ART.
1-51 CIVIL CODE
I. Effect and Application of Laws (Arts. 1-18)
Effectivity of Laws (Art. 2)
1. Publication Requirement; What to Publish
Importance of Publication
Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, 29
December 1986, 146 SCRA 446
De Roy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80718, 29
January 1988
People vs., Que Po Lay 94 Phil 640
NPC v. Pinatubo Commercial, G.R. No. 176006,
26 March 2010.
Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of
Public Officers G.R. No. 180643 March 25, 2008
Pimentel v. SENATE COMMITTEE OF THE
WHOLE, GR No. 187714, March 8, 2011
Ignorance of Law excuses no one (Art. 3)
1. Mistake of law v. Mistake of Fact:
a. Art. 526 –mistake on doubtful or difficult
provision of law is basis for good faith -
mitigates but does not extinguish liability;
b. Art. 1334 – mutual error on legal effect of
agreement- may vitiate consent;
c. Art. 2155 – mistake in payment gives rise to
right to return of erroneous payment
Prospective Application of Laws (Art. 4)
1. Exception
a. If provided in the law itself
b. Procedural law
c. Penal law if favorable to the accused
d. Curative and Repealing statutes;
e. Creating new rights
f. Tax statutes
g. Interpretative Statutes
2. Exception to the Exception
a. Ex post facto laws;
b. Penal laws not favorable to the accused;
c. Substantive laws impairing vested rights.
Valeroso v. People, G.R. No. 164815, 22
February 2008
PNB v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 104528,
18 January 1996
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine
Health Care Providers, Inc., G.R. No. 168129, 24
April 2007
Acts Contrary to Mandatory or Prohibitory
Provisions are Void (Art. 5)
1. Exceptions
a. The law makes the act valid BUT punishes
THE VIOLATOR
b. The law itself authorizes its validity Mecano v. COA, G.R. No. 103982, 11 December
1992
c. The law makes the act only voidable

d. The law declares the nullity of an act but

recognizes its effects as legally existing Judicial Decisions form part of the law of the
land (Art. 8)

Doctrine of stare decisis

Waiver of Rights (Art. 6)

1. Requisites
People v. Licera G.R. No. L-39990, July 2, 1975
2. Exceptions

a. Waiver is contrary to law, public order, public

policy, morals or good customs; Duty of Judges (Art. 9)

b. If the waiver is prejudicial to a third party

with a right recognized by law.
Chu Jan vs. Bernas, 34 Phil 631 (1916)
c. Alleged rights which really do not yet exist, as
in the case of future inheritance

d. If the right is a natural right, such as right to Doubtful Statues (Art. 10)
be supported.

People vs. Purisima, G.R. Nos. L-42050-66, L-

46229-32, L-46313-16, L-46997, 20 November
D.M. Consunji vs. CA, G.R. No. 137873, April 20,
2001 1978

Cui vs. Arellano University 2 SCRA 205

Customs (Art. 11-12)

1. Requisites to make a custom an obligatory

Repeal of Laws (Art. 7)
rule
1. Kinds of Repeal
a. Plurality or repetition of acts;
a. Express
b. Practiced by the great mass of the social
b. Implied (not favored) group;

2. Effects c. Continued practice for a long period of time;

3. Sec. 444, Local Government Code d. The community accepts it as a proper way of
acting, such that it is considered as obligatory
upon all
 Civil Laws (Art. 15-17)

Martinez vs. Van Buskirk, 18 Phil 79 (1910) General Rule: Nationality Principle

Yao Kee vs. Sy-Gonzales, G.R. No. 55960, a. Family Rights and Duties
November 24, 1988
Status

Condition
Computation of Period and Time (Art. 13)
Legal Capacity
1. Rule on Computation of Period: First day
2. Exceptions
excluded, last day included

a. Years- 365 days, unless year identified Property transactions (real or personal) – lex
situs,
b. Months-30 days, unless month identified
Exception to Exception: National Law of
c. Days – 24 hours Decedent

d. Nights - sunset to sundown Order of successional rights

2. Exception: Computation of age - each year Amt of successional rights

based on birth anniversary
Intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions
3. Policy if last day is a Sunday or Legal Holiday
Capacity to succeed

Art. 26, par. 2 FC

CIR vs. Primetown, G.R. 162155, August 28,
Lex Loci Celebrationis
2007
i. Exception: Intrinsic validity and Art. 26, par. 1
FC
Penal Laws (Art. 14)
3. Renvoi Doctrine
Applicability in the Philippines if committed
here

Territoriality Van Dorn vs. Ronillo, Jr. et al., 139 SCRA 139

Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera 174 SCRA 653

Exceptions

Public International Law (Diplomatic Immunity, San Luis v. San Luis, G.R. Nos. 133743 & 134029,
February 6, 2007
etc)

Treaty Stipulations
Art. 18
 Unjust Enrichment (Art. 22)

Suppletory application of Civil Code in matters

governed by special law
1. Accion in rem verso

II. Human Relations (19-36)

Respect for Other’s Privacy, Personality, Etc.
(Art. 26)

Art. 19-21

Doctrine of Abuse of Right Tenchavez vs. Escano, 15 SCRA 355

Requisites St Louis Realty vs. CA, 133 SCRA 179

Doctrine of Volenti non fit Injuria Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 179799,
September 11, 2009
Damnum Absque Injuria

Acts Contra Bonus Mores

Independent Civil Actions
Requisites
1. Breach of Constitutional and Other Rights -
Breach of Promise to Marry Art. 32

2. Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries – Art. 33

Uypitching vs. Quiamco, G.R. No. 146322,
December 6, 2006
Wassmer vs. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089, December
26, 1964
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden, et all vs. Reyes G.R.
No. 154259, February 28, 2005
Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. CA, G.R. No. 97336,
February 19, 1993
3. Refusal or failure of city ot municipal police to
render protection – Art. 34
4. Quasi Delict or Culpa Aquilana – Art. 2176,
2177
Prejudicial Question (Art. 36)
1. General Rule: Criminal Case takes precedence

Pe vs. Pe, G.R. No. L-17396, May 30, 1962 2. Exception: Sec. 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court

Globe Mackay Cable vs. CA, 176 SCRA 778 3. Application to civil, criminal, administrative
cases
University of the East vs. Jader, G.R. No. 132344,
February 17, 2000

Capili v. People, G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013

Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150758,
18 February 2004
5. Rules on Survivorship
Montañez v. Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, 22
6. Domicile vs. Residence
October 2012

San Miguel Proeprties, Inc., v. Perez, G.R. No.

166836, 4 September 2013 Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. CID, 41 SCRA 292

Republic v. Batuigas, G.R. No. 183110, October

7, 2013
III. Persons (Art. 37-51)
Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120295, June
28, 1996
1. Juridical Capacity vs. Capacity to Act
Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300
a. Restrictions/Limitations and Modifications on
Capacity to Act

2. Natural Persons THE FAMILY CODE

a. Beginning and End of Personality

i. When child considered born IV. Marriage

b. Theory of General Capacities

1. Definition (Art. 1)

a. Special Contract vs. Ordinary Contract

Quimiguing vs. Icao, G.R. No. L-26795, July 31,
1970 2. Requirements (Art. 2-6)
Geluz vs. CA, G.R. No. L-16439, July 20, 1961 a. Essential

i. Legal Capacity
3. R.A. 6809 1. Sex
4. Juridical Persons 2. Age
a. How Created/ Terminated a. 18-21 requires parental consent: voidable if
b. Theory of Special Capacities none

b. 21-25 parental advice: valid if none but

issuance of marriage license suspended for 3
Limjoco vs. Estate of Pedro Fragante, G.R. No. L- months
770, 27 April 1948
i. Effect if license issued before 3 months – mere c. When either or both parties are foreign
irregularity citizens, Stateless persons or refugees (Art. 21)

3. Absence of Impediments (Art.35(4),36-38,52-

53)
Kho v. Republic, G.R. No. 187462, June 1, 2016
ii. Consent
Niñal vs. Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14,
b. Formal 2000

c. Effects Diaz-Salgado v. Anson, G.R. No. 204494, July 27,

2016
i. Absence of Essential or Formal: Void
Republic v. Dayot, G.R. Nos. 175581 & 179474,
1. Exception: Art. 35(2) March 28, 2008
ii. Defective Essential: Voidable

iii. Irregular Formal: Valid but persons liable 5. Marriage Ceremony

punished civilly, criminally or administratively
a. No particular form prescribed
1. Exception: Voidable if no consent from
parents, either or both of contracting parties at b. Minimum requirements:
18 or above but below 21
i. Appear before Solemnizing officer
3. Authority of solemnizing officer (Art 7)
1. Proxy Marriage
a. Persons authorized
ii. Declaration that they take each other as
b. Exception: Either or both parties in good husband and wife
faith, person unauthorized to solemnize
iii. Presence of at least 2 witnesses of legal age
marriage Art. 35(2)
1. Absence merely an irregularity

Navarro v. Domagtoy, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088,

July 19, 1996 6. Non-Essential/Non-Formal Requirements

a. Marriage Certificate – best evidence

4. Valid Marriages License b. Venue of Marriage (Art. 8)
a. Art. 9, Art. 10, Art. 20 i. Directory, not affect validity of marriage
b. Marriages Exempt from Marriage License
(Art. 27-34)
7. Foreign Marriage
i. No Good faith exception
a. General Rule: Where one or both parties to
the marriage are citizens of the Philippines, the
foreign marriage is valid in this country if
solemnized in accordance with the laws of the
country of celebration
b. Exceptions:
i. contracted by a national who is below 18
years of age
ii. bigamous or polygamous (except as provided
in Art. 41, FC)
iii. contracted through mistake of one party as
to the identity of the other
iv. contracted following the annulment or
declaration of nullity of a previous marriage but
before partition
v. void due to psychological incapacity
vi. incestuous
vii. void for reasons of public policy
c. Divorce (Art. 26(2))
i. Requisites
1. Valid marriage between Filipino citizen and
foreigner
2. Valid divorce obtained by alien spouse
capacitating him/her to remarry
Garcia v. Receio, G.R. No. 138322, Oct. 2, 2002
Rep. vs. Cipriano Obrecido III, GR No. 154380,
Oct. 5, 2005
Van Dorn vs. Ronillo, Jr. et al., 139 SCRA 139
Republic vs. Iyoy, G.R. No. 152577, 21
September 2005, 470 SCRA 508
Fujiki v. Marinay, G.R. No. 196049, June 26,
2013
Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 186571, August
11, 2010
Void Marriage
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, March 4, 2003
A.M. No. 02-11-12-SC, March 4, 2003
1. Where any party is below 18, even with
consent of parents/guardians (Art. 35(1))
2. Absence of authority of person who
solemnized the marriage (Art. 35(2))
a. Exception: Any or both of parties in good faith
3. Absence of Marriage License
a. Exceptions: Art 27-34
4. Bigamous or Polygamous (Art. 35(4))
Santiago v. People, G.R. No. 200233, July 15,
2015
Capili v. People, G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013
Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150758,
18 February 2004
Montañez v. Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, 22
October 2012
a. Presumptive Death (Art. 41)
i. Effect of Reappearance of Absent Spouse

Republic v. Tampus, G.R. No. 214243, March 16,
2016
Republic v. Sareñogon, Jr., G.R. No. 199194,
February 10, 2016
5. Mistake in (Physical) Identity (Art. 35(5))
6. Void Subsequent Marriage
a. Without judicial declaration of nullity of
previous void marriage (Art. 40)
Domingo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104818,
September 17, 1993
Castillo v. De Leon Castillo, G.R. No. 189607,
April 18, 2016
Montañez v. Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, 22
October 2012
Vitangcol v. People, G.R. No. 207406, January
13, 2016
Cariño v. Cariño, G.R. No. 132529, February 2,
2001
b. Without judicial declaration of presumptive
death of absent spouse (Art. 41)
c. Where the absent spouse was presumed
dead, and both the present spouse and would–
be spouse were in bad faith in contracting
marriage (Art. 44)
d. Failure to record in the civil registry and
registry of property the judgment of annulment
or of absolute nullity of the marriage, partition
and distribution of the property of the spouses
and the delivery of the children’s presumptive
legitimes (Arts. 52–53)
e. Effect of Termination of Subsequent Marriage
(Art. 43)
i. Children of the subsequent marriage
conceived prior to its termination shall be
considered legitimate;
ii. Dissolution & liquidation of the absolute
community or conjugal partnership. If either
spouse acted in bad faith, his share in the net
profits shall be forfeited:
1. In favor of the common children;
2. If none, in favor of the children of the guilty
spouse by previous marriage; or
3. In default of children, in favor of the innocent
spouse;
iii. Donations by reason of marriage remain valid
except if the donee contracted the marriage in
bad faith;
iv. The innocent spouse may revoke the
designation of the spouse in bad faith as the
beneficiary in any insurance policy; and
v. The spouse who contracted the subsequent
marriage in bad faith shall be disqualified to
inherit from the innocent spouse by testate or
intestate succession
7. Psychological Incapacity
a. Elements
b. Molina Doctrine
Republic v. Molina G.R. No. 108763, February
13, 1997
Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19,
2000
Castillo v. Republic, G.R. No. 214064, February
6, 2017
Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA, GR No. 119190, Jan. 16,
1997
Noel Buenaventura v. CA, et al., GR No. 127358,
March 31, 2005
Carating-Siayngo vs. Siayngo, G.R. No. 158896,
October 27, 2004
Ngo Te v. Yu-Te, G.R. No. 161793, February 13,
2009
Matudan v. Republic, G.R. No. 203284,
November 14, 2016
8. Incestuous (Art. 37)
a. Between ascendants and descendants of any
degree
b. Between brothers and sisters whether of the
full or half blood
9. Void for Reasons of Public Policy
a. Collateral blood relatives whether legitimate
or illegitimate up to the 4th civil degree
b. Step–parents & step children
c. Parents–in–law & children–in–law
d. The adopting parent & the adopted child
e. The surviving spouse of the adopting parent
& the adopted child
f. The surviving spouse of the adopted child &
the adopter
g. Adopted child & a legitimate child of the
adopter
h. Adopted children of the same adopter
i. Parties where one, with the intention to marry
the other, killed the latter’s spouse, or his/her
spouse.
j. There is no need for conviction in a criminal
case of the guilty party. The fact of killing
committed by one of the parties to the marriage
can be proved in a civil case
Mallion vs. Alcantara, G.R. No. 141528, October
3, 2006
Republic v. Olaybar, G.R. No. 189538, February
10, 2014
Garcia-Quiazon v. Belen, G.R. No. 189121, July
31, 2013
Voidable Marriage
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, March 4, 2003
A.M. No. 02-11-12-SC, March 4, 2003
1. Grounds: Must exist at time of Marriage (Art.
45)
a. 18 or over but below 21 without consent of
parents or guardian
b. Either party unsound mind
c. Consent obtained by Fraud
i. Non-disclosure of previous conviction by final
judgment – crime involving moral turpitude
ii. Wife Concealed pregnancy by another at time
of marriage
Aquino vs. Delizo, G.R. No. L-15853, July 27,
1960
Anaya vs. Palaroan, GR. No. L–27930, November
26, 1970
iii. Concealment of STD existing at time of
marriage
iv. Concealment of drug addiction, habitual
alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism at
time of marriage
d. Consent obtained by force, intimidation or
undue influence
e. Either physically incapable of consummating
marriage, incapacity continues and appears to
be incurable
i. Doctrine of Triennial Cohabitation
Sarao vs. Guevarra, G.R. No. 47063, 40 OG 263
(CA)
f. Either party afflicted with serious STD which
appears to be incurable
2. Persons who may file action for annulment,
Period for filing
a. Parents/Guardian who did not give consent
before party reaches 21
b. Party within 5 years from majority unless
freely cohabited
c. During the lifetime, either party or any
relative or person having legal charge
d. Within 5 years from discovery by injured
party unless thereafter freely cohabited
e. Within 5 years after force, intimidation or
undue influence ceased by the injured party
unless thereafter freely cohabited
f. Injured party within 5 years from marriage for
STD and or incapacity to consummate marriage
3. Role of Prosecuting Attorney/ Public
Prosecutor
Tuason vs. CA, G.R. No. 116607, April 10, 1996
4. Effect of Termination of Marriage
a. Children
i. Status
ii. Custody
iii. Support (Spouse, child)
iv. Presumptive Legitime
v. Property Relation
vi. Liquidation of Community of Property
vii. Testate or Intestate Succession
viii. Insurance Policy
ix. Donation Propter Nuptias
Espiritu vs. CA, G.R. No. 115640, March 15, 2. Grounds for Denial of Petition (Art. 56)
1995

Lim-Lua v. Lua, G.R. Nos. 175279-80, June 5,

Ong Eng Kiam v. Ong, G.R. No. 153206, October
2013
23, 2006
Mangonon vs. CA, G.R. No. 125041, June 30,
Bugayong v. Ginez, G.R. No. L-10033, December
2006
28, 1956
Domingo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104818,
Busuego v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No.
September 17, 1993
196842, October 9, 2013

Sy v. Eufemio, G.R. No. L-30977, January 31,

Legal Separation 1972

A. M. NO. 02-11-11-SC, March 15, 2003

A.M. No. 02-11-12-SC, March 4, 2003 3. Period for filing (Art. 57)

4. Effects of Decree of Legal Separation

1. Grounds (Art. 55)

Siochi v. Gozon, G.R. No. 169900, 169977,

March 18, 2010
Gandionco v. Peñaranda, G.R. No. 79284,
November 27, 1987 Maquilan v. Maquilan, G.R. No. 155409, June 8,
2007

a. Effects of Filing Petition

5. Effects of Reconciliation

Sabalones v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106169,

February 14, 1994 Rights and Obligations Between Husband and
Wife

(Art. 68-73)
b. Cooling-off Period (Art. 58); Sec. 19, RA 9262

Goitia vs. Campos-Rueda, 35 Phil 252 (1916)

Somosa-Ramos v. Vamenta Jr., G.R. No. L-34132,
July 29, 1972 Arroya vs. Vazquez de Arroyo, 42 Phil 54 (1921)

Illusorio v. Bildner, G.R. No. 139789 & 139808,

12 May 2000
Tenchavez v. Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671, a. Wife – relief from courts within 5 years from
[November 29, 1965], 122 PHIL 752-776) transaction

4. Incapacity of Spouse or cannot provide for

joint administration – Assumption of Sole
Property Relations Between Husband and Wife Administration (Art. 96, 124(2))

5. Transfer of Administration (Art. 142)

1. Marriage Settlement 6. Administration vs. Acts of Ownership
a. Requisites 7. Management of Household
b. Modifications: Must be made before 8. Failure to Comply with Obligation (Art. 101,
marriage 128)
i. Exception: Judicial Separation of Property 9. Donations By Reason of Marriage
During Marriage (Art. 76)
a. Requisites

b. Distinguished from ordinary donation

Pana v. Heirs of Juanite, Sr., G.R. No. 164201,
December 10, 2012

Valencia v. Locquiao, G.R. No. 122134, October

3, 2003
2. Absence of Marriage Settlement, Joint
Administration (Art. 96, Art. 124(1))

a. General Rule: Property Relation governed by 10. Donation Between Spouses during the
Phil Laws (Art. 80) marriage

b. Exception:

i. Both spouses aliens Matabuena v. Cervantes, G.R. No. L-28771,

March 31, 1971
ii. As to extrinsic validity of Contracts
Arcaba v. Vda. de Batocael, G.R. No. 146683,
1. Not situated and executed in the Philippines November 22, 2001
2. Situated in the foreign country but not
executed in the Philippines
11. Grounds for Revocation
iii. Contrary Stipulation

3. In case of Disagreement, Husband’s Decision

Prevails Property Relations Governed By

1. Marriage Settlement
2. By provisions of the Code
3. By Local Customs
Absolute Community of Property
1. General Rule: consist of all property owned
by the spouses at the time of the marriage or
acquired thereafter (Art. 91)
2. Exceptions
a. property acquired before the marriage by
either spouse who has legitimate descendants
by a former marriage
b. property for personal and exclusive use
except jewelry
c. property acquired during the marriage by
gratuitous title, except when the donor, testator
or grantor expressly provides otherwise (Art.
92)
Nobleza v. Nuega, G.R. No. 193038, March 11,
2015
3. Administration and Disposition
Flores v. Spouses Lindo, Jr., G.R. No. 183984,
[April 13, 2011
4. Rule on Game of Chance
5. Remedies of Present Spouse in case of
Abandonment
De la Cruz v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. L-19565,
January 30, 1968
6. Charges upon and Obligations
7. Liquidation (Art. 102)
8. Grounds for Termination (Art. 99)
Conjugal Partnership of Gains
1. Properties under Conjugal Partnership of
Gains
Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143286,
April 14, 2004
Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Posadas, Jr., 56
Phil 215 (1931)
Jocson v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-55322,
February 16, 1989
Jovellanos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100728,
June 18, 1992
Castillo, Jr. v. Pasco, G.R. No. L-16857, May 29,
1964
2. Exclusive Property of Each Spouse (Art. 109)
Magallon v. Montejo, G.R. No. 73733, December
16, 1986
Vda. de Padilla v. Vda. de Padilla, 74 Phil 377
(1943)
Lilius v. Manila Railroad Co., 62 Phil 56 (1935)
3. Rule in case of Improvement of Exclusive
Property
a. Accession
b. Reverse Accession
Villanueva v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R.
No. 74577, December 4, 1990
4. Charges Upon and Obligations
BA Finance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. L-61464, May 28, 1988
Security Bank v. Mar Tierra Corp., GR No.
143382, November 29, 2006
Carandang v. Heirs of de Guzman, G.R. No.
160347, November 29, 2006
Spouses Go v. Yamane, G.R. No. 160762, May 3,
2006
Ching v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124642,
February 23, 2004
Borlongan v. Banco de Oro, G.R. Nos. 217617 &
218540 (Resolution), April 5,
2017
Lacson v. Diaz, G.R. No. L-19346, May 31, 1965
Pana v. Heirs of Juanite, Sr., G.R. No. 164201,
December 10, 2012
Spouses Wong v. Intermediate Appellate Court,
G.R. No. 70082, August 19,
1991
5. Administration of Conjugal Partnership
Property
Pelayo v. Perez, G.R. No. 141323, June 8, 2005
Homeowners and Savings Loan Bank vs. Dailo,
GR No 153802, March 11,
2005
Jose Uy vs. CA, G.R. No. 109557, November 2,
2000
Jader-Manalo v. Spouses Camaisa, G.R. No.
147978, January 23, 2002
Spouses Guiang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
125172, June 26, 1998
6. Dissolution and Liquidation
Quiao v. Quiao, G.R. No. 176556, July 4, 2012
Domingo v. Spouses Molina, G.R. No. 200274,
April 20, 2016
Separation of Property
1. Marriage Settlement (Art. 134)
2. Judicial Order
a. Causes
b. Effects 2. Mandatory Prior Recourse to Compromise
(Art. 151, NCC)

a. Exceptions
Union Without Marriage
Martinez v. Martinez, G.R. No. 162084, June 28,
2005
1. Art. 147 and 148 Gayon v. Gayon, G.R. No. L-28394, November
a. Applicability 26, 1970

b. Salaries and Wages

c. Property Acquired Exclusively By other Party 3. Family Home

d. Property Acquired by Both a. General Rule: Exempt from executions

e. Presumption b. Exceptions

Valdes v. RTC, Br. 102, Quezon City, G.R. No. Manacop v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97898,
122749, July 31, 1996 August 11, 1997

Diño v. Diño, G.R. No. 178044, January 19, 2011
Barrido v. Nonato, G.R. No. 176492, October 20,
2014
Agapay v. Palang, G.R. No. 116668, July 28,
1997]
Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Teodoro,
G.R. No. L-20530, June 29, 1967
Taneo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108532,
March 9, 1999
Modequillo v. Breva, G.R. No. 86355, May 31,
1990
Patricio v. Dario III, G.R. No. 170829, November
20, 2006
Eulogio v. Bell, Sr., G.R. No. 186322, July 8, 2015

Francisco vs. Master Iron Works & Construction

Corp., G.R. No. 151967, February 16, 2005 Legitimate Children
Atienza vs. De Castro, Atienza v. De Castro, G.R.
No. 169698, November 29, 2006
1. General Rule: Conceived or born during a
valid marriage
The Family

De Jesus v. Estate of Dizon, G.R. No. 142877,

1. Family Relation October 2, 2001
Social Security System v. Aguas, G.R. No. Estate of Ong v. Diaz, G.R. No. 171713,
165546, February 27, 2006 December 17, 2007

Benitez-Badua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

2. Exceptions
a. Artificial Insemination
b. Born of voidable marriage before decree of
annulment
c. Conceived or born before judgment of nullity
under Art. 36 has become final and executory
d. Conceived or born of Subsequent marriage
under Art. 53
e. Conceived or born of mothers who might
have declared against legitimacy or sentenced
as adultress
f. Legally adopted
g. Legitimated
3. Rules on Impugning Legitimacy
105625, January 24, 1994
Geronimo v. Santos, G.R. No. 197099,
September 28, 2015
Salas v. Matusalem, G.R. No. 180284,
September 11, 2013
Babiera v. Catotal, G.R. No. 138493, June 15,
2000
Agustin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162571,
June 15, 2005
Angeles v. Angeles, G.R. No. 153798, September
2, 2005
Ilano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104376,
February 23, 1994
Herrera v. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005

a. Generally instituted only by husband 4. Actions to claim Legitimate/ Illegitimate

b. Prescriptive period Status

c. Exception: Heirs may file a. Who can claim

1. Husband dies before period expires (have the b. Proof of Filiation

remainder)

2. Posthumous birth (full period) People v. Malapo, G.R. No. 123115, August 25,
3. Continue case instituted by husband 1998

d. Grounds Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86302,

September 24, 1991

Liyao, Jr. v. Tanhoti-Liyao, G.R. No. 138961,

Concepcion v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. March 7, 2002
123450, August 31, 2005
Verceles vs. Posada, G.R. No. 159785, April 27,
2007
 b. Judicial

5. Adoption c. Conventional

a. Domestic Adoption Act 4. Characteristics

b. Inter-country Adoption a. Personal

b. In transmissible

In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie c. Not subject to waiver or compensation

Nathy Astorga Garcia, G.R. No.
d. Exempt from attachment or execution
148311, March 31, 2005
e. Reciprocal
In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim
f. Provisional Character of Support Judgment
and Michael Jude P. Lim, G.R.

Nos. 168992-93, May 21, 2009 g. Mandatory

5. Persons Obliged to Support each other (Art.

195)
Support
6. Order of Liability if Several Persons Obliged to
give Support (Art. 199)

1. Basis: Financial Capacity of Giver, Needs of

Recipient
Magnonon vs. CA, G.R. No. 125041, June 30,
a. Not based on parental authority, hence hoes 2006
not terminate with emancipation
Dadivas de Villanueva vs. Villanueva, 54 Phil 93
2. Coverage (1929)

a. Substance Quintana vs. Lerma, 24 Phil 285 (1913)

b. Dwelling Francisco vs. Znadueta, 61 Phil 752 (1935)

c. Clothing Ramirez vs. Redfern, 49 Phil 849 (1926)

d. Medical Attendance

e. Education Parental Authority

f. Transportation

3. Kinds 1. General Rule: Exercised Jointly

a. Legal 2. Exceptions:
a. Judicial Order to the Contrary Santos vs. CA, G.R. No. 113054, March 1

b. Illegitimate Child 6, 1995

c. Parental Preference Rule
d. Rule in case of Legal Separation
3. Persons exercising Substitute Parental
Authority (Art. 216)
4. Persons exercising Special Parental Authority
(Art. 218)
5. Kinds of Properties of a Minor
a. Adventitious
b. Profectitious
6. Grounds for Suspension of Parental Authority
Sagala-Eslao vs. CA, G.R. No. 116773, January
16, 1997
Vancil vs. Belmes, G.R. No. 132223, June 19,
2001
Espiritu vs. CA, G.R. No. 115640, March 15,
1995
Luna vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-68374, June 18, 1985
Pablo-Gulaberto vs. Gualberto, G.R. No. 154994
& 156254, June 28, 2005
Briones vs. Miguel, G.R. No. 156343, October
18, 204

a. Emancipation St. Mary’s Academy vs. William Carpitanos, G.R.

No. 143363, February 6, 2002
b. Death

c. Adoption
Emancipation and Age of Majority
d. Appointment of another as general guardian

e. Judicial Declaration of Abandonment

1. Reaching 18 years of Age
f. Final Judgment Divesting Parental Authority
2. RA 6809
i. Excessive harshness

ii. Corrupting orders

Cancellation or Correction of Entries
iii. Compelling child to beg

iv. Rape
1. RA 9048
v. Acts of lasciviousness
2. Rule 108
vi. Judicial declaration of incapacity
3. Grounds
g. Permanent/ Temporary
Republic v. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, G.R. No. 159966,
September 12, 2008 March 30, 2005

Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October Republic v. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676,
22, 2007 September 12, 2008

Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October

22, 2007
Surname
Republic v. CA, GR No. 97906, May 21, 1992

1. Reason for interest of State

4. Rules on what to use
a. Prevent confusion of identity
a. Legitimate or legitimated children
b. Prevent use of name for illegal purposes
b. Illegitimate children
2. Legal Name – What appears in Birth
Certificate c. Adopted child

3. Change – Rule 103, Rules of Court d. Married women

a. Court Approval i. May retain maiden name

b. Grounds 1. May not do so if has been using husband’s

surname for a long time
i. Ridiculous, Dishonorable
e. Marriage Annulled
ii. Extreme Difficulty to Pronounce
i. Wife guilty
iii. Adoption of Filipino name to remove traces
of alienage ii. Wife Innocent

iv. Legal cause – adoption, et al. f. Legal Separation

g. Death of Husband

Gan v. Republic, G.R. NO. 207147, September h. Persons with same names
14, 2016
i. Usurpation of another’s name
Grande v. Antonio, G.R. No. 206248, February
18, 2014
Funerals
Republic v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 117209,
February 9, 1996

In re: Petition for change of name and/or

correction/cancellation of entry in civil registry
1. Duty and right to make arrangement about
funerals is in accordance with right and

Duty to support under Article 199, FC

2. the funeral shall be in keeping with the social

position of the deceased

3. the funeral shall be in accordance with the

expressed wishes of the deceased

i. in the absence of the expressed wishes, his

religious beliefs or

affiliation shall determine

ii. in case of doubt, the persons in Article 199,

FC shall decide

1. any person who disrespects the dead or

allows the same shall be liable for damages

If the deceased is married, the tombstone or

mausoleum is deemed a part of the funeral
expense and chargeable against the community
or conjugal partnership property

Absence

1. Provisional Abesence

2. Declaration of Absence

3. Presumption of Death

4. Reappearance of absentee

a. Effect on subsequent marriage of spouse

present

Effect on Properties