Title V.

The Family

Articles 149 to 151. Family as an Institution.

The law favors SOLIDARITY of the family: The law sees the family as a basic social institution
and the foundation of the nation. Public policy therefore cherishes and protects the family.
Consequently, family relations are governed by LAW and no custom, practice or agreement
destructive of the family shall be recognized or given effect. (Art. 149)

Albano vs. Gapusan: A notary should not facilitate the disintegration of a marriage and the family
by encouraging the separation of the spouses and extra-judicially dissolving the conjugal
partnership. Notaries were severely censured by this Court for notarizing documents which subvert
the institutions of marriage and the family. To preserve the institutions of marriage and the family,
the law considers as void "any contract for personal separation between husband and wife" and
"every extrajudicial agreement, during the marriage, for the dissolution of the conjugal
partnership".

Who are members of the family? Family relations include those (a) between husband and wife, (b)
between parents and children, (c) among other ascendants and descendants, and (e) among brothers
and sisters, whether of the full or half-blood.

Gayon vs. Gayon: The enumeration of members of the same family in Article 150 of the FC does
not comprehend the in-laws. Thus, sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law, and parents-in-law are not
considered members of the family.

The law requires the conduct of earnest efforts toward a compromise respecting suits between
members of the same family. (Art. 151)

REASON: Martinez vs. Martinez: It is known that a lawsuit between close relatives generates
deeper bitterness than between strangers. It is therefore necessary that every effort should be made
toward a compromise before litigation is allowed to breed hate and passion in the family.

Hontiveros vs. RTC: Article 151 of the FC does not apply when the suit is not exclusively among
the family members. Whenever a stranger is a party in the case involving the family members, the
requisite showing the earnest efforts to compromise is no longer mandatory.

Manalo vs. CA: Article 151 of the FC applies only to suits. It does not apply to a special
proceeding for the settlement of estate of the decedent, which is not a suit. The term suit refers
to an action by one person against another person in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues
the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of an injury or the enforcement of a right,
whether at law or in equity.

Articles 152 to 162. The Family Home.

Not all family dwellings are family homes. A family can have only one (1) Family home. Article
161 provides that a person may constitute, or be a beneficiary of, only 1 Family Home.

Family Home is STATUTORILY defined. It is the dwelling house and the land on which it is
situated, constituted jointly by the husband and the wife or by an unmarried head of a family
through ACTUAL OCCUPATION as a family residence. The Family Home must be part of the
ACP or CPG or of the exclusive properties of either spouse or the property of the unmarried head
of the family. And at the time of its constitution, the actual value of the Family Home should not
exceed P300K for urban areas and P200K for rural areas.

It is important to determine whether a family dwelling is a Family Home because of the legal
BENEFITS extended to Family Homes. As a rule, from the time of its constitution and so long as
any of its beneficiaries actually resides therein, the Family Home continues to be such and is
EXEMPT from execution, forced sale or attachment.
 REASON for the benefits: The law sees the Family Home as a SYMBOL OF LOVE and therefore
it protects it from being taken away from the family.

There are however certain liabilities for which the Family Home may NOT be exempted from
execution, forced sale or attachment: (Article 155)

1. For non-payment of taxes.

2. For debts incurred PRIOR to the constitution of the Family Home. [Constitution is deemed
automatic by the actual occupancy of the dwelling house as family residence, petition with the
court is no longer required.]

QUESTION: X and his wife are temporarily staying in the US. X claims that their house in the
Philippines is a Family Home because, although he is not physically residing there, he left a
maid to oversee the house and, accordingly, whenever his wife visits the Philippines she would
stay in their home. Is Xs contention correct? ANSWER: No. the law explicitly provides that
occupancy of the Family Home must be ACTUAL and must be either by the owner thereof or
by any of its beneficiaries. Article 154 enumerates the beneficiaries of a Family Home (a) the
husband and wife, or the unmarried head of the family; and (b) their parents, ascendants,
descendants, brothers and sisters, whether the relationship be legitimate or illegitimate LIVING
in the Family Home and DEPENDENT upon the head of the family for legal support. The law
definitely excludes maids and overseers from being beneficiaries of the Family Home.
Consequently, occupancy of a Family Home by a maid or overseer is insufficient compliance
with the law. (Manacop vs. CA)

3. For debts secured by mortgages on the premises before or after such constitution. And,

4. For debts due to those who have rendered service or furnished material for the construction of
the building.

What is the REMEDY available to a creditor who obtains a judgment in his favor but whose claim
is among those mentioned in Article 155, and he has reasonable grounds to believe that the Family
Home is actually worth more than the maximum amount fixed in Article 157?

May a Family Home be voluntarily sold, donated, assigned or encumbered by its owner?
ANSWER: Yes, but there should be WRITTEN consent of the person constituting the Family
Home, the latters spouse, and majority of the beneficiaries of legal age. In case of conflict, the
court shall decide.

Spouses A and B died leaving as their beneficiaries, C and D who are both minors. Can C and D
partition the Family Home? ANSWER: The heirs can partition the Family Home only after a period
of 10 years from the death of A and B, and only when they are no longer minor beneficiaries living
in the Family Home UNLESS the court finds compelling reason by way of exception.

QUESTION: Suppose a residential house was built and occupied by the family in 1980 but was not
constituted as Family Home under the old law. Does the effectivity of the Family Code on August
3, 1988 constitute the residential house as Family Home by operation of law and, therefore, exempt
it from execution for debts incurred before the effectivity of the Family Code? ANSWER: No.
Article 162 of the FC simply means that all existing family residences at the time of the effectivity
of the FC are considered Family Homes (provided that the legal conditions are met) and are
PROSPECTIVELY entitled to the benefits accorded to a family home under the FC. Article 162
does not state that the provision on Family Home in the FC shall have retroactive application.

Title VI. Paternity and Filiation

Prefatorily, filiation of children may be by NATURE or by ADOPTION. Natural filiation in turn may be
LEGITIMATE or ILLEGITIMATE.

Articles 163 to 171. Legitimate Children.

 There are five (5) groups of legitimate children under the FC? ANSWER (Articles 54 & 164): (1)
Children conceived or born DURING the marriage of parents, (2) Children conceived as a result
of artificial insemination of the wife with the sperm of the husband or that of a donor or both,
PROVIDED that the husband and the wife authorized or ratified the insemination in a WRITTEN
INSTRUMENT executed and signed by them BEFORE THE BIRTH of the child, (3) Children
conceived or born before the finality of the decree of annulment of marriage, (4) Children conceived
or born before the finality of the decree of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the FC, and (5)
Children conceived or born within void marriage under Article 53 of the FC.

CONSEQUENTLY, those not included above are ILLEGITIMATE children. Thus, children
conceived AND born OUTSIDE of a valid marriage are illegitimate. (Article 165)

Suppose the mother contracted 2 marriages SUCCESSIVELY and there is DOUBT as to which
marriage her child belongs, what is the rule? (Article 168 applies, if the subsequent marriage was
solemnized within 300 days from termination of the first marriage)

Article 169: If after termination of her marriage, the mother does not contract a subsequent
marriage, a child born within 300 days from termination of her marriage is, by implication,
presumed to belong to her marriage with the former husband. But a child born after 300 days from
termination of the marriage is not so presumed. And whoever alleges the legitimacy or illegitimacy
of the child must prove the same.

DOCTRINE OF SETTLED PRESUMPTION: A child born during the subsistence of marriage is

prima facie presumed to be the legitimate child of the parties to the marriage. This prima facie
conclusion would become CONCLUSIVE if the legitimacy of the child is not impugned within the
period prescribed by Article 170. The mother cannot impugn the legitimacy of the child. The child
himself cannot impugn his own legitimacy. Only the putative father (or his heirs in appropriate
cases under Article 171) shall have the right to impugn the legitimacy of the child based exclusively
on the grounds enumerated in Article 166:

(a) Physical impossibility of the husband to have sexual intercourse with the wife within
the first 120 days of the 300 days immediately preceding the birth of the child because
of: [1] physical incapacity of the husband to have sexual intercourse with his wife; [2]
the fact that the husband and wife were living separately in such a way that sexual
intercourse was not possible; or [3] serious illness of the husband (not the wife) which
absolutely prevented sexual intercourse.

(b) That for biological or other scientific reasons, the child could not have been that of the
husband (except par. 2 of Article 164). And,

(c) That the written authorization or ratification of either parent to the artificial
insemination was obtained through FIVUM.

What is the difference between an action to impugn legitimacy and an action to establish legitimate
filiation?

Proof of legitimate filiation:

Primary evidence (a) Birth Certificate, (b) Final Judgment, (c) Admission of legitimate filiation
in a public document signed by the parent concerned, and (d) Admission of legitimate filiation in
a private HANDWRITTEN instrument and signed by the parent concerned.

Secondary evidence (a) Open and continuous possession of the status of a legitimate child, or
(b) Any other means allowed by the Rules of Court and special laws.

Period to bring action to establish legitimate filiation? Answer: At any time during petitioners
lifetime. As a rule only the child can bring the action. But, in case he would die during minority or
in the state of insanity, the right to bring the action is transmitted to his heirs who shall bring the
action within 5 years from the death of the child.

Rights of legitimate children: Surname, Support, Succession (S3).

 How about action to establish illegitimate filiation, when shall it be brought? Answer: It depends
on the evidence of the petitioner.

Rights of illegitimate children? S3. They are under the parental authority of the mother, as a rule.
But when the parents are living together, they exercise joint parental authority.

Who are legitimated children? (See Articles 177 and 178)

Effects of legitimation: It shall retroact to the time of childs birth. The legitimated child shall enjoy
the same rights as legitimate children.

May a child who died before the subsequent valid marriage of parents be legitimated? Yes. (Article
181)

What if the marriage is voidable and subsequently annulled by the court, would it affect the
legitimation of the child? What if the marriage is void?