QUESTION #1

Citibank is a foreign Corporation (not incorporated in the Philippines) wanting to

do business in the Philippines. It opened branches in the Philippines after having secured
a permit to do business as foreign corporation. Citibank remits to its main office in New
York insurance proceeds from its insured Filipinos in the Philippines. The Philippine
Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), a government owned and controlled corporation,
now imposes tax on every insurance premium Citibank remits to New York. PDIC claims
that these proceeds are inter-bank remittances that require premium taxes for every
transaction. Citibank opposes claiming that it has no separate personality from its mother
company in New York. Citibank, thus, sued PDIC for declaratory relief. Decide.

Ans: The contention of Citibank has merits. In case ruled by the Supreme Court, it held
that a foreign corporation may choose to incorporate its own subsidiary as a domestic
corporation, in which case such subsidiary would have its own separate and independent
legal personality to conduct business in the country. In the alternative, it may create a
branch in the Philippines, which would not be a legally independent unit, and simply obtain
a license to do business in the Philippines. It was apparent that Citibank did not
incorporate a separate domestic corporation to represent its business interests in the
Philippines. Their Philippine branches are, as the name implies, merely branches, without
a separate legal personality from their parent company. Thus, being one and the same
entity, the funds placed by the respondents in their respective branches in the Philippines
should not be treated as deposits made by third parties subject to deposit insurance under
the PDIC Charter.

QUESTION #2

Mr. Rich, U.S. citizen now residing in the Philippines, is the Vice-President of
Citibank in the Philippines. He is engaged to and has been a live-in partner of Pia
Horseback for 5 years now, a Filipina domiciled in New York but now residing in London.
Mr. Rich wanted to sue PDIC President for allegedly violating his constitutional right to
property in the Philippines, i.e. the right to engage in business when PDIC imposed taxes
on insurance premiums. He sues PDIC President Mr. Wico under Articles 19 and 21 and
under Article 33 of the New Civil Code. PDIC President Mr. Wico claims he is under legal
duty to impose such taxes although he does not possess any authority from the PDIC
Board before he imposed these taxes. Decide.

Ans: Mr. Rich’s case will prosper. The law is silent as whether a Filipino citizen or a
foreigner may have a cause of action against another if there is an act or omission which
violated his rights. In the instant case, Mr. Rich sued Mr. Wico under Articles 19 and 21
and under Article 33 of the New Civil Code when the latter imposed taxes upon the former
despite having no authority. This is clearly violative of the abuse of right doctrine. Hence,
Mr. Rich’s case will prosper.

QUESTION #3

Mr. Rich and Pia want to get married. They decide to get married in London. They
board United Airlines flight to London. While airborne, Mr. Rich suffers his chronic heart
ailment. He sits pale beside Pia leaning his head towards her shoulders and whispers
“can we ask the pilot to marry us now, pls. I don’t think I can make it to London”. Feeling
frantic Pia pushes her attendant’s button and calls the attendant to ask the pilot if he could
marry them now. The attendant, who happens to be a Filipino, responds and asks Pia
how could they get married when they do not have a marriage license. Pia retorts, she
does not care as long as the ceremony gets done asap. Three seats away from them was
Mr. Proud, who is just on vacation from work as the Civil Registrar of Makati where Pia
resides when she is in the Philippines, then tells Pia, “don’t worry, I can issue you a
marriage license now”, which he actually did. Right after, the attendant went to the pilot
who immediately responded and solemnized the marriage between Mr. Rich and Pia. Is
the marriage valid? Decide.

Ans: Yes, the marriage is valid. Article 27 of the Family Code provides that in case one
or both of the contracting parties are at the point of death, the marriage may be
solemnized without the necessity of a marriage license. Furthermore, Article 31 of the
same code states that a marriage in Articulo Mortis between passengers or crew
members may be solemnized by the ship captain or by an airline pilot. In the instant case
Mr. Rich who suffers from a Chronic Heart Ailment and has the perception that he is at
the point of death requests that he and fiancé be married. Hence, the marriage is valid.

QUESTION #4

A. What law should govern the capacity of Mr. Rich to marry? What are the documentary
requirements he should present, if he were to apply for marriage license in the
Philippines? Explain.

B. What law should govern the formalities of the marriage between Mr. Rich and Pia?
Explain.
Ans: A. Mr. Rich’s capacity to marry should be governed by the law of his Nationality.
However, if he wants to apply for a marriage license in the Philippines he must follow the
requirements for marriage as provided in the Philippine Laws for marriage between a
foreigner and a Filipino citizen such as a Certified Affidavit of Legal Capacity to Marry
from the embassy of the foreigner’s country which affirms that such foreigner has no legal
impediments to marry.

B. Article 26 of the Family Code. The Law provides that all marriages solemnized
outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country where they
were married is also valid in the Philippines.

QUESTION #5

When Mr. Rich and Pia got to London, they immediately go to the Anglican Church
and ask the Minister to marry them again to allay any doubt on the validity of their
marriage inside United Airlines. Under the family laws of U.K., no marriage license is
required and any person of legal age can marry before any church. Neither of them,
however, is a member of such church. But right after the ceremony the Minister baptize
both of them as Anglicans. From then on, they continue to be devout Anglicans. Discuss
the validity of this marriage. Explain.

Ans: The marriage is still valid. Article 26 of the Family Code provides that all marriages
solemnized outside the Philippines in accordance with the laws in force in the country
where they were married is also valid in the Philippines. The law is silent if the same
couple conducts another marriage ceremony in a different religion or belief. The exception
is that if the marriage is void under Philippine law, then the marriage is void even if it is
valid in the country where the marriage was solemnized.

QUESTION #6

Mr. Rich and Pia came back to the Philippines and Mr. Rich became a naturalized
Filipino citizen. Pia later discovers that Mr. Rich was already previously married to Ms.
White, French citizen while Mr. Rich was still residing in New York. Saddened by this
news, Pia files an annulment of marriage against Rich based on bigamous marriage. Mr.
Rich claims that his previous marriage to Ms. White was already divorced when he
obtained one in Vegas long before he met Pia. He now presents the decree of divorce
from the superior court of Las Vegas. Pia’s lawyer opposes saying that Mr. Rich has no
right to present such divorce decree in that proceeding because he is not a Filipino, thus
he has no right under Article 26 of the Family Code. If you were the judge in the annulment
case, may the marriage be annulled? Explain.

Ans: Yes, the marriage may be annulled. Paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Family Code
is only available to the Filipino spouse while the Alien spouse can claim no right under
such provision. The Alien spouse’s remedy is under the Rules of Court on recognition for
a foreign judgment. In the case at bar, Pia’s lawyer opposition is correct that Mr. Rich has
no right to present such divorce decree in that proceeding because he is not a Filipino,
thus he has no right under Article 26 of the Family Code. Hence, the marriage may be
annulled.

QUESTION #7

A. While the annulment action is pending Mr. Rich files an action for annulment of
marriage against Pia claiming that Pia had a fraudulently not told him that she was
previously convicted for violation of B.P. 22, otherwise known as bouncing checks law, in
the City Court of Makati. The action is filed within four years after he discovered of the
conviction. Pia on the other hand claims that she was already absolutely pardoned by
President Duterte of such a crime. She now presents to the court the Order of Pardon. If
you were the judge in the annulment action, can the marriage be annulled? Explain fully.

B. if you were the judge in Question No. 6 and you found out that the action was
improper, how will you treat the action? Explain fully.

Ans: A. Yes, the action for annulment filed by Mr. Rich will prosper. Article 46 of the Family
Code enumerates the circumstances that constitutes fraud. To wit:
1. Non-disclosure of a previous criminal conviction by final judgement of a crime
involving moral turpitude;
2. Concealment that the wife was pregnant by another man other that her husband
at the time of marriage;
3. Concealment of STD;
4. Concealment of drug addiction, alcoholism or homosexuality existing at the time
of marriage.
In the instant case, Pia had a fraudulently not told Mr. Rich that she was previously
convicted for violation of B.P. 22 which is a crime involving moral turpitude. Thus, the
action for annulment will prosper.
 B. I will treat the action as it is as there was a flaw in the defense of Mr. Rich. However,
if Mr. Rich presents upon the court a valid final judgment decree declaring the previous
marriage void ab initio, then I will dismiss the annulment proceeding.

QUESTION #8

A. Suppose baby Candy is born during the union between Mr. Rich and Pia before
any of the court actions is decided, what is the status of baby Candy? Explain.

B. Suppose the marriage of Pia and Mr. Rich get annulled for one reason or
another, what procedure should they follow as a precondition for both of them to be legally
entitled to remarry? Explain.

Ans: A. The Status of Baby Candy is that of a legitimate child. The Family Code provides
that children conceived or born before the judgement of annulment or absolute nullity of
marriage has become final and executory shall be considered legitimate. The Status will
still be legitimate considering that baby Candy was born during the subsistence of her
parents’ marriage.

B. The judgment of annulment of marriage, the partition and distribution of the

properties of the spouses and the delivery of their children’s legitimes shall be recorded
in the appropriate civil registry. Failure to comply with the rule shall render the subsequent
marriage null and void.

QUESTION #9

A. Suppose Mr. Rich is not able to secure an annulment of his marriage against
Pia in Question No. 7(a), may he still institute a legal separation action? Explain.

Ans: No, Mr. Rich cannot institute a legal separation. The facts in question no. 7 did not
state that there was a cause for the grounds for legal separation to be filed.