Bak REV 1 EWCE NER MAGIC AREAS in CIVIL LAW 2018 Bar Examination Dean ED VINCENT S. ALBANO Proprietor & Bar Review Director PRELIMINARY CHAPTER and HUMAN RELATIONS ‘The policy af the Constitution ts to protect and strengthen the Family as the hastc social institution, (See Article I, Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution) and marriage az the foundation of the family (See Article XV, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution). Because of this, the Constitution deerees marriage as legally inviolable and pratects ie from dissolution at the whiun of the parties, In this regard, psychological incapacity ab a ground to nullify the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended, should refer to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. It should refer to ne Hess than a mental - not merely physical - incapacity that causes a party to be teuly ineogeitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly ‘must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage, which, as provided under Article 68 of the Family Code, among others, incluce their mutual obligations to live together, abserve lave, respect and fidelity, and render help and support, [n other words, it must be a malady that is so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one Is about to asstzme (Republic v. Romero, citing Navales v. Navales, 578 Phil 826, 840 (2008); Del Rosaric v. Del Rosario, et al, G.R No. 222541, Februaty 15, 2007, Perlas-Bernabe, J) Constitutional provisions on family and marriage. * A. The State reengnizes the Filipino family 2% the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen ts solidanity and actively promote its total development (Sec. 1, Art. VI, Canstitution}:"~ ‘The State recognizes the sanctity of Fanily Ife and shall protect and strengthen the family as 2 basic social ‘institution. It shall equally protect the life of the mother and lnfe of the unbern fram conception (See. 12, ATC, Constitution). 3. Marriage as an inviolable social institution isthe foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State (Sec 2, Ar. XV, Constitution). Abuse of right. " : ‘A bank may be considered grossly negligent in not giving prior notice to cllent about its course of action to suspend, terminate, ar revoke the credit line, thus violating Art. 19 ofthe Civil Gode. ‘in order for Art. 19 to he actionable, the following elements must be present: “{1) the existence af a legal night oF duty, (2) which is exercised in bad faith, and (3) for the sole fntent of prejudicing oF injuring another.” Prior notice is ‘required before termination of the credit Ino. This is the legal duty of the bank and since it faled to do so, i s Hable for damages. APS alice or ad faith isa the cafe of Art. 19. Malice or ba faith “implies @ conscious and intentional design to do 2 wrongful act for a dishonest purpose or moral obliquity.” (EUSEBIO GONZALES v. PCIB, et al, G.R, No. 180257, February 23, 2011, Velasco, f Ardiente v. Pastorfide, GR Na. 161921, July 17, 2013) “The core of Articles 19, NCC is bad fatth. “Article 19 of he Civil Code “prescribes priicrdial imitation onal rights by serting certain standards that must be observed in the exercise thereof? (Barons Marketing Corp. v. Court of Appeals and Phelps Dodge Phil Inc. 349 Phi 769 {1996)) Abuse of right under Article 19 exests when the following clemnts are presen® (1) there is 2 legal right or duty (2) which is exercised in ba fat; (3) for the sole tacent of prejuicing ar inuriag another. (Dart Philippines, Inc V. Calogcog, 613 PV, 224(2005]) “The Court, expounding on the concept of bad faith under Article 19, hel faltce or bad faith is atthe cove of Article 19 ofthe Civil Code. Good faith retersto the state of mind’which is manifested by the acts ofthe individual concerned. Itconsiste of the mtention to abstain {Som takang an unconscionable and unscrupulosis advantage of another. 1's presurned. Thus, be who = "alleges bad ita has tho duty to prove the same. Bad faith does not stmply connote bad judgment ot Simple egligence; t involves a dishonest purposo or rome moral obloquy and conscious doing of a 7 yrtongza breach of known duty due to some motives or interest or twill that partakes of the nature af “Fraud Malice connotes Il will or spite and speaks not mn response to duty. tt implies am intention to do ‘leery hd Gajstifable harm. Malice is bad faith or bad motive (Dist v, Encanto, e al, G.RLNo. 171303, Jeary 20,2016), Liability for breach of promise to marriage: basis, ‘Any person who willfully caures toss or anjury to another in 2 manner that iscontrary to marals. good customs or public policy shall compensate the tater for moral damages. (Art. 21, NCC) ‘person anna escape babilty by promising to marry her only to theroa er renege on bis promise aRer cohabiting wit het for 21 days, There are other reprehensible acts which he did, like practcaly detsining the woman after the alleged rape, leaving her without any justable reason, withirawing the application far marrage heense, acts which can make hit liable for damages. (Bunag, [tvs CA aa, GR. No, 101749, july 10, 1992; Baksh vs.CA, etal, GR No, 97336, Feb. 29, 1993) /ABRC2O1B. Magic Areas in Cl Law/EVSAVerys 1Violation of ight privacy. Phe are ro (2) act ts, ono te awners stp and installed on ts ul va (2 vite surveane deprematngria papal toraber a tnanaier 0b Dyce realy boomer aa amines othe a Article 26(1) of the Givil Code, protects an individual's right to privacy and provides a legal remedy against abuses they be ete aginst hn y ether nds Ths provision eco that as house Ms eae, Where hs igh to privacy Canet be dened or oven resid by thers einen any at of trina Peep oF Dering tule te tence fone ‘ithout th onset heater Toe pov vying inte pea of aati ellen” howeres dee a ear Sythe odes wend ops. Cr Ue spel cian py ats ec a anti ae” Tn eso: inca, however that ol the rdence ented to prey, Betas the ow covers ao ml ates 1 buriness office is ented wo the same privacy when the public Iv excluded theFetrom sad ly tuchiadvidoas ac are allowed to enter ay come Thus, an individual's nght to privacy under Article 26(1) ofthe Cuil Code shovid nod be confined ta his house or residence a5 il may extend to places where he has the right to exclude the public or deny acess. The phrase "prying into the privacy of another’ residence” therefore, covers places locations, or even situations which an individual considers a private, And as long as his right is recognized by fociely,ather individuals may not infringe on his right to privacy Lamiting the application of Article 26(1) ofthe Civil Code only to residences ts wot correct (Sps. Hing vs, Choachuy Seo, ‘GR Wo. 179736, June 26, 2013, Del Cost). PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS Marriage without a license is void. la marviage was celebrated without a license, iis void, ‘The certification ofthe Local Civil Registrar that their office had no record of a marriage license was adequate to prove the non-ssuance of sai license. (Carifo v.Carvto, 403 Phil. 861, 869, [2001}) ‘The mere fact that a wedding ceremony was conducted and a marriage contract was sige does not operate to cure the absence of a valid marriage license, Article 4 of the Family Cade is clear when it says, “The absence of any of the essential oF formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab Inia, exceptas stated in Article 35(2), Article 35(3) ofthe Family Code also provides that 2 marriage solemnized without a license is void from the heginning, except those exempt from the license requirement under Articles 27 to 34, of the same Code, Again, this marriage eannot be characterized 35 among the exemptions, and thus, having been solemnized withaut a marriage license, is void ab initia As the mariage license, a formal requisite, is cloarly absent, the marriage of the parties (s void ab initio, (SYED AZHAR ABBAS v. GLORIA G00 ABBAS, GR. No. 183896, January 30, 2013, Velasco, fr, Cari v. CariRo, 403 Phil 861, 869, (2001)}. Proceedings after declaration of nullity of marriage ‘The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nulity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voldable Marriages, clearly allow the reception of evidence on custody. support, and property relations afer the tral court renders a decision granting the petition, or upon entry of judginent granting the petition. judge Reyes-Carpio did not deny the reception of evidence on custody, support, and property relations but merely deferred, based on the existing rules issued by this Court, toa tne ‘when 2 decision granting the petinon is already at hand and before 2 final decree is issued. The tial court shal proceed with the liquidation, partition and distribution, custody, support of eammon children, and delivery of their presumptive legitimes upon entry of judgment granting the petition, (ERIC U. YU v. HONORABLE JUDGE AGNES REYES-CARPIO, GA. No. 189207, une 15, 2011, Velasco, fr 1) Divorce between Filipino citizens void second marriage vod. Whoa the first marnagebetwven bath Filipinas was sofemnized in the Philippines th law tn force adopted the nationality rule tothe elect that Philippine lave relsting to fay rights and des or tothe status, conalton a legal Capacty of persoas-were binding upon eiizens of the Philippines Pursuant ty the tational rae, Philppine aes governed thy case. So they remained married tnt his death which terminated theit marmoge. From the time of the Ecichration of hs first areige tint the preset absolute divorce between Filipino spouses has not ecw secagnized ia the Philippines. The non-recghiton of absolte divorce between Filipinos has temained even under the Family Code, evenifelher or both ofthe spouses are ending abroad "ence, the second marriages voi fr being bigamous, And uvder Articte 144 ofthe Civil Code (now Art. 148, FC) the property relation between them is governed by the rules on co-ownership. But in order to establish co-ownership the second wife should prove that she actally contbited Inthe acquisition of the property. Even under the Fal Code, ‘where co-ownerahip between them is pretimed, there must sil he praot ef actual contrition forthe precumptinn apply. In thiseas, she flied to prove her actual contribution nthe Sequisition ef the subject properties it the partes have no legal impediment to marry, i snot netessary that there be acial or material contribution because in sucha case, there tsa presumption that the contrbution wea fal, the contribution may any be spiral (Cava, Heirs of Luna, GR No 171914 aly 23,2014). Foreign divorce. ‘A foreign dtvorce can be recognized in the Philippines provided the divarve decree is Proven as a factand as valid tunder the national law ofthe alien spouse. The fact that a party was clearly an Amerwan citizen when she secured the varce and that divorce 1s recognized and allowed in any of the States of the Unwin, the presentation of a copy of foreign divoree decree duly authenticated by the foreign court issuing said decree ix sufficient. Given the validity and efficacy of divorce decree, the same shall be given a res Jdcata effect in this jurisdiction. As an obvious result of the divorce decrae obtained, the martal vincufum between the spouses is considered sovered: they are ‘both freed from the bond of matrimony. {n plau language, they are no longer hushand and wife to each ather, Consequent to the dissolution of the marriage, the husband could na longer be subject to a husband's obligation wader the Civil Code. ABRCZO18.Magic Areas in Ci Lawiaw/EVsA/erys 2(MARIA REBECCA MAKAPUGAY BAYOT v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, GR. No. 155635, November 7, 2008, VELASCO, IR, Jz Medina v. Koike, et al. GR No, 218723, july 27, 2016). . Recognition can be ina separate action. It can likewise be recognized if invoked by a party as defen ¥, Romnillo, 223 Phil, 357 [1985]; Santos v. People, February 28, 2018) (Van Dorn Effect is forcign divorce inittated by Filipino spouse. Both Dacasin v.Dacasin, 625 Phi, 494 [2010] and Van Dorn already recognized a foeig snitated and obtained by the Filipino spouse and extended its legal fleets on the tssues of 0 Fao The fet thas validly obtained foreign divorce initated bythe Pilipino spouse ean be recognized and given legal effect in ‘the Philippines is implied from the rulings in Fujiki v. Marinay, et al. and Medina v. Kotke. a eres tn Fuji, the Fipino vile, with the help of her first husband, who fea apamese national, was able to abtain a budament fr Japan's amily cour, which declared the mariage between her ad her send husband whee hen hasona void onthe ground of tigi. In resolving the issu of whether a sand or wile ofa prior martage eens Bettion to recognize a foreign jucyment nullifying the subsequent marriage between Ms or her spouse ¢ ‘citizen on the ground of bigamy, it was ruled: oe me ae eel Fuji has the personality to flea petition to recognize the Jannese Family Code judgment nullifying the mariage between Marinay and Mackara on the ground of bigamy because the judorrene concerns his ewil status at married to Marinay. For the sate reasan fe Ras the personally: te ie g petition under Rule 108 to cancel the entry of marriage between Marinay and Mackara ia the ev registry on thebasis ofthe decree ofthe Japanese Famuly Court ‘There is no doubt that the prior spouse has a personal and material interest in maintaining the {ategrity ofthe marriage he contracted andthe property relations arising from i There tyalso no aoebe that he i interested in the cancelation af an entry of 3 bigamous marrage inthe cv registy, which compromise the public record of his marriage. the interest derives from the substantive ngh of the spouse not only to preserve (ar dissolve n limited instances) his most intimate human relation but alse {w protect his property interests that arise by operation law the moment he contracts marrage these roperty interests in marctage include the right ta be supported “in keoping With the Ruanelal capacty of he family" and preserving the property regime ofthe marriage Property rights are already substantive rights protected by the Constitution, but a spouse's Fight ina marrage extends further to relational rights recognized under Tite ll Rights and Obligations Bema Haband ‘and Wife") of the Family Code. x x x (Rep. v. Manala;G.R. No, 221029, April 24, 2018, Peralta, divorce decree that was hild custody and property Invocation of nationality principle: not absolute. & Conveniently nvoking the nationality principle is erroneous. Such principle, found under Article 15 of the Coil ode, isnot an absolute and watbending rule. In fact, the mere existence of Parageaph of Article 26 ina tstamen that he State may provide for an exception thereto, Moreover, blind adherence tothe naiotality rieiple must be disallowed if Would cause unjust discrimination and oppression to certain classes of individuals whose rights are equally protected by Jaw. The courts have the duty to enforce the laws of divorce as writen by the Legislature only if they are constitutional (Sve Barretto Gonzales v. Gonzales, $8 Phi. 7,72 {2983}, as-cited tn Tenchavery. Escaho, et al, supra). ‘A prohibitive view of Paragraph 2 of Article 26 would da more harm than good. If We disallaw 2 Fino citizen wo initiated and obtained a foreign divorce from the coverage of Paragraph 2 of Acie 26 and sil require hn or hor to frst avail ofthe existing “mechantsins” under the Family Cod, any subsequent relatonstp that he ot she would caer in the meantime shall be considered as tht the efes ofthe Philippine lat, Worse, any chld oen aut of such “ease smartal”affsir has to suffer the stigma of being branded as illegitimate Surely, tose ar jst but fw ofthe adverse consequences, not only to the parent but alse to the chief We are to hold a restrictive itarpretation ofthe subjact Brovision. the irony Is that the principle ofinvolaity of marriage under Section 2 Article XV af the Constitution imcant to be filted in favor ef marriage ind against unions not formalized by marriage, but withowe denying State ‘protection and assistance to live-in arrangements o oats ormad according fo indigenous customs (Rep © Manslo) Duty tatupport; effect ifa party sa foreigner who divorced the Fine; nationality printple. inwohirasPhlpine laws are conceroed pecfcally te provisons ofthe Fara Cals en sapport the sme oily apie to Blain cliuha By siulgy, the tame Priors epics to fregears sacha thay ae eee a "abn aw ith espct ofa right and dues which provide that nw eating a famiy gh et es oe Status condton and ag capacty of persans are binding upon teen of te Phlpanes even ugh lgabeond. (ot is Neo me obligation to give support toa child isa matter that falls under famtly rights and duties. Since the respondent isa czen of Holand or the Netorands, te lower court was Caretta hes slg t te tws a i county nak Pritppine aw as to whethe he soled te gve support to hich as wel as theconsequences of staure todos th Vivo Corbet GR. No 1-284, Ota fe, 1968, 28 SCRA 618, was sa ho eng stl ah, they are not 1m positon to invoke the provisions athe Cv Code a the Philippines, frat Gade eeaves ote principle that amy Fights and duties are governed y thr personal law, ce the as f te maion to which the belong even when yin 2 foreign country (Gi Cade, Article 15; Norma A. el Socortaw Erne Tohan Braktan Van Wien, GR No. 193707, December 10,204, Praia Why the foreign law which does not oblige the father to support his child cannot be made to apply in the Philippines, ‘Notwithstanding that the national law of respondent states that parents have no obligation to support their children or that such bligation is not punishable by law, said law would still not ind applicability. In Bank of America, NT. ‘and SA v. American Really Corporauon, 378 Phil. 1279 [1999] it was said that when the foreign law, judgment or contract is ‘ABRC2018 Magic Areas in Cuil Law Law/EVSAVerys 3