You are on page 1of 2

I.

A. The marriage between the two is merely voidable. The marriage is not void for being incestuous or
being against being public policy as Articles 37 and 38 of the Family Code are exclusive. Step Siblings are
not amongst the listed prohibited marriages.

The marriage however is voidable. The ages of the parties at the time of the marriage were 19 and 20
years old respectively. According to Article 45 of the Family Code the marriage may be annulled if the
party or parties contracting the marriage were over the age of 18 but below the age of 21, and that the
marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents, guardian or person having substitute
parental authority over the party. Thus the marriage is merely voidable.

B. Yes it may be. The defect in the present circumstances is that the parties married without the consent
of their parents. However Article 45 says that this may be remedied by having the parties freely cohabit
with one another as husband and wife after reaching the age of 21.

II.

III.

A. No there is none. The basis of the application to have the sex changed in the birth certificate
only applies to clerical errors and wherein the person was actually the opposite sex since birth
B. Yes as this is an exception to the above rule. Sharon was actually the opposite sex since birth, it
just took some time for the attributes to manifest.
C. Yes it may. Article 1 of the Family Code States that Marriage is a special contract of permanent
union between a man and a woman. In this case although Sharon was listed as a female on the
birth certificate, Sharon is actually biologically a man, and hence the marriage is valid since it
complied with the requisites of the place it was celebrated in, the United States, Las Vegas.

IV.

VI.

No Santi may not. Article 448 of the Civil Code will apply. While Sammy was acting in bad faith, building
on the land of Santi, Santi also acted in bad faith in allowing the building of the wall by not voicing an
objection to the same. Hence the building of the wall was made with his, Santi, knowledge and consent.
Thus Article 448 will apply. According to Article 448 Santi may only appropriate the wall after paying for
the indemnity.

VII.

IX
A. No the doctrine of proximate cause does not apply here. The basis of the Spouses claim stems
from breach of contract. What only needs to be shown is the existence of the contract and
breach of the same for the spouses to claim damages.

X.

A. Sabina is an illegitimate child. For a child to be legitimate it must be conceived or born during a valid
marriage. Since at the time that Sabina was conceived and born were outside of a valid marriage
between her mother and father, Sabina is an illegitimate child.

B. Yes she is entitled to support. An illegitimate child is still entitled to support, and Article 194 states
that support includes education. The provision goes on to say that education includes also the training
or schooling for some profession. As law school is meant as an education and as training for one to
become a lawyer, a profession, she is entitled to receive support, even if she is over the age of majority.

XI.

XII.

XIII.

XIV.

XV.

XVI

XVII.

The properties belong to Sofia and Semuel equally. The parties in this fall under Article 147 as both of
the parties were capacitated to marry one another and there were no legal impediments to them
marrying each other. Hence, according to the provision,