Bagares, Ariane P.

Miterm Exam
Persons and Family Relations

1. Don, an American businessman, secured parental consent for the employment of

five minors to play certain roles in two movies he was producing at home in Makati.
They worked at odd hours of the day and night, but always accompanied by parents
or other adults. The producer paid the children talent fees at rates better than adult
wages. But the social worker, DEB, reported to DSWD that these children often
missed going to school. They sometimes drank wine, aside from being exposed to
drugs. In some scenes, they were filmed naked or in revealing costumes. In his
defense, DON contended all these were part of artistic freedom and cultural
creativity. None of the parents complained, said DON. He also said they signed a
contract containing a waiver of their right to file any complaint in any office or
tribunal concerning the working conditions of their children acting in the movies.
Decide.

-Under present circumstance, the contract signed by the parties by

waiving their right to file any complaint in any office or tribunal
concerning the working conditions of their children acting in movies is not
valid. As provided for in Article 6 of the NCC, “that rights may be waived
unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or
good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by
law.” In the case at bar, the actions of the parents by signing a contract
containing a waiver is a clear violation of the Civil Code when the working
conditions of their children is detrimental to their moral well-being. Thus,
in view of the foregoing, the waiver is invalid and not binding.

2. In 1985, Sonny and Lulu, both Filipino citizens, were married in the Philippines. In
1987, they separated, and Sonny went to Canada, where he obtained a divorce in
the same year. He then married another Filipina, Auring, in Canada on January 1,
1988. They had two sons James and John. In 1990, after failing to hear from Sonny,
Lulu married Tirso, by whom she had a daughter, Verna. In 1991, Sonny visited the
Philippines where he succumbed to heart attack.

a. Discuss the effect of the divorce obtained by Sonny and Lulu in Canada.
-In view of the foregoing, the divorce is not valid. Their marriage is
still valid and subsisting. Under Art. 15 of the NCC, laws relating to
family rights and duties, status, and capacity of persons are binding
upon citizens of the Philippines wherever they may be. Our laws do
not provide for absolute divorce and courts cannot grant it. Hence,
our law shall be applicable to Sonny and Lulu and therefore their
marriage cannot be dissolved by a divorce obtained abroad.
Bagares, Ariane P.
Miterm Exam
Persons and Family Relations
b. Explain the status of the marriage between Sonny and Auring.
-In view of the foregoing, the marriage of between Sonny and
Auring is void. As provided for in Art. 34 of the Family Code, any
marriage subsequently contracted during the lifetime of the first
spouse shall be illegal and void, subject only to the exception where
the prior marriage was dissolved or annulled. Since the marriage of
Sonny and Lulu is still valid and subsisting, the marriage between
Sonny and Auring does not fall within the exception. Thus, the
marriage between Sonny and Auring is void.

c. Explain the status of the marriage between Lulu and Tirso.

-In view of the foregoing, the marriage between Lulu and Tirso is
also void. The absence of Sonny does not give rise to Lulu a right to
remarry. As provided in Art. 41 of the FC, provides for a valid
bigamous marriage only where a spouse had been absent for four
consecutive years before the second marriage and the present
spouse had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse is already
dead. In the case at bar, the marriage between Lulu and Tirso was
contracted only after 3 years of the separation between Lulu and
Sonny, and she failed to allege that Sonny, being the absent spouse
is already dead. Thus, the marriage between Lulu and Tirso is void.

3. Rose and Daniel got married in 1990. Daniel went to America for work as an external
auditor. However, after a year, he filed a petition for divorce in America which was
granted. After returning from work, Daniel contracted a second marriage with
Patricia in Manila. Thereafter, Daniel then filed a complaint for judicial declaration
nullity of the 1st marriage was filed on the ground that there was no marriage
ceremony conducted because they merely signed a marriage contract without the
presence of the solemnizing officer. Rose enraged that Daniel abandoned her, filed
a case for bigamy against him. Daniel then moved for a suspension of arraignment
since a civil case posed a prejudicial question in the bigamy case. Decide.
-In view of the foregoing, the annulment is really a prejudicial question.
In order that a person may be held guilty of bigamy, the second marriage
must have had all the essential elements of a valid marriage, were it not
for the existence of the first marriage. Daniel obtained the divorce in
America that makes his marriage between Rose still subsisting and valid
since divorce is still not recognized in the country.
Bagares, Ariane P.
Miterm Exam
Persons and Family Relations
4. Maria and Mario were married before the Judge of Metropolitan Trial Court on
October 22, 2004. On December 6, 2006, Maria filed with the RTC á petition for
declaration of nullity for her marriage with Mario alleging that immediately after their
marriage, they separated and never lived as husband and wife because they never
really had any intention of entering a married state or complying with any of their
essential marital obligations. She described their marriage as one made in jest and,
therefore, null and void ab initio. The RTC granted the petition and declared that
their marriage was for convenience only. Giving credence to the testimony of Maria,
it stated that she contracted to enter a marriage to enable her to acquire American
citizenship; that in consideration thereof, she agreed to pay him the sum of
$2,000.00. Did the RTC rule correctly?

-In view of the foregoing, the RTC erred in their ruling. Maria contracted
a marriage for the sole purpose of acquiring American citizenship in
consideration of $2,000.00 is not void ab initio on the ground of lack of
consent. Both consented to the marriage since it was not alleged in the
case at bar that their consent to the marriage was vitiated nor it was
rendered defective by any vice of consent. As provided in Art. 2 of the FC,
for consent to be valid, it must be freely given and made in the presence
of a solemnizing officer. Their consent to the marriage was freely given
because both willingly and deliberately entered marriage for the purpose
of Maria to acquire American citizenship. Thus, the marriage of Maria and
Mario remains valid given that their consent the marriage was not vitiated
nor rendered defective by any of the vices of consent as provided for in
Art. 45 of the FC, such as fraud, intimidation and undue influence.

5. Baldo, a rejected suitor, intimidated Judy into marrying him. While she wanted to
question the validity of their marriage two years after the intimidation ceased, Judy
decided in the meantime to freely cohabit with Baldo. After more than five (5) years
following their wedding, Judy wants to file a case for annulment of marriage against
Baldo on the ground of lack of consent. Will her action prosper?
-In view of the foregoing, her action will not prosper. The marriage of
Baldo and Judy was merely voidable, and Judy ratified it by freely
cohabiting with Baldo after the force and intimidation had ceased.
6. Saul, a married man, had an adulterous relation with Tessie. In one of the trysts,
Saul's wife, Cecile, caught them in flagrante delicto. Armed with a gun, Cecile shot
Saul in a fit of extreme jealousy, nearly killing him. Four years after the incident,
Saul filed an action for legal separation against Cecile on the ground that she
attempted to kill him.
Bagares, Ariane P.
Miterm Exam
Persons and Family Relations

a. If you were Saul's counsel, how will you argue his case?
-In view of the foregoing, being the counsel of Saul, I will argue that
there is no need to for criminal conviction for the ground to be
invoked. As provided for in Art. 55 par. 9 of the Family Code, an
attempt by the wife against the life of the husband is one of the
grounds enumerated for legal separation. Thus, there is no need for
criminal conviction for the ground to be invoked.
b. If you were the lawyer of Cecile, what will be your defense?
-In view of the foregoing, I will argue and invoke the adultery of
Saul. As provided for in Art. 56 par. 4 of the FC, mutual guilt is a
ground for the dismissal of an action for legal separation. It is
cloaked with the principle that one must come to court with clean
hands.

c. If you were the Judge, how will you decide the case?
-In view of the foregoing, I will dismiss the case on the ground of
mutual guilt of the parties. As provided for in Art 15. Sec 2 of the
1987 Constitution that protects marriage as a social inviolable
institution. Any legal obstacle that appears on record will bar the
issuance of such decree for legal separation as an action for legal
separation is an involves public interest.

7. Gabby and Mila got married at Lourdes Church in Quezon City on July 10, 1990.
Prior thereto, they executed a marriage settlement whereby they agreed on the
regime, of conjugal partnership of gains. The marriage settlement was registered in
the Register of Deeds of Manila, where Mila is a resident. In 1992. they jointly
acquired a residential house and lot, as well as a condominium unit in Makati. ln
1995, they decided to change their property relations to the regime of complete
separation of property. Mila consented, as she was then engaged in a lucrative
business. The spouses then signed a private document dissolving their conjugal
partnership and agreeing on a complete separation of property. Thereafter, Gabby
acquired a mansion in Baguio City and a 5-hectare agricultural land in Oriental
Mindoro, which he registered exclusively in his name. In the year 2000, Mila's
business venture failed, and her creditors sued her for P10,000,000.00. After
obtaining a favorable judgment, the creditors sought to execute on the spouses’
house and lot and condominium unit, as well as Gabby’s mansion and agricultural
land.

a. Discuss the status of the first and the amended marriage settlements.
Bagares, Ariane P.
Miterm Exam
Persons and Family Relations
-In view of the foregoing, the marriage settlement between Gabby
and Mila adopting the regime of conjugal partnership of gains still
subsists. Under the present circumstance, it is not dissolved by the
mere agreement of the spouses during the marriage. It is provided
in Art 134 of the FC that in the absence of any of an express
declaration in the marriage settlement, the separation of property
between the spouses during the marriage shall not take place
except by a judicial order.

b. Discuss the effect/s of the said settlements on the properties acquired by the
spouses.
-In view of the foregoing, the regime of conjugal partnership of
gains governs the properties acquired by the spouses. All the
properties acquired by the spouses after the marriage belong to the
conjugal partnership. Art. 116 of the Family Code, even if Gabby
registered all the properties on his name exclusively, the properties
are still presumed to be conjugal properties, unless the contrary is
proved.

c. What properties may be held answerable for Mila's obligations? Explain

-In view of the foregoing, all properties of the conjugal property
regime may be answerable for Mila’s obligation. The Family Code
requires registration of the marriage settlement not only with the
proper Registers of Deeds but also with the local civil registrar
where the marriage was recorded to bind third persons or in this
case the creditors. Under the present circumstance, there were no
sufficient registration of the marriage settlement. It was only
registered in Register of Deeds in Manila, and there was no showing
that the obligations incurred by Mila redounded to the benefit of the
family. Therefore, the creditors shall not be prejudiced by the
provisions of the conjugal partnership. All properties shall be
treated as absolute community insofar as the creditors are
concerned subject to reimbursement at the proper dissolution of the
conjugal property regime.

8. For five years since 1989, Tony a-bank Vice-president, and Susan, an entertainer,
lived together husband and wife without the benefit of marriage although they were
capacitated to marry each other. Since Tony's salary was more than enough for their
needs, Susan stopped working and merely “kept house”. During that period, Tony
Bagares, Ariane P.
Miterm Exam
Persons and Family Relations
was able to buy a lot and house in a plush subdivision. However, after five years,
Tony and Susan decided to separate.

a. Who will be entitled to the house and lot?

-In view of the foregoing, Tony and Susan are entitled to the house
and lot. Under Article 147 of the Family Code, the property acquired
during the parties’ cohabitation are presumed to have been
obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry and shall be owned
by them in equal shares even the efforts of one of them consisted
merely in his or her care and maintenance of the family and of the
household. Under the present circumstance, Susan kept the
household. Therefore, she is entitled as co-owner of the house and
lot in equal share.

b. Would it make any difference if Tony could not marry Susan because he was
previously married to Alice from whom he is legally separated?
-Yes. In view of the foregoing, 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
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 and household are not considered adequate
contribution in the acquisition of the properties. Under the present
circumstance, Susan did not contribute to the acquisition of the
house and lot, she has no share therein. Therefore, the house and
lot are Tony’s exclusive property.

9. X and Y, both Filipinos, were married and resided in Spain although they intend to
return to the Philippines at some future time. They have not executed any marriage
settlements. What law governs their property relations?
-In view of the foregoing, what will govern is the law of the Philippines
since they were married in Spain and has plans to return to the Philippines
at some future time. As provided in Art. 75 of the FC, in the absence of
marriage settlement or when the regime agreed upon is void, the system
of absolute community property shall govern.

10. When A and B married, they chose conjugal partnership of gains to govern their
property relations. After years, B Succeeded in getting her marriage to A nullified on
the ground of the latter’s psychological incapacity. What liquidation procedure will
they follow in disposing of their assets?
Bagares, Ariane P.
Miterm Exam
Persons and Family Relations

-In view of the foregoing, what they will follow is the liquidation of co-
ownership since the annulment brought their property relation as
provided in Article 147 of the FC that 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 or under a void
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. Here, the 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.