tolentino0 Petitioner failed to s ow t e s e would suffer any le3al in=ury or deprivation of ri3 t0 T ere is no usurpation of t e petitioner5s name and surname0 Usurpation implies in=ury to t e % % interests of t e owner of t e name0 It consists wit t e possi4ility of confusion of identity &lement of usurpation o 6ctual use of anot er5s name o Use is unaut ori8ed o Use of anot er5s

name is to desi3nate personality or identity of a person None of t ese elements were present in t e case )ilva v Peralta was cited 4y t e petitioner 4ut t e case is not applica4le0 In )ilva1 it was not mere use of t e surname t at was en=oined 4ut t e defendant5s representation t at s e was t e wife of )aturnino )ilva1 t ere was usurpation of t e status of t e wife0 G6)IN v )>6RI56 DI)TRICT COURT +!""D. 7-! )CR6 ,C, % )UPR6 No need to file petition to revert to use of maiden name after divorce since marital ties ave 4een completely severed0 % % % % P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e D$ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 (0 Relief from Courts !0 On sufficient cause for leavin3 t e con=u3al ome0 Cruelty done 4y plaintiff to defendant was 3reatly e2a33erated0 T e wife was inflicted wit a FC1 6rt $7 * en one of t e spouses ne3lects is or er duties to t e con=u3alof =ealousy towards w ic us4and in an disposition union or commits acts er tend to 4rin3 dan3er1 dis onor or in=ury to t e ot er or to t e family1 t e a33rieved party may apply to t e court for relief0 was present0 a33ravated de3ree0 No sufficient cause Courts s ould move wit caution in enforcin3 t e duty to provide for t e separate maintenance of t e P&R&P v P&R&P +!",C. wife since t is reco3ni8es t e de facto separation of !C" P il ,D$ t e two parties0 Continued co a4itation of t e pair % 6ntonio Pere81 as 3uardian ad litem of is son1 must 4e seen as impossi4le1 and separation must 4e filed a civil case a3ainst defendant 6n3ela necessary1 stemmin3 from t e fault of t e us4and0 Tuason de Pere8 at t e CFI Manila0 ) e is under o4li3ation to return to t e domicile0 >e wants to declare is wife as prodi3al and place under 3uardians ip 4ased on t e followin3 E* en people understand t at t ey must live alle3ations9 to3et erUt ey learn to soften 4y mutual o s e was s'uanderin3 er estate on a youn3 accommodation t at yo@e w ic t ey @now t ey man named Jose ?oloi2 cannot s a@e off< t ey 4ecome 3ood us4ands and o s e was spendin3 t e con=u3al partners ip wivesUnecessity is a powerful master in teac in3 of 3ain t e duties w ic it imposesUF o defendant as e2pressed er desire to marry +&vans v0 &vans. and ave c ildren wit Jose ?oloi21 if only to em4arrass er us4and 70 On 3rantin3 t e restitution of con=u3al ri3 ts0 It is CFI dismissed t e case for lac@ of =urisdiction not wit in t e province of t e courts to compel one I))U&9 *ON t e case falls under t e =urisdiction of t e CFI or t e Juvenile Domestic Relations Court0 >&LD9 RTC as no =urisdiction0 It is t e Juvenile and Domestic Relation Court w ic as =urisdiction0 Material in=ury pertains to personal in=ury +personal relations 4etween man and wife. and not patrimonial or financial0 6RROGO v ;6)SU&P +!"7!. -7 P il D- Plaintiff Mariano and defendant Dolores were married in !"!C1 and lived in Iloilo City0 T ey lived to3et er wit a few s ort intervals of separation0 On July -1 !"7C1 defendant Dolores went away from t eir common ome and decided to live separately from plaintiff0 ) e claimed t at s e was compelled to leave on t e 4asis of cruel treatment on t e part of er us4and0 ) e in turn prayed for a decree of separation1 a li'uidation of t eir con=u3al partners ip1 and an allowance for counsel fees and permanent separate maintenance0 % CFI ruled in favor of t e defendant and s e was 3ranted alimony amountin3 to P-CC1 also ot er fees Plaintiff t en as@ed for a restitution of con=u3al ri3 ts1 and a permanent mandatory in=unction re'uirin3 t e defendant to return to t e con=u3al ome and live wit im as is wife0 I))U&)9 of t e spouses to co a4it wit 1 and render con=u3al ri3 ts to1 t e ot er0 In t e case of property ri3 ts1 suc an action may 4e maintained0 )aid order1 at 4est1 would ave no ot er purpose t an to compel t e spouses to live to3et er0 Ot er countries1 suc as &n3land and )cotland ave done t is wit muc criticism0 Plaintiff is entitled to a =udicial declaration t at t e defendant a4sented erself wit out sufficient cause and it is er duty to return0 ) e is also not entitled to support0 !0 70 *ON defendant ad sufficient cause for leavin3 t e con=u3al ome *ON plaintiff may 4e 3ranted t e restitution of con=u3al ri3 ts or a4solute order or permanent mandatory in=unction >&LD9 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e D# of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 :0 PROP&RTG R&L6TION) ?&T*&&N )POU)&) M6RRI6(& )&TTL&M&NT is an a3reement entered into 4efore marria3e and1 in consideration t ereof1 4etween an intended us4and and wife1 4y w ic t e en=oyment or devolution of property

is re3ulated0 6 contract entered into 4y t ose w o are to 4e united in marria3e1 in order to esta4lis t e conditions of t eir con=u3al partners ip wit respect to present and future property0 FC1 6rt $$ T e form of marria3e settlement9 !0 in writin3 70 si3ned 4y t e parties /0 4efore t e cele4ration of t e marria3e Pre=udice a3ainst t ird persons9 re3istered in t e local civil re3istry t e proper re3istries of property0 FC1 6rt $# 6 minor1 w o accordin3 to law1 may contract marria3e may s all 4e valid only if t e persons desi3nated in 6rt !- to 3ive c a3reement1 su4=ect to t e provisions of t e Title I: of t is Code0 A 6rt !- FC K fat er1 mot er1 survivin3 parent or 3uardian1 or persons avin3 le3al c ar3e of t em A Title I: K Parental aut ority A ?y applyin3 principles of statutory construction1 6rt !- w ic is specific provision for marria3e s all prevail FC1 6rt $" For t e validity of any marria3e settlements e2ecuted 4y a 4een pronounced or w o is su4=ect to any ot er disa4ility1 it s all 4 competent court to 4e made a party t ereto0 60 (eneral Provisions FC1 6rt $T e property relations 4etween us4and and wife s all 4e 3overned in t e followin3 order9 !0 4y marria3e settlements e2ecuted 4efore t e marria3e 70 4y t e provisions of t is Code /0 4y t e local customs FC1 6rt #C In t e a4sence of a contrary stipulation in a marria3e set 3overned 4y P ilippine laws1 re3ardless of t e place of t e cele4ration T is rule s all not apply9 !0 * ere 4ot spouses are aliens 70 *it respect to t e e2trinsic validity of contracts affectin3 p t e country w ere t e property is located /0 *it respect to t e e2trinsic validity of contracts entered int forei3n country w ose laws re'uire different formalities for its FC1 6rt $D T e future spouses may1 in t e marria3e settlements1 a3ree upon t e re3ime of 6CP1 CP(1 complete separation of property or any ot er re3ime0 In t e a4sence of marria3e settlement system of a4solute community property as esta4lis ed in t is Code 6rt #! &veryt in3 stipulated in t e settlement or contracts referre FC1 s all 3overn0 future marria3e1 includin3 donations 4etween t e prospective spous marria3e does not ta@e place0 >owever1 stipulations t at do not depe FC1 6rt $, In order t at any modification in t e marria3e settlement may 4e valid1 it must 4e valid0 of t e marria3e1 su4=ect to t e provisions of 6rt ,,1 ,$ 1 !7#1 !/D and !/,0 6rt ,, Reconciliation after le3al separation9 )eparation of property and forfeiture of t e s are of t e 3uilty spouse s all su4sist1 unless spouses a3ree to revive t eir former property re3ime 63reement to revive former property re3ime s all 4e e2ecuted under oat and specify !0 Properties to 4e contri4uted anew to t e restored re3ime 70 T ose to 4e retained as separated properties of eac spouse /0 Names of all t eir creditors1 address and amount owin3 to eac If spouse wit out =ust cause a4andons t e ot er OR fails to comply wit isN er o4li3ations to t e family9 Petition for =udicial separation of property or aut ority to 4e t e sole administrator of t e con=u3al partners ip )ufficient causes for separation of property voluntary =udicial 6rt ,$ COLL&CTOR v FI)>&R +!",!. !!C P il ,#, *alter and ?eatrice )tevenson1 4ot ?ritis citi8ens were married in Manila w ere t ey lived until t ey esta4lis ed permanent residence in California in !"-D0 *alter died in !"D! and instituted is wife as sole eiress to real and personal properties in t e P ilippines1 w ic were assessed for estate and in eritance ta20 I))U&9 *ON in determinin3 t e ta2a4le net estate of t e decedent1 t e net estate s ould 4e deducted as t e s are of t e survivin3 spouse in accordance wit our law on con=u3al partners ip0 >&LD9 Ges0 It s ould 4e deducted from net estate0 It is a well%@nown doctrine in our civil law t at in t e a4sence of any ante%nuptial a3reement1 t e contractin3 parties are presumed to ave adopted t e system of con=u3al partners ip as to t e properties ac'uired durin3 t eir marria3e0 *>6RTON5) PROC&))U6L PR&)UMPTION) apply0 Property relations of t e )tevensons s ould 4e determined 4y t e rational laws of t e us4and0 6rt !7# 6rt !/D 6rt !/, )pouses =oint filin3 of petition for voluntary dissolution of 6CPNCP(Nseparation of t eir common properties P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e D" of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 Under 6rt !/7D OCC1 one spouse is a forei3ner and t ere is no ante%nuptial a3reement1 it is t e national law of t e us4and t at 4ecomes t e dominant law in determinin3 t e property relations of suc spouses0 ?ut since 4ot spouses are forei3ners1 it is ?ritis law t at s ould apply0

>owever1 as t ere is no proof of w at t e law of &n3land is in t is matter and t e court is =ustified to indul3e in processual presumption1 t at t e law of &n3land on t is matter is t e same as our law0 FC1 6rt #D Donation 4y reason of marria3e of property su4=ect to en t e encum4rance1 and t e property is sold for less t an t e total amo lia4le for t e deficiency0 If t e property is sold for more t an t e total to t e e2cess0 DOM6L6(6N v ?OLIF&R +!"!,. // P il0 -$! % Jor3e Domala3an and Carlos ?olifer entered into a ver4al contract w erein t e former was to pay defendant t e sum of PDCC upon t e marria3e of t e former5s son Cipriano Domala3an wit t e defendant5s dau3 ter1 ?onifacia0 ?0 Donation Propter Nuptias Jor3e Domala3an paid t e sum of PDCC plus P!, as ansel or to@en of future marria3e0 >owever1 t e ?onifacia married one Laureano )isi0 !0 Re'uisites for donations Upon learnin3 of t e marria3e1 Domala3an demanded return of t e said sum of PD!, plus FC1 6rt #7 Donations 4y reason of marria3e are t ose w ic are made 4efore its cele4ration1 inarisin3 from t e fact t at interest and dama3es consideration of t e same1 and in favor of one or 4ot of t e future spouses0 e was o4li3ed to sell is real property in ?o ol to come up wit t e sum0 R&SUI)IT&) FOR DON6TION) PROPT&R NUPTI6) Defendant denied complaint and alle3ed t at it +DPN. did not constitute a cause of action0 !0 made 4efore cele4ration of t e marria3e RTC9 No evidence to s ow t at plaintiff suffered 70 made in consideration of t e marria3e any addtl dama3es0 RTC Ruled in favor of plaintiff for t e return of PD!, plus ,_ interest from Dec !$1 /0 made in favor of one or 4ot of t e future !"!C plus costs0 spouses DON6TION) &:CLUD&D !0 in favor of t e spouses after t e marria3e +ordinary weddin3 3ifts. 70 in favor of future spouses1 made 4efore t e cele4ration of marria3e1 4ut not in consideration /0 in favor of persons ot er t an t e spouses1 even t ou3 t ey may 4e founded on t e marria3e A 3overned 4y provisions on ordinary donations *>O M6G DON6T& !0 t e spouses to eac ot er 70 t e parents to one or 4ot of t e spouses /0 4y t ird persons to one or 4ot of t e spouses DON6TION PROPT&R NUPTI6) Does not re'uire e2press acceptance May 4e made 4y minors +6rt $#. If present property is donated and property re3ime is not 6CP1 limited to !ND (rounds for revocation in 6rt #, ORDIN6RG DON6TION) &2press acceptance necessary Cannot 4e made 4y minors No limit to donation of present property provided le3itimes are not impaired (rounds for revocation are found in law on donations I))U&9 *ON Domala3an can demand is PD!, since no marria3e too@ place >&LD9 G&)0 T e amount constitutes DPN since it fulfills all t e re'uirements1 t us it may 4e revo@ed0 ;er4al contracts are valid even if it not clot ed in t e necessary form0 )&RR6NO v )OLOMON +!"D". !CD P il ""# Melc or )olomon e2ecuted a supposed deed of DPN1 statin3 amon3 ot ers t at if t ere are no c ildren and wife dies first1 all of is properties and all properties ac'uired durin3 t e union will 4e in erited 4y t ose w o reared t e wife0 T e wife 6le=andria )olomon died less t an " mont s later wit out issues1 upon w ic &stanislao )errano1 t e uncle w o reared er instituted t is action to enforce t e deed0 % CFI9 Donation was not a donation propter nuptias 4ecause it was not made in consideration of marria3e and it was not made to one or 4ot parties of t e marria3e I))U&9 *ON t e donation made 4y Melc or can 4e considered as a donation propter nuptias0 >&LD9 NO and t e alle3ed donation is null Q void0 CFI decision affirmed0 &stanislao won5t 3et anyt in30 * et er you apply 6rt !/7$ of t e old CC or 6rt0 !7, FC1 6rt #/ T ese donations are 3overned 4y t e rules on ordinary donations esta4lis ed in CC1 insofar as t ey are not of t e new CC1 t e result would 4e t e same1 modified 4y t e followin3 articles0 donations propter nuptias are only t ose 4estowed +!. 4efore t e cele4ration of marria3e1 +7. in consideration of t e same and +/. upon one or 4ot of t e spouses0 Melc or5s donation violated P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e ,C of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 conditions 7 and /0 It was not in consideration solely

of t e marria3e1 it ad additional terms li@e t e marria3e ad to 4e c ildless and one of t e spouses ad to die 4efore t e ot er0 6lso1 it was not in favor of 6le=andria0 Instead1 it was in favor of er parents and t ose w o raised er0 ?ased on Manresa5s commentary1 donations 3ranted to persons ot er t an t e spouses even t ou3 founded on t e marria3e are e2cluded0 It5s not a donation inter vivos +durin3 t eir lifetime. eit er1 4ecause donee never accepted it 4y same instrument of donation or in separate document as re'uired 4y law0 It5s not a donation mortis causa +upon deat . eit er0 It as to 4e 3overned 4y provisions on t e disposition e2ecution of wills to 4e appreciated as suc 0 ?esides1 donor is still alive0 It will only 4e operational upon is deat 0 )OLI) v ?6RRO)O +!"7#. D/ P il "!7 % )pouses Juan Lam4ino and Ma2ima ?arroso made a DPN of certain lands in a private document in favor of t eir son 6le=o and is soon%to%4e%wife Fortunata )olis1 in consideration of t eir upcomin3 marria3e0 One condition of t e donation is t at in case one of t e donees dies1 alf of t e lands t us donated would revert to t e donors w ile t e survivin3 donee would retain t e ot er alf0 On t e same mont 1 6le=o and Fortunata 3ot married and immediately t ereafter t e donors delivered t e possession of t e donated lands to t em0 6 mont later1 6le=o died0 In t e same year1 Juan also died0 6fter Juan5s deat 1 Ma2ima recovered possession of t e donated lands0 )urvivin3 donee1 Fortunata filed an action a3ainst Ma2ima +survivin3 donor. et al and demanded9 !0 t e e2ecution of t e proper deed of donation accordin3 to law1 70 transfer of one% alf of t e donated property to er /0 to proceed to t e partition of t e donated property and its fruits % CFI 3ranted t e plaintiff5s prayer1 4asin3 its =ud3ment on 6rt !7$" of t e Civil Code0 It ordered t e defendants to e2ecute a deed of donation in favor of Fortunata1 valid in form to transfer to er t e le3al title to t e part of t e donated lands assi3ned to er in t e ori3inal donation0 I))U&9 *ON t e private document is valid as DPN >&LD9 NO0 DPN is 3overned 4y laws on donation0 6rt ,// provides t at for a donation of a real property to 4e valid1 it must 4e made in a pu4lic instrument0 T e only e2ception to t e rule are onerous and remuneratory contracts1 in so far as t ey do not e2ceed t e value of t e c ar3e imposed1 w ic are t en 3overned 4y t e rules on contracts0 ?ecause t e DPN 4y t e spouses were made in a private instrument1 it is not valid and does not confer any ri3 ts0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e ,! of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 M6T&O v L6(U6 +!",". 7" )CR6 #,- )pouses La3ua donated alf of t eir owned land to t eir son 6le=andro in consideration of is marria3e to ?onifacia Mateo0 T is was e2ecuted in a pu4lic document0 6le=andro died so is son would succeed in t e owners ip of t e land0 T e fat er in law continued tendin3 t e farm and 3ivin3 t e wife er s are in t e fruits0 Until t e sustenance stopped and t e wife discovered t at t e fat er%in%law sold t e land0 T e wife successfully moved for t e annulment t e sale in a court proceedin30 >owever1 t e La3uas su4se'uently filed for t e annulment of t e donation 4ecause it ne3lected t eir own support as well as t e le3itime of t eir ot er son0 6le=andro5s youn3er 4rot er1 (ervacio1 filed a suit for annulment on t e 3round t at it pre=udiced is le3itime0 % ?onifacia +t e wife. appealed t e decision raisin3 t e followin3 errors9 o ;alidity of t e DPN ave 4een determined in a previous case o 6ction to annul t e donation as already prescri4ed since t e case was filed -! years after t e donation o DPN is revoca4le only for any 3rounds enumerated in 6rt !/7 of t e New Civil Code o Determinin3 t e le3itime of t e La3ua 4rot ers in t e ereditary estate of Cipriano t e C6 s ould ave applied t e provisions of t e Civil Code of !##" and not 6rt ### NCC I))U&9 *ON an onerous DPR may 4e revo@ed >&LD9 G&)1 DPN is wit out onerous condition and 4ased on li4eralities are su4=ect to annulment due to inofficiousness0 If proved t at t e value of t e DPN e2ceeds t e disposa4le free portion of t e donor1 it may 4e revo@ed0 >owever1 in t is case1 no evidence ta@es was adduced as to t e 4urdensome nature of t e DPN0 % future property effect upon deat +4y will or mortis causa. /0

(rounds for revocation of DPN !0 70 /0 -0 D0 ,0 FC1 6rt #, Donation 4y reason of marria3e may 4e revo@ed 4y t e don if t e marria3e is not cele4rated or =udicially declared voi settlements1 w ic s all 4e 3overned 4y 6rt #! w en t e marria3e ta@es place wit out t e consent of t e par w en t e marria3e is annulled and t e donee acted in 4ad fai upon le3al separation1 t e donee 4ein3 t e 3uilty spouse if it is wit a resolutory condition and t e condition is complied w en t e donee as committed and act of in3ratitude as spec A * at does Par 7 meanB T e donor is not t e parent w o did not 3ive consent0 A * at is a resolutory conditionB T e DPN is already received w ic en=oyment is su4=ect to termination upon appenin3 of t e future and uncertain event0 In ot er words done is for4idden to do somet in30 +&030 Car is 3iven 4ut it will 4e revo@ed if you use it anyw ere outside NCR0. A (rounds of revocation in t is article is not 4y operation of law0 T ose w ic revo@es 4y operation of law are t e ff9 !0 if t e DPN is stipulated in t e marria3e settlement and no marria3e too@ place +6rt #!. 70 for void a4 initio and su4se'uent marria3es in a spouse5s presumptive deat 1 provided t e donee acted in 4ad fait +6rt -/ +/. in relation to 6rt DC. A 6rt $,D1 CC K 6cts of in3ratitude +!. If t e donee s ould commit some offense a3ainst t e person1 t e onor or t e property of t e donor1 or of is wife or c ildren under is parental aut ority< +7. If t e donee imputes to t e donor any criminal offense1 or any act involvin3 moral turpitude1 even t ou3 e s ould prove it1 unless t e crime or t e act as 4een committed a3ainst t e donee imself1 is wife or c ildren under 70 Donation propter nuptias of is aut ority< present or future property +/. If e unduly refuses im support w en t e donee is le3ally or morally 4ound to 3ive FC1 6rt #- If t e future spouses a3ree upon a re3ime ot er t an t esupport to community of property a4solute t e donor0 donate to eac ot er in t eir marria3e settlements more t an !ND of t eir present property considered void0 Donations of future property s all 4e 3overned 4y t e ta@es effect uponprovisions on t e wills0 DON6TION) OF % present property cele4ration of marria3e P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e ,7 of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 -0 ;oid donations *>6T 6R& ;OID DON6TION) !0 4etween spouses durin3 marria3e 70 direct or indirect +e030 stepc ild or c ild of t e ot er spouse and a person w om t e spouses is presumptive eir at t e time of donation. R&6)ON) FOR PRO>I?ITION !0 donation inter vivos is dictated 4y principle of unity of personality of spouses durin3 marria3e 70 prevent wea@er spouses from 4ein3 a4used 4y stron3er spouse1 w et er 4y a4use of affection or t reats of violence /0 protect creditors -0 prevent indirect modification of t e marria3e settlement PRO>I?ITION I) 6L)O 6PPLIC6?L& TO !0 common%law marria3es 70 parties livin3 in a state of adultery or concu4ina3e A Reasons9 possi4ility of undue influence and t at if ruled ot erwise1 t ose livin3 in 3uilt would 4e 4etter off t an t ose in le3al union N6P6R&NO v ?IRO( +!"-$. -D O( !! )upp 7,# I))U&9 *ON plaintiff1 Na8areno1 may recover title and possession of a parcel of land descri4ed ereB >&LD9 NO0 Not only did e lose owners ip of t e two portions of t e land t at t e ?iro3s and 6riolas possess1 e si3ned a deed in favor of 6riola on t e t ird and last portion< t erefore1 e is estopped from claimin3 t e land0 More importantly1 appeal must 4e dismissed since plaintiff as no cause of action0 T e deed of donation upon w ic e 4ases is claim to land is null and void since it is made 4y t e donor to a 3randc ild of is wife 4y t e wife5s previous marria3e0 T e donation falls under t e pro i4ition in 6rt0!//D1 CC0 Neit er as t e plaintiff ac'uired t e land 4y prescription for t ere is no evidence t at e ever possessed it or claimed it a3ainst is 3randfat er +as evidence in deed in favor of 6riola1 si3ned 4y Na8areno as witness.0 M6T6?U&N6 v C&R;6NT&) +!"$!. /# )CR6 7#- * ile Feli2 Mata4uena and Petronila Cervantes were livin3 as common law spouses1 t e man donated to er a parcel of land0 T ey eventually 3ot married and Feli2 died1 leavin3 4e ind is properties to is wife Petronila0 Feli25s sister Cornelia 'uestions t e validity of t e donation and claims owners ip over er 4rot er5s estate0 I))U&9 *ON t e 4an on donation inter vivos applies w en t e donation was made durin3

common law relations ip >&LD9 Ges1 common law spouses fall wit in t e pro i4ition ence t e donation is null and void as contrary to pu4lic policy0 >6RDIN( v COMM&RCI6L UNION +!"!#. /# P il -,- Mrs0 >ardin3 4ou3 t an insurance policy for t e car er us4and 3ave er0 6 few days later1 t e car was totaled in a fire0 T e insurance company refused to pay sayin3 t at t e donation of us4and to t e wife was void0 I))U&9 *ON t e car was validly donated 4y t e us4and to t e wife >&LD9 G&)0 T e car may 4e considered as a moderate 3ift0 * et er a 3ift is moderate or not would depend upon t e circumstances of t e parties1 in t is case1 not in3 was disclosed 4y t e record0 6lso1 t e insurance company is not t e proper party to 'uestion t e moderateness of t e 3ift0 It can only 4e raised 4y persons w o 4ear suc a relation to t e parties ma@in3 t e transfer interfere wit t eir ri3 ts or interest0 )UM?6D v C6 6ndrea 6l4erta 64en Dau3 ter 6l4erta Mariano Meleno Na8areno +!""". % Rodri3ue8 Juan 64en ?onifacio Na8areno +plaintiff. * en Juan 64en died1 6ndrea 3ot married to Cirilo ?ra3an8a0 6ndrea and er second us4and Cirilo ad no offsprin30 Cirilo e2ecuted a deed of donation of land to is t en si2%year old step%3randson ?onifacio0 T e donation was accepted in t e same deed 4y 6l4erta and Mariano1 parents of ?onifacio0 Cirilo continued to possess and en=oy t e land0 ?e3innin3 in !"/C1 Cirilo sold portions of t e land9 !"/C $! ares and /C centares to ?iro3 for !1 !CC +paid. !"// 7 ectares to ?iro3 for 71 7CC +initially wit remainin3 4alance of /CC1 later paid 7$D1 wrote promissory note for 7D. !"/- ! ectare and $C ares to 6riola for !1 ,CC +4alance of ,CC1 promissory note for t at sum paya4le at end of Fe4 or Marc !"/D. T ese two 4uyers immediately too@ possession of t e land and cultivated t em0 Cirilo died on Dec0!"/- and since 6riola ad not paid 4y Fe4!"/D1 plaintiff wrote im a letter demandin3 t e payment0 Pedro ?ra3an8a +4rot er of Cirilo. collected 4alance of 7D from ?iro3 in Marc !"/D.0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e ,/ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 /C# )CR6 $D 63ata Tait died in !"/,0 6fterwards1 63ata5s us4and1 (eor3e Tait1 )r01 lived in a common%law marria3e wit Maria Tait0 In !"$-1 e donated a certain parcel of unre3istered land in )itio )umat1 ?ontoc0 (eor3e died in !"$$0 From !"#7 to !"#/1 Maria Tait sold lots included wit in t e )um%at property in favor of t e private respondents w o purc ased t e lots on t e stren3t of a Ta2 Declaration over t e )um%at property s owin3 t e seller1 Maria1 to 4e t e owner of t e property in 'uestion0 In !"#"1 petitioners &milie )um4ad and ?eatrice Tait 4rou3 t an action for 'uietin3 of title1 nullification of deeds of sale1 and recovery of possession wit dama3es a3ainst private respondents1 alle3in3 t at t ey are t e c ildren and compulsory eirs of (eor3e and 63ata0 T ey claim t at after t e deat of t eir mot er1 t eir fat er sold t e Otucan property and used t e proceeds t ereof to purc ase a residential lot in )um%at1 ?ontoc and t at from !"#7 to !"#/1 Maria sold lots included wit in t e )um%at property to private respondents wit out t eir @nowled3e and consent0 T ey furt er alle3ed t at alt ou3 t e private respondents were warned t at t e )um%at property did not 4elon3 to Maria t ey still purc ased t e lots from Maria and t at Maria ad no ri3 t to sell t e )um%at property so t e deeds of sale are null and void and did not transfer title to private respondents0 Durin3 t e trial1 petitioners and defense presented several witnesses0 I))U&)9 !0 *ON t e testimony of ) irley &illen3er wit respect to t e for3ery of t e deed of donation s ould 4e 3iven credence0 NO0 T e court a3reed wit t e trial and appellate court5s decision t at &illen3er5s testimony is Eva3ue and incredi4leF and incapa4le of impu3nin3 t e validity of t e pu4lic document0 For3ery s ould 4e proven 4y clear and convincin3 evidence1 and w oever alle3es it as t e 4urden of provin3 t e same0 Not only is ) irley &illen3er5s testimony difficult to 4elieve1 it s ows is ad 4een re earsed as s e anticipated t e 'uestions of petitioner5s counsel0 Petitioner5s s ould ave presented andwritin3 e2perts to support t eir claim t at (eor3e5s si3nature on t e deed of donation was indeed a for3ery0 4y C060 Nos0 7$C and ,-!1 to

administer oat s0 In accordance wit t e presumption t at official duty as 4een re3ularly performed1 it is to 4e presumed t at t e deputy cler@ of court w o notari8ed t e deed of donation in t is case was duly aut ori8ed 4y t e cler@ of court0 /0 *ON deed of donation contravenes 6rt !//1 CC NO0 6rt !// provides t at Eevery donation 4etween spouses durin3 t e marria3e s all 4e void0F T is pro i4ition does not apply w en t e donation ta@es effect after t e deat of t e donor0 Neit er does t is pro i4ition apply to moderate 3ifts w ic t e spouses may 3ive eac ot er on t e occasion of any family re=oicin30F T is pro i4ition e2tends to common%law relations +Mata4uena v Cervantes.0 In fact1 6rt #$1 FC provides t at Eevery donation or 3rant of 3ratuitous advanta3e1 direct or indirect1 4etween t e spouses durin3 t e marria3e s all 4e void1 e2cept moderate 3ifts w ic t e spouses may 3ive eac ot er on t e occasion of any family re=oicin30 T e pro i4ition s all also apply to persons livin3 to3et er as us4and and wife wit out a valid marria3e0F >owever1 t is point is 4ein3 raised for t e first time in t e )C0 Liti3ants cannot raise an issue for t e first time on appeal as t is would contravene t e 4asic rules of fair play and =ustice0 &ven assumin3 t at t ey are not t us precluded1 petitioners were una4le to present evidence in support of suc a claim0 T e evidence on record does not s ow w et er (eor3e was married to Maria and1 if so1 w en t e marria3e too@ place0 If Maria was not married to (eor3e1 evidence s ould ave 4een presented to s ow t at at t e time t e deed of donation was e2ecuted1 (eor3e and Maria were still maintainin3 common%law relations0 ?eatrice Tait5s +one of t e witnesses presented. testimony is only to t e effect t at in !"-!1 Maria 4ecame t eir stepmot er0 T ere is no evidence on record t at (eor3e and Maria continuously maintained common%law relations until t e date w en t e donation was made +6pril 71 !"$-.0 A In s ort1 t e donation was valid 4ecause t ere was no evidence to support t e alle3ation t at (eor3e was married to Maria0 T ere was also no evidence t at t e two were still livin3 as commonlaw spouses at t e time t e donation was made0 C>IN( v (OG6NIO JR0 ad seven+7CC,. DC, )CR6 $/D % Josep (oyan@o )r &pifania dela Cru8 c ildren w o are t e respondents in t is case % Respondents claim t at t eir property was named after t eir aunt )ulpicia (oyan@o 4ecause t eir fat er was a forei3ner so )ulpicia ad to sell it to Josep first 4efore Josep was a4le to sell it to is common law wife petitioner erein Maria C in3 70 *ON t e deed of donation is invalid under 6rt $-" CC1 w ic re'uires a pu4lic instrument as a re'uisite for t e validity of donations of immova4le property0 NO0 Petitioners contend t at t e person w o notari8ed t e deed ad no aut ority to do so0 >owever1 t e ac@nowled3ment clause states t at t e person w o notari8ed it was t e deputy cler@ of court w o acted Efor and in t e a4sence of t e cler@ of court w o is aut ori8ed1 under )ec0 7! of t e Revised 6dministrative Code of !"!$1 as amended P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e ,- of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % C in3 claims to 4e t e owner w o purc ased t e property for a certain price RTC and C6 dismissed t e case 4ecause of overw elmin3 evidence t at s e was concu4ine C0 )ystem of 64solute Community !0 (eneral Provisions I))U&9 *ON t e sale to t e concu4ine was valid >&LD9 NO0 It falls under t e pro i4ited donation 4etween spouses0 FC1 6rt ## T e a4solute community of property 4etween spouses s al marria3e is cele4rated0 6ny stipulation1 e2press or implied1 for t e c ot er time s all 4e void0 FC1 6rt #" No waiver of ri3 ts1 interests1 s ares and effects of case of =udicial separation of property0 * en t e waiver ta@es place upon a =udicial separation of property1 or same s all appear in a pu4lic instrument and s all 4e recorded as prov suc waiver may petition t e court to rescind t e waiver to t e e2tent credits0 FC1 6rt "C T e provisions on co%owners ip s all apply to t e 6CP 4 t is C apter0 70 * at constitutes community property FC1 6rt "! Unless ot erwise provided in t is C apter or in t e marria3 all t e property owned 4y t e spouses at t e time of t e cele4r FC1 6rt "7 T e ff s all 4e e2cluded from t e 6CP9 !0 70 /0 ac'uired durin3 t e marria3e 4y 3ratuitous title1 4y eit er spo any1 unless it is e2pressly provided 4y t e donor1 testator or property for personal and e2clusive use of eit er spouse0 >owever1 =ew ac'uired 4efore t e marria3e 4y eit er spouse w o as le3i fruits as well as t e income1 if any1 of suc property FC1 6rt "/ Property ac'uired durin3 t e marria3e is presumed to

one of t e e2cluded t erefrom0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e ,D of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 /0 C ar3es upon t e 6CP separate property1 deducti4le for is s are upon FC1 6rt "- T e 6CP s all 4e lia4le for9 li'uidation +!. T e support of t e spouses1 t eir common c ildren1 and le3itimate c ildren of eit er spouse< owever1 t e support of ille3itimate c ildren s all 4e 3overned 4y t e provisions of t is Code on )upport< +7. 6ll de4ts and o4li3ations contracted durin3 t e marria3e 4y t e desi3nated administrator%spouse for t e 4enefit of t e A &2ample of ante%nuptial de4t in Par "9 amorti8ation community1 or 4y 4ot spouses1 or 4y one spouse wit t e consent of con=u3al dwellin3 or family ve icle +/. De4ts and o4li3ations contracted 4y eit er spouse wit out t e consent A Difference 4etween Par ! and Par 7 may ave 4een 4enefited< A Difference 4etween Par - and Par D +-. 6ll ta2es1 liens1 c ar3es and e2penses1 includin3 ma=or or minor repairs +D. 6ll ta2es and e2penses for mere preservation made durin3 marria3e upon t e 4y t e family< FC1 6rt "D * atever may 4e lost durin3 t e marria3e in any 3ame of +,. &2penses to ena4le eit er spouse to commence or complete a3am4lin31 w et er permitted or pro i4ited 4y law1 s all 4e 4orne professional or vocational course1 or ot er activity for selfimprovement< community 4ut any winnin3s t erefrom s all form part of t e commu +$. 6nte%nuptial de4ts of eit er spouse insofar as t ey ave redounded to t e 4enefit of t e family< +#. T e value of w at is donated or promised 4y 4ot spouses in favor of t eir common le3itimate c ildren for t e e2clusive A course or ot er activity for 3ivin3 dou4le loss to t e purpose of commencin3 or completin3 a professional or vocational To discoura3e 3am4lin31 self% improvement< +". 6nte%nuptial de4ts of eit er spouse ot er t an t ose fallin3 under para3rap +$. of t is Cat olic virtues of reflection of 6rticle1 t e support c ildren of eit er ille3itimate 3am4ler spouse1 and lia4ilities incurred 4y eit er spouse 4y reason of a crime or a 'uasi%delict1 in case of a4sence or insufficiency of t e e2clusive property of t e de4tor%spouse1 t e If t e winnin3 tic@et in 4elotteryNsweepsta@es 3iven 4e A payment of w ic s all a considered as advances to deducted from t e s are of t e de4tor%spouse upon li'uidation ofto spouse 4y a and t e community< friend1 it is considered a donation +!C. &2penses of liti3ation 4etween t e spouses unless t e suit is found to 4e 3roundless0 under 6rt "7 +!. and winnin3s will not form part of 6CP unless e2pressly provided para3rap If t e community property is insufficient to cover t e fore3oin3 lia4ilities1 e2cept t ose fallin3 under 4y donor0 +".1 t e spouses s all 4e solidarily lia4le for t e unpaid 4alance wit t eir T6?UL6R FORM OF 6RT0 "- +Ma5am ?et 5s Lecture. D&?T) Q O?LI(6TION) T6:&) Q &:P&N)&) )UPPORT 7 incurred 4y9 administrator %spouse1 4ot spouses1 or 4y one spouse wit t e consent of t e ot er - includin3 minor or ma=or repairs upon community property ! of spouse1 common e2clusiveN separate OR 6CPc ildren1 le3itimate c ildren % For ille3it9 advance1 su4=ect to reim4ursement upon li'uidation , commence or complete education +professional or vocational. e030 lan3ua3e1 speec power1 leaders ip1 law1 culinary % 4y eit er spouse # value donatedNpromised to c ildren for commencement and completion of education % no a3e limit % / incurred 4y one wit out t e consent of t e ot er to t e e2tent t at family may ave 4een 4enefited +&030 failed 4usiness w ic was initially o@. $ antenuptial de4ts of eit er spouse insofar as 4enefited t e family +no consent of ot er spouse needed. " antenuptial de4ts1 t at do not 4enefit family1 for support of in case of insufficiency of D mereille3itimate c ildren or crimeN'uasi%delict preservation of separate property used 4y t e family !C liti3ation 4etween spouses1 unless 3roundless P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e ,, of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 -0 Owners ip and disposition of t e 6CP D0 Dissolution FC1 6rt "" T e 6CP terminates !0 deat of eit er spouse +6rt !C/. FC1 6rt ", T e administration and en=oyment of t e community property s all 4elon3 to+6rt ,/ Q ,-. 70 le3al separation of disa3reement1 t e us4and5s decision s all prevail1 su4=ect to recourse to t e or declared void +6rt DC proper remedy1 /0 annulled court 4y t e wife for a to D7. w ic must 4e availed of wit in D years from t e date of t e contract implementin3 separation of property durin3 t e marria3e +6rt !/- to -0 =udicial suc

decision0 !/#. In t e event t at one spouse is incapacitated or ot erwise properties1 t e ot er spouse may assume sole powers of administration encum4rance wit out aut ority of t e court or t e written consent of t e ot er spouse0 In t e a4sence of suc aut ority FC1 6rt !CC T e separation in fact 4etween us4and and wife s all or consent1 t e disposition or encum4rance s all 4e void0 >owever1 t e transaction s all 4e construed as a !0 offer on t e part of t e consentin3 spouse and t e t ird person T e spouse w o leaves t e con=u3al ome or refuses to live t t e acceptance 4y t e ot er spouse or aut ori8ation 4y t e court 4efore t eto 4e is wit drawn 4y eit er or 4ot offerors0 offer supported 70 /0 A Ma5am ?et t in@s t is is wron3 4ecause it does not ta@e into consideration t e e2pertise of t e us4and and t e woman0 * at if t e wife is a ?6 ma=or w ile t e us4and does not @now a damn t in3 a4out economics1 s all is economic decision still prevailB A O@ay1 you say t at it5s not totally unfair 4ecause s e can 3o to Court and assert er views0 ?ut is t at sufficient remedy for t e wifeB Unless you really want to escalate t e fi3 t1 resortin3 to =udicial settlement is li@e ra3in3 a war0 It will only turn minor a3reements into ma=or 4rawl0 Plus t e cost of lawsuit1 it =ust ma@es matters worseT * en t e consent of one spouse to any transaction of t e o o4tained in a summary proceedin3 In t e a4sence of sufficient community property1 t e separa lia4le for t e support of t e family0 T e spouse%present s a 3iven =udicial aut ority to administer or encum4er any specifi fruits or proceeds t ereof to satisfy t e latter5s s are FC1 6rt !C! If a spouse wit out a =ust cause a4andons t e ot er or fai t e a33rieved spouse may petition to t e court9 !0 receivers ip 70 =udicial separation of property /0 aut ority for sole administration of 6CP1 su4=ect to precaution T e o4li3ations to t e family mentioned in t e precedin3 para3rap ref !0 marital 70 parental /0 property relations FC1 6rt "$ &it er spouse may dispose 4y will of is or er interest in t e community property0 6 spouse is deemed to ave a4andoned t e ot er w en e or s e a returnin30 T e spouse w o as left t e con=u3al dwellin3 for a period o 3ive any consent of as ot er0 >owever1 eit er s all 4e FC1 6rt "# Neit er spouse may donate any community property wit out t einformation t eto isN er w erea4outs spouse prima facie t e con=u3al dwellin30 may1 wit out t e consent of t e ot er1 ma@e moderate donations occasions of family re=oicin3 or family distress0 A Remedies of spouse present in case of a4andonment +6rt !C!. !0 receivers ip 70 =udicial separation of property /0 aut ority to 4e t e sole administrator of 6CP A Presumption of a4andonment % 64sent from con=u3al dwellin3 for t ree mont s % Failed to inform ot er of w erea4outs for t ree mont s P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e ,$ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 ,0 Li'uidation of assets and lia4ilities !0 70 /0 -0 /0 e2tra%=udicial a3reement +only if t ere are no de4ts. A ! year prescription period is not practical0 Filipinos ave apply9 FC1 6rt !C7 Upon dissolution of t e 6CP1 t e followin3 procedure s all a tradition of one year of mournin3 +4a4an3 6n inventory s all 4e prepared1 listin3 separately all t e properties of t e a4solute community and t e e2clusive properties of eac spouse0 lu@sa.0 T e de4ts and o4li3ations of t e a4solute community s all 4e spouse said assets1 t e spouses s all 4e solidarily lia4le for t e unpaid 4alance wit t eir separate properties in accordance wit t e provisions of t e second para3rap of 6rticle "-0 A * o may c allen3e validityB >eirs of t e deceased A If no li'uidation1 any encum4rance or disposition is D0 ,0 * atever remains of t e e2clusive properties of t e spouses s all t ereafter 4eit1 you @eep it forever. void +you can5t sell A Mandatory constitute its T e net remainder of t e properties of t e a4solute community s all for su4se'uent marria3e to 4e separate divided e'ually 4etween us4and and wife1 unless a different proportion or division was t is accordin3 no lo3ical reason for a3reed upon in t e marria3e settlements1 orto property unless t ere as 4een a voluntary waiver of suc s are provided in t is Code0 For purpose Tolentino of computin3 t e net profits su4=ect to forfeiture in accordance wit 6rticles -/1 No0 +7. and ,/1 No0 +7.1 t e said profits s all 4e t e increase in value 4etween t e mar@et value of t e community property at t e time of t e FC1 6rt !C* enever t e li'uidation of t e community properties of cele4ration of t e marria3e and t e mar@et value at t e time of its dissolution person 4efore t e effectivity of t is Code is carried out

simultan T e presumptive le3itimes of t e common c ildren eac community s all 4e determined upon suc proof as may 4e c 6rticle D!0 of dou4t as to w ic community t e e2istin3 properties 4elon31 Unless ot erwise a3reed upon 4y t e parties1 in t e partitioncommunities in proportion to t e capital and duration of eac 0 of t e properties1 t e on w ic it is situated s all 4e ad=udicated to t e spouse wit w om t e c oose to remain0 C ildren 4elow t e a3e of seven years A T e clause E4efore t e effectivity of t is CodeF court as decided ot erwise0 In case t ere in no suc ma=ority1 t e court s all decide1 ta@in3 into consideration t e is t ere 4ecause simultaneously li'uidation of two or 4est interests of said c ildren0 A >ow to apply t e forfeitures in 6rt -/+7. and 6rt ,/+7. N&T 6))&T) w at remains after payment of community de4ts and o4li3ations % N&T PROFIT) in Par a4ove1 Es all 4e t e increase in value 4etween t e mar@et value of t e community property at t e time of t e cele4ration of t e marria3e and t e mar@et value at t e time of its dissolutionF more marria3es is no lon3er le3ally possi4le under FC w ic imposes a mandatory re'uirement for marria3es su4se'uent to an unli'uidated marria3e to ave complete separation of properties0 ON6) v J6;ILLO +!"/-. D" P il $// % Crispulo Javillo married Ramona Levis and t ey ad D c ildren0 6fter Ramona5s deat 1 e married Rosario Onas and t ey ad - c ildren0 % Durin3 is first marria3e !! parcels of land were >ow to compute net ac'uired< w ile in is 7nd marria3e 7C parcels of profit9 land were ac'uired0 % Partition was made on t e claim t at t e Mar@et value properties of t e 7nd marria3e were products of K de4t of community t e first marria3e0 net assets or remainder Rosario Onas was opposin3 t e partition t at K mar@et value at marria3e was made 4y t e administrator of t e estate of N&T PROFIT er us4and0 ) e alle3es t e followin3 errors9 o 6ll t e properties ac'uired durin3 t e second marria3e were ac'uired wit t e properties FC1 6rt !C/ Upon t e termination of t e marria3e 4y deat proceedin3 for t e settlement of t e estate of t e deceased0 of t e first marria3e0 o TC erred in approvin3 t e partition dated If no =udicial settlement proceedin3 is instituted1 t e survivin3 spouse s all li'uidate t e community property )eptem4er "1 or e2tra%=udicially wit in si2 mont s from t e deat of t e deceased spouse !"/!1 notwit standin3 t at t e period1 no li'uidation is made1 any disposition or encum4rance involvin3 same did not property of t e terminated of t e t e community include all properties marria3e deceased0 s all 4e void0 ) ould t e survivin3 spouse contract a su4se'uent marria3e I))U&) and RULIN(9 mandatory re3ime of complete separation of property s all 3overn t e property relations of t e su4se'uent marria3e0 A Li'uidate CP wit in ! year from deat of spouse0 >owB !0 =udicial settlement in testate or intestate proceedin3s 70 =udicial action1 or ordinary action for partition !. *ON t e community partners ip s all continue to e2ist 4etween t e survivin3 spouse and t e eirs of t e deceased us4and or wife % NO * en t e marria3e is dissolved1 t e cause t at 4rou3 t a4out t e community ceases1 for t e principles of an ordinary partners ip are not P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e ,# of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % applica4le to t is community1 w ic is 3overned 4y special rules0 Provisions of law 3overnin3 t e su4=ect s ould cease to ave any effect for community of property is admissi4le and proper in so far as it conforms to unity of life1 to t e mutual affection 4etween us4and and wife1 and serves as a recompense for t e care of preservin3 and increasin3 t e property< all of w ic terminates 4y t e deat of one of t e partners0 Community terminates w en t e marria3e is dissolved or annulled or w en durin3 t e marria3e and a3reement is entered into to divide t e con=u3al property0 T e con=u3al partners ip e2ists as lon3 as t e spouses are united0 % !N7, to eac of t e c ildren of t e 7nd % !"N!"D to marria3e 70 6ll ot er properties ac'uired durin3 t e 7nd marria3e eac c ildren of t e !st marria3e< % 7N,D to eac c ildren of t e 7nd marria3e< 7#N,D to t e survivin3 spouse >&LD9 )ince t e capital of eit er marria3e or t e contri4ution of eac spouse cannot 4e determined wit mat ematical precision1 t e total mass of t ese properties s ould 4e divided 4etween t e two con=u3al partners ips in proportion to t e duration of eac partners ip 7. *ON t e properties of t e second marria3e can 4e claimed as products of t e properties of t e first marria3e % NO * atever is ac'uired 4y t e survivin3 spouse on t e

dissolution of t e partners ip 4y deat or presumption of deat w et er t e ac'uisition 4e made 4y is or er lucrative title1 it forms a part of is or er own capital1 in w ic t e ot er consort1 or is or er eirs1 can claim no s are0 /. *ON t e partition t at was approved 4y t e lower court is valid % NO *as 4ased on t e erroneous assumption t at t e properties of t e second marria3e were produced 4y t e properties of t e first marria3e0 AA T e property correspondin3 to t e first marria3e consists of t e !! parcels of land0 T e remainin3 7C parcels of land were ac'uired durin3 t e second marria3e0 ;D6 D& D&LIPO v D&LIPO +!"$,. ," )CR6 7!, % T is is a4out two cases involvin3 t e partition of t e con=u3al properties two marria3es contracted 4y Nicolas Deli8o0 >e first married Rosa ;illasfer w ic lasted for !# yrs +!#"!%!"C". and t ey ad / c ildren0 >e t en married Dorotea de Ocampo w ic lasted for -, yrs +!"!!%!"D$. and t ey ad " c ildren0 In !"D$ Nicolas died +"C yrs old.0 % Court ori3inally ad=udicated of t e land to t e / c ildren from t e !st marria3e1 to t e survivin3 spouse and in e'ual s ares to t e c ildren of 4ot marria3es0 T is was modified in consideration of t e fact t at1 only t e Caanawan property +,$ ectares. was s own to 4e ac'uired durin3 t e first marria3e and only 7C ectares of w ic was made productive durin3 t is time0 >owever1 it is from t e fruits of t is property t at ena4led t e spouses in t e 7 nd marria3e to ac'uire % #N/" +!N, `all ot er future property0 !0 Caanawan property and on P0Campa !N7,. to eac of t e c ildren from t e !st marria3e< !0 70 /0 !st con=u3al partners ip entitled to !#N,- of t e w ole estate +!# yrs. 7nd con=u3al partners ip entitled to -,N,- of t e w ole estate +-, yrs. T e s are of Nicolas Deli8o is of t e net remainder of CP( of 4ot marria3es or /7N,-1 divided into e'ual s ares amon3 all is eirs +all !/ of t e @ids. T usU t e final s arin3 !0 Rosa5s s are9 "N,- of t e w ole estate1 to 4e divided amon3 t eirsc eme is / @ids +!-7N!,,- eac . 70 Dorotea5s s are9 7/N,- of t e w ole estate ` er s are in Nicolas5 estate +,,7N!,,-. /0 Nicolas5 s are9 /7N,of t e w ole estate to 4e divided into !/ e'ual parts +,-N!,,- eac . P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e ," of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 D0 Con=u3al Partners ip of (ains !0 (eneral Provisions 70 &2clusive Property FC1 6rt !C" T e followin3 s all 4e e2clusive property of eac spouse9 +?G DIR&CT 6CSUI)ITION OR ORI(IN6LLG &:CLU)I;& PROP&RTG !0 4rou3 t to t e marria3e as is or er own 70 ac'uired durin3 marria3e 4y 3ratuitous title FC1 6rt !CD In case t e future spouses a3ree in t e marria3e settlements s all 3overn t eir property relations durin3 marria3e1 t e provisions in t is C apter s all 4e of supplementary application0 +?G )U?)TITUTION. /0 ac'uired 4y ri3 t of redemption1 4y 4arter or 4y e2c an3e w T e provisions of t is C apter s all also apply to con=u3al partners ips of 3ains spouses 4efore t e effectivity of t is Code1 wit out pre=udice to vested ri3 ts -0 purc ased wit t e e2clusive money of t e wife or t e us4an ot er laws1 as provided in 6rticle 7D,0 &030 of O*N&D PRIOR TO T>& M6RRI6(& FC1 6rt !C, 0 Under t e re3ime of con=u3al partners ip of 3ains1 t e us4and and wife !0 property owned 4efore t e marria3e proceeds1 products1 fruits and income from t eir separate properties 70 ac'uired prior to marria3e under defective spouses t rou3 t eir efforts or 4y c ance1 and1 upon dissolution of t e marria3edefectt e partners ip1 t e t e title w ere or of was cured durin3 3ains or 4enefits o4tained 4y eit er or 4ot spouses s all 4e marria3e a3reed in t e marria3e settlements0 /0 FC1 6rt !C$ T e rules applied in 6rt ## and #" also apply to CP(0 6rt ## K 6CP 4e3ins at precise moment of cele4ration of marria3e 6rt #" K pro i4ition on waiver of ri3 ts1 interest1 s ares and effects of 6CP durin3 marria3e N6TUR& OF INT&R&)T !0 T ere is no co%owners ip1 instead partners ip 70 &ac spouse as mere inc oate ri3 ts or e2pectancy over partners ip property durin3 marria3e -0 D0 t ose alienated 4y spouse prior to marria3e 4ut reac'uired durin3 due to annulment1 rescission or resolution of t e contract1 or revocation of donation1 4y virtue of w ic it was alienated property actually delivered to spouse durin3 marria3e w ere cause or consideration came from suc spouse prior to t e marria3e property 4ou3 t 4y installment prior and fully paid only durin3 marria3e 4ut owners ip already vested on 4uyer%spouse prior to t e marria3e< amount paid 4y CP( must 4e reim4ursed upon li'uidation &030

of 6CSUI)ITION ?G (R6TUITOU) TITL& !0 property ac'uired durin3 marria3e t rou3 testate + eir1 devisee or le3atee. or intestate FC1 6rt !C# T e con=u3al partners ip s all 4e 3overned 4y t e succession or 4y donation conflict wit w at is e2pressly determined in t is C apter or 4y t e spouses in t eir marria3e settlements0 received as 70 proceeds of insurance w ere 4eneficiary of anot er person5s policy /0 3ratuity 3iven as 4ounty or out of pure li4erality 4y employer for lon3 dedicated service +distin3uis ed from pension w ic is con=u3al property under 6rt !!$1 FC. -0 unearned increment +increase in value due to ordinary course of time e030 moderni8ation of a parcel of land. D0 moral dama3es awarded for personal in=ury sustained &03 of OT>&R )&P6R6T& PROP&RTG !0 collection of credits 4elon3in3 to one spouse e2clusively 70 money t rou3 mort3a3e1 if not used for 4enefit of CP( /0 properties in co%owners ip FC1 6rt !!C T e spouses retain t e owners ip1 possession1 adm strict dominion &it er spouse may1 durin3 t e marria3e1 transferproperties0 t e administration means of a pu4lic instrument +notari8ed. w ic s all 4e recorded in property is located0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e $C of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 FC1 6rt !!! 6 spouse of a3e may mort3a3e1 encum4er1 alienate1 or ot erwise dispose of isN er e2clusive property1 >&LD9 wit out t e consent of t e ot er spouse1 and appear alone in court T e land 4elon3s to Rodri3ue80 ) e is allowed to retain owners ip of t e property s e 4rou3 t into t e second marria3e +6rt /, CC.0 ) e merely ad >ilarion administer er property for er0 T ere is no law t at pro i4its t is 4ut it cannot 4e FC1 6rt !!7 T e alienation of any e2clusive property of a spouse administered 4y wife5s property t at e is concluded t at t e t e ot er terminates t e administration over suc property and t e proceeds of t e alienation s all 4e turned over4ecause e administerin3 4ecomes is simply to t e owner%spouse0 as done so for a lon3 time0 P&OPL&5) ?6NI 6ND TRU)T CO v R&(I)T&R OF FC1 6rt !!/ Property donated or left 4y will to t e spouses pertain to t e donee% spouse as is or er own e2clusive propertyD&&D) +!"/-. ,C P il !,$ wit out pre=udice to t e ri3 t of accretion w en proper0 6ppeal from CFI Manila =ud3ment denyin3 re3istration of instrument entitled E63reement and FC1 6rt !!- If t e donation are onerous1 t e amount of t e c ar3es s all 4e of TrustF in w ic Domin3a 6n3eles1 Declaration donee%spouse1 w enever t ey ave 4een advanced 4y t e CP(0 married to Manuel )andoval livin3 in Palawan1 conveyed in trust er parap ernal property1 trustee FC1 6rt !!D Retirement 4enefits1 pensions1 annuities1 3ratuities1 was to and similar mort3a3e constituted on suc usufructs redeem 4enefits property on 3ratuitous or onerous ac'uisitions as may 4e proper in eac case0 wit funds derived from t e rents or sale t ereof1 3rant a loan of P!CCCC wit w ic to redeem mort3a3e and collect t e rents to 4e derived LIM v (6RCI6 +!"C$. from said property w ile remained unsold0 $ P il /7C % >ilario Lim died in !"C/ leavin3 a widow I))U&)9 +defendant. and " c ildren +plaintiffs. and an !0 *ON t e rents collected are fruits of t e interest in PDCCCC estate0 T e c ildren contend wife5s property w ic t erefore 4elon3s to t at certain properties s ould not 4e included in CP(1 t e con=u3al property 4ecause Lim 4ou3 t t ese 70 *ON mana3ement 4elon3s to us4and into t e marria3e0 T e c ildren also alle3e t at /0 *ON contract is null and void since us4and t e RTC erred in includin3 from t e inventory did not 3ive consent t ree parcels of land w ic Lim5s widow claim to 4e parap ernal property ac'uired 4y e2c an3in3 >&LD9 *ife1 as owner and administratri2 of er properties e2clusively 4elon3in3 to er0 parap ernal property1 may appoint trustee to collect T ere is a presumption in 6rt !-C$ CC t at all t e fruits of er property0 T e fruits are not yet estate of t e married couple will 4e considered con=u3al property since t ey still ave to answer to CP( property unless it is proven t at is was part e2penses in t e administration and preservation of of t e separate estate of us4and or wife0 t e parap ernal property0 ) e may li@ewise do suc wit out consent of t e us4and1 su4=ect to recourse >&LD9 T e t ree parcels of land were ac'uired 4y t e 4y us4and or is eirs1 t us renderin3 suc widow t rou3 e2c an3in3 properties w ic s e contract merely voida4le or void0 in erited from er fat er0 T us t ey are parap ernal0 T e evidence presented 4y t e c ildren was not P>ILIPPIN& )U(6R &)T6T&) v POIP6T +!"7D.

sufficient to overcome t e presumption t at t e -# P il D/, properties included in t e con=u3al property 4elon3 (a4riela 6ndrea de Costen e2ecuted in favor of t ere0 Unless it is proven t at t e property is er us4and1 Juan Poi8at a 3eneral power of part of t e separate estate of one of t e attorney w ic amon3 ot er t in3s aut ori8ed spouses1 it will 4e considered con=u3al im Ein er name1 place and stead1 and ma@in3 property0 use of er ri3 ts and actionsF to 4orrow money and e2ecute a mort3a3e over e properties now RODRI(U&P v D&L6 CRUP +!"C$. in 'uestion0 # P il ,,D % Defendant secured a loan of P!C1CCC from % Plaintiff Matea Rodri3ue8 is second wife of plaintiff to pay a mort3a3e< owever mort3a3e >ilarion dela Cru8 w ile defendants are >ilarion5s e2ecuted 4y us4and si3ned merely in is own c ildren 4y is first wife< t is is an action to name and not as attorney%in%fact0 For failure to recover parcels of land in 'uestion from pay loan1 property foreclosed and later sold at defendants0 auction to plaintiff0 *ife opposes confirmation of auction sale on % Matea claims t at property 3iven to er 4y er 3round t at mort3a3e was null and void since deceased fat er 4ut in prior action 4y us4and was unaut ori8ed0 defendants for partition of >ilarion5s property1 lower court ad=ud3ed lands in 'uestion to t em >&LD9 T e us4and e2ceeded t e scope of is on t eory t at suc lands were ac'uired durin3 aut ority0 Defendant may ave ad aut ority to >ilarion5s first marria3e0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e $! of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 4orrow money and mort3a3e real property of wife 4ut law specifies ow and in w at manner it s ould 4e done1 w ic was not duly complied wit in t is case0 Mort3a3e in 'uestion e2ecuted 4y im only and not on 4e alf of wife1 t us it is not 4indin3 on is wife0 A One word could ave c an3ed everyt in39 EforF or E4yF C6)TRO v MI6T +7CC/. /"$ )CR6 7$! % )pouses Moises and Concordia Miat 4ou3 t a piece of land in Paco on installment 4asis on May !$1 !"$$0 Concordia died t e followin3 year0 >owever1 it was only on Decem4er !-1 !"#- t at Moises was a4le to pay its 4alance 4ecause e went to U6& to wor@0 >e secured is title over t e property in is name as a widower0 T ere was also a dispute to t e owners ip of t e two c ildren +Romeo and 6le2ander. of t e property0 >&LD9 )ince t e spouses were married 4efore t e effectivity of t e FC1 t e provisions of CC apply0 Records s ow t at t e Paco property was ac'uired 4y onerous title durin3 t e marria3e out of t e common fund1 ence it is clearly con=u3al0 6rt !,C of CC provides t at all property of t e marria3e is presumed to 4elon3 to t e con=u3al partners ip1 unless it 4e proved t at it pertains to t e us4and or t e wife0 T e presumption applies even w en t e manner in w ic t e property was ac'uired does not appear0 /0 Con=u3al Partners ip of (ains a0 Presumption t at property is con=u3al FC1 6rt !!, 6ll property ac'uired durin3 t e marria3e w made1 contracted or re3istered in t e name of one or 4ot spou t e contrary is proved0 Important points re3ardin3 con=u3al nature of properties9 !0 presumption applies even if manner in w ic property was ac'uired is not s own 70 t e party invo@in3 t is presumption must first prove t at t e party was ac'uired durin3 t e marria3e /0 proof of ac'uisition durin3 marria3e is a condition for t e operation of t is presumption -0 presumption of prevails over ordinary rules of accession D0 presumption is re4utta4le 4y stron31 clear and convincin3 evidence ,0 presumption is stron3er w en creditors are involved $0 t e 4urden of proof is on t e party assertin3 t at t e property is e2clusively owned 4y a spouse In overt rowin3 t e con=u3al c aracterU R R&CIT6L) IN D&&D OF )6L& is not sufficient 4ecause to permit suc would ma@e a spouse a sole ar4iter of c aracter of property ac'uired durin3 marria3e R R R R PROP&RTG IN N6M& OF ON& )POU)& is li@ewise not enou3 to dispute t e con=u3ality of a property ?UT if t ere is no date of ac'uisition1 t e fact t at t e title is named after t e spouse ma@es t e property e2clusive o T at5s w y you s ould @eep not only t e title 4ut also t e deed of sale PROOF) OF P6R6P>&RN6L PROP&RTG o possession of some parap ernal funds under er administration and availa4le for investment o sufficiency of suc funds for price of property o investment of suc funds in property in 'uestion )OURC& OF FUND) is not material to t e con=u3ality or e2clusivity of property 4ecause it is rat er difficult to determine 6CINO*L&D(M&NT OF ON& )POU)& t at t e property in 'uestion is con=u3al is a stron3

evidence a3ainst t e party ma@in3 admission or isN er eirs P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e $7 of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 JOC)ON v C6 +!"#". !$C Moises Jocson )CR6 /// % &milio Jocson 6le=andra Po4lete Q 63ustina Jocson%;as'ue80 63ustina is married to &rnesto ;as'ue80 T e mot er 6le=andra died intestate1 and so did t e fat er &milio in !"$70 % June 7C1 !"$/9 Moises filed complaint1 assailin3 validity of / documents e2ecuted 4y &milio +t eir fat er. durin3 is lifetime0 >e prays t at t e followin3 4e declared null and void and t at t e properties involved 4e partitioned 4etween im and is sister9 !0 Deed of )ale e2ecuted July 7$1 !",# w erein &milio sold to 63ustina , parcels of land in Naic1 Cavite for P!C1CCC0CC0 Deed included &milio5s manifestation t at t e lands were sold at a low price 4ecause it was is lovin31 elpful and t ou3 tful dau3 ter w o 4ou3 t t e property0 >e says is son possesses suc 'ualities too0 >e furt er claims t at t e sale did not violate any law and t at e did not touc is wife5s properties0 >e ac@nowled3ed receipt of payment0 70 Deed of )ale e2ecuted July 7$1 !",#1 sellin3 7 rice mills and a camali3 in Naic1 Cavite to 63ustina for PD1CCC0CC0 &milio ac@nowled3ed receipt too0 /0 Deed of &2tra=udicial Partition and 6d=udication wit )ale e2ecuted Marc "1 !"," w erein &milio and 63ustina1 e2cludin3 Moises1 e2tra=udicially partitioned unsettled estate of 6le=andra dividin3 suc into /0 &milio sold is s are to 63ustina0 6ll documents were e2ecuted 4efore a notary pu4lic0 Nos0 ! and 7 were re3istered wit t e Re3ister of Deeds0 Old certificates were cancelled and new certificates issued in t e name of 63ustina0 Moises alle3ations9 !0 a! is null and void 4ecause is fat er5s consent was o4tained 4y fraud1 deceit1 undue pressure1 influence and ot er ille3al mac inations0 >e also alle3es t at property was sold for a simulated price considerin3 t at is sister ad no wor@ or liveli ood of er own0 6lso1 e claims t at t e contract is fictitious1 simulated and fa4ricated0 70 )ame alle3ations re a7 and a/ wit additional alle3ation t at e was deli4erately e2cluded and t ey intended to defraud im of is le3itimate s are0 >e also claims t at defendants were employed in t eir parents5 4usiness and t ey must ave used 4usiness earnin3s or simulated consideration in order to purc ase t e properties0 /0 No real sale 4etween dad and dau3 ter livin3 under same roof0 -0 Dad didn5t need money since sold properties were all income%producitn30 D0 % % % % % a! and a7 are unli'uidated con=u3al properties t at &milio can5t validly sell0 ,0 a/9 e only 'uestions sale of dad5s s are to sister 4ut not e2tra=udicial partition0 RTC decided in favor of petitioner0 Documents were simulated and fictitious 4ecause9 !. no proof t at 63ustina did pay for t e properties1 7. prices were 3rossly inade'uate tantamount to lac@ of consideration at all1 /. impro4a4ility of sale considerin3 circumstances0 Desi3ned to e2clude Moises0 RTC furt er declared a! and a7 properties as con=u3al 4y virtue of re3istration papers w ic declared9 E&milio Jocson1 married to 6le=andra Po4lete0F Ordered re3istration of propertiy to two c ildren0 C6 reversed0 Nos0 ! and 7 4arred 4y prescription 4ecause annulment of contract 4ased on fraud must 4e filed - years from discovery of suc w ic 4e3ins on t e date of t e re3istration wit t e Re3ister of Deeds0 6ll documents actually and intended to 4e 4indin3 and effective a3ainst &milio0 Proof of suc 9 issuance of new titles0 Partition wit sale in Num4er / is valid since it was done in accordance wit New CC 6rt0 "", on intestate succession and Moises5 !N/ s are as not 4een pre=udiced0 I))U&) Q RULIN(9 !0 *ON suit is solely 4ased on fraud and as suc is 4arred 4y prescription0 % NO0 Contract tainted 4y vitiated consent suc as w en consent5s o4tained 4y fraud is voida4le +CC1 6rt0 !//C. and action for annulment must 4e filed wit in - years from time of discovery of fraud +CC 6rt0 !/"! par0-.0 Discovery means t e time w en contract was re3istered wit Re3ister of Deeds +(erona v0 De (u8man.0 % If t is was t e only consideration1 t en it is 4arred 4y prescription0 ?ut e furt er assailed t at sale was wit out consideration since amount paid were merely simulated0 Contracts wit o cause or consideration produce no effect w atsoever +CC1 6rt !/D7.0 6 sale wit simulated price is void +CC1 6rt !-$! and !-C"b/c. and action for declaration of its nullity does not prescri4e +CC1 6rt !-!C.0 70 *ON sales were wit out consideration0 % NO0 )ince Moises alle3es suc 1 it is incum4ent upon im to prove is alle3ations1 especially since documents s ow t at is dad

+vendor. ac@nowled3ed receipt of price and t ey are notari8ed0 >e failed to do so and t us e was not a4le to overcome t e presumption t at a contract is wit consideration +CC 6rt0 !/D-.0 &ven is own witness contradicted is claim t at is sister and er us4and ad no source of income0 *itness ?a3nas said t at 63ustina and P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e $/ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 &rnesto were into 4uy and sell of palay and rice0 &ven e imself said t at e didn5t @now if is sister ad ot er 4usinesses0 63ustina testified t at s e was into 4uy and sell even prior to er marria3e0 /0 *ON prices were simulated % NO0 No proof of inade'uacy of price0 In fact1 purc ase price was i3 er t an assessed value +a!9 P!C@ vs0 P#"7C0CC1 a7 PD@ vs0 P/1DCC1 and a/ P#@ vs0 P7-1#-C0CC.0 ?esides difference 4etween mar@et value and purc ase price is understanda4le considerin3 fat er5s filial love for is dau3 ter0 (ross inade'uacy of price alone does not affect t e contract e2cept per aps an indication of defect in consent +CC 6rt0 !-$C.0 No proof of defective consent0 -0 *ON sale is impro4a4le0 % NO0 Impro4a4ility of sale is purely speculative0 Not relevant considerin3 t at all essential re'uirements for contract are clearly present9 consent1 o4=ect and cause0 D0 *ON properties in a! and a7 were con=u3al properties of &milio and is wife0 % NO0 CC1 6rt0 !,C provides t at all property of marria3e is presumed to 4elon3 to CP unless proven ot erwise0 Condition sine 'ua non +main t in3. would 4e for party w o invo@es t is to prove t at properties were indeed ac'uired durin3 t e marria3e +Co44%Pere8 v Lantin.0 T us1 Moises as to present proof t at properties in 'uestion were indeed o4tained durin3 t e marria3e of t eir parents 4efore e can invo@e t e presumption0 >owever1 titles used 4y RTC in declarin3 properties as CP +see RTC decision in 4old letters. are insufficient proof0 Doesn5t say w en properties were o4tained0 6c'uisition of title +actual ownin3 of land. is different from re3istration0 Possi4le t at &milio ac'uired properties w en e was still a 4ac elor and only re3istered suc after marria3e0 % EMarried toF p rase is a mere description of &milio5s civil status at t e time of re3istration +Litam v Rivera.0 It s ould 4e interpreted as &milo is t e owner1 property re3istered in is name alone and t at e is married0 Consistent wit t e principle t at re3istration of property in name of only one spouse doesn5t ne3ate possi4ility of it 4ein3 con=u3al +?ucoy v Paulino.0 ?ot re'uire sufficient1 clear and convincin3 proof to re4ut t e presumption0 Moises s ould ave presented sufficient proof to s ow t at properties were ac'uired durin3 t e marria3e so t at e may en=oy t e presumption under 6rt0 !,C0 Due to lac@ of proof1 presumption does not e2ist1 t us1 properties are considered e2clusive to &milio0 Case of t e sic@ly man Teresita FR6NCI)CO v C6 +!""#. 7"" )CR6 !## % % % % % +petitioner. is &use4io5s +private respondent. le3al second wife0 Conc ita &van3elista1 6raceli F0 Marilla and 6ntonio Francisco +private respondents. are c ildren of &use4io 4y is first marria3e0 Teresita5s alle3ations9 !0 )ince t eir marria3e on Fe40 !C1 !",71 t ey ave ac'uired properties in ?aran3ay ?alite1 Rodri3ue81 Ri8al1 and in ?arrio )an Isidro1 Rodri3ue81 Ri8al w ic were administered 4y &use4io until e was invalidated on account of tu4erculosis1 eart disease and cancer1 w ic rendered im unfit to administer t em0 70 Private respondents succeeded in convincin3 t eir fat er to si3n a 3eneral power of attorney w ic aut ori8ed Conc ita to administer t e ouse and lot to3et er wit t e apartments situated in Rodri3ue81 Ri8al0 Teresita filed suit for dama3es and for annulment of said 3eneral power of attorney1 t us en=oinin3 its enforcement and sou3 t to 4e declared administratri2 of properties in dispute0 RTC ruled in favor of private respondents oldin3 t at Teresita did not s ow t at said properties were ac'uired durin3 t e second marria3e1 or t at t ey pertained e2clusively to er0 6s suc 1 t ose properties 4elon3 e2clusively to &use4io1 and e as t e capacity to administer t em0 On appeal1 C6 affirmed t is decision0 Teresita files t is petition1 claimin3 t at9 !0 C6 erred in applyin3 arts !,C and !D#1 title ;I of new CC as said title as already 4een repealed 4y art0 7D/1 FC 70 It furt er erred in not applyin3 art0 !7-1 FC >owever1 issue in Teresita5s reply9 *ON 6rt0 !!,1 FC applies to t is case as 6rt0 7D/ of t e same Code bw ic c e2pressly repeals 6rts0 !D# and !,C of t e Civil Code\ - I))U&9 *ON properties are not con=u3al 4ut capital properties of &use4io e2clusively0 >&LD9 % G&)0 Petition denied0 6rts !D#

and !,C CC ave 4een repealed 4y t e FC1 specifically 4y 6rt 7D-1 FC +not 6rt 7D/.0 &ven so1 pursuant to 6rt0 7D, in relation to 6rt !CD +7nd par0.1 FC1 repeal of 6rt0 !D# and !,C does not operate to pre=udice or ot erwise affect prior vested ri3 ts0 Ri3 ts accrued and vested w ile t ese articles were in effect survive t eir repeal0 Issue s all t en 4e resolved 4ased on provisions of CC0 % 6rt !,C provides t at \all property of t e marria3e is presumed to 4elon3 to t e con=u3al partners ip1 unless it 4e proved t at it pertains e2clusively to t e us4and or to t e wife\0 >owever1 t e party w o invo@es t is presumption must first s ow proof of ac'uisition durin3 t e coverture +marria3e.0 T e presumption refers only to t e P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e $- of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % % % % % % property ac'uired durin3 t e marria3e and does not operate w en t ere is no s owin3 as to w en property alle3ed to 4e con=u3al was ac'uired0 Moreover1 presumption in favor of con=u3ality is re4utta4le wit stron31 clear and convincin3 evidence s owin3 e2clusive owners ip of one of t e spouses0 In t is case1 petitioner failed to adduce ample evidence to s ow t at t e properties w ic s e claimed to 4e con=u3al were ac'uired durin3 er marria3e wit &use4io0 6s re3ards land in ?3y0 ?alite1 petitioner failed to re4ut &use4io5s testimony t at e in erited t e same from is parents0 ) e even admitted t at &use4io 4rou3 t into t eir marria3e t e said land1 al4eit in t e concept of a possessor only as it was not yet re3istered in is name0 * et er &use4io in erited t e property 4efore or after is 7nd marria3e is inconse'uential as t e property s ould 4e re3arded as is own e2clusively1 pursuant to 6rt !-#1 CC0 6c'uisitions 4y lucrative title refer to properties ac'uired 3ratuitously and include t ose ac'uired 4y eit er spouse durin3 t e marria3e 4y in eritance1 devise1 le3acy1 or donation0 >ence1 even if it 4e assumed t at &use4io[s ac'uisition 4y succession of t e land too@ place durin3 is second marria3e1 t e land would still 4e is Ee2clusive propertyF 4ecause it was ac'uired 4y im1 Edurin3 t e marria3e1 4y lucrative title0F 6s re3ards property in ?3y0 ?alite1 petitioner s owed 4uildin3 permits for t e ouse and t e apartment1 wit er as t e applicant alt ou3 in t e name of &use4io and t e 4usiness license for t e sari%sari store issued in er name alone in support of er claim t at it was con=u3al property0 T ese1 owever1 do not prove t at t e improvements were ac'uired durin3 t e second marria3e0 T e fact t at one is t e applicant or licensee is not determinative of t e issue as to w et er or not t e property is con=u3al or not0 T ey even counter er claim as er documents all descri4ed &use4io as t e owner of t e structures +6rt !-/!1 CC< Rule !7"+-.1 Revised Rules on &vidence.0 Furt er1 s e cannot ar3ue t at t e sari%sari store constructed on t e land of &use4io as t ere4y 4ecome con=u3al for want of evidence to sustain t e proposition t at it was constructed at t e e2pense of t eir partners ip +6rt !D#+7.1 CC.0 Presumption of con=u3ality for lac@ of a4sence of evidence on t e source of fundin3 +6rt0 !,C1 CC. cannot 4e invo@ed 4ecause t ere is also lac@ in proof t at it was erected durin3 t e alle3ed second marria3e0 Certificate of title upon w ic petitioner anc ors er claim over t e property at )an Isidro is inade'uate0 T e fact t at t e land was re3istered in t e name of E&use4io Francisco1 married to Teresita Francisco1F is no proof t at t e property was ac'uired durin3 t e spouses coverture0 6c'uisition of % title and re3istration t ereof are two different acts0 Re3istration merely confirms title already e2istin3 and t e p rase Emarried toF is merely descriptive of t e civil status of &use4io0 Lastly1 it follows t at &use4io s all remain administrator of t e properties considerin3 t at t e assets are e2clusively is capital0 &ven if t e properties are con=u3al1 petitioner cannot administer t em inasmuc as &use4io is not so ill as to incapacitate im to administer property0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e $D of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 40 Properties t at compose t e CP( Only net income or fruits of e2clusive property of t e spouses 4ecome con=u3al0 &2penses for production1 administration and preservation s ould 4e ta@en from t e 3ross fruits and t e FC1 6rt !!$ T e followin3 are CP properties owner%spouse is entitled to retain t e 3ross !0 ac'uired 4y onerous title durin3 t e marria3e at t e e2pense income until t ese e2penses are paid0 4e for of t e common fund1 w et er t e ac'uisition Circumstances under 6rt !!" FC t e partners ip or for only one of

t e spouses % 70 /0 -0 D0 ,0 $0 la4or1 industry1 wor@ or profession of eit er or 4ot fruits1 natural1 industrial1 or civil1 due or received durin3 t e marria3e treasure found 4y t e spouses on t e idden fruits from t e e2clusive property property of eit er of t em is con=u3al s are of eit er spouses in t e idden treasure w ic t e law awards to t e finder or owner of t e property w ere t e if property w ere t e treasure is found is owned treasure is found 4y one of t e spouses and found 4y a stran3er1 occupation suc as fis in3 or untin3 one% alf s are of t e eac of t e property 3oes livestoc@ e2istin3 upon t e dissolution of t e partners ip in e2cess of t e num4er ofowner @ind 4rou3 t to t e to t e con=u3al partners ip marria3e 4y eit er spouse if property w ere t e loser% spouse1 t ou3 0 4y c ance1 e030 winnin3s from 3am4lin3 or 4ettin30 Losses s all 4e 4orne e2clusively 4ytreasure is found owned 4y )>6R& OF )POU)&) IN >IDD&N TR&6)UR& ON&ROU) TITL& % T&)T9 ori3in of t e money invested in t e purc ase1 e030 if it came from t e con=u3al fund1 t e property ac'uired is con=u3al )P&CI6L RUL&) ON LIF& IN)UR6NC&9 If t e 4eneficiary is t e insured imself or is estate o If t e premiums were paid wit t e con=u3al funds1 t e proceeds are con=u3al o If t e premiums were paid wit separate funds1 proceeds are separate o If t e premiums were paid partly wit con=u3al funds1 and partly wit separate funds1 t e proceeds will 4e partly con=u3al and party separate If t e 4eneficiary is t e ot er spouse o If one spouse 3ets insurance1 assi3ned as 4eneficiary imself and t e ot er spouse9 Proceeds 4elon3 to t e ot er spouse even if t e premiums are paid out of con=u3al funds 4ut eNs e s ould also reim4urse alf to t e con=u3al partners ip o If spouses are insured1 t e survivin3 spouse 3ets t e proceed wit no o4li3ation to reim4urse +considered reciprocal donations. o If t e insurance comes from a t ird person1 e2clusive property of t e 4eneficiary%spouse Reconcile t is provision wit 6rt !!- w ic says t at onerous titles are separate property even if CP( funds were used1 su4=ect to reim4ursement0 L6?OR1 INDU)TRG1 *ORI OR PROF&))ION OF &IT>&R OR ?OT> OF T>& )POU)&) includes all income w et er in form of wa3es1 pensions or retirement pay1 onoraria1 salaries1 commission1 4onuses1 4ac@ pays1 practice of profession1 income from 4usiness even if capital comes from t e e2clusive properties of one of t e spouses teac er5s 3ratuity under special law is not con=u3al 4ecause it is remuneratory FRUIT) FROM COMMON 6ND &:CLU)I;& PROP&RTG stran3er and found 4y one of t e spouses1 one alf s are of finder is con=u3al FC1 6rt !!" * enever an amount or credit paya4le wit in a period may 4e collected durin3 t e marria3e in partial payments or 4y i property of t e spouse0 >owever1 t e interests fallin3 due durin3 con=u3al partners ip0 A Illustration of 6rt !!"9 T e wife lent money to anot er 4efore er marria3e at interest1 paya4le in installment for !C years0 T e interests fallin3 due durin3 t e marria3e are con=u3al1 4ut t e installment payments on t e principal loan 4elon3 to t e wife e2clusively0 PULU&T6 v P6N%6M +!"$/. -" )CR6 ! % )pouses Rafael and Carolina Pulueta to3et er wit t eir dau3 ter were passen3ers of Pan 6m0 Mr0 Pulueta left t e terminal and went to t e 4eac in searc for a place w ere e could relieve imself +w ere it would not 4e visi4le for t e people in t e plane and in t e terminal.0 >e came to a place a4ound -CC yards away from t e terminal0 >e was 3one for almost one our +4ut 4efore t e plane left. and Pan6m was contendin3 t at it could ave not ta@en im t at lon3 relieve imself and t at t ere were ei3 t commodes at t e terminal toilet for men0 % Capt0 Pentner claims t at Mr0 Pulueta as 4een off%loaded Edue to drin@in3F and 4elli3erent attitude 4ut accordin3 to plaintiff +Pulueta. t e order to off%load all Puluetas1 t eir lu33a3e and overcoats and ot er effects and%carried 4y t em came as a result of t e altercation t at appened 4etween Capt0 Pentner and Mr0 Pulueta w en t e latter was not cowed 4y t e arro3ant tone of Capt0 Pentner0 6fter Mr0 Pulueta was off%loaded1 Capt0 Pentner ad t e intention of @eepin3 im stranded for a minimum period of one wee@ at a cost of W!/0/C per day0 % In an action for dama3es a3ainst Pan6m1 t e Puluetas were awarded moral and e2emplary dama3es1 as well as attorney fees0 T is was P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e $, of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % 4ased on a 4reac of contract of carria3e coupled wit a 'uasi%delict0 Pendin3 appeal1 t e spouses separated

and Mrs0 Pulueta entered into a compromise a3reement wit Pan6m1 w erein s e settled for PDC1CCC0 ) e filed for t e dismissal of t e case w ic was denied since a wife cannot 4ind con=u3al partners ip wit out t e us4and5s consent1 e2cept in cases provided 4y law0 % I))U&9 *ON t e award for dama3es is part of t e con=u3al partners ip >&LD9 G&)0 T e dama3es arose from a 4reac of t e Pulueta5s contract of carria3e wit Pan6m from w ic t ey paid t eir fare wit funds presuma4le 4elon3in3 to t e con=u3al property0 T e dama3es t erefore1 fall under 6rt !D/ CC1 t e ri3 t t ereto avin3 4een ac'uired 4y onerous title durin3 t e marria3e0 T e dama3es do not fall under 6rt !-# CC as e2clusive property of eac spouse0 Furt er1 Et at w ic is ac'uired 4y ri3 t of redemption or 4y e2c an3e wit ot er property 4elon3 to only one of t e spousesF and Et at w ic is purc ased wit e2clusive money of t e wife or us4andF 4elon3 e2clusively to suc wife or us4and1 it follows necessarily t at w at is ac'uired wit money of t e con=u3al partners ip 4elon3s t ereto or forms part t ereof0 M&NDOP6 v R&G&) +!"#/. !7- )CR6 !D- Ponciano Reyes is t e us4and of Julia de Reyes w o e2ecuted a deed of sale of 7 parcels of land wit t eir improvements in favor of +petitioners. spouses Mendo8a0 T e land in 'uestion was 4ou3 t on installment 4asis from JM Tua8on Q Co0 represented 4y (0 6raneta0 )ince t e spouses were always in arrears in t e payment of t e said land 4ecause of lac@ of money1 t ey ad to 4orrow from RFC +Re a4ilitation Finance Corporation.0 T us1 t ey loaned money for purposes of completin3 t e construction of a one%storey 4uildin3 and payin3 4alance of price of lot0 % 6 correspondin3 deed of a4solute sale1 in w ic Julia Reyes was named as vendee and er us4and si3ned under t e p rase1 Ewit my marital consent1F was e2ecuted 4y 6raneta on Nov !"-#0 From t ereon1 t e spouses secured anot er loan for t e payment of 4alance of lot and additional security1 for t e defrayment of t e e2penses incurred in t e repairs1 etc0 6s a result t e transfer certificates of said lots issued 4y Re3istry of Deeds were in t e name of EJulia Reyes married to Ponciano Reyes0F T e mort3a3e contracts e2ecuted 4y spouses in favor of RFC were duly re3istered as well0 )pouses put up a sc ool and a camarin in t e lots0 * en t e sc ool was transferred someplace else1 t e camarin was leased to % Mendo8a spouses in !"D7 for ten years0 T e contract of lease was si3ned 4y Julia as lessor wit marital consent of Ponciano0 ?ecause of failure to pay t eir o4li3ations to RFC1 spouses as@ed for e2tension on t eir o4li3ation and was 3ranted suc 0 On Marc !",!1 w ile t ey were separated in fact and er us4and was in Pampan3a1 Julia sold t e lots to t e Mendo8a spouses wit out t e @nowled3e and consent of Ponciano0 T us1 e filed a case for t e annulment of t e deed of sale1 statin3 t at t e properties were con=u3al properties and t at s e sold t em wit out is @nowled3e or consent0 I))U&)9 !0 *ON t e deed of sale was null and void on 3rounds t at t e property is con=u3al property1 w ic means Julia is pro i4ited from sellin3 suc wit out consent of spouse0 70 *ON issue of estoppel can 4e raised a3ainst Ponciano0 >&LD9 !0 G&)0 Property is con=u3al followin3 t e presumption found in 6rt !,C CC1 w ic states t at all property of t e marria3e must 4e presumed to 4elon3 to t e CP unless it 4e proved t at it pertains to e2clusive property of spouses0 T is presumption is stron3 as stated in 6rt !D/1 CC1 w ic provides t at suc presumption must 4e overcome 4y one w o contends ot erwise0 T e only c aracter t at t ey could come up wit to re4ut t e presumption is Julia5s testimony1 w ic is contrary to 6raneta5s records as well as info on mort3a3e contracts +w ic are favora4le to er us4and.0 Precedent states t at it is sufficient to prove t at t e property was ac'uired durin3 t e marria3e in order t at t e same may 4e deemed con=u3al property0 T at proof of ac'uisition of property in dispute durin3 t e marria3e suffices to render t e statutory presumption operative0 T us1 t e property was ac'uired 4y onerous title durin3 t e marria3e0 T e records s ow t at t e funds used to 4uy t e lot and 4uild t e improvements came from loans o4tained 4y t e spouses0 6rt !,! states t at all de4ts and o4li3ations contracted 4y t e us4and and wife for t e 4enefit of t e con=u3al partners ip are lia4ilities of t e partners ip0 T us1 t e lands are con=u3al properties of 4ot spouses0 70 NO0 T e principle of estoppel rests on rule t at w enever a party as intentionally led t e ot er to 4elieve a particular t in3 true to act upon suc 4elief1 e cannot1 in any liti3ation arisin3 from is act1

declaration or omission1 falsify it0 It can 4e invo@ed only 4etween persons ma@in3 t e misrepresentation and person to w om suc P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e $$ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 misrepresentation is addressed0 T ere is no s owin3 t at Ponciano led t e Mendo8as to 4elieve t at t e land wasn5t con=u3al0 It cannot 4e considered to ave acted in 3ood fait 4ecause t e RFC mort3a3es were already re3istered in Re3istry of Deeds 4y t e time t e contract of lease was re3istered0 Moreover1 t ey initially demanded Ponciano5s consent w en t ey leased t e property 4ut dismissed it upon sale0 ;ILL6NU&;6 v T6C +!""C. !"7 )CR6 7! % )pouses (raciano 6ranas and Nicolasa ?unsa were owners in fee simple of Lot !/0 Upon t eir deat 1 t eir c ildren1 Modesto and Federico 6ranas1 ad=udicated t e land to t emselves under a deed of e2tra=udicial partition0 Nort portion 4elon3ed to Federico1 and sout portion1 descri4ed as Lot !/%C under Torrens title in Modesto5s name0 % Modesto5s wife ;ictoria died in July !"$!0 Modesto imself died in 6pril !"$/0 T ey ad no c ildren0 % >owever1 it appeared t at Modesto was survived 4y two ille3itimate c ildren named Dorot ea 6ranas 6do and Teodoro 6ranas w o 4orrowed P!#1CCC from respondent Jesus ?ernas0 In t e loan1 as security1 t ey1 as a4solute coowners1 mort3a3ed to ?ernas Lot !/%C0 Raymundo 6ranas1 a relative was t ere as witness0 T e si4lin3s failed to pay t e loan0 ?ernas t en ac'uired owners ip over t e land1 cancelled t e si4lin3s5 title and issued anot er in is name0 64out a mont later1 witness Raymundo 6ranas and is spouse Consolacion ;illanueva filed a complaint wit RTC of Ro2as City as@in3 t at t ey 4e declared co%owners of t e land and title of Jesus ?ernas over Lot !/%C 4e cancelled on t e 3round of t eir alle3ed discovery of 7 wills0 Modesto5s will9 4e'ueat ed to is ille3itimate c ildren all is own capital property and all interest in is con=u3al partners ip wit is wife ;ictoria 0 ;ictoria5s will9 4e'ueat ed to spouses 6ranas and ;illanueva1 and to t e ille3itimate c ildren of er us4and all of er interests1 ri3 ts and properties1 real and personal1 as er net s are from con=u3al partners ip wit us4and0 I))U&)9 !0 *ON ;illanueva ad ri3 t over Lot !/%C and improvements t ereon 4y virtue of ;ictoria5s will0 70 *ON improvements on said lot was con=u3al0 >&LD9 !0 NO1 ;ictoria died 7 yrs a ead of er us4and0 ) e never in erited any part of Lot !/%C w ic s e could 4e'ueat 4y will to any4ody0 Moreover1 even if Modesto5s ac'uisition 4y succession of Lot !/%C too@ place durin3 t e marria3e1 t e lot would still 4e re3arded as is 70 own e2clusive1 private property 4ecause it was ac'uired durin3 t e marria3e 4y lucrative title0 NO0 If improvements on Lot !/%C were con=u3al1 ;illanueva may ave ac'uired a ri3 t over t em 4y succession0 >owever1 proof as re3ards w en t e improvements were made on t e e2clusive property and t e source of funds used was not presented0 T erefore1 t e presumption t at it 4elon3s e2clusively to t e us4and stands0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e $# of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 irrespective of in w ose name t e property was ac'uired0 T e initial P!CCC payment was paid e2clusively wit money 4elon3in3 to Macaria0 ?ut t e 7 FC1 6rt !!# Property 4ou3 t on installment paid partly from ot er payments were paid 4y con=u3al funds0 con=u3al funds 4elon3s to t e 4uyerNs if full owners ip was vested T e deeds s ow t at t e loans used to pay 4ot 4efore t e marria3e suc owners ip was vested durin3 t e marria3e0 In eit er case1 any amount advanced 4y t e partners ip 4ot spouses 4ot installments were made out to or 4y eit er or as spouses s all 4e reim4ursed 4y t e ownerNs upon li'uidation of =ointpartners ip Loans t us 4ecome o4li3ations t e 4orrowers0 of CP( and money loaned is con=u3al property0 )IMPLIFI&D9 FC does not loo@ at t e source of funds0 % * ile t e mort3a3e is on Macaria5s parap ernal In cases w ere t e property is partly paid 4y eit er property1 t e mort3a3e to secure t e loan is a t e CP( or e2clusive property1 t e time of vestin3 purely accessory o4li3ation t at t e lenders owners ip is w at matters0 T ou3 under CC1 t e could waive if t ey so c ose1 wit out affectin3 4asis was Ew o paid moreF0 t e principal de4t w ic was owned 4y t e con=u3al partners ip1 and w ic t e creditors A >ow do you reconcile t is provision wit 6rt !C" can enforce e2clusively a3ainst t e con=u3al +-. w ic t at w ic includes anyt in3 Epurc ased property if t ey so desired0 wit t e e2clusive money of t e

wife or t e % )ince t e fis pond was purc ased partly wit us4andF in t e e2clusive property of t e spouseB con=u3al and partly wit separate funds1 =ustice re'uires t at t e property 4e eld to 4elon3 to C6)TILLO v P6)CO +!",-. 4ot patrimonies in common1 in proportion !! )CR6 !C7 to t e contri4utions of eac to t e total % Marcelo Castillo )r01 a widower Macaria Pasco1 purc ase price0 6n undivided !N, is a widow w o ad survived 7 previous us4ands0 parap ernal and t e remainin3 DN, is con=u3al0 % !"/7 T e (on8ales couple1 as co%owners of t e % Payment 4y t e widow of t e mort3a3e de4t liti3ated fis pond1 e2ecuted a deed of sale after Marcelo5s deat does not result in an conveyin3 said property to spouses Marcelo increase in er s are in t e property 4ut merely Castillo and Macaria Pasco for P,1CCC w ic was creates a lien in er favor0 paya4le in / installments9 P!1CCC upon e2ecution % )ince t e fis pond is undivided property of of t e deed1 P!1CCC wit in ! mont wit out Macaria and t e con=u3al partners ip wit interest and P/1CCC after ! year wit !!_ Marcelo1 is eirs are entitled to as@ for its interest0 partition and li'uidation0 T e ultimate interest of % !"// Marcelo died and is widow married er - t eac party must 4e resolved after due earin31 us4and1 Luis )an Juan in June !"/-0 T e ta@in3 into account9 petitioners1 c ildren and 3randc ildren of a. Macaria5s !N, direct s are Marcelo 4y is previous marria3e1 a filed a 4. >er alf of t e community property complaint for partition and accountin3 of t e c. >er successional ri3 ts to a part of fis pond in CFI of ?ulacan0 Marcelo5s s are pursuant to t e LC declared t e fis pond as parap ernal 3overnin3 law of succession w en e property1 since even 4efore t e marria3e1 died Macaria was a woman of means w ile Marcelo d. >er ri3 t to reim4ursement for any ad a salary of only P#C a mont 0 C6 affirmed amount advance 4y er in payin3 t e t e CFI decision0 mort3a3e de4t0 Installments were paid in t e ff manner9 !. paid 4y Macaria wit er e2clusive LOR&NPO v NICOL6) +!"D7. money "! P il ,#, 7. paid wit proceeds from a loan from Dr0 % Ma3dalena Clemente Manuel Loren8o Jacinto1 to w om t e fis pond was Manuel died in !"7" and Ma3dalena died five mort3a3ed 4y 4ot spouses years later0 Durin3 t eir marria3e1 t ey ad no /. paid from a loan secured 4y a mort3a3e c ildren0 >owever1 t ey ad c ildren in t eir on 7 parcels of land assessed in t e previous marria3es0 name of Macaria % Plaintiffs are Manuel5s @ids from is first marria3e1 w ile t e defendants are Ma3dalena5s I))U&9 *ON t e 7nd and /rd installments were paid 3randc ildren from er first marria3e0 wit con=u3al funds0 )u4=ect of t e petition is 7 parcels of land1 t e sale of w ic +to respondents. t e petitioner >&LD9 prays to 4e declared null and void since t ey are % Under t e )panis CC1 t e law applica4le ere1 part of CP(0 t e property ac'uired for onerous consideration T ese lots were friar land w ic Ma3dalena durin3 t e marria3e was deemed con=u3al or 4ou3 t on an installment 4asis9 separate property dependin3 on t e source of c0 Property Purc ased 4y Installment t e funds employed for its ac'uisition1 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e $" of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 a. % Lot ,9 s e paid P!,"0!, 4efore er marria3e to Manuel0 T e P#//0/7 4alance was paya4le in installment K P7D0/7 on t e !st year and P-7 eac year after0 4. Lot D9 s e paid P!!,0#- 4efore er marria3e wit Manuel0 T e P#DC0/7 4alance was paya4le 4y installment of PD70/7 on t e !st and P-7 on eac succeedin3 year0 T e receipts of t e su4se'uent payment were made in t e name of Ma3dalena only0 C6 found t em to 4e er parap ernal property0 CC1 6rt !D# Improvements1 w et er for utility or adornment1 mad advancements from t e partners ip or t rou3 t e industry of eit e partners ip0 ?uildin3s constructed1 at t e e2pense of t e partners ip1 durin3 t e pertain to t e partners ip1 4ut t e value of t e land s all 4e reim4u I))U&9 *ON Lots D and , are con=u3al property0 NO R6TIO9 T ey are er parap ernal property1 t us petitioners are not entitled to t e land0 Lot , was purc ased in er own name and for er own e2clusive 4enefit 4efore er marria3e to Manuel0 ) e paid t e initial installment 4efore t e marria3e and t e 4alance was paid durin3 t e marria3e0 6ll t e receipts for t e installments paid1 even durin3 Manuel5s lifetime1 were issued in Ma3dalena5s name and t e deed of sale of Lot , was made in er name despite t e fact t at Manuel was still alive0 T e

ac'uisition of Lot D was t e same as Lot ,0 Under 6ct No0 !!7C of t e alienation of Friar Lands1 t e certificate is only an a3reement to sell and does not vest owners ip of t e land0 )ince t e receipts for t e installments paid were issued in er name and t e deed of sale in er name1 t is s ows t at t e property 4elon3ed to er< owners ip ad 4een vested on t e 4uyerspouse ?&FOR& t e marria3e0 )ince t e installments paid durin3 t e marria3e are deemed con=u3al1 t ere 4ein3 no evidence t at t ey were paid out of funds 4elon3in3 e2clusively to Ma3dalena1 suc amounts s ould 4e reim4ursed to t e CP(0 A Ma5am ?et says t at t is is more correct t an Castillo v Pasco A CC as a rule for +!. ordinary improvements made 4y t e spouses on separate property of eac of t em1 and anot er rule if +7. t e con=u3al partners ip constructs a 4uildin3 on land 4elon3in3 to eit er spouse0 Land w ic is separate property 4ecomes CP( if con=u3al funds 4uilt anyt in3 on it0 UON T>& OT>&R >6ND A FC provides for a uniform rule for t e two circumstances0 60 cost of improvement made 4y CP( on separate property ` resultin3 increase in t e value of improved separate property M value of t e principal property at t e time of t e improvement entire property 4ecomes CP(1 CP( reim4urses spouse at li'uidation ?0 cost of improvement ` resultin3 increase in value of t e improved principal property L value of t e principal property at t e time of improvement principal property and improvement 4elon3s to owner%spouse1 su4=ect to reim4ursement CP( K accessory If improvement i0e0 t e ouse1 is wort 7 M &2clusive K principal d0 Rules on Improvement T en t e estimated value of ouse and lot is at !C0D M ;alue of t e FC1 6rt !7C T e owners ip of improvements1 w et er for utility or adornment1 made Resultin3 on t e Cost of principal increase in value spouses at t e e2pense of t e partners ip or t rou3 t e acts or efforts of eit er or 4ot spouses improveme ` property at t e t e con=u3al partners ip or to t e ori3inal owner%spouse1 su4=ect to t e nt followin3 rules9 of t e improved time of t e principal property improvement * en t e cost of t e improvement made 4y t e con=u3al partners ip and !C0D M K +7 M ` D t e value of t e property at t e time of t e improvement1 t e M. 7M !C0D M con=u3al partners ip1 su4=ect to reim4ursement of t e value of t e property of t e owner%spouse at t e time of t e /0D M improvement< ot erwise1 said property s all 4e retained D0D M reim4ursement of t e cost of t e improvement0 In eit er case1 t e owners ip of t e entire property s all 4e vested upon t e reim4ursemen improvement 4elon3s to ownert e time of t e li'uidation of t e con=u3al partners ip0 spouse Principal property and !C0D M A Ma5am ?et 5s ta@e on t is9 T is is un=ust +lu3e to use er term.1 4ecause you only 3et t e value of t e property at t e time of improvement0 Plus t e fact t at t e reim4ursement appens at t e li'uidation of t e CP( w ic is rou3 ly 7C%-C years later1 t us P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#% 7CC" Pa3e #C of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 4ecause of t e delay of payment1 t e amount as already devaluated0 A Nevert eless1 later reim4ursement is pra3matic in t is case 4ecause w en a person en3a3es in any construction or improvement in properties1 t e cas is usually wiped out0 C6LIMLIM%C6NULL6) v FORTUN +!"#-. !7" )CR6 ,$D % Petitioner Mercedes Calimlim%Canullas Fernando Canullas were married on Dec !"1 !",7 and ad D @ids0 T ey lived in a small ouse on a residential land in 'uestion located at ?aca4ac1 Pan3asinan0 6fter Fernando5s dad died in !",D1 Fernando in erited t e land0 In !"$#1 Fernando a4andoned is family and was livin3 wit private respondent1 Cora8on Da3uines0 Durin3 t e pendency of t is appeal1 t ey were convicted of concu4ina3e in a =ud3ment rendered on Oct 7!1 !"#! 4y t e t en CFI of Pan3asinan w ic =ud3ment as 4ecome final0 On 6pril !D1 !"#C1 Fernando sold t e property wit t e ouse on it to Da'uines1 for P7CCC0 In t e document of sale1 Fernando descri4ed t e ouse as Ealso in erited 4y me from my deceased parents0F Una4le to ta@e possession of t e lot and ouse1 Da3uines initiated a complaint on June !#1 !"#C for 'uietin3 of title and dama3es a3ainst Mercedes0 T e latter resisted and claimed t at t e ouse w ere s e and er @ids lived1 includin3 t e coconut trees on t e land1 were 4uilt and planted wit con=u3al funds and t rou3 er industry< t at t e sale of t e land to3et er wit t e ouse and improvements to Da3uines was null and void

4ecause t ey are con=u3al properties and s e ad not 3iven er consent to t e sale0 I))U&9 !0 *ON t e construction of a con=u3al ouse on t e e2clusive property of t e us4and ipso facto 3ave t e land t e c aracter of a con=u3al property % G&) 70 *ON t e sale of t e land to3et er wit t e ouse Q improvements t ereon was valid under t e circumstances surroundin3 t e transaction0 >&LD9 !0 Under 6rt !D# CC1 t e land and 4uildin3 4elon3 to t e CP( 4ut CP( is inde4ted to t e us4and for t e value of t e land0 T e spouse ownin3 t e lot 4ecomes a creditor to t e con=u3al partners ip for t e value of t e lot1 w ic value would 4e reim4ursed at t e li'uidation of t e con=u3al partners ip0 Conversion of land from e2clusive to con=u3al property s ould 4e deemed to retroact to t e time t e con=u3al 4uildin3s were first constructed t ereon< t us1 70 t e land and ouse are con=u3al property and could not ave 4een sold to Da3uines wit out Mercedes consent0 T e contract of sale is null and void for 4ein3 contrary to morals and pu4lic policy0 Under t e law1 spouses are pro i4ited from sellin3 property to eac ot er1 su4=ect to certain e2ceptions0 T is pro i4ition also applies to common%law relations ips0 e0 C ar3es upon t e CP( FC1 6rt !7! T e con=u3al partners ip s all 4e lia4le for9 !0 support9 spouse1 common c ildren1 le3itimate c ildren of eit er spouse< support of ille3itimate c ildren 3overned 4y t e provisions of on )upport 70 all de4ts and o4li3ations contracted durin3 t e marria3e a0 4y t e desi3nate administrator%spouse for t e 4enefit of t e con=u3al partners ip of 3ains1 40 4y 4ot spouses c0 4y one of t em wit t e consent of t e ot er /0 de4ts and o4li3ations contracted 4y eit er spouse wit out t e consent of t e ot er to t e e2tent t at t e family may ave 4een 4enefited -0 all ta2es1 liens1 c ar3es and e2penses includin3 ma=or or minor repairs upon t e con=u3al partners ip property D0 all ta2es and e2penses for mere preservation made durin3 t e marria3e upon t e separate property of eit er spouse ,0 e2penses to ena4le t eir spouse to commence or complete a professional 1 vocational or ot er activity for self% improvement $0 ante%nuptial de4ts of eit er spouse insofar as t ey ave redounded to t e 4enefit of t e family #0 value of w at is donated or promised 4y 4ot spouses in favor of t eir common le3itimate c ildren for t e e2clusive purpose of commencin3 or completin3 a professional or vocational course or ot er activity for self%improvement "0 e2penses of liti3ation 4etween spouses unless t e suit is found to 4e 3roundless If t e con=u3al partners ip is insufficient to cover t e fore3oin3 lia4ilities1 t e spouse s all 4e solidarily lia4le for t e unpaid 4alance wit t eir separate properties0 DIFF&R&NC& ?&T*&&N O?LI(6TION) OF 6CP 6ND CP( !0 % 6rt "- +D. and 6rt !7! +D.9 In o4li3ation to ta2es and e2penses pertainin3 to preservation of separate property1 6CP provides t at it s ould 4e Eused 4y t e familyF w ile CP( does not ave suc 'ualification0 T e reason 4e ind t is is t at CP( as interest in t e preservation of separate properties since its fruits 4elon3 to t e con=u3al funds0 On t e ot er and1 a separate property of t e spouses is usually 4eyond t e reac of 6CP ence1 t e e2press re'uirement0 6rt "- +". does not ave a counterpart in 6rt !7!9 6nte%nuptial de4ts1 lia4ilities and support of 70 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e #! of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 T e con=u3al properties s all 4e lia4le for all de4ts and o4li3ations contracted durin3 t e marria3e 4y t e us4and for t e support of t e family0 T e us4and5s creditor may 4rin3 is action not1 as a 3eneral rule1 a3ainst FC1 6rt !77 T e payment of personal de4ts contracted 4y t e us4and or t e wife t e parap ernal properties1 4ut a3ainst t e fruits t e income t e family0 not 4e c ar3ed to t e con=u3al partners ip e2cept insofar as t ey redounded toand 4enefit ofof suc property of t e wife0 )ince t e fruits of e2clusive property 4elon3 to Neit er s all t e fines and indemnities imposed upon t em 4et e CP0 to t e partners ip0 c ar3ed >owever1 t e payment of personal de4ts contracted 4y eit erT e de4ts contracted 4y t e us4and durin3 t e spouse imposed upon t em1 as well as t e support of ille3itimate c ildren of eit er spouse1 may 4e enforced a3ainst t e partners ip marria3e1 for and in t e e2ercise of an industry asset 6FT&R t e responsi4ilities enumerated in t e precedin3 6rticle ave 4een covered1 if t e spouse w o is 4ound s ould or profession 4y w ic e contri4utes toward t e ave no e2clusive property or if it s ould 4e insufficient spouse s all 4e c ar3ed for w at as 4een paid for t e purposes support of t e family are not is personal and

a4ove%mentioned0 ille3itimate c ildren0 )pouse can only resort to a financially capa4le 6CP in case of a4sence or insufficiency of e2clusive property0 CP( instead as 6rt !7/0 private de4ts and t e products or income from t e wife5s own property1 w ic 1 li@e t ose of er us4and5s are lia4le for t e payment of t e FC1 6rt !7/ * atever may 4e lost durin3 t e marria3e in any 3ame of c an3e1 or in 4ettin31 sweepsta@es or any ot er @ind of 3am4lin3 w et er permitted or pro i4ited 4y law1 s all 4e 4orne 4y t e loser and s all not 4e 4e e2cepted from t e marria3e e2penses1 cannot c ar3ed to t e con=u3al partners ip 4ut any winnin3s t erefrom s all form part of t e CP(0 payment of suc de4ts0 J6;I&R v O)M&Y6 +!"!,. /- P il //, % Florentino Collantes was married to Petrona Javier w o in erited from er parents 7 parcels of land0 To perfect er owners ip1 s e ac'uired from er fat er5s second wife t e usufructuary ri3 t on properties for P/1CCC0 % Florentino + us4and.1 w o succeeded Petrona5s fat er as a commission merc ant in t eir family 4usiness in Manila1 ac'uired t e de4t of Petrona5s fat er and 4ecame inde4ted to Tomas OsmeZa +one of t e c ief clients. in sum of P-1CCC%PD1CCC0 % Una4le to pay1 =ud3ment was rendered in favor of de4tor Osmena0 T e s eriff despite t e protests of Petrona sold off t e two parcels +separate property of Petrona. of land at an auction w ere OsmeZa was t e successful 4idder0 % Petrona sou3 t to ave t e sale annulled and to recover er property0 T e defendant OsmeZa contended t at even t ou3 land was separate property of Petrona1 t e usufructuary ri3 t 4elon3s to t e CP since it was purc ased usin3 CP funds0 Defendant prayed t at t e revenues from 4ot properties1 4ein3 CP1 s ould 4e made lia4le for t e de4t0 I))U&9 *ON de4ts s ould 4e paid out of fruits and revenue of t e parcels of land w ic 4elon3 to wife e2clusively0 >&LD9 6rt !-! OCC interest collected or relation1 comin3 from t at w ic 4elon3s community property0 says t e fruits1 revenues or accrued durin3 t e marria3e t e con=u3al properties or from to one of t e spouses1 are 6s to w et er t e defendant5s prayer for an appointment of a receiver is to 4e 3ranted1 6rt !"#- says t at t e wife as t e ri3 t to mana3e er parap ernal property and +6rt !-!7. says t at t e us4and is t e administrator of t e CCP0 T us1 appointment of a receiver s all deprive t e spouses of t ese ri3 ts< moreover1 t ere is no need for it0 CO??%P&R&P v L6NTIN +!",#. 7/ )CR6 ,/$ Damaso Pere8 purc ased leat er materials from Ricardo >ermoso for is s oe manufacturin3 4usiness0 Una4le to pay is de4t to t e latter1 a civil case was filed 4y >ermoso0 Conse'uently1 t e ) eriff of Manila levied upon t e s ares of common stoc@ in Repu4lic ?an@ re3istered in t e name of Mr0 Pere80 Mercedes Rut Pere8 claims t at said s ares are con=u3al assets and t at t e de4t ac'uired 4y er us4and was a personal one1 not 4ein3 a4le to 4enefit t e CP(0 I))U&)9 !0 *ON t e de4t of Mr0 Pere8 is a personal de4t K NO0 70 *ON t e CP( is lia4le for t e said o4li3ation K G&)0 >&LD9 Fruits of t e s oe manufacturin3 4usiness went to t e support of t e familyN4enefit of t e CP(0 T e de4ts incurred 4y t e us4and for and in t e e2ercise of industry +s oe manufacturin31 in t is case. or profession 4y w ic e contri4uted to t e welfare of t e family cannot 4e considered as is personal de4t0 6s t e CP( 4enefited1 t e said s ares are lia4le0 +It was conceded t at t e s ares are con=u3al property even if t ey are re3istered under t e name of Mr0 Pere81 avin3 no evidence as to w en t ey were ac'uired0. D?P v 6DIL +!"##. !,! )CR6 /C$ 6rt !/D# OCC states t at t e fruits of parap ernal properties form part of t e assets of t e con=u3al partners ip and are lia4le for t e payment of t e e2penses of t e married couple0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e #7 of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % % % % )pouses Patricio Confesor and Jovita ;illafuerte o4tained an a3ricultural loan of P7CCC from 63ricultural and Industrial ?an@ +6I? w ic is now D?P.1 w ic is evidenced 4y a promissory note paya4le in !C e'ual yearly amorti8ations0 6fter !C years1 t ey were still una4le to pay t e loan0 T us1 Confesor1 w o was a mem4er of Con3ress1 issued a second promissory note ac@nowled3in3 t e loan and promisin3 to pay on or 4efore June !D1 !",!0 >e furt er a3reed to t e foreclosure of t e mort3a3e if and w en e fails to pay0 6not er stipulation is t at if e secures a certificate of inde4tedness from t e 3overnment for is 4ac@ pay1 e will 4e allowed to pay amount out of it0 T e amount remained unpaid on t e specified date0 T us D?P filed a complaint a3ainst t e spouses on

)ept0 !!1 !"$C0 T e City Court of Iloilo decided in favor of D?P and ordered t e spouses to pay t e de4t wit interest0 CFI of Iloilo reversed t is decision and dismissed t e complaint a3ainst t e spouses0 I))U&)9 !0 *ON t e ri3 t of prescription may 4e waived or renounced % G&) 70 *ON t e second promissory note it 4indin3 on t e con=u3al partners ip % G&) >&LD9 Ges on 4ot issues0 6rt !!!71 CC ri3 t to prescription may 4e tacitly renounced resultin3 from acts w ic imply a4andonment of suc ri3 t0 T e prescription wit re3ard to t e first promissory note ad set it0 >owever1 t e second promissory note ac@nowled3ed t e de4t and even promised to pay t e same t us1 t e ri3 t to prescription was effectively and e2pressly renounced0 % In ;illaroel v0 &strada K t e de4t 4arred 4y prescription cannot 4e enforced 4y t e creditor0 ?ut a new contract reco3ni8in3 and assumin3 t e prescri4ed de4t would 4e valid and enforcea4le0 Prescription only 4ars t e remedy1 w ic is t e payment of t e de4t1 4ut it does not 4ar t e de4t itself0 T e new promise made 4y Confesor constitutes a new cause of action0 CFI claims t e second promissory note is not 4indin3 pursuant to 6rt !,, NCC9 unless wife is spendt rift1 servin3 civil interdiction or confined in leprosarium1 t e us4and cannot alienate or encum4er real property of t e CP wit out er consent0 T us1 t e CFI eld t at in si3nin3 t e new promissory note alone1 Confesor cannot t ere4y 4ind is wife0 >O*&;&R1 6rt !,D CC states t at t e us4and is t e administrator of CP0 T us1 all de4ts and o4li3ations w ic e contracts for t e 4enefit of t e CP are c ar3ea4le to t e CP0 >e1 Confesor1 si3ned t e second promissory note for t e 4enefit of t e CP1 t us1 CP is lia4le for o4li3ation0 LUPON )UR&TG v D& (6RCI6 +!",". /C )CR6 !!! Ladislao C ave8 +as principal. and petitioner Lu8on )urety Co01 Inc0 +as surety. e2ecuted a surety 4ond in favor of PN? to 3uaranty a crop loan 3ranted to Ladislao C ave8 in t e sum of P"1CCC0 ;icente (arcia1 Ladislao C ave8 and Ramon ?0 Lacson1 as 3uarantors1 si3ned an indemnity a3reement w erein t ey 4ound t emselves1 =ointly and severally1 to indemnify Lu8on )urety Co01 Inc0 a3ainst any and all dama3es1 losses1 costs1 stamps1 ta2es1 penalties1 c ar3es and e2penses of w atsoever @ind and nature w ic it may incur0 PN? filed a complaint a3ainst Ladislao C ave8 and Lu8on )urety to recover t e amount of P-1D$$0"D1 in interest1 attorney5s fees1 and costs of t e suit0 % 6 t ird party complaint a3ainst Ladislao C ave81 Ramon Lacson and ;icente (arcia was instituted 4y Lu8on )urety0 % 6 writ of e2ecution a3ainst ;icente (arcia for t e satisfaction of t e claim of petitioner in t e sum of P#1#/"0"$0 T en a writ of 3arnis ment was issued levyin3 and 3arnis in3 t e su3ar 'uedans of t e (arcia spouses1 from t eir su3ar plantation re3istered in t eir names0 % (arciasfiled a suit for in=unction and t e TC ruled in t eir favor0 I))U&9 *ON t e CP(1 in t e a4sence of any s owin3 of 4enefits received1 can 4e eld lia4le on an indemnity a3reement e2ecuted 4y t e us4and to accommodate a /rd party in favor of a surety a3reement0 %NO >&LD9 6 CP under 6rt !,! is lia4le only for suc dde4ts and o4li3ations contracted 4y t e us4and for t e 4enefit of t e CP05 T e us4and is t e administrator of t e con=u3al property1 owever1 only o4li3ations incurred 4y t e im t at are c ar3ea4le a3ainst t e con=u3al property are t ose incurred in t e le3itimate pursuit of is career1 profession or 4usiness wit t e onest 4elief t at e is doin3 ri3 t for t e 4enefit of t e family0 T us1 t ere must 4e t e re'uisite s owin3 t en of some advanta3e w ic clearly accrued to t e welfare of t e spouses0 6nd in t is case t ere is none0 Nor can t ere 4e1 considerin3 t at t e 4enefit was clearly intended for a t ird party K Ladislao C aves0 6ctin3 as 3uarantor or surety for anot er in an indemnity a3reement is not an act t at would 4enefit t e con=u3al partners ip0 * ile t e us4and1 4y si3nin3 t e indemnity a3reement may 4e said to ave added to is reputation or esteem and to ave earned t e confidence of t e 4usiness community1 suc 4enefit even if ypot etically accepted1 is too remote and fanciful to come wit in t e e2press terms of t e provision0 To ma@e a CP respond for a lia4ility t at s ould appertain to t e us4and alone is to defeat and frustrate t e avowed o4=ective of t e P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e #/ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 NCC w ic is to s ow t e utmost concern for t e solidarity and well%4ein3 of t e family as a unit0

6G6L6 IN;&)TM&NT v C>IN( +!""#. 7#, )CR6 7$7 % P ilippine ?loomin3 Mills o4tained a loan of PDC1/CC1CCC from 6yala Investment and Development Corporation +6IDC.0 6lfredo C in31 t e &2ecutive ;P of P?M si3ned a surety to t e loan1 ma@in3 imself lia4le wit P?M5s inde4tedness to 6IDC0 Upon P?M5s failure to pay t e loan1 6IDC filed a case to recover t e sum of money from P?M and C in30 6 writ of e2ecution was issued w erein t e properties of C in3 were to 4e levied and sc eduled for auction0 T e / properties involved were con=u3al properties of C in3 and is wife< t us1 C in3 as@ed t at t e auction sale upon said properties 4e en=oined 4ecause suc are part of t e CP( and could not 4e eld lia4le to answer for a loan t at did not redound to t e 4enefit of is family0 T e auction still too@ place and 6IDC 4ein3 t e only 4idder ac'uired t e properties0 6s suc 1 C in3 instituted an action in t e court to declare t e sale null and void0 RTC and C6 ruled in is favor1 3ivin3 t e sale no le3al effect0 I))U&)9 !0 *ON t e CP is lia4le for a surety a3reement entered into 4y t e us4and in favor of is employer0 % NO 70 *as act of t e us4and1 in securin3 t e loan1 part of is industry1 4usiness or career from w ic e supports is familyB % NO >&LD9 !0 T e e2ecution of t e surety a3reement did not redound to t e 4enefit of t e family since it was a corporate loan e2tended and used 4y P?M0 6rt !,!+!.1 CC and 6rt !7! +7.1 FC are clear in re'uirin3 t at t e loan o4tained s ould 4e for t e 4enefit of t e partners ip or s ould redound to t e 4enefit of t e CP in order for t e CP( to 4e eld lia4le0 ?urden of proof of s owin3 t at it does lies in creditor%party liti3ant and t e 6IDC presented no suc proof0 Moreover1 actual 4enefits must redound to CP( and it5s not enou3 t at t e transaction 4e one t at would normally produce 4enefit for t e partners ip0 It must do so1 in fact w ere suc 4enefits directly result from t e loan< suc are w at is contemplated 4y t e law0 70 )i3nin3 as a surety is not an e2ercise of an industry or profession of C in30 Neit er is it an em4ar@in3 in a 4usiness or an act of administration for t e 4enefit of t e family0 Carlos vs Abelardo 7#C )CR6 /,! % Oct #"9 Manuel 64elardo and is wife Maria T eresa Carlos% 64elardo approac ed t e wife5s fat er >onorario Carlos and re'uested im to advance W7D1CCC for t e purc ase of ouse and lot in ParaZa'ue0 Petitioner issued a c ec@ in t e said full amount to t e seller of t e property to ena4le and assist t e spouses conduct t eir married life independently and on t eir own July "!9 Carlos in'uired a4out t e status of t e loan0 T e spouses ac@nowled3ed t eir o4li3ation 4ut pleaded t at t ey were not yet ready to settle it0 Respondent e2pressed violent resistance to petitioner5s in'uiries 4y ma@in3 various t reats a3ainst t e petitioner0 6u3 "-9 Formal demand was made 4y Carlos 4ut spouses failed yet a3ain to comply Oct "-9 Petitioner filed a complaint for collection of t e sum and dama3es a3ainst spouses in ;alen8uela RTC )pouses avin3 4een separated in fact for more t an a year prior to filin3 of complaint1 su4mitted separate answers0 *ife admitted securin3 a loan to3et er wit us4and 4ut claimed t at loan was paya4le on a sta33ered 4asis0 >us4and claimed t at sum was not a loan 4ut is s are of income on contracts in revivin3 t e petitioner5s construction 4usiness RTC ruled in favor of petitioner Carlos C6 reversed decision and dismissed t e complain for insufficiency of evidence I))U&9 % *ON W7D1CCC or its e'uivalent P P,7DI was in t e nature of a loan0 % G&) % *ON loan is lia4ility of 4ot spouses0 % G&) >&LD9 !0 T e petitioner was a4le to prove it as a loan 4y a preponderance of evidence in providin3 t e c ec@ e issued1 t e ac@nowled3ement of t e wife of t eir accounta4ility1 and t e petitioner5s demand letter sent and received 4y respondent0 >us4and5s claim t at it is is ri3 tful s are as income1 profit or salary is untena4le 4ecause t ere is no s owin3 t at e is a stoc@ older1 an employee or an a3ent of t e corporation0 T e ac@nowled3ement of t e loan made 4y t e wife 4inds t e con=u3al partners ip since its proceeds redounded to t e 4enefit of t e family 4ecause it was used to purc ase t e ouse and lot w ic 4ecame t eir con=u3al ome0 Pursuant to 6rt !7! No0 7 Q /1 even wit t e alle3ed lac@ of consent of respondent% us4and1 defendant us4and and wife are =ointly and severally lia4le in t e payment of t e loan0 70 C6R6ND6N( v >&IR) OF D& (UPM6N +7CC,. DC# )CR6 -," +7CC7. P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60

Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e #- of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % Suirino de (u8man and 6rcadio and Luisa Carandan3 are corporate officers of Ma4u ay ?roadcastin3 )ystem +M?). M?) increased its capital stoc@ and was su4scri4ed 4y 6rcadio and Luisa Carandan3 Suirino de (u8man claims t at t ese su4scriptions were paid 4y im1 so e sent a demand letter to 6rcadio and Luisa 6rcadio and Luisa refused to pay claimin3 t at t ey ad a pre%incorporation a3reement w ere Suirino promised to pay for stoc@ su4scriptions 4y 6rcadio and Luisa wit out costs in e2c an3e for 6rcadio5s tec nical e2pertise1 etc0 RTC and C6 ruled in favor of Suirino and ordered 6rcadio and Luisa Carandan3 to pay Suirino f0 6dministration of t e CP( FC1 6rt !7T e administration and en=oyment of t e con=u3al p =ointly0 In case of disa3reement1 t e us4and5s decision s all prevail1 remedy1 w ic must 4e availed of wit in five years from t e date of t e In t e event t at one spouse is incapacitated or ot erwise una4le properties1 t e ot er spouse may assume sole powers of admin encum4rance wit out aut ority of t e court or t e written consent of consent1 t e disposition or encum4rance s all 4e void0 >owever1 t e t e part of t e consentin3 spouse and t e t ird person1 and may 4e p t e ot er spouse or aut ori8ation 4y t e court 4efore t e offer is wit d I))U&9 *ON t e purported lia4ility of 6rcadio and Luisa Carandan3 were =oint and solidary >&LD9 G&)1 for marria3es 3overned 4y CP(1 an o4li3ation entered into 4y t e us4and and wife is c ar3ea4le a3ainst t eir con=u3al partners ip and it is t e partners ip1 w ic is primarily 4ound for its repayment0 * en t e spouses are sued for t e enforcement if t e o4li3ation entered into 4y t em1 t ey are 4ein3 impleaded in t eir capacity as representatives of t e con=u3al partners ip and not as independent de4tors1 suc t at t e concept of =oint and solidary lia4ility1 as 4etween t em1 does not apply0 &it er of t em may 4e sued for t e w ole amount1 similar to t at of a solidary lia4ility1 alt ou3 t e amount is c ar3ea4le a3ainst t eir con=u3al partners ip property FC1 6rt !7D Neit er spouses may donate any con=u3al property wit o may wit out t e consent of t e ot er1 ma@e moderate donations f occasions of family re=oicin3 or family distress0 F&LIP& v >&IR) OF M6:IMO 6LDON +!"#/. !7C )CR6 ,7# % Ma2imo 6ldon (imena 6lmosara0 T ey 4ou3 t several parcels of land w ic were divided into /0 % (imena1 sold an unre3istered !, a con=u3al land in )an Jacinto1 Mas4ate wit out t e consent of er us4and1 Ma2imo1 to &duardo and >ermo3ena Felipe0 % Ma2imo5s eirs filed an action for annulment of t e sale in !"$,1 claimin3 t ey were t e ri3 tful owners of t e properties0 T ey claim t at t ey orally mort3a3ed t e lands to t e spouses and an offer to redeem t e mort3a3e was refused 4y t e Felipes0 T e Felipes contend t at t ey purc ased t e land and it was delivered to t em0 TC declared t e Felipes as t e lawful owners and t e complaint was dismissed for lac@ of merit0 % C6 reversed TC and declared t e sale as invalid and ordered an accountin3 of t e produce of t e land since !"D! and payment of t e net monetary value of t e profits after deductin3 P!#CC0 C6 ratio9 !0 if transfer was t rou3 an oral contract of mort3a3e9 redemption allowed anytime upon repayment of P!1#CC0CC 70 if it was done t rou3 sale9 redemption is improper /0 w at really transpired9 Deed of Purc ase Q )ale e2ecuted 4y (imena in favor of t e Felipe spouses -0 sale was not for3ed 4ut invalid since deed was e2ecuted wit out t e consent of Ma2imo since t e lots were con=u3al +presumed as suc 4ecause were purc ased durin3 marria3e.0 T is was properly raised in t e pleadin3 considerin3 t e fact t at complaint alle3es t at lands were purc ased from (imena and Ma2imo0 R Felipe5s claim9 since deed is not a for3ery1 it aut enticity and due e2ecution is 4eyond 'uestion0 T is is a 'uestion of fact t at )C cannot consider0 T ey5re only concerned wit 'uestions of law0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e #D of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 I))U&)9 !0 *ON t e sale made 4y (imena to t e Felipes is valid % NO 70 *ON (imena and er c ildren can as@ for an annulment of contract % NO /0 *ON petitioners ave ac'uired t e land 4y ac'uisitive prescription % NO -0 *ON t e ri3 t of action of )ofia and )alvador 6ldon is 4arred 4y t e statute of limitations % NO >&LD9 !. *ON t e sale made 4y (imena to t e Felipes is valid0 NO R Note t e followin3 elementary rules9 R (IM&N6 % It5s only su4=ect to annulment of us4and durin3 marria3e 4ecause e was t e victim w o ad interest in contract1

w ereas (imena was partly responsi4le for defect0 (imena is 4arred from doin3 t is durin3 and even after t e marria3e0 C>ILDR&N K * ile marria3e was still su4sistin31 t ey could NOT see@ for its annulment since t eir ri3 t to t e lands was merely inc oate or e2pectant0 ?ut upon deat of Ma2imo1 t ey ac'uired t e ri3 t to 'uestion t e defective contract in so far as it deprived t em of t eir ereditary ri3 ts in t eir dad5s s are in lands0 Ma2imo5s s are is ^ and t ey are entitled to 7N/ of suc < remainin3 !N/ 4elon3s to (imena0 R !0 70 CC1 6rt !,D9 us4and is administrator of CP R CC1 6rt !,,9 su4=ect to certain e2ceptions1 us4and cannot alienate or encum4er any real property of t e CP wit out wife5s consent /0 CC1 6rt !$79 wife cannot 4ind CP wit out us4and5s consent e2cept in cases provided 4y law )ince (imena sold lands 4elon3in3 to CP wit out us4and5s consent and suc sale is not covered 4y instances Ee2cept in cases provided 4y lawF1 t e sale is defective0 Not invalid1 as eld 4y t e C61 4ecause t at term is imprecise w en used in relation to contracts 4ecause t e CC uses specific names in desi3natin3 defective contracts0 It can eit er 4e9 !0 rescissi4le +art0 !/#C. K w en all essential elements are untainted +(imena5s consent was tainted. 70 voida4le +art0 !/"C. /0 unenforcea4le +art0 !-C/. -0 voidNine2istent +art0 !-C". Deed of sale is a voida4le contract0 Under 6!/"C CC1 amon3 t e voida4le contracts are K Et ose w ere one of t e parties is incapa4le of 3ivin3 consent to t e contract0F (imena ad no capacity to 3ive consent to t e contract of sale since t e consent of 4ot spouses is needed0 T is is furt er supported 4y CC1 6rt !$/1 w ic provides t at contracts entered 4y us4and wit out wife5s consent w en suc is re'uired1 are annulla4le at er instance durin3 marria3e and wit in !C yrs from 'uestioned transaction0 T e contract is not rescissi4le for in suc a contract all t e essential elements are untainted 4ut (imena5s consent was tainted0 Neit er can t e contract 4e classified as unenforcea4le1 since it does not fit any of t ose descri4ed in 6rt !-C/ CC0 Finally1 it cannot 4e void or ine2istent 4ecause it is not one of t ose in 6rt !-C" CC0 T us1 it must 4e a voida4le contract0 /0 *ON petitioners ave ac'uired land 4y ac'uisitive prescription % NO T ey 4ou3 t lands in 4ad fait proven 4y ff instances9 a0 ;icente1 son of t e Felipe spouses1 attempted to ave (imena si3n a ready%made document purportin3 to sell t e disputed lands to t e Felipes in Dec0 !"$C0 T ey @new land did not 4elon3 to t em0 40 )aid document was for purpose of o4tainin3 (imena5s consent to t e construction of irri3ation pumps on t e lands0 If t ey were t e owners1 w y did t ey ave to 3et er consentB c0 Improvements were only 4ein3 made in !"$C w en sale was in !"D!0 d0 Declaration of prop made only in !"$-0 e0 No attempt to o4tain Ma2imo5s si3nature despite fact t at (imena and >ermo3ena were close relatives0 (iven t at t ey did possess t e lands1 possession in 4ad fait is covered 4y e2traordinary prescription w ic lapses in /C yrs0 )ale was in !"D! and case filed in !"$,1 /C yrs ad not yet lapsed0 -0 *ON t e ri3 t of action of )ofia and )alvador 6ldon is 4arred 4y t e statute of limitations % NO T eir ri3 t of action accrued from deat of fat er in !"D" and t ey are 3iven /C yrs to institute it +CC 6rt0 !!-!.0 6ction filed in !"$,1 t us still wit in allowed time0 A CONTR6CT *IT>OUT CON)&NT9 merely voida4le under CC1 4ut under FC it is void +6rt !7D FC. TINITI(6N v TINITI(6N +!"#C. !CC )CR6 ,!" )everino Tiniti3an )r1 on )ept0 !$1 !"$D filed a motion in a pendin3 case see@in3 =udicial approval of t e sale of a 7%storey residential ouse and lot w ic are con=u3al properties located at Pasay City0 Tiniti3an contends t at t e proposed sale of t e property for P/CC1CCC to Suintin Lim1 was necessary to pay outstandin3 con=u3al o4li3ations t at were overdue in t e amount of R R R 70 *ON (imena and er c ildren can as@ for annulment of contract % NO P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e #, of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % P7D,1!/$0$" and to forestall t e foreclosure of mort3a3ed con=u3al properties0 CFI issued an order 3rantin3 Tiniti3an Eaut ority to sell t e ouse and lot in Pasay City1 in favor of Suintin Lim1 if e is a Filipino citi8en1 for P/CC1CCC0F C6 up eld orders of respondent Jud3e t at approves t e sale of t e con=u3al property0 wife1 also for t e same purpose1 in t e case w ere s e may le3ally 4ind t e partners ip0F (UI6N( v C6 +!""#. 7"! )CR6 /$7 (ilda Corpu8 left for Manila to find a =o4 as an Overseas Filipino *or@er in June !"#" 4ut s e fell victim to ille3al recruiters and ad to stay in

Manila0 6 year later s e successfully found a =o4 in t e Middle &ast0 >er us4and Judie Corpu8 since t en rarely went ome and stayed most of t e time at is wor@place0 6fter earin3 a4out er fat er5s plan to sell t e remainin3 alf of t e lot1 dau3 ter >arriet wrote to inform er mot er0 (ilda e2pressed er disapproval 4ut Judie pus ed t rou3 wit t e sale to t e (uian3s0 % * en s e returned1 (ilda 3at ered er c ildren w o were stayin3 in different ouse olds and stayed in t eir ouse in Ne3ros0 ) e also discovered t at er now e2% us4and ad anot er wife0 (uian3s c ar3ed (ilda of trespassin3 for stayin3 in t eir ouse w erefore t e Corpu8es later a3reed to leave t e ouse in an amica4le settlement0 % (ilda t en instituted a3ainst see@in3 to annul t e sale of land 4etween Judie Corpu8 and t e (uian3 couple0 % RTC ruled in (ilda5s favor1 declarin3 t e sale null and void< t e C6 up eld t is decision0 >ence t is appeal0 I))U&9 !0 * et er Judie5s e2ecution of dDeed of Transfer of Ri3 t5 for t e (uian3s was void or merely voida4le 70 *ON (ilda ratified t e said contract w en s e entered into t e amica4le settlement wit t e (uian3s0 >&LD9 !0 T e deed was void0 T e property was ac'uired durin3 t e marria3e of Judie and (ilda Corpu80 * en Judie offered to sell t e remainin3 alf1 (ilda5s consent was totally lac@in31 contrary to t e claim of t e (uian3s invo@in3 6rt !/"C+7. CC t at it was only vitiated ence merely voida4le0 T e case at 4ar falls under 6rt !7-1 FC w ic states d222 t e a4sence of suc aut ority or consent1 t e disposition or encum4rance s all 4e void50 70 No1 void contracts cannot 4e ratified0 T e entry into amica4le settlement would not ave any effect in t e contract since it was void0 AAFC applied in t is case since t e sale was done in !""C R&LUCIO v LOP&P +7CC7. /$/ )CR6 D$# Imelda Relucio1 t e mistress of 6l4erto Lope81 assails t e appointment of 6l4erto5s le3itimate I))U&9 *ON t e order to sell t e con=u3al property rendered 4y Jud3e Navarro is valid0 >&LD9 Petitioners Teofista Tiniti3an1 et al1 ar3ue t at t e order aut ori8in3 )everino to sell t e property is void1 4ecause e ad no aut ority to sell it1 t ey 4ein3 under t e administration of is wife Teofista0 T is as no le3al 4asis0 6rt !,D CC states9 Et e us4and is t e administrator of t e CP1F w ic is t e 3eneral rule0 T ou3 6rt !,D# states t at Et e wife may 4e e2press aut ority of t e us4and em4odied in a pu4lic instrument1 administer t e con=u3al partners ip property0F Ot er provisions in t e Code also spea@ of administration 4y t e wife pursuant to a =udicial decree0 >owever1 suc provisions are not applica4le in t is case0 T e =udicial decree on Oct 7"1 !"$D1 appointin3 Teofista as administratri2 of t e CP cannot 4e treated as an e2ception 4ecause it was issued only after t e CFI of Ri8al 3ranted )everino t e aut ority to sell t e property0 ?esides1 er appointment was not a4solute since it was su4=ect to certain conditions t at were a3reed upon0 T us1 t e conclusion is t at )everino did not cease 4ein3 t e administrator of t eir con=u3al properties at t e time t e motion for =udicial approval of t e sale was 3ranted0 ?ein3 t e administrator1 owever1 does not 3ive im t e outri3 t aut ority to alienate or encum4er assets0 T is would re'uire t e e2press or implied consent of Teofista su4=ect to certain e2ceptions0 6rt !,, NCC states t at Eunless t e wife as 4een declared incapacitated1 t e us4and cannot alienate or encum4er any property of t e CP wit out er consentF w erein t e court may compel er to 3rant it if s e unreasona4ly refuses to 3ive consent0 T is is w y )everino sou3 t =udicial approval0 T e sale was necessary to answer for a 4i31 con=u3al lia4ility w ic mi3 t endan3er t e family5s economic standin30 T e case at and actually is one w erein t e wife5s consent is not re'uired and impliedly1 no =udicial intervention is necessary0 6ccordin3 to 6rt !$! NCC1 Et e us4and may dispose of t e CP for t e purposes specified in 6rt !,! and !,70F In 3eneral1 t ese articles deal wit t e o4li3ations of t e CP0 6rt !,!1 Par ! provides t at Et e CP s all 4e lia4le for all de4ts and o4li3ations contracted 4y t e us4and for t e 4enefit of t e CP1 and t ose contracted 4y t e P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e #$ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % % wife5s +6n3elina Me=ia Lope8. as t e sole administrati2 of con=u3al partners ip of properties1 forfeiture1 etc0 6l4erto alle3edly a4andoned

6n3ela and t eir four c ildren and ad maintained illicit relations ip wit t e petitioner1 Relucio0 In t e course of t eir co a4itation1 t ey ave amassed a fortune consistin3 mainly of stoc@ oldin3s in Lope8%owned or controlled corporations1 residential1 a3ricultural1 commercial lots1 ouses1 apartments and properties t rou3 t e actual contri4ution of money1 property1 industry of 6l4erto and Relucio 6n3ela1 t e wife and t e four c ildren did not 4enefit from t e said properties 6l4erto as also sold1 disposed of1 transferred assi3ned1 cancelled1 removed1 stas ed away and alienated t eir con=u3al properties from 6n3ela1 ence t e petition to 4ecome t e administrati2 of t e said partners ip 6n3ela prays t at 6l4erto do t e followin39 o 6ccount t eir con=u3al partners ip property o (ive support to respondent and er c ildren o Turn over is s are in t e co%owners ip wit petitioner +Relucio. o Dissolve is con=u3al partners ip or a4solute community property wit respondent % % % 6fter a visual inspection of t e lots1 petitioner met wit 4ot t e spouses and made a definite offer to 4uy t e properties0 6fter ne3otiation1 &dil4erto +only. and petitioner a3reed upon t e purc ase price of P!0DM for Taytay property and P70!M for Ma@ati property0 63reement was andwritten 4y petitioner and si3ned 4y &dil4erto0 Purc ase was on installment 4asis and down payment t rou3 c ec@s was made 4y petitioner0 T e followin3 day1 Norma1 t e spouses and t e real estate 4ro@er met to incorporate notations and revise contracts to sell0 6t yet anot er meetin31 petitioner was surprised to learn t at spouses were 4ac@in3 out of t e a3reement 4ecause t ey needed Espot cas F for t e purc ase price0 Norma Camaisa refused to si3n contract to sell0 I))U&)9 !0 *ON sale of real properties of t e spouses ave already 4een perfected0 % NO 70 *ON t e us4and may validly dispose of a con=u3al property wit out is wife5s written consent0 % NO /0 *ON Court may intervene to aut ori8e t e transaction0 % NO >&LD9 6ccordin3 to 6rt !7- FC1 t e law re'uires t at t e disposition of a con=u3al property 4y t e us4and as administrator in appropriate cases re'uires t e written consent of t e wife0 Ot erwise1 t e disposition is void0 &ven t ou3 Norma was aware of1 even caused t e advertisement in t e newspaper1 and participated in t e ne3otiations for t e sale1 mere awareness of a transaction is not consent and er written consent to t e sale is re'uired 4y law for its validity0 6rt !7-1 FC also states t at court aut ori8ation is only resorted to in cases w ere t e spouse w o does not 3ive consent is incapacitated0 Petitioner failed to alle3e and prove t at respondent Norma was incapacitated to 3ive er consent to t e contracts0 In t e a4sence of suc 1 court aut ori8ation cannot 4e sou3 t0 I))U&9 *ON t e petitioner as cause of action +affected in anyway. 4y t e respondent5s petition for appointment as sole administrati2 of con=u3al propertiesB >&LD9 NOT T e petitioner +6l4erto5s mistress. is not an indispensa4le party nor a real party%in%interest 4ecause 6l4erto can fulfill t e relief sou3 t 4y 6n3ela even wit out t e participation of Relucio0 T e cause of action arises only 4etween t e us4and and t e wife w o ave ri3 t%duty o4li3ation 4etween eac ot er0 T e mistress is a complete stran3er to t em0 6ny =ud3ment would 4e valid and enforcea4le a3ainst 6l4erto0 T e administration of t e property of marria3e is entirely 4etween t e spouses to t e e2clusion of ot er persons0 Or simply put9 No need for Relucio to intervene1 s e as not in3 to do wit t e affairs of t e spouse0 J6D&R%M6N6LO v C6M6I)6 +7CC7. /$- )CR6 -"# Petitioner T elma Jader%Manalo came across respondent spouses5 ad in ?ulletin Today sellin3 t eir !C%door apartment in Ma@ati and anot er property in Taytay1 Ri8al0 % Interested in 4ot properties1 petitioner ne3otiated for its purc ase t rou3 t e spouses5 real estate 4ro@er1 Mr0 Proceso &reno0 30 Dissolution of t e CP( FC1 6rt !0 70 /0 -0 !7, T e con=u3al partners ip terminates9 upon t e deat of eit er souse w en t ere is a decree of le3al separation w en t e marria3e is annulled or declared void in case of =udicial separation of property durin3 t e marria3e to !/# P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e ## of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 0 Li'uidation of 6ssets and FC1 6rt !7$ T e separation in fact 4etween us4and and wife s all not affect t e re3imeofCP( e2cept t at9 !0 70 /0 spouse w o leaves t e con=u3al ome or refuses to live t erein1 wit out =ust cause1 s all not ave t e Lia4ilities 4e supported consent of one spouse to any transaction of t e ot er is re'uired 4y law1 =udicial aut ori8ation s all 4e o4tained FC1 6rt !7" Upon t e dissolution

of t e con=u3al partners ip re3ime1 t in a summary proceedin3 !0 6n inventory solidarily lia4le a4sence or insufficient community property1 t e separate property s all 4e s all 4e prepared1 listin3 separately all t e prop of t e family0 T e spouse present s all1 upon proper petition in a properties proceedin31 4e 3iven =udicial aut ority summary of eac spouse0 to administer or encum4er any specific separate property 70 t e ot er spouse sand use t e fruits partners ip in payment of p of 6mounts advanced 4y t e con=u3al or proceeds t ereof to satisfy t e latter5s s are 4e credited to t e con=u3al partners ip as an asset t ereo &ac spouse s all 4e reim4ursed for t e use of is or er e t e value of is or er e2clusive property1 t e owners ip o FC1 6rt !7# If a spouse wit out a =ust cause a4andons t e ot er or fails to comply wit is or er o4li3ations to t e family1 partners ip0 t e a33rieved spouse may petition -0 T e de4ts and o4li3ations of t e con=u3al partners ip s all !0 for receivers ip insufficiency of said assets1 t e spouses s all 4e solidarily li 70 for =udicial separation of property properties1 in accordance wit t e provisions of para3rap +7. of /0 for aut ority for sole administration of 6CP T e o4li3ations to t e family mentioned in t e precedin3 para3rap 9 ,0 !0 marital 70 parental /0 property relations0 /0 D0 * atever remains of t e e2clusive properties of t e spouses s a Unless t e owner ad 4een indemnified from w atever source 4enefit of t e family1 4elon3in3 to eit er spouse1 even due to fo con=u3al funds1 if any0 $0 T e net remainder of t e con=u3al partners ip properties s e'ually 4etween us4and and wife1 unless of 6 spouse is deemed to ave a4andoned t e ot er w en e or s e as left t e con=u3al dwellin3 wit out any intentiona different propo settlements as failed wit in t e same period to returnin30 T e spouse w o as left t e con=u3al dwellin3 for a period of / mont s or or unless t ere as 4een a voluntary waiver or forfe 3ive any information as to isN er w erea4outs s all 4e prima facie presumed to ave no le3itimesof returnin3 to t e #0 T e presumptive intention of t e common c ildren s all 4 con=u3al dwellin30 6rticle D!0 "0 In t e partition of t e properties1 t e con=u3al dwellin3 and t a3reed upon 4y t e parties1 4e ad=udicated to t e spouse wi c oose to remain0 C ildren 4elow t e a3e of seven years are d as decided ot erwise0 In case t ere is no suc ma=ority1 t e c interests of said c ildren0 * en is inventory not necessaryB +Tolentino1 p0 -$7. !0 w en one of t e spouses1 or is eirs1 s ould renounce t e 4enefits of partners ip 70 w en separation of property as preceded t e dissolution of t e marria3e /0 w en partners ip is dissolved 4y deat of one of t e spouses and t e deceased leaves no eir e2cept t e survivin3 spouse -0 w en dissolution is caused 4y le3al separation1 and t e s are of t e 3uilty spouse is forfeited to t e innocent spouse1 t ere 4ein3 no c ildren A Par 7 and / are called Emutual restitutionF w ic cannot 4e found in t e dissolution of 6CP +6rt !C7. A Dissolution of CP( as " steps1 w ile 6CP only as ,1 and it5s all 4ecause of t e mutual restitution part0 FC1 6rt !/C Upon t e termination of t e marria3e 4y deat 1 t e c same proceedin3 for t e settlement of t e estate of t e deceased0 If no =udicial settlement proceedin3 is instituted1 t e survivin3 spouse s =udicially or e2tra%=udicially wit in si2 mont s from t e deat of t e period no li'uidation is made1 any disposition or encum4rance involvin marria3e s all 4e void0 ) ould t e survivin3 spouse contract a su4se'uent marria3e wit mandatory re3ime of complete separation of property s all 3ove P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e #" of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 durin3 t e li'uidation more estate of FC1 6rt !/! * enever t e li'uidation of t e con=u3al partners ip properties of two or of t emarria3es deceased1 suc ri3 t cannot 4y t e same person 4efore t e effectivity of t is Code is carried out simultaneously 4e impaired 4y Rule #/1 )ec0 / of t e Rules of Court w ic is a of evidence0 income of eac partners ip s all 4e determined upon suc proof as may 4e considered accordin3 to t e rulesprocedural In case of dou4t as to w ic partners ip t e e2istin3 properties 4elon31 t e same s all 4e divided 4etween t e different rule0 partners ips in proportion to t e capital and duration of eac 0 ?e it noted owever t at wit respect to EspouseF1 t e same must 4e t e Ele3itimate spouseF +not common%law in t e appraisal are FC1 6rt !/7 T e Rules of Court on t e administration of estates of deceased persons s all 4e o4served spouses w o and sale of property of t e con=u3al partners ip1 and ot er matters

w ic mot ers of t e c ildren ere.0 are not e2pressly determined in t is C apter0 FC1 6rt !// From t e common mass of property support s all 4e 3iven to t e durin3 t e li'uidation of t e inventoried property and until w at 4elon3s to t em is delivered s all 4e deducted t at amount received for support w ic e2ceeds t e fruits or rents pertainin3 to t em0 % )6NT&RO v CFI OF C6;IT& +!"#$. !D/ )CR6 $7# Petitioners Princesita )antero%Morales1 Federico )antero and *illy )antero are t e c ildren 4e3otten 4y t e late Pa4lo )antero wit Feli24erta Pacursa w ile private respondents ;ictor1 Rodri3o1 6nselmina and Mi3uel all surnamed )antero are four of t e seven c ildren 4e3otten 4y t e same Pa4lo )antero wit 6nselma Dia80 ?ot sets of c ildren are t e natural c ildren of t e late Pa4lo )antero since neit er of t eir mot ers1 was married to t eir fat er Pa4lo0 % &ven 4efore t e Court could act on t e instant petition1 private respondents filed anot er Motion for 6llowance dated Marc 7D1 !"#D wit t e respondent court to include Juanita1 &stelita and Pedrito all surnamed )antero as c ildren of t e late Pa4lo )antero wit 6nselma Dia8 prayin3 t at an order 4e 3ranted directin3 t e administrator Reynaldo C0 &varisto to deliver t e sum of P,1CCC to eac of t e seven c ildren of 6nselma Dia8 as t eir allowance from t e estate of Pa4lo )antero0 I))U&9 *ON t e natural c ildren ;ictor1 Rodri3o1 6nselmina and Mi3uel s ould 4e 3ranted an allowance out of t e ands of t e property administrator of Pa4lo )anteroB >&LD9 G&)0 T e fact t at private respondents are of a3e1 3ainfully employed1 or married is of no moment and s ould not 4e re3arded as t e determinin3 factor of t eir ri3 t to allowance under 6rticle !##0 * ile t e Rules of Court limit allowances to t e widow and minor or incapacitated c ildren of t e deceased1 t e New Civil Code 3ives support to t e survivin3 spouse and isN er c ildren wit out distinction0 >ence1 t e private respondents ;ictor1 Rodri3o1 6nselmina and Mi3uel all surnamed )antero are entitled to allowances as advances from t eir s ares in t e in eritance from t eir fat er Pa4lo )antero0 % )ince t e provision of t e Civil Code1 a su4stantive law1 3ives t e survivin3 spouse and to t e c ildren t e ri3 t to receive support &0 )eparation of Property and 6dministration of Common Property 4y One )pouse !0 Judicial separation of property for sufficient cause FC1 6rt !/- In t e a4sence of an e2press declaration in t e marria spouses durin3 t e marria3e s all not ta@e place e2cept 4y =udic eit er 4e voluntary or for sufficient cause0 COMPL&T& )&P6R6TION OF PROP&RTG may 4e ad t ru9 !0 in t e marria3e settlement 70 =udicial decree a0 voluntary +6rtconventional 4y operation of law +6rt !C/!/,. 40 sufficient cause +6rt !/D. /0 compulsory and 6rt !/C. w en t ere is no li'uidation of property re3ime of first marria3e FC1 6rt !/D 6ny of t e followin3 s all 4e considered sufficient cause +?G PR&)&NT6TION OF FIN6L JUD(M&NT. !0 civil interdiction 70 =udicially declared an a4sentee /0 loss of parental aut ority 4y court decree +6rt 77# and 77". +PROOF -0 D0 ,0 OF C6U)& I) N&&D&D. a4andonment or failure to comply wit family and marital o4li a4use of power of administration 3ranted in t e marria3e sett de facto separation for at least one year and reconciliation is In t e cases provided for in Num4er !1 7 and /1 t e presentation of t s all 4e enou3 4asis to 3rant of t e decree of =udicial separation of pr (6RCI6 v M6NP6NO +!"D#. !C/ P il $"# (on8alo (arcia filed an action a3ainst is wife1 Consolacion Man8ano1 for t e declaration of t e separation of t eir con=u3al partners ip property on t e 3round t at t ey ave 4een livin3 separately since !"-# and t at all attempts at reconciliation 4etween t em ave failed0 6s a result of t eir =oint efforts1 t ey accumulated real and personal properties0 T at since t eir separation1 Consolacion assumed complete mana3ement and administration of t e CP0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e "C of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % >e alle3es mismana3ement of t e CP( since s e was e2clusively en=oyin3 t e fruits of it1 s e refused to turn over to (on8alo is ri3 tful s are or allow im participation in t e partners ip1 s e conducted fictitious transfers and alienation of property to t ird persons and t at s e ne3lected to file income ta2 returns0 TC dismissed complaint for failure to state a cause of action upon motion of Consolacion =udicial % I))U&9 *ON (arcia is entitled to a declaration of separation of properties0 % NO % >&LD9 >is complaint did not esta4lis a case for separation of properties0 Consistent wit its

policy of discoura3in3 a re3ime of complete separation as not armonious wit t e unity of t e family and t e mutual affection and elp e2pected of t e spouses1 t e OCC and NCC re'uire t at separation of properties s all not prevail unless e2pressly stipulated in marria3e settlements 4efore t e union is solemni8ed or 4y formal =udicial decree durin3 t e e2istence of t e marria3e< and in t e latter case1 it may only 4e ordered 4y t e court for t e causes specified in 6rt !"!1 CC0 In t e system esta4lis ed 4y t e NCC1 t e wife does not administer t e con=u3al property unless wit t e consent of t e us4and1 or 4y decree of t e court and under its supervision wit suc limitations as t e court may deem advisa4le0 In t e event of suc maladministration 4y t e wife1 t e remedy of t e us4and does not lie in a =udicial separation of properties 4ut in revo@in3 t e power 3ranted to t e wife and resumin3 t e administration of t e communal property and t e conduct of t e affairs of t e CP0 >e may enforce is ri3 t of possession and control of t e con=u3al property a3ainst is wife1 and see@ suc ancillary remedies as may 4e re'uired 4y t e circumstances1 even to t e e2tent of annullin3 or rescindin3 any unaut ori8ed alienations or encum4rances1 upon proper action filed for t at purpose0 For t is reason1 6rt !,$1 !$7 and !$# CC contemplate e2clusively t e remedies availa4le to t e wife a3ainst t e a4uses of er us4and 4ecause normally1 only t e latter can commit suc a4uses0 T erefore1 e cannot claim t at e s ould 4e entitled to t e same remedies0 P6RTO)6%JO v C6 +!""7. 7!, )CR6 ,"7 % Jose Jo co a4itated wit t ree women and e fat ered !D c ildren0 T e petitioner in t is case claims to 4e is le3al wife +Prima. wit w om e ad a dau3 ter named Monina Jo0 Prima claims t at w en s e left Duma3uete City it was t eir a3reement t at s e was temporarily live wit er parents durin3 t e initial period of er pre3nancy and for Jose to visit and support er0 % In !"#C K Prima filed an action for =udicial separation of con=u3al property and t is was consolidated wit er earlier petition for support0 In t e disposition of t e trial court it was eld t at Prima was le3ally married to Jose Jo and t erefore entitled to support as t e lawfully wedded wife and Jose Jo was ordered to 3ive a mont ly support of P DCC0 T ere was no definite disposition as to t e =udicial separation of con=u3al property0 C6 up eld t e TC decision 4ut complaint for t e =udicial separation of con=u3al properties was dismissed for lac@ of cause of action on t e 3round t at separation 4y a3reement was not covered 4y 6rt !$#1 CC0 >owever1 t e penultimate para3rap of t e decision provides9 EIt is1 t erefore1 ere4y ordered t at all properties in 'uestion are considered properties of Jose Jo1 t e defendant in t is case1 su4=ect to separation of property under 6rt !$#1 Par / CC1 w ic is su4=ect of separate proceedin3s as enunciated erein0F I))U&)9 !0 *ON a final =ud3ment rendered 4y t e LC may 4e modified if t e dispositive portion did not contain t e decision e2tensively discussed in t e 4ody of t e decision0 % G&) 70 *ON t e separation of t e parties was due to t eir a3reement0 % NO /0 *ON Prima is entitled to =udicial separation of property0 % G&) >&LD9 !0 T e dispositive portion of t e decision was incomplete insofar as it carried no rulin3 on t e complaint for =udicial separation of con=u3al property alt ou3 it was e2tensively discussed in t e 4ody of t e decision0 % T e penultimate para3rap of t e decision of t e trial court rulin3 s ould ave 4een em4odied in t e dispositive portion0 It was 4ased upon t e findin3s t at Prima and Jose were le3ally married and t e properties mentioned were ac'uired durin3 t e marria3e alt ou3 t ey were re3istered in t e name of a dummy0 70 T e C6 rulin3 t at an a3reement to live separately wit out =ust cause was void under 6rt 77! of t e CC and could not sustain any claim of a4andonment 4y t e a33rieved spouse0 T us1 t e only remedy availa4le was t at of le3al separation0 % >owever1 t e separation was due to a4andonment0 T ey merely a3reed t at s e would live wit er parents w ile s e was pre3nant1 and w en s e returned1 e refused to accept er0 T is clearly demonstrates t at e ad no intention of resumin3 t eir con=u3al relations ip< moreover1 from !",#%!"## w en t e court finally decided to award support1 Jose never 3ave financial support0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e "! of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 /0 % % % On t e 3rounds of a4andonment and also failure wit out =ust cause to comply wit is o4li3ations as us4and and fat er< apart from refusin3 to admit Prima is lawful wife1 to t eir con=u3al ome1 s e

is entitled to a =udicial separation of property0 Court eld t at1 Ea4andonment is t e departure 4y one spouse wit t e avowed intent never to return1 followed 4y a prolon3ed a4sence wit out =ust cause1 and wit out in t e meantime providin3 in t e least for one5s family alt ou3 a4le to do so0F 6nd t e FC states t at t e a33rieved spouse may petition for =udicial separation w en t ere is9 64andonment 4y a spouse of t e ot er wit out =ust cause Failure of one spouse to comply wit is or er o4li3ations to t e family wit out =ust cause1 even if said spouse does not leave t e ot er spouse0 T e p ysical separation of t e parties coupled wit t e refusal 4y Jose to 3ive support sufficed to constitute a4andonment as a 3round for t e =udicial separation of t eir con=u3al property0 FC allows =udicial separation of property w en t e spouses ave 4een separated in fact for at least one year and reconciliation is i3 ly impro4a4le0 )ince t e LC found t at Jose is t e real owner of t e properties1 t ese must 4e divided 4etween t em on t e assumption t at t ey were ac'uired durin3 t eir marria3e0 attorney5s fees1 wit le3al interest form date of ori3inal complaint until fully paid plus costs0 I))U&)9 !0 *ON separation of us4and from is wife constitutes a4andonment in law t at would =ustify t e separation of con=u3al partners ip property % NO 70 *ON t e us4and5s failure andNor refusal to inform is wife of t e state of t eir 4usiness is an a4use of is powers of administration of t e CP as to warrant a division of matrimonial assets NO >&LD9 !. T ere was only mere p ysical separation and not real a4andonment0 64andonment contemplated 4y t e law must 4e of p ysical estran3ement1 moral and FIN6NCI6L desertion0 ?ased on ow a4andonment was used in 6rt !$#1 in order for desertion of one spouse to constitute a4andonment1 t ere must 4e a4solute cessation of marital relations and duties and ri3 ts wit intention of perpetual separation0 To a4andon is to forsa@e entirely0 &mp asis is on its finality1 ence it means 3ivin3 up a4solutely and wit intent never a3ain to resume or claim one5s ri3 ts or interests0 % >ere1 )everino did not seem to ave t e intention to leave is family permanently since e continued to 3ive support despite is a4sence w ic t us ne3ates any intent not to return and resume is marital duties and ri3 ts0 % )ince separation in fact 4etween spouses does not affect t e CP e2cept if t e us4and a4andons is wife wit out =ust cause1 +6rt !$#1 CC. claims of t e &strella of concu4ina3e on part of )everino must 4e re3arded as efforts at 4olsterin3 er claim of a4andonment w ic s all =ustify1 under t e law1 a =udicial separation of con=u3al assets0 T ere is no stron3 corro4orated evidence t at demonstrates t e e2istence of illicit relations 4etween Nenita and )everino0 Neit er as e 4een mismana3in3 funds since e actually increased t e value of t eir assets 4y over a million pesos0 7. For a4use to e2ist1 it is not enou3 t at t e us4and perform acts pre=udicial to is wife or commit acts in=urious to t e partners ip0 T ere must 4e an act willfully performed and wit utter disre3ard of t e partners ip 4y t e us4and t at would 4e pre=udicial to t e wife1 evidenced 4y t e repetition of deli4erate acts andNor omissions0 It is not condonin3 t e us4and5s separation from is wife0 Instead1 is t at t ere is an insufficiency or a4sence of cause of action0 Remedies of 6rt !,$ and !$# are aimed at protectin3 t e CP0 6nd t ey must e2ercise restraint since t ey are tryin3 to preserve union of spouses< a =ud3ment orderin3 a separation of assets w ere t ere5s no real a4andonment may eradicate t e possi4ility of reconciliation0 6limony increased from P7CCC to P/CCC0 6ttorney5s fees must also 4e 4orne 4y defendant since e left D&L6 CRUP v D&L6 CRUP +!",#. 77 )CR6 /// % )UPR6 % &strella )everino dela Cru8 and 4lessed wit si2 c ildren0 T ey ac'uired seven parcels of land at ?acolod Cadastre and t ree parcels at )ilay Cadastre0 T ese are all re3istered in t eir names0 T ey are also en3a3ed in various 4usiness ventures0 % ) e filed a complaint prayin3 for t e separation of property1 mont ly support and payment of attorney fees and costs0 % In !"-"1 s e claims t at s e already suspected t at )everino was sleepin3 around w ic was only confirmed 4y a note s e found in is s irt in !"D!0 ) e confronted im a4out it and e promised er to forsa@e is mistress w ic e failed to do % )ince !"DD1 e never slept in con=u3al dwellin31 4ut only paid s ort visits0 ) e contends t at e a4andoned er and t eir c ildren to live in Manila wit is mistress1 Nenita >ernande80 6nd t at after !"DD until t e time of t e trial1 e ad never visited t e con=u3al a4ode and w en e was in

?acolod1 s e was denied communication wit im0 % RTC ordered separation and division of t e con=u3al assets +valued at PDCC1CCC.1 directin3 t e )everino to pay to &strella P7C1CCC as P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e "7 of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 t e con=u3al a4ode and as 3iven cause for plaintiff to see@ redress in courts0 % 70 ;oluntary separation of property T e @ids 4y first marria3e s ould 4e notified of t e proceedin3s and t eir names and addresses1 as well as t e names and addresses of t e @ids 4y second marria3e1 4e furnis ed 4y t em0 L6C)ON v )6N JO)& +!",#. 7- )CR6 #/$ FC1 6rt !/, T e spouses may =ointly file a verified petition wit t e court forLacson Carmen )an%Jose Lacson on % 6lfonso t e CP( and for t e separation of t eir common properties0 Fe4 !-1 !"D/ wit - c ildren0 % creditors of"1 !",/ Carmen left t e t e petition and 6ll creditors of t e 6CP or of t e CP(1 as well as t e listed personal On Jan t e spouse s all 4e listed in con=u3al ome notified of t e filin3 t ereof0 T e court s all ta@e measures to protect t e creditors andManila0 ) e filed a pecuniary and 4e3an livin3 in ot er persons wit complaint interests0 on Marc !71 !",/1 in t e Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court for custody of t e @ids and t eir support0 IN R& ;OLUNT6RG DI))OLUTION OF CONJU(6L P6RTN&R)>IP OF )POU)&) ?&RN6) +!",D. % 6n amica4le settlement was owever reac ed !- )CR6 /7$ 4etween t e spouses wit re3ard to custody of t e @ids +w erein t e 7 older @ids 3o to t eir dad % Jose and Pilar ?ernas were married in Dec !"/7 and t e 7 youn3er ones to t eir mom.1 support and t ey ad 7 @ids0 Durin3 t e marria3e t ey and separation of property0 T is was later ac'uired !7 parcels of land and two 4uildin3s0 approved 4y t e CFI1 statin3 t at it was % /C years later1 t ey e2ecuted an E63reement for conforma4le to law0 Dissolution of con=u3al partners ip and Later1 Carmen filed a complaint prayin3 for t e separation of propertyF 4elievin3 t at t is will custody of all t e @ids0 T is was 3ranted 4y t e redound to t eir mutual advanta3e1 4enefit and C6 w o declared t e a3reement null and void 3ain1 and preserve peace and armony and insofar as t e custody of t e @ids was concerned0 prevent friction1 dissension and confusion 4etween t eir eirs since Jose ad 7 sets of I))U&9 *ON t e compromise a3reement and t e c ildren0 6fter t e e2ecution of t is contract1 =ud3ment of t e CFI 3rounded on t e said a3reement t ey filed wit t e court t e aforementioned are conforma4le to law0 % G&) petition0 % LC denied t e petition since under 6rt !"7 CC1 a >&LD9 It is valid wit respect to t e separation of CP can only 4e dissolved once le3al separation property 4etween t e spouses and t e dissolution of as 4een ordered1 w ic can only appen upon t e CP since t is is allowed 4y law provided =udicial civil interdiction1 declaration of a4sence or sanction is secured 4efore and0 )uc approval was a4andonment +6rt !"!1 CC.0 o4tained and it does not appear t at t ey ave creditors w o will 4e pre=udiced 4y t e % T e spouses claim t at 6rt !"! allows voluntary arran3ements0 =udicial separation or property durin3 t e marria3e su4=ect to =udicial approval0 Furt er1 t e spouses ave 4een separated in fact for at least D years and it is 4ut proper to sever t eir I))U&9 *ON voluntary separation of property durin3 financial and proprietary interests0 Court cannot marria3e is allowed 4y law force t em to live wit eac ot er and render con=u3al ri3 ts to t e ot er +6rroyo v ;as'ue8 de >&LD9 G&)0 T e CP may 4e dissolved 4y a3reement 6rroyo.0 of t e spouse if it as =udicial approval0 ?ut even t ou3 Jose as @ids 4y is first marria3e1 t eir >owever1 in t e approval of t e re3ime and names were not included in t e a3reement or dissolution1 t e court doesn5t accord reco3nition nor approval of t e petition w ereas is @ids 4y second le3ali8e de facto separation0 It5s a4normal and marria3e and is second wife are0 Neit er were t e frau3 t wit 3rave dan3er to all concerned +6rroyo v0 @ids 4y first marria3e notified of suc 0 In fact1 no ;as'ue8 de 6rroyo.0 )pouses are o4li3ed to live notice appears to ave 4een 3iven to t e @ids 4y to3et er1 o4serve mutual respect and fidelity and second marria3e1 alt ou3 t e dan3er of su4stantial render mutual elp and support +CC1 6rt !C".0 in=ury to t eir ri3 ts would seem remote0 T ere5s virtue in ma@in3 it as difficult as possi4le for % 6lso1 t e dissolution of t e CP( of t e second married couples to

a4andon eac ot er merely due marria3e cannot ta@e place wit out first to w ims and caprices0 (eneral appiness of married dissolvin3 t e CP( of t e first marria3e w erein life is secured 4y its indissolu4ility0 * en people t e @ids of t at marria3e ave an interest0 T e understand t at t ey must live to3et er1 t ey a3reement may affect t e ri3 ts of t e @ids 4y 4ecome 3ood spouses from necessity of remainin3 first marria3e since 6rt !#" CC states t at Ein suc 0 Necessity is a powerful master in teac in3 case of dou4t1 t e partners ip property s all 4e duties w ic it imposes0 +6rroyo v ;as'ue8 de divided 4etween t e different partners ips in 6rroyo.0 proportion to t e duration of eac and to t e prop 4elon3in3 to t e respective spouses0F P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e "/ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 *it re3ard to t e custody and support of t e c ildren9 all t e c ildren1 includin3 t e &nri'ue and Teresa1 were 4elow $ year old t en 6rt /,/ CC specifically commands t at no mot er s all 4e separated from er c ild under $ year old unless court finds compellin3 reasons for suc measure0 Ratio for 6rt /,/9 6void tra3edy w ere mom as seen er 4a4y torn away from er0 Compellin3 reasons must 4e rare if mom5s eart is not to 4e unduly urt0 If mom as erred suc as in adultery1 imprisonment and divorce will 4e sufficient punis ment0 >er moral dereliction will not affect t e 4a4y w o as yet to understand situation0 Provision is mandatory and t e compromise =ud3ment 4y separatin3 7 elder c ildren w o were 4elow $ year old from t eir mom was null and void for violatin3 t e provision0 No compellin3 reason was 3iven for ta@in3 away 7 c ildren from Carmen0 CFI decision on MFR re3ardin3 compromise =ud3ment only presented a mere int0 Courts cannot proceed on mere insinuations0 &nri'ue and Maria are now a4ove $ yo1 t us issue re3ardin3 awardin3 t eir custody to t eir mom as 4ecome moot and academic0 ?ut1 Court s ould still up old t eir a3reement re3ardin3 custody0 6rt /D, CC provides t at every c ild is entitled to9 !0 parental care 70 receive at least elementary education /0 moral and civic trainin3 4y parentsN3uardians -0 ri3 t to live in atmosp ere conducive to is p ysical1 moral and intellectual development C ild5s welfare s ould not 4e su4=ect to parents5 sayso or mutual a3reement alone0 Court s ould ascertain in w ose custody t e c ild can 4etter 4e assured t e ri3 ts 3ranted 4y law0 &vidence s ould 4e presented and court s ould not merely rely on compromise =ud3ment in determinin3 fitness of eac parent to 4e custodian of c ildren0 ?esides1 &nri'ue +!!.1 since e5s now over !C1 s ould 4e 3iven t e c oice of t e parent e wis es to live wit 0 If any c ild will 4e finally awarded to mom1 P!DC mont ly support is insufficient considerin3 t at prices of commodities and services ave increased and @ids are now of sc ool a3e0 CFI may increase suc amount accordin3 to need of eac c ild0 M6SUIL6N v M6SUIL6N +7CC$. D7- )CR6 !,, DOCTRIN&9 ;oluntary separation of property may ta@e place w ile ot er cases are pendin30 Proceedin3s for t e same do not re'uire t e intervention of t e )olicitor (eneral0 Final =ud3ment of adultery is not punis ed wit civil interdiction1 t us it is not a 3round for =udicial separation of property0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e "- of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 /0 Li'uidation and dissolution of property -0 )ole administration of ot er spouse5s property FC1 6rt !/$ Once t e separation of property as 4een decreed1 t e FC1 6rt !-7 T e administration of all classes of e2clusive proper t is code +6rt !C7 and !7".0 to t e ot er spouse +only acts as a trustee. Durin3 t e pendency of t e proceedin3s for separation of property1 t e!0 spouses and t eir c ildren0 70 /0 -0 3uardian of t e ot er =udicially declared an a4sentee civil interdiction fu3itive from =ustice or in idin3 as an accused in a criminal ca If t e ot er spouse is not 'ualified 4y reason of incompetence1 con FC1 6rt !/# 6fter dissolution of t e 6CP or t e CP(1 t e provisions appoint a suita4le person to 4e t e administrator0 on complete separation of property s all apply0 FC1 6rt !/" T e petition for separation of property and final =ud3ment 3rantin3 t e same s all 4e administration is 3iven in local civil re3istries and re3istries of property0 In previous cases +6CPNCP(.1 common property case of incapacity0 &2clusive property may 4e administered 4y t e ot er spouse 4ut court proceedin3 is re'uired0 FC1 6rt !-C T e separation of property s all not pre=udice t e ri3 ts previously ac'uired 4y creditors FC1 6rt !-! T e spouses may1 in t e same

proceedin3s w ere separation of property was decreed1 file a motion in court for a decree revivin3 t e property re3ime t at e2isted 4etween t em 4efore t e separation of property followin3 instances9 !0 civil interdiction terminates 6D;6NT6(&)9 70 a4sentee spouse reappears !0 simple< no common marria3e settlements /0 w en t e court is satisfied t at t e spouse 3ranted t e power of administration in t e properties ence no will not li'uidation a3ain a4use t at power1 aut ori8es t e resumption of said administration -0 w en t e spouse w o as left t e con=u3al ome wit out a decree of le3al separation resumes common life wit t e 70 neit er spouse can 4e accused of 4ein3 ot er interested in ot er5s properties D0 w en parental aut ority is =udicially restored to t e spouse previously deprived t ereof ,0 w en t e spouses w o ave 4een separated in fact for a least one year1 reconcile and resume common life DI)6D;6NT6(&)9 $0 w en after voluntary dissolution of t e 6CP or CP( as 4een =udicially decreed upon t e =oint petition of t e spouses1 !0 inconsistent wit t e property may t ereafter t ey a3ree to t e revival of t e former property re3ime0 No voluntary separation of community of life and 4e interest w ic marria3e is supposed to 3ranted0 &0 Re3ime of )eparate Property create T e revival of t e former property re3ime s all 4e 3overned 4y 6rt ,$0 70 4ased on distrust and not favora4le to t e 6rt ,$ 63reement to revive former re3ime s all specify9 !. w at to contri4ute anew to restored property re3ime 7. w at to retain in separate property /. names of all t e creditors /0 -0 D0 *>&N !0 70 /0 family ordinarily unfavora4le to t e wife w o usually is unemployed and dependent on t e us4and for support may lead to constant disputes on s arin3 and family e2penses a3ainst Filipino custom w ic is trust and s arin3 in t e spouses M6G )&P6R6TION OF PROP&RTG &:I)TB 4y a3reement in marria3e settlement decree 4y court in proper cases separation of property cannot 4e converted to any ot er property re3ime durin3 marria3e FC1 6rt !-/ ) ould t e future spouses a3ree in t e marria3e settle s all 4e 3overned 4y t e re3ime of separation of property1 t e provisio FC1 6rt !-- )eparation of property may refer to present or future p latter case1 t e property not a3reed upon as separate s all pertain IIND) OF )&P6R6T& PROP&RTG !0 as to e2tent a0 total P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e "D of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 70 T is provision applies to9 !0 live%in partners a0 no le3al impediment to marry 40 ence1 not applica4le to concu4ina3e A Coe2istence of C)P and 6CPNCP( is possi4le0 and adulterous relations ips >owever1 in default of a stipulation to t e re3ime of c0 e2clusive to eac ot er properties outside t e C)P1 6CP s all apply0 d0 real continuous co a4itation e0 t e 3oal is to encoura3e future marria3e FC1 6rt !-D &ac spouse s all own1 dispose of1 possess1 administer and en=oy is or er own separate estate 70 void all earnin3s wit out t e need of t e consent of t e ot er0 To eac spouse s all 4elon3 marria3es from is or er profession1 a0 pu4lic policy 4usiness1 industry and all fruits1 natural1 industrial or civil1 due or received durin3 t e marria3e from is or er separate property0 40 a4sence of re'uisites c0 e2cept 4i3amous marria3es 40 partial as to @inds of property a0 present property 40 future property c0 4ot present and future property A Does not include fruits of t eir e2clusive properties F0 Property Re3imes of Unions *it out Marria3e FC1 6rt !-$ * en a man and a woman w o are capacitated to marry eac ot er1 live e2clusively wit eac ot er as us4and and wife wit out t e 4enefit of marria3e or under a void marria3e1 t eir wa3es and salaries s all 4e owned 4y t em in e'ual s ares and t e property ac'uired 4y 4ot of t em t rou3 t eir wor@ or industry s all 4e 3overned 4y t e rules on coowners ip0 In t e a4sence of proof to t e contrary1 properties ac'uired w ile t ey lived to3et er s all 4e presumed to ave 4een o4tained 4y t eir =oint efforts1 wor@ or industry and s all 4e owned 4y t em in e'ual s ares0 +T e ne2t line was not in t e CC1 an innovation of FC in favor of ousewives0. For purposes of t is article1 a party w o did not participate in t e ac'uisition 4y t e ot er party of any property s all 4e deemed to ave contri4uted =ointly in t e ac'uisition t ereof if t e former5s efforts consisted in t e care and maintenance of t e family and of t e ouse old0 +Unli@e ordinary partners ip. Neit er party can encum4er or dispose 4y acts inter vivos of is or er s are in t e property ac'uired durin3 co a4itation and owned in common1 wit out t e consent of t e ot er1 until after t e termination of

t eir co a4itation0 * en only one of t e parties to a void marria3e is in 3ood fait 1 t e s are of t e party in 4ad fait in t e co%owners ip s all 4e forfeited in favor of t eir common c ildren0 In case of default of or waiver 4y any or all of t e common c ildren or t eir descendants1 eac vacant s are s all 4elon3 to t e respective survivin3 descendant0 In t e a4sence of descendant1 suc s are s all 4elon3 to t e innocent party0 In all cases1 t e forfeiture s all ta@e place upon t e termination of t e co a4itation0 FC1 6rt !-, ?ot spouses s all 4ear t e family e2penses in proportion to t eir income FC1 6rt !-# In cases of co a4itation not fallin3 under t e precedin default t ereof1 to t e current mar@et value of t eir separate properties parties t rou3 t eir actual =oint contri4ution of money1 property proportion 4e T e lia4ility of t e spouses to t e creditors for family e2penses s all1 owever1to t eir respective contri4utions0 In t e a4sence of proof t s ares are presumed to 4e e'ual0 T e same rule and presumption s credit0 If one of t e parties is validly married to anot er1 is or er s are in t e or con=u3al partners ip e2istin3 in suc valid marria3e0 If t e party w anot er1 is or er s are s all 4e forfeited in t e manner provided in t T e fore3oin3 rules s all li@ewise apply even if 4ot parties are in 4ad A Compared wit 6rt "# and 6rt !7D1 t is 6rticle does not provide for donations 4y reason of c arity or occasion of family re=oicin3 or family distress0 G6PTINC>6G v TORR&) +!",". 7# )CR6 -#" Isidro Gaptinc ay and Teresita Gaptinc ay ave 4een livin3 to3et er openly and pu4licly as us4and and wife for !" years Isidro5s alle3ed le3itimate wife is Josefina Gaptinc ay wit w om e as a dau3 ter named ;ir3inia Gaptinc ay0 Isidro died intestate and upon is deat 1 Teresita sou3 t er appointment as special administratri2 and t en as re3ular administratri2 of Isidro5s estate 6 few days later1 t e lower court appointed Teresita as administratri20 Josefina t en re3istered er opposition sayin3 t at Teresita is not a le3itimate eir of Isidro and ad no ri3 t to institute t e proceedin3 for t e settlement of Isidro5s estate1 muc less procure t e appointment as administratri20 6t t e same time1 Josefina and er c ildren sou3 t t e appointment of ;ir3inia as special administratri2 and Josefina as t e re3ular administratri20 LC 3ranted Josefina and er c ildren5s petition and appointed ;ir3inia as special administratri20 Teresita t en filed a petition see@in3 action for li'uidation of t e partners ip supposedly formed durin3 er co a4itation wit Isidro0 LC issued a restrainin3 order to wit old t e ;ir3inia and Josefina from disposin3 any of t e properties1 specifically includin3 a ouse in For4es Par@ ;ir3inia and Josefina resisted t e restrainin3 order and posited t at Teresita was not entitled to t e in=unction 4ecause er ri3 t to t e properties is still dou4tful and is in dispute P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e ", of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % LC lifts t e restrainin3 order and orders Teresita not to divest ;ir3inia er possession of t e For4es Par@ property< owever it also en=oined ;ir3inia from sellin31 disposin3 or encum4erin3 said property in any matter pendin3 resolution of t e disputes Teresita alle3es t at t e For4es Par@ property was underta@en =ointly 4y er and Isidro and s e even contri4uted usin3 er own e2clusive funds Josefina and ;ir3inia dispute t is claim and say t e ouse was 4uilt wit Isidro5s funds alone and wit out Teresita5s intervention0 Teresita presents proof t at s e o4tained loans w en t e For4es Par@ ouse was under construction0 % wit out t e 4enefit of marria3e1 are co%owners of t e =eepney0 T e motion was denied0 T e court 4ased t eir decision on 6rticle !-- CC w ic provides t at w en a man and a woman livin3 to3et er as us4and and wife1 4ut t ey are not married1 or t eir marria3e is void from t e 4e3innin31 t e property ac'uired 4y eit er or 4ot of t em t rou3 t eir wor@ or industry or t eir wa3es and salaries s all 4e 3overned 4y t e rules on co%owners ip I))U&)9 !0 *ON t e preliminary in=unction could 4e 3ranted in favor of Teresita 70 *ON Teresita can claim t at s e co%owned t e ouse wit Isidro 4y t e fact t at t ey were common%law spouses >&LD9 !0 In=unction rests upon t e sound discretion of t e court1 in t e e2ercise of w ic appellate courts will not interfere e2cept in a clear case of a4use0 6lt ou3 Teresita presented loans t at s e ad contracted durin3 t e period w en said ouse was under construction as proof of owners ip1 evidence was wantin3 w ic would correlate suc loans to t e construction wor@0 T us1 assertion t at t e Nort For4es Par@ ouse is

petitioner[s e2clusive property is unsupported and may not 4e permitted to override t e prima facie presumption t at ouse1 avin3 4een constructed on Isidro5s lot at is instance1 and durin3 is marria3e wit Josefina1 is part of t e estate t at s ould 4e under t e control of t e ;ir3inia 70 ?efore a common%law spouse can claim coowners ip of t eir spouse5s properties1 t ere must 4e a clear s owin3 t at t e commonlaw spouse ad1 durin3 co a4itation1 really contri4uted to t e ac'uisition of t e property involved0 JU6NIP6 v JO)& +!"$". #" )CR6 /C, &u3enio Jose was le3ally married to )ocorro Ramos 4ut ad 4een co a4itin3 wit defendantappelant Rosalia 6rroyo for !, yrs0 Jose was t e re3istered owner and operator of a passen3er =eepney involved in an accident of collision wit a frei3 t train resultin3 in t e deat of $ and p ysical in=uries to D of its passen3ers0 In t e resultin3 case for dama3es1 t e CFI rendered decision orderin3 Jose and Rosalia +t e mistress. to =ointly and severally pay0 Rosalia filed MFR prayin3 t at s e s ould not 4e lia4le to pay for dama3es since t e decision was 4ased on t e erroneous t eory t at s e was livin3 to3et er wit Jose as us4and and wife I))U&)9 !0 *ON 6rt !-- is applica4le in a case w ere one of t e parties in a common%law relations ip is incapacitated to marry % NO 70 *ON Rosalia1 w o is not a re3istered owner of t e =eep can 4e eld solidarily lia4le for dama3es wit t e re3istered owner % NO >&LD9 !0 It as 4een consistently ruled t at t e coowners ip contemplated in 6rt !--1 re'uires t at t e man and woman livin3 to3et er must not 4e incapacitated to contract marria3e0 )ince Jose is le3ally married to )ocorro1 t ere is an impediment for im to contract marria3e wit Rosalia0 T us1 Rosalia cannot 4e a co%owner of t e =eep0 T e =eep 4elon3s to t e CP of Jose and )ocorro0 T ere is t erefore no 4asis for t e lia4ility of Rosalia for dama3es arisin3 from t e deat of and p ysical in=uries suffered 4y t e passen3ers0 70 Rosalia1 w o is not t e re3istered owner can neit er 4e lia4le for dama3es caused 4y its operation1 4ecause only t e re3istered owner is responsi4le0 ;D6 D& CON)U&(R6 v ()I) +!"$!. /$ )CR6 /!D % Jose Consu3uera contracted 7 marria3es0 !st marria3e was wit Rosario Dia8 w ere t ey ad 7 c ildren0 7nd marria3e was wit ?asilia ?erdin wit $ c ildren0 Later e died0 ?ot marria3es were contracted in 3ood fait 0 6s a mem4er of ()I)1 e was entitled to 4ot a retirement insurance and life insurance0 T e life insurance was paid to ?erdin and er c ildren w o were t e desi3nated 4eneficiaries named in t e policy0 T e retirement policy did not desi3nate a 4eneficiary0 >ence1 t e petition0 ()I)9 ^ to Rosario +#N!,. and ^ to ?asilia +!N!, 4etween ?asilia and t eir seven c ildren.0 CFI9 )ame wit ()I)0 I))U&9 *ON ?asilia is entitled to t e proceeds of t e retirement 4enefits 4ecause s e was =ust t e second wife0 >&LD9 Ges0 T e marria3e was contracted in 3ood fait and so it is =ust and fair for t em to receive it0 Not =ust 4ecause t e retirement does not name a 4eneficiary1 means t at it s ould follow w at was P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e "$ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 written in t e life insurance 4enefits0 It is =ust and fair to reco3ni8e t e second wife it 4ein3 t at t e marria3e was done in (OOD F6IT>0 Provisions on retirement came w en Com 6ct !#, was amended 4y R6 ,,C on !"D! w ic means t at t ere was no intention for t e life insurance 4eneficiaries to automatically 4e t e retirement 4eneficiaries also0 ?esides1 it is also re'uired for t e mem4er to specifically write t e name of t e 4eneficiary0 AMa5am ?et as@s9 * en do you consider 3ood fait in marria3esB Only wit re3ard to 4elief in t e aut ority of t e solemni8in3 officer0 M6:&G v C6 +!"#-. !7" )CR6 !#$ Mel4ourne Ma2ey and Re3ina Morales started livin3 to3et er in !"C/ in dmilitary fas ion5 accordin3 to t eir c ildren +w ic t e courts did not reco3ni8e.0 T ey ad , c ildren9 Jo n Carlos1 Lucille1 Mar3aret1 Florence1 Fred1 and (eor3e0 &2cept for t e youn3est son1 all t e c ildren were 4orn 4efore t e disputed properties were ac'uired0 T ey ad t eir c urc marria3e in !"!"1 and sometime after1 Re3ina Morales died0 T e disputed properties were ac'uired in !"!! and !"!7 4efore t e !"!" c urc marria3e0 Re3ina Morales Ma2ey died in !"!" sometime after t e c urc weddin30 T e us4and remarried in !"D/1 is second wife Julia Pamatluan Ma2ey1 usin3 a power of attorney1 sold t e properties to t e respondent spouses1 Mr0 and Mrs0 ?eato C0 Macayra0 T is sale accordin3 to t e petitioners was un@nown to t em until in !",!0 Petitioners sou3 t to annul t e sale

ar3uin3 t at t e properties were common properties of t eir parents0 Trial court applied 6rt0 !-- of t e Civil Code statin3 t at E* en a man and a woman live to3et er as us4and and wife1 4ut t ey are not married1 or t eir marria3e is void from t e 4e3innin31 t e property ac'uired 4y eit er or 4ot of t em t rou3 t eir wor@ or industry or t eir wa3es and salaries s all 4e 3overned 4y t e rules on co%owners ip0F Trial court ruled in t eir favor annullin3 t e sale and order t e return of t e land to t em plus ot er costs0 Court of 6ppeals reversed statin3 t at lands in 'uestion were e2clusive properties of Mel4ourne Ma2ey since Re3ina Morales was in no position to 4e a4le to contri4ute =ointly to t e ac'uisition of property0 I))U&)9 !0 *ON properties were Mel4ourne Ma2ey5s e2clusive property 70 *ON t e p rase E=oint effortsF was limited and pertained only to monetary contri4utions >&LD9 !0 NO0 T e said properties were products of t e =oint efforts and industry of Mel4ourne and 70 /0 Re3ina even if t ey were not le3ally married at t e time of its ac'uisition0 NO0 )C ruled contrary to C61 statin3 t at C6 limitedly construed t e p rase E=oint effortsF and confined t em to mean financial effort0 )C reco3ni8ed t at even wit out t e 4enefit of marria3e1 Mel4ourne and Re3ina lived to3et er and assumed t e roles of us4and and wife1 Re3ina as dadministrator5 of t eir domestic affairs w ile Mel4ourne wor@s in t e colonial 3overnment0 )C reco3ni8es woman5s contri4ution to t e co%owners ip of unmarried couples even if s e is not wor@in3 outside t e ome0 )C said t at t is was t e correct interpretation of t e Civil Code 4ecause t e woman cannot 4e e2pected to 3ive up er role as omema@er and 3o out to earn an income0 ;6LD&) v RTC +!""#. 7,C )CR6 77! % 6ntonio ;aldes and Consuelo (ome8 were married on Jan D1 !"$!0 In !""71 ;alde8 sou3 t t e declaration of nullity of t e marria3e in t e SC RTC1 pursuant to 6rt /,1 FC +mutual psyc olo3ical incapacity to comply wit t eir essential marital o4li3ations. w ic RTC 3ranted0 &2%spouses were directed to start proceedin3s on t e li'uidation of t eir common properties as defined 4y 6rt !-$1 FC1 and to comply wit t e provisions of 6rt DC% D71 FC1 wit in /C days from notice of t is decision0 Consuelo (ome8 sou3 t a clarification of t e direction of compliance wit 6rts DC%D7 assertin3 t at t e FC contained no provisions on t e procedure for t e li'uidation of common property in \unions wit out marria3e0\ % RTC t us clarified t at considerin3 t at 6rt !-$ e2plicitly provides t at t e property ac'uired 4y 4ot parties durin3 t eir union1 in t e a4sence of proof to t e contrary1 are presumed to ave 4een o4tained t rou3 t e =oint efforts of t e parties and will 4e owned 4y t em in e'ual s ares1 e2%spouses will own t eir family ome and all t eir properties for t at matter in e'ual s ares0 % In t e li'uidation and partition of properties owned in common 4y t e e2%spouses1 t e provisions on owners ip found in t e CC s all apply0 6nd on t e issue of disposin3 t e family dwellin31 considerin3 t at t is Court as already declared t e marria3e as null and void a4 initio1 pursuant to 6rt !-$1 t e property re3ime of petitioner and respondent s all 4e 3overned 4y t e rules on owners ip and provisions of 6rts0 !C7 and !7" of t e FC finds no application0 Petitioner5s MFR was denied and in is recourse to t e )C1 e su4mits t at 6rt DC%D7 s ould 4e controllin30 I))U&9 *ON provisions 6rt DC%D7 are controllin3 K NO0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#% 7CC" Pa3e "# of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 >&LD9 TC correctly applied t e law0 In a void marria3e1 re3ardless of t e cause t ereof1 t e property relations of t e parties durin3 t e period of co a4itation is 3overned eit er 4y t e provisions of 6rt !-$ +a rema@e of 6rt !--1 CC. or 6rt !-#1 FC0 T e particular @ind of co%owners ip in 6rt !-$ applies w en a man and a woman1 sufferin3 no ille3al impediment to marry eac ot er1 so e2clusively live to3et er as us4and and wife under a void marria3e or wit out t e 4enefit of marria3e0 T e term \capacitated\ in t e provision refers to t e le3al capacity of a party to contract marria3e0 Under t is property re3ime1 property ac'uired 4y 4ot spouses t rou3 t eir wor@ and industry s all 4e 3overned 4y t e rules on e'ual co%owners ip0 6rt !-$ as clarified 6rt !--1 CC and now e2pressly provides t at9 o Neit er party can dispose or encum4er 4y act inter vivos is or er s are in co%owners ip property1 wit out consent of t e ot er1 durin3 t e period of co a4itation< and o In t e case of a void marria3e1 any party in 4ad fait s all forfeit is or er s are in t e co%owners ip in favor of t eir common

c ildren< in default t ereof or waiver 4y any or all of t e common c ildren1 eac vacant s are s all 4elon3 to t e respective survivin3 descendants1 or still in default t ereof1 to t e innocent party0 T e forfeiture s all ta@e place upon t e termination of t e co a4itation +6rt !-$. or declaration of nullity of t e marria3e +6rts -/1 DC1 D!1 FC.0 * en t e common%law spouses suffer from a le3al impediment to marry or w en t ey do not live e2clusively wit eac ot er +as us4and and wife.1 only t e property ac'uired 4y 4ot of t em t rou3 t eir actual =oint contri4ution of money1 property or industry s all 4e owned in common and in proportion to t eir respective contri4utions0 )uc contri4utions and correspondin3 s ares1 owever1 are prima facie presumed to 4e e'ual0 T e s are of any party w o is married to anot er s all accrue to t e 6CP or CP(1 as t e case may 4e1 if so e2istin3 under a valid marria3e0 If t e party w o as acted in 4ad fait is not validly married to anot er1 is or er s are s all 4e forfeited in t e manner already eretofore e2pressed0 % T e rules set up to 3overn t e li'uidation of eit er t e 6CP or t e CP(1 t e property re3imes reco3ni8ed for valid and voida4le marria3es +in t e latter case until t e contract is annulled.1 are irrelevant to t e li'uidation of t e co%owners ip t at e2ists 4etween common%law spouses0 In all ot er cases1 it is not to 4e assumed t at t e law as also meant to ave coincident property relations1 on t e one and1 4etween spouses in valid and voida4le marria3es +4efore annulment. and1 on t e ot er1 4etween common%law spouses or spouses of void marria3es1 leavin3 to ordain1 on t e latter case1 t e ordinary rules on co%owners ip su4=ect to t e provisions of t e Family Code on t e \family ome1\ i0e01 t e provisions found in Title ;1 C apter 71 of t e Family Code1 remain in force and effect re3ardless of t e property re3ime of t e spouses0 NICD6O C6RINO v L&& C6RINO +7CC!. /D! )CR6 !7$ Case of t e )usan%lovin3 police % !"," )antia3o Carino )usan Nicdao1 ad 7 dau3 ters % !C Nov !""7 )antia3o Carino married )usan Gee1 no c ild after almost !C years of co a4itation 7/ Nov !""7 e passed away under t e care of )usan Gee w o li@ewise spent for is medical and 4urial e2pense % Nicdao was a4le to collect P!-,1CCC from M?6I1 PCCUI1 Commutation1 N6POLCOM and P6(%I?I( w ile Gee received a total of P7!1CCC from ()I) Life and ?urial as well as 4urial 4enefit from )))0 Gee filed a petition to order Nicdao to return to er ^ of t e P!-,1CCC collectively dominated as Edeat 4enefitsF % RTC find in favor of t e petitioner 4ased on t e 3round t at t e deceased marria3e to Nicdao is void a4 initio for wantin3 of a marria3e license orderin3 t e respondent to pay P$/1CCC and cost of liti3ation C6 up eld RTC I))U&9 *ON Gee is entitled to alf of t e Edeat 4enefitsF of Carino 3iven to Nicdao >&LD9 No0 Gee +second wife. is not entitled to t e said s are of t e deat 4enefits 3iven to Nicdao0 )ince 4ot marria3es are void1 t e first marria3e lac@in3 marria3e license and t e latter c aracteri8ed as su4se'uent marria3e contracted wit out =udicial declaration of nullity of t e previous marria3e0 T e property re3ime applica4le to 4ot marria3es is 3overned 4y 6rt !-$ and !-# FC0 Marria3e to Nicdao9 covered 4y 6rt !-$ w ic covers unions of two parties and not 4arred from contractin3 said marria3e 4ut w ose marria3e is nonet eless declared void for ot er reason1 suc in t is case w en t e marria3e of t e petitioner to t e deceased is to 4e declared void due to lac@ of marria3e license0 Under t e said provision t e properties ac'uired durin3 t e su4sistin3 co a4itation is deemed to 4e o4tained 4y t e parties5 =oint efforts1 wor@ or industry and s all 4e owned 4y t em in e'ual s ares0 T>U)9 alf of t e disputed Edeat 4enefitsF of t e deceased s all 4e 3iven to Nicdao and t e ot er alf s all pass 4y intestate succession to is le3al eirs w o are is c ildren wit Nicdao0 Marria3e to Gee9 3overned 4y 6rt !-# w ic refers to t e property re3ime of unions 4etween parties P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#% 7CC" Pa3e "" of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 w o are co a4itin3 wit out marria3e and is li@ewise 4arred to contract marria3e since a =udicial declaration of nullity of is marria3e to Nicdao is not o4tained 4efore o4tainin3 said marria3e to Gee0 In t is property re3ime t e properties ac'uired 4y t e parties t rou3 t eir actual =oint contri4ution s all 4elon3 to t e co%owners ip1 owever wa3es1 salaries earned 4y eac party is re3arded as is e2clusive property< it follows t erefore t at since t ese 4enefits were accrued 4y t e deceased t rou3 is contri4utions to t ese

a3encies w ile e was servin3 as a policeman t en t ese 4enefits e2clusively 4elon3 to imV unless respondent Gee 3ives proof to t e contrary and t us s e claim t ese said 4enefits0 RI;&R6 v >&IR) OF ;ILL6NU&;6 +7CC,. -", )CR6 !/D % !"!/ or !"!-1 Romualdo ;illanueva 6manda Musn3i 6manda died on 6pril 7C1 !",/0 * ile Romualdo5s marria3e wit 6manda was still su4sistin31 e co a4ited wit Pacita (on8ales and 4ot lived as us4and and wife wit out t e 4enefit of marria3e from !"7$ to !",/0 % In t e course of t eir co a4itation1 Pacita and Romualdo ac'uired several properties0 I))U&9 *ON t e real properties ac'uired 4y Pacita and Romualdo were e'ually owned 4y t em K Depends on t e date of ac'uisition +relative to 6manda5s deat . and proof of Pacita5s contri4ution >&LD9 % ?ecause t e co a4itation of Pacita and Romualdo from !"7$ to !",/ was adulterous1 t eir property relations durin3 t ose /, years were not 3overned 4y 6rticle !-- CC1 w ic applies only if t e couple livin3 to3et er is not in any way incapacitated from 3ettin3 married0 % 6ccordin3 to t e doctrine laid down 4y Juani8a v0 Jose1 no co%owners ip e2ists 4etween parties to an adulterous relations ip0 % In 63apay v0 Palan31 Court e2pounded t is doctrine 4y declarin3 t at in suc a relations ip1 it is necessary for eac of t e partners to prove is or er actual contri4ution to t e ac'uisition of property in order to 4e a4le to lay claim to any portion of it0 Presumption of co%owners ip and e'ual contri4ution do not apply0 >ere1 t e records s ow only four properties ac'uired 4y Pacita and Romualdo 4etween !"7$ and !",/ w ic t ey re3istered in 4ot t eir names0 T e records are devoid of any evidence t at Pacita contri4uted anyt in3 to t e ac'uisition of t ese properties0 None of t ese four parcels s ould accrue to t e petitioners0 T ere is only one parcel of land t at is re3istered solely in Pacita5s name0 ?ecause Romualdo never actually c allen3ed t e validity of t e % % re3istration of t is land under Pacita5s name1 t is land s ould accrue entirely to er eirs0 T ere is also one property ac'uired 4y 4ot Pacita and Romualdo after 6manda5s deat in !",/0 T is must 4e 3overned 4y rules on coowners ip pursuant to 6rticle !-- CC0 >ence1 alf of it s ould pertain to Pacita5s eirs and t e ot er alf1 to Romualdo5s0 T e rest of t e properties re3istered in Romualdo5s name were also ac'uired after 6manda5s deat 1 and t erefore pursuant to 6rticle !-- CC1 alf of it s ould pertain to Pacita5s eirs1 t e ot er alf1 to Romualdo5s0 )6(UID v C6 +7CC/. -C/ )CR6 ,$# (ina was t en !$ years old and le3ally married1 w en s e met Jacinto0 )ince s e was separated in fact from er us4and1 s e co a4ited wit Jacinto0 T ey lived in t e ouse 4uilt on t e lot of Jacinto5s fat er0 Jacinto wor@ed as a patron of t eir fis in3 vessel0 (ina first wor@ed as a fis dealer +in Marindu'ue.1 t en as an entertainer in Japan0 6fter " years1 t e couple decided to separate0 % (ina as@s t at s e 4e declared t e sole owner of t e personal properties +appliances1 furniture.1 w ic s e purc ased wit er income as fis dealer durin3 t eir co a4itation1 and t at $C1CCC 4e reim4ursed to er as er s are in t e construction of t eir ouse0 T e latter5s fundin3 4ein3 fruits of er income as an entertainer0 % Jacinto1 on t e ot er and1 claims t at t e petitioner ad no s are in t e construction of t e ouse and t at s e couldn5t ave 4ou3 t t e mentioned personal properties as sellin3 fis was =ust a pastime for er0 It was resolved t at 4ot parties contri4uted to t eir =oint account +from w ic t e funds for ac'uirin3 said properties came from.1 4ut t ere is no sufficient proof of t eir respective s ares0 I))U&9 *ON t e properties in dispute s all 4e ad=udicated in favor of (ina alone % NO >&LD9 (ina is not le3ally capacitated to marry1 4ut s e nonet eless co a4ited wit Jacinto0 6s suc 1 6rt !-# of t e FC s all apply to t e properties ac'uired durin3 t eir co a4itation0 T eir s are in t e common property s all 4e determined 4y t e eac of t e parties5 EactualF contri4ution0 T erefore1 since t e receipt presented as evidence only stated P!!1-!/ was spent for t e purc ase of construction materials1 t en t is is amount w ic s all 4e 3iven to (ina0 *it re3ard to t e personal properties1 since t ere is an a4sence of proof1 it is presumed t at (ina and Jacinto5s actual contri4utions are of e'ual amount0 T e amount of P!!!1/$D1 said amount s all 4e divided e'ually0 T us entitlin3 (ina to a reim4ursement of PDD1,#$0DC as er s are0 )6N LUI) v )6N LUI)%)6(6LON(O) +7CC$. P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !CC of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 D!- )CR6 7"-

Felicisimo )an Luis1 a former 3overnor of La3una1 contracted t ree marria3es in is lifetime0 % !st9 ;ir3inia )ulit wit , c ildren +Rodolfo1 Mila &d3ar1 Linda1 &milita and Manuel1 petitioners.0 % D years after is first wife5s deat 1 e married an 6merican citi8en named Merry Lee w o 4e3ot im an only son0 >owever1 Lee o4tained a divorce decree in >awaii after five years of marria3e0 One year after t e divorce decree was 3ranted1 e married t e respondent Felicidad )a3alon3os )an Luis1 t ey ad no c ildren0 Upon Felicisimo5s deat 1 Felicidad applied for t e dissolution of t eir con=u3al partners ip asset and t e settlement of t e decedent5s estate wit er as t e administrator in Ma@ati RTC0 T e c ildren from t e first marria3e opposed t is petition0 T eir contentions are as follows9 o Case s ould ave 4een filed at )ta0 Cru81 La3una o Marria3e 4etween t em is null and void 4ecause it is 4i3amous1 t e marria3e 4etween t eir fat er and Merry Lee was still su4sistin3 % In response1 Felicidad adduced t e decree of divorce in order to prove Felicisimo5s capacity to marry0 ) e also invo@es t e Suita and ;an Dorn rulin3 w erein divorce 4y alien spouses is li@ewise valid to t e Filipino spouse0 Notwit standin3 t e divorce decree s e offers1 t e evidentiary value as laid down in t e (arcia case was not complied wit 0 I))U&9 *ON pendin3 t e determination of validity of t e forei3n divorce1 Felicidad as le3al standin3 to apply for letters of administration0 >&LD9 G&)0 ) e may re'uest for letters of administration 4ecause s e 'ualifies as an Einterested personF 4y virtue of t eir co a4itation0 If s e proves t e validity of Felicisimo5s divorce and conse'uentially1 is capacity to marry 4ut fails to prove t e validity of t eir own marria3e1 s e may 4e considered as a co%owner under 6rt !-- of CC +6rt !-$ FC.0 Li@ewise1 if in t e case s e fails to prove t e validity of 4ot t e divorce and t e marria3e1 t e applica4le provision would 4e 6rt !-# CC +re3ime of limited co%owners ip.0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !C! of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 :I0 T>& F6MILG F6MILG may 4e defined as a natural and social institution founded on t e con=u3al union1 4indin3 to3et er t e individuals composin3 it1 for t e common accomplis ment of t e individual and spiritual ends of life1 under t e aut ority of t e ori3inal ascendant eadin3 it0 +Tolentino1 )empioDiy. ?6)&) OF T>& F6MILG !0 matrimonial union 70 relations ip wit in t e de3ree determined 4y law1 w et er ille3itimate or le3itimate /0 adoption IMPORT6NC& OF T>& F6MILG !0 t e family is an essential factor in t e 3eneral1 social and even political life 70 constant livin3 to3et er of us4and and wife1 and of parents and c ildren1 contri4utes to t e development of a stron3 sense of duty an aptitude for eroic sacrifice and of t e love 4y future 3enerations of t e traditions and moral concepts of t ose w o preceded t em /0 it is an indispensa4le element of social co esion and e'uili4rium -0 t e vitality and stren3t of t e )tate depends upon t e solidarity of its nucleus w ic is t e family % &030 spiritual relations1 se2ual relations of t e spouses1 career or profession t at parents s ould c oose for t eir c ildren1 practice or customs in t e domestic life1 distri4ution of c ildren5s in eritance +alt ou3 law provides !DC Family relations include9 ?etween us4and and wife ?etween parents and c ildren 6mon3 ot er ascendants and descendants 6mon3 4rot ers and sisters1 w et er of t e full or alf4lood FC1 6rt !0 70 /0 -0 A >alf%4lood means avin3 one common parent CL6))&) OF F6MILG R&L6TION) !0 Natural K 4y consan3uinity or affinity 70 Civil K created 4y law e030 adoption /0 Reli3ious K created 4y sacraments suc as 4aptism and confirmation +ninon3 Q ninan3. Family relations e2ist even w en t ey are not livin3 to3et er Ot er relatives livin3 wit t e family are mem4ers of t e ouse old1 4ut not of t e family Nep ews1 nieces1 cousins1 aunts or uncles are inconsistent wit t e Filipino culture Ille3itimate c ildren arenot relatives included at least in t e family of t eir mot er %M )empio%Diy is wron3T Relatives include 4ot t e us4and5s and t e wife5s % 60 Mem4ers of t e Family !0 Nature and )cope of Family Relations 70 )upport FC1 6rt !"- )upport O everyt in3 indispensa4le for sustenance1 dwe transportation1 in @eepin3 wit t e financial capacity of t e family0 FC1 6rt !-" T e family1 4ein3 t e foundation of t e nation1 is a 4asic social institution w ic pu4lic policy 4e supported referred to in t e T e education of t e person entitled to c eris es and protects0 Conse'uently1 family relations are 3overned 4y law trainin3 for some professional1 trade or

vocation1 even 4eyond a3e of t e family s all 4e reco3ni8ed or 3iven effect0 3oin3 to and from sc ool1 or to and from place of wor@0 It is only t e e2ternal aspect of family relations t at is 3overned 4y law !0 Internal aspect sacred to t e family and inaccessi4le to law &030 spiritual relations1 se2ual relations of t e spouses1 career or profession t at parents s ould c oose for t eir c ildren1 practice or customs in t e domestic life1 distri4ution of c ildren5s in eritance +alt ou3 law provides for e'ual le3itimes of c ildren. ?6)I)9 law must respect t e freedom of action of man wit in is sp eres 70 &2ternal aspect ?6)I)9 it is only ere t at t ird persons and pu4lic interest are concerned A CC didn5t include transportation1 4ut FC did 4ecause it is possi4le for one to save up on ot er e2penses li@e food and clot in3 4ut not on transportation e2penses1 especially if t e place is not reac a4le 4y wal@in30 A Full e2tent means Eindispensa4leF and Efinancial capacityF0 T is p rase is also seen in t e two succeedin3 provisions for support of family mem4ers and ille3itimate 4rot ers and sisters0 A E&ven 4eyond a3e of ma=orityF P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !C7 of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 FC1 6rt !0 70 /0 -0 D0 A Rule on support is different from rule on in eritance !"D O4li3ation to support eac ot er to t e w ole e2tent FC1 6rt !"" * enever two or more persons are o4li3ed to 3ive s spouses persons in t is order9 le3itimate ascendants and descendants !0 spouse parents and t eir le3itimate c ildren and t e le3itimate 70 descendants in nearest of t e latter and ille3itimate c ildren de3ree +3randc ildren. /0 ascendants in nearest de3ree parents and t eir ille3itimate c ildren and t e le3itimate or 4rot ers and sisters -0 ille3itimate c ildren of t e latter +3randc ildren. le3itimate 4rot ers and sisters1 w et er full or alf%4lood FC1 6rt 7CC * en t e o4li3ation to 3ive support falls upon two or mo 4etween t em in proportion to t e resources of eac 0 In case of ur3ent need and 4y special circumstances1 =ud3e may order to is ri3 t to claim from t e ot er o4li3ors t e s are due from t em0 FC1 6rt !", ?rot ers and sisters1 not le3itimately related1 w et er full or alf% 4lood If two t e 4rot er or support at t e same time from one o4li3or1 follo eac ot er to t e full e2tent &:C&PT only w en t e need for support ofrecipients claimsister1 c ild will 4e preferred0 imputa4le to t e claimant5s fault or ne3li3ence0 A T e e2ception does not apply to le3itimate si4lin3s so in a nuts ell1 if you ave a la8y and irresponsi4le 4rot er1 e can lawfully as@ for your support w ic you are o4li3ed to 3ive0 FC1 6rt !"$ For t e support of le3itimate ascendants 4y9 +!. descendants1 le3itNille3itimate< and A T e spouse as 4etter opportunity to loo@ for ot er means to support imN erself t an t e c ild0 FC1 6rt 7C! Proportion of support stipulated in 6rt !"D and 6rt !",9 re FC1 6rt 7C7 )upport may 4e increased or reduced accordin3 to t e red of o4li3or0 +7. % FC1 6rt 7C/ T e o4li3ation to 3ive support s all 4e demanda4le from needs it for maintenance1 4ut is paya4le only upon demand0 only separate property of person o4li3ed to 3ive support s all 4e answera4le in default of separate property1 6CP and CP( will advance support1 A No o4li3ation to pay arrears in support0 )upport is li'uidation 4rot ers and sisters1 le3itNille3itimate * at properties are lia4le for t e support of t e followin3 relativesB !0 70 /0 spouse common c ildren of spouse c ildren of spouse 4y anot er marria3e Ille3itimate c ildren of eit er spouse 6CPNCP( 6CPNCP( 6CPNCP( +4ecause t ey are still le3itimateT. CP(9 separate property of t e parent%spouse1 4ut if t e same is insufficient1 t e CP( if financially capa4le +read9 all le3al o4li3ations of t e community are covered.0 T e support paid to t e c ild s all 4e deducted from t e s are of t e parent%spouse at t e time of li'uidation of t e partners ip not retroactive0 It is no lon3er indispensa4le since one as survived even wit out t e support +alt ou3 refer to 6rt 7C, and 7C#.0 In ot er words1 no reim4ursement can 4e done wit support0 A Ma5am ?et says9 If you5re a le3itimate c ild1 everyt in3 =ust tric@les down to you0 Gou don5t ave to as@ for support or anyt in3 4ecause you =ust 3o to t e dinin3 ta4le and t ere5s food waitin3 for you0 -0 FC1 6rt 7C- T e supporter ave t e option to fulfill t e o4li3ation !0 payin3 t e allowance fi2ed 70 maintainin3 in t e dwellin3 t e person w o as t e ri3 t to t ereto A&2ample of a moral o4stacle9 a wife does not want t e us4and to @eep an ille3itimate c ild wit t em % step4rot er and stepsister as affair FC1 6rt 7CD T e ri3 t to receive support under t is Title s all not 4e le FC1 6rt !"# Pendente lite of le3al separation1

annulment supported from properties of 6CPNCP(0 ACreditors cannot 3o after t e support 4ecause it is Eindispensa4le1F ence essential to survival of recipient0 6fter final =ud3ment1 duty to mutual support 4etween spouses ceases court says 3uilty spouse s ould support innocent spouse1 specifyin3 terms of suc order0 FC1 6rt 7C, * en1 wit out @nowled3e of t e person o4li3ed to 3 ave a ri3 t to claim t e same from t e former1 unless it appear reim4ursed0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !C/ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 FC1 6rt 7C$ * en t e person o4li3ed to support anot er un=ustlyCC1 6rt /CD fails to 3ive support funeral arran3ement s all 4e i refuses or Duty and ri3 t to ma@e 4y t e latter1 any t ird person may furnis support to t e needy individual1 In case of descendants of t e same de3ree1 or of 4rot ers support0 o4li3ed to 3ive support0 T is 6rticle s all apply particularly w en casefat er or mot er of paternal s allt e a3e of ma=ority t e of ascendants1 t e a c ild under ave 4etter ri3 t0 un=ustly refuses to support or fails to 3ive support to t e c ild w en ur3ently needed0 FC1 6rt 7C# In case of contractual support or t at 3iven 4y will support s all 4e su4=ect to levy on attac ment or e2ecution0 CC1 6rt /C, &very funeral s all 4e in @eepin3 wit t e social position Furt ermore1 contractual support s all 4e su4=ect to ad=ustment circumstances manifestly 4eyond t e contemplation of t e parties0 )P&CI6L RUL&) ON CON;&NTION6L )UPPORT !0 4y contract +inter vivos. or 4y will +mortis causa. 70 su4=ect to modifications as circumstances may arise 4eyond t e contemplation of t e parties L6C)ON v L6C)ON +7CC,. -"" le3itimate )CR6 ,$$ % &dward +petitioner. Lea Da4an%Lacson +respondent. c ildren9 Maowee and Maonaa % Fat er a4andons t e family 4ut mot er did not 4ad3er im for support1 relyin3 on is note in !"$D sayin3 e would support is dau3 ters Despite 4ein3 3ainfully employed and ownin3 several pieces of valua4le lands1 &dward did not support t e family since !"$, To provide for er dau3 ters1 Lea 4orrowed from er 4rot er1 Noel Daman t e amount of P-CCIP,CCI In !""D1 Lea filed an action for support and t e RTC ordered &dward to compensate plaintiffs support of P70-", M w ic is total of !# years of support in arrears C6 dismissed &dward5s appeal I))U&9 !0 *ON t e support s ould 4e computed from !"$, to !""-N*ON is o4li3ation 4e3an upon a le3itimate demand in !""D w erein t e action for support was filed +6rt 7C/ FC. 70 *ON t e amount advanced 4y Noel Da4an s ould 4e reim4ursed >&LD9 !0 G&)0 6s early as !"$D1 Lea already re'uested or plead for support from er us4and1 w ic was no less a demand0 70 G&)0 Pursuant to 6rt 7C$ FC1 Da4an can ri3 tfully e2act reim4ursement0 Failure on t e part of t e fat er is esta4lis ed0 It is also necessary to avoid un=ust enric ment0 C6 and RTC affirmed0 A >ow would you reconcile CC1 6rt 7D +i0e0 t ou3 tless e2trava3ance in e2penses for leasure or display durin3 a period of acute pu4lic want or emer3ency. wit CC 6rt /C,B Ma5am ?et says t ey are in conflict 4ut didn5t e2plain any furt er0 CC1 6rt /C$ T e funeral s all 4e in accordance wit t e e2pressed w e2pression1 is reli3ious 4eliefs or affiliation s all determine t e funeral s all 4e decided upon 4y t e person o4li3ed to ma@e arra ot er mem4ers of t e family0 CC1 6rt /C# No uman remains s all 4e retained1 interred1 disposed o mentioned in t e support provision0 CC1 6rt /C" 6ny person w o s ows disrespect to t e dead1 or wro family of t e deceased for dama3es1 material and moral0 CC1 6rt /!C T e construction of a tom4stone or mausoleum s all 4 c ar3ea4le to t e con=u3al partners ip property1 if t e deceased is P&NO?)COT 6R&6 >OU)IN( D&;&LOPM&NT CORP0 v CITG OF ?R&*&R +!"#!. -/# 60 7D0 !- % Plaintiff wants to 4uild a ouse for si2 retarded adultsNolder minors in an area 8oned for a sin3le family residential use T e city pro i4ited t e plaintiffs 4ecause si2 retarded adults do not fall wit in t e definition of EfamilyF 6ccordin3 to t e ordinance1 t e re'uirements for classification as a accordin3 to Ma5am ?et 1 t is is family are9 !. does is own coo@in3 si3nificant 4ecause of t e assumption t at families ave meals to3et er 7. w ic means a traditional family%li@e structure ofdomestic 4ond e2ists ouse old aut ority0 T e staff of t e Enut ouseF cannot 4e considered as central fi3ure of EresidentF aut ority 4ecause t ey a0 would not necessarily reside in t e ome 40 would serve in a rotatin3 4asis /. 'uality of

co esiveness and permanence a0 t e avera3e stay of a resident would 4e one and one% alf years 40 t ey would not control Et e c oice of w o t e incomin3 residents would 4e nor w en ot er residents would leaveF AMa5am ?et 5s o4iter9 6 ouse wit si2 nuts in it in a middle of a peaceful su4ur4ia would undermine t e community5s serenity0 /0 Funerals P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !C- of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 A6pplica4ility of definition of family in t e P ilippines9 T e presence of a permanent fi3ure of ouse old aut ority may 4e pro4lematic in families wit OF* parents0 +6nd t en s e 3oes on to tell stories a4out t eir family1 wit Dean Pan3alan3an 4ein3 in >I now for some professorial tas@s1 s e 3oes t ere almost every two wee@s to visit im0 T at t e airplane fare costs =ust as muc as t e tic@et to Davao0 Or rou3 ly P!71CCCT * oaT. 6nd so t e Con3ress s ould craft a definition t at reflects our culture and t e demand of t e times0 re'uired to e2ert efforts to arrive at a settlement 4efore an action is instituted0 (U&RR&RO v RTC Q >&RN6NDO +!""-. 77" )CR6 7$- % (audencio (uerrero and Pedro >ernando are 4rot ers%in%law 4ecause t eir wives are alf%sisters0 T ey 4ot claim owners ip of a lot0 % RTC ruled t at t e parties s ould ave alle3ed in t e complaint t at earnest efforts towards a compromise was e2erted since t ey are mem4ers of t e same family0 FC1 6rt !D! No suit 4etween mem4ers of t e same family s all >&LD9 ?rot ers%in% law are from mem4ers complaint prosper unless it s ould appear not t e verified of t e same family as enumerated in 6rt !DC0 No or petition t at earnest efforts toward a compromise ave 4een made no suc efforts were in fact made1 t e case must 4e dismissed earnest efforts toward a compromise are needed0 T is rule s all not apply to cases w ic may not 4e t e su4=ect of compromiseRTC +!""". >ONTI;&RO) v under CC ACC1 6rt 7C/D K uncompromisa4le matters9 a. civil status of persons +e030 paternity and filiation. 4. validity of a marria3e or le3al separation c. any 3round for le3al separation d. future support e. future le3itime f. =urisdiction of courts FU4ecause it is difficult to ima3ine a sadder and more tra3ic spectacle t an a liti3ation 4etween mem4ers of t e same family0F M&NDOP6 v C6 +!",$. !" )CR6 $D, Luisa de la Rosa Mendo8a +private resp. instituted t e case a3ainst er us4and Cecilio +plaintiff. * en us4and departed to U) to furt er is medical studies and profession1 e did not provide is pre3nant and sic@ly wife wit maintenance and support *ife filed action 4ut us4and moves for its dismissal on t e 3rounds no efforts to compromise were made >&LD9 No valid compromise can 4e made wit matters re3ardin3 future support0 M&ND&P v ?ION)ON Q &U(&NI6 +!"$$. #C )CR6 #7 % Mende8 and !! ot ers ar3ue t at t e court erred in dismissin3 t eir complaint a3ainst t e ?ionsons for lac@ of earnest efforts 4ein3 e2erted 4y t e parties to arrive at an amica4le settlement 4efore t e action was instituted1 t e parties 4ein3 mem4ers of t e same family0 >&LD9 T e liti3ants are not family mem4ers wit in t e contemplation of t e law0 T e parties are collateral relatives w o are not 4rot ers and sisters0 Only mem4ers of t e same family are /C" )CR6 /-C )pouses 63usto and Maria >ontiveros filed a complaint for dama3es in t eir land re3istration a3ainst 63ustos5s 4rot er (re3orio and t e latter5s wife1 Teodora 6yson0 Teodora and (re3orio denied t ey are married0 RTC9 dismissed case 4ecause it did verify as re'uired 4y 6rt !D! FC and t erefore it did not 4elieve t at earnest efforts ad 4een made to arrive at a compromise0 >&LD9 * enever a stran3er is party to a case1 6rt !D! will not apply0 Maria1 a sister%in%law of (re3orio is considered a stran3er since t e law does not consider in%laws as mem4ers of t e same family0 Teodora1 is also a stran3er to 6u3usto0 Remanded to RTC for furt er proceedin3s0 ?0 T e Family >ome FC1 6rt !D7 T e family ome1 constituted =ointly 4y t e us4and an t e dwellin3 ouse w ere t ey and t eir family reside and t e land on % % Unmarried ead can mean live%in partners1 eldest si4lin3Nc ild or widow Cannot 4e a family ome if you do not own t e land it is situated on ?eneficiaries cannot constitute is own family ome< ot erwise t ey can mi3rate from one place to anot er and ave lots of family ome to t e pre=udice of creditors T ere s ould 4e actual occupancy0 It does not matter if a portion of t e ouse is devoted for commercial purposes as lon3 as t e family resides on it0 FC1 6rt !D/ T e family ome is deemed constituted on a ouse and lo From t e time of its constitution and so

lon3 as any of its 4ene continues to 4e suc and is e2empt from e2ecution1 forced sale or e2tent of t e value allowed 4y t e law0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !CD of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 A Difference 4etween CC and FC rules on constitution of family ome9 CC re'uires =udicial declaration +done 4y filin3 a petition and wit t e approval of t e proper court. OR e2tra=udicial +done recordin3 of a pu4lic instrument in t e proper re3istry. for t e constitution of a family ome0 ?ut no one does t at1 so t e FC ma@es t e constitution of a family ome automatic0 FC1 6rt !D- T e 4eneficiaries of a family ome9 !0 us4and Q wife or an unmarried ead of family FC1 6rt !,C * en a creditor w ose claim is not amon3 t ose me and as reasona4le 3rounds to 4elieve t at t e family ome is actual apply to court for an order directin3 t e sale of t e property under e actual value of t e family ome e2ceeds t e ma2imum am constitution0 If t e increased actual value e2ceeds t e ma2imum all improvements introduced 4y t e personNs constitutin3 t e family om 4eneficiaries1 t e same rule and procedure s all apply0 6t t e e2ecution sale1 no 4id 4elow t e value allowed for t e family om ! 4e applied first to t e amount mentioned in 6rt !D$ 7 t en to lia4ilities under t e =ud3ment and costs +6!DD. / delivered to t e =ud3ment de4tor 70 parents1 ascendants1 descendants1 4rot ers and sisters1 ille3itimate or le3itimate1 w o are9 A Jud3ment de4tor is not a preferred de4tor li@e in a0 livin3 in t e family ome 6rt !DD 40 depend upon t e ead of t e family for le3al % 6ll t ree re'uirements +family relations1 actual residence and dependence for le3al support. must 4e present to 4ecome a 4eneficiary )o if t e wife dies1 t e mot er%in%law 4ecomes a stran3er to t e us4and and is no lon3er considered as 4eneficiary of t e family ome0 FC1 !0 70 /0 -0 A Ma5am ?et does not t in@ it5s a wise move for creditors to 3o after t e family ome 4ecause e puts is de4tor in a more financially precarious situation and t e creditor is not a priority0 FC1 6rt !,! For t e purposes of availin3 of t e 4enefits of a famil constitute1 or 4e t e 4eneficiary of only one family ome0 6rt !DD T e family ome s all 4e e2empt from e2ecution1 forced sale1 T e provisions of t is C apter s all also 3overn e2istin3 FC1 6rt !,7 or attac ment non%payment of ta2es applica4le0 de4ts incurred prior to t e constitution of t e family ome de4ts secured 4y mort3a3es on t e premises 4efore or after suc constitution de4ts due to la4orers1 mec anics1 arc itects1 4uilders1 materialmen and ot ers w o ave rendered service or furnis ed material for t e construction of t e 4uildin3 A 6ccordin3 to Tolentino1 Par - may also apply to repairs and improvements done to t e family ome to avoid redundancy of Par 7 since construction of t e ome would always 4e 4efore t e constitution of t e family ome0 FC1 6rt !D, Family ome must 4e part of t e 6CP or CP( or of t e e2clusive properties eit er spouse wit consent0 It may also 4e constituted 4y an unmarried ead of t e family on is or er own property0 )u4=ect of conditional sale on installments9 w ere owners ip is reserved 4y t e vendor only to 3uarantee payment of t e purc ase price1 it may 4e constituted as a family ome0 FC1 6rt !D$ T e actual value of family ome s all not e2ceed municipalities. and P7CC1CCC in rural1 as may fi2ed 4y law0 A Considerin3 t is Eprice ta3F imposed on family omes1 realistically spea@in31 t ere is no family ome in t e P ilippines anymore0 T e law must first see@ actuarial computation to update t e e'uivalent value in today5s economy0 FC1 6rt !D# It may 4e sold1 alienated1 donated1 assi3ned or encum4ered 4y t e ownerNs wit t e person constitutin3 t e same1 t e latter5s spouse and ma=ority of 4eneficiaries of le3al a3e FC1 6rt !D" Family ome s all continue despite t e deat of one or 4ot spouses family for a period of !C years or for as lon3 as t ere is a minor 4eneficiary a compellin3 reason0 Rule s all re3ardless of w oever owns t e property or constituted t e family ome0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !C, of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 )I6RI ;6LL&G &)T6T&) v LUC6)6N +!",C. !C" P il 7"- % Parcels of land owned 4y Filemon Lucasan were sold 4y t e s eriff at a pu4lic auction to satisfy a =ud3ment rendered a3ainst im0 Lucasan opposed wit respect to one parcel0 >e contends t at t e land is w ere e and is wife e2tra=udicially constituted a family ome ence t e land is e2empt from e2ecution0 I))U&9 *ON t e property is a family ome and e2empt from e2ecution for money =ud3mentB >&LD9 NO0 6

family ome constituted after a de4t as 4een incurred is not e2empt from e2ecution0 &ven if t e declaration of family ome predates t e money =ud3ment1 t e family ome may still 4e lia4le as lon3 as it is for payment of a de4t incurred 4efore t e constitution0 Ot erwise1 de4tors w o aim to circumvent t e law may pre=udice creditors0 MOD&SUILLO v ?R&;6 +!""C. !#D )CR6 $,, % Jose Mode'uillo is to indemnify t e relatives of 6udie )alinas w o died in a ve icular accident +!"$, Mar !,. involvin3 t e former0 In !"## January 7"1 C6 eld t at t e dama3es are to 4e satisfied on is 3oods and c attels w ic include a parcel of residential land0 Mode'uillo e2ecuted a motion to 'uas andNor set aside since t e same residential land is w ere t e family ome is 4uilt since !"," prior to t e commencement of t is case and as suc is e2empt from e2ecution1 forced sale or attac ment under 6rt !D7 and !D/ of t e FC e2cept for t e lia4ilities enumerated in 6rticle !DD0 6lso1 t e said =ud3ment de4t is not one of t ose listed in 6rticle !DD0 I))U&9 *ON t e said residential land as t e c aracteristic of a family ome and t us is e2empted from e2ecution >&LD9 NO0 % T e plaintiff misinterpreted 6rt !,7 of t e FC w ic provides t at Eall e2istin3 family residences at t e time of t e effectivity of FC are considered family omes and entitled to 4enefits of a family omeF to 4e retroactive0 6rt !D7 and 6rt !D/ cannot 4e applied retroactively0 6rt0 !D71 w ic pertains to t e automatic constitution of family ome 4y mere actual occupation1 cannot 4e invo@ed 4y t e plaintiff0 % 6lso1 t e de4t or lia4ility w ic was t e 4asis of t e =ud3ment arose or was incurred at t e time of t e ve icular accident on Marc !,1 !"$, and t e money =ud3ment arisin3 t erefrom was rendered 4y t e appellate court on January 7"1 !"##0 ?ot preceded t e effectivity of t e FC on 6u3ust /1 !"##0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !C$ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 T6N&O v C6 +!""". /C- )CR6 /C# Pa4lito Taneo filed an action a3ainst t e conveyance of is land to private respondent0 T e money =ud3ment of RTC was affirmed 4y C60 Taneo alle3es t at t e lands in 'uestion are e2empt from e2ecution for 4ein3 a family ome +e2tra=udicially constituted 4y is fat er as early as !",-.0 I))U&9 *ON t e family ome is e2empt from e2ecution >&LD9 NO0 6rt !D/ does not apply to family omes occupied prior to t e effectivity of FC and e2empted from o4li3ations incurred prior to t at same date +6u3 /1 !"##.0 6rt !,7 is not retroactive considerin3 t at t e de4t preceded t e FC +!",-.0 6lso1 a family ome s ould 4e erected on t e land owned 4y t e mem4ers of t e family +owned 4y Plutarco ;acalares.0 ;&R)OL6 v M6DOL6RI6 +7CC,. -"$ )CR6 /#D % Dr0 On3 O 3ranted P!M loan to Dolores Ledesma % Ledesma sold er ouse and lot located in Tandan3 )ora to spouses &duardo and &lsa ;ersola for P70DM0 )pouses paid Ledesma P!M as downpayment wit remainin3 4alance in mont ly installments )pouses ;ersola applied for a 7M loan wit 6siarust ?an@ in order to raise t e full amount t at Ledesma demanded % >owever1 t e spouses were not a4le to 3et t e loan 4ecause 6siatrust ?an@ discovered a notice of levy on e2ecution was annotated on t e title in connection wit Ledesma5s o4li3ation to a certain Miladay5s Jewels1 Inc01 in t e amount of P7!-17#-0 ?ecause of t is annotated encum4rance1 6siatrust did not re3ister said Real &state Mort3a3e and refused to release t e P7M loan of petitioners0 Dr0 On3 O filed Complaint after t e trial1 t e RTC and C6 ordered spouses ;ersola to pay Dr0 On3 O !0DM wit le3al interest Dr0 On3 O filed a Motion for &2ecution and 4ecause of t is1 t e s eriff sold at pu4lic auction t e property of spouses ;ersola0 )pouses ;ersola failed to redeem said property1 t us a ) eriff5s Final Deed of )ale was issued in favor of Dr0 On3 O 0 Dr0 On3 O filed and &2 Parte Motion for Issuance of Confirmation of Judicial )ale of Real Property of spouses )pouses ;ersola opposed said motion on t e 3round t at t e property sold is t e family ome of petitioners w ic accordin3 to t em is e2empt from e2ecution pursuant to 6rt0 !DD of t e Family Code0 I))U&9 *ON petitioners timely raised and proved t at t eir property is e2empt from e2ecutionB >&LD9 NO Court finds t at petitioner5s assertion for e2emption is a mere aftert ou3 t0 It was only after almost two years from t e time of t e e2ecution of sale and after t e ) eriff5s Final Deed of )ale was issued did petitioners ri3orously claim t at t e property in 'uestion is e2empt from e2ecution0 % )uc claim for e2emption s ould 4e set up and proved to t e ) eriff 4efore t e sale of

property at pu4lic auction0 Failure to do so would estop t e party from later claimin3 e2emption0 % T ere was also no s owin3 t at petitioners adduced evidence to prove t at it is indeed a family ome0 Instead of su4stantiatin3 t eir claim1 petitioners lan3uidly presupposed t at t e s eriff ad prior @nowled3e t at t e said property was constituted 4y t em as t eir family ome0 Note9 6 family ome is a real ri3 t w ic is 3ratuitous1 inaliena4le and free from attac ment1 constituted over t e dwellin3 place and t e land in w ic it is situated and it cannot 4e sei8ed 4y creditors e2cept in certain special cases0 ;&N&R6CION v M6NCILL6 +7CC,. -"D )CR6 $!7 % In !""D1 &li8a4et Mendinueta secured a P!07M loan from C arlie Mancilla0 ) e mort3a3ed er residential ouse and lot0 T e title indicated t at s e was Esin3leF Mendinueta failed to pay upon maturity so t e property was foreclosed0 ) e admitted er failure 4ut claims t at s e secured a loan from ?anco Filipino to pay Mancilla0 6ll s e5s as@in3 for now is t e reduction of t e mont ly interest0 It turns out t at &li8a4et is co a4itin3 wit a certain (eronimo ;eneracion wit w om s e as t ree @ids1 one of w om is Mary (race +petitioner.0 Mary (race see@s t e nullity of =ud3ment a3ainst t e mort3a3e 4ased on t e followin3 facts9 o (eronimo paid for t e mont ly installments of property since &li8a4et ad no source of income o Family ome is not lia4le for t e e2ecution 4ec (eronimo did not consent in mort3a3e +FC !D-. o Decision of RTC pre=udiced t eir ri3 t to t eir family ome and ereditary ri3 ts I))U&9 *ON t e family ome may 4e e2ecuted wit t e spouse5s consent wantin3 >&LD9 NO0 First t ere s ould 4e proof t at it was indeed a con=u3al ome and t at t eir fat er spent for t e ac'uisition0 T ey failed to append P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !C# of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 receipts of payments made 4y t e fat er0 Unsu4stantial claim of mot er5s lac@ of source of income 4ecause s e was a4le to 4orrow from ?anco Filipino0 Mot er never alle3ed t at said property was con=u3al and was t e family ome1 s e only wanted reduction of accrued interests0 P6TRICIO v D6RIO III +7CC,. DC$ )CR6 -/# Marcelino Dario died intestate0 >e survived is wife Perla +petitioner. and two sons Marcelino Marc and Marcelino III +respondent. w o e2tra=udicially settled t e estate of t eir fat er0 Marc wants to partition t e property and terminate co%owners ip0 RTC ordered t e partition9 !N, to Marc and Marcelino III t en -N, to Perla C6 family ome s ould continue despite t e deat of one or 4ot spouses as lon3 as t ere is a minor 4eneficiary Marcelino III as a minor son named Marcelino Loren8o Dario I; w o is a 3randson of Marcelino and Perla1 ence1 a minor 4eneficiary of t e family ome I))U&9 *ON a family ome can 4e partition at t e deat of t e ead of t e ouse old notwit standin3 t e presence of a minor 4eneficiary +6rt !D- and !D". >&LD9 G&)0 T e minor 4eneficiaries of a family ome contemplated in 6rt !D" must not only actually reside in t e ome 4ut must also 4e dependent on t e ead of t e family for le3al support0 6lt ou3 a 3randson is included in t e family relations ip re'uired of 4eneficiaries stipulated in 6rt !D-1 t e 3randson cannot 4e viewed as dependent on is 3randparents for support 4ecause is ascendants of nearest de3ree1 t e parents are capa4le of providin3 im support0 T e law imposes primary o4li3ation of c ild support to parents1 in default of w ic t e 3randparents ta@e place0 6RRIOL6 v 6RRIOL6 +7CC#. (R No0 !$$$C/ Fidel 6rriola ad two marria3es0 6fter is deat 1 is sons Jo n Na4or 6rriola +respondent K son wit t e first wife. and 6nt ony Ronald 6rriola +petitioner K son wit t e second wife1 ;ilma. wanted to partition is estate t rou3 pu4lic auction0 Petitioner refused to include in t e auction t e ouse standin3 on t e su4=ect land 4ecause e says t at it is t eir family ome0 I))U&9 *ON t e land on w ic t e ouse stands may 4e included in t e pu4lic auction >&LD9 NO0 6lt ou3 t e su4=ect ouse is covered 4y t e =ud3ment of partition postulated 4y t e C61 suspensive proscription imposed 4y FC 6rt !D" s all 4e o4served0 )ince Fidel 4uilt t e ouse out of is e2clusive properties and stayed t ere for 7C years1 4y operation of FC 6rt !D/ t e ouse is automatically constituted as family ome0 FC 6rt !D7 e2tends t e scope of family ome not only to t e dwellin3 structure 4ut also on t e lot on w ic it stands0 Petitioners and respondents s ould not touc t e ouse until !C years as lapsed +7C!/.0 6ll ot er lands outside t e family ome are

su4=ect to immediate partition t rou3 pu4lic auction0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !C" of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 :II0 P6T&RNITG 6ND FILI6TION 60 Le3itimate C ildren !0 Iinds of Filiation I))U&9 *ON t e c ildren 4y t e second marria3e are ille3itimate >&LD9 No0 No co3ent proof t at Lucio and Marcelina were not married1 so t e presumption of marria3e s all prevail0 T ere was no le3al impediment for Perido to marry at t e time of t e 4irt of is eldest c ild 4y is second marria3e0 Perido5s first wife died lon3 4efore0 LIG6O1 Jr0 v LIG6O et al +7CC7. /$# )CR6 D,/ Cora8on (arcia was married to Ramon Gulo 4ut FC1 6rt !,/ T e filiation of c ildren may 4e 4y nature or 4y adoption0 Natural filiation may 4e le3itimate or ad two livin3 separately for !C years1 4ut le3itimate0 c ildren ?ernadette and &nri'ue *illiam Liyao )r was married to Juanita Tan oti !0 ?y nature Liyao1 wit two dau3 ters Tita Rose and Linda a0 Le3itimate C ristina 40 Ille3itimate Cora8on co a4ited wit Liyao and 4e3ot a son1 70 ?y adoption *illiam Liyao Jr0 in * ite Plains % parents areclaims t at e is t e ille3itimate c ild of FC1 6rt !,- C ildren conceived or 4orn durin3 t e marria3e of t e Liyao Jr0 Liyao )r0 and as@s t e latter5s le3al family for C ildren conceived as a result of artificial insemination of t e wife wit t e sperm of t e us4and or eir of a donor or 4ot are reco3nition as compulsory t at li@ewise le3itimate c ildren of t e us4and and is wife1 provided1 t at 4ot of t em Proofs9 in a written instrument e2ecuted and si3ned 4y t em 4efore t e 4irt of t e c ild0 T e instrument s all 4e recorded in t e civil a0 Liyao )enior paid medical and ospital re3istry to3et er wit t e 4irt certificate of t e c ild0 e2penses1 food and clot in3 durin3 Junior5s 4irt * o are le3itimate c ildrenB 6nd w at does 40 Liyao )enior as@ed is confidential conceived OR 4orn meanB secretary to secure a copy of Liyao Junior5s !0 conceived 4efore M1 4orn durin3 M 4irt certificate and open a 4an@ account 70 conceived durin3 M1 4orn durin3 M for im w erein e deposited amounts on /0 conceived durin3 M1 4orn after dissolution of a wee@ly 4asis M c0 Liyao )enior would 4rin3 Liyao Junior to t e office and introduce im as t e E3ood a0 ?IOLO(IC6L % N6TUR6L loo@in3 sonF and ad t eir pictures ta@en to3et er P&RIDO v P&RIDO +!"$D. d0 Continuous possess and en=oyment of t e ,/ )CR6 "$ status of a reco3ni8ed andNor ac@nowled3e c ild t rou3 direct and overt acts e0 6 note sayin3 ETo Cora1 Love From *illiamF % Feli21 Ismael and f0 Testimony of nei3 4ors sayin3 LUCIO ?&NIT6 T6LORON( t at e is Mar3arita t e son of Cora and *illiam ?ut ?enita died1 so Lucio remarried RTC declared *illiam as spurious ille3itimate son % LUCIO M6RC&LIN6 &use4io1 Juan1 for preponderance of evidence Maria1 )ofronio and?6LI(U6T (on8alo C6 reversed 4ecause of presumption of Lucio died in !"-7 and Marcelina died in !"-/ le3itimacy so lon3 as marital intimacy 4etween % Mar3arita is t e only livin3 c ild in t e first t e us4and and t e wife was p ysically marria3e0 Feli2 survived 4y is # c ildren0 Ismael possi4le0 (ave wei3 t to t e t ey are t e petitioners in t is Cora8on andtestimonies t at ad D c ildren0 Ramon Gulo were seen to3et er case w en s e was supposed to 4e co a4itin3 wit Lucio Perido5s eirs from 4ot marria3es Gulo0 e2ecuted an e2tra=udicial partition of is estate ?irt certificate and 4aptismal certificate sayin3 T e first marria3e eirs ad second t ou3 ts Gulo as t e fat er is not sufficient to esta4lis a4out t e ille3itimacy and successional ri3 ts of paternity in a4sence of evidence t at Gulo ad t e second marria3e eirs direct involvement in placin3 is name t ere0 T ere was no si3nature in t e said documents % T eir reason was t at t e c ildren of t e 7nd even in t e pass4oo@ of t e 4an@ account e marria3e were 4orn out of wedloc@ even 4efore opened for Cora8on and Junior0 t e deat of Lucio5s first wife and t at t e land certificate did not indicate t at Lucio is not >&LD9 T e law favors t e le3itimacy rat er t an married to anot er0 t e ille3itimacy of t e c ild0 Liyao Jr cannot c oose is own filiation0 If Cora8on5s us4and1 Gulo1 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !!C of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 does not impu3n t e le3itimacy of t e c ild1 t en t e status of t e c ild is fi2ed and t e c ild cannot c oose to 4e t e c ild of is mot er5s alle3ed paramour0 ))) v 6(U6) +7CC,. -#/ )CR6 /#/

Pa4lo 63uas died so is wife Rosanna 63uas claims deat 4enefits from )))1 statin3 as minor 4eneficiary t eir dau3 ter Jeylnn0 Leticia Macapinlac1 Pa4lo5s sister1 o4=ected to Rosanna5s claim alle3in3 t at9 a0 Rosanna a4andoned t eir family , yrs 4efore 40 Pa4lo ad no le3al c ildren wit Rosanna c0 Rosanna ad several c ildren wit a certain Romeo dela PeZa ))) suspended t e pension 4enefits Rosanna and Jeylnn were receivin3 )))1 upon investi3ation1 concluded t at9 a0 Pa4lo ad no le3al c ildren wit Rosanna Q Jenelyn +Jeylnn. were Rosanna5s c ildren wit Romeo 40 Rosanna a4andoned er us4and more t an si2 years 4efore and lived wit Romeo w ile pre3nant wit Jenelyn +Jeylnn. c0 Pa4lo was not capa4le of avin3 a c ild wit Rosanna as e was under treatment ))) refused to resume pension 4enefits and ordered refunds from Rosanna Rosanna filed claim for restoration of pension 4enefits at t e )ocial )ecurity Commission +))C. Rosanna added Janet 63uas to t e petition for claims ))C summoned several people for clarificatory 'uestions re3ardin3 t e case0 Furt er investi3ation1 it up eld t e order to suspend Rosanna5s pension and ave er refund t e paid 4enefits due to t eir conclusion t at Rosanna married Romeo durin3 t e su4sistence of er marria3e wit Pa4lo1 and t at Jeylnn was er dau3 ter wit Romeo C6 reversed t e ))C decision and ordered resumption of Rosanna5s pension 4enefits I))U&9 *ON Jeylnn1 Janet and Rosanna were entitled to t e ))) deat 4enefits of Pa4lo as Pa4lo5s c ildren and Only Jeylnn as sufficiently esta4lis ed er ri3 t spouse >&LD9 G&) to Jeylnn to a mont ly pension0 6s proved 4y t e p otocopy of er 4irt certificate w ic 4ears t e certified si3nature of Pa4lo and was certified 4y t e civil re3istrar1 s e was 4orn durin3 Rosanna and Pa4lo5s marria3e0 6rt !,- provides t at c ildren conceived or 4orn durin3 t e marria3e of t e parents are le3itimate0 In t e a4sence of proof to esta4lis impossi4ility of access 4etween t e spouses durin3 t e first !7C days of t e /CC days w ic immediately precedes t e 4irt of t e c ild1 t e presumption of le3itimacy s all su4sist and is conclusive0 Doctor P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" only treated Pa4lo forPa3e !!! of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 tu4erculosis1 e cannot say if e was infertile0 Impu3nin3 t e le3itimacy of a c ild is a strictly personal ri3 t of t e us4and or1 in e2ceptional cases1 is Janet5s date of 4irt was not su4stantially proven eirs0 % NO to Janet Civil re3istrar did not certify t e presented 4irt certificate of Janet w ic could ave proved t at Janet was 4orn durin3 t e su4sistence of Rosanna5s Rosanna passed t e first 'ualifyin3 factor marria3e wit Pa4lo NO to Rosanna Rosanna did not pass t e secondfor claims1 t at s e is t e le3itimate spouse 'ualifyin3 factor1 t at s e was dependent on Pa4lo for support since t ey were separated in fact 6fter t e 4irt of t e c ild1 t e * ite eads wis ed not to 3o t rou3 t e surro3acy contract0 T e )terns filed a complaint for possession and ultimate custody of t e c ild0 Lower court 3ranted t e )terns custody and ordered termination of * ite ead5s maternal ri3 ts * ite eads immediately fled to different places to evade t e surrenderin3 ?a4y M for custody and named er )ara &li8a4et * ite ead I))U&9 *ON t e surro3acy contract was enforcea4le and valid >&LD9 No0 T e contract was in direct conflict wit e2istin3 statutes and pu4lic policies re3ardin3 !. involvement of money in connection wit adoption +tantamount to 4a4y%sellin3. 7. laws re'uirin3 proof of parental unfitness or a4andonment 4efore termination of parental ri3 ts is ordered or adoption is 3ranted and /. ma@in3 surrender of custody and consent to adoption revoca4le in private placement adoptions0 )econdly1 alt ou3 t e custody was properly 3ranted to t e fat er since evidence clearly proved it to 4e in t e 4est interest of t e c ild1 t e termination of maternal ri3 ts and visitation ri3 ts is contrary to law0 AM stands for Melissa0 *i@i tells us t at Melissa )tern formally terminated * ite ead[s parental ri3 ts and formali8ed &li8a4et )tern[s maternity t rou3 adoption proceedin3s0 JO>N)ON v C6L;&RT +!""/. #D! P07d $$, Mar@ and Crispina was a married couple0 Crispina ad to under3o ysterectomy so s e couldn5t 4ear c ildren anymore0 T e couple considered surro3acy0 ?y a common friend1 t ey were a4le to meet suc person 4y t e name of 6nna Jo nson w o was a nurse0 T ey entered into a contract w erein9 o 6nna would 4e implanted

wit an em4ryo containin3 t e sperm and e33 cells of t e couple0 o 6nna will turn over all ri3 ts over t e c ild0 o Couple will pay !C1CCC in installments0 o Couple will pay 7CC1CCC life insurance for 6nna0 o Relations deteriorated 4etween t e couple and 6nna0 ?lood tests s ow t at 6nna I) NOT t e 3enetic mot er0 TC ruled9 Couple was t e E3enetic1 4iolo3ical1 and naturalF parents0 C6 affirmed0 I))U&9 *ON 6nna can claim custody of t e c ild >&LD9 NO0 )ince 4ot parties 3ave accepta4le proof of maternity9 6nna as t e 3estational mot er0 Crispina is t e 3enetic mot er0 T e case will 4e decided on t e parties5 intention or from w om t e 40 ?IOLO(IC6L K 6))I)T&D R&PRODUCTI;& T&C>NOLO(G 6RTIFICI6L IN)&MIN6TION is t e impre3nation of a female wit t e semen from male wit out se2ual intercourse0 &ven wit out t e initial consent1 t e c ild can still 4e le3itimated so lon3 as t e us4and su4se'uently 3ives is consent ?&FOR& t e c ild is 4orn t rou3 6I Can 4e omolo3ous +sperm of t e us4and.1 eterolo3ous +sperm of a donor. or com4ined +a com4ination of t e two. T at t e c ild was 4orn of 6I is not reflected in t e 4irt certificate 6 c ild can ave as muc as five parents9 F6T>&R MOT>&R !0 ?iolo3ical +source of !0 Le3alNsocial sperm. 70 (enetic +e33 donor. 70 Le3alN)ocial /0 (estational +not surro3ate. AMa5am ?et ates t e word Esurro3ateF 4ecause it is a misnomer0 IN R& ?6?G M0 +!"##. !C" N0J0 /", % Mary ?et * ite ead a3reed for a fee of W!C1CCC to 4e artificially inseminated wit t e semen of anot er woman5s us4and +*illiam )tern.1 to carry t e c ild so conceived to term1 and after its 4irt 1 to surrender it to t e natural fat er )urro3acy contract means a4solute termination of parental ties toand is wife t e 3estational mot er upon 4irt &li8a4et )tern was not infertile1 li@e was was stated in t e contract1 rat er s e ad multiple sclerosis w ic may ave serious implication on er pre3nancy P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !!7 of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 mental concept of t e c ild emanated0 In t is case1 t e couple was considered t e Eprime%moversF0 T e a3reement was not inconsistent wit Pu4lic Policy0 (estational surro3acy differs from adoption9 % C ild was not 4orn0 % 6nna wasn5t t e 3enetic mot er0 % T e payment was for t e EserviceF Jud3ment of C6 affirmed0 IN R& 6DOPTION OF 6NONGMOU) +!"$/. /-D N0G0)0 7d -/C Durin3 t e first marria3e1 us4and 6 and wife ? ad a 4a4y 4orn of consensual 6ID +6rtificial Insemination Donor.0 >us4and 6 and wife ? were re3istered parents in t e 4irt certificate0 6 and ? separated and later divorced 4ut t eir decree declared t e c ild to 4e le3itimate0 *ife ? and c ild 3ot support w ile us4and 6 ad visitation ri3 ts0 T ey were not remiss on t eir parental duties0 *ife ? later remarried us4and D0 >us4and D wanted to adopt wife ?5s dau3 ter 4ut us4and a refused to 3ive consent0 I))U&9 *ON us4and 65s consent is re'uired for us4and D5s petition for adoption considerin3 t at t e c ild was conceived t rou3 artificial insemination from an un@nown t ird party donor0 >&LD9 G&)0 T e Domestic Relations Law re'uires consent of 4ot dparents5 over t e adoption of a c ild 4orn in wedloc@0 T e dispensary circumstances +a4andonment1 divorce due to adultery1 insanity1 etc0. were not present in t e case0 T e term dfat er5 is not limited to t e 4iolo3ical or natural fat er1 for w at is considered is t e le3al relations ip of fat er and c ild and vice versa0 T e c ild cannot 4e considered ille3itimate since it was 4orn durin3 t e marria3e and not in circumstances of infidelity since it was a medically%assisted procedure w ere t e us4and and wife freely consented0 L&(6L I))U&) IN >UM6N &(( DON6TION 6ND (&)T6TION6L )URRO(6CG Is it possi4le to as@ a woman to carry a c ild in er wom4 for nine mont s wit out 3ivin3 anyt in3 in returnB Unless you can find someone w ose o44y is to 3et pre3nant and 3ive 4irt 1 it is 'uite an impossi4ility to ave free surro3acy0 T is is vulnera4le to a4use of women in lower social economic classes0 % Ma5am ?et tells a4out t e travails of pre3nancy and even as@ed a pre3nant student in t e class to s are er prenatal e2periences0 * at would 4e t e relations ip if a woman carries t e em4ryo formed 4y er dau3 ter and er dau3 ter5s us4andB T is was an actual case in an 6frican country w erein t e 3randmot er 4ore t e c ild of er dau3 ter0 70 Impu3ned Le3itimacy FC1 6rt !,, Le3itimacy of a c ild may 4e impu3ned only on t e follow !0 p ysical impossi4ility for t e us4and to ave se2 wit w immediately preceded t e

4irt of t e c ild 4ecause of9 a0 p ysical incapacity +impotence. 40 livin3 separately c0 serious illness 70 4iolo3ical or ot er scientific reasons1 t e c ild could not a provided in Par 7 6rt !,- /0 conceived t rou3 artificial insemination1 t e written aut o t rou3 mista@e1 fraud1 violence1 intimidation or undue influen * at5s so important a4out t e first !7C daysB It refers to t e first trimester w en it cannot 4e @nown if a woman is pre3nant0 ) e may not even 4e aware t at s e is pre3nant0 Durin3 t e second trimester1 t e tummy 4e3ins to 4ul3e and so pre3nancy 4ecomes evident0 AT e presumption is 4ased on t e assumption t at t ere is se2ual union in marria3e1 particularly durin3 t e period of conception0 Proof to t e contrary would ave to 4e clearly and convincin3ly esta4lis ed0 A)erious illness of t e us4and in Par !C must 4e of suc a nature as to e2clude t e possi4ility of is avin3 se2ual intercourse wit is wife0 A?iolo3ical reasons pertain to 4lood typin3 and DN6 testin3 ?LOOD TGP& O Fat er5s 4lood type 6 ? 6? Mot er5s 4lood type O O O1 6 O1 ? 61 ? 6 O1 6 O1 6 O1 61 ?1 6? 61 ?1 6? ? O1 ? O1 61 ?1 6? O1 ? 61 ?1 6? 6? 61 ? 61 ?1 6? 61 ?1 6? 61 ?1 6? ?lood typin3 is conclusive only in non%paternity1 w erein a c ild5s 4lood type is not a possi4le product of t e 4lood types of t e mot er and t e alle3ed fat er0 In re3ard to confirmin3 paternal ties1 it can only 3o as far as sayin3 t at a man is a possi4le fat er0 AMa5am ?et 5s friends from UP Med t in@s t at t e law t at only fat ers can impu3n le3itimacy despite scientific proof t at e is not t e fat er1 is dum40 T e law s ould do away wit its presumptions if t ere is convincin3 proof to overturn itT &very4ody @nows w at appened1 4ut law is not a4out trut 4ut w at can 4e proven0 * y is it all a4out EpaternityF and not EmaternityFB ?ecause mot ers are wit t eir 4a4ies since 4irt 0 Fat ers are essentially unattac ed to t eir c ild1 so t ere5s a lot of room for dou4ts0 T ere is no maternity 4ecause w o will @now 4etter t an t e woman if a c ild is not ers0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !!/ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 6ND6L v M6C6R6I( +!"D!. #" P il !,D T e le3itimacy of Mariano 6ndal is assailed 4y is paternal 3randmot er &duvi3is Macarai30 T e action was to impu3n t e c ild5s owners ip as le3itimate eir of t e land 3iven 4y defendant to t e deceased fat er +&miliano. of t e c ild as donation propter nuptias0 If t e son was ille3itimate1 t e land would revert 4ac@ to &duvi3is0 If le3itimate1 t e land remains wit t e c ild0 T e 3rounds for said ille3itimacy is as follows9 o &miliano was afflicted wit tu4erculosis suc t at e could ardly move and 3et up from is 4ed0 o *ife ad illicit se2ual relations ip wit er us4and5s 4rot er1 Feli2 w en t e latter came to live wit t em and elp &miliano wor@ is farm0 o &ventually1 Maria DueZas eloped wit Feli20 o &miliano died wit out t e presence of t e wife w o didn5t even attend t e funeral0 I))U&9 *ON t e son was &miliano5s le3itimate c ild and t us entitled to in erit from is estate0 >&LD9 G&)0 Mariano 6ndal was le3itimate son of &miliano1 e avin3 4een 4orn wit in t ree undred days followin3 dissolution of marria3e0 +January !1 !"-/ K June !$1 !"-/. Presumption of le3itimacy can only 4e re4utted 4y proof t at it was p ysically impossi4le for t e us4and to ave ad access to is wife durin3 t e first !7C days of t e /CC ne2t precedin3 t e 4irt of t e c ild0 6ccordin3 to Manresa1 impossi4ility of access means9 o 64sence durin3 initial period of conception o Impotence w ic is patent1 continuin3 and incura4le o Imprisonment1 unless co a4itation too@ place t rou3 corrupt violation of prison re3ulations0 6lso1 t e fact t at wife committed adultery is not sufficient to overturn le3itimacy0 >us4and still ad access to t e wife0 >is sic@ness does not prevent carnal intercourse0 Furt er1 cases s ow t at tu4erculous patients are inclined to 4e more se2ually active +4ecause t ey are E4edriddenF.0 J6O v C6 +!"#$. !D7 )CR6 /D" Perico Jao +private respondent. and 6rlene )al3ado +petitioner. lived to3et er as us4and and wife0 % 6rlene 3ives 4irt to Janice Marie and claims t at Perico is t e fat er0 Perico denies paternity of t e c ild0 % % T ey 4ot su4=ected to 4lood typin3 test w ic eliminated Perico as t e possi4le fat er of Janice0 >owever1 RTC still ruled t at Janice is c ild of Perico and entitled to support from im0 C6 reversed followin3 t e conclusive and indisputa4le evidence of Perico5s non%paternity and discrepancies in t e time w en t e two 4e3an co a4itin30 * at can 4e inferred from t e dates is t e possi4ility of Janice 4ein3 conceived prior to

co a4itation of )al3ado and Jao0 Jao also previously filed a complaint to delete is name as t e fat er of t e c ild0 I))U&9 *ON 4lood 3roupin3 test is admissi4le and conclusive to prove non% paternity0 >&LD9 Ges0 ?lood 3roupin3 test can esta4lis conclusively t at a man is not a fat er of t e c ild1 4ut not necessarily t at a man is t e fat er of a particular c ild0 Co a4itation of t e supposed fat er and t e mot er cannot 4e a 3round for compulsory reco3nition1 if suc co a4itation could not ave produced t e conception of t e c ild0 FC1 6rt !,$ T e c ild s all 4e considered le3itimate alt ou3 t e mot ave 4een sentenced an adulteress0 A* y would a woman do t atB ?ecause s e =ust wants to scorn or umiliate er us4and0 AT e rule is to protect t e c ildren and secure t eir status from t e passions of t eir parents0 6s lon3 as t ere is access 4etween us4and and wife1 mere fact t at t e wife was an adulteress or s e was raped will not t row presumption of le3itimacy0 AMa5am ?et 'uote9 E* y would you do t at to ma@e your us4and =ealousB T ere must 4e some ot er wayT Ges1 you5ll ma@e im =ealous 4ut e5ll @ill you tooT Con3ratulationsTF M6C6D6N(D6N( v C6 Q M&JI6) +!"#C. !CC )CR6 $/ &li8a4et Me=ias is married to Crispin 6na aw0 ) e ad an affair wit 6ntonio Macadan3dan3 in Marc !",$0 Me=ias and 6na aw separated after t at0 In Octo4er !",$ +or after 7!C days.1 Me=ias 3ave 4irt to a 4oy named Rolando Macadan3dan3 as reflected in t e 4aptismal certificate0 Me=ias sued Macadan3dan3 to reco3ni8e Rolando as is son I))U&9 *ON Rolando is conclusively presumed t e le3itimate c ild of Me=ias and 6na aw *ON Me=ias may institute an action t at would 4astardi8e er c ild wit out 3ivin3 er us4and1 t e le3ally presumed fat er1 an opportunity to 4e eard >&LD9 Rolando is presumed to 4e t e le3itimate c ild of Me=ias and 6na aw0 T e c ild was 4orn wit in /CC days after t e spouses separated0 No proof was P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !!- of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 present to s ow t at se2ual intercourse 4etween t em was impossi4le0 In fact1 t e wife continuously visits er four c ildren in er mot er5s ouse w ere er us4and also stays0 Only t e us4and can impu3n t e le3itimacy of t e c ild0 % t e c ild is re3istered in ot er municipalities t e c ild is 3iven ot er names AOnly t e us4and can contest t e le3itimacy of a c ild 4orn to is wife0 It is only in e2ceptional cases t at is eirs are allowed to contest suc le3itimacy0 If t e us4and marria3e wit in /CC use after suc FC1 6rt !,# If t e marria3e is terminated and t e mot er contracted anot er clearly didn5t ma@e days of suc ri3 t or as desisted from suc intention1 t e eirs cannot termination1 t ese rules s all 3overn in t e a4sence of proof to t e contrary9 4rin3 t e action0 !0 70 ?orn 4efore !#C days after solemni8ation of t e su4se'uent marria3e is considered to ave 4een conceived durin3 t e former marria3e1 provided it 4e 4orn wit in /CC days after t e termination of t e former marria3e0 FC1 6rt !$! * en can eirs of t e us4and may impu3n t e filiation o 6 c ild 4orn after !#C days followin3 t e cele4ration of t e su4se'uent marria3e is considered to ave 4een !0 if t e us4and s ould die 4efore t e e2piration of t e period fi conceived durin3 suc marria3e1 even t ou3 it 4e 4orn wit in t e /CC days after t e termination of t e former action marria3e0 70 if e s ould die after t e filin3 of t e complaint1 wit out avin3 d /0 if t e c ild was 4orn after t e deat of t e us4and Illustration9 /CC days !st 7nd C6?6T?6T%LIM v I6C +!"##. !,, )CR6 -D! Dra0 &speran8a Friane8a%Ca4at4at5s estate is Terminatio 7nd fou3 t over 4y er sisters and t e c ildren of er !#C days n marria3e deceased 4rot ers and er alle3edly only c ild wit Proceso Ca4at4at1 ;ioleta Ca4at4at%Lim )o in a nuts ell1 t e critical point is t e !#C days +petitioner. after t e su4se'uent marria3e0 RTC9 ;ioleta is not t e offsprin3 and ence1 not t e le3al eir FC1 6rt !," T e le3itimacy or ille3itimacy of a c ild 4orn after /CC days followin3 t e termination of t e marria3e s all 4e &speran8a5s 4rot ers and sisters alle3e t at proved 4y w oever alle3es suc le3itimacy or ille3itimacy0 ;ioleta was merely a ward +ampun%ampunan.1 and neit er a natural c ild nor le3ally adopted so s e is not a le3itimate eir entitled to own A )tate of Lim4o1 w erein t e c ild is statusless Calasiao ?i on Factory FC1 6rt !$C * en to 4rin3 t e action to impu3n t e le3itimacy of t e c ild9 &vidence 4y Proofs 4y Petitioner Respondents *IT>IN9 I0 NO CONC&6LM&NT !0 a4sence of any !0 4irt record statin3 ! year from @nowled3e of 4irt or

recordin3 in t e civil re3ister % if us4and1 orrecord is eirs reside in t e same place ospital any of t at s e is t e w ere t e 4irt too@ place re3ardin3 le3itimate c ild of 7 years Not t e same place 4ut wit in t e P ilippines &speran8a5s 3ivin3 Proceso and / years 64road 4irt &speran8a 70 of action of ;ioleta5s 70 testimony or @nowled3e II0 CONC&6L&D OR UNINO*N TO >U)?6ND OR >&IR)9 period for fillin3a4sence s all 4e counted from discoveryof Proceso t at s e is is c ild of t e 4irt of t e c ild OR of t e fact of re3istration of said 4irt 4irt certificate in ALe3itimacy of a c ild must 4e attac@ed in a direct action1 not collaterally0 * y did t e law impose a time limit to impu3n le3itimacy of t e c ildB ?ecause it is in t e 4est interest of t e c ild to avoid puttin3 isN er status in a state of uncertainty for a lon3 time0 AMa5am ?et 3ave a sample situation1 w en to start computin3 7 Jan !"## 4irt day / Fe4 !"## fact of re3istration - Fe4 !"#" discovery of 4irt %% T is is va3ue to me0 %e* at does it mean to 4e Eun@nownFB t e c ild is re3istered as t e c ild of ot er persons D0 /0 Pan3asinan Provincial >ospital certificate from t e Civil Re3istry of t e a4sence of ;ioleta5s 4irt record certificate of Principal t at Proceso and &speran8a are re3istered only as 3uardians and not parents testimony of t e cousin of ;ioleta5s 4iolo3ical mot er /0 testimony of ?enita Lastimosa +alle3ed 4io mot er. t at s e is not er c ild marria3e contract w ere &speran8a was t e mot er Deed of )ale w en ;ioleta was still a minor and represented 4y er mot er &speran8a Deed of 64solute )ale w ere Proceso represented er as fat er -0 D0 -0 ,0 I))U&)9 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !!D of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 !0 70 *ON TC and C6 findin3 t at ;ioleta is not 4orn of &speran8a Ca4at4at is concludin3 on )C *ON complaint is an action to impu3n le3itimacy and 6rt 7,/ CC +action to impu3n le3itimacy. can 4e applied !0 70 *ON a c an3e in t e record of 4irt in a civil re3istry1 w ic affects t e civil status of t e person1 may 4e 3ranted in summary proceedin3s *ON Rule !C# of t e Revised Rules of Court is t e proper action to impu3n t e le3itimacy of t e c ild1 or c an3e filiation >&LD9 !0 G&)0 T e factual findin3s of t e courts are entitled to 3reat respect0 Moreover1 t e a4sence of a record of 4irt of petitioner ;ioleta in t e Office of t e CivRe3 (eneral puts a cloud on t e 3enuiness of er 4irt record0 T e records of t e ospital s ow t at only one woman 4y t e name of ?enita Lastimosa 3ave 4irt to an ille3itimate c ild on t e date of ;ioleta5 4irt 0 70 NO0 ?ecause t is is an action to claim in eritance of t e respondents as le3al eirs of t eir c ildless deceased aunt0 T ey do not claim t at ;ioleta is an ille3itimate c ild1 4ut t at s e is not a c ild at all0 C>U6 I&N( (I6P v I6C Q C>U6 LI6N IIN( +!"##. !,, )CR6 -D! Petitioner insists t at e is t e son of deceased )y Iao0 6s suc 1 e filed a petition for t e settlement of t e estate of t e latter0 Private respondent moved to dismiss1 due to lac@ of action as well as petitioner5s capacity to file suc a case0 It as 4een declared 4efore t at petitioner is not t e son of C ua ?in3 3uan and )y Iao0 T e latter flatly and une'uivocally declared t at s e was not petitioner5s mot er0 T erefore e ad no lawful interest in t e estate of )y Iao0 I))U&9 *ON )y Iao is t e mot er of t e petitioner >&LD9 No0 * o 4etter t an )y Iao erself would @now if C ua Ien3 (iap was really er sonB More t an anyone else1 it was er w o could say t at petitioner was not 4e3otten of er wom40 R&PU?LIC v L6?R6DOR +!""". /CD )CR6 -/# 6 c ild5s 4irt certificate lists er name as )ara Pita CaZon &rasmo1 and er parents Rosemarie CaZon married to De3o4erto &rasmo0 On Marc !""#1 er aunt (ladys petitioned t e RTC Ce4u to c an3e )ara 5s surname to CaZon1 droppin3 &rasmo1 and t e first name of er mot er to Maria Rosario since er parents were not married0 (ladys said )ara 5s mot er1 er sister1 lived a4road wit er forei3ner us4and0 T e RTC 3ranted t e petition 4ased on Rule !C# of t e Rules of Court0 T e solicitor%3eneral appealed0 I))U&)9 >&LD9 No1 only clerical mista@es can 4e made and si3nificant c an3es may only 4e 3ranted in direct1 adversarial action0 T e c an3e sou3 t will result not only in t e su4stantial correction in t e c ild5s record of 4irt 4ut also in t e c ild5s status t ere4y affectin3 er ri3 ts w ic cannot 4e done in a summary action0 6lt ou3 EMaria RosarioF is t e real name of t e mot er1 )ara will 4ecome an ille3itimate c ild 4y virtue of t e c an3e0 6lso1 adversarial proceedin3s are re'uired in suc alle3ations0 Rule !C# may only 4e used to

correct or c an3e clerical or innocuous errors0 6lso1 )ara and er purported parents s ould ave 4een parties to t e proceedin3s0 T ere is also no sufficient le3al e2planation w y t e (ladys1 wit out appointment as 3uardian1 was t e petitioner0 &ffects9 R )ara 5s successional and ot er ri3 ts may c an3e R Ille3itimacy may 4rin3 social sti3ma and em4arrass )ara R Ri3 ts of er parents over er and over eac ot er will 4e affected R 6 c an3e of name will affect mot er and creditors T6N v TROCIO +!""C. !"! )CR6 $,- )c ool owner and directress1 Felicidad ?araZan Tan filed an administrative complaint see@in3 dis4arment of 6tty0 (alileo Trcio for immorality and conduct un4ecomin3 of a lawyer0 ) e alle3ed t at Trocio1 w o is t e le3al counsel of t e sc ool overpowered er inside t e office and a3ainst er will1 succeeded in avin3 carnal @nowled3e of er0 6nd as a result1 s e 4e3ot a son w om s e named Jewel Tan0 ) e furt er alle3ed t at e used to support Jewel 4ut su4se'uently lost interest and stopped0 ) e claimed s e filed t e complaint only after # years from t e incident 4ecause Trocio t reatened er wit t e deportation of er alien us4and and due to t e fact t at s e was married and as ei3 t c ildren0 Trocio files is answer statin3 t at e was indeed a counsel of t e sc ool as well as of Tan and er family 4ut denies e se2ually assaulted er0 >e adds t at t e principal was a in a reven3e trip w en e declined er re'uest to commit a E4reac of trustF0 I))U&9 *ON Trocio ad se2ually assaulted Tan as a conse'uence of w ic t e latter 4e3ot a c ild 4y im P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !!, of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 +and is t us a 3round for Trocio5s dis4arment for immoral conduct. >&LD9 No0 Dis4arment complaint dismissed for insufficiency of 4asis of t e alle3ations0 T e alle3ed t reat to deport er us4and could not old 4ecause s e admitted avin3 lost contact wit er us4and w en e learned of t e respondent5s trans3ression t at very same evenin30 T e fear ad t us 4ecome ine2istent0 ) e also maintained er transactions wit Tan as if not in3 ad appened0 )uc actions can 4e construed as condonation of is alle3ed immoral act0 P ysical li@eness and unusual closeness 4etween Trocio and Jewel is not conclusive proof of paternity1 muc less violation of Tan5s person and onor0 Jewel was 4orn durin3 t e wedloc@ of Tan and er us4and as suc 1 t e presumption of le3itimacy prevails0 A* at5s t e 4i3 deal a4out namin3 t e son JewelB For all we @now1 t e name is pronounced as EJoel0F A* y is t ere an e2pected reaction from se2uallya4used womanB Different people ave different ways of reactin3T AIf s e a4orts it1 s e5s wron30 If s e learns to love it1 s e wasn5t raped0 T ere5s no optionTTT P&OPL& v TUMIMP6D +!""-. 7/D )CR6 -#/ Moreno L0 Tumimpad and Consta4le Ruel C0 Prieto are c ar3ed wit t e crime of rape of )andra )alcedo1 a !D years old1 ad a mind of a five year old c ild0 T e accused are two of t e four security men assi3ned to t e victim5s fat er0 )andra first complained of constipation 4ut after medical aid was sou3 t1 er condition did not improve0 >owever1 upon seein3 Tumimpad comin3 out from t e @itc en s e told er mot er EMama1 patayin mo dyan1 4astosF0 T e mot er 4ecame suspicious so s e 4rou3 t )andra to t e ospital w ere t ey found out t at s e was pre3nant0 Nine mont s later1 )andra 3ave 4irt4 to a 4a4y 4oy w o was named Jaco40 )andra was a4le to pic@ t e pictures of Tumimpad and Prieto and in t e police line%up s e pointed to t e accused0 T e accused moved t at a 4lood test 4e conducted on t e offended party1 er c ild Jaco4 and t e two accused0 T e result of t e test s owed t at Jaco4 as a type dOF 4lood1 )andra type E?F1 Prieto type E6F and Tumimpad type EOF0 RTC convicted Tumimpad 4ut ac'uitted Prieto0 T e ac'uittal of Prieto was on reasona4le dou4t statin3 t at e as a different type of 4lood wit t e c ild Jaco40 I))U&9 *ON it was impossi4le for Tumimpad to ave committed t e crime of rape 4ecause most of t e time e and is co%accused were to3et er wit Col0 )alcedo0 >&LD9 No0 It was proven t at t ey were not always wit Col0 )alcedo0 T ere were instances t at t ey would even play wit )andra0 ?ased on t is it is not p ysically impossi4le for t e accused to ave access to )andra0 Tumimpad ar3ued t at is conviction was erroneously 4ased on t e medical findin3 t at e and t e victim ave t e same 4lood type EOF0 In Jao vs0 Court of 6ppeals it was eld t at Paternity K )cience as demonstrated t at 4y t e analysis of 4lood samples of t e mot er1 t e c ild and t e alle3ed fat er1 it can 4e

esta4lis ed conclusively t at t e man is not t e fat er of a particular c ild0 ?ut 3roup 4lood testin3 cannot s ow only a possi4ility t at e is0 ?&NIT&P%?6DU6 v C6 +!""-. 77" )CR6 -,# ;icente ?enite8 Q Isa4el C ipon3ian owned various properties0 On 6pril 7D1 !"#7 Isa4el died Q er estate was settled e2tra%=udicially0 ON Nov0 !/1 !"#" ;icente died intestate0 Private respondents1 ;ictoria ?enite8%Lirio +;icente5s sister. Q Feodor ?enite8 63uilar +;icente5s nep ew. filed a case in t e RTC1 prayin3 for t e issuance of letters of administration of ;icente5s estate in favor of 63uilar0 T ey alle3e t at ;icente is survived 4y no ot er eirs or relatives0 T at t e spouses were wNo issue Q wit out descendants w atsoever and t at Marissa ?enite8 ?adua w o was raised and cared for 4y t e spouses was not related to t em 4y 4lood nor le3ally adopted1 Q t erefore not an eir0 On Nov0 71 !""C Marissa opposed t e petition statin3 t at s e was t e sole eir of ;icente0 If Marissa was really a 4iolo3ical and le3itimate dau3 ter1 t ere would 4e no need for TC received evidence re3ardin3 t e matter9 R Marissa tried to prove s e was t e le3itimate c ild of t e spouses1 presentin3 documentary evidence9 o >er certificate of live 4irt o ?aptismal certificate o Income ta2 returns Q information s eet for mem4ers ip wN ()I) of ;icente1 namin3 er is dau3 ter o )c ool records o ) e also testified t at t ey raised er as t eir le3it dau3 ter R Private respondents presented testimonial evidence t at t e spouses failed to ave a c ild Q t at Isa4el was referred to Dr0 Mana an +an o4%3yne. for treatment TC ruled in favor of Marissa1 relyin3 on 6rt !,, and 6rt !$C FC0 C6 owever reversed t eir decision statin3 t at Marissa is not t e 4iolo3ical c ild of t e spouses and t erefore not a le3al eir0 T e C6 also eld t at t e TC erred in applyin3 6rt !,, and 6rt !$C FC I))U&)9 !0 *ON 6rt !,-1 !,,1 !$C Q !$! FC is applica4le to t e case1 as t e petitioner contends0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !!$ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 70 *ON Marissa is t e 4iolo3ical c ild of t e spouses and t erefore a le3al eir0 >&LD9 No0 T e followin3 DO NOT contemplate a situation li@e t e instant case1 w ere a c ild is alle3ed not to 4e t e 4iolo3ical c ild of a certain couple0 T ese articles 3overn a situation w ere a us4and +or is eirs. denies as is own a c ild of is wife0 T e C6 correctly refused to apply t ese articles to t e case0 )ince t is case doesn5t contend t at Marissa is not t e c ild of ;icente 4y Isa4el< 4ut t at s e wasn5t 4orn to t e spouses0 Ca4at4at%Lim v I6C is appropriate to t e case0 T e totality of contrary evidence presented 4y t e respondents sufficiently re4utted t e trut of t e content of petitioner5s 4irt certificate0 LUM6IN D& 6P6RIC>O v P6R6(UG6 +!"#$. !DC )CR6 7$" Trinidad Montilde ad a love affair wit Reverend Fat er Felipe Lumain1 a priest1 and in t e process s e conceived0 * en s e was - mont s pre3nant1 in order to conceal er dis3race from t e pu4lic1 s e decided to marry one 6nastacio Mam4urao0 Fat er Lumain imself solemni8ed t eir marria3e in Marc !"7-0 >owever1 t e couple never lived to3et er as us4and and wife0 Trinidad 3ave 4irt to dau3 ter Consolacion Lumain in )ept1 !"7 days or , mos after t e marria3e0 Fat er Lumain eventually died 4ut e left a last will Q testament w erein e ac@nowled3ed Consolacion as is dau3 ter and instituted er as t e sole and universal eir of all is property ri3 ts and interests0 T is was duly pro4ated in CFI and on appeal was affirmed 4y t e C60 6fter reac in3 a3e of ma=ority1 dau3 ter Consolacion filed an action in CFI a3ainst one >ipolito Para3uya for t e recovery of certain parcels of land s e claims to ave in erited from er fat er1 t e priest0 >ipolito Para3uya was declared owner of portions 61 ?1 >1 F and ( and all its improvements0 T e land in 'uestion is portion (0 >ipolito assails also t at Consolacion is not a natural c ild of t e late Fr Lumain0 TC9 ?earin3 in mind t e date of t e 4irt of t e plaintiff1 it is evident t at er mot er Trinidad was still sin3le at t e time s e was conceived0 It is a le3al presumption t at plaintiff is t e dau3 ter of t e spouses 6nastacio and Trinidad0 >owever1 t is was disputa4le and Trinidad successfully overcame it0 Consolacion is t erefore t e natural c ild of Fat er Lumain and s e is entitled to claim t e disputed property1 s e avin3 4een instituted in t e will as universal eir0 I))U&9 *ON Consolacion is t e natural c ild of Lumain and if so1 *ON s e is entitled to t e possession of Portion ( >&LD9 )C finds it unnecessary to determine t e paternity of appellee Consolacion0 6s Fat er Lumain1 w o died wNo any compulsory

eir1 Consolacion is t erefore is lawful eir as duly instituted in is will0 One w o as no compulsory eirs may dispose 4y will all of is estate or any part of it in favor of any person avin3 capacity to succeed0 Portion ( and its improvement declared to 4e owned 4y Consolacion0 No award of moral dama3es to 4e 3iven to >ipolito for Consolacion was actin3 in er 4elief t at s e was le3al eir of t e land0 Jud3ment affirmed0 ?0 Proof of Filiation !0 >ow to prove filiation FC1 6rt !$7 T e filiation of le3itimate c ildren is esta4lis ed 4y any of +PRIM6RG &;ID&NC& FOR ;OLUNT6RG R&CO(NITION. !0 T e record of 4irt appearin3 in t e civil re3ister or a final =ud3m 70 6n admission of le3itimate filiation in a pu4lic document or a p parent concerned In t e a4sence of w ic 9 +)&COND6RG &;ID&NC& FOR IN;OLUNT6RG R&CO(. !0 T e open and continuous possession of t e status of a le3itimat 70 6ny ot er means allowed 4y t e Rules of Court and special laws A Defense a3ainst 6rt !,, +3rounds for impu3nin3. It is t e us4and or is eirs w o must present proofs to overcome t e presumption of le3itimacy0 A Necessary for 6rt !," +EstatuslessF. K T e Family Code 3ives c ildren t eir status from t e moment of t eir 4irt 0 ?ut suc status may 4e 'uestioned or in t e case of a c ild 4orn after /CC days followin3 t e termination of t e marria3e of t e mot er1 t e law does not 3ive im any status so t at t e c ild or someone in is 4e alf will ave to prove is status for im0 A )econdary evidence not admissi4le if primary e2istsT My 'uestion9 In t is case1 can a man voluntarily reco3ni8e t e c ild to 4e is ille3itimate c ild at t e opposition of t e 4iolo3ical mot erB R&CORD OF ?IRT> T e 4oo@s ma@in3 up t e civil re3ister and all t e documents relatin3 t ereto s all 4e considered pu4lic documents and s all 4e prima facie evidence of t e trut of t e facts t erein If t e alle3ed fat er did not intervene in t e ma@in3 of t e 4irt certificate1 t e puttin3 of is name 4y t e mot er or doctor or re3istrar is void0 T e fat er5s si3nature is necessary0 AMa5am ?et says t at t e rule re'uirin3 fat er5s si3nature on t e 4irt certificate to prove participation is ridiculous since t ere is no 4lan@ or provided space for t e fat er to si3n0 T e only P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !!# of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 c ance a fat er can si3n on t e 4irt certificate is if e is t e informant0 6DMI))ION IN 6 DOCUM&NT 6 pu4lic document is one w ic is !. issued 4y a pu4lic office and 7. private document t at is notari8ed 6 typewritten document containin3 an admission of t e le3itimate filiation is not admissi4le1 as t e si3nature t erein may 4e super%imposed and may not 4e t e true si3nature of t e parent 6lso1 for andwritten documents1 t e intent to reco3ni8e t e c ild must 4e sufficiently apparent0 OP&N 6ND CONTINUOU) PO))&))ION OF T>& )T6TU) OF 6 L&(ITIM6T& C>ILD &030 4earin3 t e fat er5s surname1 treatment 4y t e parents and of t e family of t e c ild as le3itimate1 constant attendance to t e c ild5s support and education and 3ivin3 t e c ild t e reputation of 4ein3 t e c ild of is parents ?6)I)9 t e admission of t e parents t emselves and t e concurrence t erein of t e family and of t e society Continuous O uninterrupted and consistent o Tolentino9 idea of possesory status of some duration o )empio%Diy9 no re'uired particular len3t of time o Pan3alan3an9 distin3uis ed from EcontinuallyF w ic allows for interruption as lon3 as it is in a re3ular 4asis1 continuously may 4e translated to Ewalan3 umpayF May4e en=oyed 4y a c ild conceived 4ut not yet 4orn OT>&R M&6N) 6LLO*&D ?G T>& RUL&) OF COURT 6ND )P&CI6L L6*) 60 ?aptismal certificate9 is a presumptive evidence only1 especially w en people often ave different names in t eir 4irt certificate and 4aptismal ?0 Judicial admission C0 Family 4i4le w ere c ild5s name is entered9 6s e2plained 4y Ma5am ?et 1 t is is 3iven importance 4ecause a ?i4le is presumed to ave 4een t ere for 3enerations and is anded down to c ildren0 6s t e family 3rows1 t e names of t e c ildren are added in t e list0 T is is 4iased to Cat olics t ou3 0 D0 Common reputation respectin3 pedi3ree0 &0 6dmission 4y silence F0 Testimonies of witnesses (0 Ot er @inds of proofs admissi4le under Rule !/C of RRC RRC1 Rule !/C Declaration a3ainst interest 6ct or declaration a4out pedi3ree Family reputation or tradition re3ardin3 pedi3ree Common reputation &ntries in official records Testimony or deposition at a former proceedin3 Opinion of e2pert witness Opinion of ordinary witnesses CC1 6rt 77C In case of dou4t1 all

presumptions favor t e solidarity of t toward t e validity of marria3e1 t e indissolu4ility of t e marria3e property durin3 marria3e1 t e aut ority of parents over t eir c ildren family in case of unlawful a33ression0 AAAAFor cases under Proof of Filiation1 focus on t e pieces of evidence esta4lis ed in eac case CON)T6NTINO v M&ND&P +!""7. 7C" )CR6 !# 6melia Constantino filed an action for ac@nowled3ment1 support of er c ild Mic ael1 and dama3es a3ainst Ivan Mende81 a married man0 Mende8 denied avin3 se2ual intercourse wit Constantino0 >&LD9 Filiation was not proven 4y clear and convincin3 evidence0 T e 4urden of proof to esta4lis t e alle3ation is on Constantino0 Constantino5s testimony as to w en s e ad intercourse wit Mende8 is contradicted 4y evidence0 T e date was crucial to determine w et er Mic ael was conceived durin3 t e time 6melia and Ivan were avin3 se2ual relations0 T ere was also no clear and convincin3 proof t at 6melia did not ave any se2ual encounter wit ot er men0 M&NDOP6 v M&LI6 +!",,. !$ )CR6 $## Fat er versus son5s common law wife and er son Paciano Pare=a owned lot No0 //"C%? in )orso3on0 >e donated it to is son (avino in !"/"0 (avino durin3 t at time ad 4een livin3 wit is common%law spouse Catalina Mendo8a1 and t eir only son Rodolfo w o was 4orn in !"/D0 (avino disappeared in !"-/ and ad not 4een eard of since0 Paciano Pare=a sold t e disputed property to Temistocles Mella in !"-# w o t en told erein petitioners to vacate t e said land in !"D70 *it t e notice remainin3 un eeded1 Mella filed and action in !"DD0 Petitioners claim owners ip of said land1 claimin3 Rodolfo as t e ri3 tful successor 4ein3 t e son of (avino1 and for avin3 adverse possession of t e land for !C years0 Trial and appellate courts ruled for Mella1 ence t is c allen3e 4y Catalina and Rodolfo0 6s to t e issue of possession1 petitioners invo@e 6rt0 /"C of Civil Code 4ut t e respondent ar3ued t at t is was never raised in t e trial court nor t e appellate court t us could not 4e considered at t e )C0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !!" of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % *it t e issue of Rodolfo as successor1 e s owed a coy of is 4irt certificate0 implied trust0 >is mot er 3ave im a little money to complete t e purc ase price0 I))U&) Q >&LD9 !0 *ON Felisa Lim is entitled to t e in eritance0 NO % Felisa Lim alle3es t at s e was reco3ni8ed 4y )usana Lim durin3 !"-/ w ic means t at it was durin3 t e effectivity of t e Civil Code of !##"0 )ec0 !/! of CC of !##" re'uires t at t e reco3nition of a natural c ild 4e made in t e record of 4irt 1 in a will1 or in some ot er pu4lic document0 % Pu4lic documents are t ose aut enticated 4y a notary or 4y a competent pu4lic official1 wit formalities re'uired 4y law0 T e two classes of pu4lic documents are9 o &2ecuted 4y private individuals w ic must 4e aut enticated 4y notaries +M6RRI6(& CONTR6CT) *OULD F6LL UND&R T>I) C6T&(ORG. o T ose issued 4y competent pu4lic officials 4y reason of t eir office % Marria3e contract presented 4y Felisa does not satisfy t e re'uirements of solemnity prescri4ed 4y article !/! of t e CC of !##"0 T ere was no intervention of a notary0 % T e marria3e contract is a mere declaration 4y t e contractin3 parties1 in t e presence of t e person solemni8in3 t e marria3e and of two witnesses of le3al a3e1 t at t ey ta@e eac ot er as us4and and wife1 si3ned 4y si3nature or mar@ 4y t e said contractin3 parties and t e said witnesses1 and attested 4y t e person solemni8in3 t e marria3e0 70 *ON Uy is entitled to t e in eritance0 NO % T e title is in t e name of )usana Lim1 and oral testimony cannot overcome t e fact t at t e sale was made to )usana Lim and title issued in er favor % Implied trust arises w ere a person purc ases land wit is own money and ta@es conveyance t ereof in t e name of anot er0 T e property is eld on a resultin3 trust in favor of t e one furnis in3 t e consideration for t e transfer unless a different intention or understandin3 appears0 % Uy raised t e t eory of implied trust in favor of er us4and for t e first time in er motion for reconsideration filed wit t e appellate court and evidence re3ardin3 t e purc ase 4y er us4and is alto3et er unconvincin30 >&IR) OF R6GMUNDO ?6Y6) v >&IR) OF ?I?I6NO ?6Y6) +!"#D. !/- )CR6 7,C Raymundo was t e c ild of Dolores Castillo and an un@nown fat er0 Upon Raymundo5s deat 1 is eirs filed for partition of recovery of ereditary s are a3ainst t e eirs of ?i4iano1 claimin3 t at Raymundo was a reco3ni8ed natural son of ?i4iano0 I))U&9

*ON Rodolfo can 4e considered ac@nowled3ed natural c ild 4y virtue of is 4irt certificate as evidence0 >&LD9 No0 T e appellate court deemed t e 4irt certificate insufficient 4ecause it did not ave t e si3natures of t e parents1 it 4ein3 only a certified copy of t e re3istry0 T e court ruled t at in t e a4sence of suc si3natures1 t ere was no clear proof t at t e parent reco3ni8es t e c ild0 LIM v C6 +!"$D. ,D )CR6 !,C % In !",71 Felisa Lim 4rou3 t suit a3ainst Francisco Mi3uel Romualde8 Uy C en >on3 for t e declaration of nullity of t e affidavit Uy e2ecuted in w ic e ad=udicated to imself +!7C s'uare meters located in Taya4as.1 as t e only son and eir of )usana Lim0 % Uy and Lim fi3 ts over t e in eritance of )usana Lim5s property1 to t e e2clusion of eac ot er % Lim claims t at s e is t e natural dau3 ter of )usana0 >er evidence are as follows9 o 4aptismal certificate w ic stated t e er mot er was )usana o marria3e contract w erein )usana 3ave consent to t e marria3e of Felisa % On t e ot er and1 Uy claims t at e is t e only son and eir of )usana0 >is evidence9 o application form for alien re3istration w ic stated t at is mot er was )usana o order of t e ?OI cancellin3 is alien re3istration1 4y derivation from is Filipina mot er o is identification certificate w ic descri4es im as t e son of )usana0 % RTC9 In !",$1 Felisa Lim was eld as t e dau3 ter and only eir of )usana Lim to w ic Uy filed a motion for reconsideration and new trial 4ut t e court denied it0 % C69 Upon Uy5s appeal1 C6 ruled t at neit er Felisa Lim nor Uy is entitled to t e in eritance 4ecause9 o neit er of t em 4een reco3ni8ed 4y )usana Lim as er c ild 4y any means provided for 4y law o neit er of t em 4een declared in a =udicial proceedin3 to 4e t e c ild of )usana Lim % T ey 4ot assailed t e decision of t e C6 % Lim says t at )usana5s consent to er marria3e constitutes reco3nition as natural dau3 ter and was even e2ecuted in a pu4lic document in t e form of er marria3e contract +)ec !/! of CC of !##" says t at E4e made in t e record of 4irt 1 in a will or some ot er pu4lic documentF % (uadalupe Uy contended t at er us4and purc ased t e property in 'uestion wit is own money prior to is mot er5s deat and too@ conveyance and title0 T ere was an e2istence of P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !7C of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 Faustina ?i4iano Pedro Dolores Trinidad1 niece of Faustina Raymund o P&TITION&R5) &;ID&NC& C ) O 6 U G R T ) >andwritten note alled3edly written 4y ?i4iano to t e !# yo Raymundo wit a complimentary endin3 Esu padreF )c ool records1 report cards1 sc ool receipts for matriculation all si3ned and paid 4y ?i4iano Typewritten letters to 6tty0 Faustino alle3in3 is personal circumstance< as well as typewritten auto4io3rap y assertin3 t at is fat er is a sur3eon ?i4iano ?aZas CC 7$# provides for Eaut entic andwritin3F w ic is a private document t us ac@nowled3ement of t e c ild in suc instrument s ould not 4e incidental 4ut e2plicit0 T e complimentary endin3 mi3 t 4e due to t e close relations Raymundo en=oyed wit is uncleN3uardian ?i4iano< t ere is no clear e2pression of ac@nowled3ement of filiation0 Paternal solicitude X paternity ?i4iano si3ned t ese documents as 3uardian of Raymundo w ile e is 3rowin3 up since t e latter spent for is education 4ecause Pedro +t e real fat er. is una4le to support im< t us it is natural t at ?i4iano si3ns as t e 3uardian even more so t at Raymundo spent most is lifetime in ?i4iano and Fautina5s care T is typewritten evidence ta@en into account t e contradictin3 testimony of Raymundo5s wife Trinidad casts dou4t to t e aut enticity of t ese Epersonal accountsF of Raymundo M6RI6T&(UI v C6 +!""7. 7CD )CR6 ,$D Lupo Mariate3ui durin3 is lifetime contracted t ree marria3es wit t ree different women and sired t ree sets of c ildren0 First9 wit &use4ia Montellano1 - @ids ?aldomera9 died1 survived 4y @ids surnamed &spina Maria del Rosario Ur4ana Ireneo9 died1 left a son1 Ruperto )econd9 wit Flaviana Montellano1 one dau3 ter1 Cresciana T ird9 wit Felipa ;elasco1 / @ids9 Jacinto1 Julian1 Paulina >e died intestate and t e c ildren from is !st and 7nd marria3es e2cluded t e c ildren from t e /rd marria3e in t e e2tra%=udicial partition of Lupo5s properties0 I))U&)9 !0 *ON prescription 4arred private respondents5 ri3 t to demand partition of Lupo5s estate0 70 *ON t e private respondents1 w o 4elatedly filed t e action for reco3nition1 were * at is t e nature a4le to prove t eir successional ri3 ts of over t e estate0 of t e complaint filed 4y t e private respondents0 >&LD9 T e

c ildren from t e t ird marria3e continuously possessed t e status of le3itimate c ildren0 Filiation of le3itimate c ildren may 4e esta4lis ed 4y t e record of 4irt appearin3 in t e civil re3istrar1 a final =ud3ment or 4y t e open and continuous possession of t e status of a le3itimate c ild0 !. *ON prescription 4arred private respondents5 ri3 t to demand partition of Lupo5s estate0 )ince t ey are le3it @ids and eirs of Lupo1 t e time limitation prescri4ed in 6rt 7D# for filin3 an action for reco3nition is inapplica4le0 Prescription doesn5t run a3ainst private respondents wN respect to t e filin3 of t e action for partition so lon3 as t e eirs for w ose 4enefit prescription is invo@ed1 aven5t e2pressly or impliedly repudiated t e coowners ip0 Prescription of an action for partition doesn5t lie e2cept w en t e co%owners ip is properly repudiated 4y t e co%owner0 6 co%owner can5t ac'uire 4y prescription t e s are of t e ot er co%owner a4sent a clear repudiation of co%owners ip duly communicated to t e ot er co%owners0 6lso1 an action to demand partition is imprescripti4le Q can5t 4e 4arred 4y lac es0 It is at once an action for declaration of co%owners ip Q for se3re3ation Q conveyance of a certain property0 No valid repudiation was made 4y t e petitioners0 6ssumin3 t e petitioner5s re3istration of t e su4=ect lot was an act of repudiation of coowners ip1 prescription asn5t set in w en private R&)POND&NT5) &;ID&NC& 6 sworn affidavit duly notari8ed and e2ecuted 4y ?i4iano ?anas declarin3 t at Raymundo ?anas is is 4rot er1 Pedro5s son 6 sworn JOINT affidavit duly notari8ed and e2ecuted 4y Raymundo and Pedro ?anas correctin3 an error made on t e marria3e certificate of t e former c an3in3 t e fat er of Raymundo from E?i4ianoF to EPedroF C O U R T ) 6 G ) 6 pu4lic instrument e2plicitly statin3 Pedro is t e fat er of Raymundo is stron3 evidence t at e does not ac@nowled3e or ave t e intention t ereof t at t e latter is is son If Raymundo really 4elieved t at e is indeed t e son of ?i4iano e could not ave consented to e2ecutin3 suc declaration< Trinidad5s contention of t e document was contradictory and t erefore set aside0 AMa5am ?et does not 4uy t e interpretation of EGour Fat erF as a reference term for an uncle0 UG(U6N(CO v C6 K )ee Ille3itimate Filiation P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !7! of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 respondents filed in !"$/ t e present action for partition0 T e re3istration didn5t operate as a valid repudiation of t e co%owners ip0 )C stated t at Eprescription1 as a mode of terminatin3 a relation of co%owners ip1 must ave 4een preceded 4y repudiation wNc su4=ect to certain conditions9 !. a co%owner repudiates t e co%owners ip 7. suc an act of repudiation is clearly made @nown to t e ot er co%owners /. t e evidence t ereon is clear Q conclusive -. e as 4een in possession t ru open1 continuous1 e2clusive Q notorious possession of t e prop for a period re'uired 4y law Inasmuc as petitioners re3istered t e prop in t eir names in fraud of t eir co% eirs1 prescription can only 4e deemed to ave commenced from t e time private respondents discovered t e petitioner5s act of defraudation0 6nd t is action was commenced 7 mont s after learnin3 petitioners ad re3istered in t eir names t e lots involved to t e pre=udice of private respondents0 7. *ON t e private respondents1 were a4le to prove t eir successional ri3 ts over t e estate0 G&) FC as to apply since it is effective already0 6nd under 6rt !$71 filiation of le3it @ids may 4e esta4lis ed 4y t e record of 4irt appearin3 in t e civil re3ister or a final =ud3ment or 4y t e open Q continuous possession of t e status of a le3it @id0 &vidence proves t e private respondents le3it filiation0 Jacinto5s 4irt cert was presented0 T ou3 Julian and Paulina didn5t present evidence re'uired 4y 6rt !$71 t ey continuously en=oyed t e status as @ids of Lupo in t e same manner as Jacinto0 6nd for a considera4le len3t of time Q despite t e deat of t eir mom1 t ey lived wit Lupo until is deat 0 6C&?&DO v 6RSU&RO +7CC/. /"" )CR6 !C % &dwin 6ce4edo c ar3ed &ddie 6r'uero for immorality in an administrative complaint0 >e alle3ed t at is wife1 Ded=e Irader 6ce4edo and respondent unlawfully co a4ited as us4and and wife as a result of w ic a 3irl1 Desiree May Irader 6r'uero1 was 4orn to t e two0 6ttac ed was t e 4irt certificate of t e 3irl indicatin3 er parents to 4e 6r'uero and Ded=oe0 >e also presented a copy of t eir marria3e contract0 6r'uero ve emently denied t e c ar3e of immorality1 claimin3 t at it is E=ust a mere arassment and a product of complainant5s atred and e2treme =ealousy to is wife0F >e presented a

sworn statement w erein &dwin 6ce4edo +complainant. ac@nowled3ed paternity of a c ild 4orn out of wedloc@1 w ic documents1 respondent claims1 support is contention t at t e complaint filed a3ainst im is 4ut a malicious sc eme concocted 4y complainant to arass im0 >e also said t at t e complainant was co a4itin3 wit anot er woman0 % % MTC recommended t at t e complaint 4e dismissed for failure to adduce ade'uate evidence to s ow t at respondent is 3uilty of t e c ar3e Memorandum 4y t e Office of t e Court 6dministrator disa3reein3 wit t e recommendation of t e Investi3atin3 Jud3e t at t e case s ould 4e dismissed1 recommends t at respondent 4e eld 3uilty of immorality and t at e 4e suspended from office for a period of one +!. year wit out pay0 I))U&9 *ON 6r'uero can 4e suspended due to immorality0 R6TIO9 Ges0 T e entry of respondent5s name as fat er in t e 4aptismal certificate of Desiree May I0 6r'uero cannot 4e used to prove er filiation and1 t erefore1 cannot 4e availed of to imply t at respondent maintained illicit relations wit Ded=e Irader 6ce4edo0 6 4aptismal certificate merely attests to t e fact w ic 3ave rise to its issue1 and t e date t ereof1 to wit1 t e fact of t e administration of t e sacrament on t e date stated1 4ut not t e trut of t e statements t erein as to t e parenta3e of t e c ild 4apti8ed0 6r'uero admitted t at e ad an illicit relations ip wit t e wife of t e complainant % 6r'uero =ustified is pursuin3 a relations ip wit complainant5s wife wit t e spouses avin3 previously entered into a settlement wit respect to t eir marria3e w ic was em4odied in a EIasunduanF0 T is =ustification fails 4ecause 6r'uero1 4ein3 an employee of t e =udiciary1 @nows t at t e Iasunduan as no force and effect 4ecause 6rticle ! of t e FC provides9 marria3e is Ean inviola4le social institution w ose nature1 conse'uences1 and incidents are 3overned 4y law and not su4=ect to stipulation0F It is an institution of pu4lic order or policy1 3overned 4y rules esta4lis ed 4y law w ic cannot 4e made inoperative 4y t e stipulation of t e parties0 R6 ,$!/1 ot erwise @nown as t e Code of Conduct and &t ical )tandards for Pu4lic Officials and &mployees1 enunciates t e )tate5s policy of promotin3 a i3 standard of et ics and utmost responsi4ility in t e pu4lic service 6lt ou3 every office in t e 3overnment service is a pu4lic trust1 no position e2acts a 3reater demand for moral ri3 teousness and upri3 tness from an individual t an in t e =udiciary0 6r3uero5s act of avin3 illicit relations wit t e complainant5s wife is a dis3raceful and immoral conduct0 Under Rule I;1 )ection D76 +!D. of t e Revised Uniform Rules on 6dministrative Cases in t e Civil )ervice1 an immoral conduct is classified as a 3rave offense w ic calls for a penalty of suspension for si2 +,. mont s and one +!. day to P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !77 of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 one +!. year for t e first offense1 and dismissal is imposed for t e second offense0 )ince it is is first offense1 is suspension for si2 +,. mont s and one +!. day is in order0 >&RR&R6 v 6L?6 +7CCD. -,C )CR6 !"$ 6rmi 6l4a instituted an action for support1 dama3es and compulsory reco3nition a3ainst Rosendo >errera on 4e alf of er !/ year old son Rosendo 6l4a0 Respondent re'uested for DN6 testin3 to determine er son5s paternal relation to >errera1 w ic RTC 3ranted0 >errera appealed assailin3 t at compulsory DN6 testin3 violates is constitutional ri3 t a3ainst self% incrimination C69 ri3 t a3ainst self%incrimination applies only to testimonial compulsion and affirmed t e order to DN6 I))U&9 *ON DN6 testin3 is a valid test for paternity in t is =urisdiction >&LD9 Ges0 DN6 testin3 as pro4ative value in t is =urisdiction owin3 to its 3rowin3 accuracy in esta4lis in3 matc es 4etween a parent and an offsprin30 >owever1 it s ould ta@e not of t e followin3 t in3s9 !0 ow t e samples were collected and andled 70 t e possi4ility of contamination of samples /0 t e procedure followed in analy8in3 t e samples -0 w et er t e proper standards and procedures were followed in conductin3 t e tests D0 'ualification of t e analysts w o conducted t e test T e policy of t e FC to li4erali8e t e rule on t e investi3ation of t e paternity and filiation of c ildren1 especially le3itimate c ildren is wit out pre=udice to t e ri3 t of t e putative parent to claim is or er own defenses0 FOUR )I(NIFIC6NT PROC&DUR6L 6)P&CT) OF 6 TR6DITION6L P6T&RNITG !0 prima facie case K t at t e woman ad se2ual relation wit t e putative fat er 70 affirmative defense K s ow p ysical incapa4ility or se2ual

relations OR se2ual relation wit ot er men at t e time of conception /0 presumption of le3itimacy -0 p ysical resem4lance 4etween fat er and c ild FC1 6rt !$/ T e action to claim le3itimacy may 4e 4rou3 t 4y transmitted to t e eirs s ould t e c ild die durin3 t e minor eirs s all ave a period of five years wit in w ic to institute a T e action already commenced 4y t e c ild s all survive notw parties0 T e ri3 t of a c ild to claim le3itimacy may only 4e transferred to t e eirs under two cases and wit in D years9 !0 if t e c ild dies durin3 minority 70 if t e c ild dies in a state of insanity AT e effect of le3itimacy claim e2tends t e successional ri3 ts /0 Ri3 ts of le3itimate c ildren FC1 6rt !$- Le3itimate c ildren s all ave t e ri3 t9 !0 to 4ear t e surnames of t e fat er and t e mot er1 surname 70 to receive support from t eir parents1 t eir ascendants in conformity wit t e provisions of t is Code on )uppo /0 to 4e entitled to t e le3itimate and ot er successional AMa5am ?et 5s mnemonics9 /s % support1 surname1 succession AT e c ild5s use of isN er fat er5 surname indicates t e family to w ic eNs e 4elon3s0 >ence1 it is mandatory for t e c ild to do so0 R&PU?LIC v C6 Q ;IC&NCIO +!""#. /CC )CR6 !/# Cynt ia ;icencio was 4orn on !" January !"$! at t e Capitol Medical Center1 Sue8on City to spouses Pa4lo Castro ;icencio and Fe &speran8a de ;e3a Lea4res0 T ey lived in Meycauayan1 ?ulacan and Pa4lo left t e said a4ode on !C January !"$7 after a 'uarrel wit Fe and from t en on was never seen or eard from0 Neit er was any support for is family ever received from im0 7" June !"$,1 Fe &speran8a petitioned for t e dissolution of t eir con=u3al partners ip w ic was 3ranted0 On !! July !"$$ Fe petitioned to drop t e surname of er estran3ed us4and1 it was approved0 On 7, 6pril !"#,1 Pa4lo was =udicially declared as an a4sentee0 Fe married &rnesto Gu on !D 6pril !"#,1 wit t en Mandaluyon3 City Mayor ?en=amin 64alos )r0 solemni8in3 t e ceremony0 Cynt ia 3rew up treatin3 Gu as er fat er and Gu treated er as is own dau3 ter0 Confusion and em4arrassment was caused 4y er use of t e surname ;icencio w en is stepfat er is surnamed Gu0 ) e was made to use t e surname Gu w en s e =oined two 4eauty pa3eants1 w ere t e use was wit t e consent of er stepfat er0 K * en 70 6ction to claim le3itimacy P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !7/ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % Cynt ia petitioned for a c an3e in surname1 t e stepfat er openly declared is consent0 T e Trial Court decided in er favor and 6ppellate Court up eld1 4ot sayin3 t at 3rantin3 er re'uest would 4e for t e 4est interest of Cynt ia )( opposed sayin3 t at even if it would dimprove er personality15 t ere was no valid1 proper1 and reasona4le cause to 3rant er re'uest0 It would 3enerate complicated pro4lems especially wit re3ards to pro4lems of in eritance since er status will 4e affected0 T ey say1 &rnesto could ave adopted er instead of Cynt ia comin3 to court wit t is petition0 D& 6)I) v C6 +!""". /C/ )CR6 !$, % ;ircel 6ndres1 mot er and le3al 3uardian of er son (len Camil 6ndres de 6sis1 4rou3 t an action for support and maintenance a3ainst t e alle3ed fat er Manuel de 6sis0 Manueld denied filiation0 ;ircel a3reed to compromise t at s e would not pursue t e case if Manuel will wit draw is counterclaim0 6fter si2 years1 ;ircel filed an action for support and maintenance of er son0 >&LD9 T e ri3 t to support cannot 4e t e su4=ect of compromise0 T e action for support cannot 4e 4arred 4y res =udicata0 T e ratio 4e ind t e pro i4ition a3ainst wavin3 t e ri3 t to future support is t e need to maintain one5s e2istence0 Paternity and filiation +or lac@ of it. must 4e =udicially esta4lis ed and it is for t e court to declare its e2istence or a4sence0 It cannot 4e left to t e will or a3reement of t e parties0 T e a3reement entered into 4y t e petitioner and respondent5s mot er for t e dismissal of t e complaint for maintenance and support1 w ic is in t e nature of a compromise1 cannot 4e countenanced0 T e ri3 t to receive support can neit er 4e renounced nor transmitted to a t ird person as per 6rt /C! CC0 6lso1 future support cannot 4e t e su4=ect of a compromise as in 6rt 7C/D0 AA Le3itime of a le3itimate c ild9 alf of t e parents5 estate divided 4y t e num4er of le3itimate c ildren0 I))U&9 *ON appellate court erred in affirmin3 trial court5s decision allowin3 t e c an3e of private respondent5s surname wit t at of er stepfat er0 >&LD9 Ges0 6 c an3e of name is a privile3e1 not a matter of ri3 t1 addressed to t e sound discretion of t e court1 w ic as t e duty to consider

carefully t e conse'uences of a c an3e of name and to deny t e same unless wei3 ty reasons are s own0 Confusion mi3 t arise wit re3ard to private respondent5s parenta3e 4ecause of er surname0 ?ut even more confusion wit 3rave le3al conse'uences could arise if we allow private respondent to 4ear er step%fat er5s surname1 even if s e is not le3ally adopted 4y im0 6 le3itimate c ild must use t e surname of isN er fat er0 C0 Ille3itimate C ildren (enerally1 ille3itimate c ildren are t ose 4orn of parents w o are not united 4y a valid marria3e0 Under t e CC1 t ere were t ree main 3roups of ille3itimate c ildren9 !0 Natural c ildren 70 Natural c ildren 4y le3al fiction /0 )purious c ildren o adulterous o incestuous o sacrile3ious K 4orn of persons w o are dis'ualified to marry 4y reason of reli3ious profession o manceres K t ose 4orn of prostitutes Under our law1 t ere is no dis'ualification to marry on t e 3round of reli3ious profession0 6nd we also ave no law w ic automatically classifies c ildren of prostitutes as ille3itimate0 FC a4olis ed all distinctions 4etween ille3itimate c ildren suc t at t ere are only two cate3ories of c ildren today9 le3itimate and ille3itimate0 >owever1 an informal distinction 4etween two 3roups of ille3itimate c ildren was esta4lis ed9 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !7- of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 marria3e of er parents nine years after er 4irt 0 6round four mont s after Pa4lo5s marria3e to 6na1 Pa4lo died so s e too@ possession of Pa4lo5s 70 estate and its administration1 Pa4lo5s si4lin3s o4=ected and prayed for t e administration and succession ri3 ts 4e !0 Proof of filiation transferred to t em alle3in3 t at Pa4lo died a widower and t at t e alle3ation t at 6licia was a le3itimated dau3 ter way and on t e same FC1 6rt !$D Ille3itimate c ildren may esta4lis t eir ille3itimate filiation in t e same is wit out foundation in fact and law0 evidence as le3itimate c ildren0 +6rt !$7. T e lower court affirmed t is conclusion and said t at 6licia5s evidences are insufficient1 4ein3 T e action must 4e 4rou3 t wit in t e same period specified in 6rt !$/ +lifetime of t e c ild1 will not 4e for3ed and incompetent e2tin3uis ed 4y deat of eit er parties.1 e2cept w en t e action is 4ased on t e second para3rap of 6rt T ere was no document !$71 in w ic case t e action may 4e 4rou3 t durin3 t e lifetime of t e alle3ed parent0 to s ow t at petitioner ad 4een supported 4y t e deceased in is lifetime0 T ere were neit er receipts of payment * y must t e action 4e 4rou3 t durin3 t e of sc ool fees in t e name of Pa4lo nor lifetime of t e putative parent in Par 7B )ince si3natures in sc ool cards and letters to relatives t ere mi3 t still 4e a 'uestion as to w et er t e or friends namin3 Maria 6licia as dau3 ter0 c ild is really t e ille3itimate c ild of t e alle3ed T e 4aptismal certificate and 4irt certificate do parent or not1 t e latter must 4e 3iven an not 4ear e2press ac@nowled3ment of petitioner opportunity to contest t e action1 and t is e or s e as a c ild of t e deceased0 can only do if t e action is filed durin3 is or er 6s proof of filiation1 petitioner claimed t at s e lifetime0 was in t e uninterrupted possession of t e status of a natural c ild of t e decedent and er Ma5am ?et as@s9 E>ow would ille3itimate c ildren mot er0 @now t ey are ille3itimate if t ey ave always 4een C6 affirmed t e lower court5s findin3s livin3 wit t e familyB T e only time t ey5d learn ratiocinatin3 t at it is not unusual if Pa4lo loo@ed t ey do are not entitled to t eir parent5s estate is upon Maria as if s e were is own dau3 ter w en t ey die0 Only )empio%Diy @nows t at rule1 4ecause e ad no c ild in is previous mortals don5tTF marria3e0 !0 t ose conceived of parents w o ave no le3al impediment to marry at t e time of may 4e le3itimated all ot er ille3itimate c ildren COMP6R&Dt e conception *IT> T>& CC PRO;I)ION ON PRO;IN( ILL&(ITIM6T& FILI6TION9 6rt 7#D provided for e2ceptions in t e prescription for reco3nition of natural c ildren1 FC removed t is provision in Par 71 6rt !$D0 +Uy3uan3co v C6. !0 If t e fat er or t e mot er died durin3 t e minority of t e c ild1 in w ic case t e latter may file t e action 4efore t e e2piration of four years from t e attainment of is ma=ority0 70 If after t e deat of t e fat er or of t e mot er a document s ould appear of w ic not in3 ad 4een eard and in w ic eit er or 4ot parents reco3ni8e t e c ild0 In t is case1 t e action must 4e commenced wit in - years from t e findin3 of t e document0 >O* TO ?RIN( 6CTION TO CL6IM FILI6TION !0 File a separate action 70 Intervene in t e settlement of estate of isN er alle3ed parent L&UT&RIO v C6 +!""!. !"$ )CR6

/," Ma0 6licia Leuterio claims t at s e is t e natural dau3 ter of Pa4lo Leuterio and 6na Ma3lan3'ue1 w o was t e servant of t e former0 6licia claims t at s e was conceived at t e time w en er parents were not dis'ualified to marry eac ot er and t at s e was le3itimated 4y t e I))U&9 *ON 6licia is t e le3itimated dau3 ter of Pa4lo and 6na >&LD9 No0 C6 decision was affirmed0 T e relief of petitioner is t at of involuntary reco3nition w ic may 4e 3iven if t ere is incontroverti4le paper written 4y t e parent e2pressly reco3ni8in3 is paternity0 T e reco3nition must 4e precise1 e2press and solemn0 T e p oto3rap s s e presented li@ewise did not 4ear t e decedent5s si3nature0 ) e was also not a le3itimated dau3 ter0 UG(U6N(CO v C6 +!"#". !$# )CR6 ,#- (raciano Uy3uan3co claims t at e is t e ille3itimate son of t e late 6polinario Uy3uan3co w o died intestate0 (raciano admits avin3 no documents to prove is filiation 4ut claims to 4e in continuous possession of t e status of an ille3itimate c ild0 >e moved to Misamis Oriental w ere 6polinario supported is education and even ired im as a store@eeper in t eir store wit out o4=ection of t e family0 >e was allowed to use t e surname and s ared in t e profits of t e copra 4usiness0 I))U&9 *ON e s ould 4e allowed to prove t at e is an ille3itimate c ild of is claimed fat er1 w o is already dead1 in t e a4sence of t e documentary evidence re'uired 4y t e CC0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !7D of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 >&LD9 T e action to prove ille3itimate filiation is 4arred0 )ince (raciano see@s to prove filiation 4ased on Par 7 of 6rt !$7 FC1 it s ould ta@e place durin3 t e lifetime of t e parent0 >is action is 4arred 4ecause of t e deat of is fat er0 6rt 7#/ CC w ic 3ives wei3 t to Econtinuous possession of t e status of a c ild of is alle3ed fat er 4y t e direct acts of t e latter or is familyF as 4een superseded 4y 6rt !$D FC0 RODRI(U&P v C6 +!""D. 7-D )CR6 !DC On Oct0 !D1 !"#,1 Clarito 634ulos filed a case a3ainst ?ienvenido Rodri3ue80 >e presented is mot er as witness to reveal t e identity of is fat er0 Counsel for Rodri3ue8 o4=ected and t e Trial Court sustained0 Clarito filed a petition in t e )C and t e )C referred t e case to t e C60 T at decision is assailed in t is case0 Petitioner9 Felicitas s ouldn5t 4e allowed to reveal t e name of t e fat er as stated in 6rt0 7#C of t e Civil Code9 * en t e fat er or t e mot er ma@es t e reco3nition separately1 e or s e s all not reveal t e name of t e person wit w om e or s e ad t e c ild< neit er s all s e state any circumstance w ere4y t e ot er party may 4e identified0 Respondent9 Fecilitas s ould 4e allowed 4y 9 !0 6rt 7#/+-. CC9 T e fat er is o4li3ed to reco3ni8e t e c ild as is natural c ild w en t e c ild as in is favor any evidence or proof t at t e defendant is is fat er 70 )ec /C1 Rule !/C of t e Revised Rules of Court9 6 witness can testify only to t ose facts w ic e @nows of is own @nowled3e1 t at is1 w ic are derived from is own perception1 e2cept as ot erwise provided in t ese rules mot er is % In !"#/1 Lu8 Fa4ian filed a complaint for t e compelled reco3nition of er c ildren as compulsory eirs of t e deceased on t e 3rounds of open and continuous possession of t e status of ille3itimate c ildren0 RTC declared only 6ntonia as t e ille3itimate dau3 ter of Jose 6rue3o and entitled to er s are in t e estate I))U&9 !0 *ON Family Code provisions apply in instant case 70 *ON application of Family Code in t is case pre=udice or impair vested ri3 t of respondent s ould FC 4e 3iven retroactive effect /0 *ON trial court lost =urisdiction w en FC too@ effect0 >&LD9 !0 No0 T e suit was filed prior to t e effectivity of FC1 t us CC provisions still apply0 6rt 7#D CC 3overns t e case and not 6rt !$D Par 7 FC0 70 G&)0 If FC prevails over CC in t e c oice of w ic s ould 3overn1 it would pre=udice 6ntonia5s ri3 t w ic was vested upon er 4y virtue of 6rt0 7#D1 t rou3 t e a4ovementioned suit for reco3nition0 /0 NO0 )ince CC still 3overns t e case1 trial court never lost its ori3inal =urisdiction0 * at is your understandin3 of a vested ri3 tB It is not defined in 6rt 7D, FC 4ecause it s ould 4e on a case to case 4asis1 ta@in3 into account all t e circumstances and facts0 )u4se'uent c an3e of law s ould not affect t e availa4le cause of action0 JI)ON v C6 +!""#. 7#, )CR6 -"D Monina Jison alle3ed t at s e is t e ille3itimate dau3 ter of Francisco Jison0 Francisco denied paternity0 * ile married to Lilia Jison1 Francisco impre3nated t e nanny of is eldest dau3 ter1 &speran8a 6molar0 T e c ild was 4orn and en=oyed t e continuous and implied reco3nition as an ille3itimate

c ild0 Francisco spent for er education until s e 4ecame a CP6 and eventually wor@ed as Central ?an@ e2aminer0 It was er fat er w o paid for t e 4urial e2penses for er mot er5s deat 0 6nd it was t rou3 filiation wit er fat er t at s e previously was a4le to see@ employment at Miller Q Cru8 in ?acolod City0 ) e was a4le to name t e mem4ers of t e Jison ouse old as well as t e staff in er fat er5s office0 ) e also claimed @nowin3 t e / c ildren of Francisco and Lilia0 T e last time s e saw er fat er was w en s e sou3 t is 4lessin3s to 3et married0 In sum1 Monina5s evidence and testimonies s owed t at a0 s e was close wit Francisco5s relatives I))U&9 *ON t e testimony of t e admissi4le for compulsory reco3nition0 >&LD9 Ges0 Pro i4ition in 67#C1 a3ainst t e identification of t e fat er or mot er of a c ild apply only in voluntary Q not in compulsory reco3nition0 T e said laws were repealed 4y t e FC0 6rt !$7 FC states t at filiation may 4e proved 4y any evidence and proof t at t e defendant is is fat er0 6RU&(O v C6 +!"",. 7D- )CR6 $!! Jose 6rue3o w ile married ad an e2tra%marital relations ip wit Lu8 Fa4ian in !"D" until is deat in Marc !"#70 6lle3edly 4orn to t is amorous relations ip were 6ntonia and &velyn1 4ot surnamed 6rue3o0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#% 7CC" Pa3e !7, of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 40 % s e received P!D as mont ly allowance from er fat er coursed t rou3 accountants of is office c0 er filiation was @nown in t e Jison office Q ouse old d0 er allowance was not recorded in t e 4oo@s 4ut in a separate cas 4oo@ 4ecause it ad to 4e idden from Mrs Jison and c ildren e0 t at s e even as@ed for a C ristmas 3ift from er 3odfat er1 Don ;icente1 fat er of Mrs Jison * en Monina wanted to 3o to )pain1 er fat er ne3otiated t at in e2c an3e for t e e2penses1 s e would si3n a document t at denies er 4ein3 a dau3 ter0 >&LD9 Monina proved er filiation0 ) e as open and continuous possession of t e status of an ille3itimate c ild0 >er witnesses +s e ad !!. esta4lis ed er claims0 >owever1 Monina cannot rely on er 4irt certificate in t e Local Re3istrar w ere Francisco is named as er fat er0 Neit er can s e rely on er 4aptismal certificate namin3 Francisco as er fat er0 T ere was no s owin3 t at Francisco ad anyt in3 to do wit t e filin3 of said certificates0 Moreover1 6rt !$7 provides t e various forms of evidence wNc may 4e presented0 Monina was a4le to present a E i3 standard of proofF w ic was co erent1 lo3ical and natural as compared to Francisco5s evidence w ic was 4arren and mostly denials0 6s re3ards t e issue t at t ere was opportunity for Monina5s mot er to ave slept wit ot er men durin3 t e time s e conceived Monina1 Francisco ad t e 4urden of proof w ic e failed to deliver0 T e issue of w et er se2ual intercourse actually occurred inevita4ly redounds to t e victim5s or mot er5s word1 as a3ainst t e protestation of t e accused or putative5s fat er0 6lt ou3 Pansay unfortunately passed away and t erefore cannot testify1 t is does not mean t at Monina could no lon3er prove er filiation0 )ince it was esta4lis ed t at Pansay was still employed under Francisco at t e time Monina was conceived1 se2ual contact 4etween Pansay and im was not at all impossi4le1 especially in t e li3 t of t e overw elmin3 evidence0 Francisco is Monina5s fat er and s e was conceived at t e time Pansay wor@ed for im0 >e reco3ni8ed Monina as is c ild t rou3 is overt acts and conduct as was found 4y C6 and suc reco3nition as 4een consistently s own and manifested t rou3 out t e years pu4licly1 spontaneously1 continuously and in an uninterrupted manner0 Moreover1 if Monina were not is ille3itimate dau3 ter1 it would ave 4een unnecessary for Francisco to ave 3one to suc 3reat len3t s in order t at Monina denounce er filiation0 Monina filed er action well wit in t e period 3ranted er 4y a positive provision of law0 6 denial of er action on 3round of lac es would clearly 4e ine'uita4le and un=ust0 Petition denied0 C allen3ed C6 decision affirmed0 6L?&RTO v C6 +!""-. 7/7 )CR6 $-D Ma0 T eresa 6l4erto claims t at s e as 4een in continuous possession of t e status of an ille3itimate c ild of t e late Juan 6l4erto and is entitled to a s are in is estate0 T e followin3 are t e proofs used9 !0 Juan Q 6urora were sweet earts prior to Juan5s marria3e to Golanda 70 Juan 3ave money to 6urora t ru Fr0 6rcilla1 Juan5s first cousin /0 Juan 3ave T eresa money for er sc oolin3 -0 Juan made @nown to is friends Q relatives t at s e was is dau3 ter D0 >e made @nown to personnel of International )c ool w ere T eresa was enrolled t at s e was is

dau3 ter ,0 Juan5s youn3er sister1 Mrs0 6urita )olidum1 as@ed T eresa to 4e sent to er ouse to meet er dad for t e first time w en T eresa was "0 $0 Fr0 6rcilla 4rou3 t T eresa to Juan5s 4edside in t e ospital w en e was s ot Q as@ed 3uards to 3ive way to er as s e was a mem4er of t e family0 #0 Juan5s step mom1 )aturnina 6l4erto1 introduced T eresa to one of Juan5s dau3 ter + er alf%sister.0 ) e was introduced as an elder sister0 "0 6urora testified t at er 3ivin3 4irt to T eresa was due to an indiscretion and t at Mrs0 )olidum did arran3e mt3 4et T eresa Q Juan !C0 T eresa testified t at9 a0 er dad 3ave er PDCC0CC on t eir first meetin3 alon3 wit two p one num4ers w ere e could 4e reac ed0 40 ) e met im several times after t e first meetin3 and e 3ave im money durin3 t ose times too c0 Dad visited er in I) twice0 I) is very strict w en it comes to visitors Q 4y allowin3 Juan to see T eresa1 t is s ows t at e was identified 4y t e sc ool personnel as T eresa5s dad0 d0 Dad promised to see er in sc ool durin3 er !-t 4irt day w ic didn5t appen 4ecause e was 3unned down0 e0 >er uncles and aunts +4ros and sis. of er dad re3arded er as t eir niece Q s e was introduced as Juan5s eldest dau3 ter0 T e c ildren of Juan5s 4ros and sis li@ewise reco3ni8ed er as t eir cousin0 !!0 Jose Ta4li8o testified t at t ere was a stron3 p ysical resem4lance 4et Juan Q T eresa Q t ey wrote similarly too0 >e furt er stated t at it was @nown amon3 Juan5s friends +t e ?ree8e (an3. t at T eresa was Juan5s dau3 ter and t at Juan proudly s owed im T eresa5s report card wN i3 3rades0 !70 6tty0 Martiniano ;ivo testified t at Juan5s lawyer1 Immi3rations Commissioner &dmundo Reyes discussed wN im Juan5s P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !7$ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % letter sayin3 t at e was not denyin3 t at e was T eresa5s dad and due to is marital status Q since e was a pu4lic official1 e wanted to avoid pu4lic scandal t us support will 4e 3iven 'uietly t ru Fr0 6rcilla0 C6 reversed decision0 It was not satisfied t at T eresa was in continuous possession of status of natural c ild of deceased0 ?ases9 !0 Case w erein 7 nurses too@ care of @ids at t e e2pense of alle3ed dad1 t at e @issed @ids1 called t em sons1 3ave money for t eir necessities1 t ey called im dad Q was pu4licly re3arded as dad of t e c ildren 4ut Court eld t at t ey were insufficient 4asis for a declaration of paternity0 C6 finds T eresa5s evidence wea@er t an t is0 Dad may ave 4een convinced of is paternity 4ut t ey don5t s ow is intent to place @ids in possession of status of natural c ildren0 70 T eresa5s letter to Jose Ta4li8o w erein s e wrote of ow proud s e is of er dad Q ow s e only @new im as a 4i3 man Q t at is friends li@e Ta4li8o w o @new im well Q s e envied t em for avin3 t at privile3e0 +see p0 $D!.0 C6 claims t at t e letter 3ave t e impression t at Juan distanced imself from T eresa0 Golanda denied t at Juan ever reco3ni8ed T eresa as is dau3 ter0 ) e presented letters sent 4y 6urora to Juan Q Fr0 6rcilla as proof t at Juan refused to reco3ni8e T eresa0 In one letter 6urora complained t at Juan didn5t 3ive a damn to T eresa Q s e mentioned t at t e c ild was 3raduatin3 from Prep )c ool0 Letter li@ewise stated t at s e waited for t e money for support Q t at s e was 3rateful for t e P/CC e sent0 ,0 C ild is often t e fruit of first love Q is entrenc ed firmly in er parents5 earts0 Juan could5ve not resisted manifestin3 si3ns of concern Q care in so far as is first 4orn is concerned especially since c ild as muc talent Q 3reat promise0 It5s e2pected t at dad would proudly step forward to claim is paternity0 Discreetness is understanda4le considerin3 t e strai3 t%laced mores of t e times Q t e social Q political stature of Juan0 ?ut despite t at1 e openly visited is dau3 ter in sc ool and met wit er in several occasions0 T ou3 letter may imply lac@ of association1 it5s understood 4ecause t eir relations ip was far from normal0 T ere5s sufficient proof t at Juan acted in suc manner as to s ow is intent to reco3ni8e T eresa as is own Q not t at e distanced imself from er0 CC 6rt0 7#D9 6ction for reco3nition of natural c ildren may 4e 4rou3 t only durin3 t e lifetime of presumed parents e2cept +!. if dadNmom died durin3 c ild5s minority1 in wNc case1 c ild may file action 4efore t e e2piration of - yrs from attainment of is ma=ority0 T eresa falls wNin t is e2ception since s e was only !- w en er dad died0 )o can file an action 4efore s e reac es 7D +- years after a3e of ma=ority wNc was 7! t en.0 )o s e ad until )ept0 !#1 !"$# to file t e action0 6nd s e filed t e present action on )ept0 !D1 !"$#1 / days 4efore t e

e2piration of t e -%year period0 >&LD9 T eresa was a4le to prove er open and continuous possession of t e status of an ille3itimate c ild0 !0 Letters from 6urora9 did not prove t at Juan refused to reco3ni8e T eresa1 it only proved t at 6urora was avin3 a ard time raisin3 c ild on er own and s e as@ed for Juan5s assistance0 70 Juan never stopped T eresa from usin3 is last name0 /0 Report card story9 4ein3 discredited for earsay 4ut accordin3 to )C t is is wNin t e e2ception of t e earsay rule +)ec0 /#1 Rule !/C1 ROC.0 -0 Relatives of Juan reco3ni8ed T eresa too0 Golanda could ave presented any of t ese relatives to ne3ate T eresa5s claims 4ut s e failed to do so0 D0 Re T eresa5s letter to Ta4li8o9 * at a poi3nant novel s e can now aut or as s e see@s to esta4lis er parental lin@s wit er dad0 T ere must 4e 'uestions as to w y is dad didn5t marry er mom w en t ere were no le3al impediments at t e time of er conception0 Note t at under t e different cate3ories of ille3itimate c ildren under t e CC1 t e natural c ild occupies t e i3 est position since er parents were not dis'ualified to marry durin3 er conception0 (UG v C6 +7CC,. DC7 )CR6 !D! )ima *ei died intestate in Ma@ati City on Octo4er !""71 leavin3 !CM wort of real and personal properties >is @nown eirs are is survivin3 spouse and ) irley (uy and c ildren Private respondents +minors Iaren and Iamille *ei.1 represented 4y t eir mot er Remedios filed a petition and prayed for t e appointment of a re3ular administrator for t e orderly settlement of )ima *ei5s estate0 Petitioners prayed for t e dismissal of t e petition of Remedios on t e followin3 3rounds9 !0 T at )ima Lei left no de4ts and t ere is t erefore no need to secure letters of administration 70 T at private respondents s ould ave esta4lis ed t eir status as ille3itimate c ildren durin3 t e lifetime of )ima *ei /0 T at private respondent5s claim ad 4een paid1 waived and a4andoned or ot erwise e2tin3uis ed 4y reason of Remedios5 R&L&6)& 6ND *6I;&R CL6IM statin3 t at in e2c an3e for t e financial educational assistance received from petitioner1 Remedios and er minor c ildren disc ar3e t e estate of )ima *ei from any and all lia4itilities I))U&)9 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !7# of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 !0 70 *ON t e Release and *aiver of Claim precludes private respondents from claimin3 t eir successional ri3 ts *ON private respondents are 4arred 4y prescription from provin3 t eir filiation IN R& M6TT&R OF T>& INT&)T6T& &)T6T&) OF D&C&6)&D JO)&F6 D&L(6DO 6ND (UILL&RMO RU)TI6 +7CC,. -#C )CR6 //- Lucio Campo >&LD9 !0 No0 6 waiver may not 4e attri4uted to a person w en its terms do not e2plicitly and clearly evince an intent to a4andon a ri3 t0 T e document does not state wit clarity t e purpose for its e2ecution0 Parents and 3uardians may not also repudiate t e in eritance of t eir wards wit out =udicial approval0 Not avin3 4een =udicially aut ori8ed1 t e Release and *aiver of Claim in t e instant case is void and will not 4ar private respondents from assertin3 t eir ri3 ts as eirs of t e deceased0 It must also 4e emp asi8ed t at waiver is t e intentional relin'uis ment of a @nown ri3 t0 Private respondents could not ave possi4le waived t eir successional ri3 ts 4ecause t ey are yet to prove t eir status as ac@nowled3ed ille3itimate c ildren of t e deceased0 70 6 rulin3 in t e same would 4e premature considerin3 respondents ave yet to present evidences to prove t eir filiation0 It is t e duty of t e trial court0 6(U)TIN v C6 +7CCD. -,C )CR6 /!D 6rnel 63ustin ad an e2tramarital affair wit Fe Prollamante w ic produced t e c ild named Martin0 6rnel su33ested to ave t e pre3nancy a4orted w ic Fe refused0 6rnel alle3edly too@ care of all t e medical 4ills in Martin5s 4irt and even si3ned is 4irt certificate as t e fat er0 >owever1 in t e lon3 run1 6rnel failed to 3ive sustenance despite is ade'uate financial capacity0 Fe1 afflicted wit leu@emia1 sues 6rnel for support0 T ey also moved for DN6 testin3 to prove t eir cause of action0 I))U&)9 !0 *ON complaint for support can 4e converted to a petition for reco3nition 70 *ON DN6 paternity testin3 can 4e ordered in a proceedin3 for support wit out violatin3 petitioner5s constitutional ri3 t to privacy and ri3 t a3ainst self%incrimination >&LD9 !0 T e action does not amount to conversion0 Rat er1 t e DN6 was necessity to esta4lis t e respondent5s cause of action0 6lso1 even if t e order would effect t e esta4lis ment of filiation1 t e inte3ration of t e two actions is still lawful 4ecause t e resolution of one issue necessary in t e

determination of t e ot er issue0 70 No0 Ri3 t to self%incrimination is considered only in written and ver4al compulsion0 Felisa Ramon Osorio (uillerm o Josefa T is case involves t e partition of t e estate of decedent (uillermo and Josefa Del3ado0 T e two 3roups contendin3 t e ri3 t of in eritance are t e eirs of Josefa Del3ado + er alf and full%4lood si4lin3s and t eir descendants. and t e eirs of (uillermo Del3ado + is si4lin3s and t eir descendants1 is ille3itimate c ild and de facto adopted c ild.0 Josefa died 4efore (uillermo1 4ot intestate0 T e e2istence of t eir marria3e is also under 'uestion0 !0 >&IR) OF JO)&F6 D&L(6DO0 Felisa ad seven c ildren fat ered 4y two men1 all t e 4irt s were out of wedloc@0 In effect t e c ildren 4elon3 to t e ille3itimate line0 70 >&IR) OF (UILL&RMO RU)TI60 >e ad an ille3itimate c ild named (uillerma wit 6mparo )a3ar4arria0 >owever1 in is petition for adoption of is ampun%ampunan (uillermina1 e declared t at e ad Eno le3itimate1 le3itimated or ac@nowled3e natural c ild0F I))U&)9 !0 *ON (uillermo and Josefa were validly married 70 * o t e le3al eirs of t e decedents are !0 T eir co a4itation of DC years cannot 4e dou4ted0 ?y presumption of law1 t ere e2isted valid marria3e 4etween t em0 Marria3e contract is not t e only proof of marria3e0 T e 4aptismal certificate w erein Josefa was referred to as EseZoritaF as no le3al 4earin30 ?ecause of t e declaration of Luis as t e Enatural c ild of FelisaF1 it was esta4lis ed t at no marria3e too@ place 4etween Ramon Osorio and er0 (iven t at1 ille3itimate si4lin3s1 w et er alf or full 4lood can reciprocally in erit from eac ot er0 Only t e collateral relatives +and t eir eirs 4y t eir ri3 t of representation. of Josefa w o are alive at t e time of er deat are entitled to a s are in er estate0 (uilllerma5s ri3 t to compulsory reco3nition prescri4ed upon t e deat of er putative fat er 4ecause er open and continuous possession of t e status of an ille3itimate (uillermina Q Nanie (uillerma +ille3itimate c ild wit 6mparo )a3ar4arria. Na8ario &dil4erta Jose Jaco4a (or3onio Luis 70 /0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !7" of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 c ild is only a 3round for compellin3 ac@nowled3ement0 T e o4ituary written 4y (uillermo for Josefa w ic includes er as is c ild does not pass as 3enuine writin30 )ame 3oes for t e ampun%ampunan (uillermina0 6s a result1 (uillermo5s compulsory eirs are is collateral relatives0 &)T6T& OF RO(&LIO ON( v DI6P +7CC$. D-C )CR6 -#C % Jin@y sued for t e determination of er minor c ild Joanne5s filiation via DN6 testin3 for claim of support0 Despite er marria3e wit >ase3awa Iatsuo1 s e maintained illicit affair wit Ro3elio On30 ) e 3ot impre3nated1 and Ro3elio On3 covered all t e medical 4ills and 4aptismal e2penses until e cut off t e support and said t at t e c ild was not is0 Durin3 t e pendency of t e case1 Ro3elio died0 I))U&)9 !0 *ON t e court erred in not declarin3 Joanne as t e le3itimate c ild of >ase3awa and Jin@y 70 *ON DN6 analysis is still feasi4le notwit standin3 t e deat of Ro3elio On3 >&LD9 !0 No0 T e presumption of le3itimacy of t e c ild is not conclusive and may 4e overt rown 4y evidence to t e contrary0 Furt er1 t e resolution of t e second issue will render t e issue moot0 70 Ges0 Ro3elio5s deat does not ipso facto ne3ate t e application of DN6 testin3 for as lon3 as t ere e2ist appropriate 4iolo3ical samples of is DN60 ?iolo3ical samples means any or3anic material ori3inatin3 from a person5s 4ody1 even if found in inanimate o4=ects0 AT is was decided differently1 deviated from t e rule t at only t e us4and can raise or impu3n t e c ild5s le3itimacy0 Mam is in favor of t is rulin30 70 Ri3 ts of ille3itimate c ildren FC1 6rt !$, Ille3itimate c ildren s all use t e surname and s mot er1 and s all 4e entitled to support in conformity wit t is use t e surname of t eir fat er if t eir filiation as 4een e2pres record of 4irt appearin3 in t e civil re3ister1 or w en an ad andwritten instrument is made 4y t e fat er0 PRO;ID&D1 t e 4efore t e re3ular courts to prove non%filiation durin3 is lifeti s all consist one% alf of t e le3itimate c ild0 A6s amended 4y R IN CC9 reco3nition of t e fat er was re'uired 4efore ille3itimate c ild can use is surname0 IN FC9 re3ardless of reco3nition1 ille3itimate c ild s all use mot er5s surname0 R6 "7DD9 reverts to t e CC rule w ic allows ille3itimate c ildren to use fat er5s surname su4=ect to t e fat er5s reco3nition0 A R6 "7DD was aut ored 4y )en0 Ramon Revilla w o is @nown for avin3 at least #D c ildren of le3al a3e0 +Read9 t e num4er does not include minor c ildren0. A T e pro4lem wit t is law is t at

it ta@es out of t e picture t e role of women0 D6;ID v C6 +!""D. 7DC )CR6 #7 Ramon villar1 a married man1 ad t ree c ildren wit is secretary Daisie David0 Ramon reco3ni8ed t e c ildren as is0 Ramon refused to return C ristop er t en , years old and is youn3est c ild after a trip to ?oracay0 >e also enrolled im in a sc ool0 Daisy filed a petition for a4eas corpus on 4e alf of C ristop er0 >&LD9 C ristop er1 as an ille3itimate c ild1 is under t e parental aut ority of is mot er0 T at t e us4and can provide t e needs of t e son 4etter is not an ar3ument a3ainst t e mot er5s custody0 T e fact t at Ramon reco3ni8ed t e c ild may 4e a 3round for im to 3ive support 4ut not for 3ivin3 im custody of t e c ild0 P&OPL& v N6M6G6N +!""D. 7-, )CR6 ,-, T e accused Tortillano Namayan raped Mar3ie Pa3ay3ay1 7! years old 4ut is sli3 tly retarded wit a mental a3e of /%$ years old0 T e 4ul3in3 stomac indicatin3 pre3nancy 4ecame evident0 Mar3ie says t at Namayan raped er on several occasions w ile s e was fetc in3 water from t e artesian well0 Namayan denied all alle3ations purportin3 t at at t e time specified1 e was servin3 time in =ail0 >owever1 t e =ail warden admitted t at e cannot confirm *ON Namayan was indeed in =ail 4ecause it was not is responsi4ility to loo@ after t e prisoners0 In fact1 some of t e detainees are allowed to 3o out at t e discretion of t e 3uard0 I))U&) Q RULIN(9 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !/C of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 !0 *ON it was p ysically impossi4le for Namayan to 4e t e fat er of t e c ild0 NO On July /C1 !""! Mar3ie was found to 4e -%D mont s pre3nant t erefore se2ual intercourse mi3 t ave appened durin3 t e period 4etween Marc !D1 !""! to 6pril !D1 !""!0 It was proven t at Namayan was seen outside t e Municipal Jail durin3 t e town fiesta +Marc !"1 !""!.0 Namayan was detained in a minimum security prison and it was also stated t at some prisoners were a4le to 3o out dependin3 on t e discretion of t e 3uard0 T ese facts disprove t e claim of Namayan t at it could not ave p ysically possi4le for im to commit t e act0 6lso1 even if e was released only on 6pril !71 !""! it would ave still 4een possi4le for im to impre3nate Mar3ie0 7. *ON compulsory ac@nowled3ement and support for t e c ild is a proper remedy in t is case0 G&) No le3al impediment T e crime of rape committed 4y Namayan carries wit it amon3 ot ers t e o4li3ation to ac@nowled3e t e offsprin3 if t e c aracter of its ori3in doe not prevent it and to support t e same0 MO))&)(&LD v C6 +!""#. /CC )CR6 -,- &lea8ar Calasan1 a married man1 si3ned t e 4irt certificate of is ille3itimate son1 Jonat an Mosses3eld C6lsan0 T e local civil re3istrar refused to re3ister t e 4irt certificate of Jonat an usin3 t e surname Calasan0 >&LD9 Ille3itimate c ildren must use t e surname of t eir mot er re3ardless of w et er or not t ey ad 4een ac@nowled3ed 4y t eir fat ers in t e record of 4irt 0 T e fat er may owever c oose to le3ally adopt t e c ild0 Once adopted1 t e c ild may use t e fat er5s surname0 R&PU?LIC v 6?6DILL6 +!""". /C7 )CR6 /D# (erson 64adilla and Lu8viminda Celestino 4e3ot two c ildren durin3 t eir common law relations ip0 T e c ildren5s 4irt certificate indicated t eir surnames as 64adilla0 T ey filed a petition for correctionNcancellation of entries to rectify E>ersonF to E(ersonF and delete t e entry in t e parents5 marria3e date and place0 RTC 3ranted t e petition0 O)( interposed t e RTC decision5s reversi4le error in not orderin3 t e c an3e of minors5 surname from E64adillaF to ECelestinoF1 as effect of t e deletion of t e entry on marria3e0 >&LD9 Ille3itimate c ildren s all use t e surname of t eir mot er0 T e surname of t e c ildren in t e 4irt certificates s ould 4e c an3ed to Celestino0 AA Under R6 "7DD +7CC-. ille3itimate c ildren may use t eir fat er5s surname if e consents to it0 (ONP6L&) v C6 +!""#. 7"# )CR6 /77 Ricardo 64ad died intestate0 T e sisters and 4rot ers of Ricardo alle3ed t at t ey are t e only eirs of t e deceased0 >onoria &mpaynado +partner for 7$ years.1 Cecilia 64ad &mpaynado and Marian 64ad &mpaynado filed a motion alle3in3 t at t ey are t e ac@nowled3ed natural c ildren of Ricardo0 T ere was also anot er ille3itimate c ild wit Dolores )anc o named Rosemarie 64ad0 T e collateral relatives adduced t e followin3 proofs9 o Mapua Institute of Tec nolo3y enrollment forms w ic did not state Jose as dead0 o 6ffidavits of Suiam4ao Q Ramos claimin3 t at t ey @now Jose died in !"$! Q t at e was 4uried at t e Loyola Memorial Par@0 o 6 doctor w o said Ricardo ad 3onorr ea so e was sterile0

>&LD9 T e ?est evidence is Jose5s deat certificate w ic was not presented0 Loyola Memorial Par@ s owed a certain JO)& ?6UTI)T6 LI?UN6O married to a JO)&F6 R&G&) and not JO)& )6NTO) LI?UN6O married to >ONORI6 &MP6GN6DO0 6lso1 Dr0 6renas5 affidavit is inadmissi4le for tendin3 to 4lac@en Ricardo5s reputation0 T e privile3e of secrecy is not a4olis ed 4ecause of deat 0 Respondents presented is ITR w ere e declared >onoria as is le3itimate wife Q t e / as is le3itimate dependents0 >e also opened 4an@ accounts for t em and paid insurance premiums0 T e evidence presented proved t at t e t ree sisters are t e ille3itimate c ildren of Ricardo0 >ence1 t ey are entitled to in erit Ricardo5s estate0 6rt "## CC provides t at Ein t e a4sence of le3itimate descendants and ascendants1 ille3itimate c ildren succeed to t e entire estate of t e deceased0 R&PU?LIC v ;IC&NCIO +!""#. /CC )CR6 !/# % )UPR6 (6N v R&G&) +7CC7. /#7 )CR6 /D$ ?ernadette Pondevida wrote 6u3ustus Cae8ar (an demandin3 for support for t e t eir love c ild1 / year old Franc es@a Joy Pondevida1 in order t at s e may send t e c ild to sc ool0 (an denied paternity of t e c ld1 promptin3 ?ernadette to institute in 4e alf of er dau3 ter a complaint for support0 >&LD9 In all cases involvin3 a c ild1 is interest and welfare are always t e paramount concerns0 T ere may 4e instances w ere1 in view of t e poverty of t e c ild1 it would 4e a travesty of =ustice to refuse im support until t e decision of t e trial court attains finality0 Cases involvin3 c ild support are final and immediately e2ecutory1 even more so1 cannot 4e stayed 4y an appeal0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !/! of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 TONO( v C6 +7CC7. /$, )CR6 D7/ Petitioner Dina Tono31 a nursin3 student 4e3ot a c ild wit a p ysician &d3ar Da3uimol0 T e c ild named (ardin Fait Tono3 and t e mot er resided wit t e Da3uimol5s parents0 T en1 Dina left for t e U) to wor@ and t e c ild was left in t e care of paternal 3randparents and er fat er0 Da3uimol applied for le3al 3uardians ip of t e c ild1 w ic was su4se'uently 3ranted0 Dina instituted action for remand of custody I))U&9 *ON Dina can claim custody of t e c ild on TGP and 6rt !$, FC >&LD9 T e custody case is not yet concluded1 meanin3 t e court can only rule on temporary custody0 T e C6 did not err in allowin3 &d3ar to retain in t e meantime parental custody over (ardin0 6 c ild s ould not 4e wrenc ed from er familiar surroundin3s and t rust into a stran3e environment away from t e people and places to w ic s e ad apparently formed an attac ment0 (ardin Fait is already !7 years old1 er c oice s ould also 4e 3iven wei3 t0 >owever1 t e decision s ould not 4e ta@en a3ainst t e fitness of t e mot er or t e preference or t e fat er0 D& (UPM6N v P&R&P +7CC,. -", )CR6 -$- Petitioner Ro4erto and private respondent ) irley 4ecame sweet earts w ile )TUDGIN( L6* in U)T0 T eir studies were interrupted w en ) irley 4ecame pre3nant and 3ave 4irt to Ro44y0 T e two1 nonet eless1 never 3ot married0 Ro4erto married anot er woman later on0 >e never provided any financial support for Ro44y e2cept in two instances +!""7 Q !""/. w en e sent money for t e sc oolin3 and w en e 3ave P$CCC0CC for t e @id5s ospitali8ation e2penses0 ) irley1 at one instance1 demanded support for Ro44y5s education since s e was sufferin3 some financial pro4lems0 Ro4erto did not 3ive anyt in3 despite is fa4ulous wealt 0 >e mana3ed t e De (u8man corporations1 as five lu2urious cars1 owns a ouse in 6yala >ei3 ts Sue8on City and re3ularly travels a4road wit is family0 ) irley t en filed criminal complaint for a4andonment a3ainst Ro4erto0 Respondent5s evidence9 Notari8ed copy of t e (en Info ) eet of RNCD Development Corporation s owed t at Ro4erto owned P$DC1CCC wort of paid%up corporate s ares0 T e city prosecutor of Lipa found pro4a4le cause to c ar3e petitioner wit ne3lect of c ild under 6rt D"+-. of PD ,C/ in relation to )ec !C+a. of R6 $,!C Ro4erto filed a petition for review wit t e )ec of Justice w o t en affirmed City Prosecutor5s resolution Petitioner5s claims9 +!. >e is financially incapa4le as all t e alle3ed properties 4elon3 to is fat er0 >is s are was also in reality is dad5s< +7. Ro44y is not a ne3lected c ild since is education was provided 4y ) irley and er relatives I))U&9 *ON a parent w o failsNrefuses to do is part in providin3 is c ild t e education is financial station in life and condition may permit1 4e c ar3ed criminally for ne3lect of c ild under 6rt D"+-. of PD ,C/ in relation to R6 $,!C >&LD9

Petitioner ac@nowled3ed Ro44y as is son0 >e ad not denied t at e never contri4uted for is education e2cept in two instances0 >e admitted t at t e 4oy5s education was 4ein3 financed 4y ) irley and er relatives0 T ere is also a prima facie evidence t at e is financially capa4le as s own 4y t e notari8ed (I)0 Ro4erto5s ar3ument t at \ne3lect attac es only if ?OT> parents are 3uilty of ne3lect does not old0 T e law is clear0 T e crime may 4e committed 4y 6NG parent0 T e law intends to punis t e ne3lect of any parent0 T e irresponsi4le parent cannot e2culpate imself from t e conse'uences of is ne3lect 4y invo@in3 t e ot er parent5s fait ful compliance wit isN er own parental duties0 Petitioner1 owever1 cannot 4e indicted for violation of PD ,C/ in relation to R6 $,!C as t e latter covers only t ose cases of ne3lect under t e former w ic are not covered 4y t e RPC0 ENe3lect of c ildF under PD ,C/ is also a crime under 6rt 7$$ of t e RPC0 >ence1 it is e2cluded from t e covera3e of $,!C Presumption of innocence is is favor still stands0 * at as 4een ascertained is simply t e e2istence of pro4a4le cause for petitioner5s indictment for t e c ar3e a3ainst im0 Petitioner5s 3uilt s ould still 4e proven 4eyond reasona4le dou4t in a criminal case0 P&P&D6 v P&P&D6 +!",/. -! Ill 6pp 7d 7-C Plaintiff Josep Dennis Pepeda sued is fat er for causin3 im to 4e an adulterine 4astard0 T e fat er induced t e mot er to ave se2ual relations wit im wit t e promise of marria3e despite is full @nowled3e of its impossi4ility 4ecause e is already married0 6s a result1 t e plaintiff suffers t e conse'uences of 4ein3 an ille3itimate c ild li@e social sti3ma1 ina4ility to in erit from paternal ancestors and deprived of t e ri3 t to ave a normal ome0 6n ille3itimate very 4irt placed im under a disa4ility0 I))U&9 *ON t e plaintiff as cause of action >&LD9 Reco3nition of t e plaintiff5s claim means creation of a new tort9 a cause of action for a wron3ful life0 Courts must ta@e into consideration t e conse'uences of openin3 t e doors of liti3ation wider0 Lawma@in31 t ou3 in erent in t e =udicial process1 s ould not 4e indul3ed in w ere t e result could 4e as sweepin3 as ere0 T e interest of t e society is so involved1 t e action needed to redress P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !/7 of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 t e tort could 4e so far%reac in31 t at t e policy of t e )tate s ould 4e declared 4y t e representatives of t e people0 6L?6 v C6 +7CCD. -,D )CR6 -"D +same parties as in -,C )CR6 !"$. Rosendo >errera see@s to delete is name as a fat er and is surname from t e 4irt certificate of 6rmi 6l4a5s son Rosendo 6l4a1 Jr0 RTC 3ranted t e petition and duly notified 6rmi of t e said decision0 >owever1 t e decision notice was sent to t e wron3 address0 6rmi now avers t at Rosendo deli4erately provided t e wron3 address to prevent er from appealin3 in t e case0 T at e is well aware of er present address 4ecause t ey used to live t ere as common law spouses0 6s a result1 e2trinsic fraud and lac@ of =urisdiction was committed 4y t e court0 I))U&9 *ON t e RTC 3rant to correct t e entries in Rosendo 6l4a5s 4irt certificate s ould 4e annulled >&LD9 No0 T e petition for correction of 4irt certificate is in rem so it does not re'uire t e presence of 6rmi0 6lso1 no e2trinsic fraud occured 4ecause alt ou3 6rmi claims t at t e address in t e 4irt certificate was erroneously entered 4y er sister1 er si3nature si3nifies er approval in t e entries provided0 Rosendo >errera5s payment of t e condominium unit only proves is previous owners ip and fails to esta4lis any intimate relations 4etween t em0 T e p otocopied love notes also do not ave any pro4ative value and never proven to 4e t e respondent5s aut entic writin30 Finally1 even if t e court annuls t e decision1 Rosendo >errera Jr is still not eli3i4le to retain is surname 4ecause R6 "7DD provides t at an ille3itimate c ild s all only use is fat er5s surname if t e latter ac@nowled3es is filitiation1 w ic is not t e circumstance in t is case0 T erefore1 Rosendo >errera must use is mot er5s surname0 R&PU?LIC v C6POT& +7CC$. D!- )CR6 $, Trinidad Capote filed a petition for t e c an3e of name of one (iovanni N0 (allamaso to (iovanni Nadores1 a minor under er 3uardians ip 4ein3 t at t e mot er is in a4road0 T e minor was t e ille3itimate c ild of Cora8on Nadores and Diosdado (allamaso1 4orn July "1 !"#71 prior to t e effectivity of t e Family Code and as suc used t e name of is fat er despite t e a4sence of marria3e 4etween t em T e fat er never 3ave any support and failed to ta@e up is responsi4ilities towards t e said minor from is

4irt 0 T e minor is now fully aware of is position and li@ewise prays for t e same1 since is mot er would li@e to petition im to =oin er in a4road1 and avin3 a different surname wit out a fat er would cause and inconvenience in t e processin3 of document0 RTC 3ranted petition and C6 affirm I))U&9 *ON t e 3uardian may ri3 tfully c an3e t e minor5s name >&LD9 Ges0 )ince private respondent as complied wit t e re'uirements of Rule !C/0 6rt /,, CC states t at e s ould ta@e t e surname of t e reco3ni8in3 parent1 w o in t e present case is t e mot er0 6rt !$, FC mandates t at ille3itimate c ildren s all use t e surname of t e mot er0 ?ein3 t at t e name esta4lis ed filial relations it is of importance t at e c an3e is name to affirm is status0 It will erase t e impression t at e was reco3ni8ed 4y is fat er0 T e )O( as li@ewise misapplied Rule !C# RC1 4ecause suc action is separate and distinct from t e action at and0 T is is for t e 4est interest of t e c ild since it will facilitate t e reunion 4etween im and is mot er1 once s e successfully petitions im0 Petitioner5s Contention9 Is s ould 4e tried as an adversarial proceedin3 and not a summary proceedin30 ATo t is t e respondent as already complied wit suc re'uirement 4y postin3 it in a newspaper of 3eneral circulation1 no opposin3 petitions were put forward0 D0 Le3itimated C ildren FC1 6rt !$$ Only w en conceived and 4orn outside of t e wed conception of t e former1 were not dis'ualified 4y any impe le3itimated0 L&(ITIM6TION remedy 4y means of w ic ille3itimate c ildren are considered le3itimate1 it 4ein3 supposed t at t ey were 4orn in lawful wedloc@0 L&(ITIM6T&D C>ILDR&N ille3itimate c ildren w o are considered le3itimate 4ecause of t e su4se'uent marria3e of t eir parents In le3itimation1 t e law ma@es le3al w at e2ists 4y nature1 w ile in adoption1 t e law creates 4y fiction a relation t at did not in fact e2ist 4y nature0 R&SUI)IT&) FOR L&(ITIM6TION !0 c ild was conceived 6ND 4orn out of wedloc@ 70 t e parents were not dis'ualified 4y any impediment to marry eac ot er at t e time of conception C>ILDR&N *>O C6NNOT ?& L&(ITIM6T&D !0 adulterous 70 4ut incestuous /0 of marria3es a3ainst pu4lic policy -0 of 4i3amous marria3es can 4e 6DOPT&D to elevate t eir status P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !// of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 * y can5t c ildren of adulterous relations ips cannot 4e le3itimatedB !0 rational of le3itimation would 4e destroyed 70 unfair to le3itimate c ildren in terms of successional ri3 ts /0 pro4lem of pu4lic scandal -0 will destroy t e sanctity of marria3e D0 very scandalous1 especially if t e parents marry years after t e 4irt of t e c ild ,0 it is tantamount to toleratin3 w at would ave 4een a wron3 act1 it would seem to 4e more 4eneficial to t e errin3 spouse Tomasa married and ad a dau3 ter1 Maria Luciano0 * en s e was widowed1 s e too@ er dau3 ter wit er and lived in t e ouse t at Leon &sco4ar 4uilt for t em0 Leon visited t em almost everyday0 >e sent is sons 6ntonio and Fortunato to @eep t em company at ni3 t0 * en Tomasa died1 Leon too@ Maria into is ome until s e married and was ta@en 4y er us4and to t e province0 Leon &sco4ar died1 t en Fortunato 4ecame ill0 6ntonio wrote to Maria to return to Manila to nurse Fortunato1 even sendin3 money for passa3e0 * en Fortunato died1 6ntonio too@ Maria into a FC1 6rt !$# Le3itimation s all ta@e place 4y su4se'uent valid marria3e 4etween parents0 T e annulment of is ome1 w ere s e lived until 6ntonio5s deat 0 voida4le marria3e s all not affect t e le3itimation0 Maria claims t at s e is entitled to in erit from t e estate of 6ntonio 4y virtue of er 4ein3 t e CC9 le3itimation ta@es place t rou3 su4se'uent le3itimate dau3 ter of Tomasa1 w o is a marria3e +6rt 7$C. provided t at t e parents ave le3itimated sister of 6ntonio ac@nowled3e t e c ild 4efore or after t e marria3e I))U&9 *ON Maria Luciano is entitled to in erit from FC9 le3itimation ta@es place t rou3 su4se'uent 6ntonio marria3e as lon3 as t e re'uisites of 6rt !$$ are met0 T e len3t of time 4etween c ild5s 4irt and >&LD9 G&)0 6 c ild t at en=oys continuous possession t e parents5 marria3e does not matter0 of t e status of a natural c ild is considered le3itimated 4y t e su4se'uent marria3e of t e A T e status of le3itimated c ildren in void a4 initio parents0 Maria Luciano5s mot er Tomasa was marria3es are li@ewise affected 4ecause no marria3e le3itimated 4y t e Maria of er parents ence a e2ists at all0 le3itimate sister of 6ntonio0 6 le3itimate dau3 ter of a le3itimated sister is entitled to in erit from

er mot er5s le3itimate dau3 ter % Maria may in erit FC1 6rt !$" Le3itimated c ildren s all en=oy t e same ri3 ts as le3itimate c ildren0 from 6ntonio0 FC1 6rt !#C T e effects of le3itimation s all retroact to t e time R6MIR&P v 4irt 0 of t e c ild5s (MUR +!"!". % A To protect not only t e c ild 4ut also t e c ild5s descendants 4ecause it can appen t at at t e time of t e marria3e of t e c ild5s parents1 t e c ild already ad married and died is survived 4y c ildren w o s ould 4enefit from t e le3itimation of t eir deceased parent0 -7 P il #DD DoZa 6na Ramire8 )amuel ?isc off Felisa Castro *ertmuller Leona Castro Frederic@ Dr0 descendants0 FC1 6rt !#! T e le3itimation of c ildren w o died 4efore t e cele4ration of t e marria3e s all 4enefit t eir&rnest von &mil Mory Iauffman FC1 6rt !#7 Le3itimation may 4e impu3ned only 4y t ose w o are pre=udiced in t eir&lena wit in five years from t e time ri3 ts1 Leontina t eir cause of action accrues0 &li8a4et Federico Carmen Maria &rnesto &st er D& LO) )6NTO) v LUCI6NO +!"/-. ,C P il /7# Tomasa &sco4ar was 4orn to Leon &sco4ar and Josefa &s3uerra 4efore t ey were married0 6fter er parents 3ot married1 t ey 4e3ot two more c ildren9 6ntonio and Fortunato &sco4ar0 6ll t e w ile1 Tomasa lived wit t e spouses and t eir two le3itimate c ildren0 T e c ildren called t e spouses ETatayF and ENanayF0 T e ot er c ildren called Tomasa EManan31F w ic is an appellation 3iven to elder sisters0 Tomasa 3rew up and lived under t e care of t e spouses until s e married0 T e spouses supported er1 treated and presented er as t eir dau3 ter1 and was pu4licly @nown as suc 0 % % )amuel1 a )wiss1 is married to 6na Ramire8 wit out c ildren0 >e died in !"!/ and left a will w ic declares t at e as no forced eir0 >e 4e'ueat s all is properties to is wife1 to t e e2clusion of properties in )wit8erland w ic are ad=udicated to is 4rot ers and sisters0 >is declaration of a4sence of force eirs i3nores t e possi4ility of is descendants from Leona0 Leona is 4orn to Felisa Castro and an un@nown fat er0 >owever1 on t e mar3in of er ori3inal 4aptismal certificate was an annotation 4y Fr0 Ferrero t at )amuel reco3ni8ed er as is natural dau3 ter0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !/- of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % % % Leona 3rew up in )amuel5s family and 4rou3 t up as a family mem4er1 w ic effected a tacit admission of paternity0 !#"D Leona Frederic@1 a ?rit 4orn in >I wit w om s e ad t ree c ildren0 !#"" Leona 3oes to )wit8erland to recuperate in a sanatorium +did not specify illness.0 6fter sometime1 s e told Fred t at s e does not want to 4e is wife anymore0 )o in !"C- Fred went to France and o4tained a decree of divorce w ic was 3ranted in !"CD0 Leona fell for er doctor &mil0 T ey 4e3ot a c ild in !"CC and married after Leona 3ot divorced from Fred0 Two more dau3 ters issued in t e married0 !"!C Leona died T e eirs of Leona see@s participation in t e estate of t eir alle3ed 3randfat er )amuel0 Otto (mur +respondent. appeared as 3uardian of / Mory c ildren w ile Fred appeared for is own c ildren0 6na insists t at )amuel did not reco3ni8ed Leona0 % % 6na5s contention t at only @ids 4orn of persons free to marry may possess status of reco3ni8ed natural c ild0 T ere 4ein3 no evidence to s ow Felisa Castro5s status at t e time Leona was 4orn1 s e will 4e presumed sin3le or widow0 Court cannot entertain contrary presumption t at Felisa5s 3uilty of adultery0 6s a reco3ni8ed natural dau3 ter1 ad s e survived er dad1 s e would ave 4een is forced eir +CC 6rt #C$ +/. Q "/". and entitled to !N/ of t e in eritance +CC 6rt #-7.0 No0 Frenc tri4unal as no =urisdiction to entertain an action for dissolution of marria3e contracted in t e P il 4y persons domiciled ere especially since suc marria3e is indissolu4le under P ilippine laws0 6lt ou3 t e spouses +first marria3e. ave traveled to different places1 all t ose stays were limited Q t us we can5t say t at t ey ave esta4lis ed t eir domicile elsew ere0 It as 4een esta4lis ed t at court of a country in wNc neit er spouse is domiciled Q wNc oneN4ot spouses may resort merely for t e purpose of o4tainin3 divorce as no =urisdiction to determine t eir matrimonial status Q a divorce 3ranted 4y suc court is not entitled to reco3nition anyw ere0 (oin3 to one place for t e sole purpose of o4tainin3 divorce wNo intention to remain in t at place is not sufficient to confer =urisdiction on courts of t at state especially if cause of divorce is not reco3ni8ed 4y t e laws of t e state of t at person5s own domicile0 Durin3 t e time t ey o4tained divorce decree1 t e P il law provided t at a valid marria3e can only 4e

dissolved 4y deat of one of t e parties0 T e law invo@ed in o4tainin3 t e divorce allowed divorce w ere wife as 4een 3uilty of adulteryN us4and 3uilty of concu4ina3e0 &vidently1 t is s ould not 4e up eld since it is repu3nant to t e moral sensi4ilities of our people Q it5s contrary to law0 Leontina5s status9 T e first marria3e was still su4sistin3 w en s e was 4orn t us s e5s an offsprin3 of an adulterous intercourse wNc is not capa4le of le3itimation +CC 6rt !!".0 *ON t e Mory and t e Iaufman c ildren are entitled to in erit0 Frederic@5s c ildren are le3itimate Q entitled to in erit1 t us no need to discuss0 T e divorce 4ein3 invalid1 t e claims of t e Mory c ildren s ould t en 4e re=ected0 T e ri3 t to in erit is limited to le3itimate1 le3itimated Q ac@nowled3ed natural c ildren1 e2cludin3 @ids of adulterous relations0 EDescendantsF under CC 6rt0 "-! can5t include ille3itimates 4orn of adulterous relations0 No0 Ri3 ts of forced eirs to t eir le3itime are not divested 4y decree admittin3 a will to pro4ate1 re3ardless of fact t at no provision as 4een made for t em in t e will0 Decree of pro4ate is conclusive only as re3ards due e2ecution of will0 Code of Civil Procedure )ec0 70 I))U&)9 !0 *ON Leona is a reco3ni8ed natural c ild of )amuel 70 *ON t e divorce 4etween Fred and Leona is valid /0 *ON Leontina s ould 4e considered as a le3itimate dau3 ter of Fred and Leona +4ein3 4orn 4efore t e divorce decree1 ence w ile t eir marria3e is su4sistin3. -0 *ON t e Mory and t e Iaufmann c ildren are entitled to t eir s are in t e estate0 D0 *ON t e pro4ate of a will affects t e ri3 ts of forced eirs w o don5t appear to contest t e pro4ate0 >&LD9 !0 Ges0 Prior to er first marria3e1 s e was in an uninterrupted en=oyment of de facto status of natural c ild Q treated as suc 4y )amuel0 Document presented 4y Fr0 Ferrero admissi4le since e5s t e custodian of c urc records0 Ori3inal document not needed since t ey ave s own t at dili3ent searc was made to find it1 to no avail0 T us1 secondary evidence presented 4y t e priest is sufficient0 6pplica4le provision9 Law !! of Toro w ic 4ecame Law !1 Title D1 ?oo@ !C of t e Novisima Recopilacion w ic provides t at reco3nition could 4e esta4lis ed 4y proof of acts on part of t e parent une'uivocally reco3ni8in3 t e status of is c ild0 T is is different from CC 6rt !/! provision w ic provides t at ac@nowled3ment must 4e made in t e record of 4irt 1 4y will or in ot er pu4lic instrument0 Re3ardless of w at provision is applied1 it5s sufficiently s own t at Leona was reco3ni8ed0 /0 -0 D0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !/D of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 $D/9 forced eirs can5t 4e pre=udiced 4y failure of testator to provide for t em in is will0 6nd even if testator intended to leave everyt in3 to is wife1 will is intrinsically invalid if it would cut off t e ri3 ts of is forced eirs0 IN R& JULI6N *6N( +7CCD. -D- )CR6 !DD T e mot er1 6nna Lisa *an31 wants to c an3e er minor c ild5s name from Julian Lin Carulasan *an3 to Julian Lin *an31 in effect droppin3 is middle name0 T e mot er e2plains t at t e family will 4e mi3ratin3 to )in3apore w ere middle names or t e maiden surname of t e mot er are not carried in a person5s name0 ) e fears t at t is will cause discrimination and em4arrassment to er son as ECarulasanF sounds funny in Mandarin +t ey pronounce R as L.0 T ere will also 4e difference in Julian and er sister5s +*an3 Mei Jasmine. name0 T ey mi3 t 4e confused 4ecause t ey ave different surnames0 RTC9 denied1 t e reason t ey purported does not fall wit in t e 3rounds provided 4y law O)(9 No proof t at c an3e of name is in t e 4est interest of t e c ild< Mere convenience is not a valid reason for petition for c an3e of name< )in3aporean law does not pro i4it t e use of middle name< T ere will 4e no confusion to parenta3e 4ecause t ey 4ot use t eir fat er5s surname I))U&9 *ON t e c an3e of t e minor5s name s ould 4e allowed >&LD9 No0 )C adopts t e same reason as O)( and added t at suc c an3e of name would ma@e is inte3ration into t e )in3aporean society is not sufficiently esta4lis 0 6lso1 petitioner is only a minor0 T e matter of c an3e of name s ould 4e left to is =ud3ment and discretion w en e reac es t e a3e of ma=ority0 Cute trivia9 Did you @now t at Pepe is t e nic@name for Jose 4ecause Josep is t e padre putative +putativeNfoster fat er. of Jesus1 s orted to P0P0 w ic is pronounced Epe%peF P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0in )panis B 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !/, of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 :III0 6DOPTION 6DOPTION is a =uridical act w ic creates 4etween two persons a relations ip

similar to t at w ic results from le3itimate paternity and filiation0 PURPO)& OF 6DOPTION Ori3inally9 mainly for t e 4enefit of t e adopter1 w o are usually people w o ad no c ildren1 so t at t ey may e2perience t e =oys of parent ood Modern view9 for t e 4enefit of t e c ildren to 4e adopted o It as 4ot social and moral purpose9 to e2tend to t e orp an or to t e c ild of t e indi3ent1 t e incapacitated or t e sic@1 t e protection of society in t e person of t e adopter o T e adopted c ild remains an eir of is parents 4y nature CON)TRUCTION OF 6DOPTION L6*9 construed so as to encoura3e t e adoption of unfortunate c ildren 4y persons w o can properly read and educate t em C>ILD *&LF6R& P6R6MOUNT9 In determinin3 w et er adoption s all 4e allowed1 t e welfare of t e c ild is t e primary consideration0 N6TUR& OF PROC&&DIN()9 Petition for adoption is done t rou3 proceedin3 in rem0 No court may entertain suc a petition unless it as =urisdiction over9 t e su4=ect matter of t e case and over t e parties t e res1 w ic is t e personal status of t e person to 4e adopted as well as t at of t e petitioners 6DOPTION 6ND L&(ITIM6TION similar in t e sense t at in 4ot of t em t e c ild is 3iven t e status of t e c ild 4orn in lawful wedloc@ of t e parents adoptin3 or le3itimi8in3 it Persons affected Procedure L&(ITIM6TION Only natural c ildren May ta@e place 4y e2tra=udicial act of parents +marria3e. Only 4y 4ot parents of t e c ild C ild receives t e same status and ri3 ts as a le3itimate c ild1 not only in 6DOPTION )tran3ers +3enerally. 6lways 4y =udicial decree May 4e made 4y one parent Creates a relations ip only 4etween t e c ild and t e adoptin3 parent1 relation to t e le3itimi8in3 parents1 4ut also in relation to ot er relatives of t e latter 4ut not wit t e relatives of t e latter *>6T DO&) ONLG ?G 6 JUDICI6L D&CR&& M&6NB Only an adoption made t rou3 t e court is valid0 T e fact of adoption is never presumed1 4ut must 4e affirmatively proved 4y t e person claimin3 its e2istence Proof re'uired9 =udicial decree of adoption o 64sence of proof of order of adoption 4y court cannot 4y su4stituted 4y oral evidence o )econdary evidence admissi4le w ere t e records of adoption were actually lost or destroyed o Pedi3ree testimony is not admissi4le Mere a3reement of adoption 4etween t e adopters and t e 4iolo3ical parents of t e c ild is not valid Mere fact t at t e c ild as lived wit t e alle3ed adopter w o ad treated im li@e is own c ild is not sufficient to esta4lis a valid adoption +La8atin v Campos. Neit er is t e mere re3istration of t e c ild in is or er 4irt certificate as t e c ild of t e supposed adopters a valid adoption +simulated 4irt . 60 Pre%adoption and 6doption Procedure T ere are no provisions on pre% adoption procedures in FC1 it is only introduced in R6 #DD7 +Domestic 6doption 6ct of !""#.0 FC1 6rt !#- T e followin3 persons may not adopt9 !0 T e 3uardian wit respect to t e ward prior to t e approval of 3uardians ip relations< 70 6ny person w o as 4een convicted of a crime involvin3 moral t /0 6n alien1 e2cept9 a0 a former Filipino citi8en w o see@s to adopt a relative 4y con 40 One w o see@s to adopt t e le3itimate c ild of is or er Fil c0 One w o is married to a Filipino citi8en and see@s to adopt of t e latter Carried out 4y w om ?enefits (U6RDI6N9 To prevent a 3uardian w o as misused or misappropriated t e funds or properties of is ward to resort to adoptin3 is ward to avoid an accountin3 of suc funds or properties and possi4le criminal prosecution0 (uardians ip must 4e terminated first in accordance wit t e Rules of Court and t e final accounts of t e 3uardian approved1 4efore said 3uardian can 4e allowed to adopt is or er ward0 MOR6L TURPITUD&9 6doption demands t at t e adopter 4e morally 'ualified to do so1 and a P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !/$ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 conviction of a crime involvin3 moral turpitude s ows lac@ of 3ood moral c aracter on t e part of t e person convicted0 T e dis'ualification is not removed 4y a pardon 3iven to t e offender1 since t e lac@ of necessary moral 'ualification remains even if criminal lia4ility as 4een removed0 #0 AA4ut if no D;C was si3ned +in cases w ere t e c ild "0 File a petition for was a4andoned or left to adoption Lawyers only stran3ers. come in at t is point i0 locate un@nown parents +da il pampa3ulo lan3 AT e fact t at adopter as le3itimate or ille3itimate t rou3 trimedia +T;1 radio sila. or newspaper. +)ec D. c ildren is no lon3er a 4arrier to adoptin30 T is was !C0 Decree of adoption +)ec ii0 after / mont s of no pro i4ited 4y CC and

removed in PD ,C/1 FC and R6 !/. claimin31 petition for #DD70 !!0 Issuance of Travel Declaration of 6ut ority if forei3n 64andonment now adoption FC1 6rt !#$ T e followin3 persons may not 4e adopted 4ecomes+D6. a ward of t e !0 6 person of le3al a3e1 UNL&))1 e or s e is 3overnment 6 c ild 4y nature of t e adopter or is or er spouse 70 Declare t e c ild Prior to t e adoption1 said person ad 4een consistently le3ally availa4le treated 4y t e adopter as is or considered and for er own c ild durin3 minority adoption 70 6n alien wit w ose 3overnment t e Repu4lic of t e P ilippines as no diplomatic relations /0 6 person w o as already 4een adopted unless suc adoption as 4een previously revo@ed or rescinded APreparation of >ome )tudy Report mont s to reconsider ad=ustment period +)ec !7. Recommendation and consent of D)*D 6DOPTION OF 6DULT) !0 No need to adopt adults 4ecause t ey are old enou3 to ta@e care of t emselves0 70 If t e only reason someone wis es to adopt and adult is to s are is material advanta3es wit anot er1 e can do so 4y simply 3ivin3 t e latter financial assistance and leavin3 im somet in3 in is will0 /0 Rational of adoption9 to 3ive poor1 orp aned1 a4andoned little c ildren t e advanta3es of avin3 parents w o would love1 support1 protect1 rear and educate t em until t ey are old enou3 to ta@e care of t emselves0 -0 &:C&PTION) a0 If t e adult is t e parent in nature 4ecause t is would raise t e status of t e ille3itimate c ild 40 If in t e custody since c ild oodNminority1 t ere is t e presumption t at adopter really wants to adopt t e c ild 4ut only ne3lected to do so 4efore t e latter reac ed ma=ority0 PROC&DUR& FOR 6DOPTION 6CCORDIN( TO R6 #DD7 +Ma5am ?et ta4ulated t e procedure durin3 lecture. C>ILD !0 ?iolo3ical parent 3oes to D)*D for9 a0 counselin3 +)ec -. % importance of providin3 relevant info on t e c ild1 medical istory and family 4ac@3round % possi4ility of c ild to 4e placed for adoption 40 si3ns a Deed of ;oluntary Commitment or D;CAA c0 3ive t e parent , !0 70 /0 !0 ;isit to adopter5s ome 70 *ill include documents of adopter +locals. a0 aut enticated 4irt certificate 40 Marria3e contract c0 *ritten consent of c ildren d0 P ysical and mental evaluations e0 N?INPolice clearances f0 financial proofs 30 c aracter references 0 pictures i0 Certificate of attendance to pre%adoption fora /0 For forei3ners +on top of item 7. a0 certification of le3al capacity to adopt 40 certificate t at country will allow entry of and permanent residence of adoptee into t e country c0 Certificate of P ilippine residents from ?ID d0 Two c aracter references from non% relatives from ome country e0 Police clearances from all places w ere adopter lived ?IOLO(IC6L P6R&NT9 Does not provide e2ception for a3e0 T is means t at a minor mot er does not need t e consent of er parents to 3ive up er c ild for adoption0 &ven if t e parents are a3ainst t e adoption of t eir 3randc ild1 t ey cannot prevent t e 4iolo3ical parent from doin3 so0 (R6C& P&RIOD9 T is is an innovation of R6 #DD70 T e 4iolo3ical parent is 3iven t e ri3 t to reconsider isN er decision to relin'uis isN er c ild wit in si2 mont s from si3nin3 t e Deed of ;oluntary Commitment % T is 3race period is w at ma@es it impossi4le to adopt a newly 4orn infant0 >owever1 if adoptive parents insist1 t ey can 4e 3iven Eris@ placementF w erein t e adopters 3et custody of t e c ild1 su4=ect to t e 4iolo3ical parent5s c an3e of mind wit in , mont s0 M6TC>IN(9 T e adoptive parents are allowed for certain preference1 for instance1 t ey could specify se20 Females are 3enerally more adopti4le 4ecause t ey are easier to ta@e care of0 T e PRO)P&CTI;& 6DOPTI;& P6R&NT) In'uiry 6ttend adoption ome study report +)ec !-.forum 6pplication D)*D ma@es a case study report issuance of pre%adoption placement aut ority +P6P6.Matc in3 Placement -0 D0 ,0 $0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG )upervised trial custody for , mont s or less R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !/# of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % notion is adoptin3 a 4oy is li@e 4rin3in3 in a male stran3er0 T e pea@ season for adoption is durin3 C ristmas0 Parents prefer youn3er c ildren 4ecause t ey ave no values yet0 T ey are relatively more convenient to s ape and rear in a way t e adoptive parents want to0 Not muc mannerisms or a4its yet0 Re3ardin3 p ysical attri4utes1 Ma5am ?et noticed t at t e adoptive parents want t e c ild to ave a resem4lance wit t e

us4and0 ?0 * o may adoptN4e adopted FC1 6rt !#/ 6 person of a3e1 and in possession of full civil capacity an support and care for is c ildren1 le3itimate or ille3itimate in @eepin3 w Only minors may 4e adopted1 e2cept in t e cases w en t e adoption o In addition1 t e adopter must 4e at least si2teen years older t an t e p nature of t e adopted or is t e spouse of t e le3itimate parent of t e p AT e a3e 3ap ensures t at t e relations ip 4etween t e adopter and t e adoptee will 4e a parent c ild relations ip +appro2imate natural filiation. and t at t e adopter as sufficient maturity to fulfill t e role of a parent to t e adopted c ild0 +T in@ Daddy Lon3 Le3s. 6DOPTION OF )&;&R6L C>ILDR&N9 6 person may le3ally adopt two or more c ildren0 FC1 6rt !#D >us4and and wife must =ointly adopt1 e2cept in t e follow !0 * en one spouse see@s to adopt is own ille3itimate c ild 70 * en one spouse see@s to adopt t e le3itimate c ild of t e ot A Under CC and PD ,C/1 spouses can adopt solely0 A ?ut w at if one spouse see@s to adopt t e ille3itimate c ild of t e ot erB FC1 6rt !#, In case us4and and wife =ointly adopt or one spouse ado s all 4e e2ercised 4y t e spouses in accordance wit t is Code0 A Consent not re'uired in case of le3al separation 4ecause it terminates t e common life 4etween t e spouses and t e reason for re'uirin3 t e t isconsent of one spouse for t e adoption made 4y t e ot er no lon3er e2ists was made e2plicit in R6 #DD7 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !/" of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 t e c ild5s sic@ness1 e was entrusted to t e 6rt !#/ +w o may adopt.1 6rt !#- +w o may not adopt.1 6rt !#D +=oint adoption of spouses. and 6rt petitioners since 4irt 0 T e natural parents of t e !#, +parental aut ority. ave 4een amended 4y 6rt III )ec $1 R6 #DD7 minor voluntarily 3ave t eir consent and written conformity to t e adoption0 T e )( opposed t e *>O M6G 6DOPT petition on t e 3round t at relatives 4y 4lood or 4y affinity are pro i4ited from adoptin3 one anot er 4ec I0 For Filipino citi8ens of t e incon3ruous dual relations ip t at will result0 !0 of le3al a3e 70 full capacity and le3al ri3 ts TC dismissed t e petition1 ence t is appeal0 /0 -0 D0 3ood moral c aracter1 no conviction for crime involvin3 moral turpitude emotionally and psyc olo3ically capa4le of carin3 for c ildren *ON an elder sister may adopt er youn3er I))U&9 at least !, years older t an t e adoptee UNL&)) 4iolo3ical parent of t e adoptee or t e spouses of t e adoptee5s 4rot er parent II0 For aliens >&LD9 Ges0 T ere is no provision in t e law !0 'ualifications for Filipino citi8ens 70 t e country as diplomatic relations wit t e P ilippinespro i4itin3 relatives 4y 4lood from adoptin3 one /0 -0 D0 ,0 anot er0 60 //D NCC enumerates t ose persons w o as 4een livin3 in t e P ilippines for at least / years prior to t e filin3 of application may not adopt1 and it as 4een s own t at certified 4y isN er diplomatic or consular office or any appropriate 3overnment a3ency t at eNs e as t e le3al petitioners aren5t amon3 t ose pro i4ited from capacity to adopt in isN er country adoptin30 60 //" NCC names t ose w o can5t 4e isN er 3overnment allows t e adoptee to enter t e country as isN er adopted sonNdau3 ter re'uirements for residency and certification of 'ualification is waived fort e followin3&dwin isn5t one of t ose adopted and t e minor a0 40 former Filipino citi8en w o see@s to adopt a relativee2cluded - wit in t e 4y law0 60 //# NCC on t e ot er and allows t e adoption of a natural c ild 4y t e natural see@s to adopt t e le3itimate sonNdau3 ter of isN er Filipino spouse mi3 t 4e1 wNc isn5t t e policy of t e law0 6doption statutes1 4ein3 umane and aut ority and desi3ned If spouses =ointly adopted or one spouse adopted t e ille3itimate c ild of t e ot er1 Joint parental salutary1 s all 4e e2ercised to provide omes1 care and education for 4y parents0 unfortunate @ids1 s ould 4e construed so as to encoura3e t e adoption of suc @ids 4y persons w o A Sualifications for e2emption in residency can properly rear and educate t em0 re'uirements of R6 #DD7 +Num4er , in 4o2 a4ove. is T e fact t at adoption in t is case will result in a t e e2emption to t e 3eneral rules for adoption 4y dual relations ip 4etween t e parties1 t at t e aliens in 6rt !#- Par /0 One difference is t at R6 adopted 4rot er will also 4e t e son of t e adoptin3 #DD7 allowed for adoption of Erelatives 4y affinityF sister1 s ouldn5t prevent t e adoption0 One is 4y nature1 w ile t e ot er is 4y fiction of law0 T e relations ip esta4lis ed 4y adoption is limited to t e adoptin3 parents and doesn5t e2tend to t eir ot er relatives1 e2cept as e2pressly provided 4y

law0 Petition for adoption 3ranted0 6rt III )ec #1 R6 #,,7 R&PU?LIC v C6 and ?O?IL&) +!""7. 7CD )CR6 /D, *>O M6G ?& 6DOPT&D 6ny person9 Private respondent Penaida ?o4iles filed a !0 4elow !# years of a3e w o as 4een administratively or =udicially declared availa4le for adoption t en , yo and petition to adopt Jason Condat1 70 le3itimate sonNdau3 ter of one spouse 4y t e ot er spouse w o ad 4een livin3 wit er family since e was /0 ille3itimate sonNdau3 ter 4y a 'ualified adopter to improve isN er status to t at of le3itimacy - mos old0 -0 a person of le3al a3e IF prior to t e adoption said person as 4een consistently considered and treated 4y t e T e court a 'uo1 findin3 t e petition to 4e adopter+s. as isN er own c ild since minority sufficient in form and su4stance1 issued and D0 a c ild w ose adoption as 4een previously rescinded order settin3 proceedin3s for 4e initiated wit in , ,0 a c ild w ose 4iolo3ical or adoptive parent+s. as died PRO;ID&D t at not e petition s all earin30 T e order was duly pu4lis ed and posted wit copies mont s from t e time of deat of said parent IN R& 6DOPTION OF &D*IN ;ILL6 +!",$. a@a )6NTO) Jr0 v R&PU?LIC 7! )CR6 7"" )pouses Luis )antos Jr a lawyer and &dipola ;illa a nurse1 avin3 no c ild of t eir own1 filed a petition prayin3 t at t e minor &dwin ;illa1 a youn3er 4rot er of &dipola1 4e declared t eir son 4y adoption0 Due to seasona4ly served to interested parties0 No4ody appeared to oppose t e petition0 )u4se'uently1 t e RTC 3ranted t e petition w ic was affirmed 4y t e C60 Durin3 t e pendency of er petition1 t e FC too@ effect w ic ma@es mandatory t e =oint adoption of spouses0 married to a Filipino citi8en and see@s to adopt =ointly wit isN er spouse a relative wit in t e - fat er or mot er1 and a stepc ild 4y t e stepdad or consan3uinity OR affinity of t e Filipino spouse stepmom0 III0 (uardian wit respect to t e ward after t e termination of t e 3uardians ip and clearance of isN er financial To say t at adoption s ouldn5t 4e allowed w en accounta4ilities t e I;0 >us4and and wife s all =ointly adopt1 e2cept in t e followin3 cases9adopter and t e adopted are related to eac a0 if one spouse see@s to adopt t e le3itimate sonNdau3 ter of t ee2cept in t ose cases enumerated 6rt //# CC ot er1 ot er 40 if one spouse see@s to adopt isN er own ille3itimate sonNdau3 ter PRO;ID&D t at t e ot er spouse as si3nified is to preclude adoption amon3 relatives no mater isN er consent t ereto ow removed or in w atever de3ree t at relations ip c0 if t e spouses are le3ally separated from eac ot er c0 fat er or mot er1 of ot er ille3itimate @ids 4y t eir % P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !-C of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % Petitioner now contends t at t e petition for adoption s ould ave 4een dismissed outri3 t as it was filed solely 4y private respondent wit out =oinin3 er us4and Dioscoro ?o4iles1 in violation of 6rt !#D FC0 It ar3ues t at FC must 4e applied retroactively to t e petition of Mrs0 ?o4iles0 6nd t at even if t e FC is not applied1 t e court still erred 4y 3rantin3 adoption to 4ot t e spouses instead of Penaida alone0 re3ardin3 =oint I))U&9 *ON t e FC provision adoption of spouses s ould apply >&LD9 No0 6rt 7D, FC provides for t e retroactive effect of appropriate relevant provisions t ereof su4=ect to t e 'ualification t at suc retroactive application will not pre=udice or impair vested or ac'uired ri3 ts0 Penaida ad ri3 tfully commenced t e petition prior to t e effectivity of t e FC0 >er ri3 t to t at action is not su4=ect to su4se'uent modification of t e law0 6rt !#D FC is remedial in nature0 Tec nical rules s ould not 4e strin3ently applied to adoption proceedin3s 4ecause it involves t e future condition and paramount welfare of t e adoptee0 Petition for adoption 3ranted0 R&PU?LIC v TOL&D6NO and )P)0 CLOU)& +!""-. 7// )CR6 " )pouses 6lvin and &velyn Clouse filed a petition to adopt )olomon1 &velyn5s !7 yo 4rot er0 6lvin is a natural 4orn 6merican citi8en w ile &velyn was a former Filipno w o 4ecame naturali8ed 6merican citi8en in (uam0 )olomon Josep 6lcala and is mot er1 Nery 6lcala consented to t e adoption due to er ina4ility to support t e 4oy5s education0 >&LD9 T e Clouse may not adopt Filipino c ildren0 6lvin is not 'ualified to adopt under FC 4ecause e is not a former Filipino citi8en and )olomon is not is relative 4y consan3uinity nor t e le3itimate c ild of is spouse0 &velyn1 as a former Filipino citi8en1 is 'ualified to adopt 4ut t e FC re'uires spouses to =ointly adopt0 >ence1 t e spouses may not adopt )olomon0 AA Under R6 #DD7 'ualified resident aliens may adopt Filipino citi8ens R&PU?LIC v

MILL&R +!""". /C, )CR6 !#/ Claude Miller1 formerly a mem4er of t e U) 6ir Force assi3ned at Clar@ 6ir ?ase1 and is wife1 Jumrus Miller1 4ot U) citi8ens 4ut residin3 in 6n3eles City1 filed 4efore RTC a verified petition to adopt minor Mic ael Ma3no Madaya30 Poverty and deep concern for is future prompted Mic ael5s natural parents to 3ive t eir irrevoca4le consent to t e adoption0 % RTC 3ranted petition for adoption findin3 petitioners to possess all t e 'ualifications and none of t e dis'ualifications for adoption0 Mic ael was freed from all o4li3ations of o4edience and support wit respect to natural parents0 >e was t en declared c ild of t e Millers 4y adoption0 >is surname was to 4e c an3ed from EMadaya3F to EMillerF0 I))U&9 *ON t e Court may allow aliens to adopt a Filipino c ild despite t e pro i4ition under FC1 effective on 6u3 /1 !"##1 w en t e petition for adoption was filed 4efore FC1 on July 7"1 !"##1 under t e provision of t e C ild and Gout *elfare Code1 w ic allowed aliens to adopt0 >&LD9 Ges0 T e enactment of FC will not impair t e ri3 t of alien respondents to adopt a Filipino c ild 4ecause t e ri3 t as 4ecome vested at t e time of filin3 of t e petition for adoption and s all 4e 3overned 4y t e law t en in force0 6 vested ri3 t is one w ose e2istence1 effectivity and e2tent does not depend upon events forei3n to t e will of t e older0 T e =urisdiction of t e court is determined 4y t e statute in force at t e time of t e commencement of t e action0 6doption statues1 4ein3 umane and salutary1 old t e interests and welfare of t e c ild to 4e of paramount consideration0 &very reasona4le intendment s ould 4e sustained to promote and fulfill t e compassionate and no4le o4=ectives of t e law0 C0 Nature of adoption proceedin3s L6P6TIN v C6MPO) +!"$". "7 )CR6 7DC % Dr0 Mariano M0 La8atin died intestate and was survived 4y is wife1 Mar3arita de 6sis1 and is adopted twin dau3 ters Nora L0 De Leon +married to ?ernardo de Leon. and Irma La8atin +married to Francisco ;eloso. 6 mont after Mariano La8atin5s deat 1 Mar3arita de 6sis commenced an intestate proceedin3 4efore t e CFI of Pasay0 To t e said proceedin31 Mariano1 Oscar1 ;ir3ilio and Gvonne intervened since t ey claimed to 4e admitted ille3itimate +not natural. c ildren of Mariano wit a woman named >elen MuZo80 )u4se'uently1 one Lily La8atin also intervened1 claimin3 to 4e anot er ille3itimate +not natural. c ild P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !-! of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % % % 7 mont s after t e intestate proceedin31 Mar3arita de 6sis died 4ut left a olo3rap ic will +a will written entirely in t e testator5s and.1 w ic provided1 amon3 ot ers1 for9 o a le3acy of cas 1 =ewelry and stoc@s to 6rlene De Leon1 a 3randdau3 ter o a le3acy of support to Rodolfo (allardo1 a son of er late sister o a le3acy of education to Ramon )ta0 Clara +petitioner5s son. Durin3 Mar3arita de 6sis5 lifetime1 s e @ept a safety deposit 4o2 at t e People5s ?an@ and Trust Company1 w ic eit er s e or Nora could open0 Five days after Mar3arita5s deat 1 Nora opened t e said 4o2 and removed its contents +s ares of stoc@1 adoption papers of ers and er sister5s1 =ewelry 4elon3in3 to er and to er mot er. >er sole reason for openin3 t e 4o2 was to 3et t e stoc@ certificates and ot er small items0 6 4an@ personnel informed er t at s e needed an aut ority from t e court to open t e 4o2 in view of er mot er5s deat 0 )o1 s e decided to remove everyt in3 from it On June /1 !"$-1 t e private respondents filed a petition to pro4ate t e will of Mar3arita Days after learnin3 t at Nora opened t e 4o21 Ramon )ta0 Clara filed a motion in t e pro4ate court1 claimin39 o t at Mar3arita ad e2ecuted a will su4se'uent to t at su4mitted for pro4ate o demanded its production o prayed for t e openin3 of t e 4o2 Of course1 w en t e court ordered its openin31 t e 4o2 was already empty0 )even mont s after Mar3arita5s deat 1 Renato La8atin intervened for t e first time as an admitted ille3itimate c ild0 T en e also filed a motion to intervene in t e estate of Mar3arita de 6sis1 t is time as an adopted c ild on t e 4asis of an affidavit e2ecuted 4y ?en=amin La8atin1 4rot er of Mariano1 statin3 t at Renato was an ille3itimate c ild of Mariano w o as later adopted 4y im0 T e affidavit was later modified to state t at Renato was adopted 4y 4ot Mariano and Mar3arita Renato5s motion to intervene in t e settlement of t e estate of Mar3arita was denied 4y t e lower court on t e 3round t at t e evidence presented tend to prove t at e was a reco3ni8ed natural c ild of Mariano1 4ut not a le3ally adopted c ild of Mar3arita0 >e never presented a decree of adoption in is favor0

Li@ewise1 Renato5s motion for reconsideration was denied 4y t e court unless e presented some documentary evidence to prove is adoption Renato La8atin filed a motion for intervention in t e pro4ate proceedin3s of t e estate of Mar3arita de 6sis as an adopted c ild0 I))U&9 *ON Renato is an adopted c ild >&LD9 Renato as not esta4lis ed is status as an adopted c ild0 )econdary evidence is not admissi4le unless t e e2istence of t e records are proven alon3 wit t e contents of t e records and its loss0 6doption is a =uridical act and t e statutory re'uirements must 4e strictly carried out ot erwise it is a nullity0 T e fact of adoption is never presumed1 4ut must 4e affirmatively proven 4y t e person claimin3 its e2istence0 % % % % P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !-7 of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 )6NTO) v 6R6NP6N)O +!",,. !, )CR6 /-- Paulina1 !$ and 6urora1 # were adopted 4y spouses )implicio )antos and Juliana Reyes0 T e two minors were in t e custody of t e couple since infancy and t e w erea4outs of t eir 4iolo3ical parents are un@nown since t e out4rea@ of t e war0 Crisanto de Mesa1 t e 3uardian ad litem 3ave is written consent to t e adoption0 Paulina w o was over !- years old t en also put in writin3 er assent to t e proceedin30 6n adoption decree was eventually 3ranted # years later1 Juliana died and )implicio commenced t e settlement of er estate declarin3 t at e and t e two adopted dau3 ters1 are t e survivin3 eirs (re3oria 6ran8anso1 an alle3ed first cousin of Juliana opposed t e settlement estate sayin3 t at t e marria3e 4etween Juliana and )implicio is void a4 initio for 4ein3 4i3amous0 Li@ewise1 t e adoption is also null for want of written consent of t eir parents0 Demetria ;entura1 w o claims to 4e anot er cousin of Juliana and mot er of Paulina filed er opposition in t e same tenor as (re3oria5s0 I))U&9 *ON t e adoption decree is valid0 >&LD9 Ges0 Consent 4y t e parents to t e adoption is not an a4solute re'uisite0 If t e natural parents ave a4andoned t eir @ids1 consent 4y t e 3uardian ad litem suffices0 In adoption proceedin3s1 a4andonment imports Eany conduct on t e part of t e parent wNc evinces a settled purpose to for3o all parental duties Q relin'uis all parental claims to t e c ild0F It means Ene3lect or refusal to perform t e natural Q le3al o4li3ations of care Q support w ic parents owe to t eir @ids0F 6lt ou3 t e adoption court did not use t e term Ea4andonmentF t e reasons propounded 4ear t e essential elements of a4andonment0 (rantin3 ar3uendo t at t e marria3e 4etween Juliana and )implicio is void1 t e adopted c ildren are deemed to 4e adopted 4y Juliana as a sin3le person0 T e p ilosop y 4e ind adoption statutes is to promote welfare of t e c ild1 every reasona4le intendment s ould 4e sustained to promote t at o4=ective0 D)*D v ?&L&N +!""$. 7$D )CR6 ,-D )pouses Desiderio )oriano and 6urora ?ernardo1 naturali8ed U) citi8ens1 filed a petition to adopt t eir niece1 t e minor P edell ?ernardo I4ea0 Respondent Jud3e 6ntonio ?elen 3ranted t e petition 4ased on t e findin3s and recommendations of t e D)*D t at t e adoptin3 parents and t e adoptee ave developed emotional attac ment0 * en travel clearance was 4ein3 sou3 t from D)*D so t at t e c ild may =oin er adopters in t e )tates1 it was discovered t at D)*D was not informed a4out t e commencement of t e adoption proceedin3s nor was it 3iven notice of t e petition 4ein3 3ranted0 >&LD9 T e D)*D as to 4e notified of t e adoption proceedin3s0 6 >ome and C ild )tudy Report is mandatory 4efore adoption is to 4e finali8ed0 T e D)*D is undou4tedly as t e necessary competence1 more t an t at possessed 4y t e court social welfare officer1 to ma@e t e proper recommendation0 6doption is a le3al advice 4y w ic a 4etter future may 4e accorded an unfortunate c ild0 Jud3e censured and social wor@er reprimanded0 D0 Consent necessary for adoption FC1 6rt !## T e written consent of t e followin3 to t e adoptio !0 T e person to 4e adopted1 if !C years or older 70 T e parents 4y nature of t e c ild1 t e le3al 3uardian1 o /0 T e le3itimate and adopted c ildren1 !C years or older1 -0 T e ille3itimate c ildren1 !C years or older1 of t e ado latter5s spouse1 if any D0 T e spouse1 if any1 of t e person adoptin3 or to 4e ado 6rt III )ec "1 R6 #,,7 *>O)& CON)&NT I) N&C&))6RG !0 70 /0 -0 D0 T e adoptee if !C years of a3e or over t e 4iolo3ical parent+s. of t e c ild1 if @nown1 or t e le3al w ic as le3al custody of t e c ild t e le3itimate and adopted sonsNdau3 ters1 !C years of a3e o t e ille3itimate sonsNdau3 ters1 !C years of a3e or over of t

spouse t e spouse1 if any1 of t e person adoptin3 or to 4e adopted A PD ,C/ and CC9 T e consent of t e adoptee was re'uired only if !- years of a3e or over0 DUNC6N v CFI +!"$,. ," )CR6 7"# 6 /%day old 4a4y named Colin ?erry C ristensen Duncan was 3iven 4y is unwed mot er to 6tty0 Cora8on ;elas'ue80 ) e also instructed im to loo@ for a suita4le couple to adopt t e c ild0 6tty0 ;elas'ue8 t en 3ave consent for t e Duncan spouses +Ro4in Francis Radley and Maria Lucy C ristensen. to adopt t e c ild0 >us4and9 ?ritis national residin3 in t e country for t e last !$ years and wife9 6merican citi8en 4orn in and a resident of t e P ilippines No c ild of t eir own 4ut previously adopted anot er c ild I))U&9 *ON 6tty0 ;elas'ue8 is t e proper party re'uired 4y law to 3ive consent t e adoption >&LD9 Ges0 ) e can ri3 tfully 3ive consent to t e adoption0 T e fat er5s consent is not necessary 4ecause t e c ild is ille3itimate0 T e mot er5s consent is not necessary eit er 4ecause s e is P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !-/ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 deemed to ave a4andoned t e c ild and as 3iven t e c ild to 6tty0 ;elas'ue8 for 3uardians ip0 C6N( v CL6;6NO +!""#. 7", )CR6 !7# )pouses >er4ert Can3 and 6nna Marie Clavano +employee at t e P ilippine Consulate in L6. were le3ally separated 4ecause t e us4and5s e2tramarital affairs0 >er4ert 4ecame naturali8ed U) citi8en and secured a divorce decree t ere0 Clavano5s 4rot er +Ronald Clavano1 a wealt y 4usinessman. and is wife Maria Clara +a fli3 t stewardess. wanted to adopt t e t ree c ildren +Ieit 1 C armaine and Josep 6nt ony. of t e spouses Can3 and Clavano0 T e !yo son si3ned t e petition of adoption alon3 wit Clavano0 T e mot er =ustified t e adoption wit t e followin3 statements9 o T e 4rot er ad 4een er in ta@in3 care of t e c ildren o ) e will 4e 3oin3 to t e U) and t e c ildren would amper er =o4%see@in3 venture a4road o >us4and ad lon3 forfeited is parental ri3 ts >er4ert immediately returned ome upon learnin3 a4out t e adoption proceedin31 w ic e opposes0 RTC and C6 3ranted t e decree of adoption I))U&9 *ON t e consent of t e fat er to t e adoption must 4e sou3 t1 3iven t at e e2presses desire to retain parental aut ority and t at e did not a4andon is c ildren >&LD9 T e adoption may not 4e 3ranted0 Can35s consent as t e fat er is necessary0 Petitioner5s conduct did not manifest relin'uis ment of parental duties0 Despite t e fact t at Can3 a4andoned is c ildren1 it was proven t at e continued to send support for t e family from t e U)0 It was mere p ysical estran3ement t at e2isted0 Can3 did not manifest a settled purpose to fore3o all parental duties and relin'uis all parental claims over is c ildren as to constitute a4andonment0 L6NDIN(IN v R&PU?LIC +7CC,. -"/ )CR6 -!D Maria Taruc Diwata Landin3in 6nn1 &rrol1 Dennis and Ricfel Manuel Ramos 6melia Ramos % % % t en1 it as 4een t e paternal relatives w o 3ive support to t e c ildren0 T e mot er also rarely communicates wit t e c ildren and already as a second family in Italy0 Petitioner is a D$ year old widow1 naturali8ed U) citi8en in (uam wit four 3rown%up c ildren of er own w o ave t eir own respective families and 3ainfully employed also in (uam0 ) e lives alone in er ouse and wor@s as a part%time waitress0 Petitioner5s c ildren e2ecuted an affidavit of consent for t e adoption proceedin3 in t e U)0 &laine1 t e eldest of t e t ree adoptees li@ewise testified re3ardin3 t eir consent to 4e adopted 4y t eir aunt0 T e D)*D social wor@er was a4le to interview 6melia w en s e went ome to t e P ilippines0 6ccordin3 to t e mot er1 s e is willin3 to let 3o of er parental ties wit t e c ildren since it5s er in%laws w o ave 4een rearin3 t em0 RTC 3ranted 4ut C6 reversed for a4sence of consent of t e petitioner5s c ildren and t e adoptee5s 4iolo3ical mot er0 I))U&)9 !0 *ON t e adoption may proceed a4sent t e mot er5s written consent 70 *ON t e affidavit of consent e2ecuted 4y t e petitioner5s c ildren in (uam not in t e presence of a P ilippine consular office is admissi4le /0 *ON t e petitioner is financially capa4le of supportin3 t e adoptees >&LD9 !0 No0 T e petitioner failed to present actual evidence re3ardin3 t e mot er5s consent0 It cannot 4e said t at s e intends to a4andon t em 4ecause s e continually 3ives t em financial support no matter ow minimal0 6lso1 t e eldest dau3 ter admitted t at s e consults er re3ardin3 serious issues0 70 No0 T e aut enticity of er c ildren5s affidavit was also not clearly esta4lis ed0 /0 No0 >er advanced a3e and insta4le source of income puts dou4t on er financial

capacity to raise t e t ree @ids in t e U)0 T at er own c ildren are willin3 t e 4ac@ er up is untena4le 4ecause t e a4ility to support must 4e personal to t e adopter0 6DOPTION 6ND T>& RI(>T) OF PUT6TI;& F6T>&R) 6 Review of New Gor@ Law Unmarried fat ers s ould 4e 3iven le3al ri3 ts to t eir involvement in t e lives of t eir ille3itimate c ildren0 T e New Gor@ le3islature as adopted specific statutory 3uidelines for identifyin3 unwed fat ers w o ave a constitutionally protected parental ri3 t w ic must 4e surrendered or terminated 4efore t eir c ild can 4e adopted0 &laine &lma &u3ene % Diwata Landin3in wants to adopt t e le3itimate c ildren of er deceased 4rot er Manuel0 )ince is deat 1 t e c ildren ave 4een in t e care of t eir paternal 3randmot er Maria as t eir 4iolo3ical mot er left for Italy to wor@0 )ince P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !-- of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 !0 Fat ers wit full su4stantive ri3 ts K Unwed fat ers w o maintained su4stantial and continuous or repeated contact wit t e c ild ave t e same ri3 ts as unmarried mot ers wit respect to t eir c ildren1 and must e2ecute a voluntary surrender 4efore t e c ild can 4e adopted0 T e fat er as to ave a Esu4stantial relations ipF wit t e c ild1 t e standards of w ic vary accordin3 to t e a3e of t e c ild0 60 For c ildren under si2 mont s old i0 openly lived wit t e c ild or t e c ild5s mot er for a continuous period of si2 mont s prior to t e placement of t e c ild for adoption ii0 openly eld imself out to 4e t e fat er of t e c ild for si2 mont s prior to t e placement of t e c ild for adoption iii0 paid or offered to pay a fair and reasona4le sum accordin3 to is means toward t e medical e2penses in connection wit t e mot er5s pre3nancy or t e 4irt of t e c ild ?0 For c ildren over si2 mont s old i0 pays a reasona4le sum accordin3 to is means toward t e support of t e c ild ii0 visit t e c ild mont ly or maintain re3ular communication wit t e c ild or a3ency t at as custody of t e c ild 70 Fat ers wit due process ri3 ts K For t ose w o do not meet t e statutory criteria w ic would re'uire t eir consent to adoption1 t ey can still 4e entitled to special notice w ic 3ives due process ri3 ts wit respect to voluntary surrenders and termination of parental ri3 t0 T is do not include men convicted of first de3ree rape w en t e c ild w o is t e su4=ect of t e termination was conceived as t e result of t e rape0 i0 ii0 any person ad=udicated to 4e t e fat er of t e c ild 4y any NG court any person ad=udicated to 4e t e fat er of t e c ild 4y anot er state court w en a certified copy of t e order as 4een filed wit t e NG putative fat er re3istry any person w o as filed a timely and unrevo@ed notice of intent to claim paternity any person w o is recorded on t e c ild5s 4irt certificate as t e c ild5s fat er any person w o is openly lived wit t e c ild or t e c ild5s mot er for a continuous period of si2 mont s prior to t e placement of t e c ild for adoption any person w o as 4een identified as t e c ild5s fat er 4y t e mot er in a written1 sworn statement any person w o was married to t e c ild5s mot er wit in si2 mont s su4se'uent to t e 4irt of t e c ild and prior to t e e2ecution of a surrender or t e initiation of a termination proceedin3 viii0 any person w o as filed an instrument wit t e putative fat er re3istry ac@nowled3in3 t e paternity of t e c ild /0 Fat ers wit out ri3 ts K T ose w o ave not made efforts to esta4lis a relations ip wit a non%marital c ild do not ave a ri3 t to 4e included in a court decision to approve a mot er5s surrender1 to terminate t e mot er5s ri3 ts or to approve t e adoption of t e c ild -0 Fat ers una4le to meet t e criteria prevented from visitin3 or contactin3 t e c ild 4ecause of a court order or ot er actions ta@en to protect t e mot er from domestic violence incarceration dru3 addiction fat er unaware of t e c ild relative5s action &0 &ffects of 6doption FC1 6rt !#" 6doption s all ave t e followin3 effects9 !0 For civil purposes1 t e adopted s all 4e deemed to 4e a le3itim reciprocal ri3 ts and o4li3ations arisin3 from t e relations ip to use t e surname of t e adopters< 70 T e parental aut ority of t e parents 4y nature over t e ado e2cept t at if t e adopter is t e spouse of t e parent 4y adopted s all 4e e2ercised =ointly 4y 4ot spouses /0 T e adopted s all remain an intestate eir of is parents and CC1 6rt /,D 6n adopted c ild s all 4ear t e surname of t e adopter A R6 #DD7 allows t e adopters to 3ive t eir adopted c ild a name of t eir c oice0 T is was previously not availa4le in PD,C/ and FC +Repu4lic v >ernande8.0 T e rationale for t is rule is t at t e 3iven name will 4e t e only emotional tie t e

adoptive parents can ave wit t eir adoptee0 FC1 6rt !"C Le3al or intestate succession to t e estate of t e adopted iii0 iv0 v0 +!. Le3itimate and ille3itimate c ildren and descendants and t e su adopted1 in accordance wit t e ordinary rules of le3al or intestate suc +7. * en t e parents1 le3itimate or ille3itimate1 or t e le3itimate asc s all divide t e entire estate1 one% alf to 4e in erited 4y t e parents or +/. * en t e survivin3 spouse or t e ille3itimate c ildren of t e adopte estate in e'ual s ares1 one% alf to 4e in erited 4y t e spouse or t e ille t e adopters0 vi0 vii0 +-. * en t e adopters concur wit t e ille3itimate c ildren and t e entire estate in e'ual s ares1 one%t ird to 4e in erited 4y t e ille3itima t ird 4y t e adopters< +D. * en only t e adopters survive1 t ey s all in erit t e entire estate +,. * en only collateral 4lood relatives of t e adopted survive1 t en t apply0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !-D of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 P6R&NT6L 6UT>ORITG +)ec0 !,. le3itimate c ild K as suc 1 t ey were entitled to 6ll le3al ties 4et0 4iolo3ical parents and adoptee are severed1 and t e same s all 4e vested on t e adopter1 e2cept if t e in erit Teodoro5s s are in is parents5 estate 4y 4iolo3ical parent is t e spouse of t e adopter0 ri3 t of representation L&(ITIM6CG +)ec0 !$. T e lower court decided 4ot cases in favor of T e adoptee s all 4e considered le3itimate sonNdau3 ter of t e adopter for all intents and purposes1 and entitled to all ri3 ts and o4li3ations provided 4y law to le3itimate c ildren 4orn to t em wit out discrimination of any @ind0 6doptee is entitled to erein respondents love1 3uidance1 and support0 ?ot decisions were 4ased on findin3s evidenced )UCC&))ION +)ec0!#. 4y t e decree of adoption of Delia and &dmundo1 6dopter and adoptee s all ave reciprocal ri3 ts of succession wit out distinction from le3itimate filiation1 in le3al and and t e 4irt certificate of Dori4el intestate succession0 If adoptee and isN er 4iolo3ical parents ad left a will1 t e law on testamentary succession s all In t e first case1 it was eld t at t e respondents1 3overn0 Teodoro and Isa4el1 and t at Dori4el was a T6M6R(O v C6 +!""7. 7C" )CR6 D!# )pouses )a4as and Felisa Rapisura filed a petition to adopt t e !C yo minor 6del4erto ?undoc0 ?efore t e petition was 3ranted1 6del4erto s ot and @illed Jennifer Tamar3o usin3 an air rifle0 T e parents of Tamar3o sued 6del4erto5s natural parents for dama3es0 T e c ild t ou3 was ac'uitted for actin3 wit out discernment0 T e ?undocs claim t at t e Rapisuras s ould 4e t e proper parties in t is suit since parental aut ority s ifted to t e adoptin3 parent from t e moment t e petition for adoption was filed0 I))U&9 * o 4etween t e adoptive parents and t e 4iolo3ical parents s ould 4e eld lia4le for t e dama3es incurred 4y t e c ildB >&LD9 6del4erto5s natural parents are lia4le for t e dama3es0 T e tortuous act of t e minor occurred prior to t e adoption0 6del4erto was in is natural parents5 actual custody at t e time of t e accident0 T e effects of adoption on parental aut ority cannot 4e 3iven retroactive effect0 )6G)ON v C6 +!""7. 7CD )CR6 /7! Rafaela &leno Mauricio Rosario ?asilisa Remedi Teodoro Teodoro Isa4el Delia +adopted. &dmundo +adopted. Dori4el % % % 4ein3 le3itimate eirs of Teodoro and Isa4el1 t e erein petitioners were e2cluded from s arin3 in t e estate of t e spouses In t e second case1 it was eld t at Delia1 &dmundo and Dori4el were entitled to in erit from &leno and Rafaela 4y ri3 t of representation +of t eir fat er Teodoro. T e C61 owever1 eld t at Delia and &dmundo are NOT entitled to in erit from t e estate of &leno and Rafaela1 4ut affirmed t e lower court5s decision in all ot er respects Petitioners contend t at9 % Delia and &dmundo were not le3ally adopted 4ecause Dori4el ad already 4een 4orn w en t e decree of adoption was issued0 Dori4el5s 4irt dis'ualified er parents from adoptin3 4ased on 6rt //D CC1 w ic names amon3 t ose w o cannot adopt t ose w o ave le3itimate1 le3itimated1 ac@nowled3ed natural c ildren1 or natural c ildren 4y le3al fiction0 Dori4el is not a natural c ild of Teodoro and Isa4el1 4ut of &dita 64ila w o manifested in a petition for 3uardians ip of t e c ild t at s e was t e mot er of Dori4el % % T e survivin3 4rot er1 sisters and mot er%in%law of Teodoro filed a complaint for partition and accountin3 of t e intestate estate of t e deceased spouses Teodoro and Isa4el1 4ut

t is was resisted 4y Delia1 &dmundo and Dori4el )ayson1 alle3in3 successional ri3 ts to t e disputed estate as t e decedent5s lawful descendants Delia1 &dmundo and Dori4el filed anot er complaint for t e accountin3 and partition of t e estate of t eir 3randparents +&leno and Rafaela. a3ainst t e - survivin3 c ildren1 alle3in3 t at Delia and &dmundo were t e adopted c ildren of !0 *ON Delia and &dmundo were le3ally adopted c ildren of Teodoro and Isa4el % G&) It is too late to c allen3e t e decree of adoption0 It was issued way 4ac@ in !",$1 and t erefore as 4ecome final and e2ecutory 6ssumin3 t at t e petitioners were t e proper parties1 t ey s ould ave seasona4ly appealed or assailed t e decree of adoption on t e 4asis of Dori4el5s 4irt 4efore or seasona4ly after t e decree was issued1 4ut t ey did not Mauricio also claims to ave no personal @nowled3e of Dori4el5s 4irt 6 c allen3e to t e validity of t e adoption cannot 4e made collaterally1 as in petitioners5 action for partition1 4ut in a direct proceedin3 frontally addressin3 t e issue % 6 presumption arises in suc cases w ere t e validity of t e =ud3ment is t us attac@ed t at t e necessary =urisdictional facts were proven )antos v 6ran8anso K 6n adoption order implies t e findin3 of t e necessary facts1 and t e 4urden of proof is on t e party attac@in3 it 70 *ON Dori4el is a le3itimate c ild % G&) Dori4el5s 4irt certificate is one of t e prescri4ed means of reco3nition under 4ot 6rt 7,D CC and 6rt !$7 FC0 6lt ou3 it is only prima facie P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !-, of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % % % evidence of filiation1 w ic may 4e refuted 4y evidence1 suc evidence is lac@in3 in t is case Mauricio5s testimony t at e was present w en Dori4el was 4orn to &dita 64ila is suspect as it comes from an interested party 64ila5s affidavit denyin3 er earlier statement in t e petition for t e 3uardians ip of Dori4el is earsay0 It was also never offered in evidence in t e lower courts0 &ven wit out 64ila5s affidavit1 t e 4irt certificate must 4e up eld0 It was eld in Le3aspi v C6 t at t e evidentiary nature of pu4lic documents must 4e sustained in t e a4sence of stron31 complete1 and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity Dori4el5s le3itimacy cannot 4e 'uestioned in a complaint for partition and accountin30 It s ould 4e 'uestioned in a direct action seasona4ly filed 4y t e proper party It cannot 4e 'uestioned 4y way of defense or as a collateral issue in anot er action for a different purpose Isa4el Jo nston filed a petition to adopt a 7 yo minornamed 6na Isa4el >enriette 6ntonio Concepcion (eor3iana from >ospicio de )an Jose as s e is in a c ildless marria3e wit Raymond 6rt ur Jo nston0 T e petition was 3ranted and t e c ild was 3iven Isa4el5s maiden surname1 ;alde80 Isa4el filed a motion to c an3e t e c ild5s surname to ;alde8Jo nston1 Isa4el5s married name0 >&LD9 Isa4el5s us4and did not concur in t e adoption0 >ence1 t e c ild s ould use Isa4el5s maiden name or it may lead to confusion0 R&PU?LIC v *ON( +!""7. 7C" )CR6 !#" Ma2imo *on3 is t e le3itimate son of Ma2imo 6lcala )r and )e3undina 6lcala0 * en t ey were 7 and " yo respectively1 e and is sister were le3ally adopted 4y >oon *on3 and Concepcion Ty *on3 +naturali8ed Filipinos w o are c ildless after !D yrs of marria3e0 * en e turned 771 Ma2imo wants to revert to is natural parents5 real name sayin3 t at t e C inese surname of is adoptive parents em4arrassed and isolate im in is Muslim community0 Li@ewise1 it ampers t e pro3ress of is 4usiness +furniture store.0 T e adoptive mom does not mind is action and even assured t at e will still 4e entitled to in erit from t em despite t e name c an3e0 RTC 3ranted t e petition for c an3e of name )( resists 4ecause c an3e of name is an act of in3ratitude to is adoptive parents w o cared for im0 I))U&9 *ON t e reasons su4mitted 4y Ma2imo are valid1 sufficient Q proper to warrant t e 3rantin3 of t e petition0 >&LD9 Ges0 It was proven t at t e surname was detrimental to Ma2imo5s 4usiness0 Li@ewise1 t e c an3e of Ma2imo5s surname was not done to defraud anyone0 Use of t e adoptive parents5 surname is not t e main o4=ective of adoption 4ut merely one of its effects0 FC ec oes t e same statutory ri3 t of an adopted c ild to use t e surname of t e adopter0 T us1 t e use of t e surname of t e adopter 4y t e adopted c ild is 4ot an o4li3ation and a ri3 t0 )C said t at t e )tate as an interest in t e names 4orne 4y individuals Q entities for t e purpose of identification Q a

c an3e of name is not a matter of ri3 t 4ut of sound =udicial discretion1 to 4e e2ercised in t e li3 t of reasons adduced Q t e conse'uences t at will li@ely follow< it is a privile3e wNc may 4e 3ranted upon s owin3 of a proper or reasona4le cause or compellin3 reason0 * ile it is true under t e law t at an adopted c ild must 4ear t e name of t e adopter1 t e c an3e of t e surname of t e adopted c ild is more an incident rat er t an t e o4=ect of adoption proceedin3s0 /0 *ON Delia1 &dmundo and Dori4el are entitled to in erit from Teodoro and Isa4el % G&) Dori4el1 as t e le3itimate dau3 ter1 and Delia and &dmundo1 as t eir adopted c ildren1 are e2clusive eirs to t e intestate estate of t e deceased couple1 in conformity wit 6rt "$"1 w ic states t at le3itimate c ildren1 w ic includes adopted c ildren1 succeed t eir parents T e underlyin3 p ilosop y of t e article is t at a person5s love descends first to is c ildren1 and 3randc ildren 4efore it ascends to is parents and t ereafter spreads amon3 is collateral relatives It is also supposed t at one of a person5s purposes in ac'uirin3 property is to leave t em eventually is c ildren as a to@en of is love for t em and as a provision for t eir continued care after is deat -0 *ON Delia and &dmundo are entitled to in erit from &leno and Rafaela % NO T e 3randparents were total stran3ers to Delia and &dmundo1 as adopted c ildren 6n adopted c ild is deemed to 4e a le3itimate c ild1 and t us as t e same ri3 ts as le3itimate c ild0 >O*&;&R1 t ese ri3 ts do not include t e ri3 t of representation0 T e relations ip created 4y t e adoption is 4etween only t e adoptin3 parents and t e adopted c ild1 and does not e2tend to t e 4lood relatives of eit er party0 A T e adopted c ildren are entitled to Teodoro5s estate0 Le3ally adopted c ildren ave t e ri3 t to in erit from t e adoptive parents0 >owever1 t e adopted c ildren may not represent t eir adoptive parent0 6doption creates a relations ip only 4etween t e adoptive parents and t e adopted0 It does not e2tend to t e 4lood relatives of eit er party0 JO>N)TON v R&PU?LIC +!",/. $ )CR6 !C-C P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !-$ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 R&PU?LIC v C6 and C6R6NTO + . 7DD )CR6 "" Midael ad 4een livin3 wit Jaime since e was $ years old0 * en Jaime married Penaida on !" January !"#,1 Midael stayed under t eir care and custody0 % )pouses Jaime and Penaida Caranto filed for t e adoption of !D yo minor Midael C0 Ma8on on 7 )eptem4er !"##0 6side from t e decree of adoption1 t ey also prayed for t e c an3e in t e 3iven name 4irt certificate entry from Midael to Mic ael0 O)( opposed t e petition insofar as it also sou3 t to c an3e dMidael5 to dMic ael5 in an adoption proceedin30 RTC dismissed O)( and rendered =ud3ment on /C May !"#" 3rantin3 Caranto spouses5 petition0 O)( appealed to C61 C6 up eld RTC on 7/ January !""7< ence1 t is petition0 I))U&)9 *ON RTC ac'uired =urisdiction on petition for adoption *ON RTC and C6 erred in 3rantin3 c an3e of 3iven name from Midael to Mic ael >&LD9 G&)0 Petitioner contends t at since t e name appearin3 in t e re'uisite notice 4y pu4lication did not state t e true name of t e c ild0 Court ruled t at t e case at 4ar was an o4vious clerical error in t e 3iven name of t e c ild1 and does not confuse any identities0 NO0 T e c an3e of 3iven name is wit out force and effect0 Rule !C# of t e Rules of Court does not only refer to errors concernin3 civil status1 4ut even to names as well as enumerated in item +o. of f 7 of Rule !C#0 T e local civil re3istrar must ave 4een made party to t e proceedin30 T e notice 4y pu4lication also failed to include t e matter on t e c an3e of name1 deprivin3 t e local civil re3istrar of notice and opportunity to 4e eard0 R&PU?LIC v >&RN6ND&P +!"",. 7D/ )CR6 DC" )pouses ;an and Re3ina Munson adopted an infant w o 4ears t e name Ievin &arl ?artolome Moran in is 4irt certificate0 * en t ey ad im 4apti8ed1 t ey 3ave im t e name 6aron Josep 1 t e name 4y w ic t e c ild is @nown to t e family1 relatives and friends0 T e spouses t en instituted a =oinder of t e petition for adoption and t e petition for a c an3e of name0 T e petitioner opposed t e said action sayin3 t at t ere is no le3al 4asis for t e c an3e of t e adoptee5s 3iven name0 RTC ruled in favor c an3in3 t e name of t e c ild ratiocinatin3 t at Eas adoptive parents1 petitioner li@e ot er parents may feely select t e first name 3iven to isN er c ild as it is only t e surname to w ic t e c ild is

entitled t at is fi2ed 4y law0F % Furt er1 t e respondents su4mit t at c an3e of name may 4e 3iven li4eral construction since t e o4=ect of strict implementation is to prevent fraudulent acts1 w ile an infant as not e2ercised any of its ri3 ts0 I))U&)9 !0 *ON =oinder of petition for adoption and petition for a c an3e of name is allowed 4y t e law 70 *ON t ere is lawful 3round for t e adoptee5s c an3e of name >&LD9 !0 No0 In order for two petitions may 4e =oined in one proceedin31 t e causes of action must9 +a. not violate t e rules on =urisdiction1 venue and =oinder of parties and +4. arise out of t e same contract1 transaction or relation 4etween t e parties1 or are for demands for money or are of t e same nature and c aracter0 T ere is no conceptual unity 4etween petition for adoption and petition for c an3e of name0 T e two actions are different and unrelated from eac ot er1 and t erefore1 two special proceedin3s w ic cannot 4e =oined as avin3 one cause of action0 T ey must 4e instituted separately0 70 No0 T e c an3e of surname of t e adoptee as a result of t e adoption and to follow t at of t e adopter does not lawfully e2tend to or include t e proper or 3iven name0 T e 4irt certificate1 as it appears in t e civil re3ister1 contains t e official name0 It does not matter if t e mot er1 wit all intention to a4andon it later1 named t e c ild for t e sa@e of namin3 it0 If t ey really want to c an3e t e name1 t ey institute anot er action under Rule !C/ of t e Rules of Court0 F0 Rescission FC1 6rt !"! If t e adopted is a minor or ot erwise incapacitated1 t e a any person aut ori8ed 4y t e court or proper 3overnment instrume prescri4ed for loss or suspension of parental aut ority0 If t e adopte =udicial rescission of t e adoption on t e same 3rounds prescri4ed for d FC1 6rt !"7 T e adopters may petition t e court for t e =udicial rescis !0 If t e adopted as committed any act constitutin3 a 3round for d 70 * en t e adopted as a4andoned t e ome of t e adopters dur acts as definitely repudiated t e adoption AA Under CC1 PD ,C/ and FC1 4ot t e adopted c ild and t e adopter can as@ for t e =udicial rescission0 >owever1 R6 #DD7 only allows rescission 4y t e adoptee0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !-# of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 e2penses of =udicial adoption o simply re3ister adopted c ild in eir names any person w o causes fictitious re3istration (ROUND) FOR R&)CI))ION OF 6DOPTION of 4irt of c ild under nameNs of personNs not !0 Repeated p ysical and ver4al maltreatment 4y t e adopter+s. isN er 4iolo3ical parentNs punis a4le 4y prison mayor medium plus 70 attempt on t e life of t e adoptee /0 se2ual assault or violence PDC@ fine -0 a4andonment and failure to comply wit parental o4li3ations includes p ysicianNnurseN ospital personnel w o cooperated in e2ecution of crime1 T e only remedy availa4le to t e adopter is 6rt "!" CC w ic is disin eritance0 similar penalties apply plus permanent dis'ualification Ma5am ?et says9 ET e cost of adoption A6rt "!" CC K causes for disin eritance decree is =ust as muc as normal deliveryT !0 conviction of an attempt a3ainst t e life of *ell1 at least1 t at5s my rate0F t e testator1 is or er spouses1 descendants or ascendants 70 avin3 accused t e testator of a crime punis a4le 4y imprisonment for si2 years or more1 if t e accusation as 4een found 3roundless /0 conviction of adultery or concu4ina3e wit t e spouse of t e testator -0 avin3 induced t e testator to ma@e a will or to c an3e one already made1 4y fraud1 violence1 intimidation or undue influence D0 refusal wit out =ustifia4le cause to support t e testator ,0 maltreatment of t e testator 4y word or deed $0 livin3 a dis onora4le or dis3raceful life #0 conviction of a crime w ic carrier t e penalty of civil interdiction 6rt ;I )ec !"1 R6 #,,7 &FF&CT) OF R&)CI))ION FC1 6rt !"/ If t e adopted minor as not reac ed t e a3e of ma=ority at t e time of t e =udicial rescission of t e adoption1 t e court in t e same proceedin3 s all reinstate t e parental aut ority of t e parents 4y nature1 unless t e latter are dis'ualified or incapacitated1 in w ic case t e court s all appoint a 3uardian over t e person and property of t e minor0 If t e adopted person is p ysically or mentally andicapped1 t e court s all appoint in t e same proceedin3 a 3uardian over is person or property or 4ot 0 Judicial rescission of t e adoption s all e2tin3uis all reciprocal ri3 ts and o4li3ations 4etween t e adopters and t e adopted arisin3 from t e relations ip of parent and c ild0 T e adopted s all li@ewise lose t e ri3 t to use t e surnames of t e adopters and s all resume is surname prior to t e adoption0 T e court s all accordin3ly order

t e amendment of t e records in t e proper re3istries0 6rt ;I )ec 7C1 R6 #,,7 !0 Restoration of parental aut ority to ori3inal Reciprocal ri3 ts and o4li3ation 4etween adoptee and adopter e2tin3uis ed Cancellation of amended 4irt certificate )uccessional ri3 t 4ac@ to 4efore as of date of rescission ;ested ri3 ts ac'uired prior to =udicial rescission s all 4e respected 70 /0 -0 D0 (0 Rectification of )imulated ?irt CRIM& OF )IMUL6TION OF ?IRT> +6rt ;II )ec 7!1 R6 #D77. intended to cur4 or prevent suc acts done 4y people w o want to avoid trou4le and P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !-" of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 R&CTIFIC6TION OF )IMUL6TION OF ?IRT> +6rt ;II )ec 771 R6 #D77. T ree%in%one procedure !0 Correction of &ntries in ?irt certificate 70 Declaration of 64andonment /0 6doption Decree 6pplication for correction of t e 4irt re3istration s all 4e filed wit in D years from t e effectivity of t is 6ct and completed t ereafter >0 6doption decree R&G&) v )OT&RO +7CC,. -#7 )CR6 D7C &lena Lisin3 died intestate0 Cora8on C ic ioco filed a petition for issuance of letter and administration and settlement and estate as t e niece of t e decedent wit t e collateral relatives of t e decedent0 C ic ioco alle3ed t at t e properties of t e decedent is wit t e petitioner 6na Joyce Reyes1 er 3rand niede and t at s e 4e appointed as t e administrator of t ese properties instead0 Reyes filed an opposition to t e petition1 claimin3 t at s e is in fact t e adopted c ild of t e decedent and er us4and )erafin delos )antos and t at t e appointment of administration is unnecessary since s e is t e sole eir of Lisin30 6s evidence1 s e provided t e followin39 o Certification from t e Municipal Re3istrar of Pani'ui1 Tralac t at on t e Record of Court Decrees1 Reyes was adopted 4y &lena Lisin3 and )erafin delos )antos0 o Certification of t e Cler@ of Court of t e RTC%Tarlac City t at =ud3ment was rendered on Dec 7!1 !",# decreein3 er adoption 4y t e spouses o Judicial form no0 -/9 t e adoption decree w ic declares er adoption o Decree of final distri4ution issued 4y P;6O9 4enefits paid to er as Edau3 terF of )erafin delos )antos0 C ic ioco filed an annulment of t e adoption decree statin3 t at documents presented are false and fraudulent< and t at petitioner and er mot er colla4orated to ma@e it appear t at petitioner is adopted 4y &lena and )erafin0 I))U&9 *ON t e petitioner erein s ould prove t e validity of er adoption due to irre3ularities raised 4y private respondent0 >&LD9 No0 T e Court ruled t at t e documents presented 4y t e petitioner sufficiently proved t at s e is le3ally adopted 4y &lena and )erafin0 It is presumed t at t ese documents are re3ularly issued as t ey are issued under t e seal of t e issuin3 offices and si3ned 4y t e proper officers0 T e adoption decree is a pu4lic document t at is re'uired 4y law to 4e properly re3istered in t e official repository i0e0 local civre3 as well as t e court t at rendered suc =ud3ment0 T us t ese documents are prima facie evidence of t e facts t erein unless proven contrary wit proof of suc alle3ed irre3ularity 4e 4rou3 t in a separate proceedin3 for t e purpose of nullifyin3 t e adoption decree as in )antos v 6ran8anso0 T e private respondents cannot assail suc decree to defeat t e petitioners claim t at s e is t e sole eir of t e decedent0 T erefore1 t e petitioner w ose adoption is presumed to 4e valid is t e sole eir of t e decedent0 I0 Inter%country 6doption A (overned 4y R6 #C-/ or t e Inter%country 6doption 6ct *>O M6G ?& 6DOPT&D K 6ny c ild9 !0 as 4een voluntarily or involuntarily committed to t e Department as dependent1 a4andoned1 or ne3lected pursuant to t e provisions of t e C ild and Gout *elfare Code may 4e t e su4=ect of Inter%Country 6doption< 70 Povided t at in case of a c ild w o is voluntarily committed1 t e p ysical transfer of said c ild s all 4e made not earlier t an si2 +,. mont s from t e date t e Deed of ;oluntary Commitment was e2ecuted 4y t e c ild5s 4iolo3ical parentNs0 T e pro i4ition a3ainst p ysical transfer s all not apply to adoption 4y a relative or c ildren wit special medical conditions0 *>O M6G 6DOPT 6ny forei3n national or a Filipino citi8en permanently residin3 a4road w o as t e 'ualifications and none of t e dis'ualifications under t e 6ct may file an application if eNs e9 +a. is at least twenty% seven +7$. years of a3e< +4. is at least si2teen +!,. years older t an t e c ild to 4e adopted at t e time of t e filin3 of t e application1 unless t e applicant is t e parent 4y nature of t e c ild to 4e adopted or is t e spouse of suc parent 4y nature< +c. as t e capacity to act and assume all t e

ri3 ts and responsi4ilities incident to parental aut ority under isN er national law< +d. as under3one appropriate counselin3 form an accredited counselor in isN er country +e. as not 4een convicted of a crime involvin3 moral turpitude< +f. is eli3i4le to adopt under isN er national law +3. can provide t e proper care and support and 3ive t e necessary moral values and e2ample to t e c ild and1 in t e proper case1 to all isN er ot er c ildren< + . comes from a country9 a0 wit w om t e P ilippines as diplomatic relations< 40 w ose 3overnment maintains a forei3n adoption a3ency< and c0 w ose laws allow adoption< and P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !DC of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 +i. files =ointly wit isN er spouse1 if any1 w o s all ave t e same 'ualifications and none of t e dis'ualifications to adopt as prescri4ed a4ove0 J0 6doption issues T>& PRO) 6ND CON) OF INT&R%COUNTRG 6DOPTION 6CT! Nationalistic reasons a3ainst I6 !0 International pride K political pressure to up3rade internal system of social welfare 70 6n unaccepta4le form of international c arity /0 ?elief t at country and erita3e is special and c ildren would 4e deprived of somet in3 valua4le if removed from it -0 *aste of uman resources and e2ploitation 4y *estern nei3 4ors ?est interest of t e c ild !0 Remain in t eir 4iolo3ical families1 or at least in t eir ome countries a0 Deprivation of cultural identity 40 Racial discrimination c0 Unnecessary separation from family 70 I6 acts as an Eescape valve5 for LDC5s and a Econscience%savin3F mec anism for developed countries1 it wor@s to t e disadvanta3e of all c ildren in t ese nations a0 limited response to t e needs of c ildren 4y 4enefitin3 only a few1 leavin3 millions of omeless c ildren in need of assistance 40 I6 reduces pressure on t e nations to improve t eir c ild and family welfare pro3rams /0 I6 is dictated 4y t e demands of would%4e parents in developed countries1 rat er t an t e needs of t e c ildren involved a0 incentives for c ild traffic@in3 and tradin3 li@ewise increase 40 will result to increase in num4er of a4andoned c ildren1 it will even encoura3e more mot ers w o want 4etter life for t eir c ildren c0 western people are adoptin3 for t eir own selfis needs1 t en it is not an altruistic activity -0 I6 facilitates c ild traffic@in3 AToo la8y to include t e re4uttals w ic is t e second part0 It5s nice t ou3 0 Gou mi3 t want to c ec@ it out yourself0 ! )ummary 4y Iaric i )antos P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !D! of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 :I;0 P6R&NT) 6ND C>ILDR&N P6R&NT6L 6UT>ORITG +patria potestas. is defined 4y Manresa as Et e mass of ri3 ts and o4li3ations w ic parents ave in relation to t e person and property of t eir c ildren until t eir emancipation and even after t is under certain circumstances0F A T e preferential ri3 t of fat ers is for cases t at re'uire immediate decision and are essentially temporary until decided 4y t e court0 C>ILDR&N5) DUTG !0 o4serve respect and reverence temporary1 only as lon3permanent1 lifetime of parent and c ild 70 o4ey t em as t ey are under parental aut ority A?ut in t e P ilippines1 t e 4est way to s ow respect and reverence is to o4eyT 60 Parental 6ut ority K (eneral Provisions FC1 6rt 7!7 In case of a4sence or deat of eit er parent1 t e parent p remarria3e of t e survivin3 parent s all not affect t e parental aut anot er person to 4e t e 3uardian of t e person or property of t e c il FC1 6rt 7!/ In case of separation of parents1 parental aut ority s all 4 Court s all ta@e into account all relevant considerations1 especially t e FC1 6rt 7C" Pursuant to t e natural ri3 t and duty of parents over t e person and property of t eir unemancipated c ildren1 parent c osen is unfit0 parental aut ority and responsi4ility s all include carin3 for and rearin3 of suc c ildren for civic consciousness and efficiency and t e development of t eir moral1 mental and p ysical c aracter and well%4ein30 No c ild under $ yo s all 4e separated from t e mot er unless t e Cou Gears Presumption. FC1 6rt 7!C Parental aut ority and responsi4ility may not 4e renounced or transferred e2cept in t e cases aut ori8ed 4y law0 Parental aut ority is a purely personal ri3 t0 It cannot 4e renounced e2cept for t e followin3 waiver permitted 4y law9 !0 adoption 70 3uardians ip /0 surrender to an orp ana3e or asylum +6rt 77/%77-. Minority does not divest a parent of parental aut ority0 In fact1 t ere are two @inds of parental aut ority9 !0 parental aut ority over t e person of t e c ild 70 parental aut ority

over t e property of t e c ild P6R&NT6L 6UT>ORITG O;&R T>& FC1 6rt 7!- In case of P6R&NT6L 6UT>ORITG O;&R T>& PROP&RTG P&R)ON !0 deat 70 a4sence /0 unsuita4ility of t e parents )u4stitute parental aut ority s all 4e e2ercised 4y t e survivin3 3randp t e court1 ta@in3 into account t e same consideration mentioned in t e PD ,C/1 6rt D# Dama3es 4y c ild are answered 4y parents CC1 6rt 7!#C T e fat er and1 in case of is deat or incapaci caused 4y t e minor c ildren w o live in t eir company0 (uardians are lia4le for dama3es caused 4y t e minors or inca and live in t eir company0 Lastly1 teac ers or eads of esta4lis ments of arts and trades s and students or apprentices1 so lon3 as t ey remain in t eir cu T e responsi4ility treated of in t is article s all cease w en o4served all t e dili3ence of a 3ood fat er of a family to preven * en does a parent ave parental aut ority over t e person 4ut not t e propertyB !0 w en t e parent is a minor 70 w en t e parent is C ild. !0 Custody 60 Parent disin erited 4y an ascendant +(randparent Determinin3 t e 4est interest of t e c ild i0 (&ND&R 6ND T&ND&R G&6R) PR&)UMPTION &: P6RT& D&;IN& +!"#!. FC1 6rt 7!! T e fat er and t e mot er s all =ointly e2ercise parental aut ority over t e persons of t eir common c ildren0 In /"# )o0 7d ,#, case of disa3reement1 t e fat er5s decision s all prevail1 unless t ere is a =udicial order to t e contrary0 % 6lice ?et 1 an employee at t e U) 6rmy at Fort C ildren s all always o4serve respect and reverence towards t ey McMClellan t eir parents and are o4li3ed to o4ey t em as lon3 C ristoper1 a sc ool teac er as c ildren are under parental aut ority0 Matt ew Patric@ and Timot y Clar@ P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !D7 of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % % Mr and Mrs Devine were divorced1 t e court awarded t e c ildren to Mrs Devine1 accordin3 to t e tender years presumption +if 4ot parents are fit1 and c ildren are at t eir tender years1 under $ years1 mot er will ta@e care of t em1 4ased on instinctive role of t e mot er.0 Mr Devine now c allen3es t e constitutionality of t e tender years presumption and claimin3 t at it is violative of t e!-t amendment +e'ual protection. I))U&9 *ON (ina as ri3 ts to t e c ild >&LD9 No0 T e provision t at no mot er s all 4e separated from a c ild under $ yo will not apply w en t e court finds compellin3 reasons to do ot erwise0 In t is case1 (ina5s situation is not economic and moral conducin3 for t e c ild0 Conrado is married to anot er woman1 and also1 (ina as anot er c ild 4y anot er married man0 >avin3 a si4lin3 wit a different surname will cause confusion to t e c ild0 6n3elie 6nne was also le3ally adopted and it dissolves t e aut ority of t e natural parents to t e c ild0 Ma5am ?et does not a3ree wit t e decision1 s e says t at / yo @ids will 4e appy for t e playmate0 It would not as@ E)ino tatay moBF Moral of t e story9 Don5t use different surnames1 even if t e fat er ac@nowled3es t e c ild0 UNL&)) e 3ives support1 ot erwise1 it5s uselessT *ould it favor an adulterous mot er if t e c ild was youn3er or olderB Goun3er1 4ecause t e c ild does not ave any opinions yet0 6ll it wants is mil@1 diaper and 4urp0 &)PIRITU v C6 +!""D. 7-, )CR6 /,7 Reynaldo &spiritu and Teresita Masaudin3 first met at Ili3an City in !"$,0 In !"#-1 t ey a3ain met in Pitts4ur3 1 Pennsylvania and 4e3an to maintain a common law relations ip as us4and and wife0 7 years later1 Rosalind was 4orn0 T ey t en 3ot married in !"#$ and later ad a son1 Re3inald0 T eir relations ip deteriorated and t ey separated in !""C0 Teresita t en left t e c ildren and Reynaldo and went 4ac@ to California0 Reynaldo 4rou3 t t e c ildren to t e P ilippines and left t em to er sister0 Teresita t en filed a petition for a writ of a4eas corpus a3ainst t e petitioners0 T e trial court denied t e writ1 4ut t e C6 3ranted t e petition1 applyin3 6rt /,/ CC w ic states t at a c ild 4elow $ yrs old s all not 4e separated from t e mot er0 I))U&9 *ON Teresita is fit to 4e 3ranted custody of t e c ildren >&LD9 No0 T e prime consideration is t e c ild5s 4est interest0 TGP provides t at if t e c ild is under seven years of a3e1 t e mot er is t e 4est custodian0 >owever1 t e presumption is not a4solute and may 4e overcome 4y compellin3 reasons0 * en a c ild is over seven1 is or er c oice of parent is paramount0 T e testimonies of t e psyc olo3ist and social wor@er s owed t at t e c ildren disli@ed t eir mot er1 even loves er yaya more0 T eir testimonies I))U&9 *ON t e

trial court5s reliance on tender years presumption deprived t e fat er of is constitutional entitlement to t e e'ual protection of t e law >&LD9 Ges0 T e tender years presumption represents an unconstitutional 3ender%4ased classification w ic discriminates 4etween fat ers and mot ers in c ild custody proceedin3s solely on t e 4asis of se20 It creates a presumption of fitness and suita4ility of one parent wit out consideration of t e actual capa4ilities of 4ot parties0 It also imposes unnecessary le3al 4urden on t e fat er0 +Note9 T e 4urden of proof t at t e mot er is unfit0 T us1 t e male can only 3ain custody IF t e female is unfit even if t e fat er is fit0 T is violates t e e'ual protection clause0. A Remem4er Moe v Din@ins1 a case a4out t e re'uirement of parental consent T&)T PRO:G MO& v DINIIN) Maturity 63e D&;IN& Fitness )e2N(ender Is t ere a fit 4etween t e test and t e pro2yB No1 4ecause even if mot ers are closer t an fat ers durin3 infancy1 it is not sufficient 3round 4ecause as t e c ild matures1 t e difference 4etween t e parental s@ills of t e fat er and t e mot er decreases0 C&R;6NT&) v F6J6RDO +!"#". !," )CR6 D$D 6n3elie 6nne Cervantes is t e product of common%law relations ip 4etween Conrado Fa=ardo and (ina Carreon0 T ey offered 6n3elie for adoption to er sister and 4rot er in law1 Penaida Carreon Cervantes and Nelson Cervantes1 t e petitioners in t is case0 (ina e2ecuted an affidavit of consent and an appropriate petition for adoption was filed 4y erein petitioners0 T e petition was 3ranted0 Petitioners received a letter from t e respondents demandin3 to 4e paid !DC1CCC1 or else1 t ey would 3et 4ac@ t eir c ild0 T e petitioners refused0 (ina too@ t e c ild from t eir yaya at t e petitioners5 residence0 Petitioners as@ed for t e c ild 4ut respondent refused1 sayin3 t at s e ad no desire to 3ive up t e c ild in t e first place and t e affidavit t at s e e2ecuted wasn5t e2plained fully to er0 T e petitioners erein filed a writ of a4eas corpus0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !D/ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 were 3iven wei3 t 4y t e court since t e interview and t e e2amination were done for forei3n travel and sc ool purposes respectively1 not for t e advancement of t e liti3ation case0 6lso1 s e refuses to tal@ to er in t e p one and w en t ey saw eac ot er in court1 dau3 ter i3nored er mot er and did not s ow any lon3in30 T e mot er5s illicit affair wit Reynaldo5s cowor@er seemed to ave caused emotional distur4ances to Rosalind0 T ere is also not in3 in t e records w ic s ow t at Reynaldo was unfit0 >is assi3nment in t e states is =ust temporary1 and e will 4e comin3 4ac@ ome to t e P ilippines permanently0 C&LI) v C6FUIR +!"DC. #, P il DD* en Ileana Celis 3ave 4irt to a 4oy1 Joel1 s e entrusted im to )oledad Cafuir 4ecause of er fat er5s displeasure of t e dis3race Ileana 4rou3 t to t e family for avin3 illicit relations wit a man w om s e is not married wit and 4ecause of er fat er5s o4=ection of avin3 er son stay in t e paternal ome0 Ileana made two documents9 !. entrustin3 )oledad er c ild and only )oledad can adopt t e c ild0 7. appointment of )oledad as t e c ild5s 3uardian0 Ileana only came to visit t e 4oy every )aturday and provided some mil@1 food and a little money0 ) e eventually married co petitioner 63ustin Rivera and t en decided to 3et t e 4oy 4ac@1 4ut )oledad refused0 Ileana t en filed for a writ of a4eas corpus0 )oledad1 in er defense1 claims t at t e two documents enacted 4y Ileana renounced er custody of and patria potestas over er c ild0 I))U&9 *ON Ileana ad renounced er custody of t e c ild in favor of )oledad0 >&LD9 No0 T e first document merely entrusted er son to soledad0 &ntrusted cannot convey t e idea of permanent renunciation0 6lso1 t e clause t at says ENo one as t e ri3 t to claim for adoption e2cept )oledadF merely provides an option for )oledad1 w ic s e didn5t ta@e0 T e second document1 on t e ot er and1 merely desi3nated )oledad as t e 3uardian of t e c ild0 T e desi3nation of one as t e 3uardian does not mean t at t e 3uardian will always assume and disc ar3e t e duties of t e office or position0 (6M?O6%>IR)C> v C6 +7CC$. D7$ )CR6 /#C % 63nes (am4oa%>irs Fran@lin >arvey >irsc and a dau3 ter was 4orn to t em named )imon Noelle % T ey were married in ?acolod 4ut t e couple cannot a3ree on w ere t ey would esta4lis t eir con=u3al ome1 w et er in ?oracay or in Ma@ati0 % T ey settled in ?oracay 4ut 63nes insisted on 3oin3 to Ma@ati0 ) e did1 and too@ wit er Noelle wit no intention of comin3 4ac@0 >us4and petitions for writ of a4eas corpus w ic

C6 3ranted and t ey were 3iven =oint custody I))U&9 *ON t e C6 erred in 3ivin3 custody to 4ot t e parents >&LD9 Ges0 6rt 7!/ applies 4ecause t e c ild is under $ years old and t e mot er did not ave t e dis'ualification for possessin3 custody0 )G v C6 +7CC$. (R No0 !7-D!# Mercedes filed a petition for writ of a4eas corpus for er two minor c ildren ;anessa and Jeremia 0 >er us4and *ilson alle3es t at s e is unfit for custody 4ecause s e as !. a4andoned t eir family1 7. mentally unsta4le and /. cannot provide for t eir c ildren I))U&9 *ON Mercedes can ave custody of er c ildren >&LD9 Ges0 ?ecause all of *ilson5s ar3uments1 aside from 4ein3 unsu4stantiated1 ad 4een refuted 4y Mercedes0 ) e left t e con=u3al ome to wor@ in Taiwan and earn money to reclaim er c ildren0 >er act of prayin3 in t e rain is a mere e2pression of er fait 1 w ic is t e same reason for t e couple5s separation +reli3ious differences.0 ii0 P6R&NT6L UNFITN&)) F&LDM6N v F&LDM6N +!"$-. /D# NG) 7d DC$ Mady Feldman filed for divorce a3ainst er us4and1 P ilip1 4ased upon cruel and in uman treatment0 Pursuant to t eir separation a3reement1 s e was awarded t e custody of t eir 7 c ildren0 6fter t e divorce1 t e former wife 4e3an datin3 a married man0 In one visit of t e former us4and at er former wife5s ouse1 e found a copy of )crew Ma3a8ine and some letters wit e2plicit p oto3rap s on t e dinin3 room and @itc en ta4les0 T e letters were in response to t e ads placed 4y t e former wife and er male companion re3ardin3 fun and 3ames wit ot er couples or 3roups0 T e former us4and t en filed a petition for t e custody of t e two c ildren0 T e trial court found t at t e wife was livin3 se2ually li4erated lifestyle0 ?ased on t is1 t e trial court 3ranted t e custody of t e two c ildren to t e former us4and0 I))U&9 *ON t e mot er5s unusual se2ual activities ma@es er unsuita4le for custody 4ecause of immorality P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !D- of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 >&LD9 No0 >er peculiar se2ual practices do not ipso facto constitute unfitness for custody0 It was found t at s e ad supported er c ildren well and as 3iven t em a 3reat atmosp ere at ome0 T e unusual practices 4y t e mot er did not1 in any way1 affect t e c ildren0 T ere is no evidence also1 t at t e pu4lications or pictures were ever seen 4y t e c ildren0 +Note9 t e ri3 t of a divorced woman to en3a3e in private se2ual activities1 w ic no way affect er minor c ildren1 is wit in t e penum4ra of privacy mandated 4y t e ?ill of Ri3 ts. 6lso1 t e c ildren were well%provided for 4ot emotionally and p ysically +doin3 3ood at sc ool1 even elected as class officers. and t at t e mot er5s ome ad a Ec eerful and appy atmosp ereF +w ic to Ma5am ?et 5s mind was EmaaliwalasF0 )6NTO) v C6 +!""D. 7-7 )CR6 -C$ Leouel and Julia ad placed t eir c ild into t e care of t e latter5s parents ever since t e c ild was 4orn0 T e 3randparents were t e ones w o provided support for t e c ild1 since Leouel cannot afford to do so0 Julia t en left for t e )tates to wor@0 T e 3randparents claim t at Julia as 4een sendin3 financial support to er son0 On )eptem4er !""C1 Leouel a4ducted t e c ild from is 3randparents0 T e 3randparents t en filed for custody of t e 4oy1 w ic t e trial court 3ranted0 Leouel appealed1 statin3 t at t e respondents ave failed to s ow t e e is unfit to 4e t e fat er and t at t e su4stitute parental aut ority 3ranted to t e 4oy5s 3randparents was inappropriate0 T e respondents claim t at t ey are financially well%off to ta@e care of t e son1 w ile Leouel is not0 T ey can provide t e c ild wit an airconditioned room since e is ast matic0 6lso1 Julia as entrusted t e 4oy to t em0 Leouel5s use of tric@ery to a4duct t e c ild also is a si3n of is unfitness0 T ey li@ewise claim t at t ey are in t e 4est position to ta@e care of t e c ild1 and t is s ould 4e t e primary consideration of t e court0 I))U&9 *ON Leouel s ould 4e awarded proper custody >&LD9 Ges0 T e fat er1 Leouel was not s own to 4e an unfit parent0 T e fact t at e @idnapped is son from t e latter5s maternal 3randparents does not render im unfit0 6lso1 dis'ualifyin3 im as custodian 4ecause of t e nature of is wor@ would mean deprivin3 all soldiers of t eir c ild5s company0 Only in cases of deat 1 a4sence or unsuita4ility of parents may su4stitute parental aut ority 4e e2ercised 4y t e survivin3 3randparents0 ?0 Role of t e c ild5s preference PIP6RRO v C6 Q ;6)SU&P +!"/$. /, O( --" Maria and Mariano were wed in !"7# and lived to3et er until !"770 t ey ave two c ildren0 ?ecause of Mariano5s infidelity and

cruelty1 spouses a3reed to live separately0 T ey e2ecuted a contract of separation statin3 t at t e custody of t e c ildren will 4e wit Maria0 One year late1 Maria 3ave 4irt to Loren8o0 Mariano sues and wins a case for adultery0 >owever1 since 4ot parties ad committed adultery after suc separation1 t e court 3ave custody to t e paternal 3randparents0 I))U&9 *ON a wife accused of adultery was entitled to separate maintenance0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !DD of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 >&LD9 In a4sence of proof of 3uilt1 yes s e is entitled to support0 T e contention ere is 4etween t e wife5s affirmation a3ainst t e us4and5s denial of t e s ort%lived marital reunion0 Maria said s e ad 4riefly reconciled wit er us4and durin3 a fiesta in Cavite0 >e promised to 4e ave so s e was persuaded to live wit im a3ain0 T e presumption of le3itimacy continues even if t e us4and and wife voluntarily separate and live apart0 T is presumption is one of t e stron3est @nown in law and cannot 4e overt rown e2cept 4y stron3er evidence to t e contrary0 Considerin3 t at t e reunion wit t e wife is not impossi4le nor impro4a4le0 Mariano also asserted t e unc astity of is wife after t e 4irt of Loren8o1 contradictin3 is earlier statements and actions0 >e ad found out a4out Maria5s affair as early as Marc !"/- 4ut 3ave er money in )eptem4er and Octo4er !"/-0 Maria is entitled to prima facie presumption of innocence of t e crime of adultery0 6 declaration of adultery in t is case affects er standin31 as well as er c ild0 )ince alle3ed adultery of Maria as not 4een sufficiently esta4lis ed1 Loren8o is presumed to 4e le3itimate 4ecause e was 4orn in lawful wedloc@1 t ere avin3 4een no divorce relative or a4solute0 Maria swore t at s e ad left er us4and and t e con=u3al a4ode 4ecause e ad @ept a mistress t ere1 and ad repeatedly done er 4odily arm0 T ese assertions were not contradicted0 Conse'uently1 t e defense of unwort iness avin3 failed1 t e innocent wife must 4e 3iven separate maintenance0 ) e would also 4e 3iven t e custody of er t ree c ildren1 4ecause !. t e contract of separation stipulated t at (loria and Julita stay wit er and 7. it was for t e 4est interest of t e c ildren0 (OLD)T&IN v (OLD)T&IN +!"$D. !!D R0I0 !D7 &dward (oldstein was awarded custody of a c ild1 6nn Ro4in1 after a decree 4y t e court0 6s suc 1 t e c ild and er fat er lived in Israel1 w ile t e mot er1 Claire1 stayed in t e )tates0 T e wife t en initiated a series of proceedin3s to reclaim ri3 ts over t e c ild and s e finally succeeded in part1 w en er us4and and c ild returned to t e )tates and appeared in court0 T e trial =ud3e found it advisa4le to place t e c ild under t e mot er5s custody pendin3 t e earin30 6t t e earin31 4ot were found to 4e fit0 6nn was found to 4e very intelli3ent and suffers no emotional dama3e0 T e wife re'uested for t e =ud3e to ta@e notice of t e t reat of war in Israel1 w ile t e us4and ar3ued t at t e states ad more violence and en3a3ed in muc more wars0 % % T e =ud3e and 6nn Ro4in t en tal@ed1 and from t eir conversation1 6nn said t at s e loved er fat er more t an er mot er and t at s e ad no desire to visit wit er mot er 4ut a3reed if s e was allowed to live wit er fat er if s e visited er mot er for - wee@s durin3 t e summer0 T e =ud3e1 ta@in3 into consideration t e c ild5s 4est interests1 3ranted custody to t e fat er0 T e wife ar3ued t at t e =ud3e failed to consider all circumstances and allowed t e c ild5s c oice to control is decision0 I))U&9 *ON t e =ud3e5s reliance on t e c ild5s preference was =ustifia4le >&LD9 Ges0 T e factors in awardin3 custody to one or t e ot er of t e parents were e'ually 4alanced as to ma@e it difficult for t e =ud3e to decide 4etween t em0 T at 4ein3 so1 it does not seem t at e a4used is discretion w en e 3ave 3reat wei3 t to t e c ild5s preference0 L6:6M6N6 v L6:6M6N6 +7CC7. /## )CR6 7", % Lourdes +a de3ree older in 4an@in3 and finance. Mic ael Raymond +3raduate of LL?1 4uy and sell1 resto owner and fis pond. and twins Josep Q ;incent d % T e family was well off until t e fat er 4ecame dru3 dependent and violent0 T is led t e wife and er c ildren to a4andon t e petitioner 6fter 3oin3 in and out of t e re a4 and finally 4ein3 declared dru3%free1 Reymond t en filed a petition for a4eas corpus for t e custody of t e / c ildren Lourdes opposed t e petition1 citin3 t e dru3 dependence of t e petitioner and t en filed for an annulment of t eir marria3e Reymond filed in t e a4eas corpus case a motion see@in3 visitation ri3 ts over is c ildren0 6fter t e parties reac ed an a3reement1 t e court 3ranted t e visitation

ri3 ts and ordered t e parties to under3o psyc iatric and psyc olo3ical e2amination0 T e results of t e psyc iatric evaluation were presented to t e court0 T e e2am states t at t e c ildren were affected psyc olo3ically 4y t e fat er5s dru3%related 4e avior1 and also t e psyc iatrist found t at Reymond is still not completely cured of t e dru3 addiction0 >owever1 t e psyc iatrist did not detect any evidence t at t e paternal visits would 4e armful to t e c ildren0 ?ased on t is1 t e court 3ranted custody to Lourdes and visitation ri3 ts to Reymond0 I))U&9 *ON t e court properly resolved t e issue of custody >&LD9 No0 T e fundamental policy of t e )tate to promote and protect t e welfare of t e c ildren s all P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !D, of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 not 4e disre3arded 4y mere tec nicality in resolvin3 disputes w ic involve t e family and t e yout 0 * ile Reymond may ave a istory of dru3 dependence1 t e records are inade'uate as to is moral1 financial and social well%4ein30 6lt ou3 e is not completely cured of is dru3 dependence1 t ere is no evidence s owin3 t at e is unfit to provide t e c ildren wit ade'uate support1 education and moral and intellectual trainin3 and development0 Moreover1 t e c ildren in t is case were !- and !D years old at t e time of t e promul3ation of t e decision1 yet t e court did not ascertain t eir c oice as to w ic parent t ey wanted to live0 A Ma5am ?et does not li@e t is decision0 * y would you ris@ t e c ildren stayin3 wit someone w o as propensity for dru3 addictionB It5s only savin3 3race is t at t e lower court would only receive evidence0 C0 Presumption for primary careta@er T is rule is not followed in t e P ilippines0 It5s =ust included ere so t at we5ll @now t at we ave ot er alternatives to9 !0 tender years presumption 70 4est interest of t e c ild /0 c ild5s preference (6R)I6 v MCCOG +!"#!. 7$# )0&0 7d /D$ Mic ael (ars@a1 t e appellee and (wendolyn McCoy1 t e appellant1 met at Nort Carolina0 Mic ael 3ot (wen pre3nant and t us1 (wen moved 4ac@ to er 3randparents0 Durin3 er pre3nancy1 s e received no support from Mic ael1 4ut after s e 3ave 4irt 1 Mic ael sent a pac@a3e of food and diapers0 In t e su4se'uent mont s1 t e 4a4y ad many complications1 and to pay for t e medical 4ills1 (wen5s 3randfat er attempted to use is medical insurance provided 4y t e united mine wor@ers0 ?ut e as 4een informed t at t ey would ave to adopt t e 4a4y so t ey can avail of t e said insurance0 (wen t en si3ned a consent in w ic s e a3reed t at er 4a4y will 4e adopted 4y er 3randparents0 Mic ael1 upon learnin3 t is1 visited t e 4a4y for t e !st time and sent money wee@ly0 (wen5s 3randfat er t en filed a petition for adoption0 Conse'uently1 Mic ael filed a petition for write of a4eas corpus to secure custody of is son0 T e court denied t e petition for adoption1 since t e 4a4y ad not resided wit t em for t e re'uisite , mont s0 T e court also awarded custody to Mic ael for reasons t at e9 is natural fat er1 was 4etter educated1 more intelli3ent1 a4le to provide 4etter financial support1 amon3 ot ers0 I))U&9 *ON Mic ael s ould 4e awarded custody >&LD9 No0 t e court set fort t e rule re3ardin3 t e presumption of primary careta@er0 T e court eld t at t e primary careta@er is one w o performs t e followin3 carin3 and nurturin3 duties of t e parent9 !0 preparin3 and plannin3 of meals 70 ?at in3 and 3roomin3 and dressin31 /0 purc asin31 cleanin3 and care of clot es1 -0 medical care1 D0 arran3in3 for social interaction amon3 peers after sc ool1 ,0 arran3in3 alternative care1 $0 puttin3 c ild to 4ed at ni3 t1 attendin3 to c ild in t e middle of t e ni3 t1 wa@in3 c ild in t e mornin31 #0 disciplinin31 "0 educatin31 and1 !C0 teac in3 elementary s@ills0 Once t e primary careta@er is identified1 all t at need to 4e determined is w et er t e parent is unfit or not0 In t is case1 it is o4vious t at (wen is t e primary careta@er0 T ere is no findin3 w ic points t at (wen is unfit0 In fact1 all of t e evidence indicates t at s e mo4ili8ed all of t e resources at er command1 namely t e solicitous re3ard of er 3randparents1 in t e interest of t is c ild and t at s e went to e2traordinary len3t s to provide for im ade'uate medical attention and financial support0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !D$ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 D0 Flip of t e coin +Mnoo@in article. 7 CRITICI)M) 6(6IN)T 6LT&RN6TI;&) TGP results to protracted liti3ation0 >owever1 if we do way wit no presumptions1 t ere is t e disadvanta3e of movin3 into t e facts1 and w at s ould 4e t e ierarc y

of t e factsB &ac and every case will 4e liti3ated1 and we end up spendin3 money and destroyin3 families w en we could ave done it 4y 4ein3 civil0 >ow muc wei3 t s ould 4e 3iven to t e c ild5s c oiceB * en and w ere s ould we as@ t e c ildB 6ny place w ere t ere are neit er parents nor lawyers li@e t e c am4ers of t e =ud3e0 * en do you as@B Not durin3 t e trial of course1 w en t e c ild would 4e fearful of urtin3 t e parents0 * at is t e advanta3e of flippin3 t e coinB It is perfectly random1 li@e t e way t ey pic@ people in t e draft1 w o will fi3 t t e war0 ?UT we cannot flip t e coin 4ecause application to t e 3overnment5s capacity to decide on t e c ild5s 4est interest0 It sym4olically i3nores t e difference 4etween t e parties0 6lso1 people lose t e opportunity or forum to vent1 to flame w ic is 3ood for t e soul0 Conclusion9 accept t e flaws of w atever presumption we ave0 70 Ot er ri3 ts and duties in e2ercise of parental aut ority FC1 6rt 77C T e parents and t ose e2ercisin3 parental aut ority s all wards t e followin3 ri3 ts and duties9 !0 To @eep t em in t eir company1 to support1 educate and instruc provide for t eir up4rin3in3 in @eepin3 wit t eir means< 70 To 3ive t em love and affection1 advice and counsel1 companions /0 To provide t em wit moral and spiritual 3uidance1 inculcate in industry and t rift1 stimulate t eir interest in civic affairs1 and insp -0 To furnis t em wit 3ood and w olesome educational materials1 wit ot ers1 protect t em from 4ad company1 and prevent t em studies and morals< D0 To represent t em in all matters affectin3 t eir interests< ,0 To demand from t em respect and o4edience< $0 To impose discipline on t em as may 4e re'uired under t e circum #0 To perform suc ot er duties as are imposed 4y law upon parents 7 )ummary 4y Irissy Conti P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !D# of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 -0 RI(>T) OF P6R&NT) !0 70 To @eep t em in t eir company To demand from t em respect and o4edience DUTI&) OF P6R&NT) 6ll ot ersT )o in effect1 parents ave more duties t an ri3 ts D0 fruits of all t e properties of t e c ild w et er ac'uired 4y lucrative or onerous title insurance proceeds accruin3 to t e c ild PURPO)&) *>IC> T>& P6R&NT) M6G U)& T>& FRUIT) 6ND INCOM& OF T>& C>ILD !0 4e civilly lia4le for t e in=uries and FC1 6rt 77! Parents and ot er persons e2ercisin3 parental aut ority s all c ild5s support and education dama3es caused 4y t e acts or omissions of t eir unemancipated c ildren livin3 in t eir company and daily needs of t e family as su4=ect to 70 collective under t eir parental aut ority a t e appropriate defenses provided 4y law0 social unit FC1 6rt 777 T e courts may appoint a 3uardian of t e c ild[s property or a 3uardian ad litem w en t e 4est interests of t e !0 emancipation of c ild c ild so re'uires &:TIN(UI)>M&NT OF P6R&NT5) U)UFRUCT 70 /0 deat of t e c ild loss of parental aut ority t rou3 =udicial decree FC1 6rt 77/ T e parents or1 in t eir a4sence or incapacity1 t e individual1 entity or institution e2ercisin3 parental aut ority1 may petition t e proper court of t e place w ere t e c ild resides1 for an order providin3parent to t e c ild5s livin3 -0 consent of t e for disciplinary measures over t e c ild0 T e c ild s all 4e entitled to t e assistance of counsel1 eit er of is c oice or appointed 4y t e court1 and a summary independently earin3 s all 4e conducted w erein t e petitioner and t e c ild s all 4e eard0 D0 disin eritance and incapacity to succeed 4y reason of unwort iness >owever1 if in t e same proceedin3 t e court finds t e petitioner at fault1 irrespective of t e merits of t e petition1 or w en t e R 6dministration and usufruct suc ot er circumstances so warrant1 t e court may also order t e deprivation or suspension of parental aut ority or adoptare two measures as it may deem =ust and proper0 distinct t in3s0 T ere may 4e FC1 6rt 77- T e measures referred to in t e precedin3 article may include t e commitment of t e c ild for not more t an /C days in entities or institutions en3a3ed in c ild care or in c ildren[s omes duly accredited 4y t e proper 3overnment a3ency0 FC1 6rt 77$ If t e parents entrust t e mana3ement or administration T e parent e2ercisin3 parental aut ority s all not interfere wit t et e net proceeds w enever committed 4ut s all provide for T e c ild care of t e c ild of suc property s all 4elon3 to t e owner0 is support0 Upon proper petition or at its own instance1 t e court may terminate t e commitment of t e c ildwould ave=ust if t e adm amount not less t an t at w ic t e owner w enever paid and proper0 t e entire proceeds to t e c ild0 In any

case1 t e proceeds t us 3ive in le3itime0 FC1 6rt 77D T e fat er and t e mot er s all =ointly e2ercise le3al 3uardians ip over t e property of t e unemancipated * o as aut ority fat er[s decision s all prevail1 unless common c ild wit out t e necessity of a court appointment0 In case of disa3reement1 t eover t e c ild5s propertyB !0 parents unless minor or disin erited 4y t ere is a =udicial order to t e contrary0 administration wit out usufruct or vice versa0 ascendant * ere t e mar@et value of t e property or t e annual income of 70 c ild e2ceeds PDC1CCC1 t e parent concerned s all 4e t e parental aut ority re'uired to furnis a 4ond in suc amount as t e court may determine1 4ut not less t an ten per centum +!C_. of t e value of t e property or annual income1 to 3uarantee t e performance of t e o4li3ationsv 6?6NILL6 3eneral 3uardians0 )6LI&NT&) prescri4ed for +7CC,. 6 verified petition for approval of t e 4ond s all 4e filed in t e proper court of t e place w ere t e c ild resides1 or1 if t e c ild % Marie 6ntonette t ereof is situated0 resides in a forei3n country1 in t e proper court of t e place Loren8o &mmanuel T e petition s all 4ew ere t e property or any partLoran doc@eted as a summary special proceedin3 in w ic all incidents and issues re3ardin3 t e performance of >owever1 Loran cannot t e o4li3ations referred to in t e second para3rap of t is 6rticle s all 4e eard and resolved0 3et alon3 wit is in% laws DCC )CR6 !7# % T e family lives wit t e wife5s parents0 so e ur3es is wife to leave and transfer to t eir T e ordinary rules on 3uardians ip s all 4e merely suppletory e2ceptown place0 Marieunder su4stitute parental aut ority1 or w en t e c ild is refuses so Loran leaves alone0 Loran was prevented from seein3 is t e 3uardian is a stran3er1 or a parent as remarried1 in w ic case t e ordinary rules on 3uardians ip s all apply0c ildn0 )o e filed a petition for writ of a4eas corpus for is 7 yo c ild0 FC1 6rt 77, T e property of t e unemancipated c ild earned or ac'uireddismissed is case 4ecauseonerousis resorted C6 wit is wor@ or industry or 4y *>C or 3ratuitous title s all 4elon3 to t e c ild in owners ip and s all 4e devoted e2clusivelycases latter[s support and education1 wit eld to in to t e w ere ri3 tful custody is unless t e title or transfer provides ot erwise0 from a person entitled t ereto0 T e ri3 t of t e parents over t e fruits and income of t e c ild[s property s all 4e limited primarily to t e c ild[s support and I))U&9 *ON a fat er may 4e deprived to see is son secondarily to t e collective daily needs of t e family0 PROP&RTG OF T>& C>ILD !0 c ild5s earnin3 t rou3 is la4or1 wor@ or industry 70 property ac'uired 4y t e c ild 4y 3ratuitous title donated or in erited /0 property ac'uired 4y t e c ild t rou3 onerous title >&LD9 No0 )ince t ey ave de facto separation1 t e custody is yet to 4e settled so fat er retains is parental aut ority over t e c ild0 C6?6N6) v PIL6PIL +!"$-. D# )CR6 "- % Florentino Pilapil ad a c ild +Millian Pilipil. wit t e plaintiff1 Melc ora Ca4anas1 married to anot er man0 % T e deceased insured imself assi3nin3 t e c ild as t e 4eneficiary and is 4rot er1 respondent P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !D" of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 erein1 Francisco Pilapil as t e trustee durin3 er minority0 Upon is deat s1 t e proceeds were 3iven to t e 4rot er0 % Mot er prays for appointment as t e administrator in er capacity as t e natural parent0 Uncle resists invo@in3 t e terms of t e insurance policy0 I))U&9 * o 4etween t e mot er and t e uncle as t e ri3 t to administer t e c ild5s propertyB >&LD9 T e mot er0 6rt /7C and /7! of CC says t at t e fat er1 in is a4sence1 t e mot er is t e le3al administrator of t e property of t e c ild0 T ere is no am4i3uity in t e law1 so apply it if t e facts are not disputed0 LI?I v I6C +!""7. 7!- )CR6 #!, % Julie 6nn (otion3 +!# yo1 !st year Commerce student at University of )an Carlos1 Ce4u. and *endell Li4i +!#%!". were sweet earts0 Julie 4ro@e up wit *endell 4ecause e was sadistic and irresponsi4le0 *endell attempts to reconcile wit er 4ut to no avail0 )o e resorts to t reatenin3 Julie w o in turn1 sou3 t t e elp of er 4est friend Malou 6lfonso in w ose ouse s e stayed to avoid er e2% 4f0 Julie and *endell died from a sin3le 3uns ot inflicted 4y a revolver licensed in t e name of *endell5s fat er1 Cresencio Li4i +t e petitioner.0 No eyewitness account so t e parents of t e two parties presented t eir own t eories0 (OTION( ;&R)ION OF T>& )TORG9 *endell @illed t eir dau3 ter1 t e committed suicide0 LI?I ;&R)ION OF T>& )TORG9 *endell was an informer of

t e Consta4ulary 6nti%Narcotics Unit +C6NU.1 so an un@nown and anta3oni8ed t ird party @illed im and included Julie to eliminate any witnesses0 T e (otion3s filed a civil case a3ainst t e Li4is to recover dama3es for t eir dau3 ter5s deat I))U&9 *ON t e parents of t e *endell are lia4le for t e dama3es >&LD9 Ges0 Parents are primary lia4le for dama3es caused 4y minor c ildren from 'uasi%delicts and criminal offenses e2cept w en t ey e2ercised due dili3ence0 In t is case1 parents did not e2ercise due dili3ence since t e son 3ained access to t e @ey of t e safety deposit 4o2 w ere 3un was +mot er =ust @ept it in er 4a31 to t e @nowled3e of t e son. and t eir i3norance to t e nature of is =o4 as evidence 4y t e picture of im wit a 3un 3iven to Julie 6nn0 6lso1 t e Li4i5s t eory is untena4le 4ecause t ey did not file a case a3ainst t e alle3ed malefactor of t eir son1 t ere were only two 4ullets used and no paraffin test was conducted 4ecause of t e asty interment0 A Ma5am ?et reco3ni8es t e impulse of teen%a3ers to ave a life un@nown from t eir parents0 Ma irap tala3an3 ma3in3 ma3ulan31 if you don5t @now w at your c ild is doin31 you5re a 4ad parent and if somet in3 3oes wron3 you5re lia4le for it0 If you 3et involved too muc 1 you5re 4ein3 too intrusive and stunts your c ild5s 3rowt 0 LIND6IN v C6 +!""7. 7!7 )CR6 $7D Dolores Lulu'uisin1 actin3 as a 3uardian of er minor c ildren1 sold a land re3istered in t e name of er c ildren to t e private respondents 6polonia ;aliente and Federico Ila for P7CCC0 T ey assert t at t e value can 4e validly sold wit out written court approval 4ecause t e property was less t an P7CCC0 &ven if t e sale was invalid1 t e petitioners5 ri3 t to redeem as already prescri4ed 4ecause it is only allowed until four years after reac in3 a3e of ma=ority I))U&9 *ON =udicial approval was necessary for t e sale of minor5s property 4y t e mot er >&LD9 Ges0 )ale of minor c ildren[s property e2ecuted 4y t e mot er is void0 Judicial approval is necessary 4ecause t e powers and duties as le3al administrator are only powers of possession and mana3ement< no power to mort3a3e1 encum4er or dispose0 6lso1 t e action for reconveyance of immova4le prescri4e only after /C years0 P&OPL& v )IL;6NO +!""". /C" )CR6 /,7 It is not for t e umans to ravis w at t ey produced0 ) eryl )ilvano1 a 4eautiful and tall mesti8a1 !, yo was raped 4y er fat er as a punis ment for er comin3 ome late0 ) e as 4een raped since s e was !/ yo old0 6nd only told er mot er and 3randmot er a4out it w en s e was 4ein3 compelled to return to t eir ome +s e left t eir ome and stayed at er lola5s ouse.0 Fat er su4mits many ar3uments li@e9 e couldn5t ave possi4ly raped t e c ild 4ecause t e room was cramped1 t at is wife =ust wants to severe marital ties wit im1 t at if e did rape er it would ave wo@e up er two 4rot ers w o are sleepin3 in t e same room0 >e was merely teac in3 er se2 education0 I))U&9 *ON rapin3 is =ustified form of punis ment >&LD9 NoT )e2 wit one[s own c ild is per se a4 orrent and can never 4e =ustified as a form of parental punis ment0 It is detrimental to t e c ild5s moral development and well%4ein30 >is ar3uments are li@ewise untena4le 4ecause any noise t at t ey would ave produced is dis3uised as a form of parental reproac 0 D&6T> ROLLT )>I&LD) v (RO)) +!"#/. D# NG 7d //# % ?roo@e ) ields wants to revo@e a contract entered into 4y er mot er w en s e was =ust !C years old0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !,C of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 T e contract was for a modelin3 session w erein s e was made to pose nude in a 4at tu40 I))U&9 *ON a c ild upon reac in3 a3e of ma=ority may disaffirm a contract entered into 4y er parent >&LD9 No0 Neit er was =udicial approval of t e contract was necessary 4ecause t is was only re'uired of c ild performers w ic 4y statutory definition e2cludes c ild models0 T e decision 4alanced two interests1 t at of9 !0 t e c ild9 not porno3rap ic +BBBB. 70 sta4ility of commercial transactions )IL;6 v C6 Q (ONP6L&) +!""$. 7$D )CR6 ,C % Carlitos )ilva +a married 4usinessman. co a4ited wit )u8anne (on8ales +an actress. and 4e3ot two c ildren1 Ramon Carlos and Rica Natalia ?ecause t e wife resumed er actin3 career +t ou3 wife contends t at s e did not stop. t ey separated Mot er refuses to allow fat er t e c ildren5s company on wee@ends and says t at e is into 3am4lin3 and womani8in3 w ic s e fears mi3 t affect t e values of t e c ildren RTC 3ave visitation ri3 ts to t e fat er Mot er remarries a Dutc national and 3oes to >olland wit @ids0 C6

denies custodial ri3 ts to fat er and as@s for self%sacrifice1 sayin3 t at rotational custody is armful to t e c ildren1 especially if t ey see t at t e fat er as anot er family0 If e really loves is c ildren1 e will 3ive t em w at is 4est for t em1 even if it means e will not see t em0 ?esides1 ille3itimate c ildren s ould 4e under t e parental aut ority of t e mot er0 I))U&9 *ON t e fat er may 4e deprived of visitation ri3 ts >&LD9 No0 Provisions on in erent and natural ri3 t is re3ardless of le3itimacy0 ?esides1 6rt -" FC may 4e applied ere +visitation ri3 ts of void a4 initio marria3es.0 T e conse'uences are merely t e product of t e unfounded ima3ination of t e =ud3e0 ?esides1 t e RTC 3ave safe3uards to t e visitation ri3 ts9 Ecannot ta@e out c ildren wit out t e mot er5s consentF0 FC1 6rt 7!, In default of parents or a =udicially appointed 3uardian1 t aut ority over t e c ild in t e order indicated09 !0 survivin3 3randparent1 as provided in 6rt 7!- 70 oldest 4rot er or sister1 over 7! yo1 unless unfit or dis'ualified /0 c ild5s actual custodian1 over 7! yo1 unless unfit or dis'ualifie w enever t e appointment of a =udicial 3uardian over t e property preference s all 4e o4served0 )U?)TITUT& P6R&NT6L 6UT>ORITG (randparents1 oldest si4lin3 or court appoint 3uardian &2ercised in case of deat 1 a4sence or unsuita4ility of parents )u4sidiarily lia4le for if dama3es caused 4y act or omission under t e supervision of people wit special parental aut ority Law is silent a4out pro i4ition of corporal punis ment )P&CI6L P6R&NT6L 6UT>ORITG )c ool1 administrators and teac ers &2ercised concurrently wit t e e2ercise of parental aut ority Principally and solidarily lia4le for dama3es caused 4y act or omission of minor under t eir custody1 supervision or instruction Cannot inflict corporal punis ment on t e minor FC1 6rt 7!$ In case of foundlin3s1 a4andoned1 ne3lected or a4used c aut ority s all 4e entrusted in summary =udicial proceedin3s to e institutions duly accredited 4y t e proper 3overnment a3ency0 6?6NDON&D C>ILD is one w o as no parental care of 3uardians ip or w ose parents or 3uardian ave deserted im for at least si2 mont s FC1 6rt 7!# T e sc ool1 its administrators and teac ers1 or t e individ special parental aut ority and responsi4ility over t e minor c ild w ile 6ut ority and responsi4ility s all apply to all aut ori8ed activities w e or institution0 FC1 6rt 7!" T ose 3iven t e aut ority and responsi4ility under t e pre for dama3es caused 4y t e acts or omissions of t e unemancipated e2ercisin3 su4stitute parental aut ority over said minor s all 4e su4sid T e respective lia4ilities of t ose referred to in t e precedin3 para3rap proper dili3ence re'uired under t e particular circumstances0 6ll ot er cases not covered 4y t is and t e precedin3 articles s all 4e 3 delicts0 CC1 6rt 7!#C T e fat er and1 in case of is deat or incapacity1 t e m minor c ildren w o live in t eir company0 ?0 )u4stitute and )pecial Parental 6ut ority (uardians are lia4le for dama3es caused 4y t e minors or incapacitate company0 Lastly1 teac ers or eads of esta4lis ments of arts and trades s all 4e or apprentices1 so lon3 as t ey remain in t eir custody0 T e responsi4ility treated of in t is article s all cease w en t e perso dili3ence of a 3ood fat er of a family to prevent dama3e0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !,! of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 P6LI)OC v ?RILL6NT&) +!"$!. -! )CR6 D-# * ile inside t e la4oratory room of Manila Tec nolo3ical Institute1 Dominador Palisoc and ;ir3ilio Daffon en3a3ed in a 4rawl w ic @illed t e former0 Parents of Dominador claims dama3es from t e sc ool1 t e teac er and Daffon +w o is already of le3al a3e.0 I))U&9 *ON t e sc ool1 its administrators1 t e teac er and Daffon are lia4le for dama3es >&LD9 President and instructor are =ointly and severally lia4le since incident could ave 4een prevented if t ey 3ave proper supervision0 It is not necessary t at t e student 4oard in t e sc ool for 6rt 7!#C to apply0 6s lon3 as students are in t eir custody1 t ey stand in loco parentis and must e2ercise reasona4le supervision over t e conduct of t e c ild0 6M6DOR6 v C6 +!"##. !,C )CR6 /!D Just 4efore t eir i3 sc ool 3raduation1 Pa4lito Daffon s ot 6lfredo 6madora w ic resulted to is deat 0 It was proven t at t ey were only at t e sc ool auditorium to finis t eir pro=ect in P ysics0 6madora5s parents claim for dama3es w ic RTC and C6 dismissed0 I))U&9 * o may 4e eld lia4le for t e dama3esB >&LD9 !. Not t e sc ool nor t e administrators9 6rt 7!#C only olds sc ool administrators of trade and art sc ool lia4le1 4ut not academic

institutions0 7. Not t e teac er in c ar3e 4ecause it was not s ow t at e was not re'uired to 4e t ere at t e time of t e incident0 /. Not t e sc ool prefect 4ecause it was not proven t at t e 3un used 4y Daffon was t e same 3un e ad confiscated and did not report to aut orities0 >owever1 it was esta4lis ed t at 6rt 7!#C applies to all sc ools1 academic or non%academic0 In academic sc ools1 teac er in c ar3e is lia4le for student[s misconduct0 In non%academic sc ools1 t e ead is lia4le0 Custody is not coterminous wit semester0 6s lon3 as student is under t e control and influence of sc ool and wit in its premises in pursuance of le3itimate ri3 t1 o4li3ation or privile3e1 e is considered under sc ool custody0 A Ma5am ?et t in@s 6madora was incorrectly decided DIFF&R&NC& ?&T*&&N P6LI)OC 6ND 6M6DOR6 P6LI)OC durin3 sc ool ours1 sc ool lia4le if impleaded 6M6DOR6 not durin3 class ours1 w at mattered was t e purpose )T0 M6RG5) 6C6D&MG v C6RPIT6NO) +7CC7. /$, )CR6 -$/ On !/ to 7C Fe4ruary !""D1 )t0 Mary5s 6cademy Dipolo3 conducted enrolment drive for t e sc ool year !""D%!"",0 T is included visitin3 sc ools w ere prospective enrollees are0 6mon3 t e volunteer students are ) erwin Carpitanos and James Daniel II0 On one day of t e campai3n1 James Daniel II w o was t en !D too@ t e w eel from t e 3randson of ;ivencio ;illanueva1 t e owner of t e Mitsu4is i =eep1 and 4y rec@less drivin3 caused t e overturnin3 of t e said ve icle w ic caused in=uries to its passen3ers and led to t e deat of ) erwin0 ) erwin5s parents sued James Daniel II and is parents1 ;ivencio ;illanueva1 and t e sc ool0 JD II and ;illanueva were a4solved w ile )M6 was eld to pay primary lia4ility w ile James Daniel )r0 and (uada Daniel were to pay su4sidiarily0 )M6 appealed and on 7" Fe4ruary 7CCC1 3ot reduced dama3es to pay0 T ey moved to reconsider on t e same date1 4ut 3ot denied on 77 May 7CCC0 >ence t ey filed t is appeal0 I))U&9 *ON )M6 is lia4le under 6rt 7!# and 7!" FC >&LD9 NO0 &ven if under t e aforementioned articles1 t e sc ool1 its administrators and teac ers1 ave special parental aut ority over minor c ildren +6rt 7!#. and t at t ey will 4e solidarily lia4le for any dama3es +6rt 7!".1 it was erroneously esta4lis ed t at t eir alle3ed ne3li3ence of not sendin3 a teac er to serve as 3uardian was t e pro2imate cause of t e accident t at caused t e deat of ) erwin0 Rat er1 it was t e rec@less drivin3 of James II and t e mec anical failure of t e =eep w en its steerin3 w eel 3uide 3ot detac ed t at caused t e =eep to lose control and turn turtle1 in=urin3 its passen3ers and causin3 t e deat of erein petitioners5 minor c ild0 T e ones lia4le s ould 4e t e parents of James Daniel II +JD II 4ein3 in t eir care and custody. and ;ivencio ;illanueva for is ne3li3ence re3ardin3 t e condition of is =eep and is 3randson5s allowin3 of James to drive t e said ve icle0 ;6NCIL v ?&LM&) +7CC!. /D# )CR6 $C$ Reeder ;ancil died as a U) Navy )erviceman in !"#,0 >e is survived 4y is common%law wife >elen ?elmes + erein respondent. and two minor c ildren ;alerie and ;incent0 T e @ids were , and 7 years old respectively in !"#$0 ?onifacia1 Reeder5s mot er and a naturali8ed 6merican citi8en1 is t e petitioner in t is case0 ) e see@s 3uardians ip over t e persons and properties of t e two minors0 RTC appointed er as le3al and =udicial in !"#$0 >elen appealed to t e in !"## C6 and won0 C6 said t at parents are t e ipso facto 3uardian of t eir minor c ildren wit out t e need of t e P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !,7 of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 % court appointment0 T e 3randmot er did not present any reason to contest >elen5s fitness to old parental aut ority0 Ten years later or in !""#1 ?onifacia 4rou3 t t e case to )C sayin3 t at >elen is morally unfit as 3uardian 4ecause er live%in partner raped ;alerie several times and t at er status as an e2patriate is not a statutory re'uirement for 3uardians ip0 FC1 6rt 7/! T e court in an action filed for t e purpose in a related ca t e person e2ercisin3 t e same9 !0 70 /0 -0 Treats t e c ild wit e2cessive ars ness or cruelty< (ives t e c ild corruptin3 orders1 counsel or e2ample< Compels t e c ild to 4e3< or )u4=ects t e c ild or allows im to 4e su4=ected to acts of lasc T e 3rounds enumerated a4ove are deemed to include cases w ic t e person e2ercisin3 parental aut ority0 I))U&9 *ON t e 3randmot er may 4e 3ranted 3uardians ip of t e two c ildren instead of t e mot er0 >&LD9 OF COUR)& NOT0 6s t e Court eld in )antos1 )r0 v C61 parents ave t e preferential ri3 t to t e custody of t eir c ildren

especially if t ere is continuous parental aut ority0 (randparents are only resorted to in case t e parent is a4sent1 dead or proved to 4e unsuita4le0 ?onifacia did not present convincin3 evidence s owin3 t at >elen is unfit to 4e ;incent5s 3uardian +;alerie already turned !# 4y !""#1 er3o 3uardians ip for er is moot.0 6lso er e2patriate status dis'ualifies as a su4stitute 3uardian 4ecause !. s e resides in t e U) +plus t e fact t at er li4el case ere in t e P ilippines would 3ive er second t ou3 ts on comin3 4ac@. and 7. er old a3e1 s e will merely dele3ate 3uardians ip duties to someone else w o may not 'ualify as a 3uardian0 ?esides1 ;incent only as 7 years 4efore emancipation0 C6 D&CI)ION 6FFIRM&D0 If t e de3ree of seriousness so warrants1 or t e welfare of t e c ild s parental aut ority or adopt suc ot er measures as may 4e proper und T e suspension or deprivation may 4e revo@ed and t e parental aut same proceedin3 if t e court finds t at t e cause t erefor as ceased a FC1 6rt 7/7 If t e person e2ercisin3 parental aut ority as su4=ected t a4use1 suc person s all 4e permanently deprived 4y t e court of suc FC1 6rt 7// T e person e2ercisin3 su4stitute parental aut ority s all t e parents0 In no case s all t e sc ool administrator1 teac er of individual en3a3 inflict corporal punis ment upon t e c ild0 T&RMIN6TION K permanent )U)P&N)ION K temporary a0 ipso facto if wit civil interdiction +reclusion temporal1 perpetua or deat . terminated 4y9 i0 service of penalty ii0 amnesty or pardon 40 =udicial decree C0 )uspension or Termination of Parental 6ut ority FC1 6rt !0 70 /0 FC1 6rt !0 70 /0 -0 D0 FC1 6rt carries wit it t e penalty of civil interdiction0 T e aut ority is automatically reinstated upon service of t e penalty or upon I))U&9 *ON Pacita may re3ain er c ild pardon or amnesty of t e offender0 C>U6 v C6?6N(?6N( +!",". 7$ )CR6 $"! CFI dismisses Pacita5s claim for er dau3 ter0 ) e was a prostitute w o ad t ree c ildren 4y 77# Parental aut ority terminates permanently9 t ree men w om s e lived wit successively Upon t e deat of t e parents< +C ua ?en1 )y )ia Lay and ;ictor Tan ;illareal.0 Upon t e deat of t e c ild< or ?etty C ua1 !! yo at t e time of t e trial1 was Upon emancipation of t e c ild one of er c ildre n and is in t e custody of Flora Ca4an34an30 Ca4an34an3 and C ua ad different stories as to 77" Unless su4se'uently revived 4y a final =ud3ment1 parental aut ority also terminates9 ow ?etty5s custody was ac'uired0 adoption 3uardians ip FLOR69 s e found t e c ild wrapped in a 4undle a4andonment in t eir front door final =ud3ment divestin3 parental aut ority P6CIT69 ;illareal 3ave ?etty to Flora as a a4sence or incapacity payment for is de4ts0 ) e now claims custody of er c ild after five years alle3edly 4ecause s e did not @now e2ercisin3 t e same of crime 7/C Parental aut ority is suspended upon conviction of t e parent or t e person w ere to loo@ for t eac ild0 w ic >&LD9 No0 T ere was constructive a4andonment and ence s e may 4e deprived of parental aut ority0 ) e only wants t e c ild 4ac@ so er 4iolo3ical fat er5s support would resume +ta@e not t at t is is still uncertain. and s e was even willin3 to wit draw er suit if t e Ca4an34an3s would pay er !DC I0 ) e attests no 3enuine mot erly lon3in30 In t e 4est P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !,/ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 interest of t e c ild1 Flora Ca4an34an3 s ould retain custody0 COMP6R&D *IT> C&LI) v C6FUIR1 Celis did not lose communication wit er c ild durin3 t e time t at Cafuir ad custody of er c ild0 6?I&R6 v ORIN +!"C$. # P il !"/ 6le=andro filed annulment of t eir weddin3 and 4rou3 t is c ildren to is mot er0 Durin3 t e pendency of t e annulment proceedin31 6le=andro died as a policeman0 I))U&9 *ON Maria Cortes may ave custody of er c ildrenB >&LD9 No0 s e ad insufficient means to support t e c ildren and t e fact t at s e ad 4een found 3uilty of adultery1 s e as corrupt moral values armful to t e welfare of t e minors0 (randmot er retains custody0 ACortes is a very old case and would not 4e t e same if decided today0 In t e olden days1 females are =ud3ed 4y er wom41 all t ese laws reflect t at s e5s =ust a wife and mot er1 not a person0 Parents Mi3uel ;icenta Mario Petra Juan )e4astia n ;icenta1 Mario and Petra were 4rot ers and sisters0 ;icenta was married to Mi3uel< Petra to Juan0 * en ;icenta died1 Mi3uel1 Mario and Juan

entered into an a3reement coverin3 t e disposition of t e properties left 4y ;icenta< Mario and Juan were representin3 t eir c ildren1 w o are t e eirs of ;icenta0 )e4astian1 son of Petra and Juan filed a complaint as special administrator of is deceased fat er1 alle3in3 t at Mi3uel as not complied wit t e said contractNa3reement0 I))U&9 *ON )e4astian1 4ein3 t e son of t e deceased Juan 64iera as t e ri3 t to as@ for t e compliance wit t e said o4li3ation >&LD9 No0 T e true interested parties in t e o4li3ation contracted 4y Mi3uel Orin are t e c ildren of Juan 64iera1 and not t e latter1 for t e simple reason t at t e o4li3ation was e2ecuted in t eir favor and not in favor of said 64iera0 T is 4ein3 t e fact1 it is evident t at t e plaintiff in is office as administrator of t e deceased Juan 64iera as no ri3 t to as@ for t e compliance wit t e said o4li3ation0 6s suc administrator1 e as only t e ri3 t to institute suc actions as correspond and pertain to t e estate w ic e is administerin31 and no ot er action dealin3 wit contracts and o4li3ations contracted in favor of /rd persons or ot ers from w om e does not derive suc ri3 t1 can 4e 4rou3 t as suc administrator0 T e ri3 t of Juan 64iera to represent is c ildren as fat er or 3uardian of t e same1 and t at e as not transferred nor could e transfer to t e administrator of is estate suc ri3 t from t e mere fact t at e was suc administrator0 T e said ri3 t attac ed to parental aut ority or 3uardians ip was e2tin3uis ed w en Juan 64iera died0 CORT&) v C6)TILLO +!"7!. -! P il -,, % Maria 6cardio and ?ernardo Maria committed adultery andCortes 6le=andro >errera was convicted 4ut 6le=andro pardoned er and t ey reconciled0 >owever1 Maria a3ain committed adultery so P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !,- of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 CC1 6rt /,! Juvenile courts will 4e esta4lis ed1 as far as practica4le1 in every c artered city or lar3e municipality0 D0 Ri3 ts and Duties of C ildren Ri3 ts of t e c ild Duties of t e c ild CC1 6rt !0 70 /0 -0 Ri3 ts of t e parents Duties of t e parents CC1 6rt /,7 * enever a c ild is found delin'uent 4y any court1 t e fat er1 mot er or 3uardian may in a proper case 4e =udicially admonis ed0 A Ri3 ts of t e c ild A Compare wit 6rt / of PD ,C/ /D, &very c ild9 is entitled to parental care s all receive at least elementary education s all 4e 3iven moral and civil trainin3 4y t e 3uardians as a ri3 t to live in an atmosp ere conducive to p ysical1 moral and intellectual development CC1 6rt /,/ In all 'uestions on t e care1 custody1 education and property of c ildren1 t e latter5s welfare s all 4e paramount0 No mot er s all 4e separated from er c ild under seven years of a3e1 unless t e court finds compellin3 reasons for suc measure0 CC1 6rt /$D In case of identity of names and surnames 4etween ascendants and descendants1 t e word EJuniorF can 4e used only 4y a son0 (randsons and ot er direct male descendants s all eit er9 !0 6dd a middle name or t e mot er5s surname 70 6dd t e Roman numerals II1 III and so on CC1 6rt /D$ &very c ild s all9 !0 o4ey and onor parents or 3uardian 70 respect 3randparents1 old relatives and persons oldin3 su4stitute parental aut ority /0 e2ert utmost for education and trainin3 -0 cooperate wit t e family in all matters t at ma@e for t e 3ood of t e same CC1 6rt /$, No person can c an3e is name or surname wit out =udicial aut ority0 A Repealed 4y R6 No0 "C-# K Correction of clerical or typo3rap ical error wit out need of =udicial order % A Duties of t e c ild A Compare wit 6rt - of PD ,C/ CC1 6rt /D# &very parent and every person oldin3 su4stitute parental aut ority s all see to it t at t e ri3 ts of t e c ild are respected and is duties complied wit 1 and s all particularly1 4y precept and e2ample1 im4ue t e c ild wit i3 %mindedness1 love of country1 veneration for t e national eroes1 fidelity to democracy as a way of life and attac ment to t e ideal of permanent world peace0 CC1 6rt /D" T e 3overnment promotes t e full 3rowt of t e faculties of every c ild0 For t is purpose1 t e 3overnment will esta4lis 1 w enever possi4le9 !0 sc ools in every 4arrio1 municipality and city w ere t e optional reli3ious instruction s all 4e tau3 t as a part of t e curriculum at t e option t e parent or 3uardian 70 puericulture and similar centers /0 Council for t e Protection of C ildren -0 =uvenile courts CC1 6rt /,C T e Council for t e Protection of C ildren s all loo@ after t e welfare

of c ildren in t e municipality0 It s all1 amon3 ot er functions9 !0 foster t e education of every c ild in t e municipality 70 encoura3e t e cultivation of t e duties of parents /0 protect and assist a4andoned or mistreated c ildren and orp ans -0 ta@e steps to prevent =uvenile delin'uency D0 adopt measures for t e ealt of c ildren ,0 promote t e openin3 and maintenance of % Not allowed if it will sow confusion on paternity and successional ri3 ts * en fat er c an3es is name1 t ere are no effects on c ildren0 >owever1 c ildren may elect to c an3e t eir names on a separate petition upon emancipation0 T e fat er can also include t eir minor c ildren in is petition0 C an3e of name s all ave no effect on9 family relations1 family ri3 ts and duties1 le3al capacity li@e civil status or citi8ens ip0 C an3e of name is done in a proceedin3 in rem0 FC1 6rt !7" +#. T e presumptive le3itimes of t e common c ildren s all 4e delivered upon partition in accordance wit 6rt D!0 FC1 6rt 7!! Par 7 C ildren s all always o4serve respect and reverence towards t eir parents and are o4li3ed to o4ey t em as lon3 as t e c ildren are under parental aut ority0 +!$a1 PD ,C/. FC1 6rt 7!/ In case of separation of t e parents1 parental aut ority s all 4e e2ercised 4y t e parent desi3nated 4y t e Court0 T e Court s all ta@e into account all relevant considerations1 especially t e c oice of t e c ild over seven years of a3e1 unless t e parent c osen is unfit0 No c ild under seven years of a3e s all 4e separated from t e mot er unless t e court finds compellin3 reasons to order ot erwise0 A E)eparationF in t is article applies 4ot to de facto and le3al separation P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !,D of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 FC 6rt 77, T e property of unemancipated c ild earned or ac'uired wit is wor@ or industry or 4y onerous or 3ratuitous title s all 4elon3 to t e c ild in owners ip and s all 4e devoted e2clusively to t e latter5s support and education1 unless t e title or transfer provides ot erwise0 T e ri3 t of t e parents over t e fruits and income of t e c ild5s property s all 4e limited9 !0 primarily1 c ild5s support 70 secondarily1 collective daily needs of t e family PD ,C/ 6rt / Ri3 ts of t e C ild0 % 6ll c ildren s all 4e entitled to t e ri3 ts erein set fort wit out distinction as to le3itimacy or ille3itimacy1 se21 social status1 reli3ion1 political antecedents1 and ot er factors0 &very c ild as t e ri3 t to9 +!. is endowed wit t e di3nity and wort of a uman 4ein3 from t e moment of is conception1 as 3enerally accepted in medical parlance1 and as1 t erefore1 t e ri3 t to 4e 4orn well0 +7. a w olesome family life t at will provide im wit love1 care and understandin31 3uidance and counselin31 and moral and material security0 Dependent or a4andoned c ild9 s all 4e provided wit t e nearest su4stitute for a ome0 +/. a well%rounded development of is personality to t e end t at e may 4ecome a appy1 useful and active mem4er of society0 (ifted c ild s all 4e 3iven opportunity and encoura3ement to develop is special talents0 &motionally distur4ed or socially malad=usted c ild s all 4e treated wit sympat y and understandin31 and s all 4e entitled to treatment and competent care0 P ysically or mentally andicapped c ild s all 4e 3iven t e treatment1 education and care re'uired 4y is particular condition0 +-. a 4alanced diet1 ade'uate clot in31 sufficient s elter1 proper medical attention1 and all t e 4asic p ysical re'uirements of a ealt y and vi3orous life0 +D. 4e 4rou3 t up in an atmosp ere of morality and rectitude for t e enric ment and t e stren3t enin3 of is c aracter0 +,. an education commensurate wit is a4ilities and to t e development of is s@ills for t e improvement of is capacity for service to imself and to is fellowmen0 +$. full opportunities for safe and w olesome recreation and activities1 individual as well as social1 for t e w olesome use of is leisure ours0 +#. protection a3ainst e2ploitation1 improper influences1 a8ards1 and ot er conditions or circumstances pre=udicial to is p ysical1 mental1 emotional1 social and moral development0 +". live in a community and a society t at can offer im an environment free from pernicious influences and conducive to t e promotion of is ealt and t e cultivation of is desira4le traits and attri4utes0 +!C.t e care1 assistance1 and protection of t e )tate1 particularly w en is parents or 3uardians fail or are una4le to provide im wit is fundamental needs for 3rowt 1 development1 and improvement0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !,, of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 PD ,C/ 6rt - Responsi4ilities of t e C ild0 %

&very c ild1 re3ardless of t e circumstances of is 4irt 1 se21 reli3ion1 social status1 political antecedents and ot er factors s all9 +!. )trive to lead an upri3 t and virtuous life in accordance wit t e tenets of is reli3ion1 t e teac in3s of is elders and mentors1 and t e 4iddin3s of a clean conscience< +7. Love1 respect and o4ey is parents1 and cooperate wit t em in t e stren3t enin3 of t e family< +/. &2tend to is 4rot ers and sisters is love1 t ou3 tfulness1 and elpfulness1 and endeavor wit t em to @eep t e family armonious and united< +-. &2ert is utmost to develop is potentialities for service1 particularly 4y under3oin3 a formal education suited to is a4ilities1 in order t at e may 4ecome an asset to imself and to society< +D. Respect not only is elders 4ut also t e customs and traditions of our people1 t e memory of our eroes1 t e duly constituted aut orities1 t e laws of our country1 and t e principles and institutions of democracy< +,. Participate actively in civic affairs and in t e promotion of t e 3eneral welfare1 always 4earin3 in mind t at it is t e yout w o will eventually 4e called upon to disc ar3e t e responsi4ility of leaders ip in s apin3 t e nation[s future< and +$. >elp in t e o4servance of individual uman ri3 ts1 t e stren3t enin3 of freedom everyw ere1 t e fosterin3 of cooperation amon3 nations in t e pursuit of t eir common aspirations for pro3rams and prosperity1 and t e furt erance of world peace0 Conventions on t e Ri3 ts of t e C ild 6rt ! Definition of a c ild K 6 c ild is reco3ni8ed as a person under !#1 unless national laws reco3ni8e a3e of ma=ority earlier0 6rt 7 Non%discrimination K 6ll ri3 ts apply to all c ildren wit out e2ception0 It is t e )tate5s o4li3ation to protect c ildren from any form of discrimination and to ta@e positive action to promote t eir ri3 ts0 6rt / ?est interest of t e c ild K 6ll actions concernin3 t e c ild s ould ta@e full account of is or er 4est interest0 T e )tate s all provide t e c ild wit ade'uate care w en parents1 or ot ers c ar3ed wit t e responsi4ility1 fail to do so0 6rt - Implementation of ri3 ts K T e )tate must do all it can to implement t e ri3 ts contained in t e Convention0 6rt D Parental 3uidance and t e c ild5s evolvin3 capacities K T e )tate must respect t e ri3 ts and responsi4ilities of parents and t e e2tended family to provide 3uidance for t e c ild w ic is appropriate to er or is evolvin3 capacities0 6rt , )urvival and development K &very c ild as t e in erent ri3 t to life and t e )tate as an o4li3ation to ensure t e c ild5s survival and development0 6rt $ Name and nationality K T e c ild as t e ri3 t to a name at 4irt 0 T e c ild also as t e ri3 t to ac'uire a nationality and1 as far as possi4le1 to @now is or er parents and 4e cared for 4y t em0 6rt # Preservation of identity K T e )tate as an o4li3ation to protect and if necessary1 re%esta4lis 4asic aspects of t e c ild5s identity0 T is includes name1 nationality and family ties0 6rt " )eparation from parents K T e c ild as a ri3 t to live wit is or er parents unless t is is deemed to 4e incompati4le wit t e c ild5s 4est interest0 T e c ild also ast t e ri3 t to maintain contact wit 4ot parents if separated from one or 4ot 0 6rt Family unification K C ildren and t eir parents ave !C t e ri3 t to leave any country and to enter t eir own for purposes of reunion or t e maintenance of t e c ild%parent relations ip0 Illicit transfer and non%return K T e )tate as an o4li3ation to prevent and remedy t e @idnappin3 or retention of c ildren a4road 4y a parent or t ird party0 T e c ild5s opinion K T e c ild as t e ri3 t to e2press is or er opinion freely and to ave t at opinion ta@en into account in any matter or procedure affectin3 t e c ild0 Freedom of e2pression K T e c ild as t e ri3 t to e2press is or er views1 o4tain information1 ma@e ideas or information @nown1 re3ardless of frontiers0 Freedom of t ou3 t1 conscience and reli3ion K T e )tate s all respect t e c ild5s ri3 t to freedom of t ou3 t1 conscience and reli3ion1 su4=ect to appropriate parental 3uidance0 Freedom of association K C ildren ave a ri3 t to meet wit ot ers1 and to =oin or form association0 Protection of privacy K C ildren ave t e ri3 t to protection from interference wit privacy1 family1 ome and correspondence and from li4el or slander0 6ccess to appropriate information K T e )tate s all ensure t e accessi4ility to c ildren of information and material from a diversity of sources1 and it s all encoura3e t e mass media to disseminate information w ic is of social and cultural 4enefit to t e c ild1 and ta@e steps to protect im or er from armful materials0 Parental responsi4ilities K Parents ave =oint primary responsi4ility for raisin3 t e c ild1 and t e )tate s all support t em in t is0 T e )tate s all provide

appropriate assistance to parents in c ildraisin30 Protection from a4use and ne3lect K T e )tate s all protect t e c ild from forms of maltreatment 4y parents ot ers responsi4le for t e care of c ild and esta4lis appropriate social pro3rams for t e prevention of a4use and t e treatment of victims0 Protection of a c ild wit out family K T e )tate is o4li3ed to provide special protection for a c ild deprived of family environment and to ensure t at appropriate alternative family care or institutional placement is availa4le in suc causes0 &fforts to meet t is o4li3ation s all pay due re3ard to t e c ild5s cultural 4ac@3round0 6doption K In countries w ere adoption is reco3ni8ed andNor allowed1 it s all only carried out in t e interests of c ild1 and t en only wit t e aut ori8ation of competent aut orities and safe3uards for t e c ild0 Refu3ee c ildren K )pecial protection s all 4e 3ranted to a refu3ee c ild or to a c ild see@in3 refu3ee status0 It is t e )tate5s o4li3ation to cooperate wit competent or3ani8ations w ic provide suc protection and assistance0 Disa4led c ildren K 6 disa4led c ild as t e ri3 t to special care1 education and trainin3 to elp im or er en=oy a full and decent life in di3nity and ac ieve t e 3reatest de3ree of self%reliance and social inte3ration possi4le0 >ealt and ealt services K T e c ild as a ri3 t to t e i3 est standard of ealt and medical care attaina4le0 )tates s all place special emp asis on t e provision of primary and preventive ealt care1 pu4lic ealt education and t e reduction of infant mortality0 T ey s all encoura3e international co%operation in t is re3ard and strive to see t at no c ild is deprived access to effective ealt services0 Periodic review of placement K 6 c ild w o is placed 6rt !! 6rt !7 6rt !/ 6rt !- 6rt !D 6rt !, 6rt !$ 6rt !# 6rt !" 6rt 7C 6rt 7! 6rt 77 6rt 7/ 6rt 76rt P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !,$ of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 7D 6rt 7, 6rt 7$ 4y t e )tate 4y reasons of care1 protection or treatment is entitled to ave t at placement evaluated re3ularly0 )ocial security K T e c ild as t e ri3 t to 4enefit from social security includin3 social insurance0 )tandard of livin3 K &very c ild as t e ri3 t to a standard livin3 ade'uate for is or er p ysical1 mental1 moral1 spiritual1 and social development0 Parents ave t e primary responsi4ility to ensure t at t e c ild as an ade'uate standard of livin30 T e )tate5s duty is to ensure t at t is responsi4ility can 4e fulfilled and is0 )tate responsi4ility can include material assistance to parents and t eir c ildren0 &ducation K T e c ild as a ri3 t to education and t e )tate5s duty is to ensure t at primary education is free and compulsory to encoura3e different forms of secondary education accessi4le to every c ild and to ma@e i3 er education availa4le to all on t e 4ases of capacity0 )c ool discipline s all 4e consisted wit t e c ild5s ri3 ts and di3nity0 T e )tate s all en3a3e in international co% operation to implement t is ri3 t0 6ims of education K &ducation s all aim at developin3 t e c ild5s personality1 talents and mental and p ysical a4ilities to t e fullest e2tent0 &ducation s all prepare t e c ild for an active adult life in a free society and foster respect for t e c ild5s parents1 is or er own cultural identity1 lan3ua3e and values1 and for t e cultural 4ac@3round and values of ot ers0 C ildren of minorities or indi3enous populations K C ildren of minority communities and indi3enous populations ave t e ri3 t to en=oy t eir own culture and to practice t eir own reli3ion and lan3ua3e0 Leisure1 recreation and cultural activities0 K T e c ild as t e ri3 t to leisure1 play and participation in cultural and artistic activities0 C ild la4or K T e c ild as t e ri3 t to 4e protected from wor@ t at t reatens is or er ealt 1 education or development0 T e )tate s all set minimum a3es for employment and re3ulate wor@in3 conditions0 Dru3 a4use K C ildren ave t e ri3 t to protection from t e use of narcotic and psyc otropic dru3s and from 4ein3 involved in t e production or distri4ution0 )e2ual e2ploitation K T e )tate s all protect c ildren from se2ual e2ploitation and a4use1 includin3 prostitution and involvement in porno3rap y0 )ale1 traffic@in3 and a4duction K It is t e )tate5s o4li3ation to ma@e every effort to prevent t e sale1 traffic@in3 and a4duction of c ildren0 Ot er forms of e2ploitation K t e c ild as t e ri3 t to protection from all forms of e2ploitation pre=udicial to any aspects of t e c ild5s welfare covered in 6rticles /71 //1 /and /D0 Torture and deprivation of li4erty K No c ild s all 4e su4=ected to torture1 cruel treatment or punis ment1 unlawful arrest or deprivation of li4erty0 ?ot capital punis ment and life

imprisonment wit out t e possi4ility of release are pro i4ited for offenses committed 4y persons 4elow !# years0 6ny c ild deprived of li4erty s all 4e separated from adults unless it is considered in t e c ild5s 4est interests not to do so0 6 c ild w o is detained s all ave le3al and ot er assistance as well as contact wit t e family0 6rmed conflicts K )tate parties s all ta@e all /# feasi4le measures to ensure t at c ildren under !D years of a3e ave no direct part in ostilities0 No c ild 4elow !D s all 4e recruited into t e armed forces0 )tates s all also ensure t e protection and care of c ildren w o are affected 4y armed conflict as descri4ed in relevant international law0 Re a4ilitative care K T e )tate as an o4li3ation to ensure t at c ild victims of armed conflicts1 torture1 ne3lect1 maltreatment or e2ploitation receive appropriate treatment for t eir recovery and social reinte3ration0 6dministration of =uvenile =ustice K 6 c ild in conflict wit t e law as t e ri3 t to treatment w ic promotes t e c ild5s sense of di3nity and wort 1 ta@es t e c ild5s a3e into account and aims at is or er reinte3ration into society0 T e c ild is entitled to 4asic 3uarantees as well as le3al or ot er assistance for is or er defense0 Judicial proceedin3s and institutional placements s all 4e avoided w erever possi4le0 Respect for i3 er standards K * erever standards set in applica4le national and international law relevant to t e ri3 ts of t e c ild t at are i3 er t an t ose in t is Convention1 t e i3 er standard s all always apply0 T e )tate5s o4li3ation to ma@e t e ri3 ts contained in t is Convention widely @nown to 4ot adults and c ildren0 6rt /" 6rt -C 6rt 7# 6rt -! 6rt 7" 6rt -7 6rt /C T e C ild is Not a Person9 Family Law and ot er Le3al Cultures +Caroline )awyer./ Paradi3ms of t e C ild !0 Family Law 70 Property Law /0 C ildren5s O4li3ation K Tort and Contract Confusion 4etween t e capacity of a person to 4e t e su4=ect of ri3 ts and o4li3ations +le3al personality. and t e capacity of t at person to ta@e action w ic produces le3al effects +le3al capacity. 6rt /! 6rt /7 6rt // 6rt /- 6rt /D 6rt /, 6rt /$ &0 Parents versus C ildren K * en ri3 ts clas )TRUNI v )TRUNI +!",". --D )0 *0 7d !-D H C6 of Ientuc@y Tommy +7#. and Jerry +7$. )trun@ are 4rot ers0 Tom is sufferin3 from c ronic 3lomerulus nep ritis1 a fatal @idney disease1 and re'uires a @idney transplant0 Jerry1 an incompetent wit t e mind of a , year old and a speec defect +severely retarded wit IS of /D.1 is t e only via4le donor for t e operation0 T e mot er as a committee secures court consent for t e operation0 ?ot t e Department of Mental >ealt and psyc iatrist find Jerry is emotionally dependent on Tom suc t at is deat would 4e more detrimental and traumatic for im t an t e loss of one @idney0 (uardian ad litem 'uestions aut ority of t e )tate to approve t e procedure0 6rt / )ummary 4y Irissy Conti P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !,# of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 I))U&9 *ON a court of e'uity may approve t e operation for t e incompetent0 >&LD9 G&)T T e doctrine of su4stituted =ud3ment applies w ic means t at w ere t e le3al disa4ility of t e individual is s own1 t e =urisdiction of t e court is plenary and potent to afford w atever relief may 4e necessary to protect is interests and preserve is estates0 )uc rule as not only 4een e2tended to cover matters of property 4ut also of personal affairs of t e incompetent0 It is also important to note ere t e 'uestioned rulin3 of t e circuit court0 T erein t e operation was approved 4ecause it was eld to 4e for t e E4est interest of t e incompetent0F T e testimony of t e psyc iatrist eld t at Tommy was indispensa4le for t e welfare of Jerry 4ecause e is t e only livin3 si4lin3 Jerry as0 For Jerry only t ose w o are a4le to communicate intimately wit im can elp in is mental treatment1 and in most cases t ese are mem4ers of is family0 Tom is important to im in t at e can identify imself wit im0 Tom is is model1 is tie wit is family t us is life is vital to is improvement at t e asylum0 Considerin3 t at t eir parents are in t eir fifties1 it would 4e in t e 4est interest of Jerry5s welfare if Tommy were to survive0 CON)&R;6TOR)>IP OF ;6L&RI& N0 a@a Mildred (0 v ;alerie N0 +!"#D. $C$ P0 7d $,C H )C of California ;alerie N +7".1 is inflicted wit Down )yndrome and as an IS of /C0 ) e lives wit er mot er and er stepfat er0 T e mot er instituted a court proceedin3 for appointment as conservators and re'uested for additional powers to sterili8e ;alerie t rou3 tu4al li3ation +salpin3ectomy.0 6ccordin3 to t e mot er1 sterili8ation was necessary 4ecause ;alerie is

se2ually a33ressive at t e si3 t of men +@iss1 u31 clim4 and sit on t eir laps.0 T ou3 s e is not se2ually active for 4ein3 under close watc 1 s e mastur4ates e2cessively0 >er mot er fears t e day w en s e will no lon3er 4e a4le to loo@ after er dau3 ter0 ) e also went t rou3 unsuccessful 4e avior modification1 tried to in3est contraceptive pills 4ut re=ected it eventually and would not cooperate in pelvic e2amination for intrauterine device0 Lower court 3ranted conservators ip aut ority to sterili8e t e incompetent0 4ut not e2 austed0 T e mot er also did not provide clear and convincin3 evidence as to t e necessity of irreversi4le sterili8ation0 T at ;alerie is capa4le of pre3nancy1 t at ot er 4rands of pills were administered and t at ot er means of administerin3 contraceptive pill were attempted0 JO>N)ON v C6L;&RT +!""/. #D! P0 7d $$, % )UPR6 (ILLICI v *&)T NORFOLI Q *I)?&C> 6R&6 >&6LT> 6UT>ORITG +!"#D. / 6ll &0 R0 -C7 ;ictoria (illic@ wrote to area ealt aut ority as@in3 for assurance t at er dau3 ters a3ed !/1 !71 !C and D will not 4e 3iven contraceptive advice and treatment wit out er consent0 T e reply to t e letter stated t at t ey cannot 3ive suc assurance 4ecause t e final decision must 4e for t e doctor5s clinical =ud3ment0 (illic@ a3ain as@ed for a declaration from t e office t at it will not provide minors under !, years old wit contraceptive advice and treatment wit out informin3 t e parents 4ut t e ealt aut ority was steadfast0 T ey ar3ued for t e patient%doctor confidentiality and t at if t is principle is a4andoned1 minors mi3 t not see@ professional advice at all0 T is will lead to conse'uences suc as unwanted pre3nancies1 )TD and i3 ris@ a4ortions0 ) e contends t at permittin3 minors to disre3ard t eir parent5s consent undermines parental responsi4ility and family sta4ility0 I))U&9 *ON doctors can lawfully 3ive contraceptive advice and treatment to minors wit out parental consent +t e e2tent of a parent5s ri3 t and duties wit respect to t e medical treatment of a 3irl under !, years old. >&LD9 NO0 (irls under !, can 3ive no valid consent to anyt in3 in t e areas under consideration w ic apart from consent would constitute an assault1 w et er civil or criminal1 and can impose no valid pro i4ition on a doctor a3ainst see@in3 parental consent0 CURTI) v )C>OOL COMMITT&& +!""D. ,D7 N0 &0 7d D#C H )C of Massac ussetts Parents contend t e condom availa4ility pro3ram in a pu4lic sc ool w ere senior and =unior i3 sc ool students may o4tain condoms for free in t e nurse5s office and for $D cents in t e vendin3 mac ine in t eir CR0 Condoms are 3iven away wit counselin3 from nurse and pamp let a4out >I;N6ID) and )TD1 wit aut orities stressin3 t e importance of a4stinence as t e 4est met od to avoid )TD0 T e pro3ram did not provide for an Eopt outF nor parental notification w erein parents would 4e notified of t eir c ildren5s re'uest for condoms0 I))U&9 *ON conservators can 3ive consent to sterili8ation on 4e alf of t eir incompetent wards >&LD9 No0 6lt ou3 t e repeal of t e statutes re3ardin3 ase2uali8ation of mentally c allen3ed individuals ave 4een declared unconstitutional for violatin3 t eir due process and e'ual protection ri3 ts1 conservators still may not 4e aut ori8e to conduct t e procedure unless all means ave 4een P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !," of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 I))U&9 !0 *ON t e pro3ram violates t e parents5 constitutionally protected ri3 t to familial privacy and parental lia4ility 70 *ON t e pro3ram infrin3es into t e free e2ercise clause >&LD9 !0 No0 T e plaintiff failed to demonstrate ow condom availa4ility constitutes unconstitutional interference 4y t e state0 T ere was no coercive 4urden upon t e students9 a0 )tudents are free to decline 40 Parents are free to instruct t eir c ildren not to participate 70 No0 T ey were una4le to demonstrate sufficient facts to support any su4stantial 4urden to reli3ious e2ercise0 T ey merely alle3ed t at t e pro3ram contravenes parental teac in3 on premarital se29 t e not only is it permissi4le 4ut can 4e made safe0 /0 Parents ave no ri3 t to tailor pu4lic sc ool policy to meet t eir individual reli3ious and moral preferences0 RO& v DO& +!"$!. 7" NG 7d !## H C6 of New Gor@ Dau3 ter was cut off from support 4y er fat er 4y not o4eyin3 is instructions t at s e live in a colle3e dormitory w ile studyin3 in colle3e and instead too@ up residence wit a female classmate in an offcampus apartment0 >er fat er re'uested s e come ome 4ut instead1 t e dau3 ter sold er car ba 3ift from er fat erc and finis ed t e sc ool year usin3 t e proceeds

t ereof0 Upon returnin3 to New Gor@ for t e summer1 s e furt er diso4eyed er fat er 4y c oosin3 to stay wit t e parents of er female classmate in Lon3 Island0 Dau3 ter in 3eneral fares poorly in sc ool and as e2perimented wit dru3s0 Furt ermore s e as ad a spotty c ild ood1 er mot er died w en s e was t ree and er fat er as repeatedly married and remarried since t en is most recent remarria3e in !"$C0 *it t e elp of a 3uardian ad litem1 s e initiated t is action for support0 I))U&9 *ON dau3 ter is entitled for support in li3 t of er trans3ressions a3ainst er fat er0 >&LD9 * ile delin'uent 4e avior of a c ild even if une2plained or persistent does not merit t e termination of t e duty of t e parent to support1 voluntary a4andonment 4y t e c ild of t e parent5s ome is tantamount to forfeiture of t e claim to support0 6 fat er in return for maintenance and support may esta4lis and impose reasona4le re3ulations on is c ild0 Courts as muc as possi4le do not interfere wit t e parent5s prero3ative in carin31 controllin3 and protectin3 t e c ild e2cept only w en t ere is a clear and o4vious display of a4use or ne3lect on t e part of t e parent0 T e parent was concerned a4out t e temptations t at a4ound outside of campus ence is insistence t at s e live in t e campus dorm0 * ile t e dau3 ter may 4e free disa3ree and c oose to not comply1 s e puts erself at ris@ of incurrin3 er fat er5s wrat and conse'uently1 4y a4andonin3 er ome s e forfeits er ri3 t to support0 IN R& &D*6RD C0 +!"#!. !$# Cal0 Rptr0 ,"- H C6 of California T e appeal instituted 4y spouses &dmond and De4ora to re3ain custody of t eir two sons &dward and &ric w o were previously declared EdependentF c ildren0 &dward and &ric were removed from t eir parents5 ome 4ecause t ey were maltreated and su4=ected to cruel and in uman corporal punis ment 4y t eir fat er0 T e fat er1 supported 4y t e mot er1 ar3ues t at e is vested wit divine and ?i4lical aut ority to inflict discipline on is c ildren0 T eir dau3 ter1 Marlee1 was 3iven to er maternal 3randmot er for adoption after sufferin3 p ysical a4use in t e ands of er fat er0 P&R)ON) 6ND F6MILG R&L6TION) H Prof0 &0 60 Pan3alan3an1 60G0 7CC#%7CC" Pa3e !$C of !$C Iaric i &0 )antos H UP Law ?7C!7 I))U&9 *ON t e dependency of c ildren is a violation of constitutional ri3 t of privacy of t e family >&LD9 NO0 T e parental doctrine and c ild5s 4est interest are usually compati4le 4ut w en t ey clas 1 t e latter is protected 4y t e le3al system0 T e findin3 on Marlee5s case is admissi4le to &ric and &dward0 T e fact t at t e sons witnessed t e vicious 4eatin3s as command of t e Lord may in i4it t eir ealt y emotional development0 Until t e parents cooperate to counselin3 pro3ram1 reunification of t e family will 4e detrimental to t e welfare of t e minors0 PRINC& v M6))6C>U))&TT) +!"--. /7! U) !D# H )C of Massac usetts )ara Prince1 a mem4er of t e Je ova 5s *itness is a mot er to two sons and t e 3uardian of minor ?etty )immons One ni3 t s e went one to distri4ute *atc tower and Consolation1 fulfillin3 one of er reli3ious o4li3ations ) e used to 4rin3 alon3 er @ids 4ut upon reprimand 4y Pes@ins 4ecause it violates t e statute law a3ainst c ild la4or and employment1 s e ceased to ta@e er c ildren wit er0 >owever1 ?etty )immons insisted to come t at particular ni3 t0 I))U&9 !0 *ON t e reli3ious act of sellin3 t eir ma3a8ines violate t e statute 70 *ON t e presence of parent will e2empt t em from punis ment >&LD9 !0 Ges0 It does not infrin3e on t e free e2ercise clause 4ecause t e 4urden on t e reli3ious activity was merely incidental0 T e pro i4ition applies to all c ildren0 70 No0 T ere was clear and present dan3er even t ou3 in t e company of adults0 T e )tate5s aut ority over c ildren is 4roader t an adults especially in pu4lic activities and employment w ic as cripplin3 effects on t e c ild0 T ey reserve t e Parents can ma@e martyrs out of t emselves 4ut not of t eir c ildren0 /0 C ec@ out t e dissent0 Parents reserve t e ri3 t to train t eir c ildren reli3iously0 % >owever1 t e presidin3 =ud3e went on leave effect June !0 ?ut t e new presidin3 =ud3e issued decision in favor of t e mot er on May /!0 I))U&9 *ON t e RTC as =urisdiction over a4eas corpus petitions0 >&LD9 Ges0 R6 #/," did not divest RTC =urisdiction over suc cases0 M6DRIN6N v M6DRIN6N +7CC$. D7$ )CR6 -#$ % Felipe Francisca t ree sons and a dau3 ter Romnic@1 P illip1 Francis 6n3elo and Iri8ia 6nn T e couple ad a 'uarrel so e too@ t e sons wit im to Li3ao1 6l4ay and t en to )ta0 Rosa1 La3una0 *ife sou3 t t e elp of t e parents and t e parents in law1 and even t e Lupon3 Ta3apa3pamayapa to ma@e peace wit t e us4and1

4ut to no avail0 ) e alle3es t at t e travel disrupted t e education of t e c ildren and deprived t em of maternal care0 T ey accused eac ot er t at t eir respective parents always meddle wit t eir family affairs0 Mot er is unfit 4ecause s e is always drun@ and would come ome late at ni3 t from t e 4eer ouse0 ) e ne3lected er duties as a mot er0 Fat er1 a tricycle driver1 drove mot er out1 and a 3am4ler1 dru3 addict and alco olic imself0 I))U&9 *ON C6 as =urisdiction re3ardin3 writ of a4eas corpus under )ec D +4. of R6 #/," >&LD9 Ges0 Concurrent =urisdictions of Family Court1 )C and C6 so t at t e decision will 4e enforcea4le anyw ere in t e P ilippines0 Note t at e ad moved to two different provinces0 F0 )ummary Procedure R&G&)%T6?UJ6R6 v C6 +7CC,. -"D )CR6 #-- % Ivy Carlos IZi3o T e separated and custody 4attle ensued0 Dad Joan &rnesto initially won0 Mot er files a consolidated petition for writ of a4eas corpus and 6nti%;6*C0 >GP&RLINI \ ttp9NNwww0scri4d0comNdocN!"!D,""/NP&R)ON)%Finals%Reviewer%C i%C#C"\ gl \a4out\ 64out >GP&RLINI \ ttp9NNwww0scri4d0comNdocN!"!D,""/NP&R)ON)%Finals%Reviewer%C i%C#C"\ gl \stats\ )tatistics Reads: -1!#! Rated: >TMLCONTROL Forms0>TML9>idden0! >TMLCONTROL Forms0>TML9>idden0! >TMLCONTROL Forms0>TML9>idden0! >TMLCONTROL Forms0>TML9>idden0! >TMLCONTROL Forms0>TML9>idden0! Published: C# N 7# N 7CC" Category: Uncategorized. >GP&RLINI \ ttp9NNwww0scri4d0comNlo3in\ 6dd to Collections >GP&RLINI \ ttp9NNwww0scri4d0comNlo3in\ Report t is document Description: No description. >GP&RLINI \=avascript9void+C.\ >TMLCONTROL Forms0>TML9>idden0! HYP R!"#$ %http:&&'''(scribd(co)&login% !ogin to *dd a Co))ent

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS | Prof. E. A. Pangalangan, A.Y. 2008-2009 Page 14 of 170

Karichi E. Santos | UP Law B2012 (2) husband responsible for support (3) wife responsible for domestic and childcare services GRAHAM v GRAHAM (1940) (pronounced as /grahm/) 33 F. Supp. 936 James Sebastian Graham, plaintiff sues his former wife, Margrethe, defendant, to recover what he was allegedly entitled by a written agreement wherein defendant agreed to pay the plaintiff a certain some of money. The agreement was that the wife asked husband to quit his job so that he can accompany her to his travels, to which he agreed as long as she will pay him $300 each month. The monthly payment is to be in force until the parties no longer desire the agreement. ISSUE: WON the agreement compels the wife to continue paying her husband the $300 HELD: No, the contract is not valid. Marriage contract specifies that its the husbands duty or obligation to support and live with his wife, and the wife must contribute her services and society to the husband and follow him in his choice of domicile. Also, a private agreement between persons married or about to be married whereby they attempt to change the essential obligations of the marriage contract is contrary to public policy. BRADWELL v ILLINOIS (1872) 93 US (16 wall) 130 Myra Bradwell was denied license to practice law JUST BECAUSE SHE IS A FEMALE. That God designed the sexes to occupy different spheres of action and that it belonged to men to make, apply and execute the laws, was regarded as an almost axiomatic truth Amazing they were able to talk to God directly. Prescribe the qualifications for admission to the bar of its own courts is unaffected by the 14th amendment DUNN v PALERMO (1975) 522 S. W. 2d 679 Rose Palermo is a Nashville lawyer who married Denty Cheatham, also a Nashville lawyer. She has continued to use and enjoy her maiden name, Palermo, professionally, socially and for all purposes. Tennessee had a state-wide compulsory Registration Law. Subsequent to her marriage, she lodged with the Registrar a change of address form listing her name as Palermo. She was advised that she was required to register anew under the surname of her husband, or have her name purged from the registration list. Upon her refusal to so register,

her name was purged from the registration list. Hence this action. ISSUE: WON compulsory/mandatory to change name upon marriage HELD: No. Woman upon marriage, may elect to retain her own surname or she may adopt the surname of her husband and the choice is hers. So long as a persons name remains constant and consistent, and unless until changed in prescribed manner, and in absence of any fraudulent or legally impermissible intent, state has no legitimate concern as to name used. *According to Maam Beth the legal name of any person is the one written on the birth certificate (CC, Art 370) IN RE SANTIAGO (1940) 70 Phil 66 Ernesto Baniquit and Soledad Colares separated for 9 consecutive years, want to remarry so they sought the aid of Atty. Roque Santiago He instituted a document that waives whatever right of action one might have against each other but realized mistake after 19 days and cancelled the document ISSUE: WON the document signed by the spouses legitimately terminated the marital tie between them. HELD: No. Termination of the marriage cannot be stipulated by the parties. Santiago guilty of malpractice and suspended for 1 year. SELANOVA v MENDOZA (1975) 64 SCRA 69 Respondent Judge Alejandro Mendoza prepared a document extrajudicially liquidating the conjugal partnership of Saturnino Selanova and Avelina Ceniza. One condition of the liquidation was that either spouse would withdraw the complaint for adultery or concubinage which each had filed against the other and they waived their right to prosecute each other for whatever acts of infidelity either one would commit against the other. This document was also acknowledged before him as City Judge and Notary Public Ex Officio. Selanova charged Judge Mendoza with gross ignorance of the law. ISSUE: WON marriage is valid HELD: Agreement is void because it contravenes the provisions of paragraphs (1) and (2) of CC Art 221. Even before the enactment of the NCC, this court held that the extrajudicial dissolution of the conjugal partnership during the marriage without judicial PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS | Prof. E. A. Pangalangan, A.Y. 2008-2009 Page 15 of 170 Karichi E. Santos | UP Law B2012

approval secured beforehand was void. While adultery and concubinage are private crimes, they shall remain crimes, and a contract legalizing their commission is contrary to law and consequently not judicially recognizable. Respondent is severely censured. ASSUMPTIONS OF FAMILY LAW (Weitzman article) 1. Marriage is a permanent, indissoluble, lifetime commitment 2.First marriages (young & no previous marriages) 3. Main reason is procreation 4. Strict division of labor 5. White middle-class family (property and inheritance) 6. Judeo-Christian tradition (monogamy) B. Requisites of Marriage 1. ESSENTIAL REQUISITES intrinsic (Art 2) A. Legal capacity a.Sex (must be between man and woman) b. Age 18 and above (Art 5) c.No impediment which means: (1) no previous marriage (2) family relations (not incestuous) JONES v HALLAHAN (1973) 501 S. W. 2d 588 Marjorie Jones and her female partner were not issued a license to marry each other in the state of Kentucky. They contend that the failure of the clerk to issue the marriage license deprived them of three (3) basic constitutional rights, namely, the right to marry; the right of association; and the right to free exercise of religion. Appellants also contend that the refusal subjects them to cruel and unusual punishment. ISSUE: WON same sex marriage violates constitutional rights to marry HELD: No, it does not violate any constitutionally protected right. Two females cannot marry for marriage has always been considered as the union of a man and a woman. It appears that appellants are prevented from marrying not by the statute of Kentucky but rather by their own incapacity of entering into marriage as the term is defined. A license to enter into a status or a relationship which the parties are incapable of entering is a nullity. Definition of marriage says,

union of a man and a woman. Thus, in the courts opinion, there is not constitutional issue involved, since there is no constitutional sanction which protects the right of marriage between persons of the same sex. GOODRIDGE v DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH (2003) 440 Mass. 309 14 individuals (7 couples) were deprived of marriage license because they were the same sex They are professionals and active in socio-civic activities, there was longevity in the relationship and defendants were involved (adopted children and parents) They met all facial qualifications, list of impediment was not presented by civil registrar (to prove that same sex marriage is one of them) LEGISLATIVE RATIO: 1. favorable setting for procreation 2. optimal setting for child rearing 3. conserving scarce state and private financial resources ISSUE: 1. WON licensing law treats same sex as impediment presented by the plaintiff 2. WON bar of same sex couple is a legitimate exercise of the States authority to regulation conduct Court HELD: Marriage is a secular institution. No religious ceremony is required. There are only 3 partners (2 spouses and the State who defines the entry and exit terms) PURPOSE NOT TAILOR FIT: 1.law does not distinguish childrens family background so why deprive children the rights when they did not choose to be born/grow up in such a family (coitus v non coitus, e.g. adoption or assisted), failed to address the changing realities of American society 2. best interest of the child parents sexual orientation 3. homosexuals are well off and economically independent, anyway, the same is not condition/requirement for heterosexual couples. IMPLICATION OF PROHIBITION: deprivation of protection, benefits, obligations and rights exclusive to married people same reason why these couples want the benefit of marriage They do not undermine marriage, In fact, they appreciate/ show high esteem for of marriage by asking for it! Statute declared unconstitutional

SILVERIO v REPUBLIC (2007) 537 SCRA 273 Rommel Jacinto Dantes Silverio wants to change his name to Mely and sex entry in his birth certificate from male to female because of his sex reassignment (transgender). RTC granted in 2003 CA reversed in 2006 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS | Prof. E. A. Pangalangan, A.Y. 2008-2009 Page 16 of 170 Karichi E. Santos | UP Law B2012 ISSUE: WON he is entitled to the change of name action HELD: NO! 1. Names are for purposes of identification: Art 376, CC (no change of name without judicial declaration), RA 9048 (Clerical Error Law), Rule 103 (change of name) and Rule 108 (Cancellation of Correction of Entries; substantial change) 2. Grounds for Change of Name (Sec 4, RA 9048) a. Difficult and ridiculous, dishonorable name b. Habitual and continual use c. To avoid confusion 3. Petitioner has not shown any reasonable cause and does not show that his name may prejudice him 4. Case is administrative rather than judiciary 5. Change of sex not allowed because civil status is immutable and inherent 6. No special law yet for sex change, until then sex is determined by the sex at the time of birth as resulted by visual inspection of medical attendant. 7.Though we get your point and sympathize with you, its not within the province of the Court to amend laws. Youre barking at the wrong tree. Go to the Congress and ask them to pass a bill for you. B. Consent freely given in the presence of solemnizing officer PEOPLE v SANTIAGO (1927) 51 Phil 68 Felipe Santiago asked his deceased wifes niece Felicita Masilang, 18, to accompany him on an errand Upon crossing a river and reaching municipality of San Leonardo, Satinago expressed his sexual desire to which girl declined, but he persisted on with force against her will The two proceeded to accuseds uncle house, Agapito Santiago who called a Protestant

minister to conduct a wedding. After the wedding, Santiago sent home the girl with some money to buy bread. ISSUE: WON the marriage exempted him from criminal liability HELD: No! Taking into consideration Santiagos behavior before and after the marriage, there isno serious intention to marry the girl except for to avoid criminal liability for the rape case. - Girl was under duress and therefore, lack of consent (essential requisite) which makes the marriage void BUCCAT v MANGONON DE BUCAT (1941) 72 Phil 19 Godofredo married Luida with the belief that she was a virgin. 89 days after the marriage celebration, Luida gave birth. Her husband Godofredo herein appellant filed for annulment on the ground that she concealed her non- virginity. ISSUE: WON marriage is valid HELD: Where there has been no misrepresentation or fraud, that is, when the husband at the time of the marriage knew that the wife was pregnant, the marriage cannot be annulled. Here, the child was born less than 3 months after the celebration of marriage. Court refuses to annul the marriage for the reason that the woman was at an advanced stage of pregnancy at the time of the marriage and such condition must have been patent to the husband. EIGENMANN v GUERRA (1964) 5 C.A. Rep. 836 Eduardo Eigenmann married Maryden Guerra on 1957. Two years later, Eigenmann filed an action to annul his marriage with Guerra on the ground that he was between ages 16-20 at that time and his mother did not give her consent to the marriage. ISSUE: WON there was parental consent, the absence of which could render the marriage void. HELD: Consent may be given in any form be it written, oral or even by implication. Eigenmanns mother was present at the time of the celebration of marriage and did not object thereto, such that consent can be gleaned from such act. - Eigenmann is also estopped from asserting that he was a minor at the time of the marriage celebration, having represented himself to be over 25 years of age. Art 4 Absence of any essential or formal void, except Art 35(2) Defect in the essential requirement voidable (Art 45)

Irregularity in the formal requirement no effect in validity, but the parties responsible will be civilly, criminally or administratively liable 2. FORMAL REQUISITES extrinsic (Art 3) A. Authority of solemnizing officer - Who may authorize the marriage (Art 7) a. incumbent member of judiciary b. priest, rabbi, imam or minister of any religious sect - duly recognized by the religion, - registered in Civil Registry - acting within the limit of his authority - at least one of the spouses is member of the sect c. ship captain and airplane chief only in Art 31 d. military commander to which chaplain is assigned in Art 32 e. consul-general, consul, vice-consul for Filipinos abroad *Mayors are authorized by LGC to solemnize marriage NAVARRO v DOMAGTOY (1996) 259 SCRA 129 Judge Hernando Domagtoy solemnized the marriage between Floriano Sumaylo and Gemma del Rosario outside his courts jurisdiction. He has jurisdiction in MCTC of Sta. Monica- Burgos, but the marriage was solemnized in Dapa which does not fall under his jurisdictional area. Mayor Rodolfo Navarro filed this administrative complaint. ISSUE: WON respondent judge should be held liable, and whether this will render the marriage void. HELD: Marriage may be solemnized by, among others, any incumbent member of the judiciary within the courts jurisdiction. Solemnization outside the judges territorial jurisdiction will not invalidate the marriage. What results is an irregularity in the formal requisites of a valid marriage. Respondent judge, by citing Art 8 of the FC as defense for the exercise of his misplaced authority, acted in gross ignorance of the law and was therefore held administratively liable

suspension of 6 months. - Irregularity in formal requisite no effect in marriage validity ARAES v OCCIANO (2002) 380 SCRA 402 Petitioner Mercedita Araes charged respondent judge Salvador Occiano for gross ignorance of the law. Occiano solemnized the marriage between herein petitioner and the late Dominador Orobia without the requisite marriage license and outside his territorial jurisdiction. Couple lived together as husband and wife until the death of Orobia. But then since the marriage was a nullity, petitioners right to inherit the vast property left by Orobia was not recognized. Respondent explained that he solemnized the marriage out of human compassion and because the parties promised to present their license the afternoon after the wedding. ISSUE: WON the respondent judge administratively liable. HELD: Yes. He was faulted for solemnizing a marriage without the requisite marriage license and for exceeding his territorial jurisdiction. He was fined P5000 and was given a stern warning by the SC that repetition of the same or similar offense would be dealt more severely. The absence of a marriage license made the marriage void. And even if the plaintiff retracted her complaint, thats not how it is done. Withdrawal of complaint exoneration B. Valid marriage license except for marriages of exceptional character Art 9 ML obtained in habitual residence of one of the parties Art 10 Requirements of Filipino marriages abroad settled in the consular office which will take over the duties of local civil registry Art 11 Two separate application for one marriage license which shall specify the following: 1. full name 2. place of birth 3. age and date of birth 4. civil status 5. if previously married, how, when, where the previous marriage was dissolved or annulled 6. present residence and citizenship 7. degree of relationship of the contracting parties 8. full name, residence and citizenship of the father 9. full name, residence and citizenship of the mother 10. full name, residence and citizenship of the guardian, person having charge, in case orphaned

Art 12 Proof of age a. original or certified copy of birth certificate b.original or certified copy of baptismal certif c. residence certificate witnessed by 2 witnesses preferably next of kin Proof of age dispensed with if: a. parents appear personally b.local civil registrar convinced by mere looking (read: mukhang matanda na) c. previously married Art 13 If previous marriages, not birthcert is required but: a.death certificate of deceased spouse if no death certificate is available, affidavit about circumstance and civil status b. judicial decree of absolute divorce/judicial decree of annulment/declaration of nullity c. declaration of presumptive death Art 14 if 18-21, then parental consent Art 15 if 21-25, then parental advice Art 16 if anyone is required with parental consent or advice, both shall undergo marriage counseling. Failure to attach certificate of