The difference between annulment and legal separation, in regard to support?

- With regard to support, in annulment, there is no longer a need for support, because there are
no longer husband and wife. Whereas in legal separation, there are still husband and wife but
only the innocent spouse can received support. The guilty spouse cannot received support, and
furthermore it should be decreed in the court under Article 198 of the Family Code.

Article 198 “… However, in case of legal separation the court may order that the guilty spouse shall give
support to the innocent one, specify in the terms of such party.”

With regard to surname (Refer to Article 371 and 372 of the Civil Code)

When there is void marriages, there must be a declaration of absolute nullification of the marriage, so
the surname of the wife will revert to her maiden name.

Can the wife still use the surname of the husband in annulment? In legal separation?

Article 371. In case of annulment of marriage, and the wife is the guilty party, she shall resume her
maiden name and surname. If she is the innocent spouse, she may resume her maiden name and
surname. However, she may choose to continue employing her former husband's surname, unless:

(1) The court decrees otherwise, or

(2) She or the former husband is married again to another person.

Article 372. When legal separation has been granted, the wife shall continue using her name and
surname employed before the legal separation.

There is no change, because there is still an existing marriage.

Can a woman used its own surname even if she is married?

- Yes. The woman still has the option to change their surname. The difference however when a
woman choose to not used their husband’s surname is that in (3). (Refer Article 370)

Article. 370. A married woman may use:

(1) Her maiden first name and surname and add her husband's surname, or

(2) Her maiden first name and her husband's surname or

(3) Her husband's full name, but prefixing a word indicating that she is his wife, such as "Mrs.

A and B are married. However, when they were at the age of 70 the husband choose to live with the
daughter in Baguio City, leaving his wife in Makati. Despite the pleading from his wife, he refused to go
back with his wife. Can the wife bring action for habeas corpus? (Refer to Article 68 of the Family Code).
Would it violate his right to liberty?

Refer Case: Arroyo vs Court of Appeals, the Husband saw negatives of the picture inside the
bedroom. He brought these photos to the court. The wife petition that the photos was
inadmissible, because the photos belongs to the wife. Was it really inadmissible?
- NO, it was not an intrusion of privacy of the wife. The husband did not take photos,
it just happened that he found those film in the bedroom.

Under the custodial investigation, the admission must need to have a lawyer, unless
you waived such right. Did the husband violate the rule, wherein since her
admission was taken without the assistance of a lawyer?
- There was no need for custodial investigation, since his husband is not a
police officer.

Refer Case: Zulueta vs. Court of Appeals, the evidence was inadmissible since the wife barged
into the office of the husband. Opening the cabinets by forced without his prior knowledge and
consent.

To distinguished between these 2 cases: In Zulueta, the letters was taken from the offices, by
forced. While in Arroyo, it was found in their bedroom.

A case of Ilusorio vs Bildner (G.R. No. 139808, May 12, 2000, 323 SCRA 169), the old woman asked the
court to compel her husband to live with her. However, you cannot forced someone to live with them.
True, that the Law obliges them to live each other but they still maintain that kind of liberty. Unless, the
court said that if the woman can show that her husband is incompetent, then you file a guardianship
proceedings. But there is no show that her husband was incompetent. As of his age, he was not a child
anymore. He is free to go wherever he wants.

A and B were married. B the husband cohabited with another woman and they went to the States. They
lived for a long time in the states. Then he died in the States. His body was brought back. Now his legal
wife, whom he left without legal separation. This is called de facto separation, there were physically
separated but the court did not declare. The wife and the mistress lived with him for a long time also, in
fact the husband died with the mistress. The wife wanted him to be buried in their plant, in Marikina.
Whereas the mistress wanted him to be buried in Caloocan. Where should he be buried? (Refer Article
305 and 307 of the Civil Code)

- He will be buried in Marikina.

Article 305. The duty and the right to make arrangements for the funeral of a relative shall be in
accordance with the order established for support, under Article 294 (Article 199 of the Family
Code). In case of descendants of the same degree, or of brothers and sisters, the oldest shall be
preferred. In case of ascendants, the paternal shall have a better right.
 Article 294. The claim for support, when proper and two or more persons are obliged to give it, shall
be made in the following order:

(1) From the spouse;

(2) From the descendants of the nearest degree;

(3) From the ascendants, also of the nearest degree;

(4) From the brothers and sisters.

In the Case of Eugenio vs. Velez (G.R. No. 85140, May 17, 1990, 185 SCRA 425). Here, the lady who died
was single. She cohabited with a married man, which was separated from his wife. This married man
who was cohabiting with this single and the sisters of the single lady who died are now claiming the
body. To whom shall it go?

- The sister of the single spouse.

In the Case of Valino vs. Adriano (G.R. No. 182894, April 22, 2014, 723 SCRA 1), the case has mentioned
the order.

He is living with his mistress in the US (this has become a case). He had a lawful wife, and he cohabited
with Grace Ibuna, then he died in London. Before he died, according to Grace Ibuna, there was a will. It
said in the will that Grace Ibuna will arrange his funeral. Would that changed the answer? (Refer to
Article 307)

- Yes. You do not make a body a legacy. Unless you want to donate it to medical or to some other
person. A human body is not a property. It is fine to state it in the will that “I am giving my eyes
to someone”, you can neither can sell it. However, the will can contain many dispositions. It
does not have to be property. For example your will says, I recognized my legitimate child, valid.
Basically, the will is to dispose your property after you die.
- It was his choice. In fact, the Article did not state that it is a will because a will talks about the
property. It does not necessarily be a will, as long as it authenticates that it is his expressed
wished, his signature, within a letter.

Article 307. The funeral shall be in accordance with the expressed wishes of the deceased. In the
absence of such expression, his religious beliefs or affiliation shall determine the funeral rites. In
case of doubt, the form of the funeral shall be decided upon by the person obliged to make
arrangements for the same, after consulting the other members of the family.

In the case of Tenchaves vs Escano. She was married. Subsequently, she left her husband and went to
the US. While she was still a Filipina, she got a divorced and remarried. In fact had 4 children with an
American. Can the husband asked for damages?

- Yes. The wife was committing adultery, by having a sexual relation with a man aside from her
husband. The court rules that the marriage was still valid and subsisting, even when she fled in
 the US. The divorced filed by her was invalid in the Philippines, because she and her husband
was still a Filipino citizen. Hence, her subsequent marriage was invalid.
- The subsequent marriage was bigamous. However, since criminal law is territorial, it cannot be
sued here in the Philippines. Under the legal separation, that would be a bigamous marriage.

What the action was declaration of nullity based on psychologically incapacitated, can he asked for
damages?

In the case of Buenaventura vs Court of Appeals, the action for damages was denied. If asking
for damages, there should be an action of bad faith. If he is psychologically incapacitated, he
does not what he was doing, then there was no bases for damages. He is not even insane,
because an insane is an exempting circumstance. Nevertheless, no ground for damages, because
there was no deception not an action of his free will. Therefore, there is no damages.

Is there anything wrong with Article 73(2) of the Family Code?

Article 73 … (2) Benefit has occurred to the family prior to the objection or thereafter. If the
benefit accrued prior to the objection, the resulting obligation shall be enforced against the
separate property of the spouse who has not obtained consent. (Republic Act 10572, May 24
2014)

If the benefit accrued, prior to the objection it would be enforced against the community. If the
benefit accrued after, it would be enforced against the separate property.

In Article 72, that includes damages.

Article. 72. When one of the spouses neglects his or her duties to the conjugal union or commits
acts which tend to bring danger, dishonor or injury to the other or to the family, the aggrieved
party may apply to the court for relief.

One of those is damages. If you are asking for damages against your husband or your wife, only
his separate property is liable. Why? Because if you make the joint property liable, you are not
taking damages, as if you are taking damages from yourself. You as well own the property in the
joint.

Damages to be grave of the erring husband from his own separate or exclusive property, not
from the conjugal or absolute, which is joint. Otherwise, the payment of the damages was not
being served.

Can the couple, enter into a contract regarding their property that the husband will own all their
properties before and after the marriage, the wife will not share anything? Is it not against public policy,
could that situation be void? (Refer Article 1799, Partnership)

- No. Even though Article 1799, an agreement that the partner who has no share with the profit is
void. Although, it is not a partnership (registered in the SEC) you can still apply this Article by
analogy that would not be reasonable when a wife can have a share, when she has also
contributed. Article 1799, applying the reason behind that, that stipulation would void.

Supposed the share was 60% to the husband, 40% to the wife. Valid?
- It is possible, because there are sharing.

Once the absolute community was dissolved or liquidated by death, annulment or legal separation.
There was no marriage settlement, what is the sharing? (Refer Article 102 (4) of the Family Code)

- The sharing is equally. The net remainders means paying first the creditors and what is left is
their share. However, it does not mean that they cannot change that arrangement. The
-