Q: In 1989, Charice (Filipina) and Justin (American), were married in the Ph.

In 1990, they
separated and Justin went to Las Vegas where he obtained a divorce in the same year. He then
married another Filipina, Lea, in Canada on Jan 1, 1992. They had 2 sons, James and John (who
were both born in 1992). In 1993, after failing to hear from Justin, Charice married Bugoy
(Filipino), by whom she had a daughter, Regine. In 2009, Regine married James (son of Justine
with Lea) in California, where such marriage is valid.

What is the current status of the marriage of Charice and Justin under Ph laws?
The marriage between Charice and Justin no longer exist for Justin (America) validly obtained a
divorce abroad capacitating him to remarry.

What is the status of the marriage between Charice and Bugoy under Ph laws?
It is valid.
Under Article 26 of the Family Code, divorce validly obtained by the alien spouse capacitating him/her
to remarry, shall likewise capacitate the Filipino spouse to remarry under the Philippine law.
In this case, it is after Justin managed to obtain divorce that Charice remarried, making her subsequent
marriage valid.

What is the status of the marriage between Regine and James under Ph laws?
It is valid.
Marriage between Charice and Justin was validly dissolved in accordance to the national law wherein
Justin filed for divorce, likewise, validly recognized in the Philippines.
Marriage between the son of Justin with another woman and daughter of Charice with another man
does not fall under the incestuous marriages or marriages against public policy. Regine and James do
not have a relationship by affinity thus making them strangers to each other.
Thus, constituting the said marriage valid.

Q: Ricky and Princess were sweethearts and Princess became pregnant. Knowing that Ricky is
preparing for the examinations, Marforth, a lawyer and cousin of Princess, threatened Ricky
with the filing of a complaint for immorality in the SC, thus preventing him from taking
examinations unless he marries Princess. As a consequence of the threat, Ricky married Princess.
Can the marriage be annulled on the ground of intimidation under art 45 of the Family Code?
A: No, it cannot be annulled on the ground of intimidation under art 45 of FC.
Under the law, there is intimidation when one of the contracting parties is compelled by a reasonable
and well-founded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his person and property, or upon the person
or property of his spouse, descendants or ascendants, to give his consent.
In this case, it cannot be fully taken that the actions of Marforth and Princess constitute intimidation
enough to compel Ricky to give his consent.

Q: Agay (Filipina) and Topacio (Australian) got married in the consular office of the Ph in
Australia. According to the laws of Australia, a marriage solemnized by a consular official is
valid, provided that such marriage is celebrated in accordance with the laws of such consular
official. Under Ph law, what is the status of the marriage of Agay and Topacio?
A: It is invalid.
Marriages between Filipino parties abroad may be solemnized by a consul general, consul or vice
consul of the Philippines only on the condition that both parties must be Filipinos. A marriage between
a Filipino and a foreigner abroad solemnized by a Philippine consul appears to be void. This is so
because the very authority of the consul to solemnize the marriage is limited to Filipino citizens.
Suggested answer: It is not valid. The law only provides that the consular general, consul or vice consul
may perform the duties of both the duties of the local civil registrar and the solemnizing officers
between contracting parties who are both Filipinos. In this case, it may be valid under the Australian
laws with regard to Topacio, however, for Agay, the marriage will not be recognized here. Under
Article 15 of the CC, laws concerning family rights and duties, status, and capacity to persons are
binding to Filipino citizens wherever they may be. In our laws, we do not allow marriages performed
by a consular office between a Filipino and a foreigner.

Q: Separation of property between spouses during the marriage may take place only:
a. by agreement of the spouses
b. if one of the spouses has given ground for legal separation
c. upon order of the court
d. if one spouse has abandoned the other

Q: The husband may impugn the legitimacy of his child but not on the ground that:
a. the wife is suspected of infidelity
b. the husband had a serious illness that prevented him from engaging in sexual intercourse
c. they were living apart
d. he is physically incapable of sexual intercourse

Q: A marriage is void if:

a. solemnized with a marriage license issued without complying with the required 10-day posting
b. solemnized by a minister whom the parties whom the parties believe to have the authority
c. between parties both 23 years of age but without parental advice
d. none of the above

Q: A husband by chance discovered hidden treasure on the paraphernal property of his wife. Who owns
the discovered treasure?
a. the half pertaining to the husband (finder) belongs to the conjugal partnership
b. the half pertaining to the wife (owner) belongs to the conjugal partnership
c. one half shall belong to the husband as finder and the other half shall belong to the wife as owner of
the property
d. a and b

Q: Which of the ff marriages is void for reasons of public policy?

a. between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood
b. between step-parents and step children
c. between parents in law and children in law
d. b and c

Q: The ff constitute the different circumstances or case of fraud which will serve as ground for the
annulment of a marriage, except?
a. non disclosure of the previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving
moral turpitude
b. concealment of a sexually-transmitted disease, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of the
marriage
c. concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time
of marriage
d. concealment by the wife or the husband of the fact of sexual relations prior to the marriage
Q: Which of the ff is not a requisite for a valid donation propter nuptias?
a. the donation must be made before the celebration of the marriage
b. the donation shall be automatically revoked in case of non-celebration of the marriage
c. the donation must be made in consideration of the marriage
d. the donation must be made in favor of one or both of the future spouses

Q: Who are illegitimate children?

a. children conceived or born outside a valid marriage
b. children born under a valid marriage, which was later declared void because of the psychologial
incapacity of either or both of the spouses
c. children born under a valid marriage, but the parents later obtained a legal separation

Q: Ricky donated 1M to the unborn child of his pregnant girlfriend, which she accepted. After 6
months of pregnancy, the fetus was born and baptized as Angela. However, Angela died 20 hours after
birth. Ricky sought to recover the 1m. Is Ricky entitles to recover?

Q: The petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based allegedly on the
psychological incapacity of the respondent, but the psychologist was not able to personally
examine the respondent and the psychological report was based only on the narration of
petitioner. Should the annulment be granted?
A: No, it shall not be granted.
Granting the petition of declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity
does not need the experts’ testimonials. The decision should not be based on narrations of the petitioner
or of any witnesses presented. Accepting those as evidences is like giving evidentiary weight to
hearsays.
Thus, it should be based on the totality of the evidence presented by the alleging spouse of the alleged
mental condition of his or her spouse in order to convince the court to grant the petition.

Q: Cipriano and Lady Miros married each other. Lady Miros then left for the US and there, she
obtained American citizenship. Cipriano later learned all about this including the fact that Lady
Miros had divorced him in America and that she had remarried there. He then filed a petition for
authority to remarry, invoking par 2, art 26 of the family code. Is Cipriano capacitated to re-
marry by virtue of the divorce decree obtained by his Filipino spouse who was later naturalized
as an American citizen?
A: Yes. He is capacitated to remarry.
Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the FC provides that the Filipino spouse is capacitated to remarry under
the Philippine law, provided that the foreigner spouse validly obtained a divorce abroad capacitating
him or her to remarry.
The purpose of this provision is to avoid the absurd situation where the Filipino spouse remained
married to the foreigner spouse even the latter is already capacitated by his national law to remarry and
deemed as single.

Q: After they got married, Nikki discovered that Christian was having an affair with another woman.
But Nikki decided to give it a try and lived with him for 2 years. After 2 years, Nikki filed an action for
legal separation on the ground of Christian’s sexual infidelity. Will the action prosper?
Q: A petition for declaration of nullity of a void marriage can only be filed by either the husband
or the wife? Do you agree? Explain your answer.
Yes. It may only be filed by the contracting parties.
Under the Supreme Court Resolution No. AM 02-11-10-SC, which took effect on March 15, 2003,
provides that only the contracting parties (husband and wife) can file legal action to declare their
marriage void.

Q: A and B are married. They have 2 children, C and D. C is married to X and they have a son E.
Y is married to D and they have a daughter F. E and F got married. Is their marriage valid and
why?
A: No. It is void for it is a marriage against public policy.
E and F are first degree cousins, they fall under collateral blood relatives within fourth civil degree.
Thus, marriage is void.

Q: Maria and Luis, both Filipinos, were married by a catholic priest in Lourdes Church, QC in
1992. Luis was drunk on the day of his wedding in fact, he slumped at the altar soon after the
ceremony. After marriage, Luis never had a steady job because he was drunk most of the time.
Finally, he could not get employed at all because of drunkenness. Hence, it was Maria who had to
earn a living to support herself and her child begotten by Luis. In 1996, Maria filed a petition for
annulment of marriage in the church on the ground of psychological incapacity to comply with
his marital obligations. Her petition was granted by the church matrimonial.
a. Can Maria not get married legally to another man under Ph laws after her marriage to Luis
was annulled by the church matrimonial court? Why?
b. What must Maria do to enable her to get married lawfully to another man under Ph law.
ANSWER:
a. no, maria cannot validly contract a subsequent marriage without a court declaration of nullity of the
first marriage. The law does not recognize the church declaration of nullity of a marriage.
b. to enable maria to get married lawfully to another man, she must obtain a judicial declaration of
nullity of the prior marriage under art 36 of the family code.

Q: A and B are married. A has been absent for a period of 5 years without B knowing his
whereabouts. B then got married to C, without prior declaration of A’s presumptive death.
a. Is the marriage valid?
b. Suppose, in the problem given above. It was A who got married. Is the marriage valid?
ANSWER:
a. b and c’s marriage is considered void presuming that the marriage took place before family code
took effect, under the provision of the civil code, the absent spouse must be missing for 7 years. The
family code provides that if the absent spouse is missing for a period of 4 years with a well-founded
belief that he/she is dead, the present spouse can then file for a declaration of presumptive death for
purposes of remarriage.
b. the marriage contracted by a will not be valid. Because his marriage with b is still considered valid
and subsisting under philippine laws. Bigamous marriages are considered valid only when the present
spouse filed for a petition of presumptive death on the absent spouse and the absent spouse reappears
but do not take action to file an affidavit of reappearance. The subsequent marriage contracted by the
present spouse will be considered valid.
Q: X, an MTC judge of Manila, was invited to attend a marriage celebration in Baguio City.
Since Y, the judge who was supposed to solemnize the marriage was unable to attend, he was
asked to solemnize the marriage. Is the marriage valid?
A: Yes, the marriage is valid.
A judge acting beyond his court’s jurisdiction in solemnizing marriage will not affect the validity of the
marriage as it is a mere irregularity.
However, the judge may be held criminally, civilly, or administratively liable.

Q: Suppose A justice of the CA who is a resident of Quezon City solemnized a marriage in Baguio
City while on vacation, is the marriage valid?
A: A judge of an appellate court may solemnize marriages in any part of the Philippines.
Incumbent Justices of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, Sandiganbayan and Court of Tax
Appeals have authority to solemnize marriages in any part of the Philippines, regardless of the venue,
provided the requisites of the law are complied with.

Q: The petitioner while far from home received some information on the acts of infidelity of his wife.
So he went home to verify the truthfulness of the alleged infidelity. He sough for his wife and after
finding her, convinced her to go with him and live as husband and wife. After 2 days of living as
husband and wife, A, the husband tried to extract the truth about his wife’s unfaithfulness but B, the
wife, instead of answering his query, merely packed up her things and left him. A took that gesture as a
confirmation of the imputation.
(wala ko kahibaw unsay question ani lol)

Q: A, a law student, courted B, a neighbor. B is married to C, a first degree cousin. When B

informed A of her marriage to C, A told her that nothing would happen to her marriage
considering that it is void. A, then persisted in courting B, offering to marry her, until B
consented. They got married. After A fathered a child, he left the conjugal dwelling for no reason
at all and later on B found that he has gotten married to D. In a disbarment proceeding, he
contended that his marriage to B is void hence there was no need to have it declared void. Is his
contention proper? Why?
A: No. It is not proper.
Under Art. 40 of the FC, even the previous marriage is void, declaration of nullity of marriage still
needs to be secured first for purposes of remarriage, otherwise the subsequent will be likewise be void.
Furthermore, being a law student, A should have the necessary foundation of knowledge that a judicial
declaration of a void marriage should be complied with before one could contract a subsequent
marriage.
Thus, he is subject to disbarment.

Q: A and B are married. Their marriage was declared void. After the decision became final, A got
married to C. Is the marriage valid? Why?
Yes, the marriage is valid.
Marriage was contracted after the declaration of nullity of the previous marriage, hence, subsequent
marriage will be valid.

Q: A, an american citizen married B, a filipino, while the former was vacationing in Manila.
When they went to the US, A was divorced by B due to irroncilable conflicts. The decree
capacitated A to remarry under US laws. Can b get married in the PH? Why?
A: Yes, B can get married under the PH laws.
In this case, the 2nd par of Art 26 of FC will apply. It is the foreigner spouse who obtained a divorce
abroad capacitating him to remarry. Hence, the Filipino spouse will likewise be capacitated to remarry
under the PH laws.

Q: Is the rule that for as long as there is a valid existing marriage, a person cannot contract a
subsequent marriage absolute? Why?
A: There are no specific provisions that a person cannot contract a subsequent marriage under the
Philippine laws.
However, marriages should be respected as it is a sacred union between a husband and a wife. It should
be instilled in the minds of the contracting parties that they should observe mutual love, respect and
fidelity and render mutual help and support with each other.
Thus, it is highly discouraged by our laws to engage in an illicit sexual relations under the guise of
matrimony.
Q: Felipe and Felisa, both Filipino citizens, were married in Malolos Bulacan on June 1, 1950. In
1960, Felipe went to the US, became a US citizen in 1975. In 1980 they obtained a divorce from
Felisa, who was duly notified of the proceedings. The divorce decree became final under
California Law. Coming back to the PH in 1982, Felipe married Sagundina, a Filipino citizen. In
2001, Felipe, then domiciled in LA California, died, leaving one child by Felisa, and another by
Sagundina. He left a will which he left his estate to Sagundina and his 2 children and nothing to
Felisa. Sagundina files a petition for the probate of Felipe’s will. Felisa questions the intrinsic
validity of the will, arguing that her marriage to Felipe subsisted despite the divorce obtained by
Felipe because said divorce is not recognized in the Philippines. For this reason, she claims that
the properties and that Sagundina has no successional rights.
A. is the divorce secured by felipe in california recognizable and valid in the Ph? How does it
affect felipe’s marriage to felisa? Explain.
ANSWER: The divorce secured by Felipe in California is recognizable and valid in the Philippines
because he was no longer a Filipino at that time he secured it. Aliens may obtain divorces abroad which
may be recognized in the Ph provided that they are valid according to their national law (Van Dorn v
Romillo, Quita v CA, Llorente v CA)
With respect to Felipe, the divorce is valid, but with respect to felisa it is not. The divorce will not
capacitate felisa to remarry because she and felipe were both filipinos at the time of their marriage.
However, in DOJ opinion no 134, series on 1993, felisa is allowed to remarry because the injustice
sought to be corrected by art 26 also obtains her case.

Q: In 1989, Maris, a Filipina, married her boss Johnson, an american, in Tokyo in a wedding
ceremony celebrated according to japanese laws. One year later, johnson returned to his native
nevada and he validly obtained in that state an absolute divorce from his wife, maris.
After maris received the final judgment of divorce, she married her childhood sweetheart pedro,
also a filipino citizen in a religious ceremony in cebu city, celebrated according to the formalities
of Ph law. Pedro later left for the US and became naturalized as an american citizen. Maris
followed pedro to the us and after a serious quarrel, maris filed a suit and obtained a divorce
decree issued by the court in the state of maryland.
Maris then returned to the Ph and in a civil ceremony celebrated in cebu city according to the
formalities of Ph law, she married her former classmate Vincent likewise a filipino.
A: was the marriage of maris and johnson valid when celebrated? Is their marriage still validly
existing now? Reasons.
ANSWER: the marriage or maris and johnson was valid when celebrated because all marriages
solemnized outside the Ph (Tokyo) in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they are
solemnized (japan), and valid there as such, are also valid in the Ph.
Their marriage no longer validly subsists, because it has been dissolved by the absolute divorce validly
obtained by johnson which capacitated maris to remarry.

Q: gene and jane, filipino, met and got married in england while both were taking up post-
graduate courses there. A few years after their graduation, they decided to annul their marriage.
Jane filed an action to annul her marriage to gene in england on the ground of the latter’s
sterility a ground for annulment of marriage in england. The english court declared the marriage
annulled. Returning to the Ph, gene asked you whether or not he would be free to marry his
former girlfriend? What would your legal advice be?
ANSWER: No, gene is not free to marry his former girlfriend. His marriage to jane is valid according
to the forms and solemnities of british law, is valid here. However, since gene and jane are still filipinos
although living in england, the dissolution of their marriage is still governed by Ph law. Since, sterility
is not one of the grounds for the annulment of a marriage under art 45 of the Family code, the
annulment of genes marriage to jane on that ground is not valid in the Ph.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: yes, gene is free to marry his girlfriend because his marriage was validly
annulled in england. The issue of whether or not a marriage is voidable, including the grounds
therefore, is governed by the law of the place where the marriage was solemnized (lex loci
ceebrationis). Hence, even if sterility is not a ground to annul the marriage under the Ph law, the
marriage is nevertheless voidable because sterility makes the marriage voidable under english law.
Therefore, annulment of the marriage in england is valid in the ph.

Q: In 1997, mario and clara, both filipino, were married in the Ph. 3 years later, they went to the
US and established their residence in san fran, california. In 1987, the couple applied for, and
were granted US citizenship. In 1989, mario, claiming to have been abandoned by clara, was able
to secure a decree of divorce in reno, nevada. In 1990, mario returned to the Ph and married
juana who knew well Mario’s past life.
a. is the marriage between mario and juana valid?
ANSWER: yes, because ph law recognizes divorce between mario and clara as valid
SUGGESTED ANSWER: no, the renvoi doctrine is relevant in cases where on country applies the
domiciliary theory and the other the nationality theory, and the issue involved is which of the laws of
the 2 countries should apply to determine the order of succession, the amount of successional rights, or
the intrinsic validity of testamentary provisions. Such issue is not involved in this case.
Yes. Renvoi-which means “referring back” is relevant because here, we are applying us law to mario,
being already its citizen, although the formalities of the second marriage will be governed by ph law
under the principle of lex loci celebrationis.

Q: the marriage of h and w was annulled by the competent court upon finality of the judgment of
nullity. H began looking for his prospective 2nd mate. He fell in love with a sexy woman S who
wanted to be married as soon as possible, ie, after a few months of courtship. As a young lawyer,
you were consulted by H.
a. How soon can H be joined in lawful wedlock to his girlfriend S? Under existing laws, are there
certain requisites that must be complied with before he can remarry? What advice would you
give H?
b. Suppose that children were born from the union of h and w, what would be the status of the
said children? Explain your answer
c. if the subsequent marriage of h to s was contracted before compliance with the statutory
condition for is validity, what are the rights of the children of the first marriage (h and w) and of
the children of the subsequent marriage (h and s)
ANSWER:
a. h, or either spouse for that matter, can marry again after complying with the provisions of art 52 of
the family code, namely, there must be a partition and distribution, of the properties of the spouses, and
the delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes which should be recorded in the appropriate civil
registry and registries of property. H should be so advised.
b. the children born from the union of h and w would be legitimate children if conceived or born before
the decree of annulment of the marriage has become final and executory.
c. the children of the first marriage shall be considered legitimate children if conceived or born before
the judgment of annulment of the marriage of h and w has become final and executory. Children
conceived or born of the subsequent marriage shall likewise be legitimate even if the marriage of h and
s be null and void for failure to comply with the requisites of art 52 of the family code.

Q: one of the grounds for annulment of marriage is that either party, at the time of their
marriage was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease, found to be serious and appears
incurable. 2 years after their marriage, Bethel discovered that her husband James has an STD
which he contracted even prior to their marriage although James did not know it himself until he
was examined 2 years later when a child was already born to them. Bethel sues James for
annulment of their marriage. James opposes the annulment on the ground that he did not even
know that he had such a disease so that there was no fraud or bad faith on his part. Decide.
b. Suppose that both parties at the time of their marriage were similarly afflicted with STD,
serious and incurable, and both knew of their respective infirmities, can Bethel or James sue for
annulment of their marriage?
ANSWER:
a. the marriage can be annulled, because good faith is not a defense when the ground is based upon
STD on the part of either party.
b. yes, the marriage can still be annulled because the fact that both of them are afflicted with STD does
not efface or nullify the ground.
SUGGESTED ANSWER FOR B: no, the marriage can no longer be annulled, because the fact that
both were afflicted and that both knew of their respective infirmities constitutes a waiver of that
ground.

Q: Bert and Baby were married to each other. 6 months later, she discovered that he was a drug
addict. Efforts to have him rehabilitated were unsuccessful. Can Baby ask for annulment of
marriage, or legal separation? Explain.
ANSWER: No, Baby cannot ask for annulment of her marriage or for legal separation because both
these actions had already prescribed. While concealment of drug addiction existing at the time of
marriage constitutes fraud under art 46 of the fc which makes the marriage voidable under art 45 of the
family code, the action must, however, be brought within 5 years from the discovery thereof under art
47, since the drug addiction of bert was discovered by baby in june 1989, the action had already
prescribed in june of 1994. although drug addiction is a ground for legal separation under art 55 and art
57 of the fc requires that the action must be brought within 5 years from the occurrence of the cause.
Since bert had been a drug addict from the time of the celebration of the marriage the action for legal
separation must have been brought not later than dec 1993. hence, baby cannot not bring the action for
legal separation.

Q: D and G, 20 and 19 respectively, both single eloped and got married to each other without
parental consent in the case of G, a teenage student of an exclusive college for girls. 3 years later,
her parents wanted to seek judicial annulment on that ground. You were consulted and asked to
prepare the proper complaint. What advice would you give G’s parents? Explain you answer.
ANSWER: G himself should file the complaint under art 45 of the family code and no longer the
parents because G is already 22 years of age.

Q: Yvette was found to be positive for HIV virus, considered sexually transmissible, serious and
incurable. Her boyfriend Joseph was aware of her condition and yet married her. After 2 years of
cohabiting with Yvette and in his belief that she would probably never be able to bear him a
healthy child, Joseph now wants to have his marriage with Yvette annulled. Yvette opposes the
suit contending that Joseph is estopped from seeking annulment of their marriage since he knew
even before their marriage that she was afflicted with HIV virus. Can the action of Joseph for
annulment of his marriage with Yvette prosper? Discuss fully.

ANSWER: No, Joseph knew that Yvette was HIV positive at the time of the marriage. He is therefore,
not an injured party. The FC gives the right to annul the marriage only to an injured party.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: The action for annulment can prosper because the prescriptive period of 5
years has not yet lapsed.

Q: In 1985, sonny and lulu, filipinos, were married in the PH. In 1987, they separated, and sonny
went to canada, where he obtained a divorce in the same year. He then married another filipina,
auring, in canada on jan 1988. they had 2 sons, james and john. In 1990, after failing to hear
from sonny, lulu married tirso, by whom she had a daughter, verna in 1991, sonny visited the ph
where he succumbed to heart attack.

a. Discuss the effect of the divorce obtained by sonny and lulu in canada.

b. explain the status of the marriage between sonny and auring

c. explain the status of the marriage between lulu and tirso

d. explain the respective filiation of james, john and verna

ANSWER:

a. The divorce is not valid. Ph law does not provide for absolute divorce. Ph court cannot grant it. A
marriage between 2 filipinos cannot be dissolved by a divorce obtained abroad. Ph laws apply to sonny
and lulu. Under art 15 of the civil code, laws relating to family rights and duties, status and capacity of
persons are binding upon citizens of the ph wherever they may be. Thus, the marriage of sonny and lulu
is still valid and subsisting.

b. since the decree of divorce obtained by lulu and sonny in canada is not recognized here in the ph, the
marriage between sonny and auring is void. Any marriage subsequently contracted during the lifetime
of the first spouse shall be illegal and void, subject only to the exception in the cases of absence or
where the prior marriage was dissolved or annulled.

c. the marriage of lulu and tirso is void. Mere absence of the spouse does not give rise to a right of the
present spouse to remarry. Art 41 of the family code provides for a valid bigamous marriage only
where a spouse has been absent for 4 consecutive years before the second marriage and the present
spouse had a well founded belief that the absent spouse is already dead.

d. james, john and verna are illegitimate children since their parents are not validly married. Under art
165 of the family code, children conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate, unless
otherwise provided in this code.

Q: Flor and Virgillo were married to each other in roxas city in 1980. in 1984, flor was offered a
teaching job in canada which she accepted. In 1989, she applied for and was granted canadian
citizenship. The following year, she sued for divorce from virgillio in a canadian court. After
virgillo was served with summons, the canadian court tried the case and decreed the divorce.
Shortly thereafter, flor married a canadian. Can virgillo marry again in the ph? Explain.

ANSWER: No, virgillo cannot validly remarry. His case is not covered by art 26 of the FC, for the said
article to be applicable, the souse who filed for divorce must be a foreigner at the time of the marriage.
Since both of them were filipinos at the time of the marriage, the divorce obtained by flor did not
capacitate virgillo to remarry. The fact that flor was already an alien at the time she obtained the
divorce does not give virgillo the capacity to remarry under ph law.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: yes, virgillo can validly remarry. Under art 26 of the FC merely states the
alien spouse without taking into consideration his or her nationality at the time of the marriage. While
his case is not covered by the letter of art 26 or the fc, it is, however, covered by the spirit of the said
article, the injustice to the filipino spouse sought to be cured by said article is present in this case.

Q: ben and eva were both filipino citizens at the time of their marriage in 1967. when their
marriage turned sour ben went to a small country in europe, got himself naturalized there and
then divorced eva in accordance with the law of that country. Later, he returned to the Ph with
his new wife. Eva now wants to know what action or actions she can file against ben. She also
wants to know if she can likewise marry again. What advice can you give her?

ANSWER: Considering that art 26 contemplates a divorce between a foreigner and a filipino, who had
such respective nationalities at the time of their marriage, the divorce in europe will not capacitate the
filipino wife to remarry. The advice we can give her is either to file a petition for legal separation, on
the ground of sexual infidelity and of contracting a bigamous marriage abroad, or to file a petition to
dissolve the conjugal partnership or absolute community of property as the case maybe.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: in our opinion haha – eva, in this case, will also be capacitated to remarry.
While actions for complaint of bigamous and legal separation are possible. Art 26 (2) of the fc will also
capacitate the filipino spouse to contract a subsequent marriage. The intention in this law should not be
confined in the form of its provision. It is clearly an injustice on the part of the filipino spouse to not
have the capacity to remarry again whilst her former husband is allowed to freely remarry without
prejudice to his person. The law governing ben is no longer the Ph law, he is now a foreigner spouse
enabling eva to avail remedy under art 26 (2) of the fc.
Q: on the occasion of a’s marriage to b, her father gave her a donation of a car. Subsequently, the
marriage was annulled because of the psychological incapacity of b. may the father revoke the
donation and get back the car?

ANSWER: no, a’s father may not revoke the donation because a was not in bad faith.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: yes, the donation is revocable. Since the ground for the annulment of the
marriage is the psychological incapacity of b, the judgment was in the nature of a declaration of nullity
under art 36 of the FC and therefore, the donation may be revoked for the reason that the marriage has
been judicially declared void ab initio.

Q: if drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only during
the marriage, would this constitute grounds for a declaration of nullity or for legal separation, or
would they render the marriage voidable?

A: in accordance with law, if drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, lesbianism, homosexuality should
occur only during the marriage, they will not constitute as a ground for declaration of nullity. But they
can constitute as a ground for legal separation. Concealment on the other hand of these issues, can be
considered as fraud, which will then constitute as grounds for declaration of nullity of marriage.

Q: Marvin, filipino and shelley, amerian, both residents of california, decided to get married in
their local parish. 2 years after their marriage, shelley obtained a divorce in california. While in
boracay, marvin met manel, a filipino, who was vacationing there. Marvin fell in love with her.
After a brief courtship and complying with all the requirements, they got married in hongkong to
avoid publicity, it being marvin’s 2nd marriage. Is his marriage to manel valid?

ANSWER: yes, the marriage will not fall under art 35 of the FC on bigamous marriages, provided that
shelley obtained an absolute divorce, capacitating her to remarry under her national law. Consequently,
the marriage between marvin and manel may be valid as long as it was solemnized and valid in
accordance with the laws of hongkong.

Q: in june 1985, james married mary. In 1988, he also married ophelia with whom he begot 2
children, a and b. in 1989, mary died. In 1990, he married shirley and abandoned ophelia. During
their union, james and ophelia acquired a lot worth 300,000. ophelia sues james for bigamy and
prays that his marriage with shirley be declared null and void. James, on the other hand, claims
that since his marriage to ophelia was contracted during the existene of his marriage with mary,
the former is not binding upon him, the same being void ab initio he further claims that his
marriage to shirley is valid and binding as he was already legally capacitated at the time he
married her. Is the contention of james correct?

ANSWER: yes, his marriage to ophelia is void ab initio because of his subsisting prior marriage to
mary. His marriage to shirley after mary’s death is valid and binding.

SUGGESTED ANSWER: no, james is wrong. Art 40 of the fc, provides that the absolute nullity of a
previous marriage may be invoked for purposes of remarriage on the basis solely of a final judgment
declaring such previous marriage void. It can be said therefore, that the marriage of james to shirley is
void since his previous marriage to ophelia, although itself void, had not yet been judicially declared
void.

Q: jose an engineer and marina, a nurse, were married. 6 months after their marriage, jose was
employed in an oil refinery in saudi for a period of 3 years. When he returned to the ph, marina
was no longer living in their house, but in zamboanga, working in a hospital. He asked her to
come home, but she refused to do so, unless he agreed not to work overseas anymore because she
cannot stand living alone. He could not agree as in fact, he had signed another 3 year contract.
When he returned in 1989, he could not locate marina anymore. In 1992, jose filed an action
served by publication in a newspaper of general circulation. Marina did not file any answer, a
possible collusion between the parties was ruled out by the prosecutor trial was conducted and
marina neither appeared nor presented evidence in her favor. If you were the judge, will you
grant the annulment? Explain.

ANSWER: as judge, I will not grant the annulment. The facts do not show any taint of personality
disorder on the part of the wife so as to lend substance to her husband’s averment of psychological
incapacity within the meaning of art 36 of the fc. This particular ground for nullity of marriage was
held to be limited only to the most serious cases of personality disorders. Marina’s refusal to come
home to her husband unless he agreed not to work overseas, far from being indicative of an
insensitivity to the meaning of marriage, or of a personality disorder, actually shows a sensitive
awareness on her part of the marital duty to live together as husband and wife. Mere refusal to rejoin
her husband when he did no accept the condition imposed by her does not furnish any basis for
concluding that she was suffering from psychological incapacity to discharge the essential marital
obligations.

Q: Gemma filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Arnell on the
ground of psychological incapacity. She alleged that after 2 months of their marriage, Arnell
showed signs of disinterest in her, neglected her and went abroad. He returned to the Philippines
after 3 years but did not even get in touch with her. Worse, they met several times in social
functions but he snubbed her. When she got sick, he did not visit her even if he knew of her
confinement in the hospital. Meanwhile, Arnell met an accident which disabled him from
reporting for work and earning a living to support himself. Will Gemma's suit prosper? Explain.

ANSWER: No, Gemma's suit will not prosper. Even if taken as true, the grounds, singly or
collectively, do not constitute "psychological incapacity." In the Supreme Court clearly explained that
"psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and(c)
incurability". The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability to perform one's marital
obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect, difficulty or much less, ill will. Moreover, as ruled in Republic
v. Molina, it is essential that the husband is capable of meeting his marital responsibilities due to
psychological and not physical illness.

What is the status of the ff marriages and why?

a. marriage between 19 yr olds without parental consent

b. marriage between 21 yr olds without parental advice

c. marriage between 2 filipino first cousins in spain where the marriage is valid

d. marriage between 2 filipinos in hongkong before a notary public

e. marriage solemnized by a town mayor 3 towns away from his jurisdiction

ANSWERS

a. The marriage is voidable. The consent of the parties to the marriage was defective. Being below 21
years old, the consent of the parties is not full without the consent of their parents. The consent of the
parents of the parties to the marriage is indispensable for its validity.

b. Between 21-year olds, the marriage is valid despite the absence of parental advice, because such
absence is merely an irregularity affecting a formal requisite i.e., the marriage license and does not
affect the validity of the marriage itself. This is without prejudice to the civil, criminal, or
administrative liability of the party responsible therefor.

c. By reason of public policy, the marriage between Filipino first cousins is void [Art. 38, par. (1),
Family Code], and the fact that it is considered a valid marriage in a foreign country in this case, Spain
does not validate it, being an exception to the general rule in Art. 96 of said Code which accords
validity to all marriage solemnized outside the Philippine x x x and valid there as such.

d. It depends. If the marriage before the notary public is valid under Hongkong Law, the marriage is
valid in the Philippines. Otherwise, the marriage that is invalid in Hongkong will be invalid in the
Philippines.

e. Under the Local Government Code, a town mayor may validly solemnize a marriage but said law is
silent as to the territorial limits for the exercise by a town mayor of such authority. However, by
analogy, with the authority of members of the Judiciary to solemnize a marriage, it would seem that the
mayor did not have the requisite authority to solemnize a marriage outside of his territorial jurisdiction.
Hence, the marriage is void, unless it was contracted with either or both parties believing in good faith
that the mayor had the legal authority to solemnize this particular marriage.

Q: The complete publication of the Family Code was made on August 4, 1987. On September 4,
1987, Junior Cruz and Gemma Reyes were married before a municipal mayor. Was the marriage
valid? 2) Suppose the couple got married on September 1, 1994 at the Manila Hotel before the
Philippine Consul General to Hongkong, who was on vacation in Manila. The couple executed an
affidavit consenting to the celebration of the marriage at the Manila Hotel. Is the marriage valid?

ANSWER:

a. yes, the marriage is valid. The Family Code took effect on August 3, 1988. At the time of the
marriage on September 4, 1987, municipal mayors were empowered to solemnize marriage under the
Civil Code of 1950.
b. A Philippine consul is authorized by law to solemnize marriages abroad between Filipino citizens.
He has no authority to solemnize a marriage in the Philippines. Consequently, the marriage in question
is void, unless either or both of the contracting parties believed in good faith that the consul general had
authority to solemnize their marriage in which case the marriage is valid.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

a. The marriage is not valid. Consuls and vice-consuls are empowered to solemnize marriages between
Philippine citizens abroad in the consular office of the foreign country to which they were assigned and
have no power to solemnize marriage on Philippine soil.

Q: A and B, both 18 years old, were sweethearts studying in Manila. On August 3, 1988, while in
first year college, they eloped. They stayed in the house of a mutual friend in town X, where they
were able to obtain a marriage license. On August 30,1988, their marriage was solemnized by the
town mayor of X in his office. Thereafter, they returned to Manila and continued to live
separately in their respective boardinghouses, concealing from their parents, who were living in
the province what they had done. In 1992, after graduation from college, A and B decided to
break their relation and Philippine Law, his marriage to Anne is void because of parted ways.
Both went home to their respective towns to live and work. 1) Was the marriage of A and B
solemnized on August 30, 1988 by the town mayor of X in his office a valid marriage? Explain
your answer. 2) Can either or both of them contract marriage with another person without
committing bigamy? Explain your answer

ANSWERS:

1) The marriage of A and B is void because the solemnizing officer had no legal authority to solemnize
the marriage. But if either or both parties believed in good faith that the solemnizing officer had the
legal authority to do so, the marriage is voidable because the marriage between the parties, both below
21 years of age, was solemnized without the consent of the parents.
2) Either or both of the parties cannot contract marriage in the Philippines with another person without
committing bigamy, unless there is compliance with the requirements of Article 52 Family Code,
namely: there must be a judgment of annulment or absolute nullity of the marriage, partition and
distribution of the properties of the spouses and the delivery of their children's presumptive legitimes,
which shall be recorded in the appropriate Civil Registry and Registry of Property, otherwise the same
shall not affect third persons and the subsequent marriage shall be null and void
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. Yes, they can. The subsequent marriage contracted by one of the parties will not give rise to bigamy
even in the absence of a court declaration of nullity of the first marriage. The subsistence of a prior
valid marriage is an indispensable element of the crime of bigamy. The prior court declaration of
nullity of the first marriage is required by the Family Code only for the purpose of the validity of the
subsequent marriage, not as an element of the crime of bigamy.

Q: BONI and ANNE met while working overseas. They became sweethearts and got engaged to
be married on NewYear’s Eve aboard a cruise ship in the Caribbean. They took the proper
license to marry in New York City, where there is a Filipino consulate. But as planned the
wedding ceremony was officiated by the captain of the Norwegian-registered vessel in a private
suite among selected friends. Back in Manila, Anne discovered that Boni had been married in
Bacolod City 5 years earlier but divorced in Oslo only last year. His first wife was also a Filipina
but now based in Sweden. Boni himself is a resident of Norway where he and Anne plan to live
permanently. Anne retains your services to advise her on whether her marriage to Boni is valid
under Philippine law? Is there anything else she should do under the circumstances?

ANSWER: If Boni was no longer a Filipino citizen, the divorce is valid. Hence, his marriage to Anne is
valid if celebrated in accordance with the law of the place where it was celebrated. Since the marriage
was celebrated aboard a vessel of Norwegian registry, Norwegian law applies. If the Ship Captain has
authority to solemnize the marriage aboard his ship, the marriage is valid and shall be recognized in the
Philippines. As to the second question, if Boni is still a Filipino, Anne can file an action for declaration
of nullity of her marriage to him.