Persons and Family Relations

a. Action in Rem Verso (ARV) is the action for recovery provided for under Art. 22. The concept is
not similar with Solutio in Debiti. Both are actions for recovery for something lost without just
cause. In both, there is an obligation to return that what is unduly paid or delivered to him. In
both, the basis of the obligation, the objective is to prevent unjust enrichment. They differ in the
following. As to source, in solutio in debiti, the source is quasi-contract while in ARV, the source
is the law. ARV cannot prosper if the obligation is based on delict, quasi-delict, contract or quasi-
contract. In solution in debiti, there is mistake. If there is mistake, an action in rem verso cannot
prosper.

b. Unfair Competition (UC), Art. 28, NCC. This concept is much broader than the concept in unfair
competition in intellectual property code. The subject in UC in the NCC does not require a
patent. Requisites of UC in Art. 28 of NCC: Force, intimidation, deceit, or any unjust, oppressive
or highhanded method employed in agricultural, commercial or industrial enterprises.

c. Requisites for a Natural Person to acquire legal personality. Keyword: The infant must be alive at
the time he is born if the same has an intra-uterine life of more than 7 months. If the
intrauterine life is less than 7 months, the infant must be alive after 24 hours (NOT deemed born
if it dies within 24 hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb).

d. The law only grants civil personality on the conceived child ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE BENEFICIAL
TO HIM. The conceived child can thus receive donations or become beneficiary in an insurance
contract but civil personality is PROVISIONAL only as it is required to comply with Art. 41 of the
NCC.

The unborn child can be considered a dependent under the CBA…it is explicit in the CBA
provisions in question that the dependent may be the parent, spouse, or a child of a married
employee; or the parent, brother, or sister of a single employee. The CBA did not provide a
qualification for the child dependent, such that the child must have been born or must acquire
civil personality as averred by the employer. (Continental Steel Manufacturing Corp. v. Hon.
Accredited Voluntary Arbitrator, et. al., Oct. 13, 2009)

e. Survivorship. Who between two persons died ahead of the other? There are two laws: Art. 43
NCC and the presumption of survivorship under the ROC. Art. 43 NCC is applicable if the
question is about successional rights and the two persons are heirs of each other. Otherwise,
ROC applies.
Art. 43 – If there is doubt, as between two or more persons who are called to succeed each
other, as to which of them died first, whoever alleges the death of one prior to the other, shall
prove the same; in the absence of proof, it is presumed that they died at the same time and
there shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other.
f. Art. 26, par. 2 FC. Republic v. Manalo Landmark Ruling. Use this ruling in case of mixed marriage,
and if the question refers to the filipino spouse who obtained the decree of absolute divorce
abroad. Regardless of whether the Filipino spouse or the foreigner spouse obtained the divorce
decree, said decree is valid here in the Philippines. If obtained by the foreigner spouse, Art. 26,
par. 2, FC applies. If obtained jointly by the spouse, the case of Medina applies. If obtained by
the Filipino spouse, the case of Manalo applies. Provided that the divorce decree is valid and the
decree allows the spouse to remarry. If both spouses are Filipino citizens, if any of them
obtained a divorce abroad

Medina Case (2016) – Filipino Wife and Foreigner Husband filed for and obtained divorce jointly
in Japan. Filipino wife filed petition for recognition of foreign divorce in RTC. RTC denied petition
for failure of Filipino Wife to prove national law of foreign spouse which allows him to obtain
divorce. Case was raised before the Supreme Court under Rule 45. Ruling: Validity of Divorce
and pertinent laws of Japan are matters that are essentially factual that calls for re-evaluation of
evidence presented before the RTC – appeal before the SC under Rule 45 is incorrect since what
was raised is an issue of fact…case remanded to CA. Filipino Spouse must prove Validity of
divorce and that the decree allows the spouse to remarry.

g. Juridical capacity vis-à-vis capacity to act. Juridical Capacity, which is the fitness to be subject of
legal relations is inherent to every natural person and is lost only through death. Capacity to act
which is the power to do acts with legal effect is acquired and may be lost (Continental Steel v.
Montaño, October 2009)

h. One need not acquire civil personality first before he could die. Death is the cessation of life. Life
is not synonymous with civil personality. Even a child inside the womb already has life. No less
than the constitution recognizes the life of the unborn from conception, that the State must
protect equally with the life of the mother. If the unborn already has life, then the cessation
thereof even prior to the child being delivered, qualifies as death. (Continental Steel v.
Montaño, October 2009)

i. Although marriage is considered a sacrament in the Catholic Church, it has civil and legal
consequences which are governed by the Family Code. Proceeding for church annulment which
is I accordance with the norms of Canon Law is not binding upon the State as the couple is still
considered married to each other in the eyes of the Civil Law. Under BP 129, the RTC shall
exercise original jurisdiction in all actions involving contract of marriage and marital relations xxx
judge in incorrect in dismissing a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on Art. 36
on the ground of lack of jurisdiction reasoning that marriages solemnized by the Church are
governed by its Canon Law and not by the Civil Law. (Tilar v. Tilar, 2017)

j. Marriage between two persons contracted for the sole purpose of one party acquiring American
citizenship in consideration of $2,000.00 is valid and not void ab initio on the ground of lack of
consent. (Republic v. Albios, 2013)