FAMILY LAW

Family Law governs matters related to marriage, family relations, property relations, and the rights and obligations of family members.

It is primarily codified under the Family Code of the Philippines (Executive Order No. 209), which outlines the legal requirements for marriage, the responsibilities between spouses, and the parent-child relationship, including custody, support, and inheritance.

Family Law emphasizes the protection of family as the basic social institution, under the Constitution. Its provisions aim to promote family unity and responsible parenthood, ensuring that the rights and duties within a family are clearly defined and upheld by law.

Family Code - EO 209 (1987)

RA 9262 - VAWC

RA 8552 - Domestic Adoption

Rule on Custody of Minors

Key Changes introduced by the Family Code

Marriage Age: The legal age for marriage was raised to 18 years old.

Grounds for Annulment:

1. Psychological Incapacity (Article 36):It allows for annulment when one or both spouses are found to be psychologically incapable of fulfilling the essential marital obligations, even if the incapacity is not apparent at the time of marriage.

2. Fraud, Force, Intimidation, and Undue Influence: The Family Code clarified the provisions related to consent, stating that marriage can be annulled if consent was obtained through fraudulent means, force, or intimidation. This addressed concerns where coercion or deception was involved.

3. Lack of Parental Consent: Article 45(1) - Under the Family Code, a marriage involving a person below the age of 21 who lacks parental consent can be annulled. The set period for filing for annulment on this ground is five years from the time the party reaches the age of 21. If the lack of parental consent is not remedied by ratification (such as obtaining consent after the marriage or cohabitation), the marriage may be annulled within this 5-year period. After this time frame, the marriage is considered valid and cannot be annulled on this ground.

4. Sexual Dysfunction and Incurable Disease: The Family Code specified impotence and sexually transmissible incurable diseases as grounds, refining provisions on physical incapacity in marriage.

Grounds for Legal Separation:

1. Repeated Physical Violence or Grossly Abusive Conduct: The Family Code expanded legal separation grounds to include repeated physical violence or abusive behavior directed toward the spouse or children.

2. Drug Addiction, Habitual Alcoholism, and Homosexuality: These issues were explicitly mentioned as grounds for legal separation, providing clearer criteria for the dissolution of marital obligations based on these factors.

3. Sexual Infidelity and Attempt Against the Life of the Spouse: The inclusion of infidelity and attempts on the life of the spouse as grounds for legal separation provides additional clarity and protection to the injured spouse.

Property Regimes: Reforms included the introduction of “Absolute Community of Property” and “Conjugal Partnership of Gains” as default property regimes, depending on the marriage contract.

1. Absolute Community of Property: This was introduced as the default property regime for marriages that do not have a prenuptial agreement. Under this system, all properties owned by the spouses before and during the marriage, except those classified as personal or exclusive property, become part of a single community property. It promotes unity by pooling resources together, but also ensures that certain personal assets (like inheritances or gifts) remain excluded.

2. Conjugal Partnership of Gains: This regime applies when a prenuptial agreement specifies it, or when spouses married under the old Civil Code opted for it. Under this system, properties acquired during the marriage through the efforts of either or both spouses form part of the conjugal partnership. Each spouse retains ownership of their separate property, but income and gains accrued during the marriage are shared equally.

Illegitimate Children: Before the Family Code, the Civil Code of 1950 only allowed illegitimate children to inherit one-third of what legitimate children received, limiting their rights significantly. This “one-third rule” was replaced under the Family Code, which now entitles illegitimate children to half the share of a legitimate child. For example, if a legitimate child inherits 1/3 of the estate, an illegitimate child would receive 1/6. While this reform increased the inheritance share for illegitimate children, a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate heirs remains, reflecting a more equitable but still differentiated approach to inheritance rights.

Updated Family Law Cases

1. Marriage

Family Code of the Philippines (FC)
Art. 1 Marriage is defined as a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman.

Republic v. Manalo, G.R. No. 221029 (2018)
Manalo, a Filipino citizen, sought to remarry in the Philippines after obtaining a divorce in Japan from her Japanese spouse. The Supreme Court ruled that a foreign divorce validly obtained by a foreigner allows the Filipino spouse to remarry under Article 26 of the Family Code. The Court underscored that the policy behind Article 26 is to prevent the anomaly where the foreign spouse is free to remarry while the Filipino spouse remains bound by the marriage.

2. Annulment and Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

Art. 36 (FC): This provision allows the declaration of nullity of a marriage where one party is found to be psychologically incapacitated.

Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359 (2021)
The wife filed for the nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. The Court held that psychological incapacity is a legal, not a medical concept, and it need not be based on expert opinions. It ruled that incapacity refers to a party's inability to perform essential marital obligations due to personality disorders.

3. Property Relations Between Spouses

Art. 75 (FC): If no marriage settlement prior to their marriage, the default regime of absolute community of property will apply.

Dewara v. Sps. Lamela, G.R. No. 179010, April 11, 2011: The dispute concerns the ownership of a property levied and sold to satisfy the civil liability of Elenita’s husband. Elenita and Eduardo Dewara were married before the Family Code was enacted, and the Civil Code governed their marital relations. Due to their separation-in-fact, the property was classified as conjugal and thus subject to the liability. The Court of Appeals ruled that the property could be used to settle the debt. However, the Supreme Court reversed stating that the conjugal property could only be held accountable for the liability after fulfilling the requirements under previous Article 161 of the Civil Code.

4. Child Custody and Support

Art. 213 (FC) This article provides guidelines on custody, particularly for children below seven years old.

Carnabucci v. Tagaña-Carnabucci, et al., G.R. No. 266116, July 22, 2024:

In this custody dispute between David and Haryvette, over their two children, Rocco and Zahara. David, an Italian citizen, filed for habeas corpus after Harryvette left the children with her mother, Joselyn B. Espiritu, in the Philippines while working in France. The RTC initially granted Harryvette sole custody and parental authority, with Joselyn exercising immediate custody due to Harryvette’s absence. David appealed for joint custody, but the CA modified the decision, granting joint parental authority but maintaining sole custody with Harryvette. The CA cited the best interest of the children, noting their adjustment to living with their grandmother and half-siblings.

David’s appeal to the Supreme Court was denied. The Court emphasized the “tender-age presumption” under Article 213 of the Family Code, favoring the mother for custody of children under seven unless compelling reasons exist. It found no such reasons to remove Harryvette’s custody, noting her continued financial support and communication with the children. The Court also upheld Joselyn’s provisional custody, given her stable environment, and maintained David’s visitation rights with conditions. The decision highlights the importance of the children’s best interests in custody matters.

Gabun, et al. v. Stolk, Sr., G.R. No. 234660, June 26, 2023: The petitioners challenged the CA's dismissal of their appeal on technical grounds, arguing that the RTC's decision to award custody of the minor to the respondent was based solely on parentage and did not consider the best interests of the child. The SC found that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion by not considering factors such as the child's welfare and environment, as mandated by the Rule on Custody of Minors. The Court emphasized that the best interest of the child should be the paramount consideration in custody cases. Consequently, the SC reversed the CA's decision and remanded the case to the lower court for a proper determination of custody, taking into account the child's best interests.

5. Adoption

Domestic Adoption Act (Republic Act No. 8552)
This law governs the legal process of adopting a child in the Philippines.

In Bagcat-Gullas v. Gullas (G.R. No. 264146, August 7, 2023): The case centered around the legitimacy of a petition for adoption, where the consent of all relevant parties, including the children involved, was a key issue. The Court highlighted that the consent of children in adoption cases is not only a procedural requirement but also a matter of legal significance to ensure their rights and welfare are respected.

In adoption petitions, it is mandatory for the adoptee children, if they are of sufficient age and understanding, to give their consent. This decision reflects the broader principle that consent is a cornerstone of any adoption process, safeguarding the rights and voices of those directly affected by the legal proceedings.

6. Parental Authority

Art. 220 (FC) Parental authority includes the rights and obligations of parents over their unemancipated children.

Parental authority and responsibility are inalienable and may not be transferred or renounced except in cases authorized by law. The right attached to parental authority, being purely personal, the law allows a waiver of parental authority only in cases of adoption, guardianship and surrender to a children’s home or an orphan institution.

When a parent entrusts the custody of a minor to another, such as a friend or godfather, even in a document, what is given is merely temporary custody and it does not constitute a renunciation of parental authority. Even if a definite renunciation is manifest, the law still disallows the same. Statute sets certain rules to assist the court in making an informed decision. Insofar as illegitimate children are concerned, Article 176 of the Family Code provides that illegitimate children shall be under the parental authority of their mother. Likewise, Article 213 of the Family Code provides that “[n]o child under seven years of age shall be separated from the mother, unless the court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise.” It will be observed that in both provisions, a strong bias is created in favor of the mother. This is especially evident in Article 213 where it may be said that the law presumes that the mother is the best custodian.

In Dorao, et al. v. BBB, et al., G.R. No. 235737 (April 26, 2023), the Supreme Court ruled that the Dorao spouses lacked parental authority over AAA, the minor girlfriend of their son, Paul. The Doraos had publicly humiliated AAA by spreading defamatory rumors about her, accusing her of promiscuity. This behavior led to severe emotional distress for AAA, resulting in depression and a suicide attempt. The case focused on whether the Doraos’ actions, under the guise of parental duty, were justified. The Court held that the Doraos had no legal authority over AAA, as she was not their child or legal ward.

The Court emphasized that parental authority cannot be invoked to justify actions that infringe upon another individual’s dignity and well-being. The Doraos’ actions were found to be malicious and degrading, violating AAA’s rights under the Civil Code, particularly Articles 21 and 26, which protect individuals from emotional harm and defamation. The decision underscored the principle that parental authority is not a blanket justification for abusive behavior, particularly when the actions conflict with the rights of others. Thus, the Court affirmed the damages awarded to AAA for the emotional and psychological harm she suffered.

7. Succession

Civil Code (CC), Articles 887-906
These articles govern the inheritance rights of compulsory heirs, such as legitimate and illegitimate children.

Aquino v. Aquino, G.R. No. 208912. December 07, 2021 is about Angela, an alleged nonmarital child of Arturo C. Aquino, who sought a share in the estate of her grandfather, Miguel T. Aquino. The case arose when Rodolfo, Miguel’s son, filed for letters of administration after Miguel’s intestate death. Angela, claiming to be Arturo’s daughter, sought inclusion in the estate distribution. However, Rodolfo contested this, asserting that Arturo never legally recognized Angela as his child.

Initially, the RTC recognized Angela as Arturo’s natural child and entitled her to inherit. The CA however, ruled against Angela, stating that she failed to prove her filiation under Article 992 of the Civil Code, which typically disqualified nonmarital children from inheriting from their parents’ legitimate family members. On further appeal, the SC reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling that Angela could inherit from Miguel’s estate by right of representation. The Court clarified that Article 992 should be interpreted to allow nonmarital children to inherit from their direct ascendants, such as grandparents, and that these children are qualified to represent their deceased parent in inheriting from their grandparent’s estate.

The Court’s decision emphasized that the best interest of the child should prevail, abandoning outdated presumptions about nonmarital children and recognizing that such children could inherit regardless of their parents' marital status.

8. Property Regimes

Arts. 75-144 (FC) These articles set out the property relations between spouses based on their marriage settlement, or in the absence of one, the default regime applies.

Valino v. Adriano, G.R. No. 182894 (2015), involves a dispute between spouses regarding the property acquired during their marriage should be classified under the “Absolute Community of Property” (ACP) or the “Conjugal Partnership of Gains” (CPG), based on the Family Code. The SC ruled that the applicable property regime would depend on the regime agreed upon in the marriage contract. If no agreement was made, the default regime under the Family Code would apply.

Back to Civil Law