PFR Reviewer Flashcards by LIZA LYN

Article 2 of NCC

Effectivity of Laws

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Article 3 of NCC

Ignorance of the Law Excuses No one

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Article 4 of NCC

Non-Retroactivity of Laws

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Article 5 of NCC

Acts Contrary to Laws

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Article 6 of NCC

Waiver of Rights

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Article 7 of NCC

Repeal of Laws

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Article 8 of NCC

Judicial Decisions

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Article 9 of NCC

Duty of Judges

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Article 10 of NCC

Interpretation of Laws

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Article 11 & 12 of NCC

Customs

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Article 13 of NCC

Rule on Periods

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Article 14-18 of NCC

Conflict of Laws

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Article 19-21 of NCC

Human Relations

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Article 22 of NCC

Unjust Enrichment

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Article 36 of NCC

Prejudicial Questions

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Article 37 of NCC

Civil Personality

Article 40-43 of NCC

Natural Persons

Article 44-47 of NCC

Juridical Persons

Article 48 of NCC

Citizenship and Domicile

Article 1 of Family Code of the Philippines

Article 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature, consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation, except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage within the limits provided by this Code.

Article 2 of Family Code of the Philippines

Art. 2. No marriage shall be valid, unless these essential requisites are present:
(1) Legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female; and
(2) Consent freely given in the presence of the solemnizing officer.

Article 3 of Family Code of the Philippines

Art. 3. The formal requisites of marriage are:

(1) Authority of the solemnizing officer;

(2) A valid marriage license except in the cases provided for in Chapter 2 of this Title; and

(3) A marriage ceremony which takes place with the appearance of the contracting parties before the solemnizing officer and their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than two witnesses of legal age.

Article 4 of Family Code of the Philippines

Art. 4. The absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio, except as stated in Article 35 (2).

A defect in any of the essential requisites shall render the marriage voidable as provided in Article 45.

An irregularity in the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage but the party or parties responsible for the irregularity shall be civilly, criminally and administratively liable.

Cases: NON-RETROACTIVITY OF LAWS

Lintag v. NAPOCOR
G.R No. 158609 July 27, 2007

Case: REPEAL OF LAWS

Lledo v. Lledo AM No. P-95-1167 (Resolution) February 9,2010

Case: JUDICIAL DECISIONS FORM PART OF LEGAL SYSTEM / DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS (ARTICLE 8)

Tala Realty v. Banco Filipino G.R No. 181369 June 22, 2016

Case: RULE ON PERIODS (ARTICLE 13)

CIR v. Primetown G.R No. 162155 August 28, 2007

Case: PROVISIONS ON CONFLICT OF LAW (ARTICLE 14-18)

1. Rupblic v. Manalo G.R No. 221029 April 24, 2018 2. Testate Estate of Edward E. Christensen G.R No. L-16749 January 31, 1963 3. EDI Staff Builders Int’l Inc. v. NLRC G.R No. 145587 October 26,2007

Case: HUMAN RELATIONS (ARTICLE 19-21)

Pantaleon v. AMEX G.R No. 174269 (Resolution) August 25, 2010 Wassmer v. Velez G.R No. L-20089 December 26, 1964 Baksh v. CA G.R No. 97336 February 19, 1993

Case: PRINCIPLE OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT (ART 22)

Frenzel v. Catito G.R No. 143958 July 11, 2003

Case: PREJUDICIAL QUESTION (ART 36)

Sps Gaditano v. San Miguel Corp. G.R No. 188767 July 24, 2013

Case: CIVIL PERSONALITY (ARTI 37)

Geluz v. CA G.R No. L-16439 July 20, 1961

Case: JURIDICAL PERSONS (ARTICLE 44-47)

Roldan V. Philippine Veterans Board G.R No. L-11973 June 30, 1959 Mendez v. People G.R No. 179962 June 11, 2014

Case: CITIZENSHIP

Poe v. Comelec G.R No. 221697 April 5, 2016