PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

Persons Assignment for all first year students

Art 1-21, Civil Code (See Outline Below)

I. Effect and Application of Laws (Arts. 1-18)

1. Effectivity of Laws (Art. 2)
a. Publication Requirement; What to Publish
b. Importance of Publication
Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, 29 December 1986, 146
SCRA 446
De Roy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80718, 29 January 1988

2. Ignorance of Law excuses no one (Art. 3)

1. Mistake of law v. Mistake of Fact:

a. Art. 526 –mistake on doubtful or difficult provision of law is

basis for good faith - mitigates but does not extinguish
liability;

b. Art. 1334 – mutual error on legal effect of agreement- may

vitiate consent;

c. Art. 2155 – mistake in payment gives rise to right to return

of erroneous payment
3. Prospective Application of Laws (Art. 4)

1. Exception

a. If provided in the law itself

b. Procedural law
c. Penal law if favorable to the accused
d. Curative and Repealing statutes;
e. Creating new rights
f. Tax statutes
g. Interpretative Statutes

2. Exception to the Exception

a. Ex post facto laws;

Page 1 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

b. Penal laws not favorable to the accused;

c. Substantive laws impairing vested rights.

Valeroso v. People, G.R. No. 164815, 22 February 2008

PNB v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 104528, 18 January
1996
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Health Care
Providers, Inc., G.R. No. 168129, 24 April 2007

4. Acts Contrary to Mandatory or Prohibitory Provisions are Void (Art. 5)

1. Exceptions
a. The law makes the act valid BUT punishes THE VIOLATOR
b. The law itself authorizes its validity
c. The law makes the act only voidable
d. The law declares the nullity of an act but recognizes its
effects as legally existing

5. Waiver of Rights (Art. 6)

1. Requisites
2. Exceptions

a. Waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals

or good customs;

b. If the waiver is prejudicial to a third party with a right

recognized by law.

c. Alleged rights which really do not yet exist, as in the case of

future inheritance

d. If the right is a natural right, such as right to be supported.

 D.M. Consunji vs. CA, G.R. No. 137873, April 20, 2001

 Cui vs. Arellano University 2 SCRA 205

6. Repeal of Laws (Art. 7)

Page 2 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

1. Kinds of Repeal
a. Express
b. Implied (not favored)
2. Effects
3. Sec. 444, Local Government Code
Mecano v. COA, G.R. No. 103982, 11 December 1992

7. Judicial Decisions form part of the law of the land (Art. 8)

1. Doctrine of stare decisis
People v. Licera G.R. No. L-39990, July 2, 1975

8. Duty of Judges (Art. 9)

Chu Jan vs. Bernas, 34 Phil 631 (1916)

9. Doubtful Statues (Art. 10)

People vs. Purisima, G.R. Nos. L-42050-66, L-46229-32, L-46313-16,
L-46997, 20 November 1978

10. Customs (Art. 11-12)

1. Requisites to make a custom an obligatory rule

a. Plurality or repetition of acts;

b. Practiced by the great mass of the social group;
c. Continued practice for a long period of time;
d. The community accepts it as a proper way of acting, such
that it is considered as obligatory upon all

Martinez vs. Van Buskirk, 18 Phil 79 (1910)

Yao Kee vs. Sy-Gonzales, G.R. No. 55960, November 24,
1988

11. Computation of Period and Time (Art. 13)

1. Rule on Computation of Period: First day excluded, last day

included

a. Years- 365 days, unless year identified

b. Months-30 days, unless month identified
c. Days – 24 hours
d. Nights - sunset to sundown

Page 3 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

2. Exception: Computation of age - each year based on birth

anniversary

3. Policy if last day is a Sunday or Legal Holiday

CIR vs. Primetown, G.R. 162155, August 28, 2007

12. Penal Laws (Art. 14)

a. Applicability in the Philippines if committed here

b. Territoriality
c. Exceptions
1. Public International Law (Diplomatic Immunity, etc)
2. Treaty Stipulations

13. Civil Laws (Art. 15-17)

1. General Rule: Nationality Principle

a. Family Rights and Duties
b. Status
c. Condition
d. Legal Capacity

2. Exceptions

a. Property transactions (real or personal) – lex situs,

3. Exception to Exception: National Law of Decedent

a. Order of successional rights
b. Amt of successional rights
c. Intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions
d. Capacity to succeed
e. Art. 26, par. 2 FC
1. Lex Loci Celebrationis
2. Exception: Intrinsic validity and Art. 26, par. 1 FC

 Renvoi Doctrine
 Van Dorn vs. Ronillo, Jr. et al., 139 SCRA 139
 Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera 174 SCRA 653
 San Luis v. San Luis, G.R. Nos. 133743 & 134029,
February 6, 2007

Page 4 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

14. Suppletory application of Civil Code in matters governed by special

law (Art. 18)

II. Human Relations (19-36)

15. Art. 19-21

1. Doctrine of Abuse of Right

a. Requisites

2. Doctrine of Volenti non fit Injuria

3. Damnum Absque Injuria
4. Acts Contra Bonus Mores
Requisites

5. Breach of Promise to Marry

 Uypitching vs. Quiamco, G.R. No. 146322, December 6,

2006
 Wassmer vs. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089, December 26,
1964
 Nikko Hotel Manila Garden, et all vs. Reyes G.R. No.
154259, February 28, 2005
 Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. CA, G.R. No. 97336,
February 19, 1993
 Pe vs. Pe, G.R. No. L-17396, May 30, 1962

 Globe Mackay Cable vs. CA, 176 SCRA 778

 University of the East vs. Jader, G.R. No. 132344,

February 17, 2000
6. Unjust Enrichment (Art. 22)
1. Accion in rem verso

7. Respect for Other’s Privacy, Personality, Etc. (Art. 26)

 Tenchavez vs. Escano, 15 SCRA 355

Page 5 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

 St Louis Realty vs. CA, 133 SCRA 179

 Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 179799,
September 11, 2009

8. Independent Civil Actions

i. Breach of Constitutional and Other Rights - Art. 32

ii. Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries – Art. 33
iii. Refusal or failure of city ot municipal police to render
protection – Art. 34
iv. Quasi Delict or Culpa Aquilana – Art. 2176, 2177

9. Prejudicial Question (Art. 36)

a. General Rule: Criminal Case takes precedence
b. Exception: Sec. 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court
c. Application to civil, criminal, administrative cases
 Capili v. People, G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013
 Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150758, 18
February 2004
 Montañez v. Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, 22 October
2012
 San Miguel Proeprties, Inc., v. Perez, G.R. No.
166836, 4 September 2013

III. Persons (Art. 37-51)

1. Juridical Capacity vs. Capacity to Act

a. Restrictions/Limitations and Modifications on Capacity to Act

2. Natural Persons

a. Beginning and End of Personality

i. When child considered born

b. Theory of General Capacities

 Quimiguing vs. Icao, G.R. No. L-26795, July 31, 1970

 Geluz vs. CA, G.R. No. L-16439, July 20, 1961

Page 6 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

c. R.A. 6809

4. Juridical Persons

a. How Created/ Terminated

b. Theory of Special Capacities

Limjoco vs. Estate of Pedro Fragante, G.R. No. L-770, 27 April

1948

5. Rules on Survivorship

6. Domicile vs. Residence

 Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. CID, 41 SCRA 292

 Republic v. Batuigas, G.R. No. 183110, October 7, 2013
 Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996
 Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300

Page 7 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

ART. 1-51 CIVIL CODE

I. Effect and Application of Laws (Arts. 1-18)

Effectivity of Laws (Art. 2)

1. Publication Requirement; What to Publish
Importance of Publication

Tanada v. Tuvera, G.R. No. L-63915, 29 December 1986, 146 SCRA 446
De Roy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80718, 29 January 1988
People vs., Que Po Lay 94 Phil 640
NPC v. Pinatubo Commercial, G.R. No. 176006, 26 March 2010.
Neri vs. Senate Committee on Accountability of Public Officers G.R. No. 180643 March 25,
2008
Pimentel v. SENATE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, GR No. 187714, March 8, 2011

Ignorance of Law excuses no one (Art. 3)

1. Mistake of law v. Mistake of Fact:
a. Art. 526 –mistake on doubtful or difficult provision of law is basis for good faith - mitigates
but does not extinguish liability;
b. Art. 1334 – mutual error on legal effect of agreement- may vitiate consent;
c. Art. 2155 – mistake in payment gives rise to right to return of erroneous payment

Prospective Application of Laws (Art. 4)

1. Exception
a. If provided in the law itself
b. Procedural law
c. Penal law if favorable to the accused
d. Curative and Repealing statutes;
e. Creating new rights
f. Tax statutes
g. Interpretative Statutes
2. Exception to the Exception
a. Ex post facto laws;
b. Penal laws not favorable to the accused;
c. Substantive laws impairing vested rights.

Valeroso v. People, G.R. No. 164815, 22 February 2008

PNB v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 104528, 18 January 1996
Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc., G.R. No. 168129,
24 April 2007

Acts Contrary to Mandatory or Prohibitory Provisions are Void (Art. 5)

1. Exceptions
a. The law makes the act valid BUT punishes THE VIOLATOR
b. The law itself authorizes its validity

Page 8 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

c. The law makes the act only voidable

d. The law declares the nullity of an act but recognizes its effects as legally existing

Waiver of Rights (Art. 6)

1. Requisites
2. Exceptions
a. Waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs;
b. If the waiver is prejudicial to a third party with a right recognized by law.
c. Alleged rights which really do not yet exist, as in the case of future inheritance
d. If the right is a natural right, such as right to be supported.

D.M. Consunji vs. CA, G.R. No. 137873, April 20, 2001
Cui vs. Arellano University 2 SCRA 205

Repeal of Laws (Art. 7)

1. Kinds of Repeal
a. Express
b. Implied (not favored)
2. Effects
3. Sec. 444, Local Government Code

Mecano v. COA, G.R. No. 103982, 11 December 1992

Judicial Decisions form part of the law of the land (Art. 8)

Doctrine of stare decisis

People v. Licera G.R. No. L-39990, July 2, 1975

Duty of Judges (Art. 9)

Chu Jan vs. Bernas, 34 Phil 631 (1916)

Doubtful Statues (Art. 10)

People vs. Purisima, G.R. Nos. L-42050-66, L-46229-32, L-46313-16, L-46997, 20 November
1978

Customs (Art. 11-12)

1. Requisites to make a custom an obligatory rule
a. Plurality or repetition of acts;
b. Practiced by the great mass of the social group;
c. Continued practice for a long period of time;
d. The community accepts it as a proper way of acting, such that it is considered as obligatory
upon all

Martinez vs. Van Buskirk, 18 Phil 79 (1910)

Yao Kee vs. Sy-Gonzales, G.R. No. 55960, November 24, 1988

Page 9 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

Computation of Period and Time (Art. 13)

1. Rule on Computation of Period: First day excluded, last day included
a. Years- 365 days, unless year identified
b. Months-30 days, unless month identified
c. Days – 24 hours
d. Nights - sunset to sundown
2. Exception: Computation of age - each year based on birth anniversary
3. Policy if last day is a Sunday or Legal Holiday

CIR vs. Primetown, G.R. 162155, August 28, 2007

Penal Laws (Art. 14)

Applicability in the Philippines if committed here
Territoriality
Exceptions
Public International Law (Diplomatic Immunity, etc)
Treaty Stipulations

Civil Laws (Art. 15-17)

General Rule: Nationality Principle
a. Family Rights and Duties
Status
Condition
Legal Capacity
2. Exceptions
Property transactions (real or personal) – lex situs,
Exception to Exception: National Law of Decedent
Order of successional rights
Amt of successional rights
Intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions
Capacity to succeed
Art. 26, par. 2 FC
Lex Loci Celebrationis
i. Exception: Intrinsic validity and Art. 26, par. 1 FC
3. Renvoi Doctrine

Van Dorn vs. Ronillo, Jr. et al., 139 SCRA 139

Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera 174 SCRA 653
San Luis v. San Luis, G.R. Nos. 133743 & 134029, February 6, 2007

Art. 18

Suppletory application of Civil Code in matters governed by special law

II. Human Relations (19-36)

Art. 19-21
Doctrine of Abuse of Right
Page 10 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

Requisites
Doctrine of Volenti non fit Injuria
Damnum Absque Injuria
Acts Contra Bonus Mores
Requisites
Breach of Promise to Marry

Uypitching vs. Quiamco, G.R. No. 146322, December 6, 2006

Wassmer vs. Velez, G.R. No. L-20089, December 26, 1964
Nikko Hotel Manila Garden, et all vs. Reyes G.R. No. 154259, February 28, 2005
Gashem Shookat Baksh vs. CA, G.R. No. 97336, February 19, 1993
Pe vs. Pe, G.R. No. L-17396, May 30, 1962
Globe Mackay Cable vs. CA, 176 SCRA 778
University of the East vs. Jader, G.R. No. 132344, February 17, 2000

Unjust Enrichment (Art. 22)

1. Accion in rem verso

Respect for Other’s Privacy, Personality, Etc. (Art. 26)

Tenchavez vs. Escano, 15 SCRA 355

St Louis Realty vs. CA, 133 SCRA 179
Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 179799, September 11, 2009

Independent Civil Actions

1. Breach of Constitutional and Other Rights - Art. 32
2. Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries – Art. 33
3. Refusal or failure of city ot municipal police to render protection – Art. 34
4. Quasi Delict or Culpa Aquilana – Art. 2176, 2177

Prejudicial Question (Art. 36)

1. General Rule: Criminal Case takes precedence
2. Exception: Sec. 1, Rule 111, Rules of Court
3. Application to civil, criminal, administrative cases

Capili v. People, G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013

Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150758, 18 February 2004
Montañez v. Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, 22 October 2012
San Miguel Proeprties, Inc., v. Perez, G.R. No. 166836, 4 September 2013

III. Persons (Art. 37-51)

1. Juridical Capacity vs. Capacity to Act

a. Restrictions/Limitations and Modifications on Capacity to Act
2. Natural Persons
a. Beginning and End of Personality

Page 11 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

i. When child considered born

b. Theory of General Capacities

Quimiguing vs. Icao, G.R. No. L-26795, July 31, 1970

Geluz vs. CA, G.R. No. L-16439, July 20, 1961

3. R.A. 6809
4. Juridical Persons
a. How Created/ Terminated
b. Theory of Special Capacities

Limjoco vs. Estate of Pedro Fragante, G.R. No. L-770, 27 April 1948

5. Rules on Survivorship
6. Domicile vs. Residence

Moy Ya Lim Yao vs. CID, 41 SCRA 292

Republic v. Batuigas, G.R. No. 183110, October 7, 2013
Frivaldo vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 120295, June 28, 1996
Romualdez-Marcos vs. COMELEC, 248 SCRA 300

THE FAMILY CODE

IV. Marriage

1. Definition (Art. 1)
a. Special Contract vs. Ordinary Contract
2. Requirements (Art. 2-6)
a. Essential
i. Legal Capacity
1. Sex
2. Age
a. 18-21 requires parental consent: voidable if none
b. 21-25 parental advice: valid if none but issuance of marriage license suspended for 3 months
i. Effect if license issued before 3 months – mere irregularity
3. Absence of Impediments (Art.35(4),36-38,52-53)
ii. Consent
b. Formal
c. Effects
i. Absence of Essential or Formal: Void
1. Exception: Art. 35(2)
ii. Defective Essential: Voidable
iii. Irregular Formal: Valid but persons liable punished civilly, criminally or administratively
1. Exception: Voidable if no consent from parents, either or both of contracting parties at 18 or
above but below 21
3. Authority of solemnizing officer (Art 7)
a. Persons authorized

Page 12 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

b. Exception: Either or both parties in good faith, person unauthorized to solemnize marriage
Art. 35(2)

Navarro v. Domagtoy, A.M. No. MTJ-96-1088, July 19, 1996

4. Valid Marriages License

a. Art. 9, Art. 10, Art. 20
b. Marriages Exempt from Marriage License (Art. 27-34)
i. No Good faith exception
c. When either or both parties are foreign citizens, Stateless persons or refugees (Art. 21)

Kho v. Republic, G.R. No. 187462, June 1, 2016

Niñal vs. Bayadog, G.R. No. 133778, March 14, 2000
Diaz-Salgado v. Anson, G.R. No. 204494, July 27, 2016
Republic v. Dayot, G.R. Nos. 175581 & 179474, March 28, 2008

5. Marriage Ceremony
a. No particular form prescribed
b. Minimum requirements:
i. Appear before Solemnizing officer
1. Proxy Marriage
ii. Declaration that they take each other as husband and wife
iii. Presence of at least 2 witnesses of legal age
1. Absence merely an irregularity

6. Non-Essential/Non-Formal Requirements
a. Marriage Certificate – best evidence
b. Venue of Marriage (Art. 8)
i. Directory, not affect validity of marriage

7. Foreign Marriage
a. General Rule: Where one or both parties to the marriage are citizens of the Philippines, the
foreign marriage is valid in this country if solemnized in accordance with the laws of the country
of celebration
b. Exceptions:
i. contracted by a national who is below 18 years of age
ii. bigamous or polygamous (except as provided in Art. 41, FC)
iii. contracted through mistake of one party as to the identity of the other
iv. contracted following the annulment or declaration of nullity of a previous marriage but before
partition
v. void due to psychological incapacity
vi. incestuous
vii. void for reasons of public policy
c. Divorce (Art. 26(2))
i. Requisites
1. Valid marriage between Filipino citizen and foreigner
2. Valid divorce obtained by alien spouse capacitating him/her to remarry

Page 13 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

Garcia v. Receio, G.R. No. 138322, Oct. 2, 2002

Rep. vs. Cipriano Obrecido III, GR No. 154380, Oct. 5, 2005
Van Dorn vs. Ronillo, Jr. et al., 139 SCRA 139
Republic vs. Iyoy, G.R. No. 152577, 21 September 2005, 470 SCRA 508
Fujiki v. Marinay, G.R. No. 196049, June 26, 2013
Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas, G.R. No. 186571, August 11, 2010

Void Marriage
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, March 4, 2003
A.M. No. 02-11-12-SC, March 4, 2003

1. Where any party is below 18, even with consent of parents/guardians (Art. 35(1))
2. Absence of authority of person who solemnized the marriage (Art. 35(2))
a. Exception: Any or both of parties in good faith
3. Absence of Marriage License
a. Exceptions: Art 27-34
4. Bigamous or Polygamous (Art. 35(4))

Santiago v. People, G.R. No. 200233, July 15, 2015

Capili v. People, G.R. No. 183805, July 3, 2013
Tenebro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 150758, 18 February 2004
Montañez v. Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, 22 October 2012

a. Presumptive Death (Art. 41)

i. Effect of Reappearance of Absent Spouse

Republic v. Tampus, G.R. No. 214243, March 16, 2016

Republic v. Sareñogon, Jr., G.R. No. 199194, February 10, 2016

5. Mistake in (Physical) Identity (Art. 35(5))

6. Void Subsequent Marriage
a. Without judicial declaration of nullity of previous void marriage (Art. 40)

Domingo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104818, September 17, 1993

Castillo v. De Leon Castillo, G.R. No. 189607, April 18, 2016
Montañez v. Cipriano, G.R. No. 181089, 22 October 2012
Vitangcol v. People, G.R. No. 207406, January 13, 2016
Cariño v. Cariño, G.R. No. 132529, February 2, 2001

b. Without judicial declaration of presumptive death of absent spouse (Art. 41)

c. Where the absent spouse was presumed dead, and both the present spouse and would–be
spouse were in bad faith in contracting marriage (Art. 44)
d. Failure to record in the civil registry and registry of property the judgment of annulment or of
absolute nullity of the marriage, partition and distribution of the property of the spouses and the
delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes (Arts. 52–53)
e. Effect of Termination of Subsequent Marriage (Art. 43)
i. Children of the subsequent marriage conceived prior to its termination shall be considered
legitimate;
Page 14 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

ii. Dissolution & liquidation of the absolute community or conjugal partnership. If either spouse
acted in bad faith, his share in the net profits shall be forfeited:
1. In favor of the common children;
2. If none, in favor of the children of the guilty spouse by previous marriage; or
3. In default of children, in favor of the innocent spouse;
iii. Donations by reason of marriage remain valid except if the donee contracted the marriage in
bad faith;
iv. The innocent spouse may revoke the designation of the spouse in bad faith as the beneficiary
in any insurance policy; and
v. The spouse who contracted the subsequent marriage in bad faith shall be disqualified to inherit
from the innocent spouse by testate or intestate succession
7. Psychological Incapacity
a. Elements
b. Molina Doctrine

Republic v. Molina G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997

Marcos v. Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000
Castillo v. Republic, G.R. No. 214064, February 6, 2017
Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA, GR No. 119190, Jan. 16, 1997
Noel Buenaventura v. CA, et al., GR No. 127358, March 31, 2005
Carating-Siayngo vs. Siayngo, G.R. No. 158896, October 27, 2004
Ngo Te v. Yu-Te, G.R. No. 161793, February 13, 2009
Matudan v. Republic, G.R. No. 203284, November 14, 2016

8. Incestuous (Art. 37)

a. Between ascendants and descendants of any degree
b. Between brothers and sisters whether of the full or half blood
9. Void for Reasons of Public Policy
a. Collateral blood relatives whether legitimate or illegitimate up to the 4th civil degree
b. Step–parents & step children
c. Parents–in–law & children–in–law
d. The adopting parent & the adopted child
e. The surviving spouse of the adopting parent & the adopted child
f. The surviving spouse of the adopted child & the adopter
g. Adopted child & a legitimate child of the adopter
h. Adopted children of the same adopter
i. Parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed the latter’s spouse, or his/her
spouse.
j. There is no need for conviction in a criminal case of the guilty party. The fact of killing
committed by one of the parties to the marriage can be proved in a civil case

Mallion vs. Alcantara, G.R. No. 141528, October 3, 2006

Republic v. Olaybar, G.R. No. 189538, February 10, 2014
Garcia-Quiazon v. Belen, G.R. No. 189121, July 31, 2013

Page 15 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

Voidable Marriage
A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, March 4, 2003
A.M. No. 02-11-12-SC, March 4, 2003

1. Grounds: Must exist at time of Marriage (Art. 45)

a. 18 or over but below 21 without consent of parents or guardian
b. Either party unsound mind
c. Consent obtained by Fraud
i. Non-disclosure of previous conviction by final judgment – crime involving moral turpitude
ii. Wife Concealed pregnancy by another at time of marriage

Aquino vs. Delizo, G.R. No. L-15853, July 27, 1960

Anaya vs. Palaroan, GR. No. L–27930, November 26, 1970

iii. Concealment of STD existing at time of marriage

iv. Concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism at time of
marriage
d. Consent obtained by force, intimidation or undue influence
e. Either physically incapable of consummating marriage, incapacity continues and appears to be
incurable
i. Doctrine of Triennial Cohabitation

Sarao vs. Guevarra, G.R. No. 47063, 40 OG 263 (CA)

f. Either party afflicted with serious STD which appears to be incurable

2. Persons who may file action for annulment, Period for filing
a. Parents/Guardian who did not give consent before party reaches 21
b. Party within 5 years from majority unless freely cohabited
c. During the lifetime, either party or any relative or person having legal charge
d. Within 5 years from discovery by injured party unless thereafter freely cohabited
e. Within 5 years after force, intimidation or undue influence ceased by the injured party unless
thereafter freely cohabited
f. Injured party within 5 years from marriage for STD and or incapacity to consummate marriage
3. Role of Prosecuting Attorney/ Public Prosecutor

Tuason vs. CA, G.R. No. 116607, April 10, 1996

4. Effect of Termination of Marriage

a. Children
i. Status
ii. Custody
iii. Support (Spouse, child)
iv. Presumptive Legitime
v. Property Relation
vi. Liquidation of Community of Property
vii. Testate or Intestate Succession

Page 16 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

viii. Insurance Policy

ix. Donation Propter Nuptias

Espiritu vs. CA, G.R. No. 115640, March 15, 1995

Lim-Lua v. Lua, G.R. Nos. 175279-80, June 5, 2013
Mangonon vs. CA, G.R. No. 125041, June 30, 2006
Domingo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104818, September 17, 1993

Legal Separation
A. M. NO. 02-11-11-SC, March 15, 2003
A.M. No. 02-11-12-SC, March 4, 2003

1. Grounds (Art. 55)

Gandionco v. Peñaranda, G.R. No. 79284, November 27, 1987

a. Effects of Filing Petition

Sabalones v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 106169, February 14, 1994

b. Cooling-off Period (Art. 58); Sec. 19, RA 9262

Somosa-Ramos v. Vamenta Jr., G.R. No. L-34132, July 29, 1972

2. Grounds for Denial of Petition (Art. 56)

Ong Eng Kiam v. Ong, G.R. No. 153206, October 23, 2006
Bugayong v. Ginez, G.R. No. L-10033, December 28, 1956
Busuego v. Office of the Ombudsman, G.R. No. 196842, October 9, 2013
Sy v. Eufemio, G.R. No. L-30977, January 31, 1972

3. Period for filing (Art. 57)

4. Effects of Decree of Legal Separation

Siochi v. Gozon, G.R. No. 169900, 169977, March 18, 2010

Maquilan v. Maquilan, G.R. No. 155409, June 8, 2007

5. Effects of Reconciliation

Rights and Obligations Between Husband and Wife

(Art. 68-73)

Goitia vs. Campos-Rueda, 35 Phil 252 (1916)

Arroya vs. Vazquez de Arroyo, 42 Phil 54 (1921)
Illusorio v. Bildner, G.R. No. 139789 & 139808, 12 May 2000
Tenchavez v. Escaño, G.R. No. L-19671, [November 29, 1965], 122 PHIL 752-776)

Property Relations Between Husband and Wife

Page 17 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

1. Marriage Settlement
a. Requisites
b. Modifications: Must be made before marriage
i. Exception: Judicial Separation of Property During Marriage (Art. 76)

Pana v. Heirs of Juanite, Sr., G.R. No. 164201, December 10, 2012

2. Absence of Marriage Settlement, Joint Administration (Art. 96, Art. 124(1))

a. General Rule: Property Relation governed by Phil Laws (Art. 80)
b. Exception:
i. Both spouses aliens
ii. As to extrinsic validity of Contracts
1. Not situated and executed in the Philippines
2. Situated in the foreign country but not executed in the Philippines
iii. Contrary Stipulation
3. In case of Disagreement, Husband’s Decision Prevails
a. Wife – relief from courts within 5 years from transaction
4. Incapacity of Spouse or cannot provide for joint administration – Assumption of Sole
Administration (Art. 96, 124(2))
5. Transfer of Administration (Art. 142)
6. Administration vs. Acts of Ownership
7. Management of Household
8. Failure to Comply with Obligation (Art. 101, 128)
9. Donations By Reason of Marriage
a. Requisites
b. Distinguished from ordinary donation

Valencia v. Locquiao, G.R. No. 122134, October 3, 2003

10. Donation Between Spouses during the marriage

Matabuena v. Cervantes, G.R. No. L-28771, March 31, 1971

Arcaba v. Vda. de Batocael, G.R. No. 146683, November 22, 2001

11. Grounds for Revocation

Property Relations Governed By

1. Marriage Settlement
2. By provisions of the Code
3. By Local Customs
Absolute Community of Property

1. General Rule: consist of all property owned by the spouses at the time of the marriage or
acquired thereafter (Art. 91)
2. Exceptions
a. property acquired before the marriage by either spouse who has legitimate descendants by a
former marriage
b. property for personal and exclusive use except jewelry
Page 18 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

c. property acquired during the marriage by gratuitous title, except when the donor, testator or
grantor expressly provides otherwise (Art. 92)

Nobleza v. Nuega, G.R. No. 193038, March 11, 2015

3. Administration and Disposition

Flores v. Spouses Lindo, Jr., G.R. No. 183984, [April 13, 2011

4. Rule on Game of Chance

5. Remedies of Present Spouse in case of Abandonment

De la Cruz v. De la Cruz, G.R. No. L-19565, January 30, 1968

6. Charges upon and Obligations

7. Liquidation (Art. 102)
8. Grounds for Termination (Art. 99)

Conjugal Partnership of Gains

1. Properties under Conjugal Partnership of Gains

Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143286, April 14, 2004

Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Posadas, Jr., 56 Phil 215 (1931)
Jocson v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-55322, February 16, 1989
Jovellanos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 100728, June 18, 1992
Castillo, Jr. v. Pasco, G.R. No. L-16857, May 29, 1964

2. Exclusive Property of Each Spouse (Art. 109)

Magallon v. Montejo, G.R. No. 73733, December 16, 1986

Vda. de Padilla v. Vda. de Padilla, 74 Phil 377 (1943)
Lilius v. Manila Railroad Co., 62 Phil 56 (1935)

3. Rule in case of Improvement of Exclusive Property

a. Accession
b. Reverse Accession

Villanueva v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 74577, December 4, 1990

4. Charges Upon and Obligations

BA Finance Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-61464, May 28, 1988
Security Bank v. Mar Tierra Corp., GR No. 143382, November 29, 2006
Carandang v. Heirs of de Guzman, G.R. No. 160347, November 29, 2006
Spouses Go v. Yamane, G.R. No. 160762, May 3, 2006
Ching v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124642, February 23, 2004
Borlongan v. Banco de Oro, G.R. Nos. 217617 & 218540 (Resolution), April 5,

Page 19 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

2017
Lacson v. Diaz, G.R. No. L-19346, May 31, 1965
Pana v. Heirs of Juanite, Sr., G.R. No. 164201, December 10, 2012
Spouses Wong v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 70082, August 19,
1991

5. Administration of Conjugal Partnership Property

Pelayo v. Perez, G.R. No. 141323, June 8, 2005

Homeowners and Savings Loan Bank vs. Dailo, GR No 153802, March 11,
2005
Jose Uy vs. CA, G.R. No. 109557, November 2, 2000
Jader-Manalo v. Spouses Camaisa, G.R. No. 147978, January 23, 2002
Spouses Guiang v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125172, June 26, 1998

6. Dissolution and Liquidation

Quiao v. Quiao, G.R. No. 176556, July 4, 2012
Domingo v. Spouses Molina, G.R. No. 200274, April 20, 2016

Separation of Property

1. Marriage Settlement (Art. 134)

2. Judicial Order
a. Causes
b. Effects

Union Without Marriage

1. Art. 147 and 148

a. Applicability
b. Salaries and Wages
c. Property Acquired Exclusively By other Party
d. Property Acquired by Both
e. Presumption

Valdes v. RTC, Br. 102, Quezon City, G.R. No. 122749, July 31, 1996
Diño v. Diño, G.R. No. 178044, January 19, 2011
Barrido v. Nonato, G.R. No. 176492, October 20, 2014
Agapay v. Palang, G.R. No. 116668, July 28, 1997]
Manila Surety & Fidelity Co., Inc. vs. Teodoro, G.R. No. L-20530, June 29, 1967
Francisco vs. Master Iron Works & Construction Corp., G.R. No. 151967, February 16, 2005
Atienza vs. De Castro, Atienza v. De Castro, G.R. No. 169698, November 29, 2006

The Family

1. Family Relation
2. Mandatory Prior Recourse to Compromise (Art. 151, NCC)
a. Exceptions

Page 20 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

Martinez v. Martinez, G.R. No. 162084, June 28, 2005

Gayon v. Gayon, G.R. No. L-28394, November 26, 1970

3. Family Home
a. General Rule: Exempt from executions
b. Exceptions

Manacop v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 97898, August 11, 1997

Taneo, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108532, March 9, 1999
Modequillo v. Breva, G.R. No. 86355, May 31, 1990
Patricio v. Dario III, G.R. No. 170829, November 20, 2006
Eulogio v. Bell, Sr., G.R. No. 186322, July 8, 2015

Legitimate Children

1. General Rule: Conceived or born during a valid marriage

De Jesus v. Estate of Dizon, G.R. No. 142877, October 2, 2001

Social Security System v. Aguas, G.R. No. 165546, February 27, 2006

2. Exceptions
a. Artificial Insemination
b. Born of voidable marriage before decree of annulment
c. Conceived or born before judgment of nullity under Art. 36 has become final and executory
d. Conceived or born of Subsequent marriage under Art. 53
e. Conceived or born of mothers who might have declared against legitimacy or sentenced as
adultress
f. Legally adopted
g. Legitimated
3. Rules on Impugning Legitimacy
a. Generally instituted only by husband
b. Prescriptive period
c. Exception: Heirs may file
1. Husband dies before period expires (have the remainder)
2. Posthumous birth (full period)
3. Continue case instituted by husband
d. Grounds

Concepcion v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 123450, August 31, 2005

Estate of Ong v. Diaz, G.R. No. 171713, December 17, 2007
Benitez-Badua v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105625, January 24, 1994
Geronimo v. Santos, G.R. No. 197099, September 28, 2015
Salas v. Matusalem, G.R. No. 180284, September 11, 2013
Babiera v. Catotal, G.R. No. 138493, June 15, 2000
Agustin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162571, June 15, 2005
Angeles v. Angeles, G.R. No. 153798, September 2, 2005

Page 21 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

Ilano v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104376, February 23, 1994

Herrera v. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, June 15, 2005

4. Actions to claim Legitimate/ Illegitimate Status

a. Who can claim
b. Proof of Filiation

People v. Malapo, G.R. No. 123115, August 25, 1998

Mendoza v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 86302, September 24, 1991
Liyao, Jr. v. Tanhoti-Liyao, G.R. No. 138961, March 7, 2002
Verceles vs. Posada, G.R. No. 159785, April 27, 2007

5. Adoption
a. Domestic Adoption Act
b. Inter-country Adoption

In the Matter of the Adoption of Stephanie Nathy Astorga Garcia, G.R. No.
148311, March 31, 2005
In Re: Petition for Adoption of Michelle P. Lim and Michael Jude P. Lim, G.R.
Nos. 168992-93, May 21, 2009

Support

1. Basis: Financial Capacity of Giver, Needs of Recipient

a. Not based on parental authority, hence hoes not terminate with emancipation
2. Coverage
a. Substance
b. Dwelling
c. Clothing
d. Medical Attendance
e. Education
f. Transportation
3. Kinds
a. Legal
b. Judicial
c. Conventional
4. Characteristics
a. Personal
b. In transmissible
c. Not subject to waiver or compensation
d. Exempt from attachment or execution
e. Reciprocal
f. Provisional Character of Support Judgment
g. Mandatory
5. Persons Obliged to Support each other (Art. 195)
6. Order of Liability if Several Persons Obliged to give Support (Art. 199)

Page 22 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

Magnonon vs. CA, G.R. No. 125041, June 30, 2006

Dadivas de Villanueva vs. Villanueva, 54 Phil 93 (1929)
Quintana vs. Lerma, 24 Phil 285 (1913)
Francisco vs. Znadueta, 61 Phil 752 (1935)
Ramirez vs. Redfern, 49 Phil 849 (1926)

Parental Authority

1. General Rule: Exercised Jointly

2. Exceptions:
a. Judicial Order to the Contrary
b. Illegitimate Child
c. Parental Preference Rule
d. Rule in case of Legal Separation
3. Persons exercising Substitute Parental Authority (Art. 216)
4. Persons exercising Special Parental Authority (Art. 218)
5. Kinds of Properties of a Minor
a. Adventitious
b. Profectitious
6. Grounds for Suspension of Parental Authority
a. Emancipation
b. Death
c. Adoption
d. Appointment of another as general guardian
e. Judicial Declaration of Abandonment
f. Final Judgment Divesting Parental Authority
i. Excessive harshness
ii. Corrupting orders
iii. Compelling child to beg
iv. Rape
v. Acts of lasciviousness
vi. Judicial declaration of incapacity
g. Permanent/ Temporary

Santos vs. CA, G.R. No. 113054, March 16, 1995

Sagala-Eslao vs. CA, G.R. No. 116773, January 16, 1997
Vancil vs. Belmes, G.R. No. 132223, June 19, 2001
Espiritu vs. CA, G.R. No. 115640, March 15, 1995
Luna vs. IAC, G.R. No. L-68374, June 18, 1985
Pablo-Gulaberto vs. Gualberto, G.R. No. 154994 & 156254, June 28, 2005
Briones vs. Miguel, G.R. No. 156343, October 18, 204
St. Mary’s Academy vs. William Carpitanos, G.R. No. 143363, February 6, 2002

Emancipation and Age of Majority

1. Reaching 18 years of Age

2. RA 6809

Page 23 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

Cancellation or Correction of Entries

1. RA 9048
2. Rule 108
3. Grounds

Republic v. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008

Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007

Surname

1. Reason for interest of State

a. Prevent confusion of identity
b. Prevent use of name for illegal purposes
2. Legal Name – What appears in Birth Certificate
3. Change – Rule 103, Rules of Court
a. Court Approval
b. Grounds
i. Ridiculous, Dishonorable
ii. Extreme Difficulty to Pronounce
iii. Adoption of Filipino name to remove traces of alienage
iv. Legal cause – adoption, et al.

Gan v. Republic, G.R. NO. 207147, September 14, 2016

Grande v. Antonio, G.R. No. 206248, February 18, 2014
Republic v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 117209, February 9, 1996
In re: Petition for change of name and/or correction/cancellation of entry in civil registry of
Julian Lin Carulasan Wang, G.R. No. 159966, March 30, 2005
Republic v. Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008
Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 22, 2007
Republic v. CA, GR No. 97906, May 21, 1992

4. Rules on what to use

a. Legitimate or legitimated children
b. Illegitimate children
c. Adopted child
d. Married women
i. May retain maiden name
1. May not do so if has been using husband’s surname for a long time
e. Marriage Annulled
i. Wife guilty
ii. Wife Innocent
f. Legal Separation
g. Death of Husband
h. Persons with same names
i. Usurpation of another’s name

Page 24 of 25
 PERSONS AY 2019-2020 SYLLABUS

Funerals

1. Duty and right to make arrangement about funerals is in accordance with right and
Duty to support under Article 199, FC
2. the funeral shall be in keeping with the social position of the deceased
3. the funeral shall be in accordance with the expressed wishes of the deceased
i. in the absence of the expressed wishes, his religious beliefs or
affiliation shall determine
ii. in case of doubt, the persons in Article 199, FC shall decide
1. any person who disrespects the dead or allows the same shall be liable for damages
If the deceased is married, the tombstone or mausoleum is deemed a part of the funeral expense
and chargeable against the community or conjugal partnership property

Absence

1. Provisional Abesence
2. Declaration of Absence
3. Presumption of Death
4. Reappearance of absentee
a. Effect on subsequent marriage of spouse present
Effect on Properties

Page 25 of 25