Set 1

1. Give your views for and against same sex marriage. Discuss the same in relation
to the Philippine Constitution, existing laws, and the recent US Supreme Court
decision allowing same sex marriage.
I support or affirm in the legalization of same sex marriage in the Philippines.
The right to marry is a basic civil right granted to every citizen. Any form or means
of barring one from exercising it is violative against him.
Section 1 of Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states that no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws. In the Family Code of the
Philippines, marriage was defined as one entered by a man and a woman, and one of
its essential requisites is the legal capacity of the contracting parties who must be a
male and a female. Hence, by Philippine laws, only a male and a female can enter
into a contract of marriage.
In the United States, same-sex marriages became legal nationwide as of June
2015 after the resolution of the recent Obergefell vs. Hodges case by a 5-4 decision.
In the case, the United States Supreme Court held that denial of marriage licenses to
same-sex couples and the refusal to recognize those marriages performed in other
jurisdictions violates the Due Process and the Equal Protection clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Under the authority of the
Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution, the federal
and state government, respectively, are prohibited from depriving any person of "life,
liberty, or property, without due process of law." In the Equal Protection clause, it
states that any State shall not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
Again, the right to marry is a basic civil right of man. Depriving one of it is
violative against the person. The Philippine Constitution does not provide any
provision that discriminates homosexuals and lesbians but it clearly stated in the Bill
of Rights that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property and be denied of
equal protection of the laws. A basic right is barred to be exercised by homosexuals
and lesbians. Hence, this group is, by essence, deprived of their basic rights and is to
be given equal protection by the State.
2.

Discuss the cases of Silverio vs. Republic and Republic vs. Cagandahan.
a) Silverio vs. Republic
The petitioner underwent a biological sex change from male to female
through sex-reassignment-surgery and then sought to amend his birth certificate
to indicate the change in sex as a preliminary step to get married to his partner.
The Supreme Court denied the petition and ruled that the sex of a person is
determined by visually looking at the genitals of the baby at the time of his or
her birth. Such determined sex is immutable and there are no laws that recognize
sex reassignment.

b) Republic vs. Cagandahan

The respondent was found out to have Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia
(CAH) which is a condition where the person afflicted has both male and female
characteristics and organs. By expert evidence, it was shown that the respondent,
though genetically female, secreted male hormones and not female hormones,
had no breast, and did not have any monthly menstrual periods and where the
respondent, in his mind and emotion, felt like a male person and did not want to
have surgery. The Supreme Court considered such person as an "intersex
individual" and granted the preference of the person to be considered as a male
person, thus granted the amendment of the birth certificate.
3.

What is a prejudicial question? Discuss the same in relation to the cases of:
A prejudicial question is one that arises in a case, the resolution of which is a
logical antecedent of the issue involved therein, and the cognizance of which
pertains to another tribunal. There are two cases involved, namely, a civil and a
criminal one. The criminal is suspended because the issues in the civil is the
determinative of the outcome of the criminal case.
The following jurisprudence can better explain what a prejudicial question
is.
a) Fortich Celdran vs. Celdran
A person alleges that his "motion to withdraw" filed in and approved by the
court was falsified and that consequently the decision of the said court was
erroneous and said decision was filed to the Court of Appeals before the said
person filed a criminal case against the accused for falsification of public
document. The Supreme Court held that the resolution in the civil case whether
the motion was authentic or not is determinative of the guilt of the accused in the
criminal suit pending. As such, it is a prejudicial question which must first be
decided before the prosecution can proceed in a criminal case.
b) Landicho vs. Relova
A spouse was charged with bigamy by his first spouse and there after, the
second spouse filed for an annulment of marriage contending that the accused
forced and intimidated her to marry him. The accused filed a third-party
complaint against his first spouse alleging she forced and intimidated him to
marry her. The Supreme Court ruled that the existence of a civil suit does not
constitute a prejudicial question to warrant the suspension of the criminal case
for bigamy because a voidable marriage is validly existing until annulled. He
who then contracts a second marriage assumes the risk of being prosecuted for
bigamy.
c) Zapanta vs. Mendoza

If the situation was that the accused of bigamy was the one who was
intimidated or forced by the second spouse to enter into a bigamous marriage,
his consent was vitiated and cannot be the basis of his conviction for bigamy.
The civil case for annulment of the second marriage is a prejudicial question
which must be decided first before the criminal action against the accused could
proceed.
d) Beltran vs. People
The husband filed for a civil action for declaration of nullity of his marriage
on the ground of psychological incapacity. The wife filed a criminal case for
concubinage against the husband and his paramour. The Supreme Court held that
the civil action does not warrant the suspension of the criminal action for
concubinage because a subsequent judicial pronouncement of the nullity of
marriage is not a defense in concubinage. Moreover, as long as there is no
judicial declaration of nullity of marriage, the presumption is that the marriage
exists for all intents and purposes.
4.

Should we have divorce in the Philippines? Give your thoughts.

I disagree with allowing divorce in the Philippines. It should be noted that the
divorce mentioned is one that dissolves the bonds of matrimony not one that is
considered relative divorce (legal separation).
Marriage is defined under our Family Code as the foundation of the family and
an inviolable social institution. It is a generally accepted precept that the family is a
basic unit in the society. A disfunctional family creates a disfunctional society. There
are certain grounds for an action for divorce like incompatibility, irremediable
breakdown of marriage, irreconcilable differences, short marriage, personal
differences, etc. Simply put, one could easily get a divorce than that of annulment or
legal separation. A family could easily be separated and create a disfunctional one.
Think of the consequences on the child as it could disillusion him.
Hence, divorce should not be allowed as it detriments the family and the society.
Marriage should be considered as a responsibility not as an accessory or a simple
union of man and woman.

5.

Is a foundling like Senator Grace Poe qualified to run for President in the
Philippines? Discuss the same in relation to the Philippine Constitution,
international law, and other legal sources.
Senator Grace Poe is qualified to run for Philippine Presidency.
The Constitution is mandated under the doctrine of parens patriae to care for
abandoned children. Furthermore, according to Section 2 of Article IV of the 1987
Constitution, natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from
birth, without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine
citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3),

Section 1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens. Section 2. Also, Section 2 of

Article 2 of the same states that the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of
national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part
of the law of the land and adheres to the policy of peace, equality, justice, freedom,
cooperation, and amity with all nations.
The 1961 United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness provided
comprehensive measures in order to protect children from acquiring "stateless
status." It provides in its 2nd Article that a foundling found in the territory of a
Contracting State shall, in the absence of proof to the contrary, be considered to have
been born within that territory of parents possessing the nationality of that State.
However, the Philippines is not a signatory to said Convention.
The provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution must be interpreted in
conjunction with its Social Justice provisions, which expressly provide that the
promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the
people should be the concern of the State. Social justice means that the State shall
look after the best interest of those who have less in life, such as abandoned children,
should have more in law. Unfortunately, there are no existing Philippine laws that
provide citizenship to stateless children. In such absence of laws, the State will
adhere to the principle of international law. On the matter of Grace Poe and of those
which are substantially similar to her case, international laws will be upheld despite
the fact the Philippines was not a signatory to it. International law can be used by
Philippine to settle domestic disputes by virtue of doctrine of incorporation inferred
in Section 2 of Article 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. As to the
consideration whether the foundling be a natural-born citizen, the
interpretation of the term "father" in the provision on natural-born citizens of
the Constitution must include "adoptive fathers" on matters referring to
"stateless children" or, in the case of Grace Poe, a foundling.
6.

Discuss the doctrines in the following cases in relation to judicial discussions

being part of the law of the land.
a) People vs. Jabinal
The accused was a confidential agent and was authorized to possess a
firearm in 1964 pursuant to a prevailing doctrine enunciated by the Supreme
Court in two previous cases, under which no criminal is attached in connection
with the possession of said firearm in spite of the absence of a permit. The
Supreme Court ruled that the accused should be absolved of the crime charged.
Even if the said two decisions were subsequently reversed by the Supreme Court
in 1967, the doctrine laid down by the 1967 decision should be prospectively
applied and prejudice person who relied on the overturned doctrines while the
same were still controlling.
b) Sec. of Justice vs. Catolico

Judicial decisions of the Supreme Court are authoritative and precedentsetting while those of inferior courts and the Court of Appeals are merely
persuasive. It is the duty of judges to apply the law as interpreted by the
Supreme Court.
c) People vs. Licera
Art. 8 of the Civil Code states that judicial decisions applying and
interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form part of the legal system of the
Philippines.
In effect, judicial decisions, although in themselves are not laws, assume the
same authority as the statute itself. Judicial decisions, until authoritatively
abandoned, become the criteria which must control the actuations not only of
those called upon to abide thereby but also those duty bound to enforce
obedience thereto.
d) Apiag vs. Cantero
A judge entered into a second marriage in 1986 without his first void
marriage judicially declared a nullity. The prevailing jurisprudence at the time of
the second marriage was that a judicial declaration of nullity is not needed in
void marriages. Hence, the Supreme Court ruled that the second marriage cannot
be made a basis of administrative liability against the judge for immorality.
7.

What is Article 16? Discuss the same in relation to the following cases:
Article 16 of the Civil Code states that real property as well as personal
property is subject to the law of the country where it is situated.
However, intestate and testamentary successions, both with respect to the
order of succession and to the amount of successional rights and to the intrinsic
validity of testamentary provisions, shall be regulated by the national law of the
person whose succession is under consideration, whatever may be the nature of
the property and regardless of the country wherein said property may be found.
a) Menciano vs. Brimo
A citizen of Turkey made out a a last will and testament providing his
property shall be disposed in accordance with Philippines laws, the Supreme
Court decided ruled that such provision is illegal and void. The Supreme Court
referred to Article 10 (now Article 16) of the Civil Code which states that the
national law should govern and Turkish laws not Philippine laws must apply.
b) Bellis vs. Bellis
A foreigner executed a will in the Philippines but, who, at the time of his
death, was both a national of the United States, specifically Texas, and also
domiciled in the United States. The Supreme Court ruled, in reference to Article
16 of the Civil Code, the successional rights are to be determined under Texas
laws not Philippine laws to the testacy of Bellis (deceased).

Set 2.
1. Is a breach of promise to marry an actionable wrong? Why? Discuss the cases of
Wassmer vs. Velez, Quimiguing vs. Icao, and Constantino vs. Mendez.
A breach of promise to marry is not an actionable wrong. According to Article 2
of the Family Code, the essential requisites of a marriage are: (1) the legal capacity
of the contracting parties who must be a male and a female, and (2) consent freely
given at the presence of the solemnizing officer. Consent must be freely given. If a
person is not willing to marry another, one can't, even by any legal means, compel
him to give his consent. Hence, a mere breach of promise to marry is not an
actionable wrong.
In Wassmer vs. Velez, the plaintiff and the respondent were to celebrate their
marriage. However, on the date of the wedding, the respondent did not appear despite
the wedding preparations made, appearance of relatives, friends, and acquaintances,
and other expenses for the occasion. The Supreme Court held that though the
respondent cannot be compelled to marry the petitioner, he is liable for actual
damages awarded to the plaintiff. Not doing so is contrary to good customs.
In Quimiguing vs. Icao, a married man who forces a woman, not his wife, to
yield to his lust constitutes a clear violation of the rights of his victim which entitled
her to compensation.
In Constantino vs. Mendez, a man invited a woman to a hotel after meeting at a
restaurant. The woman was 28 years old and admitted that she was attracted to the
man and had sexual intercourse with him even after the man confessed he was
married. The Supreme Court held that the woman can't claim she was deceived by
the man in his representation that he would marry her. No damages were awarded to
the woman since her attraction to the man was the reason why she surrendered her
womanhood. Her declaration that their sexual intercourse continued in three months
indicates that passion and not the alleged promise of marriage was the moving force
that made her submit herself to a man.
2.

What is a quasi-delict? Discuss and give examples. Compare the same with an
obligation arising from a contract like that of a contract of carriage.
A quasi-delict is an obligation arising from an act or omission through fault or
negligence causing damages or injury to another, whereby, there exists no preexisting contractual relations between the parties.
For example, in a contract of common carriage, when the driver of a taxi,
through his negligence, causes injury to a passenger. The passenger filed for damages
against the operator. A complaint for liability for quasi-delict will not prosper against
the operator. However, said complaint will prosper if made against the driver. It is so
because in the contract of carriage, the contractual relation exists only between the
operator and the passenger. However, there exists no contractual relation between the
driver and the passenger as it was the driver's negligence that caused the damages.

3.

What is a corporation? What is the advantage of forming a corporation? What

if the doctrine of piercing the veil of the corporate entity? Explain with
examples.
A corporation is an artificial being created by operation of law, having the right
of succession and the powers, attributes, and properties expressly authorized by law
or incident to its existence. One of the very reasons why businessmen form a
corporation is the juridical personality of a corporation which is separate and distinct
than that of each shareholder as stated in Article 44 (3) of the Civil Code. The
responsibilities and rights of corporations are separate and distinct than that of a
shareholder. Hence, a creditor of a corporation will not go after the personal property
of a shareholder to claim for payment of a debt.
However, such separate and distinct personality is not absolute. The doctrine of
piercing the veil of the corporate entity states that if the incorporation was made to
defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud, defend crime, defraud
creditors, and other similar causes, the corporate entity will be pierced or
disregarded. It is then the corporation be treated as an association of persons or,
where there are two corporations, they will be merged as one.

4.

Under Article IV of the 1987 Constitution, who are the citizens of the
Philippines? What and who are the natural-born citizen?
According to Section 1 of Article IV of the 1987 Constitution, the following are
the citizens of the Philippines:
(1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this
Constitution;
(2) Those whose fathers and mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
(3) Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect
Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority; and
(4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with the law.
According to Section 2 of Article IV of the 1987 Constitution, Natural-born
citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth, without having to
perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect
Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 hereof shall be
deemed natural-born citizens.

5.

Discuss the nature and importance of marriage.

According to Article 1 of the Family Code of the Philippines, marriage is a
special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into
accordance with law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. It is the
foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution whose nature,
consequences, and incidents are governed by law and not subject to stipulation,
except that marriage settlements may fix the property relations during the marriage
within the limits provided.

Marriage is a special contract since not only that the parties involved are the
contracting parties, but also the State. Unlike other contracts, marriage is governed
by the law not by mere stipulations agreed upon by the parties except on the property
regime. The State is involved much so because marriage is the foundation of the
family, and a happy and sound family is the framework to a refined and functional
society, which is where marriage's importance exists. Regulating marriage is a means
to protect the family in order for it not to jeopardize the community or the society.
The family is the base where society is cultured.
6.

Discuss psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage

which results to incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations,
making the marriage void. Cite cases in the discussion.
There is no specific definition given by law to the term "psychological
incapacity." Determination is left with the courts on a case-to-case basis. However,
jurisprudence provide distinctive characteristics found in psychological incapacity.
Since it warrants the nullity of marriage, either or both spouse afflicted with it must
be incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations and that their mental
disposition seriously prevents them from having a functional and normal marital life
which should be conducive for a healthy personal inter-marital relationship within
the family.
Psychological incapacity must be a psychological illness afflicting the party
before the celebration of the marriage (Perez vs. Ferraris). It involves a senseless,
protracted, and constant refusal to comply with the essential marital obligations by
one or both parties although he, she or they are physically capable of performing
such obligations (Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals). Hence, if a person is truly very
efficient and mentally capable in undertaking a particular profession in life, he can
still be considered as irresponsible person vis-a-vis his or her married life if he or she
spends almost the whole day working and not minding his or her own family (Tongol
vs. Tongol).