San Bedaq Red Notes on Civil Law

san beda red notes on civil law
of 116
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
   RedNotesinCivilLaw 113   C IVIL  L AW   2005  C ENTRALIZED  B  AR   O PERATIONS   MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED TOPCS N C!L LA Source: U.P. Law Center  Persons and Family Relations TOPC# REQUREMENTS FOR T$E !ALDTY OF MARRA%E &1'(') 1''*) 1''+) 1''3) 1'',) 1''-) 1''.) 1''() 1''') +**+/ IWhat is the status of the following marriages and why?A.A marriage between two 19-year olds without parental consent.B.A marriage between two 21-year olds without parental adice.!.A marriage between two ilipino first cousins in #pain where such marriage is alid.$.A marriage between two ilipinos in %ong &ong before a notary public.'.A marriage solemni(ed by a town mayor three towns away from his )urisdiction. *1999+ ANS ERS# A. ,he marriage is oidable. ,he consent of the parties to the marriage was defectie. Being below 21 years old the consent of the parties is not full without the consent of their parents. ,he consent of the parents of the parties to the marriage is indispensable for its alidity.B. Between 21-year olds the marriage is alid despite the absence of parental adice because such absence is merely an irregularity affecting a formal reuisite /i.e. the marriage license0and does not affect the alidity of the marriage itself. ,his is without pre)udice to the ciil criminal or administratie liability of the party responsible therefore.!. By reason of public policy the marriage between ilipino first cousins is oid Art. 3 par. *1+ !4 and the fact that it is considered a alid marriage in a foreign country in this case #pain0does not alidate it being an e5ception to the general rule in Art. 26 of said !ode which accords alidity to all marriages solemni(ed outside the 7hilippines 5 5 5 and alid there as such.$. It depends. If the marriage before the notary public is alid under %ong &ong law the marriage is alid in the 7hilippines. 8therwise the marriage that is inalid in %ong &ong will be inalid in the 7hilippines.'. nder the :ocal ;oernment !ode a town mayor may alidly solemni(e a marriage but said law is silent as to the territorial limits for the e5ercise by a town mayor of such authority. %oweer by analogy with the authority of members of the )udiciary to solemni(e a marriage it would seem that the mayor did not hae the reuisite authority to solemni(e a marriage outside of his territorial )urisdiction. %ence the marriage is oid unless it was contracted with either or both parties belieing in good faith that the mayor had the legal authority to solemni(e this particular marriage Art. < par. *2+ !4. ALTERNAT!E ANS ERS# !. ,he marriage is oid. nder Article 26 of the amily !ode a marriage alid where celebrated is alid in the 7hilippines e5cept those marriages enumerated in said Article which marriages will remain oid een though alid where solemni(ed. ,he marriage between first cousins is one of those marriages enumerated therein hence it is oid een though alid in #pain where it was celebrated.$. If the two ilipinos belieed in good faith that the =otary 7ublic is authori(ed to solemni(e marriage then the marriage is alid.'. ,he marriage is alid. nder the :ocal ;oernment !ode the authority of a mayor to solemni(e marriages is not restricted within his municipality implying that he has the authority een outside the territory thereof. %ence the marriage he solemni(ed outside his municipality is alid. And een assuming that his authority is restricted within his municipality such marriage will    San0edaColle1eo2Law 11,  San Beda College of Law   C IVIL  L AW   neertheless be alid because solemni(ing the marriage outside said municipality is a mere irregularity applying by analogy the case of Navarro vs. Domagtoy   2<9 #!>A 129. In this case the #upreme !ourt held that the celebration by a )udge of a marriage outside the )urisdiction of his court is a mere irregularity that did not affect the alidity of the marriage notwithstanding Article  of the amily !ode which proides that an incumbent member of the )udiciary is authori(ed to solemni(e marriages only within the court@s )urisdiction. OT$ER ALTERNAT!E ANS ERS# !. By reason of Article 1< in relation to Article 3 of the !iil !ode which applies to ilipinos whereer they are the marriage is oid.'. ,he marriage is oid because the mayor has no authority to solemni(e marriage outside his )urisdiction.II8n alentine@s $ay 1996 'lias and ely both single and 2< years of age went to the city hall where they sought out a fi5er to help them obtain a uicie marriage. or a fee the fi5er produced an ante-dated marriage license for them issued by the !iil >egistrar of a small remote municipality. %e then brought them to a licensed minister in a restaurant behind the city hall and the latter solemni(ed their marriage right there and then. A.Is their marriage alid oid or oidable? B.Would your answer be the same if it should turn out that the marriage license was spurious? '5plain. *1996+ ANS ERS# A.,he marriage is alid. ,he irregularity in the issuance of a alid license does not adersely affect the alidity of the marriage. ,he marriage license is alid because it was in fact issued by a !iil >egistrar *Arts.  and C !+.B. =o the answer would not be the same. ,he marriage would be oid because of the absence of a formal reuisite. In such a case there was actually no alid marriage license. ALTERNAT!E ANS ER# A. It depends. If both or one of the parties was a member of the religious sect of the solemni(ing officer the marriage is alid. If none of the parties is a member of the sect and both of them were aware of the fact the marriage is oid. ,hey cannot claim good faith in belieing that the solemni(ing officer was authori(ed because the scope of the authority of the solemni(ing officer is a matter of law. If howeer one of the parties belieed in good faith that the other was a member of the sect then the marriage is alid under Article <*2+ !. In that case the party in good faith is acting under a mistae of fact not a mistae of law. TOPC# PROPERTY RELATONS 0ET EEN $US0AND AND FE &1'(') 1''+) 1'',) 1'') 1''() +***/ IIn 19 Dauricio a ilipino pensioner of the .#. ;oernment contracted a bigamous marriage with 'rlinda despite the fact that his first wife !arol was still liing. In 19< Dauricio and 'rlinda )ointly bought a parcel of >iceland with the title being placed )ointly in their names. #hortly thereafter they purchased another property *a house and lot+ which was placed in her name alone as the buyer. In 1931 Dauricio died and !arol promptly filed an action against 'rlinda to recoer both the >iceland and the house and lot claiming them to be con)ugal property of the first marriage. 'rlinda contends that she and the late Dauricio were co-owners of the >icelandE and with respect to the house and lot she claims she is the e5clusie owner. Assuming she fails to proe that she had actually used her own money in either purchase how do you decide the case? *1993+ ANS ER#   RedNotesinCivilLaw 113   C IVIL  L AW   2005  C ENTRALIZED  B  AR   O PERATIONS   !arol@s action to recoer both the >iceland and the house and lot is well-founded. Both are con)ugal property in iew of the failure of 'rlinda the wife in a bigamous marriage to proe that her own money was used in the purchases made. ,he #upreme !ourt in a case applied Art. 1C3 amily !ode despite the fact that the husband@s death too place prior to the effectiity of said law. %oweer een under Art. 1CC !iil !ode the same conclusion would hae been reached in iew of the bigamous nature of the second marriage. ANOT$ER ANS ER# nder Art. 1C3 of the ! which applies to bigamous marriages only the properties acuired by both parties through their actual )oint contribution of money property or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respectie contributions. Doreoer if one of the parties is alidly married to another his share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the absolute communityFcon)ugal partnership e5isting in such alid marriage.,hus in this case since 'rlinda failed to proe that she used her own money to buy the >iceland and house and lot she cannot claim to be the co-owner of the >iceland nor the e5clusie owner of the house and lot. #uch properties are Dauricio@s. And since his share accrues to the con)ugal partnership with carol !arol can alidly claim such properties to the e5clusion of 'rlinda *Art. 1CC !iil !ode+.IIIn 19G Bob and Issa got married without e5ecuting a marriage settlement. In 19< Bob inherited from his father a residential lot upon which in 1931 he constructed a two-room bungalow with saings from his own earnings. At that time the lot was worth 73GGGGG while the house when finished cost 76GGGGG. In 1939 Bob died suried only by his wife Issa and his mother #ofia. Assuming that the relatie alues of both assets remained at the same proportionHA.#tate whether #ofia can rightfully claim that the house and lot are not con)ugal but e5clusie property of her deceased son.B.Will your answer be the same if Bob died before August  1933? *1993+ ANS ERS# A. #ince Bob and Issa got married in 19G then the law that goerns is the =ew !iil !ode *7ersons+ in which case the property relations that should be applied as regards the property of the spouses is the system of relatie community or con)ugal partnership of gains *Art. 119 !iil !ode+. By con)ugal partnership of gains the husband and wife place in a common fund the fruits of their separate property and the income from their wor or industry *Article 1C2 !iil !ode+. In this instance the lot inherited by Bob in 19< is his own separate property he haing acuired the same by lucratie title *Art. 1C3 par. 2 !iil !ode+. %oweer the house constructed from his own saings in 1931 during the subsistence of his marriage with Issa is con)ugal property and not e5clusie property in accordance with the principle of reerse accessionJ proided for in Art. 1<3 !iil !ode.B. Kes the answer would still be the same. #ince Bob and Issa contracted their marriage way bac in 19G then the property relations that will goern is still the relatie community or con)ugal partnership of gains *Art. 119 !iil !ode+. It will not matter if Bob died before or after August  1933 *effectiity of the amily !ode+ what matters is the date when the marriage was contracted. As Bob and Issa contracted their marriage way bac in 19G the property relation that goerns them is still the con)ugal partnership of gains. *Art. 1<3 !iil !ode+ ALTERNAT!E ANS ERS# A. #ofia being her deceased son@s legal heir concurring with his suriing spouse *Arts. 93< 936 and 99 !iil !ode+ may rightfully claim that the house and lot are not con)ugal but belong to the hereditary estate of Bob the alue of the land being more than the cost of the improement *Art. 12G !+.B. If Bob died before August  1933 which is the date the amily !ode too effect the answer will not be the same. Art. 1<3 !iil !ode would then apply. ,he land would then be deemed con)ugal along with the house since con)ugal funds were used in constructing it. ,he husband@s estate would be entitled to reimbursement of the alue of the land from con)ugal partnership funds.    San0edaColle1eo2Law 11,  San Beda College of Law   C IVIL  L AW   III or fie years since 1939 ,ony a ban ice-president and #usan an entertainer lie together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage although they were capacitated to marry each other. #ince ,ony@s salary was more than enough for their needs #usan stopped woring and merely ept the houseJ. $uring that period ,ony was able to buy a lot and house in a plush subdiision. %oweer after fie years ,ony and #usan decided to separate.A.Who will be entitled to the house and lot?B.Would it mae any difference if ,ony could not marry #usan because he was preiously married to Alice from whom he is legally separated? *2GGG+ ANS ERS# A.,ony and #usan are entitled to the house and lot as co-owners in eual shares. nder Article 1C of the amily !ode when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other lied e5clusiely with each other as husband and wife the property acuired during their cohabitation are presumed to hae been obtained by their )oint efforts  wor or industry and shall be owned by then in eual shares. ,his is true een though the efforts of one of them consisted merely in his or her care and maintenance of the family and of the household.B.Kes it would mae a difference. nder Article 1C3 of the amily !ode when the parties to the cohabitation could not marry each other because of an impediment only those properties acuired by both of them through their actual )oint contribution of money property or industry shall be owned by them in common in proportion to their respectie contributions. ,he efforts of one of the parties in maintaining the family and household are not considered adeuate contribution in the acuisition of the properties.#ince #usan did not contribute to the acuisition of the house and lot she has no share therein. If ,ony cohabited with #usan after his legal separation from Alice the house and lot is his e5clusie property. If he cohabited with #usan before his legal separation from Alice the house and lot belongs to his community or partnership with Alice. I:uis and >i((a both 26 years of age and single lie e5clusiely with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage. :uis is gainfully employed. >i((a is not employed stays at home and taes charge of the household chores.After liing together for a little oer twenty years :uis was able to sae from his salary earnings during that period the amount of 72GGGGG presently deposited in a ban. A house and lot worth 7<GGGGG was recently purchased for the same amount by the couple. 8f the 7<GGGGG used by the common-law spouses to purchase the property 72GGGGG had come from the sale of palay harested from the hacienda owned by :uis and 7GGGGG from the rentals of a building belonging to >i((a. In fine the sum of 7<GGGGG had been part of the fruits receied during the period of cohabitation from their separate property. A car worth 71GGGGG being used by the common-law spouses was donated )ust months ago to >i((a by her parents.:uis and >i((a now decide to terminate their cohabitation and they as you to gie them your legal adice on the followingHA.%ow under the law should the ban deposit of 72GGGGG the house and lot alued at 7<GGGGG and the car worth 71GGGGG be allocated to them? B. What would your answer be *to the aboe uestion+ had :uis and >i((a been liing together all the time i.e.  since twenty years ago under a alid marriage? *199+ ANS ERS# A. Art. 1C of the ! proides in part that when a man and a woman who are capacitated to marry each other lie e5clusiely with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under a oid marriage their wages and salaries shall be owned by them in eual shares and the property acuired by both of them through their wor or industry shall be goerned by the rules of co-ownership.

Training Manual

Jul 23, 2017

IRI Construccion

Jul 23, 2017
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks