1.) Elated that her sister who had been married for five years was pregnant for the first time, Alma donated P100,000.00 to the unborn child. Unfortunately, the baby died one hour after delivery. May Alma recover the P100, 000.00 that she had donated to said baby before it was born considering that the baby died? Stated otherwise, is the donation valid and binding? Explain.
The donation is valid and binding, being an act favorable to the unborn child, but only if the baby had an intra uterine life of not less than seven months and provided there was due acceptance of the donation by the proper person representing said child. If the child had less than seven months of intra-uterine life, it is not deemed born since it died less than 24 hours following its delivery, in which case the donation never became effective since the donee never became a person, birth being determinative of personality.
2.) Mr. and Mrs. Cruz, who are childless, met with a serious motor vehicle accident with Mr. Cruz at the wheel and Mrs. Cruz seated beside him, resulting in the instant death of Mr. Cruz. Mrs. Cruz was still alive when help came but she also died on the way to the hospital. The couple acquired properties worth One Million (P1,000,000.00) Pesos during their marriage, which are being claimed by the parents of both spouses in equal shares. a) Is the claim of both sets of parents valid and why? b) Suppose in the preceding question, both Mr. And Mrs. Cruz were already dead when help came, so that nobody could say who died ahead of the other, would your answer be the same to the question as to who are entitled to the properties of the deceased couple?
a) No, the claim of both parents is not valid. When Mr. Cruz died, he was succeeded by his wife and his parents as his intestate heirs who will share his estate equally. His estate was 0.5 Million pesos which is his half share in the absolute community amounting to 1 Million Pesos. His wife, will, therefore, inherit O.25 Million Pesos and his parents will inherit 0.25 Million Pesos.
When Mrs. Cruz died, she was succeeded by her parents as her intestate heirs. They will inherit all of her estate consisting of her 0.5 Million half share in the absolute community and her 0.25 Million inheritance from her husband, or a total of 0.750 Million Pesos.
In sum, the parents of Mr. Cruz will inherit 250,000 Pesos while the parents of Mrs. Cruz will inherit 750,000 Pesos.
b) This being a case of succession, in the absence of proof as to the time of death of each of the spouses, it is presumed they died at the same time and no transmission of rights from one to the other is deemed to have taken place. Therefore, each of them is deemed to have an estate valued at P500,000, or one-half of their conjugal property of P1 million. Their respective parents will thus inherit the entire P1 million in equal shares, orP500,000.00 per set of parents.
3.) Mr. Luna died, leaving an estate of Ten Million (P10,000,000.00) Pesos. His widow gave birth to a child four months after Mr. Luna's death, but the child died five hours after birth. Two days after the child's death, the widow of Mr. Luna also died because she had suffered from difficult childbirth. The estate of Mr. Luna is now being claimed by his parents, and the parents of his widow. Who is entitled to Mr. Luna'a estate and why?
Half of the estate of Mr. Luna will go to the parents of Mrs. Luna as their inheritance from Mrs. Luna, while the other half will be inherited by the parents of Mr. Luna as the reservatarios of the reserved property inherited by Mrs. Luna from her child.
When Mr. Luna died, his heirs were his wife and the unborn child. The unborn child inherited because the inheritance was favorable to it and it was born alive later though it lived only for five hours. Mrs. Luna inherited half of the 10 Million estate while the unborn child inherited the other half. When the child died, it was survived by its mother, Mrs. Luna. As the only heir, Mrs. Luna inherited, by operation of law, the estate of the child consisting of its 5 Million inheritance from Mr. Luna. In the hands of Mrs. Luna, what she inherited from her child was subject to reserva troncal for the benefit of the relatives of the child within the third degree of consanguinity and who belong to the family of Mr. Luna, the line where the property came from.
When Mrs. Luna died, she was survived by her parents as her only heirs. Her parents will inherit her estate consisting of the 5 Million she inherited from Mr. Luna. The other 5 Million she inherited from her child will be delivered to the parents of Mr. Luna as beneficiaries of the reservedproperty.
In sum, 5 Million Pesos of Mr. Luna's estate will go to the parents of Mrs. Luna, while the other 5 Million Pesos will go to the parents of Mr. Luna as reservatarios.
4.) Cristy and her late husband Luis had two children, Rose and Patrick. One summer, her mother-in-law, aged 70, took the two children, then aged 10 and 12, with her on a boat trip to Cebu. Unfortunately, the vessel sank en route, and the bodies of the three were never found. None of the survivors ever saw them on the water. On the settlement of her mother-in-law's estate, Cristy files a claim for a share of her estate on the ground that the same was inherited by her children from their grandmother in representation of their father, and she inherited the same from them. Will her action prosper?
No, her action will not prosper. Since there was no proof as to who died first, all the three are deemed to have died at the same time and there was no transmission of rights from one to another, applying Art. 43 of the NCC.
5.) If a pregnant woman passenger of a bus were to suffer an abortion following a vehicular accident due to the gross negligence of the bus driver, may she and her husband claim damages from the bus company for the death of their unborn child? Explain.
No, the spouses cannot recover actual damages in the form of indemnity for the loss of life of the unborn child. This is because the unborn child is not yet considered a person and the law allows indemnity only for loss of life of person. The mother, however, may recover damages for the bodily injury she suffered from the loss of the fetus which is considered part of her internal organ. The parents may also recover damages for injuries that are inflicted directly upon them, e.g., moral damages for mental anguish that attended the loss of the unborn child. Since there is gross negligence, exemplary damages can also be recovered. (Geluz v. CA, G.R. No. L-16439, July 20, 1961)
6.) At age 18, Marian found out that she was pregnant. She insured her own life and named her unborn child as her sole beneficiary. When she was already due to give birth, she and her boyfriend Pietro, the father of her unborn child, were kidnapped in a resort in Bataan where they were vacationing. The military gave chase and after one week, they were found in an abandoned hut in Cavite. Marian and Pietro were hacked with bolos. Marian and the baby were both found dead, with the baby's umbilical cord already cut. Pietro survived. a) Can Marian's baby be the beneficiary of the insurance taken on the life of the mother? (1999, 2012 Bar) b) Between Marian and the baby, who is presumed to have died ahead? c) Will Pietro, as surviving biological father of the baby, be entitled to claim the proceeds of the life insurance on the life of Marian?
a) Yes, the baby can be the beneficiary of the life insurance of Marian. Art. 40 of the FC provides that "birth determines personality; but the conceived child shall be considered born for all purposes that are favorable to it,provided that it be born later with the conditions specified in Art. 41. Article 41 states that "for civil purposes, the fetus shall be considered born if it is alive at the time it is completely delivered from the mother's womb. However, if the fetus had an intra- uterine life of less than seven months, it is not deemed born if it dies within twenty- four (24) hours after its complete delivery from the maternal womb. The act of naming the unborn child as sole beneficiary in the insurance is favorable to the conceived child and therefore the fetus acquires presumptive or provisional personality. However, said presumptive personality only becomes conclusive if the child is born alive. The child need not survive for twenty-four
(24) hours as required under Art. 41 of the Code because "Marian was already due to give birth," indicating that the child was more than seven months old.
b) If the baby was not alive when completely delivered from the mother’s womb, it was not born as a person, then the question of who between two persons survived will not be an issue. Since the baby had an intra- uterine life of more than 7 months, it would be considered born if it was alive, at the time of its complete delivery from the mother’s womb. We can gather from the facts that the baby was completely delivered. But whether or not it was alive has to be proven by evidence.
If the baby was alive when completely delivered from the mother’s womb, then it was born as a person and the question of who survived as between the baby and the mother shall be resolved by the provisions of the Rules of Court on survivorship. This is because the question has nothing to do with succession. Obviously, the resolution of the question is needed just for the implementation of an insurance contract. Under Rule 13, Sec. 3, (jj), (5) as between the baby who was under 15 years old and Marian who was 18 years old, Marian is presumed to have survived.
In both cases, therefore, the baby never acquired any right under the insurance policy. The proceeds of the insurance will then go to the estate of Marian.
c) Since the baby did not acquire any right under the insurance contract, there is nothing for Pietro to inherit.
7.) Dr. Lopez, a 70-year old widower, and his son Roberto both died in a fire that gutted their home while they were sleeping in their air-conditioned rooms. Roberto’s wife, Marilyn, and their two children were spared because they were in the province at the time. Dr. Lopez left an estate worth P20M and a life insurance policy in the amount of P1M with his three children --- one of whom is Roberto --- as beneficiaries. Marilyn is now claiming for herself and her children her husband’s share in the estate left by Dr. Lopez, and her husband’sshare in the proceeds of Dr. Lopez’s life insurance policy. Rule on the validity of Marilyn’s claims with reasons.
As to the estate of Dr. Lopez:
Marilyn is not entitled to a share in the estate of Dr. Lopez. For purposes of succession, Dr. Lopez and his son Roberto are presumed to have died at the same time, there being no evidence to prove otherwise, and there shall be no transmission of rights from one to the other. (Article 43) Hence, Roberto inherited nothing from his father that Marilyn would in turn inherit from Roberto. The children of Roberto, however, will succeed their grandfather, Dr. Lopez, in representation of their father Roberto and together will receive 1/3 of the estate of Dr. Lopez since their father Roberto was one of the three children of Dr. Lopez. Marilyn cannot represent her husband Roberto because the right is not given by law to a surviving spouse.
As to the proceeds of the insurance on the life of Dr. Lopez:
Since succession is not involved as regards the insurance contract, the provisions of the Rules of Court on survivorship shall apply. Under the Rules, Dr. Lopez, who was 70 years old, is presumed to have died ahead of Roberto, who is presumably between the ages of 15 and 60. Having survived the insured, Roberto’s right as a beneficiary became vested upon the death of Dr. Lopez. When Roberto died after Dr. Lopez, his right to receive the insurance proceeds became part of his hereditary estate, which in turn was inherited in equal shares by his legal heirs, namely, his spouse and children. Therefore, Roberto’s children and his spouse are entitled to Roberto’s one-third share in the insurance proceeds.
8.) Brad and Angelina had a secret marriage before a pastor whose office is located in Arroceros Street, City of Manila. They paid money to the pastor who took care of all the documentation. When Angelina wanted to go to the U.S., she found out that there was no marriage license issued to them before their marriage. Since their marriage was solemnized in 1995 after the effectivity of the Family Code, Angelina filed a petition for judicial declaration of nullity on the strength of a certification by the Civil Registrar of Manila that, after a diligent and exhaustive search, the alleged marriage license indicated in the marriage certificate does not appear in the records and cannot be found. 1. Decide the case and explain. 2. In case the marriage was solemnized in 1980 before the effectivity of the Family Code, is it required that a judicial petition be filed to declare the marriage null and void? Explain.
1. I will grant the petition for judicial declaration of nullity of Brad and Angelina’s marriage on the ground that there is a lack of marriage Article 3 of the Family Code provides that one of the formal requisites of marriage is a valid marriage license and Article 4 of the same Code states that absence of any of the essential or formal requisites shall render the marriage void ab initio. In Abbas v. Abbas [689 SCRA 646 (2013)], the Supreme Court declared the marriage as void ab initio because there is proof of lack of record of marriage license. The certification by the Civil Registrar of Manila that, after diligent and exhaustive search, the alleged marriage license indicated in the marriage certificate does not appear in the records and cannot be found proves that the marriage of Brad and Angelina was solemnized without the requisite marriage license and is therefore void ab initio. The absence of the marriage license was certified to by the local civil registrar who is the official custodian of these documents and who is in the best position to certify as to the existence of these records. Also, there is a presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty. (Republic v. CA and Castro, 236 SCRA 257 )
2.No, it is not required that a judicial petition be filed to declare the marriage null and void when said marriage was solemnized before the effectivity of the Family Code. As stated in the cases of People v. Mendoza, 95 Phil. 845 (1954) and People v. Aragon 100 Phil. 1033 (1957), the old rule is that where a marriage is illegal and void from its performance, no judicial is necessary to establish its invalidity.
9.) On Valentine's Day 1996, Ellas and Fely, both single and 25 years of age, went to the city hall where they sought out a fixer to help them obtain a quickie marriage. For a fee, the fixer produced an ante-dated marriage license for them, Issued by the Civil Registrar of a small remote municipality. He then brought them to a licensed minister in a restaurant behind the city hall, and the latter solemnized their marriage right there and then. 1. Is their marriage valid, void or voidable? Explain. 2. Would your answer be the same if it should turn out that the marriage license was spurious? Explain.
The marriage is the irregularity in the issuance of a valid license does not adversely affect the validity of the marriage. The marriage license is valid because it was in fact issued by a Civil Registrar. (Arts. 3 and 4,FC)
No, the answer would not be that The marriage would be void because of the absence of a formal requisite. In such a case, there was actually no valid marriage license.