Under the doctrine of lex loci contractus, as a general rule, the law of the place where

a contract is made or entered into governs with respect to its nature and validity,

obligation and interpretation. This has been said to be the rule even though the place

where the contract was made is different from the place where it is to be performed, and

particularly so, if the place of the making and the place of performance are the same

(United Airline v. CA, G.R. No. 124110, April 20, 2001= Lex loci Contractus

At age 18, Marian found out that she was pregnant. She insured her own life and

named her unborn child as her sole beneficiary. When she was already due to

give birth, she and her boyfriend Pietro, the father of her unborn child, were

kidnapped in a resort in Bataan where they were vacationing. The military gave

chase and after one week, they were found in an abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian

and Pietro were hacked with bolos.

Marian and the baby she delivered were both found dead, with the baby’s

umbilical cord already cut. Pietro survived.

Can Marian’s baby be the beneficiary of the insurance taken on the life of the

mother? (2%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

An unborn child may be designated as the beneficiary in the insurance policy of the

mother. An unborn child shall be considered a person for purposes favorable to it

provided it is born later in accordance with the Civil Code. There is no doubt that the

designation of the unborn child as a beneficiary is favorable to the child.

Between Marian and the baby, who is presumed to have died ahead? (1%) (2008

Bar Question)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

If the baby was not alive when completely delivered from the mother’s womb, it was not

born as a person, then the question of who between two persons survived will not be an

issue. Since the baby had an intrauterine life of more than 7 months, it would be

considered born if it was alive, at the time of its complete delivery from the mother’s

womb. We can gather from the facts that the baby was completely delivered. But

whether or not it was alive has to be proven by evidence.

If the baby was alive when completely delivered from the mother’s womb, then it was

born as a person and the question of who survived as between the baby and the mother

shall be resolved by the provisions of the Rules of Court on survivorship. This is

because the question has nothing to do with succession. Obviously, the resolution of

the question is needed just for the implementation of an insurance contract. Under Rule

13, Sec. 3, (jj), (5) as between the baby who was under 15 years old and Marian who

was 18 years old, Marian is presumed to have survived.

In both cases, therefore, the baby never acquired any right under the insurance policy.

The proceeds of the insurance will then go to the estate of Marian.

Will Pietro, as surviving biological father of the baby, be entitled to claim the

proceeds of the life insurance on the life of Marian? (2%) (2008 Bar Question)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

Since the baby did not acquire any right under the insurance contract, there is nothing

for Pietro to inherit

essay.

4. YES, the joint will of Alden and Stela is valid. Being no longer Filipino citizens at the

time they executed their joint will, the prohibition under our Civil Code on joint wills will
no longer apply to Alden and Stela. For as long as their will was executed in accordance

with the law of the place where they reside, or the law of the country of which they are

citizens or even in accordance with the Civil Code, a will executed by an alien is

considered valid in the Philippines. (Art. 816

b. YES, the joint will of Alden and Stela can take effect even with respect to the properties

located in the Philippines because what governs the distribution of their estate is no

longer Philippine law but their national law at the time of their demise. Hence, the joint

will produces legal effect even with respect to the properties situated in the Philippines.

5. Marsha is not estopped from filing an annulment case against John on the

ground of his impotence, because she learned of his impotence after the celebration of

the marriage and not before. Physical incapability to consummate the marriage is a

valid ground for the annulment of marriage if such incapacity was existing at the time of

the marriage, continues and appears to be incurable. The marriage may be annulled on

this ground within five years from its celebration (Art. 45 [5], Family Code)

8. A may avail the minority of B as a defense, but only for B’s share of P 10,000.00. A solidary debtor
may avail himself of any defense which personally belongs to a solidary codebtor, but only as to the
share of that co-deb

5. : If I were the judge, I will not grant the petition. While the decision of the church tribunal annulling
the marriage of the parties may be persuasive, it is not however, binding upon the civil courts. For
psychological incapacity to be a ground for nullity,it must be shown that it was rooted in the history of
the party alleged to be suffering from it, it must be grave, serious, and incurable such that it renders the
person incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations due to causes psychological in nature.
In the case presented, it appears that Ariz fulfilled his marital obligations at the beginning and it was
only after feeling envious about the success of Paz that he started exhibiting violent tendencies and
refused to comply with marital obligations. Psychological incapacity is not mere refusal but outright
incapacity to perform marital obligations which does not appear to be present in the case of Ariz.
(Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490- October 19, 2000) (Central Bar Q&A by Paguirigan, 2023)