72676655 comprehensive reviewer

8/17/2019 72676655 Comprehensive Reviewer

1/41

1

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONSCOMPLETE REVIEWER

Background on the Ph!o"o#h$ o% the C&! Code'

“The Philosophy of the Civil Code”

Tasks of the investigator of the Philosophy of Law:1. Trace the origin of law to its sources in human

nature!. Connect the law with the society that evolved and

the circumstances of the time in which it originated". #elate the importance of the law under the influence

of economic$ social and other conditions%. Point out the &asic elements of the law'. (istinguish law from ethics.

)ur Civil Code was founded on the laws of *pain which was&ased largely on #oman Law +,nstitutes of -ustinian.

Corpus Juris Civilis- accumulation of old #oman Laws asmodified &y early Christians.

• /ncient #oman Law was the com&ination of tribal

customs, royal edicts, and priestly commands.

• /ncient #omans fashioned their laws according to

their lifestyle$ which at that time was great!$

n%!uenced ($ re!gon)

Lex Jus- Command and -ustice

• #elationship was not only between men but between

God and men. Crimes$ at that time$ were considered

a disturbance of this relation.

• Laws were designed to maintain and restore the

peace of the gods + pax decorum)$ peace &etweenmen and peace &etween god and men.

Theory of n!ury and Liability- ,n0uring ones neigh&or was

discouraged &ecause such act would prompt gods to strike&ack at the 2evil doer there&y causing the imperil of the entirecommunity.

,t is only when law &ecomes distinguisha&le from religionthat its philosophy &ecomes discerni&le.

Philosophy of Private #oman Law

"onus #ater $amilias- Literally meaning “good father of thefamily$” this was considered a standard &y which one shouldpattern his conduct.

3 #oman law was typically$ a law without ethics.

Law of Contracts and "ailments- *omeone who &roke his oathis considered a danger to society and is in danger of mortalperil.

3#oman laws of property were e4tremely individualistic.3#omans only recogni5ed two forms of association6societasand corporation.

Two Principles to 7oderate the 84treme ,ndividualism of#oman Law

%umanitas- Considers kindness$ goodness$ sympathy$consideration for others.

• ,n contrast to pater familias where heads of the

family are allowed to kill his children and wife.

*panish Precedents of Philippine Law

&isi'oths3 8arly settlers in *pain that were overrun &y 7oorswho converted the former into Christianity.(oors- Promulgated non3&ar&aric laws

laric, Leader of the Goths- Promulgated Code o% A!arcwhich introduced &ar&aric tri&al customs to #oman Law.

$uer*o Ju*'o- 9irst great code of *pain com&ining #omanermanic and #eligious edicts.

+iete #artidas- ;ritten &y 9ernando ,,, and /lfonso codes pertaining to different aspects olaw.

• 9irst &ook contained natural laws$ usages andcustom and administrative laws.

• *econd &ook contained administrative laws.• Third &ook contained court rules$ land ownership and

possession laws and servitude laws.• 9ourth &ook contained laws on persons and family

relations.• 9ifth &ook contained laws on o&ligations and

contracts.

• *i4th &ook contains laws on succession$ intestacyheirship and guardianship.

• *eventh &ook contained penal laws.

7edieval Philosophy and its ,nfluence

+t. u'ustine- The state is a kingdom of the ,mpious

+t. Thomas uinas- ;rote the *umma Theologica

• Lex xterna- laws &ased on divine reason which

governs the world.

• Lex aturalis3 ?atural laws which are made known

through reason.• Lex %umana3 Positive laws which are man3made

applications of natural laws.

#enal #rinciples

• Justicia Generalis- o&ligation of restitution

• Justicia #articularis

o Justicia commutative- o&ligation o

restitution

o Justicia distribution- distri&utive 0ustice

applying 0ustice in geometric proportions.

/rdenamiento lcala- spiritual aspects of contractsLeyes de Toro- ;ritten &y the *panish Cortes in 1'@!

ueva 0ecopilacion- compilation of all *panish Laws made in1'A>ovisisima 0ecopilacion- another compilation of *panishLaws.

1B@'3 Civil Code &ecame a model39our3&ook compilation of the Civil Code was promulgated.

• ook )ne: Persons and 9amily #elations

• ook Two: Property$ )wnership and 7odification• ook Three: 7odes of /cDuiring )wnership

• ook 9our: )&ligations and Contracts

SOP SOP

SOP


2/41

2

/merican ,nfluence on the Civil Code

• ,?(,=,(E/L,*7 &ecame a pervading theme duringthe forging of the new Civil Code.

3 ill of #ights3 *eeking redress for grievances

,ntersection of 7odern Constitutional (evelopments andTraditional 9amily Law

Constitutional Provisions

/rticle ,,$ *ection 1!: The *tate recogni5es the sanctity offamily life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a&asic autonomous social institution. ,t shall eDually protectthe life of the mother and the life of the un&orn fromconception. The natural and primary right and duty of parentsin the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and thedevelopment of moral character shall receive support of the

government.

/rticle ,,$ *ection 1%: The *tate recogni5es the role of womenin nation &uilding and shall ensure the fundamental eDuality&efore the law of women and men.

/rticle ,,,$ *ection 1: ?o person shall &e deprived of life$li&erty or property without due #roce"" of law$ nor shall anyperson &e denied the e*ua! #rotecton of the laws.

/rticle


3/41

3

Characteristics of *tatus3 the status of a person is outside thecommerce of man hence:

3 ,t is inaliena&le in that it cannot &e transferred toanother

3 ,t is imprescripti&le in that it cannot &e imposed on aperson

3 ,t cannot &e the su&0ect of compromise3 ,t cannot &e renounced

3 ,t cannot &e e4ercised &y creditors

CC Artc!e -.' Juridical Capacity is the fitness to &e thesu&0ect of legal relations. ,t is inherent in every naturalperson and is lost only through death.

Capacity to act which is the power to do acts that have legaleffect$ is acDuired and may &e lost.

-uridical Capacity3 legal capacityCapacity to /ct3 aptitude for the e4ercise of rights which isconditional and varia&le$ reDuiring intelligence and will.

CC Artc!e /0' irth determines personality.

The conceived shall &e considered &orn for all purposes thatare favora&le to it provided that it &e &orn later.

"irth- removal of the fetus from the mothers wom&Conceived Child- can &e given inheritance &y will or donations

CC Artc!e /1' The fetus is considered &orn if it is alive at thetime it is completely delivered from the mothers wom&.9or premature &irth of less than seven months$ it isconsidered &orn if it survives for at least !% hours after itsdelivery.

*eparation3 cutting of the um&ilical cordTest of life3 complete respiration or in the case of a deceasedchild$ the lungs should float in water.=ia&ility3 the childs a&ility to live which is presumed if itsurvives separation from the mother

Geluz vs. Court of AppealsFacts: /ita 0illanueva has gone through abortionthrice. 1scar La(o sued Gelu( the abortionist forpecuniary da!ages which was granted by theourt of "ppeals and then appealed by Gelu( inthe 'upre!e ourt.

%eld: "n unborn child has no 2uridical capacityand as such, the parents cannot sue forpecuniary da!ages on its behalf. &he child nothaving been born, the parent#s are not in theposition to sue on its behalf because they cannotbe considered parents if there is no child to spea

of. *oral da!ages cannot be granted because ofthe indifference of the father.

CC' Artc!e /2' Civil personality is e4tinguished &y death.The effect of death upon the rights and o&ligations of thedeceased shall &e determined &y law$ &y contract or &y will.39or certain purposes$ the personality is deemed to continuein the estate of the deceased which has a legal personalityindependent of the heirs.

People vs. Tirol

Facts: iriaco Baldesco and Bonifacio &irol werea!ong the fourteen who !urdered 3 !e!bers othe fa!ily of *anibpol 4osain. &hey wereconvicted of 3 !urders and 5 frustrated !urdersas *anibpol, the father and his daughter6ndang, survived. n the course of the appealwhile awaiting the final sentence, Baldesco died

in prison.%eld: Baldesco#s civil and cri!inal liabilities areextinguished by his death however, inde!nitiesshall be paid for through his estate.

CC Artc!e /-' ,f there is dou&t &etween two or morepersons called to succeed each other$ as to which of themdied first$ the one who alleges the death of one prior toanother shall have the &urden of proof.,f no proof is availa&le then it shall &e presumed that theydied at the same time.?ote: There is an issue of succession and not 0ussurvivorship.

3#ule 1!"$ section AH$ paragraph ii:,f two or more persons die in a calamity and i

cannot &e shown who died first and there are nocircumstances &y which it can &e inferred$ survivorship ispresumed from the pro&a&ilities resulting from the strengthand age of se4es.

1. I1' years$ the older is presumed to have survived!. J A@ years$ the younger is presumed to have

survived". I1' and JA@$ the younger is presumed to have

survived%. J1'$ IA@ for &oth male is presumed to have

survived if se4es are the same$ then the older one.'. I1' or J A@ and J1' $IA@$ the younger is

presumed to have survived

3oa*un vs. NavarroFacts: 7uring the Liberation of *anila, 8oa$uin/avarro 'r., his wife "ngela 8oa$uin, his threedaughters, Pilar, onception and /atividad and

8oa$uin /avarro 8r together with his wife "delaonde and friend Francisco Lope(, sought refugeinside Ger!an lub. &he three daughters wereinstantly illed. 8oa$uin 'r., 8oa$uin 8r., with hiswife and friend, fled the place leaving "ngela

8oa$uin in the Ger!an lub. !!ediately afteleaving the place, as attested by Francisco Lope(

8oa$uin 8r. was shot in the head. *inutes laterGer!an lub collapsed presu!ably illing "ngela

8oa$uin inside. 7ays later, 8oa$uin 'r. died in aconfrontation.

&he victi!s were survived by 9a!on 8oa$uinnatural child of "ngela 8oa$uin by her first!arriage and "ntonio . /avarro, and son o

8oa$uin /avarro by his first !arriage. &he ourt of "ppeals invoed the statutoryprovision on the presu!ption of survivorship.%eld: &he statutory provision cannot be invoedbecause there are evidences as attested to by

SOP SOP

SOP


4/41

4

Francisco Lope(, fro! which it can be inferredthat "ngela 8oa$uin survived 8oa$uin /avarro 8r.before having died herself.

CC Artc!e //' The following are 0uridical persons:1. The *tate and its Political *u&divisions!. Pu&lic corporations$ institutions and entities which

are created &y law

". Private corporations$ partnerships and associationsto which the law grants 0uridicalpersonality.

3Corporation is an artificial &eing created &y law and as such$en0oys certain rights and privileges that can &e afforded to it.

CC Artc!e /4' -uridical Persons such as the state and pu&liccorporations are governed &y laws recogni5ing them.Private corporations are governed &y laws of generalapplication on the su&0ect.

3Corporations are governed &y its charter and the CorporationLaw3Private Partnerships are governed &y its articles of

association and their contract.

CC Artc!e /5' -uridical Persons may acDuire and possessproperty$ incur o&ligations and lia&ility or criminal actions inconformity with laws and regulations of the organi5ation.

3 -uridical capacity is e4tinguished upon dissolution of

the corporation$ association or partnership.

CC Artc!e /.' Properties and assets of dissolvedcorporations or other entities shall &e disposed of inpursuance to the law or the charter creating them. ,f nothingis specifically written$ then it shall &e applied for the &enefit ofthe region$ province or municipality which it derived principal&enefits from.

Capacity to /ct and #estrictions Thereon

Presumption of Capacity

Standard Oil Co. vs. ArenasFacts: 8uan odina "renas, Francisco Lara delPino principals; and "lipio Lacso, VincenteSixto and 'iy %o sureties; assu!ed obligationsto pay 2ointly and severally to 'tandard 1il o.the su! of P


5/41

5

CC Artc!e 1/0- 8-9: / contract where &oth parties areincapa&le of giving consent is unenforceable22 unless ratified.

K/ voida&le contract is one whose validity can &e disputed incourt as opposed toKKan unenforcea&le contract which is valid or &inding only&etween the two parties &ut is likewise unenforcea&le incourt.

CC Artc!e 1-7.' Persons who are capa&le cannot allege theincapacity of those with whom they contracted.

CC Artc!e 1-77' /n incapacitated is not o&liged to makerestitution e4cept in so far as he has &enefited from the

contract.CC Artc!e 1/25' There is no right to demand a thing orprice from a minor who$ &ecause of lack of consent from theparent or guardian$ upon the annulment of the contract$returns the thing or price he received.

CC Artc!e 1/2.' ;hen a minor pays according to a contract$without the consent of his parent or guardian$ the sum of

money delivered cannot &e returned to the minor &ecause theother party is e4pected to have spent it in good faith.

8ffect on Contracts

&ercado vs. Espiritu'Facts: &he annul!ent of a deed of sale wassought on the ground that two of the four partiesin the deed were !inors when the deed wasexecuted. n the deed of sale the !inors statedthey were of legal age when they !ade the!anifestation in front of the notary public andthen signed it.%eld: ontracts signed by !inors who allege theyare of legal age and in fact, appear to be so, is

valid and binding. &hey are therefore estoppedfro! alleging otherwise.

K&arred from disputing the genuineness of the deed of sale$as in the case of 7ercado vs. 8spiritu.

Ba(!alan vs. &ara(!a and &ueron)Facts: sidro Ba!balan was the heir of a piece ofland owned by 0icente Lagera, deceased.Ba!balan was forced by *ara!ba and *uerongto who! the !other owed P+>=, to sign a deed ofsale as his !other will otherwise be put in prison.Ba!balan signed the contract and both *uerongand *ara!ba new of his age as they were the

ones who procured the cedula necessary tocertify the contract.%eld: Plaintiff#s age was nown to the contractingparties as such, the contract is not valid and theright of Ba!balan as a !inor can be enforced.

CC Artc!e 1/67' /ll persons authori5ed &y the Code canenter into a contract of sale. ;hen necessariesK are sold anddelivered to a minor or a person without capacity$ he must

pay a reasona&le price therefore.

KThose which are indispensa&le for sustenance.

Bra)anza vs. Villa A!rilleFacts: 9osario Bragan(a and her sonsGuiller!o and 9odolfo, signed a pro!issorynote indicating that they will pay a loan

given by a certain Fernando 0illa "brille. &heloan a!ounted to P3=,=== in 8apanesecurrencies and, according to the pro!issorynote, Bragan(a will pay P+=,=== in legacurrencies. &he two sons were !inors at theti!e the contract was signed.%eld: &he contract, insofar as the !inorswere concerned was not valid. %owever, they!ust !ae restitution insofar as theybenefit. "s such, they not pay 5C< of thea!ount stipulated in the contract but !erelythe a!ount that was loaned to the! which

was P+,+??.== in legal currencies.

Sields vs. GrossFacts: n +D3>, when Brooe 'hields was +=a consent was given by her !other on herbehalf, indicating that the pictures taen byGary Gross !ay be used for whateverpurposes. Plaintiff re$uested the court toprevent defendant fro! using her pictures/on-2ury court prevented the defendant fro!using the pictures for advertising or trade onthe grounds that court approval for a !inor

was necessary to validate the consent, asstated in 'ection of the Genera1bligations Law.%eld: By virtue of 'ection >= and >+ of theivil 9ights Law, a person#s pictures, na!e,etc., can be used if written consent is givenf the person is a !inor, his or her parentscan give the consent. "s such, the consentwas valid. 'ection cannot be invoedas 'hields did not fall under the categoriesstipulated under the said statutory provision.

• 8ffect on 7arriage of 7inors

FC Artc!e 4' /ny male or female aged 1B and a&ove$ maycontract marriage.

FC Artc!e -4' The following are void marriages from the&eginning:

1. Those contracted &y any party &elow 1B years$ even

with the consent of a parent or guardian!. Those solemni5ed &y a person not legally authori5ed

to perform a marriage unless the married couple&elieved in good faith that the person was authori5ed

SOP SOP

SOP


6/41

6

". Those solemni5ed without a license

4. Those &igamous or polygamous

'. Those contracted through a mistaken identity

&oe vs. *in+insFacts: *aria *oe and 9aul 9oe alleged that the/ew Eor 7o!estic law +>.5 which states that

!ales between +?-+ and fe!ales between +-+ !ust obtain parental consent to be granted!arriage, is unconstitutional. &hey stated thatthey have a child born out of wedloc and they donot wish for their child to grow up with the stig!aof illegiti!acy. ristina oe and Pedro 7oe filed a!otion to interfere as they had a stae at theoutco!e of the trial. ristina oe#s !other, lie*aria#s also refused to give her consent to thewedding but unlie *aria, ristina#s child was yetto co!e.%eld: &he 'tate#s interest as parens patriaeguardians of the country; in protecting !inorfro! !aing i!!ature decisions is legiti!ateand the !anner by which this interest isprotected is proportionate to the interest.

• 8ffects on Crime

RPC Artc!e 12' The circumstances which e4empt fromcriminal lia&ility are:

1. /n im&ecile or insane person +unless he acted duringa lucid interval$

2. / person under H years of ageK$

3. / person over H years of age &ut under 1'$ unless it

can &e proven that he acted in discernment$ in whichcase$ he will &e sent to an institution servicing suchchildren with criminal lia&ilities.

%. /ny person who causes an in0ury while performing alawful act$

'. /ny person who acts under a compulsion ofirresisti&le force.

RPC Artc!e 16' /ccomplices are those who cooperate in the

e4ecution of an offense &y previous or simultaneous acts.

RPC Artc!e 56' ;hen the offender is a minor under 1B yearsof age$ if he is6

1. )ver H years and under 1' and it has &een proventhat he acted with discernment then a discretionarypenalty shall &e imposed which must always &elower &y two degrees than that which the law

prescri&es for such crime.!. )ver 1' years and under 1B years of age$ the

penalty &eing the ne4t lower penalty prescri&ed &ylaw for that crime &ut always in the proper period.

". +T3

• 8ffects on Contracts

CC Artc!e 1-2.' +Page '

CC Artc!e 1-77' +Page A

CC Artc!e 1-26' Contracts entered into during a lucidinterval are valid while those entered into in a state odrunkenness is voida&le.

Carillo vs. ,ao-oco and ,ao-ocoFacts: "driana arillo executed a deed of sale to

8ustiniano 8ao2oco. /ine days later, arillo wasdeclared to be !entally incapacitated and then

died still later. *iguela arillo appealed for theannul!ent of the said contract stating tha"driana arillo could not have executed the deedin a lucid state owing to the fact that the land oover


7/41

7

9ecorder, until a deed of transfer was executed.7u!aguin then ased the court that the deed oftransfer executed by hi! be considered null andvoid because he did not possess the !entalcapacity to execute such transfers.%eld: " person under guardianship could stillenter into a contract provided that he or she was

not in !ental defect during the execution of thecontract. "lso, having been e!ployees of"/"1/7" group, it was within the confines oftheir 2ob to execute such transfers. /evertheless,if he did own the !ining clai!s, it would havebeen aptly na!ed deed of transfer.H

• 8ffect on 7arriage

FC Artc!e /4' / marriage may &e annulled for any of thesecauses:

1. ,f the party was over 1B and under !1 and themarriage was solemni5ed without the consent ofparents or guardian$ unless after reaching the age of!1 the couple has continued to coha&it$

!. 8ither party was of unsound mind unless the partyhas come to reason and freely coha&it$

". Consent &y either party was o&tained &y fraud orforce$

%. 8ither party was physically incapa&le ofconsummating the marriage and the incapacity isincura&le$

'. 8ither party was afflicted with *T( which isincura&le.

FC Artc!e /.' The persons who can file for an action forannulment are:

1. y the party whose parent or guardian did not giveconsent$ within ' years after attaining the age of !1$or &y the parent or guardian &efore the minor

reaches !1$!. y the sane spouse who did not know of the otherpersons insanity or &y the guardian of the insane or&y the insane spouse during a lucid interval.

". y the in0ured party$ within years of the discovery offraud or force$

%. 9or the in0ured party$ in relation to *T( and

,mpotence$ after ' years of marriage.

C. +tate of "ein' 1eaf-(ute

CC Artc!e 1-2.' +Page '

CC Artc!e 60.' ,f the testatorK is deaf or a deaf3mute$ hemust &e a&le to personally read the will or designate two

persons to read it and communicate with him in a practica&le

manner.K/ person whose property is transmitted through a will.

CC Artc!e 620' /ny person of sound mind and legal age$ not&lind$ deaf or dum& and a&le to read and write$ may &e a

witness to the e4ecution of a will.

People vs. SasotaFacts: Fidel 'asota was found guilty of raping9ufina Barbuco, a deaf and du!b girl. &he cri!ewas witnessed by 'evera Barbuco, a seven-year

old girl who testified along with 9ufina. &hedefendant alleged that neither 9ufina nor 'everacan testify as one was deaf and du!b and theother too young.%eld: &he theory that deaf and du!b personscannot testify as a co!petent witness has beendispelled People vs. de Leon; because it is not

sufficient. For as long as the re$uisite intelligencere$uired to understand the nature of the oath canbe proven then a deaf-!ute can testify. nrelation to the seven year old, the court has heldthat a child can testify as long as he or she canunderstand the nature of the oath.

*irector of 4ands vs. A!elardoFacts: 7irector of land clai!s that the failure ofFulgencia and 8ose 7ino to register any clai! tolots nos. 33< and += which was previouslyowned by their grand!other, is due to their beingdeaf and du!b. "s such, they were unable to act

within the prescriptive period within which theycan register their clai!.%eld: &he state of being a deaf-!ute is notconsidered an incapacity that will prevent aperson fro! running of a prescriptive period.

1. #rodi'ality

RC Artc!e 72 829' Persons suffering the penalty of civiinterdiction$ hospitali5ed lepers$ #rodga!"$ deaf and dum&who are una&le to read and write$ those of unsound mind andother similar cases$ cannot$ without aid$ take care othemselves and manage their property.

&artinez vs. &artinezFacts: Pedro *artine( appealed to the 'upre!eourt to declare his father, Francisco *artine(, aprodigal. Pedro *artine( alleged that since hisfather#s !arriage to "nastacia lustre, his father#ssecond wife, the wide and her parents have beengiven properties a!ounting to I5==,===. %eadded that the ad!inistration has also beenturned over to his father#s wife. 7efendant statedthat the son had, prior to the !arriage, !anagedthe estate by power of attorney but it wasrevoed because the son has !is!anaged and!isappropriated the property. &he estate was

said to have flourished since it was !anaged byFrancisco *artine(# wife and one half has alsobeen in the ownership of Pedro *artine(, hi!being the sole heir of the first wife.%eld: "cts of prodigality !ust show a !orbidstate of !ind and a disposition to spend, wasteand lessen the estate to such an extent as toexpose the fa!ily to poverty.

. Civil nterdiction

SOP SOP

SOP


8/41

8

RPC Artc!e -/' Civil interdiction shall deprive the offender ofthe rights of parental authority or guardianship$ either as toperson or property.

RPC Artc!e 11)2' #elatives that can &e defended +withoutcriminal lia&ility: spouses$ ascendants$ descendants$legitimate$ natural or adopted &rothers and sisters$ relatives&y affinity in the same degree or relatives &y consanguinity of

the %th civil degree.

RPC Artc!e 1-)4' /cts which are committed in immediatevindication of a grave offense to the one committing thefelony +are mitigating circumstances.

CC Artc!e 4/' 7ales 1A years upwards may contractmarriage while females 1% years upwards may contractmarriage.

CC Artc!e 12-' / person under civil interdiction maycontract marriage provided that there is a court designatedguardian availa&le to witness the said marriage.

$. $amily 0elations

FC Artc!e -.' 7arriages &etween ascendants anddescendants of any degree or &etween &rothers or sisters fullor half3&lood$ are considered incestuous and void.

FC Artc!e 6.' (onations or grants given directly or indirectly&etween spouses during marriage are void with the e4ceptionof moderate gifts. The same is true for persons living togetheras hus&and and wife.

3 This is dictated &y the principle of unity of

personality of spouses.3 /ny person pre0udiced &y the donation or grant may

Duestion its validity.

CC Artc!e 1107' PrescriptionK does not run &etweenhus&and and wife even though there is a separation of

property agreed upon in the marriage settlements. The sameis true &etween parents and children that are still minors or

those considered insane and &etween guardian and ward.

CC Artc!e 1/70' Fus&and and wife cannot sell property toone another when separation of property has &een agreedupon and there has &een 0udicial separation.

G. liena'e

PC Artc!e 12:*ection !: /ll natural resources$ with the e4ception ofagricultural lands$ are owned &y the state. /s such$e4ploration$ development and utili5ation are under its fullcontrol and supervision. The *tate may undertake suchactivities directly$ in co3production$ 0oint venture orproduction sharing with 9ilipino citi5ens or corporations orassociations where A@ of the capital is owned &y 9ilipinos.The same is true for agreements with foreign3ownedcorporations.)nly small3scale utili5ation of marine life is allowed.*ection >: ?o private lands shall &e transferred to individuals$

corporations or associations Dualified to acDuire land$ e4ceptin cases of hereditary succession.*ection B: ?atural3&orn citi5ens of the Philippines who haslost citi5enship may&e a transferee of private lands su&0ect tolimitations provided &y law.

*ection 11: 9ranchise$ certificate or any form of authori5ationfor operation of pu&lic utility may &e granted to citi5ens of thePhilippines or corporations$ associations or organi5ationwhere at least A@ of the capital is owned &y 9ilipinos. /le4ecutive and managing officers of pu&lic utilities must &eciti5ens of the Philippines.

PC Artc!e ;IV:

*ection %: 8ducational institutions$ apart from those owned&y religious groups or mission &oards must &e owned solely&y citi5ens of the Philippines or corporations or associations awherein A@ of the capital is owned &y citi5ens. Congressmay legislate to increase 9ilipino eDuity participation.?o educational institution shall &e esta&lished e4clusively fo

aliens. ?o group of aliens shall comprise more than one thirdThese provisions do not apply to schools esta&lished foforeign diplomatic personnel and their dependents.#evenues$ grants and endowments shall &e e4empt fromta4es.

PC Artc!e ;VI:*ection 11: )wnership and management of mass media shal

&e limited to citi5ens of the Philippines or corporationscooperatives$ associations wholly owned and managed &y

such citi5ens.Congress shall prohi&it monopolies in commercial mass mediafor the sake of pu&lic interest.9ilipino citi5ens or corporations and or associations wherein

seventy percent of capital is owned &y citi5ens of thePhilippines shall &e allowed to engage in the advertisingindustry. /ll e4ecutive and managing officers must &e citi5ensof the Philippines.

%. bsence

CC Artc!e -70' /n a&sentee shall &e presumed dead for alpurposes$ after an a&sence of seven years.9or purposes of succession$ a&sentee shall &e presumed deadafter 1@ years or ' years for those >' and a&ove.

CC Artc!e -71' The following are presumed dead for alpurposes:

1. Person on &oard a lost sea vessel or aeroplane$!. Person missing for % years after taking part in a war$". Person who after &eing in danger of death has no

&een heard from for four years.

FC Artc!e 12/' Con0ugal partnership property &elongs to

spouses$ 0ointly. ,n case of disagreement$ the decision of thehus&and shall prevail and the wife may appeal for remedy incourt within ' years since the implementation of the contract.*pouse may assume sole powers in case the other isincapacitated.8ncum&rance or disposal of property shall &e with theauthority of the court or with the written consent of thespouse./ contract with the authori5ation of the spouse is &inding.

. (arria'e CC Artc!e 2247' The capacity of a woman to enter intocontract is governed &y the civil code even if the marriageoccurred prior to the enactment of the said code.

RC Ru!e -, Secton /' / married woman cannot &e suedalone without 0oining her hus&and e4cept:

1. ;hen they are 0udicially separated$!. ,f they have &een separated for at least 1 year$

SOP SOP

SOP


9/41

9

". ;hen there is a separation of property agreed uponin marriage settlements$

%. ,f the administration of all the property has &eentransferred to her$

'. ;hen the litigation is &etween hus&and and wife$A. ;hen the suit involves her paraphernal property$>. ;hen the action is a civil lia&ility arising from a

criminal lia&ility$

B. ,f the litigation is &ased on the profession$occupation or a &usiness in which she is engaged$

Marrage

Nature o% Marrage3Procedure &y which a man and a woman &ecome

hus&and in wife$ uniting for life.

3/ status involving duties or responsi&ilities whichare no longer matter for private regulations &ut the concernof the state.

3Civil or social institution which is the foundation of afamily and origin of domestic relations.

Purposes of 7arriage1. #eproduction!. 8ducation of the offspring". 7utual help

,mmediate purpose: constitute a complete and perfectcommunity &etween two individuals of different se4es.#emote purpose: preservation of human race.

FC Artc!e 1' 7arriage is a special contract of permanentunion &etween a man and a woman entered into inaccordance with law for the esta&lishment of con0ugal andfamily life. ,t is the foundation of the family and an inviola&lesocial institution whose nature conseDuences and incidentsare governed &y law and not su&0ect to stipulation$ e4ceptthat marriage settlements may fi4 the property relations

during the marriage within the limits provided &y this code.

)rdinary Contracts vs. 7arriage Contracts:3 )rdinary contracts may &e entered into &y any

num&er of persons of whatever se4 while marriagecan &e entered into only &y one man and onewoman.

3 ,n ordinary contracts the agreement of the parties

have the force of law &etween them while inmarriage$ the law fi4es the duties and rights of theparties.

3 )rdinary contracts can &e terminated &y mutuaagreement of the parties while marriage cannot &eso terminated. ?either can it &e terminated eventhough one of the parties su&seDuently &ecomeincapa&le of performing his part.

3 reach of ordinary contracts gives rise to an actionfor damages while &reach of the o&ligations of ahus&and or a wife does not give rise to such an

action..

3 The *tates role is to protect the family as the foundation othe nation.

PC Artc!e ;V:

KThe states role is to protect the family as the foundation ofsociety.*ection 1: *tate recogni5es the 9ilipino family as thefoundation of the nation.*ection !: 7arriage is an inviola&le social institution.*ection ": *tate shall defend3

1. The right of spouses to found a family in accordancewith their religion and the demands of responsi&le

parenthood.!. The right of children to assistance$ and specia

protection.". The right of family to a family living wage income.%. The right of families to participate in the planning

and implementation of policies and programs tha

affect them.*ection %: The family has the duty to care for its elderlymem&ers.

Breach o% Pro+"e

CC Artc!e 17' 8veryone must act with 0ustice$ give everyonehis due and o&serve honesty and good faith.

3The e4ercise of a right ends where the right disappears andit disappears when it is a&used$ to the pre0udice of others.

Good $aith- a&staining from taking advantage of others.

3/ &ride or groom who &reaks an engagement without reasoncausing moral and material in0ury to the other party is lia&le

for damages especially if the decision is made 0ust &efore thewedding and after a long engagement.

CC Artc!e 20' 8very person who willfully or negligentlycauses damage to another shall &e lia&le for indemnity.

3/ person is reDuired to act with prudence and diligence.

CC Artc!e 21' /ny person who willfully causes loss or in0uryto another in a manner contrary to morals$ good customs opu&lic policy is lia&le for damages.

3/cts which are not unlawful &ut are likewise contrary tomorals or good customs$ pu&lic order or policy shall fall unde

this provision. This article was created to provide adeDuatelegal remedy.

4illful ct- an act done with knowledge of the effect3 *eduction$ wherein a woman who was promised with

marriage gives herself to a man &ut was later left &y

the man Dualifies as deceit and may &e used as &asisfor indemnity.

3 *o long as there is a wrongful act and a resultingin0ury$ there should &e civil lia&ility.

SOP SOP

SOP


10/41

10

3The in0ury must &e the pro4imate cause of an act.3?o person shall un0ustly enrich himself at the e4pense ofanother.

CC Artc!e 21.5: ;hoever &y act or omission causesdamage to another$ there &eing fault or negligence$ is o&ligedto pay for the damage done. *uch fault or negligence is

considered a Duasi3delict and is governed &y law.

3assa(er vs. VelezFrancisco 0ele( and Beatrice )ass!er decided toget !arried on 'epte!eber, +D>. 1n 'ept. 5,0ele( left a note saying that the said !arriagehas to be postponed. &he following day, anothernote arrived saying the !arriage was still goingto push through. "fter that, plaintiff has neverheard fro! hi!.)hen plaintiff filed for evidence before the clerof court, the defendant was held in default and assuch, plaintiff was awarded P5,=== actualda!ages, P5>,=== !oral da!ages and P5,>== for

attorney#s fees. 7efendant filed a !otion for reliefand court gave both parties enough ti!e to settleoutside of court. /o such settle!ent happenedand several ti!es, the defendant ased forextension.%eld: &he !anner by which the defendant left theplaintiff, only a few days before the wedding, wascontrary to good custo!s. "t that ti!e, thewedding has been aptly prepared and the visitorshad been notified and so, that the plaintiff wasaffected is no longer in $uestion. ivil inde!nityis due in this case.

Tan-anco vs. CAFacts: "polinario &an2anco and "rceli 'antos areboth of adult age. 'antos consented to havesexual intercourse with &an2anco with thepro!ise of !arriage. "fter al!ost a year of suchrelationship, 'antos conceived of a child and dueto hu!iliation she left her 2ob at B* Philippineswhere she received P5


11/41

11

re!aining a!ount of !oney that he should beaccorded by virtue of the contract. Plaintiffalleged the contract was done so that he canacco!pany his wife on her travels.

&he total a!ount clai!ed until /ove!ber 3, +D,=== with


12/41

12

8udicial sanction for annul!ent of !arriageshould have been secured before hand.

Re*u"te" o% Marrage

E""enta! Re*u"te" o% Marrage

FC Artc!e 2' 8ssential #eDuisites of marriage are6

1. Legal capacity of contracting parties who must &emale or female.

!. Consent that is freely given in the presence of asolemni5ing officer authori5ed &y the state toconduct such marriage.

Lega! Ca#act$ o% Ma!e and Fe+a!e

,ones vs. 2allaanFacts: &wo wo!en appealed the decision of theircuit ourt which held that both of the! cannot!arry one another. Plaintiffs clai! that thedecision abridges the A$ual Protection clause and7ue Process clause of the fourteentha!end!ent.%eld: *arriage, in !any widely circulateddictionaries, are defined as a union between!an and wo!an,H and there is no authority tothe contrary.

&he plaintiffs were not being prevented by thestatutory provision to !arry. 9ather, they werebeing prevented by the!selves.

Goodrid)e vs. *epart(ent of Pu!lic ealtFacts: n *arch and "pril of 5==+, each of theplaintiff couples atte!pted to obtain the !arriagelicense fro! their respective city or town cler#soffice. "fter their re$uire!ents had beenco!pleted, the cler in each case refused toaccept the notice of intention to !arry or denieda !arriage license on the ground that*assachusetts does not recogni(e sa!e-sex!arriages. Plaintiffs filed a suit alleging thatexclusion of sa!e-sex couples fro! access to!arriage license and civil !arriage and itsbenefits is in violation of *assachusetts law.%eld: )ithout the right to !arry or the right tochoose to !arry, one is excluded fro! the fullrange of hu!an experience and denied fullprotection of the laws for one#s co!!it!ent tolasting hu!an relationships.

%eld: 7efense of procreation is not sufficientbecause sa!e-sex couples are still capable ofprocreation although their !ethods !ay not betraditional. Liewise, these couples are capable ofrearing children in such a setting, affir!ed by the*assachusetts law which allows adoption forsa!e-sex couples. 'a!e-sex couples should beafforded the sa!e benefits as opposite-sexcouples by virtue of the A$ual Protection and 7ueProcess clause of the +th a!end!ent.

Ba+er vs. StateFacts: 'a!e-sex couples brought action againstthe 'tate, city and town seeing declaratory

2udg!ent that the refusal to issue the! !arriagelicenses violated the co!!on benefits clause othe 0er!ont constitution. Plaintiffs clai! that

denial of !arriage license was tanta!ount todenial of legal benefits and protections of !aritarelations.%eld: Govern!ent is established for the co!!onbenefit of the people and co!!unity as a whole

&he state interests in preventing the !arriage ofsa!e-sex couples which are: Procreation andunifor!ity with other states, while valid, shouldnot be e!ployed through a !eans that wouldprevent sa!e-sex couples fro! ac$uiring thebenefits inherent to !arried life.

(efense of 7arriage /ct3 (efense of marriage as aninstitution$ as upheld &y "> states in the Enited *tates

3 % *tates have e4plicitly &anned same3se4 marriages.

3 =ermont and 7assachusetts have come up withlegislation that would allow same3se4 couples toen0oy the &enefits that opposite3se4 married couplesen0oy. ,n =ermont$ it is done through a civil union, in7assachusetts$ same3se4 marriage is now allowed.

Con"ent Free!$ =&en

FC Artc!e /' 7arriage is rendered void in the a&sence of anyof the essential reDuisites +stated in /rticle ! of 9C. ,f thereis any irregularity in the formal reDuisites$ the validity shalnot &e affect validity &ut either or &oth parties are civillycriminally and administratively lia&le.

FC Artc!e /4' +page B

People vs. 6elipe Santia)oFacts: Felipe 'antiago raped Felicita *asilang, +years old, a few paces fro! *anila /orth 9oad"fter the deed was done, defendant brought thegirl to the house of "gaton 'antiago, thedefendant#s uncle, who later found a protestant!inister who ad!inistered the !arriage o'antiago to *asilang. "fter the !arriage, thevicti! was given a few pesos and was told toleave.%eld: &he !arriage is void first, because the

victi! did not have his father#s consent to !arryand second, because the victi! was under duressand was thereby incapable of giving her consentfreely. "lso, Felipe 'antiago did not really intendto !arry Felicita *asilang. %e only did so toescape cri!inal liability. "s such, the !arriage isvoid because the consent of 'antiago is not freelygiven. &he consent referred to here is not theconsent of Felicita but that of Felipe who had nointention of !arrying Felicita.

SOP SOP

SOP


13/41

13

Buccat vs. &an)onon de Buccat

Ei)en(ann vs. GuerraFacts: Petition was instituted by AduardoAigen!ann to annul his !arriage to *arydenGuerra on the grounds that he was a !inor who

needed consent fro! his parents when he!arried +?-5= years old; and such consent wasnot given. %e alleged that he was threatened andcoerced into the !arriage and that thesole!ni(ing officer who ad!inistered the!arriage license was not authori(ed therebyrendering the said license void ab initio.%eld: &he !arriage license confir!ed thatplaintiff !isrepresented hi!self to be of legal agethere for he is sub2ect to an estoppel preventinghi!self to invoe !inority. &he said threat wasnot sufficient to hold that he was coerced intoconsenting to the !arriage because it was not

really threatening. Lastly, !arriages sole!ni(edby a license obtained wrongfully, !erely rendersthe !arriage to be irregular and is not null, voidor voidable.

For+a! Re*u"te"3 84ternal to the partiesFor+a! Re*u"te" o% Marrage

FC Artc!e -' 9ormal #eDuisites of 7arriage61. /uthority of the solemni5ing officer$!. =alid marriage license e4cept in cases provided$

". 7arriage ceremony with the appearance ofcontracting parties &efore a solemni5ing officer$

%. Two witnesses that are of legal age$

'. (eclaration that they take each other as man andwife.

Authort$ o% the So!e+n>ng O%%cer

FC Artc!e .' 7arriage may &e solemni5ed &y:1. /ny incum&ent mem&er of the 0udiciary within the

courts 0urisdiction!. /ny priest$ ra&&i$ imam or minister of any church or

religious sect duly authori5ed &y his church orreligious sect and registered with the civil registrargeneral$ acting within the limits of the writtenauthority granted him &y his church or religious sect

and provided that at least one of the contractingparties &elongs to the solemni5ing officers church orreligious sect

". /ny ship captain or airplane chief only in the casesmentioned in /rticle "1

%. /ny military commander of a unit to which a chaplain

is assigned$ in the a&sence of the latter$ during amilitary operation$ likewise only in cases mentionedin /rticle "!

'. /ny consul3general$ consul or vice3consul in the caseprovided in /rticle 1@.

3 ;ithout registration of the solemni5ing officer withthe office of the Civil #egistrar the marriage is void.

The same is true if the solemni5ing priest s noauthori5ed &y his church.

3 / resulting irregularity that will not affect the validityof the marriage is one where there is mistake of factand not mistake of law.

3 ,gnorantia legis non e4cusatFC Artc!e 10' 7arriages &etween 9ilipino citi5ens a&roadmay &e solemni5ed &y a consul or vice3consul of the #epu&lic

of the Philippines. The issuance of the marriage license andthe duties of the local civil registrar and of the solemni5ingofficer with regard to the cele&ration of marriage shall &eperformed &y the consular official.

FC Artc!e -1' / marriage in articulo mortis2 &etween

passengers or crew mem&ers may also &e solemni5ed &y aship captain or &y an airplane pilot not only while the ship isat sea or the plane is in flight &ut also during stopovers atports of call.K/t the point of death

FC Artc!e -2' / military commander of a unit$ who is acommissioned officer$ shall likewise have authority to

solemni5e marriages in articulo mortis &etween personswithin the 5one of military operation$ whether mem&ers of the

armed forces or civilians.

FC Artc!e /' The a&sence of any of the essential or formareDuisites shall render the marriage void a& initio$ e4cept as

stated in article "' a./ defect in any of the essential reDuisites shal

render the marriage voida&le as provided in article %'./n irregularity in the formal reDuisites shall no

affect the validity of the marriage &ut the party or the partiesresponsi&le for the irregularity shall &e civilly$ criminally o

administratively lia&le.

FC Artc!e -4 829' The following marriages shall &e void fromthe &eginning:+! Those solemni5ed &y any person not legally authori5ed toperform marriages unless such marriages were contracted

with either or &oth parties &elieving in god faith that thesolemni5ing officer had legal authority to do so.

CC Artc!e -' ,gnorance of the law e4cuses no one fromcompliance therewith.

Navarro vs. *o(a)to"Facts: &his is an ad!inistrative case filed by9odolfo G. /avarro against %ernando 7o!agtoy who allegedly sole!ni(ed the!arriage between Gaspar ". &agadan and "rlynBor2a despite nowledge that the groo! was onlyseparated with his for!er wife who was alreadyabsent for seven years. "lso, the respondent

2udge also sole!ni(ed the !arriage of Floriano'u!aylo and Ge!!a del 9osario outside the

2urisdiction of the respondent.%eld: 1n the second !arriage, there is a resultingirregularity because !arriage !ay only beconducted elsewhere only if there is a writtenre$uest co!ing fro! both parties. n the case athand, the re$uest only ca!e fro! one party

8udges !ay only officiate weddings within thei 2urisdiction otherwise there will be an irregularity

SOP SOP

SOP


14/41

14

with the for!al re$uisites. "rticle states that!arriages !ay be conducted elsewhere providedthat there is written re$uest co!ing fro! bothparties to the !arriage.

Aranes vs. Occiano*ercidita "ranes charged presiding 2udge

'alvador 1cciano of gross ignorance of the lawfor sole!ni(ing her !arriage with her husbandwithout a license and outside his 2urisdiction.9espondent 2udge clai!s that he agreed tosole!ni(ing the !arriage provided that thelicense will be delivered to hi! on the sa!e dayhowever, no such license ever ca!e. /o record ofthe application for a !arriage license because itwas denied when the husband failed to presentthe death certificate of his first wife.%eld: 9espondent 2udge is liable for failure toascertain the existence of a !arriage license.Presenting a !arriage license after the

sole!ni(ation of the wedding does not, in anyway validate the !arriage. "lso, under BP +5D,the authority of the 2udges of inferior courts tosole!ni(e !arriage is confined to their territorial

2urisdiction. &he authority of the 2udge tosole!ni(e a !arriage is derived fro! the!arriage license.

Marrage Lcen"e

FC Artc!e 7' / marriage license shall &e issued &y the localregistrar of the city or municipality where either contracting

party ha&itually resides$ e4cept in marriages where no licenseis reDuired in accordance with chapter ! of this Title.

FC Artc!e -/' ?o marriage shall &e necessary for themarriage of a man and a woman who have lived together ashus&and and wife for at least five years and without any legal

impediment to marry each other. The contracting parties shallstate the foregoing facts in an affidavit &efore any personauthori5ed &y law to administer oaths. The solemni5ing officershall also state under oath that he ascertained theDualifications of the contracting parties and found no legalimpediment to the marriage.

PD754' / decree reDuiring applicants for marriage licenses toreceive instructions on family planning and responsi&leparenthood.

1epu!lic of te Pilippines vs. CA and

CastroFacts: "ngelina *. astro filed a petition for a

2udicial declaration of nullity of her !arriage toAdwin F. ardinas which was granted by theourt of "ppeals. &hen petitioner astro wasseparated after four !onths of !arriage withardinas. "s such, astro sought for the nullity ofher !arriage before she left for the 6'. Plaintiff9epublic of the Philippines challenged thedecision of the appellate court because astro#s

clai! that there was no !arriage license wasonly supported by a due search and inability tofindH certification issued by the local civiregistrar of Pasig and austro#s own testi!ony.%eld: /o !arriage shall be sole!ni(ed without a!arriage license otherwise it will be renderedvoid ab initio. &he certification of due search and

inability to findH is sufficient to hold that no proofof license exists and the testi!ony is sufficientbecause the !arriage was a secret !arriage andunder the circu!stances it is understandable thatthere can be no other witness.

&oreno vs. Berna!eFacts: *arilou /a!a *oreno filed the co!plaintagainst 8udge 8ose . Bernabe for grave!isconduct and gross ignorance of the law"ccording to the co!plainant, respondent 2udgesole!ni(ed her !arriage with *arcelo *orenoassured that the contract will be released after +=

days. 9espondent 2udge clai!s that the failure toproduce the contract was due to the failure of theLocal 9egistrar of Pasig to release the !arriagelicense. %e was assured, when he sole!ni(ed the!arriage, that the license was forthco!ing assuch, he agreed to conduct the cere!ony bure!inded the plaintiff and her husband of theconse$uences of conducting the cere!onywithout a !arriage license.%eld: *arriage cere!onies, absent of a !arriagelicense, are void ab initio.

People vs. Borro(eo

Facts: 7efendant Alias Borro!eo appealed hisconviction of parricide and his sentence oreclusion perpetua. 1n 8uly


15/41

15

contract he signed to the 1ffice of the ivil9egistrar of &oledo ity within the re$uired +>days. &he 9espondent 2udge contended that heagreed to sole!ni(e the !arriage of the twoparties with the agree!ent that the !arriagelicense will be given in the afternoon, which thecouple failed to do. Eears later when *arlyn

8agonoy returned asing for the !arriagecontract so that she can clai! the pension of herdeceased husband, respondent 2udge issued a!arriage contract despite of the nowledge thatthere is still no !arriage license as the deceasedand his widow failed to attend a fa!ily planningsession.%eld: abrera was expected to follow the dictatesof his profession. %is decision to co!!it an actoutside the boundaries of the law cannot be

2ustified by good faith. *arriages sole!ni(edwithout a !arriage license is void ab initio.

Cere+on$

FC Artc!e 5' ?o prescri&ed form or religious rite for thesolemni5ation of the marriage is reDuired. ,t shall &e

necessary however$ for the contracting parties to appearpersonally &efore the solemni5ing officer and declare in thepresence of not less than two witnesses of legal age that theytake each other as hus&and and wife. This declaration shall &econtained in the marriage certificate which shall &e signed &ythe contracting parties and their witnesses and attested &ythe solemni5ing officer.

,n case of marriage in articulo mortis$ when the

party at the point of death is una&le to sign the marriagecertificate$ it shall &e sufficient for one of the witnesses to themarriage to write the name of said party$ which fat shall &eattested &y the solemni5ing officer.

#eDuisites of 7arriage Ceremony:

3 9or &oth parties to appear personally &efore thesolemni5ing officer

3 That there is presence of not less than two witnessesof legal age

3 That &oth party take each other as hus&and and wife

FC Artc!e 6' The marriage shall &e solemni5ed pu&licly inthe cham&ers of the 0udge or in open court$ in the church$chapel or temple$ or in the office of the consul3general$ consulor vice3consul$ as the case may &e$ and not elsewhere$e4cept in cases of marriages contracted on the point of deathor in remote places in accordance with /rticle !H of this Code$or where &oth of the parties reDuest the solemni5ing officer inwriting in which case$ the marriage may &e solemni5ed at a

house or place designated &y them in a sworn statement tothat effect.3 ;hatever venue is chosen$ it must &e within the 0urisdictionof the solemni5ing officer.

FC Artc!e 26' ,f the residence of either party is so located

that there is no means of transportation to ena&le such partyto appear personally &efore the local civil registrar$ themarriage may &e solemni5ed without the necessity of amarriage license.

3 /pplica&le when one of the parties is handicapped

FC Artc!e 27' The solemni5ing officer shall state in anaffidavit the e4ecuted &efore the local civil registrar or anyother person legally authori5ed to administer oaths that themarriage was performed in articulo mortis or that theresidence of either party$ specifying the &arrio or &arangay$ isso located that there is no means of transportation to ena&lesuch party to appear personally &efore the local civil registrarand that officer took the necessary steps to ascertain the

ages and relationship of the contracting parties and thea&sence of legal impediment to marriage.

FC Artc!e22' The marriage certificate shall state:1. 9ull name$ sec and age!. Citi5enship$ religion and ha&itual residence

". the date and precise time of the cele&ration%. That the proper marriage license has &een issued

according to law'. That either or &oth of the contracting parties have

secured the parental consent +if it appliesA. That either or &oth of the contracting parties have

complied with the legal reDuirement regardingparental advice +where it applies

>. That the parties have entered into a marriagesettlement$ if any$ attaching a copy thereof.

FC Artc!e 2-' ,t is the duty of the solemni5ing officer tofurnish either of the contracting parties the original of themarriage certificate and to send the duplicate and triplicate

copies not later that fifteen days after the marriage$ to thelocal civil registrar of the place where the marriage wassolemni5ed. Proper receipts shall &e issued &y the local civiregistrar to the solemni5ing officer transmitting the copies othe marriage certificate. The solemni5ing officer shall retain inhis file the Duadruplicate copy of the marriage certificate$ the

original of the marriage license$ and the affidavit of thecontracting party regarding the solemni5ation of the marriagein another place.

FC Artc!e 2/' ,t shall &e the duty of the local civil registrato prepare the documents reDuired and to administer oaths to

all interested parties without any charge in &oth cases. Thedocuments and affidavits filed in connection with applications

for marriage licenses shall &e e4empt from documentarystamp ta4.

#eDuisites of a 7arriage Ceremony

&artinez vs. TanFacts: 9osalia *artine( and "ngel &an signed apetition directed to the 8ustice of Peace statingtherein their agree!ent to contract !arriage

&he docu!ent was signed by the defendant andplaintiff and the 8ustice of Peace and twowitnesses na!ely Jacharias As!ero and Pacita

Ballori. " certificate of !arriage was liewisesigned by the 8ustice and the witnesses attestingthat a !arriage did ensue. Plaintiff alleged thatshe did not attend the cere!ony and that sheonly signed it. 9osario Bayot attested that on theday of the !arriage, the plaintiff never left herco!pany. Pacita Ballori attested otherwise. "partfro! that, several letters fro! the plaintiff for thedefendant prove that plaintiff indeed intended to!arry the defendant.

SOP SOP

SOP


16/41

16

%eld: &he docu!ents signed were sufficient toprove that what too place before the 8ustice ofPeace was legal and the cere!ony a!ounted to awedding.

&elecio &adride-o vs. Gonzalo de 4eonFacts: Aulogio de Leon and Flaviana Pere( had

one childK7o!ingo de Leon. n the year +D+>,Aulogio died leaving Flaviana with 7o!ingo.Flaviana later lived with Pedro *adride2o andbore a childK*elecio. 1n 8une , +D5=, Flaviana,nowing that she will die soon, !arried Pedro.'he died the following day. *elecio *adride2oclai!ed that he is the next of in of 7o!ingo deLeon who died as well. 7efendant clai!ed thatthe wedding of Pedro and Flaviana was not validbecause the sole!ni(ing officer failed to send acopy of the !arriage certificate to the *unicipal'ecretary. "lso, *elecio *adride2o was allegedlynot a legiti!ate child.

%eld: Forwarding of the !arriage certificate is notan essential re$uisite of the !arriage. Failure todo so does not invalidate the !arriage. For asubse$uent !arriage to effectively legiti!ate achild born out of wedloc, the child !ust beacnowledged by the parents in so!e publicdocu!ent or be in the uninterrupted possessionof the status of a natural child. n the case athand, *elecio *adride2o was not legiti!ated. /opublic docu!ent to that effect exists and he wasnot able to prove that he has been in anuninterrupted status of the natural child.

Pre"u+#ton o% Marrage

CC Artc!e 220' ,n case of dou&t$ all presumptions favor thesolidarity of the family. Thus$ every intendment of law orfacts leans toward the validity of marriage$ the indissolu&ility

of the marriage &onds$ the legitimacy of children$ thecommunity of property during marriage$ the authority ofparents over their children$ and the validity of defense for anymem&er of the family in case of unlawful aggression.RC Secton - Ru!e 1-1' That persons acting as copartnershave entered into a contract of copartneship

1. That a man and woman deporting themselves as hus&andand wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage

!. That property acDuired &y a man and a woman who is

capacitated to marry each other and who live e4clusively witheach other as hus&and and wife without the &enefit ofmarriage or under void marriage$ has &een o&tained &y their

0oint efforts$ work or industry.

". That in cases of coha&itation &y a man and a woman whoare not capacitated to marry each other and who haveacDuire properly through their actual 0oint contri&ution ofmoney$ property or industry$ such contri&utions and their

corresponding shares including 0oint deposits of money andevidences of credit are eDual.

Trinidad vs. CA$ Trinidad and TrinidadFacts: "rturio &rinidad, was the son of nocentes

&rinidad and nephew of Lourdes and Felix &rinidad. &he three siblings, nocentes, Lourdesand Felix, inherited a piece of land fro! theifather, Patricio &rinidad. 7efendants clai!ed that

the land in $uestion has been in their possessionsince the death of their father and that nocentesdied in +D+ and not in +D as alleged by"rturio. &hey also contend that nocentes nevefathered a child nor was he ever !arried. "rturioon the other hand alleged that his father was!arried to Felicidad *olato, his !other. 'everawitnesses living within the neighborhood testifiedto the !arriage and the birth of "rturio and that"rturio contrary to the clai!s of Lourdes andFelix had lived in their house for so!e ti!e9elevant public docu!ents valuable as evidencewere destroyed during the war.

%eld: *arriage !ay be proven by relevanevidences such as: testi!ony of a witness to the!atri!ony, public and open cohabitation, birthand baptis!al certificate signed by the couple oa !ention of the !arriage in other publicdocu!ents. &wo witnesses attested that thecouple cohabited and that "rturio was their son"s proof of filiation with Felix and Lourdes, twofa!ily pictures were shown where "rturio was inthe co!pany of Lourdes and Felix and thewitnesses liewise attested that "rturio had livedwith his aunt and uncle. &he preponderance ofevidence supported the clai!s of "rturio.

Vda. *e ,aco! vs. CA and PilapilFacts: Plaintiff clai!ed to be the surviving spouseof 7r. "lfredo A. 8acob and appointed speciaad!inistratix for his estates by virtue of areconstructed !arriage contract recogni(ed bytheir sole!ni(ing officer who ad!itted that helost the !arriage contract earlier on. &he court oappeals ruled against the plaintiff on the groundsthat no copy of the contract was sent and norecord of the !arriage existed and that 7r"lfredo signed the contract with his thu!b!arand not with his own na!e. Lastly, court oappeals stated that the reconstructed !arriagecontract was signed by Ben2a!in *olina and notby 8ose entera who the plaintiff said allegedlylost the !arriage contract.%eld: 7r. "lfredo and Plaintiff &o!asa had livedtogether for over five years and the deceasedsigned an affidavit to that effect. "ccording to"rticle 3? of the ivil ode, no !arriage licenseshall be necessary when a !an and a wo!anwho have reached the age of !a2ority have livedtogether as husband and wife for at least five

SOP SOP

SOP


17/41

17

years. "lso, failure to send a copy of the !arriagecertificate for record purposes does not invalidatethe !arriage. t was not the petitioner#s duty toensure that the copy reached the civil registrar#soffice. 'econdary evidence proved that there wasa cere!ony. &he sole!ni(ing officer and "delaPilapil attested to that effect. "lso the na!e of

the couple was recorded in the Boo of!arriages.

3 ,n the a&sence of a marriage contract$ there should &e proofof due e4ecution which can &e given &y witnesses and proofof loss of marriage certificate &efore the reconstructedcertificate may &e admitted

Vod Marrage"

FC Artc!e /' The a&sence of any of the essential or formareDuisites shall render the marriage void a& initio$ e4cept asstated in /rticle "'./ defect in any of the essential reDuisites shall render themarriage voida&le as provided in /rticle %'.

/n irregularity in the formal reDuisites of shall not affect the

validity of the marriage &ut the party or parties responsi&lefor the irregularity shall &e civilly$ criminally andadministratively lia&le.

FC Artc!e -4' The following marriages shall &e void from the&eginning:

1. Those contracted &y any party &elow eighteen yearof age$ even with the consent of parents oguardians

!. Those solemni5ed &y any person not legallyauthori5ed to perform marriages unless suchmarriages were contracted with either or &othparties &elieving in good faith that the solemni5ing

officer had the legal authority to do so". Those solemni5ed without a license$ e4cept those

covered &y the preceding chapter%. Those &igamous or polygamous marriages not falling

under /rticle %1'. Those contracted through mistake of one contracting

party as to the identity of the otherA. Those su&seDuent marriages that are void unde

/rticle '".

3 ,n ordinary contracts +1 the child will not &eemancipated from parental authority. ,n marriagethe child will &e emancipated.

3 ,f it is a mistake of fact$ the marriage is valid. ,f it isa mistake of law$ the marriage is void.

3 Paragraph ' refers to physical mistake in identity)ther fraudulent misrepresentation would not apply.

FC Artc!e -5' / marriage contracted &y any party who$ atthe time of the cele&ration was psychologically incapacitated

to comply with the essential marital o&ligations of marriageshall likewise &e void even if such incapacity &ecomesmanifest only after solemni5ation.3Psychological incapacity to comply is different from inabilityto understand &ecause the latter is a vice of consent$ withoutwhich$ an essential reDuisite of marriage is lacking.

#easons for adopting psychological incapacity as a ground fodeclaration of nullity:

3 *u&stitute for divorce

SOP SOP

SOP


18/41

18

3 *olution of church3annulled marriages3 To give remedy to the parties imprisoned &y

marriage.

Psychological incapacity vs. =ice of consent3 a person may fully agree &ut may not understand

the o&ligations of marriage.3 Psychological incapacity is not a vice of consent &ut

there is a lack of legal capacity$ an essential reDuisiteof marriage.

Psychological ,ncapacity vs. ,nsanity3 ,nsanity has varying degree3 ,nsanity is cura&le

3 There are lucid intervals in insanity3 ,nsanity is a ground for annulment in other countries

?ote: Psychological incapacity was not defined usinge4amples to avoid e0usdem generis +e4clusive enumerationwhich might limit the applica&ility of the provision. ,t istherefore 0udged according to the facts of the case.

3 Psychological incapacity should e4ist at the time ofthe marriage.

3 Psychological incapacity is restricted to disordersdemonstrative of the utter sensitivity or ina&ility togive meaning and significance to the marriage.

84amples of psychological incapacity:1. Fomose4uality!. *atryiasis or ?ymphomania". 8pilepsy with permanently recurring maladaptive

manifestationsl%. 84tremely low intelligencel

'. Fa&itual /lcoholismA. Criminality

7anifestations of psychological incapacity:3 #efusal of wife to dwell with the hus&and after

marriage

3 /ffliction which makes common life un&eara&le3 *ociopathic anomalies on hus&ands part

Santos vs. Bedia'SantosFacts: Louel 'antos who was !arried to 8uliaBedia-'antos wishes to annul his !arriage basedon "rticle


19/41

19

fruits$ such o&ligations shall &e satisfiedfrom their separate properties +9C /rticle>@.

d. The management of the household shall &ethe right and duty of &oth spouses. Thee4penses for such management shall &epaid in accordance with the provisions of/rticle >@ +9C /rticle >1.

>. ,nterpretations given &y the ?ational /ppellate7atrimonial Tri&unal of the Catholic Church in thePhilippines$ while not controlling or decisive$ should&e given great respect &y our courts.

Apia) vs. CanteroFacts: *aria "piag filed an ad!inistrative caseagainst her husband, respondent 2udge,As!eraldo G. antero. &he ourt of "ppealsdecided that the respondent acted in grave!isconduct. &he plaintiff and respondent were!arried and petitioner bore 5 children by that!arriage. "fter the second child was born,respondent 2udge left for no reason. Plaintiffs,through their counsel ased respondent forsupport and for the children to be declared legalheirs. o!plainants subse$uently learned thatrespondent has contracted another !arriage withwho! he had > children. 9espondent!isrepresented hi!self in his declaration ofassets and liabilities by putting the na!e of thesecond wife on the said state!ent. %e contendedthat the first !arriage was void ab initio becausehe and his first wife never cohabited and he wasforced into the !arriage. %e added that he andthe petitioners have settled a!icably and he hasagreed to give the children of his retire!entbenefits.%eld: )hile he did not act in grave !isconduct,he acted in i!propriety when he failed andrefused to attend to the needs of his children."lthough it is undisputed that the 2udge did notobtain a 2udicial declaration of nullity of his first!arriage, pursuant to the 2urisprudenceprevailing at the ti!e of the second !arriage, ithas been established that no such declarationwas necessary.

Coa vs. CoaFacts: 9espondent "lfonso hoa filed a co!plaint

for the annul!ent of his !arriage to petitionerLeni hoa on the grounds of psychologicalincapacity. Petitioner filed a de!urrer of evidencean ob2ection or exception by one of the parties inan action at law to the effect that the evidencewhich the adversary produced is insufficient inpoint of law to !ae out a case and sustain theissue;. &he de!urrer of evidence was dis!issedby the appellate court which upheld that theclai!s of "lfonso hoaKthat her wife had filed

several lawsuits against hi! indicatingpsychological incapacity and that his wife wasi!!ature, carefree and had no intentions oprocreative sexualityKas sufficient evidence.%eld: Psychological incapacity !ust becharacteri(ed by gravity, 2uridical antecedenceand incurability. &he testi!ony of the exper

doctor and the respondent only showed that thetwo cannot get along with each other.

Tsoi vs. CAFacts: 9espondent Gina Lao &soi filed foannul!ent of her !arriage to petitioner hi *ing

&soi on the ground of psychological incapacity9espondent alleged that since their !arriage in*ay 55, +D until *arch +>, +DD, the couplehas not consu!!ated their !arriage. 7efendancontended that it was the wife#s fault that their!arriage was not consu!!ated. " physicianexa!ined both plaintiff and defendant and

attested that neither of the! had any physicaproble!. 7efendant alleged that the wife wasafraid to consu!!ate the !arriage and afraidthat she would have to return the 2ewelry given toher.%eld: )hether or not it was the husband whorefused to consu!!ate the !arriage isi!!aterial. &he fact still stands that it has notbeen consu!!ated. &here !ay be physical andnot psychological reasons as to why the !arriageshould not be annulled but the evidence to thateffect was not presented. atholic !arriagetribunals attribute the causes to psychologica

incapacity than stubborn refusal. &he naturaorder between spouses is sexual inti!acy.

Antonio vs. 1e"es Facts: Petitioner filed a petition for thedeclaration of his !arriage to respondent as nuland void on the grounds of psychologicaincapacity as !anifested by several instances olying and conceal!ent of an illegiti!ate child by9espondent vonne 9eyes. Petitioner alleged tharespondent fabricated stories which bordered onthe ridiculous.%eld: *arriage was void by virtue of the *olinaguidelines, fulfilled by the Petitioner.

FC Artc!e -.' 7arriages &etween the following areincestuous and void from the &eginning$ whether therelationship &etween the parties is legitimate or illegitimate.

1. etween ascendants and descendants of any degreeand

!. etween &rothers and sisters$ whether of full or hal&lood.

FC Artc!e -6' The following marriages shall &e void from the&eginning for reasons of pu&lic policy:

SOP SOP

SOP


20/41

20

1. etween collateral &lood relatives$ whetherlegitimate or illegitimate$ up to the fourth civildegree

!. etween step3parents and step3children". etween parents3in3law and children3in3law%. etween the adopting parent and the adopted child'. etween the surviving spouse of the adopting parent

and the adopted child

A. etween the surviving spouse of the adopted childand the adopter

>. etween an adopted child and a legitimate child ofthe adopter

B. etween adopted children of the same adopter andH. etween parties where one$ with the intention to

marry the other$ killed that other persons spouse orhis or her own spouse.

FC Artc!e -7' The action or defense for the declaration ofa&solute nullity of a marriage shall not prescri&e. Fowever$ inthe case of marriages cele&rated &efore the effectivity of thiscode and falling under /rticle "A$ such action or defense shallprescri&e in ten years after this code shall have taken effect.

FC Artc!e /0' The a&solute nullity of a previous marriage

may &e invoked for purposes of remarriage on the &asissolely of a final 0udgment declaring such previous marriagevoid.3 9inal 0udgment is needed to avoid confusion &ecause one of

the parties may contract another marriage which would &e&igamous and therefore void during the pendency of the trialfor the other marriage.

FC Artc!e /1' / marriage contracted &y any person duringthe su&sistence of a previous marriage shall &e null and void$

unless &efore the cele&ration of the su&seDuent marriage$ theprior spouse had &een a&sent for fourK consecutive years andthe spouse present had a well3founded &elief that the a&sentspouse was already dead. ,n case of disappearance wherethere is danger of death under the circumstances set forth inthe provisions of /rticle "H1 of the Civil Code$ an a&sence of

only two years shall &e sufficient.9or the purpose of contracting the su&seDuent marriage under

the preceding paragraph$ the spouse present must institute asummary proceeding as provided in this Code for thedeclaration of presumptive death of the a&sentee$ withoutpre0udice to the effect of reappearance of the a&sent spouse.

FC Artc!e //' ,f &oth spouses of the su&seDuent marriage

acted in &ad faith$ said marriage shall &e void a& initio and alldonations &y reason of marriage and testamentarydispositions made &y one in favor of the other are revoked &yoperation of law.

RA 64--

CC Artc!e -70' /fter an a&sence of seven years$ it &eingunknown whether or not the a&sentee still lives$ he shall &epresumed dead for all purposes$ e4cept for those ofsuccession. The a&sentee shall not &e presumed dead for thepurposes of opening his succession till after an a&sence of tenyears. ,f he disappeared after the age of seventy3five years$an a&sence of five years shall &e sufficient in order that his

succession may &e open.

CC Artc!e -71' The following shall &e presumed dead for allpurposes$ including the division of the estate among theheirs

1. / person on &oard a vessel lost during sea voyageor an airplane which is missing$ who has not &eenheard of for four years since the loss of the vessel oairplane

!. / person in the armed forces who has taken part inwar$ and has &een missing for four years

". / person who has &een in danger of death undeother circumstances and his e4istence has not &een

known for four years.

People vs. &endozaFacts: "ppellant was !arried to 8ovita de "sis on"ugust >, +D


21/41

21

that the first !arriage was void ab initio becauseshe was forced into !arrying her first husband.%eld: &here was no need to present evidencebecause if there had been, in fact, inti!idationduring the first !arriage, the said !arriage wouldhave been rendered voidable and not void. %adthe !arriage been void, a 2udicial declaration

would still be necessary.

Terre vs. TerreFacts: Petitioner charged "tty 8ordan &erre withgross i!!oral conduct for contracting a second!arriage while he has a subsisting !arriage. &hepetitioner alleged that while she was still in herprevious !arriage with her first cousin, she wascourted by defendant and was advised that shewas free to contract a second !arriage becauseher first !arriage was void. Petitioner too theadvise and !arried herein respondent but, after afew years, the respondent too off. Later the

petitioner found out that respondent hadcontracted another !arriage.%eld: " 2udicial declaration is necessary todeter!ine whether a person is legally free tocontract a second !arriage. )ithout suchdeclaration, the subse$uently existing !arriage issustained.

Atienza vs. BrillantesFacts: o!plainant charged respondent 8udgeFransisco Brillantes with gross i!!oral conductafter having found said respondent sleeping in hisown bed, apparently cohabiting with his wife.

o!plainant left his wife and ids. o!plainantalleged that the said 2udge was, at that ti!e,!arried to one Jenaida 1ngio with who! hehad > children. 9espondent denied the allegationsaying that his !arriage with 1ngio was voidab initio because it was sole!ni(ed without a!arriage license. 9espondent liewise arguedthat "rticle = of the fa!ily code was not in effectwhen his first !arriage too place.%eld: 8udicial declaration of nullity of a previous!arriage is needed for purposes of re!arriage.

&he Fa!ily ode can be applied retroactively solong as vested rights will not be i!paired by itsapplication.

Bor-a'&anzano vs. SancezFacts: o!plainant avers that she is the lawfulwife of the late 7avid *an(ano. %er husbandcontracted another !arriage while the first onewas still in effect, sole!ni(ed by hereinrespondent 2udge. 9espondent contends that hedid not now that the two were only legallyseparated and that all he new was the two hadbeen cohabiting for seven years. %e cited "rticle

years.%eld: &he re$uisite of "rticle


22/41

22

property or sound securities$ unless the parties$ &y mutualagreement 0udicially approved$ had already provided for suchmatters.The children or their guardian or the trustee of their propertymay ask for the enforcement of the 0udgment.The delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescri&edshall in no way pre0udice the ultimate successional rights ofthe children accruing upon the death of either or &oth of the

parents &ut the value of the properties already received underthe decree of annulment or a&solute nullity shall &econsidered as advances on their legitimes.

FC Artc!e 42' The 0udgment of annulment or of a&solutenullity of the marriage$ the partition and distri&ution of the

properties of the spouses$ and the delivery of the childrenspresumptive legitimes shall &e recoded in the appropriate civilregistry and registries of property otherwise$ the same shallnot affect the third persons.

FC Artc!e 4-' 8ither of the former spouses may marry againafter compliance with the reDuirements of the immediatelypreceding /rticle otherwise$ the su&seDuent marriage shall

&e null and void.

FC Artc!e 4/' Children conceived or &orn &efore the 0udgment of annulment or a&solute nullity of the marriageunder /rticle "A has &ecome final and e4ecutory shall &econsicered legitimate. Children conceived or &orn of the

su&seDuent marriage under /rticle '" shall likewise &elegitimate.

Ninal vs. Ba"ado)Facts: Petitioners re$uest the annul!ent of the!arriage of their father to /or!a Bayadog. 1n'epte!ber 5?, +D3, Pepito !arried &eodulfa.

&eodulfa died on "pril 5, 5D> and, on7ece!ber ++, +D?, Pepito !arried /or!aBayadog. &he !arriage was contracted without a

license. nstead, the couple signed an affidavitstating that they had been cohabiting as husbandand wife for > years. &he code in effect during theti!e of the !arriage was the ivil ode."ccording to "rticle 3? of the said code, !arriagebetween a !an and a wo!an who have beenliving together for !ore than > years no longerre$uires a !arriage license. Pepito died inFebruary of +DD3.%eld: *arriage of Pepito /inal 'r. and /or!aBayadog is null and void. t is evident that only 5=!onths elapsed between the ti!e of the death ofthe first wife and the !arriage with the secondwife. %ad the two been cohabiting for five years,such cohabitation, and the !arriage, was notwithin the capacity of the deceased. &he childrendo not have standing to cause action but,because the !arriage was null and void, it isliewise non-existent.

3 9or marriages of e4ceptional character$ there should &e nolegal impediment on the part of either party. The onecontracting a marriage should have legal capacity to do so.

Voda(!e Marrage"

rounds for /nnulment

FC Artc!e /4' / marriage may &e annulled for any of thefollowing causes$ e4isting at the time of the marriage:

1. That the party in whose &ehalf it is sought to havemarriage annulled was eighteen years of age or ove&ut &elow twenty3one$ and the marriage was

SOP SOP

SOP


23/41

23

solemni5ed without the consent of the parents$guardian or person having su&stitute parentalauthority over the party$ in that order$ unless afterattaining the age of twenty3one$ such party freelycoha&ited with the other and &oth lived together ashus&and and wife

!. That either party was of unsound mind$ unless suchparty after coming to reason$ freely coha&ited with

the other as hus&and and wife". That the consent of either party was o&tained &y

fraud$ unless such party afterwards$ with fullknowledge of the facts constituting the fraud$ freelycoha&ited with the other as hus&and and wife

%. That the consent of either party was o&tained &y

force$ intimidation or undue influence$ unless thesame having disappeared or ceased$ such partythereafter freely coha&ited with the other as hus&andand wife

'. That either party was physically incapa&le ofconsummating the marriage with the other$ and suchincapacity continues and appears to &e incura&le

A. That either party was afflicted with a se4ually3

transmitted disease found to &e serious and appearsto &e incura&le.

/nnulment and Legal *eparation:3 /nnulment is caused &y some circumstance e4isting

at the time of the marriage while legal separation

arises after the cele&ration of the marriage3 /nnulment of marriage terminates the marital &ond

&etween the parties while legal separation does not3 /nnulment of marriage once final$ cannot &e set

aside so as to restore the marital relation while legalseparation may &e terminated and marital relations

resumed &y the reconciliation of the parties.

The presumption of the law is generally in favor of sanityand he who alleges the insanity of another has the&urden of proving it. )nce general insanity is proved toe4ist$ it is presumed to continue and if a recovery or a

lucid interval is alleged$ the &urden to prove such is onthe person making it.

/ marriage may &e annulled where one of the parties wasso into4icated he or she had no mental capacity to givevalid assent.

9or physical incapacity$ impotence or se4ually

transmitted disease to &e a ground for annulment thefollowing must concur:1. That it e4ists at the time of the cele&ration of the

marriage!. That it continues to the time when the case for

annulment is &eing tried". That it appears to &e incura&le$%. That the other contracting party is aware of it.

3 ,n impotence$ the person cannot have se4. ,n sterility$ theperson cannot procreate.3 ,mpotence is not a ground for declaration of nullity &ecausethe in0ured spouse may accept the impotence of his or herspouse.FC Artc!e /5' The following shall constitute fraud:

1. ?on3disclosure of a previous conviction &y final 0udgment of the other party of a crime involvingmoral turpitude

!. Concealment &y the wife of the fact that at the timeof the marriage$ she was pregnant &y a man otherthan her hus&and

". Concealment of se4ually transmissi&le diseaseregardless of its nature$ e4isting at the time of themarriage

%. Concealment of drug addiction$ ha&itual alcoholismor homose4uality or les&ianism e4isting at the timeof the marriage.

?o other misrepresentation or deceit as to character$ healthrank$ fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as wil

give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.

3/ marriage cannot &e annulled simply on the ground that thewife concealed the fact that she had &een lewd and corruptand had an illegitimate child prior to the marriage.

FC Artc!e /6' ,n all cases of annulment or declaration oa&solute nullity of marriage$ the court shall order theprosecution attorney or fiscal assigned to it to appear on&ehalf of the *tate to take steps to prevent collusion &etweenthe parties and to take care that evidence is not fa&ricated osuppressed.

RPC Artc!e -//' The crimes of adultery and concu&inageshall not &e prosecuted e4cept upon a complaint filed &y the

offended spouse.The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecutionwithout including &oth the guilty parties$ if they are &othalive$ nor in any case$ if he shall have consented or pardoned

the offenders.

9orce3 Physical in0ury$ violence$ irresisti&le intimidation othreatEndue influence3 a person who takes improper use of hispower

3 The person who can ratify is the in0ured party3 The in0ured party can file for annulment within five

years3 ,f the in0ured party freely coha&ited after the

cessation of the ground for annulment +e4cept in

impotence and se4ually transmitted diseases$ he isestopped from annulling the marriage.

#/T,9,C/T,)? cures the defect of the marriage and itretroacts to the day of the marriage or the day of givingconsent.

7atipunan vs. TenorioFacts: Plaintiff *arcos 4atipunan brought actionagainst 9ita &enorio seeing the annul!ent otheir !arriage. %e alleged that the defendantwas not of sound !ind at the ti!e theycontracted !arriage. "ccording to the guardianof the defendant, &enorio only suffered ail!entafter giving birth to her th child.

%eld: &he couple cohabited for

72676655 comprehensive reviewer

Documents