WELCOME to Philippine_Laws.
Ignorantia legis neminem excusat.

Sunday, November 28, 2010

Important Terms in Persons.

Lex Nationalii- Citizenship is the basis for determining the personal law applicable.

Lex Rei Sitae- Law of the place where the property is situated is the basis for determining law applicable.

Lex Loci Celebrationis- Law of the place where the contract was executed is the basis for determining law applicable.

Prejudicial Question- If both criminal and civil cases are filed in court, the criminal case takes precedence.

Residence- Used to indicate a place of abode, whether permanent or temporary.

Domicile- denotes a fixed permanent residence, which when absent, one has the intention of returning.

Marriage- A special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with the law for the establishment of conjugal and family life. its nature, consequences, and incidents are fixed by law and cannot be the subject of stipulation.

Bigamous Marriages- A marriage contracted by any person during the subsistence of a previous valid marriage shall be null and void. (Gomez vs. Lipana)

Marriage settlement- It is a contract entered into by the future spouses fixing the matrimonial property regime that should govern during the existence.

Family- Basic social institution which public policy cherishes and protect hence, no suit between members of the family shall prosper unless the compromises between the parties have failed.

Family Home- is exempt from execution, forced sale or attachment.

Legitimate Children- Only those who are conceived or born during a valid marriage.

Illegitimate Children- Those conceived and born outside a valid marriage are illegitimate.





Bar examination questions and answers on the Civil code of the Philippine Islands (1902-1924) designed especially for the use of law students in their ... and preparation for admission to the bar,
Civil code of the Philippines annotated
Civil Code of the Philippines annotated: Y Edgardo L. Paras

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Maguindanao Massacre



The Maguindanao massacre, also known as the Ampatuan massacre (after the townwhere the mass graves were found), occurred on the morning of November 23, 2009, in the town of Ampatuan in Maguindanao province, on the island of Mindanao in the Philippines. While the victims were on their way to file a certificate of candidacy for Esmael Mangudadatu, vice mayor of Buluan town, they were kidnapped and brutally killed. Mangundadatu was challenging Datu Unsay mayor Andal Ampatuan, Jr., son of the incumbent Maguindanao governor Andal Ampatuan, Sr., in the forthcoming Maguindanao gubernatorial election, part of the national elections in 2010. The 58 people killed included Mangudadatu's wife, his two sisters, journalists, lawyers, aides, and motorists who were witnesses or were mistakenly identified as part of the convoy.


The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) has called the Maguindanao massacre the single deadliest event for journalists in history. At least 34 journalists are known to have died in the massacre. In a statement, CPJ executive director Joel Simon noted that the killings, "appears to be single deadliest event for the press since 1992, when CPJ began keeping detailed records on journalist deaths."] The CPJ further noted that, "Even as we tally the dead in this horrific massacre, our initial research indicates that this is the deadliest single attack on the press ever documented by CPJ." Even before the Maguindanao massacre, the CPJ had labeled the Philippines the second most dangerous country for journalists, second only to Iraq. source: wiki.com




Textbook on the new Philippine Constitution
Textbook pn The Philippine Constitution 2002 edition
The law on obligations and contracts
Comments and cases on obligations and contracts: Y Hector S. De Leon
The law on partnerships and private corporations

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Political Law Doctrines



Archipelagic Doctrine – Integration of a group of islands to the sea and their oneness so that together they can constitute one unit, one country, and one state. An imaginary single baseline is drawn around the islands by joining appropriate points of the outermost islands of the archipelago with straight lines and all islands and waters enclosed within the baseline form part of the territory. The main purpose is to protect the territorial interests of an archipelago. (Art 1.) 

Doctrine of Parens Patriae – government as guardian of the rights of the people. (Governemntof Philippine Islands v. El Monte Piedad) 

Plain View Doctrine – the objects within the sight of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence (open to the eye and hand). 

Doctrine of Indelible Allegiance – an individual may be compelled to retain his original nationality notwithstanding that he has already renounced or forfeited it under the laws of the second state whose nationality he has acquired. 

Doctrine of Judicial Supremacy – Although holding neither purse nor sword and so regarded as the weakest of the three departments of the government, the judiciary is nonetheless vested with the power to annul the acts of either the Legislative or the Executive department or both when not conformable to the fundamental law. 

Regalian Doctrine ( Jura Regalia) – All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other minerals oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests, or timber, wildlife, flora, and fauna and natural resources belong to the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources shall not be alienated. (Sec. 2 Art XII) 

Stewardship Doctrine – Private property is supposed to be held by the individual only as a trustee for the people in general, who are its real owners. 

Doctrine of Shifting Majority – For each House of Congress to pass a bill, only the votes of the majority of those present in the session, there being a quorum, is required. 

Doctrine of Qualified Political Agency or Alter Ego Principle – Acts of the Secretaries of Executive departments when performed and promulgated in the regular course of business or unless disapproved or presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive (Villena v. Secretary of the Interior) 

Doctrine of Proper Submission- plebiscite may be held on the same day as regular election provided the people are sufficiently informed of the amendments to be voted upon, to conscientiously deliberate thereon, to express their will in a genuine manner. Submission of piece-meal amendments is constitutional. All the amendments must be submitted for ratification at one plebiscite only.  The people have to be given a proper frame of reference in arriving at their decision. They have no idea yet of what the rest of the amended constitution would be. (Tolentino v. Comelec)


(The (revised) 1973 Philippine Constitution: Notes and cases)
(The 1987 Philippine Constitution: A reviewer-primer)
(Philippine constitutional law)

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Functions of Supreme Court



The Supreme Court of the Philippines (Filipino: Kataas-taasang Hukuman ng Pilipinas orKorte Suprema) is the Philippines' highest judicial court, as well as the court of last resort. The court consists of 14 Associate Justices and 1 Chief Justice. Pursuant to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has "administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof."

The powers of the Supreme Court are defined in Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution. These functions may be generally divided into two – judicial functions and administrative functions. The administrative functions of the Court pertain to the supervision and control over the Philippine judiciary and its employees, as well as over members of the Philippine bar. Pursuant to these functions, the Court is empowered to order a change of venue of trial in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice and to appoint all officials and employees of the judiciary. The Court is further authorized to promulgate the rules for admission to the practice of law, for legal assistance to the underprivileged, and the procedural rules to be observed in all courts.


The more prominent role of the Court is located in the exercise of its judicial functions. Section 1 of Article VIII contains definition of judicial power that had not been found in previous constitutions. The provision states in part that:


Judicial power includes the duty of courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government.


The definition reaffirms the power of the Supreme Court to engage in judicial review, a power that had traditionally belonged to the Court even before this provision was enacted. Still, this new provision effectively dissuades from the easy resort to the political question doctrine as a means of declining to review a law or state action, as was often done by the Court during the rule of President Ferdinand Marcos. As a result, the existence of “grave abuse of discretion” on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the government is sufficient basis to nullify state action.
source: wiki.com




Jabbawockeez America's Best Dance Crew White MaskI Love Philippine T-shirt Large White


Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Hilario Davide

Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide 


Tenure: November 30, 1998 - December 20, 2005
Appointed by: Estrada
Birthdate: December 20, 1935
Place of Birth: Colawin, Argao, Cebu
Children: Hilario III, Joseph Bryan Hilary, Sheryl Ann, Noreen, and Delster Emmanuel
Name of Spouse :
Virginia Jimenea Perez

Education: 
Elementary : Argao (Cebu) Elementary School, 1949 
High School : Abellana Vocational High School, Cebu City, 1953 
College : University of the Philippines (U.P.) Diliman, Quezon City 
Bachelor of Laws, University of the Philippines, 1959 
Bachelor of Science in Jurisprudence, University of the Philippines, 1958 
Associate in Arts, University of the Philippines, 1955 
Degree of Doctor, honoris causa, Soka University, Japan, March 2002 
Doctor of Public Administration, honoris causa, Polytechnique University of the Philippines, December 9, 2005 
Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, University of Cordilleras, Baguio City, May 2004 
Doctor of Humanities, honoris causa, Northern Christian College, Laoag City, March 2004 
Doctor of Humanities, honoris causa, for Peace and Development, Notre Dame University, Cotabato City, March 2004 
Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, University of San Carlos, Cebu City, March 2003 
Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, De La Salle, Manila, June 2001 
Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, Angeles University Foundation, Angeles City, April 2001 
Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, University of the Philippines, April 2001 
Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, Far Eastern University, Manila, April 2001 
Doctor of Humanities, honoris causa, University of the Visayas, Cebu City, March 2001 
Doctor of Humanities, honoris causa, Ateneo de Manila University, March 2001 
Doctor of Humanities, honoris causa, University of Cebu, Cebu City, March 2000 
Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, Southwestern University, Cebu City, March 1999 

Professional Career:
Private Secretary to the Vice Governor and then to the Governor of Cebu, 1959 – 1963 
Faculty Member, College of Law, Southwestern University, Cebu City, 1962 – 1968 
Delegate, Constitutional Convention, representing the 4th District of Cebu, 1971 
Assemblyman, Interim Batasang Pambansa representing Region VII, June 12, 1978 – June 30, 1984 Commissioner, Constitutional Commission of 1986 which drafted the 1987 Constitution, June 2, 1986 – Oct. 15, 1986 
Chairman, Commission on Elections, Feb. 16, 1988 – Jan. 11, 1990 
Chairman, The Presidential Fact Finding Commission, Dec. 7, 1989 – Jan. 11, 1990 
Chairman, The Presidential Fact Finding Commission, Jan. 12, 1990 – Jan. 15, 1991 
Chief Justice, Supreme Court of the Philippines, Nov. 30, 1998 – Dec. 20, 2005 
Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the Philippines, Jan. 24, 1991 – Nov. 29, 1998 
Chairman, Judicial and Bar Council Presiding Officer, 
Presidential Impeachment Court 
Chairman, Presidential Electoral Tribunal 
Chairman, Board of Trustees, Philippine Judicial Academy 
Chairman, Executive Committee, Judicial Reform Program
source: e-library of SC




Philippine law on sales

Monday, November 15, 2010

What is Sharia?



Sharia (in Arabic "way" or "path") is connected to the religion of Islam. Most Muslims believe Sharia is derived from two primary sources of Islamic law; namely, the divine revelations set forth in the Qur'an, and the sayings and example set by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad in the Sunnah. Fiqh("jurisprudence") interprets and extends the application of Sharia to questions not directly addressed in the primary sources by including secondary sources. These secondary sources usually include the consensus of the religious scholars embodied in ijma, and analogy from the Qur'an and Sunnah through qiyas. Shia jurists replace qiyas analogy with 'aql, or "reason". 


All Muslims believe Sharia is God's law, but differ as to what exactly it entails. Modernists, traditionalists and fundamentalists all hold different views of Sharia, as do adherents to different schools of Islamic thought and scholarship. Different countries and cultures have varying interpretations of Sharia as well. 


Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexuality, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. Where it enjoys official status, Sharia is applied by Islamic judges, or qadis. The imam has varying responsibilities depending on the interpretation of Sharia; while the term is commonly used to refer to the leader of communal prayers, the imam may also be a scholar, religious leader, or political leader. 


The introduction (or in some cases, reintroduction) of Sharia is a longstanding goal for Islamist movements in Muslim countries. Some Muslim minorities in Asia (e.g. in India) have attained institutional recognition of Sharia to adjudicate their personal and community affairs. In western countries, where Muslim immigration is more recent, Muslim minorities have introduced Sharia family law, for use in their own disputes, with varying degrees of success (e.g. Britain's Muslim Arbitration Tribunal). Attempts to impose Sharia have been accompanied by controversy, violence, and even warfare (Second Sudanese Civil War). source:wiki.com




Islam and the Secular State: Negotiating the Future of Shari`a

Acts Punishable Under Anti-Wiretapping Act


1. Any person who without authority from all the parties to the private communication or spoken word does any of the following:
a. to tap any wire,
b. to secretly overhear or intercept such communication or spoken word by using any other device or arrangement, or
c. to record such private communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder or however otherwise described.

2. Any person, whether participant or not in the above penalized acts, who
a. knowingly possesses any tape record, wire record, disk record or copies thereof, of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act on the manner prohibited by law; or
b. to replay the same for any other person; or
c. to communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing; or
d. to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial to any other person.

3. Any person who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful. (Sec. 2)

4. Any person who shall violate the provisions of Section b of the exempted acts below or of an order issued thereunder, or aids, permits or causes such violations. (Sec. 2)




(The Revised Penal Code made easy: Book 1)

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Good to know Legal Maxims

Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt - The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep. 

Verbatim - Word by word, exactly.

Ubi non est principalis, non potest esse accessorius - Where there is no principal, there can be no accessory. 

Stare decisis - To stand by decisions (precedents).

Salus populi est suprema lex - The welfare of the people is the supreme law.

Qui sentit commodum, debet et sentire onus - He who derives a benefit ought also to bear a burden. 

Qui peccat ebrius, luat sobrius - He who does wrong when drunk must be punished when sober. 

Prima facie - On the face of it.

Partus sequitur ventrem - The offspring follows the mother.

Nemo bis punitur pro eodem delicto - No one can be twice punished for the same offence. 

Mala in se - Bad in themselves.

Mala prohibita - Crimes prohibited. 

Lex prospicit not respicit - The law looks forwared, not backward.

Ipso facto - By that very fact. 

Inter alia - Amongst other things.

In personam - Against the person.

In omnibus - In every respect.

In delicto - At fault.

Domus sua cuique est tutissimum refugium - Every man s house is his safest refuge.

De jure - Rightful, by right. 

De facto - In fact.

Bona fide - Sincere, in good faith

Ad hoc - For this purpose.

Ab initio - From the beginning.


A Selection of Legal Maxims, Classified and Illustrated. Eighth American, from the Fifth London Edition, with References to American Cases.

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Entrapment vs. Instigation



In instigation, the instigator practically induces the will-be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-principal, in entrapment ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the law breaker in the execution of his criminal plan. People vs Galicia.

In entrapment the crime had already been committed while in instigation the crime was not yet and would not have been committed were it not for the instigation of the peace officer. People vs. Cahilig.




(Criminal law: Revised Penal Code, annotated)

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Distinction between B.P. Blg.22 vs Estafa in Revised Penal Code



In B.P. Blg 22:

1. Even though the check was issued in payment of pre-existing obligation, liability is incurred.
2. Damage or deceit is immaterial to criminal liability.
Crime against public interest since the act is penalized because of the disastrous effect to the stability of the banking system and prejudicial to the country.
4. Only the drawer is liable and if the drawer was a juridical entity, its officer who signed the check shall be liable. The indorser is not liable.
5. Drawer is given five (5) banking days from notice of dishonor to make good the cah value thereof in order to avoid criminal liability.
6. This is malum prohibitum.

In Estafa:
1. The check should be issued concurrently and reciprocally in payment of the exchange consideration. The check should not be for a pre-existing obligation.
2. Damage to the offended and deceit of offender are essential elements.
3. Crime against property.
4. Not only the drawer but even indorsee may incur liability if he were aware at the time of the indorsement of the insufficiency of funds.
5. Drawer is given only three (3) days after notice of dishonor to make good the cash value to avoid liabilty.
6. This is malum in se.




(Civil Code of the Philippines annotated: Y Edgardo L. Paras)

What is double jeopardy?

The rule of double jeopardy means that when a person is charged with an offense and the case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without the consent of the accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense.

This principle is founded upon the law of person, justice and conscience. It is embodied in the maxim of the civil law non bis in idem, in the common law of England, and undoubtedly in every system of jurisprudence, and instead of having specific origin it simply always existed. It found expression in the Spanish law and in the Constitution of United States, and is now embodied in our Constitution as one of the fundamental rights of a citizen. Melo vs People 85 Phil 768.



Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Who is Justice Renato C. Corona?

Renato C. Corona is the 150th member of the highest court, appointed by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo on April 9, 2002 as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the Philippines. Corona had served over thirty years both in private sector and government administration.Alumni from Ateneo de Manila University, where he graduated Bachelor in Arts with honors and continues his study in Bachelor of Law and ranked as the 5th in the class. Corona passed the bar examination in 1974 and ranked as the 25th place with 84.6% grade. He then served 17 years as an Ateneo faculty member, where he taught Corporation Law and other commercial law subjects.He continued his Masters degree in Business Administration at the Ateneo Professional School and took his Masters in Law from Harvard Law School in 1982 majoring the field of foreign investment policies and the regulation of corporations and financial institutions.On his early year as a young lawyer, he had served Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) as a consultant. He then became a senior vice president of the General Counsel and a corporate sec. of Commercial Bank of Manila.Corona also writes for The Manila Chronicle. His column was called “Tax Corner” where he deals with tax and commercial law issues. In 1998, he received the Philippine Legion of Honor Award and was once called one of the Outstanding Manilans.In 1992, he had served as the Presidential Legal Counsel and Deputy Executive Secretary to President Fidel Ramos. He then became the spokes person and chief of staff of V-President Arroyo in 1998. In 2001, where Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo became the president, Renato C. Corona had promoted to Presidential Chief of Staff, Presidential Spokesperson, and afterward, Acting Executive Secretary.As a member of the Supreme Court, he is the Chairman of the Third Division, Integrated Bar of the Philippines Oversight Committee, Legislative-Executive Relations Committee, House of Representative Electoral Tribunal, a Co-Chairman of the Administrative Concerns Committee of the Supreme Court and a member of the Management Committee of the Judicial Reform Support Project and Committee on Public Information.On international conferences, corona represented the Supreme Court of the Philippines and submitted numeral papers in bar and judicial congresses abroad. He also writes and teaches International Law at the Graduate School of the University of Santo Tomas.source:iamkaiser.com




Philippine constitutional law

60% of Bar exams will be multiple choice questions

MANILA, Philippines—Sixty percent of the 2011 Bar examination will be multiple choice questions (MCQ), while only 40 percent will be essay, the Supreme Court said.

Associate Justice Roberto Abad, chairman of the 2011 Bar Examinations Committee, said it will not only be a test of the examinees’ knowledge on codal provisions or provisions of the law “but also their comprehension and analysis.”

The MCQ exams, the high court said, should be able to assess three main skills of the examinees: knowledge and recall; comprehension or understanding; and analysis and application.

The MCQ exams will have the following advantages: objective correction of the papers since every question has one definite answer; encouragement of the mastery of subject because of the difficulty of distinguishing between a correct and a nearly correct answer; and the employment of a wider scope of topics since the examiner can ask as many as 100 questions in an hour and a half exam, among others.As for the examiners, the time spent in preparing the MCQs will be more than compensated by the time saved in correcting the examination papers.

Court Administrator and SC spokesman Jose Midas Marquez earlier stressed that the proposed two-step Bar examinations for 2011 is most likely to be approved by the court en banc. The two-step Bar examinations proposal came following consultations with deans from various law schools, he added.

The Bar examination are currently comprised of generally essay-type questions for eight subjects: Political Law, Remedial Law, Taxation, Criminal Law, Civil Law, Mercantile Law, Labor Law, and Legal Ethics and Practical Exercises.

The high court annually conducts the Bar exams pursuant to its constitutional mandate to promulgate rules governing, among others, the admission to the practice of law.

The Bar exams are traditionally held in four consecutive Sundays of September. This year’s Bar examinations is spearheaded by Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, chairperson of the 2010 Bar Examinations Committee.

But Marquez said even if the proposed two-step Bar examination will be approved ahead of the scheduled Bar examination in September, it will no longer be applied in the 2010 Bar exam due to lack of time.

The first Bar exams were held in 1901, with 13 examinees.
source: inquirer.net
Revised Rules of Evidence (Rules of Court)

Monday, November 8, 2010

Gibo

Gilberto "Gilbert" Teodoro, Jr. (born June 14, 1964) was the Secretary of theDepartment of National Defense (DND) from 2007 to 2009. The youngest secretary to hold the national defense position, Teodoro has been chosen as the standard bearer of theLakas-Kampi-CMD for the 2010 presidential election.


Teodoro graduated from De La Salle University with a degree in Management of Financial Institutions. He also holds a law degree from the University of the Philippines, and a master’s degree from the Harvard Law School in the US.


Teodoro topped the bar exams in 1989, becoming one of the youngest bar topnotchers in the country. He also took and passed the New York State Bar exams in 1997. source: wikipilipinas

Ferdinand Marcos

Achievements of Ferdinand Marcos:
  • On December 13, 1938, Marcos was arrested for Nalundasan’s murder but he successfully petitioned for release on bail, allowing him to complete his law degree from the University of the Philippines.
  • In 1939, Marcos was found guilty and sentence to a minimum of 10 years in prison. 
  • Jailed, Marcos spent six months writing his own 830-page appeal while reviewing for the Bar Exams at the same time. 
  • Marcos posted bail to take the 1939 Bar Exams and passed with scores so high he was suspected of cheating. 
  • Legends say that his unofficial Grade was 98.5 and so he was summoned to appear before the Supreme Court en banc for an oral re-examination, after which his official grade was released as 92.35. Marcos is the only Bar candidate who was called by the Supreme Court for an oral re-examinations. 
  • In 1940, Marcos orally argued his own case in front of Supreme Court Justice Jose P. Laurel and on October 22, 1940, he was acquitted of the charge of murder and forthwith liberated from imprisonment. Source: Philippine Bar Exams Trivia of Atty. Ralph A. Sarmiento.

Difference of acts of lasciviousness, slander by deed and unjust vexation.

The common denominator present in unjust vexation, slander by deed and act of lasciviousness is irritation or annoyance. Without any other concurring factor, the offense would be merely unjust vexation. If in addition to the irritation or annoyance, there was attendant publicity and dishonor or contempt, the offense would be slander by deed. However if in addition to the annoyance or irritation, there was present any of the circumstances provided for in Art. 335, of Revised Penal Code, on rape, the crime would be act of lasciviousness.

Annulment vs. Legal Separation

What are the grounds for annulment?

1. Lack of parental consent in certain cases. If a party is 18 years or over, but below 21, and the marriage was solemnized without the consent of the parents/guardian. However, the marriage is validated if, upon reaching 21, the spouses freely cohabited with the other and both lived together as husband and wife.

2. Insanity. A marriage may be annulled if, at the time of marriage, either party was of unsound mind, unless such party after coming to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife.

3. Fraud. The consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife. Fraud includes: (i) non-disclosure of a previous conviction by final judgment of the other party of a crime involving moral turpitude; (ii) concealment by the wife of the fact that at the time of the marriage, she was pregnant by a man other than her husband; (iii) concealment of sexually transmissible disease or STD, regardless of its nature, existing at the time of the marriage; or (iv) concealment of drug addiction, habitual alcoholism or homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage. However, no other misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank, fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the annulment of marriage.

4. Force, intimidation or undue influence. If the consent of either party was obtained by any of these means, except in cases wherein the force, intimidation or undue influence having disappeared or ceased, the complaining party thereafter freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife.

5. Impotence. At the time of marriage, either party was physically incapable of consummating the marriage with the other, and such incapacity continues and appears to be incurable. Impotence is different from being infertile.

6. STD. If, at the time of marriage, either party was afflicted with a sexually-transmissible disease found to be serious and appears to be incurable. If the STD is not serious or is curable, it may still constitute fraud.

What are the grounds for legal separation?

1. Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct directed against the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner.

2. Physical violence or moral pressure to compel the petitioner to change religious or political affiliation.

3. Attempt of respondent to corrupt or induce the petitioner, a common child, or a child of the petitioner, to engage in prostitution, or connivance in such corruption or inducement.

4. Final judgment sentencing the respondent to imprisonment of more than six years, even if pardoned.

5. Drug addiction or habitual alcoholism of the respondent.

6. Lesbianism or homosexuality of the respondent.

7. Contracting by the respondent of a subsequent bigamous marriage, whether in the Philippines or abroad.

8. Sexual infidelity or perversion.

9. Attempt by the respondent against the life of the petitioner.10. Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year.The term “child” shall include a child by nature or by adoption.