Persons And Family Relations 2020 Quiz #1

Explanation
The explanation for the given correct answer is that while most of our civil laws are indeed found in the Civil Code, there are also other sources or repositories where civil laws can be found. This means that the Civil Code is not the sole or exclusive place where all civil laws are contained. Therefore, it is true that the Civil Code is not the only repository of our civil laws.

Explanation
Supreme Court decisions do not need to be published in the Official Gazette in order to become binding and effective. While the Official Gazette is a publication that provides information about laws and regulations, the binding nature and effectiveness of Supreme Court decisions are not dependent on their publication in this specific publication.

Explanation
According to the given statement, internal instructions of administrative agencies are not required to be published under Article 2 of the New Civil Code. This means that these internal instructions do not have to be made available to the public. Therefore, the correct answer is true, indicating that the statement is accurate.

Explanation
Our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws. Judicial notice is a legal doctrine that allows a court to recognize certain facts without requiring formal evidence to be presented. However, this doctrine typically applies to facts that are generally known or easily verifiable. Foreign laws, on the other hand, are not considered to be generally known or easily verifiable in our courts. Therefore, our courts do not take judicial notice of foreign laws.

Explanation
This statement is true because jurisprudence refers to the body of law that has been established by legal precedent and court decisions. Lower court decisions, no matter how sound or wise they may be, do not automatically become part of jurisprudence. Only decisions made by higher courts, such as appellate courts or supreme courts, have the authority to establish legal precedent and become part of jurisprudence. Therefore, decisions of lower courts do not have the same level of authority or impact on future legal cases.

Explanation
Under the principle of exterritoriality, crimes committed on board vessels and airships of a country, although in international waters or space, shall NOT be triable by the courts of the said country. This principle allows for the application of the laws of the country to the vessel or airship, but it does not grant jurisdiction to the country's courts to try crimes committed on board. Instead, the jurisdiction usually falls under the flag state of the vessel or airship or may be subject to international agreements.

Explanation
The principle of lex loci celebrationis states that a contract is governed by the law of the place where it is made, not where the property is situated. Therefore, the given statement is incorrect. Property is governed by the law of the place where it is situated, not where it was celebrated or created.

Explanation
Good faith is a legal principle that assumes a person is acting honestly and with good intentions unless proven otherwise. This means that in legal matters, the default assumption is that individuals are acting in good faith unless there is evidence to the contrary. Therefore, the statement "Good faith is always presumed" is true as it accurately reflects this legal principle.

Explanation
The given answer is False. The Supreme Court ruled in Tan v. Valeriano that the act of filing numerous cases against Valeriano by petitioners Gilana and Gonzales was indeed attended by malice, vindictiveness, and bad faith.

Explanation
In the case of Buenventura v. CA, the Supreme Court made a ruling that psychological incapacity cannot be used as a grounds for the award of moral damages. This means that even if a person is found to be psychologically incapacitated, they cannot automatically receive compensation for moral damages. This ruling establishes that there must be other valid grounds for the award of moral damages, separate from psychological incapacity. Therefore, the statement "True" is correct.

Explanation
The Supreme Court ruled in Filinvest v. Ngilay that the Ngilays did have a duty to return the downpayment received by them, even though the deed of sale was void. This means that the correct answer is False.

Explanation
In Gonzalo v. Tarnate, Jr., the Supreme Court ruled that Tarnate is entitled to the 10% retention fee despite the contract being illegal. This is because the doctrine of in pari delicto does not apply in this case. The doctrine of in pari delicto states that the guilty parties to an illegal contract are not entitled to any relief. However, in this case, Tarnate is not considered guilty as he did not have knowledge of the contract's illegality when he entered into it. Therefore, he is entitled to the retention fee.

Explanation
The explanation for the given correct answer is that the Supreme Court ruled in Bliss Development v. Diaz that even if BDC can prove that there was no overlap between the payments made by Diaz and those made by Arreza, allowing BDC to keep the amortizations paid by Diaz still amounts to unjust enrichment. This means that even if there was no double payment, it would still be unfair for BDC to benefit from Diaz's payments without any legal justification. Therefore, the statement "allowing it to keep the amortizations paid by Diaz still amounts to unjust enrichment" supports the answer being True.

Explanation
The explanation for the correct answer, which is True, is that in the case of People v. Bayotas, the Supreme Court decided that the death of the appellant Bayotas resulted in the termination of his criminal liability and civil liability specifically related to the act of rape. This means that since Bayotas is deceased, he cannot be held accountable for the crime of rape, and any civil liability arising from that act is also extinguished.

Explanation
The explanation for the given correct answer is that in the case of Daluraya v. Oliva, the Supreme Court ruled that Daluraya's civil liability should be considered non-existent because he was acquitted of the crime. This means that the prosecution failed to prove that he was the one responsible for the crime. Therefore, since he was found not guilty, it follows that he should not be held civilly liable for any damages or compensation related to the crime.