PFR Reviewer for Midterms

1. Alden and Stela were both former Filipino citizens. They were married in the Philippines but
they later migrated to the United States where they were naturalized as American citizens. In
their union they were able to accumulate several real properties both in the US and in the
Philippines. Unfortunately, they were not blessed with children. In the US, they executed a joint
will instituting as common heirs to divide their combined estate in equal shares, the 􀁿ve siblings
of Alden and the seven siblings of Stela. Alden passed away in 2013 and a year later, Stela also
died. The siblings of Alden who were all citizens of the US instituted probate proceedings in a
US court impleading the siblings of Stela who were all in the Philippines.

(A) Was the joint will executed by Alden and Stela who were both former Filipinos valid?
Explain with legal basis. (3%)

(B) Can the joint will produce legal effect in the Philippines with respect to the properties
of Alden and Stela found here? If so,how?

(C) is the situation presented in Item I an example of dépeçage?

SUGGESTED ANSWER (2015 BAR)

(A) The joint will shall be valid if it was executed in accordance with U.S. law. At the time of the
will’s execution, Alden and Stela were U.S. citizens. The will of an alien who is abroad produces
effect in the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the place of the law in which
he resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country (Art. 816, Civil Code). Art. 819
of the Civil Code do not apply as it refers specifically to the invalidity of joint wills “executed by
Filipinos in a foreign country”.

(B) The joint will may produce legal effect in the Philippines if it was validly executed in
accordance with the laws of the U.S. To be given legal effect in the Philippines, it must be
probated in this country. Since the will was executed abroad by aliens, it must comply with
Article 17 or Article 816 of the Civil Code. Under Article 17, the forms and solemnities of
contracts, wills, and other public instruments shall be governed by the laws of the country in
which they are executed. Under Article 816, the will of an alien who is abroad produces effect in
the Philippines if made with the formalities prescribed by the place of the law in which he
resides, or according to the formalities observed in his country, or in conformity with those which
this Code prescribes. Since Alden and Stela were both naturalized American citizens at the time
of the execution of the will, they are allowed to execute a will in accordance with the formalities
prescribed by the law of their country, where they reside, or Philippine law. Moreover, Article
16(2) requires a will to be intrinsically in accordance with the national law of the testator, hence
should also be in accordance with US law. However, Alden’s siblings are all US citizens. Insofar
as the real properties situated in the Philippines, the prohibition regarding alien ownership of
Philippine land found in the Constitution is applicable. Article 17 of the Civil Code provides that
prohibitive laws concerning persons, their acts or property, and those which have for their object
public order, public policy and good customs shall not be rendered ineffective by laws or
judgments promulgated, or by determinations or conventions agreed upon in a foreign country.

(C) No, the situation presented in Item 1 is not an example of dépeçage. repeçage is a term
used where different aspects of a case involving a foreign element may be governed by different
systems of law. In this case, only one system of laws governs, that of U.S. law. Under Article 16
par. (2) of the Civil Code, intestate and testamentary succession, 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. For the will to be probated, it must also comply with US
law under Articles 17 and 816 of the Civil Code, as the US was the place of the will’s execution,
the residence of the spouses, and the country where they are nationals.

2. Marco and Gina were married in 1989. Ten years later, or in 1999, Gina left Marco and lived
with another man, leaving their two children of school age with Marco. When Marco needed
money for their children’s education he sold a parcel of land registered in his name, without
Gina’s consent, which he purchased before his marriage. Is the sale by Marco valid, voidor
voidable? Explain with legal basis. (4%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER (2015 BAR)

The sale is void. The marriage was celebrated during the effectivity of the Family Code. In the
absence of a marriage settlement, the property relations between the spouses is governed by
absolute community of property, whereby all the properties owned by the spouses at the time of
the celebration of the marriage, as well as whatever they may acquire during the marriage, shall
form part of the community property, as a rule (Art. 91, Family Code). The parcel of land sold is
part of the community property as Marco owned it before the marriage. In an absolute
community of property regime, the administration and enjoyment shall belong to both spouses
jointly (Art. 96, Family Code). Neither spouse may dispose or encumber common properties
without the authority of the court or the written consent of the other spouse, and in the absence
of such authority or consent, the disposition or encumbrance shall be void (Art. 96, Family
Code). Despite separation de facto for more than 10 years, Gina remains Marco’s spouse, and
her consent is still required for the sale to be valid. Since Marco sold the lot without Gina’s
consent, the sale is void.

3. Julie had a relationship with a married man who had legitimate children. A son was born out
of that illicit relationship in 1981. Although the putative father did not recognize the child in his
certificate of birth, he nevertheless provided the child with all the support he needed and spent
time regularly with the child and his mother. When the man died in 2000, the child was already
18 years old so he filed a petition to be recognized as an illegitimate child of the putative father
and sought to be given a share in his putative father’s estate. The legitimate family opposed,
saying that under the Family Code his action cannot prosper because he did not bring the action
for recognition during the lifetime of his putative father.

(A) If you were the judge in this case, how would you rule? (4%)

(B) Wishing to keep the peace, the child during the pendency of the case decides to
compromise with his putative father’s family by abandoning his petition in exchange for
1/2 of what he would have received as inheritance if he were recognized as an illegitimate
child. As the judge, would you approve such a compromise? (2%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER (2015 BAR)

(A) I would rule against the illegitimate child. The action for recognition as an illegitimate child
based on the open and continuous possession the status of an illegitimate child may be brought
during the lifetime of the alleged parent (Art. 175, Family Code). Since the putative father has
already died, the action for recognition based on such ground, as indicated by the support and
regular spending of time with the child and mother, cannot prosper.

(B) I would not approve the compromise. The compromise involved herein is a compromise of
the civil status of the child, which is prohibited under Art. 2035 of the Civil Code.

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER

(B) I would approve the compromise. The subject matter of the compromise between the parties
is abandonment of the petition or the end of the litigation between the parties, not the child’s civil
status; there would be no ruling as to the civil status of the child. Hence, the prohibition against
compromise of the civil status of persons in Art. 2035 of the Civil Code does not apply.

4. Sidley and Sol were married with one (1) daughter, Solenn. Sedfrey and Sonia were another
couple with one son, Sonny. Sol and Sedfrey both perished in the same plane accident. Sidley
and Sonia met when the families of those who died sued the airlines and went through grief-
counseling sessions. Years later, Sidley and Sonia got married. At that time, Solenn was four
(4) years old and Sonny was five (5) years old. These two (2) were then brought up in the same
household. Fifteen (15) years later, Solenn and Sonny developed romantic feelings towards
each other, and eventually eloped. On their own and against their parents' wishes, they
procured a marriage license and got married in church.

(A.) Is the marriage of Solen and Sonny valid, voidable or void?

(B.) If the marriage is defective, can the marriage be ratified by the free cohabitation of
the spouses?
SUGGESTED ANSWER (2018 BAR)

(A.)The Marriage is voidable. Under Article 45 of the Family Code, a marriage may be annulled
when, at the time of the marriage, the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the marriage
annulled was eighteen years of age or over but below twenty-one, and the marriage was
solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute parental
authority over the party, in that order.

Here, since Solen is 19 years old and Sonny is 20 years old, they should have sought the
consent of their parents, guardians, or persons having substitute parental authority over them.
Failing to do that, their marriage is voidable.

(B.)Yes. Under Article 45 of the Family Code, such marriage may ratified by the cohabitation of
the Contracting parties after attaining the age of twenty-one as husband and wife