4S 4B 4C 4E Civ Rev Repeal of Laws (Art.

7)
Art 1-36, Civil Code and Cases 1. Kinds of Repeal
a. Express
I. Effect and Application of Laws (Arts. 1-18)
b. Implied (not favored)
Effectivity of Laws (Art. 2) 2. Effects
1. Publication Requirement; What to Publish 3. Sec. 444, Local Government Code
Importance of Publication
Mecano v. COA, G.R. No. 103982, 11 December 1992
Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, 29 December 1986, 146 SCRA
446 Judicial Decisions form part of the law of the land (Art. 8)
Doctrine of stare decisis
De Roy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80718, 29 January 1988
People vs., Que Po Lay 94 Phil 640 People v. Licera G.R. No. L-39990, July 2, 1975
NPC v. Pinatubo Commercial, G.R. No. 176006, 26 March 2010.
Duty of Judges (Art. 9)
Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers G.R.
No. 180643 March 25, 2008 Chu Jan vs. Bernas, 34 Phil 631 (1916)
Pimentel v. SENATE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, GR No. 187714, Doubtful Statues (Art. 10)
March 8, 2011
People vs. Purisima, G.R. Nos. L-42050-66, L-46229-32, L-46313-16,
Ignorance of Law excuses no one (Art. 3) L-46997, 20 November 1978
1. Mistake of law v. Mistake of Fact:
a. Art. 526 –mistake on doubtful or difficult provision of law is basis Customs (Art. 11-12)
for good faith - mitigates but does not extinguish liability; 1. Requisites to make a custom an obligatory rule
b. Art. 1334 – mutual error on legal effect of agreement- may vitiate a. Plurality or repetition of acts;
consent; b. Practiced by the great mass of the social group;
c. Art. 2155 – mistake in payment gives rise to right to return of c. Continued practice for a long period of time;
erroneous payment d. The community accepts it as a proper way of acting, such that it is
considered as obligatory upon all
Prospective Application of Laws (Art. 4)
1. Exception Martinez vs. Van Buskirk, 18 Phil 79 (1910)
a. If provided in the law itself Yao Kee vs. Sy-Gonzales, G.R. No. 55960, November 24, 1988
b. Procedural law Computation of Period and Time (Art. 13)
c. Penal law if favorable to the accused 1. Rule on Computation of Period: First day excluded, last day
d. Curative and Repealing statutes; included
e. Creating new rights a. Years- 365 days, unless year identified
f. Tax statutes b. Months-30 days, unless month identified
g. Interpretative Statutes c. Days – 24 hours
2. Exception to the Exception d. Nights - sunset to sundown
a. Ex post facto laws; 2. Exception: Computation of age - each year based on birth
b. Penal laws not favorable to the accused; anniversary
c. Substantive laws impairing vested rights. 3. Policy if last day is a Sunday or Legal Holiday
Valeroso v. People, G.R. No. 164815, 22 February 2008 CIR vs. Primetown, G.R. 162155, August 28, 2007
PNB v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 104528, 18 January 1996
Penal Laws (Art. 14)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Health Care
a) Applicability in the Philippines if committed here
Providers, Inc., G.R. No. 168129, 24 April 2007
b) Territoriality
Acts Contrary to Mandatory or Prohibitory Provisions are Void (Art. c) Exceptions
5) 1. Public International Law (Diplomatic Immunity, etc)
1. Exceptions 2. Treaty Stipulations
a. The law makes the act valid BUT punishes THE VIOLATOR
Civil Laws (Art. 15-17)
b. The law itself authorizes its validity
General Rule: Nationality Principle
c. The law makes the act only voidable
a. Family Rights and Duties
d. The law declares the nullity of an act but recognizes its effects as
d) Status
legally existing
e) Condition
Waiver of Rights (Art. 6) f) Legal Capacity
1. Requisites 2. Exceptions
2. Exceptions 3. Property transactions (real or personal) – lex situs,
a. Waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or 4. Exception to Exception: National Law of Decedent
good customs; 5. Order of successional rights
b. If the waiver is prejudicial to a third party with a right recognized 6. Amt of successional rights
by law. 7. Intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions
c. Alleged rights which really do not yet exist, as in the case of future 8. Capacity to succeed
inheritance 9. Art. 26, par. 2 FC
d. If the right is a natural right, such as right to be supported. 10. Lex Loci Celebrationis
D.M. Consunji vs. CA, G.R. No. 137873, April 20, 2001 i. Exception: Intrinsic validity and Art. 26, par. 1 FC
Cui vs. Arellano University 2 SCRA 205 3. Renvoi Doctrine
Van Dorn vs. Ronillo, Jr. et al., 139 SCRA 139 5. Rules on Survivorship
Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera 174 SCRA 653 6. Domicile vs. Residence
San Luis v. San Luis, G.R. Nos. 133743 & 134029, February 6, 2007
Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. CID, 41 SCRA 292
Art. 18 Republic v. Batuigas, G.R. No. 183110, October 7, 2013
Suppletory application of Civil Code in matters governed by special Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996
Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300
law
THE FAMILY CODE
II. Human Relations (19-36)
IV. Marriage
Art. 19-21
Doctrine of Abuse of Right 1. Definition (Art. 1)
Requisites a. Special Contract vs. Ordinary Contract
Doctrine of Volenti non fit Injuria 2. Requirements (Art. 2-6)
Damnum Absque Injuria a. Essential
Acts Contra Bonus Mores i. Legal Capacity
Requisites 1. Sex
Breach of Promise to Marry 2. Age
a. 18-21 requires parental consent: voidable if none
Uypitching vs. Quiamco, G.R. No. 146322, December 6, 2006
Wassmer vs. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964 b. 21-25 parental advice: valid if none but issuance of marriage
license suspended for 3 months
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden, et all vs. Reyes G.R. No. 154259,
February 28, 2005 i. Effect if license issued before 3 months – mere irregularity
Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. CA, G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993 3. Absence of Impediments (Art.35(4),36-38,52-53)
ii. Consent
Pe vs. Pe, G.R. No. L-17396, May 30, 1962
Globe Mackay Cable vs. CA, 176 SCRA 778 b. Formal
c. Effects
University of the East vs. Jader, G.R. No. 132344, February 17, 2000
i. Absence of Essential or Formal: Void
Unjust Enrichment (Art. 22) 1. Exception: Art. 35(2)
1. Accion in rem verso ii. Defective Essential: Voidable
iii. Irregular Formal: Valid but persons liable punished civilly,
Respect for Other’s Privacy, Personality, Etc. (Art. 26) criminally or administratively
Tenchavez vs. Escano, 15 SCRA 355 1. Exception: Voidable if no consent from parents, either or both of
St Louis Realty vs. CA, 133 SCRA 179 contracting parties at 18 or above but below 21
Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 179799, September 11, 2009 3. Authority of solemnizing officer (Art 7)
a. Persons authorized
Independent Civil Actions
b. Exception: Either or both parties in good faith, person
1. Breach of Constitutional and Other Rights - Art. 32
unauthorized to solemnize marriage Art. 35(2)
2. Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries – Art. 33
3. Refusal or failure of city ot municipal police to render protection – Navarro v. Domagtoy, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088, July 19, 1996
Art. 34 4. Valid Marriages License
4. Quasi Delict or Culpa Aquilana – Art. 2176, 2177 a. Art. 9, Art. 10, Art. 20
Prejudicial Question (Art. 36) b. Marriages Exempt from Marriage License (Art. 27-34)
1. General Rule: Criminal Case takes precedence i. No Good faith exception
2. Exception: Sec. 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court c. When either or both parties are foreign citizens, Stateless persons
3. Application to civil, criminal, administrative cases or refugees (Art. 21)
Capili v. People, G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013 Kho v. Republic, G.R. No. 187462, June 1, 2016
Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150758, 18 February 2004 Niñal vs. Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000
Montañez v. Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, 22 October 2012 Diaz-Salgado v. Anson, G.R. No. 204494, July 27, 2016
San Miguel Proeprties, Inc., v. Perez, G.R. No. 166836, 4 September Republic v. Dayot, G.R. Nos. 175581 & 179474, March 28, 2008
2013 5. Marriage Ceremony
III. Persons (Art. 37-51) a. No particular form prescribed
b. Minimum requirements:
1. Juridical Capacity vs. Capacity to Act
i. Appear before Solemnizing officer
a. Restrictions/Limitations and Modifications on Capacity to Act
1. Proxy Marriage
2. Natural Persons
ii. Declaration that they take each other as husband and wife
a. Beginning and End of Personality
iii. Presence of at least 2 witnesses of legal age
i. When child considered born
1. Absence merely an irregularity
b. Theory of General Capacities
6. Non-Essential/Non-Formal Requirements
Quimiguing vs. Icao, G.R. No. L-26795, July 31, 1970
a. Marriage Certificate – best evidence
Geluz vs. CA, G.R. No. L-16439, July 20, 1961
b. Venue of Marriage (Art. 8)
3. R.A. 6809 i. Directory, not affect validity of marriage
4. Juridical Persons
7. Foreign Marriage
a. How Created/ Terminated
a. General Rule: Where one or both parties to the marriage are
b. Theory of Special Capacities
citizens of the Philippines, the foreign marriage is valid in this
Limjoco vs. Estate of Pedro Fragante, G.R. No. L-770, 27 April 1948 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, 1995
Lim-Lua v. Lua, G.R. Nos. 175279-80, June 5, 2013
Mangonon vs. CA, G.R. No. 125041, June 30, 2006
Domingo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104818, September 17, 1993
Legal Separation
A. M. NO. 02-11-11-SC, March 15, 2003
A.M. No. 02-11-12-SC, March 4, 2003
1. Grounds (Art. 55)
Gandionco v. Peñaranda, G.R. No. 79284, November 27, 1987
a. Effects of Filing Petition
Sabalones v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106169, February 14, 1994
b. Cooling-off Period (Art. 58); Sec. 19, RA 9262
Somosa-Ramos v. Vamenta Jr., G.R. No. L-34132, July 29, 1972
2. Grounds for Denial of Petition (Art. 56)
Ong Eng Kiam v. Ong, G.R. No. 153206, October 23, 2006
Bugayong v. Ginez, G.R. No. L-10033, December 28, 1956
Busuego v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 196842, October 9,
2013
Sy v. Eufemio, G.R. No. L-30977, January 31, 1972
3. Period for filing (Art. 57)
4. Effects of Decree of Legal Separation
Siochi v. Gozon, G.R. No. 169900, 169977, March 18, 2010
Maquilan v. Maquilan, G.R. No. 155409, June 8, 2007
5. Effects of Reconciliation
Rights and Obligations Between Husband and Wife
(Art. 68-73)
Goitia vs. Campos-Rueda, 35 Phil 252 (1916)
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, [November 29, 1965], 122
PHIL 752-776)
Property Relations Between Husband and Wife
1. Marriage Settlement
a. Requisites
b. Modifications: Must be made before marriage
i. Exception: Judicial Separation of Property During Marriage (Art.
76)
Pana v. Heirs of Juanite, Sr., G.R. No. 164201, December 10, 2012
2. Absence of Marriage Settlement, Joint Administration (Art. 96,
Art. 124(1))
a. General Rule: Property Relation governed by Phil Laws (Art. 80)
b. Exception:
i. Both spouses aliens
ii. As to extrinsic validity of Contracts
1. Not situated and executed in the Philippines
2. Situated in the foreign country but not executed in the Philippines
iii. Contrary Stipulation
3. In case of Disagreement, Husband’s Decision Prevails
a. Wife – relief from courts within 5 years from transaction
4. Incapacity of Spouse or cannot provide for joint administration –
Assumption of Sole Administration (Art. 96, 124(2))
5. Transfer of Administration (Art. 142)
6. Administration vs. Acts of Ownership
7. Management of Household
8. Failure to Comply with Obligation (Art. 101, 128)
9. Donations By Reason of Marriage
a. Requisites
b. Distinguished from ordinary donation
Valencia v. Locquiao, G.R. No. 122134, October 3, 2003
10. Donation Between Spouses during the marriage
Matabuena v. Cervantes, G.R. No. L-28771, March 31, 1971
Arcaba v. Vda. de Batocael, G.R. No. 146683, November 22, 2001
11. Grounds for Revocation
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
Union Without Marriage
1. Art. 147 and 148
a. Applicability
b. Salaries and Wages
c. Property Acquired Exclusively By other Party
d. Property Acquired by Both
e. Presumption
Valdes v. RTC, Br. 102, Quezon City, G.R. No. 122749, July 31, 1996
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
Francisco vs. Master Iron Works & Construction Corp., G.R. No.
151967, February 16, 2005
Atienza vs. De Castro, Atienza v. De Castro, G.R. No. 169698,
November 29, 2006
The Family
1. Family Relation
2. Mandatory Prior Recourse to Compromise (Art. 151, NCC)
a. Exceptions
Martinez v. Martinez, G.R. No. 162084, June 28, 2005
Gayon v. Gayon, G.R. No. L-28394, November 26, 1970
3. Family Home
a. General Rule: Exempt from executions
b. Exceptions
Manacop v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97898, August 11, 1997
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
Legitimate Children
1. General Rule: Conceived or born during a valid marriage
De Jesus v. Estate of Dizon, G.R. No. 142877, October 2, 2001
Social Security System v. Aguas, G.R. No. 165546, February 27, 2006
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
a. Generally instituted only by husband
b. Prescriptive period
c. Exception: Heirs may file
1. Husband dies before period expires (have the remainder)
2. Posthumous birth (full period)
3. Continue case instituted by husband
d. Grounds
Concepcion v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123450, August 31, 2005
Estate of Ong v. Diaz, G.R. No. 171713, December 17, 2007
Benitez-Badua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 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
4. Actions to claim Legitimate/ Illegitimate Status c. Adoption
a. Who can claim d. Appointment of another as general guardian
b. Proof of Filiation e. Judicial Declaration of Abandonment
People v. Malapo, G.R. No. 123115, August 25, 1998 f. Final Judgment Divesting Parental Authority
i. Excessive harshness
Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86302, September 24, 1991
Liyao, Jr. v. Tanhoti-Liyao, G.R. No. 138961, March 7, 2002 ii. Corrupting orders
iii. Compelling child to beg
Verceles vs. Posada, G.R. No. 159785, April 27, 2007
iv. Rape
5. Adoption v. Acts of lasciviousness
a. Domestic Adoption Act vi. Judicial declaration of incapacity
b. Inter-country Adoption g. Permanent/ Temporary
In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, Santos vs. CA, G.R. No. 113054, March 16, 1995
G.R. No. Sagala-Eslao vs. CA, G.R. No. 116773, January 16, 1997
148311, March 31, 2005 Vancil vs. Belmes, G.R. No. 132223, June 19, 2001
In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim and Michael Jude P. Espiritu vs. CA, G.R. No. 115640, March 15, 1995
Lim, G.R. Luna vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-68374, June 18, 1985
Nos. 168992-93, May 21, 2009 Pablo-Gulaberto vs. Gualberto, G.R. No. 154994 & 156254, June 28,
Support 2005
Briones vs. Miguel, G.R. No. 156343, October 18, 204
1. Basis: Financial Capacity of Giver, Needs of Recipient St. Mary’s Academy vs. William Carpitanos, G.R. No. 143363,
a. Not based on parental authority, hence hoes not terminate with February 6, 2002
emancipation
2. Coverage Emancipation and Age of Majority
a. Substance 1. Reaching 18 years of Age
b. Dwelling 2. RA 6809
c. Clothing
Cancellation or Correction of Entries
d. Medical Attendance
e. Education 1. RA 9048
f. Transportation 2. Rule 108
3. Kinds 3. Grounds
a. Legal Republic v. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008
b. Judicial Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007
c. Conventional
4. Characteristics Surname
a. Personal 1. Reason for interest of State
b. In transmissible a. Prevent confusion of identity
c. Not subject to waiver or compensation b. Prevent use of name for illegal purposes
d. Exempt from attachment or execution 2. Legal Name – What appears in Birth Certificate
e. Reciprocal 3. Change – Rule 103, Rules of Court
f. Provisional Character of Support Judgment a. Court Approval
g. Mandatory b. Grounds
5. Persons Obliged to Support each other (Art. 195) i. Ridiculous, Dishonorable
6. Order of Liability if Several Persons Obliged to give Support (Art. ii. Extreme Difficulty to Pronounce
199) iii. Adoption of Filipino name to remove traces of alienage
Magnonon vs. CA, G.R. No. 125041, June 30, 2006 iv. Legal cause – adoption, et al.
Dadivas de Villanueva vs. Villanueva, 54 Phil 93 (1929) Gan v. Republic, G.R. NO. 207147, September 14, 2016
Quintana vs. Lerma, 24 Phil 285 (1913) Grande v. Antonio, G.R. No. 206248, February 18, 2014
Francisco vs. Znadueta, 61 Phil 752 (1935) Republic v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 117209, February 9, 1996
Ramirez vs. Redfern, 49 Phil 849 (1926) In re: Petition for change of name and/or correction/cancellation of
Parental Authority entry in civil registry of Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, G.R. No. 159966,
March 30, 2005
1. General Rule: Exercised Jointly Republic v. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008
2. Exceptions:
Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007
a. Judicial Order to the Contrary Republic v. CA, GR No. 97906, May 21, 1992
b. Illegitimate Child
c. Parental Preference Rule 4. Rules on what to use
d. Rule in case of Legal Separation a. Legitimate or legitimated children
3. Persons exercising Substitute Parental Authority (Art. 216) b. Illegitimate children
4. Persons exercising Special Parental Authority (Art. 218) c. Adopted child
5. Kinds of Properties of a Minor d. Married women
a. Adventitious i. May retain maiden name
b. Profectitious 1. May not do so if has been using husband’s surname for a long
6. Grounds for Suspension of Parental Authority time
a. Emancipation e. Marriage Annulled
b. Death i. Wife guilty
ii. Wife Innocent
f. Legal Separation
g. Death of Husband
h. Persons with same names
i. Usurpation of another’s name
Funerals
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
b. Effect on Properties