Suggested Questions

Suggested Questions for Articles 225-227 & Article 37 of the Family Code of the Philippines

Question:
What do you think is the intention of the framers of the family code that as a requirement parents should post a bond for guardianship  if the value of the prop of the child exceeds Php 50,000.00 before they will be vested authority to administer child’s property?

Answer:
The framers considers Php 50,000.00 as the amount when the property is valuable enough to require a bond on the basis of the current valuation, considering the possible abuse by the parents and the expensiveness of the bond.

Giving such bond is a condition or a qualification prior to the vesting of the authority to administer.

The purpose of the bond is to guarantee the performance of the obligations prescribed for general guardians.

Question:
Julie Barita is the daughter of Marga Barita. Marga Barita has a stepfather who is Atay Que. Julie Barita and Atay Que are madly in love with each other. Julie Barita and Atay Que got married. Is their marriage valid?

Answer:
The marriage of Julie Barita and Atoy Que was void ab initio.

According to Article 37. Marriages between the following are incestuous and void from the beginning, whether the relationship between the parties be legitimate or illegitimate:
(1) Between ascendants and descendants of any degree; and
(2) Between brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood.

In the case of Julie Barita and Atay Que, they had an incestuous marriage which is void ab initio even if their relationship is illegitimate. If a grand daughter and her grand father marry each other their marriage is void from the beginning because  these marriages debase the family, violate morals and decency. The rule applies whether the relationship is that of full or half blood and whether legitimate or illegitimate.

ARTICLES 225-227 OF THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

TITLE IX: PARENTAL AUTHORITY

Chapter 4. Effect of Parental Authority Upon the Property of the Children

Article 225. The father and the mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship over the property of the unemancipated common child without the necessity of a court appointment. In case of disagreement, the father's decision shall prevail, unless there is a judicial order to the contrary.

Where the market value of the property or the annual income of the child exceeds P50,000, the parent concerned shall be required to furnish a bond in such amount as the court may determine, but not less than ten per centum (10%) of the value of the property or annual income, to guarantee the performance of the obligations prescribed for general guardians.

A verified petition for approval of the bond shall be filed in the proper court of the place where the child resides, or, if the child resides in a foreign country, in the proper court of the place where the property or any part thereof is situated.

The petition shall be docketed as a summary special proceeding in which all incidents and issues regarding the performance of the obligations referred to in the second paragraph of this Article shall be heard and resolved.

The ordinary rules on guardianship shall be merely suppletory except when the child is under substitute parental authority, or the guardian is a stranger, or a parent has remarried, in which case the ordinary rules on guardianship shall apply. (320a)

ü  The legal guardianship over the unemancipated child shall be jointly exercise by the father and the mother. They need not be appointed by the court but if there’s any disagreement father’s decision shall prevail.

ü  There’s no need for an appointment of the parents in order to become guardians of the properties of their minor children.

ü  If the value of the properties exceeds Php 50,000.00, there’s a need to post a bond by the parents.

ü  If the value is exactly Php 50,00.00 or even less, there’s no need to post a bond.

ü   The purpose of the bond is to secure the performance of the obligations of the guardians.

Article 226. The property of the unemancipated child earned or acquired with his work or industry or by onerous or gratuitous title shall belong to the child in ownership and shall be devoted exclusively to the latter's support and education, unless the title or transfer provides otherwise.

The right of the parents over the fruits and income of the child's property shall be limited primarily to the child's support and secondarily to the collective daily needs of the family. (321a, 323a)

Article 227. If the parents entrust the management or administration of any of their properties to an unemancipated child, the net proceeds of such property shall belong to the owner. The child shall be given a reasonable monthly allowance in an amount not less than that which the owner would have paid if the administrator were a stranger, unless the owner, grants the entire proceeds to the child. In any case, the proceeds thus give in whole or in part shall not be charged to the child's legitime. (322a)

Article 226	Article 227
As to Acquisition
Earned or acquired by the child through his work or industry by onerous or gratuitous title.	Property given by the parents to the child for the latter to administer or manage.
As to Ownership
Owned by the child.	Owned by the parents.
As to Who is the Usufructuary
Child is also the usufructuary, but the child’s use of the property shall be secondary to the collective needs of the family.	Parents are the usufructuary.
As to Administration
Property administered or managed by the parents.	Property administered or managed by the child.

G.R. No. 105562 September 27, 1993
CASE DIGEST:

LUZ PINEDA, MARILOU MONTENEGRO, VIRGINIA ALARCON, DINA LORENA AYO, CELIA CALUMBAG and LUCIA LONTOK, petitioners,

vs.

HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, LIMITED, respondents.

Ponente: Justice DAVIDE, JR.

FACTS:

Ø  On 23 September 1983, Prime Marine Services, Inc. (PMSI), a crewing/manning outfit, procured Group PoIicy from respondent-appellant Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. to provide life insurance coverage to its sea-based employees enrolled under the plan.

Ø  On 17 February 1986, during the effectivity of the policy, six covered employees of the PMSI perished at sea when their vessel, M/V Nemos, a Greek cargo vessel, sunk somewhere in El Jadida, Morocco. They were survived by complainants-appellees, the beneficiaries under the policy.

Ø  Following the tragic demise of their loved ones, complainants-appellees sought to claim death benefits due them and, for this purpose, they approached the President and General Manager of PMSI, Capt. Roberto Nuval.

Ø  Capt. Nuval showed willingness to assist complainants-appellees to recover Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA) benefits from the POEA and to work for the increase of their PANDIMAN and other benefits arising from the deaths of their husbands/sons.

Ø  They were made to execute, with the exception of the spouses Alarcon, special powers of attorney authorizing Capt. Nuval to, among others, "follow up, ask, demand, collect and receive" for their benefit indemnities of sums of money due them relative to the sinking of M/V Nemos.

Ø  By virtue of these written powers of attorney, complainants-appellees were able to receive their respective death benefits.

Ø  Unknown to them, however, the PMSI, in its capacity as employer and policyholder of the life insurance of its deceased workers, filed with respondent-appellant formal claims for and in behalf of the beneficiaries, through its President, Capt. Nuval.

Ø  Among the documents submitted by Capt. Nuval for the processing of the claims were five special powers of attorney executed by complainants-appellees.

Ø   On the basis of these and other documents duly submitted, respondent-appellant drew against its account with the Bank of the Philippine Islands on 27 May 1986 six (6) checks, four for P200,00.00 each, one for P50,000.00 and another for P40,00.00, payable to the order of complainants-appellees.

Ø  These checks were released to the treasurer of PMSI upon instructions of Capt. Nuval over the phone to Mr. Mariano Urbano, Assistant Department Manager for Group Administration Department of respondent-appellant.

Ø  Capt. Nuval, upon receipt of these checks from the treasurer, who happened to be his son-in-law, endorsed and deposited them in his account with the Commercial Bank of Manila, now Boston Bank.

Ø  On 3 July 1989, after complainants-appellees learned that they were entitled, as beneficiaries, to life insurance benefits under a group policy with respondent-appellant, they sought to recover these benefits from Insular Life but the latter denied their claim on the ground that the liability to complainants-appellees was already extinguished upon delivery to and receipt by PMSI of the six (6) checks issued in their names.

Ø  On 20 June 1990, the Commission rendered its decision in favor of the complainants.

Ø  The Insular Life Assurance Company appealed stating that:

(a) Had no jurisdiction over the case considering that the claims exceeded P100,000

(b) Erred in holding that the powers of attorney relied upon by Insular Life were insufficient to convey absolute authority to Capt. Nuval to demand, receive and take delivery of the insurance proceeds pertaining to the petitioners

(c) Erred in not giving credit to the version of Insular Life that the power of attorney supposed to have been executed in favor of the Alarcons was missing, and

(d) Erred in holding that Insular Life was liable for violating Section 180 of the Insurance Code for having released to the surviving mothers the insurance proceeds pertaining to the beneficiaries who were still minors despite the failure of the former to obtain a court authorization or to post a bond.

Ø  The Court of Appeals eliminated the award to minor beneficiaries Dina Ayo and Lucia Lontok.

Ø  Hence, this petition for certiorari was filed by the beneficiary families.

ISSUE: Whether or not the minor beneficiaries’ award shall be eliminated

RULING: Yes. The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners. The Decision of the Court of Appeals was set aside and the Decision of the Insurance Commission was reinstated.

Nor can the Court agree with the opinion of the public respondent that since the shares of the minors in the insurance proceeds are less than P50,000.00, then under Article 225 of the Family Code their mothers could receive such shares without need of either court appointments as guardian or the posting of a bond.

It is of the view that said Article had repealed the third paragraph of Section 180 of the Insurance Code. 34 The pertinent portion of Article 225 of the Family Code reads as follows: “Art. 225. The father and the mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship over the property of their unemancipated common child without the necessity of a court appointment. In case of disagreement, the father's decision shall prevail, unless there is judicial order to the contrary.”

Where the market value of the property or the annual income of the child exceeds P50,000, the parent concerned shall be required to furnish a bond in such amount as the court may determine, but not less than ten per centum (10%) of the value of the property or annual income, to guarantee the performance of the obligations prescribed for general guardians.

It is clear from the said Article that regardless of the value of the unemancipated common child's property, the father and mother ipso jure becomes the legal guardian of the child's property. However, if the market value of the property or the annual income of the child exceeds P50,000.00, a bond has to be posted by the parents concerned to guarantee the performance of the obligations of a general guardian.

It must, however, be noted that the second paragraph of Article 225 of the Family Code speaks of the "market value of the property or the annual income of the child," which means, therefore, the aggregate of the child's property or annual income; if this exceeds P50,000.00, a bond is required. There is no evidence that the share of each of the minors in the proceeds of the group policy in question is the minor's only property. Without such evidence, it would not be safe to conclude that, indeed, that is his only property.

References:

Judge Albano, Ed Vincent S. (2017). Family Code of the Philippines

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1993/sep1993/gr_105562_1993.html

ARTICLES 175-176 OF THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

TITLE VI: PATERNITY AND FILIATION

Chapter 3. Illegitimate Children

Article 175. Illegitimate children may establish their illegitimate filiation in the same way and on the same evidence as legitimate children.

The action must be brought within the same period specified in Article 173, except when the action is based on the second paragraph of Article 172, in which case the action may be brought during the lifetime of the alleged parent. (289a)

Filiation of illegitimate children may establish as follows:

Art. 172

ü  Record of birth appearing in the civil register or final judgment; or

ü  An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or a private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned;

Ø  In the absence of the foregoing evidence, the legitimate filiation shall be proved by;

§  The open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child; or

§  Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

Art. 173

ü  Claim for legitimacy 

Ø  May be brought by the child during his or her lifetime and shall be transmitted to the heirs should the child die during his minority or in state of insanity. (5 years to institute action)

Art. 172 paragraph 2

ü  (2) An admission of legitimate filiation in a public document or private handwritten instrument and signed by the parent concerned;

ü  Article 172 paragraph 2 is an exception because if the putative parent is already dead, he can no longer talk or defend his/herself.

Illustration:   

§  A and B have an illegitimate child C born on 1988.

§  A died in 2010. C cannot go to Court anymore to establish filiation because of the death of A.

§  But if A died when C is still a minor, he has the right to go to court to establish filiation.

Surname of illegitimate child

Article 176 and RA 9255

The provision of Article 176 of the Family Code states that:

• illegitimate children shall use the surname of their mother

• shall be under the parental authority of their mother 

• shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code.

However, it has been amended by RA 9255, “An Act Allowing Illegitimate Children to Use the Surname of their Father” which took effect on February 4, 2004.  The law now provides that “illegitimate children may use the surname of their father when: 

• if their filiation has been expressly recognized by their father through the record of birth appearing in the civil registrar; 

• the admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father.

If the putative(supposed) father is not sure  whether or not he is really the father of the illegitimate child or children, the law provides that the father has the right to institute an action before the regular courts to prove non-filiation during his lifetime and the legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitimate child. 

Note that it is not the father or the mother who is granted by the law the right to dictate the surname of their illegitimate children because the law uses the word “may”.  Therefore, the illegitimate children has the right to decide whether or not they use the surname of the father.

Remember: The yardstick by which policies affecting children are to be measured is their best interest.

Article 176. Illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. The legitime of each illegitimate child shall consist of one-half of the legitime of a legitimate child. (287a)

Legitimate Children	Illegitimate Children
As to Use of Surname
Right to bear father’s surname	Generally required to use the mother’s surname Exception: If child’s filiation has been expressly recognized by the father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father (R.A. No. 9255, Sec. 1).
As to Parental Authority
Joint authority of parents	Sole parental authority of mother
As to Support
Entitled to receive support from any of his or her direct ascendants and descendants in accordance with the priority set by law in Art. 195 and 199 of Family Code (Sta. Maria supra at 686).	Entitled to receive support only up to his or her grandparents or grandchildren as provided for in Art. 195, pars. 2 and 3 (Sta. Maria, supra at p.686).
As to Successional Right
Entitled to inheritance	Entitled to ½ of legitimate child’s inheritance

Definition of Terms:
Illegitimate – Children conceived and born outside a valid marriage. (Art. 165)

Legitimate – Children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents. (Art. 164)

Paternity and Maternity – is the civil status of a father / mother with regard to the child.

Filiation – Is the civil status of a child with regard to his parents. Nature or by adoption (Art. 163)

Handwritten Autobiography

In Dela Cruz vs. Garcia (G.R. No. 177728, July 31, 2009), a handwritten autobiography of the father was recognized as evidence of filiation although not signed. The Court ruled that “where the private handwritten instrument is accompanied by other relevant and competent evidence, it suffices that the claim of filiation therein be shown to have been made and handwritten by the acknowledging parent as it is merely corroborative of such other evidence.”

CASE DIGEST:

G.R. No. 177728               July 31, 2009

JENIE SAN JUAN DELA CRUZ and minor CHRISTIAN DELA CRUZ "AQUINO," represented by JENIE SAN JUAN DELA CRUZ, Petitioners, vs. RONALD PAUL S. GRACIA, in his capacity as City Civil Registrar of Antipolo City, Respondent.

Ponente: Justice CARPIO MORALES

FACTS:

Ø  Petitioner Jenie San Juan Dela Cruz (Jenie) and then 19-year old Christian Dominique Sto. Tomas Aquino (Dominique) lived together as husband and wife without the benefit of marriage.

Ø  On September 4, 2005, Dominique died. After almost two months, or on November 2, 2005, Jenie, who continued to live with Dominique’s parents, gave birth to her herein co-petitioner minor child Christian Dela Cruz "Aquino".

Ø  Jenie applied for registration of the child’s birth, using Dominique’s surname Aquino, with the Office of the City Civil Registrar, Antipolo City, in support of which she submitted the child’s Certificate of Live Birth, Affidavit to Use the Surname of the Father (AUSF) which she had executed and signed, and Affidavit of Acknowledgment executed by Dominique’s father Domingo Butch Aquino.

Ø  Jenie attached to the AUSF a document entitled "AUTOBIOGRAPHY" which Dominique, during his lifetime, wrote in his own handwriting.

Ø  The City Civil Registrar of Antipolo City, Ronald Paul S. Gracia (respondent), denied Jenie’s application for registration of the child’s name because the child was born out of wedlock.

Ø  Jenie and the child promptly filed a complaint for injunction/registration of name against respondent before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City.

Ø  The trial court held that even if Dominique was the author of the handwritten Autobiography, the same does not contain any express recognition of paternity.

Ø  Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari was filed before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the unsigned handwritten instrument of the deceased father of minor Christian can be considered as recognition of paternity

RULING: Yes. The Court ruled that the private handwritten instrument is accompanied by other relevant and competent evidence; it suffices that the claim of filiation therein be shown to have been made and handwritten by the acknowledging parent as it is merely corroborative of such other evidence.

Article 176 of the Family Code, as amended by RA 9255, permits an illegitimate child to use the surname of his/her father if the latter had previously recognized him/her as his offspring through an admission made in a pubic of private handwritten instrument.

Article 176, as amended, does not explicitly state that there must be a signature by the putative father in the private handwritten instrument.

The following rules respecting the requirement of affixing the signature of the acknowledging parent in any private handwritten instrument wherein an admission of filiation of a legitimate or illegitimate child is made:

1) Where the private handwritten instrument is the lone piece of evidence submitted to prove filiation, there should be strict compliance with the requirement that the same must be signed by the acknowledging parent; and

2) Where the private handwritten instrument is accompanied by other relevant and competent evidence, it suffices that the claim of filiation therein be shown to have been made and handwritten by the acknowledging parent as it is merely corroborative of such other evidence.

References:

Judge Albano, Ed Vincent S. (2017). Family Code of the Philippines

https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/jul2009/gr_177728_2009.html

ARTICLES 130-133 of the Family Code of the Philippines

FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

TITLE IV: Property Relations between Husband and Wife 

Chapter 3. Conjugal Partnership of Gains

Section 7. Liquidation of the Conjugal Partnership Assets and Liabilities

Article 130. Upon the termination of the marriage by death, the conjugal partnership property shall be liquidated in the same proceeding for the settlement of the estate of the deceased.

            If no judicial proceeding is instituted, the surviving spouse shall liquidate the conjugal partnership property either judicially or extra-judicially within one year from the death of the deceased spouse. If upon the lapse of the six-month period no liquidation is made, any disposition or encumbrance involving the conjugal partnership property of the terminated marriage shall be void.

            Should the surviving spouse contract a subsequent marriage without compliance with the foregoing requirements, a mandatory regime of complete separation of property shall govern the property relations of the subsequent marriage. (n)

ü  Termination by death:

Ø  Conjugal Partnership of Gains shall be inventoried, administered and liquidated and the debts shall be paid.

Ø  Settlement of the estate of the deceased may be intestate or testate.

Ø  Heirs of legal age or minors duly represented by their judicial or legal representatives may, without securing letters of administrator from the court, divide the estate among themselves.

Article 131. Whenever the liquidation of conjugal partnership properties of two or more marriages contracted by the same person before the effectivity of this Code is carried out simultaneously, the respective capital, fruits and income of each partnership shall be determined upon such proof as may be considered according to the rules of evidence. In case of doubt as to which partnership the existing properties belong, the same shall be divided between the different partnerships in proportion to the capital and duration of each. (189a)

ü  Simultaneous liquidation of the conjugal partnership properties of each of the two marriages contracted prior to August 3, 1988

ü  For instance, the inventoried assets of the Conjugal Partnership of Gains are Php 150,000.00. If the 1^st marriage lasted for 2 years, it will get 2/5 of the Php 150,000.00. If the 2^nd marriage lasted for 3 years, it will get 3/5 of the Php 150,000.00.

Article 132. The Rules of Court on the administration of estates of deceased persons shall be observed in the appraisal and sale of property of the conjugal partnership, and other matters which are not expressly determined in this Chapter. (187a)

ü  The administration of estates of deceased persons shall be observed in the appraisal and sale of property of the conjugal partnership guided by the rules of court.

Article 133. From the common mass of property, support shall be given to the surviving spouse and to the children during the liquidation of the inventoried property until what belongs to them is delivered; but from this shall be deducted that amount received for support which exceeds the fruits or rents pertaining to them. (188a)

ü  Only the surviving spouse and the children are entitled to get the allowances for support

ü  Allowances for support to the children and the spouse of the deceased pending liquidation of the estate are subject to collation and deductible from their share of the inheritance insofar as they exceed what they are entitled to as fruits or income 

References:

Judge Albano, Ed Vincent S. (2017). Family Code of the Philippines

CASE DIGEST: G.R. No. 200274, April 20, 2016

MELECIO DOMINGO, Petitioner, v. SPOUSES GENARO MOLINA AND ELENA B. MOLINA, SUBSTITUTED BY ESTER MOLINA, Respondents.

PONENTE: Justice BRION

FACTS:

ü  In June 1951, Sps. Anastacio and Flora Domingo bought a property at Camiling, Tarlac, consisting of one-half undivided portion over 18,164 sq. m., parcel of land.

ü  During his lifetime Anastacio has been borrowing money from the respondent Sps. Genaro and Elena Molina.  

ü  Ten years after the death of Flora, Anastacio sold his interest over the property to the Sps. Molina to answer for his debts.  

ü  The sale was registered and the entire one-half undivided portion was transferred to the Sps. Molina.

ü  Petitioner Melecio, one of the children of Anastacio learned about the transfer so he filed a complaint for Annulment of Title and for Recovery of Ownership against respondents Sps. Molina.  

ü  Melecio claims that Anastacio gave the subject property to the Sps. Molina to serve as collateral for the money that his father borrowed.  

ü  He further alleged that his father Anastacio could not have validly sold the interest over the property without Flora’s consent, as the latter died at the time the sale was made.

ü  On the other hand, Sps. Molina asserted that Anastacio surrendered the title of the subject property to answer for his debts and told Sps. Molina that they own already half of the land.  

ü  The Sps. Molina have been in possession of the subject property before the title was registered under their names and have religiously paid the property’s real estate taxes.

ü  RTC dismissed the case because Melecio failed to establish that Anastacio did not sell the property to the Sps. Molina.   RTC ruled further that Anastascio could dispose of conjugal property without Flora’s consent since the sale was necessary to answer for conjugal liabilities.  

ü  Melecio filed an MR but denied by the RTC.  So he assailed the case before the CA.

ü  CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC.  It gave credence to the OCT annotation of the disputed property sale.  It further held that Flora’s death is immaterial because Anastacio only solve his rights, excluding that of Flora’sinterest.  

ü  CA explained that “there is no prohibition against the sale by the widower of real property formerly belonging to a conjugal partnership of gains”.  Melecio filed MR but the same was denied.

ISSUE: Whether or not the sale of a conjugal property to the Sps. Molina without Floras consent is valid?

HELD: Yes. The sale of the conjugal property to the Sps. Molina is valid even without Floras consent.  The SC held that the Sps. Anastacio and Flora got married before the Family Code took effect on Aug. 3, 1988 so their property relation is conjugal partnership.   Anastacio and Flora’s conjugal partnership was dissolved upon Floras death pursuant to Article 126 (1) of the Family Code.

Art. 130 of the Family Code which provides that any disposition or encumbrances involving the conjugal property without prior liquidation of the partnership shall be void, this rule does not apply since the provision of the Family Code shall be “without prejudice to vested rights already acquired in accordance with the Civil Code or other laws.

The SC cited Taningco vs. Register of Deeds of Laguna wherein the court held that the properties of a dissolved conjugal partnership fall under the regime of co-ownership among the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased.  In the case at bar, an implied co-ownership among Flora’s heirs governed the conjugal properties pending liquidation and partition.  Anastacio, owns one-half of the original conjugal partnership properties as his share, but this is an undivided interest.

Thus, under Article 493 of the Civil Code on co-ownership Anastacio, as co-owner, cannot claim title to any specific portion of the conjugal properties without an actual partition being first done either by agreement or by judicial decree. But, Anastacio had the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest in the subject property.

Retrieved from: https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2016/apr2016/gr_200274_2016.html