Saint Paul School of Professional Studies

Palo, 6501, Leyte, Philippines

SCHOOL OF LAW
Preliminary Examination in CIVIL LAW REVIEW

I
[7.5 points]
In 2005 Jeremy and Lucy, both single, got married without executing a marriage
settlement. Four years prior to their marriage Rene acquired the following properties:
A) A brand new Toyota Fortuner by purchase;
B) A residential house and lot paid for by installment fully paid in 2001;
C) A 5 hectare coconut land acquired before the marriage from his father, by
testamentary succession ;
D) A ten hectares rice land donated by his parents four years before his marriage
to Lucy;
E) A 1,000 square meters prime residential land. In Makati by purchase.
In 2015 Jeremy died, survived by his wife Lucy and Liza- Jeremy’s mother.
QUESTIONS: (Briefly but concisely discuss your answers)
A] State or discuss whether Liza can rightfully claim that the above enumerated
properties are exclusive properties of her son Jeremy, not conjugal properties. Briefly explain
(2.5 points)

No, Liza can rightfully claim all the properties as the legal surviving spouse as
considered a conjugal property which is a property acquired before and after marriage.

Answer:

B] Will your answer in Question I (A) be the same if under the same facts and
circumstance except that before their marriage Jeremy & Lucy executed a marriage settlement
specifying that they are adapting the regime of Conjugal Partnership of Gains? (2.5 points)

Answer:

Liza is entitled to equal shares of properties as a Conjugal Partnership of Gains.

C] Assume that under the same facts and circumstances above except that Jeremy and
Lucy decided not to push through with the marriage but instead merely cohabited as common
law spouses, and that Lucy was not gainfully employed but devoted fully her time to the care for
Jeremy, their children and the home. Can Liza rightfully claim that the above enumerated
properties are exclusive properties of her son Jeremy, hence she is entitled to these properties? If
not what will be the property regime that will apply and how will these properties will be
liquidated and divided Explain (2.5 points)

Answer:

Liza is entitled to the properties as a co-owner in equal shares under article 147 of
the Family Code. The property acquired during their cohabitation are presumed to be
obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry and shall be owned by them in equal
shares, even though the effort of Liza consisted merely in her care and maintenance of the
family and of the household.

II
[5 points]
A] After securing a marriage license Vic & Helen requested Vic’s uncle, Judge Soter
Calamansi, of MCTC of Calubian, Leyte to solemnize their marriage. The marriage ceremony
was held on July 13, 2019 at the Leyte Park Hotel in Tacloban City. Is the marriage valid?
Explain your answer (2.5 points).

Answer:
Yes, the marriage is valid because all the essential and formal requisites of marriage
under the family code are present. Here the marriage ceremony was held at the Leyte Park
Hotel which is outside the jurisdiction of the Judge. However, under New Civil Code the
venue of the marriage its non-observance will not invalidate a marriage but can subject the
person who cause the violation to civil, criminal, or administrative liability.

Therefore, the marriage between Vic and Helen is valid.

B] Under the same facts & circumstances in Question letter A except that Soter
Calamansi is a protestant minister of Calubian Leyte and the marriage was solemnized at Leyte
Park Hotel, will the marriage be valid? Explain your answer. (2.5 points)

Answer:

Yes, the marriage is valid. Under the New Civil Code a minister of any church or
religious sec may validly solemnize a marriage if the following essential requisites must
concur that he or she must be duly authorized by religious sect, must act within the limits
of the written authority granted to him or her by the religious sect, must be registered with
the civil registrar general and at least one of the contracting parties whose marriage he or
she is to solemnize belongs to his or her religious sect.
III
[7.5 points]
A] In the year 2000 Adrian and Christine, both single and 32 years old, were legally
married before Mayor JB with four witnesses. They had no marriage license since they had no
time to secure the same so, upon the advice of a friend, they simply executed an affidavit of
cohabitation stating the they have been living together for 6 years as husband and wife when in
fact the same was not true since they were working in two different countries for the last seven
(7) years. One month after the marriage ceremony, Adrian went back to his work abroad while
Christine was hired as a nurse in a government hospital in the Philippines.
When Adrian returned to the Philippines after his five year contract abroad he found out
that Christine left their conjugal home and was living with Arthur. He likewise discovered that
his wife and Arthur was married before Mayor Asko. So Adrian charged his wife with bigamy
for contracting a second marriage. In her defense, Christine alleged that she cannot be charged
for bigamy because her marriage with Adrian was VOID for lack of marriage license since the
affidavit of cohabitation was falsified.
Is the defense raised by Christine legally tenable? Explain (2.5 points).

Answer:

No, the contention of Christine is not legally tenable because under the New Civil
Code that no license shall be necessary for the marriage of a man and a woman who have
lived together as husband and wife for at least 5 years and without legal impediment to
marry each other. In these case by simply executed of affidavit of cohabitation and
assuming it was verified by the civil registrar and a marriage ceremony took place, all the
essential and formal requisites of marriage under the family code are present.

Therefore, Christine may be charged of bigamy.

B] Under the same facts and circumstances in Case # II (A) except that there was a valid
marriage license but when Adrian and Christine went to the office of mayor Asko for the
marriage ceremony the mayor was attending a GPTA meeting at a nearby school. So, the
secretary simply required the parties and their witnesses to sign the marriage contract, telling
them to wait for a while because she will just let the mayor to sign the marriage contract. When
the secretary came back the marriage contract was already signed by the mayor and so she told
the “partners” that “they are already legally married”. Assume that you are the public prosecutor
conducting the preliminary investigation, will you recommend the filling of the bigamy case
against Christine? Explain (5 points).
Answer:
No, as a public prosecutor I will not recommend in filling of the bigamy
case because the first marriage is void ab initio.Under the New Civil Code that
marriages where the both parties did not appear personally before the
solemnizing officer or did not give their consent in the presence of the
solemnizing officer and Marriages where the parties merely signed a marriage
contract, without the presence of a solemnizing officer. In this case, no
marriage ceremony is performed at all by a duly authorized solemnizing
officer. Hence, Christine may not be prosecuted of bigamy.
IV
[7.5 points]
A] In the year 2005, Daniel and Linda, both 30 years old, but both married in 1995 to
different partners/persons (to Cristy and Mario respectively), decided to cohabit with each other
without securing the annulment of their respective marriages to their spouses. During their
cohabitation five year cohabitation they were blessed with two children -X & Y, and they
acquired the residential house and lot which served as their home; a two door apartment, and;
two (2) ten (10) hectares farm lands, all from the salaries and business ventures of Daniel, since
Linda was unemployed. When they separated, Linda demanded that she be given her one half
share of these properties acquired during their cohabitation. Daniel refused to give Linda her
share stating that all these acquisitions were taken solely from his salaries and earnings.
QUESTUIONS: a) Whose contention is legally correct? Who owns these properties
acquired during their cohabitation and to where should these properties rightfully belong?
Explain (2.5 points)

Answer:

Linda is incorrect. Under Article 148 of the Family Code, when the parties to the
cohabitation could not marry each other because of an impediment only those properties
acquired by both of them through their actual joint contribution of money, property or
industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respective
contributions. The efforts of one of the parties in maintaining the family household are not
considered adequate contribution in the acquisition of the properties. Since Linda did not
contribute to the acquisition of the residential house and lot which served as their home, a
two-door apartment, and, two (2) ten (10) hectares farm lands, she has no share therein.
 b) What are the legal status of X & Y, the children of Daniel and Linda during their
cohabitation? If so, what is the remedy of Mario (the legal husband of Linda) to protect his
rights. Explain (2.5 points).
Answer:
The status of X & Y are illegitimate children because they are born outside a valid
marriage. The remedy Mario as the legal husband of Linda to protect his rights, he may
file a case of adultery against Linda.
c] Will you change your answer in Question IV (a) & (b) if Under the same facts and
circumstances in Question IV except that both Daniel and Linda were single when they
cohabited and up to the time of their separation (2.5 points).

Answer:
I will change my answer. Linda is entitled to the properties as a co-owner in equal
shares under article 147 of the Family Code. The property acquired during their
cohabitation are presumed to be obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry and shall
be owned by them in equal shares, even though the effort of Linda consisted merely in her
care and maintenance of the family and of the household.

V
[10 points]
Christine, Mary Grace, Robert and James were born to Spouses Adolfo and Catherine
during their marriage. All the children’s birth certificate show that they are the legitimate
children of the spouses. In fact all their birth certificates were duly signed by Adolfo showing
that they are his legitimate children with Catherine.
Eight (8) years before his death, one Roger de Jesus executed a notarized document
acknowledging the two boys, Robert and James, as his illegitimate children with Catherine.
Roger de Jesus died intestate leaving an estate worth 10 million. At the settlement of the estate of
Roger, Robert and James filed an intervention stating that they are entitled inherit from the
decedent as his illegitimate children. Additionally, Robert & James submitted the affidavit of
their mother stating that Robert & James are her children with Roger de Jesus.
The legitimate children of Roger opposed their claim on the ground that the intervenors
are legitimate children of Adolfo and Catherine having been born during their marriage, not the
illegitimate children of their father. On the other hand Robert and James argued that Roger
acknowledged their illegitimate filiation in a notarized document, further stating that even a
private handwritten instrument is sufficient acknowledgment of filiation.
QUESTIONS:
A] If you were the judge handling the settlement of estate of Roger, how will you rule on
the intervention of Robert and James? Are they entitled to share in the estate of Roger? Briefly
explain your answer. (2.5 points)

Answer:
Yes, they are entitled to share in the estate of Roger as legitimate children.

B] Under the above stated facts and circumstances discuss the filiation of Robert and
James (2.5 points)

Answer:
Having been born during the marriage of Adolfo and Catherine they
are presumed to be legitimate children. This presumption had become
conclusive because the period of time to impugn their filiation had already
prescribed.

C] If there is a need to impugn the legitimate filiation of Robert & James

who has the right to do so? Discuss and explain briefly the grounds or evidence
that must be proved in impugning legitimate filiation (5 points)
Answer:

Yes, by operation of Law it only Adolfo or the heirs my impugn the

legitimate filiation of Robert and James in the cases provided by law within
the prescriptive period.

Answer:

[VI
a) Briefly Discuss the concept of Psychological Incapacity [2.5 points]
 Answer:

Psychological incapacity refers to no less than a mental incapacity not

physical that causes a party to the inability to understand the
obligations of marriage.

b) Discuss the characteristics of Psychological Incapacity, [or the evidence that

must be shown or presented in a petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code?] [10 points]

Answer:

The psychological incapacity must be characterized by:

1. Gravity- The illness must be grave or serious enough to bring about

the disability of the party to assume essential obligations of marriage.
2. Juridical Antecedence= It must be rooted in the history of the party
and must be proven to be existing at the time of the marriage,
although the overt manifestation may emerge only after the
marriage.
3. Incurability- It must be shown to be medically permanent or
incurable and such incurability may be absolute.

[NOTE: Examination Starts @ 11:30 AM must be submitted by

email to: [email protected] & must be in by 1:45 pm.
Late submissions will be given points deductions]