Bar Q and A #9

FALSE. Marsha is not estopped from filing an annulment case against John on the ground of his impotence, because she learned of his impotence after the celebration of the marriage and not before. Physical incapacity to consummate is a valid ground for the annulment of marriage if such incapacity was existing at the time of the marriage, continues, and appears to be incurable. The marriage may be annulled on this ground within five years from its celebration. (Art. 45 [5], Family Code)

No, the marriage cannot be annulled under the Philippine law. Sterility is not a ground for annulment of marriage under Art. 45 of theFC.

No, Joseph knew that Yvette was HIV positive at the time of the marriage. He is, therefore, not an injured party. The FC gives the right to annul the marriage only to an injured party. [Art. 47 (5), FC]

a. The marriage is voidable, because Ador was afflicted with a serious and incurable sexually-transmitted disease at the time of marriage. For a marriage to be annulled under Article 45(6), the sexually-transmissible disease must be:
1. Existing at the time of marriage;
2. Found to be serious and incurable; and
3. Unknown to the other party. Since Ador was afflicted with AIDS, which is a serious and incurable disease, and the condition existed at the time of marriage, the marriage is voidable, provided that such illness was not known to Becky.

b. The marriage of Carlos to Dina is void for reasons of public policy. Article 38(9) of the Family Code provides that marriage between parties where one, with the intention to marry the other, killed that other person’s spouse or his or her own spouse is void from the beginning for reasons of public policy.

c. The marriage is void under Article 35(4) in relation to Article 41 of the Family Code. The requisites of a valid marriage under Article 41 are as follows:

1) the prior spouse had been absent for four consecutive years, except when the disappearance is in danger of death which only requires two years;

2) the present spouse had a well-founded belief that the absent spouse was already dead; and

3) the spouse present must institute a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death. There is nothing in the facts that suggest that Eli instituted a summary proceeding for declaration of presumptive death of her previous spouse and this cannot be presumed. Thus, the exception under Article 35(4) is inapplicable and the subsequent marriage is void.

d. The marriage is valid as there were no facts showing that David and Lina have properties and children, which would render the marriage void under Article 53 of the Family Code in relation to Article 52. In addition, David and Lina have no impediment to marry.

e. If Zoren and Carmina lived together as husband and wife for 10 years prior to their marriage, then the marriage is valid, despite the absence of the marriage license. An exception to the rule that a marriage shall be void if solemnized without license under Article 35(3) is that provided for under Article 34 of the Family Code. When a man and a woman have lived together as husband and wife for at least 5 years and without any legal impediment to marry each other, they may celebrate the marriage without securing a marriage license.

No, Baby cannot ask for annulment of her marriage or for legal separation because both these actions had already prescribed.

While concealment of dug addition existing  at the time of marriage constitutes fraud under Art. 46 of the FC which makes the marriage voidable under Art. 45 of the FC, the action must, however, be brought within 5 years from the discovery thereof under Art. 47(3), FC. Since the drug addiction of Bert was discovered by Baby in June 1989, the action had already prescribed in June of 1994.

Although drug addiction is a ground for legal separation under Art. 55(5) and Art. 57 of the FC requires that the action must be brought within 5 years from the occurrence of the cause. Since Bert had been a drug addict from the time of the celebration of the marriage, the action for legal separation must have been brought not later than 23 December 1993. Hence, Baby cannot, now, bring the action for legal separation.

(A) Declaration of nullity of marriage:
1. The drug addiction must amount to psychological incapacity to comply with the essential obligations of marriage;
2. It must be antecedent (existing at the time of marriage), grave and incurable;
3. The case must be filed before August 1, 1988. Because if they got married before August 3, 1998, it must be filed before August 1, 1998.

(B) Annulment of the Marriage Contract:

1. The drug addiction must be concealed;
2. It must exist at the time of marriage;
3. There should be no cohabitation with full knowledge of the drugaddiction;
4. The case is filed within five (5) years from discovery.

(C) Legal Separation:

1. There should be no condonation or consent to the drug addiction;
2. The action must be filed within five (5) years from the occurrence of the cause;
3. Drug addiction arises during the marriage and not at the time of marriage.

G himself should file the complaint under Art. 45 of the Family Code, and no longer the parents, because G is already 22 years of age.

Yes, under Arts. 51 and 52 of the New Family Code, in case of legal separation, annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity of marriage and the automatic termination of a subsequent marriage by the reappearance of the absent spouse, the common or community property of the spouses shall be dissolved and liquidated.

Art. 51. In said partition, the value of the presumptive legitimes of all common children, computed as of the date of the final judgment of the trial court, shall be delivered in cash, property or sound securities, unless the parties, by mutual agreement, judicially approved, had already provided for such matters.

The guardian of their children, or the trustee of their property, may ask for the enforcement of the judgment.

They delivery of the presumptive legitimes herein prescribed shall in no way prejudice the ultimate successional rights of the children accruing upon the death of either or both of the parents; but the value of the properties already received under the decree of annulment or absolute nullity shall be considered as advances on their legitime.

Art. 52. The judgment of annulment or of absolute nullity of the marriage, the partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, and the delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registries of property; otherwise, the same shall not affect third persons.

a) H or either spouse for that matter, can marry again after complying with the provisions of Art. 52 of the Family Code, namely, there must be a partition and distribution of the properties of the spouses, and the delivery of the children’s presumptive legitimes, which should be recorded in the appropriate civil registry and registries of property. H should be so advised.

b) The children born from the union of H and W would be legitimate children if conceived or born before the decree of annulment of the marriage (under Art. 45 of the Family Code) has become final and executory. (Art. 54, Family Code)

c) The children of the first marriage shall be considered legitimate children if conceived or born before the judgment of annulment of the marriage of H and W has become final and executory. Children conceived or born of the subsequent marriage shall likewise be legitimate even if the marriage of H and S be null and void for failure to comply with the requisites of Article 52 of the Family Code. (Art. 53, Family Code)

As legitimate children, they have the following rights:

1) To bear the surnames of the father and the mother in conformity with the provisions of the Civil Code on Surnames;
2) To receive support from their parents, their ascendants and in proper cases, their brothers and sisters, in conformity with the provisions of this Code on Support;and
3) To be entitled to the legitime and other successional rights granted to them by the Civil Code. (Art. 174, Family Code)

The legal heirs of Peter are his children by the first and second marriages and his surviving second wife.

Their shares in the estate of Peter will depend, however, on the cause of the nullity of the first marriage. If the nullity of the first marriage was psychological incapacity of one or both spouses, the three children of that void marriage are legitimate and all of the legal heirs shall share the estate of Peter in equal shares. If the judgment of nullity was for other causes, the three children are illegitimate and the estate shall be distributed such that an illegitimate child of the first marriage shall receive half of the share of a legitimate child of the second marriage, and the second wife will inherit a share equal to that of a legitimate child. In no case may the two legitimate children of the second marriage receive a share less than one- half of the estate which is their legitime. When the estate is not sufficient to pay all the legitimes of the compulsory heirs, the legitime of the spouse is preferred and the illegitimate children suffer the reduction.

Computation:

• If the ground of nullity is psychological incapacity:

• If the ground of nullity is not psychological capacity:

NOTE: The legitime of an illegitimate child is supposed to be ½ the legitime of a legitimate child or 1/8 of the estate. But the estate will not be sufficient to pay the said legitime of the 3 illegitimate children, because only ¼ of the estate is left after paying the legitime of the surviving spouse which is preferred.

Hence, the remaining ¼ of the estate shall be divided among the 3 illegitimate children.