2 Cruz Civillaw

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.
Chan-RobleS
On-line Bar Review
IN
CIVIL LAW
(May 10, 2019)
AT
TTY. TERESITA L. CRUZ
www.chanroblesbar.com : www.chanroblesbar.com.ph
DOMINGO vs. SPS. MOLINA, GR 200274, APR. 20, 2016

borrowed money
frm Sps, Molina;
9/10/78 – sold
his interest over
the lot to Sps. Spouses
Molina to answer Molina
Flora Anastacio
(+1986) for his debts; took
(+1968)
5/19/95 – sale possession
of Anastacio’s of the lot &
Melecio share registered paid taxes.
6/15/51– Sps. on TCT # 22967
Domingo bought a
lot in Tarlac 5/17/99 – complaint for Annulment of Title
consisting of ½ and Recovery of Ownership contending
undivided portion Anastacio could not have sold his interest over
over an 18,164 sq. the lot W/O Flora’s consent as Flora was
m. lot. already dead at the time of the sale.
Q: Was the sale of the conjugal property to Spouses

Molina W/O Flora’s consent valid and legal?
A: YES. The conjugal partnership of Anastacio & Flora

was dissolved when Flora died in 1968.
Anastacio, as a co-owner, had the right to freely sell

and dispose of his undivided interest, but not the interest of
his co-owners. Anastacio’s sale to Spouses Molina without
the consent of the other co-owners was not totally VOID, for
Anastacio’s rights or a portion thereof, were thereby effectively
transferred making Spouses Molina a co-owner of the subject
property to the extent of Anastacio’s interest.
Melecio’s recourse as a co-owner of the conjugal

properties, including the subject property, is an action for
partition under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court.
PNB vs. GARCIA et. al., GR 182839, 6/2/14

Lot w/ TCT Accomodation Rogelio &
No. 44422 Mortgagor; Celedonia
acquired REM of lot Garcia
during Ligaya Jose, Sr.
marriage; (+1/21/87) PNB
Jose Sr. as
”widower” 4 children
Q: Is the lot covered by TCT No. 44422 conjugal

or exclusive property of Jose, Sr.?
A: It is conjugal property. Registration of a property alone in

the name of one spouse does not destroy its conjugal nature.
What is material is the time when the property was acquired.
Although the property appears to be registered in the name
of the husband, it has the inherent character of conjugal
property if it was acquired for valuable consideration during
the marriage. It retains its conjugal nature.
NOBLEZA vs. NUEGA, GR 193038,

March 11, 2015
Actual contribution is not relevant in
determining whether a piece of property is community
property for the law itself defines what constitutes
community property. Here, the property was acquired
before the marriage and does not fall under any of
the exclusions under Art. 92 FC, hence, regardless
of their respective contribution to its acquisition
before their marriage, and despite the fact that the
TCT was only in Rogelio’s name, this property is
jointly owned by the spouses. IN ACP, IF THE
HUSBAND, WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE AND
CONSENT OF THE WIFE, SELLS THEIR PROPERTY,
THE ENTIRE SALE IS NULL AND VOID.
TAN vs. ANDRADE et. al.,

GR NOS. 171904/172017, AUG. 7, 2013
9/28/79 → TCTs issued
Proceso Rosario in the name “Rosario
(+8/7/78) Vda. de Andrade, of
legal age, widow”.
DOS on 4/29/83 to Tan & Proceso Jr.

children
As a condition sine qua non for the operation

of Art. 160 NCC in favor of the conjugal
partnership, the party who invokes the
presumption must first prove that the property was
acquired during the marriage. The presumption
of conjugality does not apply if there is NO
showing of when the property alleged to be
conjugal was acquired.
Dela Peña vs. AVILA, GR 187490, 2/8/12
ANTONIA ANTEGONO
(+)
ALVIN
277 sq.m. lot covered by

TCT No. N-32315 in the
name of Antonia “married
to” Antegono
DOAS to
GEMMA
Q: Is this real property conjugal property of the

spouses or paraphernal property of Antonia?
Under Art. 160 NCC, all property of the

marriage is presumed to belong to the
conjugal partnership unless it is proved that
it pertains exclusively to the husband or the
wife. However, the party who invokes this
presumption must first prove that the property in
controversy was acquired during the marriage.
Since there was no showing as to when

the property was acquired, the fact that the
title is in the name of the wife alone is
determinative of its nature as paraphernal.
HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS & LOAN BANK vs.

DAILO, GR 153802, Mar. 11, 2005
+12/20/95 12/1/93-SPA to
Miguela Marcelino Gesmundo
8/8/67
H & L in San Pablo City bought by

P300K loan from HS&LB
Spouses Dailo but DOAS executed
w/ REM of H & L
only in favor of Marcelino.
Under Art. 124 of the Family Code, in the absence of

court authority or written consent of the other spouse,
any disposition or encumbrance of the conjugal
property shall be VOID. This provision does not qualify
with respect to the rule on co-ownership under Art. 493
NCC. The REM on the conjugal property is VOID for
lack of the wife’s written consent.
PELAYO vs. PEREZ et al, GR 141323, June 8, 2005

Signed on the 3rd page
as a witness
David Lorenza
1/11/88 – DOAS of 2 agricultural
lots in Panabo, Davao to Perez
Sale is a consensual contract that is perfected by

mere consent, which may either be express or implied.
Although it appears on the face of the Deed of
Sale that Lorenza signed only as an instrumental
witness, she was fully aware of the sale of their
conjugal property and consented to the sale.
Lorenza is deemed to have given her implied
consent to the contract of sale.
PNB vs. VENANCIO C. REYES, GR 212483, OCT. 5, 2016

Three (3) lots
ts
in Malolos, s,
Bulacan weree Venancio Lilia
acquired 1973 PNB
during their ir
P3M loan w/REM on Foreclosed
marriage.
the 3 lots; forged the REM; was
3 lots are conjugal properties; Lilia’s Venancio’s signature the highest
loan & REM were W/O his consent on the loan, REM & PN; bidder in the
as his signature was falsified on the she failed to pay the foreclosure
PN & REM. loan. sale.
Q.1: Did the CA err in declaring the REM void?

Q.2: Can the conjugal partnership of Spouses Reyes be held liable
for the loan contracted unilaterally by Lilia?
A.1: NO. The REM over the conjugal properties is VOID for
want of Venancio’s consent. Under Art. 124 FC: any
disposition or encumbrance of a conjugal property by one
spouse must be consented by the other spouse; otherwise, it is
VOID.
A.2: YES. The REM is void but the loan remains VALID
and can be recovered from the CPG. In Ayala Investment &
Development Corp. vs. CA, 349 Phil. 942 (1998), the SC
HELD: where the husband or the wife, contracts a loan but acts
as a surety or a guarantor, evidence that the family benefited
from the loan need to be presented before the conjugal
partnership can be held liable. If the loan was taken out to be
used for the family business, there is no need to prove actual
benefit. The law presumes the family benefited from the
loan and the conjugal partnership is held liable.
LIM vs. EQUITABLE PCI BANK, now known

as BANCO DE ORO UNIBANK, INC.,
GR 183918, JAN. 15, 2014
Fore-
Victoria closed
Equitable REM;
PCIB TCT #
Wife Francisco Franco
F 9470 in
ISPA the name
P30M loan
of the
secured by
bank
REM of prop.
w/TCT#57176
1) Signature on ISPA in the names
& REM was forged Francisco &
2) Conjugal prop. Franco as co-
3) No consent of his owners.
wife on REM
The absence of his wife’s signature on the

mortgage contract has no bearing in this case.
All property of the marriage is presumed to be

conjugal, unless it is shown that it is owned exclusively
by the husband or the wife; this presumption is not
overcome by the fact that the property is registered in
the name of the husband or the wife alone; and the
consent of both spouses is required before a conjugal
property may be mortgaged. This presumption cannot
be applied in this case since the nature of the
mortgaged property was never raised as an issue
before the RTC, the CA, and even before the SC. In
fact, petitioner never alleged in his Complaint that
the said property was conjugal in nature.
In this case, no evidence was presented

to show that respondent bank did not exercise
due diligence or that it was negligent in
accepting the mortgage. That petitioner was
erroneously described as single and a Filipino
citizen in the mortgage contract, when in fact
he is married and an American citizen, cannot
be attributed to respondent considering that
the title of the mortgaged property was
registered under “FRANCISCO LIM and
FRANCO LIM, both Filipino
citizens, of legal age, single.”
FLORES vs. SPOU

USES LINDO,, GR 183
3984,
APRIL 3, 201
11
Enrico Edna Arturo Flores

10/31/95 ---- P400K loan;
Edna signed REM & PN for
herself & Enrico as Atty-
in-fact of Enrico.
executed SPA in 3 checks were
favor of Edna on dishonored
11/4/95
Q: Were the PN and REM executed by Edna

WITHOUT THE CONSENT of her husband valid ?
A: YES. Under Art. 124 FC, the

administration and enjoyment of the
conjugal partnership property shall
belong to both spouses jointly. In case
of disagreement, the husband's decision
shall prevail, subject to recourse to the court
by the wife for proper remedy, which must
be availed of within five years from the date
of contract implementing such decision.
In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or

otherwise unable to participate in the administration
of the conjugal properties, the other spouse may
assume sole powers of administration. These powers
do not include disposition or encumbrance without
authority of the court or the written consent of the
other spouse. In the absence of such authority or
consent the disposition or encumbrance shall be void.
However, the transaction shall be construed as
a continuing offer on the part of the consenting
spouse and the third person, and may be
perfected as a binding contract upon the
acceptance by the other spouse or
authorization by the court before the offer is
withdrawn by either or both offerors.
In this case, the Promissory Note

and the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage
were executed on 31 October 1995.
The Special Power of Attorney was
executed on 4 November 1995. The
execution of the SPA is the
acceptance by the other spouse that
perfected the continuing offer as a
binding contract between the
parties, making the Deed of Real
Estate Mortgage
a valid contract.
JADER- MANALO vs. CAMAISA, GR 147978,

Jan. 23, 20
002
Q: If the wife earlier participated in the
negotiation for the sale of 2 conjugal
properties but later refused to sign the
Contract of Sale, may the husband alone
validly dispose said conjugal properties?
A: NO. Under Art. 124 FC, the Court

cannot intervene to authorize the
transaction in the absence of the
consent of the wife as there was no
proof said wife is incapacitated or unable
to participate in the administration of the
conjugal property.
PROPERTY REGIMES OF
UNIONS WITHOUT MARRIAGE
CO-OWNERSHIP
Art. 147 Art. 148

Man and woman Man and woman living
capacitated to marry each together as H and W, one
other, live exclusively w/ or both have legal
each other as H&W, W/O impediment to contract
marriage or under a void marriage.
marriage.
EQUAL SHARES even if 1 ACTUAL JOINT

party’s efforts consisted CONTRIBUTION of
in taking care of the money, property or
family and managing the industry in the
household. acquisition of properties.
CARIÑO vs. CARIÑO, GR 132529, 2/2/01
Susan SPO4 Santiago

S Susan
Nicdao Cariño
Car Yee
6/20/1969
0/1969 (+11/23/1992) 11/10/1992
P146K death P21K burial

benefits
benefits Sahlee Sandee
NO ML VOID NO JDNM VOID

Art. 147 FC Art. 148 FC
BARRIDO vs. NONATO, GR 176492,

Oct. 20, 2014
asked Marietta
for partition
VOID - Art. 36
3/15/96 1/29/03 – filed
Marietta Leonardo
Complaint for
partition of H & L
MTCC adjudicated
refused partition; H & L to Marietta;
contended that H & 2 sons
L has been sold to
their 2 sons; TCT of RTC applied Art.129 FC
lot remained in the
name of spouses.
CA applied Art. 147 FC
Q: What article should govern the disposition of this

property?
SALAS vs. AGUILA, GR 202370, 9/23/13
Eden Aguila Juan Salas, Jr. Rubina Cortez

9/7/85
Joan Jiselle Left the conjugal home;

never heard or seen later.
filed PDNM due to PI in 2003;
discovered 3 lots registered in
“NO conjugal property”; RTC
the name “Juan S. Salas married
declared marriage void.
to Rubina C. Salas”.
Article 147 FC applies to the union of parties who are

not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but
whose marriage is declared void under Article 36 FC.
Under Art. 147 FC, property acquired during the
marriage is prima facie presumed to have been obtained
through the couple’s joint efforts and governed by the
rules on co-ownership.
CHING vs. GOYANKO, JR., GR 165879,

November 10, 2006
Epifania Joseph, Sr. Maria Ching

12/30/47 (+3/11/96)
DOAS on 10/12/93;
7 children TCT No. 138405
661 sq. m. lot in Cebu
City acquired in 1961
The Contract of Sale was null & void for being

contrary to public policy and morals. The sale was made
by a husband in favor of a concubine after he has
abandoned his family and left his wife and children. The sale
was subversive of the stability of the family, a basic social
institution which public policy cherishes and protects.
ART. 1490 NCC. The H & W CANNOT sell

to each other, except:
(1) when a separation of prop. was

agreed upon in the MS;
(2) when there has been a judicial

separation of property under
Article 191 NCC.
The proscription against sale of

property between spouses applies even
to common-law-relationships.
AGAPAY vs. PALANG, GR 116668,

July. 28, 1997
Carlina Miguel Palang Erlinda

(+2/15/81)
7/15/73
7/16/49
Herminia Kristopher
5/12/50 12/6/77
1. 5/17/73 – 10,080 sq. m. agricultural land w/ TCT in

the names of Miguel & Erlinda;
1. 9/23/75 – H & L w/ TCT in the name of Erlinda;
2. 1979 – Miguel and Erlinda were convicted of
concubinage.
The provision of law applicable here is

Article 148 of the Family Code providing for
cases of cohabitation when a man and a
woman who are NOT capacitated to marry
each other live exclusively with each other as
husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage or under a VOID marriage. XXX
Under Article 148, only the properties
acquired by both of the parties through
their ACTUAL JOINT CONTRIBUTION OF
MONEY, PROPERTY OR INDUSTRY shall
be owned by them in common in proportion
to their respective
contributions.
BEATRIZ ACRE et. al. vs. EVANGELINE

YUTTIKKI, GR 153029, Sept. 27, 2007
(+11/16/96))
Beatriz Sofronio
io
o E
Evangeline
11/8/57 5/18/72
6 children
1. motor vehicles
2. lot w/ TCT Sofronio
CT → Evangeline “married to” So
3. lot w/ TCT Sofronio and
CT → Evangeline “married to” So
Nellie “married
married to” Jose del Mar.
r
Article 148 of the FC is applicable. IF

THERE IS NO ACTUAL CONTRIBUTION
FROM EITHER OR BOTH OF THE
PARTIES, THERE CAN BE NO CO-
OWNERSHIP. Petitioners failed to present
any evidence that Sofronio made an
actual contribution in acquiring the
contested properties. CO-OWNERSHIP
DOES NOT EXIST HERE.
THE
FAMILY
Art. 150. FAMILY RELATIONS

1. Between husband and wife;
2. Between parents and children;
3. Among ascendants/descendants;
4. Among brothers & sisters, whether

of full or half-blood.
Art. 151. No suit between members

of the SAME FAMILY shall prosper
UNLESS it should appear from the
verified complaint or petition that
EARNEST EFFORTS TO
COMPROMISE have been made,
but the same have failed.
MAXIMO ALVAREZ vs. SUSAN RAMIREZ,

GR 143439, Oct. 14, 2005
Susan Esperanza
a Maximo
(Esperanza’s Alvarez A
Alvarez
lvarez
sister) charged
w/ arson
ISSUE: WON Esperanza can testify against her husband in

the instant criminal case for arson.
HELD: Where the marital and domestic relations
between the husband & the wife are so strained
that there is no more harmony, peace and
tranquility to be preserved, the marital
disqualification rule is NO longer applicable.
MARTINEZ vs. MARTINEZ,

GR 162084, June 28, 2005
Alleging to be the owners of a lot covered

by a TCT in their names & based on PD 1508,
the matter was referred to Barangay
conciliation but none was reached, hence,
Sps. Martinez filed an ejectment suit
against Rodolfo, Manolo’s brother, for
unlawful detainer. They appended to the
complaint the Certification to file action issued
by the Barangay Chairman.
Q: Did the CA err in ruling that Sps. Martinez

failed to comply with Art. 151 of the FC?
Yes. Art. 151 of the FC must be construed in

relation to Art. 150 of the Family Code.
Art. 150. Family relations include those:

1. Between H & W;
2. Between parents & children;
3. Among other ascendants & descendants;
and
4. Among brothers & sisters, whether of the
full or half-blood.
Art. 151 FC must be construed strictly,

it being an exception to the general rule.
Hence, the presence of a sister-in-law in
this case brings it out of Art. 150 of the FC.
HIYAS SAVINGS & LOAN BANK vs. ACUÑA,

GR 154132, Aug. 31, 2006
Remedios Moreno
Alberto Sps. Felipe & Maria Owe
Moreno RD of Caloocan City
Hiyas Savings & Loan Bank, Inc.
Cancellation of
mortgage contending
he did not secure a
MTD Failure to comply
loan nor sign a
Contract of Mortgage
with Art. 151 FC
with the bank
HELD: Once a stranger becomes a party

to a suit involving members of the
same family, the law NO longer
makes it a condition precedent
that earnest efforts be made
towards a compromise before the
action can prosper. Art. 151 FC
may be invoked ONLY by a party
who is a member of that SAME
FAMILY.
Art. 152/153. FAMILY HOME
1. Constituted by H & W or unmarried head of

the family on a H & L from the time it is
occupied as a family residence; only 1 FH
(A161); continue as such FH despite death
of the spouses or unmarried head of the
family for 10 years AND as long as there is
a minor beneficiary living therein. (A 159)
2. BENEFICIARIES of the FH:
a. H&W OR an unmarried head of the

family
b. Parents, ascendants, descendants

brothers and sisters, legitimate or
illegitimate, living in the FH AND
dependent upon the head of the family
for legal support.
3. EXEMPT from execution, forced sale,

or attachment EXCEPT: (A155 FC)
a. Non-payment of taxes;
b. Debts incurred prior to
constitution of the FH;
c. Debts secured by mortgages
on the premises before/after
constitution of the FH;
d. Debts due to laborers, mechanics,
architects, builders, etc. who
rendered service/materials for
construction of the building.
4. ACTUAL VALUE of FH: P300K in urban

areas; P200K in rural areas or such
amounts as may hereafter be fixed by
law (Art. 157 FC).
5. May be sold, alienated, donated,

assigned or encumbered with the
written consent of the person
constituting the FH, the latter’s
spouse and majority of the
beneficiaries of legal age; in case
of conflict, the court shall decide.
(Art.158 FC).
6. EXECUTION OF the FAMILY HOME:
Judgment in favor of creditor not one

of those in Art. 155 FC and FH worth >
than Art. 157 execution - lowest
bid as provided in Art. 157 FC and
applied in said Art. 157 FC, then to
liabilities under the judgment and
costs; EXCESS to the judgment debtor.
(Art. 160 FC)
EULOGIO, et.al. vs. BELL, SR., et.al., GR 186322,

July 8, 2015
Spouses Eulogio
Spouses Bell Contract of Sale for P1M

of a 329 sq. m. H & L
which was their FH.
Complaint for annulment of
Bell Siblings
document, reconveyance,
quieting of title & damages
Q: Can this FH be the subject of a Writ of

Execution under Article 160 of the FC?
A: NO. To warrant the execution sale of respondents’ family

home under Article 160 FC, petitioners needed to establish
these facts: (1) there was an increase in its actual value; (2)
the increase resulted from voluntary improvements on the
property introduced by the persons constituting the family
home, its owners or any of its beneficiaries; and (3) the
increased actual value exceeded the maximum allowed
under Article 157 of the Family Code.
The RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in ordering

the execution sale of the property under Article 160 FC. The
RTC had already determined with finality that the
property was a FH, and there was no proof that its value
had increased beyond the statutory limit due to voluntary
improvements by respondents.
RAMOS et. al. vs PANGILINAN et. al.,

GR 185920 0, JULY 20, 20
010
Pangilinan P1,661,490.30 (back
Sumang E.M. Ramos, Inc. wages, sep. pay, 13th mo.
Bautista Ernesto M. Ramos pay & service incentive
Antenor leave pay
Petitioners/heirs Pandacan property
Illegal dismissal case
Family Home
Petitioners claim that their FH was constructed prior to

Aug. 3, 1988 or as early as 1944, hence, the property must be
constituted either judicially or extra-judicially under the Civil
Code. There being absolutely no proof that the Pandacan
property was judicially or extra-judicially constituted as the
Ramos’ FH, the law’s protective mantle cannot be availed of
by petitioners.
ARRIOLA vs. ARRIOLA, GR 17703,

Jan. 28, 2008
(+) Victoria Fidel Arriola Vilma

(+3/10/03)
John judicial Anthony

partition of
properties
HELD: Fidel died on March 10, 2003, thus, for 10

years from his death or until March 10, 2013, or for
a longer period if there is still a minor beneficiary
residing therein, the FH he constituted CANNOT BE
PARTITIONED.
The purpose of Article 159 of the FC is to

avert the disintegration of the family unit following
the death of its head. To this end, it
preserves the FH as the physical symbol of family
love, security and unity by imposing the restriction
on its partition, that the heirs cannot
extra-judicially partition it for a period of
10 years from the death of one or both of the
spouses or of the unmarried head of the
family or for a longer period, if there is still
a minor beneficiary residing therein and
dependent on the head of the family for legal
support.
PATRICIO vs. DARIO III, GR 170829, 11/20/06

8/10/87 –
Extrajudicially Perla Marcelino
settled (+ 7/5/87)
Marcelino‘s
estate; 755 sq.
m. H & L in Marcelino Marc Marcelino III
Cubao, QC
Marcelino IV
Art. 159 FC shields the FH from immediate partition

despite the death of one or both spouses or of the
unmarried head of the family for a period of 10 years or for
as long as there is a minor beneficiary still residing therein.
To avail of the benefits of Art. 159, the minor
beneficiary must ACTUALLY be living in the FH
AND fully dependent on the head of the family for
legal support.
EQUITABLE PCIB, INC. vs. OJ-MARK TRADING G

INC., et. al., GR 165950, AUG. 8, 2010
P4,048,800.00 signed REM as
Equitable Loan principal debtor
PCIB, Inc. & Pres. Of OJ-
Oscar Mark Trading
& Evangeline
initiated EJF of Martinez
the REM reg. owner
condo unit REM over condo & 3rd party
is their FH unit where they mortgagor
reside annotated
on CCT of the
Pasig City RD
Xxx Article 155 (3) FC allows the

execution or forced sale of a FH “for debts
secured by mortgages on the premises
before or after such constitution”.
Felicitas Salazar vs. Remedios Felias, on

her own behalf and in representation of
the other heirs of Catalino Nivera, GR
213972, Feb. 5, 2018
“The movant’s claim that his/her

property is exempt from execution for
being the FH is not a magic wand that
will freeze the court’s hand and forestall
the execution of a final and executory
ruling. It is imperative that the claim for
exemption must be set-up and proven.”
SPS. DE MESA vs. SPS. ACERO, et al,

GR 185064, Jan. 16, 2012
The exemption of the FH from attachment, levy

or forced sale must be invoked as soon as possible,
otherwise, it is considered as waived. The FH’s
exemption from execution must be set-up and proved
to the Sheriff before the sale of the property at public
auction. The right of exemption is a personal
privilege granted to the judgment debtor &
must be claimed by him, NOT by the Sheriff, at
the time of the levy or before the sale at public
auction.
MANACOP vs. CA, GR

R 97898,, Aug. 11, 1997
7
Occupancy of the FH, either by the

owner thereof or by any of its
beneficiaries, must be ACTUAL, w/c
means something real or actually
existing, as opposed to something
merely possible or presumptive or
constructive. The law definitely
EXCLUDES maids and overseers.
PATERNITY,
FILIATION,
AND CUSTODY,
OF CHILDREN
LEGITIMATE CHILDREN
A. Are those: (Art. 164 FC)
1. Conceived or born during marriage;
2. Conceived by artificial insemination;
a. authorized by BOTH spouses;
b. in a written instrument;
c. signed by BOTH spouses before
birth of child;
d. recorded in the LCR together
w/ birth certificate of child;
3. Whose mother may have declared
against the legitimacy/may have
been sentenced an adulteress.
(Art. 167 FC)
B. shall have the RIGHT TO: (Art. 174 FC)

1. Bear surnames of F and M;
2. Receive support from their parents,
ascendants, brothers/sisters;
3. Legitime/successional rights.
C. FILIATION IS ESTABLISHED BY: (Art. 172 FC)
1. Record of birth appearing in the civil
register or a final judgment;
2. An admission in a public document or a
private hand-written instrument signed
by the concerned parent.
In their absence, legitimate filiation
shall be proved by:
(1) Open & continuous possession of the
status of a legitimate child.;
(2) Any other means allowed by the Rules
of Court and special laws.
D. ACTION TO CLAIM LEGITIMACY

may be brought by the: (Art. 173 FC)
1. CHILD - during his/her lifetime;

action commenced by child shall
survive notwithstanding the death
of either or both of the parties.
2. HEIRS OF THE CHILD - should the

child die during minority or in a
state of insanity; within a period
of 5 years from death
of the child.
CONCEPCION vs. CA & ALMONTE,

GR 123450, Aug. 31, 2005
Mario
Gopiao Ma. Theresa Gerardo
12/10/80 12/29/89
Jose Gerardo 12/19/91- annulment

of marriage due to
born 12/8/90
bigamy
The LAW and only the LAW determines who

are legitimate or illegitimate children for one’s
legitimacy or illegitimacy cannot ever be
compromised. IT SHOULD BE WHAT THE LAW
SAYS AND NOT WHAT THE PARENT SAYS IT IS.
WHO MAY IMPUGN LEGITIMACY

OF THE CHILD?
GEN. RULE: Husband
EXCEPTION:
Heirs of the husband
(Art. 171 FC)
1. If the husband should die before the

expiration of the period fixed for
bringing his action;
2. If H should die after filing of the
complaint, w/o having desisted
therefrom;
3. If the child was born after the
death of the husband. (Art. 171 FC).
PERIOD TO IMPUGN LEGITIMACY (Art. 170)

1. One (1) yr. from the knowledge of the birth
or its recording in the Civil Register, if
H/heirs reside in the city or municipality
where the birth took place or was
recorded;
2. If H/heirs do not reside at the place of
birth/where it was recorded - period shall
be 2 years if they reside in the Phil; 3 yrs.,
if they reside abroad;
3. If birth has been concealed/unknown to
the H/heirs – period shall be counted from
the discovery or knowledge of the birth of
the child or of the fact of registration of
said birth, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER.
E. LEGITIMACY of a child may be IMPUGNED

only on the ff. GROUNDS: (Art. 166 FC)
1. Physical impossibility for the husband to have
sexual intercourse w/ his wife within the first
120 days of the 300 days which immediately
preceded the birth of the child because of:
(a) physical incapacity of husband to have
sexual intercourse with his wife;
(b) fact that H & W were living separately that
sexual intercourse was NOT possible;
(c) serious illness of the husband, which
absolutely prevented sexual intercourse;
2. Biological or other scientific reasons that the
child could not have been that of the husband;
3. In case of artificial insemination, the written
authorization or ratification of either parent
was obtained through mistake, fraud, violence,
intimidation or undue influence.
Aguilar vs. Siasat, GR 200169, Jan. 28, 2015

Alfredo Candelaria (+2/8/94)
(+8/26/83)
Rodolfo
(3/5/45) Edna
1. his elementary school records stating Alfredo In June 1996, filed w/ the RTC
Aguilar as his parent; of Bacolod City for
2. his ITR indicating Candelaria is his mother; mandatory injunction plus
3. his Certificate of Marriage reflecting the Aguilar Damages against Edna to
Spouses as his parents; recover 2 TCTs covering 2 lots
4. Alfredo’s SSS E-1 Form dated 10/10/57 stating owned by Spouses Aguilar.
Rodolfo is his legitimate son and dependent;
5. Certification issued by the Bacolod LCR dated
1/27/96 that all records of births for the Rodolfo was NOT the son of
periods 1945 -1946 were “all destroyed by Spouses Aguilar.
nature“, hence, no copies could be issued.
Q: Based on the documents he presented, was Rodolfo

able to prove he is the legitimate son of Spouses
Aguilar?
A: YES. Rodolfo – who was born during the

marriage of Alfredo Aguilar and Candelaria
Siasat-Aguilar and before their respective deaths
– has sufficiently proved that he is the legitimate
issue of the Aguilar spouses. Alfredo Aguilar’s SSS
Form E-1 satisfies the requirement for proof of
filiation and relationship to the Aguilar spouses
under Article 172 of the Family Code; by itself,
said document constitutes an “admission of
legitimate filiation in a public document or a
private handwritten instrument and signed by
the parent concerned.”
The status and filiation of a child

CANNOT be compromised. Art. 164 of the FC
is clear. “A child who is conceived OR born
during the marriage of his parents is
legitimate.” Art. 167 FC provides: “The child
shall be considered legitimate although the
mother may have declared against its
legitimacy or may have been declared an
adulteress.”
The law requires that every

reasonable presumption be made in favor of
legitimacy.
DE JESUS vs. ESTATE OF JUAN DIZON,

GR 142877 , OCTOBER 2, 2001
Danilo de Jesus Carolina Juan Dizon SS

8/23/64 (+ 3/12/92)
Jacqueline Jinkie Christie leg. children

There is perhaps no presumption

of law more firmly established and
founded on sounder morality and
more convincing reason than the
presumption that children born in
wedlock are LEGITIMATE.
CABATANIA vs. CA & CAMELO REGODOS,

GR 124814, Oct. 21, 2004
Husband Florencia Camelo Wife

Regodos Cabatania
1/2/82; 3/82
Camelo Regodos
9/9/82
Q: Did the RTC & CA err in ordering petitioner to

acknowledge Camelo Regodos as his illegitimate
son & to give support to the latter “based on the
personal appearance of the child” ?
A: YES. A high standard of proof is

required to establish paternity & filiation.
An order for recognition & support may
create an unwholesome situation or may be an
irritant to the family or the lives of the parties
so that it must be issued ONLY if paternity
or filiation is established by CLEAR and
CONVINCING
EVIDENCE.
In this age of genetic profiling & DNA

analysis, the extremely subjective test of
physical resemblance or similarity of
features will NOT suffice as evidence to
prove paternity and filiation before the
courts of law.
BECKETT vs. JUDGE SARMIENTO, JR.,

A.M. RTJ-12-2326, 1/30/30/13
did not return Geoffrey
after holidays in 2011.
Geoffrey Eltesa
HC filed by Beckett
Compromise agreement
approved by the court Court granted
that he shall have full Geoffrey, Jr. provisional custody to
custody over their son. Eltesa.
The matter of custody is not permanent and unalterable. If

the parent who was given custody suffers a future character change &
becomes unfit, the matter of custody can always be re-examined and
adjusted. Xxx To be sure, the welfare, the best interest, the
benefit, and the good of the child must be determined as of the
time that either parent is chosen to be the custodian. A judgment
involving the custody of a minor child cannot be accorded the
force and effect of res judicata.
GUALBERTO vs. GUALBERTO,

GR 154994/156254, June 28, 2005
Crisanto Joycelyn
DNM & custody immorality due

pendente lite of
Rafaelo
to alleged
their minor child 4 yrs old lesbian relations
HELD: Sexual preference or moral laxity alone does

not prove parental neglect or incompetence.
To deprive the wife of custody, the husband
must clearly establish that her moral lapses
have had an adverse effect on the welfare of
the child.
Santos vs. CA, GR 113054, Mar. 16, 1995

When a parent entrusts the custody of a minor
to another, such as a friend or godfather, even in a
document, what is given is merely temporary
custody and it does not constitute a renunciation
of parental authority. Even if a definite
renunciation is manifest, the law still disallows
the same.
Perez vs. CA, GR 118870,

Mar. 29, 1996
Only the most compelling of reasons shall justify
the court’s awarding custody of a child to someone
other than his mother, such as her unfitness to
exercise sole parental authority.
Laxamana vs. Laxamana,

GR 144763, Sept.3, 2002
Every child has rights which are not and

should not be dependent solely on the wishes,
much less, the whims and caprices, of his
parents. His welfare should not be subject to
the parents’ say-so or mutual agreement.
Where the parents are already separated
in fact, the court must step in to
determine in whose custody the child can
better be assured the rights granted to
him by law.
ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN
A. are those: (Art. 165 FC)
1. Conceived AND born outside
a valid marriage.
B. shall have the RIGHT: (Art. 176 FC)
1. Use the surname*; be under the parental
authority of their mother; *(R.A. 9255);
2. Entitled to support in conformity w/ the
Civil Code;
3. Entitled to legitime w/c is 1/2 the legitime
of a legitimate child.
C. FILIATION IS ESTABLISHED by the same
evidence as in Article 172 and w/n the same
period as in Art. 173 except when based on
2nd par. of Article 172 in w/c case the action
may be brought only DURING THE LIFETIME
of the alleged PARENT.
GRANDE vs. ANTONIO, GR 206248,

FEB. 18, 2014
Legal Patricio Grace

Wife Left
for
USA
May,
Andre Lewis Jerard Patrick 2007
(2/8/98) (10/13/99)
Q: Can the father compel his illegitimate

children to use his surname upon his
recognition of their filiation?
A: NO. Art. 176 FC (as amended by

R.A. 9255 (3/19/2004) now reads:
Illegitimate children SHALL use the surname

and SHALL be under the parental authority of their
mother, and SHALL be entitled to support in
conformity with this Code. However, illegitimate
children MAY use the surname of their father if
their filiation has been expressly recognized by
their father through the record of birth appearing
in the civil register, or when an admission in a public
document or private handwritten instrument is made
by the father. XXX
Art. 176 FC gives illegitimate children the right

to decide if they want to use the surname of their
father or not. It is not the father or the mother who is
granted by law the right to dictate the surname of their
illegitimate child.
Arado Heirs, et.al. vs. Alcoran, et.al., GR 163362,

July 8, 2015
(2 lots) (8 lots)
4 siblings Joaquina Raymundo
(+1981) (+1939)
nephews/
nieces
Florencia 3 siblings
Francisca Nicolas
(+1954) (+1960)
(1). Anacleto’s BC and Page 53, Book 4,

Register No. 214 of the Register of Births of
the Municipality of Bacong, Negros Occ.;
(2). His baptismal certificate; (3). Pictures
Filed suit in 1992
taken during Nicolas’ wake showing
Anacleto Elenette
e Anacleto being carried by Joaquina and
(Born 7/13/51) 1972 Florencia; (4). his school records; (5) his
Marriage Certificate; and (6). Joaquina’s
will.
Issues:
1. Whether Anacleto is the illegitimate son of Nicolas;
2. Whether he is entitled to the properties in litigation.
The father has duly acknowledged the child

as his illegitimate son. The birth certificate of the
child appearing in the Register of Births showed
that the father had himself caused the registration
of his birth, he being the informant of the birth to
be registered. Considering that the father had
a direct hand in the preparation of the birth
certificate, reliance on the birth certificate of
Anacleto as evidence of his paternity was fully
warranted.
Arado Heirs, et.al. vs. Alcoran, et.al., GR 163362,

July 8, 2015
(2 lots) (8 lots)
4 siblings Joaquina Raymundo
(+1981) (+1939)
nephews/
nieces
Florencia 3 siblings
Francisca Nicolas
(+1954) (+1960)
(1). Anacleto’s BC and Page 53, Book 4,
Register No. 214 of the Register of
Births of the Municipality of Bacong,
Negros Occ.; (2). His baptismal
Filed suit in 1992 certificate; (3). Pictures taken during
X
Anacleto Elenette Nicolas’ wake showing Anacleto being
carried by Joaquina and Florencia; (4).
(Born 7/13/51) 1972
his school records; (5) his Marriage
Art. 992 NCC Certificate; and (6). Joaquina’s will.
DELA CRUZ et.al. vs. GRACIA, GR 177728,

July 31, 2009
Christian Dominique
Jenie Aquino
(+ 9/4/05)
Antipolo LCR
Autobiography “Jenie dela
“Aquino”
Cruz” is “my wife” as “We fell
1. Christian’s BC; in love w/each other” and
Christian
2. AFUSF she “Now she is pregnant” and
(born 11/2/05)
executed & signed ; “for that we live together”
3. Dominique’s
father’s Affidavit of
Acknowledgment ;
4. Christian’s
Autobiography
SC HELD: Dominique’s Autobiography, though

unsigned by him, substantially satisfies the
requirement of the law.
1. Where the private handwritten instrument is the

LONE piece of evidence submitted to prove
filiation, there should be strict compliance with the
requirement that the same must be signed by the
acknowledging parent;
2. Where the private handwritten instrument is

ACCOMPANIED by other relevant and competent
evidence, it suffices that the claim of filiation be
shown to have been made and handwritten by the
acknowledging parent as it is merely corroborative
of such other evidence.
IN THE EYES OF SOCIETY, A CHILD WITH AN

UNKNOWN FATHER BEARS THE STIGMA OF DISHONOR.
VERCELES vs. POSADA, GR 159785, 4/27/07
Wife Teofisto Verceles Ma. Clarissa Posada

12/22/1986
Mayor of Pandan, Support
Catanduanes Verna Aiza 1) 4 handwritten letters
9/23/87 2) Pictures of Verceles w/
handwritten notations
Petitioner’s private handwritten instruments

establish Verna Aiza’s filiation under Art. 172 (2) FC. The
dates, letters, pictures, and testimonies presented by
respondents are irrefutable evidence that Verna Aiza is
petitioner’s illegitimate child. The due recognition of an
illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement
before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is, in
itself, a consummated act of acknowledgment of the
child, and no further court action is required.
LEGITIMATED CHILDREN
A. are those: (Arts. 177/178) FC
Conceived and born outside of wedlock of
parents who at the time of conception
have *NO LEGAL IMPEDIMENT to marry
each other and whose parents subsequently
married each other. *(R.A. 9858)
B. Shall have the SAME rights as legitimate

children (Art. 179 FC)
C. Legitimation retroacts to the time of the

child’s birth (Art. 180 FC)
ADOPTION
Domestic Adoption Act of 1998

R.A. 8552 (2/25/98)
Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995

R.A. 8043 (6/7/95)
WHO MAY ADOPT?

1. Any Filipino citizen
a. of legal age;
b. with full civil capacity
and legal rights;
c. of good moral character;
d. not convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude;
e. emotionally and psychologically capable of
caring for children;
f. in a position to support and care for his children
in keeping with the means of the family;
g. at least 16 years older than adoptee;
> 16-year-gap between adopter and adoptee may
be waived if:
a. Adopter is the biological parent of adoptee;
OR
b. Adopter is the spouse of the adoptee’s
parent.
2. Any alien/foreigner
a. same qualifications above-stated;
b. whose country has diplomatic relations
with RP;
c. living in the RP for at least 3 continuous
years prior to filing petition for adoption
until adoption decree is entered;
d. certified by his diplomatic/consular office
to have legal capacity to adopt in his
country;
e. whose government allows the adoptee to
enter his country as his adopted child.
3. The guardian w/ respect to the ward after

the termination of the guardianship and
clearance of his/her financial liabilities.
Residency and Certification of

alien’s qualification to adopt in
his country may be waived for:
1. a former Filipino citizen who seeks
to adopt a relative within the 4th
degree of consanguinity or affinity;
2. one who seeks to adopt the
legitimate child of his Filipino
spouse;
3. one who is married to a Filipino
citizen, seeking to adopt jointly
with his spouse a relative within
the 4th degree of consanguinity or
affinity of the Filipino spouse.
Husband and wife shall

JOINTLY ADOPT, EXCEPT
IF:
1. one spouse seeks to adopt the leg.

child of the other spouse; OR
2. one spouse seeks to adopt his own

illegitimate child, provided, that the
other spouse has signified his consent
thereto; OR
3. the spouses are legally separated from

each other.
WHO MAY BE ADOPTED?

1. Any person below 18 yrs. who has
been adm./judicially declared
available for adoption;
2. Leg. son/daughter of one spouse
by the other spouse;
3. Ill. son/daughter by a qualified adopter to
improve his/her status to that of legitimacy;
4. A person of legal age if, prior to the
adoption, said person has been consistently
considered and treated by the adopter as
his/her own child since minority;
5. A child whose adoption has been previously
rescinded;
6. A child whose biological/adoptive parents
have died, provided, that no proceedings
shall be initiated w/n 6 months from the
time of death of said parent;
WHOSE CONSENT IS NECESSARY

TO THE ADOPTION?
1. The adoptee, if 10 years
or over;
2. Biological parents of the child,
if known, or legal guardian or
the proper govt. instrumentality
which has legal custody of the child;
3. Legitimate & adopted children, 10 yrs or
over, of the adopter(s) & adoptee, if any;
4. Illegitimate children, 10 yrs or over of the
adopter, if living w/ said adopter & the
latter’s spouse, if any;
5. Spouse, if any, of the person adopting or
to be adopted.
WHERE TO
FILE PETITION?
Family Court of the
province or city where
the prospective adoptive
parents reside.
PUBLICATION:
Once a week for 3 successive
weeks in a newspaper of
general circulation in the
province/city where court is
situated.
Child and Home Stud

dy
Reports
¾ to be conducted by DSW
WD
licensed social worker on the
adoptee, biological parent(s) and
adopter(s).
¾ to be subm mittedd togethe er with

findings and recommendatiions to
the court hearing the pe
etition.
Supervised Trial Custody

• 6-month-period for adoptee and
adopter(s) to adjust psychologically
and emotionally to each other;
• to establish a bonding relationship;
• TEMPORARY parental authority vested
in the adopter(s);
• Court may reduce trial custody period,
if it is in the best interest of the child.
alien adopter(s) 6-month trial
custody period
MUST be completed,
unless alien adopter
falls under Sec. 7(b).
Adoption Decree
¾ effective as of the date the original
petition was filed;
¾ AMENDED birth certificate of

adoptee to be issued by LCR;
original birth certificate
shall be “CANCELLED”.
Adoption
EFFECTS OF ADOPTION:
1. Except where the biological parent is the spouse
of the adopter, all legal ties between biological
parent(s) and the adoptee shall be severed and the
same shall be vested on the adopter(s).
2. Adoptee shall be considered the legitimate child of

the adopter(s) entitled to all the rights and
obligations provided by law to legitimate children,
w/o discrimination of any kind; adoptee entitled to
love, guidance and support in keeping with the
means of the family.
3. In legal and intestate succession, adopter(s) and

adoptee shall have reciprocal rights of succession,
without distinction from legitimate filiation. The
law on testamentar y succession shall gover n if
adoptee and his biological parent(s) left a will.
RESCISSION OF ADOPTION
Who may petition for the
rescission of the adoption?
ONLY the ADOPTEE, with the

assistance of the DSWD, if a minor
or if over 18 years of age but is
incapacitated, may file the petition.
GROUNDS FOR RESCISSION

OF ADOPTION:
1. repeated physical and verbal
maltreatment by the adopter(s)
despite counselling;
2. attempt on the life of adoptee;
3. sexual assault or violence;
4. abandonment and failure to
comply with parental obligations.
Adopter may DISINHERIT
adoptee for causes provided
under Art. 919 NCC.
EFFECTS OF RESCISSION OF ADOPTION:

1. Parental authority of adoptee’s biological
parent(s) or legal custody of DSWD, if adoptee is
still a minor or incapacitated, shall be
RESTORED.
2. Reciprocal rights and obligations of the

adopter(s) and the adoptee to each other shall be
EXTINGUISHED.
3. The court shall order the LCR to CANCEL

amended birth certificate and RESTORE original
birth certificate of the adoptee.
4. Successional rights shall REVERT to its status

prior to the adoption as of the date of judicial
rescission. Vested rights acquired prior to
judicial rescission shall be respected.
LANDINGIN vs. REPUBLIC, GR 164948,

June 27, 2006
The WRITTEN CONSENT of the
BIOLOGICAL PARENTS is INDISPENSABLE
for the validity of a decree of adoption. In
this case, petitioner failed to submit the
WRITTEN CONSENT of the natural mother
of the 3 minor children, hence the adoption
decree must be DENIED.
IN RE PETITION FOR ADOPTION OF MICHELLE P. LIM,

GR NOS. 168992-93, May. 21, 2009
Primo Monina Angel

el
Lim Lim Olario
rio
(+11/28/98) (US citizen)
izen)
6/23/74 12/27/2000
Aff. of Consent
Michelle & Michael Petitions for Adoption
3/15/77 8/1/83 under RA 8552
25 yrs old; 18yrs & 7

married mos. old Affidavits of Consent
ISSUE: WON petitioner, who has remarried, can singly adopt.

Husband and wife shall JOINTLY ADOPT

except in the ff. cases:
(1). if one spouse seeks to adopt the leg.

son/daughter of the other;
(2). if one spouse seeks to adopt his/her own ill.

son/daughter: provided, however, that the other
spouse has signified his/her consent thereto;
(3). if the spouses are legally separated

from each other.
The law is clear. Petitioner having

remarried at the time the petitions for
adoption were filed, must JOINTLY ADOPT
WITH HER HUSBAND.
IN THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF STEPHANIE

NATHY ASTORGA GARCIA, GR 148311, Mar. 31, 2005
Q: May an illegitimate child, upon

adoption by her natural father, use the
surname of her natural mother as her
middle name?
A: Since there is NO law prohibiting an

illegitimate child adopted by her
natural father, like Stephanie, to use as
middle name her mother’s surname,
there is NO cogent reason why she
should NOT be allowed to do so.
INTER-COU UNTRY ADOPTION

ACT (R..A. 8043)
socio-legal process of adopting a

Filipino child by a foreigner or by a
Filipino citizen permanently residing
abroad where the petition is filed,
supervised trial custody is
undertaken and the decree of
adoption is issued OUTSIDE the
Philippines.
INTER-COUNTRY ADOPTION BO
OARD
central authority in matters relating
to inter-country adoption
COMPOSITION
DSWD Secretary (ex officio chair))
1 – psychiatrist/psychologist
2 – lawyers (w/qualifications
as RTC judge)
1 – registered social worker
2 – representaatives
s from NGOOs
engaged in child-caring and
placement activities
WHO MAY BE ADOPTED?

Legally free child voluntarily or
involuntarily committed to the DSWD
WHO MAY ADOPT?

Foreigner or Filipino citizen
permanently residing abroad
1. at least 27 years old;
2. at least 16 years older than adoptee at the
time of the application, EXCEPT if adopter is
a. natural parent of adoptee; OR
b. Spouse of such parent.
3. if married, spouse must jointly adopt;
4. capacitated to act and assume all rights and
responsibilities of parental authority under
his national laws and has undergone
appropriate counselling in his country.
5. not convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude;

6. eligible to adopt under his national law;
7. is in a position to provide the proper care and
support to give the necessary moral values and
example to all his children, including the child to
be adopted;
8. agrees to uphold the basic rights of the child as
embodied under Phil. laws, the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child, and to abide by the rules
and regulations issued to implement the provisions
of this Act;
9. whose country has diplomatic relations with RP;
whose government maintains a similarly
authorized and accredited agency and allows
adoption under his national laws;
10.possesses all the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications under this Act and in other
applicable Phil. Laws.
WHERE TO FILE
APPLICATION?
RTC of the RP having jurisdiction

over the child OR with the Board,
through an intermediate agency,
whether governmental or an
authorized/accredited agency, in
the country of the prospective
adoptive parents.
FAMILY SELECTION/MATCHING
No child shall be matched to a foreign adoptive
family unless it is satisfactorily shown that the
child cannot be adopted locally.
¾ Adoptive parents, or any one of them, shall

personally fetch the child in the Phil.
PRE-ADOPTIVE PLACEMENT COSTS

1. Cost of bringing child from RP to the
residence of the applicant(s) abroad
including all travel expenses w/n the Phil.
and abroad.
2. Cost of passport, visa, medical examination
and psychological evaluation required and
other related expenses.
SUPERVISED TRIAL CUSTODY

six (6) months from the time of
placement by the government
agency or the authorized/accredited
agency in the country of the
adoptive parents.
¾ After the lapse of the 6-month trial

custody, decree of adoption shall be
issued in the said country, copy
furnished the Board to form part of
the records of the child
Art. 194. SUPPORT

Comprises everything
indispensable for sustenance,
dwelling, clothing, medical
attendance, education and
transportation, in keeping
with the financial capacity of
the family. (Art. 194)
THE FOLLOWING ARE OBLIGED TO

SUPPORT EACH OTHER (Art. 195)
1. The spouses;
2. Leg. ascendants & descendants;

3. Parents & their leg. children &
the leg./ill. children of the latter;
4. Parents & their ill. children &
the legitimate/illegitimate
children of the latter;
5. Legitimate brothers and sisters,
whether of full or half-blood.
Art.199. IF 2 OR MORE PERSONS

ARE OBLIGED TO GIVE SUPPORT,
LIABILITY IS IN THE FF. ORDER:
1. The spouse;
2. Descendants in the nearest degree;
3. Ascendants in the nearest degree;
4. Brothers and sisters.
* support shall be in proportion to the

resources or means of the giver and to
the necessities of the recipient. (Art. 201)
DEL SOCORRO vs. VAN WILSEM,

GR 193707, DEC. 10, 2014
Divorce
Decree - City
Ernst
Court of Norma Johan Filipina
Holland 9/25/90 - Holland
(monthly
support)
Q.1: Can a foreign national be

Roderigo
obliged to support his minor
8/28/09 – Complaint child under Philippine Law?
for support under
Art. 195 FC;
Information filed Q.2: Can a foreign national be
under RA 9262 but held criminally liable under RA
dismissed by Cebu 9262 for his unjustified failure
City RTC.
to support his minor child?
A.1: NO. The obligation to give support to a child is a

matter that falls under family rights and duties. Since the
respondent is a citizen of Holland, he is subject to the
laws of his country, NOT to Philippine law, as to
whether he is obliged to give support to his child, as
well as the consequences of his failure to do so.
However, he alleged but was not able to prove his foreign
national law, hence, the doctrine of processual
presumption comes into play.
A.2: YES. Respondent may be made liable under

Section 5(e) and (i) of R.A. No. 9262 for unjustly
refusing or failing to give support to petitioner’s son.
The deprivation or denial of financial support to the child is
considered an act of violence against women and children.
SPS. LIM vs. LIM et. al., GR 163209, 10/30/09
Chua Giak Mariano III
Chua Giak’s in- Prudencio Filomena

house caregiver 4K support
P34K
P6K monthly Edward Cheryl

income 1979
P40K
3 children Total Support
Q: Are Edward’s parents concurrently liable with

Edward to provide support to respondents?
A: YES. The obligation to provide legal support passes

on to ascendants not only upon default of the parents but
also for the latter’s inability to provide sufficient support.
Gan vs. Reyes, GR 145527, May 28, 2002
HELD: A judgment ordering the father to support

the child is IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY despite
pendency of appeal.
De Asis vs. CA, GR 127578,

February 15, 1999
HELD : It is true that in order to claim support,
filiation and/or paternity must first be
shown between the claimant and the
parent, however, paternity and
filiation is a relationship that must be
JUDICIALLY ESTABLISHED and it is for
the COURT to declare its existence or
absence.
ANTONIO PERLA vs. MIRASOL BARING,

GR 172471, 11/12/12
Wife Antonio Mirasol
Support
Randy
(born 11/11/83) 1. Unsigned BC
2. Baptismal
Certificate
An Order for support must be issued ONLY

if paternity or filiation is established by
CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.
HELD: The general rule is that an unsigned birth

certificate is NOT COMPETENT proof of filiation
and paternity of the man as father of the child.
Clear and convincing proof of the highest
degree is required to compel the father to
recognize the illegitimate child as his own.
However, while it is true that an

unsigned birth certificate is incompetent
proof of paternity, the rule does not apply if
the father himself gave all the data
regarding the child’s birth and caused his
name to be placed therein as the child’s
father. (Ilano vs. CA, GR 104376, Feb.
23,1994).
DOLINA vs
s. VALLECERA, GR 182367,
Dec. 15, 2010
Cherryl Dolina filed a petition for the

issuance of a Temporary Protection Order (TPO)
against Glenn Vallecera under R.A. 9262. She
also asked financial support from Vallecera for
their supposed child, attaching the latter’s birth
certificate which listed Vallecera as the child’s
father.
Was the RTC’s dismissal of Dolina’s

action for temporary protection and
temporary support for her child proper?
To be entitled to legal support,

Dolina must, in a proper action, first
establish the filiation of the child, if
the same is not acknowledged. The
child’s remedy is to file through her
mother, a judicial action against
Vallecera for compulsory
recognition. Illegitimate children
are entitled to support and
successional rights but their filiation
must be duly proved.
PARENTAL AUTHORITY
1. Parental authority/responsibility
may NOT be renounced/transferred,
except in cases authorized by law
(Art. 210 FC)
2. F AND M JOINTLY exercise parental

authority over common children;
DISAGREEMENT - father’s decision,
unless there is judicial order to the
contrary. (Art. 211 FC)
3. a. Absence/death of 1 parent - present

parent; remarriage of 1 parent does not
affect parental authority, unless court
appoints guardian over person/property
of children (Art. 212 FC)
b. Legal separation of parents - parent

designated by the court; child
<7 mother, unless court finds
compelling reason (Art. 213 FC).
In default of BOTH parents or a judicially

appointed guardian… (Art. 216 FC)
(1) surviving grandparent; (A214 FC)
(2) oldest brother/sister > 21 years of age;
(3) child’s actual custodian,

>21 yrs. of age.
NO DESCENDANT shall be compelled,

in a criminal case to testify against his
parents and grandparents, EXCEPT
when such testimony is INDISPENSABLE
in a crime against the descendant or by
one parent against the other. (Art. 215 FC).
Art. 217 FC. Parental Authority over

foundlings,, abandoned, neglected or
abused children heads of
children’s homes, orphanages &
similar institutions accredited by the
proper government agency.
ORPHANAGE
*Art. 221. – Parents/persons exercising

parental authority civilly liable
for damages caused by minors/
unemancipated children living in their
company and under their parental
authority, subject to defenses provided
by law.
Art. 223. – Parents or those exercising

parental authority may petition the
COURT for an order providing for
disciplinary measures over the child.
¾ may include commitment of the child

for not >30 days in accredited children’s
homes.
Art. 225. F and M exercise legal

guardianship over property of common
child; disagreement F’s decision,
unless judicial order to the contrary;
market value of minor’s prop. > P 50K
BOND as the court may determine
but NOT < 10% of the value of
property/annual income of the child.
PARENTAL AUTHORITY TERMINATES

PERMANENTLY UPON: (Art. 228 FC)
1. the death of parents;
2. the death of the child;
3. emancipation of the child;
4. adoption of the child;
5. appointment of a general
guardian;
6. judicial decree of
abandonment;
7. final judgment of a Unless
competent court divesting subsequently
parental authority; revived by
8. judicial declaration of a final
judgment
absence/incapacity of person
(Art. 229).
exercising parental authority
SUSPENSION OF PARENTAL AUTHORITY

1. Conviction of a crime with the penalty of civil
interdiction. (Art. 230)
2. Court action, if parent: (Art. 231)
a. treats the child w/ excessive harshness or
cruelty;
b. gives the child corrupting orders, counsel or
example ;
c. compels the child to beg;
d. subjects the child or allows him to be
subjected to acts of lasciviousness;
P. A. automatically reinstated upon service
of penalty/upon pardon or amnesty of
offender. (Art. 230)
P. A. reinstated if the court finds that the
cause has CEASED & will NOT be repeated.
(Art. 231)
P. A. shall be PERMANENTLY DEPRIVED by
the court. (Art. 232)
SALIENTES vs. ABANILLA, GR 162734, 8/29/06
Marie Antonette
Loran
Salientes
Abanilla
Habeas corpus
Lorenzo case
2 yrs. old
Under Article 211 of the FC, the father and

mother have joint parental authority and custody
over their son. In the absence of a judicial grant of
custody to one parent, both parents are entitled to the
custody of their child. Having been deprived of the
right to see his child, the remedy of habeas
corpus is available to the father.
Santos vs. CA, GR 113054, Mar. 16, 1995

W hen a parent entrusts the custody of a minor
to another, such as a friend or godfather, even in a
document, what is given is merely temporary
custody and it does not constitute a renunciation
of parental authority. Even if a definite
renunciation is manifest, the law still disallows
the same.
Perez vs. CA, GR 118870,

Mar. 29, 1996
Only the most compelling of reasons shall justify
the court’s awarding custody of a child to someone
other than his mother, such as her unfitness to
exercise sole parental authority.
Art. 218. Special Parental Authority

School, its administrators and teachers or
individual/institution engaged in child care;
while minor child is under their supervision
or custody; principally and solidarily liable
for damages caused by acts of the minor;
parents/substitute parents are only
subsidiarily liable.
ST. MARY’S ACADEMY vs. CARPITANOS,

GR 143363, February 6, 2002
The proximate cause of an injury is

that cause which, in a natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any
efficient intervening cause, produces the
injury and without which the result would
not have occurred. The negligence of
the minor driver, (James Daniel II),
OR the detachment of the steering
wheel guide of the jeep owned by
Villanueva, was the proximate cause
of the accident, hence, petitioner may
not be held liable for the death of
Sherwin Carpitanos.
ST. JOSEPH’S COLLEGE, et. al. vs. JAYSON

MIRANDA, GR 182353, June 29, 2010
During a science experiment about fusion of
sulphur powder and iron fillings with Rosalinda
Tabugo as subject teacher and employee of SJC,
Jayson looked into the test tube with a magnifying
glass. The compound in the test tube spurted out
hitting Jayson’s eyes and the different parts of the
bodies of his group mates. Jayson had to undergo
surgery and had to spend for his medication.
Q: Were petitioners negligent, hence, liable

for damages to Jayson?
A: YES. The proximate cause of Jayson’s injury

was the concurrent failure of petitioners to prevent
the foreseeable mishap that occurred during the
science experiment. Petitioners were negligent
by failing to exercise the higher degree of
care, caution, and foresight incumbent upon
the school, its administrators and teachers.
However, Jayson is partly responsible for

his own injury, hence, he should not be
entitled to recover damages in full but must
bear the consequences of his own negligence.
SUMMARY JUUDICIAL
PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE
FAMILY CODE
Summary Judicial
Proceedings
Art. 41 - Declaration of presumptive death of
absentee spouse;
Art. 51 - Delivery of presumptive legitimes to
legitimate children;
Art. 69 - Fixing of the family domicile;
Art. 73 - Exercise of profession/vocation;
Art. 96/124 - Administration of ACP/CPG;
Art. 217 - Parental authority over foundlings, etc.;
Art. 223 - Disciplinary measures over child;
Art. 225 - Judicial bond over property of child;
Art. 239 - Judicial authorization when spouses
are separated de facto.
USE OF SURNAMES
1. Legitimate/Legitimated/illegitimate/
legally adopted children;
2. Married Woman;
a). Annulment of marriage
b). Death of the husband
c). Legal separation of spouses
3. Identity of names & surnames;
4. Usurpation of name & surname;
5. Use of pen names or stage names.
REMO vs. HON. SEC. OF FOREIGN

AFFAIRS, GR 169202, Mar. 5, 2010
ISSUE: Whether Ma. Virginia Remo Rallonza who
originally used her husband’s surname in her
expired passport can revert to her maiden
surname in the new passport despite the
subsistence of her marriage.
HELD: Sec. 5 (d) of RA 8239 allows a married

woman to revert to the use of her maiden name in
her passport ONLY when there is death of the
husband, divorce decree, annulment or nullity of
marriage.
HATIMA YASIN vs. SHARIA DISTRICT

COURT, GR 94986, Feb. 23, 1995
A married woman has an option

but not a duty to use the surname of
the husband in any of the ways under
Art. 370 NCC. When petitioner married
her husband, she did not change her
name but only her civil status. The
true and real name of a person is that
given to him/her and entere ed in the
civil register.
CHANGE OF NAME
REPUBLIC vs. JENNIFER B. CAGANDAHAN,

GR 166676, Sept. 12, 2008
HELD: Where the person is biologically intersex,
the determining factor in his gender
classification would be what he, having
reached majority age, with good reason,
thinks of his/her sex.
ROMMEL SILVERIO vs. REPUBLIC,

GR 174689, Oct. 22, 2007
HELD: A person’s first name cannot be changed
on the ground of sex reassignment. No law
allows the change of entry in the birth
certificate as to gender on the ground of sex
reassignment.
FUNERALS: The duty and the right to make arrangements

for the funeral of a relative shall be in accordance w/ the
order established for support under Art. 294 (Art. 199 FC):
1. The spouse;
2. The descendants in the

nearest degree;
3. The ascendants in the nearest degree;
4. The brothers and sisters.

Art. 306. Every funeral shall be in keeping with the

of the social position of the deceased.
Art. 307. The funeral shall be in accordance w/ the
expressed wishes of the deceased. In the absence of
such expressed, his religious belief or affiliation shall
determine the funeral rites. In case of doubt, the form
of the funeral shall be decided upon by the person
obliged to make arrangements for the same, after
consulting the other members of the family.
CIVIL REGISTER
A rt. 407 NCC. Acts, events and judicial decrees concerning the
civil status of persons shall be recorded in the Civil register.
Art. 408 NCC. The ff. shall be entered in the civil register:
1. births;
2. marriages;
3. death;
4. legal separations;
5. annulments of marriage;
6. judgments declaring marriage void from the beginning;
7. legitimations;
8. adoptions;
9. acknowledgments of natural children;
10. naturalization;
11. loss of citizenship;
12. recovery of citizenship;
13. civil interdiction;
14. judicial determination of filiation;
15. voluntary emancipation of a minor, and
16. changes of name.

2 Cruz Civillaw

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 Cruz Civillaw

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

DOMINGO vs. SPS. MOLINA, GR 200274, APR. 20, 2016

Q: Was the sale of the conjugal property to Spouses

A: YES. The conjugal partnership of Anastacio & Flora

Anastacio, as a co-owner, had the right to freely sell

Melecio’s recourse as a co-owner of the conjugal

PNB vs. GARCIA et. al., GR 182839, 6/2/14

Q: Is the lot covered by TCT No. 44422 conjugal

A: It is conjugal property. Registration of a property alone in

NOBLEZA vs. NUEGA, GR 193038,

TAN vs. ANDRADE et. al.,

DOS on 4/29/83 to Tan & Proceso Jr.

As a condition sine qua non for the operation

Dela Peña vs. AVILA, GR 187490, 2/8/12

277 sq.m. lot covered by

Q: Is this real property conjugal property of the

Under Art. 160 NCC, all property of the

Since there was no showing as to when

HOMEOWNERS SAVINGS & LOAN BANK vs.

H & L in San Pablo City bought by

Under Art. 124 of the Family Code, in the absence of

PELAYO vs. PEREZ et al, GR 141323, June 8, 2005

Sale is a consensual contract that is perfected by

PNB vs. VENANCIO C. REYES, GR 212483, OCT. 5, 2016

Q.1: Did the CA err in declaring the REM void?

LIM vs. EQUITABLE PCI BANK, now known

The absence of his wife’s signature on the

All property of the marriage is presumed to be

In this case, no evidence was presented

FLORES vs. SPOU

Enrico Edna Arturo Flores

Q: Were the PN and REM executed by Edna

A: YES. Under Art. 124 FC, the

In the event that one spouse is incapacitated or

In this case, the Promissory Note

JADER- MANALO vs. CAMAISA, GR 147978,

A: NO. Under Art. 124 FC, the Court

Art. 147 Art. 148

EQUAL SHARES even if 1 ACTUAL JOINT

CARIÑO vs. CARIÑO, GR 132529, 2/2/01

Susan SPO4 Santiago

P146K death P21K burial

NO ML VOID NO JDNM VOID

BARRIDO vs. NONATO, GR 176492,

Q: What article should govern the disposition of this

SALAS vs. AGUILA, GR 202370, 9/23/13

Eden Aguila Juan Salas, Jr. Rubina Cortez

Joan Jiselle Left the conjugal home;

Article 147 FC applies to the union of parties who are

CHING vs. GOYANKO, JR., GR 165879,

Epifania Joseph, Sr. Maria Ching

The Contract of Sale was null & void for being

ART. 1490 NCC. The H & W CANNOT sell

(1) when a separation of prop. was

(2) when there has been a judicial

The proscription against sale of

AGAPAY vs. PALANG, GR 116668,

Carlina Miguel Palang Erlinda

1. 5/17/73 – 10,080 sq. m. agricultural land w/ TCT in

The provision of law applicable here is

BEATRIZ ACRE et. al. vs. EVANGELINE

Article 148 of the FC is applicable. IF

Art. 150. FAMILY RELATIONS