Soar Heda Collegt of Fenty MEMORY AID IN CIVIL AW GENERAL RULE: Lav's take effoct after 18 days following tho completion of its pt.blication in the Official Gazetto ct ina newspaper of yenéral relation (EO No. 209} +The law shall take ffect on the 16" day because In counting the period, the frst cay Is excluded and tha lari day Included (Art. 13, NCC), + No one shall oe charged wilh noties of the statute's ‘provision until publicatin 1s completed and tne 15 duy petiod has axpirod EXCEPTION: Unies ovorwis provided by the law (EO No, 200). + The exception esters to the iS-dey perlod and not the requirement of publication + Publication is indisponsahte, absence of which will not render the law effective (Tefrda vs, Tavera GR No. L-63915, Decomber 28, 1985) RULES ON PERION PROVIDED BY STATUTE 1, Shorterflonger erlod then the 18-day ~ sich pelfod as yioVided in tho sietute sha reall 2. Takos sffect Inrnadintely > it shell take effict tmmodiate’s alter ¢ualfcat an vss tho 16-day porter) Belng dispensed with (Tanada vs, Tevara GR N>, L-69918, Desombur 25, ©, 1988). : No provision as (0 Ita offoctivity - i tokes effect 16 days faliswing Hs pubteation, erecunve consaITiE ARENT CALYIG ABUGAW 4 naan ena ataseiis oper COVERAGE (PLAGE) nono] 13 4. Presidential Decrees 2. Laws which valor to all statutes, inciveing Fecal and pratt laws 3. Administative Rules and Regclations what urpose is Io enforcaiimplement existing lave pursuant (o 4 valid delegation 4, Gharter of a City & Ghreulars fisued by the Monetary Bone’ vere purpose it aot merely to interpret but to fil athe debs of the Gentra bank Act 6 Circulars and Regulations which prescrine 2 penalty for is violation (Peaplu vs. Qua Po bay) 7. Executive crders (Tatoda vs. Tuvero GP eu 1269915, Docembar 29, 1986), PUBLICATION NOT REQUIRED (I~ L) 1. Interpretative regulations and those Imernal tn altura, agulalingiaalvelhe, personnel of (ie usm eas ettrd eo agi Corus ie ciministatia gunerigreypncaterhgull ego a “ugh bor dinates tings Soh thie Autos: <(Taayth Nota iis NOT cov Boemmont Coes F838 16, conciusitihesun very parton it trocumd te tt OTe i ney ave ctual knowiadg af he lay IANOUD ABUL SAME eh RUE OpEANIES HACE SA a nie fo operations, AUAN C7 LOS NUELTRO vlc cal fo acacney, MAL ANGLUC ETANG Wc fl ae etal, RNSTINE ANNABLLLEC POS ew eal far finnen EIRETN® INA ACSSTA Mew chiror ep AT JELLO CONCEPCION cee alte ome vaws FRANCESCA LOURDES SEN uid chy, SHENA MAE ARELLA asso subject chain, ACE AVI GANOD ep, FRANCESCA LOURDES SIA peront ara fay lac CRISCFLYN CAW YUGAN property, MA. PELISA CONALON PATIDO nr AASV THY ANNE GALARG lls Be st elon MAKIN DAMUATLOR BERN 34 COLAFEN INFANTE batons ae entues MARY (ZY ANNE iG FO a ease, EVA STINE RAPA partnership, ageey a trust KATHERINE AN ASLO cred transite SHEENA VARIEAME:LA ors ant dornges, JAN FEARG PCIAUGAL ira {Wer snd deeds JAM MANGIEILE REYES con of we, emens: ‘Neen Abdgp Uy flgene Apo Joehns fesne, Jonathon Gyo tau! ape Harem, Rubra Jens Balt, Alea oy, Land ee Keith France Briones, Angel Cala, Uash Cangen, hits Pou Chu, en ety Clara, en Thaoge tas, Hort Oa Hy Ltt Dama, Aas Oflodadelos tyes, Nareona chore, Cea Fhona Caenane, Tala Fspana, °% 23 Flee, Unapanile ta Wet Ga Késtne Carla Gorzates, Us foy ova, Re2hl Son, lave ne, Hectetin Ulan, Jeune Rita Herbert Matlin, Chive Ch, Mandar, KitlCareapcion Om, Jaana Mave Papo, Dai aan, Cire Sans, le? Sot, Tha ft Saye, Mary Min Sh Jeare\ Corind Taguto, Horance Zletno, Pip Tare, Gen vise aan Grace Wlkon, st Heo, lt Cape, Desens NaI2.12009 CENTRALIZED DAR OPERATIONS + Applies only fo mandatory and prohibitery tows. + Does not apply to forvign laws because these is no jucicial notice of such forelan lawe; i must be proved like any ofher matter of fact (Ching HHuat vs. Co Hoong L-1217, Jsnuary 30, 1947) Not: Mites in the wpe of allen or Inierpretation ifoult 01 doutalul provisions of law may be the basis of good falth and has been given the same cifect as a mistake of tect, which may excure ons: fram tne legal consequences of nis conduct (Art 6, 2185, NCC). GENERAL RULE: Ne -e'roactine effect EXCEPTIONS; (P'UT NiGe) 1. Tux laws when exprassly declared or is early the legislative mtant (Cebu Fontand Comeut vs, Coll. GR, Ma. 18649, February 27, 1988) Inlovprotative statulen Precedural or Remediat Gurative of Remedial statutes mergency laws Laws creating new rignts (fone vs. Briones, Bustamanta of al. vs, Gays) 7. Unless the law otherwics provides 8, Penal laws favoreble to the accused EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXCEPTION: (C1) 1, Ex Post Facto Laws 2, Laws that [mpalr obligation of contracts (Asiatic Petroleum vs, Llanes) TT GENERAL RULE: Acis contrary to manda or Prohibitory laws are YOID, EXCEPTIONS: (PAVE) 1. Tha law makes the act valid but punishes the Ulolator (ex. Mainage solemnnized by » parson thout legal aurhority) 2, Tha law liself authorizes its validity (ax Lotto, sweepstakes) 2. Tha lew makes the ace caly yok able (ex. Voidable contracts wiure concent is vitated) 4. The low declares. the nuilly of an act but recognizes its gltetts #4 fegally evisting (ex. Child born before anniimant oF iaamnage Is ‘considered legitimate). oe TO eee fan Beda College of aww Reyulsites for a valid walver; (CUE-CF) Full capacity to neke the waiver, Waiver nust be ynequivecal Aight must axl. the time of the walver It must not be pantry to law, public potcy, morals ur geot customs or prejudicial to a thire person wir 3 vight recognized by law, 5. When formeltivs era required, the same must ie complied wih EXCHPTIONS: (6-P2N) ‘Waiver is gonbacy 4) law, public order, public policy, morals ex yred customs; 2. Ifthe waiver is gre \iiolal to a third party with asight recogniss. 'yIaw. 3, Abaged rights vv ¢ beally do not yet exist, as he case ¢f ult inheritance 4, iting rigat is ans va) right, such as right to bo suppor, DOCIPINE OF SYARE DECISIS enjoins adhs*cnce to jutich! arecedents and Is based on the principle thal er-c » question of law has been exenined and Yorke, it should be deamed setiled. and closer |. “a:ther sagument Judicial decisions tough tn thamualves. not fans, sasume the 0 16 aulnonty fs the statute itseif {People vs, Lice + Gk, No, 99980, duly 2, 1975). + No publication rcvired, binding on parties alter the lapse af appeal period, and will bind al future cases wih Wentical facts, unt reversed by SO Th ste 2 te i of the Gi eennOyRTOL es “Mees oor al Rules oh unortriy| legals nding?Sean Meds College of Lay GENERAL RULE: Custorss must bo proved as a fact according to the #les of avidencs, EXCEPTION: A court may take judicial notiog of « Gustora if there le sitzady a dacision rendered by the same court recogriing the custom, Roquisites to Make a Gustem en Obilgatory Rulo: (P*TO) . 4. Pluraity or repetition af arte; 2. Practiced by the great mass of tre social group; 3. Continued practice for a‘long period of tine; 4, The community sccepts it a8 @ proper way of acting, such that fs consicered as obligatory upon all 4. Years ~336 days, unloss year is identiec. 2, Months - 30 deye, unless month dantiiad 3) Days 24 hours 4. Nights-sunset to eundown 8. Calendar week + Sunday to Saturday 8. Week ~ Count 7 days as Indicates, not necessarily Sunday to Saturday + To count the period, first day js excluded, lasi day Is included, Exception: Rul “does NOT apnly to ‘computation of of6; each year Is counted based on bith anniversary. Polley If the Last Day Is a Sunuay or a Logal Holiday: 4. Ifthe act to be performed within the period is resorbed or aliewed (1) by the Rules of Court, (2) by an crder af the court, oF (3) by any other appiical'e statute, the last cay will aulomatzally be cenaidered the next working day. 2. If the act to be perfcemed within the period atises from @ con actsiat relationship, the act wil become due cuspita the fact that the last day fais on a Suniay or Holiday, ‘APPLICARLE LAWS: 4. Ponal Lewes and Inwe of public socurily (Articio 14) Teritoriaity rule’ governs regardless of the rationally but ubject» ts princes of International law and te teaty stipulation, 2. Laws rolating to family rights and duties of to stutus, concition and lagal cavacity of persons, Nationally rule applies regerdiess cf tir placr. of residenca, MEMIOAY AID IN, CIVIL LAW Excortion: Divorce validly obtained abroal by alien cpaust capacitaing him ot her to remarry the Fiipind spouse shail have capacity to remeny under Philippine low (Artiolo zu (2) Family Codo) Laws on property (taal anc! porsonal) Lox Rei situa: The law of the eounkty whose the properly Is tltuated shall govarn orope.ty transactions. (Alot 16 (1)) Exception: Order and amount of successionc! fights, “Iniripsie valily of tevtamentary provisions, and capacity ta sueceed governed by’ national law of decedent (Article 16 (2)) Laws of fo.s and aofomnitios cox “Loo! Galobvrationts: Forms and solemnities of contracts, wits, end othor public Instruments (extrinsic valty) shell be governed by tha tawa of the country in. which hey are excuuted, (Article 17) Exceptions: a, Netriay® between Fillpinos soleninizod abroad shalt be void though valid abroad when void unler Philippine lavas. (Articto 26(1) FC) b, Intrinsic Vallity of Goitrects: Vality Is determhed by the following rules: ‘The law stipulated by the partion shell be Spplied: I. an default thereof, and the partios are of the tame nationality, thet national law shal be applied: Ii, IT the parties are net of the same rratlenaliies, the law of the place of the perfection of the obligation ‘hall govern ls fuflinent; Wy. If the above places aro not specified and they cannol bo deduced from the nature and citgumstagens of the obligation, ee ithe. vassive Eel | AN, SR x Neu :ATIONS [2099 CENTRALIZ:D LAR OPE Excupitlo 3 icaplisrs Ait. 26, par. 2 | (CIAO) 1 Aft 26, pa. ct" Family | + Capacity to | 4 of Family Goda succeed Code sIniinsic | Rlntrinsic validly of the | validity of ww contacts + Amount of suecessional fights | + Order of L “puecession | Ruws on Personal Law: Oomiciiauy Rate and Nation ity Rule Distinguistiod Basis for determining) Basis personal law of an)personal individual Is loomieiue law is his] CITIZENSHIE | 5, Renvol Doctrine: Occurs when a citizen of another country dies as a domiciliary of another country. Where the conflict rfes af the forum rater to a foreign law, and the lattor reters it back to the infernal law, the law of tha forum shall apply Teansiigsion Thoory: If the foreign jaw tofers it to 2 third country, the said country’s law shall govern, 6. Doctrine of Processual Prosumption The foreign law, whenever gpplicable, should he proved by the proponent thereof finerwisa, such law thall be presumed ‘0 be exactly the same as tng tawol the farunt RULE ON PROHIBITIVE LAWS Goneral Rule: Pretiibive laws canceming persons, their acte or properly, and laws which hrave for their object public order, public policy or good customs are NOT rendered ‘netfective by laws, or judgments promulgated or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in foreign country. (Ait 17(3)) Lxcoption: Art. 28, par, 2 Family Cove (ex. Divorce Law) Human Relations ELEMENTS: (LEP) {Existence of a legal right ur duty Which is gxercised 6: bad Tan, 3 For tne Sola iment of prejcalicing or injuring fon Webs College of Haro nnther. QOCTINE OF VIOLENi NON FIT INJURIA (to ‘which u person asse% ”.s 1iot esteemed in law 2s Injury) — refers to sell-inticied Injuries or to the Conseni to injury vibich precludes the recovery of damage by one whe has knowingly and voluntarily exposed himstif to danger, even if he is rot negligent ia doing so. (Nikko Hote! Manila Garden, et all vs. Roberto Reyes (Amay Bisaya) GR. No. 154259, Fa, 20, 2005) DAMNUM ABSQUE IiLKJRIA (damage without injury) ~ A person wie exercises nis legal right céhes no injuty. HOWEVER; it cannot he said that ‘9 person exercises a right when he unnecessary projudices anowher or offends morals or good customs, + When damages esuit from 2 person's ‘oxercise of rights, tls damaum absque injurta {ABS-CBN v. Republio Broadeasting Corp. GR. No, 126690, varwary 21,1999) FONIRARYTONRAW:" Eunry person who is crim ally lablo shall also be civily fabie, whether tie act is intentional or unintentionei ia We Se ELEMENTS: (LC) Thur ia ategol act 2 Bun whieh Hy gent say 10 moras, good usr pubs cer er puble poly, and, 4, isda wi rth ope ARTICLES 19, 26 anu24..v 4 related fo une another fn under nose aes fb) gate uses ty te evamnery meal |! sagt aware cf igtnages, (eamete | ican w CA, OR ay. BF" comes. into 1% moans Golvery 1 Whi Boove 304 posseaa se ( HalongGan Meda College vt Law, 2. Acquistion Ig urcive ond at tha expanse of another, which mans without just or lege! . ground. ‘Acclon in Ram Vors6 and Solutfo Indobitt Dievingulshod Poop COANE rapa WEiSe) TEER itis not recoseary thai[Payment was made oy the. payment bee mace|mistake fs an essential lby mistake, paymentjeloment to maintain the} could have been made} action for recovery. knowingly anal lvoluntarty q nevertheless, thera] Iwould be recovery «| what has been paid j Requisitos: (JELA) 4. Defendart has been ontiched 2) Enrichment fa wthovt Just or legal ground; 3, Plaintit has sutferad a toss; and 4, He has no other action based on contract, quatl-contrnet, eyrte of quani-delit Note: For a more coniprehensive discussion of Articles 40-35, plense eee discussion thereat ‘under Tarts. GENERAL RULE: IF both eciminal and evil exses are filed in court, the criminal case tal precedence, EXCEPTIONS: 4. in e280 of projudeta questions, tne ertalna! ‘case Is suspendod bucause the issuzs in the lvl casa are deter ninative of the outcome of the criminal ease, ‘© A prejudicial ctestion is that which arlees Ina ono, thy resolution of wrich is a jogical antececiont of the Issue involved theroln, and tha cognizance of which pertaine 9 nethar tibural, (Yan, Paras, No, 101236, January 20. +1992) Requisites: (Section 7, Rulo 111, Rulos of Court) ‘a. Previously instituted oll action Involves rh issue similar or intimater, elated fo the Issue raised in the subsequent criminal action, b. The resclution of such iscue determinus whethar oF not tho criminal actlon may proced. MEMORY AID IN CIVIL LAW] 5 2. Indepencient civil action granted by law (D+ aR) 18, Broach of constitutional and other rights (Art, 32) b, Defamation, fraud, physic inluties (Art 32) Refusal or failure of city or municipal police io give protection (Art. 34) 4d, Quasi-deliet or culpa-hullana (Ait. 2177) Note: The Civil Code has SUPPLETORY ‘application in maltors governed by special iaws. Civil Pex iG © Apttude of being’ the subject, active oF passive, of rights and obligations. JURIDICAL OAPAGITY AND CAPACITY TO AGT DIS) Nene CAPLAN OA Ne iness tebe tho | Power To. do. act an subjact of tegat | legal effects (Art. 27) | lations (Art. 37) iy ieugh death Lost hough eid and ther auses Cannot ext Juridical Can feat person sypthahy er oe fio | noe hone do nat cotain his acte6 12009 CENTRALIZED BAP OPEPATIONS, 5, Ci interdiction MODIFICATIONS! LIMITATIONS ON CANASITY TO ACT (Ait, 39): (FT P*A'D) Eamily Relations; insanity, immbecty; insolvency: Trusteesni Penalty Brodigalty; oe: Bllerage; 9. absence; and 1, State of balng deatanvto Note: The consequences cf the restrictions «ind iodifeations in a parsons “apanily to act are provkied by the Civil Code, oiher cores, spe itn, andthe Rules of Cur CASES SR Binh aeerins BEGINNING OF PERSONALITY {tual personally) (An. 40) Gonoral Ruio: personally Exception: The law considers the conceived hilt 8s bom far all purposes favorable to it if born alive, Theiefore, the child has a presumed personatty, which has two characteristics: 1. ienited; ana provislonatcanditionnl (Quiniiquing vs. foao, GR No. L-26795, wily 31, 1970) Note: The concept of provisional personality CANNOT be invoked fo obtain sameges for and ln bohalf of an aborted child (Gulde vs No. 1-16439, July 20, 1961). Whien is a Child Considered Born: Genoral rele: For civil purpases, the fotus fs consivared born if i is alive, ut the tine iC is conprately dotvarad Iron the Exception: I the fotus juid an mirautenne fhe of less than 7 months, Lig NOT demas bern if it dies within, 24 hours after ite complete calivery Irom the matesnal wort, (Aut 9). Presumption of Survivorship in cage of doubt as ti which of tivo or mere porsuns callad fe succoad each ottur died inst 1, Whoever alleges the deeth of one prior to te other, shall prove the same 2 Inthe absence of peng!, the presumption is Uiat the panies vied at lw sane tine and there shall Ee no transmission of rights front ‘one anathar (Ait 43) sors Beds College of Law Note: At, 43 upplies weer the parties ae called to succeed oaeh other or are heirs to one ancther. ul if the parties are ne called to succeed gach other, Rue 131, Soe nj of the Rules of Court applias. Both are to. applied enly in the absence of (a. HR The followng are jridieaporeons 4, Stato and its poll rtalvisions 2) Corporations, inetificns and entities for publle purpose of intviust 9, Surpovations, pars ship and! associations for private Interes: 4 purpose te which the tow grants a yuliicet personality, separate ad dstinet from that of each stiarefokder, partner or member (Are. 44) HOW CREATED: 4. For (a) and (b), by the laws creating or recognizing then; government corporations are created by thelr special charters passed ay the lagisiature 2. Private corporations are governed by BP 68; and Partnerships and associations for private interest cr purpose. are_govemed by the provisions “ot it’s Code concerning parinerships. Note: The estate of 1 deceased should be considera an artificial cr juridical person for the purposes of the setllemc it and distribution of his estate wich include 113 exercise duang the Jusiciab adininistiation the? eof of his rights and the fulfiinent of oblyations wrlch survived after his death (Linjoco vs. Mtwstate Estate of Pedro Fragianto, No. L770 Apo! 27, 1948). “i ayy gon ns wy etigata pt ei Ys ea Se oi “4 Be ma een eagan Beda Crilege Bato Family Code of the “hilpplaes tock effec! on August 3, 1088 A special contract of permarient union betwen 0 man and a woman entered Into In accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family fo, It isthe foundation of the family acd ars {nvislable’ soota! insitullon whee naira, consequences and incldente ara governed by law and not subject to atipuletion (Az. 1). + Although # mariage contréct 19 considered a Primary evidence of mentiago, t's absense is Rot always proof that no marriage took place. Testimony of one of the férlles ‘othe mariage, witnesses of solomnizing offlar is admissible to piove the. fact of niarlago. (Balogboy v. CA, G.R, No, 83899, March +, 1997). + Once the presumption of raarriage arisns other evidence may be presented in suppor thereof, The evidanca riced not necessrslly oF diroctly establish the rnriage but must at feast oe enouga to strengthen, the ‘prosumption of inardage. Every inteudrnont of law leans toward legitimizing mariage (Colgado vda do be ta Rosa v. Hors of Marciana vda co Damion, GR No 185733, donuary 27, 2006). MARRIAGE AND ORINARY GONTRAGT DISTINGUISHED pce special contract |, Morely contact —] [Social mtiution"—~ |~~“taraly renntroct | Governed ty law on” |~ Governed by aw marriage, pinini| wingene an tTOCHS, Wot subjects Ganarally subject to stipulations excent in |__property celations |. Stipulations | iors ray contrat Legal capacity Is ‘hry their parente or required guardians or in some |__| cases by themselves Contracting pariias emlanly Be tve. | two of more parties fee cieens me N88 | ragaraiegs of gender ‘amale lies can tixa Geriod | for Its efficacy to be ineffective after a few Permanant Union. Breach of obligations of | contacts gives rise to. MEMORY AID IN CIVIL LAW] 7. | Rot give rise te an | action for damisives, ‘ihe law provides penal and civil sanctions euch 8 prosecution for ‘adultery or concublnaga and procnedings for legal _separation Can be dissolved anly by death cr annuiment, not by mutual ___agreemont Can bo diusolved by ‘mutual anreetnent tne by other legal causes | _ BREACH OF FROMISE TO MARRY General Rulo: i In not by iteelf an ectionabln wiong (Hormosisinia vs, CA L-14628, Soptombur 30, 1960) Ono cannot $ooX apevife performance to comput mariage, Excoptions: To be actlonnble, there must be amatiner act incependent of the breach of promise fo marry which gves ris9 to lieblity 96 where there was francial damage, eoclal humiliation, and meral eeductien, 1. Mere biaech of promise'to marry is not an actionable wmng: but to fortialy set a wedding and ge through alt the rrepavations and public¥y, only to walk out of ft when the matdmony Is about ta be solemnized, Is quite diferent. This I palpably aud unjustifably contrary to govd customs for which defendant must be hold answarable In damages pursuant to Art, 21 NCG (Wassmor vs, Volo No. L-20068, Docorbor 26, 1962) 2. Where a inar’s promise to marry was the Proximate cause of giving herself unto tim tu sexual conprosg niga prt he hs Intenti "y ynise being a eceplital vied eit i as we awerey fat 1hiC. doce EASA GG witty Honor, auc: repiiatlogyRaksn'ys. 9 97836 (abr léfetanding the ofthe act3/2009 CENTRALIZED BAR OPEWATIONS FORMAL REQUISITES OF MARMIASE: (ALM) 1. Authority of the solemnczing officer 2. Volld Marriage License 3 Marriage ceremony wher the centracting pparlies appear before the solemnlzing officer, with their personal declaration that they take each other as husband and wife in the presence of not less than twu witnesses of legal age (Art, 3) EFFECTS OF: (At a Absonco of essential or formal eequisites: ‘The mariage Is VOID AY INITIC (ex: expired marriage license, marriage by way of jest) Exception: Martlago Is valkl where either oF both parties believed In yood fath thet whe solomniting officer had legal authority to do 30 when he had pene at the Uma of oe solemnization of the martiiga (Aut. 35(2)) Dofect in any of the easaiiat requisites: Tho marriage (@ VOIDABLE (ex. comen? obtalned trough fore: and intimidation) Irroquilarlty in any of the formal reqursites Does NOT affect the validity ot the marriage GUT wil.-hold the party responsible for such lireguiarity chilly, ctiminalty and administratively Hable Excaption: Marriage Is VORABLE where vontracting party 18 yaars old or cver Out thalow 21 without the sonsent of tne parants AUTHORITY OF SOLEMNIZING OFFICER Itis not the precenca/absunce of the solemnizing nlficer which constitutes the formal requirement bout the ebscnee/presenice of tvs autnority of such, solemnizing ofiewr at the vine of the sulomnizavion of the marriage, Gonoral ruto: The Sowrnizing otter Is not uy end to investigate whether the mardage licens roqulatly Iesied. + Must only determine if It was issuea by @ competent official + \Ps0, it may be presuemad that ihe said official Iuifiles the duty to ascertain whether the oontracting pares (ulliled tie eeruirements oltaw. (People vs. Janssve) Excoptlon: In cases of marriage in oxticulo ‘mortis, in remore places, and between a man und ‘2 woman living together 38 husband and wife for atleast § years without lagal inypediment to marty each other + Svlgmnizing affiecr must twice tap, te asceriain the ages, relatienship, and qualifications of contracting parties (An. 29) Suu ied College of Lary Porsone Authorized To Solomnize Marriages (ane Ds PMuCoe [Bricst, rabbi, imam o* ministers of any church r religious sect a. duly authorlaod ny his churen or religious sect ’, registered with’ the Office of the Civ Reghstrer Genera! ©. acing within: ire timiis of the writen ~ulhety grante: dBi least anu 0." sles belongs to the solomnizing ofiuet> shurch of religious sect Munich an cily mares (Local Government Gode, January 1, 199%) +The term "Mayor" includes a Vice-Mayor wno ig the "Ack iy" Mayor or whe Is marely acting a 4 Mayor (People. vs. Qustamanto, chi” Laxamana vs. Baltazar 3. Incwmhent miemibar se! be Judiciary within the sour’ jurisdletion 4, Ship captains of alr plane chiefs (Art. 34) + Only In cases of marriages In ortioulo mots vetwecn passengers or crew members «During the voyege, whilo plane fs In flight fo chip f@ at sea and during stopovers at ports of call + Assistant pilot fas no -euthority to solomnize a maniage even if airplane chief die during the tip 5. Gommanders of millary unit, in the absence of chaplain (Art. 32) + Must be @ commistoned officer ~ rank should start rom. sacond ‘‘eutenant, ensign and above (Webster Dictionary, 1994 waliion) + Only in casas of marriage in articulo ee f the armed pete Sseplsets Enpepiogsiee yin oa "ef ith thelpaweSan Meda College of Rew VALID MARRIAGE LICINSE The liconse Is valid in wny part of the Philipines for 126 days from date ff lerive, which 's the da'e ‘when the local civil repis'rar signed the license. ‘+ Automatically cancel ad atthe expiration of the perlod if contracting parties have no! made use of i (Art, 20) " ‘+ Issuance of 8 marriage license by the local Wit registrar of tho cityimuninipatty where either party hadiually resides is @ mae irregularity When elther or both prctes are forelon ultizens, they must first eubmit a CERTIFICATE OF LEGAL CAPACITY TO MARRY lesued by thelr diplomatic/consular offelais before marriage Noense can be obtalne’) (Ar. 21) Exception: Marriage «f both foreign citizens wit be solernnized by thelr country’s const! general assigned In the Philippines, if thelr conntry's law allows the sanr 2 Stateless persons/refugaes fom other countries hall submit an affidavit staing clroums!ancos to show capacity to corract marttage before o marriage licanse can ba obtained (Art, 21) Marriages Exempt fro License Requirement {MOLAR) (A727) 4. Among muslims or izembers of afhnle cultural communities solent ized In accordance with thelr customs, rites «nd practicas (Art, 30) 2. Solemnized ‘gutsld? the Phil, where no marriage lense 1¥ required by the country wnere they were sclemnized 3. Of @ man and a women who have flved together a8 husbard and wife for at ‘east § years and without legal impeciment to marry each other (Art. 9, Requisite: ‘a. The man and woman must have been living togethe’ as husband and wife for at least five ysars before tne marriage; b. The parlies must have no legal Impadiment te marry @ach thor; 6. The fact of alisenice of legal impediment betwee tha zarties must be present at the time of metrlage; 4, The parties aiust execute an afidavi stating that thay hava lived together for at least five years (and ere vithout legat impeciment te: marry each oiher), and fe. The solemnizing officer must exccute # sworn statement that he had ascertained tive qualfcat'ana of the parties arc that he had found no legal imped.nert to their mariage (Montano v. Sanchoz GR. No. MTJ-00=1329, Marsh 08, HIEMQRY AIDLIN CIVIL LAW| 9 2001) + The 8-year peviod ‘should be computed on the basis of evhabitation as husband fand wife where the only misuing factor 1s the niurage contract to validate the tunien, (ox: " both cofiabited a” the ago of 47, coving staits whan parties reach 18 oars) + This f-yoar perled shovlo be the. years immediately before the day of the mrarlaga and it should bo a period of cohabitation characterized ty EXCLUSIVITY + meaning no legal impediment was precent at any time within the 6 yoars and CONTINUITY ~ that 1s wibrokon —(Ropublic v. Dayot, March 8, 9008) 4, In gitleulo moitis * Reroains valid over Walling. party subse cetly survives (Art, 27) 3. Ingemote places + Residence of eithor arty is so focsted that there is no means of transportation to enable them t3 personaly appear before the local oNilveyletear (Art, 26) MARRIAGE CEREMONY ‘There is no poticuiar form presenibed by the Family Code. The sbsence of {vo witnesses of iegal oge Is rrerely an itregutarity bt the party responslite ‘or the irregularity shal co clvily, criminally, and acminisratively tle, Marriages ty proxy 1. Tit was colemnlzed In tha Philippines, the marriage is VOID because physical PaCS. sn 2 Ni pelle Phipine Ve tse eixed, ffantralling NAb I BANEAS of th Ghz rages ot ARIA ae i utp ii the pate AHS NORRPABorvont to tht tte, ‘nth the rit requalof oth partes to tht 9430 |2009 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS solamnizing officer Note; This provision ts only directory and tne requirement that the marriage be soiemnized in a ar oF a public place ® no! an essential FOREIGN MARRIAGE Validity of Marriage Genoral rule: Where one or both parties to the rwarlago are clizens of ihe Philppines, the foreign marriage 1s valid ity tha county 4 soigmnized in accordance with he laws o! the ‘country of celebration. (Art. 26) ‘9 case a Fling contrarts a loreinn marriage which is nui and vod in the place where it was solemnized, the same stutl also bo nul and void in the Philppines: gven If such was valid fcefebtated unger Phippine lows IF both are fontignars, fox kin’ velebravonis apples Excuptions: Forelgn mantages, shall_not 02 recognized in the Philippines If: (B?MA-PIP) San Beda College of Law + Party pleading it must prove divorce as a act and demonstrate its conformity to the foreign law allowing it, which must be proved as courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign tess. (Falicitas Amor Gutalan vs. CA 3K. No. 167109, Fobsuery 6, 2007" b: must be shown that the divorced desrce) ,atlows the former spouse fo ceman +4 vpecifiealy required in Art 28 (Repulle ¢, Obrecide, GR No 184580 Oct 0, 2005: ~ + Article 26 (Z) apples where panies were Fivpiro olizens at tie time ef celebration fof the marriaga, bul Ivtar on, ane of them becomes natuiauad { as a foreign citizen ‘and obtains a divires docree because the reckoning point 1s Gy-H citizenship at the umn a valid olveice 1 ebtalned abroad by (en spousa ea 2utitating the latter to te-tnany. Rap vs. Cetlano Obbreotaio ih (GR No. 169380, Oct. 5, 2005) + Edgar San iuds y. Folloldaa Sayafongos (G.R, No. 194029, February 6, 2007), whe,her a Flipine whe had been divorced by ni allen spouse eovoad 4. Conttacted by a netloral Who ' Below 18 may validly remarry in the Phiippines yours of age (Art, 35/1) considering that the marriage was 2, Bigamous or polygamous except as provided solemnized before the Family Cece, It in AL at, FC (An, 35(4)) was hald that naa not retroactively 3. Contracted through gpistaxe of ane party as to apply the provisiuns of the Family Code, the Mantty of the offer (Art 3805) purtiularly Aisle 28, par. 2), 4. Contracted following the. annulneent of considering thai ‘vere | Is. sufficient declaration of nullty of @ previous momnuge jutisprudertisl bees allowing ane but before partition (Avt.95(6)) retroactivity of tie Fv nity Code Void due to psychological incapacity (Art. 98) Gin 3 VOID KARRIAGES (Art. 85; 7, Void for reasons of pubic poicy (Art. 38) Duo to absonco of any of tho essential bivorce roqulsitos: (BB-LAPIS) Gonaral rule: No divorce .© allowed in the Contracadibyeanpapapyghgiow 18 years of Prnipines seo a SolcmbteeerBy a Exceptions: nzedtetyelpiiiotaniagee UNIS 1, Wielween 2 aliens ~ if valid in thelr national 05 bg Jans even if mariage was celebrated Ie the Philppines Boiween a Filipino and an Alien ~ if (2) there ia valld. marrioge calebraled betwoor Filipino etizun end a foreignor, ane fb) a val Livoree aecording fo the national lav of the foraigner Is obtained sbroad by the alien spouse capaciiating him or har to remarry ‘Aut, 2642)) + The Filipino spouse shout iKewise be allowed to re-maity a9 ithe of she wis 3 foreigner at the tice ofthe soiemnlzation Of the mariage, To rule oltiernise would sanction absuirdity and injusilon heGan edn College nf Jaw Psychological incapacity (Art. 36) No fess than @ mente! (nct physical) incspacity thet causes 1 party (0 bo truly Incogsitiv of tha batlo mental covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by tho pertine to the miage, Its meaniny Is confined to the most ous cases of personally dleorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensithity or Inabliyy {0 give meaning and significance to ths marriage. This psychological goncition must exist at tvs time the marriage Is celebrated. (Santor vs. CA, GR. ‘No, 112049, January 4, 1995) Roquisites of Psychologieal Incopacity: (13) 4. Gravity ~ must be g-ave/serious such that the Party would be invxpable of carrying ouwths ordinary duties required in a marriage 2, Juridical Antececian 20 ~ Must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, sithough the overt manifestations may emerge anly after ti6 marriage: and 3, Incurabiity ~ Must 9¢ incurable or, even if it were olhanwse, the cura would be beyond the means of the party involved. (Santos vs, CA, GR. No. 112019, sismrary 4, 1996) May involve a senseless, protracted and constant Tefusal to comply wi tha, essential marital obligations by one w bata of the .spuses although he, she or they arr physiesily capable of performing Luch obilga line. (Ch Ming Tsol v. CA, GR No. £19190, Jan. 15. 1287) ‘A person who Is unatle fo distinguish between fantasy ond really would be unable to comprehond the legal nature of the marital bone! ‘much less its psyobic rvaning and the obligations atlached: fo. the mange, inciding parenting One. unable to ‘adhere io resity” cannot be expected to adhere iis woll to any legal or emotional commitments (vitonfo v. Rayns, GR. ‘No, 155800, March 10, #006) While disagreements ot) monay matters wuld, no doubt, affect the other sepecta of one's marrage as to make tho wedloc! unsatisfactory, this not 2 suiclent ground to declare. marriage null and vold. ta fact, the Court tnkex judicial notice ov the fact that disagreements’ ragarding money matters 1s a common, and even nomial ‘occurence between husbands ard wives (Tongol vs. Tongol, 6.8. No. 167610, Oetovor 19, 2007) Petitioner 1s not enttied to moral damagon based cn dediaration of paychiologinal —inenpacity becauss the award of inoral damages should co predicated, not on the mora act of entering Into the mantage, but on spacific evidence that it wae done deliherately and with malice by a purty who MEMORY ADIN CIVILLAW] 11 had known of bis of her disabilty and yet veilfully convealed the samo, (Noo! Buenaventura ¥. CA, otal, GR No, 127358, March 34, 2008) Fssorvial Elements: (MAVEFCC!) 4. Mental eondiion % Applies to a percon who Is mately contracted to anether Marriage eitered into with yotion Eallure to perform or ‘comply with the essential oblerations in marriage 5, Eollure to podtrm ly chronic 8. .Cause is psyzhclog'cal In nature 7, Gause is sedous, with juridical entecedence, and must be incurable 8. Incapacity results in the faihre of the marrage. ruclontial Guidelines (Molina Doctrine) (Republic v. Moina G.R. No, 108763, Februaiy 1. 1997): (ROBE PIG) 4. Plaintiff has burdon of proof; 2 Root cause of the psycholcgicat Incopacity ioalj or clinloally identified 2. Allogac’in the complaint 2. Suffislantty proven by experts 4. Clearly explained in the decision 3, Incapacity proven to be existing at the tine of tha colebrnlicn of marriage: 4, incapacity inust be permanent or incurable; 5. illness is grave anough fo bring about disavilty 1 assume eogential — matliot obligation; 6. Marital obligations refer 10 Ar. OR-I4, 220,221 and 226 of tha FC: 7. Snterpretations of the “National Appellate Matrimonial Tabunat of the Catholic Chursis of tho Prlipplaae while not eontrllin shoul ba sven greet eagge te. 8, ina’ (Bud ea tdaibittieg prosecuting attomné ikea Gennaio gopuar for 9 atl : oe diagnosed sociopaths imphomaniacs, narcissists and Wethe “Qycontinuously dbase ang pervert the snnetly of Farrage, The SC ult applying i12 [2009 CENTRALIZED BAR OPENATIONS not abandon the Molina Doctrine pet ¢aclared that thera was @ need to emphasize other perspectives as wall, whiclh shoul govern the cisnositon of petitions fer deciraton of nullity under Art. 38. The cout need not wory about tno possible 190 of the remedy provided by At, 36, for there fe ariple safeguards agalrst this contingency, among whch 18 the intervention by the Stale, through the public prosecutcr, to guard against colusion between the parties andr fabricaticn of euedenen, Tha Court should rather ve alarmed by the sising number of cases involving mental vbusv, child abuso, domestic violonce and ineosttous rape. (bid) In Marcos v. Marcos (GR. NG, 138490, Cctohar 19, 2000), the SC hela thal yuychological incapacity may be established! iy the totally of the exdunce presented, Tho ‘30%s alleged ia *he pelion and the evidence presented, considered in totally, should be sufficient to convince the court of the psychological Incapacity of the party conceined. (Bernarcina $. Zamora vs, CA, O.R. No, 141917, February 7, 200?) + The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, ay are indivetive of psychological Incapacity st the time of the cojebration (Soc. 2d) A.ld, No. 02-17-10-50, March 15, 2003) + There Is NO REQUIREMENT that the persc sought to be declared psychelogivally incapacttatea should be personally examined by a physleian/ psychologist ux 4 condition sing qua non to artive at euch dackeration. tt can be proven by Independent means that one is psychologically incapacitated, there is no reason why the samo should not be credited, (Ropublie of the Phiipcines vs. Laiia Tanyag-San Joso_and Manolo San os2, G.R. No. 168328, Foztuary 28, 2007) Psystiotogical incapacity is not meant to comprehend all possible casua ot psychoses. The fourth guideline In Afolina requires tnat the psychological incapacity as undnratocd under A, Xb (FC) must be relevant to the assumption of martiage obligations, not nocessarlly to those nol elated to mariage, like the exercise of a professlon or employment in a job (Tongor vs. Tonqol, 3.8, Vo. 167640, Qotol or 42, 2007) The now Ruly promulgated by the § 2003 or Annulmant and Ceclavator ai Nua Mariage dispenses with the certiication for Solicitor General, staling therein his reasons tor his agreement or opposition to the petition Atlachment of expert opinions to te petition is Han Beda College of Law clso vispunsed with (Tong:t vs. Tongal, G.R No. 15/619, Octabar 19, 2607 Incostusus — marriagos —wnether tho relationship be legiimue or Mogitimate, betwoon (An. 27): 1, Ascendants & Desoanuants of any degree; 2. Brothurs & Sisters wis! ver ful or har-blood Those contrary to puigis pelicy contracted betwecin (Art. 38): (C-KA’?S") 1. Galateral blood relatieas: whether legitmats ‘or llegitinata upto the” civil degra ‘Step-cerents & step chisren vents~in-iaw & chiléran-in-law ae adopting parert & Uv adopted child The surviving spavte cf the adopfng parent & the acopted cnitd The surviving spouse ¢f Ine adopted child & tha adopter 7, Adopted child & a eailimmto child of the ‘adopter ‘dont chiléran of tha samo adapter Patios where ona, wih the intention to marry tha otter, klled the iethy's spouse, or his/her spovse. + There i no need for conviction in a riminal caso of ihe yulty party. The fact of Kling comvted by one of the pares to the mariage san be proved in a civ case The following cun now erry each other: (L8G-CA) 1 Brethor-in-Jaw and sista in-law, Stepbrothor and stepale» Suardian and ward Adopted and stleglimasy child, parents and felatives by consanguinity oF affinity of the collateral tpiplipesip 2see: half blood of adultery 2 on re Muoe legitimes ed in the SEid regishy of dei oe which SE ppropal pioper ‘obbyyng judgment for doctuiration of nullity ors ruimant (Art. 63)fon Beda Coll je of Tay Note: Failure to resord in the eli! registry and roglsty of property “he judgment of annulment of absolute nulity <1 the marriage partition and distribution of the property of the spouses and the delivery of the chikiren’s presumptive inglimes ‘hol at ulfect thd persons (Arts. 52-54). Vold and Voldahle tarriay TEL TEN Decree ofnullty Incapable of rafeatin 10 Distingulehod Can “be atiackad ¢ grectly or colateraly | drgetlyonly Comowmership at Fropertios through Jolat cla eonsibutions | Aways ved — on for aalavalom i nly does hot | preagibe Gniy the spouses have their mertians declared vold startin: March 46, 2003; but before such date, anv Interested party can civ ‘Generally ~~ Sonjuget | Partnership or Absolute Comrn, Br Art. 47 Judlctat Declaration s*N-uity The absolute nutity 0” a srevious meriage «nay bo invoked for pinpotos of remarrage on the duals solely of a ‘final juegman? declaring. such Frevious marriage void /Art, 40). * Remarriage is nat tha sole purpose of declaration of nutty of a martiageay it can bo declared vold for olver aurposes For purposes of remustiage, the only legally acceptable basis fer’ declaring a orevicus marriage an absotute autity fe a Pra! judgment eclaring such provious marriage vold «Patties to a merrlagi sould not be permitted to Judge for. thariseives tin nuiity. only competent courts he'ving uch authority. lor {0 Buch declaration «culty, the vaidty of the first marlage is bevond quesion (.anlcno vs. Rolova L:22679, Febrivary 23, 1968) * One who anters lato a aubsequant martiaye \without ret obtaining euch Judicial declaration gully of bigamy. thle principle applies even Ifthe earlet.urfon te charactesized by Statute as */old. (Mareado vs, Tan, G.R. No 137410, August 4, 2000)!" + Interestingly, ih Lcclo Morigo vs, Paopto, GR No, 146226, Fob, 6, 2504, the SC nila the! a ludicial dectaration ‘ct nuiliy Is not needed Where NO MARRIAGE CEREMONY at ail was performed by a.uly authorized i, sownvonnnlGEMORY MID IN CIVIL LAW 15 solemnizi-g officer, 98 where ine pasties merely signed 8 marriage contract on thait Own whihaut the presence of the sclemniziig officer For ourpozes other than remaniago, such as but fe! Imited to detertrination of heitship, legitimacy o* tleatimacy ol 2 child, setloment of estate, dissolution of property regime of criminal ease, other evidence is acceptabla to show the nullty of the marriage end the court may pass upon the valldty of marriage so fong asitic eegertial to the Cetormination of tho case. (Nici ve. Baysdog, GR. No. 193778, March 14, 2000) + Collateral alack of marriage 13 sllowed + Ina case for concubinage, the accused eed not pregerd a tinal judgment daclaeing. i's marriage veld, for ho wan adduce ovdenen in {ho criminat case of the nullity of his marriages other than prvot of a final jucgment declaring his manage voll. (Baltran vs. Pople, 6. ‘No, 1975077 duno 20, 2000) Who may fie’ Action for Declaration of Nulity Belure March 15, 2003 ~ Any Interasted parly can fis a direct vase for nutlty of mariage, «9, 0 father ven fle 3 casa foi dectaration of nelly of a bigamous marrhge entered Into by his diuyhter enc! a masrled nn, March 15, 203 ano onwards - A potitlot, tor deciorailon, of absolute nutty of void mariage may be filed solely by the hustand ut yale, Becnuse AM. (2-1110SC which provides for the same Is prorpeative in ite application, (oun de Dios Carlos vs, Ealickdud Sandoval GR. No, 179922, Ducemnter 16, 2008) lmproscriptibity of Action for Geclaralion of Nutty General ceionioraslotonse fot tho sat, prescrie' i, 8, bs aNd by RAgysr 98). approved MGA UADRS, 19 i . £7 Aeated by ary Errprevious vad14 | 2009 CENTAAL:ZED BAR OPERATIONS Exception: Before tho celebration of tne subsequent marriage, &dectaratlon of prosumplive death is obtained after complying ‘wih the folowing requirements: (JAB) 1. Absence of the other spouse must have been for 4 consecutive years, er 2 years where tere was danger ‘of ceuth under itcumstances laid down in Ari. 391 of the Nec 2. Wollfoundeo bellof of te prosent spoure who wishes to inarry thet absent spouse Is already dead Judicial declaration of presumptive death Present spouse must fle a summary proceeding or the daciaration of the fesumptive death of the absentee witout projudice to the latter's reappearance Note: This Is Intended to protest the present spouse trom criminal prosecution ior bigainy undor Art 349 of the Rev Penal Code. IHowever, if {he biqamous marriage was cormmitled abroad, the gully party cannot be criminally prosecuted Zor bigamy in the Phligpinas ag our penal etalutes are tarniorial in nature, Excertlon to exception: If both spouses of the ‘subsequent marriage acted in bad faith, said inactiage shall be void ab initio and a donations ‘made by one in favor of the other ara cavoked by ‘operation of law. (AVL 44) Effoct of Reappoarance of Absont Spouse: General rula: The eubsequant bigamous marrlaye uinder Article 41 remains valid Gosave reappearance of the absentee spouse. Fxoupion: Subsequent marrksa2 Is aulernaically esninated if the reanpesrance wa wort statement In the civil ragisty of tne Fesivence cf the partie to the subsequent Imauriage at the instance o! sny Interssied gers0n ‘with due notioe 19 sald spouses, without prejudice fo the fact of reappearance bein judiislly leluimvined in case such fact by dllssutus. tecorrted in a Excoption to the excopiion: MW there was a previous judgmont annuling or dectsrng the tes maiiage a qullly, the stbseqvent bigamous ‘ouauriago remaine valid, Note: If the absentee reappears, but no stop is taken to terminate the subsequent marriage ether uy alliavit or by court action, such abseniee's Inole reappearance, aven if made known to the spouses in the subsequent marriege will rot wiminate such marriage (S$8 ¥, Bain, GR. No 165545, March 24, £008) Seo Comparative Declarrtion of Chari Nullity, A on Eitecls of nalimont and xg, Sa San Beda College of Lay Termination of Marriage 1) An. 4f and Legal Separation, VOIDAB!E MARRIAGES (£1, 46) Grounrts: (\!P-FAVS) must axst AT THE TIME of martiago 1. Ago cf the party in whciss behalf the marriage is sought to be aniiiias was 18 years of age for over bul below 2%, 270 the mariage was solemnized without fhe consent of the parents, guardian 01 person exercising cubsbtite povental autherity avar the party, in that order: 2. Unsound mind of elther erty 3. Consent of either party o:lained by fraudulent means a3 enumerated in Art, 46; (NPSD) a, Non-cisclosure of a previoue conviction by final judgmunt of the other perky of @ rime involving mora: turpitude: b, Concealment by the site of the fact that at the time of the rnuriage, she ‘was pregnant by man other’ than her husband; + Must have been done in bad falth. the woman cic not exprossiy Inform the man of her piagnangy but such physica condition was readily apparent to the rt, Re eannot cian lack of knowledge thereol. (Buccat vs. Buccal, Ga. No. 47101, Apr 25, 1841) 6. Concealment of i susually vansmissible disoase, regardless of ite nature, existing al the time of the niainage; and + Nature or gravy of dicease Is {er3levany; It fs er.cugh that there Was conceaiment ab the time of the ceremony ted orotate oo cea accent CXaran neste fe tpHoan Beda College of Zao» Roquisites for Impotence: (CUPIN) a. It exists at the time of the goiebration of the mariage, b. Itls permaneri, ‘ ©. its Ineurablat itis unknown to the other spoure, ©. The other epoure must pot also be Impotent. Doctrinn. pi Trlennial _ Cahabsttton: Presumption’ that the husband [s_ impotent should the wifo sil remain a virgin for at least 3 years from thne spouses siarted vohaivting. 6. Sexually transmisatblo disease of akthar party found fo be sor'ous and appears to be ncurable.. Elements: (ESSA) 8. Exiating et the time of marriage b. Soxually transmissible diseasy cc. itis serious; and d. Appears incurable annulment dua to “the enumeration in Ariicls 48 Is EXCLUSIVE (Anaya ‘vs, Palarwin, GR. No, L-27900, November 26, 1970). Note: Misrupresenalcn ns to charactey, health, tank, fortune or cheetity Is NOT w ground for annulment. Ratification For Nos, 14, mod: of ratification is FREE COHABITATION after: # Attaining ago of 21 + Coming to reason + Having full knowlsdgo of facts constituting ‘fraud, + Tho dleappearanes of the: force, intimidation of undue infuers. respectively, For Nos. 6 & 6, thete it ho ratiioation to spoak of sinoa the grounds. aii not based on defective ‘coivsent but on the fuct that the Impotancy or disense is incurable, HOWEVER, prescription or the fallure of the agyrieved party to bring suit ‘within yrs, efter celebration wil bar him or ker from-annuting the marriage. Win 6 years intintdaton, from tha time or. undue the force, influence Intimidation, oF undue Influence Eraud nluied party MEMORY AID IN CIVIL La] 15. ! | igeaiaiy oF] i pepe ad injured party) Win inca consummate ity to ity we sane Pa. spouse who Re anyiio™ botore the dant» hae no | ofa party | knowledge of | b. anytine tho insanity — | betore tho desth b.telatves, | >t ether party guardians ot |e. during. held persons Iniorval or ator having togat | regelning sanl'y charge of the insane o ingane [name wef SPOUSE | . Hoi cones] a. paren’) aay ingot guardian | before the. *n0 having charge | consent” party of the. "no= | reaches 21 consent party |b. win & years b.'no eongent | ater reaching eee ae ; pa injured pary | Win 6"yanis after the colabration of | the mersiagn, Note: Whichever comnos fet may eotivelidate th marriage: Cohabttatics OR Preser tion Additfonal Roqultoments for Anaulmont of Declaration of Nullty Prorecuting attotnay or fiscal shou'd: 4. Appear on behalf of the state | 2: Take steps to pravent eolluston between ihe parties, aida Face kG BANAT is re SAM coat There whl bo" atranned to nadff uppel the partios had al a ground existe1G }2009 CENTRALIZED B/.R OPERATIONS ‘or had been commitied although it was not, or If Ihe parties had. conalved to bring about a mauimonial ease even in thy shsence of grounds: therefor (Ocampo vs. Flovenkiana, GR. No. L= 13553, February 23, 1950). However, petitioner's vehement opposition to the annulment oreceedings nagates the conclusion that collusion existed between the parties. Under these circuinstences, the nan-intervention of a prosecuting atlomey ter assure lack of collusion between the contenziing parties Ie not fatal to the validity of she proceedings in the tial court (Tuason va. CA, GR, No, 118897, Apoil 19, 1996). Decision No judgmant on tha placings, summary Judgment, confession of judgment, 0“ juxigment by {faut shall Le allowed. f the defendant spouse falls to answer the camplaint, the court CANNUT declare him or her in default But instead, ehouid order the public prosecutor to dotemine ft collusion existe between the patios Nole: The same also epplias to Legal Separation ‘Alter rourt grants petition, it shall iesue tie decree of absolute nullty or annuiment only after ‘compliance with the following: 1. Must proceed wih the liquidation, pestition, and dist ibution of tie propefties of the Spouses including custody and support of the fs9niraon children unless such matters had been adjudicated in previous _judicia! proceedings. Dolivery of the chlldrun's presumptive legitimer 3. Registration of the entry of Judgment granting pailtion for decturatlon of absolute nullity or annuimsnt in the Cv) Registry where the tnarriage was colebraled and in the Chu Ragistyy of the place where the FC way located 4 Registration of approved partition and Cistribution of properties of the spousus in tne proper Reyisiry: of Devils wnere the real propertios are located Note: The same upplies 19 Legal Separalan, lin case of annulment or declaration of absolute hulity of martags, #49 of the Family Sede rants visitation ights to @ parent who is Teprived Of the custody of the cilidren Such visitation Tights low from the natural right of both parents to Gach others company, Thore boing re such parent~ chikd ralatonship hetwyea thers, Gerardo hhas no demandable right to vint Ue did a “taio with Theresa (Concupelon vs, CA GR. No, 12345, August 31. 2006 is D1 Beda College of Katy Seo “Jomparative Chart on Effects of Doctarstion of Nu'tity, Annulment and Tonwinetion of tacthage In Art. 41 and Legal Soparation. Rulo on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Vold Marriages and Anelmunt of Voldable Merriages (AM, 2065» 01-SC) +) This tok effact an March 16, 2003, 2 This Rule shat -govem petitions for declaration o chociute nullity of void fnarrlages and usnulment of voldable mariaget under to Family Code of the Fhiticpines, © The Rulos of Gourt have suppietory appiication, For a more comprehonsive discussion on the procedural aspucts 9° the Rula, please refer to the Remedial Law Mainory Ald. eo eae Lesbianist Abd £xBiAdsBexually fe of Cont igarnou pe 10 Sexual infid BG sr eNDesion 8.Son Beda College (Kam MEMORY AID IN CwVIL LAW A? © Sexual perverilon incudes engaging In ‘such behavior not only with third persons but els9 with ‘he spouse COOLING-OFF PERIOD ~ -month period trom the fillng of the petilon designed fo give the Parties enough time to further contemplate thelr positions with the end in: view of attaining ‘econelilation between thern.,No action or Legal Separation shall be trled during such period (Art 58). It 1s a mandatory requirement and its nor ‘compliance makes the cecision Infirm, (Pacato vs. Carriange, G.R, No. 55t'80, March 17, 1994) Grounds fer ental of Satitlon (Ait, Ci: (c'— MP-OR) ‘ 4. Condonstion of the sflanse or uct comolnined Of. But failure of tvs Sushand to look for hie adulterous wife is NOT condonation to wife's adultery (Ocampo vs, Floronciaie, GP. Ivo. 41-1365, Fobruary 22, 1960), + Tho act of the liusband in having sexual Intercourse witt his wife In spite of his knowiedga of ‘ie laters infdalty is an tact of implied condonation, (Ginez v. Bugeyong, GF, No, L-10033, Decanher 26, 1056) 2 Gontent to ‘commision of offense or act ompiained of 3. Gonnivancabetwee: pesties of commission of offense of uct constuting ground + Connivance is corrupt eonsenting 4, Collusion between pies + Colusion is conupt agreement between the spouses {9 orocure divorce or tagal separation 5. Mutual Gui or whem both partes have given ground for logul separation 8. Prescription + An action for tigel separation shall be filed within 6 years: froin time of occurance ofths Gas (An. 87) 7. Death of ether party curing the pendency of the case (Lopuz-Sy: vs. Eufamio, GR Neo, 413842 August 3, 1994) 8. Reconcliation of the spouses during the Penaency of the cost + By fllng in the ‘same proceecing a joint manifestation urcer oath, duly sioned by the spoures “Art 81) Effects of Filing Petitio: (LOS) 1. The spouses shal be nied tr Ive separately from each other 2. in the absence of an agreement betwoon the partios, the court shall deslgnste the husberid, the wite, or m third person to manage the absolute community er zonjuqal Partnership property (it, 61) 3, Tho husband sha! Lave no more right to have ‘sexual intercourse with his wie, Decision ‘No legal separaton may be decreed uniess the Court ties teksn steps toward the reconcilation of the spouses anu fs fully satisfied, despite sucn ceiforts, that resmnctiation Is highly Improbable, (art 53) Note: ‘The wife who has been granted logit separation cannot psthian to be allowed to revert to her maiden name, Even if the pareris are separated do facto, stil in the sence of judicial grant of custody to one parent, both rareats are entlled to the custody of thelr clila, The reinady of habeas corpus may be resorted to by the parent who'has been depriverd of the rightfu! custody of the chid (Soiienles y Abanila, GR. No, $627.34, August 29, 2008) Soo Comparative Chart on Effects of Doolaration of Nuitty, Annulment and Termination of Marriaga in Art, 41 and Logat Soparation Etfects of Reconsiliation of the Spouses (Ait 60): 1. The legal sparation proceedings, if sti pending, shel thereby be terminated al Whrelever stag, ‘The final deciee of legal separation shal be sot aside, Dut the separation of property and any forfeliure of share of the guity spouse already effeced shall subsist, unloss the 8 8.1103 10 re.Ave thelr former prapurty Revival of Pr a Uf. 67) {iPseparatlan.cncashal4tisyaxecuttd ung18 }2009 CENTRALIZED BAH OPERATIONS Rulo on Legal Soparation (AM. 02-1 1-11-5C) This tonk eflact on March 45, 2003, This Rule shall govern petitions for _nyal separation under the Femily Code in the Plippines; the Rules of Coun stall apply supplatoriy. Ploase rofor to the Remadial Law Memory Art for the procadura’ provisions of the Rul ‘ aay ml iu 1 be wgater © Act of living togetier la a voluntary act of the spouses which cannot Se comoeled by any p aceading iv court Observe mutual love, wespest aid telly Render mutual help & suppor Fix the family domicils doin responsibility for the support of the family a. Expenses shall be pal from the community proporty b. In tha absence thereof, from income oF truits of their separate properties © in the absence oF insulficiency brereof, {com their separate properties 4%, Joint managetnent of the houseliold EXERCISE OF PROFESSION Geroral wulo: Both calc angage in any lavdal nierpiise oF profession WITHOUT the consent of tne other. Exception: The other spouse may object ony on. sefious and moral grounds, In x60 of disagreement, gourr shall: Gacide whathar OF not ine objection Is proper. and tho henefit accrued to the family prias te ihe cbhjaction or thureatter, Rulo if Businoss Bonatited Family 1. Benefit accrued to (amily before objection ~ fabscluta community ct property or conj:gal partnership Is. lable tor cdamag;s/ebiigations ured Excuptioa: Separate property of erring snovse cha be liable if yrofussion is soriously inwally and Immoral, in woich case even If benefits actually naorved in favor of the farally Exception to exception: When spous knowledge of other spouse's angagament in an immoral activity, it is as if there wos actualy no disageasinest an id 30 College of Law 2. Benet wactund alter rojectlon ~ separare propurly of spouse v4 did not secure consent of other shail ue solely able (Albeno, Ed Vi.cont S., porsons andl Family Relations, Third Eultion, 2006) Avie objection by thu [>nocent spouse, any obligation incurred by v9 erring spouse whlch radounded to the ba.. of the family shall be bons ay she absolute cceumunity of property ‘or conjugal property {S18 Marla, Molancio Jr. S, Pe sons andl Fum'y Ssiations Law, Fourth Ecition, 2004) 3. Crovitors who actes 'n good faith are protecesd ~ If spouse irunsacted with creditor vellhout tne congent o! ihe other but creditor hed no knowledge Mwreof, the absolute co.nnunlty of propurty or conjugal partnership shal! ba liable Re RES SRE ge SAN BOOKBan Beda College yf Lato aoe MEMORY AID INV CHL LAW| 19 For T No aiasalutor ~~oF mariage, only separation of bed-and-board; ontiled ue reguel NATIONS | trina CHD “USER KET TE eal gitmate ercoot ‘Custer In cone of sisputy | urlg Pendcnay ‘hall be decided by tha | 1. Writen Agreement court in separets | 2. Absenoa thernof, court dacdes based on best intee | proceedings fur custody bet | following order of preference ‘same conriderations as 41 | a. Both parenis jeirlly Declaration of Nulkty |, Elther paront, may conslder chcléo of shld ovor 7 years unloss paront cheno Is wifi 6. nurviving grancparent, if savorat then choice of cid over 7 years unless grandparent ‘chosen is nfl’ ox al ‘of child and may award inthe d, eldest brother/nisio- over 2tuniues uni. éiaqualtied ©, any other peraon duomad by court who le suitable |Aftor Dacre: Tothe nocent enouse hut NO child indar 7 atl b» separated fren tke mothor unloss Ene de ‘Support in casa of dispvin | During pander shal be decided by bt | 1, Willen agreomient court n= nepiars’e | % Inthe nbsence thomot from propesting ofthe abseuin Lommmunity of property {ACP} or ‘proceedings for custody br. | conjugal partuorehip (CPi ‘tame considerations as « | Aer Docrae: Daciaration of Nutty ithe are bot nye ordered by eu gn tect necessary fr spot astiea of roeipian | i ; 2 Inthe nosence than, trom proportes ofthe AGP er GP, conabored ae eevanen tv bo docticted rom stare dor lauication 3: Roattut If or tnal Jadomont court fide thet jeer roving support pandont bit ist i tno. : rod ESLER SVs AVIRPROPPIRNEANONS 5 GAT" DEL SE re + ACP or GP shal be dissrhvad and elated SACP of shail Bb 2. Ifelther spouse contracted mortiage In bad faith, ha or she has 1.0 rlg'it io pe tilssolved and liquidate ‘at profis eared by ACF er CI? Hoadlng epause hos 3. Nat profits shall be forfeited In faver of common chiliren, ie! 6 ny share of, ‘Spoute by previous martinge, of In dofautt thetoot, tna innocen’, 4, In all ofner casos of void tianiags, Ait. 127 and 148 epplios Inaddtton, for marriagos unier Art, 49 ana 44: 4, Allerediors of spouses and of the ANP or CP shall by notifies o Niquigaton 2. Conjugal éweliing and lor on which I is etusied shail be addict and 129 li SUM Fy of presumptive lege of ‘computed 28 of date of final judginont timate suecessional rights of chikiren di af aher both RONECSBD Sd DONATION PROPTETINOETIAS. 1 4, Sha remalavatd, Unies | 1. Shall remain vail, unless [ 1 Shall donee contracted mariage. | dorew contracted marriage in | unioss conve jor given Oplon To ke or neten ede Colleve of Lats “220 [2009 CEWTRALIZED NAR OPERATIONS in Ba Wak, WHEN ease, [bad Teil Tn” Which ease, [marriage Ih bad fai, & Sonatlon to s8id dane shatl | donation to said donea shall be | -whies case, donation ve , =p eo within 6 yeara from ba revoked by operation of | revorod by operation of faw. | said conse shai ta fility of decrea 0. v |4rH0v2099, Fovoked oy operation <¢! 2, But If ground for legal 2 it both spouses of | 2. it both epuuses of |Inw, (Art. 43(3), | separation la sexual Subsnquent martiago actod | subsequent mavtiaye acted In | 2. No confit with Arc | infty (adultery of in bas fait, donations | bad faith, donations prepter | 66(2) as such dogs nct | concublnege), donation bropter nuptias made by | nupties made by one in favor | raquire that marrage be | oetween persons gully ‘ond i favor ofthe omer ere | of the other are revoked by | annulled — first belora | \seieuf atime of denstion tovaked by operation af law | operation of law (Ar. 44) donor may —_avoxa | is veld (At. 738 {)NCC) 3. tf bolle spouses in good | donation - donor has 5 fain, donor ater tinalty of { years from tina ha hast koowedy9" of lack of Aut 6(1} | conse; enanot revoke if 4 masioge vat exiebrated | had” tmontegge tharect 5, those elsuaod in nang | betere be mariage ta Satisnint are vod (ar 6) | Mari, Nslonao eS [hose “exceed. tem | Poceons and Famiy | octes may revere pur Anoviiqge elaine oF I no | Reiatons Law, fourth ‘uch conweet, may bo revoked | Eaton, 2204) by covor it 8801) 3, Confit wit Art. 86/3} ut Art 49(2) prevels | moro. in. harmony. with | urerah puspouetintant of 7 TavEKSdssignsian of spouse I bad Tal ax Dusotclary aver V | Winceont spouse may sipnlatod a ivevecabia (Ar 4344)) “wok donations mada By tray bat in doef “finshg ape 0 nl Zi dalgalon oto B8 Saat oink ult ea voce 4%, OA). Action to revoke tesllon tat be rough Wt your ton tally /Earrerceraaral ing spouse “sqft terng inneeen upoieo OF iRaeale = shovasuos Brovalons into ae Ne es vo ANH RN COME GE Ce LAW 121 both spouses of subsaqvent martioge seted in bad fal, tastamantery denetlons | toorto by en in favor of the athar ara rovoses by operation of law (At. 14)1, Marriane settlements executed before the marriage or ante wuptal agreements 2. Provisions of the Family Code 3. Local customs when spouses repudinte absolute commurity. ‘© when pactlas cllputate In theie MS that focal custom shall apply or that ACP fegime shall not govern. bul. fell to allpulate what property regime wit be epplled 4, Ie the absence cf local custorr, ruler on co-ownership wil apy (Art. 74) COMMENCEMENT It commences at tha precise moment of the colebretion of the metriaga, (Art. 88 for ACP ‘and 107 for CPG) MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT (MS) It Is @ contract entered into ky tha juture spouses fixiig the matrimonial property reginie {het should govern daring the ex’stance of the martlage. {in the absence of MS or when regime agiecd upon te vold, ACP shal govern, (Art. 76) ‘SF-WASP) 41. Made before ceteLration of mariage 2. Inyirting (even modifications} + Oral MS 1s vold and cannot be ratified by any claim of partial execution or absence of objection Exception: \f mariage Is tenninated by death of one uf spcuses and surviving sonuse marries again without iniiting. settlement of properties of previous marriage within 4-year tron death of deceasec| spouse, mandatory regime of complete seperation of property shall govern property. relations of, Subsequent. imarriaga (Arts. 104 and 130) Signed by the parties ©” Will net prejudice thitd persone unless registered in the ahil registry ‘Shall fix terms and. conditions ot thelr property relations Additional signatories’ parties 4, 18-24: parents of thosa required to give consent must be made parties to the MS, cthentine it shall be vold b, civil Interdictess & disablodt, it is Indispensable fur the guordian es ae appoinind by court to be made a party to the MS Note: "Vis argued by some law practitioners ‘and authors that while no persan below 18 can ‘ontor Into a valld marriage and since the MS Is required to be exacuted bofore the mariage, one helow 18 m3) axecute an MS as long ne he or sho Is 18 of above at the tine of marriage. Etficacy of marriage soltioment (Art. 31) General rule: The Consideration of a MS Is Ge mariage sel. If the marriage does not take place, the MS is ganarally veie, Exception: Stipulations in tha MS thal do aot deperd upon the celebration of the marriage shall b2 valid General rule:’ Property relations shal be govenved by Philippine laws, rogardiass of to place of the cetcivation of the marriage or tho parties’ residence (Art, 80), Frcepttons: {both spouses are silos, ever If married in the Phiippinos 2. AS 10 extlinsle vallelty of contrac affecting property: 2. Not sited and executed in the Phippines ; b, Execited In the Phiippines | but situatod in tie foreign couny whose laws require. different formalities fur extrinsic validity 3. contrary stipuintion Modification In tho Mar: a Settioments Sener ean Jo before. the mariagg au ot hy “rence BM mance uf MMAAAG UPN) are mace by ‘hwgr ay tho other or by a Donations fonm spouse ¢ 71 a MEMU'Y AID IN CIVIL AW] 213232009 CENTRALIZED BAR OPERATIONS stranger, It is willtout enerous consideration, the martiage being merely the occasion or motive for the donation, not its causa. Belrg Hboraitles, they remain subject vo reduction vor inoffielcusness upon the donors cvath, should they Infringe the logitima of a forcad hei: (Matoo vs, Lapua, No. .-26270, Outoher 30, 4969) Roquisites: (COB) 1, Made before celebration of mariage 2. Imgonsideration of marriage i In favor o” gne of bot of the future spouses + Additionally, in ease of clonation on ‘one of the would be spoussts: