Persons and Family Relations Q and A, Exercises of Law

Download Persons and Family Relations Q and A and more Exercises Law in PDF only on Docsity! I. Hand W were married in 1990. H, being a member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), was deployed to a rebel-infested area in 1992. Since then, W has not heard from her husband, H. One day, the AFP informed W that H had been declared missing since 1995. In consequence, W diligently pursued all available means to ascertain her husband's whereabouts, but to no avail. Firmly believing that H had already died, W filed a claim before the AFP in 2008 for the death benefits of the missing serviceman. However, the AFP, despite being cognizant of H's status, would not act on the claim, contending that H could not be presumed dead unless a judicial declaration to this effect is issued by the proper court. In what instance/s is a judicial declaration of presumptive death necessary? In this case, is the contention of the AFP correct? Explain. A judicial declaration of presumptive death is necessary, if a spouse has been absent for four (4) consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead, in order to remarry. No, the contention of the AFP is not correct. Under the Family Code, if a spouse has been absent for four (4) consecutive years and the spouse present has a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead, he or she can file a summary proceeding to have the absent spouse declared presumptively dead, in order to remarry. Further, case law dictates that a person in the armed forces who has taken part in war, and has been missing for four (4) consecutive years shall be presumed dead for all purposes. Here, the contention of the AFP is not correct, because H, being a member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) who has taken part in war, and has been missing for four (4) consecutive years shall be presumed dead for all purposes. A judicial declaration of presumptive death is necessary only in case of remarriage but not required on the death benefit claims. II. F, a Filipina, married J, a Japanese, in the Philippines. After three (3) years, they had a falling out and thus, separated. Soon after, F initiated a divorce petition in Japan which was not opposed by J because under Japanese law, a grant of divorce will capacitate him to remarry. F's divorce petition was then granted by the Japanese court with finality. May the legal effects of the divorce decree be recognized in the Philippines, and consequently, capacitate F to remarry here? Explain. Yes, the legal effect of the divorce decree in the Philippines is recognized, and consequently, capacitate F to remarry. Under the Family Code, divorce is allowed in a validly celebrated marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner. Under this rule, the Filipino spouse shall likewise have the capacity to remarry under Philippine law. Further, case law dictates that the Filipino spouse in a mixed marriage, marriage between a Filipino and a foreigner may initiate the divorce proceeding abroad. Here, the legal effect of the divorce decree in the Philippines must be recognized, and consequently, must capacitate F to remarry, because F, a Filipina, who was married to J, a Japanese, may initiate a divorce petition in Japan, which, once granted, will be recognized under the Philippine law and will capacitate her to remarry. III. Before they married in 2000, Nonoy and Daday signed a marriage settlement wherein they agreed that their property relations as husband and wife would be governed by the conjugal partnership of gains. While the marriage was subsisting, they acquired a parcel of land using conjugal funds. The Register of Deeds issued a transfer certificate of title over the said land in the name of “Nonoy, married to Daday”.1âшphi1 Nonoy sold the parcel of land to Barby without Daday’s consent. Daday was not aware of the sale and did not sign the contract of sale. A year after Nonoy and Barby signed the contract of sale, Daday died. When the children of Nonoy and Daday learned about the sale to Barby, they questioned its validity since Daday had not consented to the sale. Nonoy’s position is that Daday’s consent was not required because the property was registered in his name. Is the sale to Barby valid? Explain briefly. No, it is a void sale. Under the Family Code, all property acquired during the marriage, whether the acquisition appears to have been made, contracted or registered in the name of one or both spouses, is presumed to be conjugal. Further, in the absence of authority or consent of the spouse in case of disposition of conjugal property, the disposition shall be void. However, the transaction shall be construed as a continuing offer on the part of the consenting spouse and the third person, and may be perfected as a binding contract upon the acceptance by the other spouse or authorization by the court before the offer is withdrawn by either or both offerors. Here, even though the real property was solely registered under the name of Nonoy, the property is conjugal, since the same was acquired during Nonoy and Daday’s marriage and using conjugal funds. Thus, the sale is void, because the same was made by Nonoy without Daday’s consent. IV. Case law dictates that a divorce decree obtained abroad, can be recognized in the Philippines, upon the filing by the Filipino spouse of a petition for recognition of foreign divorce decree. Here, the RTC is incorrect, because the petition does not have to be filed by the alien spouse or by the alien spouse and the Filipino spouse jointly. The Filipino spouse, himself or herself, can file the petition for recognition of foreign divorce decree. VII. A wife was able to obtain a judicial declaration of her husband’s presumptive death after he had disappeared for 10 years. She then remarried in accordance with law. To her surprise, a few years after her remarriage, her first husband reappeared. Does the first husband’s reappearance automatically, without need of any further add, terminate the second marriage? Explain. No, the first husband’s reappearance, automatically, without need of any further add, does not terminate the second marriage. Under the Family Code, the subsequent marriage referred to in the preceding Article shall be automatically terminated by the recording of the affidavit of reappearance of the absent spouse, unless there is a judgment annulling the previous marriage or declaring it void ab initio. A sworn statement of the fact and circumstances of reappearance shall be recorded in the civil registry of the residence of the parties to the subsequent marriage at the instance of any interested person, with due notice to the spouses of the subsequent marriage and without prejudice to the fact of reappearance being judicially determined in case such fact is disputed. Here, the first husband’s reappearance, automatically, without need of any further add, does not terminate the second marriage, because the first husband must still record an affidavit of reappearance with the civil registry of the residence of the parties to the subsequent marriage. VIII. Two college sweethearts were married inside a Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines with a Supreme Court Justice service as solemnizing officer. A few years following the ceremony, one of the two filed an action for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that the marriage was void ab initio because it was solemnized inside a Roman Catholic church by a Supreme Court Justice, and not a Roman Catholic priest. Is the position legally tenable? Explain No, the position is not tenable. Under the Family Code, a marriage may be solemnized by any incumbent member of the judiciary within the court’s jurisdiction. Further, case law dictates that a Justice of the Supreme Court or an appellate court has the power to solemnize marriages anywhere in the Philippines. Here, the position is not tenable, because the Justice of the Supreme Court can solemnize a marriage inside a Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines, since the Justice has the power to do the same anywhere in the Philippines. IX. A couple executes a prenuptial agreement which principally provides that their marriage shall be valid for only five years but it can be renewed through mutual consent negotiated at least six months before its expiration. Is this contract valid? Explain. No, this contract is invalid. Case law dictates that a marriage can only be terminated through (1) the death of either spouses, (2) a judicial declaration of nullity of marriage, (3) an annulment of marriage by the Court, and (4) a termination of the subsequent marriage upon the reappearance of an absent spouse. Here, the contract is invalid, because expiration of term is not a valid ground to terminate a marriage. X. A corporation which owns a hospital was sued along with a physician for medical malpractice. The corporation moved to dismiss the case, arguing that it was only the physician, the natural person, who could be the subject of any kind of suit. In other words, the corporation argued that it was not a legal person. Is the position of the corporation owning the hospital legally tenable? explain. No, the position of the corporation is untenable. Under the Civil Code, a corporation for private interest or purpose to which the law grants a juridical personality, separate and distinct from that of each shareholder, partner or member is a juridical person. Here, the position of the corporation is untenable, because it is a juridical person. Thus, it can be sued.