#familycode

PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Prepared by: Jherwin P. Hermosa

ARTICLE. 24. IN ALL CONTRACTUAL, PROPERTY OR OTHER RELATIONS, WHEN ONE OF THE PARTIES IS AT A DISADVANTAGE ON ACCOUNT OF HIS MORAL DEPENDENCE, IGNORANCE, INDIGENCE, MENTAL WEAKNESS, TENDER AGE OR OTHER HANDICAP, THE COURTS MUST BE VIGILANT FOR HIS PROTECTION.  

WHO ARE PROTECTED BY LAW?

Reason for the Courts' Protection of the Underdog 

The law takes great interest in the welfare of the weak and the handicapped. Thus, we have "parens patriae"

Literally, "parens patriae" means "father or parent of his country". In the U.S. (as in the Philippines), the phrase refers to the sovereign power of the state in safeguarding the rights of the person under disability, such as the insane and the incompetent.

Meaning of "Vigilant for His Protection”

The phrase in general means that in case of doubt, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the underdog. This does not mean that they are above the law, or that they are given preferential status but simply the courts must be vigilant as others might take advantage of their disadvantaged status.

ISSUE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Article 24 of the Civil Code is an implementation of the Social Justice Clause in the Constitution. In a message to the National Assembly on February 16, 1938, President Manuel L. Quezon said: We are earnestly concerned with social justice. Without a strict application of social justice to all elements of the community, the general satisfaction of the people with the government is impossible to achieve.

WHAT THE PROTECTION COVERS?

In Valenzuela v. CA, et al., G.R. No. 56168, December 22, 1988.

Facts: An old and illiterate man obtained a loan from a rural bank of P 300.00. His record reflected, however, was P 5,000.00. In action for annulment and or instrument, the lower court ordered the reformation of a contract to reflect the true intention of the parties.

Held: The bank took advantage of the old man, hence, in the exercise of the Court’s duty to protect the rights of people with limited education, it affirmed the lower court’s decision, based on Article 24, NCC. Award of moral damages was also sustained due to the mental anguish and serious anxiety suffered by the heirs as the result of a fraudulent act of the bank.

Law applied in Rape Case

People v. Casipit, 51 SCAD 482, 232 SCRA 638 (May 31, 1994)

Worth noting is the marked receptively of our courts to lend credence to the testimonies of victims who are of tender years regarding their versions of what transpired since the State, as parens patriae, is under obligation to minimize the risk of harm to those who, because of their minority, are not yet able to fully protect themselves. 

FACTS:

From the moment of acquisition until his death, Apolonio, Sr. had been the single and exclusive possessor and occupant, and no one had contested his ownership or staked an adverse claim against him thereon. He passed away in 1987, and his children, including responder Apolonio Jr. and his siblings, succeeded him. The siblings of Apolonio, Jr. relinquished their rights in favor of him in an extrajudicial settlement of their father's inheritance that was implemented by Apolonio, Srchildren. .'s As a result, the property was listed in Apolonio Jr.'s name for tax purposes.

The Government did not interpose any timely objection to the testimony of Apolonia, Jr. It did not also object to the documentary evidence (i.e., the deeds of absolute sale and tax declarations) offered by him. Hence, the MTC admitted all the evidence presented by Apolonia, Jr. In due course, the MTC granted Apolonia, Jr.'s application, and declared him as the owner in fee simple of the land, and confirmed his ownership thereof.

ISSUE:

WON Apolonio Jr. established his lawful occupation of the land as owner in fee simple; that the Government did not timely object to his testimony, and did not also controvert his evidence

HELD:

FACTS:

When she was still in her teens, the petitioner worked as a hostess in nightclubs. She had Cynthia Vicencio requested a change of last name from "Vicencio" to "Yu" in a petition. She claimed that she was born to spouses Fe Leabres and Pablo Vicencio. yastmastmastmastmastmastmastmastmasti as Later, her parents' marriage was annulled, and her mother stopped using the Vicencio last name. After then, Fe wed Ernesto Yu. She had not known or even remembered her true father, Pablo, since she was a little child; instead, Ernesto Yu was and is her father. In spite of this, she continued to use the last name "Vicencio" in school and in other settings. Due to this circumstance, questions about her parentage and the reason behind her family name, Vicencio, were raised by both her classmates and their neighbors, which caused her great humiliation. She discussed the petition with her step-father, and he gave his approval. The Solicitor General opposed but the trial court granted the petition. The decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which held that it is for the best interest of Cynthia that her surname be changed. With regard to Cynthia's request to change her last name, the Solicitor General appealed, claiming that there was no justifiable basis for doing so.

ISSUE:

WON Cynthia be allowed to adopt the surname of his step-father?

HELD:

FACTS:

When she was still in her teens, the petitioner worked as a hostess in nightclubs. She had affairs with a variety of men, but she gave birth to two children by a specific SySia Lay and one daughter by Victor Tan Villareal. She entrusted her youngest child to a Cebu friend. During the early years of the former, Mr. and Mrs. Cabangbang obtained custody of the other daughter, Betty (4 months old). They christened her Grace Cabangbang. The petitioner is now seeking to gain custody of Betty. She claims that Villareal abducted the child and brought her to the couple, who claim to have discovered the infant wrapped up in a bundle outside their residence's gate.

ISSUE:

WON the custody of the child can be granted back to the mother

HELD:

NO petitioner abandoned the child, thus she has lost her parental authority over the child. CFI ruled that the mother was unfit to have

FACTS:

One of Tan Hoi's children, Tan Nam, was born on October 10, 1949, and was living in Hong Kong, according to the petition for naturalization that Tan Hoi submitted to the Court of First Instance of Manila. On December 28, 1956, the court, after hearing, granted the petition ordering that petitioner be admitted as citizen of the Philippines and that, upon prior compliance with the provisions of Republic Act No. 530, and after taking the required oath, a certificate of naturalization be issued to him which shall be registered in the civil registry as required by Act No. 3753.

One of the requirements for a naturalization applicant, according to Section 2 of the Revised Naturalization Law, is that the applicant must have enrolled his minor children who are of school age in one of the public or private schools approved by the Office of Private Education and where Philippine history is taught as part of the curriculum. This Court has frequently stressed the significance of this condition in a number of cases where it has been indicated that it is mandatory. Because of the civil war in China at the time the applicant's children left the Philippines for China in 1937 and their inability to return when they were old enough to attend school as well as the fact that the applicant could not afford to pay for the return of his minor children to the Philippines in addition to the strict immigration policies in the Philippines, it was decided that these reasons were not acceptable justifications for failing to comply with the requirement.

ISSUE:

WON the right of a legitimate child can be a reason for the acquisition of the citizenship of the adopter

HELD:

FACTS:

Casiano Abaya passed away in 1899 unmarried, although he left behind Paula Conde with two unacknowledged children. The two kids passed away in 1902 and 1903 while still minors. The mother filed a lawsuit seeking resolution of Casiano's intestate estate as well as recognition of the two as the deceased's natural children. The trial court decided that Conde was the rightful successor of the decedent's natural children and awarded the estate of Casiano to him despite Roman Abaya, the deceased's brother, objecting.

ISSUE:

WON an ordinary action for the acknowledgment of natural children may be brought in special probate proceedings

WON the mother of a natural child now deceased, but who survived the person who, it is claimed, was his natural father, also deceased, may bring an action for the acknowledgment of the natural filiation in favor of such child?  in order to appear in his behalf to receive the inheritance from the person who is supposed to be his natural father.

HELD:

Yes. If there shall be a controversy before the Court of First Instance as to who the lawful heirs of the deceased person are, or as to the distributive share to which each person is entitled under the law, the testimony as to such controversy shall be taken in writing by the judge, under oath, and signed by the witness. Any party in interest whose distributive share is affected by the determination of such controversy, may appeal from the judgment of the Court of First Instance determining such controversy to the Supreme Court, within the time and in the manner provided in the last preceding section.

FACTS:

Petitioners Victoria and Ma Flordeliza Baluyot filed a petition for intervention in Special Proceedings entitled "Intestate Estate of Deceased Enrique Baluyut,'. The petition claimed that the petitioners, who are Enrique M. Baluyut's illegitimate children born out of marriage by the dead and the petitioners' mother and guardian (ad litem) Norma Urbano, have a legal claim to the inheritance of Enrique M. Baluyut. They were conceived and born when Norma Urbano shared a home with the deceased at a time when he was already married to Felicidad S. Baluyut, and they continued to possess and enjoy the status of the deceased's children throughout his lifetime as a direct result of the deceased's supporting and caring for them. Enrique's widow Felicidad S. Baluyut, who was chosen to administer his inheritance, objected to the intervention petition.

Following the trial, the RTC decided in favor of the intervenors Victoria, Ma Theresa, and Ma Flordeliza and mandated that Felicidad Baluyot provide them with a monthly maintenance payment from Enrique Baluyot's estate. Children are deemed to be the late Enrique Baluyot's compelled heirs according to New Civil Code Article 887. The petitioner filed for Motion for Reconsideration but RTC refused the said MR and held that a decision granting support is final and executor. The Court of Appeals overturned the RTC's judgment, rejected the intervention motion, and vacated the support order. Petitioner's appeal of the CA's ruling was rejected. The current petition for review on certiorari is the result.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners voluntarily recognized by the late Enrique M. Baluyut as his illegitimate spurious children?

HELD:

FACTS:

The sole child of Juan Sanchez and Maria Villafranca is Rosalia Lugod. Her father had the petitioners, who are now adults. Rosalia requested letters of administration for her mother and father's inheritance after Maria Villafranca passed away. Juan Sanchez passed away before the proceedings could come to an end. Rosalia objected to a petition for letters of administration of Sanchez's assets brought by his illegitimate offspring.

With the aid of their attorneys, Rosalia and the father's illegitimate children signed a compromise agreement on October 30, 1969, in which they agreed to divide the possessions. Four drafts later, they finally did. On January 19, 1970, however, petitioners demanded that Rosalia deliver a shortfall of 24 hectares or toss the settlement agreement. They argued that the arrangement was unlawful since the court had not given its blessing. Later, the parties signed a memorandum of understanding on April 13, 1970.

ISSUE:

Was the compromise agreement valid even without the approval of the court?

HELD: