FAMILY CODE BAR QUESTIONS Flashcards
Sidley and Sol were married with one (1) daughter, Solenn. Sedfrey and Sonia were another couple with one son, Sonny. Sol and Sedfrey both perished in the same plane accident. Sidley and Sonia met when the families of those who died sued the airlines and went through grief-counseling sessions. Years later, Sidley and Sonia got married. At that time, Solenn was four (4) years old and Sonny was five (5) years old. These two (2) were then brought up in the same household. Fifteen (15) years later, Solenn and Sonny developed romantic feelings towards each other, and eventually eloped. On their own and against their parents’ wishes, they procured a marriage license and got married in church.
(a) Is the marriage of Solenn and Sonny valid, voidable, or void? (2.5%)
(b) If the marriage is defective, can the marriage be ratified by free cohabitation of the parties? (2.5%)
SPOTTING THE ISSUE: Two issues that may arise on this case. First, whether or not, the marriage of Solenn and Sonny is void by reason of Public Policy or second, whether or not, their marriage is voidable because of lack of parental consent. My submission is that of the latter. Considering the fact that, the ages of solenn and sonny is given in the present case, could the issue have been otherwise they should have not been given enough emphasis in the case. Also, considering that Question letter B is connected with question letter A, could have been otherwise, Question letter B would become irrelevant. Even, assuming that the issue here would have been otherwise, it is my submission that, their marriage is valid. Because the prohibition on the family code does not contemplate marriages between ‘step brother’ and ‘step sister’
a. VOIDABLE. As provided for in Article 14 of the Family Code, if a party to a marriage is already eighteen years old but below twenty-one, his or her consent is not sufficient; the parents or guardians must, in addition, give their consent. In the absence of such parental consent, the consent given by a party to a marriage whose age is 18 but below 21 is considered defective. And under Article 4 of the same Code, a defect in the essential requisites of marriage (Consent of Parties) renders the marriage voidable. On the case at hand, Solenn and Sonny were both 19 and 20 years old respectively at the time of the celebration of their marriage. Hence, absence of parental consent as required by law renders the marriage of Solenn and Sonny VOIDABLE.
b. YES NAMAN. Under Article 45(1) of the Family Code, a voidable marriage because of lack of Parental consent is ratified if the party whose parent did not give consent, after reaching the age of 21, freely cohabits with the other and both lived together as husband and wife.
Note: The only the party whose parent did not give consent is entitled to ratify the marriage in the manner required by law. The consent of the other contracting party is not required for the ratification to take effect, since in ratification the conformity of the contracting party who has no right to bring the action for annulment is not necessary. (Article 1395 of the NCC)
Effect of Ratification: Article 1396 of the NCC. Ratification cleanses the contract from all its defects from the moment it was constituted.
Suggested answer of Ms. Angeles Pampanga:
a. The marriage between Solenn and Sonny is voidable due to lack of parental consent of both parties. Under the Family Code, persons of the age of at least 18 years and below 21 years must obtain parental consent before marriage for such marriage to be valid.
In this case, Sonny was 20 while Solenn was 19 at the time of the marriage, rendering their marriage annullable at the instance of their parents who did not give their consent.
b. Yes. Though voidable, their marriage may be ratified by free cohabitation.
Under the Family Code, ratification is made if the “injured” party freely cohabits with the guilty party, and such will cure the defect. In such case of no parental consent, either parent of Solenn or Sonny cannot file the suit if after attaining the age of 21, they freely cohabited with each other and lived as husband and wife. It is the cohabitation after reaching the age of 21 that will constitute ratification.
II
After finding out that his girlfriend Sandy was four (4) months pregnant, Sancho married Sandy. Both were single and had never been in any serious relationship in the past. Prior to the marriage, they agreed in a marriage settlement that the regime of conjugal partnership of gains shall govern their property relations during marriage. Shortly after the marriage, their daughter, Shalimar, was born. Before they met and got married, Sancho purchased a parcel of land on installment, under a Contract of Sale, with the full purchase price payable in equal annual amortizations over a period of ten (10) years, with no down payment, and secured by a mortgage on the land. The full purchase price was PhP1 million, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. After paying the fourth (4th) annual installment, Sancho and Sandy got married, and Sancho completed the payments in the subsequent years from his salary as an accountant. The previous payments were also paid out of his salary. During their marriage, Sandy also won PhP1 million in the lottery and used it to purchase jewelry. When things didn’t work out for the couple, they filed an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage based on the psychological incapacity of both of them. When the petition was granted, the parcel of land and the jewelry bought by Sandy were found to be the only properties of the couple.
(a) What is the filiation status of Shalimar? (2.5%)
(b) What system of property relationship will be liquidated following the declaration of nullity of their marriage? (2.5%)
(c) In the liquidation, who should get the parcel of land? The jewelry? (2.5%)
Suggested Answer of Ms. Dumuclos:
a. The filiation status of Shalimar is that of a legitimate child. Under Article 54 of the Family Code, children conceived or born before the judgement or absolute nullity of marriage under Article 36 has become final and executory shall be considered legitimate. Hence, Shalimar being born during the marriage of her parents, Sancho and Sandy, and before the declaration of nullity of their marriage under Art. 36 of FC is considered as a legitimate child.
b. The system of property relationship that will be liquidated following the declaration of nullity of their marriage is co-ownership. Under Article 147 of the Family Code, the property relation of a man and a woman living together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a void marriage shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. Notwithstanding the fact that an agreement was entered into by the parties before the celebration of their marriage providing specifically for a system of conjugal partnership of gains to govern their property relation, the subsequent declaration of nullity of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code produces the effect of making their property relation to be covered by the Rule on Co-ownership. Thus, pursuant to their marriage settlement, their properties shall be liquidated under said rule.
c. In the liquidation of their properties, the land and jewelry shall be divided between the parties, Sancho and Sandy, equally. The Law on Sales provides that the ownership of properties acquired through installments shall be vested to the buyer upon full payment of the price. In the case at bar, with respect to the acquisition of the land, Sancho, using his own salary, made full payment of the price during their marriage/cohabitation, thus, ownership over it was vested at that time. The ownership of the land and jewelry which were acquired through Sancho’s own salary and efforts during their marriage, is vested to both Sancho and Sandy pursuant to Article 147, FC which provides that any property acquired during cohabitation shall be owned by both parties in equal shares and any party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party is presumed to have contributed in its acquisition. The fact that both parties acted in bad faith shall have no effect in their respective shares in the properties to be liquidated applying the principle of inpari delicto, the bad faith of one party is cured by the bad faith of the other party. Both are, therefore, assumed to be in good faith.
d. 1. Yes. Shalimar is entitled to the payment of her presumptive legitime. Article 886 of the Family Code provides that compulsory heirs listed under Article 887, FC are entitled to their respective legitime. Shalimar being a legitimate child and as such a compulsory heir(Art. 887, FC) is entitled to her presumptive legitime.
2. The share of Shalimar representing her legitime shall be one-half of the shares of her mother and father to their properties upon liquidation pursuant to Article 888 of the Family Code. Since the share of her father,Sancho, to the land and jewelry amounts to P1,000,000 in total which is the same as that of her mother, Sandy, the share of Shalimar shall be P500,000 each on the land and jewelry representing one-half of the share of her parents.
Suggested Answer of Red Pogi:
a. LEGITIMATE. Under Art. 177 of the Family Code states that, Only children conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be legitimated. On the case at hand, since Sancho and Sandy don’t have any legal impediment at the time of conception of Shelimar. Hence, the process of legitimation took place automatically by the subsequent valid marriage of the parents as provided for under Art. 178 of the same Code and, as a result of which, such children born out of wedlock (“legitimated children”) become legitimate children of the spouses.
VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: In order for the Child to be Legitimated the subsequent marriage must be VALID OR AT LEAST VOIDABLE. On the given case, while it is true that the subsequent marriage was declared Void. HOWEVER, by the express provision of Article 54, it recognizes that Children conceived or born before the judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of the marriage under Art. 36 has become final and executor shall be considered LEGITIMATE. This is an exception as provided for in article 165.
b. CO-OWNERSHIP under Art. 147 of the Family Code, in the case of Valdes vs. RTC, the court held that the regime of absolute community may only exist in a valid, or at least voidable marriage (in the latter case until the contract is annulled), and does not, as a rule, exist in a void marriage. In a void marriage, regardless of the cause thereof, the property relation of the parties during the period of cohabitation is governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148, as the case may be, of the Family Code. On the case at hand, while it is true that prior to the marriage, they agreed in a marriage settlement of regime of conjugal partnership of gains, however, since the marriage of Sancho and Sany was declared void due to psychological incapacity their Property regime would be governed by Article 147 by rules of Co-Ownership.
VERY IMPORTANT NOTE:
General Rule: that the regime of absolute community or Conjugal Property of Gains may only exist in a valid, or at least voidable marriage (see discussion of Atty. Lasam as to the effect of on Property of void and voidable marriages), and does not, as a rule, exist in a void marriage.
Exception on Void Marriages: It is only in the case of a void marriage under Article 40, i.e., where a spouse in a prior void marriage contracts a subsequent marriage in the absence of a judicial declaration of nullity of the prior marriage, where the regime of absolute community exceptionally exists.
c. The 40% share of the land is co-owned by Sancho and Sandy since it was bought prior to their marriage, while the remaining 60% is owned by Sancho alone since it was bought through his own salary account. While the Jewelry is owned by Sandy alone since it was bought through her own effort. (With reservation)
Alternative answer: Under Article 147 of the Family Code, the share of parties who acted in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common children. On the case at hand, since both of them acted in bad faith, their shares to the property after the liquidation are forfeited in favor of Shalimar.
d. YES. As provided for under Article 888 of the New Civil Code, the legitime of the legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother. On the case at hand, Shalimar being a legitimate child of the spouses, he is entitled of one-half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the mother.
Alternative answer: YES. Under Art. 147 of the Family Code, since both parties acted in bad faith, all of the shares of his parents after the liquidation are forfeited in favor of Shalimar. (????????????) Art. 147 is exception to article 888. (?????)
III
Silverio was a woman trapped in a man’s body. He was born male and his birth certificate indicated his gender as male, and his name as Silverio Stalon. When he reached the age of 21, he had a sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok, and, from then on, he lived as a female. On the basis of his sex reassignment, he filed an action to have his first name changed to Shelley, and his gender, to female. While he was following up his case with the Regional Trial Court of Manila, he met Sharon Stan, who also filed a similar action to change her first name to Shariff, and her gender, from female to male.
Sharon was registered as a female upon birth. While growing up, she developed male characteristics and was diagnosed to have congenital adrenal hyperplasia (“CAH”) which is a condition where a person possesses both male and female characteristics. At puberty, tests revealed that her ovarian structures had greatly minimized, and she had no breast or menstrual development. Alleging that for all intents and appearances, as well as mind and emotion, she had become a male, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender should be changed from female to male, and that her first name should be changed from Sharon to Shariff.
Silverio and Sharon fell in love and decided to marry. Realizing that their marriage will be frowned upon in the Philippines, they travelled to Las Vegas, USA where they got married based on the law of the place of celebration of the marriage. They, however, kept their Philippine citizenship.
(a) Is there any legal bases for the court to approve Silverio’s petition for correction of entries in his birth certificate? (2.5%)
(b) Will your answer be the same in the case of Sharon’s petition? (2.5%)
(c) Can the marriage of Silverio (Shelley) and Sharon (Shariff) be legally recognized as valid in the Philippines? (2.5%)
Suggested answer by Ms. Jaz Aguedan:
a. No. There are no legal bases for the court to approve Silverio’s petition for correction of entries in his birth certificate. It was held in Silverio v Republic that there is no law legally recognizing sex reassignment and its effects. The sex of a person is determined at birth, visually done by the birth attendant by examining the genitals of the infant. Silverio was born a male and in his birth certificate indicated his gender as male. Since there is no law recognizing sex reassignment and its effects, then the petition of Silverio Stalon for correction of entries in his birth certificate will not be approved.
b. No. My answer will not be the same. The petition of Sharon to change her name from Sharon to Shariff and her gender from female to male, will prosper. In Republic v Cagandahan, the Supreme Court allowed the correction of entries in the birth certificate of Cagandahan to change her sex or gender from female to male on the ground of her medical condition known as Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia and her name from Jennifer to Jeff. Cagandahan was endowed with mixed composition of chromosomes. She has female chromosomes but her body produces high level of male hormones. Cagandahan has simply let nature take its course and accordingly, he has ordered her life to that of a male. According to the court, in this kind of situation, the determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of his/her sex, and Cagandahan chose to be a male. Like Cagandahan, Sharon has the same condition and has filed the same petition. The petition will prosper.
c. First choice:
No. The marriage of Silverio and Shariff cannot be legally recognized as valid in the Philippines. The New Civil Code substantially provides that laws relating to family rights and duties, status, conditions and legal capacity of persons, are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. And The Family Code substantially provides that no marriage shall be valid unless the essential requisite of legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female must be present. Both Filipinos, Silverio is born a male and Shariff is also a male (as Shariff’s petition was granted), the essential requisite of legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female, is absent, their marriage even though celebrated abroad and valid there as such, is void here in the Philippines.
Alternative Answer:
Yes. The marriage of Silverio and Sharon can be legally recognized as valid in the Philippines. The New Civil Code substantially provides that laws relating to family rights and duties, status, conditions and legal capacity of persons, are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. And The Family Code substantially provides that no marriage shall be valid unless the essential requisite of legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female, must be present. The petitions of Silverio and Sharon are still pending for decision. Given that both are Filipinos, and, Silverio was born a male and Sharon was born a female, the essential requisite of legal capacity of contracting parties who must be a male and a female, is present, and their marriage in Las Vegas is valid there as such, then their marriage is valid.
Sinclair and Steffi had an illicit relationship while Sinclair was married to another. The relationship produced a daughter Sabina, who grew up with her mother. For most parts of Sabina’s youth, Steffi spent for her support and education. When Sabina was 21 years old, Sinclair’s wife of many years died. Sinclair and Steffi lost no time in legitimizing their relationship. After the 40-day prayers for Sinclair’s late wife, Sinclair and Steffi got married without a marriage license, claiming that they have been cohabiting for the last 20 years.
After graduating from college, Sabina decided to enroll in law school. Sinclair said that he was not willing to pay for her school fees since she was no longer a minor. Sinclair claimed that, if Sabina wanted to be a lawyer, she had to work and spend for her law education.
(a) What is Sabina’s filiation status? (2.5%)
(b) Is Sinclair legally required to finance Sabina’s law education? (2.5%)
Suggested answer of Ms. Elishaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa:
a. Illegitimate. Art.165, FC states that children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate. The subsequent marriage of her biological parents did not cure Sabina’s filiation status since she was conceived and born outside wedlock and whose parents, at the time, had legal impediment to marry, hence, disqualified in Article 177, FC
b. Yes. Parents are obliged to support their illegitimate children upon the demand of the latter. Art. 195 (4) FC. The law education of Sabina is included in the support contemplated under Article 194 FC which provides that the education of the person entitled to be supported shall include his or her schooling or training for some profession, even beyond the age of majority.
Suggested Answer of Ms. Margarita Ganda:
a. Sabina is an illegitimate child because she was conceived and born outside of wedlock of her parents. Sinclair and Steffi’s subsequent marriage did not make their child legitimated. Art. 178 of FC states that legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid marriage between parents. In the case at bar, the subsequent marriage of Sinclair and Steffi is void because of the absence of a formal requisite such as the marriage license. Their 20-year cohabitation can’t be considered an exception since during such period, Sinclair was still married to his wife. Thus, Sabina was not legitimated and remained an illegitimate child despite her parents’ subsequent marriage.
b. Yes. Sinclair is legally required to finance Sabina’s law education. Art. 194 of FC provides that support also includes education of the person entitled to be supported until he completes his education or training for some profession, trade, or vocation, even beyond the age of majority. Thus, Sabina, even if no longer a minor, is still entitled to be supported of her law education.
Selena was a single 18-year old when she got pregnant and gave birth to Suri. She then left to work as a caregiver in Canada, leaving Suri with her parents in the Philippines. Selena, now 34 years old and a permanent resident in Canada, met and married Sam who is a 24-year old Canadian citizen who works as a movie star in Canada. Sam’s parents are of Filipino ancestry but had become Canadian citizens before Sam was born. Wanting Suri to have all the advantages of a legitimate child, Selena and Sam decided to adopt her. Sam’s parents, already opposed to the marriage of their son to someone significantly older, vehemently objected to the adoption. They argued that Sam was not old enough and that the requisite age gap required by the Inter-Country Adoption Act between Sam as adopter and Suri as adoptee was not met. Are Sam’s parents correct? (2.5%)
Suggested answer by Mr. APOLINARIO Eboy (emphasis supplied):
Sam’s parents were correct as to the argument that he was not old enough to adopt. It was explicitly provided in RA 8043 or the Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995 that an alien may file an application for adoption if he is at least 27 years of age. The fact that Sam, being 24yo at the time of adopting a Filipino child makes the argument of his parents correct and that Sam therefore is not eligible to adopt.
Sam’s parents were also correct on their contention that Sam did not meet the requisite age gap, however, the law provides for an exception and that is when the adopter or the spouse of such is the parent by nature of the adoptee. Sam’s wife is the parent by nature of Suri, thereby falling under the exception and making the argument of Sam’s parents incorrect.
Paalala ni Principal lerma:
The law requires the spouse seeking to adopt his/her illegitimate child TO FIRST OBTAIN CONSENT OF HIS/HER SPOUSE. This requirement is mandatory under the law according to the case of castro v gregorio. According to the Supreme Court, in all instances where it appears rhatva spouse attempts to adopt a child out of wedlock, the other spouse must be personally notified through personal service of summons and is not enough that they be deemed notified through constructive service; otherwise, the court does not validly acquire jurisdiction over the proceedings and the decision of the case is null and void.
XVII
Sofia and Semuel, both unmarried, lived together for many years in the Philippines and begot three children. While Sofia stayed in the Philippines with the children, Semuel went abroad to work and became a naturalized German citizen. He met someone in Germany whom he wanted to marry. Semuel thereafter came home and filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for partition ofthe common properties acquired during his union with Sofia in the Philippines. The properties acquired during the union consisted of a house and lot in Cavite worth PhP2 million, and some personal properties, including cash in bank amounting to PhP1 million. All these properties were acquired using Samuel’s salaries and wages since Sofia was a stay-at-home mother. In retaliation, Sofia filed an action, on behalf of their minor children, for support.
(a) How should the properties be partitioned? (2.5%)
(b) Should Semuel be required to support the minor children? (2.5%)
Suggested answer of Ms. Ignacio:
a. Article 147 of the Family Code explicitly provides that the properties acquired by both parties during their union shall be presumed to have been obtained through their joint efforts, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. Sofia, who did not participate in the acquisition, shall be deemed to have contributed jointly because her efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and of the household. Thus, half of the PHP 2million worth of the house and lot, as well as half of the PHP1 million worth of some personal properties including the cash in bank will go to Sofia, and the other half of those will go to Semuel.
b. YES. Semuel is required to support the minor children. As provided in Article 195 (4) of the Family Code, the parents are obliged to give support even to their illegitimate children.
Suggested answer of Mr. Gittu:
a. The partition of properties shall be govern by the rules on co-ownership and must be distributed in equal shares to both common law spouses. As stated under Art. 147 of the Family Code, “when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former’s efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family and household. In this case, since during their cohabitation Semuel acquired properties using his salaries while Sofia stayed-at-home taking care of the family then the presumption under the law is that they are co-owners to all properties acquired during their cohabitation and as such must be distributed to them in equal shares.
b. Yes, Semuel is obliged to support his minor children being their father. Art. 195 (4) of the Family Code provides that, “Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate and illegitimate children of the latter are obliged to support each other to the whole extent set forth in Art. 194 of the Code.
