CARAG, Esther Claudine C.

1.) I would rule against Zenon’s petition to be recognized.

The Law provides that upon the death of the putative Father, illegitimacy may
only be proved by the Father’s recognition in a birth certificate of the child.

Here, Zenon’s father Benjie died without recognizing Zenon as his illegitimate
child in a birth certificate.
Hence, Zenon’s petition should be denied.

2.) The petition may prosper provided that Letty was already a U.S citizen when
she divorced Meo
Family Code allows a Filipino spouse to remarry after a valid divorce decree was
obtain abroad by his/her foreign spouse.

Here, Meo’s petition may be granted provided that he would show that Letty was
a U.S. citizen when she divorced him and upon proving the divorce decree the
validity of the divorce decree according to the applicable U.S. law
No, my answer would not be the same since the Family Code contemplates the
valid foreign law which governs the status of its citizens, and not administrative
law.
3)
a) Vina’s filiation status would be illegitimate since she was born out of wedlock
and the subsequent marriage was void ab initio due to absence of a marriage
license; hence, Vina was not validly legitimized.
b) The property regime of Marga would be co-ownership under Article 148 of the
Family Code.
Under the said law, the property regime of the parties who lived together as
husband and wife with legal impediment to marry would be governed by the rule
on coownership.
4) The first home can be subject of execution while the second where they reside
cannot be subject of execution
The law provides that a family home which has a value of not exceeding 300,00
pesos cannot be subject of execution so long as a family member resides therein.
Here, the family no longer resides in the first home because they transferred to
the second home
5)Yes, Stephen and Philip are correct.
The law provides that co-owners are free to provide a period for non- partion of a
co-owned property not exceeding twenty years.
Here, although there was an agreement
6) Gabriel can legally claim ownership over the additional 2 meters while Emily
cannot.
The law provides that accretion would entitle the riparian owner to ownership of
the land deposited along his or her property provided that it was purely natural
made and the owner did not do anything to accumulate it.
Here, since Emily constructed a concrete barrier to accumulate the land
deposited, she cannot claim the land added to her property. On the other hand,
the deposited land in Gabriel’s property would be added to his property since it
was purely natural- made and he did not do anything to it.

7) I will advice Elvin that he can waive the fruits that he would be entitled as
payment to the bond required.
Although a usufructuary is required to give a bond, he is also entitled to the fruits
of the property the moment he was given the usufruct.
Hence, I will advise Elvin that he can waive the fruits that he would be entitled as
payment to the bond required.
8) No, Julian is not correct.
The law provides that the debtor is liable even in a fortuitous event if there was
delay in the fulfillment of his obligation. It also provides that there would be no
delay if there was o prior demand.
Here, although there was delay on the part of Mariano to deliver the carbonated
beverages, Julian failed to demand compliance from him after the period they
agreed upon has expired. Since there was no demand, there would be no delay
absent proof to the contrary.

Hence, Julian is not correct.

9) In terms of demandability and enforceability, right is asserted while obligation

is demanded; right can be enforced at all times allowed by law while there are
obligations which are unenforceable until some things needed are complied with;
there would be no delay in the obligation if there is no demand but there is no
such rule in a right.