Persons & Family Relations

Introduction – Domicile & Residence1

[Follow the Outline]

Part One
Modified True or False.Consider the statement true only when it is absolutely true.

Part Two
Choose the best answer.

Part Three
Give direct and concise but complete answers.
Cite authorities, if any.

1. Distinguish the civil law system from the common law system?

As regards "governance":
Governance in Civil Law is codal, statutory and written law. It is additionally
derived from case law. Common law is basically derived from case law.

As regards "trend":
Civil law is now tending to rely more and more on decisions of the courts
explaining the laws.
Common law is now codifying laws more and more. So they are now merging
towards similar systems.

Common law refers to the traditional part of the law as distinct from legislation: it
refers to the universal part of law as distinct from particular local customs
(Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 7). On the other hand, civil law is understood to
be that branch of law governing the relationship of persons in respect of their
personal and private interests as distinguished from both public and international
laws.

In common law countries, the traditional responsibility has for the most part been
with the
Judges; in civil law countries, the task is primarily reposed on the lawmakers.
Contemporary
 practices, however, so indicate a trend towards centralizing that function to
professional groups that may, indeed, see the gradual assimilation in time of both
systems. (Vitug, Civil Law and Jurisprudence. p. XX]

In Civil Law, the statutes theoretically take precedence over court decisions
interpreting
them; while in Common Law, the court decisions resolving specific cases are
regarded as law
rather than the statutes themselves which are, at the start, merely embodiments
of case law. Civil Law is code law or written law, while Common Law is case law.
Civil Law adopts the deductive method - from the general to the particular, while
the Common Law uses the inductive approach - from the particular to the
general. Common Law relies on equity. Civil Law anchors itself on the letter of
the law. The civilists are for the judge-proof law even as the Common Law is
judge-made law. Civil Law judges are merely supposed to apply laws and not
interpret them.

2. What are the sources of Laws, in the order of preferential application?

1. Constitution
2. Administrative or general orders not contrary to the constitution.
3. Statutes, laws, presidential decrees, executive orders, or batas pambansa.
4. Jurisprudence and judicial customs.
5. Decisions of foreign courts if applicable.
6. Principles governing analogous cases.
7. Principles of legal hermeneutics.
8. Equity and general principles of law (morals).

The main sources of Philippine law are:

 the Constitution - the fundamental and supreme law of the land
 statutes - including Acts of Congress, municipal charters, municipal legislation,
court rules, administrative rules and orders, legislative rules and presidential
issuances.
 treaties and conventions - these have the same force of authority as statutes.
 judicial decisions - Art 8 of the Civil Code provides that ‘judicial decisions
applying to or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the
legal system of the Philippines’. Only decisions of its Supreme Court establish
jurisprudence and are binding on all other courts.
To some extent, customary law also forms part of the Filipino legal system. Art 6, para 2
of the Constitution provides that ‘the State shall recognise, respect, and protect the
rights of indigenous cultural communities to preserve and develop their cultures,
traditions and institutions’.

The primary sources of Muslim law / Shariah are the Quran, Sunnaqh, Ijma and Qiyas.

3. What is equity? Can equity be invoked to resolve a controversy?

Equity is the principle by which substantial justice may be attained in cases

where the prescribed or customary forms of ordinary law are inadequate.
American Life Ins. Co. v. Stewart, 300 U.S. 203, 81 L. Ed. 605 (1936); Davis
v. Wallace, 257 U.S. 478, 66 L. Ed. 325 (1921).

YES. Equity is "applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law or x x x
judicial rules of procedure." Zabat, Jr. v. CA, 226 Phil. 489 (1986)

A natural obligation is based on equity and natural law. There is no legal right to compel
performance thereof but if the debtor voluntarily pays it, he cannot recover what was
paid.

Equity proceeds in the principle that a right or liability should as far as possible be
equalized among all interested. In other words, two parties have equal right in any
property, so it is distributed equally as per the concerned law. Equity allows courts to
apply justice based on natural law and on their discretion. Whenever there is a
disagreement as to the application of common law, equity is applied. The most distinct
difference between law and equity lies in the solutions that they offer.

4. It is said that “equity follows the law”. What do you understand by this phrase,
and what are its basic implications?

“Equity follows the law” means that courts exercising equity jurisdiction are bound by
rules of law and have no arbitrary discretion to disregard them. (Arsenal v. IAC, 143
SCRA 40[1986]. Equity is applied only in the absence of but never against statutory law.
(Toyota Motor Phil. v. CA 216 SCRA 236 [1992]).

5. After a devastating storm causing widespread destruction in four Central Luzon

provinces, the executive and legislative branches of the government agreed to
enact a special law appropriating P1 billion for purposes of relief and
rehabilitation for the provinces. In view of the urgent nature of the legislative
 enactment, it is provided in its effectivity clause that it shall take effect upon
approval and after completion of publication in the Official Gazette and a
newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. The law was passed by the
Congress on July 1, 1990, signed into law by the President on July 3, 1990, and
published in such newspaper of general circulation on July 7, 1990 and in the
Official Gazette on July 10, 1990.
a) As to the publication of said legislative enactment, is there sufficient
observance or compliance with the requirements for a valid publication?
Explain your answer.
Yes, there is sufficient compliance. The law itself prescribes the requisites
of publication for its effectivity, and all requisites have been complied with.
(Article 2. Civil Code)

b) When did the law take effect? Explain your answer.

The law takes effect upon compliance with all the conditions for effectivity,
and the last condition was complied with on July 10. 1990. Hence, the law
became effective on that date.

c) Can the executive branch start releasing and disbursing funds

appropriated by the said law the day following its approval? Explain your
answer.
No. It was not yet effective when it was approved by Congress on July 1.
1990 and approved by the President on July 3. 1990. The other requisites
for its effectivity were not yet complete at the time.

6. Although far from reality, everyone is conclusively presumed to know the law
pursuant to Article 3 of the New Civil Code which states that “ignorance of the
law excuses no one from compliance therewith.”

Discuss the underlying philosophy behind said provision.

This presumption in Philippine law is based on convenience, public policy and

necessity. It is derived from the Latin maxim “ignorantia legis neminem excusat.”

However, this rule only refers to the existence of a law, not to mistakes regarding
its application or interpretation.

In other words, every person in Philippine jurisdiction is presumed to know that a

law regarding a particular conduct exists, even though in reality, he has not read or
even heard about the the law before. If a person violates a law, even though in truth he
does not know that such law exists, such ignorance of its existence is not a valid legal
defense and will not excuse him from the legal consequences of the law’s violation.
However, if a person made a mistake borne out of a difficult question of law as to its
interpretation or application, such ignorance constitutes an excuse and is a valid legal
defense. (Jurado)

The rule of ignorance of the law is a matter of convenience. There would be

chaos if the rule were otherwise. Even if there is, occasionally, someone who really
does not know the law at the time of violation, society is best preserved by presuming
him knowledgeable thereof.

The law imputes knowledge of all laws to all persons within the jurisdiction no
matter how transiently. Two things must be kept in mind here. First, "within the
jurisdiction" means only Philippine laws because foreign laws are not laws in the
Philippines. They must be proved as a matter of fact in a court of law. Second,
"transiently" here means even those who merely sojourn in the Philippine Islands are
charged with the knowledge of all existing laws .

7. Mr. Luna died, leaving an estate of Ten Million (P10, 000,000.00) Pesos. His
widow gave birth to a child four months after Mr. Luna’s death, but the child died
five hours after birth. Two days after the child’s death, the widow of Mr. Luna
also died because she had suffered from difficult childbirth. The estate of Mr.
Luna is now being claimed by his parents, and the parents of his widow. Who is
entitled to Mr. Luna’s estate and why?

Half of the estate of Mr. Luna will go to the parents of Mrs. Luna as their
inheritance from Mrs. Luna, while the other half will be inherited by the parents of Mr.
Luna as the reservatarios of the reserved property inherited by Mrs. Luna from her child.
When Mr. Luna died, his heirs were his wife and the unborn child. The unborn child
inherited because the inheritance was favorable to it and it was born alive later though it
lived only for five hours. Mrs. Luna inherited half of the 10 Million estate while the
unborn child inherited the other half.

When the child died, it was survived by its mother, Mrs. Luna. As the only heir, Mrs.
Luna inherited, by operation of law, the estate of the child consisting of its 5 Million
inheritance from Mr. Luna. In the hands of Mrs. Luna, what she inherited from her child
was subject to reserve troncal for the benefit of the relatives of the child within the third
degree of consanguinity and who belong to the family of Mr. Luna, the line where the
property came from.
When Mrs. Luna died, she was survived by her parents as her only heirs. Her parents
will inherit her estate consisting of the 5 Million she inherited from Mr. Luna. The other 5
Million she inherited from her child will be delivered to the parents of Mr. Luna as
beneficiaries of the reserved property. In sum, 5 Million Pesos of Mr. Luna’s estate will
go to the parents of Mrs. Luna, while the other 5 Million Pesos will go to the parents of
Mr. Luna as reservatarios.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If the child had an intra-uterine life of not less than 7 months, it inherited from the father.
In which case, the estate of 10M will be divided equally between the child and the
widow as legal heirs. Upon the death of the child, its share of 5M shall go by operation
of law to the mother, which shall be subject to reserve troncal. Under Art. 891, the
reserva is in favor of relatives belonging to the paternal line and who are within 3
degrees from the child. The parents of Mr. Luna are entitled to the reserved portion
which i3 5M as they are 2 degrees related from child. The 5M inherited by Mrs. Luna
from Mr. Luna will be inherited from her by her parents.

8. At age 18, Marian found out that she was pregnant. She insured her own life and
named her unborn child as her sole beneficiary. When she was already due to
give birth, she and her boyfriend Pietro, the father of her unborn child, were
kidnapped in a resort in Bataan where they were vacationing. The military gave
chase and after one week, they were found in an abandoned hut in Cavite.
Marian and Pietro were hacked with bolos. Marian and the baby she delivered
were both found dead, with the baby’s umbilical cord already cut. Pietro survived.
[a] Can Marian’s baby be the beneficiary of the insurance taken on the life of the
mother? (2%)
An unborn child may be designated as the beneficiary in the insurance policy of the
mother. An unborn child shall be considered a person for purposes favorable to it provided it is
born later in accordance with the Civil Code. There is no doubt that the designation of the
unborn child as a beneficiary is favorable to the child.

[b] Between Marian and the baby, who is presumed to have died ahead?
(1%)
If the baby was not alive when completely delivered from the mother’s womb, it
was not born as a person, then the question of who between two persons survived will
not be an issue. Since the baby had an intrauterine life of more than 7 months, it would
be considered born if it was alive, at the time of its complete delivery from the mother’s
womb.
We can gather from the facts that the baby was completely delivered. But whether or
not it was alive has to be proven by evidence. If the baby was alive when completely
delivered from the mother’s womb, then it was born as a person and the question of
who survived as between the baby and the mother shall be resolved by the provisions
of the Rules of Court on survivorship. This is because the question has nothing to do
with succession. Obviously, the resolution of the question is needed just for the
implementation of an insurance contract.
Under Rule 13, Sec. 3, (jj), (5) as between the baby who was under 15 years old and
Marian who was 18 years old, Marian is presumed to have survived. In both cases,
therefore, the baby never acquired any right under the insurance policy. The proceeds
of the insurance will then go to the estate of Marian.

[c] Will Pietro, as surviving biological father of the baby, be entitled to claim the
proceeds of the life insurance on the life of Marian? (2%)

Since the baby did not acquire any right under the insurance contract, there is nothing
for Pietro to inherit.