PROBLEMS IN CIVIL LAW
Problem No. 1. Hortillano, an employee of petitioner Continental Steel Manufacturing Corporation (Continental Steel) and a member of respondent Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng Centro Steel Corporation-Solidarity of Trade Unions in the Philippines for Empowerment and Reforms (Union) filed on 9 January 2006, a claim for Paternity Leave, Bereavement Leave and Death and Accident Insurance for dependent, pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) concluded between Continental and the Union, which reads:
ARTICLE X: LEAVE OF ABSENCE
x x x x
Section 2. BEREAVEMENT LEAVE--The Company agrees to grant a bereavement leave with pay to any employee in case of death of the employee's legitimate dependent (parents, spouse, children, brothers and sisters) based on the following:
2.1 Within Metro Manila up to Marilao, Bulacan - 7 days
2.2 Provincial/Outside Metro Manila - 11 days
x x x x
ARTICLE XVIII: OTHER BENEFITS
x x x x
Section 4. DEATH AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE--The Company shall grant death and accidental insurance to the employee or his family in the following manner:
x x x x
4.3 DEPENDENTS--Eleven Thousand Five Hundred Fifty Pesos (Php11,550.00) in case of death of the employees legitimate dependents (parents, spouse, and children). In case the employee is single, this benefit covers the legitimate parents, brothers and sisters only with proper legal document to be presented (e.g. death certificate).[4]
The claim was based on the death of Hortillano's unborn child. Hortillano's wife, Marife V. Hortillano, had a premature delivery on 5 January 2006 while she was in the 38th week of pregnancy.[5] According to the Certificate of Fetal Death dated 7 January 2006, the female fetus died during labor due to fetal Anoxia secondary to uteroplacental insufficiency.[6]
Continental Steel immediately granted Hortillano's claim for paternity leave but denied his claims for bereavement leave and other death benefits, consisting of the death and accident insurance.[7]
QUESTION: Is Continental Steel correct in denying the claims for bereavement leave and other death benefits?
Problem No. 2. “On October 7, 1993, the petitioners herein filed a petition with the Regional Trial Court in Quezon City alleging, inter alia, the following:
‘-- On May 2, 1967, during his lifetime. Louis P. Dawson offered to buy on installment from the SISKA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, per contract to sell, a parcel of land in Quezon City, consisting of 638 square meters for P27,632.00, now covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-58706 (248057);
-- On June 3, 1971, Louis P. Dawson died intestate;
-- Upon his death, the petitioners assumed the rights and obligations of deceased Louis P. Dawson in the aforementioned contract to sell, paying in full the selling price of the lot from their own funds, which payment was completed in 1978;
-- With said full payment, vendor SISKA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION executed on March 16, 1978 a deed of absolute sale in favor of deceased Louis P. Dawson who had died seven (7) years earlier, instead of in favor of the petitioners who assumed and to whom [were] transferred the rights and obligations of deceased Louis P. Dawson upon the latter’s death;
-- Because of the obvious error, Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-58706 (248057) was issued in the name of deceased Louis P. Dawson instead of those of petitioners -- hence, the petition for the cancellation and correction of TCT No. RT - 58706 (248057) in the name of Louis P. Dawson and the issuance of a new title in the names of herein petitioners, to wit: Dr. Ernesto C. Dawson (1/5), Louis P. Dawson, Jr. (1/5), Benjamin C. Dawson (1/5), Josephine Dawson Soliven (1/5), Ralph D. Cudilla (1/15), Eliza C. Isip (1/15) and Larry D. Cudilla (1/15).
Question: If you were the judge would you grant the petition for the cancellation and correction of the TCT?
Problem No. 3. Amos G. Bellis, born in Texas, was "a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States." By his first wife, Mary E. Mallen, whom he divorced, he had five legitimate children; by his second wife, Violet Kennedy, who survived him, he had three legitimate children and finally, he had three illegitimate children.
On August 5, 1952, Amos G. Bellis executed a will in the Philippines, in which he directed that after all taxes, obligations, and expenses of administration are paid for, his distributable estate should be divided, in trust, in the following order and manner: (a) $240,000.00 to his first wife, Mary E. Mallen; (b) P120,000.00 to his three illegitimate children, Amos Bellis, Jr., Maria Cristina Bellis, Miriam Palma Bellis, or P40,000.00 each and (c) after the foregoing two items have been satisfied, the remainder shall go to his seven surviving children by his first and second wives, namely: Edward A. Bellis, Henry A. Bellis, Alexander Bellis and Anna Bellis Allsman, Edwin G. Bellis, Walter S. Bellis, and Dorothy E. Bellis, in equal shares.
Subsequently, or on July 8, 1958, Amos G. Bellis died a resident of San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A. His will was admitted to probate in the Court of First Instance of Manila on September 15, 1958. The law of Texas did not provide for legitimes for illegitimate children.
On January 17, 1964, Maria Cristina Bellis and Miriam Palma Bellis filed their respective oppositions to the project of partition on the ground that they were deprived of their legitimes as illegitimate children and, therefore, compulsory heirs of the deceased.
Question: What law is applicable on the matter? Will you grant the shares for the illegitimate children?
Problem No. 4. Is a provision in a foreigner’s wills to the effect that his properties shall be distributed in accordance with Philippine law and not with his national law valid?
Problem No. 5. On 25 October 2004, Maria Chrysantine Pimentel filed an action for frustrated parricide against Joselito R. Pimentel docketed as Criminal Case No. Q-04-130415, before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, which was raffled to Branch 223 (RTC Quezon City).
On 7 February 2005, petitioner received summons to appear before the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 72 (RTC Antipolo) for the pre-trial and trial of Civil Case No. 04-7392 (Maria Chrysantine Lorenza L. Pimentel v. Joselito Pimentel) for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage under Section 36 of the Family Code on the ground of psychological incapacity.
On 11 February 2005, petitioner filed an urgent motion to suspend the proceedings before the RTC Quezon City on the ground of the existence of a prejudicial question. Petitioner asserted that since the relationship between the offender and the victim is a key element in parricide, the outcome of Civil Case No. 04-7392 would have a bearing in the criminal case filed against him before the RTC Quezon City.
Question: What is a prejudicial question? What are its elements? Is there an existence of a prejudicial question in the above-stated problem? Explain.
Problem No. 6. On June 6, 1989, the petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court of Baguio (Branch 6), a complaint for damages for the injuries and expenses he sustained after the truck driven by the respondent bumped him on the night of December 9, 1985. In answer thereto, respondent contended that the criminal case arising from the same incident, Criminal Case No. 2049 for Serious Physical Injuries thru Reckless Imprudence, earlier filed on January 8, 1986, had already been provisionally dismissed by the Municipal Trial Court of Tuba, Benguet on March 23, 1987, due to petitioner’s lack of interest; and that the dismissal was with respect to both criminal and civil liabilities of respondent.
After trial, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision, dated December 18, 1991, ruling that the civil case was not barred by the dismissal of the criminal case, and that petitioner is entitled to damages. The dispositive portion of the RTC decision reads:
WHEREFORE, Judgment is hereby rendered, sentencing defendant Valentino Cerantes to pay plaintiff George Hambon the sum of P60,000.00 for hospitalization and medical expenses and P10,000.00 for native rituals, as Actual Damages; the sum of P10,000.00 as Moral Damages, P5,000.00 as Exemplary Damages and P5,000.00 as Attorney’s fees and costs.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its decision promulgated on March 8, 1995, reversed and set aside the decision of the trial court, and dismissed petitioner’s complaint for damages.
According to the appellate court, since the petitioner did not make any reservation to institute a separate civil action for damages, it was impliedly instituted with the criminal case, and the dismissal of the criminal case carried with it the dismissal of the suit for damages, notwithstanding the fact that the dismissal was provisional as it amounted to an acquittal and had the effect of an adjudication on the merits.
Question: Is the appellate court correct? Explain.
Problem No. 7. (Ugalde v. Ysasi, GR No. 130623, Feb. 29, 20080 ) On 15 February 1951, Lorea de Ugalde (petitioner) and Jon de Ysasi (respondent) got married before Municipal Judge Remigio Peña of Hinigaran, Negros Occidental. On 1 March 1951, Rev. Msgr. Flaviano Arriola solemnized their church wedding at the San Sebastian Cathedral in Bacolod City. Petitioner and respondent did not execute any ante-nuptial agreement. They had a son named Jon de Ysasi III.
Petitioner and respondent separated sometime in April 1957. On 26 May 1964, respondent allegedly contracted another marriage with Victoria Eleanor Smith (Smith) before Judge Lucio M. Tanco of Pasay City. Petitioner further alleged that respondent and Smith had been acquiring and disposing of real and personal properties to her prejudice as the lawful wife. Petitioner alleged that she had been defrauded of rental income, profits, and fruits of their conjugal properties.
On 12 December 1984, petitioner filed a petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains against respondent before the Regional Trial Court of Negros Occidental, Bacolod City, Branch 48 (trial court). The case was docketed as Special Proceedings No. 3330. In particular, petitioner asked for her conjugal share in respondent’s inheritance as per the settlement of the estate of respondent’s parents, Juan Ysasi and Maria Aldecoa de Ysasi, who died on 17 November 1975 and 25 February 1979, respectively. Petitioner also prayed for a monthly support of P5,000 to be deducted from her share in the conjugal partnership; the appointment of a receiver during the pendency of the litigation; the annulment of all contracts, agreements, and documents signed and ratified by respondent with third persons without her consent; and payment of appearance and attorney’s fees.
Respondent countered that on 2 June 1961, he and petitioner entered into an agreement which provided, among others, that their conjugal partnership of gains shall be deemed dissolved as of 15 April 1957. Pursuant to the agreement, they submitted an Amicable Settlement in Civil Case No. 4791 then pending before the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental (CFI). The Amicable Settlement stipulates:
2. That the petitioner shall pay the respondent the sum of THIRTY THOUSAND PESOS (P30,000.00) in full satisfaction of and/or consideration for and to cover any and all money and/or property claims she has or may have against the petitioner in the future, including but not limited to pensions, allowances, alimony, support, share in the conjugal property (if any), inheritance, etc.;
3. That for and in consideration of the foregoing premises and the payment of THIRTY THOUSAND pesos (P30,000.00), the receipt of which sum is hereby acknowledged and confessed by and to the entire satisfaction of the respondent, she hereby completely and absolutely transfer, convey, assign, set over, waive, remise, release and forever quitclaim, unto petitioner, his successors and administrators, any and all rights, claims and interests which the respondent has or may hereafter have against the petitioner arising, directly or indirectly, from the fact that the petitioner and respondent were married on March 1, 1951, including but not limited to any and all money and/or property claims mentioned in the paragraph immediately preceding;
4. That, except with reference to the custody of the boy, the parties herein hereby waive any and all rights to question the validity and effectivity of the provisions of this amicable settlement, as well as the right to raise these matters on appeal[.]
In its Order dated 6 June 1961, the CFI approved the Amicable Settlement.
Respondent further alleged that petitioner already obtained a divorce from him before the Supreme Court of Mexico. Petitioner then contracted a second marriage with Richard Galoway (Galoway). After Galoway’s death, petitioner contracted a third marriage with Frank Scholey. Respondent moved for the dismissal of the petition for dissolution of the conjugal partnership of gains on the grounds of estoppel, laches, and res judicata.
In his Supplemental Affirmative Defense, respondent alleged that the marriage between him and petitioner was void because it was executed without the benefit of a marriage license.
On 22 November 1991, the trial court rendered judgment as follows:
WHEREFORE, after collating the evidence, the evidence for the respondent is preponderant to prove his affirmative and special defenses that the petition does not state a sufficient cause of action. On these bases and under the doctrine of res judicata, the petition is hereby DISMISSED. Without pronouncements as to costs and attorney’s fees.
The trial court ruled that the existence of a conjugal partnership of gains is predicated on a valid marriage. Considering that the marriage between petitioner and respondent was solemnized without a marriage license, the marriage was null and void, and no community of property was formed between them. The trial court further ruled that assuming that the marriage was valid, the action was barred by res judicata. The trial court noted that petitioner and respondent entered into an amicable settlement in Civil Case No. 4791. The amicable settlement was approved by the CFI and petitioner may no longer repudiate it. Finally, the trial court ruled that there was no proof to show that during their union, petitioner and respondent acquired properties.
Question: Is the decision of the trial court correct?
PROBLEM NO. 8. Veronico Tenebro contracted marriage with Leticia Ancajas on April 10, 1990. The two were wed by a judge at Lapu-Lapu City. The two lived together continuously and without interruption until the later part of 1991, when Tenebro informed Ancajas that he had been previously married to a certain Hilda Villareyes on Nov. 10, 1986. Tenebro showed Ancajas a photocopy of a marriage contract between him and Villareyes. Invoking this previous marriage, petitioner thereafter left the conjugal dwelling which he shared with Ancajas, stating that he was going to cohabit with Villareyes.
On January 25, 1993, petitioner contracted yet another marriage, this one with a certain Nilda Villegas. When Ancajas learned of this third marriage, she verified from Villareyes whether the latter was indeed married to the petitioner. Villareyes confirmed in handwritten letter that indeed Tenebro was her husband.
Ancajas thereafter filed a complaint for bigamy against petitioner. During trial, Tenebro admitted having married to Villareyes and produced two children. However, he denied that he and Villareyes were validly married to each other, claiming that no marriage ceremony took place. He alleged that he signed a marriage contract merely to enable her to get the allotment from his office in connection with his work as a seaman. The trial court found him guilty of bigamy.
Questions: (1) Whether or not the petitioner is guilty of the crime of bigamy.
(2) What is the effect of declaration of nullity of the second marriage of the petitioner on the ground of psychological incapacity?
PROBLEM NO. 9. Petitioner and respondent met in August 1989 when petitioner was 26 years old and respondent was 36 years of age. Barely a year after their first meeting, they got married before a minister of the Gospel[4] at the Manila City Hall, and through a subsequent church wedding[5] at the Sta. Rosa de Lima Parish, Bagong Ilog, Pasig, Metro Manila on 6 December 1990.[6] Out of their union, a child was born on 19 April 1991, who sadly died five (5) months later.
On 8 March 1993,[7] petitioner filed a petition to have his marriage to respondent declared null and void. He anchored his petition for nullity on Article 36 of the Family Code alleging that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. He asserted that respondent's incapacity existed at the time their marriage was celebrated and still subsists up to the present.[8]
As manifestations of respondent's alleged psychological incapacity, petitioner claimed that respondent persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income, educational attainment and other events or things.
QUESTIONS: (a) Define psychological incapacity as contemplated in Art. 36
(b) What are the so called “Molina guidelines”?
(c) given the above premises, will you declare the marriage as null and void? Explain.
Problem No. 10. (PERLA G. PATRICIO, PETITIONER, VS. MARCELINO G. DARIO III AND THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, SECOND DIVISION, RESPONDENTS. FIRST DIVISION[ G.R. NO. 170829, November 20, 2006 ])On July 5, 1987, Marcelino V. Dario died intestate. He was survived by his wife, petitioner Perla G. Patricio and their two sons, Marcelino Marc Dario and private respondent Marcelino G. Dario III. Among the properties he left was a parcel of land with a residential house and a pre-school building built thereon situated at 91 Oxford corner Ermin Garcia Streets in Cubao, Quezon City, as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-30731 (175992) of the Quezon City Registry of Deeds, covering an area of seven hundred fifty five (755) square meters, more or less.[2]
On August 10, 1987, petitioner, Marcelino Marc and private respondent, extrajudicially settled the estate of Marcelino V. Dario. Accordingly, TCT No. RT-30731 (175992) was cancelled and TCT No. R-213963 was issued in the names of petitioner, private respondent and Marcelino Marc.
Thereafter, petitioner and Marcelino Marc formally advised private respondent of their intention to partition the subject property and terminate the co-ownership. Private respondent refused to partition the property hence petitioner and Marcelino Marc instituted an action for partition before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City which was docketed as Civil Case No. Q-01-44038 and raffled to Branch 78.
On October 3, 2002,[3] the trial court ordered the partition of the subject property in the following manner: Perla G. Patricio, 4/6; Marcelino Marc G. Dario, 1/6; and Marcelino G. Dario III, 1/6. The trial court also ordered the sale of the property by public auction wherein all parties concerned may put up their bids. In case of failure, the subject property should be distributed accordingly in the aforestated manner.[4]
Private respondent filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied by the trial court on August 11, 2003,[5] hence he appealed before the Court of Appeals, which denied the same on October 19, 2005. However, upon a motion for reconsideration filed by private respondent on December 9, 2005, the appellate court partially reconsidered the October 19, 2005 Decision. In the now assailed Resolution, the Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint for partition filed by petitioner and Marcelino Marc for lack of merit. It held that the family home should continue despite the death of one or both spouses as long as there is a minor beneficiary thereof. The heirs could not partition the property unless the court found compelling reasons to rule otherwise. The appellate court also held that the minor son of private respondent, who is a grandson of spouses Marcelino V. Dario and Perla G. Patricio, was a minor beneficiary of the family home.[6]
Questions: (1) What is a family home?
(2) Who are its beneficiaries?
(3) In the given case, is the ruling of the court of appeals correct?
(4) Will you consider Marcelino Lorenzo R. Dario IV, the minor son of private respondent, as a beneficiary under Article 154 of the Family Code Explain.
No comments:
Post a Comment