EFFECTIVITY OF LAWS (Article 2)
-
Three scenarios:
-
1)
if the law provides for its own effectivity date This is subject only to the requirement of publication Case: Tanada v. Tuvera Congress may not dispense with the requirement of publication because that is to satisfy the requirement of due process. The clause “unless otherwise provided” in Article 2 of NCC refers to the 15 day period that Congress may either shorten or lengthen.
2)
3)
When the law is silent Apply the period provided in Article 2 NCC. 16th day After 15 days following the completion of their publication where the law provides that it takes effect immediately upon its approval it shall take effect after publication case: La Bugal case (in other previous cases, effectivity clause providing for immediate effectivity upon approval is declared to be invalid but the law remains valid) in this much later case, the Court ruled that the clause should be interpreted to mean that the law takes effect immediately after its publication.
Courts cannot take JN of the existence of a foreign law Must be alleged and proven otherwise processual presumption applies (The court presumes the law to be the same as our internal laws)
PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF LAWS (Article 4) EXC EXC to the EXC 1. Where the law provides 1.1 when it amounts to an for its own retroactivity ex post facto law 1.2 when the law impairs an existing contractual obligation EXC: when it is a valid exercise of police power 2. when the law is penal When the accused is a in nature and habitual deliquent favorable to the accused 3. when the law is procedural in nature 4. when the law is curative in nature
-
Presumption is applicable only to domestic laws. With respect to foreign laws Must be proven as a matter of fact
It is an action for the recovery of what has been delivered without any justifiable cause on the part of the recipient. -
REPEAL OF LAWS Express repeal –
expressly and clearly provide for the law that is to be repealed
Implied repeal -
-
when: 1. when both laws cover the same subject matter; and 2. are repugnant to each other in the absence of these 2 conditions, implied repeal is not favored
The one who delivered has no obligation to make the delivery and the recipient is not entitled to the delivery. Compared to solutio indebiti kinds of quasi-contract: a) Solutio indebiti b) Negotiorum gestio AIRV
For it to prosper: Plaintiff must have no other legal remedy under contract, quasi-contract, delict or quasi-delict
SI There is delivery by reason of mistake It is a quasi-contract
UNFAIR COMPETITION (Article 28) (case: Willamer v. Jesicris Manufacturing) -
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW EXCUSES NO ONE FROM COMPLIANCE THEREWITH (Article 3) There is a conclusive presumption of knowledge of laws.
ACCION IN REM VERSO (Article 22)
-
The concept of unfair competition under NCC is much broader than that in IPL In order for the competition to be classified as unfair, the following requisites must be present: 1) Injury to the business of the competitor or business rival; and 2) Act must have been characterized as contrary to good conscience, shocking to judicial sensibilities or otherwise unlawful (includes force, deceit, intimidation, machinations, or other similar methods)
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION Effect of repeal of a repealed law: (See reviewer)
In order for a prejudicial question to exist it is necessary that there is a civil case and a criminal case.
JAC 2016
1
The prejudicial question is the issue raised in the civil case but that issue is material in the criminal case which determines the guilt or innocence of the accused.
contract subsequent marriage otherwise he will be liable for bigamy. (Mercado) If there is no appearance or semblance of marriage, albeit ostensibly, because there was no marriage ceremony, there is no need to comply with the requirements of Artilce 40. The subsequent marriage is not bigamous and is valid. (Morigo)
The civil case must be filed ahead of the criminal case and the resolution of the issue in the civil case must be determinative of the guilt or innocence of the accused in the criminal case. In relation to Article 40 and the crime of Bigamy In bigamy, there are 2 marriages and one of these will be used as a defense in the said crime Defenses: (there is a pending petition for declaration of nullity of marriage which was filed ahead of the criminal case for bigamy) 1)
Where the validity of the first marriage is assailed (case: Mercado v. Tan) Even if the first marriage is void ab initio, the parties to that void marriage are required to secure first a judicial declaration for the nullity of the prior marriage before they can contract a subsequent marriage pursuant to the requirement of Article 40 FC.
2)
Where the subject of the petition is the second marriage In bigamy, it is necessary that the second marriage should have been valid had it not been for the existence of the first marriage. If the second marriage is void for reasons other than the existence of the first marriage, it is a valid defense for the crime of bigamy.
Reconciling Mercado case and Morigo case: If there is an appearance or semblance of a marriage because there was a marriage ceremony, even if the marriage turned out to be void ab initio, it is necessary that the parties must first comply with the requirements of Article 40 before they can
(case: Capili v. People) funny case Capili contends that he is not liable for the crime of bigamy because the subsequent marriage was void. (Reason: existence of the first marriage) (I cannot, why Capili?) Utililizing the very commision of the crime as the defense in the crime itself. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
CIVIL PERSONALITY It is birth that determines personality.
EXC: the civil case for petition of judicial declaration of nullity is not a prejudicial question in the criminal case of bigamy (hence, not a defense in the latter): a)
EXC: (case: Morigo v. People) Parties in the prior marriage simply signed a marriage contract done without the presence of the solemnizing officer. One party contracted subsequent marriage without securing a judicial declaration of nullity. Morigo was acquitted of bigamy. -
Article 36 not all the effects of marriage are totally wiped out
b)
(case: Santiago v. People) The second marriage was contracted without a marriage license because the parties to the second marriage made it appear that they have been cohabiting as husband and wife for 5 years. They executed a falsified affidavit of cohabitation. SC held them liable even if the second marriage was void. (According to SC letting them get away with it would be a mockery of the sacrament of marriage. If the ground is Article 36 psychological incapacity (case: Tenebro v. CA) Even if the second marriage is void, so long as the ground is Article 36, the crime of bigamy is still committed as in
A person is deemed born if he is alive at the time of complete delivery complete delivery if upon the cutting of the umbilical cord the child is still alive with respect to fetus inside the mother’s womb -
is accorded civil personality by our law but it is limited personality and a provisional one. Limited because it exists only for purposes that are beneficial to the unborn child Provisional because the permanency of that personality is subject later on to the compliance of the conditions in Article 41 of the NCC: Intra-uterine life of at least 7 months
see book reviewer PRESUMPTION OF SURVIVORSHIP (Article 43) Requisites:
JAC 2016
2
1.
2.
The issue of survivorship must be between 2 persons who are called upon to succeed from each other Issue must be of succession
Rules: 1. 2.
He who alleges that one died before the other has the burden of proving the same. In case of doubt, if it is not clear who died first, both is presumed to have died at the same time and there can be no transmission of rights from one to the other.
-
If the issue is not of succession, apply presumption of survivorship under the Rules of Court.
among the exceptions to the principle of lex loci celebrationis. As a rule, if valid in the place of celebration it is also valid in the Philippines except those enumerated in Article 26, same sex marriage is not one of the excepptions simply because it is not a marriage at all. (legal provision – Article 1 providing for the definition of marriage) Our law is clear that marriage can only exist if the parties are coming from opposite sexes. GR: One cannot change his/her sex. We do not have any law recognizing the effects of sex reassignment surgery.
b. c. d.
e.
-
If both are below 15, the older is presumed to have survived If both be over 60, the younger survived. If one is below 15 and the other is above 60, the former survives. If the parties are between 15 and 60 and of different genders, the male is presumed to have survived. If of the same gender, the older survived. If one is under 15 or above 60 and the other is between 15-60, latter survived.
EXC:
(example: issue is entitlement to insurance proceeds. F procured an insurance and made S as one of the beneficiaries. S’s wife wants to get the proceeds and it was necessary that F must have died first before S will be entitled to the insurance proceeds. Rules of Court applied here.)
Same sex marriage is not a marriage. Same sex marriage not considered a marriage in our law even if done and valid abroad. Although it is not among those included in Article 26 as
Sex of a Filipino ciitizen is determined at the time of birth simply by examination of the genitals made by the medical attendants. Such determination is immutable except when there was palpable error.
1. 2. 3.
-
If the sex of a person is neither predominantly nor consistently male nor female because of congenital andrenal hyperplasia, the court is called upon to respect the choice of the individual in relation to his/her sex. Court allowed the change of first name here.
Authority of solemnizing officer Marriage license Marriage ceremony
Absence of any of these 5 requisites renders the marriage void ab initio. Defect in any of the essential requisites (only giving of consent can be defective as can be gleaned from the grounds of annullment) renders the marriage voidable. Irregularity of any of the formal requisites shall not affect the validity of the marriage. Marriage remains to be valid.
Case: Republic v. Cagandahan -
Legal capacity Consent
Formal requisites:
if the person is suffering from an abnormality known as congenital andrenal hyperplasia where the body has 2 instruments.
MARRIAGE
1. 2.
Case: Silverio v. Republic
Rules of Court: a.
Essential requisites:
Legal Capacity Governend by national law of the person concerned Requirements: i. At least 18 years old (otherwise void ab initio) ii. Parties must be from opposite sexes iii. Absence of legal impediments under Artilce 37 (incestous and void) and 38 (void for reasons of public policy) If the requisites are not met, the marriage will not be recognized as valid even if celebrated abroad. Lex locis celebrationisdoes not apply as the parties being Filipino citizens are governed by their national law.
Consent Must be freely given Case: Republic v. Albios
Requisites of marriage
JAC 2016
3
-
-
-
Filipina married to a American for the purpose of acquring an American citizenship. Filipina filed a petition in Phil. Courts to nullify the marriage as there was no real consent given as the intention was merely for the acquiring of citizenship. SC: It is not a valid ground. In the argument that there was no real consent given, the only consideration is did she appear personally before a solemnizing officer and did they make a personal declaration taking each other as H and W and were they suffering from insanity or vices of consent during such time. Consent was not lacking between the parties. There was real consent because it was not vitiated nor rendered defective by any vice of consent. Article 1 provides that the nature, consequences, and incidents of marriage are governed by law and not subject to stipulation. There is no law that declares a marriage void if it is entered into for purposes other than what the Constitution or law declares, such as the acquiring of foreign citizenship.
Authority of the solemnizing officer GR: if solemnizing officer has no authority then marriage is void ab initio EXC: (Artilce 35 par. 2) when at least one of the contracting parties believes in good faith that the solemnizer has the authority to do so, marriage becomes perfectly valid It is only mistake of fact which can serve as basis of good faith and never mistake of law.
Examples: a) Parties were told that the solemnizer was a judge. Parties went to the sala of the judge and a janitor was there cleaning the room wearing the robes of a judge. Parties believed that the janitor was the judge which the janitor did not bother refuting and proceeded with his act. The janitor /judge wedded the parties. = wedding is valid. There is mistake of fact. b) Parties went to a notary public to get married. They went to a notary public in the sidewalks and got married. = marriage is not valid. There is mistake of law, a notary public is not among those who has the authority to solemnize marriage.
outside of it they don’t have the authority. This is not a mere irregularity in the formal requirement as this is total absence of authority. Prior to the FC, under the NCC the authority ofjudges to solemnize marriages is not confined to their territorial jurisdictions, the only says that they are authorized to solemnized marriage and the place is only administrative, they will only be administratively liable if conducted outside. But under the FC, it says that judges are authorized to solemnize marriages only within their court’s jurisdiction.
b.
Religious solemnizers Requirements before they can have authority: 1. Must be issued a written authority by his religion 2. Writte authority must be registered with the civil registrar general 3. He must act within the limits of the written authority 4. At least 1 of the contracting parties belong to the same religion Absence of any of this requirements makes him not authorized, however: If 1, 2, 3 = the parties can invoke good faith because this is a mistake of fact. If 4 = parties cannot invoke good faith because this is a mistake of law. The parties are very much aware that they do not belong to the same religion.
c.
Airplane chief pilot and ship captain Has authority but only under articulo mortis the conttracting parties must be passengers or members of the crew
Who are authorized to conduct marriage: a.
Members of the judiciary Limitations: (Article 7 par. 1) i. Marriage must be solemnized within the court’s jurisdiction Case: Navarro v. Lumagtoy Beso v. Daguman SC made a statement that even if the judge of the MTC solemnized the marriage outside of the court’s jurisdiction it is a mere irregularity in the formal requirement that will not affect the validity of the marriage. (however this was only an obiter dictum in the administrative cases of the judges involved) However, if the law is to be examined, the place of the celebration of marriage is part and parcel of the judiciary’s authority to solemnize marriage. Under the FC, they only have the authority to solemnize marriage within their court’s jurisdiction,
JAC 2016
4
-
d.
Military commanders Has authority but only under articulo mortis Must be a commissioned officer and marriage is celebrated within the zone of military operations (parties may be armed forces or civilians)
e.
Consuls Only in the place where they are stationed Contracting parties must both be citizens of the Phils.
f.
Allowed during flights and even during stopovers.
Mayors LGC 1991 (before 1991 marriage is void and good faith cannor be invoked as this is mistake of law) Solemnizing marriage outside their jurisdiction is a mere irregularity and marriage is still valid
Marriage License Must be valid If issued by the civil registry (as long as the license is existing in the records of the registry, regardless of the manner of acquisition of such license marriage is valid) (if it is not appearing in the records or if it is issued to another person, marriage is void ab initio as it is without a valid marriage license. A certification from the local civil registry stating this fact is sufficient to declare a marriage void ab initio.) It is valid even outside the place where it was obtained as it can be used anywhere in the Philippines. Good only for a period of 120 days, after the lapse it is automatically cancelled. Any marriage
-
celebrated on the strength of an expired license is a marriage without a license and thus void ab initio. Requirements: Under the Responsible Parenthood Act, contracting parties should obtain a certificate of compliance that they have attended seminars on responsible parenthood and family planning.
officer and thus there was no marriage) Case: Morigo v. People Mere signing of marriage contract done not in the presence of a solemnizing officer, there is no marriage ceremony at all.
Non-compliance of the requirements is a mere irregularity aas after all the license is valid.
Personal declaration may be made in any form: verbal, writing, signing a marriage a contract.
Parental written consent if one of the parties is below 21. Absence of this, however: a. Where parents consented to the marriage is still valid b. Where parents did not give consent at all marriage is voidable
-
-
Marriage Ceremony There are no formalities required Case: Ronulo v. People Minimum requirements: a. Contracting parties must personally appear before the solemnizing officer b. Contracting parties must make a personal declaration that they are taking each other as H and W before at least 2 witnesses
-
In the requirement of 2 witness -
Personal declaration must be made in the presence of the solemnizing officer. (example: SO gave the marriage contract to the parties for them to sign while he is out for the bathroom = there is no marriage ceremony as signing was not done in the presence of the solemnizing
Mere signing of a contract in the presence of a solemnizing officer is in itself a personal declaration. Verbal declaration then failed to sign a marriage contract; still a valid marriage, marriage contract is merely evidentiary. Deaf and mute, simply by nodding; marirage is valid, signs are allowed.
-
Merely evidentiary, existence of marriage can still be proven even in the absence of the witnesses. Absence is a mere irregularity that does not affect the validity of the marriage.
Marriages exempt from the requirement of marriage license: a. Marriage in articulo mortis
JAC 2016
5
b.
c.
d.
Marriages involving parties in a very remote place where there is no means of transportation going to the office of the local civil registrar Marriages among Muslims or other cultural communities provided the marriage is celebrated in acordance with their customs, rites and practices Article 34 or legal ratification of marital cohabitation For the marriage to be exempt: 1. Contracting parties must have cohabited as H and W for a minimum period of 5 years counted backwards from the date of celebration of marriage 2. Period must be uninterrupted 3. There must be no legal impediment existing between the parties within the period If the legal impediment is In lieu of the marriage license, parties are required to execute an affidavit of cohabitation that they had been cohabiting as H and W for at least 5 years. Case: Tupal v. Rojo the person who notarizes the contracting parties’ affidavit of cohabitation cannot be the judge who will solemnize the parties’ marriage. As a solemnizing officer, the judge’s only duty involving the affidavits of cohabitation is to examine whether the parties have indeed lived together for at least 5 years without legal impediment to marry. Notarizing affidavits of cohabitation is inconsistent with this duty. If the solemnizing officer notarized the affidavit, he cannot objectively examine and review the affidavit’s statements before performing the marriage ceremony.
-
Where contarcting parties falsifies their affidavit of cohabitation: o They can later on question the validity of the marriage on the ground that tehre was no marriage license. Case: Republic v. Dayot De Castro v. Assidao-de Castro When parties falsified the affidavit and has not satisfied the requirements in Article 34, it is not a mere irregularity in the formal requisites, this is a total absence of marriage license which will render the marriage void ab initio. Case: Santiago v. People (see Prejudicial Question) -
The were was a falsification.
As compared with: Case: People v. de Lara Go Bangayan v. Bangayan -
Here, the absence of marriage license was defense in the crime bigamy because there was falsification.
a a of no
ARTICLE 26
2nd paragraph Decree of absolute divorce is recognized when: a. It is the foreigner spouse who obtained the decree Otherwise void
-
b.
Reckoning point is the citizenship at the time that the valid divorce decree was obtained (Case: Republic v. Obrecido) For the Filipino spouse to be able to remarry, the decree must have also capacitated the foreign spouse to remarry This is to be proven in the petition for recognition of the decree If the petitioner is a foreigner, the judgment of the court must be limited only to the recognition of the foreign decree of absolute divorce, the court cannot authorize the foreigner to remarry. The capacity of the foreigner to remarry is governed by his national law and not by this paragraph as this law is intended only foor the benefit of the Filipino spouse. The decree, however, is a prima facie evidence of his capacity to remarry. (Case: Corpuz v. Santo Tomas) If the petitioner is the Filipino, the judgment of the court is not limietd to recognition, it can also authorize the Filipino remarry of the decree capacitates the foreign spouse to remarry, as this was provided in this paragraph. Case: Fujiki v. Marinay (see digest) (Filipina obtained the judgment declaring the second marriage as void in Japan. The first husband, a Japanese, went to the Phils. and filed a petition for the recognition of the foreign judgment, RTC dismissed the petition saying that only the H and W can do that) SC held that the law where the RTC decision was based does not
JAC 2016
6
-
apply because it will required a relitigation of the case. In a petition for recognition of a foreign judgment, the issue is limited to the matter of proving the existence of the foreign judgment as a matter of fact, there should be no relitigation of the issues.
2. 3. 4.
Par. (1) – absence of legal capacity Par. (4) – bigamous or polygamous marriages Par. (5) – mistake in identity
b. c.
Article 36 – Psychological Incapacity Article 37 Article 38
Article 53 requires the compliance of the requirements under Article 52 before parties can contarct a subsequent marriage, otherwise the subsequent marriage will be void. But the parties will not be liable for bigamy here as there is already a final judgment terminating the prior marriage.
VALIDITY OF MARRIAGES (see marriages) Question: it was the first marriage that was celebrated without a valid license then the second marriage was contracted with an afffidavit of cohabitation. Is the party to the second marriage liable of bigamy withour securing the nullity of the first marriage first? -
GR:
EXC:
YES. Although the first marriage is void, there was however a marriage ceremony, so there was an appearance of a marriage. Even if the marriage is void ab initio, the requirement of Article 40 is that before the party can contract another mrriage, he must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage otherwise he will be liable for bigamy. (party can however use the defense under Prejudicial Question, if was siya nag gamit ani, meaning no civil case was pending before the criminal case, then liable for bigamy dayon)
Marriages celebrated abroad are valid in the Phils. if they are valid in the place of celebration pursuant to lex loci celebrationis. void when under: 1.
Article 35:
VOID MARRIAGES GR:
there must be liquidation, partition and distribution of the properties which must be registered in the appropriate registry of property
marriage is void if one of the 5 requisites is absent The requirement under Article 52 and 53 does not apply to other kinds of void marriages because other void marriages are governed either by Article 147 or 148 on conownership.
EXC: 1.
2.
Article 35 par. (2) concerning the absence of the authority of the solemnizing officer where one of the parties believe in good faith that he is authorized Marriages in articulo mortis
In the case of Dino v. Dino the SC held that void marriages where there is co-ownership, there is no need for the partition, liquidation and distribution of properties before the issuance of a decree. Thus, Article 52 and 53 only applies to void marriages governed by ACP or CPP (thus only those under Article 40 and marriages annuled by final judgment under Article 45).
Void marriages: 1. 2.
Absence of 5 requisites Article 35 Par. 4 – bigamous or polygamous marriage referred to here contemplates of a situation where the first marriage is either valid or voidable (as compared with Article 40) Par. 5 – mistake in the physical identity of one of the contracting parties (ex: kalokalike, identical twins) which cannot be ratified as it is void Par. 6 – because of failure to comply with the procedural requirement of Article 53 Article 52 contemplates of a situation where there is a first marriage which was already terminated by final judgment. Article 52 requires that: a. the judgment must be registered in the appropriate civil registry
GR: if marriage is void, property regime is co-ownership under Article 147148. EXC: Article 40 and 45 governed by their marriage settlement ACP, CPP or complete separation. (The property regime here is the same as that of a valid marriage)
3.
Article 36 Psychological incapacity
JAC 2016
7
-
b.
It is different from mental insanity. It is a psychological disorder that must be grave and serious rendering the person incapable of fulfilling the essential marital obligations. It is necessary that there must be juridical antecedence and it must be incurable. Case: Marcos v. Marcos Parties need not be personally examined by a psychologist for him to be declared psychologocally incapacitated.
c. d. e. f. g.
-
-
4.
5.
May the parties be entitled to moral damages based oin the same factual background as that of the pyschological incapacity = NO. For one to be liable of moral damages it is necessary that the acts be done voluntarily, maliciously which is not present in the actions of a person suffering pyschological incapacity. (Buenaventura v. CA) (Tenebro v. CA) Even if the second marriage is declared void on the ground of psychological incapacity, it is not a defense in bigamy because the law itself says that in psychological incpacity not all effects of the marriage are wiped out (such as the liability for the commission of bigamy).
Article 37 Incestous marriages: a. Marriages between ascendant and descendant of whatever degree b. Marriages between brothers and sisters..collateral relatives within the second degree Article 38 Marriages which are void by reason of public policy: a. Marriages between in parent-in-law and children-in-law
Marriages between step-parent and stepchild Adopting parent and his surviving spouse – adopted chiild Surviving spouse of the adopted child – adopter Adopted child – legitimate child of adopter Between adopted children of the same adopter Between parties where one, with the intent to marry the other, killed the other person’s spouse or his own spouse.
Marriages between stepbrothers and stepsisters: 6.
If during NCC == void If during FC = valid
Article 40 The bigamous marriage referred to contemplates of a situation where the first marriage is void ab initio and the second marriage becomes void because one party did no secure a judicial declaration for the nullity of the first marriage Only needs to be complied with is there is a marriage ceremony in the first marriage
ARTICLE 40 Even if the marriage is void, parties are required to comply with Article 40 before they can contract a subsequent marriage. They must first secure a judicial declaration of the nullity of the first marriage otherwise the second marriage is void and they will be liable for the commission of bigamy. Effect of non-compliance: -
Second marriage is bigamous and void Commission of the crime of bigamy
Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage
-
AM 02-11-10 states that only the H or the W shall have the personality to file. Applicability: during FC Case: Enrico v. Heirs of Sps. Medina Carlos v. Sandoval Maglasa v. Republic AM 02-11-10 is applicable only to marriages contracted during the effectivity of the FC (August 3, 1988) and after March 15, 2003 as it is applied prospectively. Case: -
Llave v. Republic Fujiki v. Marinay If the ground of the petition is that the marriage is bigamous, AM 02-11-10 does not apply. If there are two marriages and the second is bigamous, the parties who have the personality to file the petition are the parties in the first marriage as they are the injured H and W.
Case: Braza v. Himamaylan City -
Validity of void marriage cannot be questioned in any other proceeding except in a proceeding directly for that purpose (cannot be collaterally attacked) filed before the family court. EXC: Case: Republic v. Olaybar (there was theft of identity, Olaybar was registered as married when in fact she is not as someone used her name. She filed a petition for cancellation and/or corection of entries in the registrar. It was opposed by the Republic as it was a collateral attack) SC allowed the petition as there was no marriage to speak of. The petition, in reality, was not for the nullity of a marriage as she
JAC 2016
8
was not the person who got married. The petition as proper. -
Where marriage is not covered by AM 02-11-10 as it was celebrated prior to the effectivty of the FC and AM 02-11-10, the parties who has the personality to file the petition are those who are the real parties in interest. If the H and W are still alive, they are the only ones who can file. If H and/or W are dead, then the real party in interest. (so if one is dead, children are already allowed) Case: Carlos v. Sandoval Party who can file must be a real party in interest. He must be party whose interest will be directly affected by the issue on the validity of the marriage. Upon the death of parents, the children acquires the personality to question the validity of the marriage as their interest is related to their successional rights. (while their parents are still alive, their interests are merely inchoate) Case: Ninal v. Bayadog -
if marriage is governed by NCC and before March 15, 2003 and one of the spouses is dead, children can file the petition
JAC 2016
9
