S AINT L OUIS U NIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF LAW
Diego Silang Bldg., A. Bonifacio St., Baguio City 2600, Philippines
Tel No. +63 74 444 8246 to 48 local 203

SYLLABUS IN LAW 411- CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1

(AY 2019-2020)

Department CIVIL AND LABOR LAWS

Course Name/Title CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1
Course Number LAW 411
Semester Offered FIRST
Year Level Offered FOURTH
Credit Units 4
Pre-requisites (if any) Persons and Family Relations, Property,
Succession, Obligations & Contracts, Sales,
Credit Transactions, Torts & Damages,
Agency, Trust & Partnership, Conflict of
Laws, Public International Law
Course Description This course is a comprehensive integration of the principles
of civil law governing the effects and application of laws,
the law on human relations, persons and family relations,
property, ownership and its modifications, including the
modes of acquiring ownership, including succession.
Pertinent provisions of special laws are also reviewed. (per
LEB Memo Order No. 1)

Learning Outcomes

By the end of the course, the law student is expected:

A. To gain sound understanding of the legal provisions, general principles and

concepts, doctrines and jurisprudence related to effects and application of laws, the law
on human relations, personal and family law, property, ownership and its modifications,
including the modes of acquiring ownership;

B. To build proficiency and mastery in the application and interpretation of the law
to theoretical and actual judicial cases;

C. To develop an analytical ability and critical skill in examining established, evolving,

emerging and conflicting doctrines in civil law based on decisions of the Supreme Court
and the socio-cultural context in which these laws and legal doctrines operate; and

D. To establish confidence in the subject matter as adequate preparation for the bar
examinations.

Course Requirements and Grading Plan

To pass the course, the student must pass the following requirements as a minimum:
1. Satisfactory performance in all quizzes and examinations;
2. Satisfactory performance in class recitations; and
3. Submission of required written assignments or digests;

Student performance shall be evaluated based on:

1. Class Standing (quizzes = recitation, case digests,
research papers) = 50%
2. Departmental Examination = 50%
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES Page |2

COURSE OUTLINE
(as of August 2019)

BOOK 1- PERSONS AND FAMILY RELATIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

Definition and Classification of Law

Concept of Law as “Derecho” and “Ley”
Human Positive Law
Branches of Human Positive Law
Definition of Civil Law

Civil Code of the Philippines

Sources
Effectivity of the Civil Code of the Philippines
 Lara v. Del Rosario, 94 Phil. 778

A. II. EFFECT AND APPLICATION OF LAWS

A. Effectivity of Laws

Art. 2 as amended by E.O. 200, 18 June 1987

 Tanada v. Tuvera, 136 S 27 and 146 S 446
 Nagkakaisang Maralita v. Military Shrine Services, 5 June 2013

B. Ignorantia Legis Non Excusat

Art. 3, Concept and Application

Exceptions
“Processual Presumption”
 Yao Kee v. Sy Gonzales, 167 S 736
 Board of Commissioners v. Dela Rosa, 197 S 853

C. Lex prospicit, Non Respicit

Art. 4, Basis and Purpose

Exceptions
 Aruego, Jr. v. CA, 254 S 711
 Bernabe v. Alejo, 21 January 2002

D. Mandatory / Prohibitory Laws

General Rule on Effect of Violation of Mandatory Laws

Exceptions

E. Waiver of Rights

Art. 6, Rights and Waiver Defined

Requisites of Valid Waiver
Void Waiver
 Guy v. CA, 502 S 151

F. Judicial Application and Interpretation of Laws

2
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES Page |3

Art. 8
The Philippine Legal System, Background
Doctrine of Stare Decisis (Non Quieta Movere)
 Ting v. Ting, 31 March 2009

“Law of the Case”

 Ayala Corp. v. Rosa Diana Realty, 1 December 2000

Ratio Decidendi

Obiter Dictum

G. Rules on Application and Interpretation of Laws

Arts. 9
Dura Lex Sed Lex
 Pp. v. Veneracion, 249 S 251
 Roldan Jr. v. Madrona, 4 September 2002

Duty of the Court to Render Judgment

Effect of Silence, Obscurity or Insufficiency of Laws
Judicial Aids
Cessante Ratione Cessat Ipsa Lex in Criminal Law

Art. 10
Legislative Intent
Presumption
“Interpret not by the letter that killeth but by the spirit that giveth life”
 Phil. Rabbit Bus Lines v. Arciaga, 148 S 438
 Ursua v. CA, 10 April 1996

Art. 13
Computation of Periods
Year, Month, Day, Night
 CIR v. Primetown, 28 August 2007
 Labad v. University of Southern Phil., 9 August 2001

H. Applicability of Customs

Arts. 11 and 12
Custom, Defined
Requisites
Custom Proper Legem v. Custom Contra Legem

I. How Laws Lose Their Effectivity

Art. 7
1. Lapse of a Law, Defined
2. Repeal, Meaning

Express Repeal and Implied Repeal, Distingushed

Effect of Repeal of Repealing Law on Law First Repealed
 CIR v. Primetown, 28 August 2007

3. Declaration of Unconstitutionality
Constitution
Supremacy of the Constitution
 Garcia v. Drilon, 25 June 2013 on constitutionality of RA 9262

3
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES Page |4

J. Binding Effect of Laws

Art. 14, in. relation to Art. 2, Revised Penal Code

Territoriality and Generality
Exceptions
Ex-territoriality
Extra-territoriality

K. Theory of Statutes / Conflict of Law Rules

Art. 15 and Art. 17, par. 3

Persons: Nationality Principle
 Recio v. Recio, 2 October 2001
 Llorente v. CA, 23 November 2000
 Van Dorn v. Romillo, 139 S 139

Art. 16
Property: Lex Rei Sitae
Exception: Succession
Domicillary Theory
Renvoi
 Aznar v. Garcia, 7 S 95
 Bellis v. Bellis, 20 S 358
 PCIB v. Escolin, 56 S 266

Art. 17, pars. 1 and 2

Forms and Solemnities of Contracts and Wills (Extrinsic Validity): Lex Loci Celebrationis
 American Airlines v. Court of Appeals, 9 March 2000

L. Suppletory Application of the Civil Code of the Philippines

III. HUMAN RELATIONS

Right and Obligation, Defined

A. Standards / Norms of Human Conduct

Art. 19
Theory of Abuse of Rights
 Go v. Cordero, 4 May 2010
 Villanueva v. Rosqueta, 19 January 2010

Requirements for Actionable Wrong

Damages, Concept and Kinds
 Cruz v. NLRC, 7 February 2000
 Globe McKay v. Barrios, 119 S 461
 RCPI v. CA, 143 S 657
 University of the East v. Jader, 17 February 2000

“Damnum Absque Injuria” / “ Volenti Non Fit Injuria”

 Hotel Nikko v. Reyes, 452 S 532

B. Liability Ex-Maleficio or Ex-Delicto

Art. 20 in rel. to Art. 100 of the Revised Penal Code

Acts Contrary to Law

4
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES Page |5

C. Acts Contrary to Morals, Good Customs or Public Policy

Art. 21, Coverage

Breach of Promise to Marry: When Actionable
 Hermosisima v. CA, 109 P 629
 Galang v. CA, 4 S 55
 Gashem Shookat Baksh v. CA, 219 S 115
 Wassmer V. Velez, 12 S 648

D. Unjust Enrichment

Arts. 22 and 23
Action in Rem Verso and Solutio Indebiti, Distinguished
Restitution as a Remedy
Damages Recoverable

 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Ong, 24 November 2010

E. Unfair Competition

Art. 24, In Contractual Relations

Parens Patriae Doctrine

Art. 28, In Industrial, Agricultural and Commercial Enterprises, inc. Labor

F. Thoughtless Extravagance

Art. 25, Injunctive Remedy

When and To Whom Available

G. Respect for Personality and Dignity of Others

Art. 26, Right to Privacy, Defined

Constitutional and Statutory Basis of Right to Privacy
Prying into the Privacy of Another’s Residence
Alienation of Affections
Humiliation on Account of Religious Belief, Station in Life, Physical Defects, etc.
 Concepcion v. CA, 31 Januray 2000

H. Neglect or Refusal of Public Servant

Art. 27, Liability for Damages: Requisites

Non-Feasance, Misfeasance, Malfeasance Distinguished
 Amonoy v. Spouses Gutierrez, 15 February 2001

I. Action for Damages based on Crime / Delict

Arts. 20, 29, 30 and 35 in rel. to Art. 100 of Revised Penal Code
Rule 111, Section 1, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure
Proof of Guilt beyond Reasonable Doubt v. Preponderance of Evidence
Separate Civil Action
Necessity of Reservation
Suspension of Separate Civil Action
Rule 111, Section 2, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure
Effect of Acquittal in the Criminal Case upon Civil Liability
 Guaring v. CA, 269 S 283
Manantan v. CA, 29 January 2001

5
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES Page |6

J. Independent Civil Actions

Concept and Rationale

Evidence Required

Art. 31, Civil Action based on Other Sources of Obligation except Crime: Law,
Contract, Quasi-Contract
 Bonite v. Zosa, 162 S 173

Art. 32, Civil Liability for Violation of Constitutional Rights

Persons Responsible
When Responsibility Demandable from a Judge
 Cojuangco v. CA, 2 July 1999
 Alcuaz v. PSBA, 161 S 7 compared with
 Non v. Dames, 185 S 523

Art. 33, Civil Liability for Defamation, Fraud, Physical Injuries

Meaning
 Arafiles v. Philippine Journalists, 25 March 2004
 International Flavors v. Argo, 10 Sept. 2001
 Marcia v. CA, 120 S 7
 Ruiz v. Ucol, 153 S 14

Art. 34, Civil Liability of Member of Municipal or City Police

Principal Liability of Member of Police
Subsidiary Liability of City/ Municipality

Arts. 2176-2177, Quasi-Delict

Concept of Quasi-Delict or Culpa Aquiliana
Tort, defined
 Barredo v. Garcia, 73 P 607

K. Prejudicial Questions

Defined
Art. 36, in rel. to Rule 111, Secs. 6-7 of 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure
Elements
Effect
 Domingo v. Sps. Singson, 5 April 2017
 Capili v. People, 3 July 2013
 Beltran v. People, 20 June 2000
 Diaz v. Merced, 109 P 155

IV. PERSONS AND PERSONALITY

Art. 37, Juridical Capacity and Capacity to Act, Distinguished

Classes of Persons

A. Natural Persons

Civil Personality
Art. 40, Presumptive Civil Personality
 Continental Steel v. Montano, 13 October 2009
 Geluz v. CA, 2 S 801

Art. 41, Birth

Legal Conditions
Arts. 38-39, Restrictions or Modifications on Capacity to Act

6
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES Page |7

 Catalan v. Basa, 31 July 2007

Art. 42, Death
Effects of Death
 Pp. v. Bayotas, 236 S 239

Art. 43, Survivorship

Presumptions on Survivorship

B. Juridical Persons

Theory of Special Capacities

Art. 44, Classification
Art. 45, Governing Law
Art. 46, Powers, in rel. to Art. 12, Sections 2-3 of the 1987 Constitution

V. DOMICILE

Defined
Distinguished from Residence
Kinds of Domicile: Origin, Constructive and Choice
Arts. 50-51
 Marcos v. COMELEC, 248 S 300
 Reyes v. COMELEC, 25 June 2013

VI. MARRIAGE

Family Code of the Philippines

Effectivity Date
Retroactive Application
 Aruego Jr. v. CA, 254 S 711
 Bernabe v. Alejo, 21 January 2002

Marriage Defined
Art. 1 in rel. to Art. XV, 1987 Constitution

Nature of the Contract of Marriage

 RP v. Albios, 16 October 2013
 Espinosa v. Atty. Omana, 12 October 2011
 Estrada v. Escritor, 408 S 1
 Ancheta v. Ancheta, 4 March 2004
 Pp. v. Borromeo, 133 S 106
 Abadilla v. Tabiliran, 249 S 447

Presumption in Favor of Existence and Validity of Marriage

 Dela Rosa v. Heirs, 480 S 334
 Garcia vda. De Chua v. CA, 5 March 1998
 Eugenio v. Velez, 185 S 425

A. REQUISITES OF A VALID MARRIAGE

Essential Requisites:

1. Legal Capacity
Art. 2, par. 1 in rel. to Arts. 1, 5, Art. 35, par. 1 and Art. 26, par. 1
Marrying Age under Family Code as compared to the Civil Code

7
CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES Page |8

Sex / Status of Same-Sex Marriages

 RP v. Silverio, 22 October 2007
 RP v. Cagandahan, 12 September 2008
 Obergefell v. Hodges, 26 June 2015 (576 U.S.__ 2015)

Absence of other Legal Impediment, Arts. 37-38

 Donato v. Luna, 160 S 14
 Weigel v. Sempio Diy, 143 S 499
 Atienza v. Brillantes, 29 March 1995

2. Consent
Art. 2, par. 2 in rel. to Art. 6, How Given

Formal Requisites:

1. Authority of the Solemnizing Officer

Art. 3, par. 1 and Art. 7
Sec. 444, R.A. 7160 or the Local Government Code
Art. 35, par. 2, Effect of Good Faith
 Beso v. Judge Daguman, 28 January 2000

2. Valid Marriage License

Art. 3, par. 2 in rel. to Arts. 9-21 and Arts. 27-34
Purpose of the Marriage License
Probative Value of Marriage License
Requirements for Application
Parental Consent, When Necessary
Parental Advice, When necessary
Publication/ Posting Requirement
Duty of Local Civil Registrar to Issue
Suspension of the Issuance of the Marriage License
Validity Period of Marriage License
 Alcantara v. Alcantara, 28 August 2007
 Sevilla v. Cardenas, 494 S 1
 Aranes v. Occiano, 380 S 402
 Vda. De Jacob v. CA, 312 S 772
 Trinidad v. Trinidad, 20 April 1998
 Republic v. CA, 2 September 1994
 Carino v. Carino, 351 S 127

3. Marriage Ceremony
Art. 3, par. 3 in rel. to Arts. 6 and 8
Prescribed Form or Rite
Proxy Marriage
 Morigo v. People, 422 S 376

Absence, Defect or Irregularity in the Requisites

Effect of Absence of Essential and Formal Requisites
Art. 4, par. 1 in rel. to Art. 35, par. 3 and Arts. 27-34

Effect of Defect in Essential Requisities

Art. 4.par. 2 in rel. to Art. 45

Effect of Irregularity in Formal Requisites

Art. 4, par. 3
Three-Fold Liability
Art. 352, Revised Penal Code

8
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES Page |9

 Moreno v. Bernabe, 14 July 1995

 Navarro v. Dumagtoy, 259 S 129 (19 July 1996)

Marriage Certificate
Art. 6 in rel. to Art. 22-24
Purpose and Value of Marriage Certificate
Who Issues
Distribution of Copies
Distinguished from the Marriage License

B. MARRIAGES CELEBRATED OUTSIDE THE PHILIPPINES

Art. 26, par. 1 in rel. to Arts. 15 and 17, par. 3 of the Civil Code
DOJ Opinion No. 11 (17 January 1990)
Lex Loci Celebrationis Rule
Exceptions, Art. 35, pars. 1, 4, 5, 6, Art. 36-38

C. FOREIGN DIVORCE

Art. 26, par. 2 in rel. to Arts. 15 and 17, par. 3 of the Civil Code
History of Provision
Effects of Foreign Divorce
 Republic v. Manalo, 24 April 2018
 Fujiki v. Marinay, 26 June 2013
 Tenchavez v. Escano, 15 S 355
 RP v. Iyoy, 21 Sept. 2005

“Mitigation of Consequences” Principle

 Van Dorn v. Romillo, 139 S 139
 Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera, 30 June 1989
 Quita v. CA, 300 S 406
 San Luis v. San Luis, 514 S 294

Conditions for Recognition of Foreign Divorce in the Philippines

 Corpuz v. Sto. Tomas and the Solicitor General, 11 August 2010
 Recio v. Recio, 2 October 2001
 RP v. Orbecido III, 472 S 114

D. VOID AB INITIO MARRIAGES

Void and Voidable Marriages, Distinguished

Declaration of Nullity and Divorce, Distinguished
Arts. 35, 36, 37, 38, 44, 53
Art. 350, Revised Penal Code

1. Marriage by Parties Below 18 Years of Age

Art. 35 (1) in rel. to Art. 5 and Art. 26, par. 1

Rule applicable to both parties

2. Contract Solemnized by Person without Authority

Art. 35 (2) in rel. to Art. 7

Art. 352, Revised Penal Code
 Moreno v. Bernabe, 14 July 1995
 Navarro v. Dumagtoy, 259 S 129 (19 July 1996)

9
CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 10

3. Marriage without a Marriage License

Art. 35 (3) in rel. to Arts. 27-34

 Bangayan v. Bangayan, 3 July 2013
 Abbas v. Abbas, 30 January 2013
 Mallion v. Alcantara, 31 October 2006
 Cojuangco, Sr. v. Palma, 438 S 306
 Republic v. CA, 236 S 257
 Sy v. CA, 330 S 550

EXCEPTION: Marriages under Exceptional Circumstances

Arts. 27-34 in rel. to Art. 3, par. 2 and Art. 35, par. 3

Status of the Marriage under Exceptional Circumstances

Duty of Solemnizing Officer

Marriage in Articulo Mortis

Arts. 27, 29-32
Who May Solemnize, Art. 7
Effect of Survival of Party

Marriage in Remote Place

Arts. 28-29

Marriage among Muslims or members of ethnic/ indigenous cultural communities

Art. 33 in rel. to R.A. 8371 or the Indigenous People’s Rights Act

Convalidation of Cohabitation
Art. 34
Period of Cohabitation
Absence of Legal Impediment
 Manzano v. Sanchez, 354 S 1 as compared to
 Ninal v. Bayadog, 14 March 2000
 De Castro v. De Castro, 13 February 2008
 RP v. Dayot, 28 March 2008
 Sy v. CA, 330 S 550
 Cosca v. Palaypayon, 237 S 249

4. Bigamous/ Polygamous Marriages

Art. 35 (4) in rel. to Arts. 41 and 44

 Dr. Perez v. Atty. Catindig, 10 March 2015

 Capili v. People, 3 July 2013
 Nollora v. People, 9 December 2011
 Pp. v. Odtuhan, 17 July 2013
 Macarrubo v. Macarrubo, 27 February 2004
 Mijares v. Villa Luz, 274 S 1
 Wiegel v. Sempio Diy, 143 S 499
 Balogbog v. Balogbog, 7 March 1997

Family Code of the Philippines / Civil Code of the Philippines in rel. to Code of Muslim
Personal Law (PD 1083)
 Pacasum v. Zamoranos
 Jarillo vs. People, 29 September 2009
 Tamano v. Ortiz, 29 June 1998

EXCEPTION: Valid Bigamous Marriage

10
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 11

Arts. 41-44 in rel. to Arts. 381 and 384, Civil Code of the Philippines
Presumptive Death / Absence
Requisites for Declaration of Presumptive Death
 Republic v. Nolasco, 17 March 1993
 Tadeo-Matias v. RP, 25 April 2019
 Republic v. CA, 477 S 277
 Republic v. Bernudes, 449 S 57

 Valdez v. Republic, 8 September 2009
 Bienvenido v. CA, 237 S 676
 Manuel v. People, 476 S 461
 Calisterio v. Calisterio, 330 S 201

Arts. 43-44, Effects of Subsequent Marriage

Art. 42, Termination of Subsequent Marriage

5. Marriage by Mistake in Identity

Art. 35 (5)
Mistake defined
Effect of Other Misrepresentation

6. Marriage in violation of Arts. 40, 52-53

Art. 35 (6) in rel. to Arts. 40, 52-53

Distinguished from Bigamous / Polygamous Marriage
Recording of Judgment of Nullity or Annulment
Recording of Delivery of Presumptive Legitimes
 Carino v. Carino, 2 February 2001
 Mercado v. Tan, 1 August 2000
 Atienza v. Brillantes, 29 March 1995
 Domingo v. CA, 226 S 572
 Beltran v. People, 334 S 106

7. Incestuous Marriages

Art. 37 in rel. to Arts. 5 and 26, par. 1

Computation of Blood Relationships
Degrees of Relationship
Direct Line and Collateral Line, Defined
Rationale for the Ban on Incestuous Marriages

8. Quasi-Incestuous Marriages / Void by Reasons of Public Policy

Art. 38 in. rel to Arts. 5 and 26, par. 1

Prohibited Marriages bet. Collateral Relatives; Relatives by Affinity; and Adoptive
Relatives
Rationale

9. Psychological Incapacity

Art. 36 in rel. to Art. 2, Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law
History of Provision
Psychological Incapacity and Insanity, Distinguished
Psychological Incapacity and Vice of Consent, Distinguished
 Tilar v. Tilar, 12 July 2017 on civil vs. ecclesiastical dissolution of marriage
Characteristics of Psychological Incapacity
 Chi Ming Tsoi v. CA and Lao, 266 S 324 (17 January 1997)

11
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 12

 Santos v. CA, 240 S 20

Guidelines in Determining Psychological Incapacity: Original vs. Modified

 Republic v. CA and Olaviano, 268 S 198 (13 February 1997)
 Barcelona v. CA, 412 S 41 (2003)
 Tongol v. Tongol, 537 S 135 (2007)

Art. 36 Petitions as “Sui Generis” : Rigidity vs. Flexibility as to the Molina Doctrine

 Go-Yu v. Yu, 3 April 2019

 Cortez v. Cortez, 10 April 2019
 Bakunawa v. Bakunawa, 9 August 2017
 Dela Fuente v. Dela Fuente, 8 March 2017
 Castillo v. RP, 6 February 2017
 Kalaw v. Fernandez, 14 January 2015
 RP v. Encelan, 9 January 2013
 RP v. CA, 12 November 2012
 Mendoza v. RP, 12 November 2012
 Ochosa v. Alano and RP, 26 January 2011
 Yambao v. Republic, 24 January 2011
 Marable v. Marable, 17 January 2011
 Agraviador v. Agraviador, 8 December 2010
 Ligeralde v. Patalinghug, et al., 15 April 2010
 Alcazar v. Alcazar, 13 October 2009
 Aspillaga v. Aspillaga, 26 October 2009
 Najera v. Najera, 3 July 2009
 Te v. Te, 13 February 2009
 Paras v. Paras, August 2, 2007
 Zamora v. CA, 7 February 2007
 Ferraris v. Ferraris, 495 S 396
 Antonio v. Reyes, 10 March 2006
 RP v. Iyoy, 21 Sept. 2005
 Siayngco v. Siayngco, 4 October 2004
 Villalon v. Villalon, 475 S 572
 Buenaventura v. CA, 454 S 261
 RP v. Hamano, 428 S 735
 Macarrubo v. Macarrubo, 424 S 42
 Dedel v. CA, 29 January 2004
 Republic v. Dagdag, 351 S 425
 Pesca v, Pesca,17 April, 2001
 Marcos v. Marcos, 19 October 2000

Action for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

Art. 48 in rel. to A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC

Who May File and When

 Enrico v. Heirs, 534 S 418 as compared to
 Catalan v. CA, 6 February 2007 and
 Ninal v. Bayadog, 14 March 2000 as clarified in
 Ablaza v. Republic, 11 August 2010
 Carlos v. Sandoval, 16 December 2008

Prescriptive Period
Art. 39
 Mallion v. Alcantara, 506 S 336

Appearance of the State/ Prohibition vs. Default Judgment

12
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 13

Art. 48
 Maquilan v. Maquilan, 8 June 2007
 RP v. Cuison-Melgar, 486 S 177 (31 March 2006)
 Corpus v. Ochoterena, 435 S 446
 Macias v. Macias, 410 S 365
 Sin v. Sin, 355 S 285
 Ancheta v. Ancheta, 4 March 2004
 Tuason v. CA and Tuason, 256 S 158 (10 April 1996)
 Pacete v. Carriaga, 17 March 1994

Right to Support and Custody During Pendency of Action

Art. 49 in rel. to Art. 213
 Silva v. CA, 275 S 604

Necessity of Final Judgment / Requirements for Remarriage

Art. 40 in rel. to Arts. 51-53
 Pp. v. Odtuhan, 17 July 2013
 Montañez v. Cipriano, October 22, 2012
 Teves v. People, August 24, 2011
 Jarillo v. People, 29 June 2010

Effects of Declaration of Nullity

Art. 43-44 in rel. to Arts. 50-53
 Valdes v. Valdes, 31 July 1996
Status of Children born of Void Marriage
Art. 54 in rel. to Art. 165

E. VOIDABLE/ANNULLABLE MARRIAGES

Meaning of Voidable / Annullable Marriage

Grounds
Art. 45-46 in rel. to Arts. 2 and 4

1. Lack of Parental Consent

Art. 45, par. 1 in rel. to Art. 14 and R.A. 6809

2. Insanity

Art. 45, par. 2

Distinguished from Psychological Incapacity

3. Fraud
Art. 45, par. 3 in rel. to Art. 46
Concealment Defined
 Villanueva v. CA, 27 October 2006
 Anaya v. Palaroan, 36 S 97
 Buccat v. Buccat, 72 P 19

4. Force, Intimidation, Undue Influence

Art. 45, par. 4 in rel. to Arts. 1335, 1336, 1337 of Civil Code of the Philippines
Art. 12, pars. 5 and 6, Revised Penal Code
 Villanueva v. CA, 27 October 2006
 Macarrubo v. Macarrubo, 27 February 2004
 Pp. v. Santiago, 51 P 68

13
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 14

 Reyes v. Zaballero, 89 P 39

5. Impotency

Art. 45, par. 5 in rel. to Art. 1

Impotentia Copulandi and Impotentia Generandi, Distinguished
Relative Impotency
Burden of Proof
 Alcazar v. Alcazar, 13 October 2009.
 Villanueva v. CA, 27 October 2006

Doctrine of Triennial Cohabitation

 Jimenez v. Republic, 109 P 274
6. Affliction of a Sexually Transmissible Disease
Art. 45, par. 6 distinguished from Art. 46 (3)

Ratification / Convalidation of Voidable Marriage

Modes
Art. 45 in rel. to Art. 47
Free Cohabitation, How Proven
To What Marriages Applicable
Prescription
Period of Prescription
Effects of Ratification / Convalidation

Action for Annulment of Marriage

Art. 47 and A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, Who May Bring and Within What Period
Art. 48, Appearance of the State
 Pacete v. Carriaga, 17 March 1994
 Tuason v. CA and Tuazon, 256 S 158 (10 April 1996)

Right to Support and Custody During Pendency of Action

Art. 49 in rel. to Art. 213
 Calderon v. Roxas, 9 January 2013

Necessity of Final Judgment / Requirements for Remarriage

Arts. 40, 52-53

Effects of Annulment
Arts. 50-51 in rel. to Arts. 43-44

F. LEGAL SEPARATION

Concept of Legal Separation

A Vinculo Matrimonii and A Mensa Et Thoro, Distinguished
History of Divorce and Legal Separation
Arts. 45-55, P.D. 1083 or Code of Muslim Personal Laws
Legal Separation and Separation of Property, Distinguished
Art. 55 in rel. to Arts. 134-136
Legal Separation and Separation De Facto, Distinguished
Art. 55 in rel. to Arts. 100-101

Grounds
Art. 55 (1) to (10) in rel. to Arts. 101 and 128
Arts. 247, 333 and 334, Revised Penal Code
 Ong v. Ong, 505 S 76
 Banez v. Banez, 374 S 340

14
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 15

 Gaudionco v. Penaranda, 27 November 1987

 Prima Partosa-Jo v. CA, 216 S 692

Defenses
Art. 56
1. Condonation / Pardon

Art. 56, par. 1

Forms
 Arroyo v. CA, 19 November 1991
 Ginez v. Bugayong, 100 P 616
 People v. Zapata and Bondoc, 16 May 1951
 Ocampo v. Florenciano, 23 February 1960

2. Consent

Art. 56, par. 2

Distinguished from Condonation
Forms
 Matubis v. Praxedes, 109 P 789
 Pp. v. Schneckenberger, 73 P 413
 Pp. v. Sansano, 59 P 73

3. Connivance

Art. 56, par. 3

Distinguished from Entrapment

4. Recrimination / Mutual Guilt

Art. 56, par. 4

Same or Different Grounds
Rationale
 Benedicto v. Dela Rama, 3 P 34

5. Collusion

Art. 56, par. 5 in rel. to Art. 60, par. 2

How Committed

6. Prescription

Art. 56, par. 6 in rel. to Art. 57

 Brown v. Yambao, 102 P 168
 Ocampo v. Florenciano, 23 February 1960
 Contreras v. Macaraig, 33 S 222

Action for Legal Separation

Procedure, A.M. No. 02-11-11-SC
Mandatory Cooling-Off Period
Art. 58, Rationale
 Araneta v. Concepcion, 99 P 709
 Pacete v. Cariaga, 231 S 321
 Somosa-Ramos v. Vamerita, 46 S 110

Art. 59, Duty of Court to Effect Reconciliation

Art. 60, Necessity of Trial and Intervention of State

15
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 16

Effects of:

1. Legal Separation Pendente Lite

Arts. 61-62 in rel. to Art. 49

 Sabalones v. CA, 14 February 1994
 Espiritu and Layug v. CA, 15 March 1995
 Lapuz Sy v. Eufemio, 43 S 177

2. Decree of Legal Separation

Arts. 63 and 64 in rel. to Arts. 43, 213

 Laperal v. Republic, 6 S 357
 Siochi vs. Gozon, 18 March 2010

3. Reconciliation

Arts. 65-67
Procedure
On Pending Case
On Final Decree of Legal Separation
On Property Relations
Registration Requirements

G. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF SPOUSES

Gender Relations in Marriage/ Gender Stereotypes

Art. II, sec. 14 and Art. XIII, Sec. 14, 1987 Constitution

Arts 68-81 in rel. to Arts. 100 and 127

 Pp. v. Jumawan, 21 April 2014
 Imbong v. Ochoa, 8 April 2014
 Ilusorio v. Ilusorio, 12 May 2000
 Arroyo v. Vasquez-Arroyo, 42 P 54
 Goitia v. Campos Rueda, 35 P 252
 Tenchavez v. Escano, 15 S 335, 17 S 674
 Cuenca v. Cuenca, 8 December 1988

R.A. 10572 amending Art. 73 of Family Code of the Philippines

 Go v. CA, 272 S 752

Art. 11(2) and Art. 247, Revised Penal Code

Art. 305 Civil Code of the Philippines

 Valino v. Adriano, 22 April 2014

Rule 130, Rules of Evidence on Marriage Privilege Rule and Marital Communication Rule
 Chan v. Chan, 24 July 2013

H. PROPERTY RELATIONS BETWEEN SPOUSES

Art. 1 in rel. to Art. 16, Civil Code of the Philippines

1. Marriage Settlement / Ante-Nuptial or Pre-Nuptial Agreement

16
CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 17

Arts. 74-81
Definition and Purpose
Form and Essential Elements
Terms, Conditions and Stipulations
Governing Law
Effect if Marriage Does Not Take Place

2. Donations Propter Nuptias

Arts. 82-87 in rel. to Art. 725 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
Definition and Purpose
Requisites

Prohibition against Donation to Each Other

Arts. 84 and 87 in rel. to Arts. 1490 and 1782, Civil Code of the Philippines
 Arcaba v. Vda. De Batocael, 370 S 414
 Matabuena v. Cervantes, 38 S 284
 Grecio v. Sun Life, 48 P 53
 Harding v. Commercial Union, 38 P 464

Revocation
Art. 86 in rel. to Art. 50, 43 (3) and Arts. 134, 764, 769, 1144-1145, Civil Code

3. Absolute Community of Property

Arts. 88-104
History
When Mandatory
Effect of Waiver of Rights

Property Included/ Presumption of Conjugality

Arts. 91, 95
 Imani v. Metrobank, 17 November 2010
 Navarro v. Judge Escobido and Go, 27 November 2009

Property Excluded
Arts. 92, 95
 Villanueva v. CA, 427 S 439
 Ching v. CA, 423 S 371
 Tan v. CA, 273 S 229

Charges Against / Obligations of Absolute Community

Arts. 94-95 in rel. to Arts. 194-195

 Ros and Aguete v. PNB Laoag, 6 April 2011

 Go v. CA, 272 S 752

Ownership, Administration, Enjoyment and Administration

Arts. 96-98
Compared with Art. 206, Civil Code of the Philippines
Remedies in case of Disagreements
Sole Administration, When Permissible
 Siochi vs. Gozon, et al., 18 March 2010

Disposition:

17
CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 18

a) of Absolute Community Property

Arts. 96, par. 2 and Art. 98 in rel. to Art. 739, Civil Code

 Cheesman v. IAC, 21 January 1991

 Matthews v. Taylor, 22 June 2009
 Aggabao v. Parulan, 1 September 2010
 Fuentes, et al. v. Roca, et al., 21 April 2010
 Sps. De Leon, et al. v. De Leon, et al., 23 July 23, 2009
 Sps. Bautista v. Silva, 502 S 334
 Homeowners’ Savings and Loan v. Dallo, 453 S 283
 Abalos v. Macatangay, 439 S 649
 Roxas v. CA, 26 June 1991
 Nicolas v. CA, 154 S 635

b) of Respective Interest in Absolute Community Property

Dissolution and Liquidation of Absolute Community

Grounds
Art. 99 in rel. to Arts. 103, 63-64, 50-52, 134-138
 Muller v. Muller, 500 S 65
 Beumer v. Amores, 3 December 2012
 Cruz v. Cristobal, 498 S 37
 Go v. Yamane, 489 S 107
 Oligario v. CA, 238 S 96
 Nable-Jose v. Nable-Jose, 41 P 713
 Luna v. Linatoc, 74 P 15

Effect of Separation De Facto

 Cuenca v. Cuenca, 168 S 335
 Wong v. CA, 19 August 1991
 Prima Partosa-Jo v. CA, 216 S 692

Liquidation Procedure
Arts. 102-104
 De Ocampo v. Delizo, 69 S 216
 Vda. De Consuegra v. GSIS, 37 S 315

4. Conjugal Partnership of Gains

Arts. 105-133
History and Concept
Distinguished from Absolute Community Regime
When Applicable
Applicability of Ordinary Partnership Rules

Exclusive Property of Each Spouse

Art. 109, 113-115
 Salvador v. CA, 243 S 239
 Sarmiento v. Ordones, 17 August 1987
 Villanueva v. IAC, 192 S 21
 Tan v. CA, 273 S 229

Ownership, Possession, Enjoyment and Administration of Exclusive Property

Arts. 110-112
 R.A. 10572 amending Art. 73 of Family Code of the Philippines
 Manotok Realty v. CA, 30 April 1987
 Ong v. CA, 29 November 1991

18
CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 19

Property Included in Conjugal Partnership of Gains

Arts. 116-120

 Ravina v. Abrille, 16 October 2009

 Titan Construction Corporation v. David, 15 March 2010.
 Ching v. CA, 23 February 2004
 Castro v. Miat, 397 S 271
 Francisco v. CA, 25 November 1998
 Diaz v. CA, 10 November 1986
 Ayala Investments v. CA, 12 February 1998
 Salvador v. CA, 243 S 239

Charges Against / Obligations of Conjugal Partnership Property

Arts. 121-123 in rel. to Arts. 194-195

 Ros and Aguete v. PNB Laoag, 6 April 2011

 Domingo v. Reed, 477 S 227
 Enbrodo v. CA, 233 S 755
 Carlos v. Abelardo, 9 April 2002
 BA Finance v. CA, 28 May 1988
 Johnson and Johnson v. CA, 23 September 1996

Ownership, Possession, Enjoyment and Administration of Conjugal Partnership

Property
Remedies in case of Disagreements
Arts. 124-125
 Fuentes v. Roca, 21 April 2010
 Bautista v. Silva, 502 S 334
 Alfredo v. Borras, 404 S 145
 Jardeleza v. Jardeleza, 347 S 10
 Guiang v. CA, 26 June 1998
 Nicolas v. CA, 12 October 1987

Sole Administration, When Permissible

Art. 124
 Uy v. CA, 346 S 246
 Sabalones v. CA, 230 S 79
 Relucio v. Lopez, 16 January 2002

Dissolution and Liquidation of Conjugal Partnership

Grounds
Art. 126 in rel. to Arts. 103, 63-64, 50-52, 134-138
 Uy v. Estate of Fernandez, 5 April 2017
 Nable-Jose v. Nable-Jose, 41 P 713

Effect of Separation De Facto

Art. 127-128
 Abalos v. Macatangay, 439 S 649
 Heirs of Reyes v. Mijares, 410 S 97
 Castro v. Miat, 397 S 271
 Perez v. CA, 255 S 238

Liquidation Procedure
Arts. 129-133
Separation of Property

19
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 20

Voluntary Separation of Property

Arts. 134, 143-146
 Maquilan v. Maquilan, 8 June 2007
 In re Bernas, 14 S 327
 Lacson v. Lacson, 24 S 837

Judicial Separation of Property

Art. 135-141
Grounds
Procedure
Revival

5. Property Regime of Unions without Marriage

a) Void Marriages or Live-In Relationships

Art. 147
Co-Ownership, Concept
 Maxey v. CA, 129 S 187
 Valdes v. RTC, 31 July 1996
 Diño v. Diño, 19 January 2011
 Buenaventura v. CA, 31 March 2005
 Maquilan v. Maquilan, 8 June 2007
 Gonzales v. Gonzales, 478 S 327
 Flora v. Pardo, 420 S 396
 Mercado v. Fehr, 414 S 288
 Carino v. Carino, 2 February 2001
 Tumlos v. Fernandez, 330 718
 Malang v. Moson, 338 S 393

b) Bigamous, Adulterous, Etc. Relationships

Art. 148
Actual Joint Contribution, Concept
 Bangayan v. Bangayan, 3 July 2013
 Metrobank v. Pascual, 547 S 246 (2008)
 Francisco v. Master Ironworks, 451 S 494
 Frenzel v. Catito, 11 July 2003
 Joaquin v. Reyes, 434 S 260
 Mallilin Jr. v. Castillo, 333 S 628
 Saguid v. CA, 10 June 2003
 Juaniza v. Jose, 89 S 306
 Adriano v. CA, 27 March 2000

Family Home
Arts. 152-162
Definition
How Constituted/ Requisites
 Trinidad-Ramos v. Pangilinan, 20 July 2010
 Modequillo v. Breva, 31 May 1990

Beneficiaries of Family Home

Benefits /Exemptions
 Salazar v. Felias, 5 February 2018
 Sps/ Fortaleza v. Sps Lapitan, 15 August 2012
 Trinidad-Ramos v. Pangilinan, 20 July 2010
 Equitable PCI v. OJ-Mark Trading, Inc. & Sps Martinez, 11 August 2010
 Josef v. Santos, 27 November 2008

20
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 21

 Kelly v. Planters’ Products, 9 July 2008

 Gomez v. Inez, 473 S 25
 Manacop v. CA, 11 August 1997
 Taneo v. CA, 304 S 308

VII. THE FAMILY

Art. 149 in rel. to Art. 1 and Art. XV and Art. II, Sec. 12, 1987 Constitution
Family Relations, Coverage
Art. 150
 Guerrero v. RTC, 229 S 274
 Scavias v. CA, 273 803

Suit Among Members of the Same Family/ Necessity of Earnest Efforts toward
Compromise
Art. 151 in rel. to Art. 2035, Civil Code of the Philippines
 Hiyas Savings v. Acuna, 500 S 514
 Martinez v. Martinez, 461 S 562
 Hontiveros v. RTC of Iloilo City, 309 S 340
 Vda. De Manalo v. CA, 16 January 2001

Prohibited Compromise
Arts. 2034-2035 of the Civil Code of the Philippines
 Uy v. Chua, 18 September 2009
 Santos v. CA, 475 S 1
 Mendoza v. CA, 19 S 756
 Versoza v. Versoza, 27 November 1968

VIII. PATERNITY AND FILIATION

Paternity, Maternity, Filiation, Defined

Kinds of Filiation
Kinds/ Status of Children
 De Asis v. CA, 303 S 176
 Fernandez v. Fernandez, 363 S 811

A. LEGITIMATE CHILDREN

Art. 164 in rel. to Arts. 54 and 43 (1)

Presumption of Legitimacy
Children by Artificial Insemination, Requirements

Action to Impugn Legitimacy

Art. 166-169, Grounds
 Concepcion v. CA, 468 S 438
 Angeles v. Maglaya, 469 S 363
 Abalos v. Macatangay, 439 S 649
 Jao v. CA, 152 S 359
 Andal v. Macaraig, 89 P 165
 Babiera v. Catotal, 333 S 487
 Benitez-Badua v. CA, 229 S 468

Who May File, Within What Period

21
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 22

Arts. 170-171
 Liyao v. Tanhoti-Liyao, 7 March 2002
 Estate of Juan Dizon v. CA, 366 S 499

Action to Claim Legitimacy

Proof of Legitimacy
Art. 172
Who May File, When to File
Art. 173
 Tijing v. CA, 8 March 2001
 Go Kim Huy v. Go Kim Huy, 365 S 490

Rights of Legitimate Children

Art. 174 in rel. to Arts. 194-196
Arts. 364, 369, 888 and 979, Civil Code of the Philippines
 Tecson v. COMELEC, 3 March 2004
 In Re: Julian Lin Wang, 30 March 2005

B. ILLEGITIMATE CHILDREN

Art. 165 in rel. to Art. 54

Voluntary Recognition of Illegitimate Children, How Made
 Uy v. Chua, 18 September 2009
 Tayag v. Tayag-Gailor, 549 S 68
 Verceles v. Posada, 522 S 518
 Rodriguez v. Lim, 509 S 68
 Cabatania v. Regodos, 441 S 96
 Eceta v. Eceta, 428 S 782
 Alberto v. CA, 232 S 745
 De Jesus v. Estate of Dizon , 2 October 2001 as compared to
 Aparicho v. Parugaya, 29 May 1987

Compulsory Recognition
 Gotardo v. Buling, 15 August 2012
 Rivero v. CA, 458 S 715
 Pp. v. Abella, 6 January 2010
 People v. Bayani, 8 October 1996 as compared to
 People v. Manahan, 29 September 1999

Proof of Illegitimacy (Art. 172)

 Ara v. Pizzaro, 15 February 2017

 Nepomuceno v. Lopez, 18 March 2010
 Rivera v. Heirs, 496 S 135
 Cruz v. Cristobal, 498 S 37
 Cabatania v. CA, 441 S 96
 Lagabala v. Santiago, 4 December 2001
 Locsin v. Locsin, 10 December 2001
 Ilano v. CA, 230 S 242
 Fernandez v. CA, 230 S 130
 Rodriguez v. CA, 245 S 150
 Jison v. Jison, 24 February 1998
 Pe Lim v. CA, 270 S 1

22
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 23

DNA Tests: Probative Value in Paternity Cases

 Tijing v. CA, 8 March 2001
 Agustin v. CA, 460 S 315 (DNA Testing)
 Herrera v. Alba, 460 S 197
 Pp v. Vallejo, 9 May 2002
 Pp v. Yatar, 428 S 504
 Rules on DNA Evidence, Admin. Matter 06-11-05-SC, effective 15 Oct 2007,
www.supremecourt.gov.ph

Who May File and When to File Action for Compulsory Recognition
Art. 175, par. 2
 Reyes v. Mauricio, 24 November 2010
 Estate of Ong v. Diaz, 540 S 480
 Guy v. CA, 502 S 151
 Rivero v. CA, 458 S 714
 Briones v. Miguel, 440 S 455
 Herrera v. Alba, 460 S 197
 Marquino v. IAC, 27 June 1994
 Tayag v. CA, 209 S 665
 People v. Bayani, 8 October 1996
 Republic v. Abadilla, 29 January 1999

Rights of Illegitimate Children

Art. 176 in rel. to R.A. 9255
 In re Minors Barcelote v. RP, 7 August 2017
 Dela Cruz v. Garcia, 31 July 2009
 Verceles v. Posadas, 27 April 2007
 In the Re: Adoption of Stephanie Garcia, 454 S 541
 Briones v. Miguel, 440 S 455
 Pp. v. Glabo, 371 S 567
 Mangulabnan v. IAC, 31 May 1990
 Tonog v. CA, 376 S 523
 RP v. Abadilla, 302 S 358
 Mossesgeld v. CA, 300 S 464
 Silvia v. CA, 275 S 604
 David v. CA, 250 S 82

C. LEGITIMATED CHILDREN

Arts. 178-182 in relation to RA 9858

Rationale
Art. 178, How Made
Art. 177, Requisites
 De Santos v. Angeles, 12 December 1995
 Abadilla v. Tabiliran, 249 S 448

Effects of Legitimation
Rights of Legitimated Children
Action to Impugn Legitimation

D. ADOPTED CHILDREN

R.A. 8552 or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998

Who May Adopt

Who May be Adopted

23
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 24

 Republic v. Hughes, 26 October 1997

 Republic v. Toledano, 8 June 1994
 Republic v. Hernandez, 9 February 1996
 Republic v. CA, 15 March 1996
 Republic v. Dye, 20 March 1997

Substantive and Procedural Requirements

 In Re: Michelle and Michael Lim, 21 May 2009
 Landingin v. Republic, 493 S 415
 Cang v. CA, 25 September 1998

Nature and Effects

 In Re: Adoption of Stephanie Garcia, 454 S 541
 DSWD v. Belen, 275 S 645
 Teotico v. Del Val, 13 S 406

Rescission of Adoption; Grounds, Who May File

 Lahom v. Sibulo, 14 July 2003

R.A. 8043 or the Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995

P.D. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code

IX. SUPPORT

Arts. 194-208
Rule 61, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
Concept and Extent

Actual Need v. Capacity to Pay

Arts. 201-202
 Lim-Lua v. Lua, 5 June 2013
 Montefalcon v. Vasquez, 17 June 2008

Who Is Entitled to Support

Arts. 195-197
 Lacson v. Lacson, 499 S 677
 Briones v. Miguel, 440 S 455
 Quimiguing v. Icao, 34 S 132
 Francisco v. Zandueta, 61 P 752
 Ruiz v. CA, 29 January 1996

Art. 203, When Demandable

Art. 205, Exemption from Levy and Attachment

Who Must Pay Support

Arts. 195-197, 199-200

 Sps. Lim v. Lim, 30 October 2009

 Verceles v. Posada, 27 April 2007
 Mangonon v. CA, 494 S 1
 De Guzman v. Perez, 496 S 474
 Lam v. Chua, 426 S 29
 Reyes v. Ines-Luciano, 28 February 1979
 Santero v. CFI, 14 September 1987

24
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 25

How Given
Art. 203, par. 3 and Art. 204
Arts. 206-207, Right of Third Persons Who Pay
 Lacson v. Lacson, 499 S 677

Art. 208, Contractual Support or Support in A Will

X. PARENTAL AUTHORITY AND CUSTODY

Patria Potestas, Concept and Evolution

Art. 209
Art. XV, Sec. 3 (1) and (2) of 1987 Constitution
Child Defined, in rel. to R.A. 7610 and R.A. 9344
Art. 210, Characteristics of Parental Authority
Art. 211, Who Exercises Parental Authority and Custody
 Bucal v. Bucal, 17 June 2015
 Beckett v. Olegario, 30 January 2013
 In Re: Thornton, 16 August 2004
 Madrinan v. Madrinan, 12 July 2007
 De Guzman v. Perez, 496 S 474
 Tonog v. CA, 7 February 2002
 Vancil v. Belmes, 19 June 2001
 Bondagjiy v. Bondagjiy, 7 December 2001
 Sayala v. Islao, 266 S 317

Effect of Disagreement, Absence / Death, Separation or Termination of Marriage of

Parents
Arts. 212-213 in rel. to Arts. 49, 50, 62, 63
“Tender-Age Presumption” Rule
 Dacasin v. Dacasin, 5 February 2010
 Gamboa-Hirsch v. CA, 11 July 2007
 Gualberto v. Gualberto, 28 June 2005
 Galangco v. CA, 22 December 1997
 Silva v. CA, 275 S 604
 David v. CA, 250 S 82
 Espiritu and Layug v. CA and Masauding, 15 March 1995
 Perez v. CA, 255 S 661
 Sagala-Eslao v. CA and Cordero-Ouye, 16 January 1997
 Oreta v. CA and Dandan, 22 December 1998

Art. 211, par. 2, Duties of Children

Art. 215, Filial Privilege Rule

Substitute Parental Authority

When Applicable
Arts. 214, 216, 222
Who May Exercise
Arts. 216 and 217
Extent of Authority, Art. 233
 Sps Lim v. Lim, 30 October 2009
 Santos v. CA, 242 S 407

Effects of Parental Authority Upon the Persons of the Children

Arts. 220-221 in rel. to Art. 219
 Libi v. IAC, 18 September 1992
 Tamargo v. CA, 209 S 5180

25
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 26

Disciplinary Measures
Arts. 223-224

Effects of Parental Authority Upon Property of Children -Arts. 225-227

Adventitious Ordinarious, Adventitious Extra-Ordinarious and Profectitious Property
 Hebron v. Loyola, 5 July 2010

Termination / Suspension of Parental Authority: Grounds

Arts. 229, 232 in rel. to R.A. 7610
Grounds for Suspension
 Landingin v. RP, 493 S 415
 Sombong v. CA, 31 January 1996

Special Parental Authority

Arts. 218-219
When Applicable
Who Exercises Special Parental Authority: Extent of Responsibility/Liability
 Aquinas School v. Sps. Inton, 26 January 2011
 St. Joseph’s College v. Miranda, 29 June 2010
 St. Mary’s Academy v. Carpitanos, 6 February 2002
 Amadora v. CA, 160 S 315
 Salvosa v. IAC, 5 October 1988
 PSBA v. CA, 4 February 1992

Extent of Special Parental Authority

Art. 233, par. 2

XI. EMANCIPATION AND AGE OF MAJORITY

Concept
R.A. 6809
Effects
Art. 236

XII. NAMES AND SURNAMES

Arts. 364-380, Civil Code of the Philippines in rel. to Art. 178, Revised Penal Code

Use of Surname by Women

 Remo v. The Honorable Secretary of Foreign Affairs, 5 March 2010.
 Yasin v. Shai’a District Court, 23 February 1995

Use of Surname by Children

 In Re: Julian Lin Wang, 30 March 2005
 Naldoza v. RP, 15 March 1982
 RP v. CA, 14 December 1988
 In the Re: Adoption of Stephanie Garcia, 454 S 541
 Moore v. RP, 26 June 1966

Similarity / Identity of Names and Surnames

Usurpation of Name / Surname in relation to CA 142
 Pp v. Joseph Estrada, 2 April 2009
 Ursua v. CA, 10 April 1996

XIII. ABSENCE

26
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 27

Meaning
Ordinary Absence and Qualified Absence, Distinguished
Stages of Absence
Provisional Absence
Arts. 381-383, Civil Code of the Philippines
Remedies
Who May Be Appointed Provisional Representative

Declared Absence
Arts. 384-386
Period
 Bienvenido v. CA, 24 October 1994

Who May File

Effectivity Date
Appointment and Powers of Administrator
Termination of Administration

Contingent Rights of the Absentee

Arts. 393-396

Presumptive Death
Arts. 390-392
Purpose
Periods

XIV. CIVIL REGISTER

Arts. 407-413 in rel. to R.A. 3753

R.A 10172 and R.A. 9048 or Clerical Error Law
Purpose
Entries
Probative Value of Civil Register
Amendments / Correction of Entries
Arts. 376 and 412 in rel. to R.A. 9048
 Republic v. Coseteng-Magpayo, 2 February 2011
 Silverio v. Republic, 22 October 2007
 RP v. Cagandahan, 12 September 2008
 In the Re: Change of Name of Julian Wang, 30 March 2005
 Baldos v. CA, 9 July 2010
 Lee v. CA, 11 October 2001

BOOK II- PROPERTY

I. PROPERTY : GENERAL PROVISIONS

A. Classification by Nature

1. Immovable or Real Property – Art. 415

a. By Nature- A. 415, (1) & (8) – cannot be moved from place to place
b. By Incorporation – A. 415 (2), (3) , (7) attached to an immovable in such a
manner as to form an integral part
c. By Destination – A. 415 (4), (5), (6), (9) – placed in an immovable for the use,
exploitation or perfection of such immovable
d. By Analogy – 415, (10) – by operation of law
 Capitol Wireless v. Province of Batangas, 30 May 2016

27
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 28

 Fels Energy v. Province of Batangas, 16 February 2007

 Laurel v. Abrogar, 27 February 2006 as reconsidered 13 January 2009
 PLDT v. Alvarez, 5 March 2014
 Chiang v. PLDT, 13 December 2017

2. Movable or Personal Property – Arts. 416-417

 Tsai v. CA, 2 October 2001
 Serg’s v. PCU Leasing, 338 S 499
 Tumalad v. Vicencio, 41 S 143
 Makati Leasing v. Wearever Textile, 122 S 296
 Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 S 800
 Berkenkotter v. CuUnjieng, 61 P 363
 Davao Sawmill v. Castillo, 61 P 709

3. Importance and Significance of Classification From Point of View of:

a. Criminal Law
b. Form of contracts involving movables or immovables
c. Prescription
d. Venue
e. Taxation

B. Classification By Ownership

1. Res Nullius
 RP v. Guzman, 18 February 2000

2. Public Domain , (cf. Patrimonial) (Arts. 419, 420-422, 424)

a. Property of State – Art. 420-422, Art. XII, Sec. 1-3, 1987 Constitution

i. For Public Use

ii. For Public Service
iii. For Development of National Wealth

 Camarines Sur v. Robredo, 18 September 2009

 Central Mindanao University v. Executive Secretary, September 21, 2010
 Chavez v. PEA, 415 S 403
 Cruz v. Secretary, 347 S 128
 La Bugal-B’laan v. Secretary, 27 January 2004; 1 December 2004
 Usero v. CA, 26 January 2005

b. Property of Municipal Corporations – Art. 424, par. 1

i. For Public Use including Public works for Public Service

3. Private Property

a. Patrimonial Property of State – Art. 424

b. Patrimonial Property of Municipal Corporations – Art. 424, par. 2
c. Private Property of Private Persons Art. 425, par. 2

4. Effect and Significance of Classification of Property as Property of Public Dominion

a. Property is Outside the Commerce of Man
b. Property Cannot be the Subject of Acquisitive Prescription
c. Property Cannot be attached or Levied upon in Execution
d. Property Cannot be Burdened with a Voluntary Easement
e. Property Cannot be Registered under the Land Registration Act

C. Other Classification

28
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 29

1. By their physical existence

a. Corporeal
b. Incorporeal

2. By their Autonomy of Dependence

a. Principal
b. Accessory
3. By the Subsistence After use
a. Consumable v. Non-Consumable – Art. 418
b. Fungible or Non-Fungible
c. Deteriorable or Non-deteriorable
4. By Reason of their Susceptibility to Division
a. Divisible
b. Indivisible

5. By reason of Designation
a. Generic
b. Specific
6. Existence in Point in Time
a. Present
b. Future
7. Contents and Constitution
a. Singular
i. Simple
ii. Compound
b. Universal
8. Susceptibility to Appropriation
a. Non-appropriable
b. Appropriable
i. Already appropriated
ii. Not yet appropriated
9. Susceptibility to Commerce
a. Within the Commerce of Man
b. Outside the Commerce of Man

II. OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL

A. Definition

B. Bundle of Rights Included in Ownership -Art. 429

Jus Utendi, Fruendi, Abutendi, Disponendi, Vindicandi, Possidendi

 Sabio v. International, 4 September 2001

 Tayag v. Lacson, 25 March 2004

C. Other Specific Rights Found in Civil Code -- Arts. 429, 430, 437, 438, 444

1. Right to Exclude
Doctrine of Self Help vs. Doctrine of State of Necessity;
Elements -- Art. 429 in rel. to Sec. 1, Art. 11 of the Revised Penal Code

2. Right to Enclose or Fence – Art. 430

3. Right to Receive Just Compensation in Case of Expropriation – Art. 435

4. Right to Hidden Treasure – Arts. 438-439

29
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 30

5. Right to Accession – Art. 440

6. Right to Recover Possession and/or Ownership – Jus Vindicandi

Available Actions to Recover Possession/Ownership

Re: Immovable Property
6.1 Accion Reinvindicatoria
6.2 Accion Publiciana
6.3 Accion Interdictal
6.3.1 Forcible Entry
6.3.2 Unlawful Detainer

 Encarnacion v. Amigo, 502 S 151

 Heirs of Laurora v. Sterling, 9 April 2003
 PNB v. CA, 17 January 2002
 Fabella v. CA, 9 August 2001
 Del Rosario v. Sps. Manuel, 16 January 2004

Re: Movable Property

6.4 Replevin

Requisites of Actions for Recovery of Property – Art. 434

a. Identify the property
b. Prove right of ownership – rely on the strength of one’s evidence not on
weakness of defendant

D. Limitations of Real Right of Ownership

1. General Limitations
a. Police Power
b. Taxation
c. Eminent domain
 RP v. CA, 31 March 2005
 ATO and MCIAA v. Gapuco, 30 June 2005
 RP v. Lim, 29 June 2005

2. Specific Limitations
 (GR Nos. 134269, 134440, and 144518, TLC v. AAVA, Aquino, et al. v. AAVA,
and AAVA v. Municipality of Muntinlupa, July 7, 2010)
 Fajardo v. Freedom to Build, 1 August 2000
 Ayala Corp. v. Ray Burton, 294 S 48

3. Limitations From Scattered provisions of Civil Code - Arts. 431, 432, Arts. 2191, 677-
679, 670, 649 & 652, 637, 676, 644, 684-687

a. Latin Maxim: Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas – Art. 431
b. Act in State of Necessity – Art. 432

III. RIGHT OF ACCESSION

A. Concept – Art. 440

B. General Principles of Accession

1. Accessory Follows the Principal

30
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 31

2. No Unjust enrichment
3. All Works, Sowing and Planting are Presumed made by Owner and at His Expense,
Unless contrary is Proved.
4. Accessory Incorporated to Principal such that it cannot be Separated without
Injury to Work Constructed or Destruction to Plantings, construction or works – Art.
447
5. Bad Faith involves Liability for Damages and Other Dire Consequences
6. Bad Faith of one Party Neutralizes Bad Faith of the Other – Art. 453
7. Ownership of Fruits – To Owner of Principal Thing:

Exceptions:
a. Possession in Good Faith
b. In Usufruct
c. In Lease
d. In Antichresis

8. Obligations of Receiver of Fruits to pay expenses by 3 rd person in production,

gathering and preservation – Art. 443

C. Kinds of Accession

1. Accession Discreta (Fruits) - Art. 441

a. Natural
b. Industrial
c. Civil

 Shari Valley v. Lucasan, 97 P 987

2. Accession Continua

Over Immovables

a. Accession Artificial or Industrial – Building, Planting, Sowing (BPS)

Owner is a Builder, Planter, Sower (BPS) Using Material of Another Art. 447

BPS Builds Plants or Sows on Another’s Land Using His Own Materials – Art. 448-454:
Options Open to Land Owner if BPS in Good Faith
i. To acquire building, planting and sowing
ii. To sell to BP or to lease land, but BPS may refuse if value of land
considerable more than bp; then forced lease by LO and BP

 Espinoza v. Sps. Mayandoc, 3 July 2017

 Pesongco v. Estoya, 10 March 2006
 Nuguid v. CA, 23 February 2005
 Ignacio v. Hilario, 76 P 605
 Technogas v. CA, 10 February 1997
 Benitez v. CA, 16 January 1997
 Sps Alviola v. CA, 24 April 1998
 Ballatan v. CA, 304 S 34
 Cortes v. IAC, 175 S 545
 Depra v. Dumlao, 136 S 475

Options in case BPS in Bad Faith – Art. 449, 450, 451

 Pada-Kilario v. CA, 19 January 2000
 Josefa v. San Buenaventura, 2 March 2006
 Programme Inc v. Province of Bataan, 492 S 529

31
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 32

 Geminiano v. CA, 24 July 1996

Options in case Both in Bad Faith
 Santos v. IAC, 186 S 694

Options in case Owner in Bad Faith and BPS in Good Faith – Arts. 447 and 454
 Pershing Tan v. CA, 148 S 54

Options in case LO is not the BPS who is not the OM –Art. 455

b. Accession Natural

i. Accretion/ Alluvion – Art. 457

 Khemani v. Heirs, 540 S 83

 Bagaipo v. Lozano, 8 December 2000
 Reynante v. CA, 8 April 1992
 Desamparado vda de Nazareno v. CA, 26 June 1996
 Meneses v. CA, 246 S 374
 RP v. CA, 132 S 514
 Grande v. CA, 114 P 521
 Agustin v. IAC, 187 S 218
 Ronquillo v. CA, 195 S 433
 Cureg v. IAC, 177 S 313

ii. Avulsion
 Martinez v. Mun. of San Mateo, 6 P 3

iii. Change of Course of River – Art. 461-463

 Ramos v. IAC, 5 July 1989
 Hilario v. City of Manila, 19 S 931
 Joqualing v. CA, 194 S 607

iv. Formation of Islands – Art. 461-465 but see : PD 1067, Water Code
 Joqualing v. CA, 194 S 607

Over Movables

a. Conjunction and Adjunction

i. Inclusion or Engraftment
ii. Soldadura or soldering
1. Plumbatura – different metals
2. Ferruminatio – same metal
iii. Tejido or Weaving
iv. Escritura or writing
v. Pintura or painting

b. Commixtion and Confusion

c. Specification

IV. QUIETING OF TITLE

A. Differences Between Action to Quiet Title and Action : To Remove A Cloud; To

Prevent A Cloud - Art. 476

32
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 33

B. Prescription of Action – Imprescriptible if plaintiff is in possession; if not, prescribes

within a period for filing accion publiciana, accion reivindicatoria

C. Who are Entitled to bring Action - Rule 64 Sec. 1 par. 2, Rules of Court.

D. Requisites – Arts. 476-479

1. There is a cloud on title to real property or any interest to real property (Art.
476)
2. Plaintiff has legal or equitable title to or interest in the subject/real property
3. Instrument record claim, etc. must be valid and binding on its face but in truth and
in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable
4. Plaintiff must return benefits received from defendant

 Sps. Portic v. Cristobal, 22 April 2005

 Secuya v. Vda. De Selma, 22 February 2000
 Maestrado v. CA, 9 March 2000
 Robles v. CA, 14 March 2000
 Caragay-Layno v. CA, 133 S 718
 Puguid v. Reyes, 20 S 972
 Vda. De Aviles v. CA, 264 S 473

V. CO-OWNERSHIP

A. Definition

 Avila v. Sps. Barabat, 17 March 2006

 Noceda v. CA, 2 September 1999

B. Characteristics

1. The recognition of ideal shares, defined but not physically identified.

2. Each co-owner has absolute control over his ideal share;
3. Mutual respect among co-workers in regard to the use, enjoyment and
preservation of thing as a whole
 Sps. Si v. CA, 342 S 653
 Mallilin v. Castillo, 16 June 2000
 Carvajal v. CA, 112 S 237
 Pardell v. Bartolome, 23 P 450
 Smith v. Lopez, 5 P 78

C. Co-ownership distinguished from:

1. Joint Tenancy
 Tagarao v. Garcia, 61 P 6
 Vitug v. CA, 183 S 755

2. Partnership
3. Conjugal partnership of gains or absolute community of property
4. Joint Account
 In re Estate of Guzaman v. Rodriguez, 31 January 2018

D. Sources of co-ownership

1. Law, e.g., party walls, hedges and ditches; co-ownership

2. Contract (duration of co-ownership, Art. 494)
3. Succession
4. Chance (Commixtion, hidden treasure)
5. Occupation (harvesting and fishing)

33
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 34

E. Rights of each co-owner as to thing owned in common:

1. To use the thing according to the purpose intended may be altered by

agreement, express or implied, provided:
a. It is without injury or prejudice to interest of co-ownership and;
b. Without preventing the use of other co-owners, Art. 486

 Borbajo v. Hidden View Homeowners, 31 January 2005

2. To share in the benefits in proportion to his interest, provided the charges are borne
by each in the same proportion (Art. 485)

3. Each co-owner may bring in action in ejectment (Art. 487)

 Iglesia ni Kristo v. Ponferrada, 505 S 828 (accion reinvidicatoria)
 Resuena v. CA, 28 March 2005 as compared to
 Palarca v. Baguisi, 38 P 177
 Baloloy v. Huar, 438 S 80
 Adlawan v. Adlawan, 479 S 275

4. To compel other co-owner to contribute to expenses for preservation of the thing

or right owned in common and to payment of taxes (Art. 488)
a. Co-owners option not to contribute by waiving his undivided interest equal
to amount of contribution (exception: if waiver prejudicial of co-ownership)
b. Requisites before repairs for preservation may be made of expenses for
embellishment or improvement may be made (Art. 489)
c. Effects of failure to notify co-owners

 Adille v. CA, 157 S 455

5. To oppose any act of alteration; remedy of other co-owners re: acts of alteration
(Art. 491)

Acts of alteration (Art. 491)

a. Concept
b. Distinguished from acts of administration - Art. 492
c. Effects of acts of alteration and remedies of non-consenting co-owner
d. Is lease of real property owned in common an act of alteration? Art. 647 in
relation to Art. 1878(8)
 Bailon-Casilao v. CA, 160 S 738
 Crucillo v. IAC, 26 October 1999
 Tomas Claudio v. CA, 12 October 1999
 Barroso v. Hon. Amping, 17 March 2000
 Diversified Credit v. Rosado, 26 S 470

6. To protest against any acts of majority which are prejudicial to minority (Art. 492 par.
3)

7. To exercise legal redemption – Art. 1620, 1623

 Vda. De Ape v. CA, 15 April 2005
 Francisco v. Boiser, 31 May 2000

8. To ask for partition – Art. 494

F. Implications of co-owners right over ideal share

1. Co-owner has the right:

a. To share in fruits and benefits

34
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 35

b. To alienate, mortgage or encumber and dispose of his ideal share – (but

other co-owners may exercise right of legal redemption)

 Del Campo v. CA, 1 February 2001

c. To substitute another person in the enjoyment of thing

d. To renounce part of his interest to reimburse necessary expenses incurred
by another co-owner (Art. 488)

2. Effect of transaction by each co-owner

a. Limited to his share in the partition
b. Transferee does not require any specific portion of whole property until
partition
c. Creditors of co-owners may intervene in partition or attack the same if
prejudicial (Art. 499), except that creditors cannot ask for rescission even if
not notified in the absence of fraud (Art. 497)
 Acabal v. Acabal, 31 March 2005
 Sanchez v. CA, 404 S 540
 Lopez v. Cuyacong, 74 P 601
 Vigilidad v. Vigilidad, 507 S 94

G. Special rules on ownership of different stories of a house as differentiated from

provisions of Condominium (Act No. 4726 in rel. to Art. 490)

1. Concept of Condominium
2. Essential requisites for Condominium
3. Rights and Obligations of Condominium owner
 Leviste Management v. Legaspi Towers, 4 April 2018

H. Extinguishment of Co-ownership

 Total destruction of thing

 Merger of all interests in one person
 Acquisitive prescription

a. By a third person
b. By one co-owner as against the other co-owners – Requisites:
i. Unequivocal acts of repudiation of co-ownership (acts amounting
to ouster of other co-owners) known to other co-owners and shown
by clear and convincing evidence
ii. Open and adhere possession, not mere silent possession for the
required period of extraordinary acquisitive prescription
iii. The presumption is that possession by co-owner is not adverse
 Herrera-Fangonil v. Fangonil, 28 August 2007
 Galvez v. CA, 24 March 2006
 Heirs of restar v. Heirs of Cichon, 22 November 2005
 Aguirre v. CA, 29 January 2004
 Salvador v. CA, 243 S 239

 Partition or Division

a. Right to ask for partition at any time except:

i. When there is a stipulation against it (not over ten years)
ii. When condition of indivision is imposed by transferor (donor or
testator) not exceed 20 years – Art. 494
iii. When the legal nature of community prevents partition (party wall)

35
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 36

iv. When partition is generally prohibited by law (e.g. absolute

community of property
v. When partition would render the thing unserviceable (but the thing
may be sold and co-owners divide the proceeds (Art. 494)

b. Effects of Partition Arts. 1091, 543, 1092-1093, 499-501

 Cruz v. CA, 15 April 2005

c. Rights of Creditors of Individual co-owners Art. 497

d. Procedure for Partition – Rule 69 Rules of Court

 Figuracion v. Vda de Figuracion, 499 S 484
 Aguirre v. CA, 29 January 2004
 Santos v. Santos, 12 October 2000
 Spouses Si v. CA, 342 S 653
 Spouses Manuel v. CA, 1 February 2001
 Engreso v. Dela Cruz, 9 April 2003
 Vda. De Reyes v. CA, 26 July 1991

V. POSSESSION

A. Definition and Concept (Art. 523)

B. Essential requisites of possession:

1. Holding or control of a thing or right (corpus) consists of either:

a. The material or physical either
b. Exercise of a right
c. Constructive possession

2. Intention to possess (animus possidendi)

C. Degrees of Possession

1. Possession without title whatsoever and in violation of the right of the owner, e.g.
possession of a thief or a usurper of land

2. Possession with Juridical Title

 Del Rosario v. Sps. Manuel, 16 January 2004
 Tabuso v. CA, 21 June 2001

3. Possession in the Concept of Owner

 Turquesa v. Valera, 20 January 2000
 Santos v. Santos, 12 October 2000

4. Possession with Title in Fee Simple

D. Cases of possession:

1. Possession for oneself, or possession exercised in one’s own name and possession
in the name of another – (Art. 524)

2. Possession in the concept of an owner and possession in the concept of a holder

with the ownership belonging to another (Art. 525)

3. Possession in good faith and possession in bad faith (Art. 526)

 Resuena v. CA, 28 March 2005

36
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 37

 Millena v. CA, 31 January 2000

 Sps. Virgilio v. Patricia, 18 September 2000
 Isaguirre v. De Lara, 31 May 2000
 Evadel Realty v. Sps. Soriano, 20 April 2001

E. Effects of possession by possessor in the concept of owner:

1. Possession maybe lapsed of time be converted into ownership (subject to certain

exceptions)
2. Presumption of just title and cannot be obliged to show or prove it (Art. 541);
exception (Art. 1131)
3. Possessor may bring all actions necessary to protect his possession except accion
reivindicatoria
4. May employ self-help under Art. 429
5. Possessor may ask for inscription of such real right of possession in the registry of
property
6. Has the right to the fruits and reimbursement for expenses (assuming he is a
possessor in good faith)
7. Upon recovery of possession which he has been unlawfully deprived may demand
fruits and damages.
8. Generally, he can do on things possessed everything that the law authorizes
owner to do until he is ousted by one who has a better right.

F. Acquisitive Prescription (A. 1117-1138)

1. Ordinary Acquisitive Prescription: Requisites

a. Capacity (A. 1117)
b. Object /Property (A. 1126; A. 1133)
c. Possession in Good Faith and Just Title (A. 526, 1127-1129; A. 1117; A . 1130-
1131)
d. Period (A. 1132-1134)

2. Extraordinary Acquisitive Prescription

a. Capacity (a. 1117)
b. Object/ Property (A. 1126; A. 1133)
c. Possession (A. 1135)
d. Period (A. 1132; 1137)
 Aguirre v. Villanueva, 27 October 2006
 Bautista v. Poblete, 13 September 2005
 Heirs of Maningding v. CA, 31 July 1997

3. Computation of the Period (A. 1136, 1138 in rel. to A. 13 of NCC)

4. Interruption of the Period

a. Natural Interruption (A. 1120-1122)

b. Civil Interruption (A. 1123-1124)
c. Express/Tacit Recognition (A. 1125)

G. Presumptions in favor of the possessor:

1. Of good faith until the contrary is proved (Art. 527)

 Calicdan v. Cendana, 5 February 2004
 NHA v. Grace Baptist Church, 1 March 2004
 Liu v. Loy, 3 July 2003
 Pada-Kilario v. CA, 19 January 2000

37
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 38

2. Of continuity of initial good faith does not lose this character except in the case
and from the moment possessor became aware or is not unaware of improper or
wrongful possession: 3:1 Rule

3. Of enjoyment of possession in the same character in which possession was

required until contrary is proved (Art. 529)

4. Of non-interruption of possession in favor of present possessor who proves

possession at a previous time until the contrary is proved (Art. 554) Arts. 1120-1124)

5. Of continuous possession or non-interruption of possession of which he was

wrongfully deprived for all purposes favorable to him (Art. 561): Tacking-in Rule

6. Other presumptions with respect to specific properties of property rights:

a. Of extension of possession of real property to all movables contained
therein so long as it is not shown that they should be excluded; exceptions (Art.
426)
b. Non-interruption of possession of hereditary property (Art. 533)
c. Of just title in favor of possessor in concept of owner (Art. 541)

H. What may not be possessed by private persons

1. Res communes
2. Property of public dominion
3. Right under discontinuous and/or non-apparent easement

I. Acquisition of Possession

1. Ways of acquiring possession (Art. 531)

a. Material occupation of the thing

i. The doctrine of constructive possession

ii. Includes constructive delivery;
a) Traditio brevi manu (things already in transferee’s hands, e.g.
under a contract of lease, then delivered under a sale)

b) Traditio constitutum possessorium (thing remains in transferor’s

hands, e.g. sale, then retained under a commodatum)

b. Subjection to the action of our will

i. Includes tradition longa manu and tradition simbolica

c. Proper acts and legal formalities

2. By whom may possession be acquired: (Art. 532)

a. By same person; elements of personal acquisition

b. By his legal representative; requisites
c. By his agent
d. By any person without any power whatsoever but subject to ratification,
without prejudice to proper case of negotiorum gestio (Arts. 2144, 4129,
2150)
e. Qualifiedly, minors and incapacitated persons (Art. 525)

3. What do not affect possession (Arts 5279, 1119)

38
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 39

a. Acts merely tolerated

b. Acts executed clandestinely and without the knowledge of the possessor
c. Acts of violence as long as possessor objects thereto (i.e. he files a case)
(Art. 536)

4. Rules to solve conflict of possession (Art. 538)

a. Present possessor or actual possessor
b. If there are two or more possessors, the one longer in possession
 Wong v. Carpio, 21 October 1991
c. If dates of possession are the same, the one who presents a title
d. If all conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit
pending determination of possession or ownership through proper
proceedings

J. Effects of Possession

1. In general, every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession

a. Actions to recover possession

i. Accion Interdictal (Summary procedure) (Art. 1674)

 Ganila v. CA, 28 June 2005
 Peralta-Labrador v. Bugarin, 25 August 2005
 Sampayan v. CA, 14 January 2005
 Santos v. Ayon, 6 May 2005
 Lao v. Lao, 16 May 2000
 Ross Rica Sales v. Sps. Ong, 16 August 2005

ii. Accion publiciana (based on superior right of possession or de jure

possession, not of ownership)
 Semirara Coal v. HGL Development, 6 December 2006
 Torre v. Querubin, 101 P 53

iii. Accion reivindicatoria (recovery of ownership)

 Hilario v. Salvador, 29 April 2005
 Cutanda v. Heirs of Cutanda, 11 July 2000

iv. Action for replevin (possession or ownership for movable property)

b. Possessor can employ self-help (Art. 429)

VI. USUFRUCT

A. Concept – (Art. 562)

B. Historical considerations

C. Characteristics of Usufruct

D. Usufruct distinguished from:

1. lease;
2. servitude;

E. Classes of Usufruct

39
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 40

1. By origin:
a. Voluntary
b. Legal – Art. 321 cc; Art. 226 Family Code
c. Mixed

2. By person enjoying right of usufruct

a. Simple
b. Multiple – Simultaneous v. Successive

3. By object of usufruct
a. Rights – (Art. 574)
b. Things
i. Normal
ii. Abnormal, irregular or quasi-usufruct

4. By extent of the usufruct

a. Total
b. Partial (Art. 598)
5. By the terms of usufruct (Art. 564)
a. Pure
b. Conditional
c. With a term (period)

F. Rights of Usufructuary

1. As to the thing and its fruit

a. Right to possess and enjoy the thing itself, its fruits and accessions
i. Fruits consist of natural, industrial and civil fruits
ii. As to hidden treasure, usufructuary is considered a stranger (Art. 566;
436)
iii. Fruits pending at the beginning of usufruct (Art. 567)
iv. Civil fruits (Art. 569, 588)

b. Right to lease the thing (Art. 572)

i. Limitations
ii. Liability of usufructuary – lessor (Art. 590)
iii. Exceptions to right of leasing the thing

 NHA v. CA and Bulacan Garden Corp., 13 April 2005

c. Right to improve the thing (Art. 579)

2. As to the legal right of usufruct itself

a. Right to alienate/ mortgage

b. Right of usufruct (Art. 572); Exception; parental usufruct (Art. 321, 323)

G. Rights of the naked owner

1. At the beginning of usufruct vs. obligations of usufructuary at the beginning of

usufruct
2. During the usufruct:
a. Retains the title to the thing or property
b. He may alienate the property - Limitations (Art. 581)
 Hemedes v. CA, 8 October 1999

40
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 41

H. Obligations of Usufructuary

1. At the beginning of usufruct or before exercising the usufruct

a. To make inventory (Art. 583)

i. Requisites of inventory
a) Immovables described
b) Movables appraised
c) Notice to owner

ii. Exception to requirement of inventory (Art. 585)

b. To give a bond for the faithful performance of duties as usufructuary

i. No bond required in the following:

a) No prejudice would result (Art. 585)
b) Usufruct is reserved by donor (Art. 584)
c) Parents in parental usufruct (Arts. 585, 326)

ii. Effect of filing a bond (Art. 588)

iii. Effect of failure to give bond (Art. 586, 599)

2. During the usufruct

a. To take care of the thing like a good father or a family (Art. 589)

b. To undertake ordinary repairs (Art. 592)

c. To notify the owner of need to undertake extra-ordinary repairs (Art. 593)

i. Concept of extraordinary repairs
ii. Naked owner obliged to undertake them but when made by owner,
usufructuary pays legal interest on the amount while usufruct lasts
(Art. 594, par. 1)
iii. Naked owner cannot be compelled to undertake extra-ordinary
repairs
iv. If indispensable and owner fails to undertake extraordinary repairs
may be made by usufructuary; repairs usufructuary right (Art. 594,
par. 2)

d. To pay for annual charges and taxes on the fruits

e. To notify owner of any act detrimental to ownership (Art. 601)
f. To shoulder the costs of litigation re usufruct (Art. 602)
g. To answer for fault or negligence of alienee, lessee, or agent of usufructuary
(Art. 590)

3. At the time termination of the usufruct

a. To deliver the thing in usufruct to the owner in the condition in which he has
received it.

I. Special Cases of usufruct

1. Usufruct over a pension or periodical income (Art. 570)

41
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 42

2. Usufruct of property owned in common (Art. 582)

3. Usufruct of head and cattle (Art. 591)
4. Usufruct over vineyards and woodlands (Arts. 575-576)
5. Usufruct on a right of action (Art. 578)
6. Usufruct on mortgaged property (Art. 600)
7. Usufruct over an entire patrimony (Art. 598)
8. Usufruct over deteriorable property (Art. 578)
9. Usufruct over consumable property (or quasi-usufruct Art. 574)

J. Extinguishment of usufruct (Art. 603)

1. Death of usufructuary; Exceptions: (Art. 622; 606)

2. Expiration of period or fulfillment of resolutory condition imposed on usufruct by

person constituting the usufruct

3. Merger of rights of usufruct and naked ownership in one person

4. Renunciation of usufruct : Limitations

a. Must be express
b. If made in fraud of creditors, waiver may be rescinded by them through
action under Art. 1381

5. Extinction or loss of property

a. If destroyed property is insured before the termination of the usufruct (Art.
608)
i. When insurance premium paid by owner and usufructuary (Art. 608.
par. 1)
a) If owner rebuilds, usufruct subsists on new building
b) If owner does not rebuild interest upon insurance proceeds
paid to usufructuary
ii. When the insurance taken by owner only because usufructuary
refuses Art. 608. par. 2)
a) Owner entitled to insurance money (no interest paid to
usufructuary)
b) If he does not rebuild, usufruct continues over remaining land
and/or owner may pay interest on value of both (Art. 607)
c) If owner rebuilds, usufruct does not continue on new building,
but owner must pay interest on value on land and old
materials.

iii. When insurance taken by usufructuary only depends on value of

usufructuary’s insurance interest (not provided for in Civil Code)
a) Insurance proceeds to usufructuary
b) No obligation to rebuild
c) Usufruct continues on the land
d) Owner does not share in insurance proceeds

b. If destroyed property is not insured (Art. 607)

i. If building forms part of an immovable under usufruct

a) If owner does not rebuild, usufruct continues over the land
and materials
b) If owner rebuilds, usufruct must allow owner to occupy the
land and to make use of materials, but value of both land
and materials

42
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 43

6. Termination of right person constituting the usufruct

7. Prescription

8. What do not cause extinguishments of usufruct

a. Expropriation of thing in usufruct (Art. 609)
b. Abuse of thing in usufruct (Art. 810) - Owner’s right

VII. EASEMENT OR SERVITUDES

A. Definition

B. Essential features of easements or real servitudes

1. It is a real right, i.e., it gives an action in rem or real action against any possessor of
servient estate.
2. It is a right enjoyed over another property (jus in re aliena) i.e., it cannot exit in
one’s own property (nulli res sua servit).
3. It is a right constituted over an immovable by nature (Land and buildings), not over
movables.
4. It limits the servient owner’s right of ownership for the benefit of the dominant
estate. Right of the limited use, but no right to possess servient estate. Being an
abnormal limitation of ownership, it cannot be presumed.
5. It creates a relation between tenements
6. It cannot consist in requiring the owner of the servient estate to do an act, unless
the act is accessory to a praedial servitude (obligation propter rem)
7. Generally, it may consist in the owner of the dominant estate demanding that the
owner of the servient estate refrain from doing something (servitus in non
faciendo); or that the latter permit something done over the servient property
(servitus in petendo), but not in the right to demand that the owner of the servient
right to demand that the owner of the servient estate do something (servitus in
faciendo) except if such act is an accessory obligation to a praedial servitude
(obligation propter rem).
8. It is inherent or inseparable from estate to which they actively or passively belong
(Art. 617)
9. It is intransmissable, i.e., it cannot be alienated separately from the tenement
affected, or benefited.
10. It is indivisible (Art. 616)
11. It has permanence, i.e., once it attaches, whether used or not, it continues and
may be used at anytime.

C. Classification of Servitudes

1. As to recipient of benefits:
a. Real or Praedial
b. Personal (Art. 614) [But note that under Roman Law, usufruct together with
usus habitation and operae servorum were classified as personal servitudes]

2. As to course of origin:
a. Legal, whether for public use or for the interest of private persons (Art. 634)
b. Voluntary
 Villanueva v. Velasco, 27 November 2000

3. As to its exercise (Art. 615)

a. Continuous
b. Discontinuous

43
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 44

4. As indication of its existence (Art. 615)

a. Apparent
b. Non-apparent

5. By the object or obligation imposed (Art. 616)

a. Positive
b. Negative (prescription start to run from service of notarial prohibition)

D. General rules relating to servitudes

1. No one can have servitude over his own property (nulli res sua servit)
2. A servitude cannot consist in doing (servitus in faciendo consistee nequit)
3. There cannot be a servitude over another servitude (Servitus servitudes esse no
potest)
4. A servitude must be exercised civiliter, i.e., in a way least burdensome to the owner
of the land
5. A servitude must have a perpetual cause.

E. Modes of Acquiring Easements

1. By Juridical Act/ Title (A. 623-624)

2. By Prescription (A. 624)

F. Rights and Obligations of Owners of Dominant and Servient Estate

1. Owner of Dominant Estate

a. Rights (A. 625-627, 651)

b. Obligations (A. 626-628)
 Sabio v. International Bank Corp., 4 September 2001

2. Owner of Servient Estate

a. Rights (A. 629-630)

b. Obligations (A. 628)

G. Modes of Extinguishment

1. Merger
2. Non-User for 10 years
3. Impossibility of Use
4. Expiration of the Term or Fulfillment of Resolutory Condition
5. Renunciation (as distinguished from Non-User)
6. Redemption between Owners
7. Other causes not mentioned in A. 631
a. Annulment / Rescission of the Title constituting the Easement
b. Termination of the Right of the Grantor
c. Abandonment of the Servient Estate
d. Eminent Domain
e. For ROW- if no longer necessary

H. Legal Easements

1. Laws Governing Legal Easements

a. For Public Easements – PD 1067, PD 705
b. For Private Legal Easements – Contract; CC

44
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 45

2. Private Legal Easements

a. Easements Relating to Waters

i. Natural Drainage of Waters (A. 637)

ii. Easements of Lands Along Riverbanks (A. 638, Water Code)
iii. Abutment of Dam (A. 639)
iv. Aqueduct (A. 642-646)
v. Drawing of Waters and Watering Animals (A. 640)
vi. Stop Lock or Sluice Gate (A. 649)

b. Easement of Right of Way (A. 649-657)

 Bogo-Medellin Milling v. CA, 407 S 518

 Cristobal v. CA, 22 June 1998
 Chan v. CA, 26 February 1997
 La Vista v. CA, 5 September 1997
 Abellana v. CA, 24 April 1992
 Dionisio v. Ortiz, 204 S 745

c. Easement of Party Wall (A. 658-666)

d. Easement of Light and View (A. 667-673)
e. Easement of Drainage of Buildings (A. 674-676)
f. Easement of Distances (A. 677-681)
g. Easement against Nuisances(A. 682-683)
h. Easement of Lateral and Subjacent Support (A. 684-687)

VIII. NUISANCES

A. Definition/ Effects – as an undue limitation/ hindrance to the rights of ownership

B. Kinds

1. As to Nature
a. Nuisance Per Se
b. Nuisance Per Accidens
 Monteverde v. Generoso, 52 P 123
 Velasco v. Manila Electric, 40 S 342

2. As to Effects
a. Public
b. Private

C. Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance

 Hidalgo Enterprises v. Balandan, 91 P 488

D. Remedies

1. As against Public Nuisance

a. criminal prosecution under the RPC / ordinances
b. civil action
c. extra-judicial abatement
 Timoner v. Timoner, 125 S 830
 Clama v. CA, 176 S 555

2. As against Private Nuisance

45
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 46

a. civil action
b. extra-judicial abatement

3. Defenses
a. estoppel
b. public necessity
c. non-existence
d. impossibility of abatement

IX. REGISTRY OF PROPERTY

A. Systems of Land Registration in the Philippines

1. Torrens System – Land Registration Act

2. Spanish Mortgage Law
3. Revised Administrative Code – Homestead / Sales Patent
4. Characteristics of Certificate of Title
 Iglesia ni Kristo v. CFI of Nueva Ecija, 123 S 516 (Indefeasibility Principle)
 Lopez v. CA, 169 S 271
 Garingan v. Garingan, 12 April 2005
 Heirs of Conahap v. Heirs of Regana, 17 May 2005
 Sps. De Pedro v. Romasan Dev. Corp., 28 February 2005
 Sanchez v. Quinio, 15 July 2005 (multiple certificates)
 Teoville v. Ferreira, 8 June 2005 ( Direct v. Collateral Attack)
 Vda. De Gualberto v. Go, 21 July 2005
 RP v. CA, 14 November 1997 (on right of the State to file action for reversion)
 Heirs of Tengco v. Heirs of Alivalas, 168 S 198
 Sherwill Development v. Sitio Sto. Nino Residents, 28 June 2005

B. Purposes
C. Registration as a System of Notification, not a Mode of Acquiring Ownership: Mirror
Principle
 Navotas Industrial v. Cruz, 12 September 2005
 Amancio v. CA, 16 September 2005
 Lucena v. CA, 25 August 1999
 Rural Bank of Sta. Ignacia v. Dimatulac, 29 April 2003 (not applicable to
banks)

X. - MODES OF ACQURING OWNERSHIP OVER PROPERTY

A. Mode of Acquiring v. Title

B. Ownership by:
1. Public Grant v. Private Grant
2. Voluntary v. Involuntary Transfer

I. OCCUPATION

A. Res Nullius v. Regalian Doctrine

 Pajunar v. CA, 175 S 464
 Catabian v. Tungcul, 11 P 49

II. LAW

46
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 47

A. Instances:
1. A. 120, Family Code
2. A. 438, NCC
3. A. 461, NCC
4. A. 681, NCC

III. DONATIONS

A. Definition and Concept

B. Distinctions of Ordinary Donations from:

1. Donations Mortis Causa

a. Bonsato v. CA, 95 P 481
b. Reyes v. Mosqueda, 187 S 661

2. Donations Propter Nuptias

3. Condonations/ Remission of Debt

C. Elements

1. Consent: Theory of Cognition

 Aldaba v. CA, 27 S 263
 RP v. Silim, 2 April 2001

2. Object
a. all property v. specific property
b. present v. future property

3. Cause
a. act of liberality
b. if on account of donee’s merits or services not constituting demandable
debt
c. not contrary to law, morals
 Liguez v. Lopez, 102 P 577

4. Formalities
a. over movables
b. over immovables
c. effect if formalities not complied with
 Bautista v. Poblete, 13 September 2005
 Quilala v. Alcantara, 3 December 2001
 Tan Queto v. Pombuena, 2 February 1987

D. Kinds
1. as to effectivity
a. inter vivos, inc. donation in praensenti
b. mortis causa

2. as to cause
a. simple
b. remuneratory
c. onerous (as distinguished from contract)
 Secretary of Education v. Heirs of Dulay, 480 S 452
 RP v. Silim, 2 April 2001
 Roman Catholic Archbishop v. CA, 19 June 1991
 De Luna v. Abrigo, 18 January 1990

47
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 48

3. as to object
a. corporeal
b. incorporeal, alienable rights

E. Parties to Donation

1. Donor
a. Owner of Property / Capacity to Dispose
b. When determined
c. Minors
d. Guardians/ Trustees
 Lavarez v. Guevarra, 29 March 2017
 Beaterio v. CA, 137 S 459

e. Natural v. Juridical Persons

2. Donee
a. Acceptance, necessity
b. By Whom
c. When and How Made
 Sumipat v. Bumanga, 13 August 2004

3. Void Donations – Public Policy

a. between persons guilty of adultery/ concubinage
b. between persons guilty of the same crime
c. in favor of public officers or spouse, descendants, ascendants
 SSS v. Davao, 17 S 863 as compared to
 Nepomuceno v. CA, 139 S 206
 Matabuena v. Cervantes, 38 S 284
 Acaba v. Comille, 22 November 2001

d. Effects
e. When to revoke

F. Effects and Limitations

1. Irrevocability, exceptions
2. Joint Donations
3. Subrogation
4. Effect if Donor Reserves the Right to Dispose of the Thing Donated
5. Officiousness

G. Revocation and Reduction of Donations

1. Necessity of Judicial Action

2. When Revocation/Reduction Justified
a. Appearance of Children of Donor

b. Breach of Condition
 Santos v. Alana, 16 August 2005
 CJ Yulo v. Roman Catholic Bishop, 31 March 2005
 Arcaba v. Batocael, 22 November 2001

c. Acts of Ingratitude
 Sps. Eduarte v. CA, 9 February 1996

d. Inofficiousness

48
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 49

 Nazareno v. CA, 18 October 2000

 Imperial v. CA, 8 October 1999
 Zaragoza v. CA, 341 S 309

BOOK III – WILLS AND SUCCESSION

PART I- INTRODUCTION

A. Succession

1. Concept and Definition

B. Basic Kinds of Succession (A. 778-780 in rel. to A. 84, Family Code and A. 725-773,
NCC)
1. Succession Inter Vivos v. Succession Mortis Causa
 Arellano v. Pascual, 15 December 2010
 Del Rosario v. Ferrer, 20 September 2010
 Maglasang v. Heirs of Cabatingan, 2 June 2002
 Austria-Magat v. CA, 1 February 2002
 Bonsato v. CA, 95 P 481
 Reyes v. Mosqueda, 187 S 661
2. Succession Mortis Causa:
a) Forced (A. 886, et. seq.)
b) Testamentary (A. 779)
c) Legal/ Intestate (A. 960, et. seq.)
d) Mixed (A. 780)

3. Void Contractual Succession (in rel. to A. 84 of the Family Code of the Phil)
 Vitug v. CA, 183 S 755 on survivorship agreement
 In Re Guzman, 31 January 2018 on joint accounts

C. Elements of Succession Mortis Causa (A. 774 in rel. to A. 775,776, 777, 781 and 782)

1. Mode of Transmitting/Acquiring Ownership (A. 774 in rel. to A. 712)

2. Transmission/Acquisition Through Death (A. 777)

a) Presumptive Death (A. 390-396, NCC)
b) Actual Death (A. 42-43, NCC)
 Sps. Salitico v. Heirs of Resurreccion, 10 April 2019
 Pasco v. Heirs of De Guzman, 26 July 2010
 Opulencia v. CA, 30 July 1998 as compared to
 Aggabao v. RTC, 23 February 2004
 Balus v. Balus, 15 January 2010
 Dela Merced v. Dela Merced, 303 S 683
 Coronel v. CA, 7 October 1996
 Paulmitan v. CA, 215 S 866
 Rioferio v. CA, 13 January 2004
 Emnace v. CA, 370 S 431

3. Object of Succession (A. 776 and 781)

a) Inheritance v. Estate
b) Transmissible v. Intransmissible Property, Rights & Obligations
c) Existing v. Accrued Property
 Uy v. Estate of Fernandez, 5 April 2017

49
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 50

 Balus v. Balus, 15 January 2010

 Limjoco v. Fragrante, 80 P 776
 Arayata v. Joya, 51 P 654
 Alvarez v. IAC, 185 S 8
 Lim v. CA, 323 S 102
 Estate of Llenado v. Llenado, 4 March 2009
 DKC Holdings v. CA, 329 S 666
 San Agustin v. CA, 371 S 348
 Rioferio v. CA, 13 January 2004

4. Parties to Succession
a) Decedent (A. 775)
b) Heirs: Kinds, Qualifications (A. 782)
 Mendiola v. Sangalang, 7 June 2017

D. Rationale/ Bases of Succession

1. Natural
2. Personal
3. Socio-Economic

E. Basic Principles of Succession

PART II- FORCED SUCCESSION/ LEGITIMES

A. Concept / Definition (A. 886)

 Manongsong v. Estimo, 404 S 683
 Sps. Joaquin v. CA, 416 S 263
B. Purpose
C. Intangible Right to the Legitime

1. No Deprivation (A. 904 in rel. to A. 854 and A. 904)

2. No Condition/Substitution (A. 904 in rel. to A. 872); Exceptions (A. 1080,1083)
3. No Compromise or Waiver (A. 905 in rel. to A. 6 and A. 1347, NCC, A. 1044)
 JLT Agro v. Balansang, 11 March 2005
 Blas v. Santos, 111 P 503
 Ferrer v. Sps. Diaz, 23 April 2010

4. No Impairment (A. 906 in rel. to A. 771-772 and A. 1381, par. 3, NCC)

 Imperial v. CA, 8 October 1999
 Dorotheo v. CA, 320 S 12
 Francisco v. Francisco, 354 S 112
 Ramirez v. Ramirez, 111 S 704
 Concepcion v. Sta. Ana, 87 P 787

D. Compulsory/Forced Heirs (A. 887)

1. Primary Forced Heirs (CF: Art. 165, 172,174, 175-176, Family Code)
 Sps. Tumbokon v. Legaspi, 12 August 2010
 Vizconde v. CA, 286 S 217

2. Secondary Forced Heirs

3. Effect of Adoptive Relations

 Rivera v. Ramirez, 27 June 2012
 R.A. 8552 or the Domestic Adoption Act of 1998
 R.A. 8043 or the Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995
 P.D. 603 or the Child and Youth Welfare Code

50
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 51

E. Principle of Concurrence v. Principle of Exclusion / Rule of Proximity

F. Shares / Legitime
1. Free Portion v. Free Disposable Portion
2. Fixed Legitime v. Variable Legitime
3. Legitimate Children and Descendants (A. 888)
 Aguilar v. Siasat, 28 January 2015
 Sps. Bolanos v. Bernarte, 17 November 2010
 Concepcion v. CA, 468 S 438
 Joaquin v. Reyes, 434 S 260
 Rivera v. Heirs of Villanueva, 21 July 2006
 Benitez-Badua v. CA, 229 S 468
 Babiera v. Catotal, 333 S 487
 Geronimo v. Santos, 28 September 2015

4. Adopted Children (R.A. 8552)

 Bartolome v. SSS, 12 November 2014
 Rivera v. Ramirez, 27 June 2012
 Imperial v. CA, 8 October 1999
 Sayson v. CA, 205 S 321
 In Re Adoption of Stephanie Garcia, 454 S 541
 Lim v. IAC, 166 S 451
 Teotico v. Del Val, 13 S 406

5. Legitimate Parents and Ascendants (A. 889)

 Nuguid v. Nuguid, 17 S 449

6. Surviving Spouse (A. 900, 892, 895, 893, 899, 894, 903)
 Enrico v. Heirs, 534 S 418 as compared to
 Catalan v. CA, 6 February 2007
 Quita v. CA, 22 December 1998

7. Illegitimate Children (A. 901, 895 in rel. to A, 176, Family Code, A. 899, 894)
 Ara v. Pizarro, 15 February 2017
 Aruego Jr. v. CA, 254 S 711
 Estate of Juan Dizon v. CA, 366 S 499
 Guy v. CA, 502 S 151
 Cruz v. Cristobal, 498 S 37
 Heirs of Maramag v. Maramag, 5 June 2009
 Imperial v. CA, 8 October 1999
 Rivera v. Heirs of Villanueva, 496 S 135
 Maloles v. CA, 31 January 2000

8. Illegitimate Parents (A. 903)

G. Rules on Distribution of Legitimes

1. Right of Representation: Per Capita v. Per Stirpes
2. Legitimate Children and Descendants (A. 888 in rel. to A. 974 and 969)
3. Legitimate Parents and Ascendants (A. 890)
4. Surviving Spouse (A. 892 and A. 63, FC)
5. Illegitimate Children and Descendants
6. Illegitimate Parents (A. 903)

H. Reserva Troncal (A. 891)

1. Concept and Purpose

 Mendoza v. Delos Santos, 20 March 2013
 Gonzales v. Legarda, 104 S 479

51
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 52

 Aglibot v. Manalac, 4 S 1030

2. Elements:
a) Reservista
 Solivio v. CA, 182 S 121
b) Prepositus

c) Reservable Property

d) Reservatarios
 Nieva v. Alcala, 41 P 915
 Tioco v. Camacho, 144 S 281

3. Rights and Duties of:

a) Reservista
b) Reservatarios
 Sumaya v. IAC, 201 S 178
 Gonzales v. CFI, 104 S 179
 Edroso v. Sablan, 25 P 285
 Sienes v. Esparcia, 1 S 750

4. Extinction of Reserva Troncal

 Chua v. CFI, 78 S 412

PART III - TESTAMENTARY SUCCESSION

A. Wills

1. Concept and Nature of Wills (A. 783)

 Rabadilla v. CA, 29 June 2000
 Reyes v. CA, 20 October 1997

2. Characteristics of the Testamentary Act (A. 783)

a) Statutory Right
b) Unilateral
c) Personal: Non-Delegation (A. 784, 785, 787); Exceptions (A. 786)
 Castaneda v. Alemany, 3 P 427

d) Individual: Effect of Joint Wills (A. 818-819)

 Dacanay v. Florendo, 87 P 144
e) Dela Cerna v. Rebaca, 12 S 576
f) With Animus Testandi
g) Ambulatory and Revocable (A. 828 in rel. to A. 777)
h) Free and Voluntary (A. 839)
i) Solemn and Formal Act (A. 783 in rel. to A. 795)
j) Effective Mortis Causa

3. Rules in the Interpretation of Wills (A. 788-795)

a) Animus Testandi of Testator
b) Testacy v. Intestacy (A. 791 and 788)
c) Conflict of Words and Intent (A. 790, 794 in rel. to A. 929 and 931)
 Reyes v. CA, 20 October 1997

d) Ambiguities (A. 789): Kinds, How Corrected, Parole Evidence Rule

e) Separability (A. 792)
f) Property Passing By Will (A. 793)

4. Governing Law (A. 795, A. 815-819 in rel. to Art. 16-17 and 2263, NCC)

52
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 53

a) Time; Extrinsic v. Intrinsic Validity

b) For Filipinos
c) For Non-Filipinos
d) Foreign Wills (A. 817)
 Palaganas v. Palaganas, 26 January 2011
 Alsua-Betts v. CA, 92 S 332
 Llorente v. CA, 23 November 2000
 Vda. De Perez v. Tolete, 232 S 722
 Suntay v. Suntay, 95 P 500
 Aznar v. Garcia, 7 S 95
 Bellis v. Bellis, 20 S 358
 PCIB v. Escolin, 56 S 266

B. Testamentary Capacity (A. 796-803)

1. Testamentary Capacity v. Testamentary Power

2. In General (A. 796)
a) Natural v. Juridical Persons
b) Married Persons (A. 802-803 in rel to. Art. 97, 110-111, Family Code)
c) Convicted Felons (A. 34 and 82, Revised Penal Code)

4. Age (A. 797 in rel. to R.A. 6809 and A. 13, NCC)

5. Soundness of Mind
a) When Determined (A. 798)
b) Meaning of Soundness of Mind (A. 799)
c) Presumptions (A. 800)
d) Supervening Capacity v. Supervening Incapacity (A. 801)
 Ortega v. Valmonte, 478 S 247
 Bagtas v. Paguio, 22 P 227 as compared to
 Abquilan v. Abquilan, 49 P 450
 Bugno v. Ubag, 14 P 163
 Torres v. Lopez, 48 P 772
 Sancho v. Abella, 58 P 728
 Betts v. CA, 92 S 332
 Ramirez v. Ramirez, 39 S 147
 Heirs of Montinola v. CA, 158 S 247

C. Forms of Wills (A. 804-805)

1. Basic Formalities: Purposes

2. In Writing
3. Nuncupative Wills
4. Language / Dialect
 Abangan v. Abangan, 40 P 476
 Acop v. Piraso, 52 P 660
 Gonzales v. Laurel, 46 P 750
 Suroz v. Honrado, 110 S 388
 Noble v. Abaja, 450 S 265

D. Notarial Wills (Ordinary Wills) (A. 805-809)

1. Distinctions: Notarial Will v. Holographic Will

2. Requirements for Validity

a) Subscription : Meaning and Purpose

i. Who May Sign
 Macapinlac v. Alimurung, 16 P 41

53
CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 54

 Guison v. Concepcion, 5 P 551

ii. How
 Leano v. Leano, 30 P 612
 Garcia v. La Cuesta, 90 P 489

iii. Where
 Yap Tua v. Yap Ca, 27 P 579
 De Gala v. Gonzales, 53 P 104
 Caneda v. CA, 222 S 781
 Perry v. Elio, 29 P 134

b) Attestation and Subscription

i. Meaning and Purpose of Attestation

ii. By Who
iii. How: “In the Presence of Each Other”, Defined
iv. Tests: In eodem Die ac tempore in eodem loco
 Jaboneta v. Gustilo, 5 P 541
 Neyra v. Neyra, 76 P 276

c) Marginal Signatures
i. Who
ii. Where
iii. Single Page v. Multiple Pages
 Abangan v. Abangan, 40 P 476
 Avera v. Garcia, 42 P 145
 Icasiano v. Icasiano, 11 S 422

d) Pagination/ Numbering
i. Purpose
ii. How
 Samaniego-Celada v. Abena, 30 June 2008
 Fernandez v. Vergel, 46 P 922
 Lopez v. Liboro, 81 P 429
 Abangan v. Abangan, 40 P 145

e) Attestation Clause
ii. Mandatory Contents
iii. Language
iv. Subscription
v. Strict Compliance v. Substantial Compliance
vi. Effect of Defects in Attestation Clause
vii. Effect of Absence of Attestation Clause
 Lopez v. Lopez, 12 November 2012
 Azuela v. CA, 12 April 2006
 Testate Estate of Abada, 13 January 2005
 Noble v. Abaja, 450 S 265
 Caneda v. CA, 222 S 781
 Taboada v. Rosal, 188 S 195
 Maravilla v. Maravilla, 37 S 673
 Vda. De Ramos v. CA, 81 S 393
 Aldaba v. Roque, 43 P 478
 Fernandez v. Vergel, 46 P 922

f) Acknowledgment (A. 806)

i. Purpose
ii. How
iii. Effect of Acknowledgment

54
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 55

 Guerrero v. Bihis, 521 S 394

 Lee v. Tambago, 12 February 2008
 Ortega v. Valmonte, 478 S 247
 Cruz v. Villasor, 54 S 31

g) Special Cases:

i. Blind testator
 Garcia v. Vasquez, 32 S 490
 Alvarado v. Gaviola, 226 S 347

ii. Deaf-Mute

E. Witnesses to Wills (A. 820-824)

1. Qualifications (A. 820-821)

2. Time to Determine Competence (A. 822)
3. Disqualifications (A. 823-824)
 Cruz v. Villasor, 54 S 31
 Gonzales v. CA, 90 S 183
 Molo v. Tanchuco, 100 S 344

F. Holographic Wills (A. 810-814)

1. Requisites for Validity

 Labrador v. CA, 184 S 170
 De Jesus v. De Jesus, 134 S 245
 In re Estate of Calderon, 57 P 280

2. Form of Holographic Will

3. Interpolations, Alterations, Cancellations and Erasures
 Kalaw v. Relova, 132 S 237
 Ajero v. CA, 15 September 1994
4. Postscript Dispositions
5. Probate
 Codoy v. Calugay, 312 S 333
 Rivera v. IAC, 182 S 322
 Gan v. Yap, 104 P 509
 Rodelas v. Aranza, 119 S 171

G. Codicils and Incorporation by Reference (A. 825-827)

1. Codicil, defined (A. 825)

a) Purpose (A. 825)
b) Formalities
c) Effects (A. 826 in rel. to A. 836, 793 and A. 835)

2. Incorporation by Reference (A. 827)

a) Purpose
b) Requisites for Validity

H. Revocation of Wills and Testamentary Dispositions (A. 828-834)

1. Rule Against Irrevocability (A. 828)

2. Revocation of Will v. Annulment of Will
3. Partial v. Total Revocation
4. Revocation by Implication of Law (A. 830 [1] in rel. to Art. 823, 957 and 936,
and A. 43 [5]) and 44 of the Family Code)

55
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 56

5. Revocation by Subsequent Will or Codicil (A. 830 [2])

a) Express v. Implied Revocation (A. 831)
b) Requirements for Validity
c) Doctrine of Dependent Relative Revocation
d) Effects of a Later Will (A. 832)
 Molo v. Molo, 90 P 37
 Samson v. Naval, 41 P 638
 Gago v. Mamuyac, 49 P 902
 Unson v. Abella, 43 P 494
 Yap Tua v. Yap Ca Kuan, 27 P 579

6. By Mutilation (A. 830 [3])

a) How Made (rel. to A. 844 for holographic wills)
b) By Who
c) Animus Revocandi (Subjective Phase)
d) Overt Act of Mutilation (Objective Phase)
e) Arrest of Act of Mutilation
 Kalaw v. Relova, 132 S 237

7. Presumption of Revocation
 Gago v. Mamuyac, 49 P 902

8. Effects of Valid Revocation (A. 834)

 Trillana v. Crisostomo, 22 August 1951

9. Nullity of Revocation
a) Falsity of Cause (A. 833 as compared to A. 850)

10. Revocation Made outside of the Philippines

a) By Resident
b) By Non-Resident

I. Republication and Revival of Wills (A. 835-837)

1. Republication of Wills
a) Concept
b) How Made (A. 835)
c) Effects (A. 836)
d) Limitations

2. Revival of Wills (A. 837)

a) Concept
b) Principle of “Instanter”: Non-Revival of Expressly Revoked Will
c) Revival of Impliedly Revoked Will

J. Probate: Allowance and Disallowance of Wills (A. 838-839)

1. Concept
2. Necessity of Probate (A. 838 in rel. to Rule 76, Sec. 1)
 Lasam v. Umengan, 6 December 2006
 Pascual v. CA, 15 August 2003
 Reyes v. CA, 281 S 277
 Baluyot v. Pano, 71 S 86
 Cuenco v. CA, 53 S 360
 Ventura v. Ventura, 106 P 1159
 Guevara v. Guevara, 74 P 479 and 98 P 249
 In re: Pilapil, 72 P 546

56
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 57

3. Nature and Characteristics of Probate Proceedings

4. Kinds of Probate
 Ante-Mortem (A. 838)
 Post-Mortem (Rules 76-77)

5. Jurisdiction and Procedure: Extrinsic Validity

 Dorotheo v. CA, 8 December 1999
 Nufable v. Nufable, 309 S 692
 Gallanosa v. Arcangel, 83 S 675
 Palacios v. Palacios, 106 P 739
 Sanchez v. CA, 29 September 1997
 Rivera v. IAC, 182 S 322
 Teotico v. Del Val, 13 S 406
 Gan v. Yap, 104 P 509
 Rodelas v. Aranza, 119 S 171

6. Production of Witnesses (A. 811 and Rule 75 and 85)

 Codoy v. Calugay, 312 S 333
 Rodriguez v. Borja, 17 S 418
 Vda. De Prescilla v. Narciso, 46 S 538

7. Effects of Allowance of Will (A. 838)

 Gallanosa v. Arcangel, 83 S 676

8. Grounds for Disallowance of Wills (A. 839 and Rule 77)

 Cuyugan v. Baron, 63 P 827
 Coso v. Deza, 42 P 596

K. Institution of Heirs

1. Meaning (A. 840)

2. Principles of Institution:

a) Equality (A. 846 and 848)

 Belen v. BPI, 109 P 1008

b) Individuality (A. 847)

 Nable Jose v. Uson, 27 P 73

c) Simultaneity (A. 849)

3. Requisites of Valid and Effective Institution

4. Where Made: Validity of Will (A. 841)
5. Who Makes Institution (A. 784-785, 787)
6. Freedom of Disposition: Limitations
a) Property Subject to Institution of Heirs (A. 842)
b) Truth v. Falsity of Cause of Institution (A. 850)
 Austria v. Reyes, 31 S 754

7. Who May Be Instituted / Voluntary Heirs

a) Qualifications of Heirs (A. 842, 856 in rel. to A. 1032, A. 1025 in rel. to A.
41, NCC)
 Barrios v. Enriquez, 52 P 509
 Gabriel v. Mateo, 51 P 216
 Dizon v. Dizon, 33 S 554

b) Manner of Designating Heirs (A. 843, 844 in rel. to A. 789)

57
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 58

c) Unknown Persons (A. 845)

d) Collective Institutions
i. Poor (A. 1030)
ii. Relatives (A. 959)
iii. Brothers and Sisters (A. 848)
iv. Persons and their Children (A. 849)

8. Shares in Institution
a) as designated by testator (A. 851-853)
b) in the absence of designation of shares (A. 846)

9. Preterition / Pretermission (A. 854)

a) Concept and Meaning
b) Requisites
c) Effects (A. 854 in rel. to A. 906)
d) Preterition v. Disinheritance
e) Preterition v. Improper Disinheritance

 Morales v. Olondriz, 3 February 2016

 Seangio v. Reyes, 508 S 177
 JLT Agro v. Balansang, 11 March 2005
 Acain v. IAC, 27 October 1987
 Neri v. Akutin, 74 P 185
 Nuguid v. Nuguid, 17 S 449
 Maninang v. CA, 114 S 478
 Aznar v. Duncan, 17 S 590
 Solano v. CA, 126 S 122

10. Void/Inoperative Institutions

11. Effects of Void/Inoperative Institutions

L. Substitution of Heirs

1. Concept and Meaning (A. 857)

2. Purposes
3. Limitations (A. 904, p. 2)
4. Kinds:

a) Brief (A. 860)

b) Compendious (A. 860)
c) Ordinary
d) Reciprocal (A. 861)
e) Vulgar (A. 859 in rel. to A. 862)
f) Fideicommissary (A. 863-870)
 In Re: Petition for Probate of Last Will and Testament of Basilio Santiago,
9 August 2010
 Orendain v. Trusteeship of the Estate, 30 June 2009
 Perez v. Garchitorena, 54 P 431
 Crisologo v. Singson, 4 S 491
 Aranas v. Aranas, 150 S 415 as compared to
 Ramirez v. Ramirez, 111 S 704
 Rabadilla v. CA, 334 S 522 (29 June 2000)

M. Testamentary Dispositions (Art. 871-885)

1. Simple/Pure Institution

2. Conditional Institution

58
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 59

a) Condition, meaning (A. 1179, NCC)

 Vda. De Villanueva v. Juico, 4 S 550

b) Kinds of Conditions
c) As to the Legitime (A. 872 in rel. to A. 1080, 1083)
d) Sabinian Doctrine (A. 873 in rel. to A. 727 and A. 1183)
e) “No-Contest and Forfeiture Clauses”
 Miciano v. Brimo, 50 P 867
 Santos v. Buenaventura, 18 S 47

f) Condition Not to Marry/ Remarry: When Valid and Void (A. 874)
 Morente v. Dela Santa, 9 P 387

g) Disposicion Captatoria (A. 875)

h) Time of Fulfillment of Condition (A. 876-877, A. 879, A. 880, p. 2)
i) Performance of Condition (A. 883)
j) Effects of Suspensive Condition (A. 880, 879 as compared to A. 878)

3. Institution With a Period

a) Period, Defined (A. 885 in rel. to A. 1193)
b) Suspensive (Ex Die) v. Resolutory (In Diem) Term (A. 878)
c) Effects of Suspensive Term (A. 885 in rel. to A. 880)

4. Sub Modo Institution (A. 882)

a) Modo (Mode), Defined

b) Rules in Interpretation
c) Effects of Modo (A. 882 in rel. to 1029)
 Rabadilla v. CA, 334 S 522 (29 June 2000)

5. Sub Demonstratione Institution (rel. to A. 850 and 939)

N. Collation / Steps in the Determination and Preservation of Legitimes in

Testamentary Succession

1. Determination of Net Estate (A. 908, in rel. to A. 1059, 772 and 1381, NCC)

2. Deduction of All Debts and Liabilities

3. Collation as Computation: Determination of Net Partible / Hereditary

Estate
a) Donations Inter Vivos (A. 908 and A. 1061)
b) Donations Subject to Collation (A. 1062-1070)
 Arellano v. Pascual, 15 December 2010
 Union Bank v. Santibanez, 452 S 228
 Nazareno v. CA, 18 October 2000
 Imperial v. CA, 8 October 1999
 Zaragoza v. CA, 341 S 309
 Vizconde v. CA, 286 S 217

3. Ascertainment of Legitimes and Free Disposable Portion

4. Collation as Imputation: Treatment of Donations Inter Vivos

a) If Made to Forced Heir (A. 909-910 in rel. to A. 1062-1073)
b) If Made to Strangers (A. 909, p. 2-3)

5. Addition of Value of Donations Chargeable to FDP to the Value of Legacies

Made in the Will: Impairment in the Legitime

59
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 60

6. Collation as Return/ Restitution:

a) Reduction/Annulment of Inofficious Legacies/ Devises (A. 911-912 in rel
to A. 950)
b) Reduction/Annulment of Inofficious Donations Inter Vivos (A. 752, 771,
773, 760, 762)

O. Disinheritance

1. Concept and Meaning (A. 915)

2. Meaning
3. Requisites of Valid Disinheritance
a) Express (A. 918)
b) Valid Will (A. 916)
c) Cause Authorized by Law (A. 916)
d) True and Existing Cause
e) Total

4. Causes of Disinheritance:

a) Of Children and Descendants (A. 919)

 Seangio v. Reyes, 508 S 177
 Lahom v. Sibulo, 14 July 2003

b) Of Parents and Ascendants (A. 920 in rel. to Art. 228-232 of the Family
Code)

c) Of Spouse (A. 921 in rel. to Arts. 63 [4] and 41-43 of the Family Code)
 Baritua v. CA, 183 S 565

5. Effects of Valid Disinheritance (A. 915, 923 in rel. to A. 1032)

 Pecson v. Mediavillo, 28 P 81

6. Effects of Reconciliation (A. 922)

7. Improper Disinheritance (A. 918)

b) When Made
c) Effects
d) Improper Disinheritance v. Preterition
 Maninang v. CA, 114 S 478

P. Legacies and Devises

1. Definition
2. Purposes
3. Who May be Charged (A. 925)
 Robles v. Santiago, 109 P 218
 Debuque v. Climaco, 99 S 353
 Vera v. Navarro, 79 S 608

4. Classification
a) By Object / Subject Matter (A. 924)
b) By Person Burdened or Benefited
i. Legacy Proper
ii. Sub-Legacy (A. 926)
iii. Pre-Legacy (A. 926-928)

5. Legacy of Specific Thing

60
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 61

a) If Belonging to the Testator (A. 948, 951, 929, 953, 952 in rel. to Rules 89-
90)
 Santos v. Buenaventura, 18 S 47

b) If Not Belonging to the Testator (A. 931-933 and A. 957 [2])

6. Legacy of Generic Thing

a) Devise of Generic Immovable (A. 941, [2])
b) Legacy of Generic Movable (A. 941)
c) Legacy of Money (Legacy of Quantity) (A. 952)
d) Right of Choice/ Selection (A. 941-942, 949)

7. Alternative Legacy (A. 940)

8. Legado de Opcion (Legacy of Choice) (A. 943 in rel. to A. 928)

9. Legacy of Rights
a) Legacy of Credits against Stranger ( A. 935, 936)
b) Legacy of Remission of Debt (A. 935-937)
c) Legacy to a Creditor of the Testator (A. 938-939 in rel. to Rule 87)
d) Legacy of Education (A. 944 [1])
e) Legacy of Support (A. 944 [2-4])
f) Legacy of Pension (A. 945)

10. Void Ab Initio Legacies (A. 930, 933, 924, 929, 941 [2])

11. Ineffectual Legacies

a) By Reason of Implied Revocation (A. 957)
 Fernandez v. Dimagiba, 21 S 428

b) By Reasons Incident in the Legatee

c) Due to Fortuitous Causes

12. Concurrence of Legacies / Rules on Acceptance and Payment

a) Double Legacies (A. 955)
b) Legacy and Legitime (A. 955 [2])
c) Partly Onerous Legacy (A. 954)
d) Effects of Death of Legatee (A. 954)
e) Order of Payment (A. 950)

13. Rules on Interpretation (A. 958-959)

 Belen v. BPI, 109 P 100

14. Capacity of Legatee/ Devisee (A. 956)

PART IV - LEGAL OR INTESTATE SUCCESSION

A. General Principles (A. 960-969)

1. Concept
2. Legal Succession v. Forced Succession
3. When Intestacy Takes Place (A. 960)
a) Absence of an Applicable Valid Will
b) Absence of a Qualified Heir

4. Basic Rules
a) Order of Intestate Heirs, Only Relatives by Consanguinity, Exceptions
b) Rule of Preference of Lines, Exceptions

61
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 62

c) Rule of Proximity, Exceptions

d) Equality Division Rule, Exceptions

5. Relationships
a) Concept
b) As to Degrees and Lines (A. 963-966)
c) As to Legitimacy (Arts. 168, et. seq., Family Code)
d) As to Blood Tie (A. 967)
6. Vacancies in Intestacy (A. 968-969 in rel. to A. 982 and A. 1018)

B. Right of Representation (A. 970-977)

1. Concept (A. 970)

2. Basic Elements (A. 971 in rel. to A. 976)

3. Who May Represent

a) Descending Line (A. 902, 995, 998-999 and 992)
b) Ascending Line (A. 972)
c) Collateral Line (A. 972 [2])
d) Adoption (R.A. 8552)

4. Who May Be Represented

a) In case of Predecease (A. 981, 990 and 1005)
b) In case of Incapacity /Unworthiness (A. 1035)
c) In case of Disinheritance (A. 915 and 923)
d) In case of Repudiation (A. 977, 968-969, A. 1018)

5. Vacancies filled by Representation

 Bagunu v. Piedad, 347 S 371
 Pascual v. Pascual, 207 S 561
 Leonardo v. CA, 120 S 890
 Sayson v. CA, 205 S 321
 Teotico v. Del Val, 13 S 406
 Landayan v. Bacani, 117 S 117
 Vda. De Crisologo v. CA, 137 S 231
 Bicomong v. Almanza, 80 S 421
 Salao v. Salao, 70 S 65
 Abellano-Bacayo v. Ferraris-Borromeo, 14 S 986

C. Order of Intestate Succession (Art. 978-1014)

1. Basic Principles
a) Principle of Exclusion
b) Principle of Concurrence
c) Iron-Barrier Rule or Rule of Absolute Separation

2. Of Legitimate Decedent (A. 996, 983, 1000, 998, 991, 997, 1001, 1005, 995,
1003, 1009-1011)
 Rivera v. Ramirez, 27 June 2012
 Manungas v. Loreto, 22 August 2011
 Gonzales v. CA, 298 S 324
 Manuel v. Ferrer, 247 S 476
 Ramirez v. Bautista, 14 P 528
 Santillon v. Miranda, 14 S 563
 Pisuena v. Heirs of Unating, 31 August 1999
 Arcenas v. Cinco, 74 S 118
 In Re: Chanliongco, 79 S 364

62
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 63

 Crisologo v. CA, 137 S 231

 Portea v. Pabellon, 84 P 298
 Baranda v. Baranda, 150 S 59
 Armas v. Calisterio, 330 S 201
 Abellano-Bacayo v. Ferraris-Borromeo, 14 S 986
 Tioco v. Camacho, 144 S 281
 Rosales v. Rosales, 148 S 69

3. Of Illegitimate Decedent (A. 992, 993, 994, 997, 1011)

4. Of Adopted Decedent (R.A. 8552, in relation to Art. 189-190 of the Family
Code)
5. Computation/ Determination of Shares in Intestacy
6. The State (A. 1013)
7. Specific Principles of Intestate Succession

PART V - PROVISIONS COMMON TO BOTH TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSION

A. Right of Accretion (A. 1015-1023)

1. Concept and Definition (A. 1015)

2. Requisites (A. 1016, 1017, 1021, 1023 and 1022)
3. Effects of Accretion (A. 1018, 1020)
4. Accretion v. Substitution (A. 1016-1023 in rel. to A. 904, 859, 861-862)
5. Vacancies Filled by Accretion

B. Capacity to Succeed (A. 1024-1040)

1. Concept
2. Who May Inherit: General Rule (A. 1024-1025)
 Halili v. CA, 12 March 1998
 Resurreccion v. Javier, 63 P 599
 Nepomuceno v. CA, 139 S 217

3. Absolute Incapacity (A. 1025-1027, A. 845 and A. 1029)

4. Relative Incapacity
a) By Reason of Possible Undue Influence (A. 1027)
b) By Reason of Public Morality (A. 739)
 In the Matter of the Probate of the Will of Roxas de Jesus, 27 March 2006

c) By Reason of Unworthiness (A. 1032)

6. Operation of Incapacities to Succeed (A. 1031, 1034-1036, 1038, 1040)

7. Restoration of Capacity (A. 1033)

C. Acceptance and Repudiation (A. 1041-1057)

1. Concept and Meaning (A. 1057)

2. Necessity (A. 774, 925 in rel. to A. 734 and 1270, NCC)
3. Periods to Consider
4. Requisites:
a) As to Capacity (A. 1044-1047)
b) As to Act of Acceptance or Repudiation (A. 1041, 1043, 1056 and
1055[2])
 Guy v. CA, 502 S 151

63
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 64

5. Form
a) Acceptance (A. 1049-1050)
b) Repudiation (A. 1051-1052)

6. Effects (A. 1054-1055)

 Republic v. Guzman, 18 February 2000

D. Executors and Administrators (A. 1058-1060)

 Suntay v. Suntay, 10 October 2012

E. Collation /Parification or Equalization among Forced Heirs (A. 1061-1077)

1. Concept and Purpose (A. 1061)

2. Three Basic Meanings of Collation
3. Requisites:
a) Number of Forced Heirs
b) Liberality (A. 1069, 1067), Exceptions (A. 1068, 1070, 1067)
c) Identity of Heir and Beneficiary (A. 1064-1066)
 Vizconde v. CA, 286 S 217

d) No Prohibition /Inofficiousness (A. 1068, 1070, 1063)

 Adan v. Casili, 76 P 279
 Carandang v. Capuno, 123 S 652
 Mateo v. Lagua, 29 S 864

4. Methods of Collation
a) Collation of Values (A. 1071, 1073, 1074, 1075)
b) Collation in Kind (A. 1076)

8. Miscellaneous Rules (A. 1072, 1077)

F. Partition and Distribution (A. 1078-1105)

1. Concept of Partition (A. 1079)

2. Necessity (A. 1078, 1083)

 Mendiola v. Sangalang, 17 June 2017

3. Extra-Judicial Partition
a) By Testator/Decedent during Lifetime/Partition Inter Vivos (A. 1080)
 JLT Agro v. Balansang, 11 March 2005
 Zaragoza v. CA, 341 S 309
 Chavez v. IAC, 191 S 211

b) By Person Commissioned By Testator (A. 1081)

c) By Co-Heirs (Rule 74, Rules of Court)
 Heirs of Teves v. CA, 13 October 1999

4. Judicial Partition (Rules 74-90)

a) Summary Settlement
b) Regular Administration Proceedings
c) Ordinary Action for Partition
 Divinagracia v. Parilla, 11 March 2015
 Heirs of Velasquez v. CA, 15 February 2000

5. Who May Demand Partition (A. 1083-1084, A. 1177, NCC)

64
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 65

6. When Partition Prohibited (A. 1083 in rel. to A. 494, NCC) / Improper

 Figuracion v. Vda de Figuracion, 499 S 484

7. Steps in Partition (A. 1085-1087, 1089)

8. Sale by Co-heir of Undivided Interest (A. 1088)/ Right of Legal Redemption

of Co-heir
 De Jesus v. Manglapuz, 81 P 115
 Verdad v. CA, 256 S 593
 Garcia v. Calaliman, 172 S 201

9. Effects of Partition (A. 1091-1095)

 Maestrado v. CA, 9 March 2000
 Kilario v. CA, 19 January 2000
 Alejandrino v. CA, 295 S 536
 Quizon V. Castillo, 79 P 9
 Hernandez v. Andal, 78 P 196
 Dizon v. Dizon, 33 S 555
 Favor v. CFI, 194 S 308

10. Nullity and Rescission of Partition (A. 1097-1105)

a) Nullity of Partition
b) Rescission of Partition
c) Preterition in Partition
 Feliciano v. Canoza, 1 September 2010
 Balus v. Balus, 15 January 2010
 Non v. CA, 15 February 2000

BOOK IV - LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

I. TORRENS SYSTEM OF LAND REGISTRATION

1. Constitutional Policy and Historical Background

2. Import and Purpose

 Legarda v. Saleeby, G.R. No. L-8936 October 2, 1915

 Republic v. Umali, G.R. No. 80687 April 10, 1989
 Pino v. CA, G.R. No. 94114 June 19, 1991
 Traders Royal Bank v. CA, G.R. No. 114299. September 24, 1999
 Casimiro Devt. Corp. v. Mateo, G.R. No. 175485. July 27, 2011

3. Characteristics

a. Bars all prior claims not registered

b. Best Evidence of Ownership

c. Imprescriptible

d. Indefeasible

e. Integrity of titles not subject to collateral attack

f. Notice to the Whole World

65
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 66

g. Presumption that title is regular and valid

h. Reliance on titles

4. Nature of the Proceedings

 Laburada v. LRA, G.R. No. 101387. March 11, 1998

 Heirs of Lopez v. De Castro, G.R. No. 112905. February 3, 2000

5. In Relation to the Public Land Act (CA 141, as amended)

 Republic v. Herbieto, G.R. No. 156117. May 26, 2005]

 Secretary of DENR v. Yap, G.R. No. 167707. October 8, 2008

6. Governing Laws

a) Property Registration Decree or P.D. 1529

b) Arts. 708 to 711, Civil Code of the Philippines

7. Administration

Land Registration Authority/ Registries of Deeds

II. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE

1. Preparation of Decree and Certificate of Title

Sec. 39, P.D. 1529

 Reyes v. Raval Reyes, G.R. Nos. L-21703-04. August 31, 1966

 National Grains Authority v. IAC, G.R. No. L-68741 Jan. 28, 1988
 Cajayon v. Spouses Batuyong, G.R. No. 149118. February 16, 2006
 Sps. Valenzuela v. Sps. Mano, G.R. No. 172611, July 9, 2010

2. Indefeasibility

 Caraan v. CA, G.R. No. 140752. Nov. 11, 2005

 De Guzman v. Agbagala, G.R. No. 163566. Feb. 19, 2008
 Heirs of Maximo Labanon v. Heirs of Constancio Labanon, G.R. No. 160711. Aug,
14, 2004
 Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Dumyung, G.R. Nos. L-31666, L-31667 and L-
31668 April 30, 1979
 Republic v. Guerrero, G.R. No. 133168. March 28, 2006

3. Prescription

 Javier v. Concepcion, G.R. No. L-36566. November 7, 1979

4. Collateral Attack

 Madrid v. Spouses Martinez, G.R. No. 150887. August 14, 2009

5. Right of Possession Arising From Title

 Carbonilla v. Abiera, G.R. No. 177637. July 26, 2010

66
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 67

6. Regalian Doctrine; Concept and Effects

 Aranda v. Republic, G.R. No. 172331. August 24, 2011

 Chavez v. PEA, G.R. No. 133250. July 9, 2002

7. Native Title and Possession Since Time Immemorial

Secs. 3 (l) and 3 (p), IPRA

III. MODES OF ACQUIRING TITLE

1. Original Registration under Sec. 14 of P.D. 1529

2. Open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession

 Republic v. CA and Naguit, GR No 144057, January 17,2005

3. By prescription

 Heirs of Lacamen v. Heirs of Laruan, G.R. No. L-27088 July 31, 1975

4. By accretion

 Binalay v Manalo, G.R. No. 92161 March 18, 1991

5. By reclamation

 Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 103882. November 25, 1998

 Chavez v. PEA, G.R. No. 133250. July 9, 2002

6. Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title under C.A. 141

a) Sec. 2, R.A. 9176

 Director of Lands v. IAC, G.R. No. 73002. December 29, 1986

 Director of Lands v. Abairo, G.R. No. L-34602 May 31,
 Oh Cho v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-48321. August 31, 1946
 Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 108998 August 24, 1994

b) Cadastral Act or Act No. 2259

7. Administrative Methods

a. Homestead Patent
 Balboa vs. Farrales, 51 Phil. 498 [1928]
 Ybañez vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 194 SCRA 743 [1991]
 Ramoso vs. Obligado, 70 Phil. 86 [1940]
 Pamintuan vs. San Agustin, 43 Phil. 561 [1922]

b. Free Patent or Administrative Legalization

Sec. 44, Public Land Law, as amended by R.A. 782 and R.A. 6940
Effect of erroneous grant of Free Patent

c. Free Title
Commonwealth Act No. 691, as amended by Republic Act No. 63

67
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 68

d. Residential Free Patent

Republic Act No. 10023 and its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR)
Qualifications, coverage, procedure, restrictions, etc.

IV. INDEFEASIBILITY OF TITLE THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVE METHOD

 Heirs of Tengco v. Heirs of Aliwalas, G.R. No. 77541. Nov. 29, 1988

a. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) or R.A. 6657

b. Indigenous Peoples’ Right Act (IPRA) or R.A. 8371

 Cruz v. Secretary of ENR, G.R. No. 135385. December 6, 2000, Read separate
opinion by Justice Puno

V. CITIZENSHIP REQUIREMENT

1. Citizenship Requirement
2. Individuals
3. Filipino Citizens
Sec. 3, Article XII, 1987 Constitution

4. Former Natural-Born Filipino Citizens

Sec. 8, Article XII, 1987 Constitution

Sec. 10, Foreign Investments Act of 1991

5. Aliens

Sec. 7, Article XII, Constitution

 Cheesman v. IAC, G.R. No. 74833 January 21, 1991

 Muller v. Muller, G.R. No. 149615 August 29, 2006
 Phil. Banking Corp. v. Lui She, G.R. No. L-17587. Sept. 12, 1967
 Ramirez v. Vda. de Ramirez, G.R. No. L-27952 February 15, 1982
 Ting Ho, Jr. v. Teng Gui, G.R. No. 130115. July 16, 2008

6. Corporations; limitations

Sec. 3, Article XII, 1987 Constitution)

(DOJ Opinion, 1973)

 JG Summit Holdings, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. 124293. Jan. 31, 2005
 RD of Rizal v. Ung Siu Temple, G.R. No. L-6776. May 21, 1955
 Republic v. T.A.N. Properties Inc., G.R. NO. 154953. June 26, 2008
 Roman Catholic Apostolic Administrator of Davao v. Land Registration
Commission, G.R. No. L-8451. December 20, 1957

7. Condominiums

a) Condominium Corporation Owns the Land

Sec. 5, Condominium Act or RA 4726

b) Corporation Leases the Land

DOJ Opinion 1973

68
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 69

Sec. 4, Investors’ Lease Act or R.A. 7652

c) Land is Co-owned by the Unit Owners

Sec. 5, Condominium Act or RA 4726

VII. ORIGINAL REGISTRATION

1. Possession

Sec. 14 (1), P.D. 1529 and Sec. 48 (b), C.A. 141

 Aranda v. Republic, G.R. No. 172331. August 24, 2011

 Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 179987. April 29, 2009
 Martinez v. CA, G.R. No. L-31271 April 29, 1974
 Republic v. Hanover, G.R. No. 172102. July 2, 2010

2. Prescription

 Heirs of Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 179987. April 29, 2009

3. Non-Registrable Property

 Bureau of Forestry v. CA, G.R. No. L-37995 August 31, 1987

 Republic v. Heirs of Alejaga, G.R. No. 146030. December 3, 2002
 Republic v. Southside Homeowners Assoc., G.R. No. 156951. Sept. 22, 2006
 Republic v. Vera, G.R. No. L-35778 January 27, 1983
4. Indigenous Cultural Communities or Indigenous Peoples

Sec. 48 (c), C.A. 141

Sec. 12, IPRA

5. Registration Requirements and Procedures

6. Jurisdiction

Secs. 17 and 18, P.D. 1529 OCA Circular No. 38-97

7. Evidence

Sec. 17, P.D. 1529

 De Vera-Cruz v. Miguel, G.R. No. 144103. August 31, 2005

 Director of Lands v. CA, G.R. No. 102858. July 28, 1997
 Director of Lands v. Rivas, G.R. No. L-61539. February 14, 1986
 Evangelista v. Santiago, G.R. No. 157447. April 29, 2005
 Palali v. Awisan, G.R. No. 158385. February 12, 2010
 Republic v. Feliciano, G.R. No. 70853. March 12, 1987
 Republic v. Guinto-Aldana, G.R. No. 175578. August 11, 2010
 South City Homes v. Republic, G.R. No. 76564. May 25, 1990
 Tottoc v. IAC, G.R. No. 69969. December 20, 1989
 Vda. De Raz v. CA, G.R. No. 120066. September 9, 1999

8. Survey

 Director of Lands v. Reyes, G.R. No. L-27594. November 28, 1975

9. Application

69
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 70

 Director of Lands v. Tesalona, G.R. No. 66130. September 8, 1994

 Divina vs. CA, G.R. No. 117734. February 22, 2001

a. Setting the Date of Initial Hearing

b. Transmittal of the Order of the Court to the LRA

c. Preparation and Issuance of the Notice of Initial Hearing

d. Publication, Mailing and Posting

Secs. 3 and 24, P.D. 1529

 Director of Lands v. CA, G.R. No. 102858. July 28, 1997

 Francisco v. CA, G.R. No. L-35787 April 11, 1980
 Republic v. Herbieto, G.R. No. 156117. May 26, 2005

e. Opposition and Default

Sec. 25, P.D. 1529

Sec. 26, P.D. 1529

 Albano v. CA, G.R. No. 144708. August 10, 2001

 City of Davao v. Monteverde-Consunji, G.R. No. 136825. May 21, 2001
 Heirs of Lopez v. Enriquez, G.R. No. 146262. January 21, 2005
 Vergel v. CA, G.R. No. 125154. September 28, 2001
 Yabut Lee vs. Punzalan, G.R. No. L-50236 August 29, 1980

f. Initial Hearing and Presentation of Evidence

 Gonzaga v. CA, G.R. No. 96259. September 3, 1996

 Ignacio v. CA, G.R. No. 98920 July 14, 1995
 PNB v. Intl. Corporate Bank, G.R. No. 86679. July 23, 1991
 Republic v. CA, G.R. No. L-40402. March 16, 1987
 Republic v. CA and Lapiña, G.R. No. 108998. August 24, 1994
 Santiago vs. SBMA, G. R. No. 156888. Nov. 20, 2006

g. Judgment and Decree of Registration of land issued by LRA

Sec. 39, P.D. 1529

 Laburada v. LRA, G.R. No. 101387. March 11, 1998

 Navarro v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-18814. July 31, 1962

h. Original Certificate of Title

10. Remedies

a. Motion for Reconsideration / New Trial

b. Petition for Relief from Judgment

c. Appeal

d. Petition for Review of the Decree of Registration

Sec. 32, P.D. 1529

70
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 71

 Baldoz v. Papa, G.R. No. L-18150. July 30, 1965

 Cal, Jr. v. Zosa, G.R. No. 152518. July 31, 2006
 Crisolo v. CA, G.R. No. L-33093 December 29, 1975
 Fil-Estate Management v. Trono, G. R. No. 130871. Feb. 17, 2006

e. Action for Reconveyance

Article 1456, Civil Code

 Almarza v. Arguelles, G.R. No. L-49250 December 21, 1987

 Bautista-Borja v. Bautista, G.R. No. 136197. December 10, 2008
 Esconde v. Barlongay, G.R. No. L-67583. July 31, 1987
 Heirs of Labiste v. Heirs of Labiste, G.R. No. 162033. May 8, 2009
 Joaquin v. Cojuangco, G.R. No. L-18060. July 25, 1967
 Khemani v. Heirs of Trinidad, G.R. No. 147340. December 13, 2007
 Lopez v. CA, G.R. No. 157784. December 16, 2008
 Marcopper Mining Corp. v. Garcia, G.R. No. L-55935 July 30, 1986
 Municipality of Victorias v. CA, G.R. No. L-31189 March 31, 1987
 Naval v. CA, G.R. No. 167412. February 22, 2006
 Rementizo v Heirs of Vda. De Madarieta, G.R. No. 170318. January 15, 2009
 Salao v. Salao, G.R. No. L-26699 March 16, 1976
 Spouses Santos v. Heirs of Lustre, G.R. No. 151016. Aug. 6, 2008

f. Action for Damages

 Pino v. CA, G.R. No. 94114. June 19, 1991

g. Action against the Assurance Fund

h. Quieting of Title

 Cañero v. UP, G.R. No. 156380. September 8, 2004

 Faja v. CA, G.R. No. L-45045. February 28, 1977
 Realty Sales Enterprise v. IAC, G.R. No. L-67451. Sept. 28, 1987
 Spouses Mamadsual v. Moson, G.R. No. 92557. Sept. 27, 1990
 Sps. Rumarate v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 168222. April 18, 2006

I. Cancellation involving Double Title

 Pajomayo v. Manipon, G.R. No. L-33676. June 30, 1971

j. Action for Reversion

 Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 104296. March 29, 1996

 Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 100709. November 14, 1997

VIII. CADASTRAL REGISTRATION

1. Nature and Purpose

 Heirs of Luzuriaga vs. Republic, G.R. No. 168848. June 30, 2009
 Republic v. Vera, G.R. No. L-35778 January 27, 1983
 Sps. Veranga vs. Republic, G.R. No. 149114. July 21, 2006

2. Jurisdiction

71
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 72

 Duran vs. Olivia, G.R. No. L-16589. September 29, 1961

 Manotok Realty, Inc. vs. CLT Realty Development Corp., G.R. No. 123346.
November 29, 2005

3. When Filed?

Secs. 35 (a) and 36, P.D. 1529

4. Judgment and Decree

Sec. 38, P.D. 1529

5. Subsequent Registration

6. Nature and Effects

Secs. 51, 52, 56 and 59, P.D. 1529

 Campillo v. CA, G.R. No. L-56483. May 29, 1984

 Heirs of Marasigan v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69303. July 23, 1987
 Garcia v. CA, G.R. No. 133140. August 10, 1999
 Mingoa v. Land Registration Administrator, G.R. No. 97282. August 16, 1991
 Rodriguez v. CA, G.R. No. L-29264. August 29, 1969

IX-1. VOLUNTARY DEALINGS

Sec. 53, P.D. 1529

Spouses Chu v. Benelda Estate Devt. Corp, G.R. No. 142313. March 1, 2001
DBP vs Acting RD of Nueva Ecija, UDK No. 7671 June 23, 1988
Dela Merced vs. GSIS, G.R. No. 140398. September 11, 2001
Egao v. CA, G.R. No. L-79787 June 29, 1989
Fule v. Legare, G.R. No. L-17951. February 28, 1963
Power Commercial and Industrial Corp. v. CA, G.R. No. 119745. June 20, 1997
Republic v. CA, G.R. No. 100709. November 14, 1997

IX-2. INVOLUNTARY DEALINGS

 Sajonas v. CA, G. R. No. 102377. July 5, 1996

 Diaz-Duarte vs. Ong, G.R. No. 130352. November 3, 1998
 Heirs of Marasigan v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69303. July 23, 1987
 Viewmaster Construction Corp. v. Maulit, G.R. No. 136283. February 29, 2000

1. Attachments

2. Suits, Judgments, Decrees

3. Foreclosure

4. Adverse Claim

Sec. 70, P.D. 1529

 Alfredo v. Borras, G.R. No. 144225. June 17, 2003

 Arrazola v. Bernas, G.R. No. L-29740 November 10, 1978
 Ching v. Enrile, G.R. No. 156076. September 17, 2008
 Leonardo v. Maravilla, G.R. No. 143369. November 27, 2002

72
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 73

 Sajonas v. CA, G.R. No. 102377. July 5, 1996

5. Lis Pendens

X. NON-REGISTRABLE PROPERTIES

a. Inalienable Lands of the Public Domain

b. Lands already registered under the Torrens System.
c. Innocent Purchaser For Value (IPV)

Sec. 32, P.D. 1529

 Cabuhat v. CA, G.R. No. 122425. September 28, 2001

 Clemente v. Razo, G.R. No. 151245. March 04, 2005
 Estate of Olaguer v. Ongjoco, G.R. No. 173312. August 26, 2008
 Estate of Yujuico v. Republic, G.R. No. 168661. October 26, 2007
 Guaranteed Homes v. Heirs of Valdez, G.R. No. 171531. January 30, 2009
 San Roque Realty and Development Corp. v. Republic, G.R. No. 163130.
September 7, 2007

c.1. Exceptions to the IPV:

 Abad v. Guimba, G.R. No. 157002. July 29, 2005

 Coronel v. IAC, G.R. No. 70191. October 29, 1987
 Erena v. Querrer-Kauffman, G.R. No. 165853. June 22, 2006
 Expresscredit Financing Corp. v. Velasco, G.R. No. 156033 October 20, 2005
 Francisco v. CA, G.R. No. L-30162 August 31, 1987
 Lepanto Consolidated Mining Co. v. Dumyung, G.R. Nos. L-31666, L-31667 and L-
31668 April 30, 1979
 Orduna v. Fuentebella, G.R. No. 176841. June 29, 2010
 Private Development Corp. of the Phils. v. CA, G.R. No. 136897 November 22,
2005
 Sanchez v. Quinio, G.R. No. 133545. July 15, 2005

 Sarmiento v. CA, G.R. No. 152627. September 16, 2005

 Spouses Abrigo v. De Vera, G.R. No. 154409. June 21, 2004
 Tio v. Abayata, G.R. No. 160898. June 27, 2008
 Torres v. CA, G.R. No. L-63046. June 21, 1990

XI. EFFECTS OF CERTAIN ACTS

1. Fraudulent Registration

 Adille v. CA, G.R. No. L-44546. January 29, 1988

 Pajarillo v. IAC, G.R. No. 72908. August 11, 1989
 Philippine Commercial & Industrial Bank v. Villalva, G.R. No. L-28194. November
24, 1972
 Walstrom v. Mapa, Jr., G.R. No. L-38387. January 29, 1990

2. Forgery

Sec. 23, P.D. 1529

 Torres v. CA, G.R. No. L-63046. June 21, 1990

3. Loss

 Baltazar v. CA, G.R. No. 78728. December 8, 1988

73
 CIVIL LAW REVIEW 1 - MLGREYES P a g e | 74

 Cabuhat v. CA, G.R. No. 122425. September 28, 2001

 Legarda vs CA, G.R. No. 94457. October 16, 1997
 Tomas vs. Tomas, G.R. No. L-36897 June 26, 1980
 Torres v. CA, G.R. No. L-63046. June 21, 1990
 Traders Royal Bank vs. CA, G.R. No. 114299. March 9, 2000

4. Double titles

 Angeles v. Secretary of Justice G. R. No. 142549. March 9, 2010

 Garcia v. Gozon, G.R. Nos. L-48971 & 49011. January 22, 1980

5. Title from void titles

 Calalang v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, G.R. No. 76265. April 22, 1992
 De Santos v. IAC, G.R. No. L-69591. January 25, 1988
 Mathay v. CA, G.R. No. 115788. September 17, 1998

6. Remedies of Persons Aggrieved in Land Registration Proceedings

 Francisco v. Puno, G.R. No. L-55694 October 23, 1981

 Serna v. CA, G.R. No. 124605. June 18, 1999
 Villanueva-Mijares v. CA, G.R. No. 108921. April 12, 2000

74