OUTLINE IN PERSONS

AND FAMILY RELATIONS

ST
1 SEMESTER, SY 2010-2011
-------------------

1Note:
All articles references are to the Family Code unless a
Civil Code article reference ( NCC ) is indicated.

I.

INTRODUCTION
1 Tolentino, Civil Code, pp. 1-10 [1990 Edition]

II. EFFECT AND APPLICATION

OF LAWS
Arts. 1 to 13, pp. 1-52 of Tolentino
NCC 1 - 18
A. When law takes effect
NCC 2
Revised Administrative Code (RAC) Secs. 18-24
Exec. Order 200, Sec. 2
Pesigan v. Angeles 129 SCRA 174
Taada v. Tuvera 136 SCRA 27
Farinas vs. the Executive Secretary, 417 SCRA 503
MRCA v. Court of Appeals 180 SCRA 344
National Electrification Administration vs. Gonzaga,
G.R. No. 158761, December 4, 2007
Garcilliano vs. House of Representatives, G.R. No.,
170338, Dec. 23,
2008
Fuentes vs. Roca, G.R. No. 178902, April 21, 2010
B. Ignorance of the law
NCC 3
KASILAG VS. RODRIGUEZ, 69 PHIL 217
Elegado v. Court of Appeals, 173 SCRA 285
Manzano vs. Sanchez, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1339, Mar. 8,
2001
C. Retroactivity of laws
NCC 4, cf. NCC 2252 - 2269
Revised Penal Code (RPC) 22
Family Code (FC) 255
Frivaldo vs. Comelec, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996
Gregorio vs. CA, G.R. No. L-22802, Nov. 29, 1968

111

Aruego vs CA, 254 SCRA 711

Cang vs CA, 296 SCRA 128
Francisco vs CA, 299 SCRA 188
D. Mandatory or Prohibitory Laws
NCC Art. 5 with NCC Art. 17 (3)

Waiver of rights
NCC Art. 6
NCC Art. 2035
PEFTOK Integrated Services vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 124841. July 31,
1998
Valderama vs. Macalde, 470 SCRA 168
DM Consunji vs. CA, G.R. No. 137873, April 20, 2001
F. Repeal of laws
NCC 7
cf. 1987 Constitution, Art. XVIII Sec. 3

Mecano vs. COA, G.R. No. 103982, Dec. 11, 1992

Solangon vs. Salazar, G.R. No. 125944, June 29, 2001
Thornton vs. Thornton, Aug. 16, 2004
Lledo v Lledo, A.M. No. P-95-1167, February 9, 2010

G.

Judicial Decisions
NCC 8

De Roy vs. CA, 157 SCRA 757

Pesca vs. Pesca, G.R. No. 136921. April 17, 2001

De Castro v JBC, G. R. No. 191002, April 20, 2010

222

H. Duty to render judgment

NCC 9
RPC 5
I. Presumption and Applicability of custom
NCC 10 12
Art. 10. In case of doubt in the interpretation or application of laws, it is
presumed that the lawmaking body intended right and justice to prevail. (n)
Art. 11. Customs which are contrary to law, public order or public policy shall
not be countenanced. (n)
Art. 12. A custom must be proved as a fact, according to the rules of evidence.
(n)

cf. 1987 Constitution, Art. XII Sec. 5

Section 5. The State, subject to the provisions of this Constitution and national
development policies and programs, shall protect the rights of indigenous
cultural communities to their ancestral lands to ensure their economic, social,
and cultural well-being.
The Congress may provide for the applicability of customary laws governing
property rights or relations in determining the ownership and extent of
ancestral domain.

Rules of Court Rule 129 (2), (3)

Martinez v. Van Buskirk, 18 Phil. 79
Alonzo vs Padua, 150 SCRA 379
J. Legal periods
NCC 13
cf. Rules of Court (ROC) Rule 22
RAC Sec. 31
Armigos v. CA 179 SCRA 1
Namarco v. Tecson 29 SCRA 70
Go v. Dizon 214 SCRA 41 [See Concurring Opinion, J. Regalado]
Quiqui v. Boncaros, 151 SCRA 416

Applicability of Penal Laws

NCC 14
Rayray vs. Chae Kyung Lee, G.R. No. 18176, October 26, 1966

1.

Binding effect
NCC 15
cf. FC 26 par. 2

Barreto v. Gonzales 58 Phil 67

Tenchavez v. Escao 15 SCRA 355

333

Board of Commissioners vs. de la Rama, 197 SCRA 853

NCC 16
Art. 16. Real property as well as personal property is subject to the
law of the country where it is stipulated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the order of succession and to the amount of successional rights
and to the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the person whose succession is under
consideration, whatever may be the nature of the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found. (10a)
NCC 17
Art. 17. The forms and solemnities of contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in
which they are executed.
When the acts referred to are executed before the diplomatic or consular officials of the Republic of the Philippines in a foreign
country, the solemnities established by Philippine laws shall be observed in their execution.
Prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have, for their object, public order, public policy and good
customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a
foreign country. (11a)
German vs. Donaldson, 1 Phil 63

NCC 18

Tomawis v Balindong, G.R. No. 182434, March 5, 2010

1.

Human Relations
NCC 19 - 22

Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his due, and observe
honesty and good faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy shall
compensate the latter for the damage.
Art. 22. Every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the
expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him.

People v. Ritter 194 SCRA 690

De Tavera vs. Philippine Tuberculosis Society, 112 SCRA 243
Llorente vs. Sandiganbayan, 287 SCRA 382
Carpio vs. Valmonte, G.R. No. 151866, Sept. 9, 2004
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden vs. Reyes, G.R. No. 154259. Feb. 28,
2005. Inc.
Pacis v Morales, G.R. No. 169467, February 25, 2010

444

PERSONS & PERSONALITY

A. The concept of a person and personality
NCC 37 39
Art. 37. Juridical capacity, which is the fitness to be the subject of legal relations, is inherent in every natural person and is lost only through death.
Capacity to act, which is the power to do acts with legal effect, is acquired and may be lost. (n)
Art. 38. Minority, insanity or imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, prodigality and civil interdiction are mere restrictions on capacity to act, and
do not exempt the incapacitated person from certain obligations, as when the latter arise from his acts or from property relations, such as easements.
(32a)
Art. 39. The following circumstances, among others, modify or limit capacity to act: age, insanity, imbecility, the state of being a deaf-mute, penalty,
prodigality, family relations, alienage, absence, insolvency and trusteeship. The consequences of these circumstances are governed in this Code, other
codes, the Rules of Court, and in special laws. Capacity to act is not limited on account of religious belief or political opinion.

Classes of persons and their distinctions

Elements of civil capacity
Juridical personality
Juridical capacity
capacity to act
B. Commencement and termination of personality
1. Natural Persons
(a) Birth
NCC 40 - 41
1987 Constitution, Art. II Sec. 12
P.D. 603 [Child and Youth Welfare Code], Art. 5
FC 164
RPC Arts. 256 - 259
Art. 256. Intentional abortion. Any person who shall intentionally
cause an abortion shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if he shall use any violence
upon the person of the pregnant woman.
2. The penalty of prision mayor if, without using violence, he
shall act without the consent of the woman.
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, if the woman shall have consented.
Art. 257. Unintentional abortion. The penalty of prision correccional
in its minimum and medium period shall be imposed upon any person
who shall cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally.
Art. 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself of by her parents.
The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods shall be imposed upon a woman who shall practice abortion
upon herself or shall consent that any other person should do so.
Any woman who shall commit this offense to conceal her dishonor,
shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods.
If this crime be committed by the parents of the pregnant woman or
either of them, and they act with the consent of said woman for the
purpose of concealing her dishonor, the offenders shall suffer the
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Art. 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing
of abortives. The penalties provided in Article 256 shall be imposed
in its maximum period, respectively, upon any physician or midwife
who, taking advantage of their scientific knowledge or skill, shall cause
an abortion or assist in causing the same.
Any pharmacist who, without the proper prescription from a physician,

555

shall dispense any abortive shall suffer arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 1,000 pesos.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.ed. 2d 147

Geluz v. CA 2 SCRA 801 inc
Quimiging v. Icao 34 SCRA 134 inc
De Jesus v. Syquia 58 Phil 866
Continental Steel vs. Montano, GR 182836, October 13, 2009 inc
Ang Ladlad v COMELEC, GR 190582, April 8, 2010
(b) Death
NCC 42
Limjoco v. Intestate Estate of Pio Fragante 80 Phil 776
Dumlao v. Quality Plastics 70 SCRA 472 inc
Eugenio v. Velez 185 SCRA 425
Marcos v. Manglapus, G.R. No. 88211. Oct. 27, 1989 inc
NCC 43
ROC Rule 131 Sec. 3 (jj) - (kk) (1989 Rev. Rules on Evidence)
Joaquin v. Navarro 93 Phil 257
2. Juridical Persons
NCC 44-47
Batas Pambansa Blg. 68 (Corp. Code), Secs. 2, 4, 17
NCC 1767-1768
Barlin v. Ramirez 7 Phil 41
Camid vs. Office of the President, G.R. No. 161414. Jan. 17, 2005
nsa andaya
Juasing vs Hardware, July 30, 1982 andaya
C. Restrictions on civil capacity
1. Presumption of capacity
Catalan vs. Basa, G.R. No. 159567, July 31, 2007
2. Restrictions on capacity to act
NCC 38 - 39, cf. NCC 1327
(a) Minority

1.
2.
3.

Age of majority, R.A. 6809

A.M. NO. 03-02-05-SC Rules on Guardianship
Suffrage, Sec. 1 Art. V 1987 Constitution [cf.
Sangguniang Kabataan]

Ang Ladlad v COMELEC, GR 190582, April 8, 2010 wala pa

4. Marriage, FC 5; cf. R.A. 6809

5. Contracts
NCC 1327
NCC 1390 (par. 1), 1403 (par. 3)

666

NCC 1397, 1399

NCC 1489
NCC 1426 - 1427
Mercado v. Espiritu 37 Phil 215
Bambalan v. Maramba 51 Phil 417
Suan Chian v. Alcantara 85 Phil 669
Braganza v. Villa-Abrille 105 Phil 456

6. Criminal liability
RPC 12 (2) - (3);
RPC 13 (2); PD 603 Secs. 189 - 204
Also see: Rule 3, Section 5 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
(b) Insanity

1. Marriage, FC 45 (2)
2. Contracts, NCC 1327, 1328
3. Criminal liability,
RPC 12 (1)
Rule 101, Rules of Court
US v. Vaguilar, 27 Phil 88
People v. Rafanan 204 SCRA 65
Standard Oil v. Arenas, GR No. L-5921, July 25, 1911 PC
Hernandez vs Santos, G.R. No. 169217, August 7, 2009
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)

Deaf-Mutism, NCC 1327 (2), 807 & 820

Prodigality,
ROC Rule 92 Sec. 2
Civil Interdiction,
RPC 31, 41 ..its a restriction
Family Relations .
FC 150-151; cf. FC 87
NCC 1490
NCC 2035
cf. NCC 963-967

(g) Alienage, cf. Art. IV, Secs. 1-5, 1987 Constitution

Cordora vs COMELEC, February 19, 2009 wala ok
(h) Absence, NCC 381 - 396

(i)

Insolvency and Trusteeship, NCC 1381, 1491,

2236
Villanueva vs. CA, G.R. No. 114870, May 26, 1995
(j) Gender, Art. II, Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution; cf. NCC 403
See also: Rule 3 Section 4, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Ang Ladlad v COMELEC, GR 190582, April 8, 2010
D. Domicile and residence of persons
1. Juridical persons, NCC 51
2. Natural persons
NCC 50

777

FC 68-69, cf. NCC 110

cf. FC 55, 101, 149, 152, 101
Romualdez-Marcos vs COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300

888

V. INTRODUCTION TO THE FAMILY CODE

Tolentino, Persons and Family Relations in the Civil Code
Osmea v Osmea, G.R. No. 171911, January 26, 2010
A. Effect and Retroactivity
E.O. 29, as amended by E.O. 227, R.A. 8609, R.A. 7160
FC 255, cf. FC 36 in rel. to 39, FC 105, FC 162, FC 257
Lupo Atienza v. Judge Brilliantes, 243 SCRA 32
Bernabe vs. Alejo, 374 SCRA 180
Fuentes vs. Roca, G.R. No. 178902, April 21, 2010
B. Repeal/Amendment
FC 253, 255

VI.
MARRIAGE & PERSONAL RELATIONS
BETWEEN SPOUSES
A. The Concept of marriage
FC 1 cf. NCC 52, FC 149
Art II Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution
Art. XV Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution
Estrada v Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651. August 4, 2003
B. Nature of marriage in Philippine law
FC 1 cf. Rule 131 Sec. 3, 1989 Rules on Evidence,
NCC 220
Muslim Code, (P.D. 1083) Sec. 14
Goitia vs Campos-Rueda, 35 Phils 252
Sermonia v. CA 233 SCRA 155
Perido v. Perido 63 SCRA 97
People v. Malabago G.R. No. 115686, Dec. 2, 1996
Go vs. Court of Appeals 272 SCRA 752
Trinidad vs CA, G.R. No. 118904 April 20, 1998
De Jacob vs CA, 312 SCRA 772
Silverio vs Republic, October 22, 2007
People v De La Cruz, G.R. No.187683, February 11, 2010
C. Agreements prior to marriage
1. Stipulations prior to marriage
FC 1 cf. NCC 221
Panganiban v. Borromeo 58 Phil 367
In re Santiago 70 Phil 66
Selanova v. Mendoza 64 SCRA 69
Lichauco-de Leon v. CA 186 SCRA 345

999

2. Breach of promise to marry

NCC 19 - 21; NCC 2176; NCC 1403 2(c)
MC 22
Domalagan v. Bolifer 33 Phil 471
Cabague v. Auxilio, 92 Phil 294
Hermosisima v. CA 109 Phil 629
Wassmer v. Velez 12 SCRA 648
Tanjanco v. CA 18 SCRA 994
Baksh v. CA, 219 SCRA 115
D. Requisites for a valid marriage
Tolentino 222 - 269
Mariategui v. CA 205 SCRA 337
1. Kinds of requisites & effects of non-compliance
FC 2-3; FC 5; FC 45
cf. NCC 53
RPC 350-351
De Mijares vs Villaluz, 274 SCRA 1
Mallion vs Alcantara, 506 SCRA 336
Egap Madsali, Sajiron Lajim And Maron Lajim v People Of The
Philippines, G.R. No. 179570, February 4, 2010
2. Essential requisites
(a) Legal Capacity
(i) Gender, FC 2 ( 1) cf. FC 148
Silverio vs Republic, October 22, 2007
(ii). Age
FC 5; FC 35 (1); R.A. 6809 cf. FC 21
NCC 54 & 80 (1)
RPC 344
cf. DOJ Opinion 145 S.1991 (Oct. 1991)
(iii) Absence of impediment, FC 5
Garcia vs. Recio, 365 SCRA 437
Te vs. Choa, G.R. No. 126446, Nov. 29, 2000 (346 SCRA 327)
3. Parental consent,
FC 14; FC 45 cf. NCC 61 & 95 (1)
4. Consent freely given by both spouses
(a). Mistake as to identity,
FC 35 (5); NCC 86 (1)
(b) Effect of insanity, FC 45 (2)
(c) Effect of fraud, FC 45 (3); FC 46, NCC 1338 1344

101010

Anaya vs Palaroan, Nov. 26, 1970

(d) Effect of force, intimidation and undue influence,
FC 45 (4); NCC 1335 1337
Villanueva vs CA, 505 Scra 564
(e) Effect of physical incapacity/impotence, FC

45 (5)

Jimenez v. Caizares 109 Phil 27

Alcazar v Alcazar, G.R. No. 174451, October 13, 2009
(f) Effect of affliction with STD, FC 45 (6)
5. Formal Requisites
(a) Marriage license
Republic v. CA, 236 SCRA 257
Cosca v. Palaypayan, 237 SCRA 249
Sy vs. CA, G.R. No. 127263, April 12, 2000
Alcantara vs. Alcantara, G.R. No. 167746, Aug. 28, 2007
De Castro v De Castro, G.R. No. 160172, February 13, 2008
Republic v Dayot, G.R. No. 175581, March 28, 2008
1. Where to apply, FC 9 - 10
2. Requirements for issuance
a. application, FC 11
b. proof of capacity, FC 12-14; FC 21 cf. NCC 84
Sevilla vs Cardenas, 497 SCRA 429
cf. DOJ Opinion 50 S. 1991 (April 30, 1991)
DOJ Opinion 146 S. 1991 (Oct. 17, 1991)
c. parental advice, FC 15
d. marriage counseling, FC 16
e. publication, FC 17
f. investigation of impediments, FC 18
g. payment of fees, FC 19
h. family planning certificate, P.D. 965
3. Place where valid, FC 20
4. Period of validity, FC 20
5. Duties of the Civil Registrar, FC 24-25
Alcantara vs Alcantara, GR No. 167746, Aug. 28, 2007
6. marriages exempt from license requirement
FC 27-34, cf. NCC 76, P.D. 1083
Leda v. Tabang, 206 SCRA 395

Nial vs. Bayadog, G.R. 133778, Mar. 14, 2000

111111

Manzano vs. Judge Sanchez, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1329 March 8, 2001

De Castro vs. De Castro, G.R. 160172, February 13, 2008
Republic vs Dayot, March 28, 2008
(b) Authority of the solemnizing officer
1. Who are authorized
FC 7, 10, 31 & 32
NCC 56, 74, 76
R.A. 7160 (1991 Local Government Code),
Secs. 444(b)(1)(xviii), 445 (b)(1)(xviii)
Aranes vs Occiano, 380 SCRA 402
Navarro v. Domagtoy S.C. A.M. MTJ-96-1088, July 19, 1996
2. How authorized
FC 7 (2) cf. NCC 92-96
Villar v. Paraiso 96 Phil 659
3. Effect of absence of authority
FC 4; FC 35 (2)
RPC 352
cf. Tenchavez v. Escao, 15 SCRA 355 at page 360
4. Duties of the solemnizing officer, FC 23-24
5. Effect of irregularity, FC 4
(c) Marriage Ceremony
1. form of ceremony, FC 3 (3); FC 6 cf. FC 33, FC 8
Martinez v. Tan 12 Phil 731
Egap Madsali, Sajiron Lajim And Maron Lajim v People Of The
Philippines, G.R. No. 179570, February 4, 2010
2. Place for ceremony, FC 8; FC 28-29; FC 32-33
3. Issuance of marriage certificate, FC 6; FC 22
Madridejo v. De Leon 55 Phil 1
People v. Borromeo 133 SCRA 106
E. Law governing validity of marriages abroad
1 Tolentino 260 - 263
1. General rule in contracts
(a) As to form, NCC 17
(b) As to substantive requirements, NCC 15 & 17
2. Special rule in marriage
(a) lex loci celebrationis, FC 26; FC 21, FC 10
Yao Kee v. Sy-Gonzales, 167 SCRA 786
Republic vs. Orbecido III, G.R. No. 154380, October 5, 2005
Dacasin v Dacasin, G.R. No. 168785, February 5, 2010
(b) Exceptions,
FC 26 in relation to
FC 35(1), 35(4), 35(5), 36, 37 & 38
cf. NCC 71

121212

DOJ Opinion No. 11 S. 1990 (Jan. 17, 1990)

FO
Ma RMA
Ma rriage L
Au rriage Certif
tho
rity Licen icate
of S se
Ab
ole
sen
mn
ce o
izin
f re
gO
qui
ffic
site
er
s=
VO
ID
ab
init
io

ES
S
Leg ENT
a
Con l cap IAL
Sex sent acity

and
c

ann
ot

be
rati
fied

F.

Common-law marriages/ live-in relationships

FC 147, cf. RPC 350
Rule 131 Sec. 3, 1989 Rules on Evidence cf.NCC 220 FC
26 par. 1
NCC Book II, Title III (484-501)
Lesaca v. Lesaca, 91 Phil 135
Yaptinchay v. Torres, 28 SCRA 489
Eugenio v. Velez, G.R. No. 85140 May 17, 1990
Estrada v Escritor, A.M. No. P-02-1651. August 4, 2003

G. Void Marriages
1 Tolentino 270 - 310
General rule, FC 4
1. Kinds of void marriages
(a) Absence of requisites
cf. VII (D) of Outline
FC 35 cf. FC 234, RA 6809

131313

Alcantara v Mallion, GR NO. 1677446, August 18, 2007

So v Valera, GR 150677, June 5, 2009
(b) Bigamous and polygamous marriages,
FC 35(4), 39, 40, 41, 44
RPC 344, 349
Apiag v. Cantero S.C. A.M. MTJ-95-1070, Feb. 12,1997
Mercado vs Tan, 337 SCRA 122
Ty vs. CA, G.R. No.127406, Nov. 27, 2000
Morigo vs Morigo, 422 SCRA
Tenebro vs. CA, G.R. No. 150758. February 18, 2004 (read
concurring of Justice Vitug)
Mallion vs Alcantara, 506 SCRA 336
Abunado v Republic, GR No. 159218, March 30, 2004
Jarillo v People, G.R. No. 164435, September 29, 2009
Puse v Puse, GR 183678, March 15, 2010
(c) Subsequent marriage, upon reappearance of absent spouse
FC 41 in relation to FC 42-44
NCC 390-391, FC 55 (9), FC 101

SU
B
Psy STA
c
GR holo NTIV
g
E
JUR AVIT ical i (199
Y
nca
INC IDIC ,
pac 5)
ity
UR AL
is c
AB AN
har
ILI TEC
acte
TY
ED
rize
EN
db
CE
y
, an
d

Jones v. Hortiguela 64 Phil 179

Republic vs. Nolasco, 220 SCRA 20, March 17, 1993
Bienvenido vs. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 676, October 24, 1994
Armas vs. Calisterio, 330 SCRA 201, April 6, 2000
Republic vs. Bermudez - Lorino, 449 SCRA 57, January 19, 2005
Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 458 SCRA 200, May 6, 2005
Manuel vs. People, 476 SCRA 461, November 26, 2005
Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 477 SCRA 277, December 9, 2005
Republic vs Tango, July 31, 2009
(d) Bad faith of both spouses, under FC 44
(e) Psychological incapacity under FC 36
FC 36, 39, 68-73
R.A. 8533
Lim v. CA 214 SCRA 237
Salita v. Magtolis, 233 SCRA 100
Krohn v. CA, 233 SCRA 146
Santos v. CA 240 SCRA 20

Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA G.R. No. 119190, Jan. 16, 1997

141414

PR
(1) OCED
(2) The b URA
u
(3) the ro rden L (19
o
9
(4) The in t cau of pro 7)
se o of
T
c
a
h
(5)
e in pac
f p belo
(6) Such capac ity mu sycho ngs t
o
illn
i
l
T
t
y
h
(7)
e es ess
mu st be p ogica the p
(8) Interp sentia must st be roven l incap laintif
The reta l m be g clin
f;
a
e
tria tion arita rave icall xistin city m
y
g
lm
ust
ma l ob
e
o
a
no
r
t
ust
d
b
l
ord e by t igatio ugh; medic the tim e me
er t
he
n
a
e o dical
lly
Na mus
he
per f the ly o
fisc tion t be
ma
al a al A em
nen celeb r clini
nd
b
p
t or rati call
r
p
ella aced
the
inc on o y id
Sol te M by
ura
e
icit
A
ble f marr ntifie
or-G atrim rticl
;
d
iag
ene onia es 68
e; , alleg
l
ral
ed
to a Tribun to 71
in t
he
ppe
al o of th
com
al a
f th e F
s co e C am
pla
int,
uns atho ily C
suf
els
o
l
i
d
c
fici
for
Ch e as
ent
urc
the
r
e
ly p
Sta h, a gard
rov
nd
te.
s hu
en
sba
by
nd
exp
and
ert,
wif
and
e, a
cle
nd
arly
Art
exp
icle
lain
s 22
ed
0 to
in t
225
he
dec
of t
isio
he
sam
n;
e co
de
as r
ega
rds
par
ent
s an
d th
eir
chi
ldre
n;

Republic v. Olaviano Molina (1997)

Hernandez vs. Court of Appeals, 320 SCRA 76, December 08, 1999
Marcos vs. Marcos, 343 SCRA 755, October 19, 2000
Republic vs. Dagdag, 351 SCRA 425
Malcampo-Sin vs. Sin, 355 SCRA 285, March 26, 2001
Pesca vs. Pesca, 356 SCRA 588, April 17, 2001
Choa vs. Choa, 392 SCRA 641

Barcelona vs. Court of Appeals, 412 SCRA 41, September 24, 2003
Dedel vs.CA, G.R. No. 151867, Jan. 29, 2004

RP vs. Quintero-Hamano, G.R. No. 149498, May 20, 2004

Siayngco vs. Siayngco, 441 SCRA 422, October 27, 2004
Antonio vs.Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, Mar. 10,2005

Republic vs. Iyoy, 470 SCRA 508, September 21, 2005

Yu vs. Yu, 484 SCRA 485, March 10, 2006
Ferraris vs. Ferraris, G.R. No. 162368, July 17, 2006
Mallion vs.Alcantara, G.R. No.141528, Oct.31, 2006
Catalan vs. Court of Appeals, 514 SCRA 607, February 6, 2007
Republic vs. Tanyag-San Jose, 517 SCRA 123, February 6, 2007
Zamora vs. Court of Appeals, February 7, 2007
Navarro vs. Navarro, GR No. 162049, April 13, 2007
Republic vs Cabantug-Baguio, June 30, 2008
Almelor vs RTC-Las Pinas, GR No. 179620, Aug. 26, 2008
Laurena vs CA, GR No. 159220, Sept. 22, 2008
Te vs Te, GR No. 161793, Feb. 13, 2009
Ting vs Ting, GR 166562, March 31, 2009
Azcueta vs RP, G.R. No. 180668, May 26, 2009
So vs Valera, GR 150677, June 5, 2009
Halili v Halili, GR 165424, June 9, 2009 (Motion for Recon)
Najera vs Najera, GR 164817, July 3, 2009

151515

Rumbaua vs Rumbaua, GR 166738, August 14, 2009

Aspillaga vs Aspillaga, GR 170925, October 26, 2009
Lim v Lim, G.R. No. 174464, February 4, 2010
Paz v Paz, G.R. No. 166579, February 18, 2010
Suazo v Suazo, G.R. No. 164493, March 10, 2010
Ligeralde v Patalinghud, G.R. NO. 168796, April 15, 2010
(f) Incestuous marriages, FC 37 cf. NCC 963-967
(g) Marriages against public policy
FC 38, compare FC 38(6) with NCC 80(6)
RPC 246
NCC 80(7), 82
NCC 963-967
Reyes vs Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124099. October 30, 1997
May 12, 1992 Reyes died
May 21, 1992 Julio Vivares filed a petition for probate of
the will before the RTC.
(h) Non-compliance under FC 53
2. Who can invoke nullity, FC 36, FC 39, FC 40
Sec. 2, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. March 4, 2003
Nial vs. Bayadong, G.R. 133778, Mar. 14, 2000
Enrico vs. Heirs of Sps. Medinaceli, G.R. No. 173614, September 28,
2007

Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC

Only an aggrieved or injured spouse may file a petition for
annulment of voidable marriages or declaration of absolute nullity of void
marriages. Such petition cannot be filed by compulsory or intestate heirs
of the spouses or by the State. The Committee is of the belief that they do
not have a legal right to file the petition. Compulsory or intestate heirs
have only inchoate rights prior to the death of their predecessor, and hence
can only question the validity of the marriage of the spouses upon the
death of a spouse in a proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the
deceased spouse filed in the regular courts. On the other hand, the
concern of the State is to preserve marriage and not to seek its dissolution.
(Emphasis supplied.)

SC:
While A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC declares that a petition for declaration of absolute nullity
of void marriage may be filed solely by the husband or the wife, it does not mean that
the compulsory or intestate heirs are already without any recourse under the law. They
can still protect their successional right, for, as stated in the Rationale of the Rules on
Annulment of Voidable Marriages and Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void
Marriages, Legal Separation and Provisional Orders, compulsory or intestate heirs
can still question the validity of the marriage of the spouses, not in a proceeding for
declaration of nullity, but upon the death of a spouse in a proceeding for the
settlement of the estate of the deceased spouse filed in the regular courts.

Carlos s. Sandoval, GR 179922, December 16, 2008

Only a spouse can initiate an action to sever the marital bond for marriages
solemnized during the effectivity of the Family Code, except cases commenced prio9r
to March 15, 2003. The nullity and annulment of a marriage cannot be declared in
judgment on the pleadings, summary judgment, or confession of judgment.

161616

A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC 2a A petition for declaration of

absolute nullity of void marriage may be filed solely by the
husband or the wife:
Only aggrieved or injured spouse may file a petition for annulment of
voidable marriages or declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. Such
petition cannot be file by compulsory or intestate heirs of the spouse or by
the Statethe concern of the State is to preserve marriage and not to seek its
dissolution.
-While AM No 02-11-10 SC declares that a petition for
declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be filed solely
by the hustband or the wife, it does not mean that the
compulsory or intestate heirs are without any recourse under
the law.
-Effective March 15, 2003, prospectively

3. When to file action for declaration of nullity

FC 39; FC 36 par. 2 in relation to FC 255;
FC 42, par. 2
FC 236, 237 in rel to R.A. 6809
4. Procedure in actions for declaration of nullity
a. Requisite for valid remarriage, see VII (E)(10)(b)
above
b. Safeguards against collusion, FC 48
Malcampo Sin vs. Sin, 355 SCRA 285
Ancheta vs Ancheta, 424 SCRA 725
Salmingo v Rubica, A.C. No. 6573, July 9, 2007
c. No confession of judgment, FC 48; cf. NCC 2035
d

A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. March 4, 2003

Jocson v. Robles 22 SCRA 521

Tolentino v. Villanueva 56 SCRA 1
Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA 235 SCRA 111
Pesca vs. Pesca 356 SCRA 588
Carlos vs Sandoval, December 16, 2008
5. Effects of pendency of action for declaration of nullity
- Art. 49,

- Art 50

171717

- Art 147

Art 148
Art 40
6. Effects of final judgment declaring nullity
(a) In general, FC 50-54 but see FC 147-148
Chan-Tan v Chan, G.R. No. 167139, February 25, 2010
(b) On remarriage,
FC 50
Wiegel v. Sempio-Diy, 143 SCRA 499
Terre v. Terre, 211 SCRA 6
Domingo v. CA 226 SCRA 572
Cario vs. Cario 351 SCRA 127
Bobis vs. Bobis, G.R. No. 138509, July 31, 2000
Mercado vs.Tan, G.R. No 137110, August 1, 2000
Ty vs CA, 346 SCRA 327
Morigo vs Morigo, 422 SCRA 376
Abunado v People, G.R. No. 159218, March 30, 2004
Jarillo vs People, September 29, 2009
Garrido v Garrido, AC 6593, 2010
Re: Complaint of Mrs. Corazon S. Salvador, A.M. No.
2008-20-Sc, March 15, 2010
(c) On rights & obligations between the former spouses
(d) On the property regime of the marriage
FC 50, FC 43(2) cf. FC 102(4)
Compare with FC 147-148
Valdes v. QC-RTC G.R. No. 122749, July 31, 1996

Sales vs Sales, GR 17483, July 13, 2009

Buenaventura v CA, G.R. No. 127358. March 31, 2005
(e) On legitimes of the common children
FC 50-53, FC 51 in rel to NCC 886, 888;
FC 176
NCC 908, 1061

181818

Sec. 21, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. March 4, 2003

Buenaventura v CA, G.R. No. 127358. March 31, 2005
(f) On the status and custody of children
FC Art. 54, Art. 176
Dacasin v Dacasin, G.R. No. 168785, February 5, 2010
(note ABAD, J. separate opinion)
(g) On use of surnames
Yasin vs The Honorable Judge Shari'a District Court,
G.R. No.94986 February 23, 1995
BAR MATTER NO. 1625 - Petition to Use Maiden
Name in Petition to Take the 2006 Bar
Examinations, JOSEPHINE P. UY-TIMOSA
Remo v DFA, March 2010
(h) On hereditary rights
(i) Effect of death
Castro v Castro, G.R. No. 140484, January 28, 2007

H. Voidable Marriages
1 Tolentino 270 - 310

Void v. voidable marriages, FC

VOIDABLE:
4 cf.
45

46
Unless:
1.
Weigel vs. Sempio-Dy 143 SCRA 499
Terre vs. Terre 211 SCRA 6

Grounds for annulment

(a) Absence of parental consent,

FC 4(1), 47(1), R.A. 6809 cf. FC 14
(b) Insanity, FC 45(2), 47(2), NCC Art. 1149
Lim v. CA, 214 SCRA 237

191919

(c) Fraud
FC 45(3), 46, 47(3)
NCC 1338-1344
Buccat v. Buccat 72 Phil 49
Aquino v. Delizo 108 Phil 21
Anaya v. Palaroan 36 SCRA 97
Macarrubo vs Macarrubo, 424 SCRA 42
Almelor vs. RTC of Las Pias, G.R. No. 179620, August
26, 2008 (concealment of homosexuality is fraud)
(d) Force, intimidation and undue influence
FC 45(4), 47(4)
NCC 1335-1337
RPC 344, last paragraph
(e) Physical incapacity/impotence
FC 45(5), 47(5)
Jimenez v. Caizares 109 Phil 273
Alcazar vs Alcazar, GR 174451, October 13, 2009
(f) Affliction with STD, FC (45(6), compare with FC 46(3)
3. Who can seek annulment, FC 47
4. When to seek annulment
FC 47
Sec. 3 of A.M. No. 02,11-10-SC. March 4, 2003
5. Procedure in actions for annulment, see
VII(E)(13)(b)-(d)
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC. March 4, 2003
Barcelona vs. CA, G. R. 130087, Sept. 24, 2003
6. Effects of pendency of action for annulment
A.M No. 02-11-12-SC. March 4, 2003
7. Effects of annulment, FC 49-54

(a) In general
Tuason vs. CA 256 SCRA 158
Chan-Tan v Chan, G.R. No. 167139, February 25, 2010
147 - if marriage is annulled under article 36 = co-ownership
886 legitimes, compulsory heirs
(b) On remarriage Art. 40, FC
(c) On rights & obligations between the former spouses
(d) On the property regime of the marriage

202020

FC 50, FC 43(2) cf. FC 102(4)

Compare with FC 147-148
Buenaventura v CA, G.R. No. 127358. March 31, 2005
(e) On presumptive legitimes/hereditary rights
FC 50-53, FC 51 in rel to NCC 886, 888;
FC 176
NCC 908, 1061
Buenaventura v CA, G.R. No. 127358. March 31, 2005
(f) On the status and custody of children
Dacasin v Dacasin, G.R. No. 168785, February 5, 2010
(g) On use of surnames
I. Marriage when one spouse is absent
FC 41-44, compare with NCC 83, 85(2) and 87(2)
cf. RPC 349
Jones v. Hortiguela, supra

Lukban v. Republic 98 Phil 574

Gue v. Republic 107 Phil 381
SSS vs. Jarque vda. De Bailon, G.R. No. 165545, March 24,
2006

Valdez v Republic, G.R. No. 180863, September 8, 2009

J. Marriages dissolved by a foreign judgment (DIVORCE)
NCC 15, 17
FC 26

Benedicto v Dela Rama, December 8, 1903

Arca vs Javier, July 31, 1954

Tenchavez v. Escao, 15 SCRA 355
Van Dorn v. Romillo, 139 SCRA 139
Somera v. Pilapil, 174 SCRA 663
Quita vs CA, 300 SCRA 406

212121

Llorente vs CA, 345 SCRA 592

Garcia vs. Recio, 366 SCRA 437

Diego vs Castillo, 436 SCRA 67

RP vs. Orbecido, G.R.No. 154380, Oct. 5, 2005
San Luis vs. San Luis, G.R. 133743, Feb. 2, 2007

Amor-Catalan vs. Ca, G.R. No. 167109, February 6,

2007
Bayot vs CA, G.R. No. 155635, Nov. 27, 2000
Dacasin v Dacasin, G.R. No. 168785, February 5, 2010
K. Marriages giving rise to criminal liability
FC 4, FC 16,
NCC 84,
RPC 351-352.
People v De Guzman, GR 185843, March 3, 2010
R.A. 6955, An Act to Declare Unlawful the
Practice of Matching Filipino Women for
Marriage to Foreign Nationals
R.A. 9208, Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of
2003

222222

VII.

THE LAW ON SEPARATION OF THE SPOUSES

A. Concepts of separation & divorce

Benedicto v. De la Rama 3 Phil 34

1. Separation in fact, FC 238-248
Villanueva v Chiong, GR 159889, June 5, 2008
2. Agreements to separate
NCC 221 (1)

Albano v. Gapusan 71 SCRA 26

In re: Atty. Rufillo Bucana 72 SCRA 14
3. Absolute divorce
(a) Divorce under the Family Code
FC 26 paragraph 2
Tenchavez v. Escao, 15 SCRA 355
Van Dorn v. Romillo, 139 SCRA 139
Somera v. Pilapil, 174 SCRA 663
Dacasin v Dacasin, G.R. No. 168785, February 5, 2010

(b) Divorce under the Muslim Code, MC 45-55

B. Concept of legal separation, compare with NCC 97

Grounds for legal separation Art. 55, FC

A.M. No. 02-11-11-SC. March 4, 2003

232323

(a) Sexual infidelity or perversion

FC 55(8)
RPC 333 & 334
RPC 247
Goitia v. Campos-Rueda 35 Phil 252
People v. Zapata 88 Phil 688
Gandionco v. Pearanda 155 SCRA 725
Ong vs Ong, 505 SCRA 76
(b) Drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or
homosexuality
FCC 55 compare with FC 46(4)
(c) Attempt on the life of the other spouse
FC 55(9), compare with NCC 97(2)

(d) Abandonment
FC Art. 55 (10)
FC 101 par. 3, compare with separation in fact
(e) other grounds
2. Who can ask for legal separation
FC 55, compare with NCC 99
3. When may petition be filed
FC 57, compare with NCC 102, NCC 99
Lapuz v. Eufemio 43 SCRA 177
Matubis v. Praxedes 109 Phil 789
4. Court procedure in legal separation
FC 58-60;
Sec 19, RA 9262
A.M. No. 02-11-11-SC. March 4, 2003
Araneta vs Concepcion, 99 Phil 709
Ocampo v Florenciano, 107 Phil 35

Lapuz vs Eufemio, 43 SCRA 177

Samosa vs Vamenta, Jr., 46 SCRA 110
Pacete v. Cariaga 231 SCRA 321

242424

5. Effect of pendency of the petition

(a) cooling-off period, FC 58
(b) right of consortium, FC 61 par. 1
(c) administration of property, FC 61 par. 2
De la Via v. Villareal 41 Phil 13
Sabalones v. CA 230 SCRA 79

(d) Support and custody pendente lite

FC 62 cf. FC 49, FC
198
Yangco v. Rhode, 1 Phil 404
De la Via v. Villareal, supra
Araneta v. Concepcion 99 Phil 709
Ramos v. Vamenta 46 SCRA 110
Lerma v. CA 61 SCRA 440
Pacete v. Cariaga supra

252525

6. Defenses in actions for legal separation FC Article 56

(a) Consent
FC 56(2); NCC 100

Matubis v. Praxedes, supra

People v. Sansano 50 Phil 73
People v. Schneckenberger 73 Phil 413

(b) Condonation
FC 56(1)
Ginez v. Bugayong 100 Phil 616
(c) Recrimination
FC 56(4)
Brown v. Yambao 102 Phil 168
Arroyo v. CA 203 SCRA 753
(d) Collusion/Mutual Consent
FC 60
FC 56(3), (5), compare with NCC 101 and 221(3)
Brown v. Yambao, supra
Ocampo v. Florenciano 107 Phil 35
Other means of denying legal separation
DEATH OF EITHER PARTY
66 par 1
7. Effects of decree of legal separation
(a) On personal relations, FC 63
(b) On the custody of children
FC 63(3); FC 213
NCC 106(3)
P.D. 603 (CYWC) Art. 17 par. 3
Matute v. Macadaeg, 99 Phil 340, May 30, 1956
(c) On property relations
FC 63(2), FC 64, FC Art. 102 (4)
(d) On support, FC 198
(e) On the use of surname

262626

NCC 370-372
Laperal v. Republic 116 Phil 672
(f) On hereditary rights,
FC 63(4)
129 par 7 compared with 102 par 4
ACP: net asset
CPG: net profit
(g) Solo Parents Act RA 8972
8. Reconciliation, FC 65-67
9. Effect of death of one of the parties
Lapuz vs. Eufemio 43 SCRA 314
Macadangdang vs. CA 108 SCRA 314

272727

VIII.

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF SPOUSES

1 Tolentino 338 - 355
cf. NCC 113-114
A. Obligation to love each other, FC 68
B. Obligation to live with the other spouse

1. General rule and exceptions

FC 68;

FC 72

Art. 100;

127;

101

282828

NCC 921 (4)

RPC 11 (2)
RPC 247
OBLIGATIONS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE:

1. ARTICLE 100, 127, 101 Civil sanction

Atilano v. Chua Ching Beng 103 Phil 255

Goitia v. Campos-Rueda, supra
Arroyo v. Vasques-Arroyo 42 Phil 54
Cuaderno v. Cuaderno 12 SCRA 505
Lacson v. Lacson 24 SCRA 837
Ilusorio vs. Bildner, G.R. No. 139789. May 12, 2000.
2. Designation of domicile
(a) General rule: jointly
FC 69 par. 1, compare with NCC 110
Abella v. COMELEC, 201 SCRA 335
De la Via v. Villareal, supra at pp. 16-21
(b) Exception, FC 69 par. 2
C. Joint management of family life
FC 70-71
D. Joint Obligation to Support
FC 70
SSS v De los Santos, G.R. No. 164790, August 29, 2008
E. The right to exercise a profession or calling
FC 73, compare with NCC 117
FC Art. 94 (3); FC Art. 121 (3)
Art. II Sec. 14 and Art. XIII Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution
cf. NCC 113 compare with ROC Rule 3 Sec. 4

292929

cf. R.A. 7192, An Act Promoting the Integration of Women

as Full & Equal Partners of Men in Development and Nation
Building
cf. R.A. 8187, An Act Granting Paternity Leave...
RA 9710, Magna Carta for Women
F. Related rights/obligations
Yasin v. Shariah Court 241 SCRA (1995)
G. Enforcement of Rights of Women and Children
Republic Act No. 9262 Anti-Violence Against
Women and Children
Sharica Mari Go Tan vs Spouses Tan, GR No. 168852,
Sept.30, 2008
Rustan Ang v CA, G.R. No. 182835, April 20, 2010
REVIEWMOLINA

303030

IX. PROPERTY RELATIONS OF THE SPOUSES

A.

Requisites
settlements

for

validity

of

marriage

FC Art. 75;
130 (3);
103 (3)
NCC Art. 1357;
1358
1. Prior to marriage: modifications
FC 1; FC 76
FC 66,
67,
128,
135,
136

(modifications after marriage)

2. Form & registration requirement, FC 77

3. Celebration of the marriage, FC 81 cf. Art. 86 (1)
B. Parties to a marriage settlement
1. Who may enter into settlements
(a) minors, FC 78
(b) persons under civil interdiction, FC Art. 38,
79

(c) incapacitated persons, FC 79, in rel. to NCC

38-39
2. Participation of parents/guardians Art. 78
C.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Which law governs property relations

Stipulation in marriage settlements, FC 80
If both Filipinos
Mixed marriage between Filipino and alien
If both aliens
For property located outside RP

FC 80 (2) and (3) in rel. To NCC 16

FC (3) in rel. To NCC 17

313131

D.

Donations propter nuptias

81 vs 86; donation valid if not contained in marriage

settlement

1. Definition, FC 82
Solis vs Solis, 53 Phil 912 [1928]
2. Form of Donations, FC Art. 83, NCC Arts. 748-749
3. Who may be donors FC Art 83
4. What may be donated by a spouse as donor

81

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

present property, FC 84
future property, FC 84; NCC 761
encumbered property, FC 85
donations in the marriage settlements, FC

5. Void donations by the spouses, FC 87

(a) Donations during the marriage
(b) Donations in common law marriages
Matabuena v. Cervantes 38 SCRA 284
Bienvenido v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 676
Sumbad vs CA, 308 CRA 575
Arcaba vs. Tabancura vs. de Batocael, G.R. No. 146683.
Nov. 22, 2001
SSS v Davac, G.R. No. L-21642. July 30, 1966
6. Revocation of donations propter nuptias
(a) Revocation by donor, FC 86; NCC 765; FC
Art. 50; 43 (3)
Mateo vs Lagua, 29 SCRA 864
(b) by operation of law, FC 48; 44; 61
E. Absolute community of property (ACP)
1. When applicable, FC 75, 103 (3); 130 (3)
2. Commencement, FC 88
3. Waiver during marriage, FC 89
4. Waiver after marriage, FC 89 par. 2 cf NCC Art. 168
5. Suppletory rules:
Co-ownership, FC 90; of NCC 484-501

7. What constitutes ACP, FC

323232

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

Memorize!
All property at time of marriage
Property acquired subsequently
Winnings from gambling, FC as of NCC 164
Presumption of ACP, FC 93 of NCC 160

7. What is excluded from ACP, FC 92; FC 95

8. Charges upon ACP, FC 94
FC 197

111

2008

Luzon Surety Co., Inc. vs De Garcia, 30 SCRA

Gelano vs CA, 103 SCRA 90
G-Tractors, Inc., vs CA, 135 SCRA 192
Sunga-Chan v CA, G.R. No. 164401, June 25,

(a) Family expenses, cf. FC 100 (3), FC 121(5) and FC 94(4)

Francisco v Gonzales, G.R. No. 177667, September 17,
2008
(b) debts of spouses, Art. 94 (2) and (3)
(c) subsidiary liabilities, Art. 94 (9)

333333

Buado vs. CA, G.R. No. 145222, April 24, 2009

(d) sole obligations of a spouse, Art. 94
a gambling losses, FC 95
b other charges, Art. 94
9. Ownership, FC 90, FC 96 in rel. to NCC 206

10. Administration and enjoyment of ACP

(a) joint administration, FC 96; FC 90
97
98
Yu Bun Guan vs Ong, 36 SCRA 559
(b) Sole administration
(1) incapacity, FC 96 (2)
(2) separation in fact FC 100 (3)
(3) FC Art. 100 (2)
(4) abandonment, FC 101
(5) pendency of legal separation proceeding, FC 61
(c) Disposition and encumbrance, FC 96-98
Matthews vs. Taylor, GR 164584, June 22, 2009
11. Effect of separation de facto, FC 100; cf. FC 239
12. Effect of abandonment, FC 101, FC 72
13. Causes for dissolution of ACP, FC 99
(a) Death, FC 103 cf. Rule 73 Sec. 12 ROC
(b) Legal separation, FC 63(2); FC 66
(c) Annulment and declaration of nullity, FC 50 in rel. to FC
43 (2)
(d) Judicial separation of property, FC 134-138
---if void 147, 148

343434

14. Effects of dissolution

(a) Liquidation procedure, FC 102
(b) For cause other than death, FC 43 (2); FC 63(2)
(c) Termination due to death, FC 104
Buenaventura v CA, G.R. No. 127358. March 31, 2005
15. For marriages before FC, FC 104 cf Art. 103 (3)
Delizo v. Delizo, 69 SCRA 216
16. Support during ACP liquidation
Cohabitation; should be liquidated in co-ownership
(Vitug) can remarry but settle first on properties
While liquidation is going on, entitled for support (198)

F. Conjugal partnership of gains

Belcodero v. CA 227 SCRA 303
Jocson v. CA 170 SCRA 333
Ansaldo v. Sheriff, 64 Phil 115
Sps. Estonina v. CA G.R. No. 111547, Jan. 27, 1997
CPG 1950-Aug 2, 1988
ACP Aug 3, 1988
Joint Obligation a spouse could only be sued liable
according to share

Solidarily Obligation a spouse could be sued liable for

the whole debt
1. When CPG commences and applies
(a) Marriages under FC, FC 107 cf. FC 88, FC 89
(b) marriages before FC, FC 105(2) of FC 256
Castro vs. Miat, 397 SCRA 271
(c) when applicable, FC 105 of FC 74-74
Malang vs Moson, 338 SCRA 393
(d) suppletory rules, FC 108 cf. NCC 1767-1768
PNB v. Quintos, 46 Phil 370
Ansaldo vs Sheriff of Manila, 64 Phil 115
2. What is included in the CPG, FC Art. 106

353535

3. What is excluded from CPG

(a) brought as exclusive property, FC 109(1)
Laperal v. Katigbak, 10 SCRA 493

(b) Acquired by gratuitous title during marriage,

FC 109 (2) of FC 113, FC 115
Veloso v. Martinez, 28 Phil 255
Berciles v. GSIS,128 SCRA 53, cf. FC 115
(c) Acquired by redemption/exchange, FC 109(3)
Plata v. Yatco, 12 SCRA 718
Lim v. Garcia, 7 Phil 320
(d) purchased with exclusive money
FC 109(4); of FC 118-119

(e) properties of parents

Laurena vs CA, GR 159220, September 22, 2008

3. Administration of exclusive property

(a) by the spouse-owner, FC 110
(b) by the other spouse, FC 110 2nd par.;
FC 142, FC 75
Veloso v. Martinez, supra
Manotok Realty v. CA, 149 SCRA 372
Ong vs CA, 204 SCRA 297

4. Encumbrance/disposition of exclusive property

363636

FC 111-112, of FC 236, amended by RA 6809

Palanca v. Smith-Bell, 9 Phil 131
Lim Queco v. Cartagena, 71 Phil 163
Wong et al. v. IAC 200 SCRA 792

5. What constitutes CPG

(a) definition, FC 106
124
(b) presumption of CPG, FC 116
Torela v. Torela, 93 SCRA 391
Magallon v. Montejo, 146 SCRA 282
Cuenca v. Cuenca, 168 SCRA 335
Titan v David, G.R. No. 169548, March 15, 2010
(c)what are included in CPG, FC 117
Memorize!

Hidden treasure (438)

Installments (118, 119, 120,
Cheesman vs IAC, 193 SCRA 93
Villanueva vs CA, 427 SCRA 439
Zulueta v. Pan-Am 49 SCRA 1
Mendoza v. Reyes 124 SCRA 154
Tarrossa vs De Leon, GR 185063, July 23, 2009
(d) if property bought by installments, FC Art. 118
Under NCC: Castillo v. Pasco, 11 SCRA 102
Tarrosa vs. De Leon, GR 185063, July 23, 2009
(e) credits due, FC 119
(f) improvements on CPG property, FC 120

373737

Padilla vs Padilla, 74 Phil 377

Caltex vs Felias, 108 Phil 873
Vda de Padilla vs Paterno, 3 SCRA 678
Calimlim v. Fortun, 129 SCRA 675
Embrado v. CA, 233 SCRA 335
Ravina vs Villa-Abrille, supra

6. Charges upon and obligations of CPG, FC 121

(similar to art 94, except par 5, 9), 122
- Husband no longer the sole administrator
Mariano vs CA, 174 SCRA 59
Ayala vs CA, 286 SCRA 272
Ching vs CA, 423 SCRA 356
Homeowners Savings and Loan vs. Dailo, G.R. No.
153802, Mar.11, 2005
Sunga-Chan v CA, G.R. No. 164401, June 25, 2008
Buado vs. CA, G.R. No. 145222, April 24, 2009
(a) with consent
Javier v. Osmea, 34 Phil 336
Vda. De Sta. Romana v. PCIB, 118 SCRA 330
G-Tractors v. CA, 135 SCRA 192

DBP v. Adil, 161 SCRA 307

Mariano v. CA 174 SCRA 59
Wong et al. v. CA 200 SCRA 792
Ong v. CA 204 SCRA 297

Ayala Investment vs. CA (February 12, 1998)

Security Bank vs. Mar Tiera Corp., G.R. No. 143382, Nov.
2006

29,

Husband as sole administrator;

Wife has no authority unless Husband consents
(b) Without consent
Luzon Surety v. De Garcia, 30 SCRA 118

383838

BA Finance v. CA, 161 SCRA 608

Costuna vs. Domondon, 180 SCRA 333
Carlos vs. Abelardo, 380 SCRA 361

Ramones vs. Agbayani, 137808, Sept. 30, 2005

Villanueva vs Chiong, GR 59889, June 5, 2008
Ravina vs Villa-Abrille, GR 160708, October 16, 2009
Fuentes v Roca, G.R. No. 178902, April 21, 2010

(c) personal debts, FC 122

People v. Lagrimas, 29 SCRA 153
Go vs Yamane, 489 SCRA 107
Buado vs Buado, supra
(d) winnings from gambling, FC 123
-form CPG

7. Ownership, administration and enjoyment

(a) Joint administration, FC 124 cf. FC 96

Guiang vs CA, 291 SCRA 372
Heirs vs Mijares, 410 SCRA 97
Roxas v. CA 198 SCRA 541 [1991]

Ysasi v. Fernandez, 23 SCRA 1079

Docena vs. Lapesura, 355 SCRA 658
Homeowners Savings Loan Bank vs. Dailo, G.R. No.
153802, Mar. 11, 2005
Alinas vs Alinas, GR No. 158040, April 14, 2008

(b) Sole administration

1 Incapacity, FC 124 (counterpart 96), 253
Uy vs. CA, 346 SCRA 246

393939

(2) Separation in fact (separate property), FC 100 (2, 3), 127(3)

(3) Abandonment, FC 101, 128
(4) Pendency of legal separation proceedings, FC 61
Sabalones v. CA 230 SCRA 79
Ravina vs Villa-Abrille, supra
(c) Disposition and encumbrance, FC 124-125; FC 97, 121 (8)
(unreasonable withholding of consent)

Felipe v. Heirs of Aldon, 120 SCRA 628 (see NCC 1390)

Cheeseman v. IAC 193 SCRA 93

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

Ayuste vs.CA, G. Rno. 118784, Sept. 2, 1999
Villaranda vs. Spouses Villaranda, G.R. No. 153447,
Feb. 23, 2004

Ainza vs.CA, G.R. No. 165420. June 30, 2005 (see NCC
1145)
Alinas vs. Alinas, G.R. No. 158040, April 14, 2008
Siochi v Gozon, G.R. No. 169900, March 18, 2010

8. Effect of separation de facto, FC 127, FC 100 cf. FC

239
9. Effect of abandonment,
FC 128 cf. FC 101
Partosa-Jo v. CA 216 SCRA 693

10. Dissolution of CPG, FC 126

(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

death, FC 126 (1)

legal separation, FC 63 (2), FC 66
annulment and declaration of nullity, FC 50 in rel. To FC 43 (2)
judicial separation of property, FC 134-138

404040

Effects of dissolution, FC 129

Metropolitan Bank vs Pascual, GR No. 163744, Feb. 29, 2008

Tarrosa vs De Leon, GR 185063, July 23, 2009

Sales v Sales, G.R. No. 174803, July 13, 2009
(a) liquidation procedure, FC 129
(b) cause other than death, FC 129; FC 43(2), FC 63(2)
(c) termination due to death; FC 130, cf. FC 104
Buenaventura v CA, G.R. No. 127358. March 31, 2005
10. For marriages before FC, FC 131
11. Applicability of Rules of Court, FC 132
12. Support during CPG liquidation,
FC 133
Santero v. CFI, 153 SCRA 728

G. Regime of separation of property

1. When applicable
(a) in the marriage settlements, FC 143-146
(b) when mandatory (death), FC 103 & FC 130
(c) reconciliation in legal separation, FC 66(2)

2. Property covered, FC 144

3. Administration
(a) by the owner-spouse, FC 145
(b) by the other spouse, FC 142
(c) FC 100 (3); 101

4. Family expenses, FC 146

5. Conveyances between the spouses, FC 87, NCC 1490

414141

H. Judicial separation of property

1. When possible, FC 134
Maquilan vs Maquilan, June 8, 2007
2. For sufficient cause, FC 135 cf. FC 55 (10)
3. Voluntary separation of property, FC 136, FC 74-75, FC 134
Lacson v. San Jose-Lacson, 24 SCRA 837
4. Effects of judicial separation of property
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)

liquidation of CPG or ACP, FC 137 par. 1

support pendente lite, FC 137 par. 2
regime after JSP, FC 138 of FC 66 (2)
binding effect on third parties, FC 139-140; of FC 66(2)

Calao vs Catigbak
5. Revival of property regime after JSP, FC 141 cf. FC 67
6. Transfer of administration of exclusive property, FC 142 cf
NCC 196; FC 96; FC 124

I. Property regime of unions without marriage

Cohabitation:
Legal capacity
Exclusive cohabitation
No marriage or marriage is void
Except 40: article 50, 40
Review: FC 6, 35 (2), 35 (3), 35 (5), 36, 38, 53; FC 41, 44;
FC 45 (Void and voidable marriages)
Covers wages and salary from work and industry
Staying at home to look after the family
Presumption: joint effort, half apportioning
1. Unions under FC 147
Maxey v. CA, 129 SCRA 187 cf. NCC 144
Domingo v. CA 226 SCRA 572 ( All Opinions)
Belcodero v. CA 227 SCRA 303
VALDES VS QC RTC, supra
Carino vs. Carino, supra
Fehr vs. Fehr, G.R. No. 152716. October 23, 2003
Joaquino vs Reyes, 434 SCRA 260
Gonzales vs Gonzales, 478 SCRA 327

2. Unions under FC 148 of FC 50 in rel. to FC 49(2) and FC 50

424242

Juaniza v. Jose, 89 SCRA 306

Yap v. CA, 145 SCRA 229
Bienvenido v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 676

Agapay vs Agapay, 276 SCRA 340

Tumlos vs. Sps. Fernandez, G.R. No. 137650, Apr 12, 2000
Malilin vs Castillo, 333 SCRA 628
Saguid vs. CA, G.R. No. 150611, June 10, 2003
Villanueva vs CA, 427 SCRA 439
Joaquino vs Reyes, 434 SCRA 260
Francisco vs Master Iron Works, 451 SCRA 494
Atienza vs.de Castro,G.R. No. 1695698, Nov. 29, 2006
Acre vs Yutiki, September 27, 2007
Signey v SSS, GR No. 173582, Jan. 28, 2008
Borromeo vs Descallar, GR No. 159310, Feb. 24, 2009
Heirs of Maramag vs De Guzman, GR 181132, June 5, 2009

434343

X.

FAMILY RELATIONS

A. What governs family relations, FC 149

Alavado v. City of Tacloban, 139 SCRA 230
Arroyo v. CA, 203 SCRA 753

B. Effects of family relationship on legal disputes

FC 150 - 151
NCC 2035
ROC Rule 16 Sec. 1(j)
RPC 20, 247 and 332
Gayon v. Gayon, 36 SCRA 104
Wainwright v. Versoza, 26 SCRA 78
Magbaleta vs Gonong, 76 SCRA 511
De Guzman vs Genato, 89 SCRA 674
OLaco vs Co Cho Chit, 220 SCRA 656
Tribiana vs.Tribiana, G.R. No. 137359, Sept. 13, 2004
Hiyas Savings and Loan Bank, Inc. vs. Acua, G.R. NO. 154132,
August 31, 2006
Intestate Estate of Gonzales v People, G.R. No. 181409, February 11,
2010

C. The family home

1. What constitutes the family home
Republic v Serrano, G.R. No. 183063, February 24, 2010
2. Who may constitute the family home, FC 152, FC 161
Taneo vs CA, 304 SCRA 308
3. When deemed constituted, FC 153
4. When terminated, FC 153 compare with FC 159
5. Beneficiaries, FC 154
Patricio vs. Dario, G.R. No. 170829, November 20, 2006

6. Exemptions, FC 155, FC 157, FC 160

7. When may be sold, FC 158
Modequillo v. Breva, 185 SCRA 766
Siari Valley v. Lucasan, 109 Phil 294

444444

Honrado vs.CA, G.R. No. 166333, Nov. 25, 2005

Cabang vs Basay, GR No. 180587, March 20, 2009
8. Rights of creditors, FC 160-162
Modequillo vs Breva, 185 SCRA 756
Cabreza vs Cabreza, GR 171260, September 11, 2009
Metrobank v Viray, G.R. No. 162218, February 25, 2010

XI.

PATERNITY AND FILIATION

A. Concept of paternity, filiation and legitimacy, FC 163

B. Legitimate children, FC 164 cf. FC 166 in rel to NCC
256-257, 165
168

Tan v. Trocio, 191 SCRA 764

Angeles vs Maglaya, 469 SCRA 363
SSS vs. Aguas, G.R. 165546, Feb. 27, 2006
Rivera vs Heirs of Villanueva, GR No. 141501, July 21,
2006
1. Who are considered legitimate children
[164, 36, 53, 45, 41]
(a) conceived during marriage
cf. ROC Rule 131 Sec. 3(dd)
FC Art. 168
1. valid marriage
2. terminated marriage under FC 42 in rel. to FC 43(1)
4. void marriages under FC 54, 36
5. voidable marriages
(b) born during marriage

454545

(c) conceived by artificial insemination cf. NCC 40

(d) adopted children
(e) legitimated children
2. Rights of legitimate children, FC 173-174
[44, bigamous, incestuous, against public policy, legally
incapacitated,
article 40 (before the void marriages are considered
void), Conceived and born with no marriage.]
NCC 364, 374, 376
NCC 888, NCC 979
Moore v. Republic, 8 SCRA 282
Naldoza v. Republic, 112 SCRA 658
Marquino vs IAC, 233 SCRA 348
Ong vs CA, 272 SCRA 725
Rep. vs CA, 300 SCRA 138
De la Cruz vs Gracia, G.R. No.
177728, July 31, 2009
Continental Steel vs. Montano, GR 182836, October 13, 2009

C. Illegitimate children
1. Who are considered illegitimate
(a) under NCC
(b) under FC 165
Joanie Surposa Uy v Jose Ngo Chua, G.R. No. 183965,
September 18, 2009
2. Rights of illegitimate children, FC 175-176
Osmea de Valencia v. Rodriguez, 84 Phil 222
Jao vs CA, 152 SCRA 359
Uyguangco vs CA, 178 SCRA 684
Mangulabnan v. IAC,185 SCRA 760
Mendoza vs. Court of Appeals, 201 SCRA 675, September 24, 1994
Lim vs. Court of Appeals, 270 SCRA 1, March 18, 1997
Tijing,
Eceta vs. Eceta, 428 SCRA 782, May 20, 2004
Briones vs. Miguel, 440 SCRA 455, October 18, 2004
Cabatania vs. Court of Appeals, 441 SCRA 96, October 21,
2004
Agustin vs. Court of Appeals, 460 SCRA 315, June 15, 2005
Alba vs. Herrera, GR No. 148220, July 29, 2005
Angeles vs. Maglaya, 469 SCRA 363, September 2, 2005
Guy vs CA, GR No. 163707, Sept. 15, 2006
Verceles vs. Posada, G.R. No. 161338, April 27, 2007
People vs Umanito, GR No. 172607, Oct. 26, 2007
Montefalcon v Vasquez, GR No. 165016, June 17, 2008
Heirs of Maramag vs De Guzman, GR 181132, June 5, 2009
Go vs Ramos, GR 167569, September 4, 2009
Joanie Surposa Uy v Jose Ngo Chua, G.R. No. 183965, September
18, 2009
DOJ Opinion No. 11 Series of 1990
DOJ Opinion No. 4, Series of 1998

464646

D. Action to impugn legitimacy

1. Grounds, FC 166
170
Memorize!
(a) Physical impossibility of access

Andal v. Macaraig, 89 Phil 165

Macadangdang v. CA, 100 SCRA 73

Ong vs. Court of Appeals, 272 SCRA 725

Concepcion vs. CA, G.R. No. 123450, Aug. 31, 2005

(b) Biological or other scientific grounds

A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC (RULE ON DNA Evidence) effective October
15, 2007
Jao v. CA, 152 SCRA 359
People v. Tumimpad, 235 SCRA 483
People v. Quitoriano, G.R. No. 118852, Jan. 20, 1997
Tijing, 2001
Herrera vs. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005
Agustin, June 15, 2005
Estate of Rogelio Ong v. Minor Joanne Diaz, G.R. No. 171713,
Dec. 17, 2007

(c.) FC 166(3)
2. Effect of a mothers declaration, FC 167
Chua Keng Giap v. IAC, 158 SCRA 18
Rodriguez v. CA, 245 SCRA 150
3. In subsequent marriages, FC 168, 169
People v Quitoriano, January 20, 1997

474747

4. Presumptions, FC 170, 171

Cobatbat-Lim vs IAC, 166 SCRA 451
5. Prescription of action to impugn legitimacy
Gaspay v. CA, 238 SCRA 163
6. Who may impugn
Benitez-Badua v. CA, 229 SCRA 468
Lim v. IAC, 166 SCRA 451
Liyao, Jr. vs. Tanhoti-Liyao, 378 SCRA 563

E. Proof of Filiation
1. Of legitimate children, FC 172-173

Diaz vs. Court of Appeals, 129 SCRA 621, June 22, 1984
Reyes v. CA,135 SCRA 439

Tison vs. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 582, July 31, 1997
Trinidad vs. Court of Appeals, 289 SCRA 188, April 20, 1998
Jison vs. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA 495, February 24, 1998

Labagala vs. Santiago, 371 SCRA 360

Tecson vs. COMELEC, Poe, et al., G.R. No. 161434, Mar. 3, 2004
De Jesus vs. Estate of Juan Gamboa Dizon, 366 SCRA 499

484848

Agustin vs. Court of Appeals, 460 SCRA 315, June 15, 2005
Ong vs. Diaz, December 17, 2007

2. Of illegitimate children, FC 175

Castro v. CA, 173 SCRA 656

Lim v. CA, 65 SCRA 160
Baas v. Baas, 134 SCRA 260

In re Christensen, 102 Phil 1055

Ilano v. CA 231 SCRA 242
Baluyut v. Baluyut, 186 SCRA 506
Mendoza v. CA, 201 SCRA 675

Marquino v. IAC, 233 SCRA 348 (1994)

Fernandez v. CA, 230 SCRA 130
Jison vs. CA, 286 SCRA 495
Eceta vs. Eceta, G.R. No. 157037, May 20, 2004

Heirs of Gabatan vs CA, GR 150206, March 13, 2009

Jenie San Juan Dela Cruz , et al vs. Ronald Paul S. Gracia,
G.R.
No. 177728, July 31, 2009
Joselito Musni Puno V Puno Enterprises, Inc., G.R. No.
177066, September 11, 2009
Nepomuceno v Lopez, G.R. No. 181258, March 18, 2010

2. Rights of illegitimate children, FC 176

Liyao vs. Liyao, 378 SCRA 563, March 7, 2002

Republic vs. Capote, February 2, 2007
Go vs Ramos, GR 167569, September 4, 2009
3. Compulsory recognition, cf. RPC 345, RPC 46, 59

494949

Solinap vs. Locsin, 371 SCRA 711

Pp vs. Delantar, G.R. No. 169143, February 2, 2007
Gapusan v. CA, 183 SCRA 160
People v. Barranco, 177 SCRA 103
Dempsey v. RTC, 164 SCRA 384
People v. Bayani, G.R. No. 120894 Oct. 3, 1996
People vs. Magtibay, G.R. No. 142985. Aug. 6, 2002
People v Abella, G.R. No. 177295, January 6, 2010
Egap Madsali, Sajiron Lajim And Maron Lajim v People Of The
Philippines, G.R. No. 179570, February 4, 2010

F. Legitimated Children
1. who may be legitimated, FC 177
Abadilla vs Tabiliran, 249 SCRA 447
2. How legitimation takes place, FC 178, FC 180
3. Retroactivity and effects, FC 180-181
DOJ Opinion No. 106 Series of 1991
4. action to impugn legitimation, FC 182
5. rights of legitimated children, FC 179

XII.

ADOPTION

Lazatin v. Campos, 92 SCRA 250

Cervantes v. Fajardo, 169 SCRA 575
R.A. 8552 (Domestic Adoption Law)
A.M. No. 02-6-02-S.C. (Aug. 22, 2002)
A. Requisites to be an adopter
1. Age and capacity required Sec. 7

2. Husband and wife jointly Sec. 7

Republic v. CA, 205 SCRA 356
In re petition for adoption of Michelle Lim, GR 168992, May 21,
2009
3. Need for consent Sec. 9
Santos v. Aransanzo, 16 SCRA 344
Daoang v. Municipal Judge, 159 SCRA 369
Duncan v. CFI, 69 SCRA 298
Landingin vs. RP, G.R. No. 164948, June 27, 2006

505050

4. Aliens as adopters Sec. 7 (b)

Pardo de Tavera v. Cacdac, 167 SCRA 626
Republic v. Toledano, 233 SCRA 9
R.A. 8043, The Law on Inter-Country Adoption
A.M. No. 02-6-02-S.C. (Aug. 22, 2002)
B. Who may not adopt
C. Who may be adopted
D. Who may not be adopted

Procedure in adoption

Republic Act No. 9523, March 12, 2009 AN ACT REQUIRING CERTIFICATION OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT
(DSWD) TO DECLARE A "CHILD LEGALLY AVAILABLE
FOR ADOPTION" AS A PREREQUISITE FOR ADOPTION
PROCEEDINGS

F. Effects of a decree of adoption

1. On status
2. On parental authority,
Tamargo v. CA, 209 SCRA 518
Cervantes v. Fajardo, 169 SCRA 575

3. On hereditary rights
4. On name
In the Matter of Adoption of Stephanie Garcia, 454
SCRA 541
G. Rescission of adoption
Lahom vs. Sibulo, G.R. No. 143989, July 14, 2003
1. by the adopted
2. by the adopter/s
3. effects of rescission

515151

XIII.

SUPPORT

A. What comprises support, FC 194

B. Who are obliged to provide support, FC 195, 196,
197
Pelayo v. Lauron, 12 Phil 453
Sanchez v. Zulueta, 68 Phil 110

Reyes v. Ines-Luciano, 88 SCRA 803

De Asis vs. CA, G.R. No. 127578, Feb. 15, 1999

De Guzman vs Perez, 496 SCRA 474

Joanie Surposa Uy v Jose Ngo Chua, G.R. No. 183965,
September
18,
2009
Lajim v People Of The Philippines, G.R. No. 179570,
February
4, 2010

525252

C. Source of support, FC 197-198, cf. FC 49, 70,

94, 122
Support pendente lite
Lam vs Chua, 2004
Lerma v. CA, 61 SCRA 440
Reyes vs Ines-Luciano, 88 SCRA 803

D. Order of support, FC 199, 200

Mangonon vs. CA, G.R. No. 125041, June 30, 2006

Spouses Lim v Lim, G.R. No. 163209, October 30, 2009

E. Manner and time of payment, FC 200-204

Canonizado v. Benitez, 127 SCRA 610

BAmount of support, FC 200-208

Lacson vs. Lacson, G.R.No. 150644, August 28, 2006
Sy vs CA. Dec. 27, 2009

C Renunciation and Termination, NCC 2035; FC 194

DSupport pendente lite,
FC 198; Rules of Court, Rule 61

I. Procedure in applications for support, Rule 61

XIV. PARENTAL AUTHORITY & CUSTODY OF
CHILDREN
A. Concept of parental authority, FC 209
Medina vs. Makabali, 27 SCRA 502, March 28, 1969

535353

Unson vs. Navarro, 101 SCRA 183, November 17, 1980

Lacson v. Lacson 24 SCRA 837
Soriano v Laguardia, G.R. No. 164785, April 29, 2009
Bagtas v Hon.
November 27,

Ruth

Santos, G.R.
2009

No.

166682,

B. Transfer of PA, FC 210 cf. FC 223-224, FC 234

Eslao vs CA, 266 SCRA 317

C. Who exercises PA
FC 211-213 cf. FC 49, 102(6) and 63(2), FC Art. 176
Hontiveros v. IAC 132 SCRA 745
Unson v. Navarro 101 SCRA 183
Espiritu & Layug v. CA, G.R. No. 115640 (1995)
Santos Sr. v. C.A., G.R. No. 113054 (1995)
Sagala-Eslao v. Cordero-Ouye, G.R. 116773, Jan. 16, 1997
Bondagjy vs. Bondagjy, 371 SCRA 642

Pp vs. Glabo, 371 SCRA 567

Vancil vs. Belmes, 358 SCRA 707
David vs. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 82, November 16, 1995
Sombong vs. CA, G.R. No. 111876, Jan. 31, 1996

Tonog vs. CA, 376 SCRA 642

Laxamana vs. Laxamana, 388 SCRA 296
Roehr vs Rodriguez, 404 SCRA 495
Briones vs. Miguel, G.R. No. 156343, October 18, 2004

545454

Gualberto vs. Gualberto, G.R. No. 154994. June 28, 2005

Silva vs. CA, 275 SCRA 604
Salientes vs Salientes, 500 SCRA 128
Sy vs CA, GR No. 162938, Dec. 27,2007
Spouses Lim v Lim, G.R. No. 163209, October 30, 2009
Grounds where mother could lose parental authority:
Neglect, abandonement, immorality, drunkenness, drug addiction,
maltreatment, insanity, inability to support (1 case).

D. Substitute PA,
FC 214-216, FC 233
Vancil vs Belmes, 358 SCRA 707

E. Special PA
FC 218-219, FC 233
cf. FC 221 (ammends 2184) in rel. to NCC 2180
Palisoc v Brillantes, 41 SCRA 548
Pasco vs CFI_Bulacan, April 25, 1988
Amadora v. CA, 160 SCRA 315

Salvosa v. IAC, 166 SCRA 274

PSBA v. CA, February 4, 1992
Saludaga vs. FEU, 30 April 08
St. Francis High School v. CA, 194 SCRA 341

St. Marys Academy vs. Carpitanos, G.R. No. 143363, February 6,

2002
Child learning Centre vs. Tagario, GR 150920, NOV. 25, 2005
School of the Holy Spirit vs. Taguiam, GR 165565, July 14, 2008

F. Filial privilege, FC 215

ROC Rule 130 Sec. 25 cf. Secs. 22 & 23

G. Effects of PA over the childs person,

FC 220-222, FC 223-224
Medina v. Makabali, 27 SCRA 502
Luna v. IAC, 137 SCRA 7
Cuadra v. Monfort, 35 SCRA 160
R.A. 7610, The Child Abuse Law

H. Effects of PA over the childs property,

FC 225-227
226 adventitious property

555555

227 - Profectitious property

-the child must be paid the same amount as it would be for another
person hired to do the job.

Pineda vs CA, 226 SCRA 754

RA 9231, Secs. 12-B and 12-C
SEC. 12-B. Ownership, Usage and administration the
Working Child's Income. The wages, salaries,
earnings and other income of the working child shall
belong to him/her in ownership and shall be set aside
primarily for his/her support, education or skills
acquisition and secondarily to the collective needs of
the family: Provided, That not more than twenty
percent (20%) of the child's income may be used for
the collective needs of the family.
"The income of the working child and/or the property
acquired through the work of the child shall be
administered by both parents. In the absence or
incapacity of either of the parents, the other parent
shall administer the same. In case both parents are
absent or incapacitated, the order preference on
parental authority as provided for under the Family
Code shall apply.
"Sec. 12-C. Trust fund to Preserve Part of the Working
Child's Income.
The parent or legal guardian of a working child below
eighteen (18) years of age shall set up a trust fund for
at least thirty percent
(30%) of the earnings of the child whose wages and
salaries from work and other income amount to at
least two hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00) annually, for which he/she shall render a
semi-annual accounting of the fund to the Department
of Labor and Employment, in compliance with the
provisions of this Act. The child shall have full control
over the trust fund upon reaching the age of majority.
Lindain v. CA, 212 SCRA 725
Badillo vs. Ferrer, 152 SCRA 407

I. Suspension or termination of PA
1. permanent termination, FC 228, 232, cf. RA 6809
2. non-permanent termination, FC 229 cf. FC 193
RA 8552 re parental authority and revocation of
adoption
3. suspension of PA, FC 231-230
Chua v. Cabangbang, 27 SCRA 791

565656

De Guzman vs Perez, 496 SCRA 474

4. revival
See: R.A. 8369, An Act Establishing Family Courts,
Granting Them
Exclusive Original Jurisdiction Over Child and
Family Cases.
See: R.A. 7610, Child Abuse Act

575757

XV.

EMANCIPATION

RA 6809
A. Cause of emancipation, FC 234 as amended
B. Effect of emancipation, FC 236 as amended
cf. FC 15, NCC 2180

SURNAMES

NCC 364-380 (366-368 repealed)

367 - Amended by FC 176
368 Amended by 9259
371 RA 9255
Naldoza v. Republic, supra
Ng Yao Sing v. Republic 16 SCRA 483
Llaneta v. Agrava, 57 SCRA 29
Telmo v. Republic, 73 SCRA 29
Tolentino v. CA, 162 SCRA 66

Legamia v. IAC, 131 SCRA 479

Yasin v. Hon. Judge Sharia Court G.R. No. 94986 (1995)
In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy
Astorga
Garcia, G.R. No. 148311, March 31, 2005.
In Re Change of Name, Julainan Carulasan Wang, G.R.
No. f159966.March 30, 2005
Gonzaludo vs People, GR 150910, February 6, 2006
Remo v DFA, March 5, 2010

XVII. RULES GOVERNING PERSONS WHO ARE

ABSENT
*Relevant because of property and remarriage
NCC 381-396, FC 41
381-383 Provisional; (note 26, 124)
384-387 Declared (FC 101)
388-396 Pressumptive (FC 41)

585858

Reyes v. Alejandro, 141 SCRA 65

Eastern Shipping v. Lucero, 124 SCRA 425
Manuel vs. People, G.R. No. 165842, Nov. 29, 2005
Olaguer vs. Purugganan, G.R. No. 158907, February 12,
2007

XVIII.

FUNERALS

NCC 305-310
305 (FC 195)
No Mandatory Autopsy Law
Eugenio v. Velez, 185 SCRA 425
XIX.

ENTRIES IN THE CIVIL REGISTER

NCC 407-413
409 clerks dont do; do it as a lawyer
412
ROC, Rule 108
RA 9048
Not surname, sex, nationality
Barretto vs Local Civil registrar, 74 SCRA 257
Republic vs De la Cruz, 118 SCRA 18
Republic v. Valencia, 141 SCRA 462

Republic v. Marcos, 182 SCRA 223

Labayo-Rowe v. Republic, 168 SCRA 294

Sermonia vs CA, 233 SCRA 155
Zapanta v. Registrar, 237 SCRA 25v
Leonor v. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 69
Lee et al. vs. CA, 367 SCRA 110
Barco vs. CA, G.R. No. 120587, Jan. 20, 2004
Ceruila vs Delantar, 477 SCRA 134
Silverio vs. RP, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007
Republic vs. Capote, G.R. No. 157043, February 2,
2007
Republic vs. Jennifer Cagandahan, , G.R. No. 166676,
Sept. 12,
2008
Jenie San Juan Dela Cruz V Ronald Paul S. Gracia, G.R.
No.
177728, July 31, 2009
Ma. Cristina Torres Braza v The City Civil Registrar, G.R.
No.
181174, December 4, 2009

595959