ARTICLE 15-18 CIVIL CODE Flashcards

Question

T or F | If the Code of Commerce has no deficiency, the Civil Code will not apply.

Answer 1

To apply such doctrine, PROOF OF RELEVANT LAW MUST BE SHOWN BY: 1. OFFICIAL PUBLICATION OF THE LAW, OR 2. COPY ATTESTED TO BY OFFICER HAVING LEGAL CUSTODY OF FOREIGN LAW If the official record is not kept in the Philippines, the copy must be (a) accompanied by a certificate issued by the proper diplomatic or consular officer in the Philippine foreign service stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept; and (b) authenticated by the seal of his office.

Answer 2

True (Art 18) Example: Computation of period of time is based on Art 13 is applicable to period of prescription under Art 91 of the RPC

Answer 3

The divorce between Alice Van Dorn(PH citizen) and Romillo(US citizen) was valid, and therefore Romillo has no legal standing to sue in the case as petitioner's husband entitled to control over conjugal assets. Article 15, which embodies the Nationality Principle, was applied in this case when PH recognized the validity of the divorce obtained abroad by Alice Van Dorn and Manuel Romillo.

Answer 4

Pilapil, Filipina married Erich Geiling, a German, in Germany. They then divorced in Germany. Subsequently, Geiling sued Pilapil in the PH, alleging that while their marriage was subsisting, she committed adultery with 2 different men. Geiling petition was denied, because to prosecute adultery, the one filing the complaint must be the offended spouse at the time of filing. Since at the time of filing they were already divorced, Geiling had no legal standing to commence the adultery case. Article 15, which embodies the Nationality Principle, was applied in this case when PH recognized the validity of the divorce obtained abroad by Imelda Pilapil and Erich Geiling.

Answer 5

Rederick A. Recio (RESPONDENT), a Filipino, was married to Editha Samson, an Australian citizen. They divorced in Australia. Rederick then became an Australian citizen himself. Rederick married GRACE RECIO (PETITIONER) in the Philippines In their application for a marriage license, respondent was declared as "single" and "Filipino. Petitioner filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage in the court a quo, on the ground of bigamy -- respondent allegedly had a prior subsisting marriage at the time he married her and petitioner did not know. SC was not convinced. Case was REMANDED back to RTC since respondent has yet to demonstrate whether or not the divorce decree was in conformity with Australian laws. Article 26 of the Family Code requires the presentation of the foreign law to show the conformity of the marriage in question to the legal requirements of the place where the marriage was performed. Also, it cannot be absolutely established that respondent was legally capacitated to remarry. The divorce decree did not absolutely establish his legal capacity to remarry according to his national law. Before a foreign divorce decree can be recognized by our courts, the party pleading it must prove the divorce as a fact and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it. Rule 132 on presentation of evidence must be complied with. Article 15 was applied here when the SC required Rederick, now an Aussie, to present that the divorce decree was valid; that being an Australian citizen, he must show how the Australian personal laws (divorce) applies in his case.

Answer 6

Fe Quita and Arturo Padlan got married in the PH and subsequently divorced in the US. Arturo remarried a Blandina Padlan and they begot 6 children. Arturo died intestate. A dispute as to who should inherit ensued. The case was REMANDED because it still has to be determined w/n Quita was a PH citizen or not at the time of the divorce. If she was not, Van Dorn vs Romillo would apply. Article 15 is relevant here because Quita's citizenship at the time of divorce would determine whether or not a bigamous marriage occurred and whether Quita could inherit as the legal surviving spouse.

Answer 7

Tristan Catindig married Lily Gomez. Both of the are PH citizens. They subsequently divorced in the Dominican Republic. Tristan married petitioner, Elmar Perez in the US. Perez learned that their marriage was void under PH law . Tristan filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage with Lily. Elmar later on filed a motion to intervene. Elmar’s filing of motion to intervene was not proper because it had no merit given that she was not a party with legal interest (not the legal wife of Tristan) in the first place. A foreign divorce between Filipino citizens is not entitled to recognition as valid in the Philippines, and neither is the marriage contracted with another party by the divorced consort, subsequently to the foreign decree of divorce, entitled to validity in the country. Article 15 is relevant here because following the Nationality Principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code, the divorce decree that Tristan and Lily obtained from the Dominican Republic never dissolved the marriage bond between them. Personal laws follow them wherever they may be.

Answer 8

Felicisimo San Luis married thrice. First marriage was with Virginia, with whom he had 6 children including PETITIONERS EDGAR AND RODOLFO SAN LUIS. Virginia died. Second marriage was with Merry Corwin, an American Citizen. They divorced in the US. Third marriage was with Felicidad San Luis in the US. The case was remanded to determine whether the divorce decree in the second marriage was valid, because evidence was insufficient to prove the validity of the divorce obtained, as well as the marriage of Felicidad under US laws. (RULE 132) Article 15 is relevant here because following the Nationality Principle under Article 15 of the Civil Code, the validity of the divorce decree in the US between Felicisimo and Merry Lee would determine whether or not Felicidad's marriage with the Felicismo was bigamous or not.

Answer 9

Atty Luna married Eugenia, both Filipinos, and begot 7 children. They divorced in Dominican Republic. Atty Luna married Soledad Lavadia. Atty Luna died. SC ruled that the second marriage with Lavadia was bigamous and therefore void. The adjudication of the condominium, which was the primary issue in this case, was granted in favor of the heirs, since Lavadia could not prove that she used her own independent funds and her other evidences were unsubstantiated. Article 15 is relevant here because the Nationality Principle emphasizes that personal laws apply wherever a Filipino might be, as is shown when the divorce decree obtained in the Dominican Republic finds no application in the Philippines.

Answer 10

David and Leticia Noveras married in the Philippines. They then moved to the US, became US citizens, and divorced there. There now exists a dispute as to properties. Leticia filed a petition for judicial separation of properties. RTC applied the NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE and dissolved the absolute community of property of the parties, and awarded all PH properties to David only, with the properties in the US remaining in the sole ownership of petitioner Leticia. The RTC recognized that since the parties are US citizens, the laws that cover their legal and personal status are those of the USA. Then, the CA ruled that in accordance with the DOCTRINE OF PROCESSUAL PRESUMPTION, Philippine law should apply because the court cannot take judicial notice of the US law since the parties did not submit any proof of their national law. RTC erred, and CA modified the RTC Decision by directing the equal division of the Philippine properties between the spouses. SC affirmed the CA decision. The foreign judgment’s authenticity was not proven because only the divorce decree was presented, absent the other required certificates to prove its authenticity. Therefore, the parties are still legally married in the eyes of the State. They must have followed Rule 132. Article 15 is relevant here. Both parties are US citizens, but the Philippines does not take judicial notice of US law. The doctrine of processual presumption applies here since the parties did not follow Rule 132. As to the PH, their marriage is still valid.

Answer 11

Suzuki bought a condo unit from Kang, and gave full payment. Suzuki later on learned that Kang fled, without delivering the necessary documents of the condo. Suzuki learned that the property was under the name of Cityland Pioneer and that the property was mortgaged to Orion Savings Bank by Dation en Pago. The property was eventually granted in favor of Suzuki, him being a purchaser in good faith as provided in Article 1544, because Suzuki exerted efforts to verify the status of the properties but he did not find any existing encumbrance in the titles. Also, Korean law does not apply when real properties are involved by virtue of Lex Situs, except when succession is in question. Article 16 applies here because real properties (condo) is subject to the law where it is situated.

Answer 12

False. Rule 132 Sections 24 and 25 of the Rules of Court.

Answer 13

Angelita, Filipina, married Reynaldo a naturalized German. They divorced in Germany because Reynaldo found out that Angelita was having an affair with Georg Keppel. Angelita became a naturalized German citizen. Angelita and Georg married in Germany and settled in the PH. Angelita filed a petition for annulment of marriage on the ground of Georg's alleged psychological incapacity which was granted by the RTC, but reversed by the CA. Such reversal was affirmed by the SC. The petition for annulment was reversed by the CA because she: did not present the original of her divorce decree from Reynaldo Macaraig, her first spouse; did not also prove the German law that capacitated her to marry Georg; that in the eyes of the court, therefore, there could be no annulment of the marriage between Angelita and Georg to speak of because under Philippine law, Angelita had remained married to Reynaldo Petitioner Angelita also cannot invoke Article 36. A fundamental and obvious defect of Angelita's petition for annulment of marriage is that it seeks a relief improper under Philippine law in light of both Georg and Angelita being German citizens, not Filipinos, at the time of the filing thereof. Based on the Nationality Principle, which is followed in this jurisdiction, and pursuant to which laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad, it was the pertinent German law that governed. In short, Philippine law finds no application herein as far as the family rights and obligations of the parties who are foreign nationals are concerned

Answer 14

Section 24. Proof of official record. — The record of public documents referred to in paragraph (a) of Section 19, when admissible for any purpose, may be evidenced by an official publication thereof or by a copy attested by the officer having the legal custody of the record, or by his deputy, and accompanied, if the record is not kept in the Philippines, with a certificate that such officer has the custody. If the office in which the record is kept is in foreign country, the certificate may be made by a secretary of the embassy or legation, consul general, consul, vice consul, or consular agent or by any officer in the foreign service of the Philippines stationed in the foreign country in which the record is kept, and authenticated by the seal of his office. (25a) Section 25. What attestation of copy must state. — Whenever a copy of a document or record is attested for the purpose of evidence, the attestation must state, in substance, that the copy is a correct copy of the original, or a specific part thereof, as the case may be. The attestation must be under the official seal of the attesting officer, if there be any, or if he be the clerk of a court having a seal, under the seal of such court. (26a)

Answer 15

Karl Suzuki, born Filipino to a Japanese father and a Filipina. The parents divorced, and his mother married another Japanese, Mr. Hayashi. Hayashi adopted Karl based on Japanese law. At 24 years old, petitioner sought to be recognized in the Philippines his adoption by Hayashi under Japanese law, but the OSG concluded that petitioner's adoption is not in accordance with the laws, and thus, should not be allowed. OSG contended that Executive Order No. (EO) 9115 provides certain conditions before an alien may adopt Filipino citizens. Likewise, it argued that the Family Code provides limits on who are allowed to adopt Filipino citizens. Moreover, it claimed that an adoption is only valid if made within the legal framework on adoption as enunciated in Republic Act No. (RA) 8043 known as the Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995, and RA 8552 known as the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998. OSG was wrong. Article 15 of the Civil Code states that "laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad." Owing to this nationality principle, the Philippine laws on adoption are thus binding on petitioner because petitioner is a Filipino citizen. In the case of Hayashi, his adoption of Karl is valid, by virtue of Article 184 Paragraph 3(b) which provides that an alien may adopt provided that the one seeking adoption adopts the legitimate child of his or her Filipino spouse. Based on Article 184 of the Family Code, Hayashi falls under exception (b) of item (3). He is a Japanese citizen married to Lorlie, a Filipino. Under the Philippine law, it is therefore valid and legal for Hayashi to adopt petitioner, the legitimate child of Lorlie. Specifically, the provisions of RA 8043 do not apply to him. In short, OSG was erroneous in applying RA 8043. Karl, being a Filipino, can be legally adopted by Hayashi, an alien, under Article 184 paragraph 3(b) of the Family Code. Article 15 is clear in this case, as personal laws which includes adoption, is applicable to Filipino citizens.

Answer 16

Spouses Audrey and Richard Guersey, both Americans resided in the PH. Audrey died leaving a will. In it, she bequeathed her entire estate to Richard, who was also designated as executor. Richard married Candelaria Guersey-Dalaygon (respondent). Richard died, leaving a will, wherein he bequeathed his entire estate to respondent, save for his rights and interests over the A/G Interiors, Inc. shares, which he left to Kyle, adopted daughter of Audrey and Richard. Petitioner Atty Ancheta, filed in Special Proceeding No. 9625, a motion to declare Richard and Kyle as heirs of Audrey, which was contrary to the will of Audrey. This was opposed by respondent on the ground that under the law of the State of Maryland, "a legacy passes to the legatee the entire interest of the testator in the property subject of the legacy." Since Richard left his entire estate to respondent, except for his rights and interests over the A/G Interiors, Inc, shares, then his entire ¾ undivided interest in the Makati property should be given to respondent. Petitioner alleged that he believed that it is to the "best interests of the surviving children that Philippine law be applied as they would receive their just shares." In this case, Atty Ancheta was wrong and committed extrinsic fraud for breaching his fiduciary duty. He should have managed Audrey's estate in accordance with her will. Article 15 and 16 applies here because what is involved is succession, which is part of personal laws. The laws of the State of Maryland should apply in the distribution of the estate.