Lex Defender

Art. 209. Pursuant to the natural right and duty of parents over the person and property of their unemancipated children, parental authority and responsibility shall include the caring for and rearing them for civic consciousness and efficiency and the development of their moral, mental and physical character and well-being. (n) Explanation: Paternal authority patria petestas is the mass of rights and obligations which parents have in relation to the person and property of their children until their emancipation, and even after this under certain circumstances. The article emphasizes that pursuant to the natural right and duty of parents over the person and property of their unemancipated children, parental authority and responsibility includes: (a) the caring for and rearing of such children for civic consciousness and efficiency; and (b) the development of their moral, mental and physical character and well-being. Art. 210. Parental authority and responsibilit

Marquino vs Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC, now Court of Appeals) Eutiquio Marquino and Maria Terenal-Marquino (wife) survived by Luz Marquino, Ana Marquino and Eva Marquino “legitimate children” (Petitioners) v. Bibiana Romano-Pagadora survived by Pedro, Emy, June, Edgar, May, Mago, Arden and Mars Pagadora (Respondents) GR No. 72078, 27 June 1994 Facts: Respondent Bibiana filed action for Judicial Declaration of Filiation, Annulment of Partition, Support and Damages against Eutiquio. Bibiana was born on December 1926 allegedly of Eutiquio and in that time was single. It was alleged that the Marquino family personally knew her since she was hired as domestic helper in their household at Dumaguete. She likewise received financial assistance from them hence, she enjoyed continuous possession of the status of an acknowledged natural child by direct and unequivocal acts of the father and his family. The Marquinos denied all these. Respondent was not able to finis

Kindly share with our classmates and bar examinees.Tips on answering essay questions is helpful to us all.

Art. 173. The action to claim legitimacy may be brought by the child during his or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during minority or in a state of insanity. In these cases, the heirs shall have a period of five years within which to institute the action. The action already commenced by the child shall survive notwithstanding the death of either or both of the parties. (268a) Explanation: Only the child by himself or his guardian, if incapacitated, and in proper cases, the heirs of the child can bring the action to claim the child’s legitimacy. The proper cases where the heirs can bring the action are: (a) death of the child during minority; or (b) death of the child in a state of insanity. The action may be brought by the child during his or her lifetime and even after the death of the parents. If the child is a minor, or is incapacitated or insane, his or her guardian can bring the action in his/her behalf during the chil

SUSAN NICDAO CARIÑO, petitioner, v. SUSAN YEE CARIÑO, respondent. G.R. No. 132529, 2 February 2001 Facts: In 1969 SPO4 Santiago Cariño married Susan Nicdao Cariño. He had 2 children with her. In 1992, SPO4 contracted a second marriage, this time with Susan Yee Cariño. In 1988, prior to his second marriage, SPO4 is already bedridden and he was under the care of Yee. In 1992, he died 13 days after his marriage with Yee. Thereafter, the spouses went on to claim the benefits of SPO4. Nicdao was able to claim a total of P140,000.00 while Yee was able to collect a total of P21,000.00. In 1993, Yee filed an action for collection of sum of money against Nicdao. She wanted to have half of the P140k. Yee admitted that her marriage with SPO4 was solemnized during the subsistence of the marriage b/n SPO4 and Nicdao but the said marriage between Nicdao and SPO4 is null and void due to the absence of a valid marriage license as certified by the local civil registrar. Yee also claimed t

Chapter 6 – Regime of Separation of Property Art. 143. Should the future spouses agree in the marriage settlements that their property relations during marriage shall be governed by the regime of separation of property, the provisions of this Chapter shall be suppletory. (212a) Explanation: The regime of complete separation of property is that matrimonial property regime agreed upon in the marriage settlements by the future spouses whereby each spouse shall own, dispose of, possess, administer, and enjoy his or her separate estate or earnings acquired before and during the marriage without the consent of the other, with each spouse bearing the family expenses proportionally to their earnings and profits of their separate properties. The advantage of this regime is its simplicity. It does not require a complicated liquidation upon the dissolution of marriage. The disadvantage of the regime is that it is based on distrust. It can result in disputes between the spou

Mga kakaibang salita sa panahon ngayon...

from the Philippine Daily Inquirer

SPOUSES ELISEO F. ESTARES and ROSENDA P. ESTARES, petitioners, v. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. DAMASO HERRERA as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 24, Biñan, Laguna PROMINENT LENDING & CREDIT CORPORATION, PROVINCIAL SHERIFF OF LAGUNA and Sheriff IV ARNEL G. MAGAT, respondents. G.R. No. 144755, 8 June 2005 Facts: The spouses Estares secured a loan of P800k from Prominent Lending & Credit Corporation (PLCC) in 1998. To secure the loan, they mortgaged a parcel of land. They however only received P637k as testified by Rosenda Estares in court. She did not however question the discrepancy. At that time, her husband was in Algeria working. The loan eventually went due and the spouses were unable to pay. So PLCC petitioned for an extrajudicial foreclosure. The property was eventually foreclosed. Now, the spouses are questioning the validity of the loan as they alleged that they agreed to an 18% per annum interest rate but PLCC is now charging them 3.5% interest rate

FRANCISCO MUÑOZ, JR., Petitioner, v. ERLINDA RAMIREZ and ELISEO CARLOS, Respondents G.R. No. 156125, 25 August 2010 FACTS: The residential lot in the subject property was registered in the name of Erlinda Ramirez, married to Eliseo Carlos (respondents). On 6 April 1989, Eliseo, a Bureau of Internal Revenue employee, mortgaged said lot, with Erlinda’s consent, to the GSIS to secure a P136,500.00 housing loan, payable within twenty (20) years, through monthly salary deductions of P1,687.66. The respondents then constructed a thirty-six (36)-square meter, two-story residential house on the lot. On 14 July 1993, the title to the subject property was transferred to the petitioner by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale, dated 30 April 1992, executed by Erlinda, for herself and as attorney-in-fact of Eliseo, for a stated consideration of P602,000.00. On 24 September 1993, the respondents filed a complaint with the RTC for the nullification of the deed of absolute sa

Article 107. The rules provided in Articles 88 and 89 shall also apply to conjugal partnership of gains. Explanation: The Conjugal Partnership of Gains (CPG), like the Absolute Community of Property (ACP), start at the precise moment the marriage is celebrated. Any contrary stipulation, express or implied shall be void. The rights, interests, shares and effects of the CPG cannot be waived by either or both parties during the marriage. However, a waiver may take place under the following instances: When there is a judicial separation of property; and After the marriage has been dissolved or annulled.

Article 91. Unless otherwise provided in this Chapter or in the marriage settlements, the community property shall consist of all the property owned by the spouses at the time of the celebration of the marriage or acquired thereafter. Explanation: The community property shall consist of: All the properties separately owned by each spouse at the time of the celebration of the marriage; and All property acquired by each or both spouse during the marriage. The separate properties of each spouse existing at the time of marriage is automatically converted by operation of law into common property, without the necessity of any juridical act transmitting ownership of said separate properties. The following properties are excluded from the community property: Those specifically excluded by agreement in the marriage settlements. Those excluded by law under Art. 92 of this Code.

Just sharing...equivalent to memo plus gold supplement...PhP 10.00 per capsule...available at generika drug stores...

Attached is the JD Curriculum for your perusal. As per discussion, we should expect the following schedule: Tuesdays: 5:30 pm onwards Wednesdays: 5:30 pm onwards Thursdays: 5:30 pm onwards Fridays: 5:30 pm onwards Saturdays: 8:00 am - 5:00 pm

Facts: On 27 August 1949, Benjamin Bugayong married Leonila Ginez at Asingan, Pangasinan. Before he left to continue his work as a US Navy service, he and Leonila stayed at Sampaloc, Manila with his sisters. By July 1951, Leonila left the dwelling of her sister-in-law and informed her husband she will be with her mother in Asingan, Pangasinan. Later, she went to Dagupan City to study in a local college. Benjamin has been receiving letters since July 1951 that Leonila is having an affair with another man, a certain ‘Eliong’. In August 1952, Benjamin returned to the Philippines, went to Pangasinan and sought for his wife whom he met in the house of Leonila’s godmother. They lived again as husband and wife and stayed in the house of Pedro Bugayong, cousin of the plaintiff-husband. On the second day, he tried to verify from his wife the truth of the information he received but instead of answering, Leonila packed up and left him which Benjamin concluded as a confirmation of th

Article 59. No legal separation may be decreed unless the Court has taken steps toward the reconciliation of the spouses and is fully satisfied, despite such efforts, that reconciliation is highly improbable. Explanation: It is state policy to save all marriages as embedded in Article 15 of the Philippine Constitution: Section 1. The State recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development. Section 2. Marriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State. As such, the courts are obliged to exert all efforts to reconcile the spouses. On 15 March 2003, the Supreme Court issued A. M. No. 02-11-11-SC entitled 'Rule on Legal Separation'. Under Sections 8 - 12 of the Rule on Legal Separation, provides the procedures for the pre-trial conference. It is hoped that through these procedures, the couple wil

Facts: Petitioner Alice Van Dorn is a citizen of the Philippines while private respondent Richard Upton is a citizen of the USA. They were married in Hongkong in 1972 and begot two children. The parties were divorced in Nevada, USA in 1982. Alice has then re-married also in Nevada, this time to Theodore Van Dorn. In 1983, Richard filed suit against Alice in the RTC-Pasay, stating that Alice’s business in Ermita, Manila is conjugal property of the parties, and asking that Alice be ordered to render an accounting of that business, and that Richard be declared with right to manage the conjugal property. Alice moved to dismiss the case on the ground that the cause of action is barred by previous judgment in the divorce proceedings before the Nevada Court wherein respondent had acknowledged that he and petitioner had “no community property” as of 11 June 1982. The lower court denied the MTD in the mentioned case on the ground that the property involved is located in the Philippines s

Facts: On 24 May 1981,Cipriano Orbecido III was married with Lady Myros Villanueva at the United Church of Christ in the Philippines in Ozamis City. They had a son and a daughter named Kristoffer and Kimberly, respectively. In 1986, the wife left for US bringing along their son Kristoffer. A few years later, Orbecido discovered that his wife had been naturalized as an American citizen and learned from his son that his wife sometime in 2000 had obtained a divorce decree and married a certain Stanley. He thereafter filed with the trial court a petition for authority to remarry invoking Article 26(2) of the Family Code. Issue: Whether or not Orbecido can remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code. Held: The court ruled that taking into consideration the legislative intent and applying the rule of reason, Article 26(2) of the Family Code should be interpreted to include cases involving parties who, at the time of the celebration of the marriage were Filipino citizens, but

Facts: Petitioner Imelda Pilapil, a Filipino citizen, and private respondent Erich Geiling, a German national, were married in Germany on 07 September 1979. After about three and a half years of marriage, irreconciable differences differences caused Geiling initiating a divorce proceeding against Pilapil in Germany. The Local Court, Federal Republic of Germany, promulgated a decree of divorce on the ground of failure of marriage of the spouses on 15 January 1986. On 27 June 1986, Geiling filed two complaints for adultery before the City Fiscal of Manila alleging in one that, while still married to said Geiling, Pilapil “had an affair with a certain William Chia.” The Assistant Fiscal, after the corresponding investigation, recommended the dismissal of the cases on the ground of insufficiency of evidence. However, upon review, the respondent City Fiscal Victor approved a resolution directing the filing of 2 complaint for adultery against the petitioner. The case enti

Facts: On 26 October 2000,Rita Quiao filed a complaint for legal separation against Brigido Quiao. The RTC ruled in favor of Rita with all their underaged children staying with Rita except Letecia who was of legal age. Their acquired properties will be divided between the respondents and the petitioners subject to the respective legitimes of the children and the payment of the unpaid liabilities of PhP 45,740. The Petitioner's share of the net profits earned by the conjugal partnership is forfeited in favor of the common children. No Motion of Reconsideration or appeal was filed. By 12 December 2005, Petitioners filed for a motion of execution which the trial court granted, and a writ was issued. It was partially executed on 06 July 2006. On 07 July 2006, or after more than 9 months from the promulgation of the decision, the petitioner filed before the RTC a Motion for Clarification, asking the RTC to define the term “Net Profits Earned.” Thus, the RTC explained that the phrase