PROBLEMS

16

A, a Filipino, executed a will in Kuwait while there as a contract worker. Assume

that under the laws of Kuwait, it is enough that the testator affix his signature in the
presence of two witnesses and that the will need not be acknowledged before a notary
public.

May the will be probated in the Philippines?

Answer:

Yes, the will may be probated in the Philippines.

Article 17 of the New Civil Code provides: Hence, the formalities of the will are valid even if
Philippine laws are not complied with as long as the will complies the formalities of a will
mandated under the laws of Kuwait.

Another Answer:

Yes , the will may be probated in the Philippines. The Civil Code expressly provides that “The
forms and solemnities of contracts, wills and other public instruments shall be governed by
the laws of the country in which they are executed. The Civil Code further provides that
“when a Filipino is in a Foreign Country , he is authorized to make a will in any of the forms by
the law of the country in which he may be and such will may be probated in the Philippines.

17

Jose and Ana are husband and wife. On January 10, 1980, Jose learned that Ana was
having illicit relations with Juan. In fact, Jose personally saw his wife and Juan leaving a
motel on one occasion. Despite all the evidence he had at hand, Jose did not bring any
action for legal separation against Ana. Instead, Jose simply prepared a will wherein he
disinherited Ana for her acts of infidelity. The validity of the disinheritance was questioned
by Ana upon Jose’s death. If you were the judge, how would you resolve this question? Give
your reasons.

Answer:

If I were the Judge, I would resolve in favor of the validity of the disinheritance.

Under the Civil Code, a spouse maybe disinherited if he has given cause for legal separation.
Correspondingly, under the Family Code, one of the grounds for legal separation is sexual
infidelity.

Here, Ana’s was having illicit relations with another man, and on one occasion she was
personally seen by her husband, Jose, leaving a motel with another man. Accordingly, this
act of sexual infidelity is a ground for legal separation, which is a sufficient cause for
disinheriting Ana.
MODIFIED ANSWER:

I will uphold the validity of the disinheritance. According to the Civil Code, one of the
sufficient causes of disinheriting a spouse is that when the spouse has given cause
for legal separation. Under the Family Code, one of the causes of legal separation is
sexual infidelity.

The facts evinces a clear case of sexual infidelity on the part of Ana by maintaining an
illicit relations with a man other than her husband. No less than her husband Jose
saw her leaving the motel with another man. Accordingly, this act of sexual infidelity
is a ground for legal separation, which is a sufficient cause for disinheriting Ana.

As a necessary consequence of such sexual infidelity, Jose’s disinheritance of Ana is

perfectly valid.

18

Vanessa died on April 14, 1980, leaving behind a holographic will which is entirely
written, dated and signed in her own handwriting. However, it contains insertions and
cancellations which are not authenticated by her signature. For this reason, the probate of
Vanessa’s will was opposed by her relatives who stood to inherit by her intestacy.

May Vanessa’s holographic will be probated? Explain.

Answer:

Yes, Vanessa’s holographic will may be probated.

In the case of Kalaw vs Relova, it was held that when a number of erasures, corrections, and
interlineations made by the testator in a holographic will have not been noted under his
signature, the will is not thereby invalidated as a whole, but at most only as respects the
particular words erased, corrected or interlined.

Here, the holographic will was entirely written, dated, and signed by the hand of the
testator herself. However, it contains insertions and cancellations which are not
authenticated by her signature. Applying the case of Kalaw, the insertions and cancellations
made in the holographic will which are not authenticated will result only in the
disallowance of such changes but will not invalidathe te the entire holographic will. Hence,
the holographic will may be probated.

MODIFIED ANSWER:

Yes, Vanessa’s holographic will may be probated.

In one case, the Supreme Court ruled that when a number of erasures, corrections, and
interlineations made by the testator in a holographic will have not been noted under his
signature, the will is not thereby invalidated as a whole, but only the particular words erased,
corrected or interlined.

By the same token, the insertions and cancellations Vanessa made in the holographic will
which are not authenticated will result only in the disallowance of such changes but will not
invalidate the entire holographic will. Undisputably, the holographic will may be probated.
 19

David is the owner of the subdivision in Sta. Rosa, Laguna, without an access to the
highway. When he applied for a license to establish the subdivision, David represented that
he will purchase a rice field located between his land and the highway, and developed it
into an access road. But, when the license was already granted, he did not bother to buy
the rice field, which remains unutilized until the present. Instead, he chose to connect his
subdivision with the neighboring subdivision of Nestor, which has an access to the highway.
Nestor allowed him to do this, pending negotiations on the compensation to be paid. When
they failed to arrive at an agreement, Nestor built a wall across the road connecting with
David’s subdivision. David filed a complaint in court, for the establishment of an easement
of right of way through the subdivision of Nestor which he claims to be the most adequate
and practical outlet to the highway. DECIDE.

Answer:

David cannot establish an easement of right of way through the subdivision of Nestor.

Under the Civil Code, the easement of right of way is not compulsory if the isolation of the
immovable is due to the proprietor’s own acts.

Here, David failed to develop an access road on the rice field between the highway and his
land when he applied for the license to establish his subdivision. His isolation from the
highway was due to his own acts. Thus, David cannot compel Nestor to establish an
easement of right of way through his subdivision even though it is the most adequate and
practical outlet to the highway.

MODIFIED ANSWER:

The complaint lacks merit.

David is not entitled to the right of way claimed. The isolation of his subdivision was due to
his own act because he did not develop an access road into the rice field which he was
supposed to purchase according to his representation when he applied for a license to
establish the subdivision

20

Believing that a piece of land belonged to him, A erected thereon a building, using
materials belonging to C. B, the owner of the land, was aware of the construction being
made by A, but did not do anything to stop it.

What are the rights of A, B and C with respect to the building and as against each other?

Answer:

A can choose between: 1) reimbursement by B of the value of the building plus damages, or
2) removal of the materials, with or without injury to the building, plus damges. It must be
observed that B is in bad faith. According to the law (Article 454, NCC), when the
landowner acted in bad faith and the builder acted in good faith, the provision of Art 447 of
the NCC shall apply.

The rights of B, land owner , will depend upon the option selected by A. Should A decide to
demand reimbursement of the building, B becomes the owner but he must pay the value
and damages. Should A decide to remove the materials regardless of whether or not there
is injury to the building, B is liable to pay A damages.

C, the owner of the materials can proceed against A for the value of his materials and
against B for damages. If A cannot pay him the value of his materials, C can then proceed
against B for the value of said materials and damages (Article 455, NCC). In other words, B
will then be liable not only for the value of C’s materials but also for damages.

MODIFIED ANSWER:

Considering that A, the builder, is in good faith because he constructed a building on a parcel
of land believing that it belonged to him, and B, the landowner, is in bad faith because he
did not prevent A from constructing on his land, their rights and obligations are governed by
Art 447 of the Civil Code. Thus A can choose between: 1) reimbursement by B of the value of
the building plus damages, or 2) removal of the materials, with or without injury to the
building, plus damages.

The rights of B, land owner , will depend upon the option selected by A. Should A decide to
demand reimbursement of the building, B becomes the owner thereof but he must pay the
value and damages. Should A decide to remove the materials regardless of whether or not
there is injury to the building, B is liable to pay A damages.

C, the owner of the materials, can proceed against A for the value of his materials and against
B for damages. If A cannot pay him the value of his materials, C can then proceed against B
for the value of said materials and damages .

21

A bought a white gold ring with a two-karat emerald from La Estrella del Norte in 2004.
In 2006, said ring was stolen from her house. She traced the ring to B whom she saw was
wearing the same at a party in 2007. B, on the other hand, claimed that she bought the ring
from her aunt. It was established, however, that it was the very same ring. Can A recover
the ring from B, without reimbursing the price paid by B? Reasons for your answer.

Answer:

Yes, A can recover the ring from B without reimbursing the price paid by B because it was
established that the ring bought by B was the very same ring lawfully owned by A. Under
the law,  possession of stolen personal property whether it has been bought or been given
is a crime punishable under the penal code.

In this case, however, B alleged that she bought the ring from her Aunt in good faith and
has no knowledge that it was stolen. Hence, B may be free from any criminal or civil
liabilities but she has to return the ring to A and suffer the legal consequence of no
entitlement to reimbursement. However, B may run after her aunt and legally demand
what she has paid for the price of the ring.

MODIFIED ANSWER:
Yes, A can recover the ring from B without reimbursing the price paid by the latter.

While under the doctrine of irrevindicability of movables, the possession of the ring by B is
equivalent to title having acquired the same in good faith and possessing the same in the
concept of owner thereby precluding the owner from the recovery thereof, such a rule has
its exceptions established under the Civil Code. Thus the owner who has lost a movable or
has been unlawfully deprived thereof has a right to recover it not only from the finder, thief
or robber but also from third persons who may have acquired it in good faith from such
finder, thief or robber.

22

A’s land is bounded on the South by the sea and on the East by a river. Both sides have
grown/developed an area through accretion. Who owns the accretion?

Answer:

A owns the accretion which pertains to the land bounded on the East by a river. On the
other hand, the land bounded on the South by the sea belongs to public domain. Under the
law, to the owners of the lands adjoining the banks of the rivers belong the accretion which
they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. 

MODIFIED ANSWER:

A owns the accretion which pertains to the land bounded on the East by a river. The law
provides that to the owners of the lands adjoining the banks of the rivers belong the
accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. On the
other hand, the land bounded on the South by the sea belongs to public domain.

23

A, a very wealthy man, executed a will wherein he instituted as his only heirs his three
brothers, B, C and D without designating their shares. Before A died, both C and D were
killed in a vehicular accident. C is survived by a son, E, while D is survived by two
daughters, F and G. A died two days later without changing his will, survived only by B and
the children of C and D. The net value of his estate is P6,000.00. How shall such estate be
divided?

Answer:

The estate of A which has a net value of P6,000.00 shall be divided into three pursuant to
the number of heirs the decedent has designated in his last will. In his will A designated his
3 brothers B, C and D. 

Since A was predeceased by C and D and was survived by B only, the latter will inherit the
2,000.00 share in his own right. While the heirs of C and D will likewise inherit by right of
representation. 
Therefore, E, who is the only son of  C will inherit his 2,000 share by right of
representation, while the heirs of D, F and G, will likewise inherit by right of representation
and will equally divide among themselves the 2,000.00 share of their father.

ANOTHER ANSWER:

B alone is entitled to the entire estate. The children of C and D cannot inherit from
the testator by right of representation because C and D are not compulsory heirs but
merely voluntary heirs. Being voluntary heirs, they cannot transmit any right to their
own heirs.

24

A and B owned in common a two-storey house. The upper floor was used as a dwelling;
the lower was available for rent by stores. If A lives in a room of the upper floor, and uses a
room of the lower as an office, can B demand rent?

Answer:

Yes, B can demand rent from A because the lower floor was obviously intended for
commercial purposes by the co-ownership. 

Under the law, each co-owner may use the thing owned in common, provided he does so in
accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as not to injure the
interest of the co-ownership or prevent the other co owners from using it according to
their rights. 

Here, since A is using a part of the lower floor exclusively for business purposes, the other
co-owner, B, may lawfully demand the payment of rent in accordance with the purpose for
which the lower floor was established and to protect the interest of the co-
ownership. Therefore, B can demand rent.

ANOTHER ANSWER:

No, B cannot demand A to pay rent for living in the upper floor because A is merely exercising
his right as a co-owner. B did not prejudice A; neither did A prevent B from also living there
had he desired to do so.

However, B can demand rental from A for the use of the ground floor. A is clearly liable for
1/2 of the rent which such space should have earned if rented to others. Acannot use such
space gratuitously to the prejudice of B.

25
 A was a consistent scholar and honor student for three (3) years in Manuel L. Quezon
(MLQ) University and he enjoyed free tuition privileges. In his fourth year, he decided to
study in a University in Davao as his father died and he had to stay with his mother. He
needed the transcripts of his records in MLQ University, but MLQ refused to issue them
until he had refunded the whole amount of tuition fees given to him for three (3) years of
his stay, alleging that he had signed an agreement beforehand and waiving his right to
transfer to another university without having refunded the cash equivalent of his
scholarship. A was forced to refund the amount as he did not want to be late for his
enrollment in the Davao University. Later, he sued for its return. Can A recover the amount
he refunded to MLQ University? Reasons for your answer.

Answer:

Yes, due to contract being void for being inconsistent with sound policy.

In a decided case, it is a sound policy that scholarships are awarded in recognition of merit
not to keep the outstanding students in school, but to bolster its prestige. Section 5 of
Article XIV of the Constitution with reference to the giving of free scholarships to gifted
children, does not require scholars to reimburse the corresponding value of the
scholarships if they transfer to other schools.

Here, MLQ refusing to issue A's transcript of records without first refunding the cash
equivalent of his scholarship is against the sound policy with regards to giving out
scholarship.

Hence, A can recover the amount he refunded to MLQ University.

Modified Answer:

Yes, A can recover the amount he refunded to MLQ University. The Supreme Court, in one
case, had the occasion to rule that an agreement which obliges a student to waive his right to
transfer to another university without having refunded the cash equivalent of his scholarship
is void for being inconsistent with sound policy. When students are given full or partial
scholarships, it is understood that such scholarships are merited and earned. The amount in
tuition fees should not be subsequently charged to A when he decides to quit school or
transfer to another academic institution.

Here, MLQ refusal to issue A's transcript of records without first refunding the cash
equivalent of his scholarship runs counter to the policy of granting scholarship. Consequently,
A can recover the amount he refunded to MLQ University.

26
4 On January 1, 1983, A borrowed P10,000.00 from B payable on December 1, 1983.
As security therefore, A pledged his car to B with an agreement that B could use it. On June
30, 1983, A offered to pay the loan in full and asked for the return of his car.

Can A compel B to accept the payment and to return the car? Why?

Answer:

No. Under the New Civil code, obligations with a period or term are those become
demandable or which terminates upon the arrival of a day certain.

In the problem above, Dec. 31, 1983 is the day certain where the parties agreed for the loan
to be demandable, so when A offered to pay his loan in full and demand the return of his
car on June 30, 1983 such is premature.

Hence, A cannot compel B to accept the payment and to return the car.

27

H was engaged in the business of buying and selling rice. In the course thereof, he
incurred a P20,000.00 indebtedness from his supplier of rice. Because of his gambling
losses, his business went bankrupt and soon thereafter, he and his wife W quarreled and
live separately ever since. A year after they had separated, H’s creditor sued him and
obtained a favorable judgment which however cannot be enforced against H because he
had no property at all. H’s creditor now seeks to enforce the judgment against W’s brand
new car which she had bought out of her salary from the company where she works. The
car is registered in W’s maiden name which she had resumed using. May the car be levied
upon to answer for the judgment? Why?

Answer:

Yes, given that the creditors are from H's rice business. As rule the absolute community
property shall be held liable for debts incurred during the marriage even if incurred by one
spouse with the consent of the other. Here, the marriage, it is still subsisting since there is
no indication in the problem that H and W had a valid dissolution of marriage and W's car,
being acquired during their marriage is part of the absolute community property as
provided in the Family code. Thus, the car of W may be levied.

MODIFIED ANSWER:

The question requires a qualified answer.

If H and W adopts the system of absolute community as their property regime, they become
joint owners of all the properties of the marriage even the car bought by W out of her salary.
Despite their separation de facto, their marriage still subsists and so is the community
property regime. The car, however, may not be levied to enforce the judgment award
obtained against H. The rule states that only the debts and obligations contracted by one
spouse without the consent of the other spouse is chargeable to the absolute community but
only to the extent that they have redounded to the benefit of the family. In the instant case,
it may be observed that such debt incurred by H did not redound to the benefit of the family.
On the contrary, the business becomes bankrupt because of his gambling problems.

On the other hand, if H and W follows the Conjugal Partnership of Gains, the proceeds, fruits
and income from their separate properties and those acquired by either or both spouses
through their efforts or by chance are placed in a common fund. This includes property
acquired during the marriage from the labor, industry, work or profession of either or both
spouses. Thus, the car, although acquired by W, forms part of the conjugal partnership.
Consequently, the same may be levied for the debt contracted by H even without the
consent of W. Under the rules, there is a presumption that if debt received by H is to be used
in or for his own business or profession, the obligation falls within the term “obligations for
the benefit of the conjugal partnership” and therefore, chargeable.

28

SL, a widower, died intestate leaving a big estate. In due course, his only legitimate son,
BL, executed an affidavit extrajudicially adjudicating unto himself title to all the properties
of the estate on the basis of which the properties were registered in his name. CL, claiming
to be an acknowledged illegitimate child, filed an action demanding for a share of the
properties. As proof of her claim of being an acknowledged illegitimate child, she
presented her marriage contract when she was married at the age of 16, wherein it is
stated that her father, SL, had given his consent to said marriage. Will her action prosper?
Why?

nswer:

No. The Supreme Court has that, a marriage contract not signed by the alleged father of
bride is not competent evidence of filiation nor is a marriage contract recognition in a
public instrument. In the above case, it was not alleged that the marriage contract was
signed by SL but it merely stated that the father is SL. Hence, such statement is not a
competent evidence of filiation. Thus, the case will not prosper.

Modified Answer:

No. The action will not prosper. In one case, the Supreme Court has held that a
marriage contract not signed by the alleged father of the bride is not competent
evidence of filiation. While the facts of the given problem alleges states that the
marriage contract presented indicates that SL is the father of CL, there is no showing
that said document was signed by SL. The evidence not having any probative value is
fatal to CL’s cause of action.

29

After a whirlwind courtship of two weeks, Marikit, starry-eyed and captivated, got
married to Mr. Masanting. Soon after the honeymoon, however, Marikit discovers that
Masanting was not the knight in shining armor she thought she married. She received
official information that Masanting had been dishonorably discharged from the army for
desertion. She also learned that Masanting had a string of liaisons with all kinds of women
during his army career. What infuriated Marikit was that Masanting had concealed all of
these from her and, in fact, had woven tales of gallantry on the battlefield and of deep
religious conviction which made him lead a pure life. Promptly upon discovering the truth
about Masanting and within the first year of their marriage, Marikit sues to annul the
marriage on grounds of deception and fraud. Will her action prosper? Explain.

Answer:

No, the action will not prosper.

Under the Family Code, no other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank,
fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for annulment
of marriage. In the case given, the string of liaisons to women and discharged from the
army for desertion by Masanting are not even requisites of fraud required by the Family
Code.

Ergo, the action for annulment for voiding the marriage on the grounds of deception and
fraud shall not be granted .

Modified Answer:

No, the action will not prosper.

Under the Family Code, no other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health,

rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action
for annulment of marriage. In the case given, the string of liaisons to women and
discharged from the army for desertion allegedly concealed by Masanting from
Marikit do not constitute fraud as a ground for annulment of their marriage.

Hence, the action for annulment of the marriage on the grounds of deception and
fraud will not prosper.

30

A and B, a year after marriage, built a residential house on land belonging to the latter
as her paraphernal property, using conjugal funds for its construction. Their marital life
proving unhappy, they agreed to separate. Neither took the trouble to obtain judicial
separation. Sometime later, a big fire reduced the house to ashes. Upon the death of B, the
wife, there was a liquidation of the conjugal property. A, the surviving spouse, contended
that the lot should form part of the conjugal estate. The heirs of B, the deceased wife,
claimed that after the house was burned, having the lot vacant once more, it reverted to its
status of being paraphernal. Decide the case with reasons.

Answer:

The heirs of B are correct.

Under the Article 135 of the Civil Code, all property brought by the wife to the marriage is
paraphernal and she retains the ownership of the paraphernal property and the law
presumes the continuance of the same status of a person until the contrary is proved. In
this case, the land before the construction of the house is a paraphernal property of B and
the that the burning or disappearance of the house thus constructed has the effect of
reverting the land to its status prior to its becoming conjugal partnership of gain.

Therefore, the heirs of B may claim the question lot as B retains sole and exclusive
ownership of the property.
ORIG. ANSWER:
I will qualify. If the value of the residential house is more than the value of the land, the
residential house and the land becomes conjugal property under Article 120 of the family
Code. This is a case of reverse accession where the residential house is considered as the
principal and the land as accessory. Its classification as a conjugal property remains because
the separation de facto between A and B does not affect the existence of the conjugal
partnership. However, upon the dissolution of the conjugal partnership by reason of B’s
death, said conjugal property once liquidated forms part of the conjugal estate.

If on the other hand the value of the land is more than the value of the residential house, the
ordinary rules of accession applies where the land is the principal and the building the
accessory. In such case, the land remains paraphernal property owned by B.

If B died with a will, A, as compulsory heir cannot be deprived of his legitime unless
disinherited by B. In such a case if B voluntarily instituted her heirs in her will, the latter
inherit the land in their own right.

If B died without a will, the rules of intestacy applies in that should brothers oand sisters of
their children service with the widow or widower, the latter shall be entitled to one-half of
the inheritance and the brothers and sisters or their children to the other half.

31

About fifteen years ago, Adelaida constructed a house on her lot at Quezon City
adjoining a lot owned by Bernie. She provided it with several windows overlooking
Bernie’s lot half a meter away from the boundary line. A month ago, Bernie brought an
action against Adelaida for the closure of the windows alleging that they violate the law on
distances.

1. Has Adelaida acquired an easement of light and view by prescription?

No, Adelaida did not acquire an easement of light and view by prescription. Article .
670 of the New Civil Code provides that no windows, apertures, balconies or other similar
projections which afford a direct view upon or towards an adjoining land or tenement can
be made, without leaving a distance of two meters between the wall in which they are
made, and the non observance of these distance does not give rise to prescription. In here,
Adelaida failed to observe the two meters requirement of the law as it is only half meter
away from the boundary and there was no notarial prohibition on the part of Bernie .
Hence, the easement of light and view did not prescribed.

2. Will the action of Bernie prosper?

Yes, The action of Bernie will prosper. Under the law, easement maybe acquired
either by virtue of title or by prescription after ten years. In this case, although fifteen years
have already lapsed, Adelaida did not acquire title over the easement of light because it
violates the meters distance requirement between the wall.

3. If the action will not prosper, will that not be tantamount to saying that Adelaida has
already acquired an easement of light and view?

The action will prosper because prescription by negative easement only begins
when there is a notarial prohibition by the dominant estate. Adelaida cannot acquire
easement of light and view it because there was no notarial prohibition filed by Bernie.

32

Tim came into possession of an old map showing where a purported cache of gold
bullion was hidden. Without any authority from the government Tim conducted a
relentless search and finally found the treasure buried in a new river bed formerly part of a
parcel of land owned by Spouses Tirso and Tessie. The old river which used to cut through
the land of spouses Ursula and Urbito changed its course through natural causes.

To whom shall the treasure belong? Explain.

Answer:

The treasure shall belong to the State.

The treasure was found in a property of public dominion, the new river bed because under
Article 438 of the New Civil Code, in order that the finder be entitled to the ½ share the
treasure must be found by chance. In this case, since Tim found the treasure not by chance
or by sheer luck but because he relentlessly searched for it without authority from the
government and therefore a trespasser, therefore he is not entitled to any share in the
hidden treasure.

MODIFIED ANSWER:

The treasure shall belong to the State.

The search for and subsequent discovery of the cache of gold by Tim is deliberate otherwise
known as treasure hunting. To be entitled to the 75-25 sharing, a permit must be obtained
from the appropriate government agency. Without the permit, the treasure hunting
conducted by Tim is deemed illegal and valuables recovered shall be confiscated by the State
without prejudice to the imposition of appropriate penalty against him.

33

On 1 January 1980, Minerva, the owner of a building, granted Petronila a usufruct over
the property until 01 June 1998 when Manuel, a son of Petronila, would have reached his
30th birthday. Manuel, however, died on 1 June 1990 when he was only 26 years old.

Minerva notified Petronila that the usufruct had been extinguished by the death of
Manuel and demanded that the latter vacate the premises and deliver the same to the
former. Petronila refused to vacate the place on the ground that the usufruct in her favor
would expire only on 1 June 1998 when Manuel would have reached his 30th birthday and
that the death of Manuel before his 30th birthday did not extinguish the usufruct.

Whose contention should be accepted?

Answer:

Minerva’s contention should be accepted.

The Civil Code provides that a usufruct granted for the time that may elapse before a third
person attains a certain age, shall subsist for the number of years specified, even if the third
person should die before the period expires. However, when the usufruct has been
expressly granted in consideration of the existence of such third person, the usufruct is
extinguished.

Here, Minerva expressly intended the usufruct to expire at a date certain when Manuel
reaches his 30th birthday which presupposes that the usufruct was granted in consideration
of Manuel’s continued existence.

Modified Answer:

Minerva’s contention should be accepted.

Under the Civil Code, a usufruct granted for the time that may elapse before a third person
attains a certain age shall subsist for the number of years specified even if the third person
should die before the period expires. However, when the usufruct has been expressly
granted in consideration of the existence of such third person, the death of such person
extinguishes the usufruct.

From the foregoing facts, Minerva expressly intended the usufruct to expire at a date certain
when Manuel reaches his 30th birthday which presupposes that the usufruct was granted in
consideration of Manuel’s continued existence. Upon the death of Manuel, the usufruct
granted by Minerva is deemed extinguished.

34

Ping Guerrero and Paquita M. Opwitmo are married. While the marriage between Ping
and Paquita was still subsisting , Ping married Pining Garcia. Pining later on filed a criminal
action for bigamy against Ping. Ping in the meantime filed an action for annulment of his
marriage with Pining on the ground of force and/or violence. He then filed a motion for
suspension of criminal action (BIGAMY case) on the ground of prejudicial question.
DECIDE.

Answer:

The motion to suspend the criminal action for bigamy on the ground of prejudicial question
should be denied.

The pendency of a civil action for nullity of the first marriage does not pose a prejudicial
question in a criminal case for bigamy.

Ping cannot be permitted to use his own malfeasance to defeat the criminal action against
him when it is Ping’s clear intent to obtain a declaration of nullity of his first marriage to
Paquita and thereafter invoke the very same judgment to prevent his prosecution for
bigamy. Otherwise, a bigamist is rewarded for his crime by simply claiming that the first
marriage is void and that the subsequent marriage is also void for lack of a prior
declaration of nullity of the first.
MODIFIED ANSWER:

The motion to suspend the criminal action for bigamy on the ground of prejudicial question
should be denied.

The pendency of a civil action for nullity of the first marriage does not pose a prejudicial
question in a criminal case for bigamy. Ping cannot set up as a defense his own criminal act
and wrongdoing . The Court held that contracting a second marriage without first having an
existing marriage declared void not only renders the person so remarrying liable for bigamy,
hus subsequent marriage will likewise be void under the Family Code.

Even if the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage was filed ahead of the criminal
action for bigamy, the former will not be a prejudical question to the latter because any
decision on civil action will not erase the fact that Ping’s second marriage to Pining is
bigamous having been contracted during the subsistence of his marriage to Paquita.