1.) On May 5, 1989, 16-year-old Rozanno, who was issued a student permit, drove to school a car, a gift from his parents. On even date, as his class was scheduled to go on a field trip, his teacher requested him to accommodate in his car, as he did, four (4) of his classmates because the van rented by the school was too crowded. On the way to a museum which the students were scheduled to visit, Rozanno made a wrong maneuver, causing a collision with a jeepney. One of his classmates died. He and the three (3) others were badly injured. A. Who is liable for the death of Rozanno’s classmate and the injuries suffered by Rozanno and his 3 other classmates? Explain. B. Under the same facts, except the date of occurrence of the incident, this time in mid-1994, what would be your answer? Explain.
A. At the time the incident occurred in May 1989, Rozanno was still a minor. Being a minor, Art. 218, (FC) applies. Pursuant to Art. 218, the school, its administrators and teachers shall be liable for the acts of minor Rozanno because of the special parental authority and responsibility that they exercise over him. The authority applies to all authorized activities, whether inside or outside the premises of the school, entity or institution. The field trip on which occasion Rozanno drove the car, was an authorized activity, and, thus, covered by the provision. Furthermore, the parents of Rozanno are subsidiarily liable pursuant to Art. 219 (FC), and principally liable under Art. 221 (FC), if they are negligent.
B. Since Rozanno was 16 years old in 1989, if the incident happened sometime in the middle of 1994, Rozanno have been 21 years old at the time. Hence, he was already of legal age. The law reducing the age of majority to 18 years took effect in December 1989.
Being of legal age, Arts. 218, 219, and 221(FC), are no longer applicable. In such case, only Rozanno will be personally responsible for all the consequences of his act unless his school or his parents were themselves also negligent and such negligence contributed to the happening of the incident. In that event, the school or his parents are not liable under Art. 218, 218 or 221 (FC), but will be liable under general provision on the Civil Code on quasi-delict.
2.) DON, an American businessman, secured parental consent for the employment of five minors to play certain roles in two movies he was producing at home in Makati. They worked at odd hours of the day and night, but always accompanied by parents or other adults. The producer paid the children talent fees at rates better than adult wages. But a social worker, DEB, reported to OSWD that these children often missed going to school. They sometimes drank wine, aside from being exposed to drugs. In some scenes, they were filmed naked or in revealing costumes. In his defense, DON contended all these were part of artistic freedom and cultural creativity. None of the parents complained, said DON. He also said they signed a contract containing a waiver of their right to file any complaint in any office or tribunal concerning the working conditions of their children acting in themovies. Is the waiver valid and binding? Why or why not? Explain.
The waiver is not valid. Although the contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, they may not do so if such are contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy (Art. 1306). The parents' waiver to file a complaint concerning the working conditions detrimental to the moral well-being of their children acting in the movies is in violation of the Family Code and Labor laws. Thus, the waiver is invalid and not binding.
The Child Labor Law is a mandatory and prohibitory law, and the rights of the child cannot be waived as it is contrary to law and public policy.
3.) Gigolo entered into an agreement with Majorette for her to carry in her womb his baby via in vitro fertilization. Gigolo undertook to underwrite Majorette’s pre- natal expenses as well as those attendant to her delivery. Gigolo would thereafter pay Majorette P2 million and, in return, she would give custody of the baby to him. After Majorette gives birth and delivers the baby to Gigolo following her receipt of P2 million, she engages your services as her lawyer to regain custody of the baby. Is the child entitled to support and inheritance from Gigolo? Explain.
If Gigolo voluntarily recognize the child as his illegitimate child in accordance with Article 175 in relation to Article 172 of the Family Code, the child is entitled to support and inheritance from Gigolo.
4.) A. What legal action can you file on behalf of Majorette? Explain. B. Can Gigolo demand from Majorette the return of the P2 million if he returns the baby? Explain.
A. As her lawyer, I can file a petition for habeas corpus on behalf Majorette to recover custody of her child. Since she is the mother of the child that was born out of wedlock, she has exclusive parental authority and custody over the child. Gigolo, therefore, has no right to have custody of the child and his refusal to give up custody will constitute illegal detention for which habeas corpus is the proper remedy.
B. No, he cannot. Both he and Majorette are guilty of violating the provision of the Anti-Child Abuse Law (RA7610) on child trafficking. Being in pari delicto, the parties shall be left where they are and Gigolo cannot demand the return of what he paid.
5.) Julio and Lea, both 18 years old, were sweethearts. At a party at the house of a mutual friend, Lea met Jake, also 18 years old, who showed interest in her. Lea seemed to entertain Jake because she danced with him many times. In a fit of jealousy, Julio shot Jake with his father’s 38 calibre revolver which, before going to the party he was able to get from the unlocked drawer inside his father’s bedroom. Jake died as a result of the lone gunshot wound he sustained. His parents sued Julio’s parents for damages arising from quasi-delict. At the time of the incident, Julio was 18 years old living with his parents. Julio’s parents moved to dismiss the complaint against them claiming that since Julio was already of majority age, they were no longer liable for his acts. 1. Should the motion to dismiss be granted? Why? 2. What is the liability of Julio’s parents to jake’s parents? Explain you answer
1. No, the Motion to Dismiss should not be granted. Article 236 of the Family Code as amended by RA 6809, provides in the third paragraph that “nothing in this Code shall be construed to derogate from the duty or responsibility of parents and guardians for children and wards below twenty-one years of age mentioned in the second and third paragraphs of Article 2180 of the Civil Code.”
2. The liability of Julio’s parents to Jake’s parents arises from quasi-delict and shall cover specifically the following:
a. P50,000.00 for the death of the son;
b. Such amount as would correspond to lost earning capacity; and
c. Moral damages.
6.) On April 15, 1980, Rene and Angelina were married to each other without a marriage settlement. In 1985, they acquired a parcel of land in Quezon City. On June 1, 1990, when Angelina was away in Baguio, Rene sold the said lot to Marcelo. Is the sale void or voidable?
The sale is voidable. The provisions of the Family Code may apply retroactively but only if such application will not impair vested rights. When Rene and Angelina got married in 1980, the law that governed their property relations was the New Civil Code. Under the NCC, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Heirs of Felipe v. Aldon (G.R. No. L-60174, February 16, 1983) and reiterated in Heirs of Ayuste v. Malabonga (G.R No, 118784, September 2, 1999), the sale executed by the husband without the consent of the wife is voidable. The husband has already acquired a vested right on the voidable nature of dispositions made without the consent of the wife. Hence, Article 124 of the Family Code which makes the sale void does not apply.
7.) Salvador, a timber concessionaire, built on his lot a warehouse where he processes and stores his timber for shipment. Adjoining the warehouse is a furniture factory owned by NARRAMIX of which Salvador is a majority stockholder. NARRAMIX leased space in the warehouse where it placed its furniture- making machinery. 1. How would you classify the furniture- making machinery as property under the Civil Code? Explain. 2. Suppose the lease contract between Salvador and NARRAMIX stipulates that at the end of the lease the machinery shall become the property of the lessor, will your answer be the same? Explain.
The furniture-making machinery is movable property because it was not installed by the owner of the To become immovable under Art. 415 (5) of the NCC, the machinery must be installed by the owner of the tenement.
It is immovable When there is a provision in the lease contract making the lessor, at the end of the lease owner of the machinery installed by the lessee, the said machinery is considered to have been installed by the lessor through the lessee who acted merely as his agent. Having been installed by the owner of the tenement, the machinery became immovable under Art. 415 of the NCC. (Davao Sawmill v. Castillo, 61 Phil 709)