SUGGESTED

ANSWERS ON THE
2018 BAR QUESTIONS
ON PERSONS AND
FAMILY RELATIONS

Disclaimer: “[The author] assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors

or omissions in the content of this file. The information contained in this file
is provided on an “as is” basis with no guarantees of completeness, accuracy,
usefulness or timeliness…”

*Comments and Suggestions are HIGHLY APPRECIATED.

 I

Sidley and Sol were married with one (1) daughter, Solenn. Sedfrey and Sonia were another
couple with one son, Sonny. Sol and Sedfrey both perished in the same plane accident. Sidley
and Sonia met when the families of those who died sued the airlines and went through grief-
counseling sessions. Years later, Sidley and Sonia got married. At that time, Solenn was four (4)
years old and Sonny was five (5) years old. These two (2) were then brought up in the same
household. Fifteen (15) years later, Solenn and Sonny developed romantic feelings towards each
other, and eventually eloped. On their own and against their parents' wishes, they procured a
marriage license and got married in church.

(a) Is the marriage of Solenn and Sonny valid, voidable, or void? (2.5%)

(b) If the marriage is defective, can the marriage be ratified by free cohabitation of the parties?
(2.5%)

Suggested answer of Red Pogi:

SPOTTING THE ISSUE: Two issues that may arise on this case. First, whether or not, the
marriage of Solenn and Sonny is void by reason of Public Policy or second, whether or not, their
marriage is voidable because of lack of parental consent. My submission is that of the latter.
Considering the fact that, the ages of solenn and sonny is given in the present case, could the
issue have been otherwise they should have not been given enough emphasis in the case. Also,
considering that Question letter B is connected with question letter A, could have been
otherwise, Question letter B would become irrelevant. Even, assuming that the issue here would
have been otherwise, it is my submission that, their marriage is valid. Because the prohibition on
the family code does not contemplate marriages between ‘step brother’ and ‘step sister’

a. VOIDABLE. As provided for in Article 14 of the Family Code, if a party to a marriage

is already eighteen years old but below twenty-one, his or her consent is not sufficient;
the parents or guardians must, in addition, give their consent. In the absence of such
parental consent, the consent given by a party to a marriage whose age is 18 but below 21
is considered defective. And under Article 4 of the same Code, a defect in the essential
requisites of marriage (Consent of Parties) renders the marriage voidable. On the case at
hand, Solenn and Sonny were both 19 and 20 years old respectively at the time of the
celebration of their marriage. Hence, absence of parental consent as required by law
renders the marriage of Solenn and Sonny VOIDABLE.
 b. YES NAMAN. Under Article 45(1) of the Family Code, a voidable marriage because of
lack of Parental consent is ratified if the party whose parent did not give consent, after
reaching the age of 21, freely cohabits with the other and both lived together as husband
and wife.

Note: The only the party whose parent did not give consent is entitled to ratify the
marriage in the manner required by law. The consent of the other contracting party is not
required for the ratification to take effect, since in ratification the conformity of the
contracting party who has no right to bring the action for annulment is not necessary.
(Article 1395 of the NCC)
Effect of Ratification: Article 1396 of the NCC. Ratification cleanses the contract from
all its defects from the moment it was constituted.

Suggested answer of Ms. Angeles Pampanga:

a. The marriage between Solenn and Sonny is voidable due to lack of parental consent of
both parties. Under the Family Code, persons of the age of at least 18 years and below 21
years must obtain parental consent before marriage for such marriage to be valid.
In this case, Sonny was 20 while Solenn was 19 at the time of the marriage, rendering
their marriage annullable at the instance of their parents who did not give their consent.

b. Yes. Though voidable, their marriage may be ratified by free cohabitation.

Under the Family Code, ratification is made if the “injured” party freely cohabits with the
guilty party, and such will cure the defect. In such case of no parental consent, either
parent of Solenn or Sonny cannot file the suit if after attaining the age of 21, they freely
cohabited with each other and lived as husband and wife. It is the cohabitation after
reaching the age of 21 that will constitute ratification.
 II

After finding out that his girlfriend Sandy was four (4) months pregnant, Sancho married Sandy.
Both were single and had never been in any serious relationship in the past. Prior to the marriage,
they agreed in a marriage settlement that the regime of conjugal partnership of gains shall govern
their property relations during marriage. Shortly after the marriage, their daughter, Shalimar, was
born. Before they met and got married, Sancho purchased a parcel of land on installment, under a
Contract of Sale, with the full purchase price payable in equal annual amortizations over a period
of ten (10) years, with no down payment, and secured by a mortgage on the land. The full
purchase price was PhP1 million, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. After paying the
fourth (4th) annual installment, Sancho and Sandy got married, and Sancho completed the
payments in the subsequent years from his salary as an accountant. The previous payments were
also paid out of his salary. During their marriage, Sandy also won PhP1 million in the lottery and
used it to purchase jewelry. When things didn't work out for the couple, they filed an action for
declaration of nullity of their marriage based on the psychological incapacity of both of them.
When the petition was granted, the parcel of land and the jewelry bought by Sandy were found to
be the only properties of the couple.

(a) What is the filiation status of Shalimar? (2.5%)

(b) What system of property relationship will be liquidated following the declaration of nullity of
their marriage? (2.5%)

(c) In the liquidation, who should get the parcel of land? The jewelry? (2.5%)

Suggested Answer of Ms. Dumuclos:

a. The filiation status of Shalimar is that of a legitimate child. Under Article 54 of the
Family Code, children conceived or born before the judgement or absolute nullity of
marriage under Article 36 has become final and executory shall be considered legitimate.
Hence, Shalimar being born during the marriage of her parents, Sancho and Sandy, and
before the declaration of nullity of their marriage under Art. 36 of FC is considered as a
legitimate child.
b. The system of property relationship that will be liquidated following the declaration of
nullity of their marriage is co-ownership. Under Article 147 of the Family Code, the
property relation of a man and a woman living together as husband and wife without the
benefit of marriage or under a void marriage shall be governed by the rule on co-
ownership. Notwithstanding the fact that an agreement was entered into by the parties
before the celebration of their marriage providing specifically for a system of conjugal
partnership of gains to govern their property relation, the subsequent declaration of
nullity of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code produces the effect of
making their property relation to be covered by the Rule on Co-ownership. Thus,
pursuant to their marriage settlement, their properties shall be liquidated under said rule.

c. In the liquidation of their properties, the land and jewelry shall be divided between the
parties, Sancho and Sandy, equally. The Law on Sales provides that the ownership of
properties acquired through installments shall be vested to the buyer upon full payment of
the price. In the case at bar, with respect to the acquisition of the land, Sancho, using his
own salary, made full payment of the price during their marriage/cohabitation, thus,
ownership over it was vested at that time. The ownership of the land and jewelry which
were acquired through Sancho’s own salary and efforts during their marriage, is vested to
both Sancho and Sandy pursuant to Article 147, FC which provides that any property
acquired during cohabitation shall be owned by both parties in equal shares and any party
who did not participate in the acquisition by the other party is presumed to have
contributed in its acquisition. The fact that both parties acted in bad faith shall have no
effect in their respective shares in the properties to be liquidated applying the principle of
inpari delicto, the bad faith of one party is cured by the bad faith of the other party. Both
are, therefore, assumed to be in good faith.

d. 1. Yes. Shalimar is entitled to the payment of her presumptive legitime. Article 886 of the
Family Code provides that compulsory heirs listed under Article 887, FC are entitled to
their respective legitime. Shalimar being a legitimate child and as such a compulsory
heir(Art. 887, FC) is entitled to her presumptive legitime.

2. The share of Shalimar representing her legitime shall be one-half of the shares of her
mother and father to their properties upon liquidation pursuant to Article 888 of the
Family Code. Since the share of her father,Sancho, to the land and jewelry amounts to
P1,000,000 in total which is the same as that of her mother, Sandy, the share of Shalimar
shall be P500,000 each on the land and jewelry representing one-half of the share of her
parents.
Suggested Answer of Red Pogi:

a. LEGITIMATE. Under Art. 177 of the Family Code states that, Only children
conceived and born outside of wedlock of parents who, at the time of the conception
of the former, were not disqualified by any impediment to marry each other may be
legitimated. On the case at hand, since Sancho and Sandy don’t have any legal
impediment at the time of conception of Shelimar. Hence, the process of legitimation
took place automatically by the subsequent valid marriage of the parents as provided
for under Art. 178 of the same Code and, as a result of which, such children born out
of wedlock (“legitimated children”) become legitimate children of the spouses.

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE: In order for the Child to be Legitimated the subsequent
marriage must be VALID OR AT LEAST VOIDABLE. On the given case, while it is
true that the subsequent marriage was declared Void. HOWEVER, by the express
provision of Article 54, it recognizes that Children conceived or born before the judgment
of annulment or absolute nullity of the marriage under Art. 36 has become final and
executor shall be considered LEGITIMATE. This is an exception as provided for in
article 165.

b. CO-OWNERSHIP under Art. 147 of the Family Code, in the case of Valdes vs.
RTC, the court held that the regime of absolute community may only exist in a valid,
or at least voidable marriage (in the latter case until the contract is annulled), and does
not, as a rule, exist in a void marriage. In a void marriage, regardless of the cause
thereof, the property relation of the parties during the period of cohabitation is
governed by the provisions of Article 147 or Article 148, as the case may be, of the
Family Code. On the case at hand, while it is true that prior to the marriage, they
agreed in a marriage settlement of regime of conjugal partnership of gains, however,
since the marriage of Sancho and Sany was declared void due to psychological
incapacity their Property regime would be governed by Article 147 by rules of Co-
Ownership.
 VERY IMPORTANT NOTE:
General Rule: that the regime of absolute community or Conjugal Property of Gains
may only exist in a valid, or at least voidable marriage (see discussion of Atty. Lasam
as to the effect of on Property of void and voidable marriages), and does not, as a
rule, exist in a void marriage.
Exception on Void Marriages: It is only in the case of a void marriage under
Article 40, i.e., where a spouse in a prior void marriage contracts a subsequent
marriage in the absence of a judicial declaration of nullity of the prior marriage,
where the regime of absolute community exceptionally exists.

c. The 40% share of the land is co-owned by Sancho and Sandy since it was bought
prior to their marriage, while the remaining 60% is owned by Sancho alone since it
was bought through his own salary account. While the Jewelry is owned by Sandy
alone since it was bought through her own effort. (With reservation)

Alternative answer: Under Article 147 of the Family Code, the share of parties
who acted in bad faith in the co-ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common
children. On the case at hand, since both of them acted in bad faith, their shares to the
property after the liquidation are forfeited in favor of Shalimar.

d. YES. As provided for under Article 888 of the New Civil Code, the legitime of the
legitimate children and descendants consists of one-half of the hereditary estate of the
father and of the mother. On the case at hand, Shalimar being a legitimate child of the
spouses, he is entitled of one-half of the hereditary estate of the father and of the
mother.

Alternative answer: YES. Under Art. 147 of the Family Code, since both parties
acted in bad faith, all of the shares of his parents after the liquidation are forfeited in
favor of Shalimar. (????????????) Art. 147 is exception to article 888. (?????)
 III

Silverio was a woman trapped in a man's body. He was born male and his birth certificate
indicated his gender as male, and his name as Silverio Stalon. When he reached the age of 21, he
had a sex reassignment surgery in Bangkok, and, from then on, he lived as a female. On the basis
of his sex reassignment, he filed an action to have his first name changed to Shelley, and his
gender, to female. While he was following up his case with the Regional Trial Court of Manila,
he met Sharon Stan, who also filed a similar action to change her first name to Shariff, and her
gender, from female to male.

Sharon was registered as a female upon birth. While growing up, she developed male
characteristics and was diagnosed to have congenital adrenal hyperplasia ("CAH") which is a
condition where a person possesses both male and female characteristics. At puberty, tests
revealed that her ovarian structures had greatly minimized, and she had no breast or menstrual
development. Alleging that for all intents and appearances, as well as mind and emotion, she had
become a male, she prayed that her birth certificate be corrected such that her gender should be
changed from female to male, and that her first name should be changed from Sharon to Shariff.

Silverio and Sharon fell in love and decided to marry. Realizing that their marriage will be
frowned upon in the Philippines, they travelled to Las Vegas, USA where they got married based
on the law of the place of celebration of the marriage. They, however, kept their Philippine
citizenship.

(a) Is there any legal bases for the court to approve Silverio's petition for correction of entries in
his birth certificate? (2.5%)

(b) Will your answer be the same in the case of Sharon's petition? (2.5%)

(c) Can the marriage of Silverio (Shelley) and Sharon (Shariff) be legally recognized as valid in
the Philippines? (2.5%)

Suggested answer by Ms. Jaz Aguedan:

a. No. There are no legal bases for the court to approve Silverio’s petition for correction of
entries in his birth certificate. It was held in Silverio v Republic that there is no law
legally recognizing sex reassignment and its effects. The sex of a person is determined at
birth, visually done by the birth attendant by examining the genitals of the infant. Silverio
was born a male and in his birth certificate indicated his gender as male. Since there is no
law recognizing sex reassignment and its effects, then the petition of Silverio Stalon for
correction of entries in his birth certificate will not be approved.
b. No. My answer will not be the same. The petition of Sharon to change her name from
Sharon to Shariff and her gender from female to male, will prosper. In Republic v
Cagandahan, the Supreme Court allowed the correction of entries in the birth certificate
of Cagandahan to change her sex or gender from female to male on the ground of her
medical condition known as Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia and her name from Jennifer
to Jeff. Cagandahan was endowed with mixed composition of chromosomes. She has
female chromosomes but her body produces high level of male hormones. Cagandahan
has simply let nature take its course and accordingly, he has ordered her life to that of a
male. According to the court, in this kind of situation, the determining factor in his
gender classification would be what the individual having reached the age of majority,
with good reason thinks of his/her sex, and Cagandahan chose to be a male. Like
Cagandahan, Sharon has the same condition and has filed the same petition. The petition
will prosper.

c. First choice: No. The marriage of Silverio and Shariff cannot be legally recognized as
valid in the Philippines. The New Civil Code substantially provides that laws relating to
family rights and duties, status, conditions and legal capacity of persons, are binding
upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. And The Family Code
substantially provides that no marriage shall be valid unless the essential requisite of
legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female must be
present. Both Filipinos, Silverio is born a male and Shariff is also a male (as Shariff’s
petition was granted), the essential requisite of legal capacity of the contracting parties
who must be a male and a female, is absent, their marriage even though celebrated abroad
and valid there as such, is void here in the Philippines.

Alternative Answer: Yes. The marriage of Silverio and Sharon can be legally
recognized as valid in the Philippines. The New Civil Code substantially provides that
laws relating to family rights and duties, status, conditions and legal capacity of persons,
are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though living abroad. And The Family
Code substantially provides that no marriage shall be valid unless the essential requisite
of legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female, must be
present. The petitions of Silverio and Sharon are still pending for decision. Given that
both are Filipinos, and, Silverio was born a male and Sharon was born a female, the
essential requisite of legal capacity of contracting parties who must be a male and a
female, is present, and their marriage in Las Vegas is valid there as such, then their
marriage is valid.
 X

Sinclair and Steffi had an illicit relationship while Sinclair was married to another. The
relationship produced a daughter Sabina, who grew up with her mother. For most parts of
Sabina's youth, Steffi spent for her support and education. When Sabina was 21 years old,
Sinclair's wife of many years died. Sinclair and Steffi lost no time in legitimizing their
relationship. After the 40-day prayers for Sinclair's late wife, Sinclair and Steffi got married
without a marriage license, claiming that they have been cohabiting for the last 20 years.

After graduating from college, Sabina decided to enroll in law school. Sinclair said that he was
not willing to pay for her school fees since she was no longer a minor. Sinclair claimed that, if
Sabina wanted to be a lawyer, she had to work and spend for her law education.

(a) What is Sabina's filiation status? (2.5%)

(b) Is Sinclair legally required to finance Sabina's law education? (2.5%)

Suggested answer of Ms. Elishaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa:

a. Illegitimate. Art.165, FC states that children conceived and born outside a valid
marriage are illegitimate. The subsequent marriage of her biological parents did not cure
Sabina's filiation status since she was conceived and born outside wedlock and whose
parents, at the time, had legal impediment to marry, hence, disqualified in Article 177,
FC

b. Yes. Parents are obliged to support their illegitimate children upon the demand of the
latter. Art. 195 (4) FC. The law education of Sabina is included in the support
contemplated under Article 194 FC which provides that the education of the person
entitled to be supported shall include his or her schooling or training for some profession,
even beyond the age of majority.
Suggested Answer of Ms. Margarita Ganda:

a. Sabina is an illegitimate child because she was conceived and born outside of wedlock of
her parents. Sinclair and Steffi's subsequent marriage did not make their child
legitimated. Art. 178 of FC states that legitimation shall take place by a subsequent valid
marriage between parents. In the case at bar, the subsequent marriage of Sinclair and
Steffi is void because of the absence of a formal requisite such as the marriage license.
Their 20-year cohabitation can't be considered an exception since during such period,
Sinclair was still married to his wife. Thus, Sabina was not legitimated and remained an
illegitimate child despite her parents' subsequent marriage.

b. Yes. Sinclair is legally required to finance Sabina's law education. Art. 194 of FC
provides that support also includes education of the person entitled to be supported until
he completes his education or training for some profession, trade, or vocation, even
beyond the age of majority. Thus, Sabina, even if no longer a minor, is still entitled to be
supported of her law education.
 XVI

Selena was a single 18-year old when she got pregnant and gave birth to Suri. She then left to
work as a caregiver in Canada, leaving Suri with her parents in the Philippines. Selena, now 34
years old and a permanent resident in Canada, met and married Sam who is a 24-year old
Canadian citizen who works as a movie star in Canada. Sam's parents are of Filipino ancestry but
had become Canadian citizens before Sam was born. Wanting Suri to have all the advantages of
a legitimate child, Selena and Sam decided to adopt her. Sam's parents, already opposed to the
marriage of their son to someone significantly older, vehemently objected to the adoption. They
argued that Sam was not old enough and that the requisite age gap required by the Inter-Country
Adoption Act between Sam as adopter and Suri as adoptee was not met. Are Sam's parents
correct? (2.5%)

Suggested answer by Mr. APOLINARIO Eboy (emphasis supplied):

Sam’s parents were correct as to the argument that he was not old enough to adopt. It was
explicitly provided in RA 8043 or the Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995 that an alien may file
an application for adoption if he is at least 27 years of age. The fact that Sam, being 24yo at the
time of adopting a Filipino child makes the argument of his parents correct and that Sam
therefore is not eligible to adopt.

Sam’s parents were also correct on their contention that Sam did not meet the requisite age gap,
however, the law provides for an exception and that is when the adopter or the spouse of such is
the parent by nature of the adoptee. Sam’s wife is the parent by nature of Suri, thereby falling
under the exception and making the argument of Sam’s parents incorrect.

Paalala ni Principal lerma:

The law requires the spouse seeking to adopt his/her illegitimate child TO FIRST OBTAIN
CONSENT OF HIS/HER SPOUSE. This requirement is mandatory under the law according to
the case of castro v gregorio. According to the Supreme Court, in all instances where it appears
rhatva spouse attempts to adopt a child out of wedlock, the other spouse must be personally
notified through personal service of summons and is not enough that they be deemed notified
through constructive service; otherwise, the court does not validly acquire jurisdiction over the
proceedings and the decision of the case is null and void.
 XVII

Sofia and Semuel, both unmarried, lived together for many years in the Philippines and begot
three children. While Sofia stayed in the Philippines with the children, Semuel went abroad to
work and became a naturalized German citizen. He met someone in Germany whom he wanted
to marry. Semuel thereafter came home and filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
for partition ofthe common properties acquired during his union with Sofia in the Philippines.
The properties acquired during the union consisted of a house and lot in Cavite worth PhP2
million, and some personal properties, including cash in bank amounting to PhP1 million. All
these properties were acquired using Samuel's salaries and wages since Sofia was a stay-at-home
mother. In retaliation, Sofia filed an action, on behalf of their minor children, for support.

(a) How should the properties be partitioned? (2.5%)

(b) Should Semuel be required to support the minor children? (2.5%)

Suggested answer of Ms. Ignacio:

a. Article 147 of the Family Code explicitly provides that the properties acquired by both
parties during their union shall be presumed to have been obtained through their joint
efforts, and shall be owned by them in equal shares. Sofia, who did not participate in the
acquisition, shall be deemed to have contributed jointly because her efforts consisted in
the care and maintenance of the family and of the household. Thus, half of the PHP
2million worth of the house and lot, as well as half of the PHP1 million worth of some
personal properties including the cash in bank will go to Sofia, and the other half of those
will go to Semuel.

b. YES. Semuel is required to support the minor children. As provided in Article 195 (4) of
the Family Code, the parents are obliged to give support even to their illegitimate
children.
Suggested answer of Mr. Gittu:

a. The partition of properties shall be govern by the rules on co-ownership and must be
distributed in equal shares to both common law spouses. As stated under Art. 147 of the
Family Code, "when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live
exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage, their
wages and salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the property acquired by
both of them through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-
ownership. In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired while they lived
together shall be presumed to have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry,
and shall be owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article, a party who did
not participate in the acquisition by the other party of any property shall be deemed
jointly in the acquisition thereof if the former's efforts consisted in the care and
maintenance of the family and household. In this case, since during their cohabitation
Semuel acquired properties using his salaries while Sofia stayed-at-home taking care of
the family then the presumption under the law is that they are co-owners to all properties
acquired during their cohabitation and as such must be distributed to them in equal
shares.

b. Yes, Semuel is obliged to support his minor children being their father. Art. 195 (4) of
the Family Code provides that, "Parents and their illegitimate children and the legitimate
and illegitimate children of the latter are obliged to support each other to the whole extent
set forth in Art. 194 of the Code.