Apacible, Pamela Kristina P.

November 26, 2019

1E

I.

a. The marriage of Solenn and Sonny is voidable. The Family Code1 provides that a
marriage may be annulled when the party in whose behalf it is sought to have the
marriage annulled was 18 years old and above, but below 21 years old, and that
said marriage was solemnized without the consent of their parents or guardians.

In this case, Solenn and Sonny were 19 and 20 year-olds, respectively who got
married without the consent of their parents. Thus falling under the first category
of voidable marriages according to law.

b. The defect in their marriage though may be ratified by cohabitation. Article 45

further provides that if the contracting parties of the concerned marriage freely
cohabitates and lives with each other as husband and wife.

II.

a. Shalimar is a legitimate child of Sandy and Sancho. Article 146 of the Family Code2
provides that children conceived or born during the marriage of the parents are
legitimate. Shalimar being conceived after the fact of her parents’ marriage makes
her legitimate.

b. The system of property relations that governed the marriage of Sandy and Sancho
is the regime of conjugal party of gains. Such system of property relations were
agreed upon and executed by the couple prior to their marriage. In accordance to
law, the property relations between husband and wife shall be governed by
marriage settlements executed before marriage3. Hence, he conjugal partnership
of gains is the property regime that will be liquidated upon the declaration of nullity
of their marriage.

c. Both the parcel of land and jewelry are part of the conjugal partnership.

As regards to the land, since it was bought on installment and making of payments
were extended into the solemnization of the marriage, the ownership is vested to
the conjugal partnership4. Had Sandro made all payments prior to the marriage,
the title of the land would be in his name.

1 The Family Code of the Philippines, Executive Order No. 209, Art. 45, par. 1
2 Id., Art. 146
3 Id., Art. 74
4 Id., Art. 118
 For the jewelry, the Family Code provides that property acquired by chance, such
as winnings from gambling or betting is part of the conjugal partnership properties5.
Since the money that was used to purchase the said jewelry was the winnings of
Sandy from the lottery, which forms part of the common fund, the jewelry is a
conjugal property.
III.

a. No. As per R.A. 9048, there is no ground for someone to change their name
based on sex reassignment. Moreover, the courts provided that with respect to
the change of sex from male to female, there is no law which allows the change
of entry in the birth certificate as to sex on the same ground, the determination
of a person’s sex is that which appears in his birth certificate.6

b. No, the case of Sharon is different. Based on jurisprudence, where the person
is biologically or naturally intersex, as such when afflicted with CAH, the
determining factor in his gender classification would be what the individual, like
respondent, having reached the age of majority, with good reason thinks of
his/her sex7. Further, the Supreme Court provided that if based on medical
testimony and scientific development showing the respondent to be other than
female, then a change in the subject's birth certificate entry is in order.

c. Based on the foregoing, the marriage then of Silverio and Shelly will be void ab
initio for violating Articles 1 and 2 of the Family Code. A basic essential element
for a valid marriage is for the contracting parties to be a man and a woman who
have legal capacity to marry8. In this case, Silverio’s petition to have his gender
reassignment be reflected in his birth certificate is denied, thus legally he is still
a man, and for Shelly, whom upon approval of her petition will now be the man,
the marriage celebrated between the two would be between two males, which
is contrary to family laws in the Philippines.

IV.

a. Sabina is an illegitimate child. The Family Code defines illegitimate children as

those being conceived and born outside of a valid marriage9. Sabina, being an
offspring of Sinclair and Steffi, while Sinclair was married to another, makes her
an illegitimate child for being born and conceived out of wedlock.

b. No, Sinclair is not obligated to pay for Sabina’s law school education. According to
Article 194 of the Family Code, the entitlement for support as regards one’s
education covers only his training or schooling for some profession. Since it was

5 Id., Art. 117, par. 7

6 Silverio v. Republic, G.R. No. 174689, October 19, 2007
7 Republic v Cagandahan, G.R. No. 166676, September 12, 2008
8 The Family Code of the Philippines, Executive Order No. 209, Art.2, par. 1
9 Id., Art. 165
 given that Sabina has already graduated from college, and is expected to have
been prepared for some profession, Sinclair is not obligated to pay for her law
schooling.

However, should it be proven that payment for such law schooling is in keeping
with the financial capacity of the family, Sabina may ask for support even beyond
the age of majority10.

V.

a. Sam’s parents are not correct. While it is true that the Inter-Country Adoption Act
of 1995 provides that the adopter to be qualified must be 27 years of age and is
16 years older than the child, an exemption to this is the would-be adopter is the
natural parent of the child to be adopted or is the spouse of such11.

Therefore, although Sam is only 24 years old, he and Selena may adopt Suri
because Selena is the natural mother of Suri.

10 Id., Art. 194, par. 2

11 Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995, R.A. No. 8043, Art. III, Sec. 9(a)