[Solved] A and B are married. A filed an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. In its judgment, the court decreed that a final decree of nullity shall be issued only after there is partition, distribution of the properties in accordance with Article 147 of the Family Code.

Q.	A and B are married. A filed an action for declaration of nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. In its judgment, the court decreed that a final decree of nullity shall be issued only after there is partition, distribution of the properties in accordance with Article 147 of the Family Code.
A.	The order is correct because the law requires distribution, partition and liquidation of the properties before the decree is issued;
B.	The order is not correct because the rules in Article 147, F.C. apply only if the marriage is declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity;
C.	The order is correct regardless of whether the marriage was declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity or because it is absolutely void because of a prior marriage
D.	none
Answer» B. The order is not correct because the rules in Article 147, F.C. apply only if the marriage is declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity;

772

Do you find this helpful?

View all MCQs in

Philippines Civil Law Society

Discussion

No comments yet

Related MCQs

In 1986, A, a married woman file a petition for adoption of C which was granted. In 2011, A filed a petition to rescind or nullify the decree invoking Article 185 of the Family Code requiring that the husband and wife must jointly adopt and the retroactive provision of the Family Code under Article 256. How do you think the court will decide?
A and B got married without the benefit of a license. During the marriage, A left B and got married to C, hence, B sued A for bigamy. In the meantime A sued B for declaration of nullity of their marriage and moved for the suspension of the criminal case. Will the action prosper?
Bruce was pronounced by his physician to be suffering from an incurable disease and that he is going to die at anytime. Bruce was engaged to Margarita. In view of the pronouncement of Bruce’s doctor, the two got married without a marriage license. Six (6) months thereafter, Bruce died. The validity of their marriage was attacked on the ground that the marriage was not a marriage in articulo mortis. What is the status of the marriage between Bruce and Margarita.
Marvin was married to Charina on February 14, 1990. Charina gave birth to a baby girl she named Noreen. Due to irreconcilable differences, Marvin left the conjugal dwelling. Charina, on the other hand fell in love with David and they decided to live together as husband and wife on May 12, 1992. Six (6) years after or on September 8, 1998, Marvin died in an accident. Free at last, Charina and David decided to get married on February 14, 2000 executing an affidavit that they have been living together as husband and wife for more than five (5) years. The marriage took place but the solemnizing officer failed to execute an affidavit that he ascertained the qualifications of the contracting parties. Two (2) years later, Charina died living a considerable amount of properties. Noreen, assisted by her grandparents, filed a petition questioning the validity of her marriage to David. If you were the judge, how will you decide on the petition?
A and B married. They acquired properties during the marriage worth P10M. Ten (10) years thereafter B filed an action for legal separation against A where he was pronounced the guilty spouse. The court divided the properties valued at P20M at the time of the legal separation, equally into two (2). Is the order of the court correct?
A & B are married with children C & D, but were living separately from one another. A got married to E and begot children, F & G. After his death, E, F & G filed a petition for settlement of his estate. B, C &D intervened to claim their share of the estate and contended that since F & G are illegitimate as the marriage of A & E is void, their share is only ½ of the share of the legitimates. Is the contention correct?
Clark Kent, an American national, married Darna dela Cruz, a Filipino Citizen last March 8, 1992 with a valid marriage license. It appears that Clark Kent was issued a certificate of legal capacity to contract marriage after the celebration of the marriage. The U.S. embassy claims that such marriage is void from the beginning. Is the contention of the U.S. embassy tenable?
Noel and Liza were sweethearts. Liza became pregnant. Knowing that Noel was preparing for the bar examinations, Miguel, a lawyer and cousin of Liza threatened Noel with the filing of a complaint for immorality in the Supreme Court, thus, preventing him from taking the examinations unless he marries Liza. As a consequence of the threat, Noel married Liza. Can the marriage be annulled on the ground of intimidation under Article 45 of the Family Code?
Excited over their impending marriage, the parties overlooked the expiration date of their marriage license but just the same the marriage was solemnized two days after its expiration date. The marriage is:
Spouses Reynaldo and Ana decided to separate and to voluntary dissolve their conjugal partnership. Hence, they executed a public document wherein they declare that they had no debts, that they were voluntarily dissolving their conjugal partnership, and that each of them would thereafter be free to acquire or dispose of any property independently of the other. Thereafter, they lived apart. Ana engaged in business which unfortunately failed. Reynaldo, on the other hand, continued to be gainfully employed and was able to acquire properties through his own efforts. The creditors of Ana obtained a judgment against the latter which they could not satisfy because Ana was insolvent. Could the creditors of Ana obtain satisfaction of the judgment out of the properties of Reynaldo?