NOTES ON CIVIL LAW (MOCK BAR) COSLAP's recommendation of its cancellation, petitioner had no right to the land, and
consequently, had no right to remain in the use and possession of the subject land. Sec.
1. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW
1. a. Mandatory Law Provisions
ARTICLE 5. Acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or
prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes their validity.
Relate this with:
Last paragraph of ARTICLE 17. Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts
or property, and those which have for their object public order, public policy and good
customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by
determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.
Exceptions:
1. When the law itself authorizes the validity of the act;
Example: Executive Order No. 292, Book VII, Chapter 2, Sec. 3 – failure t file 3
certified copies of every rule within 3 months shall not be the basis o any
sanction against the party.
2. When the law makes the act only voidable and not void; or
3. When the law makes the act valid but punishes the violator.
Gist of Cases cited by Atty. Atup in his Notes:
1. Alcantara vs DENR – petitioner is a lessee under FLGLA No. 542 issued by DENR.
However the subject land is being claimed as ancestral land of Maguindanao people. Private
respondents filed a complaint before Commission on Settlement of Land Problems
(COSLAP) seeking cancellation of FLGLA No. 542 and reversion of the land. Petitioner
questioned the authority of COSLAP and alleged that it was the Sec. of DENR who should
have jurisdiction to administer and dispose public lands. Despite the pendency of cases,
petioner was able to renew the FLGLA No. 542 for another 25 years. However, Congress
passed Republic Act No. 8371, or the Indigenous People's Rights Act (IPRA), which was
intended to recognize and promote all the rights of the country's Indigenous Cultural
Communities/Indigenous Peoples. Petitioner's claim that he has residual rights to remain on
the property is based on Section 56 of the IPRA. Held: The contention of petitioner has no
merit. this Court, in G.R.No. 145838, declared FLGLA No. 542 as illegal and upheld
Jeremiah 29:11 ∞ M.M.C.
Alvarez's cancellation of FLGLA No. 542 merely conformed with the Court's findings. The
cancellation made by the DENR merely sealed the fact that FLGLA No. 542 should not have
been issued in favour of petitioner, in the first place. Therefore, from that illegal issuance
only flowed an invalid FLGLA, as it is axiomatic in our legal system that acts executed
against the laws are void, and that administrative or executive acts, orders and
regulations that are contrary to the laws or the Constitution are invalid.
2. Manuel L. Lee vs. Regino B. Tambago - The will in question was attested by only two
witnesses (what I required by law is 3 or more credible witnesses), Noynay and Grajo. On
this circumstance alone, the will must be considered void. This is in consonance with the rule
that acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or prohibitory laws shall be void,
except when the law itself authorizes their validity.
3. Arturo R. Abalos vs. Galicano S. Macatangay - Since Article 166 of the Civil Code
requires the consent of the wife before the husband may alienate or encumber any real
property of the conjugal partnership, it follows that acts or transactions executed against this
mandatory provision are void except when the law itself authorizes their validity.
b. Can the court refuse to rule when there is no law? No.
ARTICLE 9. No judge or court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the
silence, obscurity or insufficiency of the laws.
Cited cases:
Hilado vs. Dela Costa – best illustrated in a post war case involving the extra ordinary
deflation because the Japanese notes were no longer legal tender and treasury notes were
scarce, and there is no provision in the Spanish Civil Code to cover such situation. Thus, the
Supreme Court adopted the Ballantyne scale of values on the purchasing power of the
peso at different stages of the Japanese Occupation in determining how much is the
equivalent of Japanese war notes in genuine currency. This decision was later codified under
Article 1250 of the Civil Code.
Silverio vs. Republic - It is true that Article 9 of the Civil Code mandates that "no judge or
court shall decline to render judgment by reason of the silence, obscurity or insufficiency of
the law." However, it is not a license for courts to engage in judicial legislation. The
duty of the courts is to apply or interpret the law, not to make or amend it.
2. CONFLICT OF LAWS
A. Law as to Family, Status, Condition and Legal Capacity
ARTICLE 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and
legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though
living abroad.
Lex Nationali - means the Law of the Country of the person shall apply.
Cases:
1. Llorente vs. CA – Llorente is a navy and American naturalized citizen. When he divorced
Paula due to adulterous relationship, he married Alicia who had no knowledge of his previous
marriage and whom he bequeathed all his properties to her and their 3 children. He moved
for the appointment of Alicia as Special Admnistratix over the probate of his will. When he
died before the termination of the case, Paula filed petition for letters of administration. Trial
Court held that since the marriage of Alicia and Llorente was void, Paula was appointed as
legal administrator. CA, however, declared Alicia as co-owner of properties acquired during
her cohabitation with Llorente. Held: SC recognized as valid as a matter of comity the decree
of divorce granted by California to Lorente. The Court also said that the clear intent of
Lorenzo to bequeath his property to his second wife and children by her was glaringly shown
in the will he executed and the Court did not wish to frustrate Lorenzo's wishes, since he was
a foreigner, not covered by Philippine laws on family rights and duties, status, condition and
legal capacity.
2. Fujiki vs. Marinay, et.al. - A foreign judgment relating to the status of a marriage affects
the civil status, condition and legal capacity of its parties. However, the effect of a foreign
judgment is not automatic. To extend the effect of a foreign judgment in the Philippines,
Philippine courts must determine if the foreign judgment is consistent with domestic public
policy and other mandatory laws.
Law as to real and personal properties
ARTICLE 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the law of the
country where it is situated. --- Lex Rei Sitae
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of
succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic validity of
testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose
Jeremiah 29:11 ∞ M.M.C.
succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and
regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.
Memorize the following:
1. Lex Nationali - means the Law of the Country of the person shall apply.
2. Lex Rei Sitae - means the law of the Country where the property subject of the contract is
situated shall govern the contract
3. Renvoi Doctrine - means that when the national law of the foreign refers back the issue
on his succession to the Philippine Jurisdiction, thus, the law of the domicile, which in this
case the law of the Philippines, shall govern.
4. Transmission Theory - is a case where the national law of foreigner who was domicile of
the Philippines before his death provides that said foreigner’s successional rights shall be
govern by a 3rd State. Thus, the 3rd State law shall govern.
5. Doctrine of Processual Presumption- is one where the foreign law should be proved by
the party who alleged its existence and its provisions. If there is no such proof, the foreign
law shall be presumed to be the same as the domestic law.
6. Forum Non Conveniens - is a rule wherein it is provided that the Philippine Court or
Tribunal may assume jurisdiction over the case if it chooses to do so provided:
(1) That the Philippine court is one to which the parties may conveniently
resort to;
(2) That the Philippine court is in position to make an intelligent decision as
to the law and the facts; and
(3) That the Philippine court has or is likely to have power to enforce its
decision. --- Manila Hotel Corporation vs. NLRC, 343 SCRA 1 (2000)
Cases:
1. Aznar vs. Garcia - Doctrine of Renvoi applied where deceased Edward
Christensen, an American citizen of the State of California, died testate as
domiciliary of the Philippines, leaving properties in the Philippines. The validity of
the provisions of the will depriving testator’s acknowledged natural child should be
governed by Philippine law pursuant to Art. 946 of the Civil Code of California, not
by the internal law of California.
2. Bellis vs. Bellis – Doctrine of Renvoi was not applied where the decedent was a
citizen of Texas and was domiciled therein at the time of his death. However, if
Texas has a conflict of laws rule adopting the rule of the lex rei sitai, renvoi would
arise where the properties involved are situated in another country other than the
country of which the decedent is a domiciliary or a national.
Law as to forms, solemnities & prohibitive laws Take note:

ARTICLE 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public
instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in which they are
executed.
When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular
officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign country, the solemnities
established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution.
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which
have for their object public order, public policy and good customs shall not be
rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations
or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.
- Foreign courts decisions are not automatically binding and enforceable in the
Philippines. Courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign decisions and these foreign
decisions should be proved in court. However, any party may file a Petition to
enforce a foreign judgment in local courts under the Rules of Civil Procedure.
- In actions for recognition of foreign judgments, Philippine courts will only determine
(1) whether the foreign judgment is inconsistent with an overriding public policy in
the Philippines; and (2) whether any alleging party is able to prove an extrinsic
ground to repel the foreign judgment, i.e. want of jurisdiction, want of notice to the
party, collusion, fraud, or clear mistake of law or fact.
2. CAPACITY OF THE PERSON; particularly the unborn child; any conveyance
favourable to the unborn child

Cases: ARTICLE 37. Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal
relations, is inherent in every natural person and is lost only through death. Capacity
1. Morigo vs. People - element of bigamy, which is entering of a second marriage to act, which is the power to do acts with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost.
while the first marriage subsists, is not attendant in the present case. In the instant
case, however, no marriage ceremony at all was performed by a duly authorized Juridical Capacity Capacity to Act
solemnizing officer. Petitioner and Lucia Barrete merely signed a marriage contract Concept Fitness to be the subject of Power to do acts with legal
on their own. The mere private act of signing a marriage contract bears no legal relations effect
semblance to a valid marriage and thus, needs no judicial declaration of Whether Inherent or not Inherent in every natural Not inherent in a person but
nullity. However, with respect to the divorce decree, the same is not valid. the court person acquired (reaching certain
of a country in which neither of the spouses is domiciled and in which one or both age)
spouses may resort merely for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, has no Effect of Death Lost only upon death May be lost upon and even
jurisdiction to determine the matrimonial status of the parties. As such, a divorce before death through valid
granted by said court is not entitled to recognition anywhere. causes
Provisional Existence Exists provisionally in an Does not exist even
2. United Airlines Inc vs. CA – Doctrine of lex loci celebrations is true even though unborn child for purposes of provisionally in an unborn
the place where the contract was made is different from the place where it is to be support and donation child
performed, and particularly so, if the place of the making and the place of
performance are the same. Hence, the court should apply Philippine laws, the law of ARTICLE 40. Birth determines personality; but the conceived shall be considered
the place where the airline ticket was issued even though the flights were between born for all purposes that are favorable to it, provided it be born later with the
states of the United States of America, the place where the obligations were to be conditions specified in the following article.
performed. - an unborn child is not entitled to damages ( damages is something na suffered by a
person). The action for damages of a husband against an abortionist may proper with
respect to his own damage --- moral damages, etc. However, the unborn child whose
personality never existed may not be entitled to damages for breach of his right to life and
dignity.

Jeremiah 29:11 ∞ M.M.C.


ARTICLE 41. For civil purposes, the foetus is considered born if it is alive at the time
it is completely delivered from the mother's womb. However, if the foetus had an intra-
uterine life of less than seven months, it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty-
four hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb.
Note that there are three type of foetus contemplated in this provision and they are:
1. Foetus with an intra-uterine life of seven months or more --- thus, when born
alive regardless of the number of minutes of hours, the foetus is considered alive
for legal purposes.
2. Foetus with an intra-uterine life of less than seven months --- must be born alive
and must be able to live a life span of more than twenty four hours to be
considered alive for legal purposes.
3. Foetus with an intra-uterine life of less than seven months --- born alive but died
within 24 hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb, the foetus is
not deemed born and has not acquire a personality.
3. FAMILY LAW
A. ESSENTIAL REQUISITES (Article 2, FC)
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and
What constitute legal capacity:
a. (SEX) Contracting parties must be man and woman;
b. There must be no impediment to marry (Article 5 FC);
c. (AGE)Each party must be at least 18 years old (Article 5 FC).
(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer
a. Consent freely given - not vitiated by duress or fraud (otherwise voidable) and
There must be a real intent to enter into marriage.
b. in the presence of solemnizing officer - parties must personally appear before the
solemnizing officer.
Jeremiah 29:11 ∞ M.M.C.
B. FORMAL REQUISITES (ARTICLE 3, FC)
(a) Authority of solemnizing officer (see art. 7- who can solemnize marriage)
(b) A valid marriage license
Cases:
- a marriage which preceded the issuance of the marriage license is void, and that
the subsequent issuance of such license cannot render valid or even add an iota of
validity to the marriage. Except in cases provided by law, it is the marriage license
that gives the solemnizing officer the authority to solemnize a marriage. Aranes vs.
Judge Occiano
Take note: Valid Marriage License can be used in any part of the Philippines for a
period of 120 days from the date of issuance thereof (Article 20 FC).
Exceptions to Requirement of a valid marriage license:
(1) Marriages in articulo mortis (Arts. 31 & 32) or when one or both parties are
at the point of death (Art. 27),
(2) Marriage in isolated places with no available means of transportation (Art.
28),
(3) Marriage among Muslims or other ethnic cultural communities (Art. 33),
(4) Marriages of those who have lived together as husband and wife without
any legal impediment for at least 5 years (Art. 34)
- Requisites for application of legal ratification of marital cohabitation:
1. The man and woman must have been living together as husband
and wife for at least five years before the marriage;
2. The parties must have no legal impediment to marry each other;
3. The fact of absence of legal impediment between the parties must be
present at the time of marriage;
4. The parties must execute an affidavit stating that they have lived
together for at least five years [and are without legal impediment to marry
each other]; and
 5. The solemnizing officer must execute a sworn statement that he had
ascertained the qualifications of the parties and that he had found no legal
impediment to their marriage. (Herminia Borja-Manzano vs. Judge Roque
R Sanchez)
- The 5-year cohabitation period must be: (a) exclusive - no third party was
involved at any time within the 5 years and (b) continuous - that is, unbroken.
(Ninal vs. Badayog)
- Cohabitation with another person for at least five years does not sever the
tie of a subsisting previous marriage. (Manzano vs. Judge Sanchez)
(c) Marriage Ceremony (reason why common law marriage, marriage by proxy and secret
marriage are not allowed):
- Appearance of contracting parties in the presence of a solemnizing officer
- Personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the
presence of not less than 2 witnesses (Art. 6)
C. ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE (Art. 45, FC)
In General: Voidable marriages are those which may be annulled, but are considered valid
until they are annulled. They may be ratified. Their validity may be attacked only in a direct
action, and only by the parties to the marriage. The action must be brought within a certain
prescriptive period.
- voidable marriage cannot be assailed collaterally except in a direct proceeding.
Consequently, such marriages can be assailed only during the lifetime of the parties and not
after the death of either, in which case the parties and their offspring will be left as if the
marriage had been perfectly valid. SSS vs. Vda. De Bailon
- A voidable marriage can be assailed only by its parties. Ninal vs. Badayog
Grounds: (generally vitiate the consent of the party entitled to seek annulment. Note also
that these grounds must have existed at the time of the marriage).
1. Lack of parental consent – party is above 18 years old but below 21 years old, and the
marriage was solemnized without parental consent and the marriage was solemnized without
parental consent.
i. May be ratified if such party, after attaining the age of 21 freely cohabited with the
other and both lived together as husband and wife
Jeremiah 29:11 ∞ M.M.C.
ii. The parents who did not give their consent cannot ratify the marriage by giving
their consent after the marriage --- according to Sempio-Diy.
2. Insanity – either party was of unsound mind
i. May be ratified if the insane party, after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the
other as husband and wife; if the sane party did not know of the insanity, he or she
may ask for annulment as long as he or she and the insane party are alive.
ii. Intoxication and somnambulism, if they amount to lack of mental ability to give
consent, may be considered insanity.
iii. The other forms of psychoses, if existing at the inception of marriage, like the state
of a party being of unsound mind or concealment of drug addiction, habitual
alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism, merely renders the marriage contract
voidable pursuant to Article 46, Family Code. ---- Leouel Santos vs. Court of
Appeals
3. FRAUD
i. May be ratified if the defrauded party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts
constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife.
ii. There is fraud when, through insidious words or machinations of one of the
contracting parties, the other party is induced to enter into the marriage which,
without them, he would not have agreed to.
iii. Only the following constitute fraud (Art. 46, FC):
a. Non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party
of a crime involving moral turpitude – penalty for conviction is immaterial
b. Concealment by wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was
pregnant by a man other than her husband
c. Concealment of sexually transmissible disease (STD), regardless of its
nature, existing at the time of the marriage
- STC need not be serious or incurable; as long it was concealed; if
the STD was serious and incurable even if it was not concealed, it is
an independent ground from annulment
 d. Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or
lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage – if not concealed, grounds for
legal separation.
4. DURESS
i. May be ratified if the aggrieved party freely cohabited with the other as husband
and wife, after the duress has disappeared
ii. Force – there is violence when in order to wrest consent, serious or irresistible
force is employed
iii. Intimidation – when one of the contracting parties is compelled to give his consent
by a reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his
person or property, or upon the person or property of his descendant or ascendant
iv. To determine the degree of intimidation, the age, sex, and condition of the person
shall be borne in mind
v. The threat to enforce one’s claim through competent authority, if one’s claim is just
and legal, does not vitiate consent
vi. Undue influence – when a person takes improper advantage of his power over the
will of another depriving the latter of a reasonable power of choice
5.IMPOTENCE/ LACK OF POWER TO COPULATE - Incapacity to consummate denotes
the permanent inability on the part of the spouses to perform the complete act of sexual
intercourse
6. SEXUALLY- TRANSMISSIBLE DISEASE
i. Cannot be ratified.
ii. The STD must be both serious and incurable, e.g. AIDS.
iii. The STD must be unknown to the party suing for the annulment, otherwise, he or
she would be estopped from raising it.
iv. Serious and incurable STD need not be concealed for it be ground for annulment
(couple with fraud in the form of a concealed STD).
RATIFICATION
1. In general, a voidable marriage may be ratified by continued voluntary cohabitation
after the cause for annulment has ceased to exist.
Jeremiah 29:11 ∞ M.M.C.
2. There is no specific period within which the cohabitation must continue to
constitute ratification. Of course, it need not last for the whole period of prescription.
It must be long enough to give rise to the reasonable inference that the aggrieved
party prefers to continue with the marriage --- Tolentino 295.
General rule: Once ratified, a voidable marriage becomes valid and can no
longer be annulled, even if the aggrieved party subsequently changes his or
her mind.
Exceptions: The following are not subject to ratifications:
a. Impotence for by definition it must be continuing and incurable, so
that the cause for annulment will never cease to exist.
b. STD – by definition it must be incurable, so that the cause for
annulment will never cease to exist.
c. Sane person who married an insane person without knowing it at
the time of marriage, if the insanity was known to the sane person,
the latter is estopped from seeking annulment.
STANDING TO SUE AND PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD (Art. 47, FC)
1. Lack of Parental Consent (Article 47[1], FC)
a. Who may sue –
a. The party under 21 years of age whose parent or guardian did not
give consent, or
b. The parent or guardian who did not give consent.
b. Prescriptive period –
a. In case of the party under 21, within 5 years after attaining the age of
21, or
b. In case of the parent or guardian, at any time before the contracting
party has reached the age of 21.
2. Insanity (Article 47[2], FC)
a. Who may sue –
i. The sane person, who had no knowledge of the other’s insanity; or
 ii. Any relative or guardian or person having legal charge of the insane; or
ii. The insane spouse during a lucid interval or after regaining sanity.
b. Prescriptive period -- Before the death of either party.
3. Fraud (Article 47[3], FC)
a. Who may sue – the injured party
b. Prescriptive period --- within 5 years after the discovery of the fraud.
4. Duress (Article 47[4], FC)
a. Who may sue – the injured party
b. Prescriptive period --- within 5 years after the time the force, intimidation or
undue influence disappeared or ceased.
5. Impotence (Article 47[5], FC)
a. Who may sue – the injured party
b. Prescriptive period --- within 5 years after marriage.
6. Sexually-Transmissible Disease (Article 47[5], FC)
a. Who may sue – the injured party
b. Prescriptive period --- within 5 years after the marriage.
CASES:
- Voidable marriages can be assailed only during the lifetime of the parties and not
after death of either, in which case the parties and their offspring will be left as if the
marriage had been perfectly valid.--- Engrace Niñal vs. Norma Bayadog
- In contrast to a voidable marriage which legally exists until judicially annulled (and,
therefore, not a defense in a bigamy charge if the second marriage were contracted
prior to the decree of annulment), the complete nullity, however, of a previously
contracted marriage, being void ab initio and legally inexistent, can outrightly be a
defense in an indictment for bigamy.
Jeremiah 29:11 ∞ M.M.C.
PROCEDURE FOR ANNULMENT OF MARRIAGE (THIS ALSO APPLIES TO VOID
MARRIAGES)
A. Trial and Evidence (Art. 48, FC)
1. The court shall order the prosecuting attorney to appear on behalf of the state –
i. To prevent collusion between the parties and
ii. To take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.
- No judgment shall be based upon a stipulation of facts or confession of judgment.
(Art. 48, FC)
B. Support Pendente Leti (Article 49, FC)
1. The support of the spouses; and
2. The custody and support of their common children.
a. The court shall give paramount consideration to the moral and material
welfare of said children and their choice of the parent with whom they wish to
remain.
b. Children below 7 years old shall not be separated from their mother, unless
the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise. (Article 213, FC)
3. The appropriate visitation rights of the other parent.
C. Final Judgment (Very important)
1. The final judgment shall provide for: (a) the liquidation, partition and distribution of
the properties of the spouses, (b) the custody and support of the common children,
and (c) the delivery of their presumptive legitimes, unless such matters had been
adjudicated in previous judicial proceedings. (Article 50, FC)
2. All creditors of the spouses as well as of the absolute community of property or
the conjugal partnership shall be notified of the proceedings for liquidation (Article 50,
FC)
3. The judgment, the partition and distribution of the properties, and the delivery of
the children’s presumptive legitime shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry
and registries of property (Article 52, FC)
 a. If not recorded, the same shall not affect 3rd persons. Non-compliance will
also render the subsequent marriage by the former spouse null and void
(Article 53, FC) (this section is lifer than kilay! Sect. 53 very important!)
D. Partition (Article 50 taken in relation to Articles 102 & 129, FC)
The conjugal dwelling and lot shall be adjudicated to the spouse with whom majority of the
common children choose to remain (unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties).
1. Children below 7 years old are deemed to have chosen the mother, unless
the court has decided otherwise.
2. In case there is no such majority, the court shall decide, taking into
consideration the best interests of said children.
3.
E. Delivery of Presumptive Legitime (Article 51, FC)
1. The value of the presumptive legitime of all common children, computed as
of the date of the final judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in cash,
property or sound securities, unless the parties, by mutual agreement
judicially approved, had already provided for such matters.
2. The delivery of the presumptive legitime shall in no way prejudice the
ultimate successional rights of the children accruing upon the death of either
or both of the parents.
a. The value of the properties received shall be considered as
advances on their legitime.
3. The children or their guardian or the trustees of their property may ask for the
enforcement of the judgment.
EYES HERE!
Note that Article 50 and 51 are only applicable if in the declared void marriage,
one or both of the parties to the said marriage are suffering legal impediment to marry
the other, e.g. bigamous marriage. Otherwise, if both parties are capacitated to marry
each other, then Article 147 or 148 of the Family Code will apply.
Jeremiah 29:11 ∞ M.M.C.
EFFECT OF DECLARATION OF NULLITY OR ANNULMENT TO PROPERTIES
A. Effect on property relations (Important )
1. Voidable Marriages and Void Marriages under Article 40.
The following effects shall apply to: (i) marriages which are declared void ab initio
under Article 40, FC, i.e., subsequent marriages entered into before the declaration of
nullity of the first marriage; and (ii) voidable marriages annulled by final judgment, under
Article 45, FC.
a. The absolute community of property or conjugal partnership shall be dissolved
and liquidated, but
i. If either spouse contracted said marriage in bad faith, his or her share of
the net profits shall be forfeited in favor of—
1. The common children or,
2. If there are no common children, the children of the guilty spouse
by a previous marriage or
3. In default of children, the innocent spouse;
b. Donation by reason of marriage shall remain valid, but
i. If the donee contract the marriage in bad faith, such donations made to
said donee are revoked by operation of law;
c. The innocent spouse may revoke the designation of the other spouse who acted in
bad faith as beneficiary in any insurance policy, even if such designation is made
irrevocable;
d. The guilty spouse shall be disqualified to inherit from the innocent spouse by
testate or intestate succession.
c. If both spouses acted in bad faith, all donation by reason of marriage and
testamentary disposition made by one in favor of the other are revoked by
operation of law (Article 44, FC).
 2. Void Marriages. The foregoing rules are not applicable to marriages declared null
and void for other reasons (i.e., not under Article 40, FC), as there would be no
absolute community or conjugal partnership to speak of in those cases. The rules in
Articles 147 and 148 of the FC (“Property Regimes of Unions Without Marriage”)
would apply. Under said provisions, the property regime of unions without marriage
is governed by co-ownership, but there are differences between unions where the
parties are capacitated to marry each other and unions where the parties are not.
D. PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY (Art. 36, FC)
Definition: Psychological incapacity is the downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance
of and to assume the basic marital obligations --- Rep. vs. Molina, 268 SCRA 198 (1997).
It refers to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning or significance to the marriage --- Santos vs. CA,
240 SCRA 20, 24 (1995).
The Rule: A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage,
shall be void.
Rationale: Marriage is entered into for the purpose of establishing conjugal and family life.
This purpose cannot be accomplished if one of the parties is psychologically incapacitated to
comply with the marital obligations.
Cases:
1. RP vs. Garcia - Psychological incapacity refers to a mental, not physical, incapacity.
2. Republic vs. Molina - These Molina guidelines were subsequently modified by the
Supreme Court in A.M. No. 02-11-10 – New Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages effective March 15, 2003, more particularly
on paragraph nos.( b) (3) regarding expert testimony and (h)on requirement of certification of
the Solicitor General.
. The SC in this case set the following guidelines and application of Article 36, FC:
a. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff.
Jeremiah 29:11 ∞ M.M.C.
i. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the
marriage and against its dissolution and nullity
b. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (1) medically or clinically
identified; (2) alleged in the complaint. (3) sufficiently proven by experts and (4)
clearly explained in the decision.
Exception: What is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately
establish the party's psychological condition. For indeed, if the totality of evidence
presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual
medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to. Marcos vs.
Marcos
c. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at ‘the time of the celebration’ of the
marriage.
d. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or
incurable.
i. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other
spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore,
such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not
necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or
employment in a job.
e. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to
assume the essential obligations of marriage.
i. Thus, "mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional
outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness must be shown as
downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will.
f. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of
the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and
225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. (Just see the articles
cited)
g. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic
Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great
respect by our courts.
h. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General
to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the
Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly
stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to
the petition.
EXAMPLES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
1. Senseless and protracted refusal of a spouse to fulfill marital obligation of procreation is
equivalent to psychological incapacity. Tsoi vs. CA
2. An inveterate pathological liar is unable to commit to the basic tenets of relationship
between spouses. Antonio vs Reyes
3. from “dependent personality disorder” is void due to psychological incapacity. This
disorder is characterized by a pattern of dependent and submissive behavior. The patient
lacks self-esteem or self-confidence; is plague by self-doubt; unable to make his own
decisions, dependent on and dominated by other people (such as his parents); insecure,
weak and gullible; has no sense of his identity as a person; has no goals and clear direction
in life. Te vs. Yu –Te
4. Misrepresentations point to one's own inadequacy to cope with marital obligations, kindred
to psychological incapacity (PATHOLOGICAL LIAR). Antonio vs. Reyes
Take note: The mere showing of "irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities"
does not constitute psychological incapacity.
CHARACTERISTICS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY:
(a) Gravity— It must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable
of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage;
i. Serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration
of the marriage. Perez-Ferrars vs. Ferraris
(b) Juridical Antecedence — It must be rooted in the history of the party
antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after
the marriage; and
Jeremiah 29:11 ∞ M.M.C.
(c) Incurability— It must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would
be beyond the means of the party involved.
NOT VALID CAUSES TO SUPPORT PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY:
1. Habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment - It must be shown
that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which make private respondent
completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state, and not merely
due to private respondent’s youth and self-conscious feeling of being handsome. Hernandez
vs. CA
2. "Irreconcilable differences" and "conflicting personalities" - The totality of the evidence
shows simple case of a married couple drifting apart, becoming strangers to each other, with
the husband consequently falling out of love and wanting a way out. An unsatisfactory
marriage, however, is not a null and void marriage. Carating- Siayngc vs. Siangco
3. Sexual infidelity, per se - It must be shown that his unfaithfulness is a manifestation of a
disordered personality which makes him completely unable to discharge the essential
obligations of the marital state and not merely due to his ardent wish to have a child of his
own flesh and blood. Ibid.
4. Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility - Nor were his supposed sexual infidelity and
criminal offenses manifestations of psychological incapacity. If at all, they would constitute a
ground only for an action for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. Mendoza
vs. RP
5. To be tired and give up on one's situation and on one's spouse neither can falling out of
love be so labelled - Ours is a limited remedy that addresses only a very specific situation —
a relationship where no marriage could have validly been concluded because the parties; or
where one of them, by reason of a grave and incurable psychological illness existing when
the marriage was celebrated, did not appreciate the obligations of marital life and, thus, could
not have validly entered into a marriage. Reyes So vs. Valera
5. Wife's lack of attention to children, immaturity and lack of "intention of procreative
sexuality" - ." None of these three, singly or collectively, constitutes "psychological
incapacity.". Choa vs. Choa
6. Immaturity, sexual promiscuity and abandonment – Dedel vs. CA
7. Psychological defect cannot be presumed from the mere fact of abandonment - This could
have been done through an expert witness.
8. Disagreements on money matters
9. "Psychological incapacity" is not meant to comprehend all possible cases of psychoses.
Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and
(c) incurability. Alcazar vs. Alcazar
10. Psychological conditions that hamper performance of marital obligations do not mean that
the husband and wife suffer from psychological incapacity. Mere difficulty is not synonymous
to incapacity. --- Rodolfo A. Aspillaga vs. Aurora A. Aspillaga
11. Mismanagement of family finances
4. PROPERTY RELATIONS OF UNIONS WITHOUT BENEFIT OF MARRIAGE
a. Capacitated to marry (Art. 147, FC)
Requisites for co-ownership
(1) must be capacitated to marry each other;
(2) live exclusively with each other as husband and wife; and
(3) their union is without the benefit of marriage or their marriage is void
Valdez vs. Regional Trial Court (260 SCRA 221) (question on prelim exam)
Re: Articles 36 and 147 (co-ownership), Article 147, FC (co-ownership) is applicable to
marriages declared void under Article 36 (psychological incapacity) not Articles 50, 51 and
52, in relation to Articles 102 (liquidation of absolute community assets and liabilities) and
109 (liquidation of conjugal partnership assets and liabilities) of the Family Code. Thus, a
marriage declared void on the ground of the mutual psychological incapacity (Art. 36) of the
parties to comply with their essential marital obligations, the law on co-ownership under
Article 147, FC, governs the property relations between the parties. Article 50 of the Family
Code, applying paragraphs (2), (3), (4) and (5) of Article 43, on the procedure of liquidation of
properties of the spouses, relates only, by its explicit terms, to voidable marriages (Article
45) and void marriage under Article 40, i.e., the second marriage being considered void if
entered into before the final judicial declaration of a previous marriage as void.
b. Not capacitated to marry (Art. 148, FC)
- Art. 148 applies to cohabitation amounting to adultery or concubinage.
Jeremiah 29:11 ∞ M.M.C.
- if the parties are incapacitated to marry each other, properties acquired by them through
their joint contribution of money, property or industry shall be owned by them in common in
proportion to their contributions which, in the absence of proof to the contrary, is presumed to
be equal.
- Article 148 of the Family Code refers to the property regime of bigamous marriages,
adulterous relationships, relationships in a state of concubinage, relationships where both
man and woman are married to other persons and to multiple alliances of the same married
man. --- Susan Nicdao Cariño vs. Susan Yee Cariño
- Wages and contributions in the form of care of the home and children are excluded in this
regime.
- Cohabitation, no matter how long, does not sever the tie of a subsisting previous marriage.
- Paramour is deemed to hold property in trust for the legal spouse and compulsory heirs.
c. Subsequent marriages
5. LEGAL SEPARATION
a. Grounds: must have arisen or existed after the marriage (unlike grounds for
annulment of marriage)
1. Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the
petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner:
a. The physical violence must be repeated.
b. Grossly abusive conduct may include maltreatment and hurling insults and
invectives --- Ong Eng Kiam vs. Ong, G.R. No. 153206, October 23, 2006.
2. Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious
or political affiliation:
a. The violence or pressure need not be repeated; a single incident is enough.
b. The must be a coercion (physical or moral) by the respondent against
petitioner.
 3. Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a
child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or
inducement:
4. Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years,
even if pardoned:
a. The nature of the crime is not material, but since the penalty should be
imprisonment for more than 6 years, it is relatively serious and non-
probationable;
b. A subsequent executive pardon is not material.
5. Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent.
6. Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent:
 If the drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or
homosexuality was existing at the time of marriage and was
concealed, it may amount to fraud which is a ground for annulment
of marriage.
7. Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in
the Philippines or abroad;
b. Property distribution in legal Separation
8. Sexual infidelity or perversion:
a. Sexual infidelity is sexual intercourse by married person with another person
who is not his or her spouse. The family code has removed the distinction in
the Civil Code between concubinage for men and adultery for women to
avoid double standard.
b. Sexual perversion entails coercion of the spouse in engaging in unusual or
abnormal sexual practices.
9. Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner:
Jeremiah 29:11 ∞ M.M.C.
a. There must be an intent to kill, i.e., either attempted or frustrated homicide,
although prior conviction is not necessary --- I Tolentino 323, citing Veloira
vs. Veloira, CA 56 O.G. 7055. Sempio-Diy 94.
b. Attempt must be wrongful. If it is legally justifiable (e.g. in self-defense of a
child --- Revised Penal Code Article 11, or if made by a person who has
caught his or her spouse having sexual intercourse with another person ---
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, then it cannot be considered ground
for legal separation.
10. Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than
one year.
a. Abandonment is leaving the conjugal dwelling without intent to return (Article
101, FC);
b. Lack of intent to return may be presumed if the spouse has left for a period of
3 months, or has failed within the same period to give any information as to
his or her whereabouts (Article 101, FC)
c. If the spouse left because of the other spouse’s abusive conduct, there is
justifiable cause and such act of leaving cannot be considered as a ground
for annulment --- Ong Eng Kiam v. Ong, G.R. No. 153206, October 23, 2006.
1. The absolute community or conjugal partnership shall be dissolved and liquidated but
the offending spouse shall have no right to any share of the net profits, which shall be
forfeited in favor of:
a. The common children or,
b. If there are no common children, the children of the offending spouse by a
previous marriage or
c. In default of children, the innocent spouse (Article 63, in relation to Article 43 all
of the FC)
Summary of the effects of the decree of legal separation:
1) shall be entitled to live separately from each other, but the marriage bonds shall not
be severed;
2) absolute community or the conjugal partnership shall be dissolved and liquidated but
the offending spouse shall have no right to any share of the net profits earned by the
absolute community or the conjugal partnership, which shall be forfeited in favor of
the children, if none, then to the children of the offending spouse by a previous
marriage, and in default of the children then to the innocent spouse;
3) custody of the minor children shall be awarded to the innocent spouse, subject to the
provisions of Article 213 of this Code;
4) offending spouse shall be disqualified from inheriting from the innocent spouse by
intestate succession, provisions in favor of the offending spouse made in the will of
the innocent spouse shall be revoked by operation of law;
5) the innocent spouse may revoke the donations made by him or by her in favor of the
offending spouse, provided that the donation is revoked within a period of 5 years
from the finality of the decree of legal separation;
6) revoke the designation of the erring spouse as a beneficiary in any insurance policy,
even if such designation be stipulated as irrevocable.
6. PATERNITY AND FILIATION
Paternity – status or relation of the parent with respect to his or her child.
Filiation – status or relation of a child with respect to his or her parents.
a. When to claim paternity; how to oppose paternity claim
ACTION TO CLAIM LEGITIMACY
1. Who may file; Prescriptive Period
a. the child – during his lifetime (action commenced by the child shall survie
notwithstanding the death of either or both parties); or
b. the child’s heirs, should the child die during minority or in a state of insanity –
within 5 years from child’s death (Art. 173, FC)
HOW TO OPPOSE PATERNITY CLAIM
a. generally, only the husband may impugn.
Jeremiah 29:11 ∞ M.M.C.
b. Exception: the heirs of the husband may impugn the filiation within the period prescribed in
Art. 170, FC. Only if:
i. if the husband should die before the expiration of the period fixed for bringing the
action;
ii. if he should die after the filing of complaint without having desisted therefrom; or
iii. if the child was born after the death of the husband
Legitimacy of a child can be impugned only in a direct action.
It is settled that the legitimacy of the child can be impugned only in a direct action brought for
that purpose, by the proper parties and within the period limited by law. ---- William Liyao, Jr.
vs. Juanita Tanhoti-Liyao, G.R. No. 138961, March 7, 2002
GROUNDS (exclusive)
1. it was physically impossible for the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife within
first 120 days of the 300 days which immediately preceded the birth of the child because of:
(Art. 166, FC)
i. the physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife;
- this refers to impotency, not sterility, if sterility is absolute may be covered
by the next ground
ii. the fact that the husband and wife were living separately in such a way that sexual
intercourse was not possible; or
iii. serious illness of the husband which absolutely prevented sexual intercourse.
2. for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not have been that of the husband,
except in case of artificial insemination (Art. 166)
Example: by means of DNA testing or by blood exclusion tests
3. in case of child conceived through artificial insemination, the written authorization or
ratification of either parent was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, or
undue influence. (Art. 166)
b. Rights of an illegitimate child (there was an illustration in the notes)
1. To use the surname of their mother
- however the IC may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been
expressly recognized by the father though the record of birth appearing in the civil
register, or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten
instrument is made by the father (Art. 176 FC, as amended by R.A. 9255)
 2. to be under the parental authority of their mother;
3. to receive support in conformity with the FC (not just from his mother but his
father);
4. to be entitled to legitime consisting of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child.

7. SUPPORT AND PARENTAL AUTHORITY (just a matter of reading)

8. MARRIAGE DISSOLVED BY RESON OF CHANGE OF CITIZENSHIP; RECOGNITION

OF FOREIGN JUDGMENT; RULE 132, SECTION 24 & 25

Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in
paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an
official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the
record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a
certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in
foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation,
consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service
of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and
authenticated by the seal of his office. (25a)

Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or
record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that
the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The
attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be
the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)

Jeremiah 29:11 ∞ M.M.C.