Last-Minute Lecture Notes

1. Conflict-of-Laws
a. If spouses are both foreigners, and one of them invokes the provisions of the
Family Code to file for the petition of declaration of nullity of their marriage on
the ground of psychological incapacity, this cannot prosper in light of the
Nationality Principle.
b. In cases of a mixed marriage between a Filipino citizen and a foreigner, whose
marriage was celebrated in the Philippines, the petition for declaration of nullity
on the ground of psychological incapacity advanced by the foreigner will prosper
pursuant to the application of lex loci celebrationis.
2. Human Relations
a. In applying the prejudicial question principle, the sequence of filing of a criminal
and civil question is irrelevant. The important thing is the purpose for which this
principle exists, which is to avoid conflicting decisions.
i. In a Caguioa case, the criminal action was filed first. However, the civil
case was decided sooner. It was ruled here that the signatures concerned
in the criminal case for falsification were genuine. Res judicata was not
applicable, but application of prejudicial question was proper.
b. Compare Article 20 which are acts contrary to law, versus Article 21 which are
acts contrary to morals, good customs, and public policy. If acts were committed
in view of Article 20, intent is immaterial. However, such cannot be made a
ground for claims for moral damages. Article 21, on the other hand, allows for
recovery of moral damages.
c. In the case of Luigi Santos, the acknowledged, illegitimate child of Senator Bong
Revilla, where he did not initially use the surname of Bong Revilla, the Supreme
Court found no credence in his application for change of surname upon entering
show business and desiring to be associated with the Revilla family. The change
of surname is a privilege and not a right.
3. Family Code
a. In a case where spouses were married before the Roman Catholic church and
one of them invoked psychological incapacity in subsequently filing for a petition
for nullity of marriage, the nullification of their marriage before the Catholic
church holds no weight. Article 1 of the Family Code provides that everything
about marriage shall be governed by law, not the Church. This includes the
validity of the marriage.
b. In the case of Republic vs. Olaybar, where Olaybar applied for a CENOMAR and
not granted therefor because the records showed she was already married to a
Korean national, a petition for correction and cancellation of entries before the
civil registry under Rule 108 was filed. Such was the proper recourse.
c. Republic vs. Albios pronounces that the reason behind the contracting of a
marriage is irrelevant for the only thing important is the consent freely given at
the time of the marriage.
 d. Article 26, paragraph 2 was highlighted in the case of Republic vs. Manalo where
it was ruled that who obtained the divorce abroad is irrelevant. What governs is
the effect thereof. If the divorce is valid pursuant to the national law of the
foreigner spouse, the Filipino spouse shall be granted the same rights which
resulted therefrom. The release from the marriage of both spouses shall be
simultaneous.
e. Judicial recognition of a bigamous marriage can be put up as a defense in
criminal actions for bigamy. Separate action is not needed.
f. Only the husband or the wife may file a petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage, with the exception of bigamous marriages where the aggrieved spouse
may file for nullity of the subsequent marriage contracted.
g. The nullity of the marriage of spouses may be raised during the estate
proceedings of one of the spouses who had died.
h. The provision on having concealment of the father in a pregnancy as a ground
for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of fraud can only apply when
the marriage was contracted during the marriage. Article 46 paragraph 2
contemplates of a situation where the pregnancy was existing at the time of the
marriage.
i. The case of Tan-Andal vs. Andal is a landmark case for pronouncing that the
concept of psychological incapacity need not be medical. There is no more need
for a clinical or medical identification of the root cause that must be done
through the testimony of a medical expert. Psychological incapacity refers now
to the personality structure of a person which renders such totally unable to
comply with his or her marital obligations. This can be explained by genuine,
serious, psychic causes attested to by mere ordinary witnesses.
4. Property Relations
a. In the case of Perez vs. Perez-Senarpida, the wife executed a waiver of her
interest over a property that was acquired during her marriage to her husband.
After the waiver, the husband donated that property to the grandchild of a prior
marriage without the consent of the wife. The marriage of the parties was
subsequently declared void on the ground of the psychological incapacity. The
children of this marriage then question the validity of the waiver.
i. Article 89 of the Family Code which prohibits waivers applies only in
Absolute Community of Property or Conjugal Property of Gains property
relation regimes. This is so with the exception of marriages declared void
on the ground of Article 40 of the Family Code.
ii. The property regime here was governed by Article 147. It was that of Co-
Ownership. Properties acquired during the cohabitation of parties
involved in a void marriage, there is a presumption that their property
regime governing is that of co-ownership.
iii. Pursuant to Article 147, Paragraph 3, a co-owner is prohibited from
encumbering his ideal share when the encumbrance is done while the
parties are still co-habiting. Thus, the entire contract of disposition or
 encumbrance of one co-owner during the cohabitation, without the
consent, of the other is entirely void.
b. Article 130 of the Family Code applies in a case where the conjugal partnership
was terminated by reason of the death of one of the spouses and the surviving
spouse failed to liquidate the properties of the terminated marriage within a
period of one-year therefrom. Without liquidation, the husband contracted a
subsequent marriage and sold the conjugal properties of the prior marriage.
i. What is the effect of the failure to liquidate to the sale?
1. Upon the death of the deceased spouse, the conjugal partnership
was already terminated. Automatically therefor, ½ of the assets
thereof had become the exclusive property of the surviving
spouse. The other ½ shall be the estate of the deceased spouse,
to be inherited by their heirs.
2. The sale of the entire co-owned property, without the consent of
the other co-owners, is ineffective against the other co-owners,
but the transaction is not void because such is subject to
ratification. If the other co-owners will eventually ratify the sale,
the ratification shall retroact to the date of the sale.
ii. Was the sale of the conjugal property of the first marriage without the
consent of the second wife valid?
1. Yes, JSP governed the property regime of the second marriage.
c. The proceeds of a loan was not used by the husband for the benefit of the
family. This is in the case of Cordova vs. Ty. The loan was unpaid as the check,
upon presentation, bounced.
5. Quasi-delict
a. In vicarious liability cases, look at the nature of the performance of the
employees.
b. If the functions performed by a government employee are proprietary, the
liability of the State will be that of an ordinary employer under the Civil Code. If
the functions are so alien to that usually undertaken by the government
employee, he shall be considered as a special agent of the State.