Civil Law Suggested Answers 1990 2006

CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006)
ANSWERS TO BAR
EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
IN
CIVIL CIVIL
CIVIL
CIVIL LAW
LAW
LAW LAW Answers
Answers
Answers
Answers toBAR
totothe
the toas
the
BAR the
BAR
as BAR as
Arranged
Arranged Arranged
as Arranged
by Topics
by Topics by1990-2006)
by(Year Topics
Topics
(Year (Year(Year
1990-2006)
Family
Heirs;
Easements;
Defense;
1990-2006) Nature
1990-2006)
Leasee &Diligence
Intestate
Home; Lessor;
DueRight
Dwelling
Heirs; of
of Way; Contracts;
inRights
Reserva
House
Requisites
Selection
(1994)
Troncal Relativity
and (1996)
Obligations
(1995) of Contracts
(1990)
(2002)
TableFORWARD
of Contents
(2003) ................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
...................................................................................................... 9844 6382
Leasee; Rescission
Heirs; 112
24
Death
Ejectment
Intestate
Family;
Filing
Suit of
Thereof; Contracts;
Heirs;
vs. Effects
Constitutional
Separate
Cancellation
Shares CivilProper
(1997)
Mandates;
of
Action; Party
Title (2005)
Need (1996)
Divorce
for
(1991)............................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................
(2003) .........................................................................................................
Reservation (2003) ...................................................................................... cannot 6382 112
have24 the98force
Ejectment Option
Marriage;
Fortuitous 45
of
Suit; official
to Buy;
Annulment;
Event;
Commodatum
Intestateprecedents.
Expired
Mechanical
Succession
Effects;
(2006) ItRequisites
is as if(2002)
Defects theBefore
Court
GENERAL PRINCIPLES
(2001)
Remarriage
(1992) (1990) were turning
Marriage; aside
Liability; from
Annulment; theCompany;
Extra-Judicial
Airline main
OBLIGATIONS .........................................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................
........................................................................... 24 112 63 98
45
Grounds topic
Subleaseof the
Partition;
Intestate case
vs.
Non-Performance
Fraud to collateral
Assignment
Succession
subjects: a dissenting opinion affirms or overrules a claim, right or
of anof 83
Civil
(1991)law
Lease;
(1997)
(1990)
Obligation vs.
Rescission
Aleatory(2004)Common
Contracts; LawGambling
.........................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
........................................................................
of Contract (2005)(2004) ..............................................................................
112obligation.
Liability; ItAirline 2563
Company; 99
Marriage;
Hidden 45
...........................................................................................................................
neither disposes nor awards anything it merely of 83
Sublease;
Non-Performance
Treasure Delay
Annulment;
Intestate (1995) in Payment
Succession
Judicial
of an Obligation
(1997)
How
Rentals
Declaration
(1998)
(2005) would
(1994)
Conditional
(1993) you compare
Obligations (2000) the....................................................................................................................................
Civil Law system
...............................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................
........................................................................
.............................................................................................................
........................................................................................................
113 Liability; expressesEmployer; the Damage
view of 2599
caused
the by64
Marriage; 46
Sublease;
Employees
dissenter.Hidden Sublessee;
Annulment;
Intestate
(CivilTreasures
(1997) Liability
Succession
Code, Legal (1997)
Paras] Separation; 83
GENERAL PRINCIPLES ....................................................................................................................................... 10
in its.........................................................................................................................................
governance and trend with that of the
.............................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................
........................................................................................................................
......................................................................
113 25 100 64 46
(1999) Civil law vs. Common Law (1997) ................................................................................................................................ 83
Prescription
(1998) Conditionalof Actions (1996)
Obligations (2003) ....................................................................................................................................
Liability; owner who
Marriage;
was in theSublease;
Annulment;
vehicle
Mortgage; Sublessee;
(1996)
Proper
IntestateParty
Pactum Liability
Succession
10
Common
(2000)
(1999)
Commissorium
Conditional
Effect
Law
of(1999)
Obiter
system?
(1990).........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
Obligations;
& Dissenting Promise (1997) .....................................................................................................................
Opinion; SC Decisions (1994) 114 Liability; 26owner100who
Marriage; 4664
Sublease;
was
Annulment; Validity;
inIntestate
Mortgage;
the vehicle
Proper Assignment
Succession
Pactum
(1998)
Party
.........................................................................................of84
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1995).........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................
Sublease
(2000)
As 10 (1990)
Commissorium
Conditional
regards
(2001) Obligations;
"governance": Effectivity
Governance in Civil This of 114 Liability; 26
100
owner
Marriage;who was
Laws 4665
Resolutory Condition (1999) .................................................................................................
Divorce
inIntestate
Mortgage;
theDecree;
vehicle
Succession;
Void
Right
(2002) Marriages
of Reserva
(1990)84
This workCOMMONvs.is
(1992) Extinguishment;
Troncal
Redemption (1999) not
Equity ofintended
Redemptionfor
Assignment of
(1999) sale
Rights or
(2001) commerce. 3) work A decisionis freeware. of &aAttyItdivision
may
CARRIERS..........................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
........................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
................................................................................ be of
freely the
.............................................................................................................
114 26
Moral Marriage;
Damages 47 Divorce
Legitime 65Decrees;
Fees
Nuisance;
(2002)
Filiation
Family ofHouse;Supreme
copied
Children Not84and 100
Law ............................................................................................................................................
is codal, statutory 10 Equity follows the Law
(1997)
Nuisance Extraordinary
per se (2006)
Extinguishment; Cause ofand
Diligence (2000)
Action written (2004) law. It is Court maybe
Marriage; set
Divorce
Moral aside
Nuisance;
Decrees;
Damages; by the
Filipino
Public Supreme
..................................................................................................................................
(2005)............................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................
..................................................................................................26 114 65 47
......................................................................................................................
Non-Recovery
Nuisance
Spouses Legitime;
becoming
vs.
Thereof Court
Private 85
(2003)......................................................................................................................................
additionally derived from case 10 Ignorance of the Law
law.........................................................................................................................
Common 27 Marriage;
100
..........................................................................................................
Alien (1996)
Compulsory
Nuisance
(2006) ...........................................................................
Extinguishment;
(2005)
Heirs ...............................................................................................
(2003) Compensation (2002) sittingDivorce en 65banc,
Quasi-Delict
Ownership;
Decrees; a Filipino
..............................................................................................................................
115 Supreme
Co-Ownership
(1992)Spouses Court
47
(1992)
becoming decision
Alien may 85
distributed,
law vs. AGENCY
Mistake nevertheless,
of PERMISSION TO COPY from the editors is ADVISABLE 11Legitime;
...................................................................................................................................................................
Fact (1996) ........................................................................................................... to protect
Inferior Courts the101
(1999)is basically
Extinguishment;
Agency (2003)
derived
Secondary
Compensation fromvs.case
Compulsory Heirs
Payment law.
................................................................................................................................
(2005) (1998) Marriage; be set
....................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................
Compulsory Heirs vs. Donations aside
by Reason by
Ownership;
of a contrary
..........................................................................
27 66 Marriage;115 48
Co-Ownership;
Effect
Quasi-Delict
........................................................................................................................................................... ruling
....................................................................................................
Preterition
of Declaration of
Prescription
(2005) of the
85
101
Decisions (1994) .................................................................................................................................. 11 Prejudicial
(2001)
(2000) ...........................................................................................................
(1996) .....................................................
Extinguishment;
Agency vs. Sale (2000)Compensation/Set-Off; Banks28 Marriage; Grounds; Supreme Declaration Court
Nullity.........................................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................... of Nullity:itself 115or
Co-Ownership;
Annulment: by
Quasi-Delict;
Legal a Acts
(1998) ................................................................................................
66 Ownership; 48 Separation:
Prescription
.............................................................................................................................................. corrective
Preterition; (2002)
contrary 85
101
As
interest Questions
regards of the (1997)
"trend": ORIGINAL ........................................................................................................................................
PERSONS...................................................................................................................................................................
Civil law is now tending to
SOURCES/REFERENCES of this material…. It is primarily 11 intended
...........................................................................................................
Separation
Compulsory
to morals (1996)
ofHeir
Property
Extinguishment;
Agency; (1999) (2003)
Condonation (2000) Marriage; Grounds; legislative
.............................................................................................................
Nullity; Annulment;
Ownership; act of
............................................................................................................................
..................... 28 67 Legal 115 Congress,
Co-Ownership;
Separation
Quasi-Delict; although
48
..........................................................................................................................
Redemption
Mismanagement
Proceedings;
(1993) said
.................................................................................................................... of 1185for
laws
rely more
Intestate
Change
Depositor’s
and
Extinguishment;
Proceedings;
Account
ofcoupledmorewith
Name;
(2006)
Jurisdiction
on an
Under
Extraordinary
RAinterest
decisions
(2004)
9048
(1997).................................................................................
Inflation
(2001)
of the
(2006) or
courts
......................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
....................................................................................
Deflation (2001) cannot
Marriage; Legal adversely
.............................................................................................
29 Ownership;116
Separation;
Vicarious affect
Co-Ownership;
Declaration
Liabilitythose
48
Redemption
of(1991) favored
.........................................................................................
67 Nullity
Succession; (2000) Death;prior 86 to
explaining101
11 the laws. Common Agency;
law is now Effects; the GuaranteeSimultaneous
Death;....................................................................................................................................... Commission Death
...........................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................
all .............................................................................................
those who Supreme
........................................................................................................
29 67 Court 116 49decision. [Civil Code,86
lawsofdesire to have a So deeper they understanding of the issues touched by the Philippine Bar
(2002)
Presumptive Legitime
Extinguishment;
(2004) (1991)
Loss (1994)
..................................................................................................................... Marriage;
Ownership;Legal Co-Ownership;
Separation;
101 Vicarious
Grounds;
Wills;
Agency;Redemption
Codicil;
Liability
RealPrescriptive
(2002)
Institution
Estate(2001) Period
Mortgageof
codifying (1998)
(1994) (2004)
Heirs; Extinguishment;
Substitution
more
Heirs Loss;
and
(2002)
more.
...........................................................................................................
Impossible
are 29 Marriage; Effectivity
..................................................................................................................
Paras).
...........................................................................................................................................
................................................................................
....................................................................................Possession
of
Separation;
Laws
49 12 117
Mutual
Wills;
Death;
Vicarious
Formalities
guilt
Effects;
Service (1993) .......................................................................................................
67Legal (2006)
Liability
Simultaneous
(1990)(2002) 86
now merging
Death ........................................................................................................................
towards similar systems. (1990)
After a devastating
(1999).................................................................................................................. 101
storm Appointment
12causing Death; of Sub-Agent
widespread
Effects;
(1998).......................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................
Extinguishment;
(1999) 29 Marriage;
.............................................................................................................................. Non-Bigamous 11750
Novation (1994).................................................................................................................................
Vicarious
Wills;
Marriages
102 68 (2006)
Holographic
Liability
General Property;
(2004)
Wills;
Real vs.vs.
Agency 87
Examinations
Simultaneous and Death its trend.
(2000) It is specially intended for
destructionlaw studentsin four from the
Central
.................................................................................................................. provinces
Luzon 12 who,
provinces,
Juridical very
CIVIL LAW
..................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................
Insertions
Personal
AdditionalExtinguishment;
Property
Special&Answers:
Cancellations
(1995)Payment
Agency ................................................................................................................
(1992) .........................................................................................
(1995) .................................................................................................................................
30 Marriage; Property
(1996)................................................................................................................ 50117Wills;68Holographic
Vicarious
Relations;
Property;
Liability
VoidReal
102 Marriages
Wills;
(2006)
Powers vs. Personal
Witnesses
(1991)
of 87
the
Capacity vs. Capacity to Act (1996)
................................................................................................... ...............................................................................................................
30the
........................................................................................................................................... executive and legislative branches of 8712
the
1. ..................................................................................................................
(1994)
Property (1997)
Liability;
Agent COMMON ................................................................................................................
(1994)Lease; Joint
LAW Liability
refers (2001) to the traditional Marriage; 50 Wills;
Psychological 68Joint
........................................................................................................................................ 117
..........................................................................................................................
Incapacity
Sower;
Wills
Vicarious
Good
(2000)Faith/
Liability;BadPublic
102 Faith Utility
(2000)
Termination;
..................................................................................................................
often, Juridical
are Capacity;
recipients Natural
of(1997) Persons
deliberately (1999) distorted government
notes from other
...............................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................... agreed
unscrupulous to enact law a special
schools law
and
part ...................................................................................................................
(1996)
(2000) .....................................................................................................................
Liability;
of
Effect
13 theoflaw
PARTNERSHIP
Solidary
Death Liability
asofdistinct
Agent (1998)
from .................................................................................................................................
legislation; it 69
30118
Usufruct
Marriage; 50
Psychological
Wills; Probate;
............................................................................................................. Incapacity
......................................................................................................................................................
of appropriating
Intrinsic
103 Validity87
103
CONFLICT
INTELLECTUAL
(2006)
(1990)
(1997) Liability; OF
Solidary Obligation
Waiver(1992) P1Wills;
Marriage; billion
Rights
LAWS.............................................................................................................................................
PROPERTY
...................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................ 31 51 Probate; for
Psychological purposes
Notarial 69
.............................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................
Incapacity
and of(2004)
Holographic relief
13
88
118
refers to the universal
Composition of Partnerships; part Spouses; of law as distinct (1994) ....................................................................................
Corporations
............................................................................................................................................... 13 103
LAND
(2006)
Wills AppilicableTRANSFER
Intellectual
(1997)
Liability; Laws;
Creation
Solidary laws &governing
(2004)
Obligation; and rehabilitation for the provinces.
(1992) .....................................................................................................
DEEDS...............................................................................................................................
contracts
........................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................
Mutual Guaranty In
.................................................................................................
51rewarded
31 Marriage; view
Relative 88 13
69 of
from
students. particular
Conveyance
Applicable
Share Laws;
oflocal
toaArts customs
others
Partner’s
15, 16 &
this
Share (Encyclopedia
17 (1998)
work and(2003)
Dissolution you (1998) the urgent
Wills; RevocationRequisites
nature31 of
of Wills; Dependent
in(1995)
will..................................................................................................
be richly bythe Godlegislative heaven.
..................................................................................................................... It is also
enactment, 13
Revocation
Americana,118
Acquisition
Loss (2003)
of the ...............................................................................
of Lands;
thing
Vol. 7). On the due;Citizenship
Force Requirement
Majeure
other hand, CIVIL (2000) (2003) .................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................... 51
................................................................................................................
Wills; Testamentary Disposition
Marriage; Requisites (1999) 69 88
103 Dissolution of it is provided in Partnership
its effectivity clause (1995)
that
(2006) Applicable
Adverse
Non-Payment
is understood Laws;
Claims; ofNoticeArts of
to15,
Amortizations;
be Levy16, (1998)
that 17Subdivision
(2002)
branch ........................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................................................
LAW........................................................................................................................
law When justified (2005) ...................................................................
Buyer;
of
.............................................................................................................................. 52 Wills;32
103 Marriage;
Testamentary
DissolutionRequisites;
Intent
of (1996)
Marriage 69
Partnership; 89 it
14
very good
Applicable karma. Laws; Capacity to Act (1998)
................................................................................................................................
LicenseAnnotation
governing ............................................................................................................
theof relationship
(1996) Suspensive
Period; Lis Pendens;
Period (1991) When of Proper
persons (2001)in shall take effect
52
32 Marriage; upon approval
......................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
Requisites; Marriage License and 70
89 after
14
Termination (1993) ..........................................................................................................
completion of publication 104 Effect of inDeath the of Partner
DONATION
(2002)
respect
Applicable
of their
Laws;
Lands Capacity
(2000) to Buy Land (1995) ............................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................
Foreshore 33
................................................................................................................................................................
TRUST.........................................................................................................................................................................
personal and private interests Marriage; Requisites; Solemnizing OfficersOfficial
705215
89
(1997)................................................................................................................................
Applicable Laws; Capacity to Contract (1995) Gazette and a newspaper 104 of Obligations
general ofcirculation
.............................................................................................................. a Partner 15
(1994)
as Donation
Forgery;
Express
distinguished vs.
Innocent
Trust;Sale (2003)
Prescription
from ..............................................................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................
Purchaser; both Holder
(1997)
public in Bad Faith (2005) .............................................................................................
33 Marriage; Requisites; Void Marriage (1993)
..............................................................................................................................
and 70 52
(1992) .................................................................................................................................. 104was Obligations of 15 a
ARRANGED BY TOPIC
Applicable
Forgery; Laws;
Condition;
Innocent capacity Capacity toMirror
succeed
to Sue (1991)(1991)
(1996) in the33Philippines. The law (2004) passed by
...............................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................
Donations; .................................................................................................. 7152the
89
international
Partner; laws.Purchaser;
Industrial Partner (2001)
Principle Implied Marriage; Void Marriages
..................................................................................................... 104 Trust
In C OMMODATUM
common
Applicable
Donations;
Fraud; Laws; lawcontracts
Conditions;
Procurement of& M
countries, UTUUM Effectthe
contrary
Revocation
Patent; to traditional
(1991)
(2000) public Congress on July 1, 1990. signed (2006)
policy (1996) ........................................................................................
...................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................. 34 Marriage; Void Marriages into law
.................................................................................................................................... 715315by 104
We (1998).....................................................................................................................................................
would like to seek the indulgence of the reader for some Bar Questions which are 90 Trust;
improperly
Commodatum
responsibility
Applicable
Homestead Laws;
Patents;(1993)
Effect;has Contracts.................................................................................................................................................
illegal
Void for
Sale the
of most
Carriage part been
(1995) the President on July 3, 1990, and
(1997).................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................................
Donations; 34 publication
&(1995)...........................................................................................................................
immoral
(1999) conditions Marriage; Void Marriages; published
............................................................................................................ 7153
Psychological
104
16 in
Implied Resulting Trust (a) As to the
SALES.......................................................................................................................................................................... of said legislative 91
Incapacity
Commodatum
with
Applicable
Donations;
Innocent the
(2002) judges;
Laws;
Formalities;
Purchaser (2005)
forin
Labor civil
Mortis
Value .................................................................................................................................................
Contracts law
(2001) Causa countries,
(1991) the such newspaper of general circulation
....................................................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................
(1990) 35 Parental Authority; Child under 7 years of age on72 54July91
16
enactment, is there sufficient observance(1998)
Subrogation (1993) ............................................................................................................... or91
classified
(2006)task
Assignment of Credit vs. Commodatum
105
Applicable
Donations;
Mirror under
isPrinciple Laws;
primarily a topic
Formalities; laws
(1990) reposed andCausa
governing
Mortis for
on the some
marriages
(1998) 1990 – 2006)
topics
(1992)
lawmakers. ( which vs.
7, 1990
are and
improperly in the Usufruct
Official
or Special
ignorantly Gazette
Parentalphrased,
...............................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................
Applicable Laws; laws governing marriages (2003) 1990.
35 Parental
compliance Authority;
with
Conditional Sale vs. Absolute Sale (1997) .................................................................................................................... the
105 requirements
Mutuum
Authority;
vs.
on
..................................................................................................... July
for72
for aLiability
Commodatum
.....................................................................................................
valid 5491
17
10,
the
17
Contemporary
Donations;
Mirror
of Teachers Principle;
(2003) practices, Innocenthowever, (1993) ..................................................................................................................
.................................................................
Inter Forgery;
Vivos; Acceptance Purchaser so ..................................................................................................
(1999) 35 Parental (b) Authority;
When Substitute
did the vs. Special
law 106 (2004)effect?
take 735491
Contract of
(2004) publication? Explain
Sale vs. Agency to Sell (1999) ...................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................. your answer.Mutuum; Interests
Applicable
indicate
Donations;
Notice of Lisa Laws;
trend
Perfection
Pendens Saletowards
of Real
(1998)
(1995) Property
centralizing (1995).............................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................
that
.......................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................... (c) 35 Paternity
Can & Filiation
the executive (1999) branch start 735417
authors Contract
(2001) are ofjustSale;Bar MaritalReviewees Community who Property; have prepared
Formalities Explain
(2006)this your answer.
work while reviewing for 106
........................................................................................................................................... the BarMutuum;
............................................................................... Exams 91
Applicable
function
Donations;
Notice of Lis Laws;
toPendens; Succession;
professional
Requisites; Transfereegroups
Immovable Intestate
Property
Pendente Lite & Testamentary
that(2002) (2001)
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................
may..............................................................................................
releasing and disbursing 36 Paternity & Filiation;
funds Artificial
appropriated 55
73 92 18
Contract to Sell
Interests (2002)(2001) .................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................... 106
Applicable
indeed,
Donations;
Prescription
Insemination; see Laws; the
Unregistered;
& Laches;
Formalities Sucession
gradual
(2006) Elements of assimilation
Aliens
of Laches (1995)
(2000) ...............................................................................................................
in time
...................................................................................
Effects; Non-Compliance; Resolutory by Condition
the said (2006)
law .......................................................
......................................................................................................
36 thePaternity
day & Filiation; Common-Law
following its 7455
approval? 18
under Contract
time
Mutuum; to Sell
constraints vs.
Interests Contract(2004) of
and Civil. Sale
within (1997)their ..................................................................................................................
limited knowledge of the law. We would like
...........................................................................................................................................
First Edition to seek 92
the107
Unionof Applicable
both
Donations;
Prescription
(2004) Laws;
systems.
Validity;
& Laches; Wills executed
[Vitug,
Effectivity;
Indefeasibility abroad
for Unborn
Rule Law (1993) and Title-(2002)
Edited
.........................................................................................................
Child
of Torrens (1999) and Arranged
Explain your answer. 36 Paternity by:&
DEPOSIT...................................................................................................................................................................
...........................................................................................................
..............................................................................................
..............................................................................
Filiation; Proofs; 74
Limitations; 5518
2. Contract
106 In Civilto Sell;Law, Acceptance;
the statutes First Refusal (1991) ..........................................................................................
Right oftheoretically 92
Adopted Compensation;
Definition;
Jurisprudence,
Donations;
Prescription
Child (1995) Cognovit;
with
(1990) Bank Loan
Borrowing (1997)
Statute; Characterization July 26, 2005
..............................................................................................................................
(1994) ................................................................................
...............................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
p.
Resolutory XX)
...................................................................................
Condition (2003) 36 Paternity & Filiation; Recognition of illegitimate 75 56 18
take Double
precedence Sales (2001) ..................................................................................................................................................... 92
reader’s
Child 107
Definition;indulgence Realover
forum forcourt
non-conveniens; decisions Atty. Janette
of long-arm
typographical statute (1994)
....................................................................................... Laggui-Icao
Deposit;
errors in
37 this work.and
.........................................................................................
a lot..................................................................................................................................
PROPERTY................................................................................................................................................................
Prescription;
(2005) Rights (1992) Paternity & Filiation; Rights of Legitimate Children Exchange7556
(1990) 19
Double
interpreting Sales them; (2004) .....................................................................................................................................................
while in Common Law, the 93
(1992)..........................................................................................................................................
Divorce; effect of divorce granted to former
...........................................................................................
Primary
Accretion; Entry Book;
Alluvion Acquisitive
(2001) Prescription; Filipinos;
Atty. Alex Andrew P. Icao
Laches (1998) 37Renvoi Doctrine
Presumptive (1997)
Legitime .............................................................
SURETY....................................................................................................................................................................
(1999) 107
......................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................... 76 19 107
court Equitable
decisions Mortgage resolving (1991) ..........................................................................................................................................
specific cases are 93
Domiciliary
Recovery
Reclamation
56 Accretion; theory
of Deficiency
of Foreshore
Avulsion vs. Nationality
Lands; (1997)
(2003) Theory
Limitations (2004) ..........................................................................................................
(Silliman
(2000) University College of Law) Property Relations; Absolute 76 19
...................................................................................................
....................................................................................................................................... 38
...................................................................................................................................
regarded Equitable as Mortgage vs. Sale (2005) .............................................................................................................................. 93
Community Forum
107
Registration; Nonlaw
(1994) rather
Conveniens &than Lex(1994) the.........................................................................................................................
Loci statutes (2002) .................................................................................................
Contractus
.........................................................................................................
Deed of Mortgage
.......................................................................................................................................... 38 Property56Relations;Builder;Ante Good Faith77 94
Nuptial 19
themselves ANTICHRESIS........................................................................................................................................................
Immovable Property; Rescission of Contract (2003) ....................................................................................................
which are, at the start, merely 107
Agreement Nationality
Remedies;
(1995)Judicial Theory (2004)
Confirmation; .............................................................................................................................................
Imperfect Title (1993) ..............................................................................................
.....................................................................................................
(1992)........................................................................................................................................... 39 Property Relations;57 Conjugal
Builder; 77 94
Partnership
Good 20
Antichresis
Maceda Law (2000) (1995) .....................................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................................................................
Latest Edition – Edited and Arranged by:
embodiments
of Gains Naturalization
Remedies;
(1998)
Faith vs.Law; of(2003)
Judicial
Bad case
Faith law. Civil
Reconstitution
(1999) Law
of Title (1996)is code law
...................................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................
........................................................................................... 39 Property Relations; Marriage Settlement;
..................................................................................................................... 77 20
Conjugal
57 Builder;
107 PLEDGE
Maceda Recto Law (1999) ....................................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................................................................................... 95 108
or written
Theory;
Remedies;
Partnership
Good law,
ofFaith while
significant
Procedure;
Gains vs. (2005) Bad Common
relationships
Faith (1994) Law
theory isROMUALDO
(1994)case law. L. SEÑERIS II
............................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................
..........................................................
Consulta 39 Property Relations; Marriage Settlements (1991)
(2000) ..................................................................................................................... 5777 20
Pledge
Option
The Authors
Civil LawPrescriptive (1994)
Contract
adopts (2002)
the ................................................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
deductive method Silliman
- from University College of Law 95
Torts;
Builder; Good Period
Faith (2004)
vs.
vs. .................................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
Remedies; Reconveyance Reopening
Bad Faith; of a Decree; Prescriptive Period Relations; Marriage Settlements (1995)78 21
(2003) ........................................................
40 Property
108
Option Contract; Earnest Money (1993)Accession (2000)
.......................................................................................................................
Pledge (2004) 95
the general to the particular, Elementswhile the
ADOPTION.................................................................................................................................................................
(1995) ................................................................................................................
.........................................................................................................
Remedies; Reconveyance;
................................................................................................... 4058 Property
Builder; Relations;
Good Obligations;
Faith vs. BadBenefit
Faith; of the Family
Presumption78 21
Common Perfected
Law Sale;
uses Acceptance
the Prescriptive of
inductive Earnest Money
approach (2002)
- ..................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................ 108 Pledge; 95
Adoption;
(2000) Remedies; Use of Surname
Reconveyance; of her(2001) Natural
......................................................................................
Period Mother
(2001)................................................................................................ (2006)
(1997) .................................................................................................
..............................................................................................
41 Property Relations; 58 Chattel Unions without vs.
Mortgage Marriage
Pledge (1992)
(1999)
........................................................................................................................ 79 96 21
from Mortgage;
Redemption;
the particular Antichresis
Legal; Formalities(1996) ........................................................................................................................
QUASI-CONTRACT..............................................................................................................................................
to 108
Inter-Country
Remedies; Reopening Adoption; of athe Decree; general.
Formalities Elements(2005) Common ....................................................................................................
(1992)..................................................................................................................
.................................................................................................... 41
............................................................................................................................. Property Relations; Unions 58 without
Chattel Marriage (1997)
Mortgage; Immovables 79 108
Law relies
21
From
Redemption;
Quasi-Contracts;on the
Legal;
equity. ANSWERS
Formalities
Negotiorium
Civil Law (2002)
Gestio
anchors
....................................................................................................
Torrens System Parental
vs. Recording of Evidence Authority;
TO
(1992) itselfBAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS
........................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................
of Title (1994) ...........................................................................................
41 Property Relations;ofUnions59
Rescission without Adoption
Marriage (2000) 80(1994)
96
(1994)..........................................................................................................................
Right of First Refusal;Quasi-Contracts; Chattel
Lessee; Effect (1996) ................................................................................................................ Mortgage; 96
on the 109 by
letter
Unregistered
Immovables
Right of
the
First
ofLandtheUP law.
(1991) LAW The civilists COMPLEX are for the & Philippine
Negotiorium Association Gestio
............................................................................................................................................
......................................................................................................
.................................................................................................... 42 21
(2003)..........................................................................................................................
Refusal; Lessee; Effect (1998)
Qualification of
59 of LawAdopter
Chattel
................................................................................................................
(1993)
8097
.............................................................................................................
law even as(1993)the Common Law Is 109 Quasi-Contracts;22 Negotiorium
SUCCESSION...........................................................................................................................................................
judge-proof Gestio
judge-made
(2005)
CONTRACTS
Mortgage; Possession Schools
....................................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................................
............................................................................................................................................................
Right of.............................................................................................................
(1995) Repurchase
law. Civil
(1993)
Law judges are merely 109 Quasi-Contracts;
Qualification
......................................................................................................................................... Solutio
60 42
Indebiti
80of
97
Amount
Adopter;
Consensual
Chattel
Effect (2004)
of Obiter of Successional
Applicable
Mortgage;
& vs. Real
Dissenting Law
Preference Rights
(2001) of
Contracts;
Opinion; (2004)
Kinds
SC Creditors of........................................................................................................................
..........................................................................................................
Decisions Real Contracts
(1995) (1998) 22 Qualifications
..................................................................................
of Ownership; Non-Payment of the Price (1991) .............................................................................................
Transfer.................................................................................................................... 110 97
supposed
(1994)
2) What 42
of
80 TORTS
Barrier
Transfer
to apply
Adopter
Consideration;
are ofthe
& binding
betweenDAMAGES
Ownership;
laws
(2000)
Validity and..................................................................................................................................
illegitimate not &of interpret
legitimate them. (1993)
relatives
...........................................................................................................................................
........................................................................................................
Riskeffects
of Loss (1990) an obiter 60 Easement vs. Usufruct
................................................................................................................. 97 22 110
dictumCollapse
and aofdissenting
Qualifications Structures;
of AdopterLast Clear..................................................................................................................................
(2003) Chance
How(1990)
............................................................................................. 42 Barrier between illegitimate 80
(2000)......................................................................................................................................
(1995)......................................................................................................................................
opinion? 3) & legitimate
60 Contract
Easement; ofrelatives
can ......................................................................................................
Option;
Effects;
110
23 LEASE..........................................................................................................................................................................
(1996) .............................................................................................
Successional Rights of 43 Collation
Adopted (1993) Child Damages
(2004) 97
FAMILY
Elements
Discontinuous
a decision CODE..........................................................................................................................................................
of
Extinguishment; (2005)............................................................................................................................
the Easements;
Supreme
Total Permissive
Court
Distruction; be
Leased Use
set (2005)
aside?
Property (1993) 81
........................................................................ Inexistent
61 Easement; 23
.........................................................................................
...........................................................................................................................................................
Contracts
Emancipation
Nuisance;
ALTERNATIVE vs. Annullable
Abatement
ANSWERS: Contracts
(2002) 23 43 Disinheritance
(1994).........................................................................................................................................................
..............................................................................................................
(2004)...................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................... 6181 Lease
(1993) .................................................................................................................................................... 111
97
vs.Obiter
2) None. Preterition
Damages dictum (1993)
and opinions are not Implied
necessary to the of New
............................................................................................................................
arising from Death Unborn Child 43 (1991)
Nature
Easements; of Contracts;
Classification Obligatoriness (1991)..................................................................................................................
(1998).................................................................................................................................
23 Family Code; Retroactive Application; Vested Rights
(1999)............................................................................................................................................
determination of a case. They
Disinheritance; are not binding
Ineffective (1999) and 98 Lease of Rural
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................. 111 Damages arising from
81
62
LandsNature
Easements;
(2000) of Contracts;
Right Privity
of Way of Contract (1996)
(2000)........................................................................................ 24 Death of98Unborn Child
........................................................................................................................................
43 Disinheritance;
(2003) Ineffective; Preterition (2000)
.................................................................................................
............................................................................................................ 82 111 62 Easements;
(1993).................................................................................................................................. Page
Death 5Right
7
8 of of
Indemnity119
.............................................................................................................. 44
(1994).............................................................................................................................................. 111
Way (2000).................................................................................................................................. 62 Easements; Right
of Way; Inseparability (2001) ........................................................................................................... 62
but never against statutory law. (Toyota Motor Phil. 1. The
V civil action involves an issue similar or
CA SCRA 236 [1992]).
216 intimately
Ignorance of the Law vs. Mistake of Fact

(1996)
Is there any difference in their legal effect
between ignorance of the law and ignorance or
mistake ofANSWER:
SUGGESTED fact?
Yes, there is a difference. While ignorance of
the law is not an excuse for not complying
with it, ignorance of fact eliminates criminal
intent as long as there is no negligence (Art,
NCC). In addition, mistake on a doubtful or
difficult question of law may be the basis of
good faith (Art. 526. NCC). Mistake of fact
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:vitiate consent in a contract
may, furthermore,
Yes. ignorance of the law differs in legal effect
and make it voidable (Art. 1390. NCC).
from Ignorance or mistake of fact. The former
does not excuse a party from the legal
consequences of his conduct while the latter
does constitute an excuse and is a legal
Inferior
defense. Courts Decisions
(1994)
Are decisions of the Court of Appeals considered
laws?
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
1) a) No, but decisions of the Court of
Appeals may serve as precedents for inferior
courts on points of law not covered by any
Supreme Court decision, and a ruling of the
Court of Appeals may become a doctrine.
(Miranda vs.. Imperial 77 Phil. 1066).
b) No. Decisions of the Court of Appeals
merely have persuasive, and therefore no
mandatory effect. However, a conclusion or
pronouncement which covers a point of law
still undecided may still serve as judicial guide
and it is possible that the same maybe raised
to the status of doctrine. If after it has been
subjected to test in the crucible of analysis,
the Supreme Court should find that it has
merits and qualities sufficient for its
Prejudicial Questions
consideration as a rule of jurisprudence (Civil
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1997)
In the Paras). (a) Yes, there is sufficient compliance. The
context that the term is used in Civil Law, state
Code, law itself prescribes the requisites of
(a)
the concept, (b) requisites and (c)
consequences of a prejudicial question. publication for its effectivity, and all requisites
SUGGESTED ANSWER: have been complied with. (Article 2, Civil
(a) Concept A prejudicial question is one (b) The law takes effect upon compliance with
Code)
which must be decided first before a criminal all the conditions for effectivity, and the last
action may be instituted or may proceed condition was complied with on July 10, 1990.
because a decision therein is vital to the Hence, the" law became effective on that date.
judgment in the criminal case. In the case of (c) No. It was not yet effective when it was
People vs. Adelo Aragon (L5930, Feb. 17, approved by Congress on July 1, 1990 and
1954), the Supreme Court defined it as one approved by the President on July 3, 1990.
which arises in a case, the resolution of which The other requisites for its effectivity were not
question is a logical antecedent of the issues yet complete at the time.
involved in said case and the cognizance of Equity follows the Law
which pertains to another tribunal (Paras, Vol. (2003)
It is said that “equity follows the law” What do
(b)
1, Civil. Code Annotation, 1989 ed. p, 194). you understand by this phrase, and what are
Requisites its basic implications? 5%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
“Equity Follows the law” means that courts
exercising equity jurisdiction are bound by
rules of law and have no arbitrary discretion to
disregard them. (Arsenal v IAC, 143 SCRA 40
[1986]). Equity is applied only in the absence
Page 10 of 119
of
related to the issue raised in the criminal
2. the and
action, resolution of such issue determines
whether or not the criminal action may
proceed.
(c) Consequences The criminal case must be
suspended. Thus, in a criminal case for
damages to one's property, a civil action that
involves the ownership of said property should
first be resolved (De Leon vs. Mabanag. 38
Phil. 202)
PERSONS
Change of Name; Under RA 9048
(2006)
Zirxthoussous delos Santos filed a petition for
change of name with the Office of the Civil
Registrar of Mandaluyong City under the
administrative proceeding provided in
Republic Act No. 9048. He alleged that his first
name sounds ridiculous and is extremely
difficult to spell and pronounce. After
complying with the requirements of the law,
the Civil Registrar granted his petition and
changed his first name Zirxthoussous to
Jesus delos
"Jesus." Santos
His moved now
full name to General
reads Santos
"JesusCity to
delos
work in
Santos." a multi-national company. There, he fell in
love and married Mary Grace delos Santos. She
requested him to have his first name changed
because his new name "Jesus delos Santos" is the
same name as that of her father who abandoned her
family and became a notorious drug lord. She
wanted to forget him. Hence, Jesus filed another
petition with the Office of the Local Civil Registrar
to change his first name to "Roberto." He claimed
that the change is warranted because it will
Will the petition
eradicate forofchange
all vestiges of name
the infamy of MaryofGrace's
Jesus
delos
father. Santos to Roberto delos Santos under
Republic Act No. 9048 prosper? Explain. (10%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: No, under the law, Jesus
may only change his name once. In addition,
the petition for change of name may be denied
(1) the following
on Jesus is neither ridiculous, nor tainted
grounds:
with dishonor nor extremely difficult to write
(2) There is no confusion to be avoided or
or pronounce.
created with the use of the registered first
name or nickname of the petitioner.
(3) The petition involves the same entry in
the same document, which was previously
corrected or changed under this Order [Rules
and Regulations Implementing RA 9048].
1 The prejudicial question must be

determinative of the case before the court.
2 Jurisdiction to try said question must be
lodged in another tribunal.
ADDITIONAL ANSWER:
Juridical capacity,
spelling, visible to as thedistinguished
eyes or from obvious capacity
to conditions
absolute
the
to community
detrimental amounting
to the moral to 1 well-being
Million Pesos. of their
and
the former
can be
understanding,
act: (a) is passive
corrected whileor the changed
latter isonly active,by wife,
children
His will,acting
therefore,
in theinherit
movies O.25
is inMillion
violation
Pesos
of the
andFamily
his parents
Code will
and
inherit laws.
Labor 0.25 Million
Thus, the
Pesos.
waiver
When is invalid
Mrs. Cruz
and not
died,
binding.
she was
reference
(b) the former to other is inherent
existing in records.
a person Provided,
while succeeded by her parents as her intestate heirs. They will inherit all
however,
the latter that is merelyno correction
acquired, must (c) the involve
formerthe is of her estate consisting of her 0.5 Million half share in the absolute
change
lost onlyofthrough
nationality, death age, while
status theorlatter
sex ofmay the community and her 0.25 Million inheritance from her husband, or a
petitioner.
be lost through death or restricted by causes TheofChild
total Labor
0.750 Million Law is a mandatory and
Pesos.
other than death, and Id) the former can exist prohibitory law and the rights of the child
Death; Effects;
without capacity Simultaneous
to act while Death
the latter cannot cannot be waived as it is contrary to law and
Juridical
(1998)
Jaime,without
exist who Capacity;
is juridical
65, and Naturalhis Persons
son,
capacity. Willy, who is 25, public policy.
(1999)
Elated
died in that a plane her crash.
sister There
who had is no beenproofmarried
as to In sum, the parents of Mr. Cruz will inherit
for five years was pregnant
who died first. Jaime's only surviving heir is for the first time, CONFLICT OF LAWS
250,000 Pesos while the parents of Mrs. Cruz
Alma donated P100,000.00
his wife, Julia, who is also Willy's mother. to the unborn will inherit 750,000 Pesos.
child.
Willy'sUnfortunately,
surviving heirs theare baby hisdied one hour
mother, Julia (b) This being a case of succession, in the
1. Inhis
after
and thedelivery.
settlement
wife, Wilma. Mayof Jaime's
Almaestate, recover can the Appilicable
absence Laws; of proof laws governing
as to the contracts
time of death of
Wilma successfully
P100.000.00 that claimshe had that donated
her late to said (1992)
X andof
each Y entered
the spouses, into aitcontract
is presumed in Australia,
they died
husband,
baby before Willy it had
was aborn hereditary
considering share thatsincethe he whereby
at the same it wastime agreed
and nothat X would build
transmission a
of rights
SUGGESTED
was much
baby died?ANSWER:
younger
Stated than his father
otherwise, is theand, donation commercial
from one to building the otherfor is Y in the Philippines,
deemed to have taken
The donation
therefore, is valid
should be and binding,
presumed being an act and
place. in payment
Therefore, foreach
the construction,
of them is deemed Y will to
valid and binding? Explain. (5%)to have
favorable
2. Suppose
survived to
longer?the
Jaime[3%] unborn child,
had a life insurance but only if the
policy transfer
have an and estate convey
valued hisatcattle ranch located
P500,000,00, or one- in
baby
with his hadwife, an intra-uterine
Julia, and his life son,ofWilly,not less
as the than the
halfUnited
of their States
conjugalin favor of X. What
property of P1law million.
seven months Can
beneficiaries. andWilma pro-vided there was
successfully claimdue would govern: a) parents
Their respective The validity will of thustheinherit
contract? the
acceptance of the donation
that one-half of the proceeds should belong by the proper
to b) The performance
entire P1 Millionof in the contract?
equal shares, c) The of
person
SUGGESTED representing
Willy's estate? ANSWER: |2%J said child. If the child had Death;
consideration
P500,000.00 Effects;per ofSimultaneous
the
set contract?
of parents. Death
1.
lessNo,than Wilmasevencannot monthssuccessfully
of intra-uterine claimlife,that it (2000)
b) Cristy and
SUGGESTED ANSWER: her late husband Luis had two
Willy
is not had deemed a hereditary
born sinceshare it died in less
his father's
than 24 (a) The validity
children, Rose of and thePatrick,
contract Onewillsummer,
be her
estate. Under Art. 43, Civil
hours following its delivery, in which ease the Code, two persons governed
mother-in-law, aged 70, took the twothe
by Australian law, because children,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: validity refers to the
"who
donation are nevercalled to succeed
became each other"
effective since are the then aged 10 and 12,element
with herofon the making
a boat tripofto
Even
presumed if the tobaby
have haddied anatintra-uterine
the same life in
time, of the (Optional
contract in Addendum:"...
this case. unless the parties
donee never became a person, birth being Cebu. Unfortunately, the vessel sank en route,
more
the than seven
absence months
ofofproof as to andwhichthe donation
of them died was agreed to be bound by another law".}
determinative personality. and the bodies of the three were never found.
properly accepted, it would
first. This presumption of simultaneous death be void for not
None of the survivors ever saw them on the
having
applies conformed
in cases involving with the the proper form. In
question of water.
(b) The On the settlement
performance of her mother-in-
will be governed by the
order
SUGGESTED
successionto beANSWER:
valid,
as the donation
between the twoand whoacceptance
died, who
2. Yet, Wilma can invoke the presumption of law's
law of estate,
the Cristy
Philippines files
where a claim
the for a share
contract is toof
of personal
in this case are property
mutual exceeding
heirs, being fivefather
thousand and
survivorship andin claim that one-half her estate
(c) performed.
be on the ground
The consideration will be governed by that the same was
pesos
son. should be writing. (Article 748, of par.the
3)
Waiver
proceedsof should Rights belong to Willy's estate, inherited
United
the law States by her children
the where the ranch is located.
of ANSWER: from their
SUGGESTED
(2004)
B.
underDON, Sec. an 3American
(jj) par. 5businessman,
Rule 131, Rules secured of grandmother
(Optional
No, her Addendum:
action in will
representation
Innotthe prosper.
foregoing of Since
their father,
cases, when
there
parental
Court, as consent
the disputefor the employment
does not involve of five was no proof as to who died first, allthem.
and
the she
foreign inherited
law would the
apply, samethe from
absence of proof
the Will
three of
minors to play certain
succession. Under this presumption, the roles in two movies he her
that action
foreign prosper?
law would (2%)
render
are deemed to have died at the same time and Philippine law
was
person producing
between the at ageshome of 15 in and Makati.
60 years Theyis applicable under the "eclectic theory".)
there was no transmission of rights from one
worked at odd hours of
deemed to have survived one whose age was the day and night, but ALTERNATIVE
to another,
Applicable
ANSWER:
Laws; applying
Arts 16 Article
15, not & prosper.
17 43 of the New
always accompanied by
over 60 at the time of their deaths. The estate parents or other No, her
Civil Code. action will Under Article
(1998)
Juan is a Filipino citizen residing in Tokyo,
adults.
of Willy The producer
endowed with paid the children
juridical talent 43
personality Japan.
of the New Civil Code, inasmuch
State what laws govern:
as there is
Death;
But
fees
stands a Effects;
atsocial
rates
in place Simultaneous
worker,
better than
andDEB, adult
steadDeath
reported
wages. to OSWD
of Willy, as no proof as to who died first, all the three are
(1999)
Mr.
that andtheseMrs.children
Cruz, who often
are childless,
missed going met with to 1 His capacity to contract marriage in
beneficiary. presumed to have died at the same time and
a seriousThey
school. motorsometimes
vehicle accident drankwith wine,Mr. aside
Cruz Japan, [ 1%]
there could be no transmission of rights among
at thebeing
from wheelexposedand Mrs. to Cruz
drugs. seatedIn some beside scenes,
him, 2 His successional rights as regards his
them. Her children not having inherited from
resulting
they were in thefilmedinstant naked
death or of Mr. in Cruz.
revealing
Mrs. deceased Filipino father's property in Texas,
their grandmother. Cristy has no right to share
Cruz was still
costumes. In his alivedefense,
when help DON came contended but she all U.S.A. [1%]
in her mother-inlaw's estate. She cannot share
also died
these were on partthe way of artistic
to the freedom hospital. The and 3 The extrinsic validity of the last will
in her own right as she is not a legal heir of her
couple acquired
cultural creativity. propertiesNoneworth of the One parents
Million and testament which Juan executed while
mother-in-law. The survivorship provision of
(P1 ,000,000.00)
complained, saidPesos DON.during He theiralso said marriage,they sojourning in Switzerland. [2%]
Rule 131 of the Rules of Court does not apply
which are
signed a contract
being claimed containing by the a parents
waiver of of their
both 4 The intrinsic validity of said will. (1%)
to the problem. It applies only to those cases
(b) Suppose in the preceding inquestion, of both Juridical
What Capacity vs. Capacity toRegistry
Act
spouses
right to in fileequal
any shares.
complaint Is the any
claimoffice both
or where entries
the issueininvolved the Civil is not succession. may be
Is the
Mr. and
sets
tribunal waiver
Mrs. Cruz
of parents
concerningvalid and
valid andwere binding?
the working
why?already(3%) Why or
dead when
conditions why (1996)
Distinguish juridical
of changed or corrected without a judicial capacity from capacity to act,
order?
not?
help Explain.
came, so (5%)
that no-body could say who died SUGGESTED
(2.5%) ANSWER:
ANSWER: Only clerical or
their children acting in the movies. JURIDICAL CAPACITY is the fitness to be the
SUGGESTED
ahead of the ANSWER:
other, would your answer be the typographical errors and first or nick names
The waiver is not valid. Although the contracting parties may subject
may be changedof legal relations
or corrected while CAPACITY
without TO
a judicial
same
establishto the
such question
stipulations, as to
clauses, termswho andare entitled
conditions as theyto
SUGGESTED
the deem
may properties ANSWER:
convenient, ofthey
themay deceased
not do so if couple? (2%)to
such are contrary
ACT
order is the
under power
RA 9048. or to do acts with legal
(a) No, the claim of both parents is not valid. When Mr. Cruz died,
law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy (Article ClericalTheorformer
effect. typographical
is inherent errors in everyrefer natural to
he was succeeded by his wife and his parents as his intestate heirs
1306, Civil Code). The parents' waiver to file a complaint concerning mistakes
person and committed
is lost only in the
through performance
death while of
who will share his estate equally. His estate was 0.5 Million pesos
the working
which is his half share in the clerical
the latter work in writing,
is merely acquired copying,and may transcribing
be lost
ALTERNATIVE
or typing
even beforean ANSWER;entry
death (Art.in 37, the NCC).
civil register. The
mistake is harmless and innocuous, such as
errors in
father was a Filipino citizen, Philippine law governs
successional rights.
Juan's (2). With respect to Felipe the divorce is valid,
but with respect to Felisa it is not. The divorce
ANOTHER ANSWER: will not capacitate Felisa to remarry because
2. Juan's successional rights are governed by she and Felipe were both Filipinos at the time
Philippine law, pursuant to Article 1039 and of their marriage. However, in DOJ Opinion
the second paragraph of Article 16, both of the No. 134 series of 1993, Felisa is allowed to
Civil Code. Article 1039, Civil Code, provides remarry because the injustice sought to be
that capacity to succeed shall be governed by corrected by Article 26 also obtains in her
the "law of the nation" of the decedent, i.e.. his SUGGESTED ANSWER:
case.
national law. Article 16 provides in paragraph B. The foreigner who executes his will in the
two that the amount of successional rights, Philippines may observed the formalities
order of succession, and intrinsic validity of 1. The Lawin:
described of the country of which he is a
testamentary succession shall be governed by citizen under Article 817 of the New Civil
the "national law" of the decedent who is 2. the
Code, law
or of the Philippines being the law of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
identified as a Filipino inof
the present the place of execution under Article 17 of the
3. The extrinsic validity Juan's willproblem.
is New Civil Code.
governed by (a) Swiss law, it being the law SUGGESTED ANSWER:
where the will was made (Art. 17. 1st par. C. Philippine law will not govern the intrinsic
Civil Code), or (b) Philippine law, by validity of the will. Article 16 of the New Civil
implication from the provisions of Art. 816, Code provides that intrinsic validity of
Civil Code, which allows even an alien who is testamentary provisions shall be governed by
abroad to make a will in conformity with our the National Law of the person whose
SUGGESTED
Civil Code.ANSWER: succession is under consideration. California
4. The intrinsic validity of his will is governed law will govern the intrinsic validity of the will.
by Philippine law, it being his national law. Applicable Laws; Capacity to Act
(Art. 16, Civil Code) (1998)
Francis Albert, a citizen and resident of New
Jersey, U.S.A., under whose law he was still a
Applicable Laws; Arts 15, 16, 17 minor, being only 20 years of age, was hired by
(2002)
Felipe and Felisa, both Filipino citizens, were ABC Corporation of Manila to serve for two
married in Malolos, Bulacan on June 1, 1950. years as its chief computer programmer. But
In 1960 Felipe went to the United States, after serving for only four months, he resigned
becoming a U.S. citizen in 1975. In 1980 they to join XYZ Corporation, which enticed him by
obtained a divorce from Felisa, who was duly offering more advantageous terms. His first
notified of the proceedings. The divorce decree employer sues him in Manila for damages
became final under California Law. Coming arising from the breach of his contract of
back to the Philippines in 1982, Felipe married employment. He sets up his minority as a
Sagundina, a Filipino Citizen. In 2001, Filipe, defense and asks for annulment of the contract
then domiciled in Los Angeles, California, died, on that ground. The plaintiff disputes this by
leaving one child by Felisa, and another one by alleging that since the contract was executed
Sagundina. He left a will which he left his 1 Will the suit prosper? [3%]
in the Philippines under whose law the age of
estate to Sagundina and his two children and 2 Suppose XYZ Corporation is
majority is 18 years, he was no longer a minor
nothing to Felisa. Sagundina files a petition for impleaded as a codefendant, what would be
at the time of perfection of the contract.
the probate of Felipe’s will. Felisa questions the basis of its liability, if any? [2%]
the intrinsic validity of the will, arguing that
her
A. Ismarriage to Felipe
the divorce subsisted
secured despite
by Felipe in the
divorce obtained by Felipe because
California recognizable and valid in the said
divorce is notHow
Philippines? recognized in theFelipe’s
does it affect Philippines.
For
marriage to Felisa? Explain. (2%). properties
B. this
What reason,
law she
governs claims
the that the
formalities of the
and
will?that Sagundina
Explain. (1%) has no successional rights.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C. Will Philippine law govern the intrinsic 1. Juan's capacity to contract marriage
validity of the will? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
is governed by Philippine law -i.e., the Family
A. (1.) The divorce secured by Felipe in Code -pursuant to Art. 15, Civil Code, which
California is recognizable and valid in the provides that our laws relating to, among
Philippines because he was no longer a others, legal capacity of persons are binding
Filipino at that time he secured it, Aliens may upon citizens of the Philippines even though
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
living abroad.
obtain divorces abroad which may be 2. By way of exception to the general rule of
recognized in the Philippines provided that lex rei sitae prescribed by the first paragraph
they are valid according to their national law of Art. 16. Civil Code, a person's successional
(Van Dorn V. Romillo, Jr., 139 SCRA 139 rights are governed by the national law of the
[1985]; Quita v. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA Since13
decedent (2nd par.. Art. 16).Page of 119
Juan's
406 [1998]; Llorente v. Court of Appeals, 345 deceased
SCRA 595 [2000] ).
CIVILCIVIL
LAWLAW
Answers
Answers
to thetoBAR
the BAR
as Arranged
as Arranged
by Topics
by Topics
(Year(Year
1990-2006)
1990-2006)
that
"Prohibitive
public policy,
lawstheconcerning
applicationpersons,
shall be disregarded
their Court
personsof is governed
Appeals (G.Rby the104235,
No. law of his
Nov.nationality,
10, 1993) the
our
Plaintiffs
byacts Courts. argument
(Cadalin and
or property, v. POEA.
doesthosenot 238 SCRA
which hold have true,
for Supreme
concerning
capacity Court transactions applied involving
Philippine property law is in
762)
because
their object
ALTERNATIVE status
ANSWERS; or capacity
public order, ispublic not determined
policy and recovery an exception. of damages
Under Article for breach 16 of of thecontract
NCC theof
a) Their
bygood
lex loci claim
customs is not shall
contractus correct.
but bynot Assuming
lex patriae. that
be rendered carriage
capacity of forpersons
the reason in transactions
that it is the involving
law of the
theineffective
ANOTHERsecond contract
ANSWER: by is binding
laws under
or judgments place title towhere
property the is contract
governed wasby executed.
the law of the
1. promulgated,
Hongkong Articlelaw, 17 such
of orthe Civil
second Code
contract
by determinations provides
is invalidthat
or ALTERNATIVE
country where ANSWER: the property is situated. Since
theconventions
under forms and solemnities
Philippine law which of contracts,
recognizes
agreed upon in a foreign as wills
valid If
the the violation
property is inofthe thePhilippines,
contract was attended
Philippine
and
only other public
the first a
Accordingly,
country." instruments
contract.
state's own Sinceconflictshall
the case be governed
ofislaws
being rule law governs the capacity of the seller. recover
with bad faith, there is a ground to
by the
litigated
may, laws of the
in the Philippines,
exceptionally country
be inapplicable, in which
the Philippine given public moral
they are Applicabledamages.
Laws; capacity But to since
succeedthere was a federal
executed.
Court as
policy the forum will
considerations bynottheenforce
law of the anyforum.
foreign regulation
(1991)
Jacob, a Swisswhich national, was the
married basis of thea act
Lourdes,
Since obnoxious
claim the contract to the forum's of employment public policy. was complained
Filipina, in Berne, of, the airline cannot
Switzerland. Three beyears in bad
executed
Going
There isinto in the
a strong Manila, specific
public Philippine
policy provisions law of
enshrined should
in the faith.
later, the Hence,
coupleonly decided actual damages
to reside in thecan be
govern.
contract
our Being over
in question,
Constitution on 18 the years
I would
protectionold
ruleandas no longer
of follows:
labor. recovered.
Philippines. The Jacob same is true with
subsequently regards to
acquired
a
1 minorThe
Therefore, according
duration
the second to Philippine
of contract
the contract Law,
shall isbenot opposedApplicable
Francis to
exemplary
several Laws;
damages.
properties Labor
in theContracts
Philippines with the
b) No, their
Albert
Philippine
disregarded canlaw claim
be
and and isitnot
sued.
the can correct.
Thus,
first therefore
contracttheThe besecond
suit
will of ABC
valid
be as (1991)
A.
money TheheJapan inherited Air from Lineshis(JAL),parents. a Forty
foreigner
contract
SUGGESTED
Corporation
stipulated;
enforced. executed
ANSWER:against in
(Cadalin v. POEA, Hongkong,
him for
238 partakes
damages
SCRA 762) of
. the
will corporation
years later. Jacob died intestate, and is in the
licensed to do business
2. XYZofCorporation,
nature a second
waiver that having
is contrary enticed Francis
prosper.
2 The provision to the to Philippine
effect that Philippines,
survived by several executed in Manila
legitimate a contract
children and of
Albert
law andtothe breakpublic hispolicy
contract with the plaintiff,
notwithstanding duration,governing Japan Air FilipinoLines (JAL) may employment with Maritess
duly recognized illegitimate daughter Jane, Guapa under whichall
may
overseas be heldworkers. liable Art. for17,damages
provides under
that our Art. the
(a) latter
Suppose was
that hired
Swiss aslaw a stewardess
does not allow on the
terminate
ALTERNATIVE her employment
ANSWER: is invalid, being residing in the Philippines.
1314,
prohibitiveCivil Code.
laws concerning persons, their acts, aircraft illegitimate flying the
children Manila-Japan-Manila
to inherit, can Jane, route.
who
inconsistent with our Labor
2. The basis of liability of XYZ Corporation would belaws;
or
3 theirThat
Article 28property
ofthe or which
thecontract
Civil Code have
shallwhich befor their that:
construed
states object
as The contrast specifically
is a recognized illegitimate provides
child, inheritthat (1) part the
public
governed order,under publicand policy
by the and
laws goodof customs
Japan and only (b)
of Assuming
duration
the of the
properties that of Jacob
contract Jacob executed
shall
under be a will
two (2)
Philippine years,
"Unfair competition in agricultural,
shall
the not beofrendered
courts Tokyo, ineffective
Japan shall have by laws or
jurisdiction, leaving
(2) certain properties
law?notwithstanding
is the aboveto Janeduration,
as her JAL
commercial, or industrial enterprises or in
conventions
invalid as clearlyagreed upon in a foreign country. legitime
may in
terminate accordancethe with
agreement the law
at anyof time by
labor through theopposed
use of force, to the aforecited third
intimidation,
Besides,
paragraph Alma's consent
of Arts. 17 to the second contract succession
giving her in the
notice Philippines,
in writing will
ten such
(10) days in
deceit, machination orandany1700 otherofunjust,
the Civil Code,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
was
which vitiated
provides: by undue influence, being virtually testamentary
advance, and disposition
(3) the be valid?
contract shall be
oppressive or highhanded method shall give A. Yes. As stated in the problem. Swiss lawlaws
helpless
rise to a right and under of action financial
by the distress
personin whoa construed as governed under and by the
foreign does not allow illegitimate children to inherit
thereby country,
ANOTHER ANSWER:
suffers as indicated by the given fact
damage." of Japan and only the court in Tokyo, Japan
JAL
Hence,dismissed
Jane the Maritess
cannot inherit on the
theto fourth
property month of any of
thatNo
2. sheliability
signed because
arises. The she had no choice.
statement of the shall have jurisdiction consider
her
Jacob employment
under Philippinewithout law.giving her due notice.
Therefore,
problem the not
does defendants
in any way claimsuggest
that theintent, matter arising from or relating to the contract.
Maritess then
SUGGESTED ANSWER: filed a complaint with the Labor
contract
malice, or is even
valid knowledge,
under Hongkong on thelaw part should
of XYZ B. The testamentary disposition will not be
Arbiter for reinstatement, backwages and
be rejected since
Corporation as to under the the DOCTRINE
contractual OF
relations valid if it would contravene Swill law;
damages. The lawyer of JAL contends that
PROCESSUAL
between Laws; Albert PRESUMPTION
and ABC Corporation. a foreign law is otherwise,
Applicable
Applicable
Contracts
Laws; Capacity
of Carriage
to Buy Land neither thethe Labor disposition
Arbiter nor would anybe valid.
other agency
deemed
(1995)
On 8 December similar or
1991 identical
Vanessa to purchased
Philippine law
fromin Unless the Swiss law is proved, it would beover
(1995) or court in the Philippines has jurisdiction
3.
the What
the Manilalaw
absence office governs
of proof to the
of Euro-Aire thecontrary,
capacity
an airline andof suchthe
ticket presumed to be the same as that of Philippine
Filipino to buy the case in view of the above provision (3) of
is
fornotits mentioned
Flight No.the in land?
710 the from Explain
problem
Dallasas your
to havinganswer
Chicago been law under the Doctrine of Processual
the contract which Maritess voluntarily signed.
and give
SUGGESTED
adduced.
on 16 its legal
January
ANSWER: basis. Applicable
Presumption. Laws; contracts contrary to public policy
Philippine law1992. governs Her flight reservation
the capacity of wasthe The contract is the law between her and JAL.
(1996)
Alma was hired as a domestic helper in
confirmed.
Filipino to On buyher thescheduled
land. Indeparture addition to the Decide the issue.
Vanessa Hongkong
B. Where by the Dragon
under a State's Services,
own conflictsLtd., rule
principlechecked of lex rei in on sitaetime at the
given DallasArticle
above. through its local agent. She executed a should
airport. However, that domestic law of another State
15 of the NCC atspecifically
the check-inprovides counter she that standard employment contract designed by
discovered that she was waitlisted apply, may the courts of the former
Philippine laws relating to legal with someof
capacity the Philippine Overseas Workers
other passengers because of intentional nevertheless refuse to apply the latter? If so,
persons are binding upon citizens of the Administration
SUGGESTED ANSWER: (POEA) for overseas Filipino
overbooking, under what circumstance?
Philippines noamatter Euro-Aire where policy they and
are. practice. SUGGESTED
workers. ItANSWER: provided for her employment for
Euro-Alre
Applicable Laws; admitted that Vanessa
Capacity to Contract was not 1. The suit will not prosper under intended
Article 15,
A, Labor
one year Legislations
at a salary ofare generally
US$1,000.00 a month. as
advised
(1995) of such policy
2. What law governs the capacity of the when she purchased her Civil Code, New Jersey law governs Francis
Vanessa sued Euro-Aire in Manila for breach of expressions
It was submitted of to public
and policy on
approved by employer-
the
plane
Japanese ticket. Vanessa
to sell the land? was Explain
only ableyour to fly two
answer Albert's capacity to act, being his personal law
contract employee relations. whenThe contract in therefore,
days
and give
SUGGESTEDlaterand
its
damages.
bylegal
ANSWER:taking basis.
Euro-Aire
another airline. claimed that POEA. However,
from the standpoint of
she arrived
both his nationality and
it cannot be
Japanese law held liable for
governs thedamagescapacity because
of the between Japan Air
Hongkong, she was asked to sign anotherLines (JAL) and Maritess
his domicile.
may apply Hetowas, therefore, a minor at the
its practice
Japanese toofselloverbooking
the land being passengers was
his personal contract
ALTERNATIVE byonly
Dragon
ANSWER:
the extent that
Services, Ltd. its provisions
which
allowed by the U.S.ofCode of Federal time
are he
not entered
inconsistent into the
with contract.
Philippine labor laws
law on the basis an interpretation of Art. reduced
1. The suit her salarywill not to only US$600.00
prosper. Beinga a U.S.
Regulations. Vanessa on the other hand intended
month. particularly
Having no other to protect
choice, employees.
ALTERNATIVE
15, NCC. ANSWERS; national,
Under theAlbert's circumstances, capacity to Alma
the enter signed
dismissal into of a
a) Since capacity
contended that assuming to contract that the is governed
U.S. Code by of the contract
contract is but when she
determined by returned
the law tothe
of theState
the personal
Federal law of an
Regulations individual,
allowed the Japanese
Intentional Maritess without complying with Philippine
Philippines,
of which she
is ademanded payment of thehe to
seller's capacity
overbooking, the should
airline be governed
company cannoteither by Labor
SUGGESTED lawhe would
ANSWER: benational,
invalid underand any which
stipulation
salary
still
Their a differential
minor.
claim is This
not of
is US$400.00
in
correct. connection
A contracta month.
withis the Both
Article
law
his national
invoke the U.S. lawCode (Japaneseon the law) ground or bythatthethelaw in the contract to the contrary is considered
Dragon
15 of
between theServices,
Civil
the partiesCode Ltd. and
which
but theitslawlocal
embodies
can agent the
disregard said
of hiswas
ticket domicile,
purchased depending
in Manila,upon hence,whether void. Since the law of the forum in this case is
claimed
nationality
the thatprinciple
the second of thecontract
lex patriae. is valid
While under
this
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Japan follows
Philippine law the nationality
should apply, under or which
domiciliary the contract
Philippine if it is contrary
law to public
issues policy.
should-be
Vanessa can recover damages under Philippine the
The laws
principle of
provisions Hongkong,
intended of theto and Constitution
apply
1987 therefore
to Filipino binding
citizens
on the
theory ofcan
Vanessa personal
recover law for its citizens.
damages for breach of resolved in accordance with Philippine law.
law for breach of governs
contract of carriage, on
under
B. Alma.
protection
The thatIsof
third their
provision,
labor
paragraphclaimand correct?
the
on Supreme
of social
Art. Explain.
17justice Court
of the (Sec.
Civil in
b) Philippine
contract of law
carriage. Decide. the capacity
Discuss of
fully.the
Philippine law should govern
Japanese owner in selling the land. While as a as the law of the Recto
10.
Code Art v.II)Harden
providesembody that: is a of the
public view
policy thatof the
the status
place
general where
rule the planeoftickets were bought and
capacity or capacity Since
Philippines. of foreigners the applicationis to beofdetermined
Hongkong
the contract of carriage was executed. In on the
law basis
in this of the
case is insameviolationprovisionof or principle,
Zalamea v. i.e., by U.S. law in the present problem.
CIVILCIVIL
LAWLAW
Answers
Answers
to thetoBAR
the BAR
as Arranged
as Arranged
by Topics
by Topics
(Year(Year
1990-2006)
1990-2006)
Definition;
Under Art. forum
16 par. non-conveniens;
1, NCC, real long-arm
property statute
is subjectMaris
3.toThe then
nationality distribution
theory,returned
and the issue ofto thethe personal
involved Philippines
is which of properties
the and
laws ofin thein
a
(1994)
law of theis country whereofit Forum is situated. two countries should apply toby determine the order of succession,
1)
theWhat the doctrine non Since shall
Germany
civil be governed
ceremony celebrated French
in Cebu law.City The legal
the amount of successional rights, or, the intrinsic validity of
the property 2)
conveniens? is What
situated is ain "long the Philippines,
arm basis
according is Art.
testamentary to16, theNCC).
provisions. formalities
Such issue is not ofinvolved
Philippine law,
in this case.
Philippine ANSWER:
statute"?
SUGGESTED law applies. The rule of lex rei sitae she married her former classmate Vincent
1) a) FORUM
in Article 16 prevails NON overCONVENIENS
lex loci contractu is ina Applicable
likewise a Laws; Filipino Wills
citizen.executeda) Was abroadthe marriage
principle
ALTERNATIVE in Private
ANSWER:
Article 17 of the NCC. International Law that (1993)
A, a Filipino,
ALTERNATIVE executed
ANSWER:
of Maris and Johnson valid when a will in Kuwait
celebrated?while Is
Afghanistan
where the ends lawof justice governsstrongly the indicate formal Yes.
their marriage still validly existing now?back"
there "Renvoi"
as a -
contract which means
worker. "referring
Assume that underis
requirements of the
that the controversy may be more suitably contract since the relevant
SUGGESTED
the because
laws ofANSWER:
Reasons. here,
Kuwait, it is enough that thewe are applying U.S.
execution is in Afghanistan.
tried elsewhere, then jurisdiction should be Art. 17 of the Civil (a)
law Theto marriage
Mario, of
being Mans
testator affix his signature to the presence of alreadyand Johnson
its was
citizen,
Code provides
declined and the that the forms
parties relegated and solemnities
to relief to valid
although when the
two witnesses celebrated
and formalities
that the because
willofneed allthe marriages
not second
be
of
be contracts,
sought in wills, anotherandforum. other(Moreno. public solemnized
marriage will outside
be the
governed
acknowledged before a notary public. May the Philippines
by (Tokyo)
Philippine lawin
b) Where in
instruments
Philippine Law a broad
shall be sense
Dictionary, governed p.the254, ends
by1982 the of laws
justice
ed.). of accordance
under
SUGGESTED the with
principle
ANSWER:
will be probated in the Philippines? the
of lexlawsloci in force
celebrationis. in the
strongly
the country indicate in thatwhich the theycontroversy are executed. may be Domiciliary
Yes.
country Under theory
where Articles vs. Nationality
they 815
are and solemnizedTheory
17 of the Civil
(Japan),
more suitably tried
However, if the contract was executed before elsewhere, then (2004)
Distinguish
Code, the briefly
formality of
and valid there as such, are also valid in thebut
the clearly
execution between:
of a will is
jurisdiction should be declined
the diplomatic or consular officials of the and the parties Their
Domiciliary
governed
Philippines.marriage
by theory
the no
law and
oflongernationality
the placevalidly of subsists,
theory
execution. of
Applicable
Republic Laws;
relegated to the
of Succession;
relief to beIntestate
Philippines sought in &Afghanistan,
Testamentary
in another because
personal
SUGGESTED
If the will it
law. has
ANSWER:
was (5%) been
executed dissolved with by thethe absolute
formalities
(2001)
forum. (Handbook on Private International DOMICILIARY
divorce
prescribed validly
by theTHEORY
obtained
laws of byposits
KuwaitJohnson thatwhich
and the
valid
Philippine law shall apply.
c)
Law,FORUM
Alex was NON CONVENIENS
born a Filipino but was a naturalized
Aruego). means simply personal
capacitated
there status
as such, Maris and
thetowill rights
remarry
is valid of (Art.a person
and26.may Family are
be
that
Canadiana court citizen mayatresist the time impositionof his death upon its on governed
Definition;
Code).
probated inbythe the
Cognovit; law of Borrowing
Philippines. his domicile Statute; or the
jurisdiction
December 25, even 1998. He when left behindjurisdiction a last will is place
Applicable ofLaws;
Characterization(1994) his lawshabitual governing residence. marriages The
authorized
and testament by in thewhich letterheofbequeatheda general venue all his NATIONALITY
(2003)
Gene
In and Jane,
Private THEORY,
Filipino,
International met
Law on(Conflict
and thegot otherof hand,
married in
statute.
properties, (Salonga. real Private and International
personal, in Law.the p, postulates
England
Laws) what that
whileis: 1} itbothis the
Cognovit? were law2)takingof
A the up person's post-
d)
51. Forum
1967
Philippines ed.)tononhisconveniens
acknowledged is aillegitimate
doctrine nationality
graduate courses
borrowing that governs
statute? there. such
A few
3) Characterization? status
yearsand after rights
their
whereby Forum Non Conveniens & Lex Locito Contractus
Fillpina a court of law
daughter andhaving nothing full to Jurisdiction
his two graduation, they decided annul their
over a case brought in Thea proper venue the or (2002)
Felipe
SUGGESTED
marriage. is aANSWER:
Filipino
Jane filedcitizen.
an action Whentoheannul went her to
legitimate Filipino sons. sons sought
district declines
"Art. 1700. to determine
The the
relations case on
between its 1)
Sydney a) COGNOVIT
marriage for to vacation,
Gene is he
in a confession
met
England a former
on of judgment
the business
ground of
annulment of the last will and testament on
merits because
capital Justice
and would
labor be
are better
not served
merely whereby
associate,
latter’s a
who
sterility, portion
proposed
a of
ground to thehim
for complaint
a transaction
annulment is of
the ground that it deprived them of their
SUGGESTED
by the ANSWER:
trial
contractual. over Theythe case
are so in another
impressed confessed
which
marriage took by
inhim the to
England. defendant
Moscow. The who
Felipe denies
brokered
English thea
court
legitimes but the daughter was able to prove
The daughter
SUGGESTED
jurisdiction.
with ANSWER: should
(Webster's
publicno prevail because
Dictionary)
interest thatArticle labor 16 contract
rest thereofbetween (Philippine
Sydney law
Coals Dictionary,
Corp. (Coals),3rdto
that decreed the marriage annulled. Returning
(2}the
of a) there
LONG
New
were
ARMCode
Civil STATUTE compulsory
provides is a legislative
that
heirs
intestate
or
act Ed.)
an (Ocampo
Australian firm,v. Florenciano,
and Moscow L-M
Energy 13553,
Corp.
legitimes contracts
under for must
Canadian yield to the Whocommon the Philippines, Gene asked you whether or not
which provides
and testamentary personallaw.
succession jurisdiction,
shall
should
be governed via b) COGNOVIT
2/23/50).
(Energy),
SUGGESTED a Russian
ANSWER: is a "statement
firm, his for former
Coalsof confession"
to supply
prevail? good.
Why? Therefore,
(5%) such contracts are he would be free to marry girlfriend.
substituted
by thesubject servicelaw
national or process,
of the over
person persons whose or No,
coal Gene
Oftentimes,
to Energy isit not free
isonreferred
a to to
monthly marry as ahis
basis "power
for former
threeof
to the special laws on labor What would your legal advice be? 5%
corporations
succession is which
under are nonresidents
consideration. of the girlfriend.
attorney"
years. Both or His
simply
these marriage
firms as a
were to
"power",
not Jane it
doing,is isvalid
andthe
Applicable unions, collective ofbargaining, strikes
state and Laws;
whichSucessionvoluntarily Aliens
go into the state, according
written to
authority the of forms
the debtorand andsolemnities
his direction of
(1995)
Michelle, andthelockouts, closed shop, wages,a still do not do, business in the Philippines.
directly
ALTERNATIVE byFrench
orANSWER; agent daughter or communicate of Penreich, with British
to law, is valid
Felipe shuttled between Sydney and Moscowof
the clerk of the here
district (Article
court, 17,
or 1st
justice par.,
German working
national, conditions,
died hours
inforeign
Spain of labor and
leaving real
A. When a
persons incontract
the state has a for limited elementpurposes, such NCC).
the peace
to close However,
to enter
the since
contract. judgmentGene
He also and Jane
against the
executed are still
debtor in
properties similar in subjects."
the Philippines
as in the factual
inactions which setting
concern stated
claims in asthe well
problem
relating as as
to Filipinos
stated although
therein. living
(Words
Sydney a commission contract with Coals and and in England,
Phrases, vol. the 7,
valuable
where one
performance personal properties
of execution
or the parties ofin those
Germany.
is apurposes foreign c) pp. COGNOVIT
dissolution
115-166). of is
their a plea
marriage
in Moscow with Energy, under which contracts in an
is action
still which
governed
b)
1. LongLaw
What law arm statute5th
determines who refersshall simply to
succeed as acknowledges
by wasPhilippine law that (Article the 15,defendant NCC). did
corporation,
(Black's the contract
Dictionary, canEd. be sustained
1979). he guaranteed commissions by both Since, firms
authorized
the deceased? substituted
Explain service.
your
valid particularly the stipulation expressing based answer and give undertake
sterilityonisa not and promise
one of the as the plaintiff
grounds for in
for the its
the
percentage of deliveries
2.
its What
legal law
basis. regulates the distribution of the declaration
annulment period, has
of a marriagealleged, and that it cannot
that the contract is governed by the laws of the three-year
Divorce; effect of indivorce granted to former Filipinos; payableunder in Sydney Articleand 45 in of
real
foreignproperties
country. the Philippines?
Given this generally Explain accepted
ALTERNATIVE
deny
the Family
ANSWER:
that itrespectively,
owes
Code,and the unjustly
annulment detains offrom Gene’s the
Renvoi Doctrine (1997) Moscow,
Yes, Gene is sum free claimed through
to marryby his deposits
girlfriend in
your answer
principle of and give its legal
international law,basis. the contract plaintiff marriage the
to Jane on that in ground ishim
not validinBoth hisin
3.
In What
1977, law Mario
governs andthe distribution
Clara, both of Filipino
the accounts
because that
his he opened
marriage was the
validly two cities.
annulled in
between Maritess and JAL is valid and it the declaration,
firms Philippines
paid The and
Felipe consents
(Article 17, that
NCC)
his ofcommission judgment
fornot fourbe
personal
citizens, properties
were laws married England. issue whether or a
Applicable
should thereforeLaws; be in Germany?
governing
enforced. in the Explain
marriagesPhilippines.your entered
months,
marriage
against
after
is which
voidable,
the they defendant
stopped
including
for a certain
paying
the grounds him.
answer
Three
(1992)
In 1989, years
and give
Maris, later,
aitsFilipino
legal
they basis. went
citizen, to married
the United her A.
d)
sum. Define
COGNOVIT
[Words oris
andfrom explain
a note
Phrases, the
vol. principle
authorizing a
7, pp. 115-166). of “lex
lawyer
SUGGESTED
States ofANSWER:
America and citizen,established their Felipe
therefore,
loci learned
contractus”.
for confession is governed
of (2%)
judgment his
by the contacts,
by law of the
defendant. whoplace are
boss Johnson, an American in Tokyo in
Assuming
residence that the estate of the decedent is residents
where
B. the
Defineof Sydney
marriage
or and
explain was Moscow,
solemnized
the rule that
of the
(lex
“forum two
loci
a wedding in San Francisco,
ceremony celebratedCalifornia. according In to
being
1987, settled
the laws. in theOne
couple Philippines)
applied firms
2)
non talked to Hence,
celebrationis).
"BORROWING
conveniens” each
(3%)other evenand
STATUTE" decided
if sterility
-Laws isof tonot cut
the a
Japanese year for, later,andJohnson were
1. The
granted, national
U.S. law of the decedent (French him
C.
ground
state off.
or He
Should
to now
annul
jurisdiction the files suit
Philippine
the
used in
marriage
by Manila
court
another under against
assume
state thein
returned to his citizenship.
native Nevada, In and 1989, he Mario,
validly
law)
claiming shallto govern
have beenin determining whoClara, will both
jurisdiction
Philippine
deciding Coals overand
law,
conflicts thequestioned
the case?Energy
marriage Explain. is for (5%)specific
nevertheless
involved in the
obtained in that state an abandoned
absolute divorce by from
succeed
In
was 1990,
able to
Mariohis
to estate.
returned The to legal
the
secure a decree of divorce in basis
Philippines is Art. and16 performance.
SUGGESTED
voidable
choice of ANSWER:
because
law (Black'ssterility Law makes
Dictionary, the marriage
5th ed.
his wife
ALTERNATIVE Maris.ANSWER: A. LEX under LOCI CONTRACTUS may be
par.
married
After
Reno, 2, Nevada,
NCC.
MarisJuana who knew
received
U.S.A. the well final Mario'sjudgment past of voidable
1979). English law. Therefore,
French
(a) law shall govern the Mariodistribution of his understood
Applicable Laws;in thetwoSalemarriage
of Realasin
senses, Property
follows:
life. Is the
divorce, shemarriage
marriedbetween her childhood and
sweetheart 3) a) "CHARACTERIZATION"
annulment of Englandis otherwise
is valid
real
(b)
Juana properties
Would
valid? the in
renvoi the Philippines
doctrine have except
any when (1995)
While
called in Afghanistan,
"classification" aorJapanese
"qualification." by the name It is
Pedro, also a Filipino citizen, in a religious in the Philippines.
the real to
relevance property
the case? is land which may be of the (1)
Sato It
process is
sold theto
of law of
Ramoncito,
assigning the aplacea where
Filipino,
disputed a
questionparcel to
ceremony in Cebu City, celebrated according
transmitted
SUGGESTED to a foreigner only by hereditary of
ANSWER: its land
contracts,
correct situated
legal wills,in the
and
category Philippines
other
(Private public which
International Sato
to the formalities
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of Phil Philippine law. Pedro later
succession.
(a) Yes, because law recognizes the 1. What
instruments
inherited
Law, law his
from
Salonga). governs
areFilipino
executed the mother.formality
and governs in their
the
left
2. for distribution
The the United of and States
the and became
real properties
divorce between Mario Clara as valid. in b) (2)
execution
“formsIt isof the
and
"CHARACTERIZATION" the proper
contract
solemnities”, lawof ofsale?
the
pursuant
is contract;
a Explain
to
process the e.i.,
your in
naturalized
the Philippines as shallan Americanbe governed citizen.
by French Maris
SUGGESTED ANSWER: answerthe system
first
determining and give
paragraph, of its
under law intended
legal
Article
what basis.
17
category oftothe govern
a New
certain the
Civil
set
followed
law.
(b) No,The Pedro
legal
The renvoi to the
basis
doctrine isis United
Art.
relevant 16,
in casesStates,
NCC). where one andcountry
after
entire
SUGGESTED
Code;
of facts contract,
ANSWER: including its essential
oror rules fall. (Paras, Conflict of Laws,
a serious
applies quarrel,
the domiciliary
SUGGESTED ANSWER: theory and Maristhe other filed
the a suit and
p. requisites,
94. 1984 ed.) indicating the law of the place
obtained a divorce decree issued by the court
with which the contract has its closest
in the state of Maryland.
connection or
CIVILCIVIL
LAWLAW
Answers
Answers
to thetoBAR
the BAR
as Arranged
as Arranged
by Topics
by Topics
(Year(Year
1990-2006)
1990-2006)
Sometime
protection
where ANSWER:
SUGGESTED in
ofthe 1990,
the main rights
Sarah, of
elements
Filipino
born a Filipino laborers,
of the but the
contract
court
country
naturalThus,
sister. mother
of which under asthey her
theare middle
above-cited
citizens.
name.Sinceprovision,
The Courttheir has
1)
by a) It adepends
disregard
canillustrated
converge.
then choice
naturalized
As onforum
by Zalamea
of whether
Americanv.and or choice
Court not ofBing
citizen, of was
Appeals law. that
and valid there
under
marriage
ruled
Eva is isis Kong
Hong
qualified no law itprohibiting
law,adopt
to shall be valid and
Vicky. anrespected
illegitimate
in the
at least 18 years old at Tom,
the Philippines.
Therefore
her American
(228 SCRA thehusband
23 Philippine
[1993]) , ittime
Court
is the
filed Carol lawasserts
a should
petition of thenot
in child adopted by her natural father to use, as
the
apply
the prerogative
placethe where
Regional stipulation to
Trial take
the Court in custody
airline
question.ofticket of
Makati, Bing.
was for If
issued,she
the middle
b) Would name, your heranswermother's besurname.
the same What if theyis
was
adoption at least
ALTERNATIVE
where ANSWER:
ofthe the18 years child
passengers
minor old,arethen hershe
of nationals is and
sister, no a Naturalization
not
soughtprohibited to isadopt allowed. Eva's After all,illegitimate
the use of
b) No,
longer
SUGGESTED lex
residents
Filipina. under
Can fori
ANSWER: of,
the should
parental and be
petition where
beapplied
authoritygranted?thebecause
and neither
defendant
(5%) the (2003)
Missmaternal
SUGGESTED
the
daughter? Universe,
ANSWER:
name
Explain. from as(2%) theFinland,
middle name came istoin the
(per
suit
Carol dondee)
is nor
airline filed NormainIt Philippine
company depends.
can assert
maintained Rules
courts theon Adoption
and
prerogative
its office.Eric was to My answer
Philippines
accord willastill
on
with Filipino tourist be the
culture visa.
andsame. While
customs Paragraph
inand this
effective
hired
take custody.
ALTERNATIVE in August
the 22, 2002
Philippines. provides
However, if she was less than 18
ANSWER: The thePhilippine 3(a) of
country, she
adoption Article 184
fell in for
is intended of the
lovethe Family
withbenefit Code
andofmarrieddoes nota
the
A. Under
following;
years old,the
Constitution SEC.
then doctrine
affords
4. Whofull
Norma ofmay
has lex loci
protection
aadopt.
better contractus,
–right
Theto laborsince as adopted
make
Filipino any distinction.
doctor.
[In Her tourist
re: Adoption Theofprovision visa having
Stephanie states
Nathy that
been
a general
following
and the
the 1adoption may rule,adopt:
stipulation the
by Norma law
Anyas to of
Filipino the
summary place
Citizen
of Bing terminates the where
dismissal a an alien
expired Garcia,
Astorga who
and after is a
G.R. No. former
the 148311, Filipino
maximum March citizen
31, is
extension
b) The
contract natural
is ofmade
legal age,
mother,
or enteredCarol, intoshould governs have the
with
runs
parental counter authority to our fundamental
of Carol over and
Bing. statutory qualified
allowed to adopt
therefore, a relative
the on Bureau by consanguinity.
of Immigration
2 right legal 2005; Rabuya, The Law Persons and Family
to inits
Torts;
better possession
Prescriptive lightPeriod
in nature ofof full
the civil
principlecapacity thatandthe Inter-Country Adoption; Formalities
respect
laws. and validity, obligation c)
andSupposing
Relations,
Deportation p. that
613]. (BID) they is filed
presently the petition
demanding to
(2004)rights, (2005)
In
and a interpretation.
child's classwelfare suit for is the damages,
This paramount
has plaintiffs
been claimed
consideration
said to be the Hans Berber,
adopt Vicky ain German the national,
year 2000, and willhis your
3 of good moral character, that she immediately leave the country but she
Filipino wife, Rhoda, are permanent
they
in custody
rule suffered
4even though rights.
has
injuries
not been theObviously,
place from
convicted where torture
Bing's
of anythecontinued during
contract
crime answer
refuses bedo
to the so,same?claiming Explain.that she (2%) isresidents
already a
martial
stay in
wasinvolving law.
her
made ismoral The
adopting
differentsuit was
turpitude; filed
parents' uponhouse, President
where of Canada.
SUGGESTED
from the place where it Filipino Citizen by her marriage to a Filipino They
ANSWER: desire so much to adopt
EM’s
interaction
is to5 be arrival on
with
performed, exile
theand in
call HI,girls a U.S.
particularly is state.so, if The
inevitable, the Yes,
Magno,
SUGGESTEDmy ananswer
8-year
ANSWER: will
old still still
orphaned be the same.
and a Under
boy deportation
who is emotionally and psychologically citizen. Can the BID order the
court
would
place inof
capable beHIof theawarded
detrimental
caring makingfor plaintiffs to
and her
children, the
the moralequivalent
place and of Yes,Sec. 7(b),
the BID
baptismal Art. III
can order
godson of the
of Rhoda. New Since the Adoption
Domestic
the deportation of Miss
of
Act,Missan Universe?
alien Explain.
who 5%
possesses all tothe
of P100
spiritual
6
performance billion under
development.
at least
are sixteen
the thesame U.S.
This
(16) law
years
(Unitedcouldon
older alien
be
than
Airline tort
the
the v. Universe.
accidental The
death marriage
of Magno's of anparentsalien woman in 2004, a
SUGGESTED ANSWER: qualifications of aautomatically
Filipino national who
reason
CA, adoptee,
claims.G.R. for On
No. Bing'sappeal,
124110, expressedEM’s
April 20, Estate
desire
2001). raised
to return the to Filipino
he has does
been not
staying with his aunt make
who, her ais
B. FORUM NON CONVENIENS means that a qualified to adopt may already adopt provided
issue
her 7 ofhas
natural and
prescription.who is
mother. It It in a position
argued should to support
that to since
be and
said
noted, care Filipino Citizen. She
however, could hardly afford to feed her own must first prove in an
court forlaw his that
discretionary
children in iskeeping
authority
with the means
decline
of the that hisUnfortunately,
country has Hans diplomatic relations with
U.S.
however, is silent
Bing on no thelonger matter, a the
minor, court
being appropriate
family. proceeding thatand sheRhodadoes not
cannothave
jurisdiction
family. over a cause of action when it is of the Philippines, that he has been living in the
should
19 years apply:
ofthatage(1) now. HI’s It islaw setting
doubtfu1 ajustly
two-year Is
any there a possibility
disqualification
come to the Philippines to adopt Magno for for them
Philippine to adopt
citizenship.
the view
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the action may be that a courtand Philippines for at least three (3) continuous
limitation
cana)still on tort claims; or (2)ofBing
the Philippine Magno?
(Yung
although Uan How
theyChu should
v.
possess Republic they
all the go
of about
the
qualifications it?
Philippines, (5%)
as
effectively
2) On resolveadjudicated
the the
assumption question
elsewhere.that custody is still over a SUGGESTED
years
158 SCRA prior ANSWER:
593 to [1988])
the filing . Sinceof the Miss application
Universe for is
law
one which
SUGGESTED who appears
is
ANSWER: sui to
juris requireand that
not claims
otherwise for adoptive parents.
Yes, it is possible for Hans such and Rhoda to adopt
minor or countered
Plaintiffs otherwise that incapacitated,
provisions Carol
of the may
most adoption
still a and
foreigner, maintains
despite her residence
marriage tountil
a
C. No,
personal
incapacitated. the injuryPhilippine
arising courts
from cannot
martial acquire
law be
petition
analogous the federalproper courtthe
statute, for resolution or Magno. Republic Act No.
is 8043 or the Inter-
case of Torture Felipe. Victims
ANOTHER
the adoptionSUGGESTED decree ANSWER: entered, that he has
jurisdiction
brought within over one theyear. Firstly, Filipino doctor, she can be deported upon
rescission
Protection
under the rule
of
Act,the should
of
decree
forum benon of adoption
applied.conveniens, It sets on the ten No,
the beenthe
Country
expiry
Bureaubyof
Adoption
certified
of her allowable
Act,hisImmigration
allows
diplomatic
stay
aliens cannot
or consular
or
in the Philippines.
order
ground
years as the that period the adopting
for prescription. parents have her deportation.
Filipinos permanently An alien
residing woman abroad marrying
to apply a
Philippine court is not a convenient Moreover, forum as Filipino, office or any appropriate government agency
exposed,
they argued or are exposing,
that equity the child to corrupt for inter-countrynative-born adoption or naturalized,
of a Filipino becomes
child.
all the incidents of the could case occurredtoll the statute outside of that he has the legal capacity to adopt in his
Qualification
influence,
limitations. tantamount
For it to giving her
appeared that corrupting
EM had ipso
The
country, facto
law anda ofFilipino
however Adopter;if she
thatrequires
Applicable
his government is not
that only Law
disqualified
legally
allows the to
the Philippines. Neither are both Coals and be (2001)
A German couple filed a petition for adoption
orders
procured or examples.
Constitutional She can
amendments also ask for the free a citizen
child, or of
one
granting adoptee to enter his country as his adopted the
who Philippines
has been voluntarily
(Mo Ya Lim or v
Energy doing business inside the Philippines. of a minor Filipino child with the Regional
revesting
himself and in her of parental authority over involuntarily
Commission committed
of Immigration, to the DSWD
41 or
SCRA any of
292
Secondly, thethose contracts acting were under not his direction
perfected child.
in [1971]),
Trial Court (Sec of agencies,
Makati
4, Naturalizationunder the provisions
Law). All that of
Bing.
immunity If However,
from suit Bing
during is hisalreadytenure. 19 years of its accredited may be subject of
the
In Philippines.
this case, has Under the
prescription principle set inof lex
or loci
not? the
she Child and
has to adoption. Youth
do is prove Welfare
in the Code which
deportation
age and therefore no longer a minor, it is not intercountry The law further
contractus,
Considering the law
the herself
differencesof the in place wherelaws,
thepetition
cited the proceeding
ANOTHER
allowed SUGGESTED
aliensthe to ANSWER: Before the petition
factadopt. of her marriage and
Carol but Bing who can the requires
It depends. If she is disqualifiedallto
that aside from possessing thebethat a
contract
which is made period
prescriptive shall should apply. be Lastly, applied: the she could is be not heard,
disqualified the Family to parents
become Code, which
a Filipino
court for judicial rescission of the adoption, qualifications, the adoptive
Filipino citizen, she may be deported. If she must come is
Philippine
b) Carol maycourt file hasan no power
action to to determine
deprive Norma the repealed the Child and Youth Welfare
one year under
provided she Philippine
can show law, a twogroundyears under for Citizen.
from a country
not disqualified where
to bethe a Philippines
Filipino citizen, has Code, she
facts
of
HI’sparental
law,surrounding
ten authority
years the
underexecution
under Article
U.S. federal 231oflaw, of said
theor came into effect. Consequently, the Solicitor
disinheritance of an ascendant. diplomatic relations
may not be deported. An alien woman who and that the government
contracts.
Family
SUGGESTED Code And or
ANSWER:
none of the above? Explain. (5%)even
file an if a
actionproper for decision
the rescissioncould General filedsimilarly
a motion to dismiss the petition,
maintains a aFilipino accredited agency one.andThe
Thethe
be
of USadoption
reached, Court suchwill applyArticle
would
under US
have law, no
191 the inlaw
biding of the marries
effect
relation on the groundisthat
citizen
the Family
becomes
Code prohibits
that adoption
marriage ANSWER: allowed under
of Miss Universe to the Filipino the national
Jorum,
on
to Coals and
Article
Nationality in Energy
231 (2)determining
Theory of the as Family
the court the
Code. wasapplicable
not able SUGGESTED
aliens from adopting. If you werebethe judge,
law of the alien. Moreover, it must further
Qualification
prescriptive
to
(2004)
PH and acquire LV are
of jurisdiction
period. Adopter
HK Chinese.While US over
Theirlaw parents
isthe silent said
areon The doctor
Hans
how will
motion
and did
you
tonot
Rhoda dismiss
rule have
on the
thefile
automatically
to petition
motion? (5%)
for adoption
make
an application herto a
(2005)
In 1984, Eva,(Manila a Filipina, went tov. NLRC.
work as shown
a should
Filipino
adopt that
be
Magno, all
denied.
citizen. possibilities
She
either The still
with law has
thefor
that
toa domestic
shouldthat
prove
Regional govern
Trial she
this matter,
corporations.
now Filipino the
citizens US Court
Hotel
who live inwill
Corp. Manila. not While apply
343
nurse in the USA. There, she met and fell in adoption
Theory;
the
is not
Court action have
significant
is
disqualified
having been
the law
to
jurisdiction exhausted
relationships
in
become force
over a and
theory
at
citizen.
Magno the
the orinter-
time
with of
Philippine
SCRA law
1, 1314[2000])
still students in determining
in MNS State, they got married the prescriptive
love with Paul, an American citizen, and they country
(1994)
Able,
filing
the adoption
aofcorporation
the petition.
Inter-Country is best
Adoption At for
domiciled that the
Boardin interest
State
time, in it A, of
was
Canada. but, the
the
period. It is generally affirmed
although they are first cousins. It appears that as a principle in
child.
doing business inwillthe Philippines, Code hired Eric,
was a
got
privatemarried in 1985.law
both in international
HK and in MNS
Eva that acquired
Stateprocedural American
first cousins law is Child Hans and andRhoda Youth Welfare
then undergo that
a trial in
citizenship
one of the inexceptions
1987. During to their
the sojourn
application in the of Filipino
effect,
custody engineer,
not
for the
six (6) for
Familymonths its project
Code. from in
the State
Petitioners
time B.
of In
have
could marry legally. the contract
Philippines
foreign
They plan lawtoin by 1990,
the forum.
reside and they setfiled
Since aprescription
up business joint petitionin theis already placement. Itofisemployment
acquired onlyaafter vested the executed
rightofby
lapse thethe
on their
trial
for the adoption parties
qualification in State to B,
adoptit was whichstipulatedcannot that be thetaken
a matter
Philippines. Butofthey
of procedural Vicky,have lawa 7-year beenold
even daughter custody that the decree of adoption can be
in informed,
Philippine
205 SCRA 356)
of Eva's sister.
jurisprudence, Themarriagegovernment, through the away contract
Parental
issued.by could
Authority;
the be
Family terminated
Rescission Code. of Adoptionat the company's
(Republic v. Miller
however, that (Codaltn
the v. POEA/ JVLRC/Broum
of first cousins ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
will,
(1994)
In
G.R.1975,which Carol stipulation
begot a is allowed
daughter in
Bing, State out B.oflaw
Office
and
hereRoot is of the Solicitor
International,
considered void from General,
238 SCRA opposed
721 [1994]),
the beginning the
by The motion has to be granted. The newciting
No. 125932, April 21, 1999,
a) Is
petition
the the
US ofCourt government's
on the ground opposition
that the tenable?
petitioners, When
wedlock.
Republic Eric v. was
WhenCourt summarily
Bingof was
Appeals, tendismissed
years old,by Able,
Carol
reason publicwill policy.apply They either are in HIa or Federal shall govern their qualification to adopt and
dilemma.
Explain.
being
law
They in both (2%)foreigners,
determining
don’t want to the
break are disqualified
applicable
Philippine law, adopt he
to much
prescriptive gave sued Able
underher
SUGGESTED theconsent for damages
new for
ANSWER: law,Bing's
inlegal
the German
the Philippines.
adoption
couple by is
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Vicky.
period and not Philippine law.They The Will
Norma the Philippine
and Manuel, courtwhich applywas the contractual
granted by the
less
The their government's marriage vow.
position is Restatement
seek
untenable. your disqualified
a) Using the
stipulation?
court in 1990.
from
In
adopting. TheyRELATIONSHIPS
"SIGNIFICANT
1991, Carol learned
cannot claim
that
ADOPTION
of American
advice
Under on whether
paragraph
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
law affirms 3, their
Articlethis principle.
civil
184 status
of the will Family be THEORY",
that
Norma
they have
and
there
Manuel
already
are contacts
were
acquiredsignificant
engaged
a vested right
in a call-
to the
adversely
Code,
Adoption; an affected
alien, as aby Philippine
general rule domestic
cannot law?
adopt. because
Philippines. adoptionAmong is not
these a right
are that but the a mere
place of
My advise isUse of Surname
as follows: of her
The civil status Natural
of' PH and LVMotherwill not be girl-ring
[Note: If that
the catered tobased
tourists. Some ofonthe
What
However,
(2006)
adversely is your an
affected advice?
byalien
Philippine (5%)
who law is
because a former
they are Filipino
nationals of business
privilege. Nois examinee
onethe acquires Philippines, a his
vestedanswer
theright thea
employee
on
May an illegitimate child, upon adoption by her girls lived with
Hong
citizenKongand and not who Filipino
seekscitizens.Being
to adopt foreigners, their status,
a relative by
current
privilege.
concerned law, a Norma
is RA 8552, and
Filipino andManuel.
his the suitCarol
answer was got
should be in
filed
natural father, use the surname of her natural Bing
consideredback, who
correct. in the
This first
question place iswanted
based to
on the
conditions and legal capacity in the Philippines are governed by the
consanguinity is qualified to(2.5%)
adopt, (par. 3[a], the Philippines,
repealed provision
thereby ofmother.
justifying theCode
the Family
application
mother
law of Hongas thethe
Kong, middle
Yes,
name?
an illegitimate child, return to her natural 1) WhoAirlines has a on
In the
SUGGESTED given problem,
ANSWER:
Art. 184, Family Code) Eva, a naturalized of Philippine
Qualifications law. In the American case
upon adoption by would
her natural
Adoption.]
better rightheld toofthethat Adopter
custody of what
Bing, Carol or
American citizen like tofather, adopt can Vicky, usea the
(2000) Court when is involved is
the surname of her of her Norma? 2) Aside from taking physical
7-year old daughter PARAMOUNT STATE INTEREST such as the
custody of Bing, what legal actions can Carol
take to protect Bing?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Family; Sec.
under Constitutional
7(b) of RA8552. Mandates; TheDivorce
Supreme Court
1) No, the Motion to Dismiss should not be (1991)
A. held How
has in several doescases the that 1987when Constitution
husband
granted. Article 236 of the Family Code as strengthen
and wife arethe family to
required as adopt
an Institution?
jointly, each one
amended by Republic Act 6809, provides in B. them
of Do the must Constitutional
be qualified to policy
adoptoninthe his family
or her
the third paragraph that "nothing in this Code and right
own the (Republic
provisionv. Toledano,
that marriage 233 SCRA is 9the
shall be construed to derogate from the duty foundation
(1994). of the the
However, family and shall
American be protected
husband must
or responsibility of parents and guardians for comply with the requirements of the law a law
by the State bar Congress from enacting
children and wards below twenty-one years of SUGGESTED
allowing divorce
including ANSWER:
the in the Philippines?
residency requirement of three
age mentioned in the second and third A. years.
Sec, Otherwise,
2, Article the II adoption
of the will Constitution
(3) not be
paragraphs of Article 2180 of the Civil Code". provides
Successional that:
Rights ofThe
Adopted State
Child recognizes the
allowed.
2) The liability of Julio's parents to Jake's sanctity
(2004)
A Filipino of family
couple, life
Mr. and and Mrs. shall
BM, protect
Jr., and
parents arises from quasi-delict (Arts. 2176 strengthen
decided to adopt the family
YV, anas a basic
orphan from autonomous
St.
anda)2180
P50,000.00
Civil Code) for the and death
shallof the
cover social
Claire’sinstitution.
orphanageItinshall New equally
York City. protect
They the
b) such amount
son;
specifically as would correspond to lost earning
the following: life
loved ofandthetreated
motherher and likethe life of the child
a legitimate unborn
capacity; and from
for they conception.
have none of The their natural
very own. and primary
c) moral damages. right
However,and BM, duty Jr.,of parents
died in an in accident
the rearing of the
at sea,
youth
followed forto civic
the efficiency
grave a year andlaterthe bydevelopment
his sick
Family Code; Retroactive Application; Vested Rights Section
of moral I,character
Article XV, further
shall provides that: The
father, BM, Sr. Each left receive
a sizable the support
estate of
(2000)
On April 15, 1980, Rene and Angelina were State
the recognizes
Government. the Filipino family as the
• The
consisting of bank deposits, lands and
married to requirement
each other without of a 16-yeara marriage difference foundation
between In the1985,
age of theacquired
adopter a and adoptee buildings inof the nation.
Manila. May the Accordingly,
adopted child, it shall
settlement. they parcel of strengthen
SUGGESTED its
ANSWER: solidarity and actively promote
YV, inherit from BM, Jr.? May she also inherit
landmay be waived
in Quezon City. On when June the adopter
1, 1990, when is the YV total
its can (Note:
inherit from
The
development. BM, Jr. The
Committee succession
recommends toa
that
biological from BM, Sr.?
citation Is there
of either a difference?
one of theby Why? be
provisions
Angelina was parent
away inofBaguio, the adoptee
Rene sold or theis the the estate of BM, Jr. is governed Philippine
Explain.
SUGGESTED (5%)
ANSWER:
credited
said spouse
SUGGESTED
Any
of the adoptee’s
to ANSWER:
lot Alien Marcelo.
possessing Is the parent;
thesale
same void or
qualifications as law because heas wasa complete
a Filipino answer).
when he died
The sale is void. Since the sale was executed B, No, the Constitutional policy, as well as the
voidable? (2%) for Filipino nationals: Provided,
above-stated (Article 16, Civil Code). Under Article 1039 of
in 1990, the Family Code is the law applicable. supporting provision, does not amount to a
a) That his country has diplomatic relations the Civil Code, the capacity of the heir to
Under Article
Republic 124of of the
the FC, the sale of a
Philippines, prohibition to Congress to enact a law on
with the succeed is governed by the national law of the
conjugal
b) property
that heby has a spouse been withoutliving the in the divorce. The Constitution only meant to help
decedent and not by the national law of the
ALTERNATIVE
consent
Philippines ANSWER:
of the other
for at isleast
void.three (3) continuous the marriage endure, to "strengthen its
Theyears
sale ispriorvoidable. heir. Hence, whether or not YV can inherit
to theThe provisions
filing of the of the for
petition ALTERNATIVE
solidarity ANSWER:
from BM,
and actively promote its total
Jr. is determined
Family Codeand may apply retroactively but only if B. Yes. Congress
development." is barred by from Philippine
enactinglaw. a law
adoption maintains such residence until the
suchc) that he Under
allowing Philippine
divorce, law,
since the adopted
Section 2 inherits
of Article XV
application
adoption decree ishas
will not been
entered,impaircertified
vested rights.by his
YV, however, cannot inherit, in hischildownof right,
diplomatic or consular office
When Rene and Angelina got married in 1980, or any appropriate from the
provides: adopter
"Sec. as
2. a legitimate
Marriage, as an the
inviolable
from the father of the adopter, BM, Sr.,
adopter.
the government
law that governed agency theirto have the legal
property capacity
relations social institution, is the foundation of the
d) and that his government allows the because he is not a legal heir of BM, Sr. The
wasto theadopt
New in Civil
his country,
Code. Under the NCC, as
adoptee to enter his country as his adopted
family and shall be protected by the State."
legal fiction of adoption exists only between
interpreted by the Supreme Court in Heirs of Since marriage is "Inviolable", it cannot be
child. the adopted and the adopter. (Teotico v. Del Val
Felipe v. Aldon,
Provided, 100 SCRA
further, That the 628 and reiterated
requirements on in dissolved by an absolute divorce.
13 SCRAAnnulment;
Marriage; 406 [1965]). Neither
Effects; Requisitesmay he inherit
Before Remarriage
Heirs of Ayuste v. Malabonga,
residency and certification of the alien’s G.R No, 118784, from BM, Sr. by representing BM, Jr. because
(1990)
2 September
qualification 1999 , the sale
to adopt in hisexecuted
country may by thebe in representation,
The marriage of Hthe andrepresentative
W was annulled must bybethea
husband
waivedwithout the consent
for the following: a) aof the wife
former is
Filipino legal heir not only of the person he is
within the fourth (4th) degree of consanguinity competent court. Upon finality of the
voidable.
citizenThe who husband
seeks to adopt has already
a relative acquired a representing
or affinity; or b) one who seeks to adopt the judgment of but also H
nullity. of began
the decedentlookingfrom for his
vested right on
legitimate theofvoidable
child his Filipino nature
spouse; of or whom the represented was supposed to inherit
prospective second mate. He fell in love with a
dispositions made without the consent of the
Family Home; Dwelling House
wife.c)Hence,
(1994)
In 1991, one
Victor
Article
who is124 of the
married
established to Family
a Filipino
judicially
Code
out citizen
of
FAMILY CODE
(Article
sexy woman 973, Civil
S who Code).
wanted to be married as
soon as possible, i.e., after a few months of
whichandmakes
seeks the sale void
to adopt jointlydoes withnothisapply.
spouse a (a) How soon can H be joined in lawful
conjugal property, a family home in Manila courtship.
Emancipation As a young lawyer, you were
relative within the fourth (4th) degree of wedlock toby his girlfriend S? Under existing
worth P200.000.00 and extrajudicially a consulted
(1993)
Julio and Lea, H,both 18 years old, were
consanguinity or affinity of the Filipino spouse.
second family home in Tagaytay worth laws, are there certain requisites that must be
sweethearts. At a party at the house of a
P50.000.00.
Qualifications Victor of leased the family home in
Adopter complied with before he can remarry? What
mutual
(b) Suppose friend. Lea met Jake, also 18 years old,
Manila
Lina, ato a
(2003) foreigner.
former Victor who
Filipina and his family an
became advice wouldthat youchildren
give H? were born from the
who showed interest
union of H and W, what in her.
would Lea beseemed
the status to of
transferred
American citizen to another shortly houseafterofher his marriage
in Pasig. to entertain Jake because she danced with him
Can the two family
an American husband, homes wouldbe the like subject
to adopt of in said children? Explain your answer.
manyIftimes.
(c) In a fit of jealousy,
the subsequent marriage Julioof shot
H Jake
to S
execution on a judgment against
the Philippines, jointly with her husband, one Victor's wife with contracted
his father'sbefore 38 caliber revolverwith which,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
for non-payment of the purchase in 1992all of the was compliance the
of
Thehertwominor brothers. Assuming
homes that before going to the for party
household
(2) so-called
appliances?
family can be the statutory condition its he was able
validity, what toare
get
required
subject consents
of ANSWER: have been
execution. Neither of the abodes are obtained, could from the unlocked drawer inside his father's
SUGGESTED the rights of the children of the first marriage
the contemplated
considered joint canadoption in the bedroom. JakeW) died asof a the
result of the of lone
Yes, Lina and herfamily
American homes
husbandbecause for purposes
jointly adopt a minor (i.e., of H and and children the
Philippine
brother of Lina prosper?
because she Explain.
of availing the benefits under the Family Code,
and her husband are both qualified to gunshot wound he sustained. His parents sued
subsequent marriage (of H and S)?
adopt.
thereLina,
canasonly
a former
beFilipino
one (1) citizen, can adopt
family homeher minor
which is Julio's parents for damages arising from quasi-
brother under Sec. 7(b)(i) of RA 8552 (Domestic Adoption Act of
defined
1998), as the
or under "dwelling
Art. 184 (3)(1) of thehouse"
Family Code.where the
The alien
delict. At the time of the incident, Julio was 18
husband
husband can and the wife and their family actually
now adopt years old living with his parents. Julio's
"reside" and the land on which it is situated. parents moved to dismiss the complaint
(Arts. 152 and 161, Family Code) against them claiming that since Page Julio23 of was119
already of majority age, they were no longer
liable for his acts. 1) Should the motion to
dismiss be granted? Why? 2) What is the
liability of Julio's parents to Jake's parents?
Explain your answer.
CIVILCIVIL
LAWLAW
Answers
Answers
to thetoBAR
the BAR
as Arranged
as Arranged
by Topics
by Topics
(Year(Year
1990-2006)
1990-2006)
children's
drug
ALTERNATIVE
a) addict.
Discuss presumptive
Efforts
ANSWER: the to have
effect legitimes
himof rehabilitated
thewhich divorce should
werethe
sexually-transmissible
In
Flor
be1989,and Maris,
marriage, Virgillo awere
the conclusion Filipino married
disease,
is that citizen,
Digna's to
found
father each
married
mayto other
beher
revoke serious
theinboss
Eva
in
recorded
obtained mayappropriate
unsuccessful.
the filebyan Can action
Sonny Baby civilfor
and legal
askregistry
for
Lulu separation
annulment
inand Canada. ofon
registries donation
an ofAmerican
appears
Johnson,
and
Roxas and get back
City in citizen,
incurable. Two
198O.the(2)car.Inin1984,
years Tokyo
after their inmarriage,
Flor a was
wedding which took a
offered
the
should grounds
property.
marriage,
SUGGESTED
(2%) beH or of
so
ANSWER: sexual
advised.
legal infidelityExplain.
separation? of her husband ceremony
place on 10 October
teaching celebrated
Job in1988,
Canada, Bethelaccording
discovered
which sheto
thatJapanese
her husband
accepted.
The
and divorce
the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: for (a) is
contracting not valid.by Philippine
her husband law of does a Marriage;
James
laws.
In 1989, has
One Grounds;
ashe Declaration
year later,
applied Johnson
for of
and Nullity:
disease Annulment:
which
returned
was granted Legal
he contracted
to his
not
bigamous
The
SUGGESTEDprovide
following marriage
ANSWER: forareabsoluteabroad.
the divorce.prescribed
requisites Philippineby native Separation:
law
even priorNevada,
Canadian Separation
to their marriage of
and although
citizenship. Property
heThe validly (2003)
James did notyear,
obtained
following know initshe
that
No,
She Baby
courts
advice
and Imay toremarry.
cannotcannot
H isgrant ask
toWhile for
it. annulment
comply aA strict withinterpretation
marriage of
them, her
between Which
himself
state
sued for untilof
an he wastheexamined
absolute
divorce following
divorce
from two [2)
Virgiliofromremedies,
years later
inhis when i.e.,
wife
a Canadian a child (a)
Maris.
marriage
of Article
two
1)
namely: oreither
(2)If Filipinos 26
for legalof cannot the
separation
spouse Family
be contractedbecause
Code would
dissolved both
bythe a declaration
was
After
court.already
Maris
After toof
bornreceivedthem.nullity
Virgilio Bethel
the sues
was final
served ofJames marriage,
judgment
withfor annulment of of(b)
summons,
these
capacitate
divorce
marriage actions ina bad
obtained had
Filipino already
abroad.
faith, spouse
hisprescribed.
or her
(Garcia to remarryshare
v. Redo, ofonly the divorce,
G.R. annulment
their marriage. she of
James marriage,
marriedopposes
the Canadian court tried the case and decreed the
her (c)
annulment
childhood legal on separation,
the ground
sweetheart that
While
when
net
No. concealment
the other
profits
138322, ofOctober of drug
spouse
the 2, addiction
communitywas
2001) existing
a . foreigner
Philippine
property at at
the : the
laws or Pedro,
and/or
he diddivorce.
notalso(d) know
even separation
aShortlythat hethereafter,
Filipino had of aproperty,
such
citizen, disease
in Flor thatcan
somarried
a religious there aan
the
time
timeofof
apply
conjugal marriage
to the
Sonny constitutes
marriage,
partnershipand Lulu. fraud
the DOJ
Under
property under has Art.shall
Article 46 of
issued 15the an
of
be SUGGESTED
was no fraud orANSWER:
aggrieved spouse
bad faith avail
on himself/herself
his part. Decide. of-
ceremony
Canadian. in
Can Cebu VirgilioCity, celebrated
marry againaccordingin the to
FC
the which
opinion
forfeited makes
New(Opinion inCivilfavor the
Code,marriage
134
of thes.lawsof voidable
common1993)
relating under
that
children the
to Art.same
family45 if No,
or, Virgilio
(i) formalities
If the cannot
wife validly remarry.
discovers after theHis case is
the
Philippines? of Philippine
Explain. law. Pedro later
of the FC,
injustice
rights
there and
are the
sought action
duties,
none, tomust,
the be however,
cured and
status,
children by beofArticle
brought
capacity
the guiltywithin
26 of is not
B.(ii) covered
Suppose
marriage
left for the If the bywife
that
that
United
Article
both
her goes
husband
States
26(to)
parties of the at
andabroad
has Family
the
became time
“AIDS”. to workCode,
of as
5 years from
present
persons
spouse byinare the
athe discovery
case ofmarriage
binding
previous thereof
upon under
spouses who
citizens
or, Article
in were of47(3),
default both
theof For
their said
marriageArticle to besimilarly
were
naturalized as an American citizen. Maristhe
a nurse and refuses applicable,
to come home theafter
afflicted spouse
with
FC,
2) Since
Filipino the
Donations
atthethe drug addiction
time by reason
ofthey of Bert
the of was be.discovered
marriage
marriage butshall one who filed forofdivorce
expiration must be contract
diseases, a foreigner
serious at
and
Philippines
children, wherever
innocent spouse; may Thus, the followed Pedroher to the three-year
United States, andthere.
after
b)
by Baby
remain an Explain
in June
valid the
1989,
except status
the action ofhad
that isSaid the
already
ifstill the marriagedonee the
(iii)time of the marriage. Since both of them
became
marriage ofalienSonny subsequently.
and Lulu injustice
valid and is a seriousIfquarrel,
incurable, and both husband
Martsknewfiled discovers
of their
a suit andafter the
respective
between
prescribed
contracted
the anomaly
subsisting. Sonny
in June
the of Eva and
of 1994.
marriage Auring.
Although
remaining in bad (2%)drugfaith,
married addictiontosuchheris were
marriageFilipinos
infirmities, that
can athis thewife
Bethel timeor hasof the
James been marriage,
sue a prostitute
for the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: obtained aANSWER:
divorce decree issued by the court
a ground
donations for legal
made separation
to said under
donee Art.
are 55(5)
revoked and Art.
by divorce
(iv)
SUGGESTED
before
annulment obtained
If
they the
of husband
got by
married.Flor hasdid a not
serious capacitateaffair
husband
Since the who
decree is of no divorce
longer obtained married by to Lulu her. in
A. the
Thehis state
marriage oftheir
Maryland.
canThe
marriage?
be fact Maris then
annulled, returned
because
3)
57 of the
operation
Hence, The
FC said spouse
ofrequires
law; Opinionthat the who action
makes contracted
mustArticle be brought the
26 Virgilio
with tosecretary
remarry. and refuses thattoFlor stop was
and Sony in Canada is not recognized here in to
goodthefaithPhilippines
is not a and
defense in a civilwhen ceremony
the ground
subsequent
within
applicable 5 years marriage
from
to her the in
occurrence bad
case andbetween of faith
the cause.shall
the divorce be already an
notwithstanding alien at the
advice timefrom she obtained
relatives theis
and
the Philippines, the marriage Sonny celebrated
based
ALTERNATIVE
(v) upon in Cebu City
ANSWERS:
If thenot husband according
beats up to the
disease on
disqualified
Since
obtained Bert had abroadto inherit
been a drug
by addict her fromfrom formerthethe time innocent
of the
Filipino divorce
friends. does give Virgilio thehis wife every
capacity to
and
4) Auring
If bothis void.spouses(Art. 35,of Family
the Code)
subsequent Any a) Yes,
formalities
SUGGESTED
the part Virgilio
of of
ANSWER:
either can
Philippine validly
party. law,remarry.
she Art.
married 26 of
her
spouse bywould
celebration
husband testate
of and intestate
the marriage,
capacitate the action
her succession;
to forremarry.
legal To time he under
remarry comesPhilippinehome drunk. Law.5%
marriage
marriage subsequently
acted in been contracted
badmarriage,
faith all during the B.
the Yes,
former FC, the
merely marriage
classmate States can
Vincent the still
alien be
likewise annulled
spouse a without
Filipino
separation
contract amust have
subsequent brought notdonations
later
all she than 23
needs by
Marriage;
lifetime
reason Donations
of of the marriage
first by spouse
Reason of Marriage;
shall
and be Effect
illegal
testamentary and of because
taking
citizen. into
b)the fact that
consideration
Was the bothhis
marriage of ofthem
or herare
Maris nationality
and
December
to dosubject 1993.
is ofpresent Hence, Baby
tothethe cannot,
civil registrarnow, bring the
the at
Declaration
void,
dispositions Nullity
only
made (1996)
to
bywhen exception
one inshe favor in the
of the for cases afflicted
the
Pedro
othera Alternative Answer:time
valid with of
whensexually-transmissible
the marriage.
celebrated? While
Is theirhis diseases
case is
marriage
action
decree for oflegaldivorceseparation. applies
v. Bayadog,
Marriage;
1)
of On
absence
5) revoked theAnnulment;
The by G.R.
occasion
or No.
Proper
where
judgment of 133778,
Party
Digna's
the prior
ofof annulmentMarch
marriagemarriage 14, to 2000)was does
not
still not
covered
valid efface by
existing or
the nullity
letter
now? the
of
Reasons. ground.
Article c) 26Was FC, theit is,
are
marriage license operation
under Article law.13 of the of Family
the
B. No, thecovered marriage can no longer bewhen
The
(1990)
D and
George,
dissolvedmarriage
G, age
her or 20of
father and
annulled. Sonny
gave
marriage, the partition and distribution of the19, and
respectively,
her
(Ninal a Auring
donation does
and not
both
propter however,
marriage of Marts byand the spirit
Vincent of
validsaid Article,
Code.
fall within annulled, because thethe fact that both were to be
single,
nuptias
properties of the
eloped aofcar. exception.
and
the got married
Subsequently,
spouses, andthe tothe each
marriage other of
delivery the injustice
celebrated? totheir
Is Filipino
marriage spouse
still sought
validly
c)
withoutExplain parental the status
consent of
in the the
case of shallmarriage
G, a be afflicted
cured
existing bynow?and
said that
Article
Reasons.both knew
is present
d) At this of their
inpoint
this case. in time,
was annulled
the children's because
presumptive of the psychological
legitimes SUGGESTED ANSWER:
between
teenaged Lulu
student and of Tirso.
anMay (2%)
exclusive college respective
(b)
whoThe
(Department
is the infirmities
marriage of Justice
lawful of
husband constitutes
Maris Opinionand
of Marts?Pedro
No. a waiver
134wasSeries
Reasons. of
valid
immaturity
recorded in ofthe George.
appropriate Digna's
civil fatherforand
registry Marriage; Annulment; Judicial Declaration
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
girls. 44.Three years later, her that
b)
when ground.
Although
of 1993). celebrated the marriage
because originally
the divorce involved
validly
revoke
registers
The
Family
the
marriage ofdonation Code).
property,
of Lulu and getparents
(Articles
and back
Tirso53. the 52, wanted
is also car?
43. void. to
(1993)
Maria and
SUGGESTED
seek
Explain. judicial ANSWER: annulment on that ground. You Filipino
obtained byLuis,
citizens,Johnson both Filipinos,
it eventually
in Manilabecame were married
capacitated a
Mere
No, absence
Digna's of the
father spouse
may does
not not
revoke give rise
the by a
marriage Catholic between priest
Maris to marry Pedro. The marriage an in Lourdes
alien and Church,
a Filipino Quezon
of Maris after
were
SUGGESTED consulted ANSWER: and asked to prepare the
to a
donation right
(b) The complaint.
SUGGESTED of
because
children born
ANSWER: the present
Digna from was spousenot
the would in
union you to bad remarry.
faith,
of Hgive and City
Flor in 1976,
became Luis
a was
Canadian
and Pedro is still validly existing, because the drunk
citizen. on the
Thus, day theof his
proper What advice
Article
G himself
applying
W would 41 Art. of
should the
86(3)
be legitimate Family
file of the
the Code
complaint
Family
children provides
Code. under
if conceived or for a wedding.
divorce In
decree fact, was he slumped
one
marriage has not been validly dissolved by the obtained at theby altar
an soon
alien
G's parents? Explain your answer.
valid
Articlebigamous
ALTERNATIVE
born 45 of
before themarriage
the
ANSWER: Family
decreeCode, only
of where
and
annulment no longer a spouse
of the after
spouse
Maryland the ceremony.
married
divorce a After
to [Art. 26,marriage,
Filipino. Although
Family Luis
Code). never
nothing
a)
theYes,
has been
parents
marriage the donation
absent
because
(under for
Art. G 45isfour
is revocable.
of consecutive
already the 22 Family Since
years ofthe
years
Code) had
(c)
is a steady
The
said marriage
about job because
whether of Maris such he
and wasVincent
divorce drunk
did ismost voidof
ground
before
age. become
has for second
the thefinal annulmentmarriage
and executory of and the marriage
the present
(Art. 54,is the time.because
ab initio
capacitate Finally,
Flor tohe iscould
itremarry,a bigamousnot
that get fact employed
may as at
marriage
G.R.
the
Marriage;
spouse No.Annulment;
94053,
psychological
had a March immaturity
Proper
well-founded 17, 1993)
Party of George,
belief that the the all because
contracted of drunkenness.
by Maris during Hence,
the it was that
subsistence of
Family Code}. well be assumed since the problem states
judgment
(1995)
Yvette was
absent
SUGGESTED spousewas found
ANSWER: inisthe nature
toalready
be positive of afor
dead. declaration
HIV virus,of
(Republic v. Maria
her marriage
she who
married awith had to
Canadian earn a
Pedroshortly living
(Art 25after to support
and 41, obtaining
d)
(c) TheExplain
nullity
considered
Nolasco, under
children Art.
sexually the
of 36the respective
offirst
themarriage
transmissible, FC and, filiation
therefore,
shall be
serious and of herself
Family
the divorce.and her
Code). The
Hence, child begotten
marriage
Virgillo of with
can Maris
marry Luis.
and In
again
James,
considered
the donation
incurable. John Her and
legitimate
may Verna.
be
boyfriend revoked
children (2%)
Joseph under
ifwasconceivedArt.
aware 86(or of1) 1986,
Vincent
under Maria filed
does not law,
Philippine a petition
validly in
exist because
pursuant the church
to Art. 26. Article
FC
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Marriage; Divorce Decrees; Filipino Spouses becoming
born
of
herthe before
FC forthe
condition the
and Judgment
reason
yet married thatof annulment
the
her.marriage
After of two the
has matrimonial
26
whichdoes not
applies court
apply.
because in Quezon
Pedro Florwas City
wasnot atoforeigner
already annul an her at
James,
ALTERNATIVE John and Verna are illegitimate
marriage
been
(2) years judiciallyofANSWER:
of H and declared
cohabiting W has void
with become ab initio.
Yvette, final
andand in his Alien
marriage
the (1999)of
time with
his Luis
marriage
alien at the time of the divorce. on the with groundmarts of and the
children
b) No, the since donationtheir cannot parents be arerevoked.not validly The Ben andabroad Eva were
executory.
belief that Children
married.
law provides
she wouldconceived
Under thatArticle
probably or
a donation
never
165 ofbythe
bornbeofable
reason
the to
Family of psychological
divorce (in both
incapacity Maryland) Filipino
to comply was citizenswith at
initiated histhe
and
subsequent marriage
bear him a healthy child, Joseph now wants to shall likewise be time
marital
obtained of their
obligation.
not marriage
by the Heralien in 1967,
petition
spouse, When
was but their
granted
by the by
Code, children
marriage may conceivedbe revoked andbyborn the outside donor a if marriage turned sour, Ben went to a small
legitimate
have his marriage even if the with marriage
Yvette annulled. of H and Yvette S be the church
Filipino spouse.matrimonialHence, court.
the 1)
Maryland Can Maria
divorce
valid marriage
among other cases,are illegitimate,
the marriage unless
is judicially country in Europe, got himself naturalized
null
opposes and the voidsuit for contending
failure to comply that Joseph with the is nownot
did getcapacitate
married legally
Marts totoanother
marry man under
Vincent.
otherwisevoid
declared provided ab initio in this [par. Code.(1) Art. 86. Family there,
(d) At and
this then
point divorced
in time, Eva
Pedro in is accordance
still the
requisites
estopped of Article
from seeking 52 annulment
of the Family of Code
their Philippine laws after her marriage to Luis was
e)
Code],Who
a) or arewhen
To the
bear heirs
thethe marriage of
surnames Sonny?
is annulled
of the Explain. and
father SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(Article
marriage 53, since Family he Code).
knew evenAs legitimate
before their lawful
with
annulled
1) No, the husband
Marialaw
by of
the that
cannotof
churchMaris
country, because
matrimonial
validly Later,
contract their
he valid
court?
a
(2%)
the and Suggested
donee the acted
mother answer:
in bad in faith [par. with
conformity (3), Id.]. the returned to the Philippines with his new wife.
children,
marriage
Sonny's they
that
heirs have
she
include wasthe following
afflicted
James, with
John, rights; HIV
and virus.
Lulu. marriage
Explain. 2)has not
What
subsequent marriage without a court been
must dissolved
Maria do by
to any
enable validher
Since the
provisions
SUGGESTED problem
ANSWER: of the states
Civil Code that onthe Surnames;marriage cause
Eva now (Art. wants26. Family
to know Code)
what action or actions
Can
Article
No, the
Joseph action
887To of and
knew of
the Joseph
Civil
that for
Code
Yvette annulment
provides of
that histhe to get
declaration married lawfully
of nullity of to another
the first man
marriage. The under
was b)annulled there
receive nowas
issupport HIV
intimation from positive
oftheir
bad Marriage;
she can Divorce
file Decrees;
against Ben. Filiation
She of Children
also wants to
marriage
compulsory
ALTERNATIVE
at the time with heirs
ANSWER:
of Yvette
the of
marriage.prosper?
the deceased
He Discuss
is, are
therefore, fully.
among Philippine
law does notlaws?recognize the church declaration
faith on
parents, the part
their of
ascendants,the donee
c) Yes, the donation can be revoked. The ground used in dissolving and Digna,
in proper the SUGGESTED
(2005)
In 1985,
know if she ANSWER:
Sonny can and
likewise Lulu,marry both Filipino
again. What
others,
not
conclusion
cases, his
an injured wasis
widow party.
that
their and
the The hisimmaturity
donor
brothers FCillegitimate
gives
cannot
and the children.
right
revoke
sisters, whichto the
isin of nullitywere
Considering of athat marriage.Art. 26(2nd par.)
the marriage the psychological of George, citizens,
advice
2) can youMaria
To enable married
give her? to in get the
{5%) Philippines.
married lawfully In to
The
annul
donation.
not widow
thefor
a conformity
ground referred
marriage withofonly
annulment the to in
to an Article
provisions
marriage. injured
If this termof 887 party.
this
is equated isCode the
with contemplates a divorce between awent
foreigner
1987,
another they separated,
man. she must and Sonny to
legal
ALTERNATIVE
psychological
[Art. c)
on47 wife
(5),
Support; To of
ANSWER:
incapacity
FC] be the
andas deceased.
used
entitled in Art.to 36 ofthe Lulu
the Family
legitimeisCode,
stilland a and
Canada, a Filipino,
where who had obtain
he obtained
a judicial
sucha respective
divorce in the
Theitother
then action
is a ground
compulsory for forannulment
heir
successionaldeclaration
of Sonny can
of nullity
rights becauseprosper
of the marriage.
the
grantedlaw.toSince because
divorce declaration
nationalities ofat
them same year. He then married another nullity
the time of the
of prior
their marriage
marriage, the
Consequently,
the by prescriptive par. (1) of Art.
period 86, FC,
of is the
five applicable
(5) years has not SUGGESTED
under Article ANSWER:36 Family Code. Filipina,
obtained the by Sonny
Civilno Code in Canada
(Article
as to who 174, cannot
furnishedFamily be divorce in Europe will not capacitate the
Art. 86 of the
yet lapsed.
FC makes
[Art.
qualification
45faith(6), FC].
the Auring,
(a) H, or
Marriage; in Canada
either Legal
Annulment; on January
spouse for that
Separation; 1,1988. matter,
Prescription They of can
recognized
ground Code).
or who was ininthe bad Philippines.
in connection Thethelegitime
with nullification of of Filipino wife toJames
remarry. The advice we can
had
marry
Actions two sons,
(1996)again after and John.
complying In 1990, with afterthe
each
Marriage; illegitimateAnnulment; child Groundsshall consist of one-half give her ishear either to Sonny,
file a petition for legal
Marriage; Divorcefor
Divorce Decrees;
Decree; VoidFilipino Spouses becoming failing
Bertto
provisions and of from
Article 52 ofLulutheto married
Family Tirso,
Code,
of
Onethe
(1991)of thelegitime
grounds of a legitimate
annulment ofMarriages
marriage child.
is that (Art.
either 176,
party, 2)
separation, Baby
on the were
ground marriedof sexual each other
infidelity
Alien
(1992) (1996) by
on whom
namely,
December she
there had
23, a
must
1988.daughter, be
Six a Verna.
months partition In
later, 1991,
she and
Family
at the timeCode)of their marriage was afflicted with a and of visited
contracting a bigamouswhere marriage
Sonny
distribution,
discovered that the
of the
he Philippines
wasproperties
a of the hespouses,
abroad,
succumbed or to tofileheart a petition
attack..to dissolve the
and the delivery of the
conjugal partnership or absolute community of
property as the case maybe.
separation of property for failure of the husband to
comply with his marital duty of mutual respect
(Article 135 (4), Article 101, FC). She may also
file an action for declaration of nullity of the marriage
if the husband’s behavior constitute
psychological incapacity existing at the time of
the celebration of marriage.
Marriage; Grounds; Nullity; Annulment; Legal Separation
(1997)
Under what conditions, respectively, may drug
addiction be a ground, if at all, (a) for a
(b) for an annulment
declaration of nullity of the marriage contract,
marriage,
and (c) for legal separation between the
spouses? ANSWER:
SUGGESTED
(a) Declaration of nullity of
1)
marriage: The drug addiction must amount to
psychological incapacity to comply with
the essential obligations of marriage;
2) It must be antecedent (existing at
the time of marriage), grave and incurable:
3) The case must be filed before
August 1, 1998. Because if they got SUGGESTED ANSWER:
married before August 3, 1998, it must be (i) Since AIDS is a serious and incurable
filed before August 1, 1998. sexually-transmissible disease, the wife may
(b) Annulment of the Marriage Contract: 1) file an action for annulment of the marriage on this
The drug addiction must be concealed; 2) It ground whether such fact was concealed or
must exist at the time of marriage; 3) There not from the wife, provided that the disease
should be no cohabitation with full was present at the time of the marriage. The
knowledge of the drug addiction; 4) The marriage is voidable even though the husband
case is filed within five (5) years from was not aware that he had the disease at the
discovery. (ii)
time If of
the wife refuses to come home for three
marriage.
(3) months from the expiration of her contract,
(c) Legal Separation; 1) There should be no she is presumed to have abandoned the
condonation or consent to the drug addiction; husband and he may file an action for judicial
2) The action must be filed within five (5) separation of property . If the refusal continues for
years from the occurrence of the cause. more than one year from the expiration of her
contract, the husband may file the action for legal
separation under Art. 55 (10) of the Family Code
on the ground of abandonment of petitioner by
respondent without justifiable cause for more
than one year. The wife is deemed to have
abandoned the husband when she leaves the
conjugal dwelling without any intention of
returning (Article 101, FC). The intention not
(iii)
to returnIf the
cannothusband
be presumeddiscovers
duringafter
the the
marriage that his wife
30year period of her contract.was a prostitute before
they got married, he has no remedy. No
misrepresentation or deceit as to character,
health, rank, fortune or chastity shall
constitute fraud as legal ground for an action
for the annulment of marriage (Article 46 FC).
(iv) The wife may file an action for legal separation .

The husband’s sexual infidelity is a ground for
legal separation 9Article 55, FC). She may also
file an action for judicial separation of property for
failure of her husband to comply with his
martial duty of fidelity (Article 135 (4), 101,
(v) The wife may file an action for legal separation
FC).
on the ground of repeated physical violence on
her person (Article 55 (1), FC). She may also
file an action for judicial
CIVILCIVIL
LAWLAW
Answers
Answers
to thetoBAR
the BAR
as Arranged
as Arranged
by Topics
by Topics
(Year(Year
1990-2006)
1990-2006)
Marriage;
the Failure
(d) court Psychological
shall
of theuphold Incapacity
solemnizing the validity
officer to and file sanctity
the theofpreceding
Saudi work.Article,
Arabia to ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE There, after only being the properties
converted into Islam,acquired by
(2006)
Gemma
marriage
affidavit
(Brown filed
v.of a petition
marriage
Yambao, for
did
G.R. the
not
No. declaration
affect
L-10699, the of 18,
validity
October None
of
both
Ariel of them
themarried
parties through
Mystica, are necessarily
their
Rosa actual
learned psychologically
jointofcontribution
the secondofmarriage
money, of
property, or industry Being shall be a owned
nullity
the of
1957).
of her marriage
marriage. It is with Arnell
merely an on the
irregularity incapacitated.
Ariel on January
proportion
1, 1992
to their respective
when Arielby
nagger, them
returned
contributions.
in common
etc. toare at inbest
the Philippines
In the absence,
Marriage; Non-Bigamous Marriages only
with physical manifestations indicative ofon of proof
groundmay
which of psychological
subject the incapacity. solemnizingShe alleged
officer to to theMystica.
contrary,Rosatheirfiled an actionand
contributions for legal separationshares
corresponding are
(2006)
Marvin,
ALTERNATIVE
that after
sanctions. a2 Filipino,
monthsand
ANSWER: Shelley,
of their marriage,an American,Arnell psychological
February 5,to1994,
presumed be equal. incapacity.
1) Does Rosa have
The same More
rule legal
and than
groundsjusttoshowing
presumption ask for
shall apply
Considering
both
showed signsthat
residents the
ofofdisinterestsolemnizing
California, in her,officer
decided to get
neglected has no the to manifestations
joint
legal deposits of2)
separation? money
Has theof
andincapacity,
evidences
action the petitioner
of credit.
prescribed?
authority
married
her and went in totheir perform
local parish.
abroad. He the marriage
returnedTwo years to the because
after must show that the respondent is incapacitated
under Art.
their marriage,
Philippines 7 the
afterShelley law
3 yearsobtained authorizes
but did not a divorceonly
even get inthe to comply with
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the essential marital obligations
airplane
California. chief,
While the marriage is void, hence, a, 1)
of a) Yes,
marriage the and abandonment
that it is alsoof Rosa bythat
essential Ariel he
in touch with her.in Boracay,
Worse, theyMarvin met severalmet
c, and d are
Manel,inasocial immaterial.
Filipina, who was for
must more
(Republic
SUGGESTED be than
shownv. one
to be(1)
Quintero-Hamano,
ANSWER: year
incapable is a ofground
doing
G.R. No. for
so due to
times functions butvacationing
he snubbedthere. her.
Marriage;
Marvinshe fellgot Requisites
in love C.
some
legal
149498,It should
psychological,
separation
May be
20, distinguished
unless
2004).not physical
upon when
illness
returning the to the
When sick,with he did her. not Aftervisitaher brief even if
(1999)
What
courtshipis the status of the following marriages and ALTERNATIVE
property
Philippines, was ANSWER:
acquired.
Rosa agrees to cohabit with Ariel
he knew ofand hercomplying
confinement with inall thethe hospital. A congenital sexual pervert may be
(a)
why? A
requirements, marriage they between
got married two 19-year
in Hongkong olds to which• is allowed If it was under acquired
the Muslim before Mary's
Code. In
Meanwhile, Arnell met an accident which psychologically incapacitated if his perversion
without
SUGGESTED
avoid parental
ANSWER:
publicity, it consent,
being (2%) second
Marvin's this case,death, there the is estate of Mary is
condonation. b)entitled
Yes. Theto
disabled
Yes.
(b)
No, The
Gemma's him
A marriage
marriage fromwill
suit reporting
will
between
not not fall for
two
prosper. underwork
EvenArt.
21-year and 35(4)
olds
if taken incapacitates him from discharging his marital
marriage. Is his to marriage tohimself.
Manel valid? 1/2 of the
contracting of asharesubsequent of James. bigamous
earning
of
as true,
without a
the Family
the living Code
grounds,
parental support
on bigamous
singly
advice. Will
marriages,
or collectively,
(2%) do not obligations. For instance, if his perversion is
Explain. (5%) marriage • If
whether it was in acquired
the Philippines after Mary'sor abroad
Gemma's
provided
(c)
constitute suit
that
A marriage prosper?
Shelley
"psychological between Explain.
obtained twoan
incapacity." (5%)
absolute
Filipino
In Santos first v. of such a nature as to preclude any normal
death, for
is a ground there legalwillseparation
be no share under at all for
Article
divorce,
cousins
CA, G.R. in capacitating
No. Spain
112019, where her
Januarysuchto 4,remarry
1995, the
marriage under
is valid.her sexual
Marriage; activity
Psychological with Incapacity
his spouse.
55(7)
Marriage; the
of estate
the
RequisitesFamily of Mary.
Code. Whether the second
(d)
Supreme
national
(2%) A law.
marriage
Court clearly between
Consequently, explained twomarriage
the Filipinos in
that SUGGESTED
(1996)
On April
marriage 15,ANSWER:
isIrma,1983,
valid orJose,
not, an Ariel engineer,
having andof
"psychological incapacity must be characterized (1995)
Isidro
2) No. Underand Filipinos,
Article 57 ofboth the 18 Family years Code,
Hongkong
between before
Marvin a notary
and Manel public.
may be(2%)
valid as Marina, a nurse, were married to each
(e)(a)as
by Aitv.marriage
gravity, (b) solemnized
juridical antecedence,by a town
converted
age,
the aggrieved
into
were passengers Islam,
spouse must
is immaterial.
of Flight file the 317other
No. action of in
long
(Ferraris was solemnized
Ferraris, G.R. No. and valid
162368, in and
July 17,(c) a civil ceremony in Boac. Marinduque. Six
mayorChoa three
incurability" towns away from his jurisdiction, Oriental
within five Airlines.
(5) years The fromplane thethey boarded of
occurrence was the
accordance
2006; v.with
Choa, theG.R.laws No. of143376,
Hongkong November[Art. months after registry.
their marriage, Jose wasfrom
Marriage;
(2%) Property
. The illness Relations; Void Marriages of Philippine
cause. The subsequent While
marriage en routeof Ariel could
26,
26, paragraphs
2002) 1 andmust be shown
2, Family Code].as employed in an oilsome refinery in Saudihijacked Arabia for
(1991)
In June 1985,
downright James or
incapacity married
inability Mary. In
to perform one's Manila
not have tooccurred
Greece earlier passengers
than 1990, the time
a
theperiod
plane, of three
held the years.
chief When
pilot he
hostagereturned at the to
September 1988, he also married
marital obligations, not a mere refusal, neglect, Ophelia he went to Saudi Arabia. Hence, Rosa has until
the
cockpitPhilippines,
and ordered Marina him wasto noinstead
fly longer livingto Libya. in
with whom
difficulty he begot
or much less,two (2) children,
ill will. Moreover,Aas and B.
ruled 1995 to bring the action under the Family
their
Marriage;
During house, but
Legalhijacking in Zamboanga
Separation;Isidro Mutualsuffered guiltCity, working
a heart in
In Republic
in July 1989, Mary died.
v. Molina, GR No. In July108763, 1990, he
February Code. the
a hospital.
(2006)
Saul, aand
attack married He
was on asked
man, her
thehad verge to come
an of home,
adulterous
death. Since but
married
13, 1997,Shirley
it is essentialand abandoned
that the husband Ophelia, is
(Antonio she
Irma refused
relation waswith to
already do
Tessie. so,
eight unless
In one months he
of the agreed not
trysts, Saul's
pregnant by to
During their
capable ofv.meeting
Reyes,
union. G.R.
hisJames No. and
marital 155800, Ophelia March 10, 2006;
responsibilities
v. Quintero-Hamano,
Ophelia
Republic sues James and G.R.
for No.
bigamy 149498,
and prays Maythat 20, work
Isidro, overseas
wife, Cecile,she pleaded anymore
caughtto them because
the in flagrante.
hijackers she cannot
Armed
to allow
acquired
due a residential
to psychological lotnotworth
physical P300,000.00.
illness
2004) . Furthermore,
his marriage with Shirley the condition
be declared complained
null and stand aliving
withassistant
the gun, Cecile alone.
pilot to Hesolemnize
shot could
Saul not in aher agree as in
fit marriage
of extreme
of didJames,
void. not exist on at the theothertimehand,of theclaims celebration
that fact,
jealousy,
with he had
Isidro. nearly signed
Soon killing
afteranother him. three(4)
Four
the marriage, year years
Isidro
of marriage.
since his marriage to Ophelia was contracted contract.
after the As
expired. When
incident, he
the plane returned
Saul filed an
landed in 1989,
actionhe
in Libya for
Irmacould
legal
Marriage; Psychological Incapacity
during the existence of his marriage with not
(1) locate
If
separation
gave you Marina
were
birth. against
However, anymore.
Saul's
Cecile counsel,
the baby on theIn 1992,
died how
ground Jose
will
a fewthat filed
(2006)
Article 36 of the Family Code
Mary, the former is not binding upon him, the provides that a marriage an
you
she action
argue
attempted served
his by
case?
to kill publication
minutes after complete delivery. Back in the (2.5%)
him. in a newspaper
contracted
same being by void
any party who, at
ab initio hethe time ofclaims
further the of general ANSWER:
SUGGESTED
Philippines circulation.
Irma immediately Marina filed did not file any
a claim for
celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to As the counsel
answer, a possible of Saul,collusion I willbetween argue that the an
that his marriage to Shirley is valid and inheritance. The parents of Isidro opposed
attemptwas
parties by the ruled wife out against
by the of the her
life Prosecutor.
comply with the essential marital obligations of
binding
3) as Drug he was already arises
addiction legallyduring capacitated the claim contending
SUGGESTED ANSWER: that thethe Public
marriage between
marriage, shall be void. Choose the spouse listed below husband
Trial
As judge, isconducted
wasIsidro one not
I will of the and
grant groundsMarina
the enumerated
neither
annulment. The by
at the time heand
marriage marriednot ather. the a) time Is the contention
of marriage. her and was void ab initio on the
and
who Ophelia?
is psychologically c) Is the estate
incapacitated. of Mary
Explain. entitled
(2.5%) a) the Family
appeared
facts do not norCode for
presented
show any legal separation
evidence in and
her there
favor.
of James correct? b) What property Relations following grounds: (a) taint
they of had personality
not given their
Nagger
to a share
Marriage; b)Legal
Gayin orthe Lesbian c)
Separation; Congenital
Declaration sexual pervert
of Nullity is
If no need
you
disorder were onfor the
the criminal
judge,
part ofwill conviction
the you
wife grant for the
Marina theso as to
governed the union of James consent
1. Resolve to the
each marriage
of the(Art. of
contentionstheir son;([a](b)tothere
[d])
d) residential
Gambler
(2002) e) lot
Alcoholic acquired
If drug addiction, habitual alcoholism,SUGGESTED by James
ANSWER: Theand best ground
annulment.
lend to
substance be invoked
Explain.to her husband's 55, par. 9,
averment Family of
was
raised
(2) no
If marriage
by
you the
were parents license;
the of
lawyer (c)
Isidro. the
of solemnizing
Discuss
Cecile, fully.
what
Ophelia?
answers
SUGGESTED are B and
ANSWER: C. To be sure,
lesbianism or homosexuality should occur only the existence and Code).
psychological incapacity within the meaning of
A. Yes. His of
concealment marriage to Ophelia
these conditions at theisinception
void ab of initio officer
SUGGESTED
will beof had
your nodefense?
ANSWER: authority (2.5%) to perform the
during the marriage, would this constitute Art
1. 36 the
(a) TheANSWER:
marriage;
SUGGESTED Family
fact (d)
and, that the Code.
the In Santos
parents of Isidro
solemnizing vs. CA
officerand did
becauserenders
marriage of his subsisting
the marriageprior contract marriage
voidableto(Art.
grounds for a declaration of nullity or for legal (240
As
of
not the
IrmaSCRA
file counsel
did
an 20)
not ,of
affidavit this
give ofparticular
Cecile,
their I
marriage will
consent ground
invoke
with to forproper
the
the
Mary.
46, HisCode).
Family marriage They may to Shirley,
serve asafter indicia Mary's
of
separation,
ALTERNATIVE or would they render the marriage
ANSWER: nullity
adultery
marriage
civil of ofmarriage
registrar.did Saul.
not Mutual
makewas the held
guilt toisbe
marriage limited
a groundvoid ab only
for
death,
SUGGESTED is valid
psychological and binding.
incapacity,
ANSWER: depending on the degree and
voidable?
A. No. The (1%).
contention of James is not correct. to the
initio. most
the dismissal
The marriageserious
of an action cases
is merely of personality
for legal voidable separation
under
severity of the disorder
In accordance with law, if drug addiction,
(Santos v. CA, G.R. No. 112019,
Art.4,40, Family Code, provides disorders
(Art.
Art 4556, (clearly
of par.
the 4, Family
FC. demonstrative
Code). Theofrule utter is
Jan.
habitual 1995) . Hence,
alcoholism, if the condition that
lesbianism of the
orhomosexuality,
"absolute nullity of a previous marriage may be sensitivity
(b) Absence
anchored onor a inability
of marriage
well-established to give license meaningdid
principle not andmake
that
lesbianism
homosexuality or sexual shouldperversion,
occurexisting
only during at the the
invoked
inception for
of they:purposes
the marriage, of remarriage on the significance
the
one marriage
must come to the
void to abmarriage.
court initio.with Marina's
Since
clean the
hands.refusal
marriage, a) Will isnot of such a degree
constitute asasground
to
to come
marriage
(3) If you home
was
were tothe her judge,
solemnized husband in how unless
articulo he
willmortis,
you agreed it
basis
prevent
(Art. solely
36, any
Family ofCode);
form aoffinal
sexualb)judgment
intimacy,
Will constitute declaring
any of
as them
grounds such
may
for declaration of nullity not
was
decide to work
exemptthe overseas,
from
case? the
(5%) far
license from being
requirement indicative
previous
qualify marriage
for legalasseparation
a ground for void." It
psychological
(Art. can be
56, FC) andincapacity. said,
c) will not The SUGGESTED
under Art.ANSWER:
of an insensitivity 31 of the to FC.the meaning of marriage,
therefore,
law provides
constitute asthat
that
grounds thehusband
the marriage
to renderand theofwife
James tovoidable
are obliged
marriage to If
(c)
or Iofwere
On a the the judge,disorder,
assumption
personality I will that dismiss
the the shows
assistant
actually action pilotaon
Shirley
live is
together,
(Art.45and void
46, since
observe
FC) his
mutual previous
love, respect marriage
and to
fidelity
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: the ground
was acting
sensitive of mutual
for and inon
awareness guilt
behalf
her partof the
of the parties.
of airplane
the marital The
Ophelia,
(Art. although
68, Family Code).itself void, had
The mandate not yetthe
is actually been
A. No. The contention of James is not correct. Philippine
chief
duty who
to live Constitution
was under
together protects
disability,
as husband andmarriage
and bywife.
reason as an
judicially declared
spontaneous, void, between the spouses. In
mutual affection
He cannot set up as a defense his own criminal inviolable
of
Mere the refusal social
extraordinary to to institution
rejoin and (Art.
herexceptional
husband XV, Sec.
when 2,
he
Marriage;
the natural Legal
order
act or wrongdoing- Separation;
it is sexual Grounds;
intimacy Prescriptive
which brings Periodthe Mere
1987 intention
Constitution). liveAn apart
action doesfor not
legal fall under
spouses circumstances
did not accept of
the the case
condition [ie. hostage
imposed by her
(1994) wholeness and oneness (Chi Ming Tsoi Art. 36, FC.involves
separation Furthermore, there is no proof that
Rosa and ArielANSWER:
SUGGESTED were married in the Catholic Church of Tarlac,
situation),
does
the not furnish
alleged
the marriage anypublic
psychological basis was interest
forsolemnized
incapacityconcludingand no
existed
by such
thatan
at
B. The provisions of Art 148 of the Family Code, shall govern: Art.
decree
authorized
she was should officer
suffering be issued
from if
underpsychological
Art.any7 legal(3) and obstacle
Art. 31.
Tarlac on January 5. 1988. In 1990, Ariel went to the
theretotime of
appears the marriage.
on record.
148.
v. In cases
CA, G.R.ofNo. cohabitation
119190, not falling
January under of the FC.
incapacity to discharge the This essential is in line
maritalwith
16,1997). the policy
obligations. that in case of doubt, Page 30 of 119
[Art. college,
under
from 35(1),
Article Family
A35and (2),Code].
B FC.decided In
Thethat to
fact break
case,
thattheir the
Ric party
was
relation
Under
This
Philippine
not
in is Article
ALTERNATIVE different
Law, 213
ANSWER: his
from
ofmarriage
the
the Family
casetoofAnne Code,
Nināl isno void
V. child because
Bayadog, under
is
parted
of
good
and
awareacting
herfaithreal
ways.underage Bothis
a mistake
immaterial.
went home of fact, to their
not a mistake If the
years
prior
7
of
(328
SCRA two
aexistingof
122 Filipinos
age
marriage
[2000] which).believed
shall wasbeIn thein said
notseparated
dissolved good
by thefrom faith
divorce that
case, thethe
decreed
the in Oslo. Divorce
Notary Public obtained
is court abroad by a Filipino
authorized is not
tocompelling
solemnize
of law,
respective towns to live and work. 1) Was the situation
mother unless
occurred the during the findsRelations of the
recognized.
2) Would
marriage
(3) Suppose your
of A and answer
Ric be the same
B solemnized
himself on ifAugust
procured it should 30,
the (1) marriage,
new
reasons Civil then
toCode
Explain the
orderwhere marriage
otherwise.
the Article 76
rationale is valid.
of thereof
this provision. clearly
turn
1988out
falsified by the that
birth thecertificate
town marriage
mayor of license X hiswas
toinpersuade office aJuliet (2.5%) SUGGESTEDthat
provides ANSWER: during the five-year cohabitation,
spurious?
SUGGESTED
valid
to marriage?
marry Explain.
ANSWER:
him Explain despite your her answer.minority 2) Can and the The
If rationale
SUGGESTED
partiesANSWER:
Boni was no oflonger
must thebe2nd paragraph
a Filipino
unmarried. of Article
citizen,
This isthenot213 so
No, theoranswer would not be themarriage same. The (e)
of the Under
Family the
Code Local
is to Government
avoid theChangetragedy Code, aa
either both of them contract
assured her that everything is in order. He town mayor may validly solemnize a marriage with divorce
anymore isinvalid.
the Hence,
Family his
Code. marriage
The to Anneinoftheis
marriage
another would without be void committing
because of the mother who
valid if celebrated seesisher in baby
accordance torn away Ifwith from her.
law It
thesecond
did not person divulge to her his priorbigamy? marriage Family but said
Code
law is silent
significant.
as to the territorial
the
limits
absence
Explain of
yourWhat a formal
answer. requisite. In such a case, is said
of the placethat the maternal
where itbefore affection
was celebrated. and care
Since during
ofthe
with Gigi. action, if any, can Juliet marriage for
occurred
the exercise by childa town
the effectivity
mayor ofneeded
such
the
there
SUGGESTED was ANSWER:
actually
ANSWER: no Julietvalid can marriage
file an license.for
action the early
marriage years
was of the
celebrated are generally
aboard a vessel of
take against him? Explain. Family Code, the answer would that be that the
Marriage;
1)
theThe Requisites;
marriage
declaration of
ofMarriage
A andLicense
nullity Bof is (2.5%)
voidmarriage
the because the on authority.
by
B. the
Does
(Hontiveros
Norwegian childSotero However,
more
v. IAC, than
haveG.R. by
paternal
the analogy,
care
No.personality
64982, law October withto seek the
23,
marriage is registry,
void. Norwegian applies. If
(2002)
On
the May
solemnizing
ground 1, 1978 thatFacundo
officer hehad married
no
willfully legal causedPetra,
authority by or
loss to authority
the Ship Captain has authority to solemnize to
1984;
the of members
Tolentino,
declaration of nullity of the
Commentaries
of the Judiciary
marriage, and
whom
injury he
solemnize to had herthea son
inmarriage. Sotero.
a manner But Petra
that isdied
if either contraryonorJulyboth to solemnize
Jurisprudence
especially
the marriage a now
marriage,
on the
aboard that his itship,
Civil would
Facundo theseem
Code, is that
Volume
marriage already the
One,
is
1, 1996,
parties while
believed Facundo
morals, good customs and public policy [Art.in died
good on January
faith that 1, the mayor
pp. did
718-719).
SUGGESTED
deceased?
valid and shall not
ANSWER: have
The
Explain. the
general
(3%)
be recognized requisite
rulein the authority
is that a child to
2002.
solemnizing Before his
officer demise,
21, New Civil Code]. She may also bring had Facundo
the legal had
authority married, to B.
As
belowA
solemnize
to void
the marriage
a
secondmarriage may
question, be
outside
7 years old shall not be separated from if questioned
of
Boni his
is still by
territorial
a any
Philippines.
on
do July
so, 1,
criminal 2002,
theactions marriage Quercia. Having lived
for isseduction,
voidable because together
falsification, the interested
jurisdiction.
Filipino,
his mother Anneparty
due cantoinhis
Hence, any
file the
an
basic proceeding
marriage
actionneedfor for where
her is loving
void,the
as husband
marriage and
between wife
illegal marriage and bigamy against Ric. the since July
parties, 1, 1990,
both below 21 resolution
unless
declaration
care it
(Espiritu wasof
of the
nullity
v. issue
contracted
C.A., of her
G.R. iswith material.
marriage
No. either
115640, to Being
orhim.both
March a
Facundo
years of and age, Querciawas did not secure a (2)
partiesGivebelieving
ALTERNATIVE
compulsory atANSWER:
leastSoterro
heir, 3 good
in examples has
faith theof
that "compelling
personality
the mayor to
(4) If you were the solemnized
counsel forwithout
Gigi, what the 15,1995).
The marriage is justify
valid. the Under the Local
marriageoflicense
consent the parents. but executed (Art.to35, the requisite
par. (2) and and reasons"
question
Marriage;
had theVoid which
the validity
Marriages
legal authority of tothesolemnize taking
marriage away
this of
action/s will you take enforce Government Code, the authority of a mayor to
2) Either
affidavit
Art. 45 par. or
for (1),both
the of
purpose.
Family the parties
Code)To ensure cannot contract
that his from
(2006)
Facundo
Gigi and
particular the Ric, mother's
andCatholics,
marriage Quercia. custody
(Artgot married
35, of
Otherwise,
par her
when
2 child
they
Family his
protect her interests? Explain. (2.5%) solemnize
SUGGESTED ANSWER: marriages is not restricted within his
marriage inrightsthe are IPhilippines
would file with an affected another
action to under
participation
were 7 years of
theage.
inold. estate (2.5%)on Facundo waswould be
inheritance
SUGGESTED ANSWER: not adversely Code). a.18 years
municipality The mother
implying
Their
thatismarriage
insane
he has (Sempio-Diy,
the authority
person
declare without
the marriage committing
by his father second marriage, Sotero now between bigamy,
Juliet andunless Ric affected.
solemnized
Handbook on August
(Ninãl V.
onterritory
the 2, 1989
Bayadog,
Family by Ric's
328
Code SCRAuncle,
of the 122a
SUGGESTED
there is ANSWER:
compliance with the requirements of even
Marriage; outside the
Requisites; Solemnizing thereof. Officers Hence, the
null
brings and void
a marriage
suit to seek ab initio and
avoidable.
declaration for Ric's
ofconsentshare
the nullity in Baptist
[2000] Minister,
).
•1 complete The in Calamba, Laguna. He
(a)
ArticleThe 52 Family isof
Code, namely: Thethere must of (1994)
1} Philippines,
marriage
The he mother
pp.
publication is sick;of
296-297)
solemnized with aFamily
theoutside disease his
thethe
of co-ownership
marriage of Facundo that and marriage
Quercia, to be overlooked
that is the fact
communicable that his and license
might toendanger
the
a parties oftoannulment
judgment the marriage was defective.
or aabsolute nullity of municipality
Code was made is valid.
on August And 4, even1987. assuming
On before that
forfeited
grounded in
onfavorthe and considered
absence of valid part
marriage of the solemnize
the healthmarriageandislife expired
of the the
child;month
Being
the below
marriage, 21 years
partition old, the consent of the his
September authority 4, 1987, restricted
Junior Cruz and within
Gemma his
absolute
license. community
Quercia in andthe distribution
marriage of the
between and •2 that the parties do has not beenbelong to his
parties is
properties notof fullcontends
the without
spouses
that
the
and
there was
consent
the of no
delivery their of municipality,
Reyes were The mother
such
married marriage
before a willmaltreating
municipal nevertheless,
mayor.
Gigi and
need for aRic [Arts. 148
marriage license& 147, in view Family for Code].
her I congregation.
the After 5 years of married life and
parents.
their
wouldchildren's
also The file consent
anpresumptive
action of for the parents
legitimes,
damages ofwhich
against the be
Was
blessed thechild;
valid
with
becausevalid?
marriage2 children,
solemnizing
2) Suppose
the spouses
thethemarriage couple
developed
having
parties
A. Is the lived
to the
marriage continuously
marriage of is
Facundo with Facundo
indispensable
and Quercia for
for five
its outside•3 said The mother
municipality is engaged
is a mere in irregularity
shall
Ric be
onbefore recorded
theANSWER: grounds in the
that his and appropriate
actsthat constitute Civil
an got married
irreconcilable on September 1, 1994
differences, so they parted ways. at the
years
SUGGESTED
validity.
valid, despite their
the marriage
absence of a marriage
marriage has prostitution;
applying by before
analogy the case ofConsul Navarro v
Registry
(b)
abuse Betweenof and
right Registry
21-year and olds,
they of theProperty,
are contrary otherwise
is
to valid
law Manila
While Hotel
separated, Ricthe fell Philippine
in love with Juliet, a
Sotero
ALTERNATIVE
license?
SUGGESTED has no
ANSWER:
Explain.
ANSWER: legal (2%) personality to seek a •4
Domagtoy, The
259 mother
Scra is
129 engaged
. In this in case, the
the
despite
and same
morals, shall
the not
absence
causing affect
damages third
of marriage persons
parental
to Gigi since(See and
advice, the
Arts General
16 year-old to Hongkong,
sophomore who
in a local college andina
was on vacation
declaration
2) The
A. Yes, they
marriage of nullity
can. with Theof the
subsequent
Quercia is void. marriage
The Supremeadulterous Court relationship;
held that the celebration by a
subsequent marriage shall be is null and Manila. The couple executed an affidavit
because
19,
Facundo20, 21,
contracted
exemption
Marriage; is such
Void
New
now
by
from one Civil
deceased.
the
Marriages; of absence
Code).
the
requirement parties
Psychological
merely
ofwill not void.
aIncapacity
marriage givean Seventh-Day
•5 of aANSWER:
SUGGESTED
judge
consenting The Adventist.
mother
marriage
to the isThey
outside
celebration a drug decided
the
of addict;
the
to get
jurisdiction
marriage of
(Arts. to52
irregularity andaffecting
53. Family Code)
athe formal requisite i.e., married
1) •6 a) Yes, with The the
the consent
marriage
mother is aofis Juliet's
valid. that
habitual parents.
The
drunk Family
rise
license
(2002)
A. Give bigamy
under
a brief Art,even 34,inFamily
definition or absence
Code,
explanation of aofcourt
requires the his
at thecourtManila is aHotel.
mere Is irregularity
the marriage valid? didornot
the marriage license and does not livedaffect The the She
Code presented
took to himon a birth certificate
declaration
that
termthe manofand
“psychological nullity woman of the
must
incapacity” first havemarriage.
as is a ground affect an theeffect
alcoholic; validity August of 3,the 1988.marriage At the
validity of the marriage itself. This without showing
time of she
the is 18
marriage years on old. Ricor
September never doubted
subsistence
together
for the declaration as of
husband a prior and valid
wife
of nullity formarriage
at least
ofcriminal,
a marriage. is
five an •7
notwithstanding The mother
Article is in
7 the jail
ofLicense
the Family1987,
serving 4, Code
prejudice
indispensable
years and toelement
without the
any of
legalcivil,
the crime
impediment of bigamy.
to or (1)her What
Marriage;
age much
municipal
sentence.
is the
Requisites;
less
mayors
status
theMarriage
were
of
authenticity marriage
empowered of her birth to
B.
(2%) If existing at the inception of marriage, which
between
(1996) provides
Gigi and that Ric an — incumbent
valid, voidablemember or of
administrative
The prior
marry each court
otherofliability
declaration
during of the party
offive responsible
nullity ofThe the On Valentine's
certificate.
solemnize They
marriageDay got 1996,
married
under Ellas in
the and
a Fely,
Catholic
Civil both
Code of
would
SUGGESTED the ANSWER:
state beingthose of unsound years. mind or the
void?
SUGGESTED judiciary
Explain.
ANSWER: (2.5%)Even
is of if the Minister's
authorized license
toConsuls solemnize
therefor.
firstBy marriage
cohabitation
(c) reason of is required
Facundo
of public and by thethe
Quercia
policy, Familyfor six
marriage single
2)
church
1950.
Code marriages a) and
The
in 25 years
marriage
Manila. A is
yearage,
not went
valid.
after, to
Juliet thegave city and
birth
the concealment of drug addiction, habitual expired, theonly marriage
within isthe
valid if either or both
hall where
vice-consuls they are soughtempoweredoutcourt’s
a fixerjurisdiction.
to help them
only for
years
between
alcoholism, from the 1990
Filipino purpose to
first
homosexuality July of the
1, 1996
cousins or isvalidity
when
void [Art.
lesbianism of the
Petra 38,
be to
Gigitwins,
and Ric Aissa and
believed in good faith to
Aretha. that solemnize
he had
subsequent
died
par. was Family
(1), marriage,
one with not
a legaland
Code], as an
impediment element
the psychological
fact that hence, of the
it is obtain
marriages a quickie marriage.
the legal authority to solemnize marriage. abroad
between Philippine For a fee,
citizens the While
fixer
considered
Marriage; Void indicia
Marriages of
crime
not in of
considered
SUGGESTED bigamy.
compliance a valid
ANSWER: with the requirement
marriage in a foreign of law. produced
the authority of the solemnizing officer is a for to
in the an
consular ante-dated
office of marriage
the foreign license
country
incapacity?
(2004) Explain. (2%).
A.
A.”
On
country BONI
PSYCHOLOGICAL
other inhand, and
this case, ANNE
the cohabitation
Spain— met
INCAPACITY”
doeswhile
thereafter working
not validate is a which them,
formal Issuedthey were
requisite byof the Civil Registrar
assigned
marriage, and
and haveat leastof no a small
power
one of
overseas.
ALTERNATIVE
mental
until
it, the
being They
ANSWER:
disorder
marriage
an exceptionbecame
of
on the
Julyto sweethearts
1,most
the2000, serious
generalalthough and
rule got
typein remote
to solemnize municipality.
marriage He
the parties must belong to the solemnizing on then brought
Philippine them
soil. to
The
engaged
showing marriage to
the beof Facundo
married
incapability and
on
of one Quercia
New Year’s is VALID.
Eve b)
a A Philippine
licensed minister consulin a is authorized
restaurant behindby lawthe to
free
The from
Art. second
96 of legal
said
marriage impediment,
Code was which didor
accords
solemnized not bothmeet spouses
validity
on the to
July 1,
officer's church, the law provides that the good
aboard
to a cruise ship in the Caribbean. They solemnize
city hall, and marriages
the latter abroad
solemnized between their Filipino
all comply
ALTERNATIVE
5-year
2000, marriage the
ANSWER
cohabitation
when
essential
solemnized
the Family
marital the
requirement.
codeoutsidewas
obligations
already Philippine of (Art.
faith
SUGGESTEDof
35the par. parties
2, Family
ANSWER: cures the defect
Code; Sempio-Diy, in the lack p. 34; of
The marriage
took
love, the
respect,proper itcohabitation,
void. Under
license to marry Article
mutual in New 96help ofYorkand citizens.
the Rabuya,
marriage
authority He
right
of
The thehas
Law therenoPersons
solemnizing
on authority
and then.
officer
and 1)toFamily
solemnize
Is their a
x x x
affective.and valid
The there
family as
code such.took effect on August The marriage is valid. The irregularity in the
Family
City,
support, where Code,
trust there and ais a marriage
Filipino consulate.
commitment. valid
It must whereBut marriage
be Relations, in
valid,the
p. 208). Philippines.
void or voidable? Explain. Consequently, the
3, 1988. Under the Family Code, no marriage issuance
marriage of
in aquestion
valid license is consent
void, does not adversely
unless either
celebrated
as planned
characterized is by valid
the in theantecedence,
wedding
Juridical Philippines
ceremony except
was
gravity The absence of parental despite theiror
license is required if the parties have been affect
both of the the validity
contracting of the
parties marriage. believed The in
those
officiated
and marriages
incurability by theand enumerated
captainits root of the in
causes said
Norwegian- Article
must be having married at the age of 18 is deemed
Back
cohabiting in Manila, for the Anne period discovered
of five that
years Boni
and had
there marriage
good faithlicense that is valid
the because
consul it was
general in fact
had
which marriages
registeredidentified
clinically vessel in will remain void
a private (Santos
or examined. even
suite among though
v. CA, cured
ALTERNATIVE by their continued cohabitation beyond
been
is no married
legal in Santos
impediment. Bacolod City 5ofyears earlier issued by aANSWER:
Civil Registrar (Arts. 3 and in 4. FC).
B.
validInSCRA
selected
240 the
where case
friends. of
20solemnized.
[1995]) . There The
v. Court must
marriage no legal
Appeals, between 240 theauthority
It age ofto
depends.
Marriage;
21. solemnize
If At
both
Requisites;
this or their
point,
Void one of marriage
their
Marriage parties which
the marriage wasis a
but
first divorced
impediment
SCRA 20 (1995)
cousins in is
ONLY ,Oslo AT
the one onlyofTIME
THE
Supreme last thoseyear.
OF THE
Court His first
held
marriages case
that valid
member the
(See marriage
Art.
of 18 45, is valid.
Family
theyears religiousCode). sect of the
wife was also a mind,
Filipina but (1993)
A and B, both old, were sweethearts
SOLEMNIZATION
being
enumerated of unsound therein, OF THE drug
hence, MARRIAGE it now
addiction,is void ,based
and
habitualnot
even in (2) What
solemnizing is theofficer,status the ofmarriage
the marriage is valid. If
By
the
thoughreason
Sweden.whole
alcoholism, valid oflesbianism
Boni
five Art.
in years
Spain15 period.
himself inwhere
relation
is
or a resident
This
homosexuality
it was toisArticle
of Norway
clearly
celebrated. may38
theof studying in
be between Ric Manila.
and Juliet On August — valid, 3, voidable
1988, while or
none of
in first(2.5%) the
year parties
college, is a member of the sect and
the Civil
where
intent
indicia he
of oftheandCode, Anne
code
psychological which
plan to
framers applies
live Minutes
(see
incapacity, to depending
permanently. Filipinos
of the SUGGESTED
void?
both ofhouse ANSWER:
them wereThethey marriage
aware
eloped.
of between
the
They stayed
fact, Juliet
the
Anne
wherever
150th retains
joint they
Civil your
are, Code services
the of marriage
the to
Family advise
is void.
Law her
on the degree of severity of the disorder. marriage is void. They cannot claim good faith on in
and the
Ric is void. of a
First mutual
of all, friend
the marriage in townis a X,
whether her
SUGGESTED
Committees
However, ANSWER:
the marriage
held on August
concealment to Boni 9,of1986 is valid
drug ). Also, under
addiction,in where they
bigamous were able
marriage to obtain
notsolemnizing
falling under a Article
marriage 41
(d)
PhilippineIt depends. If AM the marriage before the in believing that the theirofficer was
Manzano
habitual V. law?
Sanchez,
alcoholism, Is there NO. anything
MT –00-129,
lesbianism else she license.
or [Art. On August
35(4)Family Code],30, A 1988,
subsisting marriage
notary public authorized because thetown scope of the ofauthority
SUGGESTED
should 8,
March
homosexuality do ANSWER:
under
2001 , isthe
isthevalid
aSupreme
underCourt
circumstances?
ground
Hongkong (5%)
said
of isannulment that, Law, asof was solemnized
constitutes a legal byimpediment
the mayor
to remarriage. X in his
If
theBoni
Parental
is still
marriage a Filipino
Authority;
citizen,
is
Child
his
valid legal
under incapacity
7 the
years
governed
Philippines.
of age
by of the
office. solemnizing
Thereafter, officer
they is
returned a matter
to Manilaof law. and If,
one of the
marriage.
Philippine Law requisites
(Art. 15 Civil Code). for the Underexception to apply, Secondly, Julietofis the below eighteen years in of age.
Otherwise, the however, one parties believed good
(2006)
there must be no marriage
legal impediment that is atinvalid the time in continued
The marriage to liveis separately
void evena ifmember in their respective
consented to by
Hongkong will be invalid in the Philippines. faith
boarding that the other
houses, wasconcealing of the
from sect,
their
of the marriage. The Supreme Court did not say her parents
then the marriage is valid
parents, who were living in the province what
that the legal impediment must exist all
throughout the five-year period. they had done. In 1992, after graduation
Distinguish briefly but clearly between: Substitute sperm. After a series of test, Andy's sperm was
authority
parental and special parental introduced
medically into Beth's ovary. She became pregnant and 9 months
authority. ANSWER:
SUGGESTED later, gave birth to a baby boy, named Alvin.
In substitute parental authority, the parents (1) Who is the Father of Alvin? Explain.
lose their parental authority in favor of the (2.5%) SUGGESTED ANSWER:
substitute who acquires it to the exclusion of Andy is the biological father of Alvin being the
the parents. source of the sperm. Andy is the legal father of
In special parental authority, the parents or Alvin because there was neither consent nor
anyone exercising parental authority does not ratification to the artificial insemination. Under
lose parental authority. Those who are charged the law, children conceived by artificial
with special parental authority exercise such insemination are legitimate children of the
authority only during the time that the child is spouses, provided, that both of them
in their custody or supervision. authorized or ratified the insemination in a
Substitute parental authority displaces written instrument executed and signed by
parental authority while special parental both of them before the birth of the child (Art.
authority concurs with parental authority. (2)
164,WhatFamilyare Code).the requirements, if any, in
order for Ed to establish his paternity over
Paternity & Filiation SUGGESTED
Alvin. (2.5%) ANSWER:
(1999)
(a) Two (2) months after the death of her The following are the requirements for Ed to
husband who was shot by unknown criminal establish his paternity over Alvin:
elements on his way home from office, Rose •1 The artificial insemination has been
married her childhood boyfriend, and seven authorized or ratified by the spouses in a
(7) months after said marriage, she delivered written instrument executed and signed by
a baby. In the absence of any evidence from them before the birth of the child; and
Rose as to who is her child's father, what •2 The written instrument is recorded in
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
status does the law give to said child? Explain. the civil registry together with the birth
(a) The child is legitimate of the second certificate of the child (Art. 164, 2nd
(2%)
marriage under Article 168(2) of the Family paragraph, Family Code).
Code which provides that a "child born after Paternity & Filiation; Common-Law Union
one hundred eighty days following the (2004)
A. RN and DM, without any impediment to
celebration of the subsequent marriage is marry each other, had been living together
considered to have been conceived during without benefit of church blessings. Their
such marriage, even though it be born within common-law union resulted in the birth of
Parental Authority; Special Parental Authority; Liability of
three hundred days after the termination of ZMN. Two years later, they got married in a
Paternity & Filiation; Proofs Teachers (2003)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:Could ZMN be legitimated?
the former marriage." civil ceremony.
(1999)
(b) Nestor is the illegitimate son of Dr. Perez. If during
ZMN was class hours, while
legitimated by the teacher
subsequent was
Reason. (5%)
When Dr. Perez died, Nestor intervened in the chatting with
marriage of RNother and DM teachers
because in atthetheschool
time
settlement of his father's estate, claiming that corridor,
he a 7 year oldRN
was conceived, male and pupil
DMstabscould thehave
eye
he is the illegitimate son of said deceased, but of another
validly married boy with each aother.
ball penUnderduringthe aFamily
fight,
the legitimate family of Dr. Perez is denying causing
Code children permanent conceived blindness
and bornto the victim,
outside of
Nestor's claim. What evidence or evidences who
wedlock of parents who, at the time ofboy’s
could be liable for damages for the the
SUGGESTED
injury: ANSWER:
should Nestor present so that he may receive former'sthe teacher, the
conception, were school authorities, by
not disqualified or
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The
the school,
guilty boy’s itsparents?
administrators,
Explain. and teachers
his rightful share in his father's estate? (3%) any impediment to marry each other are
(b) To be able to inherit, the illegitimate have
Paternity &special
Filiation; parental authority and
legitimated by theProofs;
subsequentLimitations; AdoptedofChild
marriage the
filiation of Nestor must have been admitted by responsibility over the minor child while under
(1995)
parents.
his father in any of the following: their supervision,
Abraham died intestate instruction
on 7 January or1994 custody
(1) the record of birth appearing in the (Article 218,
survived by hisFC). They are
son Braulio. principally
Abraham's olderand
(2)
civila register,
final solidarily
son Carlosliabledied on for14 theFebruary
damages1990. caused by the
Danilo
(3) a public document signed by the
judgment, acts or omissions
who claims to be an ofadulterous
the unemancipated
child of Carlosminor
(4) a private
father, or handwritten document signed unless they exercised
intervenes in the proceedings for the the proper diligence
by the lather (Article 17S in relation to required
settlement under
of thethe circumstances
estate of Abraham(Articlein 219,
Article 172 of the Family Code). FC).
representation of Carlos. Danilo was legally the
In the problem, the TEACHER and
SCHOOL
adopted onAUTHORITIES
17 March 1970 are liablewith
by Carlos forthe the
Paternity & Filiation; Artificial Insemination; 1. Under
blindness the
of Family
the Code,
victim, how
becausemay an
the student
consent of the " latter's wife.
Formalities(2006) illegitimate
who cause it filiation
was under be proved? Explain.parental
their special
Ed and Beth have been married for 20 years without children. 2. As lawyer
authority andforthey Danilo,
weredonegligent.
you have to prove
They were
Desirous to have a baby, they consulted Dr. Jun Canlas, a , Danilo's illegitimate filiation?
negligent because they were chatting in the Explain.
prominent medical specialist on human fertility. He advised Beth 3. Can Danilo
corridor during inheritthe fromclassAbraham
period inwhen the
to undergo artificial insemination. It was found that Ed’s sperm representation of his father
stabbing incident occurred. The incident Carlos? Explain. could
count was inadequate to induce pregnancy Hence, the couple have been prevented had the teacher been
looked for a willing donor. Andy the brother of Ed, readily Parental Authority; Substitute vs. Special
inside
(2004) the classroom at that time. The guilty
consented to donate his boy’s PARENTS are subsidiarily liable under
Article 219 of the Family Code.
c) No.
in
beforethe Rafael
the
same death isway anofinnocent
andC. Bringing
by purchaser
the his same family
inevidence
goodlater
faith
1.
recognition
Paulita
to
as
Sinceleft Bob the
ofandan
conjugal
Sofia
illegitimate
got
home married
child
because can
In 1970,be
of the
brought
then the
at
children.
finally
upon
legitimate
Manila,
who, married
relying
B Art. 172 G.onRecently.
provides
the correctness
G
thatdied. theWhat filiation
ofare theof drinking
time
anyduring the
law
excessive oflifetime
her husband, Alberto.
of the child. However, Paulita,
if the out
action is based
on "open and continuous possession of the status of an illegitimate
legitimate
the
certificate
rights of children
of B's
title, four
acquires
ischildren:
establishedrightsX and by
whichany
Y ofare of
histheto of her own endeavor, was able to buy a parcel
child, the same can be filed during the lifetime of the putative
following:
first
be protected
marriage; (1)by the
andthe record
Ecourts.
and of F, his
birth children
appearing with in of land which she was able to register under
father."
Under
G? civil the
theExplain register
yourestablished
or a final principles
answer. Judgment; or of (2) land
an her name with the addendum "widow." She
registration
SUGGESTED
admission ANSWER: oflaw, the presumption
legitimate filiation in is athat publicthe also acquired stocks in a listed corporation
Under
transferee
document the or facts stated,handwritten
of aregistered
private X land
and Y is are legitimate
notinstrument
aware of In the present
registered in her case,name. the action
Paulitafor sold compulsory
the parcel
children
any defect
and signed of in B the
by and parent C. Eof concerned.
title isthe theproperty
legitimate
In the he recognition
of land to Rafael, was filed whoby Joey's
first mother,
examined theDina, on
children
absence ofofB
purchased. (Seeand G.foregoing
theTojonera E is the legitimated
v. Court of Appeals,
evidence, child
the May
original 16,1994,
of the after
transfer the certificate
death of Steve, of title. the1)
C.
of AsSCRA
B&G. legitimate
F is the children
illegitimate of Bchildand C, B
of X and Y
103
legitimate 467).
filiation Moreover,
shall be the proved person by:and dealing
(1) the putative
Has Alberto father.theThe right action
to share will in prosper
the shares if Joey of
have the
with following rights: may1)safely To bear the can present his by birth certificate that bears the
open registered
and continuous land possession ofrelytheon the
status stock acquired Paulita? 2) Can Alberto
surnames
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
correctness of of theits father and theof
certificate mother,
title in the SUGGESTED of
signature ANSWER:
his putative father. However, the
of a legitimate child; or (2) any otherand means recover the land from Rafael?
2. conformity
No. Since Danilo with the has provisions
already been of adopted
the Civil Code 1. a) clearly
facts Yes. The state Family
that the Code birthprovides
certificate thatof all
law
allowedwill in by nothe wayRules obligeofhim Courtto goand behind specialthe
Surnames;
by Carlos, 2)
on heToceased receive to support
be an from their
illegitimate property acquired during
Joey did not indicate the father's name. A birth the marriage,
certificate
laws. to determine the condition of the
parents,
child. Antheir adopted ascendants,
child acquires all the rights whether the
certificate notacquisition
signed by the appears
alleged to father
have been
property. [Director of Lands v. Abache, et al. 73
of aand in proper
legitimate child cases,
undertheir Art, 189 brothers of theand FC.sisters, made, contracted or registered
cannot be taken as a record of birth to prove in the name of
Phil. 606).ANSWER:
conformity No with strong theconsiderations
provisions of the of public
Family Code
in
SUGGESTED
policy recognition of the child, nor can said birthto be
one or both spouses, is presumed
3. No,on have
Support; he been and presented
cannot. Danilo which cannotwould represent lead
absolute be community property unless the
the
3) Court
Carlos asto
To be thereverse latter's
entitled the established
adopted
to the legitime childand
andin sound
otherthe certificate
b)
contraryYes. is The taken
proved.shares as aare recognition
presumed in a to publicbe
doctrine
inheritance
successional that the
ofrights
Abraham buyer
granted in good
because to them faith
adoption by ofthedid a instrument.
absolute (Reyes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
community property having been
registered b) Are March
the defenses setConsequently,
up by Tintinthe
not Code.parcel
Civil make Danilo
(Article ofa174,
land does not
legitimate
Family have to look
grandchild
Code). 39537,
of tenable?
acquired during
Explain.
19, 1985)
the(2%) marriage despite the fact
beyond
Abraham.
d) The parcel the Torrens
Adoption of land isTitle
personaland between
is absolute search for
community any
Carlos action
that those
SUGGESTED
filedANSWER:
by Joey's
shares were mother has already
registered only in her
hidden
and
E
property thedefect
is Danilo. He cannot
legitimated
having or beeninchoatealso
child of
acquiredright
B andwhich
represent Carlos
G.
during may
Under as Yes,
the prescribed.
name. theAlberto's
defenses right of Tintin are tenable.
to claim his share In will
later
the
Art. invalidate
latter's
177 of or
illegitimate
the
marriage and through Paulita's industry diminish
Family child
Code, his right
because
only to
children
in what
such Tayag v. Court of Appeals
only arise, however, at dissolution. (G.R. No. 95229, June
he
case purchased.
conceivedhe is barred
and (Lopez by
born
despite registration only in the name v.
Art. Court
992
outside of of
of Appeals.
the NCC
wedlock 189
from of c)
9,1992)The , presumption
a complaint is
to still
compel that the
recognition shares ofof
ALTERNATIVE
SCRA 271) ANSWER: stock are owned in common. Hence, they will
inheriting
parents
Paulita. who, from
The child's at the
land beinghis time
illegitimate
of the
community conception
grandfather
property, of an illegitimate child was brought before
An adopted successional rights do not form part of the absolute community or the
Abraham.
the sale
its former, to were not
Rafael without disqualified
the consent by any of effectivity of the Family Code by the mother of
include
Property the
Relations; right to represent
Ante Nuptial his deceased
impediment
Alberto is void. to marry each Agreement
other may be conjugal
a minor child partnership
based ondepending"open and continuous on what the
adopter
(1995)
Suppose in the
Tirso inheritance ofmarried
the latter's
legitimated. E and will Tessie
have the were same rights on as X 2 property Relations
possession of the status is. of an illegitimate
legitimate
F is the parent, in view ofand Art.G.973 which
August
and Y. illegitimate
1988 without child of B
executing F has
any the
ante d) Since
child." The Paulita
Supreme acquired
Court held the shares
that theofright stock
provides
right to use
nuptial that in order
the surnameOne
agreement. that representation
of G,year her mother,after their may by onerous title during the marriage, these are
and of action of the minor child has been vested by
take
marriage,place,Tirso
is entitled tothesupport
representative as well as
while supervising must the
the himself
legitime
clearing be part of the conjugal or absolute community
the filing of the complaint in court under the
capable
consisting of of succeeding
1/2 of thatland the decedent.
of each of theX, YAdoption
and E. property, as the
of Tessie's inherited upon latter's regime of the Civil caseCode maybeand prior (depending
to the on
by itself176,
(Article did Family
not render Code) Danilo an heir not of the whether the marriage
request, accidentally found the treasure in effectivity of the Familywas Code. celebrated
The ruling prior
in to.
adopter's
Presumptive legitimate Legitime parent. on Neither does his or after, the effectivity
the new river bed but the property of Tayag v. Court of Appealsof findsthenoFamily application Code).
being
(1999)
What
SUGGESTED ado grandchild
you
ANSWER: of
understand
Tessie. To whom shall the treasure belong? Abraham by render
"presumptive him an Her physical separation from her husband did
in the instant case. Although the child was
Since
heir
legitime",ofTirso and
theinlatter what Tessie casewere
because or ascasesmarried
an illegitimate
must before
the not dissolve the effectivity
communityofofthe property. Hence,
Explain. born before the Family Code,
the
child effectivity
parent ofdeliver
Carlos,such of the
who was Family
legitime a legitimate
to the Code, child
children,their of c) theSupposing
husband has that Joey
a filed
right died
to shareduring in thethe shares
Paternity & Filiation; Recognition of illegitimate Child the complaint was after its effectivity.
property
Abraham,
and what are relation
Danilo the legalisis incapable
governed
effects inofby each conjugal
succeeding
case if SUGGESTED ANSWER:
pendency
of stock. of the action, should the action
(2005)
Steve wasANSWER: married to Linda, with Hence, Article 175 of the Family Code should
partnership
Abrahamparentunder
SUGGESTED
the of gains.
fails Art.
to do992 Under
so? of
(5%) Art.Code.
the 54 ofwhom the Civil he 2) a)
be Under
dismissed? a community
Explain. of property,
(2%) whether
had a
PRESUMPTIVE daughter, Tintin. Steve fathered a son apply and notrelative, the disposition ofCode.
Article 285 of the Civil
Code, the shareLEGITIME of the hidden is not defined which
treasure in the SUGGESTED
absolute orANSWER: property
withlaw
law.
the Dina,
Its his secretary
definition
awards to must
the finder haveof or 20
been years,
the taken whom
proprietor from If Joey diedtoduring
belonging the pendency
such community is voidof the action,
if done by
Dina
Act named
2710, the Joey,
Old born
Divorce
belongs to the conjugal partnership of gains. on
Law, September
which required 20, the action should still be
just one spouse without the consent of the dismissed because
1981.
the
The Joey's to
delivery
one-half birth the certificate
share legitimate
pertaining did tonotTessie
children indicate
of "the as the right
other orof authority
Joey or his heirs of the to file the action
proper court.
the father's
equivalent of name.what
owner of the land, and the one-half share Steve
would died
have on August
been due 13,to has
However,already theprescribed.
land was (Art. 175,
registered Family
in the name
1993,
them while
as their Linda
legal diedportion
pertaining to Tirso as finder of the treasure, on December
if said 3,
spouse 1993,
had Code)
of Paulita as "widow". Hence, the buyer has
Property
leaving
died Relations;
their
intestate Conjugal
legitimate
immediately Partnership
daughter,
after the of Gains
Tintin,
dissolution as Paternity
the right& Filiation;
to rely Rights
upon of Legitimate
what Children in the
appears
belong to the conjugal partnership of gains.
(1998)
sole
In
of heir.
1970,
the On
BobMay
community andof 16, Issa 1994,got Dina
property." As filed
married aincase
usedwithout the (1990)
B and Gof
record (college students,
the Register of both
Deeds singleandand not
should,
executing
on behalfCode,
Family aofmarriage
Joey, presumptive
praying
settlement.that the In 1975,
latterBob
legitime be disqualified to marry
is consequently, be protected. Alberto cannoteach other) had a
declared an
inherited
understood from asacknowledged
his father
the equivalent illegitimate
a residential
of the legitimatelotson upon of romantic
recover the affair,
land G was
fromseven Rafael months
but would in thehave
children's legitimes assuming that the spouses the right of recourse against his wife Right
which,
Steve and
in 1981,
that Joey
he constructed
be given hisa two-room
share in b)
familyThe parcel
way as ofofthe land is
graduation absolute of B. community
Steve's
bungalow
had died estate,with which
immediately savingsisafter now the
from being
his own solely
earnings.
dissolution held of property
after graduation havingB been went home acquired to Cebu duringCity. the
Presumptive
At
by that
Tintin. time, Tintin
the community of property. legitime
the put
lot up
was isthe required
worth defense P800.000.00to
that be
an marriage
Unknown toand
G, B through
had a Paulita's
commitment to industry
C (his
delivered
action for
while the to house,
recognitionthe common shall
when only children
be filed of
finished during the
cost despite
childhood thesweetheart)
registrationtobeing marry onlyherin the name
after
spouses
P600,000.00.
the lifetime when ofInthe the
1989 marriage
presumedBob died, is survived
parents annulled
and that or
only of Paulita.
getting his The
collegelanddegree.
being community
Two weeksproperty, after B
declared
the exceptions
by void
his wife, Issa ab initio
underand and
Article possibly,
his 285 mother, when
of the Sofia. the
Civil its sale to Rafael
marriage in Cebu City, G gave birth without the consent to a son Eof
a)
1. Doeswhether
State
conjugal Joey Sofia
partnership have cana rightfully
causecommunity of
claim action
that
Assuming
Code do not that
apply theto or him absolute
relative
sincevalues the said ofarticle
both is Alberto
in Metro is void. After
Manila. However, ten years since of the
married land is
against
the house
dissolved asTintin
and inlot are
the for
not
case recognition
conjugal
of legal but
separation. and registered
life in Cebu, inB the
became name a of
widower Paulita by as
the widow,
has been
assets
SUGGESTED repealed
remainedANSWER: by the
at the same Family Code. In any
proportion:
partition?
exclusive
Failure of Explain.
property the of (2%)
her
parents deceased to son.
deliver [3%] the there
sudden is nothing
death of Cin inthe
a title
plane which
crash. would
Out of raise
the
case,
No, Joey doesaccording
not have a cause to of action
Tintin, againstJoey's
Tintin for birth SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2. Will
presumptive
recognition
certificate andyour answer
partition.
does not legitime
Under be the
Article will
175 same
show Community of the if
make
Family
that Steve is his Bob Code,died
their
as a a suspicion
union of B and for C, Rafael
two to
children, make X inquiry.
and Y were He,
Property Relations; Absolute 1. Under Art. 172 in relation to Art. 173
before
subsequent
general rule,August
an action 3,for1988?
marriage compulsory [2%]
null and void under therefore,
born. is an innocent purchaser for value
father.
(1994) andArt. 175 of the FC, the filiation to
Unknown to C while on weekend trips of
Article 53 of the Family Code. from
Manila
illegitimatewhom
during the last
children land
may may
5 years
be ofno their
established longer be
recovered.
marriage, B invariably visited G and lived at
her residence and as a result of which, they
renewed their relationship. A baby girl F was
born to B and G two years
This is
Thereafter,
who
(b)
legitimateaccording
What a caserelatives
Gabby
would ofto acquired
ineffective
law
of
your C may(i.e.
answer
athe contract
mansion
disinheritance
children
be (to in
marriage
of
Baguio
the
Dbecause
asabove
C's
City,
may
a)
Bar
together,
How
1028 WhoCandidates
will
forwill being
you
Rico berule was
entitled
inPatricio
consideration
ona salaried
Jorge's
toMahigugmaon
theopposition
employee
house of her and adulterous
and
and
to
lot? theRowena
Mabel
(3%)
probate
5-hectare
into
Luis
legitimate
a
andman
also
question)
marrying and
marriage
aenterthat Rizza
agricultural
nephews
had the been father
settlementsinheriting
living
did
landnot together
inbut approve
Oriental
as they collateral
all shall
of
theis not be that
decided
house
Maria's
with
Amor
kept thegoverns
relation
of
SUGGESTED forto will.
testator. Rico
marry
She
ANSWER: isandIfthe
is, each
you
didNew
therefore, other
full-time
wereCivil before
disqualified Code
the
household the
to receive (Persons),
last
the
Mindoro,
valid
time,
relatives)
a ground only
ie., sincewhich
can
if
forthe inherit
disinheriting
twenty
he
personregistered
inyears
intestacy.
who ago, D.mayexclusively
Therefore,
under
(Arts.
give consent a992,
valid
inthe Tony
in
day
chores
Judge? ofand
legacy. Ernie
which
SUGGESTED the
for Susan
will
1991receiveare
him.
case,
ANSWER: During
Bar the entitled
the legacy
Examinations.
property
their to the
in his favor because
cohabitation,
relations
Theyhouse it is not
agreed and
athat
inofficious.
As Judge, The institution
I shall of Baldo,
rule whichas applies
follows: only to the free
Jorge's
his name.
to
marriage?
1001,
institution
the1OO5 marriage
Inofand
the D-lyear
975,and
are2000,
CivilD-2
made Code)
Mila's
shall parties be
businessannulled
to the lot
should as
to execute
parcel coowners
of
be in equal shares. Under Article
becoconut
aapplied
Marriage land
Inas regards
Settlement.
was acquired the Rowena
property
by Ricoshall beof
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
portion, will respected. sum, the estate of Lamberto
a) Art. 147
ALTERNATIVE
venture
agreement.
insofar as
failed,of
ANSWER:
it the
(Karla
prejudices
and Family
was
her still Code
creditors
the provides
alegitime
minor sued atofher
thein
D, part
for
time
and opposition
147
the
herself
from of
distributedhis the
spouses
prepared
assavings.should
Family
follows: isthebe Code,
the sustained
document wheninaher
system inofman part
own and
relativeanda
The
that action
when
P10,000,000.00.
the institution
marriage of aof manA willand not
settlement
After
D-l and a prosper.
woman
obtaining
D-2 was whoBeing
shall are
a executed
favorable an
only apply in denied
woman
After
community living
handwriting.or inwho part. are
together
They Jorge's
capacitated
conjugal for omission
one
agreedpartnership (1) to
year,
on the following: as spouse
marryRico
of gains each
and of
(1)
illegitimate,
capacitated
judgment,
September
on the free the hecreditors
to
1988 is
marry barred
portion
because each by
soughttheArticle
inother, the tolive
law, 992
R.A.of6809,
execute
amount the
onof Maria
other
Mabel
(Article
a conjugal is
lived not
separated.
119, preterition
exclusively
partnership Rico then
Civil of
with
ofCode).
gains;a
met compulsory
each
and
(2)
Byeach other
married
conjugal heir as
Civil Codethe
exclusively
the spouses'
reducing
P500,000.00. from
with
house
age inheriting
each
Therefore,ofand other
majority
lotD, ab asD-l
and intestato
husband
to condominium
18and years from
D-2andtook will in theLegitime
husband
Heir
Letty,
partnership
donates adirect
toand
single theofline. wife,
Legacy
woman
other
gains, Hence, twenty-six
fifty
the Art.
thepercent
Institutionhusband 854
propertyTOTAL(26) of years
(50%)
and the
theofCivil
acquired of
wife
the
wife
a)
unit, legitimate
without
Discuss
effect
get their
ason well 18the
legitimesthe
as relatives
Decemberbenefit
status
Gabby's of
of
of P500.000.00ofhis
marriage
mansion
1989). the father.first
The
and or
divided under
and
marriage the
into a Code
during
age.
place
his/her does
During a not
their
inpresent common apply,fund
thecohabitation
marriage
property, and ofthe
(3) the
are fruits
Rico
Rowena institution
presumed
and Letty,
shall
of their of
to
Barrier
void
amended between
marriage, illegitimate
marriage their &
wages legitimate
settlements. and relatives
salaries shall Baldo
Miguela
have
Letty 500,000
been
bought as heir200.000
obtained
a is valid,
mango by700,000 Elvirato
but income
their
orchard only
joint 250,000
out efforts,
of theherextent work
own
agricultural
settlement
three equal being
land.
parts void, and D-l
the and property D-2(2%) will
Relationsget a separate
administer property
the conjugal
250,000 Ernie 50,000 50,000 TOTAL 750,000 and the
partnership property;
from their
(1996)
Cristina
be owned Dthe illegitimate
P166,666.66
by them in equal daughter
shares ofand Jose theandof of
SUGGESTED
governing
reduced ANSWER:
the testamentary
marriage is, therefore,disposition absolute andthe
or
work
50,000
industry
personal(4) or free
neither
Industry
200,000
portion
earnings.and may
1,000,000
shall ofWho
a)bring
(Article one-half.
be an owned
would
142, action Jorge
Civilownby
for Code).is still
them
the
the in
In
The
Maria,
2. All
property marriage
thedied
D-l properties settlement
intestate,
P166,666.66
acquired by without
which
both + between
Kevin
of anyand
P250.000.00
them Gabby
descendant
Karla
through and ALTERNATIVE
entitled
equal
riceland, shares.to
and
ANSWERS:
one-half
what This is
property oftrue the even
Relationsestate though as
governs his
the
community ofeach.
P250,000.00 property,Hence,under the shares Art. 75 willofbe: the this
annulment
a) instance,
As Judge, or declaration
the
I shall lot inherited
rule of nullity by
as follows: Bob
of their
in 1975
Jorge's
Mila
or ascendant.
owned
their adopting
D-2
at the Her the
P166,666.66
time valuable
of marriage regime estate
+ P250,000.00
be became of
is beingconjugal A. As to form, is Civil
the Marriage Settlement
FC. work or industry shall governed by the legitime.
efforts
the
is ownership?
marriage.
b) his
opposition
Would
(Art.
ofown one
Both
it should
make
1001,
ofsigned
separatethem
Explain.
anybe the Code)
consisted
b) Who would
property,
agreement
sustained
difference
merely
ifin hepart
Tony inown in the
having
the
could
his
and
partnership
claimed
community
rules by Ana, of
property
of coownership. gains
the legitimate
whichstill
In theshall subsists.
daughter
absence be divided It
of proofis
of not valid?
or her
coconut May
care
land, it
andbeand registered
maintenance
what propertyin the
of registry
the family
Relations of and
acquired
presence
ANOTHER
denied of
the two
ALTERNATIVE
in same (2) witnesses.
byis lucrative
ANSWER: They titledid (par.
not, 2,
dissolved
Disinheritance;
Jose,
to theand
equally contrary, by Ineffective;
Eduardo,
between the them the
properties mere at agreement
Preterition
legitimate
dissolution.
acquired son ofof they
Since
while the not
Same
of the
governs
Art.
however,
marry
property? answer
household.
148, the Ifpart.
Susan
not,as the
ownership?
acknowledge
Civil
This
what because
Code). firststeps
it
a case
he
must
Alternative
Explain.
before
However,
was
a
of
be
c)notary
ineffective
previously
taken
Answer
Who
the to
house
spouses
(2000)
Maria.
In
Kevin Is
histogether
last
owned during
either,will
50 the
both,
andbe
Million marriage.
or neither
testament,
and Karla. It of is clear
2them
Lamberto
Million, from 1) disinheritance
married
B.
make it Are to the Alice
registerable? under fromArt,
stipulations whom 918 he of isthelegally Civil
lived shall presumed to have been except
would
constructed
public.because as
own to distribution.
the from mango Justice
orchard,
his own of and
savings Jurado what solved
in 1981
SUGGESTED
Article
entitled
disinherits
at the time 134
toby ANSWER:
ofthe
inherit?
his
of the
daughter Family
Explain.
marriage, Wilma Code
52 because
Million thatIndustry,
in
"she the is Code,
SUGGESTED
separated?
C.
valid?
ANOTHER
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
IfANSWER:
the (2%)
ANSWER: the omission
Marriage Settlement theiscompulsory
valid as
obtained
Neither Ana their
nor Joint
Eduardo efforts,
is entitledworker to inherit this
property
during
Yes, problem
it the
wouldRelations differently.
subsistence
make governs
a In his
the
ofco-owners
difference. his opinion,
ownership?
marriage
Under the with
Article
absence
disrespectful
constituted of an
towards express me declaration
and raises her in voicethe heir
1.
(a)
to Rico
form Jorge
Sofia,andand being
Cora
the byaboveher
are Maria
deceased
the
stipulations was son's intentional.
are of
legalthe heir
and
of ab shall
intestatobetheir owned from
community
by them in
Cristina.
property.
Bothequal are
Upon A
shares. legitime
Explain.
Issa
148 ofis the of the
conjugal Family heirproperty
who
Code, was disinherited
and
when not
the is to
exclusive
parties
marriage settlement, the Consequently,
concurring
riceland. The with the
Relations his institution
surviving
is that of of Miguela
co-ownership
spouse (Arts. as
talking
the death
party
legitimate who toof me",
did
relatives not2)participate
Kevin, the
of
omits
Cristina's inseparation
entirely
community the washis spouse
acquisition
illegitimate
of likewise valid,
distributed
property
the cohabitation in among doesthe
accordance could
it now other follow
with
not compulsory
marrythe
that said
principle
each heirs
other of
property
Elvira,
dissolved 3) and between
leaves half of the
a legacy the spouses
of Million
52 P100,000.00 during
or 26beto the his heir
985,
(Art.
SUGGESTED
Marriage is
147,
986 void and only
Family
ANSWER:
Settlement 997,insofar
Code, Civil
is as
first the
Code), legitime
paragraph).
valid andlegitimes, may
enforceable? of Jorge
rightfully
by the other party any property shall in proportion
"reverse
because accession"to their respective
provided for in Art. 158,
parents
b) Discuss and thereforethe they
effects fall under
oftoin thethe driver A.
is
claim Yes,that it isof
(Optional
prejudiced. valid
the an as impediment,
Addendum:
Accordingly,
house toand formHowever,because
Jorge
lot are is only
not it conjugal
after
entitled those
isRico's
in to
3. Karla
marriage
mistress
Million
deemed
prohibition
and
isto shall
Rosa
hishaveLuis
share
prescribed
and are
not the
take
inP50,000.00
contributed the
by
Intestate
Art.
place
community.
jointly
992, NCC
histhe said
except
This 26by while
b)
Civil As
properties his
Code.Judge,share
marriage in
Icannot
acquired shall
to theby
Letty, intestate
rule
the
both as
half of portion.
follows:
interest
them of If any,
Jorge's
Rico
through
settlements
heirs
judicial
Ernie and of Kevin.
order. 4) on the
institutes properties
his son Baldo acquired as his by writing.
his
but legitime
belong No, toit of
the one-half be
hereditary registered
of the
estate in
estate,
of the
Bob. and
The
Million
acquisition thereforethereof is ifhis the estate.
former's efforts is distributed
opposition should among the
bebecause other
sustained. legal heirs a by
427).
(Manuel
SUGGESTED
4.
the They
spouses.
SUGGESTED
sole heir.
v.ANSWER:
are Ferrer,
entitled
ANSWER:
How (2%)
will
242 to SCRA
you share
distribute
477;
the estate Diaz
his
v.equally
estate
Court
of
their
registry
Miguela
value of inof the
actual
gets
the riceland
property
the
land joint other
beingwill then
contribution
moreit
half. is This
become
than notthe ofaispublic
absolute cost case
money, of
consisted
The
The
of regime in
disinheritance
Appeals, 182the
of care
conjugal
SCRA and
of maintenance
Wilmapartnership was of
of
ineffectivethe
gains accretion
of preterition
property, under
community
or under
Industry Article
property
Article 1018
shall of 854
be of
Rico the
and
Civil
owned NCC
Letty.)
Code,
by in the
them
under Article
P1,000,000.00? 1001 (5%) of the NCC. Therefore. document.
the improvement To make (Art.it registerable,
120, Family it
Code).must be
Collation
family and of the household. Thus:
governs
because
Karla gets thethe
13ground properties
Million relied
and acquired
upon
Luis getsby 1) the the
by the proportion
testator
13 aMillion.
(b)
result
in Rico
common
SUGGESTED
reformed ofisthe the
toin
ANSWER:
and exclusive
their
omission
has torespective
proportion be of owner
notarized. ofasthe
to intestate
Jorge their coconut
shares.
compulsory
respective
(1993)
Joaquin
wages
spouses. andReyes salaries bought
All the properties of from
Luis inJuliothe Cruz
amount
acquired of land.
In
Hei
2. sum
Yes, The the
Legiti
the Relations
distribution
answer is a
would sole/single
shall be
Distribution
still as be follows:
the same.
does not constitute maltreatment under by Article the heir SUGGESTED having the
contributions.
rproprietorship me
ANSWER:
Thesame efforts right
of one equivalent
of the parties to a
residential
P200,000.00
spouses of lot
after of
shall 300
the be square
divided
marriage meters
equally
belong in Quezon
between B.
SinceStipulations
Bob and (1)
(Art.
Issa and148. (3)
contracted are
Family valid Code,
their becausefirst
marriage
919(6)
Property the New
Relations; Civil Code.
Obligations; Benefit Hence,
of thetoFamily the legitimate
the in maintaining child the "in
of the family direct
Legacy and line" is that
household TOTAL total
are
City they areSusan not iscontrary to law. Stipulation (4)the is
(2000)for
Luis
conjugal andwhich
testamentary Rizza.
partnership. Joaquin
2) the house
provisions paid
Under inJulio
andArticle
the the
lotwill amount
valued
116 shall of at of
the
be paragraph
Since
way
intestacyback
not considered in
will applicable,
1970, did
arise,
Wilma’s then
adequate not
and and
the
Jorge
Institution not
contribute
property Art.inherit
will
contribution 147 toin
relations the
the
P300,000.00,
P500.000.00
Family Code, When
havingeven the
been
if deedacquired
Gabby was about
by
registered bothto be
ofthe void
c)
Family As
acquisition
that will (Optional
because Judge,
Code).
govern of it theAddendum:
is
I is contrary
shall
house
still rule
the However,
to
and law.
as
relativelot, after
Stipulation
follows:
she
community Rico's
has the
no
annulled
As financebutofficer only of to Ktheand extentCo., that Victorino her entire
acquisition estate. Legitim
of the properties.
prepared
them through Joaquin work told Julio
or Million
industry that it be be
shall drawnland in (2) is valid marriage up toIf to
e1/5 Letty,
of
betheirthe coconut
respective land
withof Ricois
present
mansion
legitime
arranged wasaandloanimpaired. 5-hectare
of P5 agricultural
from PNBdivided for the opposition
share
or conjugal
Bal
therein.
will
250,00 then
should
partnership
become
125,000
Tony denied
cohabited
of
absolute
200,000
gains since
community
(Article
575,000
it
Susan119,
the
The name
between
exclusively total ofin
them Joaquina
in
omission
his proportion
name, Roxas,of
still histheir
to
Elvira
they acknowledged
are respective
does
presumed not properties
predicated
after
Civil his
Code). legalbut
upon void causes
separation
It will as to
not the
not
from excess
recognized
matter Alice, if (Art
the
Bob by84, law
house
died
corporation. However, he was required by the property of Rico
natural
contribution,
constitute
to be child.
conjugal Thus,
in
preterition the because
consonance
properties, deed wasshe
with
unless so
thethe prepared
rules
is not
contrary on a
do
Family
as
and
before 1 lot
grounds
00
Code).
or that
is for
after histhe
August willand
disallowance
exclusive was
3.
Letty.)
1988made
of a without
wll,
property.
(effectivity to wit:Ifhis he
date
bank to sign a Continuing Surety Agreement to Wil
(c) Rico and (250.0 Letty are the co-owners. The
and
c) executed
SUGGESTED
compulsory
is What
co-ownership.
proved. ANSWER: by
heir Julio.
properties
Hence, in Joaquina
Luis
the gets may
direct thenwhile
2\5 builtRizza
be
line. aheld SUGGESTED
Only of
ma knowledge;
cohabited
the Family
00)
ANSWER:
withCode], Susan what before
matters his
is the legal
date
secure the repayment of the loan. The Relations
C. No. is the125.00
on September Absolute 15, Community
1991, the375.000 of
marriage
(b)
house The
answerable
gets
compulsory3\5on property
ofthe lot where
P500.000.00.
for
heirs relations
Mila's
into thepay 3)between
she, her
obligations?
direct theline husband
car Luis
worth
may and
and
Explain.
be the 2 250,00
separation
Elv
when the(Arts, thatfrom
marriage the Alice,will was was the made house
contracted. without Ashis
and lot
Bob
corporation failed the loan, and the Property
settlement is not 75,90and9l,
yet valid andFamily enforceable Code).
Rizza,
ALTERNATIVE their marriage
ANSWER: having been celebrated ira consent; 0 and 0
SUCCESSION
children
P100,000.00
(2%)
subject resided. shall
of preterition. Upon
be Joaquin's
exclusively Not against death,
owned
having it been his
by belongs
and Issa to his
contracted community their or partnership
marriage way with
back
bank obtained a judgment and until 3 the celebration has of
Since
20 years all the properties aretoconjugal, they can Ern the
50,000 marriage, 50.000 to take
legitimate
Rizza,
preterited,
Victorino, theago she
jointly
(under
children
same having
will
and
the
sought
be Civil
beenentitled
severally.
Code)only
recover
donated To
shall
to
enforce
beher
her
to by
the
ANOTHER
Alice.
in 1970.
Property
ANSWER:
that property
the
Relations; itUnions the
without effect
relation
Marriage of thatdepriving governs
place
2. If before
Bob died the be last
fore dayAugust of the 3, 1991
1988. barwhich
be
The held
governed
possession
her legacy
parents.
legitime.
answerable
byand the conjugal
in ownership
favor for Mila's
of partnership
Rosa
of the is obligation
lot,void of gains,
claiming if
under the
them
(1997)
Luis him
andis of
stillhisthe
Rizza, legitime,
conjugal
both 26 which
years is
partnership
of aageground and of thatis
gains.
judgment, the sheriff levied on a farm owned Examinations.
the date the Family Code took effect,
obligation redounded to the benefit of the willthe
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Amount of Successional Rights
under
Article
that which
1028
Joaquina the
for
Roxas husband
being inbutand a wife
consideration place of of in a her goes into the intrinsic validity of theas
SUGGESTED
Yes,
by the
family. because(Art.
ANSWER:
conjugal there
121 iswasa Family
partnership
[3], presumed trustee
of
Code) donation
Victorino However,
theirin
and Property
(Art.
single,
answer
(2004)
Mr. XT
158, Relations;
live
will
and
Civil
exclusively
not
Mrs.
Marriage
Code)
be
YT the
have
Settlements
with same. eachArt.
been other
married 158. for Civil
20
common fund the proceeds, products, fruits andSeptember
need
adulterous
father. relation with the testator. She
Civilis, and not be resolved during the
The levyWill is not the action
proper against
there being Joaquina
no showing Roxas that (1995)
On 10 1988 Kevin, a 26-year
favor
his wife
the of Joaquina
burden Elsa. of Is the under
proof levylies Art.
proper 1448
with orof not?
the thecreditor
(3%) husband
Code,
years. would
Suppose wife
then thewithout
apply. wife, the
The YT, benefit
landdied would of old
childless, then
and
the
prosper?income
therefore,
surety from
disqualified
agreement their separate
to receive
executed properties
by the437)
the legacy and
husband of probateLuis
businessman, proceedings.
married Karla, However,
a winsome the lassisof
Code
v. Reyes,
claiming (De27 los January
Santos1992, 206 SCRA . marriage,
be deemed onlyconjugal, is hergainfully along employed,
with the Rizza house,
those
redounded
100,000 acquired toagainst
pesos. theby either
benefit
The the of or
legacy the properties.
both
offamily. spouses
50,000 An obligation
pesos (Ayala in survived
18. opposition
Without by
may
the be
knowledgehusband,
entertained of XT.
their What
for, the
parents would or
However, thev.Savings
Homeowners
Investment donation
Court &should
Loan
of Appeals,be collated
Bank v. Dailo,
G.R. to No.G.R. not since employed,
the conjugal
be purpose share staysof funds at
XThome, from and
were hertakes used
estate charge in
as
through
contracted
favor of their by efforts
Ernie the is not or
husband by chance,
alone is
inofficious and
not upon
chargeable
having legal guardians, of securing
Kevin andto the
Karla husband entered his into
the
No. hereditary
153802,
118305, February March estate 11,
12,1998,and 2005) the legitime
reiterated inof the of the
constructing
SUGGESTED
inheritance? household ANSWER:it.
Why? Thechores. husband's
Explain. After (5%) living
estate together
would be
dissolution
against
exceeded of the
the ANSWER:
conjugalfreemarriage partnership or ofonlythehe when it was right toCivil
the legitime on the theory that the
ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE
other heirsthe ANSWER:
should portion.
be preserved. Hence, shall be an
for
Under
d) As ante-nuptial
a
entitled little
theto over
Judge, contract
I twenty
Code,rule
shall
a reimbursement
the
years,
the asday
widowofLuis
follows:
the
before
orwas widower
value
their
able
Jorge
of thetoisis
The
Except institution
the for
partnership,
contracted
entitled
Yes, to the
for the
receive
action the of Baldo,
residential
net it.gains
benefit
against which
of
Joaquinaorhouse
the applies
benefits
family.
Roxaswhich only
obtained
When
will is the to
the will constitutes an ineffective
marriage
Property
save
a legal
entitled from and
to stipulating
Relations;
his salary
compulsory
receive his that
Marriage
earnings conjugal
heir
legitime Settlement;
during
of fromthepartnership
that
deceased
the Conjugal
estate
the
family
by free
obligation
either
prosper, home, portion,
was
or
but all
both
only shall
other
contracted
spouse
to beonrespected.
theproperties
shall
extent behalf
be ofofGabby
of divided
the In sum,
the
aliquot and
family land from
disinheritance conjugal partnership
under Art. funds.
918survivingofpresently
the Civil
of
of gains
Partnership
period
spouse.
his the
wife.shall
If oftheGains
amount
He govern
widow
was(2005)ofnottheir
P200,000.00
is the marriage.
only
disinherited At the
in the heir,
will
the
Milaestate
business
equally
hereditary maybetween of
therightsbeLamberto
law presumes
held
them
of the(Art. will
that
answerable 142.
legitimate besuch distributed
Civilobligation
forCode).
children Mila'sas as
will Code,
time
Gabby
deposited
there
even of their
and
being
assuming in marriage
a Mila
bank.no thatgot
A Kevin's
house married
legitimate
he and
gaveestate lot at was
worthLourdes
ascendants,
ground for
follows:
redound
obligation.
Thus:
heirs. 1) to
Joaquina the
The Since benefit
salary will of the
be of the
Luis said
entitled family.
deposited to However,
properties
retain in the when
her are worth 50inMillion while Karla's was valued athis2
Baldo----------------- Church
P500,000.00
descendants,
disinheritance, Quezonwasbrothers,
hence, Cityhe
recently onand isJuly
purchased 10,
sisters,
still 1990.
entitled for
nephews Prior
the
to
the
bank
own obligation
conjugal in the
share inas was
nature,
amount to
an illegitimate guarantee
they
of canchild,
P200.000.00 the
be held debtand
(Arts. of
liable
thea
1440 third
for Million.
thereto,
same
and amount
nieces, Atheymonth
she by after
executed
the
gets
legitime. Jorge, however, cannot receive their
couple.
the aentire marriage
marriage
Of the
estate. Kevin
settlement
450,000
party,
debts
house
and as
1453. and
and in Civil
the
lot problem,
obligations
valued
Code;at the
Art. obligation
contracted
P500,000.00
176, F. C.)duringis presumed
shall bethe Barrier
died
whereby inbetween
P500.000.00
anything a freak they
from usedillegitimate
helicopter
agreed
the the &common-law
by free onlegitimate
accident.
portion. the He relatives
regime
He left
spouses noof
cannot
Wilma---------------
Disinheritance
for the
marriage benefit
to vs. thePreterition
of the
divided equally between Luis and Rizza. 2)extent third thatparty, the not the
family family.
was (1993)
A is
will,
conjugalthe
no acknowledged
debts,
partnership no obligations.
as he of naturalgains. child
Surviving of
The marriage B who
Kevin,
250,000
Hence,
Maria, tofor
(1993)
benefited
However, spite the
or where
the car obligation
herworth husband
the P100.000,00
debts under
Jorge, werewhom the
contracted
donated surety to
she claimpurchase
preterition the property, is notP200.000.00
a compulsory had heir
died
aside
settlement
come when
from AKarla,
was
was already
are
registered his only
22 years
in relatives:
the old.
RegisterWhen
his of
Elvira-----------------
agreement
suspected
by Rizza
to bothRelations;
by to
was
spouses,
herbe having 1,000,000
chargeable
or by
parents an one
shallagainst
affair of with
be theanother
them,
considered partnership
with to the Kevin and Karla? Explain. 2) Determine the the
in the from
direct the sale
line. of
There palay harvested
being no from
preterition,
Property Unions without Marriage B's
brother
Deeds full blood
Luis brother,
and first C,
cousin died he
Lilia. (C) 1) was
What
A family
(Ayala
250,000
it must
woman,
consent
her own be home
Investment
proven
executed
of the
paraphernal isthat
other. a v.
a dwelling
will, Ching,
the familyplace
unknown
property, 286was
having ofhim,
SCRA
to a
benefited
been person and hacienda
the
value ofofthe
institution Manila,
owned estate ofbythewhere
Luis
of sister
Kevin, Mila
and was
3) is
P300,000.00
Who avalid
resident.
are and fromtheIn
(2000)
For five
ALTERNATIVE
272)
and his years ANSWER:
family. since It 1989,
confers Tony,upon aresult
bank
a Vice-
family the survived
property
Disinheritance;
1992,
the
only they
rentals
right by
Relations
of his
jointly
of a
Jorge widow
building governed
Ineffective
acquired
is to and four
a
belonging
claim the children
marriage
residential
his to
legitime. Rizza. of of
his
house In
Ernie-----------------
that
acquired the
bequeathing benefit
by all
lucrative was
the was a
properties
title direct
(par. she inherited
2,Marriage
Art. of
148, of, such Kevin's heirs? 4) How much is each of
must other (1999)
Mr. Palma, brother aswidower, D.P500.000.00
Claiming
ashas a three that he been is entitled
daughters D,of to
D-
The disinheritance
president,
Property and
Relations; of Susan,
Wilma Unions aneffective
without because
entertainer, disrespect
lived and
fine, lot,
the sum well
of condominium
had unit
part in
right
50,000
agreement,
from
Civil
and hertoof
Code).
raising enjoy
parents,
voice to, her such
to property,
herconstitute
father sister maltreatment
Miguela. which Upon
under Kevin's heirs entitled to
together
(1992)
In 1989,
remain as
Rico,
with husband then a and
widowerwife without
forty (40)the years inherit
l and
Makati.
the fruits from
D-2. In He his
1995,
received father's
executesthey
during brother
a
decided Will
the to
period C. A
disinheriting
change brought
of their D
her death,
Article 919(6) the the
ofthe New person
willCivilwas Code. constituting
presented
She notitentitled
for probate.
is, therefore, as a to inherit?
benefit
of age,
family
inherit of
home
anything. marriage
cohabited
Her and his
inheritance although
with will Cora,
heirs. go to It they
the aother
cannot were
widow be
legal thirty
seized
heirs. The suit
because
propertyto obtain
cohabitation
SUGGESTED she
relations his share
married
from
ANSWER: to the
their ain the
man regime
separate estate
he property,
didofofcomplete
C. Will
not like,
a
Jorge opposed probate of the will on the SUGGESTED
his
and action
instituting ANSWER:
prosper? daughters D-1 and D-2 as his
capacitated
(30) years
total omission
by creditors of of to
Elvira
exceptmany
age. is notWhileeach
preterition other.
living
because Since
she is Tony's
together, not a they separation
1.
car Since
worth the of property.
marriage
P100.000.00. Mila
settlement
being consented,
used was by entered
the she
ground
compulsory that inthe
heirfrom will in
the direct was
line.
special
Sheexecuted cases.
will receive by
only
(Taneo,
his
her wifeJr. No,
legitime. heirs
the action of A will not prosper. On the
to his entire estate of P 1,000,000.00,
salary
acquired was more than
their enough
combined for their
earningsneeds, a was
into then
without
common-law
(a) How, under engagedthe
spouses,consentin awas lucrative
and without
donated business.
Just the months The
v. Court
without
The legacy in offavor
his Appeals,
of Rosa isG.R.
knowledge, voidmuch No. Article
under 108532,
less consent, March and 9, premise that the B, law C and should D the arebank legitimate
Property ofRelations; Marriage andSettlements Upon toMr, Palma's death, how should his
Susan
parcel
1999)
that it
stopped
riceland.
deprived
working
him of his
merely "kept
legitime. After all,
spouses
participation
ago
deposit
brothers,
SUGGESTED
Rizza
of then ofan
by
P200,000.00
as
ANSWER:
signed
the
her parents
parents.
illegitimatethea private
(they
Luis
house child did
and
and lotestate
document
not
Rizza
of sign
B, A
After Rico
(1991)
house". Duringand Cora separated,
that period, Tony Rico waslived able to be divided?
dissolving Explain.
their (5%)
conjugal partnership
he had
together given her no cause for disinheritance,
the
now
valued
cannot document),
decideatinherit to
P500.000.00 the
terminate
in marriage
intestacy and theirthe settlement
fromcohabitation,
car worth
C who is isand a
buy a lot with
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and Mabel,inaamaiden
house sixteen (16)
plush subdivision. agreeing
invalid
and they
P100.000.00 on
applying
ask a youcomplete
Art.
to
be allocated 78,
give separation
F.C.
them
toPage which
them?your of property.
provides
legal advice
added
years of age. Jorge inWhilehis opposition.
living Tony and Susan legitimate brother of B. Only the wife
41 of of C
119 in
However, after five years, that
on a minor
herthe own following:
right and the
decided to separate.
CIVILCIVIL
LAWLAWAnswers
Answers
to thetoBAR
the BAR
as Arranged
as Arranged
by Topics
by Topics
(Year(Year
1990-2006)
1990-2006)
died,
Eugenio
c) Since
spouse
he the
was
has
total
(Dela succeeded
inlegitime
Mercedthe succession
by
of the
v. Delahis compulsory
surviving
the same
Merced, wife
Gr No. heirs
share be
legitime
5M
isasset
(c)
126707, Xinherited
=aside
of by
1/2 the
as
bylegitimate
Mario's
Mrs. Luna
representationconjugal
children
from
of B share
Mr.and
C=l/2Luna
from
it
Y follows
=will
thebethat
1/4
25 P750,000.00,
each
Irma, ofand
that
February the children,
of1999).
his the balance
c) C has
legitimate of
noP250,000.00
unborn share
child. They is by representation
legitime
property.
from her by
community
the
inherited Theof
her one
other
parents.
half,of C
legitimate
amounting to child is P100,000.
one million pesos, is her
ALTERNATIVE conjugal share (net estate), and should be distributed to her
because
divided hisANSWER:
the free
the portion.
father
estate is still alive
equally hence
between them, the The legitime, therefore, of the oldest son isand
It depends. If Antero was not acknowledged intestate
(d) X - heirs.
1/3 ifinApplying
hischild the above
own right provision
Y- 1/3 of law,
in his Michelleown
succession
child excluding by representation
the parents shall of not apply An
Isidro. However,
P100,000.
Jorelle, Tessie's the
However,
nieces, had tointra-uterine
since
are entitled the donation
one-half life
of her conjugal given of
by
(Art.
unborn Antonio,
Legitime;
d) D
975).Compulsory
inherits the motion
Heirs
P30.000
child is considered born for allvs. to dismiss
Secondary
which is the should
Compulsory share be right
less
him 2
than
share was -
worth one 1/3
7 in
months,
P100,000, his
million pesos, own half
heorhas right
of
500,000 the
already estate
pesos, while of
received Mr.
the other in
granted
Heirs
of his(2005)
purposes father because E who
favorable Antero to itisprovided
predeceased not aT legal byitvirtue heir
is bornofof Luna,
one-half
full orlegitime
hisamounting5M, will be he
to P500,000
and inherited
will
willgo tonot by
Mario, the
Tessie's
receive widow surviving
Antonio.
Emil,
Art.
later.981 the
Theon Ifchild
testator,
the Anteroright
was was
hasconsidered
of three acknowledged,
legitimate
representation. born because, the Article
spouse.
(Mrs. Michelle
anything 977
Luna), of
and
anymore the
while Civil
Jorelle the
from Code
are other
then
theentitledprovides
half,
decedent. to P250,000
or 5M, that
The pesos
will
motion should be denied because Article 992 each
heirs as who
their hereditary
repudiate share.their share cannot be
e)
having F
children, anhasTom, noHenry
intra-uterine shareand because
life Warlito;
of morehis a father
wife G
than seven be inherited
remaining by the parents
P900,000, therefore, of Mr. shallLuna. go to Upon the
is
named not Adette;
repudiated
months, applicable.
it the lived for This
inheritance.
parents a namedis because
few Under
Pepe Article
minutes andAntero Pilar;
after is
its represented.
ALTERNATIVE
the death
four younger ofANSWER:
Mrs.
children Luna, byher estate ofin5M
institution thewill
Intestate Succession
Assuming that
claiming
977
an heirs his
illegitimate
complete whoinheritance
delivery. repudiate
child, wastheir
Ramon;
ItReserva from his illegitimate
share
brother,
legitimate may Mark;
because not it be inherited
will, to be divided by the donation
herequally
own parents. is valid as to form
among them. Each
Intestate
father,
be not
represented. Succession;
from Eugenio. Troncal (1997)
"T"
and died
Legitime intestate
substance, Juanon 1 September
cannot invoke 1997.He
preterition
and
was aborn
sister,within Nanette. theSince valid his wife Adette
marriage of is the will receive P225,000.
(1999)
Mr.
IntestateLuna died, leaving
Succession an estate of Ten Million was
because survived
Intestate
(1997)
"X", the he
decedent, by
actuallyM
Succession (his
was hadmother),
survivedreceived W
by (his
W a donation
(his
well-off,
parents. he wants to leave
Succession is favorableto his illegitimate togave it. When
(P1
(1998)
Enrique 0,000,000.00)
died, leaving Pesos. a net His widow
hereditary estate birth widow),
inter
(1999)
Mr.
widow).and vivosA
Mrs.and
(his fromB
Cruz,
son),(his the
who
B legitimate
(a testatrix
are children),
childless,
granddaughter, (III Tolentino
met Cwith
being
child
the as much of his estate as he can legally
to
of achild
P1.2 child died,
million.four Irma months
He is
inherited
after Mr,
survived
the
by his
share
Luna's widow,
of the
death, (his
188,1992
a
the grandson,
serious
daughter ed.).ofbeing
motor He would
vehicle
A) and the C legitimate
onlyDhave
accident
and with
(the son
atworight
Mr.of B), to a
Cruz
do.
child. His estate
However, has an
thefive aggregate
share of the net amount of
but the
ALTERNATIVE
three child
legitimate ANSWER: died children, hours
two afterchild
legitimate birth. in Twothe
D
at (his
completion
the
acknowledged other
wheel grandson,
of and hisMrs. legitime
illegitimate being
Cruz the sonbeside
under
seated
children Art.
of ofthe E906who
him, of
Pl,200,000.00,
hands of marriage
Irma and
is all
subject the above-named
to reserva troncal for
If
days the
grandchildrenafter the child's
sired is
by aEmil void.
death,legitimatethe Irma widow has
child withinof
who no
Mr. was
the a
Civil
resulting legitimate
decedent).in"X" Code.thedied son
The
instant of,
estate
thisdeath and who
should
year (1997) predeceased,
of Mr. leaving be divided
Cruz. Mrs. a
relatives
the benefit areofstill the living.
relatives ofnow comes
thesuffered to
successional
Luna
SUGGESTED
predeceased also ANSWER:died rights
him, because
and with two respect
she had
recognized tochildIsidrofrom but "T"),
equally
Cruz
net and
was
estate Fof
among (his
still grandson,
the
alive
P180,000.00. five
when being
children
help
All were the
who
came son will
willing of each
but G,
toshea
you
the for
third advice degree in making
of a will.
consanguinity How will
and you who
P600,000.00
she
difficult
SUGGESTED
illegitimate would childbirth.
ANSWER: —have
children.legitime The to
successional
Distribute be divided
estate of rights
the Mr. equally
estate Luna with
in is legitimate
receive
also died son who
P225,000.00
on the
succeed, except A who repudiated the repudiated
way because
to the the inheritance
the
hospital. total
The
distribute
belong
Under to
the his
thetheory estate
line according
of Concurrence,
of Isidro. to his the wishes
shares
between
respect
now
intestacy. beingtoTom, the
[5%] Henry
child.
claimed and
by his Warlito parents, as the and the from
hereditary
couple "T").
inheritance His
acquiredestate,
from distributable
after
properties
his father, net
collating
worth
and estate
theythe
One is
donation
seek Million
your
without
Heirs; violating
Intestate the law on testamentary
SUGGESTED
are
parents as follows:
legitimate his AHeirs;
ofANSWER:
children. (legitimate
widow. Each Shares
Who willchild)
isbeentitled =
entitled to Mr.
to P120.000.00.
to
legalJuan
(P1,000,000.00)
advice(Art. How
1061,
on howPesosshould
CC),
much this
would
duringeach amount
betheir
can P1 be
million.
marriage,
expect to In
succession?
Half
(2003)
Luis
P200,000 of
was the (5%)
estate
survived
B (legitimate of
by two Mr.child) Luna
legitimate will
= P200,000 go to
children,
C the SUGGESTED ANSWER: ANSWER:
P200,000.00.
Luna'a estate (Art.
and why? 888, Civil
(5%) Code) SUGGESTED
shared
the
which
receive actual in
are
as intestacy
distribution
being
their claimedamong
respective of by the
the
shares surviving
netparents
inestate,
the heirs?
of Juan
both
parents of Mrs. Luna asRamontheir inheritance andfrom two The legal
Preterition;
The heirs heirs
are B,are
Compulsory W, A, C and B, Heir
D, and W. C is nothing
two illegitimate
(legitimate
P100,000.00
Mrs. Luna,
child)
-- share
while
children,
= P200,000
of
the
his D
other
parents,
(legitimate
the
half
illegitimate
will be
SUGGESTED
gets
spouses
distribution
excluded nothing
in
by
ANSWER:
equal
of
B the
whowhileshares.
estate.
is stillhisD.Give
alive.
A inherits
Is siblings
the Dclaim
your will
answer.
inherits of in bothget
brothers.
child)
child. = OHe
Equivalent left to
(predeceased] an1/2 estate
ofEthe ofshare
P1 million.
(legitimate eachofLuis because
ofchild (1999)
(a) No, the of his claim of both parents
renunciation. B inherits is not a valid.
inherited by the parents of Mr. Code) Luna P225,000.00
sets of parents each.valid and why? (3%)
died
legitimate
D) intestate.
= P100,000 child. Who
- by (Art.
right are of his
176, intestate
Family
representation F as the
heirs, and (a) representation
When
legitime Mr,
Mr. ofCruz,
Cruz
P90.000.00of E who
widower,
died, he aspredeceased.
has
the three
was succeeded
nearest F is
legitimate
and by only his
reservatarios
how much child
(legitimate
P200,000.00 is the— of of
share the
D) = P100,000
Adette of each
the reserved
wife.in - Her
by his right property
estate?
share of is excluded
children,
wife and
legitimate because
A,
his B and
parents
descendant, of
C. the
He
as repudiation
executed
his intestate
inheriting a
in of
Will
heirs
his G,
own the
who
inherited
SUGGESTEDby
representation Mrs.
ANSWER: Luna from
G (illegitimate her
child) child.
= P100,000 - T. The
predecessor.
instituting
will
right share
notanswer M may isheirs
asrepresentation
byhis his
estate beequally.
excluded premised
to hisby the
estate
because onlegitimate
His two
ofofOne
estate A's was
equivalent
When Mr. Luna to the share
died, of
his one
heirs legitimate
were hischild.wife
The
1/2 intestate
share of the heirs
legitimate are the
child two
H (2)
(illegitimatelegitimate theories:
children
Million
0.5 Million
renunciation. the
of Theory
(P1,000,000.00)
pesosW which
gets ofa Exclusion
Pesos
is
legitime his his
half and
two
share
equivalent the
children
into the
(Art. 892,
and the par.
unborn 2, Civil Code)The unborn child
child.
children
Pepe
child) and
= and
Pilar,
P100,000 the thetwo
1/2parents(2) illegitimate
share are
of the only
legitimate children.
secondary Theory
A and
absolute
one-half B, of(1 Concurrence.
and
community
/ 2)his thatfriend of F. Upon
amounting
B amounting his todeath,
to 1 P45.000.how
Million
ANOTHER ANSWER:
inherited because the of inheritance as if was Theory
In
child
Under intestacy
compulsory Wthe (Widow) heirs
theory the= of estate
and
P200.000 they
Exclusion -cannot
same thefree
the decedent
inherit
share portion the is Under
(b)
should
Pesos.
C In the
and Dthe
Mr.
His preceding
each Cruz's getsestate
wife, aofquestion,
will, Exclusion
legitime be divided?
therefore, suppose
equivalentthe Mr.
Explain.
inherit toO.25one-
favorable
divided
primary among to
compulsory it and
the it
legitimate
heirs was born
and
(legitimate alive
illegitimate
children) later legitimes
Cruz
(3%)
Million institutedof
Pesos the heirs
his two are accorded
children A andthem B and
as his
legitimate
(P300,000)child is distributed only among the half (1/2) that and of B his parents to
amounting will inherit
P45.000.00 0.25
-half
though
children the it share
lived
such only ofpar.
that each
for five
the legitimate
hours.
share Mrs.
of Luna
each the
When free Mrs.portion will be given exclusively to
are alive. (Art. 887,
legitimate children and is given to them in 2, Civil Code) heirs
Million
each. in
But his since the total exceeds the entire by
Pesos. Cruz
Will, butdied, gave she a was
legacy succeeded
of P
Their
child.
inherited
illegitimate share half are
child of :the
For
is 10each
one Millionlegitimate estate while the the
her legitimate
parents
100,000.00 descendants.
ashis her intestate Hence heirs. under Theythethe will
addition to their legitime. All other Intestate estate, theirto legitimes friend wouldF. How have should
to be
child
unborn
Brother – P333,333.33
child
Mark inherited
and For each
sister the
Nanette other are half.
not When Exclusion
inherit Theory: A will get P20.000.00. and P
reduced corresponding to P22.500.00 each 0.5
all of her estate consisting of her
ALTERNATIVE
estate of Mr, ANSWER:
Cruz be divided upon his death?
heirs are entitled only to their respective
illegitimate
the
compulsorychild The child
died,heirs –since
P166,666.66
itLegitime
was survived
they are by
not its mother,
included INTESTATE
13.333.33
SUGGESTED
Million
Explain, (1/3
half
(2%)ANSWER: of the
share free
in portion)
the absolute B willcommunity
get P
legitimes. distribution isFree
as follows: Heirs;
(Art. Intestate
895. CC). Heirs;The Reserva
total Troncal
of all of these Bamounts
Portion Total
Mrs. (Article
in[legitimate
A Luna.
the enumeration 983, As New
child) P150.000 the Civil
under only Code;
+ Article heir,
P 75,000 887 Article Mrs.
- P225.000 176,
of the Luna Family (a) Assuming
SUCCESSION
20,000.00.
and her and
0.25 that
P13. the
ESTATE:
333.33
Million institution
(1/3 of
inheritance theof A,
free from andher F
(1995)
Isidro
to
W- and
P180.000.00.
(widow Irma,
gets 1/2 Filipinos,
share) both
P90.000.00 18 years
(Art. of
998)
inherited,
B Code.by
{legitimate
Civil child) P150.000Code)
operation of+ law,
P150.000 the estate- were
of the P180,000.00
portion)
husband, to the
D orwillentire
a isget
total estate,
P20.000.00.
of 0.750 there and
Million was
P13. preterition
333.33
Pesos.
age,
W, the were widow passengers oftoFlight No. 317 of Art.
Intestate
P225.000
The remaining
child Succession
C (legitimate
consisting balanceofchild)
its of P150.000
5P300,000.00
Million + P inheritance
75.000 -
is the A-
In (son
of
(1/3C since
sum,
of who
the the
free a limited
Crepudiated
isparentscompulsory
portion) his the
of inheritance)
Mr. heir
legitime
Cruzinwill None
the ofdirect
inherit
Oriental
P20.000.00
C. B 977)
has B Airlines.
Under
- (Granddaughter) The
the plane
Theory they
C -in the totalwas
of boarded
(1992)
F
free
fromhad
P225.000 three
portion
Mr. Luna.(3)
D (legitimate
which legitimate
In
child) 0 0children:
can the be 0 E (legitimate
given
hands to
of theA, B, and
Mrs. Luna, line.
250,000 The preterition
Pesos whilewill theNoneresult
parents of Mrs. Cruz
child
(1)
one of D) P 75,000
legitimate child + X. P35.500C has - two
P112,500 (2)was F
legitimate of Philippine registry.
Concurrence.
(Acknowledged In institution
addition
illegitimate While toen
child) theirroute from
legitimes,
P45.000.00
illegitimate
what
(legitimate shechild child
inherited of D)Ramon Pfrom
75.000 as
her+anchild
P instituted
37.500 heir.
- subject
annulment
will inherit of the
750,000 Pesos.illegitimateof heirs.
children: YCiviland Z. F child)and A therode together in athe Manila
(Art.998)
the heirs
Intestate to D Greece
of- (Acknowledged
A, B,
Succession Dsomeand passengers
W will be hijacked
given child)equal
(Art.
to
P112,500 914,
reserva Code)
troncal
G (illegitimate If
forso given
P 75.000 by 0the-P of
benefit Therefore, the institution of A, B and F will be
car and perished together at the same time in A:
sharesP20.000.00
P45,000.00
the plane, in the(Art.
held freeplus
998)
the P10.000.00
The
chief
portions: acknowledged
pilot (1
hostage /4 of at the
thefree
decedent,ofRamon
75,500
relatives H (illegitimate
the child would
child) P
within receive
75.000 0
the third a total
- P 75,500of
degree of (2000)
Eugenio
set aside
illegitimate and
died
child Mr. without
Cuz's
getsP10.000.00
1/2 estate
issue,
ofto the will
leaving be divided,
several
When
a vehicular
Preterition Mrs. P150,000Luna
accident, died, F she and was
A died, survivedeach by her
of B: P20,000.00
portion)
cockpit and plus
ordered him flyshare (l/4 of
instead ofeachthe free
to Libya.
W (Widow)
P400,000.00.
consanguinity and who 0 -P150.000 belong to the family of parcels
as in
legitimate
C: P20,000.00 ofchild.
intestacy, land in Bataan.
equally
plus among
P10.000.00 He was
A, B and
(1/4 survived
ofheartC asfree
the by
parents
them leaving as her only
substantial heirs.estates Her in parents
intestacy. will portlon)
During the hijacking Isidro suffered a
(2001)
Because her eldest
Mr. Luna, the line where the property came son Juan had been Legitime;
Antonio,
follows: Compulsory
A his
- P333,333.33; Heirs
legitimate brother;
B - P333.333.33; Martina, andthe
a) Who are the intestate portion)
W: P20,000.00
attack and was plus on P10,000.00
thehis verge (l/4 of the (a),
of death. free
Since
inherit
pestering
from.
Intestate
her her
Succession
estate
for capital consisting to heirs
start of ofathe F? 5What
business, Million are their
(b)
(2003)
only
Luis
C On
portion)
thesurvived
daughter
P333,333.33.
was same
Alternative
assumption
of
by two
Answer:
as letter
predeceased
legitimate
Shares in children,
Intestacy
there
sister
T-
she
Josefa respective
inherited
gave him fractional
from
P100,000. Mr. shares?
Luna.
Five The
years other
later, 5 Irma
was was
preterition already of eight
C. months
Therefore, pregnant
the institution by
(1998)
Tessie died survived by her husband Mario, Mercedes;
two
decedentillegitimate and
Estate: children,
five
P120.000.00 legitimate
his parents,
Survived children
and
by: M two
- of
b)
Million
Josefa Who died, are
she leaving the
inherited intestate
a lastfrom heirs
will her
and of A?
child
testament Whatwill be are their
Isidro,
of A and she B pleaded
is annulled to the but hijackers
the legacy toofallow
and two nieces, Michelle and Jorelle, who areas the Joaquin,
brothers. another
He left an
Mother............................None predeceased
estate W- of P1 brother.
million. Shortly
Who
delivered respective fractional
toinstituted
the parents shares? of Mr. younger Luna assistant to
P100.000.00 pilot to solemnize
F shall be respected her marriagefor notdied,
in
the which
legitimate she children only
of an her
elder four sister who after
are theEugenio's
compulsory
Widow.............................P death,
heirs
30,000.00 ofAntonio
Luis,
A - how alsomuch is
c)
beneficiariesIf B and C
of sole both
the reserved predeceasedproperty. F, who are F’s
with
being Isidro.
inofficious. Soon after
Therefore, the marriage,
the remainder Isidro of
children
had predeceasedas her her. heirs.
The At
only the time
property of her
she leaving
the legitime three
of each,
Son.................................P and legitimate
30,000.00how Bmuch
- is children.
the free
In intestate
sum,heirs? 5 Million What Pesos are their of Mr. respectiveLuna's estate fractional
expired.
P900.000.00 As the plane landedequally in Libyaamong Irma A, B
death,
left behindthey
her only was
inherit
properly
a house inofand
left lot
their
wasworth P900,000.00
own while two
SUGGESTED
Subsequently,
portion hiswill
of ANSWER: estate,
rightthe or Son.................................P30.000.00
by
be divided
Martina, if any?
the childrenC died
- Grandson of Joaquin
(son of
will go to the
shares? Do parents Mrs. Luna, gave
The
and birth.
compulsory However, heirs
C.the children of Antonio executed an the
are baby
the two a few
legitimate
in a bank.
million pesos, Juan opposed
which Tessie the will
and on
her the
husband ground and
B).............None D - Grandson (son of E who predeceased
Explain
otherrepresentation?
5 Million your Pesosanswer. will go to the parents of minutes after
children and the complete
two illegitimatedelivery. Back children. in the The
of
had preterition.
d) acquired
ALTERNATIVE If B and C
ANSWER: How
with both should
the use of
repudiated Josefa's
Mario's their estate
savings
shares be in extrajudicial
T)................P 30,000.00 settlement F - Grandson of (son the of Gestate
who of
Mr.
SUGGESTEDLuna as reservatarios.
ANSWER: Philippines
parents are Irma
excluded Immediatelyby the filed
legitimate a claim for
divided
If the
from child
thehis among
had
estate an
income of her
intra-uterine
Fas heirs?
who life
a doctor. of
are State
not less
How briefly
than 7
much the
months, it
ofheirs?
the Eugenio, dividing it among
repudiated the Inheritance from"T").......................None themselves. The
There was nofather.
preterition of F'sthe intestate
oldest son inheritance.
children, while Thethe parents of Isidro opposed her
inherited
reason(s)
SUGGESTED
property
What
because
from for
or
are
the
the
ANSWER:
itsyour
their value,
testatrix
Inanswer.
which case,
if
respective any,
donated
the
(5%)
may
estate of 10M
Michelle
fractional
100,000
will be
and
shares?
pesos succeeding year, brothers a petition are not to annul the
claim contending settlement was filed bybetween
divided1001
Article equally between
of the the child
Civil Code and the
provides, widowbrothers
"Should as legal and heirs. compulsory heirs that
at all. theTheir marriage
respective
Jorelle
Do claim
or they as child,
ofinherit their inhereditary shares? [5%] extrajudicial
Explanation: Antero, an
to
Upon him.
sisters the This
death
their donation
the
children survive its istheir
share
with the 5Mown
considered
of widow shall
or go right
an
widower, orlatter
advance
by operation
the by
of her and Isidro
legitimate are: was
a)of Thevoid ab initio
legitime ofon the thetwo (2)
SUGGESTED
law to the
onrepresentation?
shall mother,
be entitled
the ANSWER:which shall
one-halfExplain
son'stoinheritance. be subject
of the inheritance
There to reserva
your being answer,
and troncal.
the brothers
no Underand illegitimate
a) The
half (1/2) son
mother
of the (a) Antonio,
(M)
estate cannot who inherit
(P500,000.00) claims from to he Tbeisdivided
following
legitimate grounds:
children is they
one had not given their
(a) 891,
Art.
sisters B or =the
theirreserva
children is to
in favor
the other of relatives belonging
half." Tessie's gross to estate
the entitled
because
between to
under
them share Art. in
equally, the
985 estate
the of
ascendants
orofP250,000.00 Eugenio. shall
each. Theb)
preterition, the institutions in the will shallThe beit
SUGGESTED
consent
2. Does to
Irma
ANSWER:
thehave marriage their son;rights (b) there
paternal
1/2
consists
respected
line
of a andhouse
but
who and are
the
lotwithin
acquired
legitime
3 degrees
during from
of the
the
her marriage,
oldest
child. making
son defendants
inherit
The in
motion
legitimate filed
default to of aany
of
each motionsuccessional
legitimate
dismiss to children
should
illegitimate dismissbe
child on
and
granted.
is
atthe
one-
parents of Mr, Luna are entitled
(b) B = 1/2 Z = 1/4 by representation of C C= 1/2
part of the community property. to
Thus,the reserved
one-half portion
of the saidwhich is
property 5M was
all? no
Discuss marriage fully. license; (c) the solemnizing
ground
b)
descendants
Article Thethat
992 Antero
widow's
ofdoes isofbarred
share
the deceased.
not byAntero
is P30.000.00
apply. Articlechild 992 of
has
as they
would
Article to are
have be
982 completed
2todegrees
of the related if
Civil from he received
child.
Code The
provides less. that half(1/2)
officer
SUGGESTED had the no legitime
ANSWER: authority each
to legitimate
perform the is not or
After collating the donation of P100.000 to the the
because
claiming Civilunder
P125,000.00. any Code Art,from
inheritance 996 it inheriting
states
from that if
Eugenio. from theHethe is
grandchildren inherit by right of 2. Irma
marriage; succeeded
and, (d) the to the
solemnizingestate of Isidro
officer as
did
remaining property of P900,000, the estate of legitimate
widow or his
claiming brother
widower shareand of his thefather.
legitimate How
children will
ofor you
representation. his
not surviving
file an affidavit spouse ofin
tomarriage
the inheritance
estate with of her the proper his
the testatrix is P1,000,000. Of this amount, resolve
descendants
father the motion?
consisting are left, of (5%)
the surviving
his father's share in the
legitimate
civil registrar. child. When Isidro
one-half or P500,000, is the inheritance of
A. A MODAL
objected, arguing
INSTITUTION
that it shouldis the beinstitution
in Jolo of before
mother,
a in favor of another sister, with their mother
court
an heir
Shari’a since
made his for
lands a are
certain
in Sulu.
purposeBut Adil’s
or cause only not giving her authority thereto but even
sisters871
(Arts. in Pakistan
and 882, want NCC).
the proceedings
SUBSTITUTION held is signing said deeds, there is a valid partition
in Lahore
the appointment
before of a Pakistani
another heir court.so Which
that he may inter vivos between the mother and her
court has
enter into jurisdiction
the inheritance and is inthedefault
proper of the
venue heir children which cannot be revoked by the
for the intestate
originality instituted.
proceedings?
(Art. 857,The NCC). law of mother. Said deeds of sale are not contracts
B. In acountry
which SIMPLE shallSUBSTITUTION
govern succession of heirs,
to his the entered into with respect to future
testator
SUGGESTED
estate? (5%) designates
ANSWER: one or more persons to inheritance. "It would be unjust for the mother to revoke
In so far asthe
substitute theheirs
properties of the
instituted in decedent
case such heir the sales to a son and to execute a simulated
located
or heirsinshouldthe Philippines
die before arehim,
concerned,
or should they not sale in favor of a daughter who already
are governed by Philippine law (Article 16,
wish or should be incapacitated to accept the benefited by the partition."
Civil Code). Under SUGGESTED ANSWER:
inheritance. In Philippine
a law, the proper
FIDEICOMMISSARY
venue for the settlement of the institutes
estate is the C. Yes, under Arts. 51 and 52 of the New
SUBSTITUTION, the testator a first
domicile Family Code. In case of legal separation,
heir and of the decedent
charges him to at the time
preserve of his
and transmit
death. Since annulment of marriage, declaration of nullity
the whole or the
partdecedent last resided
of the inheritance to in Cebu
a second
City, that is the proper venue for the intestate of marriage and the automatic termination of a
heir. In a simple substitution, only one heir
However,
settlement theof successional
his estate. rights to the estate subsequent marriage by the reappearance of
inherits. In a fideicommissary substitution, both
of ADIL are governed by Pakistani law, his the absent spouse, the common or community
the first and second heirs inherit. (Art. 859 and
national
C. Betina law, under Article 16 of the Civil property of the spouses shall be dissolved and
869, NCC)has a cause of action against Divino. Art, 51. In said partition, the value of the
Code.
This is a case of a testamentary disposition liquidated.
Succession; Death; Presumptive Legitime
subject to a mode and the will itself provides presumptive legitimes of all common children,
(1991)
a) For
for thepurposes
consequence of succession,
if thewhen mode is death
is not computed as of the date of the final judgment
deemed
occur or take
to
complied with. place? b) Maythe
To enforce succession
mode, the be will of the trial court, shall be delivered in cash,
conferred by contracts or acts
itself gives Betina the right to compel the inter property or sound securities, unless the
vivos? Illustrate. c) Is there
return of the property to the heirs of any law which parties, by mutual agreement, judicially
allows the delivery to
Theodore. (Rabadilla v. Conscoluella, 334 approved, had already provided for such
compulsory
Wills; heirs
Formalities of their presumptive legitimesThe children of their guardian, or the trustee
matters.
SCRA 522 [2000] GR 113725, 29 June 2000). of their property, may ask for the enforcement
the
during
(1990)
(1) If lifetime
a will of their by
is executed parents?
a testatorIf so,
whoin what
is a
instances?
SUGGESTED
Filipino ANSWER:
citizen, what law will govern if the will of the judgment.
A. Death asinathe
is executed factPhilippines?
is deemed to occur
What lawwhen
will it The delivery of the presumptive legitimes
actually takes place. Death
govern if the will is executed in another is presumed to take herein prescribed shall in no way prejudice
place
country? in the circumstances
Explain your answers. under Arts. 390- the ultimate successional rights of the
391 of the Civil Code. The time
(2) If a will is executed by a foreigner, for of death is children accruing upon the death of either or
presumed to be at the expiration
instance, a Japanese, residing in the of the 10year both of the parents; but the value of the
period as prescribed by Article
Philippines, what law will govern if the will is 390 and at the properties already received under the decree
moment of disappearance under
executed in the Philippines? And what law will Article 391. of annulment or absolute nullity shall be
B. Under Art. 84 of the Family
govern if the will is executed in Japan, or some Code amending Art. 52. Theas
considered judgment
advances ofonannulment or of
their legitime.
Art 130 of the Civil Code, contractual
other country, for instance, the U.S.A.? Explain absolute nullity of the marriage, the partition
succession
your answers. is no longer possible since the law and distribution of the properties of the
now requires that donations of future property spouses, and the delivery of the children's
be governed by the provisions on the presumptive legitimes shall be recorded in the
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
testamentary succession and formalities of appropriate civil registry and registries of
B. In the case of Coronado vs.CA(l91 SCRA81),
wills. property; otherwise, the same shall not affect
it was ruled that no property passes under a Wills;
thirdCodicil;
persons. Institution of Heirs; Substitution of Heirs
will without its being probated, but may under (2002)
Article 1058 of the Civil Code of 1898, be By virtue of a Codicil appended to his will,
[Many-Oy
sustained vs. as aCA 144SCRA33).
partition by an act inter vivos Theodore devised to Divino a tract of sugar
land, with the obligation on the part of Divino
And in the case of Chavez vs, IAC 1191 or his heirs to deliver to Betina a specified
SCRA211), it was ruled that while the law
volume of sugar per harvest during Betina’s
prohibits contracts upon future inheritance, Proceedings;
lifetime. It isIntestate
also stated Proceedings; Jurisdiction
in the Codicil that in
the partition by the parent, as provided in Art. (2004)
In his
the eventlifetime, a Pakistani
the obligation citizen,Betina
is not fulfilled, ADIL,
1080 is a case expressly authorized by law. A marriedimmediately
should three times seizeunder Pakistani
the property fromlaw.
person has two options in making a partition of When
Divino he died anheirs
or latter’s old widower,
and turn it heover
left to
behind
his estate: either by an act inter vivos or by six
Theodore’s compulsory heirs. Divino failed toan
children, two sisters, three homes, and
will. If the partition is by will, it is imperative estate
fulfill the worth at least
obligation 30 million
under pesos
the Codicil. in the
Betina
that such partition must be executed in of heirs.
Philippines. (3%) b) Distinguish between
brings suit against Divino for the reversion last
He was born in Lahore simple
but of
accordance with the provisions of the law on and tract
resided
the fideicommissary
inofCebu
land. City, where he had
a) Distinguish a mansion
between
wills; if by an act inter vivos, such partition substitution
and where of heirs.
two ofand (2%)
his c) Doeschildren
youngest Betina havenow
modal institution substation
may even be oral or written, and need not be in live a causeand of action
work. against
Two of Divino?
his oldest children are
"Where
the formseveral
of a will, sisters execute
provided the deeds
legitime of is
salenot Explain (5%)
over their 1 /6 undivided share of the farmers in Sulu, while the two middle-aged
prejudiced. SUGGESTED ANSWER:
paraphernal property of their children are employees in Zamboanga City.
Finding that the deceased left no will, the
youngest son wanted to file intestate
proceedings before the Regional Trial Court of
Cebu City. Two other siblings
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the will may be probated in the b. In the case of a foreigner, his national law
Philippines insofar as the estate of Eleanor is shall govern substantive validity whether he
concerned. While the Civil Code prohibits the executes his will in the Philippines or in a
execution of Joint wills here and abroad, such foreign country.
prohibition applies only to Filipinos. Hence, Wills; Holographic Wills; Insertions & Cancellations
the joint will which is valid where executed is (1996)
Vanessa died on April 14, 1980, leaving behind
valid in the Philippines but only with respect a holographic will which is entirely written,
to Eleanor. Under Article 819, it is void with dated and signed in her own handwriting.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
respect to Manuel whose joint will remains However, it contains insertions and
The will cannot be probated in the Philippines,
void in the Philippines despite being valid cancellations which are not authenticated by
even though valid where executed, because it
where executed. her signature. For this reason, the probate of
is prohibited under Article 818 of the Civil
Vanessa's will was opposed by her relatives
Code and declared void under Article 819, The SUGGESTED
who stood ANSWER:
to inherit by her intestacy. May
prohibition should apply even to the American Yes, the will as originally written may be
Vanessa's holographic will be probated?
wife because the Joint will is offensive to public probated. The insertions and alterations were
Explain.
policy. Moreover, it is a single juridical act void since they were not authenticated by the
which cannot be valid as to one testator and full signature of Vanessa, under Art. 814, NCC.
Wills;
void asProbate; Intrinsic Validity
to the other. The original will, however, remains valid
(1990)
H died leaving a last will and testament because a holographic will is not invalidated by
wherein it is stated that he was legally ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
the unauthenticated insertions or alterations
married to W by whom he had two legitimate It depends. As a rule, a holographic will is not
(Ajero v. CA, 236 SCRA 468].
children A and B. H devised to his said forced adversely affected by Insertions or
heirs the entire estate except the free portion cancellations which were not authenticated by
which he gave to X who was living with him at the full signature of the testator (Ajero v. CA,
In
the said
time will
of hishedeath.
explained that he had been 236 SCRA 468). However, when the insertion
estranged from his wife W for more than 20 or cancellation amounts to revocation of the
years and he has been living with X as man will, Art.814 of the NCC does not apply but
and wife since his separation from his Art. 830. NCC. Art. 830 of the NCC does not
legitimate family. require the testator to authenticate his
In the probate proceedings, X asked for the cancellation for the effectivity of a revocation
issuance of letters testamentary in accordance effected through such cancellation (Kalaw v.
with the will wherein she is named sole Relova, 132 SCRA 237). In the Kalaw case, the
executor. This was opposed by W and her original holographic will designated only one
(a) Should the will be admitted in said
children. heir as the only substantial provision which
(b) Is theproceedings?
probate said devise to
was altered by substituting the original heir
(c) Was it proper for the trial court to consider
X valid?
with another Wills;
Wills; Holographic heir. Witnesses
Hence, if the
the intrinsic
SUGGESTED validity of the provisions of said
ANSWER:
unauthenticated
(1994) cancellation amounted to a
(1)
will?a.Explain
If the testator
your answers,
who is a Filipino citizen On his deathbed, Vicente was executing a will.
revocation of the will, the will may not be
executes his will in the Philippines, Philippine In the room were Carissa, Carmela, Comelio
probated because it had already been revoked.
law will govern the formalities. and Atty. Cimpo, a notary public. Suddenly,
b. If said Filipino testator executes his will in there was a street brawl which caught
another country, the law of the country where Comelio's attention, prompting him to look out
he maybe or Philippine law will govern the the window. Cornelio did not see Vicente sign a
formalities. (Article 815, Civil Code} SUGGESTED
will. Is theANSWERS:
will valid?
a) Yes, The will is valid. The law does not
SUGGESTED ANSWER: require a witness to actually see the testator
(2) a. If the testator is a foreigner residing in sign the will. It is sufficient if the witness
the Philippines and he executes his will in the could have seen the act of signing had he
Philippines, the law of the country of which he chosen to do so by casting his eyes to the
is a citizen or Philippine law will govern the b) Yes, direction.
proper the will is valid. Applying the "test of
formalities. position", although Comelio did not actually
b. If the testator is a foreigner and executes see Vicente sign the will, Cornelio was in the
his will in a foreign country, the law of his proper position to see Vicente sign if Cornelio
place of residence or the law of the country of so wished.
which he is a citizen or the law of the place of Wills; Joint Wills
execution, or Philippine law will govern the (2000)
Manuel, a Filipino, and his American wife
formalities (Articles 17. 816. 817. Civil Code). Eleanor, executed a Joint Will in Boston,
POSSIBLE ADDITIONAL ANSWERS: Massachusetts when they were residing in
a. In the case of a Filipino citizen, Philippine said city. The law of Massachusetts allows the
law shall govern substantive validity whether execution of joint wills. Shortly thereafter,
he executes his will in the Philippines or in a Eleanor died. Can the said Will be probated in
foreign country. the Philippines for the settlement of her
estate? (3%)
Wills; Probate; Notarial and Holographic Wills
(1997) with no known living relatives,
Johnny,
executed a notarial will giving all his estate to
his sweetheart. One day, he had a serious
altercation with his sweetheart. A few days
later, he was introduced to a charming lady
who later became a dear friend. Soon after, he
executed a holographic will expressly revoking
the notarial will and so designating his new
friend as sole heir. One day when he was
clearing up his desk, Johnny mistakenly
burned, along with other papers, the only copy
of his holographic will. His business associate,
Eduardo knew well the contents of the will
which was shown to him by Johnny the day it
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
was probate
The executed. of Athe
few days after
notarial will the
will burning
prosper.
incident, Johnny died.
The holographic Both wills
will cannot were sought
be admitted to
to be probated
probate because inatwo separate petitions.
holographic Willbe
will can only
either or both petitions prosper?
probated upon evidence of the will itself unless
there is a photographic copy. But since the
holographic will was lost and there was no
other copy, it cannot be probated and therefore
ADDITIONAL ANSWERS:
the notarial will will be admitted to probate
1. In the case of Gan vs. Yap (104 Phil 509),
because there is no revoking will.
the execution and the contents of a lost or
destroyed holographic will may not be
proved by the bare testimony of witnesses
who have seen or read such will. The will
itself must be presented otherwise it shall
produce no effect. The law regards the
document itself as material proof of
authenticity. Moreover, in order that a will
may be revoked by a subsequent will, it is
necessary that the latter will be valid and
executed with the formalities required for
the making of a will. The latter should
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, the will may be probated if executed possess all the requisites of a valid will
according to the formalities prescribed by law. whether it be ordinary or a holographic
will, and should be probated in order that
(b) The institution giving X the free portion is the revocatory clause thereof may produce
not valid, because the prohibitions under Art. effect. In the case at bar, since the
739 of the Civil Code on donations also apply holographic will itself cannot be presented,
to testamentary dispositions (Article 1028, it cannot therefore be probated. Since it
Civil Code), Among donations which are cannot be probated, it cannot revoke the
considered void are those made between notarial will previously written by the
persons who were guilty of adultery or decedent.
concubinage at the time of the donation. 2. On the basis of the Rules of Court, Rule
(c) As a general rule, the will should be 76, Sec. 6, provides that no will shall be
admitted in probate proceedings if all the proved as a lost or destroyed will unless its
necessary requirements for its extrinsic validity provisions are clearly and distinctly proved
have been met and the court should not by at least two (2) credible witnesses.
consider the intrinsic validity of the provisions Hence, if we abide strictly by the two-
of said will. However, the exception arises when witness rule to prove a lost or destroyed
the will in effect contains only one testamentary will, the holographic will which Johnny
disposition. In effect, the only testamentary allegedly mistakenly burned, cannot be
disposition under the will is the giving of the probated, since there is only one witness,
free portion to X, since legitimes are provided Eduardo, who can be called to testify as to
by law. Hence, the trial court may consider the the existence of the will. If the holographic
9 October 1985. 139 SCRA
intrinsic validity of the provisions of said will. will, which purportedly, revoked the earlier
206).
(Nuguid v. Nuguid, etal.. No. L23445, June 23, notarial will cannot be proved because of
1966, 17 SCRA; Nepomuceno v. CA, L-62952, the absence of the required witness, then
the petition for the probate of the notarial
will should prosper.
due to formal defects. Assuming that a copy of excluded the by a legitimate son of the decedent [Art.
is
firstavailable,
will may it now be admitted to Civil Code]. This follows the principle that the
887, New
probate and given effect? Why? descendants exclude the ascendants from
SUGGESTED ANSWER: inheritance.
Yes, the first will may be admitted to probate
and given effect. When the testator tore first Wills; Testamentary Intent
will, he was under the mistaken belief that the (1996)
Alfonso, a bachelor without any descendant or
second will was perfectly valid and he would ascendant, wrote a last will and testament in
not have destroyed the first will had he known which he devised." all the properties of which I
that the second will is not valid. The may be possessed at the time of my death" to
revocation by destruction therefore is his favorite brother Manuel. At the time he
dependent on the validity of the second will. wrote the will, he owned only one parcel of
Since it turned out that the second will was land. But by the time he died, he owned twenty
invalid, the tearing of the first will did not parcels of land. His other brothers and sisters
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
produce the effect of revocation. This is known insist that his will should pass only the parcel
No, the first will cannot be admitted to probate.
as the doctrine of dependent relative
While it is true that the first will was successfully of land he owned at the time it was written,
revocation (Molo v. Molo, 90 Phil 37.)
revoked by the second will because the second and did not cover his properties acquired,
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
will was later denied probate, the first will was, which
Manuelshould be bybecause
is correct intestate succession.
under Art. 793,
nevertheless, revoked when the testator Manuel claims otherwise.
NCC, property acquired after theWho is correct?
making of a
destroyed
(Diaz it after
v. De executing
Leon, 43 Phil the413
second invalid Explain.
will shall only pass thereby, as if the testator
[1922]).
will. had possessed it at the time of making the
Wills; Testamentary Disposition
will, should it expressly appear by the will that
(2006)
Don died after executing a Last Will and
such was his intention. Since Alfonso's
Testament leaving his estate valued at P12
intention to devise all properties he owned at
Million to his common-law wife Roshelle. He is
the time of his death expressly appears on the
survived by his brother Ronie and his half-
will, then all the 20 parcels of land are
(1) Was
sister Don's testamentary disposition of his
Michelle.
estate in accordance with the law on DONATION
included in the devise.
succession? Whether you agree or not, explain Donation vs. Sale
SUGGESTED
your Explain.Yes, Don's testamentary
answer.ANSWER: (2003)
disposition of his estate is in accordance with a) May a person sell something that does not belong
him? Explain. b) May a person donate
to
the law on succession. Don has no compulsory
something that does not belong
heirs not having ascendants, descendants nor
to him? Explain. 5%
a spouse [Art. 887, New Civil Code]. Brothers SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and sisters are not compulsory heirs. Thus, he (a) Yes, a person may sell something which
can bequeath his entire estate to anyone who does not belong to him. For the sale to be
is not otherwise incapacitated to inherit from valid, the law does not require the seller to be
him. A common-law wife is not incapacitated the owner of the property at the time of the
under the law, as Don is not married to sale. (Article 1434, NCC). If the seller cannot
(2) If Don failed to execute a will during his
anyone. transfer ownership over the thing sold at the
lifetime, as his lawyer, how will you distribute
SUGGESTED After paying the legal
ANSWER: (2.5%) time of delivery because he was not the owner
his estate? Explain. (b) As a general
obligations of the estate, I will give Ronie, as thereof, he shall rule, a person
be liable cannotofdonate
for breach
full-blood brother of Don, 2/3 of the net estate, something
contact. which he cannot dispose of at the
twice the share of Michelle, the half-sister who time of the donation (Article 751, New Civil
shall receive 1/3. Roshelle will not receive Code).
anything as she is not a legal heir [Art. 1006
New Civil Code].
(3) Assuming he died intestate survived by his
brother Ronie, his half-sister Michelle, and his
legitimate son Jayson, how will you distribute
SUGGESTED
his Explain. Jayson
estate? ANSWER: (2.5%) will be entitled to
the entire P12 Million as the brother and
sister will be excluded by a legitimate son of
the decedent. This follows the principle of
proximity, where "the nearer excludes the Wills; Revocation of Wills; Dependent Relative Revocation
(4) Assuming further he died intestate,
farther." (2003)
survived by his father Juan, his brother Ronie, Mr. Reyes executed a will completely valid as
his half-sister Michelle, and his legitimate son to form. A week later, however, he executed
Jayson, how will you distribute his estate? another will which expressly revoked his first
SUGGESTED
Explain. ANSWER: Jayson will still be entitled
(2.5%) will, which he tore his first will to pieces. Upon
to the entire P12 Million as the father, brother
the death of Mr. Reyes, his second will was
and sister will be
presented for probate by his heirs, but it was
denied probate
CIVILCIVIL
LAWLAW
Answers
Answers
to thetoBAR
the BAR
as Arranged
as Arranged
by Topics
by Topics
(Year(Year
1990-2006)
1990-2006)
No. In simple
SUGGESTED or pure donation, only the illegal or
ANSWER: property to Ferdinand
irrevocable, the latter is who revocable.
then sued In to
the problem
As judge, Icondition
impossible will grant is the motion not
considered to dismiss.
written the clauses
given,
recover allthe or landconditions
from thementionedcity government. in the
Armando
but the donation remains valid andthe
has no personality to bring action
becomes deed
Will theof donation,
suit prosper? except one, are consistent
for annulment of the sale
free from conditions. The condition or mode to Conrado. Only an with the rule
SUGGESTED of irrevocability and would have
ANSWER:
aggrieved party to the contract
being a mere accessory disposition. Its nullity may bring the Ferdinandthe
sustained hasviewno rightthat to therecover
donation theisland.
interIt is
action
does not for affect
annulment thereof (Art.
the donation unless 1397. NCC).
it clearly true that the donation was
vivos and therefore valid. The lone exception revocable because is
While
appearsArmando that the donor is heir would andnotsuccessor-in-
have made of breach
the clause which of the conditions.
reserves the donor's But until right to and
interest
the donation of hiswithout motherthe (Art. mode 1311, NCC), he
or condition. unless
sell the thepropertydonation at any was timerevoked,
before it hisremained
death.
[standing
On the other in place hand, of onerous
his mother) donation has no is valid.aHence,
Such reservation Spouses has been Michael heldand Linda the
to render had
personality
governed by to annul
the rules the contract.
on contracts. Both are Undernot no right to sell the land
donation revocable and, therefore, becomes a to Ferdinand. One
aggrieved
Article 1183, parties
Impossible on account or illegal of their
conditionsown cannot give
donation mortis what he does
causa (Puignot have. What 15
vs. Penqflorida, the
violation
shall annul of the
the obligation
condition of, which or restriction
depends upon on, donors should have done
SCRA 276, at p. 286). That the right was not first was to have the
Donations;
their
them.ownership Formalities;
In these imposed
cases, Mortis
bothby the Causa
the donation.
obligationOnly and donation annulled
exercised or revoked. And after was that
(1990)
B ALTERNATIVEisANSWER: immaterial; its reservation an
thedonated
the donor toor
condition M his
are a parcel
void. heirs ofwould land inhave 1980.the B was
implieddone,
A. Untilrecognition
they
the contract
could of thevalidly
of donor's
have
donation
disposed
power hastobeen
of
made the deed
personality to of bring donation,
an action entitled to “Donation
revoke a the land
nullify in
theor favor
donation of Ferdinand.
anytime he Article
wished to do of
Inter Vivos,” in a public instrument and or M resolved rescinded under 1191
donation for violation of a condition thereof so.
the Consequently,
Civil Code or it shouldunder
revoked have been Art. 764 of the
accepted
a restriction the donation
thereon. in(Garrido the sameu.document. CA, 236 Donations; Inter Vivos; Acceptance
embodied
Civil Code, in the
a last will andstands
donation testament. The suit
effective and
It was450).
SCRA provided in the deed
Consequently, whilethat the land
the donor or (1993)
On January 21, 1986, A executed a deed of
for nullity
valid. will thus prosper.
Accordingly,
his heirs were not parties to the sale, to
donated shall be immediately delivered they M donation inter vivos the of asaleparcel made by the
of land to donor
Dr. B
and that M shall have the right to enjoy the to Ferdinand cannot be said
who had earlier constructed thereon a building to have conveyed
have the right to annul the contract of sale title to Ferdinand,
ALTERNATIVE
fruits fully.
ANSWER:
in which researcheswho, on the thereby,
dreaded has no cause
disease
because
As judge, I The
their will deed
rightsgrant also
are the provided
motion that
prejudiced B was
tobydismiss.
one of of action for recovery of the land acting for
reserving
the contracting the right
parties to dispose
thereof [DBP of said
v. CA, land 96a AIDS were being conducted. The deed,
Compliance with a condition imposed by B.
and The
in his donation
behalf. is onerous, And being
during 342; his (B’s) acknowledged before a notary public, was
SCRA
donor gives riselifetime,
Teves tovs.an PHHC.and that
action M
23to SCRA shall
revoke not
114].the onerous, what applies is the law on contracts,
handed over by A to Dr. B who received it. A
donation under Art. 764, NCC. However, B’s
register
Since the
Armando deed is of
neither donation
the until
donor norafter
heir of
the and not the law on donation (De Luna us.
death.
the donor,Upon he B’s
has death,
no W, B’s
personality widowto and
bring sole
the few days after, A flew to Davao City.
right of action belongs to the donor. Is Abrigo, 81 SCRA 150). Accordingly, the
heir, filed an action Unfortunately, the airplane he was riding
action for annulment.
transmissible
SUGGESTED ANSWER: to hisforheirs, the recoveryand may of the be prescriptive period for the filing of such an
donated land, contending that the donation crashed on landing killing him. Two days after
Yes, the action
exercised against will prosper.
the donee's The donation
heirs. Since is a action would be the ordinary prescriptive
made by mortis Bisisan a donation mortis causa the unfortunate accident. Dr. B, upon advice of
donation
Armando causaofbecause
heir the the
donee, notand of not
reservation the period for contacts which may either be six or
a to donation inter vivos. Will donated
said action a lawyer, executed a deed acknowledged
is
donor, dispose
he has of all the
no legal property
capacity to sue and, for ten depending
SUGGESTED ANSWER: upon whether it is verbal or
prosper? Explain your answer. before
No, theadonation
Alternative notary public
Answer: is of
nottheaccepting
effective. the donation.
Theyearslaw later
therefore,
revocation the
of the donation
donation. is Although
revocablehe atiswill.
not written. The filing case five
The
Is the
requireslaw on
donation
that the donation
effective?
the separate lays
Explain down
acceptance your a of special
answer.
the
Accordingly,
seeking the donation
such revocation but anrequires annulmentthe of is within prescriptive period and,
prescriptive
donee of an period
immovable in the
must case of
be done in abreach of
execution
the sale which of a valid his mother,will, either notarial had
the donee, or therefore, the action can prosper,
condition, which is four
public document during the lifetime of the years from non-
holographic
executed in (Arts
violation 755,of728 theNCC).condition imposed
Donations; Formalities; MortisforCausa compliance
donor (Art. 746 thereof
& 749, (Article
Civil Code) 764 CivilIn this Code).
by the donor, an action annulment of a
(1998)
Ernesto may donated in a only public instrument a Since
case, the action
B executed has
the deed prescribed,
of acceptance the suit will
contract be brought by those who are Donations; Effect; illegal & immoral conditions
parcel of land to Demetrio, who accepted it in not prosper,
before a notary public
principally or subsidiarily obliged thereby (Art. (1997)
Are the
Donations; effects
Perfection of after
illegalthe donorand had immoral
the same
1397, NCC). document.
As an exception It is there to thedeclared
rule, itthat has already died.
conditions
On July 27, 1997, Pedro mailed in Manila a as
(1998) on simple donations the same
the donation shall take
been held that a person not so obliged may effect immediately,
those
letter to effects
his brother,that would follow when
Jose, a resident of Ilollo such
with the donee
nevertheless ask having for annulment the right ifto hetake is conditions
City, offering aretoimposed
donate on
a donations
vintage sports concarcausa
possession in
prejudiced of histhe rights
land and regardingreceiveone its offruits
the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Such detriment or prejudice cannot be shown onerosa?
which thedon'tlatterhave had the longsamebeeneffect.wanting to buy
but not to dispose
contracting parties of(DBPthe landus. CA. while Ernesto
96Armando's
SCRA 342 is No, they Illegal or
by Armando.
alive as well As for
as a forced
ten years heir,following his from the former. On August 5, 1997, Jose
and other
interestMoreover, cases)
in the property and can show
was, at the detriment
best, a in mere impossible conditions in simple and
death.
which wouldThe result Ernesto
toofhim also
from reserved
the contract thein called Pedro bydonations
remuneratory cellular phone shall be to considered
thank him for as
expectancy.
same deed his sale
right to the
sell land
the by
propertyhis mother
should his generosity and to inform him that he was
which
diddecide he had
not impair no intervention,
any ofvested (Teves
right. vs. PHHC, not imposed. Hence the donation is valid. The
he
23 SCRA that to dispose
1141). it at any timeThe fact
- a right sending
donation bywill mail
Donations; Condition; be his letter of acceptance.
considered
Capacity to Sue as simple or Pedro pure.
which he did not exercise at all. After his
remains the premature sale made by his never
The received
condition that
or mode letter because
is merely it was never
mother Ernesto's
(premature because only half of the (1996)
Sometime in 1955, Tomas donatedan accessory
a parcel of
death, heirs seasonably brought an mailed.
disposition,On Augustand its 14, 1997,does
nullity Pedro not received
affect a
the
period to
SUGGESTED of ANSWER:
the ban had elapsed) was that not land
1. to his
Is there stepdaughter
a perfected Irene, subject to the
action recover the property, alleging telegram
donation, from
unless Iloilo informing him that Jose
Yes, the suit will prosper as vices
the donation did condition
2. Will your that she it
answer may clearly
not same appears
sell, transfer thator the
voidable
the donation at all,wasnone void of it
as the did not of consent
comply with
donation?
had
donor been would
[2%]
killed in a be
not road
have
the accident
made
if the
Joseday did
the received
donation
not
under comply with
Art. 139of of the formalities
the WillNCCthe of
beinga will. In
present. this cede his
mail the same for
acceptance twenty
letter years.
but it Shortly
was
the formalities
Donations; Conditions; a will. Revocation suitnot prosper? before
Donations
without (August
the con
mode 13,
causa 1997) onerosa is governed by
instance, the fact that the donor did intend thereafter,
by inhe died.ordaysIncondition.
1965,
afterbecause she
Hence,
[5%]
(1991)
Spouses
the
Michael
motion
and or
to dismiss
Linda
should
donated ofa the
be
3- lawPedro
on obligationsManila and contracts, Jose's death?
under which
to transfer
granted. ownership possession needed money for medical expenses, Irene
[3%]
hectare residential land to the City of Baguio an impossible or Illicit condition annuls the
donated property to the donee until the donor's sold the land to Conrado. The following year,
on thewould condition obligation dependent upon the condition
death, resultthat the city mortis
in a donation government causa Irene died, leaving as her sole heir a son by
would buildkind thereon a public the park with a where the condition is positive and suspensive.
and in this of disposition, formalities the name of Armando. When Armando learned
boxing arena, thebeconstruction of which shall If the impossible or illicit condition is negative,
of a will should complied with, otherwise, that the land which he expected to inherit had
commence within six In (6)this
months from donation
the date it is simply considered as not written, and the
the donation is void. Instance, been sold by Irene to Conrado, he filed an
the parties obligation is converted into a pure and simple
mortis causaratify embodiedthe donation. only inThe a donee
public action against the latter for annulment of the
ALTERNATIVE
accepted ANSWER:
the donation and the title to the one. However, in order that an illegal condition
instrument without the formalities
One of the essential distinctions between a donation inter vivos of a will sale, on the ground that it violated the
property may annul a contract, the impossibility must
could
and notwas
a donation have
mortis transferred
is that whilein
causatransferred itsownership
the former name.
is Five of restrictionANSWER:
ADDITIONAL imposed by Tomas. Conrado filed a
years elapsed buttothe public park with the exist at the time of the creation of the
disputed property another. motion to dismiss, on the ground that
boxing arena was never started. Considering obligation; a supervening impossibility does
Armando did not have the legal capacity to
the failure of the donee to comply with the not affect the existence of the obligation.
sue. If you were the Judge, how will you rule
condition of the donation, the donor-spouses on this motion to dismiss? Explain.
sold the
had donated
hand, assumingtothat said thebaby sportsbefore car costs it wasless than
born
Code
not been
which fixedrequires
in the Deedthe donation
of Donation,and the theacceptance
donee is
then
that the
P5,000.00the baby
considering donation died?maybe Statedoral, otherwise,
but still, is the
the yet
thereof
not default
to be in inhisaobligation
public instrument
until thein period
orderisto
simultaneous
donation validdelivery
and binding? of theExplain.
car is needed (5%) and fixed
be valid.
by order
The acceptance
of the courtnot under
being Article
in a public
1197
there being
SUGGESTED ANSWER:none, the donation was never of
instrument,
the New Civil the part
Code. which
Sinceisthenotperiod
onerous has is
The donation is valid and binding, being an act
perfected. not
voidbeen
and Rosa
fixed mayas yet, recover
the doneeit from is not
Amanda.
yet
favorable
SUGGESTED ANSWER:to the unborn child, but only if the default, and therefore the donor has no cause
2. Yes,
baby had theananswer
intra-uterineis the life same. If Jose's
of not less thanmail Donations;
of action Unregistered;
to revoke the Effects; Non-Compliance;
donation. (Dissenting
containing his acceptance
seven months and provided there was due of the donation was ResolutoryofCondition
opinion Davide,(2006)CJ, Central Philippine
received by of
acceptance Pedro the afterdonation the former's
by the proper death, Spouses Alfredo
University v. Court andof Racquel
Appeals,were 246 SCRA active511
then the donation issaid stillchild.
void Ifbecause under
person
Article
less than
representing
734 of the
seven monthsCivil of Code,
the child
the donation
intra-uterine
had
is
life, it
PROPERTY
members of a religious congregation. They
[1995])
donated a parcel of land in favor of that
perfected
is not deemed the momentborn since the itdonordied knows
less than of the
24 congregation in a duly notarized Deed of
acceptance
hours following by the donee. The
its delivery, in whichdeathease of Jose
the Accretion; Alluvion
Donation, subject to the condition that the
before
ALTERNATIVE PedroANSWER: could receive the acceptance (2001)
For many years, the Rio Grande river
donation never became effective since the Minister shall construct thereon a place of
Even
indicates if thethat baby the had an intra-uterine was life of deposited soil along its bank, beside the titled
donee never became adonation
person, birth never
being worship within 1 year from the acceptance of
more than
perfected. Under seven months and the
Article 746 acceptance must donation was land of Jose. In time, such deposit reached an
determinative
Donations; of personality.
Requisites; Immovable the donation. In an affidavit he executed on
properly
be made during accepted, the itlifetime
would ofbeboth voidthe fordonor
not area of one thousand square meters. With the
Property
Anastacia
having purchased
conformed with a house
the proper and lot
form. on
In behalf of the congregation, the Minister
and the donee. permission of Jose, Vicente cultivated the said
installments
order to be valid, at athe housing
donation project in Quezon
and acceptance accepted the donation. The Deed of Donation
area. Teninstead
However, yearsoflater, a big flood
constructing a place occurred
of in
City.
of Subsequently,
personal property exceeding she was five employed
thousand in was not registered with the Registry of worship,
Deeds.
the river and transferred
the Minister constructed a bungalow on the the 1000 square
California
pesos should and be ain yearwriting. later, she 748,
(Article executedpar. 3)a meters to
property hetheused opposite bank, beside
as his residence. the land of
Disappointed
Donations;
deed of donation, with Resolutory Condition
duly authenticated by the Agustin. The land transferred is now
with the Minister, the spouses revoked thecontested
donation
(2003)
In
Philippine Consulate in Los a
1950, Dr. Alba donated parcel of
Angeles, land to
California, by Jose
and and Agustin
demanded as riparian
that he vacate owners and by
the premises
Central
donatingUniversitythe house on condition
and lot that to her the friend
latter SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Vicente whoBut
immediately. claims ownership
the Minister refusedby prescription.
to leave,
must
Amanda. establishThe a lattermedicalbrought college on thethedeed land to of Jose should prevail. The disputed area, which is
Who should
claiming prevail,?
that aside fromWhy?using (5%)
the bungalow as his
be namedtoafter
donation the him. owner In of the the yearproject2000, the and an alluvion, belongs by right of accretion to
residence, he is also using it as a place for worship
heirs
discoveredof Dr. Alba that filed an action left
Anastacia to annul the
unpaid Jose, the riparian owner (Art. 457 CC). When,
on special occasions. Under the circumstances, can
donation
installments andand for real the estate
reconveyance taxes. Amanda of the as given in the problem, the very same area"
Alfredo and Racquel evict the Minister and
property
paid thesedonated so that to thethemdonation for the failure,
in her favor after
can was "transferred"
recover possession ofby the flood
property? watersIf youtowere the
50 years, of the
be registered in the University
project owner's to established
office. Two on opposite bank, it became
the couple's counsel, what action you take to an avulsion and
the property a medical
months later, Anastacia died, leaving her school named after ownership
ALTERNATIVE
protect thereof
interest is
the ANSWER: ofretained
your clients? by Jose (5%) who has
their
mother father.
RosaThe as University
her sole heir. opposed Rosa thefiled
actionan two Alfredo
Yes, years to andremove
Racquel it can
(Art. 459,anCC).
bring actionVicente's
for
on the ground of prescription
action to annul the donation on the ground that and also because claim based
ejectment againston theprescription
Minister forisrecovery
baseless of since
it had not
Amanda didused
not the giveproperty
her consent for somein thepurpose
deed of his possession
possession of the was
propertyby mere
evict thetolerance
Minister of andJose
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and, therefore,
recover possessiondid notproperty.
of the adversely affect for
An action Jose's
other
donation than
Rosadonation
The or
is correctthat
in stated
a
may becauseseparate
be revoked. in the
theThe donation.
public
donation Should
instrument.
is
non-established void.
the opposition of the possessionof the
annulment anddonation,
ownership (Art. 537,
reconveyance and CC).
Amanda
The
of theproperty replied
medical donated
college thatonUniversity
thedonated
was
the andonationtoproperty
thewas
immovable. actionan
For
was damages should bepossession
filed to protect the interests
of Dr.
onerous Alba’s
one heirs
because be sustained?
she had Explain.
to pay unpaid Inasmuch as his is merely that ofof a
such
a donation
resolutory to be imposed
condition valid, Articleon the 749 donationof theby Accretion;
my client. Avulsion is an onerous donation and
installments andrequires
taxes; hence her acceptance holder, heThe donation
cannot acquire the disputed area by
New
the CivilAlthough
donor. Code the Deed both the
of Donation donation
did not and
fix (2003)
Andres
therefore is shalla beriparian
governed owner
by the ofrulesa on parcel of
maytime be implied. Who prescription.
the
the to beisin
for the established
acceptance correct?
of public
a (2%)
the medical college,
instrument. registeredBecause
contracts. land. there Hiswas land, however,
no fulfillment or has
the failure of the donee
There being no showing that Amanda's to establish the medical gradually with
compliance diminished
the condition in which
area isdue to the
resolutory in
college
acceptance after fifty
was (50) made yearsin from
a public the making
instrument, of the current ofthe
character, the river, while
donation may now thebe registered
revoked and land
all
donation
the donation shouldisbevoid. considered as occurrence
The contention thatof the
the of Mario
rights
(Centralwhich onthe the
Philippine opposite
donee may have
University, bank hasNo.
acquired
G.R. gradually
under
112127, it July
resolutory
donation is condition,
onerousand and,the therefore,
donation may neednownot be increased
ALTERNATIVE
17,1995). in area
ANSWER: by 200square
shall be deemed lost and extinguished meters.
revoked.
comply with WhileArticle
the general 749 for rulevalidity
is that in is case
without the No, an action
(a) Who has the forbetter
ejectment rightwill
overnot theprosper.
200- I
period
merit. is Thenotdonation
fixed in the agreement
is not onerous of because
the parties, it would
squareadvice
meter Alfredo
area that andhas Racquel
been added that the to
the
did period must be on
not impose fixed first by the
Amanda thecourt before the
obligation to (b) May registered
Minister,
Mario’s abythird person
constructing
land, acquire
Mario said
a structure 200-
or Andres?which
obligation
pay the balance may be demanded,
on the purchase the period of fifty
price or (50)
the square
also meter
serves as land
a placeby prescription?
of worship, has pursued
years
arrears in real estate taxes. Amanda took to
was more than enough time for the donee it the objective of the donation. His taking up
comply with thetocondition.
upon herself pay those Hence,
amounts in thisvoluntarily.
case, there residence in the bungalow may be regarded as
is
For noa more
donation needtofor be theonerous,court the to fix the period
burden must a casual breach and will not warrant
ALTERNATIVE
because such ANSWER:
procedure with the condition.
be imposed by the donor on the donee. (Central
In the revocation of the donation. Similarily,
Neither
ANOTHER Rosa
SUGGESTED nor Amanda
ANSWER: is correct. The
Philippine University v. CA. 246 SCRA 511).
problem,
The donationthere is nonot
may such asasburden
yet imposed
revoked. by
The therefore, an action for revocation of the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
donation is onerous only to the portion of 1. None. There
the donor oncorresponding
the
of adonee. medicalThe donation donation will beisdenied
no perfected
(C. J. Yulo donation.
& Sons, Inc.
establishment
the property tocollege
the value of not
is not thea 2004).
Under Article 748 of the Civil Code, the
being
resolutory onerous,or it must comply with butthe v. Roman Catholic Bishop, G.R. No. 133705,
installments andsuspensive
taxes paid by condition
Amanda. a
donation of a movable may be made orally
formalities of Article 749.
“charge”, obligation”, or a “mode”. The non- March 31, 2005; Heirs ofRozendo Sevilla v. or
De
in writing.
Leon, G.R. If the
No. value of
149570, the personal
March 12,
The
compliance in
portion with excess thereof or
the charge is not
mode onerous.
will give Donations; Validity; Effectivity; for Unborn Child
property donated exceeds five thousand pesos,
The onerous
the donor the portionrightis to governed
revoke by the thedonation
rules (1999)
Elated that her sister who had been married
the donation and the acceptance shall be
on contracts
within four (4) which
years dofromnot require
the time the the charge for five years was pregnant for the first time,
(10) years from the timebeen the cause of action made in writing. Assuming that the value of
acceptance
was supposed by theto donee
have to be in any
complied form.
with, or Alma donated P100,000.00 to the unborn
accrued. Inasmuch as the time to established the thing donated, a vintage sports car,
Theenforce
to onerous thepart,
charge therefore,
by specific is valid. The
performance child. Unfortunately, the baby died one hour
the medical college exceeds P5,000.00 then the donation and the
portion
within which
ten is not has onerous must comply with after delivery. May Alma recover the
acceptance must be in writing. In this
Article 749 of the New Civil P100.000.00 that she
instance, the acceptance of Jose was not in
writing, therefore, the donation is void. Upon
the other
had lost it by operation of law. That portion of reasonable
the rent, if the owner of the land does not
become
land haspart of the public domain. appropriate
choose to the building after proper
indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
terms of the lease and in case of
b. Yes, a third party may acquire by
disagreement, the court fix the terms thereof.
prescription the 200 square meters, increase Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith
in area, because it is not included in the (1999)
Torrens Title of the riparian owner. Hence, (a) Because of confusion as to the boundaries
P.D. No.
this does1529.
notThe fact that
involve the the riparian land is of the adjoining lots that they bought from the
imprescriptibility
registered
conferred by does not 47,
Section automatically make the same subdivision company, X constructed a
accretion thereto a registered land. (Grande v. house on the adjoining lot of Y in the honest
CA, 115 521 (1962); Jagualing v. CA, 194 SCRA
Builder; Good Faith belief that it is the land that he bought from
607 (1991).
(1992)
A owns a parcel of residential land worth the subdivision company. What are the
(b) Suppose
respective X was
rights of Xinand
good faith respect
Y with but Y knew
to
P500,000.00 unknown to A, a residential house
that
X's X was (3%)
house? constructing on his (Y's) land but
costing P 100,000.00 is built on the entire
simply kept quiet about it, thinking perhaps
parcel by B who claims ownership of the land.
that he could get X's house later. What are the
Answer all the following questions based on
respective rights of the parties over X's house
the premise that B is a builder in good faith
in this case? (2%)
and A is a landowner in good faith. a) May A
acquire the house built by B? If so, how? b) If
the of
landtheincreased
building inof value
the house thereon, what
to P500,000.00 by
amount
reason should be paid by A in order to
acquire the house from B?
c) Assuming that the cost of the house
was P90,000.00 and not P100,000.00, may A
d)
requireIfB to B buy
voluntarily
the land? buys the land as
desired by A, under what circumstances may
A nevertheless be entitled to have the house
e)
removed? In what situation may a "forced lease"
arise between A and B. and what terms and
conditions would govern the lease?
Give reasons for your answers.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Yes, A may acquire the house build by B by
paying indemnity to B. Article 448 of the Civil
Code provides that the owner of the land on
which anything has been built, sown or
planted in good faith, shall have the right to
appropriate as his own the works, sowing or
planting, after payment of the indemnity
provided for in Articles 546 and 546 of the
(b) A Code.
Civil should pay B the sum of P50,000. Article
548 of the Civil Code provides that useful
expenses shall be refunded to the possessor in
good faith with the right of retention, the
person who has defeated him in the possession
having the option of refunding the amount of
the expenses or of paying the increase in value SUGGESTED ANSWER:
which the thing may have acquired by reason a. Mario has a better right over the 200 square
thereof. The increase in value amounts to meters increase in area by reason of accretion,
(c) Yes, A may require B to buy the land.
P50,000.00. applying Article 457 of the New Civil Code,
Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that the which provides that “to the owners of lands
owner of the land on which anything has been adjoining the banks of rivers belong the
built in good faith shall have the right to accretion which they gradually received from
oblige the one who built to pay the price of Andres cannot
the effects of the claim
currentthat the
of the increase in
waters”.
(d)
the If B agrees
land to buy
if its value is land but fails to pay,
not considerably moreA Mario’s land is his own, because such is an
can
thanhave
that the house
of the removed ( Depra vs.
building, accretion and not result of the sudden
Dumlao, 136 SCRA 475). detachment of a known portion of his land and
(e) Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that its attachment to Mario’s land, a process
the builder cannot be obliged to buy the land called “avulsion”. He can no longer claim
if its value is considerably more than that of ownership of the portion of his registered land
the building. In such case, he shall pay which was gradually and naturally eroded due
to the current of the river, because he
Chattel
The caseMortgage;
standing there
of Pecson before Immovables
X
v. acquired
CA, 244 the SCRA title407 to the, island.
square
was
not then
foreclosure meters.
valued
sale,Jose only claims
foreclosedat P1 that Million. Mike
the mortgage Lawrence
is a builder
and wasin
(1994)
the
bank
Vini problem.
cannot
constructed
applicable
The tobe Inconsidered
athe Pecsonas
building oncase,
aa mortgagee
parcel the of builder
landin insolve
because
house
bad
declared
acquiredfaithhe should
and lot.know
X’s the boundaries
Learning of theof proceedings
his lot, and demands
was
good
he the
faith.
leased ownerOn this
from of the
Andrea. ground, land Z’s
He chattelwho demand
later lost the
mortgaged that
nt. the portion by
conducted of the thehousebank,whichZencroached
is now demanding on his land should
property
against
the landthe atFelicia.
to Bank
a public is When
valid
saleand due
he sustainable.
to non-payment
could not pay Assuming
be
thatdestroyed
the bank orthat
removed. the
reconvey Mikeaircraft
replies
to him thatwas
X’s asold
he ishouse builderor for
in good Pl
of taxes.Felicia
Felicia. The Court initiated ruled that Article 448 does
foreclosure Million,
faith
pay and
X’soffersgive
loan to to
buythehim order
the land
plus of preference
occupied
interests. by the building
Is Z’sinstead.of the
Chattel
not Mortgage;
apply
proceedings. to the Possession
Vini case
claimed where thatthe theownerbuilding of thehe creditors
SUGGESTED
1) Is Mike a against
demand of inLawrence
ANSWER:
builder good
thefaithbank or badand
valid faith?anddistribute
Why? (3%) 2) the
(1993)
A,
landaboutis theto leave
builder the but
had constructed on the leased land cannot be country
who on
later a foreign
lost the land; No,
SUGGESTED
amount
Whose Z’s ofdemand
ANSWER:
preference
sustainable? Why? 5% P1 Million.
should is
be not
followed? valid.
Why? A building is
(2%)
assignment,
not
validly being
foreclosed entrusted
applicable, because to B the his building
the brand new
indemnity was, car
that
by Assuming
immovable that
or the
real aircraft
property was sold forit P1
whether is
and its
should
law, an certificate
SUGGESTED be paid toofthe
ANSWERS:
immovable. Isregistration.
buyer
Vini correct?must Falsifying
be the fair A's Million,
erected
SUGGESTED there
byANSWER:the is noownerorder of of preference.
the land, by The a
a) The
signature. Chattel B sold Mortgage
A's car is void
to C for and cannot be 1)
P1 Yes,
Million
usufructuary, Mike willisor a
allbuilder
by goa to in
lessee.the goodbank
It faith.
may as be a There
chattel
treated is
market value of the building andP200,000.00.
not just the
foreclosed
C then because the building is an no showing
mortgagee
as a movable that by
because when a the he parties
chattel built his to
mortgage house, under
chattel he
cost of registered
construction thethereof.
car in his The name.
CourtToopined
immovable
ALTERNATIVE
complete and
ANSWER:
the needed cannot amount, be an object
C borrowed of a knew
Art.
mortgage 2241that (4)
buta portion
NCCsuch defeats
is thereof
binding Art. encroached
2244
only (12)
between andon
in that case that to do otherwise would
Pedro
chattel
P100.000.00 is correct.
mortgage. from In Pecson vs. CA, it was held Jose's
(14}.
them lot.
Art.
and Unless
2241
not on (3)one and
third is versed
(5)
parties are in
not the science
applicable
(Evangelista v.
unjustly enrich thethe new savings
owner and of the loan land.
b)
that It
association depends.
Article in546 his If of the
the building
office, New Civil
constituting was aintended
Code does
chattel of surveying,
because
Alto Surety theCol, he cannot
aircraft
inc. 103 determine
is no 401
Phil. longer the
[1958]).precise
in the In
and
not is built
specifically ofstate light how materials,
the value the chattel
ofpayuseful Easement vs.
ofortheUsufruct
mortgage on the car. For failure of C to the boundaries
possession
this case, since location
the bank of
creditor. is not his a property
party to the by
mortgage
improvements may be
should considered
be determined as valid
in fixing as (1995)
1. What
merely is easement?
examining his Distinguish
chattel mortgage, it is not bound by it, as far title. In the easement
absence of
amount owed, the savings and loan association
between
the amount the ofparties
indemnity and it
that may the be ownerconsidered
of the 2.
fromCan
contrary there
usufruct. proof,be (a)the
as the Bank is concerned, the chattel an easement
law presumes over a that the
filed in the RTC a complaint for collection with
in respect
shouldto them to as themovable usufruct? (b) a usufruct over an ineasement? (c)
land
application forpay issuance of a writproperty,
builder in
of good
replevin since
faith.to encroachment
mortgage,
2} None of
does
the
wasexist.
not
preferences
done Moreover,
shallSCRA
good
the chattel
be Explain.
followed.
faith
it can
Since be
the removed
objective from
of the one law place
is to to another.
adjust the an easement
SUGGESTED
[ Technogas
mortgage ANSWER:
does over
Phils, not another
v.
exist. CA, easement?
268
Moreover, the 5,
chattel 15
obtain possession of the vehicle so that the The
(a) The preference
rights ofofbecause
Y,Mike
as owner cannot ofprevail lot,because
the registered. and of
But
rights if the
of building
the parties is
chattel mortgage could be foreclosed. The RTC ofin strong
such material
manner and
as "tois (1997)].
mortgage is void it was not
under
X, as builder Articleof448 of the Civil Code,governed it is the
not
issued capable
administer the writ of of
complete being removed
justice
replevin. Theto bothor was
car transferred
of them
then in Assuming that ita is housevalid, thereon,
it does are not bind the
owner
by Art. of
448 the
of theland Civil who has the option or
without
such
seizeda from being
way asand
C destroyed,
neither soldland one
by the
the norchattel
the other
sheriff mortgage
at may
public Bank because it was not annotated on the to
Code which grants titleY
c)
is void
enrich If
and it cannot
himself was of thebe
that foreclosed.
which whichdoes Vininot chattel
belong choice,
ANOTHER
the right not to the
SUGGESTEDchoose builder.
ANSWER:
between On the two other hand, the
remedies: (a)
auction at ANSWER: which the savings would and loan of
No, theZ’sland demand mortgaged to the bank. Z cannot
mortgaged,
SUGGESTED
to him", the such Court mortgage ruled that the be basis
void, or of option
appropriate belongs the toagainst
Jose, he
house bythe bank
cannot
indemnifying is not
demand valid.
X that
for
association
2) iswas
Pablounenforceable, the lonetosince
entitled bidder.
the he Accordingly,
rentals of the the demand
His demand that that the theBank bank payreconveyhim the
to loan
him X’s Z
at least
reimbursement should be the was
fair not
market the
its portion
value plusof the
whatever house encroaching
necessary on
expenses his
the car
building.
If what was As
was sold
the to it.
owner A few
of days
the
mortgaged as a chattel is the house later,
land, A
Pablo is extended to
presupposesX, because that the he Bank has was
a real not privy
right
owner
value ofofthethebuilding.
land. land
thesuch be
latterdestroyed may or have removed incurred because forthis the is
arrived
also
building,
SUGGESTED the from owner
the
ANSWER:hischattel
foreign
of the assignment.
buildingis Learning
mortgage being
valid an as toover
not the
one
preservation
loanhouse.
of
transaction.
theof the All land,
options that givenZorhas (b)by iscompel
a
law personal
toX the to
of whatthe
accession
Under
between happened
thereto.
prevailing
the parties to However,
his
rulingscar, A
only, ofsought
on Pedro
the towho of
Supreme
grounds is right
owner
buy the against
ofland theXifland.for
thedamages The owner
price offor the breach
may
land chooseof
is thenot
recover
entitled
Court,
estoppel possession
to
A canwhichretain
recover
wouldthe and
the ownership
building
car from
preclude isthe of
also it from
entitled
themortgagor
Savings contract
between
considerably of loan.
the more appropriation
than the value of what of the was built
house.
theretain
to
and
from savings
Loan the
assailing and loan
rentals.
Association the association.
He, however,
provided
contract on he the Can
pays Atheapply
shall
ground that The after
If it is,
treatment of a house, even if built on
payment
then X of indemnity,
cannot be obliged or to compel to buy the the
recover
the
price rentals
at his
which car
to from
the
the the
indemnity
Association
its subject-matter is an immovable. Therefore buildersavings and
payable
bought loan
theto carhim rented land, as movable property is void
land but to he pay shall for the
pay land
reasonable if the value
rent, of
and the
in
ALTERNATIVE
association?
after
at deducting
a public
Vini's defense
ANSWER:
Explain
auction. isreasonableyour answer.
Under
untenable, thatcost of Felicia
doctrine,
and repair there and
can insofar
ALTERNATIVE
SUGGESTED as ANSWER:
third
ANSWER: persons, such as the bank, are
Pablo is entitled to the rentals. Pedro became land
case
1) Since is
of not
Mikethe considerably
disagreement,
cannot be other themore
considered court than shallthat
a builder of
fix the
the
in
maintenance.
has been an
foreclose the unlawful deprivation the by B building,
of A of (b)
concerned. On lot the owner Y is hand, deemed the to be Bank
a possessor in mortgage
bad faith over from the time he building.
terms
good
bad
already
of the
faith
faith had
Otherwise,
(Art lease.
because
a 453),
real he
X
right
the
as
builder
built
the
over his
party
the
shall pay
house
in
house good without
and
rent
faith
lot
his car and,however,
observing, therefore,the A can recoverprescribed
procedure it from for the portion of the land encroached.
learned that the land belongs to Pablo. As first
may determining
when the removethe
(a) mortgage the
was corners
houseand
annotated and boundaries
at demand
the back
anythe
for person executionin possession of sale thereof.
of a judgment But since debtor's it
such, he loses his right to the building, of
of his Torrens
the lot to make
indemnification for
title. sure
damages
The that later
bank his construction
suffered became by him,
the
was bought at a public
immovable auction in good faith by
including theunder Rule
fruits thereof, 39,except Rules theofright Court, of was
or
owner (b)within
indemand
the the perimeter
payment
foreclosure ofof the
sale. his
Z property.
value
cannot askof He
the
the Savings
specifically,
Builder; Good and
thatLoan
Faith the Bad
vs. Association,
noticeFaith; he must sale ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
ofAccession
auction
retention.
d) The be problem that in Vini mortgaged could
houseto have
plus done
payreparation this with
forplus
damages the help
(ArtThere of
447, in a
ofthe land
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: bank for X’s loan interest. is
reimburse
should
(2000)
a) Demetrio the Association
published knew that atathepiece
a newspaper price for
ofgeneral
land The answer hinges on whether or not the bank
Yes,
by A
way can recover his car from the Savings geodetic
relation engineer
privitytoofArt as
454). betweenan ordinary
Y continues prudent
as theowner and of
which
circulation.theofcar a chattel
thewas bought. mortgage is untenable. no
is
contract Z and bank.
bordering
and Loan
Land can Association.
only be beach the In belonged
a Chattel
subject matter to of Ernesto.
Mortgage, a real thean lotinnocent
reasonable and becomes, man mortgagee under in
would the dogood under
second faith or
option, thea
However,
the mortgagor
estate mortgagesince must the
andbelatter
only anwas
the absolute absolutestudying
owner owner ofin mortgagee
2)
ownerJose's
circumstances.of the in bad faith.
preference
house In theafter
as should
well, former
be followed.
he pays case, the Z’s
He
Europe
thereal
of and
thingproperty
mortgaged.no one was
mayFurthermore, taking
mortgage athe care of
person
parcel the
of demand
may
Builder; have
sums demanded. is
Good the notFaith valid.
building vs. In
removed
Bad the
Faith latter
at the case,
expense Z’s
land,
constituting
land. Demetrio
(Article the2085 occupied
mortgage (2) Civil the
must Code). same
have theHence, free and demand
of Mike,
(2000)
In good against
appropriate
faith, Pedro the the bank
constructedbuilding is
a as valid
his
five-door and
own,
constructed
disposal
But
there canofbe
on the
the thereon
no property,
assumption
foreclosure. nipa andsheds in
thatthe with what tables
absence was sustainable.
oblige
commercial Mikebuilding to buyonthe the land of andPablo askwho for
and
thereof,benches must which
be legally
mortgaged by way of chattel mortgage was he rented
authorized out for to people
the Under
damages
was also the in Torrens
ingood addition system
faith. to
When ofany land
Pablo of registration,
the
discovered three
who building
purpose.
the wantIntothe have
oncase a picnic
leased at bar, land,by the
these beach.
thenessential When
the parties every
options. person
the construction,(Articles dealing 449,
he with
450,registered
opted to451, CC) landthe
appropriate may
Ernesto
requisites returned,
didthe notbuilding he demanded
apply toasthe theAreturn
mortgagor B, of Chattel
rely on Mortgage
the vs.
correctness
building by paying Pedro the cost thereof. Pledge of the certificate of
are treating chattel. building
Chattel
the land. Mortgage; Preference of Creditors (1999)
Distinguish
title and the a law contract
will not of
in chattel
any way mortgage
oblige to
hence
that not Demetrio
is the Chattel
merely superimposed agreed was
Mortgage to do not
on so after
valid.
the ground he However, Pedro insists that he should be paid
(1995)
Lawrence,
has an
is removed a retired
immovable the nipa air force captain,
sheds.
property Ernesto
and a decided
refused
chattel from
him toa look
the current contract behind
market of pledge.
or
value beyond of (2%)
the the certificate in
building,
SUGGESTED ANSWER: order
which was much higher because of of
to determine the condition the title.
to go into the air transport business. He SUGGESTED ANSWER:
let Demetrio
mortgage
Ernesto is oncorrect,said remove building
Demetrio the is nipa
is legallysheds
a builder voidon
in bad the
but inflation. 1)
purchased an aircraft in cash except for an In
He a not
is contract
bound by ofanything
CHATTEL not MORTGAGE
annotated or
ground
the parties that these
cannot
faith because he knew beforehand that thealready
be allowed belonged
to disavow to him theirby Who is correct Pedro or Pablo?(1%) 2) In the
possession
reflected belongs to the creditor, while intoa
outstanding
right belonged
contract
land onbalance
of accession. account Who
to Ernesto,
of P500,000.00.
is correct?
of estoppel
under (3%)
Article
He
by 449 deed. of meantimein thatthePedro certificate.
is not yet If he paid, proceeds
who is
incurred anif indebtedness ofareP300,000.00 for contract
buy the land
SUGGESTED of PLEDGE
orrentals
ANSWER: acceptof possession
it the
as abuilding, belongs
collateral to the
relying
However,
the New Civil thirdCode, partiesone who involved
builds on suchthe entitled to the Pedro or
Chattel
repairs Mortgage;
with an aircraft Immovablesrepair company. He debtor.
Pablo
on the is correct.
certificate, Under
he is Article
considered 448 of
a the
buyer New or
chattel
land ofmortgage
another is void what
loses and has no effect. Pablo?
A chattel (1%) mortgage isfaith.
a formal contract while
(2003)
X constructed
also borrowed P1 a houseMillion onfroma lotis built
a which
bank for
without
he was leasing Civil
a mortgageeCode in
in goodrelation toOnArticle this 546,
ground, the
the
right to indemnity. Ernesto becomes theoverowner a pledge
However,
builder
Bank inisagood
acquires abank
real contract.
is
a faith
clean not an
istitle ordinary
entitled
to thetoland amortgagee.
refund
and the of
Y.
fromLater,
additional X capital
executed and a chattel
constituted mortgage a chattel
of the
While nipa
on a sheds
test flightby right
the of
aircraftaccession.
crashed Hence, Unlike
the private
necessary individuals,
and useful a bank
expenses is expected by
incurred to
said house in favor of
mortgage on the aircraft to secure the loan. Z as security for a loan house.
Ernesto is wellthe within histo right in party A contract
exercise greater of chattel carein and mortgage whichmust
prudence theinland be
its
causing physical
obtained
Builder; Goodfrom Faith vs.
injuries
latter.BadnipaStill a third
Faith;later, Xrefusing
Presumption
whoto
acquired him, or the increase value
allow
was awardedthe removal damages of the sheds.
of P200,000.00. recorded
dealings.
may have in
The a public
ascertainment
acquired instrument
by of the
reason to bind
condition of third
of
the a
ownership
(2001)
Mike built a house of on the hisland where
lot in Pasay City.his
Twohouse wasa
years later, persons
property
improvement, while
offered aat contract
asthe collateral
option of pledge
for
of a loan
the must must
landowner. be in be
constructed,
survey after
disclosed insurance
that which
a portion of thehebuilding
mortgagedactually stoodboth
Lawrence's
house and land in favor claim
of a for damage
bank, which to on the a
The public
standard
builder instrumentand
is entitled containing
indispensableto a refund description
part of of the of
its
the neighboring
aircraft was land of
denied Jose, to the
thus leaving extent of 40
him nothing the thing
operation. pledged
The bankand
expenses he incurred, and not to the market the
shoulddate thereof
have to
conducted bind
mortgage was annotated on the Torrens
else but the aircraft which third
value persons.
further ofinquiry regarding thePage
the improvement house59 of 119on
standing
Certificate of Title. When X failed to pay his the land considering that it was already
loan to the bank, the latter, being the highest
bidder at the
The(a)
2. claim
Therefor can
damagesbe nomay easement
also be over
premised a usufruct.
in to
there
Art.
time.is a
Asdegree
Tomas'ofbusinessregularity grows,
to indicate
the need continuity
for use of
of
easement
(4)
Since
2191 NCC.an may be constituted only on a possession and that if coupled with an apparent sign, such
corporeal
ANOTHER immovable property, no easement easement of way may be acquired by prescription.
ANSWER:
Hernando is
may be constituted not correct. Article 637
on a usufruct of the
which is not a ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
New
(b) Civil
There Code
corporeal right canprovides
be no that the owner
usufruct of the
over an Yes, Ernie could close the pathway on his land.
higher
easement. estate cannot
While a make
usufructworks whichcreated
maybe will Don has not acquired an easement of right of
increase the burden
over a right, such right on the
must servient
have an estate.
existence way either by agreement or by judicial grant.
(Remman
of its own Enterprises,
independent Inc. of
v. CA,
the330 SCRA
property. A Neither did the buyers. Thus, establishment of
145 [2000])
servitude . The owner
cannot be the of object
the higher
of aestate
usufruct a road or unlawful use of the land of Ernie
may be compelled to pay damages
because it has no existence independent of the to the would constitute an invasion of possessory
Easements;
owner of
ALTERNATIVE Classification
the lower
ANSWERS: estate.
property to which It attaches. rights of the owner, which under Article 429 of
(1998)
There cannot
Distinguish be a usufruct over an easement
between: the Civil Code may be repelled or prevented.
1.
sinceContinuous
an easement and discontinuous
presupposes two (2) Ernie has the right to exclude any person from
2. Apparent
easements;
tenements and non-apparent
|2%]
belonging to different persons and ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
the enjoyment and disposal of the land. This is
3.
the Positive
easements; and [2%]
and
right attaches negative
to the tenement and not to Yes, Ernie may close the pathway, subject
an attribute of ownership that Ernie enjoys.
easements.
the owner.[1%] While a usufruct gives the however, to the rights of the lot buyers. Since
usufructuary a right to use, right to enjoy, there is no access to the public road, this
right to the fruits, and right to possess, an results in the creation of a legal easement. The
However, a usufruct can be
easement gives only a limited use of the constituted over a lot buyers have the right to demand that Ernie
property that
servient estate. has in its favor an easement or grant them
SUGGESTED a right of way. In turn, they have
ANSWER:
one burdened with servitude. The 1. An EASEMENT
the obligation to pay the or value
servitude
of the portionis an
usufructuary will exercise the easement encumbrance imposed
used as a right of way, plus damages. upon an immovable for
during the period of usufruct. the
c) benefit
What are of another
the rights immovable
of the lotbelonging
buyers, to
if
(c) There can be no easement over another a different
any? Explain. owner. (2%) (Art. 613, NCC)
easement for the same reason as in (a). An USUFRUCT
SUGGESTED gives a right to enjoy the property
ANSWER:
easement, although it is a real right over an Prior to the
of another with grant theofobligation
an easement, the buyersits
of preserving of
the
form dominant
and estate
substance, have no other
unless right
the thantitleto
immovable, is not a corporeal right. There is a
Roman maxim which says that: There can be compel grantitofor
constituting easement
the law of right of way.
otherwise Since
provides.
the
(Art.properties
562, NCC). of the buyers are surrounded by
no servitude over another servitude.
Easement; Effects; Discontinuous Easements; Permissive other immovables
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:and has no adequate outlet
Use (2005) Easement
to a public is an encumbrance
highway imposed
and the isolation is upon
not due an
Don was the owner of an agricultural land with immovable
to their acts, for
buyers the
may benefit
demand of
an another
easement
no access to a public road. He had been of immovable
a right of belonging
way provided to aproper
different ownerisin
indemnity
passing through the land of Ernie with the which
paid and case
the it
right is
of called
way demandedreal or
is predial
the
latter's acquiescence for over 20 years. easement,
shortest and or for
least the benefit
prejudicial ofto a community
Ernie. or
Subsequently, Don subdivided his property into Easement; group of
(Villanueva persons
v. in
Velasco, which
G.R. case
No. it is
130845, known as a
The Nuisance;
distinctions Abatement usufruct
20 residential lots and sold them to different November personal 27, 2000). between
easement. and
(2002) owns
Lauro
a)
easement Usufructan agricultural
are: includes land all planted
uses ofmostly the
persons. Ernie blocked the pathway and property with fruitand trees. Hernando owns
for all purposes, including an adjacent jus
a) Did Don
refused to letacquire
the buyers an easement
pass through of his
right of
land. land devoted
fruendi. Easement to hisispiggery
limited to business,
a specific which
use. is
way? Explain. (2%) b) (2)Usufruct
two meters higher may inbeelevation. constituted Although on
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Don did not acquire an easement of right immovable
Hernando has
or constructed
movable property.
a waste Easement
disposal
of way. An easement of right of way is lagoon may be for constituted
his piggery, onlyit on is aninadequate
immovable to
discontinuous in nature — it is exercised only if contain c)
property. Easement
the waste is not extinguished
water containing by the pig
a man passes over somebody's land. Under death manure, of and
the itowner of the dominant
often overflows and inundates estate
while usufruct
Article 622 of the Civil Code, discontinuous Lauro’s plantation. This has increased the is extinguished by the death of
the usufructuary
easements, whether apparent or not, may only acidity of the soil in the plantation, causing the unless a contrary intention
be acquired by virtue of a title. The Supreme appears. d)
trees to An wither
easement and contemplates
die. Lauro sues two for (2)
Court, in Abellana, Sr. v. Court of Appeals (G.R. estates
damages belonging
caused to
to two
his (2) different
plantation. owners;
Hernando a
No. 97039, April 24, 1992), ruled that an
usufruct
invokes contemplates
his right to theonly one
benefit property
of a (real
natural
easement of right of way being discontinuous SUGGESTED or personal)
easement whereby
in favor of histhe usufructuary
higher estate, which uses
ANSWER:
Further, possession of the easement
in nature is not acquirable by prescription. by Don is and enjoys
imposes upon the property
the lower as well
estate as
of its
Lauro fruits,
the
Hernando is wrong. It is true that Lauro’s land
only permissive, tolerated or with the while another
obligation to owns the
receive thenaked
waters titledescending
during the
is
e) burdened
A usufruct withmay the benatural
alienated easement
separately to
acquiescence of Ernie. It is settled in the case period
from the of the usufruct.
higher estate. Is Hernando correct?
accept or receive the water which naturally
of Cuaycong v. Benedicto (G.R. No. 9989, from the property to which it attaches, while
(5%) without interruption of man descends
and
an easement cannot be alienated separately
March 13, 1918) that a permissive use of a
from
from the a property
higher estate to which toit attaches.
a lower estate.
road over the land of another, no matter how
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: However, Hernando NOTE: It hasis constructed
recommendeda by waste
the
long continued, will not create an easement of
Yes, Don acquired an easement of right of way. An easement that is disposal lagoon for his piggery
Committee that any and it twois this
(2)
way by prescription.
continuous and apparent can be acquired by prescription and title. waste water that flows downward
distinctions should be to Lauro’s
given full
According to Professor Tolentino, an easement of right of way may SUGGESTED ANSWER:
have a continuous nature if land. Hernando has,. thus, interrupted the flow
credit
of water and has created and is maintaining a
nuisance. Under Act. 697 NCC, abatement of a
nuisance does not preclude recovery of
damages by Lauro even for the past existence
of a nuisance.
a duplication
extinguished
After
(a) the X borrowed
death byof of
the Y,money
nature
registration
X married from— Zthus, Yof
andand
thethey gave
servient
could begot
a piece
not
estate.
asAre
consistent
share
be
(b)of the allotted
right
The with ofbythis
mortgage redemption
lawrule, to the
shall where
not finder
and
bind the the
thesince distance
equity
1/3 theof
right phrase
andto interest
the
However,
children,
land as security
considered
nuisance. D,
thisas E provision
aand byF.way Afterhas ofthe been
mortgage.
deathsuppressedof It X, was the given
modern
highway
chance" by
streetconveyances
redemption
"by means
is law
orshortest."byto a mortgagor
accident",
requires meaning
wideningan ofthe same?
unexpected
the easement. Explain.
discovery.
The liberal view, however, would sustain Tim's right to the allocated
in Section
children expressly of 44,the PDagreed first
No. 1529. between
and In secondotherthe words,marriages
parties in (2%)
ALTERNATIVE
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ANSWER:
share interpreting
The equity
facts show
oftheredemption
phrase
that inthe question
needis as meaning
different
for "by a stroke of
the registration
executed
c) theA house an
mortgage extrajudicial
ofofthe servient
contract
prostitution partition
estate that did ofnot
upon the 2) Isfortune",
good David which entitled
does not rule to a outright
deliberate ofaorway wider from
in right
intentional
the
this
Irrespective
operate
aforestated
(1%) nonpaymentto cut-off of its of
property location
or the
extinguish
on debt May and onhow
1, the
1970.
time itsby
right D, of X,
E and the of
right
case?way
search. is arose
ItWhy of or why
submitted from
redemption.
thethe
that not? liberalincreased
view should EQUITY production
prevail since in OF
business
way.
F weremortgaged
Therefore, is conducted,
given athe landone it
complaint
would is
thousand a nuisance
already
forsquare the belong since meter it
to owing
REDEMPTION
SUGGESTED
practical to
reality, the
ANSWER:
hidden is
acquisition
the
treasure right
is hardly by
of
ever the
Tomas
found mortgagor
without of an
defies, Y. shocks
cancellation
portion IfofXthe ofand
defaulted
the
property. disregards
right in of They
paying,
way decency
were
shouldwould and
minors
beY now at No, David
additional
after
conscious judgment is
effort area. not
to find it,inentitled
Under
and a
the judicial
Art.
strict to
viewthe
626
would right
foreclosure
of
tendthe toof way
Civil
render to
the codalclaimed.
being provision in question
The isolation illusory. of histo subdivision
Easements;
morality.
dismissed.
the time
become Right
It
of isthe
theaofpublic
Way;
execution
owner Requisites
nuisance
of the of the because
mortgaged document. ofland?
itsD Code,
redeem the the easement
property can by be payingused only thefor courtthe
(1996)
(b)
David
injury
was 17
Why?isSuppose
to the
the
years (3%)owner
public.
old, in Ethe ofwas thepreceding
14 and Fquestion,
subdivision was in12; Sta.and the was
immovable
the due to his
amount of ownthe act
originally judgment or omission
contemplated. debt because before Hence, he
the
agreement
Rosa,
d)
they A noisy Laguna,
were orbetween
made without
dangerous
to believe Xanand byY A,was
access
factory to
Bin the
and that C if
a private that X did not
the increase
sale develop
or confirmation in widthinto an
of is theaccess
justified
sale. On road and the
theshould rice
other
If the (1%)
failed
highway.
land noise
to pay
When injuriously
the he mortgage
applied affects fordebt the
a license health
on time, toandthe Easements;
field
have been
hand, which
RIGHT Righthe
OF was
granted. of Way
REDEMPTION supposed istothe purchase
right of
unless they sign the document they will not
comfort
debt shall ofshare.ordinary
be paid people in therepresented
vicinity to an (2000)
The
Hidden
accordingcoconut
Treasures to farm
his toown of Federico the isproperty
representation surrounded when sold he by
establish
get any the Z with
subdivision, was the David
not landpresent mortgaged then. by
In the mortgagor redeem at
(a) Can
unreasonable
X
thatto Y.
he the
Would
will minority
extent,
purchase your of
it
answer
a D,
is
rice aE and
nuisance.
be
field F
the besame
located aIt basis
is a
as in the
(1997)
applied
an lands for
Marcelino,
extra-judicial ofa Romulo.
treasure
a licenseFederico
foreclosurehunter to as
by seeks
just
establish
paying a ahobby,
right
to theof
January 1974, D, E and F filed an action in Ejectment Suit vs.portion
Cancellation ofthe Title
to nullify
SUGGESTED
public
the
between nuisance
preceding the
hisANSWER: partition?
land because
question?
andthe the Explain
there
Explain.
highway, isyour a(3%) answer.
tendency
and develop to way
has found
buyer through
subdivision in the a (Floro
map a which
foreclosure us. Llenado, ofsale
appearsthe land
244to amount of Romulo
indicate
SCRA713). the
paid
court
(a) No, to
Y wouldnullify not become suit the alleging
owner of theythe Nuisance;
(2005)
In an Family
ejectment House; case Not filedNuisanceby per
Don se
against
(b)
annoy
it How
into the
an about public.
access fraud? (Velasco
road. Explain
But. v.whenManila the Electric
license to
by bring
location
the of
buyer his coconut
hidden
within treasure.
one products
year Hefrom to
has the
an
such market.
idea
sale. of
discovered the fraud only in 1973. (2006)
A
land.
SUGGESTED
your
SUGGESTED
Co.,
was TheNo.
answer.
G.R.
already stipulation
ANSWER:
ANSWER: L-18390,is
granted, in
August
he did the 6,
not nature
1971)ofto
bother pactum
buy thedrug
Cesar,
He hascan
land lord
chosen
where the and the ahis
latter point family
ask where
treasure reside
formight thehe inwill
possibly a small
cancellation pass
be
1.
(a)CONTINUOUS
Yes,Uncollected
minoritywhich can EASEMENTS
be is aprohibited
basis to are those
nullify the
the
commissorium
e)
the rice
use of whichfield,iswhich or may
garbage
remains
be unutilized
incessant,
by law.
without untilThe bungalow of Don's
through
found. Upon a where
title considering
housing
inquiry, they project
Marcelinosell
thatshabu he
of (Cesar)
Romulo.
learns and that other
is the
The
the
partition
It
(1%)will
property become because
should a be D, sold
nuisance E andat if Fitpublic
were
substantiallynot
auction and prohibited
SUGGESTED
rightful
latter
owner wants
of owner
the drugs.
ANSWER:
him of
land, When
the
to lot?
pass
Leopoldo, the
Explain.
another police
is a (2%)
way
permanentfound
which the is
the intervention
the present. Instead, of thereof
any heact chose to connect
of applied
man, while his Cesar cannot ask for the cancellation of Don's
properly
impairs
the the
proceedsrepresented
comfort andby enjoyment
their parents of or
theto the SUGGESTED
illegal
one
resident trade,
kilometerof
ANSWER: they
Canada, immediately
longer. Nobody, Who demolished
should
however, prevail?
could the
subdivision with theEASEMENTS neighboring are subdivision of Romulo will
if heprevail. Underto Article of650 of
lot.the
DISCONTINUOUS
guardians
adjacent
indebtedness. at the
occupants. Any time The
excess they contracted
annoyance
shall and
be highway. those
given the theto the title house
(5%)
give
even
him because is according
the rightful owner them, the
it was In
a
Nestor,
which
SUGGESTED
extrajudicial
smell
mortgagor.
which
are ANSWER:
must used
be
has an
at intervals
partition.
substantial
access
(Articles
as andto
to
the
depend
1327. 1391,
interfere upon New
an
nuisance CivilLeopoldo's
action forCode,
per ejectment,
se the
that
exact the address.
easement
should onlybe Ultimately,
of abated.
issue right of Can
involved way is
Nestor
(d) No, allowed
the answer him towould
do this, not pending be by the same. anyway,
one of he
possession enters the land and conducts a
(b)
the
Civil In
acts
sensibly the
Code).
negotiations
SUGGESTED
of case
with man.
ANSWER: on theof
the
fraud,
(Art.
use 615,
and when
compensation
Civil
enjoyment through
Code)
to be paid.
shall
SUGGESTED
Leopoldo
this
search.
be learning
demolition
He
ANSWER:
succeeds.bede
established offacto, atthethe
Marcelino's
sustained? purpose
Explain. point
"find", ofseeks
(5%) which
least
This
insidious
persons is a
ofwords valid
ordinary stipulation
or machinations
sensibilities. andof
It is one does party
awhich
public not No,
to recover the treasure from Marcelino but The
is the
merely
prejudicial demolition
to protect
to the cannot
the
servient owner be from
estate sustained.
any
and physical
where the
2. APPARENT
When
constitute they failed
pactum EASEMENTSto commissorium.
arrive atare those
an agreement, In pactum house
encroachment is not
not willing
a from
nuisance without. per se or
The at
title law
of the asto it is
land
the other
nuisance is
because induced of to
its enter
injury into
to thethe contract
public. the
latter distance
is the
to part dominant
with it. estate
Failing to a
are made
Nestor
commissorium, built known a wall and
the are
across continually
acquisitionthe roadagreed kept
isconnecting
automatic in not
or an
its act,
ownership occupation,
is not or
involved, structurefor if which
a person is a
is
Ownership;
without Co-Ownership
which he would not have to, public highway is
reach an agreement, Leopoldo sues Marcelino the shortest. In case of
view David's
with by external ofsigns
subdivision. that Davidreveal thea use Inand
without
(1992) and need
A, Baction
the Cstill are the
prosper any
co-owners further
because in filed
action.
equal
under shares
Art, the nuisance
in
foractual
conflict,
the recovery theat criterion
possession allof the times
thereof, of he
property. and least under
is entitled
Marcelino prejudice toany be
enjoyment
complaint
instant problem inof court,
the anothersame, forand while
the act NONAPPARENT
establishment
is required of
toco-anbe v. Anas, G.R.
maintained
circumstances, andNo. respectedL-20617,
regardless in itMay ofeven 31, against
location the
or
of a residential
1391 of the Civil house
Code, in lot.
case During
of fraud, their the prevails over the
contests the action. How would you decide the criterion of shortest
EASEMENTS
easement of are those
right of way which
through show no of the 1965)
performed,
ownership,
action
SUGGESTED for the namely,
annulment
ANSWER: following the
may acts
be werethe within
conveyance
brought owner
surroundings.
distance.
SUGGESTED himself.Since
ANSWER: A nuisance
(Garcia
the route
case? the case filed by Don against Cesar is an per
chosen se is by a nuisance
Federico
external
Mortgage;
subdivision indication
Pactum
of Nestor of their or
Commissorium
which existence.
he (Art. ISince
Art,
property649,
respectively
four
SUGGESTED
615, years
Civil
NCC.
as payment
from
ANSWER:
Code)
done The
the byowner,(dacion
the
discovery co-owners: enofclaims
any person
pago).
the 1)to
fraud.A be who the in would
will anddecide
prejudice of the initself,
favor
housing ofwithout
Marcelino
project regard of since
Romulo, he to
(2001)
To
most secure
Hidden
by virtue
thenadequate ofa
tilting loan
Treasure
a realand
to obtainedpractical
right
one may
side, from
to outleta
cultivate
prevent ruralto orbank,
the
the usehouse ejectment
Easements;
is considered
circumstances
from case,
Right a the
of
finder latter
Way;
[Tolentino,
Romulo has the right to demand that Federico by chancecannot
Inseparability
p. of ask
the
695, for
hidden
citingthe
undertook
3. POSITIVE theEASEMENTS
repair of theare foundation
those which of the
Nuisance;bought
cancellation Public Nuisance vs.land Private Nuisance
Purita
highway.
(1995)
Tim
any came assigned
immovable
collapsing. 1) into
2)What B her
which
and
house, upon the owner of the servient estate
impose are
possession leasehold
C the
is requisites
of
surrounded
mortgaged an rights
old the over
for
map
by the
house a
other pass another way even though it will the
(2001)
Emma
treasure,
Wheeler v.hence,
Riverof a Don's
parcel
he
Falls is title.
of
entitled
Power He to
Co., has
from one-half
215 toAla.file
Equitable- (1/2)
655,be
stall
showing in the
establishment
immovables
and lot towhere public
secure market
ofa allowing
pertaining aa compulsory
purported
loan.to3) in Bfavor
othercache easement
engaged of
personsofthe gold
abe bank.
of a
and (2005)
State
proper
PCI
of
111 the Bank,
So. with
action
hidden
907]. reason
which where
treasure. whether
acquiredthe
While issue theeach
Marcelinoofsame of
ownership
may fromthe
the obligation of something to longer.
The
rightdeed
bullion
without ofwas way? ofto
adequate assignment
hidden. aWithout provides any that
authorityallin caseis following
over
Felisa, the the isoriginal
property a nuisance,canowner. beto raised.and if the
Thereafter, so,hidden give
Emma its
contractor
done or of doing build itoutlet concrete
himself, to awhile public
fence highway,
NEGATIVE have
Ejectment
had
classification,
the
Suit;
intention
Commodatum
whether
look
public
for
or private:
of default
around
from
entitled thethe to in the
lot.are
government
demand payment
4) thoseCabuilt Tim
right of the
aconducted
beautiful
of way loan,through the
a the the bank discovered
treasure, still he is a finder by chance since itof
that Felisa had granted a right
EASEMENTS which prohibit (2006)
Alberto and ofJanine migrated
shall
grotto in have the right to sell Purita's rights over Article
way over 694 the the
land Civilin Code
favor oftoit.
look defines thethenuisance
United
Byland of
relentless
neighboring
owner of the thesearch garden.
estates,
servient andafter 5) A and
finally
estate fromC sold
found
payment ofthe
the
doing the is enough
States of
that he
America,
tried to
leaving
for
behind their
Should
the market
land to X buried
treasure this for easement
stall
a very as
inhe her
agoodnew be established
attorney-in-fact,
price. in such
and toa as any
Georgina, act, omission,
which had establishment,
no outlet to a public4
business,
property
something indemnity.
which couldriver lawfully bed formerlydo if the chance in the law does not mean sheer luck
children,
condition one of
or property, whom is Manny.
or anything They
else own
which a
manner
apply
part ofthe athat proceeds
parcel its of useland may
to the be
owned continuous
payment by spouses of the forloan.all highway,
such that but the the
finder easement
should was not
have annotated
no intention
easement
cession? didWhy? not exist. (3%) (Art. 615. Civil Code) duplex
injures apartment
or endangers and allowed
thewas health Manny to
or safety live in
of
the
1) needs
Was (a)
Easements;
Tirso and theRight of Isthe A's
assignment
Tessie. of Waydominant
soleold
The decision
of river estate,
leasehold which establishing
to repair rights
used the ato when
at all to the lookservient
for the estate
treasure. registered
By chance under
2)permanent
a Assuming
foundation apassage,of the house
the theassignment
indemnity
binding to Bbe
shall
on a one
others, of the
or units.
annoys While
or in the the
offends United senses, States, or
mortgage
(1993)
cut
Tomas through orthe
Encarnacion's land of spouses
3,000 square Ursula meter andand the Torrens system.
means good luck, implying that one who Emma then filed a
mortgage,
SUGGESTED
consist C?of ofMay does
ANSWER:
the Avalue the of
require provision
the
Bhas land
and giving
occupied theand bank Alberto
shocks, died. defies Hisorwidow disregards and all right
his children
decency or
parcel
Urbito changedland, where
its course he aCplant
through to contribute
natural
nursery, is complaint
intentionally forlookscancellation
for the of the
treasure is of way,
The amount
the
the treasure
power
their towas
of thesell found Purita's
damage in caused
a property
rights of public
constitute
tobelong?
the SUGGESTED
executed
morality ANSWER:
or anobstructsExtrajudicial or interferes Settlement with theof
causes.
located To2/3
just whom share
behind shall of
Anicetathe
the expense?
treasure
Magsino's Reasons.
two on the ground
embraced
The complaint in the that
for
it had
provision.
cancellation
been
The reasonextinguished
of easement is that of
dominion,
pactum
In case
servient (b) the the
commissorium
right
What new of is river
way
the
estate.land. To enable Tomas to have oris
legal bed.
not?
limited Why?
effect Since
to of (2%)
the Tim
the did Alberto's
free
byissuchpassage estate of any
failuredifficult whereinpublic
to annotate. the
highway2door
How would or apartment
street youor
hectare
Explain. parcel it is extremely
right of way must to itfind hidden treasure
not have
SUGGESTED
necessary
access mortgage
to
authority
ANSWER:
thepassage contract
highway,
from
for the the
Aniceta
government
cultivation
executed agreed by Bof and
to the and,
C?
grant
It
was
any
decide
a
body public
assigned
the of waterby fail.
nuisance
controversy? all ifThe
the
ordeliberately.
hinders
(5%)
failure
affects
children to
oraMarcelino
impairsannotate
community
to their the
1)
therefore, The was assignmenta trespasser, was and ahemortgage,
isfor not entitled without
not a ALTERNATIVE
the
or easement
neighborhoodlooking for
upon it
or any the considerable
title of she the sold servient
number is
estate
him (c) surrounded
Reasons.
a road Is
right B's by
sole
ofleasehold others
decision
way a meter to build
wide A the the
through mother,
use of Janine.
property. ANSWERS: Subsequently, the
cession,
to the of
one-half the share allotted rights. toMay a finder cession of not
estate
1. a trespasser
of Marcelino
persons. isto George.
not
It
did since
is not aamong
direct there
find latterthe is
the no
encroachment
treasure prohibition
grounds byManny upon for
gathering
which fencehe of its pass.
binding
could crops upon through
Through A and the the
C? servient
years B property The required
would
hidden have
treasure. transferred All of ownership
it will go to tothe the bank.
State. for
public
chancehim because
extinguishing to enter
rights an the
or
he premises,
easement
had property
a map, hence,
underhewhichknewArt.hethe is of
631
results
estate
Tomas' without
require business A and a permanentC to contribute
flourished way, the
which their 2/ him
enabled 3 to sign a prepared Lease Contract so that he
However,
In addition,
indemnityshare
the
shall
of
grant
under
the consist
expense?
of
Art. authority
in 438
the of to
payment
Reasons. the theNCC of bank
the into entitled
the
and Civil
location
injuriously
his of
toCode.
half
the
family
ofUnder
to hidden thethe public.
could
treasure.
ArticleIt617,
treasure
continue and is he
occupyingeasements
a private the
to
sell
This buy the another
easement leasehold portion
isfinder
not rights which in enlarged
case of the
default is If
are you were
inseparable
nuisance,
intentionally if it George's
looked from
affects for the counsel,
only
the estatea person
treasure, to what
which or
hence, legal
they
small
order(d)
damage that cause theC's
Is by solecompulsory
such be entitled
decision
encumbrance. toifbuild the
to the the 1/2 unit. Manny refused to sign the contract
area
proof
isolation ofthat his plant
no
thesuch
oftreasure nursery.
immovable ownership But is hewas
due wasthe still
transferred a)
steps
he isAnot
actively
number squatter's
will or
ofyou passively
entitled take?
persons. tohut any (1%)
belong.
Explain.
It part
violatesofOnce(5%)
the it attaches,
only
treasure. private
share, grottothe binding mustAbe
upon and found B?toMay by chance,
C alleging that his parents allowed him and his
landlocked.
and that
proprietor's a He
mere
own could
encumbrance
acts. not bring in
was and out
constituted. of If
it constructed
SUGGESTED
2. Marcelino
can
rights. only ANSWER:
be on
appears public
extinguished to streets
be a or
trespasser
under riverbeds,
Art. 631,andand it
that require
is by sheer A and B to(564a).
luck. In this The
contribute case, easement
theirsince 2/ 3 Tim of family
If I public
wereto continue
George's occupying counsel, the premises.
I obstructs
would first
his
There plant
ALTERNATIVE
right of would
way nursery
ANSWER:
shall have abe jeep been or
established delivery
no need
atbut panel
the for
point such is
theya
although exist therenuisance
even may if be because
they a question
are it not of whether
stated the
or
found
The lawshare the treasure
ofone-half
the expense? not by chance
Reasons. because demand
SUGGESTED
much
authority
least
he No, (e)
grants
lesshad
prejudicial
relentlessly
aa What
ANSWER:truckthere to
share
that
are been
the
searched
to
thehe a finder
aneeded
legal
servient
of hidden
cession.
for effects
estate,
it,
treasure
to transport
ofand the he founduse that
ALTERNATIVE
free
annotated by
it as
by Manny
ANSWER:
the chance
an public
encumbrancevacate
orofnot, said the he
on apartment.
as places. has
the found (City of
Torrens If
2)
provided hethe is not clause
a trespasser in question
and the finding is by he
isnot a
chance. is It not
pactum is Under
Manny Section
refuses, I 44,
will PD
file No.
an 1529,
ejectment every
suit.
his
insofarseedlings.
contractas He
isofnot
consistent sale now asked
executed
with Aniceta
by hisA. to
Cgetting grant
and the X? Manila
the
titlehidden v. Garcia,
of the treasure servient by G.R. No. L-26053,
means(IIof Tolentino
estate. February
a treasure326,
entitled
submitted
commissorium. toTim
that any shareIta trespasser
is thethis
in pactum hidden
despite rule, where
treasure.
not
commissorium registered
him aReasons.
authority
distance wider
fromfrom the portion
government,
the ofbecause
dominant her property, the new river
estate to thebed
a price
where he
public
When
21,1967)
map,
1987 he
ed.)Manny Ifowner
will not was
constructed receiving
allowed
be entitled
aby
on private certificate
to a his finder's parents
land, of it title
istoa
when
of
foundwhich default
the treasure he was inwilling
is property the payment
to
for public pay, to
use (Art. of
enable the
420 NCC),him to loan pursuant
occupy
private theto
nuisance a decree
premises, because of registration,
without
it hinders and
compensation,
or every
impairs
ALTERNATIVE
highway may ANSWER:be the shortest (ofArt. 650, NCC:the share. The hidden treasure shall belong to the
automatically
which the public
Theconstruct
to requisites forhasa
a compulsory
road vests
legitimate to access.
easement
have ownership
The
access question,
right to of way
his of
therefore,
are:
plant (a) subsequent
the use
3.
the contract
The main
of the innocent
of is
rule
property purchaser
commodatum
that byhidden
the owner. for
was value,
treasure created.shall
Vda.
SUGGESTED
boils de
down Baltazar
to ANSWER:
whether or v.not CA.the 245
finding SCRA
was by 333
chance } in view of owner.
encumbered
the dominant estate property
nursery.
Art. 651an Aniceta
of adequate
the Civil
is surrounded by
Code refused
provides in other
claiming
that thethewidth bank.
immovables
that
of
and
she
the easementIn is the
had hold
Upon theto
belongs
b) the same
Adeath
the owner
swimming free
of theoffather,fromthepool all
land, encumbrances
the building
contractor was
the fact
without that Tim "conducted
outlet aarelentless
tobank public search"
street before
or highway; finding
(b) proper the
problem
already
must given,
allowed
be sufficient the
him a does
previous not road automatically
right ofacts except
This
otherisproperty
extinguished
(1%) those
not a nuisance noted
as
on which it on isinitsaidthe
ais certificate.
absence
purely
found. If it of This
personal
is any
treasure.
indemnity The
must betopaid;
strict ormeet (c)the
literal needs
view
the holds
isolation of that
the
mustdominant
deliberate
not be due estate, and
or intentional
to the
become
may
way.
search accordingly
Is estate owner
Tomas
precludes
of the owner change of
entitled
entitlement
of the dominant the
from time
to property
to
tothe
the
estate; time.
the
one-half
and (d) It isupon
easement the need
the right of way default
of the
he These
now of rule,
unusual
contract.however, condition
As the admitsnew
found by chance by a third person and he is or ofownerexceptions.
artificial of feature
the apartment other
dominant
the
claimedmortgagor. which determines
The bank towidth of the passage.
has to sell
and, the Under
Extra-Judicial
than Act 496, as amended
Partition; Fraud by Act No. 2011,
demands
needs may
is at afrom
vary
point
from
least
Aniceta?
time
prejudicial the servient estate George
Hidalgo
not a the mere
is
Enterprises
trespasser, water.
entitled he isto In
v. exercise
Balandan
entitled his
(G.R.
to one-half right
No. of
L-
Mortgage; Right of Redemption
property and apply the proceeds to the 3422,
insofar as is vs. Equity of Redemption and
(1990)
X was Section the 4,
owner Act of 3621,a 10,000an easement
square if
meter not
possession
(1/2). June
If he 13, over
is a1952), the same.
trespasser, the Supreme he loses Court ruled
(1999)
indebtedness. registered
property.
Mortgage; X shall
Pactum married remain
Commissorium Yisand and outshall of their be held union. to
that a swimming
everything. pool but
pass
A, B and
(1999) withCthe were land until cutoff
born. Page or 64 of 119
CIVILCIVIL
LAWLAW
Answers
Answers
to thetoBAR
the BAR
as Arranged
as Arranged
by Topics
by Topics
(Year(Year
1990-2006)
1990-2006)
his name, ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE the deed of sale was made to referSalvador, thereof
to and a timber
offering concessionaire,
to reimburse Bbuilt for on his lot a
Ramon
interest
undivided has
in the acquired
propertythe of the land by (Antonio),
seller acquisitive of warehouse
A and he
whatever shall
where
hadbe he
paid deemed
processes to cover
in purchasing and the stores
only the his
prescription,
with the metes and and because
boundsofoflaches the loton soldthe part rightstimber
property and
for fromshipment.
interests
the bank. of
Adjoining
BIn and
brief, Cthe in warehouse
how the
willhouse
you
of Rosario.
being stated. Ramon's
Bart and possession
Carlos reacted of the by land was and is a furniture
answer lot.the Thecomplaint
mortgage
factory owned ofshall
C and by
beD,NARRAMIX
limited
if you were to the of
adverse because he asserted
signifying their exercise of their right of sole ownership SUGGESTED
portion
which
engagedSalvador
(2/3)
by ANSWER:
Dwhich
as his ismay a majority
be allottedstockholder.
counsel? to B and C
thereof
redemption and as conever owners. shared
Antonio the in hisharvest
behalf As
in counsel
NARRAMIX
the partition ofleased
B,(Art.
I shall 493,
spaceanswer
Civil the
the complaint
in Code). warehouse as
therefrom.
and in behalf His ofadverse
his buyer, possession
contendshaving that they follows:
been SUGGESTED
1. How would
where When
itANSWER: B bought
you
placed classify the
its the property,
furniture- it was not
furniture-making
continuous
are no longer and uninterrupted
coowners, although for more
the title than 30 by (c)
makingaB'sright
machinery. sole of
machinery decision
redemption to build
as property since thethe
under concrete
the period
Civil
years, Ramon
covering the property has has acquiredremained thein landtheir by 2. fence
therefore is
Suppose
Code? not
Explain. binding
had upon
already
the lease contract betweenA and
expired. C. Expenses
Hence, toB
prescription.
names as such. Rosario
May Bart is also andguiltyCarlos improve
bought the
the thing
property
laches not Salvador and NARRAMIX stipulates that at the
of still owned in
in common
an must
independent be
SUGGESTED
having asserted
redeem the ANSWER:her right to the harvest for
lot sold by Antonio? Explain. (5%) decided
unconditional
end of the uponlease bythe
sale. aC majority
and D are
machinery ofshall
the co-owners
not become
co-owners
Ownership;
No, they may
more than 40 years. Co-Ownership;
not redeem Prescription
because there was who
with
the represent
B of
property the of the
property.
the controlling
lessor, Therefore,
will interest
your the
answer suit(Arts.
of
be C
(2002)
Senen
no and Peter are
Coownership amongbrothers. Antonio, SenenBart, migrated and ALTERNATIVE
489
and and
D
the same? 492.
cannot ANSWER:
Civil
prosper.
Explain. Code).
to Canada
Carlos to startearly with. while Their still a parents
teenager. Peter As
already counselANSWER:
SUGGESTED of B, I shall answer the complaint as
stayed in Bulacan
partitioned the landto in take care separate
selling (d) C's sole
of their follows: From decision
the facts to build the grotto
described, it is not
would
widowed
v. Court to
portions mother
ofthem.Appeals,and
Thecontinued
(342 SCRA
situation to the
is work
653 sameon the as binding
appear upon
that theA and B
Certificate who cannot
of sale be
has required
not been
[2000]).
Family
in the casefarmSieven after her death. Returning to registered. to contribute to the period
The one-year expenses for the
of redemption
Possession
the country some thirty years after he had left, embellishment
begins to run of
from the thing
registration. owned In in
this common
case, it
(1998)
Using a falsified manager's
Senen seeks a partition of the farm to get his check, Justine, as if
hasnot notdecided
yet even upon by
commenced. the majority
Under of
the the co-
Rules
the buyer, was able
share as the only co-heir of Peter. to take delivery of
Peter a owners
of Court, whothe represent
property the
may controlling
be released interest
by the
second hand car which
interposes his opposition, contending she had just bought
that (Arts.
Judgment 489 and
debtor 492, or Civil
his Code).
successor in interest.
from United Car Saleshas Inc. The set salein was SUGGESTED ANSWER:
acquisitive prescription already and (Sec. 29, Rule 27). It has been held that this
(e) The sale to X shall not bind the 1/3 share
registered with the
that estoppel lies to bar the action for Land Transportation includes a joint owner. (Ref. Magno vs.Ciola, 61
Office. A week later, of B and shall
Ownership; be deemed to
Co-Ownership; cover only the 2/3
Redemption
partition, citing his the seller learned
continuous possession that the of Phil.
(2000)
share
Ambrosio
80).
of A and
died, C in
leaving the land
his (Art. daughters,
three 493, Civil
check had been
the property fordishonored,
at least 10 but years, by forthatalmost
time,
Justine Code).
Belen, B shall
Rosario have
and the
Sylvia righta to redeem
hacienda the
which
30 yearswas
SUGGESTED
nowhere
inANSWER:
fact. to be seen.that
It is undisputed It turned
Peter has out
2/3
was share
mortgaged sold to
to X
the by A and
Philippine C since
National X is
Bank a
that
neverJustine
openly hadclaimedsold the sole car to Jerico,
ownership of the
the
Senen’s
present action
possessor will prosper.
who Article 494 of the third
due toperson
the (Art.
failure 1620,
of the Civil Code).
daughters to pay the
property.
New Civil IfCode
he ever hadknew
provides the
that
nothing about
intention to do the
“no prescription so, Ownership;
bank, the latter Co-Ownership;
foreclosed Prescription
the mortgage and
falsified
Senen check.
was In
completely a suit by United
ignorant Car
of Sales,
it. Will (2000)
In 1955, Ramon and hisit as sister
shall
Inc. run
against in favor
Jerico of a co-owner
for Explain.
recovery(5%). or co-heir
of the car, the hacienda was sold to the Rosario
highest
Senen’s
against action
his prosper?
co-owners or co-heirs so long as he inherited
bidder. Six a parcel
months of land
later, in
Sylvia Albay
won from
the their
grand
plaintiff alleges it had been unlawfully parents. Since Rosario was gainfully employed
expressly
deprived ofor itsimpliedly
property recognizesthrough fraud the and co- prize at the lotto and used part of it to redeem
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
ownership nor notified Senen of his having in
theManila,
hacienda she from
left Ramon the bank. aloneThereafter,
to possess and she
should,
The suit
ALTERNATIVE consequently,
should
ANSWER: prosper be as allowed
to the torecovery
recover of it cultivate the land. However, Ramon never
repudiated
without havingthe same. took possession of the hacienda and refused to
Senen’s
the action to
car. However, will reimburse
since Jericothe
prosper. wasdefendant
This is case for
nota guilty of
of shared
share thefruits
its harvest with with her Rosario
sisters, andcontending
was even
the
any price
impliedfraud the
trust. and latter
(Art had NCC)
1441,
appears paid.
to be Should
For anpurposesthe suit
innocent of SUGGESTED
able to wassellANSWER:
one-halfexclusively
of the land
prosper? [5%] that it
Sylvia is not owned
correct. The heir3 daughtersby in her, 1985having
are
by
the
prescription
purchaser forundervalue,the conceptbeofreimbursed
he should an owner claiming
bought it to be
from thethe bank sole with her ofownhis money.
parents. Is
(Art.the540,
for priceNCC). he paid. ThereThisisis no suchprejudice
without concept co-ownersreached
Having of the hacienda retirement beingage the only in heirs1990
she
of correct
Ambrosio. or not? (3%)
here.
to Peter was
United Car aSales, co-owner, Inc. he neverofclaimed
right action Rosario returnedWhen to thethe province property and upon was
sole ownership
against Justine.of the As property.
between He two is therefore
innocent foreclosed, the right
learning what had transpired, demanded thatof redemption belongs
estoppedthe
parties, under party Art.causing
1431, NCC. the injury should also to the half
the remaining 3 of daughters.
the land be When
given Sylvia to her
Ownership;
ALTERNATIVE Co-Ownership;
ANSWER:
suffer the loss. Therefore, United Car Sales, Redemption redeemed the entire property before the lapse
as her share. Ramon opposed, asserting that
Yes,
(1993) the suit
In 1937, will prosper
A obtained loanbecause the criminal
Inc. should suffer thealoss. of P20,000.00 from of
he the
has redemption
already acquiredperiod, she alsoofexercised
ownership the land
act
the ofNational
estafa should City be Bank deemed of New to come York, withinan SUGGESTED
the right of ANSWER:
redemption of her co-owners
by
Ramonprescription,
is wrong andon that
both Rosario
counts: is barred on
prescription by
the meaning of unlawful
American-owned bank doing business in the deprivation under Art. their behalf. As such she is holding the shares
laches
and laches. from demanding
His possession partition
as co-owner did and
not
559, Civil Code,
Philippines. as without payment
To guarantee it plaintiff ofwould his of her two sisters in the property, and claims.
all the
reconveyance.
give rise to Decide
acquisitive the conflicting
prescription. Possession
not have parted
obligation, A with the possession
constituted a real of itsestate
car. fruits corresponding thereto, in trust for them.
(5%)
by a co-owner by isone deemed not adverse to the
the
ANOTHER ANSWER:
mortgage on his 30hectare parcel of Redemption co-owner inures to
No, the suit will not prosper. The sale is valid other co-owners but is, on the contrary,
agricultural land. In 1939, before he could pay benefit of all (Adille v. CA.157 SCRA 455).
and Jerico is a buyer in good faith. Ownership;beneficial
deemed Co-Ownership; themRedemption
his obligation.
ANOTHER ANSWER:A died intestate leaving three Sylvia, however, isto entitled (Pongon v. GA, 166
to be reimbursed
children. (2002)
Antonio,
SCRA 375). Bart, and
Ramon's Carlos are
possession brothers.
will They
become
Under theB, law a son by a when
on Sales, first marriage,
the thing and sold C is the
purchased
shares of her two sisters in
from their parents specific portions
the
and D, daughters by a second marriage. In adverse
redemption only when
price. he has repudiated the co-
delivered by the seller to the buyer without of a parcel of land as evidenced by three
1940, the bank foreclosed the ownership and such repudiation was made
reservation of ownership, the mortgage
ownershipfor is separates deeds of sale, each deed referring to
non-payment known to Rosario. Assuming that the sale in
SUGGESTED
transferred to of
ANSWER: thethe principal
buyer. Therefore obligation.
in the suit As
a particular
(a) Yes.
theUnited A's
only bidder sole decision
at theInc. to repair
extrajudicial theforeclosure 1985 wherelot in meter
Ramon and bounds.
claimed he wasWhen the sole the
of Car Sales, against Jerico for the deeds were presented for registration, the
foundation
sale, the of is
bank binding upon B and C. B and C heir of his parents amounted to a repudiation
recovery the bought
car, the the property
plaintiff should and notwas be Register of Deeds could not issue separate
must
later contribute a 2/3 of the of the co-ownership, the prescriptive period
allowed issued
to recover certificate
the car expense.
of sale.
without Each
The co-
reimbursing war
certificates of Title
owner
supervenedhas the in right
1941 to compel
without the
the other
bank co-
having began to run only had fromto thatbe issued,
time. therefore,
Not more
the
S. defendant for the
Government, and price that the
utilized the latter
same paid. in in the names of three brothers as coowners of
owners
been to
able contribute
to obtain to the
actual expense
possession of of the than 30 years having lapsed since then, the
(EDCA Publishing
agribusiness. In and
1960, Distributing
as B's Corp.
business vs.
Property; 184
preservation
property Realwhichofvs.thePersonal
thing
remained Property
(the house)
with owned
A's three in the entire property. The
claim of Rosario has not as yet prescribed. The situation has not
Santos,
flourished, SCRA
C and 614, D sued April B26, for 1990)
partition and
(1995)
common
children in
who proportion
appropriated to their for respective
themselves the changed
claim up to now,
of laches is not butalso each of the brothers
meritorious. Until
accounting
SUGGESTED
interests of
ANSWER:
(Arts. 485 the income
and 1948,
488, Civil of the property, has
the been
repudiationreceiving of rentals
the exclusively
co-ownership wasfrom madethe
income from it. In B Code).
bought the
claiming that as heirs of their father they were lot
knownactuallyto purchased
the other by him.
co-owners, Antonio
no sells
right his
has
property from the bank using the money he
co-owners lot
been to a
violated third person,
for the with
said notice
co-owners to his
to
received as back pay from the U.
brothers. To
vindicate. Mere enable delay theinbuyer to secure
vindicating the aright,
new
title in alone, does not constitute laches.
standing
to consulted,
If the seller-owner what would the agreedyour legal purchaseadviceprice in residential,
latter
full vacatecommercial, the premises industrial,
and deliver or similar
the same to the
registers
be?
and
SUGGESTED the corresponding deed of sale.
ANSWER: purposes,
former.
productive Petronila
and only refused
by lease to when
vacatenot theneeded
place
The
Because warehouse
the annotation whichof is the anotice construction
of levy is on the government
by ground that the for public
usufruct service.
in her favor
adhered
carried over to the to soil
the is new an immovable
title in his name, by nature the would expire only on 1 June 1998 when
under Art. 415
BUYER brings an action against (1) and the proper venue the of (2) If thewould
Manuel land is suited
have reachedor actually
his 30th used for
birthday
any case to recover
JUDGMENT CREDITOR to cancel such ownership of the same, fishpond or aquaculture
and that the death of Manuel before his 30th purposes, it comes
which
annotation, is what butthe thepurpose
latter claims of thethat complaint
his liento is under
birthday thedid Jurisdiction
not extinguish of thethe Bureau
usufruct. of
annul
superior thebecause
amendedit Deed was of Sale amounts
annotated after the to, SUGGESTED
Fisheries
Whose contention ANSWER:
and Aquaticshould Resources
be accepted? (BFAR) and
ADDITIONAL
should
SUGGESTED
adverse be ANSWERS:
the of
ANSWER:
claim place the where
BUYER thehad property
ipso facto is Petronila's
can only becontention acquired by is lease.
correct. (P.D.Under705)Article
1. Buildings
The suit will are always
prosper. immovable
While an property,
adverse and
claim 606
(3) of
Free the Civil
Patent Code,
is a mode a usufruct
of granted
concession for
under
located,
ceased or be theeffective.
RTC of Bulacan.
duly in to
even annotated the instances at the where
Will the
back of theasuit
partiesprosper?
title under to a the time
Section that
41, may
Chapter elapse
VII of before
the a
Public third person
Land
[5%]
contract 7O seem
Section oftoP.D.have 1529dealtiswith good it separate
only for and 30 reaches
Act, which a certain
is applicableage shall only subsist for the
for agricultural
apart from the land on which
days, cancellation thereof is still necessary it stood in no wise to number
lands. ofANSWER:
SUGGESTED years specified even if the third
does itit change
render ineffective, its otherwise,
character the as inscription
immovable 1.
(4)The
Thefurniture-making
person should
certificate die unless machinery an is
there isforester
of the district movable
expressthat
property.will
thereof A building is an immovable
remain annotated as a lien even onif the
not property
stipulation because
the land is already in the contractit was
"alienable not
thatandinstalled
states
disposable" by the
erected by
property. Whilethe the owner life of of adverse
the land. claim Theis only
3O owner
simply of
otherwise. means theIn tenement.
the
thatcasethe at landTobar,become
is there
no longer immovable
is no
days under P.D. 1529, it continuous the
criterion
O.G. 4374) is union
(Reyes or incorporation
and Puno, with
Outline to soil.
of
be under
neededArt.
express 415
stipulation
for forest (5)purposes,
of the
that the NCC, the Bureau
consideration
but the machineryforof
Philippine
(Ladera vs.
effective Civil
Hodges
until itLaw,
is (CA) Vol.
canceled482. p.7)by formal petition ALTERNATIVE
must
the
Lands be ANSWER:
usufruct
could installed
is the
no longer by
existence
disposetheof of owner
Petronila's
it by free of son.the
The cancellation of of theDeeds.notice of levy is This is a usufruct
ALTERNATIVE
tenement. ANSWER:which is clearly intended for
filed with
2. The warehouse the Register built 108 by Pedro Thus,
patent the general
because it rule
is and
already not the
covered exception
by a lease
justified under Section of P.D.on1529 the It depends
the
should
benefit on
contract apply
between
the circumstances
of Manuel
in this BFAR
until he reaches
case.and Regina. That
of the30 case.
yrs. If
mortgaged property is real
considering that the levy on execution can not property within the the
of machinery
age with was of
Petronila attached
serving in
only a fixed
as a manner,
conduit,
(5) The free patent
contract must be respected. Jorge is highly irregular
context of Article 415 ofbuyer
the New Civil Code, in such
be enforced against the whose adverse holding
and voida the
abway thatnot
property
initio, it incannot
trust
only be
forseparated
because his thebenefit. from
Bureau
although it was built
claim against the registered owner was by Pedro after the the
The tenement
death of without
Manuel atbreaking
the age the
of 26 material or
has no statutory authority to issue a free
foreclosure sale without
recorded ahead of the notice of levy on the knowledge and causing
therefore, deterioration
terminated thereof,
the usufruct.it is immovable
patent over a foreshore area, but also because
consent ofofthe Lis new ownerWhen which makes him a
LAND TRANSFER &
Annotation
execution. Pendens; Proper property
of the false [Art. 415 (3),made
statements NCC]. in However,
his sworn if the
buildersold
(2001)
Mario in hisbadhouse faith, and thislot does not alter
to Carmen for the
P1 machinery
application that he has occupied from
can be transported place to
and cultivated
characterpayable of the warehouse as aequalreal property
million
by incorporation.
installments.
in five (5)
The saleItwas is registered
a structure
annual
and which
title
place
which DEEDS
the land since July 4, 1945, as required by theto
without
theylaw.
impairment
were fixed,
of the
then91itofisthe
tenement
movable
free patent
SUGGESTED ANSWER: Under Section Public
cannot
was issuedbe removed
in Carmen's without name. causing
Carmen injuryfailed to property. [Art. 416 (4), NCC]
(Note: If the examinee does not mention Land
2. It Act,
is any
immovable patent concession
property.
Acquisition of Lands; Citizenship Requirement When or title
there is a
thepay
to land. theSo, lastmythreeadvice to Pedro isand to file the
that the structureinstallments
was built by a builder Mario in obtained
provision thru false representation
In 1970, the spouses Juan and Juana de la the
(2003) in the lease contract is void
making ab
case with
filed an. the
badaction
RTCshould
faith, itfor
of collection,
Bulacan, the
be given full
situs
damages of the
credit). and initio. then
lessor,
Cruz, Inatcases
the of this
end
Filipinos, nature,
ofbought
the lease, it is
the the ofof the
owner
parcel
property,
attorneys
Sower; Good fees against
Faith/ Bad her.Faith Upon filing of the government
machinery
unregistered that
installed shall
land in the institute
by Philippines annulment
the lessee,onthe which said
complaint,
(2000)
Felix cultivated he caused a parcel a notice
of land of and
lis pendens
planted to it proceedings considering that thebeen suit carries
SUGGESTED ANSWER: machinery
they built a ishouse
considered
which to have
became their installed
be annotated
to sugar on believing
Carmen's ittitle. Is the notice
The noticecane, of lis pendens is not toproper
be hisfor own.
the withthe
by it alessor
residence. prayer
In 1986, for the
through theyreversion
the lessee
migrated oftothe
who land
Canada actedto
of
Whenlis pendens
the crop proper
was or not?
eight Why?
months (5%) old, and the state. However, Regina is a party in
reason that the case filed by Mario against merely
and became as hisCanadianagent. Having citizens. been installedinby
Thereafter,
harvestable
Carmen is only after two moredamages,
for collection, months,and a interest
the owner andapplied,
thethe
of case will prosper
tenement, thebecause
machinery she
1990, they opposed by the Republic,
resurvey
attorney's of
fees. the land showed that it really has
becamea lease contract
immovable for the
.under same
Art. land
415 with
of the
SUGGESTED for the registration
Property; Real vs. Personal of the aforesaid
Property land in
belonged ANSWER:
Annotation toof Fred.
a lis What are
pendens can the be
only options
done government.
NCC. (Davao Sawmill v. Castillo 61 Phil. 709)
As to thetopending crops planted by Felix in their
(1997)
Pedro names.
is the Should
registered the application
owner of aofparcel the of
available
in cases Fred? (2%)
involving recovery of possession of SUGGESTED ANSWER:
good faith, Fred has the option of allowing spouses
land de
situated la Cruz
in be
Malolos, granted Bulacan.over the
In 1973, he
real Yes, the application should be granted. As a
Felix property,
to continue or the to cultivation
quiet title and or to to remove
harvest Republic’s
mortgaged
rule,
opposition?
the land toprohibits
the Constitution
Why? 5%
the Philippine aliens from National
cloud
the crops, or to continue the cultivationother
thereon, or for partition or any and
proceeding affecting title In to the
the latter
land option,
or the Bank
owning (PNB)
private to secure
lands in athe loan of
Philippines.P100.000.00.
This
harvest the crops himself. For
rule, Pedro's
however, failure
does to
not pay
apply theto loan,
the the
spouses PNB
use or occupation
however, Felix shallthereof. have the Therightaction
to afiledpart by of
Mario does not fall on anyone of these. foreclosed
Juan and Juana on the de la mortgage
Cruz because in 1980, at the and timethe
the expenses of
Foreshore Landscultivation and to a part of the land
they was
acquired sold at
ownershippublic auction
over the to
land, PNB
albeit for
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
net harvest,
(2000)
Regina has been both leasing
in proportion foreshore to the landtime from of being
imperfect, the they highest werebidder.still FilipinoPNB citizens.
secured The title
Since sugarcane is not a perennial crop. Felix
possession.
the Bureau of (Art. 545 NCC), Aquatic Resources In the in
thereto meanwhile,
1987. Pedro, iswho was still in
is considered aFisheries
sower inand good faith. Being so, application for registration a mere
for the past 15 years. Recently, she learned possession
confirmation of
of the the land, title
imperfect constructed
which the a
Art. 448 applies. The options available to Fred
that
are: (a) Jorge was able tothe
to appropriate obtain
crop aafter patent spouses have already acquired before the
free paying warehouse on the property. In 1988, theyPNB
from the indemnity
Bureau of under Agriculture, covering Adverse
sold Claims; Notice of
Pablo, Levy
became Canadian citizens. (Republic v. CA,was
the land to the Deed of Sale
Felix the Art. 546, or (b) the to (1998)
same land, ontothe basis Section
amended 70in of1989Presidential
to include Decree No. 1529,
the warehouse.
require Felix pay rent.of a certification by the 235 SCRA
Pedro, claiming
567 [1994]).
ownership ofregistered
the warehouse,
Usufruct Forester that the same is already
District concerning adverse claims on land,
files a complaint
provides a 30-day toperiod
annulof the amendedofDeed
effectivity an of
(1997)
On 1 January
"alienable and1980, Minerva, Moreover,
disposable". the owner Jorge of a
Sale
adverse before claim, thecounted
Regional fromTrial theCourtdate of
of Quezon
its
building,
had already granted Petronila
registered the a usufruct
patent with over the the
City, where he
registration. resides,
Suppose against
a notice of both
adverse the PNB
property of
Register untilDeeds 01 Juneof the1998 when and
province, Manuel,
he was a
and Pablo. The PNB filed a motion to dismiss
son of Petronila,
issued an Original would have reached
Certificate of Titlehis the claim based upon a contract to sell was
for30th
the complaint for improper venue contending
of registered on March 1, 1997 at the instance of
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
birthday.
same. Regina Manuel, filed however,
action died
an annulment on Jorge's
for annulment 1 June
An action for the of that the warehouse
the BUYER, but on June is 1,real1997, property
or after the under
1990
Jorge's
Original when title he was
on the ground
Certificate only
of 26
Title years
that
will old.
it was obtained
prosper on the
Minerva notified Article
lapse of 415(1)
the of
30-day the Civil
period, aCode
notice and of therefore
levy on
fraudulently.
(1) Under grounds:
following Will Petronila
Chapter theIX action
that the usufruct
of C .A,prosper?
No. 141,(2%)
had been extinguished by the death of Manuel the action
execution in should
favor ofhave
a instead
JUDGMENT been filed
CREDITOR in
otherwise known as the Public Land Act, Malolos,
was also Bulacan.
registered Pedro
to claims
enforce a otherwise.
final The
and demanded that the
foreshore lands are disposable for question arose
judgment for money as toagainstwhether the the warehouse
registered
should Then,
owner. be considered on June 15, as1997 real there
or ashaving personal
property.
been no formal cancellation of his notice of
adverse claim, the BUYER pays
It is a well-known
homestead
occupant thereof
from him rule
andin anymore
for
thisthisjurisdiction
because
reason that his
their transfer
persons
action
Cesar bought
required to explore
a residential
beyondcondominium
what the record unitinfromthe
dealing
prescribed
of
hastitle may
certificate withand be
registered
that
vulnerable,
furthermore,
landthe have transfer
A
thewaslegalinofpari
the The mortgage
Rise
High
registry Co. and paid to Desiderio
the price should
in full. be He cancelled
moved
right
delicto.
same to
landrely
Decide.
andon thethe
(5%) face
issuance of theofTorrensnew TCTs to X into
without the prejudice
unit, but somehow to his right he was to not go after given
Certificate
and Y whoANSWER:
SUGGESTED ofareTitleinnocent
and to dispense
purchasers with forthe value Catalino
the Condominium and/or Certificate the government
of Title covering for
The
need
render sale
to the oflatter's
inquire thefurther,
landtitlesbyexcept
A to B
indefeasible.
when3 yearsthe after
A person
party the property. Unknown
compensation from the assurance to him, High fund.Rise Co.
issuance
concerned
dealing with ofhas the homestead
registered
actual knowledge
land may patent,ofsafelybeing
facts rely
andon in Fraud; Procurement mortgaged
subsequently of Patent; Effect the entire
violation
circumstances
the correctness of Sectionthatof would
the 118 of thea reasonably
certificate
impel Public
of titleLand and (2000)
In 1979, Nestor building
condominium applied fortoandMetrobank was granted as a
Act, is void
cautious
the law will
man fromnot its
to makein inception.
any such way inquiry.
oblige(Naawanhim to go Free Patent
security for overa loan a parcel
of P500of million. agricultural High land Rise
The
behind action
Community
filed
theRural by the heirs
certificate
Bank v. Court to of B to declare
determine
of Appeals, G.R. the with an
Co. areato
failed of 30 payhectares,
the loan located and inthe General bank
the
In nullity
the
condition
No. given
128573, or inexistence
problem,
ofJanuary
the property the
13, 2003) of the
property
in search contract
was for and any Santos City.the
foreclosed He mortgage.
presented the At the Freeforeclosure
Patent to
to recover
already
hidden defect theorland
registered in the
inchoate should
name of
rightbeRod given
which whendue mayhe the Register
sale, the bankofacquired Deeds, the andbuilding,
he was being issuedthe a
course.
bought the same from the
later invalidate or diminish the right to the latter. Thus, Don corresponding
highest bidder. When Original Cesar Certificate
learned about of Title this,
B's
1. defense of annul
prescription is instituted
untenable
land.The
could beaction
This is thetomirror
considered as a thebuyer
principlesalein was
ofgood faith in he
the Torrens (OCT)filedNo. an 375,action Subsequently,
to annul the Nestor foreclosure sold the sale
because
and 1977
for an
or
value. action
more However,which
than (10) seeks
since yearsRod to
fromdeclare
did the
not the of land to Eddie. The deed of sale was submitted
date
System of land registration. insofar as his unit was concerned. The bank put
nullity
actually orsell
execution inexistence
thereof
any propertyinof1957,A him,
to contract
hence, Donitdoes
hashasno not
long to
up the theRegisterdefenseof Deeds that itandrelied on theonbasis the
prescribe.
right to retain ownership over the property. 2
prescribed. (Article 1410; Banaga vs. Soler, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
thereof, OCT No, 375 was cancelled and
condominium certificates
Metrobank's defense is untenable. As a rule, of title presented by
8CRA
2.
He has 765)
Under onlySec the45 of Act
right 496, “the
to recover the entry of a
purchase
On the other hand, B's defense of pari delicto Transfer
High Rise Certificate
Co., which of
were Title clean.(TCT) Hence, No. it 4576was
Forgery;
price Innocent
certificate
plus Purchaser;
of
damages. title shall Mirror
bePrinciple
regarded as an an innocent purchaser for value acquires a
is equally untenable. While as aarule, parties was issued in and
a mortgagee the name buyer ofinEddie.
good In 1986,
faith. Is the
this
(1991)
Bruce is the
agreement registered
running with owner, theofland, parcel of
and binding good and a clean title to the property.
who are ainbuilding pari delicto have no recourse Director
defense of
tenable Lands
or not? filed
Why? a complaint
(5%.) for
landuponwith thereon and
the applicant and all his successors in title is in peaceful However, it is settled that one who closes his
against each otherHe onpays thethe principle that a annulment of OCT No, 375 and TCT No. 4576
possession thereof.
that the land shall be and always remain real estate eyes to facts that should put a reasonable man
transgressor cannot rentals profit therefrom.
from his Later, own on the ground that Nestor obtained the Free
taxes and collects
registered land.the A title under Act 496 is on guard is not an innocent purchaser for
wrongdoing, suchbrother rule of does not apply Patent through fraud. Eddie filed a motion to
Catalino,
indefeasiblethe only and to preserve Bruce,thatfiled a to theSUGGESTED
character, value. In ANSWER: the present problem the bank is
dismiss
The motion on the groundtothat
of Nestor he was thean innocent
violations
petition of Section
where he, 118 of the Public
title is cleansed anew with every transfer for purchaser for avalue
misrepresenting to be Land
the expected, as matter dismiss of standard complaint
operating
Act because of the underlying public policy in for annulment of O.C.T. and No. in good
375 and faith
T.C.T. and No. as
attorney-in-fact
value (De Jesus of Bruce
v City and falsely
of Manila; alleging
29 Phil. 73; procedure, to have conducted an ocular
the said Act "to conserve the land which a such, should
4576 he hasbe acquired
denied a title
for the to the property
following
thatLaperal
the certificate
v City ofof title was
Manila, 62 lost, 313; Penullar vinspection,
Phil succeeded which is valid,
of the promises before granting
unassailable and indefeasible.
homesteader reasons:
any loan.1) Eddie cannot claim protection as an
in obtaining
PNB 120 a Shas 111acquired
second). owner's by duplicate
gratuitouscopy grant
Decide the
Apparently,
motion. (5%)
Metrobank did not follow
from the government
of the title and then had the same transferredfor himself and his purchaser
innocent for value
this procedure. Otherwise, it should have nor can he interpose
family".
in his name In keeping
throughwith this policy,
a simulated deed it has
of sale been the defense
discovered that ofthe indefeasibility
condominium of his unittitle, in
held that one who purchases
in his favor. Catalino then mortgaged the a homestead because
question was his TCT
occupied is rooted
by Cesar on anda void
that title.
fact
Mirror
Under Principle
Section
within
property thetofive-year
Desiderio prohibitory
who had the period can only
mortgage should have led it 91 to make of CAfurther No. 141, inquiry. as
recover theonprice which he has paid by (1990)
In 1950's,
amended, the Government
otherwise known acquired
as the a big
Public
annotated the title. Upon learning of filing
the a Under the circumstances, Metrobank cannot
landed
Landestate in Central Luzon
Act, statements from the
claim
fraudulentagainst the estateBruce
transaction, of thefiled deceased
a complaint seller be considered a mortgageeofand material
buyer facts in good in
(Labrador vs. Delos under registered
the owner
applications for for subdivision
public land into must small be
against Catalino andSantos
Desiderio 66 Phil.
to have 579) the faith.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
the principle that no one shall enrich himself farmsunderand oath. redistribution
Section 91 of of the same bonafide act
title of Catalino and the
The complaint for the annulment of Catalino'smortgage in favor of
at the expense ofInanother. Applying the pari Forgery;
occupants,
provides InnocentF was
thatPurchaser;
a former
such Holderlessee
statements in Bad
of aFaith
parcel
shall be
Desiderio
Title
FIRST will declared
prosper.
ALTERNATIVE null
ANSWER: theand firstvoid.place, Willthethe second
delicto rule to violation of Section 118 of the (2005)
of land,
Rod, thefive
considered hectares
owner as in area.
of essential
an FX taxi, After completion
found
conditions in andhis
The
owner'saction
complaint copy to ofdeclare
prosper, theor the nullity
willsecured
title the title of
byofthe sale
Catalino
him from did
Public Land Act, the Court of Appeals has of the
vehicle
parts resurvey
anof theand
envelope subdivision,
containing
concession, TCT
title, F applied
No.
or 65432permit to
not
and prescribe
the mortgage (Art. to 1410},
Desiderio
the Land Registration Court is void ab initio, such besale being
sustained? one
ruled that prohibited
"the homesteader suffers the lossthe of buy
over the
a lot said land
registered inin
issued, any false statement therein, or accordance
Cesar's name. with Posing the
expressly
the owner's copy thereofand having
declared nevervoid by
been
the fruits realized by the vendee who in turn guidelines
as Cesar,
omission of of
Rod the implementing
forged
facts Cesar's
shall agency.
ipsosignature
facto produce Upon
on a
Public
lost, let Lands
alone the Actfact [Art.that1409,said secondpar. (7)]. The
forfeits theof full
Deed the payment
of Sale in
cancellation of
Rod's the favor.
of price
the Rod in 1957,
registered
concession. the
The
prohibition
owner's copy of improvement
the title
the lawwas that he
is fraudulently
clearly for has the
corresponding
said document
patent issued deed
with to the of
Nestor absolute
Registerin this of sale
Deeds,
case is was
and
void
introduced
protectionand
procured of intothe heirs the ofland."
improvidently A suchby
issued (Obot
that
the their vs. 2) The government can seek annulment of
SandadiUas, 69 OG, April 35, }
1966enhance executed
obtained
ab initio ainnewhis
notfavoronlyinand
title his
because was
name. registered,
it wasAfterobtained and
a year,
recovering the property
Court. In the second place, the Transfer would the the original and transfer certificates of title
in
he 1961,
sold
by fraud a new
the lot title
but to Don, was because
issued
a buyerinin hisgoodname. faithIn
public policy
Certificate of Titleregarding
procured ownership
by Catalino of islands In
and
a) 1977, the
Did C filed
reversion
Rod an also
acquire action
of the
titleto land
annul it
tothe
covers
the deedsstate.
30
of
1963,
andhectares
forF sold
value, the
whichwho saidis land
also
far toto X;the
registered
beyond andthe land?
in
the 1965
maximum Explain.
lot X
in
acquired by homestead patent (Art. 1416). The sale
Eddie's to F, X and Y and their titles, on the
equally null and void, it having been issued on SUGGESTED
(2%)
sold todefense
it 24
his name.
of Y,ANSWER:
new titles
hectares
is untenable.
were successively
provided
The protection issued
defense
the basis ofofpari
a delicto isornot
simulated applicable
forged Deed either,
of No,
ground Rod
afforded did
that
by not(C)
he
the acquire
had been
Torrens titleby
System intothe the
actual
to
free
anland.
patent
physical
innocent The
SECOND ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: in the
law. names of the said purchasers.
since
Sale. the law
A forgeddoes itself
deednot allows
is anarise the
absolute homesteader to inscription
possession
purchaser in
of
for the
the registry,
value land, can and to
be be
that effective,
availed the sale
of must
only to F
if
Prescription withnullityrespect andto
reacquire
conveys the
no title. land even
Theamortgage if it has been sold.
in favora ofnullity be
and
the made
the
land in
subsequent
has good been faith.
sales The
should
titled defense
be
thru set aside
judicial of
actions to declare void contract
Desiderio is likewise nullisand indefeasibility
on the ground
proceedings of ofathe
where Torrens
fraud.
issue Upon ofTitle
fraudmotion does
becomes notof
(Article 1410). Neither thevoid because
doctrine the
of pari
mortgagor is not the ownerof ofpublic
the mortgaged extend
defendants,
academic to after athe transferee
the trial
lapse court
of who
one (1) takes
dismissed year the
the
from
delicto applicable because policy. The
property. While it may certificate
complaint,
the issuance of oftitle
upholding the with their
decree noticedefenses
of of a of
registration. flaw. their A
In
law is designed for be thetrue that underofthe
protection the (a) Is the saidfaithappeal
"Mirror Principle" of the Torrens System of holder
being
public inland
bad
innocent grants, ameritorious?
ofpurchasers
certificate
the action offortitle of is not
value,
the
plaintiff so as to enhance the public policy of (b) Suppose
Explain your the
answergovernment agency
Land Registration, entitled
prescription
government to the to protection
and laches.
annul Plaintiff a oftitle theappealed.
law, for the
fraudulently
the Public Land aAct buyer to or mortgagee
give land tohas the concerned joined C in filing the said action
If
thethe heirs
right to are
relynot allowed
on what to recover,
appears on theit could law cannot be used
obtained does not prescribe such action as a shield for frauds.and
landless. In the case
Homestead
against the at bar,
Patents;
defendants, VoidRod onlyG.R.
Sale
would forged
that change Cesar's the
be on the of
Certificate ground
Title, and of laches inasmuchof as 40
in the absence (Samonte
will not be v. Court
barred of
by Appeals,
the transfer ofNo. the 104223,
title to
signature
(1999)
In 1950,
SUGGESTED
result
July 12, of2001)
the onlitigation?
the
ANSWER: the -Deed
Bureau of of Sale.
Lands
Explain. issued It isa very Homestead
years
anything had to elapsed
excite and
suspicion,
simulated sale; b) The fact that it was derived the is owner
under had
no not an
(a) innocent
The appeal purchaseris not for value.
meritorious. The trial
apparent
A. Three
patent that there
to years later,was A sold badthe faith on the part
homestead to
brought
obligation any
from a fraudulentlyto action
look beyond against theBcertificate
especiallyand if the court
of Rod
B. A died ruled
from correctly
the
in 1990, veryand in
hisgranting
beginning. heirs filed As defendant's
such,
an action he is
latter
investigate had the
procured improved
ormortgagor's the land.
improvidently title,
issued It would
this rule does
second be motion
owner's
b) to dismiss
Discuss
not recover
to entitled the
to the
the for
rights the
homestead following
of Don,
protection from ofreasons:
ifB any,
the onLand over
the
detrimental
not findreal
the
copy, to B if in
application
owner's the
copy theplaintiff
case at
being is
still allowed
hand
intact and to in the
1.
the While
property.
Registration
ground that there
Act.(2%)
its is
sale the by possibility
their father thatto F,thea
Innocent
recover.
because Purchaser
here. fortrue
Catalino's Value
title suffers from two former
possession
(2001)
of the owner, latter islessee
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
void of the land
under Section was118 aware of theof the fact
Public
fatalBruce.
infirmities, namely: a) The fact that it that C was the bona fide
Land Law. B contends, however, that the heirs
Page 71 of 119
emanated from a forged deed of a of A cannot recover the
prescription
property based and onlaches.
the factMore that the than sale 52included
years have
the
(a)
his The
obligation.
mortgage However,
contract theexecuted
action was by O, brought
if at all, is
half
elapsed
one- pro-indiviso
already from hershare. discovery Pacifico of had the asale notice in of indicates
ten-year
voidable
within
only a the prescriptive
contract
on its face sinceinperiod
quest
it involves
provided
for any a conjugal
hidden
by law
lis pendensANSWER:
1950.
ALTERNATIVE annotated on the title covering the defect
wherein
partnershiporactions
inchoate
property.
basedright Theonwhich
written
action may tocontracts
annul the
B. Winda’s
property and orderedclaim that her Torrens
the cancellation of the Title subsequently
can beinstituted
same instituted. defeat
in a)1977,
his
Willright
orthe eleven
defense
thereto. years This after
is
covering
notice of lis the pendens.property The noticeis indefeasible
of lis pendens and the
prosper?
execution
"mirror Reason. of the
principle' (3%) sheriff's
b)
of What
thefinal aresale,
Torrens thesystem
has
imprescriptible
could not be cancelled [does immediately
not hold water] because is not SUGGESTED
essential
obviously
which makes ANSWER:
elements
prescribed
it possible of because:
laches? (2%)
for a forged 1) An action deed toto
tenable.
the title over The the rule of indefeasibility
property was with a bankof to a No,
annul the
must a defense
be
contract
be the root of brought will
a goodon the not
within prosper.
ground
title. fourof(4) The problem
years
fraud from
Torrens
which theTitle property means hadthat been after one year
mortgaged did
byfrom Besides, not
the dategive facts
it appears
of discoveryfrom which
that spouses laches
of theX and fraud. may
Y are be
Since
the
Bart.date of issue
Pacifico appealedof thethe decree
case. of While registration
the inferred.
guilty
thisof is Mere
contributory
in essence delay in
negligence filing
an action when an
to theyaction,
recover
or if the
appeal waslandpendinghas fallenand with intothe thenotice
handsofof lisan standing
delivered
ownership,
SUGGESTED
alone,
this
ANSWER:
OCT itdoes
to
must the not constitute
mortgagee
be reckoned without
fromlaches the
innocent purchaser for
pendens still uncancelled, Bart sold the value, the title becomes (Agra v.
annotating
date PNB.
of the 309 SCRA
mortgage
execution of 509).
thereon.
the contract Between or from
IMPRESCRIPTIBILITY,
incontestable and incontrovertible. on the other hand, b) them
The four basic elements of laches are; (1)
theand the innocent
property to Carlos, who immediately caused
means that no title to the land in derogation of conduct
ALTERNATIVE
registration
on the
ANSWER: part of of purchaser
the defendant
the alleged for fraudulent
value,
or of one
the cancellation of the notice of lis pendens, as they
under should
document
whom bear
with the the
he claims, loss.assessor's
giving office
riseA's for
to thethe
that of the registered owner may be acquired If the buyer
purpose B,
of who relied
transferring on thethe teller
tax declaration,
well as the issuance of a new title in his name. situation
title, was of
not which
aware complainant
of the adverse seeks a remedy;
possession
by adverse possession or acquisitive this being unregistered land, (Bael u.
Is Carlos (a) a purchaser in good faith, or (b) a (2)
of Ifdelay
2) the the
land inby
action asserting
theis to bethe
spouses complainant's
treated andas
XCourt Y, an
then actionrights,
the to
prescription
SUGGESTED ANSWER: or that the registered owner does Intermediate Appellate G. R. L-74423
transferee
A. Carlos ispendente
a buyer in lite?
bad Iffaith.
your The answer notice is (a), the complainant favorhaving hadit knowledge or
not lose by extinctive prescription his rightofto B. B has
recover
latter in
cannot
Jan.30,
hisrecover
ownership
1989 169 SCRA
thethepresumption
of land,
property
617).
would
from of good have
how can
lis pendens the right
was stilland of Pacifico
annotated as co-owner
at the back beof notice
faith of
which can
prescribed the defendant's
just onlythe be same conduct
overthrown
because by and
more thanhaving
recover ownership possession of the land.
protected?
The
the action
title Explain.
in this
at the timecase (5%)
he is for annulment
bought the land from of the been
adequate
10 years afforded
proofan
have opportunity
of bad
already faith.
elapsed tosince
However, institute
nobody
the suit;
date
sale
Bart.executed
The uncancelled by the husband notice of over a conjugal SECOND
lis pendens (3)
buys
of the lack of
ALTERNATIVE
land knowledge
without
execution ofANSWER:
seeing
the sale. on property,
the the parthence, of the
partnership
operates as constructiveproperty covered notice ofby its a Torrens (a)
contents The action
defendant
B could notthathave to the
recover
been has been
complainant
unaware barred assert
of would
such by
as wellAction
Title. as interests, on contracts
legal or equitable, are subject to the acquisitive
adverse prescription
rightpossession.
on which If heafter in
basesfavor of M
his suit;
learning and (4)
of such
prescription.
included therein. All persons are charged with considering
injury
possession, Bthat
or prejudice simplyM has topossessed
closed thehis defendant
eyes theand land in the
did
Prescription
under & Laches;
a about
claim Indefeasibility forRule of(10)
Torrens Title
Prescription
the knowledge of what it contains. In an event
nothing relief is of
it, ownership
accorded
then thetosuit the ten
forcomplainant, years or
(2002)
(1990)
In 1960,
earlier case,an itunregistered
was held thatparcel a notice of of landan was with the a just
suit
reconveyance title.
is not held to be barred.
will prosper as the buyer's bad
mortgaged
SUGGESTED by remains
ANSWER: owner O effectiveto M, a family friend, as (b) Way If back
Notice M had
of Lis insecured
Pendens 1948, aWinda’s Torrens husband Title to the sold in
adverse claim and binding faith will have become evident.
(b) Even iffor
collateral theagovernment
loan. O ofacted joins C, thisfrom favor
Rommel was issued a certificate of title over a a
land,
his (1995)
will of
all Verde
the more Sports
S and Center
P could Corp.
not (Verde)
recover
notwithstanding the lapse the 30through
days
Carlos
not alteris athe
attorney-in-fact, transferee
outcomeson pendente
of
S, the who lite
case insofar
wasso is muchas
duly 10-hectare
because
parcel ofifland property
at allin their
Quezon belonging
remedies
City. One to
wouldtheir
yearbe: conjugal
later
its inscription in the registry. This ruling
Sancho’s
because
authorized share
of estoppel
by in the
way as co-ownership
of an a express
special in the
provision
power land in
of partnership.
Rachelle, the The
legitimate sale ownerwas ofmade
the land,without
even more applicable in a lis pendens.
is
Sec concerned
45 of Act because
496 and the
Sec land31 was
of PD transferred
1529 that
attorney, wherein O declared that he was the discovered the fraudulent registration obtained Winda’s knowledge, much less consent. In
to
a him
decree during
of the pendency
registration
absolute owner of the land, that the tax and of the
the appeal.
certificate of 1950,
by Winda
Rommel. She learned
filed a of the
complaint sale,againstwhen she
B.
titlePacifico
issuedcan
declarations/receipts inprotect
pursuance his right
were all as
thereof a co-owner
issued “shall in be his discovered the deed ofandsale
Rommel for reconveyance caused amongthe the
by pursuing
conclusive
name, and uponhis thatappeal;he asking
and against
has been theall Court in open, documents
of
persons, annotation ofina notice her husband’sof lis pendens vaultonafter the his
As O was
Appeals
including
continuous unable
to the
order the
andnational tore-annotation
adverse paygovernment
back
possession theof loan
the inlisplus
and all
the demise.
certificateSoon of titleafter,issuedshe noticed Rommel
to Rommel. that the
interest
pendens
branches
concept of for
on the title
the
thereof,
owner. past offive
whether Carlos; [5) years,
and byM
mentioned byhad
invoking
name to construction
now invokes the of the sports complex
indefeasibility of his had started.
title
Mirror
foreclose
his rightPrinciple;
of the Forgery;
mortgage.
redemption
in the application or not.” Innocent
of At
Bart’s Purchaser
theshare foreclosure
under Upon completion
considering that oneof the construction
yearagainsthas already in
elapsed 1952,
(1999)
The
sale, spouses
ALTERNATIVE
Articles M was 1620 ANSWER:
the X the
of and
highest
NewY mortgaged
bidder.
Civil Code. Upon a piece
issuance of Winda
she triednowbut files a suit
failed to get free Verde for the
membership
from its issuance.
annulment the He salealso on seeks the
A.
of Carlos
registered is land
the sheriff’s a purchaserto final in deed
A, delivering good faith. ofas sale Awell and the privileges
cancellation inofof
Verde.
the notice of
the ground
Lis pendens.
that she
May
possessor
OCT in good
to the inlatter,
registration faith
January, has
but 1966, been
they the defined
continued as
mortgage to did not
SUGGESTED consent
ANSWER: to the sale. In answer, Verde
the court
A Notice that,
contends cancel the
of LisinPendens notice
accordance of lis
maywith pendens
be canceled
the Spanish even
“one
possess
property whoand is
was unawareturnedthat
cultivate thethere
over land,
to M's exists
giving a flaw
1/2 of
possession
which invalidates before
even Code
Civil final
beforewhich judgment
final Judgment is
was then in rendered?
upon force, Explain.
proper the sale in
each harvest
and control M Ahis
to has acquisition
insince
partial then paymentof the thing”
developed of their the
(Art.
In
loan 526,
1977,
to NCC).
the after Good
latter, the
A,
said property. In 1967, O died, survived byfaith tenthconsists
however, (10th) in
without the death
the showing
1948 of thatthe the notice
property is for
did the not purpose
need ofher
possessor’s
anniversary
knowledge
sons S and P. belief
of
of X his
andthat
father
Y, the O.
forged person
son a P from
filed
deed of whom
a suit
sale to
of molesting
concurrence. or harassing
Verde the
contends adverse
that party
in anyor case
he
annul
the received theland
the mortgage
aforesaid thingin was
deed favor the
andof owner
subsequent
himself, of the got sale a that the
the actionnotice hasof prescribed
lis pendens is or not is necessary
barred by
same and A.
P
to.D.Define
laches.No. Winda
protect 1529)or explain
the right
rejoins of thethethat term
party herwho “laches”.
causedtitle
Torrens it
of the
TCT in hiscould
property,
name, convey
etc.,
and on histhe
then title.
sold In
groundthe the case
of
land to[at
fraud. B,
bar], in
He asserted question, while Carlos bought the B.
(2%)
to Decide
be
covering the
registered.
the case,
(Section
property stating 77,
is your reasons
indefeasible, for
and
who bought that the land the property
relying on in A's
questiontitle, and was
subject property from Bart while your
In this decision.
case, it (3%)
imprescriptible. is given that Rachelle is the
conjugal
who in nature
thereafter also actually
got a TCT ina his
belonging, notice at
name. of the
lis
It SUGGESTED ANSWER:
pendens
time of was
the still
mortgage,annotated to O thereon,
and his there
wife, wasW, legitimate owner of the land in question. It can
was only then that the spouses X and Y A. LACHES meansthat failure
(a) Isan
SUGGESTED
also
whose the suit
ANSWER:
existing
conjugal filed
courtby
share P
order
wentbarred by titled
canceling
to their sons the(S and be said, therefore, whenor she neglect,
filed herfor an
learned that their land had been in B's unreasonable
The action Explain
prescription?
same.
P) andHence,
to O. said
of X cannot
Carlos and
your answer.Ybeagainst
considered B as for notice of lis pendens her purpose was toof time,
and unexplained length
name.
reconveyance May spouses
ofa flaw
the of land file
will an action
notfinal prosper for to do what, by exercising due and diligence, could
(b) After
being the issuance
“aware ofof the sheriff's
which invalidates [their] protect her interest in the land not just to
reconveyance
because B has the
acquired land a in question
clean title against
to the or should have been done earlier. It is
deed
the of sale
acquisition in 1966 in this case, assuming molest Rommel. It is necessary to record the
b? Reason. (5%)of an the thing” since the alleged negligence
property
that M
flaw, being
theapplied
notice for innocent was
registration
of lis pendens, purchaser
under the
already for Lis pendensor toomission
protect her to assert
interesta because right within if
A forged
value.
Torrens deed
System is an
and absolute
was issued nullity
a and
Torrens Title a
shereasonable
did not do time.
it, there (De is Vera
a v.
possibilityCA, 305
that SCRA
the
being
B. orderedhis
To protect cancelled
right over at thethethe time
subject of the B. While Article 1413 of the Spanish Civil Code
624
conveys
to the
purchase.
no property
said On
title. The
this in
ground
fact that
question,
alone,
forged
would
Carlos that
can
deed land[1999])
will fall into the hands of an innocent
property,
was Pacifico
registered
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and should have timely
asignificant
certificate of title filed
was an did not require the consent of the wife for the
added
already fact have
bereconveyance
considered any a buyer effect
in good on your
faith. purchaser for value and in that event, the
action
Under
issued
(a) for
in Art.
hisState 173 your
name, ofdidthe and
Civil
not reinstated
Code,
operate the
to the
action
vest validity of the sale, an alienation by the
conclusion?
(Po Lam v. Court of Appeals,reason. 347 SCRA 86, court loses control over the land making any
notice
is
uponbarredanofownership
lis
by pendens.
prescription over the becauseproperty the of wife X andhad husband in fraud of the wife is void as held in
[2000]). favorable judgment thereon moot and
Prescription
only ten &
(10) Laches;
years Elements
from
Y. The registration of the forged deed will notthe of Laches
transaction and Uy Coque
Notice v. Navas,
of Lis Pendens; Transferee 45 Pendente
Phil. 430 Lite (1923).
academic. For these reasons, the notice of lis
(2000)
In an
during action
the brought
marriage to
to collect
file
cure the infirmity. However, once the title to a suita sum
for of
the money Assuming
(2002)
Sancho and that the
Pacifico alienation
are co-owners in 1948
of was in
a parcel
pendens may not be canceled.
based
annulment on a surety
of the agreement,
mortgage
the land is registered in the name of the forger deed.the defense
Alternative of fraud
of land. of Winda
Sancho and,
sold therefore,
the property makes
to Bart.the sale
laches was
to (a)raised
first as the
Alternative
and title to the land thereafter falls into the
Answers claim was
Answer: filed more to Verde
Pacifico void,
sued the
Sancho action
and to
Bart set for aside the
annulment sale,
than seven
hands of anyearsinnocent frompurchaser
the maturity of
for value, the nonetheless,
of the sale and is reconveyance
already barredofby the
latter acquires a clean title thereto. A buyer of
a registered land is not
CIVILCIVIL
LAWLAW
Answers
Answers
to thetoBAR
the BAR
as Arranged
as Arranged
by Topics
by Topics
(Year(Year
1990-2006)
1990-2006)
1)
Decide
alienation. The on The Register
these contractclaims,
of Deedsin question
givingshall your notify
merelythe callsanswer
The
for right orto showrecover up on possession
the date of ofinitial
registered hearing, landdoes
reclamation
reasons. ANSWER:
the
interested
SUGGESTED of 300
party inhectares
writing, ofsetting land within forth the does
the guarantee
not
likewise nottheprescribe
success of the because
application.possession
It is still incumbentis just
upon
At this point
coastal
defects waters
of the in instrument
time,
of theX city. cannot Perthe
or claim
se,legalitthedoes rightnotof the
ground a applicant to prove with well nigh incontrovertible evidence that
necessary incident of ownership.
he has acquired a title to the land that is fit for registration. Absent
vested ownership
vest, alienate
relied upon forordenying over the
transferthe Pangasinan
ownership
registration, parcel
of land by
and such registrable title, it is the clear duty of the Land Registration
acquisitive
under thethat
advising prescription.
sea. if The
he is citynot Inagreeable
merely addition
engaged totosuch
thethe SUGGESTED
Court to dismiss ANSWER:
the application and declare the land as public
requisites
services he
ruling, common
of Fil-Estate
may, without to
to reclaim ordinary
the land for
withdrawing and
the b)
land. Mikaelo's defense of laches, however,
extraordinary
the city. acquisitive
documents from the Registry, elevate the prescription appears to be more sustainable. Renren
Registration;
consisting
matter Deed
of
by Consulta of toMortgage
uninterrupted, peaceful, public,
the Administrator of the bought the land and had the sale registered
(1994)
2)
How do
adverse
Land Within
you actual
and
Registration fiveAuthority
register {5) now days
possession a deed from
(LRA).in the conceptofof way
of receipt
mortgage back in 1965.
An application for land From the facts,isitaappears
registration
notice
of a parcel
owner, of denial,
ordinary of land the party-in-interest
originally
acquisitive registered
prescription shall forfile
under that it was
ten proceeding in rem. Its main only in 1998objective or afteris to an
his
the Consulta
Spanish
SUGGESTED with
Mortgage
ANSWER: the
Law?
(10) years requires (1) possession in good faith Register of Deeds inexplicable
establish the delay
status of of 33 the years
res that
whether he took the
it is still
a)
3) After
(2)After
concerned
and the
just andtitle.Spanish
receipt
pay the
"Just of Mortgage
the means
consulta
title" Consulta
fee. Law that was
and first step
the part of our asserting
public domain his right as to the land.under
presumed It was
abrogated
payment claimant
adverse ofby theP.D. 892 oninto
corresponding
came February fee the
possession 16, 1976,
Register
of the the not Regalian
even an doctrine action toorrecover has acquired ownership the but
all lands through
of Deeds
property covered
makes an byannotation
one Spanish
of the modes titles
of the that were
pending
recognized only possession
character of a private of property.
the land.It is Bytheordinary
duty of
not
by brought
consulta
law forat thetheunderbackthe of the
acquisition Torrens
certificate
of system
ownership of within
title.
but the the standards,
applicant 33toyears overcome of neglect or inaction is
that presumption
six
4) 16]The
grantor months
was Register
not the from ofthe
owner Deedsdate
or could thereof
then notelevates have
transmit Remedies;
too long
with Judicial
and maybe
sufficient Reconstitution
evidence. considered of Title unreasonable.
been
the considered
case to the asLRA "unregistered
Administrator
any right (Art. 1129. Civil Code). In this case, As often held by the Supreme private
with (1996)
In 1989, the heirs of Gavino, who died on the
Court,
Thus,
lands."
certified a records
deed of thereofmortgageand a affectingof land
summary the August 10, 1987, filed a petition for
there is no "just title" and no "mode" that can principle of imprescriptibility sometimes has
originally
5) The registered
LRA Administrator under then the conducts Spanish Mikaelo's claim of laches, however, Torrens is weak
factsinvoked
be and issues by involved.
X for the acquisition of the reconstitution
to yield to the of equitable
his lost or principle
destroyed of laches
Mortgage
hearings after Law is now
due notice governed by the system insofar as the element of equity is concerned,
Pangasinan parcel. There or was may nojust require
constructive Title
whichto can a parcel convert of land evenin Ermita,
a registered Manila. This land
of registration
parties to submit oftheir
transactions
memoranda. or instruments there was
owner's
being no
opposedclaim byinto
showingwho
Marilou
a stale
in the
demand. claimed facts how he
delivery
Primary Entryof Book;the Acquisitive
Pangasinan parcelLaches
Prescription; because it
affecting
6) Afterunregistered
hearing, the land Section(1998)
underAdministrator
LRA 194 entered into the ownership and possession of
was not the subject-matter of the deed of sale. ownership of the said land by a series of sales.
of
issues thean Revised order prescribing Administrative the step Code to be as the She land.
claimed that Gavino had sold the property
Hence,
In 1965, B retainsbought ownership of the a Pangasinan of Reclamation of Foreshore Lands; Limitations
amended
taken orRenren
by
theAct No. 3344.
memorandum from UnderRobyn
to bethis parcel
made.law, His the to Bernardo way back in 1941 and as evidence
parcel
registered of land.
land evidenced by a duly executed (2000)
Republic Act 1899 authorizes municipalities
instrument
resolution in consulta or transaction
shall be conclusive affecting and thereof, she presented a Tax Declaration in
deed of
unregistered sale.
binding upon land The owner presented
is entered
all Registers of Deeds the deed
in a unless of and chartered
book 1948 in the name of Bernardo, cities to reclaim foreshore lands
which cancelled
sale
provided
reversedand the owner's
for appeal
on the purpose bycertificate
the butCourt the of title
ofregistration
Appeals to the or bordering them and to construct thereon
the previous Tax Declaration in the name of
b)
by By
Register
thereof the recording
is
Supreme purely and
of Deeds. The registering
entry
voluntary
Court. was
(Section andmade with
doesin the
117, .D. adequate
Pthe
not docking and harbor facilities.
Gavino. Then she presented two deeds of sale
Register
daybook
•adversely
1529). The of
and Deeds
procedure of
corresponding the
of place
consultafees
affect third persons who have a duly wherewere
is a the
modepaid land
ofas Pursuant thereto, the City of Cavite entered
registered with thethe Register ofofDeeds, the
is located,
evidenced
appeal
better fromby
right. in official
denial accordance
by the receipt.
RegisterwithHowever,ofActDeeds 3344. nothe1.
of intoA Petition
first
an agreement
one
to Review
executed by
with the
Bernardo
Decree Fil-Estate
in 1954
Realty
selling
However,
transfer
registration ofP.D. 892
certificate
of required
the instrument holders
of title to wastheof Spanish
issued
Commissioner to Registration.
Company, authorizing
the samefrom-the
This can be
propertyentry
theavailed
to Carlos,
latter to
andbut
of within
reclaim
theonlysecond
one
300
title
Renren to bring the same under the
the original certificate of title hectares Torrens (1) year thereof,
of land from the sea bordering the upon
of Land because
Registration. one executed by Carlos in 1963, selling
Remedies;
System
in Judicial
within Confirmation;
6 months Imperfect
fromreceiptits effectivity Title on the
city,basis
with of 30% "actual
of thefraud."land toThere is no theto be
be reclaimed
• Robyn's Within namefive was from
days temporarily misplaced
of the notice of same property to her. She also claimed
(1993)
On June
February
after fire30,
16, 1986,
1976.Agutted
partly filed in the
the RTC Office of Abraof the an showing
SUGGESTED
owned by ANSWER:that M committed
Fil-Estate as compensation actual fraudthat in
for its
denial, the interested party may elevate the matter 2. IAn
she andaction
her in personam
predecessors against
in interest M for
havethe been
application
Register of for
Deeds. registration
Meanwhile, of titlethe to a
land parcel
had securing
If were
services. his
the
The title
judge, to
Solicitor Ithe
will land;
give
General or
due course
questioned to the
by consulta to the Commissioner of Land reconveyance
in possession of
of the
the titleofinGavino
property their
since favor.
1948. Again,
Ifthe
you
P
of.
beenD.
land No.under
possessed1529, claiming
by Robyn's that since
distant Junecousin,12, the petition
validity of theof the heirs
agreement on the despite
ground that it
Registration who shall enter an order prescribing this wereremedy
1945,
Mikaelo, heopenly,has adversely
been in and open, continuous,
continuously in opposition
will
the judge,
mean ofisMarilou
available
reclaiming
how will forwithin
land
you
theunder
four years
decide
followingthe
the from
sea which
the step to be taken or memorandum to be made. petition? the date of the discovery of the fraud
exclusive
the conceptin and
ofconsulta
owner notorious
since possession onlyand in reasons:
is beyond
Explain.
a) Judicial
the commerce reconstitution of man. of abut not
The City
Resolution shall 1960.
be binding It wasupon all later than ten
No. 26 partakes (10) years
of a land from the date of
occupation ofthat said parcel
Renrenof that land of the public certificateSUGGESTED ANSWER:
of title
this under RA. registration
April
Registers
SUGGESTED
1998 of Deeds provided
ANSWER:
sued the party in to replies
Mikaelo Theproceeding that
Solicitor
registration ofGeneral
the
is authorized
andtitle isincorrect.
is perforce the name
by RA.
The of authority
a proceeding M.
1899
in
domain
recover which
possession. was alienable
Mikaelo and disposable,
invoked a) because it authorizes the construction of docks
interest
a) Renren'smay appeal
action toto the Court
recover of Appeals
possession within
of Prescription;
of the
rem. City
It of Real
Cavite
denotes Rights
under
restoration RA 1899
of an to reclaim
existing
under
acquisitive a bona fide claim
prescription and of b) ownership.
laches, After and harbors. Who is correct? (3%)
asking
the period prescribed (Sec. 117, P.D.buying
1529). (1992)
land will
issuance
that he be of prosper.
the
declared notice In
owner
1965,
of initial
of
after
the hearing
land. Decide and A
the owned
land instrument a parcel
is limited which of unregistered
to foreshore has been lands.lostland or located
The Act did
land from
publication, Robyn,
as required he submitted
bydefenses, the
law, the [5%] Deed
petition of on
not the Tarlac
authorize
destroyed it
in sideto
its of
reclaim
originalthe boundary
land
form from
and between
the sea.
the case by evaluating these Tarlac and Pangasinan. His
Sale
was heard to the onRegistry
July 29,of1987. Deeds On forthe registration
day of the "The reclamation
condition. The being purpose of brother
unauthorized,
reconstitution Bthe owned City
of
together
hearing nobody with thebut owner's duplicateappeared.
the applicant copy of theCavite
of adjoining
title ordidanynot parcel acquire
document of unregistered
is ownership
to have theover land
samethe on
the title, and paid
Neither was there anyone who opposed the ALTERNATIVEthe corresponding the
b) Pangasinan
reclaimed If theland.Court side.
Not goesbeing
reproduced, after proceedings. In the same beyondthe that
owner, purpose,
it could
registration A sold
it acts theconveyed
without Tarlac
ANSWER: or in parcel
excess to ofX in athereof
deed of sale
jurisdiction.
application. fees. Under Section
Thereupon, on motion 56 of PD of No.the not It
have
form
depends.
executed
they
as If a
were
thepublic
any portion
when
reclamation the loss
instrument of or landto
the
by A and from
the
X.
1529, the Deed of Sale
applicant, the RTC issued an order of general After to Renren is Thus,
contractor.where
destruction the Torrens
occurred. Title sought to be
the sea is necessary in
reconstituted is in the name of Gavino, the X
X paid in full the, the construction
price of the of
sale, the
considered
default and registered
allowed the from
applicant the time to presentthe sale his
For all legal intents and purposes, Renren is docks
took and the harbors, the City of parcel
Cavite is
was
evidence.entered That in he thedid.Day OnBookSeptember (now called 30, the
1989, court possession
cannot receive of the evidence Pangasinan proving that in
considered
The appellant the registered
urged that the owner
RTC of
erred the in land. correct.
the belief Otherwise,
that it was it
the is not.
Tarlac Since
parcel RA 1899
covered
Primary
the Entry Book).A's application for lack of Marilou is the owner of the land. Marilou's
AfterRTC
dismissing all, itdismissed
wasapplication
his not his fault forthat the Registry
registration andof authorized
by the deed
dominical the
of sale
claim city
to toland
executed
the constructby A and
should docks
be X. and
sufficient
Deeds evidence.
could registration A
not issue ofappealed to the
thehiscorresponding Court of After
harbors, twelve
all (12)
works years,
that are a controversy
necessary for arose
such
in not ordering title to the ventilated in a separate civil action before the
Appeals.
transfer between
construction B and X are
on the deemed
issue of the authorized.
ownership
parcel ofcertificate
land in question of title.despite the fact that REFERENCES: Heirs
Regional Trial Court in its capacity as a court of Pedro Pinate vs. Dulay.
Mikaelo's
there was no defense
opposition of prescription
filed by anybody can not be
to his of the 187
Including Pangasinan 12-20parcel,
the reclamation
SCRA (1990); Bunagan Bof claimsland a vested
from
vs. CF1 Cebu the
of general Branch jurisdiction.
VI. 97 SCRA 72 (1980); Republic vs. IAC.
sustained. A Torrens
application. Did the RTC commit the error title is imprescriptible. right
sea. The
of ownership
reclamation over being
the Pangasinan
authorized, parcel
the
ANOTHER157
No title toANSWER:
SUGGESTED
attributed registered
to it? land in derogation of the because
city is the BSCRA
ALTERNATIVE
never
owner 62,66
sold
of (1988); Margolles vs. CA, 230
ANSWER:
thethat parcel148
reclaimed to SCRA
land X and
or to it
No, the RTC did not commit the error attributed to it. In an On the SCRA assumption
709; Republic us, thatFeliciano,the reclamation
title of the registered owner shall be acquired anyone
may
Remedies;convey
else.
924. a
Procedure; portionConsulta thereof as payment for
application
.D. No, for Judicial confirmation of imperfect or incomplete title contract
On was entered X into before RA 1899 was
P
by
to publicprescription
agricultural land under orSectionadverse
48 of the Public possession.
Land Act, the the
(1994)
What is other
servicesthe ofhand,
the contractor.
procedure claims
ofthe consulta a vested when right
an ofis
1529) repealed
ownership by over PD 3-A,
the Pangasinan parcel byCity of Cavite
(Section 47, instrument is denied
the lack of opposition
those who did not
and the consequent order of default against
correct.
acquisitive Lands underregistration?
prescription, thebecause
sea are X"beyond possessed the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
commerce of man" in the
this parcel for over ten (10] years under claim sense that they are
not susceptible of private appropriation,
of ownership.
ownership or
Yes. The property
purchaser {Rublicoregistered is deemed
vs. Orellana 30 SCRAto be Ubudan
511; held(a)
This
inAnaction
action
Administrative does
forCode
reconveyance
not prescribe.
of 1987 which against
Withprohibits
respect
Huey to is
officers
for the real
trust
vs. SCRA
45 Gil owner by the person in whose
17). employees
not
Percival's
and the
action of the government
forproper remedy,
reconveyance, itfrom purchasing
because
would directlyisoran
haveHuey
prescribed, indirectly
OPTIONAL
name it isEXTENDED
registered. ANSWER: The Torrens system was any property
innocent
having been sold
purchaser
filedby themore government tenfor
for value.
than nonpayment
(10) Theyears proper of any tax,
after
Petition for
not designed to shield review of the oneDecree
who had of committed fee or other public
recourse
registration isandfor charge.
Louie to
issuance of go after in
an O.C.T. Dewey
the name for of
Registration.
fraud A remedy expressly
or misrepresentation and thus provided
holds the in (a) Is the
Melvin,
damages were sale
by to for
itreason
not Juan of valid?
the inherent
the If infirmity
so, whatofisthe
fraudulent the
Section 32 of P . D. No. 1529
title in bad faith. (Walstrom v. Mapa Jr., (G .R (formerly Section effect
latter's of the
title. UnderIssuance the of
facts,
registration and subsequent sale of the land. the
the Certificate
statute of of Title
limitations If
38. Act 29
38387, 496), Jan.this 1990) remedy as cited has in the followingD.,
Martinez, (b)
to
will If
Maria?the sale is void,
Dewey is insolvent, Louie may file a claim a
not apply to Percival may
because Juan Melvinrecoverknew the
that
elements: of
Summary a) SCTheDecisions,
petition must January be filedto June, by a Eduarte
P10,000.00?
part
againstof the v.land
the CA, 323
Assurancenot,Phil.
Ifcovered whybyFund462,
not?
his title 467actually
(Heirs of belonged
Pedro to
dominical
Remedies;
person claiming or otherPrescriptive
Reconveyance; real rights to the land
Period [1996]).
(c) If the
Percival. sale is void, did it not nevertheless,
1990, p. 359], Lopez v.So,
De instead
Castro of324nullifying
SCRA in591
toto the titleciting
[2000] of
(1997)
On 10 registered
September in the 1965, name Melvinof respondent.
applied for a (b) Yes,the
operate
Melvin, the
tocourt, remedy
divert thewill
in Maria prosper
of
exercise her because
of ownership?
equity and the If it
Sps.
b)
free patent The registration
covering twooflots the- landLot Ainand the Lot name B action
did, who
jurisdiction,prescribes
thenmay is inprayer
the
grant ten (10)
owner for years,
ofthe not within
thereconveyance
property? of
of respondent
- situated was procured
in Santiago, Isabela. byUponmeans of oneB(1)
Lot year when
to Percival who has a petition
actually for the reopening
possessed the land
actual,
certification(not just by the constructive)
Public Land fraud,
Inspector whichthat of thearegistration
under claim of ownership decree sincemay 1947.be After
filed.all, The if
must
Melvin had been in actual, continuous,the
be extrinsic. Fraud is actual if open, action for
Melvin's titlereconveyance
is declared voidis abdistinct
initio and from
the landthe is
registration
notorious, exclusive was made and through
adverse deceit
possession or anyof petitionto
reverted tothe reopen
public the domain, decree Percivalof registration
would just the
other
the lots intentional
since 1925, actthe of downright
Director ofdishonesty Land to same
(GreybeAlba entitled v. De la Cruz, 17
to preference Phil.
right 49 [1910}).
to acquire the land
enrich
approved oneself
Melvin's at the expense of
application onanother.
04 JuneIt is There
from theisgovernment.
no need toBesides, reopenwell thesettled
registration
is the rule
extrinsic
1967. On when 26 December it is something 1967, Original that was not proceedings,
that once publicbut landthe has property
been in open, should just be
continuous,
c)
On
raised,
Certificate The
7 September
litigatedpetition
of Title 1971,
and must
passed
(OCT) be
Percival
No.uponfiled filed
P-2277 within
in the awas one
protest
main The action
reconveyed
exclusive andfor toreconveyance
the real
notorious owner.
possession is based
under aon implied
bonafide
(1) year
alleging
proceedings. from
that the
Lot
issued in the name of Melvln. Bdate which of the
he issuance
had been of the claim of acquisition of ownership for the periodten (10)
or constructive trust, which prescribes in
d)
decree.
occupying Titleand to the land hassince
cultivating not passed1947 was to an years frombythe
prescribed date 48
Section of ofissuance
the Public of the
Landoriginal
Act, the
Innocent
included in purchaser
the Freefor Patentvalue (Libudan
issued in the vs.nameGil, certificate
same ipso jure of title.
ceasesThis to be rule
publicassumes that the
and in contemplation
45_ SCRA 27,
of Melvin. The1972),Director Rublico
of Lands vs. Orrelana.
ordered the 30 defendant
of law acquired is inthe possession
character of the land.
of private land. Where
Thus, it is
SCRA 511, 1969); RP vs.
investigation of Percival's protest. The Special CA, 57 G. R No. the plaintiff who is in possession
reconveyance of the land from Melvin to Percival would of the land, the
40402. March 16, 1987).
Investigator who conducted the investigation action
ALTERNATIVE for reconveyance
ANSWER: would
be the better procedure, (Vitale vs. Anore, 90 Phil. 855; be in the nature of
Torrens System vs. Recording
found that Percival had been in actual of Evidence of Title The
a
v. suit action
Malay, for of
quieting
318 the
SCRA Solicitor
for 711the General
title which should
action is
Pena, Land Titles and Deeds, 1982, Page 427)
(1994)
Distinguish
On 28 November
cultivation ofthe Lot Torrens
B1986,sincethe system
1947. of land
Solicitor General prosper,
imprescriptible
[1999]). considering (Davidthat the doctrine of
registration
filed in behalf fromof the theRepublic
system ofofrecording the of Remedies; Reconveyance;
indefeasibility of title Elements
does not apply to free
evidence
SUGGESTED of title.
ANSWER:
Philippines a complaint for cancellation of the (1995)
Rommel
patent was
secured issued
through a certificate of title overofa
fraud. A certificate
a)
freeThe TORRENS
patent and the SYSTEMOCT issued OF LAND in the name of parcel
title of land
cannot bein Quezon
used as shieldCity. to One year later
perpetuate
REGISTRATION
Melvin and the reversion is a system of thefor the landregistration
to public Rachelle,
fraud. Thethe State legitimate
is not bound ownerbyofthe theperiod
land, of
of title to
domain onthe theland.ground Thus, under and
of fraud this system what prescription discovered the statedfraudulent
in Sec. registration
38 of Act 496. obtained
is entered in the Registry
misrepresentation in obtaining of Deeds, the free is a patent.
record of (Director
by Rommel. She filed
of Lands vs. a complaint
Abanilla, 124 against
SCRA 358)
the owner's The actionfor forreconveyance
reconveyance filed and by Percival themay
On the sameestate or interest
date, Percival sued in theMartin land, for unlike
the Rommel caused
the
Melvin system filed under
his the
answers Spanish
interposing Mortgage the Law
sole or still
annotation of a notice of lis pendens on not
prosper provided that the property has the
reconveyance of Lot B.
the
defensesystem in bothunder Section
cases that194 the of the Revised
Certificate of passed
certificate to anof innocent
title issued third to party for value
Rommel. (Dablo
Rommel
Administrative
Title issued in his Code name as amended
became by Act 3344 us. Court of Appeals. 226 SCRA 618), and provided
now invokes the indefeasibility of his title
where only the evidence
incontrovertible and indefeasible of such title upon recorded. that
is the the action is filed within the prescriptive period
considering that one year has already elapsed
In
lapsetheof latter
one system,
year from what the is recorded
issuance of is the the free of ten
deed from its years (Tale vs. Court of Appeals. 208 SCRA
issuance. He also seeks the
Given
of the circumstances,
conveyance
patent. from hencecan the the owner'saction of the
title 266).
SUGGESTEDSince ANSWER:
the action was filed by Percival 19 years
cancellation
Yes, Rachelle's of the notice of Lis pendens. Will
Solicitor Generalnot
emanated—and and thethe titlecase for
itself. after the issuancesuit will prosper
of Melvin's title, itbecause
is submitted all
b) Torrens system Rachelle's suit for reconveyance prosper?
reconveyance filedof bylandPercivalregistration
possiblyis that elements
that the same
Explain.
for is analready
actionbarred for reconveyance
by prescription. are
which
SUGGESTED
prosper? is prescribed
ANSWER: in Act 496 (now PD 1529), present,
ALTERNATIVE namely:
ANSWER (to a) Rachelle
second part is
of claiming
question) The
Remedies;
which
"If fraud beReconveyance
is either Judicialvs.
discovered or the
in Reopening
quasi-judicial.
application of a Decree; which actionland. b)
dominical forRommelrights over
reconveyance procured the
filedsamehisPercival
by title towill the land
Prescriptive
led
Systemto the Period
orissuance
recording (2003) ofof the evidence
patent and of title Certificate
is by fraud.
prosper, c) Thethe
because action
land was brought
has ceased to bewithin
public the
Louie,
Title,before
merely
of the leaving
thisregistration
Title becomes the country
of evidence
ipso facto toofnulltrainand as a land
statutory
and has period
become of private land by open,
chef Thus,
void. in a five-star
acquisitions inofaland casehotel with
where theinaNewRegister
person York, whoof U.S.A., continuous, four (4)public, years exclusive
from discovery possession of the under frauda and not
entrusted
Deeds, who
obtained to
a free his
annotates first-degree
patent,the cousin
same onmade
knowingly Dewey
the existing a false an bona than
later
fide ten
claim (10}of years
ownership from for the
more datethan of registration
thirty
application
statement
title, cancels offor the registration,
material old one andand essentialunderfacts
issues a thenewinLand title
his Rommel's
years, title. d)isTitle
of and Percival still into possession
the land has of thenot
Registration
Unregistered
based on Land
the Act,
document of a
application for the same, by stating therein parcel
presented of land for located in passed
property into
at the
present. hands
His of
actionan for reconveyance can
Bacolod
(1991)
Maria
that Enriquez
registration.
the lot City.
failed Ato year
in question pay thelater, realty
was taxes Louie
part onofher returned
the public to
unregistered innocent
(Olviga
be considered v. CA.purchaser
asGR actionfor
an1048013. value.
October
to quiet title,21,which does
the Philippines
agricultural
domain not located and
land occupied ordiscovered
in Magdugo, Toledo City.
claimed by thatIn 1989,
any Dewey
otherto 1993)
not prescribe if the plaintiff is in possession of the
registered
satisfy the taxes the
due, land
the City and
sold it obtained
at public auctionan toOriginal
Juan Remedies;
Rommel can
property. Reopening invoke of atheDecree; Elements
indefeasibility of his
person, his title becomes ipso facto canceled
Certificate
Miranda, an of
employee Title
at the over
Treasurer's the property
Office of said City,in his (1992)
What
title if are the essential
Rachelle had filed requisites
a petition orto elements
reopen or
and consequently rendered null and void." "It
Dewey’s
whose bid at name.
P10,000.00 Compounding
was the highest. In due the
time, a matter,
final bill for
reviewthe the allowance
decree of
of the reopeningBut
registration. or review
Rachelle of
is to the public interest that one who succeeds
Dewey
of sale was sold
executed the in hisland totitle
favor. Maria Huey,
refused anturn-over
to innocent a decreefiled
instead of registration?
an ordinary action in personam for
In
(a) fraudulently
Is theofaction acquiring
pursued by Louie to publictheshe landthe
proper SUGGESTED ANSWER:
purchaser
possession
should for
the
not be that value.
property
allowed to Louie
Juan alleging promptly
that
to benefit therefrom (1) filed
had an
been,
and reconveyance. In the latter action,
(b)
action
in theAssuming
remedy? for
meantime, reconveyance
granted areconveyance
free patentof the
and on is the
parcel
the basis proper
of land
thereof an The essential elements
indefeasibility is not a valid are: defense
(1) that the because, in
the State,
remedy, through
will the actionthe Solicitor
prosper General,
if the case maywas petitioner has a real or dominical right; (2)to
Original
against
file Certificate
Huey. of Title was issued to her, and (2) the sale in filing such action, Rachelle is not seeking
filedthe
Lands
favor
corresponding
ofbeyond
us. is
Juan Hon. one
void year,
Pedro
from the
action
but within
Samson
beginning
for annulment
inofAnimas,
view ten theyears,
ofland L-37682,
provision
of 3- that he has been deprived thereof through
in nullify nor to impugn the indefeasibility of
the
from patent
the and
entry the
of the reversion
decree of the
registration? fraud; (3) that
29-74.)
the
involved
SUGGESTED toANSWER:
the public domain" (Dinero us. Rommel's title.the Shepetition
is only is filed within
asking the court oneto
5% (1) year
ALTERNATIVE from ANSWER:the issuance
compel Rommel to reconvey the title to her of the decree; and as
Director of Lands; Kayaban vs. Republic L- (4) that the property has not yet been
33307,8-20-73; Director of the legitimate owner of the land.
transferred to an innocent
not depend
then
constitutes
Salvador executed consigned
an
solely
an
undue affidavit
on the interference
theP will of
100,000.00
desistance
of the with debtor
inwhich
thecourt,
but
right
led
also
any
property
condition
and
of
to payment of
ofZY, Eva
at his
all.
passing
wife
Printadomaythe alsohas
1998also sue
Barto aExaminations.
standing
recover it
withdrawal
to
action
other
the enter
Roland
filed
on an factors
forinto rescission
ofoutside
contracts
the information
of
the the
and debtor’s
deed
the impairment
of
against
conditional Lolita
of Article
with
My publisher
answer
contract
under 2016 Publico
willof the for the
not Civil
beprinting
the Code same if she
of 10,000 toand
asvolumes the
of
damages. school
andfreedom
his
sale,
control.herplus release
damages.
to play from and Will
jail.enjoy The
the basketball.
action
parentsprosper? failed to family textbooks.
Marvinneeded Suplico
will bewas the aware
liable money of said
for printing
for
damages contract.
support. for breach After of
comply with
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: their promissory note and the ALTERNATIVE contract
printing 1,000ofvolumes, option.
ANSWER (2):With
Printado alsothefails topayment
perform under of itsthe
No,
(d)
Can The
the
Rolandobligation
action be will is
boundnot
valid. prosper.
by The thedeath
The of
contract
finance company sued them for specific printing contract with Publico. option action
the son
hefor A. (2).
consideration Mrs. ZY
for cannot
the Suplico file a Printado
given,
sues suitand to recover
forwith
the valuethe
rescission
of cancer
entered
SUGGESTED within
into may
ANSWER: withone be
performance. Will the action prosper or not? year
Ladybroughtis made
Love only
a ornegative
canby the
he what
consent
of the her
unpaid of husband
the
deliveries parties
under lost.
and
their Art
the
order 2014
object
agreement. of
of the
Atcontract
the Civil
same
The
(3%) actionthe
aggrieved
suspensive
disregard willsame?
party
condition prosper.
to the toIs his heThe
contract.
making promissory
liable Since
atthe all? itHownote
was (SanCode
being
time provides
Publicopresent,
sues Printado
Miguel, athat for any
perfected
Inc. v. loser
damages contract in aofG.R.
for breach
Huang, game
of option
contract of
No.
executed
Salvador
payment.
SUGGESTED
about Sweet by
Thewho
ANSWER: Lolita's
obligation
Taste? failed parents
Is it liableis
to demandable
comply is
to Lady withvalid if the
Love? andhis 137290,
chance
wasrespect
with created.may theirrecover
toJuly own
31,printing
2000) hisagreement.
loss
Under from thethe
InArticle winner,
suit filed
1170 by of
Roland
binding,doesisnot
conditional
son bound
the
obligation,
die within by the
consideration he
one contract
isyear not (Article
the heaggrieved
being entered
1185,the with
Suplico,
the legal
CivilPrintado
Code, interest
counters
those from
that:who the
(a) Suplico
in the time
cannot he
demand
performance paid the of
into
party
NCC). with
whoLady
extinguishment may file Love
of Lolita's
the and action he
civilcannotliability
for disregard
rescission and not but their
amount lost.
payment obligation This
for deliveries made means
areunder that
their order
guilty only
of agreement he can
contravention until file
Conditional
ALTERNATIVE
the same,
stifling
Star Obligations;
ANSWER: under
of Semiconductor
the Promisethe
criminal prosecution.principles The
Company. of thereof,
the
Suplico suit.
has as Mrs.
completed ZY cannot
performance recover
under said as a spouse
contract; (b) not
The action will not prosper because the in this case, when Marvin did
(1997)
In two separate
obligatoriness
company, however, ofdocuments
contracts.
is not signed
Obligations
opting to byrescind
him, arising the give
who
SUGGESTED
Suplico has
should interest
ANSWER:
pay damages in the
for breach absolute
of contract; community
and (c) withare
consideration for the promissory Carlos the agreed period of ten days,
Juan
SUGGESTED
from
contract Valentino
contracts ANSWER:
but "obligated"
has have chosenthe himself
force
to waive of noteeach
law was
to the A.
between
Salvador's Theshould
ALTERNATIVE
property
Publico
liable for
saleor ofliable
the
ANSWER:
be
damages. conjugal land
for topartnership
Printado’s Juanbreach is ofnothis valid,
of gains,
contract with
Yes, Roland
non-prosecution isPerla,
liable
of the under - 'Tothe
criminal contract
case for as far
estafa.
ALTERNATIVE
Maria
the and to
parties.
compliance ANSWER:
with the thus condition Maria,
which my can do My
it true being
because
Publico
answer
contrary
becauseunder willto
the
not
Art.
order law. beTherefore,
117(7}
agreement
the same of theif
between no Carlos
transfer
Family
Suplico and
paid
Code,
The
as
ThisLadyaction
Icannot for
Lovebe rescission
is done
concerned. will not
He my prosper.
is liable The
for
love,
under obligate
Art. 1545, NCC. toanymore
myself give you becauseone and the Marvin
of ownership
losses
Printado was P10,000.00
are for theborne the because
ofbenefit land wasAre
exclusively
of Publico. an option
effected
the by the contract
from
contentions ofthe
loser-
buyer
damages
information
only hasunder
horse not has
when committed
Article
already
I feel like 1170
been any
It."of breach,
filedthein-'To
- and CivilletPerla,
court alone
Code
and was perfected.
delinquent taxpayer Thus, to ifhim.Marvin The withdrew
original the
spouse.
Printado Therefore,
tenable? Explain your these
answers cannot
as to eachbe charged
contention.
a
to substantial
since
my dotrue it heissweetheart, or That
contravened
illegal. serious the one,
I obligate the myself to
consideration tenorwarrant
to of for the
pay his offer
certificatesprior ofto the
title expiration
obtained by of
Maria the thru 10-day
a
against absolute community property or
rescission/resolution
obligation.
promissory
you the P500.00 Not Iis
note being
owe the sought
you a when
stifling by of the
contracting
I feelvendor.
the like party,
criminal On (5%)
it." period,
free patent he breached
grant fromof the the Bureauoption contract.
of Lands
conjugal partnership gains. This being so,
the
Sweet
Months contrary,
prosecution Taste
passed isitnot is bound
evident
but the
Juanvendor fromby the
never thewho appears
contract
execution
bothered tobutby to
it Conditional
(Article
under
SUGGESTED 1324,
Chapter ANSWER: Obligations
Civil
VII, Code)
CA 141 is valid but in view
Mrs. ZY has no interest in law to prosecute
have
can
the be
make failed
heldhis
finance
good to
liable
companycomply
promises.underMaria of with
Art. 1314.
the andthe condition
The
affidavit
Perla basis of c)(2000)
No,
Pedro
of herthedelinquency,
Supposingcontentions
promised to
that of Printado
give
the his title
Carlos
said are
grandson untenable.
accepted
is subject a car totheif
and recover as she has no legal standing in
imposed
of its
desistance liability by the
is not
immediately contract
came to consult you on whether or not they prescribed after thetheby fulfillment
contract
execution but of
by Printado
the
offer
the rightlatter
before having
of so.willMarvin failed
pass tothe
could pay
the City Government to sell the barfor the
communicate printing
examinations. his
court to do
which
is founded
Lolita's
could would
parents
recover have
onon theof rendered
quasi-delict,
the
basis promissory
of the the obligation
assuming
foregoingnote. that The to withdrawal
paper
land atcovered
When his thereof?
public by the delivery
grandson
auction. passed
TheDiscuss invoices
issuance theon
the
of thelegalsaid
SUGGESTED
pay
Sweet the
consideration Taste ANSWER:
balance
knew being of of
the the
contract.
illegal, purchase
the Article
promissory price
1314 SUGGESTED
time, Suplico
examinations, ANSWER: has
Pedro the right
refused to cease
to give making
the car on
settings. What wouldElements yourtolegal advice be? consequences.
OCT did not exempt (2%) the land from the tax
Contract
Iofwould of Option; to A contract tothatconstruct the house of a Carlos is
demandable.
note the is advise
Civil
invalid Maria
Further,
Codeand providesnot
mayfar from notbother being
that
be running
unable
any
enforced third by further
the
sales. ground delivery.
Section 44 And
ofthe P the
.O. latter
condition
No. 1529 did wasnot
provides violate
purely
(2005)
Marvin
after Juan
ALTERNATIVE
comply
person offered
with for the
ANSWER:
who what inducesto
latter construct
is incumbent to
another make the
good
uponviolate house
his
it, ie., pay of
his the perfected.
SUGGESTED
order
potestative Contracts
ANSWER:
agreement
one. Is he(Integrated are perfected
correctreceiving or not? by
(2%) mere
Lovetoknew
court Packaging
It is action.
Carlos assumed
for that Lady ofanthe that
No, every
he is registered
not correct. owner
First of heall,(333theofnot a
condition
promise.
the balance
contract [This
shall ofais the
be verypricereasonable
because
liable afor
the promise
buyer
damages isprice
has not offered
to of
the consent
B. Juan
Corporation
Certificate
manifested
may
of
recover
v. Court
Title
byof
shall
the
because
Appeals,
hold
meeting
the
was
same
thea offer
SCRA
free not
contract. Neither
P900,000.00,
actionable wrong giving that Roland
the allows latter nor
a 10
party Sweet
daysto Taste and
within is not
Suplico
party the
topurely acceptance
cannot
the potestative,
be
violation held upon
liable
of the because
forthe
law. thing
damages, it does
and the
for
to
other pay it
contracting even without
party. the vendor having 170,
from G.R.
an No.
encumbrances,115117, June subject8, [2000]).
to certain
would
which
recover be
to liable, or
accept
especially because
rejectsuspensive thehas
the restriction
offer.notOn theinfifth the cause
dependof
breach on
which theare
contract, sole astoitwill ofnot
constitute
was onehe who ofthethe parties.
contract.
violated
complied with when the she suffered
condition exemptions.
contract
day,
damages before is violative
Carlos
resulting of such
could
from Article
make 1306
up
promise. hisas
A being (Gomez
mind, Secondly,
the
C. order
No, the even
agreement,
v.
sale Court
didif itbut
not were,
of Printado.
divest it
Appeals, would
Maria Suplico of be
G.R. cannot
her valid
No.
title
attached to the payment of the price, thus
contrary
a) What
Marvin
promise to
is
withdrew
does law
the
not morals,
effect
his
create offer. of
angood the customs,
withdrawal
obligation on public
the of Under
because
be Article
held liable
precisely
120747, it
becausefor1315
depends
September Printado’s
the ofon
sale
21, the the Civil
breach
is
2000) sole
void. ofCode,
will
contract
It is as Carlos
of the
with
good
waiving such condition as well as the 60-day
orderoforJuan
Marvin's
part public
offer? policy.
because (2%) it is not something which and
Publico.
creditor
as if Marvin
no He(the
sale isarenot
donee)
ever bound
atook
party and tonot
to
place. fulfill
the of
In what
agreement
the
tax has
debtor
sales, been
entered (the
the
term
Nature in its
of Contracts; favor Privity The ofstipulation Contract that the Conditional Obligations
SUGGESTED
arises from ANSWER:
a down
contract, law, quasi-contracts or expressly
into
donor).
owner by and is divestedstipulated
between of hisand
Printado land andall
initiallyconsequences
Publico. Theirs is
upon
P100,000.00
(1996)
The
Baldomero
withdrawal leased payment
of Marvin's
his houseoffer shall
withwill be returned
a telephone
cause the not (2003)
quasidelicts (Art, 1157)]. Under Art. 1182, Are
award the
thereof.
a following
and Under
stipulation issuance pour obligations
Article atrui.
of a 1167, valid,
if
[Aforesaid]
Certificate Marvinwhy,
Such
of Sale,and
would if
by
offer the to
to Jose. vendor
The cease
leaseto the in
contract vendee
law. provided if the squatters
Hence, evenJose
that if contracts
they are valid, when is the obligation
refuse finally after the lapse of the 1 year periodis
todo construct
could not affect thirdhouse,persons Carlos
like
Juan's
As notpromise
areregards
subsequently
shall payremoved to Maria
within
foraccepted,
Perla, all
the
issix void
electricity,
document there
because
months,
is could
an water is abe
express also andnoa and
conditional obligation depends upon the sole demandable
entitled
Suplico
from date toof
because in
have each
of the
registration, case?
the construction
basic to a)redeem,
civil Iflawthebe debtor
done
upon by
principle of a
covenant for
concurrence
telephone
acknowledgment the
of
servicesthe benefit
of offer
a in
debt, andofand
the the
the vendee,
leased
theacceptance. which
premises
promise In relativity
to means to pay; b) If the debtor promises to pay
OBLIGATIONS
will of the obligor. promises
third person of to pay
contracts
at as
the
execution by the treasurer of an instrumentsoon
which
expense as he
provides
of has the
that
Marvin. contracts
Marvin
the what
the
during latter
absence thehehas ofvalidly
period concurrence
of when waived
the lease. by
of Siximplication
offer months
it isand can when he likes;
pay
when itJose
owes
offered
her
to
he feels like in only
that
the sufficient
bind
case in form and effects to convey the pay
the
willc) If
parties
be the debtor
who
liable entered
for promises
damagesinto it, toand
under it
acceptance,
later.
equivalent tothere
a promise canpay
surreptitiously betono the
pay balance
consent.
when vacatedhis of the
(Laudico
means Inexistent
when
cannot
Article hefavor
1170.Contracts
becomesor prejudice avs. Annullable
a third Contracts
person, even if he
purchase
Aleatory
premises.
v. Arias him
permits price
Contracts;
Hetoleft
Rodriguez, upon
do behind the
andexecution
so,Gambling
G.R. unpaid
isNo. deemed oftoa be
telephone
16530, deed
Marchbills
one of property.
(2004)
Distinguish
lawyer;
is aware d)
Maria remained owner of the land
of suchIf the briefly
debtorbut
contract promises clearly to pay between
if his
absolute sale by the vendor. (Art. 1545, NCC) until another tax sale isand to be has acted
performed with
in
(2004)
A.
for Mr.
31,
with overseas
1922)
an ZY lost
indefinite P100,000
telephone
Without periodcalls in aamounting
consent,
under cardArt. game
there
1180. tocalled
isover no v. Inexistent
son,
CA,who
knowledge supra.) contracts
isthereof.
sick with and
cancer,
(Integrated annullable
does not
Packaging contracts.
die
Russian
P20,000.00.
perfected
Hence thepoker, but is
Baldomero
contract
amount he
for had refused
the
recoverable no more toafter
construction cash
pay the to
Perla pay
ofsaid
favor
the SUGGESTED
Corporation
of
within oneANSWER:
a
CONTRACTS
qualified
year. 5%
buyer.
in
billsfull
house
asks on
the ofthe the winner
Carlos.
court ground
to set (Salongaat that
the the
period time
Jose
v. as the session
had
Farrales,
provided already
G.R.
by INEXISTENT
Rescission
SUGGESTED ofANSWER: CONTRACTS
Contracts; Proper Party are considered as
Conditional
ended.
substituted
No. L-47088, Obligations;
He promised
him Resolutory
Julyas10,to the1981)pay Condition
PX,
customer
Articlethe 1318 winner,
of the (a)
(1996)
not
In The
having
December obligationbeen
of Consensual vs. Real Contracts; Kindsand
1985, is
entered valid.
Salvador It
into isand,
of an
Real obligation
therefore,
theContracts
Star
Art. 1197, par. 2.
(1999)
In
two 1997,
weeks
telephone
the Civil Code Manuelthereafter.
company. bound
provides himself
But
The latter he
that there to sell
failed
maintained Eva
to
can bethat do a so subject
void
no (1998) ob
Semiconductor to an
initio. indefinite
CompanyThey doperiod
(SSC) not because
create
executed the
a any
house
despite
Baldomero
contract and the lot
unless which
lapse
remained of is
two
the following beingmonths,
as his customer rented so by
PX
requisitesasconcur: filed
far as in debtor
obligation
Deed
Distinguishof binds and
Conditional himself
cannot
consensual Saleto
befrompay
ratified
wherein when
real or
the his
contracts means
validated,
former
Marvin
SUGGESTED
another
court a will
person,
suit notcollect
ANSWER:
to ifbeEva liable
passes
the tothe
amount pay1998 Carlos
of bar
P50,000 any permit
as there
agreed him
toissellatto
no do so
agreement
his 2,000(Article to1180,
square ratify ofNCC).
meter or lot When
validate.
in
their
(1) consent
The telephone
damages
service
for
of the contract
withdrawing
parties;
company isthe was
(2)
correct object
offer
concerned,
because
before
certain
theas and
the
On
Cainta,
name
creditor
the Rizal,
least
knows
other to the
four
that
hand,
latter
(4)
the
kinds
fordebtor
ANNULLABLE
the
real
already
price of has
or
examinations.
that he
notwithstanding
which won
is ittheissubject Luckily
but theremained for
lease
matter the Eva, she
unpaid.
contract
of the passed
contract; Will
between said
the
and contracts under the present law. [3%]
far
lapse
(a) as of
Suppose the concerned,
period
Manuel granted.
had sold Inonly
the this
same person
case,house noit the
VOIDABLEmeans
P1,000,000.00, to pay,
CONTRACTS he must
payable P100,000.00 down, and file
are an validaction in
until
examinations.
collection
Baldomero
(3) cause ofsuittheandagainst Jose.
obligation. ZY prosper?
Who isCould Mrs.
correct, SUGGESTED ANSWER:
contracted
consideration
and lot in
SUGGESTED to turn withwas
another
ANSWER: was beforeBaldomero.
given Eva byPX passed The the
Carlos telephone
for 1998 the CONSENSUAL
court
invalidated
the to fix by
balance thethe
60 CONTRACTS
period,
days afterand
court butthemay are
when those
bethe
squatters which
definite
ratified.
in theIn
ZY file
Baldomero
company has or no a suit
the against
telephone
contract with company?to recover
Jose. Explain.
Baldomero the
A.
bar 1.
option The
examinations, suit
given, bythus PX
is suchto
there collect
sale is the
no
valid? balance
perfected
Why? of are
period perfected
inexistent
property as setby
contracts,
have been mere
by the
oneconsent
removed. orcourt
more
If (Art.
the 1315.
arrives,
requisites
squatters Civil
theof
P100,000
cannot that her Jose husband lost? Reason. (5%)
what
contract
(b)
(2%) hesubstitute
Assuming wonof that from
option itZY is for in his
will
Eva not
lack
who stead
prosper.
is of without
entitledcause to the
Under of Code).
a
are not REAL
obligation
valid contract
removed CONTRACTS
to within pay are becomes are those
absent.
six months, which
demandable
In the anullable are
consent
Article
obligation.
buy said of
2014house the
Marvintelephone
of and
the Civil
cannot
lot, isCode, company
she be noheld
entitledaction(Art.
totocan 1293,
thehave be SUGGESTED ANSWER:
perfected
9Article
contracts,
P100,000.00 1197,by the
alldown NCC).
the delivery
elements
payment of the of object
shall a be contract of theare
NCC).
maintained
breached Baldomero by the
the contract. is, therefore,
winner for
Thus,before liable
the
he cannot under
collection be held the
of (b) The obligation “to pay when he returned
likes” is a
rentals collected by Manuel she passed obligation.
present
by the except
vendor (Art. to 1316,
that
the theCivil
vendee, Code)
consent Salvador Examples
of one filed of theof
Nature
contract.
b) of your
Contracts; wonRelativity ofgame Contracts Carlos suspensive
Nature condition Obligatoriness
of Contracts; the fulfillment of which is
theWill
what
liable 1998 he
for damages.
bar answer
hasexaminations? inbeathe Why? same ofif chance.
(3%) real contracts
contracting
ejectment suits are
parties deposit,
against was the pledge,
vitiated
squatters, or one butof them
in
(2002)
Printado
paid
Although is engaged
Marvin pokerin the printing
P10,000.00
may depend business. asin Suplico supplies
consideration
part on ability, subject
(1991)
Roland, to basketball
a the sole star, will of wasthe under debtor contract and,
commodatum
has
spite no ofcapacity
the decisions and to simple
give loan
inconsent.
his favor,(mutuum).
the squatters
printing
for
it isthat paper to Printado
option? Explain.
fundamentally pursuant
a game of to an(2%)order
chance. agreement under therefore
for one
Consideration; yearthe conditional
to
Validity play-for-play obligation
exclusively is void.
for
which still would not leave. In August, 1986, Salvador
2) If Suplico
the money
ALTERNATIVE binds
ANSWER:himself
paidtoby deliver
ZY to the PXsamewas volume of paper
conjugal (Article
Lady
(2000)
Lolita 1182,
Love, NCC).
Inc. However, even before the
Mycommunity
every answer
month will
for a period of be
18 months,the same
with Printado asincould to the
turn offeredwas
SUGGESTED
employed
to ANSWER:
return the in a finance company.
P100,000.00 down
or property, the wife of ZY basketball
Because she season
could could
not open, he
account for was
the offered
funds a
perfection
agreeing of the
to pay withinit60 contract
days after Article for the
each delivery. construction
Suplico payment
(c) The to the
obligation vendee, is on
valid. the It ground
is subject that to he a
sue to recover because 117(7) ofhasthe more
entrusted attractivetoremove
her, pay
shethe plus
was fringes
charged benefits
with by
of the
been house
faithfully of Carlos.
delivering under that theNo order perfected
agreement forcontract
10 months is unable to
suspensive condition, squatters
i.e. the on theestafa
future and
Family Code provides losses in gambling Sweet
and orderedTaste,arrested. Inc. Roland In order accepted
to secure theher offer
arises
but thereafter because
stopped of
doing lack
so, of
because consent.
Printado has With
not the
made property.
uncertain SSC
event refused
of his to accept
becoming thea money
lawyer. and
The
or betting are borne exclusively by the loser- and
release transferred
from jail, to Sweet
her parents Taste.
executed Lady Love
withdrawal of conjugal
the offer,orthere could funds be no demanded
performance that of Salvador
this obligationexecute does a deeda of
spouse. Hence, community sues
promissory Roland note andto Sweet pay the Taste
finance forcompany
breach of
concurrence of offer andfor acceptance. absolute sale of the property in its favor, at
may not be used to pay such losses. If the contract.
the amount Defendants
allegedly claim that the restriction
misappropriated byprice.
their
which time it will pay the balance of the
money were exclusive to play for
daughter. The Ladyfinance Love alone is void, hence,
company
Incidentally, the value of the land had doubled
unenforceable, as it
by that time.
1) 1971,
concerned,
condoned
In How byAblemuch,
may
his father
Construction,
annul
if any, assuchevidenced
may Joey Inc.
assignment
be
by
entered
compelled
a notation
for
into
has
promissory
Even
The
not
at
toabeen
action
[if] assuming
extinguished
will
notenot as prosper.
that
a resultbytherethe of
The was
novation
the existence
foreclosure
a perfect or extinction
ofright
inflation
of the
of
their
back
with
[2%]
having
the
contract
pay? Tropical
2)
consent
of
To what
given histhereto.
Home extent,
checkDevelopers,
if atpayment
all, can Inc.Jojo whereby
for be the refusal,
deflation
principal
Hence,
of theupon
chattel
first
or compensation
requires
obligation
Eva's passingan
insofar asthe official
third did
Bar,parties declaration
the rights not
are take
concerned.
of the by
other buyerplacethe
terminated and Eva acquired ownership of the property.
P300,000.00
the
compelled
former by
ALTERNATIVE would reading:
Joeybuild
ANSWER: to contribute
"In
for fullthe latter
payment
to such the of the because
Bangko Sentral
the claim ngis Pilipinas.
unliquidated.
The
houses
payment?assignment
loan". Will within
[3%]
thisits is valid
besubdivision. because
a valid defense there
The cost is
in anofactioneach Extinguishment;
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:Payment
absolute
SUGGESTED
for collection?
house, freedom
labor ANSWER: and (3%) to transfer
materials the credit
included, was and The unlawful
Extinguishment;
(1995)
In 1983
SECOND PHILCREDIT
ALTERNATIVE detainer
Compensation
ANSWER: actionvs.
extended willloansprosper.
Payment It is
to Rivett-
It
1.
the Joey
depends. can
creditor be If
needcompelled
the notation
not
P100,000.00. Four hundred units were to be get to
the pay
"in full
only
consent payment
the
of the of The
a given
(1998)
Define
Strom sale factto another
in
compensation
Machineries, the person
problem, Inc. as before
that athere
(RIVETTT-STROM), Eva
modewas could of
the
remaining
debtor.loan"
constructed Hewas balance
only written
within needs of
five P200.000,
by
to Arturo's
notify
years. in
Inhim. view
1973,father, of there
Able the buy it from
inflation,
extinguishing
consisting ofManuel
which an caused
US$10 isMillion
obligation, valid,
the exchange
and as the
fordistinguish
the contract
rate costto of it
Extinguishment;
was
remission
found anthatimplied
of Cause
it Jojo's
could of
noAction
condonation
share longerby the of the
creditor.
continue balance
with (Art.that between
the double.
from payment.
SUGGESTED
machineries Manuel
Since
ANSWER: the[2%]
importedand
contract Evaand isitself
a directly
mere promise
authorizes paidthe toby
(2004)
TX
job filed
discharges
1219, due a suit
Civil
to the thefor
Code) increaseejectment
obligation. in theagainst
Inprice
such ofBD oil for
case, andthe COMPENSATION
sell and Eva
increase
PHTLCREDIT, has
in rental and notis5a
in mode
acquired
the
Million event of extinguishing
inaof real
cash right
an inflation
payable over to
or
in
2. Jojo canisbean
non-payment
notation compelled
of condominium
act of by Joey
the father to contribute
rentals from which the concurrent
land
devaluation assuming
of the amount, that
Philippine
installments over a period of ten (10) years on the
there
peso, obligations
is
the a price of
its derivatives and the concomitant worldwide
P50.000
amounting Art. may 1217. par. 3, Civil The Code provides.
spiraling ofto
condonation P150,000.
prices be
of all During
inferred.
commodities, the condonation
pendency those
stipulated
doubling
the basis persons
ofofinthe the
the who contract
monthly
value inthereof
their
rent for owncontract
the
is computed
reasonable rightatand are
to
the
"When
of the
being one of
case,
implied, BD the it solidary
offered need and debtors
not TX comply cannot,
accepted withthe the reciprocally
be
is
rate considered
therefore
of exchange a debtors
a
valid sale act and and
underthere creditors
the
of the U.S. dollar vis-à-vis the was very deliveryof
terms eachor
of
including basic raw materials required for the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
because
full amount
formalities of his due
of insolvency,
a as rentals
donation reimburse
from
to be BD, his share
who
effective. then The other
tradition
the (Tolentino,
contract.
Philippine of the thing
Brian's
pesoisatnot 1991 sold.
refusal
the entitled ed., to
time of payment. p. pay 365,is citing
thus a 2
construction of the houses. The cost of (b) No, 560 she toonthe
to thea debtor
filed
defense motion
of full paying
to dismiss
payment thewill,obligation,
the ejectment
therefore, such suit
be share
on
valid. Extinguishment;
RIVETT-STROM
Castan
ground for Lossmade
and
ejectment. Francia payments vs. IAC. 162rentals
both loans
SCRA
development
When, had the risennotation
to unanticipated levels collected
(1994) by Manuel because at the time they
shall
the behowever,
ground borne that bythe allaction
his co-debtors, was in
is already written by Dino
whichsued
753). Ben
Itif involves
based for
on the damages
the rate ofbecause
simultaneous exchange the
balancing inlatter
1983 of
and
Arturo to
SUGGESTED such
himself. a
ANSWER: degreeIt merelythat the
provesconditions
his and
intention accrued
had failed and to were
deliver collected,
the antique Eva was
Marcedes not yet
proportion
extinguished. to the
Is debt
BD’s of each."
contention correct? two
would obligations
have fully in order
settled theto extinguish
loans. them to
factors
BD's
in making
SUGGESTED
which
contention that
ANSWER:
formed
is not the
payment original
correct.
but inTX nobasis
can
way of
still the it
does FIRST
the
Benz ALTERNATIVE
owner
car Dino ofin thehad ANSWER:
property.
purchased from Ben, whichis
Why
contract or why had not?
been Reason.
totally (5%)
changed. Able the
Assumingextent that Eva which is the the one amount entitled of one to buy
maintain
Yes, the the
Able suit for
Construction. ejectment.
bind his father (Yam v. CA, G.R No. 104726. 11 Inc. The
is entitled to was—by agreement—due
PHILCREDIT contends that forthe delivery
payments on on
brought covered
the house by that
and of
lot, the
she other.
is not (De Leon,
entitled to1992 the
the reliefsuit
acceptance
February sought
1999) by against
the
. In Tropical
lessor
under
such of the
Article
case, Homes
payment
1267,
the praying
Civil
notation by was
the PAYMENT
December
both
ed., p.loans
221,
means
31,
should
citing 1993. 8benot Ben,
based
Manresa
only inon delivery
his
401). answer
the rateofof tomoney
that
lessee the Court
of the relieve
rentals it of its obligation. Is rentals
but also collected
performance by Manuel
of time before
an obligation she passed
(Article
Code.the
not The law
act of in
provides: hisarrears fathereven
"When thefrom during
service the
has
which Dino's
exchange complaint,
existingsaid at the Dino's claim
of payment, has no
Able Construction
pendency soofdifficult
the entitled
to beto the relief the
1232, barCivil examinations.
Code). In Whether
payment, it iscapacity
a contract to
become
condonation mayejectmentbe asinferred. case does
manifestly
There notbeyond
being no basis for
which rate the ofsuit,
exchange because hasasbeen the car was
consistently
sought?
constitute
ALTERNATIVE
the contemplationaANSWER:
waiver orthe abandonment of the of sale of
dispose or the a contract
thing paid to and sell, capacityreciprocal to
condonation at all of the parties,
defense ofthefull obligor
payment being driven to be delivered
increasing, and for which reason there would to Dino on
If thealso notation was written by Arturo's father, prestations
receive payment are deemed imposed A for the
ejectment
may
will not bebe
Extinguishment;
case. released
valid. (Spouses
Compensation
Clutario
therefrom, inv.whole
CA, 216 or in January
still be a1, 1994, aare
considerable reckless required
balance truck on for
driver
each debtor had and
loan. Is
it amounted
Extinguishment; to an
Novation express condonation of the seller
creditor, to deliver
respectively: the object
in sold
compensation, and for the
SCRA
part."
(2002)
Stockton
341 [1992]).
is a stockholder of Core Corp. He
SUGGESTED
rammed
the contention ANSWER:
into the of Mercedes
PHILCREDIT Benz. The trial such
correct?
balance
(1994)
In 1978, Bobby whichborrowed must Pl,000,000.00
comply withfromthe As buyer regards
capacity to pay isthe the
notloanprice. Before the
consisting
necessary, happening
ofbecause
dollars, the
the
desires to sell his shares in court
Discuss dismissed
fully. Dino's complaint, saying Ben's
formalities
Chito payable of a in donation
two years. toCorebe valid
The Corp.
loan, In view
under
which the contention
of the condition, of the fruits
PHILCREDIT ofis the thing
correct. Itandhas the
compensation operates by law and not by to
by the
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
of a court suit that obligation
SECOND had1262,
ALTERNATIVE indeed,ANSWER: been extinguished
2nd
was paragraph
evidenced aCore
of Article
by Corp.
promissory 1270 has of
note, filed
the New
was against
Civil be a)
act No.
interests
Under
force paid
of Article
the in
majeure.
on
Art. 1164,
the money
Philippine
parties. Is the In
there
New Civil
are deemed
currency
payment,
trial is court
Code
the
no obligation
provides,
computed to have
performance
correct? on the on
him
Code.
secured forSince
damages
by athe mortgage in the on
amount amount
ofreal of P 10 million,
the property.
balance isNomore the "An
been
must obligation
basis
bemutually
of the
complete; which consists
compensated
exchange
while in rate inat
compensationthe
under
the delivery
TIME Article OF
there of
plus attorney’s fees of P 1 million, as a result part
a of Manuelthing
Extinguishment;
determinate to deliver
Compensation/Set-Off;
shall theextinguished
be fruits (rentals)
Banks if itof
than 5,000 pesos, the
action was filed by Chito to collect the loan or acceptance by Arturo of 1187.
PAYMENT
may be partial of each extinguishment installment, of anas held the
obligation in
statements published the
(1998)
X, thing
whov. has until
a 34 the
savings obligation
deposit to
with deliver
Y Bank in
the
to condonation
foreclose mustby
the mortgage. alsoStockton
be in
But whichBobby,
in writing
1991, are
under Kalalo should
(Tolentino, be lost
Luz, supra) or destroyed
SCRA 337. without
As regardsthe fault
the of
P5
allegedly defamatory because it was calculated thing
the arises.
sum
debtor, of
and AsP1,000,000.00
the suspensive
before he has incurredcondition
incurs ina has
loan
delay.
Article 748. There
without receiving any amount from Chito, being no acceptance in Million loan in Philippine pesos, PHILCREDIT
to injureby and damage not been
obligation fulfilled,
with the the said obligation
Bankcourtinistothe sell sum does of
writing
executed Arturo,
another thethe
promissory corporation’s
condonation note which is void was and is b) The
wrong. judgment The of the
payment trial thereof incorrect.
cannot be
reputation andto goodwill. The articles of note, not
Loss arise.
P800.000.00
of the thingwhich due has
by become
fortuitous due.
events When or X
the
worded obligation
exactly aspay thethe 1978 balance
promissory subsists. The measured by the
Extinguishment; Assignment of Rights peso-dollar exchange rate.
incorporation
defense
except forof thefullof Core
payment
date Corp.
thereof, provide
is, therefore,
which was fornot a right
the valid.
date That tries
force to
will withdraw
majeure becane is a
violative his
valid deposit,
ofdefense
the Uniform Y Bank
for a debtorCurrencyallows
(2001)
The sugar planters of Batangas entered
of its
In
of first
case refusal
the in
execution. favor
notation
1) Can of the corporation.
was
Chito not written
demand payment by Actonly(RA, P200.000.00
when the
529] debtor
which to be has withdrawn,
prohibits not incurred
the lessdelay.
payment service of
Extinguishment; Extraordinary Inflation or Deflation into a long-term milling contract with the
Accordingly,
Arturo's
on the 1991father, Stockton
the answer
promissory gavenote written
isinthe1994? notice
same 2) to
as
Can the an charges,
Extinguishment
obligation claiming of
which, that
liabilityalthough forcompensation
fortuitous
to be event
paid has
in
(2001)
On
the July 1, 1998,ofBrian
corporation leased an office spaceofin Central
extinguished
Azucarera de Don Pedro Inc. Ten
its debtor
obligation under the savings
answers
Chito above. thehis
foreclose real offer
estate to sell his shares
mortgage requires
ifrental Philippine
years later,that the
currency,
the Central has
isLiability
measured
assigned not yet itsincurred
by a foreign
rights to
a
P building
10 million. for Thea period
response of five
of years
Core at
corp. awas an Liability;
account
any delay. Lease;
to Inthe the Joint
concurrent
present case, amount the of
debtor X's debt.
was
Bobby fails to make good his obligation under currency.
the said (Palanca
milling v. CA, 238
contract to a SCRA
Taiwanese 593). group
rate
SUGGESTED
acceptance
the
of P1,000.00
1991
ANSWER:
of the offer
promissory
a month.
note?in the exercise The contract of its of (2001) Four
X delay
in foreign
contends whenthat medical
the carcompensation
was students
destroyed rented
is onimproper the
1) Yes,
lease Chito
contained can demand the proviso payment that on"in the 1991of which
case apartment
when one
would of take
Thelma over for thea operations
period of one ofyear.the
rights of first refusal, offering for the purpose January
sugar 1, of
mill. 1993 the debts,
Thesince planters
as here,
it was due for
filed
arises
an delivery
action
from a
to
promissory
inflation note in 1994.of Although the 1978 c) It depends of whether or not Ben the seller,
payment or in form devaluation of compensation the Philippine
or set-offpeso, After contract
on
annul
one
December
the
semester,
said 31, deposit.
1993.
assignment
three (Art. of
Assuming
on
them
1262 the
returned
Civil
ground
thatCode) that
to
the
promissory
the monthly noterental for P1 million will payable two be their
automatically was already
SUGGESTED
promissoryhome in
ANSWER:
countrydefault
note signed and at the
the time
fourth
by X Civil of the
transferred
to evidence the
against the amount of damages it is claiming Y bank
the isbecause
correct. An.was 1287, Code, does
years
increased later or indecreased
against him,orexclusive
1980 became
of thedepending
a natural
claim for on the to loan aTaiwanese
accident boarding
does
(Note: not
groupaprovide
house.
The
demand Thelma
question
notfor
for
registered
him
discoveredto deliver
compensation
presupposes
with
that
obligation
devaluation after the
or Stockton lapse ofoften
inflation the(10)peso years, to ofthe on not
the
they apply.
due Board
leftdate All ofthe
was
unpaid requisites
Investments.
not complied
telephone of Art.in
Will
with
bills by1279,
the him.
the Civil
action
total
attorney’s ANSWERS: fees. rejected the offer between
Code are said
knowledge
present. loan andand
In the hiscase
requires savings the
of deposit,
application
Gullas vs. who
PNB of
SUGGESTED
such
dollar." natural
Starting obligation March can 1, be a
2001, valid the lessor prosper
That
amount fact ornot
of not? having Explain
P80,000.00. been briefly.
given
The (5%)
in
lease the contract
the corporation,
Stockton is correct. arguingTherethat is no compensation
right of is correct? the provisions
[3%] of the Omnibus Investment
consideration
increased thevalue of
rentala novated promissory note on the [62 Phil. the
problem, 519), trial the courtSupreme erredshall Court
in held:
dismissing for "The
between the
compensation between of tothe P2,000
his shares
price and
a month,
of P10 themillion provided
SUGGESTED
Civil
Code,
Code
that
ANSWER: the
which
contains
lessees properly
provisions
pay
belongs
regarding
theto
dated
ground inof 1991 and payable
inflation proven two
by years
the factlater,
that The
orthe Dino's
telephoneaction
complaint. will prosper
services
Commercial Reason:
law) in the not
There leasedonis thedefault ground
premises.
amount of damages
and Core Corp.’s unliquidated claim for demanded by the compensation
in 1993. Allrate
exchange the elements
of the of an implied
Philippine peso real invoked him
making on(set
but responsible thethat off)
ground and
for deposit.
that
fortuitous the events These
farmers
corporation
damages. In cannot order that legally take effect.
compensation Is tobethe Thelma
may If on
portions the
demanded
other
of hand
Philippine Ben
the
was
fourth
law not in
student
default
provide
pay
as
novation
dollar hadare increased
present: a) from an old valid
P25.00=$1.00 to SUGGESTED
haveentire
including
the
ANSWER:
notthe given
assumption
amount their
of the of risk consent
unpaid or loss. to that
telephone the
Stockton
proper, theANSWER:correct? Give reason
two debts must be liquidated and for your answer.
c) pay the The no fourth has
demand
compensation student been is
shallmillingsent correct.
take to him place His
prior liability
when to thetwo is
SUGGESTED
obligation;
P50.00=$1.00. b) a new Brian validrefusedobligation; to assignment.
bills, but the The
latter is willing contract
to pay imposes
only one
(5%)
The unlawful The
demandable. detainer case for action
the Pwill not prosper. only
10million accident,
persons joint, then
are hence, we
reciprocally pro
must rata.
distinguish
creditor There and is
whether solidary
debtor of
capacity
increased of the parties;
rateinflation and and) actionanimus for novandi or
unlawful reciprocal of it. obligations on Why? the parties. The
Extraordinary
damages being still pending or deflation
in court, is the defined fourth liability
the
each price
other. only
has
Who is correct?
In when
been
this the
paid
connection,obligation
or not. If
it it
(5%)
hasexpressly
has beenbeen heldso
intention
detainer
ANOTHER to novate;
was
MAIN filed against
ANSWER: and e) The him. oldWill andthe theaction sugar central has the obligation to mill the
as the sharp
corporation decrease
has as yet no in theclaim purchasing
which is due power states paid, the orrelation
suitwhen the lawwhile or nature ofbut the
new
The
prosper? obligation
right of
Why? first should
refusal
(5%) bewas incompatible
not perfected withas a that
sugarthe cane of forthedamages
existing
farmers should
between prosper
the alatter
depositor have
of
and the peso. It does
demandable not necessarily
against Stockton. refer to the obligation only atobankenable requiresthe solidarity (Art. 1207, CC).
each
right other
for the onreason
all materialthere points (Article and
the obligation is that to buyerof creditor
deliver totheirrecover and sugar the cane
debtor, price x xtox
exchange
SUGGESTED rate of that
ANSWER: the pesowas to a the dollar. The paid.
As a contract
It should
general of be
rule, lease
noted
a in
bank the
that has problem
Ben, a the
right does
seller,
of set not,
off
1292).Yes,The
conditional
(a) the two promissory
acceptance notes cannot
equivalent toisavalid stand
counter- the sugar central. As to the obligation to mill
Whether orsale not tothere the other existsperson an extraordinary as in
must
of any
the way,
bear
deposits stipulate
the loss
in on
its solidarity.
the
hands principle
for the of res
payment perit of
together,
offer
saleconsisting hence, the period
in theisamount of prescription of the sugar cane, the sugar central is a debtor of
a
inflation
SUGGESTED with adeflation
orANSWER: resolutory for the of
condition damages
courtsbecause as
to decide. Liability;
domino.
any HeSolidary
indebtedness cannot Liability
beto held
it answerable
on the part for of a
ten
2) No.
what (10)
beingoperates
The years
credited
mortgage has
being
as not
onshowing
athe
an yet
purchase
accessory
suspensive lapsed. price.
contract prescribed with the farmers.
Extinguishment;
(1998) In assigning
Condonation its rights under the
There being no thatcondition
the for
purchasing Joey,
damages Jovy as
depositor." and the Jojo
Hence, loss are of solidary
the
compensation car debtors
was nottook under place a
the loan.
Therefore, The novation of the loan, however, did not expressly contract, the sugar central will also transfer to
Eva
power
include operatesof compensation
the mortgage, a resolutory
the hence, peso did
the mortgagehad notbeen
condition result
is extinguished
since
for reduced
theunder
(2000)
Arturoobligation
loan
imputable
between
borrowed of
to his
the
P500,000.00
fault
mutual P300,000.00
or fraud.toInmill
obligations
fromwhich
any
his father.
of the case,
X and has
heY
ANOTHER
there was MAIN ANSWER: the
AfterTaiwanese its obligation sugar
of no valid
FIRST ALTERNATIVE
buyer. ANSrightWER: of first refusal (Art. fallen hedue.had paid The P300,000.00,
creditor his father
has, however, died.
tremendously,
Article 1296 the NCC. there could
The contract be no inflation that can
bank. recover the value of the car from the party
Yes, the sale
1475 &justify
ALTERNATIVE to
1319, the
ANSWER:NCC)increase in the amount of cane
other person is valid. However, the buyer
When of
condoned thethe farmers.
administrator
Jojo's entire This
share of his will
in amount
father's
the debt. to a
estate
would
acquired the propertythe subject to a resolutory whose
novation negligence
of the caused
contract theby accident.
substituting If Since
nothe
rental to be paid. Hence, Brian could refuse to Jovy requested
Extinguishment;
has become payment
Loss; insolvent,
Impossible of Service thecreditor
the balance of
price
debtor has withbeen aJoey paid at
third all, the
party. Under court makes
trial Article acted
1293
pay the increased rate. P200,000.00.
(1993)
a demand on Arturo to replied
pay the Page
that the
debt. 86 of 119
same had
correctly
of the Civil in dismissing
Code, such the complaint.
substitution cannot
been
take effect without the consent of the creditor.
The formers, who are creditors as far as the
obligation to mill their sugar cane is
mortgage.
(c) The third defense of Y is untenable. Y is a

surety of X and the extrajudicial demand
against the principal debtor is not
inconsistent with a judicial demand against
(d)
the The fourth
surety. defense ofmay
A suretyship Y isco-exist
untenable.
withY ais
liable for the entire prestation since Y
mortgage.
X.
incurred a solidary obligation with
(Arts. 1207, 1216. 1252 and 2047 Civil Code; Bicol
Savings and Loan Associates vs. Guinhawa 188 SCRA
642)
Liability; Solidary Obligation; Mutual Guaranty
(2003)
A,B,C,D, and E made themselves solidarity
Since the insolvent debtor's share which Joey indebted to X for the amount of P50,000.00.
paid was P100,000, and there are only two When X demanded payment from A, the latter
remaining debtors - namely Joey and Jojo - refused to pay on the following grounds. a) B
these two shall share equally the burden of is only 16 years old. b) C has already been
reimbursement. Jojo may thus be compelled by condoned by X c) D is insolvent. d) E was
Joey to contribute P50.000.00. given by X an extension of 6 months without
Liability; Solidary Obligation the consent of the other four co-debtors. State
(1992)
In June 1988, X obtained a loan from A and the effect of each of the above defenses put up
executed with Y as solidary co-maker a by A on his obligation to pay X, if such
promissory note in favor of A for the sum of defenses are found to be true.
SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
P200,000.00. The loan was payable at
(a) A may avail the minority of B as a defense,
P20,000.00 with interest monthly within the
but only for B’s share of P 10,000.00. A
first week of each month beginning July 1988
solidary debtor may avail himself of any
until maturity in April 1989. To secure the
defense which personally belongs to a solidary
payment of the loan. X put up as security a
co-debtor, but only as to the share of that co-
chattel mortgage on his car, a Toyota Corolla
debtor.
sedan. Because of failure of X and Y to pay the (b) A may avail of the condonation by X of C’s
principal amount of the loan, the car was share of P 10, 000.00. A solidary debtor may,
extrajudicially foreclosed. A acquired the car at in actions filed by the creditor, avail himself of
After
A's highestseveralbidfruitless letters ofduring
of P120,000.00 demand
the
against X and Y, A sued Y alone for the all defenses which are derived from the nature
auction sale. of the obligation and of those which are
recovery of P80.000.00 constituting the
deficiency. Y resisted the suit raising the personal to him or pertain to his own share.
sued together
following defenses: with
a) Y.
That Y should not be With respect to those which personally belong
b)
liable at all because X was not has been paid
That the obligation to others, he may avail himself thereof only as
completely by A's acquisition of the car regards that part of the debt for which the
(c) A may
latter not interpose(Article
are responsible. the defense
1222,ofNCC).
through "dacion en pago" or payment by
c) That Y should not be held liable for the insolvency of D as a defense. Applying the
cession.
deficiency of P80,000.00 because he was not a principle of mutual guaranty among solidary
co-mortgagor in the chattel mortgage of the debtors, A guaranteed the payment of D’s
car which contract was executed by X alone as share and of all the other co-debtors. Hence,
d) Thatand
owner assuming that Y is liable, he should
mortgagor. A cannot avail of the defense of D’s insolvency.
(d) The extension of six (6) months given by X
only pay the proportionate sum of P40,000.00.
to E may be availed of by A as a partial
Decide each defense with reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: defense but only for the share of E, there is no
(a) This first defense of Y is untenable. Y is novation of the obligation but only an act of
still liable as solidary debtor. The creditor may liberality granted to E alone.
proceed against any one of the solidary
debtors. The demand against one does not
preclude further demand against the others so
long as the debt is not fully paid.
(b) The second defense of Y is untenable. Y is
still liable. The chattel mortgage is only given
as a security and not as payment for the debt
in case of failure to pay. Y as a solidary co-
maker is not relieved of further liability on the
for damages
The matter shouldagainstbethe decided
jewelryinshop favorwhich
of Remigio
put1.
Bernie
up
Juana50%hasof
the theright
totalofpayments
action to made.
recover(Rillo
(a) her one-
v. Court
because
defense
the
(trustee) the
of force
actionmajeure.
has not Will prescribed.
the action The Appeals,
half
of G.R. No. 125347, June
case
prosper at or
barnot?involves
(5%) an express trust which 19,1997)
does
SUGGESTEDnot prescribe
ANSWER: as long as they have not
The action
been will prosper.
repudiated by theSince the defendant
trustee (Diaz vs. Period; Suspensive Period
was already in
Gorricho. 103 Phil, 261).default not having delivered (1991)
In a deed of sale of a realty, it was stipulated
Impliedring when
the Trust delivery was demanded by that the buyer would construct a commercial
(1998)
plaintiff
Juan andathis duesister
date,Juana
the defendant
inheritedisfrom liabletheir
for building on the lot while the seller would
the
mother loss two
of theparcels
thing of andfarmland
even when withthe exactly
loss construct a private passageway bordering the
was
the same
due toareas.
force majeure.
For convenience, the Torrens lot. The building was eventually finished but
Non-Payment
certificates ofofAmortizations;
title coveringSubdivision
both Buyer;
lots When
were the seller failed to complete the passageway
justified
placed (2005)
in Juan's name alone. In 1996, Juan sold as some of the squatters, who were already
Bernie bought on
to an innocent installment
purchaser a residential
one parcel in its known to be there at the time they entered
subdivision
entirety without lot from DEVLAND.
the knowledge and After having
consent of into the contract, refused to vacate the
1. What
faithfully rights
paid theof action, if
installments
Juana, and wrongfully kept for himself the any, does
for 48 Juana
months, premises. In fact, prior to its execution, the
have
entireagainst
Bernie and/orthat
discovered
price paid. the DEVLAND
buyer? |3%] had failed to seller filed ejectment cases against the
2. Sincethe
develop thesubdivision
two lots have the same area,
in accordance with the squatters. The buyer now sues the seller for
suppose Juana
approved plansfliesand a complaint
specificationsto have herself
within the specific performance with damages. The
declared
time frame soleinowner
the plan.of the
Heentire remaining
thus wrote a letter defense is that the obligation to construct the
second
to DEVLAND lot, contending
informingthat herhe
it that brother had
was stopping passageway should be with a period which,
forfeited his
payment. share thereof DEVLAND
Consequently, by wrongfully cancelled SUGGESTED ANSWER:
incidentally, had
disposing of her undivided No. the action fornot been fixed
specific by them,filed
performance
the sale and wrote Bernie,share in the him
informing first that hence, the need for fixing aunder
judicial period.
a) Wasthe
lot. payments
his Will thesuitaction
are prosper? of [2%]
forfeited DEVLAND
in its favor. proper? by the buyer is premature Art. 1197 of
Will
the the action
Civil Code. for
If aspecific
period performance
has not been of the
fixed
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: buyer against the seller prosper?
although contemplated by the parties, the
No, the action of DEVLAND is not proper. Under parties themselves should fix that period,
Section 23 of Presidential Decree No. 957, failing in which, the Court maybe asked to fix
otherwise known as the Subdivision and it taking into consideration the probable
Condominium Buyer's Protection Decree, non- ALTERNATIVE contemplationANSWER:
of the parties. Before the
payment of amortizations by the buyer is justified It has been held in Borromeo vs. CA (47 SCRA
period is fixed, an action for specific
if non-payment is due to the failure of the 69 ), that the Supreme Court allowed the
performance is premature.
subdivision owner to develop the subdivision simultaneous filing of action to fix the probable
project according
(Eugenio v. Drilon, to G.R.theNo.approved
109404, Januaryplans and 22, contemplated period of the parties where none
1996)
within the limit for complying. is fixed in the agreement if this would avoid
b) Discuss the rights of Bernie under the multiplicity of suits. In addition, technicalities
circumstances. (2%) ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
must be subordinated to substantial justice.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The action for specific performance will not
Under P.D. No. 957, a cancellation option is prosper. The filing of the ejectment suit by the
available to Bernie. If Bernie opts to cancel the seller was precisely in compliance with his
contract, DEVLAND must reimburse Bernie obligations and should not, therefore, be
the total amount paid and the amortizations faulted if no decision has yet been reached by
interest, excluding delinquency interest, plus the Court on the matter.
interest at legal rate. (Eugenio v. Drilon, G.R.
No. 109404, January 22, 1996) TRUST
c) Supposing DEVLAND had fully developed
the subdivision but Bernie failed to pay Express Trust; Prescription
further installments after 4 years due to (1997)
On 01 January 1980, Redentor and Remedies
business reverses. Discuss the rights and entered into an agreement by virtue of which
SUGGESTED ANSWER: the former was to register a parcel of land in
obligations of the parties. (2%)
In this case, pursuant to Section 24 of P.D. No. the name of Remedies under the explicit
957, R.A. No. 6552 otherwise known as the covenant to reconvey the land to Remigio, son
Realty Installment Buyer Protection Act, shall of Redentor, upon the son's graduation from
govern. Under Section 3 thereof, Bernie is college. In 1981, the land was registered in
entitled: 1) to pay without additional interest Redentor
Loss name
the died
of the thing a year
due; Forcelater
of Remedies. or in 1982. In
Majeure
the unpaid installments due within a grace March
Kristina1983,
(2000) broughtRemigio graduated
her diamond ringfrom
to acollege.
jewelry
period of four (4) months or one month for In February
shop 1992, The
for cleaning. Remigio accidentally
jewelry found
shop undertook
every year of installment paid; 2) if the a
tocopy
returnof the ring
document so constituting
by February 1, 1999." When
contract is cancelled, Bernie is entitled to the Remedies
the said date as the trustee
arrived, theofjewelry
the land. In May
shop
refund of the cash surrender value equal to 1994,
informedRemigio filed
Kristina a case
that against
the Job was Remedies
not yet
DEVLAND
50% of the on the
total other hand
payments has the right to
made. for the reconveyance
finished. They asked her of the land tofive
to return him.
days
cancel the contract after 30 days from receipt
Remedies, in her answer,
later. On February 6, 1999, averred that
Kristina theto
went
by Bernie of notice of cancellation. DEVLAND SUGGESTED ANSWER:
action
the shop already
to claimprescribed.
the ring, How should
but she was the
is however obliged to refund to
matter
informed bethat
decided?
the same was stolen by a thief
who entered the shop the night before.
Kristina filed an action
CIVILCIVIL
LAWLAWAnswers
Answers
to thetoBAR
the BAR
as Arranged
as Arranged
by Topics
by Topics
(Year(Year
1990-2006)
1990-2006)
Trust;
No,
b)
6245.
The
theImplied
It
first
suitResulting
appears
will
buyernotisTrust
inprosper.
still
the toDeed
The
be preferred,
contract
of Sale of that
where
salePedro
was
In
(2)
Xthe
sold
(Art.ayears,
CONTRACT
a parcel
1624; or1475.
until
ofOF
land
3 June
CC;SALE,
to 1973.
Y ownership
on 01
Rodriguez Itv.is
January
further
CA,isettransferred
2002,
stated
al, G.
(1995)
from
perfected
sale is Juan
In 1960,
second
received registered
when
P120,000.00
Maureen Linda
ahead and
purchasedof as
the
Raypurchase
first
two agreed
sale
lots in but
on
aprice.
the share
Rthe
that
toNo. buyer
should
payment
therein in theupon
84220, the
proceeds
Vendor
delivery
March of(Juliet)
25. the
of sale
1992 the
failwith
207 object
to exercise
SCRA legal
to him
553).
However,
object
with ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
plushknowledge
of Pedro
the sale
subdivision of
retained
the
andlatter.
registering the
the This price
owner's
Lot 1isin [Art.
because
duplicate
her 1475,
name interestwhile
her rightin thereof,
atoCONTRACT
redeem andwithin
(b)TO such SELL,
the damages
saidownership
period,as she the is
No, the defense of Peter Co will not prosper.
of
New
the
andsaid
second
Lot Civil
title.
2 inbuyer,
Code].
the Thereafter,
namewhoTheof atconsent
the
Juan,
her time
brother asofhelessor,
Linda
Walterand has may
retained
conveyance
be able by shall
the
to prove seller
be deemed
asuntil
having the
absolute
been
purchase suffered
and price
Hadji Butu validly acquired his right by an
Pedro,
already
registered
with theaslatter's been
lessee,
his sale given,
executed
knew that
consent. as a the
The contract
shown
idea property
was by of
to lease
had
her by
is fully
her, which
irrevocable. paid.Romeo may
In a include
contract
did notactual to sell,
take or deliveryofof
possession
assignment of credit under Article 1624 of the
over
agreement
already thebeen
circumvent property
tosold
a the to
subdivisionfor
price
someone
a period
of
policy the else,
ofsale.one
against acted There
(1)
theinyear is compensatory
the property.
object does He damages
not
didconfer
notas pay well
ownership
theas taxesmoral upon
thereon.
andthe
Civil Code. However, the provisions on the
with
therefore
bad faith.
a monthly
acquisition (Article
consent
of more rental
1544,
onthan herof
C.C.)
onePl,000.00.
part lot as by the one Pedro,
consent
buyer.as exemplary
buyer. In adamages contractdue of sale,
to thethere breach is only
of trust one
Double Sales contract
Juliet died ofinsale January (Article I973 1475 Civilhaving Code) will
lessee,
need
Maureen not was be given
also obligated
constructed in any a house specific
toonpay form.
Lot the Hence,
1 with realtyan contract
and bad executed
faith (Imperial between vs.without
the 259
CA, sellerSCRA and the
(2004)
JV, owner apply, and the transaction is only
covered by the
taxes
her
extension on of
consent the
on aLotparcel
may
property
2 tobe of
serveland,
given
duringassoldaby the
guestitimplication,
toperiod
PP. Butof
house. repurchased
buyer,
In 65). Ofwhilecourse, theaif
in property.
contract
the buyerto Her sell, there
knew of surviving
the are co- two
Subsequently,
the deed of sale Pedrowas filed
not a complaint
registered. Oneagainst Statute of Frauds. (Art. 1403 par. (2) Civil
lease.
especially
1987, Walter since
who she
had was
suffered aware
serious of, yearand heir,
contracts,
ownership
Conditional
her son first
over
Sale
X, the failed
the
vs. lot
toherepurchase
contract
Absolute was tobuying,
Sale sell (whichthe Juanais a
Juan
later, for
JV the
sold reformation
the parcel of
again the toDeed
RR, of
who Code)
property on or or before 3 Junesale)
participated
business losses in thedemanded sale of the thatproperty
Maureen(Pelayo conditional
can
(1997) seek (c)
Distinguish preparatory
reconvenyance
between a conditional of1973.
herand In a1975,
one-half
sale, second,
on the
Absolute
succeeded
remove
v. CA, G.R. theSale,to alleging
register
extension
No. 141323, the that
house deed the
Junesince transaction
and
8,the to lot
obtain
2005). onHer a Romeo
the
share final sold
insteaddeed the of
but property
sale
she or
must to implead
the Yprincipal
for P50,000.00.
the contract
buyer
one
Contract hand, and an absolute sale, on the other
isto executed
Sell; of Acceptance; sale, Right of an First Refusal
ALTERNATIVE
covered
transfer by ANSWER:
the deed
certificate was
ofwastitle an overequitable
the property in Upon learning theafter Xhis filed action
action
whichsuit
The for
the moral
extension
will and
prosper. exemplary
built
Sale was of damages
his property.
community will which
as
hand.co-defendant
SUGGESTED ANSWER: and allege full payment
bad faith of for
in the
mortgage.
his own name. In his Who verified
has for aanswer
better todoes
right theover the (1991)
A
the isCONDITIONAL
the lessee
nullification of
of anthe apartment
saleFinally,
and forownedthe by Y.the A
also
In
propertynot
1992, prosper
Maureen
requires because
suedwritten thethe case
reconveyance
consent not
ofthe fall
both to purchase
purchasing
A price.
the entire lot.
SALE is one consistent
where
complaint,
parcel
under of
any Juan
land, RR
2ofasserting
those alleged
or PP?
mentioned that
Why? the in property
Explain was allowed
recovery his
of married
the property but employed
on the ground daughter that B,
her of Lot
spouses.
SUGGESTED
sold
legal to him
basis TheANSWER:failure
under
for your the
that
orDeed
answer. refusal of
(5%) of Art.
a resulting
AbsoluteLinda 2219
trust
Sale,
and
was with
to affix vendor
ADDITIONAL
whose
the
the is ruling
husband
so-called
granted
ANSWER:
deed
in Imperial
works
the right us. CA.
in Kuwait,
of absolute
to Juana
sale to occupy
executed
may
unilaterally
it.
by
2232
created
It
herdependsof
signaturethe
when Civil
on on she Code.
whether had
the deed the
or notlot
of sale,registered
RR iscoupled
an in with seek
rescind
1. Juana instead the (d) a declaration
contract
can file anbetween that
predicated
action forYdamages she ison nowthe
against
and interposed
Walter's name counterclaims
even for if she paid to recover
the purchase The
his
the relationship
mother was merely an equitable and A soured.
mortgage,
innocent
her express
possession purchaser
ofdeclaration
the property value.
of and Under
opposing
to compel the the sale Juansole
fulfillment
Since forhe
owner
having
has no
of the entire remaining
or non-fulfillment,
fraudulently
reason at all soldas one
toAn
the of
eject
lot
case the
A,
on may
Y, in
price. Walter opposed the suit arguing that taking
the
be, theory
of into
the account
that
prescribed Juan the
has inadequacy
forfeited
condition. his of the
one-half
ABSOLUTE
Torrens
negates
SUGGESTED System,
to any ANSWER: valid a deed
consent or instrument
on her part. The two parcels
connivance which he partly held in trust for
Pedro
assuming
The complaint
turn
the over
existence
ofan
to
Pedro
him of the owner's
aresulting
against resultingJuan trust If
should the price
be share
SALE and
therein. thewith
isbenefit.
one failure
where the of City
the Romeo
title Engineer,
totothe take secured
property is
This
operated
consent is a of case
only Biongof
as a byimplied
contract
himself between
is trust.
the
insufficient to Juana's
from the latter Juana
an order may forclaimthe actual
demolition or of
duplicate
action of of title. Resolve
Maureen has the case
already with
prescribed since possession
not reserved of tothethe property
vendor andor to
if pay vendor
the the taxes is
dismissed.
Walter
parties
effect claims
and
a valid The
as to instances
have
evidence acquired
of when
authority
sale of community property (Art. a
ownership contract
to the of — compensatory
the building. damage
A immediately for the loss
filed of her
anthereaction share in
reasons.
ten years (6%)
have thereon. Romeo and Y maintain that was
regardless
the land
Register
96, Family by
of of already
Deeds
Code; its to
prescription make
Abalos
elapsed
nomenclature
orv. if he
the from
anchors —themay
registration.
Macatangay, Itbe not
hisG.R. in
X?the
the b)granted
Ifland;
Regional you moral the
decide
Trial
right
damages
in favor
Court
to rescind
to forRomeo
of
annul thethe the
mental
andcontract
order Y, and
registration
Does
presumed
defense
SUGGESTED Ray toof
have
onANSWER: the
be
extinctive any title
an causein his
equitable
prescription, ofname.
action Decide.
mortgage
the against
ten are a
year valid on
based
anguish,
absolute
anxiety,
sale and that
the fulfillment the document as
or nonfulfillment,
is
No.
1.
the
When,
Discuss
registration
155043,
for
fully.
September of
convenience,
the deed
30, 2004).
the
or the
Torrens title to
would
to enjoin
Contract
signed
the case
you
by its
ofmay Sale
the vs.moral
enforcement.
former
be, of Agency
theon
shock
3 Y
to
June
prescribedand and
Sell A wounded
1973 werewasable to
condition.
Biong
enumerated
period
instrument andthat
must in
be Linda?
Article
reckoned
is the operativeCan
1602from heof1987 also
the
act Civil
when
that recover
Code:
he uphold
feelings she thehad validity
suffered; of the promise
exemplary towhich A
damage
the forge
(1999)
A granted
merely a acompromise
B
promise the to agreement
exclusive
sell. a) If right
you under
were to sell his
the
"Art.two
damages
demanded
conveys 1602. parcels
or from
The
that
affects ofthe land
contract
Maureen the land.were
spouses?
shall
remove(Sec. placed
bethe 51, Pin
presumed Joan's
Explain.
extension
.D. No. to SUGGESTED
by
agreed sell?
way of
to
ANSWER: for the common good,
example
a twenty percent (20%) increase andfor in
Considering
name
1 alone,
When that
there
the pricethe was ofcontract
of created
atitled
sale with hasanright already
implied brand
Judge, of
wouldMaong you pants
uphold in Isabela,
the theory theof price
In
be cases
(2.5%)
house
1529). anon ofLot double
equitable No. 2salemortgage,
because such land,
in any
demand it is ofatothe A. I will notfees.
attorney's
the monthly
uphold Juana
rentals.
thehas theory
They no of X for
cause
further of
agreed
the
action that
been (a
trust
repurchaseperfected
resultingis and trust)
unusually taken for out
the of
inadequate: the
benefit operation
of Juana his merchandise
nullification of thewho payable
sale acquired within
and for the 60 days from
well-settled
following
amounts to rule
cases:
an that
express the buyer
repudiation who offirst
the trust against
the
delivery,lease the
and buyer
will expire
promising two B a(2) therecovery
years
commission landlater for20%
of
of
and
of
2 the
with
registers
and statute
itJuanWhen
was theas sale
made of known
trustee
the frauds,
vendor
in good ofto Ray
one-half
remains
faith can
Maureen. compel
inundivided
acquires possessionLinda
Theaaction or as the
value property
and in on the
goodthat ground
faith, relying that the
on the so-called
the property,
transfer
and
ideal
lessee
better Biong portion
or
right totoobserve
otherwise; the offiled the
each
land. form
of1544, required
the twoby law
lots. that
on was
sale in
all the only event
sales. After
an equitable Y would
themortgage. sell
delivery Anof the
for reconveyance in(Art.
1992 is notCivil yet barred certificate
either A or showing
his daughter that Juan
B shallis thehave registered
the right
Persons
in order
Therefore,
3 prescription.
Code). dealing
When for Juanathe
upon with
property
orcanproperty to be
file
afterHuang the covered
anv.registered
expiration action byofof for in
the merchandise
SUGGESTED
equitable
B. B then
ANSWER:
mortgage
filed toan B action
butmay before
arise
to rescind he
only could
if,thein sell
truth,
sale any
in
by (Spouses Court owner
2.
of Juana's
first of the
suit
refusal. land.
to have
The herself
Compromise declared as
Agreement sole
them, B’s store in Isabela was completely
SALES
Torrens
the
damages
right name
to title of
against
repurchase
Appeals, Sept. 13, 1994). are
Ray notwhich
Joan required
another for can havingto
be go
instrumentfiled beyondtogether
fraudulently
extending the
favor sale of was
the one with
corporation the right
and of
to repurchase.
compel Y to
owner
was of the entire
approved remaining area will not
what
withperiod
sold
(Orquiola
the appears
the
one action
of
v.ofCA theon its
for
386,two
redemption face.
the
SCRA recovery
parcelsor301, which of house
[2002];
granting henew
a [Art.
partlyperiodTheburned
sell thewithout
facts of the by
property histhe
case fault,
tostate court.
herthattogether
since
Six right
the (6)
with
under
months
toallthe of
1357 New Civil prosper
SUGGESTED
before
A's pants. because
the ANSWER:
expiration
Must while
B pay Juan's
of Athe for act
lease,
hisin selling
A
lost died. theY
pants?
Domingo
held
is in
executed; v. Races
trust forCode].
401
Juana's SCRA In benefit.
the
197,alternative,
[2003]).
Juana may he repurchase
Compromise
The was granted
Agreement, aftershe the was absolute
given the
Assignment
Thus, absent of Credit
any vs. Subrogation
showing that RR knew othercontract
sold
Why? lot
the
(5%) was
property between
wrongful. to the AItand did
Visorro Bnot is have
aRealty
salethe not
Corp. an
can recover
claim
4 actual
When the
or amount
thecompensatory
purchaser of Two
retainsdamagemillion for
for himself pesos
thea deed right
agency of
of sale
first
to sellwas
refusal executed.
because which,the Following
she
price maintains
is the rule
payable is bya
(1993)
Peter legal effect
without of forfeiting his share in the
notifying
about,
part ofCo,
or
(P2,000,000.00)
loss her
the a purchase
oughttrader
share tothat from
have
in the he
price; Manila,
known paid.the
land; has
moral dealt
prior
Otherwise, sale it
damages in
stipulation
B Cruzo
upon 60lot. vs. pour
Carriaga
days atrui (174
from Juanaunder SCRA
delivery Article
330) , a deed
1311 of
Ray can recover moral damages on the remaining However, caneven file an if B is
business
of
5 the
would
for the land
Whenwith
result
mental to the Allied
PP in or
anguish,
vendor Commodities
that
solutio he acted
indebiti
anxiety,
binds himself in
inmoralortoground
Hongkong
bad faith,
unjust
shock
pay the of SUGGESTED
the repurchase
unable Civil to
ANSWER:
Code.
resell executed
Isit.she
If B independently
correct?
were an agent, of the
he is not
Juana
that
for five hasaction
the no cause filed of action
by the Lindaagainst the buyer
is Peter
clearly Coan deed action against Juan for partition or
and
taxes onyears.
being
enrichment.
wounded
the first All
thing through
tofeelings
register
sold; the years,
shesale, hadRR suffered; B is of
bound
notsale
to
correct.
pay where
the
Her
the two
price
action
if he
cannot prosper.
stipulations
is unable toare resell
who
unfoundedacquired
accumulated the
civil
an land
suit
indebtedness forwhichvalueof and
falls in under
good termination of the co-ownership with a prayer
acquired
exemplary
6 In aany good
damageother and bya clean
case waywhere title
of itP500,000.00
to
examplemay thebe for the
fairly Article
found
As
it.
ANOTHER athe in 1311 requires
two instruments
buyer,
ANSWER: ownership that
instead
passedthe of third
oneBperson
to upon
Equitable
faith,
malicious
with Mortgage
relying
Allied on thePP
prosecution
Commodities. transfer
{Ponce
Upon certificate
v. Legaspi,
demand of
by title
G.R.
its that
intended lot to soldbe be adjudicated
benefited must to communicate
Juan, and
property
common
inferred as
good,
that against
the and real .
attorney's
intention fees.
of the parties is 2. The suit
that
document,
delivery will right
the
and, prosper,
under of applying
repurchase
Art. 1504 the would
of ruling
the in
Civil
(1991)
On
No.
agent20
showing
79184,December
in that May
Manila, Juan 1970,
6,1992).
Peter is the CoJuliet,
paid aAllied
registered widow, owner of the
his remaining
acceptance lot be adjudicated
tooptionthe for obligor and before the
the transaction
Contract to shall
Sell secure the payment of a debt Imperial
amount
Code, the vs.
only thingCA
to cited
one
perishes above. Both
granted
the lawby
owner. and
the Hence,
borrowed
ANOTHER
the land.ANSWER:
Commodities from by Romeo
check P4,000.00
the amount and,
owed. as Upon reconveyed
revocation. toThere
her. is no showing that B
or
1. the
Under performance
Article 476 of any other obligation. equity
buyer
B mustto authorize
thepay
still seller. such
the a result,
Since
price. said the cannot
the contract
(2001)
Arturo
security
deposit in gave the Richard
therefore, payee's sheof a the
account receipt
executed Civil Code,
deed ofJuana
which
in aManila, the manifested
Contract of Sale; her acceptance
Marital Community to Y atthe
Property; any
Formalities time
can
states:
Receiptfile an action
Received for quieting of title as there Supreme
be upheld Court.
as a contract of sale with right
mortgage
check was over
dishonoredonefrom of her forRichard
two (2)as
insufficiency down
registered of before
Strictly the
speaking, death of A and before the sale.
is awhich
payment cloud in
myainthe title to Corolla
the subject real (2006)
to repurchase, Art.Juana's
1602 ofcontentionthe Civil Code that her on
lots
funds. Forfor has
and 1995
market Toyota
consideration value ofofP15,000.00.withAllied
P1.00, plate Hence,
brother
Spouses
equitable Bhad cannot
Biong forfeited
mortgage and enforcehis
Linda
will any
share
not wanted
apply. right
in the to
The under
second
sell
rule the
their
property.
No.
The XYZ-1
document Second, andJuana
23.............. can also file
the P50.000.00
certificate of Hadji an action
title ofButu
the Double Sales
Commodities assigned the credit to alleged
lot is incorrect.
house.
could havestipulation
They foundEven pour atrui.
aif prospective
theiftwo lots have
buyer, the Ray.
for damages
property
who brought wereagainst delivered
suit
Juan, because
againstto Romeo.
Peter
the settled
Co in the RTC (2001)
On June 15,been 1995, different
Jesus sold both
a parcel deeds ofwere
rule2 is
On June that 1971, the Julietproper recourse of the true same
Linda
executed area,
negotiated
on itthedoes same not
with follow
Ray
occasion forthat the
or they sale
date, have
in of the
of Manila for recovery obtained of the amount an additional
owed. registered land to Jaime. On June 30, 1995, he
the same
property.
which case, value.
Theyunder Since
agreed
the the on
ruling sale a in of
fair the
spouses first
price lot
of P2
Balance
owner
sum ofCo of payable:
the property
P3,000 12/30/01........
who was prejudiced P50
date, and
Peter movedfrom Romeo.
to dismiss the Oncomplaint
this B. If the
sold
on the
Million.
I were same
Torrens
Ray
to land
decide
sent title
to in
in
Linda
Jose.
the
favor
a
Who
name
letter
of Romeo
has a better
of Juan
confirming
the contract
and Y,
was his
000.00
fraudulently
however, Romeo dispossessed
caused of
thethat the same ofisa to
preparation Claravall
I would
right if: not v.
a) the CA
uphold (190
first sale SCRA
the validity 439),
is registered of the ahead promise of
against
September him on 2001.
15, the ground Hadji Butu was valid,
intention
may all
still that
be Juana
tosustained
buy themay recover
property.
as an equitable is the
Later, value
another of
bring
deed ofanabsolute
action forsale damages
of the against
above those who
property, to with
to
the sell, knowledge
second so as to
sale, of
enforcethe latter.
it by anWhy? action (3%) for b) the
not a
SUGGESTED
real party in interest and, therefore, her
couple,
mortgage,undivided Bernie
given interest
and therein,
Elena,
the circumstances plus
offered damages.
a
expressed similar
causedJuliet
which orANSWER:
employed
affixed herto the same. without
signature Third, since first second
specificsale is registered
performance. Theahead promise of the to first
sell
without
No, Co'shad legal
defense capacitywill not sue and that
Thishe had In addition, she
Thecan ask for partition or
Juana
reading the(Sgd.) the Arturo
document. right toprosper.
Does
The herthisshare
consideration receipt isinnot thea house
in Art.
sale,
would with at
1602.
only aknowledge
lower
amount price
reserved
to ofmere
of
a Pright
the 1.5 Million.
offer to repurchase
latter? and, Why?But Ray
not agreed to a subrogation of creditor. Will reconveyance of her undivided
case
evidenceof
property is
indicated
Peter
subrogation,
Co's
a contract
byP7,000.00.
way of She
defense of absence
but
to an
sell? assignment
Why?
inheritance,
thought
of agreement
(5%)
that of
shethis can
to
insisted
is then(5%)
SUGGESTED
therefore, on
deemed buying
ANSWER:
it is not the
an enforceable house
original intention. unless it in
interest
of Biong was theand
credit.
SUGGESTED
demand the
document ASSIGNMENT
ANSWER:
waspartition
similar OF
tooftheCREDIT
thefirst thing is the
owned
signed. in
she seller second
Linda
(a) The
sought to be lot,
for first without
sentimental prejudice
reasons.
exercised before a withdrawal his
buyer has the to
better any
Ray prepared
right if or a
a subrogation
It is a contract
However,
process of since of
transferringofcreditor
the sale farmland
the prosper?
because
right wasthe
of thesold todid an ALTERNATIVE
agreement
deed
sale
Even of
was sale
assuming
ANSWER:
between
first to tobe
the be them
signed
facts that
registered,by
given in
the
at lieu
couple
even
the of
end theand
though
of a
common,
When she under
reached Article
home, 494herhe ofson the Civil
afterCode,
X,fully denial
2. The thereof.
suit will not prosper, since Juan's
not reserve
innocent
assignor to ownership
purchaser
the assignee. for untilvalue,
The was
then
assignment Juana paid. has
may no thepayment
manager's
first
case, of the
check
buyer
there value
for
knew
would P2of
of
haveJuana's
Million.
the been secondshare
After
no in the
receiving
sale.
separate The
and askthethat
reading duplicate the title copy of to the the deed, remaining wrongful act of pocketing the entire proceeds
cause of either
action gratuitously
against the buyer consistent in awith fact first lot and
be done
property
informed
Contract
the
be
her
to Sell
established
declared
that
vs.
rule
what as
Contract
or
exclusively
she
that theofrights
onerously,
signed
Saleanofeffect hers.
was not
an innocent time
the
of theP2that
consideration Million,
sale heofdamages,
knew
for
the Biong
such
first the
of lottheissecond
signed
promise notthe
second lot
deed
atoground
sell.beThe
sale of
at
for sale.
the
which
mortgage case, but the assignment
a deed ofmust absolutehas sale. On legal reconveyed
However,
contract of his
would to
Linda her.was
registration
at most
theand divesting him of his rights as a co-owner of the not able
does
amount to
not tosign
make
an it because
optionhim as
(1997)
State the
purchaser
similar to basic
for ofvalue
that difference
a sale (onlybe in their
respected she was abroad. On her return, she refused
following
effects) Between
protected
day, 3 June
notwithstanding
(Nyco
1971,the
aNo.71694.
contract
Sales
Juliet,
to sell,
fraud
Corp.v.BA
accompanied
on1991the 200
employed oneby Will
acting
which
secondthe in
again bad may
lot. Indeed,
suit
faith
not because
be the
such wrongdoing
prosper?
basisthe
Explain.
sale
for by Juan to
an to
actionhim
Finance
by X, went Corp. G.R Aug.16, Equitable
sign
was
for the
ahead
specific Mortgage
document vs.
time,
performance. Sale saying
ANSWER: for the benefit of Juana, in
in hence, she
has achanged
priority her
hand,
the
SCRA and in
seller
637). aback
contract
As a
to Romeo
securing
result ofhis
ofsale,
the
and
title.on demanded
the other.vs.
(Eduarte
assignment,
theCA, (2.5%)
the
does not constitute,
ALTERNATIVE
(2005)
On
mind.
right. July 14,
Linda
What 2004,filed
creates Pedro
suitbad executed
for nullification
faith in in thefavor caseof of the
of
reformation
ADDITIONAL
SUGGESTED
253 SCRA
it, Romeo prepared and signed a
ANSWER:
ANSWER:
391) any of the modes of acquiring ownership
plaintiff acquired all
document wherein, as vendee in the deed of the rights of the assignor Juan
deed
double a Deed
ofsale sale of
of Absolute
and
land for
is Sale
moral
knowledge over and ofa parcel
aexemplary
previous of
under Art. 712, Civil Code. Page 93 of 119
including
sale abovethe right to sue
mentioned, he in his ownand
obligated name as
bound land covered
damages
sale. against by TCT Ray.No.
the legal assignee. In assignment,
himself to resell the land to Juliet or her heirs the debtor's
consent
and successors is not essential for the same for the validity of the
consideration as
assignment
reflected in the deed of sale (P7,000) within a
period of two
a) Article 1592 of the Civil Code does not apply to a
conditional sale. In Valarao v. CA, 304 SCRA and delivery to be made on 01 February 2002.
155, the Supreme Court held that Article 1592 It was stipulated that if payment were not to be
applies only to a contract of sale and not to a made by Y on 01 February 2002, the sale
Deed of Conditional Sale where the seller has between the parties would automatically be
reserved title to the property until full rescinded. Y failed to pay on 01 February 2002,
payment of the purchase price. The law but offered to pay three days later, which
SUGGESTED
applicableANSWER:
is the Maceda Law. payment X refused to accept, claiming that
b) No, the vendor cannot rescind the contract SUGGESTED ANSWER:
their contract of sale had already been
under the circumstances. Under the Maceda No, X is not correct. In the sale of immovable
rescinded. Is X’s contention correct? Why? 5%
Law, which is the law applicable, the seller on property, even though it may have been
installment may not rescind the contract till stipulated, as in this case, that upon failure to
after the lapse of the mandatory grace period pay the price at the time agreed upon the
of 30 days for every one year of installment rescission of the contract shall of right take
payments, and only after 30 days from notice place, the vendee may pay, even after the
of cancellation or demand for rescission by a expiration of the period, as long as no demand
notarial act. In this case, the refusal of the for rescission of the contract has been made
seller to accept payment from the buyer on the upon him either judicially or by a notarial act
49th month was not justified because the (Article 1592, New Civil code). Since no
buyer was entitled to 60 days grace period demand for rescission was made on Y, either
ANOTHER SUGGESTED ANSWER:
and the payment was tendered within that judicially or by a notarial
This is a contract act,not
to sell and X cannot refuse
a contract of
period. Moreover, the notice of rescission to
absolute sale, since as there has been no (3)
accept the payment offered by Y three
served by the seller on the buyer was not days after
delivery ofthe
theexpiration of the
land. Article 1592period.
of the New
effective because the notice was not by a Civil code is not applicable. Instead, Article
notarial act. Besides, the seller may still pay 1595 of the New Civil Code applies. The seller
within 30 days
Maceda Law; Rectofrom
Law such notarial notice has two alternative remedies: (1) specific
before
(1999)
What are rescission may be
the so-called effected.and
"Maceda" All "Recto"
these performance, or (2) rescission or resolution
requirements
laws in connection for a with
validsales
rescission were not
on installments? ALTERNATIVE
under Article ANSWER:
1191 of the New Civil code. In
complied with important
by the seller. Hence, Yes, the contract was automatically rescinded
Give the most features of the
each law. both remedies, damages are due because of
rescission is invalid.
SUGGESTED ANSWER: upon Y’s failure to pay on 01 February 2002.
(5%) default.
The MACEDA LAW (R.A. 655) is applicable to By the express terms of the contract, there is
sales of immovable property on installments. no need for X to make a demand in order for
The most important features are (Rillo v. CA, rescission to take place. (Article 1191, New
(1) After
247 SCRAhaving
461): paid installments for at least Angeles 35 Suria
Civil Code, SCRA v.102
IAC 151 SCRA 661 [1987];
two years, the buyer is entitled to a mandatory [1970]).
U.P. v. de los
Maceda Law
grace period of one month for every year of
(2000)
Priscilla purchased a condominium unit in
installment payments made, to pay the unpaid
Makati City from the Citiland Corporation for a
installments without interest.
If the contract is cancelled, the seller shall price of P10 Million, payable P3 Million down
refund to the buyer the cash surrender value and the balance with interest thereon at 14%
equivalent
"In any of tothe fiftyforegoing
percent (50%) cases,ofany
the total
money, per annum payable in sixty (60) equal monthly
payments made, benefit
fruits, or other and after to five years of by the
be received installments of P198,333.33. They executed a
installments, an additional
vendee as rent or otherwise shall be five percent (5%) Deed of Conditional Sale in which it is
every year but not to exceed ninety
considered as interest which shall be subject percent stipulated that should the vendee fail to pay
(90%) of the total
to the usury laws." payments made. three (3) successive installments, the sale shall
(2) In case
Article 1604the states
installments
that "thepaid were less of
provisions be deemed automatically rescinded without the
than 2 years, the seller shall
article 1602 shall also apply to a contractgive the buyer a necessity of judicial action and all payments
grace period of not less
purporting to be an absolute sale." than 60 days. If the made by the vendee shall be forfeited in favor
buyer fails to pay
For Articles 1602 theandinstallments
1604 todue at thetwo of the vendor by way of rental for the use and
apply,
expiration of theconcur:
requisites must grace period,
1) thethe sellerentered
parties may occupancy of the unit and as liquidated
cancel
into a the contract
contract after 30 days
denominated as from receiptof damages. For 46 months, Priscilla paid the
a contract
by theand
sale; buyer2) of the intention
their notice of cancellation
was to secure or an monthly installments religiously, but on the
demand
G.R. No.for
existing rescission
152168,
debt by way byof notarial
December act. (Heirs
10,
mortgage. The of 47th and 48th months, she failed to pay. On the
2004)
RECTO
Balite v. LAW
Lim, (Art. 1484} refers to sale of 49th month, she tried to pay the installments
In the given
movables payable case, although Pedro
in installments retained
and limiting due but the vendor refused to receive the
possession
the right of of the in
seller, property
case ofas lesseebyafter
default the the payments tendered by her. The following
execution of the Deed of
buyer, to one of three remedies: a) exact Sale, there is no month, the vendor sent her a notice that it was
showing that the intention of the
fulfillment; b) cancel the sale if two or more parties was rescinding the Deed of Conditional Sale
to secure an have
installments existingnotdebt by way of mortgage. pursuant to the stipulation for automatic
Hence, the complaint of Pedro should be rescission,ANSWER:
SUGGESTED and demanded that she vacate the
Immovable Property; Rescission of Contract
dismissed. premises. She replied that the contract cannot
(2003) Page 94 of 119
be rescinded without judicial demand or
notarial act pursuant to Article 1592 of the
Civil Code. a) Is Article 1592 applicable? (3%)
b) Can the vendor rescind the contract? (2%)
CIVILCIVIL
LAWLAW
Answers
Answers
to thetoBAR
the BAR
as Arranged
as Arranged
by Topics
by Topics
(Year(Year
1990-2006)
1990-2006)
and absolute
for
his
contributed
Nestor property.
fundamental
filed P5,000,000.00
an
sale,
Upon action
breach
Simeon
the for facts
tosuddenly
specific
provided
warrant
given,performance.that
the
has resolution
lessor
athe change
building
May
phenomenon
sublessee
Will
A, ofand
SUGGESTED Adela can
thatANSWER:still
heare invoke
hasexercise
still
notno unpredictable
been her
right rightsuperior
remiss ofindespite
redemption?
the to payment
that theof hisof
claiming
whole
action
contract
heart,
had
as
the prosper
would
a sufficiently ofthat leasebe the
orcomplied
leased
specially
not?
dealWhy? to
is with
sodisadvantageous
him (5%)
when (B) commitment
his the
for a delayperiod to 1)
(5%)
Will A
Optionthecan
science,
sublessor,
Explain.
rent.
advances action
the theexercise
Contract
prosper?
phenomenon
moment
in the his
(3%) rightisof
issublessor
considered duly repurchase
unforeseen.
ousted from the
premises, the sublessee has no leg tothe
him
of
was
to ten as
due
give
SUGGESTED years
he
thetoANSWER:
hasthefrom
lessee found
heavy January out
a rightpaperworkthat
1.
of 1985 thein
first property
to processing
refusal December can
when within
Explainfour
(2002)
SUGGESTED the (4)nature
ANSWER: years from
of an standoption on. The
date ofsublessee's
the
contract.
No, the action will not prosper. The implied right, ifAdela
Yes, any,
the is to demand
action
may stillreparation
will exercise for damages
prosper. her Under
rightfrom his ofArticle
fetch
31,
the
he checks.
1995
offeredthree attoa timerental
sell theof
the agreed
P100,000.00
property purchase
to the alessee year.
price. contract
Leasee
To sublessor,
for SUGGESTED & (Art.
Lessor;
ANSWER: 1606,
Rights
(2%) should the latter be at fault. Civil
and Code).
Obligations
renewal
SUGGESTED
Bert
such
P5 seeks
condition,
Million, of the
ANSWER:
specific
which lease
Awas agreed. on
performance
the same a month-to-month
On price December
but he Simeon got20, in An
(1990)
A OPTION
redemption
1651
SUGGESTED
vacant of the
lotANSWER: CONTRACT
notwithstanding
Civil
several Code, blocks the is
from one
sublessee
the lapse
the granting
isofbound
center more of a
2)
basisa) No.
did Sublease
not have isthe different
effect from
of extending the 2}
than
to
the Itown
privilege
the would
30 lessor to
days
was advise
buy
for
from
leased or
all Bnotice
to
sell
acts
by file
within
which
its of an the
owner action
an
refer
sale to for
agreed
given
ato the
young time
to
use
contends
1990,
selling the
it to that
building
Santos. he has wasmerely
He totallygiven
certainly burned.
had the Bertright Soon
an (Heirs ofSevilla v. Court of Appeals G.R. No.
assignment
life of the oflessee's
option lease. tonothingSublease,
purchase not
which being
expired at consolidation
her
and atFebruary
because a Article
preservation
businessman Boffor
determinedtitle of
a1623and
the obtain
term price.
of
thing
of the
fifteen aleased
New judicial
It must
Civil
(15) in
years be
the
option
thereafter,
to treat tothe buy A's and
workers cleared
counter-offermore, the
and debris
of offers
a lesser and
to 49823, 26, 1992).
prohibited
the endthe of by the contract of lease is therefore order
supported of consolidation
by aagreementconsideration which must
distinct be recorded
from
B.
returnWill
started
amount as the
Bert’s
construction
option original
action
a rejection money lease
offor
of awhich period.
specific
new
his building.
offer Bert toThe
performance
refuses
sellB lessor
atthenP5 manner
to Code
renewal requires
stipulated
upon that between
the notice of thethe in lessor
writing
parties. andof the
After the
allowed
is correct and in cannot
refusing beto invoked
sell as a ground to in the
Sublease;
price. Registry
(Art. Validity;
1479 of Property
Assignment
and 1482, (Art.
of
NCC) 1607.vendor
theSublease Civil
prosper?
accept.
served
Million. noticeExplain.
Thus, upon he(4%) A
was that heonwould
free the
to findground
occupy another that
the lessee.
sale
taking must come
possession from of the the prospective
lot, lessee built or
cancel
C.
the May
option the Simeonlease,
had receipt justify
expired. his refusal to proceed Sublease;
Code).
(1990)
Option
A leased Delay
Contract;
a parcel in Payment
Earnest
of land of
Money
to Rentals
B for a period a of
building
buyer upon being constructed of such uponunacceptable completion, vendor thereon
Transfer
asa the case of
building
of Ownership;
may mixed
Non-Payment
be. In this case,
materials
of did
the a Price and the
Sublease
b)
with No,the thevs. ANSWER:
Assignment
lessor
sale by cannot of Lease;
the haveRescission
fact the lease
that the of deal
Contract is (1994)
In
(1993)
LT
two
notice January
applied
years.
of the with
The 1993,
sale BPI
lease
was Four-Gives
to purchase
contract
given by the Corporation
nothouse
vendee contain and
SUGGESTED
for the unexpired
counter-offer (Art. 1319. portion NCC). of the lease term, ALTERNATIVE store.
(1991)
Pablo As hisyears
sold car to passed,
Alfonso he who expanded
issued hisand
a
(2005)
Yes,
cancelled the answer
financially for alleged
disadvantageouswill violation
be the to same.
ofhim?the The provision
Explain.action any leased
lot
the in the
Quezon
express
Register entire
ANSWER:
of City,
Deeds. twelve
one
prohibition The of floors
its
period acquired of
against
of 30 the GQS
assets.
days the
explaining that he had spent partly for the Adela business,
postdated can earning
no
check longer more
infor exercise
full profits.
payment her By the tenth
right
therefor. of
will
Under
against
SUGGESTED
(4%) notaassignment.
prosper
written
ANSWER:contract because
The lessee dated
an option did December
not must assignbe 1, Towers
The
never amount
assignment Complex,
tolled. offered
ofShe the can wasa
leasehold period
still Pl,000,000.00
avail or ofof ten
the that yearspayable,
subleasing
right. at a
construction of the building that was burned.ofA redemption. (10th)
Before year
the ofAs
maturityhis possession,
co-owner, of the she
check, he
hadwas only
Alfonso able 30 soldto
days
B.
Yes.
the Bert’s
supported
1989, A was
lease, Victor action
orcorrect
by any for
a portion
leased in specific
rejecting
consideration
histhereof,land performance
the
to
to demand
separateJoel forwill
the and a monthly
as
of follows:
the leased rental of
P200,000.00
premises. P3,000,000.00. down
During the There
payment,third is the
year a
rejected B's demand. Did destruction
A has aa right in build a three (3)-story building worth at least
prosper
B. As aoffrom
distinct
period
subsidiaries. result
because
five Ittheof years
(5)
merely the
purchasethere
totalat a price.
subleased was
monthly some In rental binding
this of case
floors theofto from
thethe car
provision
balance
of the
P300,000.00.
toof
lease, time
Gregorio
in she
the
P800,000.00
BBefore received
subleased who
contract
the
later written
payable
the
end
sold
that
land
of the
itnotice
the
within
to to
C.monthly
term 90
In ofdays
ofturn,
the
rejecting
agreement
building B's
byto of demand?
fortuitous
sale, notconsideration.
just
event, an the sale
Gabriel. which
When in this
presented case took
for the
payment, form the of a
there
Pl,000.00,
its is no
subsidiaries. separate
beSince increased the problem tooption
the
Pl,200.00 lease
does contract.
notwas
Therefore, and rentals
from
C, withoutJuneshould 1,
A's be1985.paid
consent, within
BPI the
accepted
assigned first
the five
the
sublease days
offer,
lease,
copy
check of B negotiated
the deed of with
sale the
being landowner
given to herfor its
The
extinguished.
state sale
the option
Pl,500.00 that was may
the (Art.
perfected
oncontractbe 1655,
thewithdrawn of Civil
third upon
lease andCode.)
by acceptance
Ubaldo
contains fifth aat year, by
any of theAissued
whereupon
to D.
renewal, month.
then but LT bydrew
filed Alfonso
For
despite anthe atheir wasfor
month
check
action dishonored
for
attempts ofP200,000.00
the March,
rescission byMay, the in
of
Implied
Simeon
time. (Art.
respectively.
prohibition New
of1324, 10%
against Lease
On NCC)ofsublease,
the agreed
January the1, sublease price. is
1991, This
Joel drawee
(Conejero
June,
favor
the bank
October
of
contract v.BPI CA,for
of and 16the
which
lease SCRAreason
December
on 775
the that[1966])
1993,
latter
ground he, to the
that
do so,
.thereafter
The
Alfonso,rentals
B law
has
Right of what First Refusal; they could not agree onaccount
the neweven conditions for
(1999)
Under
amount
subleased
lawful, the is the in
rule circumstances
really
land
being toLessee;
earnest
Conrad
that Effect
in would
thefor money
absenceaanperiodimplied
which,
of an of does
had
were
deposited
violated not
already
notthe prescribe
paidinclosed on
its time
terms any
his
andwith
account. particular some
conditions On September form
rentalsbefore
ofthe theof being he
lease 5,
(1998)
In the renewal. Upon the expiration of term
twoaDecember
On
new
under
express 20-year
lease
(2) Art.
years or lease
1482,
prohibition at31,
a atacita contract
1992,
“shall
monthly
a lessee Joel over
berental assigned
reconduccion
considered
may asublet
ofbuilding, the
Pl,500.00.asarise?
the the
lease
part (a)
written
issued
delayed
1985, B's LT
agreement. sublease
notice,
his up check.
wroteto
If nor
ten
you to
BPI any
Pablo
days.
were distinctive
sued
requestingThe
the to
delay
judge,recovermethod
was
extensionhow the
due forcar
until
would to
lessee
to hisleased,is expressly
compadre, granted a acted
right of
on first of
C? the
Four-Gives
(b) C's
and lease,
assignment the
Corporation landowner
ofwithin
the also asked
subleased B to vacate
five ofthe
SUGGESTED
(2%)
of
thingthe price ANSWER:
and
in whole asErnie,proof
or inof who
part, the perfection
without theof notifying
from
the
October
you Gabriel
heavy
decide the
10, paper
theredemptioner
alleging
1985 work
case, that he
involved
particularly (Pablo)
(Etcuban
which inwith had
v. CA,
processing
to pay been
respect148
An
belief implied
Sublease;
refusal Sublessee;
should
that new
Joel the lease
Liability
was lessortheor tacita
decide
rightful reconduccion
to ownersell both
and the premises
SUGGESTED
the twelve
sublease
unlawfully
SCRA 507 to ANSWER:
floors
D? and
deprived
[1987]). remove
to Sowholly-owned
of long
it byhisas building
the
reason of and
subsidiaries.
Alfonso's
the contract.” (Topacio
prejudice to his/its responsibility to the lessor v. CA, 211 SCRA 291 the
to
No. checks.
balance,
the validityto which of:notBPI agreed. On October 5,
arises
C. Simeon
(1999)
May
the
possessor
[1992];
for the land if Villongco
a lessee atand
performance
the
cannot
of endjustify
sublease
building.
the of the thehis
of theHowever,
said
Realty
contract
property
lot. refusal
Joel leased
v. Bormaheco,
contract.
the
to
the lessee
hasproceedlessor
been 65 The The
other lease
redemptioner
deception.
1985,
suit
improvements.
due Will
will
contractto was the the
prosper
informed
suit B refused
expressly prosper?
expected in
becauseunless
prohibits
writing,
delay
Pablo
he
the
he in
was
has the
should
with the
without the continue
the sale
consent byenjoyingthe
of factthe thing
that leased
the deal for was
is no not
reimbursed unlawfullyforthe necessary deprived of
and useful the car expenses.
sold
faithfully
SCRA 352 property
paying
[1975]). tothe a thethird lessor,
stipulated person and whowhat
rentals knew are to assignment
cause to complain
remittance ofof hethe lease contract
(Distrito
needed v. or any
CA,
amount 197 bySCRA his
15 days
financially
the respective with the
disadvantageous
liabilitiesacquiescence of the to of
lessee him. theand lessor,
Having
sub- although
B claimed
portion hethat
thereof. was unlawfully
The was a
rental deprived
possessor
value of and
the ofbuilder
the
about the
Victor. When lease Victor and learned in fact agreed on Mayto18, respect1992 SUGGESTED
606,
financier609 ANSWER:
[1991])
from the . In fact,
United in Distrito,
States, LT a written
wrote BPI
and
made
lessee unless
ato bad
the a lessor
notice
bargain to
inand is
casethe
not ofcontrary
abrings
legalsublease?
such by
ground either price.
in good
for notice
a) B has
building Thefaith,
the
has perfection
with
right to right of
remove the
of50% sale
retention.
the and
building the
This issue
and
it.
about Consequently,
parties
the
has
sublease
previously
the lessee
been
assignment,
given (Art.
an heaction sued
1670). requesting
Right
delivery
is now
was
ofimprovements
First aincreased
held
of Refusal;
before the last unnecessary
carLessee;
the extension
was
court
by
Effect
enough
for
where
resolution
since
until
to allow
theits
October
in
lease
co-
a 30,
pulling
SUGGESTED
(3%)
a)
against Will out
both a
ANSWER:
the the biding
action lessor-seller
Joel, Conrad and Ernie for rescission of the contract
prosper? and of
If the sale,
so, in
against
buyer the
(a) other
to
ownerFour-Gives
had actual Corporation.
knowledgeunless 1)theofCan landowner
the
thebalance.
sale, building
Yes,
v. provided
Villa, 35 that
Phil there
769 is
[1916]) no express
, and no such 1985,
(1996)
Alfonso
Ubaldo
pending within
to
is have
the
litigation. which
owner a right
a) of to
What of
a pay
ownership
building
are the the which over
rights hasthe
of BPI
B?
In
whom?
to short,Explain.
absence
rescind
contract ofin
of some
the
leaseorder
sale (2%)
and that
actionable
and for (b) there
damages.wrong
to maybybe
compel the tacita
specific other havingdecides
owner eject to retain
acted Four-Gives the building
as middleman Corporation
and at being
the on time present
prohibition
wrong
reconduccion hasANSWER: against
been therecommittedsubleasing.
must of be by Under theoflaw,
Bert.
expiration denied
been
car,
b) which
What leased LTs
are can byrequest
the beRemigio
lawfully
rights ofbecause
forthetransferred
the past
landowner? another
20 toyears. had
SUGGESTED
party (Vales
performance of his right first refusal in the the the
grounds
when
offered
termination
the of the
vendor
to buy
of
repeated the lease
signed the delays
the same
and
deed inpay the
of thepayment
sale.
property
lessee
for
when
Yes, the
contract; in action
the contract of for of lease
rescission be of ofthings
the contract there is of Gregorio.
Ubaldo
SUGGESTED ofArt.
has 2}559
repeatedly
ANSWERS: applies
of assured only to a person
Remigio that if
sense that there the lessor must should continuation
be ordered to of one-half
of the rent?
P1,500,000.00.
the value
CanBPI the the
building
cancelled
improvements owner
its ask
agreement
atfor
Redemption;
no
lease express
possession and for forLegal;
prohibition,
damages 15 Formalities
days theor
will lessee
prosper.more; may
Under and subletArticle
there 1)
he
who
that a) The
should
is in "repeated
possession
decide
time. The lessee to delays"
sell
in good
the in
building,
faith the of payment
the
he will of
execute a deed ofLandsabsolute sale in favor of the the cancellation
with LT and of themay
offered contract
to
remove
return forthe to
building
violationhim of
the
Lease
(2001)
Betty
1659
the
must of
thing
be of
and the
no Rural
Lydia
Civil
leased
priorsame were
Code,
without
demand co-owners
"if the
prejudice lessor
to vacate. oftoa his
or parcel of
the lessee rentals
property,
give
even Remigio
though would,
andthe at
notprincipal
the best,
to the
right be
ofowner
first
thinga slight
thereof.
refusal.
may suffer or casual
On June
lessee at the price. the provision against assignment?
(2000)
In
land.1995,
should
responsibility
SUGGESTED notMark
Last January
comply
ANSWER: forleased with
the 31, the rice The
2001,
performance obligationsland
when
defendants
ofofset Narding
she
the forth paid in Non-payment
amount
breach
30, 1994,
Alfonso,
damage
of
which
inUbaldo
but theB
ofproblem,
P200,000.00
doesthe
should informedprice
not
not
that
was in
furnish athe
LT
Remigio
cause
contract
any
had
a ground
owner, paid
that
more
ofand,
he sale
tofor it.
contend
The
in action
Nueva that the1657,
filed
Ecija plaintiff
by
for the
an can
lessee,
annual neither for
rental seek
both of does
On not
October render 20, ineffective
1985, uponthe obligation
receipt to
of the
Articles
her real 1654
estate and tax,
contract toward the lessor. [Art, 1650) In case Betty the aggrieved
discovered party
that Lydiamay ejectment
hence,
was willing
impairment Gabriel especially
to
upon acquired
sell because
theproperty
the the title
building the
fortoP5
leased delays
the car.is
Million.
than were
rescission of the the offendingsaleofInnor compel specific deliver.
rescission
P1,000.00
ask
had sold
there foraher
is of
per hectare.
rescission
subleaseshare to the
of Emma 1998,
the
premises sale and
due
contract
on November being tospecific
the10, El
and amount
only
The dueThe
following
SUGGESTED
necessary.
ofto obligation
P800,000.00
heavy
ANSWER:
The day,claim paper
Remigio of
tofrom
B
deliver
work. sent
that
his
he aaletter
Note thing
US
was thata
isthere
financier,
to
performance of a "mere" right of first refusal. different
BPI is from the obligation to pay its price.
performance
Nino
2000.phenomenon,
indemnification
leased, The
the sublessee offor
followingthedamages,
right
the is rice
day,
boundof harvest
first
ortoonly
Betty refusal
thefell theto
offered
lessor whichonly
latter,
forto was
Ubaldo
possessornotnot
LT offered even correct
to
andabuilder
offering pay demand
to buy in the
the canceling
amount
in forgood payment
building bythe
faith
contracta
tendering
atobviously
with P4.5 the
Decide
was the
violated, case. should [5%] prosper. EDCA
with
cashier's LT.Publishing
In check Co.
therefor v. Santos
vbut which(1990) BPI refused
40%
allowing
Equatorial
redeem
all the ofacts the
theRealty
her average
contract
share
which from
refer harvest
to
Development, remain
to the The
Emma, for
usein
Inc. ruling
the
butforce."
and vs.
the in
previousArticle
Mayfair
latter because
SUGGESTED
Million.
right of the Lina
ANSWER:
Ubaldo
retention delay Topacio
did is lasted
not
not reply.Court
for
tenable. only
One ofweek
B
Appeals
is a few
not a days
later, and
years.
1649 ofMark the asked
same Narding for a
a redeem case
reduction withof Transfer
b)
to
BPI The
accept. of Ownership;
landowner/lessor
Investment LT then (G. Risk
filed
R ofaLoss
No. may
complaint
102606, refuse Julyto 3.end
against 1993, BPI
Theater,
replied
preservation Inc.
that theCode
(264
ofBetty's SCRA
thing provides
rightleased483), to that
in the "themanner lessee
has (10
Remigio
builder days being
received
insecond-hand
good the
faith a letterlongest),
because from as at
Santos
lessee the he does of
SUGGESTED
similar facts,ANSWER: sustains both rights of (1990)
D sold
reimburse
in the a RTC 1/2 of
for thethe
the car
value
Supreme
specific toofEpresumably
thefor
Court
performanceP150,000.00
heldsold that
and
cannot
the
already rental
stipulated assign to
prescribed.
betweenthe
P500.00 lease the without
Isper Emma
lessorhectare the
and consent
correctfor
the that oraction
lessee. ofyearthe
not? 211
which
informing
not
SCRA time 291)
him payments
that were
building has been made
Emma,
SUGGESTED
because
lessor,
but the the
unless the
latter buyer,
ANSWER:
buyer
there
refused. is
isinanot the Iscorrect.
subsequent
stipulation
Mark toBetty
legally thesale canknew
contrary."
entitled still the The claim
agreement
improvements
deposited
and earnest
were
ownership
in court
accepted. between
and
money the
overDthe
require
is amount
There part and
thewas,
property
E
oflessee
of was
the to
therefore,
leased.
that
purchase
P800,000.00. half
Why?
(Art.
No, Mark
(5%)
1651} is Thenot sublessee
entitled to is asubsidiarily
reduction. liable
Under to him by Ubaldo for P5 Million, and that he no
enforce
(Bangayan her
is v. right
Court of of legal
Appeals, redemption G.R.the No. as a
123581, co- of
in price
Is the
remove purchase
and the price,
improvements.
is proof or
ofinthe P75,000.00,
[Article
perfection shall
1678, be
ofCivilthe
Consent
the
to the
Article
existence
such reduction?
lessor
1680
necessary
forof any
of
right
the
(2%) because
rent
Civil
of first
due
Code,
assignment
refusal,
from the
hence
lessee.
lessee
would
of a willBPI
default.not legally
Note
renew correct
also
Remigio's that canceling
there
lease was
whenno its contract
demand
it expires.
owner.
ANOTHER
August
cause
bad faith. Article
ANSWER:
29,
novation 1997) 1623
by However,
the of the
substitution Civil
the Code
rule of is
one gives
different
of the a paid
Leasee;
Code),
contract.
with
made upon
LT? Death
upon delivery
Thereof;
Secondly,
the of the
Effects car
notarial to E and
or the judicial
However,
The
rural actionthe sublessee
istoentitled
rescind tothe shall sale notand be responsible
to the compel Remigio filed an lessee
action to againstvacate Ubaldothe premises and
in theland
co-owner
parties.
beyond case
the
30 of
amount
days from
subleasing.
of the
awritten
reduction
rent When due
notice of
there
from
ofis
him.
rent
the balance
(1997)
ALTERNATIVE
Stating
no rescission
for
Santos non-payment
for
of P75,000.00
briefly ANSWER:
under theof
cancellation Art. theshall
thesis 1592
monthly
of the
be
to supportand paid
sale, rent.1991
and
in There
your five
to of the is,
the
only
sale byright
in the to
case first
vendorof loss refusal
to of
exercisewill
more not than
his prosper.
right 1/2 (Ang
ofoflegal the BPI
b)
equalThe
answer is correct
building
monthly
to each in of canceling
owner
installments
the following cannot its contract
eject
of P15,000.00
cases, with
Four-Gives
will the LT
express
(Art. 1652) prohibition
As to the in the
lessee, Contract
the latter of Lease,
shall the
still Civil
therefore,
compel Code Ubaldo is
no necessary
cause
to execute of (Taguba
action
a deed v.forde
of Leon,
ejectment
absolute 132
Yu Asuncion
fruits through
redemption. vs. CA,
In extraordinary
thethe 238
present SCRA 602).
and unforeseen
problem, The Court
the1650, 30- SCRA but BPI
building
Corporation
each.
death The
- from
a) of must
car instead
on
the was thedo
lessee of so
ground
delivered by
aextinguish
rightto way
ofofE, first of
therefusal,
repeated
and judicial
E paid
lease delays will your
lessee
be may sublet
responsible to the thingfor
lessor leased.
the rents; (Art. bring arising in722.)
saleanswer his ANSWER:
favor,the "repeated
based delays".
onExplain.
his right ofCode.
first The
ruled
fortuitous
day in a unanimous
period events.
for the While en banc
exercise the decision
drought
by Betty that
brought
of the
her rescission
in
the the
amount
SUGGESTED
agreement? payment under
be
of the Article
same?
of
P75.000.00 rentals. 1191
to D.The Civil
Less delaythan inone the
Civil
to Code)
In the
right
about
righttheof knowledge
ofgiven
by first
thecase,
redemption "El of
refusal when the is
had Joel
Nino" lessor
not not every
assigned
phenomenon
even founded
begun
usurpation
the maytoupon
lease
runbe No.refusal.
law
payment
month The
requires a)
death Will
of the
thereafter, a of the the
rentals
action
thelessee
judicial car
prosper?
action,
iswas will
minimal not Explain.
and
stolen extinguish
mere
and
fromcannot notice
E's
b)
or untoward
contract
ALTERNATIVE
to Ernie,
classified but the act
on
ANSWER: which
a
same
as extraordinary, any
quasi-delictual
was third
done
itrent.
is Hisperson
not relationship
without may
considered the If
the
of Ubaldo
lease
rescission
SUGGESTED had
agreement,
ANSWER:is given
insufficientRemigio
since lease
if an
it option
is is not
resisted. to The
because
Yes, Mark no
is entitled notice
to aor reduction in ofwriting of themore sale be
garage made with thenobasis fault of on an E's ejectment
part and was suit. never The
have committed may bethe openly loss was
preparing to purchase
No, the the
action
Redemption; Legal; Formalities personal in Eto
character compel and Ubaldo
the right to execute
istheis
covered by the principles of SUGGESTED
law also ANSWER:
provides that slight breach not a
consent
as
thanunforeseen.
appears1/2 of the tooffruits
haveVictor.
andbeen the loss Thegiven due totohuman
was assignment her by Lydia.
an extraordinary
relations
is void. and delay
recovered.
Yes,deed
was
E is for
due
Is
legally
to the
legally
bound
heavy
bound
to(Song
pay
paperwork
to
theFo
pay
balance
involved
said
of vs,
carry
(2002)
Adela
and out
unjustand upon Beth the
enrichment is thing
are leased;
co-owners
(Art. 19,advise
ofetthat a seq. the the
parcel
is inCivil the
of transmissible
ground of absolute to the
rescission sale
heirs. will
(Heirs not prosper.
of
However,
unforeseen there
fortuitous event. no
The "Elindication
Nino" phenomenon in processing
unpaid balance the of checks.
P75.000.00? It would Explain be&otherwiseCo,
your
owner
land.
writtenBeth
Code).
extraordinary the
Hence need
contract
becausesold the for
it isher
only
of alllease
uncommon; repairs;
undivided
action between
it does to
that notreturn
share
will Victor
occur the
of and
prosper
with P75,000.00.
According
the Dimaculangan
Hawaiian to
Phil The
Ang ownership
Yu
vs. IAC,
Co., v.
47stated Court
170 SCRA
Phils. of of the
821), Appealscar
Delay
393). sold inwas
(238 the
if the lease
answer. contract that in the payment
thing
regularity.
property
according
Joel, that leased
And upon
neither
to
to the could
Xandro, thethe
Supreme
subleasing termination
parties
who Court have
the of
foreseen
promptly premises the
its
is an notified lease
"action Option
acquired
SCRA
is fulfillment to
602) Buy;by, Expired
ofE
the fromright
the obligationtheof moment
first refusal it
(Art. days wasis not
1169,ofCivil
Right ofThe Repurchase of rentals within the first five the
occurrence.
just
Adela
for as he
of
damages
prohibited. the event
received sale
Hence, in
should it,
aand be
the
foreseeable
save whatforum
furnished
proper sublease
byhasthe been
the
of
parties so
latter
for
Joel lostthat
the
with a (2001)
On January
delivered
based
Code) on
is a 1,
toground
contracthim.1980, Having
but
to Nestor
is leased
acquired
predicated
rescind, only the
ownership,
on
if the
time is of
the lessee
(1993)
On January can change 2, the time for his B planting, or refrain from month, time is of the essence or that the lessee
or
copy impaired
purpose."
Conrad of
or is the by1980,
valid. the
deedInavoidviewAof
lapse and
the of of time
absolute
the entered or sale.
foregoing, byinto ordinary a
When
Victor fishpond
E bears
provisions
the essence. ofofMario
the risk
human offor
Otherwise, the alossperiod
relations the of court of three
the
and, thing
therefore,
may years
under
refuse
planting, take steps to loss. To be foreseeable, the time will
Perfectedbe in delay
Sale;isof if
Acceptance he falls
ofon to pay within the
contract
wear
Sublease;
Xandro
canthefile
and and
place whereby
tear
Sublessee;
presented
the
of thecase or from Aof
occurrence, sold
Liability
the an to
asdeed
rescission
well Basathe
inevitable parcel
for and of
cause;
registration,
magnitude land
damages
of the at aviolation
the
its
the
agreed
monthly
doctrine
rescission
period
rentalresthere
predicated
if
without
of P1,000.00,
perit is
need a Earnest
domino. with
quasi-delict.
just
of demand. causeMoney
[Articles anfor the
In the this
for
A
b)
the and
responsible
(2000)
adverse
leased
In in
effects
his
case
register consideration
houseof for
ofthe
of to the
fortuitous
B
deeds with
rescission, a of
deterioration
event
condition
also P10.000.00.
must that
discuss
notified be or
capable
the loss
leased
Adelathe ofA of
being
premisesthe
rights
of the (2002)
Bert
option
1496.
Secondly,
fixing offers
ofto
1497, a the to
purchase
period. buy
Civil
right Simeon’s
the
Code).
of same
first property
during
refusal the
implies under period
that
only against Joel and Ernie but he cannot case he can judicially eject the tenant on the
LEASE
reserving
predicted.
thing
shall
and
sale,
Since
leased,
beobligations
used
enclosing tothe
for himself
exact place,
unless
residentialaof thethe
he
purposes
copythe right
proves exact to
only.
parties.
of the
time,
that repurchase
B deed and
subleased
(2%) it the
took exact
with theplace the the following
of the offer lease of terms
the theand
for person price inconditions:
of
whose P500,000.00.
favor P1that million
After
include
magnitude Conrad.
of the adverse effects of the "El Nino" ground of lack of payment of the price
the same.
SUGGESTED
without
house
notice. Because
whoANSWER:
his
to CHowever, fault.
used athey
it asAdela warehousewere
ignored forfriends,
fabrics.
the no learningA c)
Upon
notices. purchase
theNo.
right expiration
was price,
Resolution
given 10%
ofmust option
theofthree-year a contract
conform money,
withperiod, the same
will
the balance
Mario
not be
Rescissionwas
period of theagreed
lease necessarily upon requires
for the the return of the thing
repurchase of stipulated
payable
ALTERNATIVE in after
cash
ANSWER: a upondemand the toclearance
vacate, (Article
of but the
this, been
to theAlessor.
year demanded
later, paid; thatthe
Xandro C judgment
stop using filed theahouse as a warehouse,
petition of for
the the
allowed
permitted
terms andNewNestorfor
conditions a to remain
slight or in the
casual
as those given to the leased breach,
the property.
Hence,
1) Until when
granting
must
rescission
A exercise his 1673(2),
Extinguishment;
No,
propertythe action
of allCivil
Total
will illegal Code),
Distruction;
not prosper. Leased
occupants. The Property
lessee's
The option
c)
but C ignored
partition foreclose
contract shouldof the demand,
alsothe the
order the A chattel
then
property. filed
lessee to vacate mortgage
an action
Upon for
and return on
ejectment
receipt the
the premises
only
of offeree. for atsuch the same
substantial
In this case, however, Remigio was rental rate.
and On June
fundamental 15,
right
things of repurchase? 2) Ifof Adefault
fails to redeem
twooforthe (1993)
right
A is the
money of isfirst
owner
promptlyrefusal
of a does
lot
paid on not
andwhich go he
Simeon soobjectfarclears
as to
against
leased
summons, C,sold,
who
premises also
raised
to the the
Adela indefense
lessor. case However,
immediately that there
since is thenoof
tenderedprivity 1983,
the breach
offering Nestor
asonly would tendered
P4.5 defeat
Million the the amount
instead very ofof P5 of the
property
more installments, within thefor allowable
with no redemption.
further period, action what give
property him
constructed
P500,000.00
parties the
inof makingapower
building
illegal
to Mario to
occupants
the dictate
andin the
demanded
agreement. on
total the
in no time cost lessor
that of at thethe
all.
contract
requisite between amount him and the Xandro Million. (Zepeda v.
would
against youthe advise
purchaser. B to do for his better price
However,
latter
CA, 216
at
P10,000,000.00. which
execute
SCRA when athe
293]
Of
Bert
deed latter
. that
The of should
amount
tenders
absolute
delay of sell
B
payment
sale
ten of
(10)) of
the the
days
contends that Adela lost her right of
protection?
redemption after the expiration of 30 days is balance
fishpond
not such and
in ahis ask Simeon
favor.
substantial Mario for refused,
the deedon the
from her receipt of the notice of the sale given ground that Nestor no longer had an option to
by him. buy the fishpond.
ratify ifthe
failure
And ofthe thesale proceeds
airline
contract,to takeof then
theextra Jesus
foreclosure
precautions
shall be are
despite
liable
negate
All
allowing
notthose sale
the
contracts
because
other generalweretheyexecuted
indicate
partnerthat by
to B bind
ownership
while theA was
police
pay
1898.
a the
sufficient
(Article Civil
warning
loantoCode).
in full,
that the an bankattempt cannot to hijack
run after the confined
will
units
overwasviolate
the
corporation neverdue thetocorporation
intended illness
to transferinto the law
the Makati
principle
distributor. Medical
that
plane
CX forwould
the deficiency.
be made, was negligence on the Center.
only theRule board onofthe directors
validitymay andbind binding the effect
Termination;
part of the ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE Effect
airline. of Being
Death negligent,
of Agent it is liable Agency;
of eachcoupled
corporation. of the with above
an interest contracts upon A the
While
for theas
(1997)
Stating deatha general
briefly rule
of the passenger.
thesis thetoprincipal
support
The defenseisyour
notof (2001)
Richard sold
SUGGESTED
principal. ANSWER:
Explaina large your parcel
answers, of land in Cebu to
liable
answer for
to the
each contract
of the entered
following
force majeure is not tenable since the shooting into
cases, by
will his
the The
3)
Leo No,
for agency
for
P100 the couched
million same reasons
payable in ingeneral
given interms
annual the
agent
death
incident -in(c)case
would of the
annot agent
agent have acted
end anin
happened his own
agency? had namethe comprised
Answer
installments to Numberonly
over acts a2 above.
period of administration
of ten years, but(Art.
withouttaken
SUGGESTED
airline disclosing
ANSWER: stepshis that principal,
could have suchprevented
rule does 1877,
title will Civil
remain Code). with The lease until
Richard contractthe on the
Yes.
not The
apply
ALTERNATIVE death
if
ANSWER: the of an
contractagent extinguishes
involves a the
thing Conveyance
Manila parcel of a
is Partner’s
not valid,
purchase price is fully paid. To enable Leo to Share
not Dissolution
enforceable and
the hijacker from boarding the plane.
Under Article
agency,
belonging bytoexpressthe 1763 of theIn Civil
provision
principal. of par.
such Code,
case,3, Art the (1998)
the Dielle,
not Karlo and Una are
pay the price, Richard gave him a power-of-the
binding upon A. For generalB to partners
lease in a
common
1919
principal of the carrier
is Civil
liable isunder
Code. not required
Article 1883 to observe
of the merchandising
property to C, firm.
for more
attorney authorizing him to subdivide the Having than contributed
one (1) year,equal A
extraordinary
ALTERNATIVE
Code.ANSWER: diligence
contractinispreventing injuryon to amounts to the capital, they also agree on
Civil
CX would not be
its passengers
his PARTNERSHIP
behalf (Sy-juco
The
onliable
account for of
v. Sy-juco
deemed made
thethe bank loan.acts
willful
40 Phil. 634
CX's
must
equal
attorney
proceeds
provide
distribution
(Art.
B with
land, sell the individual lots, and deliver the
or The lease of the Caloocan
1878.
to Richard, of
Civil
a special
City property
to whateverappliednet
beCode).
power
to the
to D isis
profit
of
property would also not
negligence of other passengers or of strangers. realized be liable on the valid and binding upon A. Since two years isof
the lease
[1920]).
mortgage. purchaseper price. fiscal
Fiveperiod.
years later, AfterRichard
Composition
The common ofSince
carrier, DY in
Partnerships; didthat not
Spouses; specify
Corporations
case, that
is required heto SUGGESTED
(1994) without
operation, a fixed term, it is understood to be
revoked thehowever, Una conveys herover whole
ANSWER:
was acting forthe CXdiligence
in the transaction with the power of attorney and took
exercise only of a good father The revocation
from
of a interest month
in the tois not valid.since
month,
partnership The
to power
the rental
Justine, ofwithout is
bank, the sale Is of thethe subdivision lots himself. Is the
family;DY
1) Can inaeffect
hence, husband acted
the failure andin his
ofwife own
theformairline name.
a limited
to takeIn 1.
attorney
payable
the given partnership
monthly
knowledge
revocation valid
to
and the
(Art. buyer
1687,is
consent
or not?
irrevocable
Civil
of DielleCode). and Karlo.
the caseprecautions
partnership
EXTRA of Rural
to engage Bank in in ofrealBombon
frisking the v.
estate CA, 212
business,
passengers The
2. Whatsaleare
dissolved?
because itofis the
12%]the
coupledQuezon
rights ofWhy?
with City an parcel
Justine, (5%) to the
if any,
interest: Eshould
is not
SCRA,
with
and the (1992)
by wife leaving , the
being Supreme
thata limited Court,
matterpartner? under the
to the security agency is the means of fulfilling the obligationa
valid
she and
desire not
to binding
participate upon
in the A. B
management needed
same
2)
personnel of the airport, does notato
Can facts,
two corporations
ruled that "in
organize
order general
bind thea of
constitute special power
the partnership
buyer to payof attorney
and
the in pricetheto validly
the landsellofthe
distribution
of a
principal
partnership by undera mortgage
the
breach of that duty so as to make the airline Civil Code
on real
of the property land
net (Arts.
profit
(Article of
1927, 1877
P360.000.00
CC). and
In 1878,
other which Civil
words, was Code).
a realized
bilateral The
executed
Philippines? by 3) anCan agent,ausecorporation
it SUGGESTED ANSWER:
liable. Besides, the of must upon
irresistible and an its
force face sale
by after
contract
(a) B's
of
herthe land at to
purchase
(contract
sublease to
a buy
of very
Una's good
and
C iscontract
interest?
valid.
sell price
the [3%]
Although
does not
land) is
the
purport
individual to form
be made,
a generalsigned partnership?
and sealed in the Agency;
cure
dependent Guarantee
the defect
on theCommission
of the
agency. arising from
the hijackers was farce majeure that could not original period of two years for the lease
Powers
(2004)
As an of
agent, the
AL Agent
was given a guarantee
AGENCY
SUGGESTED
name of the ANSWER:principal, otherwise, it will bindof lack of authority
have
1) been
a)agent
Yes. Theprevented
Civil Code even by the observance
prohibits a husband contractRealty has in expired, the
the only. It is not enough merely that the (1994)
Prime
commission, Corporation
addition to lease
his continued
appointed
regular Nestorwith
extraordinary
and
Agency wife from diligence.
constituting a universal acquiescence of the lessor during the third
agent was in fact authorized to make the the exclusive
commission, agent
after he in
sold the 20 sale
units ofof lots of its
partnership.
(2003)
Jo-Ann asked Since
her a
closelimited
mortgage, if he, has not acted in the name of friend,partnership
Aissa, to is buy year.
newly Hence,
refrigeratorsdeveloped to there
a has
subdivision.
customer, HTbeen Prime
Hotel. an implied
TheRealty
not
some
the a universal
groceries
principal. partnership,
for her
Neither athe
husband
is itinordinarily and
supermarket.
sufficient renewal
told Nestor
customer, ofhowever,
the he
that contract
could
failed not of pay
to lease. for Under
collect or receive
the units Art.
wife
Was may
that there
in the validly
a mortgage form one.
nominate theb) Yes.
contract agent While
entereddescribesinto 1650
sold. of
payments AL’s thefrom Civil
principal, theCode,buyers.
DRBI, the lesseewas
Nestor
demanded may sublet
able
from AL to
spouses
betweencannot
himself Jo-Ann
as acting enter
andby into
Aissa? a universal
virtue In theof aaffirmative,
power of the
sell
paymentthing
ten lots leased,
for to Jesus
the in whole
customer’s and to or in part,the
collect
accountability. when down the
AL
partnership,
SUGGESTED
what was ifit?
attorney, inthey
ANSWER:
Explain. canthe5%enter into a limited contract
objected,of
payments onforlease
the said does
groundlots.not Hecontain
that did
his jobnotany turn
was express
onlyover
Appointment
Yes, there was
partnership of fact
or bea Sub-Agent
nominate
members
agent has
contract.
thereof
actedOn
(CIR
in the
u.
his
SUGGESTED
prohibition. ANSWER: [Articles 1650, 1670 Civil Code).
own name and has set his own hand and seal the
to collections
sell and not to collect
to Prime Realty.payment Who for shall
units bear
(1999)
X appoints
assumption
SUGGESTED
Suter, Ythat
etal.ANSWER:
27 asSCRA his
Aissa agent
152). to sellthe
accepted hisrequest
products of a) The
SUGGESTED
A's action general
ANSWER:
for rule is that
rescission should a person
not dealing
prosper on
to the
2) Cebu a)mortgage.
No, A There
corporation is but
nois principle
managed ofbylaw its the
bought
(b) lossassignment
C's forthe
by Nestor's
customer. defalcation,
ofinquire
the Is AL’s objection
sublease Prime DRealty
toauthority
is not
in
her close City.
friend Can Y appoint
Jo-Ann to a sub-agent
some groceries and if with
SUGGESTED
this an
ground.agent
ANSWER: must into the
by or Jesus?
valid? Can DRBI collect from him or not?
for which
board
he does,
her atheperson
ofindirectors.
what can
are
supermarket, If become
the
thecorporationliable
effects
what theyon of asuch
were
enteredrealto valid.
No,that
of AL'sUnderobjection
agent. Art.
In the 1649,
is not of
valid
present the and
case,Civil if Code,
DRBI Jesus candidthe
estate
become mortgage
a partner, which she
co-partners never would executed
have in
the Reason.
lessee (5%) assign the lease without the
cannot
SUGGESTED
appointment?
into was a nominate ANSWER: (5%) contract of Agency. collect
not from into
inquire AL. Since AL accepted
that authority, he is a liable for
person
Yes,
power
Article the or
1868 bymake
toagent attorney
of may thethe in corporation
New fact".
appoint Civila Code substitute
party
provides or
to consent loss of
guarantee
the the
commission,
due lessor,
to Nestor's unless
in addition
defalcation there
to hisunless is a
sub-agent
transactions if the
in an principal
irregular
that by the contract of agency a person binds has not
manner prohibited
since the stipulation
regular commission,
Article to
1900, Civil he the contrary.
Code agreed There
governs, to bear is no
inthe such
which
him
partnersfrom doing
are not so, but
agents
himself to render some service or to do he shall
subject beto responsible
the control stipulation
risk of in
collection the contract.
and to
case the developer corporation bears the loss. pay If
the the law
principal prohibits
the
(1)
for when
the acts
ALTERNATIVE
of the heANSWER:
Board was
of the
of not given the
substitute:
Directors. Butpower to Art. 1900 of
assignment Civilof
thetheCode lease provides:
without "So the far as
consent third of
something in representation or aoncorporation
behalf of proceeds sale on the same terms agreed
(2)
Yes,when
appoint
may they
enter he
one; was a
entered
into given
into
joint such power,
a venture
nominate but
with without
contract
another of persons
the
upon lessor,
with are all
the concerned,
the
purchasermore an
would
(Articleact theis
1907,deemed
assignment
Civil to
another, with the consent or authority of the
designating
lease to service
corporation the
as person,
inlongthe absence
asandthe the of person
a relation
nature of the of Agency;
have
of a been
Code) Real Estate
sublease performed Mortgage within the without
be prohibited scope of such the
latter.
appointed
principal was
and notoriously
agent
venture is in line with the business authorized incompetent
between them or
(Article (2004)
CX executed
agent's
consent. authority, a special
This is a violation powerof
if such actoftheattorney
is contract
within the and
b) As charter.
insolvent.
1644, a general
New Civil rule &
Code). a Co.,
corporation may not
by its
General
Agency
form 106).
Phil. aAgency
vs.
general
(Tuason
vs. Special
Sale partnership
Inc. v. Bolano,
Agency with another even
95 terms
COMMON CARRIERS
authorizing
is a valid of ground
and toifmortgage
the DYpower
the agent
toforsecure
hishas property
a loanby
of attorney,
rescission
in fact
from
covered
A.asany
exceeded
bank
written,
by the the
(1992)
(2000)
A foreign
as principal
manufacturer
corporation or an individual appointed of computers
B as because his and agenta owner’sof
limits certificate
his authority of title. In securing atoloan
according an
granting
Philippine distributor
corporation him
may not general boundand
beentered into
by aunlimited
personscontractwho Extraordinary
However,
from MBank,
understanding if Jesus DY Diligence
made
did
between notdue the inquiry
specify thatand
principal heand he was
was the
management
whereby
are neither the distributor
over
directors A's properties,
agreed
nor officers to stating
orderof1,000 that
the not (2000)
Despite
acting fora CX
informed warning
bythe
in from
thetransaction
principal the Prime police
with that an
Realty
said of
agent.
However,
A
unitswithholds
of the
corporation. a corporation
no power from
manufacturer's may computers
Bformanda that generalthe
every attempt
bank. Is CX liable for the bank loan? Why or in
the limits to of hijack
Nestor's a PAL plane
authority. will be
Prime made
Realty
partnership
agent
month and may towith execute
resell another
themsuchincorporation
acts as heormay
the Philippines an
at the
why following
shall
SUGGESTED bearJustify
not? the loss.
ANSWER: week, the airline
your answer. (5%)did not take
Accordingly,
individual
consider
the manufacturer's B leased
provided
appropriate. theA'sfollowing
suggested parcel
pricesof land
conditions
plus 10%.in CX
extra
b) is liable for
precautions, the bank
Considering loan
such that because
as Prime he Realty
frisking of
Manila
are 1)
met: to The
C for Articles
four (4)
All unsold units at the end of the year shall be of Incorporation
years at P60,000.00 of the authorized
passengers, only
Corporation the mortgage
for "told"fear of on
Nestor his
beingthatproperty he to
accused could of
per
bought corporation
year,back payable by the expressly
annually
manufacturerin advance. allows
at the same the secure
violating
not receive thehumanloan contracted
or collect rights.payments, by DY.
Two it If
days DYlater,
appears later thatan
corporation to enter
price they were ordered. The manufacturer into partnerships; defaults
armed and
hijacker fails to
did pay the
attempt
the limitation does not appear in his written loan,to CX
hijack is liable
a PAL
B
shall leased
2) hold The another
the Articles parcel
distributor of freeof land
Partnership of A
and harmless must in to pay.toHowever,
flight
authority Cebu.
or power his liability
Although he was
of attorney. is limited
subdued
In this to the
by the
case,
Caloocan
from provide
SUGGESTED
any City
claimthatto
ANSWER: allDdefects
for without
partners in a
will
the fixed
manage
units. termIs at
the
the extent
other
insofar ofas theJesus,
passengers, value of he
who the said
managed
is a property.
to
third fire
person a shotis
The contract is one of agency, not sale. The notion of sale is
P3,000.00
partnership,
agreement per
one monthand
for sale payable
they or shall
agency?monthly.
negated by the following indicia: (1) the price is fixed by the
be jointly
(5%) and ALTERNATIVE
which
concerned, hit and ANSWER:
killed
Nestor's a CX
female
acts is not personally
passenger.
of collecting The
3)
severally In the case
liable; of
and a foreign
constitutingcorporation,
the commission; it
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
liable
victim's
payments to parents
the bank loan the
sued becauseairline it was
forperformed
breach of
The airlineis is deemed
liable. toInhave casebeen
manufacturer with 10% mark-up
B sold
(2) themust to E bea third
manufacturer licensed parcel
reacquires of
doland
tounsold
the belonging
business
units at exactly in
the theto of death of a
contracted
contract,
within the and byscope
DY
the in his his
airline
of personal
raisedauthority capacity.
the defense Only
{Article of
A located
same Philippines.
price; and in Quezon City for three (3) times
(3) warranty for the units was borne by the passenger,
However, common
if Jesus was carriers
aware are
of the presumed
limitation to
the
force
1900. property
majeure.
Civil of CX
Is
Code). theis liable.
airline
Hence, Hence,
liable
the orwhile
not?
principal CX
(2%) is
manufacturer.
c) No.
the price The foregoing
A corporation
that was listed indicia
may in notthe beinventory
a general by A have
of been at power
Nestor's fault oras to have
an agent, acted negligently,
has
liable.authorized the mortgage on his and property Prime
partner
to B. because the principle of mutual unless
Realty they
Corporation prove that they observed
to secure the loan ofdoes DY, notthe bank cannot sue
agency in general partnership extraordinary diligence (Article 1756, Civil
CX to collect the loan in case DY defaults
Code). The
thereon. The bank can only foreclose the
property of CX.
CIVILCIVIL
LAWLAW
Answers
Answers
to thetoBAR
the BAR
as Arranged
as Arranged
by Topics
by Topics
(Year(Year
1990-2006)
1990-2006)
Quasi-Contracts;
another
Distinguish
rate
1. A contract
in the
ALTERNATIVE theANSWER: Negotiorium
absence
remaining
usufruct
of antichresisof from Gestio
partners
such was
law
commodatum
entered
may
violates not into dissolve
theand between
principle
state
the
Tito
A should
payment mustof bealsothe
hiredpay
loan. as
forSecretary.
However,
the ordinary The
the expenses
loan
decision was not for the
paid
No,
(1992)
In
of fear
whether because
partnership,
these
mutuality
Olivia mayand of
be
of reprisals an dissolution
Peter.
contracts.
the obligation
constituted Under
from lawless over which
Article
by consumable
Patricia
elementsconsists
2132 and in
of goods.
the Mutuum;
of
time.
To
for Awhom
hiring
on theprevails
A use month
should
andInterests
because
aftera deliver
4 it
preservation years,is the
anmay act
ofbagtheof
the
ofthingmoney?
shares
the delivery
Priscilla
[2%]
New
besieging
SUGGESTED Civil
ALTERNATIVE withoutCode,
his
ANSWER:of athe
barangay,
ANSWER: determinate
by consent
a contract
X abandoned thing
of Pauline shall
of antichresis
his or be (2001)
Samuel
administration
of
Decide
stockwith
loaned. Heborrowed
pledged which
reasons.
must be P300,000.00
pay canthe
deemed
for be gasoline,
performed
owned housing
byoil, ABCby loanthe
or
1.
EvenUSUFRUCT
Philip
the if
extinguished
creditor
fishpond, there
is not fled was
if
valid.isit
acquires a
to Manilaa right
law
should theauthorizing
given
and beright to
lost
left for aor person
the
to receivedestroyed
Europe.the from appointed
duly
not?
SUGGESTED
greasing the and
Reason. bank
ANSWER: (5%) at 18%Heper
managing
spraying. partners,
cannot annum askW and interest.
for X.
(usufructuary)
increase
SUGGESTED
without
fruits of the
Seeking inANSWER:
an
that interest
fault to fish
immovable
the enjoy
of rate, in the
the of the
debtor,
the property
his stipulation
and of
debtor,
fishpond another
before
werewithis stillhe
the B would have
SUGGESTED
However,
reimbursement thenopromissory
ANSWER: right to he
because claim note
has the money.
thecontained
obligation a
2.
with
void
has No, Philip
because
the
incurred obligation has
there
in noof
delay. is right
no
preserving
(Art. to1262.petition
corresponding its
Civil for
form Code) and The
Article
B shares
cannot 1990 be of of stock
hired, the cannot
Civil
because Code be
in deemed
is not
case of aowned tie in to
obligation
ready to applyY,them
for harvest, who to is in thethe payment
business of ofthe proviso
to returnthat the bankthing
the identical "reserves to the the bailor. right
dissolution
Commodatum because he does not have thewhen by
substance.
stipulation
interest, and to
(Art. decrease
562.
thereafter
managing fishponds on a commission basis, Civiltheto Code)
interest
the principal due of his Under Article 1941 of the Civil Code, the to be
the ABC
applicable.
decision
increase upon The
interest ofdefault
law
the of
refers
managing
within MNO.theto They
another
partners,
limits havething
allowedthe by
standing
(2005)
On
the the
Before other
heofANSWER:
aleftpartner
hand, for (Art.
COMMODATUM
Riyadhof1813 NCC).
toharvested
workis a as
law
SUGGESTED
credit.
took reduces
possession the
of therate property, interest. thea foreclosed.
received
deadlock
law," By
bailee in
must
is obliged Under
substitution
virtue Article
betodecided
of pay such of2088
for the
by
the the of partners
object
proviso, the over
ordinary Civil the
2. Peter must
contract
mechanic, byPedro whichpay left taxes
one of
his and
the charges(bailor)
parties
Adventure upon the
fish and sold
Dissolution of another DEPOSIT
the entire
Partnership; harvest
Termination to Z. van with c) Code,
deposited
owning Does
objections
expenses the the creditor
and
forofcontrolling
Pedro Samuel,
the have
use cannot
is predicated and the appropriate
interest.
the upon
right
bank
preservation In something
to this the
case,
retrieve
increased of thethe
land
delivers
Tito, and
with to bear
the the(bailee)
understanding necessary something thatexpenses thenot for
latter The
things Mayor
exchanged.
the
the given
opposition
van of by Manila
way
of X and
evenperiodically
before ofcannot
thepledge.
Y prevails invoke.
lapseitof And Article
even
because
one year? if 48%
the
Y
Thereafter,
(1993)
A, B and C it Y
formedborrowed athe money
partnership from for W and
theitdeduct interest
thing loaned.rate until reached
preservation
consumable
could use soand
for that repair
one year which
latter for may he
his may
use
personal for a or 719
parties of
ALTERNATIVE
owns
Explain. the
have
the (2%) Civil Code
stipulated
ANSWER:
controlling whichthat
Interest requires
ABC(Art. becomes
1801,the the
Civil
used
purpose the ofmoneycontracting to buy new
with supplies
the Government of fish fryin per annum. Finally, Samuel filed an action
Compensation;
from
certain thetime fruits. Bank
and Loan
(Art,
return 2135, it. NCC) No,
finder Pedro
Obligations to ofdoes
of deposit a the not
Partner; thehave thing
Industrial the with rightthetoMayor retrieve
family
and
the to useprepare
construction
while thePedro
of fishpond
one
works
of its forin theRiyadh.
bridges. next On
He
crop.
June
did owner
Code).
questioning the shares right in case
of thePartner
MNO bankdefaultsto increase on
(1997)
In
not usufruct
order
SUGGESTED
tell to
Tito the
secure
ANSWER:that usufructuary
a
the bank brakes loan, getsofXYZ the
the right
van to
were the
only
(2001)
Joe
the van
when
and
loan, before
Rudy
suchthe the lapse
previous
formed
stipulation a ofisone
possessor
partnership void year.is
for to The
unknown.
operate
being a
a) The
3.
30, What
1992, is
amount
afterthe Juridical
ofthe
completionthevan relation
principal
of the between
and
project, Xin
interest
the thethis
Pledge; interest
Mortgage; rate up return
to 48%. The bank raised
the use Tito
Corporation
faulty. and tohad the
surrendered fruits ofits the
tuned same,
deposit up while
certificate,
and the In
parties
a cardefense
SUGGESTED
pactum case
repairare a Antichresis
,shop
mutually
ANSWER:
commissorium. must in the bound the
Quezon by bag
the
City. ofprovided
terms
Joe money of the
and
must
bridge Y during
bewas X's
specified
turned absence?
in
over writing,
by b)
the Uponpartners the
otherwise return
to thethe the
(1996)
The
In action
province, will that aprosper.
farmer Central
couple
While itBank
borrowed
is true of the
that
commodatum,
with
brakes a maturity
repaired. thedate bailee
of
He what 01 only
spentare acquires
September
a the totalobligations the
1997
amount of use
to to the
contract.
the bank
capital while Under as the the previous
Civil
Rudy contributed Code, possessor
there his and
are
labor only
of X to
antichresis
Government. the barangay,
willOn be void.
August (Art.
30, 2134,
1992, NCC)
D,on a for Philippines
the
money interest from had
the
ceilings already
local set suspended
merchant.
by the Usury
of
the the
bank.
P15,000.00.
of Y to X of
thing
as
The loaned
corporation
After
regards
but
using
the
not its
defaulted
the
contract
fruits.
vehicle
with
the two
Z? sued
c)or a
due known
3
andinstances
Law.
owner
industry.
Will they
when
theOn
(Arts. the719
one
action
bailor
side and
prosperofthe 1990.
could
their Usury
Toshop,guarantee
Civil
validly
orheld not?
Law Code.)
Joeask
Why?
are
Usufruct
supplier
repayment
weeks, may
Tito of be
materials
the constituted
discoveredloan, used prompting
thatin on
the
it the
project
thewhole bank
consumedof too to no
payment,
for
openedlonger
the and operated a coffee shop, while onPD
return in force,
left
of the the it
thingTorrens
has been
loaned Title even of their
that
before
Upon
SUGGESTED
Two
part
A forof X's
months
the
collectionreturn,
ANSWER:
fruits what
later,
ofof thethePedroare
thing. thereturned
indebtedness obligations
(Art. 564.
to him. to
CivilA X
the (5%) 1684
No.
land with side, theand merchant,
CBthe Circular for him No. toaccessories
905
hold until
merely
encash
much
4.
as
moved
No.ItArt.
regards
Philippines
Code).
questioned
leased
the
fuel.
toto
it may
deposit
To
Y's
dismiss
2136
and
the even
make
contract
above
Annabelle. the
certificate.
up
specifically
asked becomplaint
for
with to
Tito
constituted
action
W? the
taken
XYZ
provides
d)over
return
against
Corporation
expenses,
What
by the
that
the legal
him bank
he
the
van.on
the
allow
they
(1) a
expiration
other
SUGGESTED
store. pay
contracting
precarium
May theANSWER:
they
SURETY
of
loan.
Rudy period.
put
parties
Is there
contract
engage in
up a
wasto
These
car
a -stipulate
such
are when:
a) separate
enteredcontract freely
(Article of on
debtor
effects
Unfortunately,
consumables cannot
will result
likere-acquire
while ifwasX being
expressly the drivenenjoyment
ratifies
v. by Y'sof52
Tito, the Joe, the capitalist partner, may engage in the
the
the
as ground
being a that
case itmoney
of pactum the ABC
(Alunan partnership
commissorium. Veloso, The any
pledge,
1947); adjustment
businesses? b) if
(2) contract
the
Why? in[5%]
bailor the
of mortgage,
interest needs
urgently rate
c) contract
on the a thing
loan
immovable
management
SUGGESTED
van was without
ANSWER: and
accidentally
.ANSWER:
On the what
other firstwould
damaged
hand, having be thebytotally
in commodatum, a ABC paid restaurant
cargo Recovery of Deficiency
business because it is above?
not the same
that
Phil. is
SUGGESTED
bank 545)liable
disagrees. for the
What debt.is yourD repliedopinion? that or
of antichresis,
forbearance
(Article 1946); or ofd)money
and (3) noneif thebut
ofbailee
the
do not authorize
commits
what
We submit
obligations
(a) The he owes
juridicalthat
of X there
inthefavor
relation creditor.
is no
of pactum
Y?
is upon
that However,
Explain
of the all
quasi- it is v.
your (1997)
AB
kind soldof238 to ANSWER:
businessCD a motor
the vehicle
partnership . interest
To
forissay
and
engagedotherwise
in
a)
truckWho
consumable
partnershipwithout shall was his
goods bear
fault.
may
dissolved thebe P15,000.00
subject thereof
completion spent
onlyof a CA,
SUGGESTED
Explain.
actsunilateral
of SCRA
ingratitude increase 2O [1994]])
(Article of the
1948). Not rateofin.
one by
potestative
commissorium
answers.
contract of on the
here.
"negotiorum partDepositsof the
gestio". creditor
of money toin do so 1.
The No, fact a conveyance
that Tito had byleasedamaypartner the ofpaid
thing his whole
loaned
for
the the
when the
project repair
purpose
for whichof theof the van?
purpose contract theYis
Explain. isnot the
(2%)
partnership the will
On
one the violate
consideration
party other without the
of
hand,
the situations is present in this case. principle
P120,000.00
theRudy other's of
to
not be
consent mutuality
engage (PNB in in of
in
banksorder
SUGGESTED
"gestor"
ALTERNATIVE
consumption and orto exempt
similar
ANSWER:
"officious
ANSWER:
of the him as
institutions
manager"
object, from are
when andhis Xobligation
governed
it the by
is merely
is interest
to
anyAnnabelle
contracts
twelve
SUGGESTED
other in
monthly under awould
ANSWER:
business partnership
equal
Articlenot
unless justify
installments
1308 does
their the
of the not
demand
ofCivil
partnership of Code.itself
for
was
As formed. Will you dismiss the complaint
TitoJudge,
under
the must Art.
provisions
ANOTHER
"owner"
Ibear
ANSWER:
(Art.
would
2135, on
2144,
not
thesimple
NCC, dismiss
P15,000.00
Civil The
loans
Code).
the
debtor
(Art. complaint
expenses cannot
1980. forCivilthe
re- To None
dissolve
the be of
return
P10,000,00,
expressly the
the
valid, ofabove.
permitspartnership
the thing
therefore,
each There
installment
him loaned
to anydois no
in the pledge
absence
before
change
so being
because ofbecause
due ofanan
interest
and
as
for exhibition.
against
against A
A. Ifbecause
you (Art.were A1936,the
is still Civil
Judge?liable Code) asoperations
a general
1.
(b) There
van.Y Generally,
acquire
Code). mustThe are
the several
renderenjoyment
relationship points
extraordinary
an account unless
between of distinction
of expenses
Peter
the
his depositorfor the must
compels only movable
agreement.
expiration
payable be on of
mutually
the property
(Art.
the 15th 1813.
period.
agreed
day
industrial partner he has to devote his full time may
Civil
Under
of be
upon
eachCode)pledged
Article
month
by the (Art.
1942parties of
partner
between
preservation
Olivia
and a bank
delivertofor his
usufruct
toof
enter
is Xpro
one the rata
and
again
the of thing
creditor
price share
commodatum.
theloaned of 1/3
he enjoyment
and
received are
debtor.(Art.
Usufruct
paidforof by
thethe the (Dizon
2094.
SUGGESTED
To secure
thethe Civil NCC). ANSWER:
the
Code, Ifpromissory
at all,
leasing there
of SCRA was
note,
the a pledge
CD
thing (a)
loaned ofto the
starting
to v,January
business Magsaysay, of 1997.
the partnership
57 25O [Art.[1974])1789, . aIn
1816, 2. Justine acannot interfere oron participate in the
is
bailor, ofC.
constituted
property.
Basically
sale he
the C.J.being
this Dissolution
is
harvested PLEDGE
byathe law,
matter fish of
by contract,
owner of acompensation
(Art,ofpartnership
the
2145, by
thing Civil loaned.
as paper
executed or document chattel constituting
mortgage the Torrens
subject
Commodatum & Mutuum
third
the
CC). person
present not
problem,member the of thedebtor householdnot having of
caused
ADDITIONAL
testamentary
In this bycase the
ANSWER: termination
succession,
however,
all the elements of compensation are present
Code). or
Titoof bytheshouldparticular
prescription bear the management
Title,
motor as a
vehicle, movable or
and by
(b) administration
itself,
furnished but not
ato of
surety of
the the
land
bond
the
given bailee,
his will
consent only toentitle
the bailor
increase hold
in interest,
Where
undertaking
(Art. X1933.
expenses the security
specified
Civil Code). for the
inUsufruct debt
the SCRA is
agreement also
creates money
does
a real partnership
Mutuum; business
Interests or affairs. She may,
(c)
in this casebecause
must pay
(BPI the vs.loanhe
CA, incurred
obtained
232 the
by 302). expenses
Y from W which
ALTERNATIVE
issued
bailee
the increasethe
by Philam
liable title
ANSWER:
for represents.
is void.thelife, lossCDoffailed the thing to pay more
loaned.
Pledge
deposited
not
right extinguish
without
because to the X in
first ainforming
fruits
must bank,
obligations, it isPedro
of another's
answer not
for illegal
which about
obligations must
property, for it.the
be Neither As
while however,
Therea rule,
Commodatum
(2002)
Carlos
than two is sues
no receive
Pedro
(2) mortgage
Dinodoesthefor
installments, net have
not
because profits
(a)
AB went theto
no
collection which
right
deed
after orto onUna
the a
(1994)
In 1982,
creditor
liquidated to Steve
encash
during borrowed
the
the "windingtime P400.000.00
deposit certificates from would
retrieve
contract have
the
was otherwise
van before
executed been
the
in the lapse entitled.
manner of one In
year.
required this
commodatum
was the repair
contracted with creates shown
third onlytoa purely
persons beinup" theof
urgent. the Under surety
personal
interest (1993)
A, uponbut
promissory request,
henote wasfor loaned
only a loan, his passenger
able with
to obtain no agreement Jeepney
three-
Danny,
to
(Chupayus.
partnership
right to collateralized
the CA,
use debtor's
et al., G.R
affairs
another's overdueby
(Articles78519,a pledge
property, obligation.
1829 September
and andof shares
1830.
requires 26,aof by case,
Article
to B
on law toP120.000
interest, 1946
for
enable ofBthe
a mortgage
on (Art. Code
to bring
which 1813,
(Arts.
Dino hisCivil
provides 2085
sick Code)
that
to 2092,
wife
defaulted, "the
fromand
Article
of the
Effect
1989).
1949
owner
of Death of
of the2150,
(Art.
Partner
Civil Code,
Civil bailor
Code), generally fourths
Dissolution (3/4) ofof the total
Partnership amount still due and(b)
stock
par.
(d) 1-a,
Express
stipulation
bears of
Civil
the to Concepcion
Code).
ratification
enable
extraordinary the by X
baileeCorporation
provides
to
expenses "make the worth
use"
for the bailor
NCC;
Paniqui.
damages cannot
2124 Tarlac to
caused demand
2131,
to theby the
NCC).
Philippine
Dino return on of
General
his the thing
(Carlos’)
Deposit;
(1997) Exchange owing from CD. AB seeks your advice on how
Stating
P800,000,00.
effects
of the Y
preservation ofbriefly
fruits an (Arts. In the
express
of the
thesis
1983,
1939& agency
thing
to support
because1940,
and and of Xthe
Civil
should isyour economic
liable
Code).
refund tothe (1995)
Pauline,
There
loaned
SUGGESTED
Hospital
priceless
he might,
istill
no Patricia
contract
after
ANSWER:
inif Manila
Michaelangelo
at all, therecover
for
and
oftreatment. Priscilla
antichresis
expiration painting
the of theOn
deficiency.
formed
because
period
the way
on which
Howof
noa
(1992)
X and
answer
crisis, thestaged
to each
value aof daring
the
of the bank
following
shares robbery
cases,
pledged in
will the
fell to business
Yes, partnership for the purpose
pay
said
Manila
the
Usufruct commissions
expenses maybe onerous
if AMmade habitually
bywhile the received
commodatum
bailee; by is
Provided, backhe
right
stipulated,
Dino
would
to
to is
you
can
the
Paniqui,
liable recover
fruits
or
counsel after ofthe
after
on AB?
the
the
the deficiency.
leavingproperty
accomplishment
promissory was
his wife The ataction
given
note ofthe theto
and
death
only
the gestor- at
of 10:30
aas
P100,000.00. partner
manager
in
Can the
terminate
(Art.
morning
Danny2149, the demand of a
Civil Code). that engaging
of
the
use AB for to
creditor go
which in neon
after
(Art.
the advertising
the
2132 surety
commodatum NCC). bond forhas a term
cannotbeen of five
be
always
The bailee or essentially
bringsday, theandgratuitous
same (Arts.
to thewith 1933
attention & hospital, people
of awards damages to Carlos for the damaged stopped the passenger
regular
SUGGESTED
partnership?
Steve
ALTERNATIVE business
ANSWER:
surrender
ANSWER: the contract escaped
other shares their
worth (5)
taken years.
constituted. to mean Pauline a waiver
However, subsequently
of
in his right assigned
to demand he to
1935,
the
a)
Yes. bailor
No.
The of
loot The Civil
Bilateral
P15,000.00death Code).
before
two (2) bags, of The
incurring
contracts
a
spent partner
each for bag them,
cannot
will
the repair constituting
except
be
terminate
containing of the vanif painting,
only
changed the Jeepney. Bwithstopped interests for ifthem for the and
both meantime,
allowed
awards. them
What
P700,000.00? Philip
A contract
payment
should
SUGGESTED her
havefor interest
of simple
the
urgent
ANSWER: whole in
loan
need the
debt, was partnership.
entered
The
of payment
the amount
thing, into
he may When
usufruct
the repair
unilaterally.
partnership,
should be is consensual,
is
borne urgent
A express
by pledge
bytheir while
Pedro.that
is
provisiononlycommodatum
reply
Where a par.
of cannot
subsidiary
the 5, isbe
bailor a to rideofon
rates board,
interest accepting
may the court imposefrom with
P50,000,00. During flight to elude the Patricia
With
with
received
demand respect
security from
its and
return to Priscilla
the
arrangement
the surety
or collection
temporary learned
agreed
isordinary
only ofupon
payment
use." money
In ofby pro
the the
theor
real
awaited.contract
contract,
Art. 1830
delivers
police, X and and
of the
to (perfected
YSteve
the Civil
bailee
entered is
Code. only
still
the by
indebted
a nearby delivery
non-consummablelocked of
to Danny the them
respect just to as
both in the
awards? case of
Explain. (5%) passenger
promissory
assignment,
parties
tanto,
given and which
problem, an note,
they
is not
action it decided
one
maybeing ofbe thosea to forbearance
dissolve
mentioned
maintained forthe of
athe
subject
Obligations
for
thing
house theso matter
of athen
ofamount
that
A, the thereof).
Partner
of P400,000.00
latter
working However,
may in his it both
for a involve
despite
useQuezon the fall money,
certain
City Jeepneys plyingPedro their route. allowed AsTito B was to use crossing
partnership
above. thedebt. before
legalThus, the expiration
rate of should
interest of forits term
having as
the
(1992)
W,
in
time enjoyment
X,
the
office. Yvalue
andand Z
From of
return
A's byhouse,
organized
the astocks
person
theXaand of the
general
pledged.
identical Y stole property a box ofthe
partnership
thing,
deficiency
van
Bamban, for
ALTERNATIVE
defaulted
theyA
the saidand
one
had ANTICHRESIS
there
B
year.
ANSWER:
on with
agreement
was an onrush of Lahar fromby
theanrespect
payment
and
he
unproductive
to
he of 12%
the
cannot
be
passenger
ask
bound
will business
for apply.
Jeepney
the
another,
b)
with No. W Danny's
anddiffering
X as right onlyas
industrial asis topartners
pledgeethe
a extent is andto and
sell
Y and the Mt
There Pinatubo,
is was
a contract the Jeep of that was loaned to him
contract
containing
scope of such
perfected
cash totaling
enjoyment
P50,000.00
[jus fruendi
Contractwhich
in one
box of relationship
With
return
was thatrespect
loaned ofland.
wrecked. the bywithtoA
car
1)
the
toWhatB
before tomortgage
Philip
damages
do
in expiration
transport
theyou
the
call
constituted
to the past.
the
the ofOn
painting,
latter's
contractthethe it wife
sick
pledged
Z as capitalist
Commodatum.
A shares
had been keeping at
partners. a public
(Art.in 1933, Y
depositCivil sale
contributed and
for his Code)keep
friendThe the
B. over the
Antichresis There is no particular form
is
other
one 6%
Manila?
toyear from
hand, 2) Is
period.the unaware
B time
obliged
However, ofof the
to the
pay
iffinalmove
A
Pedro demand
for of urgent
the
has Patricia
use upofto
and Jusshall
proceeds
In their
P50,000.00
bailor utendi
asand
hurry, refundXinZ
collateral the
and Yother);
contributed
the for
left in both
the
extraordinary loan.
A's may
bedroom
P20,000.00 There have
expenses toas
is
one no that
1.
required
(1995)
Olivia was
Is the
owns entered
for dissolution
athe vast into
validity
mango by ofplantation
done abymortgage
Patricia whichand
of real she
d)
and
the
need Who
time
passenger
of shall
Priscilla
of
the bear
finality
van, but
he ofthe
may sensingexpenses
judgment
demand their
until
for for the
negative
judgment
its return
subject
showing
(1)
the of the
common matter
that
bags fund.either
the
which By fall
during the contract for the preservation of the an
they
a immovable
in had
unanimous the takenvalue or
vote froma of
of thethe can Priscilla
property.
no is It
longer iswithout
not
properly the
covered consent
manage by the of
due Pauline
statute
to a of or
accidental
jeepney?
credit
reaction
or temporary 3)
tofullydamage
Is
his B liable
acquisition
use.paid. caused
to
The A for
court
of bythe the
Pauline's
considerscargo
interest, the
movable;
pledged
bank.
partners, and,
property
W and both X were maybe
wasappointed constituted
attributable
baileemanaging over
to the
thing loaned provided the brings the lossPhilip
frauds
2211,
truck,
Philip
latter ofCC)
lingering in valid?
Art.
illness.
granting
the
as Jeepney?
simultaneously
a 1403,Explain.
Since
that
forbearance NCC she
the and truck
petitioned
of even
is indebted
money. assuming
driver toand
for Peter
(Eastern the
With
same Xto
consumable
pledger's
partners, and the Ygoods
fault
without now
knowledgeat
or any large
(Arts.
fraud. 574
On
ofand
specification &
the
the nowhere
1936,contrary,
bailor Civil
of their to be
beforethe 2.
that
in the Does
it amount Philip
is covered, ofhave the any
P500.000.00delivery right to
of
she petition
the
asks titlePetertofor78
A applied for the position of Secretary and B truck
SUGGESTED
dissolution
Shipping owner ANSWER:
of
Lines, are
the insolvent?
partnership.
Inc. v. CA, Explain.
234 SCRA (2%)
found,
Code).
economic
respective
incurring the bag
A consumable
crisis
powers
the containing
same, was
and thing
except the
duties. P50.000.00
mayculprit.
when be theytheHad is now
subject-
arethe so Mutuum;
the
1) manage
the Thecreditor
SUGGESTED
to dissolution
contract Interests
has
ANSWER:
the is
taken of the
called
plantation it out partnership
"commodatum".
andofapply the coverage
thebefore [Art.
applied for the position of Accountant of the [1994]; ArtANSWER:
2210 and
In
claimed
the
matter
pledgee
Mutuum given
ofby an
been B, problem,
by
abnormal the
deceived Mayor
Pedro
usufruct
as toofleftManila,
the his
but Adventure
in
substance and
a by
normal or Generally,
(2004)
The
SUGGESTED parties extraordinary
inpayment
a of contract expenses ofobligation
loan arising
isof a money on
urgent vs. that Commodatum
the reply to the notification cannot 1933.
1,
theCivil
thereof.
harvest
Under
expiration
to Code).
A contract
the
Art. 1830
ofits
COMMODATUM
(1)
specified
mortgage
of her
(c) of
ofterm?
the
real
NCC, to the
partnership.
the
van bank.
quality
(2004) with
usufruct,
Distinguish ofTito
the the so
briefly that
subject-matter
pledged
but the latter
shares
clearly(Art. may could
between be
of use
used
stock, it
only for
he the
agreed occasion
Explain.
contract
property that
by of
the
is consensual
which the
yearly actual interestuse of the
rate thing
is on theand
12%
be
The awaited
hiring of without
A was danger.
decided upon by1949 W andof the X, him, principal and one interest,ofand theis parties
untilbinding
her (bailor)
B
one
forclaims
would year
exhibition.
Mutuum havethat
while the
hadA
and commodatum. he depository.
was
commodatum
the in
right A,
Riyadh.
to ofby a
claim force
There
consumable
another was dissolution
loaned
it can be
deliversdespite by theby
increased
to another Patricia
bailee, if evenand
there
(bailee) ifPriscilla
incurred
is a
somethinglaw is
thatvalid
without
not wouldand
Civil Code) parties
indebtedness absence
shall have of
been writing.
fully However,
paid. Peter
but
no was
majeure
thing inopposed
mention
SUGGESTED may had be obtained
their
ANSWER: by
of place
only aforY and
the
consideration.
the Z.to of
bag
orpurpose the money
ofThus,
immediatein the did
and not
fault
authorize of
Peter? violate
the bailee,
the
Explain. the contract
shall
increase2) What of
be shouldered
of partnership
interest
specific equally even
rates.
Pledge consumable
third
agrees. parties
1) What soare thatnot
kind the
bound
of latter
contract because
may is use of
entered it
the for a
In
place
MUTUUM,
contract
exhibiting,
payment of the of box
perfected
not
the the ofobject
consumingmoney
obligation. wasborroweddeposited
commodatum.
it.
This is not mustbythe B. becasea
The though
by the
Suppose
obligations
certain Pauline
bailor
OB,
time are and
the
and and
lender,
imposed
return Philip
the instrument
bailee. would
by
it. law did
(Art. not
1949
Peterofby
increase
on consent
the 5%
(2004) absence
into between of a written
Olivia evidencing
ABC
The
consumable
amount
here. loaned
hiring of of Btowas
thing
P15,000.00 MNO
the decided P40,000
was upon
ownership spent for
ofbywhich
by Wwhich
and
Tito is Z, the thereto.
to Civil
the
2)
as No, Code).
rate
amortgage B isof
consequence The
not However, consent
interest
obligedof ifto
their toPedro of the
be
pay
contract?APauline
had
paid
for an 3)urgent
by
the isofof
TY,
Does
use not
the
the and, therefore absence
latter
but
The was
transferredpledged
Mayor opposed of
to 400
Manila,
the by shares
X
borrower
tune up the van and to repair its brakes. Such and
on theof
Y. stock
other
who in
hand,
incurs XYZ the Inc. It necessary
need
borrower, forrequire
the passenger
law because
thewithoutvehicle,
Jeepney
any she
aTito had
law would
because already
be
authorizing inthe
commodatum assigned
delaysuch for
registration. But thisspecific
does not form affectfor the
was
claims
expensesagreed
obligation that are that
tothe bag
return if the
extra-ordinaryof
the pledgor
money
sameexpenses failedbeto
should
consumable pay
because to the her failure interest
of essentially
their
increase,
is
validity tocontract? to
immediately
would Philip.
Explain
OB’s
gratuitous. The
return
action 4)consent
(Art. May
the
be Olivia
same,
just
1933. of
and
Civil Philip
re-
then
valid?
Code] is
Who of the applicants should be hired by the validity of the mortgage between the parties
loan
deposited
the with
lender 10%
with
in an yearly
the
equal Office
they are necessary for the preservation of the interest
amount,of the within
Mayor
and of four
as
the years,
same not
acquire also
SUGGESTED
Tito would
Why? necessary
the
Has TY ANSWER:
beplantation
held
a remedy because
liable before the
for themay
against her assignment
entire
extraordinary
thecompelimposition to
(Art. 2125, NCC), The justcreditor the
partnership?
the
required
b) Whopledgee
and shall of the Explain
is bearauthorized
finder and
by the
the give
coststo your
foreclose
provisions
for reasons.
the of onthe
van's the OB's
ALTERNATIVE
him ofactionPauline's is not
ANSWER:
interest and did valid.
not The
make a debtor
him a
kind
van Thus,
SUGGESTED
shares
Civil Code.
fuel,
object
bailor, oil
quality.
ofand
borrowed
Pedro.
the
ANSWER:
stock.
sameIn COMMODATUM,
isAs
other
should
required,
materials
usually
be borne
MNO
the
while delivered
a non-consumable
by
it was
the 3)
of Yes,
the
debtor
Interpreting
cannot
Commodatum
partner,
purpose QUASI-CONTRACT
Explain.
SUGGESTED
because
indebtedness
expenses. rate
tobe
under
increase?
execute
different
Art.
required
vs.
ANSWER:
Bshall
Usufruct
devoted
the
1830
Art,from 1813
have
Explain.
mortgage
tothat(1)pay
of
the been
(c)
forthe
the
thing
(5%)
toin
NCC.
fully
which
a
mean to
increase
paid?
public that
has in
itinterest
if
document
one of the in order
partners to allow
had its
assigned registration
his
The
thingbank
possession
SUGGESTED
with Tito? resists
the ownership of the
ANSWER:
Explain. the of claims
shares
(2%) which oftoisB not
and
ABC thewith
transferredMayor theof interest
(1998)
been loaned there (Art.being 1942, no par. law 2, authorizing
Civil Code) it, as
Manila. (Art.
on the
stipulated1357.NCC
partnership
in the in relation
to
contract. to Art.
Increasing 1358. the NCC).
understanding that
to the borrower who incurs the obligation to the shares would be
returned
return thetovery MNO thingupon tothe the lender.
The courts may, however, increase or moderate thehouse (2) When theprinciple
under the contract refers gestio.
of negotiorum to things
He waspertaining
not liable to
indemnity according to the circumstances of as thethe burning of the house is a fortuitous event. Is B liable to A for
each case. damages under the foregoing circumstances?
Art. 2146. If the officious manager delegates to
another person all or some of his duties, he SUGGESTED ANSWER:
shall be liable for the acts of the delegate, No. B is not liable for damages, because he is
without prejudice to the direct obligation of a gestor in negotiorum gestio (Art. 2144, Civil
the latter toward the owner of the business. Code) Furthermore, B is not liable to A
The responsibility of two or more officious because Article 2147 of the Civil Code is not
managers shall be solidary, unless applicable.
management was assumed to save the thing B did not undertake risky operations which the
or business from imminent danger. owner was not accustomed to embark upon: a)
Art. 2147. The officious manager shall be he has not preferred his own interest to that of
liable for any fortuitous event: the owner; b) he has not failed to return the
(1) If he undertakes risky operations which property or business after demand by the
the owner was not accustomed to embark owner; and c) he has not assumed the
(2) If he has preferred his own interest to that
upon; management in bad faith.
of the owner; ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
(3) If he fails to return the property or He would be liable under Art. 2147 (1) of the
business after demand by the owner, Civil Code, because he used the property for
(4) If he assumed the management an operation which the operator is not
in bad faith. accustomed to, and in so doing, he exposed
Art. 2148. Except when the management was the house to increased risk, namely the
assumed to save the property or business operation of a pension house on the second
from imminent danger, the officious manager floor and stores on the first floor
(1) If he is manifestly unfit to carry on the Quasi-Contracts; Negotiorium Gestio
shall be liable for fortuitous events
(2) If by his Intervention h e prevented a more
management; (1995)
Armando owns a row of residential apartments
competent person from taking up the in San Juan, Metro Manila, which he rents out
management. to tenants. On 1 April 1991 he left for the
Art. 2149. The ratification of the management United States without appointing any
by the owner of the business produces the administrator to manage his apartments such
effects of an express agency, even if the that uncollected rentals accumulated for three
business may not have been successful. (3) years. Amparo, a niece of Armando,
Art. 2150, Although the officious management concerned with the interest of her uncle, took it
may not have been expressly ratified, the upon herself to administer the property. As a
owner of the property or business who enjoys consequence, she incurred expenses in
the advantages of the same shall be liable for collecting the rents and in some instances even
1. What
spent forJuridical
necessary relation
repairs between Amparo
to preserve the and
obligations incurred in his interest, and shall
Quasi-Contracts; Negotiorium Gestio Armando,
property. if any, has resulted from Amparo's
reimburse the officious manager for the
(1993)
In September, 1972, unilateral act of assuming the administration
necessary andupon declaration
useful of martial rule
expenses andin the for the
Philippines. A, together with his wife and children. disappeared 2. What
of rightsapartments?
Armando's and obligations, if any, does
Explain.
damages which the latter may have suffered in Amparo have under the circumstances?
from
The his residence
same along
obligation
the performance of his duties. A. Mabini
shall Street.
be Ermita,
incumbent Manila. B, his
upon
immediate
him when neighbor, noticing that mysterious
the management had disappearance
for its purpose of A Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Negotiorum gestio existed between
and
thehisprevention
family, closed the of doors
an and windows ofand
imminent his house to
manifest Amparo and Armando, She voluntarily took
prevent
loss, italthough
from being burglarized.
no benefit Years passed may withouthaveB hearing
been charge of the agency or management of the
from A and his family, B continued taking care of A's house, even
derived.
Art. 2151.
causing Even
minor repairs to bethough
done at histhe houseowner
to preserve didit. Innot business or property of her uncle without any
derive
1976, whenany benefit
business began toand perk upthere hasanbeen
in the area, no
enterprising power from her uncle whose property was
man. C, approached
imminent B and proposed
and manifest dangerthat they tobuild
thestores at the
property neglected. She is called the gestor negotiorum
ground floor of the the
or business, houseowner
and convert is its secondas
liable floor into a the
under or officious manager, (Art. 2144, NCC)
2. It is recommended by the Committee that an
(1) The
pension
first officious
house.
paragraphB agreed manager
to the has
ofCs proposal acted
and
precedingtogetherin they spent
article, enumeration of any two (2) obligations and two
(2)
good
for The
the property
faith,
construction
provided: or business
andof stores at the ground isfloor
intact,
and the ready to
(2) rights as enumerated in Arts. 2145 to 2152,
be returned
conversion of the to the floor
second owner.into a pension house. While NCC, would entitle the examinee to full credit.
construction was going on, fire occurred at a nearby house. The
Art. 2152.
houses The block,
at the entire officious manager
including is personally
A's were burned. After the Art. 2145. The officious manager shall
liablerevolution
EDSA for contracts
in Februarywhich1986, Ahe andhas entered
his family into
returned from perform his duties with all the diligence of a
with
the third
United persons,
States where they even though
took refuge he acted
in 1972. in
Upon learning good father of a family, and pay the damages
the
of name
what happenedof the
to hisowner,
house. Aand sued there shall be
B for damages, no
B pleaded which through his fault or negligence may be
right
as of action
a defense that he between the owner
merely took charge of his and third
(1) If theTheseownerprovisions
has expressly suffered by the owner of the property or
persons. shallor nottacitly
apply:
ratified the management, or business under management.
CIVILCIVIL
LAWLAWAnswers
Answers
to thetoBAR
the BAR
as Arranged
as Arranged
by Topics
by Topics
(Year(Year
1990-2006)
1990-2006)
Further,
is
may
(b)
A. no
There
Therecover
finality
defense
in
is Phoenix
noin
moral
legal
the
of diligence
basis
damages
amount to Ortillo’s
in
ofifthe
Construction, indemnity
the selection
cause
claim
Inc. because
of
for
and
action
v. Intermediate Athe
The
thevan
isvehicle
action
Availing owned
of may
atby
that the or
Orlando
time
may of
portion not
ofand
the
prosper.
driven
accident,
Section 12Moral
by
ofbe
Diego,
held
damages
Article while
II of
liability
on
supervision
Article
civil
based
moral
Appellate arising
21ofofthe
damages.
Court the
It from
employee
Civil
does
(G.R. Code
thefall
not
L-65295, under
crime
for the
Article
under
March and the
the 1987.
10, physical
negotiating
1987
owner
liable
include
the suffering,
abusiness,
Constitution
with
solidarily of
histhe downhill
driver, mental
John?which
(5%)slope ofanguish,
reads; a city road,
fright,
judgment
humiliation
2180
coverage
148 of the
SCRA on
of and
Civil
theembarrassment
Article
353) theCode
crime
2219 is available
Supreme has
of the not
Court they
New only
yetfelt
become
to
Civil
held when
that The State
serious
suddenly
SUGGESTED xItxx
gained
anxiety,
(NOTE:
ANSWER: shallbesmirched
is speed,equally byprotect
obviously
recommended the the
the beyond life of the
reputation,
Committee
finalrole
those
Code.
the stewardess
primarily
of the common threatened
liable thereunder, law to "lastoffload butthem
clear not
chance"toif Yes. and
wounded Art
mother
authorized that
the may an
life
limit be
of in
feelings, held
enumeration
the the solidary
unborn of anyfrom
area,
moral two
and liable
(2)
shock,
bumped witha
obligations
conception, John,
car"xxx"
social
if it was and proven
any two (2) thatrights the as enumerated
former la Arts.have
could
c)
B. Yes.
Ortillo
ALTERNATIVE
they did
those
doctrine Sinceis
subsidiarily
not entitled
the
ANSWER:
avail of
in relation civil to
liable
tothe indemnity
attorney’s
under
upgrade.
Article 2179 isfees
Article an because
award
103Civil
of the of in he
which claims
humiliation,
in front2145 of it, confers
causing
and a civil
similar
severed personality
injury.
damage on
Although
to the
the unborn
If it can be proved that DT's pain in his arm to 2152, NCC would entitle the examinee
the
Fabricato’scivil
Revised action
complaint
Penal arising is
Code (Yumul a case
from of the
maliciouscriminal prevented
the
from
incapable
care and moment the
serious
ofcredit.)misfortune
of conception.
pecuniary
injuries with the use of due
Code is merely to mitigate damages vs. Juliano,
within the 72 Quasi-Contracts;
to full Solutio Indebititocomputation,
its passengers. moral
and
Liability;
offense,
Phil.
context wrist
prosecution94). owner
oftheoccasioned
who
or
contributoryawas
rule clearly by
inthat the a transfer
thenegligence.
vehicle
unfounded party civil of
cannot be diligence.
damages
Orlando was Article
may not be in2184
recovered
the of the
car at Civil
theif theytimeCode ofare states:
thethe
(2004)
DPO went to a store to buy a pack of
Damages
luggage
(1996)
Marcial,
granted(Art.
action. was
who caused
affirmativedoes[4]
2208 not byand fault
know
relief [11], or NCC).
how
unless negligence
to hedrive, on
has
himself "In
Boy motor
filed a
proximate
incident. Themishaps,
case
result carfor owner thetheowner
ofdamages and
defendant's
the isinjured
against solidary thewrongful liable
(1994) cigarettes worth P225.00 only. He gave the
On
the
Moral
always January
part
Damages;
has appealed of
been driven5,
the 1992,
airline's
Non-Recovery
should Nonoy
by apply.
Ben, obtained
stewardess,
Thereof
his a
actual
driver of ten
Therefore, loan of
it was with hisomission.
abortionist,
act
passengers
or driver, praying
sued ifOrlando
the therein
Moral former,
and that
damages who
Diego the was inbethe
latter
predicated
for
vendor, RRA, a P500-peso bill. The vendor
Pl,000,000.00
damages
(2006)
Under
years
error whom formay
Article the from
be
he2219 had Court his
recovered.
of the
chosen friend
ofCivil Raffy.
carefully
AppealsCode,The moral
andto has vehicle,
ordered
have upondamages a to could
breachpay
caused him: have,
by
ofplus (a)
Diego’s by negligence.
P30,000.00
contract theofchange. useas of
carriage InWas due
are
The airline may gave him the pack P375.00
promissory
damages
never
expanded figuredmay
the note bebe
in adid
indemnity liable
recovered
vehicular forin
not stipulate
since moraltheany
the
mishap. damages
cases payment
One
judgment
ALTERNATIVE
diligence,
indemnity
day,on recoverable
their defense,
ANSWER:
prevented
for onlythe
Diego indeath theof
instances
claims misfortune,
thethat fetus,
where the x x carrier
(b)
downhill
the x"
there a discount, anSupreme
oversight, or aninerror in
pursuant
d)
for
Marcial No. was
the Interest.
specifiedcivil to Art.
Courts
therein
liabilityThe
riding 2219
had can
note
several (10)
review
was
atbecome
the of ifwhich
due
back thematters
on cause
seat
final. of not
January
are of 5,
his assigned1.
is asIt depends.
P100.000.00
slope
guiltycaused of given?as
fraud
The
the(27moral
van or todamages
bad gain
Court
faith
speed for the
orDPO’s
and
where
Chapman
mental
that, the
action isResource
based on Article the
vs, amount
Underwood What
Phil would
374), be
held: "An duty,
owner
errors.
1993 but
(Hydro
enumerated
Mercedes before
Benz below. this
being vs.ChooseCA 21
date
driven the
. the or
204 two
along an
caseSCRAact
became
wherein
EDSA by anguish
mishap
as he and
stepped
resulted anxiety
on in
the he
the
brakessuffered,
death to check
of (c)
a P50,000.00
passenger.
the
contrary
309). to recover
morals in viewout ofbook,
the humiliation if any,
who sitsin incase hisof an excess in
automobile, or theother amount vehicle, of and
political
you
Ben. cannot
Absorbedenemies. Nonoy,
in reading moral a of spite,
damages. Explain.
Marcial did as exemplary
acceleration,
(Cathay Pacific damages,
the brakes
Airways, (d) P20,000.00
locked, Ltd. causing
v. Courtasthe of
Defense;
suffered Due
by DT Diligence
and MT inwhen Selectionthey were change
permits given
his by the
driver to vendor?
continue How in a isviolation
this of
deliberately
(2.5%)
not notice a) Athat defaulted
criminalthey were in paying
offense resulting
approaching the note, inthethus nominal
van by to go damages,
even No.and
faster and(e) P25,000.00
eventually as
(2003)
As a
separated result fromof a collision
their guests between
and were the taxicab
Appeals,
SUGGESTED
situational
law the G.R.
ANSWER:
relationship
performance 60501, between
of March
negligent DPOto 5,
and
acts,hit1993)
the
RRA
after
forcing of
physical
corner Raffy
injuries
Quezon to sue b) him. 1)when
Quasi-delicts
Avenue, Whatthe actual
causingtraffic There
attorney's
Where
carhas was
in frontthere error
fees. in
May nothe
isExplain. amount
actual
showing damages of change
that thebe also given
airline
Liability;
owned
threatened
damages AirlineAtoCompany;
byinjuries
can andbe c)
Raffy another
offloaded.Non-Performance
recover? taxicab
2) Can of
owned an by
Raffy askB,
denominated?
he
SUGGESTED had aofreasonable
ANSWER:
it. Orlando (5%)and
opportunity Diego contend
to observe
physical
light had just turned Immorality
yellow. Ben orsuddenly
dishonesty by
acted RRA.
recovered? This
fraudulently If is
so, a case
whator of
facts
in solutio
bad should
faith, indebiti
be in
alleged
liability that
Obligation
X, (2005)
a passenger
that Mechanical
Yes,
No.
them the
provided
and sudden tothat malfunction
defects
the pecuniary
direct of a motor
that of
the the loss van’s
vehicle
driver suffered dofor
brake
cease
forIllegal
d)
stepped moral on damages
search
the gas e)of from
to theNonoy?
Malicious
cross first taxicab,
3)
theprosecution Can Raffy
intersection was DPO
and
damages
system received
proved?is ais something
limited
fortuitous to the
even that
natural is not and due him.
probable
Dr.
ask and
seriouslyfor the Mrs. AlmedaXare
injured.
nominal laterprominent filed acitizens
criminal of should
not constitute
thebe
therefrom,
In substantiated
fortuitous
becomes
instant case, and
himself ifand
event, duly
the that,
sinceproved.
responsible therefore,
the
involuntary for
before
SUGGESTED trafficdamages?
ANSWER: Immorality
light could 4) turn
Can
and red. Raffy
dishonesty, asktoo
But, for He has
consequences
they are theexempt obligation
of the
from to
breach
any return of the
liability. theIs P100.00;
contract
this of
the
SUGGESTED
action
temperatecountry
against and
ANSWER:
damages? both are frequent
drivers.
5) Can travelers
Raffy ask abroad.
for presence
such
upgradingacts, ofx such
x x ofOn defects
the the otherwould hand, have
Almedas' if been
the driver,
seat
per
late.
1) se,
Raffy are
Midway may not in among
recoverthe thethose
intersection,amount cases the enumerated
of the traffic otherwise,
carriage
contention
Damages he
which
arising tenable?will
fromwastheunjustly
Death parties
Explain.
of Unborn enrich had
(2%) Child himself
foreseen at or
May
In 1996,
attorney's both taxicab
they
fees? booked owners round-trip raise the business defense class of readily
by a sudden
accommodation
ALTERNATIVE detected act
ANSWER: by
of diligent
negligence,
not maintenance
attended andby withoutfraud the or
in
light Article
promissory changed, 2219 note which
and of a can
P1Jeepney
million,be the full basis ofwith
of passengers
together an the a expense
could
(2003)
If have
pregnant ofwoman
RRA. (Art.
reasonably 2154, Civil
foreseen.
passenger ofInvehicle
such
athe Code)
bus ain
werecase
due
tickets diligence
for the in the
Manila-Hong selection and supervision
Kong-Manila route check.
owner
bad
DPO The
faith,
has having
thethefailureaward
duty a toto maintain
reasonable
of
return moral to the
RRA opportunity
damages has
excess noto
action
suddenly
interest for moral
atcrossed
the legaldamages.
the car's The
path. lawAdate specifically
collision the liability does not include moral anda
of their
the Pinoy drivers to berate
Airlines, absolved
where from they the
from areliability of
holders for
of to
safe suffer
prevent
leg
P100 torunning
stand
as an abortion
the
trustee condition
act
on. or its
under following
constitutes
continuance,
Article a vehicular
1456 negligence.
of injures
the Civil
mentions
betweenorthe adulterytwo vehicles or concubinage, was inevitable. etc. but Asnot a exemplary
Liability; Airline damages.
Company; Non-Performance
judicial
SUGGESTED
damages
Gold Mabalos
any and
toextrajudicial
ANSWER:
every
X?Class Reason.
immoral
Frequent demand.
5%
act.
FlierIncards. addition, On Thus, which
accident
person
Code spouses
ordue to would
violates
provides:the the gross Ifnot
criminal
propertyalso be
negligence is of
law, an the
entitled
of
the
acquired owner to
result,
It depends.
however, several
inasmuchIf jeepney
the civil
as passengers
the action
debtor isis were
based
in bad on a Obligation
exemplary
bus driver, (2004) damages.
may she and It is
her a requisite
husband claim in the
their return flight, Pinoy Airlines upgraded
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of the automobile,
through mistake or although fraud, thepresent person obtaining therein at
seriously
quasi-delict
Marcial hemay isinjured.
the
notfirst be A liable
taxicab suit for
owners damages
because may underbased
raise Art.on
the the
DT
faith,
their tickets liable
to for all damages
class without which
their may
consent it is,and
grant
damages ofMT
time
by exemplary
from
force were
the ofthe prominent
act
law, damages
bus company
was
considered members
thata
committed forthe the
trustee ofdeath
act the
of
isof thenot
an
culpa
defense aquiliana
of the was filed
diligence of to against
ais good Marcial and
2184,
be
and, NCC,
reasonably
Quasi-Delict
inspite of owner
attributed
their who
protestations the in non-
the tofather
vehicle
be allowed ofis a responsible,
frequent
SUGGESTED
offender
of their unborn
implied travelers’
trust
ANSWER:
must forbechild?
either
the club
accompanied of FX
Explain.
benefitcivilly ofAirlines.
5%
theby bad
or person In
faith
criminally,from or
Ben,
2)
family
not Yes,
performance
(1992)
As the seeking
liable under
in
result the
with to
of ahold
Article
selection
the the driverthem
2220,
obligation.
collision and
if jointly
NCC
by
between the
(Art. and
moral
supervision exercise
a severally
2201(2).
public of ofthe No, the
Hongkong,
done
(Morris inspouses
v. the
wanton,
Court cannot
coupleof recover
were
fraudulent
Appeals, assigned
G.R.actual
or seats
malevolent
No. 127957,in
to remain in the business class so that they therefor.
whom
Liability; the owner The
property who actwas complained
comes. theThere
inindemnity vehicle of inmust
is, this be
liable
damages
driver; for such
are injuries.
the recoverable May Marcial
inathey
case oftruckbe
breach heldofon damages in the form of for the loss
due
NCC).
service
could beif
diligence
passenger
with action
he
their could
bus against
friends,have
and them
prevented
cargo were is based
the
told that Business
manner.
February
continued
case,
(2002) an Class
21,
in
implied the for
2001) which
presence
or Moreover,
constructive they
of the had to bought
owner
trust be in entitled
for
favor such
liable?contractual
contract Explain. Does
of life oftheOn the presence
unborn of
child. the This owner is because inside thethe
culpa
injury.
owned bywhere
The D,law X theor
does
sustained defendant
notcivil liability
require
physical actedthe arising
owner
injuries from
to
and tickets.
thereto, the checking
claimant in,must however, first they
establish were his
the business
fraudulently
a
Y
and crime,
supervise
died. that they
Both
they
class
or in
cannot
theXdriver
was
bad
and Ygiven
were raise
every
already
faith.
werepriority the
minutein
passengers
fully
defense.
booked,
that hethe
of
upgrading was
a
of
unborn
length
RRA.
vehicle
told they
right TORTS & DAMAGES
causing
child
to were
acquiescence,
of
moral, is
time
damage
not
upgraded
makes
yet
that
temperate,
his
to
considered
the
a third
by computer
driver's
owner,
or act a party
person
compensatory
his
by
affect
to own."
First
his
Filing
3)
driving. of Separate
Nominal Only damages
when Civilthrough
Action;
may notNeed
his for
benegligence, Reservation
recoverable his the
in and liability
forlaw allowsfor2234, his
indemnity driver’s only negligence?
for loss
the of the
bus.
because Both drivers
they are were
elite at fault,
members/holders and so X of andthe Z, Class
damages. the (Art. flight to ManilaCivil because
Code) Since
(2003)
As
this
owner a result
case has of
because
lost a
an collision
Raffy
opportunity may between
already
to the
prevent be taxicab
the
SUGGESTED
Explain
life
Both of
Collapse
Business (2%)
person.
refused
of
ANSWER:
Section to
Structures; The mother,
transfer
wasLast Cleardespite
overbooked. however
Chance better may seats,
the
Goldonly Mabalosheir and Class legitimate
cards.taxicab childthey
Since of the were Almedas
In motor are notmishaps,
vehicle entitledthe to owner any of is made these
owned
indemnified
accident bywouldA of and his
he another
losses
be liable with ( the
Caedo owned
award
v. Ytt by B,
of
Khe recover
food,
(1990)
Mr and
damages, damages
beverage
Mrs the R and
own
awardfor a the
other
burned-out
for bodily
services
exemplaryinjury in
building, she
Firstdamagesthe
deceased
embarrassed Y, sued at thethediscussions
owners of both with vehicles.
the flight solidarily liable with his driver if he (the
X,
actual
Thai, a 26 passenger
and SCRA compensatory
410 of
citing theChapman first taxicab,
damages. NOMINAL
v. was suffered
Class.
firewall
has no They offrom
legal which thecollapsed
said
basis. loss
theyWhere of
had the fetus
guests
and
the awards which
in
destroyed foristhe
Business moral
a) May
attendants, the owner
they were of the
forced bus raise
to take the thedefense
flight owner) was in the vehicle and could have, by
seriously
DAMAGES
Underwood injured.
are
andadjudicated
Manlangit X later v.onlyfiled
Mauler, a 250
inoforder criminal
that
SCRA a considered
Class
shop
and they should
occupied
exemplary partby ofdamages
herfamily
attend
the internal
to. areThey
of Mr organ. andThe
felt
eliminated, Mrs S, so
of
at having
the first exercised
class section the diligence
apart from a good
their the use of due diligence, prevented the
action
right
560). of
In against
the
this case,boththe
plaintiff, drivers.
which
fact has
that been
the violated
owner was or parents
humiliated,
which
must mayembarrassed
resulted
the also
award in recover
injuriesfor damages
and
to vexed,
said
attorney's for
couple injuries
however, and
fees be
father
friends
Is of
it necessary
ALTERNATIVE a family?
whoANSWER: werefor b)
in theX May D
tobusiness raise
reserve the
class. same
his right Uponto mishap. (Caedo v. Yu Khe Thai, 26 SCRA 410
invaded byinthe defendant may bedamages
vindicated or that are inflicted
absorbed
defense?
theirMarcial
Yes,
institute
ALTERNATIVE return c)
a
reading
May
to Manila,
should
civil
ANSWER: X be
action
a book
claim they
held for
does
moraldemanded
liable.
damages
not Art. a2164.from
against
when
the
Moraldeath
eliminated.
[1968]).
the
Damages stewardess
of(Orosa
their & directly
daughter.allegedly
v. Court
Atty Fees upon of them,
threatened
MrAppeals,
and Mrs e.g., G.R. to
S had No.
recognized,
conclusively
both defendants? and
show notd)that for
May hethe Zlostpurpose
claim the of
opportunity
moral moral
offload
been
111080, damages
them
warned April for
ifbytheyMr
5, mental
did
&
2000; Mrsnotanguish
Ravail
to
Morris of
vacate that
the
v. the
Court of
written
NCC
Yes,
both makes
the apology
action
taxicab an from
owner
will
owners Pinoy
of afor
prosper.
before Airlines.
motor
Article
he vehicle When
2201 it
aofcivil
the (2002)
Ortillo contracts Fabricato, Inc. to supply and
indemnifying
SUGGESTED
to prevent ANSWER:
the the plaintiff
accident through anycan hisloss file
suffered
negligence. attended
upgrade.
shop in the
view Thus loss
of they
its ofproximity
the
gave unborn
in,February
but
to child.
the duringweakenedSincethe
damages
went
solidarily
Civil
4) Raffy
SUGGESTED
(a)
action No. unheeded,
Code from
liable
may
The
for entitles
ANSWER:
owner
damages both
askwith the the
for,
of defendants?
couple
the
but
the
against driver
personwould
bus sued toif,
cannot
them? Give
Pinoy
being
recover
most Why reasons
Airlines
likely
raise in the
the
not Appeals,
Death
install IndemnityG.R.
tile No.
materials 127957, in a building 21, he2001) is
by him. (Article 2231. Civil Code) there
transfer is gross
of negligence, exemplary damages
for
It
vehicle
damages
be
defense all
breach
awardedyour
depends. at of
the
which
because answers,
Ifcontract
timethe
temperatemaythe ofseparate
be claiming
the mishap,
attributed
damages,
carrier's civilmoralhe
to
for
liability action
and
could
non-
the
is based
wall
is to The(1994)
donating
Johnny but
most thetoluggage
that
Maton's former
his can be DT
failed
province.
conviction suffered
adjudged toOrtillo
for inpain
dohomicide
so. their
paysMr in his
&
favor
50%
wasMrsarmfor
of
can
and
S also
wrist.
filed
Pinoy be
against
Airlines' recovered.
After Mr arrival
breachand in
(Gelus
Mrs
of Manila,
R an
contractv. CA, they
action 2
is SCRA
anfor award
recover
exemplary
have
performance
reason
on damages
prevented
breach damages,
thatofhis it
of actual arising
by
an obligation.
contract as
the well
damages from
exerciseas the criminal
attorney's
Inmay of
Alitaliadue
already be act,
fees. the contract
affirmed by theprice Court as per
of agreement.
Appeals and inIt is also
reservation isupon necessary. If reasons.
the civil action demanded
801
recovery
for
agreed
[1961])
nominal
However,
addition, of
that ifan
although apology
damages
damages
spouses
the thethe from
under
Almeda
balance former
prosecution FX’s
Article
could
would management
suffered 2221
prove
be
had asof
payable
not athe
that
WillYes.
diligence.
(b)
Airways the D
compensated action
v. The
can
Court prosper?
traffic
raise proof
the
of Appeals Give
conditionsthereof
defense (G.R. along
with
because
No. (5%)
EDSA
the
77011, his at
against the taxicab as
result
Civil
therewell
periodicallyofas
Code.
was the indemnity
at bad collapse
(Cathay
after faith
every payment.
of the
on
Pacific
10% the When
firewall. In
partincreased
Airways
performance none
of v.Pinoy was
Sps.
until
any time
promissory
liability
July 24, 1990)isofbasedday , when
note. oronnight aowners
an
TEMPERATE are such
airline
quasi-delict. is issues
based
DAMAGES on
as toticket culpa
require to appealed
forthcoming,
all.
they
The
sued
appellate
the
court
airline
contractual,
the
a
may observance
passenger
be awarded or on ofonly
confirmed quasi-delict,
utmost on care
when a the there
and
particular
court is
total no need
flight,
finds thata defense,
Airlines
Daniel
completed.
the indemnity
SUGGESTED & Mr when
Maria and
After
ANSWER: for itMrs
Luisadeath R
breached
performing rely
Vasquez,
from theG.R.for
onP30,000.00
the
about doctrine
contract
No.
93% a million
to of
150843,
of of
the
ALTERNATIVE
for reservation. ANSWER: pesos
last
carriage,
March
FX
contract,
P50,000.00.in
clear 14,
Airlinesfordamages.
chance
it
2003) could
committed
On which Is
alleging
his appeal thebe
breachairline
it has that
liable
to the Mr liable
ofbeen andfor
contract
Supreme for
Mrs moral,
paid an S
alertness
(c)
contract
some Because ofincarriage
pecuniary Xviewsufferedof the
loss arises
has large
physical andnumber injuries,
the ofbut
passenger X can
No, such reservation is been suffered
not necessary. its
Under actual
had the
exemplary
when
additional
Court, itandlastas
upgraded
among moral
40%clear
well
theas damages?
chance
asper
DT
other attorney's
and to
MT,
agreement,
things Why
avoid
over or
fees.
Johnny the why
their accident
Fabricato,
Maton not?
vehicles
claim
expects
amount moral running
that
cannot, damages
he would at great
from against speed.
fly nature
the on thatD, of Marcial
but
day.theasWhen wasthe
against
case, be
Section 1 of Rule 111 of the 2000 Rules on Explain
Liability;
if only
objections,
Inc.
brought did briefly.
Employer;
theytonot toheeded
the First(5%)
complete
high Damage
the
Class
court's thecaused
former’s
because project
attention, by
warning
they Employees
due had
was to
to
theits
negligent
the
airline
proved owner in
deliberately
with that
ofcertainty.
the bus. heoverbooked,
rendered
X(Article
can claim himself
it moral
2224, took oblivious
Civilthe risk
Criminal
5) Yes, under Procedure,
paragraph 2,whatArticle is2208 “deemed
of the (1997)
a)
vacateWhen
contracted
sudden
increase of the would
shop,
for
cessation an
and
Business
indemnityof employer's
therefore
Class
imposed Mr liability
passage.
operations. and
by the Court Mrs forR’s
Instead, ofdamage,
to having
of
Code) the traffic
damages only hazards
to deprive if X proves by reading
some reckless
passengers a negligence
book of their
instituted”
Civil Code, with
considering the criminal that action is
Nonoy's act onlyor the caused
prior bynegligence
However,
Fabricato,
Appeals andespite
employee
although
Inc. should
demands
the in
there
clearthe be isperformance
disregarded.
a breach
payment
fact that theofof ofIfhis
the
People you assigned
last
instead
of
seat the of focusing
incarrier
case allamounting
of them his attentionto fraud.
would show on the up. road
For the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
action
omission to recover
has compelled civil liability
Raffyof arising from the tasks,
SUGGESTED
Iwere the be
ANSWER:
judge, primary
inhow and
would when
you would
& decide it
the be subsidiary
(d)
andZsupervising
indignity can and claim moral
the manner
inconvenience damages into litigate
against
which
being his to
both
refused car contract,
would
10%
had
a) In
of
not the DTcontract
decide
appealed and MT
favor
from are ofentitled
despite
the Mr its
appellate Mrsto actual
S.
non-completion
,due
The
court's
the diligence
Supreme
crime
In the
protect
defendants or
given
his exinterests.
delicto. the
problem,
because All the other
spouses
Furthermore.
rules onAlmeda civil hadactions
attorneys'
damages a case?
damagesinAbejam
nature?
proprietor
of the
judgment. Stateb)only
project. Would
of
Is
v. Court
youra for theMaton
reasons.
such
building
JohnnyOrtillo
of Appeals
defense
pecuniary
or
refuses ofto
structure
correct? losses
pay, is invoking
wasconfirmed
the being driven. seat,Thus saidhe failed to is
passenger prevent
entitled his Court said that even if the issue of damages
in
thethe
under
booked
fees may Articles
roundtrip
be attempting32,business
awarded 33, by34tothe andclass 2176
court ticket of the
when with New
itlight
is suffered selection
by them andasdamages
a result of
arising
driver
to moral from
fromdamages. death due a quasi-delict
beat the traffic are responsible
stipulation for thatthe payment ofsuch
resulting
the last breach.
fromamount its
Liability;
Civil
Pinoy Code owner
Airlines. arewho nowas
When in
longer the
their vehicle
“deemed
tickets wereinstituted”, were not raisedof
supervision bythe theemployee
appellantbe in available
the Courtto the
just
also
at theand equitable.
applicable
junction to Quezon
of (Article
death a2208(110)
ofAvenue passenger and Civil
caused
EDSA, There
total
10% or seems
shall partialbetoupon be no
collapse, showing
completion.if it should that they
be due to
Fabricato, Inc.
(1998)
A Gallant driven of Appeals butinthe Court
employer bothof Appeals in its
and
Damages
upgraded
Code).
by
which
may
breach Marcial, ofbyfirst
be
arising
to Johnclass
filed
from
contract
without
and
Death owned
separately
by ofbeing
a by
Unborn
without Art, and
common and
Child
a their
driver
a Corolla
prosecuted
consent,
carrier driven
himself incurred
the
bringslacksuit such
of forpecuniary
necessary the entire repairs loss.10%. There
(Art 2190
Plus isdamages,
noCivil
by its
(1991)
On
Zulueta
Pinoy owner,
independently
herhave Gina,
third
v. Pan
Airlines collided
montheven1764,
American
breached somewhere
without
of pregnancy,
(G.R.
the along
any No.
contract. Adriatico
reservation
Rosemarie,
L-28589, Street.
As ruled As
in
JanuaryA.
As Does
findings
instances?
8,regards Ortillo
increased
the have the
SUGGESTED
defense a damages,
legal basis theforSupreme
his claim
(Arts.
could 1755. 1756,
easily perceived 2206 as and
a 2219.
reckless Civil showing
Code)
Ortillo that
counters the pain
with inofclaims
“last
DT's arm clear
for and chance,”
(a) wrist moral
ainresult
the
1973),case
married
in criminaloftooverbooking,
of the accident,
Boy,action forGina had airline
(Section
reasons 3, is
a concussion.
known RuleinSubsequently.
bad
only111, faith.
to Ibid).
her, (a) The
for moral
Court
ANSWER:
the same : employer's
will damages?
isnot disturb
notFabricato,
tenable liability
(2%)the because for damage
findings of the Court
according based
to
Code).
course of conduct. resulted
damages
b) No,
B. Appeals.
How directly
theaboutfor
contention from
his under the
of thefor
claim carrier's
Inc.’s accused unfounded
attorney’s actsis not2180 suit
fees,
Therefore,
Gina
The
and brought
failure
without anspouses
action
to for
informing make Almeda
damages Boy, are entitled
a against
reservation
went John
to andtheArt. to
inThere
clinic the on
of
the culpa
SC in aquiliana
one case (De Roy
Art,
v CA
2176
L-80718,
and Jan
complained
which has of. Hence,
damaged they
his are not
reputation entitled to
damages.
is noX,doubt
criminal
of a knownthat
actionthe collision
is not
abortionist, is due towho
a waiver John'sfor negligence.
of athe fee,rightCan Art,to correct
having
of
29,
the
1988,
because
hiredCode
Civil 157
a lawyer
Sand
upon
757)
appeal
to defend
is primary;
the doctrine
towhilethe
him? Appellate
of thatlast
(3%) undera
as
clear
actual damages.
philanthropist Moreover,
respect DT could
businessman have
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
who was
file
removed a in separate
and expelled and independent
the fetus from civil
her action Court,
SUGGESTED
Art. 103
chance
the
isthenot
court
ANSWER: acquired
of applicable
the Revised toby
jurisdiction
Penal covered
instances Code his
over in the is
Fortuitous Event; Mechanical Defects avoided
community,
entire case, alleged
and
criminal (b) injury
attorney’s
as well requesting
as fees.
civil. Since the the
based
womb, on these articles of the New Civil Code subsidiary.
(2002) Boy learned of the abortion six (6) by Art 2190
airline
conviction staffofto of do thethe
homicide
Civil Code. transfer as a
luggage
had been appealed,
months later.v. Laroya GR No. 145391, August
(Casupanan matter of duty on their part. There is also no
26, 2002). there
basis to award moral damages for such breach
of contract because the facts of the problem
do not show bad faith or fraud on the part of
the airline. (Cathay Pacific v. Vazquez, 399
SCRA 207 [2003]). However, they
Yes,
C.
by In
man's
based
SUGGESTEDthe case invention
on quasi-delict
ANSWER: of Peter,No,or industry
Benjamin
if he under
were arecannot
the
tosusceptible
be
humanconsidered
raiserelations
the a)
for
called
The
anWhen
quasi-delict
doctrine
“oncomouse”
a 7-year of may VICARIOUS
oldin
nonetheless
Manila?
boy injuresLIABILITY
What
prosper. hiswill
is The
that
be yourwhich
provisions
employee,
defense
to exclusivethat the
ofownership
the
theexercise
New Civil
vehicle of
by due
is the Code
not diligence
(Articles
registered
inventor. inin the
19,
his Court
renders
him? has
Supreme
advice
playmate toa consistently
personplaying
while liable ruled
for
with that
thehis negligence
the act that of
father's
20 and His
selection
name.
ALTERNATIVE 21)andbecause
supervision
liability,
ANSWER: the actofcommitted
vicarious Peter would
in character, by not
theis breaks
others
(5%) Explain.
SUGGESTED
rifle. the
forANSWER:
contract
whose (2%)acts may also or omission
be a tort. the There law
The
basedaoncomouse
lessor
be onis Article
material
contrary is ato
2180
issue higher
because
since
morals.life form
he
the is
Moral which
the father of
conviction
damages of The
(1) The
parents
is a fiduciary
makes reciprocity
him ofrelationship
the 7-year
responsible principle onold in
between
the boyprivate
theorywho thethatcaused
bank they
does
(10)
a minor
are
Peter not
inwouldfall within
relation
who
recoverable caused to the
result
under definition
Article
damage
inArticle 21.
due
a subsidiary
2219 of the
Although
to term
negligence.the
liability injury
international
and under
are the todepositor,
his hisplaymate
law
control may
imposing are
be applied
and liable
supervision.
utmost under
in diligence
ourArticle
"invention".
action
While theis Neither
based
suit will on may it fall
quasi-delict
prosper against
where the defense would not be available by within
and
the thenot
registered on 219
jurisdiction.
of
Vicarious the Family
Section
Liability Code,
in managing the accounts of the depositor. 3 of inR.A.
relation
8293, tothe Article The
ambit
In the ofitcase
contract,
owner,
the the
employer. is term
actualthe "manufacture"
of damages
Paul,
actual since
may he
owner bewhich
of the usually
was in
recovered the
private if 2180
Intellectual
(2004)
OJ was
dishonor of employed
theof Civil
Property
the Code Code,
sinceprovides
as professional
check adversely theyaffected
exercise
driver for ofthe MM
implies
performance
the lessee
vehicle a non-living
who of hismechanistic
is ultimately
is able towork
liableat(See
prove product.
the timeThe
theDuavit
losses the
v.and
CA, parental
reciprocity,
Transit
G.R.
credit No. busauthority
as
L-24932,
standing owned follows: over
of June by Mr.
Tony, "Any
the
27, BT.
hence, person
person
1968; Inhe the isof
Americanwhotheisboy.
course
entitled aofto
oncomouse
incident
ALTERNATIVE
expenses
G.R. is suffered.
better
occurred,
ANSWERS:
she
No. L-29759, regarded
Maythe 18, school
1989). asThe
a "discovery"
may be held
purpose of national,
(Tamargo
Express
his work,
damages or
OJ who
(Singsonhit aispedestrian
v. Court
International, of domiciled,
v. Appeals,
BPI,Inc. v. IAC, or has
G.R.
who No.
G.R.
was a 85044,
real and
No.
a) Yes,
which based
ALTERNATIVE
subsidiarily
car registration
(Villanueva v.on
is theANSWER:
commonbreach
liable
Domingo,not
to ofreduce
is patrimony contract.
because
G.R. ofNo. The
man. of
difficultylessor
144274,the
in 72383,
effective
June
seriously3, November
industrial
1992;injured Elcano 9,establishment
and 1988; Hill,Consolidated
v.later G.R.in
died No.in
the Bank
aL-24803,
country
hospital
The
has "oncomouse"
the obligation is ato non-patentable
undertake repairs to b)
and
May
whichWhen
Trust
26, is a a
v.
1977) domestic
CA,
party G.R.
to any No. helper,
L-70766
convention, while November haggling
treaty or
conviction
identifying
September theofparty
14, Peter,
2004). liable but because
in case of the
of accidents as a result of the accident. The victim’s heirs
invention.
make the Hence, cannot
apartment habitablebe owned and exclusively
to maintain for a
9,1998).
agreement lower price
relating withto a fish
intellectual vendor property in the
negligence of Paul under Art. 2180. sued
VicarioustheLiability
driver and the owner of the bus for
by
theitslessee
Vicarious inventor.Liability; Itthe isPublic
a method Utilityforand the adequate course ofthe buying
Vicarious in
Liability peaceful rights
damages.
(1991)
Romano
or
wasIs repression
there
bumped afoodstuffs of unfair
presumption
by a minivan
forcompetition,
inher this case
owned by
treatment
(2000)
Silvestre
enjoyment
(2001)
After working of
leased the a human
of the overtimecar from
lease for theor animal
up entire body
Avis-Rent-A-Car by
duration
to midnight, Co. employer's
to which thethe family,
Philippines slaps the
is also fish vendor,
a negligent?
party, or
that
the Mr.
Solomon BT, School owner, of had
Practical been Arts (SSPA). If
surgery
at
of the
the or
Mactan therapy
contract and
International
(Article diagnostic
Alberto, an executive of an insurance company extends Airport.
1654. methods
NCC).No sooner
Since causing
SUGGESTED herANSWER:
reciprocal to fall and
rights sustain
to nationals injuries.of the
so,
The is the
minivan
SUGGESTED presumption
was
ANSWER: absolute
driven by Peter, or not?
a student on
practiced
had
drovehe
there awas onwillful
driven
company saidthe bodies
breach
vehicle carare to ofnot
outside patentable
a contract
favorite the Videoke
airport
by the Yes,
Explain. there(2%)
Philippines is
by alaw,presumption
shall behelper of negligence
entitled to slapped
benefits
Explain.
Employer
assistant (5%)of
whose the domestic
assignment was who
to clean the
under
when,
lessor,
bar where Sec.
due
the to 22his
lessee
he of the
had issomeIPC.drinks
negligence,
entitled hemoral
to bumped
and an
damages
sang someFX the
to thepart extent of necessary
the employer. to give However,
effect to5any such
a fish
school vendor.
passageways Under Article
daily one 2180,
hour par.
before of the
and
taxi
underowned
songs Article
with and
3220,
friends driven
toNCC."unwind".by
She Victor,
is At also 2:00 a.m., presumption
causing
entitled provision
Civil Code,
is
of"employers rebuttable.
such convention, shall
The
be
liability
treaty
liable orfor thethe
of
damage
to drove
he actualhome, todamages,
thebut latter
ine.doing in loss
g. the heamount
so, ofbumped
income, ofa one
employerhour after
reciprocalcaused shall regular classes,
law, incease addition when to the
in exchange
they rights prove to that
for
b) Yes, based on contract and/or on tort. The damages
free tuition. Peter bywas their able employees
to drive and
the school
P100,000.00.
medical expenses,
tricycle, resulting Victor etc.,
in the filed
which death an of
she action
can itsprove for
driver. at they
whichobserved
any owner theofdiligence
an intellectual of a good father of
lessor willfully breached his obligations under household
vehicle after helpers
persuading acting within
the regulartheproperty
scope
driver,Civilof
damages
the trial.
May the against
insurance both
company Silvestre
be heldand liable for a
Avis, family
right
their is to prevent
otherwise
assigned tasks,
damage
entitled
even by (Article
though this Act.
the
2180,(n)"
former To
Article
SUGGESTED
based on 1654.
ANSWER: NCC,
quasi-delict. hence,
Avis Why? he isa motion
filed liable for to When
Paul, to
Code). the turn employee
over thecauses wheel to damage
him (Peter). due to his
the negligent act of Alberto? illustrate:
are not engagedthe Philippines may refrain from
The
breach
dismiss insurance
SUGGESTED of
the ANSWER:
contract. company
complaint Foragainst
suchis not it liable
breach, on the the because
lessee
ground own
Romano sufferedin
negligence any business
while
serious performing
physical orinjuries.
industry."
his The own
The
when motion
the to tomoral
accident dismiss should be granted, not c)
AVIS imposing
A carpenter a requirement
there inarises of
aatconstruction local incorporation
company
may
of recover
failure state aoccurred,
damages
cause ofunder Alberto
action. Art.was 2220
Resolve duties,
accident
or establishment
happened
ofthe
nightthe
a local
when juris
domicile
only one tantum
is
of not
acting
the the the
NCC,
motion.
employer
within and the
(3%)
of assigned
actual Silvestre;
damageshence, tasks
that she there
of may hisis accidentally
ALTERNATIVE
headlight ofANSWER:
presumption thehits
that vehicle the right
employer
was foot of
functioning isforhis theco-
negligent,
and
no right
employment. of action against AVIS under Article protection
Reciprocity
worker
rebuttable with of
only industrial
principle
a hammer.
by proof property
cannot be
Explain.
of rights
applied
observance (2%) of
in our
of
have suffered on account thereof. And since Peter only ANSWER:
SUGGESTED had a student driver's permit. As athe
2180 of the foreign
jurisdiction nationals because (citizens
the of Canada,
Philippines is a party
It
the isconduct
true of Civil
that under
the Code.
lessor Art.was Not2180 being
contrary(par. the 5), diligence
to consequence,
The owner of a good
Peter wasfather convictedof a family
in the (Metro
prosper?
Switzerland,
to the TRIPS b)of Willtheyour
U.S.) construction
if the answer countries becompany.
the of521same
said if,
employer,
employers
morals, he are AVIS
mayliable has be
also noheld
for duty
damages
liable to caused
supervise
for quasi- by Manila
criminal
Article case.agreement
Transit
2180, Thereafter,
v. CA, 223
paragraph
and
4 Romano
states
the
SCRA WTO.
that sued The
"the for
[1993];
Silvestre.
their Neither has AVIS the duty to observe Paul,
foreign
principle the regular
nationals
involved refrain
is the from
most-favoredimposing said
nation
delict.employees
The lessee who may were recover acting
moralwithin damages the Delsan
damages
owners Transport
and against Lines
Peter and v, SSPA.
C&tA a) Construction,
Will the
due
scope diligence
of theirin the (10)
assigned selection of its customers. clausedriver,
Likewise,
requirement which wasifmanagers
on impleaded
theFilipino
is2003).
the
of
driver
principle
anasestablishment
citizens. party
is
of non- defendant
charged or for
and
under Article 2219 intasks.
relation However,
to Article the 412
action SCRA
enterprise for 524
damages
are likewise against Peter
responsible and for SSPA
Besides,
mere factit was
that given
Alberto in thewas problemusing a that
service Peter to
allowingin aThe
convicted
the discrimination. drive the
criminal minivan
protection case without
afforded a
for criminal regular
to
21, and allANSWER:
actual damages which she may damages
license. c)caused
Isproperty
the is by subsidiarily
their employees
exercise of duein diligence in the
ALTERNATIVE
c)
causeYes,
vehicle of the
of the theaction
accident
employer shouldwas at prosper
thethe negligence
time for of both
theof driver's
negligence,
intellectual BT protection liable
the for inthe
have
The suffered
motion by reason
should beof denied.
such conduct under service ofarising
theand branches in criminal
which the latter are
actual
Silvestre.
injurious
Articles and 20 moral
9,accident and 21. damages.
does In Under
not necessarily fact, mean the
even the selection
damages
Philippines also applies from the to other members act. of
Public Service Law, the registered owner of a employed
Vicarious or on the
Liability occasion of their
exemplary
that he was damages
operating and the attorney's
vehicle fees
withincan the be the WTO. Thus, it is not really reciprocity issue to
supervision of Peter and Paul a material
public utility is liable forauthority
the damages suffered d) Abe
(2006)
Arturo 15-year
functions."
resolved
sold inold thishigh to school
case? student stabs
claimed
scope of by his Rosa,
employment.on the In theCastilex of Magbanua
Industrial his principle inhis privatePajero Benjamin
international for P1
law that Million.
by third persons through use of such (2) classmate
Therebut
SUGGESTED
Benjamin is no
ANSWER:
took who
legal
the is
reason
vehicle his rival
butwhy did for a
"oncomouse"
not girl
register
vs.
Corp.IAC (137 SCRA 328),SCRA393 considering that, as
. the applies, the most-favored nation clauseat the
publicv.the Vasquez Jr (321 [1999]) A. Yes. It
given, utility. Hence,
lessor's the cause
willful and of
illegal actionact is
of
while
cannot
sale
under with bewill
they
public
wereprosper
protected
the Land going
international
(Art,
under out 2180)
the
Transportation
law.
oflaw.
thebecauseclassroom
Among
Office. He
Supreme
based in Court
law, the held
Public that notwithstanding
Service Law. the after
the time their he son drove
lastCarlos, thepatent
class. vehicle,
Explain. he was
(2%) not
disconnecting the water those
allowed excluded
his from a minor protection
who did are
not have
fact that the employee didand some electric
overtime services
work performing
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
his assigned tasks as provided for
forINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
resulted in Rosa's suffering a nervous a
The school, teacher and administrator aspan
driver's
"plant license,
varieties or to drive
animal the
breeds, car to
or buy theyde
the company, the former was, nevertheless, by Art. 2180. With respect toCarlos
SSPA, it is not in a
2:00
breakdown.a. m.) was
Art.own outside
20 NCC normal working sal in
essentially a bakery.biological On the way,
process for the driving
engaged inANSWER:
his affairsand Art, 21, out
or carrying NCCa exercise special parental authority. (Art. 2180,
liable for the
Quasi-Delict;
hours.
ALTERNATIVE
authorize
Intellectual theMismanagement
award
Creation of of Depositor’s
damages for Account
such reckless
par. 7 in manner,
production ofacts
relation plants to
of Peter
sideswiped
and218
Art.
because
animals"Dennis,
and Art.
the then
(Section latter
219 of riding
personal
The insurance purpose companywhen he is went to
liable if a restaurant
Alberto was was
a not
bicycle. an employee
As a result, as held
he suffered by Supreme
serious physical
(2006)
willful
(2004)
Dr.2:00
ALX and is a illegal
scientist conduct. honored for work related 22.4 Intellectual
the Family Code) Property Code, R.A. No.
at
negligent a.m.in the afteroperation
coming out
of the from carwork.and The Court in
Tony
to the bought
human a genome
Ford Expedition project. from Among a thecar
his
injuries.
8293).
e) What The Filamer
Dennis "oncomouse"
defense,
Christian
filed a criminal
if any, inInstitute
isthe complaint
problem
available
vs. CA. against
is
to not
them?
time
car of
was the accident
assigned to (also
him for the benefit of the (190
1. Can
Carlos SCRA Dennis
for 485). file
reckless Peteran belongs
independent
imprudence to a special
civil
resulting action in
dealer in Muntinlupa
pioneering efforts concern stem cell research City. As payment, Tony an essentially
SUGGESTED
(2%) ANSWER: biological process for the
insurance
issued company, and even though he was category
against
serious of
Carlos
physical
The defenseofthat students and
injuries.
mightItbewho
his render
father
isavailable service
Benjamin to
to them is the
for
for the acure check drawn against
of Alzheimer’s disease. his currentUnder production
B. I would maintain
animals.
thefree same
a real invention
answer because
not
accountwithin with the Premiumscope of Bank. his Since
assigned he tasksa damages
has school
the
because inits
observance based
exchange
body on
of aquasi-delict?
cells for
good do tuition
father
not Explain.
of
naturally fees.
the (2,5%)
family
occur
corporate sponsorship, he helped develop a the incident
SUGGESTED
The breeding did
ANSWER:of not
oncomouseYes, Dennis
occur while
has the can
novelty, employeefile in an
when
good the accident
reputation, the happened.
car dealer In onehim
allowed case to to prevent
nature but are the damage.
theactionproduct (Last par.,
of man's Art. 2180,
ingenuity,
microbe that ate and digested oil spills in the independent
was in
inventive the step civil
performance
and industrial against
of his duty Carlos
application. as suchand his
decided
immediately by the Supreme the Court, where
merely an Civil Code)
sea. he leadsdrive
Now a college hometeam vehicle
for cancer on intellect
father
employee.
These forand
are
Quasi-Delict;
industry.
damages
Thethree
the
Acts incident
contrary based on quasi-delict
occurred
requisites
to morals at night time,
of patentability. there
executive
his assurance of a pharmaceutical
that
research in MSS State. The team has his check company
is sufficiently was
being
Rosa was leasing an apartment in the city. theto
and
(Sec. in29,an
any act
IPC)case, or omission
there was causing
no indication damage in
given
funded.
experimentedthe When useonthe ofa mouse
a car company whosecar,
dealer bodyand
deposited cells the (1996)
after
another
problem
There arewithout
that
ofno heRent
ethical contractual
was performing
reasons obligation.
why hisherduties
Dr. ADX Under
as a
and
office
check,
replicate hours,
it andwas the
bear executive
dishonored
cancerous made
on the
tumor. personal
grounduse
Called of Because
C. In
Section the 1case
the
of of
Rule Peter,
Control
111 if he
of
Law,
were
the to
2000 be
landlord
Rules on
of the carClosed." anditmet driver.
his
could college
not team
increase cannot
the be
rental givenas exclusive
much as he
"Account
“oncomouse”, a an
is After accident,
an investigation,
life-form useful thefor employer
it was Criminal
medical considered
ownership as
Procedure, employee, what the is exercise
deemed of due
instituted
was
found
researchalsothat made
and isliable
anitemployee a novel under
of theArt.
creation. bank 2180
Its of the
misplaced
body wanted to, over their invention.
nor terminate her lease Theas use longof as
diligence
with
such thepayingin the selection
criminal
genetically action
modified and
is order
mouse, supervision
only theforce
useful action
for of to
Civil
Tony's
cells Code
do not account for
naturally the
ledger. injury
occur in caused
Thus,
naturethe by
but are the she
bank recover was her rent. In to her
peter would
cancer civil
research, not be
liability a material
outweighs arising issue
from
considerations since
the the
act foror
negligent
erroneously
the product ofassumed operation
man’s intellect, of
that histhe car
industry accountby the
and no animal to leave the premises, the landlord stopped
conviction
omission of Peter would result in a subsidiary
repairs on the apartment, and causedon
punished
rights. by law. An action based
executive,
longer exists.
ingenuity. on the
However, Later ground
it turned
there that
is the that
out
a doubt car
whetherTony's making
which
liability
There
quasi-delictarewhere noislegal thelonger
no defense
and ethical would
deemed not be
reasons
instituted that and
caused
account
local property the
has more injury
laws and was
than ethics assigned
sufficient
would allow to the
funds to the
In thewater
available
would
may be case
frustrate
and
byofthe
filed
electricity
Paul, since services
employer.
Dr.
separately ALX's the
claim
[Sectionbasis toofbe
of exclusive
3, Rule 111,
Quasi-Delict
executive by Liability
the employer disconnected. The difficulty of living without
cover
rights
Vicarious of the
exclusive check. The for
ownership on the
dealer anyprestigehowever,
life-form. of subsidiary
2. Assuming
ownership
Rules of liability
over
Criminal Dennis' is the
"oncomouse".
Procedure]. pater
action familias
is
Animals tenable, rule can
are
(2005)
Under
SUGGESTED
the the
company. law
ANSWER: on
The quasi-delict,
insurance aside
company from
was the electricity and running water resulted in and
immediately
Dr. ALX
(2002)
Explain
Yes, Tony
persons mayneeds
the
who
filed
your
concept
file an action
caused
an
advice:
against action
of
injury (1)
vicarious
Premium
to
forBankrecovery
whether
persons, theheld
liability
for damages
who
of Benjamin
in under Art.
property raise
2180,
capable the ofdefense
the defense
being that
of
appropriated he is not
selection and liable
liable
possession
under Art. even
2176. of
Eventhough
the
if there the
vehicle
exists a employee
against
contractual was
Tony
relationship not
for Rosa's
because
supervision suffering
the vehicle
of the a nervous
employeeis not breakdown.
registered Shein his
reciprocity
quasi-delicts.
else are liable principle
(1%)
underthe in
theprivate
following international owned'.
SUGGESTED InANSWER:
fact, one can ownwould pet dogs be a orvalid
cats,
performing
between
which Tony he andwithin
Premium
was Bank,
terribly scope
an
law could be applied in our jurisdiction; and (2) or
SUGGESTED ANSWER: of his
actionhumiliated assigned and sued
name? the
ALTERNATIVE
defense. landlord
Explain. ANSWER: for
(2.5%) actual and moral
circumstances: any other animal. If wild animals are
tasks
whether when
embarrassed. there theDoes accident
are Tonyand
legal happened
have a cause
ethical of action damages.
[Valenzuela
reasons Will the action prosper? Explain.
capable of being owned, with more reason
v. CA,
against 253 SCRA
Premium 3O3
Bank?
that could frustrate his claim of exclusive (1996)].
Explain. (5%) animals technologically enhanced or
ownership over the life-form corrupted

Civil Law Suggested Answers 1990 2006

Cargado por

Información del documento

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Civil Law Suggested Answers 1990 2006

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

CIVIL LAW Answers to the BAR as Arranged by Topics (Year 1990-2006)

Ignorance of the Law vs. Mistake of Fact

1 The prejudicial question must be

(iv) The wife may file an action for legal separation .

(c) The third defense of Y is untenable. Y is a

También podría gustarte