PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

SEPTEMBER 26, 2020

READ THE INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE YOU START ANSWERING THE
QUESTIONS. NFI – 10 POINTS DEDUCTION FROM TOTAL SCORE.
1. DO NOT WRITE YOUR NAME (AUTOMATIC 10 POINTS DEDUCTION
FROM TOTAL SCORE). INSTEAD WRITE YOUR CODE NUMBER ON THE
SPACE PROVIDED FOR “NAME”;  
2. WRITE YOUR ANSWERS IN THE SAME ORDER THE QUESTIONS ARE
POSED. USE THE NUMBERING SYSTEM IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE.;
3. ANSWERS TO SUB-QUESTIONS MUST BE PROPERLY NUMBERED OR
LETTERED. WRITE ONLY AT THE FRONT, NOT THE BACK PAGE OF EVERY
SHEET UNLESS THE FRONT PAGES ARE INSUFFICIENT THEN START AT
THE BACK PAGE OF THE FIRST SHEET;
4. ANSWER LEGIBLY AND CLEARLY. START EACH NUMBER ON A
SEPARATE PAGE ALTHOUGH ANSWERS TO SUB-QUESTIONS MAY BE
WRITTEN CONTINUOUSLY ON THE SAME PAGE AND SUCCEEDING
PAGES UNTIL COMPLETED;
5. REASON OUT/EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER CITING THE PROVISION OF LAW
AND/OR APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE, A “MERE YES OR NO” WILL NOT
BE GIVEN CREDIT. MOTHERHOOD STATEMENTS DO NOT GET POINTS.
6. EXPLANATION SHOULD BE SHORT BUT COMPLETE, CONCISE AND
CORRECT.
7. DO NOT ERASE, ABBREVIATE OR USE TEXT WORDS.
 I 60%
Spouses Lilo and Stitch were married on September 8, 1987. Two years
after the marriage, Stitch went to Saudi Arabia to work as an engineer in an oil
company but would come home every two (2) years. Lilo, on the other hand, has
her own law/accounting firm. She is also a real estate broker, is engaged in
jewelry selling, stocks and foreign exchange currency trading. They begot three
children, son Disney and daughters Mulan and Minnie who was born in 1992. The
relationship went on smoothly for about ten years or until early 1997 when Stitch
failed to visit his family because, according to Stich, he was up to his neck in work
and his supervisor refused to approve his request for a vacation. He came home
in April 2001, returned to Saudi Arabia in August 2001 and that was the last time
the family had heard of him.

In 2005 Lilo, however, was informed by Lancelot, Stitch’s cousin that Stitch
is actually in Manila, had resigned from his job in 2002 and is currently cohabiting
with Elsa, a former co-worker in Saudi Arabia.

Confronted, Stitch did not deny the accusation and informed Lilo that he
wanted out of the marriage and would rather live with Elsa but will continue to
support her and the children until they complete their tertiary education. In 2006,
Lilo filed a petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Stitch citing the
latter’s psychological incapacity. The petition included the list of their properties
acquired during the marriage consisting of their family home, a condominium unit
at Aeon Abreeza with 50% of the purchase still unpaid, Lalique crystals valued at 3
million pesos, house and lot inherited by Lilo from her grandmother rented out at
P25,000.00 per month and several pieces of jewelry valued at 7.5 million pesos
and a 10 million-peso savings account, half of which she inherited from her
deceased mother in 2000. It was Lilo who had been paying for the Aeon Abreeza
condo unit after Stitch stop sending her money for the payment of the
installments due beginning March 2001. 

The court granted the petition in 2009. Before the decision became final
and executory, however, Lilo discovered 2 condominium units all located at BGC,
Taguig City registered in Stitch’s name but married to Elsa. These condo units
were acquired in 1995.  She then filed a manifestation with urgent motion to
include the said properties in the inventory of their acquired properties. Stitch
opposed the motion contending that he acquired the condo units after he had left
the conjugal home and thus, belonged to him exclusively.  

QUESTIONS:

TRUE OR FALSE.1. The property regime of the spouses Lilo and Stitch is the
conjugal partnership of gains. 2 points. CO-OWNERSHIP UNDER ARTICLE 147
(NOT CPOG)
2. Explain your answer, cite a provision of law and/or jurisprudence. 8 points.
JURISPRUDENCE - PATERNO V PATERNO OR SALAS VS AGUILA, VALDEZ V RTC
BRANCH 102 OF QC

3. Specify the properties that will be included in the dissolution, liquidation and
partition. Explain. 10%

The petition included the list of their properties acquired during the marriage:

1. consisting of their family home, - co-ownership

2. a condominium unit at Aeon Abreeza with 50% of the purchase still unpaid,
- co-ownership, 50% of the paid portion at the time of the cohabitation
3. Lalique crystals valued at 3 million pesos, - co-ownership
4. house and lot inherited by Lilo from her grandmother rented out at
P25,000.00 per month and - paraphernal, including fruits
5. several pieces of jewelry valued at 7.5 million pesos and - -co-ownership
6. a 10 million-peso savings account, half of which she inherited from her
deceased mother in 2000. -5M is paraphernal, 5M co-ownership

4. May Lilo demand the inclusion of the condo units in BGC, Taguig City in the
partition of the properties? Reason. 10% 

YES. SALAS V AGUILA Jurisprudence.

Acquired during the cohabitation. Article 147. UNDER THIS PROPERTY REGIME,
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. (VALDEZ) 3PROPERTIES
ACQUIRED DURING THE UNION OF THE PARTIES WOULD BE GOVERNED BY CO-
OWNERSHIP. (BUENAVENTURA)

5. If yes, is she not estopped by her judicial admission in her petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage when she described with particularity the
properties that she and Stitch have acquired during their marriage? If no, why
not? Reason. 10%

JURISPRUDENCE: SALAS V AGUILA.

Not a judicial admission. She did not know about the properties at the time.
And when she found out, she immediately filed the manifestation to include the
properties.

6. Is the house and lot inherited by Lilo from her grandmother as well the
fruits thereof included in the liquidation of the properties? Explain. 10%

house and lot, fruits and income - PARAPHERNAL (co-ownership)

TRUE or FALSE. 7. The family home shall be awarded to the spouse with whom
the majority children shall choose to remain. 2 points
1. Explain your answer, citing applicable provision of law and /or
jurisprudence. 8 points.

FALSE. MAJORITY OF THE CHILDREN. Articles 102(6) and 129(9).

VALDEZ V RTC (PG 48 TM TSN)

THE PROVISIONS ON THE FAMILY HOME REMAIN IN FORCE AND EFFECT
REGARDLESS OF THE PROPERTY REGIME OF THE SPOUSES. (TITLE V, CHAPTER 2,
FC FOR ART 147 OR 148)

IA. BASED ON THE SAME FACTS.                20%

While the manifestation was being heard by the court, Elsa moved that she
be allowed to intervene because she alleged that these properties in BGC are
hers. She bought it with her own money as she was also gainfully employed at the
time of the acquisition. It was Stitch’s suggestion that the property be registered
in his name but married to her and to avoid argument, she agreed. She presented
receipts issued by Atty. Walangbatas, the condo developer’s lawyer and receipts
from a bank representing payment of Stitch’s loan with the bank.

QUESTIONS:
IA1. If you were the judge, decide. 10%

SALAS V AGUILA. ELSA CANNOT INTERVENE IN THE CASE AS SHE CANNOT

PROVE HER TITLE OR LEGAL INTEREST IN THE PROPERTIES.

IA2. Should Elsa and Stitch terminate their cohabitation, how shall the properties
be divided? Assume that the only properties acquired during their union are the 2
condo units because Elsa decided not to work, instead, she attended to Stitch’s
needs and the maintenance of the family and the household. There were also
some movables where both of them contributed to the purchase thereof. 10%

ARTICLE 148. ACTUAL PROOF OF CONTRIBUTION: MONEY, PROPERTY OR

INDUSTRY. The industry envisioned in Article 148 is not merely administrative.

2 condo units - STITCH. Receipts and bank payments. Title. SALAS V AGUILA

some movables where both of them contributed to the purchase thereof SAGUID
V CA. presumption of equal sharing. PERFECT APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 148.
 II 20%
Jordan and Kim, both capacitated, had been living exclusively as husband
and wife without the benefit of marriage since 1982 (CIVIL CODE). Four years
after the cohabitation, Jordan suggested that they make their relationship legal
and got married before Judge Hues. The judge no longer required them to obtain
a marriage license and instead directed the parties to execute an affidavit of
cohabitation. 

Marked with constant verbal and physical abuse, Kim, in 1987, left the
conjugal home. Jordan, upon knowing that his marriage with Kim is void based on
the opinion of a lawyer-friend, wooed back his high school sweetheart Lisa. Two
years later, Jordan married Lisa. (1989)

In 1993, Kim returned. Threatened with the prospect of facing a scandal

and possible lawsuits, Lisa instituted an action to declare her marriage with
Jordan void despite the latter’s assurance that their marriage is valid because his
and Kim’s marriage is void due to absence of a marriage license.   
1. Is Jordan’s contention that his and Lisa’s marriage is valid tenable? Reason. 5%

JORDAN’S CONTENTION IS UNTENABLE.

QUESTIONS:

HIS MARRIAGE WITH KIM IS NOT YET JUDICIALLY DECLARED VOID. NO JUDICIAL
DECLARATION OF THE PREVIOUS VOID MARRIAGE. ARTICLE 41. MARRIAGE
CONTRACTED BY ANY PERSON DURING SUBSISTENCE OF A PREVIOUS
MARRIAGE SHALL BE NULL AND VOID.
nj

2. If the court grants Lisa’s petition, how shall their properties be dissolved,
liquidated and partitioned? Explain. 5%

ARTICLE 35 (4) - BIGAMOUS MARRIAGE

KIM AND JORDAN - CONJUGAL (ART 129)

JORDAN AND LISA - CO-OWNERSHIP (COHABITATION)
3. Does forfeiture apply? If yes, who forfeits, what will be forfeited and, in whose
favor shall the forfeited share be delivered and why? If not, why not? Explain.
10%

YES. BAD FAITH. ENTIRE SHARE.

SUBSEQUENT VOID MARRIAGE UNDER ARTICLE 40 - When it is terminated, the property shall be
liquidated in accordance to 102 or 129, depending on their property regime in relation to Art. 43 (2)
and Art. 50 of the Family Code.
 PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS
SEPTEMBER 5, 2020
READ THE INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE YOU START ANSWERING THE
QUESTIONS. NFI – 10 POINTS DEDUCTION FROM TOTAL SCORE.
1. WRITE YOUR CODE NUMBER ON THE SPACE PROVIDED FOR “NAME”;  
2. WRITE YOUR ANSWERS IN THE SAME ORDER THE QUESTIONS ARE
POSED. USE THE NUMBERING SYSTEM IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE.;
3. ANSWERS TO SUB-QUESTIONS MUST BE PROPERLY NUMBERED OR
LETTERED. WRITE ONLY AT THE FRONT, NOT THE BACK PAGE OF EVERY
SHEET UNLESS THE FRONT PAGES ARE INSUFFICIENT THEN START AT
THE BACK PAGE OF THE FIRST SHEET;
4. ANSWER LEGIBLY AND CLEARLY. START EACH NUMBER ON A
SEPARATE PAGE ALTHOUGH ANSWERS TO SUB-QUESTIONS MAY BE
WRITTEN CONTINUOUSLY ON THE SAME PAGE AND SUCCEEDING
PAGES UNTIL COMPLETED;
5. REASON OUT/EXPLAIN YOUR ANSWER CITING THE PROVISION OF LAW
AND/OR APPLICABLE JURISPRUDENCE, A “MERE YES OR NO” WILL NOT
BE GIVEN CREDIT; 
6. EXPLANATION SHOULD BE SHORT BUT COMPLETE, CONCISE AND
CORRECT.
7. DO NOT ERASE, ABBREVIATE OR USE TEXT WORDS.

I 40%
Spouses Melencio and Merlinda established a family corporation, MEME
REALTY AND LEASING, INC. (MRLI) engaged in the business of leasing and selling
real properties. Melencio owned 40% of the stocks while Merlinda owned 30%
and their 3 children, namely: Malia married to Jason, Marlo, and Mika 10% each.
When Melencio died, Merlinda acquired all of Melencio’s shares, thereby gaining
effective control over the corporation. She appointed her nephew Kelvin as
member of the board without the concurrence of the other members of the
board granting Kelvin 5% ownership of the shares of stock of MRLI. She also
appointed Kelvin as general manager of the corporation.
 Two years later, Kelvin sued Jason and Malia for estafa for failure to remit
the rentals collected from the commercial building from the time of Melencio’s
death until the filing of the complaint.
The prosecutor found probable cause and filed the information before the
court formally charging Jason and Malia of the said offense.
 Jason then moved for the suspension of the criminal case alleging the
existence of a prejudicial question because of intra-corporate cases he, Malia and
Marlo had filed before the court questioning the authority of Merlinda in
appointing Kelvin as member of the board and without the board’s prior voting
and approval as well as his authority to act for and in behalf of the corporation.
The other case was filed by Marlo and Mika demanding for an accounting of all
corporate funds and assets of MRLI, annulment of sale of MRLI’s 3 parcels of land
without board approval, injunction and damages.
If you were the judge, resolve the motion. 10%

IB. Sometime August 2001, Merlinda’s 18-year old daughter Mika decided
to pursue her interior design studies in London. There she met Scotland-born 16-
year old Andrew, whose parents are Filipinos but permanent residents of
Scotland, who was also pursuing the same course. A 16-year old under the laws of
Scotland is already considered to have full legal capacity. They fell in love and
decided to get married the following year. The future spouses agreed to have
their marriage celebrated before the Consul General of the Philippines but
Andrew’s parents requested in writing that the marriage be held in the garden of
the consular office. The consul general acceded and solemnized the marriage in
accordance with Andrew’s parents’ wishes.
A year after the marriage, Mika and Andrew came to the Philippines and
decided to stay in the country for good. Andrew wanted to purchase a
condominium unit that he and Mika will eventually use as their conjugal home.
Mika, on the other hand, told her mother that she wanted her marriage with
Andrew declared void ab initio because the latter is unable to comply with the
essential marital obligations of marriage as he is suffering from schizophrenia
although its overt manifestations emerged only during the marriage but was
actually already existing during his younger years as attested to by a psychiatrist
in Scotland. This came about when they consulted the psychiatrist when Andrew
would have episodes of sleeplessness, social withdrawal, depression and extreme
reaction to criticism to the point of becoming, sometimes, violent. 
Questions: 1. Is the marriage valid? Explain. 10%
2. If you were the lawyer approached by Andrew on his plan to buy a
condominium unit, what will be your advice? Reason. 10%
3. If the marriage is valid and Mika filed an action for declaration of
nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code and you were the judge,
decide. 10%
 II 10%
TRUE OR FALSE. Write the letter Y if the statement is true and the letter X if the
statement is false.
1. A judge cannot refuse to apply the law even if it is unjust or its decision
becomes unjust by applying the said law.
2. Good faith or absence of malice could be proffered as a defense if
there is refusal or neglect to perform an imperative duty.
3. Capacity to acquire, encumber, assign, donate mortis causa or sell
property depends on the law of the country where the property is
situated.
4. For civil purposes, a foetus is considered bon if it is alive at the time it is
delivered from the maternal womb.
5. A woman cannot be held liable for alienation of affection of the
husband of another woman for being the object of the affections of
said husband. 

III 40%
His business having failed despite efforts to save it and with an
unsympathetic wife, Red decided to leave the conjugal home without giving any
information as to where he would be going. Four years after his disappearance,
Apple filed a petition to declare Red presumptively dead so she can marry Red’s
best friend Blue. The latter and Apple were already meeting on the sly even
before Red’s disappearance thus, with the decree, they can legitimize their
otherwise, illicit relationship.
Apple testified that she searched for Red by going to the only hospital in
their town almost every day looking at the list of their patients as well as to the
funeral parlor but to no avail. She presented Blue and Apple’s best friend
Peaches. Both testified that they never heard from Red from the time of his
disappearance nor had seen him in their respective barangays. She also presented
Red’s sister Ivory, who arrived from Australia two (2) weeks before the hearing of
Apple’s petition, who testified that Red never contacted her nor informed her of
his whereabouts. 
If you were the judge, will you grant the petition? Reason. 10%

No, If I were the judge I would not grant the petition.

According to Article 41 of the family code, to declare a previous marriage null
and void, there must be a well founded belief on the part of the present spouse
that the absent is already dead.
Here, the husband clearly left the conjugal dwelling due to an intense feeling of
discouragement when he loses his business. It cannot be assumed that he is
already dead. Due diligence of finding him should have been exercised more. On
the other hand, the witnesses presented were clearly unreliable due to their
current relationship to the petitioner. One being her secret lover and the other
as best friend. Moreover, the

because of the following reasons; The witnesses are clearly unreliable. Their
current relationship to the petitioner poses a question of collusion- one being
the lover and the other being the bestfriend.

IIIA. Assume that the petition is granted and Blue and Apple contracted
marriage. The parties agreed, in their prenuptial agreement, that their property
relations shall be governed by the conjugal partnership of gains.
Five years after Blue and Apple’s marriage, Red re-appeared and wanted to
resume common life with Apple. The latter refused contending that she is now
married to Blue and has no intention of reconciling with him. Red consulted a
lawyer who advised him of the proper procedure to terminate Apple and Blue’s
marriage. 

QUESTIONS: 1. If you were Red’s lawyer, what procedure should be followed to

terminate Blue and Apple’s marriage? Explain. 10%
2. Suppose Apple adamantly refused to end her marriage with Blue, what
remedy or remedies may Red avail of? Reason. 10%
3. Suppose Apple and Blue decided to sever their marital relationship and
Blue had knowledge of Red’s whereabouts at the time of the hearing of the
petition for declaration of presumptive death but concealed this fact from Apple
what will be the effect or effects of the fact of concealment upon dissolution of
their property regime? Explain. 10%
 IV 10%
    Frankie bought several gallons of alcohol and dozens of face masks from
Chel amounting to P357,750.00. As payment Frankie issued eight (8) checks but
while the first 2 checks were good, the remaining 6 checks were all dishonored for
being drawn against insufficient funds. Despite Chel’s demand, Frankie failed to
make good the dishonored checks because Frankie is encountering liquidity
problems. 
Chel then caused the filing of 6 criminal cases against Frankie. But the court
acquitted Frankie on the ground that no written dishonor was actually served
upon Frankie that is necessary to determine when the 5-day period prescribed in
Section 2 of BP 22 would start and end. Chel subsequently filed a civil complaint
against Frankie for the payment of the value of the alcohol. Frankie filed a motion
seeking the dismissal of the case contending that her liability had been
extinguished by the extinction of her criminal liability. The Rules of Court
specifically prohibit the filing of a separate civil case arising from violations of
Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 as the same are deemed impliedly instituted in the
criminal case. Hence, her acquittal amounts to a finding by the court that she has
no civil liability to speak of. Decide.