CEU SCHOOL OF LAW

LEGAL FORMS
NIKKI SARAH V. JIMENO-NAVARRO

FINAL EXAM

PART I.

1. What are the necessary allegations in a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65?
(10 points)
2. What is the effect of a failure to put a notice of hearing in a motion? (5 points)
3. What is the effect of filing a Demurrer without leave of court? (5 points)
4. What are the necessary allegations in a Pre-Trial Brief? What is the effect of the
failure to file a Pre-Trial Brief? (10)

PART II. (70 points)

1. Your client is Marissa Madrigal-Cruz, a Filipino citizen.

2. She told you that she met Jeffrey Cruz sometime in December 2008 at an
office party held in Resorts World Manila, where they both worked as dealers at the
casino. During their conversation, they discovered that they were alike in the sense that
both of their parents were not in the Philippines—Marissa’s family was in the US, while
Jeffrey’s parents were immigrants in Canada. They hit it off right away, and they started
dating.

3. Within weeks of becoming boyfriend and girlfriend, Marissa and Jeffrey

became intimate. In March 2009, Marissa discovered that she was pregnant. While
having dinner at one of their favorite restaurants, Marissa broke the news to Jeffrey,
thinking that he would be excited and happy about it. To her great surprise, Jeffrey
freaked and ran out on her, leaving her at the restaurant. For weeks thereafter, Marissa
tried to contact Jeffrey, but he refused to answer her calls and text messages. Thus,
Marissa gave up and decided to raise the child on her own.

4. While pregnant, Marissa went to the doctor by herself, and bought all the
things for the baby. During her sixth month of pregnancy, Jeffrey suddenly called her up
asking if they could rekindle their relationship. Since Marissa wanted her child to grow up
with a traditional family, she agreed.

5. In order to ensure that their child would born legitimate, Marissa and
Jeffrey decided to get married right away. They held their civil wedding at the Manila City
Hall on October 13, 2009.

6. On October 25, 2009, while Marissa was almost eight months pregnant,
she asked Jeffrey to drive her to the doctor because she was experiencing sharp pains
in her abdomen. Jeffrey refused because he had plans to go see some balikbayan
friends at the mall. He dismissed her pleas, saying that the pains were probably normal
during the last few months of the pregnancy. He then left her alone at their apartment.
 7. Marissa tried to ignore the pains, but when she could no longer stand it
she decided to go to the hospital by herself. She called a taxi company to pick her up
and to take her to the hospital.

8. While in the cab, Marissa started bleeding. By the time she got to the
hospital, she was already feeling faint from having lost so much blood. She was then
rushed to the emergency room where she eventually passed out. When she woke up,
the doctor told her that she had suffered complications and that they had to perform an
emergency caesarean operation. Unfortunately, the baby did not survive.

9. Beside herself with grief, Marissa cried and yelled. One of the nurses
asked for Jeffrey’s number so that the hospital can call him. She gave it to them, but she
kept crying until she again passed out from sheer pain and exhaustion. She woke up the
following day expecting to see Jeffrey at her bedside, but she was alone. She called the
nurse, who told her that Jeffrey could not be contacted the night before and that his
phone just kept ringing.

10. It was only in the afternoon that Jeffrey finally showed up at the hospital.
He apologized and said that he had come home drunk the night before, and that he had
passed out on the couch. He didn’t even notice that Marissa wasn’t home until he woke
up at noon, and he saw all the missed calls on his cell phone.

11. Still crying, Marissa told Jeffrey about the death of their baby. Jeffrey
didn’t cry. He just kept silent and tried to comfort her.

12. After a few days, Marissa was discharged from the hospital and Jeffrey
took her home. For about a month, Marissa was depressed and she barely left her room.
Jeffrey, for his part, was hardly ever home. He would come home late at night, and
would leave before Marissa woke up in the morning.

13. Eventually, Marissa decided to move on with her life. She went to see a
psychologist to help her with her depression, and during her sessions with her doctor,
she realized that the only reason she married Jeffrey was because she thought her child
should have a complete family. But now that the baby was gone, she did not see a
reason to stay with Jeffrey.

14. One day, she waited for Jeffrey to come home. When he finally arrived,
they sat down and talked about their marriage. Marissa told him that without the baby,
she didn’t really want to stay married to him. Jeffrey then admitted that he felt the same
way, and that he realized he wasn’t really ready for the responsibility of a family anyway.

15. Jeffrey then moved out, and he and Marissa went their separate ways.
Eventually, Jeffrey migrated to Canada to live with his parents, and in February 2012, he
became a Canadian citizen. On January 21, 2014, Marissa received a copy of a Divorce
Decree from a Canadian Court dissolving Jeffrey and Marissa’s marriage.

16. Sometime in 2015, Marissa met Greg Santos. Unlike Jeffrey, Greg was
responsible, kind, and loved children. A year after dating, Greg proposed to Marissa, and
she happily agreed to marry him. Marissa now wants to obtain a declaration that she is
now capacitated to remarry under Article 26 par. 2 of the Family Code, and with your
help, she filed a Petition for recognition of foreign divorce before the Regional Trial Court
of Las Piñas City.

17. The Office of the Solicitor General filed an Opposition to the Petition
praying that the Petition be dismissed on the ground that Article 26 par. 2 of the Family
Code applies only to Filipinos who marry foreigners, not Filipinos who got naturalized as
nationals of other countries after the wedding.

18. The address of Marissa M. Cruz is No. 13, Sampaguita Road, Pilar
Village, Las Piñas City, while Jeffrey’s Canadian address is 15 Toronto Road, Toronto,
Canada.

19. In light of the Solicitor General’s Opposition, the Court ordered the
Petitioner, Marissa M. Cruz, to file a Memorandum on why the petition should not be
dismissed. As her counsel, it is your job to draft the required Memorandum.

Applicable Laws and Jurisprudence:

Civil Code: Art. 15. Laws relating to family rights and duties, or to the status, condition,
and legal capacity of persons are binding upon citizens of the Philippines, even though
living abroad.

Family Code: Art. 26. All marriages solemnized outside the Philippines, in accordance
with the laws in force in the country where they were solemnized, and valid there as
such, shall also be valid in this country, except those prohibited under Articles 35 (1), (4),
(5) and (6), 3637 and 38.

Where a marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner is validly celebrated and a
divorce is thereafter validly obtained abroad by the alien spouse capacitating him or her
to remarry, the Filipino spouse shall have capacity to remarry under Philippine law.

G.R. No. 198780, October 16, 2013

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LIBERTY D. ALBIOS

Although the Court views with disdain the respondent’s attempt to utilize marriage for
dishonest purposes, It cannot declare the marriage void. Hence, though the
respondent’s marriage may be considered a sham or fraudulent for the purposes of
immigration, it is not void ab initio and continues to be valid and subsisting.

Neither can their marriage be considered voidable on the ground of fraud under Article
45 (3) of the Family Code. Only the circumstances listed under Article 46 of the same
Code may constitute fraud, namely, (1) non-disclosure of a previous conviction involving
moral turpitude; (2) concealment by the wife of a pregnancy by another man; (3)
concealment of a sexually transmitted disease; and (4) concealment of drug addiction,
alcoholism, or homosexuality. No other misrepresentation or deceit shall constitute fraud
as a ground for an action to annul a marriage. Entering into a marriage for the sole
purpose of evading immigration laws does not qualify under any of the listed
circumstances. Furthermore, under Article 47 (3), the ground of fraud may only be
brought by the injured or innocent party. In the present case, there is no injured party
because Albios and Fringer both conspired to enter into the sham marriage.

Albios has indeed made a mockery of the sacred institution of marriage. Allowing her
marriage with Fringer to be declared void would only further trivialize this inviolable
institution. The Court cannot declare such a marriage void in the event the parties fail to
qualify for immigration benefits, after they have availed of its benefits, or simply have no
further use for it. These unscrupulous individuals cannot be allowed to use the courts as
instruments in their fraudulent schemes. Albios already misused a judicial institution to
enter into a marriage of convenience; she should not be allowed to again abuse it to get
herself out of an inconvenient situation.

No less than our Constitution declares that marriage, as an in violable social institution,
is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. It must, therefore, be
safeguarded from the whims and caprices of the contracting parties. This Court cannot
leave the impression that marriage may easily be entered into when it suits the needs of
the parties, and just as easily nullified when no longer needed.

G.R. No. 154380 October 5, 2005

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. CIPRIANO ORBECIDO III

Thus, taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, we
hold that Paragraph 2 of Article 26 should be interpreted to include cases involving
parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but later
on, one of them becomes naturalized as a foreign citizen and obtains a divorce decree.
The Filipino spouse should likewise be allowed to remarry as if the other party were a
foreigner at the time of the solemnization of the marriage. To rule otherwise would be to
sanction absurdity and injustice. Where the interpretation of a statute according to its
exact and literal import would lead to mischievous results or contravene the clear
purpose of the legislature, it should be construed according to its spirit and reason,
disregarding as far as necessary the letter of the law. A statute may therefore be
extended to cases not within the literal meaning of its terms, so long as they come within
its spirit or intent.

Xxx

The reckoning point is not the citizenship of the parties at the time of the celebration of
the marriage, but their citizenship at the time a valid divorce is obtained abroad by the
alien spouse capacitating the latter to remarry.

------

You will be graded based on the format of your Memorandum, your ability to
formulate a legal theory of the case, the conciseness and clarity of your
arguments, and your ability to determine what is necessary and what is not.
Grammar and spelling will also be considered.
Good luck!